content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Strongly interacting bosonic systems have attracted a lot of recent
interest\cite{Fishers,Scalettar,Rokhsar,Girvin}.
Physical realizations
include short correlation-length superconductors, granular
superconductors, Josephson arrays, the dynamics of flux lattices
in type II superconductors, and critical behavior of $^4{\rm He}$ in
porous media.
The bosonic systems are either tightly bound composites
of fermions that act like
effective bosonic particles with soft cores, or correspond to
bosonic excitations that have repulsive interactions. For this reason, these
systems are modeled by soft-core bosons which are described most simply
by the bose Hubbard model.
Various aspects of this model were investigated analytically by
mean-field theory \cite{Fishers,KampfZimanyi}, by renormalization group
techniques \cite{Fishers,Rokhsar} and by projection methods \cite{Krauth0}.
The bose Hubbard model has also been studied with quantum Monte
Carlo methods (QMC) by Batrouni et al. \cite{Scalettar}
in one dimension (1+1)
and by Krauth and Trivedi \cite{Krauth3}, van Otterlo and
Wagenblast\cite{vanOtterlo}, and Batrouni et al.\cite{Batrouni}
in two dimensions (2+1).
In this contribution, the Mott phase diagram is
obtained from a strong-coupling expansion that
has the correct dependence on spatial dimensionality, is as accurate as the
QMC calculations, and agrees with the known exact solutions. Preliminary
results for the pure case have already appeared\cite{Freericks_monien}.
The bose Hubbard model is the
minimal model which contains the key physics of the strongly
interacting bose systems---the competition between kinetic and
potential energy effects. Its Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H = - \sum_{ij} t_{ij} b^\dagger_i b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_j+\sum_i\epsilon_i
{\hat n}_i
- \mu \sum_i {\hat n_i} + \frac{1}{2} U \sum_i {\hat n}_i ({\hat n}_i-1)
\quad , \quad
{\hat n}_i = b^\dagger_i b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i
\label{H}
\end{equation}
where $b_i$ is the boson
annihilation operator at site $i$, $t_{ij}$ is the hopping matrix element
between the site $i$ and $j$, $\epsilon_i$ is the local site energy,
$U$ is the strength of the on-site repulsion, and $\mu$ is the chemical
potential. The hopping matrix is assumed to be
a real symmetric matrix $(t_{ij}=t_{ji})$ and the lattice is also assumed to
be bipartite; {\it i.~e.},
the lattice may be separated into two sublattices (the $A$ sublattice and the
$B$ sublattice) such that $t_{ij}$ vanishes whenever $i$ and $j$ both
belong to the same sublattice (in particular, this implies $t_{ii}=0$).
The local site energy $\epsilon_i$ is a quenched random variable
chosen from a distribution of site energies that is symmetric about zero and
satisfies $\sum_i\epsilon_i=0$. The pure case corresponds to all site energies
vanishing $(\epsilon_i=0)$.
The form of the zero temperature ($T=0$) phase diagram can be understood
by starting from the strong-coupling or ``atomic'' limit
\cite{Fishers,GiamarchiSchulz,Ma}.
In this limit, the kinetic energy vanishes ($t_{ij} = 0$)
and every site is occupied by a fixed
number of bosons, $n_0$. In the pure case, the ground-state boson
occupancy ($n_0$) is the same for each lattice site, and
is chosen to minimize the on-site energy.
If the chemical potential, $\mu=(n_0+\delta)U$, is parameterized
in terms of the deviation, $\delta$, from
integer filling $n_0$, then the on-site energy is
$E(n_0) = -\delta U n_0 - \frac{1}{2} U n_0 (n_0 + 1)$, and
the energy to add a boson
onto a particular site satisfies $E(n_0+1) - E(n_0) = -\delta U$.
Thus for a nonzero $\delta$, a finite amount of energy is required to
move a particle through the lattice.
The bosons are incompressible and localized, which produces
a Mott insulator. For $\delta = 0$, the ground-state
energies of the two different boson densities are degenerate
[$E(n_0) = E(n_0+1)$] and no energy is needed
to add or extract a particle; {\it i. e.}, the compressibility is finite and
the system is a conductor.
As the strength of the hopping matrix elements increases, the range of
the chemical potential $\mu$ about which the system is incompressible
decreases.
The Mott-insulator phase will completely disappear at a critical value of the
hopping matrix elements. Beyond this critical value of $t_{ij}$ the system
is a superfluid.
In the disordered case, a Mott-insulating phase may or may not exist depending
upon the strength of the disorder. The energy to add a boson onto site $i$
becomes $E(n_0+1)-E(n_0)=\epsilon_i-\delta U$, so that the system is
compressible if a site $i$ can be found which satisfies $\epsilon_i=\delta U$.
If the disorder is assumed to be
symmetrically bounded about zero ($|\epsilon_i|\le \Delta U$) then a Mott
insulator exists whenever $\Delta <{1\over 2}$. The ground-state boson
occupancy is uniformly equal to $n_0$ within the Mott insulating phase
which extends from $-\Delta\ge \delta\ge\Delta-1$ (when $t_{ij}=0$).
Once again, the bosons are incompressible within the Mott
phase and the system is insulating. As the hopping matrix elements increase
in magnitude, the range of the chemical potential within which the system
is incompressible decreases until the Mott phase vanishes at a critical value
of the hopping matrix elements.
The compressible phase will typically also
be an insulator and is called a bose glass\cite{Fishers}, but it has been
conjectured that
in some cases the transition proceeds directly from the Mott insulator
to the superfluid\cite{Fishers,Rokhsar}.
The phase boundary between the incompressible phase (Mott insulator)
and the compressible phase (superfluid or bose glass) is determined here in
a strong-coupling expansion by calculating both
the energy of the Mott insulator and of a defect state (which contains
an extra hole or particle) in a perturbative expansion of the single-particle
terms $-\sum_{ij}t_{ij}b_i^{\dag}b_j+\sum_i\epsilon_i{\hat n}_i$.
At the point where the energy of the Mott state is degenerate with the defect
state, the system becomes compressible. In the pure case, the compressible
phase is also superfluid, but in the disordered case, the compressible
phase is a bose glass (except possibly at the tip of the Mott
lobe)\cite{Fishers,Rokhsar}.
There are two distinct cases for the defect state: $\delta < 0$ corresponds to
adding a {\it particle} to the Mott-insulator phase (with
$n_0$ bosons per site); and $\delta>0$ corresponds to adding a {\it hole} to
the
Mott-insulator phase (with $n_0+1$) bosons per site. Of course,
the phase boundary depends upon the number of bosons per site, $n_0$, of the
Mott insulator phase.
To zeroth order in $t_{ij}/U$ the Mott-insulating state is given by
\begin{equation}
|\Psi_{\text{Mott}}(n_0)\rangle^{(0)} =
\prod_{i=1}^N
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_0!}}\left(b^\dagger_i\right)^{n_0}|0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $n_0$ is the number of bosons on each site, $N$ is the number of
sites in the lattice and $|0\rangle$ is the vacuum state.
The defect state is characterized by one additional particle (hole) which moves
coherently throughout the lattice. To zeroth order in the single-particle terms
the wave function for the ``defect'' state is determined by degenerate
perturbation theory:
\begin{eqnarray}
|\Psi_{\text{Def}}(n_0)\rangle^{(0)}_{\text{part}} &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_0+1}} \sum_i f_i^{\rm (part)} b^\dagger_i
|\Psi_{\text{Mott}}(n_0)\rangle^{(0)}
\cr
|\Psi_{\text{Def}}(n_0)\rangle^{(0)}_{\text{hole}} &=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_0}} \sum_i f_i^{\rm (hole)} b^{\phantom{\dagger}}_i
|\Psi_{\text{Mott}}(n_0)\rangle^{(0)}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $f_i$ is the eigenvector of the corresponding single-particle
matrix $S_{ij}^{\rm (part)}(n_0)\equiv
-t_{ij}+\delta_{ij}\epsilon_i/(n_0+1)$
[$S_{ij}^{\rm (hole)}(n_0)\equiv -t_{ij}-\delta_{ij}\epsilon_i/n_0$] with the
lowest eigenvalue (the hopping matrix is assumed to have a nondegenerate
lowest eigenvalue). It is well known that the minimal eigenvalue of the
single-particle matrix $S_{ij}$ is larger than the sum of the minimal
eigenvalue of the hopping matrix plus the minimal eigenvalue of the disorder
matrix. However, it has been demonstrated that as the system size becomes
larger and larger, the minimal eigenvalue approaches the sum of the minimal
eigenvalues of the hopping matrix and of the disorder matrix as closely as
desired\cite{Lifshitz} (because of the existence of arbitrarily large
``rare regions'' where the system looks pure with $\epsilon_i=- \Delta U$
or with $\epsilon_i=\Delta U$).
Therefore, in the thermodynamic limit, the perturbative
energy of each defect state becomes
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm Def}^{\rm (part)}(n_0)-E_{\rm Mott}(n_0)=-\delta^{\rm (part)}U+
\lambda_{\rm min}(n_0+1)-\Delta U+...
\label{eq: particle first order}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm Def}^{\rm (hole)}(n_0)-E_{\rm Mott}(n_0)=\delta^{\rm (hole)}U+
\lambda_{\rm min}n_0-\Delta U+...
\label{eq: hole first order}
\end{equation}
to first order in $S$,
where $\lambda_{\rm min}$ is the minimal eigenvalue of the hopping matrix
$-t_{ij}$. In the case of nearest-neighbor hopping
on a hypercubic lattice in $d$-dimensions, the number of nearest
neighbors satisfies $z=2d$ and the minimal eigenvalue is $\lambda_{\rm min}=
-zt$.
The boundary between the incompressible phase and the compressible
phase is determined when the energy difference between the Mott insulator
and the defect state vanishes (the compressibility is assumed to
approach zero continuously at the phase boundary). Thus two branches
of the Mott lobe can be found depending upon whether the defect state is
an additional hole or an additional particle.
The two branches of the Mott-phase boundary meet when
\begin{equation}
\delta^{\rm (part)}(n_0) + 1 = \delta^{\rm (hole)}(n_0).
\label{eq: critical condition}
\end{equation}
The additional one on the left hand side
arises because $\delta$ is measured from the point
$\mu/U = n_0$.
Equation (\ref{eq: critical condition})
may be used to estimate the critical value of
the hopping matrix element beyond which no Mott-insulator phase exists. Let
$x$ denote the combination $dt/U$ and consider the first-order expansions in
Eqs. (\ref{eq: particle first order}) and (\ref{eq: hole first order}).
The critical value of $x$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
x_{\rm crit}(n_0)={1-2\Delta\over 2(2n_0+1)}\quad ,
\label{eq: crit cond first order}
\end{equation}
which vanishes when the disorder strength becomes too large ($\Delta\ge 1/2$).
Note that the critical value of $x$ is {\it independent} of the dimension
of the lattice; {\it the dimensionality first enters at second
order in $t$.} The slope of the phase boundaries about the point
$\mu=n_0 U$ are equal in magnitude
$[\lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{dx}\delta^{\rm (part)}(n_0,x) =
- \lim_{x\rightarrow 0}\frac{d}{dx}\delta^{\rm (hole)}(n_0+1,x) ]$,
but change their magnitude as a function of the density $n_0$,
{\it implying that the Mott-phase lobes always have an asymmetrical shape}.
Note
further that the presence of disorder shifts the phase boundaries uniformly
by $\Delta$, but the slope is {\it independent} of the disorder distribution.
The bose Hubbard model in the absence of disorder
is examined by a strong-coupling expansion through
third order in the single-particle matrix $S$ in Section II. The exact
solution
for an infinite-dimensional lattice\cite{Fishers} is examined and various
different extrapolation techniques are employed that do and do not utilize
additional information of the scaling analysis of the critical point. Section
III describes the similar results for the disordered bose Hubbard model and
a discussion follows in Section IV.
\section{The pure case}
The bose Hubbard model in Eq. (\ref{H}) is studied in the absence of disorder
($\epsilon_i=0$). The many-body version of Rayleigh-Schr\" odinger
perturbation
theory is employed throughout.
To third order in $t_{ij}/U$, the energy of the Mott state with
$n_0$ bosons per site becomes
\begin{equation}
E_{\text{Mott}}(n_0) = N
\left[
-\delta U n_0 - \frac{1}{2}U n_0 (n_0+1) -
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{ij}\frac{t_{ij}^2}
{U}n_0(n_0+1)
\right]
\label{eq: EMott}
\end{equation}
which is proportional to the number of lattice sites $N$.
Note that the odd-order terms in $t_{ij}/U$ vanish in the above
expansion (odd-order terms may enter for nonbipartite
lattices). The energy difference between the Mott insulator
and the defect state with an additional particle ($\delta < 0$) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\text{Def}}^{\rm (part)}(n_0) &- E_{\text{Mott}}(n_0) =
-\delta^{(\text{part})} U+\lambda_{\rm min}(n_0+1)
+{1\over 2U}\sum_{ij}t_{ij}^2f_j^2n_0(5n_0+4)
-{1\over U}\lambda_{\rm min}^2n_0(n_0+1)\cr
&+{1\over U^2} n_0(n_0+1)
\Biggr[(2n_0+1)\lambda_{\rm min}^3-({25\over 4}n_0+{7\over 2})
\lambda_{\rm min}\sum_{ij}t_{ij}^2f_j^2-(4n_0+2)\sum_{ij}
f_it_{ij}^3f_j\Biggr]
\label{eq: Edef upper}
\end{eqnarray}
to third order in $t_{ij}/U$; while the energy difference
between the Mott insulating phase and
the defect phase with an additional hole ($\delta > 0$) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{\text{Def}}^{\rm (hole)}(n_0) &- E_{\text{Mott}}(n_0)=
\delta^{(\text{hole})}U+\lambda_{\rm min}n_0
+ {1\over 2U}\sum_{ij}t_{ij}^2f_j^2(n_0+1)(5n_0+1)
-{1\over U}\lambda_{\rm min}^2n_0(n_0+1)\cr
&+{1\over U^2} n_0(n_0+1)
\Biggr[(2n_0+1)\lambda_{\rm min}^3-({25\over 4}n_0+\frac{11}{4})\lambda_{\rm
min}\sum_{ij}t_{ij}^2f_j^2-(4n_0+2)\sum_{ij}f_it_{ij}^3f_j\Biggr]
\label{eq: Edef lower}
\end{eqnarray}
The eigenvector $f_i$ is the minimal eigenvector of the hopping matrix
$-t_{ij}$
with eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm min}$ and is identical in the particle and
hole sectors. These results have been verified by small-cluster calculations
on two and four-site clusters.
Note that the energy difference in Eqs. (\ref{eq: Edef upper}) and
(\ref{eq: Edef lower}) is {\em independent} of the lattice size $N$ indicating
that QMC simulations should not have a very strong dependence on the lattice
size.
In the case of nearest-neighbor hopping on a
$d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice, the minimum eigenvalue satisfies
$\lambda_{\rm min}=-zt$, the sum $\sum_{ij}t_{ij}^2f_j^2$ becomes $zt^2$, and
the sum $\sum_{ij}f_it_{ij}^3f_j$ equals $zt^3$.
Equations (\ref{eq: Edef upper}) and (\ref{eq: Edef lower})
can then be solved for the shift in the chemical potential $\delta$ at which
the
system becomes compressible as a function of the parameter $x\equiv dt/U$. The
results for the upper boundary are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^{(part)}(n_0,x)
&= - 2x ( n_0 + 1) +{1\over d}x^2n_0(5n_0+4)-4x^2n_0(n_0+1)\cr
&+2x^3n_0(n_0+1)
\left [ (-8+{25\over 2d}-\frac{4}{d^2})n_0+(-4+{7\over d}-{2\over d^2})
\right ]
\label{eq: upper boundary}
\end{eqnarray}
to third order in $x$,
and the lower boundary is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta^{(hole)}(n_0, x)
&= 2xn_0-{1\over d}x^2(n_0+1)(5n_0+1)+4x^2n_0(n_0+1)\cr
&-2x^3n_0(n_0+1)
\left [ (-8+{25\over 2d}-{4\over d^2})n_0+(-4+{11\over 2d}-{2\over d^2})
\right ],
\label{eq: lower boundary}
\end{eqnarray}
to third order in $x$.
As a further check on the accuracy of the Mott phase boundaries in Eqs.
(\ref{eq: upper boundary}) and (\ref{eq: lower boundary}), we compare the
perturbative expansion to the exact solution on an infinite-dimensional
hypercubic lattice\cite{Fishers} (which corresponds to the mean-field
solution). Note that the solution in Ref.~\onlinecite{Fishers} was for the
infinite-range-hopping model; this solution is {\it identical} to that on an
infinite-dimensional lattice in the pure case.
The Mott phase boundary may be expressed as
\begin{equation}
{\mu\over U}-n_0=-\frac{1}{2}-x\pm \sqrt{x^2-x(2n_0+1)+\frac{1}{4}}
\label{eq: inf-d delta}
\end{equation}
where the plus sign denotes the upper branch to the Mott lobe
$(\delta^{\rm (part)})$, and the
minus sign corresponds to the lower branch $(\delta^{\rm (hole)}-1)$. The
critical point can also
be determined as the value of $x$ where the square root vanishes.
One finds
\begin{equation}
x_{\rm crit}=n_0+\frac{1}{2}-\sqrt{n_0(n_0+1)}
\label{eq: inf-d xcrit}
\end{equation}
which depends on $n_0$ as $1/n_0$ in the limit of large $n_0$.
The strong-coupling expansions (\ref{eq: upper boundary}) and (\ref
{eq: lower boundary}) agree with the exact solution (\ref{eq: inf-d delta})
when the latter
is expanded out to third order in $x$, providing an independent check of the
algebra. Note further, that the exact
solution uniquely determines the expansion coefficients of the powers
of $x$ that do not involve inverse powers of $d$ and the perturbation
expansion is only required to determine the $1/d$ corrections.
The strong-coupling expansion for the $x$, $\mu$
phase diagram in one dimension is compared to the
QMC results of Batrouni et al. \cite{Scalettar}
in Figure 1.
The solid lines indicate the phase boundary between the Mott-insulator phase
and the superfluid phase at zero temperature
as calculated from Eq.~(\ref{eq: upper boundary})
and Eq.~(\ref{eq: lower boundary}).
The solid circles are the results of the QMC calculation\cite{Scalettar} at
a small but finite temperature ($T\approx U/2$). The dotted line
is an extrapolation from the series calculation that will be described below.
Note that the overall agreement of the two
calculations is excellent.
For example, the critical value of the hopping matrix element for the first
Mott lobe ($n_0$) is
$x_{\rm crit} = 0.215$, while the QMC calculations
found\cite{Scalettar} $x_{\rm crit} = 0.215 \pm 0.01$.
A closer examination of Fig. 1 shows a systematic deviation of the lower
branch for larger values of $x$. We believe that this is most likely a
finite-temperature effect, since the Mott-insulator
phase becomes more stable at higher temperatures \cite{KampfZimanyi}, and the
systematic errors of the QMC
calculation due to finite lattice size and finite Trotter error are
easily controlled\cite{Scalettar2}.
It is known from the scaling theory of Fisher et al. \cite{Fishers} that the
phase transition at the tip of the Mott lobe is in the universality class
of the $(d+1)$ dimensional $XY$ model.
Although a finite-order perturbation theory cannot describe the physics of
the tricritical point correctly, we find that the density fluctuations
dominate the physics of the phase transition even close to the tricritical
point.
Note how the Mott lobes have a cusp-like structure in one dimension, mimicking
the Kosterlitz-Thouless behavior of the critical point.
Figure 2 (a) presents the strong-coupling expansion for the
$x$, $\mu$ phase diagram in two dimensions.
For comparison, the tricritical point of the first
Mott-insulator lobe as obtained by
the QMC simulations of
Krauth and Trivedi \cite{Krauth3} is marked by a solid circle with error
bars (the chemical potential for the tip of the Mott lobe was not reported in
Ref.~\onlinecite{Krauth3}, so we fixed it to be $\mu_{crit}$). The solid
line is the strong-coupling expansion truncated to
third order, while the dotted line is an extrapolation described below.
Their simulation gives a critical value of $x_{\rm crit} = 0.122\pm 0.006$,
whereas our calculation yields $x_{\rm crit} \approx 0.136$
which is in reasonable agreement. Note that the qualitative shape
of the Mott lobes has changed from one dimension to two dimensions,
mimicking the power-law critical behavior of the $XY$ model
in three or larger dimensions.
Figure 2 (b) shows the corresponding figure for the $n_0\rightarrow\infty$
limit corresponding to the quantum rotor model. The QMC results are
from van Otterlo and Wagenblast\cite{vanOtterlo}. The horizontal axis has
been rescaled to $y_{\infty}=\lim_{n_0\rightarrow\infty}n_0x$. We believe
that the relatively large difference between the QMC and the strong-coupling
perturbation theory arises from the use of the Villain approximation in the
QMC simulations.
Finally the strong-coupling expansion is compared to the exact calculation
in infinite dimensions \cite{Fishers}.
In infinite dimensions, the hopping matrix element must scale inversely with
the dimension \cite{MuellerHartmann}, $t=t^*/d$, $t^* = \text{finite}$,
producing the mean-field-theory result of Eq. (\ref{eq: inf-d delta}).
In Figure 3 the strong-coupling expansion
(solid line) is compared to the exact solution (dashed line) and to an
extrapolated solution (dotted line) which will be described below.
Even in infinite dimensions, the agreement of the strong-coupling expansion
with the exact results is quite good.
As a general rule, the truncated strong-coupling expansions appear to be more
accurate in {\it lower} dimensions, which implies that the density fluctuations
of the bose Hubbard model
are also more important in lower dimensions.
At this point we turn our attention to techniques which enable us to
extrapolate the strong-coupling expansions to infinite order in hopes of
determining a more accurate phase diagram. The simplest method is called
critical-point extrapolation. The critical point
$(\mu_{\rm crit},x_{\rm crit})$ is calculated at each order ($m$) of the
strong-coupling expansion and is extrapolated to infinite order $(m\rightarrow
\infty)$. The ansatz that the extrapolation is linear in $1/m$ can be checked
by
determining the correlation coefficient $r$ of the critical points (a value
of $|r|$ that is near 1 indicates a linear correlation). The
correlations are found to be most linear for large dimensions ($|r|=0.99999$
in infinite dimensions for the first Mott lobe) but remain fairly linear
even in one dimension ($|r|>0.995$ for the $x_{\rm crit}$ extrapolation and
$|r|>0.95$ for the $\mu_{\rm crit}$ extrapolation). Since the second-
and third-order expansions are expected to be more accurate than the
first-order
calculation, we adopt the following strategy for performing the extrapolations:
the results of the second- and third-order expansions are extrapolated to $m
\rightarrow\infty$ to determine the estimate for the critical point, and the
results of the first, second and third orders are then extrapolated to
$m\rightarrow\infty$ in order to estimate the error in the critical point, and
to test the linear-extrapolation hypothesis. The error estimate is chosen to
be 1.5 times as large as the difference between the two different
extrapolations. Figure 4 plots the
critical hopping matrix elements $x_{\rm crit}$ versus $1/m$ for the
infinite-dimensional case and $n_0=1,2,3$. The solid dots are the results of
the strong-coupling expansion truncated to $m$th order and the solid line
is the linear extrapolant. The open circles are the exact solutions
from Eq. (\ref{eq: inf-d xcrit}). Note that although the linear correlation
coefficient is very close to 1, the error in the critical point is
about $2\%$. The results for the critical-point extrapolation are recorded
in Table I.
The critical-point extrapolation does not yield any information on the shape
of the Mott lobes, but only determines the critical point. An alternate
extrapolation technique, called the chemical-potential extrapolation method
will determine an extrapolated Mott-phase lobe and critical point. The
idea is to fix the magnitude of the hopping matrix elements and determine
the value of the chemical potential from Eqs. (\ref{eq: upper boundary}) and
(\ref{eq: lower boundary}) for the upper and lower branch of the Mott lobe.
The chemical potential is determined from a first, second, and third-order
calculation and then extrapolated to infinite order assuming the
ansatz of a linear dependence
upon $1/m$. This procedure determines an extrapolated Mott lobe that should
be more accurate than the truncated strong-coupling series. The result for
the infinite-dimensional case is presented as a dotted line in Fig. 3.
Note that the critical point is not determined as accurately by this technique
as it was in the critical-point extrapolation method. The chemical-potential
extrapolation method fails in one dimension since the extrapolated branches
of the extrapolated Mott lobe do not close.
A third approach is to use the results of the scaling theory\cite{Fishers}.
The critical point is that of a $(d+1)$-dimensional $XY$ model, and therefore,
has a Kosterlitz-Thouless shape in one dimension and a power-law shape
in higher dimensions. Examination of the exact result for infinite dimensions
(\ref{eq: inf-d delta})
leads one to propose the following ansatz for the Mott lobe in $d\ge 2$
\begin{equation}
{\mu\over U}-n_0=A(x)\pm B(x)(x_{\rm crit}-x)^{z\nu}
\label{eq: mu ansatz}
\end{equation}
where $A(x)\equiv a+bx+cx^2+...$ and $B(x)\equiv \alpha +\beta x+\gamma x^2 +
...$ are regular functions of $x$ (that should be accurately approximated by
their power-series expansions) and $z\nu$ is the critical exponent for the
$(d+1)$-dimensional $XY$ model. In the unconstrained-scaling-analysis
extrapolation method the exponent $z\nu$ is determined by the strong-coupling
expansion in addition to the parameters $a,b,c$ and $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$.
This provides a perturbative estimate of the exponent $z\nu$ which can be
checked against its well-known values.
In the constrained-scaling-analysis extrapolation method $z\nu$ is
fixed at its predicted values\cite{Fishers} of $z\nu\approx 2/3$ in two
dimensions and $z\nu=0.5$ in higher dimensions. In direct analogy to
Eq. (\ref{eq: mu ansatz}), we propose the Kosterlitz-Thouless form
\begin{equation}
{\mu\over U}-n_0=A(x)\pm B(x)\exp \left [ -{W\over\sqrt{x_{\rm crit}-x}} \right
]
\label{eq: mu ansatz 1d}
\end{equation}
for the constrained-extrapolation-method in one dimension.
When the unconstrained-scaling-analysis extrapolation method is carried out,
one
finds that there is no solution for the critical exponent in one dimension
(which is consistent with Kosterlitz-Thouless behavior),
that in $d=2$ the exponent satisfies $z\nu\approx 0.58$, in $d=3$ the
exponent is $z\nu\approx 0.54$, and in infinite dimensions $z\nu\approx 0.5$.
There is a slight $n_0$ dependence to the exponents that are calculated
in this method, but that arises from the truncation of the series to such
a low order. In general, the unconstrained extrapolation method produces
an accuracy of about $15\%$ in the exponent $z\nu$, and the method appears
to work best in higher dimensions.
The results for the constrained-extrapolation method are plotted with a
dotted line in Fig. 1 for the one-dimensional case. The values of the
critical points are $(\mu_{crit}=0.186, x_{crit}=0.265)$, $(1.319,0.155)$,
and $(2.371,0.111)$
for $n_0=1,2,3$, respectively. These critical points occur at larger values
of $x$ than predicted by the QMC simulations\cite{Scalettar}, but it is
difficult to gauge whether the extrapolated series expansions are more or
less accurate than the QMC simulations because of the finite-temperature
effects in the latter.
The constrained-extrapolation results in two dimensions are plotted with
a dotted line in Fig. 2 (a) and (b). The values of the critical points are
$(0.375,0.117)$, $(1.426,0.069)$, $(2.448,0.049)$ for $n_0=1,2,3$,
respectively. The agreement with the QMC simulations\cite{Krauth3} is
excellent. Similarly, the extrapolated critical point for the $2-d$ rotor
model is $(0.5,0.171)$ which also agrees well with the QMC. In this
latter case [Fig.~2~(b)] the errors between the extrapolated series expansion
and the QMC can be traced to the use of the Villain approximation in the
latter.
When the constrained-scaling-analysis extrapolation method is applied to the
infinite-dimensional case the result is indistinguishable from the exact
solution when the two are plotted on the same graph.
The extrapolation techniques work best in {\it higher} dimensions
virtually producing the exact result in infinite-dimensions. This gives us
confidence that the extrapolated results of the series expansions can
produce numerical answers that are at least as accurate as the QMC simulations.
\section{The disordered case}
The most common type of disorder distribution that has been considered in
relationship to the ``dirty'' boson problem is the Anderson model (continuous
disorder distribution). In the Anderson model the distribution
$\rho(\epsilon)$ for the on-site energies $\{\epsilon_i\}$
is continuous and flat, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\rho(\epsilon )=\theta(\Delta-\epsilon)\theta(\Delta+\epsilon)
{1\over 2\Delta}\quad .
\label{eq: anderson}
\end{equation}
The symbol $\Delta$ denotes the
maximum absolute value that the site energy $\epsilon_i$ can assume for a
given (bounded) distribution $(|\epsilon_i|\le \Delta U)$. This
disorder distribution is symmetric $[\rho(-\epsilon)=\rho
(\epsilon)]$ and in particular it satisfies $\sum_i\epsilon_i=0$.
The results presented in this contribution are {\it insensitive} to the actual
shape of the disorder distribution; all we require is a symmetric distribution
with $|\epsilon_i|\le \Delta U$.
We begin by reexamining the exact solution of the infinite-range-hopping
model\cite{Fishers}. If all energies are measured in units
of the boson-boson repulsion $U$, then the analysis of
Ref.~\onlinecite{Fishers}
derives an equation that relates the hopping matrix elements to the chemical
potential at the Mott phase boundary
\begin{equation}
{1\over 2x} = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left [
-{n_0+1\over y+\epsilon}+{n_0\over y+1+\epsilon} \right ] \rho(\epsilon )
d\epsilon\quad ,
\label{eq: inf-d disorder}
\end{equation}
with $y\equiv -n_0+\mu/U$ the chemical potential and $\rho (\epsilon )$
the disorder distribution. This solution assumes that the phase transition
from the Mott phase to the bose glass is a {\it second-order} phase transition.
When Eq. (\ref{eq: inf-d disorder}) is solved for the Anderson model
distribution (\ref{eq: anderson}), one finds that the chemical potential
for the lower branch of the Mott lobe
behaves like $y=-\Delta-\exp[-1/2x(n_0+1)]$ for small
$x$. This result is {\it nonperturbative} in the hopping matrix elements and
cannot be represented by a simple perturbative theory about $x=0$. The reason
why this happens is that the infinite-range-hopping model has no localized
states for any disorder distribution (however, this statement does depend on
the disorder distribution\cite{zimanyi}). Localized states can occur in the
infinite-dimensional limit at the tails of the distribution. Therefore we
expect that the transition will have a different qualitative character on
a hypercubic lattice with nearest-neighbor interactions.
In fact, the perturbative arguments given in the
introduction, show that the phase boundaries have the {\it same} slope
as they did in the pure case.
Furthermore, we expect that the transition to be first order at the tip of the
Mott lobe because
the states that the bosons initially occupy in the compressible phase are
localized within the rare regions of the lattice (where the
site energies are all equal to $-\Delta U$) implying that there is no diverging
length scale at the transition.
The perturbative expansion for the energy of the Mott phase is unchanged
from Eq. (\ref{eq: EMott}) in the presence of disorder (if the disorder
distribution satisfies $\sum_i\epsilon_i=0)$, while
the defect phases have a trivial dependence upon disorder (in the thermodynamic
limit)---the energy for a particle or hole
defect state is shifted by $-\Delta U$, so the effect of the disorder is
simply to shift the Mott-phase boundaries inward by $\Delta U$.
The critical point, where the Mott phase disappears, is no longer described
by a second-order critical point [in which the slope of $\mu(x)$ becomes
infinite at $x_{crit}$] but rather is described by a first-order critical point
[in which the slope of $\mu(x)$ changes discontinuously at $x_{crit}$].
In the thermodynamic limit one can always find a rare region
of arbitrarily large extent which guarantees the existence of the first-order
transition, but the density of these rare regions
is an exponentially small function of their size. For this reason the
compressibility at the Mott-phase boundary will also be exponentially small.
Finite-size effects play a much more important role in the disordered case:
{\it it is impossible to determine the Mott-phase boundary accurately
in the thermodynamic limit by scaling calculations performed on small
lattices, because the lattice size must be large enough to contain
rare regions within which the bosons can be delocalized.} (Finite-size effects
can be studied with the strong-coupling expansion which is given to third order
in the single-particle matrix $S$ in the appendix.)
The most accurate way of calculating the Mott phase boundary is then to take
the
results of the constrained-scaling-analysis extrapolation for the pure case
and shift the branches by the strength of the disorder. This is plotted
in Figure 5 for the one-dimensional case and two different values of
disorder ($\Delta=0,0.25$). The thermodynamic limit is represented
by the solid line for the pure case, and dotted lines for the disordered
case, while the dashed line is the result of an Anderson-model
disorder distribution on a finite lattice with 256 sites. The QMC results of
Batrouni, {\it et.~al.}\cite{Scalettar} correspond
to lattice sizes ranging from 16 sites to 256 sites (the disorder parameter
is $\Delta=0$ for the solid dots and $\Delta=0.25$ for the open dots).
The Mott phase is stabilized on finite-sized systems because they do not
possess the rare regions needed to correctly determine the Mott phase
boundary. This is clearly seen in the QMC results, which predict a much
larger region for the Mott phase than the strong-coupling perturbation theory
does in the thermodynamic limit. The perturbative results for a finite system
are much closer to the QMC results as expected. (Note that the finite-size
calculations have not been extrapolated, so they should underestimate the
stability of the Mott phase in one dimension which is clearly seen in
Figure~5.)
Also the slope of the phase boundary approaches zero (as $x\rightarrow 0)$
for the finite-size systems\cite{Scalettar}.
Figure 6 plots the Mott-phase diagram for the disordered bose Hubbard model
in two dimensions and one value of the disorder ($\Delta=0,0.182$)
in the thermodynamic limit. The solid dot (with error bars)
is the QMC result\cite{Krauth3} (for the pure case with $\Delta=0$) and the
open dot is the disordered case $(\Delta=0.182$). Note that in dimensions
larger than one, the finite-size effects for the tip of the Mott lobe are
not as strong as they are in one dimension.
We compare in Figure 7 the differences between the infinite-dimensional lattice
and the infinite-range-hopping model of Ref.~\onlinecite{Fishers}.
The solid lines correspond to the exact solution
with no disorder, the dotted lines are the infinite-dimensional lattice
strong-coupling expansion with disorder
($\Delta=0.2$),
and the dashed lines are the exact solution of the infinite-range-hopping
model.
In the case of disorder, the first-order nature of the transition is evidenced
by the jump in the slope of the Mott phase boundary at the tip of the lobe.
The second-order phase
boundaries predict a more stable Mott phase, and their slopes all approach
zero as $x\rightarrow 0$. We expect in the region in between the (first-order)
infinite-dimensional phase
boundary and that of the (second-order) infinite-range-hopping model that the
compressibility will be exponentially small, and will only become
sizable as the second-order phase boundary is crossed.
Because the Mott-phase to bose-glass phase transition is first order
for the disordered case, and since the bose-glass to superfluid transition
is always second order (because it involves a collective excitation that
extends through the entire lattice), it is quite unlikely that there would
ever be a region where the Mott phase has a transition directly to the
superfluid. {\it The presence of the Lifshitz rare regions strongly supports
the picture that the Mott phase is entirely enclosed within the bose-glass
phase.} This result is {\it independent} of any perturbative arguments, since
the rare regions must dominate the Mott to bose-glass transition in the exact
solution too.
Finally, we calculate the dependence of the critical value of $x$ at the
tip of the Mott-phase lobe, as a function of the disorder strength $\Delta$.
Figure 8 plots this value of $x_{crit}(\Delta)/x_{crit}(0)$ versus $\Delta$
for the one-, two-, and infinite-dimensional cases. The plot is limited to
the lowest Mott-phase lobe with $n_0=1$. Since the one-dimensional Mott
phase lobes have a cusp-like behavior that is removed when disorder is added
to the system, we expect $x_{crit}$ to decrease very rapidly for small
disorder. This effect is sharply
reduced in higher dimensions. In the strong-disorder
limit, the phase diagram is dominated by
the first-order terms in the perturbative expansion, which have a trivial
dependence on the dimensionality, but the slopes curves of the curves are
unequal because $x_{\rm crit}(0)$ depends strongly upon the dimensionality.
\section{Conclusion}
We have developed a strong-coupling perturbation-theory approximation to the
bose Hubbard model on a bipartite lattice. The perturbative results can
be extrapolated in a number of different ways which either do or do not take
into account the scaling theory of the critical point at the Mott tip.
We find that a perturbative expansion thru third order rivals the accuracy
of the QMC simulations, and is likely the best method for determining the
Mott phase boundary of these interacting bose systems.
We treated two different cases: the pure case and the disordered case. In
the pure case the tip of the Mott lobe satisfies a scaling relation because
it corresponds to a second-order phase transition in a $d+1$-dimensional
XY model. This is because the compressible phase is also superfluid which
implies there is a diverging length scale at the phase transition.
Calculations in the pure case are insensitive to finite-size effects.
In the disordered case we argued that the tip of the Mott phase lobe
corresopnds to a first-order phase transition because the initial
single-particle excitations are localized into the rare regions of the
Lifshitz tails for any bounded disorder distribution. As a result there is
a kink in the Mott phase boundary since the slope of $\mu(x)$ has a
discontinuous jump at the tip of the lobe. In this case, there are strong
finite-size effects because ``typical'' disorder distributions on finite
lattices do not have Lifshitz tails.
The results of these perturbative calculations have been compared to
the available QMC simulations. We find a remarkable agreement between the
two and are unable to determine which method is more accurate in
a quantitative determination of the phase boundaries.
The perturbation theory described here falls short in one aspect---it is unable
to determine the bose-glass--superfluid phase transition in the disordered
case. It is possible that such a calculation could be performed, but since
the particle density at which it occurs is a priori not known, and since
the superfluid susceptibility diverges in the bose-glass phase, such a
calculation may be problematic.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank M. Fisher, Th. Giamarchi,
M. Jarrell, M. Ma, A van Otterlo,
R. Scalettar, R. Singh, and G. Zimanyi
for many useful discussions. We would especially like to thank M. Ma for
pointing out that the Mott to bose-glass phase transition is first order
in the disordered case. Initial stages of this work were carried out by
J. K. F. at the University of California, Davis in 1994 and were completed
during a visit to
l'\'Ecole Polytechnique F\'ed\'erale de Lausanne in June 1995.
JKF would like to thank the Office of Naval Research (under Grant No.
N00014-93-1-0495) for support while at UC Davis, and would like to thank the
Donors of the Petroleum Research Fund, administered by the American Chemical
Society (ACS-PRF-29623-GB6) for support while at Georgetown.
|
\section{acknowledgments}
AG acknowledges support from the HCM program under contract ERB4001GT932058.
This work was supported by NATO, ONR (USA), INFN (Italy), EPSRC (UK),
The Fulbright Foundation and The Donors of the Petroleum Research Fund
administered by The American Chemical Society.
|
\subsection{The scalar Bethe-Salpeter equation}
The BS equation for bound state of two equal mass scalar fields,
"quarks",
interacting via scalar exchanges has
a form:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi (p,P) = D(p_1,p_2)^{-1}\int
\frac{d^4 p'}{(2\pi)^4}{\cal K}(p,p',P)\psi(p',P),
\label{sbse}
\end{eqnarray}
}
where $\psi(p,P)$ is the BS amplitude for the bound state with
momentum
$P$, ${\cal K}(p,p',P)$ is a kernel of
BS equation and $D(p_1,p_2)^{-1}$ is the two-body propagator.
Generally speaking, the kernel ${\cal K}$ is a sum of the all
renormalized irreducible graphs presenting the Green's function
with two incoming and two outcoming constituent fields and
the propagator
$D^{-1}$ is product of the renormalized full single-particle
propagators.
In practice, however, both of them are usually taken in the lowest
order in the coupling constant. It corresponds to
the ladder approximation for
the kernel with free particle
propagators.
In the simplest case
of an exchange field of mass $\mu$ and coupling constant $g$,
the ladder approximation for the
kernel has an explicit form:
{\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{ladder}(\mu,p,p',P) = {\cal K}_{ladder}(\mu,p,p') \equiv
\frac{{\it i}g^2}{(p-p')^2-\mu^2},
\label{ladk}
\end{eqnarray}
}
The two-body propagator then reads
{\begin{eqnarray}
D(p_1,p_2)\equiv d(p_1)\cdot d(p_2) =
\left ({p_1^2-m^2}\right )\cdot
\left ({p_2^2-m^2}\right ),
\label{twoprop}
\end{eqnarray}
}
where $d(p)^{-1}$ is free one-particle
propagator, $m$ is the mass of the constituents and
$p_{1,2} = \frac{1}{2}P \pm p$ are the constituent
momenta.
Phenomenological applications of the equation (\ref{sbse})
(or more interesting spinor-spinor equation)
requires a more general form of the kernel than eq. (\ref{ladk}).
More degrees of freedom are provided by introducing
a sum of the exchanges with different parameters and different
Lorents structure, e.g. vector or pseudoscalar exchanges.
In the presence of the several (effective) exchanges with
different quantum numbers and in higher orders kernel may
contains both attractive and repulsive terms.
Here we consider
the kernel of the form:
{\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_G(p,p') = \sum_{j=1}^{N} \epsilon_j
\frac{{\it i} g_j^2}{(p-p')^2-\mu_j^2},
\label{kerg}
\end{eqnarray}
}
where index $j$ enumerates different "exchange" terms, distinguished
by the
mass parameter, $\mu_j$, and strength, $g_j$.
Factor $\epsilon_j=\pm 1$
defines attractive ($\epsilon_i=+1$) or repulsive ($\epsilon_j=-1$)
type of the correspondent term. Being interpreted as contribution
of the lowest order diagram,
the terms with
negative value of $\epsilon_j$ require either
antihermitian term in the interaction hamiltonian
(lagrangian) or fields with additional quantum numbers.
However, we consider the entire sum in the eq. (\ref{kerg})
as a convenient parametrization of the unknown full kernel of the BS
equation.
The convenience of such a
form of the kernel is that kernel is explicitly covariant and
contains only "field theoretical" elements, the free particle
propagators.
Accepting this way of action, we assume that parameters of the
kernel should be fixed to describe the experimentally known spectrum
of the system.
The free propagator $D(p_1,p_2)^{-1}$ of the form (\ref{twoprop})
and the kernel in the ladder approximation, (\ref{ladk})
or (\ref{kerg}), usually provide the basis for an
investigation of the BS equation.
The parameters for a phenomenological
adjustment of the theoretical framework are the coupling constants,
$g_j$, and
exchange masses, $\mu_j$.
The parameter $m$ in the propagator is referred to as "physical mass"
of the constituent and it is supposed to include effectively the
self-energy corrections. In the case of the observable particles,
e.g.
nucleons, $m$ is the observable mass, otherwise, e.g. quarks, it has
rather ambiguous model-dependent value.
In order to study the spectrum of the BS equation we, first, fix the
frame of
calculation
as the rest frame of the system, where $P=(M,{\bf 0})$ and
$M$ is the mass of the system, "meson". Then, we
perform the well-known
Wick rotation~\cite{wick}, which may later cause difficulties in the
calculation
of observables of some reactions, but
does not affect the spectrum of
the equation and simplifies the numerical analysis.
Under the Wick rotation the BS equation keeps the form (\ref{sbse})
with
the ladder kernel
{\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{ladder}(\mu,p,p') =
\frac{g^2}{(p-p')^2_E+\mu^2},\quad (p-p')_E^2 = (p_0-p'_0)^2 +({\bf
p}-{\bf
p'})^2,
\label{ladkr}
\end{eqnarray}
}
and propagator
{\begin{eqnarray}
D(p,M) =
{\left [ (p_0^2+m^2 + {\bf p}^2- M^2/4)^2+M^2 p_0^2
\right ]}.
\label{twopropr}
\end{eqnarray}}
We use the previous notation for the "rotated" functions
$\psi$, ${\cal K}$
and $D$, and for the "Euclidean" momenta, $p$ and $p'$.
Next, we perform a partial wave
decomposition of the equation~\cite{scale}:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{(p-p')_E^2+\mu^2}&=&\frac{2\pi}{\mid {\bf
p}\mid\cdot\mid{\bf p'}\mid}
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty} \sum_{\lambda=-L}^{L} Q_L(\beta)
Y_{L\lambda}(\theta_p,\varphi_p)
Y_{L\lambda}^*(\theta'_p,\varphi'_p),\label{part1}\\
\psi(p,M)
&=&\frac{1}{\mid {\bf p}\mid}
\sum_{L=0}^{\infty}
\sum_{\lambda=-L}^{L}
\psi_L(p_0,\mid {\bf p}\mid,M)
Y_{L\lambda}(\theta_p,\varphi_p),
\label{part}
\end{eqnarray}
}
where we have already taken into account
that $\psi_L$ are independent on the projection of angular momentum,
$\lambda$;
the dimensionless parameter $\beta$ defined by the expression
$$
\beta = \frac{\mu^2 +{\bf p^2 + p'^2} + (p_0 -p'_0)^2}
{2\mid {\bf p}\mid\cdot\mid{\bf p'}\mid},
$$
and $Q_l$ are the Legendre functions of the second kind. For $l=0,1$
they are:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_0(y) = \frac{1}{2}{\sf ln}\left (
\frac{y+1}{y-1}
\right ) , \quad\quad
Q_1(y) = \frac{y}{2}{\sf ln}\left (
\frac{y+1}{y-1}
\right ) - 1 .\label{legql}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting (\ref{part1}) and (\ref{part}) into eq. (\ref{sbse})
and performing the angular integration, we arrive at a set of
the independent equations
for the partial amplitudes $\psi_L$, corresponding to the
states with the angular momentum $L$:
{\begin{eqnarray}
&&\psi_L (p_0,|{\bf p}|,M) = D(p,M)^{-1}\int
\frac{dp'_0 d|{\bf p'}|}{(2\pi)^3}
{\cal K}^L(p_0,|{\bf p}|,p'_0,|{\bf p'}|)
\psi_L(p'_0,|{\bf p'}|,M),
\label{sbsem}\\[2mm]
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad {\cal K}^L(p_0,|{\bf
p}|,p'_0,|{\bf
p'}|) = g^2 Q_L(\beta).
\label{park}
\end{eqnarray}}
The amplitude of pure quantum state with defined angular momentum
$L$ and its projection $\lambda$ is then given by
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi(p,M,L,\lambda) = \psi_L( p'_0,|{\bf
p'}|,M)Y_{L\lambda}(\theta_p,\phi_p).
\label{pure}
\end{eqnarray}}
The two-dimensional integral equations (\ref{sbsem}) are an exact
projection of the initial equation (\ref{sbse}) with (\ref{ladk}) and
(\ref{twoprop}). In the case of the generalized kernel (\ref{kerg}),
there will be a sum over different terms on the right hand side of
eq. (\ref{sbsem}):
{\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{G}^L(p_0,|{\bf p}|,p'_0,|{\bf p'}|)
= \sum_{j=1}^N \epsilon_j g_j^2 Q_L(\beta_j).
\label{parks}
\end{eqnarray}
}
To obtain the spectrum of the BS equation we need to solve the
eigenvalue problem for the bound state
mass $M$ at fixed set of parameters
of the kernel.
=It is to be noted that the
BS equation is not linear in the mass $M$.
On the other hand it is linear in the
coupling constants squared, $g^2$. Therefore we consider an
equation of the form:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_L (p_0,|{\bf p}|,M) = \lambda \cdot D(p,M)^{-1}\int
\frac{dp'_0 d|{\bf p'}|}{(2\pi)^3}
{\cal K}_G^L (p_0,|{\bf p}|,p'_0,|{\bf p'}|)\psi_L(p'_0,|{\bf
p'}|,M),
\label{sbsel1}
\end{eqnarray}
}
or symbolically
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi = \lambda \cdot \hat {\cal K} \psi,
\label{sbsel}
\end{eqnarray}
}
where we skip indicies $L$ for shortness.
Solving the
linear eigenvalue problem for $\lambda$
at fixed parameters of the kernel
and various values of the bound state mass, we can map $\lambda(M)$.
Then by inverting the mapping as $M(\lambda)$, we will find
solutions of the
eigenvalue problem for $M$ with the kernel $\lambda\cdot \hat{\cal
K}$,
where factor $\lambda$ is trivially absorbed by
redefining the coupling constants.
Traditional methods to find solutions to the linear eigenvalue
problem corresponding to the integral equation (\ref{sbsel})
are based on the ideas of the classical Fredholm theory.
The basic idea here is to substitute integration by a summation
and then deal with a sufficiently large system
of linear algebraic equations. The problem is reduced to
finding the eigenvalues of the matrix corresponding to the
integral operator $\hat {\cal K}$.
However, in the case of the covariant BS equation
such a program of action meets extra difficulties in view of the
double integration, which leads necessarily to
very large matrices, say $\sim 10^4 \times 10^4$ or even larger
in the case of spinor-spinor equation (with additional factor of $64$
if the parity is conserved by interactions and factor 256 if it does
not).
We use an alternate method based on the iteration of the BS equation
in the form (\ref{sbsem}). This method in the essence is similar to
the Malfliet-Tjon method~\cite{maltjon}
employed to solve the integral Schr\"odinger
equation in the nuclear physics (see also
discussion in ref.~\cite{stadler}).
\subsection{The iteration method}
The iteration
of any trial function, $\Phi^{(0)}$, with eq. (\ref{sbsem}),
is understood as
obtaining other function $\Phi^{(n)}$ using the algorithm
(we use the symbolic notations as in eq. (\ref{sbsel})):
{\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(i+1)} = \lambda \cdot \hat {\cal K} \Phi^{(i)},
\label{it1}\\
\Phi^{(n)} = \left [ \lambda \cdot \hat {\cal K} \right
]^n\Phi^{(0)},
\label{it2}
\end{eqnarray}
}
In order to organize the iteration (\ref{it1})-(\ref{it2})
on the computer, we need
an "integrator", corresponding to
the operator $\hat {\cal K}$. This means that we have to perform the
computer calculation of the double integral on the r.h.s. of the
equation with a defined kernel and any trial function, $\Phi^{(0)}$,
(we assume
good enough behavior of the function, such as absence
of singularities and vanishing at large arguments, $|{\bf p}| \to
\infty$
and $p_0 \to \pm \infty$).
In our particular calculations this integrator is organized as a
two dimensional Gauss integration with suitable mapping of variables.
Next, we would like to know
what happens with equation after
sufficiently large number, $n$, of iterations.
Let us assume that solutions, $\psi_\alpha$,
of the equation (\ref{sbsel}) corresponding to the eigenvalues
$\lambda_\alpha$
belong to the complete system of functions\cite{foot2}.
Therefore, the trial function can be expanded
as
{\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(0)} = \sum_{\alpha=0}^\infty A_\alpha \psi_\alpha.
\label{it3}
\end{eqnarray}}
Thus, the result of iteration (\ref{it1})-(\ref{it2}) is:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(n)} = \sum_{\alpha=0}^\infty A_\alpha
\left [\frac{ \lambda}{\lambda_\alpha} \right ]^n\psi_{\alpha}.
\label{it4}
\end{eqnarray}}
{}From last equation it is obvious that at sufficiently large $n = N$
all terms with $\alpha > 0$ are small compared to the ground state
term, $\alpha = 0$:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\lim\limits_{{n\to N}}\Phi^{(n)} \equiv \Phi^{(N)} =
C \cdot \psi_{0} + {\cal O}\left (\left [
\frac{ \lambda_0}{\lambda_1}
\right ]^N \right ) .
\label{it5}
\end{eqnarray}}
Therefore $N$ to be chosen to make the last term on the r.h.s. of
(\ref{it5})
to be negligibly small. Then,
comparing $\Phi^{(N)}$ and $\Phi^{(N+1)}$, we find
the ground state eigenvalue, $\lambda_0$:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_0 = \frac{\Phi^{(N)} }{ \Phi^{(N+1)}}.
\label{it6}
\end{eqnarray}
}
This recipe to find the ground state eigenfunction and eigenvalue
works
nicely numerically and, of course, does not depend on the choice of
the
initial trial function.
Formula (\ref{it3}) also provides us with the possibility to find
higher levels on $\lambda$. Indeed, taking the combination
of iterating functions:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi^{(i+1)} - \left [
\frac{ \lambda}{\lambda_0}
\right ] \cdot \Phi^{(i)} = \sum_{\alpha=1}^\infty
\left ( 1 - \frac{\lambda_\alpha}{\lambda_0}\right )A_\alpha
\left [\frac{ \lambda}{\lambda_\alpha} \right
]^{(i+1)}\psi_{\alpha},
\label{it7}
\end{eqnarray}}
i.e. new trial function which does not contain admixture of the
ground state! It is easy to see that iterations of this function
give the eigenfunction $\psi_1$ of the first excited state,
$\lambda_1$,
similarly to the procedure for ground state. The same procedure,
in principle, can be organized for any desired level on $\lambda$.
Thus, the problem is solved. The only limitation is, of course,
accuracy of the numeric calculations. Calculation of the high
$\lambda$
require a precise calculation of all levels below, which
leads to substantial computer time.
No special numerical problems were find in calculating the
three lowest
levels for eq.~(\ref{sbsel}).
The numerical results are presented in the next section.
\subsection{Numerical results for iteration method}
To study numerically the capability of the method to solve the
integral BS equation we consider eq.~(\ref{sbsem}) with the model
kernel of the form (\ref{parks}). The parameters of the model are
presented
in Table~I. We refer to the constituent fields as "quarks" and their
mass, $m$, is chosen to be similar to the mass of the $c$-quark. The
parameters of the
kernel are chosen to provide the typical density of the levels of the
$c\bar c$-bound state, the charmonium, not too far
from the limit of the spectrum $M_{lim} = 2m$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
coupling constants & $\epsilon_j $ & mass \\
$g^2_j/(4\pi), \quad GeV^2$ & &$\mu_j$, GeV
\\
\hline
\hline
37800.0 & +1 & 0.10 \\
\hline
37800.0 & -1 & 0.11 \\
\hline
45.0 & -1 & 0.95 \\
\hline
45.0 & +1 & 1.425 \\
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$m = 1.5 $ GeV, }\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{5mm}
Table. I. The parameters of model ("scalar charmonium").
\end{center}
Results of a calculation of the spectrum, $\lambda(M)$, are
presented in Fig.~1 for the three lowest levels in the channels with
$L=0$ (S-states) and $L=1$ (P-states).
The physical spectrum $M(\lambda)$ can be obtained
crossing the plot by the line $\lambda = \lambda_{phys}$.
For instance,
as is shown in Fig.~1 at $\lambda_{phys} = 0.13$ the masses of the
lowest states are (with accuracy $\sim 0.5\%$):
\begin{eqnarray}
M(1S) = 1.265 \quad {\rm GeV};
\quad M(2S) =1.939 \quad {\rm GeV};\quad M(3S) = 2.251 \quad {\rm
GeV};
\label{m1} \\
M(1P) =1.751 \quad {\rm GeV} ;
\quad M(2P) =2.146 \quad {\rm GeV};\quad M(3P) = 2.385 \quad {\rm
GeV}.
\label{m2}
\end{eqnarray}
For illustartion, we pesent the amplitudes $\psi_0$,
corresponding the spectrum (\ref{m1}) in Fig.~2.
These amplitudes are shown as a functions of the
spatial momentum $|{\bf p} |$
and at $p_0 = 0$. We see that the type of radial excitations
is similar to the one for the Schr\"odinger equation.
However, in general case of the BS equation we
deal with the hyperradial excitations of two-dimensional
surface, $\psi_L (p_0,|{\bf p} |)$.
\section {Confinement for the Bethe-Salpeter equation}
\subsection{General discussion and non-relativistic
confining potentials}
The idea of confinement has different realization within different
theoretical approaches. The simplest intuitive picture is given
by the non-relativistic bound state formalism based
on the Schr\"odinger equation with a QCD inspared
phenomenological potential.
A system of two particles interacting
in a non-confining potential, vanishing
as $r \to \infty$, has a spectrum of bound states with an upper
limit, $M_{lim} = 2m_q$, and a continuum above this limit.
The confinement is conventionally associated with the
infinitely rising linear part of the
full $q\bar q$-potential,
$V_l = \alpha r, \alpha > 0$,
which provides with the mass spectrum extending infinitely
beyond $M_{lim}$.
It is clear that this mechanism can not be directly
adopted by the covariant field theoretical
approaches, such as the BS formalism.
More relevant approach is based on the simultaneous analysis of the
BS, Schwin\-ger-Dyson (SD) equations and Ward-Takahashi at the
lowest order
and with the model
gluon propagator~\cite{munczek,williams}. In particular,
the role of the analytical structure (structure of singularities)
of the
quark propagators is discussed here. It is found that, with
certain choices of the model gluon propagator, the quark
propagator is an entire function
(function with no singularities)
at physical momentum of the quark.
This important property of the
quark propagator is considered as an indication
of confinement~\cite{qpr,williams,tw}.
These two examples present two essentially different pictures of
what is referred to as confinement. In the first case, the
confinement is
the two-body effect, i.e. quarks can not escape from each other
because of the interaction between them. In the second example,
confinement is attributed to the property of a single
quark, which can not propagate as a free particle.
The general formalism of the field theory suggests that the
two-body and the single particle phenomena are in a generic
relationship. So do the
approaches based on the BS and SD equations.
Our approach to a modeling of the confinement is in some sense
inverse to that of refs.~\cite{qpr,williams}. We, first,
construct the covariant kernel of the BS equation
which, we expect, would provide the confinement and only then
study the modifications of the quark propagators involved in the
BS equation.
We start from a few unsophisticated observations
prompted by the non-relativistic picture:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In the non-relativistic limit
the covariant theory can be reduced to the formalism with the
Schr\"odinger equation, where we can expect the picture
of the confinement as interaction with non-vanishing
potential at $r\to \infty$ to be valid. The main
distinguishing feature of the spectrum here is
the existence of the bound states above the
two quark mass limit, $M_{lim}$.
\item It is not necessary to have an infinitely
rising potential, if we intend to discuss only a
few lowest levels in the
spectrum. More manageable potential, $V \to V_{\infty} >0$ at
$r\to \infty$, could be sufficient, if $V_{\infty}$ is large enough.
In this sense, we also refer to the constant potential as
a confining one.
\item The potential in the momentum space
$V({\bf k})$ can be obtained as a non-relativistic
limit of the kernel ${\cal K}$, similar to
\begin{eqnarray}
V({\bf k}) = -\frac{g^2}{{\bf k}^2+ \mu^2}
\label{yuk}
\end{eqnarray}
if the kernel is of the form (\ref{ladk}). Important point here is
that
the non-relativistic form of the potential (\ref{yuk})
is of a field-theoretic origin.
\end{enumerate}
Basing on the last observation we expect that if we define
a way to construct a confining potential from the non-relativistic
field theory, then we can apply similar methods to
obtain the relativistic confining kernel.
Very often the following recipe is used.
The non-relativistic Yukawa potential in the coordinate space $V(r)$,
the Fourier transform of eq. (\ref{yuk}), is
\begin{eqnarray}
V({\bf r}) = -\frac{g^2}{4\pi}\frac{e^{-\mu r}}{r}.
\label{yukr}
\end{eqnarray}
The linear potential can be derived as
\begin{eqnarray}
V_l = \lim\limits_{\mu \to 0}
\left [ -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \mu^2}V({\bf r})
\right ]=
\lim\limits_{\mu \to 0}\frac{g^2}{4\pi}{r}{e^{-\mu
r}}=\frac{g^2}{4\pi}{r}.
\label{dyukr}
\end{eqnarray}
The the relativistic generalization is made by a Fourier transform to
the
momentum space and replacing the non-relativistic Yukawa potential,
(\ref{yuk}), by it relativistic analog:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K} \propto
\lim\limits_{\mu \to 0}
\left [ -\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \mu^2}
\frac{g^2}{ {k}^2- \mu^2}
\right ].
\label{dyukp}
\end{eqnarray}
Taking the limit in (\ref{dyukp}), one should exercise
great deal of care, since this leads to the appearance
of generalized functions in the kernel~\cite{grossmilana,vary}.
This recipe give us a guideline, however it is not
completely satisfactory, since (i) the kernel (\ref{dyukp})
(or the potential
(\ref{dyukr})) is not of the field-theoretic form
and (ii) it is not clear does the
direct use of operation (\ref{dyukp})
lead to the rising or, at least, non-vanishing interaction in the
four-dimensional space.
Intending to stay with our parametrization of the
kernel as a superposition of the
ladder terms, similar to (\ref{kerg}), we have to find an
appropriate presentation
of the operation (\ref{dyukr}). Let us start with a superposition
of the non-relativistic potentials:
\begin{eqnarray}
V({\bf r}) = \sum_j \frac{C_j}{r}{\sf exp}[-\mu_j r]
= \sum_j \frac{C_j}{r}{\sf exp}[-\mu \alpha_j r],
\label{syukr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu$ provides the mass scale and $\alpha_j$
are dimensionless parameters. Then expanding the exponents
we get
\begin{eqnarray}
V({\bf r})
&=&\sum_j {C_j}\left [
\frac{1}{r} -\mu \alpha _j + \mu^2\frac{\alpha_j^2 r}{2} -\ldots
\right ].
\label{syukr1}
\end{eqnarray}
{}From eq. (\ref{syukr1}) we see that, taking
the limit $\mu \to 0$ and correspondly adjusting the parameters $C_j$
and
$\alpha_j$, desired non-vanishing behavior of the potential can be
provided. For instance, for constant potential, $V_c$, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
C_j = \mu^{-1}\tilde C_j;
\quad \sum_j \tilde C_j = 0; \quad \sum_j \alpha_j\tilde C_j \equiv
A_c\ne 0,
\label{p0}
\end{eqnarray}
where we need only two terms to satisfy the conditions, i.e.
$j_{max}=2$.
For linear potential,$V_c$,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_j = \mu^{-2}\tilde C_j;
\quad \sum_j \tilde C_j = 0; \quad \sum_j \alpha_j\tilde C_j = 0;
\quad \sum_j \alpha_j^2\tilde C_j \equiv A_l\ne 0,
\label{p1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $j_{max}=3$.
The limit $\mu \to 0$ corresponds to the physical
picture of the superposition of
very light mass exchanges with slightly different masses and
large coupling constants.
Please, note that power of the non-vanishing term in the limit
$\mu \to 0$ is solely controlled by the power of the $\mu$
in the denominator of the coefficients $C_j$.
Using a superposition of the Yukawa potentials in the momentum space,
we find (see Appendix~A):
\begin{eqnarray}
V_c ({\bf k}) &=& A_c \delta^{(3)}({\bf k}),
\label{p0p}\\[3mm]
V_l ({\bf k}) &=& \left(
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{{\sf ln}2}{\pi}
\right ) A_l\delta^{(3)}({\bf k})\frac{\partial }{\partial k}.
\label{p1p}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, for the linear potential, the Schr\"odinger equation
becomes
an integro-differential equation in momentum space.
\subsection{Confining kernel for the Bethe-Salpeter equation}.
We look for a confining kernel, ${\cal K}_{con}$,
of the BS equation in the form of the superposition
of ladder kernels in the momentum space and after the Wick rotation:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{con }(k_E) &=&
\sum_j \frac{C_j}{k_E^2 + \alpha_j^2 \mu^2},
\label{conk}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ k_E^2 = k_0^2+{\bf k}^2$.
In spite of the
obvious similarity to the non-relativistic case, the
expression for the relativistic kernel, (\ref{conk}),
has essentially different properties in view of the larger
dimension of the space. Indeed, the ladder kernel in the
coordinate space is~\cite{kercoor}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{ladder} (R_E,\mu) = g^2 \mu \frac{{\sf K}_1(\mu R_E)
}{R_E},
\label{kerco}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_E = ({\bf r}^2+t^2)^{1/2}$. The asymptote at small $R_E$
can be obtained as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\! &&
{\cal K}_{ladder} (R_E\to 0,\mu) \sim g^2 \left \{
\frac{1}{R_E^2} \right .
\nonumber \\
\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!&& \quad
\left .+ \frac{\mu^2}{2} \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m!(m+1)!}
\left ( \frac{\mu R_E}{2} \right )^m
\left [
{\sf ln}
\left (\frac{\mu R_E}{2} \right ) -\frac{1}{2}
\left (\psi (m+1)+\psi(m+2)\right)
\right] \right \},
\label{kerco1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\psi(m)$ is the Euler's psi function.
The expansion (\ref{kerco1})
is different from the behavior of the non-relativistic
potentials. However, a procedure similar to that of
the non-relativistic case can be applied to cancel the
lowest order
terms in the expansion (\ref{kerco1}) and generate
a non-vanishing
kernel in the limit $\mu \to 0$, since at large $R_E$
there is the exponential suppression similar to the
one in the Yukawa
potential:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{ladder} (R_E\to \infty,\mu) \sim g^2
\mu^{1/2}
\frac{{\sf exp}[-\mu R_E]}{R_E^{3/2}} .
\label{kerco2}
\end{eqnarray}
We can see that the direct use of operation (\ref{dyukp})
does not lead to the desired non-vanishing at $R_E\to\infty$ behavior
of
the kernel.
We study here the kernel with the lowest power in $\mu^{-1}$, which
as we
expect controls the asymptotic behavior at large $R_E$.
Analysis in the momentum space,
similar to that of the non-relativistic case,
gives the following conditions for the coefficients
$C_j$ (see Appendix~B):
\begin{eqnarray}
C_j = \mu^{-2}\tilde C_j;
\quad \sum_j \tilde C_j = 0;
\quad \sum_j \alpha_j^2\tilde C_j = 0;
\quad \sum_j \alpha_j^2{\sf ln}\alpha_j\tilde C_j \equiv A \ne 0,
\label{prel}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be satisfied explicitly for $j_{max}=3$.
Note, that the second condition
cancels the most singular terms, $\sim R_E^{-2}$, in the coordinate
space, (\ref{kerco1}), similar to the non-relativistic potentials.
This choice of conditions leads to a kernel of the form:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K}_{con}(k) = - {(2\pi)^4}U^4\delta^{(4)}(k_E),
\label{krel}
\end{eqnarray}
where for simplicity we introduce new effective coupling constant
$U$,
which has dimension of mass, and sign is chosen to provide us
with a confining-like kernel, similar to the positive constant
potential
in the non-relativistic case.
Fourier transform of the kernel, (\ref{krel}),
is a constant, $\sim U^4$, in four dimension. This means that it does
not behave like a non-relativistic constant potential, for which we
expect behavior like $\sim \delta(t_0) \cdot constant$.
Therefore, the kernel (\ref{krel}) does not exactly correspond to
the non-relativistic constant potential and the effective constant,
$U^4$,
is not related to constant in such a potential.
Note, since the constant $U^4$ does not have
the direct physical meaning, the choice of the factor ${(2\pi)^4}$ is
arbitrary and it is made for further simplification of
formulae.
The form of the kernel, (\ref{krel}), in accordance with
our main idea, is considered as a special limiting case of the
sum of the ladder kernels (sum of one-boson exchanges), which
provides
explicit covariance of the kernel and connection with the
usual field-theoretic
constructions. (Note that this is a
valid form in the Euclidian space, whereas
the transition to the Minkowsky space is not defined.)
By itself the $\delta$-form of the kernel is not something
very unusual in studying of the bound states of the quarks. For
instance,
such a form
is considered as "regularized" form of the highly
singular, $\sim k^{-4}$,
behavior of the gluon propagator~\cite{qpr} and is a basis of the
models for studying of
the SD equation for the quark propagator~\cite{munczek,williams}. In
particular,
this form of the gluon propagator leads to the quark propagator
without singularities along physical momentum. In the lowest order,
such a gluon propagator gives the kernel of the BS
equation~\cite{munczek}.
Let us study the effect of the kernel, (\ref{krel}), in the BS
equation,
(\ref{sbse}), under the Wick rotation. The form of ${\cal K}_{con}$
allows an integration in the equation explicitly:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi (p,P) = - \frac{{U^4}}{ D(p_1,p_2) }
\psi(p,P).
\label{1con}
\end{eqnarray}
}
{}From eq.(\ref{1con}) we find that the kernel, ${\cal K}_{con}$,
does not
allow for the bound state solutions of the BS equation. In this sense
we
can expect that this kernel, in effect, is similar to the constant
non-relativistic potential,
which along does not allows for
the bound states.
If this is the case, we expect that adding this
kernel to the regular attractive kernel, i.e. like the one presented
in Section~2.3, Table~1, we will get a shift of the spectrum by
a constant.
The BS equation with the combined kernel, ${\cal K}_G+{\cal
K}_{con}$,
can be transformed to the usual form,
but with a modified two-body propagator:
{\begin{eqnarray}
\psi (p,P) = \frac{1}{D(p_1,p_2) + U^4}\int
\frac{d^4 p'}{(2\pi)^4}{\cal K}_G(p,p',P)\psi(p',P).
\label{2con}
\end{eqnarray}}
New propagator in eq. (\ref{2con}) has different analytical
properties, compared to the initial free propagator under
the Wick rotation,
(\ref{twopropr}), and main
difference is that the
new propagator does not have singularities
at $M > 2m$, which were a signal of the limit of the spectrum at
this point. This is an indication that the {\em physical
spectrum} exists beyond this point.
However, without numerical analysis we are not able to
discuss the properties of the solutions at $M > 2m$.
Before to go to the numerics, let us discuss the possible
effects of the self energy corrections in the presence
of the interaction of the form (\ref{krel}).
Dealing with the kernel (\ref{krel}) as a sum of the
lowest order (ladder) kernels, we calculate the
one-loop self-energy corrections to the single
quark propagator,
$d(p)^{-1}$.
Integration over the loop is performed at imaginary
$p_0$ component of the four-momentum of the quark and
result can be analytically continued to any values of
$p_0$. For physical momentum we get:
{\begin{eqnarray}
d(p) = p^2 -m^2 +\frac{U^4}{p^2-m^2}.
\label{singprop}
\end{eqnarray}}
The propagator (\ref{singprop}) does not have singularities
for physical values of the momentum, $p$. This property of
the interaction of the form (\ref{krel}) has already been
established within model investigations of the behavior of
the quark propagator~\cite{williams,qpr}.
Now we see that
this single quark effect is in a generic relation with
the two-body confining interaction in the framework of the
BS equation. For our calculations it is also important that
the singularities of the modified two-body propagator
in (\ref{2con})
with $D(p_1,p_2)=d(p_{1})\cdot d(p_{2})$
defined by eq. (\ref{singprop})
still
allow to perform the Wick rotation.
\subsection{Numerical investigation
of the Bethe-Salpeter equation with the confining kernel}
First we compare the meson spectra obtained with eq.~(\ref{2con})
with
$U^4 = 0$ and $U^4 \ne 0$. For convenience we take
the same kernel, ${\cal K}_G$, as that in the section~2.3.
The main effect, we expect here, is the shift of the spectrum
beyond the limiting point $M_{lim} = 2m$.
In order to compare the
spectra, we calculate $\lambda(M)$ for two
lowest states in the channels with $L=0,1$.
This is enough
to make conclusions about (i) the position of the bound
states, (ii) limiting point of the spectra and (iii)
separation between ground and excited states.
Results of these
calculations are presented in the Fig.~3, groups of curves A
and B. The constant $U$ for the case
B is chosen to be of the typical energy scale
of the equation, $U=m$.
We find, indeed, that the masen spectrum of the equation with $U\ne
0$
is extended beyond the point $M_{lim}$. However, it
displays unusual behavior beyond the point, $M_{lim}^B$
(this point is shown on Fig.~3 by the arrow)
\cite{foot3}.
Non-monotonical behavior of the curves $\lambda(M)$
indicates some difficulties in the interpretation
of the corresponding solutions. The obvious difficulty is
the existence of two solutions with the same coupling
constant $\lambda$
and different masses, $M$,
(see e.g. discussions in refs.~\cite{scale}).
Therefore, we have to find a way to
isolate the only one physical solutions.
The solution of this problem is quite simple.
Calculating the normalization of the solutions
of the equation along $M$ we find that the
ground state
solutions beyond $M_{lim}^B$ have a negative norm, i.e.
are the {\em abnormal} non-physical solutions.
\cite{foot4}.
This observation gives us the selection rule to eliminate the
extra solutions.
Another problem with the solutions corresponding $U^4 \ne 0$
is that spectrum is not only shifted to larger
masses, but also the separation between levels
is drastically
increased (see Table~II).
This effect make it a problem for a
phenomenological
use of the kernel of the form (\ref{krel}). Indeed,
if we intend to consider states above $M_{lim}$ we have to
take $U^4$ large enough to provide us with a new limit of the
spectrum, however this can be in conflict with the desired
separation between levels. One may try to adjust the parameters
of the remaining part of the full kernel, ${\cal K}_G$,
so as to have a reasonable density of levels. However our analysis
showed that
in the presence of the kernel, ${\cal K}_{con}$,
separation between levels depends only weakly on the
kernel, ${\cal K}_G$.
\vskip 6mm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$\Delta$ M & A & B & C & D\\
&$\lambda^A_{phys}=0.13$&$\lambda^B_{phys}=0.25$
&$\lambda^C_{phys}=0.44$&$\lambda^D_{phys}=1.44$\\
\hline
\hline
1P - 1S & 0.49~GeV & 0.77 ~GeV & 0.48~GeV & 0.48~GeV \\
\hline
2S - 1P & 0.19~GeV & 0.47 ~GeV & 0.16~GeV & 0.17~GeV \\
\hline
2P - 2S & 0.21~GeV & 0.42 ~GeV & 0.22~GeV & 0.26~GeV \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace*{5mm}
Table. II. The levels splitting in the
"scalar charmonium" for different kernels .
\end{center}
It should be remembered that in the BS equation the addition of
interaction
of any kind to the full kernel cannot be
related linearly to the shift in the mass of the system. The same
interaction also "shifts" the masses of the constituents
through the self-energy corrections to the single-particle
propagators.
A self-consitent approach has to be adopted to
include both the self-energy corrections and
changes in the two-body interactions.
We take into account the self-energy correction, (\ref{singprop}),
to the
quark propagator. This leads to a corresponding modification
of the two-body propagator $D(p,P)^{-1}$, (\ref{twoprop}).
The resulting spectrum is presented in Fig.~3, group of curves C.
It is clear that for the
interval of masses $\sim 2 \div 3.5$~GeV the density of
levels "returns to normal", of the same value as in the case A (see
Table~II).
The value of constant $\lambda_{phys}^C = 0.44$ is chosen as an
example
giving the spectrum density close to the the one of the case A.
At smaller $\lambda_{phys}^C $ the separation of levels is even
smaller.
The examples of calculations, B and C, show that the
kernel containing the part ${\cal K}_{con}$ is
indeed similar in its effect
to the non-relativistic potential in coordinate space, $V(r)$,
with $V(r\to \infty) \to V_{\infty}$.
where the positive real constant $V_{\infty}$ defines
the shift of the bound state spectrum
compared to
the case with no ${\cal K}_{con}$, the case A.
From Fig.~3 another similarity
with the non-relativistic constant potential is obvious,
this kernel gives only a limited number of states in the spectrum,
which
can be adjusted by varying the $\lambda_{phys}$.
For instance, for the case C with $\lambda^C_{phys}=0.2 $
there is only one bound state, $1S$, whereas with
$\lambda^C_{phys}=0.45$ there are four states in the S and P channels
(there can be other undetected states in channels with higher
$L=2,\ldots$).
On the other hand, taking account of the self-energy corrections,
corresponding to this type of interaction,
leads to the disappearance of the poles in the single quark
propagator. Therefore quarks cannot propagate other than being
bound in a bound
state. Apparently, this fact is not related to the infinitely
rising interaction between them, but rather to the
modification of the single quark properties.
To be sure that the picture is valid in a wide interval of the
constant $U^4$,
also the spectrum is calculated
for the case $U^4 = 4m^4$ and self-energy
corrections taken into account.
The result is shown in the Fig.~3, group of curves D.
That the picture is found to be similar to
the one of case C, but the spectrum is shifted up to even larger
$M_{lim}^D\sim 4$~GeV. The density of levels in the interval
of masses $\sim 2.5 \div 4$~GeV is the same as those of cases
A and C (see Table~II). The value of constant
$\lambda_{phys}^C = 0.44$ is chosen again
to give the spectrum density close to the the one of the case A.
Note that in our model the constant $U$ can not be taken arbitrary
large, since all the calculations are performed in the lowest order.
The natural criteria on the maximum value of $U$ is that the
corrections
of the lowest order, $\sim U^4$,
must not be too large. For instance, a shift of the mass spectrum
with $U\ne 0$
should not be too big compare to the typical masses for the case with
$U=0$.
\section {Conclusions}
We have presented a method to find
the ground state and excited states of the two-body
Bethe-Salpeter equation
for a channel with
any quantum numbers. This method allows us to
solve the bound state problem without reduction
of equation to quasipotential form or any other
approximations.
Based on a qualitative analogy with the construction
of a non-relativistic potential with non-vanishing asymptote
at large distances, $r\to\infty$, we have proposed a
recipe to obtain the confining kernel for the Bethe-Salpeter
equation, parametrized in the form of a special limiting
case of a superposition of ladder kernels.
We find that in the simplest case such a kernel
is proportional to $\delta(k_E)$ in the Euclidean momentum
space, which corresponds to a constant kernel in the coordinate
space.
We have studied the effect of this kernel on the spectrum of
the Bethe-Salpeter equation,
when the usual attractive interaction is added.
It is found that this kernel is similar in its effect
to the non-relativistic potential in coordinate space, $V(r)$,
with $V(r\to \infty) \to V_{\infty}$.
The positive real constant $V_{\infty}$ gives
the scale that defines the limit of the
bound state spectrum compared to
the sum of the constituent masses, $M < 2m + V_{\infty}$.
At the same time the self-energy corrections
remove the singularities from the propagators of the constituents,
i.e. constituents do not propagate.
Combination of these features of the solutions allows
an interpretation of this type of interaction as
a confining interaction.
The illustrative analytical and
numerical calculation are presented for a model of massive
scalar particles with scalar interaction and
do not pretend to a phenomenological
application.
However, the developed formalism can be straightforwarly
adopted for the Bethe-Salpeter equation for the bound state of
two spinor fields and, therefore, can be used for the realistic
studies of the properties of the quark-antiquark systems, mesons.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank
A. Maximov and Yousuf Musakhanov for useful discussions.
One of us (A.U.) is grateful to F. Gross, J. Milana and
A. Stadler for the interesting discussions and comments.
The research is supported in part
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\vspace*{.5cm}
{ \Large \bf Appendix A. The non-relativistic confining
potentials
in the momentum space.}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\defB.\arabic{equation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
\noindent
In order to establish the form of the potentials defining by the
eq. (\ref{syukr}), (\ref{p0}) and (\ref{p1}), let us consider
auxiliary integral, $I_a$:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_a &=& \int \frac{d^3 {\bf k}}{(2\pi)^3} V_a (k) f({\bf k})
\label{b1}\\
&=&\int \frac{d\Omega}{(2\pi)^3}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} dk k^2 V_a (k) f(k, \Omega),
\label{b11}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f({\bf k})$ is any function for which we
assume a "good" behavior ($f \to 0$ when $k\to \infty$,
no singularities, existence of derivatives, etc.),
$a = c, l$ depending on which of conditions the (\ref{p0}) or
(\ref{p1})
is imposed on the potential and $V_a(k)$
defined as a fourier transform of
eq. (\ref{syukr}):
\begin{eqnarray}
V_a (k) &=&
4\pi\sum_j \frac{4\pi C_j}{k^2 + \alpha_j^2 \mu^2}.
\label{b2}
\end{eqnarray}
The limit $\mu \to 0$ is assumed and we take it later.
Using the
common condition $\sum C_j =0$, we rewrite eq. (\ref{b11}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
I_a
&=& -4\pi\mu^2\int \frac{d\Omega}{(2\pi)^3} \sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2
\int\limits_0^{\infty}\frac{ dk}{k^2 + \alpha_j^2 \mu^2}
f(k, \Omega).
\label{b3}
\end{eqnarray}
Integrating by parts the last integral in (\ref{b3}),
we get:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_a
&=& 4\pi\mu \int \frac{d\Omega}{(2\pi)^3}\sum_j C_j\alpha_j
\int\limits_0^{\infty} dk \;{\sf arctg}\left [ \frac{k}{\alpha_j
\mu} \right ]
f'(k, \Omega),
\label{b4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $f'= \partial f /\partial k$.
Let us now consider integration over $k$ only.
These integrals on the
r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{b4}) can be split in two parts:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_a
\propto \mu \sum_j C_j\alpha_j \left \{
\int\limits_0^{\alpha_j\mu} +
\int\limits_{\alpha_j\mu}^{\infty} \right \} dk
\;{\sf arctg}\left [ \frac{k}{\alpha_j \mu} \right ]
f'(k, \Omega).
\label{b5}
\end{eqnarray}
We estimate the first integral by the mean value theorem:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu \sum_j C_j\alpha_j
\int\limits_0^{\alpha_j\mu} dk \ldots
= \mu^2 \left(
\frac{\pi}{4}-\frac{{\sf ln}2}{2}
\right )\sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2 f'(\xi\alpha_j\mu, \Omega),
\label{b6}
\end{eqnarray}
where $0\le \xi \le 1$.
The second integral is estimated using the expansion
${\sf arctg}x = \pi/2 -1/x+1/(3x^3)-\ldots$, which is
valid at $x\ge 1$. It can be shown that
the first term in this expansion
gives the leading contribution to the
full integral in the limit $\mu \to 0$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu \sum_j C_j\alpha_j
\int\limits_{\alpha_j\mu}^{\infty} dk
\ldots = -\frac{\pi}{2}\mu \sum_j C_j\alpha_j
f(\alpha_j\mu, \Omega).
\label{b7}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, taking the limit $\mu \to 0$ and
accounting for the conditions on the coefficients
$C_j$, we find
\begin{eqnarray}
I_c &=& A_c f({\bf 0}),
\label{b8}\\
I_l &=& \left(
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{{\sf ln}2}{\pi}
\right ) A_l f'({\bf 0}).
\label{b9}
\end{eqnarray}
These equations give us the potentials in the form (\ref{p0p}) and
(\ref{p1p}).
{ \Large \bf Appendix B. The relativistic confining
kernel
in the momentum space.}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\defB.\arabic{equation}{B.\arabic{equation}}
\noindent
In order to establish the form of the kernel defined by
eq. (\ref{conk}) at the limit $\mu \to 0$ and lowest
(but non-zero) degree
of $\mu^{-1}$ in the $C_j$,
let us consider
the auxiliary integral, $I$:
\begin{eqnarray}
I &=& \int \frac{d^4 {\underline k}}{(2\pi)^4} {\cal K}_{con}(k)
f({\underline k})
\label{c1}\\
&=&\int \frac{d\Omega^{(4)}}{(2\pi)^4}
\int\limits_0^{\infty} dk k^3 {\cal K}_{con} (k) f(k, \Omega^{(4)}),
\label{c11}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\underline k$ is four-momentum in Euclidian space,
$k = ({\bf k}^2 + k_0^2)^{1/2}$, $\Omega^{(4)} $ is the
hyperangle
defining the orientation of the vector $\underline k$
in the four dimensional space;
$f({k})$ is an arbitrary function for which we
assume "good" behavior ($f \to 0$ when $k\to \infty$,
no singularities, existence of derivatives, etc.).
The limit $\mu \to 0$ is assumed and we take it later.
We are omitting all nonessential factors, such as $2\pi$, etc.,
in the following calculations.
Adding and subtracting expression $C_j/k^2$ to each
term in (\ref{conk}),
we rewrite eq. (\ref{c11}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
I
\propto && -\mu^2\int {d\Omega^{(4)}}\sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2
\int\limits_0^{\infty}\frac{ dk \, k}{k^2 + \alpha_j^2 \mu^2}
f(k, \Omega^{(4)})
\label{c3}\\
&&+ \int {d\Omega^{(4)}}\sum_j C_j
\int\limits_0^{\infty}\frac{ dk}{k^2}
f(k, \Omega^{(4)}). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Th last term is cancelled by the condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_j C_j = 0.
\label{cc1}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now consider integration over $k$ only.
This integral in
r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{c3}) can be evaluated as:
\begin{eqnarray}
I
\propto -\mu^2 \sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2 f(\alpha_j\mu, \Omega^{(4)})
\int\limits_0^{\Lambda}
\frac{dk \; k}{k^2+\alpha_j^2 \mu^2},
\label{c5}
\end{eqnarray}
since the function remaining under integration has
sharp maximum at $k=\alpha_j\mu$. We also introduce the cut-off
parameter $\Lambda$ to regularize formally
the
logarithmically
divergent integrals. At a later stage of calculation
we take the limit $\Lambda \to \infty$, but for the moment
it is enough to assume $\Lambda \gg \mu$. Performing the integration
we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I
\propto -\mu^2 \sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2 f(\alpha_j\mu, \Omega^{(4)})
\left [ {\sf ln}\left ( \frac{\Lambda}{\mu} \right ) -{\sf
ln}\alpha_j
\right ].
\label{c6}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying the condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2 = 0,\quad \sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2{\sf ln}\alpha_j
\ne 0,
\label{cc2}
\end{eqnarray}
and taking the limit $\mu \to 0$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
I
\propto \mu^2 f(0)\sum_j C_j\alpha_j^2
{\sf ln}\alpha_j,
\label{c7}
\end{eqnarray}
which proves the form of the kernel as eq. (\ref{krel}).
|
\section{Introduction}
In spite of the large amount of research done on C$_{60}$ and its
compounds since its discovery \cite{kroto}, the electronic structure and the
importance of solid state band structure effects remain controversial.
Solid C$_{60}$ seems to exhibit a dualistic behaviour. On one
hand it behaves like a molecular crystal in which the molecular
properties (like the vibrational states and electronic excitations) are only
weakly perturbed by the crystal symmetry, but on the other hand
it behaves like a semiconductor, with a moderate
(2.3 - 2.6 eV \cite{lof,weaver})
band gap, which can be electron doped resulting in low energy impurity states
and band widths of about 0.6 eV \cite{saito,shirley}.
Also quite different from typical molecular crystals is that C$_{60}$ forms
ionic compounds, which in some cases exhibit metallic and even superconducting
\cite{hebert}
behaviour, clearly demonstrating the importance of one-electron band
formation. With regard to the properties of these compounds they are
reminiscent
of the charge transfer type of molecular solids like the much studied
TCNQ salts except that the C$_{60}$ compounds usually
show 3-dimensional behaviour rather than the 1- or 2-dimensional
behaviour exhibited by the charge transfer molecular solids. This, obviously,
is due to the spherical rather than linear or planar structure of
the molecule. In
this paper we present evidence that in pure C$_{60}$ also the excitons
exhibit this dualistic behaviour. The energies of the excitonic states are
close to those of the gas phase molecule emphasizing the molecular
characteristics, but the propagation of the exciton results in abnormally
large excitonic band widths and mixings of different multiplets
for a molecular solid. This can be explained
within a one- and two-particle band structure theory.
It is well established that the strong delocalization of the
p$_{\pi}$-electron network (as is also the case on a C$_{60}$ molecule)
can result in strong nonlinear
optical effects \cite{poly-nlo}. Koopmans
{\em et al.} \cite{koopmans-b,koopmans-res} have shown that the SH
signal is very strong due to a double resonance
if the primary energy is tuned to the $^1$T$_{1g}$
excitonic state at 1.81 eV. This provides a possibility to study the
excitons inside the electronic band gap, in particular the exciton
band width, the band splitting
due to crystallographic phase transitions, and the mixing of multiplets
due to the crystal symmetry.
To facilitate this study we have developed a theory for the exciton
splittings and dispersions based on the molecular multiplet splittings
and solid state effects arising from a charge transfer mechanism for the
exciton propagation \cite{lof,robert}. The one-electron (-hole)
hopping integrals required for this are obtained from a tight-binding
fit to the LDA band structure of C$_{60}$ as given by Satpathy
{\em et al.} \cite{satpathy}. We show that reasonable agreement can be
obtained with the experimental SH line shape with only one adjustable
parameter,
namely the $^1$T$_{1g}$ - $^1$G$_g$ molecular multiplet splitting.
\section{Experimental}
C$_{60}$ with a purity better than 99.99\% was evaporated from a
Knudsen cell onto
a substrate at UHV pressures below 4$\cdot$10$^{-9}$ mbar. As substrates we
used fused quartz or at
low temperature MgO, a good thermal conductor.
For the SH experiments a Nd:YAG laser
was used to pump a dye laser, producing 7ns pulses with an energy of
approximately 6 mJ/pulse and a repetition rate of 10 Hz. The fundamental
frequency
was scanned in the range $\hbar \omega$= 1.7...2.0 eV. The SH intensities were
calibrated by using a reference quartz crystal in a transmission
geometry, carefully tuned to a Maker fringe optimum by fine-tuning the
frequency, and corrected for changes of the coherence length
in the quartz crystal as function of the photon energy.
All SH experiments are performed at a fixed angle of incidence
(45$^{\circ}$ to the surface normal) and the specular reflected SH signal was
detected.
The
SHG of thin C$_{60}$ films exhibit complicated thickness- (and through the
dispersion also frequency-) dependent interference phenomena.
We showed before \cite{koopmans-b} that for a
mixed$_{\mbox{in}}-$p$_{\mbox{out}}$ polarization (m-p) combination (mixed
means 50\% p and 50\% s polarized light) the SH interference
pattern exhibits a broad minimum for C$_{60}$ film thicknesses of
around 250 nm. Therefore we chose a m-p polarization combination and a
thickness of 250 nm for the measurements presented in this paper, so
that dispersive interference effects can be neglected.
The temperature dependent SHG experiments were performed using a He-flow
cryostat (4 - 500 K). The temperature was measured with a thermocouple
glued to the substrate. Possible effects of heating during the laser pulse
were examined by varying the laser power. We found that below 100 K the
temperature during the laser pulse was about 20-30 K
higher than the one measured with the thermocouple. At higher temperatures,
in particular around the rotational ordering phase transition
temperature (260 K), no heating by the laser
pulse was detected.
\section{Experimental results}
In Fig.1 the SH intensity measured at various temperatures is shown
as a function of the fundamental photon frequency ($\hbar \omega$).
Around room temperature we observe the resonance at
about 1.8 eV already previously reported
\cite{koopmans-b,koopmans-res}.
Notice for decreasing temperature
the strong enhancement of the SH intensity, the overall blue
shift and the temperature dependence in the line shape of the resonance.
Fig.2a and 2b show the temperature dependence of the zeroth
and first
moment of the spectrum corresponding to the integrated intensity and to
the mean
frequency, respectively. In both cases we see a strong temperature dependence
at the phase transition temperature of 260 K.
It is also just below
this temperature that we observe a splitting of the resonance into two peaks
with an intensity ratio of about 3:1. The splitting is
about 40 meV. The total width of the signal at the base of the line
is approximately 100 meV, which is very large for an exciton
band width of a molecular crystal, as discussed below.
\section{Discussion}
Looking at the data in Fig.1 and 2, there are three main features to
be explained: $(i)$ the splitting of the signal
below the phase transition; $(ii)$ the line width larger than
expected for an electric dipole forbidden transition in a
molecular crystal, and $(iii)$ the overall strong temperature
dependence of the SH intensity and line shape.
We propose three possible mechanism for the splitting, namely
a Jahn-Teller effect, a Davydov splitting and a
mixing of the electronic molecular states.
A {\em Jahn-Teller splitting} can probably be discarded
since it is expected to be at most 12 meV for the
singlet states as determined by Wang {\em et al.} \cite{yu}.
Before discussing the other two possibilities we briefly review the
basic ideas involving the propagation of excitations and their observation
by SHG.
For a schematic picture of the double
resonant SHG process observed in this energy range we refer to Fig.1
of ref \cite{koopmans-b}. The three level diagram consists of
a magnetic dipole transition from the
molecular ground state to the $^1$T$_{1g}$ excited state (involving a h$_{u}
\rightarrow$ t$_{1u}$ single-electron transition), followed by an
electric dipole transition to a
$^1$T$_{1u}$ state at about 3.6 eV (h$_g \rightarrow$ h$_u$),
and finally an electric dipole transition back to the ground state
(t$_{1u} \rightarrow$ h$_g$).
Linear optical experiments exhibit a strong electric
dipole allowed transition at 3.56 eV with a half width at half maximum of
0.23 eV. Since this width is much larger than the one observed
in our experiment (0.06 eV) we concluded that the sharp features in
the SHG spectrum must be related to the
intermediate $^1$T$_{1g}$ exciton state \cite{k-thesis,k-saltlake}. This
difference
in width can easily be understood by comparing the intramolecular excitations,
where the electron and the hole are bound,
with the intermolecular electron-hole excitations. The latter determine the
conductivity gap involving dissociated electron-hole states. As measured by
photoconductivity \cite{photocond}, or by
combined photoelectron and inverse-photoelectron spectroscopy \cite{lof}
this gap is 2.3 eV.
In Fig.3 we show the energy level scheme of the intramolecular
excitonic excitations (on the left hand side) and the solid state
intermolecular band gap excitations (on the right hand side).
The molecular $^1$T$_{1u}$ state at 3.6 eV is well
inside the intermolecular electron-hole continuum and will decay into this
with a hopping integral comparable to the one-electron (-hole) band width.
The $^1$T$_{1g}$, however, is an electron-hole bound state, inside the
band gap,
and will therefore have a long lifetime. The extra energy required to
dissociate the electron-hole pair of the exciton (i.e. the exciton binding
energy) is directly related to the onsite Coulomb interaction measured to be
about 1.3 - 1.6 eV by Lof {\em et al.} \cite{lof}. Since the $^1$T$_{1g}$
exciton is bound and the transition to the ground state is electric dipole
forbidden, we expect it to be very long lived and we would
expect a very small
exciton dispersion by conventional optical dipole - optical dipole
intermolecular propagation. The still quite large total width of more than
100 meV is
therefore difficult to understand in the limit of a
molecular solid. It is, however, well known that band structure effects
in C$_{60}$ are not neglegible. Lof {\em et al.} \cite{lof} already
suggested a propagation mechanism which could lead to a substantial
exciton dispersion. A similar mechanism involving virtual charge transfer
states was previously suggested by Choi {\em et al.} \cite{silbey}
to explain the dispersional width of optically forbidden excitons in
molecular crystals.
This propagation mechanism is shown pictorially in Fig.4 which demonstrates
how an electron-hole pair on site $i$ can propagate
to a neighbouring site $j$ via a virtual excited intermediate state.
This intermediate nearest-neighbour (charge transfer) state, in which
the electron is on site $i$ and the hole on a nearest-neighbour
site $j$ (or vice versa), is
at an energy $U - V$ (the difference between the onsite Coulomb interaction
and the nearest-neighbour Coulomb repulsion
\cite{bluhwiler,comment-m}) higher than the exciton ground state energy.
The net effective
exciton hopping integral is given from perturbation theory by:
\begin{equation}
T^{\mbox{exciton}} = \frac{2 t_e t_h}{U-V}
\end{equation}
where $t_{e(h)}$ are the average single electron (hole) nearest-neighbour
hopping
integrals.
It should be noticed that the same electron and hole hopping integrals
are involved for the red shift of an exciton energy in the solid
relative to the corresponding
one in the gas phase.
The red shift is then
given in first perturbation theory by:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E = K (\frac{t^2_e + t^2_h}{U-V})
\end{equation}
where $K$ is a geometrical factor related to the symmetry of orbitals and
the nearest-neighbour coordination number. As an example, one has
$K$ = 12 \cite{auger} for a totally symmetrical one-electron
and one-hole orbital in a FCC lattice.
To estimate the red shift of the $^1$T$_{1g}$ state we look at the
isolated C$_{60}$ molecule where Gasyna {\em et al.} \cite{gasyna} found the
$^1$T$_{1g}$ at about 1.92 eV. The same value has been assigned to the
$^1$T$_{1g}$ state by Negri {\em et al.} \cite{negri} using the absorption
spectra of C$_{60}$ in n-hexane solution of Leach {\em et al.} \cite{leach}.
Koopmans
{\em et al.} found the $^1$T$_{1g}$ in solid C$_{60}$ resonant at 1.81 eV.
This means that in the solid state this exciton is red shifted by 110 meV,
which is in the same order as the exciton band width. This supports
the above mentioned exciton hopping mechanism. Detailed calculations
of the one-electron (-hole) hopping integrals (discussed further on)
show that only nearest-neighbour hopping have to be
considered \cite{robert}.
Therefore, this exciton hopping mechanism does not destroy the
molecular Frenkel character of the exciton.
The above described mechanism for the dispersion of a Frenkel exciton
is analogous
to the charge transfer mechanism proposed by Lof {\em et al.} \cite{lof}
and to the mechanism
originally used to describe excitons in molecular charge transfer salts
\cite{silbey}.
It is also very similar to the so called superexchange mechanism used to
describe Frenkel d-d excitons in 3d transition metal compounds
\cite{allen,sugano}.
Assuming that the exciton band width is primarily due to such a
dispersional width we look again at the temperature dependence of
the line shape.
First of all we might have expected to see only the zero quasi momentum
({\bf k} = 0) exciton because of the long optical wavelength.
At high temperatures, however, the molecules are rapidly rotating resulting
in dynamic orientational disorder which will cause a break down
of the translational lattice symmetry and of the
$\Delta${\bf k} = 0 selection rule. In the extreme case we would expect to
see just the total exciton density of states as we believe is indeed the
case at high temperatures.
Upon lowering the temperature below the phase transition at 260 K the
rotations are strongly reduced, leading to a decrease of dynamic disorder and
therefore to approach the $\Delta${\bf k} = 0 selection rule.
Since {\bf k} then becomes a good quantum number we will see
only the exciton states with {\bf k} vectors close to $\Gamma$, the center
of the Brillouin Zone.
In the
low temperature phase there are four molecules per unit cell so that the
exciton band at the $\Gamma$ point can split up into two or more bands.
This splitting, called the {\em Davydov splitting}, which represents a
first possible explanation, will be of the order of the
exciton band width and is prominently due to the dependence of the exciton
transfer integral on the relative orientation of neighbouring molecules.
Recent two-photon excitation of C$_{60}$ single crystal at 4 K by
Muccini {\em et al.}
\cite{muccini} shows a band at 1.846 eV which is assigned to the same lowest
forbidden Frenkel exciton of $^1$T$_{1g}$ symmetry as discussed
in this paper. They also find a second band at higher
energy (1.873 eV). They discuss this second band in terms of
a crystal field effect and as a possible Davydov splitting. They
give an alternative assignment of the second band as being due to a
second forbidden electronic state. Indeed semi-empirical quantum-chemical
calculations \cite{negri} have shown that there are several closely
spaced forbidden states which lie in a narrow energy range \cite{muccini}.
The two-photon spectrum of Muccini {\em et al.} strongly resembles the low
temperature SH resonance in Fig.1. However, their two-photon absorption,
being a third-order nonlinear optical experiment, involves
other selection rules than our SHG experiment.
In order to get a more detailed understanding of the results, we carried
out the full
exciton calculation starting from the basic ideas described by equation
(1) and (2). The details will be published elsewhere \cite{robert}. Here we
restrict ourselve to briefly describe the ingredients of the calculations
and the results. In the full calculation the orbital degeneracy of the
t$_{1u}$ (3 fold) and h$_u$ (5 fold) must be taken into account so that
there are several electron and hole hopping integrals depending on
the orbital quantum numbers. Satpathy {\em et al.} \cite{satpathy}
have described how those can be obtained from one-particle band
structure calculation using a tight-binding fit. The
electron and hole hopping integrals are a function of the relative
orientation of the buckyballs. These integrals are completely determined
from a single fit to the band structure for a particular given
structure. Also we must take
into account the multiplet structure of the molecular excitations
due to the intramolecular Coulomb interaction as
described by Negri {\em et al.}. These multiplet splittings are not
very well known but can be obtained from optical or electron
energy loss data of the gas phase or in solution.
The effective exciton
transfer integrals are then a sum of products of electron and hole
transfer integrals divided by $U - V$. The degree to which each of the
electron and hole hopping integrals contribute to the dispersion of a
particular exciton is determined by the weight of
the electron-hole product function in the
particular excitonic state under consideration.
In addition to the broadening of the molecular multiplets into bands,
there is also a mixing of the various molecular exciton states
because of the lowering of symmetry in the crystal.
The only remaining parameters are $U - V$ and the
molecular multiplet splitting.
Conserning $U - V$ a rough estimate can be taken from the Auger data
of Br\"{u}hwiler {\em et al.} \cite{bluhwiler}: U $\simeq$
1.1 eV (0.2 eV is substracted because of the higher exciton
energy of a singlet), and V $\simeq$ 0.7 eV.
This leaves us with $U - V \simeq 0.35$ $\pm$ 0.2 eV.
An independent estimate for $U - V$ can also be obtained from the experimental
red shift as given in eq.(2). Taking $U - V$ = 0.35 eV we get a calculated
red shift comparable to the experimental observed one.
Concerning the multiplet splitting we will see below that all we need
for the present propose is a small $^1$T$_{1g}$ - $^1$G$_g$
splitting.
These exciton dispersion calculations, show
that the $^1$T$_{1g}$ band at the $\Gamma$ point splits up in
three $^1$T$_g$ bands, one $^1$A$_g$ and one $^1$E$_g$ band
(Fig.5a) \cite{robert}.
This can be expected from group theoretical arguments because of
the transition from the space group
Fm$\bar{3}$m of the high temperature phase to the space group
Pa$\bar{3}$ of the low temperature phase
\cite{harris,dresselh}.
The Davydov splitting is found to be about 30 meV,
which is close to the experimental splitting (40 meV) of the two peaks. The
calculation, however, predicts that more than 90\% of the weight would be
in the
lowest $^1$T$_{g}$ band. This is inconsistent with our data!
Another possible explanation appears when all molecular multiplet
states and their mixing is included.
As already mentioned, the quantum-chemical calculations of Negri
{\em et al.} \cite{negri} show that the $^1$T$_{2g}$ and $^1$G$_g$ states
(in terms of states of isolated C$_{60}$ molecules
with icosahedral symmetry) are nearly
degenerated with the $^1$T$_{1g}$.
In the crystal, however, the point group symmetry is lower. This gives rise
to a mixing of the icosahedral electronic eigenstates (compare with
Table VIII of \cite{dresselh}).
When this {\em mixing} of the $^1$T$_{1g}$
and $^1$G$_g$ Bloch states is
taken into account in the exciton dispersion
calculations \cite{robert}, a second somewhat smaller peak arises at higher
energy. This is another possible explanation for the splitting.
Accordingly, the main peak at 1.826 eV is (in terms of molecular states)
a mixed state of
$^1$T$_{1g}$ with some $^1$G$_g$ character, and the second peak at
1.866 eV is a $^1$G$_g$ state with some $^1$T$_{1g}$ character. Since
in our SHG experiment we probe the magnetic dipole allowed transitions
\cite{note}, only the $^1$T$_{1g}$ component is visible.
This would explain the difference in intensity.
Fig.5 shows
the calculated spectrum with and without mixing in of the $^1$G$_g$ state. The
"mixed" curve agrees well with the experimental data (at the lowest
temperature).
Although the $^1$T$_{2g}$ state is also very close to the $^1$T$_{1g}$,
the calculations show that these do not mix, because the neighbouring
molecules do not have the required orientation for allowing a mixing
of the corresponding electronic orbitals.
Notice that for the $^1$T$_{1g}$ and $^1$G$_g$ mixing the same exciton
transfer integrals are involved as in the case of a Davydov splitting.
Because of these exciton hopping integrals, described by eq.(1),
such a large Davydov splitting (compared to common molecular crystals
where an electric dipole forbidden transition is considered) and a
$^1$T$_{1g}$ and $^1$G$_g$ mixing are possible.
The blue shift of the first moment of the SHG spectrum
(Fig.2b) for decreasing temperature most probably
has its origin in the orientational ordering,
which takes place at the phase transition temperature (260 K).
In the low temperature phase (T $<$ 260 K) the C$_{60}$ molecules
can only jump between two equilibrium positions and
at T $<$ 100 K they are practically frozen in, whereas
in the high temperature phase (T $>$ 260 K) the buckyballs rotate freely
in all directions \cite{heiney,david}. Calculations of
the electron (hole) transfer integrals
for both phases show that the hopping integrals for the high temperature
phase are larger than those for the low temperature phase. This means
that in the low temperature phase, where a double carbon-carbon bond
faces a pentagon or hexagon, the exciton propagation
is less favourable, resulting in a narrowing of the band. Since we
are probing the $^1$T$_{g}$ state, which forms the bottom of the band, a
narrowing of the band gives rise to a blue shift of the $^1$T$_{g}$
state. The difference in magnitude of the low and high temperature
hopping integrals has its impact on still another process.
Eq.(2) gives the relation between the electron
(hole) hopping integrals and the red shift of a state in the solid compared
to the gas phase. Thus, we expect that at low temperature (where the
hopping integrals are smaller than those for the high temperature
phase), the $^1$T$_{1g}$ state is less red shifted than at high temperature.
This also resultes in a blue shift. Calculations, however, show that the
first process will be dominant in our observed blue shift.
What about the strong temperature dependence of the SH intensity?
Also this can be explained in terms of the dynamic rotational disorder.
SHG depends strongly on the retention of coherence in the $^1$T$_{1g}$
intermediate exciton state in a time scale determined by the excitation
transition matrix elements. The intensity of the SHG goes like
(N$_{\mbox{coh}})^2$ where N$_{\mbox{coh}}$ is the number of molecules
coherently (in phase) contributing to the signal. Rotational motion during
excitation results in dephasing of true oscillators so that
N$_{\mbox{coh}}$ is expected to decrease strongly with temperature.
This is a so called T$_2$ (i.e. dephasing time) like relaxation process.
One expects, therefore, that the rotation time of a buckyball is of
the same order as the time between the first and second transition.
We estimate the time of revolution for a freely rotating buckyball
at temperature T as:
$\tau_{rot} = 2 \pi \sqrt{I / 2k_BT}$,
where $I$=1$\cdot$10$^{-43}$ kgm$^2$ is the moment of inertia of
the buckyball.
For the time between the magnetic dipole transition and the
first electric dipole transition by
Fermi's Golden Rule gives
$\tau^{-1} \simeq r^2_{ball} \cdot G \cdot \rho_{final}$,
where $r^2_{ball}$ is the radius of the buckyball, $G$ is the
energy current of the laser pulse and $\rho_{final}$ is the
DOS of the final states (with one electron in the t$_{1u}$ (LUMO)
and one hole in the h$_g$ (HOMO $-$ 1), the second highest occupied molecular
orbital). We choose
$\rho_{final}$ = W$^{-1}$ where W$\sim$0.5 eV is the band
width of LUMO or HOMO $-$ 1. At T = 300 K we find $\tau_{rot}\simeq
\tau\simeq10^{-11}$ s. This means that, in the time spent between
the first and second transition a given buckyball can well performe
a full rotation. Since the rotation of the different molecules is
uncorrelated, this leads to strong (T$_2$) dephasing and decreasing of the
SH intensity.
Also a strong temperature dependence of the intensity can be found in
photoluminescence experiments. There, the increase in intensity
occurs at a somewhat lower temperature compared with the phase transition
and the interpretation is still controversial
\cite{pichler,graham,sauvajol,matus,schlaich}.
Liu {\em et al.} have also done temperature dependent SHG of C$_{60}$
films, and they also observe a jump in the SH intensity around the
orientational phase transition \cite{temp-china}. Their increase of
the SH intensity for decreasing temperature is much less than what we
observe. That is probably because they have done the SHG
experiment using a fixed frequency (1064 nm) which involves other
transitions well off the double resonance as found by Wilk {\em et al.}
\cite{dieter}.
Their SH intensity might also contain a change due to a shift of the
exciton states on going through the phase transition temperature of 260 K
as we have described above.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied the dynamics of the $^1$T$_{1g}$ Frenkel exciton
at $\hbar\omega$ = 1.81 eV with temperature dependent SHG.
We find a very strong temperature dependence of this double
resonance. Its SH intensity increases strongly close to the phase
transition down to about 200 K. We explain this by correlating
the rotational disorder of the C$_{60}$ molecules to a T$_2$ dephasing
mechanism. Below the
rotational ordering phase transition the SH resonance
splits in two bands. Several ideas about what could be the cause of
this splitting are discussed.
Detailed exciton dispersion calculations taking into account
the full symmetry, multiplet structure and crystal structure, yield
large exciton dispersions with total band widths of about
100 meV and a Davydov splitting of the $^1$T$_{1g}$ state of
30 meV. The corresponding SH intensity is calculated to be
concentrated to more than 90\% in the lowest Davydov component
and this is not the observed behaviour. The
experimental data including the two component structure in the low
temperature phase is, however, very well described by the theory
if the full multiplet structure and mixing of the $^1$T$_{1g}$
and $^1$G$_g$ states due to the lowering of space group
symmetry is included. The experimental data together with the
theory support strongly the ideas that the excitons in solid
C$_{60}$ are Frenkel like but propagate via virtually
excited charge transfer states described by Lof {\em et al.}
\cite{lof}. This model is consistent with the total width, the
splitting below the phase transition, the red shift relative
to the gas phase and the blue shift with lowering temperature
of the $^1$T$_{1g}$ exciton state component measured in our SHG
experiment.
\section {Acknowledgements}
This investigation was supported by the Netherlands Foundation for
Fundamental Research on Matter (FOM) with financial support from the
Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (NWO).
|
\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}{-4.2ex plus -1ex minus
-.2ex}{2.2ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}{-2.2ex plus -1ex minus
-.2ex}{1.1ex plus .2ex}{\normalsize\bf}}
\def\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}{-2.2ex plus
-1ex minus -.2ex}{-1.2em}{\normalsize\it}}
\def\@arabic\c@section.{\@arabic\c@section.}
\def\thesection\@arabic\c@subsection.{\@arabic\c@section.\@arabic\c@subsection.}
\def\thesubsection\@arabic\c@subsubsection.{\thesection\@arabic\c@subsection.\@arabic\c@subsubsection.}
\def\@sect#1#2#3#4#5#6[#7]#8{\ifnum #2>\c@secnumdepth
\def\@svsec{}\else
\refstepcounter{#1}\edef\@svsec{\csname the#1\endcsname\hskip 1em }\fi
\@tempskipa #5\relax
\ifdim \@tempskipa>\z@
\begingroup #6\relax
\@hangfrom{\hskip #3\relax\@svsec}{\interlinepenalty \@M \sec@upcase{#8}\par}%
\endgroup
\csname #1mark\endcsname{#7}\addcontentsline
{toc}{#1}{\ifnum #2>\c@secnumdepth \else
\protect\numberline{\csname the#1\endcsname}\fi
#7}\else
\def\@svsechd{#6\hskip #3\@svsec #8\csname #1mark\endcsname
{#7}\addcontentsline
{toc}{#1}{\ifnum #2>\c@secnumdepth \else
\protect\numberline{\csname the#1\endcsname}\fi
#7}}\fi
\@xsect{#5}}
\def\@ssect#1#2#3#4#5{\@tempskipa #3\relax
\ifdim \@tempskipa>\z@
\begingroup #4\@hangfrom{\hskip #1}{\interlinepenalty \@M \sec@upcase{#5}\par}\endgroup
\else \def\@svsechd{#4\hskip #1\relax #5}\fi
\@xsect{#3}}
\def\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{1em{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{1em}
{1ex plus .5ex minus .5ex}{-1em}{\bf}{\sec@upcase{Acknowledgments.}}}
\let\acknowledgements=\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{1em
\def\qanda@heading{Discussion}
\newif\if@firstquestion \@firstquestiontrue
\newenvironment{question}[1]{\if@firstquestion
\section*{\qanda@heading}\global\@firstquestionfalse\fi
\par\vskip 1ex
\noindent{\it#1\/}:}{\par}
\newenvironment{answer}[1]{\par\vskip 1ex
\noindent{\it#1\/}:}{\par}
\def\mathwithsecnums{
\@newctr{equation}[section]
\def\hbox{\normalsize\arabic{section}-\arabic{equation}}}{\hbox{\normalsize\arabic{section}-\arabic{equation}}}}
\def\section*{References{\section*{References}
\bgroup\parindent=0pt\parskip=.5ex
\def\relax{\par\hangindent=3em\hangafter=1}}
\def\refpar\egroup{\relax\egroup}
\def\section*{References{\section*{References}
\list{\null}{\leftmargin 3em\labelwidth 0pt\labelsep 0pt\itemindent -3em
\usecounter{enumi}}
\def\relax{\relax}
\def\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em}
\sloppy\clubpenalty4000\widowpenalty4000
\sfcode`\.=1000\relax}
\def\endlist{\endlist}
\def\@biblabel#1{\relax}
\def\@cite#1#2{#1\if@tempswa , #2\fi}
\def\relax\refpar{\relax\relax}
\def\@citex[#1]#2{\if@filesw\immediate\write\@auxout{\string\citation{#2}}\fi
\def\@citea{}\@cite{\@for\@citeb:=#2\do
{\@citea\def\@citea{,\penalty\@m\ }\@ifundefined
{b@\@citeb}{\@warning
{Citation `\@citeb' on page \thepage \space undefined}}%
{\csname b@\@citeb\endcsname}}}{#1}}
\let\jnl@style=\rm
\def\ref@jnl#1{{\jnl@style#1\/}}
\def\aj{\ref@jnl{AJ}}
\def\araa{\ref@jnl{ARA\&A}}
\def\apj{\ref@jnl{ApJ}}
\def\apjl{\ref@jnl{ApJ}}
\def\apjs{\ref@jnl{ApJS}}
\def\ao{\ref@jnl{Appl.Optics}}
\def\apss{\ref@jnl{Ap\&SS}}
\def\aap{\ref@jnl{A\&A}}
\def\aapr{\ref@jnl{A\&A~Rev.}}
\def\aaps{\ref@jnl{A\&AS}}
\def\azh{\ref@jnl{AZh}}
\def\baas{\ref@jnl{BAAS}}
\def\jrasc{\ref@jnl{JRASC}}
\def\memras{\ref@jnl{MmRAS}}
\def\mnras{\ref@jnl{MNRAS}}
\def\pra{\ref@jnl{Phys.Rev.A}}
\def\prb{\ref@jnl{Phys.Rev.B}}
\def\prc{\ref@jnl{Phys.Rev.C}}
\def\prd{\ref@jnl{Phys.Rev.D}}
\def\prl{\ref@jnl{Phys.Rev.Lett}}
\def\pasp{\ref@jnl{PASP}}
\def\pasj{\ref@jnl{PASJ}}
\def\qjras{\ref@jnl{QJRAS}}
\def\skytel{\ref@jnl{S\&T}}
\def\solphys{\ref@jnl{Solar~Phys.}}
\def\sovast{\ref@jnl{Soviet~Ast.}}
\def\ssr{\ref@jnl{Space~Sci.Rev.}}
\def\zap{\ref@jnl{ZAp}}
\let\astap=\aap
\let\apjlett=\apjl
\let\apjsupp=\apjs
\def\hbox{$^\circ$}{\hbox{$^\circ$}}
\def\hbox{$\odot$}{\hbox{$\odot$}}
\def\hbox{$\oplus$}{\hbox{$\oplus$}}
\def\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
\def\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}
\def\hbox{\rlap{$\sqcap$}$\sqcup$}{\hbox{\rlap{$\sqcap$}$\sqcup$}}
\def\hbox{$^\prime$}{\hbox{$^\prime$}}
\def\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}{\hbox{$^{\prime\prime}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm d}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm d}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm h}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm h}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm m}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm s}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\rm s}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^\circ$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^\circ$}}
\def\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}{\hbox{$.\mkern-4mu^\prime$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\prime\prime}$}}
\def\hbox{$.\!\!^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm p}$}{\hbox{$.\!\!^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm p}$}}
\def\hbox{$\mu$m}{\hbox{$\mu$m}}
\def\onehalf{\hbox{$\,^1\!/_2$}}
\def\hbox{$\,^1\!/_3$}{\hbox{$\,^1\!/_3$}}
\def\hbox{$\,^2\!/_3$}{\hbox{$\,^2\!/_3$}}
\def\hbox{$\,^1\!/_4$}{\hbox{$\,^1\!/_4$}}
\def\hbox{$\,^3\!/_4$}{\hbox{$\,^3\!/_4$}}
\def\ubvr{\hbox{$U\!BV\!R$}}
\def\ub{\hbox{$U\!-\!B$}}
\def\bv{\hbox{$B\!-\!V$}}
\def\vr{\hbox{$V\!-\!R$}}
\def\ur{\hbox{$U\!-\!R$}}
\newcount\lecurrentfam
\def\LaTeX{\lecurrentfam=\the\fam \leavevmode L\raise.42ex
\hbox{$\fam\lecurrentfam\scriptstyle\kern-.3em A$}\kern-.15em\TeX}
\def\plotone#1{\centering \leavevmode
\epsfxsize=\textwidth \epsfbox{#1}}
\def\plottwo#1#2{\centering \leavevmode
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth \epsfbox{#1} \hfil
\epsfxsize=.45\textwidth \epsfbox{#2}}
\def\plotfiddle#1#2#3#4#5#6#7{\centering \leavevmode
\vbox to#2{\rule{0pt}{#2}}
\special{psfile=#1 voffset=#7 hoffset=#6 vscale=#5 hscale=#4 angle=#3}}
\newif\if@finalstyle \@finalstylefalse
\if@finalstyle
\ps@myheadings
\let\ps@title=\ps@paspcstitle
\else
\ps@plain
\let\ps@title=\ps@plain
\fi
\ds@twoside
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\title{Stellar Orbits in Barred Galaxies with Nuclear Rings}
\author{Clayton H. Heller}
\affil{Universit\"ats Sternwarte, Geismarlandstra\ss e 11,
D-37083 G\"ottingen, Germany}
\author{Isaac Shlosman}
\affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY 40506-0055, USA}
\begin{abstract}
We investigate the dynamical response of stellar orbits in a rotating
barred galaxy potential to the perturbation by a nuclear gaseous ring.
The change in 3D periodic orbit families is examined as the gas accumulates
near the inner Lindblad resonance.
It is found that the $x_2/x_3$ loop extends to higher Jacobi energy
and a vertical instability strip forms in each family.
These strips are connected by a symmetric/anti-symmetric
pair of $2\!\!:\!\!2\!\!:\!\!1$ 3D orbital families. A significant
distortion of the $x_1$ orbits is observed in the vicinity of the ring, which
leads to the intersection between orbits over a large range of the Jacobi
integral. We also find that a moderately elliptical ring oblique to the
stellar bar produces
significant phase shifts in the $x_1$ orbital response.
\end{abstract}
About 2/3 of all disk galaxies are weakly or strongly barred (de Vaucouleurs
1963), many more are ovally distorted (Bosma 1981; Kormendy 1982) or have
triaxial bulges (Kormendy 1994). Central starburst activity in these galaxies
often
delineates $\sim$few$\times100$ pc size ring-like structures of star forming
regions mixed with molecular gas and dust (Buta \& Crocker 1993). Nuclear
``rings'' seem to be associated with inner Lindblad resonances (ILRs) (Telesco
\& Decher 1988; Shlosman\,{\it et\,al.}\,1989; Kenney\,{\it et\,al.}\,1992;
Athanassoula 1992; Knapen\,{\it
et\,al.}\,1995a,b). Their intrinsic shapes vary from circular to moderately
elliptical, in which case they lead stellar bars by
$\sim 50-90\hbox{$^\circ$}.$ As such, nuclear rings are moderately strong
perturbations on the gravitational potential of the central galactic region,
thus affecting stellar orbits and gas flow there.
We analyze the main stellar orbits (in the plane and 3D) in the presence
of a ring (see also Heller \& Shlosman 1995).
The galaxy model consists of the superposition of four components:
disk, bulge, bar, and ring. The disk is represented by a Miyamoto-Nagai
potential, the bulge by a Plummer sphere, and the bar by a triaxial
Ferrers density distribution. The ring is centered in the ILR region
and for the models presented here is equivalent to $\sim10^9\,{\rm M}_\odot$
or 38\% of the local mass (Model D).
The characteristic diagram for the main planar prograde periodic orbits in the
inner region of the model when no ring is present (Model A) is shown in the
upper frame of Figure~1.
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotfiddle{ringfig1.ps}{5cm}{0}{80}{55}{-240}{-200}
\caption{Characteristic diagrams of the $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$ families
for models without (A) and with (D) a nuclear ring. Stable sections of
the characteristics are represented by solid lines while unstable are
broken. Four vertical instability strips are marked. The long-dashed curve
is the zero velocity curve.}
\end{figure}
The three direct families $x_1$, $x_2$, and $x_3$
are shown along with two vertical instability strips. From the vertical
instability strips bifurcate pairs of symmetric/anti-symmetric 3D orbital
families, $2\!\!:\!\!2\!\!:\!\!1$ (BAN/ABAN) and $2\!\!:\!\!3\!\!:\!\!1$
families from $S_1$ and $S_2$, respectively. The $2\!\!:\!\!3\!\!:\!\!1$
families have interesting orbital shapes that are symmetric about one
vertical plane while being anti-symmetric about the corresponding
perpendicular vertical plane.
As the mass of the ring is increased a ``bump'' in the $x_1$ family
forms and broadens at an ${\rm E}_{\rm J}$ below the ILR. This distortion
represents a local maximum in the y-extent of the orbits, resulting in
a large region of the $x_1$ family to have orbits that intersect with
other $x_1$ orbits at higher ${\rm E}_{\rm J}$. Such orbit intersections
also occur in the $x_2$ family as a local maximum in orbit eccentricity
develops along the sequence.
Also, as the ring's mass is increased the region of stability
close to the plane of the $2\!\!:\!\!2\!\!:\!\!1$ symmetric family increases
while the $x_2/x_3$ loop extends to higher ${\rm E}_{\rm J}$ and develops
two regions of vertical instability. These two instability strips,
one on $x_2$ and one on $x_3$, are connected by a symmetric/anti-symmetric
pair of $2\!\!:\!\!2\!\!:\!\!1$ families elongated perpendicular to the stellar
bar. The symmetric family is stable over half of its characteristic, while
the anti-symmetric is unstable everywhere.
The bottom frame of Figure~1 shows the planar characteristic diagram
for the model with a circular ring and indicates the location of the
$x_2/x_3$ instability strips $S_3$ and $S_4$.
In Figure~2a
\begin{figure}[t]
\plotfiddle{ringfig2a.ps}{2cm}{0}{33}{32}{-210}{-115}
\plotfiddle{ringfig2b.ps}{2cm}{0}{40}{33.1}{-35}{-87}
\caption{(a) Twisting of $x_1$ orbits in model with oblique elliptical
ring. The ring with an ellipticity of 0.4 and semi-major axis
0.04 units is leading the bar by 60\,deg.
The frame is 2\,Kpc on a side.
(b) Eccentricity and position angle of $x_1$ orbits from models
without ring (dot-dashed), with circular ring (dashed), and oblique
elliptical ring (solid), as a function of the Jacobi energy.}
\end{figure}
we show the phase shift or twisting of the $x_1$ orbital
alignment in response to a moderately elliptical ($e=0.4$) ring
leading the stellar bar by 60 degrees. The change in ellipticity
and position angle is given in Figure~2b and is compared
with models A and D. It can be seen that while the
eccentricity as a function of ${\rm E}_{\rm J}$ is only slightly offset
from the circular ring case, the position angle of the orbit semi-major
axis swings from -10 to 35 degrees with respect to the bar. Note, that
innermost $x_1$ orbits trail the bar.
The interior orbits remain stable and continue
to trap a significant region of phase space around them.
The main effect of the circular nuclear ring is to produce intersecting orbits
over a wide range of Jacobi energies in both the $x_1$ and $x_2$
orbit families. Gas on such orbits will shock and dissipate energy
on a dynamical time scale. As a consequence, the gas will quickly
settle down deep inside the resonance region, further
enhancing the ring. The growth of the ring is limited by its self-gravity.
For a non-circular ring oblique to the stellar
bar and leading it, the twisting of the $x_1$ orbits will further enhance
shocks in the gas. It is clear from Figure 2,
that both trailing and leading shocks will develop.
|
\section{Introduction}
Cosmic strings may have formed at a phase transition in the early
universe \cite{Tom,Review}. Information about the initial statistics of
a string network, after the point at which thermal fluctuations
become unimportant and the strings are `frozen in', has largely emerged
from the numerical simulations first performed by Vachaspati and
Vilenkin \cite{VV}.
The simplest case, involving the spontaneous
breaking of a $U(1)$ symmetry, is mimicked by assigning a phase
between 0 and $2\pi$ to each point on a regular lattice.
The lattice spacing then
corresponds to a correlation length $\xi$ characteristic of the
scalar field acquiring the non-zero vacuum expectation value. To look for
field configurations with non-trivial topology, the `geodesic rule'
is invoked. This proposes that to minimise gradient energy the field
will follow geodesic paths on the vacuum manifold as a path in
configuration space is traversed. The phase will thus follow the
`shortest path' between values on adjacent lattice sites. A winding of
$\pm 2\pi$ around a plaquette in the lattice means that a line-like
distribution of zeroes of the field will pierce it --- a cosmic string.
If we impose periodic boundary conditions on our lattice, it becomes
obvious that all string must be in the form of closed loops. One would
expect that this procedure gives a string configuration in our box
that is statistically similar to that when
neighbouring, causally disconnected regions are present\cite{Ray}.
{}From the distribution of lengths of loops, it is easy to make
a distinction between `infinite' string (winding around the box many
times) and smaller loops, peaked at the minimum size of four lattice
spacings. The analytic form of the small-loop distribution is well
understood statistically. It is found that, for a cubic lattice,
around $70-80\%$ of string
exists as infinite string in this scenario, which has long been used
as the generator of initial configurations for the numerical evolution
of string networks \cite{AS,AT,BB}.
If a non-minimal discretisation of the vacuum manifold is used (that
is, in the case of a broken $U(1)$ symmetry, approximating $S^1$ with
more than the smallest number of points, $\theta =$ 0, $2\pi /3$,
$4\pi /3$)
and we employ a cubic
lattice of points, in principle it is possible for all six faces of a
fundamental cell to contain strings. Even in the minimal case, it is
possible for four faces to do so. This requires a random choice
to be made, pairing the incoming and outgoing strings. The only method
that avoids this ambiguity is to use a tetrahedral lattice with a
minimal discretisation, so that at most one string enters and leaves
each cell. String configurations arising from this model have been analysed
recently \cite{HS} and it is found that a slightly lower fraction
(around $65\%$) exists as infinite string.
As a string network evolves, by means of intercommutation and
expansion of the universe, it has been predicted and (to different
extents) observed in the simulations that the characteristic lengths
describing it approach a `scaling regime', in which they grow in
proportion to the horizon size. A typical evolving network will
display an initial flurry of loop production before settling into this
scaling regime with a few long strings and large loops per horizon
volume continuing to (self-) intersect and produce smaller loops.
As such, it has been supposed that the
initial details of the string network are largely washed out after a
few expansion times. This indeed seems to be the case, from both the
numerical work and more recent analytic models of network evolution
\cite{BigTom}.
The question arises, though --- is there a
causal mechanism for creating a string distribution with significantly
less infinite string? In the most extreme case, it is possible that if
there were no infinite string at all, all the loops would disappear
within a finite (and quite short) time.
Recent work by Ferreira and Turok \cite{Ped}
partly confirms this, showing that a different type of scaling occurs
in that case. One way of testing this idea is to
attempt to rectify one of the major simplifications inherent in the
Vachaspati-Vilenkin algorithm, and introduce a {\it
distribution} of domain volumes in the initial conditions, instead of
simply assuming that causally disconnected regions of one value of the
field are of equal volume ($\sim \xi^3$).
\section{Implementing the algorithm}
A cubic lattice was used with a near-continuous \footnote{
i.e. a very high-density discretisation of the circle, that allows
the use of integer arithmetic} representation of
the vacuum manifold, despite the reduction in ambiguity that can
be achieved with the tetrahedral lattice, as mentioned above, since
it simplified the process of creating a domain structure. Physical
space is partitioned into regions of constant $U(1)$ phase by
throwing down domains of random diameter within specified limits and
gradually covering the lattice, dealing with the overlap and fragmentation
of these regions as the box becomes filled with the broken phase.
Roughly spherical domains were experimented with at first. However,
after taking account of the significant domain overlap that resulted from
the random filling of the lattice, and to make the task of ensuring
that no domain was created entirely within another more
straightforward, cubical domains were used. Once this was completed,
strings were located and traced through the lattice, following the
edges of either three or four adjacent domains.
It should be made clear that this is no more than a means of setting up a
domain structure, and in no way claims to simulate the dynamics of an
actual phase transition. Indeed, it is not obvious what order of
transition the results of this algorithm apply to, though it
would seem more closely related to string
formation at the interfaces of expanding bubbles of the true vacuum,
rather than
the uniform emergence of a domain structure in a second-order transition.
As a first guess we might expect a Gaussian distribution of domain
volumes, peaked around some mean value. As it happens this is
difficult to realise, and the size distribution appears to be more
Poissonian
(Fig.\ 1). The results are interesting nevertheless, and in
particular the fact that the resulting form of the graph seems largely
insensitive to modifications to the domain-laying algorithm.
The range of sizes of domains laid down was
systematically increased in order to plot the fraction of the total string
density as `infinite' string, $f_{\infty}$, against
domain volume variance. The variance is normalised to the mean domain
volume in order to remove effects due to uniform scaling-up of
domain volumes.
In the zero-variance limit the Vachaspati-Vilenkin result of
$f_{\infty}\simeq 0.76$ is obtained. The precise value is weakly
dependent on the imposed loop/`infinite' string cutoff --- if we set the
maximum size of a loop to be $4N$, $10N$ and $N^2 /2$, where $N$ is the
length of the side of our box in units of the smallest possible domain
size, the zero-variance values of $f_{\infty}$ are 0.78, 0.77 and
0.75 respectively. Higher-variance values of $f_{\infty}$
change by a similar amount. A cutoff of $N^2 /4$ was used in the
plots presented here.
\begin{figure*}
\label{fig:hist}
\begin{minipage}{4.5in}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1in}
\begin{picture}(2,4.5)
\put(0.5,0.40){\psfig{file=fig1b.ps,width=2in}}
\put(1.5,0.20){(b)}
\put(0.5,2.6){\psfig{file=fig1a.ps,width=2in}}
\put(1.5,2.4){(a)}
\end{picture}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Histograms of domain volumes.
Each illustrates range of domain sizes present for a particular
realisation of the laying algorithm, which fills the box with domains
of diameter randomly chosen in the range 1 to $D$. Figure (a) shows the
results for a $100^3$ box with $D$=5; (b) $D$=15.}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
In figure \ref{fig:main}, each point is the average of 20
runs, with fixed limits on the range of sizes of domains laid down.
The first point is the result of filling half the box with domains of
side 1 or 2, randomly chosen. The remaining space is filled with unit
domains, in order to achieve a low volume variance. Subsequent points
correspond to the box being filled entirely with domains of sides
between 1 and $D$ ($D$=2,3,...,18).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=3.2in}}
\caption{Results for $100^3$ lattice.}
\label{fig:main}
\end{figure}
The initial decrease in $f_{\infty}$ with increasing variance is
perhaps intuitively understood. Typically, on a regular lattice, the
string performs a self-avoiding random walk - one in which the string
is not permitted to intersect itself or any other strings except at
the `origin'. This property is imposed on the strings by the
restrictions of the lattice method. Such a walk has the property that
the end-to-end distance $l$, in units of the step length,
is related to the mean displacement $R$ by
\[
R \sim l^{3/5}.
\]
In fact, the presence of other
strings provides an extra repulsive effect and so gives the string
near-Brownian characteristics $(R \sim l^{1/2})$. This is confirmed
in the simulations --- typical figures for the $l$ exponent were
$\simeq 0.47 \pm 0.04$ at zero variance.
However, the presence of extended
regions of space from which the string is excluded, i.e. larger
domains, provides restrictions on the ability of the string to `fold
in' on itself. Effectively, in the region of these larger domains, we
expect that a loop of a given radius will have a smaller perimeter
than a similar loop in a region of unit domains. This will increase
the density of loops below the cutoff size.
It is worth noting that as the variance increases,
there exist more ways to fill the box and so
a wider range of possible domain configurations. This also emphasises
the point that volume variance is almost certainly
not the only parameter describing
the spatial distribution of phases that determines $f_{\infty}$.
Statistics at high values of $N$ became unreliable, but it is intriguing
to speculate whether further increases in the variance could well
force all string to be in the form of small loops. The finite size of
the simulation limits the maximum value of N we can reasonably investigate.
\section{Percolation effects}
Another way to observe a reduction in the density of infinite string
is to impose a `tilt' on the vacuum manifold, statistically favouring
the occurrence of one phase \cite{Tan}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=2.8in}}
\caption{Plot of $f_{\infty}$ against the bias parameter $\gamma$ for
a zero-variance, $100^3$ box. Each point is averaged over 20 realisations.}
\label{fig:perc}
\end{figure}
If we employ a three-point discretisation
and gradually increase a bias parameter $\gamma$, such that $ P({\mbox{phase
1}}) = \gamma, P(2)=P(3)= \frac{1}{2}(1-\gamma) $, we find that
$f_{\infty}$ drops smoothly, reaching zero at $\gamma \simeq 0.5$
(Fig.\ \ref{fig:perc}).
A phase is said to percolate when it is possible to trace continuous
`infinite' paths through that phase in the box.
Clearly there {\it is} a relation between the strings percolating
(passing through the Hagedorn transition)
and the percolation of phases in the box in this minimally discretised
case. For a string to exist it must have all three phases around it.
An infinite string will therefore ensure that all phases percolate
(including diagonally adjacent regions).
At least one phase percolates for all values of $\gamma$ ---
the critical probability for the occurrence of one phase $p_c$,
above which it percolates, is 0.31 \cite{VV}.
In fact, we note that when $\gamma \simeq
0.5$, $P(2) = P(3) \simeq 0.25$, which is very near the percolation
threshold.
It is interesting to ask whether there is a connection between
increasing the variance of the domain volume and moving away from
string percolation.
Statistical fluctuations in the volume of the
domains will result in the fractions of box volume occupied by each
phase departing from $1/3$, becoming more divergent as the range of
sizes of domains increases. We suggest that this can be interpreted as
an effective tilt of the vacuum manifold.
The fact that a bias will reduce the amount of long string
is easily understood. We consider the probability $p$ that a given
plaquette is pierced by a string ($p=8/27$ ($\approx 0.30$)
in the case of three-point
discretisation). Given that we have an ingoing string through one
face, what is the probability that this string will turn through $\pi
/2$ in the cell under consideration? Obviously the opposite face has
four independent phases (1,2 or 3) attached to it, so the probability
of it containing an {\it outgoing} string is $p/2$. Given this
configuration, the probability of the cell containing a further
ingoing/outgoing string is 1/4. Thus the probability that our string
continues through the cell undeviated, assuming we pair strings
within the box randomly, is
\[
\left( \frac{p}{2} \times \frac{3}{4} \right) +
\left( \frac{p}{2} \times \frac{1}{4} \right)
\times \frac{1}{2} = \frac{7}{16}p.
\]
As we increase the bias parameter $\gamma$ we obviously decrease the
probability $p$. In fact,
\[ p = 2 \gamma (1- \gamma)^2,\]
giving values for $p$ of 0.30, 0.15 and 0.02 for $\gamma = 1/3$,
2/3 and 8/9 respectively.
Thus, strings will be more likely to fold up as $\gamma$
grows, and the population of small loops will increase.
This agrees with ref. \cite{HS}, who point out that
as the bias increases and the strings stop percolating, the fractal
dimension of the strings becomes higher than two and they tend to
`crumple up' more --- they become self-seeking random walks.
Unfortunately,
statistics were too poor to investigate any change in the fractal
dimension of the strings as the bias or the variance was increased.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig4.ps,width=2.8in}}
\caption{Correlating the volume variance with the bias parameter $\gamma$}
\label{fig:correlate}
\end{figure}
However, it is possible to investigate qualitatively the connection
between domain volume variance and a vacuum tilt by calculating values for
the variance for each value of the bias
$\gamma$ in figure \ref{fig:perc}.
We set up the box by throwing down phases in single
cells according to the biased probability distribution. We then group
adjoining cells containing the same phase to form larger domains,
whose volumes we calculate.
The results are plotted in figure \ref{fig:correlate}.
The errorbars are misleading
since there is clearly a correlation, and this is to be expected
intuitively --- the more one phase appears at the expense of others, the
bigger the range of sizes of domains present.
Exploring the idea further, we calculate the bias parameter `geometrically',
given the volume occupied by each of the three phases in the box. The
results of this procedure are shown in figure
\ref{fig:effective_tilt}. The values of $\gamma_{\mbox{eff}}$ are too
low to correspond to those in the original figure (\ref{fig:perc}), and
the plots are not similar in form. However, the increase of
$\gamma_{\mbox{eff}}$ as $f_\infty$ decreases is in agreement.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig5.ps,width=2.8in}}
\caption{Calculation of the effective bias parameter in the
minimally-discretised case. For increasing values of N, a value for
$\gamma$ was calculated from the fractions of the box occupied by each
of the three phases.}
\label{fig:effective_tilt}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}
We have seen that a simple extension to the accepted numerical model
for string formation can yield a significantly different estimate of
the amount of infinite string present. It seems feasible that
increasing the variance of the volumes of regions with different VEVs
is equivalent to an effective tilt of the vacuum manifold, that leads
to a reduction in the density of infinite string when considering a
finite volume with periodic boundary conditions. Whether this is the
case in the infinite-volume limit is more debatable. With three-point
discretisation, the variance
becomes ill-defined in this regime, as all three phases percolate.
However, in this
limit it is also unclear whether there is truly a population of
infinite string, distinct from the $l^{-5/2}$ loop distribution, or if
it is purely an artefact of the boundary conditions.
As yet there is no physical argument to suggest what the volume
variance in a given phase transition will be --- and even, considering
the effects of phase equilibration at domain boundaries, how
well-defined this quantity is. Models of dynamic defect formation, even
with simplified treatments of the physics involved in a real
phase transition, may give improved predictions of the defect
configurations \cite{Julian}.
One of the consequences of the existence of GUT-scale strings is the
possibility of their being responsible for structure formation.
It is only the infinite string and large loops that will survive long
enough to be useful in this scenario, as
a huge number of Hubble times elapse between string formation and
when perturbations on interesting
(galactic) scales will begin to grow. It may be that if the amount of
long string present is very low, then their structure-seeding
properties will be less significant than previously thought.
Certainly, the proposed existence of a unique scaling solution for the
string network, independent of initial conditions, would be put into
doubt.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Pedro Ferreira and Julian Borrill for
helpful discussions, and James Robinson for contributing part of the
code. A.Y. was funded by PPARC.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The symmetry of the order parameter $\Delta_{\bf q}$---the energy
gap in the quasiparticle excitation spec\-trum---in the high-$T_c$
superconductors (HTSC's) has been a very active area of research
in the last few years. Assuming that the order parameter is a
spin singlet as seems to be indicated by Knight-shift
experiments \cite{Barrett}, the angular pairing state has to be
even, leaving $s$-wave ($L$=0) and $d$-wave ($L$=2) as the main
alternatives. Different theories make different predictions for the order
parameter, which is the reason for the interest in the symmetry
of $\Delta_{\bf q}$.
There are essentially two classes of experiments to determine the
symmetry of the energy gap, those that are sensitive to the
magnitude of the order
parameter, and those that are sensitive to the phase of it.
Measurements of the acoustic
attenuation \cite{MorseBohm} and the NMR nuclear-spin relaxation
rate \cite{Hebel}, which belong to the first category, were instrumental
in establishing the BCS theory in the conventional
superconductors \cite{Schrieffer}. Acoustic Attenuation was
also used to examine anisotropy in the conventional superconductors
due to the crystal symmetry \cite{Morse}.
However, while many NMR experiments have been performed on the HTSC's
(cf. the review by Slichter {\em et al.}\ \cite{Slichter93}), acoustic
attenuation experiments have been neglected in recent years.
We will discuss the
theory of acoustic attenuation for the HTSC's, and propose an
experiment to probe the symmetry of the order parameter using acoustic
attenuation.
Acoustic attenuation is observed with an experimental setup \cite{Rayne},
where an ultrasonic signal, typically with frequencies ranging from
100 MHz to 10 GHz, is fed into a sample through a
transducer quartz. The resulting phonons with wave vector $\bf q$,
energy $\omega$, and polarization $\lambda$ can be scattered
by quasiparticles, and the remaining
fraction of phonons is observed at the other end of the sample.
In addition to the electronic mechanism, where the phonons are scattered
by quasiparticles, there will also be a lattice contribution to the
attenuation rate.
We will discuss how the electronic contribution can be resolved against
the lattice background.
\section{Acoustic Attenuation}
\label{sec:acat}
We consider processes in which phonons are
absorbed by a sample through scattering of quasiparticles from
a state ${\bf p_1}$ into a state ${\bf p_2}$,
where ${\bf q} = {\bf p_2} - {\bf p_1} + {\bf K}$ is
the momentum of the incoming phonon and ${\bf K}$ is a reciprocal lattice
vector. The inverse process of spontaneous
emission of phonons by quasiparticles also has to be taken into account.
To understand the effect of anisotropy of the order parameter
it is important to understand how the involved momenta are related.
The quasiparticle is scattered from a state $\bf p_1$ near the
Fermi surface to another state $\bf p_2$,
which also has to be near the Fermi surface.
This means that both ${\bf p_1}$ and ${\bf p_2}$ are of order $k_F$.
$\bf q$, the phonon momentum, is smaller by some orders of magnitude.
This means that $\bf p_1$ and $\bf p_2$ point essentially in the
same direction.
The HTSC's are quasi-two-dimensional layered materials.
Their Fermi surface is nearly cylindrical with little dependence
on the coordinate in the $c$-direction.
For a three-dimensional Fermi sphere, $\bf p_1$ and $\bf p_2$
are fixed on a belt around the Fermi surface \cite{Morse},
perpendicular to the direction of the phonon momentum $\bf q$.
For a given phonon momentum $\bf q$ in the $a$-$b$-plane in the
quasi-two-dimensional case, this belt degenerates to two
points on opposite sides of the Fermi surface.
Thus,
the order parameter is probed only in a specified direction.
This provides an opportunity to measure the anisotropy in the
magnitude of the order parameter.
The interaction of phonons with quasiparticles can be written as
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{\mbox{el-ph}} = \sum_{{\bf p_1},{\bf p_2},s,\lambda}
g_{{\bf p_1,p_2},\lambda}
(a_{{\bf q} \lambda} + a_{-{\bf q} \lambda}^\dagger)
c_{{\bf p_2} s}^\dagger
c_{{\bf p_1} s},
\label{eq:HamiltonianAc}
\end {equation}
where the relation between $\bf q$, $\bf p_1$, and $\bf p_2$ was given
above. Here $g_{{\bf p_1,p_2},\lambda}$ is the
interaction strength, $a_{{\bf q} \lambda}$ is a phonon destruction operator,
and $c_{{\bf p_1} s}$ an electron destruction operator. The electron operators
$c$, $c^\dagger$ can be transformed into superconducting
quasiparticle operators $\gamma$,
$\gamma^\dagger$ with a standard Boguljubov transformation.
Starting from this Hamiltonian it is straightforward to derive an
expression for the acoustic attenuation rate (e.g.\ cf.\
Schrieffer \cite{Schrieffer})
$\alpha_{{\bf q},\lambda}$ with
\begin {equation}
\alpha_{{\bf q},\lambda}=4\pi \sum_{{\bf p_1},{\bf p_2}} |g_{{\bf
p_1,p_2},\lambda}|^2 \, n^2 ({\bf p_1},{\bf p_2}) \, (f_{\bf p_1}-f_{\bf p_2})
\, \delta(E_{\bf p_2}-E_{\bf p_1}-\omega_{{\bf q} \lambda})
\end{equation}
for phonons of wave vector $\bf q$ and polarization $\lambda$. The involved
phonon frequency $\omega_{{\bf q} \lambda}$ is given by the dispersion
relation of the phonons.
The square of the so-called coherence factor $n$ is evaluated to be
\begin {equation}
n^2({\bf p_1},{\bf p_2})=(u_{\bf p_1} u_{\bf p_2} - v_{\bf p_1} v_{\bf
p_2})^2=
\frac {1} {2} \left(1+ \frac {\epsilon_{\bf p_1} \epsilon_{\bf
p_2}-\Delta_{\bf p_1} \Delta_{\bf p_2}} {E_{\bf p_1} E_{\bf p_2}}\right).
\end{equation}
Here, ${\epsilon_{\bf p}}$ is the single-particle energy relative
to the Fermi energy and $E_{\bf p}$ is the superconducting
quasiparticle excitation energy,
$E_{\bf p}=\sqrt{\epsilon_{\bf p}^2+ \Delta_{\bf p}^2}$.
$f_{\bf q} \equiv 1/(1+\exp (E_{\bf q}/k_B T))$ is the Fermi function.
We assume that $g_{{\bf p_1,p_2} ,\lambda}$ only depends on the momentum
transfer ${\bf q} = {\bf p_2} - {\bf p_1}$.
It is assumed that the order parameter depends only on the direction,
but not on the magnitude of {\bf p}, and that the angular dependence of
the order parameter does not change with temperature $T$.
Finally we are led to
\begin {eqnarray}
\alpha_{{\bf q},\lambda} & = & \mbox{const.} \times \int d\epsilon_{\bf p_1}
d\epsilon_{\bf p_2} \left(1-\frac {\Delta_{\bf p_1} \Delta_{\bf p_2}}
{E_{\bf p_1}
E_{\bf p_2}}\right) \nonumber \\*
& & \times (f(E_{\bf p_1})-f(E_{\bf p_2}))
\delta(E_{\bf p_2}-E_{\bf p_1}-\omega_{q \lambda}) \nonumber \\*
& = & \mbox{const.} \times \int dE_{\bf p_1} \frac {E_{\bf p_1}}
{\sqrt{E_{\bf p_1}^2
-\Delta_{\bf p_1}^2}} \frac {E_{\bf p_1}+\omega_{q \lambda}}
{\sqrt{(E_{\bf p_1}+\omega_{q \lambda})^2-\Delta_{\bf p_2}^2}}
\nonumber
\\*
& & \times \left(1-\frac {\Delta_{\bf p_1} \Delta_{\bf p_2}} {E_{\bf p_1}
(E_{\bf p_1}+\omega_{q \lambda})}\right)
(f(E_{\bf p_1})-f(E_{\bf p_1}+\omega_{q
\lambda})).
\label{eq:int}
\end{eqnarray}
We do not get an angular integration because $\bf q$ picks certain
values for the directions of $\bf p_1$ and $\bf p_2$.
These directions, $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$, are very close to one another
due to momentum conservation as argued above, and can be controlled
experimentally. For our calculations we used
$\hbar \omega_{q \lambda} = 10^{-5}k_B T_c$. The results are quite
insensitive to the value of $\omega$ as long as
$\hbar \omega << k_B T_c$.
\section{Symmetry of the Energy Gap}
\label{sec:symmetry}
To calculate the acoustic attenuation rate $\alpha_{{\bf q},\lambda}(T)$,
the temperature dependence
of the reduced gap, $\Delta_0(T)/\Delta_0(0)$, will be assumed to be BCS-like
as a function of reduced temperature.
We have tested that this assumption is consistent with both an $s$- and
$d$-wave gap with appropriate potentials in the BCS gap
equation \cite{Diplom}.
For the angular dependence of the gap, $\Delta({\theta})$, different
models will be examined:
\begin {equation}
\Delta(\theta,T) =
\left\{ \begin{array} {ll}
\Delta_0(T) &\mbox {isotropic } s\mbox{-wave},\\
\Delta_0(T) \cos (2\theta) &d\mbox{-wave},\\
\Delta_0(T) \left[ a\cos^2 (2\theta)+(1-a) \right] &\mbox
{anisotropic } s\mbox{-wave}.
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq:gapforms}
\end {equation}
In conventional superconductors one calculates the
attenuation rate in the superconducting state normalized to
the attenuation rate in the normal state. In HTSC's, however,
this is not an interesting quantity because it is not experimentally
accessible. In conventional superconductors one can always drive
the system into the normal state even at temperatures much below $T_c$
by applying a sufficiently large magnetic field. In HTSC's, however,
the critical fields are prohibitively high. Thus, we normalize the
attenuation rate to its value at $T_c$.
Evaluating Eq.\ (\ref{eq:int}) with $\bf q$ pointing in different
directions relative to the lattice amounts to taking different
effective magnitudes of $\Delta$.
We consider $q/k_F$ very small so that
$\theta_1\simeq\theta_2$, and thus
$\Delta_{\bf p_1}\simeq\Delta_{\bf p_2}$. The direction of $\bf q$
can be controlled experimentally. Fig.\ 1 shows the
attenuation rate as a function of temperature for different effective
magnitudes of the gap. A $2 \Delta_0(T=0)/k_B T_c=3.5$ corresponds to the
isotropic BCS case.
Because for a particular $\bf q$ only the magnitude of the gap in the
direction perpendicular to $\bf q$ enters, Fig.\ 1 holds for
a particular $\bf q$ no matter what the symmetry of the gap is.
This is true as long as the temperature dependence of the gap in that
direction behaves like the BCS temperature dependence.
At the high temperatures near $T_c$, $T_c \simeq 90$ K,
lattice contributions to the attenuation rate become important,
but the strong temperature dependence of
the electronic contribution near $T_c$ provides an opportunity
to still measure it.
Since the superconducting
transition should not affect any but the electronic contribution
to the attenuation, measuring the attenuation rate just
above and below $T_c$ allows one to separate
{\em electronic} contributions from {\em lattice} contributions.
In particular any eventual anisotropy of a lattice contribution should
not be influenced by the superconducting transition, at least as long as
the temperature difference between the measurements is not too large.
Using this approach, the anisotropy of the electronic attenuation rate
becomes an experimentally accessible quantity, which can be used to
examine the symmetry of the superconducting gap in the HTSC's.
For an isotropic $s$-wave gap the electronic contribution to the
attenuation rate should not change as the
crystal is rotated. For an anisotropic order parameter, either
$s$- or $d$-wave, maxima should be observed
in directions perpendicular to
where the order parameter
is a minimum or even has nodes. At a node the attenuation rate should
go up to the normal state value at the corresponding temperature.
Fig.\ 2 shows how the acoustic attenuation rate varies
at a temperature of 0.95 $T_c$ for different symmetries of the
order parameter as a function of the direction of the incoming phonons
relative to the lattice. A value of $2\Delta_0(T=0)/k_B T_c=6$ is assumed.
All rates are normalized to the acoustic
attenuation rate without a gap, which is essentially the electronic
attenuation rate at $T_c$, since normal electronic contributions should not
vary much over
this small range of temperatures. While all symmetries show a significant
suppression in certain directions, which allow the resolution of
the electronic contribution against the lattice background, the very
anisotropic symmetries show little or no suppression in those
directions where minima or nodes of the gap are located.
\section{Discussion and Summary}
\label{sec:disc}
The acoustic attenuation method, which was very successful in
verifying BCS theory for conventional superconductors, has the
potential to provide useful information on the order parameter in
high $T_c$ materials.
Early on some measurements have been made
(Yusheng {\em et al.}\ \cite {Yusheng}),
but it has been argued \cite {Almond} that the effect seen was too large
to be the actual electronic contribution to the attenuation rate.
However, since then sample qualities have been improved considerably,
and, with our proposed focusing on temperatures near
$T_c$, this method has a potential that has not been exploited yet.
Won and Maki \cite {Won} recently also discussed acoustic attenuation
in HTSC's;
however, they do make some additional approximations to solve the
problem analytically, only consider $d$-wave, and argue that at {\em low}
temperatures, where the rate is already strongly suppressed,
this rate should be strongly anisotropic.
We propose that the attenuation be measured at temperatures
near $T_c$, where one should see the anisotropy, but still
have a measurable rate. Any observed sharp drop
in the attenuation rate near $T_c$ can be attributed to the
electronic properties of the system since the lattice properties
should not change dramatically near the superconducting transition.
{\bf Note Added in Proof:} After the present paper was submitted for
publication, we learned of a paper by Kostur {\it et al.} \cite{Kostur}
(KBF) which reports on calculations of
ultrasonic attenuation in a model d-wave superconductor.
The results are quite similar to those presented here. We feel that our
paper compliments KBF in that we consider anisotropic s-wave
superconductors in addition to d-wave. Also, we suggest that the best
way to separate the
anisotropic attenuation due to quasiparticles from that due to the
lattice is to compare results just above $T_c$ with those just
below $T_c$, whereas KBF seem to advocate looking at low temperatures.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank J.\ Appel and C.\ Timm for useful discussions.
T.\ W.\ likes to thank Indiana University for the hospitality
during his stay in Bloomington, and gratefully acknowledges financial support
through the Indiana University Overseas Exchange Fellowship.
\pagebreak
|
\section{Introduction}
In a preceding article \cite{p10}, an attempt is made to simplify the
study of the algebraic structure of dynamical systems involving
($p=2$) parabose and parafermi variables. The approach presented in
\cite{p10} is aimed to facilitate the analysis of systems possessing
parabose -- parafermi supersymmetry, thus providing the necessary framework
for investigating the relation between the conventional parastatistics
of Green \cite{green} and the more recent developments of parasupersymmetric
quantum mechanics \cite{r-s,b-d,p8,p9}. More specifically the purpose
of the present article is to answer to the question:
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
{\em Is parabose -- parafermi supersymmetry the same as
parasupersymmetry?}
\end{itemize}
One should note that the so-called ``parasupersymmetric oscillators''
studied in the literature, e.g., \cite{r-s,b-d}, are constructed using
some specific matrix representation of the parafermi operators. The
analysis presented in this paper does not restrict to matrix representations
and treats the parafermi and parabose operators (variables) as fundamental
mathematical objects.
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec.~2, the main results of \cite{p10}
are quoted and the possibility of the existence of parabose -- parafermi
(supersymmetry) transformations is investigated. In Sec.~3, the analogy
between the ($p=2$) parabose -- parafermi supersymmetry and the ordinary
bose -- fermi supersymmetry is discussed. The example of the supersymmetric
oscillator is then reviewed and the ($p=2$) parabose -- parafermi
oscillator is introduced by analogy. In Sec.~4, the parabose -- parafermi
supersymmetries of the oscillator are studied. In Sec.~5, the super Lie
algebra of the symmetries of the oscillator is used to define the
notion of {\em ($p=2$) Supersymmetric Paraquantum Mechanics}. This section
also offers a detailed treatment of the degeneracy structure of general
($p=2$) supersymmetric paraquantum mechanics. Sec.~6 is devoted to an
analysis of the energy eigenstates and the spectrum degeneracy
of the parabose -- parafermi oscillator. Here, the explicit form of
a complete set of energy eigenstate vectors is obtained. Sec.~7
includes the conclusions.
For brevity we shall use the notation $\pi b$, $\pi f$, $\pi SUSY$ for
{\em ($p=2$) parabose, parafermi,} and {\em parabose -- parafermi
supersymmetry}, and abbreviations SQM, PSQM, SPQM for {\em supersymmetric
quantum mechanics}, {\em parasupersymmetric quantum mechanics}, and
{\em supersymmetric paraquantum mechanics}, respectively. We shall follow
Einstein summation convention of summing over repeated indices throughout
the paper, unless otherwise indicated.
\section{Algebraic Structure of Classical $\pi SUSY$}
In this section, first we recall the constructions developed in \cite{p10}.
The algebra of the creation $a_k^{\mu\dagger}$ and annihilation operators
$a_k^{\mu}$ for the ($p=2$) $\pi b$ ($\mu=0$) and $\pi f$ ($\mu=1$)
variables is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
a_k^{\mu}&=&\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\zeta^{\alpha\mu}_k\;,
\label{e1}\\
\theta_{k 1}^{\alpha\mu}&:=& \sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2}}
(\zeta_k^{\alpha\mu}+
\zeta_k^{\alpha\mu\dagger})\;,
\label{e2} \\
\theta_{k 0}^{\alpha\mu}&:=& -i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2}}
(\zeta_k^{\alpha\mu}-\zeta_k^{\alpha\mu\dagger})\;,
\label{e3}\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \theta_{im}^{\alpha\mu},\theta_{jn}^{\beta\nu}]\hspace{-.3mm}]&:=&
\hbar\delta_{ij}\delta^{\alpha\beta}
[i(1-\mu)(1-\nu)\epsilon_{mn}+\mu\nu\delta_{mn}]\;,
\label{e4}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\zeta$'a are the Green components of $a$'s \cite{green}, $\alpha,
\beta,\mu,\nu=0,1$, $m,n=1,2$, and $[\hspace{-.3mm}[~,~]\hspace{-.3mm}]$ is the parabraket:
\begin{equation}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \theta_{im}^{\alpha\mu},\theta_{jn}^{\beta\nu}]\hspace{-.3mm}]
:= \theta_{im}^{\alpha\mu}\theta_{jn}^{\beta\nu}
-(-1)^{\mu\nu+\alpha+\beta}
\theta_{jn}^{\beta\nu}\theta_{im}^{\alpha\mu}\;,
\label{pbraket}
\end{equation}
introduced in \cite{p10}. Note that Eq.~(\ref{e4}) is the statement of
the canonical quantization rule for the Green components $\theta$ on
the one hand, and the expression of the normal relative statistics
\cite{g-m,p10} on the other. The classical analogs of the self-adjoint
operators $\theta$ are obtained by setting $\hbar=0$ in Eq.~(\ref{e4}).
One also generalizes the definition of the parabracket to arbitrary
polynomials in $\theta$'s, according to:
\begin{equation}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ M,N ]\hspace{-.3mm}]=MN-(-)^{\eta(M,N)}MN\;,
\label{e5}
\end{equation}
where $M$ and $N$ are monomials:
\begin{eqnarray}
M&:=&\theta_{i_1 m_1}^{\alpha_1\mu_1}\cdots\theta_{i_r m_r}^{
\alpha_r \mu_r}\;,\nonumber\\
N&:=&\theta_{j_1 n_1}^{\beta_1\nu_1}\cdots\theta_{j_s n_s}^{
\beta_s \nu_s}\;,\nonumber\\
\eta(M,N)&:=&(\sum_{k=1}^r\mu_k)(\sum_{l=1}^s\nu_l)+
r\sum_{l=1}^s\beta_l+s\sum_{k=1}^r\alpha_k\;,
\label{e6}
\end{eqnarray}
and bilinearity of the parabracket. In the classical limit the parabracket
of any two polynomials vanishes identically.
In Ref.~\cite{p10}, it is also argued that in the Lagrangian formulation
of the para-classical mechanics, the Green components of the
$\pi b$ coordinate variables are $\theta^{\alpha \mu=0}_{i m=1}$. Thus,
one introduces a collective index $I =(i,m)$ which may take $(i=1,\cdots,
n_{\pi b};m=1)$ for $\mu=0$ and $(i=1,\cdots,n_{\pi f};m=1,2)$ for
$\mu=1$, and denote the Green components of the coordinate variables
by $\theta_I^{\alpha\mu}$. The physical quantities, such as a Lagrangian,
is chosen from the algebra of polynomials in the coordinates
\begin{equation}
\psi^\mu_I:=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\theta^{\alpha\mu}_I
\label{e7}
\end{equation}
and the velocities $\dot{\psi}^\alpha_I$. For computational convenience,
they are then expressed in terms of the Green components $\theta^{\alpha\mu
}_I$ and $\dot{\theta}^{\alpha\mu}_I$.
As a polynomial in (the classical) $\theta$'s and $\dot{\theta}$'s,
a Lagrangian must satisfy (up to total time derivatives) the following
conditions \cite{p10}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1)] It must be real.
\item[2)] It must be an even polynomial in both $\pi b$ ($\mu=0$) and
$\pi f$ ($\mu=1)$ variables.
\end{itemize}
To define the notion of reality in the algebra of polynomials in
$\theta$'s and $\dot\theta$'s (alternatively in $\psi$'s and $\dot\psi$'s),
one first introduces a $*$--operation satisfying:
$$(\xi_{x_1}\cdots\xi_{x_n})^*=\xi_{x_n}\cdots\xi_{x_1}\;,$$
$$(\lambda_1P_1+\lambda_2P_2)^*=\lambda_1^*P_1^*+\lambda_2^*P_2^*\;,$$
where $\xi_{x_i}$ are any of the generators: $\theta$'s and $\dot\theta$'s
(resp.\ $\psi$'s and $\dot\psi$'s), $\lambda_a\in\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}$ with $a=1,2$,
$\lambda_a^*$ are their complex conjugates, and $P_a$ are polynomials in
$\xi_{x_i}$. Then a polynomial $P$ is defined to be real if $P^*=P$.
The classical dynamics of the system is given by the least action principle,
where the action functional has the form: $S=\int L dt$. This leads to the
analogs of the Euler-Lagrange equations:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}(L\frac{\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}}{\partial \dot{\theta}})-
L\frac{\stackrel{\leftarrow}{\partial}}{\partial\theta}=0\;.
\label{e8}
\end{equation}
Here the indices on $\theta$'s are suppressed for simplicity and the
left partial derivatives with respet to $\theta$'s and $\dot\theta$'s
are defined in Refs.~\cite{o-k,p10}.
Having reviewed the basic elements of the Lagrangian formulation
of para-classical systems, we would like to address the question:
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
{\em Does the algebraic structure of ($p=2$) parastatistical
dynamical variables allow for a transformation of $\pi b$ variables
into $\pi f$ variables and vice versa?}
\end{itemize}
Unlike, the case of ordinary ($p=1$) fermi -- bose systems, where
the product of two fermi variables is a commutative algebraic object
and thus behaves as a bose variable, the algebraic structure of the
($p=2$) variables is too complicated to have such a simple grading.
Nevertheless, in view of the formalism developed in \cite{p10}, one can
easily respond to the above mentioned question in the positive.
To see this, consider the algebra $B$ of the real Green components generated
by $\xi_k^{\alpha\mu}$, and the algebra $A$ generated by:
$$\gamma_k^\mu=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1 \xi_k^{\alpha\mu}\;.$$
The elements of $A$ (resp.\ $B$) will be used as non-dynamical parameters
added to the algebra of polynomials in dynamical variables
$\psi$'s and $\dot\psi$'s (resp.\ $\theta$'s and $\dot\theta$'s). Then
in the enlarged algebra, it is not difficult to check that the multiplication
of dynamical variables $\psi^\mu_I$ and $\dot\psi^\mu_I$ by the real
parameters:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_k=\{\gamma^0_k,\gamma^1_k\}:=
\sum_{\alpha,\beta=0}^1\{\xi^{\alpha \mu=0}_k,
\xi^{\beta \mu=1}_k\}\;,
\label{e9}
\end{equation}
changes their parity. Here there is no summation over the index $k$.
This can be easily verified by defining
$\psi^{\alpha\mu'}_{I}:=\psi^{\alpha\mu}_I \gamma_k$ and examining their
commutation properties by first decomposing them into their Green
components. One can further show that $\gamma_k$ commute with all the
parabose variables and anticommute with all the parafermi variables.
Presence of $\gamma_k$ allows for the existence of the $\pi SUSY$
transformations. We shall examine examples of such symmetry transformations
in the next section. We shall also introduce $\delta\gamma_k$ which are
analogs of the (fermionic) parameters of the infinitesimal supersymmetry
transformations.
\section{SUSY and $\pi$SUSY Oscillators}
A thorough discussion of the supersymmetric (SUSY) oscillator is offered
in Ref.~\cite{bd}. The Hamiltonian operator of one-dimensional SUSY
oscillator is the sum of the Hamiltonians of a fermi and a bose oscillators
with identical frequencies, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{H}&=&\hat{H}^0+\hat{H}^1\;,
\label{e10}\\
\hat{H}^0&:=&\frac{\omega}{2}\{\hat a^\dagger,\hat a\}\;,
\label{e10.1}\\
\hat H^1&:=&\frac{\omega}{2}[\hat \alpha^\dagger,\hat \alpha]\;.
\label{e10.2}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\hat a$ and $\hat a^\dagger$ (resp.\ $\hat\alpha$ and
$\hat\alpha^\dagger$) stand for the bosonic (resp.\ fermionic) annihilation
and creation operators and the hats are placed to distinguish the
quantum mechanical operators and the classical dynamical variables.
The combined system of two oscillators (\ref{e10}) serves as a simple
example of a supersymmetric system. To reveal the supersymmetry of
this system, we shall first switch to the self-adjoint operators:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat x&:=&\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2\omega}}\,(\hat a+\hat a^\dagger)\;,
\nonumber\\
\hat p&:=&-i\sqrt{\frac{\omega\hbar}{2}}\,(\hat a -\hat a^\dagger)\;,
\label{e11}\\
\hat
\psi_1&=&\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2}}\,(\hat\alpha+\hat\alpha^\dagger)\;,
\nonumber\\
\hat
\psi_2&=&-i\sqrt{\frac{\hbar}{2}}\,(\hat\alpha-\hat\alpha^\dagger)\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Then the Hamiltonian (\ref{e10}) takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\hat H=\frac{1}{2}(\hat p^2+\omega^2 \hat x^2)+\frac{i\omega}{2}
\epsilon_{mn}\hat \psi_m\hat \psi_n\;,
\label{e12}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{mn}$ are the components of the Levi Civita symbol.
The classical counterpart of the SUSY oscillator is obtained by dropping
the hats in the above relations and treating $x$ and $p$ as bosonic
(commuting or even) and $\psi_m$ as fermionic (anticommuting or
odd) supernumbers \cite{bd}, respectively.
The classical SUSY oscillator may also be described using the Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
L=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2-\omega^2x^2)+\frac{i}{2}\delta_{mn}
(\psi_m\dot \psi_n-\dot
\psi_m\psi_n)-\frac{i\omega}{2}\epsilon_{mn}\psi_m
\psi_n\;,
\label{e13}
\end{equation}
where $m,n=1,2$. Then it is an easy exercise to check that this Lagrangian
is invariant (up to total time derivatives) under the transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta x&=&i\psi_m\,\delta\zeta_m \;, \label{e14}\\
\delta \psi_m&=&(\delta_{mn}\dot x+\omega\epsilon_{mn}
x)\,\delta\zeta_n\;,
\label{e15}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta\zeta_n$ are ``infinitesimal'' fermionic supernumber parameters
\cite{bd}. The corresponding N\"other charges of this symmetry -- the
supercharges -- are given by:
\begin{equation}
Q_m=\lambda (\delta_{mn}\dot x-\omega\epsilon_{mn}x)\psi_n\;,
\label{charge}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda\in\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}$ is an arbitrary non-zero coefficient. Upon quantization
of this system one can easily show that the supercharges, that generate
the supersymmetry transformations, and the Hamiltonian satisfy the
defining algebra of SQM. In particular, taking $\lambda=1/\sqrt{\hbar}$,
one has:
\begin{equation}
\{ \hat Q_m,\hat Q_n\}=2\delta_{mn}\hat H\;.
\label{sqm}
\end{equation}
Next, let us introduce the para-generalization of the SUSY oscillator.
We shall denote this by $\pi$SUSY oscillator for simplicity.
In general, the Hamiltonian for the parabose and parafermi oscillators
is given by Eqs.~(\ref{e10.1}) and (\ref{e10.2}), with $\hat a$ and
$\hat\alpha$, now, denoting the parabose and parafermi annihilation operators,
respectively, \cite{o-k}. Returning to our notation of Sec.~2, we set
$\hat a:=\hat a^{\mu=0}$ and $\hat\alpha:=\hat a^{\mu=1}$. In terms of the
self-adjoint operators: $\hat\psi^\mu:=\hat\psi^\mu_{i=1}$ of Eq.~(\ref{e7})
and their Green components $\theta_m^{\alpha\mu}:=\theta_{i=1,m}^{\alpha\mu}$,
we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat H^\mu&=&\frac{\omega}{2}[ (1-\mu)\delta_{mn}\hat\psi^\mu_m
\hat\psi^\mu_n+i\mu\epsilon_{mn}\hat\psi_m^\mu\hat\psi_n^\mu ]\;,
\label{e16}\\
&=&\frac{\omega}{2}[ (1-\mu)\delta_{mn}
\hat\theta_m^{\alpha\mu}\hat\theta_n^{\alpha\mu}+
i\mu\epsilon_{mn}\hat\theta_m^{\alpha\mu}\hat\theta_n^{\alpha\mu}]\;,
\label{e17}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu=0,1$ correspond to $\pi b$ and $\pi f$ oscillators, respectively.
The ($p=2$) -- $\pi$SUSY oscillator is then defined by Eq.~(\ref{e10}):
\begin{equation}
\hat H=\hat H^0+\hat H^1=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\left\{
[\frac{1}{2}(\hat\pi^\alpha)^2+\frac{\omega^2}{2}(\hat\chi^\alpha)^2]
+\frac{i\omega}{2}\epsilon_{IJ}\,\hat\tau^\alpha_I\hat\tau^\alpha_J
\right\}\;,
\label{e18}
\end{equation}
where $\hat\chi^\alpha:=\hat\theta_1^{\alpha\mu=0}/\sqrt{\omega},~
\hat\pi^\alpha:=\sqrt{\omega}\hat\theta_2^{\alpha\mu=0}$
are the Green components of the $\pi b$ coordinate and momentum operators,
and $\hat\tau^\alpha_I:=\hat\theta^{\alpha\mu=1}_{m=I}$ are those of the
$\pi f$ coordinate operators.
The Lagrangian associated with the $\pi$SUSY oscillator is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
L&=&\frac{1}{2}(\dot x^2-\omega^2x^2)+\frac{i}{4}\delta_{IJ}
(\psi_I\dot\psi_J-\dot\psi_I\psi_J)-\frac{i\omega}{2}
\epsilon_{IJ}\,\psi_I\psi_J\;,
\label{e20}\\
&=&\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\left\{ \frac{1}{2}[(\dot \chi^\alpha)^2-
\omega^2(\chi^\alpha)^2]+\frac{i}{2}\delta_{IJ}\tau^\alpha_I
\dot\tau_J^\alpha-\frac{i\omega}{2}\epsilon_{IJ}\,\tau^\alpha_I
\tau_J^\alpha\right\}\;,
\label{e21}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\chi^\alpha,~\psi_I=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\tau_I^\alpha$
are the ($p=2$) $\pi b$ and $\pi f$ dynamical variables, respectively.
The form of the $\pi b$ and $\pi f$ kinetic terms in (\ref{e20}) is obtained
in Ref.~\cite{p10} in an attempt to consistently generalize the Peierls
bracket quantization scheme to the paraclassical systems.
The Peierls bracket quantization of this system leads to the following
paracommutation relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat\chi^\alpha,\hat\chi^\beta]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&0\;,\nonumber\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[\hat\chi^\alpha,\hat{\dot{\chi}}^\beta]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&i\hbar
\delta^{\alpha\beta}\;,\nonumber\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[\hat{\dot\chi}^\alpha,\hat{\dot\chi}^\beta]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&0\;,
\label{e30}\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[\hat\tau^\alpha_I,\hat\tau^\beta_J]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&\hbar
\delta^{\alpha\beta}\delta_{IJ}\;,\nonumber \\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[\hat\chi^\alpha,\hat\tau_I^\beta]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&0\;,\nonumber \\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat{\dot{\chi}}^\alpha,\hat\tau_I^\beta]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&0\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
which become identical with the canonical quantization relations (\ref{e4})
if one only considers the momenta $\pi^\alpha$ conjugate to $\chi^\alpha$ and
identifies them with $\dot{\chi}^\alpha$.
\section{Symmetries of the $\pi$SUSY Oscillator}
Setting $\tau^0_I=\tau^1_I$ and $\chi^0=\chi^1$ in
(\ref{e21}), one recovers the Lagrangian for the SUSY oscillator
(\ref{e13}). This may be used as a hint to seek similar symmetries
for the $\pi$SUSY oscillator.
Following this hint, consider the $\pi$-SUSY transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\chi^\alpha&=&i\tau^\alpha_J\,\delta\gamma_J\;,
\label{e31}\\
\delta\tau_I^\alpha&=&
(\delta_{IJ}\,\dot\chi^\alpha+\omega
\epsilon_{IJ}\,\chi^\alpha)\,\delta\gamma_J\;,
\label{e32}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta\gamma_J$ are the ``infinitesimal'' analogs of $\gamma_J$
of Eq.~(\ref{e9}). It is not difficult to check that the action
functional and therefore the dynamical equations remain invariant
under this transformation. Indeed, one finds:
\begin{equation}
\delta L \propto \frac{d}{dt}(
\dot\chi^\alpha\tau^\alpha_J -
\omega\epsilon_{JI}\tau_I^\alpha\chi^\alpha)\,\delta\gamma_J\;.
\label{e33}
\end{equation}
Thus the corresponding conserved charges have the form:
\begin{equation}
Q^1_J=\lambda(
\dot\chi^\alpha\tau^\alpha_J - \omega\epsilon_{JI}\tau_I^\alpha
\chi^\alpha)\;.
\label{e34}
\end{equation}
Here the superscript ``1'' is placed for later use and $\lambda$ is a
non-zero numerical coefficient.
In the remainder of this paper, we shall set $\hbar=1$ for simplicity.
The quantum analog of $Q^1_J$ with an appropriate normalization is given
by:
\begin{equation}
\hat Q^1_J:=\hat{\dot\chi}^\alpha
\hat\tau^\alpha-\omega\epsilon_{JI}\hat\chi^\alpha
\hat\tau_I^\alpha\;.
\label{e35}
\end{equation}
In view of the paracommutation relations (\ref{e30}), it is not difficult
to check that $Q_J^1$ generate the transformations (\ref{e31}) and (\ref{e32}),
i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat\chi^\alpha,\hat Q_J^1\delta\gamma_J]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&
i\hat\tau^\alpha_J\delta\gamma_J\:=\: \delta\hat\chi^\alpha\;,
\label{e36}\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat\tau^\alpha_I,\hat Q_J^1\delta\gamma_J]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&
(\delta_{IJ}\hat{\dot{\chi}}^\alpha+\omega
\epsilon_{IJ}\hat\chi^\alpha)\,\delta\gamma_J\:=\:
\delta\hat\tau^\alpha_I\;,
\label{e37}
\end{eqnarray}
and that they satisfy the defining algebra of SQM, namely:
\begin{equation}
\{ \hat Q_I^1,\hat Q_J^1\}=2\delta_{IJ}\hat H\;.
\label{e38}
\end{equation}
Note also that $\hat Q^1_I$ are self-adjoint operators by construction
(\ref{e35}).
Another important point in handling ($p=2$) para-dynamical systems is
that the Green components are not the physical dynamical variables.
In other words, one must be able to express all physical quantities in terms
of the variables, $x,~\dot x,~\psi_I,$ and $\dot\psi_I$. This also
applies to the $Q_I^1$. In fact, one can show that:
\begin{equation}
\hat Q_J^1=\frac{1}{2}\{
\delta_{JK}\hat{\dot x}-\omega\epsilon_{JK}\hat x\:,\:\hat\psi_K\}\;.
\label{e39}
\end{equation}
Here use is made of the identities:
\begin{equation}
\hat{\dot\chi}^\alpha \hat\tau^\alpha_I=\frac{1}{2}\{\hat{\dot x},
\hat\psi\}\;,~~~~~~
\hat\chi^\alpha \hat\tau^\alpha_I=\frac{1}{2}
\{\hat x,\hat\psi_I\}\;.
\label{e40}
\end{equation}
The $\pi$SUSY transformations (\ref{e31}) and (\ref{e32}) mix the Green
components $\chi^\alpha$ and $\tau_I^\alpha$ with the same Green index
$\alpha$. Since the Green components are not physical quantities, there
must be no difference between say $\tau^0_I$ and $\tau^1_I$. This suggests
the possibility of symmetry transformations which mix $\chi^\alpha$ with
$\tau^{\alpha+1}$. Here the values of the Green indices is taken in $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$,
i.e., they are calculated modulo $2$. The following is such a symmetry
transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\chi^\alpha&=&-i\tau^{\alpha+1}_J\,\delta\gamma_J\;,
\label{e41}\\
\delta\tau_I^\alpha&=&
(\delta_{IJ}\dot\chi^{\alpha+1}+\omega
\epsilon_{IJ}\chi^{\alpha+1})\,\delta\gamma_J\;.
\label{e42}
\end{eqnarray}
The associated conserved charges to this symmetry are given by
\begin{equation}
Q^2_J=\lambda'(
\tau^\alpha_J\dot\chi^{\alpha+1}-
\omega\epsilon_{JK}\tau_K^\alpha\chi^{\alpha+1})\;,
\label{e43}
\end{equation}
where the summation over $\alpha$ is understood. Quantizing the system and
taking:
\begin{equation}
\hat Q^2_J:=i(\hat\tau^\alpha_J\hat{\dot{\chi}}^{\alpha+1}-
\omega\epsilon_{JK}\hat\tau_K^\alpha\hat\chi^{\alpha+1})\;,
\label{e44}
\end{equation}
one obtains another set of self-adjoint $\pi$SUSY charges.
They generate the transformations (\ref{e41}) and (\ref{e42}) and are
expressed in terms of the physical variables $x$ and $\psi$ according to:
\begin{equation}
\hat Q^2_J=
\frac{-i}{2}[\delta_{JK}\hat{\dot x}-\omega\epsilon_{JK}\hat x\:,\:
\hat\psi_K]\;.
\label{e45}
\end{equation}
Here use is made of the identities:
\begin{equation}
\hat\tau_I^\alpha\hat{\dot\chi}^{\alpha+1}=\frac{1}{2}
[\hat\psi_I,\hat{\dot x}]\;,~~~~~~
\hat\tau_I^\alpha\hat\chi^{\alpha+1}=\frac{1}{2}[\hat\psi_I,\hat x]\;.
\label{e46}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the superalgebra relation:
\begin{equation}
\{ \hat Q^2_I,\hat Q^2_J\}=2\delta_{IJ}\hat H\;,
\label{e47}
\end{equation}
also holds.
The next natural step in the study of the symmetries of the $\pi$SUSY
oscillator is to investigate the algebraic properties of both types
of $\pi$SUSY's. Proceeding in this direction, one finds:
\begin{equation}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat Q_J^a,\hat Q_K^b]\hspace{-.3mm}]=
\{ \hat Q_J^a,\hat Q_K^b\}=2\delta_{JK}\delta^{ab}\hat H
-2\epsilon^{ab}\epsilon_{JK}\hat {\cal Q}\;,
\label{e48}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat{\cal Q}:=i\omega\hat\chi^\alpha\hat{\dot\chi}^{\alpha+1}+
\frac{\omega}{2}\hat\tau_I^\alpha\hat\tau_I^{\alpha+1}
\label{e49}
\end{equation}
is another (self-adjoint) conserved charge.
Repeating this procedure, i.e., including ${\cal Q}$ in the set
of the generators of symmetries and investigating the parabracket
of ${\cal Q}$ and other generators, one obtaines
\begin{equation}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat Q^a_J,\hat{\cal Q}]\hspace{-.3mm}]=[ \hat Q^a_J,\hat{\cal Q}]=0\;.
\label{e50}
\end{equation}
Thus the {\em superalgebra} consisting of the generators of $\pi$SUSY
of the $\pi$SUSY oscillator closes. Summarizing the superalgebra
relations, one has:
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat Q_J^a,\hat H]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&[\hat Q_J^a,\hat H]\:=\:0\nonumber\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat Q_J^a,\hat Q_K^b]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&
\{ \hat Q_J^a,\hat Q_K^b\}\: =\: 2\delta_{JK}\delta^{ab}\hat H
-2\epsilon^{ab}\epsilon_{JK}\hat {\cal Q}\;,\nonumber\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat{\cal Q},\hat H]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&[ \hat{\cal Q},\hat H]\:=\: 0
\label{e60}\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat Q^a_J,\hat{\cal Q}]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&[ \hat Q^a_J,\hat{\cal Q}]
\:=\: 0\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The generators $Q_J^a$ behave as the ``odd'' elements of the super
Lie algebra and $H$ and ${\cal Q}$ as the ``even'' (central) elements.
The (central) charge ${\cal Q}$ is also expressed in terms of the physical
variables. One has:
$$ {\cal Q}=\frac{i\omega}{2}(\hat x\hat{\dot x}-\hat{\dot x}\hat x)
+\frac{\omega}{2}\delta_{IJ}\hat\psi_I\hat\psi_J\;. $$
Here, one uses the following identities:
$$\delta_{IJ}\hat\psi_I\hat\psi_J=
\hat\tau^\alpha_I\hat\tau^{\alpha+1}_I+2\;,~~~~~~
\hat x\hat{\dot x}-\hat{\dot x}\hat x=
2\hat\chi^\alpha\hat{\dot\chi}^{\alpha+1}+2i\;.$$
One can also examine the symmetry transformations generated by ${\cal Q}$.
These are obtained by computing:
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat\chi^\alpha,{\cal Q}\delta\epsilon]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&
\{\hat\chi^\alpha,{\cal Q}\} \delta\epsilon\:=\:\omega
\hat\chi^{\alpha+1}\delta\epsilon\;,\nonumber\\
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \hat\tau^\alpha_I,{\cal Q}\delta\epsilon]\hspace{-.3mm}]&=&
\{\hat\tau^\alpha_I,{\cal Q}\}\delta\epsilon\:=\:\omega
\hat\tau^{\alpha+1}_I\delta\epsilon\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Thus:
$$\delta_{\cal Q}\chi^\alpha=\omega\,
\chi^{\alpha+1}\delta\epsilon\;,~~~~~~
\delta_{\cal Q}\tau^\alpha_I=\omega\,
\tau^{\alpha+1}_I\delta\epsilon\;.$$
Here $\delta\epsilon$ is an infinitesimal commuting parameter. In terms
of the physical dynamical variables, one has:
$$\delta_{\cal Q}x=\omega\,x\,\delta\epsilon\,\;,~~~~~~
\delta_{\cal Q}\psi_I= \omega\,\psi_I\,\delta\epsilon\,\;.$$
We would like to conclude this section by emphasizing the enormous
advantage of using parabracket (\ref{pbraket}) in performing the
tedius computations necessary for establishing the superalgebra relations
Eqs.~(\ref{e60}). The details of these computations have been omitted
due to the space limitations.
\section{Degeneracy Structure of General SPQM}
Let us first define SPQM:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Definition:} {\em Let ${\cal H}$ be a $\ Z \hspace{-.08in}Z_2$-graded
Hilbert space with grading involution {\large $\hat\tau$}. Then
a quantum mechanical system with ${\cal H}$ as the Hilbert space
and self-adjoint symmetry generators $\hat Q_{I_n}^{a_n}$,
$\hat{\cal Q}_n$, $n=1,\cdots N$, ~ $I_n,a_n=1,2$,
and the Hamiltonian operator $\hat H$ satisfying the super Lie algebra
relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
[\hat Q_{J_n}^{a_n},\hat H]&=&[\hat{\cal Q}_n,H]\:=\:
[ \hat Q^{a_n}_{J_n},\hat{\cal Q}]\:=\:0\label{e70}\\
\{ \hat Q_{J_n}^{a_n},\hat Q_{K_m}^{b_m}\}&=&\delta_{nm}(
2\delta_{J_nK_n}\delta^{a_nb_n}\hat H
-2\epsilon^{a_nb_n}\epsilon_{J_nK_n}\hat{\cal Q}_n)\;,
\label{e71}
\end{eqnarray}
and parity properties:
\begin{equation}
\{\mbox{\large$\hat\tau$},\hat Q_{I_n}^{a_n}\}=0\;,~~~~~
[\mbox{\large$\hat\tau$},\hat{\cal Q}_n]=
[\mbox{\large$\hat\tau$},\hat H]=0\;,
\label{e72}
\end{equation}
for all $I_n,a_n$ and $n=1,\cdots,N$, is called a ($p=2$) --
supersymmetric paraquantum mechanical (SPQM) system of type $N$.}
\end{itemize}
In this section, we shall present a detailed analysis of the spectrum
degeneracy structure of general ($p=1$)-SPQM systems of type $N=1$.
For $N=1$ we suppress the index $n=1$ and recover the super Lie algebra
of the $\pi$SUSY oscillator, i.e., Eqs.\ (\ref{e60}). For simlicity we
shall drop the hats and introduce the notation:
$$Q_1\equiv Q_1^1\;,~~~Q_2\equiv Q_2^1\;,~~~Q_3\equiv Q_1^2\;,
~~~Q_4\equiv Q_2^2\;.$$
Then Eqs.~(\ref{e60}) are written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_i^2&=&H\;,\label{e81}\\
\{ Q_1,Q_2\}&=&0\;,\label{e82}\\
\{ Q_1,Q_3\}&=&0\;,\label{e83}\\
\{ Q_1,Q_4\}&=&-2 {\cal Q}\;,\label{e85}\\
\{ Q_2,Q_3\}&=&2 {\cal Q} \;,\label{e84}\\
\{ Q_2,Q_4\}&=&0\;,\label{e86}\\
\{ Q_3,Q_4\}&=&0\;,\label{e87}\\
{[} Q_i,{\cal Q}{]}&=&0\;,\label{e88}
\end{eqnarray}
where $i=1,2,3,4$.
Next, we use the simultaneous eigenstate vectors $|E,q_1,q\rangle$, with
$E,q_1,q\in\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}$, of $H,~ Q_1$ and ${\cal Q}$ to span the Hilbert space.
We shall assume that these state vectors form an orthonormal basis and
attempt to represent all the relevant operators in this basis. These
properties are summarized by the following set of relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
H|E,q_1,q\rangle&=&E|E,q_1,q\rangle\;,~~~~~~
Q_1|E,q_1,q\rangle\:=\: q_1|E,q_1,q\rangle\;,
\label{e91}\\
{\cal Q}|E,q_1,q\rangle&=&q|E,q_1,q\rangle\;,~~~~~~
\langle E',q'_1,q'|E,q_1,q\rangle\:=\:
\delta_{E'E}\delta_{q'_1,q_1}\delta_{q'q}\;.
\label{e92}
\end{eqnarray}
A simple consequence of Eq.~(\ref{e81}) with $i=1$, is that the energy
spectrum is non-negative. Furthermore, for any energy level $E$, one has:
\begin{eqnarray}
q_1&=&\pm\sqrt{E}\;,
\label{e101}\\
|q_1,q\rangle=0&\Leftrightarrow&|-q_1,q\rangle=0\;,
\label{e102}\\
Q_2|q_1,q\rangle&=&C_2(q_1,q)|-q_1,q\rangle\;,~~~~~~C_2(q_1,q)\in\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}-\{0\}\;,
\label{e109}\\
Q_3|q_1,q\rangle&=&C_3(q_1,q)|-q_1,q\rangle\;,~~~~~~C_3(q_1,q)\in\relax\hbox{\kern.25em$\inbar\kern-.3em{\rm C}$}-\{0\}\;,
\label{e110}
\end{eqnarray}
where use is made of Eqs.~(\ref{e81}) -- (\ref{e83}) and abbreviation
$|q_1,q\rangle$ is used for $|E,q_1,q\rangle$. Enforcing Eq.~(\ref{e84}), one finds:
\begin{equation}
C_2(q_1,q)C_3(-q_1,q)+C_3(q_1,q)C_2(-q_1,q)=2 q\;.
\label{e111}
\end{equation}
Then by acting both sides of Eqs.~(\ref{e81}), with $i=2,3$, on $|q_1,q\rangle$,
one has:
\begin{equation}
C_2(q_1,q)C_2(-q_1,q)=E\;,~~~~~~C_3(q_1,q)C_3(-q_1,q)=E\;.
\label{e115}
\end{equation}
Next, we calculate:
$$E=(\langle q_1,q|Q_2)(Q_2|q_1,q\rangle)=C_2(q_1,q)^*C_2(q_1,q)\;.$$
A similar relation holds for $C_3$. These relations together with
Eqs.~(\ref{e115}) imply:
\begin{equation}
C_2(\pm q_1,q)=\sqrt{E}\,e^{\pm i\alpha_2(q)}\;,~~~~~~
C_3(\pm q_1,q)\:=\:\sqrt{E}\,e^{\pm i\alpha_3(q)}\;.
\label{e116}
\end{equation}
Combining the latter equations with Eq.~(\ref{e111}), one is led to:
\begin{equation}
\frac{C_2(q_1,q)}{C_3(q_1,q)}+\frac{C_3(q_1,q)}{C_2(q_1,q)}
=\frac{2q}{E}\;.
\label{e117}
\end{equation}
Eqs.~(\ref{e116}) and (\ref{e117}), in turn, yield:
\begin{equation}
\cos[\alpha_2(q)-\alpha_3(q)]=\frac{q}{E}\;.
\label{e121}
\end{equation}
Next, we act both sides of Eqs.~(\ref{e85}), (\ref{e86}), and (\ref{e87})
on $|q_1,q\rangle$ on the left. This gives rise to:
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_1Q_4|q_1,q\rangle&=&-q_1Q_4|q_1,q\rangle-2 q|q_1,q\rangle\;,
\label{e112}\\
Q_2Q_4|q_1,q\rangle&=&-\sqrt{E}\,e^{i\alpha_2}Q_4|-q_1,q\rangle\;,
\label{e119}\\
Q_3Q_4|q_1,q\rangle&=&-\sqrt{E}\,e^{i\alpha_3}Q_4|-q_1,q\rangle\;.
\label{e120}
\end{eqnarray}
To pursue our analysis further, we express the action of $Q_4$ on the basic
kets $|q_1,q\rangle$ as the following linear combination:
\begin{equation}
Q_4|q_1,q\rangle=: a(q_1,q)|\sqrt{E},q\rangle+b(q_1,q)|-\sqrt{E},q\rangle
\;.
\label{e130}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are complex numbers {\em a priori} depending on $q_1$,
$q$ and of course $E$. Substituting this expression in Eq.~(\ref{e112}),
one finds:
\begin{equation}
a(q_1=\sqrt{E},q)=-\frac{q}{\sqrt{E}}\,~~~~~
a(q_1=-\sqrt{E},q)=0\;.
\label{e131}
\end{equation}
Repeating the same procedure for Eqs.~(\ref{e119}) and (\ref{e120}),
and performing the simple algebra, one finally obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
b(q_1=\sqrt{E},q)&=&0\;,~~~~~b(q_1=-\sqrt{E},q)\:=\:-a(q_1=
\sqrt{E},q)=\frac{q}{\sqrt{E}}\;,
\label{e6.1}\\
e^{i\alpha_2(q)}\:=\:\pm 1 &=&e^{i\alpha_3(q)}\;.
\label{e6.2}
\end{eqnarray}
The last pair of equations together with Eq.~(\ref{e121}) imply:
\begin{equation}
q=E\eta\;,~~~~~~~~\eta=\pm 1\;.
\label{eq}
\end{equation}
Having obtained all the unknowns of our construction and appealing to the
gauge freedom of the phases of the initial basic eigenstate vectors -- which
allows us to set, say, $\alpha_2=0$ so that $e^{i\alpha_3}=\eta$ --
we are in a position to present matrix reperesentations of all the
charges. However, before presenting these representations, we would
like to remark that although $|\sqrt{E},q\rangle\neq 0\Leftrightarrow
|-\sqrt{E},q\rangle\neq 0$, this relation does not imply that
$|\pm\sqrt{E},q\rangle\neq 0$ for some $q$, i.e., in general it may be the
case that for some values of $E$ the state vectors corresponding to
either $q=+E$ or $q=-E$ vanish. In this case $E$ will be doubly
degenerate. Otherwise it will be quadruply degenerate. For the
latter case the symmetry generators are represented by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left. Q_1\right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&\sqrt{E}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & & \\
0 & -1 & & \\
& & 1 & 0 \\
& & 0 & -1
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\left. Q_2\right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&
\sqrt{E}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & \\
1 & 0 & & \\
& & 0 & 1 \\
& & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\left. Q_3\right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&
\sqrt{E}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 1 & & \\
1 & 0 & & \\
& & 0 & -1 \\
& & -1 & 0
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\left. Q_4 \right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&
\sqrt{E}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-1 & 0 & & \\
0 & 1 & & \\
& & 1 & 0 \\
& & 0 & -1
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\left. {\cal Q}\right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&
E\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & & \\
0 & 1 & & \\
& & -1 & 0 \\
& & 0 & -1
\end{array}\right)\nonumber\\
\left. H\right|_{{\cal H}_E}&=&
E\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & & \\
0 & 1 & & \\
& & 1 & 0 \\
& & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\;.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here we have identified:
\begin{eqnarray}
|\sqrt{E},E\rangle&=&\left(\begin{array}{c}
1\\0\\0\\0
\end{array}\right)\;,~~~~~~
|-\sqrt{E},E\rangle\:=\:\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\1\\0\\0
\end{array}\right)\;,\nonumber\\
|\sqrt{E},-E\rangle&=&\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\0\\1\\0
\end{array}\right)\;,~~~~~~
|-\sqrt{E},-E\rangle\:=\:\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\0\\0\\1
\end{array}\right)\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
the empty blocks consist of vanishing entries, and ${\cal H}_E$ denotes
the degeneracy Hilbert space associated with the energy $E>0$.
In view of Eqs.~(\ref{e72}), we can also write down the matrix representation
of the involution (chirality) operator in this basis. The result is given
by
$$
\left. \mbox{\large$\tau$}\right|_{{\cal H}_E}=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & -i\epsilon_1 & & \\
i\epsilon_1 & 0 & & \\
& & 0 &-i\epsilon_2\\
& &i\epsilon_2 & 0
\end{array}\right)\;,
$$
where $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2=\pm 1$.
It is an easy exercise to diagonalize the chirality involution(s) and to
find out that in the diagonal form it has the form:
\begin{equation}
\left. \mbox{\large$\tau$}\right|_{{\cal H}_E}=
{\rm diag}(1,-1,1,-1)\;.
\label{e150}
\end{equation}
This implies that the quadruply degenerate (positive) energy levels
involve two odd (parafermionic) and two even (parabosonic) state vectors.
The representations of the symmetry generators and the involution
operator for the doubly degenerate energy levels are given by either
of the upper-left or lower-right blocks in the above list of matrix
representations, according to whether $|\pm\sqrt{E},-E\rangle=0$ or
$|\pm\sqrt{E},+E\rangle=0$, respectively. The situation is analogous to
the ordinary supersymmetric case, \cite{p8}.
The following lemma summarizes our results concerning ($p=2$)-SPQM:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Lemma 1:} {\em
The energy spectrum of any ($p=2$) supersymmetric paraquantum system
is non-negative. The zero-energy eigenvalue, if exists, is
non-degenerate\footnote{This is true provided that other quantum
numbers are not present.}. The positive energy levels are
either doubly or quadruply degenerate. They consist of pairs of
odd and even parity eigenstates.}
\end{itemize}
Moreover, one can define the Witten index according to
$${\rm index_{Witten}}:={\rm trace}(\mbox{\large$\tau$})\;,$$
and use Eq.~(\ref{e150}) to conclude that it counts the difference
of the number of even and odd zero-energy states, and that it is a
topological invariant.
\section{Hilbert Space Structure of the $\pi$SUSY Oscillator}
Ref.~\cite{sud} offers an analysis of the energy eigenstates
of the one-dimensional parabose oscillator of arbitrary order $p$.
In the following, we shall use the results of \cite{sud}, with $p=1$,
to construct a complete set of eigenstate vectors for the
$\pi$SUSY oscillator.
The Hilbert space of the one-dimensional ($p=1$) $\pi$b oscillator
is constructed using the following set of orthonormal energy eigenstate
vectors:
\begin{equation}
|n\rangle:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n[\frac{n}{2}]![\frac{n+1}{2}]!}}
\: a^{\dagger n}\,|0\rangle\;,
\label{e200}
\end{equation}
where $a^\dagger$ and $|0\rangle$ are the $\pi$b creation operator and
the vacuum (ground) state, respectively, and $[k]$ stands for the
largest integer smaller than or equal to $k\in\relax{\rm I\kern-.18em R}$. One also has:
\begin{eqnarray}
H^0|n\rangle&=&(n+1)\omega\;,
\label{e201}\\
a|n\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[\frac{n}{2}]+1}\:|n-1\rangle\;,
\label{e202}\\
a^\dagger|n\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[\frac{n}{2}]+2}\:|n+1\rangle\;.
\label{e203}
\end{eqnarray}
For the $\pi$SUSY oscillator, one has also the $\pi$f creation and
annihilation operators. These have the property that $a^3=0$. So there
is an apparent triple grading intrinsic to the ($p=2$) $\pi$f operators.
This has been used quite often in the context of parasupersymmetry.
In the following we shall demonstrate that this is not the case for
the $\pi$SUSY oscillator as one might expect in view of the treatment
of Sec.~6.
It turns out that the following energy eigenstates form an orthonormal
basis for the Hilbert space:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{cc}
|n,1\rangle:=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n[\frac{n}{2}]![\frac{n+1}{2}]!}}\:
a^{\dagger n}|0\rangle\;, ~~~~~~
&(n\geq 0)\\
|n,2\rangle:=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n[\frac{n}{2}]![\frac{n-1}{2}]!}}
\:\alpha^\dagger a^{\dagger n-1}|0\rangle\;, ~~~~
&(n\geq 1) \\
|n,3\rangle:=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n[\frac{n-1}{2}]![\frac{n-2}{2}]!}}
\:\alpha^{\dagger 2}a^{\dagger n-2}|0\rangle\;, ~
&(n\geq 2) \\
|n,4\rangle:=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^n[\frac{n}{2}]![\frac{n-1}{2}]!}}\:
a^\dagger\alpha^\dagger a^{\dagger n-2}|0\rangle\;
&(n\geq 2)
\end{array}
\label{e204}
\end{equation}
Note that the state vector $|n,1\rangle$ is the same as $|n\rangle$ of
Eq~(\ref{e200}). To establish the orthonormality of $\{ |n,a\rangle~:~
a=1,2,3,4\}$, one needs to use the following set of paracommutation
relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha\,\alpha^\dagger\,a^\dagger&=&-a^\dagger \,\alpha^\dagger\,
\alpha+2a^\dagger\;,
\label{e210}\\
\alpha\,\alpha^{\dagger 2}&=&-\alpha^{\dagger 2}\,
\alpha+2\alpha^\dagger\;,
\label{q2.4}\\
a\,a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger&=&\alpha^\dagger\,a^\dagger\,a+
2\alpha^\dagger\;,
\label{e212}\\
\alpha\, a\, a^\dagger&=&a^\dagger\, a\,\alpha+2\alpha\;,
\label{e213}\\
\alpha\,a \, \alpha^\dagger&=&-\alpha^\dagger\, a\,\alpha\;,
\label{q23.1}
\end{eqnarray}
and the identity:
\begin{equation}
\alpha\, a^{\dagger n}|0\rangle=0\;.
\label{e215}
\end{equation}
Relations (\ref{e210})--(\ref{e215}) are most easily proved in the Green
representation.
Furthermore, it is not difficult to check that indeed $|n,a\rangle$ are
energy eigenvectors, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
H|n,a\rangle=E_n|n,a\rangle\;,~~~~~{\rm with}~~~~~E_n:=n\omega\;.
\label{e220}
\end{equation}
Finally, it is possible to show that $|n,a\rangle$ form a complete set of
state vectors. This involves some lengthy algebraic manipulations.
The completeness of $\{ |n,a\rangle\}$ results from the following set
of relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
a\,|n,1\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[\frac{n}{2}]+1}\:|n-1,1\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
a^\dagger\,|n,1\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[\frac{n}{2}]+2}\:|n+1,1\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha\,|n,1\rangle&=&0\nonumber\\
\alpha^\dagger\,|n,1\rangle&=&\sqrt{2}\:|n+1,2\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
a\,|n,2\rangle&=&\sqrt{\frac{[(n-1)/2](2[n/2]-1)}{[n/2]}}\:|n-1,5\rangle\;,
\nonumber\\
a^\dagger\,|n,2\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[(n+1)/2]}\: |n+1,5\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha\,|n,2\rangle&=&\sqrt{2}\,|n-1,1\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha^\dagger\,|n,2\rangle&=&\sqrt{2}\,|n+1,3\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
a\,|n,3\rangle&=&-\sqrt{2[n/2]}\:|n-1,3\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
a^\dagger\,|n,3\rangle&=&-\sqrt{2[n/2]}\,|n+1,3\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha\,|n,3\rangle&=&\sqrt{2}\,|n-1,2\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha^\dagger\,|n,3\rangle&=&0\;,\nonumber\\
a\,|n,4\rangle&=&
\sqrt{\frac{[(n-1)/2](2[n/2]-1)+2}{[n/2]}}\:|n-1,2\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
a^\dagger\,|n,4\rangle&=&\sqrt{2[(n+1)/2]}\,|n+1,2\rangle\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha\,|n,4\rangle&=&0\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha^\dagger\,|n,4\rangle&=&0\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where in addition to Eqs.~(\ref{e202})--(\ref{q23.1}),
the paracommutation relations:
\begin{eqnarray}
a\,\alpha^\dagger\,a^\dagger&=&a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger\,a\;,\nonumber\\
a\,\alpha^{\dagger 2}&=&-\alpha^{\dagger 2}\,a\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha\, a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger&=&-\alpha^\dagger\,a^\dagger\,
\alpha\;,\nonumber\\
\alpha^\dagger\, a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger&=&0\;,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
are also used.
To demonstrate the method of proof of such relations using the
Green representation, a proof of the last equation is offered
in the following. First note that
$$ a=\sum_{\alpha=0}^1\zeta^{\alpha 0}\;,~~~
\alpha=\sum_{\beta=0}^1\zeta^{\beta 1}\;,$$
\begin{equation}
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \zeta^{\alpha \mu},\zeta^{\beta\nu}]\hspace{-.3mm}]=0\;,~~~
[\hspace{-.3mm}[ \zeta^{\alpha \mu},\zeta^{\beta\nu\dagger}]\hspace{-.3mm}]=
\delta^{\alpha\beta}\delta^{\mu\nu}\;.
\label{e301}
\end{equation}
Here use is made of Eqs.~(\ref{e1})--(\ref{e4}). Next, one has:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha^\dagger\, a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger&=&
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}
\zeta^{\alpha 1\dagger}\zeta^{\beta 0\dagger}\zeta^{\gamma 1 \dagger}
\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(-1)^{1+\beta+\gamma}
\zeta^{\beta 0 \dagger}\zeta^{\gamma 1\dagger}\zeta^{\alpha 1
\dagger}\nonumber\\
&=&-\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}
\zeta^{\gamma 1\dagger}\zeta^{\beta 0\dagger}\zeta^{\alpha 1\dagger}
\nonumber\\
&=&-\alpha^\dagger\, a^\dagger\,\alpha^\dagger\:=\:0\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where in the second and third equalities use is made of
Eqs.~(\ref{pbraket}) and (\ref{e301}).
This concludes our investigation of the energy eigenstates of the
$\pi$SUSY oscillator. We summarize the results of this section in the form
of the following lemma:
\begin{itemize}
\item[] {\bf Lemma~2:} {\em
The energy spectrum of the $\pi$SUSY oscillator consists of
a zero energy non-degenerate ground state (represented by
$|n=0,1\rangle$), a doubly degenerate first excited state (level) of
energy $E_1=\omega$ (with state vectors $|n=1,1\rangle$ and
$|n=1,2\rangle$), and higher excited states of $E_n=n\omega$
($n\geq 2$) which are quadruply degenerate (with state vectors
$|n,a\rangle\;,a=1,2,3,4$.)}
\end{itemize}
This confirms our general results of Sec.~6.
\section{Conclusion}
There are dynamical systems involving ($p=2$) parastatistical degrees
of freedom and symmetry transformations which mix the parabose and parafermi
dynamical variables. The mixing which signifies a parabose -- parafermi
supersymmetry is shown to be present because of the non-trivial algebraic
properties of such variables.
Having established the meaningfullness of the parabose -- parafermi
supersymmetry ($\pi$SUSY), one can investigate its relation with the ordinary
(bose -- fermi) supersymmetry and the parasupersymmetry. The simple example
of an oscillator consisiting of a parabosonic and a parafermionic sector is
used to demonstrate the nature of $\pi$SUSY. This oscillator possesses
two ordinary supersymmetries. The study of the combined set of generators
of these supersymmetries leads to the introduction of a central charge.
Thus, it seems that there is no direct relation between parabose -- parafermi
supersymmetry and parasupersymmetry.
The oscillator considered in this article also serves as a useful example
to demonstrate the practical importance of the parabracket introduced
in \cite{p10}. Moreover, it is remarkable to check that indeed all the
conserved charges depend on the physical dynamical variables and not on their
Green components. This is quite non-trivial, for all the calculations
are performed using the Green components. In view of these observations,
one may conclude that there is no anomalous phenomena stemming from
the unusual parastatistical nature of the ($p=2$) dynamical variables.
In fact, it is shown that for example the $\pi$SUSY oscillator has a larger
symmetry than the ordinary SUSY oscillator.
Another interesting observation regarding the symmetries of the
$\pi$SUSY oscillator is that {\em a priori} there is
no parity associated with the quantities (polynomials) constructed
out of the parastatistical variables, nevertheless the conserved charges
and the Hamiltonian do possess parities, and they do form a super Lie
algebra. This may be seen as the primary reason why one does not need
trilinear algebraic relations between the symmetry generators.
The latter has been shown \cite{r-s} to be unavoidable for an oscillator
consisting of ordinary bosons and ($p=2$) parafermions.
The super Lie algebra associated with the $\pi$SUSY oscillator may be
considered in a more general context. This line of reasoning leads
to the introduction of supersymmetric paraquantum mechanics. The
defining superalgebra of SPQM determines the degeneracy structure of
the energy spectrum. The matrix reperesentation of the conserved charges
reveals the differences and the similarities between SPQM and
SQM. The Witten index can also be defined for SPQM. It possesses
the topological invariance property and signifies the breaking of
$\pi$SUSY, similarly to the ordinary SQM case.
The Hilbert space structure of the $\pi$SUSY oscillator is also
analyzed in detail. A remarkable observation is that the presence
of ($p=2$) parafermi operators does not lead to a triple grading of
the spectrum degeneracy. In fact, the general results obtained
in the context of supersymmetric paraquantum mechanics are shown to
be valid for the oscillator case. This serves as an independent check
on the results obtained in Sec.~6.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I would like to thank Kamran Saririan, Bahman Darian, Ertu\"grul Demircan
and Stathis Tompaidis for mailing me some of the references.
I wish to also acknowledge Shahin Rouhani for his constructive comments.
|
\section*{Figure Captions\markboth
{FIGURECAPTIONS}{FIGURECAPTIONS}}\list
{Figure \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Figure 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endfigcap\endlist \relax
\def\tablecap{\section*{Table Captions\markboth
{TABLECAPTIONS}{TABLECAPTIONS}}\list
{Table \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Table 999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endtablecap\endlist \relax
\def\reflist{\section*{References\markboth
{REFLIST}{REFLIST}}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endreflist\endlist \relax
\def\list{}{\rightmargin\leftmargin}\item[]{\list{}{\rightmargin\leftmargin}\item[]}
\let\endquote=\endlist
\makeatletter
\newcounter{pubctr}
\def\@ifnextchar[{\@publist}{\@@publist}{\@ifnextchar[{\@publist}{\@@publist}}
\def\@publist[#1]{\list
{[\arabic{pubctr}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\@nmbrlisttrue\def\@listctr{pubctr}
\setcounter{pubctr}{#1}\addtocounter{pubctr}{-1}}}
\def\@@publist{\list
{[\arabic{pubctr}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\@nmbrlisttrue\def\@listctr{pubctr}}}
\let\endpublist\endlist \relax
\makeatother
\newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
\vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
\else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\relax
\hybrid
\def\sigma{\sigma}
\def\fnsymbol{footnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def\alpha{\alpha}
\def\beta{\beta}
\def\gamma{\gamma}
\def\partial{\partial}
\def\bar \partial{\bar \partial}
\def\vartheta{\vartheta}
\def\bar{J}{\bar{J}}
\def\bar{\vartheta}{\bar{\vartheta}}
\def\Phi{\Phi}
\def\rho{\rho}
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\def\hbox{{$\sqcup$}\llap{$\sqcap$}}{\hbox{{$\sqcup$}\llap{$\sqcap$}}}
\def\tau{\tau}
\def{\rm Im}\tau{{\rm Im}\tau}
\def{\cal{R}}{{\cal{R}}}
\def{\cal{Q}}{{\cal{Q}}}
\def{\rm I\!R}{{\rm I\!R}}
\def\nabla{\nabla}
\def\bar {\cal P}{\bar {\cal P}}
\def{\cal R}{{\cal R}}
\font\fivesans=cmss10 at 4.61pt
\font\sevensans=cmss10 at 6.81pt
\font\tensans=cmss10
\newfam\sansfam
\textfont\sansfam=\tensans\scriptfont\sansfam=
\sevensans\scriptscriptfont
\sansfam=\fivesans
\def\fam\sansfam\tensans{\fam\sansfam\tensans}
\def{\partial\hspace{-.22cm}/}{{\partial\hspace{-.22cm}/}}
\def\Z{{\mathchoice
{\hbox{$\fam\sansfam\tensans\textstyle Z\kern-0.4em Z$}}
{\hbox{$\fam\sansfam\tensans\textstyle Z\kern-0.4em Z$}}
{\hbox{$\fam\sansfam\tensans\scriptstyle Z\kern-0.3em Z$}}
{\hbox{$\fam\sansfam\tensans\scriptscriptstyle Z\kern-0.2em Z$}}}}
\newlength{\boxsize}
\def\limit#1#2{ \smash{ \mathop{#1} \limits_{#2} } }
\def\limitt#1#2#3{ \settowidth{\boxsize}{\scriptsize $#2$}
\,
\makebox{\makebox[\boxsize][c]{$#1$}
\hspace{-\boxsize}
\hspace{-12pt}
\raisebox{-4pt}{\scriptsize $#2$}
\hspace{-\boxsize}
\hspace{-12pt}
\raisebox{-9pt}{\scriptsize $#3$} } }
\def\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\partial}}
\def\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\bar\partial}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{\bar\partial}}
\begin{document}
\renewcommand{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\eeq}[1]{\label{#1}\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eer}[1]{\label{#1}\end{eqnarray}}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{center}
\hfill CERN-TH/95-171\\
\hfill LPTENS-95/28\\
\hfill hep-th/9508078\\
\vskip .2in
{\large \bf Infrared behavior of Closed Superstrings in Strong
Magnetic and Gravitational Fields}
\vskip .4in
{\bf Elias Kiritsis and Costas Kounnas\footnote{On leave from Ecole
Normale Sup\'erieure, 24 rue Lhomond, F-75231, Paris, Cedex 05,
FRANCE.}}\\
\vskip
.3in
{\em Theory Division, CERN,\\ CH-1211,
Geneva 23, SWITZERLAND} \footnote{e-mail addresses:
KIRITSIS,<EMAIL>}\\
\vskip .3in
\end{center}
\vskip .2in
\begin{center} {\bf ABSTRACT }
\end{center}
\begin{quotation}\noindent
A large class of four-dimensional supersymmetric ground states of
closed superstrings with a non-zero mass gap are constructed.
For such ground states we turn on chromo-magnetic fields as well as
curvature.
The exact spectrum as function of the chromo-magnetic fields and
curvature is derived.
We examine the behavior of the spectrum, and find that there is a
maximal value for the magnetic field $H_{\rm max}\sim M_{\rm
planck}^2$. At
this value all states that couple to the magnetic field become
infinitely massive and decouple.
We also find tachyonic
instabilities for
strong background fields of the order ${\cal O}(\mu M_{\rm planck})$
where $\mu$ is the mass gap of the theory. Unlike the field theory
case, we find that such ground states become stable again for
magnetic fields
of the order ${\cal O}(M^2_{\rm planck})$.
The implications of these results are discussed.
\end{quotation}
\vskip 2.cm
CERN-TH/95-171 \\
August 1995\\
\end{titlepage}
\vfill
\eject
\def1.2{1.2}
\baselineskip 16 pt
\noindent
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In four-dimensional Heterotic or type II Superstrings it is
possible in principle to understand the response of the theory to
non-zero gauge or gravitational field backgrounds including
quantum corrections.
This problem is difficult in its full generality since
we are working in a first quantized framework. In certain special
cases, however, there is an underlying 2-d superconformal theory
which
is well understood and which describes exactly (via marginal
deformations) the turning-on of non-trivial
gauge and gravitational backgrounds.
This exact description goes beyond the linearized approximation.
In such cases, the spectrum can be calculated exactly, and it can
provide
interesting clues about the physics of the theory.
In field theory (excluding gravity) the
energy shifts of a state due to the magnetic field have been
investigated long ago \cite{field,qcd,stand}. The classical field
theory
formula for the energy of a state of a spin $S$, mass $M$ and charge
$e$ in a magnetic field
$H$ pointing in the third direction is:
\begin{equation}
E^2=p_3^2+M^2+|eH|(2n+1-gS)\label{class}
\end{equation}
were $g=1/S$ for minimally coupled states and $n=1,2,...$ labels the
Landau levels.
It is obvious from (\ref{class}) that minimally coupled particles
cannot become tachyonic, so the theory is stable.
For non-minimally coupled particles, however, the factor $2n+1-gS$
can become negative and instabilities thus appear.
For example, in non-abelian gauge theories, there are particles which
are not minimally coupled. In the standard model, the $W^{\pm}$
bosons
have $g=2$ and $S=\pm 1$. From (\ref{class}) we obtain that the
spontaneously broken phase in the standard model is thus unstable for
magnetic fields that satisfy \cite{qcd,stand}
\begin{equation}
|H|\geq {M_{W}^2\over |e|} \label{sta}
\end{equation}
A phase transition has to occur by a condensation of $W$ bosons, most
probably to a phase where the magnetic field is confined (localized)
in a tube, \cite{stand}.
This behavior should be contrasted to the constant electric field
case where
there is particle production \cite{sch} for any non-zero value of the
electric field, but the vacuum is stable (although the particle
emission tends to decrease the electric field).
The instabilities present for constant magnetic fields are still
present in general for slowly varying (long range) magnetic fields.
For a non-abelian gauge theory in the unbroken phase, since the mass
gap
is classically zero, we deduce from (\ref{class}) that the trivial
vacuum
($A_{\mu}^{a}=0$) is unstable even for infinitesimally small
chromo-magnetic
fields. This provides already an indication at the classical level
that the trivial vacuum is not the correct vacuum in an unbroken
non-abelian gauge theory. We know however, that such a theory
acquires a non-perturbative mass gap, $\Lambda^2\sim \mu^2
\exp[-16\pi^2 b_{0}/g^2]$ where $g$ is the non-abelian gauge
coupling.
If in such a
theory one managed to create a chromo-magnetic field then there would
again appear an instability and the theory would again confine the
field in a flux tube.
In string theory, non-minimal gauge couplings are present not only in
the massless sector but also in the massive (stringy) sectors
\cite{fpt}.
Thus one would expect similar instabilities.
Since in string theory there are states with arbitrary large values
of spin
and one can naively expect that if $g$ does not decrease fast enough
with the spin
(as is the case in open strings where $g=2$ \cite{fpt}) then for
states with
large spin an arbitrarily small magnetic field would destabilize the
theory. This behavior would imply that the trivial vacuum is
unstable.
This does not happen however since the masses of particles with spin
also become large when the spin gets large.
The spectrum of open bosonic strings in constant magnetic fields was
derived in \cite{acny}. Open bosonic strings however, contain
tachyons even in the absence
of background fields. It is thus more interesting to investigate
open superstrings which are tachyon-free.
This was done in \cite{fp}.
It was found that for weak magnetic fields the field theory formula
(\ref{class}) is obtained, and there are similar instabilities.
In closed superstring theory however, one is forced to include the
effects of gravity.
A constant magnetic field for example carries energy, thus, the space
cannot remain flat anymore.
The interesting question in this context is, to what extend, the
gravitational backreaction changes the behavior seen in field theory
and open string theory.
Such questions can have potential interesting applications in string
cosmology
since long range magnetic fields can be produced at early stages in
the history of the universe where field theoretic behavior can be
quite different from the stringy one.
The first example of an exact electromagnetic solution to closed
string theory
was described in \cite{bas}.
The solution included both an electric and magnetic field
(corresponding to the electrovac solution of supergravity).
In \cite{bk} another exact closed string solution was presented
(among others)
which corresponded to a Dirac monopole over $S^2$.
More recently, several other magnetic solutions were presented
corresponding to
localized \cite{melvin} or covariantly constant magnetic fields
\cite{rt}.
The spectrum of these magnetic solutions seems to have a different
behavior
as a function of the magnetic field, compared to the situation
treated in this paper. The reason for this is that \cite{rt}
considered magnetic solutions where the gravitational backreaction
produces a non-static metric.
``Internal" magnetic fields of the type described in \cite{bk} were
also considered recently \cite{b} in order to break spacetime
supersymmetry.
Here we will study the effects of covariantly constant
(chromo)magnetic fields, $H^a_i=\epsilon^{ijk}F_{jk}^a$ and constant
curvature
${\cal R}^{il}=\epsilon^{ijk}\epsilon^{lmn}{\cal R}_{jm,kn}$, in
four-dimensional closed superstrings.
The relevant framework was developed in \cite{kk} where ground
states were
found, with a continuous (almost constant) magnetic field in a weakly
curved space.
We will describe in this paper the detailed construction of such
ground states
and we will eventually study their behavior.
In the heterotic string (where the left moving
sector is N=1 supersymmetric) the part of the $\sigma$-model action
which corresponds to a gauge field background $A^{a}_{\mu}(x)$
is
\begin{equation}
V=(A^{a}_{\mu}(x)\partial x^{\mu}+F^{a}_{ij}(x)\psi^{i}\psi^{j})\bar
J^{a}
\label{vertex}
\end{equation}
where $F^{a}_{ij}$ is the field strength of $A^{a}_{\mu}$ with
tangent
space indices, eg. $F^{a}_{ij}=e^{\mu}_{i}e^{\nu}_{j}F^{a}_{\mu\nu}$
with $e^{\mu}_{i}$ being the inverse vielbein, and $\psi^{i}$ are
left-moving world-sheet fermions with a normalized kinetic term.
$\bar J^{a}$ is a right moving affine current.
Consider a string ground state with a flat non-compact (euclidean)
spacetime (${\rm I\!R}^{4}$).
The simplest case to consider is that of a constant magnetic field,
$H^a_i=\epsilon^{ijk}F_{jk}^a$.
Then the relevant vertex operator (\ref{vertex}) becomes
\begin{equation}
V_{flat}=F_{ij}^a({1\over 2}x^{i} \partial
x^{j}+\psi^{i}\psi^{j})\bar
J^{a}
\label{vertexflat}
\end{equation}
This vertex operator however, cannot be used to turn on the magnetic
field
since it is not marginal (when $F_{ij}^{a}$ is constant). In other
words, a constant magnetic in flat
space
does not satisfy the string equations of motion, in particular the
ones
associated with the gravitational sector.
A way to bypass this problem we need to switch on more background
fields.
In \cite{kk} we achieved this in two steps.
First, we found an exact string ground state in which ${\rm I\!R}^{4}$ is
replaced by
${\rm I\!R}\times S^{3}$. The ${\rm I\!R}$ part corresponds to free boson with
background charge
$Q=1/\sqrt{k+2}$ while the $S^{3}$ part corresponds to an $SU(2)_{k}$
WZW model. For any (positive integer) k, the combined central charge
is equal to that of ${\rm I\!R}^{4}$. For large $k$, this background has a
linear dilaton in the $x^{0}$ direction as well as an
$SO(3)$-symmetric antisymmetric tensor on $S^{3}$, while the metric
is
the standard round metric on $S^{3}$ with constant
curvature.
On this space, there is an exactly marginal vertex operator for a
magnetic field which is
\begin{equation}
V_{m}=H(J^{3}+\psi^{1}\psi^{2})\bar J^{a}\label{magnet}
\end{equation}
Here, $J^{3}$ is the left-moving current of the $SU(2)_{k}$ WZW
model.
$V_{m}$ contains the only linear combination of $J^{3}$ and
$\psi^{1}\psi^{2}$
that does not break the N=1 local supersymmetry.
The exact marginality of this vertex operator is obvious since it is
a product of a left times a right abelian current.
This operator is unique up to an $SU(2)_{L}$ rotation.
We can observe that this vertex operator provides a well defined
analog
of $V_{flat}$ in eq. (\ref{vertex}) by looking at the large $k$
limit.
We will write the SU(2) group element as
$g=\exp[i{\vec\sigma}\cdot{\vec x}/2]$ in which case
$J^{i}=kTr[\sigma^{i}
g^{-1}\partial g]=ik(\partial x^{i}+\epsilon^{ijk}x_j\partial x_k+{\cal{O}}(|x|^3))$.
In the flat limit the first term corresponds to a constant gauge
field
and thus pure gauge so the only relevant term is the second one which
corresponds to constant magnetic field in flat space.
The fact $\pi_{2}(S^{3})=0$ explains in a different way why there is
no quantization condition on $H$.
THis magnetic field background break spacetime supersymmetry as
usually expected.
It evades one of the assumptions of the Banks-Dixon theorem \cite{BD}
since it involves a vertex operator from non-compact 4-d spacetime.
There is another exactly marginal perturbation in the background
above
that turns on fields in the gravitational sector.
The relevant perturbation is
\begin{equation}
V_{grav}={\cal{R}} (J^{3}+\psi^{1}\psi^{2})\bar J^{3}
\label{gravi}\end{equation}
This perturbation modifies the metric, antisymmetric tensor and
dilaton \cite{kk}.
For type II strings the relevant perturbation is
\begin{equation}
V_{grav}^{II}={\cal{R}}(J^3+\psi^{1}\psi^{2})(\bar J^{3}+\bar\psi^{1}\bar
\psi^{2})
\end{equation}
The space we are using, ${\rm I\!R}\times S^3$ is such that the spectrum has
a mass gap
$\mu^2$.
In particular all gauge symmetries are broken spontaneously. This
breaking
however is not the standard breaking due to a constant expectation
value of a scalar but due to non-trivial expectation values of the
fields in the universal sector (graviton, antisymmetric tensor and
dilaton).
In subsequent sections we derive the exact spectrum of closed string
ground states in the presence of magnetic and gravitational fields
generated
by (\ref{magnet}), (\ref{gravi}).
An interesting first result is that such magnetic fields in closed
strings
cannot become larger than a maximal value
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm max}={M^2_{\rm planck}\over \sqrt{2}}
\end{equation}
where $M_{\rm planck}=M_{\rm string}/g_{\rm string}$, $M_{\rm
string}=1/\sqrt{\alpha'}$ and $g_{\rm
string}$ is the string coupling constant.
This is reminiscent of the appearance of a (finite) maximal electric
field in open superstrings \cite{bp}.
There, the maximal electric field is associated with the value at
which the pair-production rate per unit volume becomes infinite.
Here at $H=H_{\rm max}$ all states that couple to the magnetic field
(i.e. having non-zero charge and/or angular momentum) become
infinitely massive.
This phenomenon is similar to the limit ${\rm Im} U\to \infty$ in a
2-d torroidal
CFT. It is thus a boundary of the magnetic field moduli space.
Since the theories we consider have a mass gap, they are stable for
small magnetic fields. As we keep increasing the magnetic field we
find an instability for $|H|\geq H^{\rm crit}_{\rm lower}$ whose
origin is similar to the field theoretic one, namely
states with helicity one and non-minimal coupling become tachyonic.
Unlike field theory though (where $H^{\rm crit}_{\rm lower}\sim
\mu^2$)
here we find
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm crit}_{\rm lower}\sim \mu M_{\rm planck}
\end{equation}
The reason for the different behavior can be traced to the way the
gauge symmetry is broken in field theory versus our string ground
states.
In field theory higher helicity particles with non-minimal couplings
(like charged gauge bosons) get a mass from the expectation value of
a charged scalar (Higgs field). In the string ground states we
consider, the gauge symmetries are broken by non-trivial expectations
values in the generic sector
(graviton, antisymmetric tensor, dilaton).
Another major difference with field theory behavior is the
following:
In field theory, for $H\geq H^{\rm crit}_{\rm lower}$ the theory is
unstable
for arbitrarily high magnetic fields.
In closed string theory we find that theory generically becomes
stable again for
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm crit}_{\rm upper}\leq |H|\leq H_{\rm max}\label{up}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm max}-H^{\rm crit}_{\rm upper}\sim \mu M_{\rm planck}
\end{equation}
One might think that this region is irrelevant since the theory
undergoes a phase transition already for smaller magnetic fields.
One however, could imagine a situation where a strong localized
magnetic
field (which does not induce an instability) starts spreading out in
space
to become a long range field in the region described by (\ref{up}).
The geometry of spacetime, although deformed by the presence of the
magnetic field, remains smooth (free of singularities) for the whole
range $0\leq |H|
\leq H_{\rm max}$.
Similar remarks apply to the gravitational perturbation
(\ref{gravi}).
There, we can describe this perturbation with a modulus $0\leq
\lambda\leq 1$ so that
$\lambda=1$ corresponds to the round three-sphere geometry.
For $\lambda\not= 1$ the sphere is squashed as can be seen from the
expression
of the scalar curvature (in Euler angles):
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm scalar} ={8\over
k}{-1+5\lambda^2-\lambda^4+2H^2\lambda^2+(1-\lambda^4)\cos\beta\over
(
1+\lambda^2+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)^2}
\end{equation}
where we have also included the effects of a magnetic field $H$.
We note that again the geometry is smooth for $\lambda\not= 0$, while
it becomes singular at $\lambda=0$. This singularity corresponds to
the classical
singularity of the $SU(2)_{k}/U(1)$ coset model \cite{gk} which is
known to be absent from the corresponding CFT.
Simply, at $\lambda=0$ one dimension decompactifies.
Here again we find an instability for
\begin{equation}
0\leq \lambda_{\rm lower}\leq \lambda \leq \lambda_{\rm upper}\leq 1
\end{equation}
The structure of this paper is as follows.
In section 2 we describe how to construct, for any given 4-d flat
space ground state of the superstring, another ground state in curved
4-d space, with similar matter spectrum, but with a non-zero mass gap
$\mu^2$.
In section 3 we give the $\sigma$-model description of turning on
non-trivial
magnetic fields
and curvature in the ground states described in section 2.
In section 4 we give the CFT description of such magnetic
fields.
In section 5 we discuss the flat space limit when the mass gap
$\mu^2\to 0$.
Finally section 6 contain our conclusions and further directions.
\section{Construction of curved ${W_{k}}\otimes K$ string solutions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Our aim is to replace the Euclidean four-dimensional flat space
solution ${\rm I\!R}^4\otimes K$ by a curved space solution $W_{k}\otimes
K$, where we replace the four non-compact (super)coordinates of flat
space by the (super)coordinates of the $SU(2)_k\otimes {\rm I\!R}_Q$ theory.
Three of the coordinates describe $SU(2)_k$ (the three-dimensional
sphere) and the fourth is a flat coordinate with non zero background
charge $Q=1/\sqrt{k+2}$. The relation among the level $k$ (a
non-negative integer) and the background charge $Q$ is such that the
left and right central charges remains the same as in ${\rm I\!R}^4$ for
any value of $k$. This give us the possibility to keep unchanged the
internal superconformal theory $K$.
We will show below that the replacement ${\rm I\!R}^4\rightarrow W_k$ can be
done in a universal way and without reducing the number of spacetime
supersymmetries in almost all interesting cases with non-maximal
number of supersymmetries. In the case of maximal supersymmetry,
($N=4$ in heterotic and $N=8$ in type II), this replacement,
although is still universal, reduces by a factor of two the number of
space time supersymmetries. This reduction is unavoidable and due
to the fact that only half of the constant killing spinors of ${\rm I\!R}^4$
remain covariantly constant in the $W_k$ space
\cite{wormclas,worm,bil}. The non-zero
torsion and dilaton are responsible for this.
Let us start first with the case of maximal supersymmetry in flat
space. Following \cite{BD}, the world sheet super-current(s) of the
internal $K$ theory can be always constructed in terms of six free
bosons compactified on a torus and six free fermions\footnote{There
are some exotic cases though \cite{cp}, which will not be discussed
here.}; the internal fermions, the ${\rm I\!R}^4$ fermions and the $\beta,
\gamma$ ghosts of supereparametrizations must have identical
boundary conditions (periodic or antiperiodic) in all non-trivial
worldsheet cycles. In type II, this global restriction must be
respected separately for the left- and right-moving fermions and the
$\beta, \gamma$ ghosts. Also, the left and right momenta for the
compactified bosons in $K$ must form necessarily a self-dual
lorentzian lattice.
Both ${\rm I\!R}^4$ and $W_k$ are $N=4$ ${\hat c}=4$ superconformal
theories.
In both cases the $SU(2)_1$ $N=4$ currents $S^i$, $i=1,2,3$ are
constructed in terms of word sheet fermions $\psi_{0}$, $\psi_i$,
$i=1,2,3$
\begin{equation}
S^{i}= \frac{1}{2}\left(\psi_{0}\psi^{i}+
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijl}\psi_{j}\psi_{l}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Observe that only the three self-dual currents appear in the
algebra.
It order to specify better the difference among the ${\rm I\!R}^4$ and $W_k$
theories, it is convenient to parametrize the $S^{i}$ (self-dual)
currents and the remaining anti self-dual ones ${\tilde S}^i$
\begin{equation}
{\tilde S}^{i} = \frac{1}{2}\left(-\psi_{0}\psi^{i}+
\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijl}\psi_{j}\psi_{l}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
in terms of two free bosons, $H^{+}$ and $H^{-}$, both
compactified on a circle with radius $R_{H^{+}}=R_{H^{-}}=1$
(the self-dual $SU(2)$ extended symmetry point).
In both cases, the four $N=4$ supercurrents $G$, $G^{\dag}$, $\bar G$
and $\bar G^{\dag}$ are given as \cite{k}
\begin{equation}
{G} = -\left( \Pi^{\dag}e^{-\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}H^{-}} + P^{\dag}e^{+
\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}} H^{-}} \right) e^{+ \frac{i}{ \sqrt{2}}H^{+}}
\label{compl1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bar {G}} = \left( \Pi \;\; e^{+\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}H^{-}} - P\;\;
e^{-\frac{i}{ \sqrt{2}} H^{-}} \right) e^{+ \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}H^{+}}
\label{compl2}
\end{equation}
where $P$, $P^{\dag}$ and $\Pi$, $\Pi^{\dag}$ are the four coordinate
currents.
In ${\rm I\!R}^4$ they are
\begin{equation}
\Pi = \partial X_0+i\partial X_3 \, , \;\;\;\;\; \Pi^{\dag}=
-\partial X_0 +i\partial X_3 \,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P= \partial X_1 +i\partial X_2 \, , \;\;\;\;\; P^{\dag}= -\partial
X_1 +i\partial X_2 \,
\label{complbF}
\end{equation}
In the $W_k$ case, $P$, $P^{\dag}$ and $\Pi$, $\Pi^{\dag}$ get
modified due to the torsion and non-trivial dilaton. They can be
constructed in terms of the $SU(2)_k\otimes {\rm I\!R}_Q$ (anti-hermitian)
currents $J_i$ $i=1,2,3$, $J_0=\partial x^{0}$ and $H^{-}$,
$$
\Pi=J_0 + iQ(J_3+\sqrt{2}\partial H^-), \,\,\,\,\,
\Pi^{\dag}=-J_0+ iQ(J_3+\sqrt{2}\partial H^-)\ ,
$$
\begin{equation}
P=Q(J_1+iJ_2),
\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\
P^{\dag}=Q(-J_1+iJ_2)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
\label{Pcompl}
\end{equation}
The $H^-$ modifications are due to the non-trivial background fields
of the $W_{k}$ space.
In terms of the bosonized fermions, both the standard fermionic
torsion terms $\pm Q\psi_i\psi_j\psi_l$ and the fermionic background
charge terms ($\pm Q\partial\psi_i$) are combined in such a way that
only the anti-self dual combination, $\partial H^-$, modifies the
coordinate currents. The other important observation is the $H^{+}$
part in the supercurrents is factorized. The $H^{+}$ factorization
property is universal in all $N=4$ superconformal ${\hat{c}}=4$
superconformal theories \cite{k}.
It is evident from (\ref{compl1}), (\ref{compl2}) and (\ref{Pcompl})
that the supercurrents
(${G},G^{\dag}$) and (${\bar {G}},{\bar{G}}^{\dag}$) form two
doublets under $SU(2)_{H^{+}}$. On the other hand,
${G}$ and ${\tilde {G}}$ do not transform covariantly under the
action of $SU(2)_{H^{-}}$. They are odd, however, under a $\Z_2$
transformation, defined by $(-)^{2{\tilde S}}$, which is the parity
operator associated to the $SU(2)_{H^{-}}$ spin ${\tilde S}$ (integer
spin representations are even, while half-integer representations are
odd).
In $W_k$ we can define a global $SU(2)_{k+1}$ charge as the
diagonal combination of $SU(2)_k$ and $SU(2)_{H^-}$:
\begin{equation}
{\cal N}_i = J_i + {\tilde S}_i\ .
\label{ninumb}
\end{equation}
(${G},G^{\dag}$) and (${\bar {G}},{\bar {G}}^{\dag}$) form
two doublets under this $SU(2)_{k+1}$. Moreover $G$ and ${\bar {G}}$
have $({\cal N}_3, S_3)$ charges equal to $(-1/2,1/2)$ and
$(1/2,1/2)$, respectively. The global charge ${\cal N}_3$ in $W_k$
plays the role of the helicity operator $N_h$ of flat space
\begin{equation}
N_h=N_p+{\tilde S}_3
\end{equation}
where $N_p$ is the bosonic oscillator number which counts the number
of
the $P$-oscillators minus the number of $P^{\dag}$ ones.
The $N_h$, ${\cal N}_3$ charge, the $(-)^{2{\tilde S}}$ parity, as
well as
the $SU(2)_{H^{+}}$ spin $S$ play an important role in the
definition of the induced generalized GSO projections of the unitary
$N=4$ characters.
We would now like to show that when flat Euclidean four-space is
replaced by $W_k$, the maximal supersymmetry is reduced by a factor
of two. In order to avoid heavy notation for the vertex operators
which include the reparametrization ghosts, it is convenient to start
our discussion with a six dimensional theory ${\rm I\!R}^2\otimes
{\rm I\!R}^4\otimes K$ and compare it with ${\rm I\!R}^2\otimes W_k\otimes K$.
In the type-II case, both the flat and curved constructions have
their degrees of
freedom arranged in three superconformal theories as:
\begin{equation}
\{ \hat c\} = 10 = \{ \hat c = 2 \} + \{ \hat c = 4 \}_1 + \{ \hat c
= 4\}_2~.
\label{ceq}
\end{equation}
The $\hat c = 2$ system is saturated by two free superfields. The
remaining eight supercoordinates appear
in groups of four in $\{\hat c = 4\}_1$ and $\{\hat c = 4\}_2$. Both
$\{\hat c = 4\}_A$ systems exhibit $N = 4$ superconformal symmetry of
the Ademollo et al. type \cite{ademolo}.
The advantage of the six dimensional space in which two
super-coordinates are flat is that we can use the light-cone picture
in which the two-dimensional subspace ${\rm I\!R}^2$ is flat (non-compact
with
Lorentzian signature) and the eight transverse coordinates are
described by
the $\{\hat c = 4\}_1$ and $\{\hat c = 4\}_2$ theories. In this
picture, the supersymmetry generators are constructed by
analytic (or antianalytic) dimension-one currents, whose transverse
part
is a spin-field of dimension 1/2, constructed in terms of the $H^+_A$
and $H^-_A$ bosonized fermions (of the two ${\hat c}_A=4$,
$A=1,2$ theories). In the toroidal case, there are four such
spin-fields,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Theta_{\pm} &=& e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt 2}(H^+_1 \pm H^+_2)}\nonumber \\
{\rm and}~~~~\tilde{\Theta}_{\pm} &=& e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt 2}(H^-_1 \pm
H^-_2)}\ .
\label{susy}
\end{eqnarray}
which
are even under the GSO parity:
\begin{equation}
e^{2i\pi (S_1 +S_2)}\ ,
\label{GSO}
\end{equation}
where $S_A$ are the two $SU(2)_{H^+_A}$ level-one $N=4$ spins.
In the case of ${\rm I\!R}^2\otimes W_k\otimes K$ , only
the two supersymmetry generators based on the operators
$\Theta_{\pm}$, which are constructed with $H^+$'s, are
BRS-invariant. Indeed, the other two operators
$\tilde{\Theta}_{\pm}$
are not physical, due to the presence of the $\partial H^-$
modification, related to the torsion and/or background charge, in the
supercurrent expressions.
The global existence of the (chiral) $N=4$ superconformal algebra
implies in both constructions, a universal GSO projection that
generalizes \cite{worm} the one of the $N=2$ algebra
\cite{lls,gepner4d},
and which is responsible for the
existence of space-time supersymmetry. This projection restricts the
physical spectrum to being odd under the total $H^+_A$ parity
(\ref{GSO}). Thus, the supersymmetry generators based on
$\Theta_{\pm}$, which are even under (\ref{GSO}), when acting on
physical states, create physical states with the same mass but with
different statistics. The GSO projection restricts
the (level-one) character combinations associated with the two
$SU(2)_{H^+}$'s to appear in the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} (1-(-)^{l_1+l_2})
\chi^{H^+_1}_{l_1}\chi^{H^+_2}_{l_2} =
\chi^{H^+_1}_{l_1} \chi^{H^+_2}_{1-l_1}\delta_{l_2,1-l_1}\ ,
\label{charplus}
\end{equation}
with $l_A=2S_A$ taking values 0 or 1, corresponding to the two
possible characters, (spin-$0$ and spin-$1/2$) of the $SU(2)_{1}$
affine algebra.
The basic rules in both constructions are similar to those of the
orbifold construction \cite{orbifold}, the free 2-d
fermionic constructions \cite{ferm}, and the Gepner construction
\cite{gepner4d}. There, one combines in a modular invariant way the
world-sheet degrees of freedom consistently with unitarity and
spin-statistics of the string spectrum. In both cases, the 2-d
fermions are free and their characters are given in terms of
$\vartheta$-functions. The 6-d Lorentz invariance in the flat case
and the existence of $SU(2)_k$ currents in the curved case imply the
same boundary conditions for the super-reparametrization ghosts and
the six of the worldsheet fermions. In the flat case there is no
obstruction to choose the remaining four fermions with the same
boundary conditions and obtain the well known partition function with
maximal space-time supersymmetry:
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_F = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau^2|\eta|^8}~{1\over 4}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta\atop {\bar\alpha},{\bar\beta}}~
(-)^{\alpha+\beta+{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}~
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}}_{{\bar\beta}}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}~Z_4[^0_0],
\label{pF}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $Z_4[^0_0]$ contribution is that of four compactified
coordinates:
\begin{equation}
Z_{4}[^0_0]={\Gamma(4,4)\over |\eta|^8}\label{444}
\end{equation}
and $\Gamma(4,4)$ stands for the usual lattice sum. $\alpha$,
$\beta$ and ${\bar\alpha}$, ${\bar\beta}$ denote the left- and
right-moving spin structures. The spin-statistic factors
$(-)^{\alpha +\beta}$ and
$(-)^{\bar{\alpha} +\bar{\beta}}$ come from the contribution of the
(left- and right-moving) ${\rm I\!R}^2$ world-sheet fermions and the
(left- and right-moving) $({\bf\beta}, {\bf\gamma})$-ghosts.
The Neveu-Schwarz ($NS$, $\overline{NS}$) sectors correspond to
$\alpha, \bar{\alpha}=0$ and the Ramond ($R,\bar{R}$) sectors
correspond to $\alpha, \bar{\alpha}=1$. For later convenience we
decompose the $O(4)$ level-one characters, which are written in terms
of
$\vartheta$-functions, in terms of the $SU(2)_{H^{+}_{1}}\otimes
SU(2)_{H^{-}_{1}}$ characters using the identity:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\vartheta ^{2} [^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{ \eta ^{2}(\tau)}=
\sum_{l=0}^{1} (-)^{\beta l} \chi_{l}^{H^{+}_1}
\chi_{l+\alpha(1-2l)}^{H^{-}_1}\ ,
\label{theeta}
\end{equation}
and similarly for the right-movers.
Using the decomposition above, we can write the flat partition
function in terms of $SU(2)_{H^{+}_1}$, $SU(2)_{H^{-}_2}$ ,
$SU(2)_{H^{+}_2}$ and
$SU(2)_{ H^{-}_2 }$ characters as
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_F = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau^2|\eta|^8}
{}~\sum_{\alpha,{\bar\alpha}}~
(-)^{\alpha+{\bar\alpha}}~
\chi_{l}^{H^{+}_1} \chi_{l+\alpha}^{H^{-}_1}~
\chi_{1+l}^{H^{+}_2} \chi_{1+l+\alpha}^{H^{-}_2}~
{\bar\chi}_{\bar l}^{H^{+}_1}
{\bar\chi}_{{\bar l}+{\bar\alpha}}^{H^{-}_1}~
{\bar\chi}_{1+{\bar l}}^{H^{+}_2}
{\bar\chi}_{1+{\bar l}+{\bar\alpha}}^{H^{-}_2}
{}~Z_4[^0_0],
\label{pFchar}
\end{eqnarray}
In going from (\ref{pF}) to (\ref{pFchar}), the $\beta$ and
${\bar\beta}$ summations give rise to the universal (left- and
right-moving) GSO projections among the $SU(2)_{H^{+}_1}$ and
$SU(2)_{H^{+}_2}$ spins, $2 S_1 + 2{ S}_2$=odd, as well as among
those of $SU(2)_{H^{-}_1}$, $SU(2)_{H^{-}_2}$, $2\tilde S_{1}+2\tilde
S_{2}=$ odd. These projections
imply the existence of
maximal space-time
supersymmetry. The phase $(-)^{\alpha+{\bar\alpha}}$ guarantees the
spin-statistics connection; it equals $+1$ for space-time bosons and
$-1$ for space-time fermions.
Replacing ${\rm I\!R}^4$ flat space with $W_k$, some modifications are
necessary. Namely, we must combine the ${\rm I\!R}_Q$ Liouville-like
characters and the $SU(2)_k$ ones ($\chi _{L}~,~L=0,1,2,\cdots, k$)
with those of the remaining 2-d bosons and fermions, in a way
consistent with unitarity and modular invariance.
The ${\rm I\!R}_Q$ Liouville-like characters can be classified in two
categories. Those that correspond to the continuous representations
generated by the operators:
\begin{equation}
e^{\beta X_L}\ ;\quad \beta=-\frac{1}{2}Q +ip\ ,
\label{contchar}
\end{equation}
having positive conformal weights
$\Delta_p=\frac{Q^2}{8}+\frac{p^2}{2}$.
The fixed imaginary part in the momentum $iQ/2$ of the plane waves,
is due to the non-trivial dilaton motion. The second category of
Liouville characters \cite{sbk} corresponds to lowest-weight
operators
(\ref{contchar}) with $\beta=Q\tilde{\beta}$ real, leading to
negative conformal dimensions
$-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\beta}(\tilde{\beta}+1)Q^2=
-\frac{\tilde{\beta}(\tilde{\beta}+1)}{k+2}$. Both categories of
Liouville representations give rise to unitary representations of
the $N=4$, ${\hat c}=4$ $W_k$ theory, once they are combined
with
the remaining degrees of freedom. The continuous representations
(\ref{contchar}) form long (massive) representations \cite{ademolo}
of $N=4$ with
conformal weights larger than the $N=4$, $SU(2)$ spin, $\Delta>S$. On
the
other hand, the second category contains short representations of
$N=4$ \cite{ademolo}
($\Delta=S$), while $\beta$ can take only a finite number of values,
$-(k+2)/2\le\tilde{\beta}\le k/2$. In fact, their locality with
respect to the
$N=4$ operators implies \cite{worm}:
\begin{eqnarray}
S &=& \frac{1}{2},\quad \tilde{S}=\frac{1}{2}:\quad \tilde{\beta} =
-(j+1) \nonumber \\
S &=& 0,\quad \tilde{S}=0:\quad \tilde{\beta} = j\ .
\label{discrchar}
\end{eqnarray}
In both cases of (\ref{discrchar}), the conformal weight $\Delta=S$
is
independent of $SU(2)_k$ and $SU(2)_{H^-}$ spins, due to the
cancellation between the Liouville and $SU(2)_k$ contributions. The
states associated to the short representations of $N=4$ do not have
the interpretation of propagating states, but they describe a
discrete set
of localized states. They are similar to the discrete states found in
the
$c=1$ matter system coupled to the Liouville field \cite{lz} and the
two-dimensional $SL(2,R)/O(1,1)$ coset model \cite{sl2}.
Although they
play a crucial role in scattering amplitudes, they do not correspond
to asymptotic
states and they do not contribute to the partition function.
Indeed,
in our case they are not only discrete but also
finite in number. They obviously are of zero measure compared to the
contribution of the continuous (propagating) representations.
The presence of discrete
representations with $\beta$ positive are necessary to define
correlation functions. In fact, the balance of the background
charge for an $N$-point amplitude at genus $g$ implies the relation
\cite{worm}
\begin{equation}
N+2(g-1)+2\sum_I\tilde{\beta}_I=0\ ,
\label{screen}
\end{equation}
where the sum is extended over the vertices of the discrete
representation states. Thus, these vertices define an appropriate set
of screening operators, necessary to define amplitudes in the
presence
of non-vanishing background charge. In our case, the screening
procedure has an interesting physical interpretation similar to the
scattering of asymptotic propagating states (continuous
representations) in the presence of non-propagating bound states
(discrete representations). The screening operation then describes
the
possible angular momentum (of SU(2)) excitations of the bound states.
Below, we
restrict ourselves to the one-loop partition function, where the
discrete representations are not necessary (see eq.(\ref{screen})
with
$g=1$ and $N=0$).
It is convenient to define appropriate character combinations of
$SU(2)_k$, which transform covariantly under modular transformations
\cite{worm}:
\begin{equation}
Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]
=Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha+2}_{\beta}]=Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha}_{\beta+2}]=
e^{-i\pi\alpha\beta k/2}\sum_{l=0}^k e^{i\pi\beta l} \chi_l
\bar{\chi}_{(1-2\alpha)l+\alpha k}
\label{zab}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, $\beta$ can be either 0 or 1.
The $SU(2)_{k}$ characters are given by the familiar expressions
\cite{kp},
\begin{equation}
\chi_{l}(\tau)={\vartheta_{l+1,k+2}(\tau,v)-\vartheta_{-l-1,k+2}(\tau,v)\over
\vartheta_{1,2}(\tau,v)-\vartheta_{-1,2}(\tau,v)}|_{v=0}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\vartheta_{m,k}(\tau,v)\equiv \sum_{n\in \Z}\exp\left[2\pi i
k\left(n+{m\over 2k}\right)^2\tau-2\pi i k\left(n+{m\over
2k}\right)v\right]
\end{equation}
are the level-k $\vartheta$-functions.
The projection induced in (\ref{zab}) will project $SU(2)\to SO(3)$.
This can be done consistently when $k$ is an even integer, which we
assume from now on.
Under modular
transformations, $Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]$ transforms as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau\rightarrow\tau +1~~~:~~~
&Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]& \longrightarrow
Z_{so(3)}[^{~\alpha}_{\beta+\alpha}]
\nonumber \\
\tau\rightarrow{-1/\tau}~~~:~~~
&Z_{so(3)}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]& \longrightarrow
Z_{so(3)}[^{\beta}_{\alpha}]\ .
\label{zabtransf}
\end{eqnarray}
The partition function must satisfy two basic constraints emerging
from the $N=4$ algebra. The first is associated to the two spectral
flows of the $N=4$ algebra which impose the universal GSO projection
$2(S_1+S_2)$=odd among the $H^+$ spins. The second
constraint is associated to the reduction of space-time
supersymmetries by a factor of 2. It imposes a second projection
which eliminates half of the lowest-lying states constructed from the
$H^-_1$ field, which are not local with respect to the
$N=4$ generators. These unphysical states should be eliminated from
the spectrum by an additional GSO projection involving the two
$H^{-}_i$ spins
$\tilde S_i$ as well as the spin of $SU(2)_k$.
For $k$ even, there is a $\Z_2$ automorphism of $SU(2)_k$ which
leaves
invariant the currents but acts non-trivially on the
odd
spin representations. This allows to correlate the $SU(2)_{H_1^-}$,
$SU(2)_{H_1^-}$
and
$SU(2)_k$ spins in a way which projects out of the spectrum the
unphysical states. This $\Z_2$ must act simultaneously on the four
toroidal compactified coordinates in order to guarantee the global
existence of the $N=1$ supercurrent. The modular-invariant partition
function then is:
\begin{equation}
Z_W = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2}~{1\over 8}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,{\bar\alpha}\atop {\bar\beta},\gamma,\delta}
(-)^{(\alpha+{\bar\alpha})(1+\delta)+\beta+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+\gamma}_{\beta+\delta}]}{\eta^2}~
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}+\gamma}_{{\bar\beta}+\delta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
{Z_{so(3)}[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\over V}~ Z_4[^\gamma _\delta]
\label{pW}
\end{equation}
where $Z_4[^\gamma _\delta ]$ denotes the $T^{(4)}/\Z_2$ orbifold
twisted characters. $Z_{4}[^0_0]$ is given in (\ref{444}) while for
$(h,g)\not= (0,0)$
we have
\begin{equation}
Z_{4}[^h_g]={|\eta|^4\over |\vartheta[^{1+h}_{1+g}]\vartheta[^{1-h}_{1-g}]|^2}
\end{equation}
We have also divided by the (quantum) volume of $S^3$
\begin{equation}
V={(k+2)^{3/2}\over 8\pi}\;\;\;.\label{volume}
\end{equation}
We may rewrite the partition function above in terms of various
$SU(2)$ characters so that the induced GSO projections are more
transparent.
$$
Z_W = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2}
{}~\sum_{\alpha,{\bar\alpha},\gamma,l,{\bar l}=0}^{1}
(-)^{\alpha+{\bar\alpha}}~
\chi_{l}^{H^{+}_1} \chi_{l+\alpha}^{H^{-}_1}~
\chi_{l+1}^{H^{+}_2} \chi_{l+1+\alpha+\gamma}^{H^{-}_2}~
{\bar\chi}_{\bar l}^{H^{+}_1}
{\bar\chi}_{{\bar l}+{\bar\alpha}}^{H^{-}_1}~
{\bar\chi}_{1+{\bar l}}^{H^{+}_2}
{\bar\chi}_{1+{\bar l}+{\bar\alpha}+\gamma}^{H^{-}_2}\times
$$
\begin{equation}
\times~{1\over V}\sum_{L=0}^{k}\sum_{\delta=0}^{1} {1\over 2}
(-)^{\delta[\alpha+l+{\bar\alpha}+{\bar l}+{k\over 2}\gamma+L]}~
\chi_L \bar{\chi}_{(1-2\gamma)L+\gamma k}~Z_4[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\ ,
\label{pWchar}
\end{equation}
As in the flat case, the $\beta$ and
${\bar\beta}$ summations give rise to the universal (left- and
right-moving) GSO projections $2(S_1+S_2)$=odd, which imply the
existence of
space-time
supersymmetry. The summation over $\delta$ however gives rise to an
additional projection, which correlates the $SU(2)_{H^-_2}$ (left and
right) spin together with the spin of $SU(2)_k$ and $T^{(4)}/\Z_2$
twisted bosonic oscillator numbers. This projection reduces
the number of space-time supersymmetries by a factor of two.
In the $\gamma=0$ sector (untwisted sector), the lower-lying states
have (left and
right)
mass-squared $Q^2/8$ and $L=0$. This is due to the non-trivial
dilaton for the bosons,
and to the non-trivial torsion for the fermions.
The contribution of 2-d fermions in the partition function
of the $\gamma=0$ sector is identical to the fermionic part of the
partition function of the ten-dimensional type II superstring with
an additional projection acting on $SU(2)_k$ spins :
\begin{equation}
Z_W^{\gamma =0} = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2}
{1\over 4} |\vartheta_3^4-\vartheta_4^4-\vartheta_2^4|^2
\sum_{L=even}^{k}{ |\chi_L|^2\over V}~Z_4[^0_0]
\label{pfu}
\end{equation}
As was stressed before, the extra $\Z_2$ projection is dictated
from the $N=4$ superconformal algebra, in order to eliminate the
unphysical states from the
untwisted sector. Modular invariance implies
the presence of a twisted sector $(\gamma=1)$, which contains states
with (left and right) mass-squared always larger than $(k-2)/16$.
In the large $k$ limit the twisted states become super-heavy
We can now return to our initial problem and examine the Euclidean
$W_k\otimes K$ theory with maximal space-time supersymmetry. The
latter can be obtained by a $T^{2}$ torus compactification from the
Euclidean version
of the six dimensional construction described above. Observe that it
is necessary to act non-trivially in the internal theory $K$, since
the $\Z_2$ in question has to act on the four out of the six
compactified coordinates.
The resulting partition function is:
\begin{equation}
Z^{4d}_W = {{\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2\over 8}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,{\bar\alpha}\atop {\bar\beta},\gamma,\delta}
(-)^{(\alpha+{\bar\alpha})(1+\delta)+\beta+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+\gamma}_{\beta+\delta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}+\gamma}_{{\bar\beta}+\delta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
{Z_{so(3)}[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\over V}Z_2[^0_0]Z_4[^\gamma _\delta]\
,
\label{pW4}
\end{equation}
where $Z_2[^0_0]$ is the contribution of the $T^{(2)}$
compactification,
on a $(2,2)$ Lorentzian lattice: $Z_2[^0_0]$=$ \Gamma
(2,2)/|\eta|^4$.
In the heterotic case, a modular-invariant partition function for $k$
even can be easily obtained using the heterotic map \cite{lls},
\cite{gepner4d}. It consists of
replacing in (\ref{pW4}) the $O(4)$ characters associated to the
right-moving fermionic coordinates ${\bar\psi}^{\mu}$, with the
characters of either $O(12)\otimes E_8$:
\begin{equation}
(-)^{{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\rightarrow
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{6}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^6}
{1\over
2}\sum_{\gamma\delta=0}^{1}{\bar\vartheta^8[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\over
\bar\eta^8}
\label{pfheta}
\end{equation}
or $O(28)$:
\begin{equation}
(-)^{{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\rightarrow
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{14}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^{14}}
\ .
\label{pfhetb}
\end{equation}
Other heterotic constructions can be obtain in the case where the
extra $\Z_2$
projection acts asymmetrically on the left and right degrees of
freedom.
In all these constructions the number of space time supersymmetries
in flat 4d space
($N=8$ in type II and $N=4$ in heterotic) is reduced by a factor
of two when we move in the $W_k$ space.
This reduction of space time supersymmetries due to the non trivial
mixing of
the $SU(2)_k$ characters and those of the internal space can be
avoided
in the case where the flat construction has a lower number of space
time supersymmetries. In order to see how this works, we will examine
first the case of $\Z_2$ symmetric orbifold, based on ${\rm I\!R}^4\otimes
T^{(2)}\otimes T^{(4)}/\Z_2$, in which the number of supersymmetries
is $N=2$
in heterotic and $N=4$ in type II.
Contrary to the maximal supersymmetry case, here the number of
supersymmetry
is already reduced by the $\Z_2$ orbifold projection which acts non
trivially
to the two spin fields $\tilde{\Theta}_{\pm} = e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt
2}(H^-_1 \pm
H^-_2)}\ $
constructed with the $H^-_i$ bosons.
The $\Z_2$ orbifold partition function for ${\rm I\!R}^4\otimes
T^{(2)}\otimes T^{(4)}/\Z_2$ is:
\begin{equation}
Z^{\Z_2} = {1\over {\rm Im}\tau|\eta|^4}~{1\over 8}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,{\bar\alpha}\atop {\bar\beta},h,g}
(-)^{\alpha+\beta+{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+h}_{\beta+g}]}{\eta^2}~
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}+h}_{{\bar\beta}+g}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
{}~Z_2[^0_0]Z_4[^h _g]
\label{pFZ2}
\end{equation}
The $g$-action projects out in the untwisted sector (h=0) the
unwanted spin fields, $\tilde{\Theta}_{\pm}=e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt
2}(H^-_1 \pm
H^-_2)}\ $ as usual.
Replacing flat space ${\rm I\!R}^4$ with $W_k$ in the orbifold model
above,
we must specify the extra $\Z_2$ action, which, as we explained in
the maximal supersymmetry example, must act non-trivially on the
$\tilde{\Theta}_{\pm}=e^{\frac{i}{\sqrt 2}(H^-_1 \pm
H^-_2)}\ $ spin fields as well as on the $SU(2)_k$ characters. This
action must be in agreement with modular invariance and unitarity.
The resulting partition function is:
\begin{equation}
Z_{W}^{\Z_2} = {{\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2\over 16}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,{\bar\alpha},{\bar\beta}\atop\gamma,\delta,h,g}
(-)^{\alpha+\beta+{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta}}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+\gamma}_{\beta+\delta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+h}_{\beta+g}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha+\gamma}_{\bar\beta+\delta}]}
{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}+h}_{{\bar\beta}+g}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
{Z_{so(3)}[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\over V} Z_2[^0_0]Z_4[^{h+\gamma}
_{g+\delta }]
\label{pFZ3}
\end{equation}
Redefining the parameters $\alpha\rightarrow\alpha-\gamma$,
$\beta\rightarrow\beta-\delta$, $h\rightarrow h+\gamma$ $g\rightarrow
g+\delta$,
the partition function above takes the following factorized form:
\begin{equation}
Z_{W}^{\Z_2} = {\rm Im}\tau^{1/2}|\eta|^2~{1\over 2}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}
{Z_{so(3)}[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]\over V}~{1\over 8}
\sum_{\alpha,\beta,{\bar\alpha}\atop {\bar\beta},h,g}
(-)^{\alpha+\beta+{\bar\alpha}+{\bar\beta} }
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha}_{\beta}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{\vartheta^{2}[^{\alpha+h}_{\beta+g}]}{\eta^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}[^{\bar\alpha}_{\bar\beta}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
\frac{{\bar\vartheta}^{2}
[^{{\bar\alpha}+h}_{{\bar\beta}+g}]}{{\bar\eta}^2}
Z_2[^0_0]Z_4[^{h} _{g}]
\label{pFZ2fact}
\end{equation}
Using the heterotic map (\ref{pfheta}) or (\ref{pfhetb})) we obtain
heterotic constructions
in curved space with $N=2$ spacetime supersymmetric spectrum. Since
the $SO(3)_{k/2}$ contribution factorizes, the number of space-time
supersymmetries remains the same as in flat space.
The factorization property above, is not a special property of the
$\Z_2$ symmetric orbifold but is generic for all ${\rm I\!R}^4\otimes K$
models provided the internal space $K$ is not a theory that produces
maximal supersymmetry.
Indeed, in cases where the internal $K$ theory is non-trivial, the
spin fields which are non-BRST invariant in $W_k\otimes K$ are
already absent in the flat space ground state. The validity of this
statement can be proven in all orbifold constructions.
The reason of the non-factorization in the case where $K$ is toroidal
is due to the reduction by a factor of two of the covariantly
constant spinors in the $W_k$ background indicating that spacetime
supersymmetry cannot be maximal. When the internal space is not
trivial then the number of space time supersymmetries is already
reduced in flat space and thus, further reduction is not necessary.
Observe however, that the odd spin representations of the $SU(2)_k$
($2j$=odd) are absent, since they are projected out by the $\Z_2$
projection discussed above. Therefore, the correct target space is
the $\Z_2$ orbifold of $SU(2)_k$, namely
that of $SO(3)_{k/2}$.
Thanks to the factorization property described above in the
non-maximal supersymmetric case, we can always construct the curved
space-time partition function, $Z^W(\tau,{\bar \tau})$ in terms of
that of flat space $Z_{0}(\tau,{\bar \tau})$,
\begin{equation}
Z^W(\tau,{\bar \tau})=
{\rm Im}\tau^{3/2}|\eta(\tau)|^6~{\Gamma(SO(3)_{k/2})\over V}Z_{0}(\tau,{\bar
\tau})\label{zero}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(SO(3)_{k/2})$ is the partition function of the $SO(3)$
WZW model at level $k/2$:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(SO(3)_{k/2})={1\over
2}\sum_{\gamma,\delta=0}^{1}Z_{so(3)}[^{\gamma}_{\delta}]
\end{equation}
\section{The $\sigma$-model description of magnetic and
gravitational backgrounds}\setcounter{equation}{0}
The starting 4-d spacetime (we will use Euclidean signature here) is
described
by the $SO(3)_{k/2}\times {\rm I\!R}_{Q}$ CFT.
The heterotic $\sigma$-model that describes this space is\footnote{
In most formulae we set $\alpha'=1$ unless stated otherwise.}
\begin{equation}
S_{4d}={k\over 4}{\bf I}_{SO(3)}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)
+{1\over 2\pi}\int d^2z \left[\partial x^{0}\bar \partial
x^{0}+\psi^{0}\bar \partial\psi^{0}+\sum_{a=1}^{3}\psi^{a}\bar \partial\psi^{a}\right]+
{Q\over 4\pi}\int \sqrt{g}R^{(2)}x^{0}
\end{equation}
while the SU(2) action can be written in Euler angles as
\begin{equation}
{\bf I}_{SO(3)}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)={1\over 2\pi}\int d^2
z\left[\partial\alpha\bar \partial\alpha+\partial\beta\bar \partial\beta
+\partial\gamma\bar \partial\gamma+2\cos\beta\partial\alpha\bar \partial\gamma\right]
\end{equation}
with $\beta\in[0,\pi]$, $\alpha,\gamma\in[0,2\pi]$ and $k$ is a positive even
integer.
In the type II case we have to add also the right moving fermions
$\bar \psi^{i}$, $1\leq i\leq 4$. The fermions are free (this is a
property
valid for all supersymmetric WZW models).
Comparing with the general (bosonic) $\sigma$-model
\begin{equation}
S={1\over 2\pi}\int d^2 z (G_{\mu\nu}+B_{\mu\nu})\partial x^{\mu}\bar \partial
x^{\nu}+
{1\over 4\pi}\int \sqrt{g}R^{(2)}\Phi(x)
\end{equation}
we can identify the non-zero background fields as
\begin{equation}
G_{00}=1\;\;,\;\; G_{\alpha\a}=G_{\beta\b}=G_{\gamma\g}={k\over 4}
\label{3s1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over 4}\cos\beta\;\;\;,\;\;\;B_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over 4}\cos\beta
\label{3s2}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi=Qx^{0}={x^{0}\over \sqrt{k+2}}\label{dil}
\end{equation}
where the relation between $Q$ and $k$ is required from the
requirement that
the (heterotic) central charge should be $(6,4)$, in which case we
have (4,0)
superconformal invariance, \cite{k}.
The perturbation that turns on a chromo-magnetic field in the $\mu=3$
direction
is proportional to $(J^{3}+\psi^1\psi^2)\bar J$ where $\bar J$ is a
right moving current belonging to the Cartan subalgebra of the
heterotic gauge group.
It is normalized so that $\langle\bar J(1)\bar J(0)\rangle=k_{g}/2$.
Since
\begin{equation}
J^{3}=k(\partial\gamma+\cos\beta\partial\alpha)\;\;\;,\;\;\;J^{3}=k(\bar \partial\alpha+\cos\beta\bar \partial\gamma)
\end{equation}
this perturbation changes the $\sigma$-model action in the following
way:
\begin{equation}
\delta S_{4d}={\sqrt{kk_{g}}H\over 2\pi}\int d^2
z(\partial\gamma+\cos\beta\partial\alpha)\bar J
\label{gauge}
\end{equation}
In the type II case $\bar J$ is a bosonic current (it has a left
moving partner) and we can easily show that the $\sigma$-model with
action
$S_{4d}+\delta S_{4d}$ is conformally invariant to all orders in
$\alpha'$.
This can be seen by writing $\bar J=\bar \partial \phi$ and noticing that
\begin{equation}
{k\over 4}{\bf I}_{SO(3)}(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)+\delta S_{4d}+{k_{g}\over
4\pi}\int d^2
z~\partial\phi\bar \partial\phi={k\over 4}{\bf
I}_{SO(3)}\left(\alpha,\beta,\gamma+2\sqrt{k_{g}\over
k}H\phi\right)+
\label{wzw}\end{equation}
$$+{k_{g}(1-2H^2)\over 4\pi}\int d^2
z~\partial\phi\bar \partial\phi
$$
It is already obvious from (\ref{wzw}) that something special
happens at
$H^2=1/2$. In fact in the toroidal case that would correspond to a
boundary
of moduli space. It is the limit Im$U\to \infty$ in the case of a
$(2,2)$ lattice.
Here the interpretation would be of a maximum magnetic field.
We will see more signals of this later on.
Reading the spacetime backgrounds from (\ref{gauge}) is not entirely
trivial but straightforward.
In type II case (which corresponds to standard Kalutza-Klein
reduction) the correct metric has an $A_{\mu}A_{\nu}$ term
subtracted \cite{dpn}.
In the heterotic case there is a similar subtraction but the reason
is different. It has to do with the anomaly in the holomorphic
factorization
of a boson (see for example \cite{p}).
The background fields have to be solutions (in leading order in $\alpha
'$) to the following equations of motion \cite{eff}:
\begin{equation}
\delta c={3\over 2}\left[4(\nabla\Phi)^2-{10\over 3}\hbox{{$\sqcup$}\llap{$\sqcap$}}\Phi-{2\over
3}R+{1\over 12g^2}F^{a}_{\mu\nu}F^{a,\mu\nu}\right]=0
\label{1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
R_{\mu\nu}-{1\over 4}H^2_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
2g^2}F^a_{\mu\rho}{F^{a}_{\nu}}^{\rho}+2\nabla_{\mu}\nabla_{\nu}
\Phi=0\label{2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{\mu}\left[e^{-2\Phi}H_{\mu\nu\rho}\right]=0\label{3}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{\nu}\left[e^{-2\Phi}F^{a}_{\mu\nu}\right] -{1\over
2}F^{a,\nu\rho}
H_{\mu\nu\rho}e^{-2\Phi}\label{4}
\end{equation}
which stem from the variation of the effective action,
\begin{equation}
S=\int d^{4}x\sqrt{G}e^{-2\Phi}\left[R+4(\nabla\Phi)^2-{1\over
12}H^2-{1\over 4g^2}F^a_{\mu\nu}F^{a,\mu\nu}+{\delta c\over
3}\right]\label{5}
\end{equation}
where we have displayed a gauge field $A^{a}_{\mu}$, (abelian or
non-abelian) and set $g_{\rm string}=1$. The gauge coupling
is $g^2=2/k_{g}$ due to the normalization of the currents in
(\ref{norm}),
\begin{equation}
F^a_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}+f^{abc}
A^{b}_{\mu}A^{c}_{\nu}
\label{6}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H_{\mu\nu\rho}=\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu\rho}-{1\over
2g^2}\left[A^a_{\mu}F^a_{\nu\rho}-{1\over
3}f^{abc}A^{a}_{\mu}A^{b}_{\nu}A^{c}_{\rho}\right]+{\rm
cyclic}\;\;{\rm permutations}\label{7}
\end{equation}
and $f^{abc}$ are the structure constants of the gauge group.
In this paper we will restrict ourselves to abelian gauge fields (in
the cartan
of a non-abelian gauge group).
It is not difficult now to read from (\ref{gauge}) the background
fields
that satisfy the equations above.
The non-zero components are:
\begin{equation}
G_{00}=1\;\;,\;\;G_{\beta\b}={k\over 4}\;\;,\;\;G_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over
4}(1-2H^2)\cos\beta
\label{8}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha\a}={k\over 4}(1-2H^2\cos^2\beta)\;\;,\;\;G_{\gamma\g}={k\over
4}(1-2H^2)\;\;,\;\;B_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over 4}\cos\beta
\label{9}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_{a}=g\sqrt{k}H\cos\beta\;\;\;,\;\;\;A_{\gamma}=g\sqrt{k}H
\label{10}\end{equation}
and the same dilaton as in (\ref{dil}).
As shown before this background is exact to all orders in the $\alpha '$
expansion
with simple modification $k\to k+2$.
It is interesting to note that
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{{\rm det}G}=\sqrt{1-2H^2}\left({k\over 4}\right)^{3/2}\sin\beta
\end{equation}
which indicates, as advertised earlier, that something special
happens
at $H_{max}=1/\sqrt{2}$.
At this point the curvature is regular.
In fact, this is a boundary point where the states that couple to the
magnetic field (i.e. states with non-zero ${\cal{Q}}+I$ and/or $e$) become
infinitely massive and decouple.
This is the same phenomenon as the degeneration of the Kh\"aler
structure on a two-torus (${\rm Im}U\to\infty$).
Thus, this point is at the boundary of the magnetic field moduli
space.
This is very interesting since it implies the existence of a maximal
magnetic
field
\begin{equation}
|H|\leq H_{max}={1\over \sqrt{2}}
\end{equation}
We should note here that the deformation of the spherical geometry by
the magnetic field is smooth for all ranges of parameters, even at
the boundary point $H=1/\sqrt{2}$.
To monitor better the back-reaction of the effective field theory
geometry
we should first write the three-sphere with the round metric
(\ref{3s1}), (\ref{3s2}), as the (Hopf)
fibration of $S^1$ as fiber and a two-sphere as base space:
\begin{equation}
ds^2_{\rm 3-sphere}={k\over 4}\left[ds^2_{\rm 2-sphere}+(d\gamma+\cos\beta
d\alpha)^2\right]
\label{hopf}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
ds^2_{\rm 2-sphere}=d\beta^2+\sin^2\beta d\alpha^2
\end{equation}
The second term in (\ref{hopf}) is the metric of the $S^1$ fiber, and
its non-trivial dependence on $\alpha,\beta$ signals the non-triviality of
the Hopf fibration.
This metric has $SO(3)\times SO(3)$ symmetry.
The metric (\ref{8}), (\ref{9}) containing the backreaction to the
non-zero magnetic field can be written as
\begin{equation}
ds^2={k\over 4}\left[ds^2_{\rm 2-sphere}+(1-2H^2)(d\gamma+\cos\beta
d\alpha)^2\right]
\label{back}\end{equation}
It is obvious from (\ref{back}) the magnetic field changes the radius
of the fiber and breaks the $SO(3)\times SO(3)$ symmetry to the
diagonal $SO(3)$.
It is also obvious that at $H=1/\sqrt{2}$, the radius of the fiber
becomes
zero.
All the curvature invariants are smooth (and constant due to the
$SO(3)$ symmetry)
As mentioned in the introduction, we have another marginal
deformation
(\ref{gravi}) which turns on curvature as well as antisymmetric
tensor and dilaton.
The essential part of this perturbation is the $J^{3}\bar J^3$ part
which deforms the Cartan torus of SO(3) and the exact bosonic
$\sigma$-model
action was given in \cite{hs,gk}.
We will use this result to derive the background fields associated
with
both gauge and gravitational deformation. After some algebra we
obtain
\def\lambda{\lambda}
\begin{equation}
G_{00}=1\;\;\;G_{\beta\b}={k\over 4}\label{11}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha\a}={k\over 4}{(\lambda^2+1)^2-(8H^2\lambda^2+(\lambda^2-1)^2)\cos^2\beta\over
(\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)^2}
\label{14}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{\gamma\g}={k\over 4}{(\lambda^2+1)^2-8H^2\lambda^2-(\lambda^2-1)^2\cos^2\beta\over
(\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)^2}\label{15}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
G_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over 4}{4\lambda^2(1-2H^2)\cos\beta+(\lambda^4-1)\sin^2\beta\over
(\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)^2}\label{16}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
B_{\alpha\gamma}={k\over 4}{\lambda^2-1+(\lambda^2+1)\cos\beta\over
(\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)}
\label{17}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_{a}=2g\sqrt{k}{H\lambda\cos\beta\over (\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)}\label{18}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A_{\gamma}=2g\sqrt{k}{H\lambda\over (\lambda^2+1+(\lambda^2-1)\cos\beta)}\label{19}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi={t\over \sqrt{k+2}}-{1\over 2}\log\left[\lambda+{1\over
\lambda}+\left(\lambda-{1\over \lambda}
\right)\cos\beta\right]\label{20}
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to verify that the fields above solve the
equations of the effective field theory.
We now have an additional modulus which governs the gravitational
perturbation,
namely $\lambda$ which we can take it to be a non-negative real number.
There are however duality symmetries that act on the moduli $H,\lambda$.
The first is a $Z_{2}^{I}$ duality symmetry $\lambda\to 1/\lambda$ \cite{gk}
accompanied by a reparamerization $\beta\to \pi-\beta$, $\cos\beta\to -\cos\beta$
and $\alpha\to -\alpha$ under which the background
fields and thus the CFT are invariant.
This is a parity-like symmetry (in the $\alpha$ direction) since if we do
not transform
$\alpha$ then $A_{a}\to -A_{a}$ and $A_{\gamma}\to A_{g}$.
There is another $Z_{2}^{II}$ duality which acts on $H$ as $H\to -H$.
This a charge conjugation symmetry since it changes the sign of the
gauge fields.
The combined transformation is a CP symmetry since it changes the
sign
of the Lorentz generator (in the third direction) $J^{3}+\bar J^{3}$.
Again here the deformed geometry is smooth for all values of $H,\lambda$
except at the boundaries $\lambda=0,\infty$ where the magnetic field turns
off and the three-sphere degenerates to the (classically) singular
geometry of the
$R\times SU(2)_{k}/U(1)$, \cite{gk}.
\section{Conformal Field Theory description of magnetic and
gravitational backgrounds}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Our aim in this section is to define the deformation of the original
string ground state, that turns on magnetic fields and curvature, and
study the exact
spectrum. In particular we find the presence of instabilities of the
tachyonic type associated to such backgrounds.
We will focus on heterotic 4-D string ground states, described in
detail in the previous section, although the extension to type II
ground states is straightforward.
\def{\cal Q}{{\cal Q}}
As mentioned in the introduction, the vertex operator which turns on
a chromo-magnetic field background $B^{a}_{i}$ is
\begin{equation}
V^{a}_{i}=(J^i+{1\over 2}\epsilon^{i,j,k}\psi^j\psi^k)\bar J^{a}
\end{equation}
This vertex operators is of the current-current type. In order for
such perturbations to be marginal (equivalently the background to
satisfy the string equations of motion) we need to pick a single
index $i$, which we choose to be $i=3$ and need to restrict the gauge
group index $a$ to be in the Cartan of the
gauge group.
We will normalize the antiholomorphic currents $\bar J^a$ in each
simple or U(1) component $G_{i}$ of the gauge group $G$ as
\begin{equation}
\langle \bar J^a(\bar z)\bar J^b(0)\rangle ={k_{i}\over
2}{\delta^{ab}\over \bar z^2}\label{norm}
\end{equation}
With this normalization, the field theory gauge coupling is
$g_{i}^2=2/k_{i}$.
Thus the most general (marginal) chromo-magnetic field is generated
from the following vertex operator
\begin{equation}
V_{magn}={(J^3+\psi^1\psi^2)\over \sqrt{k+2}}{{\vec F_{i}}\cdot{\bar
{\vec J_{i}}}\over \sqrt{k_{i}}}\label{magn}
\end{equation}
where the index $i$ labels the simple or $U(1)$ components $G_{i}$ of
the gauge group and $\bar{\vec J_{i}}$ is a $r_{i}$-dimensional
vector of currents in the Cartan of the group
$G_{i}$ ($r_{i}$ is the rank of $G_{i}$).
The repeated index $i$ implies summation over the simple components
of the gauge group.
We would like to obtain the exact one-loop partition function in the
presence of such perturbation. Since this is an abelian
current-current perturbation,
the deformed partition function can be obtained by an
$O(1,\sum_{i}r_{i})$ boost
of the charged lattice of the undeformed partition function, computed
in the previous section.
We will indicate the method in the case where we turn on a single
magnetic field $F$, a gauge group factor with central element
$k_{g}$, in which case
\begin{equation}
V_{F}= F{(J^3+\psi^1\psi^2)\over \sqrt{k+2}}{\bar J\over
\sqrt{k_{g}}}
\end{equation}
Let us denote by ${\cal Q}$ the zero mode of the holomorphic helicity
current
$\psi^1\psi^2$, $\bar {\cal P}$ the zero mode of the antiholomorphic current
$\bar J$ and $I,\bar I$ the zero modes of the $SU(2)$ currents
$J^{3},\bar J^{3}$ respectively.
Then, the relevant parts of $L_{0}$ and $\bar L_{0}$ are
\begin{equation}
L_{0}={{\cal Q}^2\over 2}+{I^2\over k}+\cdots\;\;\;,\;\;\;\bar
L_{0}={\bar {\cal P}^2\over k_{g}}+\cdots\label{k1}
\end{equation}
We will rewrite $L_{0}$ as
\begin{equation}
L_{0}={({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}+{k\over 2(k+2)}\left({\cal Q}-{2\over
k}I\right)^2+\cdots
\end{equation}
where we have separated the relevant supersymmetric zero mode ${\cal Q}+I$
and its
orthogonal complement ${\cal Q}-2I/k$ which will be a neutral spectator to
the perturbing process.
What remains to be done is an $O(1,1)$ boost that mixes the
holomorphic current
${\cal Q}+I$ and the antiholomorphic one $\bar {\cal P}$.
This is straightforward with the result
\begin{equation}
L_{0}'= {k\over 2(k+2)}\left({\cal Q}-{2\over k}I\right)^2+\left(\cosh x
{{\cal Q}+I\over \sqrt{k+2}}+\sinh x {\bar {\cal P}\over
\sqrt{k_{g}}}\right)^2+\cdots
\label{k2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\bar L_{0}'= \left(\sinh x {{\cal Q}+I\over \sqrt{k+2}}+\cosh x {\bar {\cal P}\over
\sqrt{k_{g}}}\right)^2+\cdots\label{k3}
\end{equation}
where $x$ is the parameter of the $O(1,1)$ boost.
Thus we obtain from (\ref{k2}), (\ref{k3}) the change of $L_{0}$,
$\bar L_{0}$ as
\begin{equation}
\delta L_{0}\equiv L_{0}'-L_{0}=\delta \bar L_{0}\equiv \bar
L_{0}'-\bar L_{0}=
F{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}+{\sqrt{1+F^2}-1\over
2}\left[
{({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}+{\bar {\cal P}^2\over k_{g}}\right]
\end{equation}
where we have identified
\begin{equation}
F\equiv \sinh (2x)
\end{equation}
we are now able to compute with the more general marginal
perturbation
which is a sum of the general magnetic perturbation (\ref{magn})
and the gravitational perturbation
\begin{equation}
V_{grav}= {\cal R} {(J^3+\psi^1\psi^2)\over \sqrt{k+2}}{\bar J^3\over
\sqrt{k}}
\end{equation}
The only extra ingredient we need is an $O(1+\sum_{i}r_{i})$
transformation to mix
the antiholomorphic currents.
Thus, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\delta L_{0}=\delta \bar L_{0}=\left[{{\cal R}\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}+{{\vec
F}_{i}\cdot {\bar {\vec {\cal P}}}_{i}\over
\sqrt{k_{i}}}\right]{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+\label{gener}
\end{equation}
$$+{\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2+{\vec F}_{i}\cdot {\vec F}_{i}}-1\over 2}\left[
{({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}+({\cal R}^2+{\vec F}_{i}\cdot {\vec F}_{i})^{-1}\left(
{{\cal R}\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}+{{\vec F}_{i}\cdot {\bar {\vec {\cal
P}}}_{i}\over \sqrt{k_{i}}}\right)^2\right]
$$
{}From now on we focus in the case where we have a single
chromo-magnetic field $F$ as well as the curvature perturbation
${\cal R}$.
Then (\ref{gener}) simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\delta L_{0}=\delta \bar L_{0}=
\left[{\cal R}{\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}+F{\bar {\cal P}\over
\sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+\label{gener2}
\end{equation}
$$+{\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2+F^2}-1\over 2}\left[
{({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}+({\cal R}^2+F^2)^{-1}\left(
{\cal R}{\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}+F{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right)^2\right]
$$
Eq. (\ref{gener2}) can be written in the following form which will be
useful
in order to compare with the field theory limit
\begin{equation}
\delta L_{0}={1+\sqrt{1+F^2+{\cal R}^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over
\sqrt{k+2}}+{1\over 1+\sqrt{1+F^2+{\cal R}^2}}\left({\cal R}{\bar I\over
\sqrt{k}}
+F{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right)\right]^2
\end{equation}
$$-{({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}
$$
and for ${\cal R}=0$ as
\begin{equation}
\delta L_{0}={1+\sqrt{1+F^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over
\sqrt{k+2}}+{F\over 1+\sqrt{1+F^2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]^2
-{({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}\label{k10}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{zero}) along with (\ref{gener}) provide the complete and
exact
spectrum of string theory in the presence of the chromo-magnetic
fields $\vec F_{i}$ and curvature ${\cal R}$.
We will analyse first the case of a single magnetic field $F$ and use
(\ref{k10}). Let $L_{0}=M_{L}^2$ and $\bar L_{0}=M_{R}^2$.
Then
\begin{equation}
M^2_{L}=-{1\over 2}+{{\cal Q}^2\over 2}+{1\over
2}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\cal Q}_{i}^2+{(j+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over
k+2}+E_{0}+\label{k11}
\end{equation}
$$+{1+\sqrt{1+F^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+{F\over
1+\sqrt{1+F^2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]^2
$$
\begin{equation}
M^2_{R}=-1+{\bar {\cal P}^2\over k_{g}}+{(j+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over
k+2}+\bar E_{0}+
\end{equation}
$$+{1+\sqrt{1+F^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+{F\over
1+\sqrt{1+F^2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]^2
$$
where, the $-1/2$ is the universal intercept in the N=1 side,
${\cal Q}_{i}$
are the internal helicity operators (associated to the internal
left-moving fermions),
$E_{0},\bar E_{0}$ contain the oscillator contributions as well as
the internal
lattice
(or twisted) contributions, and
$j=0,1,2,\cdots,k/2$\footnote{Remember that $k$ is an even integer
for $SO(3)$.}, $j\geq |I|\in Z$.
We can see here another reason for the need of the SO(3)
projection. We do not want half integral values of $I$ to change the
half-integrality of the spacetime helicity ${\cal Q}$.
Since for physical states $L_{0}=\bar L_{0}$ it is
enough to look
at $M_{L}^2$ which in our conventions is the side that has
$N=1$ superconformal symmetry.
Let us consider first at how the low lying spectrum of space-time
fermions is modified.
For this we have to take ${\cal Q}={\cal Q}_{i}=\pm 1/2$.
Then $M_{L}^2$ can be written as a sum of positive factors,
$E_{0}\geq 0$,
$(j+1/2)^2\geq (\pm 1/2+I)^2$ and
\begin{equation}
{1+\sqrt{1+F^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+{F\over
1+\sqrt{1+F^2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]^2
\geq 0\label{k14}
\end{equation}
Thus fermions cannot become tachyonic and this a good consistency
check for our spectrum since a ``tachyonic" fermion is a ghost.
This argument can be generalized to all spacetime fermions in the
theory.
Bosonic states can become tachyonic though, but for this to happen,
as in field theory they need to have non-zero helicity.
Since $(j+1/2)^2\geq I^2$ and $E_{0}\geq 0$, a state needs a non-zero
value for ${\cal Q}$ and the minimum possible value for ${\cal Q}_{i}^2$
(consistent with the GSO projection) as well as $E_{0}=0$ in order to
have a chance to
become tachyonic.
Also we need $j=\pm I$ and ${\cal Q} I$ positive.
For such states, imposing $L_{0}=\bar L_{0}$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
{\cal Q}^2-{2\over k_{g}}\bar {\cal P}^2+1=2\bar E_{0}\geq 0\label{k16}
\end{equation}
and thus the minimal value for $M_{L}^2$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
M^2_{min}={{\cal Q}^2-1\over 2}+{(|I|+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}+
{1+\sqrt{1+F^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+{F\over
1+\sqrt{1+F^2}}{\bar {\cal P}\over \sqrt{k_{g}}}\right]^2
\label{k13}
\end{equation}
and due to Eq. (\ref{k14}) and the fact that $2I\leq k$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
k|{\cal Q}|(|{\cal Q}|-2)\leq 3/2\;\;\;,\;\;\;|{\cal Q}|=1,2,\cdots\label{k24}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
2|I|\geq {-k{\cal Q}^2+k+3/2\over 1-2|{\cal Q}|}\label{k25}
\end{equation}
which imply that either $|{\cal Q}|=1$ and $|I|=0,1,\cdots,k/2$, or
$|{\cal Q}|=2$ and $|I|=k/2$, provided $k>0$.
However, due to the GSO projection, ${\cal Q}$ mast be an odd integer.
Thus, for $k>0$ instabilities are due to helicity $\pm 1$ particles.
Let us introduce the variables
\begin{equation}
H={F\over \sqrt{2}(1+\sqrt{1+F^2})}\;\;\;,\;\;\;e=\sqrt{2\over
k_{g}}\bar {\cal P}
\end{equation}
$H$ is the natural magnetic field from the $\sigma$-model point of
view (see
section 3) and $e$ is the charge.
Notice that while $F$ varies along the whole real line, $|H|\leq
1/\sqrt{2}$. At $H_{max}=1/\sqrt{2}$ we can see from (\ref{k11}) that
there is an infinite number of states whose mass becomes zero, so it
is a decompactification boundary.
Eq. (\ref{k16}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
e^2\leq {\cal Q}^2+1\label{k17}
\end{equation}
Then, there are tachyons provided
\begin{equation}
{1\over 1-2H^2}\left({({\cal Q}+I)\over
\sqrt{k+2}}+eH\right)^2+{{\cal Q}^2-1\over 2}+{(|I|+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over
k+2}\leq 0\label{tach}
\end{equation}
For (\ref{tach}) to have solutions we must have
\begin{equation}
e^2\geq {\cal Q}^2-1+2{(|I|+1/2)^2\over k+2}\label{k18}
\end{equation}
which along with (\ref{k17}) implies that $(|I|+1/2)^2\leq k+2$.
It is not difficult to see that the first instability sets in,
induced
from the $I=0$ states.
There is also an upper critical magnetic field beyond which no state
is tachyonic. This is obtained by considering the largest possible
value for $|I|$
(compatible with $(|I|+1/2)^2\leq k+2$).
We will leave the charge free for the moment although there are
certainly constraints on it depending on the gauge group.
For example for the $E_{6}$ or $E_{8}$ groups we have
$e^2_{min}=1/4$, and for all realistic non-abelian gauge groups
$e_{min}={\cal O}(1)$.
For toroidal $U(1)$'s however $e_{min}$ can become arbitrarily small
by tuning the parameters of the torus. Note however that in any case
for the potential tachyonic states with $|{\cal Q}|=1$ the charge must
satisfy
\begin{equation}
{1\over 2(k+2)} \leq e^2 \leq 2\label{k20}
\end{equation}
Thus for $|{\cal Q}|=1$ we obtain the presence of tachyons provided that
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm crit}_{\rm min}\leq |H| \leq H^{\rm crit}_{\rm max}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm crit}_{\rm min}={\mu\over |e|} {1-{\sqrt{3}\over
2}\sqrt{1-{1\over 2}\left({\mu\over e}\right)^2}\over
1+{3\over 2}\left({\mu\over e}\right)^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H^{\rm crit}_{\rm max}={\mu\over |e|}{J+1+ \sqrt{\left(J+{3\over
4}\right)\left(1-2\left(J+{1\over 2}\right)^2{\mu^2\over
e^2}\right)}\over
1+\left(2J+{3\over 2}\right){\mu^2\over e^2}}
\label{q1}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
J={\rm integral ~~part~~of~~~}-{1\over 2}+{|e|\over \sqrt{2}\mu}
\end{equation}
We have also introduced the IR cutoff scale $k+2=1/\mu^2$.
We note that for small $\mu$ and $|e|\sim {\cal O}(1)$ $H^{\rm
crit}_{\rm min}$ is of order ${\cal O}(\mu)$.
However $H^{\rm crit}_{\rm max}$ is below $H_{\rm max}=1/\sqrt{2}$ by
an amount of order ${\cal O}(\mu)$.
Thus for small values of $H$ there are no tachyons until a critical
value $H^{\rm crit}_{\rm min}$ where the theory becomes unstable. For
$|H|\geq H^{\rm crit}_{\rm max}$ the theory is stable again till the
boundary $H=1/\sqrt{2}$.
It is interesting to note that if there is a charge in the theory
with the value $|e|=\sqrt{2}\mu$ then $H^{\rm crit}_{\rm
max}=1/\sqrt{2}$ so there
is no region
of stability for large magnetic fields.
For small $\mu$ there are always charges satisfying (\ref{k20}) which
implies that there is always a magnetic instability.
However even for $\mu={\cal O}(1)$ the magnetic instability is
present for standard gauge groups that have been considered in string
model building (provided it has charged states in the perturbative
spectrum).
The behavior above should be compared to the field theory behavior
(\ref{class}). There we have an instability provided there is a
particle with $gS\geq 1$. Then the theory is unstable for
\begin{equation}
|H|\geq {M^2\over |e|(gS-1)}
\end{equation}
where $M$ is the mass of the particle (or the mass gap).
However there is no restauration of stability for large values of
$H$.
This happens in string theory due to the backreaction of gravity.
There is also another difference. In field theory $H_{crit}\sim
\mu^2$
while in string theory $H_{crit}\sim \mu M_{\rm planck}$ where we
denoted by
$\mu$ the mass gap in both cases and $M^2_{str}=1/\alpha'g^2_{\rm
string}$.
We will also study the special case $k=0$, which was left out from
the analysis above.
This corresponds to a strongly curved spacetime (the curvature of
$S^3$ is of the order of the string scale). We know of course from
the CFT that for $k=0$
the $S^3$ decouples (only the ground state is left).
This is a non-critical string theory since from the bosonic part
of 4-d, only the Liouville field survives.
Moreover, $H$ loses its meaning as a magnetic field (since it couples
only to the helicity operator).
In this case all (odd) helicity states can become tachyonic and we
obtain
an instability for
\begin{equation}
H_{min}^{k=0}\leq H^{k=0} \leq H_{max}^{k=0}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H^{k=0}_{\rm max}=H_{\rm max}={1\over \sqrt{2}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H^{k=0}_{\rm min}={1\over \sqrt{2}}{|e|-\sqrt{3(e^2-1/4)/4}\over
e^2+3/4}
\end{equation}
The first tachyonic instability related to $H^{k=0}_{\rm min}$ is
induced by
$|{\cal Q}|=1$ states. The theory never becomes stable again since for all
$H\leq H_{\rm max}$ there are tachyonic states for arbitrary high
values of $|{\cal Q}|$.
The analysis above applies to magnetic fields embedded in non-abelian
gauge groups, not broken by the conventional Higgs effect.
We will also consider however broken non-abelian gauge groups.
Consider the internal CFT containing a circle of radius R.
For arbitrary values of $R\not= 1$ there is a U(1) gauge symmetry
which is enhanced at $R=1$ to $SU(2)$.
The $W^{\pm}$ bosons have masses proportional to $(R-1/R)^2$ and
become massless at $R=1$.
In such a case we will again consider states with ${\cal{Q}}=1$, ${\cal{Q}}_{i}=0$,
$E_{0}=(R-1/R)^2/4$ and $\bar {\cal P}/\sqrt{k_{g}}=(R+1/R)/2$ in (\ref{k11}).
The condition for the W-bosons becoming tachyonic is
\begin{equation}
(1-2H^2)\left[{1\over 4}\left(R-{1\over R}\right)^2-\left(|I|+{3\over
4}\right)
\mu^2\right]+\left[(|I|+1)\mu+{H\over \sqrt{2}}\left(R+{1\over
R}\right)\right]^2\leq 0
\label{u1}\end{equation}
It is obvious that the first factor has to be negative so that there
tachyons provided
\begin{equation}
{1\over 4\mu^2}\left(R-{1\over R}\right)^2-{3\over 4}\leq |I|\leq
{1\over 2\mu^2}-1
\end{equation}
from which we obtain
\begin{equation}
{4-\mu^2-\sqrt{(4-\mu^2)^2-4}\over 2}\leq R^2 \leq
{4-\mu^2+\sqrt{(4-\mu^2)^2-4}\over 2}
\end{equation}
Note that this condition is duality invariant.
Again here we have two critical values for the magnetic field as
before that can be computed from (\ref{u1}).
However there is no instability in the flat limit $\mu\to 0$ unlike
the field theory case (\ref{sta}) due to the gravitational back
reaction.
Let us now study the gravitational perturbation. Using (\ref{gener2})
the mass formula is (in analogy with (\ref{k11})
\begin{equation}
M^2_{L}=-{1\over 2}+{{\cal Q}^2\over 2}+{1\over
2}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\cal Q}_{i}^2+{(j+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over
k+2}+E_{0}+\label{k22}
\end{equation}
$$+{1+\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2}\over 2}\left[{({\cal Q}+I)\over \sqrt{k+2}}+{{\cal R}\over
1+\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2}}{\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}\right]^2
$$
Introducing the $\sigma$-model variable
\begin{equation}
\lambda=\sqrt{{\cal R} +\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2}}\;\;\;,\;\;\;{1\over \lambda}=\sqrt{-{\cal R}
+\sqrt{1+{\cal R}^2}}
\end{equation}
(\ref{k22}) becomes
\begin{equation}
M^2_{L}=-{1\over 2}+{{\cal Q}^2\over 2}+{1\over
2}\sum_{i=1}^{3}{\cal Q}_{i}^2+{(j+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over
k+2}+E_{0}+\label{k23}
\end{equation}
$$+{1\over 4}\left[\left(\lambda+{1\over \lambda}\right){({\cal Q}+I)\over
\sqrt{k+2}}+\left(\lambda-{1\over \lambda}\right){\bar I\over
\sqrt{k}}\right]^2
$$
Eqs (\ref{k24}) and (\ref{k25}) are still applicable here, which
means
that we have to examine only $|{\cal Q}|=1$ and $|I|=0,1,\cdots,k/2$, or
$|{\cal Q}|=2$ and $|I|=k/2$.
Again $j=|I|$ and $I{\cal Q} >0$.
Due to the $\lambda\to 1/\lambda$ duality we will restrict ourselves to the
region $\lambda\leq 1$.
Thus, the condition for existence of tachyons is
\begin{equation}
{1\over 4}\left[\left(\lambda+{1\over \lambda}\right){({\cal Q}+I)\over
\sqrt{k+2}}+\left(\lambda-{1\over \lambda}\right){\bar I\over
\sqrt{k}}\right]^2+
{{\cal Q}^2-1\over 2}+{(|I|+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}\leq 0\label{tach2}
\end{equation}
In order that (\ref{tach2}) have solutions we must have
\begin{equation}
\left[{{\cal Q}^2-1\over 2}+{(|I|+1/2)^2-({\cal Q}+I)^2\over k+2}\right]
\left[{{\cal Q}^2-1\over 2}+{(|I|+1/2)^2-\bar I^2\over k}\right]\geq 0
\label{k26}
\end{equation}
The first factor was arranged already to be negative so we must
ensure that the second factor is also negative. This is impossible
for $|{\cal Q}|=2$. Thus we are
left with $|{\cal Q}|=1$ and
\begin{equation}
|\bar I|\geq \sqrt{k\over k+2}\left(|I|+{1\over 2}\right)
\label{k27}
\end{equation}
Thus the state with quantum numbers $(I,\bar I)$ satisfying
(\ref{k27}) becomes tachyonic when
\begin{equation}
\lambda^2_{\rm min}\leq \lambda^2 \leq \lambda^2_{\rm max}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\lambda^2_{\rm max}={{\bar I^2\over k}-{I^2-1/2\over
k+2}+\sqrt{{(I+3/4)\over
k+2}\left(
{\bar I^2\over k}-{(I+1/2)^2\over k+2}\right)}\over \left({I\over
\sqrt{k+2}}
+{\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}\right)^2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda^2_{\rm min}={{\bar I^2\over k}-{I^2-1/2\over
k+2}-\sqrt{{(I+3/4)\over
k+2}\left(
{\bar I^2\over k}-{(I+1/2)^2\over k+2}\right)}\over \left({I\over
\sqrt{k+2}}
+{\bar I\over \sqrt{k}}\right)^2}
\end{equation}
For large $k$, $\lambda_{\rm max}$ approaches one, however at the same
time the
instability region shrinks to zero so that in the limit
$\lambda=1,k=\infty$ flat space is stable.
\section{The Flat Space Limit}\setcounter{equation}{0}
As mentioned earlier, in the limit $k\to \infty$ the 4-d space
becomes flat
(with zero dilaton). We would like to understand the nature of the
magnetic
fields in this limit.
As a warm-up we will describe first (in the context of field theory)
the case of a constant magnetic field in flat space as a limit of a
monopole field of a
two-sphere in the limit that the radius of the sphere becomes large.
Let $g$ be the strength of the monopole field. Then
\begin{equation}
\vec B_{monopole}={g}{{\vec r}\over r^3}\label{33}
\end{equation}
We have the Dirac quantization condition for $g$ in terms of the
elementary
electric charge $e$: $eg=N$ where $N$ is an arbitrary positive
integer
or half-integer.
Let us now consider a charged spinless particle of charge $e$
constrained to move on a two-sphere around the origin, of radius $R$.
The (non-relativistic\footnote{The relativistic case is similar up to
the zero point shift $m_{0}$ of the energy, a scaling of the Landau
spectrum by $1/m_{0}$ and ${\cal O}(m_{0}^{-3})$ relativistic
corrections.}) spectrum of such a particle is known \cite{col}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j}={1\over R^2}\left[j(j+1)-N^2\right]
\label{34}\end{equation}
where $j=N,N+1,\cdots$ and $N=eg\in Z/2$.
For each $j$ there are $2j+1$ degenerate states.
If we define $n=j-N$ then
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{n}={1\over
R^2}\left[n(n+1)+N(2n+1)\right]\;\;\;,\;\;\;n=0,1,\cdots\label{35}
\end{equation}
We would like now to take $R\to \infty$. There are two possible
limits to consider.
The first is the limit where the magnetic flux per unit area is
finite.
Since the area of the sphere becomes infinite in the flat limit we
will have
to take the monopole strength to $\infty$ as $g=HR^2+{\cal O}(R)$
where $H$ is the flat space magnetic field.
Then $eg=N=eHR^2+{\cal O}(R)$ and
\begin{equation}
\Delta E^{2d-flat\;\;space}_{n}=eH(2n+1)+{\cal
O}(R^{-1})\;\;\;,\;\;\;n=0,1,\cdots
\label{36}
\end{equation}
We have thus recovered the usual formula where $n$ labels the Landau
levels
and we should remember that each Landau level is infinitely
degenerate corresponding to different values of the angular momentum
in the direction perpendicular to the plane.
The other limit is to keep the monopole strength fixed. In this case
we end up with a zero flat space magnetic field and continuous
spectrum $E=p^2$ corresponding, not surprisingly, to a free particle
in 2-d.
Let us consider now (again in the context of field theory) a magnetic
field
on a three-sphere of radius $R$. In Euler angles:
\begin{equation}
A_{\alpha}=H\cos\beta\;\;,\;\;A_{\beta}=0\;\;,\;\;A_{\gamma}=H
\end{equation}
which is exactly the same as the stringy background (\ref{10}) we
have found earlier.
We will find again the energy spectrum of a particle of electric
charge $e$
moving on $S^3$. The Hamiltonian is as usual
\begin{equation}
\hat {\bf H}={1\over \sqrt{{\rm det}
G}}\left(\partial_{\mu}-ieA_{\mu}\right)
\sqrt{{\rm det}G}G^{\mu\nu}\left(\partial_{\nu}-ieA_{\nu}\right)
\label{38}
\end{equation}
where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the round metric on $S^{3}$. Notice that it is
different
from the stringy metric (\ref{8}),(\ref{9}) which contains the
gravitational
backreaction.
It is straightforward to work out the spectrum of $\hat {\bf H}$ with
the result:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m}={1\over R^2}\left[j(j+1)-m^2+(eH-m)^2\right]\label{39}
\end{equation}
where for $SO(3)$ $j\in Z$ and $-j\leq m\leq j$.
We can always parametrize $j,m$ as $j=|m|+n$ with $|m|=0,1,\cdots$
and $n=0,1,2,\cdots$ so
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{n,m}={1\over
R^2}\left[n(n+1)+|m|(2n+1)\right]+\left({eH-m\over R}\right)^2
\label{40}\end{equation}
In order to take the flat space limit and recover Landau levels we
have to
scale $eH=e\tilde H R^2+\kappa R+{\cal O}(1)$ and $m=e\tilde H
R^2+(p_{3}+\kappa) R+{\cal O}(1)$.
Then we obtain from (\ref{40})
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{n,p_{3}}=e\tilde H(2n+1)+p_{3}^2+{\cal O}(R^{-1})
\label{41}\end{equation}
which is the standard Landau spectrum in 3-d flat space.
This reproduces (\ref{class}) for spinless particles, $S=0$.
In the discussion above we did not include the gravitational
backreaction since we had a round metric for $S^{3}$.
This is what we are going to do now. We will start from the
background
(\ref{8}),(\ref{9}),(\ref{10}) and compute the energy eigenvalues of
the
(field theory) Hamiltonian given by (\ref{38}).
This is straightforward with the answer:
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m}={1\over R^2}\left[j(j+1)-m^2+{(eHR-m)^2\over
(1-2H^2)}\right]\label{42}
\end{equation}
and after parametrizing again $j=|m|+n$ with $|m|=0,1/2,1,\cdots$
and $n=0,1,2,\cdots$ we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{n,m}={1\over
R^2}\left[n(n+1)+|m|(2n+1)\right]+\left({eHR-m\over
R\sqrt{1-2H^2}}\right)^2
\label{43}\end{equation}
Notice that the only difference from (\ref{40}) (apart from the
different scaling of H which is a convention) is the extra $1-2H^2$
factor in the denominator of the last term.
This factor however makes the flat limit quite different.
In fact we can see that in order to have Landau levels we have to
take
$m\sim {\cal O}(R^2)$, in which case we are forced to have from the
last term
that $H\sim {\cal O}(R)$ in which case the denominator gives a
negative contribution.
This is obvious from the fact that since there is a maximal value for
H we cannot take it to scale as the radius R.
So Landau levels disappear from the low energy spectrum, and with
$m=pR+{\cal O}(1)$ we obtain in the limit $R\to\infty$
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{p}={(p-eH)^2\over 1-2H^2}+{\cal O}(R^{-1})
\label{44}
\end{equation}
This implies that the flat space limit is quite different from
standard field theory.
We have already seen in the previous section that $W$ bosons do not
become tachyonic in the flat limit.
The field theory spectrum parallels the exact string spectrum in the
presence
of a magnetic field.
The correct identification there is
\begin{equation}
R\to k+2\;\;\;,\;\;\;m\to Q+J^3\;\;\;,\;\;\; e\to \sqrt{2\over
k_{g}}\bar Q
\label{450}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H\to {F\over \sqrt{2}(1+\sqrt{1+F^2})}={1\over
2\sqrt{2}}\left[F-{F^3\over 4}+
{\cal O}(F^5)\right]
\end{equation}
In terms of the CFT variable $F$ the maximum magnetic field
$H_{max}=1/\sqrt{2}$ corresponds to the limit $F\to \pm\infty$.
As we have seen already the tachyonic instabilities appear before the
magnetic field reaches its maximum value.
We can now discuss the spectra of particles with spin.
For particles that inherit their spin from the helicity operator
(this includes massless fermions, and heterotic gauge fields) we can
set $S=Q$
and using the string identification (\ref{450}) we obtain the
following spectrum
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m,S}={1\over k+2}\left[j(j+1)-(m+S)^2+{(eHR-m-S)^2\over
(1-2H^2)}\right]\label{422}
\end{equation}
which to linear order in the magnetic field becomes
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m,S}={j(j+1)\over k+2}-{2eH\over \sqrt{k+2}}(m+S)+{\cal
O}(H^2)
\end{equation}
which indicates the possibility of tachyons.
The existence of tachyonic modes with non-zero spin was verified in
section 4.
In a similar manner we can compute the (scalar) field theory spectrum
in the combined magnetic and gravitational background
(\ref{11})-(\ref{20})
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m,\bar m}= {1\over
R^2}\left[j(j+1)-m^2+{(2eHR-(\lambda+1/\lambda)m-(\lambda-1/\lambda)\bar m)^2\over
4(1-2H^2)}\right]
\label{46}
\end{equation}
where $j\in Z$ and $-j\leq m,\bar m\leq j$.
(\ref{46}) reduces to (\ref{42}) when $\lambda=1$.
Here we see that we can adjust the extra modulus $\lambda$ in order to
obtain Landau levels in the large volume limit.
However the coefficient is not related to the magnetic field H, since
the cancelations in the last term are due to a tuning of the modulus
$\lambda$ which takes large (or small via duality) values. The
interpretation of this limit is the following. Let us first take
$H=0$ since it is not relevant in this limit.
{}From the point of view of the coset space $SU(2)/U(1)$,
the SU(2) WZW model can be viewed as a Dirac monopole on $S^2$,
\cite{bk}.
Thus at $\lambda=1$ we can write (\ref{46}) in the form
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m,\bar m}= {1\over R^2}\left[j(j+1)-m^2\right]+{m^2\over
R^2}={j(j+1)\over R^2}
\label{466}\end{equation}
In (\ref{466}) the piece $j(j+1)-m^2$ of the energy is the standard
spectrum of charged particles in the presence of the monopole and the
additional $m^2$ is coming from the Kaluza-Klein masses of the
charged
modes.
The states with non-trivial $\bar m$ are not charged with respect to
the monopole and thus do not contribute to the energy.
When we perturb $\lambda$ away from 1 we can suppress the Kaluza-Klein
masses
and thus we can have a limit similar to that of Eq. (\ref{36}).
If we include all higher order corrections in $\alpha'$ and identify
$R^2\to k+2$ then (\ref{46}) becomes
\begin{equation}
\Delta E_{j,m,\bar m}= {1\over
k+2}\left[j(j+1)-m^2\right]+{\left(2\sqrt{k+2}eH-\left(\lambda+{1\over
\lambda}\right)m-\left(\lambda-{1\over \lambda}\right)\sqrt{(1+2/k)}\bar
m\right)^2\over 4(k+2)(1-2H^2)}
\label{47}
\end{equation}
Eq. (\ref{47}) matches the string theory spectrum with the following
identifications
\begin{equation}
m\to Q+J^3\;\;\;,\;\;\; e\to \sqrt{2\over k_{g}}\bar {\cal P}
\;\;\;,\;\;\;\bar m\to \bar J^3
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H^2={1\over 2}\;\;{F^2\over F^2+2\left(1+\sqrt{1+F^2+{\cal R}^2}\right)}
={F^2\over
8}\left[1+{\cal O}(F^2,{\cal R}^2)\right]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\lambda^2= {1+\sqrt{1+F^2+{\cal R}^2}+{\cal R}\over
1+\sqrt{1+F^2+{\cal R}^2}-{\cal R}}
=1+{\cal R}+
{\cal O}(F^2,{\cal R}^2)
\end{equation}
\vskip 1cm
\section{Conclusions and Further Comments}
We have studied a class of magnetic and gravitational backgrounds in
closed superstrings and their associated instabilities.
Our starting point are superstring ground states with an adjustable
mass
gap $\mu^2$ \cite{kk}. We have described in detail how to construct
them starting from any four-dimensional ground state of the string,
by giving appropriate expectation values to the graviton
antisymmetric tensor and dilaton.
In such ground states all gauge symmetries are spontaneously broken.
Exact magnetic and gravitational solutions can then be constructed in
such ground states as exactly marginal perturbations of the
appropriate CFTs.
In the magnetic case, there is a monopole-like magnetic field on
$S^3$.
The gravitational backreaction squashes mildly the $S^3$ keeping
however an $SO(3)$ symmetry.
We have calculated the exact spectrum as a function of the magnetic
field.
The first interesting observation is that, unlike field theory, there
is a
maximum value for the magnetic field $\sim M_{\rm planck}^2$.
At this value the part of the spectrum that couples to the magnetic
field
becomes infinitely massive.
We find magnetic instabilities in such a background.
In particular, for $H\sim {\cal O}(\mu M_{\rm planck})$ there is a
magnetic instability,
driven by helicity-one states that become tachyonic.
The critical magnetic field scales differently from the field theory
result, due the different mechanism of gauge symmetry breaking.
We also find that, unlike field theory, the theory becomes stable
again for
strong magnetic fields of the order $\sim {\cal O}(M^{2}_{\rm
planck})$.
Similar behavior is found for the gravitational perturbation.
Here again there is an intermediate region of instability in the
perturbing parameter.
Such instabilities could be relevant in cosmological situations, or
in black hole evaporation.
In the cosmological context, there maybe solutions where one has time
varying
long range magnetic fields. If the time variation is adiabatic, then
there might be
a condensation which would screen and localize the magnetic fields.
Results on such cosmological solutions will be reported elsewhere.
Also, instabilities can be used as (on-shell) guides to find the
correct vacuum of string theory.
Our knowledge in that respect is limited since we do not have an
exact description of all possible deformations
of a ground state in string theory.
Another subject of interest, where instabilities could be relevant is
Hawking radiation.
It is known in field theory that Hawking radiation has many common
features with production
of Schwinger pairs in the presence of a long range electric field.
In open string theory it was found, \cite{bp} that this rate becomes
infinite for a
$finite$ electric field , $E_{\rm crit}\sim M^2_{\rm string}$ (unlike
the field theory case) and this behavior is due
to $\alpha'$ corrections. Notice also that in the open string it is
$M_{\rm string}$ and not $M_{\rm planck}$ that is relevant due to the
absence of gravity.
It would be interesting to see if this behavior persists in the
presence of gravity
(which is absent to leading order in open strings)
by studying the effect in closed strings.
In fact we expect that gravitational effects will be important for
$E\sim M^2_{\rm planck}$. For small $g_{\rm string}$ however,
we can have
$M_{\rm string} << M_{\rm planck}$ so we expect a similar behavior as
in the case of open strings.
It is plausible that similar higher order corrections modify the
Hawking rate
in such a way that (some) black holes are unstable in string
theory.
Such a calculation seems difficult to perform with today's technology
but seems crucial to
the understanding of stringy black holes.
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank L. Alvarez-Gaum\'e, S. Coleman, M. Porrati
and especially
J. Russo for discussions.
C. Kounnas was supported in part by EEC contracts
SC1$^*$-0394C and SC1$^*$-CT92-0789.
|
\section{Introduction}
The processes by which magnetization reversal occurs in the
nanoscale ferromagnets that will make up the next-generation
recording media
are the subject of active research.
One quantity for which theory
and experiment often disagree is the lifetime
$\tau$, which is the time
required for a particle with initial
magnetization $m_0 \! = \! +1$
to reach $m \! = \! 0$ when a
magnetic field in the $-\hat{z}$ direction is applied.
Micromagnetics,\cite{WFBrown} a theoretic technique
in which differential equations are numerically solved
on a coarse-grained lattice, predicts that the lifetime is given
by the Arrhenius equation
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Arrhenius}
\tau \propto \exp (\beta \Delta F)
\end {equation}
with $\Delta F \! \propto \! L^d$.
Here $\beta^{-1}$ is the temperature in units of energy,
$\Delta F$ is the free-energy barrier between the stable and
metastable phases, and $L$ is the linear system size.
This same prediction is made by the
standard N{\' e}el-Brown theory of single-domain
ferromagnets.\cite{Neel49,Brown}
The evident failure of Eq.~(\ref{eq:Arrhenius}) with
$\Delta F \! \propto \! L^d$ for somewhat larger grains is
ascribed to the existence of more than one domain in larger
particles, as is a corresponding peak in plots
{\em vs.}\ $L$ of
the switching field $H_{\rm sw}$, which is
the field required to yield a given lifetime.
Recently techniques such as MFM have
been used to resolve the magnetic properties of
{\em isolated, well-characterized} single-domain particles
(see, {\em e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{MFM}).
This is an important advance, since
previous experiments on ferromagnetic powders left
uncertainties due to the range of grain sizes and orientations
and the local magnetic environments. Observations of individual
particles by MFM have made it clear that even
for many {\em single-domain}
particles, N{\' e}el-Brown theory is inadequate.
We have applied the statistical-mechanical droplet theory of
metastable decay to nanoscale ferromagnets with large uniaxial
anisotropy, and compared Monte Carlo simulations of
square-lattice Ising systems with droplet-theory
predictions.\cite{2dpi}
(For a review of droplet theory, see Ref.~\cite{RikARCP94}.)
The agreement between theory and simulation is quite good,
and despite the crudeness of the Ising model as a model for
real magnets, it shows good qualitative agreement with the
MFM experiments.
We find rich $L$-dependent behavior in the standard Ising model,
even though its equilibrium structure is a single domain
for all $L$.
This suggests that for some strongly anisotropic magnetic
materials, magnetization reversal may occur through the
nucleation and growth of non-equilibrium droplets.
Details of our work are given in Refs.~\cite{2dpi} and
\cite{demag}, including
formulae for general dimensionality.
For simplicity, we only discuss the two-dimensional case
here.
\section{Applied Droplet Theory}
To be concrete, consider a two-dimensional kinetic Ising
ferromagnet ($s_i \! = \! \pm 1$) with Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:hamiltonian}
{\cal H} = -J \sum_{\rm n.n.} s_i s_j - H \sum_i s_i
+ L^{-2} D \biggl( \sum_i s_i \biggr)^2
\end {equation}
and Metropolis single-spin-flip dynamics on a square lattice
with periodic boundary conditions.
The last term represents a
mean-field approximation for the dipole-dipole interaction
energy and is taken to be zero except as noted.
The critical radius of a ``droplet'' of $s_i \! = \! -1$ spins
surrounded by $s_i \! = \! +1$ spins occurs when the
free energy of the droplet
($2 \pi R \sigma \! - \! \pi R^2 2|H|$)
is maximum:
\(
R_c \!\approx \! \sigma / 2|H|,
\)
where $\sigma$ is the surface tension per unit length.
Droplets smaller than this will very probably shrink and
vanish; larger droplets will very probably grow
and reverse the magnetization of the system.
In a sufficiently large system, the probability per unit time
that a critical droplet forms, centered at a given site, is
given by droplet theory as \cite{RikARCP94}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NucRate}
I \propto |H|^3 \exp \left( - \beta \pi \sigma^2 / 2 |H|
\right) \ .
\end {equation}
The details of the magnetization reversal depends on the number of
critical droplets the system forms.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2.7truein}
\special{psfile = hs_t182.psc
angle = 90 hscale = 45 vscale = 45
hoffset = 330 voffset = -15}
\caption{ The relation between the switching field
$H_{\rm sw}$ and the system
width $L$ for two different fixed lifetimes
(solid curves), calculated
by kinetic Ising model simulations
at $k_{\rm B}T \! = \! 0.8 k_{\rm B}T_{\rm c}
\! \approx \! 1.815 J.$
The dotted curve is near the crossover between the
CE and SD regions;\protect\cite{2dpi}
the dash-dotted curve is
near the crossover between the SD and MD regions.
\protect\cite{2dpi} }
\label{fig:H_sw}
\end{figure}
For weak fields or small systems ($L \! < \! R_c$),
no critical droplet
can form. This is called the Coexistence (CE) Region, and since
two interfaces (remember: periodic boundary conditions)
must form to reverse the magnetization,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:CELife}
\tau \propto \exp \left\{ \beta \left[ 2 \sigma L -
O\left(HL^2\right) \right] \right\} \ .
\end {equation}
For slightly larger $L$, the first supercritical droplet will
grow to the size of the system before another one can form.
The lifetime in this Single Droplet (SD) Region is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SDLife}
\tau \approx \left[L^d I \right]^{-1} \ .
\end {equation}
In both the CE and SD regions, switching is a
Poisson process, so the standard deviation of the
lifetime is comparable to $\tau$.
Both Eq.~(\ref{eq:CELife}) and Eq.~(\ref{eq:SDLife}) are actually
special cases of the Arrhenius equation, Eq.~(\ref{eq:Arrhenius}),
but in neither case is $\Delta F$ proportional to $L^d$.
Note that if $\tau$ is held constant and the system size is
increased, Eq.~(\ref{eq:CELife}) implies that the magnetic field
must {\em increase}, whereas Eq.~(\ref{eq:SDLife}) implies that
the magnetic field must {\em decrease}. This shows that
the peak in $H_{\rm sw}$
occurs near the crossover between the
CE and SD regions (see Fig.~\ref{fig:H_sw}).
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2.7truein}
\special{psfile = sd_p_h.psc
angle = 90 hscale = 45 vscale = 45
hoffset = 330 voffset = -15}
\caption{ The probability that $m \! > \! 0$
for a kinetic Ising
system in the SD region.
$T \! = \! 0.8 T_c$,
$t \! = \! 914$ Monte Carlo steps per spin
(MCSS) and
$L \! = \! 10$.
The solid curve is a fit of
$\exp(-t/\tau)$ to the MC data, where
$\tau$ is given by
Eq.~(\protect\ref{eq:SDLife}).
The inset figure shows the fitted curve over
a wider range in $H$.
}
\label{fig:SD_P}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2.7truein}
\special{psfile = md_p_h.psc
angle = 90 hscale = 45 vscale = 45
hoffset = 330 voffset = -15}
\caption{ The probability that $m \! > \! 0$
for a kinetic Ising
system in the MD region.
$T \! = \! 0.8 T_c$,
$\tau \! = \! 40.7$ MCSS and
$L \! = \! 30$, 100, and 300.
The solid curves are fits of
droplet theory predictions
to the MC data.
The dashed curve is the fit of
the droplet-theory prediction
for $L \! = \! 100$
extrapolated to $L \! = \! 300$.
}
\label{fig:MD_P}
\end{figure}
The probability that the magnetization is greater than zero
$P(m \! > \!0)$
is shown as a function of
field in Fig.~\ref{fig:SD_P} for a system in the SD region.
This probability is what is most easily observed in MFM experiments,
and it decays exponentially with time in both the CE and SD regions.
In the SD region, the system is very unlikely to return to the the
metastable state from the stable state, so
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SD_P_t}
P(m \! > \!0) = \exp \left(-t/\tau \right) \; .
\end {equation}
In the CE region such backwards switching
takes place on a timescale comparable with
the initial decay, so the situation is more complicated.
For sufficiently large $L$ or $H$,
several supercritical droplets may form
before any one of them has grown to the size of the system.
This is the Multi-Droplet Region (MD).
Such systems were first studied by Kolmogorov,\cite{Kolmogorov37}
Johnson and Mehl,\cite{JohnsMehl39}
and Avrami,\cite{Avrami} and have a lifetime
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MDLife}
\tau \approx \left[ I\pi v^2/3 \ln 2 \right]^{-1/3} \ ,
\end {equation}
where the radial growth velocity $v$ is assumed to be proportional
to $|H|$. Although $\tau$ is independent of $L$,
the variance of the lifetime is proportional to $(v/L)^2$.
Measuring $P(m \! > \! 0)$ as a function of
$H$ or $t$ thus provides a means of estimating the proportionality
constant between $v$ and $H$
(see Fig.~\ref{fig:MD_P}). Details are given in Ref.~\cite{2dpi}.
The addition of the dipole-dipole interaction energy in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:hamiltonian}) makes the forms for the lifetime
somewhat more complicated than we have presented here.
In the CE and SD regions, a form of the Arrhenius equation
[Eq.~(\ref{eq:Arrhenius})] still applies, and
switching is still a Poisson process, so
Eq.~(\ref{eq:SD_P_t}) still applies for the SD region.
In the MD region, the system evolves in a time-dependent
effective field, $H_{\rm eff} \! \equiv \! H - 2Dm(t)$.
The time-dependent magnetization can be found to $O(D)$
fairly easily, and we find numerically that the
$O(D^2)$ correction is relatively small. We can then
solve analytically for $\tau$ to $O(D^2)$ and find
good agreement with simulation results
(Fig.~\ref{fig:md_tau_D}). A detailed treatment of
the $D \! > \! 0$ case is given in Ref.~\cite{demag}.
\begin{figure}
\vspace*{2.7truein}
\special{psfile = md_tau_D.psc
angle = 90 hscale = 45 vscale = 45
hoffset = 330 voffset = -15}
\caption{ The lifetime $\tau$ for a kinetic Ising
system in the MD region, normalized by the
lifetime in a similar system with $D \! = \! 0$.
$T \! = \! 0.8 T_c$.
The solid curves are
droplet-theory predictions.
}
\label{fig:md_tau_D}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
We have used Monte Carlo methods to simulate magnetization
switching in two-dimensional kinetic Ising ferromagnets.
The results of the simulations can be well explained by
droplet theory and show good qualitative agreement with
experiments, despite the comparative simplicity of the Ising model.
This simplicity, in turn, allows us to develop an understanding
of the underlying statistical mechanics. Particular features
to make the model more realistic, such as appropriate boundary
conditions, quenched randomness, and less rigorous anisotropy
will be added in later studies.
\acknowledgments
We thank S.~von Moln{\' a}r, D.~M.\ Lind,
J.~W.\ Harrell, and W.~D.\ Doyle for useful discussions.
This research was supported in part by
FSU-MARTECH,
by
FSU-SCR
under DOE
Contract No.\ DE-FC05-85ER25000,
and by
NSF
Grants No.\ DMR-9315969 and DMR-9520325.
|
\section*{Figure Captions}
\bigskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 1:} The predicted light-element abundances
(with $2\sigma$ theoretical errors); rectangles indicate
consistency intervals, which all overlap for $\eta =(2.5-6)\times 10^{-10}$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 2:} Likelihood functions for
D and $^3$He (lower solid curves, from left to right: Models 1, 0, and 2),
$^4$He (dotted curves, from left to right: $\sigma_Y=0.01$, $\sigma_Y=0.003$,
and $\Delta Y= 0.01$), and $^7$Li (broken = high $^7$Li, solid = low $^7$Li).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 3:} Reduced $\chi^2$ as function of $\eta$ for
eight different sets of assumptions about the systematic uncertainties (see
text for details).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 4:} The 5\% of maximum likelihood contours
for ${\cal L}(N_\nu, \Delta Y, \sigma_Y=0.003)$ (solid curves = low $^7$Li,
broken curves = high $^7$Li). Because $N_\nu$ and $\Delta Y$ are not
independent parameters, the contours of likelihood are diagonal lines and
the likelihood function is not compact.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 5:} The likelihood function ${\cal L}(\sigma_Y,
\eta ,\Delta Y=0)$ (solid curves = low $^7$Li, broken curves = high $^7$Li).
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Figure 6:} Same as Fig.~5 for ${\cal L}(\Delta Y, \eta ,
\sigma_Y = 0.003)$.
\end{document}
|
\section{ I. Derivation of the ``First Law''}
The work I will describe in this section, done together with Madhavan
Varada\-rajan [3], grew out of our wish to understand what happens to
the theorem that stationarity implies extremality, when spacetime has a
boundary. It has been known for a long time that for gravity, or any other
Lagrangian field theory, every solution of the field equations which has a
Killing vector also has a corresponding extremality property: the conserved
quantity associated to the Killing vector is unchanged by infinitesimal
perturbations of the fields. Bernard Schutz and I had found a proof of
this which we liked [1] and we wondered at the time what would
happen if we applied it to a spacetime containing a black hole. The main
message I want to leave you with today, is that what happens is that the
so-called first law of black hole thermodynamics emerges in a very direct
manner.
The derivation which results in this way is of interest mainly because of
its conceptual simplicity, but it also shows one new thing. It shows that
the 3-surface $\Sigma$ on which the energy is evaluated can meet the black
hole horizon anywhere; it doesn't have to go through any special place like
a bifurcation submanifold\footnote{$^{1}$}
{as it does, for example, in reference [4].}.
I believe this is important, because the ability to push $\Sigma$ forward
along the horizon is crucial to understanding where the {\it second} law of
black hole thermodynamics comes from [5].
The proof also makes clear why the first variation of the energy gets
contributions only from the horizon itself, and it provides an explanation
(via the Raychaudhuri equation) of why it is specifically the change in
horizon {\it area} which governs the change in the energy.
The derivation also illustrates how integral
formulations of conservation laws can often be more convenient than
differential ones. It takes place in 4D for Einstein gravity (with a
possible electro-magnetic field), but there is no reason it could not be
extended to higher dimensions, or to other lagrangians. The proof is also
in such a form that it might help in understanding the behavior of the {\it
second} variation of the energy. This variation is important in connection
with stability, but I don't have any new results to report on it.
Since a detailed account will soon be available [3], there is no
reason to try for completeness here. Instead I will present the
main steps of the analysis as simply as I can, in a manner which I hope
will be complementary to that of reference [3]. In the same
minimalist spirit I will mainly restrict myself to the case of pure
Einstein gravity and will set the electromagnetic field and black hole
rotation rate to zero.
\subsection{The Noether operator and the total energy}
Before we can get to the proof proper, we need the notion of Noether
operator and a technique I will call asymptotic patching. The Noether
operator formalizes her explanation of how continuous symmetries imply
conservation laws. For a first-order Action $S$ depending on dynamical
fields $Q$ and background fields $B$, and for a geometrical symmetry like
energy or angular momentum, the Noether operator is defined through the
identity,
$$
\delta_{(f,\xi)} S =
\oint_{\partial{\cal X}} f \, {\cal T}^a_b\cdot\xi^b d\sigma_a
- \int_{\cal X} {\delta {\cal L} \over \delta Q} \, f \Lie_\xi Q \, dV
\eqno(1)
$$
Here the variation $\delta_{(f,\xi)}$ is what might be called a ``partial
dragging'' of both the fields $Q$ and the region of integration ${\cal X}$
through the vectorfield $\xi$, specifically it drags $\partial{\cal X}$ by an amount
$f\xi$ and it alters $Q$ by $\delta_{(f,\xi)}Q = - f\Lie_\xi Q$. If there are
no background fields $B$ present in the lagrangian ${\cal L}={\cal L}[Q;B]$ --- or if
$\xi$ is a symmetry of those which are present --- then for $f\equiv 1$, the
variation $\delta_\xi{S}$ evidently vanishes identically.
Now the total energy of a solution, evaluated on a surface $\Sigma$
which is the future boundary of a spacetime region ${\cal X}$, can be defined as
the value of $\delta S({\cal X})$ when $\Sigma$ and all the fields on it are
translated in time in such a manner as to hold fixed the boundary
conditions at infinity [6]. Choosing $f$ and $\xi$ to implement
these requirements and assuming sufficiently rapid falloff of $Q$ at
infinity leads directly to the formula for the energy
$$
- E = \int_\Sigma {\cal T}^a_b\cdot\xi^b \, d\sigma_a, \eqno(2)
$$
where $\xi$ is any vectorfield which is a (future-directed)
time translation in a neighborhood of infinity (an exact Killing vector of
the flat background there.)
In a situation where the background either is absent or enters only as a
surface term in the Action, a compensating deformation by $-f\xi$ reduces
$\delta{S}$, and therefore $E$, to a surface integral at spatial infinity. In
virtue of (2), this has the formal consequence that
${\cal T}^a_b\cdot\xi^b$ must take the form of a pure divergence
$\partial_b({\cal W}^{ab}\cdot\xi^b)$ plus a term which vanishes ``on shell''.
Specializing to gravity (and for brevity omitting indices and indications
of elements of surface/volume and of density-weight), we have specifically
$$
T \cdot \xi = {\rm div} (W\cdot\xi) - G \xi, \eqno(3)
$$
so that (2) reduces on shell to\footnote{$^{2}$}
{For angular momentum, everything would be the same, except that $\xi$
would be a rotation generator near spatial infinity, instead of a time
translation. The explicit form of $W$ can be found in refs. [6],
[7] and [3].}
$$
- E = \oint_\infty W \, . \eqno(4)
$$
\subsection{Asymptotic patching}
In computing the energy, etcetera, of an asymptotically flat solution
$g_{ab}$ to the Einstein equation, we don't directly use the covariant
Action ${1\over{2}}\int{RdV}$. Instead we do something else which can be
described in different ways. Perhaps the best description is just that we
replace the metric $g$ by one which is strictly flat near spatial infinity.
In reality the very long range part of the metric representing an isolated
system like a black hole is meaningless in any case, since it cannot be
isolated from the fields of other objects which are invariably present.
Hence, there should be no distinction, in a physical sense, between
$g_{ab}$ and a metric which has been ``cut off'' at large radii by
``patching'' it to a flat metric. The $S$ whose variation yields the
energy of the isolated system is best viewed, I believe, as nothing but the
covariant Action\footnote{$^{3}$}
{For many purposes, one also needs to add to this Action a surface term
like ${\rm tr}{K}$ integrated over the initial and final spacelike boundaries;
but here we can ignore any such addition since it does not contribute to
the variation defining $E$.}
of this cut off field $\widetilde g_{ab}$; and the technique for obtaining
$\widetilde g_{ab}$ by gradually deforming the original metric to the flat one
as some radial parameter $r$ increases from $R$ to $2R$ is what I mean by
``asymptotic patching'' [1][3].
Asymptotic patching can also be understood in a purely technical way in
relation to an integration by parts performed to render the Action finite.
For generic O($1/r$) falloff in the metric, the Ricci scalar $R$ will decay
only like $1/r^3$, which leads to a logarithmically divergent integral for
$S$. By adding a suitable divergence to the integrand we eliminate from
$R$ the terms of the form $g\partial\ptl{g}$, thereby improving its falloff to
$1/r^4$, while at the same time making $S$ first-order so that the above
definition of the Noether operator applies without modfication. The
improved falloff suffices to render both $S$ and $E$
well-defined.\footnote{$^{4}$}%
{For angular momentum a strengthened asymptotic condition is needed
(``parity condition'').}
Having modified $S$ in this way, we can then perform the same patching to a
flat metric at infinity without producing any further change in the Action
or the energy (in the limit in which the patching radius $R$ recedes to
infinity) [1][3]. This second viewpoint is perhaps somewhat
more advantageous technically, but it requires the introduction of extra
background: a globally defined connection with respect to which one can
perform the integration by parts.
The upshot from either point of view is that we end up having to deal only
with metrics which are strictly flat near infinity. This will free us from
having to worry about the effects of variations at infinity, leaving only
boundary terms at the horizon to contribute. It also means, of course,
that we can no longer express the energy as the flux integral (4) taken
at true infinity, but (4) still holds if evaluated {\it just inside}
the patching radius, and the expression (2) in terms of a spatial
integral remains generally valid, under the assumption (which will always
be in force) that $\xi^a$ remains an exact Killing vector of the flat
asymptotic metric throughout the patching region.
Henceforth, we will consider only metrics which have been patched to become
strictly flat near $\infty$, and "solution" will always mean solution
patched to flat metric at large $r$. In addition, we will consider only
vectorfields $\xi$ which preserve any background which has been introduced,
and which in particular are strict Killing vectors (of the flat metric)
near infinity.
\subsection{The extremum proof without reference to a horizon}
Setting $f=1$ in the defining identity (1) of the Noether operator, and
recalling that the left hand side then vanishes automatically, we obtain
the basic identity
$$
\oint T\cdot\xi = \int {\delta L\over\delta g} \Lie_\xi g , \eqno(5)
$$
for an arbitrary metric $g$ and vectorfield $\xi$. (Here $\delta L / \delta g$, if
made explicit, would be $-G^{ab}$ of course.)
Now consider (Figure 1) a spacetime region ${\cal X}$ bounded to the past and
future by asymptotically flat surfaces $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma$, and let the
metric $g$ be {\it a stationary solution} to the Einstein equation.
\epsfxsize=3.6in
\FigureNumberCaption{fig-1.eps}%
{1}%
{The spacetime region ${\cal X}$ involved in proving energy
extremality without reference to a horizon. It is bounded to the future
and past by the surfaces $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma_0$.}
\noindent
If $g'$ is a nearby solution (not necessarily stationary) then it is easy to
cobble together a perturbation $\delta g$ which vanishes in a neighborhood of
$\Sigma_0$ and for which $\delta g = g'-g \;$ in a neighborhood of $\Sigma$.
Let us apply the identity (5) to this perturbation, in fact let
us consider the result of perturbing $g$ in (5) by an arbitrary
$\delta g$. On the RHS we have the product of two expressions which both
vanish for the unperturbed metric; the product therefore remains zero to
first order in the perturbation; consequently the LHS must also vanish,
i.e.
$$
\delta \oint_{\cal X} T\cdot\xi = 0 \eqno(6)
$$
{\it for an arbitrary perturbation $\delta g$ and an arbitrary region ${\cal X}$}.
But for our $\delta g$ this expression itself is by (2) none other than
the difference $E(g)|_{\Sigma_0} - E(g')|_\Sigma$, which accordingly must
vanish. In other words $E'=E$ or $\delta E = 0$, where now $\delta E$ just means
the variation in $E$ on $\Sigma$ in going from $g$ to $g'$. This is our
first main result: the total energy is an extremum for any asymptotically
flat stationary solution to the field equations.
\subsection{Application to a spacetime with internal boundary}
Thus far I have been tacitly assuming that the 3-surface $\Sigma$ is a
complete Riemannian manifold possessing a sole asymptotic region. When
spacetime has more than one asymptotic region, or more importantly for us,
when it has an {\it internal boundary}, the formula (2) for $E$ must
be applied with care. In order that it correctly furnish the energy
associated with a given $\infty$, $\xi$ must be a time translation there,
but it must vanish at all the other boundaries (including the actual
internal ones and the ideal ones at infinity). This rule follows from the
prescription that $E$ represents the change in $S$ which results from a
perturbation that {\it rigidly displaces the entire spacetime relative to
the infinity} in question. Alternatively, it can be derived by reverting
to the formula (4) for the energy of a ``non-patched'' solution, and
converting (4) to a volume integral via Stokes theorem.
In the case of interest the boundary will be the horizon of a black hole
(or holes). This surface does not represent a physically real ``edge'' of
spacetime, of course, but rather a boundary we impose on the submanifold we
work with, in order to make effective use of the identity (5).
Being a future horizon, this bounding surface (which I will call $H$) will
be null with its future side facing away from the outer
world.\footnote{$^{5}$}
{It is instructive to examine the reasons why the theorem just proved for
spacetimes without boundary does not furnish useful information when black
holes are present. In the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime, for
example, the theorem does apply, but, since there are two infinities the
extremized energy $E$ is the {\it sum} of the masses seen from the
infinities; and this in turn vanishes since the requirement that $\xi$ be
Killing forces it to point backward in one of the asymptotic regions. Thus
the theorem is indeed obeyed, but yields only the trivial fact that
$\delta(zero) = zero$ ! To make $E$ be the physically relevant energy, we
could eliminate the second infinity via an antipodal identification
(leading to a geon spacetime with spatial topology
${{\rm I\!\rm R}}P^2\times{\rm I\!\rm R}^3$), but then one would encounter an inconsistency
in trying to extend $\xi$ inside the horizon as a Killing vector: the
identified spacetime would no longer be stationary in the sense required by
the theorem. Either way, we fail to gain useful information by trying to
apply the theorem to the manifold as a whole.}
Let us now try to generalize the reasoning of the previous subsection to
a region ${\cal X}$ formed as before (with future boundary $\Sigma$ and past
boundary $\Sigma_0$) but with an extra internal boundary $H$ representing
the portion of the horizon between $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma$. In referring
to this setup I will denote the 2-surface $\Sigma\cap H$ by $S$, and the
corresponding, but earlier, 2-surface $\Sigma_0\cap H$ by $O$. (See
Figure 2.)
\epsfxsize=3.6in
\FigureNumberCaption{fig-2.eps}{2}%
{A region ${\cal X}$ analogous to that of Figure 1, but truncated at the horizon.
The null surface $H$ is that portion of the horizon between $\Sigma_0$ and
$\Sigma$; its future boundary is the 2-surface $S$ and its past boundary
$O$.}
Now in order to use the identity (6) as we did in the
previous subsection, we need $\xi$ to be a Killing vector of the
unperturbed solution, which contradicts the requirement that it vanish on
$H$ in order that (2) be the total energy. However $\xi$ {\it is}
a Killing vector at large radii, so there is nothing to stop us from making
it Killing everywhere by use of the relation (3). Applying this
relation in conjunction with Stokes' Theorem to the region
$\Xi\subseteq\Sigma$ where $\xi$ deviates from being Killing, we
immediately obtain\footnote{$^{6}$}
{by converting the integral of $T\cdot\xi$ over $\Xi$ to an integral
over $\partial \; \Xi$ of $W\cdot\xi$, then making $\xi$ Killing within $\Xi$,
then converting back to an integral over $\Xi$.}
$$
- E = \int_\Sigma T\cdot\xi
+ \oint_{S} W\cdot\xi, \eqno(7)
$$
where now $\xi$ is Killing everywhere and the integral over $S$ appears
because $S$ is the inner boundary of the region $\Xi$. Expressed in this
manner, the energy appears as a volume integral augmented by a horizon
contribution which it would be natural to desribe as the ``energy of the
black hole''.
Now let us apply to (7) a variation leading from the stationary
solution $g$ to a nearby solution $g'$, and let us temporarily assume that
$g'=g$ in a neighborhood of $S$. Since the variation of the second
integral in (7) then vanishes trivially, exactly the same proof as
earlier shows that $\delta E=0$. From this it follows immediately that $\delta
E$ for a general perturbation {\it can depend only on the value of the
perturbation (and its derivatives) at the horizon itself}, i.e. at the
2-surface $S$. Notice that essentially no computation was involved in
reaching this conclusion.
Consider, then, a perturbed solution $g'$ for which $g'-g$ does not
necessarily vanish on the horizon. We can study its energy by introducing
the same kind of ``interpolating perturbation'' $\delta g$ as we used earlier
in the absence of a boundary; however before doing this, it will be
convenient to prepare ourselves by extending the $\Sigma$-integral in
(7) all the way back to $\Sigma_0$ with the aid of the identity
(3). The result is
$$
- E = \int_{\Sigma\cup H} T\cdot\xi
+ \int_H G\xi
+ \int_O W\cdot\xi .
\eqno(8)
$$
Now when we apply the variation $\delta$, the first integral in (8) is
unchanged for exactly the same reason as earlier
and we are left with
$$
- \, \delta E = \delta \int_H G \; \xi \eqno(9)
$$
(the third integral in (8) being trivially unchanged because $\delta g $
vanishes in a neighborhood of $\Sigma_0$).
This is our second main result. It expresses $\delta E$ as the change in the
flux of the fictitious (conserved) energy current $G^a_b\xi^b$ across the
horizon $H$ in going from the stationary to the varied
solution.\footnote{$^{7}$}
{For the case of a rotating black hole, the relevant Killing vector would
be $\xi=t+\Omega\phi$ where $t$, now, denotes the Killing vector which is a
time-translation at infinity, while $\phi$ denotes the rotational one
($\Omega$ being the angular velocity of the horizon). Hence the variation
$\delta E$ in (9) would be replaced by $\delta E - \Omega\delta J$,
$J$ being the angular momentum.}
Notice that all reference to auxiliary background fields has now dropped
out.
\subsection{Reduction of $\delta E$ to an integral on S }
We have already seen on general grounds that $\delta E$ must be expressible in
terms of quantities defined only on the 2-surface $S$ in which our
3-surface $\Sigma$ meets the horizon. To discover the explicit form of
this expression requires us to convert (9) from an
integral over $H$ to one over $S$ alone. Clearly, it suffices to
re-express it as the integral of a total divergence of some
``potential''.\footnote{$^{8}$}
{Another approach would be to shrink $H$ to a 2-surface by bringing
together the surfaces $\Sigma_0$ and $\Sigma$.}
It turns out that there is a systematic method [8] for
constructing such a potential (and the potential is uniquely determined by
the construction); its applicability is guaranteed by the fact that
$\delta(\sqrt{-g}G^a_b\xi^b)$ vanishes for arbitrary variations
$\delta{g}$.\footnote{$^{9}$}
{This identity (cf. ref. [7]) is the analog of
eq. (6) for the covariant Action ${1\over{2}}\int{RdV}$,
only expressed in differential form. It can be derived as such, but it
also follows immediately from eqs. (6) and (3).}
To apply this method would require only straightforward calculation, but
instead of following this route, we can invoke the Raychaudhuri
equation to evaluate the integral in (9) directly, an
approach which --- though it is less systematic than the method of
reference [8] --- affords a simple explanation of how the
horizon area emerges as the measure of $\delta E$.
In essence, all that is involved is using
the Raychaudhuri equation to convert the integrand of (9)
into an expression involving the expansion of the horizon, and then
performing an obvious integration by parts. In preparation, however, we
need to recall a few definitions and make a convenient choice of gauge in
which to express the perturbation $\delta{g}$.
Let us begin by noting that for a non-rotating, stationary black hole
(Schwarz\-schild metric), the timelike Killing vector $\xi$ is automatically
null on the horizon,\footnote{$^{10}$}
{The need for $\xi$ to be null is what forces us to take $\xi=t+\Omega\phi$
in the rotating case, as described in an earlier footnote.}
whence proportional to the null geodesic generators of $H$. Accordingly,
if we parameterize the latter with an affine parameter $\lambda$, then we
have
$$
\xi^a = \alpha {dx^a \over d\lambda} \eqno(10a)
$$
for some function $\alpha$ depending on the choice of normalization for
$\lambda$. Now although $\alpha$ is not uniquely determined, its
$\lambda$-derivative is, and is given by
$$
{d\alpha \over d\lambda} = \kappa, \eqno(10b)
$$
where the black hole's ``surface gravity'' $\kappa$ is defined by the
equation $\xi^b\nabla_b\xi^a=\kappa\xi^a$.
Now in comparing the stationary solution $g$ with the interpolating metric
$g+\delta g$, we are free to choose the diffeomorphism-gauge so that the
horizon is the same surface $H$ for both metrics. In fact we clearly can
arrange that $\xi$ remains a null generator of $H$ with respect to
$g+\delta{g}$ and also that $\lambda$ remains an affine parameter along every
such generator. (For given choices of $\Sigma_0$ and $\delta g$, this also
determines to first order in $\delta g$ where $\Sigma$ is embedded in the
varied spacetime.) In this gauge, equations (10a,b) will remain true even
after the variation (with $\kappa$ denoting the surface gravity of the
{\it unvaried} metric $g$, as always.)
Finally we will use the fact that the extensor\footnote{$^{11}$}
{I propose to call ``extensors'', the various tensorial objects which
represent infinitesimal portions of submanifolds in expressions denoting
integrals over such manifolds, for example $d\sigma_a$ and $dV$ in
eqs. (1) and (2), or the codimension-two extensor $dS_{ab}$
which is implicit in the second integral of eq. (7).}
$dS_a$ representing an element of the surface $H$ can be written as
$$
dS_a = - \dtA \, dx^a \eqno(11)
$$
for a portion of $H$ with cross-sectional area $\dtA$ and extension along
the null direction in $H$ given by the (future pointing) null vector
$dx^a$.
Now we are ready to substitute into (9) the Raychaudhuri
equation for the generators of $H$, namely
$$
R_{ab}{dx^a\over d\lambda}{dx^b\over d\lambda} =
- {d\theta\over d\lambda} - {\theta^2\over 2} - {\sigma^2\over 2}.
\eqno(12)
$$
Since $\theta=\sigma=0$ in the unvaried spacetime ($\theta$ = expansion,
$\sigma$ = shear), only the first term on the RHS of (12) survives
variation; and since $R_{ab}$ vanishes for the unvaried
solution as well, we can write $R_{ab}=\delta R_{ab}$ and $\theta=\delta\theta$.
Using these facts, we can replace (12) for the metric $g+\delta g$ with
the equation
$$
R_{ab}{dx^a\over d\lambda}{dx^b\over d\lambda} = - {d\theta\over d\lambda}.
\eqno(13)
$$
Noting further that $G^{ab}$ also vanishes for the unvaried metric, we can
now transform (9) as follows:
$$
\eqalignno
{
- \delta E
&= \delta \int_H dS_a G^a_b \xi^b \cr
&= \int_H dS_a G^a_b \xi^b \cr
&= - \int \dtA (dx)_a G^a_b \xi^b \qquad ({\rm by\ eq.\, (11)}) \cr
&= - \int \dtA\,(dx)_a G^a_b \alpha {dx^b\over d\lambda}
\qquad ({\rm by\ eq.\, (10a)}) \cr
&= - \int \dtA\,d\lambda\;\alpha\; G_{ab}{dx^a\over d\lambda}
{dx^b\over d\lambda} \cr
&= - \int \dtA\,d\lambda\;\alpha\; R_{ab}{dx^a\over d\lambda}
{dx^b\over d\lambda} \cr
&= \int \dtA\,d\lambda\;\alpha\,{d\theta\over d\lambda}
\qquad ({\rm by\ eq.\,(13)}) \cr
&= - \int_H \dtA\,d\lambda\; {d\alpha\over d\lambda}\, \theta
+ \int_S \dtA\;\alpha\;\theta \cr
&= - \int_H d\lambda {d (\dtA)\over d\lambda} \kappa
+ \int_S \dtA \alpha \theta \cr
&= - \int \kappa \int d\lambda {d (\dtA)\over d\lambda}
+ \int_S \dtA \alpha \theta \cr
&= - \int_S \kappa \delta (\dtA)
+ \int_S \dtA \alpha \theta \cr
&= - \kappa \delta A + \int_S \dtA \alpha \delta\theta \cr
}
$$
Here in the sixth equality we used that $dx/d\lambda$ is null; in the
ninth we used eq. (10b) and that $\theta$ can be expressed as
$$
\theta = {1 \over \dtA} {d(\dtA)\over d\lambda} ;
$$
and in the last equality we used that $\kappa$ is constant on $H$.
Thus we have reduced to $\delta E$ to an expression pertaining solely to the
cross section $S$ of the horizon, and this is our third main result:
$$
- \, \delta E = -\kappa \delta A + \int_S \dtA\,\alpha\,\delta\theta \eqno(14)
$$
\subsection{Locating the horizon}
With equation (14) our work is essentially complete, except
that, in addition to the desired (first) term it contains an integral
depending on $\delta\theta$. In order to realize why this unwanted term is
present, we only have to ask ourselves where we have used the fact that $H$
is actually the horizon of the perturbed solution $g'$, and not just some
random null surface therein. The point is, of course, that we haven't used
it yet, meaning that the area of $S$ might have changed just because it was
displaced in location without even leaving the unvaried spacetime! In
order to distinguish such a bogus $\delta A$ from the true one, we need a
criterion to locate the horizon with respect to the metric $g'$. Such a
criterion, I claim, is precisely the requirement that $\delta\theta=0$
everywhere on $H$ (where here and henceforth `$\delta g$' just means $g'-g$,
not the more complicated interpolating perturbation of earlier
subsections).
In principle this claim, if true, should be derivable from the Einstein
equation, and such a derivation does not look too impractical, at least in
connection with the Schwarzschild metric, whose perturbations are fairly
well understood. For now however, we will derive $\delta\theta=0$ from an
assumption which is a special case of the so-called cosmic censorship
conjecture. We will {\it assume} that the horizon of the stationary
solution $g$ cannot be destroyed by arbitrarily small perturbations of the
metric.
If this is so (and if it is not, then black holes do not exist in reality
anyway!) then no infinitesimal perturbation of the metric $g$ can make the
expansion $\theta$ negative anywhere, because if it did, then there would
be arbitrarily nearby solutions $g'$ with negative expansion somewhere on
their horizons, but it is well-known that negative expansion implies that
the horizon encounters a singularity in a finite ``time'' (really affine
parameter).\footnote{$^{12}$}
{The argument uses the Raychaudhuri equation: positive convergence implies
infinite convergence in a finite time, implies a generator leaves the
horizon, implies a singularity.}
But if $\theta=\delta\theta$ can never be negative, then it can never be
positive either, because a simple change in the sign of $\delta g$ will
similarly change the sign of $\delta\theta$ (and of course, $-\delta g$ will also
be a solution of the linearized Einstein equation). Hence $\theta$ on the
true horizon must remain zero to first order in any perturbation about a
stationary black hole metric.
\subsection{Summary: the first law}
Our analysis is now complete; let us summarize the highlights. Using the
identity (6) we first found that $\delta E=0$ for any
variation $\delta g$ supported away from a cross-section $S$ of the horizon
$H$. This implied that for general perturbations, $\delta{E}$ can depend only
on the behavior of $\delta g$ in the neighborhood of $S$. To evaluate $\delta E$
explicitly, we had to re-express the 3-dimensional integral
(9) as the integral of a divergence. A systematic method
for doing so exists, but we used the Raychaudhuri equation instead, leading
to equation (14). By invoking the ``stability'' of the horizon
we ``situated'' $H$ within the perturbed spacetime, showing thereby that
the second term in (14) is in fact zero when evaluated on the
correctly identified perturbed horizon. The remaining term
yields\footnote{$^{13}$}
{For a rotating black hole, the substitution $\xi=t+\Omega\phi$ of earlier
footnotes leads immediately to $-\delta E = -\kappa \delta A +\Omega \delta J$. For
the charged case, a bit of extra analysis is needed, but again only general
features of the theory are used, without any reference to the explicit form
of the Kerr-Newman metrics (see [3]).}
the so-called ``first law''
$$
\delta E = \kappa \delta A. \eqno(15)
$$
\subsection{Possible further work}
With $A$ identified as entropy, the fact that $\delta A=0$ whenever $\delta E=0$
can be interpreted as the first-order expression of thermodynamic stability
(in the $\hbar\rightarrow 0$ limit), a thermodynamically stable solution being one
which maximizes entropy at fixed energy. At second order, this
maximization is generically equivalent to
$$
A'' - \kappa^{-1} E'' \ge 0\ \ {\rm on}\ \ \ker E', \eqno(16)
$$
where $(\cdot)'$ denotes Fr\'echet derivative. An interesting problem would
be to try to prove (16) for Schwarzschild (say) by extending the
foregoing analysis to second order.\footnote{$^{14}$}
{In this connection, there might be extra conceptual complications in the
rotating case, associated with the presence of so-called super-radiant
modes.}
Another worthwhile extension of the analysis would be to generalized
gravity theories, including in a Kaluza-Klein setting
(cf. [9]). There our ``Raychaudhuri trick'' would probably
fail, and one would have to find another trick or fall back on the general
method referred to earlier. Indeed this general method
[8] merits following up even in ordinary gravity, both as
a ``warmup'' for more complicated Lagrangians, and for the additional
insight it might offer into the origins of the first law itself.
\section{ II. Fractality of the Horizon }
One possible source for the entropy of a black hole is in the fluctuations
of a quantum field propagating near the horizon. When the field in
question is the linearized metric (``graviton''), the associated entropy is
geometrical in character, but there are many other quantum fields which are
able to contribute as well. The mechanism in all cases is the same:
fluctuations in the field occur on all scales, and when a fluctuation with
characteristic size $\lambda$ is astride the horizon it sets up a
correlation (``entanglement'') between inside and outside which
metamorphoses into entropy when one ``traces out'' the field modes inside
the black hole in order to obtain the effective density-operator describing
the field outside the black hole [10].
When one tries to compute the value of this entropy for a free field, one
obtains, at first, an infinite result deriving from the fact that free
fields are scale-invariant in the ultraviolet regime, whence an infinite
number of modes contribute with constant entropy per mode. However, if one
introduces a cutoff at some scale $l$, the entropy takes on the finite
value $S=c A/l^2$, where $A$ is the area of the horizon, and $c$ is a
dimensionless constant of order unity. Since this gives the right area
dependence, and also the right general magnitude if one chooses
$l=l_{Planck}$, one is tempted to conclude on the one hand that one has
explained black hole entropy, and on the other hand that one has obtained
persuasive evidence for the existence of spatio-temporal discreteness in
nature.
Another thing which speaks in favor of identifying $S$ with some sort of
entanglement entropy is that the prospect of a natural proof of the Second
Law then arises naturally. Indeed, one can argue that, if full quantum
gravity furnishes us (at some level of coarse-graining) with a
well-defined, autonomously evolving density-operator $\rho$ describing the
outside world, then $-{\rm tr}\rho\ln\rho$ necessarily increases as the surface
$\Sigma$ with which it is associated moves forward in time. The argument
[5] rests on the fact that the total energy is conserved and
determinable from the gravitational field outside the black hole(s), no
matter what may be occuring inside of the horizon (i.e. it rests on
equation (4) or (7) above. Notice that the entropy does not
change if the codimension-two surface $S$ in which $\Sigma$ meets the horizon
does not move forward along $H$; hence the significance, referred to
earlier, of being able to choose $S$ freely.)
Although the argument just alluded to does not care what degrees of freedom
it deals in (as long as the number of effective external states is finite
at finite total energy), our interest here is in those variables associated
with the fluctuations of quantum fields. To take seriously their
contribution to the entropy leads to the seeming difficulty that --- for
fixed discreteness scale $l$ --- the magnitude of $S$ would depend on the
total number of fields present in nature, seemingly at odds with the simple
geometrical character of the formula $S=2\pi A$, which just equates the
entropy to the circumference of the unit circle times the area of the
horizon measured in Planck units. (We take $l_{Planck}=\sqrt{\kappa}$
where $\kappa=8\pi G$ is the ``rationalized gravitational constant'', and
$\hbar=c=1$.) This simple formula seems more in harmony with a directly
``geometrical'' character for the relevant degrees of freedom, perhaps the
shape of the horizon itself [11], or the configuration of
some underlying discrete structure composing the horizon, such as (the
appropriate portion of) a causal set.
The ``fractal'' picture of the horizon I will describe in a moment grew out
of my wondering whether one could avoid the above ``species dependence
problem'' by somehow writing the quantum fields out of the script in favor
of more suitably geometrical degrees of freedom. In the meantime it has
become much less clear that there is in fact any difficulty to be avoided,
in view of the observation [12] that a change in the number of
fields would affect not only $S$ but also the renormalized value of
$\kappa\equiv 8\pi G$, and indeed would alter $\kappa$ in just the manner
needed to compensate for the change in the entanglement entropy, leaving
the formula $S=2\pi{}A/\kappa$ still valid. Although the details of their
argument can be criticized, its overall structure is ``too pretty to be
wrong'', and so is probably correct at some level. At the same time, it
manifestly ignores the influence of the fluctuations on the horizon itself
(``back reaction''), and to that extent is limited to a semiclassical
regime.
In the picture I am proposing, the number of species is irrelevant for an
entirely different reason, namely for the reason that --- due precisely to
the back-reaction --- the constant $c$ is not constant at all, but rather
depends on the size of the black hole in such a manner as to become
negligibly small for all but Planck sized black holes. More accurately I
will try to show that the approximation of fixed horizon location and shape
becomes invalid at a length scale much greater than Planckian, namely at a
scale of the magnitude $M^{1/3}$, $M$ being the mass of the black
hole.\footnote{$^{15}$}
{In this and all subsequent formulas, we adopt units such
that $8\pi{}G\equiv\kappa=1$.}
Below that scale, the field fluctuations become strongly coupled to the
horizon shape, and a semi-classical analysis becomes unreliable. At the
same time, the shape of the horizon itself becomes ``fractal'' due to the
effects of the fluctuations, perhaps providing the anticipated geometrical
degrees of freedom to ``absorb'' the field ones.
The point is that, at least for free or asymptotically free fields,
fluctuations occur with equal intensity at all sufficiently small scales
$\lambda$. Given a fluctuation of size $\lambda$, one would expect the
associated energy of magnitude $\sim 1/\lambda$ to induce a concomitant
distortion of the horizon. Heuristically, we may perhaps picture the
situation as follows. As one descends in scale, one will reach a
threshold size $\lambda_0$, at which the ``virtual energy'' of a typical
fluctuation will be big enough to distort the horizon shape by an amount
comparable to the size of the fluctuation itself. Then, like a sleeper who
is uncomfortable in bed and either buries him/herself under the blankets or
pushes them all on the floor, the fluctuation will either pull the horizon
up over itself or (in the case of negative energy-density) drive the
horizon entirely away. In either case the fluctuation will no longer
overlap the horizon, and it therefore will no longer contribute to the
entanglement entropy. Moreover, this effect evidently entails a strong
coupling between the horizon shape and the field fluctuations of size
$\lambda{\lower4pt\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\lambda_0$; whence such a fluctuations should not count as
independently ``entangled'' degrees of freedom even if they do happen to
meet the horizon. We conclude then, that the scale $\lambda_0$ sets a
limit to our understanding of entanglement entropy, and that the only
reliable estimates we can make for the latter pertain to fluctuations with
characteristic sizes greater than $\lambda_0$.
But isn't it obvious that $\lambda_0$ will just turn out to be of Planckian
size in any case? To begin to answer this question reliably, one would
have to analyze the effect on the horizon of a spacetime ``energy flux
loop'' of characteristic size $\lambda$, situated on or near the horizon
of, say, a Schwarzschild black hole. Here, I will do something less
accurate but much easier: I will compute for {\it Newtonian} gravity, the
disturbance in the ``horizon'' induced by a small additional mass $m\sim
1/\lambda$ distributed throughout a spatial region of size $\lambda$
located in the vicinity of the horizon.
So let there be present at the origin a spherical mass M, and define its
{\it horizon} as the locus of points where the escape velocity equals unity
(i.e. $c^2$), that is, where
$$
V = - 1/2, \eqno(17)
$$
$V$ being the gravitational potential, $- GM/r$, of the
mass.\footnote{$^{16}$}
{One should presumably conceive of the perturbation as enduring only for a
time of order $\lambda$, but the associated retardation effects would be
hard to incorporate in the Newtonian framework, and in any case, they
would not seem likely to alter the qualitative picture derived from
treating the horizon as determined by the instantaneous Newtonian
potential.}
It will be convenient to work, not with $M$, but with the corresponding
``geometrized mass'' or ``Schwarzschild radius'' $R := 2GM$. In terms of
$R$ we have for a point mass, $V(r)={}-{}R/2r$, so that the horizon occurs
precisely at $r=R$, a well-known coincidence.
Now let us add in the gravitational potential of the fluctuation, to which
for analytical convenience, we will assign the effective mass-density
$\rho=a\lambda/r_1(r_1+\lambda)^3$,
resulting in the potential
$$
V_1 = {-a/2 \over r_1 + \lambda}.
$$
Here, $a$ is the net geometrized mass of the fluctuation, and $r'$
the distance to its center. Making the substitution $a=f/\lambda$ ($f$
being some fluctuation-dependent ``fudge factor'' of order unity) yields
finally for the combined Newtonian potential $V$,
$$
- 2V = {R\over r} + {f/\lambda \over \lambda + r' }
$$
For simplicity, let us now place the center of the fluctuation where the
unperturbed horizon meets the $y$-axis, and let us also move the origin of
our coordinate system to that point. Then if we restrict ourselves to the
positive $y$-axis, the potential assumes the particularly simple form
$$
- 2V = {R\over y+R} + {f/\lambda \over \lambda + y}. \eqno(18)
$$
In the approximation that $y,\lambda \ll R$ this reduces to
$$
- 2V \approx 1 - {y\over R} + {f/\lambda \over \lambda + y}. \eqno(19)
$$
It is now easy to locate the perturbed horizon by solving the equation
$V=-1/2$ or $-2V=1$. Working with the approximation (19), we have on
the horizon,
$$
{y\over\lambda}({y\over\lambda}+1)={fR\over\lambda^3}, \eqno(20)
$$
so that, if we denote by $h=y$ the height of the bulge raised in the
horizon by the fluctuation, we see immediately that the relative height
$h/\lambda$ depends only on the characteristic combination of parameters
$fR/\lambda^3$. Moreover it is clear that $h/\lambda$ is of order unity
when $fR/\lambda^3$ is, and that it becomes small for $fR/\lambda^3\ll{}1$.
In other words, the threshold scale we are looking for is in fact
$$
\lambda_0 \sim R^{1/3}
$$
(where I have omitted $f$ since it is in any case of order unity). The
width of the bulge can be determined similarly. Indeed, one finds after a
little algebra that the profile of the bulge is determined by the equation,
$$
{y\over\lambda}
\left( 1 +
\sqrt { ({x\over\lambda})^2 + ({y\over\lambda})^2}
\right)
= f {R\over\lambda^3}.
$$
{}From this, one sees that the characteristic parameter $fR/\lambda^3$
governs the shape of the bulge as well as its height, and that the width of
the bulge is comparable to $\lambda$ when $\lambda{\lower4pt\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\lambda_0$.
To summarize: The size and shape of the bulge in the horizon raised by the
fluctuation depends on the ratio $\lambda / \lambda_0$. For
$\lambda\ll\lambda_0$ the fluctuation raises a bulge much smaller than
itself, whereas for $\lambda\gg\lambda_0$ it is (in our Newtonian picture)
much larger. In particular, the bulge becomes comparable to the size of
the fluctuation precisely when $\lambda \sim \lambda_0$. This conclusion
does not depend on the specific profile chosen for the effective mass
density of the fluctuation. A delta-function would lead to the same
conclusion, as would a dipolar source with vanishing total energy (perhaps
more appropriate as a model of a virtual fluctuation of a quantum field).
And it appears that full general relativity again yields a similar
relationship between scale $\lambda$ and distortion height $h$ if one makes
the drastic approximation of spherical symmetry.
The formula (20), if taken literally, implies that a fluctuation on
scale $\lambda\ll\lambda_0$ induces a distortion of the horizon much
greater than its own size. However it seems implausible that such an
effect would be present in a fully relativistic setting, where retardation
effects would make such extreme ``action at a distance'' by the fluctuation
appear very unrealistic, and one would not expect the influence of a
fluctuation to extend much beyond its immediate vicinity. If this is
correct, then it becomes plausible that the actual perturbations in the
horizon due to fluctuations of size $\lambda$ would themselves be of size
$\lambda$ for all $\lambda{\lower4pt\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\lambda_0\sim{}M^{1/3}$. The resulting
structure of the horizon could then be described as fractal on scales
between $1$ and $M^{1/3}$ (it being doubtful whether spacetime itself
exists as a continuous manifold on scales below unity). In principle there
is no limit to how large this scale-invariant wrinkling could grow if
sufficiently massive black holes were available, but unfortunately the
prospect of human-sized fluctuations in the horizon disappears when one
plugs in the numbers. The wrinkles on a solar mass black hole, for
example, would only reach a scale of around $10^{-20}$cm, and for the
fluctuations to attain a size of 1cm, a black hole of the absurd mass of
$10^{91}$ grams would be called for.
\bigskip\noindent
In conclusion, I would like to thank R. Salgado for his indispensable aid in
preparing the figures. This research was partly supported by NSF grant
PHY-9307570.
\baselineskip=12pt
\vskip 0.5truein
\centerline {\bf References}
{\partial}\nobreak
\medskip
\noindent
\parindent=0pt
\parskip=10pt
[1]
Schutz, B.F. and R.D.~Sorkin,
``Variational Aspects of Relativistic Field Theories, with Application
to Perfect Fluids'',
{\it Annals of Phys.} (New York) {\bf 107}:1-43 (1977)
[2]
J.~Bekenstein,
``Do we understand black hole entropy?'',
gr-qc/9409015
[3]
R.D.~Sorkin and M. Varadarajan,
``Energy Extremality in the Presence of a Black Hole'',
(in preparation)
[4]
D. Sudarsky and R. Wald, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 1453 (1990)
[5]
R.D.~Sorkin,
``Toward an Explanation of Entropy Increase in the
Presence of Quantum Black Holes'',
{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 56}, 1885-1888 (1986);
see also
R.D.~Sorkin
``Forks in the Road, on the Way to Quantum Gravity'', talk
given at the conference entitled ``Directions in General Relativity'',
held at College Park, Maryland, May, 1993,
(Syracuse University preprint SU-GP-93-12-2).
[6]
R.D.~Sorkin,
``Conserved Quantities as Action Variations'',
in Isenberg, J.W., (ed.),
{\it Mathematics and General Relativity}, pp. 23-37
(Volume 71 in the AMS's Contemporary Mathematics series)
(Proceedings of a conference, held June 1986 in Santa Cruz, California)
(Providence, American Mathematical Society, 1988)
[7]
R.D.~Sorkin,
``The Gravitational-Electromagnetic Noether-Operator and
the Second-Order Energy Flux'',
{\it Proceedings of the Royal Society London A} {\bf 435}, 635-644, (1991)
[8]
R.D.~Sorkin,
``On Stress-Energy Tensors'',
{\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 8}:437-449 (1977)
[9]
Lee, J. and R.D.~Sorkin,
``A Derivation of a Bogomol'ny Inequality in Five-dimensional
Kaluza-Klein Theory'',
{\it Comm. Math. Phys.} {\bf 116}, 353-364 (1988);
Bombelli, L., Koul, R.K., Kunstatter, G., Lee, J. and R.D.~Sorkin,
``On Energy in Five-dimensional Gravity'',
{\it Nuc. Phys.} {\bf B289}, 735-756 (1987).
[10]
R.D.~Sorkin,
``On the Entropy of the Vacuum Outside a Horizon'',
in B. Bertotti, F. de Felice, Pascolini, A., (eds.),
{\it General Relativity and Gravitation}, vol. II, 734-736
(Roma, Consiglio Nazionale Delle Ricerche, 1983);
Bombelli, L., Koul, R.K., Lee, J. and R.D.~Sorkin,
``A Quantum Source of Entropy for Black Holes'',
{\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D34}, 373-383 (1986).
[11]
See the second reference in [10], p. 374.
[12]
L.~Susskind and J.~Uglum, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 50}:2700 (1994)
\end
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
Since the last decade,
$\mbox{Fe}_{80-\mbox{x}}\mbox{Ni}_{\mbox{x}}\mbox{Cr}_{20}$
($14\leq x \leq 30)$
alloys have been the subject of considerable interest because of
their diverse magnetic properties within the same
crystallographic phase.\cite{akm} These alloys exhibit a
compositional phase transition from a long-range AF phase(X=14)
to a long-range FM one(X=30), passing through intermediate
phases of SG(X=19) and RSG(X=23,26) with the increase of Ni
concentration. The presence of the strong competing ferro-
[I(Ni-Ni), I(Fe-Ni), I(Ni-Cr), I(Fe-Cr)] and
antiferromagnetic[I(Fe-Fe), I(Cr-Cr)] exchange interactions
\cite{men's} is responsible for such rich magnetic
phases. The complete phase diagram of these alloys was
established by Majumdar and Blanckenhagen through dc
magnetization and neutron diffraction measurements.\cite{akm}
Later on ac susceptibility \cite{sbroy} and magnetoresistance
measurements \cite{tkn} also confirmed the proposed phase
diagram. Taking advantage of the diverse magnetic properties of
these alloys {\em within the same fcc $\mbox{$\gamma$}$-phase},
we tried to understand the age-old problem of relaxation
dynamics. This area has always been in the front-line because
of its multiple complexities and wide varieties.
In this paper, we present the dynamics of time and
temperature-dependent magnetic relaxations in various magnetic phases.
The search for magnetic relaxation began a century back, when
Ewing \cite{ewing} observed persistence of magnetization in
soft iron for significant amount of time and a non-exponential
decay. Richter \cite{richter} observed logarithmic
decay of magnetization for about one decade of time in
carbonised iron. Street and Woolley
\cite{sw} and Neel\cite{neel} also predicted a logarithmic decay
of TRM in FM.
Several theoretical and experimental evidences suggest
that an anomalous slower relaxation of the form
\begin{equation}
M(t)=M_0\exp\,[-(t/\tau)^{\beta}]\;,\;
\;0<\beta<1\;,
\end{equation}
is far more reasonable and common than the
conventional Debye exponential form($\mbox{$\beta$} =1$). In
fact, this kind of relaxation had been observed for a wide range
of phenomena and materials.\cite{ngai} In 1970, Williams and
Watts
\cite{ww} postulated similar functions for dielectric relaxation
($\mbox{$\beta$}$ = 0.5). In a review article Jonscher
\cite{jonscher} summarized the experimental evidence on
the frequency, time, and temperature dependence of the
dielectric response for a wide range of solids. He also found a
universality of dielectric behaviour and proposed a generalized
approach of many-body interaction. The structural relaxation
rate, in the case of liquid to glass transition, can be expressed as
a stretched exponential (2/3 $<$ $\mbox{$\beta$}$ $<$ 1).
\cite{cohen} Also the validity of this functional form for the
relaxation of TRM in SG has been reported by a large number of
investigators.\cite{rvc84,rhoo,fmezei,rvc85,nordblad}
Palmar et al. \cite{pal} presented in an elegant fashion the
whole scenario of similar kinds of relaxation in complex, slowly
relaxing, and strongly interacting materials.
They considered series relaxation and hierarchically constrained
dynamics which is distinctly different from other approaches
\cite{mfs} of getting similar results.
Hammann et al. proposed a phenomenological picture of the
dynamic properties of SG based on fractal cluster
model.\cite{ham,ll} Early decay measurements of TRM of
spin-glasses had shown logarithmic dependence.\cite{rt}
Similar dependence was also observed in
$\underline{\mbox{Au}}$Fe, $\underline{\mbox{Ag}}$Mn,
$\underline{\mbox{Th}}$Gd spin-glasses from 5 to 10$^4$
s.\cite{so} Analysing the neutron diffraction and ac
susceptibility data, Murani \cite{apm} found power law decay
for shorter time and logarithmic decay for longer time below
T$_{\mbox{g}}$ in SG. Bontemps and Orbach\cite{nbon} measured
the TRM of
the insulating SG Eu$_{0.4}$Sr$_{0.6}$S between 0.86T$_g$ and
1.04T$_g$. They found power law decay of the TRM for shorter
interval of time and a stretched exponential decay beyond
a well-defined cross-over time.
Recently two different theoretical models
have been proposed to describe the SG behaviour.
The first is the mean-field
approach of Parisis's solution \cite{parisi} of infinite range
Sherrington-Kirkpatrick(S-K) \cite{sk} model by considering
hierarchical organizations of infinite number of
quasi-equilibrium states in phase space.\cite{sibani}
The second is the
phenomenological approach based on the existence of a
distribution of droplets \cite{fisher} or dynamical domains
\cite{koper} of correlated spins.
Both these
theories can explain reasonably well the slower SG dynamics and
ageing effects. A nice comparison between these two models was
given by Lefloch et al.\cite{lef} Huse and Fisher
\cite{fisher} proposed long time decay as stretched exponential with
exponent 1/2 by using droplet fluctuations in two dimensional
pure Ising system with a spontaneously broken continuous
symmetry. In the framework of droplet
fluctuations,\cite{fisher} the spin autocorrelation can be described
as exponentially rare in $\ln t$ :
$\overline{\mbox{c}_{\mbox{i}}(\mbox{t})}$ = $\exp[-k(\ln
t)^{y}]$ (where $y = 1$ for random exchanges, $y = d-2/d-1$ for
random fields) in random FM and power of $\ln t$ in SG.
Ogielski\cite{ogi} predicted that the spin autocorrelation
function can be described by the product of power law and
stretched exponential at all temperatures above T$_g$\cite{gunn}
and by power law below T$_g$.
Ocio et al. found an analytical expression based on scaling
analysis of ageing effects, for the decay of TRM in SG,
CsNiFeF$_6$ \cite{ocio} as well as in AgMn.\cite{alba}
They proposed the decay of TRM as
\begin{equation}
M(t)=M_0\;(\lambda)^{-\alpha}\,\exp\,[-(\omega\, t/t_{w}^{\mu})^
{1-n}]\;,\;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
with\,\,\;\lambda=(t_{w}/(1-\mu))[(1+t/t_{w})^{1-\mu}-1]
\;,
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{$\lambda$}$ is the effective time and
$\mbox{$\mu$}$ is an exponent smaller than 1 .
A different analysis, based on S-K mean-field model,
\cite{hs} suggests algebraic decay.
In ferromagnets attempts have been made to
explain the magnetic relaxation using a model based on magnon
relaxation on a percolation distribution of finite domains.
\cite{rvc90} The other popular prediction of relaxation is the
power law \cite{rjb} decay which can be obtained from scaling
theories for domain growth \cite{gunton} and internal
dynamics.\cite{halp} Ikeda and Kikuta\cite{ike} found that there is
no magnetic relaxation in AF over 10 h in $Mn_{0.45}Zn_{0.55}F_2$
at a slightly lower temperature than the transition
temperature.
Despite considerable experimental work on relaxation dynamics
covering enormous range of time window, no conclusive results
have been found. Moreover, there is a lack of clear distinction
between the SG and the RSG phases. Also no experimental
data are available on relaxation dynamics in the AF phase. All these
have motivated us to study systematically the relaxation
dynamics in four different magnetic phases, namely, SG, RSG, FM
and AF in FeNiCr alloys {\em within the same crystallographic
phase}, for different wait times and at different temperatures
for the largest available time window. There is a running
controversy about the existence of the FM orderings in RSG
at the lowest temperature as predicted by the GT model.\cite{gt}
We have also measured
linear and non-linear ac susceptibilities for the sample X=23
to resolve this controversy.
\section{EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE}
All these ternary alloys were prepared by induction melting in
argon atmosphere. The starting materials were of 99.999\% purity
obtained from M/s Johnson Mathey Inc., England. The alloys were
cut to the required size, homogenized at 1323 K for 100 h in
argon atmosphere, and then quenched in oil.
Chemical analysis of Ni and Cr shows that the compositions of
the alloys are within $\pm 0.5$ at. $\%$ of their nominal values.
X-ray diffraction data at room temperature in powdered samples
reveal that these are single-phase fcc ($\gamma $) alloys with the
lattice parameter a=3.60 $A^{o}$. Neutron diffraction data show
the presence of single-phase fcc ($\gamma $)structure
down to 2 K for X=19
alloy.
The two most essential ingredients of SG are "frustration" and
"quenched disorder" which manifest themselves in history
dependent phenomena and eventually lead to nonequilibrium
behaviour below T$_{\mbox{g}}$.\cite{binder} To study the
relaxation dynamics, we applied a small magnetic field (10
gauss) at a temperature greater than the characteristic
temperatures (T$_{\mbox{g}}$ , T$_{\mbox{c}}$ , T$_N$ ) , cool
($\mbox{t}_{\mbox{c}}$ = cooling time ) the system to a
temperature T$_{\mbox{m}}$ which is less than the
characteristic temperature. This field-cooled system will
attain a metastable state (which is not an equilibrium state),
\cite{rhoo,rvcprb84} then after waiting for definite amounts of time
$\mbox{t}_{\mbox{w}}$ ( $\mbox{t}_{\mbox{w}}$ varies from 60 to
3600 s ) the magnetic field is removed, the system allowed to
relax towards equilibrium state and then TRM measured with time
(till $\sim 10^{4}$ s) using a SQUID magnetometer
(Quantum Design MPMS). To see the
effect of temperature, we also measured TRM at several
temperatures, T$_{\mbox{m}}$, both above and below the
characteristic temperatures for constant wait time,
t$_{\mbox{w}}$ = 180 s. We have very carefully subtracted the
background noise. We repeated the experiments and obtained
similar results within the experimental error.
\section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}
We observe remarkable results of ageing effects in the SG where
each isotherm strongly depends upon wait time t$_{\mbox{w}}$
(time of exposure in magnetic field below T$_{\mbox{g}}$). The
magnetization can be well represented by an equation of the
form
\begin{equation}
M(t)=M_0(t/t_{w})^{-\gamma}\exp\,[-(t/\tau)^{1-n}]
\end{equation}
for the entire time domain.
This is a simpler version of the earlier prediction of
scaling analysis of ageing process \cite{alba,ocio} (Eq. (2)).
Instead of t they used $\lambda$ which is a function t and t$_w$
and $\lambda$ $\rightarrow$ t for t $<<$ t$_w$. But we find
that the Eq. (4) is valid for the entire time domain.
Ogielski\cite{ogi} predicted similar analytical form to
describe the spin autocorrelation function in SG at all
temperatures above T$_g$.
However other investigators
\cite{rvc84,rvc85,nordblad,chu} found only the stretched exponential form for
the decay of TRM for the SG phase. We observe in the RSG the
best representation of TRM is
\begin{equation}
M(t)=M_{1}+ M_0\,\exp\,[-(t/\tau)^{1-n}]\,\;.
\end{equation}
The additional small term $\mbox{M}_1$ can easily be explained
in the framework of the GT model \cite{gt} where only transverse
spin freezing occurs in the RSG while the longitudinal spins can
produce diffuse background effect. Similar expression also
reported for the decay of TRM in SG as well as in RSG.\cite{p-m}
They did not find any difference between the RSG and the SG
phases. We find that Eq. (5) is only valid for the RSG and
distinct differences exist between the SG and the RSG phases.
The most salient feature of the
present work is that it can demonstrate how changing the
composition by small amounts in
$\mbox{Fe}_{80-\mbox{x}}\mbox{Ni}_{\mbox{x}}\mbox{Cr}_{20}$
alloys ( X = 14 AF, X = 19 SG, X = 23,26 RSG, X = 30 FM ) one
can tune the relaxation dynamics. This is the only experimental
report which presents a complete scenario of the relaxation
spectrum in various kinds of interesting magnetic phases and
throws new light on this area of interest to theoreticians as
well as experimentalists .
Figure 1 shows the time decay of TRM, M(t), for different wait
times (t$_{\mbox{w}}$ = 60, 240, 1200, 1800, 3600) below
T$_{\mbox{g}}$(12 K) (T$_{\mbox{m}}$ = 5 K) for the SG (X = 19) and
the solid lines are the best fits of the experimental data
to Eq.(4) for almost four decades of time (till 12,000 s)
($\chi^2=(1/n)$\(\sum_{i=1}^{n}(Raw\;data_i-Fitted\;data_i)^2/Raw\;data_i^2\)$
\leq 10^{-6}$).
We have purposefully plotted our data on linear time scale
because if we plot on log scale, for longer time interval, the
plot will contract and the fits will apprently look better.
However, goodness of fit is better judged from the value of
$\chi^2$.
From these fits, the value of the initial TRM, $\mbox{M}_0$ ,
the characteristic time constant, $\mbox{$\tau$}$, and the
exponents, n and $\mbox{$\gamma$}$, are found. The most
significant feature of this analysis is that M$_0$ ($\approx$
0.04 emu/g) is not varying with t$_{\mbox{w}}$
\cite{rvc84,rhoo,alba} while the exponent, n, gradually
increases with the increase of t$_{\mbox{w}}$. This indicates
that larger time exposure in magnetic field below T$_{\mbox{g}}$
makes the system more reluctant to come back to an equilibrium
state from a metastable one. Other investigators
\cite{rvc84,rhoo} reported n independent of wait time but we
found that it varies from 0.63 to 0.77. The power law exponent,
$\mbox{$\gamma$}$, remains constant (0.022 $\pm$ 0.004) except
$\mbox{t}_{\mbox{w}}$ = 60 s where $\mbox{$\gamma$}$ is 0.03.
Figure 2 shows the variation of TRM , M (t), with time for
different temperatures at constant wait time
($\mbox{t}_{\mbox{w}}$ =180 s). From the best fit to Eq.(4) the
temperature variations of n, $\mbox{M}_0$, $\mbox{$\tau$}$, and
$\mbox{$\gamma$}$ are found which broadly match with the
previous observations.\cite{rvc84,rhoo,alba,chu} The value of
n increases linearly from 0.8 to 0.9 from 0.5T$_{\mbox{g}}$
to T$_{\mbox{g}}$ and then it starts falling beyond
T$_{\mbox{g}}$ (Fig. 3). It is reported that n remains constant
at lower temperatures and then starts rising from a
temperature T =T$_0$, which strongly depends on the anisotropy
energy of the sample \cite{rvc85} and hence can vary from sample
to sample. Non-availability of lower temperature data(less than
0.4T$_{\mbox{g}}$) prevented us from verifying the constancy of
n. The prefactor, M$_0$, shows (Fig. 3) a linear decrease with
increasing temperature for T $<$ 0.75 T$_{\mbox{g}}$ and the
rate of decrease becomes slower for T $>$ 0.75 T$_{\mbox{g}}$,
which is in good agreement with the earlier findings.\cite{rvc84} The
power law exponent $\mbox{$\gamma$}$ increases with the
increase of temperature up to 0.75 T$_{\mbox{g}}$. At
T$_{\mbox{g}}$ and beyond it starts decreasing with temperature
(Fig.~3). It is difficult to tell exactly the temperature from
which it
has started falling , but earlier prediction was that it should
increase as one approaches T$_{\mbox{g}}$.\cite{alba} Figure 4
shows how the inverse of the characteristic relaxation time
$\mbox{$\tau$}$ decreases with the increase of the reduced
temperature T$_{\mbox{g}}$/T, as observed by Alba et al.\cite{alba} It also
reflects the general tendency observed by
others.\cite{rhoo,chu} Fewer number of data points prevents us
from finding the functional form. Apparently, to check the
exponential form as predicted earlier\cite{rhoo} we need to probe even
at lower temperatures. We can try to explain the variation of
$\mbox{$\tau$}$ with temperature by considering hierarchically
organized metastable states in phase space \cite{lef} within the
framework of Parisi's mean-field solution of infinite range S-K
model. The states are continuously splitting into new states
with the lowering of temperature and are separated by barriers.
These barrier heights strongly vary inversely with temperature.
That is, at lower temperatures, barrier heights increase and
separate different metastable states into mutually inaccessible
states which makes $\mbox{$\tau$}$ larger at lower
temperatures. Using values of n and $\mbox{$\tau$}$ from Figs.
3 and 4, respectively and plotting $\log(1-n)(1/\tau)^{1-n}$
versus (1-n) by writing this function as $(1-n)(1/\tau)^{1-n}$ =
$c\,
\omega^{1-n}$, we get the value of the relaxation frequency
$\mbox{$\omega$}$ from the slope of the best fitted curve
(Fig.5) as 1.9$\times10^{-7}$ s$^{-1}$ and the constant, c, is
0.13. These values are much less than those predicted
earlier.\cite{rvc84}
Analysis of M(t) by considering only the stretched
exponential, ie., without the power law part of Eq.(4), shows
unusually small ($\approx 10 $ times smaller) values of n and a
poor $\mbox{$\chi$}^2$($\approx 10^{-5}$). Fits are even poorer in cases of
other
mathematical forms, like the power law. So, we find that
Eq.(4) is the simplest analytical form that can represents our
experimental data of the decay of TRM in the
SG phase for the entire time domain.
The SG has been the focus of attention for quite
sometime, but not much attention has been paid to the RSG phase.
The sample with X = 23, below 35 K, enters a FM phase from
a random paramagnetic(PM) phase. On further lowering of temperature
below 22 K it enters once again a new random phase where FM and
SG orderings coexist.\cite{akm} It shows most of the SG-like
behaviour (frustration, irreversibility, etc. ). This phase is
known as the RSG. Figure 6 represents the variation of M(t)
with time at T$_m$=5 K for different wait times (t$_{\mbox{w}}$ = 60, 1200,
1800, and 3600 s ) in the RSG phase (X=23) and the solid lines
are the best fitted curves which are of the form of Eq.(5)($\chi^2
\approx 10^{-6}-10^{-7}$). The
salient feature of this figure is that the initial
magnetization, $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ = M$_0$ + M$_1$, increases
with the increase of wait time (Fig. 7). This is not observed
in the SG phase but the variation of n is similar. We also
observe that M$_1$, which is arising because of the presence of
the FM ordering,
\cite{gt} is not changing at all with wait time and the values
of M$_1$ are 84$\%$ to 94$\%$ of the total magnetization
depending on wait time (total magnetization changing with wait
time). It is quite natural that if the ferromagnetic component
is embedded in the SG phase, then the major contribution of the
total magnetization should come from the ferromagnetic
component. Figure 8 depicts the variation of M(t) with time at
different temperatures ( T$_{\mbox{m}}$ = 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 38
K
) for constant wait time (180 s). From the fits of the data to
Eq. (5), the value of
$\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ and the exponent, n, are found. The
exponent increases with temperature and approaches unity as the
temperature approaches T$_{\mbox{g}}$. This is exactly in
agreement with the previous observations \cite{rvc84,rhoo} in
SG, the only difference is that the values are slightly higher.
If we increase the temperature even more, a sudden change takes
place around 20~K. A drop in the value of n indicates
a phase change. Moreover, at lower temperatures it
shows better fit to Eq.~(5) but at higher temperatures power
law fit is better than the stretched exponential. This
supports the on-set of the FM phase.
This could also be an indication of the switch-over from nonequilibrium
dynamics to
equilibrium dynamics when it passes from the RSG to the FM
phase.
The power law behaviour in
the FM phase (having an exponent $\approx$ 0.06) is quite
consistent with the Huse and Fisher theory.\cite{fisher}
The rate of increase of the exponent also changes somewhat
beyond 30 K where it passes from the FM to the PM state at 35 K.
The value of the exponent varies by 4.6 $\%$ in the temperature
interval of 8 K (30 K to 38 K)(Fig. 9). This is above the error
bar which is less than 1 $\%$. The size of the symbol (Fig. 9) is of
the order
of the error bar. The value of the
exponent shows anomaly near two temperatures, 22 K and 35
K, which are nothing but T$_{\mbox{g}}$ and T$_{\mbox{c}}$,
respectively.\cite{akm} But the variation of n near T$_c$ is not
as prominent as that of near T$_g$. We also find that in Eq.~(5) the
additional term , M$_1$, which is the value of the residual
magnetization, M($\infty$), decreases with the increase of
temperature below T$_{\mbox{g}}$ (0.0067 emu/g at
T$_{\mbox{g}}$) and suddenly increases to 0.027 emu/g when it
enters the FM phase, as expected. The most interesting
observation is the variation of the initial magnetization,
$\sigma_0$, with temperature (Fig. 9). $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$
decreases monotonically with the increase of temperature up to
20 K beyond which the rate of decrease reduces significantly and
at 25 K and 30 K it becomes almost constant (0.033 and 0.032
emu/g, respectively) and then there is a sudden rise at 38 K (0.045
emu/g)
which makes the scenario most interesting. The value of $\sigma_0$
changes about 40$\%$ in this temperature interval (30 to 38 K).
This kind of
remarkable observation of switching of magnetization while
passing from FM to PM phase was reported earlier only by
Chamberlin and Holtzberg \cite{rvc91} in ferromagnetic EuS single crystal.
They tried to explain this in terms of the percolation
theory.\cite{stauffer} So we observe that the
TRM in RSG (X=23) shows a minimum near T$_c$ and a local maximum just
beyond T$_{\mbox{c}}$.
At lower temperatures
($<$ T$_{\mbox{c}}$), the finite size domains try to orient
themselves with the direction of the local field, which need not
be in the same direction as the applied field. These domains are
dynamically strongly correlated (forming a strong viscous
medium). FeNiCr alloys have shown very large high-field
susceptibility,\cite{mit} i.e., even at very high magnetic fields
the
orientation of these domains with the direction of the applied field
is not complete because of the presence of strong anisotropy.
Near T$_{\mbox{c}}$ the correlation between finite domains gets
disrupted. Just above T$_{\mbox{c}}$, the domain magnetization
still remains but the domains become less viscous and they try
to orient themselves along the direction of the applied field,
thus increasing the magnetization. Further increase of
temperature randomizes the whole spin orientation. We repeated
the experiment to confirm this unusual observation and found
similar behaviour.
In general the non-linear magnetization in the presence of a
magnetic field(h), can be written as $ m = m_{0}+\chi_{0}h +
\chi_{1}h^2 + \chi_{2}h^3 + ....$, where $m_0$=spontaneous
magnetisation, $\chi_0$ linear- and $\chi_{1},\chi_{2}, etc.,$
are nonlinear susceptibilities, and $h=h_0\; Sin\; \omega t$ for
a.c field. In SG where no spontaneous magnetization exists, only
odd harmonics of the susceptibility will be present.
\cite{tosi,masuo} We observe that the out-of-phase part of the
linear a.c susceptibility ($\chi_{0}^{\prime\prime}$) shows
peaks
\cite{masuo} near T$_{\mbox{g}}$ and T$_{\mbox{c}}$,
respectively (Fig. 10) (a.c field of 0.6 Oe and frequency $\omega$
=242 Hz). Similar peaks are observed in
$\chi_{2}^{\prime\prime}$ ($\partial^3m/\partial
h^3$, out-of-phase part of the 3rd harmonics). The distinct peak
near T$_{\mbox{g}}$ for X=23 is consistent with the
theoretical predictions.\cite{masuo,e-a} $\chi_{1}$
($\partial^2m/\partial h^2$, 2nd harmonics)
also shows a distinct peak near T$_{\mbox{g}}$ (Fig. 10) which is
never observed in pure SG, including X=19. This indicate the
presence of a ferromagnetic component in RSG down to the lowest
temperature. So, we find that the RSG shows the SG transition
and also the presence of FM ordering below T$_{\mbox{g}}$.
This distinguishes it from the SG. Detailed studies of ac
susceptibilities in FeNiCr alloys will be published elsewhere.
The sample with X=26, below 56 K , enters a FM phase from a
random PM phase. On further lowering of temperature below 7 K it
enters a RSG phase.\cite{akm} We observe some different
features in the samples X=23 and X=26, though they
undergoes similar kinds of phase transitions(PM $\rightarrow $ FM
$\rightarrow$ RSG). M(t) data at 5 K, similar to those shown in
Fig. (6) but now for the sample X=26, when fitted to Eq. (5)
($\chi^2\approx 10^{-6}-10 ^{-7}$),
shows that the initial magnetization, $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ =
M$_0$ + M$_1$, does not change with wait time ($\approx 0.5 $
emu/g). The value of the exponent, n, increases from 0.55 to
0.64, with the increase of wait time from 240 s to 3780 s. We
have observed similar variation in the SG(X=19) phase whereas in
the other sample, X=23, $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ increases with wait
time in the RSG phase. The value of $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ is
larger for the sample X=26 than that for the sample X=23 and
smaller than that for the sample X=30(FM, describe below).
Hence the value of the initial magnetization,
$\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$, increases gradually with the increase of Ni
concentration as we move towards the FM phase. This is exactly in
agreement with the previous observations.\cite{akm} Variation of
n is similar to both the SG(X=19) and the RSG(X=23) samples. Figure 11
displays the variation of M(t) with time at different
temperatures (T$_{\mbox{m}}$ = 6, 8, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60
K) for constant wait time (180 s)for the sample X=26. From the fits
($\chi^2\approx 10^{-6}-10 ^{-7}$)
of the data to Eq. (5), the values of
initial magnetization, $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$, and the exponent, n,
are found. $\mbox{$\sigma$}_0$ decreases at a faster rate up
to 20 K and then continues to decrease slowly till 60 K (Fig.
12). We have not observed the local maxima above T$_{\mbox{c}}$
as in the case of X=23. To observe this we need to probe at a
temperature closer to T$_{\mbox{c}}$(56 K). The exponent, n,
increases abruptly when the system undergoes a phase transition
from the RSG to the FM at 7 K. Then it starts to decrease up to 20
K and beyond this again increases till 50 K. Further increase of
temperature reduce the value of n and the system passes from the
FM to the PM phase (Fig. 12). The variation of n is not well
understood, specially the dip around 20 K.
Interestingly, we have also observed around this temperature some striking
features
in the low-field magnetoresistance and
a.c susceptibility measurements.\cite{tbp}
These have kept the field wide open for further work. We also observe
that at higher temperature (T$\geq$30 K, much higher than T$_g$)
M(t) data, show better fits to the power law compared to
the stretched exponential (Eq. (5)). For X=23, we observe similar
behaviour for T $\geq$ T$_g$.
Figure 13 shows the variation of TRM with time at 5 K in the FM
phase (X=30) for different wait times (t$_{\mbox{w}}$ = 240,
1380, 1980, 3780 s). We find that
\begin{equation}
M(t) = M_1 +
M_0\;t^{-\gamma}
\end{equation}
is the best fit of the
experimental data (solid lines in the graph) and from the fits
($\chi^2\approx 10^{-6}-10 ^{-7}$)
the values of $M_1$, $M_0$ and $\gamma$ are found. It does
not show much wait-time dependence, the values of $M_1$ and
$M_0$ remain almost constant ($\approx$ 0.29 and 0.35 $\pm$
0.008 emu/g, respectively) while the exponent, $\gamma$,
decreases inversely with wait time (from 0.049 to 0.036). With
the increase of temperature the value of the initial
magnetization reduces drastically (0.65 emu/g at 5 K and 0.094
emu/g at 80 K) and the exponent also becomes smaller (0.049 at
5 K and 0.00036 at 80 K).
Figure 14 shows the time decay of TRM, M(t), for different wait
times (t$_{\mbox{w}}$ = 180, 1320, 1980, 3780 s) below
T$_N$=26~K (T$_{\mbox{m}}$ = 5 K) for the AF(X = 14) sample and
the solid lines are the power law fits of the form
\begin{equation}
M(t) = M_0
t^{-\gamma}.
\end{equation}
From these fits the value of $M_0$ and
$\gamma$ are obtained (Table I).
$M_0$ ($\approx$ 0.00206 emu/g)
does not change with wait time whereas $\gamma$
decreases with the increase of wait time (0.0044 to 0.0038).
Figure 15 shows the time decay of TRM, M(t), at different
temperatures for constant wait time (180 s) and the solid lines
are the power law fits from which the value of $M_0$ and
$\gamma$ are found (Table III). The value of $M_0$ decreases
linearly with the increase of temperature up to T$_N$ (0.0015
emu/g at 24 K) and then suddenly falls to a much lower value
(0.00012 emu/g at 30 K) as shown in Fig. 16. The exponent,
$\gamma$, increases with temperature
and the rate of increase changes somewhat when it passes to the PM phase
(Fig. 16). In case of the AF phase we need not add any constant
term (unlike the FM phase) and the value of the exponent is an
order of magnitude lower than that in the FM phase. We also
observe that the stretched exponential function, Eq.(1), shows
reasonably good fits to the TRM in the AF phase. The value of
the fitted parameters and the $\chi^2$ are given in Table II and
IV.
The value of the exponent, $\mbox{$\beta$}$, is almost two orders of
magnitude smaller than that in the SG phase (0.004 and 0.37,
respectively). It increases monotonically (Table IV) with temperature
(0.004 at 5 K and 0.029 at 30 K) in contrast to that in the SG
phase where $\mbox{$\beta$}$ decreases with the increase of
temperature up to T$_
{\mbox{g}}$ (0.37 at 5 K and 0.1 at 12 K obtained from Fig. 3
using $\beta$ = 1-n). So, we find that the M(t) data for AF fit
well to both the power law (Eq. (7)) and the stretched exponential
(Eq. (1)).
We have given the values of $\chi^2$ in Table I-IV for
comparison. They are comparable for both the
above mathematical forms. Hence it is difficult to describe the
exact nature of the decay of the TRM in the AF phase. More
experimental work is needed to arrive at a more definite
conclusion.
\section{conclusion}
We have measured the TRM in
$\mbox{Fe}_{80-\mbox{x}}\mbox{Ni}_{\mbox{x}}\mbox{Cr}_{20}$
($14\leq \mbox{x} \leq 30$) alloys
for four different magnetic phases
within the {\em {same crystallographic phase}} and from their
wait time and temperature variations tried to establish a
correspondence with the phase diagram.
We find distinct differences between the SG and the RSG phases
with two different analytical forms for the time decay of
the TRM.
We also observe the presence of the FM ordering in the RSG
below T$_{\mbox{g}}$ which is consistent with the GT model.
The peak in $\chi_1$ near T$_{\mbox{g}}$ for RSG (X=23) had never
been observed in any
pure SG, including X=19. The peak can only be observed if spontaneous
magnetization is present. Hence we confirm the presence of the FM
ordering
in RSG down to the lowest temperature. This feature distinguishes the RSG
from the SG.
We also report the remarkable observation of the local maximum of
the
TRM just above T$_{\mbox{c}}$ in the RSG (X=23) when it passes to
the PM phase from the FM phase. This is found for the first time
in any polycrystalline RSG. However, it's exact theoretical justification
is unclear. We also observe that the value of the exponents
show anomaly near the phase transitions.
We observe some different features in the samples X=23 and X=26,
though they undergoes similar kinds of phase transitions.
We find the
conventional power law decay in the FM phase.
The value of the magnetization is found to increase with the Ni
concentration, as predicted earlier. In the AF phase the power law decay
is indistinguishable from the stretched
exponential as a description of the TRM. More experimental work is
needed to arrive at a more definite conclusion about the decay of TRM in AF.
\section{Acknowledgement}
Financial assistance from project No. SP/S2/M-45/89 of the
Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, is
gratefully acknowledged.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
This paper deals with the motion of a particle in a correlated random
potential under the influence of a driving force. The correlations of the
disorder are characterized by a short distance cutoff and a power law decay at
larger distances with exponent $\gamma$. This problem has been solved in one
dimension
\cite{Sinai82,leDou95,Scheidl95} and, depending on $\gamma$, drift with finite
mobility, creep or pinning was found. Creep means that the particle moves with
a mean velocity less than proportional to the driving force and in case of
pinning the mean velocity is zero, unless the force exceeds some critical
value.
In $N$ dimensions a mean field treatment becomes exact for $N\to\infty$ and
there is a close formal similarity to spin glass problems with long range
interactions. The situation without external driving force has been treated
within replica theory \cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91} and also using a
stochastic dynamics approach \cite{KibachHo93I,KibachHo93II}. Actually the
more general case of the motion of a $D$-dimensional manifold in an
$N\to\infty$ dimensional space was investigated. For finite $N$ the mean field
treatment is only an approximation. Nevertheless it might give some clue about
a great variety of systems with disorder, for instance flux lines in
superconductors or interfaces in random field systems.
The close formal relation to spin glass problems raises another set of
questions. There has been a continuous interest in the dynamics of spin
glasses and related systems. The pioneering work of Sompolinsky and Zippelius
\cite{Somp81,SZ82} concentrated in part on an understanding of the replica
theory and the hierarchical replica symmetry breaking scheme proposed by
Parisi \cite{Par79}. The basic assumption was about the existence of a
hierarchy of diverging time scales with ultrametric properties. This point has
been investigated further \cite{Ho:DySK84} introducing a long time scale $\bar
t$ associated with slow changes of the random interactions in this model. It
could be shown that the above assumption meant that the long time
contributions to the correlation and response functions have to be smooth
functions of $x(t)=1-\ln t/\ln\bar t$ with $\bar t\to\infty$.
It was later shown \cite{Ho:DySK87} that this led to inconsistencies
which could not be resolved at that time.
There exists a variety of models with disorder where a replica treatment
requires only single step replica symmetry breaking instead of the
hierarchical scheme mentioned above. The resulting phase transition can be
considered as discontinuous in contrast to the continuous transition observed
in the SK-model and other cases requiring hierarchical replica symmetry
breaking. A treatment via dynamics
\cite{KibachHo93I,KiTh87,ho:binperc92,CHS93} revealed a dynamic freezing
temperature above the transition temperature obtained in replica theory. This
is in contrast to the continuous transitions where the same transition
temperature is found. Furthermore it could be shown \cite{CHS93} that the
states which contribute to dynamics have a higher energy than the states
relevant for the replica calculation. Numerical simulations of a learning
process in a perceptron with binary bonds
\cite{ho:binperc92}, another system with discontinuous transition, indicated
that the replica result applies if the limit $\bar t\to\infty$ is performed
first and then the limit $N\to\infty$, whereas the results obtained via
dynamics hold for the opposite order. This observation suggests that in the
thermodynamic limit the particular states most relevant for the replica
calculation cannot be reached within any finite time. This picture is
consistent with the fact that finding the best groundstate in a spin glass or
perfect learning in a perceptron with binary bonds is a combinatorial hard
problem which cannot be solved in polynomial time. The replica treatment, on
the other hand, is purely static and does not refer to any kind of dynamics.
For a given physical situation the appropriate order of limits has of course
to be found, keeping in mind that the longest equilibration times are likely
to diverge exponentially with some power of $N$ \cite{KibachHo91}.
This raises the question whether similar discrepancies also show up in systems
with continuous transition. The problem of the motion of a particle in a
random potential under the influence of a driving force is in several aspects
an appropriate model system to address this question. Prescribing the drift
velocity $v$ and calculating the force necessary to drive the particle, a long
external time scale is defined by $\bar t\sim v^{-1}$. For times exceeding
$\bar t$ the system is supposed to reach a stationary non-equilibrium state, a
so-called flow state, where correlation and response functions depend on
differences of time only. This is of great advantage regarding numerical as
well as analytic work. Depending on the exponent $\gamma$ and on temperature,
a continuous as well as a discontinuous transition can be found and therefore
both cases can be studied on a single model.
The results presented in the following are based on numerical integrations of
the dynamic mean field equations of this model, extending over more than
thirty orders of magnitude in time and velocity. Such a wide range is actually
necessary in order to understand the different scaling and crossover regimes
emerging in this problem. Such a wide range of time scales is not unrealistic
keeping in mind that phenomena might be observed on a scale of days or more
with an intrinsic time scale of $10^{-12}$ to
$10^{-16}$ seconds typical for vibrational or electronic degrees of freedom.
The numerical results are supplemented by exhaustive analytic work
characterizing the different scaling regimes and focusing on their asymptotic
properties and associated exponents. The characteristic time scales are
obtained by matching between adjacent scaling regimes and are again governed
by characteristic exponents.
The key result of the present investigation is the observation that the
dynamics with a long but finite external time scale $\bar t$ is ruled by three
regimes:
\begin{description
\item[i)] The FDT-regime describing local equilibrium at short times.
\item[ii)] The intermediate plateau regime for times $t\sim {\bar t}^{\,\xi}$
with $0<\xi<1$.
\item[iii)] The asymptotic regime for $t\sim \bar t$.
\end{description} These regimes have additional substructures and associated
additional internal time scales.
The plateau regime is the crucial link between short times and long times of
the order of the external time scale. Its properties determine for instance
whether creep or pinning is found or whether the longest internal time scale
is proportional to $\bar t$ or $\bar t^{\,1+\eta}$ with $\eta>0$. This
question is of relevance for instance in the context of aging phenomena
\cite{aging1,aging2,aging3}.
\mfigure{Phase-D} {Phase diagram. $\cal O$: Drift phase with $v\sim F$
(driving force $F$, resulting velocity $v$). $\cal A$: Creep phase with $v\sim
F^{1/\eta}$. $\cal B$ and
$\cal C$: Pinning phases with $v=0$ for $F<F_p$. The phase diagram resulting
from replica theory is also shown (doted lines)}{phase-fig}
Depending on $\gamma$ and temperature, different phases are found. The phase
diagram resulting from the present investigations is shown in
Fig.\ref{phase-fig}. There is a phase with finite mobility ($\cal O$), another
one with creep behavior ($\cal A$) and two more where pinning is observed
($\cal B$ and $\cal C$). This is in qualitative agreement with the findings
for the one-dimensional model \cite{leDou95}, which indicates that the
transitions are not an artifact of the mean field treatment. In all phases,
except the high temperature phase $\cal O$, additional intermediate time
scales exist, which diverge for $v\to0$. There is, however, no ultrametric
organization of time scales. This is in contrast to the common proposal
\cite{KibachHo93II,SZ82,Ho:DySK84,CHS93}. Moreover, the phase diagram
suggested by replica theory \cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91} or dynamics
within the hypothesis of ultrametric time scales
\cite{KibachHo93I,KibachHo93II} differs from the one obtained in the present
investigation. For instance, $\gamma=1$ has been predicted for the $\cal
A$-$\cal B$ phase boundary in contrast to $\gamma=1.3044$ found at present.
This leads to the conclusion that the states dominating the replica theory
with broken symmetry are again not the same as those relevant for dynamics on
long but finite time scales.
As a consequence of the assumption of ultrametricity in the organization of
diverging time scales, the resulting correlation and response functions were
not unique
\cite{SZ82,Ho:DySK84}. The present investigation yields on the other hand
unique results and this problem is therefore removed. The inconsistencies
\cite{Ho:DySK87} mentioned above are also resolved in the sense that the
proposed reparametrization of time $x(t)=1-\ln t/\ln\bar t$ is not appropriate.
There has recently been a growing interest in the dynamics of glassy systems
evolving from a non-equilibrium initial state
\cite{CuKu93,FrMe94a,FrMe94b,CuKu94,BCuKuPa95,CuDe95,CuDou95}. The situation
there is more complicated because the problem is no longer homogeneous in time
and response and correlation functions depend on two time arguments $t$ and
$t'$. If, however,
$t-t'\ll t'$, one expects a behavior similar to the one investigated at
present with
$t'$ taking over the role of $\bar t$. Especially if both $t-t'$ and $t'$
diverge with $(t-t')/t'\to0$, one should also expect the appearance of
intermediate time scales and associated scaling regimes. This possibility has
not been considered at full depth in the above work.
For short time $t-t'$ correlation and response functions are related by
fluctuation-dissipation theorems (FDT). This is also the case in the present
investigation. The different phases have, however, different scenarios of how
FDT's are violated at longer time scales. Since this happens for times $1\ll
t\ll \bar t$, similar phases are expected for the above mentioned relaxation
processes. In this context the non-equilibrium dynamics of the spherical
SK-model investigated recently by Cugliandolo and Dean \cite {CuDe95} is of
great interest, because this model does not require replica symmetry breaking
in its low temperature phase.
The present paper is organized as follows: Section 2 contains the definition
of the model and the dynamic mean field equations, which have the form of
coupled nonlinear integro-differential equations. It also contains the
definition of effective time dependent exponents, which are widely used in the
following. Section 3 is devoted to the numerical integration of the dynamic
mean field equations, to the presentation of results and to a preliminary
identification of different time scales and scaling regimes. Section 4
contains analytic results and estimates regarding time scales and scaling
properties. It starts with the FDT-solution valid for short time and continues
with a discussion of various convolution type integrals entering the
self-energies. In bypassing the QFDT-solution
\cite{KibachHo93I} and the hierarchical solution \cite{KibachHo93II} are
brought up. It is then shown how to evaluate the above integrals using the
time dependent effective exponents. This leads to a reformulation of the
original mean field equations in terms of a set of 15 coupled ordinary and
first order differential equations. This appears complicated but it allows a
discussion of different scaling regimes in which only closed subsets of these
equations are relevant. These regimes are in the order of increasing time the
FDT-regime, the plateau regime, where the correlation function
$q(t)$ stays close to the asymptotic value $q_c$ of the FDT-solution, and
finally the asymptotic regime for times of the order of the external time
scale $v^{-1}$. A concluding discussion follows in Section 5 and a brief
derivation of the dynamic mean field equations is given in an appendix.
\section{Formulation of the problem and dynamic mean field theory}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{The model}
A particle is investigated which moves under the influence of an external force
$\bm{F}=\big\{\sqrt{N}F,0,\cdots,0\big\}$ in a random potential
$V(\bm{\varrho})$. The coordinates of the particle are written as
${\bm{\varrho}=\big\{\varrho_1+\sqrt{N}vt,\varrho_2,\cdots,\varrho_N\big\}}$
assuming a mean velocity $\bm{v}=\big\{\sqrt{N}v,0,\cdots,0\big\}$. This means
that the components $\varrho_i$ are measured in a frame moving with velocity
$\sqrt{N}v$ along the $1$-direction. The scaling with $\sqrt{N}$ ensures a
nontrivial limit
$N\to\infty$. The system is at a temperature $T=\beta^{-1}$ and its
Hamiltonian is
\begin{equation}
H=V(\bm{\varrho})+\sfrac12\mu_0\bm{\varrho}^2-\bm{F}\!\!\cdot\!\!\bm{\varrho}
\,,\end{equation}
where a confining potential $\sfrac12\mu_0\bm{\varrho}^2$ might
be added to the random potential and the potential of the driving force. The
following investigation is, however, restricted primarily to $\mu_0=0$. The
motion of the particle is governed by a Langevin equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t\varrho_{\alpha}=-\beta\frac{\delta H}{\delta
\varrho_{\alpha}}+\xi_{\alpha}
\end{equation} with Gaussian white noise
\begin{eqnarray}
\av{\xi_{\alpha}(t)\xi_{\beta}(t')}=2\,\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta(t-t')\,.
\end{eqnarray} The quenched disorder is also assumed to be Gaussian with
\begin{eqnarray} &&\overline{V(\bm{\varrho})}=0\nonumber\\
&&\overline{V(\bm{\varrho})V(\bm{\varrho'})}=-N\,f\big({\textstyle\frac 1 N}
(\bm{\varrho}-\bm{\varrho'})^2\,\big)
\label{VV-av}\end{eqnarray} and
\begin{equation} f(x)=\frac 1 {2(1-\gamma)}\,(1+x)^{1-\gamma}
\label{f-def}\,.\end{equation} The strength and the short range cutoff of the
disorder as well as the diffusion constant are set to one. This model differs
from the one studied earlier
\cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91,KibachHo93I,KibachHo93II} only by the
addition of the driving force.
\subsection{Dynamic mean field theory}
The order parameters of the dynamic mean field theory are the correlation
function
\begin{equation} q(t-t')=\frac 1
N\sum_{\alpha}\overline{\,\av{\big[\varrho_{\alpha}(t)
-\varrho_{\alpha}(t')\big]^2\,}\,}
\label{q-def}\end{equation} and the response function
\begin{equation} r(t-t')=\frac T N
\sum_{\alpha}\overline{\,\delta\av{\varrho_{\alpha}(t)} /\delta
F_{\alpha}(t')\Big.\,}\,.
\label{r-def}
\end{equation} They obey the mean field equations
\cite{KibachHo93I,KibachHo93II}
\begin{equation}
\partial_t r(t)=-\mu\,r(t)+\int_0^t \d{s}w(s)r(s)r(t-s)
\label{r-}\end{equation} and
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t q(t)&=&2-\mu\,q(t)+\int_0^t \d{s}w(s)r(s)q(t-s)\nonumber\\
&-&\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}\Big\{2\big[W(t+s)-W(s)\big]r(s)\nonumber\\
&-&\big[w(t+s)r(t+s)-w(s)r(s)\big]q(s)\Big\}\hspace{1.4cm}
\label{q-}\end{eqnarray} with
\begin{equation} w(t)=-4\beta^2f''\big(\,q(t)+v^2t^2\,\big)\,,
\label{w-def}\end{equation}
\begin{equation} W(t)=2\beta^2f'\big(\,q(t)+v^2t^2\,\big)
\label{W-def}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}
\mu=\mu_0+\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}w(s)r(s)\,.
\label{mu-def}\end{equation} A brief derivation is given in the appendix. In
the following $\mu_0=0$ is assumed.
In thermal equilibrium correlation and response functions are related by a
fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) which reads $\partial_t q(t)=2r(t)$.
This is violated in a non-equilibrium situation and
\begin{equation} n(t)=\frac{1}{2r(t)}\,\partial_tq(t)-1
\label{n-def}\end{equation} is introduced as measure of this FDT-violation.
Using this in \citeq{w-def} and \citeq{W-def}
\begin{equation}
\partial_t W(t)=-\Big\{\big[1+n(t)\big]r(t)+v^2t\Big\}w(t)
\label{dW-}\end{equation} is found. Combining \citeq{r-}, \citeq{q-} and
\citeq{n-def} one obtains
\begin{eqnarray} r(t)\partial_tn(t)&=&-\int_0^t \d{s}w(s)r(s)r(t-s)\nonumber\\
&&\hskip20pt\times\big[n(t)-n(t-s)\big]\nonumber\\
&&+\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}\Big\{w(t+s)r(t+s)r(s)\nonumber\\
&&\hskip20pt\times\big[n(t+s)-n(s)\big]\nonumber\\
&&\hskip20pt+\,v^2\big(t+s\big)\,w(t+s)r(s)\Big\}\hspace{1.4cm}
\label{n-}\end{eqnarray} and this equation can now be used instead of one of
the original mean field equations
\citeq{r-} or \citeq{q-}.
Prescribing the drift velocity $v$ the average of the force necessary to drive
the particle is
\begin{equation}
\beta \,F=v\,\Big\{1+\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}s\,w(s)r(s)\Big\}
\label{F-}\end{equation} which is derived in the appendix.
\subsection{Effective exponents}
It is convenient to define
\begin{equation} g(t)=t\,r(t)
\label{g-}\end{equation} and then \citeq{n-def} is written as
\begin{equation} t\partial_t q(t)=2\big\{1+n(t)\big\}g(t)\,.
\label{dq-}\end{equation}
In order to present the results of the numerical integration of the mean field
equations effective time dependent exponents are introduced. They are also
used in the evaluation of the convolution type integrals in the self-energies
of the mean field equations \citeq{r-} and \citeq{n-}. The first two exponents
are
\begin{equation}
\nu(t)=t\partial_t\ln g(t)
\label{nu-def}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}
\alpha(t)=-t\partial_t \ln w(t)\,.
\label{alpha-def}\end{equation} With
\begin{equation} k(t)=t\partial_t n(t)
\label{k-def}\end{equation} the third exponent
\begin{equation}
\kappa(t)=t\partial_t\ln k(t)
\label{kappa-def}\end{equation} is defined.
\section{Numerical results}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Numerical procedure}
The dynamic mean field equations to be solved consist of two
integro-differential equations \citeq{r-}and \citeq{n-}, a first order
differential equation
\citeq{n-def}, the definition of $w(t)$, \citeq{w-def} and \citeq{f-def}, and
the integral \citeq{mu-def} determining $\mu$. The second integral in
\citeq{n-} and the integral \citeq{mu-def} extend overall times and therefore,
evaluating the solution at some $t$ requires the knowledge of the solution at
all times, not only at $s<t$. This means that the equations have to be
iterated. This is the price one has to pay for investigating a steady state
situation. A study of the relaxation from a non-equilibrium initial state on
the other hand is free of this problem, but it requires to deal with functions
depending on two time arguments.
The wide span of time arguments ranging from $10^{-4}$ to $10^{36}$ requires a
nonuniform discretization. The present calculation uses a homogeneous
discretization of $\ln t$. The convolution type integrals in \citeq{r-} and
\citeq{n-} can be evaluated by numerical integration using the values stored
at the points of the above grid for one of the functions of the integrand and
an interpolation for the other function. Alternatively, an approximative
evaluation of the integrals using effective exponents, described in Section
4.4 is possible. For the actual calculation both methods have been combined.
\mfigure{q-A} {Correlation function $q(t)$ in phase $\cal A$}{q-sr}
\mfigure{q-B} {Correlation function $q(t)$ in phase $\cal B$}{q-lr}
The mean field equations in the form written in Section 4 consist of several
coupled nonlinear differential equations of first order. They can be
integrated forward or backward in time. In addition they have to be iterated.
The situation resembles in some sense the problem of solving
\begin{equation}
\frac {\;\d x(t)}{\;\d t}=f\big(x(t)\big)\,.
\end{equation} Integrating forward in $t$ the solution typically approaches a
fixed point
$f(\bar x)=0$ with $f'(\bar x)<0$, whereas a fixed point with $f'(\bar x)>0$ is
reached integrating backward in $t$. Selecting an appropriate initial value
$x(t_0)$ somewhere between a fixed point with $f'(\bar x)>0$ and an adjacent
one with
$f'(\bar x)<0$, the solution can easily be found by integration in both
directions. For the complete set of equations such fixed point situations show
up at the crossover between the various scaling regimes discussed below.
\subsection{Results}
\mfigure{n-A} {$n(t)$ in phase $\cal A$}{n-sr}
\mfigure{n-B} {$n(t)$ in phase $\cal B$}{n-lr}
\mfigure{nu-A} {Effective exponent $\nu(t)$ in phase $\cal A$}{nu-sr}
\mfigure{nu-B} {Effective exponent $\nu(t)$ in phase $\cal B$}{nu-lr}
\mfigure{ka-A} {Effective exponent $\kappa(t)$ in phase $\cal A$}{ka-sr}
\mfigure{ka-B} {Effective exponent $\kappa(t)$ in phase $\cal B$}{ka-lr}
\mfigure{al-A} {Effective exponent $\alpha(t)$ in phase $\cal A$}{al-sr}
\mfigure{al-B} {Effective exponent $\alpha(t)$ in phase $\cal B$}{al-lr}
\mfigure{tv-A} {Characteristic time scales in phase $\cal A$}{tv-sr}
\mfigure{tv-B} {Characteristic time scales in phase $\cal B$}{tv-lr}
The following figures show selected results obtained for $\{\gamma=1.5;\;
T=0.4\}$ and
$\{\gamma=0.75;\; T=0.7\}$, respectively. The first set of variables
corresponds to a situation where the replica calculation
\cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91} requires single step replica symmetry
breaking. This corresponds to a point in phase $\cal A$ of the phase diagram,
Fig.\ref{phase-fig}. The second set corresponds to a point in phase $\cal B$
and the corresponding replica treatment requires continuous replica symmetry
breaking. The following figures show results obtained for various values of
the drift velocity ranging from $v=10^{-6}$ to $v=10^{-30}$. In the following
various velocity dependent characteristic time scales are introduced. Their
values for $v=10^{-30}$ are marked in the figures.
Figs.\ref{q-sr} and \ref{q-lr} show the correlation function $q(t)$. The
plateau value $q_c$ is given by \citeq{T-FDT}. In view of the argument
$q(t)+v^2t^2$ in
\citeq{w-def} the value of $v^2t^2$ for $v=10^{-30}$ is also shown.
The function $n(t)$ defined in \citeq{n-def} is shown in Figs.\ref{n-sr} and
\ref{n-lr}. It indicates the violation of the FDT, which holds for
$t<t_p$. It develops a first plateau value for $t_p<t<t_a$ and a second one for
$t>t'_{a}$. In phase $\cal A$ this second value obviously depends on $v$. In
phase
$\cal B$ the first plateau is not yet fully developed, even for $v=10^{-30}$.
The time dependent effective exponents $\nu(t)$, \citeq{nu-def}, $\kappa(t)$,
\citeq{kappa-def}, and $\alpha(t)$, \citeq{alpha-def}, are shown in
Figs.\ref{nu-sr} to \ref{al-lr}. Their properties are discussed below.
From the data several characteristic time scales can be extracted. They are
shown in Figs.\ref{tv-sr} and \ref{tv-lr} as functions of the velocity $v$.
The time $t_p$ is defined by $q(t_p)=q_c$ and it characterizes the center of
the plateau. The next time scale $t_x$ is relevant only for phase $\cal B$ and
it is given by
$\kappa(t_x)=0$. The time scale $t_a$ is defined by $q(t_a)=2\,q_c$ and
$t_a'$ by
$q(t_a')=2\,v^2{t_a'}2$. A power law dependence is found for $v\to0$.
\subsection{Scaling regimes}
The numerical results and analytic considerations described in Section 4
reveal the existence of various scaling regimes in the limit $v\to0$.
\subsubsection{FDT-regime} For finite $t\sim t_0$ one finds $n(t)\ll1$ and
fluctuation dissipation theorems hold. This can be understood as a situation
where the particle stays within one valley of the energy landscape. The
correlation function and $n(t)$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray} q(t)&=&\mathaccent"7617 q(t/t_0)\nonumber\\ n(t)&=&\mathaccent"7617 b(v)\,\mathaccent"7617
n(t/t_0)
\label{scf-FDT}\end{eqnarray} with $\mathaccent"7617 b(v)\to0$ for $v\to0$. The time
scale $t_0$ and the functions $\mathaccent"7617 q(x)$ and $\mathaccent"7617 n(x)$ do not depend on
$v$. This regime is referred to as the FDT-regime.
\subsubsection{Plateau-regime} With increasing $t$ a plateau regime is found
where $q(t)\approx q_c$. The corresponding time scale is $t_p=t_p(v)$ defined
by $q(t_p)=q_c$ and the above functions obey the scaling form
\begin{eqnarray} q(t)&=&q_c+\hat a(v)\,\hat q(t/t_p)\nonumber\\
n(t)&=&n_c+\hat n(t/t_p)
\label{scf-pl}\end{eqnarray} which is consistent with $\nu(t)=\hat\nu(t/t_p)$
and
$\kappa(t)=\hat\kappa(t/t_p)$.
The function $n(t)$, which is a measure of FDT-viola\-tion, reaches a plateau
value
$n_c$ for $t\sim t_p$. In phase $\cal A$ this plateau extends beyond the
limits of the
$q$-plateau.
In phase $\cal B$ the plateau of $n(t)$ is not yet very pronounced, even at
$v=10^{-30}$, but it can be seen that the upper limits of the
$n$-plateau and the $q$-plateau essentially coincide. The center of the
$n$-plateau defines an additional time scale $t_x=t_x(v)$ where $n(t_x)=n_c$
or $\kappa(t_x)=0$. For $t\sim t_x$ a scaling form
\begin{equation} n(t)=n_c+c(v)\hat n_x\big(c(v)\ln t/t_x)\big)
\label{n-x}\end{equation} will be derived.
In phase $\cal C$ $\;n(t)\ll1$ holds up to the upper end of the $q$-plateau and
consequently the FDT-solution holds in the whole plateau regime.
\subsubsection{Asymptotic regime}
The lower end of the asymptotic regime is marked by a time scale $t_a=t_a(v)$
where
$q(t_a)-q_c\sim q_c$. An appropriate choice is $t_a$ such that $q(t_a)=2q_c$.
For
$t\sim t_a$ a scaling form
\begin{eqnarray} q(t)&=&\bar q(t/t_a)\nonumber\\ n(t)&=&n_c+\bar b(v)\bar
n(t/t_a)
\label{scf-as}\end{eqnarray} with $\bar b(v)=1$ in phase $\cal B$ and $\cal C$
is found.
Another time scale $t'_a= t'_a(v)$ can be defined such that
$q(t'_a)=\big(v\,t'_a\big)^2$. In phase $\cal B$ and $\cal C$ both are
proportional to
$v^{-1}$, whereas $t_a(v)\sim v^{-1+\eta}$ and $t'_a(v)\sim v^{-1-\eta}$ with
$\eta>0$ is found in phase $\cal A$. This requires for $t\sim t'_a$ the
scaling form
\begin{equation} n(t)=n_c+\bar b'(v)\,\bar n'(t/t_a ')\,.
\label{scf-as'}\end{equation} The existence of the exponent $\eta>0$ is
connected to the creep behavior observed in phase $\cal A$.
The above results now have to be verified by analytic investigations. This is
done in the following sections.
\section{Analytic results}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{FDT-solution}
The shortest $v$-dependent time scale for $v\to0$ is $t_p$ with
${1\ll t_p\ll v^{-1}}$. For $t\ll t_p$ one expects a solution which obeys the
FDT and therefore $n(t)=0$. This solution holds in phase $\cal O$ for $v=0$
and describes equilibrium within a single valley of the energy landscape in
the other phases. The discussion of this solution follows standard arguments
\cite{KibachHo93I}. With
\citeq{q-},
\citeq{dW-} and \citeq{dq-} one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_tq(t)&=&2-\mu q(t)\nonumber\\&&+\int_0^t\d{s}w(s)r(s)q(t-s)
\label{dq-FDT}\,,\end{eqnarray} because the second integral in \citeq{q-}
vanishes. In order to demonstrate this, one realizes that its main
contributions come from $s\sim t$ where $n(t)\approx 0$. With \citeq{g-} and
\citeq{dq-} $\partial_t q(t)\approx 2r(t)$ and with \citeq{dW-}
$\partial_t W(t)\approx-w(t)r(t)$. This allows to write the integrand as a
complete derivative with respect to $s$ and to evaluate the integral resulting
in $0$, since $q(0)=0$ and $W(t)\to 0$ for $t\to\infty$.
Eqs.\citeq{r-} and \citeq{dq-FDT} cannot be solved in closed form. It is,
however, sufficient to investigate the solution for $t\to t_p$, where $q(t)\to
q_c$, $\partial_t q(t)\to0$ and $\partial_t r(t)\to0$.
In leading order the integrals in both equations can be evaluated by taking
into account only the contributions near the upper and lower bound,
respectively. This yields from \citeq{r-}
\begin{equation}
\mu=2\beta^2\big\{f'(0)-f'(q_c)-q_cf''(q_c)\big\}
\label{mu-FDT}\end{equation} and from \citeq{dq-FDT}
\begin{equation} f''(q_c)q_c^2=-T^2\,.
\label{T-FDT}\end{equation} The second equation is used to determine $q_c$.
Elimination of $\mu$ in
\citeq{mu-FDT} using \citeq{mu-def} yields with \citeq{w-def},\citeq{W-def}
and \citeq{dq-}
\begin{eqnarray}
q_cf''(q_c)&=&-\frac{1}{2\beta^2}\int_{t_p}^{\infty}\d{s}w(s)\,r(s)\nonumber\\
&=&\int_{t_p}^{\infty}\d{s}\dot q(s)\frac{f''\big(q(s)+v^2s^2\big)}{1+n(s)}\,.
\label{condition}\end{eqnarray} This condition involving the solutions at long
time scales will be used later.
In order to give estimates of the corrections to the leading order one assumes
\begin{equation} t\,r(t)=g(t)\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{t\to t_p}
-\sfrac12\nu_0q_c\,(t/t_0)^{\nu_0}
\label{g-FDT}\end{equation} with $\nu_0<0$. The time scale $t_0$ has yet to be
determined. This leads to
\begin{eqnarray} q(t)&&=q_c-2\int_t^{t_p}\d{s}r(s)\nonumber\\
&&\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{t\to t_p}q_c\Big\{1-(t/t_0)^{\nu_0}\Big\}\,.
\label{q-FDT}\end{eqnarray}
This is now used in an analysis of the corrections in \citeq{r-} where the
leading order contains terms $\sim t^{\nu_0-1}$. The next to leading order
$\sim t^{2\nu_0-1}$ results in
\begin{eqnarray}
&&f''(q_c)\int_0^t\d{s}\big\{r(s)r(t-s)-2r(t)r(s)\big\}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\quad =\big\{f''(q_c)+\sfrac12 f'''(q_c)q_cr(t)\big\}
\big\{q_c-q(t)\big\}\,.\qquad
\end{eqnarray}
With \citeq{g-FDT} the integral on the left hand side can be evaluated.
Introducing
\begin{equation} R_m=-\frac{q_c\,f'''(q_c)}{2f''(q_c)}
\label{R-def}\end{equation} one obtains
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma^2(1+\nu_0)}{\Gamma(1+2\nu_0)}=R_m
\label{nuo-}\end{equation} which allows to determine the exponent $\nu_0$.
In order to get an estimate of the time scale $t_0$ one can use an
interpolation formula
\begin{equation} q(t)\approx q_c\Big\{1-\big(1+t/t_0\big)^{\nu_0}\Big\}
\end{equation} which gives the correct asymptotic behavior for $t\to t_p$. The
requirement $q(t)\to 2t$ for $t\to0$ yields
\begin{equation} t_0\approx-\sfrac12\nu_0q_c\,.
\label{to-}\end{equation}
In the ergodic high temperature phase $\cal O$ for $v=0$ the FDT holds for all
times and therefore with \citeq{mu-def}
\begin{equation}
\mu=\frac{2f'(0)}{T^2}\,.
\end{equation} At the transition to one of the nonergodic phases the plateau
develops and one finds with \citeq{mu-FDT} and \citeq{T-FDT}
\begin{eqnarray} T_c^2&=& q_cf'(q_c)\,,\nonumber\\ f'(q_c)&=&-q_cf''(q_c)\,.
\label{Tc-}\end{eqnarray} A solution of these equations with finite $T_c$
exists only for $\gamma>1$. It is
\begin{eqnarray} q_c&=&\frac1{\gamma-1}\nonumber\\
T_c&=&\sqrt{\sfrac12}\,\gamma^{-\gamma/2}\,(\gamma-1)^{(\gamma-1)/2}\,.
\label{Tc--}\end{eqnarray} This is shown in Fig.\ref{phase-fig}. The
corresponding value obtained from replica theory
\cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91}
\begin{equation} T_{c,\rm1RSB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6\gamma}}
\label{Tc-1RSB}\end{equation} is always below the above value.
For $T>T_c$ in phase $\cal O$ the FDT holds for all times and the force
\citeq{F-} is
\begin{equation}
\beta\,F=v\,\Big\{1+\int_0^{\infty}\d{t}W(t)\Big\}\,.
\label{Foo}\end{equation} For $t\to \infty$ \citeq{r-} yields $r(t)\to
r_{\infty}$ and $q(t)\sim t$. Therefore the integral in \citeq{Foo} converges
for $\gamma>1$ and there exists a finite friction constant for $v\to 0$
\subsection{Integrals and counterterms}
For $t\gg1$ the leading contributions to the integrals in \citeq{r-} and
\citeq{n-} come from regions near the boundaries of integration. Subtracting
those leads to residual integrals and a reformulation of the dynamic mean
field equations. The following integrals are introduced:
\begin{eqnarray}
J(t)&=&\int_0^t\d{s}\Big\{w(s)r(s)r(t-s)-w(t)r(t)r(t-s)\nonumber\\
&&-w(s)r(s)r(t)+s\,w(s)r(s)\partial_t r(t)\Big\}\,,\quad\quad
\label{J-def}\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray} K(t)&=&\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}w(t+s)r(t+s)r(s)\nonumber\\
&&\quad\times\Big\{n(s)-n(s+t)\Big\}\nonumber\\
&&-\int_0^t\d{s}w(t-s)r(t-s)\Big\{r(s)n(s)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad-r(s)n(t)+(t-s)r(t)\partial_tn(t)\Big\}\qquad\quad
\label{K-def}\end{eqnarray} and
\begin{equation} U(t)=v^2\int_0^{\infty}\d{s}\big(t+s\big)w(t+s)r(s)\,.
\label{U-def}\end{equation} Furthermore it is appropriate to define
\begin{equation} D(t)=\int_t^{\infty}\d{s}w(s)r(s)-w(t)\int_0^t\d{s}r(s)
\label{D-def}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} Z(t)=1+\int_0^t\d{s}\,s\,w(s)r(s)\,.
\label{Z-def}\end{equation}
This allows to rewrite the mean field equation \citeq{r-} in the form
\begin{equation} Z(t)\,\partial_tr(t)=J(t)-D(t)r(t)
\label{r-2}\end{equation} and \citeq{n-} as
\begin{equation} Z(t)\,r(t)\partial_t n(t)=U(t)-K(t)\,.
\label{n-2}\end{equation}
\subsection{QFDT- and hierarchical solution}
With \citeq{D-def} and $n(t)\approx0$ for $t<t_p$ the condition
\citeq{condition} means
$D(t_p)=0$.
Depending on $\gamma$ for $v=0$ a QFDT-solution and a hierarchical solution,
respectively, have been proposed \cite{KibachHo93I,KibachHo93II}. These
solutions can easily be obtained from the above equations. Especially the
second scheme requires, however, assumptions which are not fulfilled.
Nevertheless they are presented here for further reference.
\subsubsection{QFDT-solution} In the QFDT-solution $n(t)=n_Q$ for $t>t_p$ is
assumed. From \citeq{condition} one finds
\begin{equation} n_Q+1=-\frac{f'(q_c)}{q_c f''(q_c)}\,.
\label{nQ-def}\end{equation} Without further analysis of the regime $t>t_p$
nothing can be said about the range of validity of this solution or about the
force $F$. This solution was proposed to be valid for $\gamma>1$ and it shows
some similarity to the 1RSB-calculation
\cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91}.
\subsubsection{Hierarchical solution} Assume that the integral in
\citeq{r-} for $t>t_p$ is completely determined by its contributions from the
upper and lower bound, respectively. This means that $J(t)\approx 0$. As it
turns out this is the essence of the proposal of the existence of an
ultrametric organization of long time scales. Neglecting the derivative with
respect to $t$ in \citeq{r-2} results in
$D(t)\approx 0$ for $t>t_p$.
Defining
\begin{equation} m\big(q(t)\big)=\frac{1}{1+n(t)}
\end{equation} Eq.\citeq{D-def} yields
\begin{equation}
\int_q^{\infty}\d{q'}f''(q')m(q')=f''(q)\int_0^q\d{q'}m(q')\,.
\label{m-hierarch}\end{equation} This leads to the differential equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_q \ln m(q)=\frac{f''''(q)}{f'''(q)}-\frac{3f'''(q)}{2f''(q)}
\end{equation} which is solved for $q\ge q_c$ by
\begin{equation}
m(q)=m(q_c)\left\{\frac{1+q}{1+q_c}\right\}^{-\sfrac12(1-\gamma)}
\end{equation} using \citeq{f-def}.
The integration constant $m(q_c)$ is obtained from
\linebreak
\citeq{m-hierarch} with $q=q_c$
\begin{equation} m(q_c)=-\frac{f'''(q_c)q_c}{2\,f''(q_c)}=R_m
\end{equation} with $R_m$ given in \citeq{R-def}. This is the solution
obtained previously, assuming a hierarchical structure of long time scales
\cite{KibachHo93II}.
\subsection{Evaluation of integrals via effective exponents}
The main problem in a discussion of the solutions of the mean field equations
and also in their numerical integration is in the evaluation of the integrals
listed in the previous section. In the following an approximative scheme is
proposed, which turns out to be very accurate over the whole range of $t$.
This scheme is based on the effective time dependent exponents, which have
been introduced in Section 2.3. It allows to write and evaluate the integrals
in the form
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1\d{x}x^{a-1}(1-x)^{b-1}=\frac{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(b)}{\Gamma(a+b)}\,.
\label{e-integral}\end{equation}
As a first step in this program one introduces "dimen\-sion\-less" quantities
instead of the original ones given in \citeq{J-def} to \citeq{Z-def}:
\begin{equation}
\tilde J(t)=\frac{t\,J(t)}{w(t)\,g^2(t)}\,,
\label{J-.}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde K(t)=\frac{t\,K(t)}{k(t)\,w(t)\,g^2(t)}\,,
\label{K-.}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde U(t)=\frac{t\,U(t)}{k(t)\,w(t)\,g^2(t)}\,,
\label{U-.}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde D(t)=\frac{D(t)}{w(t)\,g(t)}\,,
\label{D-.}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}
\tilde Z(t)=\frac{Z(t)}{t\,w(t)\,g(t)}\,.
\label{Z-.}\end{equation}
The functions in the integrands are approximated by
\begin{equation} s\,r(s)=g(s)\approx g(t)\left(\frac s t\right)^{\nu(t)}\,,
\label{r(s)-}\end{equation}
\begin{equation} w(s)\approx w(t)\left(\frac s t\right)^{-\alpha(t)}
\label{w(s)-}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} n(s)\approx n(t)+\frac{k(t)}{\kappa(t)}
\left\{\left(\frac s t\right)^{\kappa(t)}-1\right\}\,.
\end{equation}
This ansatz fulfills \citeq{nu-def}, \citeq{alpha-def},
\citeq{k-def} and \citeq{kappa-def} for $s=t$. The integrals $\tilde J(t)$ and
$\tilde K(t)$ are now of the form proposed above (for the first integral in
\citeq{K-def} a trivial substitution of variables is necessary) and can be
evaluated using
\citeq{e-integral} provided $a>0$ and $b>0$. Otherwise counterterms are
required cancelling the poles of the $\Gamma$-functions. The last three terms
in \citeq{J-def} are of this kind. Depending on the values of the effective
exponents further counterterms might be required.
This yields (in the following the arguments $t$ are dropped)
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde J&\approx
&\frac{\Gamma(\nu-\alpha)\Gamma(\nu)}{\Gamma(2\nu-\alpha)}\nonumber\\ &&-\frac
1 {\nu}-\frac 1 {\nu-\alpha}+\frac{\nu-1}{\nu+1-\alpha}\qquad\quad
\label{J-.-}\end{eqnarray} and
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde K&\approx& \frac{1}{\kappa}
\bigg\{\frac{\Gamma(\nu+\kappa)\Gamma(1+\alpha-2\nu-\kappa)}
{\Gamma(1+\alpha-\nu)}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad-\frac{\Gamma(\nu)\Gamma(1+\alpha-2\nu-\kappa)}
{\Gamma(1+\alpha-\nu-\kappa)}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad+\frac{\Gamma(\nu-\alpha)\Gamma(\nu)}
{\Gamma(2\nu-\alpha)}-\frac{\Gamma(\nu-\alpha)\Gamma(\nu+\kappa)}
{\Gamma(2\nu+\kappa-\alpha)}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad-\frac{\kappa}{\nu-\alpha+1}\bigg\}\,.
\label{K-.-}\end{eqnarray}
The integral \citeq{U-.} is given for $\nu>0$ and $\alpha-\nu>1$ by
\begin{equation}
\tilde U\approx \frac{v^2\,t^2}{k\,g}\,\frac{\Gamma(\nu)\Gamma(\alpha-\nu-1)}
{\Gamma(\alpha-1)}
\label{U-.-1}\end{equation} otherwise it is approximated by
\begin{equation}
\tilde U\approx \frac{v^2\,t\,Z(\infty)}{k\,w\,g^2}\,.
\label{U-.-2}\end{equation} For $\alpha-\nu>1$ \citeq{Z-.} becomes
\begin{equation}
\tilde Z\approx \frac{Z(\infty)}{t\,w\,g}
\label{Z-.-2}\end{equation} otherwise
\begin{equation}
\tilde Z\approx \frac 1 {1+\nu-\alpha}\,.
\label{Z-.-1}\end{equation}
The mean field equations \citeq{r-2} and \citeq{n-2} are rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\big\{\nu-1\big\}\,\tilde Z=\tilde J-\tilde D
\label{r-.-}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation}
\tilde Z=\tilde U-\tilde K\,.
\label{n-.-}\end{equation}
The exponent $\alpha$, \citeq{alpha-def}, is
\begin{equation}
\alpha=-2\,g\,\big\{1+n+u\big\}\frac{f'''(q+v^2t^2)}{f''(q+v^2t^2)}
\label{alpha-.-}\end{equation} with
\begin{equation} u=\frac{v^2\,t^2}{g}\,.
\label{u-def}\end{equation}
Differentiation of \citeq{D-def} yields with \citeq{D-.}
\begin{equation} t\partial_t \tilde D=\big\{\alpha-\nu\big\}\tilde
D-2\big\{1-[1+n+u]\,R \big\}
\label{dD-.-}\end{equation} with
\begin{equation} R=-\frac{f'''(q+v^2t^2)}{f''(q+v^2t^2)}\int_0^t\d{s}r(s)\,.
\label{R-.-}\end{equation}
The complete set of mean field equations now involves 15 functions of time:
$q$, $r$,
$g$, $n$, $k$, $\nu$, $\kappa$, $\alpha$, $u$, $R$, $\tilde D$, $\tilde J$,
$\tilde K$,
$\tilde U$ and $\tilde Z$. The corresponding 15 equations are: \citeq{g-},
\citeq{dq-},
\citeq{nu-def}, \citeq{k-def}, \citeq{kappa-def}, \citeq{J-.-}, \citeq{K-.-},
(\ref{U-.-1}/\ref{U-.-2}), (\ref{Z-.-2}/\ref{Z-.-1}), \citeq{r-.-},
\citeq{n-.-},
\citeq{u-def}, \citeq{alpha-.-}, \citeq{dD-.-} and \citeq{R-.-}.
Some of the variables can easily be eliminated, but even then one is left with
5 differential equations of first order and 2 implicit ordinary equations for
7 of the above functions of time. This certainly looks complicated. On the
other hand, in each of the scaling regimes to be discussed below only a subset
of variables and equations has to be looked at.
\subsection{The plateau regime}
Having discussed the FDT-solution in Section 4.1 already, the investigation of
the plateau regime follows next. This regime is characterized by
$\big|q(t)-q_c\big|\ll q_c$. Further simplifications are due to
$t^2 v^2\ll q_c$. Consequently $R$ defined in \citeq{R-.-} can be replaced by
the constant $R_m$ given in \citeq{R-def}. Furthermore $\tilde U\approx0$ and
$u\approx0$ can be used. From
\citeq{alpha-def} with \citeq{w-def} one finds $\alpha\approx0$ and then
\citeq{Z-.-1} yields
$\tilde Z\approx\frac 1 {1+\nu}$.
Eqs.\citeq{J-.-}, \citeq{r-.-} and \citeq{Z-.-1} determine
$\nu=\tilde\nu(\tilde D)$ as a function of $\tilde D$, shown in
Fig.\ref{nu(D)}.
\mfigure{nu-D} {$\nu(\tilde D)$ and $-\tilde D\nu(\tilde D)$ as functions of
$\tilde D$, see text.}{nu(D)}
Eqs.\citeq{K-.-} and \citeq{n-.-} are solved by
\begin{equation}
\kappa(t)=1-3\nu(t)\,.
\label{ka3nu}\end{equation} Eq. \citeq{dD-.-} now reads
\begin{eqnarray} t\partial_t \tilde D(t)&=&-\tilde\nu\big(\tilde
D(t)\big)\tilde D(t)\nonumber\\ &&-2\big\{1-\big[1+n(t)\big]R_m\Big\}\,.
\label{dD-lin}\end{eqnarray}
The remaining set of equations to be solved consists of \citeq{k-def},
\citeq{kappa-def}, \citeq{J-.-}, \citeq{Z-.-1}, \citeq{r-.-}, \citeq{ka3nu} and
\citeq{dD-lin}. Time enters only via derivatives of the form $t\partial_t$ and
therefore a family of scale invariant solutions exists. This means that the
whole family can be written as a set of functions depending only on $t/t_p$
with arbitrary $t_p$. This is in accordance with the scaling form proposed in
\citeq{scf-pl}.
The time scale $t_p\gg t_0$ can now be fixed such that $\tilde D(t_p)=0$ and
as a consequence $\nu(t_p)=0$ and $\kappa(t_p)=1$. Integrating \citeq{dD-lin}
down to
$t\ll t_p$ a stable fixpoint $\tilde D(t)\to \tilde D_0>0$ is reached with
\begin{equation} -\tilde\nu(\tilde D_0)\tilde D_0=2\big\{1-R_m\big\}
\end{equation} and $n(t)\to 0$. Eq.\citeq{nuo-} yields $\nu(\tilde
D_0)=\nu_0$.
For $t_0\ll t \ll t_p$ the function $q(t)$ can be matched to the asymptotic
FDT-solution \citeq{q-FDT} and
\begin{equation}
\hat a(v)=\big(t_p/t_0\big)^{\nu_0}
\label{ahat}\end{equation} results for the scale factor in \citeq{scf-pl}
where $t_p=t_p(v)$ has to be determined later by matching to the asymptotic
regime. It can be shown that the above fixing of
$t_p$ is equivalent to the original definition $q(t_p)=q_c$ within a factor
close to
$1$.
The discussion of the asymptotes for $t\gg t_p$, still within
$\big|q(t)-q_c\big|\ll q_c$, is more involved. Neglecting the derivative with
respect to time in \citeq{dD-lin} one gets
\begin{equation} -\tilde D\,\tilde\nu(\tilde D)=2\big\{1-(1+n)R_m\big\}
\end{equation} which now determines $\tilde D=\tilde D_1(n)$,
$\nu_1=\tilde\nu\big(\tilde D_1(n)\big)$ and
$\kappa_1=\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde D_1(n)\big)=1-3\tilde\nu\big(\tilde
D_1(n)\big)$.
There is a special value $n_x$ such that $\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde
D_1(n_x)\big)=0$ with $\tilde D_1(n_x)=\tilde D_x\approx-0.700084$. This value
is found from
\citeq{dD-lin} as
\begin{equation} n_x=\frac{1+\frac 1 6 \tilde D_x}{R_m}-1\,.
\label{nx-def}\end{equation} Expanding
\begin{equation}
\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde D_1(n)\big)\approx \big(n-n_x)\,\kappa'
\end{equation} with $\kappa'>0$, Eqs.\citeq{k-def} and \citeq{kappa-def} can
be integrated in closed form. The real solutions are
\begin{equation} n(t)=n_x-\frac{2\,c}{\kappa'}\,\coth\big(c\,\ln(t/t_x)\big)
\label{n1-sr}\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} n(t)=n_x+\frac{2\,c}{\kappa'}\,\tan\big(c\,\ln(t/t_x)\big)
\label{n1-lr}\end{equation} with constants of integration $c$ and $t_x$.
There are now two characteristic values for $n(t)$, the value $n_Q$ defined in
\citeq{nQ-def} and $n_x$ defined above in \citeq{nx-def}. Both are functions
of
$T$ and $\gamma$.
The relative magnitude of $n_Q$ and $n_x$ determines which of the above
solutions has to be selected, as will be discussed in the following. This, on
the other hand, determines ultimately whether creep or pinning is observed and
therefore the different phases are characterized by their values of $n_Q$ and
$n_x$. Phase $\cal A$ is defined as the region where $n_x>n_Q>0$, phase $\cal
B$ has $n_Q>n_x>0$ and $n_Q>0>n_x$ holds in phase $\cal C$. The ergodic phase
$\cal O$ with finite friction has already been discussed in Section 4.1
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal A$}
The numerical results shown in Fig.\ref{n-sr} indicate a plateau of $n(t)$
extending to times beyond the upper boundary of the $q$-plateau. This suggests
that the solution
\citeq{n1-sr} has to be used for $t>t_p$. The choice $t_x\sim t_p$ yields the
scaling form \citeq{scf-pl}. For $t\gg t_p$ the requirement $n(t)\to n_Q<n_x$
determines
\begin{equation}
c=\frac{\kappa'}{2}\,\big(n_x-n_Q\big)\approx - \frac{\kappa_1}{2}
\end{equation} with $\kappa_1=\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde D_1(n_Q)\big)$. The
parameter $n_Q$ is later shown to agree with the value obtained for the
QFDT-solution \citeq{nQ-def}.
For $t\gg t_p$ the above equations yield with $\nu_1=\tilde\nu\big(\tilde
D_1(n_Q)\big)>0$ and $\kappa_1=1-3\nu_1<0$
\begin{eqnarray}
q(t)&\to&q_c+\big(t_p/t_0\big)^{\nu_0}\,\big(t/t_p\big)^{\nu_1}\,\hat
q_1\nonumber\\ n(t)&\to&n_Q-\big(t/t_p\big)^{\kappa_1}\,\hat n_1\,.
\label{qn-A}\end{eqnarray} For $v\to0$ the constants $\hat q_1$ and $\hat n_1$
depend only on $\gamma$ and $T$.
For $t\ll t_p$
\begin{equation} n(t)\to \hat n_0\big(t/t_p\big)^{\kappa_0}
\label{n0-A}\end{equation} with constant $\hat n_0$ and $\kappa_0>0$. Matching
at $t_0\ll t\ll t_p$ yields the scale factor
\begin{equation}
\mathaccent"7617 b(v)=\big(t_0/t_p\big)^{\kappa_0}
\label{b0-match}\end{equation} in \citeq{scf-FDT}. The time scale $t_p=t_p(v)$
is still open and has to be determined later by matching to the asymptotic
regime. The same holds for $n_Q$.
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal B$}
The plateau of $n(t)$ in this phase extends only to the upper boundary of the
$q$-plateau, as shown in Fig.\ref{n-lr}. This indicates that solution
\citeq{n1-lr} now has to be used for $t>t_p$. Its range of validity is
restricted to
$-\sfrac12\pi<c\ln(t/t_x)<\sfrac12\pi$ or
$\mbox{\rm e}^{-\pi/2c}t_x<t<\mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/2c}t_x$. Later it is shown that this range
increases for
$v\to0$ and therefore $c=c(v)\to0$ for $v\to0$. For $t\to t_p$ the solution
should not depend on
$c$, which is the case for the choice
\begin{equation} t_x=\mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/2c}\,t_p\,.
\label{tx-B}\end{equation} For $t_p\ll t\ll \mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/c}\,t_p$ the second term
in \citeq{n1-lr} is a small correction and the proposed scaling form
\citeq{scf-pl} and \citeq{n-x} holds over the whole range $t_0\ll t\ll
\mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/c}\,t_p$.
With $\kappa_1=\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde D_1(n_x)\big)=0$ and
$\nu_1=\tilde\nu\big(\tilde D_1(n_x)\big)=\frac13$, \ $q(t)$ has again the
asymptotic form \citeq{qn-A} for $t\gg t_p$ and the scale factor $\mathaccent"7617 b(v)$
is given by \citeq{b0-match}. In this phase the quantities to be determined
later by matching to the asymptotic regime are $t_p=t_p(v)$ and $t_x=t_x(v)$.
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal C$}
In this phase with $n_x<0$ again solution \citeq{n1-sr} has to be used. Since
now $\kappa_1=\tilde\kappa\big(\tilde D_1(n_x)\big)>0$ and $n(t_p)\ll1$, the
appropriate choice of the parameters is
\begin{equation}
\frac{2c}{\kappa'}= - n_x\,;\qquad c=\sfrac12\kappa_1\,.
\end{equation} This yields for $t_x\gg t_p$ and $t_p\ll t\ll t_x$
\begin{equation} n(t)\approx -2 \, n_x\,\big(t/t_x\big)^{\kappa_1}\ll1
\label{n1-C}\end{equation} which means that \citeq{scf-pl} is fulfilled with
$n(t)\approx0$.
The asymptotic form of $q(t)$ is again \citeq{qn-A} with
$\nu_1=\tilde\nu\big(\tilde D_1(0)\big)$. Again the quantities to be determined
later by matching to the asymptotic regime are $t_p=t_p(v)$ and $t_x=t_x(v)$.
\subsection{The asymptotic regime}
The discussion so far did not depend on the actual choice of the drift
velocity $v$. On the other hand, there are parameters not determined yet.
These are the time scale $t_p(v)$ for all phases and the second time scale
$t_x(v)$ for phase $\cal B$ and
$\cal C$. For phase $\cal A$ it has to be shown that $n_Q$ actually agrees
with the value obtained in the QFDT-solution, \citeq{nQ-def}.
The velocity $v$ enters the full set of mean field equations in $\tilde U(t)$,
(\ref{U-.-1}/\ref{U-.-2}), at various places in the argument of
$f\big(q(t)+v^2t^2\big)$ and its derivatives, and in the definition of $u(t)$,
\citeq{u-def}. In order to obtain the scaling form proposed in \citeq{scf-as}
for
$t\sim t_a$ it is necessary that $\tilde U(t)$ can be written as
$\tilde U(t)=\bar U(t/t_a)$, which is the case for
\begin{equation}
\frac{v^2\,t_a^2(v)}{\bar b(v)}=1
\label{U-match}\end{equation} assuming the proposed scaling form in
(\ref{U-.-1}/\ref{U-.-2}).
For $t\ll t_a$ the solution in the asymptotic regime has to match the solution
valid in the plateau regime obtained in the preceding section for $t\gg t_p$.
This means
\begin{equation} q(t)\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{t\to t_p} q_c+\big(t/t_a\big)^{\nu_1}\,\bar q_0
\end{equation} with constant $\bar q_0$. Comparison with \citeq{qn-A} yields
\begin{equation}
\big(t_p/t_0\big)^{\nu_0}\,t_p^{-\nu_1}\sim t_a^{-\nu_1}\,;\qquad t_p\sim
t_0^{1-\zeta}\,t_a^\zeta
\label{ta-tp}\end{equation} with
\begin{equation}
\zeta=\frac{\nu_1}{\nu_1-\nu_0}\,.
\label{zeta}\end{equation}
The discussion of $n(t)$ has to be done for the different phases separately.
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal A$}
Following \citeq{scf-as} one can write
\begin{equation} n(t)\to n_Q-\big(t/t_a\big)^{\kappa_1}\,\bar b\,\bar n_0
\label{n-as}\end{equation} with constant $\bar n_0$ and $\bar b=\bar b(v)$.
Comparison with \citeq{qn-A} results in
\begin{equation}
\bar b\sim \big(t_a/t_p)^{\kappa_1}\,.
\label{bbar-A}\end{equation} Using this in \citeq{U-match} one finds with
\citeq{ta-tp}
\begin{eqnarray} t_a&\sim&v^{-1+\eta}\,t_0^{\eta}\nonumber\\
t_p&\sim&v^{-(1-\eta)\zeta}\,t_0^{1-(1-\eta)\zeta}
\label{tv-A}\end{eqnarray} with
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{\nu_0\,\kappa_1}{2(\nu_1-\nu_0)+\nu_0\kappa_1}\,.
\label{eta-def}\end{equation} Since $\nu_1>0$, $\nu_0<0$ and $\kappa_1<0$ one
finds $\eta>0$.
For $t\sim t_a$ the remaining $v$-dependence in the mean field equations is
not of relevance, since
\begin{equation} v^2t^2=(v\,t_0)^{2\eta}(t/t_a)^2\ll \bar q(t/t_a)
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} u(t)=(v\,t_0)^{2\eta}(t/t_a)^2/\bar g(t/t_a)\ll 1
\end{equation} with $u(t)$ defined in
\citeq{u-def} and $\bar g(t/t_a)=g(t)$.
For $t\gg t_a$ one obtains $\nu(t)\to1$, $ r(t)\to \bar r_1/t_a$ and
$q(t)\to \bar q_1\,t/t_a$ where $\bar r_1$ and $\bar q_1$ are constants. This
follows immediately from \citeq{Z-.-2} and \citeq{r-.-} realizing that $\tilde
Z(t)$ diverges $\sim t^{\alpha-2}$, whereas the right hand side of
\citeq{r-.-} remains finite for $t\gg t_a$. This defines an even longer time
scale
\begin{equation} t_a'\sim v^{-1-\eta}\,t_0^{-\eta}\,
\end{equation} where $q(t_a')=(vt_a')^2$.
For $t_a\ll t\ll t_a'$ Eq. \citeq{alpha-def} yields $\alpha\to \gamma+1$.
Investigating Eq.\citeq{n-.-} one observes that $\tilde Z(t)$, \citeq{Z-.-2},
diverges $\sim t^{\alpha-2}$ and $\tilde U(t)$, \citeq{U-.-1}, $\sim
t^{1-\kappa}$, whereas $\tilde K(t)$, \citeq{K-.-} remains finite. This means
$\kappa(t)\approx 3-\alpha(t)$ and $\kappa(t)\to \kappa_2=2-\gamma$. For
$\gamma<2$ the exponent $\kappa(t)$ increases with increasing $t$ reaching a
value $\kappa_2>0$ and therefore $n(t)$ also starts to increase again for
$t_a\ll t\ll t_a'$ reaching a new constant value $n_2(v)$ for $t\gg t_a'$.
Matching with \citeq{n-as} and
\citeq{bbar-A} yields
\begin{equation} n(t)=n_Q+\big(v\,t_0\big)^{2\eta(1-\kappa_2)}\,\bar n'(t/t_a')
\end{equation} and therefore $\displaystyle n_2(v)-n_Q\sim
\big(v\,t_0\big)^{2\eta(1-\kappa_2)}\mathop{\longrightarrow}_{v\to0}0$. For $\gamma>2$ this second
plateau of $n(t)$ is missing, the conclusions are, however, unchanged.
In order to give an estimate of the driving force one has to investigate the
behavior of $\alpha(t)$, Eq.\citeq{alpha-def}, first. In the plateau region
$\alpha(t_p)\approx 0$ was found. Around $t\sim t_a$ it starts to increase and
reaches a value $\alpha(t)\approx\gamma+1$ for $t_a \ll t \ll t_a'$. Around
$t\sim t_a'$ it starts to increase again reaching its asymptotic value
$\alpha(t)=2(\gamma+1)$ for $t\gg t_a'$. The integral in the expression
\citeq{F-} for the driving force gets its main contribution from $s$ such that
$1+\nu(s)-\alpha(s)=0$. For $\gamma>1$ this is fulfilled for $s\sim t_a$ and
$n(t)$ is well approximated by $n_Q$. This yields the following relation
between mean velocity and driving force:
\begin{equation} F=(v\,t_0)^{\eta}\,\bar F
\end{equation} with
\begin{equation}
\bar F=-\frac{2\beta}{1+n_Q}\int_0^{\infty}\d x\,x\,f''\big(\bar
q(x)\big)\,\partial_x
\bar q(x)
\end{equation} which does not depend on $v$. For given force the velocity
increases slowly with increasing force according to
\begin{equation} v\sim F^{1/\eta}\,.
\label{v-creep}\end{equation} This behavior is a form of creep.
In the one-dimensional case \cite{leDou95} creep has also been found for
$\sfrac12<\gamma<1$ with
\begin{equation} v\sim \mbox{\rm e}^{a\,F^{\mu}}
\label{v(F)-1}\end{equation} with $\mu=2(\gamma-1)/(2\gamma-1)$. A power law
dependence of the above form
\citeq{v-creep} is obtained for $\gamma=1$. Note that a different definition of
$\gamma$ is used in \cite{leDou95}. The results quoted here refer to the
present definition \citeq{f-def}.
The parameter $n_Q$ can be determined from the condition \citeq{condition}
which is equivalent to the requirement $D(t_p)=0$. The main contribution to
the integral comes from the region where $\nu(s)-\alpha(s)=0$ which is again
the case for $s\sim t_a$. With $n(s)\approx n_Q$ the result
\citeq{nQ-def} is recovered and $n_Q$ indeed agrees with the value derived
within the QFDT-solution.
It is remarkable that the longest time scale in phase $\cal A$ is not the
external time scale $v^{-1}$ but rather $t'_a\sim v^{-1-\eta}$, which is
longer. The ultimate reason for that is the behavior of $\kappa(t)=\kappa_1<0$
at the border between the plateau and the asymptotic regime. This value also
enters the exponent $\eta$,
\citeq{eta-def}.
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal B$}
This is no longer the case in phase $\cal B$. The choice
\begin{equation} t_a\sim v^{-1}
\label{ta-B}\end{equation} allows to rewrite the complete set of mean field
equations for $t\sim t_a$ in terms of functions of $t/t_a$ only, especially
\begin{equation} n(t)=\bar n(t/t_a)\,.
\label{n-B}\end{equation}
In the plateau region $n(t)$ is given by \citeq{n1-lr} and the dependence on
$c$ drops out for $c\ln(t/t_x)\sim\pi/2$, or with \citeq{tx-B} for $t\sim
\mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/c}t_p$. Matching with \citeq{n-B} yields
\begin{equation} t_a\sim \mbox{\rm e}^{\pi/c}\,t_p\,.
\label{ta-tp-c}\end{equation} On the other hand, \citeq{ta-tp} results from
matching $q(t)$ and therefore
\begin{equation} c=\frac{\pi}{(\zeta-1)\ln(t_0v)}\,.
\end{equation} This means $c=c(v)\to0$ for $v\to0$ as proposed earlier. With
\citeq{tx-B} the intermediate time scale $t_x$ is
\begin{equation} t_x\sim t_0^{(1-\zeta)/2}\,v^{-(1+\zeta)/2}\,.
\end{equation}
The force necessary to sustain the velocity $v$ has to be calculated from
\citeq{F-}. The main contribution comes as before from the region where
$1+\nu(s)-\alpha(s)=0$, which is the case for $s\sim t_a$. Using the scaling
form $q(t)=\bar q(t/t_a)$,
\citeq{scf-as}, and
\citeq{n-B} yields
\begin{eqnarray} F&=&F_p\nonumber\\ &=&-2\beta\int_0^{\infty}\d
x\,x\,f''(\bar q(x)+x^2)\frac{\partial_x\bar q(x)} {1+\bar n(x)}\qquad
\label{Fp-BC}\end{eqnarray} This does not depend on $v$ and therefore a finite
pinning force $F_p$ exists, which has to be overcome in order to set the
particle in motion.
\subsubsection{Phase $\cal C$}
In phase $\cal C$ again
\begin{equation} t_a=v^{-1}
\end{equation} has to be chosen and matching to \citeq{n1-C} requires
$t_x=t_a$. Otherwise the same arguments as above (phase $\cal B$) hold and
there is again a finite pinning force given by \citeq{Fp-BC}. The main
difference between phase $\cal B$ and $\cal C$ is the value of $n(t)$ for
$t_p\ll t\ll t_a$, which is finite in phase $\cal B$ and essentially zero in
phase $\cal C$.
It is again of interest to compare this result with the one-dimensional case
\cite{Sinai82,leDou95} where a finite pinning force is found for
$\gamma=\sfrac12$, whereas the pinning force diverges for $\gamma<\sfrac12$.
This divergence is due to the fact that no short distance cutoff in the
correlation of the disorder is used in the one-dimensional calculation. This
is also the reason why the phase boundaries in this case do not depend on
temperature.
\subsection{The phase diagram}
Let me summarize the results regarding the phase diagram and the dependence of
$v(F)$. Depending on temperature $T$ and exponent $\gamma$ several phases have
been found. The above considerations yield the phase diagram shown in
Fig.\ref{phase-fig} and discussed in more detail below. Different dependencies
of the velocity on the driving force are observed in different phases.
Examples are shown in Fig.\ref{v(F)}.
\mfigure{v-F} {Drift velocity as a function of the applied force in phase
${\cal O}$,
${\cal A}$, ${\cal B}$ and at the boundary between phase ${\cal O}$ and ${\cal
A}$.} {v(F)}
The curve marked .75/.7 belongs to $\gamma=0.75$ and $T=0.7$, which is in
phase
$\cal B$. This point is also used for the examples presented in Section 3.2.
Pinning is clearly observed. With increasing force $v(F)$ becomes linear in
$F$ indicating a finite mobility $m=v/F$. Its value is determined by the first
term in \citeq{F-}, which means that the influence of the random potential
vanishes for high velocities.
The curves marked 0.40 and 0.42 correspond to $\gamma=1.5$ and $T=0.4$ and
$T=0.42$, respectively. Both points are in phase $A$. The temperature $T=0.4$
is the second example in Section 3.2. A power law dependence of $v(F)$ is
found in accordance with the analytic investigations \citeq{v-creep}. For
$\gamma=1.5$ and $T=0.4$ one finds
$\eta=0.053$. With increasing force again the free mobility is found. The curve
marked 0.44 is right at the transition line $\gamma=1.5$, $T=T_c(1.5)=0.4387$,
and
$\eta=0.19$ is found. The remaining curves marked 0.46 and 0.48 are in the high
temperature phase $\cal O$ with $T=0.46$ and $T-0.48$, respectively. For
$v\to0$ a finite mobility is found, which is much smaller than the free value.
It vanishes at the critical temperature $T_c$.
\subsubsection{Drift phase $\cal O$}
For $T>T_c(\gamma)$, \citeq{Tc--}, and $\gamma>1$ a finite mobility $m=v/F$ is
found for $v\to0$. It is given by \citeq{Foo} and it vanishes at the
boundaries of this phase. There are no long time scales.
\subsubsection{Creep phase $\cal A$}
This phase is characterized by $n_Q<n_x$ given in \citeq{nQ-def} and
\citeq{nx-def}. Its boundary with phase $\cal O$ is $T=T_c(\gamma)$ and the
boundary to phase $\cal B$ is determined by $n_Q=n_x$. This yields with
\citeq{R-def},
\citeq{nQ-def} and \citeq{nx-def}
\begin{equation}
\frac{f'(q_c)\,f'''(q_c)}{f''^2(q_c)}=2\,(1+\mbox{$\frac16$}\tilde D_x)\,.
\end{equation} Inserting \citeq{f-def} one finds that this phase boundary is
determined by
$\gamma=\gamma_c$, with
\begin{equation}
\gamma_c=\frac{1}{1+\frac13\tilde D_x}\approx1.3044\,.
\label{gammac-}\end{equation}
For ${v\to 0}$ one observes creep in the form ${v\sim F^{1/\eta}}$,
\citeq{v-creep}, with $\eta\to0$ for $\gamma\to\gamma_c$.
\subsubsection{Pinning phase $\cal B$ and $\cal C$}
This phase exists for $\gamma<1$ or $T<T_c$ and $\gamma<\gamma_c$. It has a
finite pinning force which has to be overcome in order to set the particle in
motion. Phase $\cal B$ and $\cal C$ are distinct only by their value of $n(t)$
for
$t_p\ll t\ll t_a$. In phase $\cal C$ one finds $n(t)\approx0$ for $ t\ll t_a$
which means that the FDT holds up to this value, whereas it starts to be
violated already for $t\sim t_a$ in phase $\cal A$ and $\cal B$.
\section{Discussion}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The first aspect of this investigation deals with the motion of a particle in a
correlated random potential with power law decay of the correlations under the
influence of an applied driving force. The phase diagram shows a phase with
finite mobility, a creep phase and pinning phases. Similar behavior is found
in a one-dimensional model \cite{Sinai82,leDou95} indicating that the
transitions found are not an artifact of the mean field treatment, which
becomes exact in the limit of infinite dimensionality. In the creep phase
$v(F)$ obeys a power law. Such a behavior is also found in the one-dimensional
case, but only at the boundary between the drift and the creep phase, which is
otherwise ruled by a stretched exponential law. The pinning phase in the
present case has a finite pinning force, which is also found in the
one-dimensional case, but only at the boundary between creep and pinning
phase. Otherwise the pinning force diverges in this calculation, which can be
traced back to the absence of a short distance cutoff of the power law decay
of the correlations.
The numerical results indicate the existence of several scaling regimes which
are verified by analytic investigations of the asymptotic properties in the
limit of small drift velocity. These regimes are, with increasing time, the
FDT-regime describing a local equilibrium within one of the valleys of the
energy landscape, an intermediate plateau regime where the correlation
function $q(t)$ stays close to the EA-order parameter $q_c$ and where the
characteristic time scale $t_p(v)\sim v^\zeta$, and the asymptotic regime with
characteristic time scale $t_a\sim v^{-1}$. In the creep phase
$\cal A$ this asymptotic regime is ruled by two time scales, $t_a\sim
v^{-1+\eta}$ and
$t'_a\sim v^{-1-\eta}$. The exponent $\eta$ also determines the power law of
$v(F)$.
The numerical calculations have been performed for a wide range of velocities
including values as small as $10^{-30}$ and over times ranging from $10^{-4}$
to $10^{36}$. This is necessary in order to deduce the full asymptotic
behavior and even at these extreme values part of the structure is not yet
fully developed.
The second aspect relates to glassy non-eqilibrium dynamics of mean field
models. The model investigated here has several advantages in this respect. It
uses Lan\-ge\-vin dynamics which is certainly easier to handle than for
instance Glauber dynamics in Ising type models. Depending on $\gamma$,
continuous as well as discontinuous ergodicity breaking transitions are found.
With applied external force a stationary non-equilibrium state is reached
where correlation and response functions depend only on time differences. The
inverse velocity $v^{-1}$ plays the role of an external long time scale.
The replica treatment of this model \cite{Mez:manifold90,Mez:manifold91}
predicts transitions between a phase with continuous replica symmetry breaking
for
$\gamma<\gamma_c=1$, a 1RSB-phase for $\gamma>1$ and $T<T_{c,\rm 1RSB}$, and a
replica symmetric phase for $\gamma>1$ and $T>T_{c,\rm1RSB}$. The present phase
diagram differs in the sense that $T_c>T_{c,\rm1RSB}$ and $\gamma_c>1$. A
difference in $T_c$ has been observed before in models with discontinuous
transitions
\cite{KibachHo93I,KiTh87,ho:binperc92,CHS93}. This was traced back to the fact
that the states contributing most to the static replica calculation are
different from those relevant for dynamics and are not accessible within
finite time in the thermodynamic limit. The same now appears to be true for
continuous transitions as well.
There have been several proposals regarding the long time dynamics. For the
SK-model Sompolinsky and Zippelius \cite{Somp81,SZ82} proposed a hierarchical
or ultrametric organization of long time scales. This can be rephrased as the
postulate
\cite{Ho:DySK84} that correlation and response functions can be expressed as
functions of $x(t)=1-\ln t/\ln \bar t$ where $\bar t$ is some long external
time scale. It has, however, been shown that this leads to inconsistencies
\cite{Ho:DySK87}. In the present formulation this requirement means $\nu(t)=0$
for times where the hierarchy exists. This is not observed.
The assumption of an ultrametric hierarchy of time scales leads to results
which are identical to those obtained by Parisi's continuous replica symmetry
breaking scheme
\cite{Par79}. One of the quantities to be compared is the probability of
overlaps
$P(q)$ which is the derivative $P(q)=|\partial_q x(q)|$ of a function $x(q)$
which in dynamics is given by
\begin{equation} x\big(q(t)\big)=\frac{1}{1+n(t)}\,.
\end{equation} Within this scheme only $x(q)$ is determined, whereas
correlation and response functions are not unique for long times. This is in
contrast to the present investigation where correlation and response functions
are unique for all times.
The function $x(q)$ obtained from replica theory and from the present
investigation are compared in Fig.\ref{x(q)}. The difference between the
results shows again that different states are of relevance in dynamics and
replica theory.
\mfigure{xq-B} {Function $x(q)$ in phase $\cal B$, see text. The results
obtained in the present investigation (solid) and from replica theory (dashed)
are shown.}{x(q)}
For systems with discontinuous transitions
\cite{KibachHo93I,KiTh87,ho:binperc92,CHS93} the QFDT-solution has been
proposed. It requires $n(t)\to n_Q$ for $t\sim \bar t$. This is actually found
in phase $\cal A$. Within this scheme nothing can be said about the generation
of internal long time scales. Furthermore, the resulting correlation and
response functions are again not uniquely determined, contrary to the present
results.
There has been considerable interest on mean field dynamics of spin glasses and
related systems with non-equilibrium initial conditions
\cite{CuKu93,FrMe94a,FrMe94b,CuKu94,BCuKuPa95,CuDe95,CuDou95}. In the work of
Cugliandolo and Dean \cite{CuDe95} an exact solution of the spherical SK-model
is reported. It shows aging phenomena although a replica calculation of this
model does not require replica symmetry breaking. The remaining papers deal
with models which have phases with broken replica symmetry (1-step or
continuous). Various proposals are made for the long time properties of
correlation and response functions depending on two time arguments $t$ and
$t'$. Again for $t-t'\to\infty$ and
$t'\to\infty$ with finite $(t-t')/t'$ the resulting correlation and response
functions could not be determined uniquely. This is likely to be due to an
incomplete analysis of the plateau regime where $t-t'\sim {t'}^\zeta$ with
$0<\zeta<1$.
A comparison with the present results certainly has to be taken with care
because the specific non-equili\-bri\-um situation is different. Nevertheless
using $t'$ as external time scale one expects that at least the properties for
times $t-t'\ll t'$ can be compared. This includes the plateau regime. A
careful investigation of this regime and the kind of FDT-violation taking
place there seems necessary in this case, too and this is likely to remove the
arbitrariness in the correlation and response functions found so far.
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
For helpful discussions, we thank physicists at
Cornell,
DESY, Valencia, and at Montreux. This work was
partially
supported by U.S. Dept. of Energy Contract No. DE-FG 02-
96ER40291.
\section*{Footnotes}
\begin{enumerate}
\item For testing for $(V+A)$ versus $(V-A)$, the use of $I_7$
for $\{\rho
^{-},\rho ^{+}\}$ gives less than a $1\%$ improvement over
$I_4$
at $M_Z$, $10
GeV$, or $4 GeV$. If in addition the $\tau ^{-}$momentum
direction is
known via a SVX detector, there is only an $\sim 11\%$
improvement. The same
numbers occur for $\{ {a_1}^{-
},{a_1}^{+} \}$. In contrast, by using $I_4$, instead of the
simpler 2 variable $I\left( E_\rho ,E_{\bar \rho }\right) $ spin-
correlation
function, there is about a factor of 8 improvement at $M_Z$.
\item Note $\frac{m_b}{m_t}\sim \frac 5{174}\sim 3\%$, and
$%
\frac{m_\nu }{m_\tau }<\frac{23.8}{1777}\sim 1.4\%$ so this
symmetry is badly
broken in the masses for the 3rd family. However, for the other
leptons this
symmetry may be more strongly broken since
$\frac{m_{\nu
_e}}{m_e}<10^{-5}$, and $\frac{m _{\nu _\mu }}{m_\mu
}<0.15\%$ from the
current empirical bounds. From phenomenological mass
formulas,
e.g. \cite{har}, such as the GUT mass
formula, $\nu_{\tau}$:$\nu_{\mu}$:$\nu_{e}$ $\sim$
${m_t}^2$:${m_c}^2$:${m_u}^2$, the tau leptons are also the
least
asymmetric
since then $\frac{m_{\nu
_\tau}}{m_\tau} \approx 10^{-8}$, $\frac{m_{\nu
_\mu}}{m_\mu} \approx 10^{-11}$, and $\frac{m_{\nu
_e}}{m_e} \approx 3\cdot 10^{-14}$ for the normalization
$m_{\nu_{\tau}}=20eV$.
\item Details on the analysis of the $\tau \rightarrow \pi \nu$
modes
will be
reported elsewhere \cite{C94a}.
\item The tests in this paper use ($\tau^{-} \tau^{+}$) spin-
correlations as it is assumed that the $e^{-}$ and $e^{+}$
colliding
beams are
not
longitudinally-polarized. Recently, Y.-S. Tsai
\cite{ch1,ch2} has shown that in tau decays the sensitivities of
tests
for $CP$
violation, and
for other types of ``new physics'', are substantially improved in
regard to both
systematic and statistical errors by the use of longitudinally-
polarized beams at the
($\tau^{-} \tau^{+}$) threshold.
\end{enumerate}
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the outstanding questions in our understanding of fully-developed
turbulence is the mechanisms by which the cascade of energy to
small scales is maintained. That the cascade is intermittent is
well recognized, but the phenomenological and dynamical models
used to address the problem are rarely connected to the dynamics in
the full Navier-Stokes equations. In this note it is shown that
a popular model for explaining turbulent intermittency, the GOY
model \cite{gledzer,yo}, shares some symmetries
with terms in a decomposition of the spectral Navier-Stokes equations
into the interactions between its helical components \cite{waleffe92}.
The essential common property that is identified in both the GOY
model and in Navier--Stokes is the importance
of interactions between components with oppositely signed helicity.
This new role for helicity supporting an intermittent cascade
contrasts strongly with helicity's previously identified role
in blocking the cascade \cite{andrelesieur77,polifkeshtilman89},
a role that was proposed earlier based on an analogy
to the way magnetic helicity creates force-free states \cite{moffatt69}.
In the GOY model with the standard parameters for three-dimensional
turbulence, interactions between modes with oppositely
signed helicity occur naturally as the sign of helicity
reverses between neighboring shells \cite{leo_lohse_wang_benzi}.
Whether Navier--Stokes turbulence
follows a similar path is a more difficult question because there
are several paths, characterized by interactions between different
components of the helicity, that the cascade can follow. One way
to investigate this question is to consider several variants of the
GOY models that investigate each path in the full Navier--Stokes
equations individually or in unison. One question would be how
strongly the statistical behavior of the cascade depends on the
symmetries in the different models. Another line of investigation
is to determine which path the cascade follows in the
full Navier--Stokes equations. In this note, preliminary results
following both of these approaches are presented and the direction
of a more complete study is presented. Also included will be
new analysis of the Kerr-Siggia shell model \cite{kerrsiggia},
which has a cubic,
non-positive definite invariant that shares some dynamical properties
with helicity and served as an inspiration for part of this new proposal.
In all of these cases it will be argued that competition between
the transfer of energy and the transfer of the generalized helicity
could explain the presence of numerically observed chaotic dynamics
and intermittency in the energy cascade. For the GOY models, new
results on intermittency corrections will be used to illustrate
the importance of the second quadratic invariant in the energy cascade.
In section 2, the new results for the Kerr-Siggia model will be
reported. In section 3, the GOY model is reviewed and how
the inviscid conserved quantities and the dynamics depend
on the free parameters present in the model is discussed.
In section 4, an argument that predicts the transition from a trivial
dynamics (dominated by the presence of an attractive fixed point) to
a fully chaotic regime for some critical values of the free parameters
is discussed. Some numerical
results for the energy transfer are also discussed.
In section 5, new versions of the GOY model are introduced by
considering explicitly the possibility of having shells which
transport positive or negative helicity exactly as occurs in
the Navier--Stokes equations. Two preliminary calculations
with the full Navier--Stokes equations that support the
importance of the interactions between components with oppositely-signed
helicity are presented. Some problems that can be studied by using
the new variant of the GOY model are discussed and some new
analysis of the full Navier--Stokes equations that could be done
to illuminate these properties is presented.
\section{Pulse scaling of Kerr-Siggia}
The Kerr-Siggia model\cite{kerrsiggia} is a shell model
with one complex variable
per shell,
originating from a decimation of the possible interactions between triads
in Burgers equation. With
a simple forcing and eddy viscosity the equations were
$$du_1/dt = \epsilon/u_1^* + 2iu_2u_1^*$$
\begin{equation}
du_n/dt = k_{n-1}i(u_{n-1}^2 + 2u_{n+1}u_n^*)
\label{eq:kseq}
\end{equation}
$$du_N/dt=k_{N-1}i(u_{N-1}^2 + \nu_e|u_N|u_N)$$
where $\epsilon$ was the average energy input and dissipation,
$\nu_e$ was taken to be $2^{2/3}$ and $k_n=2^n$.
Defining
$$E_n={1\over 2}u_n u_n^* $$
\begin{equation}
H_n=\Re(u_n^* u_{n-1}^2)
\label{eq:ksconserve}
\end{equation}
$$A_n=\Im(u_n^* u_{n-1}^2)$$
for $\epsilon=\nu_e=0$
there are two inviscid invariants $E=\sum{E_n}$ and $H=\sum{H_n}$.
The first is energy and the second, while not positive-definite,
can be treated as a Hamiltonian with canonical variables
$u_n$ and $u_{-n}=u^*_n$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
du_n/dt = ik_n\delta H/\delta u_{-n}
\label{eq:kscanon}
\end{equation}
The energy transfer between shells is $\epsilon_n=-k_{n-1}A_n$.
There is a trivial, unstable ``Kolmogorov'' solution
of with $u_n=-i(2^{1/3}\epsilon)^{1/3}k_n^{-1/3}$, $H_n=0$,
and $E_n=2^{2/9}\epsilon^{2/3}k_n^{-2/3}$ corresponding
to a solution of an earlier cascade model\cite{des_novikov74} .
The context for discussing this model along with the GOY model
and Navier-Stokes is the extra invariant $H$. Despite the fact that this
$H$ is cubic and not quadratic, and that neither Euler nor GOY has
a Hamiltonian of this form, due to the non-positive definite nature of
$H$, it appears to have some of the same qualitative effects upon the cascade
that we speculate helicity is capable of for Navier-Stokes and GOY.
The point is that while additional invariants can block the energy
cascade, as enstrophy does in two dimensions and helicity does
to some degree in Navier-Stokes\cite{andrelesieur77,polifkeshtilman89},
due to the non-positive definite nature of the invariant there is an escape
route where the cascade can find a way around this blockage. As
will be demonstrated for the Kerr-Siggia model, this can take the form
of pulses. From the tools used to demonstrate this for the
Kerr-Siggia model, it will then be demonstrated that there is
weak evidence for analogous phenomena in Navier-Stokes.
In the original discussion\cite{kerrsiggia}, two classes of solutions
besides the trivial ``Kolmogorov'' solution
were discussed. First, stationary solutions for a small number
of shells with no forcing or dissipation ($\epsilon=\nu_e=0$)
and maximal $H$ were discussed.
Second, forced, dissipative solutions were discussed.
Intermittency was found in the time dependent solutions and
the effect of the extra invariant was noted, particularly as it
affected the slope of the energy spectrum, which was
$<E_n>\sim k_n^{-1/2}$ rather than the Kolmogorov solution,
but what effect the stationary
solutions might exert upon the forced, dissipative time-dependent solutions
was not considered.
For the present calculations, $\epsilon=1$ was chosen, which gives
a characteristic timescale of $t=1$. Using as initial conditions
$u_1=u_2=(1,1)$, $u_n=0$, $n\geq3$, $N=14$, it took until
$t=3.9$ for the effects of initial transients to dissappear.
Then statistics were taken until $t=6.8$. Figure 1 shows
the spectra of $<E_n>$ and $<H_n>$ for this period
as well as $k_n^{-1/2}$ curves, confirming the results
of the original paper\cite{kerrsiggia}. Details will be discussed after the
evidence for pulses is presented.
Figure 2 shows $E_n$ and $H_n$ spectra
for a series of moderately spaced times and the time development of
$E$, $H$ and dissipation for this time period. By moderately
spaced in time it is meant that the times shown are not so
closely spaced so as to show continuous development, but are
close enough to show a relationship between pulses of $E_n$
and $H_n$ and intermittent bursts in the dissipation.
The primary event to focus upon is best illustrated in the
$H_n$ spectra. In this sequence it starts as a pulse of positive
$H_n$ centered on $n=4$ at $t=6.11$. It is associated with only
one of several bumps in the energy spectrum at this time and is
not associated with the spike in energy dissipation at $t=6.15$.
This spike in energy dissipation is assocated with one of the higher
shell bumps in the energy spectrum and comes from a pulse
at an earlier time of oppositely signed $H_n$ similar to
the pulse to be described.
Following the appearance of the positive peak of $H_n$ in
$n=4$ at $t=6.11$, this peak breaks off from the
lower shells and slowly propagates to larger shell numbers.
The energy peak associated with it moves in tandem. Spectra of the
transfer rates of $E_n$ and $H_n$ have also peaks that move
with the pulse. When the effects of the highest shell, where
the dissipation occurs, are felt, the pulse stalls
at $t=6.29$ before the energy in the pulse suddenly dissipates
at $t=6.34$. The stalling is the probable source of the
bump in the time averaged energy spectra just before the
dissipation regime. While this bump is on top of a
spectrum less steep than Kolmogorov ($k_n^{-1/2}$ rather than
$k_n^{-2/3}$), it is qualitatively similar to a bump in the
turbulent energy spectra for atmospheric observations\cite{champagneetal77},
spectral closures\cite{andrelesieur77}
and forced calculations of Navier-Stokes turbulence\cite{kerr85}.
For Navier-Stokes the bump is believed to be associated with a
bottleneck effect\cite{LohseGroeling} where the decrease in the slope
of kinetic energy spectrum in the dissipation regime blocks the free-flow
of kinetic energy just at the boundary between the inertial and dissipation
subranges. While this effect probably
plays some role in the appearance of the bump in the Kerr-Siggia model,
examination of figure 2 suggests a strong role for the stationary
solutions associated with the second invariant. This comes from
noticing that the cubic invariant is nearly
maximal over the shells covered by the bump.
While this pulse is dissipating at $t=6.34$, the next major pulse of negative
$H_n$ is beginning to move into shell 2 and positive $H_n$
for the major pulse following that is developing in shell 0 from
the forcing. So a succession of $E_n$ and alternately
signed $H_n$ pulses is suggested. Clearly this is a simplified
picture as there are minor spikes in dissipation between the major
spikes that are associated with weak pulses with small $H_n$ of
no particular sign. An example of such a weak pulse is the blip
in $H_n$ at $n=8$ for $t=6.35$ and the rapidly moving $E_n$
at this time. To quantitatively demonstrate the alternation in
sign of the strong pulses, figure 3 is a contour plot in shell and
time separation of correlations between different shells and
times of $E_n$ and $H_n$. These plots are similar
to contour plots of the energy transfer in forced Navier-Stokes
calculations\cite{kerr90} and also \cite{kida_when} and in
meteorology are referred to as Hovm\"uller diagrams. These are:
\begin{equation}
<(F_{n+\Delta_n,t+\Delta t}- \overline{F_{n+\Delta_n}})
(F_{n,t}-\overline{F_{n}})>
\label{eq:ksflux}
\end{equation}
where $F_n$ is either $E_n$ or $H_n$. Positive correlations
are dark, negative are light. These plots are for $n=1$, the
second shell. The effect of a single pulse is the first region of
increasing $\Delta_n$ and $\Delta t$ originating at $(0,0)$.
The propagation is linear after the first few shells. Starting
at about $\Delta t=0.5$ there is another strong dark region in
the $E_n$ correlation and a strong light region in the $H_n$
correlation. This supports the qualitative picture coming from
watching the time development that there are a succession of
pulses of oppositely signed $H_n$.
The appearance of these pulses raises several questions. First,
what modification of the stationary solutions can propagate as a unit? Second,
what causes the alternation in sign of $H_n$ of the pulses, is it
the forcing or is it the nonlinear dynamics? We will not attempt to answer
these questions. The point we do want to make is that there is
some connection between the alternation in sign of the extra
non-positive definite conserved quantity
that seems to be associated with the appearance of pulses in the
energy cascade and with intermittency in the model. In calculations
where the extra invariant is suppressed, intermittency dissappears.
These ideas are supported by noting that the mechanism with which
the conserved quantities are pumped in the system and removed from the system
can influence the scaling laws in
the inertial subrange\cite{Jon_Lee80,LevShe95}.
An extreme example is a calculation of the Kerr-Siggia model
with a Newtonian viscosity\cite{Jon_Lee80} where
the extra conserved quantity is suppressed, there is a Kolmogorov spectrum
and no intermittency. These are subtle questions that would require
more accurate studies.
How can the pulses be related to the spectra in figure 1?
The $<E_n>$ spectrum in figure 1 goes as $2^{-n/2}$. By
dimensional arguments one might expect that the $<H_n>$ spectrum
would obey $2^{-3n/4}$, but this is not required since
at any given time $<H_n>$ can have either sign. In fact,
the $<H_n>$ spectrum is less steep than this and also seems to
follow $2^{-n/2}$. To understand this, imagine that each
pulse is a coherent package of $E_n$ and $H_n$ traversing
the spectrum, spending on average $2^{-n/2}$ time in each
shell. Then the time averaged spectra $<E_n>$ amd $<H_n>$ will
both have $2^{-n/2}$ spectra. This is similar to the argument that has
been used to generate a -5/3 spectrum from fluctuations in a strained
Burgers vortex\cite{lundgren82}. If
$\Delta t$ spent in each band goes as $2^{-n/2}$ as this
suggests, then this would imply
that the bands in the $(\Delta_n,\Delta t)$ plots should approach
zero slope as $\Delta_n$ increases. There is some tendency
in this direction for small $\Delta_n$ in figure 3, but for
larger $\Delta_n$ when the stalling noted at $t=6.29$
in figure 2 and dissipation effects are important, the bands
are nearly linear. Again, the time-averaged $<H_n>$ should not
have any particular sign, as evidenced by shell 4 in figure 1, and
their magnitude $|<H_n>|$ should decrease as the averaging
time is lengthened. This has been verified by using different
time intervals for the time averaging.
\section{The GOY model}
Given this discussion, let us now examine
properties of the Kerr-Siggia model shared by the GOY model \cite{gledzer,yo}.
The GOY model has a
very rich dynamical behaviour and it
has been the object of many studies in recent years
(see \cite{leo_lohse_wang_benzi,jpv,bbp,pbcfv,bllp,gpz}
for some numerical and analytical results). It is the most popular
shell-model for 3 dimensional turbulence because of its intermittent
properties are very close to the corresponding quantities
in Navier-Stokes equations when the parameters of the
nonlinear terms share some properties with the nonlinear term
in the Navier-Stokes equations.
In particular, for zero viscosity and no external
forcing, when the system has the same conservation laws as a 3D flow:
conservation of energy, of helicity and of volume in phase space.
The dynamical equations are as follows:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} u_n =i\, k_n \left(u^{*}_{n+1}u^{*}_{n+2} +
b u^{*}_{n+1}u^{*}_{n-1}
+c u^{*}_{n-1}u^{*}_{n-2} \right)
-\nu k_n^2 u_n +\delta_{n,n_0}f
\label{eq:shell}
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the viscosity and $f$ is a forcing acting
on a large-scale-shell (for example, $n_0=1$) introduced
to obtain a statistically stationary dynamical state.
This model has interactions only between first and
second-neighbor shells in the Fourier space. The two parameters
$b,c$ in the nonlinear terms are chosen such as to conserve
energy, $E= \sum_n |u_n|^2$,
for any choice of $\lambda$. The most general choice of parameters is:
\begin{equation}
b= - \frac{\epsilon}{\lambda};\qquad c= -\frac{1-\epsilon}{\lambda^2}
\label{eq:parameters}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon$ is the second free parameter in the model.
The GOY model also has a second quadratic invariant beside
energy:
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_n
\chi(\epsilon)^n k_n^{\alpha(\epsilon,\lambda)} |u_n|^2.
\label{eq:helicity}
\end{equation}
While energy conservation is forced by the choice (\ref{eq:parameters}),
the characteristics of the second
invariant, $H$, change by changing the values of $\epsilon$ and $\lambda$.
When $\epsilon < 1$ this second invariant is not positive-definite
($\chi(\epsilon) = -1$), while
if $\epsilon > 1$ it is positive-definite ($\chi(\epsilon) = +1$).
By remembering that the Navier-Stokes equations are characterized by having a
second inviscid invariant that is positive-definite in 2D (enstrophy)
and non-positive definite in 3D (helicity),
the value $\epsilon=1$ can be identified as the border between a shell model
for 2D turbulence ($\epsilon>1$) and a shell model for 3D turbulence
($\epsilon < 1$). In the following,
the problem of whether shell models like GOY-model are a good
representation of 2D turbulence\cite{angelo} is not addressed
and only the range ($0<\epsilon<1$)
where the dynamics should reproduce aspects of a 3D turbulent flow will be
considered.
By looking in detail at the structure of the second invariant, only
when $\alpha(\epsilon,\lambda)=1$
does it have physical dimensions coinciding with Navier-Stokes helicity
\cite{leo_lohse_wang_benzi}.
This defines a line in the plane of free parameters where the inviscid
conservation laws of the GOY model are
very similar to the 3D Navier-Stokes equations.
Because this invariant has the same physical dimensions
as 3D helicity and it is non-positive, we will denote it as
the {\it GOY-helicity} in the following.
In the last section, a modified version of the
GOY model will be introduced with
a second invariant having more correspondance with fluid helicity.
A necessary point before going on is that
model (\ref{eq:shell}) has two inviscid fixed
points corresponding to the Kolmogorov scaling $|u_n| \sim k_n^{-1/3}$
(constant flux of energy, zero flux of helicity) and to a
fluxless scaling $|u_n| \sim k_n^{-(1+\alpha)/3}$ (constant flux
of helicity, zero flux of energy) \cite{bllp}.
For this study our interest in this model comes
from the presence in the $(\epsilon,\lambda)$
plane of a region where the static Kolmogorov-like fixed point
is dynamically unstable \cite{bllp}. The dynamics is
fully chaotic and shows
an intermittent cascade of energy toward small scales
\cite{jpv,pbcfv} with a complex (multifractal) structure
of the attractor in the phase-space. This intermittency
is quantified by measuring the scaling exponents $\zeta(p)$
for the structure functions in the inertial range:
\begin{equation}
S_p(k_n) = <|u_n|^p> \sim k_n^{\zeta(p)}
\end{equation}
Only very recently \cite{leo_lohse_wang_benzi,gpz} has it been realized that
the second quadratic invariant plays a crucial role in the dynamics
of the model. In \cite{leo_lohse_wang_benzi}, it was found
by varying the two
free parameters $(\epsilon, \lambda)$ in the 3D-physically
relevant region ($0< \epsilon <1; \lambda > 1$) that
along the line of constant helicity ($\alpha(\epsilon,\lambda)=1$),
the model has the same intermittent behaviour.
That is, the set of $\zeta(p)$ depends only on the value
of $\alpha$, giving, for the first time, numerical evidence
that the dynamics of the model is strongly dependent
on the presence of the second inviscid-invariant. Furthermore,
it has been shown\cite{gpz} that by modifying the nonlinear term
such as to destroy the presence of the second invariant
(but still preserving the inviscid energy conservation) the intermittent
corrections to K41 seem to weaken.
\section{The transition to chaos}
It has been shown\cite{bllp} that by fixing $\lambda$
and varying the $\epsilon$ parameters (and therefore, by changing
$\alpha$) the GOY model undergoes
a transition to chaos following a ``Ruelle-Takens'' scenario.
In particular, there exists a critical value, $\epsilon_c$
such that for $\epsilon < \epsilon_c$ the Kolmogorov fixed
point $u_n \sim k_n^{-1/3}$ is dynamically stable. Extending this analysis
by changing the ratio between shells in the range $1< \lambda <3$
it is found that the ``Ruelle-Takens'' transition
is quite general\cite{skl}: there
exists a line in the plane ($\epsilon,\lambda$)
which divides the region where a Kolmogorov-like fixed point
is dynamically stable from a region where the dynamics is chaotic and
intermittent. This qualitative trend of the
transition line appears to beto be universal, even if the exact
location can be slightly influenced by the forcing and
by the value of viscosity. In the following, a very
simple argument is presented based on the presence of the second non-positive
invariant that predicts, with good accuracy, the existence
of the transition and its location for any value
in the plane ($\epsilon,\lambda$).
Consider the two inviscid quadratic invariants,
the energy and the generalized-helicity, and their currents.
First, for zero viscosity and zero forcing energy conservation gives:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}|u_n|^2 = J_{n-1} -J_{n},
\label{eq:flux_en}
\end{equation}
where the energy current $J_n$
\begin{equation}
J_n = \Im[-\Delta_{n+1} -(1-\epsilon) \Delta_n].
\label{eq:current_en}
\end{equation}
is defined in terms of triple correlations:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_n = k_{n-1}u_{n-1}u_{n}u_{n+1}.
\end{equation}
The second conservation law for helicity takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}(-)^{n}k_n|u_n|^2 = L_{n-1}- L_{n}
\label{eq:flux_he}
\end{equation}
where the current of helicity, $L_n$,
from the $n$th shell to the $n+1$th shell is:
\begin{equation}
L_n = (-)^{n} k_n \Im[\Delta_{n} -\Delta_{n+1}].
\label{eq:current_he}
\end{equation}
Let us suppose, for the moment, that there exists only
one conserved quantity: energy. Then, very standard arguments
\cite{orszag}
tell us that if viscosity is zero, the system tends to equipartition,
corresponding in the GOY model to $|u_n|^2 = const.$. If
one switches on viscous effects, and starts with an initial
configuration with energy concentrated in the first shells, an energy
cascade toward small scales develops. This energy cascade
has been interpreted as the attempt of the system to reach
new equipartition state\cite{orszag}.
This attempt at restoring equipartition is frustrated by viscous dissipation
at small scales that continuously removes energy
and prevents the small scales from reaching
an equilibrium or quasi-equilibrium state.
The Kolmogorov 1941 cascade, describing a smooth and
constant transfer of energy from large scales to small scales
is another way to rephrase this mechanism. But why does the flow
not follow this picture of relaxing
to a smooth and homogeneous transfer of energy and instead
prefers to use a highly intermittent cascades consisting of
bursts and blockages which are the origins
of the intermittent corrections to the $\zeta(p)$ exponents? This is
where we are proposing that
the second inviscid quadratic quantity enters into the picture.
It is well known that in 2D turbulence the presence
of a second positive-definite quadratic invariant (enstrophy)
does not allow the energy to cascade forward (toward small scales)
\cite{kraichnan}. This is a general result; {\it either:} the two
conserved quantities must transfer in different directions
in Fourier space {\it or: } only one can transfer to small scales.
For example, in 2D turbulence it is widely believed
that there exists a forward transfer of enstrophy
and a backward transfer of energy (inverse cascade).
In contrast, the presence of a second non-positive definite
quadratic invariant, like helicity in 3D turbulence,
is only a minor constraint on the forward
transfer of energy. Moreover, it is a constraint that, due
to the non-positiveness, can have strong spatial and temporal
fluctuations. If this picture is correct, intermittency in the
3D energy transfer could be the result of a competition between
energy and helicity cascades. Temporal and/or spatial intermittency
in the energy flux would be the result of switching between a
net transfer of energy (possible due to cancellation
effects in the helicity flux) and a depletion in the energy-transfer
due to the presence of a non-zero helicity flux.
How can these phenomenological ideas be checked in the GOY model?
In the GOY model, a smooth and non-intermittent
energy-transfer would correspond to dynamics near the Kolmogorov
manifold $u_n \sim k_n^{-1/3}$. This implies that the energy
flux (\ref{eq:flux_en}) is almost constant in the inertial range and that
the helicity flux (\ref{eq:flux_he})
is almost vanishing. This Kolmogorov
behaviour is obtained when the model has a static
stable fixed point. It is natural, then, to ask if
it is possible to understand the transition from the static
behaviour to chaotic dynamics by invoking the second invariant.
By plugging the Kolmogorov solutions
into the expression for the generalized-helicity
(\ref{eq:helicity}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_n
\chi(\epsilon)^n k_n^{\alpha(\epsilon,\lambda)-2/3}.
\label{eq:helicity2}
\end{equation}
It is therefore clear that, whether the exponent $(\alpha-{2\over3})$
in (\ref{eq:helicity2}) is
positive or negative determines whether $H$ receives most of its important
contribution from small or large scales, respectively. Therefore,
when $\alpha > 2/3$ the second invariant is concentrated at small
scales and, as in 2D turbulence, prevents a smooth forward
transfer of energy. This is reflected by strong intermittency
and large deviations from Kolmogorov scaling.
But, one can imagine that from time to time that it
is still possible to transfer energy if some cancellation effects
lead to an almost zero $H$-flux. On the other hand, when
$\alpha < 2/3$ energy transfers toward
small scales without having any relevant change in $H$, i.e. the
model relaxes in to a trivial Kolmogorov like fixed point.
Figure 4 shows the numerical results\cite{skl} for the transition
from a static Kolmogorov behaviour to chaotic
dynamics by changing $\epsilon$ and $\lambda$. As predicted,
the transition happens near the critical line defined by:
\begin{equation}
\alpha(\epsilon_c,\lambda_c) = \frac{2}{3},
\qquad \lambda_c= (1-\epsilon_c)^{-3/2}
\label{eq:prediction}
\end{equation}
The systematic shift of $5\%$ between the
prediction (\ref{eq:prediction}) and the numerical results is probably
due to viscosity as previously discussed\cite{skl}
We believe that this very simple result is a new important confirmation
that the dynamics of the model is strongly influenced by
the second invariant.
Figure 5 shows decaying numerical experiments, that is zero forcing
and non-zero viscosity with energy initially concentrated
at large scales, that compare the dynamical behaviour of the model in
two characteristic regions: case A [$\epsilon=0.1, \lambda =2$],
where there is smooth energy-transfer regime
(on the right side of the critical curve in fig. 4) and case B
[$\epsilon=0.5, \lambda =2$], where the dynamics is
chaotic and intermittent (left side of the curve in fig. 4).
What is interesting is that for case A, when the second invariant does not
introduce any constraint in the energy transfer ($\alpha < 2/3$),
the energy dissipation is a smooth function. This means
that energy is transferred through the inertial subrange
without any blocking and with a power-law behaviour
in time. But, in case B ($\alpha > 2/3$),
the energy dissipation has a staircase shape in time indicating long periods
when little energy reaches small scales (blocking) interrupted by
short bursts of dissipation. This would be consistent with the suggested role
for helicity where in addition to blocking the transfer,
cancellation in the helicity transfer is associated with
strong dissipation events.
Figure 6 shows the time evolution of the energy current $J_{n}$ and the
helicity current $L_{n}$ through a shell in the inertial range
where the model is chaotic. Obviously,
the two fluxes are correlated, but the interesting fact is that when
there is a burst of energy, the helicity flux has a
sinusoidal shape, i.e. a net forward transfer of energy
is only possible if the net averaged transfer of helicity is zero.
Expanding upon the earlier proposal, this suggests blocking of energy transfer
due to competition with helicity, interrupted by strong dissipation
events made possible by brief, intermittent periods of large helicity
fluctuations, but no net helicity flux. The dissipation events
might then be associated with a strong dynamical coupling between
modes with oppositely signed helicity, which would permit
large helicity fluctuations, but no net helicity flux.
\section{A new shell model}
As described in the previous section, the structure of
what we call helicity in the GOY model is only partially
consistent with the helicity in the Navier-Stokes equations . Apart
from the observation that it has the right dimensions
and that it is not positive-definite,
there is an asymmetry between odd and even shells that
does not any counterpart in physical flows. One means of
overcoming this problem is to introduce two dynamical variables
in each shell, one transporting positive helicity $u_n^{+}$ and the
other transporting negative helicity $u_n^{-}$. The next step
is choosing how to couple these terms. For this, we will use
a complete decomposition of the three dimensional
Navier-Stokes eqs.\cite{waleffe92}
into a basis where the two independent components of the velocity
field at each wavenumber correspond to two pure helical waves.
In such a basis there are 4 possible independent classes
of triads interactions distinguished by the combination of
helicity transported from each one of the three interacting modes.
Let us fix, for simplicity, the three modes ${\bf q},{\bf p},{\bf k}$ such that $|{\bf k}|
< |{\bf p}| < |{\bf q}|$,
and call $u_{s_k}({\bf k}), u_{s_p}({\bf p}), u_{s_q}({\bf q})$ the three interacting
modes, where $(s_k, s_p, s_q) = (\pm 1,\pm 1,\pm 1)$ refer to the sign of
helicity in each mode.
Then, it is simple to show that each triad can fall into one
of the four following classes:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $(s_k, s_p, s_q)= (+,+,+)$, or $(-,-,-)$
\item $(s_k, s_p, s_q)= (+,+,-)$, or $(-,-,+)$
\item $(s_k, s_p, s_q)= (+,-,-)$, or $(-,+,+)$
\item $(s_k, s_p, s_q)= (-,+,-)$, or $(+,-,+)$
\end{enumerate}
Following this decomposition one is led naturally to introduce
4 classes of shell
models, each one corresponding to one of the four independent
classes of triad interaction present in Navier-Stokes eqs.
What is quite remarkable is that the original GOY model belongs
to one of this classes (the fourth). To demonstrate this, we write
the general equation for this class using
positive helicity shells $u_n^+$ and negative helicity shells $u_n^-$.
$$\frac{d}{dt} u^{+}_n =i\, k_n \left(u^{-}_{n+1}u^{+}_{n+2} +
b u^{-}_{n+1}u^{-}_{n-1}
+c u^{-}_{n-1}u^{+}_{n-2} \right)^*
-\nu k_n^2 u^{+}_n +\delta_{n,n_0}f^{+} $$
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} u^{-}_n =i\, k_n \left(u^{+}_{n+1}u^{-}_{n+2} +
b u^{+}_{n+1}u^{+}_{n-1}
+c u^{+}_{n-1}u^{-}_{n-2} \right)^*
-\nu k_n^2 u^{-}_n +\delta_{n,n_0}f^{-}.
\label{eq:pmshell}
\end{equation}
for which the conserved energy and helicity are given by:
\begin{equation}
E = \sum_n |u_n^{+}|^2 + |u_n^{-}|^2
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_n k_n(|u_n^{+}|^2 - |u_n^{-}|^2)
\end{equation}
exactly as in the Fourier-helicity decomposition of
Navier-Stokes equation \cite{waleffe92}.
By noticing that in the original
GOY model shells $n$ and $n+2$ have the same GOY-helicity, it can be seen
that (\ref{eq:pmshell}) is formed from two masked and uncorrelated
versions of the original GOY model for the dynamical
evolution of the variables $(u_1^+,u_2^-,u_3^+,...,u_{2n-1}^+,u_{2n}^-)$
and $(u_1^-,u_2^+,u_3^-,...,u_{2n-1}^-,u_{2n}^+)$. Therefore
(\ref{eq:pmshell}) has, by definition, the same behaviour
as the previous model.
{}From this, we think it is of primary importance to study in details
the dynamical behaviour of the other three shell models (corresponding
to the classes 1,2,3), allowing helicity to have all the
dynamical interactions found in Navier-Stokes.
Work in this direction is in progress and will
be reported elsewhere \cite{bbkt}.
\section{Navier-Stokes helicity}
Up to this point only ideal shell models with extra
non-positive definite invariants have been considered and how they
might be extended to more closely resemble the helicity interactions
in the Navier-Stokes equations. We would like to relate these ideas
directly to the Navier-Stokes equations. As noted, earlier attempts
at understanding the effects of helicity have emphasized its power
to block the cascade\cite{andrelesieur77,polifkeshtilman89}.
But, despite the blocking power of the extra invariant,
the shell model calculations are indicating
that the cascade can proceed through interactions
between shells where the sign of the extra invariant is opposite.
In a full calculation, we would also want to see what the effects of
helicity in physical space are. For example, there are
low Reynolds number Navier-Stokes calculations of how vortex rings
link and unlink and can generate and destroy
helicity\cite{ArefZad,MelanderHussain}.
Because spectral properties were not
analyzed and because of the low Reynolds numbers of these
simulations, strong conclusions about the effects of helicity
cannot be made from these calculations. But it can be said that
even though the initial conditions contained
large-scale helicity, small scale structures appeared and production
of helicity from viscous effects was not strongly blocked.
Therefore, initial conditions that contain significant large-scale
helicity, but show more clearly how a cascade is not blocked,
would be desireable. Whether or not production of small-scale
helicity by anisotropies plays a role, as has been
suggested\cite{FrischSheSulem_AKA87}, will not be our objective.
Simulations of isotropic, homogeneous turbulence
in a periodic box are traditionally initialized with a given spectrum, but
the phases of individual wavenumbers is completely random. To
test the effects of helicity we propose constraining
the phases of the velocity components such that the
helicity of the Fourier modes is not all of one sign,
unlike the investigations of the blocking
power of helicity\cite{polifkeshtilman89}.
Since shell models are indicating strong effects from extra invariant
fluctuations even when the average value is zero, this suggests
initializing a Navier-Stokes calculation with net zero helicity.
Several tests of this type have been done, all with one
qualitatively similar feature. Helicity when it first appears in
the spectra pops up in two neighboring bands of opposite sign,
then the bands separate. Other than this qualitatively feature,
the number of tests is not yet sufficiently
large to make definitive statements. Two cases are shown in figure 7.
Both cases are $64^3$ simulations where only a small number
of modes in wavenumber band 4 were initialized.
Each has the common feature noted, but a rich variety of additional
features as well.
In case A, each mode is initialized with
maximal helicity, but otherwise the phases were chosen randomly
(by hand) and the net helicity was zero. Very quickly the
helicity picture changes. From a zero helicity spectrum, soon
helicity of opposite sign appears in shells on opposite sides
of the initial energy shell. For a short period, time
sequences show that the helicity peak at higher wavenumber
moves to small scales until it dissipates, leaving net
helicity of the sign of the large scale peak. It is during
this phase that relative dissipation rate (dissipation/energy)
is largest. Therefore, through dissipation of helicity at small scales,
large-scale helicity is generated. Once only the large-scale
helicity peak is left, the blocking action of the helicity
at large-scales becomes important and the dissipation rate
is suppressed.
In case D, the helicity of each mode is chosen to be zero by using
free-slip boundary conditions in along central planes in the box.
All the modes except one use the same free-slip symmetry plane, with
the exception imposed to break this symmetry. From these initial
conditions helicity does not initial grow around the initial
$k=4$ wavenumber band, but around the resonance band at $k=8$.
Note that once again helicity first appears in neighboring bands
with opposite sign. Then time sequences show that the bands
move towards opposite ends of the spectrum. Once again, dissipation
is largest when the high wavenumber helicity band moves into
the dissipation band and is annihilated, then decreases when
large-scale helicity of only one sign remains.
To make this more quantitative, more calculations need to
be done and there needs to be analysis of helicity spectra
and transfer properties. But what of a relationship to the
shell models? Investigations of shell models with many more
than 2 variables per shell seem to invariably lead to
reductions in intermittency. Fully developed turbulence when
viewed as a shell model has an infinite number of degrees of
freedom and should in this sense not be intermittent. But it
is, and this is understood as being due to coherent structures
in physical space, which in Fourier space implies strong phase
correlations. The phase correlations therefore prune the number
of paths the cascade can take, returning us to simple models
with few paths and strong intermittency, such as those presented here.
Therefore, to get meaningful comparisons between 3D direct
calculations and shell models, there must be some means of
identifying the paths the cascade will follow and calculating
statistics along these paths. Given the difficulty of attaining
this, let us make some other suggestions.
First, there needs to be further work on bi-dimensional correlations
of wavenumber and time, similar to figure 3 here and in earlier
analysis\cite{kerr90,kida_when}.
The question with direct calculations is what quantities to use.
It has been found\cite{kerr90} that energy transfer spectra have a strong
signature. Helicity spectra and helicity transfer spectra
need to be analyzed in the same manner. For simulations
with a small number of initial modes, such as the examples just
given, at least for short times statistics for modes formed
by the initial interactions and their daughters could be studied.
It is our hope that analysis of new Navier-Stokes simulations of this
type, coupled with any new understanding fo the role of helicity
coming from shell models, will provide new insight into the nature
of the intermittent cascade of energy to small scales in turbulent
flows.
\vskip 0.3cm
{\bf Acknowledgements}
We thank Detlef Lohse, Leo Kadanoff and
Norbert Schoerghofer for having communicated to us their numerical
data before publication. We thank, also, Roberto Benzi, Uriel Frisch
Detlef Lohse, Leo Kadanoff, Giovanni Paladin,
Norbert Schoerghofer, Elisabetta Trovatore and Angelo Vulpiani for useful
discussion.
One of us (LB) has been partially supported by
the EEC Contract ERBCHBICT941034. NCAR is supported by the National
Science Foundation.
|
\section{Wave function of the Universe}
Investigation of the wave function of the Universe goes back to the fundamental
papers by Wheeler and DeWitt \cite{DeWitt}. However, for a long time it seemed
almost meaningless to apply the notion of the wave function to the Universe
itself,
since the Universe is not a microscopic object. Only with the development of
inflationary cosmology \cite{b14}--\cite{MyBook} it became clear that the whole
Universe could appear from a tiny part of space of the Planck length (at least
in the
chaotic inflation scenario \cite{Chaotic}). Such a tiny piece of space can
appear as a result of quantum fluctuations of metric, which should be studied
in
the context of quantum cosmology.
Unfortunately, quantum cosmology is not a well developed science. This theory
is based on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which is the Schr\"{o}dinger equation
for the wave function of the Universe. However, Bryce DeWitt, one of the
authors of this equation, in some of his talks emphasized that he is not
particularly fond of it. This equation has many solutions, and at the present
time the best method to specify preferable solutions of this equation (i.e.
its boundary conditions) is based on the Euclidean approach to quantum gravity.
This method is very powerful, but some of its applications are not well
justified. In such cases this method may give incorrect answers, but rather
paradoxically sometimes these answers appear to be correct in application to
some other questions. Therefore it becomes necessary not only to solve the
problem in the Euclidean approach, but also to check, using one's best
judgement, whether the solution is related to the original problem or to
something else. An alternative approach is based on the use of stochastic
methods in inflationary cosmology. These methods allows one to understand such
effects as creation of inflationary density perturbations, the theory of
tunneling, and even the theory of self-reproduction of inflationary universe.
Both Euclidean approach and stochastic approach to inflation have their
limitations. However, despite all its problems, quantum cosmology is a very
exciting science which changed dramatically our point of view on the structure
and evolution of the Universe.
We will begin our discussion with the issue of the Universe creation. According
to classical cosmology, the Universe appeared from the singularity in a state
of infinite density. Of course, when the density was greater than the Planck
density $M_{\rm P}^4$ one could not trust classical Einstein equations, but in
many cases there is no demonstrated need to study the Universe creation using
the methods of quantum theory. For example, in the simplest versions of chaotic
inflation scenario \cite{Chaotic} inflation, at the classical level, could
begin directly in the initial singularity. However, in certain models, such
as the Starobinsky model \cite{b14} or the new inflationary universe scenario
\cite{New}, inflation cannot start in a state of infinite density. In such
cases one may speculate about the possibility that inflationary universe
appears due to quantum tunneling ``from nothing.''
The first idea how one can describe creation of inflationary universe ``from
nothing''
was suggested in 1981 by Zeldovich \cite{Zeld} in application to the
Starobinsky
model \cite{b14}. His idea was qualitatively correct, but he did not propose
any
quantitative description of this process. A very important step in this
direction was
made in 1982 by Vilenkin \cite{NothVil}. He suggested to calculate the
Euclidean action on de
Sitter space with the energy density $V(\phi)$,
\begin{equation}
S_E = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}\left(-{R\over{16\pi G}}+V(\phi)\right) = -{3M_{\rm
P}^4\over 8 V(\phi)} \ .
\label{Action}
\end{equation}
This action was interpreted as the action on the tunneling trajectory
describing creation of the Universe with the scale factor $a = H^{-1} =
\sqrt{3 M_{\rm P}^2\over 8\pi V}$ from the state with $a = 0$. This would imply
that the probability of quantum creation of the Universe is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal P} \propto \exp (-S_E) = \exp \left({3 \over 8 V(\phi)}\right).
\label{Vil1}
\end{equation}
(In the first three sections of this review we use the system of units with
the Planck mass $M_{\rm P} = 1$.)
A year later this result received a strong support when Hartle and Hawking
reproduced
it by a different though closely related method \cite{HH}. They argued that the
wave function of the ``ground state'' of the Universe with a scale factor $a$
filled
with a scalar field $\phi$ in the semi-classical approximation
is given by
\begin{equation}\label{E31}
\Psi_0(a,\phi)\sim \exp\left(-S_E(a,\phi)\right)\ .
\end{equation}
Here $S_E(a,\phi)$ is the Euclidean action corresponding to
the Euclidean solutions of the Lagrange equation for
$a(\tau)$ and $\phi(\tau)$ with the boundary conditions
$a(0)=a, \phi(0)=\phi$.
The reason for choosing this particular wave function was explained as follows.
Let us consider the Green's function of a particle which moves from
the point $(0,t')$ to the point ${\bf x},t$:
\begin{equation}\label{E32}
<{\bf x},0|0, t'>
= \sum_n \Psi_n ({\bf x})\Psi_n(0)
\exp\left(iE_{n}(t-t')\right)
= \int d{\bf x}(t) \exp\left(iS({\bf x}(t))\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_n$ is a complete set of energy eigenstates
corresponding to the energies $E_n\geq 0$.
To obtain an expression for the ground-state wave function
$\Psi_0({\bf x})$, one should make a rotation
$t \rightarrow -i\tau$ and take the limit as
$\tau \rightarrow -\infty$\@. In the summation (\ref{E32})
only the term $n=0$ with the lowest eigenvalue $E_0 = 0$
survives, and the
integral transforms into $\int dx(\tau)\exp(-S_E(\tau))$.
Hartle and Hawking have argued that the generalization of
this result to the case of interest in the semiclassical
approximation would yield (\ref{E31}).
The gravitational action corresponding to one half of the Euclidean
section $S_4$ of de Sitter space with $a(\tau) =
H^{-1}(\phi)\cos H\tau$ ($0\leq\tau\leq H^{-1}$) is negative,
\begin{equation}\label{E33}
S_E(a, \phi) = - \frac{3\pi}{4}
\int d\eta\Bigl[\Bigl(\frac{da}{d\eta}\Bigr)^2 - a^2 +
\frac{8\pi V}{3}a^4\Bigr]
= - \frac{3}{16 V(\phi)}\ .
\end{equation}
Here $\eta$ is the conformal time, $\eta = \int {d\tau\over a(\tau)}$.
Therefore, according to \cite{HH},
\begin{equation}\label{E34}
\Psi_0(a,\phi)\sim \exp{\Bigl(-S_E(a,\phi)\Bigr)} \sim
\exp\left(\frac{3
}{16V(\phi)}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
By taking a square of this wave function one again obtains eq. (\ref{Vil1}).
The corresponding expression has a very sharp maximum as $V(\phi) \rightarrow
0$\@. This suggests that the probability of finding the Universe in a
state with a large field $\phi$ and having a long stage of
inflation should be strongly suppressed. Some authors consider it as
a strong
argument against the Hartle-Hawking wave function. However, nothing
in the
`derivation' of the Hartle-Hawking wave function tells that it describes
initial
conditions for inflation. The point of view of the authors of this wave
function
was not quite clear. They have written that their wave function gives the
amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing. On the other hand, Hawking
emphasized \cite{Hawk300} that ``instead of talking about the Universe being
created one should just say: the Universe is.'' This seems to imply that the
Hartle-Hawking wave function was not designed to describe initial
conditions at the moment of the Universe creation.
Indeed, eq. (\ref{Vil1}) from the very beginning did not seem to apply to the
probability of the Universe creation. The total energy of matter in a closed
de
Sitter space with $a(t) =
H^{-1}\cosh Ht$ is greater than its minimal volume $\sim H^{-3}$ multiplied by
$V(\phi)$, which gives the total energy of the Universe $E {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ } M_{\rm
P}^3/\sqrt
V$. Thus the minimal value of the total energy of matter contained in a
closed de Sitter universe {\it grows} when $V$ decreases. For example, in
order to create the
Universe at the Planck density $V \sim M_{\rm P}^4$ one needs no more than the
Planckian energy $M_{\rm P}
\sim 10^{-5}$ g. For the Universe to appear at the GUT energy density $V
\sim M_X^4$ one needs to create from nothing the Universe with the total energy
of
matter of the order of $M_{\rm Schwarzenegger} \sim 10^2$ kg, which is
obviously
much more difficult. Meanwhile, eq. (\ref{Vil1}) suggests that it should be
much
easier to create a huge Universe with small $V$ but enormously large total
energy
rather than a small Universe with large $V$. This seems very suspicious.
There is one particular place where the derivation (or interpretation) of eq.
(\ref{Vil1}) could go wrong.
The effective Lagrangian of the scale factor $a$ in (\ref{E33}) has a
wrong sign. The Lagrange equations do not know anything about the sign of the
Lagrangian, so we may simply change the sign before studying the tunneling.
Only
after representing the theory in a conventional form can we consider tunneling
of
the scale factor. But this then gives us the probability of quantum creation of
the
Universe
\begin{equation}
{\cal P} \propto \exp (-|S_E|) = \exp \left(-{3 \over 8 V(\phi)}\right).
\label{E366}
\end{equation}
This equation predicts that a typical initial value of the
field $\phi$ is given by
$V(\phi)\sim 1$ (if one does not speculate about the
possibility that $V(\phi) \gg 1)$, which leads to a very
long stage of inflation.
Originally I obtained this result by the method described above. However,
because of the ambiguity of the notion of tunneling from the state $a = 0$, I
was not
quite satisfied and decided to look at it from the perspective of derivation of
the
Hartle-Hawking wave function. In this approach the problem of the
wrong sign of the Lagrangian appears again, though in a somewhat different
form.
Indeed, the
total energy of a closed Universe is zero, being a sum of
the positive energy of matter and the negative energy of the
scale factor $a$.) Thus, the energy $E_n$ of the scale factor is negative, and
in
order to suppress terms with large negative $E_n$ and to
obtain $\Psi_0$ from
(\ref{E33}) one should rotate $t$ not to $-i\tau$, but to
$+i\tau$. This gives \cite{Creation}
\begin{equation}\label{E35a}
\Psi_0(a,\phi) \sim \exp\Bigl(-|S_E(a,\phi)|\Bigr) \sim\exp
\left(- \frac{3}{16V(\phi)}\right)\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{E36}
P(\phi) \sim|\Psi_0(a,\phi)|^2\sim \exp\Bigl(-2|S_E(a,\phi)|\Bigr)
\sim\exp
\left(- \frac{3}{8V(\phi)}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
Few months later this equation was also derived by
Zeldovich and Starobinsky \cite{ZelStar},
Rubakov \cite{Rubakov}, and Vilenkin \cite{Vilenkin} using the methods similar
to the first
method mentioned above (investigation of tunneling in the theory with the
wrong
sign of the Lagrangian). The corresponding wave function (\ref{E35a}) was
called ``the tunneling wave function.''
An obvious objection against this result is that it may be incorrect
to use different ways of rotating $t$ for quantization of the
scale
factor and of the scalar field. However, the idea that a consistent
quantization
of
matter coupled to gravity can be accomplished by a proper choice
of a complex contour of integration may be too optimistic. We know, for
example,
that despite
many attempts to suggest Euclidean formulation for nonequilibrium quantum
statistics
or for the field theory in a nonstationary background, such
formulation does not exist.
It is quite clear from (\ref{E32}) that the $t \rightarrow -i\tau$
trick
would not work if the spectrum $E_n$ were not bounded from below.
Absence of equilibrium, of any simple
stationary ground state seems to be a typical situation in quantum
cosmology. In
some cases where a stationary or quasistationary ground state does
exist, eq. (\ref{Vil1}) may be correct, see the next Section.
In a more general situation
it may be very difficult to obtain any simple expression for the wave
function of the Universe. However, in certain limiting cases this
problem is relatively simple. For example, at present the scale
factor
$a$ is very big and it changes very slowly, so one can consider it
to be a C-number and quantize matter fields only by rotating $t
\rightarrow
-i\tau$\@. On the other hand, in the
inflationary universe the evolution of the scalar field is very
slow;
during the typical time intervals $O(H^{-1})$ it behaves essentially
as
a classical field, so one can describe the process of the creation
of
an inflationary universe filled with a homogeneous scalar field by
quantization of
the
scale factor $a$ only and by rotation $t \rightarrow i\tau$.
Derivation of equations (\ref{Vil1}), (\ref{E36}) and their interpretation is
far
from being rigorous, and therefore even now it remains the subject of debate.
In
our opinion, the Hartle-Hawking wave function describes not the Universe
creation,
but the fluctuations of the Universe near its de Sitter ground state, under the
condition that such a state exists, see next section. Meanwhile the
distribution
(\ref{E36}) is related to the probability of creation of inflationary universe
from
nothing (or from the space-time foam). However, the two different derivations
of
this probability distribution emphasize two slightly different features of the
process. Investigation of tunneling should give the probability of quantum
creation of the Universe of a size $H^{-1}$ from the Universe with $a = 0$.
Meanwhile wave function of the ``ground state'' should give information
about some kind of probability distribution of various Universes in the
space-time
foam. We will not concentrate here on this subtle difference since we
believe that it would bring us far away from the domain of applicability of our
approach. Also, we should emphasize again that quantum tunneling is necessary
only if one cannot use the classical trajectory. In the Starobinsky model
\cite{b14}, as well as in the new inflationary universe scenario \cite{New},
creation of the Universe ``from nothing'' appears to be one of the most natural
mechanisms for inflation to begin. Meanwhile, in the simplest version of
chaotic inflation scenario the process of inflation formally may begin directly
in the singularity, in a state with infinitely large $V(\phi)$, without any
need for quantum tunneling. However, quantum tunneling in that case is possible
as well, since for $V(\phi) \sim 1$ the probability of quantum creation of
inflationary universe is not exponentially suppressed.
In the next section we will discuss stochastic approach to quantum
cosmology. Within this approach equations (\ref{Vil1}) and (\ref{E36}) can be
derived in a much more clear and rigorous way, but they will have somewhat
different interpretation.
\
\section{Wave function of the Universe and stochastic approach to inflation}
The first models of inflation were based on the standard assumption
of the
big bang theory that the Universe was created at a single moment of
time in a
state with the Planck density, and that it was hot and large (much
larger than
the Planck scale $M_{\rm P}^{-1} =1$) from the very beginning. The success
of
inflation in solving internal problems of the big bang theory
apparently
removed the last doubts concerning the big bang cosmology. Even in our
quantum mechanical treatment of the Universe production we still used the
standard idea that the Universe as a whole can be described by one scale factor
$a$, and its creation should be considered as a process beginning from $a = 0$.
Meanwhile during the last ten years the inflationary theory has
broken
the umbilical cord connecting it with the old big bang theory, and
acquired an
independent life of its own. For the practical purposes of
description of the
observable part of our Universe one may still speak about the big bang.
However, if one tries to understand the beginning of the Universe, or
its end,
or its global structure, then some of the notions of the big bang
theory become
inadequate.
For example, in the chaotic inflation
scenario \cite{Chaotic} even without taking into account quantum effects there
was no need to assume that the whole Universe
appeared from
nothing at a single moment of time associated with the big bang, that
the
Universe was hot from the very beginning and that the inflaton scalar
field
$\phi$ which drives inflation originally occupied the minimum of its
potential
energy. On the other hand, it was found that if the Universe in this scenario
contains at least one
inflationary domain of a size of horizon (`$h$-region') with a
sufficiently
large and homogeneous scalar field $\phi$, then this domain will
permanently
produce new $h$-regions of a similar type due to quantum fluctuations
\cite{b19,b20}. This process occurs in the old, new and extended inflation
scenario as well \cite{b51}--\cite{EtExInf}. Thus, instead
of a single
big bang producing a one-bubble Universe, we are speaking now about
inflationary bubbles producing new bubbles, producing new bubbles,
{\it ad
infinitum}. In this sense, inflation is not a short intermediate
stage of
duration $\sim 10^{-35}$ seconds, but a self-regenerating process,
which occurs
in some parts of the Universe even now, and which will continue
without end.
It is extremely complicated to describe an inhomogeneous self-reproducing
Universe. Fortunately, there
is a
particular
kind of stationarity of the process of the Universe self-reproduction
which
makes things more regular. Due to the no-hair theorem for de Sitter
space, the
process of production of new inflationary domains occurs
independently of any
processes outside the horizon. This process depends only on the
values of the
fields inside each $h$-region of radius $H^{-1}$. Each time a new
inflationary $h$-region is created during the Universe expansion, the
physical
processes inside this region will depend only on the properties of
the fields
inside it, but not on the `cosmic time' at which it was created.
In addition to this most profound stationarity, which we will call {\it
local
stationarity}, there may also exist some
simple stationary probability distributions which may allow us to
say, for
example, what the probability is of finding a given field $\phi$ at
a given
point. To examine this possibility one should consider the
probability
distribution $P_c(\phi, \chi,t)$, which describes the probability
of finding
the field $\phi$ at a given point at a time $t$, under the condition
that at
the time $t=0$ the field $\phi$ at this point was equal to $\chi$. The same
function also describes the probability
that the
scalar field which at time $t$ was equal to $\phi$, at some earlier
time $t=0$
was equal to $\chi$.
The probability distribution $P_c$ is in fact the
probability
distribution per unit volume in {\it comoving coordinates} (hence
the index
$c$ in $P_c$), which do not change during expansion of the
Universe. By
considering this probability distribution we neglect the main
source of the
self-reproduction of inflationary domains, which is the exponential
growth of
their volume. Therefore, in addition to $P_c$, we introduced the
probability
distribution $P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$, which describes the probability to
find a
given field configuration in a unit physical volume \cite{b19}. In
the situations where one of these distributions can be stationary, we will
speak
about {\it global stationarity}.
Let us remember some details of stochastic approach
to
inflation.
Consider the simplest model of chaotic inflation based on the
theory of
a scalar field $\phi$ minimally coupled to gravity, with the
effective
potential $V(\phi)$. If the classical field $\phi$ is sufficiently
homogeneous
in some domain of the Universe, then its behavior inside this domain
is
governed by the equation $3H\dot\phi = -dV/d\phi$, where $H^2 =
\frac{8\pi V(\phi)}{3 }$.
Investigation of these equations has shown that in all power-law potentials
$V(\phi)\sim \phi^n$ inflation occurs
at $\phi > \phi_e \sim n/6$. In the theory with an exponential potential
$V(\phi)\sim
e^{\alpha \phi}$ inflation ends only if we bend down the potential at some
point $\phi_e$;
for definiteness we will take $\phi_e = 0$ in this theory.
Inflation stretches all initial inhomogeneities. Therefore, if the
evolution of the Universe were governed solely by classical equations
of
motion, we would end up with an extremely smooth Universe with no
primordial
fluctuations to initiate the growth of galaxies.
Fortunately, new density perturbations are generated during inflation
due to
quantum effects. The wavelengths of all vacuum
fluctuations of the scalar field $\phi$ grow exponentially in the
expanding
Universe. When the wavelength of any particular fluctuation becomes
greater
than $H^{-1}$, this fluctuation stops oscillating, and its amplitude
freezes at
some nonzero value $\delta\phi (x)$ because of the large friction
term
$3H\dot{\phi}$ in the equation of motion of the field $\phi$\@. The
amplitude
of this fluctuation then remains
almost unchanged for a very long time, whereas its wavelength grows
exponentially. Therefore, the appearance of such a frozen fluctuation
is
equivalent to the appearance of a classical field $\delta\phi (x)$
that does
not vanish after averaging over macroscopic intervals of space and
time.
Because the vacuum contains fluctuations of all wavelengths,
inflation leads to
the creation of more and more perturbations of the classical field
with
wavelengths greater than $H^{-1}$\@. The average amplitude of such
perturbations generated during a time interval $H^{-1}$ (in which the
Universe
expands by a factor of e) is given by
\begin{equation}\label{E23}
|\delta\phi(x)| \approx \frac{H}{2\pi}\ .
\end{equation}
The phases of each wave are random. Therefore, the sum of all waves
at a given
point fluctuates and experiences Brownian jumps in all directions in
the space
of fields.
One can describe the stochastic behavior of the inflaton
field using diffusion equations for the probability
distribution $P_c(\phi,t|\chi)$. The first equation is called the backward
Kolmogorov equation,
\begin{equation} \label{Starb}
\frac{\partial P_c(\phi,t|\chi)}{\partial t} =
\frac{H^{3/2}(\chi)}{8\pi^2}\, \frac{\partial
}{\partial\chi}
\left({H^{3/2}(\chi)} \, \frac{\partial }{\partial\chi}
P_c(\phi,t|\chi)
\right)
- \frac{V'(\chi)}{3H(\chi)} \frac{\partial }{\partial\chi}
P_c(\phi,t|\chi) \ .
\end{equation}
In this equation one considers the value of the field $\phi$ at the
time $t$
as a constant, and finds the time dependence of the probability that
this
value was reached during the time $t$ as a result of
diffusion of the
scalar field from different possible initial values $\chi \equiv
\phi(0)$.
The second equation is the adjoint to the first one; it is called the
forward
Kolmogorov equation, or the Fokker-Planck equation \cite{Star},
\begin{equation}\label{E3711}
\frac{\partial P_c(\phi,t|\chi)}{\partial t} =
\frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\left( \frac{H^{3/2}(\phi)}{8\pi^2}\, \frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\Bigl(
{H^{3/2}(\phi)} P_c(\phi,t|\chi) \Bigr) +
\frac{V'(\phi)}{3H(\phi)} \, P_c(\phi,t|\chi)\right) \ .
\end{equation}
One may try to find a stationary solution of equations (\ref{Starb}),
(\ref{E3711}), assuming that $\frac{\partial
P_c(\phi,t|\chi)}{\partial t} =
0$.
The simplest stationary solution (subexponential factors being
omitted) would
be \cite{Star,Mijic,LLM}
\begin{equation}\label{E38a} P_c(\phi,t|\chi) \sim
\exp\left({3\over 8 V(\phi)}\right)\cdot \exp\left(-{3\over 8
V(\chi)}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
This looks like a miracle: The first term in
this expression is equal to the square of the Hartle-Hawking wave function of
the
Universe (\ref{Vil1}), whereas the second one gives the square of the
tunneling
wave
function (\ref{E36})! And we obtained this result without any ambiguous
considerations based on Euclidean approach to quantum cosmology!
At first glance, this result gives a direct confirmation and a
simple physical
interpretation of both the Hartle-Hawking wave function of the
Universe {\it
and} the tunneling wave function. First of all, we see that the distribution of
the probability to find the Universe in a state with the field $\phi$ is
proportional to $\exp\left({3\over 8 V(\phi)}\right)$. Note that we are
speaking here about the state of the Universe rather than the probability of
its creation. Meanwhile, the probability that the Universe emerged from the
state with the field $\chi$ is proportional to $\exp\left(-{3\over 8
V(\chi)}\right)$. Now we are speaking about the probability that a given part
of the Universe was created from the state with the field $\chi$, and the
result coincides with our result for the probability of the quantum creation of
the Universe, eq. (\ref{E36}).
This would be a great peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two wave
functions.
However, the situation is much more complicated. In all realistic
cosmological
theories, in which $V(\phi)=0$ at its minimum, the Hartle-Hawking
distribution
$\exp\left({3\over 8 V(\phi)}\right)$ is not normalizable. The source
of this
difficulty can be easily
understood: any stationary distribution may exist only due
to compensation of the classical flow of the field $\phi$
downwards to the minimum of $V(\phi)$ by the diffusion motion
upwards. However, diffusion of the field $\phi$ discussed
above exists only during inflation. Thus, there is no diffusion
motion upwards
from the region $\phi < \phi_e$. Therefore expression (\ref{E38a}) is not a
true solution of equation
(\ref{E3711}); all solutions with the proper boundary conditions at $\phi =
\phi_e$
(i.e. at
the end of inflation) are non-stationary (decaying) \cite{b19}.
It is possible to use the solution (\ref{E38a}) in the cases where the state
can be quasistationary. For example, in the case when the effective potential
has a local minimum with a sufficiently large $V$, this distribution gives a
correct expression for the probability of the Hawking-Moss tunneling
\cite{Star}. We were unable to find a situation in the context of inflationary
cosmology where one could ascribe a more fundamental meaning to the
Hartle-Hawking wave function, but of course this might be a result of our own
limitations.
One can get an additional insight by investigation of the probability
distribution $P_p$. In order to do so, one should write stochastic equations
for ${\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi)$, where ${\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi)$ is the total volume
of domains with the field $\phi$ originated from the domains containing field
$\chi$. The system of
stochastic
equations for ${\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi)$ can be obtained from eqs.
(\ref{Starb}),
(\ref{E3711}) by adding the term $3H{\cal V}$, which appears due to the
growth of
physical volume of the Universe by the factor $1 + 3H(\phi)\, dt$
during each
time interval $dt$ \cite{Nambu}--\cite{LLM}:
\begin{equation} \label{Starbx}
\frac{\partial {\cal V}}{\partial t} =
\frac{H^{3/2}(\chi)}{8\pi^2}\, \frac{\partial
}{\partial\chi}
\left( {H^{3/2}(\chi)} \, \frac{\partial
{\cal V}}{\partial\chi}
\right)
- \frac{V'(\chi)}{3H(\chi)} \frac{\partial {\cal V}}{\partial\chi}
+3H(\chi) {\cal V} \ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{E372}
\frac{\partial {\cal V}}{\partial t} =
\frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\left( \frac{H^{3/2}(\phi)}{8\pi^2}\, \frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\Bigl(
{H^{3/2}(\phi)} {\cal V} \Bigr) +
\frac{V'(\phi)}{3H(\phi)} \, {\cal V}\right) + 3H(\phi) {\cal V}\ .
\end{equation}
To find solutions of these equations one must specify boundary
conditions. Behavior of solutions of these equations typically is not very
sensitive to the
boundary conditions at the boundary $\phi = \phi_e$ where inflation ends; it
is sufficient to assume that the diffusion
coefficient (and, correspondingly, the first terms in the r.h.s. of equations
(\ref{Starbx}), (\ref{E372})) vanish for $\phi < \phi_e$.
The
conditions
at the Planck boundary $\phi = \phi_p$ play a more important role.
In what follows we will assume that inflation ceases to exist at $\phi >
\phi_p$ \cite{LLM}. This
leads to the boundary condition
\begin{equation}\label{PlanckBound}
{\cal V}(\phi_p,t|\chi)= {\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi_p) = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $V(\phi_p) \equiv V(\chi_p) = O(1)$.
One may try to obtain solutions of equations (\ref{Starbx}),
(\ref{E372}) in the
form of the following series of system of
eigenfunctions of the
pair of adjoint linear operators defined by the left hand sides of
the
equations below:
\begin{equation} \label{eq14}
{\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi) =
\sum_{s=1}^{\infty} { e^{\lambda_s t}\, \psi_s(\chi)\, \pi_s(\phi) }
\ .
\end{equation}
Indeed, this gives us a solution of eq. (\ref{E372}) if
\begin{equation} \label{eq15}
\frac{H^{3/2}}{8\pi^2} \frac{\partial
}{\partial\chi}
\left({H^{3/2}} \frac{\partial }{\partial\chi}
\psi_s(\chi) \right)
- \frac{V'}{3H} \frac{\partial }{\partial\chi}
\psi_s(\chi)
+ 3H \cdot \psi_s(\chi) =
\lambda_s \, \psi_s(\chi) \ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{eq17}
\frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\left( \frac{H^{3/2}}{8\pi^2} \frac{\partial }{\partial\phi}
\left({H^{3/2}} \pi_j(\phi) \right) \right)
+ \frac{\partial }{\partial\phi} \left( \frac{V'}{3H} \,
\pi_j(\phi) \right)
+ 3H\cdot \pi_j(\phi) =
\lambda_j \, \pi_j(\phi) \ .
\end{equation}
In our case (with regular boundary conditions) one can easily show
that the
spectrum of $\lambda_j$ is discrete and bounded from above. Therefore
the
asymptotic solution for ${\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi)$ in the limit $t
\rightarrow \infty$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq22}
{\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi) = e^{\lambda_1 t}\, \psi_1(\chi) \,
\pi_1(\phi)\, \cdot \left(1 + O\left( e^{-\left(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2
\right) t} \right) \right) \ .
\end{equation}
Here $\psi_1(\chi)$ is the only positive eigenfunction of eq.
(\ref{eq15}),
$\lambda_1$ is the corresponding (real) eigenvalue, and $\pi_1(\phi)$
is the eigenfunction
of the conjugate operator (\ref{eq17}) with the
same eigenvalue $\lambda_1$\@. Note, that $\lambda_1$ is
the highest eigenvalue, $\mbox{Re} \left( \lambda_1 - \lambda_2
\right) > 0 $\@. This means that the distribution
\begin{equation} \label{eq22aa}
{P}_p(\phi,t|\chi) = e^{-\lambda_1 t}
\,{\cal V}(\phi,t|\chi)
\end{equation}
gradually converges to the time-independent normalized distribution
\begin{equation} \label{eq22a}
{P}_p(\phi,\chi) \equiv
{P}_p(\phi,t \rightarrow \infty|\chi) = \psi_1(\chi) \,
\pi_1(\phi) \
{}.
\end{equation}
It is this stationary distribution that we were looking for. $
{P}_p(\phi,\chi)$ gives the
fraction of
the volume of the Universe occupied by the field $\phi$, under the
condition
that the corresponding part of the Universe at some time in the past
contained
the field $\chi$. The
remaining problem is to find the functions $\psi_1(\chi)$ and
$\pi_1(\phi)$,
and to check that all assumptions about the boundary conditions which
we made on the way to eq. (\ref{eq22}) are actually satisfied.
We have solved this problem for chaotic inflation in a wide class of
theories
including the theories with polynomial and exponential effective
potentials
$V(\phi)$ and found the corresponding stationary distributions \cite{LLM}. Here
we will present some of our results for the
theory
${\lambda\over 4}\phi^4$.
Solution of equations (\ref{eq15}) and (\ref{eq17}) for
$\psi_1(\chi)$ and
$\pi_1(\phi)$ shows that
these
functions are extremely small at $\phi\sim \phi_e$ and $\chi\sim
\chi_e$, where $\phi_e\sim \chi_e \sim 1$ correspond to the end of inflation.
These functions
grow at large $\phi$ and $\chi$, then rapidly decrease, and vanish
at $\phi =
\chi= \phi_p$. With a decrease of $\lambda$ the solutions become
more and more
sharply peaked near the Planck boundary. To give a physical interpretation to
our solutions, it will be convenient to parametrize $\lambda_1$ in the
following form: $ \lambda_1= d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}(\lambda)$. Here $d$ is the
so-called fractal dimension of inflationary universe \cite{ArVil,LLM}, and
$H_{\rm \max} $ is the maximal value of the Hubble constant in the model under
consideration. For example, in the models where inflation ceases to exist at
the Planck density $V(\phi) = 1$ the maximal value of the Hubble constant is
given by $2\sqrt{2\pi\over 3}$. The eigenvalues $d(\lambda)$
corresponding to
different coupling constants $\lambda$ are given by the following
table:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
$\lambda$ & $1$ & $10^{-1}$ & $10^{-2}$ & $10^{-3}$ & $10^{-4}$
& $10^{-5}$ & $10^{-6}$ \\
\hline
$d$ & 0.9719 & 1.526 & 1.915 & 2.213 & 2.438 & 2.604 & 2.724
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
As we see, in the limit $\lambda \to 0$ the fractal dimension $d(\lambda)$
grows toward
the usual space dimension $3$.
It is very interesting to study the behavior of $P_p$ at small $\phi$ and
$\chi$, i.e. at the stage which determines the structure of the observable part
of the Universe. One could expect to find a dependence similar to the one given
by eq. (\ref{E38a}), i.e. $P_p\sim \exp\left({3\over 8 V(\phi)}\right)\cdot
\exp\left(-{3\over 8
V(\chi)}\right)$. Indeed, this remains true for the dependence of $P_p$ on
$\chi$. Meanwhile, since there is no diffusion term at $\phi < \phi_e$, the
solution at small $\phi> \phi_e$ should match the solution obtained by
neglecting the first (diffusion) term at $\phi < \phi_e$. As a result, instead
of the product of the Hartle-Hawking and the tunneling solution for the theory
${\lambda\over 4} \phi^4$ for small $\phi$ and $\chi$ (for $\phi, \chi <
\lambda^{-1/8}$) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{SMALLPHI}
{\cal V}(\phi,\chi,t)\, =\, e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}t}~ {P}_p(\phi,\chi)\,
\sim\, e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}t}~ \phi^{\sqrt{6\pi\over
\lambda}\lambda_1}~ \exp\left(-{3\over 8
V(\chi)}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
Thus, the square of the tunneling wave function is here, but the square of the
Hartle-Hawking wave function dropped away. The dependence of ${\cal
V}(\phi,\chi,t)$ on $\chi$ and $\phi$ is extremely sharp. For example, for
the realistic value
$\lambda \sim 10^{-13}$
one has $ {P}_p(\phi,\chi) \sim e^{10^{13}\chi^{-4}} \, \phi^{10^8}$.
The factor $e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}t}$ controls the speed of exponential
expansion of
the volume filled by a given field $\phi$. {\it This speed does not
depend on
the field $\phi$}, and has the same order of magnitude as the speed
of
expansion at the Planck density. One should emphasize that the factor $e^{
d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}t}$
gives the rate of growth of the combined volume
of all domains with a given field $\phi$ (or of all domains
containing matter with a given density) {\it not only at very
large $\phi$, where quantum fluctuations are large, but at small
$\phi$ as well, and even after inflation} \cite{LLM}. This
result may seem absolutely unexpected, since the volume of each
particular inflationary domain grows like $e^{3H(\phi)t}$, and
after inflation the law of expansion becomes completely
different. One should distinguish, however, between the growth
of each particular domain, accompanied by a decrease of density
inside it, and the growth of the total volume of all domains
containing matter with a given (constant) density. In the
standard big bang theory the second possibility did not exist,
since the energy density was assumed to be the same in all
parts of the Universe (``cosmological principle''), and it was
not constant in time.
The reason why there is a universal expansion rate $e^{\lambda_1 t}$
can be understood as follows. Because of the self-reproduction
of the Universe there always exist many domains with $\phi \sim
\phi_{p}$, and their combined volume grows almost as fast as
$e^{3H(\phi_p) t}$. Then the field $\phi$ inside some of these
domains decreases. The total volume of domains containing some
small field $\phi$ grows not only due to expansion $\sim
e^{3H(\phi_p) t}$, but mainly due to the unceasing process of
expansion of domains with large $\phi$ and their subsequent
rolling (or diffusion) towards small $\phi$.
The distribution ${P}_p(\phi, \chi) = \psi_1(\chi) \,
\pi_1(\phi)$
which we have obtained does not depend on time $t$. However, in
general
relativity one may use many different time parametrizations, and the
same
physics can be described
differently in different `times'. One of the most natural choices of
time in
the context of stochastic approach to inflation is the time $\tau =
\ln{{a\left(x, t \right) \over a(x,0)}} = \int{H(\phi(x,t),t)\ dt}$
\cite{Star,Bond}. Here $a\left(x, t \right)$ is a local value of the
scale
factor in the inflationary universe. By using this time variable, we
were able
to obtain not only numerical solutions to the stochastic equations,
but also
simple asymptotic expressions describing these solutions. For
example, for the
theory ${\lambda\over 4 } \phi^4$ both the eigenvalue $\lambda_1$ and
the `fractal dimension' $d_f$ (which in this case refers both to the
Planck
boundary at $\phi_p$ and to the end of inflation at $\phi_e$) are
given by $d_f
= \lambda_1 \sim 3-1.1\, \sqrt \lambda$, and the stationary
distribution is \cite{LLM}
\begin{eqnarray}
{P}_p(\phi,\chi) &\sim & \exp\Bigl(-{3\over
8V(\chi)}\Bigr)\,
\Bigl({1\over V(\chi)+0.4} - {1\over1.4}\Bigr)\, \cdot \, \phi
\,\exp\Bigl(-{\pi\, (3-\lambda_1)\phi^2}\Bigr) \nonumber \\
&\sim & \exp\Bigl(-{3\over 2 \lambda\, \chi^4}\Bigr)\, \Bigl({4\over
\lambda
\chi^4+1.6} - {1\over1.4}\Bigr)\, \cdot \, \phi \, \exp\Bigl(- 3.5
\sqrt\lambda\phi^2\Bigr)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
The first factor again coincides with the square of the tunneling
wave
function, and again there is no trace of the Hartle-Hawking wave function. This
expression is valid in the whole
interval from
$\phi_e$ to $\phi_p$ and it correctly describes asymptotic behavior
of
${P}_p(\phi,\chi)$ both at $\chi \sim \chi_e$ and at
$\chi \sim
\chi_p$.
A similar investigation can be carried out for the theory $V(\phi) =
V_o\
e^{\alpha\phi}$. The corresponding solution is
\begin{eqnarray}
{P}_p(\phi,\chi) &\sim & \exp\Bigl(-{3\over
8V(\chi)}\Bigr)\,
\Bigl({1\over V(\chi)} - {1}\Bigr)\, \cdot \, \Bigl({1\over V(\phi)}
-
{1}\Bigr)\, V^{-1/2}(\phi)\ .
\end{eqnarray}
This expression gives a rather good approximation for
${P}_p(\phi,\chi)$ for all $\phi$ and $\chi$.
The main result is that under certain conditions the
properties of
our Universe can be described by a time-independent probability
distribution, which we have found for theories with polynomial and
exponential
effective potentials. Thus, inflation solves many problems of the big bang
theory and
ensures that
this theory provides an excellent description of the local structure
of the
Universe. However, after making all kinds of improvements of this
theory, we
are now winding up with a model of a stationary Universe, in
which the
notion of the big bang loses its dominant position, being removed
to the indefinite past.
\section{\label{predictions} Predictions in quantum cosmology}
\subsection{Moderate approach: comparing probabilities within the same
Universe}
When inflationary theory was first formulated, we did not know
how much it was going to influence our understanding of the structure of the
Universe. We were happy that inflation provided an easy explanation of the
homogeneity of the Universe. However, we did not know that the same theory
simultaneously predicts that on the extremely large scale the Universe becomes
entirely inhomogeneous, and that this inhomogeneity is good, since it is one of
the manifestations of the process of self-reproduction of inflationary
Universe.
The new picture of the Universe which emerges now is very unusual, and we are
still in the process of learning how to ask proper questions in the context of
the new cosmological paradigm. Previously we assumed that we live in a
Universe which has the same properties everywhere (``cosmological principle'').
Then one could make a guess about the most natural initial conditions in the
Universe, and all the rest followed almost automatically. Now we learned that
even if one begins with a non-uniform Universe, later it becomes extremely
homogeneous on a very large scale. However, simultaneously it becomes
absolutely non-uniform on a much greater scale. the Universe becomes divided
into different exponentially large regions where the laws of low-energy physics
can be different. In certain cases the relative fraction of volume of the
Universe in a state with given fields or with a given density does not depend
on time, whereas the total volume of all parts of the Universe continues
growing exponentially.
This change of the picture of the world is important by itself. However, it
would be even better if we could use it to make certain predictions based on
this picture. In this situation the problem of introduction of a proper
measure of probability becomes
most important. One of the most natural choices of such measure is given by
the probability distribution $ P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$. The hypothesis behind this
proposal is that we are typical, and therefore we live in those parts of the
Universe where most other people do. The total number of people which can
live in domains with given properties should be proportional to the total
volume of these domains. There are two versions of this hypothesis, the
moderate and the radical ones. The moderate version is based on investigation
of $P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$ \cite{b19,LLM,GBLL}. If this distribution is stationary,
then it seems
reasonable to use it as a measure of the total volume of domains with any
particular properties at any
given moment of time $t$.
The first example of this approach is given by the consideration of the axion
problem. In the non-inflationary cosmology it was shown that the axion mass
should be greater than $10^{-5}$ eV in order to avoid having too much energy
stored in the axion field \cite{axion}.
However, the derivation of this constraint fails in inflationary cosmology if
one takes into account quantum fluctuations of the axion field and eternal
production of domains where this field takes all its possible values. Then it
can be shown that life of our type can appear only in those domains where the
axion field is sufficiently small and under certain conditions discussed in
\cite{LinAx} the standard constraint $m_a >10^{-5}$ eV disappears.
Another interesting example is given by the probability distribution for
finding the most probable
values of the effective gravitational constant in the Brans-Dicke inflationary
cosmology \cite{GBLL}. We have shown there that inflation in
the Brans-Dicke theory leads to division of the Universe into different
exponentially large domains with different values of the gravitational
constant, and, correspondingly, with different values of density perturbations.
Then one can use the probability distribution $P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$ to find most
probable values of the gravitational constant. In this approach it is possible
either to explain the anomalously large value of the Planck mass, or at least
relate it to certain small parameters in the theory, e.g. to the small
anisotropy of the microwave background radiation. Note, that the very language
which we are using may sound somewhat strange. Indeed, typically the purpose is
to express the anisotropy of the microwave background radiation via some
fundamental parameters of the theory. In our case the Planck mass is not
fundamental, and its value is anomalously large in those domains where the
microwave background radiation is anomalously small.
In what follows
I will briefly describe some nonperturbative effects which may lead to a
considerable local deviation of density from the critical density of a flat
Universe \cite{OPEN}.
Let us consider all parts of inflationary universe which contain a given field
$\phi$ at a given moment of time $t$. One may wonder, what was the value of
this field in those domains at the moment $t - H^{-1}$ ? The answer is simple:
One should add to $\phi$ the value of its classical drift $\Delta \phi$ during
the time $H^{-1}$, $\Delta \phi = \dot\phi H^{-1}$. One should also add the
amplitude of a quantum jump $\delta \phi$. The typical jump is given by
$\delta \phi = \pm {H\over 2\pi}$. At the last stages of inflation this
quantity is by many orders of magnitude smaller than $\Delta \phi$. However, in
which sense jumps $\pm {H\over 2\pi}$ are typical? If we consider any
particular initial value of the field $\phi$, then the typical jump from this
point is indeed given by $\pm {H\over 2\pi}$. However, if we are considering
all domains with a given $\phi$ and trying to find all those domains from which
the field $\phi$ could originate back in time, the answer may be quite
different. Indeed, the total volume of all domains with a given field $\phi$
at any moment of time $t$ strongly depends on $\phi$: \,${P}_p(\phi)
\sim \phi^{\sqrt{6\pi\over \lambda}\lambda_1} \sim \phi^{10^8}$, see eq.
(\ref{SMALLPHI}). This means that the total volume of all domains which could
jump towards the given field $\phi$ from the value $\phi +\delta \phi$ will be
enhanced by a large additional factor $ {{P}_p(\phi +\delta \phi)\over
{P}_p(\phi)} \sim \Bigl(1+{\delta\phi\over \phi}\Bigr)^{\sqrt{6\pi\over
\lambda}\lambda_1}$. On the other hand, the probability of large jumps
$\delta\phi$ is suppressed by the Gaussian factor
$\exp\Bigl(-{2\pi^2\delta\phi^2\over H^2}\Bigr)$.
One can easily verify that the product of these two factors has a sharp maximum
at $\delta\phi = \lambda_1 \phi \cdot {H\over 2\pi}$, and the width of this
maximum is of the order ${H\over 2\pi}$. In other words, most of the domains of
a given field $\phi$ are formed due to jumps which are greater than the
``typical'' ones by a factor $\lambda_1 \phi \pm O(1) $.
Our part of the Universe in the inflationary scenario with $V(\phi) =
{\lambda\over 4} \phi^4$ is formed at $\phi~\sim~5$ (in the units $M_{\rm P} =
1$),
and the constant $\lambda_1 \approx 2\sqrt{6\pi} \sim 8.68$ for our choice of
boundary conditions. This means that our part of the Universe should be
created as a result of a jump down which is about $\lambda_1 \phi \sim 40$
times greater than the standard jump. The standard jumps lead to density
perturbations of the amplitude $\delta\rho \sim 5\cdot10^{-5} \rho_c$ (in the
normalization of \cite{MyBook}). Thus, according to our nonperturbative
analysis, we should live inside a region where density is smaller than the
critical density by about $\delta\rho \sim 2\cdot10^{-3} \rho_c$. As we already
mentioned, the probability of such fluctuations should be suppressed by
$\exp\Bigl(-{2\pi^2\delta\phi^2\over H^2}\Bigr)$, which in our case gives the
suppression factor $ \sim \exp(-10^3)$. It is well known that exponentially
suppressed perturbations typically give rise to spherically symmetric bubbles.
Note also, that the Gaussian distribution suppressing the amplitude of the
perturbations refers to the amplitude of a perturbation in its maximum. It is
possible that we live not in the place corresponding to the maximum of the
fluctuation. However, this could only happen if the nonperturbative jump down
was even greater in the amplitude that we expected. Meanwhile, as we already
mentioned, the distribution of the amplitudes of such jumps has width of only
about ${H\over 2\pi}$. This means that we should live very close to the center
of the giant fluctuation, and the difference of energy densities between the
place where we live and the center of the ``bubble'' should be only about the
same amplitude as the typical perturbative fluctuation $\delta\rho \sim
5\cdot10^{-5} \rho_c$. In other words, we should live very close to the center
of the nearly perfect spherically symmetric bubble, which contains matter with
a smaller energy density than the matter outside it.
It is very tempting to interpret this effect in such a way that the Universe
around us becomes locally open. The true
description of this effect is, of course, much more complicated; perhaps we
should see the Hubble constant decreasing at large distances.
This effect is extremely unusual. We became partially satisfied by our
understanding of this effect only after we confirmed its existence by four
different methods, including computer simulations \cite{OPEN}. However, it may
happen that what we have found is simply a mathematical property of some
particular hypersurfaces in inflationary universe, and it does not have any
implications for the part of the Universe where we live.
Indeed, it is quite legitimate to use the distributions like $P_p$ for
descriptions of the structure of inflationary universe. However, it is not
quite clear whether one can use them to evaluate probabilities. For example,
instead of using the distribution
$P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$ one may use the distribution $P_p(\phi,\chi \tau)$, where
$\tau \sim \log a$, and many of our result (though not all of them) will change
dramatically \cite{LLM,GBLL}. Still another answer will be obtained if one uses
some other cut-off procedure, see \cite{VilNew}. The source of this
ambiguity can be easily understood. The total volume of all parts of an
eternally inflating Universe is infinite in the limit $t \to \infty$ (or $\tau
\to \infty$). Therefore when we are trying to compare volumes of domains with
different properties, we are comparing infinities. This leads to answers
depending on the way we are making this comparison.
It is possible that eventually we will resolve this problem. Still it will not
guarantee that we are on the right track.
Our use of $P_p$ as a probability measure was based on two hidden assumptions.
The first assumption is that we are typical observers. The second assumption
is that the number of typical observers is directly proportional to the volume
of the Universe.
If this is correct, then we should live in the place where most observers live,
which should correspond to a maximum of $P_p$.
However, is it absolutely clear that the probability for an observer to be
born in a particular part of the Universe is directly proportional to its
volume, or one should take into account something else? One cannot get any crop
even from a very large field without
having seeds first. The idea that life appears automatically
once there is enough space to be populated may be too primitive.
It is based on the assumption that one can describe emergence of life solely in
terms of physics. It is
certainly a most economical approach, and one should try to go as far as
possible without invoking additional hypotheses. However, one should keep in
mind that this approach may happen to be incomplete, especially if
consciousness has its own
degrees of freedom \cite{MyBook,Page}.
Another related question is whether we are actually typical? Does it make any
sense for each of us to calculate {\it a posteriori} what was the probability
to be born Russian, Italian or Chinese? Should we insist on our own
mediocrity, or, {\it vice versa}, should we try to explain why are we so
special? After all, for a long time we thought that we had the aristocratic
privilege to be the most intelligent species in the Universe. This, of course,
may be wrong. Still, before using probabilities to calculate the likelihood of
our existence in a particular part of the Universe, it may be a good idea to
learn more about ourselves. I would take a certain risk to make a conjecture
that until we understand what is our life and what is the nature of
consciousness our understanding of quantum cosmology will remain
fundamentally incomplete.
\subsection{A more radical approach: comparing Universes with different
coupling constants}
Previously we compared volume of the parts of the Universe with some particular
properties within one Universe. A more ambiguous program is based on a
combination of the baby Universe theory and stochastic approach to inflation.
The idea is that the coupling constants may take different values in different
Universes, or, more precisely, in different quantum states of the Universe
\cite{Coleman}. If this is the case, then perhaps we should live in those
Universes where conditions are better and the total volume suitable for life is
greater \cite{LinCosm}--\cite{GBL}.
The total volume is given by ${\cal V}(\phi,\chi,t) = e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm
\max}(\lambda)t}\, P_p(\phi,\chi,t)$. The first term in this expression is
especially important. If (and this is a big ``if''!) one can compare the
volumes of different Universes with different coupling constants at the same
time $t$, the greatest volume will be occupied by the Universes with the
largest product $d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}(\lambda)$. For stationary
$P_p(\phi,\chi,t) = P_p(\phi,\chi)$ the exponential growth of ${\cal
V}(\phi,\chi,t)$ in the state with the largest $d(\lambda) H_{\rm
\max}(\lambda)$ eventually beats all anthropic considerations. This may lead to
a very sharp prediction of the coupling constants which maximize $d(\lambda)
H_{\rm \max}(\lambda)$.
Unfortunately, this immediately leads to a trouble. For example, in
our investigation of the theory ${\lambda\over 4}\phi^4$ we have found that
$H_{\rm max}= 2\sqrt{2\pi\over 3}$ does not depend on $\lambda$, whereas the
fractal dimension $d(\lambda)$ has its maximum $d = 3$ in the limit $\lambda =
0$. This is a rather general conclusion which seems to suggest that the
inflationary effective potential should be absolutely flat. But then there will
be no density perturbations which are necessary for galaxy formation. One may
try to avoid the problem with density perturbations assuming that they will be
produced by cosmic strings \cite{Vil,Al}, but in the theory with absolutely
flat potentials there will be no reheating and no cosmic strings. One may argue
that this means that the potential should be {\it almost} flat, i.e. that it
should be curved just enough to allow baryons and strings to be produced and
life to appear. In fact, in such a case strings are not necessary. For example,
one may consider the hybrid inflation model \cite{Hybrid}. In this model
one can have good inflation and sufficiently large density perturbations
without any need for cosmic strings even if the potential is extremely (though
not exactly) flat. But the problem is that the gain in $e^{ d(\lambda)
H_{\rm \max}(\lambda)t}$ eventually always beats the anthropic considerations,
which pushes us towards the models with {\it exactly} flat potentials. If the
effective potential is exactly flat, we have no reheating and no regular
density perturbations, but even in this case life may appear in an infinite
empty Universe with a very small but finite probability due to extremely
improbable quantum fluctuations. Even though such conditions are extremely
improbable, eventually we will be compensated by the indefinitely large growth
of volume due to the term $e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm \max}(\lambda)t}$. However,
in such a scenario there is no reason for our part of the Universe to be
homogeneous on the scale $10^{28}$ cm, which is much greater than what is
needed for our existence.
One may also argue that if quantum cosmology pushes us outside of the limits
of our normal existence, it probably puts us at the verge of being immediately
extinct.
Another example is related to the cosmological constant problem. Adding it to
the Lagrangian also tends to increase $d(\lambda)$. Thus the considerations
based on the investigation of the factor $e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm
\max}(\lambda)t}$ may push us towards very large values of the vacuum energy
density \cite{Vil}. Of course, one cannot go too far since our life cannot
exist if the vacuum energy density is too large. However, anthropic
considerations allow vacuum energy density $V_0$ two orders of magnitude
greater than the critical density $\sim 10^{-29}$g$\cdot$cm$^{-3}$, i.e. two
orders of magnitude greater than
the present observational constraints on $V_0$ \cite{Weinberg82}. Moreover, as
we just mentioned, the rapidly growing factor $e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm
\max}(\lambda)t}$ should beat all anthropic considerations and should push
$V_0$ even higher, which would be in a definite contradiction with the
observational data.
This indicates that something should be modified either in the radical
approach described in this subsection or in our choice of the theories to
which we applied this approach \cite{GBL}. Each of these possibilities can be
true. First of all, it is not quite clear whether it makes any sense at all to
compare volume of different Universes (rather than volume of different parts
of the same Universe) at the same time. Then, in certain theories the
probability distribution ${\cal V}(\phi,\chi,t)$ is not stationary
\cite{GBLL}, so it cannot be represented as $e^{ d(\lambda) H_{\rm
\max}(\lambda)t}\, P_p(\phi,\chi)$. Finally, under certain conditions the
fastest growth of ${\cal V}(\phi,\chi,t)$ appears in the theories where the
effective potential is not flat and the cosmological constant is not large
\cite{GBL}. For example, adding a positive cosmological constant in the
Starobinsky model {\it decreases} the rate of expansion. This pushes the
cosmological constant to zero \cite{GBL}. Unfortunately, this cannot be
considered as a possible solution of the cosmological constant problem since
the same mechanism may push the cosmological constant even further, toward its
negative values. To solve the cosmological constant problem it would be
necessary to find a mechanism which pushes it to zero from both sides.
It would be premature to make any final conclusions about the radical approach
described above. The idea to use stochastic approach to inflation in order to
understand our place in the world is extremely attractive. However, this
powerful weapon should be used with caution, especially when one tries to
extend its limits of applicability and use it in the context of the baby
Universe theory.
A possible attitude towards this approach is to consider it as a kind of
``theoretical experiment.'' We may try to use probabilistic considerations in
our trial-and-error approach to quantum cosmology. If we get unreasonable
results, this may serve as an indication that we are using quantum cosmology
incorrectly. However, if we solve some problems which could not be solved in
any other way, then we will have a reason to believe that we are moving in the
right direction. In our opinion, at the present moment we do not have
sufficient reasons to believe that the effective potential should be exactly
flat, that the density perturbations should be produced by strings appearing
after inflation, and that the cosmological constant should be as large as
possible. On the other hand, it is not excluded that the stochastic approach to
inflation, or some of its generalizations, will help us to solve the
cosmological constant problem. This possibility certainly deserves further
investigation.
We will return to the possibility of making predictions and calculating
probabilities in quantum cosmology in the next section, where we will consider
the model of an open inflationary universe.
\
\section{Inflation with $\Omega \not = 1$}
\subsection{Inflation and flatness of the Universe}
One of the most robust predictions of inflationary cosmology is that the
Universe after inflation becomes extremely flat, which corresponds to $\Omega =
1$. Here $\Omega = {\rho\over \rho_c}$,\, $\rho_c$ being the energy density of
a
flat Universe. There were many good reasons to believe that this prediction
was quite generic. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to assume that the
Universe inflated only by about $e^{60}$ times. Exact value of the number of
e-foldings $N$ depends on details of the theory and may somewhat differ from
60. It is important, however, that in any particular theory inflation by
extra 2 or 3 e-foldings would make the Universe with $\Omega = 0.5$ or with
$\Omega = 1.5$ almost exactly flat. Meanwhile, the typical number of
e-foldings in chaotic inflation scenario in the theory ${m^2\over 2}
\phi^2$ is not 60 but rather $10^{12}$.
One can construct models where
inflation leads to expansion of the Universe by the factor $e^{60}$. However,
in most of such models small number of e-foldings simultaneously implies that
density perturbations
are extremely large. It may be possible to overcome this obstacle by a
specific choice of the
effective potential. However, this would be only a partial solution. If
the Universe
does not inflate long enough to become flat, then by the same token it
does not inflate long enough to become homogeneous and isotropic.
Thus, the main reason why it is difficult to construct inflationary models
with $\Omega \not = 1$ is not the issue of fine tuning of the parameters of the
models, which is necessary to obtain the Universe inflating exactly $e^{60}$
times, but the problem of obtaining a homogeneous Universe after inflation.
Fortunately, it is possible to solve this problem, both for a closed Universe
\cite{Lab} and for an open one \cite{Gott}--\cite{Arthur}. The
main idea is to use the well known fact that the region of space created in the
process of a quantum tunneling tends to have a spherically symmetric shape,
and homogeneous interior, if the tunneling process is suppressed strongly
enough. Then such bubbles of a new phase tend to evolve (expand) in a
spherically symmetric
fashion. Thus, if one
could associate the whole visible part of the Universe with an interior of one
such region, one would solve the homogeneity problem, and then all other
problems
will be solved by the subsequent relatively short stage of inflation.
For a closed Universe the realization of this program is relatively
straightforward
\cite{Lab,Omega}. One should consider the process of quantum creation of a
closed inflationary universe from ``nothing.'' If the probability of such a
process is exponentially suppressed (and this is indeed the case if inflation
is possible only at the energy density much smaller than the Planck density
\cite{Creation}), then the Universe created that way will be rather
homogeneous from the very beginning.
The situation with an open Universe is much more complicated. Indeed, an open
Universe is infinite, and it may seem impossible to create an infinite Universe
by a tunneling process. Fortunately, this is not the case: any bubble formed in
the process of the false vacuum decay looks from inside like an infinite open
Universe \cite{CL}.
If this Universe continues inflating
inside the bubble \cite{Gott}--\cite{Arthur}, then we obtain an open
inflationary
Universe.
These possibilities became a subject of an active investigation only very
recently, and there are still many questions to be addressed. First of all, the
bubbles created by tunneling are not {\it absolutely} uniform even if the
probability of tunneling is very small. This may easily spoil the whole
scenario since in the
end of the day we need to explain why the microwave background radiation is
isotropic with an accuracy of about $10^{-5}$. Previously we did not care much
about initial homogeneities, but if the stage of inflation is short, we will
the see original
inhomogeneities imprinted in the perturbations of the microwave background
radiation.
The second problem is to construct realistic inflationary models where all
these ideas could be realized in a natural way. Whereas for the closed Universe
this problem can be easily solved \cite{Lab,Omega}, for an open Universe we
again meet complications. It would be very nice to to obtain an open Universe
in a theory of just one scalar field \cite{BGT}. However, in practice it is
not very easy to obtain a satisfactory model of this type. Typically one is
forced either to introduce very complicated effective potentials, or consider
theories with nonminimal kinetic terms for the inflaton field \cite{Bucher}.
This makes the models not only
fine-tuned, but also rather complicated. It is very good to know that the
models of such type in principle can be constructed, but it is also very
tempting to find a
more natural realization of the inflationary universe scenario which would
give
inflation with $\Omega < 1$.
This goal
can be achieved if one considers models of two
scalar fields \cite{Omega}. One of them may be the standard inflaton
field
$\phi$ with a relatively small mass, another may be, e.g., the scalar field
responsible for the symmetry breaking in GUTs. The presence of two scalar
fields allows one to obtain the required bending of the inflaton potential by
simply changing the definition of the inflaton field in the process of
inflation. At the first stage the role of the inflaton is played by a heavy
field with a steep barrier in its potential, while on the second stage the
role of the inflaton is played by a light field, rolling in a flat direction
``orthogonal'' to the direction of quantum tunneling. This change of the
direction of evolution in the space of scalar fields removes the naturalness
constraints for the form of the potential, which are present in the case of one
field.
Inflationary models of this type
are quite simple, yet they have many interesting features. In these models
the Universe consists of infinitely many expanding bubbles immersed into
exponentially expanding false vacuum state. Each of these bubbles inside looks
like an open Universe, but the values of $\Omega$ in these Universes may take
any value from $1$ to $0$.
In some of these models the situation is even more complicated: Interior of
each bubble looks like an infinite Universe with an effective value of
$\Omega$
slowly decreasing to $\Omega = 0$ at an exponentially large distance from the
center of the bubble. We will call such Universes quasiopen. Thus, rather
unexpectedly, we are obtaining a large variety of interesting and previously
unexplored possibilities. Our discussion of these possibilities will follow our
recent paper with Arthur Mezhlumian \cite{Arthur}.
\subsection{\label{Bubbles} Tunneling probability and spherical symmetry}
Typically it is assumed that the bubbles containing open Universes are
exactly
spherically symmetric (or, to be more accurate, $O(3,1)$-symmetric \cite{CL}).
Meanwhile in realistic situations this condition may be violated for several
reasons. First of all, the bubble may be formed not quite symmetric. Then its
shape may change even further due to growth of its initial inhomogeneities and
due to quantum fluctuations which appear during the bubble wall expansion. As
we will see, this may cause a lot of problems if one wishes to maintain the
degree of anisotropy of the microwave background radiation inside the bubble at
the level of $10^{-5}$.
First of all, let us consider the issue of symmetry of a bubble at the moment
of its formation. For simplicity we will investigate the models where tunneling
can be described in the thin wall approximation. We will neglect gravitational
effects, which is possible as far as the initial radius $r$ of the bubble is
much smaller than $H^{-1}$. In this approximation (which works rather well for
the models to be discussed)
euclidean action of the $O(4)$-symmetric instanton describing bubble formation
is given by
\begin{equation}\label{o6}
S = - {\epsilon\over 2} \pi^2 r^4 + 2\pi^2 r^3 s \ .
\end{equation}
Here $r$ is the radius of the bubble at the moment of its formation, $\epsilon$
is the difference of $V(\phi)$ between the false vacuum $\phi_{\rm initial}$
and the true vacuum $\phi_{\rm final}$, and $s$ is the surface tension,
\begin{equation}\label{o7}
s = \, \int_{\phi_{\rm initial}}^{\phi_{\rm final}} \sqrt{ 2(V(\phi) -
V(\phi_{\rm
final}))}\, d\phi \ .
\end{equation}
The radius of the bubble can be obtained from the extremum of (\ref{o6})
with respect to $r$:
\begin{equation}\label{o8}
r = {3s\over \epsilon } \ .
\end{equation}
Let us check how the action $S $ will change if one consider a bubble of a
radius $r + \Delta r$. Since the first derivative of $S $ at its extremum
vanishes, the change will be determined by its second derivative,
\begin{equation}\label{09}
\Delta S = {1\over 2} S'' (\Delta r)^2 = 9\pi^2\, {s^2\over \epsilon}\, (\Delta
r)^2 \ .
\end{equation}
Now we should remember that all trajectories which have an action different
from the action at extremum by no more than $1$ are quite legitimate. Thus the
typical deviation of the radius of the bubble from its classical value
(\ref{o8}) can be estimated from the condition $\Delta S \sim 1$, which gives
\begin{equation}\label{o10}
|\Delta r| \sim {\sqrt\epsilon\over 3\pi \,s} \ .
\end{equation}
Note, that even though we considered spherically symmetric perturbations, our
estimate is based on corrections proportional to $(\delta r)^2$, and
therefore it should remain valid for perturbations which have an amplitude
$\Delta r$, but change their sign in different parts of the bubble surface.
Thus, eq. (\ref{o10}) gives an estimate of a typical degree of asymmetry of the
bubble at the moment of its creation:
\begin{equation}\label{o11}
A(r) \equiv {|\Delta r| \over r} \sim {\epsilon\sqrt\epsilon\over 3\pi \,s^2}
\ .
\end{equation}
This simple estimate exactly coincides with the corresponding result obtained
by Garriga and Vilenkin \cite{VilGarr} in their study of quantum fluctuations
of bubble walls. It was shown in \cite{VilGarr} that when an empty bubble
begins
expanding, the typical deviation $\Delta r$ remains constant. Therefore the
asymmetry given by the ratio ${|\Delta r| \over r}$ gradually vanishes. This is
a pretty general result: Waves produced by a brick falling to a pond do not
have the shape of a brick, but gradually become circles.
However, in our case the situation is somewhat more complicated. The wavefront
produced by a brick in inflationary background preserves the shape of the brick
if its size is much greater than $H^{-1}$. Indeed, the wavefront moves with
the speed approaching the speed of light, whereas the distance between
different parts of a region with initial size greater than $H^{-1}$ grows with
a much greater (and ever increasing) speed. This means that inflation
stretches the wavefront without changing its shape on scale much greater than
$H^{-1}$. Therefore during inflation which
continues inside the bubble the symmetrization of its shape occurs only in
the very beginning, until the radius of the bubble approaches $H^{-1}$. At this
first stage expansion of the bubble occurs mainly due to the motion of the
walls rather than due to inflationary stretching of the Universe, and our
estimate of the bubble wall asymmetry as well as the results obtained by
Garriga and Vilenkin for the empty bubble remain valid. At the moment when the
radius of the bubble becomes equal to $H^{-1}$ its asymmetry
becomes
\begin{equation}\label{o12}
A(H^{-1}) \sim {|\Delta r| H} \sim {\sqrt\epsilon H\over 3\pi \,s} \ ,
\end{equation}
and the subsequent expansion of the bubble does not change this value very
much. Note that the Hubble constant here is determined by the vacuum energy
{\it
after} the tunneling, which may differ from the initial energy density
$\epsilon$.
The deviation of the shape of the
bubble from spherical symmetry implies that the beginning of the second stage
of inflation inside the bubble will be not exactly synchronous, with the delay
time $\Delta t \sim \Delta r$. This, as usual, may lead to adiabatic density
perturbations on the
horizon scale of the order of $H\Delta t$, which coincides with the bubble
asymmetry $A$ after its size becomes greater than $H^{-1}$, see Eq.\
(\ref{o12}).
To estimate this contribution to density perturbations, let us consider again
the
simplest model with the effective potential
\begin{equation}\label{o1}
V(\phi) = {m^2\over 2} \phi^2 - {\delta\over 3} \phi^3 + {\lambda\over 4}\phi^4
\ .
\end{equation}
Now we will consider it
in the limit where the two minima of this potential have almost
the same depth, which is necessary for validity of the thin wall
approximation. In this case $2\delta^2 = 9 M^2\lambda$, and the effective
potential (\ref{o1}) looks approximately like ${\lambda \over 4} \phi^2 (\phi
- \phi_0)^2$, where $\phi_0 = {2\delta\over 3\lambda} = \sqrt {2\over \lambda}
{M}$ is the position of the local minimum of the effective
potential. The surface tension in this model is given by $s =
\sqrt{\lambda\over 2} {\phi_0^3\over 6} = { M^3\over 3\lambda}$ \cite{Tunn}.
We will also introduce a phenomenological parameter $\mu$, such that $\mu
{M^4\over 16\lambda} = \epsilon$. The smallness of this parameter controls
applicability of the thin-wall approximation, since the value of the effective
potential near the top of the potential barrier at $\phi = \phi_0/2$ is given
by $M^4\over 16\lambda$. Then our estimate of density
perturbations associated with the bubble wall (\ref{o12}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{o14}
\left. {\delta\rho\over \rho}\right|_{\rm bubble} \sim A(H^{-1}) \sim
{\sqrt{\mu\lambda}
H\over 4 \pi
M} \ .
\end{equation}
Here $H$ is the value of the Hubble constant at the beginning of inflation
inside the bubble.
In order to have $\left. {\delta\rho\over \rho}\right|_{\rm bubble} {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ } 5 \times
10^{-5}$ (the number $5 \times 10^{-5}$ corresponds to the amplitude of density
perturbations in the COBE normalization) one
should have
\begin{equation}\label{o17}
\left. {\delta\rho\over \rho}\right|_{\rm bubble} \sim \, {\sqrt{\mu\lambda}
H\over 4 \pi
M}\, {\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }\,
5 \times 10^{-5} \ .
\end{equation}
For $H\ll M$ perturbations produced by the bubble walls may be sufficiently
small even if the coupling constants are relatively large and the bubbles at
the moment of their formation are very inhomogeneous.
There is a long way from our simple estimates to the full theory of
anisotropies of
cosmic microwave background induced by fluctuations of the domain wall. In
particular, the significance of this effect will clearly depend on the value of
$\Omega$ \cite{Open}.
The constraint (\ref{o17}) may appear only if one can ``see'' the
scale at which the bubble walls have imprinted their fluctuations. If inflation
is long enough,
this scale becomes
exponentially large, we do not see the fluctuations due to bubble walls, but
then we return to the standard
inflationary scenario of a flat inflationary universe. However, for $\Omega \ll
1$ inflation is short, and it does not preclude us from seeing perturbations in
a vicinity of the bubble walls. In such a case one should take
the constraint (\ref{o17}) very seriously.
\subsection{\label{Simplest} The simplest model of a (quasi)open inflationary
Universe}
In this section we will explore an extremely simple model of two
scalar fields, where the Universe after inflation becomes open (or quasiopen,
see below) in a very natural way \cite{Omega}.
Consider a model of
two noninteracting scalar fields, $\phi$ and $\sigma$, with the effective
potential
\begin{equation}\label{3}
V(\phi, \sigma) = {m^2\over 2}\phi^2 + V(\sigma) \ .
\end{equation}
Here $\phi$ is a weakly interacting inflaton field, and $\sigma$, for example,
can be the field responsible for the symmetry breaking in GUTs. We will assume
that $V(\sigma)$ has a local minimum at $\sigma = 0$, and a global minimum at
$\sigma_0 \not = 0$, just as in the old inflationary
theory. For definiteness, we will assume that this potential is given by
${M^2\over 2} \sigma^2 -
{\alpha M } \sigma^3 + {\lambda\over 4}\sigma^4 + V(0)$, with $V(0) \sim
{M^4\over 4 \lambda}$, but it is not essential;
no fine tuning of the shape of this potential will be required.
Note that so far we did not make any unreasonable complications to the standard
chaotic inflation scenario; at large $\phi$ inflation is driven
by the field $\phi$, and the GUT potential is necessary in the theory anyway.
In order to obtain density perturbations of the necessary amplitude the mass
$m$ of the scalar field $\phi$ should be of the order of $10^{-6} M_{\rm P}
\sim
10^{13}$ GeV \cite{MyBook}.
Inflation begins at $V(\phi, \sigma) \sim M_{\rm P}^4$. At this stage
fluctuations of
both fields are very strong, and the Universe enters the stage of
self-reproduction, which finishes for the field $\phi$ only when it becomes
smaller than $M_{\rm P} \sqrt{M_{\rm P}\over m}$ and the energy density drops
down to $m
M_{\rm P}^3 \sim 10^{-6} M_{\rm P}^4$ \cite{MyBook}. Quantum fluctuations of
the field
$\sigma$ in some parts of the Universe put it directly to the absolute minimum
of
$V(\sigma)$, but in some other parts the scalar field $\sigma$ appears in the
local minimum of $V(\sigma)$ at $\sigma = 0$. We will follow evolution of such
domains. Since the energy density in such
domains will be greater, their volume will grow with a greater speed, and
therefore they will be especially important for us.
One may worry that all
domains with $\sigma = 0$
will tunnel to the minimum of $V(\sigma)$ at the stage when the field $\phi$
was very large and quantum fluctuations of the both fields were large too.
This may happen if the Hubble constant induced by the scalar field $\phi$ is
much greater than the curvature of the potential $V(\sigma)$:
\begin{equation}\label{s1}
{m\phi\over M_{\rm P}} {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ } M \ .
\end{equation}
This decay can be easily suppressed if one introduces a
small interaction $g^2\phi^2\sigma^2$ between these two fields, which
stabilizes the state with $\sigma = 0$ at large $\phi$. Another possibility is
to add a
nonminimal interaction with gravity of the form $-{\xi\over 2} R\phi^2$, which
makes inflation impossible for $\phi > {M_{\rm P}\over 8\phi\xi}$. In this case
the
condition (\ref{s1}) will never be satisfied. However, there is a much simpler
answer to this worry. If the effective potential of the field $\phi$ is so
large that the field $\sigma$ can easily jump to the true minimum of
$V(\sigma)$,
then the Universe becomes divided into infinitely many domains with all
possible values of $\sigma$ distributed in the following way
\cite{Star,MyBook}:
\begin{equation}\label{s2}
{P(\sigma= 0)\over P(\sigma = \sigma_0)} \sim \exp\left({3M^4_{\rm P}\over 8
V(\phi,0)} - {3M^4_{\rm P}\over 8V(\phi,\sigma)}\right) = \exp\left({3M^4_{\rm
P}\over 4(m^2\phi^2 + 2V(0))} - {3M^4_{\rm P}\over 4 m^2\phi^2}\right)\ .
\end{equation}
One can easily check that at the moment when the field $\phi$ decreases to ${M
M_{\rm P}\over m}$ and the condition (\ref{s1}) becomes violated, we will
have
\begin{equation}\label{s3}
{P(0)\over P(\sigma_0)} \sim \exp\left(-{C\over \lambda}\right) \ ,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is some constant, $C = O(1)$. After this moment the probability of
the false vacuum decay typically becomes much smaller. Thus the fraction of
space which survives in the false vacuum state $\sigma = 0$ until this time
typically is very small, but finite (and calculable). It is important, that
these rare domains with $\sigma = 0$ eventually will dominate the volume of the
Universe since if the probability of the false vacuum decay is small enough,
the volume of the domains in the false vacuum will continue growing
exponentially without end.
The main idea of our scenario can be explained as follows. Because the fields
$\sigma$ and
$\phi$ do not interact with each other, and the dependence of the probability
of tunneling on the vacuum energy at the GUT scale is negligibly small
\cite{CL}, tunneling to the minimum of $V(\sigma)$ may occur with
approximately
equal
probability at all sufficiently small values of the field $\phi$ (see, however,
below). The
parameters of the bubbles of the field $\sigma$ are determined by the mass
scale $M$ corresponding to the effective potential $V(\sigma)$. This mass scale
in
our model is much greater than $m$. Thus the duration of tunneling in the
Euclidean ``time'' is much smaller than $m^{-1}$. Therefore the field $\phi$
practically does not change its value during the tunneling. If
the probability of decay at a given $\phi$ is small enough, then it does not
destroy the whole vacuum state $\sigma = 0$ \cite{GW}; the bubbles of the new
phase are produced all the way when the field $\phi$ rolls down to $\phi =
0$. In this process the Universe becomes filled with
(nonoverlapping) bubbles immersed in the false vacuum state with $\sigma = 0$.
Interior of each of these bubbles represents an open Universe. However, these
bubbles contain {\it different} values of the field $\phi$, depending on
the
value of this field at the moment when the bubble formation occurred. If the
field $\phi$ inside a bubble is smaller than $3 M_{\rm P}$, then the Universe
inside
this bubble will have a vanishingly small $\Omega$, at the age $10^{10}$ years
after the end of inflation it will be practically empty, and life of our type
would not exist there. If the field $\phi$ is much greater than $3 M_{\rm P}$,
the
Universe inside the bubble will be almost exactly flat, $\Omega = 1$, as in the
simplest version of the chaotic inflation scenario. It is important, however,
that {\it in an eternally existing self-reproducing Universe there will be
infinitely many Universes containing any particular value of $\Omega$, from
$\Omega = 0$ to $\Omega = 1$}, and one does not need any fine tuning of the
effective potential to obtain a Universe with, say, $0.2 <\Omega < 0.3$
Of course, one can argue that we did not solve the problem of fine tuning, we
just transformed it into the fact that only a very small percentage of all
Universes will have $0.2 <\Omega < 0.3$. However, first of all, we
achieved our goal in a very simple theory, which does not require any
artificial potential bending and nonminimal kinetic terms. Then, there may be
some reasons why it is preferable for us to live in a Universe with a small
(but not vanishingly small) $\Omega$.
The simplest way to approach this problem is to find how the probability
for the bubble production depends on $\phi$. As we already pointed out, for
small $\phi$ this dependence is not very strong. On the other hand, at large
$\phi$ the probability rapidly grows and becomes quite large at $\phi > {M
M_{\rm P}\over m}$. This may suggest that the bubble production typically
occurs at
$\phi > {M M_{\rm P}\over m}$, and then for ${M\over m} \gg 3$ we typically
obtain
flat Universes, $\Omega = 1$. This is another manifestation of the problem of
premature decay of the state $\sigma = 0$ which we discussed above. Moreover,
even if the probability to produce the Universes with different $\phi$ were
entirely $\phi$-independent, one could argue that the main volume of the
habitable parts of the Universe is contained in the bubbles with $\Omega = 1$,
since the interior of each such bubble inflated longer. Indeed, the total
volume of each bubble created in a state with the field $\phi$ during
inflation in our model grows by the factor of $\exp{6\pi\phi^2\over M_{\rm
P}^2}$ \cite{MyBook}. It seems clear that the bubbles with greater $\phi$ will
give the largest contribution to the total volume of the Universe after
inflation. This would be the simplest argument in favor of the standard
prediction $\Omega = 1$ even in our class of models.
However, there exist
several ways of resolving this problem: involving coupling $g^2\phi^2\sigma^2$,
which stabilizes the state $\sigma = 0$ at large $\phi$, or adding nonminimal
interaction with gravity of the form $-{\xi\over 2} R\phi^2$. In either way one
can
easily suppress production of the Universes with $\Omega = 1$. Then the
maximum of probability will correspond to some value $\Omega < 1$, which can be
made equal to any given number from $1$ to $0$ by changing the parameters $g^2$
and $\xi$.
For example, let us add to the Lagrangian the term $-{\xi\over 2} R\phi^2$.
This term makes inflation impossible for $\phi > \phi_c = {M_{\rm P}\over
\sqrt{8\pi\xi}}$. If initial value of the field $\phi$ is much smaller than
$\phi_c$, the size of the Universe during inflation grows $\exp{2\pi\phi^2\over
M_{\rm P}^2}$ times, and the volume grows $\exp{6\pi\phi^2\over M_{\rm P}^2}$
times, as in the theory ${m^2\over 2} \phi^2$ with $\xi = 0$. For initial
$\phi$ approaching $\phi_c$ these expressions somewhat change, but in order to
get a very rough estimate of the increase of the size of the Universe in this
model (which is sufficient to get an illustration of our main idea) one can
still use the old expression $\exp{2\pi\phi^2\over M_{\rm P}^2}$. This
expression reaches its maximum near $\phi = \phi_c$, at which point the
effective gravitational constant becomes infinitely large and inflationary
regime ceases to exist \cite{Maeda,GBL}. Thus, one may argue that in this case
the main part of the volume of the Universe will appear from the bubbles with
initial value of the field $\phi$ close to $\phi_c$. For $\xi \ll 4.4\times
10^{-3}$ one has $\phi_c \gg 3 M_{\rm P}$. In this case one would have typical
Universes expanding much more than $e^{60}$ times, and therefore $\Omega
\approx 1$. For $\xi \gg 4.4\times 10^{-3}$ one has $\phi_c \ll 3 M_{\rm
P}$, and therefore one would have $\Omega \ll 1$ in all inflationary bubbles.
It is clear that by choosing particular values of the constant $\xi$ in the
range of $\xi \sim 4.4\times 10^{-3}$ one can obtain the distribution of the
Universes with the maximum of the distribution concentrated near any desirable
value of $\Omega < 1$.
Note that the position of the peak of the distribution is very sensitive to the
value of $\xi$: to have the peak concentrated in the region $0.2 < \Omega <
0.3$ one would have to fix $\xi$ (i.e. $\phi_c$) with an accuracy of few
percent. Thus, in this approach to the calculation of probabilities to live in
a Universe with a given value of $\Omega$ we still have the problem of fine
tuning.
However, calculation of probabilities in the context of the theory of a
self-reproducing Universe is a very ambiguous process, and it is even not quite
clear that this process makes any sense at all. For example, we may
formulate the problem in a different way. Consider a domain of the false vacuum
with $\sigma = 0$ and $\phi = \phi_1$. After some evolution it
produces one or many bubbles with $\sigma = \sigma_0$ and the field $\phi$
which after some time becomes equal to $\phi_2$. One may argue that the most
efficient way this process may go is the way which in the end produces the
greater volume. Indeed, for the inhabitants of a bubble it does not matter how
much time did it take for this process to occur. The total number of
observers produced by this process will depend on the total volume of the
Universe at the hypersurface of a given density, i.e. on the hypersurface of a
given $\phi$. If the domain instantaneously tunnels to the state $\sigma_0$
and $\phi_1$, and then the field $\phi$ in this domain slowly rolls from
$\phi_1$ to $\phi_2$, then the volume of this domain grows $\exp
\Bigl({2\pi\over M_{\rm P}^2} (\phi_1^2 -\phi_2^2)\Bigr)$ times \cite{MyBook}.
Meanwhile, if the tunneling takes a long time, then the field $\phi$ rolls down
extremely slowly being in the false vacuum state with $\sigma = 0$. In this
state the Universe expands much faster than in the state with $\sigma =
\sigma_0$. Since it expands much faster, and it takes the field much longer to
roll from $\phi_1$ to $\phi_2$, the trajectories of this kind bring us much
greater volume. This may serve as an argument that most of the volume is
produced by the bubbles created at a very small $\phi$, which leads to the
Universes with very small $\Omega$.
One may use another set of considerations, studying all trajectories beginning
at $\phi_1, t_1$ and ending at $\phi_2, t_2$. This will bring us another
answer, or, to be more precise, another set of answers, which will depend on
the choice of the time parametrization \cite{LLM}. Still another answer will
be obtained by the method
recently proposed by Vilenkin, who suggested to introduce a particular
cutoff procedure which (almost) completely eliminates dependence of the final
answer on the time parametrization \cite{VilNew}. A more radical possibility
would be to integrate over all time parametrizations. This task is very
complicated, but it would completely eliminate dependence of the final answer
on the time parametrization.
There is a very deep reason why the calculation of the probability to obtain a
Universe with a given $\Omega$ is so ambiguous. We have discussed this reason
in Sect. 3.1 in general terms; let us see how the situation looks in
application to the open Universe scenario. For those who lives inside
a bubble there is be no way to say at which stage (at which
time from the point of view of an external observer) this bubble was produced.
Therefore one should compare {\it all} of these bubbles produced at all
possible times. The self-reproducing Universe should exist for indefinitely
long time, and therefore it should contain infinitely many bubbles with all
possible values of $\Omega$. Comparing infinities is a very ambiguous task,
which gives results depending on the procedure of comparison. For example, one
can consider an infinitely large box of apples and an infinitely large box of
oranges. One may pick up one apple and one orange, then one apple and one
orange, over and over again, and conclude that there is an equal number of
apples and oranges. However, one may also pick up one apple and
two oranges, and then one apple and two oranges again, and conclude that there
is twice as many oranges as apples. The same situation happens when one tries
to compare the number of bubbles with different values of $\Omega$. If we
would know how to
solve the problem of measure in quantum cosmology, perhaps we would be able to
obtain
something similar to an open Universe in the trivial $\lambda\phi^4$ theory
without any first order phase transitions \cite{OPEN}, see Sect. 3.1. In the
meantime, it is already encouraging that in our scenario
there are infinitely many inflationary universes with all possible value of
$\Omega < 1$. We can hardly live in the empty bubbles with $\Omega = 0$. As for
the choice between the bubbles with different nonvanishing values of $\Omega <
1$, it is quite possible that eventually we will find out an unambiguous way
of predicting the most probable value of $\Omega$, and we are going to continue
our work in this direction. However, as we already discussed in the previous
section, it might also happen that this question
is as meaningless as the question whether it is more probable to be born as a
Chinese rather than as an Italian. It is quite conceivable that the only way to
find out in which of the bubbles do we live is to make observations.
Some words of caution are in order here. The bubbles produced in our simple
model
are not {\it exactly} open Universes. Indeed, in the models discussed in
\cite{CL}--\cite{BGT} the time of reheating (and the temperature of the
Universe after the reheating) was synchronized with the value of the scalar
field inside the bubble. In our case the situation is very similar, but not
exactly. Suppose that the Hubble constant induced by $V(0)$ is much
greater than the Hubble constant related to the energy density of the scalar
field $\phi$. Then the speed of rolling of the scalar field $\phi$ sharply
increases inside the bubble. Thus, in our case the field $\sigma$ synchronizes
the motion of the field $\phi$, and then the hypersurface of a constant field
$\phi$ determines the hypersurface of a constant temperature. In the models
where the rolling of the field $\phi$ can occur only inside the bubble (we will
discuss such a model shortly) the synchronization is precise, and everything
goes as in the models of refs. \cite{CL}--\cite{BGT}. However, in our simple
model the scalar field $\phi$ moves down outside the bubble as well, even
though it does it very slowly. Thus, synchronization of motion of the
fields $\sigma$ and $\phi$ is not precise; hypersurface of a constant $\sigma$
ceases to be a hypersurface of a constant density. For example, suppose that
the field $\phi$ has taken some value $\phi_0$ near the bubble wall when the
bubble was just formed. Then the bubble expands, and during this time the field
$\phi$ outside the wall decreases, as $\exp \Bigl(-{m^2t\over 3 H_1}\Bigr)$,
where $H_1 \approx H(\phi = \sigma = 0)$ is the Hubble constant at the first
stage of inflation, $H_1 \approx \sqrt{8\pi V(0)\over 3 M_{\rm P}^2}$. At the
moment
when the bubble expands $e^{60}$ times, the field $\phi$ in the region just
reached by the bubble wall decreases to $\phi_o\exp \Bigl(-{20 m^2\over
H^2_1}\Bigr)$ from its original value $\phi_0$. the Universe inside the bubble
is a homogeneous open Universe only if this change is negligibly small. This
may not be a real problem. Indeed, let us assume that $V(0) ={\tilde M}^4$,
where ${\tilde M} =
10^{17}$ GeV. (Typically the energy density scale $\tilde M$ is related to the
particle mass as follows: ${\tilde M} \sim \lambda^{-1/4} M$.) In this case
$H_1 = 1.7 \times 10^{15}$ GeV, and for $m =
10^{13}$ GeV one obtains ${20 m^2\over H_1^2} \sim 10^{-4}$. In such a case
a typical degree of distortion of the picture of a homogeneous open Universe is
very small.
Still this issue requires careful investigation. When the bubble wall continues
expanding even further, the scalar field outside of it eventually drops down to
zero. Then there will be no new matter created near the wall. Instead of
infinitely large homogeneous open Universes we are obtaining spherically
symmetric islands of a size much greater than the size of the observable part
of our Universe. We do not know whether this unusual picture is an advantage or
a
disadvantage of our model. Is it possible to consider different parts of the
same
exponentially large island as domains of different ``effective'' $\Omega$? Can
we attribute some part of the dipole anisotropy of the microwave background
radiation to the possibility that we live somewhere outside of the center of
such island? In any
case, as we already mentioned, in the limit $m^2 \ll H_1^2$
we do not expect that the small deviations of the geometry of space inside the
bubble from the geometry of an open Universe can do much harm to our model.
Our model admits many generalizations, and details of the scenario which we
just discussed depend on the values of parameters. Let us forget for a moment
about all complicated processes which occur when the field $\phi$ is rolling
down to $\phi = 0$, since this part of the picture depends on the validity of
our ideas about initial conditions. For example, there may be no
self-reproduction of inflationary domains with large $\phi$ if one considers an
effective
potential of the field $\phi$ which is very curved at large $\phi$. However,
there will be self-reproduction of the Universe in a state
$\phi = \sigma = 0$, as in the old inflation scenario. Then the main portion of
the volume of the Universe will be determined by the processes which occur when
the fields $\phi$ and $\sigma$ stay at the local minimum of the
effective potential, $\phi = \sigma = 0$. For definiteness we will assume
here that $V(0) = {\tilde M}^4$, where ${\tilde M}$ is the stringy scale,
${\tilde M} \sim 10^{17} -
10^{18}$ GeV. Then the Hubble constant $H_1 = \sqrt{8\pi V(0)\over 3M^2_{\rm
P}} \sim
\sqrt{8\pi \over 3} {{\tilde M}^2\over M_{\rm P}}$ created by the energy
density
$V(0)$ is
much greater than $m \sim 10^{13}$ GeV. In such a case the scalar field $\phi$
will not stay exactly at $\phi = 0$. It will be relatively homogeneous on the
horizon scale $H_1^{-1}$, but otherwise it will be chaotically distributed
with
the dispersion $\langle\phi^2\rangle = {3H^4\over 8\pi^2m^2}$ \cite{MyBook}.
This means that the field $\phi$ inside each of the bubbles produced by the
decay of the false vacuum can take any value $\phi$ with the probability
\begin{equation}\label{4}
P \sim \exp\left(-{\phi^2\over 2 \langle\phi^2\rangle}\right) \sim
\exp\left(-{3m^2 \phi^2M_{\rm P}^4\over 16 {\tilde M}^8}\right) \ .
\end{equation}
One can check that for ${\tilde M} \sim 4.3\times10^{17}$ GeV the typical value
of the
field $\phi$ inside the bubbles will be $\sim 3\times 10^{19}$ GeV. Thus, for
${\tilde M} > 4.3\times10^{17}$ GeV most of the Universes produced during the
vacuum
decay will be flat, for ${\tilde M} < 4.3\times10^{17}$ GeV most of them will
be open.
It is interesting that in this version of our model the percentage of open
Universes is determined by the stringy scale (or by the GUT scale). However,
since the process of bubble production in this scenario goes without end,
the total number of Universes with any particular value of $\Omega < 1$ will
be infinitely large for any value of ${\tilde M}$. Thus this model shows
us is the
simplest way to resurrect some of the ideas of the old inflationary theory with
the help of chaotic inflation, and simultaneously to obtain inflationary
Universe with $\Omega < 1$.
Note that this version of our model will not suffer for the problem of
incomplete synchronization. Indeed, the average value of the field $\phi$ in
the false vacuum outside the bubble will remain constant until the bubble
triggers its decrease.
However, this model, just as its previous version, may suffer from another
problem. The Hubble constant $H_1$ before the tunneling in this model was much
greater
than the Hubble constant $H_2$ at the beginning of the second stage of
inflation. Therefore the fluctuations of the
scalar field before the tunneling were very large, $\delta \phi \sim {H_1\over
2 \pi}$, much greater than the
fluctuations generated after the tunneling, $\delta \phi \sim {H_2\over 2
\pi}$. This may lead to very large
density perturbations on the scale comparable to the size of the bubble. For
the models with $\Omega = 1$ this effect would not cause any problems since
such
perturbations would be far away over the present particle horizon, but for
small $\Omega$ this
may lead to unacceptable anisotropy of the microwave background radiation.
Fortunately, this may not be a real difficulty. A possible solution is very
similar to the bubble symmetrization described in the previous section.
Indeed, let us consider more carefully how the long wave perturbations produced
outside the bubble may penetrate into it. At the moment when the bubble is
formed, it has a size (\ref{o8}), which is smaller than $H_1^{-1}$
\cite{CL}. Then the bubble walls begin moving with the speed gradually
approaching the speed of light. At this stage the comoving size of the bubble
(from the point of view of the original coordinate system in the false vacuum)
grows like
\begin{equation}\label{n1}
r(t) = \int_{0}^{t}{dt e^{-H_1 t}} = H_1^{-1} (1 - e^{-H_1 t}) \ .
\end{equation}
During this time the fluctuations of the scalar field $\phi$ of the amplitude
${H_1\over 2\pi}$ and of the wavelength $H_1^{-1}$, which previously were
outside the bubble, gradually become covered by it. When these perturbations
are outside the bubble, inflation with the Hubble constant $H_1$ prevents them
from oscillating and moving. However, once these perturbations penetrate inside
the bubble, their amplitude becomes decreasing \cite{MZ,SP}. Indeed, since the
wavelength of the perturbations is $\sim H_1^{-1} \ll H_2^{-1} \ll m^{-1}$,
these
perturbations move inside the bubbles as relativistic particles, their
wavelength grow as $a(t)$, and their amplitude decreases just like an
amplitude of electromagnetic field, $\delta\phi \sim a^{-1}(t)$, where $a$ is
the scale factor of the Universe inside a bubble \cite{MZ}. This process
continues until the wavelength of each perturbation reaches $H_2^{-1}$ (already
at the second stage of inflation). During this time the wavelength grows
${H_1\over H_2}$ times, and the amplitude decreases ${H_2\over H_1}$ times, to
become the standard amplitude of perturbations produced at the second stage of
inflation: $ {H_2\over H_1}\, {H_1\over 2\pi} = {H_2\over 2\pi}$.
In fact, one may argue that this computation was too naive, and that these
perturbations should be neglected altogether. Typically we treat long wave
perturbations in inflationary universe like classical wave for the reason that
the waves with the wavelength much greater than the horizon can be interpreted
as states with extremely large occupation numbers \cite{MyBook}. However, when
the new born perturbations (i.e. fluctuations which did not acquire an
exponentially large wavelength yet) enter the bubble (i.e. under the horizon),
they effectively return to the realm of quantum fluctuations again. Then one
may argue that one should simply forget about the waves with the wavelengths
small enough to fit into the bubble, and consider perturbations created at the
second stage of inflation not as a result of stretching of these waves, but as
a new process of creation of perturbations of an amplitude ${H_2\over 2\pi}$.
One may worry that perturbations which had wavelengths somewhat greater than
$H_1^{-1}$ at the moment of the bubble formation cannot completely penetrate
into the bubble. If, for example, the field $\phi$ differs from some constant
by $+{H_1\over 2\pi}$ at the distance $H_1^{-1}$ to the left of the bubble at
the moment of its formation, and by $-{H_1\over 2\pi}$ at the distance
$H_1^{-1}$ to the right of the bubble, then this difference remains frozen
independently of all processes inside the bubble. This may suggest that there
is some unavoidable asymmetry of the distribution of the field inside the
bubble. However, the field inside the bubble will not be distributed like a
straight line slowly rising from $-{H_1\over 2\pi}$ to $+{H_1\over 2\pi}$.
Inside
the bubble the field will be almost homogeneous; the inhomogeneity $\delta \phi
\sim -{H_1\over 2\pi}$ will be concentrated only in a small vicinity near the
bubble wall.
Finally we should verify that this scenario leads to bubbles which are
symmetric enough, see eq. (\ref{o17}). Fortunately, here we do not have any
problems. One can easily check that for our model with $m \sim 10^{13}$ GeV and
$\tilde M \sim \lambda^{-1/4} M > 10^{17} GeV$ the condition (\ref{o17}) can be
satisfied even for not very small values of the coupling constant $\lambda$.
The arguments presented above should be confirmed by a more detailed
investigation of the vacuum structure inside the expanding bubble in our
scenario. If, as we hope, the result of the investigation will be positive, we
will have an
extremely simple model of an open inflationary universe. In the meantime, it
would be nice to have a model where we do not have any problems at all with
synchronization and
with large fluctuations on the scalar field in the false vacuum. We will
consider such a model in the next section.
\subsection{\label{Hybrid} Hybrid inflation and natural inflation with
$\Omega < 1$}
The model to be discussed below is a version of the hybrid
inflation scenario \cite{Hybrid}, which is a slight generalization (and a
simplification) of our previous model
(\ref{3}):
\begin{equation}\label{4a}
V(\phi,\sigma) = {g^2\over 2}\phi^2\sigma^2 + V(\sigma) \ .
\end{equation}
We eliminated the massive term of the field $\phi$ and added explicitly the
interaction ${g^2\over 2}\phi^2\sigma^2$, which, as we have mentioned already,
can be useful (though not necessary) for stabilization of the state $\sigma =
0$ at large $\phi$. Note
that in this model the line $\sigma = 0$ is a flat direction in the
($\phi,\sigma$) plane. At large $\phi$ the only minimum of the effective
potential with respect to $\sigma$ is at the line $\sigma = 0$. To give a
particular example, one can take $V(\sigma) = {M^2\over 2} \sigma^2 -{\alpha M
} \sigma^3 + {\lambda\over 4}\sigma^4 +V_0$. Here $V_0$ is a constant which is
added to ensure that $V(\phi,\sigma) = 0$ at the absolute minimum of
$V(\phi,\sigma)$. In this case the minimum of the potential $V(\phi,\sigma)$
at $\sigma \not = 0$ is deeper than the minimum at $\sigma = 0$ only for $\phi
< \phi_c$, where $\phi_c = {M\over g}\sqrt{{2\alpha^2\over \lambda} -1}$. This
minimum for $\phi = \phi_c$ appears at $\sigma = \sigma_c = {2\alpha M\over
\lambda}$.
The bubble formation becomes possible only for $\phi < \phi_c$. After the
tunneling the field $\phi$ acquires an effective mass $m = g\sigma$ and begins
to move towards $\phi = 0$, which provides the mechanism for the second stage
of inflation inside the bubble. In this scenario evolution of the scalar field
$\phi$ is exactly synchronized with the evolution of the field $\sigma$, and
the Universe inside the bubble appears to be open.
Effective mass of the field $\phi$ at the minimum of $V(\phi,\sigma)$ with
$\phi = \phi_c$, $\sigma = \sigma_c = {2\alpha M\over \lambda}$ is $m =
g\sigma_c = {2g\alpha M\over \lambda}$. With a decrease of the field $\phi$
its effective mass at the minimum of $V(\phi,\sigma)$ will grow, but not
significantly. For simplicity, we will consider the case $\lambda = \alpha^2$.
In this case it can be shown that $V(0) = 2.77\, {M^4\over \lambda}$, and the
Hubble constant before the phase transition is given by $4.8\, {M^2\over \sqrt
\lambda M_{\rm P}}$. One should check what is necessary to avoid too large
density perturbations (\ref{o17}). However, one should take into account that
the mass $M$ in (\ref{o17}) corresponds to the curvature of the effective
potential near $\phi = \phi_c$ rather than at $\phi = 0$. In our case this
implies that one should use $\sqrt 2 M$ instead of $M$ in this equation. Then
one obtains the following constraint on the mass $M$: \ $M\sqrt \mu {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }
2\times10^{15}$ GeV. Note that the thin wall approximation (requiring $\mu
\ll 1$) breaks down far away from $\phi = \phi_c$. Therefore in general eq.
(\ref{o17}) should be somewhat improved. However for $\phi \approx \phi_c$ it
works quite well. To be on a safe side, we will take $M = 5\times 10^{14}$
GeV. Other parameters may vary; one may consider, e.g., the theory with $g
\sim 10^{-5}$, which gives
$\phi_c = {M\over g} \sim 5\times 10^{19}\ \mbox{GeV} \sim 4M_{\rm P}$.
The effective mass $m$ after the phase transition is equal to ${2gM\over \sqrt
\lambda}$ at $\phi = \phi_c$, and then it grows by only $25\%$ when the field
$\phi$ changes all the way down from $\phi_c$ to $\phi = 0$. As we already
mentioned, in order to obtain the proper amplitude of density perturbations
produced by inflation
inside the bubble one should have $m \sim 10^{13}$ GeV. This corresponds to
$\lambda = \alpha^2 = 10^{-6}$.
The bubble
formation becomes possible only for $\phi < \phi_c$. If it happens in the
interval $4M_{\rm P} > \phi > 3 M_{\rm P}$, we obtain a flat Universe. If it
happens at $\phi < 3M_{\rm P}$, we obtain an open Universe. Depending on the
initial value of the field $\phi$, we can obtain all possible values of
$\Omega$, from $\Omega = 1$ to $\Omega = 0$. The value of the Hubble constant
at the minimum with $\sigma \not = 0$ at $\phi = 3M_{\rm P}$ in our model does
not differ much from the value of the Hubble constant before the bubble
formation. Therefore we do not expect any specific problems with the large
scale density perturbations in this model.
Note also that the probability of tunneling at large $\phi$ is very small
since the depth of the minimum at $\phi \sim \phi_c$, $\sigma \sim \sigma_c$
does not differ much from the depth of the minimum at $\sigma = 0$, and there
is no tunneling at all for $\phi > \phi_c$. Therefore
the number of flat Universes produced by this mechanism will be strongly
suppressed as compared with the number of open Universes, the degree of this
suppression being very sensitive to the value of $\phi_c$. Meanwhile, life of
our type is impossible in empty Universes with $\Omega \ll 1$. This may provide
us with a tentative explanation of the small value of $\Omega$ in the context
of our model.
Another model of inflation with $\Omega < 1$ is the based on a certain
modification of the ``natural inflation'' scenario \cite{Natural}. The main
idea is to take the effective potential of the ``natural inflation'' model,
which looks like a tilted Mexican hat, and make a deep hole it its center at
$\phi = 0$ \cite{Arthur}. In the beginning inflation occurs near $\phi = 0$,
but then the bubbles with $\phi \not = 0$ appear. Depending on the phase of the
complex scalar field $\phi$ inside the bubble, the next stage of inflation,
which occurs just as in the old version of the ``natural inflation'' scenario,
leads to formation of the Universes with all possible values of $\Omega$.
A detailed discussion of this scenario can be found in \cite{Arthur}; we will
not repeat it here. What is most important for us is that there exist several
rather simple models of an open inflationary universe. Inflationary models
with $\Omega = 1$ admittedly are somewhat simpler. Therefore we still hope that
several years later we
will know that our Universe is flat, which will be a strong experimental
evidence in favor of inflationary cosmology in its simplest form. However, if
observational data will show,
beyond any reasonable doubt, that $\Omega \not = 1$, it will not imply that
inflationary theory is wrong. Indeed, now we know
that there is a large class of internally consistent cosmological models which
may describe
creation of large homogeneous Universes with all possible values of $\Omega$,
and so far all of these models are based on inflationary cosmology.
\
\section { Reheating after inflation}
The theory of reheating of the Universe after inflation is the
most important application of the quantum theory of
particle creation, since almost all matter constituting the
Universe at the subsequent radiation-dominated stage was
created during this process \cite{MyBook}. At the stage of
inflation all
energy was
concentrated in a classical slowly moving inflaton field $\phi$. Soon
after the
end of inflation this field began to oscillate near the minimum of
its
effective potential. Gradually it produced many elementary particles,
they
interacted with each other and came to a state of thermal equilibrium
with some
temperature $T_r$, which was called the reheating temperature.
An elementary theory of reheating was first
developed in \cite{DolgLinde} for the new inflationary scenario.
Independently a theory of reheating in the $R^2$ inflation was constructed
in~\cite{st81}. Various
aspects of this
theory were further elaborated by many authors, see e.g.
\cite{Dolg,Brand}.
Still, a general scenario of reheating was
absent. In particular, reheating in the chaotic inflation theory
remained
almost unexplored.
The present section contains results obtained recently in our work with Kofman
and Starobinsky \cite{KLSREH}. We have found that the process of
reheating typically
consists of three different stages. At the first stage, which cannot be
described by the elementary theory of reheating, the classical coherently
oscillating
inflaton field $\phi$ decays into massive bosons (in particular, into
$\phi$-particles) due to parametric resonance. In many models the resonance is
very broad, and the process occurs extremely
rapidly (explosively). Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, there is no
explosive creation of fermions.
To distinguish this stage from the stage of particle decay and thermalization,
we will call it {\it pre-heating}. Bosons produced at that stage are far away
from thermal equilibrium and typically have enormously large occupation
numbers. The second stage is the decay of previously produced particles. This
stage typically can be described by methods developed in \cite{DolgLinde}.
However,
these methods should be applied not to the decay of the original homogeneous
inflaton field, but to the decay of particles and fields produced at the stage
of explosive reheating. This considerably changes many features of the
process, including the final value of the reheating temperature. The
third stage is the stage of thermalization, which can be described by
standard
methods, see e.g. \cite{MyBook,DolgLinde}; we will not consider it here.
Sometimes this stage
may occur simultaneously with the second one. In our
investigation we
have used the formalism of the
time-dependent Bogoliubov transformations to find the density of
created particles, $n_{\vec k}(t)$.
A detailed
description of this theory will be given in \cite{REH}; here we will
outline
our main conclusions using a simple semiclassical
approach.
We will consider a simple chaotic inflation scenario describing the
classical inflaton scalar field
$\phi$ with the effective potential $V(\phi) = \pm {1\over2}
m_\phi^2 \phi^2+{\lambda\over 4}\phi^4$. Minus sign corresponds to
spontaneous symmetry breaking $\phi \to \phi +\sigma$ with generation of a
classical scalar field $\sigma = {m_\phi \over\sqrt\lambda}$. The field $\phi$
after inflation may decay
into bosons $\chi$ and fermions $\psi$ due to the interaction terms $- {
1\over2} g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2$ and
$- h \bar \psi \psi \phi$. Here $\lambda$, $ g$ and $h$ are
small coupling constants. In case of spontaneous symmetry breaking, the term
$- {
1\over2} g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2$ gives rise to the term $- g^2 \sigma\phi
\chi^2$. We will assume for simplicity that the bare masses
of the fields $\chi$ and $\psi$ are very small, so that one can write $ m_\chi
(\phi) =
g \phi$, $m_{\psi}(\phi) = |h\phi|$.
Let us briefly recall the elementary theory of reheating
\cite{MyBook}. At
$\phi > M_{\rm P}$, we have a stage of inflation. This stage is supported
by the
friction-like term $3H\dot\phi$ in the equation of motion for the scalar
field. Here $H\equiv \dot a/a$ is the Hubble parameter, $a(t)$ is the
scale factor of the Universe.
However, with a decrease of the field $\phi$ this term becomes less
and less important, and inflation ends at $\phi {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }M_{\rm
P}/2$.
After that the
field $\phi$ begins oscillating near the minimum of
$V(\phi)$. The amplitude of the oscillations gradually
decreases because of expansion of the
Universe, and also because of the energy transfer to particles
created by the
oscillating field. Elementary
theory of reheating is based on the
assumption that the
classical oscillating scalar field $\phi (t)$ can be represented as a
collection of scalar particles at rest. Then the rate of decrease of
the energy of oscillations
coincides with the decay rate of $\phi$-particles. The
rates of
the processes $\phi \to \chi\chi$ and $\phi \to \psi\psi$ (for $m_\phi \gg
2m_\chi, 2m_\psi$) are given
by
\begin{equation}\label{7}
\Gamma ( \phi \to \chi \chi) = { g^4 \sigma^2\over 8
\pi m_{\phi}}\ , \ \ \ \ \
\Gamma( \phi \to \psi \psi ) = { h^2 m_{\phi}\over 8 \pi}\ .
\end{equation}
Reheating
completes when the rate of expansion of the Universe given by the Hubble
constant $H=\sqrt{8\pi \rho\over 3 M^2_{\rm P}} \sim t^{-1}$ becomes smaller
than
the total decay rate $\Gamma = \Gamma (\phi \to \chi \chi) + \Gamma
(\phi \to
\psi \psi )$. The reheating temperature can be estimated by
$T_r \simeq 0.1\, \sqrt{\Gamma M_{\rm P}}$\,.
It is interesting to note that in accordance with the elementary theory of
reheating the amplitude squared of the oscillating scalar field decays
exponentially, as $e^{-\Gamma t}$. Phenomenologically, this can be described by
adding the term $\Gamma\dot\phi$ to the equation of motion of the scalar field.
Unfortunately, many authors took this prescription too seriously and
investigated the possibility that the term $\Gamma\dot\phi$, just like the term
$3H\dot\phi$, can support inflation. We should emphasize \cite{KLSREH}, that
adding the term $\Gamma\dot\phi$ to the equation of motion is justified only at
the stage of oscillations (i.e. after the end of inflation), and only for the
description of the {\it amplitude of oscillations} of the scalar field, rather
than for the description of the scalar field itself. Moreover, even at the
stage of oscillations this description becomes incorrect as soon as the
resonance effects become important.
As we already mentioned, elementary theory of reheating can provide a
qualitatively correct
description of particle decay at the last stages of reheating.
Moreover, this theory is always applicable if the inflaton field
can decay into fermions only, with a small coupling constant $h^2 \ll
m_{\phi}/M_{\rm P}$.
However,
typically this theory is inapplicable to the description of the first stages of
reheating, which makes the whole process quite different. In what follows we
will develop the theory of the first stages of reheating. We will begin with
the theory of a massive scalar field $\phi$ decaying into particles $\chi$,
then we consider the theory ${\lambda\over 4} \phi^4$,
and finally we will discuss reheating in the theories with spontaneous symmetry
breaking.
We begin with the investigation of the simplest inflationary
model with the effective potential
${m^2_\phi\over 2}\phi^2$.
Suppose that this field only interacts
with a light scalar field $\chi$
($m_{\chi} \ll m_{\phi}$) due to the
term $-{ 1\over2} g^2 \phi^2 \chi^2$.
The equation for quantum fluctuations of the field $\chi$
with the physical momentum $\vec k/a(t)$ has the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{M}
\ddot \chi_k + 3H \dot \chi_k + \left({k^2\over a^2(t)}
+ g^2 \Phi^2\, \sin^2(m_{\phi}t) \right) \chi_k = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $k = \sqrt {\vec k^2}$, and $\Phi$ stands for the amplitude of
oscillations of the field $\phi$. As we shall see, the
main contribution to $\chi$-particle
production is given by excitations of the field $\chi$ with
$k/a \gg m_\phi$, which is much
greater than $H$ at the stage
of oscillations. Therefore, in the first approximation we may neglect
the expansion of the Universe, taking $a(t)$ as a constant and omitting
the term $3H \dot \chi_k$ in (\ref{M}). Then the equation (\ref{M})
describes an oscillator with a variable
frequency $\Omega_k^2(t)=
k^2a^{-2} + g^2\Phi^2\, \sin^2(m_{\phi}t) $.
Particle production occurs due to a
nonadiabatic change of this frequency. Equation (\ref{M}) can be
reduced to the well-known Mathieu equation:
\begin{equation}\label{M1}
\chi_k'' + \left(A(k) - 2q \cos 2z \right) \chi_k = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $A(k)
= {k^2 \over m_\phi^2 a^2}+2q$, $q = {g^2\Phi^2\over
4m_\phi^2} $, $z
= m_{\phi}t$, prime denotes differentiation with respect to $z$.
An important property of solutions of the equation (\ref{M1}) is the
existence of an exponential instability $\chi_k \propto \exp
(\mu_k^{(n)}z)$ within the set of resonance bands of frequencies
$\Delta k^{(n)}$ labeled by an integer index $n$.
This instability corresponds to exponential growth of occupation
numbers of quantum fluctuations
$n_{\vec k}(t) \propto \exp (2\mu_k^{(n)} m_{\phi} t)$
that may be interpreted as particle
production. As one
can show, near the line $A = 2q$ there are regions in the first,
the second and the higher instability bands
where the unstable modes grow extremely
rapidly, with $\mu_k \sim 0.2$. We will show analytically in~\cite{REH} that
for $q \gg 1$
typically
$\mu_k \sim {\ln 3\over 2\pi}
\approx 0.175$ in the instability bands along the line $A = 2q$,
but its maximal value is ${\ln(1+\sqrt{2}) \over \pi} \approx 0.28$.
Creation of
particles in the regime of a broad resonance ($q > 1$) with $2\pi \mu_k =
O(1)$ is very different from that in the usually
considered case of a narrow resonance ($ q \ll 1$),
where $2\pi \mu_k \ll 1$.
In particular, it
proceeds during a tiny part of each oscillation of the field $\phi$
when $1-\cos z \sim q^{-1}$ and the induced effective mass of the
field $\chi$ (which is
determined by the condition $m^2_{\chi}= g^2\Phi^2/2$) is less than
$m_{\phi}$.
As a result, the number of
particles grows exponentially within just a few oscillations of the
field
$\phi$. This leads to an extremely rapid (explosive) decay of the
classical
scalar field $\phi$.
This regime occurs only
if $q {\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }
\pi^{-1}$, i.e. for $g\Phi {\
\lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$>$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }
m_\phi$, so that $m_\phi \ll gM_{\rm P}$ is the necessary condition for it.
One can show that a typical energy $E$ of a particle produced at this stage is
determined by
equation $A-2q \sim \sqrt{q}$, and is given by
$E \sim \sqrt{g m_\phi M_{\rm P}}$ \cite{REH}.
Creation of $\chi$-particles leads to the two main effects:
transfer of the energy from the homogeneous field $\phi (t)$ to these
particles and generation of the contribution to the effective mass of
the $\phi$ field: $m^2_{\phi ,eff}=m^2_{\phi}+g^2\langle\chi^2
\rangle_{ren}$.
The last term in the latter expression
quickly becomes larger than
$m^2_{\phi}$. One should take
both these effects into account when calculating backreaction of
created particles on the process.
As a result, the stage of the broad resonance creation ends up within
the short time
$t\sim m_{\phi}^{-1} \ln (m_{\phi}/g^5M_{\rm P})$,
when $\Phi^2 \sim
\langle\chi^2\rangle$ and $q = {g^2\Phi^2\over
4m_{\phi ,eff}^2}$
becomes smaller than $1$.
At this time the energy density of produced particles
$\sim E^2 \langle\chi^2\rangle \sim g m_\phi M_{\rm P} \Phi^2$ is of the same
order as the original energy density
$\sim {m_\phi^2} M_{\rm P}^2$ of the scalar field
$\phi$ at the end of inflation. This gives the amplitude of
oscillations at the end of the stage of the broad resonance particle creation:
$\Phi^2 \sim \langle\chi^2\rangle \sim
g^{-1} m_\phi M_{\rm P} \ll M_{\rm P}^2$.
Since $E\gg m_{\phi}$, the effective equation of state of the whole
system becomes $p\approx \rho /3$. Thus, explosive creation
practically eliminates a prolonged intermediate matter-dominated stage
after the end of inflation which was thought to be characteristic
to many inflationary models.
However, this does not mean that the process of reheating has been completed.
Instead of $\chi$-particles in the thermal equilibrium with
a typical energy
$E \sim T \sim (mM_{\rm P})^{1/2}$, one has particles with a much
smaller energy $\sim (g m_\phi M_{\rm P})^{1/2}$,
but with extremely large
mean occupation numbers $n_k \sim g^{-2} \gg 1$.
After that the Universe expands as $a(t)\propto \sqrt t$, and
the scalar field $\phi$ continues its decay in the regime of the narrow
resonance creation $q\approx {\Phi^2\over 4 \langle\chi^2\rangle}
\ll 1$. As a result,
$\phi$ decreases rather slowly, $\phi \propto t^{-3/4}$.
This regime is very important because it makes the energy of the
$\phi$ field much smaller than that of the $\chi$-particles.
One can show that the decay finally stops when the amplitude of
oscillations $\Phi$ becomes smaller than $g^{-1} m_\phi$ \cite{REH}.
This happens at the moment $t\sim m_{\phi}^{-1} (gM_{\rm P}/m_{\phi})^{1/3}$
(in the case $m < g^7 M_{\rm P}$ decay ends somewhat later,
in the perturbative regime).
The physical reason why the decay stops is rather general: decay of
the particles $\phi$ in our model occurs due to its interaction with another
$\phi$-particle (interaction term is quadratic in $\phi$ and in $\chi$). When
the field $\phi$ (or the number of $\phi$-particles) becomes
small, this process
is inefficient. The scalar field can decay completely only if a
single scalar $\phi$-particle can decay into other particles, due
to the processes
$\phi \to \chi \chi$ or $\phi \to \psi \psi$, see eq. (\ref{7}). If
there is
no spontaneous symmetry breaking and no interactions with fermions
in our model, such processes are impossible.
At later stages the energy of oscillations of the inflaton field
decreases as $a^{-3}(t)$, i.e. more slowly than the decrease of
energy of hot ultrarelativistic matter $\propto a^{-4}(t)$. Therefore, the
relative contribution of the field $\phi(t)$ to the total energy density
of the Universe
rapidly grows. This gives rise to an unexpected possibility that
the inflaton field by
itself, or other scalar fields can be
cold dark matter candidates, {\it even if they strongly interact with each
other}. However, this possibility requires
a certain degree of fine tuning; a more immediate application of our result is
that it allows one to rule out a wide class of inflationary models which do not
contain interaction terms of the type of $g^2\sigma\phi\chi^2$ or
$h\phi\bar\psi\psi$.
So far we have not considered the term ${\lambda \over 4} \phi^4$
in the effective potential. Meanwhile this term leads to production
of $\phi$-particles, which in some cases appears to be the leading
effect.
Let us study the $\phi$-particle production in the theory
with $V(\phi) =
{m^2_{\phi}\over 2} \phi^2 + {\lambda\over 4}\phi^4$ with $m^2_{\phi}
\ll \lambda M_{\rm P}^2$. In this case the effective potential
of the field $\phi$ soon after the end of inflation at
$\phi \sim M_{\rm P}$ is dominated by the term
${\lambda\over 4} \phi^4$. Oscillations of the field $\phi$ in this
theory
are not sinusoidal, they are
given by elliptic functions, but with a good accuracy one can write
$\phi(t)
\sim \Phi \sin (c\sqrt \lambda \int \Phi dt)$, where
$c={\Gamma^2(3/4)\over \sqrt \pi} \approx 0.85$. the Universe at
that time expands as at the
radiation-dominated stage: $a(t)\propto \sqrt t$. If one neglects
the feedback of created $\phi$-particles on the homogeneous field
$\phi (t)$, then its amplitude $\Phi (t) \propto a^{-1}(t)$, so that $a\Phi
=const$.
Using a conformal time $\eta$, exact equation for quantum fluctuations
$\delta \phi$
of the field $\phi$ can be reduced to the Lame equation. The results remain
essentially the same if we use an approximate equation
\begin{equation}\label{lam1}
{d^2(\delta\phi_k)\over d\eta^2} + {\Bigl[{k^2} +
3\lambda a^2\Phi^2\, \sin^2 (c\sqrt\lambda a\Phi \eta)\Bigr]}
\delta\phi_k = 0,~~\eta =\int {dt\over a(t)}={2t\over a(t)}\, ,
\end{equation}
which leads to the Mathieu equation with $A =
{k^2\over c^2\lambda a^2\Phi^2} +
{3\over 2c^2} \approx {k^2\over c^2\lambda a^2\Phi^2} + 2.08$, and
$q = {3\over 4c^2} \approx 1.04$. Looking at the instability chart, we see
that the
resonance occurs in the second band, for $k^2 \sim 3\lambda a^2\Phi^2$. The
maximal value of the coefficient $\mu_k$ in this band for $q \sim 1$
approximately equals to $0.07$. As long as the backreaction of created
particles is small, expansion of the Universe does not shift fluctuations away
from the resonance band, and the
number of produced particles grows as $\exp (2c\mu_k\sqrt\lambda a\Phi \eta)
\sim
\exp ({\sqrt\lambda\Phi t\over 5})$.
After the time interval $\sim M_{\rm P}^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}|\ln \lambda|$,
backreaction of created particles becomes significant. The growth of the
fluctuations
$\langle\phi^2\rangle$ gives rise to a contribution
$3\lambda \langle\phi^2\rangle$ to the effective mass squared of the field
$\phi$, both in the equation for $\phi (t)$ and in Eq. (\ref{lam1}) for
inhomogeneous modes.
The stage of explosive reheating ends when $\langle\phi^2\rangle$ becomes
greater than $\Phi^2$. After that, $\Phi^2 \ll
\langle\phi^2\rangle$ and
the effective frequency of oscillations is determined by the
term $\sqrt{3\lambda \langle\phi^2\rangle}$.
The corresponding process is
described by Eq. (\ref{M1}) with $A(k) = 1 + 2q + {k^2
\over
3\lambda a^2\langle\phi^2\rangle}$, $q = {\Phi^2\over 4
\langle\phi^2\rangle}$. In this regime $q \ll 1$, and particle creation occurs
in the narrow resonance regime in the second band with $A \approx 4$. Decay
of the field in this regime is extremely slow: one can show \cite{REH} that the
amplitude $\Phi$ decreases
only by a factor
$t^{1/12}$ faster that it would decrease without any decay, due to the
expansion of the Universe only, i.e., $\Phi \propto t^{-7/12}$.
Reheating stops altogether when the presence of non-zero mass
$m_{\phi}$ though still small as compared to $\sqrt{3\lambda
\langle\phi^2\rangle}$
appears enough for the expansion of the Universe to drive
a mode away
from the narrow resonance. It happens when the amplitude $\Phi$ drops
up to a value $\sim m_{\phi}/\sqrt \lambda$.
In addition to this process, the field $\phi$ may decay to
$\chi$-particles.
This is the leading process for $g^2\gg \lambda$.
The equation for $\chi_k$ quanta has the same form as eq.
(\ref{lam1})
with the obvious change $\lambda \to g^2/3$.
Initially parametric resonance is broad. The values of the parameter
$\mu_k$
along the line $A = 2q$ do not change monotonically, but typically
for $q \gg
1$ they are 3 to 4 times greater than the parameter $\mu_k$ for the
decay of
the field $\phi$ into its own quanta. Therefore, this pre-heating
process is very
efficient. It ends at the moment $t\sim M_{\rm P}^{-1}\lambda^{-1/2}
\ln (\lambda /g^{10})$ when $\Phi^2 \sim \langle \chi^2
\rangle \sim g^{-1}\sqrt \lambda M_{\rm P}^2$. The typical energy of created
$\chi$-particles is $E \sim (g^2\lambda)^{1/4}M_{\rm P}$. The following
evolution is essentially the same as that described above for the case of a
massive scalar field decaying into $\chi$-particles.
Finally, let us consider the case with symmetry breaking. In the
beginning, when the amplitude of oscillations is much greater than
$\sigma$, the theory of decay of the inflaton field is the same as in the case
considered above. The most important part of pre-heating occurs at this stage.
When the amplitude of the oscillations becomes smaller than
$m_\phi/\sqrt\lambda$ and the field begins oscillating near the minimum of the
effective potential at $\phi = \sigma$, particle production due to
the narrow parametric
resonance typically becomes very weak.
The main reason for this is related to the backreaction of
particles created at the
preceding stage of pre-heating on the rate of expansion of the Universe and on
the shape of the effective potential \cite{REH}. A rather interesting effect
which makes investigation of this regime especially complicated is a temporary
(non-thermal) symmetry restoration which occurs because of the interaction of
the field $\phi$ with its fluctuations $<\phi^2>$. Importance of
spontaneous symmetry
breaking for the theory of reheating should not be underestimated, since it
gives rise to the interaction term $g^2\sigma\phi\chi^2$ which is linear in
$\phi$. Such terms are necessary for a complete decay of the inflaton field in
accordance with the perturbation theory (\ref{7}).
In this section we presented the new theory of reheating developed in
\cite{KLSREH}, where we performed an investigation of reheating with an account
of expansion of the Universe and of the backreaction of created particles,
both in the broad resonance regime and in the narrow resonance case. As a
result of this investigation, we obtained equations for the power-law decrease
of the amplitude of an oscillating scalar field with an account taken of all of
these effects.
During the last year there appeared many other papers on the theory of
reheating \cite{Shtanov}--\cite{Kaiser}, which made the physical picture of
reheating even more clear. Unfortunately, it is not easy to compare the
results obtained in \cite{Shtanov}--\cite{Kaiser} with the results of our work
\cite{KLSREH}. For example, a very thorough investigation of reheating in the
narrow resonance regime without a complete account of backreaction was
performed in \cite{Shtanov,Yoshimura,Kaiser}, and their results in this
approximation agree with the corresponding results of \cite{KLSREH}. However,
as we have seen, at the first, most efficient stages of reheating the
resonance is broad, and when it becomes narrow a complete account of
backreaction becomes necessary \cite{KLSREH}. Backreaction was studied in a
very detailed way in ref.~\cite{Boyan}, but their investigation was performed
neglecting expansion of the Universe, which was an important part of our work.
That is why in this review we concentrated on the results obtained in
\cite{KLSREH}.
However, to obtain a complete theory of reheating a much more detailed
investigation will be necessary, and in this respect many of the results
obtained in \cite{Shtanov}--\cite{Kaiser} should be very useful.
We should emphasize that the stage of parametric resonance is just the first
stage of the process. If one naively takes the energy density at the end of
explosive reheating and assumes that this energy density instantaneously
transfers to heat, one may overestimate the reheating temperature by many
orders of magnitude. Indeed, after the stage of explosive reheating the
bose-particles created at this stage have enormously large occupation numbers,
and they should further decay into the usual elementary particles. This may
take a lot of time, during which the energy density of the Universe may
decrease dramatically. To find the reheating temperature one should
investigate the subsequent decay of the particles created at the stage of
explosive reheating. This decay can be described by the old perturbative
methods developed in~\cite{DolgLinde}.
Note, however, that now
this theory should be applied not to the decay of the
original large and homogeneous oscillating inflaton field, but to the decay of
particles produced at the stage of pre-heating, as well as to the decay of
small remnants of the classical inflaton field. This makes a lot
of difference, since typically coupling constants of interaction of the
inflaton field with matter are extremely small, whereas coupling constants
involved in the decay of other bosons can be much greater. As a result,
the reheating temperature can be much higher than the typical temperature $T_r
{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\rlap{$<$}\lower5pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ } 10^9$
GeV
which could be obtained
neglecting the stage of parametric resonance \cite{REH}. In addition, one
should make a careful study of the process of establishing of thermal
equilibrium \cite{Boyan2}.
On the other hand, such processes as baryon creation after inflation occur best
of all outside the state of thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the stage
of explosive reheating (pre-heating), which produces fields and particles
outside of the state of thermal equilibrium, may play an extremely important
role in the cosmological
theory. Another consequence of the resonance effects is an almost
instantaneous change of equation of state from the vacuum-like one to the
equation of state of relativistic matter $p = \rho/3$. This may be important
for investigation of the primordial black hole formation, which could appear
from growing density perturbations if equation of state after inflation for a
long time was $p = 0$.
A rather nontrivial example of reheating appears in inflationary models based
on supergravity, see e.g. \cite{Nan}--\cite{Bert}. The leading mode of the
single-inflaton decay in such models often involves creation of a gravitino,
which is a fermion. This does not necessarily mean that the first
explosive stage cannot be realized in such models. Indeed, just as in the
theory ${\lambda\over 4}\phi^4$, at the first stage the homogeneous classical
oscillating inflaton field $\phi$ may decay into decoherent waves or
particles of the same field $\phi$. However, this will be just a first stage
of reheating, after which one should consider decay of the inflaton particles
by the usual perturbative methods. In such a situation one does not expect any
deviations of the reheating temperature from its value obtained by perturbative
methods \cite{DolgLinde}, \cite{Nan}--\cite{Bert}.
One should note also that in certain models the oscillations of the scalar
field from the very beginning occur in the region where the conditions for the
explosive reheating formulated in \cite{KLSREH} are not satisfied. Such a
situation occurs, e.g., in ``natural inflation'' \cite{DolgF}, where the
change of the effective mass of the inflaton field during its oscillations is
relatively small, and the conditions of existence of narrow resonance in
expanding Universe derived in \cite{KLSREH} are violated.
Let us briefly summarize our results:
1. In many models where decay of the inflaton field can occur in the purely
bosonic sector the first stages of reheating occur due to parametric resonance.
This process (pre-heating) is extremely efficient even if the corresponding
coupling constants are very small.
However, there is no explosive reheating in the models where decay of the
inflaton field is necessarily accompanied by fermion production.
2. The stage of explosive reheating due to a broad resonance typically is very
short. Later the resonance becomes narrow, and
finally the stage of pre-heating finishes altogether. Interactions of
particles produced at this stage, their decay into other particles and
subsequent thermalization typically
require much more time that the stage of pre-heating, since these processes
are suppressed by the small
values of coupling constants.
3. The last stages of reheating typically
can be described by the elementary theory of reheating \cite{DolgLinde}.
However, this theory should be applied not to the original inflaton field, but
to the products of its decay formed at the stage of explosive reheating. In
some models it changes the final value of the reheating temperature.
4. Existence of the intermediate stage between the end of explosive reheating
and the beginning of thermal equilibrium may have important implications for
the theory of baryogenesis.
5. Reheating never completes in the theories where a single $\phi$-particle
cannot decay into other particles. This implies that reheating completes only
if the theory contains interaction terms like $\phi\sigma\chi^2$ of
$\phi\bar\psi\psi$. In most cases the theories where reheating never completes
contradict observational data. On the other hand, this result suggests an
interesting possibility that the classical scalar fields (maybe even the
inflaton field itself) may be responsible for the
dark matter of the Universe even if they strongly interact with other matter
fields.
\section{Conclusions}
Inflationary theory is already more than 15 years old, and its main principles
seem to be well understood. Nevertheless, it is young enough to bring us many
new surprises. Originally we expected that inflation was a short intermediate
stage after the hot big bang. Now it seems that the standard big bang theory
is only a part of inflationary cosmology which describes local (but not global)
properties of the self-reproducing inflationary universe. Even though each
part of the Universe expands (or collapses), the Universe as a whole may be
stationary. One of the main purposes of inflationary cosmology was to solve the
primordial monopole problem by expanding the distance between the monopoles.
Recently we learned that the monopoles themselves may expand exponentially and
become as large as a universe \cite{LL}. On the other hand, we learned that an
infinitely large open inflationary universe may fit into an interior of a
single bubble of a finite size produced during the false vacuum decay. This
demonstrated that even though $\Omega = 1$ remains one of the rather robust
predictions of inflationary cosmology, it will be impossible to kill inflation
by proving that our universe is open. The process of creation of matter after
inflation also happened to be extremely interesting and complicated, involving
investigation of nonperturbative resonance effects in an expanding universe.
Rapid development of the inflationary theory is a very good sign indicating
that we are moving fast towards a complete cosmological theory -- assuming, as
we all hope, that we have chosen the right direction.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Geometric approaches to quantum mechanics have
been studied by various groups ever
since the foundation of quantum mechanics
was laid down.
The prime aim of such approaches is
to render quantum mechanics applicable to more general settings, not just
to Euclidean space as originally done.
However, it is by now well recognized that quantization is
generally difficult to carry out unless
the setting is fairly simple. A system whose classical configuration
space $Q$ is a homogeneous space given by a coset
$G/H$ falls into this simple category.
An important lesson learned when quantizing on
homogeneous spaces
is that
there are actually (infinitely) many
{\it inequivalent quantizations}
allowed~\cite{Mackey,Doebner,Isham}.
In other words, there exist
unitarily inequivalent Hilbert spaces where
physical properties, such as their energy spectra, may differ
from each other.
These inequivalent quantizations are classified
according to the induced representation~\cite{Mackey} which is used
for the quantization.
\par
Interest in the inequivalent quantizations has been renewed recently
after Landsman and Linden examined the
physical implications of the quantizations
and found that a special type of
gauge field is induced
on homogeneous
spaces~\cite{Landsman,LL,Ohnuki,McMullan,Robson}.
The gauge fields are a (topological) solution
of the Yang-Mills equation on the spaces,
called the {\it canonical connection} (or $H$-{\it connection}).
However, the previous arguments leading to the gauge fields
are algebraic and abstract, and there is no intuitive
account of this rather mysterious appearance of gauge fields.
It would be therefore desirable
to develop a path integral account,
which normally admits a more intuitive understanding
based on the geometry of the configuration space.
In this note we wish to take a step in this direction ---
we shall show that,
the path integral on a homogeneous space carries
the canonical connection as a gauge field, if we adopt
the guiding principle that the path integral be constructed first on
the group manifold $G$ and then projected down to the homogeneous space
$G/H$. This \lq first lift and then project' principle may be
arguable, but it is certainly true that the case $Q = S^1$, where
the path integral is known to reproduce the inequivalent
quantizations correctly~\cite{Schulman}, relies on this principle.
We shall not dwell on this issue until the end of the paper
where a possible explanation is given.
We here mention that similar induced gauge fields appear in various
other contexts as well; {\it e.g.},
in the context of Berry's (geometric) phase
in quantum mechanics~\cite{Berry,Simon,Wilczek,Levay}
or in the kinematics of molecules and deformable
bodies~\cite{Guichardet,Iwai,Shapere,Montgomery}.
Moreover, induced gauge fields
play an important role in high energy physics too; {\it e.g.},
in the so-called hidden local symmetry
of nonlinear sigma models~\cite{Bando}
and in the search for
a possible origin of dynamical gauge bosons~\cite{Kikkawa,Tamura}.
We hope that the path integral account given in this paper
may shed some light on the
machinery for those phenomena in general.
\par
The plan of this paper is as follows.
First we review quantum mechanics on $Q = S^1 $
to see how the gauge field is induced.
Motivated by this simple example, we then generalize the construction
of the path integral
to the case of homogeneous spaces $ Q = G/H $ following the
above guiding principle.
We shall find that the canonical connection
does appear in the path integral in the form expected, once
the induced representation is incorporated in the path integral scheme.
Finally we will argue a possible generalization
to inhomogeneous spaces, together with a restriction
that may underlie the guiding principle we adopted.
\section{Covering the path integral}
Let us begin by reviewing
the path integral on a circle $ S^1 $ \cite{Schulman}.
(A further discussion can be found in refs.\cite{LL,S1}.)
We first regard $ S^1 $ as the coset
$S^1 \cong \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} / 2 \pi \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} $ by identifying
the point $ x $ of $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $ with other points $ x + 2 \pi n$ for
$ n \in \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $}$.
This identification defines a covering map $ \pi : \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} \to S^1 $.
Our idea is then to construct the path integral on $S^1$ from the
path integral on $\mbox{\boldmath $ R $}$ with the above identification in mind.
\par
Let $ K_{R} ( x', x ; t ) = \langle x' | e^{ -i H t } | x \rangle $
be a propagator on $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $ which is
invariant under the translation by
$2\pi$,
\begin{equation}
K_{R} ( x'+ 2 \pi , x + 2 \pi ; t )
=
K_{R} ( x' , x ; t ).
\label{0}
\end{equation}
On account of the
identification of points $ x' + 2 \pi n $ with $ x' $,
summation over $ n $ may lead to a propagator on $ S^1 $;
\begin{equation}
K_{S^1} ( x', x ; t )
=
\sum_{ n = - \infty }^{ \infty }
K_{R} ( x' + 2 \pi n , x ; t ),
\label{1}
\end{equation}
where we interpret the integer $ n $ as the winding number
of a path connecting two points $ x $ and $ x' $ along the circle $ S^1 $.
Clearly, this expression admits an immediate generalization.
In fact, we do not have an {\it a priori} physical
reason to add up propagators for different winding numbers
with the same weight, as long as the weight is a phase
factor. Based on this observation
Schulman~\cite{Schulman} proposed to insert a weight factor $ \omega_n $
with $ | \omega_n | = 1 $ to obtain a more general propagator
\begin{equation}
K_{S^1}^{\omega} ( x' , x ; t )
=
\sum_{ n = - \infty }^{ \infty } \,
\omega_n
K_{R} ( x' + 2 \pi n , x ; t ).
\label{2}
\end{equation}
The composition law of the propagator
\begin{equation}
\int_{0}^{2 \pi} dx' \,
K_{S^1}^{\omega} ( x'', x' ; t' ) \,
K_{S^1}^{\omega} ( x' , x ; t )
=
K_{S^1}^{\omega} ( x'', x ; t + t' )
\label{3}
\end{equation}
is guaranteed if the weight satisfies\footnote{%
The weight can actually be determined by requiring consistency against
a shift of winding numbers~\cite{Schulman} but here we use the composition
law for our later generalization.}
\begin{equation}
\omega_m \, \omega_n = \omega_{m+n}.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
This implies that $ \omega : \pi_1 ( S^1 ) \to U(1) $ is
a unitary representation of the first homotopy group
$ \pi_1 ( S^1 ) \cong \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} $ and hence
given by $ \omega_n = e^{ i \alpha n } $
with a real parameter $ \alpha \in [ 0 , \, 2 \pi ) $.
For each value of $ \alpha $,
the propagator (\ref{2}) furnishes
an inequivalent quantum theory on $ S^1 $.
To see the physical meaning of $ \alpha $,
we assume $ K_{R} $ to be of the standard form
\begin{equation}
K_{R} ( x' , x ; t )
=
\int_x^{x'} [dx] \,
\exp
\left[ i
\int dt
\biggl\{
\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \frac{ d x }{ d t } \biggr)^2
- V ( x )
\biggr\}
\right],
\label{5}
\end{equation}
where $ V( x + 2 \pi ) = V( x ) $ in order to satisfy (\ref{0}).
Putting $ A = \alpha / ( 2 \pi ) $, we find that the propagator
(\ref{2}) can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
K_{S^1}^{\omega} ( x' , x ; t )
=
e^{-i\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}( x' - x )}
\sum_{ n = - \infty }^{ \infty } \,
\int_x^{ x' + 2 \pi n } [ dx ] \,
\exp
\left[ i
\int dt
\biggl\{
\frac{1}{2} \biggl( \frac{ d x }{ d t } \biggr)^2
- V ( x )
+ A \, \frac{ d x }{ d t }
\biggr\}
\right].
\label{6}
\end{equation}
We therefore see that the insertion
of the weight $ \omega_n = e^{ i \alpha n } $
just amounts to
introduction of the minimal coupling with the vector potential $ A $.
Being constant, the vector potential has vanishing curvature on
$S^1$ but the flux penetrating the circle is finite. Hence, its
physical consequence is analogous to that of the Aharonov-Bohm effect.
\section{Lifting the path integral}
What we have considered above is a covering
$ \pi : \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} \to S^1 \cong \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} / 2 \pi \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} $.
A point $ x' $ in $ S^1 $ is lifted to points $ x' + 2 \pi n $ in $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $,
which are translated by the action of the group $ \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} $.
For each lifted point a propagator in $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $ is defined,
then we add them up
with a weight factor given by the representation $ \omega : \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} \to U(1) $
to obtain a propagator in $ S^1 $.
Thus a path in $ S^1 $ is lifted up to $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $ once,
and then it is projected down to $ S^1 $ with a nontrivial weight
multiplied, resulting in inequivalent quantizations and inducing a
$ U(1) $ gauge field.
In this section, we shall repeat the above construction
of the path integral to a homogeneous space $G/H$, where
$ G $ is a compact Lie group and $ H $ its closed subgroup.
In order to set up a framework where
a generalization of the covering $ \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} \to S^1 \cong \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} / 2 \pi \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} $
can be realized for $Q \cong G/H$,
we take the principal fiber bundle $ \pi : G \to G/H $
in which $ H $ acts on $ G $ from the right
and $ G $ acts on $ G/H $ from the left.
The difference from the former case is that
$ H $ can be a continuous group or a nonabelian group in general, and
hence
the summation over the winding numbers $ \sum_n \, ( n \in \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} ) $
will be replaced by the integration over the group $ \int_H \, d h $.
For a nonabelian $ H $
its 1-dimensional representation is always trivial, but
if we use higher dimensional nontrivial representations
we will get inequivalent quantizations, as we shall see below.
\par
According to our guiding principle,
we first lift our system from $Q$ to $ G $, and consider
a propagator in $ G $ which is a map
$ K_G : G \times G \times \mbox{\boldmath $ R $}^+ \to \mbox{\boldmath $ C $} $. The
propagator we are interested in is one which is invariant under the
$H$ action (as in (\ref{0})),
\begin{equation}
K_G ( g'h , g h ; t ) = K_G ( g' , g ; t )\ ,
\label{7}
\end{equation}
for arbitrary $ g, \, g' \in G $ and $ h \in H $.
As before, we take the standard form for the propagator
on $ G $,
\begin{equation}
K_G ( g' , g ; t )
=
\int_g^{g'} [dg] \,
\exp
\left[ i
\int dt
\biggl\{
\frac{1}{2}
\biggl| \biggl| \frac{ d g }{ d t } \biggr| \biggr|^2
- V ( g )
\biggr\}
\right]\ .
\label{8}
\end{equation}
Since the condition (\ref{7}) implies
the invariance of the potential
$ V( g h ) = V( g ) $,
which corresponds to the
periodicity $ V( x + 2 \pi ) = V( x ) $ in (\ref{5}),
the potential $ V $ is actually a function of the homogeneous space
$ V : Q \to \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} $.
The norm $ || \cdot || $ used in (\ref{8}) is given
by the invariant metric on $ G $, that is,
$ || \dot{g} ||^2 = \mbox{Tr} ( g^{-1} \dot{g} )^2 $ where
\lq $\mbox{Tr}$' is a matrix trace properly normalized in
some irreducible representation.
(The expression (\ref{8}) is rather symbolic; for
a concrete expression, see \cite{LL}.)
Now we define two unitary operators $ U_t $ and $ R_h $
acting on $ \psi \in L_2 ( G ) $ by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
( U_t \psi ) ( g' )
=
\int_G dg \, K_G ( g' , g ; t ) \, \psi ( g )\ ,
\label{10}
\\
&&
( R_h \psi ) ( g )
=
\psi ( g h )\ ,
\label{11}
\end{eqnarray}
for each $ t > 0 $ and $ h \in H $, where
$ dg $ in (\ref{10}) is the normalized Haar measure of $ G $.
Then,
the invariance (\ref{7}) states that $ U_t \, R_h = R_h \, U_t $,
and hence
there exists a conserved quantity associated with this invariance.
Consequently, the Hilbert space $ L_2(G) $ can be decomposed
into the irreducible representations of $ H $.
\par
To implement the decomposition,
let $ ( V_\chi , \rho_\chi ) $
be an irreducible unitary representation of $ H $,
where $ V_\chi $ is a representation space
labeled by $ \chi $.
A function $ f : G \to V_\chi $ is called
{\it $ \chi $-equivariant}
if it satisfies $ f ( g h ) = \rho_\chi( h )^{-1} \, f ( g ) $.
In other words, $ f $ is a section
of the associated vector bundle $ E_\chi = G \times_\rho \, V_\chi $.
The space of $ \chi $-equivariant functions is denoted by $ \Gamma^\chi $,
which is equipped with the inner product
\begin{equation}
\langle f_1 , f_2 \rangle
=
\int_G dg \, \langle f_1 ( g ) , f_2 ( g ) \rangle,
\label{12}
\end{equation}
where in the right-hand side $ \langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle $
denotes the inner product of the linear space $ V_\chi $.
Consider then the operator
$ I^{ ( \chi , j ) } : L_2(G) \to \Gamma^\chi $ defined by
\begin{equation}
( I^{ ( \chi , j ) } \psi )^i ( g )
=
\sqrt{ d_\chi }
\int_H dh \,
\rho_{\chi}^{ ij } ( h ) \, \psi ( g h )\ .
\label{13}
\end{equation}
Here $ d_\chi = \dim V_\chi $,
the indices $ i, j = 1, \cdots , d_\chi $ run over the
components of $ V_\chi $,
$ \rho_{\chi}^{ ij } ( h ) $ is a matrix element of
an unitary representation
$ \rho_{\chi} ( h ) $, and
$ dh $ the normalized Haar measure of $ H $.
This operator $ I^{ ( \chi , j ) } $ provides a partial isometry
in the sense that
$ I^{ ( \chi , j ) } $ is isometric on
$ ( \ker I^{ ( \chi , j ) } )^{\perp} $
(for more detail on $ I^{ ( \chi , j ) } $, see \cite{LL}).
The adjoint operator
$ I^{ ( \chi , j ) \dagger } : \Gamma^\chi \to L_2(G) $
is defined by the relation
$ \langle I^{ ( \chi , j ) \dagger } f , \psi \rangle =
\langle f , I^{ ( \chi , j ) } \psi \rangle $,
where the former bracket is the inner product of $ L_2(G) $
while the latter is the one of $ \Gamma^{ \chi } $.
One can then show that
$ I^{ ( \chi , j ) \dagger } $ picks up the $j$-th component
of a $\chi$-equivariant function:
\begin{equation}
( I^{ ( \chi , j ) \dagger } f ) ( g )
=
\sqrt{ d_\chi }
f^j ( g ).
\label{13.1}
\end{equation}
\par
Next let us turn to the time evolution operator $ U_t $.
Observe first that, thanks to the invariance (\ref{7}), the product
$ U_t^{ ( \chi , j ) } =
I^{ ( \chi , j ) } \, U_t \, I^{ ( \chi , j ) \dagger } $
may be used to
define a unitary time evolution projected on $ \Gamma^\chi $.
Explicitly, it is given by
\begin{equation}
( U_t^{ ( \chi , j ) } f )^i ( g' )
=
\int_G dg
\int_H dh
\sum_{ k=1 }^{ d_\chi } \,
\rho_\chi ( h )^{ ik } \, K_G ( g' h , g ; t ) f^k ( g ),
\label{13.2}
\end{equation}
which shows that $ U_t^{ ( \chi , j ) } $ is in fact
independent of $ j $, and hence
can be written simply as $ U_t^\chi $.
From this expression
we can deduce the projected propagator $ K_Q^\chi $
acting on $ \Gamma^\chi $ via
$( U_t^\chi f ) ( g' )=
\int_G dg \, K_Q^\chi ( g' , g ; t ) \, f ( g )$,
that is,
\begin{equation}
K_Q^\chi ( g' , g ; t )
=
\int_H dh \, \rho_\chi ( h ) \, K_G ( g' h , g ; t )\ .
\label{14}
\end{equation}
The projected propagator $ K_Q^\chi $ is a map
$ K_Q^\chi : G \times G \times \mbox{\boldmath $ R $}^+ \to \mbox{End} ( V_\chi ) $,
which is an analogue of (\ref{2}).
Note that
the summation $ \sum_n \, ( n \in \mbox{\boldmath $ Z $} ) $ with respect to covering points
is replaced by the integration $ \int_H dh $ along the
fiber as planned, whereas the phase factor $ \omega_n $ is now replaced
by the nonabelian weight $ \rho_\chi (h) $.
Note also that the composition law
$ U_{t+t'}^\chi = U_{t'}^\chi U_t^\chi $
is ensured by the
homomorphism $ \rho_\chi (h' h) = \rho_\chi (h') \rho_\chi (h) $
of the representation.
The projected propagator $ K_Q^\chi $ has the following properties,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
K_Q^\chi ( g' h , g ; t )
=
\rho_\chi ( h )^{ -1 } \, K_Q^\chi ( g' , g ; t )\ ,
\label{16}
\\
&&
K_Q^\chi ( g' , g h ; t )
=
K_Q^\chi ( g' , g ; t ) \, \rho_\chi ( h )\ .
\label{17}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus we see that our path integral on $ Q $ has successfully
accommodated the
inequivalent quantizations which are labeled by
the irreducible representation $ \chi $ of $H$.
\section{Inducing the gauge field}
Having found the path integral which reproduces the
inequivalent quantizations obtained in algebraic approaches,
we now move on to examine whether it
carries the canonical connection
as a gauge field in the form of the (nonabelian) minimal coupling,
as we have seen
in (\ref{6}) for the case $S^1$.
This requires to analyze the local structure
of the propagator (\ref{16}) by dividing a path in $ Q $ into small intervals,
and for this we need some preparations.
\par
Recall first that
the Haar measure $ dg $ of $ G $
induces the $ G $-invariant measure $ dq = \pi_\ast ( dg ) $ on $ Q $,
whereby a function $ \phi : Q \to \mbox{\boldmath $ C $} $ can be integrated as
\begin{equation}
\int_Q dq \, \phi( q )
=
\int_G dg \, \phi( \pi ( g ) ).
\label{18}
\end{equation}
Let $ \{ D_\alpha \} $ be an open covering of
$ Q = \cup_\alpha D_\alpha $,
$ \{ s_\alpha : D_\alpha \to G \} $ be a set of local sections
of the fiber bundle $ \pi : G \to Q $, and
$ \{ w_\alpha : Q \to \mbox{\boldmath $ R $} \} $ be a partition of unity
associated with the covering $ \{ D_\alpha \} $.
Then they give local expressions to various objects:
for a $ \chi $-equivariant function $ f $
its pullback is
$ f_\alpha = s_\alpha^\ast f = f \circ s_\alpha : D_\alpha \to V_\chi $;
the pullback of the projected propagator $ K_Q^\chi $ is a map
$ K_{ \alpha \beta }^{ \chi } :
D_\alpha \times D_\beta \times \mbox{\boldmath $ R $}^+ \to \mbox{End} ( V_\chi ) $
defined by $ K_{ \alpha \beta }^{ \chi } ( q' , q ; t )
= K_Q^\chi ( s_\alpha( q' ), s_\beta( q ) ; t ) $; and
if $ q' \in D_\alpha \cap D_\gamma $
the local expressions are related by
$ K_{ \gamma \beta }^\chi ( q' , q ; t )
= \rho_\chi ( t_{ \gamma \alpha } ( q' ) )
K_{ \alpha \beta }^\chi ( q' , q ; t ) $
with a transition function
$ t_{ \gamma \alpha } ( q' ) = s_\gamma ( q' )^{-1} s_\alpha ( q' ) $.
In terms of these, the time evolution operator reads
\begin{equation}
( U_t^\chi f )_\alpha ( q' )
=
\sum_\beta
\int_Q dq \, K_{ \alpha \beta }^\chi ( q' , q ; t ) \,
w_\beta ( q ) f_\beta ( q ).
\label{19}
\end{equation}
Hence the composition law
$ U_{ t + t' }^\chi = U_{ t' }^\chi U_{ t }^\chi $
implies
\begin{eqnarray}
K_Q^\chi ( g'', g ; t + t' )
& = &
\int_G dg' \,
K_Q^\chi ( g'', g' ; t' ) \,
K_Q^\chi ( g' , g ; t )
\nonumber
\\
& = &
\sum_\alpha
\int_{ D_\alpha } dq' \,
w_\alpha (q') \,
K_Q^\chi ( g'', s_\alpha (q') ; t' ) \,
K_Q^\chi ( s_\alpha (q') , q ; t ).
\label{20}
\end{eqnarray}
Inserting intermediate points repeatedly, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
K_Q^\chi ( g_n , g_0 ; t )
& = &
\sum_{ \alpha_1 , \cdots , \alpha_{ n-1 } }
\int_{ D_{\alpha_{n-1}} } dq_{n-1}
\cdots
\int_{ D_{\alpha_1} } dq_1 \,
w_{ \alpha_{n-1} } ( q_{n-1} ) \cdots w_{ \alpha_1 } ( q_1 )
\nonumber
\\
&&
\qquad \times\,
K_Q^\chi ( g_{ n },
s_{ \alpha_{ n-1 } } ( q_{ n-1 } ) ; \epsilon )\,
K_Q^\chi ( s_{ \alpha_{ n-1 } } ( q_{ n-1 } ) ,
s_{ \alpha_{ n-2 } } ( q_{ n-2 } ) ; \epsilon )
\cdots
\nonumber
\\
&&
\qquad \times\,
K_Q^\chi ( s_{ \alpha_{ 2 } } ( q_{ 2 } ) ,
s_{ \alpha_{ 1 } } ( q_{ 1 } ) ; \epsilon )\,
K_Q^\chi ( s_{ \alpha_{ 1 } } ( q_{ 1 } ) ,
g_{ 0 } ; \epsilon ),
\label{21}
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \epsilon = t / n $.
When two points
$ q_k = q( \tau ) $ and $ q_{ k+1 } = q ( \tau + \epsilon ) $
are close enough to
be contained in a single patch $ D_\alpha $,
one of the factorized propagator becomes
\begin{equation}
K_{ \alpha \alpha }^\chi
( q ( \tau + \epsilon ) , q ( \tau ) ; \epsilon )
=
\int_H dh \, \rho_\chi ( h ( \epsilon ) ) \,
K_G ( s_\alpha ( q ( \tau + \epsilon ) ) h ( \epsilon ) ,
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) ; \epsilon ),
\label{22}
\end{equation}
where we extend $ h \in H $ to be a smooth function
$ h : ( - \epsilon , \epsilon ) \to H $ such that $ h(0) = e $
($e$ is the identity element of $H$) and $ h( \epsilon ) = h $.
Then eq.(\ref{8}) tells that for a short time interval $ \epsilon $,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
K_G ( s_\alpha ( q ( \tau + \epsilon ) ) h ( \epsilon ) ,
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) ; \epsilon )
\nonumber \\
&&
\qquad \quad
\approx
\exp
\left[
i \epsilon
\biggl\{
\frac{1}{2}
\biggl| \biggl|
\Bigl.
\frac{d}{ d \epsilon }
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau + \epsilon ) )
h ( \epsilon )
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0 }
\biggr| \biggr|^2
- V ( q ( \tau ) )
\biggr\}
\right],
\label{23}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
\biggl| \biggl|
\Bigl.
\frac{d}{ d \epsilon }
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau + \epsilon ) ) h ( \epsilon )
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0 }
\biggr| \biggr|^2
\nonumber
\\
& = &
\mbox{Tr}
\biggl[
\Bigl.
h(\epsilon)^{-1}
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) )^{ -1 }
\frac{ d s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) }{ d \tau }
h(\epsilon)
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0}
+
\Bigl.
h(\epsilon)^{-1}
\frac{ d h ( \epsilon ) }{ d \epsilon }
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0}
\biggr]^2
\nonumber
\\
& = &
\mbox{Tr}
\biggl[
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) )^{ -1 }
\frac{ d s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) }{ d \tau }
+
\Bigl.
\frac{ d h ( \epsilon ) }{ d \epsilon }
h(\epsilon)^{-1}
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0 }
\biggr]^2
\nonumber
\\
& = &
\mbox{Tr}
\biggl[
P_{ \cal H }
\Bigl(
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) )^{ -1 }
\frac{ d s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) }{ d \tau }
\Bigr)
+
\Bigl.
\frac{ d h ( \epsilon ) }{ d \epsilon }
h(\epsilon)^{-1}
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0 }
\biggr]^2
\nonumber
\\
&&
+
\,
\mbox{Tr}
\biggl[
P_{ \cal H }^{ \perp }
\Bigl(
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) )^{ -1 }
\frac{ d s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) }{ d \tau }
\Bigr)
\biggr]^2,
\label{24}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$ P_{\cal H} $ is a projector from the Lie algebra
of $ G $ onto the Lie algebra of $ H $,
and $ P_{ \cal H }^{ \perp } $ denotes its orthogonal complement.
\par
Now, if we take the interval $\epsilon$ small enough, then
the contribution from the stationary point of
(\ref{24}) with respect to the variation of $ h $ will dominate
in the integration $ \int_H dh $ in (\ref{22}).
Thus in the limit $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$
the integration may be replaced by the value at the stationary point
\begin{equation}
\Bigr.
\frac{ d h ( \epsilon ) }{ d \epsilon }
h(\epsilon)^{-1}
\Bigr|_{ \epsilon = 0 }
=
- P_{ \cal H }
\Bigl(
s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) )^{ -1 }
\frac{ d s_\alpha ( q ( \tau ) ) }{ d \tau }
\Bigr).
\label{25}
\end{equation}
This result may be interpreted that
for a small change of the parameter $ q( \tau ) $ in the base manifold $ Q $,
the lifted point in the fiber space $ G $ moves along the shortest path,
{\it i.e.}, it acquires the smallest change.
Now we notice that the right-hand side of (\ref{25})
is nothing but (the pullback of) the canonical connection $ A $,
which is just the Maurer-Cartan 1-form $ g^{-1} dg $
projected down to the subalgebra $ {\cal H} $,
\begin{equation}
A = P_{\cal H} ( g^{-1} dg ).
\label{26}
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning that
this connection is invariant under the $G$-action over
the homogeneous space $Q$ and provides various topological solutions
of the Yang-Mills equation,
for instance,
the Dirac monopole and the BPST instanton on $Q = S^2$ and $S^4$,
respectively (see, for example \cite{Bais,McMullan}).
\par
Writing the pullback of $ A $ by the section $ s_\alpha $ as
$ A_\alpha = P_{\cal H} ( s_\alpha^{-1} ds_\alpha ) $,
we can write the solution of (\ref{25}) as
$
h_{\alpha\alpha}[q_{k+1}] = h(\epsilon)
= {\cal P}\, \exp [ - \int_{ q_{k} }^{ q_{k+1} } A_{ \alpha } ]
$,
where the symbol ${\cal P}$ denotes the path-ordering.
Using this and gathering scattered pieces, we finally obtain the
propagator (\ref{21}) in the desired form,
\begin{equation}
K_{ \alpha_n \alpha_0 }^\chi ( q_n , q_0 ; t )
=
\int_{q_0}^{q_n} [ dq ] \,
\rho_\chi ( h_{ \alpha_n \alpha_0 } [ q ] )
\exp
\left[ i
\int dt
\biggl\{
\frac{1}{2}
\biggl| \biggl| \frac{ d q }{ d t } \biggr| \biggr|^2
- V ( q )
\biggr\}
\right],
\label{27}
\end{equation}
where $ h_{ \alpha_n \alpha_0 } $ is a nonabelian weight factor
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
h_{ \alpha_n \alpha_0 } [q]
\, = \,
t_{ \alpha_n \alpha_{n-1} } ( q_n )
\, {\cal P}\,\exp [ - \int_{ q_{n-1} }^{ q_n } A_{ \alpha_{n-1} } ]
\nonumber
\\
&&
\qquad \times \, t_{ \alpha_{n-1} \alpha_{n-2} } ( q_{n-1} )
\, {\cal P}\exp [ - \int_{ q_{n-2} }^{ q_{n-1} } A_{ \alpha_{n-2} } ]
\cdots
t_{ \alpha_1 \alpha_0 } ( q_1 )
\, {\cal P}\exp [ - \int_{ q_0 }^{ q_1 } A_{ \alpha_0 } ]
\label{28}
\end{eqnarray}
with $ q_k \in D_{k-1} \cap D_{k} $
$ ( k = 1 , \cdots , n ) $ being intermediate points.
The factor $ h_{ \alpha_n \alpha_0 }[q] $ is actually a holonomy
associated with the path $ q : [ 0, t ] \to Q $,
and the above expression (\ref{28})
shows that the gauge field interacts minimally in the nonabelian
sense \cite{McMullan}.
We therefore
reached the path integral
(\ref{27}) with (\ref{28}) which precisely reproduces
the result found earlier
in algebraic approaches~\cite{Landsman,LL,Ohnuki}.
\section{Concluding remarks}
We considered the path integral on a homogeneous space $ Q = G/H $,
and showed that the propagator on $ Q $
can be reduced from the one on $ G $
by integration of redundant degrees of freedom in the fiber
direction of $ H $, with
a non-trivial weight factor $ \rho_\chi (h) $ multiplied.
Being a unitary representation of $ H $, the factor $ \rho_\chi (h) $
preserves the composition law of the propagator, and
a different $ \rho_\chi $ leads to a different (inequivalent)
quantization.
The composition law then allows for a
decomposition of the propagator into small intervals,
and integration over intermediate points eventually
results in the path integral expression.
Examination of the propagator at short distance reveals that
a gauge field is induced in the path integral in the form of
the canonical connection.
Thus we have shown that our guiding principle ---
`first lift and then project' ---
yields the inequivalent quantizations and the induced gauge field correctly.
The basic tool used here is essentially the one
used in \cite{LL}, where the same path integral expression
has been derived from the self-adjoint Hamiltonian through
the Trotter formula.
In this paper we put an emphasis on the role of the geometry
and adopted the guiding principle in order to reach the path integral
expression, rather than defining the quantum theory algebraically first.
\par
Several questions are still left open.
One obvious question is
how we construct a quantum theory on inhomogeneous spaces.
Inhomogeneous spaces often arise in physics,
with the one most frequently discussed being
a Riemann surface with higher genus.
Actually our formulation is not restricted to homogeneous spaces.
A more general situation which allows our principle to be employed
is the following\footnote{%
Such a situation has already been
considered by Montgomery~\cite{Montgomery}
in investigating geometric properties of induced gauge fields
of deformable bodies.}.
Let $ P $ be a Riemannian manifold with a metric $ \tilde{g} $ and
let a Lie group $ H $ act on $ P $ freely and isometrically.
Then the manifold $ M = P/H $ admits an induced metric $ g $,
with which the projection $ \pi : P \to M $
defines a principal bundle and a Riemannian submersion.
Assume that a propagator in $ P $ is $ H $-invariant,
$ K_P ( p'h, ph; t ) = K_P ( p', p; t ) $.
Then our formulation of the path integral can be applied
straightforwardly.
Indeed, the propagator on $M$ can be defined by
\begin{equation}
K_M^\chi ( p', p; t )
=
\int_H dh \, \rho_\chi(h) K_P ( p'h, p; t ),
\end{equation}
which acts on a $ \chi $-equivariant function $ f : P \to V_\chi $;
$ f ( p h ) = \rho_\chi ( h )^{-1} f ( p ) $.
When the base space $ ( M, g ) $ is fixed,
inequivalent quantizations are classified by
choice of the principal bundle $ ( P, M, \pi, H ) $,
the lifted metric $ ( P, \tilde{g} ) $
and the representation $ ( H, V_\chi, \rho_\chi ) $.
However, this scheme may be too general;
we do not have any criterion to choose a specific quantization.
In fact, in this scheme the choice of $ ( P, M, \pi, H, \tilde{g} ) $
is equivalent to introduction of an arbitrary gauge field by hand and,
as a result, we have no longer a natural explanation
of inducing gauge fields.
\par
In contrast, there exists such a criterion
when the base space $ M $ is a homogeneous space $ Q = G/H $.
In fact, the invariance under the $ G $-action determines
both $ g $ and $ \tilde{g} $ uniquely, and hence
the induced gauge field, too.
The only remaining arbitrariness is the choice of the
representation $ \rho_\chi $, and accordingly there are
(infinitely) many inequivalent quantizations.
We may therefore conclude that the existence of
inequivalent quantizations is the norm when quantizing on
a general Riemannian manifold $ ( M, g ) $.
If $ M $ admits a transitive action of some isometry group $ G $,
then the request of invariance will severely restrict possible quantizations.
If $ M $ does not admit such an action,
even a self-adjoint momentum operator cannot be defined globally as
a generator of the transitive action, and hence in that case
we are forced to give up the concept of momentum.
\par
This last point may be important in realizing the significance
of our guiding principle. Indeed, given a homogeneous space $Q = G/H$
there appears no compelling reason, at a glance,
to lift it to $G$ and consider quantization there.
But this way we can guarantee that there exists a self-adjoint
Hamiltonian given by the quadratic Casimir, which in turn ensures
unitary time evolution of the system. The existence of such a
Hamiltonian is by no means guaranteed for a system whose configuration
space is nontrivial. Unfortunately, this is not derived
on the sole ground of geometry,
and finding such a derivation will be crucial in developing
a path integral based on a purely geometric and intuitive principle.
\par
As a final remark,
we add that we have begun a preliminary investigation in two
dimensions into
the meaning of nontrivial topology in field theories
which admit inequivalent quantizations (see, for example~\cite{sigma}).
We have however left untouched the higher dimensional cases,
not to mention the path integral approach.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
S.T. wishes to thank T.~Iwai and Y.~Uwano for their encouragement
and helpful discussions.
I.T. is grateful to D. McMullan for useful advice.
This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (No. 07804015).
\parskip 0pt
|
\section{Introduction}
Understanding the fermion mass structure has been a goal of
particle theorists for some time. In 1978, Froggatt and Nielsen
\cite{fn} found that a spontaneously broken family dependent
symmetry could naturally explain the large mass ratios among
different families of quarks and leptons. Renormalizing
experimental data to the Planck scale reveals the order of
magnitude estimates to the following ratios \cite{op,rr,br}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{m_u \over m_t} = {\cal O}(\lambda^8)\;; \qquad\qquad
{m_d \over m_b}&=&{\cal O}(\lambda^4)\;; \qquad\qquad
{m_e \over m_\tau}={\cal O}(\lambda^4) \nonumber\\
{m_c \over m_t} = {\cal O}(\lambda^4)\;; \qquad\qquad
{m_s \over m_b}&=&{\cal O}(\lambda^2)\;; \qquad\qquad
{m_\mu \over m_\tau} = {\cal O}(\lambda^2)\;,
\label{eqratios}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\lambda\simeq 0.22$ is the small parameter used in the
Wolfenstein's pa\-ra\-me\-tri\-za\-tion \cite{w} of the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix \cite{c,km}.
In the past few years, there has been a revival of theories which
predict a mass hierarchy from a spontaneously broken family
symmetry. This time the work has been done in the context of
supersymmetry (SUSY). The general idea has been used widely in
more detailed models with family symmetries that were continuous
and discrete, Abelian and non-Abelian, global and local, and with
different choices for the symmetry breaking scale
\cite{br,ns,ln,ks,ir,dp}.
One of the unanswered questions of the original Froggatt-Nielsen
model is the origin of the family symmetry breaking. It has been
suggested \cite{br,ir} that the supersymmetric versions of the
model may be derived from superstring compactification, where
spontaneously broken anomalous $U(1)$ gauge symmetries typically
occur. In models where the anomalies are canceled by the
Green-Schwarz mechanism \cite{gs}, the symmetry breaking scale is
slightly below the string scale. Preserving supersymmetry at the
high scale determines the vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the
symmetry breaking field $\theta$ and the hierarchy parameter
$\lambda$, which greatly restricts the theory. The purpose of our
work is to find out whether this new constraint can be accommodated
in a phenomenologically acceptable model.
In this paper, we present models which predict the fermion masses
and mixings in a string-inspired framework. Since we do not work
with an exact string model, we carry a model-independent analysis
as far as possible. In doing so we make the following assumptions:
(1) the additional Froggatt-Nielsen symmetry is an anomalous $U(1)$
originating in string theory so that the anomalies are canceled by
the Green-Schwarz mechanism;
(2) renormalization of couplings and particle masses is done within
the framework of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM);
(3) the $U(1)$ symmetry is broken by the VEV of only one field,
$\theta$;
(4) the Yukawa coupling of $\theta$ to the fermions $f_\theta$ is
one.
For most of the paper, we assume that the Kac-Moody level,
$k_{GUT}$, for the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) group is one, but we
keep $k_{GUT}$ as a parameter in most equations. Finally, in the
context of a particular string model, the $U(1)$ symmetry breaking
field(s) will be known, as will the value of $f_\theta$ and
$k_{GUT}$.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section~\ref{secreview},
we summarize the main features of the Froggatt-Nielsen models. In
section~\ref{secsusy} we discuss the implications of unbroken
supersymmetry for the value of the mass hierarchy parameter,
$\lambda$. This is followed by section~\ref{secgsmech}, which gives
the background and some important facts about the Green-Schwarz
mechanism. Section~\ref{secanomaly} is dedicated to the anomalies
of the model. We show there how $\lambda$ depends only on the $X$
charges of the standard model fields. In section~\ref{secpq} we
present some constraints on those charges following from relations
(\ref{eqratios}). We illustrate these constraints in
section~\ref{secexamples} by working out in detail a few simple
models. Section~\ref{secconclusions} summarizes our results.
\section{Froggatt-Nielsen Models}
\label{secreview}
Originally, Froggatt and Nielsen proposed \cite{fn} that a
flavor-dependent symmetry be broken by the VEV of an additional
scalar field, $\theta$, which would be a singlet of the standard
model gauge groups. Their idea also assumed a set of heavy ``mirror
quarks'', analogous to the standard model quarks, with a spectrum
of charges under the horizontal symmetry. Mass matrices would then
arise through effective Yukawa interactions resulting from Feynman
diagrams such as that in figure~\ref{figfeynman1}.%
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\newsavebox\dashed
\begin{picture}(300,100)
\put(5,0){\line(1,0){290}}
\sbox{\dashed}{\multiput(0,0)(0,10){8}{\line(0,1){5}}%
\put(-4.58,72){$\times$}\put(-7.5,85){$\langle\theta\rangle$}}
\multiput(50,0)(0,10){8}{\line(0,1){5}}\put(50,80){\line(0,1){3}}
\put(45,85){$H$}
\multiput(90,0)(40,0){5}{\usebox\dashed}
\multiput(30,0)(40,0){7}{\vector(1,0){0}}
\put(20,10){$+2$}
\put(60,10){$+2$}
\put(100,10){$+1$}
\put(147,10){0}
\put(180,10){$-1$}
\put(220,10){$-2$}
\put(260,10){$-3$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Tree diagram leading to effective Yukawa interactions.
Above the solid line are $U(1)$ charges of quarks and mirror
quarks.}
\label{figfeynman1}
\end{figure}
In figure~\ref{figfeynman1}, we show an example, where the $X$
charge assignments of the quarks are written above each quark line.
On one side of the diagram, we have a left-handed quark doublet
with charge $+2$. If we assign a charge of $-3$ to the right-handed
quark, then there must be five $\theta$ interactions, with five
mirror quarks of charges $+2$, $+1$, 0, $-1$, $-2$ in between. The
first mirror quark of charge $+2$ interacts with the standard model
Higgs doublet and the quark doublet to conserve $SU(2)$ symmetry.
Assuming a common mass $M$ for the mirror quarks, and a common
Yukawa coupling $f_\theta$ of the $\theta$ field to all the quarks,
$\langle\theta\rangle$ should take a value such that
$\lambda \sim f_\theta \langle\theta\rangle/M$. The mass term
resulting from fig.~\ref{figfeynman1} would be
\begin{equation}
\label{eqquarka}
f_u \bar u_j Q_i H
\left(f_\theta {\langle\theta\rangle\over M} \right)^5.
\end{equation}
In a realistic model, the charges must be assigned so that all the
mass matrix eigenvalues agree with the relations~(\ref{eqratios})
above.
Here, we do not make the Froggatt-Nielsen assumptions, and thus do
not require mirror quarks. We assume that the flavor symmetry is a
gauged $U(1)$ symmetry, labeled by $X$, left over from string
compactification. We expect the action to contain all terms
consistent with charge conservation. Such terms appear due to
string tree diagrams; therefore, the effective Yukawa coupling
$f_\theta$ will be a product of the string coupling constant
$g_s$ and other terms of order unity. Not knowing the details of
the model, we cannot evaluate $f_\theta$, and here assume
$f_\theta=1$. In order to demonstrate the generation of mass
terms, we give an explicit example. We do not make any further
assumptions about the physical mechanism.
First, we define the $X$ charges to be $q_{Qi}$, $q_{ui}$,
$q_{di}$, $q_{Li}$, and $q_{ei}$ for the left-handed quark
doublets, the left-handed up-type antiquarks, the left-handed
down-type antiquarks, the left-handed lepton doublets and the
left-handed positrons ($i$\/ is the family index). Also, we define
$q_H$ to be the sum of the $X$ charges for the two Higgs doublets
of the supersymmetric standard model. We then consider all
bilinear fermion terms that conserve $X$ charge. A typical up-type
quark term would be
\begin{equation}
\label{eqquark}
\left({\bf Y}_u\right)_{ij}=
f_u \bar u_j Q_i H_1
\left({\langle\theta\rangle\over M}\right)^{q_{Qi}+q_{uj}+q_{H1}}
\end{equation}
The entire Yukawa mass matrix then follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqmatrix}
{\bf Y}_u=
f_u \,\lambda^{q_{H1}}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u1}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u2}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u3}}\\
\lambda^{q_{Q2}+q_{u1}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q2}+q_{u2}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q2}+q_{u3}}\\
\lambda^{q_{Q3}+q_{u1}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q3}+q_{u2}}
&\lambda^{q_{Q3}+q_{u3}}
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
\section{Implications of Unbroken Supersymmetry}
\label{secsusy}
The basic premise of this work is the assumption of a deeper
connection between string theory and supersymmetric models with
spontaneously broken family symmetries. By assuming such a
connection, we can ``borrow'' a $U(1)$ gauge symmetry left over
from string compactification.
We begin with $N=1$ global supersymmetry and the scalar potential:
\begin{equation}
V={1\over2}\sum_\alpha (D^\alpha)^2 + \sum_i |F_i|^2.
\end{equation}
Here $F_i = \partial W/\partial\phi_i$. We do not specify the
superpotential $W$; thus, we will not be able to predict the VEV's
of all of the fields in the model. The gauge $D$ term is given by
$D^\alpha=g_{(\alpha)}\sum_{ij}\phi_i^\ast(T^\alpha)_{ij}\phi_j$,
where $\phi_i$ are the matter chiral superfields, $T^\alpha$ are
the generators of the gauge group, and $g_{(\alpha)}$ are the gauge
couplings. For an anomalous $U(1)$ gauge group, the corresponding
$D$ term will be modified by a Fayet-Iliopoulos term. Its
magnitude has been calculated in string theory \cite{ad,di,ds} on
the assumption that the anomalies are canceled by the
Green-Schwarz mechanism \cite{gs}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqDterm}
D={g_s M_s^2\over192\pi^2} {\,\rm tr\,} Q + \sum_i q_i |\phi_i|^2,
\end{equation}
where $g_s$ is the renormalized string coupling constant, $M_s$ is
the string scale, and ${\,\rm tr\,} Q \equiv \sum_i q_i$ is the sum of the
$U(1)$ charges of all the particles. (See also \cite{fi} for a clear
exposition.) In the model we are studying,
the $U(1)_X$ family symmetry gauge group is anomalous, has origins
in string theory and requires a $D$ term given by
eq.~(\ref{eqDterm}).
The supersymmetric vacuum requires $\langle F_i\rangle=0$ and
$\langle D^\alpha\rangle=0$. If the $X$ charges of all the
particles are of the same sign, then, according to
eq.~(\ref{eqDterm}), it is impossible to preserve supersymmetry. We
therefore require that charges with both signs be present.
(Fortunately, this is typically the case in string
compactifications.) As a convention, we give the $\theta$ field a
negative charge. In section~\ref{secexamples}, we will consider
both the case in which all the standard model matter fields have
positive $X$ charge and the case in which they can have charges of
either sign, subject to the condition ${\,\rm tr\,} Q>0$.
We have to assume that none of the fields charged under the
standard model (SM) gauge groups can develop vacuum expectation
values---otherwise color or electroweak symmetry would be broken at
the high scale $\sim M_s$. The problem of flat directions here
does not differ from the problem of flat directions in the MSSM.
We require $\langle D^\alpha\rangle=0$ for each gauge factor
separately; for each of the SM gauge groups this condition involves
only SM fields, so that the flat directions will be the same as in
the MSSM. For $U(1)_X$, setting $\langle D\rangle=0$ merely
determines $\langle\theta\rangle$ and does not constrain MSSM
fields. Hence, just as in the MSSM, we have to rely on the
superpotential to lift the flat directions.
The most important implication of eq.~(\ref{eqDterm}) for this work
is that preserving supersymmetry determines the VEV of the $\theta$
field
\begin{equation}
\label{eqsqrt}
{\langle\theta\rangle\over M_s} =
\sqrt{{g_s\over192\pi^2} {{\,\rm tr\,} Q \over |q_\theta|}}\;.
\end{equation}
If we assign $X$ charges to all the fields and use $\theta$ as the
family symmetry breaking field in the Froggatt-Nielsen scheme, we
obtain a prediction for the Yukawa mass matrices.
The question we attempt to answer in this paper is: can we find a
set of charges for all the standard model fields, consistent with
the requirements of anomaly cancellation, that will predict
phenomenologically viable powers of $\lambda$ (much like the work
by Ib\'a\~nez and Ross \cite{ir}, but without the assumption of
left-right symmetry) \ {\em and\/} \ predict a phenomenologically
viable value of $\lambda\simeq0.22\,$? We shall see that this is
possible as long as $f_\theta$ is not very different from
unity.
Our results, as can be seen from eq.~(\ref{eqsqrt}), are rather
sensitive to the value of the string coupling constant, $g_s$. At
the unification scale, we use the tree-level relation \cite{k,g}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqkgut}
1/g_s^2=k_{GUT}/g_{GUT}^2,
\end{equation}
where $k_{GUT}$ is the Kac-Moody level for corresponding GUT gauge
group algebra. Here, we take $k_{GUT}=1$. We then use a typical
value $\alpha_{GUT} = {g_{GUT}}^2/4\pi \simeq 1/25$ to get
$g_s \simeq 0.7$. Substituting into eq.~(\ref{eqsqrt}) with
$q_\theta=-1$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\lambda = \langle\theta\rangle/M_s =
1.92 \times 10^{-2} \, \sqrt{{\,\rm tr\,} Q}.
\end{equation}
\section{Green-Schwarz Anomaly Cancellation}
\label{secgsmech}
In chiral theories, it is necessary to consider the problem of
quantum anomalies. These anomalies to classical symmetries are
dangerous in that they prevent the existence of gauge theories. In
this section we discuss a method of removing anomalies that may
arise with a new $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry.
We start with $U(1)$ chiral transformations on all fermions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqtransf}
\Psi(x)&\to& \exp\left[-iq\gamma_5 \Theta(x)\right]\Psi(x)\\
\bar\Psi(x)&\to& \bar\Psi(x)
\exp\left[-iq\gamma_5 \Theta(x)\right],
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $q$ is the charge of each fermion. Since the path integral
measure is not invariant under the transformation, we obtain
new terms beyond the usual current divergence \cite{f}.
The difference can be expressed as a change in the Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqLag}
{\cal L}\to {\cal L}
- \Theta(x)\!\!\!\!\sum_{i=1,2,3,X}\!\!\!\! C_i F_i \tilde F_i
- \Theta(x) \left(\partial_\mu j_5^\mu\right)
\end{equation}
where the sum is over the standard model gauge groups and
$U(1)_X$. The coefficient $C_1 = {\,\rm tr\,}\left[Q (Y/2)^2\right]$ is the
mixed $U(1)_X \left(U(1)_Y\right)^2$ anomaly, $C_X = {\,\rm tr\,} Q^3$ is
the $\left(U(1)_X\right)^3$ anomaly, and
$C_{2,3} = {1\over2} {\rm tr}_{2,3}\,Q$ are the
$U(1)_X \left(SU(2)_L\right)^2$ and $U(1)_X \left(SU(3)_c\right)^2$
anomalies. (The trace $\,{\rm tr}_{2,3}\,Q$ is over fermions with
$SU(2)_L$ and $SU(3)_c$ charge, respectively.) In some cases we can
choose the charges so that all the anomaly coefficients are zero,
but here we examine the possibility of canceling the anomalous
term with another of opposite sign \cite{gs}. There is another
mixed anomaly with $U(1)_Y$, the $(U(1)_X)^2\, U(1)_Y$, but it does
not fit into the discussion. It results from a different
transformation than that in eq.~(\ref{eqtransf}), where $q$ would
be the $U(1)_Y$ instead of the $U(1)_X$ charge.
In the Green-Schwarz mechanism, anomalies are canceled through an
additional field. In string theory, the antisymmetric tensor
$B_{\mu\nu}$ naturally serves this purpose. In four dimensions
\cite{hn}, we can replace $H=dB$ with its dual, which is the
derivative of the axion field $\Phi$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqdual}
dB = *d\Phi.
\end{equation}
This field couples to the gauge groups in the following way:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqetacoupl}
\Phi\!\!\!\!\sum_{i=1,2,3,X}\!\!\!\! k_i F_i \tilde F_i,
\end{equation}
where $k_i$ are the Kac-Moody levels of the corresponding gauge
algebra. For the $U(1)_X$ gauge transformation,
\begin{equation}
\label{eqXgauge}
A_X^\mu \rightarrow A_X^\mu + \partial^\mu\Theta(x)
\end{equation}
$\Phi$ follows the transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{eqetagauge}
\Phi\rightarrow\Phi + \Theta(x) \,\delta_{GS}.
\end{equation}
Therefore, we can remove quantum anomalies through a gauge
transformation if $\delta_{GS}=C_1/k_1=C_2/k_2=C_3/k_3=C_X/k_X$.
For a more detailed discussion, we refer the reader to the paper by
Ib\'a\~nez \cite{i}.
So far, we have ignored gravity, but the conclusions do not change.
We must only cancel one additional anomaly,
$C_{\rm grav} R \tilde R$, through a gauge transformation on one
additional coupling $k_{\rm grav} \Phi R \tilde R$. Finally, we
have:
\begin{equation}
\label{eqckratio}
C_1/k_1=C_2/k_2=C_3/k_3=C_X/k_X=C_{\rm grav}/k_{\rm grav}.
\end{equation}
In this paper, we take $k_1=5/3$ and $k_2=k_3=k_{\rm grav}=1$,
and we do not use $k_X$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqcratio}
C_1:C_2:C_3:C_{\rm grav} = {5\over3}:1:1:1.
\end{equation}
\section{Quantum Anomalies}
\label{secanomaly}
We can now apply the results of the previous section to
the case at hand. The mixed anomalies with the standard
model gauge groups are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqC123}
C_1 &=& {1\over6} (q_Q + 8q_u + 2q_d +3q_L +6q_e +3q_H)
\nonumber\\
C_2 &=& {1\over2} (3q_Q + q_L + q_H) \\
C_3 &=& {1\over2} (2q_Q + q_u + q_d), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $q_Q = \sum_{i=1}^3 q_{Qi}$, etc., but
$q_H = q_{H1}+q_{H2}$ is the
sum of the $U(1)_X$ charges of the two Higgs doublets.
Our calculations do not include the right-handed neutrinos,
but since we allow for the existence of additional particles
with $X$ charge that are singlets under the standard model,
our results do not depend on the existence and $X$ charge
assignments of $\nu_R$.
The gravitational anomaly is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqcgrav}
C_{\rm grav} = {1\over24}
\sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize all particles}}\!\!\!\!\!\! q_i =
{1\over24}
(6q_Q + 3q_u + 3q_d + 2q_L + q_e + 2q_H + q_\theta + q_X),
\end{equation}
where $q_X$ is the sum of the $U(1)_X$ charges of any
additional fields which are singlets under the standard
model. We are not excluding such fields, and we cannot
evaluate $C_{\rm grav}$ directly. However, because we are
using the Green-Schwarz mechanism, we know that
$C_{\rm grav}$ must be in the correct
proportion~(\ref{eqcratio}) to the other anomalies.
{}From the expressions (\ref{eqC123}) and
(\ref{eqcgrav}) we then obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{eq123g}
q_\theta + q_X = 18q_Q + 8q_u + 7q_d = 14C_3 + 4q_Q + q_u.
\end{equation}
With the assumption that $\theta$ is the only field with a negative
$U(1)_X$ charge, we see immediately that we {\em require\/} the
extra fields with no standard model interactions to balance
eq.~(\ref{eq123g}) with a large positive contribution $q_X$. If we
allow the quarks to have negative charges, this is no longer true.
Even then, in section~\ref{secpq} we shall see that $C_3 \sim 9$
in phenomenologically interesting models, so that the typical
model will require $q_X>0$.
The additional fields responsible for $q_X\not=0$ prevent us from
calculating the cubic anomaly $\left(U(1)_X\right)^3$, which then
does not impose any constraints on the model. We simply assume
that the charges of the extra fields are such that it is canceled:
\begin{equation}
C_X = \!\!\!\!
\sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize all particles}} \!\!\!\!\!\! q_i^3.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the mixed anomaly
$\left(U(1)_X\right)^2 \, U(1)_Y$,
\begin{equation}
C_{YXX} = \!\!\!\!
\sum_{\mbox{\scriptsize all particles}} \!\!\!\!\!\! Y_i q_i^2
= \sum_{i=1}^3 \left(
q_{Qi}^2 - 2q_{ui}^2 + q_{di}^2 - q_{Li}^2 + q_{ei}^2
\right) - q_{H1}^2 + q_{H2}^2,
\end{equation}
depends only on the charges of the standard model particles and
cannot be canceled by the Green-Schwarz mechanism. For each
charge assignment we have to check that $C_{YXX}=0$.
The equality of $C_3$ and
$C_{\rm grav}$, eq.~(\ref{eqcratio}), is
crucial in this paper. Section~\ref{secsusy}, eq.~(\ref{eqsqrt})
gave us a prediction for the hierarchy parameter $\lambda$
in terms of ${\,\rm tr\,} Q$, the sum of the $U(1)_X$ charges of all the
particles in the model. That sum, according to
eq.~(\ref{eqcgrav}), is proportional to the gravitational
anomaly. Because $C_{\rm grav}=C_3$, every charge assignment
for the standard model fields (in fact, for the quark fields
alone) results in a prediction
\begin{equation}
\label{eqc3l}
\lambda = \sqrt{g_s/8\pi^2}\,\sqrt{C_3} \simeq 0.094\sqrt{C_3}.
\end{equation}
\section{Determinants of the Mass Matrices}
\label{secpq}
The product of the determinants of up- and down-quark mass matrices
will give us an important constraint. From eq.~(\ref{eqratios}), it
is immediately seen that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqlam}
\prod_{\mbox{\scriptsize all quarks}}
\!\!\!\!\! m_q \sim f_u^3 f_d^3\,\lambda^{18}.
\end{equation}
This should be compared to the product of the determinants of the
Yukawa matrices predicted by the model.
Writing ${\bf Y}_u$ in the form (\ref{eqmatrix}), we see that
every term in the determinant is of the order
$f_u^3 \,\lambda^{q_Q+q_u+3q_{H1}}$.
Similarly, every term in $\det {\bf Y}_d$ is of the order
$f_d^3 \,\lambda^{q_Q+q_d+3q_{H2}}$. The two taken together give
\cite{n}
\begin{equation}
\label{eqdet1}
\prod_{\mbox{\scriptsize all quarks}} \!\!\!\!\! m_q =
\left| \det{\bf Y}_u \right| \: \left| \det{\bf Y}_d \right|
\sim f_u^3 f_d^3 \,\lambda^{2q_Q + q_u + q_d + 3q_H}.
\end{equation}
Now, $q_H=0$ if a $\mu$ term $\mu H_1 H_2$ is to be allowed and
not suppressed. (For alternatives, see \cite{n,js}.
We note that a small change in $q_H$ can be easily accomodated,
as it will not change the predicted mass ratios or mixings.)
Then, using eq.~(\ref{eqC123}), we are left with
\begin{equation}
\label{eqdet2}
\prod_{\mbox{\scriptsize all quarks}} \!\!\!\!\! m_q
\sim f_u^3 f_d^3 \,\lambda^{2 C_3}.
\end{equation}
{}From equations (\ref{eqlam}) and (\ref{eqdet2}), we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqc318}
\lambda^{18} \sim \lambda^{2C_3},
\end{equation}
or
\begin{equation}
\label{eqc39}
C_3\simeq9,
\end{equation}
as was found earlier by Bin\'etruy and Ramond \cite{br}. This is
true whether or not there are texture zeros, provided that neither
determinant is zero. For $C_3=9$, eq.~(\ref{eqsqrt}) gives
$\lambda=0.28$.
The above reasoning assumes that $\lambda$ is fixed at about
$0.22$---the mass ratios (\ref{eqratios}) come from experiment,
not from assumptions about hierarchy. In this paper, we
derive the hierarchy parameter $\lambda$ from supersymmetry.
Taking $\lambda$ as predicted by eq.~(\ref{eqc3l}), we have to
replace (\ref{eqc318}) by
\begin{equation}
\label{eqc3f}
0.22^{18} \sim \left(0.094\sqrt{C_3}\right)^{2C_3}.
\end{equation}
Solving this, we get $C_3 \simeq 12.5$ and $\lambda\simeq0.33$,
rather than $0.22$.
This value of $\lambda$ will restrict the number of solutions
because first order calculations predict a dependency of the
Cabibbo angle on $\lambda$. If Yukawa matrices are given in terms
of powers of $\lambda$, so will, to leading order, the CKM matrix
\cite{fn}. The experimental uncertainty on the average value of
the Cabibbo angle \cite{lr,gh}
\begin{equation}
|{\bf V}_{12}|=0.2205\pm0.0018
\end{equation}
is very small. Keeping in mind that, as noted by Olechowski and
Pokorski \cite{op}, $|{\bf V}_{12}|$ is almost invariant (it
changes by less than 0.1\%) when renormalized from $M_W$ to
$M_{GUT}$, we will always try to keep close to
$\lambda\simeq0.22$.
In order to remedy the solution to eq.~(\ref{eqc3f}), we will
examine the assumptions that play a significant role since the
equation itself is robust. It is robust because $C_3$ is related
to the exponent of a small parameter, so a small change in $C_3$
would change the determinants by orders of magnitude. With
$\lambda\simeq0.22$, we estimate that unless the order unity
factors in the Yukawa matrices all conspire to shift the balance in
one direction, they could increase $C_3$ by as much as two or
three. One should also note that there are no top or bottom Yukawa
couplings in eq.~(\ref{eqc318}), so the result is independent of
$\tan \beta$.
One assumption that affects the value of $C_3$ more significantly
is $f_\theta=1$. If, for example, $f_\theta$ were $0.78$, then the
expected and calculated values of $\lambda$ would be reconciled.
Another assumption that can be relaxed concerns the values of the
Kac-Moody levels. If, instead, $k_2=k_3=k_{GUT}=2$ while $k_{\rm
grav}=1$, then both eq.~(\ref{eqkgut}) relating $g_s$ and $g_{GUT}$
and eq.~(\ref{eqckratio}) relating $C_3$ and $C_{\rm grav}$ must
change. (Models with $k_{GUT}=2$ have been increasingly popular
with string theorists \cite{l,cc,af}.) The final relation for
$\lambda$, eq.~(\ref{eqc3l}), becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{eqc3lkap}
\lambda = f_\theta \sqrt{g_{GUT}\, C_3\over8\pi^2\sqrt{k_{GUT}}}
\simeq 0.079 f_\theta \sqrt{C_3}.
\end{equation}
Now, $\lambda\sim0.24$ when $C_3 = 9$.
Lastly, we note that $\lambda$ also depends on the value of $g_s$
by the above equation (for both $k_{GUT}=1$ and $k_{GUT}=2$).
However, we know that $f_\theta$ has a linear dependence on $g_s$,
so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqfg}
\lambda\propto g_s^{3/2}.
\end{equation}
In order to attain a value of $\lambda\sim0.22$, $g_s$ would have
to be reduced from $0.7$ to $0.59$. This would require
$\alpha_{GUT}=1/36$, which is too low according to most models.
\section{Detailed Examples}
\label{secexamples}
We are now ready to examine in detail the $U(1)_X$ charge
assignments, which, subject to the constraints discussed in
sections~\ref{secanomaly} and \ref{secpq}, let us calculate fermion
mass matrices. We would then compare the quark and lepton masses
with relations~(\ref{eqratios}) and demand a phenomenologically
viable CKM matrix. Ideally, among all the possible charge
assignments we would find at least one that satisfies all the
constraints and predicts masses and mixings within experimental
bounds.
Although the fifteen charges of the quark and lepton fields may
seem like many free parameters, they are in fact overconstrained.
If we demand $\lambda=0.22$, equations (\ref{eqc3l}) and
(\ref{eqdet2}) become two independent predictions for~$C_3$. {\it A
priori\/} it is not obvious that the two numbers should even be of the
same order of magnitude. When $f_\theta$ and $k$ are taken into
account, in the context of a particular string compactification,
the two predictions will be more than just order of magnitude
estimates. If we do {\em not\/} require $\lambda=0.22$, then we
have to be able to produce the correct Cabibbo angle from a texture
given in terms of powers of the calculated $\lambda$.
Furthermore, the charges are integers, and they are constrained by
the mixed anomalies. One of the constraints is non-linear. It is
not guaranteed that there will be any solution, much less that it
will correspond to realistic masses and mixings.
\subsection{Positive Charges for Matter Fields}
\label{secpositive}
We begin the search for a detailed model by assuming that all the
standard model fields have nonnegative $U(1)_X$ charges. We also
assume, following Bin\'etruy and Ramond \cite{br}, that because of
a possible $\mu$ term, the Higgs doublets have zero $X$ charge. We,
therefore, form the Yukawa matrices
\begin{equation}
\label{eqYuk}
{\bf Y}_u = f_u \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda^{(q_{Q1}+q_{u1})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q1}+q_{u2})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q1}+q_{u3})/|q_\theta|} \\
\lambda^{(q_{Q2}+q_{u1})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q2}+q_{u2})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q2}+q_{u3})/|q_\theta|} \\
\lambda^{(q_{Q3}+q_{u1})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q3}+q_{u2})/|q_\theta|} &
\lambda^{(q_{Q3}+q_{u3})/|q_\theta|}
\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
for the up sector, and similarly for the down and lepton sectors.
Eq.~(\ref{eqYuk}) is an order of magnitude relationship, so that
each of the entries will be multiplied by a number of order unity.
The factors of order unity will be necessary to introduce CP
violation, which we are ignoring in this paper.
We would like to make $|q_\theta|$ the smallest charge unit,
i.e.\ $q_\theta=-1$ (in our convention all $X$ charges are
integers). That, however, does not lead to phenomenologically
acceptable mass matrices: every row of matrix (\ref{eqYuk}) is
equal to $\lambda^{\mbox{\scriptsize some power}}\times
(\mbox{some other row})$. Similarly, there is only one independent
column. The mass matrix, with two zero eigenvalues, does not
reproduce the observed mass hierarchy even qualitatively. Although
the factors of order unity multiplying the entries in ${\bf Y}_u$
will in general move $\;\det {\bf Y}_u\;$ away from zero, fermion
masses and mixings would then very strongly depend on those unknown
factors and not on the properties of the model we are trying to
investigate. Such a model may be realized in nature, however, we do
not know those factors. We will therefore set them to one in this
and the following section, and impose conditions to avoid zero
determinants. We will find that those conditions are too rigid to
produce a realistic example. Since they are not based on physical
principles, in section~\ref{sectf} we make an arbitrary but limited
choice of the ``texture factors'' to see how much can be achieved
by eliminating the artificial constraints.
Without texture factors, any matrix of the form
${\bf Y}_{ij}=\lambda^{a_i+b_j}$ will have rank one. A possible
solution is to use matrices with texture zeros:
$({\bf Y}_u)_{ij}=\lambda^{(q_{Qi}+q_{uj})/|q_\theta|}$ when
$(q_{Qi}+q_{uj})/|q_\theta|$ is a nonnegative integer, zero
otherwise. If the sum of the charges $q_{Qi}+q_{uj}$ is not a
multiple of $|q_\theta|$, the corresponding term in the Lagrangian
is forbidden by charge conservation. If it is negative, it could
only be matched by a power of $\theta^\ast$. This is impossible in
supersymmetric theories because the superpotential must be
holomorphic in $\theta$.
With positive charges for the standard model fields, $q_\theta=-1$
does not allow texture zeros. We find that $q_\theta=-2$ is also
not enough. The pattern of the texture zeros depends only on the
remainder from the division of $q_{Qi}+q_{uj}$ by $|q_\theta|$. Of
the three numbers $q_{u1}$, $q_{u2}$, $q_{u3}$, either at least two
will be even or at least two will be odd. At least two columns of
${\bf Y}_u$, having the same pattern of texture zeros, will be
proportional. The result is a matrix of rank at most two.
In order to obtain a non-singular matrix we must have all $q_{Qi}$
different $(\mbox{mod }|q_\theta|)$ and all $q_{ui}$ different
$(\mbox{mod }|q_\theta|)$. That requires $|q_\theta|\ge3$. In
addition, one can see that no row and no column can have more than
one nonzero element. The only non-singular mass matrices we can get
in this model are rather sparse: they have six texture zeros.
Even without the assumption of left-right symmetry \cite{rr} there
are few possibilities:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eqmat}
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & b & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & c
\end{array}\right),
\qquad
&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & c & 0 \\ b & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & a
\end{array}\right),
\qquad
&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
a & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & b \\ 0 & c & 0
\end{array}\right),
\\
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & b \\ 0 & a & 0 \\ c & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\qquad
&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & a & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & b \\ c & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right),
\qquad
&
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & c \\ a & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & b & 0
\end{array}\right).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, all the above textures can be reduced to a diagonal
form by a permutation of columns only. Permutations of columns of
a Yukawa mass matrix can be written as a multiplication on the
right by a unitary permutation matrix, and it is easy to show that
they do not change the resulting masses or mixings. (Permutations
of rows, which correspond to multiplication on the left, will not
change masses or mixings as long as they are done simultaneously in
the up and down sector.) We conclude that the masses and mixings
will be the same as if all mass matrices were diagonal, i.e.\ there
will be no flavor mixing.
Can we make things better by giving up some of the assumptions? In
the following section we will let all particles have charges of
either sign. Here we only note that if we allow the Higgs doublet
to have a positive charge (at the expense of the $\mu$ term), we
are merely shifting the charges of the up, down or lepton sector
without changing any of the conclusions. If the Higgs charge is a
multiple of $|q_\theta|$, the textures do not change. Otherwise,
the texture zeros will change their positions, but we will still
have exactly one nonzero entry in each row and each column.
It should be stressed again that our failure to find a workable
example of a model with only positive charges for the standard
model fields does not in any way rule out such models. Our
conclusion here is that we cannot obtain an acceptable mass matrix
to study unless we know the exact factors of order unity in front of
the powers of $\lambda$ in (\ref{eqYuk}). It would be interesting
to come back to this exercise when we can make an informed choice
of those factors.
\subsection{Allowing Negative Charges}
\label{secnegative}
We now turn to the analysis of the model in which the matter fields
are allowed to have negative as well as positive charges. That will
be a source of texture zeros, and give us more flexibility in
constructing the mass matrices.
We need to find the conditions necessary to obtain a non-singular
matrix, and start by reordering the quarks and leptons so that
$q_{Q1} \ge q_{Q2} \ge q_{Q3}$,
$q_{u1} \ge q_{u2} \ge q_{u3}$, etc.
This is the same as permuting the rows and columns of the mass
matrix; it can only change the determinant of {\bf Y} by a sign,
and will not change the masses or mixings. Now in
eq.~(\ref{eqYuk}) we put a texture zero wherever $q_{Qi}+q_{uj}<0$.
Keeping in mind that no two columns and no two rows can have the
same pattern of texture zeros, we are left with
\begin{equation}
\label{eqYukneg}
{\bf Y}_u = f_u \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u1}} &
\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u2}} &
\lambda^{q_{Q1}+q_{u3}} \\
\lambda^{q_{Q2}+q_{u1}} &
\lambda^{q_{Q2}+q_{u2}} &
0 \\
\lambda^{q_{Q3}+q_{u1}} &
0 &
0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
We are assuming $q_\theta=-1$ in this section. The texture
(\ref{eqYukneg}) is rich enough to ask whether it is possible to
obtain realistic fermion masses and mixings.
To answer this question, we have done a computerized search by
trying out all possible charge assignments for the quarks and
leptons (in a range from $-10$ to 10), imposing the anomaly
constraints, calculating the fermion masses and aiming to be as
close to the ratios (\ref{eqratios}) as possible. (We were limited
in how close we could get by the relations (\ref{eqc3l}) and
(\ref{eqdet2}) between the determinants of the quark mass matrices
and the hierarchy parameter $\lambda$.) For those charge sets that
produced the best fermion masses, we then computed the CKM matrix.
While none of the results reproduce experimental data, we have
found many that were not unreasonable. Below we give an example.
For $g_s=0.7$ and the following $X$ charges,
$$
\begin{tabular}{c|rrrrr}
$i$& $q_{Qi}$ & $q_{ui}$ & $q_{di}$ & $q_{Li}$ & $q_{ei}$ \\
\hline
1 & 9 & 9 & 7 & 1 & 10 \\
2 & 7 & 2 & $-4$ & $-7$ & 9 \\
3 & $-4$ & $-9$ & $-9$ & $-10$ & 3
\end{tabular}
$$
we have $C_3=10$ and $\lambda=0.30$,
which results in the fermion mass ratios
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rule[-2pt]{0pt}{14pt}
{m_u \over m_t} = 1.8\times10^{-5} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_d \over m_b} &=& 2.6\times10^{-2} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_e \over m_\tau} = 7.9\times10^{-3} \;, \\
\rule{0pt}{18pt}
{m_c \over m_t} = 2.3\times10^{-2} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_s \over m_b} &=& 2.6\times10^{-2} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_\mu \over m_\tau} = 8.9\times10^{-2} \;, \\
\rule[2pt]{0pt}{16pt}
{m_t \over f_u} = 1.0 \;, \qquad\qquad\qquad\;
{m_b \over f_d} &=& 1.0 \;, \qquad\qquad\qquad\;
{m_\tau \over f_d} = 1.0 \;,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the CKM matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{eqV}
{\bf V} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.96 & 0.27 & 6.2\times10^{-5} \\
-0.27 & 0.96 & 2.0\times10^{-10} \\
-6.0\times10^{-5} & -1.6\times10^{-5} & 1.0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
The 90\% confidence experimental limits on the magnitude of the CKM
matrix elements \cite{rev}, renormalized to the GUT scale
\cite{op}, are
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.9747\mbox{ to } 0.9759 &
0.218 \mbox{ to } 0.224 &
0.001 \mbox{ to } 0.003 \\
0.218 \mbox{ to } 0.224 &
0.9738\mbox{ to } 0.9752 &
0.021 \mbox{ to } 0.032 \\
0.002 \mbox{ to } 0.010 &
0.020 \mbox{ to } 0.032 &
0.9995\mbox{ to } 0.9998
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
One obvious defect of the above example is that $\lambda$ and the
Cabibbo angle ${\bf V}_{12}$ are too big, as discussed in
section~\ref{secpq}. Another is the degeneracy of the $s$ and $d$
quarks. Again, this is a generic feature of the examples based on
the texture~(\ref{eqYukneg}). The reason is that the dominant terms
in (\ref{eqYukneg}) are on the antidiagonal; the terms in the upper
left triangle are orders of magnitude smaller. Therefore,
(\ref{eqYukneg}) can be thought of as an antidiagonal matrix with a
very small perturbation. Since a permutation of columns can cast it
in an almost diagonal form, such a matrix will not lead to any
appreciable flavor mixing {\em unless\/} two of the eigenvalues of
$\bf Y\,Y^\dagger$ are degenerate. In such a case the choice of the
basis in the eigenspace is arbitrary, and it is easy to obtain
large mixing angles. We were looking for ${\bf V}_{12} \simeq
0.22$, so it is understandable for all the examples to have
degenerate quark masses.
The last thing we noticed is that the ``small'' entries (1,3),
(3,1), (2,3), (3,2) of the CKM matrix~(\ref{eqV}) are much smaller
than what we know from the experiment (even taking renormalization
into account). The small mixing in the heavy flavor sector can be
understood by noting that the heavy quarks are not degenerate in
mass, and the magnitude of the mixing in this case is determined by
the magnitude of the off-diagonal perturbation.
\subsection{Allowing a Texture Factor}
\label{sectf}
Until now, we have been trying to keep all the factors of order unity
in the Yukawa mass matrices equal to one. We tried to avoid
the problem of singular mass matrices by restricting our search to
matrices with enough texture zeros to be nonsingular. In this
section, we want to make the matrices non-singular by introducing
coefficients different from unity.
To avoid introducing 27 free parameters, we make a rather arbitrary
choice of the coefficients: we introduce one parameter, the
``texture factor'' (TF), which will multiply the (2,3), (3,2) and
(3,3) elements of ${\bf Y}_u$ and ${\bf Y}_e$. The corresponding
elements of ${\bf Y}_d$ are divided by TF. That is the minimal
intervention needed to make the determinants nonzero in most
cases. We chose to modify the entries in the heavy quark sector so
that the predicted Cabibbo angle would not depend strongly on TF.
We decided to divide, rather than multiply, in ${\bf Y}_d$, to make
the determinant relations such as~(\ref{eqdet1}) minimally
sensitive to TF. Finally, we considered only nine discrete values
of TF: $-1$, $\pm2$, $\pm\sqrt{2}$, $\pm1/2$, $\pm1/\sqrt{2}$.
With negative as well as positive charges allowed, but without
requiring any particular pattern of texture zeroes, we were able to
find better examples than before. With $g_s=0.7$ and the $X$
charges
$$
\begin{tabular}{c|rrrrr}
$i$ & $q_{Qi}$ & $q_{ui}$ & $q_{di}$ & $q_{Li}$ & $q_{ei}$ \\
\hline
1 & 5 & 3 & 2 & 6 & 5 \\
2 & 4 & 2 & $-1$ & $-2$ & 4 \\
3 & $-2$ & 1 & $-1$ & $-5$ & $-1$
\end{tabular}
$$
we have $C_3=10$ and $\lambda=0.30$.
With the texture factor ${\rm TF}=+2$,
we find the fermion mass ratios
\pagebreak[3]
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rule[-2pt]{0pt}{14pt}
{m_u \over m_t} = 7.5\times10^{-6} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_d \over m_b} &=& 3.3\times10^{-3} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_e \over m_\tau} = 2.3\times10^{-3} \;,\\
\rule{0pt}{18pt}
{m_c \over m_t} = 2.3\times10^{-3} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_s \over m_b} &=& 3.1\times10^{-2} \;, \qquad\quad
{m_\mu \over m_\tau} = 8.7\times10^{-2} \;,\\
\rule[2pt]{0pt}{16pt}
{m_t \over f_u} = 2.0 \;, \qquad\qquad\qquad\;
{m_b \over f_d} &=& 1.0 \;, \qquad\qquad\qquad\;
{m_\tau \over f_d} = 1.0 \;,
\end{eqnarray*}
and the CKM matrix
\begin{equation}
\label{eqV2}
{\bf V} = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0.98 & 0.20 & 5.0\times10^{-5} \\
-0.20 & 0.98 & 3.5\times10^{-4} \\
2.1\times10^{-5} & -3.6\times10^{-4} & 1.0
\end{array}
\right).
\end{equation}
Although the small elements of the CKM matrix are still about an
order of magnitude too small, the above example has no other
obvious defects. It reproduces the mass ratios~(\ref{eqratios})
and the Cabibbo angle fairly well, the bottom quark and the tau
have equal masses at the unification scale, and the top quark is
the heaviest. An even better fit (including the small elements of
the CKM matrix) can be obtained for Kac-Moody level $k_{GUT}=2$,
thanks to a much better agreement between (\ref{eqc318}) and
(\ref{eqc3l}). This shows that, finally, it is possible to obtain
realistic masses and mixings as a result of an anomalous $U(1)_X$
family symmetry.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{secconclusions}
In this paper, we have examined the idea that the hierarchy
parameter in Froggatt-Nielsen type models is related to
a spontaneously broken anomalous $U(1)_X$ gauge symmetry left
over from string compactification. Given the details of a string
compactification, the condition of preserving supersymmetry
(\ref{eqsqrt}) predicts the value of $\lambda$, hence the
complete mass matrices, fermion masses and mixings.
Without a complete string model at hand, we looked for
model-indepen\-dent features. We found a strong constraint from
anomaly cancellation (\ref{eqcratio}) that gives $\lambda$ in
terms of the quark $X$ charges only. There is another constraint
on those charges (\ref{eqc318}) from the known value of the
product of all quark masses. Assuming $\lambda=0.22$, the two
independent predictions (\ref{eqc3l}) and (\ref{eqc39}) agree as
an order of magnitude relation. Their agreement in a definite
model depends on $f_\theta$, the coefficient that enters
$\lambda = f_\theta\langle\theta\rangle/M$, and on the Kac-Moody
level of the gauge group, $k_{GUT}$.
We also wanted to verify that it is possible to obtain realistic
masses and mixings in this framework. We examine integer charge
assignments satisfying the anomaly cancellation constraints, and,
with the $\lambda$ determined by those charges, find some promising
examples. It would be very interesting to do the same with a
definite string model. The values for $f_\theta$, $k_{GUT}$ and the
order unity texture factors in mass matrices would then be
specified, leaving no free parameters. The method presented in this
paper gives us a powerful tool to narrow down the set of possible
string compactifications. We think that there will be only a small
number (if any) of models compatible with the idea of predicting
$\lambda$ from $U(1)_X$ charges.
One desirable feature of the CKM matrix we have not addressed in
this paper is CP violation. It is possible to introduce CP
violation by assuming that the order unity texture factors are
complex \cite{fn}, but that generically leads to large CP
violation. Another way is to use a model with two $U(1)_X$
breaking fields, $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. The phase of the VEV
of a single complex $\theta$ field can always be rotated away by
a gauge transformation, but for two complex fields there is a
gauge-invariant phase difference, so that in general we can make
only one of them (say $\langle\theta_1\rangle$) real.
The powers of $\langle\theta_1\rangle$ and $\langle\theta_2\rangle$
will give imaginary parts to the mass matrix elements. If
$\langle\theta_2\rangle \ll \langle\theta_1\rangle$, then the
imaginary parts will be necessarily small, leading to naturally
small CP violation. Work on the details of the two-theta model
is in progress.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We have the pleasure to thank Jeff Harvey for suggesting the idea
of this paper, and for many useful discussions until its
completion. We would also like to acknowledge conversations with
Tony Gherghetta, Aaron Grant, Erich Poppitz and Mihir Worah.
This research was supported in part by NSF Grant No.\ PHY-9123780.
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic fields are universally present in astronomical
bodies ranging from the Earth to the distant quasars, but it is still unknown
if
magnetic fields permeate the universe as a whole. Astrophysical magnetic
fields
may arise due to the existence of a primordial magnetic field that grows as
galaxies form. The discovery of an extragalactic magnetic
field on scales larger than virialized systems (i.e., larger than clusters
of galaxies) would reveal the presence of a primordial field. The existence
of such a primordial field would help understand the origin of astrophysical
magnetic
fields and may open a new window into processes ocurring in the early
universe.
In this letter, we show that the study of ultra
high energy cosmic rays (UHE CRs) with energies above
$\simeq10^{18}{\,\rm eV}$ can probe primordial fields below the current
upper bound. Our proposed method is complementary to traditional ones
(e.g., Kronberg 1994) and more recent suggestions (e.g., Plaga
1995). At present, the most stringent constraint on large scale extragalactic
fields comes from limits on the Faraday rotation of light coming to us from
distant quasars. The upper bound on a widespread, all-pervading field
is $\sim 10^{-9}$ Gauss (e.g., Kronberg 1994). There are weaker constraints
derived from the synchrotron emission from nearby galaxy
clusters (Kim et al.~1989)
and the cosmic microwave background isotropy.
UHE CR nucleons from extragalactic sources
are attenuated
in energy while propagating through the cosmic microwave background
(CMB). Above a few $10^{19}{\,\rm eV}$, nucleons produce
pions on the CMB photons and the energy of the cosmic ray nucleons is degraded
rapidly, which is known as the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz'min (GZK)
effect (Greisen 1966;
Zatsepin \& Kuz'min 1966). Produced pions, on the other hand, decay into
secondary leptons such as electrons, muons, and neutrinos, and photons. Since
muons decay to electrons and neutrinos, the final secondary particles are
photons, electrons, and neutrinos, among which photons are more readily
detectable.
Very energetic secondary photons and electrons couple to form an
electromagnetic (EM) cascade. The $\gamma$-rays produce electron
pairs on the CMB and the universal radio background photons
(see Lee \& Sigl 1995, Lee 1995 and references therein for more
detailed discussions). The resulting electrons (or
positrons) in turn upscatter background photons via inverse Compton
scattering (ICS), thus completing a cycle. It is through these two processes
that an
EM cascade develops in the intergalactic medium. As a result, if one
propagates a purely protonic spectrum, one gets a processed nucleon
spectrum with the GZK cutoff, and a secondary EM (photons and
electrons) spectrum.
The extragalactic magnetic field (EGMF) influences the UHE CR flux
mainly through their charged components, namely the primary hadrons
and the secondary electrons. In the energy range under
consideration the hadrons are deflected with negligible
energy loss due to synchrotron radiation whereas the electrons are
negligibly deflected before they lose most of their energy.
In \S 2, we explore the effect of the electron energy loss due to the
EGMF on the secondary EM cascade spectrum. We then discuss the deflection
of the hadronic component in the EGMF, in \S 3. Finally in \S 4, we
summarize our findings.
\section{Extragalactic Magnetic Field and Ultrahigh Energy {$\gamma$}-Ray Flux}
The EGMF plays a crucial role in the development of
the EM cascade. In the presence of the magnetic field, electrons lose energy
via synchrotron radiation loss, which is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE}{dt} = - \frac{e^4 B^2}{24\pi^2 m_e^4} E^2 = -\frac{2}{3} r_0^2 B^2
\left( \frac{E}{m_e} \right)^2,
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the strength of the large scale EGMF, $r_0$ is the classical
electron radius, and $m_e$ is the electron mass.
In fig.~1, we show the rates of ICS and synchrotron loss for
electrons. Whereas the rate of ICS responsible for EM cascade
development decreases with energy, the synchrotron loss rate
increases with energy. Therefore, in a narrow energy range a transition occurs
between a regime where ICS is dominant and electrons couple to
photons efficiently and another where electrons are rapidly lost due to
synchrotron loss and the cascade is suppressed.
Below $\simeq 10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$ (the threshold for pair production on the
radio background), cascade development in the absence of an EGMF
would give rise to a generic power law photon spectrum with index
$\simeq-1.5$. The above mentioned transition in the secondary
{$\gamma$}-ray spectrum will therefore occur between this generic
cascade shape and a synchrotron loss dominated spectrum.
As long as synchrotron quanta can be neglected the latter is
given by the photons produced ``directly'' by source injection
or from pion production by nucleons, before undergoing pair
production in the low energy photon background.
In a magnetic field of strength $B$ measured in G (Gauss) the
synchrotron spectrum produced by an electron of energy $E_e$ peaks at
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm syn} \simeq 6.8 \times 10^{13} \left( \frac{E_e}{10^{21} {\,\rm eV}} \right)^2
\left( \frac{B}{10^{-9}\,{\rm G}} \right) {\,\rm eV}\,,\label{synch}
\end{equation}
and falls off exponentially at higher energies. In the following
we assume that the observable EM flux is energetically dominated
by {$\gamma$}-rays and electrons with energy $E\la10^{21}{\,\rm eV}$. Then,
according to eq.~[\ref{synch}], the contribution of synchrotron
radiation to the {$\gamma$}-ray flux above $10^{18}{\,\rm eV}$ can be safely
neglected as long as $B\la10^{-6}\,{\rm G}$ everywhere.
The energy where the transition in the {$\gamma$}-ray spectrum occurs is
in general a function of the magnetic field
strength and the background photon spectrum, but {\em not\/} a function of the
source distance or the injection spectrum.
If we consider only the CMB, the relation between the transition
energy $E_{\rm tr}$ and the magnetic field strength is
$E_{\rm tr}\propto B^{-1}$. In order to include the less well
known diffuse extragalactic radio background into consideration we
adopt its usual description by a power law with an overall amplitude and a
lower frequency cutoff as parameters (Clark, Brown, \& Alexander 1970)
the latter one being
the main source of uncertainty. Using a cutoff at 2 MHz as
suggested by Clark et al.~(1970) the above relation is modified to
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm tr} \simeq 10^{19}
\left(\frac{B}{10^{-9}\,{\rm G}}\right)^{-1.3}~{\,\rm eV} ~~(B \ga 10^{-10}\,{\rm G}) \ .
\end{equation}
For the same magnetic field
a cutoff at lower frequencies would increase the rate of ICS of
the then more abundant low frequency radio photons and
thus the value for $E_{\rm tr}$ (see fig.~1). Assuming that the
radio cutoff frequency lies somewhere in the range between 0.5
MHz and 3 MHz, for a given $E_{\rm tr}$ the EGMF strength $B$ is
uncertain within about a factor 5.
Therefore, for $B\ga10^{-10}\,{\rm G}$ it is possible to approximately
determine the EGMF strength by
searching for a dip in
the $\gamma$-ray flux below $10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$ which would mark a
transition between an ICS and a synchrotron loss dominated
regime. For $B \la 10^{-10}\,{\rm G}$, this transition occurs above the
pair production threshold on the radio background where
the $\gamma$-ray flux increasingly
depends on several unknown factors such as the charged
cosmic ray flux above the GZK cutoff.
Thus, even though the $\gamma$-ray flux can be comparable
to the nucleon flux above $10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$,
a discussion of possible magnetic field signatures in its
spectrum would presently be too speculative.
We developed a numerical code for the propagation of
nucleons, photons, and electrons through the intergalactic medium
which employs a transport equation formalism, the details of which can
be found in Lee (1995).
The observed UHE CR flux below $10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$ (see, e.g., Bird et
al.~1994; Yoshida et al.~1995) is reproduced quite well by a
diffuse distribution of sources injecting protons with a
spectrum $\propto E^{-2.3}$ up to some maximal energy
considerably beyond the GZK cutoff (Yoshida \& Teshima 1993; Sigl
et al.~1995). For the calculations presented here
we therefore adopted this proton injection
spectrum with a maximal energy of $10^{22}{\,\rm eV}$ (see figures).
The EGMF enters the calculation via the
synchrotron loss of electrons.
The transition between ICS and synchrotron loss domination can
be easily seen in fig.~2, which shows the processed nucleon and photon
spectra for a single source at a distance of 30 Mpc for a range
of EGMF strengths. In general, one expects a distribution of
cosmic ray sources rather than a single source
at a fixed distance. In fig.~3, we show the diffuse spectrum
from a continuous source distribution extending
up to 1 Gpc. We assume a flat universe with zero cosmological constant and a
Hubble constant of $H_0 = 75$ km sec$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$, and a comoving source
density scaling as $(1+z)^2$ in
redshift $z$ as in some ``bright phase'' models of CR sources
(e.g., Yoshida \& Teshima 1993; Hill \& Schramm 1985 and
references therein). The results are not very sensitive to these choices.
In the diffuse case, the {$\gamma$}-ray to nucleon flux ratio tends to be
smaller than for a single source, and the
spectral features are not as pronounced, but still
detectable for $B \ga10^{-10}\,{\rm G}$.
The ``extragalactic magnetic field'' in this analysis
refers to the average component of the EGMF normal to the
line of propagation. Primordial magnetic fields are expected to have very
little
structure on scales below $\sim $ few Mpc (Jedamzik, Katalinic, \& Olinto
1995),
but condensed structures such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies can
``polute"
the intergalactic medium with stronger magnetic fields on smaller scales.
Fortunately, the effect of the EGMF on the $\gamma$-ray
spectral shape discussed here is most sensitive to the average field on large
scales. When the EM cascade goes through a strong field region, the electrons
in
the cascade lose energy rapidly and drop out of the UHE range.
In contrast, the UHE nucleon and {$\gamma$}-ray fluxes are usually
hardly affected directly by the radiation field of the
intervening object (Stecker et al.~1991; Szabo \& Protheroe 1994; Norman,
Melrose, \& Achterberg 1995).
After escaping the object, the cascade redevelops
and the cascade spectrum recovers quickly at only a slightly
smaller amplitude. The influence of
intervening
objects decreases with increasing strength of the large scale field and
becomes important only when the objects
are very close to the observer (e.g., less than $\sim 5\,{\rm Mpc}$
away), or when
their linear size is significant compared to the total
propagation distance. We can derive conditions for the filling
factors for such objects by requiring that they are much more sparsely
populated along the line of sight to the source
than the typical cascade regeneration length $s_c$ (e.g., $\sim$ 5
Mpc). For an average linear size $\bar l_{\rm iv}$ of the
intervening objects their filling factor $f_{\rm iv}$ must satisfy
\begin{equation}
f_{\rm iv} \ll \frac{\bar l_{\rm iv}}{s_c}.
\end{equation}
For field galaxies the above relation is $f_g \ll 10^{-3}$, and for clusters of
galaxies $f_c \ll 0.1$. The actual filling factors for galaxies,
$f_g \la 10^{-7}$, and galaxy clusters, $f_c \la
10^{-4}$ (Kolb \& Turner 1992; Nichol, Briel, \& Henry 1994)
satisfy these constraints. Therefore,
intervening objects do not modify the above discussion substantially. One
interesting exception may be the effect of nearby large structures such as
the Virgo Cluster. If Virgo has strong magnetic fields, e.g.~of order
$10^{-7}\,{\rm G}$ on Mpc scales, the UHE {$\gamma$}-ray flux from background sources might
be modified across Virgo's angular extension (see fig.~2).
The ability of future detectors to study EGMF features crucially
depends on the {$\gamma$}-ray to nucleon flux ratio. For nearby strong
sources, the secondary {$\gamma$}-ray flux could be measurable with
instruments which are sensitive to ratios down to $\simeq1\%$.
This could be achieved by the proposed Pierre Auger Project
(see e.g., Boratav et al.~1992), which would also allow an
angular resolution of $\simeq1^{\circ}$. The case of a diffuse source
distribution is more challenging; the $\gamma$-ray flux is typically smaller
and the EGMF feature is less pronounced than for a single source
at moderate distances (see figs.~2 \& 3), but the dip in the
$\gamma$ spectrum may still be detectable. Thus, measuring the
{$\gamma$}-ray flux between $\simeq10^{18}{\,\rm eV}$ and $\simeq10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$
has the potential to either detect or find strong evidence against an EGMF
$\ga 10^{-10}\,{\rm G}$.
\section{Charged Cosmic Ray Deflection by Extragalactic Magnetic
Fields}
Here, we discuss the influence of the EGMF
on the charged UHE CR flux from discrete sources. We
restrict ourselves to the case of small deflection angles (for
the opposite limit see, e.g. Wdowczyk \& Wolfendale 1979;
Berezinskii, Grigor'eva, \& Dogel' 1989).
In this case, the energy spectrum of charged UHE CRs from a given
source is not significantly altered as compared to a
straight-line propagation. However, if the sources are strong
enough to cause an anisotropy in the UHE CR flux, the
directional correlation of ``hot spots" with
possible sources will depend on the EGMF. The following discussion relates
to this anisotropic component of the charged UHE CR flux.
As in \S 2, let us assume that the large
scale EGMF can be characterized by a typical field strength $B$
and a coherence length $l_c$. Furthermore, we assume for the moment
that the source distance $r$ is smaller than the energy attenuation
length $\lambda=E(dE/dr)^{-1}$ for a charged cosmic ray of energy $E$
which can then be treated as approximately constant throughout
propagation. For nucleons, $\lambda\simeq10$ Mpc above the GZK cutoff
(at $E\simeq6\times10^{19}{\,\rm eV}$), and $\lambda\simeq1$ Gpc much
below the GZK cutoff. A more sophisticated analysis would require
a Monte Carlo simulation of both UHE CR propagation and deflection.
However, since data on both UHE CR and the EGMF are so sparse to date,
we feel that a qualitative discussion of the principle effects
is more appropriate at the moment. We now consider two cases.
(i) The source distance is smaller than the coherence length,
$r\la l_c$. Then, in vectorial notation, the deflection
angle ${\bf\alpha}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf\alpha}=-{Ze\over E}\,{\bf r}\times{\bf B}=
5.3^{\circ}\,Z\left({E\over10^{20}{\,\rm eV}}\right)^{-1}\left({r\over10\,{\rm Mpc}}
\right)\left({B\over10^{-9}\,{\rm G}}\right)\,
\left({\bf\hat r}\times{\bf\hat B}\right)\,,\label{def1}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf r}$ is the radius vector pointing to the source, $Z$
is the charge of the UHE CR component, ${\bf\hat r}={\bf r}/
\vert{\bf r}\vert$, and ${\bf\hat B}={\bf B}/\vert{\bf B}\vert$.
Thus, a correlation between the UHE CR flux of charge $Z$ and energy
$E$ and source counterparts, systematically shifted by an angle
${\bf\alpha}$, would indicate that $l_c\ga r$ and for a known
source distance $r$ would allow to measure the combination
$B({\bf\hat r}\times{\bf\hat B})$. The characteristic $E$- and
$Z$ dependence of ${\bf\alpha}$ would provide an additional test
for the hypothesis that the deflection is caused by an EGMF.
(ii) The source distance is considerably larger than the
coherence length, $r\gg l_c$. In this case the deflection angle
undergoes a diffusion process during propagation and the source
shape in the UHE CR flux will be smeared out over a typical angle
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\em rms}\simeq{2\over\pi}{ZeB\over E}\left(rl_c\right)^{1/2}=
1.1^{\circ}\,Z\left({E\over10^{20}{\,\rm eV}}\right)^{-1}
\left({r\over10\,{\rm Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}
\left({l_c\over1\,{\rm Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}
\left({B\over10^{-9}\,{\rm G}}\right)\,.\label{def2}
\end{equation}
Therefore, if sources appear spread out in the UHE CR flux of
charge $Z$ and energy $E$ by a typical angle $\alpha$, this would
indicate that $l_c\la r$ and for a known source distance $r$ would
allow to measure the combination $Bl_c^{1/2}$.
If the source distance is larger than the energy attenuation length,
$r\ga\lambda$, eqs.~[\ref{def1}] and [\ref{def2}] tend to overestimate
$\alpha$.
In fact, in the limit $r\gg\lambda$ the deflection angle $\alpha$
``saturates" as a function of $r$ and for approximately energy
independent $\lambda$, $r$ has to be substituted by $\lambda$ and
$\lambda/2$ in eqs.~[\ref{def1}] and [\ref{def2}], respectively.
Secondary {$\gamma$}-rays produced by the interactions
of the charged UHE CRs are also expected to correlate with the
sources. Due to their continuous production they will be smeared
out over angles which are typically somewhat smaller than given
in eqs.~[\ref{def1}] and [\ref{def2}].
Sources which can act as suitable probes for the EGMF via the
effects discussed above have to obey the following conditions
apart from producing a detectable anisotropic UHE CR flux
component: Their apparent angular size should be
smaller than the deflection angle $\alpha$. The same pertains to
the apparent angular radius of a possible high magnetic field
region around the source if it can cause deflections in excess
of $\alpha$. For example, a $10^{-6}\,{\rm G}$ field over a scale
$\ga100\,{\rm kpc}$ is possible in galaxy clusters (see, e.g., Kronberg
1994) and would
completely bend around a $10^{20}{\,\rm eV}$ proton. However, as long
as a detectable proton flux emerges from such an object and the
above conditions are fulfilled, it could still be a suitable
probe of the EGMF. Finally, there should be no intervening
high magnetic field regions between source and observer which
could cause bending by more than $\alpha$. For example, for
$r\ga l_c$, $\lambda$, this corresponds to the condition
$l_{\rm iv}B_{\rm iv}\la\left(\lambda l_c\right)^{1/2}B$
for linear scale $l_{\rm iv}$ and strength $B_{\rm iv}$ of the
intervening field. This condition could well be satisfied
along most lines of sight
since known objects with high field regions like galaxies and
galaxy clusters have a small filling factor $f\la10^{-5}$.
In light of these conditions we believe that some of the nearby
galaxy clusters and powerful field radio galaxies could well
be suitable EGMF probes since they are expected to contribute
significantly to the UHE CR flux (Rachen, Stanev, \& Biermann
1993). The accuracy to which the EGMF bending can be determined
is limited by the (to date) unknown additional bending by the
galactic magnetic field of strength $B_g$ and scale height
$l_g$. Thus, according to eq.~[\ref{def1}], the sensitivity of
deflection measurements of the EGMF is restricted to field
parameters satisfying $Br\ga10^{-9}\,{\rm G}\,{\rm Mpc}
\left(B_g/\mu{\rm G}\right)\left(l_g/300\,{\rm pc}\right)$ where the fudge
factors are the parameter values usually assumed for the
galactic magnetic field.
\section{Conclusions}
We discussed how composition, spectrum, and directional
distribution of UHE CR above $\simeq10^{18}{\,\rm eV}$ can be used to
gain information about the large scale (a few to tens of Mpc)
EGMF. Spectral features in the
$\gamma$-ray flux are sensitive to field strengths in the range
$\simeq10^{-10}-10^{-9}\,{\rm G}$. In a similar range,
correlations between an anisotropic charged UHE CR flux
component and possible sources could provide independent
information on the EGMF including its polarization.
Both effects should yield consistent estimates for the EGMF
strength. Strong discrete
sources detected in UHE CRs by future instruments with an angular
resolution of $1^{\circ}$ or better and a sensitivity to $\gamma$-ray
to nucleon flux ratios of $1\%$ or smaller would provide the best
conditions for detecting an EGMF in the range
$\simeq 10^{-10}-10^{-9}\,{\rm G}$. Since these
conditions are not unreasonable, UHE CRs have the potential
to provide important information on properties and origin of the
EGMF.
\acknowledgments
This work was supported by the DoE, NSF and NASA at the University of Chicago,
by the DoE and by NASA through grant NAG5-2788 at Fermilab, and by
Alexander-von-Humboldt Foundation. S.L. acknowledges the support of the POSCO
Scholarship Foundation in Korea.
|
\chapter{Introduction}
A feature of recent developments in superstring theory is the emerging
importance for a variety of non-perturbative phenomena of extended object, or
`$p$-brane', solutions of the classical string theory. In particular, these
solutions are crucial for an understanding of the various conjectured duality
symmetries of both the heterotic and type II superstrings (see [\PKT] for a
recent
review). It is customary to call a $p$-brane `electric' if it is the source for
a
$(p+1)$-form potential in the effective field theory Lagrangian and `magnetic'
if
it is the source for the dual $(D-p-3)$-form potential. The word `source' may
need
some explanation here: one first solves the source-free equations of motion of
the
effective field theory; it is necessary to introduce an actual, `fundamental',
source only if the analytic continuation of the source-free solution meets with
a
(timelike) singularity. Otherwise, no source is needed, but here one can
interpret
the extended object solution as an effective source on length scales that are
long
compared to the size of the object's core.
In a D-dimensional spacetime the magnetic dual of an electric $p$-brane is a
$\tilde p$-brane, where $\tilde p$ is related to $p$ by [\Nep]
$$
\tilde p = D-p-4\ .
\eqn\onea
$$
It follows that a $p$-brane can carry {\it both} electric and magnetic charge
only if
$$
D= 2p+4\ , \qquad p=0,1,2,\dots
\eqn\oneb
$$
The simplest case is $D=4$ for which there arises the possibility of particles
carrying both electric and magnetic charge, i.e. dyons. The next simplest case
is $D=6$ for which there exists the possibility of dyonic strings. In fact, one
can find a self-dual string in $D=6$, which is intrinsically dyonic because the
two-form potential to which it couples has a self-dual field strength [\DL].
Other dyonic D=6 strings, which break more than half the supersymmetry, have
been discussed in [\DFKR]. Here we consider the next case: membranes in D=8.
Specifically, we present dyonic membrane solutions of N=2 D=8 supergravity that
break half the supersymmetry. During the writing up of this work a paper
[\BBO] presenting analogous results for D=6 dyonic strings appeared, in which
the possibility of D=8 dyonic membranes was also mentioned.
The reason for considering N=2 D=8 supergravity [\SaSe] is that this is the
unique supersymmetric field theory (with no more than second order field
equations) for which the field content includes a third-rank antisymmetric
tensor gauge field. It may also be considered as the effective field theory for
the $T^2$-compactified type II superstring.
The N=2 D=8 supergravity theory has an $Sl(3;R)\times Sl(2;R)$ symmetry of
the equations of motion. This group acts linearly on the various field strength
tensors and their duals. These include a four-form field-strength $F$, and its
dual,
which transform according to the $({\bf 1},{\bf 2})$ representation of
$Sl(3;R)\times
Sl(2;R)$. The discrete subgroup $Sl(3;Z)\times Sl(2;Z)$ was conjectured in
[\HT] to
extend to a U-duality of the D=8 type II superstring theory; this discrete
group
contains the T-duality group $SO(2,2;Z)\equiv [Sl(2;Z)\times Sl(2;Z)]/Z_2$,
which
in turn contains an $Sl(2;Z)$ subgroup of the $Sl(2;R)$ group acting on the
four-form field strength. This follows from the facts that (i) all
non-perturbative
U-duality symmetries are contained in the $Sl(3;Z)$ subgroup
and (ii) $Sl(3;Z)$ acts trivially on $F$. Thus, although the $Sl(2;Z)$ group
acts on $F$ via a generalized electromagnetic duality, this group is
nevertheless a
{\it perturbative} T-duality in the string theory context. This is to be
expected
from the fact that in the context of the type II superstring the three-form
potential $A$ is a Ramond-Ramond (RR) field. A similar group-theoretical
argument was
used in [\HT] to show that electric {\it and} magnetic RR charges of the D=4
type II
superstring transform irreducibly under T-duality. As we now see, the same is
true in D=8.
It should be noted that here we are using the term `T-Duality', in the context
of $T^2$-compactifications of type II superstrings, to mean the identification
of vacua of the resulting D=8 type II superstring under the discrete
$SO(2,2;Z)$ subgroup of the $SO(2,2)$ classical symmetry group of
the compactified theory. The analogous $SO(2,18;Z)$ T-Duality group of the
heterotic string includes transformations which take $R\rightarrow 1/R$, where
$R$ is the radius of an $S^1$ factor of $T^2$. For the type II superstrings
this $R\rightarrow 1/R$ transformation (also called T-Duality) interchanges the
type IIA and type IIB superstrings, which are therefore equivalent to a single
D=8 type II superstring. Such transformations are {\it not} realized as gauge
symmetries of this D=8 theory, and therefore are not included in the
$SO(2,2;Z)$ T-Duality group.
There is a consistent truncation of the N=2 D=8 supergravity in
which the only surviving fields are the spacetime metric, $g_{\mu\nu}$, a
scalar, $\sigma$, a pseudoscalar $\rho$ and a three-form gauge potential, $A$,
for which $F=dA$ is its four-form field-strength. The Lagrangian of this
truncated
theory is
$$
\eqalign{
{\cal L} = N\Bigg\{\sqrt{-g}\big[ &R - 2\partial_\mu \sigma\partial^\mu\sigma -
2e^{4\sigma}\partial_\mu \rho\partial^\mu\rho -{1\over
12}e^{-2\sigma}F_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}F^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\big] \cr
&-{1\over 144}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\rho
F_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}F_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta} \Bigg\}\ ,}
\eqn\onec
$$
where $N$ is a normalization factor, which we can choose at our convenience.
The coefficient of the $\varepsilon\rho FF$ term is crucial to the results to
follow so we should point out that we disagree by a factor of three with the
coefficient of this term given in [\SaSe]. The coefficient can be simply
determined by dimensional reduction of the D=11 supergravity theory, which was
the method used in [\SaSe], but this leads to the coefficient used here rather
than that of [\SaSe].
The $\sigma$ and $\rho$ kinetic terms of \onec\ constitute a
sigma model with target space $Sl(2;R)/U(1)$. It is convenient to introduce
the
complex field
$$
\lambda = 2\rho + ie^{-2\sigma}\ ,
\eqn\comfield
$$
taking values in the upper half complex plane, since the $Sl(2;R)$ group acts
on
$\lambda$ by fractional linear transformations. Since the asymptotic value of
$\lambda$ is undetermined by the equations of motion, the possible vacua
correspond to points in the upper half plane. However, T-duality of the
type II D=8 superstring theory implies that points that lie in an
orbit of an $Sl(2;Z)$ subgroup of $Sl(2;R)$ correspond to equivalent vacua.
Thus, the moduli space of vacua in the string theory context is, assuming
T-duality, the fundamental domain of $SL(2;Z)$ in the upper half complex
plane.
Note the similarity of the above discussion with that of S-duality in the
heterotic string. The main difference, apart from the obvious one that here we
are
dealing with a four-form rather than a two-form field strength, is that the
scalar
field $\sigma$ in \onec\ is {\it not} the dilaton. In fact, the dilaton has
been set to zero in the truncation leading to \onec. If $\sigma$ were the
dilaton, the $Z_2$ subgroup of $Sl(2;Z)$ that exchanges $F$ with its dual and
takes $\sigma$ to $-\sigma$ would be
non-perturbative in the context of the type II string theory. As explained
above, this is not the case. An alternative explanation is provided by
string-string duality, as will shall see shortly.
We shall be interested in infinite planar membrane solutions of the equations
of
motion of \onec\ that are asymptotically flat as one approaches spatial
infinity
in non-coplanar directions; we shall call this `transverse spatial infinity',
which is topologically $S^4\times R^2$. Membrane solutions can be
characterised
by their electric and magnetic number densities
$$
q = {N\over e}\oint\! G \qquad p= {e\over 2\pi}\oint\! F
\eqn\chargetwo
$$
where the integral is over a 4-sphere cross-section of transverse spatial
infinity, $e$ is an arbitrary unit of `electric' charge, and the two-form $G$
is
related to the Hodge dual $\tilde F$ of $F$ by
$$
G\equiv e^{-2\sigma}\tilde F -2\rho F \ .
\eqn\chargetwo
$$
We shall require an asymptotic translational invariance in directions coplanar
with the membrane so that these number densities are actually constant; we
shall
refer to these constants as the membrane `charges'. Their conservation follows
from the fact that the combined equations of motion and Bianchi identities of
the
field-strength four-form $F$ can be written as $d{\cal F}=0$ where ${\cal F}$
is
the $Sl(2;R)$ doublet
$$
{\cal F} = (F,G)\ .
\eqn\chargethree
$$
We shall choose the constants $N$ and $e$ such that
$$
q = {1\over \Omega_4}\oint G \qquad p= {1\over \Omega_4}\oint F
\eqn\charge
$$
where $\Omega_4=2\pi^2$ is the volume of the unit 4-sphere. With this choice,
the
charges $(p,q)$ form an $Sl(2;R)$ doublet.
As shown in [\Nep], the electric and magnetic charges of extended objects are
subject to a generalization of the Dirac quantization condition. However, just
as
the Dirac quantization condition must be replaced, in the context of dyons, by
the Schwinger-Zwanziger quantization condition so, in the context of dyonic
extended objects, the Nepomechie-Teitelboim (N-T) quantization condition must
be
replaced by an extended object analogue of the Schwinger-Zwanziger quantization
condition. With the above choice of normalization constant, $N$, and electric
charge unit, $e$, this generalized N-T quantization condition for two dyonic
membranes with charges $(p,q)$ and $(p',q')$ takes the simple (manifestly
$Sl(2;R)$ invariant) form
$$
qp'-q'p \ \in \ Z\ .
\eqn\Dizzy
$$
As for dyons in D=4 [\Witb], this formula allows fractional $q$ for dyonic
membranes, but the consequences for dyonic membranes are not quite the same as
those for dyons because one cannot take for granted the existence of purely
electric membranes in the quantum theory.
In [\GHT] it was shown how an analogue of the Bogomolnyi-Gibbons-Hull bound for
particle-like solutions of Maxwell/Einstein theory can be derived for $p$-brane
solutions of certain antisymmetric tensor generalizations of Maxwell/Einstein
theory. The precise interactions of the antisymmetric tensor field, e.g. the
coefficient of possible Chern-Simons terms was crucial to this result. In all
cases,
the interactions were precisely those for which the bosonic field theory could
be
interpreted as a consistent truncation of a supergravity theory. Since this
condition is satisfied by the Lagrangian \onec\ one would expect to be able to
derive a similar bound on the tension of membrane solutions of its equations of
motion; this case is not covered by the results of [\GHT] because Lagrangians
with
scalar fields were not considered there. This expectation is correct; we shall
show
that the tension, $M$, of membrane solutions of \onec\ satisfies the $Sl(2;R)$
invariant bound
$$
M^2 \ge {1\over 4} \Big[ e^{2\langle\sigma\rangle}\big(q+2\langle\rho\rangle
p\big)^2 + e^{-2\langle\sigma\rangle} p^2\Big] \ ,
\eqn\abog
$$
where $\langle \rho\rangle$ and $\langle\sigma\rangle$ are the asymptotic
values
of $\rho$ and $\sigma$.
Solutions which saturate the bound are `supersymmetric' in that they admit
Killing
spinors. The purely electric and magnetic D=8 supersymmetric membrane
solutions, with
$\rho\equiv0$, have been given previously [\DL]. The supersymmetric membrane
solutions we construct here differ in that they have non-constant axion field
and
carry both electric and magnetic charge, i.e. they are `dyonic'. There is a
U(1)
parameter family of these solutions for each value of the asymptotic values of
$\sigma$ and $\rho$, corresponding to the U(1) stability subgroup of
$Sl(2;R)$ acting on the upper-half plane by fractional linear transformations.
Although only a $Z_2$ family of these will survive quantization, the
identification
of vacua related by a transformation in the $Sl(2;Z)$ T-duality subgroup of
$Sl(2;R)$ allows us to find $Sl(2;Z)$ orbits of membrane solutions about
equivalent vacua, as has been done previously for particle-like solutions in
D=4
[\STW,\KO]. Almost all such solutions are dyonic.
One motivation for our work derives from a recently suggested D=8
membrane/membrane
duality [\PKTc]. The point here is, firstly, that while the purely electric
membrane
solution of N=2 D=8 supergravity theory can be interpreted as the membrane
solution
of D=11 supergravity in a $T^3$ compactified spacetime, the purely magnetic one
can
be interpreted as a double dimension reduction of the fivebrane solution of
D=11
supergravity\foot{This was stated in [\PKTc]; here we verify it.}. Secondly,
the
worldvolume action of this magnetic membrane is that of a D=11 supermembrane in
a
$T^3$ compactified spacetime (and not that of a D=8 supermembrane, as one might
have guessed; the extra three coordinates come from the antisymmetric tensor in
the fivebrane's worldvolume action). This suggests a complete non-perturbative
equivalence between the electric and magnetic membranes. This equivalence would
be
guaranteed in string theory by non-perturbative T-duality. Unfortunately, this
cannot be established in string perturbation theory, but one can reverse the
logic
and use the evidence of membrane/membrane duality given in [\PKTc] and the
results
presented here as evidence for the non-perturbative validity of T-duality.
Another motivation comes from the conjectured non-perturbative
equivalence of the $K_3\times T^2$ compactified type II superstring theory with
the toroidally compactified heterotic string theory [\HT], i.e. the
`string-string
duality' for which there is now considerable evidence. Many recent papers
dedicated to
tests of this conjecture have taken as their starting point the related
conjecture
that the D=6 string theories obtained by compactification of the type IIA
superstring
on $K_3$ and the heterotic string on $T^4$ are non-perturbatively equivalent
[\Witten]. Given this D=6 equivalence, the equivalence in D=4 follows upon
further
compactification on $T^2$. S-duality of the heterotic string [\FILQ,\Sen] can
then be
re-interpreted as T-duality of the type II superstring [\SS,\Duff,\Witten].
This
approach to understanding D=4 S-duality via the heterotic/type II equivalence
can be
characterised by the motto ``10 to 6 and then to 4''.
Our work can be viewed as
a first step towards an understanding of heterotic S-duality via the
alternative
``10 to 8 and then to 4'' approach. The first step is a $T^2$ compactification
of
both the type II and the heterotic string to D=8. A subsequent compactification
of
the D=8 type II superstring on $K_3$ yields a D=4 string theory which,
according to
string-string duality, is equivalent to the $T^4$ compactified D=8 heterotic
string.
The spectrum of this D=4 string theory includes dyons which arise, in the type
II
interpretation, as wrapping modes of D=8 dyonic membranes around the 22
fundamental
homology 2-cycles of $K_3$. These dyons are charged with respect to the 22 D=4
two-form field strengths, $F^I\ (I=1,2,\dots,22)$, arising from the D=8
four-form
field strength $F$ via the ansatz
$$
F(x,y)= F^I(x)\wedge\omega_I(y) \ ,
\eqn\ansatz
$$
where $\omega_I$ span the 22-dimensional space of harmonic two-forms on $K_3$.
These
D=4 dyons are non-perturbative RR states, even the purely electric ones; they
form multiplets of the $Sl(2;Z)$ (type II) T-duality subgroup descending from
the
T-duality group in D=8. Note that the full type II T-duality group in D=4 is
the same
as the full type II T-duality group in D=8 because $K_3$ has no continuous
isometries.
According to string-string duality the type II RR dyons just discussed must
appear
in the spectrum of an equivalent heterotic string. Moreover, one expects the
purely electric
particles among them to appear as {\it perturbative} states in view of the
generally accepted opinion that {\it all} purely electric states of the
heterotic
string are perturbative. Since their dyonic $Sl(2;Z)$ partners are necessarily
non-perturbative, the $Sl(2;Z)$ group that relates them must then be a
{\it non-perturbative} duality group of the heterotic string, i.e. the
S-duality group. Thus, the existence of the $Sl(2;Z)$ multiplets of dyonic D=8
membranes provides further confirmation of the interchange of S and T duality
effected by string-string duality.
In the following, we begin with a presentation of the dyonic membrane solutions
of
the field equations of the Lagrangian \onec. We then explain how these
solutions were found and why their tension saturates a Bogomolnyi-Gibbons-Hull
type
bound. We also exhibit the Killing spinors admitted by these solutions,
thereby establishing their supersymmetry. We then discuss the global
structure of the dyonic membranes and their interpretation as solutions of D=11
supergravity. We conclude with some further comments on the significance of our
results.
\chapter{D=8 dyonic membranes}
The field equations of the Lagrangian \onec\ are
$$
\eqalign{
G_{\mu\nu} &= 2T_{\mu\nu}
\cr
\partial_\mu \big(\sqrt{-g}\; e^{-2\sigma}F^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\big) &=-
2\big(\partial_\mu\rho\big)
\tilde F^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
\cr
\partial_\mu\big(\sqrt{-g}\; e^{4\sigma}\partial^\mu\rho \big) &= {1\over 24}
F_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\tilde F^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
\cr
\partial_\mu\big(\sqrt{-g}\; \partial^\mu\sigma\big) &= \sqrt{-g}\big[2
e^{4\sigma}(\partial\rho)^2 -{1\over24} e^{-2\sigma} F^2 \big]\ ,}
\eqn\aonec
$$
where
$$
\eqalign{
T_{\mu\nu} = &\big[\partial_\mu\sigma\partial_\nu\sigma - {1\over2}
g_{\mu\nu}(\partial\sigma)^2\big] + e^{4\sigma}
\big[\partial_\mu\rho\partial_\nu\rho - {1\over2}
g_{\mu\nu}(\partial\rho)^2\big]\cr
&\qquad +{1\over6}e^{-2\sigma} \big[
F_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma}F_{\nu}{}^{\alpha\beta\gamma} -{1\over8}g_{\mu\nu}F^2
\big] \ ,}
\eqn\bonec
$$
and
$$
\tilde F^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \equiv {1\over 24}
\varepsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
F_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\ .
\eqn\donec
$$
We shall consider field configurations representing an infinite planar
membrane and choose coordinates such that it is aligned with the $x^1\equiv y$
and $x^2\equiv z$ axes. We shall look for product metrics in which the metric
of the
five-dimensional `transverse' space is conformally flat and may therefore be
parameterised by the coordinates ${\bf x}\equiv (x^3,\dots,x^7)$ of an
associated
five-dimensional Euclidean space, $\bb{E}^5$. There are certainly many solutions of
the
field equations \onec\ within this class of field configurations, but we shall
concentrate on those that admit Killing spinors. We shall first present these
solutions. Then, in the following section, we shall explain how they were
obtained
and why they are supersymmetric. We shall present the solutions in terms of
the complex field $\lambda$ defined in \comfield. If we fix boundary conditions
such that the spacetime is asymptotically flat as $|{\bf x}|\rightarrow
\infty$, and such that
$$
\lambda \rightarrow i\ ,
\eqn\bcs
$$
then the following multi-membrane field configurations solve \aonec\ for
arbitrary angular parameter $\xi$:
$$
\eqalign{
ds^2 &= H^{-{1\over2}}[-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] + H^{1\over2} d{\bf
x}\cdot d{\bf x}\cr
F &= {1\over2}\cos\xi\, (\star dH) + {1\over2}\sin\xi\, dH^{-1}\wedge dt\wedge
dy\wedge dz
\cr
\lambda &= {\sin 2\xi\,(1-H) + 2iH^{1\over2}\over 2 (\sin^2\xi + H\cos^2\xi)}\
.}
\eqn\dyons
$$
Here, the symbol $\star$ indicates the Hodge dual in $\bb{E}^5$ and
$$
H= 1 + \sum_{n=1}^N{\mu_n\over |{\bf x}-{\bf x}_n|^3}
\eqn\harm
$$
for $n$ arbitrary constants $\mu_n$ associated with the $N$ points ${\bf
x}={\bf x}_n$, for any finite value of $N$. That is, $H({\bf x})$ solves the
Laplace equation on $\bb{E}^5$ with an arbitrary number of point sources
and is such that
$H\rightarrow 1$ as $|{\bf x}|\rightarrow \infty$. The constants $\mu_n$ are
proportional to the ADM tension of each membrane solution. Specifically, for a
one membrane solution with parameter $\mu$ the ADM tension is
$$
M= {3\over4}\mu\ .
\eqn\tension
$$
We have presented the solutions for a specially chosen asymptotic value of
$\lambda$ because a solution with any other asymptotic value of $\lambda$ can
be
found by making use of the $Sl(2;R)$ invariance of the field equations. As
stated earlier, this $Sl(2;R)$ group acts on $\lambda$ by fractional linear
transformations:
$$
\lambda \rightarrow {a\lambda + b\over c\lambda + d}\ ,
\eqn\onee
$$
where $a,b,c,d$ are real numbers such that $ad-bc=1$. The $Sl(2;R)$ group acts
on the four-form doublet ${\cal F} = (F, G)$ by a generalization of
electromagnetic duality. Specifically, if $\lambda$ is transformed as in \onee,
then the associated transformation of ${\cal F}$ is
$$
{\cal F}\rightarrow (F, G) \pmatrix{d&-b\cr -c& a}\ .
\eqn\onefb
$$
Since there is a $U(1)$ isotropy subgroup of $Sl(2;R)$ that does not change
the
asymptotic value, $\langle\lambda\rangle$, of $\lambda$, there must be a $U(1)$
family of solutions for each choice of $\langle\lambda\rangle$. This is the
significance of the angular parameter $\xi$ in \dyons. This $U(1)$ group
is an analogue of the electromagnetic duality group since it takes a purely
electric or purely magnetic solution into a dyonic one. Thus, the general
solution of \dyons\ can be obtained by a $U(1)$ transformation of the purely
magnetic solution
$$
\eqalign{
ds^2 &= H^{-{1\over2}}[-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] + H^{1\over2} d{\bf
x}\cdot d{\bf x}\cr
F &= {1\over2}\star dH \cr
\lambda &= iH^{-{1\over2}} \ .}
\eqn\dyonstwo
$$
However, because of charge quantization, this classical $U(1)$ symmetry will be
broken to $Z_2$ in the quantum theory; there will be some `preferred' value of
$\langle\lambda\rangle$ for which only the purely electric or purely magnetic
solutions survive (by analogy with D=4 dyons one might suppose that
$\langle\lambda\rangle =i$ is the `preferred' value; we shall examine this
hypothesis in more detail later). It might therefore appear that the more
general
dyonic membrane solutions of \dyons\ are irrelevant to the type II string
theory,
at least for the `preferred' value of $\langle\lambda\rangle$. However, the
sigma-model target space of \onec\ is only required by supersymmetry to be {\it
locally} isometric to the coset space $SL(2;R)/U(1)$. It may differ globally
since
it is possible to identify points on this space that differ by the action of
$Sl(2;Z)$. Thus, the true sigma-model space could be
$$
{\cal{M}} = Sl(2;Z)\backslash Sl(2;R)/U(1)\ .
\eqn\true
$$
In this case the true moduli space is not the entire upper-half $\lambda$-plane
but
rather the fundamental domain of $Sl(2;Z)$ in the upper half plane. In the
context
of the D=8 type II superstring theory, T-duality implies that this is indeed
the
true moduli space of vacua, so vacua which differ by the action of $Sl(2;Z)$
should be identified. Thus an $Sl(2;Z)$ transformation of
the purely magnetic membrane solution \dyonstwo\ will produce a new solution
with a
different, but {\it equivalent}, value of $\lambda$, and this solution will
have
an effective non-zero value of $\xi$, i.e. it will be dyonic.
Actually, we shall find a more general class of dyonic solutions by applying
this procedure to the dyonic solutions \dyons\ rather than to the purely
magnetic
solution \dyonstwo, i.e. we allow for an arbitrary initial value of the angular
parameter $\xi$. First we make an $Sl(2;R)$ transform of the solution \dyons\
to arrive at
$$
\eqalign{
ds^2 &= H^{-{1\over2}}[-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] + H^{1\over2} d{\bf
x}\cdot d{\bf x}\cr
F &= {1\over2}e^{2\langle\sigma\rangle}\Big( \cos\psi \star dH + \sin\psi\;
dH^{-1} \wedge dt\wedge dy\wedge dz\Big)
\cr
\lambda &= 2\langle \rho\rangle + e^{-2\langle\sigma\rangle} \cdot {(1-H)\sin
2\psi + 2i H^{1\over2}\over 2(H\cos^2\psi + \sin^2\psi)}
\ ,}
\eqn\dyonsthree
$$
where
$$
e^{-2\langle\sigma\rangle} = {1\over c^2 + d^2}\ ,\qquad
2\langle\rho\rangle = {bd + ac\over c^2 + d^2}\ ,
\eqn\dyonsfour
$$
and the new angular parameter $\psi$ is given by
$$
\tan\psi = {d\sin\xi + c\cos\xi\over d\cos\xi -c\sin\xi}\ .
\eqn\adyonsfour
$$
Then, we restrict $a,b,c,d$ to be integers to obtain the dyon solutions with
$\langle\lambda\rangle \cong i$. By construction, these solutions form a
representation of $Sl(2;Z)$. Note that the set of dyon solutions obtained in
this
way will contain a purely magnetic solution if and only if $\tan\xi$ is
rational.
If this condition is satisfied then there will also be a purely electric
solution.
Clearly, a similar set of dyonic membrane solutions can be found for any other
initial choice of $\langle\lambda\rangle$. However, if initially
$\langle\lambda\rangle \ne i$, then the $Sl(2;Z)$ subgroup is not found by
simply
restricting $a,b,c,d$ to be integers. Rather, the elements of the $Sl(2;Z)$
subgroup are similarity transforms of matrices with integer entries.
\chapter{Killing spinors and the Bogomol'nyi Bound}
We have claimed that the dyonic membrane solutions presented above are
supersymmetric, i.e. that they admit Killing spinors. We shall now elaborate on
this point. A Killing spinor is a spinor field, $\epsilon$, that is in the
kernel
of a first-order Lorentz-covariant Dirac-type operator $\hat{\cal D}$, i.e.
$\hat{\cal D}\epsilon=0$, where a minimal condition on $\hat{\cal D}$ is that
the
vector field $\bar\epsilon\gamma^\mu\epsilon$ is Killing if $\epsilon$ is. In
the
context of field theories with scalar and vector fields, this condition
limits,
but does not define, $\hat{\cal D}$. Within the context of a supergravity
theory,
$\hat{\cal D}$ is defined by the gravitini transformation laws, but an
alternative
intrinsic definition is possible in the context of an {\sl a priori} arbitrary
bosonic Lagrangian via the modified Nester tensor
$$
\hat E^{\mu\nu} = {1\over2}\bar\epsilon\Gamma^{\mu\nu\rho}\hat{\cal
D}_\rho\epsilon + c.c.\ .
\eqn\Nester
$$
This is because the operator $\hat{\cal D}$ is fixed, if it exists, by the
requirement that
$$
{\cal D}_\nu\hat E^{\mu\nu} = \overline{\hat{\cal D}_\nu\epsilon}\;
\Gamma^{\mu\nu\rho}\hat{\cal D}_\rho\epsilon - {1\over2} \bar\chi
\Gamma^\mu\chi\ ,
\eqn\crucial
$$
as a consequence of the field equations, for some complex spinor $\chi$. This
requirement also fixes $\chi$. The significance of the relation \crucial\ is
that it allows the derivation of a bound on the mass per unit $p$-volume,
i.e. the tension, of configurations that are subject only to the boundary
conditions at transverse spatial infinity satisfied by $p$-brane
solutions of the equations of motion [\GHT]. It can happen that the field
equations of a
given Lagrangian are such that \crucial\ is not satisfied by any operator
$\hat{\cal D}$
for any spinor $\chi$. In this case a bound on the tension cannot be derived by
this method. Conversely, requiring that such a bound be derivable in a
Lagrangian whose interactions are parameterised by arbitrary functions of the
scalar fields can fix these functions. For example, allowing arbitrary
interactions
of $\sigma$ consistent with the requirement that the field equations be of
second
order, and an arbitrary coefficient of the $\rho F\tilde F$ term, one finds
that the only Lagrangian in this class for which an energy bound on the
membrane tension can be derived is precisely the Lagrangian of \onec.
For the case in hand, one finds that
$$
\hat{\cal D}_\mu \epsilon \equiv {\cal D}_\mu\epsilon -{1\over2}
\gamma_9\epsilon\; e^{2\sigma}
\partial_\mu \rho + {1\over 96}\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}
\Gamma_\mu\epsilon\; e^{-\sigma}
F_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\ ,
\eqn\oneh
$$
and
$$
\chi = \Gamma^\mu\epsilon\; \partial_\mu\sigma -
\gamma_9\Gamma^\mu\epsilon\; e^{2\sigma}\partial_\mu\rho -{1\over 48}
\Gamma^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\epsilon\;
e^{-\sigma}F_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}\ .
\eqn\onei
$$
The matrix $\gamma_9$ is defined by
$$
\gamma_9 =\Gamma^{\underline 0}\Gamma^{\underline 1}\cdots\Gamma^{\underline 7}
\eqn\onej
$$
where the underlining indicates a flat space Dirac matrix. It follows from
\oneh\
that
$$
\hat E^{\mu\nu} = E^{\mu\nu} -{1\over2} e^{2\sigma} (\bar\epsilon
\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha}\gamma_9 \epsilon)\partial_\alpha \rho - {1\over4}
e^{-\sigma}\bar\epsilon(F^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta} -\tilde
F{}^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}\gamma_9)\epsilon
\eqn\aonej
$$
where $E^{\mu\nu}$ is the standard Nester tensor. Note that the Dirac
conjugate $\bar\psi$ of a spinor $\psi$ is defined by
$$
\bar\psi = \psi^{\dagger} \Gamma^{\underline 0}\ ,
\eqn\conjugate
$$
so that $\bar\psi\Gamma^{\underline 0}\psi$ is negative definite. Note also
that
the Lorentz invariant $\bar\psi\psi$ is pure imaginary (for commuting spinors)
since $\Gamma^{\underline 0}$ is anti-Hermitian\foot{In the Majorana basis, in
which the matrices $\Gamma^\mu$ are (for D=8) pure imaginary,
$\Gamma^{\underline 0}$ is symmetric and equal to $i$ times the charge
conjugation matrix (which is symmetric for D=8).}
As explained in the introduction, the relevant concept for defining
membrane charges is transverse spatial infinity, which has topology $S^4\times
R^2$. It is convenient to choose periodic boundary conditions to convert this
to
$S^4\times T^2$, i.e. we consider the membrane to be wrapped around a large
two-torus. The energy per unit area, $M$, is then the, now finite, total energy
divided by the volume, $V_2$, of the two-torus. This energy can expressed as an
integral over the $S^4\times T^2$ surface at spatial infinity. Specifically, if
${\bf P}$ is the total transverse 5-momentum per unit area, such that
$M=\sqrt{-|{\bf P}|^2}$, then [\GHT]
$$
\bar\epsilon_\infty {\bf \Gamma}\cdot {\bf P}\epsilon_\infty = {1\over 2V_2
\Omega_4}
\oint_\infty \! dS_{\mu\nu} E^{\mu\nu}\ ,
\eqn\boga
$$
where $\Omega_4$ is the volume of the unit 4-sphere. With appropriate
asymptotic
fall off conditions on the metric, and assuming that
$$
\epsilon \rightarrow \epsilon_\infty
\eqn\eplim
$$
as $|{\bf x}|\rightarrow \infty$, for some constant spinor $\epsilon_\infty$,
\boga\ can be rewritten as
$$
\bar\epsilon_\infty {\bf \Gamma}\cdot {\bf P}\epsilon_\infty = {1\over 2
\Omega_4}
\oint_\infty \! dS_{ij} E^{ij}\ ,
\eqn\bogb
$$
where the integral is now over the 4-sphere at spatial infinity and the index
$i$
is associated with the coordinates ${\bf x}$ of the transverse space.
Assuming that the only components of $F$ that are non-vanishing at transverse
spatial infinity are $F_{ijkl}$ and $F_{tyzi}$, and that these components
depend
asymptotically only on $x^i$, one has that
$$
\eqalign{
{1\over 2V_2\Omega_4} \oint_\infty \! dS_{\mu\nu}\hat E^{\mu\nu} &=
{1\over 2 \Omega_4} \oint_\infty \! dS_{ij} \hat E^{ij}\cr
&= \bar\epsilon_\infty \Big[{\bf \Gamma}\cdot {\bf P} -
{1\over 8 \Omega_4} e^{-\langle\sigma\rangle} \Gamma_{kl}\oint_\infty \!
dS_{ij}\Big( F^{ijkl} - \tilde F^{ijkl}\gamma_9\Big)\Big]\epsilon_\infty\ , }
\eqn\abog
$$
since the $\partial\rho$ term in \aonej\ does not contribute to the integral.
{}From
the definitions \charge\ of the charges $(p,q)$ one then finds that
$$
{1\over 2V_2\Omega_4} \oint_\infty \! dS_{\mu\nu}\hat E^{\mu\nu} =
\bar\epsilon_\infty K \epsilon_\infty
\eqn\bogc
$$
where
$$
K= {\bf \Gamma}\cdot {\bf P} -{1\over2} \Big[
e^{\langle\sigma\rangle}(q+2\langle\rho\rangle p)
\Gamma_{yz} - e^{-\langle\sigma\rangle} p\;
\Gamma_{yz}\gamma_9\Big]\ .
\eqn\abogc
$$
Using Gauss's law, the relation \crucial, and choosing $\epsilon$ to satisfy a
`modified Witten condition', one can prove that the integral on the left hand
side
of \bogc\ is positive semi-definite, subject to the usual assumptions. It
follows that the Dirac
matrix $K$ is positive semi-definite, which implies the bound \abog\ quoted in
the
introduction.
This bound is saturated by solutions of the equations of motion for which there
exists a spinor $\epsilon$ such that
$$
\hat{\cal D}_\mu\epsilon=0\ , \qquad\qquad \chi=0\ .
\eqn\Killing
$$
Non-trivial solutions of these relations, i.e. those for which $M\ne0$, require
$\epsilon$ to satisfy a condition of the form
$$
\big[\alpha({\bf x}) \Gamma_* + \beta({\bf
x})\Gamma_*\gamma_9\big]\epsilon({\bf x}) =\epsilon ({\bf x})\ ,
\eqn\constraint
$$
where
$$
\Gamma_* = \Gamma^{\underline 0}\Gamma^{\underline 1}\Gamma^{\underline 2}\ .
\eqn\onek
$$
and $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are functions such that
$$
\alpha^2 + \beta^2=1 \ .
\eqn\aonek
$$
This can be seen from the fact that the spinor $\epsilon$ must be an
eigen-spinor
of the matrix $K$ with zero eigenvalue. The angular parameter $\xi$ enters into
the
solutions \dyons\ as the limit of the ratio of the functions $\alpha$ and
$\beta$,
i.e.
$$
\lim_{|{\bf x}|\rightarrow \infty} \Big({\alpha\over\beta}\Big) = \tan\xi\ .
\eqn\bonek
$$
The multi-dyon solutions \dyons\ were obtained by substituting an appropriate
ansatz into the relations \Killing. The constraint \constraint\ reduces the
dimension of the space of Killing spinors to half that of the constant Killing
spinors of the vacuum. Thus, the solutions we find in this way will break half
the
supersymmetry. Furthermore, they saturate the bound \abog\ by construction, so
their membrane tension is given by the formula
$$
M^2 = {1\over 4} \Big[ e^{2\langle\sigma\rangle}(q+2\langle\rho\rangle p)^2 +
e^{-2\langle\sigma\rangle} p^2\Big] \ .
\eqn\bogi
$$
where $M$ is related to the constants $\mu_n$ appearing in the solutions by
$$
M= {3\over4} \sum_{n=1}^N \mu_n\ .
\eqn\bogsum
$$
This bound does not imply that each constant $\mu$ is individually positive but
it
is easy to see that this must in fact be the case. The point is that \bogsum\
is
independent of the positions of the membranes, so that we may consider a limit
in
which they become arbitrarily far apart. In this limit we may also take the
infinite radius limit of a four-sphere surrounding any given membrane of
tension
$\mu$. This four-sphere approaches transverse spatial infinity in this limit
but
encloses only the chosen membrane, so that $\mu$ must be positive. Because of
this,
the only singularities of the metric are at the `centres' ${\bf x}={\bf x}_n$.
The question whether these are real singularities or merely coordinate
singularities will be addressed in the following section. From
\onefb\ we see that the $Sl(2;R)$ transformation of (p,q) is
$$
(p,q)\rightarrow (p,q)\pmatrix{d&-b\cr -c& a}\ .
\eqn\abogsum
$$
Given that $\langle\sigma\rangle$ and $\langle\rho\rangle$ are also transformed
according to \onee, the $SL(2;R)$ invariance of the formula \bogi\ is easily
verified.
The above procedure has the advantage that it not only
yields the solutions admitting Killing spinors, for given boundary conditions,
but
also the Killing spinors. For the solutions \dyons\ one finds that
$$
\eqalign{
\epsilon &= {1\over\sqrt{2}} H^{-{1\over8}}(H\cos^2\xi +
\sin^2\xi)^{-{1\over4}}\Big\{
\big[ (\sin^2\xi + H\cos^2\xi)^{1\over2} + H^{1\over2}\cos\xi \big]^{1\over2} +
\cr
&\qquad \big[ (\sin^2\xi + H\cos^2\xi)^{1\over2} - H^{1\over2}\cos\xi
\big]^{1\over2}\gamma_9\Big\}\epsilon_0\ ,}
\eqn\onej
$$
where the constant spinor $\epsilon_0$ must satisfy
$$
\Gamma_*\gamma_9\epsilon_0 = \epsilon_0\ ,
\eqn\aonej
$$
in order that $\epsilon$ satisfy the constraint \constraint.
It follows that the dimension of the space of Killing spinors is half that of
the vacuum solution, as anticipated.
The expression \onej\ for the Killing spinor $\epsilon$ can be rewritten as
$$
\epsilon = e^{{1\over2}\theta\gamma_9}H^{-{1\over8}}\epsilon_0\ ,
\eqn\conej
$$
where
$$
\tan\theta = H^{-{1\over2}}\tan\xi\ .
\eqn\abonej
$$
Note that these spinors vanish at the zeros of $H^{-1}$.
In order to show that the $SL(2;R)$ transform of the solutions \dyons, for
which
$\langle \lambda\rangle \ne i$, are also supersymmetric it suffices to show,
as pointed out previously in the context of D=4 dyons [\Ortin], that the
conditions
\Killing\ are $SL(2;R)$ invariant. Let us denote by
$\hat {\cal D}(\lambda, {\cal F})$ the covariant derivative $\hat{\cal D}$ in
\oneh, thereby making explicit the dependence of this differential operator on
the
fields. Under the $SL(2;R)$ transformation of these fields,
$\lambda\rightarrow \lambda'$ and ${\cal F}\rightarrow {\cal F}'$ (given
explicitly in \onee\ and \onefb), one can show
that
$$
\hat {\cal D}(\lambda', {\cal F}') = e^{{1\over2}\phi\gamma_9} \hat {\cal
D}(\lambda, {\cal F}) e^{-{1\over2}\phi\gamma_9}
\eqn\inone
$$
where
$$
\tan\phi = {-ic(\lambda -\bar\lambda)\over 2d + c(\lambda +\bar\lambda) }\ ;
\eqn\intwo
$$
i.e. $\hat{\cal D}(\lambda, {\cal F})$ is an $Sl(2;R)$-invariant covariant
derivatve. If we take the $Sl(2;R)$ transform of $\epsilon$ to be
$$
\epsilon' = e^{{1\over2}\phi\gamma_9}\epsilon\ ,
\eqn\infour
$$
then
$$
\hat {\cal D}(\lambda', {\cal F}')\epsilon' =
e^{{1\over2}\phi\gamma_9}\hat {\cal D}(\lambda, {\cal F})\epsilon\ ,
\eqn\ainfour
$$
Similarly, if $\chi(\lambda, {\cal F})$ is the spinor of \onei\ then
one can show that
$$
\chi(\lambda', {\cal F}') = e^{-{1\over2}\phi\gamma_9}\chi(\lambda, {\cal F})\
{}.
\eqn\inthree
$$
It follows that given background fields and a Killing spinor $\epsilon$
satisfying
the conditions \Killing\ for $\langle\lambda\rangle =i$, then the spinor
$$
\epsilon' = e^{{1\over2}(\theta+\phi)\gamma_9}H^{-{1\over8}}\epsilon_0
\eqn\ainthree
$$
satisfies the same conditions for the $Sl(2;R)$ transformed solution with new
asymptotic value $\langle\lambda' \rangle \ne i$. Incidentally, this result
establishes the $Sl(2;R)$ invariance of the modified Nester tensor $\hat
E^{\mu\nu}$ (assuming the above transformation property of
$\epsilon$) and the invariance of the Bogomolnyi bound is an immediate
consequence
of this.
\chapter{Singularity structure}
We now turn to the singularity structure of the dyonic membrane solutions
\dyons. Near a zero of $H^{-1}$ we have
$$
H \sim {\mu \over r^3}
\eqn\singone
$$
where
$$
r\equiv |{\bf x}-{\bf x}_n|\ .
\eqn\singtwo
$$
The asymptotic metric is
$$
r^{3\over2}(-dt^2+dy^2+dz^2) + {dr^2\over r^{3\over2}} + r^{1\over2}d\Omega_4^2
\eqn\singthree
$$
where $d\Omega_4^2$ is the metric on the unit 4-sphere.
One sees from this result that the proper distance to $r=0$ on a
surface of constant $t,y,z$ is finite, and that the radius of the four-sphere
of
constant $r$ on this surface shrinks to zero as $r\rightarrow 0$. It follows
that
the `lines' of force of $F$ must end on a singularity at $r=0$.
It is instructive to consider the membrane spacetime in the metric
$$
d\tilde s^2 = e^{2\sigma}ds^2\ ,
\eqn\abonej
$$
for which
$$
d\tilde s^2 = (\cos^2\xi + H^{-1}\sin^2\xi)[-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] +
(\sin^2\xi + H\cos^2\xi)\; d{\bf x}\cdot d{\bf x}\ .
\eqn\athree
$$
The purely electric case now has a timelike naked singularity at zeros of
$H^{-1}$,
i.e. at a membrane core, so it would have to be identified with a
fundamental membrane. For this reason, one might choose to call the metric
$d\tilde s^2$ the `membrane metric'. Note that it would be the `string metric'
if
$\sigma$ were the dilaton, but $\sigma$ is {\it not} the dilaton.
In this `membrane metric' the metric for a membrane carrying magnetic
charge approaches the asymptotic metric
$$
d\tilde s^2 \sim \cos^2\xi\Big\{ [-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2] +
H\; d{\bf x}\cdot d{\bf x}\Big\}
\eqn\bthree
$$
near any of the membrane cores. Since $H\sim {\mu\over r^3}$ in this
limit, we now find that the proper distance to $r=0$ is infinite on a
hypersurface of constant $t,y,z$. Moreover, this remains true for timelike and
null
geodesics. Thus, the dyonic multi-membrane solutions are geodesically complete
{\it in the `membrane' metric} provided that the magnetic charge is non-zero.
Because $\sigma$ is not the dilaton, the interpretation of the above result
within
(type II) string theory is unclear. Moreover, since the dilaton has been set to
zero by the truncation, there is no longer any distiction between the Einstein
and
string metrics. Thus, the fact that our D=8 dyonic membrane solutions are
singular in
the Einstein metric implies that the string metric is also singular and this
must be
considered a difficulty in the context of type II superstring theory.
Fortunately,
this difficulty has a simple resolution if one considers the dyonic solutions
as
solutions of D=11 supergravity, which can be viewed as an effective action for
the
strongly coupled type IIA superstring [\PKTb,\Witten]. Consider the following
11-metric and four-form
$$
\eqalign{
ds_{11}^2 &= e^{{2\over3}\sigma} ds_8^2 + e^{-{4\over3}\sigma}\; d{\bf u}\cdot
d{\bf u}\cr
F_{11} &= F + 6du_1\wedge du_2\wedge du_3\wedge d\rho\ , }
\eqn\bfour
$$
where ${\bf u}$ are the coordinates of $T^3$ and $F$ is a field strength
four-form (F=dA) of the eight-dimensional spacetime. This field configuration
solves the equations of D=11 supergravity if the 8-metric, four-form
$F$, and scalar fields $\sigma$ and $\rho$ solve the D=8 field equations
\aonec.
This allows us to lift the D=8 dyonic membrane solutions \dyons\ to D=11. The
result is
$$
\eqalign{
ds_{11}^2 &= H^{-{2\over3}}\Big[\sin^2\xi +H\cos^2\xi\Big]^{1\over3} (-dt^2 +
dy^2
+ dz^2) \cr
&+ H^{1\over3}\Big[\sin^2\xi +H\cos^2\xi\Big]^{1\over3} d{\bf x}\cdot
d{\bf x} + H^{1\over3}\Big[\sin^2\xi +H\cos^2\xi\Big]^{-{2\over3}} d{\bf
u}\cdot d{\bf u}\cr
F_{11} &= {1\over2}\cos\xi (\star dH) +{1\over2}\sin\xi \; dH^{-1}\wedge
dt\wedge
dy\wedge dz\cr &\qquad -{3\sin 2\xi \over 2[\sin^2\xi +
H\cos^2\xi]^2}du_1\wedge
du_2 \wedge du_3\wedge dH\ .}
\eqn\bfive
$$
In the purely electric case, $\cos\xi=0$, we have
$$
\eqalign{
ds_{11}^2 &= H^{-{2\over3}}(-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) + H^{1\over3}\big(d{\bf
x}\cdot
d{\bf x} + d{\bf u}\cdot d{\bf u}\big)\cr
F_{11} &= {1\over2}dH^{-1}\wedge dt\wedge dy\wedge dz\ . }
\eqn\bsix
$$
The harmonic function $H({\bf x})$ can now be interpreted as a harmonic
function
on $\bb{E}^5\times T^3$. The only difference between this solution of D=11
supergravity
and the multi-membrane solution found in [\DS] is that there $H$ was a harmonic
function on $\bb{E}^8$. Thus, the solution \bsix\ can be interpreted as a D=11
membrane in a background spacetime of topology $M_6\times T^3$ instead of
$M_{11}$, where $M_k$ indicates a $k$-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.
In the purely magnetic case, $\sin\xi=0$, we have
$$
\eqalign{
ds_{11}^2 &= H^{-{1\over3}}(-dt^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 + d{\bf u}\cdot d{\bf u} )
+ H^{2\over3}d{\bf x}\cdot d{\bf x}\cr
F_{11}&= {1\over2}\star dH\ , }
\eqn\bseven
$$
which is the fivebrane solution of D=11 supergravity [\Gu], except for the
periodic identification of the $T^3$ coordinates. We can therefore interpret
the
purely magnetic D=8 membrane as a D=11 fivebrane wrapped around a three-torus.
The D=11 multi-fivebrane solution of [\Gu] is geodesically complete [\GHT], the
singularities of $H$ being degenerate Killing horizons, so the singularity of
the
magnetic D=8 membrane solution is resolved by its interpretation in D=11, apart
from mild singularities introduced by the periodic identification of the $T^3$
coordinates.
These results for the purely electric and purely magnetic D=8 membranes confirm
the assumption made in [\PKTc] concerning their D=11 origin. Now we find that
the
more general dyonic membrane solution also has a D=11 interpretation. Although
the D=11 solution does not have an obvious $p$-brane interpretation, it is
non-singular, as we now show. Provided the magnetic charge is non-zero, i.e.
$\cos\xi\ne0$, the asymptotic form of the metric $ds_{11}^2$ of \bfive\ near
any
zero of $H^{-1}$ is
$$
ds_{11}^2 \sim (\cos\xi)^{2\over3}\Bigg\{ H^{-{1\over3}}(-dt^2 +dy^2 +dz^2 +
d{\bf
v}\cdot d{\bf v} ) + H^{2\over3}d{\bf x}\cdot d{\bf x}\Bigg\}\ ,
\eqn\beight
$$
where we have set ${\bf u}=(\cos\xi){\bf v}$. Apart from the overall factor the
result is independent of $\xi$. That is, the structure of the dyonic membrane
near
the singularities of $H$ is the same as for the purely magnetic case. We
conclude
that the singularities of the dyonic membranes are equally resolved in D=11.
\chapter{Comments}
In this paper we have obtained a bound on the tension of membrane solutions of
N=2 D=8 supergravity, and we have found the supersymmetric membrane solutions
that
saturate this bound. In general these solutions are dyonic. Since N=2 D=8
supergravity is obtained by a $T^3$ compactification of $D=11$ supergravity,
followed by a consistent truncation of the massive modes, the D=8 dyonic
membranes can be interpreted as solutions of D=11 supergravity. The purely
electric and purely magnetic D=8 membranes become the D=11 membrane and
fivebrane
respectively. The dyonic membranes have no obvious $p$-brane interpretation but
they are new solutions of D=11 supergravity which are non-singular if the
periodic identification of the $T^3$ coordinates (${\bf u}$) is relaxed. These
new solutions are intermediate between the D=11 membrane and fivebrane
solutions.
They might therefore be expected to play a role in the conjectured D=11
membrane/fivebrane duality [\HT,\PKTc].
The dyonic membrane solutions were given initially for a particular choice of
the
asymptotic values of the scalar fields that parameterise the possible vacua,
but they can then be found for any choice of vacuum by means of an $Sl(2;R)$
transformation. In the context of type II string theory, an infinite set of
dyonic membrane solutions can be found, in equivalent vacua, by the action of
an
$Sl(2;Z)$ subgroup of $Sl(2;R)$ since this is a subgroup of the $SO(2,2;Z)$
T-duality group. As explained in the introduction, this group can be
re-interpreted as the S-duality group of the equivalent heterotic string theory
after a compactification of the D=8 type II superstring to D=4 on $K_3$.
Some D=4 dyon solutions of the heterotic string will thereby acquire an
interpretation as D=8 dyonic membranes wrapped around the
homology two-cycles of $K_3$. These dyons {\it all} correspond to
non-perturbative
R-R states in the type II D=4 superstring but, according to the type II/
heterotic
equivalence conjecture, correspond to perturbative states of the heterotic
string
and their non-perturbative S-duals. In fact, they must include the dyons that
can
become massless at special points in the $K_3$ moduli space [\HTb], as expected
from the known symmetry restoration of the heterotic string at special points
in
its moduli space.
Dyonic membranes have many features in common with dyons. For example, let us
suppose that there is a purely magnetic membrane with charges $(p,q)=(1,0)$
when $\langle\lambda\rangle=i$; this amounts to the assumption that, in this
vacuum, the choice of
$\xi=0$ in \dyons\ is admissable in the quantum theory. Now consider a new
vacuum
related to the original one by an
$Sl(2;R)$ transformation with the element
$$
\pmatrix{a&b\cr c&d} = \pmatrix{1&b\cr0&1}\ .
\eqn\dyonsfive
$$
One finds that $\langle\lambda'\rangle = b+ i$, or equivalently
$\langle\sigma\rangle =0$, $2\langle\rho\rangle=b$, in the new vacuum and
that the membrane solution in this vacuum has charges $(p,q)= (1,b)=
(1,2\langle\rho\rangle)$. Thus, a dyonic membrane with unit magnetic charge has
a
fractional electric charge given by
$$
q= 2\langle\rho\rangle
\eqn\newone
$$
This is just the generalization to dyonic membranes of the Witten effect for
dyons
[\Witb]. The identification of vacua related by an $Sl(2;Z)$ tansformation
implies, in particular, that $2\rho\cong 2\rho +1$, so the value of $q$ for a
dyon with unit magnetic charge will change by one as the asymptotic value of
$2\rho$ is smoothly continued from $2\langle\rho\rangle$ to
$2\langle\rho\rangle
+1$. In the D=4 dyon case, this continuation of $\langle\rho\rangle$ can be
realized physically by transport around an axion string. In the D=8 dyonic
membrane case it could be achieved by transport around an axionic fivebrane.
There is, however, a new feature of dyonic membranes not shared by dyons. To
see
this, we note that given the existence of a particle with charges $(0,1)$ in
the
vacuum with $\lambda=i$, the DSZ quantization condition implies that for any
other
particle with charges $(p,q)$, necessarily $p\in Z$, i.e. while electric
charge
can be fractional, magnetic charge cannot be. Had we assumed the existence of a
particle with charges $(1,0)$ we would have instead deduced that $q\in Z$ and
$p$
could be fractional. The DSZ quantization condition does not distinguish
between
these possibilities, but perturbation theory does: in string perturbation
theory
there exist particles with only electric charge and all semi-classical dyons
have
integer magnetic charge. A similar conclusion can be made for any of the vacua
in
the same equivalence class of $\lambda=i$; as we saw earlier for dyonic
membranes, the assumption that there exist purely electric solutions is
equivalent to the assumption that $\tan\xi$ is rational. It seems, therefore,
that
for dyons the appeal to perturbation theory allows us to restrict the allowed
values of the angular parameter analogous to $\xi$, but the same does
not apply to dyonic membranes, at least in the context of type II superstring
theory, because all membrane solutions, electric, magnetic or dyonic, are
non-perturbative.
\vskip 1cm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:} G.P. was supported by a Royal Society
University
Research Fellowship. J.M.I thanks the Commission of the European Community and
CICYT (Spain) for financial support. We thank C.M. Hull for helpful
discussions.
\refout
\bye
|
\section{1. Introduction}
The galactic center region has been extensively observed in the molecular
lines, particularly in the CO line emission
(Oort 1977; Scoville et al 1974; Liszt 1988; Liszt and Burton 1978, 1980;
Burton and Liszt 1983, 1993; Brown and Liszt 1984; Heiligman 1987;
Bally et al 1987; 1988; Genzel and Townes 1987; Stark et al 1989;
G{\"u}sten 1989).
Besides the 4-kpc molecular ring, the CO emission is strongly
concentrated in the central a few degree (Dame et al 1987).
Moreover, the molecular gas in the central region has a strong
concentration within $|l|<1^\circ$ (150 pc) where the majority of the nuclear
disk gas is confined (Scoville et al 1974; Bally et al 1987; Heiligman 1987).
This high concentration of dense interstellar matter in a small region
is also clearly visible in the far IR emission (e.g., Cox and Laureijs 1989)
and in the CII emission (Okuda et al 1989).
The radio continuum emission also indicates a highly concentrated
nuclear disk of ionized gas (Altenhoff et al 1978; Handa et al 1987).
On the other hand, the region between galactocentric distances $\sim 200$ pc
($l\sim 1\Deg4$) and $\sim 2$ kpc (15$^\circ$) appears almost empty in the CO
emission (Bally et al 1987; Knapp et all 1985).
The total molecular mass in the $|l|<1^\circ$ region estimated from the
CO emission amounts to $ \sim 1.4 \times 10^8 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$ for a traditional
CO-to-H$_2$\ conversion factor, or, more probably,
$\sim 4.6 \times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$ for a new conversion factor (see section 3).
On the other hand, the HI mass within the 1.2 kpc tilted disk ($l<8^\circ$)
is only of several $10^6 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$ (Liszt and Burton 1980).
Hence, we may consider that the central $\sim 1$ kpc region is dominated
by the molecular disk of $\sim 150$ pc ($\sim 1^\circ$) radius, outside
of which the gas density becomes an order of magnitude smaller.
Various molecular gas features in the central $\sim100-200$ pc region
have been discussed by various authors, such as a disk
related to the 1.2 kpc tilted rotating disk
(Liszt and Burton 1980; Burton and Liszt 1992),
molecular rings and spiral arms of a few hundred pc scale
(Scoville et al 1974; Heiligman 1987; Bally et al 1987),
and the expanding molecular ring of 200 pc radius
(Scoville 1972; Kaifu et al 1972, 1974).
On the other hand, Binney et al (1991) have modeled the ``expanding-ring
feature" or the ``parallelogram'' on the $(l, V)$\ (longitude-velocity) plot
in terms of non-circular kinematics of gas by
a closed orbit model in a bar potential.
It is known that the gas in this parallelogram shares
only a small fraction of the total molecular mass in the galactic center:
the majority of the gas composes more rigid-body like features in the
$(l, V)$\ plots.
The CO gas in the central 100 - 200 pc regions in nearby galaxies have been
observed by high-resolution mm-wave interferometry,
and their distribution and kinematics have been extensively
studied (e.g., Lo et al 1984; Ishiguro et al 1989; Ishizuki et al 1990a,b).
The central gas disks of galaxies appear to comprise
spiral arms or circum-nuclear rings of a few hundred pc size.
Such a gaseous behavior can be reproduced to some extent by theoretical
simulations of accretion of gas clouds in a central
gravitational potential (e.g., Noguchi 1988; Wada and Habe 1992).
In this paper, we revisit the major part of the nuclear molecular disk
($|l|<\sim 1^\circ$) by analyzing the molecular line data in the premise
that the nuclear disk may comprise accretion ring or spiral structures
similar to those found in external galaxies.
In this paper we reanalyze the data cube of the
$^{13}{\rm CO}~(J=1-0)$-line emission observed by Bally et al (1987)
with the 7-m off-set Cassegrain telescope of the Bell Telephone Laboratory.
The distance to the Galactic Center is assumed to be 8.5 kpc throughout this
paper.
\section{2. Longitude-Velocity $(l, V)$\ Diagrams}
\sub{2.1. Data}
The angular resolution of the observations with the Bell-Telephone 7-m
antenna at $^{13}$CO line was 1$'.7$.
The data used here are in a $(l, b, V_{\rm LSR})$ cube in FITS format.
The cube covers an area of $-1^\circ.1 \le l \le 0^\circ.92,~-21' \le b \le 17'$,
or 300 pc $\times$ 94 pc region for a 8.5 kpc distance.
The velocity coverage is $-250 \le V_{\rm LSR} \le 250$ km s$^{-1}$.
The cube comprises 127, 39, and 183 channels
at 1$'$, 1$'$, and 2.75 km s$^{-1}$\ intervals, respectively,
We also use the CS line data in a $(l,b, V)$
cube with dimensions 151, 42, and 163 channels at intervals
2$'$, 1$'$, and 2.75 km s$^{-1}$, which covers an area of
$-1^\circ \le l \le 4^\circ$, $-25' \le b \le 16'$, and $-250\le V_{\rm LSR} \le 190$
km s$^{-1}$.
The intensity scale of the data is the main-beam antenna temperature
approximately equivalent to brightness temperature in Kelvin.
The observational details are described in Bally et al (1987, 1988).
We made use of the AIPS and IRAF software packages for the reduction.
\sub{2.2. Subtraction of the Local and Foreground Components}
In order to analyze molecular gas features in the Galactic Center
region, we first subtract contaminations by local and foreground
molecular clouds at low velocities.
Since $^{13}$CO line is optically thin for
the foreground clouds, the contaminations appear as emission
stripes superposed on the galactic center emission,
The subtraction of foreground emission is essential when we derive the mass
and kinetic energy of molecular gas features.
Such a ``cleaning" also helps much the morphological recognition of features
on the $(l, V)$\ and $(b, V)$\ diagrams.
Fig. 1a shows an $(l, V)$\ diagram averaged in a latitude range of
$-17' \le b \le 12'$.
The diagram is strongly affected by ``stripes'' at a low
velocities elongated in the direction of
longitude with narrow velocity widths, including the 3-kpc expanding
arm at $-52$ km s$^{-1}$.
In order to eliminate these stripes, we applied the ``pressing method''
as developed for removing scanning effects
in raster scan observations (Sofue and Reich 1979).
We briefly describe this method below.
\centerline{--Fig. 1a, b --}
The original $(l, V)$\ map M$_0$ is trimmed by
$-70 \le V_{\rm LSR} \le 50$ km s$^{-1}$\ to yield M$_1$
where the local and foreground gas contribution is significant.
The trimmed map M$_1$ is smoothed only in the $V$ direction by
5 channels (14 km s$^{-1}$) using a boxcar or Gaussian smoothing task, yielding M$_2$.
Smoothed map M$_2$ is subtracted from M$_1$ to yield M$_3 ~(=M_1 - M_2)$.
Map M$_3$ is then smoothed only in $l$ direction by 20 channels (20$'$)
(boxcar or Gaussian) to yield M$_4$.
This M$_4$ map approximates the contribution from the local gas that is
dominated by elongated features in the longitudinal direction.
We then subtract M$_4$ from M$_1$ to obtain M$_5~(=M_1-M_4)$.
This M$_5$ is, thus, a map in which the local gas contribution has been
roughly subtracted.
M$_5$ is then smoothed in $V$ direction by 5 channels.
Then we replace M$_2$ by this smoothed map, and repeat the above procedures
twice (or more times) until we obtain the second (or $n$-th) M$_5$.
Finally, the $-70 \le V_{\rm LSR} \le 50$ km s$^{-1}$\ part of the original map M$_0$ is
replaced by M$_5$ to yield M$_6$.
Now, we have a ``pressed'' map M$_6$ in which corrugations due to local
gas clouds have been removed out.
Fig. 1b shows the thus obtained map M$_6$ for the same $(l, V)$\ diagram as
in Fig. 1a.
We have applied this algorithm (the pressing method) to all $(l, V)$\ and $(b, V)$\
diagrams in the cube, and created a new $(l, b, V)$ cube, which is almost
free from local and foreground contaminations.
In the present paper we use this new cube.
We also applied the pressing method to remove scanning effects, which
had originated during the data acquisition,
in every diagram such as intensity maps in the $(l,b)$ space.
By comparing the original and the thus `pressed' maps,
we estimated the contribution of the local/foreground emission to be
5\% of the total emission, and 9\% of the emission with
$|V_{\rm LSR}|<100$ km s$^{-1}$.
Thus, without the subtraction, the mass and energetics would
be overestimated by about 5 to 9\%.
Moreover, if the gas out of the disk component at $|b|>10'$ is concerned,
this local contribution would amount to more than 10\%.
Hence, the subtraction of the foreground emissions
is crucial in a quantitative discussion of the features discussed in this
paper.
\sub{2.3. ``Arms'' in Longitude-Velocity $(l, V)$\ Diagrams}
Fig. 2 shows $(l, V)$\ diagrams near the galactic plane
averaged in $4'$ latitude interval
after subtraction of the local/foreground components.
Various features found in these diagrams have been discussed
in Bally et al (1987, 1988).
In this paper we highlight continuous features (ridges) traced
in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams.
The major structures of the ``disk component''
at low latitude ($|b|<\sim 10'$=25 pc)
are ``rigid-rotation'' ridges, which we call ``arms''.
Fig. 3 illustrate these ridges (arms) which can be identified in
the diagrams as coherent structures.
In Table 1 we summarize the identified features, and describe below
the individual arms.
Heiligman (1987) has used these ridges to derive a rigid rotation curve.
At higher latitudes ($|b|>\sim 10'$) the so-called
expanding ring features at high velocities ($|V_{\rm LSR} >100$ km s$^{-1}$), which
will be discussed in a separate paper.
\centerline{-- Fig. 2 --}
\centerline{-- Fig. 3 --}
\centerline{-- Table 1 --}
\sub{2.3.1. Arm I}
The most prominent $(l, V)$\ arm is found as a long and straight
ridge, slightly above the galactic plane at $b\sim 2'$,
which runs from $(l, V)$=($0^\circ.9, 80$ km s$^{-1}$) to ($-0^\circ.7, -150$ km s$^{-1}$),
and extends to ($-1^\circ.0, -200$ km s$^{-1}$).
This arm intersects the line at $l=0^\circ$ at negative velocity
$V_{\rm LSR}=-40$ km s$^{-1}$, indicating that the gas is approaching us at $l=0^\circ$.
We call this ridge Arm I.
A part of this arm can be traced also below the galactic plane at $b=-0.1$$^\circ$,
running from $(l, V)$=(0.8$^\circ$, 60 km s$^{-1}$) to ($0^\circ.1, -20$ km s$^{-1}$).
Its positive longitude part is connected to the dense molecular
complex Sgr B, which is extended both in space and velocity, from
$b=-0.25$ to 0.07$^\circ$\ and $V_{\rm LSR}$=20 to 100 km s$^{-1}$.
\sub{2.3.2. Arm II}
Another prominent arm is seen at negative latitude at $b\sim -6'$,
running from $(l, V)$=(0$^\circ$.1, 60 km s$^{-1}$) to $(-0^\circ.6, -80$ km s$^{-1}$).
We call this ridge Arm II.
It is bent at $l\sim 0^\circ.1$ and appears to continue to
$(l, V)$=(1$^\circ$, 100 km s$^{-1}$), and merges with Arm I at the Sgr B complex region.
The negative longitude part also merges with Arm I, and is connected to the
Sgr C complex.
Arm II intersects $l=0^\circ$ at positive velocity of $V_{\rm LSR}=50$ km s$^{-1}$.
\sub{2.3.3. Arms III and IV}
At positive latitude ($b\sim 0^\circ.01$ to $0^\circ.2$),
another arm can be traced running from
$(l, V)$=(0$^\circ$, 140 km s$^{-1}$) to ($-0^\circ.15$, 10 km s$^{-1}$).
Its counterpart to the negative longitude side appears to be present
at $(l, V)$=($-0^\circ.45, -120$ km s$^{-1}$) to ($-0^\circ.55, -180$ km s$^{-1}$).
We call this ridge Arm III.
Bally et al (1988) called this the ``polar arc'', and discussed its
connection to Sgr A.
A branch can be traced from $(l, V)$=(0$^\circ$.1, 60 km s$^{-1}$) to
($0^\circ, -20$ km s$^{-1}$), apparently being bifurcated from Arm II at $l\sim
0^\circ.1$.
This ridge intersects $l=0^\circ$ at negative velocity ($V_{\rm LSR} -50$ km s$^{-1}$).
We call this ridge Arm IV.
\sub{2.4. ``Rigid-rotation'' in $(l, V)$\ Plane and ``Arms and Ring'' in the
Galactic Plane}
We emphasize that ``rigid-rotation'' ridges in $(l, V)$\ diagrams
for edge-on galaxies, whose rotation curves are usually flat,
are generally interpreted as due to spiral arms and rings.
Indeed, the rigid-rotation ridge in the CO $(l, V)$\ diagram
of the Milky Way is identified with the 4-kpc molecular ring
(e.g., Dame et al 1987; Combes 1992).
Many edge-on spiral galaxies like NGC 891 are found to show
similar $(l, V)$\ ridges in HI and CO, which are also interpreted to be
spiral arms and rings (e.g., Sofue and Nakai 1993, 1994).
The circular rotation velocity as defined by
$V_{\rm rot}=(R \partial \Phi / \partial R)^{1/2}$, remains
greater than at least 150 km s$^{-1}$\ from the nuclear few pc region till the
1 kpc radius region (Genzel and Townes 1987).
Here, $\Phi$ is the potential and $R$ is the distance from the nucleus.
Hence, the actual rotation should not be rigid at all:
The rigid-rotation ridges in the $(l, V)$\ plane such as Arms I to IV
in the Galactic Center can thus be more naturally attributed to real arms
and rings.
\section{3. Intensity Distribution and the Galactic Center Arms}
\sub{3.1. Intensity Maps and Masses}
Fig. 4a shows the total intensity map integrated over the full range of
the velocity ($-250 \le V_{\rm LSR} \le 250$ km s$^{-1}$).
This map is about the same as that presented by Stark et al (1989),
except that the local gas has been removed.
Fig. 4b shows the same in grey scale and a that with the vertical
scale in $b$ direction enlarged twice.
\centerline{-- Fig. 4 --}
First of all the intensity map can be used to obtain the molecular mass.
However, the conversion of the CO intensity
to H$_2$\ mass is not straightforward.
We have recently studied the correlation of
the conversion factor $X_{12}$ for the $^{12}$CO$(J=1-0)$ line
with the metal abundance in galaxies (Arimoto et al 1994).
We have obtained a clear dependency of $X$ on the galacto-centric
distance $R$ within individual galaxies, which is almost equivalent to the
metallicity dependence. For the Milky Way we have
$$ X_{12}(R)=0.92 (\pm 0.2)\times 10^{20}{\rm exp} (R/R_{\rm e})$$
where $R_{\rm e}=7.1$ kpc is the scale radius of the disk.
Applying this relation to the Galactic center, we obtain
a conversion factor at the Galactic center as
$X_{12}=0.92(\pm 0.2)\times10^{20}~{\rm [H_2~cm^{-2}/K~kms~s^{-1}]}$,
about one third of the solar vicinity value.
We then assume that the $^{12}$CO and $^{13}$CO intensities are
proportional, and estimate the ratio by averaging observed intensity ratios
for the inner Galaxy at $l \le 20^\circ$ (Solomon et al 1979);
$I_{\rm 12CO}/I_{\rm 13CO} \simeq 6.2\pm 1.0$.
Then, we obtain a conversion factor for the $^{13}$CO line intensity
in the galactic center region as
$X_{13}(R=0)\simeq 5.7 \times 10^{20} ~{\rm [H_2~cm^{-2}/K~kms~s^{-1}]}$,
and we use this value throughout this paper.
The correction factor from the H mass to real gas mass is given
by $\mu=1/X=1.61$, where $X$ is the hydrogen abundance in weight.
Here, the following relation has been adopted (Shaver et al 1983):
$Y=0.28+(\Delta Y/\Delta Z) Z = 0.34$ in weight, where
$Z=0.02$ is the abundance of the heavy elements and
$\Delta Y/\Delta Z=3$ is the metallicity dependence
of the helium abundance $Y$ in the interstellar matter, and so,
the hydrogen abundance is $X=0.62$.
So, the surface mass density of molecular gas after correction
for the mean weight of gas is given by
$$ \sigma \sim 14.6 (\pm 3) ~ I/\eta~[ M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet} {\rm pc}^{-2}], \eqno(2) $$
where
$$ I\equiv\int T_{\rm A}^* dv {\rm~ [ K~ km~s^{-1}}] \eqno(3) $$
is the integrated intensity of $^{13}{\rm CO}(J=1-0)$ line emission
and $\eta=0.89$ is the primary beam efficiency of the antenna.
The total mass of molecular gas (including He and metals) can be estimated by
$$ M~ [M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}]= 14.6 \int I/\eta dx dy~ [{\rm K~km~s^{-1}~pc^2}]. \eqno(4) $$
Using these relations, we have estimated the total molecular gas mass
in the observed area ($-1^\circ.0 \le l \le 0^\circ.92,~ -21' \le b \le 17')$
after removing the local and foreground contribution to be
$ 4.6 (\pm 0.8) \times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$.
We have also estimated the total molecular mass of the ``disk'' component,
which comprises most of the ridge-like features in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams,
excluding the expanding ring feature (or the parallelogram)
at high velocities ($|V_{\rm LSR}| >\sim 100 - 150$ km s$^{-1}$).
The disk component has the mass $3.9\times10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$, which is 85\% of the
total in the observed region.
On the other hand, the expanding ring (or the parallelogram)
shares only $6.7\times 10^6 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$ (15\%) in the region at $|l|<1^\circ$.
\sub{3.2. Ring and Arms in Intensity Maps}
In order to clarify if each of the arms traced in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams (Fig. 1-3),
particlurly Arms I and II, is a single physical structure in space, we have
obtained
velocity-integrated intensity map in the $(l, b)$\ plane for each of the arms.
Thereby, we integrated the CO intensity in the velocity ranges as
shown in Fig. 5 individually for Arms I and II.
Fig. 6 show the integrated intensity maps corresponding to
Arms I and II, together with a summation of I and II.
In Table 1 we summarize the derived parameters.
\centerline{-- Fig. 5 --}
\centerline{-- Fig. 6 --}
\sub{3.2.1. Galactic Center Arms I, II}
In the intensity map, Arm I can be traced as a single, thin arc-like arm
from $l=0^\circ.9$ near the Sgr B complex toward negative longitude
at $l=-1^\circ.0$.
We call this spatial arm the Galactic Center Arm I (GCA I).
The angular extent is as long as $1^\circ.9$ (280 pc) in the longitudinal
direction, whereas the thickness in the $b$ direction is as thin as
$\sim 5'$ (13 pc; see section 3.2.2).
The Sgr B molecular complex is much extended in the $b$ direction by
about $0^\circ.4$ (60 pc), and composes a massive part of the arm.
A ``return'' of this arm can be traced from $(l, b)$=$(0^\circ.9, 0^\circ)$ to
$(0^\circ.2, -0^\circ.07)$, and is more clearly recognized in Fig. 4
at $V=83 \sim 167$km s$^{-1}$.
This can be also clearly seen in the $(l, V)$\ diagram in
Fig. 2 at $b\sim -0^\circ.1$.
In the negative $l$ side, the arm appears to be bifurcated at
$l\sim -0^\circ.65$, and linked to Arm II.
This can be more clearly observed in Fig. 4 at $V=-83 \sim 0$ km s$^{-1}$.
The intensity in Fig. 6a has been integrated to give a total mass of molecular
gas involved in GCA I (in the velocity range as shown in Fig. 5a) to be
$M = 1.72 \times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet} $.
Arm II can be traced as a a single bright ridge from $l\sim 0^\circ.3$
to $-0^\circ.7$, and the thickness is about 6$'$ (15 pc), and makes
GCA II.
The mass of Arm II is estimated to be
$ 1.35 \times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$.
Thus, the total mass involved in GCA I and II is estimated to be
$ 3.07 \times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$, and shares almost 67\% of the total gas mass
in the observed region, and 78\% of the disk component.
\sub{3.2.2. The 120-pc Molecular Ring}
As shown in Fig. 4 and 6, GCA I and II compose a global ring structure,
which is tilted and slightly bent.
If we fit the GCA I and II by a ring, its angular extent in the major axis
is $1^\circ.6$ from $l=-0^\circ.7$ to $0^\circ.9$,
and so, the major axis length (diameter) is 240 pc, and the
radius 120 pc.
The minor axis length is estimated to be $7'.9$ from the maximum separation
between Arm I and II at $l\sim -0^\circ.2$ (see Fig. 7).
Therefore, the inclination of the I+II ring is $i=85^\circ$ from the
minor-to-major axis ratio.
The center of the ring, as fitted by the above figures, is at
$(l, b)$=$(0^\circ.1,0^\circ.0)$
We call this ring the 120-pc Molecular Ring.
{}From these we conclude that the spatial distribution of the
molecular gas associated with the principal ridges in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams
comprises a circum-nuclear ring of radius
$R\simeq 120$ pc inclined by 5$^\circ$\ from the line of sight.
\sub{3.2.3. Cross Section of the Arms}
Fig. 7 shows the intensity variation perpendicular to the galactic
plane across GCA I and II averaged from $l=0^\circ.24$ to $-0^\circ.33$, where
the arms are most clearly separated.
Since the effective resolution of the present data is
$(\theta^2+\Delta b^2)^{1/2}=2'.0$, where $\theta=1'.7$ is the beam
width and $\Delta b=1'.0$ is the grid interval,
the arms are sufficiently resolved.
The two peaks in the figure at $b=1'.8$ (Arm I) and $b=-6'.0$ (Arm II)
can be fitted by a Gaussian intensity distributions as
$(T_{\rm B,~ peak}, {\rm FWHM}) = (0.27{\rm ~K}, 5'.3)$
and $(0.33{\rm ~K}, 5'.5)$, respectively.
Namely, the arms are as thin as 13.0 (GCA I) and 13.5 pc (GCA II).
If we subtract the contributions from these two arm components, the
residual intensity in the whole area in Fig. 7 is only 36\% of
the total intensity.
The intensity coming from the inter-arm region between the arms shares
only 12\% of the intensity from the two arms.
This would be an upper limit, as the region displayed in
this figure is the weakest part along the arms without any
significant molecular clumps and condensations.
Thus, we conclude that the molecular gas as observed in the CO line
emission in the region discussed in this paper
is almost totally confined within the two major arms.
Therefore, the central 100 pc radius region is almost empty, making
a hole of molecular gas, except the nuclear few pc region surrounding Sgr A.
\centerline{-- Fig. 7 --}
\sub{3.3. Velocity Field}
Fig. 8a shows a velocity field as obtained by taking the first moment
of the $(V_{\rm LSR}, l, b)$ cube, and therefore, an intensity-weighted
velocity field.
A general rotation characteristics is clearly seen along the major
axis of the ring feature at $b\simeq -6'$.
Sgr C molecular spur is seen as a negative velocity spur extending
toward negative $b$.
GCA III is seen as the tilted high-velocity plume at
$(l,b) \sim (0^\circ.2, 0^\circ.1)$.
In addition to these individual velocity structures, a large-scale
velocity gradient in the latitude direction is prominent in the sense
that the positive $b$ side has positive velocity and negative $b$ side
negative velocity.
This can be attributed to the fact that the high-velocity expanding
shell (ring) is more clearly seen in positive velocity at $b>0^\circ$, while
the negative velocity part more clearly at $b<0^\circ$ (see section 4).
This can be explained by a tilted nature of the expanding
oblate molecular shell, as will be discussed in section 4 based on an
analysis of $(b, V)$\ diagrams.
In fact, if we construct a velocity field, excluding the expanding ring
features, we obtain a rather regular velocity field as shown in Fig. 8b.
\centerline{-- Fig. 8 --}
\sub{3.4. Possible Models for the Galactic Center Arms and Ring}
We here try to reproduce the $(l, V)$\ diagram based on a simple spiral
arm model.
According to the galactic shock wave theory (Fujimoto 1966; Roberts 1969)
and the bar-induced shock wave theory (Sorensen et al 1976;
Huntley et al 1978; Roberts et al 1979; Noguchi 1988; Wada and Habe 1992),
flow vectors of gas in the densest part along the shocked arms are almost
parallel to the potential valley that is rigidly rotating at a
pattern speed slower than the galactic rotation.
In such shocked flows, the gas cannot be on a closed orbit, but is
rapidly accreted toward the center along deformed spirals.
As the simplest approach to simulate an $(l, V)$\ diagram, we assume
that the flow vector of gas is aligned along a spiral with a constant velocity
equal to the rotation velocity in the potential.
Fig. 9a shows a model, where we have assumed two symmetrical
spiral arms with a pitch angle $p=10^\circ$.
In addition to a constant circular rotation of gas ($V_{\rm rot}=$constant;
flat rotation curve), radial infall motion of $V_{\rm rot} {\rm sin}~p$ is
superposed, so that the gas is flowing along the arms into the central region.
The density distribution in the arms are shown by the spiral-like contours.
The azimuthally averaged density of gas has a hole at
the center, or it corresponds to a ring distribution of gas on which
two arms are superposed.
A calculated $(l, V)$\ diagram is shown by the superposed
contours with a tilted X shape.
The characteristic features in the observed $(l, V)$\ diagrams can be now
qualitatively reproduced.
Fig. 9b and 10c show cases where the spiral arms are oval in shape whose
major axis is inclined by $\pm 30^\circ$ from the nodal line.
Such a case may be expected when the oval potential or a bar in the
center is deep enough to produce a non-circular motion.
Fig. 9d-f are the same, but the density distribution along the arms
has the maximum at the center and the pitch angle is taken larger: $p=20^\circ$.
Again, the case of a circular rotation appears to reproduce the observation,
while the oval orbit cases result in more complicated $(l, V)$\ plots than the
observation.
Among these models, the case shown in Fig. 9a or 9b appears to reproduce
the observed characteristics in the $(l, V)$\ plot (e.g. Fig. 3) reasonably well.
The model in Fig. 9d or 9e with the averaged gas density increasing toward the
center may explain observed Arms III and IV.
However, the cases corresponding to Fig. 9c and 9f may be excluded.
\centerline{-- Fig. 9 --}
According to the galactic shock wave theory in a spiral
density wave or a bar potential,
the shocked gas looses its azimuthal velocity so that
the $(l, V)$\ behavior becomes closer to the potential's pattern speed.
As the consequence, the apparent rotation velocity of the gas along
shocked spiral arms is smaller than that from the rotation velocity.
This may be the reason why the observed maximum velocities of the
rings/arms (e.g., Arm I near Sgr B) are less than that expected from the
gravitational potential.
\sub{3.5. Deconvolution into Projection on the Galactic Plane:
A Face-on View}
We may thus assume that the molecular gas is
on a ring or spiral arms whose pitch angle is not so large.
Then, it is possible to deconvolve the $(l, V)$\ diagram into a
spatial distribution in the galactic plane by assuming an
approximately circular rotation.
Thereby, we make use of the velocity-to-space transformation (VST),
which has been extensively applied to derive the HI gas distribution
in our Galaxy (Oort et al 1957).
Suppose that a gas element is located at a projected
distance $x~ (\simeq l\times 8.5$ kpc) along the galactic plane
from the center of rotation, and has a radial velocity $v$.
If the rotation is circular at velocity $V_0$, the line of sight distance $y$
of the element from the nodal line can be calculated by
$$ y = \pm |x| \sqrt{ \left( V_0 \over v \right)^2 -1} . \eqno(5)$$
The signs must be opposite for Arms I and II.
Here, we assume that Arm I is near side, and Arm II far side, so that the
signs are $-/+$, respectively.
The center of rotation is assumed to be at Sgr A, and
$v$ is measured from the intersection velocity at $l=-0^\circ.06$ on
each arm ridge.
Fig. 10 shows a thus obtained ``face-on'' map of the molecular gas
for $V_0=150$ km s$^{-1}$.
The arms appear to construct a
circum-nuclear ring of radius $\sim 120$ pc.
Here, we used $(l, V)$\ diagrams averaged within latitude ranges $-2' \le b \le 6'$
for Arm I and $-5' \le b \le 3'$ for Arm II,
so that vertically extended clumps such as Sgr B complex are only
partly mapped in this figure.
During the deconvolution, we used only the arm component
concentrated near the ridges within $\pm 20$ km s$^{-1}$\ in velocity
(as illustrated in Fig. 5).
Diffuse gas and clumps with velocities far from the arms are not taken
into account.
The same VST was applied to the HII regions Sgr B1, B2 and C using their
H recombination line velocities (Downes et al 1980).
We plotted their positions in Fig. 10.
The HII regions lie along the arms associated with the molecular complexes,
though slightly avoiding the molecular gas peaks.
Sgr B and C appear to be at symmetrically opposite locations
with respect to the nucleus.
We have assumed that Arm I is near side. However, in this kind of
simple deconvolution, we cannot distinguish the exact orientation,
as is the case of deconvolution of gas distribution inside the
solar circle from kinematical information.
Hence, it may be possible to assume an opposite configuration of the arm
locations: Arm I in far side, and Arm II in near side.
\centerline{-- Fig. 10 --}
The connection of Arms I and II is not clear from this deconvolution.
This is mainly because of the ambiguous position determination near the node,
which arises from unknown precise rotation curve.
The error is also large at $|l| < \sim 0^\circ.1$, where we
applied interpolation from both sides along each arm.
Obviously, this kind of deconvolution is not unique, but it was possible here
because of the separation of Arms I and II in the $(l,b)$ plane.
Therefore, this deconvolution should be taken as a possible hint to
the spatial distribution of gas.
\sub{3.6. Comparison with Other Galaxies and Models}
Accretion spirals, either shocked or not, and rings
of molecular gas have been indeed observed in the CO line
in many extragalactic systems such as IC 342 (Lo et al 1984;
Ishizuki et al 1990a) and NGC 6946 (Ishizuki et al 1990b).
The ring structure of molecular gas of 100 to a few
hundred pc size is commonly observed in the central
regions of spiral galaxies (Nakai et al 1987; Ishiguro et al 1989).
See Sofue (1991) for a more number of galaxies with a nuclear molecular ring.
Thus, the ring/spiral structure of molecular gas of radius 120 pc in
the Milky Way, would be similar to the situation found in external galaxies.
There have been various numerical simulations of the accretion of gas
toward the central region in spiral and oval potential
by gas-dynamical simulations
(Sorensen et al 1976; Huntley et al 1978; Roberts et al 1979; Noguchi 1988;
Wada and Habe 1992).
The models predict a rapid accretion of gas along spiral orbits,
and the gas behavior in these models somehow mimic
the models illustrated in Fig. 9.
A number of simulations of position-velocity diagrams along the
galactic plane have been constructed and compared with the observations,
in order to understand larger-scale $(l, V)$\ diagrams for our Galaxy both in
HI and CO (Mulder and Liem 1986; Liszt and Burton 1978; Burton 1988).
Position-velocity diagrams for extragalactic edge-on galaxies
in CO have been extensively studied (Sofue and Nakai 1993, 1994; Sofue 1994)
and a numerical simulation has been attempted to reproduce the PV
characteristics based on the gas dynamics in an oval potential (e.g., Mulder
and Liem 1986; Wada et al 1994).
Binney et al (1991) have noticed the ``parallelogram'' and
calculated theoretical $(l, V)$\ diagrams, and have shown
the presence of a bar of 2 kpc length in the Galactic bulge.
However, the parallelogram (the expanding ring feature) in Fig. 1b shares
only 15\% of the total emission.
However, we emphasize that the major structures,
which contain 85\% of the molecular mass within 150 pc of the center,
are due to the Arms discussed above.
\sub{3.7. Relationship with Radio Sources}
Fig. 11 shows superposition of a 10-GHz radio continuum map (Handa
et al 1987) on the $^{13}$CO and CS intensity maps.
We here briefly comment on a global relationship of the major
radio sources with molecular features at a spatial resolution
of a few arc minutes.
Detailed internal structures of individual sources are
out of the scope of the present paper, for which the readers may refer to
a review by Liszt (1988).
\sub{3.7.1. Sgr A}
The relationship of molecular features of scales less than
a few arc minutes with Sgr A has been discussed by many authors
(e.g., Oort 1977; Bally et al 1987; G{\"u}sten 1989).
However, these nuclear features, which are of $1'~(\sim 3$ pc) scales,
are not well visible in the present plots in so far as the $(l, V)$\ plots
are concerned.
We only mention that Arm III is a largely tilted out-of-plane plume with
high positive velocity, which Bally et al (1988) called the polar arc.
Arm IV shows also large velocity gradient, and appears to be an object
related to a deep gravitational potential around the nucleus.
\sub{3.7.2. Sgr B}
The molecular complex at $l\sim 0^\circ.6-0^\circ.9$ on Arm I
is associated with the star forming regions Sgr B1
at $(l,b)=(0^\circ.519,-0^\circ.050)$, and Sgr B2
at $(0^\circ.670, -0^\circ.036)$.
Sgr B1 and B2, whose radial velocities in H recombination line emission are
$V_{\rm LSR}$=45 and 65 km s$^{-1}$, respectively (Downes et al 1980),
are also located in the $(l, V)$\ plane at the upper (higher-velocity)
edges of molecular clumps.
Thus, the de-convolved positions of these continuum sources are slightly
displaced from the de-convolved arm, as indicated in Fig. 10.
The molecular gas distribution is highly extended in the direction
of latitude for about $0^\circ.4$ (60 pc), largely shifted toward the lower
side of the galactic plane ($b <0^\circ$).
This complex is also much extended in the velocity space:
the velocity dispersion amounts to as high as 50 km s$^{-1}$.
The internal structure of Sgr B molecular complex has been discussed
in detail in relation to the star formation activity, and it
was shown that the molecular gas is distributed in a shell, spatially
surrounding the continuum peak (Bally et al 1988; Sofue 1990;
Hasegawa et al 1993).
The present ring model is consistent with the
CII line $(l, V)$\ diagram as obtained by Okuda et al (1989),
which indicates a rotating ionized gas feature with
Sgr B and C on the tangential points of the ring.
\centerline{-- Fig. 11 --}
\sub{3.7.3. Sgr C}
The star forming region Sgr C is associated with a molecular complex,
and is located on Arm II at $l\sim -0^\circ.6$.
However, the spatial proximity is less significant than that for Sgr B:
The radio continuum peak of Sgr C, $(l,b,V_{\rm LSR})=(-0^\circ.57,-0^\circ.09)$,
is located at the western edge of the molecular complex,
but displaced by about 6$'$(15 pc) from the molecular peak.
The LSR velocity of the H recombination line also agrees with the
molecular gas velocity, and so, it is located on the de-convolved
arm in Fig. 10.
The molecular gas in this complex is extended vertically, and
molecular spurs are found to extend both
toward positive and negative latitude directions.
We emphasize that the positive-latitude spur is clearly associated with
the inner edge of the western ridge of the Galactic Center Lobe observed in
the radio continuum emission (Sofue and Handa 1984; Sofue 1985), as is
shown in Fig. 11.
\sub{3.7.4. Orbital Displacement vs Alignment of Star Forming Regions
and Molecular Arms}
The close association of Sgr B and C with GCA I and II
may have a crucial implication for the orbits of gas and stars:
If the arms are shock lanes in a bar during a highly non-circular
motion, the HII regions of a million years old should already be
displaced from the molecular arms.
Therefore, the fact that Sgr B and C are still near the gas complexes
from which they may have been born (after one or more rotations) can be
explained only if the stars and gas are circularly co-rotating in the
arms at a small pitch angle.
This would argue for the validity of the deconvolution process
applied in section 3.5.
Consider a spiral arm which is a shocked density wave.
Star formation from a molecular cloud will be triggered in the arms.
It will take about $t \sim 10^6$ years
for proto stars to form and shine as OB stars, and therefore,
until HII regions are produced.
On the other hand, the rotation period of the stars is
only $\sim 10^6$ years for $r=100$ pc and $V_{\rm rot}=200 $ km s$^{-1}$.
According to the density wave theory, the velocity difference between the
rotation velocity and the shocked gaseous arm, which is about the same as
the pattern speed of density wave, is of the order of
$$V_{\rm rot}-V_{\rm p}=(\Omega_{\rm rot}-\Omega_{\rm p})r. \eqno(6)$$
The azimuthal phase difference between the HII
region and the gaseous arm is then
$$\Delta \phi \sim (\Omega_{\rm rot}-\Omega_{\rm p})t . \eqno(7) $$
The phase difference for Sgr B2 and its corresponding molecular peak
in Fig. 10 (darkest part in Arm I) is roughly $\Delta \phi \sim 5^\circ$,
and a similar value is found for Sgr C.
If $t\sim 10^6$ yr, we obtain
$\Omega_{\rm rot} - \Omega_{\rm p}\sim 0.1$ radian/$10^6$ years
$\sim 100$ km s$^{-1}$~kpc$^{-1}$.
This is an order of magnitude greater than the value near the solar circle
($\sim 10$ km s$^{-1}$~kpc$^{-1}$).
For older HII regions (weaker radio sources) the phase difference
would be much greater.
Moreover, orbits of stars, and therefore, HII regions, are no longer closed,
and must be largely displaced from the orbits of gas.
Thus, the HII regions in the central 100 pc
of the Galaxy, except for young cases as Sgr B2,
would not be associated with molecular gas arms.
This will simply explain why the molecular gas features are not directly
correlated with the weaker radio sources in the Galactic center (Fig. 11).
\section{4. Discussion}
By analyzing the $^{13}$CO line BTL data cube, we have shown that
most (85\%) of the total molecular gas within $|l|<1^\circ$
comprises rigid-body-like structures
in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams, which can be attributed to arms on a ring.
Moreover, 66\% of the total gas in the region, and 78\% of the disk component
($|b|<\sim 10'$=25 pc), was found to be confined in the two major
Arms I and II.
The spiral/ring structures are consistent with the picture drawn by Scoville
et al (1974) based on the earlier data, while the scale obtained here is
slightly smaller.
The structures will be common in external galaxy nuclei
in the sense that the gas distribution is spiral- and ring-like.
Numerical simulations for a few kpc scale disks have suggested
that the features would be understood as the consequence of spiral
accretion by a density wave in an oval potential, either shocked or not.
Based on qualitative consideration,
we have suggested possible models to explain the observed $(l, V)$\ features
as shown in Fig. 9a.
The molecular mass in the Galactic Center has been derived
by usin the most recent CO-to-H$_2$ conversion factor
about one third of the conventional value, which
has been obtained by detailed analyses
of the dependency on the metallicity as well as on the galacto-centric
distance (Arimoto et al 1994).
This has resulted in a factor of three smaller mass and
energetics than the so far quoted values in the literature:
The molecular mass within 150 pc radius from the center is estimated to be
only $3.9\times 10^7 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$.
Thus, the molecular gas mass is only a few percent
of the total mass in the region estimated as
$M_{\rm dyn}=R V_{\rm rot}^2/G \sim 8 \times 10^8 M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$ for a radius
$R \sim 150$ pc and rotation velocity $V_{\rm rot} \sim 150$ km s$^{-1}$.
This implies that the self-gravity of gas is not essential in the
galactic center, and a given-potential simulation would be sufficient
to theoretically understand the region.
The expanding molecular ring (or the parallelogram) was shown to share
only 15 percent of the total gas mass within the central 1$^\circ$\ region.
This feature has been shown to be extending vertically over $\sim 100$ pc
above and below the galactic plane (Sofue 1989).
For the very different $b$ distribution, it is a clearly
distinguished structure from the arms and the ring described in this paper.
On the $(l, V)$\ plot, the feature can be fitted by an ellipse of radius 1$^\circ$.2
(Bally et al 1987), slightly larger than the disk discussed in this paper .
There have been controversial interpretations about this feature: either it
is due to some explosive event (Scoville et al 1972; Kaifu et al 1972, 1974)
or due to non-circular rotation of disk gas
(Burton and Liszt 1992; Binney 1991).
We will discuss this feature based on the present data in a separate paper.
\v\v
{\bf Acknowledgement}: The author would like to express his sincere thanks
to Dr. John Bally for making him available with the molecular line data
in a machine-readable format.
\section{References}
\parskip=0pt
\def\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \noindent}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Altenhoff, W. J., Downes, D., Pauls., T., Schraml, J. 1979, AAS {35}, 23.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Arimoto, N., Sofue, Y., Tsujimoto, T. 1994, in preparation.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Bally, J., Stark, A.A., Wilson, R.W., and Henkel, C. 1987, ApJ Suppl 65,
13.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Bally, J., Stark, A.A., Wilson, R.W., and Henkel, C. 1988, ApJ 324, 223.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Binney, J.J., Gerhard, O.E., Stark, A.A., Bally, J., Uchida, K.I., 1991
MNRAS 252, 210.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Brown, R.L, and Liszt, H.S. 1984, ARAA 22, 223.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Burton, W. B. 1988, in Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy,
ed. G. L. Verschuur and K. I. Kellermann, 2nd edition (Springer-Verlag,
New York) p 295.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Burton, W. B., and Liszt, H. S. 1983, in Surveys of the Southern Galaxy,
ed. W. B. Burton and F. P. Israel (Reidel Pub. CO, Dordrecht), p. 149.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Burton, W. B., and Liszt, H. S. 1992 AAS 95, 9.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Combes F 1992 ARAA, 29, 195.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Cox, P., Laureijs, R. 1989,
in The Center of the Galaxy (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 121.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Dame, T. M., Ungerechts, H., Cohen, R. S., de Geus, E. J., Grenier, I. A.,
et al. 1987 ApJ 32, 706
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Downes, D., Wilson, T. L., Beiging, J., Wink,J. 1980, AA Suppl. 40, 379.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Fujimoto, M. 1966, in Non-stable Phenomena in Galaxies, IAU Symp. No 29,
ed. Arakeljan (Academy of Sciences of Armenia, USSR), p.453.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Genzel, R., and Townes, C.H 1987, ARAA 25, 377.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no G{\"u}sten, R. 1989, in The Center of the Galaxy (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 89.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Handa, T., Sofue, Y., Nakai, N. Inoue, M., and Hirabayashi, H. 1987,
PASJ 39, 709.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Hasegawa, T., Sato, F., Whiteoak, J. B., Miyawaki, R. 1993, ApJ 419, L77.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Heiligman, G. M. 1987 ApJ 314, 747.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Huntley, J. M., Sanders, R. H., and Roberts, W. W., 1978, ApJ 221, 521.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Ishiguro, M., Kawabe, R., Morita, K.-I., Okumura, S. K., Chikada, Y. et al.
1989, ApJ 344, 763. }
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Ishizuki, S. Kawabe, R., Ishiguro, M., Okumura, S. K., Morita, K-I.,
et al. 1990a Nature 344, 224.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Ishizuki, S., Kawabe, R., Ishiguro, M., Okumura, S. K., Morita, K. -I.
et al. 1990b ApJ 355 436.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Kaifu, N., Iguchi, T., and Kato, T. 1974, PASJ 26, 117.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Kaifu, N., Kato, T., and Iguchi, T. 1972, Nature 238, 105.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Knapp, G. R., Stgark, A. A., Wilson, R. W. 1985 AJ 90, 254.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Liszt, H. S. 1988 in Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy,
ed. G. L. Verschuur and K. I. Kellermann, 2nd edition (Springer-Verlag,
New York) p 359.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Liszt,H. S., Burton, W. B. 1978 ApJ 226, 790.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Liszt, H. S., and Burton, W. B. 1980 ApJ 236, 779.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Lo, K. Y., Berge, G. L., Claussen, M. J., et al. 1984, ApJ 282, L59.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Mulder, W.A., Liem, B.T., 1986, AA 157, 148
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Nakai, N., Hayashi, M., Handa, T., Sofue, Y., Hasegawa, T., and Sasaki, M.,
1987, PASJ 39, 685.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Okuda, H., Shibai, H., Nakagawa, T., Matsuhara, T., Maihara, T., et al.
1989 in The Center of the Galaxy (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 145.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Oort, J. H., Kerr, F. J., Westerhout, G. 1958, MNRAS 118, 379.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Oort, J. H. 1977, ARAA 15, 295
AA Suppl 58, 197.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Roberts, W. W. 1969, ApJ 158, 123.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Roberts, W. W., Huntley, J. M., van Albada, G. D. 1979, ApJ, 233, 67.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Shaver, P. A., McGee, R. X., Newton, L. M., Danks, A. C., Pottasch, S. R.
1983, MNRAS, 204, 53.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Scoville, N.Z. 1972, ApJ 175, L127.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Scoville, N.Z., Solomon, P. M., and Jefferts, K. B. 1974 ApJ 187, L63.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y. 1985 PASJ 37, 697
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y. 1989, in The Center of the Galaxy (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 213.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y. 1990 PASJ 42, 827
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y. 1991 PASJ 43, 671
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Sofue, Y., and Handa, T. 1984, Nature 310, 568.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y., Nakai, N. 1993 PASJ 45, 139.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Sofue, Y., Nakai, N. 1994 PASJ 46, 147
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Sofue, Y., and Reich, W. 1979, AA Suppl 38, 251.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{Solomon, P.M., Scoville, N.Z., and Sanders, D.B., 1979, ApJ 232, L89.}
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no{S$\phi$rensen, S. -A., Matsuda, T., and Fujimoto, M. 1976, A. Sp. Sci.
43, 491. }
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Stark, A. A., Bally, J., Wilson, R. W., Pound, M. W., 1989,
in The Center of the Galaxy (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 213.
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Tsuboi, M. 1989 in The Galactic Center (IAU Symp. 136),
ed. M.Morris (D.Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht) p. 135
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Wada, K., Habe, A., Taniguchi, Y., Hasegawa, T. 1994, submitted to Nature
\hangindent=1pc \hangafter=1 \no Wada, K., Habe, A. 1992 MNRAS 258, 82
\vfil\break
\hsize=180truemm
\vsize=250truemm
\settabs 7 \columns
\noindent Table 1: Galactic Center Arms and Ring.
\vskip 2mm
\hrule
\vskip 0.4mm \hrule
\vskip 2mm
\+ Parameters & & Ring (I+II)& Arm I & Arm II& Arm III& Arm IV \cr
\vskip 2mm
\hrule
\vskip 2mm
\+ From $(l, V)$&($^\circ$, km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill &(+0.9,90) & $(0.9,80)$ & $(0.1,60)$
&$(0,140)$ &$(0.1,60)$ \cr
\+& & & & $\sim(1,100)$ & & \cr
\+ To $(l, V)$&($^\circ$, km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill & $(-0.65,-140)$ &$(-0.7, -150)$ &$(-0.6,-80)$
&$(-0.15,10)$ & $(0,-20)$ \cr
\+& & & $\sim(-1,-200)$ & & & \cr
\+ $V_{\rm LSR}$ at $l=0^\circ$&(km s$^{-1}$) \dotfill &~~~~.... &$-40$ &+50 &+70 & $-50$ \cr
\vskip 2mm
\+ From $(l, b)$&($^\circ$,$^\circ$)\dotfill &$(+0.9,0.0)$ &$(+0.9,-0.1)$ & $(0.25,-0.05)$
& $(0.25,0.25)$ &~~~~.... \cr
\+ To $(l, b)$&($^\circ$,$^\circ$) \dotfill & $(-0.65,-0.08)$& ~$(-1.0,-0.2)$
&$(-0.65,-0.17)$ &$~(0,0)$ & ~~~~....\cr
\+ $b$ at $l=0^\circ$&($^\circ$) \dotfill &~~~~.... & 0.050& $-0.067$&$(0,0)$
&~~~~.... \cr
\+ Length &($^\circ$/pc) \dotfill &~~~~.... & 1.9/280 & 0.9/133 &
0.35/52&~~~~....\cr
\+ Min. $b$ width&($^\circ$/pc)\dotfill &~~~~.... &0.088/13 & 0.091/13.5&~~~~....
&~~~~....\cr
\+ Max. $b$ width&($^\circ$/pc)\dotfill &~~~~....& 0.33/50 &
0.2/30&~~~~....&~~~~.... \cr
\v\v
\+ Maj.ax.len.&($^\circ$/pc)\dotfill &1.55/230 & ~~~~.... &~~~~.... &
{}~~~~....&~~~~.... \cr
\+ Min.ax.len.&($^\circ$/pc)\dotfill &0.132/19.5 & ~~~~.... &~~~~.... &~~~~....
&~~~~.... \cr
\+ Inclination&($^\circ$)\dotfill &$85^\circ.1$ & ~~~~.... &~~~~.... &~~~~....
&~~~~.... \cr
\+ Ring cen. $(l, b)$& ~~($^\circ$,$^\circ$) \dotfill &(0.12,0.0) & ~~~~.... &~~~~....
&~~~~....
&~~~~.... \cr
\+ Ring radius & (pc) \dotfill & 120 & & & & \cr
\+ Rot. Velo &(km s$^{-1}$)\dotfill &$+90/-140$ & ~~~~.... &~~~~.... &~~~~....
&~~~~.... \cr
\v\v
\+ Mol. Mass$^\dagger$& ($10^7M_{\odot \hskip-5.2pt \bullet}$)\dotfill & 3.07 & 1.72 & 1.35 &
{}~~~~....& ~~~~.... \cr
\+ Remarks & \dotfill & Circum Nuc.& asso. Sgr B & Sgr C & Sgr A? & Sgr A?\cr
\vskip 2mm
\hrule
\vskip 2mm
\noindent $*$ The distance to the galactic center is assumed to be 8.5 kpc.
\noindent $\dagger$ 1.61 times the H$_2$\ mass obtained from the
$^{13}$CO intensity to H$_2$\ conversion [see eq. (1)-(3)],
where the metal abundance has been assumed to be twice the solar.
This also applies to mass in Table 2.
The statistical error which occurs during intensity integration
is only a few \%,
while the error arising from ambiguity of the conversion factor is
about 20 to 30\% (Arimoto et al 1994).
\vfil\break
\section{Figure Captions}
Fig. 1: (a) The $(l, V)$\ diagram of the $^{13}$CO $(J=1-0)$ line emission
of the central region of the Milky Way by averaging the data from
$-0.35 \le b \le 0^\circ.17$
as obtained with the Bell Telephone 7-m telescope by Bally et al (1987).
Contours are in unit of K $T^*_{\rm A}$\ at levels
$0.1\times$(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 20, 25).
(b) The same as Fig. 1a, but the local and foreground CO emissions
have been subtracted by applying the ``pressing method'' (see the text
for the procedure). Contour levels are same as in (a).
\v\v
Fig. 2: The $(l, V)$\ diagrams averaged in $4'~b$ interval.
Local/foreground emissions have been removed.
`Rigid-rotation' ridges (arms) are dominant in the disk
at $|b|<\sim 10'$ (25 pc).
Contours are in unit of K $T^*_{\rm A}$\ at levels
$0.2\times$(1, 2, 3,..., 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30).
\v\v
Fig. 3: Schematic sketch of the major ridges (arms) in the $(l, V)$\ diagrams.
\v\v
Fig. 4: (a) Integrated intensity map in the whole velocity range at
$-250 \le V_{\rm LSR} \le 250$ km s$^{-1}$. This is almost the same as the map
presented by Stark et al (1989), except that the local contribution has
been subtracted.
Contours are in unit of K km s$^{-1}$\ at levels
$25 \times$(1, 2, 3, ..., 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30).
(b) Same but in a grey-scale representation. For intensity scale, see (a).
The bottom figure shows the same, but the scale in the latitude direction
has been doubled.
Galactic Center Arm (GCA) I runs as a long arc in the positive $b$ side;
GCA II runs in the negative $b$ side.
\v\v
Fig. 5: $(l, V)$\ diagrams corresponding to
(a) Galactic Center Arms I and (b) II, which were used to obtain
intensity maps of the Galactic Center Arms in Fig. 6.
Contours are in unit of K $T^*_{\rm A}$\ at levels
$0.2\times$(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35).
\v\v
Fig. 6: Integrated intensity maps corresponding to (a) Galactic Center Arm I,
and (b) Arm II as in Fig. 5. Contours are in unit of K km s$^{-1}$\ at levels
$12.5\times$(1, 2, 3, ..., 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 30).
(c) Arms I+II. Contours are in unit of K km s$^{-1}$\ at levels $25\times$(as above).
\v\v
Fig. 7: Intensity variation across Galactic Center Arms
I and II perpendicular to the galactic plane averaged at
$l=0^\circ.24$ to $-0^\circ.33$, where the arms are most clearly separated.
\v\v
Fig. 8: (a) A velocity field as obtained by taking the first moment of
the $(V_{\rm LSR}, l, b)$ cube (intensity-weighted mean velocity field).
Contour interval is 10 km s$^{-1}$\. Full-line contours are for positive velocity
starting at 0 km s$^{-1}$. Dashed contours are for negative velocity.
(b) Same as (a), but for the ``disk component'' with $|V_{\rm LSR}|<100$ km s$^{-1}$.
\v\v
Fig. 9: Two-armed spiral model with a spiral infalling motion.
Gas density distribution is shown by spiral-like contours as projected on
the galactic plane.
Calculated $(l, V)$\ diagram is shown by tilted X shaped contours.
The scales are arbitrary.
(a) Two spiral arms with a pitch angle $p=10^\circ$ are assumed.
The azimuthally averaged gas density has a hole at
the center, corresponding to a ring distribution of gas on which
two arms are superposed.
In addition to a constant circular rotation,
radial infall of velocity $V_{\rm rot} {\rm sin}~p$ is superposed.
(b), (c) The same as (a), but the spiral arms are oval in shape whose
major axis are inclined by $\pm 30^\circ$ from the nodal line.
(d)-(f) The same as (a)-(c), respectively,
but the density distribution along the arms
has the maximum at the center and the pitch angle is taken larger: $p=20^\circ$.
\v\v
Fig. 10: Possible deconvolution of the $(l, V)$\ diagrams for Galactic Center
Arms I and II into a spatial distribution as projected on the galactic plane.
Contour interval is 0.25 starting at 0.1 in an arbitrary unit.
Sgr A is assumed to be at the center.
\v\v Fig. 11: Superposition of the radio continuum emission at 10 GHz (contours:
Handa et al 1987) on (a) $^{13}$CO, and (b) CS emission maps (grey scale).
Contours are in unit of K $T_{\rm B}$\ of 10 GHz continuum brightness at levels
$0.1\times$(1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, 20, 25).
For CO intensity scale, see Fig. 4.
\bye
|
\section{Varieties of Factorization and Evolution}
With the extraordinary data from the Tevatron of the last
runs, our knowledge of large momentum transfer processes has taken
a qualitative step forward. The demands on theory are
now much more stringent, and afford tests of
QCD concepts that
were not previously practical. In particular, TeV
energies allow for many two-scale processes where both
scales are much larger than a GeV, and hence may be amenable
to perturbative treatment. For instance, $\alpha_s(t)\; \ln(s/t)$
may be a relatively large number
even for $\alpha_s(t)$ small, necessitating a resummation
of powers $(\alpha_s(t)\; \ln^2(s/t))$
and $(\alpha_s(t)\; \ln(s/t))$
to all orders in perturbation theory.
In the following, I shall review the basic techniques
used to study two-scale inclusive cross sections at
low parton density. For such process factorization
in terms of single-parton densities holds,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_H(p,q) = \sum_i \int dx' {\hat \sigma}_i(x'p,q)\; \phi_{i/H}(x')\, ,
\label{factor}
\end{equation}
with ${\hat \sigma}_i$ a short-distance partonic cross section
and $\phi_{i/H}$ the distribution of parton $i$ in hadron $H$.
I will begin with a review of
three basic evolution equations, which govern
the behavior of parton distributions in three limits
of particular physical interest, and which are commonly
referred to as the DGLAP, BFKL and Sudakov equations.
Of these, the DGLAP is the best-studied, and
controls the standard evolution of parton distributions
in $Q^2$ for values of $x$ for which neither $\alpha_s\ln x$ nor
$\alpha_s \ln(1-x)$ is a large number.
The BFKL equation governs the behavior of
parton distributions at small $x$ and fixed $Q^2$ and of
amplitudes near the forward direction. Finally, the
Sudakov evolution equation describes the behavior
of distributions and amplitudes in the elastic limit
($x\rightarrow 1$ for deep-inelastic scattering). These
limits are illustrated schematically in Fig.\ 1.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsffile{pbpfig1d.eps}}
\caption{Actions of evolution equations.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Each of these evolution equations is associated with the ladder structure
shown in Fig.\ 2, in which parton $j$, with momentum $p$
``evolves" into parton $i$, of momentum $xp$, in the process
emitting $N$ quanta. In perturbation theory, the
distribution of parton $i$ in parton $j$ may be thought
of as a sum over $N$,
\begin{equation}
\phi_{i/j}(x,q_T) \sim \sum_N \phi_{i/j}^{(N)}\, .
\label{laddersum}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsffile{pbpfig2c.eps}}
\caption{General ladder structure.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{DGLAP}
The basic evolution equation for perturbative QCD, originated by
Dokshitser, Gribov, Lipatov, Altarelli and Parisi
\cite{DGLAP}, has its origin in the description of deeply inelastic
scattering (DIS). The factorization theorem for any DIS
structure function $F$ in hadron $H$ is
\begin{equation}
F^{(H)}(x,Q^2) = \int_x^1 {dx'\over x'}\; C_{j}(x/x')\; \phi_{j/H}(x,Q^2)\, ,
\label{DISfact}
\end{equation}
with perturbative short-distance functions $C_i$ and nonperturbative
parton distribution(s) $\phi$. Although $\phi$ is
not perturbatively calculable, its $Q^2$ dependence is, in terms
of kernels, or splitting functions, $P_{ij}$, through the DGLAP evolution
equation
\begin{equation}
{ d\over d \ln Q^2}\phi_{i/H}(x,Q^2)
=
\sum_{j=f,{\bar f},G} \int_x^1 {d \xi \over \xi}\; P_{ij}(x/\xi)\;
\phi_{j/H}(\xi,Q^2)\, .
\label{dglap}
\end{equation}
The universality of the distributions allow us to
derive predictions for hadronic collisions from parton
distributions derived (primarily) from DIS. The
$P_{ij}$ themselves are known up to two loops.
In general, the DGLAP equation is applicable when the evolution
is generated by the emission of quanta with strongly ordered
transverse momenta ($k_{1T}\ll k_{2T} \ll \dots \ll k_{NT}$ in
Fig.\ 2, for instance). The integrals over these
transverse momenta give logarithmic enhancements, which are
organized by the DGLAP equation.
There are other sources of logarithmic
enhancement, however, already present as factors of $1/x$ in
the splitting function $P_{GG}(x)$. Such singular behavior produces
logarithms of $x$, even in the absence of large transverse momentum
enhancements. The BFKL equation, to which we now turn,
summarizes the effects of these logs of $x$.
\subsection{BFKL}
The BFKL equation (Balitskii, Fadin, Kuraev and Lipatov \cite{BFKL})
was developed originally to resum logs of $s$ in the total hadronic
cross section (see below). We begin our consideration of
it here, however, with a generalization of
DIS factorization (\ref{DISfact}), to a form that links the
distributions in both longitudinal and transverse momenta \cite{ktfactci},
\begin{equation}
F(x,Q^2)=\int_x^1 {dx' \over x'}\; d^2k_T\; C(x/x',{\bf k},Q^2)\, {\cal
F}(x',{\bf k})\, ,
\label{ktfact}
\end{equation}
with $C(\xi,{\bf k},Q^2)$ a new, transverse momentum-dependent
short-distance function and $\cal F$ the corresponding parton
distribution. In general, the gluon distribution tends to
dominate at low $x$, and we shall restrict our discussion to
${\cal F}_G$. Eq.\ (\ref{ktfact}) is of particular interest
when $x\rightarrow 0$, so that the mass of the final state
in DIS, $(1-x)Q^2/x$, grows.
The BFKL equation, which describes the behavior of ${\cal F}_G$,
may be written in many forms, one of the least intimidating
of which is
\begin{equation}
{d\over d \ln x}{\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k})
=
{3\alpha_s\over \pi} \int{d^2{\bf k}' \over ({\bf k}'-{\bf k}')^2}\
\left ( K\; *\; {\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k}') \right )\, ,
\label{bfkl}
\end{equation}
with a kernel defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
K\; *\; {\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k}')
&=&
{\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k}') \nonumber \\
&\ & \quad -
\left ( {{\bf k}\cdot{\bf k}'\over 2{{\bf k}'}^2} \right )
{\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k})\, .
\label{bfklkernel}
\end{eqnarray}
An excellent introduction to the BFKL equation may be
found in the recent lectures of Del Duca \cite{DelDuca}.
The BFKL equation is somewhat harder to solve than the DGLAP equation,
but it has many applications, including DIS for small $x$, semihard
processes (minijet, heavy quark, etc.) in hadronic collisions,
and color singlet exchange at $|t|\ll s$. Although the BFKL
formalism has traditionally remained at leading logarithm in $x$,
recent progress has been reported on generalizations that determine
a two-loop kernel \cite{BFKL2loop}.
In addition, it is possible to develop a generalized evolution
equation that interpolates between the DGLAP and BFKL equations
at leading logarithm \cite{Marches}.
For this purpose, the angle of emission for soft gluons
may be chosen as the primary evolution variable,
reflecting an ordering of angles in sequential emission \cite{Muellangord}.
Control of such ``coherence" effects in soft
QCD radiation \cite{cohere} also serves as an
important ingredient in the construction of
detailed models of QCD final states \cite{herwig}.
\subsection{Sudakov}
The other fundamental limit of evolution is $x\rightarrow 1$. In DIS,
this corresponds to a low-mass final state with high energy. This
``elastic" limit is illustrated in Fig.\ 3. In addition to soft
radiation, a well-collimated jet of mass near $(1-x)Q^2$
emerges from the hard scattering $H$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsffile{pbpfig3.eps}}
\caption{DIS as $x\rightarrow 1$.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
Corresponding to this
physical situation, we may identify a factorized form
for such a cross section,
\begin{equation}
F(x,Q^2)
=
H(Q)\; \int_x^1 dx'\; J((1-x')Q^2,Q)\, \phi(x',Q^2)\, ,
\label{Sudfact}
\end{equation}
with $J$ a universal function representing the hadronization
of the jet (in this form certain non-leading
logarithmic factors are suppressed). For $(1-x)Q^2\gg \Lambda^2$, $J$ is
computable
in perturbation theory.
Given the factorization (\ref{Sudfact}), the $x$ dependence
of the jet may be determined from the Sudakov evolution equation
\cite{St87},
\begin{eqnarray}
\left ( {\partial \over \partial \ln(1-x)} +
{1\over 2}\beta(g){\partial \over \partial g}\; \right ) J((&1&-x')Q^2,Q)
= {1\over 2}S(\alpha_s)\; J((1-x')Q^2,Q)
\nonumber \\
&\, &
-{1\over 2}\int_x^1 {d y\over y}\; K_J(1-x/y)\; J((1-y)Q^2,Q)\, ,
\label{Sudevol}
\end{eqnarray}
whose kernel $K_J$ is of the form of a plus distribution,
\begin{equation}
K_J(1-z) = \left [ {\Gamma_J(\alpha_s((1-z)^2Q^2)\over 1-z} \right ]_+\, .
\label{Sudkernel}
\end{equation}
The function $\Gamma_J$ is a universal Sudakov anomalous
dimension \cite{CoSo81}, related to the $\ln n$ dependence of
the standard DGLAP anomalous dimensions $\gamma_n$ \cite{KoTr}.
Thus, $\Gamma_J$ is also known to two loops.
$S$ is a power series in $\alpha_s(Q^2)$. Sudakov evolution
finds applications to jet event shapes, threshold
corrections and transverse momentum distributions, some of
which we shall review below.
\section{Resummation for Small $x$ and Diffractive Cross Sections}
In this section, I will review a few of the prominent applications of
the BFKL resummation of small-$x$ enhancements, beginning with
DIS.
\subsection{DIS}
For DIS, the object of interest is the $k_T$-dependent
gluon distribution, the solution to eq.\ (\ref{bfkl}).
Eigenfunctions of the derivative may be found by direct
substitution. The dominant power as $x\rightarrow 0$
specifies the growth of the gluon distribution. It is \cite{BFKL,DelDuca}
\begin{equation}
{\cal F}_G(x,{\bf k}) \sim x^{-\omega_0}\, ,
\label{bfklsoln}
\end{equation}
times a power of ${\bf k}^2$, where
\begin{equation}
\omega_0={4N\alpha_s \over \pi}\ln 2\, ,
\label{omegao}
\end{equation}
with $N=3$ the number of colors.
Since quark distributions mix with the
gluon distribution, BFKL
evolution suggests that
the structure function of any hadron behaves as
\begin{eqnarray}
F_2(x) &\sim& \sum_i Q_i^2\; x\; \phi_i(x) \nonumber \\
&\rightarrow& x^{-\omega_0}\, ,
\label{ftwopom}
\end{eqnarray}
which diverges as a power. This behavior is referred to
as that of the ``bare" pomeron. It is clear that such growth
cannot be supported to arbitrarily small $x$, since
if parton densities grow too large, they
will begin to interfere or ``shadow" each other.
In technical terms, the assumption of low-density
partons, which underlies each of the
evolution equations above, fails for $x$ low
enough \cite{shadow}.
HERA \cite{zeusH1} has seen a growth in DIS structure
functions at small $x$ which is consistent with
the qualitative expectations of BFKL
resummation. The DGLAP equation, however, based
on $k_T$-ordering, also results in growth for
$x$ small, if not quite so dramatic. Untangling
the physical content of the HERA data is a subject
of great current interest \cite{smallxtheo}.
\subsection{BFKL in Hadron-hadron Scattering}
The BFKL formalism \cite{BFKL} was originally developed to describe
hadron-hadron scattering in QCD, both the total
cross section and the closely-related Regge limit,
$t$ fixed, $s\rightarrow \infty$.
Its basic consequences for inclusive hadron-hadron scattering near
the forward direction may by summarized by the following
``translation" from DIS notation,
\begin{eqnarray}
M^2_{\rm had} = {1-x \over x}Q^2 &\rightarrow& s
\nonumber \\
x^{-\omega_0} &\rightarrow& s^{\omega_0}
\nonumber \\
F(x) &\rightarrow& \sigma_{\rm tot} \sim s^{\omega_0}\, .
\label{distohh}
\end{eqnarray}
Note in particular that the total cross section grows as a
power, corresponding to the $x\rightarrow 0$ behavior of
$F_2(x)$ in DIS. Again, a rise in the total cross section
for hadron-hadron scattering has long been seen at high energy,
but an uninterrupted
power-law rise would violate unitarity, as embodied
in the Froissart bound. The ``bare" pomeron identified above
therefore cannot be the final answer. I shall return to
recent progress on this question below.
It is of some interest to sketch the momentum-space
configurations that give rise to the BFKL pomeron in
hadron-hadron scattering. These are illustrated
by the ladder diagrams in Fig.\ 4,
where the vertices $C_i$ summarize contributions not
only from the diagrams explicitly shown, but also from
non-ladder diagrams
of the same order that are important in gauge theories \cite{BFKL}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsffile{pbpfig4a.eps}}
\caption{BFKL ladders.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
These vertices are related to the kernel in eq.\ (\ref{bfkl})
by $C_i^2\sim K$.
As above, all lines in the ladder represent gluons.
The growth of the cross section results from the production
of many particles, whose
momenta are conveniently parameterized in components parallel
to the incoming momenta $k_a$ and $k_b$, and transverse components,
\begin{equation}
k_i=\alpha_ik_a+\beta_ik_b+k_{iT}\, .
\label{ksubi}
\end{equation}
The BFKL pomeron resums logarithms that result from configurations
in which the rapidities $y_i\sim \ln (\alpha_i/\beta_i)$, are
strongly ordered, but the transverse momenta are all of the
same order as the momentum transfer,
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha_1 \gg \alpha_2 &\gg& \cdots \gg \alpha_n \nonumber \\
\beta_1 \ll \beta_2 &\ll& \cdots \ll \beta_n \nonumber \\
k_{iT} &\sim& k_{jT}\, .
\label{strongorder}
\end{eqnarray}
It is the lack of ordering in transverse momentum that distinguishes
BFKL evolution. Studies show
that kinematic signs of this evolution should
be present in final states \cite{bfklkinem}, and data from the
Tevatron and HERA are being closely scrutinized for evidence of
these effects.
\subsection{Soft and Hard Diffraction}
Ampitudes for soft and hard diffraction are illustrated in Fig.\ 5. In 5a,
the lines in both the cut and uncut ladder are ordered in rapidity,
just as in Fig.\ 4.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\epsffile{pbpfig5b.eps}}
\caption{Schematic representations of soft (a) and hard (b)
diffraction.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
Only the cut lines, closer in rapidity to the
incoming top line appear in the final state, however, leading to
a ``gap" in rapidity, and an apparent ``diffractive excitation"
of the top line. The uncut ladder, a virtual pomeron, acts very
much like a virtual elementary particle.
Such events have been seen for some time, with
particles that emerge into the final state generally at low transverse
momentum. More recently, however, events have been seen that have
both rapidity gaps and high momentum transfers
\cite{rapgap}. A possible mechanism is
illustrated in Fig.\ 5b, in which the incoming top line undergoes
a hard scattering from a ``parton" of the pomeron. This idea \cite{IngSch}
suggests that it might make sense to talk about the distributions
of partons in pomerons. Such a formalism would be useful if
these cross sections enjoy the universality and incoherence
properties that underly normal factorization for inclusive
cross sections \cite{Collinspomphi}. Beyond this, the concept
of rapidity gaps as a sign of color singlet exchange, even at
large momentum transfer \cite{singletrapgap} is an attractive concept.
As noted above, the BFKL formalism treats leading logarihms of
$s$. For singlest exchange, these are single logarithms per loop,
$\alpha_s^n\ln^ns$. More generally, elastic scattering
of, say, high-energy quarks may
involve both singlet and octet exchange
\begin{equation}
A = A_8T_8 + A_1 T_1\, ,
\label{coloramp}
\end{equation}
with the $T_i$ tensors in the color space.
Supposing that $t$ is large, but $|t|\ll s$, it is possible
to study the leading logarithms assoicated with soft
gluon exchange according to Sudakov evolution methods \cite{softSud}.
The results for the $A_i$, neglecting for simplicity the effects of the running
coupling, are of the schematic form \cite{K,StS}
\begin{equation}
A_8\sim e^{-\ln s\ln t}\, \, ,\, \, A_1 \sim e^{-\ln^2 t}\, .
\label{colorsud}
\end{equation}
This is consistent with BFKL resummation of logs of $s$ in
singlet exchange at fixed $t$. For octet exchange, it is equivalent to
a ``Reggeized" gluon behavior \cite{BFKL}.
These results are also consistent with the observation of
rapidity gaps in hard scattering at high energy, and
with their connection to singlet exchange. They are also
relevant to a very different process, near-forward
hard elastic scattering \cite{LandDonn}, in which
an observed behavior of $t^{-8}$ may be
a sign of triple pomeron exchange between valence quarks \cite{StS}.
\subsection{Taming the Bare Pomeron}
As noted above, the bare pomeron violates the Froissart bound.
Considerable effort recently has gone into remedying this
defect, and to creating a formalism that reduces to the
BFKL analysis for moderate $s$, but which has built-in unitarity.
Here, I shall mention only a few examples. Lipatov
has developed such a scheme, based on adding a subset
of nonleading logarithms in $s$ and employing an
expansion in $1/N$, with $N$ the number of colors.
In this scheme, the pomeron
is a sort of bound state of Reggeized gluons \cite{lipconf}. Adding
more such gluons, the problem reduces to
finding the spectrum of a two-dimensional
field theory in impact parameter space. Recently, Faddeev and
Korchemsky \cite{FadKor} have shown that the resulting model is
``solvable" in the sense of possessing infinite numbers of
conservation laws. They do not, however, explicitly ``solve" it.
Another approach toward deciphering the BFKL pomeron
involves studying a model in which it arises self-consistently
in perturbation theory, the scattering of bound states of
heavy quarks \cite{qqbarbfkl}. Although not yet realistic,
such models allows a quite detailed study of soft gluon
dynamics at large $N$ and leading logarithm.
\section{Resummation at the edge of phase space}
I now turn to applications of Sudakov resummation, beginning with
a typical example from event shapes, the thrust.
\subsection{Thrust}
The thrust in ${\rm e}^+{\rm e}^-$ annihilation is defined by
\begin{equation}
T= {\rm max}_{\hat n} {1\over Q} \sum_i\, |{\vec p}_i\cdot {\hat n}|\, ,
\label{thrust}
\end{equation}
with the sum over all particles
in the final state, and with a maximum taken over all unit vectors $\vec n$.
In perturbation theory, the fixed-thrust cross section
diverges at $T=1$, which is the elastic limit of two
lightlike back-to-back
jets. A measure of this divergence is given at one loop by
\begin{equation}
{1\over \sigma_0}\,
\int_0^T dT' {d\sigma \over dT'} \sim 1- {\alpha_s\over \pi}C_F\; \ln^2(1-T)\,
{}.
\label{oneloopthrust}
\end{equation}
If the two jets have masses $p_i^2\sim (1/2)(1-x_i)Q^2$, then near
the edge of phase space $x_1=x_2=1$, we have
\begin{equation}
T \sim {1\over 2}\left [ (1-x_1)+(1-x_2)\right ]\, .
\label{twojetthrust}
\end{equation}
In the same region, however, the cross section
(simplified by neglecting
certain nonleading corrections) factors into the
product of the jet functions described above,
\begin{eqnarray}
{1\over \sigma_0}\,
{d\sigma \over dT'} &\sim& \int dx_1dx_2\; \delta\left(1-T-{1\over
2}(2-x_1-x_2)\right )
\nonumber \\
&\ & \quad\quad\quad \times
J_1((1-x_1)Q^2,Q)\; J_2((1-x_2)Q^2,Q)\, ,
\label{thrustfact}
\end{eqnarray}
each of which satisfies a Sudakov evolution equation, whose solution gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\int dx\, e^{-\nu(1-x)Q^2/2}\; &J&((1-x)Q^2,Q) \nonumber \\
&\sim&
\exp \left [ -\int_0^1 {du\over u}(1-e^{-u\nu}) \int_{u^2Q^2}^{uQ^2}
{d\mu^2\over \mu^2} \Gamma_J(\alpha_s(\mu^2)) \right ]\, .
\label{thrustresum}
\end{eqnarray}
This result \cite{thrustresum}, and its analog for the transverse momentum
distribution
in Drell-Yan and Z$_0$ production \cite{qtresum}, are very helpful in
understanding
high energy data.
\subsection{Threshold Resummation}
Another important application of Sudakov resummation is
to high-mass Drell-Yan, top and other cross sections
where the parton distributions are falling rapidly at
threshold. The simplest example is the inclusive Drell-Yan cross
section,
\begin{equation}
{d\sigma \over dQ^2}
=
\sigma_0\, \sum_q\, \int_\tau^1 dz\;
\Phi_{q{\bar q}}(z)\;
\omega_{q{\bar q}}(z,\alpha_s(Q^2))\, ,
\label{DYfact}
\end{equation}
where the partonic flux is given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{q{\bar q}}(z)
= \int_0^1 {dx_adx_b\over x_ax_b}\; \delta\left(1-\tau/(zx_ax_b)\right)\;
Q_q^2\; \phi_q \left (x_a,Q^2\right )
\phi_{\bar q} \left (x_b,Q^2\right )\, ,
\label{Phitauz}
\end{equation}
with $Q_q$ the quark charge in units of electron charge and with
$\sigma_0=4\pi\alpha^2/3NQ^2s$ the Born cross section for $Q_q=1$.
Here the overall partonic invariant is ${\hat s}=Q^2/z$, with
threshold at $z=1$.
Specializing to DIS scheme, initial state radiation from the incoming
quark pair in Drell-Yan cancels against initial state radiation
in the DIS structure function, illustrated in Fig.\ 3 above.
The (infrared safe) radiation from the outgoing quark jet in DIS,
however, is not compensated. But since, as indicated above,
the $x\rightarrow 1$ behavior of this jet can be computed, we
can give an explicit form for the hard-scattering cross section
$\omega_{q{\bar q}}$ in eq.\ (\ref{DYfact}) that includes all
$\ln^n(1-x)$ behavior in this limit. Schematically, it is of the
form
\begin{equation}
\omega_{q{\bar q}}(z,\alpha_s(Q^2))
=
\delta(1-z)
-
\left [ {\rm e}^E(1-z,\alpha_s) F(1-z) \right ]_+\, ,
\label{omegaresum}
\end{equation}
where the function $F(1-z)$ is given by \cite{CoSt}
\begin{equation}
F(1-z)={1 \over \pi}\; \sin(\pi P_1)\Gamma(1+P_1)
+\dots\, ,
\label{Fdef}
\end{equation}
with $P_1$ the derivative of the exponent $E$ with respect
to $\ln (1-z)$,
\begin{equation}
P_1(1-z,\alpha_s)={d \over d\ln(1-z)}E(1-z,\alpha_s)\, .
\label{ponedef}
\end{equation}
$E(1-z,\alpha_s)$ is itself of the moment form,
\begin{equation}
E(n,\alpha_s)
=
\int_0^1 dx \left ({x^{n-1}-1 \over 1-x}\right )
\int_{(1-x)^2Q^2}^{(1-x)Q^2}
{d\mu^2 \over \mu^2}\, g_1(\alpha_s(\mu^2)) + \dots
\label{Edef}
\end{equation}
where $g_1$ is closely related to the jet anomalous dimension $\Gamma_J$,
discussed above,
\begin{equation}
g_1(\alpha_s)=2C_F\; {\alpha_s \over
\pi}+\dots=2\Gamma_J(\alpha_s)+\dots\, .
\label{geeone}
\end{equation}
Given the form of $E$, we expect the effect of these
corrections to be positive, and to raise the cross section
above low order predictions. This expectation has been
borne out by explicit calculations in leading-logarithm
approximation for the DY process \cite{AMS}.
We have heard elsewhere at this conference that one-loop
QCD predictions fall short of the very high-$E_T$
jet cross section measured by CDF. This cross section is
of the same general form as above, given schematically by
\begin{equation}
{ d\sigma_{1J} \over dE_T}\bigg |_{y=0}
=
\int_{2E_T/\sqrt{s}}^1\;
\Phi(z)\; { d{\hat \sigma}_{1J} \over dE_T}
({\hat s}=zs)\; dz\, .
\label{jetsigma}
\end{equation}
It is natural to ask whether this effect might be
due to resummable soft gluon effects. Now we must note that
in jet production final-state as well as
initial state interactions may be important. Nevertheless,
final-state interactions cancel in any cross section with
finite angular and energy resolutions, leaving the same,
universal initial-state corrections as in DY. It will
be of great interest to test these ideas in the
coming months, since an excess of high-energy
jets relative to QCD predictions could indicate
profound new physics.
\subsection{Regulated Resummation}
Eq.\ (\ref{Edef}) for the resummed exponent has a problem
at small $1-x$, where the perturbative running coupling may diverge.
To make sense of (\ref{Edef}), one may use a cutoff in $x$
or $k_T^2$. Another possibility, following the example of
ref.\ \cite{Mu85}, is to define the integral as a principal value
\cite{CoSt2}. There is no special status for such a definition,
but it enables us to express $E$ explicitly in terms of special
functions, to be specific as a series of exponential integrals.
In fact, any such definition of the perturbative expansion can
be made only at the price of adding new nonperturbative
parameters to the theory, as
\begin{equation}
E_{NP} = \sum_{n\ge 1} {A_n \over Q^n}\, .
\label{enp}
\end{equation}
Cutoff integrals are probably numerically simpler. A sample
application to resummed leading logarithms was studied in
\cite{AMS} for the Drell-Yan process,
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1 dx\; {x^{n-1} -1 \over 1-x}
\rightarrow
\int_0^{1-\lambda/\Lambda} dx\; {x^{n-1} -1 \over 1-x}\, .
\label{cutoff}
\end{equation}
Order by order, dependence on $\lambda$ is higher twist.
For large enough
$Q^2$, a cutoff resummation of
this form is relatively insensitive to $\lambda$, but
grows with $\tau$ at fixed $Q^2$ \cite{AMS}. Studies of the behavior at
fixed $s$ are currently underway.
Finally, we may note that a cutoff prescription was
employed in \cite{LSvN} to define resummed perturbation
theory for top production, with partonic cross sections
of the form
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{ij}(z,m_t^2,s_0)
=
\int_{s_0}^{s-2m_t\sqrt{s}}
ds_4\; e^{{\bar E}(s_4)}\; {d\sigma^{(0)}_{ij} \over ds_4}\, ,
\label{lsvn}
\end{equation}
where $s_4=0$ at threshold, where ${\bar E}(s_4)$ is a
resummed exponent related to (\ref{Edef}) and where
$\sigma^{(0)}_{ij}$ is the Born cross section.
\section{Infrared Renormalons and a New Source of Power Corrections}
Expanding the
running coupling integrand in eq.\ (\ref{Edef})
in terms of $\alpha_s(Q^2)$, we derive integrals of the form
\begin{equation}
(-b_2)^m\alpha_s^m\; \int_0^{Q^2} {dk_T^2\over Q^2}\;\ln^m
\left({k_T^2\over Q^2}\right )
=b_2^m\alpha_s^m\; m!\, ,
\label{irrenorm}
\end{equation}
in which the singularity in the running coupling is
reflected in factorial growth of expansion coefficients
in perturbation theory. This phenomenon is commonly
referred to as an ``infrared renormalon" \cite{tHooft}.
A closer analysis shows that such behavior may be
interpreted as an ambiguity in the perturbative
expansion, which may be removed by modifying the
expansion to make it convergent, while at the same
time adding a new term of the form of eq.\ (\ref{enp}),
$A_N/Q^N$, with
$Q$ the momentum transfer. The classic case \cite{Mu85}
is the total cross section in ${\rm e}^+{\rm e}^-$ annihilation,
where the nonperturbative term is of the form
$A_4/Q^4$, with $A_4=\langle F^2\rangle_0$, the
vacuum expectation value of the squared gluon field strength.
A similar analysis for resummed jet shapes \cite{StArg} and
Drell-Yan cross sections \cite{CoSt2} shows that their
resummed exponents potentially have a much stronger nonperturbative
behavior \cite{W,KS},
\begin{equation}
E=E_{\rm PT}^{({\rm reg})}+{\Lambda \over \delta Q}A\, ,
\label{interp}
\end{equation}
where $\delta=0$ in the elastic limit (infinitely
collimated jets, for instance).
As in the case of the total ${\rm e}^+{\rm e}^-$
cross section, it is possible to find a field-theoretic
analog to $A$, but in this case it is in terms of
a field-strength, integrated over the classical
paths of the
relevant partons. For example,
for a two-jet cross section, with directions are $p_1$ and $p_2$,
we find \cite{KS}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Lambda A &=& \langle 0|{\bar {\rm T}}
\left ( \Phi^\dagger_{p_1}(0,\infty)
({\cal F}_{0p_1}^\dagger(0) -{\cal F}_{0p_2}(0,\infty))
\Phi_{p_2}(0,\infty)
\right ) \nonumber \\
&\ & \quad\quad\quad \times {\rm T} \left (\Phi_{p_1}^\dagger(0,\infty)
\Phi_{p_2}(0,\infty)
\right ) |0\rangle\, .
\label{Aop}
\end{eqnarray}
This matrix element is gauge invariant, with the
$\Phi$'s defined in terms of ``Wilson lines",
and the operator $\cal F$ in terms of the
field strength. The rather general form of the operator suggests
that these new corrections, suppressed by a single
power of the large momentum scale, may possess
universality properties. The concept of universality
in this context has already been given much study
\cite{KS,DokWeb},
and its promise and limitations have been
discussed in \cite{KSMord}.
\section{Conclusions}
Soft-gluon resummation allows varied applications of quantum field
theory that are relevant to QCD at current energies. One goal of this
program is to achieve a new level of precision by combining large
corrections to all orders. It also affords potential insights into
features of nonperturbative structure, through the high-order
behavior of the perturbation series.
Regarding specific applications, resummed threshold corrections to
very high energy jet cross sections urgently need more study,
especially because they are relevant to signs of new physics. Also,
studies of $-t\ll s$ hard elastic and jet cross sections are attractive
for their relevance to hard pomeron and Sudakov
effects and to the valence-quark structure of the nucleon. Finally,
infrared renormalons from resummation
imply the existence a new class of
nonperturbative parameters that may be measured in, for instance,
jet shape analysis, and which may shed new light on the
perturbative/nonperturbative interface in QCD.
\smallskip
It is a pleasure to thank Lyndon Alvero,
Harry Contopanagos, Gregory Korchemsky and Jack Smith for many
helpful conversations and explanations.
This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under
grant PHY9309888.
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years the understanding of the effects of
disorder in the physics of metals, semiconductors and amorphous
systems
has made a tremendous progress. This vigorous development was
motivated to a great extent by a thorough understanding of how
strongly
disorder effects determine the behavior of real physical systems.
The success of the various analytical descriptions which have been
considered,
however, has always been determined by the relative simplicity to
which
approximations could be reduced, in order to keep the theory
tractable
analytically, without losing its capability to account for the most
important physical aspects.
One of the most successful approximations to match these requirements
has been the coherent potential approximation CPA developed by Soven
\cite{bi1},
Taylor \cite{bi2}, and
extended by Leath \cite{bi7,bi8,bi9}, Velick{\'y}
\cite{bi3,bi4,bi5,bi6} and many others (see Ref. \onlinecite{bi13}
for a review).
In contrast to many other approximations for the procedure of
configurational averaging in disordered systems, the CPA is capable
of interpolating correctly between the limits of
weak \cite{bi10} and strong disorder \cite{bi12} as well as low and
high impurity concentrations. Therefore it is also able to predict
accurately
the formation of impurity bound states turning into split-off
impurity bands as the impurity concentration is increased.
Extensions of the single site CPA to include scattering from clusters
of impurities are still today the only existing analytic theories
that allow for
a calculation of the density of states in disordered systems such that
a reasonable versimilitude is attained \cite{bi14}.
The main difficulty with the CPA, is the relative
complexity of the self consistent equations which have to be solved in
more accurate extensions of the theory.
In the present paper we propose a more differentiated analysis of two
particle properties within the CPA building on the single site
approximation (SSA) in which it was developed originally. Our novel
treatment should be especially useful for applications to binary
substitutional alloys in all regimes of disorder.
Following an earlier paper by Velick{\'y} \cite{bi4}, in which the
regular two particle theory within the CPA was first introduced and
which will be referred to hereafter as {\bf I}, the theory
of weighted single particle resolvents \cite{bi26} is extended to a
properly
weighted two particle theory.
Weighting of a Green's function in this context means that through the
application of appropriate operators to the unaveraged resolvent,
restrictions are made on the type of alloy component of either
or both of the sites on which the
particle starts and terminates its motion. Upon
averaging, this results in a statistical weight being attributed
to the
averaged unrestricted resolvent with possibly separate additive
terms.
On the average, therefore, contributions to a full two particle
Green's
function in terms of constituent components can be resolved. This
allows for a better understanding of how several physical processes
contribute to a cumulative behavior as the principal parameters of the
system are varied and it can therefore be
used in an analysis of further effects which differentiates between
these components.
We have structured the paper as follows: In section II the
important features of the single particle CPA for diagonal disorder
are recapitulated and relations which are important to the calculation
of the corresponding two particle Green's functions are established.
In
section III we calculate the Fourier transforms of a class of weighted
two particle functions which are kept as general as
possible. For that reason only a representative choice of weightings
are
calculated explicitly, since other weights can be obtained in an
analogous fashion.
Section IV is devoted to possible applications of weighted two
particle functions
in linear response theory, and the peculiarities of two different
classes of such functions are discussed in detail, which we have
selected to cover a large range of conceivable applications.
In the third part of section IV the behavior of one
class of functions discussed before is examined in a
split band limit (strong disorder). Section V is devoted to a
numerical
study of the splitting into
several components of an interband absorption spectrum of a
disordered alloy. Section VI in conclusion discusses the implications
and possible further applications of the results obtained throughout
this work.
\section{Single particle properties}
We consider a binary substitutional alloy $A_c B_{1-c}$ on a simple
totally disordered monoatomic lattice on which each site is occupied
by either an $A-$ or a $B$-component with probabilities $c$ and
$1-c$, respectively.
Since by symmetry it is only necessary to consider concentrations
between $0 \leq c \leq 0.5$, we restrict our investigation to this
region and define $A$ as the impurity and $B$
as the host component of the alloy.
To simplify further calculations we
consider diagonal disorder only, i.e. a Hamiltonian of the form
\begin{equation}
H = H_0 + U = H_0 + \sum_n U_n \label{a0}
\end{equation}
where $H_0$ represents the periodic part and the
$U_n $ are single site contributions to a random disorder
potential which assume either the value $U^A_n = V$ or $U^B_n = 0$
with probabilities $c$ and $1-c$, depending
on whether the site $n$ is an impurity or part of the host material.
In
principle one could also have introduced a symmetric model for the
disorder,
but as it turns out the amount of algebra is somewhat reduced by the
asymmetric definition, while switching from one form to the other
does not
present any difficulty.
The propagator of the disordered
medium $G$ relates to the one of a pure host medium (pure $B$-phase)
$g$ through
the Dyson equation
\begin{equation}
G=g+gUG=g+gUg+gUGUg \label{a1}.
\end{equation}
The CPA for a disordered medium is introduced by the usual method
\cite{bi1,bi2} of placing the impurities in a self-consistent
medium such that the the averaged propagator of this effective medium
fulfills the relation
\begin{equation}
\bar G=g+g \Sigma \bar G \label{a2}
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ is the CPA single particle self energy.
$\Sigma$ itself is determined by the self
consistency condition that the average of the total scattering of a
particle in the effective medium be zero. This total scattering is
described by the equation
\begin{equation}
G=\bar G + \bar G T \bar G \label{a8}.
\end{equation}
where $T$ is corresponding T-matrix of the problem and the self
consistency condition is therefore
$ \langle T \rangle \equiv 0$. In the SSA an additional requirement is
made through the condition that the total scattering off a single
site $n$ be zero. This scattering is described by the single site
contribution to the T-matrix $T_n$ which is defined as
\begin{equation}
T_n = (U_n - \Sigma_n) \left[ 1 + F T_n \right] \label{a3}
\end{equation}
where $F$ is the site diagonal average propagator and $U_n$ and
$\Sigma_n$ are the single site decompositions of $U$
and $\Sigma$, such that $U= \sum_n U_n$ and $\Sigma_n = \sum_n
\Sigma_n$.
The average of the disorder potential $U$ alone amounts to $\langle U
\rangle = c V$ This along with the average of (\ref{a3}) set to zero
determines $\Sigma$ to be
\begin{equation}
\Sigma = \frac {cV} {1-(V- \Sigma )F} \label{a3a}.
\end{equation}
One can now define conditional or weighted propagators \cite{bi26}
which
explicitly describe the propagation of a particle between partly or
completely
specified types of sites by multiplying a normalized version of the
random potential onto them.
For example,
\begin{equation}
G^i = \frac {U G} V \label{a4}
\end{equation}
describes the motion of a particle commencing on an impurity site and
ending at
an arbitrary other site in the medium, since $U$ will be zero if the
first site of the function is a host. Similarly,
\begin{equation}
G^{ii}= \frac {UGU} {V^{2}} \label{a6}
\end{equation}
describes a situation where both sites are required to be
impurities for the function not to be zero.
Upon averaging over all configurations, the Green's functions
become translationally invariant and the following relationships
between the averaged weighted and unweighted functions can be obtained
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar G^i & = & \frac \Sigma V \bar G \label{a5} \\
\bar G^{ii} & = & \left( \frac \Sigma V \right)^2 \bar G + \frac
{\Sigma - cV} {V^2}. \label{a7}
\end{eqnarray}
The second term corrects the site diagonal elements when $\bar G^{ii}
= \bar G^i$ and uses identity (\ref{a3a}). From here on, other
weighted functions can be calculated by
probability conservation. It is found that
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar G^h & = & \bar G - \bar G^i = \left( 1- \frac \Sigma V \right)
\bar
G \label{a5a} \\
\bar G^{ih} & = & \bar G^{hi} = \bar G^i - \bar G^{ii} = \frac
\Sigma V \left(
1 - \frac \Sigma V \right) \bar G - \frac {\Sigma - cV} {V^2}
\label{a7a} \\
\bar G^{hh} & = & \bar G^h - \bar G^{ih} = \left( \frac \Sigma V -
1\right)^2 \bar G + \frac {\Sigma - cV} {V^2}. \label{a8a}
\end{eqnarray}
It is our goal in the present paper to establish the two particle
analogues of these weighted Green's functions, i.e. jointly averaged
products of such functions including the
coherent scattering which induces correlations in the joint
propagation of two particles.
In order to deduce these jointly averaged weighted
functions, we first need to obtain the non-averaged weighted
functions,
starting with $G^i$ and $G^{ii}$, in a representation such that no
products between the disorder potential $U$ and the unweighted single
particle function $G$ occur.
To accomplish this, one can simply employ equation (\ref{a1}) which
yields
\begin{eqnarray}
G^i & = & \frac {g^{-1} G - 1} V \label{a9} \\
G^{ii} & = & \frac 1 {V^2} \left[ g^{-1}Gg^{-1} - g^{-1} - U \right]
.\label{a10} \\
\end{eqnarray}
and by means of (\ref{a8}) these go over to
\begin{eqnarray}
G^i & = & \frac 1 V \left[ g^{-1} \bar G + g^{-1} \bar G T \bar G -1
\right] \label{a11} \\
G^{ii}& = & \frac 1 {V^2} \left[g^{-1} \bar G g^{-1} + g^{-1} \bar G
T \bar G g^{-1} - g^{-1} - U \right] \label{a12}.
\end{eqnarray}
A further single particle identity resulting from (\ref{a2}) which
will prove to be very useful is
is
\begin{equation}
g^{-1} \bar G = \bar G g^{-1} = \Sigma \bar G + 1 . \label{a13}
\end{equation}
\section{Two particle theory}
In this section a general weighted two particle theory
involving two different bands is established from which the case of
two particles
moving in a single band can also be immediately obtained.
The calculation for the unweighted two particle function has been made
in {\bf I}. As a main result of that work
the appropriate vertex corrections for the CPA were obtained
which account for the coherent scattering processes
of two particles that arise in the otherwise
non-interacting two particle function through the averaging process.
We follow the outline of Velick{\'y}'s reasoning to
obtain the proper weights for two choices of the functions $ \langle
G^{ \mu \nu}_aCG^{\mu^{\prime} \nu^{\prime}}_b \rangle $. The labels
$ \mu, \nu, \mu^{\prime}, \nu^{\prime} \in
\{i,h,0\} $ indicate the kind of weight -- either an impurity, a
host or no weight -- which is attributed to the first and second site
of the respective function. $C$ represents a
generalized operator coupling the two single particle functions and
$a$ and $b$ label two possibly different bands on which the respective
single particle resolvents are defined. The positions of the
weights within one single Green's function are thereby important,
since the disordered medium before averaging is neither homogeneous
nor isotropic and thus the non-averaged Green's functions depend
non-trivially on both
arguments. In principle there now would be 80 (!) possible ways of
applying
specific weights to these functions before averaging. However, in
most cases, even if different
bands are involved, only two particle functions having an equal
kind of weighting on its single particle constituents will be needed
in most applications.
Later, we will consider two particular examples of two particle
functions which find frequent use in linear response theory where the
operator $C$ is diagonal in real
space and also only diagonal elements (or sums of diagonal elements)
of the
functions defined above are used. For both cases considered, the
total choices of
weightings reduce to only five different ones,
since the first and the second site of the first function will be the
same as the second and first site of the second function,
respectively, which implies that they must also pairwise bear the same
weighting label.
As an example we calculate for a most general choice of $C$ only the
two functions $ \langle G_a^{ii} C G_b^{ii}
\rangle $ and $ \langle G_a^{i0} C G_b^{0i}
\rangle $ in this section, since they will prove to be the most useful
types of weightings for the
cases discussed thereafter and all other ones could be obtained in
complete analogy to the calculations presented here.
Using the identities (\ref{a11}) and (\ref{a12}), the single weighted
two particle function can be written in terms of the single particle
functions as
\begin{equation}
\langle G^{i0}_a C G^{0i}_b \rangle = V_a^{-1}
V_b^{-1} \langle \left[ g^{-1}_a \bar
G_a + g^{-1}_a \bar
G_a T_a \bar G_a -1 \right] C \left[ \bar G_b T_b \bar G_b g^{-1}_b +
\bar G_b g_b^{-1} -1 \right] \rangle \label{b4}
\end{equation}
and the double weighted one as
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle G^{ii}_aCG^{ii}_b \rangle & = & V_a^{-2} V_b^{-2} \langle
\left[(g_a^{-1} \bar G_a g_a^{-1} -g_a^{-1}) + g_a^{-1} \bar G_a T_a
\bar G_a
g_a^{-1} - U_a \right]C \nonumber \\
& \times & \left[(g_b^{-1} \bar G_b g_b^{-1} - g_b^{-1}) + g_b^{-1}
\bar G_b T_b \bar G_b g_b^{-1} - U_b \right] \rangle . \label{b5}
\end{eqnarray}
We calculate the double weighted function first, since it
provides the more difficult task and from its solution it is
straightforward
to derive the one for the single weighted function as well. The
problem of evaluating
(\ref{b5}) is divided into two parts, the first one
involving all terms not containing the matrix $U$, and the second
one containing the remainder, i.e.
\begin{equation}
V_a^2V_b^2\langle G^{ii}_aCG^{ii}_b \rangle = {\cal K} + {\cal M}
\label{b6}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal K} & = &
\left[g_a^{-1} \bar G_a g_a^{-1} - g_a^{-1}\right] C \left[g_b^{-1}
\bar G_b g_b^{-1} -g_b^{-1}\right] + g_a^{-1} \bar G_a \langle T_a
\bar G_a g_a^{-1}C g_b^{-1} \bar G_b T_b \rangle \bar G_b g_b^{-1}
\label{b7} \\
{\cal M} & = & \langle U_aCU_b \rangle + \left[ g^{-1}_a C \langle U_b
\rangle - g^{-1}_a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C \langle U_b \rangle - g^{-1}_a
\bar G_a \langle T_a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C U_b \rangle + (a
\leftrightarrow b) \right] \label{b8}
\end{eqnarray}
where in ${\cal K}$ the terms involving an average over a single
T-matrix have
vanished, which is the standard CPA condition and $(a
\leftrightarrow b)$ indicates that the labels are exchanged and the
corresponding expressions reflected around the operator $C$.
We evaluate ${\cal K}$ first since it is the
term needed in the wider range of applications.
With the identity (\ref{a13}) we find that
\begin{equation}
\left[g^{-1}_a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a - g^{-1}_a\right] C \left[g^{-1}_b
\bar G_b g^{-1}_b -g^{-1}_b\right] = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b g_a^{-1} \bar
G_a C \bar G_b g^{-1}_b \label{b9}.
\end{equation}
The T-matrix can be decomposed into its single site contributions
$T_n$ as
\begin{equation}
T = \sum_n T_n + \sum_{n \not= m} T_n \bar G T_m + \sum_{n \not= m
\not= l} T_n \bar G T_m \bar G T_l + ... \label{b11}
\end{equation}
Thereby the characteristic exclusions in the sums prevent the particle
from scattering twice in sequence on the same site and $T_n$
satisfies equation (\ref{a3}).
As shown by Velick{\'y}, $T$ can then be replaced in two ways by a
closed set of equations, namely
\begin{equation}
T = \sum_n Q_n = \sum_n \tilde Q_n \label{b12}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
Q_n= T_n(1+ \bar G \sum_{n \not= m} Q_m) \label{b13}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde Q_n = (1+ \sum_{n \not= m} \tilde Q_m \bar G) T_n.
\label{b13_5}
\end{equation}
Due to the requirement that $\langle T \rangle =0$ and the single
site
decomposition of $T$ from (\ref{b11}) it is possible to decompose
averages on different sites
to give
\begin{equation}
0 \equiv \langle T \rangle = \sum_n \langle Q_n \rangle = \sum_n
\langle T_n \rangle \left( 1 + \bar G \sum_{m \not= n} \langle Q_m
\rangle \right) \label{b14}
\end{equation}
This also implies that $\langle Q_n \rangle = \langle \tilde Q_n
\rangle = 0$. A vertex
function $\Gamma$ can now be defined similar to {\bf I} such that
\begin{equation}
{\cal K} = g^{-1}_a \bar G_a ( \Sigma_a \Sigma_b C + \Gamma ) \bar
G_b g^{-1}_b \label{b14_5}
\end{equation}
where now
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = \langle T_a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g^{-1}_b \bar G_b T_b \rangle
. \label{b15}
\end{equation}
$\Gamma$ can be manipulated along the lines of {\bf I}
by using (\ref{b12}) to yield
\begin{equation}
\Gamma=\sum_n \sum_m \langle Q_n^a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g_b^{-1}
\bar G_b \tilde Q_m^b \rangle \label{b16}.
\end{equation}
By means of (\ref{b13}) - (\ref{b14}) this can be cast into
the form
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_n = \langle T_n^a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a(C + g_a \sum_{p \not= n}
\Gamma_p g_b)g^{-1}_b \bar G_b T_n^b \rangle \label{b17}
\end{equation}
where now $\Gamma = \sum_n \Gamma_n$, since from the decoupling
introduced in (\ref{b14}) one gets $ \langle
Q_n^a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g_b^{-1} \bar G_b \tilde Q_m^b \rangle =
\langle Q_n^a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g_b^{-1} \bar G_b \tilde Q_n^b
\rangle \delta_{n,m}$.
The only difference to the corresponding expression in {\bf I},
(cf. (47) there) is that $\sum_{p \not= n} \Gamma_p$ is
surrounded by the propagators of the pure medium $g_{a/b}$ here.
We can then use (\ref{b14_5}) and (\ref{b17}) to obtain
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_n = \langle T_n^a \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g^{-1}_b \bar G_b
T_n^b \rangle + \langle T_n^a g_a{\cal K}g_b T_n^b \rangle -
\Sigma_a \Sigma_b \langle T_n^a \bar G_a C \bar G_b T_n^b \rangle
- \langle T_n^a \bar G_a \Gamma_n \bar G_b T_n ^b \rangle
\label{b19}.
\end{equation}
At this stage we are able to find $\Gamma_n$ and therefore also
${\cal K}$.
As we cast our model into a site representation we obtain $T_n =
\mid n \rangle t_n \langle n \mid$ and hence
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_n=\mid n \rangle \Lambda \langle n \mid \left[ g_a{\cal K}g_b
+ \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g^{-1}_b \bar G_b - \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \bar
G_a C \bar G_b \right] \mid n \rangle \langle n \mid \label{b20}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is the irreducible vertex part derived by
Velick{\'y}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda(z_1,z_2) = \frac {\langle t_n^a(z_1) t_n^b(z_2) \rangle}
{1+ F_a(z_1) \langle t_n^a(z_1) t_n^b(z_2) \rangle F_b(z_2) }
\label{b21}.
\end{equation}
The vertex $\Lambda$ can be regarded as being intrinsic to the CPA,
since it does not depend on the particular form of the operator $C$.
Substituting (\ref{b20}) into (\ref{b14_5}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
& &{\cal K}= \Sigma_a \Sigma_b g^{-1}_a \bar G_a C \bar G_b
g^{-1}_b +
\nonumber \\
& + & \Lambda g^{-1}_a \bar G_a \sum_n \mid n \rangle \langle n
\mid \left[ g_a{\cal K}g_b + \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g^{-1}_b \bar G_b
- \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \bar G_a C \bar G_b \right] \mid n \rangle
\langle n \mid \bar G_b g^{-1}_b. \label{b22}
\end{eqnarray}
Multiplying by $g_a$ and $g_b$ from the left and right, we solve for
the diagonal elements $ \langle m \mid g_a{\cal K}g_b \mid m \rangle
$
\[
\langle m \mid g_a{\cal K}g_b \mid m \rangle = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b
\langle m \mid \bar G_a C \bar G_b \mid m \rangle +
\]
\begin{equation}
+ \Lambda \sum_n \langle m \mid \bar G_a \mid n \rangle \langle n
\mid \left[ g_a{\cal K}g_b + \bar G_a g^{-1}_a C g^{-1}_b \bar G_b
- \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \bar G_a C \bar G_b \right] \mid n \rangle
\langle n \mid \bar G_b \mid m \rangle \label{b23}
\end{equation}
and hence also solve (\ref{b22}).
At this point it is helpful to visualize the form of
the operator $C$ in the site representation, which in the most general
case can be written as
\begin{equation}
C = \sum_{l,m} \gamma_{lm} \mid l \rangle \langle m \mid \label{b24}
\end{equation}
For convenience we introduce the short notation
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{n-m} & = & \langle n \mid \bar G \mid m \rangle ,\label{b25} \\
{\cal F}_{n-m} & = & \langle n \mid g^{-1} \bar G \mid m \rangle
\label{b26}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_0 \equiv F$ as already defined in (\ref{a3a}).
It should be noted that $F_{n-m}$ and ${\cal F}_{n-m}$ are of
different dimensions and their definition has been chosen to reduce
the
algebra as much as possible. Furthermore, these expressions show
that equation (\ref{b23}) only contains translationally
invariant quantities and hence it can be solved by Fourier
transformation.
The following Fourier transforms are introduced
\begin{eqnarray}
a_k & = & \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \langle m \mid \bar G_a
C \bar G_b \mid m \rangle \label{b28} \\
\alpha_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \langle m \mid g_a^{-1} \bar G_a C
\bar G_b
g^{-1}_b \mid m \rangle = \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \left[ \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \langle m
\mid \bar G_a C \bar G_b \mid m \rangle + \gamma_{mm} + \Sigma_a
\sum_n
\gamma_{nm} F^a_{m-n} + \Sigma_b \sum_n \gamma_{mn} F^b_{n-m} \right]
\label{b32} \\
A_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} F^a_m F^b_{-m} \label{b30} \\
{\cal A}_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} {\cal F}^a_m {\cal F}^b_{-m}
\label{b31} \\
b_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \langle m \mid g_a{\cal K}g_b \mid m
\rangle
\label{b33} \\
c_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \langle m \mid {\cal K} \mid m \rangle
\label{b34}.
\end{eqnarray}
The units of $a_k, \alpha_k, b_k, {\cal A}_k$ are unity, that of
$A_k$ is $J^{-2}$ and that of $c_k$ is $J^2$.
Inserting into (\ref{b23}) yields
\begin{equation}
b_k = \frac {a_k + \Lambda A_k (\alpha_k - a_k)} {1 - \Lambda A_k}
\label{b34_5},
\end{equation}
and hence by means of (\ref{b22})
\begin{equation}
c_k = \alpha_k \frac {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda ( {\cal A}_k -
\Sigma_a
\Sigma_b A_k ) } {1 - \Lambda A_k} = \alpha_k \frac {\Sigma_a
\Sigma_b + \Lambda D_k } {1 - \Lambda A_k} \label{b35}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D_k = {\cal A}_k - \Sigma_a \Sigma_b A_k = \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \left[
\gamma_{mm} + \Sigma_a \sum_n
\gamma_{nm} F^a_{m-n} + \Sigma_b \sum_n \gamma_{mn} F^b_{n-m}
\right] \label{b37}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, one can evaluate the term ${\cal M}$ from (\ref{b8}),
but it
turns out that little simplification can be made until an explicit
form of $C$ is known and therefore we postpone its evaluation to the
next section.
For now, we proceed to calculate the single weighted function $\langle
G^{i0}_a C G^{0i}_b \rangle$. From (\ref{b4}) we get
\begin{equation}
V_a V_b \langle G^{i0}_a C G^{0i}_b \rangle = g^{-1}_a \bar G_a C
\bar G_b
g^{-1}_b + C - g^{-1}_a \bar G_a C - C \bar G_b g^{-1}_b + g^{-1}_a
\bar G_a
\langle T_a \bar G_a C \bar G_b T_b \rangle \bar G_b g^{-1}_b.
\label{bb1}
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{a13}), this can be recast into
\begin{equation}
V_a V_b \langle G^{i0}_a C G^{0i}_b \rangle = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \bar
G_a C \bar G_b + g^{-1}_a \bar G_a
\langle T_a \bar G_a C \bar G_b T_b \rangle \bar G_b g^{-1}_b
\label{bb2}
\end{equation}
which can be readily solved since the term $\langle
T_a \bar G_a C \bar G_b T_b \rangle$ exactly corresponds to
the vertex part of the unweighted function which is known from {\bf I}
\begin{equation}
\langle T_a \bar G_a C \bar G_b T_b \rangle = \sum_n \mid n \rangle
\Lambda \langle n \mid \langle G_a C G_b \rangle \mid n \rangle
\langle n
\mid \label{bb2.5}.
\end{equation}
Thus, the Fourier transform
\begin{equation}
d_k = V_a V_b \sum_m e^{ikR_m} \langle m \mid \langle G^{i0}_a C
G^{0i}_b \rangle \mid m
\rangle \label{bb3}
\end{equation}
can be obtained using the solution for the unweighted two
particle function and equations (\ref{b28}), (\ref{b30}) and
(\ref{b31}) to yield
\begin{equation}
d_k = a_k + \Lambda {\cal A}_k \frac {a_k} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b (1 -
\Lambda A_k)} \label{bb4}.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{b37}) this can be written as
\begin{equation}
d_k = \frac {a_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b} \frac {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b +
\Lambda D_k} {1 -
\Lambda A_k }. \label{bb5}
\end{equation}
It is important to indicate at this point that the solution for
a single weighted function in which the weights have been swapped
to the inside, i.e. $
\langle G^{0i}_a C G^{i0}_b \rangle $, will not be the same as the one
just obtained. A similar type of calculation yields instead of
(\ref{bb4})
\begin{equation}
d_k^{ \prime } = a_k + \Lambda A_k \frac {\alpha_k} {1 -
\Lambda A_k}, \label{bb6}
\end{equation}
where $ d_k^{ \prime } = \sum_n e^{ikR_m} \langle m \mid
\langle G^{0i}_a C G^{i0}_b \rangle \mid m \rangle $.
Since we have now obtained expressions for the Fourier transformed
site diagonal
elements of some of the impurity weighted two particle functions, we
are also able to find their respective off diagonal parts by
inserting into
the appropriate Bethe-Salpeter equations ((\ref{b22}) in the case of
the double weighted function). Other types of weighted functions
can be
calculated from here by setting up the
corresponding equations in analogy to (\ref{b4}) and (\ref{b5}) from
the single particle functions. In particular, to obtain the
corresponding host
weighted functions one can apply the weights $(1 - U_{a/b}/V_{a/b})$
to the
single particle resolvents from either side, but the form of this
weight already suggests that host weighted properties can always be
deduced by adding and/or subtracting corresponding
unweighted/impurity weighted functions. For the most general case
the set of
closed equations will be quite large and for that reason we
will in the following deduce these equations only in some more
specific cases.
\section{Applications in linear response theory}
The most obvious application of a two particle theory
as introduced above is in linear response theory, i.e. in calculating
weighted susceptibilities. The study of weighted functions in this
context helps to
determine how such quantities as susceptibilities and transport
coefficients are constituted (on the average) from processes on
different components of the alloy. A further advantage of such a
differentiation is that it allows for a more refined treatment of
further renormalizations to the considered quantities once
further interactions are introduced into the problem.
The standard expression employed in linear response theory is a
generalized Kubo formula
\begin{equation}
\chi_{C^{(1)},C^{(2)}}(z) = \int d \xi d \eta S_0 ( z,\xi,\eta )
Z^{-1} Tr_b \{ e^{- \beta H } C^{\dagger (2)} \langle \hat
\delta^{\mu \nu} (\xi - H_a ) C^{(1)} \hat \delta^{ \mu \nu }
(\eta - H_b ) \rangle \} . \label{c1}
\end{equation}
Thereby $ \chi_{C^{(1)},C^{(2)}} $ stands for a generalized type
of susceptibility characterizing the linear response of an
observable $C^{(1)}$ to an external perturbation coupling into
the Hamiltonian through the operator $C^{(2)}$.
$S_0$ denotes the zero order associated two particle Matsubara
function in
the Lehmann representation \cite{bi25} and $\hat \delta^{
\mu \nu} (\xi - H_{a/b}) $ is the corresponding spectral function
of the full
resolvent $ G^{ \mu \nu}_{a/b} ( \xi ) = \Xi^{\mu}_{a/b}
[ \xi - H_{a/b} ]^{-1} \Xi^{\nu}_{a/b}$, defined on the
subspace (band) $ a/b $, with
the weighting operators $\Xi^{\mu}_{a/b}$ applied to it
which assume the values $\Xi^i_{a/b} = U_{a/b}/V_{a/b}$,
$\Xi^h_{a/b} = (1-U_{a/b}/V_{a/b})$ and $\Xi^0_{a/b} = 1$. $Tr_b$
denotes the trace over the subspace (band) $b$.
Our particular interest focuses on the operators $C^{(1)}$ and
$C^{(2)}$ which we now take to have the following diagonal form
\begin{equation}
C^{(1)/(2)} = \sum_m \gamma_m^{(1)/(2)} (\xi, \eta) \mid m
\rangle \langle m \mid \label{c2a}.
\end{equation}
To examine the behavior of the weighted functions further under such a
constraint it is useful to
consider the two cases:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_m = const \times \delta_{m,r} \label{c2}
\end{equation}
where $r$ is an explicitly specified site and
\begin{equation}
\gamma_m = const . \label{c3}
\end{equation}
The first case arises in a treatment of the response from local
interactions such
as for example the space dependent exchange
interaction between spin impurities
(RKKY interaction \cite{bi21})
submerged in a system otherwise containing non-magnetic disorder
\cite{bi22}. The second case is widely
used in calculations of the optical response in metals and
semiconductors\cite{bi15,bi20}, since the exciting optical
fields can be taken as uniform over space with approximate momentum
$q=0$ and the optical matrix elements
describing transitions between bands of different angular momentum
symmetry are usually well approximated as constants.
In both cases the restriction to only consider diagonal elements of
two
particle functions reduces the set of closed equations for all
possible
weightings to
\begin{equation}
\langle G^h_a C G^h_b \rangle = \langle G_a C G_b \rangle -
\langle G^i_a C G^i_b
\rangle \label{c4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle G^{ih}_a C G^{ih}_b \rangle = \langle G^{hi}_a C G^{hi}_b
\rangle
= \langle G^i_a C G^i _b\rangle - \langle G^{ii}_a C G^{ii}_b
\rangle \label{c5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle G^{hh}_a C G^{hh}_b \rangle = \langle G^h_a C G^h_b \rangle
- \langle
G^{ih}_a C G^{ih}_b \rangle \label{c6}
\end{equation}
It follows, that for this case the calculation of only $ \langle
G^{ii}_aCG^{ii}_b \rangle $ and $ \langle G^i_aCG^i_b \rangle $ is
sufficient to also obtain the remaining mixed and host
weighted functions.
We start to consider the case of (\ref{c2}) first.
\subsection{Electronic Susceptibility}
The response of a system at some point $r_1$ in space to a
perturbation applied at point $r_2$ has a
wide range of applicability. Disregarding the coupling constants which
simply scale the result we assume that $C^{(1)} = \mid 2 \rangle
\langle 2 \mid $ and $C^{(2)} = \mid 1 \rangle
\langle 1 \mid $, where the choice of the origin is arbitrary. In a
slightly different notation the calculation of the double weighted
function
corresponds to evaluating
$\langle G_a^{ii}(r_1,r_2;t) G_b^{ii}(r_2,r_1;t^{ \prime }) \rangle$.
For the RKKY interaction mentioned before, which couples spins at
a distance
$r_1 - r_2$ through the electronic spin susceptibility of
electrons in the conduction band, the two-particle time
dependent function is to be Fourier transformed and to be taken at two
identical single particle energies
\cite{bi21}. If the spins are at impurity sites, the weighted
functions must be used to describe the problem adequately. Earlier
treatments \cite{bi22} neglected the vertex corrections and
it is proposed to investigate the effect of their inclusion in a
separate publication.
In this as in other problems the self-interaction $r_1=r_2$ can
be neglected for most purposes, which implies that it will be
sufficient to calculate only the
term ${\cal K}$ from (\ref{b7}), since all terms occurring in
${\cal M}$ from (\ref{b8}) will vanish for $r_1 \not= r_2$, since
the disorder
potential $U$ is a diagonal matrix which vanishes identically for
off-diagonal terms.
To clarify the meaning of the quantity which is obtained through this
special choice of $C^{(1)}$ and $C^{(2)}$, we look at how the
corresponding Bethe-Salpeter (B-S) equation can be rewritten for
the case of a unweighted two particle Green's function as
introduced in equations (22) of Ref. \onlinecite{bi8}. In the single
site approximation the B-S equation for the unweighted function
reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\langle G_a(1,2) G_b(1,2) \rangle & \equiv & \langle
G_{ab}^{(2)}(1,1;2,2) \rangle = \langle G_a(1,2) \rangle \langle
G_b(1,2) \rangle + \nonumber \\
& + & \Lambda \sum_n \langle G_a(1,n) \rangle \langle G_b(1,n)
\rangle
\langle G_{ab}^{(2)}(n,n;2,2) \rangle \label{ca1}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have rewritten
\begin{equation}
\langle 2 \mid \bar G_a \mid 1 \rangle \langle 1 \mid \bar G_b \mid 2
\rangle \equiv \bar G_a(1,2) \bar G_b(1,2) \label{ca2}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle 2 \mid \langle G_a \mid 1 \rangle \langle 1 \mid G_b \rangle
\mid 2 \rangle \equiv
\langle G_{ab}^{(2)}(1,1;2,2) \rangle \label{ca3}.
\end{equation}
For the Fourier transforms from before (\ref{b28}) - (\ref{b31}) this
amounts to
\begin{eqnarray}
a_k & = & \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \bar G_a(m) \bar G_b(m)
\label{ca4} \\
\frac {a_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b} & = & A_k \label{ca5} \\
\alpha_k & = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \langle m \mid g_a^{-1} \bar G_a
\mid 1 \rangle \langle 1 \mid \bar G_b
g_b^{-1} \mid m \rangle = \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_m e^{-ikR_m} \left[ \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \bar G_a(m) \bar
G_b(m) +
\delta_{m,1} (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b)
\right] = {\cal A}_k .\label{ca6}
\end{eqnarray}
Using (\ref{ca5}) and (\ref{ca6}) in connection
with (\ref{bb4}) and (\ref{bb6}) the
result for the single weighted functions is independent of
whether the impurity weights are applied to the interior or to the
exterior of the single particle resolvents, such that $ \langle
G_a^{i0}(1,2)
G_b^{0i}(1,2)\rangle = \langle G_a^{0i}(1,2) G_b^{i0}(1,2) \rangle
$. Indeed it is not hard to show that other arbitrary distributions
of two impurity weights also give the same results as long as there
is one
weight applied to each resolvent. The same is of course
true for host related properties.
Accordingly, $b_k$ from (\ref{b34_5}) in the previous section goes
over to
\begin{equation}
b_k = a_k \frac {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (\alpha_k - a_k)}
{\Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a_k} \label{ca7}
\end{equation}
and similarly $c_k$ from equation (\ref{b35}) to
\begin{equation}
c_k = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b
\alpha_k \left( 1+\Lambda \frac {\alpha_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b -
\Lambda a_k} \right) \label{ca8}.
\end{equation}
We remember that the Fourier transform of the unweighted two particle
Greens function is
\begin{equation}
\sum_{R_{1,2}} e^{ikR_{1,2}} \langle G_a(1,2) G_b(1,2) \rangle =
\frac {a_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a_k } . \label{ca9}
\end{equation}
Phenomenologically, one can scrutinize the uncorrelated limit where $
\Lambda \rightarrow 0$ for which in (\ref{ca8}) the $k$- dependent
part of $c_k$ behaves as
\begin{equation}
\lim_{\Lambda \rightarrow 0} c_k = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b a_k + ...
\label{ca10}
\end{equation}
which is the correct limiting result for a product of two
averaged double impurity weighted single particle functions
$ \bar G_a^{ii}(1,2) \bar
G_b^{ii}(1,2)$ or the weighted two particle function without coherent
corrections.
However, taking this limit is reasonable only in special cases since
generally the vertex $\Lambda$ depends on the self energy $\Sigma$. It
will be appropriate to take in a weak disorder limit (virtual crystal
limit) since for $V_{a/b} \rightarrow 0$ the CPA predicts
that $\Sigma_{a/b} \rightarrow c V_{a/b}$ and $\Lambda \rightarrow
c (1-c)
V_a V_b$ which means that $\Lambda$ approaches zero faster than
$\Sigma_{a/b}$ in this limit.
One should also note at this point, that although it is apparent that
the
term $(1+ \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b)$ , which arises in the
difference of the
Fourier transforms $\alpha_k$ and $a_k$, originates from
the difference in the diagonal parts of their respective real space
Green's functions, it can not be neglected in this
treatment. When $\Lambda$ is finite, this term
is multiplied with other $k-$dependent quantities and thus
contributes to the off diagonal elements as well.
Written in terms of $a_k$, (\ref{ca8}) can be cast into
\begin{equation}
c_k = \frac {a_k} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a_k} \left(
\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Sigma_a \Sigma_b (a_k)^{-1} (1 + \Sigma_a F_a +
\Sigma_b F_b) \right)
\left( \Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_a F_b)
\right) \label{ca11}.
\end{equation}
If again diagonal terms in real space are neglected,
i.e. $k-$independent quantities in $k-$space, it can be shown that
(\ref{ca11}) can be cast into the compact form
\begin{equation}
\zeta_k = \frac {a_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a_k} {\left(
\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b)
\right)}^2 \label{ca12}
\end{equation}
where we have introduced $\zeta_k \equiv c_k + c_o$, whereby $c_o$ is
independent of $k$.
According to the definition of $\zeta_k$, this finally relates the
weighted off-diagonal real space two particle Green's function to
the unweighted one as
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{ii}(1,2) G_b^{ii}(1,2) \rangle = \langle G_a(1,2)
G_b(1,2) \rangle \frac {{\left( \Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 +
\Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \right)}^2} {(V_a V_b)^2} . \label{ca13}
\end{equation}
Equally, the relation for the single weighted function $\langle
G_a^i(1,2) G_b^i(1,2)\rangle$ can be obtained almost immediately
if (\ref{bb4}) is modified for this choice of $C^{(1)}$ and $C^{(2)}$,
which goes over to
\begin{equation}
d_k = a_k + \Lambda \alpha_k \frac {a_k} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b -
\Lambda a_k} = \frac {a_k} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a_k} \left[
\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b ) \right]
\label{ca14}
\end{equation}
thus relating the real space functions in this case as
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^i(1,2) G_b^i(1,2) \rangle = \langle G_a(1,2) G_b(1,2)
\rangle
\frac { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a \Sigma_b F_b )}
{V_a V_b} \label{ca15}
\end{equation}
where no diagonal contributions were omitted.
The fact that in the single weighted case the same weighting
factor occurs once as opposed to twice for the double weighted
one is structurally equivalent to the results for the single
particle theory. Although retrospectively that might not be
surprising,
it is also quite interesting in view of the fact that for the most
general case of the previous section the weighting factors in
(\ref{b35}) and (\ref{bb5}) almost look alike were it not for the
difference in the pre-factors, i.e. $\alpha_k$ in the former and
$a_k / \Sigma_a \Sigma_b$ in the latter case.
In principle all other functions can be derived now using the set of
relations (\ref{c4}) - (\ref{c6}).
However, one can save a considerable amount of algebra by recalling
the following relation which holds in the transition from impurity
to host related properties in the CPA
\begin{equation}
- \Sigma \rightarrow (V - \Sigma) \hspace{20mm} c \rightarrow (1-c).
\label{ca16}
\end{equation}
Starting from the definition of the vertex $ \Lambda $ in
(\ref{b21}) and the CPA condition $ \langle T_n \rangle = 0 $ one
finds that
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \left[ \frac {1-c} {(V_a - \Sigma_a)(V_b - \Sigma_b)} +
\frac
c { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b } \right]^{-1} \label{ca17}
\end{equation}
which in a single band case ($a=b$) readily simplifies to the form
first
introduced by Leath \cite{bi8}
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{a=b} = \frac {\delta \Sigma} {\delta F} = \frac { \Sigma
( V - \Sigma ) } { 1- ( V - 2 \Sigma) F }. \label{ca18}
\end{equation}
With the relation (\ref{a3a}) between $F$ and $\Sigma$
the weighting factor for the single weighted impurity function from
(\ref{ca15}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
\frac { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a +
\Sigma_b F_b) }
{V_a V_b} = \frac {(1-c) \Lambda}
{(V_a - \Sigma_a)(V_b - \Sigma_b)}. \label{ca19}
\end{equation}
Correspondingly, the factor for the double weighted function is the
square of this quantity.
One can now employ (\ref{c4}) and (\ref{c5}) to find the weights
for the single host- and the impurity-host weighted functions,
respectively.
We find
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^h G_b^h \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \frac {c
\Lambda^2} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b} \label{ca20}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{ih} G_b^{ih} \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \frac
{c
(1-c)\Lambda} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b (V_a - \Sigma_a ) (V_b - \Sigma_b )}
\label{ca21}
\end{equation}
which by means of (\ref{c6}) gives
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{hh} G_b^{hh}\rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle
\left( \frac {c \Lambda} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b } \right)^2. \label{ca22}
\end{equation}
Note that this could also have been expected from the transformation
property
(\ref{ca16}).
The impurity and host weights as represented in (\ref{ca19}) and
(\ref{ca20}) are immediately seen to be the two contributions summing
to $ \Lambda^{-1} $ in (\ref{ca17}). Thus, even though there
are many different possible representations of the two band vertex,
the representation in (\ref{ca17}) shows that the transition from
impurity to host
properties leaves $\Lambda$ invariant.
A notable feature about the weights calculated in this
section is that they are independent of any wavevectors and only
multiply the unweighted function as scalar energy
dependent factors.
This is a direct consequence of the single site
approximation.
\subsection{Theory of Absorption}
In this section we evaluate a form of the two particle functions
needed in the calculation of the linear response absorption in a
disordered solid. We take the
operators $C^{(1)}$ and $C^{(2)}$ in the characteristic form of
dipole
operators similar to the one in (\ref{c3}). Furthermore, we assume
that the dipole matrix elements be
essentially constant, such that $ C^{(1)/(2)}= \gamma^{(1)/(2)} \sum_m
\mid m \rangle \langle m \mid $. This choice corresponds to
applications for the description of processes involving transitions
between bands of different angular
momentum symmetry such as required by the selection rule for optical
processes at at zero total momentum
\cite{bi8,bi10}.
At the end of this sub-section we will also
give for completeness a short account of
the calculation of linear response conductivities in disordered
solids.
For the above choice of $\gamma^{(1)/(2)}$ the calculation of the
term ${\cal K}$
in (\ref{b22}) is greatly simplified compared to before, but it will
be necessary now to also consider total diagonal terms, since the
sums over all
states in $C^{(1)/(2)}$ couple all sites and hence all
contributions coming from term ${\cal M}$ in (\ref{b8}) have to be
included.
As a consequence of the
introduction of the dipole operator the main change arising in the
result for ${\cal K}$ is that the site diagonal elements
$\langle n \mid {\cal K} \mid n \rangle $ and $\langle n \mid
G_a C^{(1)} G_b \mid n \rangle$ as well as $\langle n \mid
G_a g_a^{-1} C^{(1)} g_b^{-1} G_b \mid n \rangle $ are now actually
independent
of $n$ \cite{bi15}. Since $C^{(1)}$ now couples the functions to its
left and right
like a matrix product, the B-S equations (\ref{b22}) and (\ref{b23})
have a very simple solution in terms of their Fourier transforms.
Introducing $a,b,c \equiv a_k,
b_k, c_k \mid_{k=0}$ as the zero momentum elements of the
respective transforms from last section we effectively get $c= \langle
n \mid {\cal
K}\mid n \rangle $ , $a =
\Sigma_a \Sigma_b \langle n \mid \bar G_a \bar G_b \mid n \rangle $,
where the omission
of $C^{(1)}$ indicates that the two single particle resolvents are now
simply multiplied as matrices, and equation (\ref{b34_5}) reduces to
\begin{equation}
b=a \frac {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b + \Lambda (\alpha - a)} {\Sigma_a
\Sigma_b - \Lambda a} \label{cb1}
\end{equation}
and equation (\ref{b35}) to
\begin{equation}
c = \Sigma_a \Sigma_b \alpha \left( 1 + \Lambda \frac \alpha
{\Sigma_a
\Sigma_b - \Lambda a} \right) \label{cb2}
\end{equation}
which can be recast into
\begin{eqnarray}
c & = & \frac a {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b - \Lambda a} \left[ \Sigma_a
\Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \right]^2
\nonumber \\
& + & (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \left[ \Sigma_a
\Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \right]
\label{cb3}
\end{eqnarray}
where the term independent of $a$ which was discarded in the previous
section has to be kept in this case since the contributions of the
diagonal elements become important.
In calculating ${\cal M}$ one has to be aware that $U$ is a
matrix which just has a random occupation of its diagonal. The sum
over all sites in the operators $C^{(1)}$ and $C^{(2)}$ will hence
just
pick out the sum of all total diagonal parts $ \langle n \mid
{\cal G} \mid n \rangle \langle n \mid U \mid n \rangle$ where
${\cal G}$ is a generalized product of several Green's functions
in the same band (the case where $U$ and ${\cal G}$ are swapped
is analogous). From (\ref{b8}) we get immediately
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} = c V_a V_b + \left[ cg_a^{-1}V_b - c g_a^{-1} \bar G_a
g_a^{-1} V_b - g_a^{-1} \bar G_a \langle T_a \bar G_a g_a^{-1} U_b
\rangle + (a \leftrightarrow b) \right] \label{cc1}
\end{equation}
where the only term giving slight complications is $\langle T_a \bar
G_a g_a^{-1} U_b \rangle$. However by means of (\ref{a13}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle T_a \bar G_a g_a^{-1} U_b \rangle = \Sigma_a \langle T_a \bar
G_a U_b \rangle + \langle T_a U_b \rangle \label{cc2}.
\end{equation}
In this expression, the second term
presents more complications, since for the first one we remember from
(\ref{a8}) that
\begin{equation}
T \bar G = \bar G^{-1} G - 1 \label{cc3}
\end{equation}
and $U_b = U_a V_b/V_a$ such that
\begin{equation}
\langle T_a \bar G_a U_b \rangle = \langle \bar G_a^{-1} G_a U_b
\rangle - c V_b = \frac { \Sigma_a V_b } {V_a} -cV_b. \label{cc4}
\end{equation}
Subsequently, the second term can be decoupled by means of
(\ref{b12}) -
(\ref{b13_5})
\begin{equation}
\langle T_a U_b \rangle = \sum_n \langle \tilde Q_n^a U_b \rangle =
\sum_n \langle (1 + \sum_{m \not= n} \tilde Q_m^a \bar G_a ) T_n^a U_b
\rangle \label{cc5},
\end{equation}
Applying (\ref{b14}) and using the the fact
that $U$ is diagonal yields
\begin{equation}
\langle \tilde Q_m^a \bar G_a T_n^a U_b \rangle = \langle \tilde Q_m^a
\rangle \bar G_a \langle T_n^a U_b \rangle = 0 \label{cc6}
\end{equation}
since $(m \not= n)$ and $\langle \tilde Q_m \rangle = 0$ and hence
we find
\begin{equation}
\langle T_a U_b \rangle = \sum_n \langle T_n^a U_n^b \rangle =
\frac {c (V_a-
\Sigma_a)V_b} {1- (V_a-
\Sigma_a) F_a}. \label{cc7}
\end{equation}
Collecting all terms for ${\cal M}$ and some
more algebraic manipulation finally yields
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} = cV_a V_b - (1+ \Sigma_a F_a) \Sigma_a V_b - (1+ \Sigma_b
F_b) \Sigma_b V_a. \label{cc8}
\end{equation}
The sum of all diagonal parts, i.e. ${\cal M}$ and the ones from the
second term in (\ref{cb3}), can be shown to assume the very compact
form
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} + (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \left[ \Sigma_a
\Sigma_b + \Lambda (1 + \Sigma_a F_a + \Sigma_b F_b) \right] = \frac
{\Lambda F_a F_b} { V_a V_b}. \label{cc9}
\end{equation}
The final result for $ \langle G_a^{ii} G_b^{ii} \rangle$ thus amounts
to
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{ii} G_b^{ii} \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \left[
\frac {(1-c) \Lambda} {(V_a - \Sigma_a )( V_b - \Sigma_b)} \right]^2
+ \frac {\Lambda F_a F_b} { V_a V_b}. \label{cc10}
\end{equation}
Here the first term has been
rewritten in the same way as already derived in the last subsection
for the finite range susceptibility.
{}From there it is also seen that the single weighted function will have
the same weight as calculated in (\ref{ca19}) for the
corresponding function in the exchange coupling case.
We find
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^i G_b^i \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \frac {(1-c)
\Lambda} {(V_a - \Sigma_a )( V_b - \Sigma_b)} \label{cc11}
\end{equation}
and by means of (\ref{c4}) - (\ref{c6})
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^h G_b^h \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \frac {c
\Lambda} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b} \label{cc12}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{ih} G_b^{ih} \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \frac
{c(1-c) \Lambda^2} {(V_a - \Sigma_a )( V_b - \Sigma_b) \Sigma_a
\Sigma_b} - \frac {\Lambda F_a F_b} { V_a V_b} \label{cc13}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\langle G_a^{hh} G_b^{hh} \rangle = \langle G_a G_b \rangle \left[
\frac {c \Lambda} { \Sigma_a \Sigma_b} \right]^2 + \frac {\Lambda
F_a F_b} { V_a V_b}. \label{cc14}
\end{equation}
Comparing the results of the last two sub-sections, it becomes clear
that the several
weights obtained are essentially universal. The main difference in the
absorption case as compared to the susceptibility one comes from the
diagonal terms which have to be kept in the
double weighted functions. The single weighted analogues are void of
this difficulty and
the weighting factors are identical for both cases.
So far we had omitted to consider a form of the two particle functions
which is needed for conductivity calculations. However, Velick{\'y}
\cite{bi4}
showed for the unweighted functions that the vertex $\Gamma$ vanishes
in the corresponding expression for the conductivity, due to the
antisymmetry of the dipole
matrix elements in $k$-space if they are taken between Bloch states of
a non interacting Fermi system in
a crystal with inversion symmetry. The same is also true for the
weighted
case and effectively the weighted functions which would have to be
used for such calculations would just consist of products of the
corresponding single particle quantities.
This however turns out to be a general deficiency of the CPA in the
single site approximation since due to the multiple scattering
exclusions, only ladders of nested diagrams are used in
calculating the total contribution of the coherent
scattering. The CPA therefore neglects higher order two particle
correlations which are in fact non-zero and contribute markedly
to the conductivity. Langer
and Neal \cite{bi11} have shown that the so called ``maximally
crossed'' diagrams, i.e. diagrams which have a maximal crossing of
coherent particle-particle scattering lines
actually contribute the leading part -- in the order of the expansion
considered -- to the full two particle
disorder vertex for the
conductivity in an otherwise non-interacting system. For the case of
interacting Fermi systems, however, the presence of
the interactions is sufficient to destroy the aforementioned
antisymmetry
and thus also the terms already included in the vertex of a single
site two
particle CPA as discussed here will give a finite
contribution to the conductivity in real systems.
\subsection{Split band limit}
As already indicated, in contrast to many other theories of disorder,
the CPA interpolates
correctly to the limits of strong disorder and high concentrations.
In this situation each band splits into two components of strength $c$
and $1-c$, respectively, which represent largely separate $A-$ and
$B$-type
excitations. An intuitive consideration of the underlying physics
in this limit suggests, that the correct description of an absorption
process should
predict that the overlap integral for transitions between sites
pertaining to
different alloy components will gradually decrease and thus in
reverse, that transitions between
sites of equal type will be more and more favored. In the following,
we prove that the CPA of weighted two particle
functions predicts this behavior correctly which makes it useful for a
better quantitative understanding of absorptive and dispersive
processes
in strongly disordered alloys. The corresponding single particle
theory must fail in this respect,
since it will weight the occurring transitions only with the
products of concentrations of sites involved in these transitions.
To illustrate this we assume that our material components $A$
and $B$ have corresponding single site energies $
\varepsilon_a^A $, $ \varepsilon_b^A $ and $ \varepsilon_a^B $, $
\varepsilon_b^B $ for the two bands respectively and
the carriers have become totally localized, i.e. their effective mass
goes to infinity, or vice versa the bandwidths involved go to zero.
The potentials $V_a$ and $V_b$ are then defined as
\begin{equation}
V_a = \varepsilon^A_a - \varepsilon^B_a, \hspace{20mm} V_b=
\varepsilon^A_b - \varepsilon^B_b \label{sb1}
\end{equation}
and the single particle site diagonal Green's functions go over to
\begin{equation}
F_{\lambda}(z) = \frac c {z-\varepsilon_{\lambda}^A} + \frac {1-c}
{z-\varepsilon_{\lambda}^B} \equiv \frac 1
{z - \varepsilon_\lambda^B - \Sigma_{\lambda}} \label{sb2}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ labels the corresponding band.
Thus, if a two particle theory is constructed from single
particle properties only, and coherent terms in the two
particle scattering are neglected, this leads to peaks in
the absorption spectrum as shown in table \ref{Table1}. The energies
at which the peaks are centered are shown in row 2 and
their relative weight for the uncorrelated average is shown in the
row 3.
In the following we show for the limit of strong disorder how, upon
introducing the vertex corrections in conjunction with the appropriate
weighting factors for the two respective components, the expected
transitions are filtered out correctly with their appropriate
transition strengths and the spurious crossed terms are
suppressed as shown in row 4 of table \ref{Table1}. Defining
\begin{equation}
z-\varepsilon_{\lambda}^B \equiv x \label{sb3}
\end{equation}
$F$ and $\Sigma$ can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
F(x) & = & \frac 1 {x- \Sigma} = \frac {x-(1-c)V} {x(x-V)}
\label{sb4} \\
\Sigma(x)& = & \frac {cVx} {x-V(1-c)} \label{sb5}
\end{eqnarray}
and the vertex $\Lambda$ given by (\ref{ca17}) can be written
\begin{equation}
\Lambda = \frac {(1-c)c V_a V_b x_a x_b (x_a - V_a)(x_b-V_b)}
{ \left[ x_a - V_a(1-c) \right] \left[ x_b - V_b(1-c) \right]
\left[ c x_a x_b + (1-c)(x_a-V_a)(x_b-V_b) \right]} \label{sb7}.
\end{equation}
The impurity weight $\xi \equiv (1 - c) \Lambda_{cv} /
(V_c -\Sigma_c) (V_v - \Sigma_v)$ can be represented as
\begin{equation}
\xi = \frac {cx_ax_b} {cx_ax_b + (1-c)(x_a - V_a)(x_b - V_b)}
\label{sb8}
\end{equation}
and equally the host weight $\eta \equiv c \Lambda_{ab} / \Sigma_a
\Sigma_b$ as
\begin{equation}
\eta = \frac {(1-c)(x_a - V_a)(x_b - V_b)} {cx_ax_b +
(1-c)(x_a - V_a)(x_b - V_b)}. \label{sb9}
\end{equation}
It is now evident, that the impurity weighted
quantities are proportional to $c$ and the host weighted ones to
$1-c$ and not the other way around as their the appearance in terms
of their weighting factors might superficially have suggested.
The correction factor coming from the diagonal terms in the double
weighted functions can be recast into
\begin{equation}
\gamma \equiv \frac {\Lambda F_a F_b} {V_a V_b} = \frac {(1-c) c} { c
x_a x_b + (1-c)(x_a-V_a)(x_b-V_b)} . \label{sb9.5}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, the unweighted but vertex corrected two particle
propagator $K$ assumes the form
\begin{equation}
K= \frac { cx_ax_b + (1-c)(x_a - V_a)(x_b - V_b) } {x_ax_b
(x_a - V_a)(x_b - V_b) }. \label{sb10}
\end{equation}
After further algebra one can show, that in this limit the weighted
functions can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
& & \langle G^{ii} G^{ii} \rangle = K \xi^2 + \gamma =
\langle G^i G^i \rangle = K \xi = \frac c {(x_a-V_a)(x_b-V_b)}
\label{sb11} \\
& & \langle G^{hh} G^{hh} \rangle = K \eta^2 + \gamma = \langle G^h
G^h \rangle = K \eta = \frac {(1-c)} {x_ax_b} \label{sb12} \\
& & \langle G^{ih} G^{ih} \rangle = 0 \label{sb13_5}
\end{eqnarray}
which is exactly what is expected to happen physically in this
limit. The crossed terms in the transition are canceled out --
hence the crossed function in (\ref{sb13_5}) goes to zero --
and the double weighted
functions become identical to the single weighted ones, since
now effectively only the totally site diagonal element $K_D \equiv
\langle G^{ \nu \mu
}(l,l) G^{ \nu \mu}(l,l) \rangle$ still contributes to the
transitions, which implies that
only two possibilities for weighting the two particle functions
remain, namely as $\langle G^i_a G^i_b \rangle$ and $\langle G^h_a
G^h_b \rangle$. As could be expected from a theory which properly
describes the strong disorder limit the transition strengths now
distribute with the concentrations $c$ and $1-c$ between the $A_b
\rightarrow A_a$ and $B_b \rightarrow B_a$ transitions, respectively,
such as
shown in row 4 of table \ref{Table1}.
This feature may in reverse be used to derive the total diagonal
element $K_D$ for all ranges of disorder.
By requiring $K^{ih}_D = 0$ we find
\begin{equation}
K_D = \frac \gamma {\xi\eta} = \frac {F_a F_b} {V_a V_b} \left( \frac
{ \Sigma_a \Sigma_b } c + \frac {(V_a - \Sigma_a ) (V_b - \Sigma_b)}
{(1-c)} \right) \label{sb13}.
\end{equation}
The weighted versions of this element are obtained by just multiplying
the corresponding single weights from (\ref{cc11}) and
(\ref{cc12}) on to it. Moreover, $K_D$ is equivalent to the
$r_{1,2}=0$ component of the two particle function
calculated for the finite range susceptibility in the last
sub-section. In terms of the
notation introduced there it reads
\begin{equation}
K_D = \sum_k \frac {a_k} {\Sigma_a \Sigma_b -
\Lambda_{a,b} a_k} \label{sb14}
\end{equation}
which would have been harder to evaluate starting from that
representation.
The total site diagonal element thus
decouples into the corresponding site diagonal single particle
functions with an appropriate correction term accounting for the
coherent
processes.
\section{Numerical Results}
In this subsection, in order to exemplify the general results, we
discuss numerical results obtained for the optical absorption in a
non-degenerate binary semiconductor alloy for a given model density
of states. We are thus able to show how a CPA type of
polarization, including vertex corrections, decomposes into
contributions originating from single alloy components as the
strength of
the disorder is increased thus eventually causing the joint density
of states
to split into several components (up to three different ones for the
double weighted case).
In all our calculations we have used a semi elliptic
density of states for a pair of 3-D conduction and valence bands as
introduced in Ref. \onlinecite{bi3} for the single particle CPA, i.e.
\begin{equation}
\begin{tabular}{ c c }
$ \rho_{\lambda} (E) = \displaystyle{ \frac 2 {\pi w_{\lambda}^2}}
\sqrt{w_{\lambda}^2 - E^2} $ &
$ \mid E \mid \leq w_{\lambda} $ \\
\\
$ \rho_{\lambda} (E) = 0 $ & $ \mid E \mid \leq w_{\lambda} $
\label{n1}
\end{tabular}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ labels either the conduction $\lambda = a$ or valence
$\lambda = b$, and $w_{\lambda}$ is the half-width of the band
considered.
This has the advantage that the self consistent CPA equation for the
self energy $\Sigma (E)$ is a third degree polynomial which can be
solved analytically.
To understand the effects that arise from genuine two particle
behavior as compared to those expected from the single particle CPA,
we recapitulate some
of the features of the single particle theory first, mainly building
on the treatment presented in Ref. \onlinecite{bi3}. It is
established there, that depending on the concentration and
disorder strength relative to the bandwidth, an impurity band is
eventually split off while in this split regime under some
circumstances the CPA self energy
exhibits a pole.
Fig. \ref{FIG1} shows a reproduction of the ``phase'' diagram first
presented
there, indicating how the several
regions are separated. It can be seen that for a disorder
strength $ \mid V_{\lambda}/w_{\lambda} \mid > 1$ the bands always
split into $A-$ and
$B$-components, whereas the splitting occurs earlier as the
concentration $c$ is reduced, going
down to $\mid V_{\lambda}/w_{\lambda} \mid > 0.5$ as $c \rightarrow
0$.
We have
calculated the linear polarizability of the medium by employing a Kubo
formula as introduced in (\ref{c1}). Furthermore,
we continue assume that the optical matrix elements are
essentially constant and that such elements
are the same for both alloy components and we hence normalize
them to unity. The optical absorption is the negative imaginary part
of the
retarded polarizability of the disordered medium
$-\text{Im}\Pi(\omega )
$, which can be formally written as
\begin{equation}
\Pi_r( \omega ) = - \lim_{\stackrel {\scriptstyle \beta
\rightarrow \infty}{i \omega \rightarrow \omega + i \delta }}
\beta^{-1} \sum_{i \varepsilon} \int \frac {d^3 k}
{(2 \pi)^3} \langle G_a(k; i \varepsilon ) G_b(-k;i \omega - i
\varepsilon ) \rangle \label{n2}
\end{equation}
whereby the $k$-integration is understood to be carried out after
the configurational average has been performed, since before that both
resolvents would depend non-trivially on two momentum variables.
We consider our system at zero temperature and follow partly the
method used in Ref. \onlinecite{bi15} for our calculations.
At $T=0$, the polarization can be obtained as
the energy convolution around the conduction band branch cut of the
$k$-summed vertex
corrected two particle function $\displaystyle{K(z_1,z_2) = \int
\frac {d^3 k}
{(2 \pi)^3} \langle G_a(k;z_1 ) G_b(-k;z_2 ) \rangle}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\Pi_r( \omega ) = \oint_C K(z, \omega + i \delta - z) dz \label{n3}
\end{equation}
where we have taken over the following definitions from
Ref. \onlinecite{bi15}:
\begin{equation}
K(z_1,z_2) = \frac {R(z_1,z_2)} {1-\Lambda(z_1,z_2)R(z_1,z_2)}
\label{n4}
\end{equation}
where $ \Lambda(z_1,z_2) $ is the usual CPA vertex from (\ref{ca17})
and
\begin{equation}
R(z_1,z_2) = \int \frac {d^3 k} {(2 \pi )^3} \bar G_a(k,z_1)
\bar G_b(-k,z_2) \label{n5}
\end{equation}
is the average-decoupled two particle function.
Assuming that the conduction and valence band dispersion relations
exhibit a similar shape such that they scale proportionally
\begin{equation}
\frac { \varepsilon_a(k)} {w_a} = \mp \frac { \varepsilon_b(k)}
{w_b} \label{n6}
\end{equation}
(\ref{n5}) can be shown to simplify to
\begin{equation}
R(z_1,z_2) = \frac {w_a F_a(z_1) \pm w_b F_b(z_2)} {w_a[z_2 -
\Sigma_b(z_2)] \pm w_b[z_1 - \Sigma_a(z_1)]} \label{n7}
\end{equation}
where $F_\lambda (z)$ are the site diagonal single particle functions
first introduced in connection with (\ref{b25}). As usual we assume
that the effective mass of an electron in the conduction band
is positive and that of a hole in the valence band is
negative. Accordingly we have chosen the upper choice of signs in
(\ref{n6}) and (\ref{n7}) for our calculations.
To be able to analyze the obtained results with regard to the effect
of the the inclusion of vertex corrections we first consider
qualitatively the features that would be expected from the transition
process represented by the energy convolution in (\ref{n3}) in
an intermediate regime of disorder, if the configurational average
in the two particle function is decoupled and effectively only
single particle properties are employed. This would correspond to
replacing $K$ from (\ref{n4}) by $R$ from (\ref{n5})in (\ref{n3}).
We assume
for now that the
concentration be about 0.5 and the bands have just split by a notable
amount. With the semi-elliptic bands used, the transition process can
be represented as shown in Fig. \ref{FIG2}.
The disorder strengths give approximately
the distance between the centers of the single bands.
The convolution of two
separated finite bands, occurring in $R$, would yield a set of finite
bands in the joint density of states (DOS) whose width is the sum of
the widths of the contributing
components. Two cases are considered where the band offsets of the
$A-$ and $B$-components of the alloy are in equal or opposite
directions corresponding to parallel or anti-parallel disorder.
In the case of parallel disorder, this would amount to the $A_b
\rightarrow A_a$ and $B_b \rightarrow B_a$ -transitions lying in the
center of the joint DOS, framed by the
contributions from the $B_b \rightarrow A_a$ and $A_b \rightarrow B_a$
-transitions upper and lower end respectively as shown in
Fig. \ref{FIG3}.
At $c=0.5$ these
regions would have relative distribution of weighted states of
$1:2:1$ from lower end : center : higher end. In the case of
anti-parallel disorder the picture should be similar with the only
difference that the spectrum is turned inside-out with the $B_b
\rightarrow B_a$ and $A_b
\rightarrow A_b$ components on the top and the bottom end of the joint
DOS and the mixed transitions in the center, again with a
distribution of
$1:2:1$.
The calculations in the previous section for the split band case
strongly suggest that the
vertex corrections will increasingly suppress the cross transitions
as the disorder strength is increased, which is verified in our
numerical results. Indeed, our results show that this suppression is
already
displayed quite strongly in an intermediate disorder range, i.e. in a
regime where the single bands just begin to split.
The appended plots in Figs. \ref{FIG4} and \ref{FIG5} show cumulative
absorption spectra calculated from (\ref{n3}) as well as their single
and
double weighted components for
parallel and anti-parallel disorder of various strengths,
covering both the joint and the split band regime. The conduction band
half-width is normalized to unity and the valence band half-width is
taken to be $0.8$. The
concentration of impurities is fixed to $0.35$ in order to study
the
high-concentration behavior rather than dilute impurity effects.
In the transitional region when the disorder strengths start to exceed
the single particle half-bandwidths $ \mid
V_{ \lambda } / w_{ \lambda } \mid \geq 1$ and the conduction and
valence bands start to split we observe the following behavior: In
the case of parallel
disorder shown in Fig. \ref{FIG4} the spectrum
starts to exhibit a discontinuity in its derivatives at the flanks
accounting for a
pair of mixed components splitting off sideways from the main
contribution. At the transition point the contributions of
the flanks relative to the central bulk part are approximately
distributed in a ratio of $1:14:1$. In the case of anti-parallel
disorder shown in Fig. \ref{FIG5} the suppression of
the mixed transitions is even stronger so that as soon as the single
bands
split the crossed
transitions cancel out entirely within the numerical accuracy
and the joint
density of states starts to exhibit a gap between two separate
contributions which mainly
consist of $A-$ and $B$-transitions, respectively.
In a regime of strong disorder, further beyond the splitting of the
single bands as shown in the last plots of Figs. \ref{FIG4} and
\ref{FIG5}, one
finds that over large regions the single and uniformly double weighted
contributions coincide almost exactly, implying that
the spectrum is built almost entirely from the total
diagonal element of the two particle function, which we had calculated
at the end of section IV.
The total diagonal element can be obtained as an
independent $k$-sum over the two single particle resolvents involved.
This situation represents a breakdown of the $k$-selection rule
which holds in pure media.
If the splitting of $\Pi$ into single weighted components $\Pi =
\Pi^A
+ \Pi^B $ is considered and the result is compared in appearance
with the splitting into components of the site diagonal single
particle function \cite{bi3}
\begin{equation}
F_r( \omega ) = \int \frac {d^3 k} {(2 \pi)^3} \bar G(k, \omega +
i \delta)
\end{equation}
one finds that the single and the two particle behavior appear to be
strikingly
similar in the case of anti-parallel disorder,
as can be seen if the plots for the imaginary part of the single
particle function shown in Figs. \ref{FIG6} (a) and (b) are compared
to
the ones for the corresponding parameters in the two particle case
of Fig. \ref{FIG5} (third and fourth plot from the front).
In a system without disorder this similarity is evident if
there are no further local interactions in the problem,
since the non-interacting two particle motion decouples into a
center of mass and a relative co-ordinate and while the center of
mass motion can be set to zero, the relative one can be mapped onto a
single particle co-ordinate. Upon the addition of the disorder, this
decoupling fails to work
and it can only be regained by using an appropriate configurational
averaging procedure. However, if in the presence of disorder an
average is only performed on a single particle level, thus omitting
average induced two particle correlations the reduction obviously
fails to work, as is seen through comparing the plots of Fig.
\ref{FIG7}
showing a
spectrum calculated without the vertex corrections with
the ones for the corresponding parameter values of Fig. \ref{FIG5},
which properly include these corrections.
The results show, that in regimes of intermediate and strong
disorder the influence of
the vertex corrections is very substantial.
In comparison to the single weighted (two fold) splitting the double
weighted (three fold) splitting exhibits a rather curious behavior.
Even
though the components $-$Im$\Pi^{AA}$ and $-$Im$\Pi^{BB}$ lie
underneath
their single weighted complements $-$Im$\Pi^{A}$ and $-$Im$\Pi^{B}$
in some
parts of the spectra, which one might expect to happen
globally on first thought, they either coincide with them or even
exceed them in other parts -- sometimes to such an extent that they
reach beyond the cumulative function. However, it has to be noted,
that these components, like the unweighted function, are always
uniformly positive in sign, and therefore exhibit the correct analytic
behavior that a function defined on this footing has to
satisfy. It is required that these components be positive
definite, because the net absorption in the medium
must always be positive unless the
system is excited out of equilibrium, which we do not consider here.
In the preceding discussion we have
assumed for convenience that the optical matrix elements between
states of different components of the alloy are equal.
If different optical cross sections (matrix elements) $\mu^{A/B}$
are
distinguished for $A-$ and $B$-atoms the weighted contributions to
yield the integrand of (\ref{n3}) would sum as
\begin{equation}
\tilde K= (\mu^A)^2 K^{AA} + 2\mu^A \mu^B K^{AB} + (\mu^B)^2 K^{BB}
\label{n8}.
\end{equation}
This shows that it would be possible to observe one of the functions
$\Pi^{AA}$ or $\Pi^{BB}$ predominantly if either $\mu^A$ or $\mu^B$
happens
to be much larger than the other. The mixed function $\Pi^{AB}$,
however, will
never be a separately observable quantity in a general case, no
matter how the cross sections $\mu^A$ and $\mu^B$ scale
relatively and
therefore not so rigid criteria for its analyticity apply as for the
uniformly double weighted functions.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
In the previous sections we have obtained expressions for a wide class
of weighted two particle Green's functions.
The large choice for possible weightings is
substantially reduced as restrictions are made to functions which
would be useful in linear response theory. In both cases which
are discussed for this kind of application, only five
different weighted functions remain of which only two are genuinely
independent.
The structure of the weighting process is closely related to that
derived for the single particle theory with the main difference that
now the weights also depend significantly on the CPA vertex
corrections.
The calculation for the split band limit, the domain in which the CPA
is
superior to most of the other theories of disordered systems, gives
a direct insight into how the properly weighted CPA extracts the
correct limiting behavior from different possible physical processes.
Some care is needed in interpreting the precise physical meaning of
the weights, since they are obtained for the averaged functions,
which describe the disordered medium as effectively
homogeneous. The concept of the propagation of a particle between
sites
of different components is therefore lost in the effective
medium as a consequence of averaging and the initial exclusion of
specific
propagation paths in the unaveraged function leads to the effective
weights. These weights
simply account for the average partition in probability for the
simultaneous propagation of the particles between partly or completely
specified site types at a given pair of energies $z_1$ and $z_2$.
Our numerical results show the general importance of the inclusion of
vertex corrections into a properly self consistent two particle
formalism. We managed to visualize that, as a consequence of the
inclusion
of these average induced two particle correlations, the center of mass
and relative
motion of the two particle system effectively decouple to a large
extent.
We believe that the general method developed here will find
applications
in various situations where two particle motion is studied in a
disordered medium.
The effect of alloying on the electronic susceptibility and hence for
example on the
Rudermann-Kittel interaction has already been mentioned. In
particular we believe it can be extended for use in systems where the
two particles have a direct interaction, such as the Coulomb
interaction between carriers occurring in excitons in alloyed systems.
In such a case the static correlations between particles, created by
the disorder and accounted for by the vertex corrections, and the
dynamic correlations introduced through the carrier-carrier
interaction, create additional
static-dynamic correlations. Moreover it may
be possible that the underlying disorder of the system gives rise to
an induced disorder to the carrier-carrier interaction itself. Both of
these effects can be treated within the method developed here
and will be addressed in a forthcoming publication.
\section{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Mr. Carsten Heide at Oxford for
reading the manuscript and making useful suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
To determine the proton charge radius with a percent accuracy from the value
of the hydrogen Lamb shift, the latter should be known both experimentally
and theoretically with a precision of one kHz. Recently completed
calculation of the order $m\mbox{$\alpha$}^2(\mbox{$Z\alpha$})^5$ corrections \cite{E} leaves among
the effects of possible phenomenological interest the pure recoil correction
of the order $m^2(\mbox{$Z\alpha$})^6/M$ arising due to interference between the nucleus'
recoil and relativistic effects in the motion of the electron. The present
paper is devoted to the calculation of this correction for an arbitrary
state of the hydrogen atom.
Recently this correction for $P$ states was found \cite{p}. In those states,
as well as in all states with nonzero angular momenta, the correction proves
to be saturated by a contribution coming from the atomic scale. Hence one
can use there the standard quantum mechanical perturbation theory for the
effective operators describing relativistic effects. Matrix elements of
the effective operators arising in the perturbation theory converge at small
distances thus testifying {\it a posteriori} that the used 'nonrelativistic'
approach is correct at the given order of \mbox{$\alpha$}\ for states with nonzero $l$.
An attempt to apply the same approach to $S$ states, whose wavefunctions do
not vanish at the origin, leads to matrix elements diverging at small
distances. In fact, among the effective operators one finds those depending
on $r$ as $r^{-3}$ and even $r^{-4}$ \cite{p}. As for the latter, for $S$
states the operator $r^{-4}$ is equivalent (modulo a nonsingular operator)
to the sum of operators with the radial dependence $r^{-3}$ and
$\delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$})/r$. It was shown in Ref.\cite{FKMY} that logarithmically
divergent contributions are mutually cancelled. This cancellation means
that for the states with vanishing angular momentum, the correction we
discuss splits naturally into two contributions -- those of large and small
distances -- each gaining its value in its own scale. To calculate the
former, one can use again the nonrelativistic approach, whereas the short
distance contribution, residing in the Compton wavelength order scale, calls
for a true relativistic approach.
The closed expression for the first recoil correction to an energy of the
relativistic electron moving in the Coulomb field is outlined in Sec.2. This
expression is used in Sec.3 for the evaluation of the long-distance
contribution. It proves that the relativistic approach is more efficient even
at the atomic scale. The contribution of short distances is
found in Sec.4 employing the Feynman gauge. Sec.5 is devoted to checks of
the obtained results. The long-distance contribution is recalculated there
using the nonrelativistic approach, while the short-distance one is found in
the Coulomb gauge. Finally, in Sec.6, we give the numerical values for the
energy shifts and compare results of the present work with those obtained
earlier in \cite{p,PG}.
Throughout the paper the relativistic units $\hbar=c=1$ are used. Since we
do not discuss radiative corrections, $Z$ is also set equal to unity.
\section{Methods of Calculation}
One of the perturbation schemes we use at the present work starts from the
Schr\"odinger equation in the Coulomb field, when both particles are
considered as nonrelativistic in the zeroth approximation. To account for
relativistic effects, a kind of the operator product expansion is built by
calculation of scattering amplitudes for free relativistic particles. Thus
arising effective operators are then the subject for the ordinary
perturbation theory of the nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. This approach
is rather well suited for long-distance contributions, which are due to
effective operators saturated by nonrelativistic region and having non-local
kernels. Formerly it was used in calculations of i) logarithmic in \mbox{$\alpha$}\
corrections to the spectrum of the two-body system \cite{PhScr}, ii) the
order $m\mbox{$\alpha$}^6$ corrections to the positronium $P$ levels \cite{pos}, and
iii) the order $m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6/M$ corrections to the hydrogen $P$ levels \cite{p}.
Unfortunately, this approach becomes very tedious being applied to
short-distance contributions, when effective operators with local kernels
are represented by a number of diagrams.
An alternative approach deals with relativistic light particle (electron)
moving in the field generated by the slow heavy one (nucleus). In the zeroth
approximation, the heavy particle holds still being a source of the Coulomb
field. Wavefunction of the system reduces to that of the light particle
satisfying the Dirac equation. To first order in the heavy particle's
inverse mass, the perturbation operator coincides with its nonrelativistic
Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}\label{Hh}
V = \fr{\left ( \vec{P} - |e| \vec{A}(\vec{R}) \right ) ^2}{2M}.
\end{equation}
Here $\vec{P}$ is the operator of a nucleus' momentum. The vector potential
$\vec{A}$ acts at the nucleus' site.
Unfortunately, one cannot calculate an energy shift induced by the
perturbation (\ref{Hh}) straightforwardly, i.e. taking merely its
average. In fact, the operator (\ref{Hh}) depends on the nucleus' dynamical
variables while the argument of the unperturbed wavefunction is a position
or momentum of the electron. To overcome this difficulty we use the gauge
invariance of observables in the quantum electrodynamics \cite{Y}. Being
reexpressed in terms of electron's variables, the average value of
(\ref{Hh}) should be retained gauge invariant. The new form of the average
is now nearly evident:
\begin{equation}\label{main}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{rec} = - \fr{1}{M} \int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i} \left\langle \left ( \mbox{$\vec{p}$} - \mbox{$\vec{D}$} \right )
G_{E+\mbox{$\omega$}} \left ( \mbox{$\vec{p}$} - \mbox{$\vec{D}$} \right ) \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here \mbox{$\vec{p}$}\ is the electron momentum operator, \mbox{$\vec{D}$}\ is the integral operator
describing the transverse quantum exchange. It has the kernel\footnote{In
what follows we will write often a kernel rather than an appropriate
operator for the sake of brevity.}
\[
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\alpha$} \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k }{k^2 - \mbox{$\omega$}^2}, \;\;\;\;\;
\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k \equiv \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$} - \fr{\mbox{$\vec{k}$} (\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{k}$})}{k^2}.
\]
In (\ref{main}), $G$ is the Green's function for the Dirac equation in the
Coulomb field, the average is taken over a Dirac-Coulomb eigenstate with an
energy $E$. Actually, the "seagull" part of (\ref{main}), that of the
second order in \mbox{$\vec{D}$}, emerges naturally as a counterpart of the $\vec{A}^2$
term from (\ref{Hh}) when we take the expectation value of this term over
fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. All the other terms provide the
invariance of (\ref{main}) with respect to the gauge transformation,
\begin{equation}
\psi \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \exp(i\phi(\mbox{$\vec{r}$}))\psi,\;\;\;\;\;\;\mbox{$\vec{D}$} \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \mbox{$\vec{D}$} + i[\mbox{$\vec{p}$},\phi].
\end{equation}
One can easily convince oneself that just the same result can be obtained
from the formula (11) of \cite{Y} with the help of the Dirac equation.
The first attempt to obtain the relativistic expression for the recoil
correction to hydrogen energy levels was undertaken in Ref.\cite{Br}.
Complete expressions for various contributions in the Coulomb gauge were
originally derived in the framework of the quasipotential approach in
Ref.\cite{Sh}. The sum of those contributions can be convinced to reduce to
the right-hand side of (\ref{main}).
\section{Long-Distance Contribution}
Present section is devoted to the calculation of the contribution to the
energy shift which is saturated by the atomic scale and can thus be called
the long-distance one. To check the results, two approaches described above
have been applied in parallel. Here we describe in detail how the second,
relativistic, approach works. The procedure of comparison with the results
of the more cumbersome nonrelativistic approach will be postponed until the
Section 5.
\subsection{Pure Coulomb Contribution}
In the relativistic approach the pure Coulomb contribution,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_C = - \fr{1}{M} \int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} G_{E+\mbox{$\omega$}} \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle =
\fr{1}{2M} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \left ( \Lambda_+ - \Lambda_- \right ) \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
can naturally be represented as the sum of two terms \cite{Br},
\begin{equation}\label{C}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_C = \left\langle \fr{p^2}{2M} \right\rangle - \fr{1}{M} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \Lambda_- \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here $\Lambda_+$ and $\Lambda_-$ are the projection operators to sets of
positive- and negative-energy Dirac-Coulomb eigenstates respectively.
With the aid of the Dirac equation the mean value of $p^2/2M$ can readily
be reexpressed in the following form \cite{Sh}:
\begin{equation}\label{kin}
\left\langle \fr{p^2}{2M} \right\rangle = \fr{m^2-E^2}{2M} + \fr{m^2}{2M}
\left\langle 2 \left ( \fr{E}{m} -\mbox{$\beta$} \right ) \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{r} + \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{r^2} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
As for the second term in (\ref{C}), responsible for virtual transitions
into negative-energy states, the simple analysis shows that it doesn't
contribute to the order of interest at the atomic scale. Actually, the
trivial power counting on the right-hand side of the obvious inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{in}
|\left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \Lambda_- \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle| < \left|\fr{1}{4m^2}\left\langle [\mbox{$\vec{p}$},C]
\Lambda_- [\mbox{$\vec{p}$},C] \right\rangle \right|,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the Coulomb potential, shows that at the atomic scale, the
product of commutators is already of the sixth order in \mbox{$\alpha$}, so that the
projector and the wavefunctions can sufficiently be replaced by their
nonrelativistic counterparts. Since there is no negative-energy states in
the nonrelativistic approximation, the atomic scale contribution to the
initial average also vanishes in the order we consider.
\subsection{Magnetic Contribution}
After performing the integration over \mbox{$\omega$}, the expression for the single
transverse, or magnetic, contribution,
\begin{equation}\label{M}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_M = \fr{1}{M} \int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} G \mbox{$\vec{D}$} + \mbox{$\vec{D}$} G \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
turns into
\begin{equation}\label{Mld}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_M = -\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{M}\mbox{Re} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \left ( \sum_+
\fr{|m\rangle\langle m|}{k+E_m-E} - \sum_-\fr{|m\rangle\langle m|}{E-E_m+k}
\right ) \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\sum_+$ denotes the sum over discrete levels plus the integral over
positive-energy part of the continuous spectrum, while $\sum_-$ stands for
the integral over negative-energy continuum.
For the transverse photon momenta in the atomic region, $k \sim m\mbox{$\alpha$}$,
one can expand the first term in (\ref{Mld}) to the power series in the
ratio $(E-E_m)/k$. To zeroth order (in the approximation of the instant
exchange), we have:
\begin{equation}\label{M0}
-\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{M}\mbox{Re} \left\langle \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k^2}\Lambda_+ \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle =
- \fr{m^2}{2M} \left\langle 2 \left ( \fr{E}{m} -\mbox{$\beta$} \right ) \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{r} +
\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{r^2} \right\rangle +\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{M}\mbox{Re} \left\langle
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k^2}\Lambda_- \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
The sum of the first term and (\ref{kin}) has very simple form \cite{Sh},
\begin{equation}\label{Inst}
\fr{m^2-E^2}{2M} = \fr{m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{2MN^2},
\end{equation}
where the standard notations for the Dirac-Coulomb problem are used,
\[
N = \sqrt{(\gamma+n_r)^2 + \mbox{$\alpha$}^2}, \;\;\;\;\gamma = \sqrt{\mbox{$\kappa$}^2-\mbox{$\alpha$}^2},
\]
$n_r$ is the radial quantum number, $\mbox{$\kappa$} = - 1 - \vec{\sigma}\vec{l}$.
Notice that (\ref{Inst}) reduces to the lowest order result for the states
with $n_r=0$ only.
As far as we are seeking only for corrections of the even order in \mbox{$\alpha$}, the
next term of the expansion to be considered is
\begin{equation}\label{M2}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{ret}=-\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{M}\mbox{Re} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \sum_+ (E_m-E)^2
|m\rangle\langle m| \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k^4} \right\rangle = -\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}}{M}\mbox{Re} \left\langle
\left[ H, \left[ H, \mbox{$\vec{p}$} \right] \right] \Lambda_+ \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k^4} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $H = \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{p}$} + \mbox{$\beta$} m + C$ is the Dirac Hamiltonian in the Coulomb
field. This term describes the effect of retardation. Implying the
corresponding operator by its kernel, we have
\[
[H,\mbox{$\vec{p}$}] = \mbox{$\alpha$} \fr{4\pi\mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{k^2}, \;\;\;\;\;
\left[H,[H,\mbox{$\vec{p}$}]\right] = \mbox{$\alpha$} \fr{4\pi\mbox{$\vec{k}$}(\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{k}$})}{k^2}.
\]
To the lowest nontrivial order, matrix elements of \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}'s over
positive-energy states can be replaced by the appropriate Pauli currents:
\begin{equation}\label{pret}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{ret}\approx - \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{M} \left\langle \fr{4\pi\mbox{$\vec{k'}$}}{k'^2}
\fr{2\mbox{$\vec{p}\,'$}\mbox{$\vec{k'}$}-k'^2}{2m}\;\fr{4\pi}{k^4}
\fr{2\mbox{$\vec{p}$}_k+i\vec{\sigma}\times\mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{2m} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Here $\mbox{$\vec{k'}$} = \vec{q}-\mbox{$\vec{k}$}$, $\vec{q}=\mbox{$\vec{p}\,'$}-\mbox{$\vec{p}$}$, while \mbox{$\vec{p}$}\ and \mbox{$\vec{p}\,'$}\ are the
arguments of the wavefunction and its conjugated respectively. Being
converted to the spatial representation, the average above equals
\begin{equation}\label{ret}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{ret} = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{4m^2M} \left\langle -2\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\fr{1}{r^2}\mbox{$\vec{p}$} +
\fr{7\vec{l}^2 + 2\vec{\sigma}\vec{l}}{2r^4} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Strictly speaking, in (\ref{pret}), the integral over \mbox{$\vec{k}$}\ has an infrared
divergent part. It is omitted from (\ref{ret}) since the photon momenta
$k\sim m\mbox{$\alpha$}^2$ contribute to the previous order correction. To make sure
that this is correct, one can regularize the divergency supplying the photon
with a mass $\lambda$ such that $m\mbox{$\alpha$}^2 \ll \lambda \ll m\mbox{$\alpha$}$. The term
proportional to $1/\lambda$ and omitted from (\ref{ret}) can be easily
checked to cancel the respective term in the difference between (\ref{Mld})
and the expression obtained from (\ref{Mld}) by the replacement $k \mbox{$\rightarrow$}
\sqrt{k^2+\lambda^2}$. On the other hand, just this difference determines
the low-energy contribution to the order $m\mbox{$\alpha$}^5/M$ correction.
The last of contributions due to the single transverse exchange is generated
by virtual transitions into negative-energy states and is covered by the
last terms in (\ref{Mld}) and (\ref{M0}). The inequality similar to
(\ref{in}) shows that the nonrelativistic expansion of the last term in
(\ref{Mld}) starts with the seventh power of \mbox{$\alpha$}. As for the negative-energy
contribution to (\ref{M0}), to the lowest nontrivial order it reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{M-mom}
- \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{2mM} \left\langle \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'^2} \lambda_-(\mbox{$\vec{p}$}+\mbox{$\vec{k}$})
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{k^2} \right\rangle \approx \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{4m^2M} \left\langle
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}\mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{k'^2} \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$} \mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{k^2} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
yielding in the spatial representation
\begin{equation}\label{M-}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{M-} = - \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{4m^2M} \left\langle \fr{1}{r^4} - \fr{4\pi\delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$})}{r} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Taken over $S$ states, this average is logarithmically divergent at small
distances (linear divergencies cancel each other). An ultraviolet divergency
will be discussed later for the {\em total} long-distance contribution to
the $S$ level shift. In fact, due to the gauge dependence of an individual
contribution (e. g., (\ref{M-})), its divergent part alone has no physical
meaning.
\subsection{Seagull Contribution}
Again, taking the integral over \mbox{$\omega$}\ in the expression for the double
transverse, or seagull, contribution,
\begin{equation}\label{S}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_S = - \fr{1}{M} \int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i} \left\langle \mbox{$\vec{D}$} G_{E+\mbox{$\omega$}} \mbox{$\vec{D}$} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{Sld}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_S = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{2M} \left\langle \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'} \sum_+
\fr{|m\rangle\langle m|}{(E_m-E+k')(E_m-E+k)} \left ( 1 +
\fr{E_m-E}{k'+k}\right ) \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k} + \cdots \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the ellipsis stands for the negative-energy part which differs from
the positive-energy one by the overall sign and signs before $k$ and $k'$.
One can easily check that the linear in $k/2m$ terms in the expansion of the
negative-energy part cancel each other. But just these terms at the atomic
scale could produce the energy correction of the necessary order. Hence it
remains to consider the positive-energy part explicitly written in
(\ref{Sld}). In the leading nonrelativistic approximation,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{S+} = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{2M}\left\langle\fr{4\pi\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'^2}\Lambda_+
\fr{4\pi\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_k}{k^2}\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
we again replace matrix elements of \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}'s over positive-energy states by
the Pauli currents,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{S+} = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{2M}\left\langle\fr{4\pi}{k'^2}\fr{2\mbox{$\vec{p}\,'$}_{k'}+i\vec{\sigma}
\times\mbox{$\vec{k'}$}}{2m}\fr{4\pi}{k^2}\fr{2\mbox{$\vec{p}$}_k+i\vec{\sigma}
\times\mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{2m} \right\rangle,
\end{equation}
and perform the Fourier transformation to obtain
\begin{equation}\label{S+}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{S+} = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{4m^2M} \left\langle 2\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\fr{1}{r^2}\mbox{$\vec{p}$} + \fr{1}{r^4}
- \fr{3\vec{l}^2 + 2\vec{\sigma}\vec{l}}{2r^4} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Total Long-Distance Contribution}
Summing up (\ref{ret}), (\ref{M-}) and (\ref{S+}) we arrive at
\begin{equation}\label{sum}
\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{4m^2M} \left\langle 2 \fr{\vec{l}^2}{r^4} + \fr{4\pi\delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$})}{r} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Expanding (\ref{Inst}) to the power series in $\mbox{$\alpha$}^2$ and evaluating the
average in (\ref{sum}) we obtain the long-distance contribution for a state
with nonzero $l$:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ld}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{l>0} &=& \fr{m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6}{Mn^3} \left\{ \fr{1}{8|\mbox{$\kappa$}|^3} +
\fr{6\mbox{$\kappa$}}{|\mbox{$\kappa$}|(4\mbox{$\kappa$}^2-1)(2\mbox{$\kappa$}+3)} + \fr{3}{8n\mbox{$\kappa$}^2} \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. - \fr{1}{n^2|\mbox{$\kappa$}|} \left ( 1 + 2\fr{\mbox{$\kappa$}^2 (\mbox{$\kappa$}+1)}{(4\mbox{$\kappa$}^2-1)(2\mbox{$\kappa$}+3)}
\right ) + \fr{1}{2n^3} \right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
For $l=1$ it reproduces the result of the paper \cite{p}. As previously
mentioned, the effective operators of the order under consideration contain
singularities insufficient to compensate the vanishing of a wavefunction
with nonzero $l$ at $r\mbox{$\rightarrow$} 0$. That is why (\ref{ld}) is the total sought-for
correction to $l>0$ levels.
For $S$ states the first term in (\ref{sum}) evidently vanishes due to the
angular momentum operator $\vec{l}$ annihilating their wavefunctions. It is
interesting to note that a na\"{\i}ve generalization of the result for
states with nonzero $l$ to $S$ ones leads to the error -- the vanishing of
the angular average is compensated by the linear divergency of the radial
one.
As for the second term, which formally contains the linear divergency, it is
just a remnant of the short-distance contribution to the previous (fifth in
\mbox{$\alpha$}) order correction. To make sure that nothing is lost in the sixth order,
let us regularize the ultraviolet divergency by subtraction of the potential
generated by the massive transverse exchange (the photon mass $\lambda \gg
m\mbox{$\alpha$}$), from the potential of the ordinary transverse exchange entering
(\ref{M-mom}):
\begin{equation}\label{UVreg}
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'^2} \;\; \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \;\; \fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'^2} -
\fr{4\pi \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}_{k'}}{k'^2 + \lambda^2}.
\end{equation}
By going to the spatial representation we obtain the regularized version of
the singular operator:
\[
\fr{4\pi\delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$})}{r} \;\; \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \;\; \fr{2\lambda}{3} 4\pi\delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$}).
\]
Being averaged, it gives the energy correction of the order
$m\lambda\mbox{$\alpha$}^5/M$. The latter should be cancelled by the linear in $\lambda$
term in the expansion of the short-distance contribution to the order
$m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^5/M$ correction, calculated with the massive propagator of the
transverse quantum (actually the expansion parameter is $\lambda/m \ll 1$).
Along with linear in $\lambda/m$ correction, one could expect the correction
linear in $\mbox{$\alpha$}=m\mbox{$\alpha$}/m$. However the expansion parameter at large distances
is $(p/m)^2 \sim \mbox{$\alpha$}^2$ so that the operator we discuss does not contribute
to the order of interest. On the other hand, a linear in \mbox{$\alpha$}\ correction to
a local ($\propto \delta(\mbox{$\vec{r}$})$) operator can arise as an ordinary radiative
one. In this case the correction is completely saturated by small distances.
The next section is devoted to the calculation of such corrections.
So, in $S$ states the long-distance contribution is exhausted by the
$m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6/M$ term from the expansion of (\ref{Inst}),
\begin{equation}\label{ldS}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{l=0}^{ld} = \fr{m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6}{2Mn^3} \left ( \fr{1}{4} + \fr{3}{4n} -
\fr{2}{n^2} + \fr{1}{n^3} \right ).
\end{equation}
It vanishes in the ground state only.
\section{Short-Distance Contribution}
As we have mentioned in the Introduction, the long-distance contribution for
$S$ states is supplied by a short-distance one residing at scales of the
Compton wavelength order. Since two contributions are well separated, each
of them is gauge invariant, so that evaluating the short-distance one we can
use a different, more appropriate gauge. Rather naturally the mostly
convenient gauge is the Feynman one. The main formula (\ref{main}) can be
rewritten in this gauge by application of the Dirac equation or directly
from the eq.(11) of \cite{Y}:
\begin{equation}\label{fey}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{tot} = - \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^2}{M} \int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i} \left\langle
\fr{4\pi}{k'^2 + \lambda^2 - \mbox{$\omega$}^2}
\left ( \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$} + \fr{\mbox{$\vec{k'}$}}{\mbox{$\omega$}} \right ) G_{E+\mbox{$\omega$}}
\left ( \mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$} - \fr{\mbox{$\vec{k}$}}{\mbox{$\omega$}} \right )
\fr{4\pi}{k^2 + \lambda^2 - \mbox{$\omega$}^2} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Momenta of the photons are assumed to flow both from the nucleus to the
electron. The photon mass $\lambda$ is introduced to establish control over
infrared divergences reminiscent of lower-order and long-distance
contributions. Those divergencies arise in the process of the approximate
evaluation of the integrals in (\ref{fey}).
Taking the wavefunctions at the origin and replacing the Green's function by
the first term of its expansion in the Coulomb field, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_G = \fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{M}\int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i}\left\langle\fr{4\pi}{p'^2-
\sqrt{\;}^2}\left (\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}-\fr{\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\,'}{\mbox{$\omega$}}\right )
\fr{m+\mbox{$\omega$}+\mbox{$\beta$} m+\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\,'}{p'^2-\Omega^2}\fr{4\pi}{q^2}\right.&&\nonumber\\
\left.\fr{m+\mbox{$\omega$}+\mbox{$\beta$} m+\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{p}$}}{p^2-\Omega^2}\left (\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}-\fr{\mbox{$\vec{p}$}}{\mbox{$\omega$}}\right )
\fr{4\pi}{p^2-\sqrt{\;}^2}\right\rangle.&&
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\psi^2\equiv |\psi(0)|^2$, the angle brackets denote integrations over
$\mbox{$\vec{p}$}$ and $\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\,'$; $\vec{q} = \mbox{$\vec{p}$}\,'-\mbox{$\vec{p}$}$; and
\[
\sqrt{\;}\equiv \sqrt{\mbox{$\omega$}^2-\lambda^2}, \;\;\;\;\;
\Omega\equiv\sqrt{2m\mbox{$\omega$}+\mbox{$\omega$}^2}.
\]
Contrary to the case of large distances, in the deep relativistic region the
opposite order of integration is suitable -- first over \mbox{$\vec{p}$}\ and \mbox{$\vec{p}\,'$}, and
then over \mbox{$\omega$}. As for the former, it becomes rather trivial after conversion
to the spatial representation. Preparatory to such the conversion, it is
convenient to express all the scalar products containing different momenta
in terms of their squares. Then some of the denominators can be cancelled.
At this point we can drop those terms which do not contain $\Omega$ in their
denominators. In fact, the only scale leaving in such terms is $\lambda$ so
that they cannot produce a short-distance contribution. In the spatial
representation the initial two-loop integral with zero external momenta
turns into a simple one-dimensional integral over $r$. The contour
of the resulting \mbox{$\omega$}-integration encloses the cut between the points $-2m$
and $-\lambda$ in the complex plane. After this last integration we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{G}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_G = \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm}\left ( \fr{1}{\varepsilon} -
\fr{8}{3\pi\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\int_1^{\infty}\fr{dx}{\sqrt{x(x^2-1)}} +
4\ln 2 - \fr{5}{2} \right ),
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon=\lambda/2m$.
If the Green's function is taken to zeroth order in the interaction, we have
to use the Dirac equation in order to account for the momentum dependence in
the wavefunction:
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{\psi} = 2\fr{\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{M}\int \fr{d\mbox{$\omega$}}{2\pi i}\left\langle\fr{4\pi}{p'^4}
\left ( 2m+\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{p}$}\,'\right )\fr{4\pi}{q^2-\sqrt{\;}^2}
\left (\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}+\fr{\vec{q}}{\mbox{$\omega$}}\right )\right.&&\nonumber\\
\left.\fr{m+\mbox{$\omega$}+\mbox{$\beta$} m+\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}\mbox{$\vec{p}$}}{p^2-\Omega^2}\left (\mbox{$\vec{\alpha}$}-\fr{\mbox{$\vec{p}$}}{\mbox{$\omega$}}\right )
\fr{4\pi}{p^2-\sqrt{\;}^2}\right\rangle.&&
\end{eqnarray}
Using the same procedure, we take $-r/2$ as the Fourier transform of
$4\pi/p^4$. The linearly divergent constant we thus leave aside is actually
proportional to $1/\mbox{$\alpha$}$ and contributes to the previous order correction.
The result of the integration is
\begin{equation}\label{psi}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{\psi} = \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm}\left ( -\fr{1}{2\varepsilon^2} +
\fr{1}{\varepsilon} -
\fr{8}{3\pi\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\int_1^{\infty}\fr{dx}{\sqrt{x(x^2-1)}}\right ).
\end{equation}
Regulator-dependent terms in (\ref{G}) and (\ref{psi}) arise from the
integrals saturated by the region of momenta $p\sim\lambda$ and frequency
$\mbox{$\omega$}\sim\lambda$ (or $\sqrt{m\lambda}$) and are thus the remnants of the
previous orders corrections or of the long-distance contribution. Truly
relativistic contribution comes from the region $p\sim\mbox{$\omega$}\sim m$ and does
not depend on the infrared cutoff:
\begin{equation}\label{sd}
\mbox{$\Delta E$}^{sd} = \fr{m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6}{Mn^3}\left ( 4\ln 2 - \fr{5}{2} \right ) \delta_{l0}.
\end{equation}
It is pertinent to note here that this result is truly short-distance, i. e.
it does not contain hidden long-distance contributions, which na\"{\i}vely
could arise due to cancellation of the same nonzero powers of $\lambda$ from
numerator and denominator -- all positive powers of the photon mass were
dropped out in the process of calculation. On the other hand, an emergence
of such contributions would be self-contradictory. Actually, if an integral
is saturated by distances of $1/\lambda$ order, then at $p \sim \lambda$,
the integrand denominator has at least one power of momentum more than the
product of the numerator and the measure of integration. In other words, any
"long-distance" contribution (determined by the scale of $\lambda$) {\em
has} to contain a positive power of the photon mass in its denominator.
\section{Checking of the Results}
\subsection{Long-Distance Contribution}
To be certain that the long-distance contributions are found correctly, all
of them were rederived in the framework of the nonrelativistic approach
which exploits the Schr\"odinger equation as a starting point. For the
states with nonzero angular momenta we used the following procedure. All the
contributions prove to have the same analytic structure in \mbox{$\kappa$}, namely
\[
\mbox{$\Delta E$} = \fr{m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6}{Mn^3} \Sigma,
\]
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma &=& \fr{1}{|\mbox{$\kappa$}|^3} \left ( a_{\infty} + \fr{a_{1/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}-1/2} +
\fr{a_{-1/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+1/2} + \fr{a'_{-1/2}}{(\mbox{$\kappa$}+1/2)^2}
+ \fr{a_{-1}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+1} + \fr{a_{-3/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+3/2} \right ) \nonumber \\
&& +\fr{1}{n\mbox{$\kappa$}^2} \left ( b_{\infty} + \fr{b_{-1/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+1/2} \right ) \nonumber
\\ && + \fr{1}{n^2|\mbox{$\kappa$}|} \left ( c_{\infty} + \fr{c_{1/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}-1/2} +
\fr{c_{-1/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+1/2} + \fr{c_{-3/2}}{\mbox{$\kappa$}+3/2} \right )+\fr{d}{n^3},
\end{eqnarray}
Constants $a,b,c,d$ evaluated in the nonrelativistic approach for
individual contributions as their asymptotic values at $\mbox{$\kappa$} \mbox{$\rightarrow$} \infty$ or
residues at corresponding poles were then compared with the respective
results obtained in the relativistic approach. In the process of comparison,
a number of 'nonrelativistic' contributions breaks down into groups
according to the meaning of respective 'relativistic' ones. For example, the
retardation part of the magnetic contribution (\ref{ret}) comprises three
terms in the nonrelativistic approach: $\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{MC}^{(1)}$, $\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{MCC}^{(1)}$
and $\mbox{$\Delta E$}_{ret}^{(1)}$ (notations are from ref.\cite{p}).
As we mentioned earlier, $S$ states should be treated separately in order to
avoid fictious contributions arising due to the compensation between
vanishing angular averages and linearly divergent radial ones. All the
ultraviolet divergencies in $S$ states are checked to cancel each other. To
this end we regularize the effective potentials which are too singular at $r
\mbox{$\rightarrow$} 0$ and ensure that the total long-distance contribution for $S$ states
is independent of the regularization parameter.
\subsection{Short-Distance Contribution}
In order to compare the results of the present work with those of \cite{PG},
the short-distance contribution was calculated using the Coulomb gauge also.
A mass of the magnetic quantum was used as the infrared regulator. The
scheme of calculation is completely analogous to those used previously in
the case of the Feynman gauge. The short-distance contributions are:
\begin{equation}\label{Csd}
C_G = C_{\psi} = \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm} \fr{1}{2};
\end{equation}
\medskip
\begin{eqnarray}
M_G &=& - \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm} \left ( \ln\fr{\lambda}{2m}+\fr{3}{2} \right ), \\
M_{\psi} &=& - \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm} \ln\fr{\lambda}{2m};
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
\begin{eqnarray}
S_G &=& \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm} \left ( 4\ln 2 - 2 \right ), \\
S_{\psi} &=& \fr{\pi\mbox{$\alpha$}^3\psi^2}{Mm} 2 \ln\fr{\lambda}{2m}.\label{Ssd}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $C$, $M$, $S$ denote Coulomb, magnetic and seagull contributions
respectively. It is easy to check that the sum of these contributions
coincides with (\ref{sd}).
\section{Conclusion}
Numerically, the correction to the energy equals 2.77 kHz for the ground
state and 0.51 kHz for the $2S$ state. Being somewhat less than the
na\"{\i}ve estimate ($m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6/M \approx 10.2$ kHz) it nevertheless is quite
comparable with the accuracy of the near future measurements. It is also
interesting to note that the corrections to $2S$ and $2P$ levels (with the
radiative-recoil correction to $2P$ level \cite{p} taken into account) are
rather close to each other, so that the correction to their difference, 0.04
kHz, can be considered as negligibly small at the present level of the
experimental accuracy \cite{exp}.
Let us now set up a correspondence between the results of the present work
and those of the other papers. The result for $l>0$ levels appears to be
firmly established \cite{p,ASY}. For $S$ levels our result is contradictory
to the recent results of the analytic \cite{PG} and numerical \cite{ASY}
calculations.
To elucidate the origin of the disagreement, we consider the correction to
the ground state energy. It is easy to verify that our short-distance
results (\ref{Csd})--(\ref{Ssd}) are in one-to-one correspondence with
respective "high-energy" contributions from \cite{PG}. A similar statement
is true for long-distance contributions (low- and intermediate-energy ones
in notations of \cite{PG}), with one exception. The coefficient --2 from
Eq.(68) of Ref.\cite{PG} for the intermediate-energy contribution to the
retarded exchange by the magnetic quantum, differs from our result, --1 (in
the same units $m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6/M$), which arises after trivial averaging in
(\ref{ret}) over the ground state. Unfortunately, we have not managed to
reproduce the coefficient --2 starting from Eq.(67) of Ref.(\ref{ret}).
Furthermore, several arguments can be brought forward, that the result
(68),\cite{PG} for the retardation contribution looks at least suspicious.
In particular, the logarithmic divergency in the order $m^2\mbox{$\alpha$}^6/M$ is known
to appear due to the relativistic corrections to the {\em instant}
transverse exchange. The result of the present work concerning the origin
of this logarithmic divergency and the value of the corresponding
coefficient is contained in (\ref{M-}) and is in complete agreement with
those of Refs.\cite{PhScr} and \cite{DGE}. As for the effect of retardation,
it gives rise to the finite contribution only (in accord with (\ref{ret})).
But it follows from the result of Ref.\cite{PG} that just the retardation is
the source of not only logarithmic, but even the linear divergency at small
distances, while the long-distance relativistic correction to the instant
transverse exchange does not contribute at all.
\bigskip
{\bf Acknowledgments}\nopagebreak
The author is grateful to A. Vainshtein for stimulating discussions, and to
M. Eides, S. Karshenboim, and V. Shabaev for their interest to the work.
The work was supported by a fellowship of INTAS Grant 93-2492 and
is carried out within the research program of International Center for
Fundamental Physics in Moscow. Partial support from the program
``Universities of Russia'', Grant 94-6.7-2053, is also gratefully
acknowledged.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
In this article, we study homotopy groups and some related problems by using simplicial
homotopy theory. The point of view here is that combinatorial aspects of group theory provide
further information about homotopy groups.\\
\par
The homotopy groups of the $3$-sphere, the suspension of $K(\pi,1)$ and
wedges of $2$-spheres are shown to be the centers of certain groups with specific generators
and specific relations. We list two group theoretical descriptions of $\pi_*(S^3)$ as follows.
\begin{definition}
{\bf A bracket arrangement of weight $n$} in a group is a set of elements defined recursively
as follows:
\par
Let $G$ be a group and let $a_1,a_2,\cdots,a_n$ be a finite sequence of elements of $G$.
Let
$$
\beta^1(a_1)=a_1
$$
and if $n>1$, then let
$$
\beta^n(a_1,\cdots,a_n)=[\beta^k(a_1,\cdots,a_k),\beta^l(a_{k+1},\cdots,a_n)]
$$
for some $k$ and $l>0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
For $n\geq 1$, $\pi_{n+2}(S^{3})$ is isomorphic to the center of the group with generators
$y_{0},\dots,y_{n}$ and relations
$$[y_{i_{1}}^{\epsilon_{1}},y_{i_{2}}^{\epsilon_{2}},\dots,y_{i_{t}}^{\epsilon_{t}}]$$
with $\{i_{1},\dots,i_{t}\}=\{-1,0,\dots,n\}$ as sets in which the
indices $i_{j}$ can be repeated, where
$\epsilon_{j}=\pm 1, y_{-1}=(y_{0}\dots y_{n})^{-1}$ and
the commutator bracket $[ \dots ]$ runs over all bracket arrangements of weight $t$ for
each $t$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{notations}
Let $G$ be a group and let $S$ be a subset of $G$. Let $<\!S\!>$ denote the normal subgroup generated by
$S$. Let $H_{j}$ be a sequence of subgroups of $G$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Let
$[[H_{1},\dots,H_{k}]]$ denote the subgroup of $G$ generated by all of
the commutators $[h_{i_1}^{(1)},\dots,h_{i_t}^{(t)}]$ with
$\{i_1,\dots,i_t\}=\{1,\dots,k\}$ as sets in which the indices $i_j$can be repeated,
where $h_j^{(s)}\in H_j$ and the commutator bracket
$[ \dots ]$ runs over all of the bracket arrangements of weight $t$ for each $t$.
\end{notations}
\begin{theorem}
Let $n\geq 1$. In the free group $F(y_0,\dots,y_n)$ freely generated
by $y_0,\allowbreak \dots,\allowbreak y_n$ we have
$$
([[<\!y_0\!>,<\!y_1\!>,\dots,<\!y_n\!>]]\cap <\!y_{-1}\!>)/ [[<\!y_{-1}\!>,<\!y_0\!>,\dots,<\!y_n\!>]]\cong \pi_{n+2}(S^{3})
$$
where $y_{-1}=(y_0\dots y_n)^{-1}$.
\end{theorem}
The method of the proofs of these theorems is to study the Moore chain complex of Milnor's
construction $F(S^1)$ for the $1$-sphere $S^1$. A group theoretical description of the homotopy groups $\pi_*(\Sigma K(\pi,1))$
is as follows.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\pi$ be any group and let $\{x^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J\}$ be a set of generators for $\pi$. Then, for
$n\not=1$, $\pi_{n+2}(\Sigma K(\pi,1))$ is isomorphic to the center of the quotient group
of the free product
$${\coprod^{groups}}_{0\leq j\leq n}(\pi)_j$$
modulo the relations
$$
[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]
$$
with $\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}=\{-1,0,1,\cdots,n\}$ as sets,
where $(\pi)_j$ is a copy of $\pi$ with generators $\{x^{(\alpha)}_j|\alpha\in J\}$, $\epsilon_j=\pm1$,
$y^{(\alpha)}_{-1}={x^{(\alpha)}_0}^{-1}$, $y_j=x^{(\alpha)}_j{x^{(\alpha)}_{j+1}}^{-1}$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$, $y^{(\alpha)}_n=x^{(\alpha)}_m$ and the commutator bracket
$[\cdots]$ runs over all of the commutator bracket arrangment of weight $t$ for each $t$.
\end{theorem}
In particular, for $\pi={\bf Z}/m$, we have
\begin{corollary}
$\pi_{n+2}(\Sigma K({\bf Z}/m,1))$ is isomorphic to the center of the group with generators
$x_{0},\dots,x_{n}$
and relations:
(1).
$x_j^m$
for $0\leq j\leq n$ and
(2).
$$[y_{i_{1}}^{\epsilon_{1}},y_{i_{2}}^{\epsilon_{2}},\dots,y_{i_{t}}^{\epsilon_{t}}]$$
with $\{i_{1},\dots,i_{t}\}=\{-1,0,\dots,n\}$ as sets in which the
indices $i_{j}$ can be repeated, where
$\epsilon_{j}=\pm 1$, $y_{-1}=x_0^{-1}$, $y_j=x_{j-1}x_j^{-1}$ for $-1\leq j\leq n-1$, $y_n=x_n$ and
the commutator bracket $[ \dots ]$ runs over all bracket arrangements of weight $t$ for
each $t$.
\end{corollary}
One of the features of Theorems 1.2 and 1.5 is that homotopy groups embed in certain
'enveloping groups'. These 'enveloping groups' have systematic and uniform structure. The centers of
these groups are of course more complicated to analyze. Theorem 1.4 is very similar to the
combinatorial decription of J. H. C. Whitehead's conjecture [see, Bo2, pp.317]. These decriptions give a
combinatorial question how to give a computable way to understand the quotient groups
$R\cap S/[R,S]$ for certain subgroups $R$ and $S$ of a finite generated free group. Few informations
about this question are known [see, Bo1]. The article is organized as follows.\\
\par
In Section 2, we study some general properties of simplicial groups. Central extensions in the
Moore-Postnikov systems will be considered. In Section 3, we study the intersection of certain
subgroups in free groups. The proofs of Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 is given in Section 4, where
Theorem 4.5 is Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 4.10 is Theorem 1.4. The proof
of Theorem 1.5 is given in Section 5, where Theorem 5.9 is Theorem 1.5.
In Section 6, we give some applications of our descriptions. One example is to compute
the homotopy groups of the Cohen's construction on the $1$-sphere. A direct corollary is to
give a short proof of the Milnor's counter example for the minimal simplicial groups.\\
\par
The author would like to thank F. Cohen, B. Gray, J. Harper, D. Kan, M. Mahowald, J. Moore, P. May, S. Priddy
and many other mathematicians for their kindly encouragement and helpful suggestions.
The author is indebted to helpful discussions with J. C. Moore and F. R. Cohen.
\section{Central Extensions in simplicial group theory}
In this section, we study some general properties of simplicial groups.
A simplicial set $K$ is called a Kan complex if it satisfies
the ${\it extension\, condition}$,i.e, for any simplicial map $f:\Lambda^k[n]\to K$ has
an extension $g:\Delta[n]\to K$, where $\Delta[n]$ is the standard $n$ simplex,
$\Lambda^k[n]$ is the subcomplex of $\Delta[n]$ generated by all
$d_i(\sigma_n)$ for $i\not=k$ and $\sigma_n$ is the nondegenerate $n$ simplex
in $\Delta[n]$,[K1, C2]. Recall that any simplicial group is a Kan complex [Mo1].
Given a simplicial group $G$, the Moore chain complex $(NG,d_0)$ is defined by
$NG_n=\bigcap_{j\not=0}Kerd_j$ with $d_0:NG_n\to NG_{n-1}$. The classical Moore Theorem is
that $\pi_n(G)\cong H_n(NG)$ [Mo1, Theorem 4;C2, Theorem 3.7 or K2, Proposition 5.4].
Now let ${\cal Z}_n={\cal Z}_n(G)=\bigcap_jKerd_j$ denote the cycles and let
${\cal B}_n={\cal B}_n(G)=d_0(NG_{n+1})$ denote the boundaries.
It is easy to check that ${\cal B}_n$ is a normal subgroup of $G_n$ for any simplicial group $G$.
\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a simplicial group. Then the homotopy group $\pi_n(G)$ is contained in the center
of $G_n/{\cal B}G_n$ for $n\geq1$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Notice that $\pi_n(G)\cong{\cal Z}G_n/{\cal B}G_n$. It suffices to show that
the commutator $[x,y]\in{\cal B}G_n$ for any $x\in{\cal Z}G_n$ and $y\in G_n$.
\par
Notice that $x$ is a cycle. There is a simplicial map $f_x: S^n\rightarrow G$ such that
$f_x(\sigma_n)=x$, where $S^n$ is the standard $n$-sphere with a nondegenerate $n$-simplex $\sigma_n$.
Now let the simplicial map $f_y:\Delta[n]\rightarrow G$ be the representative of $y$,
i.e, $f_y(\tau_n)=y$ for the nondegenerate $n$-simplex $\tau_n$. Let $\phi$ be the composite
$$
S^n\stackrel{j}{\rightarrow} S^n\wedge\Delta[n]\stackrel{[f_x,f_y]}{\rightarrow}G,
$$
where $j(\sigma_n)=\sigma_n\wedge\tau_n$ and $[f_x,f_y](a\wedge b)=[f_x(a),f_y(b)]$, the commutator
of $f_x(a)$ and $f_y(b)$. Notice that $\phi(\sigma_n)=[x,y]$ and $S^n\wedge\Delta[n]$ is contactible.
Thus $[x,y]\in{\cal B}_n$. The assertion follows.
\begin{definitions}
Let $G$ be a simplicial group. The subsimplicial group {\bf $R_nG$} is defined by setting
$$
(R_nG)_q=\{x\in G_q|f_x(\Delta[q])^{[n]}=1\},
$$
where $f_x$ is the representative of $x$ and $X^{[n]}$ is the $n$-skeleton of the simplicial set $X$.
The subsimplicial group {\bf $\overline{R}_nG$} is defined by setting
$$
(\overline{R}_nG)_q=\{x\in G_q|f_x((\Delta[q])_n)\subseteq{\cal B}G_n\}.
$$
Let {\bf $P_nG$} denote $G/R_nG$ and let {\bf $\overline{P}_nG$} denote $G/\overline{R}_nG$.
\end{definitions}
It is easy to check that both $R_nG$ and $\overline{R}_nG$ are normal subsimplicial group of $G$. Thus
both $P_nG$ and $\overline{P}_nG$ are quotient simplicial group of $G$. Notice that
$$
R_nG\subseteq\overline{R}_nG\subseteq R_{n-1}G.
$$
The quotient simplicial group $\overline{P}_nG$ is between $P_nG$ and $P_{n-1}G$. By checking the definition
of Moore-Post\-nikov systems of a simplicial set [Mo1;C2], we have
\begin{lemma}
The quotient simplicial group $P_nG$ is the standard $n$-th Moore-Postnikov system of the simplicial group
$G$.
\end{lemma}
The quotient simplicial group $\overline{P}_nG$ has the same homotopy type of $P_nG$.
\begin{proposition}
The quotient simplicial homomorphism $q_n:P_nG\rightarrow\overline{P}_nG$ is a homotopy equivalence for each $n$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:}
The Moore chain complex of $P_nG$ is as follows:
$$
N(P_nG)_q=\cases{1&for\,$q>n+1$,\cr NG_{n+1}/{\cal Z}G_{n+1}&for\,$q=n+1$,\cr NG_q&for\,$q<n+1$.\cr}
$$
The Moore chain complex of $\overline{P}_nG$ is as follows:
$$
N(\overline{P}_nG)_q=\cases{1&for\,$q>n$,\cr NG_n/{\cal B}G_n &for\, $q=n$,\cr NG_q &for $q<n$.\cr}
$$
Thus $(q_n)_*:\pi_*(P_nG)\rightarrow\pi_*(\overline{P}_nG)$ is an isomorphism and the assertion follows.\\
\par
Let $\overline{F}_n$ denote the kernel of the quotient simplicial homomorphism
$r_n:\overline{P}_nG\rightarrow P_{n-1}G$ for $n>0$.
\begin{proposition}
The simplicial group $\overline{F}_n$ is the minimal simplicial group $K(\pi_nG,n)$ for each $n>0$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:} It is directly to check that
$$
N(\overline{F}_nG)_q=\cases{1&for\,$q\not=n$,\cr \pi_nG&for\, $q=n$.\cr}
$$
The assertion follows.
\begin{proposition}
The short exact sequence of simplicial groups
$$
0\rightarrow\overline{F}_nG\rightarrow\overline{P}_nG\rightarrow P_{n-1}G\rightarrow0
$$
is a central extension for each $n>0$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Consider the relative commutator sussimplicial group $[\overline{F}_nG,\overline{P}_nG]$.
By Lemma 2.1, $[\overline{F}_nG,\overline{P}_nG]_n=1$. Notice that $[\overline{F}_nG,\overline{P}_nG]$
is a subsimplicial group of minimal simplicial group $\overline{F}_nG\cong K(\pi_nG,n)$. Thus
$[\overline{F}_nG,\overline{P}_nG]=1$ and the assertion follows.
\begin{definition}
A simplicial group is said to be {\it $r$-centerless} if the center $Z(G_n)=\{1\}$ for $n\geq r$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a reduced $r$-centerless simplicial group. Then $\pi_n(G)\cong Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)$
for $n\geq r+1$
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof.} By Lemma 2.1, ${\cal Z}_n/{\cal B}_n\subseteq Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)$.
It suffices to show that $Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)\subseteq{\cal Z}_n/{\cal B}_n$ for $n\geq r+1$.
Now let ${\tilde{x}}\in Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)$. Choose $x\in G_n$ with $p(x)={\tilde x}$, where
$p:G_n\to G_n/{\cal B}_n$ is the quotient homomorphism. To check
${\tilde x}\in{\cal Z}_n/{\cal B}_n$, it suffices to show that $x\in {\cal Z}_n$ or $d_jx=1$ for all $j$.
Since $Z(G_{n-1})=\{1\}$, $d_jx=1$ if and only if $[d_jx,y]=1$ for all $y\in G_{n-1}$. Now
$[d_jx,y]=d_j[x,s_{j-1}y]$ for $j>0$ and $[d_0x,y]=d_0[x,s_0y]$. Since
${\tilde x}\in Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)$, $[x,z]\in{\cal B}_n\subseteq{\cal Z}_n$ for all $z\in G_n$
and therefore $[d_jx,y]=1$ for all $y\in G_{n-1}$. The assertion follows.\\
\par
By inspecting the proof, we also have
\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a reduced $r$-centerless simplicial group. Then
$$Z(G_n/{\cal Z}_n)=\{1\}$$ for $n\geq r+1$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a reduced simplicial group so that $G_n$ is cyclic or centerless for each n. Then
there exists a unique integer $\gamma_G>0$ so that $G_n=\{1\}$ for $n<\gamma_G$ and $Z(G_n)=\{1\}$
for $n>\gamma_G$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Let $\gamma_G=max\{\gamma|G_n=\{1\}\,\,for\,\,n<\gamma\}$. Then $\gamma_G>0$. If
$\gamma_G<\infty$. Then $G_{\gamma_G}\neq\{1\}$. We show that $G_{\gamma_G+q}$ is centerless
for each $q>0$. Notice that
$d_0^q\circ s_0^q:G_n\rightarrow G_{n+q}\rightarrow G_n$ and
$d_1^q\circ s_1^q:G_n\rightarrow G_{n+q}\rightarrow G_n$ are identities for $n>0$
Thus $s_0^q(G_{\gamma_G})$ and $s_1^q(G_{\gamma_G})$ are nontrivial summands of
$G_{\gamma_G+q}$. Now let $x=s_0^qy=s_1^qz\in s_0^q(G_{\gamma_G})\cap s_1^q(G_{\gamma_G})$.
Then $d_{q+1}x=d_{q+1}s_0^qy=s_0^qd_1y=1=d_{q+1}s_1^qz=s_1^{q-1}d_2s_1z=s_1^{q-1}z$.
Thus $x=s_1^qz=1$. And therefore $s_0^q(G_{\gamma_G})\cap s_1^q(G_{\gamma_G})=\{1\}$.
The assertion follows.
\begin{corollary}
Let $G$ be a reduced simplicial group such that $G_n$ is cyclic or centerless for each $n$.
Then $\pi_n(G)\cong Z(G_n/{\cal B}_n)$ for $n\neq\gamma_G+1$, where $\gamma_G$ is defined as above.
\end{corollary}
Notice that, for any free group $F$, $rank(F)\geq2\Leftrightarrow Z(F)=\{1\}$ and
$F\neq\{1\}$. We have
\begin{lemma}
Let $G$ be a reduced simplicial group such that $G_n$ is a free group for each $n$. Then there
exits a unique integer $\gamma_G>0$ so that $G_n=\{1\}$ for $n<\gamma_G$ and $rank(G_n)\geq2$
for $n>\gamma_G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{example}
The $1$-stem is determined in this example.
\end{example}
Let $G=F(S^n)$, Milnor's $F$-construction on the standard n-sphere for $n\geq1$.
Then $G_n\cong F(\sigma)\cong {\bf Z}(\sigma)$, the free abelian group
generated by $\sigma$,
$$G_{n+1}\cong F(s_0\sigma,s_1\sigma,\dots,s_n\sigma)$$
and $G_{n+2}\cong F(s_is_j\sigma |0\leq j<i\leq n)$.
It is easy to check that $\Gamma^2G_{n+1}={\cal Z}_{n+1}$,
where $\Gamma^qG$ is the $q$-th term in the lower central series
of a group $G$ starting with $\Gamma^1G=G$.
By Lemma 2.1,
$$\Gamma^3G_{n+1}=[{\cal Z}_{n+1}, G_{n+1}]\subseteq{\cal B}_{n+1}.$$
If $n=1$, then it will be shown that $\Gamma^3G_{n+1}={\cal B}_{n+1}$ in Section 4 and therefore
$\pi_3(S^2)\cong\pi_2(F(S^1))\cong{\bf Z}$, which is generated by $[s_0\sigma,s_1\sigma]$.
\par
Suppose that $n>1$. Consider the following equations
$$
d_k([s_{j-1}s_i\sigma,s_{j+1}s_j\sigma])=\cases{1&for\,$k\neq j,$\cr[s_i\sigma,s_j\sigma]&for\,k=j,\cr}
$$
for $i+1<j\leq n$,
$$
d_k[s_{i+2}s_{i+1}\sigma,s_{i+3}s_i\sigma]=\cases{[s_{i+1}\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]&for\,k=i+1,\cr[s_{i+1}\sigma,s_i\sigma]&for\,k=i+3,\cr1&otherwise,\cr}
$$
and
$$
d_k[s_{i+2}s_i\sigma,s_{i+3}s_{i+1}\sigma]=\cases{[s_{i+1}\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]&for\,k=i+1,\cr[s_i\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]&for\,k=i+2,\cr[s_i\sigma,s_{i+1}\sigma]&for\,k=i+3,\cr1&otherwise.\cr}
$$
By the Homotopy Addition Theorem [C2, Theorem 2.4], $[s_i\sigma, s_j\sigma]\in{\cal B}_{n+1}$ for $i+1<j$,
$[s_{i+1}\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]\equiv[s_i\sigma,s_{i+1}\sigma]$ mod ${\cal B}_{n+1}$ and
$0\equiv[s_i\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]\equiv[s_{i+1}\sigma,s_{i+2}\sigma]\equiv 2[s_i\sigma,s_{i+1}\sigma]$
if $i+2\leq n$. Notice that $[s_0\sigma,s_1\sigma]\neq0$ in $\pi_{n+1}(\Gamma^2G/\Gamma^3G)$.
Thus $[s_0\sigma,s_1\sigma]\notin{\cal B}_{n+1}$ and, by the relations above,
$$
\pi_{n+2}(S^{n+1})\cong\pi_{n+1}(G)\cong{\cal Z}_{n+1}/{\cal B}_{n+1}\cong{\bf Z}/2
$$
for $n\geq2$,
which can be represented by $[s_i\sigma,s_{i+1}\sigma]$ for $0\leq i\leq n-1$.
\section{Intersections of certain subgroups in free groups}
In this section, we give some group theory preliminary. The intersections of certain subgroups in free
groups are considered in this section. We will use these informations to determine the Moore chain complex
of certain simplicial groups in the next sections.
\begin{definition}
let $S$ be a set and let $T\subseteq S$ a subset. The {\bf projection homomorphism}
$$\pi:F(S)\rightarrow F(T)$$
is defined by
$$
\pi(x)=\cases{x&$x\in T$,\cr 1&$x\notin T$.\cr}
$$
\end{definition}
Now let $\pi:F(S)\rightarrow F(T)$ be a projection homomorphism and let $R$ equal
the kernel of $\pi$. Define the subsets of the free group $F(S)$ as follows.
$$
{\cal A}_T(k)=\{[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_t^{\epsilon_t}]|0\leq t\leq k,\epsilon_j=\pm1,
y=y_1^{\epsilon_1}\dots y_t^{\epsilon_t}\in F(T),x\in S-T\},
$$
where $y=y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_t^{\epsilon_t}\in F(T)$ runs over reduced words in $F(T)$ with $t\leq k$ and
$y_j\in T$. Furthermore define $[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\dots],y_t^{\epsilon_t}]=x$ for $t=0$.
Define
$$
{\cal B}_T(k)=\{\phi^{-1}x\phi|\phi\in F(T)\,a\,reduced\,word\,with\,lenth\,l(\phi)\leq k,x\in S-T\},
$$
$${\cal A}_T=\cup_{k\geq0}{\cal A}_T(k)$$
and
$${\cal B}_T=\cup_{k\geq0}{\cal B}_T(k).$$
By the classical Kurosch-Schreier
theorem ( see [MKS, pp.243, K2, Theorem 18.1]), we have
\begin{proposition}
The subgroup $R$ is a free group freely generated by ${\cal B}_T$.
\end{proposition}
We will show that ${\cal A}_T$ is also a set of free generators for $R$. We need a lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $\phi:F_1\rightarrow F_2$ be a homomorphism of free groups. Suppose that $\phi^{ab}:F^{ab}_1\rightarrow F^{ab}_2$
is an isomorphism, where $F^{ab}$ is the abelianlizer of the group $F$. Then $\phi:F_1\rightarrow F_2$ is a monomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Notice that $\phi_*: H_*(F_1)\rightarrow H_*(F_2)$ is an isomorphism,
where $H_*(G)$ is the homology of the group $G$. Thus
$F_1/\Gamma^rF_1\rightarrow F_2/\Gamma^r F_2$ is an isomorphism for each $r$, where $\Gamma^rG$ is the $r$-th
term in the lower central seris of the group $G$ starting with $\Gamma^1G=G$ and so
$$ lim_r F_1/\Gamma^r F_1\rightarrow lim_r F_2/\Gamma^r F_2$$
is an isomorphism. Notice that $\cap_r\Gamma^rF=1$ for any free group $F$. Thus $F\rightarrow lim_r F/\Gamma^r F$ is a monomorphism. The assertion follows.\\
\par
\begin{proposition}
The subgroup $R$ is a free group freely generated by ${\cal A}_T$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof.} First we assume that both $S$ and $T$ are finite sets. Denote by
$i_k:{\cal A}_T(k)\rightarrow R$ and $j_k:{\cal B}_T(k)\rightarrow R$ the natural inclusions. Notice that
$$R=F({\cal B}_T)=colim_kF({\cal B}_T(k)).$$ We set up the following steps.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Step1.} ${\cal A}_T(k)\subseteq F({\cal B}_T(k))$.\\
\par
The proof of this statement is given by induction on $k$ starting with ${\cal A}_T(0)={\cal B}_T(0)=S-T$. Suppose that
${\cal A}_T(k-1)\subseteq F({\cal B}_T(k-1))$ and let
$w=[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_t^{\epsilon_t}]\in{\cal A}_T(k)$. If $t<k$, then
$w\in{\cal A}_T(k-1)\subseteq F({\cal B}_T(k-1))\subseteq F({\cal B}_T(k))$, by induction.
Now
$$
[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_k^{\epsilon_k}]=
[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}}]^{-1}\cdot y_k^{-\epsilon_k}[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}}]y_k^{\epsilon_k}
$$
Now since $[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}}]\in F({\cal B}_T(k-1))$,
$
[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}]\cdots],y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}}]=\prod_{j=1}^s(\phi_j^{-1}x_j\phi_j))^{\eta_j}
$
with $\phi_j^{-1}x_j\phi_j\in{\cal B}_T(k-1)$ and $\eta_j=\pm1$. Thus
$$
w=(\prod_{j=1}^s(\phi_j^{-1}x_j\phi_j))^{\eta_j})^{-1}\cdot\prod_{j=1}^s(y_k^{-\epsilon_k}\phi_j^{-1}x_j\phi_j y_k^{\epsilon_k}))^{\eta_j}\in F({\cal B}_T(k))
$$
The induction is finished.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Step 2.} ${\tilde i_k}: F({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$ is an epimorphism,
where the homomorphism ${\tilde i_k}$ is induced by the inclusion $i_k:{\cal A}_T(k)\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$\\
\par
The proof of this step is given induction on $k$ starting with $F({\cal A}_T(0))=F({\cal B}_T(0))=F(S-T)$. Suppose that
$F({\cal A}_T(k-1))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k-1))$ is an epimorphism and consider
${\tilde i_k}:F({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$.
Let $\phi^{-1}x\phi\in{\cal B}_T(k)$, where $\phi=y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_t^{\epsilon_t}$ is a reduced
word with $t\leq k$. If $t\leq k-1$, then $\phi^{-1}x\phi\in Im\varphi_k$ by induction. Let
$\phi=y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_k^{\epsilon_k}$ be a reduced word and let $z$ denote the word
$(y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}})^{-1}xy_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_{k-1}^{\epsilon_{k-1}}$.
Then $\phi^{-1}x\phi=z\cdot[z,y_k^{\epsilon_k}]$. Notice that $z\in Im({\tilde i_k})$ by induction.
It suffices to show that
$[w,y^{\epsilon}]\in F({\cal A}_T(k))$ for $w\in{\cal A}_T(k-1)$ for all $w\in{\cal A}_T(k-1)$, $y\in T$ and $\epsilon=\pm1$ by
the Witt-Hall identity that
$$
[ab,c]=[a,c]\cdot[[a,c],b]\cdot[b,c].
$$
We show this by second induction starting with
$$
{\cal A}_T(1)=\{[x,y^{\epsilon}]|y\in T, x\in S-T,\epsilon=\pm1\}.
$$
Let $w=[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}],\cdots],y_t^{\epsilon_t}]$ be in ${\cal A}_T(k-1)$ with $k>1$, where
$y^{\epsilon_1}_1\cdots y_t^{\epsilon_t}$ is a reduced word. Let $y\in T$ and let $\epsilon=\pm1$.
If $y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_t^{\epsilon_t}y^{\epsilon}$ is a reduced word, then
$[w,y^{\epsilon}]\in F({\cal A}_T(k))$ by definition. Suppose that
$y_1^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_t^{\epsilon_t}y^{\epsilon}$ is not a reduced word. Then $t>0$, $y=y_t$ and $\epsilon=-\epsilon_t$.
Let $w'$ denote $[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1}],\cdots,],y_{t-1}^{\epsilon_{t-1}}]\in{\cal A}_T(k-2)$.
Then $w=[w',y_t^{\epsilon_t}]$. By the Witt-Hall identities, there is an equation
$$
1=[w',y_t^{-\epsilon_t}]\cdot w\cdot [w,y_t^{-\epsilon_t}].
$$
By induction, $[w',y_t^{-\epsilon_t}]\in F({\cal A}_T(k-1))\subseteq F({\cal A}_T(k))$ and so
$$[w,y_t^{-\epsilon_t}]=w^{-1}[w',y_t^{-\epsilon_t}]^{-1}\in F({\cal A}_T(k-1))\subseteq F({\cal A}_T(k)).$$
The second induction is finished and so the first induction is finished. The assertion follows.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Step 3.} ${\tilde i_k}: F({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$ is an isomorphism.\\
\par
By Step 2, ${\bf Z}({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow{\bf Z}({\cal B}_T(k))$ is an epimorphism. Notice that
$$rank(F({\cal B}_T(k)))=|{\cal B}_T(k)|=|{\cal A}_T(k)|=rank(F({\cal A}_T(k))).$$
Thus ${\tilde i_k}:{\bf Z}({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow{\bf Z}({\cal B}_T(k))$ is an isomorphism and so
${\tilde i_k}: F({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$ is a monomorphism. Thus
${\tilde i_k}$ is an isomorphism.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Step 4.} Since $F({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T(k))$ is an isomorphism
for each $k$,
$F({\cal A}_T)=colim_kF({\cal A}_T(k))\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T)=colim_kF({\cal B}_T(k))$ is
an isomorphism.\\
\par
Now consider the general case. By Lemma 3.6, it suffices to show that
${\tilde i}: F({\cal A}_T)\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T)$ is an isomorphism. To check that
$F({\cal A}_T)\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T)$ is an epimorphism. Let $w\in{\cal B}_T$, there exist finite subsets
$S'$ and $T'$ of $S$ and $T$, respectively, so that $w\in{\cal B}_{T'}$. By the special case as above,
${\tilde i}|_{F({\cal A}_{T'})}: F({\cal A}_{T'})\rightarrow F({\cal B}_{T'})$ is an isomorphism and
$w\in Im{\tilde i}|_{F({\cal A}_{T'})}$. Thus ${\tilde i}$ is an epimorphism. To check that
$F({\cal A}_T)\rightarrow F({\cal B}_T)$ is a monomorphism. Let $w\in Ker{\tilde i}$, there exist finite
subsets $S'$ and $T'$ of $S$ and $T$, respectively, so that $w\in F({\cal A}_{T'})$. Notice that
${\tilde i}|_{F({\cal A}_{T'})}$ is an isomorphism. Thus $w=1$ and the assertion follows.\\
\par
Now let's consider the intersection of kernels of projection homomorphisms. Let $S$ be a set and let $T_j$
be a subset of $S$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Let $\pi_j:F(S)\rightarrow F(T_j)$ be the projection homomorphism
for $1\leq j\leq k$. We construct a subset ${\cal A}(T_1,\cdots,T_k)$ of $F(S)$ by induction on $k$ as follows.
$$
{\cal A}(T_1)={\cal A}_{T_1},
$$
where ${\cal A}_T$ is defined in Definition3.1. Let
$$
T_2^{(2)}=\{w\in{\cal A}(T_1)|w=[[x,y_1^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_t^{\epsilon_t}]\, with\,x,y_j\in T_2\, for\,all\,j\}
$$
and define
$$
{\cal A}(T_1,T_2)={\cal A}(T_1)_{T_2^{(2)}}.
$$
Suppose that ${\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})$ is well defined so that all of the elements in
${\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})$ are written down as certain commutators in $F(S)$ in terms of
elements in $S$. Let $T_k^{(k)}$
be the subset of ${\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})$ defined by
$$
T^{(k)}_k=\{w\in{\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})|w=[x_1^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,x_l^{\epsilon_l}]\,with\,x_j\in T_k\,for\,all\,j\},
$$
where $[x_1^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,x_l^{\epsilon_l}]$ are the elements in
${\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})$
which are written down as commutators. Then define
$$
{\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_k)={\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})_{T_k^{(k)}}
$$
\begin{theorem}
Let $S$ be a set and let $T_j$
be a subset of $S$ for $1\leq j\leq k$. Let $\pi_j:F(S)\rightarrow F(T_j)$ be the projection homomorphism
for $1\leq j\leq k$. Then
the intersection $\bigcap_{j=1}^kKer\pi_j$ is a free group freely generated by ${\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_k)$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof.} The proof is given by induction on $k$. If $k=1$, the assertion follows from the above lemma. Suppose
that $\bigcap_{j=1}^{k-1}Ker\pi_j=F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))$ and consider
$\pi_k:F(S)\rightarrow F(T_k)$. Then
$$\bigcap_{j=1}^kKer\pi_j=Ker({\bar\pi_k}:F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))\rightarrow F(T_k))$$, where
${\bar\pi_k}$ is $\pi_k$ restricted to the subgroup $F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))$.
Let $$w=[x_1^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,x_l^{\epsilon_l}]\in{\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}).$$ If $w\notin T_k^{(k)}$,
then $x_j\notin T_k$ for some $j$ and ${\bar\pi_k}(w)=1$. Thus ${\bar\pi_k}$ factors through
$F(T_k^{(k)})$, i.e, there is a homomorphism $j:F(T_k^{(k)})\rightarrow F(T_k)$ so that
${\bar\pi_k}=j\circ\pi$, where $\pi:F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))\rightarrow F(T_k^{(k)})$ is the
projection homomorphism. We claim that $j:F(T_k^{(k)})\rightarrow F(T_k)$ is a monomorphism.
Consider the commutative diagram
$$
\hspace{0.0in}
\begin{array}{cccccccccc}
&F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))&\stackrel{{\bar\pi_k}}{\rightarrow}& F(T_k)&
\hookrightarrow& F(S) \\
& \uparrow & & \uparrow j & & \uparrow \\
& F(T_k^{(k)}) &\stackrel{=}{\rightarrow} & F(T_k^{(k)}) & \hookrightarrow & F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1})),
\end{array}
$$
where $F(T_k^{(k)})\rightarrow F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))$ and
$F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))\rightarrow F(S)$ are inclusions of subgroups. Thus
$j:F(T_k^{(k)})\rightarrow F(T_k)$ is a monomorphism and
$$
Ker{\bar\pi_k}=Ker(F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_{k-1}))\rightarrow F(T_k^{(k)})=F({\cal A}(T_1,T_2,\cdots,T_k)).
$$
The assertion follows.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\pi_j$ be the projection homomorphisms as in Theorem 3.5. Then the intersection subgroup
$\bigcap_{j=1}^kKer\pi_j$ equals the commutator subgroup $[[<T_1>,\cdots,<T_k>]]$ which is defined
in Notations 1.3.
\end{corollary}
\section{On the Homotopy Groups of the $3$-sphere}
In this section, we study the Moore chain complex of the Milnor's construction $F(S^1)$. The proofs
Theorems 1.2 and 1.4 are given in this section, where Theorem 4.5 is Theorem 1.2 and Theorem 4.10 is Theorem 1.4.
Recall that
the simplicial $1$-sphere $S^1$ is a free simplicial set generated by a $1$-simplex $\sigma$. Thus
$S^1_0=\{*\}$, $S^1_1=\{\sigma,*\}$ and
$S^1_{n+1}=\{*,s_n\cdots s_{i+1}s_{i-1}\cdots s_0\sigma|0\leq j\leq n\}$. Let $x_i$ denote
$s_n\cdots s_{i+1}s_{i-1}\cdots s_0\sigma$. Then $F(S^1)_{n+1}=F(x_0,x_1,\cdots, x_n)$ the free group
freely generated by $x_0,\cdots,x_n$. Let $y_i$ denote $x_{i-1}x_i^{-1}$ for $-1\leq i\leq n$, where
we put $x_{-1}=x_{n+1}=1$ in $F(S^1)_{n+1}=F(x_0,\cdots, x_n)$.
By direct calculation, we have
\begin{lemma}
$F(S^1)_{n+1}=F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)$ with
$$
d_jy_k=\cases{y_{k-1}&$j\leq k$,\cr 1&$j=k+1$,\cr y_k&$j>k+1$,\cr}
$$
and
$$
s_jy_k=\cases{y_{k+1}&$j\leq k$,\cr y_ky_{k+1}&$j=k+1$,and\cr y_k&$j>k+1$\cr}
$$
for $0\leq j\leq n+1$, where $y_{-1}=(y_0\cdots y_{n-1})^{-1}$ in $F(S^1)_n$.
\end{lemma}
Now let $C_{n+1}$ denote the subgroup of $F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)$ generated by all of the commutators
$[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]$ with $\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}=\{0,1,\cdots,n\}$ as sets,
i.e. each $j$ $(0\leq j\leq n)$ appears in the index set $\{i_1,\cdots, i_t\}$ at least one time, where
$\epsilon_j=\pm1$ and the commutator
$[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]$ runs over all of the commutator bracket
arrangements of weight $t$ for $y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}$.
\begin{lemma}
The group $C_{n+1}$ is a subgroup of $NF(S^1)_{n+1}$,i.e $C_{n+1}\subseteq \cap_{j\neq 0}Ker(d_j)$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Notice that $d_jy_{j-1}=1$ for $1\leq j\leq n+1$. Since
$\{y_{i_1},\cdots, y_{i_t}\}=\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_n\}$,
$d_j[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]=1$ for each $j>0$. The assertion follows.\\
\par
\begin{theorem}
$NF(S^1)_{n+1}=C_{n+1}$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof.} For $1\leq j\leq n+1$, let $S=\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_n\}$ and let
$T_j=\{y_0,\cdots,{\hat y_j}\cdots,y_n\}$. By Lemma 4.1, there is a commutative diagram
$$
\hspace{0.0in}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
& F(S) & \stackrel{\pi_j}{\rightarrow} & F(T_{j-1}) \\
& \downarrow d_j & & {\bar d_j}\downarrow \cong \\
& F(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1}) &\stackrel{=}{\rightarrow} & F(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1}),\\
\end{array}
$$
where
$$
{\bar d_j}(y_k)=\cases{y_k&$0\leq k\leq j-2,$\cr y_{k-1}&$j\leq k\leq n.$\cr}
$$
Thus $Kerd_j=Ker\pi_j$ and $NF(S^1)_{n+1}=\bigcap_{j=1}^{n+1}Kerd_j=\bigcap_{j=1}^{n+1}Ker\pi_j$.
By Theorem 3.5, $NF(S^1)_{n+1}=F({\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n))$, where the notation
${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n)$ is given in Section 3. To check that
$$
F({\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n))\subseteq C_{n+1},
$$
it suffices to show that
${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n)\subseteq C_{n+1}$. This will follow from the following statement.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Statement.} For each $0\leq j\leq n$ and
$w=[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},y_{i_2}^{\epsilon_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_j)$,
$\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_j\}\subseteq\{y_{i_1},y_{i_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}$.\\
\par
We show this statement by induction on $j$. Note that $F(T_0)=F(y_1,\cdots,y_n)$. For $j=0$,
$$
{\cal A}(T_0)=\{[[y_0,y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1}],\cdots,],y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]|i_s>0,
y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1}\cdots y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}\,a\,reduced\,word\, in\,F(T_0)\}.
$$
Thus the assertion holds for $j=0$. Suppose that the assertion holds for $j-1$ with $j\leq n$.
Notice that $T_j=\{y_0,\cdots,{\hat y_j},\cdots, y_n\}$. Thus
$$
T_j^{(j)}=\{w\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j-1})|w=[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]\,
with\,y_j\notin\{y_{i_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}\}.
$$
and so $y_j\in\{y_{i_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}$ for $w=[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j-1})-T_j^{(j)}$.
Hence, by induction,
$$
\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_j\}\subseteq\{y_{i_1},y_{i_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}
$$
for
$w=[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j-1})-T_j^{(j)}$.
Notice that
$${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_j)={\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j-1})_{T_j^{(j)}}.$$
Thus
$$
\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_j\}\subseteq\{y_{i_1},y_{i_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}
$$
for each
$w=[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j})$. The induction
is finished and the theorem follows.
\begin{corollary}
${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n)$ is a set of free generators for $NF(S^1)_{n+1}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 1.2]
For $n\geq1$, $\pi_{n+2}(S^3)$ is isomorphic to the center of the group with generators $y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_n$
and relations $[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},y_{i_2}^{\epsilon_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]$ with
$$
\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}=\{-1,0,1,\cdots,n\}
$$
as sets, where
$\epsilon_j=\pm1$,$y_{-1}=(y_0y_1\cdots y_n)^{-1}$ and the commutator bracket $[\cdots]$ runs over all
bracket arrangements of weight $t$ for each $t$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Notice that $\pi_{n+2}(S^3)\cong\pi_{n+1}F(S^1)$ for $n\geq1$ and
${\cal B}_{n+1}=d_0(NF(S^1)_{n+2})$. By Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.3, ${\cal B}_{n+1}$ is generated by
$[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},y_{i_2}^{\epsilon_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]$ so that
$\{y_{i_1},y_{i_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}\}=\{y_0,y_1,\cdots,y_n\}$, where $\epsilon_j=\pm1$. By Proposition 2.8,
it suffices to check that $\pi_2(F(S^1))\cong Z(F(S^1)_2/{\cal B}_2)=Z(F(y_0,y_1)/{\cal B}_2)$. By
Example 2.13, ${\cal Z}_2=\Gamma^2F(S^1)_2=\Gamma^2F(y_0,y_1)$ and
$\Gamma^3F(y_0,y_1)\subseteq{\cal B}_2$. Now , by the construction of ${\cal B}_2$,
${\cal B}_2\subseteq\Gamma^3F(y_0,y_1)$ and therefore
$$\pi_2(F(S^1))\cong{\cal Z}_2/{\cal B}_2=\Gamma^2F(y_0,y_1)/\Gamma^3F(y_0,y_1)=Z(F(y_0,y_1)/{\cal B}_2).$$
The assertion follows.
\begin{remark}
The relations in above theorem are not minimal, i.e, many of them can be cancelled out.
\end{remark}
\begin{proposition}
Let ${C'}_{n+1}$ be the subgroup of $F(S^1)_{n+1}$ generated by all commutators given by
$[\cdots[y_{i_1}^{\epsilon_1},y_{i_2}^{\epsilon_2}],\cdots,],y_{i_t}^{\epsilon_t}]$ with
$\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}=\{0,1,\cdots,n\}$ and $\epsilon_j=\pm1$. Then
$$
NF(S^1)_{n+1}/\Gamma^s\cap NF(S^1)_{n+1}\cong C'_{n+1}/\Gamma^s\cap C'_{n+1}
$$
for each $s$, where $\Gamma^s=\Gamma^sF(S^1)_{n+1}$ is the $s$-term in the lower central series of $F(S^1)_{n+1}$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof.} Notice that $C'_{n+1}\subseteq NF(S^1)_{n+1}$. The induced homomorphism
$f_s:C'_{n+1}/\Gamma^s\cap C'_{n+1}\rightarrow NF(S^1)_{n+1}/\Gamma^s\cap NF(S^1)_{n+1}$ is a monomorphism.
We check that $f$ is an epimorphism. It suffices to show that,
for each $w\in NF(S^1)$, there exists a sequence of elements
$\{x_j\}$ so that $x_j\in\Gamma^j\cap C'_{n+1}$ and $wx_1x_2\cdots x_s\in\Gamma^{s+1}$ for each $s$.
In fact, if this statement holds,
$wx_1x_2\cdots x_{s-1}\equiv 1$ $mod$ $\Gamma^s\cap NF(S^1)_{n+1}$
for each $s$ and $w=(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})\cdot(x_1x_2\cdots x_{j-1})^{-1}\in C'_{n+1}$
$mod\,\Gamma^s$.
Now we
construct $x_j$ by induction, which depends on $w$. Notice that, for $n\geq1$,
$NF(S^1)_{n+1}\in\Gamma^{n+1}\subseteq\Gamma^2$. Choose $x_j=1$ for $j\leq n$.
Suppose that there are
$x_1,\cdots,x_{s-1}$ so that $x_j\in\Gamma^j\cap C'_{n+1}$ and $wx_1\cdots x_{s-1}\in\Gamma^s$.
Since $C'_{n+1}\subseteq NF(S^1)_{n+1}$, $wx_1\cdots x_{s-1}\in\Gamma^s\cap NF(S^1)_{n+1}$ and
$d_j(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})=1$ for $j>1$. Let
$\pi:\Gamma^s\rightarrow\Gamma^s/\Gamma^{s+1}$ be the quotient homomorphism.
$\pi(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})$ is a linear combination of basic Lie products. We claim that
$\pi(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})$ is a linear combination of basic Lie products in which each $y_j$ appears
in the Lie product for $0\leq j\leq n$. If not, there exists $j$ so that
$\pi(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})=b+c$, where $b$ is a nontrivial linear combination of basic Lie products in which
$y_j$ does not appear and $c$ is a linear combination of basic Lie products in which $y_j$ appears.
Now the face homomorphism $d_{j+1}:F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)\rightarrow F(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1})$
induces a homomorphism
$$
{\bar d}_{j+1}:\Gamma^sF(y_0,\cdots,y_n)/\Gamma^{s+1}F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)\rightarrow\Gamma^sF(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1})/\Gamma^{s+1}F(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1})
$$
and
$$1={\bar d}_{j+1}\pi(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})={\bar d}_{j+1}(b)+{\bar d}_{j+1}(c)={\bar d}_{j+1}(b).$$
Notice that
$$d_{j+1}|_{F(y_0,\cdots,y_{j-1},y_{j+1},\cdots,y_n)}:F(y_0,\cdots,y_{j-1},y_{j+1},\cdots,y_n)\rightarrow F(y_0,\cdots,y_{n-1})$$
is an isomorphism. Thus $b=1$. This contradicts to that $b$ is a nontrivial linear combination of a basis.
Thus $\pi(wx_1\cdots x_{s-1})$ is a linear combination of basic Lie products in which all of the $y_j$
appear. By Theorem 5.12 in [MKS,pp.337], there exists $x_s$ in $C'_{n+1}$ so that $\pi(wx_1\cdots x_s)=1$, or
$wx_1\cdots x_s\in\Gamma^{s+1}$. The induction is finished now. \\
\par
By Corollary 3.6, we have
\begin{theorem}
In the free group $F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)$, $NF(S^1)_{n+1}=[[<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]]$ and
${\cal B}F(S^1)_{n+1}=[[<y_{-1}>,<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]]$.
\end{theorem}
Thus Theorem 4.5 can be rewritten as follows.
\begin{theorem} In the free group $F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)$ for $n\geq1$, the center
$$
Z(F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)/[[<y_{-1}>,<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]])\cong\pi_{n+2}(S^3)
$$
\end{theorem}
\par
By Lemma 4.1 and Proposition 3.5, $Kerd_0=<x_0>=<y_{-1}>$ and therefore
$$
{\cal Z}_{n+1}=[[<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]]\cap<y_{-1}>.
$$ Thus we have
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 1.4]
In the free group $F(y_0,\cdots,y_n)$ with $n\geq1$,
$$
[[<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]]\cap<y_{-1}>]]/[[<y_{-1}>,<y_0>,\cdots,<y_n>]]\cong\pi_{n+2}(S^3).
$$
\end{theorem}
\section{On the Homotopy Groups of $\Sigma K(\pi,1)$}
In this section, we give group theoretical descriptions for $\pi_*(\Sigma K(\pi,1))$ for any
group $\pi$. The proof of Theorem 1.5 is given in this section, where Theorem 5.9 is Theorem 1.5. We will use the notations defined in Section 3.
First we extend our description for $\pi_*(S^2)$ to the case $\pi_*(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^2)$.
Recall that $(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_0=*$, $(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_1=\{\sigma_{\alpha},*|\alpha\in J\}$
and
$(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=\{s_n\cdots{\hat s_i}\cdots s_0\sigma_{\alpha},*|\alpha\in J,0\leq i\leq n\}$.
Let $x^{(\alpha)}_i$ denote $s_n\cdots{\hat s_i}\cdots s_0\sigma_{\alpha}$. Then
$$
F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=F(x^{(\alpha)}_0,x^{(\alpha)}_1,\cdots,x^{(\alpha)}_n|\alpha\in J).
$$
Let $y^{(\alpha)}_j=x^{(\alpha)}_j\cdot x^{(\alpha)}_{j+1}$ for $0\leq j\leq n-1$ and $y^{(\alpha)}_n=x^{(\alpha)}_n$.
By Lemma 4.1, we have
\begin{lemma}
$F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=F(y^{(\alpha)}_j|0\leq j\leq n,\alpha\in J)$ with
$$
d_j(y^{(\alpha)}_k)=\cases{y^{(\alpha)}_{k-1}& $j\leq k$, \cr 1& $j=k+1$, \cr
y^{(\alpha)}_k & $j>k+1$, \cr}
$$
and
$$
s_j(y^{(\alpha)}_k)=\cases{y^{(\alpha)}_{k+1}& $j\leq k$, \cr y^{(\alpha)}_k\cdot y^{(\alpha)}_{k+1}& $j=k+1$, \cr
y^{(\alpha)}_k & $j>k+1$, \cr}
$$
for $0\leq j\leq n+1$, where $y^{(\alpha)}_{-1}=(y^{(\alpha)}_0\cdots y^{(\alpha)}_{n-1})^{-1}$ in
$F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)$
\end{lemma}
Let $C^J_{n+1}$ denote the subgroup of $F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}$ generated by all of the commutators
$[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},\cdots, y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]$ with
$\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}=\{0,1,\cdots,n\}$ as sets, where $\epsilon_j=\pm1$, $\alpha_j\in J $ and the
commutator bracket $[\cdots]$ runs over all of the commutator bracket arrangements of weight $t$ for
each $t$.
\begin{lemma}
$C^J_{n+1}\subseteq NF(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof:} For each $1\leq j\leq n+1$, there exists some $i_s=j-1$. Thus
$d_j(y^{(\alpha_s)\epsilon_s}_{i_s})=1$ for some $i_s$
and therefore
$$
d_j([y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},\cdots, y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}])=1
$$
for each $j>0$.
The assertion follows.
\begin{lemma}
For each $1\leq j\leq n+1$,
$$
Kerd_j\cap F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=<y^{(\alpha)}_{j-1}|\alpha\in J>,
$$
the normal subgroup generated by $y_{j-1}^{(\alpha)}$ with $\alpha\in J$.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof:} By the definition of $d_j$, there is a commutative diagram
$$
\hspace{0.0in}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
& F(y^{(\alpha)}_j|0\leq j\leq n,\alpha\in J) & \stackrel{p}{\rightarrow} & F(y^{(\alpha)}_0\cdots{\hat y^{(\alpha)}_{j-1}}\cdots y_n^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J) \\
& d_j\downarrow & &\cong \downarrow {\bar d_j} \\
& F(y^{(\alpha)}_j|0\leq j\leq n-1,\alpha\in J)&\stackrel{=}{\rightarrow} & F(y^{(\alpha)}_j|0\leq j\leq n-1,\alpha\in J) \\
\end{array}
$$
where $p$ is the projection and
$$
{\bar d_j}y^{(\alpha)}_k=\cases{y^{(\alpha)}_{k-1}& $j\leq k$,\cr y^{(\alpha)}_k& $j>k+1$.\cr}
$$
The assertion follows.
\begin{theorem}
Let $C^J_{n+1}$ be defined as above. Then
$$
NF(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=C^J_{n+1}
$$
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof:}
By lemma 5.1, each $d_j$ with $j>0$ is a projection homomorphism. Thus, by Theorem 3.5,
$$
NF(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)_{n+1}=\bigcap_{j=1}^{n+1}Kerd_j=F({\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n))
$$
where
$T_j=\{y^{(\alpha)}_0,\cdots,{\hat y^{(\alpha)}_j},\cdots,y^{(\alpha)}_n|\alpha\in J\}$. It suffices to show that
$${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_n)\subseteq C^J_{n+1}.$$ This follows from the next lemma.
\begin{lemma}
For $0\leq j\leq n$, let $W=[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]\in {\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_j)$.
Then
$$
\{0,1,\cdots,j\}\subseteq\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}.
$$
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof:} The proof is given by induction on $j$ for $0\leq j\leq n$. Notice that, by construction, each
element in ${\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_j)$ is written as a certain commutator. If $j=0$, then
$$
{\cal A}(T_0)=\{y^{(\alpha)}_0,[[y^{(\alpha)}_0,y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1}],\cdots,],y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]\}
$$
where $\alpha,\alpha_j\in J$, $\epsilon_j=\pm1$ and $y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1}\cdots y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}$
runs over all of the reduced words $\not=1$ in $F(y^{(\alpha)}_j|\alpha\in J,1\leq j\leq n)$.
Thus the assertion holds for $j=0$. Suppose that the the assertion holds for $j-1$ with $j\leq n$.
Recall that
$$
T^{(j)}_j=\{W\in{\cal A}(T_0,T_1,\cdots,T_{j-1}|W=[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}],\,with\,y^{(\alpha_s)}_{i_s}\in T_j\}.
$$
Notice that $y^{(\alpha_s)}_{i_s}\in T_j\Longleftrightarrow i_s\not=j$. Thus,
for $W=[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,\cdots,T_{j-1})-T^{(j)}_j$,
$j\in\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}$. By induction, $\{0,\cdots,j-1\}\subseteq\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}$. Hence
$$\{0,1,\cdots,j\}\subseteq\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}$$
for any
$W=[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,\cdots,T_{j-1}-T^{(j)}_j$.
Recall that, by construction,
$$
{\cal A}(T_0,\cdots, T_j)={\cal A}_{T^{(j)}_j}.
$$
$$\{0,1,\cdots,j\}\subseteq\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}$$
for any
$W=[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]\in{\cal A}(T_0,\cdots,T_{j})$.
This completes the proof.
\begin{theorem}
$\pi_{n+2}(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^2)$ is isomorphic to the center of the group with generators
$$
y^{(\alpha)}_0,y^{(\alpha)}_1,\cdots,y^{(\alpha)}_n
$$
for $\alpha\in J$. and relations
$$
[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1}, y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]
$$
with $\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}=\{-1,0,1,\cdots,n\}$ as sets, where the indices $i_j$ can be repeated,
$\epsilon_j=\pm1$, $\alpha_j\in J$ and the commutator bracket runs over all of the commutator bracket
arrangements of weight $t$ for each $t$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Notice that $\pi_{n+2}(\vee_{\alpha\in J} S^2)\cong\pi_{n+1}(F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1))$.
By the above theorem, ${\cal B}_{n+1}$ is generated by
$$
[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1}, y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]
$$
By Theorem 2.8, the assertion holds for $n\geq1$. For $n=0$, ${\cal B}_1=\Gamma^2(F(y^{(\alpha)}_0|\alpha\in J))$
and
$$
F(y^{(\alpha)}_0|\alpha\in J)/{\cal B}_1\cong \oplus_{\alpha\in J}{\bf Z}\pi_2(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^2).
$$
The assertion holds for all of $n$.\\
\par
For the general case, we need a simplicial group construction.
\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a simplicial group and let $X$ be a pointed simplicial set with a point $*$. The simplicial group
{\bf $F^G(X)$} is defined by setting
$$
F^G(X)_n=\coprod_{x\in X_n}(G_n)_x,
$$
the free product, modulo the relations $(G_n)_*$, where $(G_n)_x$ is a copy of $G_n$. The faces and
degeneracies homomorphisms in $F^G(X)$ is given in the canonical way by the universal property of the
coproduct in the category of groups and group homomorphisms.
\end{definition}
\begin{lemma}[Ca, Theorem 9, pp.88]
Let $G$ be a simplicial group and let $X$ be a pointed simplicial set. Then the goemetric realization
$|F^G(X)|$ is homotopy equivalent to $\Omega(B|G|\wedge|X|)$.
\end{lemma}
A generalization of this lemma by using fibrewise simplicial groups is given in [Wu1].
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 1.5]
Let $\pi$ be any group and let $\{x^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J\}$ be a set of generators for $\pi$. Then, for
$n\not=1$, $\pi_{n+2}(\Sigma K(\pi,1))$ is isomorphic to the center of the quotient group
of the free product
$${\coprod^{groups}}_{0\leq j\leq n}(\pi)_j$$
modulo the relations
$$
[y^{(\alpha_1)\epsilon_1}_{i_1},y^{(\alpha_2)\epsilon_2}_{i_2},\cdots,y^{(\alpha_t)\epsilon_t}_{i_t}]
$$
with $\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}=\{-1,0,1,\cdots,n\}$ as sets,
where $(\pi)_j$ is a copy of $\pi$ with generators $\{x^{(\alpha)}_j|\alpha\in J\}$, $\epsilon_j=\pm1$,
$y^{(\alpha)}_{-1}={x^{(\alpha)}_0}^{-1}$, $y_j=x^{(\alpha)}_j{x^{(\alpha)}_{j+1}}^{-1}$ for $1\leq j\leq n-1$ and
$y^{(\alpha)}_n=x^{(\alpha)}_n$, the commutator bracket
$[\cdots]$ runs over all of the commutator bracket arrangment of weight $t$ for each $t$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Since $\{x^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J\}$ is a set of generators for $\pi$,
$F(x^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J)\rightarrow\pi $ is an epimorphism. Thus
$$
F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)\cong F^{F(x^{(\alpha)}|\alpha\in J)}(S^1)\rightarrow F^{\pi}(S^1)
$$ is an epimorphism.
Hence
$$
NF(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)\rightarrow NF^{\pi}(S^1)
$$
and
$$
{\cal B}F(\vee_{\alpha\in J}S^1)\rightarrow {\cal B}F^{\pi}(S^1)
$$
are epimorphisms.
The assertion follows from Theorem 5.6, Lemma 5.7 and Proposition 2.8.
\section{Applications}
In this section, we consider Cohen's $K$-construction. Our descriptions for the homotopy groups of
$3$-sphere gives a calculation for the $K$-construction of $1$-sphere.
\begin{definition}
Let $X$ be set. The group ${\bf K(X)}$ is defined to the the quotient group of the free group $F(X)$
modulo the normal subgroup generated by all of the
commutators $[[x_1,x_2],\cdots,],x_t]$ with $x_i\in X$ and $x_i=x_j$ for some $1\leq i<j\leq t$
Now let $S$ be a pointed simplicial set. The simplicial group ${\bf K(S)}$ is defined to be the quotient
simplicial group of $F(S)$ modulo the normal simplicial subgroup generated by all of the
commutators $[[x_1,x_2],\cdots,],x_t]$ with $x_i\in S$ and $x_i=x_j$ for some $1\leq i<j\leq t$,
where $F(S)$ is the Milnor's $F(K)$-construction for the simplicial set $S$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
The group $Lie(n)$ is the
elments of weight $n$ in the Lie algebra $Lie(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)$ which is the quotient Lie algebra of
the free Lie algebra $$L(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)$$ over ${\bf Z}$ modulo the two sided Lie ideal generated by the Lie
elements $[[x_{i_1},x_{i_2}],\cdots,],x_{i_t}]$ with $i_l=i_k$ for some $1\leq l<k\leq t$.
\end{definition}
The following lemmas are due to Fred Cohen.
\begin{lemma}[Co]
$\Gamma^qK(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)=\{1\}$ for $q\geq n$ and
$$\Gamma^nK(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n)\cong Lie(n),$$
where $\Gamma^qG$ is the $q$-th term in the lower central series for the group $G$ starting with $\Gamma^1G=G$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Co]
In the group $K(x_1,x_2,\cdots, x_n)$, the normal subgroup grnerated by $x_j$ is abelian for each $1\leq j\leq n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}[Co]
The set $\{[x_1,x_{\sigma(2)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}]|\sigma\in\Sigma_{n-1}\}$
is a ${\bf Z}$-basis for $Lie(n)$, where $\Sigma_{n-1}$ acts on $\{2, 3,\cdots,n\}$ by permutation.
\end{lemma}
Recall that
the simplicial $1$-sphere $S^1$ is a free simplicial set generated by a $1$-simplex $\sigma$. More
precisely, $S^1_0=\{*\}$, $S^1_1=\{\sigma,*\}$ and
$S^1_{n+1}=\{*,s_n\cdots{\hat s_j} \cdots s_0\sigma|0\leq j\leq n\}$. Let
$x_i$ denote $s_n\cdots {\hat s_j}\cdots s_0\sigma$. Then
\begin{lemma}
The face functions $d_i:S^1_{n+1}\rightarrow S^1_n$ and the degenarate functions
$s_i:S^1_{n+1}\rightarrow S^1_{n+2}$ are as follows:
$$
d_ix_j=\cases{x_j&$j<i$\cr x_{j-1}&$j\geq i$\cr}
$$
and
$$
s_ix_j=\cases{x_j&$j<i$\cr x_{j+1}&$j\geq i$\cr},
$$
where we put $x_{-1}=*$ and $x_n=*$ in $S^1_n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
$\pi_n(K(S^1))$ is isomorphic to $Lie(n)$
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Let $\pi:F(S^1)\rightarrow K(S^1)$ be the quotient homomorphism. Then
$NF(S^1)\rightarrow NK(S^1)$ is an epimorphism. Recall that $NF(S^1)_{n+1}$ is generated by all of
the commutators
$$
[y_{i_1},y_{i_2},\cdots,y_{i_t}]
$$
so that
$$\{i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_t\}=\{0,1,\cdots,n\}$$ by Theorem 4.3. Thus
$
NF(S^1)_{n+1}\subseteq \Gamma^{n+1}F(S^1)_{n+1}
$
and therefore
$$
NK(S^1)_{n+1}\subseteq\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_{n+1}.
$$
Notice that $K(S^1)_{n+1}\cong K(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n)$. Thus $\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_{n+1}\cong Lie(n+1)$ and
$\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_n=\{1\}$. Thus
$$
d_j|_{\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_{n+1}}:\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_{n+1}\rightarrow K(S^1)_n
$$
is trivial for each $j\geq0$. And therefore
$$
NKS^1)_{n+1}=\Gamma^{n+1}K(S^1)_{n+1}\cong Lie(n+1)
$$
with
$
d_0:NK(S^1)_{n+1}\rightarrow NK(S^1)_n
$ is trivial. the assertion follows.
\begin{corollary}
Let $\pi:F(S^1)\rightarrow K(S^1)$ be the quotient simplicial homomorphism. Then
$$
\pi_*:\pi_n(F(S^1))\rightarrow \pi_n(K(S^1))
$$
is an isomorphism for $n=1,2$ and zero for $n>2$.
\end{corollary}
Now we consider the Samelson product in $\pi_*(K(S^1))$. Let $x_j$ denote $s_n\cdots{\hat s_j}\cdots s_0\sigma$ in
$S^1_{n+1}$. The following lemma follows directly from Lemma 6.6.
\begin{lemma}
Let $I=(i_1,i_2,\cdots,i_m)$ be a sequence with $i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_m$. Then
$ s_I:S^1_{n+1}-*\rightarrow S^1_{n+m+1}-*$ is the composite
$$
\{x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n\}\stackrel{{\bar s_I}}{\rightarrow}\{x_0,x_1,\cdots,{\hat x_{i_1}},\cdots,{\hat x_{i_2}},\cdots,{\hat x_{i_m}},\cdots,x_{n+m}\}
$$
$$
\hookrightarrow\{x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_{n+m}\}.
$$
where $s_I=s_{i_m}\cdots s_{i_1}$ and ${\bar s_I}$ is the order preserving isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
Recall that, for
$\sigma\in\pi_n(G)$
and $\tau\in\pi_m(G)$, the Samelson product [C1] is defined to be
$$
<\sigma,\tau>=\prod_{(a,b)}[s_b\sigma, s_a\tau]^{sign(a,b)},
$$
where $G$ is a simplicial group, $(a,b)=(a_1,\cdots,a_n,b_1,\cdots,b_m)$ runs over all shuffles of
$(0,1,\cdots,m+n-1)$,i.e. all permutations, so that $a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_n$, $b_1<b_2<\cdots<b_m$, $sign(a,b)$
is the sign of the permutation $(a,b)$, the order of the product $\prod$ is right lexicographic on $a$ and
$s_a=s_{a_n}\cdots s_{a_1}$.
\begin{proposition}
The Samelson product in $\pi_*(K(S^1))$ is as follows:
$$
<[x_{\sigma(0)},x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}],[x_{\tau(0)},x_{\tau(1)},\cdots,x_{\tau(m)}]>
$$
$$
=\sum_{(I,J)}sign(I,J)[[x_{i_{\sigma(0)}},\cdots,x_{i_{\sigma(n)}}],[x_{j_{\tau(0)}},\cdots,x_{j_{\tau(m)}}]]
$$
for the commutators
$$
[x_{\sigma(0)},x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}]\in\pi_{n+1}(KS^1))\cong Lie(n+1)
$$
and
$$
[x_{\tau(0)},x_{\tau(1)},\cdots,x_{\tau(m)}]\in\pi_{m+1}(K(S^1))\cong Lie(m+1)
$$
where
$$(I,J)=(i_0,i_1,\cdots,i_n,j_0,j_1,\cdots,j_m)$$
runs over all shuffles of
$(0,1,\cdots,m+n+1)$ so that $i_0<i_1<\cdots<i_n$, $j_0<j_1<\cdots<j_m$, $sign(I,J)$
is the sign of the permutation $(I,J)$, $\sigma\in\Sigma_{n+1}$ acts on $\{0,1,\cdots,n\}$ and
$\tau\in\Sigma_{m+1}$ acts on $\{0,1,\cdots,m\}$
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Notice that
$
\{x_0,\cdots,{\hat x_{j_0}},\cdots,{\hat x_{j_m}},\cdots,x_{n+m+1}\}=\{x_{i_0},\cdots,x_{i_n}\}
$
and
$
{\bar s_J}:\{x_0,\cdots,x_n\}\rightarrow\{x_{i_0},\cdots,x_{i_n}\}
$
is an ordered isomorphism.
$$
s_J([x_{\sigma(0)},x_{\sigma(1)},\cdots,x_{\sigma(n)}])=[x_{i_{\sigma(0)}},\cdots,x_{i_{\sigma(n)}}]
$$
and
$$
s_I([x_{\tau(0)},x_{\tau(1)},\cdots,x_{\tau(m)}])=[x_{j_{\tau(0)}},\cdots,x_{j_{\tau(m)}}].
$$
The assertion follows.
\begin{definition}
A simplicial group is {\bf minimal} if it is also a minimal simplicial set.
\end{definition}
Recall that a simplicial group $G$ is minimal if and only if the Moore chain complex $NG$ is minimal [C2].
\begin{theorem}
The simplicial group $K(S^1)$ is the universal minimal simplicial quotient simplicial group of $F(S^1)$ in
the following sense:\\
(1). $K(S^1)$ is a minimal simplicial group.\\
(2). Let $G$ be a minimal simplicial group. Then every simplicial homomorphism $f:F(S^1)\rightarrow G$ factors
through $K(S^1)$.
\end{theorem}
\noindent{\em Proof:}
By inspecting the proof of Theorem 6.7, $K(S^1)$ is a minimal simplicial group. The assertion (2) follows
from the following statement.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Statement:} $K(S^1)$ is the quotient simplicial group of $F(S^1)$ modulo the normal subsimplicial group
generated by the boundaries.\\
\par
Let $H$ denote the kernel of the quotient map $p:F(S^1)\rightarrow K(S^1)$ and let $\overline{B}$ denote
the normal subsimplicial group of $F(S^1)$ generated by the boundaries ${\cal B}F(S^1)$. Notice that
$K(S^1)$ is a minimal simplicial group. Thus $\overline{B}$ is contained in $H$. Let $Q$ denote
the quotient simplicial group $F(S^1)/\overline{B}$. Then $Q$ is a minimal simplicial group.
By Proposition 2.6, there is a central extension
$$
0\rightarrow K(\pi_{n+1}Q, n+1)\rightarrow P_{n+1}Q\rightarrow P_nQ\rightarrow0,
$$
where $P_nQ$ is the n-th Moore-Postnikov system of $Q$. Notice that $P_1Q=K(\pi_Q,1)=K({\bf Z},1)$.
Thus $\Gamma^{n+2}P_{n+1}Q=1$ by induction on $n$. Notice that $Q_{n+1}\cong (P_{n+1}Q)_{n+1}$.
Thus $\Gamma^{n+2}Q_{n+1}=1$. Now we show that
$H$ is contained in $\overline{B}$ by induction on the dimension starting with $H_1=\overline{B}_1=1$.
Suppose that $H_n\subseteq\overline{B}_n$ with $n>0$. Notice that
$F(S^1)_{n+1}=F(x_0,\cdots,x_n)$ and $K(S^1)_{n+1}=K(x_0,\cdots,x_n)$. Thus $H_{n+1}$ is a normal subgroup of
$F(x_0,\cdots,x_n)$ generated by the commutators
$$
[[x_{i_1},x_{i_2}],\cdots,x_{i_t}],x_{i_t}]
$$
such that $i_p\not=i_q$ for $p<q$. Now consider $W=[[x_{i_1},x_{i_2}],\cdots,x_{i_t}],x_{i_t}]$.
If $t\geq n+1$, then $W\in\Gamma^{n+2}F(x_0,\cdots,x_n)$. Thus $W\in\overline{B}_{n+1}$ since
$\Gamma^{n+2}Q_{n+1}=1$.
\par
If $t<n+1$, then there exists an index $j\in\{0,1,\cdots,n\}-\{i_1,\cdots,i_t\}$. Recall that
$$
s_ix_k=\cases{x_k&$k<i$,\cr x_{k+1}&$k\geq i$,\cr}
$$
for $x_k=s_{n-1}\cdots{\hat s_k}\cdots s_0\sigma\in S^1_n$. Thus
$$
s_j[[x_{i'_1}, x_{i'_2}],\cdots,x_{i'_t}],x_{i'_t}]=[[x_{i_1},x_{i_2}],\cdots,x_{i_t}],x_{i_t}],
$$
where $i'_k=i_k$ if $i_k<j$ and $i'_k=i_k-1$ if $i_k>j$. By induction,
$[[x_{i'_1}, x_{i'_2}],\cdots,x_{i'_t}],x_{i'_t}]\in\overline{B}$. Thus $W=[[x_{i_1},x_{i_2}],\cdots,x_{i_t}],x_{i_t}]\in\overline{B}$.
The induction is finished and the assertion follows.\\
\par
The simplicial group $K(S^1)$ is homotopy eqivalent to a product of the Eilenberg-Maclane spaces with a different product structure.
\begin{proposition}
$\Omega K(S^1)$ is an abelian simplicial group. Therefore $K(S^1)$ is homotopy equivalent to a product of the Eilenberg-MacLane spaces as a simplicial set.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Consider
$$
d_0:K(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_n)\rightarrow K(x_0,x_1,\cdots,x_{n-1})
$$
$
d_0(x_0)=1
$
and
$
d_0(x_j)=x_{j-1}.
$
Thus $Kerd_0\cap K_{n+1}(S^1)\cong <x_0>$ is the normal subgroup generated by $x_0$ which is abelian
by Lemma 6.4. The assertion follows.\\
\par
In the end of this section, we give some applications of $K(S^1)$ to minimal simplicial groups.
\begin{proposition}
Let $G$ be a minimal simplicial group such that the abelianlizer $G^{ab}$ is a minimal simplicial group
$K(\pi,1)$ for a cyclic group $\pi$. Then $G$ is homotopy equivalent to a product of Eilenberg-Maclane spaces.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:}
Notice that $G_1=\pi$. Let $x$ be a generator for the cyclic group $\pi$ and let $f_x:S^1\rightarrow G$
be a representive map of $x$, i.e, $f_x(\sigma)=x$. Let $g:F(S^1)\rightarrow G$ be the simplicial homomorphism
induced by $f_x$. We need a lemma.
\begin{lemma}
The simplicial homomorphism $g:F(S^1)\rightarrow G$ is simplicial surjection.
\end{lemma}
\noindent{\em Proof:} It suffices to show that the subsimplicial group, denote by $H$, of $G$ generated by $G_1$ is $G$ itself. This is given by induction on
the dimensions starting with $H_1=G_1$. Suppose that $H_{n-1}=G_{n-1}$ with $n>1$. By a result of Condule [see, e.g, Po, Proposition 1, pp.6],
$G_n$ is generated by the degenerate images of lower order Moore chain complex terms and $NG_n$. Thus
$G_n$ is genereted by $NG_n$ and $H_n$ by induction. Notice that $G$ is a minimal simplicial group.
Thus $NG_n={\cal Z}G_n$, the cycles. By Proposition 2.1, ${\cal Z}G_n$ is contained in the center of $G_n$.
Thus $H_n$ is a normal subgroup of $G_n$ and the composite $\phi:\pi_nG\cong{\cal Z}G_n\rightarrow G_n\rightarrow G_n/H_n$ is
an epimorphism. Thus $G_n/H_n$ is an abelian group and so the quotient homomorphism $G_n\rightarrow G_n/H_n$ factors
through $G_n^{ab}$. Notice that $G^{ab}=K(\pi,1)$. Thus $G^{ab}_n\cong G^{ab}_n/{\cal Z}G_n$ and so
$\phi:\pi_nG\rightarrow G_n/H_n$ is trivial. Thus $G_n/H_n$ is trivial and the assertion follows.\\
\par
\noindent{\em Continuation of Proof of Proposition 6.14:}
Notice that $G$ is minimal. The simplicial epimorphism $g:F(S^1)\rightarrow G$ factors through $K(S^1)$ by
Proposition 6.12. By Proposition 6.13, $\Omega K(S^1)$ is an abelian simplicial group. Thus $\Omega G$ is also
an abelian simplicial group. Thus $G$ is homotopy equivalent to a product of Eilenberg-Maclane spaces, which is the assertion.\\
\par
The following counter-example for minimal simplicial groups is due to J. W. Milnor (unpublished).
\begin{proposition}
$\Omega (S^{n+1}[n+1,n+2,n+3])$ does not have a homotopy type of a minimal simplicial group for $n>0$,
where $S^{n+1}[n+1,n+2,n+3]$ is the 3-stage Postnikov system by taking the first three nontrivial homotopy
groups of $S^{n+1}$.
\end{proposition}
\noindent{\em Proof:} Suppose that $G$ is a minimal simplicial group such that $G\simeq\Omega(S^{n+1}[n+1,n+2,n+3])$.
Let $f:F(S^1)\rightarrow \Omega^{n-1}G$ be a simplicial
homomorphism such that $f(\sigma)$ is a generator of $(\Omega^{n-1}G)_1\cong G_n\cong {\bf Z}$. Then
$f_*:\pi_j(F(S^1))\rightarrow\pi_j(\Omega^{n-1}G)$ is an isomorphism for $j\leq3$. Notice that
$\Omega^{n-1}G$ is also a minimal simplicial group. The simplicial homomorphism $f:F(S^1)\rightarrow\Omega^{n-1}G$
factors through $K(S^1)$. Notice that $\pi_3(F(S^1))\cong\pi_3\Omega^{n-1}G)\cong{\bf Z}/2$ and
$\pi_3(K(S^1))\cong Lie(3)\cong{\bf Z}\oplus{\bf Z}$. There is a contradiction and the assertion follows.\\
\par
More examples and counter-examples for minimal simplicial groups will be given in [Wu2]. It was know
that there are still many counter-examples of two-stage Postnikov systems for minimal simplicial groups [Wu2].
\bigskip |
\section{Preliminaries}
Let $k$ be a perfect field of characteristic $p>0$ and
$X$ a smooth $k$-variety of dimension $n$. By $\Omega_X$ we denote
the sheaf of $k$-differentials on $X$ and $\Omega^j_X=\wedge^j \Omega_X$.
The (absolute) Frobenius morphism $F:X\rightarrow X$ is the morphism
on $X$, which is the identity on the level of points and given
by $F^\#(f)=f^p: \O_X(U)\rightarrow F_*\O_X(U)$ on the level of
functions. If ${\E F}$ is an $\O_X$-module, then $F_* {\E F}={\E F}$ as sheaves
of abelian groups, but the $\O_X$-module structure is changed according
to the homomorphism $\O_X\rightarrow F_*\O_X$.
\subsection{The Cartier operator}
The universal derivation $d:\O_X \rightarrow \Omega_X$ gives rise
to a family of $k$-homomorphisms $d^j: \Omega^j_X\rightarrow \Omega^{j+1}_X$
making $\Omega^\bullet_X$ into a complex of $k$-modules which is
called the de Rham complex of $X$. By applying
$F_*$ to the de Rham complex, we obtain a complex $F_*\Omega^\bullet_X$ of
$\O_X$-modules.
Let $B^i_X\subseteq Z^i_X\subseteq F_*\Omega^i_X$
denote the coboundaries and cocycles in degree $i$. There is the following
very nice description of the cohomology of $F_*\Omega^\bullet_X$ due
to Cartier.
\begin{thm}
There
is a uniquely determined graded $\O_X$-algebra isomorphism
$$
C^{-1}:\Omega_X^\bullet\rightarrow \cal H^\bullet(F_* \Omega^\bullet_X)
$$
which in degree $1$ is given locally as
$$
C^{-1}(da)= a^{p-1} da
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
\cite{Katz}, Theorem 7.2.
\end{pf}
With some abuse of notation, we let $C$ denote the natural homomorphism
$Z^i_X\rightarrow\Omega^i_X$,
which after reduction modulo $B^i_X$ gives the inverse isomorphism
to $C^{-1}$. The isomorphism $\bar{C}:Z^i_X/B^i_X\rightarrow \Omega^i_X$
is called the Cartier operator.
\section{Liftings of Frobenius to $W_2(k)$}
\label{flift}
There is a very interesting connection between the Cartier operator
and liftings of the Frobenius morphism to flat schemes of characteristic
$p^2$. This beautiful observation was first made by Mazur in \cite{Maz}. We
go on to explore this next.
\subsection{Witt vectors of length two}
The Witt vectors $W_2(k)$ (\cite{MumCu}, Lecture 26) of
length $2$ over $k$ can be interpreted as the set
$k\times k$, where
multiplication and addition for $a=(a_0, a_1)$ and $b=(b_0, b_1)$ in
$W_2(k)$ are defined by
$$
a\, b=(a_0\, b_0, a_0^p b_1+ b_0^p a_1)
$$
and
$$
a+b=(a_0+b_0, a_1+b_1+\sum_{j=1}^{p-1} p^{-1}\binom{p}{j} a_0^j\, b_0^{p-j})
$$
In the case $k={\Bbb Z}/p$, one can prove that $W_2(k)\cong {\Bbb Z}/p^2$.
The projection on the first coordinate $W_2(k)\rightarrow k$ corresponds
to the reduction $W_2(k)\rightarrow W_2(k)/p\cong k$ modulo $p$.
The ring homomorphism $F^{(2)}:W_2(k)\rightarrow W_2(k)$ given by
$F^{(2)}(a_0, a_1)=(a_0^p, a_1^p)$ reduces to
the Frobenius homomorphism $F$ on $k$ modulo $p$.
\subsection{Splittings of the de Rham complex}
The previous section shows that there is a canonical morphism
$\operatorname{Spec} k\rightarrow \operatorname{Spec} W_2(k)$. Assume that there is a flat
scheme $X^{(2)}$ over $\operatorname{Spec} W_2(k)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{modp}
X\cong X^{(2)}\times_{\operatorname{Spec} W_2(k)}\operatorname{Spec} k
\end{equation}
We shall say that the Frobenius morphism $F$ lifts to $W_2(k)$ if
there exists a morphism $F^{(2)}:X^{(2)}\rightarrow X^{(2)}$ covering
the Frobenius homomorphism $F^{(2)}$ on $W_2(k)$, which
reduces to $F$ via the isomorphism (\ref{modp}). When we use the
statement that Frobenius lifts to $W_2(k)$ we will always implicitly
assume the existence of the flat lift $X^{(2)}$.
\begin{thm}
\label{split}
If the Frobenius morphism on $X$ lifts to $W_2(k)$
then there is a split quasi-isomorphism
$$
0 @>>> \bigoplus_{0\leq i}\Omega^i_X[-i] @>\sigma>> F_* \Omega^\bullet_X
$$
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
For
an affine open subset $\operatorname{Spec} A^{(2)}\subseteq X^{(2)}$ there
is a ring homomorphism $F^{(2)}: A^{(2)}\rightarrow A^{(2)}$
such that
$$
F^{(2)}(b)=b^p + p\cdot \varphi(b)
$$
where $\varphi: A^{(2)}\rightarrow A=A^{(2)}/ p A^{(2)}$ is some
function and
$p\, \cdot: A\rightarrow A^{(2)}$ is the $A^{(2)}$-homomorphism
derived from
tensoring the short exact sequence of $W_2(k)$-modules
$$
\CD
0 @>>> p\,W_2(k)@>>> W_2(k) @>p\,\cdot>> p\,W_2(k) @>>> 0
\endCD
$$
with the flat $W_2(k)$ module $A^{(2)}$
identifying $A\cong A^{(2)}/p A^{(2)}$ with $p\, A^{(2)}$.
We get the following properties
of $\varphi$:
\begin{align*}
\varphi(a+b)&=\varphi(a)+\varphi(b)-\sum_{j=1}^{p-1} p^{-1} \binom{p}{j}
\bar{a}^j \bar{b}^{p-j} \\
\varphi(a\, b)&=\bar{a}^p \varphi(b)+ \bar{b}^p \varphi(a)
\end{align*}
where $\bar{\cdot}$ means reduction $\operatorname{mod} p$.
Now it follows that
$$
a\mapsto a^{p-1} da+ d \varphi(\tilde{a})
$$
where $\tilde{a}$ is any lift of $a$,
is a well defined derivation $\delta:A\rightarrow Z^1_{\operatorname{Spec} A}
\subset F_*\Omega^1_{\operatorname{Spec} A}$,
which gives a homomorphism $\varphi:\Omega_{\operatorname{Spec} A}^1\rightarrow Z^1_{\operatorname{Spec} A}
\subset F_* \Omega^1_{\operatorname{Spec} A}$. This homomorphism can be extended via the
algebra structure to give an $A$-algebra homomorphism
$\sigma: \oplus_i \Omega_{\operatorname{Spec} A}^i \rightarrow Z^\bullet_{\operatorname{Spec} A}\subseteq
F_*\Omega_{\operatorname{Spec} A}^\bullet$,
which composed with the
canonical homomorphism $Z^\bullet_{\operatorname{Spec} A}\rightarrow
\cal H^\bullet(F_* \Omega^\bullet_{\operatorname{Spec} A})$ gives the inverse
Cartier operator.
Since an affine open covering $\{\operatorname{Spec} A^{(2)}\}$ of $X^{(2)}$ gives rise
to an affine open covering $\{\operatorname{Spec} A^{(2)}/p A^{(2)}\}$ of $X$,
we have proved that $\sigma$ is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes
inducing the inverse Cartier operator on cohomology.
Now we give a splitting
homomorphism of $\sigma_i:\Omega^i_X\rightarrow F_*\Omega^i_X$. Notice
that $\sigma_0:\O_X\rightarrow F_*\O_X$ is the Frobenius homomorphism and
that $\sigma_i$ ($i>0$) splits $C$ in the exact sequence
$$
\CD
0 @>>> B^i_X @>>> Z^i_X @>C>> \Omega^i_X @>>> 0
\endCD
$$
The natural perfect pairing $\Omega_X^i\otimes \Omega^{n-i}_X\rightarrow
\Omega^n_X$ gives an isomorphism between
${\cal Hom}_X(\Omega^{n-i}_X, \Omega_X^n)$ and $\Omega^i_X$. It is easy
to check that the homomorphism
$$
F_*\Omega^i_X\rightarrow {\cal Hom}_X(\Omega^{n-i}_X, \Omega_X^n)
\cong \Omega^i_X
$$
given by $\omega\mapsto\varphi(\omega)$, where $\varphi(\omega)(z)=
C(\sigma_{n-i}(z)\wedge \omega)$, splits $\sigma_i$.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Bott vanishing}
Let $X$ be a normal variety
and let $j$ denote the inclusion of the smooth locus $U\subseteq X$.
If the Frobenius morphism lifts to
$W_2(k)$ on $X$, then the Frobenius morphism on $U$ also lifts
to $W_2(k)$.
Define the Zariski sheaf $\tilde{\Omega}^i_X$ of $i$-forms on $X$ as
$j_*\Omega^i_U$. Since $\operatorname{codim}(X-U)\geq 2$ it follows (\cite{Loc},
Proposition 5.10) that
$\tilde{\Omega}^i_X$ is a coherent sheaf on $X$.
\begin{thm}
Let $X$ be a projective normal variety such that $F$ lifts to
$W_2(k)$. Then
$$
\H^s(X, \tilde{\Omega}^r_X\otimes L)=0
$$
for $s>0$ and $L$ an ample line bundle.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
Let $U$ be the smooth locus of $X$ and let $j$ denote the inclusion of
$U$ into $X$. On $U$ we have by Theorem \ref{split} a split sequence
$$
0\rightarrow \Omega^r_U\rightarrow F_*\Omega^r_U
$$ which pushes down to the split sequence ($F$ commutes with $j$)
$$
0\rightarrow \tilde{\Omega}_X^r\rightarrow F_*\tilde{\Omega}_X^r
$$
Now tensoring with $L$ and using the projection formula we get
injections for $s>0$
$$
\H^s(X, \tilde{\Omega}^r_X\otimes L)\hookrightarrow
\H^s(X, \tilde{\Omega}^r_X\otimes L^p)
$$
Iterating these injections and using that the Zariski sheaves
are coherent one gets the desired vanishing theorem by
Serre's theorem.
\end{pf}
\subsection{Degeneration of the Hodge to de Rham spectral sequence}
Let $X$ be a projective normal variety with smooth locus $U$.
Associated with the complex
$\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X$ there is a spectral sequence
$$
E_1^{pq}=\H^q(X, \tilde{\Omega}^p_X)\implies \H^{p+q}(X,
\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X)
$$
where $\H^\bullet(X, \tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X)$ denotes the hypercohomology
of the complex $\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X$. This is the Hodge to de Rham
spectral sequence for Zariski sheaves.
\begin{thm}
If the Frobenius morphism on $X$ lifts to $W_2(k)$, then the spectral
sequence degenerates
at the $E_1$-term.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
As complexes of sheaves of abelian groups $\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet$ and
$F_*\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet$ are the same so their hypercohomology
agree. Applying hypercohomology to the split injection (Theorem \ref{split})
$$
\sigma:\bigoplus_{0\leq i}\tilde{\Omega}^i_{X/k}[-i]\rightarrow
F_* \tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X
$$
we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{p+q=n} \dim_k E_\infty^{pq}=
\dim_k \H^n(X, \tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X)&=&
\dim_k \H^n(X, F_*\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X)\geq\\
\sum_{p+q=n} \dim_k \H^q(X, \tilde{\Omega}^p_X)&=&
\sum_{p+q=n} \dim_k E_1^{pq}
\end{eqnarray*}
Since $E_\infty^{pq}$ is a subquotient of $E_1^{pq}$, it follows that
$E_\infty^{pq}\cong E_1^{pq}$ so that the spectral sequence degenerates
at $E_1$.
\end{pf}
\section{Toric varieties}
In this section we briefly sketch the definition of toric varieties
following Fulton \cite{Fulton} and demonstrate how the results
of Section~\ref{flift} may be applied.
\subsection{Convex geometry}
Let $N$ be a lattice, $M =
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\Bbb Z}}(N, {\Bbb Z})$ the dual lattice, and let $V$ be the real vector
space $V = N \otimes_{{\Bbb Z}} {\Bbb R}$. It is natural to identify the dual
space of $V$ with $M \otimes_{{\Bbb Z}} {\Bbb R}$, and we think of $N \subset V$
and $M \subset V^*$ as the subsets of integer points.
By a cone in $N$ we will mean a subset $\sigma \subset V$ taking the
form $\sigma = \{r_1 v_1 + \dots + r_s v_s ~ | ~ r_i \geq 0 \}$ for
some $v_i \in N$. The vectors $v_1, \dots, v_s$ are called generators
of $\sigma$. We define the dual cone to be $\sigma^{\vee} = \{ u \in
V^* | \forall v \in \sigma: \left< u,v \right> \geq 0 \}$. One may
show that $\sigma^{\vee}$ is a cone in $M$. A face of $\sigma$ is any
set $\sigma \cap u^{\perp}$ for some $u \in \sigma^{\vee}$. Any face
of $\sigma$ is clearly a cone in $N$, generated by the $v_i$ for which
$\left< u, v_i \right> = 0$.
Now let $\sigma$ be a strongly convex cone in $N$, this means that
$\{0\}$ is a face of $\sigma$ or equivalently that no nontrivial
subspace of $V$ is contained in $\sigma$. We define $S_{\sigma}$ to
be the semi group $\sigma^{\vee} \cap M$. Since $\sigma^{\vee}$ is a
cone in $M$, $S_{\sigma}$ is finitely generated.
\subsection{Affine toric varieties}
If $k$ is any
commutative ring the semigroup ring
$k[S_{\sigma}]$ is a finitely generated commutative $k$-algebra, and
$U_{\sigma} = \operatorname{Spec} k[S_{\sigma}]$ is an affine scheme of finite type
over $k$. Schemes of this form are called affine toric schemes.
\subsection{Glueing affine toric varieties}
Let $\tau = \sigma \cap u^{\perp}$ be a face of $\sigma$. One may
assume that $u \in S_{\sigma}$. Then it follows that $S_{\tau} =
S_{\sigma} + {\Bbb Z}_{\geq 0} \cdot (-u)$, so that $k[S_{\tau}] =
k[S_{\sigma}]_{u}$. In this way $U_{\tau}$ becomes a principal open
subscheme of $U_{\sigma}$.
This may be used to glue affine toric schemes together. We define a
fan in $N$ to be a nonempty set $\Delta$ of strongly convex cones in
$N$ satisfying that the faces of any cone in $\Delta$ are also in
$\Delta$ and the intersection of two cones in $\Delta$ is a face of
each. The affine varieties arising from cones in $\Delta$ may be
glued together to form a scheme $X_k(\Delta)$ as follows. If $\sigma,
\tau \in \Delta$, then $\sigma \cap \tau \in \Delta$ is a face of both
$\tau$ and $\sigma$, so $U_{\sigma \cap \tau}$ is isomorphic to open
subsets $U_{\sigma\tau}$ in $U_{\sigma}$ and $U_{\tau\sigma}$ in
$U_{\tau}$. Take the transition morphism $\phi_{\sigma\tau} :
U_{\sigma\tau} \rightarrow U_{\tau\sigma}$ to be the one going through
$U_{\sigma \cap \tau}$. A scheme $X_k(\Delta)$ arising from a fan
$\Delta$ in some lattice is called a toric scheme.
\subsection{Liftings of the Frobenius morphism on toric varieties}
Let $X = X_k(\Delta)$ be a toric scheme over the commutative ring $k$
of characteristic $p > 0$. We are going to construct explicitly a
lifting of the absolute Frobenius morphism on $X$ to $W = W_2(k)$.
Define $X^{(2)}$ to be $X_W(\Delta)$. Since all the
rings $W[S_{\sigma}]$ are free $W$-modules, this is clearly a flat
scheme over $W_2(k)$. Moreover, the identities $W[S_{\sigma}]
\otimes_W k \cong k[S_{\sigma}]$ immediately give an isomorphism
$X^{(2)} \times_{\operatorname{Spec} W} \operatorname{Spec} k \cong X$.
For $\sigma \in \Delta$, let $F_{\sigma}^{(2)} : W[S_{\sigma}]
\rightarrow W[S_{\sigma}]$ be the ring homomorphism extending $F^{(2)}
: W \rightarrow W$ and mapping $u \in S_{\sigma}$ to $u^p$. It is
easy to see that these maps are compatible with the transition
morphisms, so we may take $F^{(2)} : X^{(2)} \rightarrow X^{(2)}$ to
be the morphism which is defined by $F_{\sigma}^{(2)}$ locally on
$\operatorname{Spec} W[S_{\sigma}]$. This gives the lift of $F$ to $W_2(k)$ and
completes the construction.
\subsection{Bott vanishing and the Danilov spectral sequence}
Since toric varieties are normal we get the following corollary
of Section \ref{flift}:
\begin{thm}
Let $X$ be a projective toric variety over $k$. Then
$$
\H^q(X, \tilde{\Omega}^p_X\otimes L)=0
$$
where $q>0$ and $L$ is an ample line bundle. Furthermore the
Danilov spectral sequence
$$
E_1^{pq}=\H^q(X, \tilde{\Omega}^p_X)\implies \H^{p+q}(X,
\tilde{\Omega}^\bullet_X)
$$
degenerates at the $E_1$-term.
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}
One may use the above to prove similar results in characteristic zero. The
key issue is that we have proved that Bott vanishing and degeneration of
the Danilov spectral sequence holds in any prime characteristic.
\end{remark}
\section{Flag varieties}
In this section we generalize Paranjape and Srinivas result on
non-lifting of Frobenius on flag varieties not isomorphic to $\P^n$. The key
issue is that one can reduce to flag varieties with rank $1$
Picard group. In many of these cases one can exhibit ample line bundles
with Bott non-vanishing.
We now set up notation.
Let $G$ be a semisimple algebraic group over $k$ and fix a Borel subgroup
$B$ in $G$. Recall that (reduced) parabolic subgroups $P\supseteq B$ are
given by subsets of the simple root subgroups of $B$. These correspond
bijectively to subsets of nodes in the Dynkin diagram associated with
$G$. A parabolic subgroup $Q$ is contained in
$P$ if and only if the simple root subgroups in $Q$ is a subset
of the simple root subgroups in $P$. A maximal parabolic subgroup is
the maximal parabolic subgroup not containing a specific simple
root subgroup.
We shall need the following result from the appendix to
\cite{MeSri}
\begin{prop}
\label{splitimplieslift}
If the sequence
$$
0 @>>> B^1_X @>>> Z^1_X @>C>> \Omega^1_X @>>> 0
$$
splits, then the Frobenius morphism on $X$ lifts to $W_2(k)$.
\end{prop}
We also need the following fact derived from
(\cite{Hartshorne}, Proposition II.8.12 and Exercise II.5.16(d))
\begin{prop}
\label{diffilt}
Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a smooth morphism between smooth varieties
$X$ and $Y$. Then for every $n\in {\Bbb N}$ there is a filtration
$F^0\supseteq F^1 \supseteq \dots$ of $\Omega^n_X$ such that
$$
F^i/F^{i+1}\cong f^*\Omega_Y^i\otimes\Omega_{X/Y}^{n-i}
$$
\end{prop}
\begin{lemma}
\label{fibrlemma}
Let $f:X\rightarrow Y$ be a surjective, smooth and projective morphism between
smooth varieties $X$ and $Y$ such that the
fibers have no non-zero global $n$-forms, where $n>0$. Then there is
a canonical isomorphism
$$
\Omega_Y^\bullet\rightarrow f_*\Omega_X^\bullet
$$
and a splitting
$\sigma:\Omega^1_X\rightarrow Z^1_X$ of
the Cartier operator $C: Z^1_X\rightarrow \Omega^1_X$ induces
a splitting $f_*\sigma:\Omega^1_Y\rightarrow Z^1_Y$ of
$C:Z^1_Y\rightarrow \Omega^1_Y$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{pf}
Notice first that $\O_Y\rightarrow f_*\O_X$ is an isomorphism of rings as
$f$ is projective and smooth. The assumption on the fibers translates into
$f_*\Omega_{X/Y}^n\otimes k(y)\cong \H^0(X_y, \Omega^n_{X_y})=0$ for geometric
points $y\in Y$,
when $n>0$. So we get $f_*\Omega_{X/Y}^n=0$ for $n>0$.
By Proposition \ref{diffilt} this means that all of the natural
homomorphisms $\Omega_Y^n\rightarrow f_*\Omega^n_X$ induced by
$\O_Y\rightarrow f_*\O_X\rightarrow f_*\Omega^1_X$ are isomorphisms giving
an isomorphism of complexes
$$
\CD
0 @>>> \O_Y @>>> \Omega^1_Y @>>> \Omega^2_Y @>>> \dots \\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV \\
0 @>>> f_*\O_X @>>> f_*\Omega^1_X @>>> f_*\Omega^2_X @>>> \dots
\endCD
$$
This means that the middle arrow in the commutative diagram
$$
\CD
0 @>>> B^1_Y @>>> Z^1_Y @>C>> \Omega_Y @>>> 0\\
@. @VVV @VVV @VVV \\
0 @>>> f_* B^1_X @>>> f_* Z^1_X @>f_* C>> f_*\Omega_X @>>> 0\\
\endCD
$$
is an isomorphism and the result follows.
\end{pf}
\begin{cor}
\label{maxparnonlift}
Let $Q\subseteq P$ be two parabolic subgroups of $G$. If the
Frobenius morphism on $G/Q$ lifts to $W_2(k)$, then the
Frobenius morphism on $G/P$ lifts to $W_2(k)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{pf}
It is well known that $G/Q\rightarrow G/P$ is a smooth projective
fibration, where the fibers are isomorphic to $Z=P/Q$. Since $Z$
is a rational projective smooth variety it follows from
(\cite{Hartshorne}, Exercise II.8.8) that $\H^0(Z, \Omega^n_Z)=0$ for
$n>0$. Now the result follows from Lemma \ref{fibrlemma} and
Proposition \ref{splitimplieslift}.
\end{pf}
In specific cases one can prove using the ``standard'' exact sequences
that certain flag varieties do not have Bott vanishing. We go on to do this
next.
Let $Y$
be a smooth divisor in a smooth variety $X$. Suppose that $Y$ is
defined by the sheaf of ideals $I\subseteq \O_X$. Then (\cite{Hartshorne},
Proposition II.8.17(2) and Exercise II.5.16(d)) gives for
$n\in {\Bbb N}$ an exact sequence of $\O_Y$-modules
$$
0\rightarrow \Omega^{n-1}_Y\otimes I/I^2\rightarrow
\Omega^n_X\otimes\O_Y\rightarrow \Omega^n_Y\rightarrow 0
$$
From this exact sequence and induction on $n$ it follows that
$\H^0(\P^n, \Omega^j_{\P^n}\otimes\O(m))=0$, when $m\leq j$ and $j>0$.
\subsection{Quadric hypersurfaces in $\P^n$}
\label{quadric}
Let $Y$ be a smooth quadric hypersurface in $\P^n$, where $n\geq 4$. There
is an exact sequence
$$
0\rightarrow \O_Y(1-n)\rightarrow \Omega^1_{\P^n}\otimes \O(3-n)\otimes\O_Y
\rightarrow \Omega^1_Y\otimes \O_Y(3-n)\rightarrow 0
$$
From this it is easy to deduce that
$$
\H^{n-2}(Y, \Omega^1_Y\otimes \O_Y(3-n))\cong
\H^1(Y, \Omega^{n-2}_Y\otimes \O_Y(n-3))\cong k
$$
using that $\H^0(\P^n, \Omega^j_{\P^n}\otimes\O(m))=0$, when $m\leq j$ and
$j>0$.
\subsection{The incidence variety in $\P^n\times \P^n$}
\label{inc}
Let $X$ be the incidence variety of lines and hyperplanes in $\P^n\times
\P^n$, where $n\geq 2$. Recall that $X$ is the zero set of
$x_0 y_0+\dots+x_n y_n$, so that
there is an exact sequence
$$
0\rightarrow \O(-1)\times \O(-1)\rightarrow \O_{\P^n}\times\O_{\P^n}
\rightarrow \O_X\rightarrow 0
$$
Using K\"unneth it is easy to deduce that
$$
\H^{2n-2}(X, \Omega^1_X\otimes \O(1-n)\times \O(1-n))\cong
\H^1(X, \Omega^{2n-2}\otimes \O(n-1)\times \O(n-1))\cong k
$$
\subsection{Bott non-vanishing for flag varieties}
In this section we search for specific maximal parabolic subgroups $P$ and
ample line bundles $L$ on $Y=G/P$, such that
$$
\H^i(Y, \Omega_Y^j\otimes L)\neq 0
$$
where $i>0$.
These are instances of Bott non-vanishing. This will be used in Section
\ref{nonlift} to prove non-lifting of Frobenius for a large
class of flag varieties.
Let $\O(1)$ be the ample generator of $\operatorname{Pic} Y$.
By flat base change one may produce examples of Bott non-vanishing
for $Y$ for fields of arbitrary prime characteristic by restricting
to the field of the complex numbers.
This has been done in the setting
of Hermitian symmetric spaces, where the cohomology groups
$\H^p(Y, \Omega^q\otimes\O(n))$ have been thoroughly investigated by
Sato \cite{Sato} and Snow \cite{Snow1}\cite{Snow2}. We now show that
these examples exist. In each of the following subsections $Y$ will
denote $G/P$, where $P$ is the maximal parabolic subgroup not
containing the root subgroup corresponding to the marked simple
root in the Dynkin diagram. These flag manifolds are the irreducible
Hermitian symmetric spaces.
\subsubsection{Type $A$}
\label{A}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,30)
\put( 0,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(-4.5,-3){$\times$}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 30.6,-0.5){.\,.\,.}
\put( 50,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 51.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 75,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(105.6,-0.5){.\,.\,.}
\put(125,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(126.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(150,0){\circle*{4}}
\put(145,-3){$\times$}
\end{picture}
\vskip 2.0truecm
If $Y$ is a Grassmann variety not isomorphic to projective
space ($Y=G/P$, where $P$ corresponds to leaving out a simple
root which is not the left or right most one), one
may prove (\cite{Snow1}, Theorem 3.3) that
$$
\H^1(Y, \Omega_Y^3\otimes\O(2))\neq 0
$$
\subsubsection{Type $B$}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,30)
\put( 0,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 26.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 50,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 55.6,-0.5){.\,.\,.}
\put( 75,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle{3}}
\put(100, 1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(100,-1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(108.2,-3){$>$}
\put(125,0){\circle{3}}
\end{picture}
\vskip 2.0truecm
Here $Y$ is a smooth quadric hypersurface in $\P^n$, where
$n\geq 4$ and Bott non-vanishing follows from Section \ref{quadric}.
\subsubsection{Type $C$}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,30)
\put( 0,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 26.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 50,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 55.6,-0.5){.\,.\,.}
\put( 75,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle{3}}
\put(100, 1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(100,-1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(108.2,-3){$<$}
\put(125,0){\circle*{4}}
\end{picture}
\vskip 2.0truecm
By (\cite{Snow2}, Theorem 2.2) it follows that
$$
\H^1(Y, \Omega_Y^2\otimes\O(1))\neq 0
$$
\subsubsection{Type $D$}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,30)
\put( 0,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 26.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 50,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 55.6,-0.5){.\,.\,.}
\put( 75,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle{3}}
\put(101.5, 0.5){\line(2, 1){22}}
\put(125,12){\circle*{4}}
\put(101.5,-0.5){\line(2,-1){22}}
\put(125,-12){\circle*{4}}
\end{picture}
\vskip 2.0truecm
For the maximal parabolic $P$ corresponding to the leftmost marked
simple root, Y=$G/P$
is a smooth quadric hypersurface in $\P^n$, where
$n\geq 4$ and Bott non-vanishing follows from Section \ref{quadric}.
For the maximal parabolic subgroup corresponding to one
of the two rightmost marked simple roots we get by
(\cite{Snow2}, Theorem 3.2) that
$$
\H^2(Y, \Omega^4_Y\otimes\O(2))\neq 0
$$
\subsubsection{Type $E_6$}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,20)
\put( 0,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 26.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 50,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 50,-1.5){\line(0,-1){22}}
\put( 50,-25){\circle{3}}
\put( 51.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 75,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle*{4}}
\end{picture}
\vskip2.0truecm
By (\cite{Snow2}, Table 4.4) it follows that
$$
\H^3(Y, \Omega^5\otimes\O(2))\neq 0
$$
\subsubsection{Type $E_7$}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,20)
\put( 0,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 25,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 26.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 50,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 50,-1.5){\line(0,-1){22}}
\put( 50,-25){\circle{3}}
\put( 51.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 75,0){\circle{3}}
\put( 76.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(100,0){\circle{3}}
\put(101.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put(125,0){\circle*{4}}
\end{picture}
\vskip 2.0truecm
By (\cite{Snow2}, Table 4.5) it follows that
$$
\H^4(Y, \Omega^6\otimes\O(2))\neq 0
$$
\subsubsection{Type $G_2$}
\label{G}
\begin{picture}(30,30)(-20,30)
\put( 0,0){\circle*{4}}
\put( 0, 1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put( 1.5,0){\line(1,0){22}}
\put( 0,-1.5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(8.2,-3){$<$}
\put(25,0){\circle{3}}
\end{picture}
\vskip2.0truecm
Here $Y$ is a smooth quadric hypersurface in $\P^6$ and Bott non-vanishing
follows from Section \ref{quadric}.
\subsection{Non-lifting of Frobenius for flag varieties}
\label{nonlift}
We now get the following
\begin{thm}
Let $Q$ be a parabolic subgroup contained in a maximal
parabolic subgroup $P$ in the list \ref{A} - \ref{G}. Then
the Frobenius morphism on $G/Q$ does not lift to
$W_2(k)$. Furthermore if $G$ is of type $A$, then the Frobenius
morphism on any flag variety $G/Q\not\cong \P^m$ does not
lift to $W_2(k)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{pf}
If $P$ is a maximal parabolic subgroup in the list \ref{A}-\ref{G}, then
the Frobenius morphism on $G/P$ does not lift to $W_2(k)$. By Corollary
\ref{maxparnonlift} we get that the Frobenius morphism on $G/Q$ does not
lift to $W_2(k)$. In type $A$ the only flag variety not admitting
a fibration to a Grassmann variety $\not\cong\P^m$ is the incidence
variety. Non-lifting of Frobenius in this case follows from Section
\ref{inc}.
\end{pf}
\begin{remark}
The above case by case proof can be generalized to include
projective homogeneous $G$-spaces with non-reduced stabilizers.
It would be nice to prove in general that the only flag variety
enjoying the Bott vanishing property is $\P^n$. We know of no other
visible obstruction to lifting Frobenius to $W_2(k)$ for flag varieties
than the non-vanishing Bott cohomology groups.
\end{remark}
\newpage
\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\ifx\undefined\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\,
\newcommand{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\,}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\,}
\fi
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{footnote}{0}
One of the striking features of string theory is target-space duality
\cite{GPR}. This duality relates space-times of very different nature, that
correspond (locally) to the same CFT. In particular, considering a
dualization with respect to a non-abelian isometry, the corresponding symmetry
admitted by the dual model is non-local, and exists no more as an
isometry. From that, one may conclude the non-local nature of possible
transformations between the two models. As suggested by Giveon, Rabinovici and
Veneziano \cite{GRV}, and proved by \'{A}lvarez, \'{A}lvarez-Gaum\'{e} and
Lozano \cite{AAL}, a $\sigma$-model admitting an isometry with vanishing isotropy
is related to its dual by a canonical transformation.\\
In the following we derive an explicit change of variables that
produces the dual action for models without isotropy. Dealing with
the jacobian, we resort to factorization rules for composite and inverse
operators' `determinants'. The structure of the paper is as follows: In
section {\bf 2} we present and prove a general change of variables relating (locally) the
case without isotropy to its dual, classically; the corresponding jacobian is
produced in section {\bf 3}, relying on results from section {\bf 4} (which is
somewhat independent), where general rules for decomposition of determinants of
composite tensors are given. The rules are inferred by the requirement that
functional changes of variables be consistent. The global aspects of the case where the isometry group is abelian and the space is (possiblly) curved can be found in section {\bf 5}. Still in that section - some global aspects of the non-abelian simply-connected case are realized. Section {\bf 6} is dedicated to reviewing some of the above results and their significance.
\section{The Change of Variables}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The main model regarded in this paper is the general case without
isotropy studied in \cite{GR},\cite{EGRSV} and presented here briefly.
Consider a target space with coordinates $g$ that transform as $g\rightarrow
ug$ where $u,g\in G$, ($G$ is some Lie group), and further inert coordinates
$x^i$. The general action can be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
S[\inv g \d g,\inv g \bd g,x]\; = \;
\i \Big( (\inv g \d g)^a E_{ab}(x)(\inv g \bd g)^b &+ \nonumber \\
(\inv g \d g)^a F^R_{aj}(x)\bar\partial x^j + \partial x^i F^L_{ib}(x)(\inv g \bd g)^b
+ \partial x^i F_{ij}(x) \bar\partial x^j &- \nonumber \\ \Phi (x)\partial\bar\partial\sigma\Big)\ ,
\eer{original}
where $\sigma$ is the conformal factor and
\begin{equation}
(\inv g\partial g)^a \equiv tr (\tilde{T}^a \inv g\partial g) \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ \inv
g\partial g = (\inv g\partial g)^a T_a\ ,\ \ etc.
\eeq{gdga}
The generators $T_a$, $a=1,...,dim(G)$, obey
\begin{equation}
[T_a,T_b]=f^c_{ab}T_c \; \; \; \sp ,
\eeq{TTfT}
and the `dual generators' $\tilde{T}^a$ are defined by the condition
\begin{equation}
tr(T_a \tilde{T}^b)= \delta_{a}^b \; \; \; \sp .
\eeq{trTT}
To construct the dual model (for review see \cite{GPR} and references therein),
one gauges (minimally) the isometry group with gauge fields $A, {\bar A}$ (in
complex worldsheet coordinates). These fields are then constrained to be flat
by the addition of the term $\lambda_{c}F^{c}(A,{\bar A})$ to the lagrangian, upon
integrating out of the lagrange multipliers $\lambda_{c}$. Gauge fixing $g=1$ then
gives the action
\begin{equation}
S[A,{\bar A},x] + \i \lambda_{c} (\partial {\bar A}^{c} - \bar\partial A^{c} + Af^{c}{\bar A} ) \; \; \; ,
\eeq{fixed}
where $S[A,{\bar A},x]$ is (\ref{original}) with $\inv g \d g$ and $\inv g \bd g$ replaced by the
{\em independent} fields $A$ and ${\bar A}$, respectively.
({\bf Note:} from now on matrix and vector indices will sometimes be
supressed). Finally, (gaussian) integrations over the gauge fields yield the
form of the {\em dual} model (in the non-anomalous case)
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{dual}[\lambda ,x] &= & \i \Big( (\partial \lambda _a-\partial x^iF^{L}_{ia})
N^{ab}(\bar\partial\lambda_b+F^{R}_{bj}\bar\partial x^j) \nonumber \\ & + &
\partial x^i F_{ij}\bar\partial x^j - (\Phi -ln \det N)\partial \bar\partial \sigma \Big) \ ,
\eer{dual}
where
\begin{equation}
N^{ab}\: \equiv \: [ (E+ f^{c} \lambda_c)^{-1}]^{ab}\; \; \; .
\eeq{N}In the anomalous case, the only correction to (\ref{N}) is an extra
non-local term proportional to $tr T_{a}$
(\cite{GR},\cite{ALVY},\cite{EGRSV}).\\
In this note we present another way to derive the dual model. Namely\,
we perform a change of variables in the functional integral from $\{ g,x\}$ to
$\{ \lambda ,x\} $
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccccc}
a)&(\inv g \d g )E(x)\ &=& \partial \lambda - \partial x F^{L}(x)-(\inv g \d g ) f^{c} \lambda_c &\Leftrightarrow \\
b)& \inv g \d g &=& (\partial \lambda - \partial x F^{L}(x))(E(x)+f^{c}\lambda _{c})^{-1}&
\err{Generaltrans}
~\footnote{If
the structure constants are totally anti-symmetric (i.e. for compact
semi-simple group) one also has $\partial (\inv g \lambda g) = ((\inv g\partial g)^a E_{ab} +\partial
x F^L_{b})\inv g T^b g$, from which $\lambda$ is derived explicitly.}
(see section 5 for the change of variables of opposite chirality). \\
The proof for that runs as follows:\\
Substituting \ref{Generaltrans}$a$ in the first term of
(\ref{original}), using
\begin{equation}
F[\inv g \d g,\inv g \bd g] = 0 \; \; \; \sp ,
\eeq{flat}
and finally substituting \ref{Generaltrans}$b$ one gets the identity
\begin{eqnarray}
(\inv g \d g)^a E_{ab}(x)(\inv g \bd g)^b +(\inv g \d g )^a F^R_{aj}(x)\bar\partial x^j + \partial x^i F^L_{ib}(x)(\inv g \bd g)^b \partial x^i & &= \nonumber \\
(\partial \lambda _a-\partial x^iF^{L}_{ia}) [(E+ f^{c} \lambda_c)^{-1}]^{ab}(\bar\partial\lambda_b+F^{R}_{bj}\bar\partial
x^j)\; + \; \bar\partial(\lambda\inv g \partial g)-\partial(\lambda\inv g \bar\partial g).
\eer{identity}
Equation (\ref{identity}) relates an action in group variables to an action in
the algebra variables, up to a total derivative term which is discussed in
section 5. This completes the proof in the level of the lagrangian.\\
Next, we turn to study the jacobian for the transformation
(\ref{Generaltrans}).
\section{The Jacobian}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Denoting both sides of (\ref{Generaltrans})$b$ as ${\cal A}$, their variations with
respect to $g$ and $\lambda$ are respectively
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{lcccc}
LHS \; \; \; & & D^{c}(\inv g \delta g)& =& \partial (\inv g \delta g)^{c} + {\cal A} ^{a}
f_{ab}^{c} (\inv g \delta g)^{b} \\
RHS \; \; \; & & \left( -\tilde{N} \tilde{D}(\delta \lambda)\right) ^{c} &= & N^{bc} (\partial \delta \lambda_{b} -{\cal A}
^{a}f_{ab}^{d}\delta \lambda _{d})\; \; \; ,
\err{variation}
where $\:\tilde{}\:$ denotes the functional transpose~\footnote{Notice the
similarity between the characterization of the symmetry $ D(\inv g \delta g)=0 $ of
the original model - and the corresponding symmetry of its dual: $\tilde{D}(\delta
\lambda)=0$. See section 6 for a possible significance of such similarity. The
(global) {\em gauge invariant measure} for $\lambda$ is given
in ($\ref{variation}_{RHS}$). Its dependence on the background fields is due to
the non-local nature of the symmetry as we transform $g\rightarrow\lambda$. Another thing
worth mentioning at this point is that (\ref{Generaltrans}) also relates {\em
two different field equations} - that of the original model, which looks like:
$\partial \bar J (g,x) +\bar\partial J(g,x) =0$ and that of the dual - $F(A(\lambda ,x ),{\bar A} (\lambda
,x))=0$ (see \cite{GR} for the exact forms).}. The required jacobian is thus
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccccc}
J &=&\frac{{\cal D} g}{{\cal D} \lambda }&=& | D^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}\tilde{N}\tilde{D}| \; \; \; ,
\err{Jacobian}
where $|x|$ stands for $\det(x)$. This can be proved to be the ratio
\begin{eqnarray}
| N| \frac{| D\bar D| }{|D ||\bar D|}\Big| _{{\bar g} =g }&=&| N|\exp \{ -\iv{tr}(\inv g \d g
\bar\partial\sigma+\inv g \bd g\partial\sigma )\}
\eer{NL}
calculated in \cite{EGRSV} to the first order in the conformal factor $\sigma$.
These determinants correspond to the changes $F(A(g),{\bar A} ({\bar g} ))\rightarrow g,g\rightarrow
A,{\bar g}\rightarrow{\bar A}$ (parametrized as in (\ref{A's})). A general practice for treating
`determinants' of inverse and transpose operators is one of the offshoots of
the next section, where the equivalence of (\ref{Jacobian}) and (\ref{NL})
follows naturally. \\
One might want to derive the general form of the dual model found in
\cite{EGRSV}. To that end, notice that
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccrclc}
0 &=& tr \int\sigma F(\inv g \d g ,\inv g \bd g )&=&tr\int \sigma\partial (\inv g \bd g ) -tr \int\sigma\bar\partial (\inv g \d g
)&\Rightarrow \\
& & tr\int \inv g \bd g \partial\sigma &=&tr\int \inv g \d g \bar\partial\sigma &
\err{ganomaly}
so that by (\ref{Generaltrans}), (\ref{NL}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
J &=& | N| \exp \{ -\iv{2}\bar\partial\sigma N(\partial \lambda - \partial x F^{L})\} \; \; \; ;
\eer{noname}
then, by substituting the equations of motion for $\lambda$ \cite{GR}, one obtains
the same form for the terms linear in $\sigma$ as in \cite{EGRSV}~\footnote{A quick
way to obtain the very result found in \cite{EGRSV} is by using the $\bf \sigma$
{\em dependent} transformation $\inv g \d g= (\partial \lambda - \partial x F^{L}+\partial\sigma tr\: T)N$.}.
\section{Factorization of Jacobians}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
{\em The Motivation}\\ Consider some action $S$ that depends on the group
variables $g,{\bar g}$ through the (gauge) fields
\begin{equation}
A =\inv g \d g \; \; \; , \; \; \; \sp {\bar A}= \bar g^{-1} \bar\partial \bar g \; \; \; \sp ,
\eeq{A's}
which in turn appear in $S$ in combinations $F(A,{\bar A} )=D {\bar A} -\bar\partial A$. When
changing variable ${\bar g}\rightarrow {\bar A}$ followed by the change ${\bar A}\rightarrow F$, the {\em
total} jacobians multiplying the partition function's integrand are
\begin{eqnarray}
J& = &(| D | | \bar D | )^{-1} \; \; \; .
\eer{ratio}
On the other hand, changing $F \rightarrow {\bar g}$ directly, one collects the jacobian
$|D \bar D | ^{-1}$.
Now, for path integration to be consistent, the results of these two courses of
changing variables from ${\bar g}$ to $F$ should be no different in the end. But as
we saw in (\ref{NL}), their ratio is non-trivial, at least for groups with
traceful structure constants; this is {\em the mixed anomaly} \cite{ALVY}, here
in the form of a `multiplicative anomaly' \cite{EGRSV} which seems to violate
the functional chain rule.\\
{\em Factorization}\\
To resolve this puzzle~\footnote{The author wishes to thank S. Elitzur for
suggesting the direction which led to the formulation and also for the proof (\ref{nonmixed}).} the ghost actions (the
variation of which with respect to the conformal factor should give the value
of the anomaly) defining the functional determinants are invoked~\footnote{the
$\zeta$-function procedure is not defined for jacobians relating two spaces of
different types. When both procedures are defined, one might want to prove
that they are different by local counterterms at most.}. Let us write the ghost
actions in interest: we have $g,\; {\bar g}$ and $F$ that are worldsheet scalars
where $A,{\bar A}$ are components of a worldsheet vector; the fermionic ghosts of
types $s$ (for scalar) and $v$ (vector) are thus introduced. Changing $A \rightarrow
g$, the corresponding jacobian may be written as~\footnote{Such definitions are
not Lorentz-invariant and are ill-defined in general \cite{ALVY}. This,
however, should not interfere with our argument which is compelled by the chain
rule.}
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccccc}
{{\cal D} A}/{{\cal D} g}&=&| D| _{vs}&\equiv & \int {\cal D} v {\cal D} s \exp {\int vDs}
\err{D}
where the integration in the exponent is over the worldsheet, partial
derivatives change to worldsheet covariant ones, and indices of all types are
supressed. By partial integration we have
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\int vDs&=&\int s\tilde{D}v &\Rightarrow & | D| _{vs}&= & | \tilde{D} | _{sv} \; \; \; .
\err{a}
Further, bearing in mind the chain rule, one can factorize and re-merge
`determinants' of vector operators` products and derive identities such as:
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{cccccc}
| O_{1}O_{2}| _{ss} &= &| O_{1}| _{sv} | O_{2}| _{vs} &= &| \tilde{O_{1}}|
_{vs}| \tilde{O_{2}}| _{sv} &= \\ | \tilde{O_{1}}\tilde{O_{2}}| _{vv} &=& |
(O_{2}O_{1}\tilde{)}| _{vv}&=& | O_{2}O_{1}| _{vv}& \; \; \; .
\err{ident1}
By considering a change of variables and its inverse change, we also have
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccccc}
| O_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}O_{2}| _{ss} &= & | O_{1}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}| _{sv} | O_{2}| _{vs} &=&
| O_{1}| _{vs}^{-1} | O_{2}| _{vs} \; \; \; .
\err{ident2}
These rules for chaining jacobians are easily generalized to jacobians
of tensors relating two objects, possibly of different ranks (with respect to
worldsheet diffeomorphisms). The basic rules for that are
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{cccc}
a)\; \; \; &| A| _{r_{1}r_{2}}&=&| \tilde{A} | _{r_{2}r_{1}} \\
b)\; \; \; &| A| _{r_{1}r_{2}} | B| _{r_{2}r_{3}}&=&| AB| _{r_{1}r_{3}}\\
c)\; \; \; &| A^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}| _{r_{1}r_{2}}&=&| A| ^{-1} _{r_{2}r_{1}}
\err{rules}
with obvious notations. These rules should be correct {\em whenever they
correspond to legitimate changes of variables.} \\
Applying these rules to the anomaly (\ref{NL}), it may take the
following equivalent forms
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{|D \bar D | _{ss}}{| {D}| _{vs}| \bar D| _{vs} } = \frac{|{D}|_{sv}|\bar D|
_{vs} }{| {D}| _{vs}| \bar D| _{vs}}= \frac{|D |
_{sv}}{ | D | _{vs}} =\frac{|D | _{sv}}{ | \tilde{D} | _{sv}} \nonumber \\ = |
\tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}| _{vs} | D | _{sv}= | \tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1} D | _{vv}= |
D\tilde{D}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}| _{ss}\; \; \; .
\eer{forms}
This proves the equality of (\ref{Jacobian}) and (\ref{NL}) in particular. As
to the example in the beginning of the section, the corresponding ratio is
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{|D\bar D |_{ss}}{|D|_{sv}|\bar D |_{vs}}&=&1
\eer{b}
according to (\ref{forms}) or (\ref{rules}).\\
With (\ref{forms}) in mind, let us consider the anomaly in two classes of cases. By definition, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\int vDs&=&\int v_{b}\partial s^{b} + v_{c}f^c_{ab}A^a s^b .
\eer{D}
{\em If $G$ is semisimple,} then $f_{abc}$ is totally antisymmetric. Reshuffeling indices and integrating by parts, (\ref{D}) may be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int -s_{b}\partial v^{b} - s_{b}f^b_{ac}A^a v^c=-\int sDv &\Rightarrow&|D|_{vs} =|D|_{sv}
\eer{}
$\Rightarrow$ no anomaly, by virtue of (\ref{forms}).\\
{\em If $G$ is solvable}, there exists a triangular basis for the algebra s.t.
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rll}
\int vDs=\\ \nonumber
\int & v_1\partial s^1 +A^\mu f^1_{\mu 1} v_1 s^1 \\ \nonumber
\; \; \; +&v_2\partial s^2 +A^\mu f^1_{\mu 2} v_1 s^2 +A^\mu f^2_{\mu 2} v_2 s^2 \\ \nonumber
&\; \; \; .\sp\sp\sp\sp\sp . \sp\sp\sp\sp\sp \; \; \; \sp.\\ \nonumber
&\; \; \; .\sp\sp\sp\sp\sp . \sp\sp\sp\sp\sp \spp. \\ \nonumber
&\; \; \; .\sp\sp\sp\sp\sp . \sp\sp\sp\sp\sp \spp\; \; \; \sp\; \; \; . \\ \nonumber
\; \; \; +& v_N\partial s^N +A^\mu f^1_{\mu N} v_1 s^N+\; \; \; .\; \; \; .\; \; \; . \; \; \; +A^\mu f^N_{\mu N} v_N s^N\: .
\err{D2}
Integrating over $s_1$ and then over $v_1$, produces the functional determinant
\begin{eqnarray}
|-\partial+A^\mu f^1_{\mu 1}|_{sv}\; \; \; ,
\eer{2.5}
while setting $v_1$ to zero, by which all of the terms in the second column vanish. Repeating this procedure for $(s^2 , v_2),...,(s^N , v_N)$, we finally get the formula
\begin{eqnarray}
| D|_{vs} &=& \prod_{k=1}^N |-\partial+A^\mu f^k_{\mu k}|_{sv}=\prod_{k=1}^N |\partial\;{\mathbf -}\; A^\mu f^k_{\mu k}|_{sv}\; \; \; .
\eer{DE}
Switching $s$ and $v$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&| D|_{sv}\; \; \; =\; \; \; \prod_{k=1}^N |-\partial+A^\mu f^k_{\mu k}|_{vs}=\prod_{k=1}^N |\partial-A^\mu f^k_{\mu k}|_{vs}\; \; \; =&\nonumber\\ &\prod_{k=1}^N |\partial\;{\mathbf +} \; A^\mu f^k_{\mu k}|_{sv}\; \; \; ,&
\eer{DD}
so the anomaly , which is the ratio of (\ref{DE}) and (\ref{DD}) can be written as a product of chiral anomalies. By Adler and Bardeen \cite{ADBAR}, we conclude that if the anomaly vanishes to first order, it cancels altogether. The condition for that is \cite{EGRSV}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_k f^k_{\mu k}&=&0\; \; \; .
\eer{D5}
The methods above can also be used for the general case, i.e. a semi-direct product of a semisimple group and a solvable one (e.g. the Lorentz group). However, the general classification of such groups is still a mystery and so is the general rule for factorization of the corresponding covariant derivatives.
\section{Global Aspects}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
{\bf Notations and mathematical tools on compact Riemann surfaces}\\
{\bf 1)} The $z$-component of a one-form $\omega =(\omega_z,\omega_{\bar z})$ can be completed to a full {\em closed} singled-valued one-form of which $\omega_z$ is its $z$-componet, as follows\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde \omega =(\omega_z,\tilde \omega_{\bar z})= (\omega_z,\bar\partial\int_{z_0} dz\, \omega_z) = dC\; \; \; \sp (z_0 =const)\; \; \; ,
\eer{complete}
where $C$ is a multivalued function on the surface. One can verify the above on the torus and therefore on every handle of the surface.\\
{\bf 2)} For a closed one-form $Y$, let $Y_{0}$ stand for its zero mode(s) where $Y_{e}$ denotes its exact part, that is, $Y_0\equiv\sum_j \alpha_j\oint_{\aleph_j} Y$ and $Y_e \equiv Y-Y_0$, where $\{\alpha_j\}, j=1,...2{\bf g}$ is the (unique) basis to the space of harmonic differentials on a surface of genus $\bf g$, satisfying $\oint_{\aleph_j} \alpha_k= \delta_{jk}$ and $\{\aleph_j\}$ is a basis to the first homology group of the surface.\\
{\bf 3)} For two closed one-forms $\alpha $ and $\beta $ one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\int \alpha\wedge \beta &=& \sum _{i=1}^{n} \oint_{a_i}\alpha\oint_{b_i}\beta
-\oint_{b_i}\alpha\oint_{a_i}\beta \; \; \; ,
\eer{riemann}
where $\{a_{i},b_{i}|i=1,...,{\bf g}\}$ denote the non-trivial cycles on the
$\bf g$-genus surface \cite{Farkas}.\\
{\bf 4)} If $\theta (z,\bar z )$ and $\lambda ( z, \bar z )$ are two multivalued functions on a surface one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d^2z\,(\partial \theta )_0 (\bar\partial \lambda )_e =\int d^2z\, \bar\partial ((\partial \theta )_0\lambda_s ) -\int d^2z\, \bar\partial(\partial \theta )_0\lambda_s =0 -0 =0\; \; \; ,
\eer{nonmixed}
where the subscript $s$ stands for the single valued part, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_s (z, \bar z) = \int_{z_0}^z \,(d\lambda)_e\; \; \; ,
\eer{}
and thus $ (d\lambda)_e = d\lambda_s$. We deduce\ the decoupling of terms, that are a product of zero modes and exact modes - from the action.\\
{\bf 5)} The equations of motion for the zero modes of a one-form ${\mathbf A}^a=(A,{\bar A})^a$ in actions of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathbf S}&=&\i (A M{\bar A} + A N +K{\bar A})
\eer{}
where the matrices $M,N$ and $K$ don't depend on $A$, {\em may be} written as
\begin{eqnarray}
(M{\bar A} +N)_0&=&( AM +K)_0\; \; \; =\; \; \; 0\; \; \; .
\eer{zmeof}
The zero modes are defined by {\bf 2)} after completing $N$, $K$, $A$ and ${\bar A}$ ({\bf 1)}) and using {\bf 4)} for the decoupling of the exact and the zero modes. \\
{\tt An abelian case}\\
{\em The original model}: Let the original action be
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{original}&=&\i\partial\theta R^{2}\bar\partial\theta\; \; \; ,
\eer{abeloriginal}
with $R=R(x(z,\bar z))$, $\theta = \theta +2\pi l\; \; \; ,l=const$. In order to dualize (\ref{abeloriginal}) we write an equivalent action
\begin{eqnarray}
S&=& \Ri\partial\theta R^{2}\bar\partial\theta\; \; \; +\; \; \; (\partial\theta)_0(\bar\partial\lambda)_{0}-(\partial\lambda)_{0}(\bar\partial\theta)_0\; \; \; ,
\eer{start}
where now $\theta$'s holonomies are any $2{\bf g}$ real numbers and $\lambda$ (who's single valued part is yet unspecified) satisfies
\begin{eqnarray}
\oint_{a_i}(d\lambda)_0 =\frac{4\pi m_{i}}{l} \;,\; \; \; \oint_{b_i}(d\lambda)_0 =\frac{4\pi n_{i}}{l}\; \; \; .
\eer{periodicities}
To recover $\theta$'s original periodicity, we write the total derivative term in (\ref{start}) as $\frac{i}{4\pi}
\int (d\theta)_0\wedge (d\lambda) _0$, which by (\ref{riemann}) equals $\frac{i}{l}\sum_{j}(n_{j} \oint _{a_{j}}d\theta -m_{j} \oint _{b_{j}}d\theta)$. {\em Notice that the zero subscripts in} (\ref{periodicities}) {\em are omittable}. Summing over all possible integer $n_{j}$ and $m_{j}$, constrains $\theta$'s periodicity to be $2\pi l$.\\
{\em The dual model}: Imposing the equations of motion of $(\partial \theta)_0$ and $(\bar\partial \theta)_0$ on (\ref{start}) imposes
\begin{eqnarray}
(\partial\lambda)_0 - (\partial\theta R^2)_0&=&0\; \; \; .
\eer{abelglobal}
Therefore, by virtue of {\bf(1)} we define
\begin{eqnarray}
(\partial\lambda)_e&=&(R^2\partial\theta)_e \; \; \; ,
\eer{eabelcov}
and use (5.10) to write
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial\lambda&=&R^2\partial\theta
\eer{abelcov}
and substitute it in the first term of (\ref{start}), which after omitting the zero subscripts form its next terms takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
&\Ri\partial\lambda\bar\partial\theta +\partial\theta\bar\partial\lambda-\partial\lambda\bar\partial\theta =\Ri\partial\theta\bar\partial\lambda&\stackrel{\partial \theta=\partial\lambda R^{-2}}{=}
\eer{}
\begin{eqnarray}
&S_{dual}\; \; \; =\; \; \; \Ri\partial\lambda R^{-2}\bar\partial\lambda \; \; \; , &
\eer{abeldual}
where $\lambda=\lambda+\frac{4\pi}{l}$.\\ This can readily be generalized to (\ref{original}) with $G=U(1)^{dimG}$. To omit the ${\cal R}e$ in (\ref{abeldual}), one may change variables by replacing an integrand of the same form, with a real $\lambda$. The realness issue carries over to the non-abelian case and so should its solution.\\
{\tt A non-abelian case}: Let the original action be
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{ccc}
a)&\; \; \; S = \i(\inv g \d g)E(\inv g \bd g) =\\ \nonumber
b)&\; \; \; \i((\inv g \d g)E)E^{-1}(E(\inv g \bd g)) = \\ \nonumber
c)&\; \; \; tr\Ri(g(\inv g \d g) Eg^{-1})_{0}(\bar\partial g g^{-1})_{0}+(g(\inv g \d g) Eg^{-1})_{e}(\bar\partial g g^{-1})_{e}\; \; \; ,
\err{Nstart}
with $G$ simply connected and $(\inv g \d g)E \stackrel{def}{=}((\inv g \d g)E)_b T^b\stackrel{def}{=}(\inv g \d g)^{a}E_{ab}T^b\;$, etc. To derive (\ref{Nstart}c) from (\ref{Nstart}a), we have used the trace cyclicity along with the conclusion from {\bf 4)}.\\
{\em The dual model}\,\, Since all mappings from a Riemann surface to a simply connected group are homeotopic to a point (on the group's manifold), the configurations space of $g$ is continuous and connected, therefore we can invoke the equations of motion of
$(Eg^{-1}dg)_0$ together with {\bf5)}, to constrain $g$'s configurations s.t.
\begin{eqnarray}
( g^{-1} dg)_0 &=& 0\; \; \; ;
\eer{zm}
{\em the extent of validity of this step is yet to be examined (elsewhere)}. Substituting $g$ with $g^{-1}$ we can characterize this subspace also by
\begin{eqnarray}
(gdg^{-1})_0 = - (dg g^{-1})_0 & = & 0\; \; \; ,
\eer{zm1}
so that the first term in (\ref{Nstart}c) decouples from the action.
Using {\bf 1)} we define the function $\chi$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial\chi&=& g(\inv g \d g) Eg^{-1}\; \; \; .
\eer{ONcov}
Notice that $\chi$'s possible multivalued part decouples from the action and may therefore be taken to be zero. We substitute (\ref{ONcov}) in what's left of
(\ref{Nstart}) to give
\begin{eqnarray}
tr\Ri\partial\chi \bar\partial g g^{-1}\; \; \; .
\eer{c}
Integrating it by parts and then using the identity $\partial(\bar\partial g g^{-1})=g\bar\partial (g^{-1}\partial g)g^{-1}$ yield
\begin{eqnarray}
-tr\Ri\chi g\bar\partial (g^{-1}\partial g)g^{-1}\; \; \; .
\eer{b}
Then, using the trace cyclicity and integrating by parts again we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
tr\Ri\inv g \d g\bar\partial\lambda\; \; \; ,
\eer{a}
where $\lambda=g^{-1}\chi g$ is single valued. Finally, we observe that (\ref{ONcov}) may equivalently be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\inv g \partial (g\lambda\inv g)g = (\inv g \d g)E \Leftrightarrow \inv g \d g\lambda+\partial\lambda-\lambda\inv g \d g = \inv g \d g E \Leftrightarrow\nonumber \\
\partial\lambda=\inv g \d g(E+f^c\lambda_c)\Leftrightarrow\inv g \d g=\partial\lambda(E+f^c\lambda_c)^{-1}\; ,
\eer{e}
from which we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{dual}&=&\i\partial\lambda(E+f^c\lambda_c)^{-1}\bar\partial\lambda\; \; \; ,
\eer{Ndual}
where {\em the $\lambda$'s are single valued.} The total derivative term from the two integrations by parts
\begin{eqnarray}
tr\frac{i}{2}\Ri d(\chi dg\inv g)
\eer{d}
vanishes because that $\chi dg\inv g$ is single valued. The generalization to (\ref{original}) is again, straightforward.
\section{Concluding Remarks}
The constructions presented in this paper imply (once again) that in the case
without isotropy, the conformal invariance of an action and that of its dual
are equivalent {\em to all orders of} $\alpha '$ (assuming a correct computation of
the jacobian, especially if that is non-local).\\
The author's hope is that the change of variables presented in this
work will shed some light on the global issues in dual models of isometry groups the mappings to which from Riemann surfaces fall into more interesting homology structure than the one presented here i.e. the trivial one that corresponds to simply-connected groups. \\
The (classical) equality in the case without isotropy
(\ref{identity}) between the original and the dual action
might seem a surprise, since the former admits a symmetry that seemingly
is absent in the latter \cite{OQ}. Further, a check of the change of variables
(\ref{Generaltrans}) verifies that transforming $g \rightarrow ug$ induces no change in
the dual coordinate $\lambda$. Where has the original symmetry gone? It has gone
non-local (cf.\cite{GR}) just to avoid detection by the Killing
equation~\footnote{With (\ref{Generaltrans}) in mind, one suspects the
existence of some non-local generalization of the Killing equation that is
capable of detecting such hidden symmetries, thus providing means by which
dualization may be reversed.}. Actually, the very condition for the
`smoothness' of the change of variables, that is, for the jacobian to be local,
is that the {\em symmetry factors} (see footnote after eq. (\ref{variation}))
$|D |$ and $| \tilde{D} |$ before the volume elements ${\cal D} g$ and ${\cal D} \lambda$
respectively should cancel out. It is precisely when this correspondence
between the symmetries breaks, that the anomaly occurs. \\
As shown in section {\bf 4}, the factorization approach to reorganize composite jacobians may be of help in tracing and isolating the very generators of the anomaly, as well as in simplifying its ghost action. One might want to generalize that to all Lie algebras and prove the chiral nature of the mixed anomaly in general.\\
\vskip .2in \noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements} \vskip .2in \noindent
I would like to thank my supervisor A. Giveon for his guidance and for
essential help in preparing this paper. I acknowledge S. Elitzur for very
useful discussions, and thank A. Babichenko, S. Forste, O. Pelc and
G. Sengupta for their help. Special thanks to G. Spivak for her help and
support. This work is supported in part by BSF -
American-Israel-Binational-Science-Foundation and by the BRF -
Basic-Research-Foundation.
|
\section{#1}}
\def |
\section{\twebf Introduction}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The Standard Model (SM) (Weinberg, 1967; Salam, 1969;
Glashow {\it et al.}, 1970)
of strong and electroweak interactions has been tested
with precise experiments at the present colliders (for
reviews see, e.g., Altarelli, 1989; Marciano, 1991, 1993a,b; Bethke, 1992;
Bethke and Pilcher, 1992; R.\ K.\ Ellis, 1992;
Langacker, Luo and Mann, 1992; Brodsky, 1993; \linebreak
Sirlin, 1993a,b; Kniehl, 1994a; Soper, 1995).
However, the decisive confirmation of the SM or its modification is still
ahead. One awaits with great interest precise measurements from
LEP, SLC, HERA, Fermilab Tevatron, etc.
The progress in a very precise experiment requires adequate
progress in the developing of calculational methods and performing the
theoretical computations of various observables. This can be consistently
done within perturbation theory for processes with large momentum transfer.
Nowadays, the standard way to evaluate experimentally measurable
quantities from first principles of the theory is to use perturbation
methods. Lattice calculations provide an alternative method.
The main goal of this paper is to review some of the recent achievements in
methods of high order analytical perturbative calculations of a wide class
of observable quantities. These quantities are
total cross sections, decay widths and
structure functions in deep inelastic processes, several key
theoretical quantities, such as renormalization group functions,
renormalization constants, Wilson coefficient functions, etc.
We will present a simplified description of some of the recent calculations.
A decisive role in the construction of the SM has been played by
experimental studies of so called inclusive processes, in particular deep
inelastic lepton-hadron processes like
$e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$, deep inelastic $e$, $\mu$ and $\nu$
-scattering, etc. The discovery of scaling of
deep inelastic structure functions
(Bjorken, 1968, 1969; Yang, 1969) led to the parton
model (Feynman, 1969, 1972; see also Drell and Yan, 1971).
The explanation of the observed scaling properties has been given by
Matveev, Muradyan and Tavkhelidze (1970, 1972), using the universal
principle of automodelity and dimensional analysis.
The quark counting formulae, allowing one to obtain the high energy
asymptotic behavior for cross sections and hadron form factors at large
momentum transfers, have been derived by Brodsky and Farrar (1973),
and Matveev, Muradian and Tavkhelidze (1973).
The discovery of
asymptotic freedom in nonabelian gauge field models (Gross and Wilczek, 1973;
Politzer, 1973) together with the conception of
spin half, fractionally electric charged fundamental constituents of hadrons
- quarks (Gell-Mann, 1964; Zweig, 1964) with an additional quantum number
color (Bogolyubov, Struminsky and Tavkhelidze, 1965; Tavkhelidze, 1965;
Han and Nambu, 1965; also Miyamoto, 1965; Greenberg, 1964),
interacting via eight massless, non-abelian,
spin 1, self interacting gauge fields - gluons, led to the creation of
Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) (Fritzsch, Gell-Mann and Leutwyler, 1973) - the
present theory of strong
interactions. For an introductory review of QCD see, e.g., Marciano and Pagels
(1978), and a short historical review has been given recently by
Tavkhelidze (1994).
QCD is based on a local SU$_{c}$(3) symmetry group, which
implies the minimal locally gauge invariant Lagrangian density of the model.
QCD is a renormalizable quantum field model. There exists well defined rules
for removing of ultraviolet divergences from
S-matrix amplitudes at each order of the interaction coupling constant.
After the renormalization, the calculated physical quantities are free of
ultraviolet regularization parameters. The problem of renormalizability
of non-abelian gauge theories has been considered since the early 60's
(Feynman, 1963; deWitt, 1967; Mandelstam, 1968, etc.). After the Lorentz
covariant quantization of gauge fields, based on the path integral approach
(Faddeev and Popov, 1967; for a textbook, see also Faddeev and Slavnov, 1980),
the proof of renormalizability was given ('t~Hooft, 1971; Lee and
Zinn-Justin, 1972, 1973).
Besides the short distance effects, in QCD one has to deal with infrared
divergences associated with long distance infinities. In other words,
in addition to the large parameter
(large momentum transferred - $Q^{2}$), there are small parameters such as,
for instance, hadron mass - $m$
or momenta of some of the participating particles, and in the calculation
one faces senseless large logarithmic contributions
$\sim \log m^{2}/Q^{2}$. The infrared divergence problem was considered
long ago for QED (Bloch and Nordsieck, 1937; Yennie, Frautschi and Suura,
1961).
A modern treatment of this problem in the SM is based on the
operator product expansion technique (Wilson, 1969) and factorization
theorems. This, in some cases, in particular, for deep inelastic processes,
allows one to factorize the large and small distance
contributions (Libby and Sterman, 1978; Mueller, 1978;
Efremov and Radyushkin, 1980a,b; Radyushkin, 1983; Collins and Soper, 1987;
Collins, Soper and Sterman, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989 and references therein).
The concrete prescriptions of dealing with infrared divergent Feynman
integrals have been given by Vladimirov (1978, 1980),
Pivovarov and Tkachov (1988),
Tkachov (1991, 1993),
Chetyrkin and Smirnov (1985). For earlier references, see the work
by Tkachov (1993). For a textbook, see Collins (1984).
The interference
of long and short distance effects is still problematic in actual
higher order calculations.
The group character of renormalizing transformations in quantum field
theory was first discovered by Stueckelberg and Peterman (1953), and
Gell-Mann and Low (1954) have applied it
to study the ultraviolet asymptotics of Green's functions in spinor
electrodynamics. The mathematical formalism of the
renormalization group has been worked out by Bogolyubov and Shirkov
(1955, 1956a,b), and Bogolyubov and Parasyuk (1955a,b, 1956, 1957)
have introduced the $R$-operation for subtracting ultraviolet
divergent contributions recursively
on the level of loop Feynman diagrams. The renormalization group and
$R$-operation techniques are the crucial tools in any perturbative
calculation within the Standard Model (see the textbook by
Bogolyubov and Shirkov, 1980). For a historical review on renormalization
group see, for example, Shirkov (1992; also Peterman, 1979)
and references therein.
For a textbook on the modern renormalization
theory and the references, see Collins (1984).
The property of asymptotic freedom, the method of renormalization group and
factorization theorems are the basis of the present perturbative QCD. In
order to relate perturbative QCD to measurable quantities,
it was necessary along with the renormalization group, dispersion relations,
operator product expansion techniques and factorization, to develop
a technique for evaluation of loop Feynman diagrams. Indeed, in each order
of perturbation theory, contributions to the physical observables come from
a finite set of divergent Feynman integrals with the same number of
internal momentum integrations (number of loops). Thus, one has to deal
with very singular (ultraviolet and infrared) Feynman integrals, and a
correct mathematical apparatus suitable for calculational purposes
is necessary. The dimensional regularization technique
('t~Hooft and Veltman, 1972, 1973; Bollini and Giambiagi, 1972;
Ashmore, 1972; Cicuta
and Montaldi, 1972) for ultraviolet divergent Feynman integrals is based on the
idea of integration over the space-time of noninteger dimension less than 4.
In this case, the Feynman integrals
become well defined, and divergences appear as poles in terms of the deviation
from the physical space-time dimension of 4. The important property of
dimensional regularization is that it preserves explicit gauge invariance
and is very convenient for practical calculations. In fact, almost all recent
progress in higher order analytical perturbative calculations has been made
within the dimensional regularization, using 't Hooft's (1973) minimal
subtraction
prescription.
The systematic study of strong interaction effects for the various
observables in processes with large momentum transfer requires
one to evaluate at least the first few coefficients in the perturbative
expansion in terms of the strong coupling. Here
the problem of calculating multiloop Feynman diagrams arises. The recursive
type algorithm for analytical evaluation of one-, two- and three-loop massless,
propagator type, dimensionally regularized Feynman diagrams has been given by
Chetyrkin and Tkachov (1981), and Tkachov (1981, 1983a). This algorithm,
together
with the so called Gegenbauer x-space technique
(Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1979) allows one to evaluate an expansion in the
Laurent series in $\varepsilon=(4-D)/2$
of all massless propagator type Feynman diagrams up to the
three-loop level, where $D$ is the
noninteger dimension of the space-time.
The above algorithm is applicable to
a wide class of problems up to the four-loop level. These are, for instance,
calculation of renormalization constants, renormalization group functions,
some of the cross sections and decay widths.
We note that this algorithm
deals only with propagator type massless diagrams. Nevertheless, due to the
remarkable properties of dimensional regularization ('t~Hooft and Veltman,
1972)
and the minimal subtraction prescription ('t~Hooft, 1973), namely, that the
counterterms are polynomials in dimensional parameters within minimal
subtraction (Collins, 1974; Speer, 1974; see also the
textbook by Collins, 1984), a wide class of problems can be reduced to the
evaluation of
propagator type diagrams (Vladimirov, 1978, 1980).
At high energies, in some cases, it is possible to neglect the masses of
participating particles and
consider the massless diagrams. The
mass corrections of the type $m^{2n}/s^{n}$, where $s$ is the center-of-mass
energy squared, can also be evaluated through the calculation of massless
diagrams (see, e.g., Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1986;
Surguladze, 1989a, 1994a,b,c). Feynman graphs can also contain virtual
heavy particle
propagators regardless of the energy scale of the particular process.
If the masses of the virtual particles are much larger than the energy scale,
one can neglect them, since their effcts are supressed by powers of large
mass, according to the decoupling theorem (Appelquist and Carazzone, 1975).
However, in some cases, such effects may not be entirely negligible
(Soper and Surguladze, 1994).
The prescriptions to study asymptotic expansions of Feynman integrals
in powers of $m^{2}/s$ can be obtained from Chetyrkin and
Tkachov (1982), Tkachov (1983b,c, 1991, 1993), and Chetyrkin (1991; see also
Smirnov 1990, 1991 and references therein).
An exact general expression for one-loop, N-point, massive Feynman integrals
has been obtained by Davydichev (1991), and Boos and Davydychev (1992).
This expression contains the generalized hypergeometric function
and is complicated, except for some particular cases. An alternative method
for massive Feynman integrals has been suggested by Kotikov (1991).
In practice, the calculation of physical quantities within perturbation
theory is very cumbersome and tedious already beyond the one-loop level,
especially in realistic quntum field theory models, like QCD. However, the
recursive type algorithms by Chetyrkin and Tkachov (1981)
allow convenient implementation within algebraic programming systems like
{\small REDUCE} (Hearn, 1973),
{\small SCHOONSCHIP} (Veltman, 1967; Strubbe, 1978; Veltman, 1989)
and {\small FORM} (Vermaseren, 1989). Several computer programs
were written in
the last decade for analytical computation of multiloop Feynman diagrams.
Among them we mention the programs which fully implement the above
mentioned recursive algorithms. The program {\small LOOPS}
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989a),
written on the {\small REDUCE} system, calculates one- and
two-loop massless, propagator type Feynman diagrams for
arbitrary structure in the numerator
of the integrand and for an arbitrary space-time dimension.
The program {\small MINCER} (Gorishny, Larin,
Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989), written on the {\small SCHOONSCHIP}
system, and the program {\small HEPL}oops (Surguladze, 1992),
written on the {\small FORM} system, calculates one-,
two- and three-loop massless, propagator type diagrams.
The status of the existing program packages has
been discussed recently in
Surguladze (1994d).
The above methods, algorithms and computer programs
allow one to make significant
progress in high order analytical perturbative calculations of
several important physical observables.
The other outstanding problem in perturbative calculations is
the renormalization group ambiguity of perturbation theory
predictions. Indeed, starting from a
certain order, the perturbative coefficients become scheme-scale
dependent, while it is obvious that the calculated observable cannot
depend on any subjective choice of nonphysical parameters.
Several approaches have been
suggested to deal with the scheme-scale ambiguity problem. Among them
we consider the so called {\it fastest apparent convergence}
approach (Grunberg, 1980),
suggesting one absorb the leading QCD corrections in the definition
of the ``effective'' running coupling. We will consider an
approach based on the {\it principle of minimal sensitivity} of the
physical observables to nonphysical parameters (Stevenson, 1981a,b), and
Brodsky, Lepage and Mackenzie (1983) (BLM) method,
suggesting one should fix the scale according to the size of the quark
vacuum polarization effects.
The commensurate scale relations by Brodsky and Lu (1994, 1995)
allow one to make scale-fixed perturbative predictions without
referring to the particular renormalization prescription.
In the recent works, some authors try
to predict the perturbative coefficients without
calculating the relevant Feynman graphs. First, we mention
the method by West (1991) which is based on the renormalizability, analyticity
arguments, and the saddle point technique. For comments
on this work see Barclay and Maxwell (1992a),
Brown and Yaffe (1992), Surguladze and Samuel (1992), and
Duncan {\it et al.} (1993).
The method of Samuel {\it et al.}
(Samuel and Li, 1994a,b,c; Samuel, Li and Steinfelds, 1994a,b,c),
based on Pad\`{e} approximants, work surprisingly well for the large
number of cases considered. However, a theoretical basis of this method is
necessary. Recent developments have put Pad\`{e} approximant method
on a more rigorous basis, which justifies its application
to perturbation series in QED, QCD, Atomic physics, etc.
This is discussed in recent papers (see, e.g., Ellis, Karliner and Samuel,
1995).
An alternative method for estimation of higher order perturbative
contributions can be obtained based on Stevenson's (1981a,b) approach
(Surguladze and Samuel, 1993; Kataev and Starshenko, 1994).
The important problem of large-order behavior of perturbation
theory has been considered by Barclay and Maxwell (1992b),
and Brown and Yaffe (1992). The same problem has been discussed
during the past twenty years. The part of papers on the subject have been
collected in the book edited by Le Guillou and Zinn-Justin (1990).
The application of renormalon calculus in the study of the behaviour of
perturbative QCD series is a subject of intensive discussions in the recent
literature (see, e.g., Zakharov, 1992; Mueller, 1992; Lovett-Turner
and Maxwell, 1994; Vainshtein and Zakharov, 1994, Soper and Surguladze, 1995).
After a brief historical review,
we turn to the main subject of the present article. Namely, we discuss
the analytical high order perturbative calculations of several physical
observables which have been completed recently with the help
of the above mentioned methods, algorithms and computer programs.
First, we consider the analytical calculation of
$R(s)$ in electron - positron annihilation at the four-loop level
of perturbative QCD (Surguladze and Samuel, 1991a,b; Gorishny,
Kataev and Larin, 1991), which turned out to be the most difficult
among the problems of this type.
This is the first and so far the only
four-loop calculation of a physical quantity in QCD.
\footnote{
This calculation was attempted earlier by Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1988)
but, unfortunately, errors were found.
}
As a byproduct, the four-loop $R_{\tau}$ in $\tau$ decay
(Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1991; Samuel and Surguladze, 1991) and four-loop
QED $\beta$ function (Surguladze, 1990; Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1990)
have been evaluated.
\footnote{ For the joint publication of the results of the two
independent calculations of the four-loop
QED $\beta$-function, see Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze (1991a).
}
For earlier works, we mention, for instance, the calculation of the
three-loop correction to $R(s)$ in electron - positron annihilation
(Chetyrkin, Kataev and Tkachov, 1979;
Dine and Sapirstein, 1979;
Celmaster and Gonsalves, 1980),
the calculation of the three-loop
QCD ${\beta}$ function (Tarasov, Vladimirov and Zharkov, 1980) and the
calculation of the three-loop anomalous dimensions of quark masses
(Tarasov, 1982).
We would also like to list some other three- and two-loop calculations.
These are:the calculation of the total decay width of the neutral Higgs boson
into hadrons at the three-loop level
(Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze, 1990, 1991b;
Surguladze, 1994a,b),
the calculation of the two- and three-loop Wilson coefficients in QCD
sum rules (Surguladze and Tkachov, 1986, 1988, 1989b, 1990),
the calculation of the two-loop anomalous dimensions of the proton
current (Pivovarov and Surguladze, 1991). So far only one
five-loop calculation exists. This is the calculation of the five-loop
renormalization group functions in $\phi^4$-theory (Kleinert {\it et al.},
1991).
The scope of the present paper is limited and
we are not planning to review perturbative
QCD. This has already been done and excellent reviews exist. We
recommend, for instance, the recent work {\it Handbook of
Perturbative QCD} by CTEQ collaboration (Brock, {\it et al.}), edited by
G.~Sterman (1993). Here we focus on a somewhat simplified description of the
key methods which allow one to perform analytical high order
perturbative calculations up to and including the four-loop level.
As an example, we will demonstrate the main points of the calculation of
$\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$,
$\Gamma(\tau^{-} \rightarrow \nu_{\tau} + \mbox{hadrons})$,
$\Gamma(H \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$ and the QED $\beta$ function.
We also outline the calculation
of the Wilson coefficient functions of higher twist operators
in the operator product expansion and discuss various
approaches to resolve the renormalization group ambiguity of
perturbation theory predictions.
The paper is organised as follows. In the 2nd section we introduce
our notation and present some general relations. In this section we
discuss the relevant methods and tools of perturbative QCD.
We briefly consider the necessary dispersion
relation, the operator product expansion (OPE), the renormalization
relations and the method for evaluation of the renormalization constants.
We also discuss the main ideas of the method of projectors for calculating
Wilson coefficients in OPE. In the 3rd section we evaluate the quantity
$\Gamma(H \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$ at the three-loop level. In the 4th
section we calculate the corrections to the correlation functions due to the
nonvanishing quark masses. In the 5th section we describe the calculation of
the Wilson coefficient functions of the dim=4 operators in the OPE of the
two-point correlation function of quark currents.
In the 6th section we describe the four-loop calculation of
$\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$.
Sections 7 and 8 are dedicated to the evaluation of
$\Gamma(\tau^{-} \rightarrow \nu_{\tau} + \mbox{hadrons})$ and the QED
$\beta$ function respectively.
In section 9 we discuss the problem of the renormalization
group ambiguity of perturbative QCD results. As an example, we consider
calculated quantities and use the known approaches to try to fix the
scheme-scale parameter within the one parametric family of MS-type
schemes. Next, we outline the original method of scheme-invariant
analysis and optimization procedure by Stevenson (1981a,b).
The paper ends with summarizing notes.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf Calculational methods}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{\tenbf Notation and general relations of perturbative QCD}
Throughout this paper we work within the standard
model of strong interactions - QCD. For a review on QCD see, for
example, Marciano and Pagels (1978), Mueller (1981), Reya (1981), and
Altarelli (1982). For a textbook see, e.g., Yndurain (1983), Quigg (1986),
Muta (1987), and Ellis and Stirling (1990).
For the most recent source see, e.g., {\it Handbook of
Perturbative QCD} by CTEQ collaboration (Brock {\it et al.}),
edited by G.~Sterman (1993).
The four-loop QED calculations will be discussed in section 8.
The Lagrangian density of standard QCD is
\begin{eqnarray}
L(x)=-1/4(G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^{2}-\frac{1}{2\alpha_G}
(\partial^{\mu}A_{\mu}^{a})^{2}
+\sum_{f}\overline{q}_{f}(i\hat{\partial}-m_{f})q_{f}
+g\sum_{f}\overline{q}_{f}T^{a}\hat{A}^{a}q_{f} \nonumber\\
+\partial^{\mu}c^{a^{\dag}}(\partial_{\mu}\delta^{ac}
+gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{b})c^{c},
\label{eq:lagrangian}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$G_{\mu\nu}^{a}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}^{a}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}^{a}
+gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{b}A_{\nu}^{c}$ \ ($a=1,2,...,8$) are the
Yang-Mills field (Yang and Mills, 1954) strengths, \ $A^{a}$ and $q_{f}$ are
gluon and
quark fields, $m_{f}$ are the quark masses, \ $c^{a}$ are the
Faddeev-Popov ghosts and $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}$ is the gauge parameter.
We use the standard notation
$\hat{\partial}=\gamma^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}$ and
$\hat{A}^{a}=\gamma^{\mu}A_{\mu}^{a}$.
The index $f$ enumerates the
quark flavors, total number of which is $N$. The generators $T^{a}$
of the SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(N) gauge group,
the structure constants $f^{abc}$ and $d^{abc}$ obey the following relations
\begin{eqnarray}
[T^a,T^b]=if^{abc}T^c,\hspace{2mm}
\{T^a,T^b\}=\frac{1}{N}\delta^{ab}+d^{abc}T^c, \nonumber\\
f^{acd}f^{bcd}=C_A\delta^{ab},\hspace{2mm}
T^aT^a=C_F\hat{\bf 1}, \hspace{2mm}
\mbox{tr}T^aT^b=T\delta^{ab}.
\label{eq:casimirs}
\end{eqnarray}
The eigenvalues of the Casimir operators for the adjoint ($N_A=8$) and the
fundamental ($N_F=3$) representations of SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(3) are
\begin{equation}
C_{A}=3,\hspace{2mm}C_{F}=4/3, \hspace{2mm} \mbox{and} \hspace{2mm}
T=1/2,\hspace{2mm} d^{abc}d^{abc}=40/3.
\label{eq:casimirsnum}
\end{equation}
We use the standard QCD Feynman rules (see, e.g., Abers and Lee, 1973;
Muta, 1987).
\vspace{3mm}
{\bf Propagators}
\vspace{4mm}
\hspace{7mm} quark \hspace{43mm} $= \frac{1}{i}\frac{m+\hat{P}}
{m^2-P^2}\delta_{ij}$
\vspace{13mm}
\hspace{7mm} gluon \hspace{43mm} $= \frac{1}{i}\frac{\delta_{ab}}{P^2}
\left[g^{\mu\nu}
-(1-\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}})
\frac{P_{\mu}P_{\nu}}{P^2}\right]$
\vspace{13mm}
\hspace{7mm} ghost \hspace{43mm} $= \frac{1}{i}\frac{\delta_{ab}}{P^2}$
\vspace{10mm}
{\bf Vertices}
\vspace{7mm}
\hspace{7mm} quark-quark-gluon \hspace{43mm} $= ig\gamma^{\mu}T^{a}_{ij}$
\vspace{29mm}
\hspace{7mm} ghost-ghost-gluon \hspace{43mm} $= igf^{abc}P_{\mu}$
\vspace{26mm}
\hspace{7mm} 3-gluon \hspace{43mm}
$=gf^{abc}[g_{\mu\nu}(q-p)_{\lambda}
+g_{\nu\lambda}(k-q)_{\mu}
+g_{\mu\lambda}(p-k)_{\nu}]$
\vspace{29mm}
\hspace{7mm} 4-gluon \hspace{43mm} $=ig^2[f^{abe}f^{cde}(g^{\mu\lambda}
g^{\nu\rho}
-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\lambda})$
\hspace{74mm} $+f^{ace}f^{bde}(g^{\mu\nu}
g^{\lambda\rho}-g^{\mu\rho}g^{\nu\lambda})$
\hspace{74mm} $+f^{ade}f^{cbe}(g^{\mu\lambda}g^{\nu\rho}
-g^{\mu\nu}g^{\lambda\rho})]$
\vspace{11mm}
The sum of all momenta coming in each vertex of the
Feynman diagram is zero (momentum conservation).
\vspace{4mm}
{\bf Factors}
\vspace{3mm}
(-1) for each closed fermion or ghost loop
\vspace{3mm}
Statistical factors (for derivations see, e.g., 't~Hooft and Veltman, 1973):
\vspace{9mm}
$\frac{1}{2}$ for each graph (subgraph)
\vspace{14mm}
$\frac{1}{6}$ for each graph (subgraph) \hspace{5cm} etc.
\vspace{9mm}
{\bf Integration}
\vspace{3mm}
Each loop corresponds to the integration \hspace{7mm}
$\int\frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4}$.
\vspace{7mm}
In general, the Feynman integral constructed according to the above rules
is divergent.
There are two kind of divergences. One, the so called ultraviolet (UV)
divergence is due to large integration
momenta and the other one - the so called infrared divergence is associated
with the small integration momenta in the massless limit. The most convenient
regularization of Feynman integrals is dimensional regularization
('t~Hooft and Veltman, 1972; Bollini and Giambiagi, 1972; Ashmore, 1972;
Cicuta and Montaldi, 1972),
where the space-time dimension is analytically continued from the physical
value, 4, to a complex value $D=4-2\varepsilon$.
In the limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, the divergences appear as poles
$1/\varepsilon$, defining the counterterms. One of the remarkable properties
of dimensional regularization is that the Ward identities implied by gauge
invariance are maintained for arbitrary space-time dimension D, in
contrast with the old Pauli-Villars regularization (Pauli and Villars, 1949).
Another useful property is a convenience in practical multiloop calculations.
Thus, in dimensional regularization we formally replace
$\int\frac{d^4P}{(2\pi)^4}$ $\rightarrow$ $\int\frac{d^{D}P}{(2\pi)^D}$.
It is straightforward to extend the all necessary tensor algebra into
$D$-dimensions.
For example, $g^{\mu\nu}g_{\mu\nu}=D$, $\mbox{Tr}{\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}}
=2^{D/2}g_{\mu\nu}$,
etc. For the complete list of formulae see, e.g., Collins (1984) and also
Narison (1982).
Note, however, that the extension of the usual definition of the
matrix $\gamma_{5}$\\
\begin{center}
$\gamma_{5} = \frac{1}{4!}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}\gamma_{\alpha}
\gamma_{\beta}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu}$\\
\end{center}
is not straightforward. The totally antisymmetric tensor
$\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$ is defined only in the
four-dimensional space.
In some cases the calculation of the quantities involving
$\gamma_{5}$ is still possible within dimensional regularization.
For a discussion of the problem of
$\gamma_{5}$ in dimensional regularization see Delbourgo and Akyeampong
(1974), Trueman (1979), Bonneau (1980), Narison (1982), Collins (1984),
and Larin (1993).
For a calculation involving $\gamma_{5}$ within
dimensional regularization see, e.g., Pivovarov and Surguladze (1991).
In order to get finite physical quantities,
the divergences in dimensionally regularized Feynman
integrals, appearing as poles in $1/\varepsilon$, need to be subtracted
by adopting of some specific rule.
This rule is usually called a renormalization scheme.
Throughout this paper we use 't~Hooft's minimal subtraction (MS) type
scheme ('t~Hooft, 1973). The subtraction of divergences is equivalent to
the redefinition (renormalization) of the parameters (coupling,
mass and gauge fixing parameter)
and fields in the original ``bare'' lagrangian
\begin{center}
$\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}=\mu^{2\varepsilon}Z_{\alpha_s}\alpha_s$,
\hspace{1cm} $(g^{2}/4\pi\equiv\alpha_{s})$
\end{center}
\begin{equation}
m^{\mbox{\tiny B}} = mZ_{m},
\label{Zdefinitions}
\end{equation}
\begin{center}
$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}^{\mbox{\tiny B}} = \alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}
Z_{\mbox{\tiny G}}$.
\end{center}
$\mu$ is a quantity of dimension of mass which is introduced
within dimensional regularization in order to make an action
dimensionless. Superscript ``B'' denote the unrenormalized quantity.
We renormalize the gluon, quark and ghost fields analogously.
Within the MS scheme the N-point Green function
is renormalized in the following way
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(p_1,...,p_N,g,m,\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}},\mu) =
Z_{\Gamma}\Gamma^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
(p_1,...,p_N,g,m,\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}),
\label{Zgreen}
\end{equation}
where $Z_{\Gamma}$ is a polynomial in $1/\varepsilon$, and thus
multiplying by $Z_{\Gamma}$,
we subtract
only pole parts from the divergent $\Gamma^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$.
The evaluation of the renormalization constants $Z$ will be
discussed in the next subsections.
It is easy to see that the $\mu$ parameter entered through the
renormalization and hence the unrenormalized Green's function is
independent of $\mu$
\begin{displaymath}
\mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\Gamma^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(p_1,...,p_N,g,m,
\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}) = 0.
\end{displaymath}
Using eq.\ (\ref{Zgreen}) and expanding the full derivative we get
the renormalization group equation in the following form
\begin{equation}
\left[\mu^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu^2}
+\beta(\alpha_s)\alpha_s\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_s}
-\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)m\frac{\partial}{\partial m}
+\beta_{\mbox{\tiny G}}(\alpha_s)\frac{\partial}
{\partial\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}}
-\gamma_{\Gamma}\right]
\Gamma(p_1,...,p_N,m,\alpha_s,\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}},\mu) = 0.
\label{RGE}
\end{equation}
The QCD renormalization group functions
- the $\beta$-function and the anomalous dimension functions
- $\gamma$ are defined in the following way
\begin{displaymath}
\alpha_s\beta(\alpha_s)=\mu^2\frac{d\alpha_s}{d\mu^2},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\beta_{\mbox{\tiny G}}(\alpha_s)
=\mu^2\frac{d\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}}{d\mu^2},
\end {displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)=-\frac{\mu^2}{m}\frac{dm}{d\mu^2},
\label{eq:RGfunctions}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
\gamma_{\Gamma}(\alpha_s)=\frac{\mu^2}{Z_{\Gamma}}\frac{dZ_{\Gamma}}{d\mu^2},
\end{displaymath}
with bare coupling and mass fixed. In the present paper
we use the renormalization group equation in the above form.
The other forms are also known in the literature.
The group properties
of the renormalization was first discovered by
Stueckelberg and Peterman (1953). The ultraviolet asymptotics
of the Green function
was studied by Gell-Mann and Low (1954) in quantum electrodynamics using
the group of multiplicative renormalizations.
The renormalization group formalism was further
developed in the original works by Bogolyubov and Shirkov
(1955, 1956a,b).
For the detailed monograph see
Bogolyubov and Shirkov (1980). The renormalization group
equation was studied by Ovsyannikov (1956),
Callan (1970), and Symanzik (1970). For a recent historical
review see Shirkov (1992) and references therein.
The renormalization group $\beta$-function and anomalous
dimensions of quark masses are calculated up to the three-loop level
(Tarasov, Vladimirov and Zharkov, 1980; Tarasov, 1982).
The QCD $\beta$-function up to and including the three-loop
level in MS type schemes is
\begin{equation}
\beta(\alpha_{s})=-\beta_{0}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
-\beta_1(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi})^2
-\beta_2(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi})^3+O(\alpha_s^4),
\label{eq:beta}
\end{equation}
where (Tarasov, Vladimirov and Zharkov, 1980)
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
$\beta_0=\frac{1}{4}\biggl(\frac{11}{3}C_A
-\frac{4}{3}TN\biggr)$,
\noindent
$\beta_1=\frac{1}{16}\biggl(\frac{34}{3}C_A^2-\frac{20}{3}C_ATN
-4C_FTN\biggr)$,
\noindent
$\beta_2=\frac{1}{64}\biggl(
\frac{2857}{54}C_A^3-\frac{1415}{27}C_A^2TN
+\frac{158}{27}C_AT^2N^2-\frac{205}{9}C_AC_FTN
+\frac{44}{9}C_FT^2N^2+2C_F^2TN\biggr)$.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
The quark mass anomalous dimension up to and including three-loop level is
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{m}(\alpha_{s})=\gamma_{0}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
+\gamma_1(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi})^2
+\gamma_2(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi})^3+O(\alpha_s^4),
\label{eq:gamma}
\end{equation}
where (Tarasov, 1982)
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
$\gamma_0=\frac{3}{4}C_F$,
\noindent
$\gamma_1=\frac{1}{16}\biggl(\frac{3}{2}C_{F}^2+\frac{97}{6}C_{F}C_A
-\frac{10}{3}C_FTN\biggr)$,
\noindent
$\gamma_2=\frac{1}{64}\biggl[\frac{129}{2}C_{F}^3-\frac{129}{4}C_{F}^{2}C_{A}
+\frac{11413}{108}C_{F}C_{A}^2-(46-48\zeta(3))C_{F}^{2}TN$
\hspace{7cm} $-\biggl(\frac{556}{27}+48\zeta(3)\biggr)C_{F}C_{A}TN
-\frac{140}{27}C_{F}T^2N^2\biggr]$.
\vspace{3mm}
As it was shown by Caswell and Wilczek (1974) and Banyai, Marculescu
and Vescan (1974), the above renormalization group functions
are gauge independent, which greatly simplifies their evaluation.
In fact, the QCD $\beta$-function and the quark mass anomalous dimension
have been evaluated in the Feynman gauge $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}=1$.
We note that the perturbative coefficients of the renormalization
group functions are the same within the one parametric family
of the MS type schemes.
Note also the independence of these perturbative coefficients
on the quark masses by their definition within the MS type schemes.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Vacuum polarization function and Dispersion relation}
\indent
The vacuum polarization functions for various types of quark
currents are crucial in the theoretical evaluation of total
cross sections and decay widths. Indeed, for example, the quantity
$\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$,
according
to the well known optical theorem (see, e.g., the textbook by
Bogolyubov and Shirkov, 1980),
is proportional to the imaginary part of the function
$\Pi(-q^2+i0)$, defined from the hadronic vacuum polarization
function
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q)=i\int e^{iqx}<Tj_\mu(x)j_\nu(0)>_0d^4x
=(g_{\mu\nu}Q^2-Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu})\Pi(Q^2)\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}.
\label{eq:pifunction}
\end{equation}
Here, $j_{\mu}(x)=Q_f\overline{q}_f\gamma_{\mu}q_f$, $Q_f$ is the electric
charge of the quark of flavor $f$ and $Q^2=-q^2$ is the
Euclidean momentum squared. The sum over all participating quark
flavors is assumed in $\Pi$.
The transverse form in the r.h.s.
is conditioned by the conservation of electromagnetic currents.
In this paper we also consider the two-point function of quark
axial vector currents associated with the quantity
$\Gamma(Z \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$ and two-point function of
quark scalar currents associated with the quantity
$\Gamma(H \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$ - the
total decay width of the neutral Standard Model Higgs boson into hadrons.
The renormalized vacuum polarization function obeys the
dispersion relation
\begin{equation}
\Pi(Q^2) = \frac{4}{3}\int_{s_{0}}^{\infty}\frac{R(s)}{s+Q^2}ds
- \mbox{subtractions},
\label{eq:disprelat}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
R(s)=\frac{\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow
\mbox{hadrons})}
{\sigma(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-})}
=\frac{3}{4\pi} \mbox{Im}\Pi(s+i0).
\label{eq:Rsdefin}
\end{equation}
Recall also that the muon pair production cross-section
$\sigma(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-})=4\pi\alpha^2/3s$,
where $\alpha=e^2/4\pi$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant.
The above dispersion relation allows one to connect the
experimentally measurable quantity $R(s)$ to the $\Pi(Q^2)$
calculable perturbatively in the deep Euclidean region
($Q^2$ is large compared to the typical hadron mass).
For the discussion on theoretical calculability of R(s)
see earlier references: Adler (1974), Appelquist and Politzer (1975),
De~R\'{u}jula and Georgi (1976), Poggio, Quinn and Weinberg (1976),
Shankar (1977), and Barnett, Dine and McLerran (1980).
The combination of the idea of local duality in the dispersion
relations (Logunov, Soloviov and Tavkhelidze, 1967) and the
Operator Product Expansion technique (Wilson, 1969) became a basis
of various versions of QCD sum rules (Shifman, Vainshtein
and Zakharov, 1979; Novikov {\it et al.}, 1978, 1985;
Krasnikov, Pivovarov and Tavkhelidze, 1983;
Shifman, 1992 and references therein).
The methods of QCD sum rules are widely used to obtain
quantitative information on the observed hadron spectrum
and to extract the fundamental theoretical parameters.
In practice, sometimes it is more convenient to introduce the Adler
function (Adler, 1974)
\begin{equation}
D(Q^2)=-\frac{3}{4}\frac{\partial}{\partial \log Q^2}\Pi(Q^2)
=Q^2\int_{s_0}^{\infty}\frac{R(s)}{(s+Q^2)^2}ds.
\label{eq:Ddefin}
\end{equation}
Derivative here avoids an inconvenient extra subtraction in the r.h.s.
The leading (parton) approximation of $D(Q^2)$ in the zero quark mass limit
coincides with $R(s)$
\begin{equation}
D(Q^2) = 3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^{2},
\label{eq:D0}
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over all participating quark charges at the given
energy.
3 stands for the number of different colors. The leading ``non-QCD''
contribution is completely free of ultraviolet divergences,
while the $\Pi(Q^2)$ needs an additive renormalization
even at the leading order.
At higher orders of perturbative expansion of the $D$-function
the ultraviolet divergences appear
and one should employ a procedure (usually called
renormalization scheme) for their subtraction order-by-order.
Because of ambiguity in the choice of
subtraction scheme, the amplitude calculated within the perturbation theory
depends on nonphysical parameters. Within the one-parametric family
of the MS type schemes (t~'Hooft, 1973) such a parameter is usually
called $\mu$. Thus, up to
power corrections, the $D$-amplitude will be a function of
$\log(\mu^2/Q^2)$
and the strong coupling $\alpha_s$. On the other hand, since $D$
is connected to the observable $R(s)$, it can not depend on our
subjective choice of nonphysical parameter $\mu$. This can be
achieved if the strong coupling becomes a function of $\mu$,
providing independence of observables on the choice of parameter $\mu$.
Here, it is asumed that all orders of perturbation theory are summed up.
Otherwise, if one considers a truncated series, the $\mu$ dependence
remains. The problem of scheme-scale dependence and some possible
solutions will be discussed later in this review. The set of
transformations which leave observables independent of renormalization
parameters has a group character and forms the renormalization group.
The renormalization group in renormalizable theories (like QCD)
fixes the dependence of the coupling on the $\mu$-parameter.
The function $D(Q^2)$ calculated in perturbative QCD within the MS
type schemes obeys the renormalization group equation
\begin{equation}
\left(\mu^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu^2}
+\beta(\alpha_s)\alpha_s\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_s}
-\gamma_m(\alpha_s)m\frac{\partial}
{\partial m}\right)D(\mu^2/Q^2,m,\alpha_s)=0.
\label{eq:RGD}
\end{equation}
Below we consider the limit of the massless light quarks and
the infinitely large top mass which decouples (Appelquist and Carazzone, 1975).
The solution of eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGD}) at $\mu^2=Q^2$ is
\begin{equation}
D(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha_s(\mu))=D(1,\alpha_{s}(Q))=\sum_{i\geq0}
R_i(\alpha_{s}(Q)/\pi)^i,
\label{eq:RGDsolut}
\end{equation}
where the $\alpha_{s}(\mu^2)$ is the running coupling, usually
parametrized up to the three-loop level as follows
\begin{equation}
\frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{\pi}=\frac{1}{\beta_0 L}-\frac{\beta_1 \log L}
{\beta_0^3 L^2}+\frac{1}{\beta_0^5 L^3}(\beta_1^2 \log^2 L-\beta_1^2 \log L
+\beta_2 \beta_0-\beta_{1}^{2})+O(L^{-4}),
\label{eq:Asparametr}
\end{equation}
where $L=\log (\mu^2/\Lambda^2)$. Parametrization (\ref{eq:Asparametr})
has the same form and
the QCD $\beta$-function coefficients are the same within the MS type
schemes. The scale parameter $\Lambda$ depends on the particular
modification of the MS prescription. In fact, $\Lambda$ is used
to parametrize other versions of renormalization prescription as well.
It is shown by Celmaster and Gonsalves (1979)
that the transformation relations valid to all orders between $\Lambda$'s
defined by any two renormalization prescription can be deduced from a
one-loop calculation. Comparing the bare coupling constants
within different renormalization prescriptions and using the results
for the one-loop renormalization constants and the property of asymptotic
freedom, one obtains for, e.g.,
momentum subtraction (MOM) and MS schemes (Celmaster and Gonsalves, 1979)
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}=\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize MOM}}
\mbox{exp}\biggl[\frac{A(\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}},N)}
{4\beta_0}\biggr],
\label{eq:MOMMS}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-75mm} A(\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}},N)=C_A\biggl[
-\frac{11}{6}(\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}-\ln 4\pi)
+\frac{11}{3}+\frac{23}{72}I
+\frac{3}{8}\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}(1-I)
-\frac{1}{12}\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}^2(3-I)
+\frac{1}{24}\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny G}}^3\biggr]} \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-64mm}
+TN\biggl[\frac{2}{3}(\gamma_{\mbox{\tiny E}}-\ln 4\pi)
-\frac{4}{3}-\frac{8}{9}I\biggr]
\label{eq:A}
\end{eqnarray}
and the integral
\begin{equation}
I=-2\int_0^1 \frac{\ln x}{x^2-x+1}dx=2.3439072...
\label{eq:I}
\end{equation}
One note due to Stevenson (1981b, 1994) is in order.
Despite its convenient form, the parametrization
(\ref{eq:Asparametr}) produces an additional ambiguity due to the
freedom with a particular definition of $\Lambda$ parameter, even when the
renormalization prescription is already specified. This problem
was discussed by Abbot (1980), Shirkov (1980),
Stevenson (1981b), Monsay and Rosenzweig (1981)
and Radyushkin (1983). In fact, one can take advantage of this
freedom in the choice of $\Lambda$ and try to optimize the expansion
in $1/L$. Indeed, as was shown by Radyushkin (1983),
if one takes $0.6\Lambda$ in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Asparametr})
instead of standard (Buras, Floratos, Ross and Sachrajda, 1977)
$\Lambda$ then the $1/L^2$ and $1/L^3$ terms contribute only a few
percent for a reasonably wide range of $\mu$. On the other hand,
Stevenson (1981b, 1994) has suggested to avoid the entire problem of
ambiguity in the definition of $\Lambda$ by abandoning the $1/L$ expansion
and solving the renormalization group equation (\ref{eq:RGfunctions})
for $\alpha_s$ and resulting transcendental equation numerically,
using the truncated $\beta$ function.
According to the operator product expansion technique (Wilson, 1969), one can
separate perturbative and nonperturbative contributions to the
function $\Pi(Q^2)$. As shown by Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov (1979),
this function can be represented in the following form
\begin{equation}
\Pi(Q^2)=\mbox{perturbation theory}
+\sum_{n\geq2}\frac{C_{n}(Q)<O_n>_0}{Q^{2n}}
+\mbox{instanton contributions,}
\label{eq:PIOPE}
\end{equation}
where $<O_n>_{0}$ denote vacuum condensates parametrizing the
nonperturbative contributions and $C_n(Q)$ are their coefficient
functions. The last term in the above equation describes the instanton
contributions, which, in the case of electromagnetic currents, was estimated
to be small (Krasnikov and Tavkhelidze, 1982;
Kartvelishvili and Margvelashvili, 1995). The coefficient functions
of the condensates can be calculated within perturbation theory.
High order perturbative corrections to the coefficient functions of
dimension 4 and 6 power terms have been
calculated in Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov (1984, 1985), Surguladze
and Tkachov (1989b, 1990), Chetyrkin, Gorishny and Spiridonov (1985), and
Lanin, Chetyrkin and Spiridonov (1986). In subsection E we discuss
the method for evaluation of Wilson coefficient functions. Examples
will be outlined in section 4.
Note, that we consider the region of very high energies where, in fact,
only perturbation theory contributions survive in $\Pi(Q^2)$.
The nonperturbative corrections could have some (small) effect in the case of,
for instance, $\tau$ lepton decay (see section 7). Note also that, in fact, the
effects of neglected light quark masses are not entirely negligible in some
phenomenological applications (see section 4).
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Renormalization relations}
\indent
There are several approaches for the ultraviolet renormalization
of Green's functions known in the literature. Throughout this
paper we use 't Hooft's minimal subtruction method ('t Hooft, 1971, 1973).
For alternative prescriptions we refer to the works by
Weinberg (1967), Gell-Mann and Low (1954), Callan (1970), Symanzik (1970),
and Collins, Wilczek and Zee (1978).
For an analysis of various renormalization methods see Collins and
Macfarlane (1974). For a review see, e.g., Narison (1982),
the textbook by Collins (1984) and references therein.
We focus on the renormalization relations for the
two point correlation function of quark currents relevant
for the further evaluation of total cross sections and decay widths.
It is known that the vacuum polarization function is renormalized additively
\begin{equation}
\Pi(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha_s)
=\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}})+Z_{\Pi}\equiv \mbox{finite}.
\label{eq:PiR}
\end{equation}
The bare coupling $\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ is related to the
renormalized one by the
relation (\ref{Zdefinitions}).
The perturbative expansion for $Z_{\alpha_s}$ can be found
based on eqs.\ (\ref{eq:RGfunctions}) and (\ref{eq:beta}), the MS definition
of $Z_{\alpha_s}$ and the renormalization group equation
\begin{equation}
\mu^2\frac{d}{d\mu^2}\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}=0.
\label{eq:AsR1}
\end{equation}
We obtain
\begin{equation}
Z_{\alpha_s}=1-\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\frac{\beta_0}{\varepsilon}
+\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2 \left(\frac{\beta_0^2}{\varepsilon^2}
-\frac{\beta_1}{2\varepsilon}\right)
-\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3
\biggl(\frac{\beta_0^3}{\varepsilon^3}
-\frac{7}{6}\frac{\beta_0\beta_1}{\varepsilon^2}
+\frac{\beta_2}{3\varepsilon}\biggr)
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:AsR}
\end{equation}
In general, the polarization function depends on quark masses and
we will need the relation between ``bare'' and renormalized masses
up to $O(\alpha_s^2)$ (Tarasov, 1982)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{(m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2 =
m_{f}^{2} \biggl\{ 1
-\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{4\pi}\right)\frac{6C_F}{\varepsilon}
+\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{4\pi}\right)^2C_{F} \biggl[
\biggl(11C_{A}+18C_{F}-4TN\biggr)\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{43mm}
-\biggl(\frac{97}{6}C_{A}+\frac{3}{2}C_{F}-\frac{10}{3}TN\biggr)
\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \biggr]+O(\alpha_{s}^{3}) \biggr\}.
\label{eq:mrenorm}
\end{eqnarray}
Within the minimal subtraction prescription ('t Hooft, 1973)
the renormalization constant $Z_{\Pi}$ can be expressed
as the following double sum
\begin{equation}
Z_{\Pi}=\sum_{\stackrel{-l\leq k<0}{l>0}}
\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^{l-1}Z_{l,k}
\varepsilon^k,
\label{eq:Zexpans}
\end{equation}
where $Z_{lk}$ are numbers. Furthermore, for the ``bare'' vacuum polarization
function one has the following expansion in a perturbation series
\begin{equation}
\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}\left(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},
\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}\right)=
\sum_{\stackrel{-l\leq k}{l>0}}
\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\right)^{l-1}
\left(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2}\right)^{l\varepsilon}\Pi_{l,k}\varepsilon^k,
\label{eq:Piexpans}
\end{equation}
where the first index denotes the number of loops of the corresponding
Feynman diagrams at the given order of $\alpha_s$.
Substituting eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Piexpans}) and (\ref{eq:PiR})
into the definition (\ref{eq:Ddefin}),
after the renormalization of the coupling via (\ref{eq:AsR}) we obtain
at $\mu^2=Q^2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-7mm}D(\alpha_{s})=\frac{3}{4} \biggl\{ \Pi_{1,-1}
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
\biggl[2\Pi_{2,-2}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}+2\Pi_{2,-1}\biggr]
+\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\right)^2
\biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}\left(3\Pi_{3,-3}-2\beta_0\Pi_{2,-2}\right)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{51mm}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon} \left(3\Pi_{3,-2}-2\beta_0\Pi_{2,-1}\right)
+\left(3\Pi_{3,-1}-2\beta_0\Pi_{2,0}\right)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad +\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\right)^3
\biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^3}\left(4\Pi_{4,-4}-6\beta_0\Pi_{3,-3}
+2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,-2}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{16mm}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}\left(4\Pi_{4,-3}-6\beta_0\Pi_{3,-2}
-\beta_1\Pi_{2,-2}+2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,-1}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{16mm}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\left(4\Pi_{4,-2}-6\beta_0\Pi_{3,-1}
-\beta_1\Pi_{2,-1}+2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,0}\right) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{16mm}
+\left(4\Pi_{4,-1}-6\beta_0\Pi_{3,0}
-\beta_1\Pi_{2,0}+2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,1}\right) \biggr]
+O(\alpha_{s}^{4}) \biggr\}.
\label{eq:DDexpans}
\end{eqnarray}
Because of the renormalization group invariance of $D(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha_s)$,
in the above equation we take $\mu^2=Q^2$ to avoid unnecessary logarithms.
The renormalized expression for the $D$-function must be finite in the
limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Thus the coefficients of pole
terms must vanish identically. This implies relations between the
perturbative coefficients of
$\Pi$ and the QCD $\beta$-function. First, we note that prior to any
renormalization
the leading poles must cancel at each order of $\alpha_s$ in the
sum of all relevant Feynman diagrams. As shown by the
actual calculation, this happens in each gauge invariant set of diagrams.
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{4,-4} = \Pi_{3,-3} = \Pi_{2,-2} = 0.
\label{eq:Pirelat0}
\end{equation}
Moreover, from the cancellation of nonleading poles we get
\begin{displaymath}
3\Pi_{3,-2}-2\beta_{0}\Pi_{2,-1} = 0,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
4\Pi_{4,-3}-6\beta_{0}\Pi_{3,-2}+2\beta_{0}^2\Pi_{2,-1} = 0,
\label{eq:Pirelat1}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
4\Pi_{4,-2}-6\beta_{0}\Pi_{3,-1}-\beta_{1}\Pi_{2,-1}
+2\beta_{0}^2\Pi_{2,0} = 0.
\end{displaymath}
The above relations provide powerful tests of the calculation
at its intermediate stages and are crucial.
{}From eq.\ (\ref{eq:PiR}) we see that
fully renormalized $\Pi(Q^2,\alpha_s)$ must be finite. Thus,
substituting eqs.\ (\ref{eq:AsR}) -
(\ref{eq:Piexpans}) and (\ref{eq:Pirelat0}) in eq.\ (\ref{eq:PiR})
we obtain the following expression for the divergent part of
$\Pi(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha_s)$ at $\mu^2=Q^2$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\mbox{div}\Pi(\alpha_{s}) =
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\Pi_{1,-1}+Z_{1,-1})
+ \frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi} \biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\Pi_{2,-1}+Z_{2,-1})\biggr]}
\nonumber \\
&& \quad
+\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\right)^2 \biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}(\Pi_{3,-2}
-\beta_0\Pi_{2,-1}+Z_{3,-2})
+ \frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\Pi_{3,-1}
- \beta_0\Pi_{2,0}+Z_{3,-1}) \biggr]
\nonumber \\
&& \quad
+\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\right)^3 \biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^3}(\Pi_{4,-3}
-2\beta_0\Pi_{3,-2}
+\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,-1}
+Z_{4,-3})
\nonumber \\
&& \quad \hspace{16mm}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}(\Pi_{4,-2}-2\beta_0\Pi_{3,-1}
+\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,0}
- \beta_1\Pi_{2,-1}/2+Z_{4,-2})
\nonumber \\
&& \quad \hspace{16mm}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(\Pi_{4,-1}-2\beta_0\Pi_{3,0}
+\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,1}
-\beta_1\Pi_{2,0}/2+Z_{4,-1})\biggr]\hspace{2mm} \equiv 0.
\label{eq:PiPiexpans}
\end{eqnarray}
The leading poles in $Z_{\Pi}$ are absent at each order of
$\alpha_s$ ($Z_{2,-2}=Z_{3,-3}=Z_{4,-4}=0$) except the zeroth order.
Taking into account eq.\ (\ref{eq:Pirelat1}), we obtain the other
set of relations between the perturbative coefficients of $\Pi$, $Z$
and QCD $\beta$-function
\begin{displaymath}
3Z_{3,-2}+\beta_0Z_{2,-1}=0,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
2Z_{4,-3}+\beta_0Z_{3,-2}=0,
\label{eq:Pirelat2}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
4Z_{4,-2}+2\beta_0Z_{3,-1}+\beta_1Z_{2,-1}=0.
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{1,-1}=-Z_{1,-1},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{2,-1}=-Z_{2,-1},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{3,-2}=-Z_{3,-2}-\beta_0Z_{2,-1},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{3,-1}=-Z_{3,-1}+\beta_0\Pi_{2,0},
\label{eq:Pirelat3}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{4,-1}=-Z_{4,-1}+2\beta_0\Pi_{3,0}+\beta_1\Pi_{2,0}/2-\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,1},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{4,-2}=-Z_{4,-2}-2\beta_0Z_{3,-1}-\beta_1Z_{2,-1}/2+\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,0},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi_{4,-3}=-Z_{4,-3}-2\beta_0Z_{3,-2}-\beta_0^2Z_{2,-1}.
\end{displaymath}
In section 6, the above relations will be used in the
calculations of the four-loop total cross-section in electron-positron
annihilation.
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Method for evaluation of renormalization constants}
We now discuss the evaluation of renormalization
constants within 't~Hooft's MS scheme ('t~Hooft, 1973), using
Vladimirov's method (Vladimirov, 1978) and the so-called
infrared rearrangement procedure
(Vladimirov, 1980; Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1982).
To calculate the renormalizaton constant $Z_{\Gamma}$ for the
one-particle-irreducible
Green's function $\Gamma$, it is convenient to use the following
representation (Vladimirov, 1978)
\begin{equation}
Z_{\Gamma}=1-{\cal K}R'\Gamma.
\label{eq:Kdef}
\end{equation}
The operator $\cal K$ picks out all singular terms from
the Laurent series in $\varepsilon$
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal K}\sum_{i}c_{i}\varepsilon^i=\sum_{i<0}c_{i}\varepsilon^i.
\end{displaymath}
$R'$ is defined by the recursive relation
\begin{equation}
R'G=G-\sum_{G_i} {\cal K}R'G_{1}...{\cal K}R'G_{n}\times
G_{/(G_{1}\cup...\cup G_{n})},
\label{eq:KR'}
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over all sets of one-particle-irreducible
divergent subgraphs $G_i$ of the diagram $G$. $G_{/(G_{1}+...+G_{n})}$ is
the diagram G with the subgraphs $G_{1},...,G_{n}$ shrunk to a point.
In fact, $R'$ is the ordinary Bogolyubov-Parasyuk $R$-operation (Bogolyubov
and Parasyuk, 1955a,b, 1956, 1957; for a textbook see
Bogolyubov and Shirkov, 1980)
without the last (overall) subtraction. Thus, $R'$ subtracts
all ``internal'' divergences
only and is connected to the ordinary $R$-operation in the following way
\begin{displaymath}
R=(1-{\cal K})R'.
\end{displaymath}
To calculate the renormalization constant $Z$ in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:PiR}), one should
write a diagram representation of $\Pi$ and apply ${\cal K}R'$
to the corresponding graphs ( eq.\ (\ref{eq:Kdef}) )
or, in other words, one should evaluate the
counterterms for each graph. The benefit
of using relation (\ref{eq:Kdef}) is based
on the fact that the ${\cal K}R'$ for each diagram is a
polynomial in dimensional parameters (Collins, 1974; Speer 1974).
This fundamental property of the
't~Hooft's minimal subtraction prescription is the basic idea of the
various versions of the infrared rearrangement technique
(Vladimirov, 1980; Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1982).
As an example, we demonstrate the application of the ${\cal K}R'$ operation
to the three-loop QCD diagram contributing to the $O(\alpha_{s}^2)$
total cross section for the process $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$.
\newpage
\begin{displaymath}
R'\biggl\{ \hspace{2cm} \biggr\} = \hspace{2cm}
-2{\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}\hspace{1.5cm}
-2{\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}\hspace{1.5cm}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
+\biggl({\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}\biggr)^2
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}={\cal K}\biggl( \hspace{1cm}
-{\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}\hspace{1.5cm} \biggr),
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal K}R'\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm} \biggr\}={\cal K}\biggl\{ \hspace{1cm}
\biggr\}.
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
The benefit of using the ${\cal K}R'$ operation besides its convenience
in actual calculations is as follows.
Using the fact that the result of ${\cal K}R'$ operation is
a polynomial in masses and external momenta of the diagram, one can remove
the dependence on the external momenta by differentiating (usually twice is
sufficient) with respect to the external momentum and then
setting the external
momentum to zero. However, in this case infrared divergences appear. In order
to prevent this, one can introduce a new fictitious external momentum as
an infrared regulator flowing along some of the lines of the diagram
(Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1982). Alternatively, one can introduce
a fictitious mass in one of the lines of the diagram as an infrared
regulator (Vladimirov, 1980). An appropriate choice of the
fictitious momentum can drastically simplify the topology of the given
diagram. Both versions
of the so called infrared rearrangement procedure simplify the calculation
and make it possible to evaluate counterterms to
four- and five-loop diagrams.
The main result of the application of the infrared rearrangement technique
can be formulated as follows.
The problem of calculating the counterterms of an arbitrary
$l$-loop diagram with an arbitrary number of masses and external momenta
within the MS prescription can be reduced
to the problem of calculating some $l-1$ -loop massless integrals
to $O(\varepsilon^0)$ with only one external momentum. In the later sections,
the full calculational procedure will be demonstrated for a typical four-loop
diagram contributing to the photon renormalization constant.
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Evaluation of Wilson coefficient functions in operator
product expansion}
\indent
In this subsection we briefly discuss the problem of evaluation of
higher twist operator contributions to the hadronic vacuum polarization
function. Those contributions are relevant in the analysis of
nonperturbative contributions in some processes
(e.g., hadronic decay of the $\tau$-lepton).
We use the Wilson operator product expansion technique
(Wilson, 1969) - mathematical apparatus allowing a factorization of the
short distance contributions, which are calculable perturbatively and large
distance effects which can be parametrized with the
vacuum condensates
( Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov, 1979; Novikov {\it et al.}, 1985).
In the perturbative evaluation of Wilson coefficient functions, we
rely on the so called method of projectors (Gorishny, Larin and Tkachov, 1983;
Gorishny and Larin, 1987; see also Pivovarov and Tkachov 1988, 1993
and references therein).
An actual calculation for the coefficient functions of the operators of
$\mbox{dim}=4$ has been done in the work by Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov
(1984, 1985), and Surguladze and Tkachov (1989b, 1990). The present
discussion is based mainly on those works.
Below we demonstrate
the above technique in the case of the coefficient functions of gluon
and quark condensates.
Consider the operator product expansion of the T-product of two quark
currents in the deep Euclidean region, $-q^2=Q^2 \rightarrow \infty$
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}(Q)=i\int d^4x e^{iqx} T J(x)J(0) = \sum_{i} C_{i}(Q)O_{i}(0),
\label{eq:OPE}
\end{equation}
where $J$ are quark currents. $C_{i}(Q)$ are c-number coefficient functions
containing all dependence on $Q$. $O_{i}$ are local operators forming in
general a complete basis.
If the currents $J$ are gauge invariant then,
after averaging over the vacuum, only gauge invariant operators
contribute to the r.h.s. of eq.\ (\ref{eq:OPE}).
However, the renormalization procedure
mixes gauge invariant operators with non-invariant ones and one has
to consider the complete basis of operators of the given dimension.
The following set of operators of the dimension 4
\begin{displaymath}
O_{1} = (G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^2, \hspace{3mm}
O_{2}^{f}=m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}, \hspace{3mm}
O_{3}^f = \overline{q}_{f}(i\hat{\partial}-m_f+gT^{a}\hat{A^a})q_f,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
O_{4}=(\partial_{\mu}\overline{c}^a)(\partial_{\mu}c^a)
+(\partial_{\mu}\delta^{ab}+gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{c})A_{\nu}^{b}G_{\mu\nu}^{a}
-g\sum_{f}\overline{q}_{f}T^{a}\hat{A}^{a}q_f,
\label{eq:OPEbasis}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
O_{5} =\partial_{\mu}\overline{c}^a((\partial_{\mu}\delta^{ab}
+gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{c})c^{b}
\end{displaymath}
is closed under renormalization together with the ``operator'' $\sim m^4$
(Spiridonov, 1984; Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1984, 1985).
Our aim is to calculate coefficient functions of gauge invariant operators
$O_1$ and $O_{2}^{f}$. Note that $\sim m^4$
operators can be ignored because of the
special structure of the renormalization matrix for the basis
(\ref{eq:OPEbasis}).
The Feynman rules for the operators (\ref{eq:OPEbasis}) are
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1990)
\newpage
\begin{displaymath}
\lefteqn{O_1} \hspace{6cm} 4\delta^{ab}(p^2g^{\mu\nu}-p^{\mu}p^{\nu})
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\lefteqn{O_{2}^{f}} \hspace{8cm} \delta_{ff'}m_f
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
O_{3}^{f} \hspace{65mm} \delta_{ff'}(\hat{p}-m_f)
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{equation}
O_4 \hspace{55mm} 2\delta^{ab}(p^2g^{\mu\nu}-p^{\mu}p^{\nu})
\label{eq:OPEFrules}
\end{equation}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
O_4 \hspace{73mm} \delta^{ab}p^2g^{\mu\nu}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
O_5 \hspace{73mm} \delta^{ab}p^2g^{\mu\nu}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
O_5 \hspace{76mm} if^{abc}p^{\mu}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{11mm}
The operators of the basis (\ref{eq:OPEbasis}) are renormalized as follows
\begin{equation}
O_{i} = (Z_O)_{ij}O_{j}^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}},
\label{eq:OPEbasisren}
\end{equation}
where the superscript B marks the same operators as in (\ref{eq:OPEbasis})
but built from the ``bare'' fields, masses and couplings. The structure of
the renormalization matrix $Z_O$ has been studied by Spiridonov (1984).
In the MS type schemes $Z_O$ has the following form
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1990)
\vspace{3cm}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{}
\label{eq:OPEZ}
\end{equation}
\vspace{23mm}
\noindent
where only the matrix elements $A$ and $B$ are relevant.
\begin{displaymath}
A = \biggl(1-\frac{\beta(\alpha_s)}{\varepsilon}\biggr)^{-1},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
B = \frac{4\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)}{\varepsilon}
\biggl(1-\frac{\beta(\alpha_s)}{\varepsilon}\biggr)^{-1}.
\label{eq:OPEAB}
\end{equation}
Inserting eq.\ (\ref{eq:OPEbasisren}) into the expansion (\ref{eq:OPE})
we get
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}(Q) = \sum_{i,j}C_{i}(Q)O_{i}^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(Z_O)_{ij}.
\label{eq:PiRexpans}
\end{equation}
Following the method of projectors (Gorishny, Larin and Tkachov, 1983),
we define the
projectors $\pi_{i}$ satisfying the orthogonality condition and vanishing
on higher spin operators
\begin{equation}
\pi_{i}[O_{j}^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}]=\delta_{ij},
\label{eq:piproject}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
\pi_{i}[\mbox{higher spin operators}]=0.
\end{displaymath}
Projectors $\pi_{i}$ applied on the l.h.s.\ of eq.\
(\ref{eq:PiRexpans}) separate in the r.h.s.\ the
coefficient functions we are interested in
\begin{equation}
\pi_{j}[{\cal T}(Q)] = \sum_{i}C_{i}(Q)(Z_O)_{ij}.
\label{eq:pionPi}
\end{equation}
We find the coefficient functions
\begin{equation}
C_{i}(Q)=\sum_{j}\pi_{j}[{\cal T}(Q)](Z_O^{-1})_{ji}.
\label{eq:CF}
\end{equation}
Our aim is to find the coefficient functions of gauge
invariant operators $O_1=(G_{\mu\nu})^2$ and
$O_{2}^{f}=m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_f$.
So, we need to construct the corresponding projectors $\pi_1$ and
$\pi_{2}^{f}$.
Let us represent $\pi_i$ as a linear combinations of
some ``elementary'' projectors ${\cal P}_j$ defined in the following way.
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal P}_{1}[O] = \frac{1}{N_{A}}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial p^2}
\delta^{ab}g^{\mu\nu} \biggl\{ \hspace{45mm} \biggr\}_{p=m_{f}=0}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{1mm}
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal P}_{2}^{f}[O] = \frac{1}{4N_{F}}\frac{\partial}{\partial m_f}
Tr\biggl\{ \hspace{45mm} \biggr\}_{p=m_{f}=0}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-2mm}
{\cal P}_{3}^{f}[O] = \frac{1}{4N_{F}}\frac{\partial}{\partial p^{\sigma}}
Tr \gamma^{\sigma}\biggl\{ \hspace{45mm} \biggr\}_{p=m_{f}=0}
\label{eq:ElProj}
\end{equation}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{4mm}
{\cal P}_{4}[O] = \frac{1}{N_{A}}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial p^2}
\delta^{ab} \biggl\{ \hspace{45mm} \biggr\}_{p=m_{f}=0}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{2mm}
{\cal P}_{5}[O] = \frac{if^{abc}}{gN_{A}C_{A}}\frac{\partial}
{\partial p^{\mu}}
\biggl\{ \hspace{45mm} \biggr\}_{p=m_{f}=0}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{1mm}
\noindent
where the parentheses contain the one-particle-irreducible Green
function with one operator insertion. In the case of ${\cal P}_{2}^{f}$
and ${\cal P}_{3}^{f}$ the traces are calculated over Lorentz
spinor and color indices.
Acting by the projectors ${\cal P}_{j}$ on the operators (\ref{eq:OPEbasis})
we obtain
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal P}_{1}[O_{1}]=8D(D-1), \hspace{6mm} {\cal P}_{1}[O_{4}]=4D(D-1),
\hspace{6mm} {\cal P}_{2}^{f}[O_{2}^{f'}]=\delta_{ff'},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}_{2}^{f}[O_{3}^{f'}]=-\delta_{ff'}, \hspace{6mm}
{\cal P}_{3}^{f}[O_{3}^{f'}]=D\delta_{ff'}, \hspace{6mm}
{\cal P}_{4}[O_{4}]={\cal P}_{4}[O_{5}]=2D, \hspace{6mm}
{\cal P}_{5}[O_{5}]=D.
\label{eq:P(o)}
\end{equation}
The results which are not shown in the above list are identicaly zero.
{}From the definition (\ref{eq:piproject}) and eq.\ (\ref{eq:P(o)})
we obtain the explicit form for the projectors $\pi_{1}$ and $\pi_{2}^{f}$
\begin{displaymath}
\pi_{1} = \frac{1}{8D(D-1)}[{\cal P}_{1}-2(D-1){\cal P}_{4}+4(D-1)
{\cal P}_{5}],
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\pi_{2}^{f}={\cal P}_{2}^{f}+\frac{1}{D}{\cal P}_{3}^{f}.
\label{eq:piexplicit}
\end{equation}
Combining eqs.\ (\ref{eq:OPEZ}) and (\ref{eq:OPEAB}) with
eq.\ (\ref{eq:CF}) we get our final expressions for the coefficient
functions $C_{1}(Q)$ and $C_{2}^{f}(Q)$
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989,1990)
\begin{displaymath}
C_{1}(Q)=\pi_{1}[{\cal
T}(Q)]\biggl(1-\frac{\beta(\alpha_s)}{\varepsilon}\biggr),
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
C_{2}^{f}(Q)
=\pi_{2}^{f}[{\cal T}(Q)]-\pi_{1}[{\cal T}(Q)]\frac{4\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)}
{\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:CFexplicit}
\end{equation}
The above expressions have a closed form and are valid at any order
of perturbation theory. We note that ${\cal T}$ must be
constructed with unrenormalized couplings and fields before one
applies the projectors $\pi_{i}$.
The general theory of Euclidean asymptotic expansions of Feynman integrals
and the methods applicable to high order perturbative calculations
have been developed in the works of Tkachov (1983b, 1983c, 1991, 1993),
Chetyrkin and Tkachov (1982), and Chetyrkin (1991) (see also
Smirnov 1990, 1991 and references therein).
The technique developed in these works allows one to derive operator
product expansions in the MS-scheme for any Feynman integral.
For more general discussion and further details we refer to the
above works and also to the original calculations
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989, 1990). In section 5 we
present a short description of the calculation of the coefficient
functions of gluon and quark condensates up to $O(\alpha_{s}^2)$.
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf \ $\Gamma(H\rightarrow hadrons)$
to $O(\alpha^2_s)$}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf The decay rate in terms of running parameters}
\indent
In this subsection, using the above methods we calculate the
$O(\alpha^{2}_{s})$ corrections to the total
hadronic decay width of the Standard Model Higgs boson in the massless quark
limit (Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze, 1990, 1991b; Surguladze, 1994b).
\vspace{6cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 1.\hspace{2mm} The process $H \rightarrow$ hadrons
\end{center}
\vspace{5mm}
The standard SU(2)$\times$U(1) Lagrangian density of
fermion-Higgs interaction is
\begin{equation}
L = -g_{Y}\overline{q}_fq_fH
=-(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}m_f\overline{q}_fq_fH
=-(\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}j_fH.
\label{eq:Lagr}
\end{equation}
The decay width of a scalar Higgs boson to the quark-antiquark pair
is determined by the imaginary part of the two-point correlation
function
\begin{equation}
\Pi(Q^2=-s,m_f)=i\int e^{iqx}<Tj_{f}(x)j_{f}(0)>_0d^4x
\label{eq:pifunctions}
\end{equation}
of the quark scalar currents $j_f=m_f\overline{q}_fq_f$ in the following way
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}
=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{M_H} \mbox{Im}\Pi(s+i0,m_f)\biggr|_{s=M_H^2}.
\label{eq:ImPi}
\end{equation}
$M_H$ is the Higgs mass.
The total decay width will be the sum over all participating
(depending on $M_H$) quark flavors
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(H \rightarrow \mbox{\small hadrons}) = \sum_{f=u,d,s,...}
\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}.
\label{eq:total}
\end{equation}
We follow the work by Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze (1990)
and in analogy to the vector channel introduce the Adler function
(Adler, 1974)
\begin{equation}
D(Q^2,m_f) = Q^2\frac{d}{dQ^2}\frac{\Pi(Q^2,m_f)}{Q^2}.
\label{eq:Dfunctscalar}
\end{equation}
The derivative avoids the additive renormalization of $\Pi$.
In fact, it is possible to proceed without the introduction
of $D$-function and deal
directly with the correlation function $\Pi$ (Surguladze, 1994b).
Indeed, we are interested in $\mbox{Im}\Pi(s+i0,m_f)$. Since the overall
MS renormalization constant has no terms like
$(\log\mu^2/Q^2)^n/\varepsilon^k$, its imaginary part vanishes identically.
The abscence of the pole logarithms in renormalization constants
is a general feature of MS type schemes.
The $D$-function obeys the homogeneous renormalization group equation
\begin{equation}
\left(\mu^2\frac{\partial}{\partial\mu^2}
+\beta(\alpha_s)\alpha_s\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_s}
-\gamma_m(\alpha_s)\frac{\partial}
{\partial \log m_f}\right)D(\mu^2/Q^2,m_f,\alpha_s)=0.
\label{eq:RGEDscalar}
\end{equation}
The QCD $\beta$-function and the mass anomalous dimension
$\gamma_m$ are known up to the three loop approximation and
have been given in the previous section.
The plan for evaluation of
$\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}$ is as follows.
First, we write the diagram representation for $\Pi(Q^2,m_f)$
according to the standard Feynman rules
up to the desired loop-level. Second, we evaluate the Feynman diagrams
using the dimensional regularization
and renormalize the coupling and quark masses within the MS renormalization
prescription. Finally, to get the decay rate,
we analytically continue the result
for the $D$-function obtained from eq.\ (\ref{eq:Dfunctscalar})
from Euclidean to Minkowski space.
Following the above plan, we now demonstrate the
calculation of $\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}$
up to the 3-loop level.
First of all, note that the correlation function $\Pi$ and the
related $D$-function depend on quark masses. The
algorithms for evaluation of the 3-loop Feynman diagrams constructed with
the propagators of massive particles has not yet been developed.
However, in the deep Euclidean region ($Q^2\rightarrow \infty$)
it is possible to simplify the
calculation using the expansion in terms of the small parameter
$m_f^2/Q^2$
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{m_f^2Q^2}\Pi(Q^2,m_f)
=\Pi(Q^2)+O\biggl(\frac{m_f^2}{Q^2}\biggr).
\label{eq:Piexpa}
\end{equation}
Such an expansion is legitimate since we consider a Higgs
boson much heavier than the typical hadronic mass scale.
In this section we calculate the first term in the above expansion
and the related decay rate. This is equivalent to the assumption
that all five quarks are massless and the top quark decouples
($m_t \rightarrow \infty$).
The diagrammatic representation for $\Pi$ in somewhat symbolic
form looks like
\vspace{7mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\Pi(Q^2) \sim \hspace{2cm}
+ \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggl[\hspace{23mm}+
\hspace{3mm} 2\hspace{23mm} \biggr]
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{equation}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2\biggl[\hspace{23mm}
+\cdots +(\mbox{total of 16 three-loop diagrams})\biggr]
+O(\alpha^{3}_{s}).
\label{eq:pidiagram}
\end{equation}
\vspace{7mm}
\noindent
Next, we evaluate one-, two- and three-loop massless Feynman diagrams. By
simple power counting, it is easy to find that in general the above
diagrams are UV divergent.
The unrenormalized contribution from a typical three-loop diagram
in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
renormalization scheme (Bardeen, Buras, Duke and Muta, 1978) reads
\vspace{3cm}
\begin{displaymath}
\sim \frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}
\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{4\pi}\right)^{2}N_{F}
\frac{C_{F}C_{A}}{2}
(m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}})^{2}Q^2
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\right)^{3\varepsilon}
\biggl[ \frac{16}{\varepsilon^3}
+\frac{400}{3\varepsilon^2}
+\frac{2344}{3\varepsilon}
-\frac{160}{\varepsilon}\zeta(3)
+\frac{11800}{3}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{9cm} -1312\zeta(3)-240\zeta(4)+320\zeta(5) \biggr],
\end{displaymath}
where $m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ is the $f$-flavor quark mass
originating from the
quark mass dependence of the Yukawa coupling.
$\zeta(3)$, $\zeta(4)$ and $\zeta(5)$ are ordinary Riemann
$\zeta$-functions.
The number 2 in front of the diagram stands for the symmetry factor.
The algorithms for the evaluation of propagator type one-, two- and
three-loop
massless Feynman diagrams have been given by Tkachov (1981, 1983a) and
Chetyrkin and Tkachov (1981). For the description of the
algorithms see also Gorishny, Larin, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989.
The results given in this section were reobtained with the help
of the program {\small HEPL}oops (Surguladze, 1992) and the previous
results (Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze, 1990, 1991)
were independently confirmed (Surguladze, 1994b).
As one can see, each three-loop diagram in general may contain
a pole with power
$\leq 3$. In the vector channel, after summing the results for
all diagrams with an appropriate symmetry and SU(N) group factor,
the leading pole cancels.
This is the consequence of the conservation of electromagnetic currents.
In the scalar channel, the leading poles remain in $\Pi$.
This is related to the quark mass dependence of the coupling.
Evaluating the unrenormalized correlation function (\ref{eq:pifunctions})
and using the definition (\ref{eq:Dfunctscalar}), we obtain the
unrenormalized $D$-function in the massless limit.
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}
D\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right) =
\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2}N_{F}(m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2 \biggl\{
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\right)^{\varepsilon}
(2+4\varepsilon+8\varepsilon^2) } \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{7mm} +\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{4\pi}\right)
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\right)^{2\varepsilon}
C_F\biggl[\frac{12}{\varepsilon}+58+\varepsilon(227-48\zeta(3))\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{6mm} +\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{4\pi}\right)^2
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\right)^{3\varepsilon}
C_F\biggl[ \hspace{5mm}
C_{F}\biggl( \frac{36}{\varepsilon^2}+\frac{279}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{3139}{2}-360\zeta(3) \biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{48mm}
+C_{A}\biggl( \frac{22}{\varepsilon^2}+\frac{201}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{2511}{2}-300\zeta(3) \biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{48mm}
-TN \biggl( \frac{8}{\varepsilon^2}+\frac{68}{\varepsilon}
+414-96\zeta(3) \biggr) \biggr]+O(\alpha_{s}^{3})
\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Dbare}
\end{eqnarray}
The above expression requires the renormalization of the
strong coupling ( eq.\ (\ref{eq:AsR}) ) and the multiplicative
renormalization ( eq.\ (\ref{eq:mrenorm}) ) originating from the
quark mass dependence of the Yukawa coupling.
Expanding the factors
$(\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}/Q^2)^{l\varepsilon}$
in terms of $\varepsilon$ and performing the renormalizations of the
coupling and the quark mass, we get a finite analytical expression
for the $D$-function in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-5mm}
D\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=
\frac{N_F}{8\pi^2}m_{f}^{2}\biggl\{1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggr)C_F \biggl[17
+6\log
\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr) \biggr]}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggr)^2C_F
\biggl[ C_F\biggl(\frac{691}{4}-36\zeta(3)\biggr)
+C_A\biggl(\frac{893}{4}-62\zeta(3)\biggr)
-TN(65-16\zeta(3))
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{4cm}
+\log\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
\biggl( 105C_F+\frac{284}{3}C_A-\frac{88}{3}TN \biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{4cm}
+\log^2\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
( 18C_F+11C_A-4TN ) \biggr] \biggr\}.
\label{eq:Danalyt0}
\end{eqnarray}
For standard QCD with the color SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(3) symmetry group,
the analytical result for the $D$-function reads (Surguladze, 1989d)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{D\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=}
\nonumber\\
&& \frac{3}{8\pi^2}m_{f}^{2}\biggl\{1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)\biggl[\frac{17}{3}
+2\log\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr) \biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{13mm} +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[ \frac{10801}{144}-\frac{39}{2}\zeta(3)
-\biggl(\frac{65}{24}-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)N \\
&& \quad \hspace{24mm}
+\log\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
\biggl(\frac{106}{3}-\frac{11}{9}N \biggr)
+\log^2\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
\biggl(\frac{19}{4}-\frac{1}{6}N\biggr) \biggr] \biggr\}.
\nonumber
\label{eq:Danalyt}
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the evaluation of the correlation function of the two scalar
quark currents in the massless limit at the three-loop
approximation.
There is one crucial test of this calculation based on the renormalization
group constraints. The solution of the renormalization group equation
(\ref{eq:RGEDscalar})
can be conveniently rewritten as follows
\begin{equation}
D\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},m_{f}(\mu),\alpha_s(\mu)\biggr)=
\frac{3}{8\pi^2}
m_f^2(\mu)\sum_{0\leq j \leq i}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\biggr)^i
a_{ij}
\log^j\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2}.
\label{eq:gamma0gen}
\end{equation}
Applying the differential operator $\mu^2 d/d\mu^2$ to
both sides of eq.\ (\ref{eq:gamma0gen}), taking into account
the renormalization group invariance of the $D$-function and
eqs.\ (\ref{eq:beta}) and (\ref{eq:gamma}), we obtain to $O(\alpha_s)$
\begin{equation}
a_{11}=2\gamma_0a_{00},
\label{eq:relations1}
\end{equation}
to $O(\alpha_s^2)$
\begin{displaymath}
a_{21}=2\gamma_1a_{00}+(\beta_0+2\gamma_0)a_{10},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
a_{22}=(\beta_0+2\gamma_0)\frac{a_{11}}{2}=(\beta_0+2\gamma_0)\gamma_0a_{00},
\label{eq:relations2}
\end{equation}
and to $O(\alpha_s^3)$
\begin{displaymath}
a_{31}=2(\beta_0+\gamma_0)a_{20}+(\beta_1+2\gamma_1)a_{10}+2\gamma_2a_{00},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
a_{32}=(\beta_0+\gamma_0)a_{21}+(\beta_1+2\gamma_1)\frac{a_{11}}{2}
=(\beta_0+\gamma_0)[2\gamma_1a_{00}+(\beta_0+2\gamma_0)a_{10}]
+(\beta_1+2\gamma_1)\gamma_0a_{00},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
a_{33}=\frac{2}{3}(\beta_0+\gamma_0)a_{22}=\frac{2}{3}\gamma_0
(\beta_0+\gamma_0)(\beta_0+2\gamma_0)a_{00}.
\label{eq:relations3}
\end{equation}
The relations (\ref{eq:relations1}) and (\ref{eq:relations2}) provide a
powerful check of our calculation, while the relations
(\ref{eq:relations3}) allow one to evaluate the $\log$ terms to
$O(\alpha_s^3)$,
without explicit calculations of the corresponding four-loop diagrams.
With those relations, the information available at present, namely the
QCD $\beta$-function, mass anomalous dimension and the
two-point correlation function up to the three-loop level is fully exploited.
In fact, similar relations can be derived for the correlation function
$\Pi$. However, the renormalization group equation for $\Pi$ is not
a homogeneous one and the
anomalous dimension function up to the corresponding order of $\alpha_s$
is necessary.
We evaluate the decay rate of the neutral Higgs boson
into a quark antiquark pair by analytical continuation of
$D\left(\mu^{2}/Q^2,m_{f}(\mu),\alpha_s(\mu)\right)$
from Euclidean to Minkowski space. The total decay rate can be obtained by
summing up over all participating quark flavors.
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-7mm}\Gamma(H\rightarrow \mbox{\small hadrons})
=\frac{3\sqrt{2}G_FM_H}{8\pi}
\sum_{f=u,d,s,...} m_f^2\biggl\{
1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggl(\frac{17}{3}
+2\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{M_H^2}\biggr)}\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{10801}{144}-\frac{19}{2}\zeta(2)-\frac{39}{2}\zeta(3)
+\frac{106}{3}\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{M_H^2}
+\frac{19}{4}\log^2
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{M_H^2}\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
-N\biggl(\frac{65}{24}-\frac{1}{3}\zeta(2)-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)
+\frac{11}{9}\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{M_H^2}
+\frac{1}{6}\log^2
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{M_H^2}\biggr)\biggr]
\biggr\}.
\label{eq:GHtot}
\end{eqnarray}
The Riemann function $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$ arose
from the analytical continuation of the
$\log^2\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2/Q^2$
term and $\zeta(3)=1.202056903$.
The procedure of analytical continuation and the appearance of invariant
additional contributions have been discussed in several earlier works
(Krasnikov and Pivovarov, 1982; Pennington and Ross, 1982;
Radyushkin, 1982; Pivovarov, 1992a). Note that in some cases those
additional corrections are large and affect the result significantly.
This is especially true for the total cross section in the process
$e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$.
To minimize such corrections it was proposed, for instance,
to redefine the expansion
parameter (Pennington and Ross, 1982; Radyushkin, 1982).
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf The decay rate in terms of pole quark mass}
For the heavy flavor decay mode of the Higgs, it is relevant
to parametrize the decay rate in terms of quark
pole mass (see, e.g., Kniehl, 1994a). Let us rewrite the result
for $\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}$ in terms of pole quark mass,
assuming that heavy quark is not exactly on-shell.
This subsection is based mainly on recent findings
(Surguladze, 1994a,b).
Solving the renormalization group equation for the quark mass -
eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGfunctions}), we obtain the following scaling law for the
running quark mass:
\begin{equation}
\frac{m_f(\mu_1)}{m_f(\mu_2)}=\frac{\phi(\alpha_s(\mu_1))}
{\phi(\alpha_s(\mu_2))},
\label{eq:mrun}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\phi(\alpha_s(\mu))=\biggl(2\beta_0\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\biggr)
^{\frac{\gamma_0}{\beta_0}}
\biggl\{1
+\biggl(\frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_0}
-\frac{\beta_1\gamma_0}{\beta_0^2}\biggr)\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{-3mm}
+\frac{1}{2}\biggl[\biggl(\frac{\gamma_1}{\beta_0}
-\frac{\beta_1\gamma_0}{\beta_0^2}\biggr)^2
+\frac{\gamma_2}{\beta_0}
-\frac{\beta_1\gamma_1}{\beta_0^2}-\frac{\beta_2\gamma_0}{\beta_0^2}
+\frac{\beta_1^2\gamma_0}{\beta_0^3}
\biggr]\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\biggr)^2\biggr\}.
\label{eq:f}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equation all appropriate quantities
are evaluated for $N$ active quark flavors. $N$ can be determined
according to the scale of $M_H$. At present one usually considers $N=5$.
For the running coupling we obtain the following evolution equation
to $O(\alpha_s^3)$ (Surguladze, 1994b)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-1cm}\frac{\alpha_s^{(n)}(\mu_1)}{\pi}
=\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(\mu_2)}{\pi}}
\nonumber\\
&&
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(\mu_2)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(\beta_0^{(N)}\log\frac{\mu_2^2}{\mu_1^2}
+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{l}\log\frac{m_l^2}{\mu_1^2} \biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(\mu_2)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\beta_1^{(N)}\log\frac{\mu_2^2}{\mu_1^2}
+\frac{19}{24}\sum_{l}\log\frac{m_l^2}{\mu_1^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{23mm}
+\biggl(\beta_0^{(N)}\log\frac{\mu_2^2}{\mu_1^2}
+\frac{1}{6}\sum_{l}\log\frac{m_l^2}{\mu_1^2} \biggr)^2
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{23mm}
-\frac{25}{72}(N-n)\biggr],
\label{eq:Astransform}
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscript $N$ ($n$) indicates that the corresponding quantity
is evaluated for $N$ ($n$) numbers of
participating quark flavors. Conventionally (see, e.g., Marciano, 1984)
$N$ ($n$) is specified to be the number
of quark flavors with mass $\leq \mu_2$ ($\leq \mu_1$). However,
eq.\ (\ref{eq:Astransform}) is relevant for any $n\leq N$ and arbitrary
$\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, regardless of the conventional specification of the number
of quark flavors.
The $\log m_l/\mu_1$
terms are due to the ``quark treshold'' crossing effects and the constant
coefficients $1/6=\beta_0^{(k-1)}-\beta_0^{(k)}$,
$19/24=\beta_1^{(k-1)}-\beta_1^{(k)}$ represent
the contributions of the quark loop in the $\beta$-function.
The sum runs over $N-n$ quark flavors (e.g., $l=b$ if $n=4$ and $N=5$).
Note that $m_l$ is the pole mass of the quark with flavor $l$.
For the on-shell definition of the quark masses eq.\ (\ref{eq:Astransform})
changes - the constant $-25/72$ should be substituted by $+7/72$.
The above equation is derived based on eq.\ (\ref{eq:Asparametr}),
the QCD matching conditions for $\alpha_s$ at ``quark thresholds''
(Bernreuter and Wetzel, 1982; Marciano, 1984;
Barnett, Haber and Soper, 1988; Rodrigo and Santamaria, 1993)
and the one-loop relation between on-shell and pole quark masses.
Eq.(\ref{eq:Astransform}) is consistent with the QCD matching relation
at $m_f(m_f)$ (Bernreuter and Wetzel, 1982)
\begin{equation}
\alpha_s^{(N_f-1)}(m_f(m_f))=\alpha_s^{(N_f)}(m_f(m_f))
+(\alpha_s^{(N_f)}(m_f(m_f)))^3(C_A/9-17C_F/96)/\pi^2
\label{eq:2lmatch}
\end{equation}
Here and below $N_f$ is the number of quark flavors $u,d,...,f$.
Note that the nonlogarithmic constant at $O(\alpha_s^3)$ in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:Astransform}) will not contribute in further analysis.
Next, using the scaling properties of the MS running mass
and eq.\ (\ref{eq:Astransform}), one obtains
the following matching condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}m_f^{(N-1)}(\mu)=m_f^{(N)}(\mu)\biggl\{1+
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(\mu)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\delta(m_f,m_{f'})-\frac{5}{36}\log\frac{\mu^2}{m_f^2}
-\frac{1}{12}\log^2\frac{\mu^2}{m_f^2}}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{63mm}
+\frac{1}{6}\log\frac{\mu^2}{m_f^2}\log\frac{\mu^2}{m_{f'}^2}
-\frac{2}{9}\log\frac{m_{f'}^2}{m_f^2}\biggr]\biggr\}
\label{eq:massmatch},
\end{eqnarray}
where the constant terms are:
$1/12=\gamma_0(\beta_0^{(k-1)}-\beta_0^{(k)})/2$,
$5/36=\gamma_1^{(k-1)}-\gamma_1^{(k)}$ and
$2/9=C_F(\beta_0^{(k-1)}-\beta_0^{(k)})$.
In general, the $\delta(m_f,m_{f'})$ is the
finite contribution of the single virtual heavier
quark with mass $m_{f'}$, entering when one increases the
number of flavors
from $N-1$ to $N$ (one can also consider the particular case
$m_{f'}=m_f$).
{}From the two-loop on-shell quark mass
renormalization one has (Broadhurst, Gray and Schilcher, 1991)
\begin{equation}
\delta(m_f,m_{f'})=-\zeta(2)/3-71/144
+(4/3)\Delta(m_{f'}/m_f),
\label{eq:deltaM}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta(r)=\frac{1}{4}\biggl[\log^2r+\zeta(2)-\biggl(\log r
+\frac{3}{2}\biggr)r^2
-(1+r)(1+r^3)L_{+}(r)-(1-r)(1-r^3)L_{-}(r)\biggr],
\label{eq:delta}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
L_{\pm}(r) = \int_{0}^{1/r}dx\frac{\log x}{x \pm 1}.
\end{displaymath}
$L_{\pm}(r)$ can be evaluated for different quark mass ratios
$r$ numerically.
We relate the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ quark mass $m_f(m_f)$
to the pole mass $m_f$ using the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ on-shell results of
Broadhurst, Gray and Schilcher (1991)
\begin{equation}
m_f^{(N_f)}(m_f)=m_f\biggl[1-\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha_s^{(N_f)}(m_f)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{16}{9}-K_{f}\biggr)
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N_f)}(m_f)}{\pi}\biggr)^2\biggr],
\label{eq:mtopole}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
K_f= \frac{3817}{288}+\frac{2}{3}(2+\log2)\zeta(2)-\frac{1}{6}\zeta(3)
-\frac{N_f}{3}\biggl(\zeta(2)+\frac{71}{48}\biggr)
+\frac{4}{3}\sum_{m_l \leq m_f} \Delta\biggl(\frac{m_l}{m_f}\biggr).
\label{eq:K}
\end{equation}
The first four terms in $K_f$ represent the QCD contribution with $N_f$
massless quarks, while the sum is the correction due to the
$N_f$ nonvanishing quark masses.
Combining eqs.\ (\ref{eq:mrun}), (\ref{eq:f}) and eqs.
(\ref{eq:Astransform})-(\ref{eq:mtopole}), one obtains the
relation between the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ quark mass $m_f(M_H)$ renormalized
at $M_H$ and evaluated for the $N$-flavor theory and the pole quark
mass $m_f$ (Surguladze, 1994b)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{m_f^{(N)}(M_H)=m_f\biggl\{1
-\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(M_H)}{\pi}
\biggl(\frac{4}{3}+\gamma_0\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{-7mm}
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(M_H)}{\pi}\biggr)^2\biggl[K_f
+\sum_{m_f<m_{f'}<M_H}\delta(m_f,m_{f'})
-\frac{16}{9}
+\biggl(\gamma_1^{(N)}-\frac{4}{3}\gamma_0
+\frac{4}{3}\beta_0^{(N)}\biggr)\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{19mm}
+\frac{\gamma_0}{2}(\beta_0^{(N)}-\gamma_0)\log^2\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}
\biggr]\biggr\}.
\label{eq:mMHtopole}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $N$ is specified according to the size of $M_H$ and has
no correlation with the quark mass $m_f$. Thus, for instance, one can
apply eq.\ (\ref{eq:mMHtopole}) to the charm mass $m_c^{(5)}(M_H)$
evaluated for five-flavor
theory.
Substituting eqs.
(\ref{eq:mMHtopole}), (\ref{eq:K}) and appropriate $\beta$-function and
mass anomalous dimension coefficients (see section 2)
into eq.\ (\ref{eq:GHtot}),
one obtains the decay rate in terms of the pole quark masses
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\Gamma(H\rightarrow \mbox{\small hadrons})
=\frac{3\sqrt{2}G_FM_H}{8\pi}\sum_{f=u,d,s,...}m_f^2\biggl\{1
+\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(M_H)}{\pi}
\biggl(3-2\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s^{(N)}(M_H)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{697}{18}
-\biggl(\frac{73}{6}+\frac{4}{3}\log 2\biggr)\zeta(2)
-\frac{115}{6}\zeta(3)
-N\biggl(\frac{31}{18}-\zeta(2)-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
-\biggl(\frac{87}{4}-\frac{13}{18}N\biggr)\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}
-\biggl(\frac{3}{4}-\frac{1}{6}N\biggr)\log^2\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}
-\frac{8}{3}\sum_{m_l<M_H}\Delta\biggl(\frac{m_l}{m_f}\biggr)
\biggr]\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Polemassresf}
\end{eqnarray}
Recall, that at the beginning we have neglected terms which are
suppressed by powers $m_f^2/M_H^2$. Such corrections to the
decay rate, in general, may not be entirely negligible
and have to be taken into account in
precise numerical analyses. Presently those corrections due to
the nonvanishing quark masses
have also been calculated. For the explicit results, we refer
to the original works (Surguladze, 1994a,b; Kniehl, 1995a;
Chetyrkin and Kwiatkowski, 1995). In the next
section we give the results for the quark mass corrections to the
correlation functions $\Pi$.
The full analytical result
for the decay rate of $H \rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f$
in terms of pole quark masses, including the
leading order (two-loop) QCD corrections has been obtained independently
by several groups: Braaten and Leveille (1980), Inami and Kubota (1981),
and Dreess and Hikasa (1990). In the work by Sakai (1980)
the two-loop result has been obtained in the zero quark mass limit.
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}
=\frac{3\sqrt{2}G_FM_H}{8\pi}m_f^2
\biggl(1-\frac{4m_f^2}{M_H^2}\biggr)^{\frac{3}{2}}
\biggl[1+\frac{\alpha_s(M_H)}{\pi}
\delta^{(1)}(\frac{m_f^2}{M_H^2})
+O(\alpha_s^2)\biggr],
\label{eq:2loop}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{displaymath}
\delta^{(1)}=\frac{4}{3}\biggl[\frac{a(\eta)}{\eta}
+\frac{3+34\eta^2-13\eta^4}{16\eta^3}\log\omega
+\frac{21\eta^2-3}{8\eta^2}\biggr],
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
a(\eta)=(1+\eta^2)\biggl[4Li_2(\omega^{-1})+2Li_2(-\omega^{-1})
-\log\omega\log\frac{8\eta^2}{(1+\eta)^3}\biggr]
-\eta\log\frac{64\eta^4}{(1-\eta^2)^3},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\omega=\frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta},
\hspace{5mm}
\eta=\biggl(1-\frac{4m_f^2}{M_H^2}\biggr)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{displaymath}
and the Spence function is defined as usual
\begin{displaymath}
Li_2(x) = -\int_{0}^{x}dx\frac{\log(1-x)}{x}
=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{x^n}{n^2}.
\end{displaymath}
The expansion of the r.h.s of eq.\ (\ref{eq:2loop}) in a power series
in terms of small $m_f^2/M_H^2$ has the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}\Gamma_{H\rightarrow q_f\overline{q}_f}
=\frac{3\sqrt{2}G_FM_H}{8\pi}m_f^2
\biggl\{\biggl(1-6\frac{m_f^2}{M_H^2}+...\biggr)} \nonumber\\
&& \quad
\hspace{-5mm} +\frac{\alpha_s(M_H)}{\pi}
\biggl[3-2\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}
-\frac{m_f^2}{M_H^2}\biggl(8-24\log\frac{M_H^2}{m_f^2}\biggr)
+...\biggr]+O(\alpha_s^2)\biggr\},
\label{eq:2loopexpan}
\end{eqnarray}
where the periods cover higher order terms $\sim (m_f/M_H)^{2k}$, $k=2,3...$
One can see that the leading terms agree with the result
(\ref{eq:Polemassresf}).
Numerically the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ high order QCD corrections for
the considered process are large and reduce the decay rates by about 40\%.
\vspace{6mm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf Quark mass corrections to the correlation functions}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In the previous section we neglected
all quark masses in the corresponding Feynman diagrams in comparison with
the momentum scale of the problem. In other words, we have calculated
the leading term in the expansion in terms of small $m_f^2/s$
(for the Higgs boson decay, $s=M_H^2$) in the limit of infinitely heavy
top quark, $m_t\rightarrow \infty$. However, in the real world
quarks are massive and the leading term in the above expansion may not
always give a satisfactory approximation. On the other hand, starting at
$O(\alpha_s^2)$, virtual heavy quark can also appear
in certain topological type of Feynman diagrams
(Fig.\ 2 and Fig.\ 3) regardless of the momentum scale of the problem.
\vspace{32mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 2. \ $O(\alpha_s^2)$ Feynman diagrams responsible for the
virtual heavy quark contribution
\end{center}
\vspace{32mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 3. \ $O(\alpha_s^2)$ Feynman diagrams responsible for the
contribution due to the top-bottom mass splitting
\end{center}
According to the decoupling
theorem (Appelquist and Carazzone, 1975), virtual quarks much heavier than
the momentum scale of the problem decouple. However, for instance, in the
process of Z boson decay the effect of the top quark may not be entirely
negligible since $m_t$ is not much greater than $M_Z$. A similar role
could be played by the charm quark in the hadronic decay of the tau-lepton.
The evaluation of the virtual top quark contribution (Fig.\ 2) to the decay
rate $Z\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$ and related quantities has been done in
Kniehl (1990), Soper and Surguladze (1994), and Hoang, Jezabek, K\"{u}hn
and Teubner (1994) without using large or small mass approximations.
The correction turned out to be moderate and in good agreement with
the results obtained with the help of the large mass expansion technique
(Chetyrkin, 1993a). The contribution of the diagrams in Fig.\ 2, in the
presence
of a virtual heavy quark, to the two-point correlation function of the
electromagnetic quark currents has been evaluated previously by
Wetzel and Bernreuther (1981).
Kniehl and K\"{u}hn (1989, 1990) have calculated the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ correction
to the decay rate $Z\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$ due to the large mass splitting
in the top-bottom doublet (Fig.\ 3). This correction turned out to be large
and important.
In this section we consider only the
leading correction in the expansion in terms of small quark mass.
For the calculations of virtual heavy quark contributions
we refer the reader to the above mentioned original works
(see also Kniehl, 1994b, 1995b).
The discussion in this section is based on the works
by Surguladze (1994a,b,c).
Let us expand the full two-point correlation function, defined by eq.\
(\ref{eq:pifunction})
in the vector channel and by eq.\ (\ref{eq:pifunctions}) in the
scalar and pseudoscalar channels,
in powers of $m_f^2/Q^2$ in the ``deep'' Euclidean region
\begin{equation}
\biggl(\frac{1}{m_f^2Q^2}\biggr)^d\Pi(Q^2,m_f,m_{\mbox{\tiny V}})
=\Pi_1(Q^2)+\frac{m_f^2}{Q^2}\Pi_{m_f^2}(Q^2)
+\sum_{{\mbox{\tiny V}}
=u,d,s,c,b}\frac{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}{Q^2}\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}(Q^2)
+...,
\label{eq:Piexpan}
\end{equation}
where $d=0$ in the vector channel and $d=1$ in the scalar and pseudoscalar
channels.
The last term in the above expansion is due to the Feynman diagrams
containing a virtual fermionic loop. Note however that in the vector
channel the contribution
from the diagrams in Fig.\ 3 vanishes according to Furry's theorem
(Furry, 1937).
In order to evaluate the coefficient functions in the r.h.s
of eq.\ (\ref{eq:Piexpan}), it is
sufficient to write the diagrammatic representation for
$\Pi(Q^2,m_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}},m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{\mbox{\tiny B}})$
up to the desired level of perturbation
theory and apply the appropriate projector. To $O(\alpha_s^2)$
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}\Pi_{m_{f}^{2n}
m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{2k}}(Q^2,\alpha_s) =} \nonumber\\
&&
\frac{1}{(2n)!(2k)!}
\biggl(\frac{d}{dm_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}\biggr)^{2n}
\biggl(\frac{d}{dm_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}\biggr)^{2k}
\biggl\{\frac{\Pi(Q^2,m_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}}
,m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{\mbox{\tiny B}},\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}})}
{(m_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}})^{2d} Q^{2(d-n-k)}}\biggr\}
_{\stackrel{m_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}}=m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}=0}
{\alpha_s^{\mbox{\tiny B}}\rightarrow Z_{\alpha}\alpha_s}}
(Z_m^2)^{(1+d)},
\label{eq:Proj}
\end{eqnarray}
where $n,k=0,1$, $n+k\leq 1$, and superscript ``B''
denotes the bare quantities. The mass renormalization constant
$Z_m=m_f^{\mbox{\tiny B}}/m_f$ can be obtained from eq.\ (\ref{eq:mrenorm}).
The Feynman diagrams contributing to the
$\Pi_{m_{f}^{2n}m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^{2k}}$ are the same as
for the calculation of $\Pi_1$ (see eq.\ (\ref{eq:pidiagram}))
but with massive fermion propagators.
The calculations of all one-, two- and three-loop diagrams have been done
using the program {\small HEPL}oops (Surguladze, 1992).
The obtained expressions for $\Pi_i$ at each order of $\alpha_s$
are polynomials with respect to $1/\varepsilon$ and
$\log\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2/Q^2$. The poles can be removed by an
additive renormalization. We note that there are no terms like
$(1/\varepsilon^n)(\log\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2/Q^2)^k$.
They appear only at higher orders $\sim m_f^2 m_f^4/Q^4$ and represent
infrared mass logarithms. The corresponding prescription similar
to the Bogolyubov ultraviolet $R$-operation has been worked out in the
work by Chetyrkin, Gorishny and Tkachov (1982), Tkachov (1983b,c), and
Gorishny, Larin and Tkachov (1983).
(see also Tkachov, 1991, 1993 and references
therein). The infrared mass singularities have been studied earlier by
Marciano (1975). In the present paper we consider only the terms
$\sim m_f^2/Q^2$ which are sufficient for most of the
phenomenologically interesting applications.
In the vector channel we obtain the following $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
analytical result (Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1986; Surguladze, 1994c)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}\Pi_{m_{f}^2}\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=
\frac{N_F}{(4\pi)^2}\biggl\{-8
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)C_F \biggl(16
+12\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[ C_F^2\biggl(\frac{1667}{24}
-\frac{5}{3}\zeta(3)-\frac{70}{3}\zeta(5)
+\frac{51}{2}\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+9\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2} \biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
+C_FC_A\biggl(\frac{1447}{24}
+\frac{16}{3}\zeta(3)-\frac{85}{3}\zeta(5)
+\frac{185}{6}\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{11}{2}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2} \biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
-C_FTN\biggl(\frac{95}{6}
+\frac{26}{3}\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+2\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2} \biggr)
\biggr]\biggr\},
\label{eq:PimanalytV1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-66mm}\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)
=\frac{N_F}{(4\pi)^2}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2C_FT
\biggl[\frac{64}{3}-16\zeta(3)\biggr].
\label{eq:PimanalytV2}
\end{equation}
The contribution to the physical process, in particular to the
decay rate of $Z\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$ can be obtained
simply by taking the
imaginary part in the r.h.s. of eqs.\ (\ref{eq:PimanalytV1})
and (\ref{eq:PimanalytV2}) at $Q^2=-s+i0$. We note, that
the $\Pi_{m_{f}^2}$ and $\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}$ turned out to be finite.
No overall subtraction is necessary. Moreover, one can see that the
imaginary part or the contribution to the decay rate
vanishes at the parton level. This can be checked by the calculation
of the parton contribution in the vector channel with explicit dependence
on quark mass. Indeed, calculating the trivial fermionic loop we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Pi_{\mbox{\scriptsize parton}}
(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{-q^2},\frac{m_f^2}{-q^2})
=\frac{N_F}{(4\pi^2)}
\biggl[\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
-8\int_{0}^{1}x(1-x)\log\frac{m_f^2-x(1-x)q^2}
{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}dx
\biggr].
\label{eq:1lPi}
\end{equation}
Taking the discontinuity under the integral and then evaluating the trivial
integral with the $\Theta$ function, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mbox{disc}\Pi_{\mbox{\scriptsize parton}}
(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{-q^2},\frac{m_f^2}{-q^2})
=\frac{N_F}{(4\pi^2)}\biggl(1+\frac{2m_f^2}{q^2}\biggr)
\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_f^2}{q^2}}
=\frac{N_F}{(4\pi^2)}O\biggl(\frac{m_f^4}{q^4}\biggr).
\label{eq:1lPidisc}
\end{equation}
The $\sim m_f^2/Q^2$ contribution to the Adler $D$-function can be obtained
from eqs.\ (\ref{eq:PimanalytV1})
and (\ref{eq:PimanalytV2}) by differentiating with respect to $Q^2$.
There is some confusion concerning the above results in the literature.
Initially, the corrections $\sim m_f^2/Q^2$
in the vector channel have been calculated by Gorishny, Kataev and Larin
(1986).
Later, in the similar calculations (Surguladze, 1989a),
a slightly different result was obtained, which was confirmed in further
publications (see, e.g., Kataev, 1990, 1991).
However, in the recent works (Chetyrkin and Kwiatkowski, 1993;
Surguladze, 1994c),
the initial result of Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1986) has been confirmed.
Unfortunately, in the analysis of the mass corrections to the
$Z$ decay rates (Chetyrkin and K\"{u}hn, 1990) the incorrect result
was used. Fortunately, the main conclusions of Chetyrkin and K\"{u}hn (1990)
are not affected.
Summarizing, we note that the results (\ref{eq:PimanalytV1})
and (\ref{eq:PimanalytV2}) (Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1986;
Chetyrkin and Kwiatkowski, 1993;
Surguladze, 1994c) seem now to be reliable.
In the scalar channel the result for the standard SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize
c}}$(3) gauge
group reads (Surguladze, 1994b)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-1mm}\Pi_{m_f^2}\biggl(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)=
-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl\{12+9
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}} \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)\biggl(94-36\zeta(3)
+60\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+18\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{17245}{16}
-\frac{1690}{3}\zeta(3)-3\zeta(4)+\frac{385}{3}\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{9mm}
+\biggl(\frac{7149}{8}-249\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{1113}{4}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{81}{2}\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{9mm}
-N\biggl(\frac{817}{24}-6\zeta(3)
+\biggl(\frac{313}{12}-6\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{15}{2}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{77mm}
+\mbox{\small ``simple poles''} \biggr\},
\label{eq:PimanalytS1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-42mm}\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{8}{3}+6\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\mbox{\small ``simple pole''}\biggr],
\label{eq:PimanalytS2}
\end{equation}
where under the ``simple pole'' we mean number$/\varepsilon^k$ with
no dependence on $\log\mu^2/Q^2$. The ``simple poles'' have no
imaginary part and consequently will not contribute to the observable
quantities at the given order of $\alpha_s$.
Note that the $\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}$ in eq.
(\ref{eq:PimanalytS2}) does not include the contribution from the
triangle anomaly type graphs pictured in Fig.\ 3. Those graphs make
the following additional contribution to $\Pi$ in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Piexpan})
(Surguladze, 1994b)
\begin{equation}
+\sum_{f'=u,d,s,c,b}\frac{m_{f'}^2}{Q^2} \times
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{118}{3}-20\zeta(3)-10\zeta(5)
+12\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\mbox{\small ``simple pole''}\biggr].
\label{eq:PimanalytS3}
\end{equation}
The above results are relevant for the decay rate
of the standard model Higgs boson into a quark antiquark pair,
calculated in the previous section in the massless quark limit.
Corrections $\sim m_f^2/M_H^2$ can be obtained
from eqs.\ (\ref{eq:PimanalytS1}), (\ref{eq:PimanalytS2})
and (\ref{eq:PimanalytS3}) (Surguladze, 1994b).
In the pseudoscalar channel we define the quark currents as
$j_f=m_f\overline{q}_fi\gamma_5 q_f$. We also define the
$\gamma_5$ matrix
in $D$-dimensional space-time as an object with the following properties
\begin{equation}
\{\gamma_5,\gamma_\mu\}=0, \hspace{5mm} \gamma_5\gamma_5=1.
\label{eq:gamma5def}
\end{equation}
The above definition causes no problems in dimensional regularization
when there are two $\gamma_5$ matrices in a closed fermionic loop.
We obtain (Surguladze, 1994a)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-4mm}\Pi_{m_{f}^2}\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=
-\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl\{3
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)\biggl(6-12\zeta(3)
+4\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+6\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[-\frac{6713}{144}
-116\zeta(3)-\zeta(4)+\frac{235}{3}\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
+\biggl(\frac{1429}{24}-83\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{155}{4}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{27}{2}\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{5mm}
-N\biggl(-\frac{31}{72}-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)
+\biggl(\frac{9}{4}-2\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{7}{6}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{1}{3}\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny
MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{77mm}
+\mbox{\small ``simple poles''} \biggr\},
\label{eq:PimanalytPS1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-43mm}\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{8}{3}+6\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\mbox{\small ``simple pole''}\biggr].
\label{eq:PimanalytPS2}
\end{equation}
The result for the pseudoscalar channel is relevant, for instance,
for the decay rates of the minimal supersymmetric version of the
Higgs particle into a quark antiquark pair (see Surguladze, 1994a).
Finally, we present the results of calculation of the $\sim m_f^2/Q^2$
corrections to the correlation function in the axial channel
(Soper and Surguladze, 1994; Surguladze, 1994c).
We use the following definition of the correlation function
\begin{equation}
i\int d^4x e^{iqx}<Tj_{\mu}^f(x)j_{\nu}^f(0)>_0=
g_{\mu\nu}Q^2\Pi(Q,m_f)-Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu}\Pi'(Q,m_f),
\label{eq:AxialPi}
\end{equation}
where $j_{\mu}^f=\overline{q}_f\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5q_f$.
Note that in the axial channel the correlation function is
not transverse in contrast to the vector channel. However, for the
decay rate of the $Z$-boson only the $\sim g_{\mu\nu}$ part in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:AxialPi}) is relevant.
The expansions of $\Pi$ and $\Pi'$ in terms of small $m_f^2/Q^2$ has the same
form as in the vector channel ( eq.\ (\ref{eq:Piexpan}) ).
The coefficient functions in this expansion can be calculated according
to eq.\ (\ref{eq:Proj}) in the vector channel.
In the calculations of one-, two- and three-loop Feynman diagrams
the program {\small HEPL}oops (Surguladze, 1992) was used. The final results
for the SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(3) gauge group
read (Soper and Surguladze, 1994;
Surguladze, 1994c)
\newpage
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-2mm}\Pi_{m_{f}^2}\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl\{6+6
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2} }
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)\biggl(\frac{107}{2}-24\zeta(3)
+22\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+6\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{3241}{6}
-387\zeta(3)-\frac{3}{2}\zeta(4)+165\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
+\biggl(\frac{8221}{24}-117\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{155}{2}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{19}{2}\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{5mm}
-N\biggl(\frac{857}{36}-\frac{32}{3}\zeta(3)
+\biggl(\frac{151}{12}-4\zeta(3)\biggr)
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{8}{3}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
+\frac{1}{3}\log^3\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny
MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{77mm}
+\mbox{\small ``simple poles''} \biggr\}
\label{eq:PimanalytAT1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{-79mm}\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}
\left(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)
=\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{32}{3}-8\zeta(3)\biggr]
\label{eq:PimanalytAT2}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-22mm}\Pi'_{m_{f}^2}\left(
\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny
MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2},\alpha_s\right)=
\frac{1}{4\pi^2}\biggl\{-6
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)\biggl(-12
-12\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[-\frac{4681}{24}
-34\zeta(3)+115\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{1cm}
-\frac{215}{2}
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
-\frac{57}{2}\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{9mm}
-N\biggl(-\frac{55}{12}-\frac{8}{3}\zeta(3)
-\frac{11}{3}
\log\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}
-\log^2\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^{2}}{Q^2}\biggr)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{67mm}
+\mbox{\small ``simple poles''} \biggr\}
\label{eq:PimanalytAL1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\Pi'_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}=\Pi_{m_{\mbox{\tiny V}}^2}
\label{eq:PimanalytAL2}
\end{equation}
The results given in this section can be tested using the
renormalization group. Namely, the relations similar to
eqs.\ (\ref{eq:relations1}), (\ref{eq:relations2}) and (\ref{eq:relations3})
can be obtained here (Surguladze, 1994a,b,c).
In fact, in the vector channel, one can obtain the $O(\alpha_s^3)$
logarithmic terms without actual calculation of the corresponding
four-loop diagrams. On the other hand, the leading logarithmic terms
in $\Pi$-function form the corresponding contribution to the decay rates
of, for instance, the Z-boson (Chetyrkin and K\"{u}hn, 1990;
Chetyrkin, K\"{u}hn and Kwiatkowski, 1992; Surguladze, 1994c).
In the axial channel the situation is more complicated. Here,
because the renormalization group equation similar to
eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGEDscalar}) is no longer a homogeneous one,
the renormalization group approach is restricted to $O(\alpha_s^2)$.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf Two-loop coefficient functions of $\mbox{dim}=4$
power corrections}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we outline the
calculations of the two-loop coefficient functions of $\mbox{dim}=4$
power corrections. We consider the
contributions which appear in the short distance expansion of the
correlation function of two flavor-diagonal vector, scalar and
pseudoscalar currents constructed from light quark fields.
The methods and corresponding references are given in the earlier
sections.
The corrections for the vector channel have been evaluated
in Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov (1984, 1985) and
Surguladze and Tkachov (1988).
In the scalar and pseudoscalar channels, the calculation has
been done in Surguladze and Tkachov (1990). The
calculation for vector and axial vector channels has been
done in Chetyrkin, Gorishny and Spiridonov (1985), where the
previous results for the vector channel have been confirmed
and the calculation was extended for flavor non-diagonal currents
as well. The three-loop
correction to the coefficient function of gluon condensate in the
scalar channel has also been computed in
Surguladze and Tkachov (1989b).
For the calculation
of dimension 8 terms in the operator product expansion see also
Broadhurst and Generalis (1985).
Here we follow the work by Surguladze and Tkachov (1990).
Consider first the T-product of flavor diagonal vector
currents of light quarks
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}_{\mu\nu}^{f'}(Q)=i\int d^{4}x e^{iqx} T
J_{\mu}^{f'}(x)J_{\nu}^{f'}(0),
\label{eq:Pid4V}
\end{equation}
where $J^{f'}_{\mu}=\overline{q}_{f'}\gamma_{\mu}q_{f'}$.
Taking into account the current conservation and operator product expansion
technique (Wilson, 1969) for large momentum transfer
($Q^2 \rightarrow \infty$) we write
\begin{equation}
{\cal T}_{\mu\nu}^{f'}(Q)=(g_{\mu\nu}Q^2-Q_{\mu}Q_{\nu})
\biggl\{C_{0}+\frac{1}{Q^4}\biggl[C_{G^2}(Q^2)(G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^2+
\sum_{f'}C_{\overline{q}q}^{f'}(Q^2)m_{f'}\overline{q}_{f'}q_{f'}\biggr]
+\cdots \biggr\},
\label{eq:Pid4VOPE}
\end{equation}
where $C_{0}$ is the coefficient function of the unity operator including
the terms $\sim m_f^2/Q^2$ discussed in the previous section.
The period covers the operators of higher twists. For the scalar and
pseudoscalar channels the transverse factor in the above equation is absent.
To simplify the calculation, we contract over the Lorentz indices
$\mu$ and $\nu$. Then the expressions for $C_{i}$ defined in eq.
(\ref{eq:Pid4VOPE}) coincide with the ones in eq.\ (\ref{eq:CFexplicit})
if ${\cal T}(Q)$ is replaced by
${\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}(Q^2)/(D-1)Q^2$, where $D=4-2\varepsilon$.
Let us rewrite eqs.\ (\ref{eq:CFexplicit}) in a somewhat symbolic
diagrammatic representation to $O(\alpha_s^2)$.
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{displaymath}
C_{G^2}=\pi_{1}\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggl\{2\hspace{16mm}+4\hspace{16mm}
+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
\biggl[\hspace{17mm}+...+\hspace{17mm}+...
+\hspace{17mm}+...\biggr]\biggr\}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{-8mm}C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}
=\pi_{2}^{f}\biggl\{2\hspace{23mm}+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
\biggl[2\hspace{23mm}+4\hspace{23mm}+2\hspace{23mm}+...\biggr]
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2mm}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{93mm}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2\biggl[\hspace{23mm}+...\biggr]
\biggr\}.
\label{eq:OPEdiagrammer}
\end{equation}
\vspace{3mm}
The total number of two-loop graphs contributing to $C_{G^2}$ is 30 and to
$C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}$ is 38. There is a simple rule for generating
the appropriate graphs at $O(\alpha_{s}^n)$. One should take
the graphs contributing to $O(\alpha_{s}^{(n+1)})$ in the
unity operator and disconnect one fermion line in all possible ways
for the coefficient function $C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}$. For the
coefficient function $C_{G^2}$ it is necessary to write all the
diagrams with one disconnected gluon line (relevant for the
projector ${\cal P}_{1}$), all the diagrams with one disconnected
ghost line (relevant for the projector ${\cal P}_{4}$) and all
the diagrams with disconnected gluon-ghost-ghost vertex
(relevant for the projector ${\cal P}_{5}$). To see this,
recall eqs.\ (\ref{eq:ElProj}). Acting with the projectors
${\cal P}_{j}$ on the appropriate
diagrams, the calculations are reduced to the evaluation of one-
and two-loop propagator type massless Feynman integrals.
In the original calculation (Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1984, 1985;
Surguladze and Tkachov, 1988, 1990)
all Feynman integrals have been evaluated analytically using
the {\small REDUCE} (Hearn, 1973) program LOOPS (Surguladze and Tkachov,
1989a).
The $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ results for the projectors ${\cal P}_{j}$
in the vector channel read
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}_{1}[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]=\frac{1}{Q^4}C_{F}\frac{N_{F}}{N_{A}}
\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\biggl\{48-32\varepsilon
+\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\biggl[C_{F}(-12)
+C_{A}(\frac{18}{\varepsilon}-42+72\zeta(3)\biggr)\biggr]
+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr\}
\label{eq:P1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}_{4}[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]=\frac{1}{Q^4}C_{F}\frac{N_{F}}{N_{A}}C_{A}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{3}{\varepsilon}-9+12\zeta(3)\biggr)
+O(\alpha_{s}^3),
\label{eq:P4}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\cal P}_{5}[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]=0+O(\alpha_{s}^3),
\label{eq:P5}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\biggl({\cal P}_{2}^{f\neq f'}+\frac{1}{D}{\cal P}_{3}^{f\neq f'}
\biggr)[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]=
\frac{1}{Q^4}C_{F}T
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{24}{\varepsilon}-60+96\zeta(3)\biggr)
+O(\alpha_{s}^3),
\label{eq:P231}
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-12mm}
\biggl({\cal P}_{2}^{f=f'}+\frac{1}{D}{\cal P}_{3}^{f=f'}\biggr)
[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]=} \nonumber\\
&& \quad
\frac{1}{Q^4}\biggl\{6
+\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}C_{F}\biggl(\frac{3}{2}
+\frac{11}{4}\varepsilon\biggr)
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}\biggr)^2C_{F}
\biggl[C_{F}\frac{387}{16}+C_{A}\biggl(\frac{11}{8\varepsilon}
+\frac{7}{16}\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{7mm}
+T\biggl(\frac{3}{4\varepsilon}-\frac{15}{4}+6\zeta(3)\biggr)
-TN\biggl(\frac{1}{2\varepsilon}+\frac{7}{4}\biggr)\biggr]
+O(\alpha_{s}^3) \biggr\}.
\label{eq:P232}
\end{eqnarray}
The vanishing of ${\cal P}_{5}[{\cal T}_{\mu\mu}^{f'}]$
at the two-loop level is the consequence of gauge invariance,
as was shown by Spiridonov (1987).
Combining eqs.\ (\ref{eq:piexplicit}) and (\ref{eq:CFexplicit})
with the above results and renormalizing the bare coupling via eq.
(\ref{eq:AsR}) we obtain $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ $O(\alpha_{s}^2)$
analytical expressions for the coefficient functions in the vector channel
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1990)
\begin{equation}
C_{G^2}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}C_{F}\frac{N_{F}}{N_{A}}\frac{1}{6}
\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl[1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl(\frac{C_{A}}{2}-\frac{C_{F}}{4}\biggr)
+O(\alpha_{s}^2) \biggr],
\label{eq:Cgganalytic}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}
\biggl\{2+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\frac{C_{F}}{2}\biggl[1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
\biggl(\frac{129}{8}C_{F}-\frac{25}{18}C_{A}-\frac{5}{9}TN
+T(-3+4\zeta(3))\biggr)+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr]\biggr\}
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggr)^2C_{F}T
\biggl(-\frac{3}{2}+2\zeta(3)\biggr)+O(\alpha_{s}^3).
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic2}
\end{equation}
The above results are gauge invariant. This statement was
checked by straightforward calculation in an arbitrary
covariant gauge up to the term
$\sim \varepsilon$ (Surguladze and Tkachov, 1990). The
dependence on the gauge parameter canceled. Thus, it
is simplest to do the calculation in the Feynman gauge.
For simplicity, we have omitted the terms
$\sim \log(\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2/Q^2)$, taking
$\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2=Q^2$. The dependence on
$\mu$ can be restored via the renormalization
group (see below).
Note that the coefficient function
$C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}$ is due
to the diagrams pictured in Fig.\ 4 with
disconnected fermion lines of the
virtual loop (see also Fig.\ 2).
\vspace{4cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 4. \hspace{2mm} Two-loop diagrams forming
$C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}$
\end{center}
Specifically for QCD with the SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(3)
symmetry group we obtain
\begin{equation}
C_{G^2}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}\frac{1}{12}
\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl(1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\frac{7}{6}
+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr),
\label{eq:CgganalyticQCD}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}
\biggl\{2+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl[1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
\biggl(\frac{95}{6}+2\zeta(3)-\frac{5}{18}N\biggr)
+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr]\biggr\},
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic1QCD}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^4}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(-1+\frac{4}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)+O(\alpha_{s}^3).
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic2QCD}
\end{equation}
Note the very large $O(\alpha_{s}^2)$ coefficient in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:Cqqanalytic1QCD}). However, this coefficient
is renormalization scheme dependent and requires
special analysis (see below).
In the scalar and pseudoscalar channels the general
expression for the coefficient functions eq.\ (\ref{eq:CF})
takes the form
\begin{equation}
C_{i}(Q)=Z_{m}^2\sum_{j}\pi_{j}
\biggl[\frac{{\cal T}(Q)}{(m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}})^2}\biggr](Z_{O}^{-1})_{ji},
\label{eq:CFscalar}
\end{equation}
where $Z_{m}=m_{f}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}/m_{f}$ is the quark
mass renormalization constant (see eq.\ (\ref{eq:mrenorm}) ).
The $\gamma^{5}$ matrix is defined within the dimensional regularization
according to eq.\ (\ref{eq:gamma5def}).
It is easy to see that in the calculations of $C_{G^2}$, two matrices
$i\gamma^{5}$ can be anticommuted over the fermion propagators and
``annihilate'' each other so that the results in both channels
coincide.
The calculational procedure is exactly the same as it was for
the vector channel, except for the need of mass renormalization.
The results for the coefficient functions $C_{G^2}$ and
$C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}$ in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ -scheme are as follows
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1986, 1990).
\noindent
In the (pseudo)scalar channel
\begin{equation}
C_{G^2}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^2}C_{F}\frac{N_{F}}{N_{A}}\frac{1}{4}
\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl[1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggl(\frac{3}{2}C_{A}
+\frac{3}{4}C_{F}\biggr)
+O(\alpha_{s}^2) \biggr].
\label{eq:CgganalyticS}
\end{equation}
In the scalar channel
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-30mm}C_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(Q^2)=
\frac{1}{Q^2}\biggl\{3+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\frac{39}{4}C_{F}\biggl(1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
\biggl[C_{F}\biggl(\frac{447}{208}-\frac{21}{13}\zeta(3)\biggr)
+C_{A}\biggl(\frac{389}{144}+\frac{3}{26}\zeta(3)\biggr)} \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{35mm} -\frac{5}{39}T-\frac{25}{36}TN\biggr]
+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr)\biggr\},
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic1S}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{Q^2}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\biggr)^2C_{F}T
\biggl(-\frac{5}{4}\biggr)+O(\alpha_{s}^3)
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic2S}
\end{equation}
and in the pseudoscalar channel
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-30mm}C_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(Q^2)=
-\frac{1}{Q^2}\biggl\{1+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\frac{17}{4}C_{F}\biggl(1
+\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}
\biggl[C_{F}\biggl(\frac{583}{272}-\frac{45}{17}\zeta(3)\biggr)
+C_{A}\biggl(\frac{2443}{816}+\frac{27}{34}\zeta(3)\biggr)} \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{35mm} +\frac{5}{17}T-\frac{167}{204}TN\biggr]
+O(\alpha_{s}^2)\biggr)\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Cqqanalytic1PS}
\end{eqnarray}
The result for $C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}$ coincides with the
analogous one for the scalar channel.
Let us turn to the renormalization group analysis of the
above results.
in this particular case it is possible
to use the following trick (Surguladze and Tkachov, 1990).
Note first that the vacuum average of the renormalized operators $G^2$
and $m\overline{q}{q}$ and their coefficient functions
depend on the
renormalization parameter $\mu$ and therefore are not convenient
for further analysis. However,
as was shown by Collins, Duncan and Joglekar (1977)
(see also Nielsen, 1977; Tarrach, 1982; Narison and Tarrach, 1983),
the vacuum average of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor
\begin{equation}
<\Theta_{\alpha\alpha}>_{0}=-\frac{\beta(\alpha_s)}{2\beta_{0}}
<(G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^2>_{0}
+\biggl(1-\frac{2\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)}{\beta_{0}}\biggr)
\sum_{f}<m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}>_{0}
\label{eq:energymomentum}
\end{equation}
is renormalization group invariant. On the other hand, in
the MS type schemes
the quark condensate $<m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}>_{0}$ is
renormalization group invariant to all orders of perturbation
theory (see, e.g., Tarrach, 1982). One can introduce the
renormalization group invariant quantity
\begin{equation}
\Omega = -\frac{\beta(\alpha_s)}{\beta_{0}}<(G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^2>_{0}
-\frac{4\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)}{\beta_{0}}
\sum_{f}<m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}>_{0}
\label{eq:omega}
\end{equation}
so that the new coefficient functions defined from equation
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{-45mm}
C_{G^2}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)<(G_{\mu\nu}^{a})^2>_{0}
+C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
\sum_{f}<m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}>_{0}
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\hspace{4cm} =\overline{C}_{G^2}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)\Omega
+\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
\sum_{f}<m_{f}\overline{q}_{f}q_{f}>_{0}
\label{eq:CFequation}
\end{equation}
should be the renormalization group invariants. This is true
since the l.h.s of eq.\ (\ref{eq:CFequation}) is directly
connected to the observables (Shifman, Vainshtein and
Zakharov, 1979) and consequently is invariant.
{}From eqs.\ (\ref{eq:omega}) and (\ref{eq:CFequation})
we find the invariant
coefficient functions corresponding to the invariant
combinations of the gluon and quark condensates
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{G^2}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
=-\frac{\beta_{0}}{\beta(\alpha_s)}
C_{G^2}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr),
\label{eq:CFggnew}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
=C_{\overline{q}q}^{f}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
-\frac{4\gamma_{m}(\alpha_s)}{\beta(\alpha_s)}
C_{G^2}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr).
\label{eq:CFqqnew}
\end{equation}
Note that, in fact, there are terms of the type
$m_{f}^2m_{f'}^2$ or/and
$m_{f}^4$ in the r.h.s. of eq.\ (\ref{eq:CFequation}). However,
obviously these terms do not affect our equations for
invariant coefficient functions. The two-loop coefficient
functions for $\sim m^4$ terms have been calculated by Chetyrkin,
Gorishny and Spiridonov (1985). The contributions from
such terms are negligible for phenomenological
applications and will not be discussed here.
Now one can use the renormalization group invariance
of the coefficient functions and write
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{i}\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2},\alpha_s\biggr)
=\overline{C}_{i}(1,\alpha_s(Q^2)).
\label{eq:CFRGnew}
\end{equation}
Reevaluating the coefficient functions for the $u,d,s$
light quarks
($N=3$) we obtain the following results in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme.
\noindent
In the vector channel
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{G^2}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=\frac{1}{Q^4}\frac{1}{12}\biggl(1-\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}
0.6111+O(\alpha_{s}^{2})\biggr),
\label{eq:CggnewV}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=\frac{1}{Q^4}2\biggl[1+0.4074\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}
\biggl(1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}14.8180+O(\alpha_{s}^{2})\biggr)
\biggr].
\label{eq:CqqnewV}
\end{equation}
In the scalar channel
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{G^2}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=\frac{1}{Q^2}\frac{1}{8}\biggl(1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}
3.7222+O(\alpha_{s}^{2})\biggr),
\label{eq:CggnewS}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=\frac{1}{Q^2}3\biggl[1+4.4074\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}
\biggl(1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}7.6879+O(\alpha_{s}^{2})\biggr)
\biggr].
\label{eq:CqqnewS}
\end{equation}
In the pseudoscalar channel
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f=f'}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=-\frac{1}{Q^2}\biggl[1+5.4444\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}
\biggl(1+\frac{\alpha_s(Q^2)}{\pi}9.4559+O(\alpha_{s}^{2})\biggr)
\biggr].
\label{eq:CqqnewPS}
\end{equation}
For all channels
\begin{equation}
\overline{C}_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
=C_{\overline{q}q}^{f \neq f'}(\alpha_s(Q^2))
+O(\alpha_{s}^3).
\label{eq:Cqqffnew}
\end{equation}
Note again very large $O(\alpha_{s}^2)$ corrections
for the coefficient functions of quark condensates in
the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-scheme. The running
coupling is evaluated at the typical hadronic mass scale.
Presently the $O(\alpha_{s})$ corrections have also been calculated
for the $\mbox{dim}=6$ operators
(Lanin, Spiridonov, and Chetyrkin (1986)). We also mention
the calculations in the case of heavy quark currents
(see, e.g., Broadhurst et al, 1994 and references therein).
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf $R(s)$ in electron-positron annihilation to
$O(\alpha^{3}_{s})$}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we present an outline of
the evaluation of the corrections up to $O(\alpha^{3}_{s})$
to the total cross section in the process
$e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$ (Fig.\ 5) in the limit of zero
light quark masses and infinitely large top mass.
We also mention the QCD evaluation of
the hadronic decay rates of the Z boson and the
relevant quark mass effects.
\vspace{6cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 5. \hspace{2mm} The process $e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$.
The shaded bulb includes any interactions of quarks and gluons (or ghosts)
allowed in QCD. The dots cover any relevant number of gluon and quark
propagators.
\end{center}
These calculations were first attempted by Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1988).
However, it was shown that those results were incorrect. Indeed,
about 4 years ago an independent calculation of the above quantity
was completed (Surguladze and Samuel, 1991a,b).
The result is much smaller and has the opposite sign compared with
the old 1988 result.
This finding was confirmed shortly after that
by Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1991).
In the process shown in Fig.\ 5 an electron-positron pair annihilates
producing either a photon or a $Z$-boson, which further produces
quark-antiquark pairs
(in QED) plus gluons (if strong interactions are ``switched on'').
Finally, quarks through hadronization form hadronic final
states with probability equal to one (confinement hypothesis)
and the total cross-section is given by
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow
\mbox{hadrons})=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3s}
3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2(1+\delta_{\mbox{\tiny QCD}}),
\label{eq:sigmatot}
\end{equation}
where
$s$ is the total centre-of-mass energy squared, $Q_f$ is the
electric charge of the participating at the given energy
quark flavor $f$, factor 3 stands for the number of color degrees of freedom
and
$\delta_{\mbox{\tiny QCD}}$ stands for the strong interaction contributions.
The hadronic production in electron-positron annihilation
is usually characterized
in terms of the $R$-ratio
-the total hadronic cross section normalized by the
muon pair production cross section
\begin{equation}
R(s) = \frac{\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow
\mbox{hadrons})}
{\sigma(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-})}
= 3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2(1+\delta_{\mbox{\tiny{QCD}}}).
\label{eq:Rratio}
\end{equation}
The above expressions are relevant at energies much less than the Z mass
($\sqrt{s} \ll M_Z$) corresponding to, for instance,
PEP/PETRA energy range. At LEP the effects of the Z boson become important.
The corresponding $R$-ratio is defined as a ratio of the hadronic and
electronic widths of the Z boson
\begin{equation}
R_{Z} = \frac{\Gamma(Z \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})}
{\Gamma(Z \rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})}.
\label{eq:Rzratio}
\end{equation}
Note that the total hadronic width of the Z boson in the above equation
is the sum of the vector and axial current induced decay rates.
Strictly speaking, those rates get different strong interaction
contributions. In the present section we calculate the QCD corrections
in the vector channel - $\delta_{\mbox{\tiny QCD}}$ in the limit of massless
light quarks
and the infinitely large top mass. This quantity is, in fact, relevant
for the axial part as well. To get the complete axial decay rate,
additional contributions are necessary. For details see the original
works:
Kniehl and K\"{u}hn (1990),
Kniehl (1990),
Chetyrkin and K\"{u}hn (1990),
Chetyrkin, K\"{u}hn and Kwiatkowski (1992),
Chetyrkin (1993a),
Soper and Surguladze (1994),
Surguladze (1994c), the review articles by Kniehl (1994b, 1995b),
Soper and Surguladze (1995) and
also section 4 of the present paper.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf $R(s)$ via renormalization constants}
The vacuum polarization function $\Pi(Q^2)$ defined in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:pifunction}) has a cut along the negative $Q^2$ axis
in the massless case. The ratio $R(s)$ can be found taking the imaginary
part of $\Pi(s+i0)$, according to eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rsdefin}). Alternatively,
$R(s)$ can also be found from eq.\ (\ref{eq:Ddefin}), which in combination
with eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGDsolut}) gives to $O(\alpha_s^3)$
\begin{equation}
R(s)=R_0+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}R_1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^2 R_2
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl(R_3-\frac{\pi^2\beta_0^2}{3}R_{1}\biggr).
\label{eq:Rexpans}
\end{equation}
The origin of the large and negative scheme-scale independent term
$R_{1}\pi^2\beta_0^2/3$ can be understood if one takes into account
the presence of $\sim \log^3\mu^2/s$ terms at $O(\alpha_s^3)$
in the $\Pi$-function and
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im}\log^3(s+i0)=-3\log^2 s+\pi^2.
\end{displaymath}
The leading QCD term $R_1$ at $O(\alpha_s^3)$ is due to the
coupling renormalization. Note, that the $R_i$ in the above
equation are the perturbative coefficients of the $D(Q^2)$ function
defined in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Ddefin}).
For the discussion of the procedure of analytical continuation
and the origin of additional $\sim \pi^2$ terms, see also
Krasnikov and Pivovarov (1982), Pennington and Ross (1982),
Radyushkin (1982), and Pivovarov (1992a).
Substituting eq.\ (\ref{eq:Piexpans}) with the renormalized
strong coupling into eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rsdefin}) and taking into account
the relations (\ref{eq:Pirelat0}), (\ref{eq:Pirelat1}), (\ref{eq:Pirelat2}),
(\ref{eq:Pirelat3}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}R(s) = -\frac{3}{4}\biggl\{
Z_{1,-1}+\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}(2Z_{2,-1})
+\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^2
\biggl(3Z_{3,-1}-\beta_0\Pi_{2,0}
+2\beta_0Z_{2,-1}\log\frac{\mu^2}{s}\biggr) }
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{-7mm}
+\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^3
\biggl[4Z_{4,-1}-2\beta_0\Pi_{3,0}-\beta_1\Pi_{2,0}
+2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,1}-\frac{2\pi^2\beta_0^2}{3}Z_{2,-1}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+(6\beta_0Z_{3,-1}+2\beta_1Z_{2,-1}-2\beta_0^2\Pi_{2,0})\log\frac{\mu^2}{s}
+2\beta_0^2Z_{2,-1}\log^2\frac{\mu^2}{s}\biggr]+O(\alpha_s^4)\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Rmain}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the appearance of perturbative coefficients of the renormalization
constant in the above equation is totally due to the relations
(\ref{eq:Pirelat3}). In fact, $Z_{\Pi}$ has only simple poles
and hence has no imaginary part.
The latter is the specific feature of the MS prescription.
The expression (\ref{eq:Rmain}) exhibits one of the main ideas of this
calculation. Namely, in order to calculate the
$l$-loop contribution to $R$, it suffices to calculate the $l$-loop counterterm
$Z_{\Pi}$ to the bare quantity $\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$,
and the $l-1$ -loop approximation to $\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}$.
In other words, the minimal information necessary to obtain
the four-loop $R(s)$ is contained in the divergent part of one-loop diagram,
two-loop diagrams calculated up to $\sim \varepsilon$ terms, three-loop
diagrams calculated up to the finite parts in the limit
$\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ and only a leading $\sim 1/\varepsilon$ terms
in the overall counterterms of the four-loop diagrams.
In fact, as we demonstrate
in the next subsection, using the infrared rearrangement procedure
(Vladimirov, 1980; Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1982)
one can complete the entire calculation dealing effectively only with
three-loop diagrams. We mention once again that,
through the procedure of infrared rearangement, within the MS prescription,
the problem of calculation of the counterterms to
arbitrary $l$ -loop diagrams with an arbitrary number of
masses and external momenta
can be reduced to the
calculation of $l-1$ -loop propagator type massless integrals up
to finite terms. In our case $l=4$. On the other hand,
the recursive type algorithms for multiloop Feynman integrals
(Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1981; Tkachov, 1981, 1983) and their computer
implementation (Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989; Surguladze, 1989b,c, 1992;
Gorishny, Larin, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989) allow one to calculate
propagator type Feynman diagrams to three-loop level.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Full calculational procedure with a typical four-loop
diagram}
In this subsection we demonstrate the full calculational procedure for a
typical
four-loop diagram pictured in Fig.\ 6, which contributes to the photon
renormalization constant $Z_{\Pi}$ and hence to the $R$-ratio.
To simplify the description, in some cases we will
avoid complicated equations, substituting for them their graphical
representation.
\newpage
\mbox{}
\vspace{33mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 6. \hspace{2mm} A typical four-loop nonplanar type
diagram contributing to $R(s)$
\end{center}
We need to evaluate the counterterm to the diagram pictured in Fig.\ 6.
In other words, we should evaluate $-{\cal K}R'$ for this diagram.
A simple power counting shows that the given diagram diverges as
\begin{displaymath}
G\sim\lim_{Q \rightarrow \infty}Q^{4D-14}
\end{displaymath}
and the superficial degree of divergence is 2. Using the fact that
the counterterm has only a polynomial dependence on the external momenta $Q$
within the MS prescription, one can remove such a dependence
by differentiating the diagram twice with respect to $Q$ and then set the
external momentum to zero. At the next step, since there is no
dependence on the external momentum, one can introduce a new fictitious
external momentum flowing through one of the diagram lines. This line should
be chosen in a way that simplifies the topology of the
diagram and avoids infrared divergences. The above procedure for the
diagram in Fig.\ 6 is displayed in the following graphical equation
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{displaymath}
Z\supset{\cal K}R'\biggl\{
\biggl(\frac{\partial}{\partial Q_{\mu}}\biggr)^2
\hspace{43mm} \biggr\}_{Q=0}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2cm}
\begin{equation}
\sim{\cal K}R'\biggl\{4(2-D)\hspace{37mm}+2\hspace{37mm}\biggr\}
\label{eq:IR}
\end{equation}
\vspace{2cm}
\begin{displaymath}
=\hspace{5mm}{\cal K}\biggl\{4(2-D)\hspace{36mm}+2\hspace{36mm}\biggr\},
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2cm}
\noindent
where the dot and dashes on the lines result from differentiating the
corresponding fermion propagators
\begin{displaymath}
\biggl(\frac{\partial}{\partial Q_{\mu}}\biggr)^2
\biggl[-\hspace{-2mm}-\hspace{-2mm}
\stackrel{P+Q}{\longleftarrow}\hspace{-2mm}-\hspace{-2mm}-
\biggr]_{Q=0} \equiv 2(2-D)
\biggl[\longleftarrow \hspace{-2mm}
\stackrel{P}{\bullet}\hspace{-2mm}\longleftarrow
\biggr]=2(2-D)\frac{\hat{P}}{P^4},
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{\partial}{\partial Q_{\mu}}
\biggl[-\hspace{-2mm}-\hspace{-2mm}
\stackrel{P+Q}{\longleftarrow}\hspace{-2mm}-\hspace{-2mm}-
\biggr]_{Q=0}\equiv
\biggl[\longleftarrow \hspace{-2mm}
\hspace{-2mm}\stackrel{P}{\setminus}\longleftarrow\biggr]
=-\frac{\hat{P}}{P^2}\gamma^{\mu}\frac{\hat{P}}{P^2}
\end{displaymath}
Boxes contain the corresponding three-loop propagator type subgraphs
with subtracted divergences - complete $R$-operation (Fig.\ 7).
The dotted lines mean that this line is temporarily ``torn''.
After the evaluation of boxes,
the parts of the torn line should be pasted and a trivial fourth loop
integration should be done, taking into account the corresponding
exponents of the propagators due to the three-, two- and one-loop
``box'' insertions.
The above procedure gives a great simplification of the problem.
Indeed, the evaluation of the four-loop counterterm is reduced to the
evaluation of three-, two- and one-loop graphs.
\vspace{15mm}
\begin{displaymath}
-\fbox{{\bf A}}-\equiv R \biggl\{ \hspace{19mm} \biggr\} =
\hspace{19mm}-\biggl(\hspace{17mm}\biggr)\hspace{19mm}
-\biggl(\hspace{17mm}\biggr) \hspace{17mm}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{2cm}
\begin{displaymath}
\hspace{-43mm}-\fbox{{\bf B}}-\equiv R \biggl\{ \hspace{19mm} \biggr\} =
\hspace{19mm}-\biggl(\hspace{17mm}\biggr)\hspace{19mm}
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{1cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 7. \hspace{2mm} Complete $R$-operation for the three-loop
subgraphs
\end{center}
The complete $R$-operation of the three-loop diagram insertions corresponding
to the ones at the r.h.s. of eq.\ (\ref{eq:IR}) is given in Fig.\ 7.
Graphs in the brackets correspond to two- and three-loop
counterterms. There is no one-loop divergent subgraph in
this particular diagram. Thus,
\begin{displaymath}
\biggl( G_{i} \biggr) \equiv {\cal K}R' \biggl\{ G_{i} \biggr\},
\end{displaymath}
where $G_{i}$ is any divergent subgraph of the given diagram.
It is easy to recognize that the two-loop subgraph in Fig.\ 7 does not have
subdivergences (only an overall one) and the corresponding counterterm
is simply the pole part of this subgraph
\vspace{7mm}
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal K}R' \biggl\{ \hspace{3cm} \biggr\} =
{\cal K}\biggl\{ \hspace{3cm} \biggr\}.
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{7mm}
Analogously, because of the topology, the three-loop counterterm
does not have a subdivergence and the
corresponding counterterm is the pole part of this diagram
\vspace{7mm}
\begin{displaymath}
{\cal K}R' \biggl\{ \hspace{3cm} \biggr\} =
{\cal K}\biggl\{ \hspace{3cm} \biggr\}.
\end{displaymath}
\vspace{7mm}
If, in general, a diagram contains divergent subgraphs,
then the recursive formula (\ref{eq:KR'}) should be used.
As a result of the above manipulations, we managed to reduce the
problem of calculation of the counterterm to the four-loop diagram
pictured in Fig.\ 6 to the calculation of several three-,
two- and one-loop diagrams shown in Fig.\ 7. Note, however that
the ``dots'' and ``dashes'' on the diagram lines make their
evaluation significantly more difficult. The computer programs for
analytical programming systems capable of handling such calculations are
the {\small SCHOONSCHIP} program {\small MINCER}
(Gorishny, Larin, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989; Surguladze, 1989b,c)
and the {\small FORM} program {\small HEPL}oops (Surguladze, 1992).
The latter is especially
well-suited for large scale calculations and is much more efficient
than the {\small MINCER} program.
It is important to stress that, in fact, it is sufficient to evaluate
only the ${\cal K}R'$ for the relevant three-loop subgraphs.
In other words, it is not necessary to calculate separately
three-loop counterterms
similar to the graph in the last brackets for the box A in Fig.\ 7.
Indeed, a more detailed analysis gives
\begin{equation}
R[G]=R'[G]-(1-D/2){\cal K}\left(\frac{1}{1-D/2}R'[G]\right),
\label{eq:CTrelation}
\end{equation}
where G is the corresponding three-loop subgraph. The above relation allows
simple computer implementation and facilitates calculations considerably.
The complete $R$-operation for each four-loop diagram generally
has the form
\begin{displaymath}
\left(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2}\right)^{4\varepsilon}f_4(\varepsilon)
-\sum_{l=1}^{3}\left(\frac{\mu^2}{Q^2}\right)^{(4-l)\varepsilon}
c_l(1/\varepsilon)f_{4-l}(\varepsilon),
\end{displaymath}
where $f_i(\varepsilon)$ is the result of the calculation of the corresponding
Feynman graphs including the last trivial loop integration and $c_l$ are
the $l$-loop counterterms, polynomials in $1/\varepsilon$.
As we already mentioned, in the MS type renormalization scheme, the
counterterm for a particular diagram is a polynomial in dimensional
parameters (see, e.g., the textbook by Collins, 1984 and references therein).
Thus, the terms of the
type $(1/\varepsilon)^n\ln^m(\mu^2/Q^2)$, which appear due to the expansion
of the factors $(\mu^2/Q^2)^{l\varepsilon}$ into the Laurent series in
$\varepsilon$, must be canceled in the final answer for the particular
diagram. This can be used to test the calculations at the graph-by-graph
level. Recall, that we calculate the counterterm $Z_{4,i}$
to the four-loop diagram.
Finally, for the contribution to the $Z_{\Pi}$ of the diagram pictured in
Fig.\ 6 we obtain the following result
\begin{displaymath}
\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^3\hspace{2mm}N_FC_F(C_F-C_A)(C_F-C_A/2)
\hspace{2mm} \frac{1}{3-2\varepsilon}
\hspace{2mm}
\biggl[4\frac{1}{\varepsilon^3}-26\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
+\frac{65}{4}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}-40\zeta(3)\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\biggr].
\end{displaymath}
The {\small CPU} time for the above diagram on a 0.8 MFlop {\small IBM}
compatible
mainframe was over 6 hours. The extended version of the program
{\small MINCER} for the system {\small SCHOONSCHIP} was used.
Note that the above result,
as well as the total result for the photon renormalization constant
does not depend on any modification of the
minimal subtraction prescription.
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Four-loop results}
In this subsection, we present results and some of the details
of the $O(\alpha_s^3)$ QCD evaluation of the ratio $R(s)$ in
electron-positron annihilation (Surguladze and Samuel, 1991a,b).
The total number of topologically distinct Feynman diagrams contributing
to $Z_{1,i}$ is 1, to $Z_{2,i}$ is 2, to $Z_{3,i}$ is 17 and to
$Z_{4,i}$ is 98. However, after application of the infrared rearrangement
procedure which,
as discussed above, involves differentiation twice with respect to the external
momentum of the diagram, the number of four-loop graphs which need to be
calculated increases to approximately 250. Furthermore, there are one-,
two- and three-loop diagrams, approximately 600, which need to be
calculated to subtract subdivergences (evaluate $R'$) for all
four-loop diagrams.
All analytical calculations of the four-loop diagrams have been done by
using the program, which is an extended version (Surguladze, 1989c) of
the program {\small MINCER} (Gorishny, Larin, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989;
Surguladze, 1989b). This version
includes new subprograms for 4th loop integration and
for ultraviolet renormalization.
Evaluation of one- and two-loop counterterms has
been done by using the program LOOPS
(Surguladze and Tkachov, 1989a). The above programs
are written on the algebraic programming systems {\small SCHOONSCHIP}
(Veltman, 1967; Strubbe, 1974)
and {\small REDUCE} (Hearn, 1973) respectively. The full calculation
took over 700 hours of {\small CPU} time on three {\small IBM} compatible
0.8 MFlop EC-1037 mainframes with
the {\small SCHOONSCHIP} system.
We have also recalculated some of the difficult
four-loop diagrams with {\small HEPL}oops - a new program for
analytical multiloop calculations (Surguladze, 1992).
The status of these and some other programs has been reviewed recently
in Surguladze (1994d).
In the diagram calculations
the Feynman gauge is used. The momentum integrations are performed
within the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ modification (Bardeen, Buras, Duke and Muta,
1978)
of the minimal subtraction prescription ('t Hooft, 1973),
which amounts to formally
setting $\gamma=\zeta(2)=\log4\pi=0$. A discussion of the scheme dependence
of the results is given at the end of this section and in section 9.
The full graph-by-graph results will be published elsewhere.
The analytical result for the four-loop photon renormalization constant
reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize ph}}
\equiv 1+\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}Z_{\Pi}=} \nonumber\\
&& 1 +N_F\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}
\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl\{ -\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon}(-2C_F)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggr)^2\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
\biggl(\frac{22}{9}C_FC_A-\frac{8}{9}NTC_F\biggr)
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\biggl(\frac{2}{3}C_F^2-\frac{133}{27}C_FC_A
+\frac{44}{27}NTC_F\biggr)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon^3}
\biggl(-\frac{121}{27}C_FC_A^2+\frac{88}{27}NTC_FC_A
-\frac{16}{27}N^2T^2C_F\biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}\biggl(-\frac{11}{9}C_F^2C_A+\frac{2381}{162}
C_FC_A^2-\frac{14}{9}NTC_F^2-\frac{778}{81}NTC_FC_A
+\frac{88}{81}N^2T^2C_F\biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad +\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\biggl(\frac{23}{2}C_F^3
+\biggl(-\frac{430}{27}+\frac{88}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)C_F^2C_A
+\biggl(-\frac{5815}{972}
-\frac{88}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)C_FC_A^2 \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{338}{27}-\frac{176}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)NTC_F^2
+\biggl(\frac{769}{243}
+\frac{176}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)NTC_FC_A
+\frac{308}{243}N^2T^2C_F\biggr)\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad + O(\alpha_s^4) \biggr\}
+\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\biggr)^3\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{d^{abc}}{4}\biggr)^2\biggl(-\frac{176}{9}
+\frac{128}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)\frac{1}{\varepsilon}.
\label{eq:Zanalres}
\end{eqnarray}
It should be stressed that the Riemann $\zeta$-functions $\zeta(4)$ and
$\zeta(5)$, which appear at the individual graph level cancel in the
above expression. Moreover, as we have observed, the $\zeta(4)$ has
disappeared within each gauge invariant set of diagrams. Note
that $\zeta(3)$ disappears
for QED ($C_F=1, C_A=0, T=1$) except the last term, which comes
from the ``light-by-light'' type diagrams (Fig.\ 8).
The diagrams pictured in Fig.\ 8 are some of the most complicated ones
and the computation of each of them requires over 80h of {\small CPU} time.
Note, however, that the second and fourth diagrams in Fig.\ 8 differ
correspondingly from the first and third ones only by the SU(N) group weights.
So, in fact, only two of them have been calculated.
The result (\ref{eq:Zanalres}) does not depend on the particular
modification of the minimal subtraction prescription.
\vspace{35mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 8. \hspace{2mm} ``Light-by-light'' type diagrams
\end{center}
\vspace{5mm}
In order to evaluate $R(s)$ to $O(\alpha_s^3)$, besides
the four-loop $Z_{\Pi}$ we calculate the unrenormalized
hadronic vacuum polarization function $\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}(Q^2)$
to the three-loop level. We get the following analytical result in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme.
\newpage
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\Pi^{\mbox{\scriptsize B}}
\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}
,\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}\biggr)=}
\nonumber\\
&& N_F\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl\{
\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}
{Q^2}\biggr)^\varepsilon
\biggl[
\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{20}{9}+\frac{112}{27}\varepsilon
+\frac{656}{81}\varepsilon^2
-\frac{28}{9}\zeta(3)\varepsilon^2 \biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{4\pi}\biggr)
\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny
MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\biggr)^{2\varepsilon}
C_{F}\biggl[ 2\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{55}{3}-16\zeta(3)
+\varepsilon \biggl(\frac{1711}{18}-\frac{152}{3}\zeta(3)
-24\zeta(4) \biggr) \biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\tiny B}}}
{4\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\mu_{\overline{\mbox{\tiny MS}}}^2}{Q^2}\biggr)^{3\varepsilon}
\biggl[ C_{F}^{2}\biggl(
-\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}-\frac{286}{9}
-\frac{296}{3}\zeta(3)+160\zeta(5) \biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+C_{F}C_{A} \biggl(\frac{44}{9}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
+\frac{1948}{27}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
-\frac{176}{3}\zeta(3)\frac{1}{\varepsilon}+\frac{50339}{81}
-\frac{3488}{9}\zeta(3)-88\zeta(4)
-\frac{80}{3}\zeta(5) \biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad
+NTC_F \biggl( -\frac{16}{9}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
-\frac{704}{27}\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
+\frac{64}{3}\zeta(3)\frac{1}{\varepsilon}-\frac{17668}{81}
+\frac{1216}{9}\zeta(3)+32\zeta(4) \biggr) \biggr]
\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Pi3lres}
\end{eqnarray}
The above result depends on the particular modifications of the
minimal subtraction prescription, unlike the result for the renormalization
constant (\ref{eq:Zanalres}).
Substituting the expressions for the relevant $Z_{i,j}$ and $\Pi_{i,j}$,
extracted by comparing eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Zanalres}) and (\ref{eq:Pi3lres})
to eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Zexpans}) and (\ref{eq:Piexpans}),
into eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rmain}) and recalling the values for
$\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ from eq.\ (\ref{eq:beta}) we get the following
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ analytical result for $R(s)$ at the four-loop level
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{R^{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}(s)=} \nonumber\\
&& N_F\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl\{ 1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{4\pi}\biggr)(3C_F) \nonumber\\
&& \quad +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{4\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[C_F^2\biggl(-\frac{3}{2}\biggr)
+C_FC_A\biggl(\frac{123}{2}-44\zeta(3)\biggr)
+NTC_F(-22+16\zeta(3))\biggr] \nonumber\\
&& \quad +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{4\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[C_F^3\biggl(-\frac{69}{2}\biggr)
+C_F^2C_A(-127-572\zeta(3)+880\zeta(5)) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+C_FC_A^2\biggl(\frac{90445}{54}-\frac{10948}{9}\zeta(3)
-\frac{440}{3}\zeta(5)\biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+NTC_F^2(-29+304\zeta(3)-320\zeta(5)) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+NTC_FC_A\biggl(-\frac{31040}{27}+\frac{7168}{9}\zeta(3)
+\frac{160}{3}\zeta(5)\biggr) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{15mm}
+N^2T^2C_F\biggl(\frac{4832}{27}
-\frac{1216}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)
-\pi^2C_F\biggl(\frac{11}{3}C_A
-\frac{4}{3}NT\biggr)^2\biggr]+O(\alpha_s^4)\biggr\}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{4\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2\biggl(\frac{d_{abc}}{4}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{176}{3}-128\zeta(3)\biggr]
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:Ranalytic0}
\end{eqnarray}
The logarithmic contributions are absorbed in the running coupling by
taking $\mu^2=s$. Those contributions will be presented explicitly in
section 9. Note that $\zeta(5)$ appears in the final result due to
the contributions from $\Pi_{3,0}$. The last term
$\sim (\sum_{f}Q_f)^2$ comes
from the so called ``light-by-light'' type diagrams (Fig.\ 8).
For standard QCD with the SU$_{c}$(3) gauge group we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-26mm}
R^{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}(s)=3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl\{ 1
+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{365}{24}-11\zeta(3)-N\biggl(\frac{11}{12}
-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)\biggr]}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\frac{87029}{288}-\frac{121}{8}\zeta(2)
-\frac{1103}{4}\zeta(3)+\frac{275}{6}\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{19mm} +N\biggl(-\frac{7847}{216}+\frac{11}{6}\zeta(2)
+\frac{262}{9}\zeta(3)-\frac{25}{9}\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{19mm}
+N^2\biggl(\frac{151}{162}-\frac{1}{18}\zeta(2)
-\frac{19}{27}\zeta(3)\biggr)\biggr]
\biggr\} \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{-18mm}
+\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\frac{55}{72}-\frac{5}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr]
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:Ranalytic1}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, taking into account the values for the relevant Riemann $\zeta$
-functions, $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$, $\zeta(3)=1.2020569...$ and
$\zeta(5)=1.0369278...$ we obtain the numerical form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{R^{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}(s)
=3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl[1+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^2(1.9857-0.1153N)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{27mm}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
(-6.6368-1.2001N-0.0052N^2)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{8mm}
-\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3 1.2395
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:Rnumerical}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that only 19 four-loop diagrams contribute
to the term $\sim N$ and 2 four-loop diagrams contribute to the term
$\sim N^2$. The most complicated diagrams are pictured in Fig.\ 9.
The {\small CPU} time for each of them was over 100h and
the intermediate expression had as many as $\sim$ $10^5-10^6$ terms.
\vspace{4cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 9. \hspace{2mm} Some of the most complicated diagrams
\end{center}
\vspace{5mm}
It is known, that the perturbative coefficients for $R(s)$ are scheme
dependent. The above result was obtained in the modified minimal subtraction,
the so-called $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme introduced by Bardeen,
Buras, Duke and
Muta (1978). While the scheme-scale dependence problem will be discussed
in section 9, here we present the results for a couple of other
versions of the
minimal subtraction scheme. First, we consider the so called G scheme
(Chetyrkin and Tkachov, 1979, 1981;
Chetyrkin, Kataev and Tkachov, 1980),
which is convenient for practical
multiloop calculations.
The G scheme is defined in such a way that
the trivial one-loop integral in this scheme is
\begin{displaymath}
\mu^{2\varepsilon}\int\frac{d^{4-2\varepsilon}p}{(2\pi)^{4-2\varepsilon}}
\frac{1}{p^2(p-k)^2}=\frac{1}{(4\pi)^2} \hspace{1mm}
\biggl(\frac{\mu^2}{k^2}\biggr)^{\varepsilon}
\hspace{1mm} \frac{1}{\varepsilon}.
\end{displaymath}
The result for $R(s)$ in this scheme is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
R^{\mbox{\scriptsize G}}(s)=3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl[1+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^2(-3.514+0.218N)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{26mm}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
(-10.980-0.692N+0.029N^2)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{7mm}
-\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3 1.240
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:RGnumerical}
\end{eqnarray}
The parametrization of the running coupling in the above equation has the
same form as in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Asparametr}). However, the parameter $\Lambda$
has to be changed to some other parameter $\Lambda_G$.
Finally, in the original MS scheme ('t~Hooft, 1973) we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
R^{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}(s)=3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl[1+\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^2(7.359-0.441N)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{26mm}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
(56.026-8.778N+0.176N^2)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{7mm}
-\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s)}{\pi}\biggr)^3 1.240
+O(\alpha_s^4).
\label{eq:RMSnumerical}
\end{eqnarray}
As one can see, starting from $O(\alpha_s^2)$ the results heavily
depend on the choice of the particular modifications of the
minimal subtraction scheme. This dependence, called renormalization
group ambiguity of perturbative results is an important problem and
deserves special consideration.
We will return to this issue in section 9.
Concluding this section, we mention once again that the results of the
above described calculation of the four-loop correction
to the $R(s)$ have been published in Surguladze and Samuel (1991a,b)
and independently
\footnote{See however the discussion in the last three paragraphs
of section 3 in the review article by Surguladze (1994d).}
in Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1991) and hence, most likely, the
above results are reliable. Interesting relations between the radiative
corrections for different observables, found by
Brodsky and Lu (1994, 1995) serve, in particular,
as another confirmation of our results.
\vspace{7mm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf \hspace{2mm}
$\Gamma(\tau^{-}\rightarrow \nu_{\tau}+\mbox{hadrons})$
to $O(\alpha^{3}_{s})$}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The other important inclusive process for phenomenology and testing
the Standard Model is the hadronic decay of the $\tau$ lepton (Fig.\ 10).
For a recent review see, for instance, Pich (1994a). For earlier references
see Altarelli (1992), Marciano (1992), and Pich (1991).
\vspace{57mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 10. \hspace{2mm} Hadronic decay of the $\tau$-lepton
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
In this section, using our result of four-loop calculation of the
$\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize{tot}}}(e^{+}e^{-} \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$
(Surguladze and Samuel, 1991a,b),
we evaluate the hadronic decay rate of the $\tau$ lepton
to $O(\alpha_{s}^3)$ in perturbative QCD (Pich, 1990;
Gorishny, Kataev and Larin, 1991; Samuel and Surguladze, 1991;
see also Braaten, Narison and Pich, 1991; Pich, 1992a,b;
Diberder and Pich, 1992a,b; Pivovarov, 1992b).
We also comment on the status of the nonperturbative corrections
to this quantity.
We follow the method first suggested by Tsai (1971), Shankar (1977), and
Lam and Yan (1977) for theoretical evaluation of heavy lepton decay rates.
This method has been further developed for the $\tau$ lepton including the
higher order perturbative corrections and involving the operator product
expansion technique (Wilson, 1969) to analyze the nonperturbative
contributions (Schilcher and Tran, 1984; Braaten, 1988; Narison and Pich,
1988).
As was shown in the above works, combining the operator product expansion
technique and analyticity properties of the correlation function of quark
currents, the ratio
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau}=\frac{\Gamma(\tau^{-}\rightarrow\nu_{\tau}+\mbox{hadrons})}
{\Gamma(\tau^{-}\rightarrow\nu_{\tau}e^{-}\overline{\nu}_{e})}
\label{eq:Rtaudef}
\end{equation}
is calculable in perturbative QCD. Strictly speaking, besides the QCD
perturbative parts the nonperturbative and weak contributions should be
included to estimate $R_{\tau}$. There are instanton
contributions as well. However, it was shown recently by
Nason and Porrati (1993) (see also Kartvelishvili
and Margvelashvili, 1995) that
these contributions are completely negligible due to the chiral
suppression factor $m_{u}m_{d}m_{s}/M_{\tau}^2$. The
$R_{\tau}$ can be written as the following sum
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau}=R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}
+R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{nonpert}}}
+R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{weak}}}.
\label{eq:Rtausum}
\end{equation}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Perturbative QCD contributions}
The quantity $R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}$
can be expressed as the following
integral over the invariant
mass of the hadronic decay products of the $\tau$ lepton
(Lam and Yan, 1977; Braaten, 1988)
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}
=\frac{3}{4\pi}\int_{0}^{M_{\tau}^2}\frac{ds}{M_{\tau}^2}
\biggl(1-\frac{s}{M_{\tau}^2}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\biggl(1+2\frac{s}{M_{\tau}^2}\biggr)\mbox{Im}\Pi^{T}(s+i0)
+\mbox{Im}\Pi^{L}(s+i0)\biggr],
\label{eq:IntM}
\end{equation}
where $M_{\tau}$ is the mass of the $\tau$ lepton. The functions
$\Pi^T$ and $\Pi^L$ are the transverse and longitudinal parts of the
correlation function of weak currents of quarks coupled to W boson.
In fact, $\Pi^{T,L}$ are the appropriate combinations of vector and
axial parts corresponding to the
vector and axial currents of u, d, s light quarks (for details
see, e.g., Pich, 1994a). The expression for
$R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}$ in the form of
(\ref{eq:IntM}) is not quite useful. The problem is that the correlation
functions involved can not be calculated at low energies because of the
large nonperturbative effects that invalidate perturbative approach.
However, simple analyticity properties of the correlation functions
allow us to evaluate the integral in (\ref{eq:IntM}). Indeed, the function
$\Pi$ is analytic in the complex $s$ plane everywhere except the positive
real axis. According to the Cauchy integral theorem, an integral over $s$
along
the closed contour $C_1+C_2$ (Fig.\ 11) of the product of $\Pi(s)$ with
any nonsingular function $f(s)$ is zero.
\vspace{63mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 11. \hspace{2mm} Integration contour
\end{center}
On the other hand, the imaginary
part of the correlation function is proportional to its
discontinuity across the
positive real axis. So, the following relation holds
\begin{equation}
\int_{0}^{M_\tau^2} \hspace{1mm} ds \hspace{1mm} f(s)\mbox{Im}\Pi(s)
= \frac{1}{2i} \int_{C_1} \hspace{1mm} ds \hspace{1mm} f(s)\Pi(s)
= -\frac{1}{2i} \int_{C_2} \hspace{1mm} ds \hspace{1mm} f(s)\Pi(s),
\label{eq:disc}
\end{equation}
where the $C_2$ is the circle of radius $\mid s\mid =M_{\tau}^2$ (Fig.\ 11).
The benefit of the above relation is that
in the r.h.s. one needs to calculate the correlation function
for $\mid s\mid$ at $M_{\tau}^2$. Hopefully, $M_{\tau}$ is large enough
to use the operator product expansion in powers of $1/M_{\tau}^2$
and the $\alpha_s(M_{\tau})$ is small enough to use perturbative
expansion in $\alpha_s$.
Then the perturbative method can, in principle, be used to calculate
the leading term in the operator product expansion and the higher twist terms
can be estimated semi-phenomenologically.
Using eq.\ (\ref{eq:disc}), the perturbative part of the ratio
$R_{\tau}$
can be expressed by an
integral over the invariant mass $s$ of the final state hadrons
along the contour $C_2$ in the complex $s$-plane (Fig.\ 11).
In the chiral limit, $m_{u}=m_{d}=m_{s}=0$, the currents are conserved
and the longitudinal part of the $\Pi(s)$ is absent.
In the axial channel $\Pi^L(s)=O(m_f^2/s)$
(see section 4). For the $R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}$ we get
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}=\frac{3i}{8\pi}\int_{C_2}\frac{ds}
{M_{\tau}^2}
\biggl(1-\frac{s}{M_{\tau}^2}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\biggl(1+2\frac{s}{M_{\tau}^2}\biggr)\Pi^{T}(s)\biggr].
\label{eq:Contourint}
\end{equation}
Note that the factor $(1-s/M_{\tau}^2)^2$ suppresses the contribution
from the region near the positive real axis where the $\Pi(s)$ has a
branch cut (Braaten, 1988). To simplify the description, we use
the chiral limit which is a perfect approximation for $R_{\tau}$.
On the other hand, the mass corrections can be included with the calculation
very similar to that in section 4. The actual calculations
show (Chetyrkin and Kwiatkowski, 1993; see also recent analyses in Pich, 1994a)
that the effects of quark mass corrections on $R_{\tau}$ are
well below 1\% and can be neglected. Note also that, in the massless
quark limit the contributions from vector and axial channels to $\Pi$
coincide at any given order of perturbation theory and evidently
the results are flavor independent. So, in this case, for evaluation of
$\Pi^T(s)$ in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Contourint})
we use our earlier
results for the electromagnetic two-point correlation function that
contributes to R(s) in electron-positron annihilation (section 6).
The function $\Pi^T(s)$ can be related to the
$D(s)$ function defined in section 2 as follows
\begin{equation}
-\frac{3}{4}s\frac{d}{ds}\Pi^T(s)=\frac{\sum_{f=d,s} \mid V_{uf}\mid^2}
{\sum_{f}Q_f^2}D(s),
\label{eq:Corrfunct}
\end{equation}
where $V_{ud}$ and $V_{us}$ are the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements.
$\mid V_{ud}\mid^2+\mid V_{us}\mid^2=0.998\pm 0.002$ (see, e.g., Pich, 1994b).
The factor in the r.h.s of eq.\ (\ref{eq:Corrfunct}) is due to the replacement
of the electromagnetic currents by charged weak currents in the correlation
function. Note also that evidently the ``light-by-light'' type graphs
(Fig.\ 8) do not contribute to the decay width of the $\tau$ lepton.
Thus, the term $\sim (\sum_{f}Q_f)^2$ drops out in the $D$ function.
The perturbative coefficients of $D(s)$ have been
given in the previous section up to the four-loop level
in the vector channel
(see eqs.\ (\ref{eq:RGDsolut}) and (\ref{eq:Ranalytic1}) ).
Performing the contour integration in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Contourint})
using the relations (\ref{eq:Corrfunct}) and (\ref{eq:RGDsolut}),
and replacing $\alpha_s(s)$ by $\alpha_s(M_{\tau})$ using the
evolution equation (\ref{eq:Astransform}), we obtain in terms of
perturbative coefficients of $R(s)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}=
\frac{\mid V_{ud}\mid^2+\mid V_{us}\mid^2}{\sum_{f}Q_{f}^{2}}
\biggl\{R_{0}
+\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}R_1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl(R_{2}+\frac{19}{12}\beta_0 R_1\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[R_3+\frac{19}{6}R_2\beta_0+\frac{19}{12}R_1\beta_1
+\biggl(\frac{265}{72}-\frac{\pi^2}{3}\biggr)R_1\beta_0^2\biggr]
+O(\alpha_s^4)\biggr\},
\label{eq:Rtaumain}
\end{eqnarray}
where, as we have already mentioned, the term $\sim (\sum_{f}Q_f)^2$
should be omitted in $R_3$.
Substituting the relevant expressions for $R_{i}$ and $\beta_{i}$
from the previous sections, we obtain the $O(\alpha_s^3)$ analytical result
in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}(M_{\tau}^2)=
N_F(\mid V_{ud}\mid^2+\mid V_{us}\mid^2)\biggl\{ 1
+\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}
\biggl(\frac{3}{4}C_F\biggr)}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[C_F^2\biggl(-\frac{3}{32}\biggr)
+C_FC_A\biggl(\frac{947}{192}-\frac{11}{4}\zeta(3)\biggr)
+NTC_F\biggl(-\frac{85}{48}+\zeta(3)\biggr)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[C_F^3\biggl(-\frac{69}{128}\biggr)
+C_F^2C_A\biggl(-\frac{1733}{768}-\frac{143}{16}\zeta(3)
+\frac{55}{4}\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+C_FC_A^2\biggl(\frac{559715}{13824}-\frac{2591}{96}\zeta(3)
-\frac{55}{24}\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+NTC_F^2\biggl(-\frac{125}{192}+\frac{19}{4}\zeta(3)-5\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{34mm}
+NTC_FC_A\biggl(-\frac{24359}{864}+\frac{73}{4}\zeta(3)
+\frac{5}{6}\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{5mm}
+N^2T^2C_F\biggl(\frac{3935}{864}
-\frac{19}{6}\zeta(3)\biggr)
-\frac{\pi^2}{64}
C_F\biggl(\frac{11}{3}C_A
-\frac{4}{3}NT\biggr)^2\biggr]+O(\alpha_s^4)\biggr\}.
\label{eq:Rtauanalytic0}
\end{eqnarray}
Within the standard QCD with the SU$_{c}$(3) gauge group we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm} R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}(M_{\tau}^2)=
3(0.998\pm 0.002)\biggl\{ 1
+\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
\biggl[\frac{313}{16}-11\zeta(3)-N\left(\frac{85}{72}
-\frac{2}{3}\zeta(3)\right)\biggr]
\nonumber\\
&& \quad
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\frac{544379}{1152}-\frac{121}{8}\zeta(2)-\frac{8917}{24}\zeta(3)
+\frac{275}{6}\zeta(5)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{17mm}
+N\biggl(-\frac{8203}{144}+\frac{11}{6}\zeta(2)
+\frac{733}{18}\zeta(3)-\frac{25}{9}\zeta(5)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{17mm}
+N^2\biggl(\frac{3935}{2592}-\frac{1}{18}\zeta(2)
-\frac{19}{18}\zeta(3)\biggr) \biggr]
+O(\alpha_s^4) \biggr\}_{N=3},
\label{eq:Rtauanalytic1}
\end{eqnarray}
and a numerical form reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{pert}}}(M_{\tau}^2)=}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{-21mm}
3(0.998\pm 0.002)\biggl[ 1
+\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau})}{\pi}
+5.2023
\left(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^2
+26.366
\left(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^3
+O(\alpha_s^4) \biggr]
\label{eq:Rtaunumer}
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{5mm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf On the Nonperturbative and Electroweak contributions}
\indent
The nonperturbative contributions to $R_{\tau}$ can be expressed as
a power series of corrections in $1/M_{\tau}^2$
\begin{equation}
R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{nonpert}}}
\sim \frac{C_2{\cal f}(m_f^2(M_{\tau})
,\theta_c)}{M_{\tau}^2}
+\sum_{i\geq2}\frac{C_{2i}<O_{2i}>_0}{M_{\tau}^{2i}},
\label{eq:Rtaunonp}
\end{equation}
where the $m_f$ are $u, d, s$ running quark masses, $<O_{2i}>_{0}$ are
the so-called vacuum condensates, which can be obtained
phenomenologically
and the $C_i$ are their coefficient functions describing
short distance effects. Note that, in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rtaunonp})
we formally include part of the pure perturbative corrections
(the first term) which is due to the nonvanishing $u, d, s$ quark
masses. These corrections for the $u$ and $d$ quarks are completely
negligible. The contribution coming from the $s$ quark is suppressed by
$\sin^2\theta_{C}$ and is also below 1\% (Pich, 1990).
Presently, the only way to estimate the
strong interaction effects in the condensate contributions
is by perturbation
theory. The coefficient functions $C_{2i}$ are asymptotic
perturbative series in terms of $\alpha_s$. In order to estimate
the nonperturbative contributions, one needs to sum up the
power series of the QCD perturbative series.
In the previous section we have described the calculation of the
high-order perturbative QCD contributions to the coefficient functions
of the dimension 4 power corrections (gluon, $<\alpha_sG^2>_0$
and quark, $<m_f\overline{q}_fq_f>_0$ condensates).
It was shown (Loladze, Surguladze and Tkachov, 1985; Surguladze and Tkachov,
1989b, 1990) that the high-order perturbative
corrections to some of the coefficient functions are too large.
For instance, for the coefficient function of the condensate
$<m_s\overline{s}s>_0$ in the vector channel (see eq.\ (\ref{eq:CqqnewV}))
$\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}
\approx 30\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}$.
This indicates that the renormalization group invariant criteria to the
perturbative calculability of the QCD contributions to the coefficient
function is not fulfilled. The coefficient functions of the
dimension 6 condensates are calculated up to $O(\alpha_s)$
(Lanin, Spiridonov and Chetyrkin, 1986) and to analyze the corresponding
series one needs at least the next to leading correction.
The above uncertainty in coefficient functions $C_{2i}$ allows one
to estimate the condensate contributions probably not better than their
order of magnitude. There is another source of theoretical uncertainties
in the evaluation of condensate contributions of dimension 6
and higher, where the operator basis of expansion includes a large
number of operators. Presently, there are no precise methods to estimate
their matrix elements. For the matrix elements of four quark operators
(dimension 6) the vacuum saturation approximation (Shifman,
Vainshtein and Zakharov, 1979) is used to express them as
the square of the two-quark matrix elements. However, the
vacuum saturation approximation is not expected to be precise
enough in order to use it in the analyses of the tiny
nonperturbative contributions (see, e.g., analysis by Altarelli, 1992;
see also a brief discussion in Surguladze and Samuel, 1992b ).
Indeed, as it was found by Braaten (1988) and Pich (1990, 1992a,b, 1994a),
the nonperturbative corrections are below the $1\%$ level with large
theoretical error. The contributions of dim=4 condensates start
at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ and thus are suppressed by two powers of $\alpha_s$.
The dim=6 and dim=8 corrections are suppressed by the inverse powers
of $M_{\tau}$ ($M_{\tau}^6$ and $M_{\tau}^8$ respectively) and are small.
On the other hand, the corrections in vector and axial channels have
opposite signs and they largely cancel each other, so the total relative
error is even larger.
In the works by Pumplin (1989, 1990) it was shown that the uncertainty
due to threshold effects makes a significant contribution in the
theoretical error for $R_{\tau}$. In the works by Altarelli (1992) and
Altarelli, Nason and Ridolfi (1994) an ambiguity $\sim \Lambda^2/M_{\tau}^2$
is discussed. Earlier, Zakharov (1992) has argued that such dim=2 terms
in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rtaunonp}) can be generated by ultraviolet renormalons.
For an alternative point of view on the effects of possible dim=2 terms,
see Narison (1994). However, this issue is still a subject of intensive
discussions and likely is far from being settled.
Summarizing, we note that the above mentioned major
sources of theoretical uncertainties in the evaluation of small power
corrections makes certain restriction on the precision theoretical
prediction
of $R_{\tau}$ and consequently on $\alpha_{s}(M_{\tau})$.
Fortunately, the nonperturbative corrections are suppressed
and the hadronic decay of the $\tau$ still remains as a good
source to extract the low energy $\alpha_s$.
Finally, we note that the electroweak contributions
$R_{\tau}^{\mbox{\scriptsize{weak}}}$ were calculated
by Marciano and Sirlin (1988), and Braaten and Li (1990).
Those corrections contain logarithms of $M_{\tau}/M_{Z}$ and
are not negligible. The leading order electroweak corrections
give roughly $+2\%$ contributions to $R_{\tau}$
(see, e.g., Pich, 1994a).
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf \ \ \ Four-loop QED Renormalization Group
Functions}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we outline the calculation of the standard
QED renormalization group functions at the four-loop level in the
minimal and momentum subtraction schemes.
These quantities can be obtained as an intermediate result
of the calculations of $R(s)$, described in the previous sections,
by replacing the SU$_{\mbox{\scriptsize c}}$(3) gauge group invariants for the
corresponding diagrams in a proper way. The results of two
independent calculations of the four-loop QED $\beta$-function
by Gorishny, Kataev and Larin (1990), and by Surguladze (1990)
have been reported in the joint publications by
Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze (1991a,c).
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf General formulae}
\indent
The Lagrangian density of standard QED is
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{L_{QED}=} \nonumber\\
&& -\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
+i\sum_{j}\overline{\psi}_j\gamma^{\mu}D_{\mu}\psi_{j}
-\sum_{j}m_{j}\overline{\psi}_j\psi_j
-\frac{1}{2\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}}}
\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu}\partial_{\mu}A^{\mu},
\label{eq:QEDlagr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ and
$D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}-ieA_{\mu}$. $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}}$ is the gauge
parameter,
$m_j$ are the fermion masses, $\psi$ and $A_{\mu}$ are the fermion and
photon fields and $e$ is the electric charge.
Renormalization constants are defined by the relations
\begin{displaymath}
\psi_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} = \mu^{-\varepsilon}\sqrt{Z_{\mbox{\tiny{F}}}}\psi,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
A^{\mu}_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} =
\mu^{-\varepsilon}\sqrt{Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}}A^{\mu},
\label{eq:QEDrenormal}
\end{equation}
\begin{displaymath}
\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} =\mu^{2\varepsilon}
Z_{\alpha} \alpha \hspace{1cm} (\alpha=e^2/4\pi),
\end{displaymath}
\begin{displaymath}
\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{B}}} =
Z_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}} \alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}}.
\end{displaymath}
For the fermion-fermion-photon vertex renormalization one has
\begin{equation}
\mu^{-2\varepsilon}Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{vert}}}
e\overline{\psi}\gamma_{\mu}A^{\mu}\psi
=\mu^{-2\varepsilon}\sqrt{Z_{\alpha}Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}}
Z_{\mbox{\tiny{F}}}e\overline{\psi}\gamma_{\mu}A^{\mu}\psi.
\label{eq:FFPH}
\end{equation}
According to Ward identity in QED (Ward, 1950)
$Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{vert}}}=Z_{\mbox{\tiny{F}}}$, which implies
from eq.\ (\ref{eq:FFPH}) the identity
\begin{equation}
Z_{\alpha}Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}=1.
\label{eq:QEDWI}
\end{equation}
{}From eqs.\ (\ref{eq:QEDrenormal}) and (\ref{eq:QEDWI}) we get
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}
=\mu^{2\varepsilon}Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}^{-1}\alpha.
\label{eq:QEDcouplren}
\end{equation}
The gauge invariance of the QED lagrangian implies the absence of the
conterterm for the gauge fixing term in (\ref{eq:QEDlagr}) and, thus,
$Z_{\mbox{\tiny{G}}}=Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}$.
Using the relation (\ref{eq:QEDcouplren}) and the renormalization
group invariance of ``bare'' coupling
$\mu^2 d\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}/d\mu^2=0$, taking into account that
$Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}$ depends on $\mu$ only via $\alpha$ and also
the standard definition of the QED MS $\beta$-function
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{MS}}}(\alpha)
=\frac{1}{4\pi}\mu^2\frac{d\alpha}{d\mu^2}
\biggr|_{\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}\mbox{\scriptsize{ fixed}}},
\label{eq:QEDbeta}
\end{equation}
we obtain a convenient expression for the further evaluation of the
$\beta$ function
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{MS}}}(\alpha)=
-\frac{1}{4\pi}\lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0}
\frac{\varepsilon \alpha}{1-\alpha\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}
\log Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}}.
\label{eq:QEDmain}
\end{equation}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Four-loop results}
\noindent
The photon field renormalization constant $Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}$
can be found from the
QED relation, analogous to eq.\ (\ref{eq:Zanalres}), where only 58
QED four-loop diagrams contribute to $\Pi(\mu^2/Q^2,\alpha)$.
The prescription for the evaluation of the diagram contributions to the
$\Pi_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}$ is analogous to the one described in section 2.
The total {\small CPU} time on the three {\small IBM} compatible mainframes was
approximately
400 hours.
Setting $C_F=1$, $C_A=0$, $T=1$ and $\alpha_s=\alpha$ in
eq.\ (\ref{eq:Zanalres}), we obtain the four-loop photon
renormalization constant in QED, corresponding to the {\em minimal
subtraction} prescription
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-1mm}Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}=
N-\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\frac{4}{3\varepsilon}N
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^2
\frac{2}{\varepsilon}N
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^3
\biggl[\frac{8}{9\varepsilon^2}N
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\biggl(\frac{2}{3}+\frac{44}{27}N\biggr) \biggr]N}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-4mm}
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^4
\biggl\{\frac{16}{27\varepsilon^3}N^2+\frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}
\biggl(\frac{14}{9}N-\frac{88}{81}N^2\biggr)
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon}
\biggl[\frac{23}{2}-\biggl(\frac{190}{9}-\frac{208}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)N
+\frac{308}{243}N^2 \biggr]\biggr\}N \nonumber\\
\label{eq:ZQED}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the expression for $Z_{\mbox{\scriptsize{ph}}}$ into eq.\
(\ref{eq:QEDmain}),
we obtain the following result for the four-loop QED $\beta$-function
in the MS type schemes
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-23mm}\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{MS}}}(\alpha)=
\frac{4}{3}N\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^2
+4N\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^3
-N\left(2+\frac{44}{9}N\right)\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^4}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{17mm}
-N\biggl[46-\biggl(\frac{760}{27}-\frac{832}{9}\zeta(3)\biggr)N
+\frac{1232}{243}N^2\biggr]\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^5.
\label{eq:betaQED}
\end{eqnarray}
It is useful for further applications to present the result for the
Johnson-Willey-Baker $F_1$
function (Johnson, Willey and Baker, 1967; Baker and Johnson, 1971;
Johnson and Baker, 1973). This function can be obtained from the result for
$\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{MS}}}$
by subtracting the contributions of the diagrams with fermion loop
insertions into the photon lines and reducing the power in $\alpha/4\pi$
by one. We obtain
\begin{equation}
F_1(\alpha)= \frac{4}{3}\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)
+4\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^2
-2\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^3
-46\left(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\right)^4.
\label{eq:QEDF1}
\end{equation}
Note that all coefficients up to four-loop level are rational numbers.
The results for most of the individual graphs do contain
transcendental $\zeta(3)$, $\zeta(4)$ and $\zeta(5)$. The
$\zeta(4)$ and $\zeta(5)$ cancel within each gauge-invariant set of
diagrams.
The three-loop results agree with the ones obtained by de~Rafael and Rosner
(1974).
It is possible to recalculate the MS QED $\beta$ function in the form of
the Gell-Man-Low $\Psi(\alpha)$ function - the QED $\beta$ function in the
MOM scheme. See details in Gorishny, Kataev, Larin and Surguladze (1991a)
(see also Adler, 1972; de~Rafael and Rosner, 1974).
We obtain the Gell-Mann-Low $\Psi$ function at the four-loop level
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-9mm}\Psi(\alpha)=
\frac{4}{3}N\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^2
+4N\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^3
-N\biggl[2
+\biggl(\frac{184}{9}-\frac{64}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)N\biggr]
\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^4}
\nonumber\\
&&
-N\biggl[46-\biggl(104+\frac{512}{3}\zeta(3)
-\frac{1280}{3}\zeta(5)\biggr)N
-\biggl(128-\frac{256}{3}\zeta(3)\biggr)N^2\biggr]
\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{4\pi}\biggr)^5. \nonumber\\
\label{eq:QEDpsi}
\end{eqnarray}
The $O(\alpha^4)$ result agrees with the one obtained
by Baker and Johnson (1969) and Acharya and Nigam (1978, 1985).
Recently, Broadhurst, Kataev and Tarasov (1993) have carried out
an additional
calculation necessary to convert the four-loop MS QED $\beta$ function
to the four-loop QED on-shell $\beta$ function, usually called
the Callan-Symanzik function $\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{CS}}}$
(Callan, 1970; Symanzik, 1970, 1971). This function is defined as
follows
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{CS}}}(\alpha)
=\frac{m_{e}}{\alpha}\frac{d\alpha}{d m_{e}}
\biggr|_{\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny{B}}}\mbox{\scriptsize{ fixed}}},
\label{eq:QEDbetaCS}
\end{equation}
where $m_{e}$ is the electron pole mass. The subtraction prescription
in this case requires all subtractions to be on-shell. The three-loop
$\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{CS}}}$ was calculated long ago
by de Rafael and Rosner (1974). The four-loop result has the following
form (Broadhurst, Kataev and Tarasov, 1993)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\beta_{\mbox{\tiny{QED}}}^{\mbox{\tiny{CS}}}(\alpha)=
\frac{2}{3}N\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)
+\frac{1}{2}N\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^2
-N\left(\frac{1}{16}+\frac{7}{9}N\right)
\left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^3}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-7mm}
-N\biggl[\frac{23}{64}-\biggl(\frac{1}{24}-\frac{5}{3}\zeta(2)
+\frac{8}{3}\zeta(2)\ln 2-\frac{35}{48}\zeta(3)\biggr)N
-\biggl(\frac{901}{648}-\frac{8}{9}\zeta(2)-\frac{7}{48}\zeta(3)\biggr)N^2
\biggr]
\biggl(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\biggr)^4 \nonumber\\
\label{eq:betaQEDCS}
\end{eqnarray}
\vspace{2cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
\section{\bf Renormalization Group
Ambiguity of Perturbative QCD Predictions}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In the previous sections we have demonstrated the calculation of
some of the important observables within the framework of
perturbative QCD. This involves calculation of a large number of
Feynman diagrams and requires a
a very large amount of computer and human resources.
For example, to $O(\alpha_{s}^{3})$ we have calculated 98
(effectively 250) four-loop Feynman diagrams. The next
order requires calculation of approximately 600-700 five-loop
diagrams. Calculations of such a scale are extremely difficult.
On the other hand, perturbative QCD series are asymptotic ones
and the question of how many orders need to be calculated, can be
answered only from estimates of remainders (see, e.g., the textbook by
Collins, 1984). Moreover, perturbative
coefficients beyond the two-loop level, as well as the expansion
parameter, are scheme-scale dependent. The scheme-scale ambiguity
- a fundamental property of the renormalization group calculations
in QCD, does not allow one to obtain reliable estimates
from the first few calculated terms without involving additional
criteria.
In this section we discuss the extraction of reliable
estimates for observable quantities within perturbation theory.
The problem of scheme-scale dependence of perturbative QCD predictions
will be considered first within the MS prescription and then we
outline a scheme invariant approach along the lines of Stevenson (1981a,b).
We apply the three known approaches for resolving the scheme-scale
ambiguity. As a result, we fix the scheme-scale parameter,
within the framework of MS prescription, for which all of the criteria tested
are satisfied for the quantity $R(s)$ at the four-loop level
(Surguladze and Samuel, 1993). On the other hand, we estimate the
theoretical error by using the scheme-scale dependence as a measure
of the theoretical uncertainty (Surguladze and Samuel, 1993;
Surguladze, 1994b). We also mention the recent discovery of
commensurate scale relations by Brodsky and Lu (1994, 1995).
These relations allow one to connect several physical observables,
providing important tests of QCD without scheme-scale ambiguity.
\vspace{1cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf Perturbative QCD series: How many loops should be
evaluated?}
The R-ratio in electron-positron annihilation is given within
perturbation theory in the following form
\begin{equation}
R(s)=r_0\left(1+r_1(\frac{s}{\mu^2})\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}
+r_2(\frac{s}{\mu^2}) (\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi})^2
+r_3(\frac{s}{\mu^2}) (\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi})^3 + ...\right).
\label{eq:Rgeneral}
\end{equation}
Our further discussion is quite general and can be applied to other
observables like R$_{\tau}$ or Higgs decay rates.
We consider high enough energies, where R is a function of a single
variable - the center-of-mass energy squared. Our aim is to
evaluate pure QCD effects in R, which start with the term $O(\alpha_s)$,
within the minimal subtraction prescription ('t Hooft, 1973).
We should stress here that the calculational methods allowing one to
evaluate perturbative corrections
up to the four-loop order (up to the five-loop in some cases)
is essentially based on some of the unique features of the MS prescription
and our choice seems to be well justified.
There is an ambiguity in the choice of renormalization scale parameter $\mu$.
Usually we set $\mu^2=s$ and absorb the large logarithms in the definition
of the running coupling. On the other hand, the choice $\mu^2=\chi s$
($\chi \equiv e^{t}$) for all $\chi$ gives equivalent expansions.
Evidently, the sum of ``all'' terms in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rgeneral}) does not
depend on the choice of $\mu$. However, in practice,
we deal with truncated series, where the sum has a nontrivial
dependence on the
choice of renormalization parameter. Here we keep the ``natural''
choice $\mu^2=s$ and the ambiguity is transferred to the prescription
$ \int d^4p \longrightarrow \int d^{4-2\varepsilon}p
(\mu^2 e^{(t+O(\varepsilon))})^{\varepsilon}$.
By changing $t$ one gets different MS type
schemes. One can always reexpand (\ref{eq:Rgeneral}) in a new scheme (with a
new $\Lambda$ in (\ref{eq:Asparametr}) ) and so redistribute the values of
$r_{i}$ ($i > 1$). All these schemes are equivalent. On the other hand,
a new scheme may be ``better'', but one can conclude this only based on the
knowledge of remainders. The problem of scheme-scale ambiguity which,
in fact, is a problem of remainders can be formulated as follows.
{\em How does one choose (``optimize'') the scheme (or $\Lambda$)
in order to make the remainder minimal in the series of the type
(\ref{eq:Rgeneral}) for the given range of energy and what is
the numerical uncertainty of the approximation (\ref{eq:Rgeneral})?}
Here one should also distinguish the following two questions.
First, what is the best accuracy to which the given quantity is
calculable via perturbation theory? Second, what is the accuracy of
the given approximation?
A few notes are in order. It is known that
perturbative QCD series are asymptotic ones.
No reliable estimates of the remainders are
known at present. However, it is known from the theory of asymptotic
series (see, e.g., Dingle, 1973) that
\begin{equation}
\mid \sum_{i=1}^{\cal N}r_i\alpha^i(s)-R(s)\mid=R_{\cal N}\rightarrow
\Delta R_{\mbox{\scriptsize{min}}},
\mbox{\hspace{2mm} when \hspace{2mm}} {\cal N}\rightarrow
{\cal N}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{opt}}}.
\label{eq:asestimate}
\end{equation}
This means that, the remainder $R_{\cal N}$ goes to its minimal
value $\Delta R_{\mbox{\scriptsize{min}}}$ when the number
of orders goes to its optimal
value ${\cal N}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{opt}}}$.
Inclusion of the next to ${\cal N}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{opt}}}$ orders
will lead away from the correct value. It is known (see, e.g., Dingle, 1973)
that for a sign-alternating asymptotic series the remainder can be estimated
by the first neglected term (or by the last included term).
However, it is still unknown if the QCD perturbative series
has this character. We assume as a hypothesis that within QCD one can
estimate the remainder by the first neglected or last included term.
Now, the minimal possible error, which defines the best accuracy of the
perturbation theory for the given quantity has an order of
$\Delta R_{\mbox{\scriptsize{min}}}\sim r_{{\cal N}+1}\alpha^{{\cal N}+1}(s)$,
${\cal N}\rightarrow {\cal N}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{opt}}}$.
Note that, both the number ${\cal N}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{opt}}}$
and the value of the $\Delta R_{\mbox{\scriptsize{min}}}$ depend on
the range of energy for the given process. We once again
emphasize that {\em the remainder depends on the choice of particular
scheme and scale parameters and its estimate makes sense only for
the ``optimized'' renormalization scheme which is unique for the
given physical observable}. In fact, it was argued (Stevenson, 1984, 1994)
that, the ``optimized'' series can still converge even when the series
in any fixed renormalization scheme is factorially divergent,
if the ``optimized'' couplant shrinks in higher orders
(see also Buckley, Duncan and Jones, 1993). However, whether this
applies to QCD is unknown.
\vspace{1cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf $R(s)$ within the one parametric family of the
MS type schemes and scale ambiguity problem}
Using the results of our four-loop calculations,
we obtain the analytical result for $R(s)$ with perturbative coefficients
explicitly depending on the scheme-scale parameter
(Surguladze and Samuel, 1993)
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-7mm}R(s,t)=R_0+\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}R_1
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
(R_2+\beta_0 R_1 t) } \nonumber\\
&& \hspace{33mm}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
[R_3-\frac{\pi^2}{3}\beta_0^2R_1
+(2\beta_0 R_2 + \beta_1 R_1)t+\beta_0^2 R_1 t^2]. \nonumber\\
\label{eq:Rstgen}
\end{eqnarray}
Recalling the values of the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
perturbative coefficients $R_i$ from
eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Rexpans}) and (\ref{eq:Ranalytic0}) and the $\beta_i$
coefficients from eq.\ (\ref{eq:beta}), we obtain numerically
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\hspace{-14mm}R(s,t)=
3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl\{ 1+
\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}
+\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}\biggr)^2
[(1.9857+2.75t)-N(0.1153+0.1667t)]} \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{3cm} +\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}\biggr)^3
[(-6.6369+17.2964t+7.5625t^2) \nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{50mm} -N(1.2001+2.0877t+0.9167t^2)
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{50mm} +N^{2}(-0.0052+0.0384t+0.0278t^2)]\biggr\}
\nonumber\\
&& \quad \hspace{12mm} -\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s(s,t)}{\pi}\biggr)^3 1.2395
+O(\alpha_s^4),
\label{eq:Rstnumer}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{s}(s,t)$ can be parametrized in the form of
(\ref{eq:Asparametr}) with $\mu=s$ and $\Lambda\rightarrow
\Lambda_t=e^{-t/2}\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize{MS}}}}$.
Obviously, $t=0$ corresponds to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme
( eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rnumerical}) ).
$t=\ln 4\pi-\gamma$
will transform the result to the original MS scheme ('t Hooft, 1973).
( eq.\ (\ref{eq:RMSnumerical}) ).
t=-2 corresponds to the G scheme introduced by Chetyrkin and Tkachov
(1979, 1981) ( eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGnumerical}) ).
Note that because of a one-parametric nature of the MS prescription,
the $t$-dependent terms in eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rstnumer}) would represent also
the scale dependence of the perturbative coefficients within the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ if one changes $t\rightarrow
\log\mu^2/s$ and takes $\alpha_s(s,t)$ with $s$ replaced by $\mu^2$ and $t=0$.
Several approaches were suggested to deal with the
scheme-scale-remainder problem. Among them we consider the following ones.
{\it Fastest Apparent Convergence} (FAC) (Grunberg, 1980, 1982, 1984),
where the next to leading perturbative correction is absorbed in
the definition of the ``effective'' running coupling and the scheme-scale
parameter is fixed accordingly.
{\it Principle of Minimal Sensitivity} (PMS) of the approximant
to the variation of nonphysical parameters
(Stevenson, 1981a,b, 1982, 1984;
see also Mattingly and Stevenson, 1992, 1994).
{\it Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie} (BLM) approach (Brodsky, Lepage
and Mackenzie, 1983), which suggests one
fix the scale by the size of the quark vacuum polarization
effects resulting in the independence of the next to leading order
perturbative correction of the number of quark flavors $N$.
For discussions of the above scheme-scale setting methods
see Celmaster and Stevenson (1983), Brodsky and Lu (1992), and
Stevenson (1992). The optimization of perturbation theory has previously
been studied by Kramer and Lampe (1988), and Bethke (1989) for jet cross
sections in electron positron annihilation. The optimized perturbation
theory is tested for different physical quantities in QED and QCD by
Field (1993). The scale ambiguity problem has been considered by Lu and
de Melo (1991) for the $\phi^{3}$ model. The scheme-scale ambiguity
problem for the quantities $R(s)$ and $R_{\tau}$ has been discussed by
Maxwell and Nicholls (1990), Chyla, Kataev and Larin (1991), and
Grunberg and Kataev (1992). Further study of the PMS method has been done
in Raczka (1995).
We apply the above methods to eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rgeneral})
and we find a scale which gives good results for all criteria
considered (Surguladze and Samuel, 1993).
We start by noting
that, in general, the renormalizatin scheme-scale dependence
of perturbative results are parametrized by
the scale parameter, say, $\mu$ and the renormalization
prescription dependent coefficients of $\beta$ function
(Stevenson, 1981a,b). We should stress however, that
the $\beta$ function is independent of any modification
of the MS type prescriptions, but starting from $\beta_2$,
the coefficients of $\beta$ function do depend on the
particular choice of subtraction prescription other than
MS.
In order to better visualize our discussion, we consider
first the optimization procedures within the MS prescription.
In other words, we fix the scheme dependent perturbative
coefficients of $\beta$ function to their MS values
and consider only the scale variation.
In Fig.\ 12 we have plotted $r_{3}(t)$ for different $N$
(see eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Rgeneral}) and (\ref{eq:Rstnumer})).
As one can see, within the region $t\sim(-1.5,-0.5)$ $r_3$ has a very
weak dependence on the number of flavors $N$ as well as on the
parameter $t$.
\vspace{9cm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 12. $r_{3}(t)$ for different $N$
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
Corresponding to the three-loop coefficient $r_2(t)$, straight
lines intersect in one point for $t\approx -0.7 $, which
is obvious from eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rstnumer}).
This value corresponds to the BLM result
(Brodsky, Lepage and Mackenzie, 1983)
$\mu^2=\mu^{2}_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}e^{0.710}$,
and at this scale
the flavor dependence is absorbed into the definition
of the coupling.
In Fig.\ 13 we have plotted the dependence of the partial sums
\begin{displaymath}
R_{n}(t)=\sum_{m=1}^{n}r_{m}(t)(\alpha_s/\pi)^m, \hspace{5mm} n=1,2,3
\end{displaymath}
on the parameter $t$.
Here the parametrisation (\ref{eq:Asparametr}) was used,
$\log s/\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}^2=9$ and
$N=5$. The general picture does not change for other
reasonable values of $\log$ and $N$. One can see that
PMS
(Stevenson, 1981) works perfectly for a wide range of
the logarithmic scale parameter $t\sim(-1,+3)$
for the four-loop approximant and $t\sim(-2,0)$ for the three-loop
approximant. A similar analysis at the three-loop level was done
by Radyushkin (1983). According to the above analysis we found that
the BLM scale $t=-0.710$ is good at the four-loop level as well (Fig.\ 12)
and this value is
within minimal sensitivity region (Fig.~13).
\vspace{77mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 13. The approximants $R_{n}$ vs the scale parameter $t$
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
\noindent
Moreover, we found that
if the $t$-parameter is chosen in the following analytical form
$t=4\zeta(3)-11/2+O(\varepsilon)$,
which is equivalent to the definition of a new, say,
$\widetilde{\mbox{MS}}$ modification of the MS scheme
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}=\mbox{exp}
[-2\zeta(3)+11/4+O(\varepsilon)]
\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}},
\label{eq:mstilda}
\end{equation}
then the $N$ dependence and the $\zeta(3)$ terms cancel exactly
at the 3-loop level. As a result, $r_2=1/12$.
Within this scheme the four-loop correction is almost independent of the
number of flavors. The full result for the R-ratio for the {\em arbitrary}
number of flavors can be written in the following simple form
\begin{equation}
R(s)=3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\biggl[ 1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
+\frac{1}{12}\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^2
-\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^3 (16.2 \pm 0.5)\biggr]
-\biggl(\sum_{f}Q_f\biggr)^2
\biggl(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\biggr)^3 1.2
+O(\alpha_s^4)
\label{eq:Rsmstilda}
\end{equation}
where the small uncertainty $\pm 0.5$ stands for the remainder
dependence on the number of flavors at $O(\alpha_s^3)$
for all physically reasonable $N$ and is completely negligible
for phenomenology. The last term is also very small
$\sim 0.4(\alpha_{s}/\pi)^3$. The running coupling
can be parametrized in the standard form (\ref{eq:Asparametr}) with
$\Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}
=1.41\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}$.
Using the FAC approach
(Grunberg, 1980, 1982, 1984), we rewrite eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rsmstilda})
as follows.
\begin{equation}
R(s)= 3\sum_{f}Q_{f}^2\left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_{s}^{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}}{\pi}
+O(\alpha_s^3)\right],
\label{eq:Rseffect}
\end{equation}
where the 3-loop correction is absorbed into the definition of the
effective coupling given by eq.\ (\ref{eq:Asparametr})
with the $\Lambda$ replaced by
\begin{displaymath}
\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}
\approx \Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}
\mbox{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2\beta_0}
\frac{r_2}{r_1}\right)
\approx 1.02\Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}.
\end{displaymath}
As one can see, the new scheme $\widetilde{\mbox{MS}}$ almost
coincides with the effective one and the fastest convergence is
guaranteed within the wide range of energy defined by the
renormalization group invariant criteria
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{s}{\Lambda_{\mbox{\scriptsize eff}}^{2}} \sim
\frac{s}{\Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}^{2}} \gg 1.
\end{displaymath}
The similar analyses can be done for the semi-hadronic decay rates
of the $\tau$ lepton calculated to $O(\alpha_s^3)$ in section 7.
The result for the ratio $R_{\tau}$ in the $\widetilde{\mbox{MS}}$
scheme reads
\begin{equation}
R^{\tau}= 3(0.998\pm 0.002)\left[ 1+\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}
+3.65\left(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\right)^2
+9.83\left(\frac{\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)}{\pi}\right)^3 \right]
+O(\alpha_s^4)
\label{eq:Rtaumstilde}
\end{equation}
and to be compared to eq.\ (\ref{eq:Rtaunumer}). Note that
the $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ is parametrized with the
$\Lambda_{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}
=1.41\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}$.
In Fig.\ 14 we plot one-, two- and three-loop approximants to the
$\Gamma_{H\rightarrow b\overline{b}}$ in terms of the running quark mass
(eqs.\ (\ref{eq:Danalyt})-(\ref{eq:GHtot}),
with $N=5$ and $m_f=m_b$) vs. the scale parameter $t$
(Surguladze, 1994b).
\newpage
\mbox{}
\vspace{75mm}
\begin{center}
FIG.\ 14. The approximants of the
$\Gamma_{H\rightarrow b\overline{b}}$ vs the scale parameter $t$
\end{center}
\vspace{2mm}
One can see that the higher order corrections diminish the scale dependence
from 40\% to nearly 5\%. The solid curve, corresponding to the three-loop
result, became flat
in the wide range of the logarithmic scale parameter $t$.
Moreover, the choice $t=0$
($\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-scheme) satisfies Stevenson's
{\it Principle of Minimal Sensitivity} (Stevenson, 1981).
Let us now try to estimate the theoretical uncertainty in calculations
of $R$ by the last included term in the corresponding perturbative
expansion. We get for the QCD contribution within the
$\widetilde{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme the following result.
\begin{equation}
\delta^{\widetilde{\mbox{\scriptsize MS}}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize QCD}}
\equiv \frac{R(s)-r_0}{r_0}=\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}
+\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2
-(16.2 \pm 0.5)
\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}}{\pi}\right)^3
\pm (\delta_{\mbox{\scriptsize QCD}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize err}}=4\%).
\label{eq:Rserrorestincl}
\end{equation}
The analysis of Fig.\ 13 shows that the deviation of the four-loop approximant
from the constant is also about
$4\%$ within a reasonably wide range of the t-parameter. This is consistent
with Stevenson's principle. One should note that the above error estimate
is only for the massless quark limit. There are several different types
of additional contributions, including those due to nonvanishing quark
masses. This may change the above error estimate.
All of the necessary information on the status of the
additional corrections can be found in Kniehl (1994b, 1995b).
As we have already mentioned, recently Brodsky and Lu (1994, 1995)
have found the relations between the effective couplings
$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny A}}$ and
$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ for the physical observables
A and B in the following form.
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny A}}(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny A}})
=\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny B}}(\mu_{\mbox{\tiny B}})
\biggl(1+r_{\mbox{\tiny A/B}}\frac{\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}{\pi}
+\cdots\biggr).
\label{eq:CSR}
\end{equation}
The ratio of the scales of the corresponding processes
$\mu_{\mbox{\tiny A}}/\mu_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$ is chosen according
to the BLM scale setting prescription so that
$r_{\mbox{\tiny A/B}}$ is independent of the number of flavors.
Thus, evolving $\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny A}}$ and
$\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny B}}$, they pass the quark thresholds
at the same scale. It is shown that the relative scales
satisfy the transitivity rule
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny A}}}{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}
=\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny A}}}{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny C}}}
\times\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny C}}}{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny B}}}.
\end{displaymath}
So, C may correspond to any intermediate theoretical scheme
such as MS, $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$, etc. and the perturbative
results can be tested without a reference to them.
One of the impressive results of this method is
a surprisingly simple relation between the effective
couplings for the quantities $R$ and $R_{\tau}$
to the next-to-next leading order (Brodsky and Lu, 1994, 1995)
\begin{displaymath}
\frac{\alpha_{\tau}(M_{\tau})}{\pi}=
\frac{\alpha_{R}(\mu)}{\pi}, \hspace{9mm}
\mu=M_{\tau}\mbox{exp}\biggl[-\frac{19}{24}-\frac{169}{128}
\frac{\alpha_R(M_{\tau})}{\pi}\biggr].
\end{displaymath}
For more details and the relations between various other
observables we refer to the original works
by Brodsky and Lu (1994, 1995).
\vspace{1cm}
\renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
\subsection{\tenbf On scheme invariant analyses}
Let us now outline the original method of
scheme-invariant analyses for the perturbation theory
results by Stevenson (1981a,b, 1982, 1984).
We note first, that our analyses of perturbation
series for $R(s)$ and $R_{\tau}$ has been done
in the previous subsection within
the one parametric family of the MS type schemes,
where all $\beta$ function coefficients are the same
for any modification of MS.
In the PMS method, renormalizarion scale and scheme
dependence is parametrized by the scale parameter
$\mu/\Lambda$ and the scheme dependent coefficients
of the $\beta$ function $\beta_2$, $\beta_3,\cdots$.
Then the {\it Principle of Minimal Sensitivity}
is applied to the variation of the above parameters
and to $O(\alpha_s^3)$ the ``optimized'' scheme
corresponds to a flat two dimensional surface.
Our curve for $R_3$ in Fig.\ 13 is just a one-dimensional slice
at the particular MS value of the $\beta_2$.
The main points of the PMS formalism is as follows.
(For the scheme invariant analyses of $R(s)$ to $O(\alpha_s^3)$
see Mattingly and Stevenson, 1994).
To use familiar standard notation, we rewrite eq.\ (\ref{eq:RGfunctions})
for the couplant $a\equiv\alpha_s(\mu)/\pi$
\begin{equation}
b\frac{\partial a}{\partial \tau}
=-b a^2(1+ca+c_2a^2+\cdots),
\label{eq:ab}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\tau=b\ln\frac{\mu}{\Lambda}, \hspace{4mm}
b=2\beta_0, \hspace{4mm} c=\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}
\label{eq:ta}
\end{equation}
and for any modification of the minimal subtraction prescription, the
scheme dependent coefficient $c_2=\beta_2/\beta_0$.
The scheme and scale can now be parametrized by the quantities
$RS\equiv (\tau,c_2,c_3,...)$. The
{\it Principle of Minimal Sensitivity} can be written as
\begin{equation}
\frac{dR_n}{d(\tau;c_2,c_3,...)}=0.
\label{eq:PMS}
\end{equation}
The number of scheme-scale parameters in the above equation
is strongly correlated with $n$. Indeed,
it is not difficult to show that the following self-consistency
condition should hold for the $n$th approximant
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial R_n}{\partial(RS)}=O(a^{n+1}).
\label{eq:SCC}
\end{equation}
This shows that the perturbative coefficients $r_i$ can depend on
renormalization scheme only through parameters $\tau;c_2,...,c_{i-1}$.
Applying the {\it Principle of Minimal Sensitivity} in a form
(\ref{eq:PMS}) to the approximants $R_2$ and $R_3$ and taking
into account (\ref{eq:SCC}), one finds that the quantities
\begin{displaymath}
\rho_1\equiv \tau-r_2,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\rho_2\equiv r_3+c_2-\biggl(r_2+\frac{c}{2}\biggr)^2
\label{eq:RSinv}
\end{equation}
are renormalization scheme independent. Similar invariants can
be constructed at each order of perturbation theory.
The choice of $\tau$ as a
function of the ratio $\mu/\Lambda$ emphasizes that the renormalization
scheme dependence involves only the ratio of these quantities
and the optimization deals with $\tau$ but not $\mu$.
The ``optimal'' values of renormalization scheme parameters
$\overline{\tau}$ and $\overline{c_2}$ are defined by the following equations.
To $O(\alpha_s^2)$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d R_2(\tau)}{d\tau}\biggr|_{\tau=\overline{\tau} }=0.
\label{eq:tauopt}
\end{equation}
To $O(\alpha_s^3)$,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial R_3(\tau,c_2)}{\partial\tau}\biggr|_{\tau=\overline{\tau}}=0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial R_3(\tau,c_2)}{\partial c_2}\biggr|_{c_2=\overline{c}_2}=0.
\label{eq:taucopt}
\end{equation}
Solving the above equations along with eqs.\ (\ref{eq:RSinv}) for the
renormalization scheme invariants and eq.\ (\ref{eq:ab}) for the couplant
with the truncated MS $\beta$ function, using the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$
values of $r_2$ and $r_3$, one finds the ``optimized'' values of
$\overline{\tau}$,
$\overline{c}_2$ and corresponding ``optimized'' approximants
to $O(\alpha_s^3)$. The theoretical error can be estimated, as in the
previous subsection, by the last calculated term.
One obtains the following ``optimized'' result for the QCD contribution
in $R(34\mbox{ GeV})$ in the massless quark limit
(Mattingly and Stevenson, 1994; Stevenson, 1994).
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\mbox{\tiny QCD}}^{\mbox{\tiny PMS}} = 0.051 \pm 0.001.
\label{eq:PMSres}
\end{equation}
It is important to note that the above optimization procedure yields
a negative value for the $\rho_2$ invariant. This results in the
existence of a solution of equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{7}{4}+c\overline{a}^{\ast}+3\rho_2(\overline{a}^{\ast})^2=0
\label{eq:IRfix}
\end{equation}
with respect to $\overline{a}^{\ast}$ - the value of the couplant
for which the optimized third order $\beta$ function vanishes.
This allows, in principle, to do some analyses for $R(s)$ at the
low energies $\sqrt{s}\rightarrow 0$ (Mattingly and Stevenson, 1992).
Finally, we also mention that the
FAC approach (Grunberg, 1980, 1982, 1984) is a special case of the
PMS (Stevenson, 1981a,b, 1982, 1984) method. Indeed, in the FAC approach
all higher order approximants are equal to the effective couplant
(compare to eqs.\ (\ref{eq:tauopt}) and (\ref{eq:taucopt}) ).
{}From eqs.\ (\ref{eq:RSinv}) one gets $\rho_1=\tau$ and $\rho_2=c_2$
in the FAC approach.
\vspace{7mm}
\section*{\bf Conclusions}
\addtocontents{toc}{{\bf Conclusions} \hspace{124mm} {\bf 72}}
\indent
In the present article we reviewed the
current development of calculational methods, algorithms and
computer programs which allow one to evaluate the characteristics
of the phenomenologically important physical processes
to higher orders of perturbative QCD.
We have considered
$Z\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$,
$\tau^{-} \rightarrow \nu_{\tau} +\mbox{hadrons}$,
$H \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$. The described methods are
applicable to a wide class of calculational problems of
modern high energy physics. We outlined the analytical three- and
four-loop calculations for the above mentioned processes.
The methods of analytical perturbative calculations available at present
allow, in principle, one to evaluate various decay rates, cross-sections,
coefficient functions in the operator product expansion,
renormalization group functions etc. up to and including five-loop level.
This would correspond, for instance, the decay rate in the process
$Z \rightarrow \mbox{hadrons}$ to $O(\alpha_s^4)$. It seems that
such a high order
will completely fit the experimental state of the problem in the
observable future. Indeed, for example, the 4\% estimate of the
theoretical error for the decay rate of $Z$-boson is based on
the $O(\alpha_s^3)$ calculation. The present
experimental error at LEP is about 5\%.
The involvement of the heavier quarks in the physical processes makes it
necessary to develop methods for calculation of the Feynman graphs
with the propagators of massive particles.
The expansion in terms of large or small masses
may not always give satisfactory results.
The problem of the renormalization group ambiguity of the perturbation
theory results and various methods for resummation of higher order
corrections is a subject of growing interest and discussions
in the literature.
The future development of analytical programming tools towards
the full automation of high order calculations would be
welcome. This would greatly reduce the chance of
errors in the calculations.
On the other hand, the computer package with full
implementation of the algorithm of high order analytical perturbative
calculations would make it realistic to step up by one more order.
We recognize that it is unavoidable that some of the relevant
references have not been mentioned. We assure the reader that this is
only due to our unintentional ignorance.
\vspace{1cm}
\noindent
{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
\indent
It is a pleasure to thank D.\ Soper for numerous discussions and his support.
We are grateful to N.\ Deshpande and R.\ Hwa for discussions on
the present status of the Standard Model.
We thank E.\ Braaten, S.\ Brodsky and B.\ Kniehl for their
comments at various stages of this work. We would especially like to
thank P.\ Stevenson for reading the manuscript, illuminating discussions,
suggestions and correcting the errors.
L.R.S. would like to thank members of the experimental high energy physics
laboratory at the University of Oregon, especially J.\ Brau, R.\ Fray and
D.\ Strom for encouraging discussions.
L.R.S. would like to thank N.\ S.\ Amaglobeli, V.\ A.\ Matveev,
V.\ A.\ Rubakov and A.~N.~Tavkhelidze
for their interest in our work and their support, the
members of the Theory Division of the
Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research for collaboration on various
problems which further became topics of the present article, and
the members of the Department of High Energy Physics, Tbilisi State
University for discussions.
We are grateful to C.\ Quigg for encouraging us to write this review.
\vspace{3mm}
\noindent
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grant
No. DE-FG06-85ER-40224 and under grant No. DE-FG05-84ER40215.
\newpage
\noindent
{\bf REFERENCES}
\vspace{6mm}
\noindent
Abers, E.\ S., and B.\ W.\ Lee, 1973, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 9,} 1.\\
Abbot, L., 1980, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44,} 1569.\\
Acharya, A., and B.\ P.\ Nigam, 1978, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 141,} 178.\\
Acharya, A., and B.\ P.\ Nigam, 1985, Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf A 88,} 293.\\
Adler, S.\ L., 1972, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 5,} 3021.\\
Adler, S.\ L., 1974, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 10,} 3714.\\
Altarelli, G., 1982, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 81,} 1.\\
Altarelli, G., 1989, Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Sci.\ {\bf 39,} 357.\\
Altarelli, G., 1992, ``QCD and experiment: status of $\alpha_s$,''
CERN preprint No.\ TH.6623/92.\\
Altarelli, G., P.\ Nason, and G.\ Ridolfi, 1994,
A study of ultraviolet renormalon ambiguities in the determination
of $\alpha_s$ from $\tau$ decay,''
CERN preprint No.\ TH.7537/94.\\
Appelquist, T., and J.\ Carazzone, 1975, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 11,} 2856.\\
Appelquist, T., and D.\ Politzer, 1975, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 34,} 43.\\
Ashmore, J.\ F., 1972, Nuov.\ Cimm.\ Lett.\ {\bf 4,} 289.\\
Baker, M., and K.\ Johnson, 1969, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 183,} 1292.\\
Baker, M., and K.\ Johnson, 1971, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 3,} 2541.\\
Banyai, L., S.\ Marculescu, and T.\ Vescan, 1974, Lett.\ Nuov.\ Cim.\ {\bf 11,}
151.\\
Barclay, D.\ T., and C.\ J.\ Maxwell, 1992a, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69,}
3417.\\
Barclay, D.\ T., and C.\ J.\ Maxwell, 1992b, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 45,} 1760.\\
Bardeen, W., A.\ Buras, D.\ Duke, and T.\ Muta, 1978, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 18,}
3998.\\
Barger, V.\ D., and R.\ J.\ N.\ Phillips, 1987, {\it Collider Physics,}
Frontiers in Physics Series {\bf 71}
(Addison-Wesley).\\
Barnett, M.\ R., M.\ Dine, and L.\ McLerran, 1980, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 22,}
594.\\
Barnett, M.\ R., H.\ E.\ Haber, and D.\ E.\ Soper, 1988, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B
306,}
697.\\
Bechi, C., S.\ Narison, E.\ de Rafael, and F.\ Yndurain, 1981, Z.\ Phys.\
{\bf 1981,}
335.\\
Bernreuter, W., and W.\ Wetzel, 1982, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 197,} 228.\\
Bethke, S., 1989, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 43,} 331.\\
Bethke, S., 1992, in {\sl Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on
High Energy Physics} (Dallas, USA), p.\ 81.\\
Bethke, S., and J.\ E.\ Pilcher, 1992, Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Sci. {\bf 42,}
251.\\
Bjorken, J.\ D., 1968, in {sl Proceedings of 1967 Int. School of Physics,
Enrico Fermi, Course 41,} Varenna, Italy
(Academic Press, New York), p.\ 55.\\
Bjorken, J.\ D., 1969, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 179,} 1547.\\
Bloch, F., and A.\ Nordsieck, 1937, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 52,} 54.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and O.\ S.\ Parasyuk, 1955a,
Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR [Sov.\ Phys.\ Dokl.] {\bf 100,} 25.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and O.\ S.\ Parasyuk, 1955b,
Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR [Sov.\ Phys.\ Dokl.] {\bf 100,} 429.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and O.\ S.\ Parasyuk, 1956,
Izv.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR, ser.\ matem.\ {\bf 20,} 585.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and O.\ S.\ Parasyuk, 1957, Acta Mathem.\ {\bf 97,} 227.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and D.\ V.\ Shirkov, 1955, Dokl.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR
[Sov.\ Phys.\ Dokl.] {\bf 103,} 203.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and D.\ V.\ Shirkov, 1956a, Sov.\ Phys.-JETP
(translation of Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.) {\bf 30,}
77.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and D.\ V.\ Shirkov, 1956b, Nuov.\ Cim. {\bf 3,} 845.\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., and D.\ V.\ Shirkov, 1980, {\sl Introduction to
the Theory of Quantized Fields} (John Wiley \& Sons, Inc.).\\
Bogolyubov, N.\ N., B.\ V.\ Struminsky, and A.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1965,
JINR report No.\ JINR-D-1968.\\
Bollini, C.\ G., and J.\ J.\ Giambiagi, 1972, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 40 B,} 566.\\
Bonneau, G., 1980, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96 B,} 147.\\
Boos, E.\ E., and A.\ I.\ Davydychev, 1992, Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 89,}
1052.\\
Braaten, E., 1988, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 60,} 1606.\\
Braaten, E., and J.\ P.\ Leveille, 1980, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 22,} 715.\\
Braaten, E., C.\ S.\ Li, 1990, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 42,} 3888.\\
Braaten, E., S.\ Narison, and A.\ Pich, 1992, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 373,} 581.\\
Broadhurst, D.\ J., and S.\ G.\ Generalis, 1982, ``Pseudoscalar QCD sum
rules,''
Open University preprint No.\ {\bf
OUT-4102-8}.\\
Broadhurst, D.\ J., and S.\ G.\ Generalis, 1985, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 165 B,}
175.\\
Broadhurst, D.\ J., N.\ Gray and K.\ Schilcher, 1991, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 52,}
111.\\
Broadhurst, D.\ J., A.\ L.\ Kataev, and O.\ V.\ Tarasov, 1993, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 298,} 445.\\
Broadhurst, D.\ J., {\it et al.}, 1994, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 329,} 103.\\
Brock, R., {\it et al.}, CTEQ Collaboration, 1993, {\sl Handbook of
Perturbative
QCD,} Edited by G.\ Sterman.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., 1993, ``New perspective in Quantum Chromodynamics,''
SLAC preprint No.\ SLAC-PUB-6304.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., and H.\ J.\ Lu, 1992,
``On the selfconsistency of scale setting methods,''
SLAC preprint No.\ SLAC-PUB-6000.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., and H.\ J.\ Lu, 1994, ``Commensurate scale relations:
precise tests of Quantum Chromodynamics without scale or scheme
ambiguity,''
SLAC preprint No.\
SLAC-PUB-6683.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., and H.\ J.\ Lu, 1995, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 51,} 3652.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., and G.\ R.\ Ferrar, 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 31,}
1153.\\
Brodsky, S.\ J., G.\ P.\ Lepage, and P.\ B.\ Mackenzie, 1983,
Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 28,}
228.\\
Brown, L.\ S., and L.\ G.\ Yaffe, 1992, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 45,} 398.\\
Brown, L.\ S., L.\ G.\ Yaffe, and C.\ X.\ Zhai, 1992,
``Large order perturbation theory for the electromagnetic
current-current
correlation function,''
Washington University preprint No.\ UW-PT-92-07.\\
Buckley, I.\ R.\ C., A.\ H.\ Duncan, and H.\ F.\ Jones, 1993,
Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 47,} 2554.\\
Buras, A.\ J., E.\ G.\ Floratos, D.\ A.\ Ross, and C.\ T.\ Sachrajda, 1977,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 131,} 308.\\
Callan, C., 1970, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 2,} 1541.\\
Caswell, W.\ E., and F.\ Wilczek, 1974, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 49,} 291.\\
Celmaster, W., and R.\ G.\ Gonsalves, 1979, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 20,} 1420.\\
Celmaster, W., and R.\ G.\ Gonsalves, 1980, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44,}
560.\\
Celmaster, W., and P.\ M.\ Stevenson, 1983, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 125,} 493.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., 1988, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 76,} 207
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 76,} 809 (1988)].\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., 1991,
``Combinatorics of R, R$^{-1}$, and R$^{\ast}$ operations and asymptotic
expansions of Feynman integrals in the limit of large momenta and masses,''
Max Planck Institute preprint No.\ MPI-PAE/PTh 13/91.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., 1992, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 282,} 221.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., 1993a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 307,} 169.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., 1993b, ``Possible and impossible in multiloop
renormalization
group,'' Karlsruhe University preprint No.\ TTP93-37.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., S.\ G.\ Gorishny, and V.\ P.\ Spiridonov, 1985, Phys.\
Lett.\
{\bf B 160,}
149.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., S.\ G.\ Gorishny ,and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1982, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 119,}
407.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1979, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf 85,}
277.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1980, Nucl.\ Phys.\
{\bf B 174,}
345.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and A.\ Kwiatkowski, 1993, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 59,} 525.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and A.\ Kwiatkowski, 1995, ``Second order QCD corrections to
scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs decays into massive bottom
quarks,''
LBL preprint No.\ LBL-37269.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, 1990, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 248,}
359.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, 1992, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 282,}
359.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, and A.\ Kwiatkowski, 1992, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 282,} 221.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1979, ``New approach to evaluations
of multiloop Feynman
diagrams,''
Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research preprint No.
P-0018.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1981, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 192,} 159.\\
Chetyrkin, K.\ G., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1982, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 114,} 340.\\
Chyla, J., A.\ L.\ Kataev, and S.\ A.\ Larin, 1991, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 267,} 269.\\
Cicuta, G.\ M., and E.\ Montaldi, 1972, Nuov.\ Cimm.\ Lett.\ {\bf 4,} 329.\\
Collins, J.\ C., 1974, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 80,} 341.\\
Collins, J.\ C., 1984, {\sl Renormalization}
(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK).\\
Collins, J.\ C., A.\ Duncan, and S.\ D.\ Joglekar, 1977, Phys.\ Rev.\
{\bf D 16,}
438.\\
Collins, J.\ C., A.\ J.\ Macfarlane, 1974, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 10,} 1201.\\
Collins, J.\ C., and D.\ E.\ Soper, 1987, Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Sci.\
{\bf 37,}
383.\\
Collins, J.\ C., D.\ E.\ Soper, and G.\ Sterman, 1983, in
{\sl Proceedings of the 18th Rencontres de Moriond,} Edited
by J.~Tran Thanh Van, p.\ 157.\\
Collins, J.\ C., D.\ E.\ Soper, and G.\ Sterman, 1984,
Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 134,} 263.\\
Collins, J.\ C., D.\ E.\ Soper, and G.\ Sterman, 1985,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 261,} 104.\\
Collins, J.\ C., D.\ E.\ Soper, and G.\ Sterman, 1989, in
{\sl Perturbative Quantum Chromodinamics,}
Edited by A.\ H.\ Muller (World Scientific), p.\ 1.\\
Collins, J.\ C., F.\ Wilczek, and A.\ Zee, 1978, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 18,}
242.\\
Davydychev A.\ I., 1991, J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 32,} 1052.\\
de~Rafael, E., and J.\ L.\ Rosner, 1974, Annals of Phys.\ {\bf 82,} 369.\\
de~R\'{u}jula, A., and H.\ Georgi, 1976, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 13,} 1296.\\
Delbourgo, R., and D.\ A.\ Akyeampong, 1974, Nuov.\ Cim.\ {\bf A 19,} 219.\\
de~Witt, B., 1967, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 162,} 1195.\\
Diberder, F.\ L., and A.\ Pich, 1992a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 286,} 147.\\
Diberder, F.\ L., and A.\ Pich, 1992b, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 289,} 165.\\
Dine, M., and J.\ Sapirstein, 1979, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 43,} 668.\\
Dingle, R.\ B., 1973, {\it Asymptotic Expansions: Their derivation and
Interpretation} (Academic Press, New York).\\
Drees, M., and K.\ Hikasa, 1990, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 41,} 1547.\\
Drell, S.\ D., and T.\ M.\ Yan, 1971, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 66,} 578.\\
Duncan, A.\ H., {\it et al.}, 1993, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 70,} 4159.\\
Efremov, A.\ V., and A.\ V.\ Radyushkin, 1980a, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 44,} 17
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44,} 573 (1980)].\\
Efremov, A. V., and A. V. Radyushkin, 1980b, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 44,} 157
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 44,} 664 (1981)].\\
Ellis, J., M.\ Karliner, and M.\ Samuel, 1995, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\\
Ellis, R.\ K., 1993, in {\sl Proceedings of the 7th 1992 Fermilab
Meeting of the American Physical Society,}
edited by C.\ H.\ Albright {\it et al.},
(World Scientific) p.\ 167.\\
Ellis, R.\ K., and W.\ J.\ Stirling, 1990, ``QCD AND COLLIDER PHYSICS,''
Fermilab preprint No.\
FERMILAB-Conf-90/164-T.\\
Faddeev, L.\ D, and U.\ N.\ Popov, 1967, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 25,} 29.\\
Faddeev, L.\ D, and A.\ A.\ Slavnov, 1980, {\it Gauge Fields: Introduction
to Quantum Theory} (Benjamin, New York).\\
Feynman, R., 1963, Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf 26,} 697.\\
Feynman, R., 1969, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 23,} 1415.\\
Feynman, R., 1972, {\it Photon Hadron Interactions} (Benjamin, New York).\\
Field, J.\ H., 1993, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 226,} 209.\\
Fritzsch, H., M.\ Gell-Mann, and H.\ Leutwyler, 1973, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 47,} 365.\\
Furry, W., 1937, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 51,} 125.\\
Gell-Mann, M., 1964, Phys.\ Lett., {\bf 8,} 214.\\
Gell-Mann, M., and F.\ Low, 1954, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 95,} 1300.\\
Georgi, H., H.\ D.\ Politzer, 1976, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 14,} 1829.\\
Glashow, S.\ L., J.\ Iliopoulos, and L.\ Maiani, 1970, Phys.\ Rev.\
{\bf D 2,} 1285.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, 1986, Nuov.\ Cim.\ {\bf A 92,}
119.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, 1988, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B
212,}
238.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, 1990, ``Four-loop QED
$\beta$ function'' (private
communications).\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, 1991, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 259,}
144.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1990,
Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A 5,}
2703.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1991a,
Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 256,}
81.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1991b,
Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 43,}
1633.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., A.\ L.\ Kataev, S.\ A.\ Larin, and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1991c,
in {\sl Proceedings of the International Seminar
``QUARKS-90''}
(Telavi, Georgia, USSR, May 1990) edited by V.~A.~Matveev {\it et
al.},
(World Scientific) p.\
194.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., and S.\ A.\ Larin, 1987, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 283,} 452.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., S.\ A.\ Larin, L.\ R.\ Surguladze, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1989,
Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 55,}
381.\\
Gorishny, S.\ G., S.\ A.\ Larin, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1983,
Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 124,}
217.\\
Greenberg, O.\ W., 1964, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 13,} 598.\\
Gross, D., and F.\ Wilczek, 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 30,} 1343.\\
Grunberg, G., 1980, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 95,} 70.\\
Grunberg, G., 1982, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 110,} 501.\\
Grunberg, G., 1984, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 29,} 2315.\\
Grunberg, G., and A.\ L.\ Kataev, 1992, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 279,} 352.\\
Han, M.\ Y., and Y.\ Nambu, 1965, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 139,} 1005.\\
Hearn, A.\ C., 1973, ``{\small REDUCE}, {\sl User's Manual}
(University of Utah), Report No.\
UCP-19.\\
Hoang, A.\ H., M.\ Jezabek, J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, and T.\ Teubner, 1994,
Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 338,} 330.\\
Inami, T., and T.\ Kubota, 1981, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 179,} 171.\\
Johnson, K., R.\ Willey, and M.\ Baker, 1967, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 163,} 1699.\\
Johnson, K., and M.\ Baker, 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 8,} 1110.\\
Kartvelishvili, V., and M.\ Margvelashvili, 1995, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 345,} 161.\\
Kataev, A.\ L., 1990, ``Next-next-to-leading perturbative QCD corrections:
the current status of investigations,''
Montpellier Preprint No.\ PM/90-41.\\
Kataev, A.\ L., 1991, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.) {\bf A 23,} 72.\\
Kataev, A.\ L., and V.\ V.\ Starshenko, 1994, CERN Preprint No.\ TH.7400/94.\\
Kleinert, H., {\it et al.}, 1991, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 272,} 39.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., 1990, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 237,} 127.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., 1994a, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 240,} 211.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., 1994b, in {\sl Proceedings of the 1994
Tennessee International Symposium on Radiative
Corrections: Status and Outlook,} (to be published);
Bulletin Board: hep-ph/9410391.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., 1995a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 343,} 299.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., 1995b, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 10,} 443.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., and J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, 1989, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 224,} 229.\\
Kniehl, B.\ A., and J.\ H.\ K\"{u}hn, 1990, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 329,} 547.\\
Kotikov, A.\ V., 1991, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf A 6,} 677.\\
Kramer, G., and B.\ Lampe, 1988, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 39,} 101.\\
Krasnikov, N.\ V., and A.\ A.\ Pivovarov, 1982, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 116,}
168.\\
Krasnikov, N.\ V., A.\ A.\ Pivovarov, and N.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1983,
Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 19,} 301.\\
Krasnikov, N.\ V., and N.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1982,
``The contribution of instantons into cross-section of the $e^{+}e^{-}$
annihilation into hadrons'' Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research
Preprint No.\ P-227.\\
Lam, C.\ S., and T.\ M.\ Yan, 1977, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 16,} 703.\\
Langacker, P., and L.\ Mingxing, and A.\ K.\ Mann, 1992, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\
{\bf 64,} 87.\\
Lanin L.\ V., V.\ P.\ Spiridonov, and K.\ G.\ Chetyrkin, 1986,
Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 44,} 1374.\\
Larin S.\ A., 1993, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 303,} 113.\\
Lee, B.\ W., and J.\ Zinn-Justin, 1972, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 5,} 3121.\\
Lee, B.\ W., and J.\ Zinn-Justin, 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 7,} 1049.\\
Le Guillou, J.\ C., and J.\ Zinn-Justin, 1990, Eds., {\sl Large-Order
Behaviour of Perturbation Theory} (Elsevier Science Publishers
B.\ V., North-Holland, Amsterdam).\\
Leibbrandt, G., 1975, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 47,} 849.\\
Libby, S.\ B., and G.\ Sterman, 1978, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 18,} 3252.\\
Logunov, A.\ A., L.\ D.\ Soloviov, and A.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1967,
Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 24,} 181.\\
Loladze, G.\ T., L.\ R.\ Surguladze, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1984,
Bull.\ Acad.\ Sci.\ Georgian SSR {\bf 116,} 509.\\
Loladze, G.\ T., L.\ R.\ Surguladze, and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1985, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 162,} 363.\\
Lovett-Turner, C.\ N., and C.\ J.\ Maxwell, 1994,
Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 432,}
147.\\
Lu, H.\ J., and C.\ A.\ R.\ de Melo, 1991, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 273,} 260.\\
Mandelstam, S., 1968, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 175,} 1580.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1975, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 12,} 3861.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1984, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 29,} 580.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., and H.\ Pagels, 1978, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf C 36,} 137.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., and A.\ Sirlin, 1988, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 61,} 1815.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1991, {\sl Annu.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Sci.\ } {\bf 41,} 469.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1992, ``$\tau$ decays: a theoretical perspective,''
Brookhaven National Laboratory Preprint No.\
BNL-48179.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1993a, in {\sl Proceedings of the 7th 1992 Fermilab Meeting
of the American Physical Society,} edited by
C.\ H.\ Albright {\it et al.}
(World Scientific), p.\ 185.\\
Marciano, W.\ J., 1993b, ``Standard Model Status'',
Brookhaven National Laboratory Preprint No.\ BNL-48760.\\
Matveev, V.\ A., R.\ M.\ Muradyan, and A.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1970,
Fiz.\ Elem.\ Chastits At Yadra {\bf 1,} 91 [Sov.\ J.\ Part.\ Nucl.].\\
Matveev, V.\ A., R.\ M.\ Muradyan, and A.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1972,
Lett.\ Nuov.\ Cim.\ {\bf 5,} 907.\\
Matveev, V.\ A., R.\ M.\ Muradyan, and A.\ N.\ Tavkhelidze, 1973,
Lett.\ Nuov.\ Cim.\ {\bf 7,} 719.\\
Mattingly, A.\ C., and P.\ M.\ Stevenson, 1992, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
{\bf 69,} 1320.\\
Mattingly, A.\ C., and P.\ M.\ Stevenson, 1994, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 49,} 437.\\
Maxwell, C.\ J., and J.\ A.\ Nicholls, 1990, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 236,} 63.\\
Miamoto, Y., 1965, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ Suppl.\ Extra {\bf 187}.\\
Monsay, E.\ and C.\ Rosenzweig, 1981, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 23,} 1217.\\
Mueller, A.\ H., 1978, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 18,} 3705.\\
Mueller, A.\ H., 1981, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 73,} 237.\\
Mueller, A.\ H., 1992, in
{\sl Proceedings of the Workshop QCD-Twenty Years Later,}
edited by P.\ M.\ Zerwas, and H.\ A.\ Kastrup,
(World Scientific) {\bf 1,} p.\ 162.\\
Muta, T., 1987, {\sl Foundations of Quantum Chromodinamics,}
Lecture Notes in Physics Vol.\ 5 (World Scientific).\\
Nason, P., and M.\ Porrati, 1994, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 421,} 518.\\
Narison, S., 1981a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 104,} 485.\\
Narison, S., 1981b, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 182,} 59.\\
Narison, S., 1982, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 84,} 263.\\
Narison, S., 1986, ``QCD duality sum rules: introduction and some recent
developments,'' CERN Preprint No.\ TH.4624/86.\\
Narison, S., 1994, ``$\alpha_s$ from tau decays'',
CERN Preprint No.\ TH.7506/94.\\
Narison, S., and E.\ de Rafael, 1980, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 169,} 253.\\
Narison, S., and E.\ de Rafael, 1981, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 103,} 57.\\
Narison, S., A.\ Pich, 1988, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 211,} 183.\\
Narison, S., and R.\ Tarrach, 1983, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 125,} 217.\\
Nielsen, N.\ K., 1977, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 120,} 212.\\
Novikov, V.\ A., {\it et al.}, 1978, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 41,} 1.\\
Novikov, V.\ A., M.\ A.\ Shifman, A.\ I.\ Vainshtein, and V.\ I.\ Zakharov,
1985, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 249,}
445.\\
Ovsyannikov, L.\ V., 1956, Dok.\ Akad.\ Nauk SSSR {\bf 109,} 112
[Sov.\ Phys.\ Dokl.].\\
Pauli, W., and F.\ Villars, 1949, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 21,} 433.\\
Pennington M.\ R., and G.\ G.\ Ross, 1982, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 102,} 167.\\
Peterman, A., 1979, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 53,} 159.\\
Pich, A., 1990, ``Hadronic tau decays and QCD,'' CERN Preprint No.\
TH.5940/90.\\
Pich, A., 1991, in {\sl Heavy flavours,} edited by A.~J.~Buras and
M.~Lindner (CERN, Geneva), p.\ 375.\\
Pich, A., 1992a, ``Tau physics and tau charm factories,''
CERN Preprint No.\ TH.6672/92.\\
Pich, A., 1992b, ``QCD predictions for the tau hadronic width and determination
of $\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)$,'' CERN Preprint No.\
TH.6738/92.\\
Pich, A., 1994a, ``QCD predictions for the tau hadronic width: determination
of $\alpha_s(M_{\tau}^2)$,''
Val\`{e}ncia University Preprint No.\ FTUV/94-71.\\
Pich, A., 1994b, ``The Standard Model of electroweak interactions,''
Val\`{e}ncia University Preprint No.\ FTUV/94-62.\\
Pivovarov, A.\ A., and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1991, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 360,}
97.\\
Pivovarov, A.\ A., 1992a, Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf A 105,} 813.\\
Pivovarov, A.\ A., 1992b, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 53,} 461.\\
Pivovarov, G.\ B., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1988, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 77,} 51
[Theor Math. Phys. {\bf 77,} 1038 (1988)].\\
Pivovarov, G.\ B., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1993, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\
{\bf A 8,} 2241.\\
Poggio, E., H.\ Quinn, and S.\ Weinberg, 1976, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 13,} 1958.\\
Politzer, H.\ D., 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 30,} 1346.\\
Pumplin, J., 1989, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 63,} 576.\\
Pumplin, J., 1990, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 41,} 900.\\
Quigg C., 1983, {\sl Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic
interactions,} Frontiers In Physics 56
(Benjamin).\\
Raczka, P.\ A., 1995, Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 65,} 481.\\
Radyushkin, A.\ V., 1982, ``Optimized $\Lambda$ -parametrization for
the QCD running coupling constant in spacelike
and timelike regions,''
Dubna Joint Institute for Nuclear Research
Preprint
No.\ E2-82-159.\\
Radyushkin, A.\ V., 1983, Fiz. Elem. Chastits At Yadra {\bf 14,} 58
[Sov.J. Part. Nucl.].\\
Reinders, L.\ J., H.\ R.\ Rubinstein, and S.\ Yazaki, 1985,
Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 127,} 1.\\
Reya, E., 1981, Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 69,} 195.\\
Rodrigo, G., and A.\ Santamaria, 1993, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 313,} 441.\\
Sakai, N., 1980, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 22,} 2220.\\
Salam, A., 1969, in {\sl Elementary particle Theory,}
edited by N.\ Svartholm (Almqvist \& Wiksells, Stockholm), p.\
367.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., and G.\ Li, 1994a, Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33,} 1461.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., and G.\ Li, 1994b, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 331,} 114.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., and G.\ Li, 1994c, Int.\ J.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 33,} 2207.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., G.\ Li, and E.\ Steinfelds, 1994a,
``On estimating perturbative coefficients in quantum field theory
and statistical physics,''
Oklahoma State University Preprint No.\ RN-278.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., G.\ Li, and E.\ Steinfelds, 1994b, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 323,} 188.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., G.\ Li, and E.\ Steinfelds, 1994c, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 48,}
869.\\
Samuel, M.\ A., and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1991, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 44,} 1602.\\
Schilcher, K., and M.\ D.\ Tran, 1984, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 29,} 570.\\
Shankar, R., 1977, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 15,} 755.\\
Shifman, M.\ A., 1992, {\sl Vacuum Structure and QCD Sum Rules,} (Elsevier
Science Publishers).\\
Shifman, M.\ A., A.\ I.\ Vainshtein, and V.\ I.\ Zakharov, 1979, Nucl.\ Phys.\
{\bf B 147,} 385.\\
Shirkov, D.\ V., 1980, ``Three loop approximation for running coupling constant
in
Quantum Chromodynamics,''
Dubna Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Preprint
No.\ E2-80-609.\\
Shirkov, D.\ V., 1992, ``Historical remarks on the renormalization group,''
Max Planck Institute Preprint No.\ MPI-PAE/PTh 55/92.\\
Sirlin, A., 1993a, ``Universality of the weak interactions,''
New York University Preprint No.\ 93-0526.\\
Sirlin, A., 1993b, ``Status of the standard electroweak model,''
New York University Preprint No.\ NYU-TH-93-06-04.\\
Smirnov V.\ A., 1990, Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 134,} 109.\\
Smirnov V.\ A., 1991, {\sl Renormalization and Asymptotic Expansions}
(Birkhauser).\\
Smirnov, V.\ A., and K.\ G.\ Chetyrkin, 1985, Teor. Mat. Fiz. {\bf 63,} 208
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 63,} 462 (1985)].\\
Soper, D.\ E., 1995, in {\sl Proceedings of the XXXth Rencontres de Moriond
``QCD and High Energy Interactions''}
(Les Arcs, France).\\
Soper, D.\ E., and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1994, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73,}
2958.\\
Soper, D.\ E., and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1995, in {\sl Proceedings of the XXXth
Rencontres de Moriond
``QCD and High Energy Interactions''}
(Les Arcs,
France).\\
Soper, D.\ E., and L.\ R.\ Surguladze, 1995 (in preparation).\\
Speer, E.\ R., 1974, J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 15,} 1.\\
Spiridonov, V.\ P., 1984, ``Anomalous dimension of $G^2$ and $\beta$
function,''
Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research Preprint No.\
P-378.\\
Spiridonov, V.\ P., 1987, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 46,} 302 [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.].\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1981a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 100,} 61.\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1981b, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 23,} 2916.\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1982, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 203,} 472.\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1984, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 231,} 65.\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1992, ``Response to Brodsky and Lu's Letter:
On the selfconsistency of scale setting methods,''
Rice University Preprint No.\ DOE-ER-40717-2;
Bulletin Board: hep-ph/9211327.\\
Stevenson, P.\ M., 1994, (private communication).\\
Strubbe, H., 1974, Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 8,} 1.\\
Stueckelberg, E.\ C.\ G., and A.\ Peterman, 1953, Helv.\ Phys.\ Acta {\bf 26,}
499.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1989a, ``$O(m^2)$ contributions to correlators of quark
currents: three-loop approximation,''
Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research
Preprint No.\ P-639.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1989b, ``Structure of the program for multiloop
calculations in quantum field theory
on the {\small SCHOONSCHIP} system,''
Moscow Institute for Nuclear Research
Preprint No.\ P-643.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1989c, ``Program {\small MINCER} in Four-loop
calculations''
(unpublished).\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1989d, Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 50,} 604
[Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {bf 50,} 372 (1989)].\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1990, ``Four-loop QED $\beta$ function'' (unpublished).\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1992, ``A program for analytical perturbative calculations
in high energy physics up to four loops for the
{\small FORM} system,''
Fermilab Preprint No.\ FERMILAB-PUB 92/191-T.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1994a, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 338,} 229.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1994b, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 341,} 60.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1994c, ``Quark mass corrections to the Z boson decay
rates,''
University of Oregon Preprint No.\ OITS-554.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., 1994d, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf C 5,} 1089.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1986, ``Three-loop coefficient
functions
of gluon and quark condensates in QCD sum
rules
for light mesons,''
Moscow Institute for
Nuclear Research
Preprint No.\ P-501.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1988, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 75,} 245
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 75,} 502
(1988)].\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1989a,
Comp.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 55,} 205.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1989b, Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf A 4,} 765.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and F.\ V.\ Tkachov, 1990, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 331,} 35.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and M.\ A.\ Samuel, 1991a, in {\sl Proceedings of the
International Conference Beyond the Standard Model II}
(Norman, OK, USA, 1990),
edited by K.\ Milton, R.\ Kantowski, and M.\ A.\ Samuel
(World Scientific), p.\ 206.\\
Surguladze, L. R., and M. A. Samuel, 1991b, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66,} 560.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and M.\ A.\ Samuel, 1992a, ``On West's asymptotic estimate
of perturbative coefficients of R(s) in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation,''
Oklahoma State University Preprint No.\ RN-268A.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and M.\ A.\ Samuel, 1992b,
``Four-loop perturbative calculations of
$\sigma_{\mbox{\scriptsize tot}}(e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow \mbox{hadrons})$,
$\Gamma(\tau\rightarrow \nu_{\tau}+\mbox{hadrons})$ and
QED $\beta$ function,'' Fermilab Preprint No.\ FERMILAB-PUB 92/192-T.\\
Surguladze, L.\ R., and M.\ A.\ Samuel, 1993, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 309,} 157.\\
Symanzik, K., 1970, Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 18,} 227.\\
Symanzik, K., 1971, Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 23,} 49.\\
Tarasov, O.\ V., 1982, ``Anomalous dimensions of quark masses in three-loop
approximation,''
Dubna Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Preprint
No.\ JINR-P2-82-900.\\
Tarasov, O.\ V., A.\ A.\ Vladimirov, and A.\ Yu.\ Zharkov, 1980, Phys.\ Lett.\
{\bf B 93,} 429.\\
Tarrach, R., 1982, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 196,} 45.\\
Tavkhelidze, A.\ N., 1965, Lect.\ High Energy Phys.\ Elem.\ Particles
(Vienna).\\
Tavkhelidze, A.\ N., 1994, ``Color, colored quarks, Quantum Chromodynamics,''
Dubna Joint Institute for Nuclear Research Preprint
No.\ JINR-E2-94-372.\\
t 'Hooft, G., 1971, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 33,} 173.\\
t 'Hooft, G., 1973, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 61,} 455.\\
t 'Hooft, G., and M.\ Veltman, 1972, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 44,} 189.\\
t 'Hooft, G., and M.\ Veltman, 1973, ``Diagrammar,'' CERN report.\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1981, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 100,} 65.\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1983a, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 56,} 350
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 56,} 866 (1983)].\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1983b, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 124,} 212.\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1983c, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 125,} 85.\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1991, Fermilab Preprint No.\ FERMILAB-PUB-91/347-T.\\
Tkachov, F.\ V., 1993, Int.\ Journ.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A 8,} 2047.\\
Trueman, T.\ L., 1979, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 88,} 331.\\
Tsai, Y.\ S., 1971, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 4,} 2821.\\
Vainshtein, A.\ I., and V.\ I.\ Zakharov, 1994, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\
{\bf 73,} 1207.\\
Veltman, M., 1967, {\sl {\small SCHOONSCHIP}, A CDC 6600 program
for symbolic evaluation of algebraic expressions} (CERN).\\
Veltman, M., 1991, {\sl {\small SCHOONSCHIP}, A program for symbol handling}
(Michigan).\\
Vermaseren, J.\ A.\ M., 1989, {\sl {\small FORM}, User's Manual} (NIKHEP,
Amsterdam).\\
Vladimirov, A.\ A., 1978, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 36,} 271
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 36,} 732 (1979)].\\
Vladimirov, A.\ A., 1980, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 43,} 280
[Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43,} 417 (1980)].\\
Ward, J.\ C., 1950, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 78,} 182.\\
Weinberg, S., 1967, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 19,} 1264.\\
Weinberg, S., 1973, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 8,} 3497.\\
West, G.\ B., 1991, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67,} 1388.\\
Wetzel, W., and W.\ Bernreuther, 1981, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 24,} 2724.\\
Wilson, K.\ G., 1969, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 179,} 1499.\\
Yang, C.\ N., and R.\ L.\ Mills, 1954, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 96,} 191.\\
Yang, C.\ N., 1969, in {\sl High Energy Collisions} (Gordon\& Breach, NY),
p.\ 509.\\
Yennie, D.\ R., S.\ C.\ Frautschi, and H.\ Suura, 1961,
Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 13,} 379.\\
Yndurain, F.\ J., 1983, {\sl QCD: an Introduction to the
Theory of Quarks an Gluons} (Springer Verlag).\\
Zakharov, V.\ I., 1992, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B 385,} 452.\\
Zweig, G., 1964, ``An SU(3) model for strong interaction symmetry and
its breaking,'' CERN Preprint No.\ TH.412.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
It has been known for some time that a majority of main-sequence stars
are in binary systems (e.g.\ Abt 1983, Duquennoy \& Mayor 1991).
Recently, systematic surveys of pre--main-sequence\ (PMS) stars have shown that
their binary frequency is at least as high as, and perhaps
significantly higher than, that of main-sequence stars (Mathieu,
Walter, \& Myers 1989, Simon et al.\ 1992, 1995, Ghez, Neugebauer, \&
Matthews 1993, Leinert et al.\ 1993, Reipurth \& Zinnecker 1993).
Thus, the most likely outcome of the star formation process is a
binary system and understanding binary formation is vital to
understanding star formation.
Infrared and millimeter observations have shown that many young stars
have excess long-wavelength emission, indicative of circumstellar
material. Although this material is unresolved in most observations,
there is mounting evidence that in most cases it lies in circumstellar
or circumbinary disks (see e.g.\ Beckwith \& Sargent 1993, Basri \&
Bertout 1993, and Sargent 1995 for reviews). Indeed, much of a star's
mass may be built up by accretion of material through these disks.
Thus, disks provide a fossil record of the star formation process, and
study of disk properties may reveal clues about star formation.
Observations suggest that the structure of a disk is affected by the
presence of an embedded binary. Beckwith et al.\ (1990, hereafter
BSCG) measured 1300 \micron\ continuum emission from 86 PMS stars in
Taurus-Auriga (Tau-Aur) to search for disks. They found that very few of the
binaries in their sample with projected separations less than 100 AU
had detectable 1300 \micron\ emission while strong emission was common
in wider binaries (see also Beckwith \& Sargent 1993). Jensen,
Mathieu, \& Fuller (1994, hereafter Paper I) used a larger sample of
binaries in Tau-Aur and more sensitive 800 \micron\ observations
of the systems with the smallest projected separations to further
explore this result. We found that the fluxes from binaries with
projected separations between 1 and 50--100 AU were significantly
lower than those from wider binaries or single stars. On the other
hand, the flux distributions of the two latter groups are
statistically indistinguishable. Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995) made
additional 1300 \micron\ observations of PMS stars
in Tau-Aur and did detect some close binaries. Nonetheless,
they found the difference in flux distributions between close binaries
and wide binaries or single stars to remain at a statistically
significant level.
There are a variety of theoretical predictions about the influence of
binaries on their associated disks. A binary companion embedded in a
disk is expected to rapidly clear a gap, isolating distinct
circumstellar and circumbinary disks. Such a gap may inhibit the
transfer of material from circumbinary to circumstellar disks (e.g.\
Artymowicz et al.\ 1991, but see Artymowicz \& Lubow 1994). If so,
continued accretion from the circumstellar disks onto the stars may
exhaust the reservoir of circumstellar disk material more quickly than
in single stars (Clarke 1992). Indeed binary companions may
accelerate the depletion. Ostriker, Shu, \& Adams (1992) found that
for separations less than 100 AU a companion can excite density waves
in a circumstellar disk, causing an enhanced accretion rate onto the
central star. At the same time, the inhibition of accretion could
increase the lifetimes of circumbinary disks (Clarke 1992). Pringle
(1991) found that the transfer of angular momentum from the binary
orbit to the circumbinary disk pushes disk material to larger radii,
resulting in a reduction in surface density and increase in size of
the circumbinary disk. We note that most of these predictions remain
largely untested by current observations.
We have undertaken a submillimeter survey of young binaries in the
Scorpius-Ophiuchus (Sco-Oph) star-forming region. In this paper, we
present 800 \micron\ observations of most known Sco-Oph PMS binaries
with projected separations $a_p$ less than 150 AU\null. We combine
these data with other Sco-Oph submillimeter data from Andr\'e \&
Montmerle (1994) and find a dependence of submillimeter flux on binary
separation in a sample that is independent of that used by BSCG, Paper
I, or Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995). We compare the submillimeter data
from Sco-Oph and Tau-Aur with submillimeter fluxes predicted from
models of disks with gaps and show that gap clearing alone may be
sufficient to explain the low submillimeter fluxes from the close
binaries. Most PMS binaries at all separations were detected at 60
\micron\ by IRAS, indicating the presence of circumstellar disks. We
derive lower limits on circumstellar disk masses from the 60 \micron\
emission. Finally, we use submillimeter fluxes to place upper limits
of 0.005 \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ on circumbinary disk masses for typical binaries with
$a_p$ between a few AU and 100 AU.
\section{Observations}
The target binaries (see \S\ref{section:sample}) were observed using
the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT)\footnote{The James Clerk
Maxwell Telescope is operated by the Royal Observatories on behalf
of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United
Kingdom, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, and
the National Research Council of Canada.} on 1992 February 24--27,
1992 March 2--4, and 1993 February 26 -- March 1. The JCMT facility
$^3$He cooled bolometer, UKT14, was used for the observations. All
observations were made using a 65-mm aperture which resulted in a
$\sim19\arcsec$ beam width (FWHM) at all wavelengths. All the
observations were made using standard chopping and beam switching with
synchronous detection of the signal. The secondary chopper was
switched 60\arcsec\ in azimuth at a rate of 7.8 Hz.
During the 1992 observing sessions the atmosphere was usually stable
and transparent. Measurements from a tipping radiometer indicated
zenith optical depths of typically 0.03 to 0.04 at 225 GHz. The
weather during the 1993 run was very stable and the atmosphere
transparent. The zenith optical depth at 225 GHz was approximately
constant at $\sim0.08$ during the first night and between 0.04 and
0.05 for the remaining nights. During both runs standard sources of
known flux were observed every 15 to 30 minutes in order to monitor
the sky opacity. The pointing of the telescope was also checked and
corrected regularly during the observations by making five-point
measurements on bright sources. Typically the actual pointing was
found to be within $\sim3$\arcsec\ of the nominal pointing. Very
occasional shifts as large as 6\arcsec\ were seen.
Our survey observations were made at 800 \micron. Because thermal
dust emission decreases with wavelength from 800 to 1300 \micron\ more
quickly than the atmospheric transmission improves (in good weather),
at the JCMT 800 \micron\ observations are more sensitive for detecting
weak dust emission. In addition, non-thermal emission (e.g.\ free-free
or gyrosynchrotron) increases in strength with increasing wavelength,
and thus 800 \micron\ observations are less likely to be contaminated
by this non-disk emission.
The program sources were initially observed for $\sim 1000$ s at 800
\micron. This resulted in a typical 1$\sigma$ noise level of 15--20
mJy. Most sources were observed twice, particularly those for which
the noise level of the first observation was higher than the typical
level of sources which were marginally detected. Observations at 1100
\micron\ and 450 \micron, and occasionally 350 \micron, were made of
sources which were strong detections at 800 \micron.
Observations of the standard sources at different airmasses were used
to determine the telescope sensitivity at 1100 \micron, 800 \micron,
450 \micron, and 350 \micron. Given the telescope sensitivity, the
standard source observations provided an estimate of the sky opacity
as a function of time throughout each night. For both observing
sessions, the variation of the sky opacity with time derived from
these observations very closely tracked the opacity derived from the
225 GHz radiometer. The program sources were calibrated using the
mean sky opacity derived from standard sources observed before and
after the target source. The scatter in the zenith opacity about a
linear fit versus time for each night has been used as an estimate of
the uncertainty in the flux calibration.
Each observation consisted of a series of 10-second samples. To
remove noise spikes from the data, the mean of the samples in each
integration was calculated and those samples which deviated from the
mean by more than three standard deviations were removed and the mean
was recalculated. The measured fluxes or $3\sigma$ upper limits are
given in Table \ref{table:jcmt_data}. The quoted uncertainties are a
combination of the flux calibration uncertainty discussed above and
the photon noise derived from the standard deviation of the individual
10-second samples within each observation.
\section{Sample selection}\label{section:sample}
We chose binaries for our sample from among members of the Upper
Scorpius subgroup of the Sco OB2 association and from the $\rho$ Oph
cloud complex. These stars lie within the approximate boundaries of right
ascension 15$^{\rm h}$10$^{\rm m}$--16$^{\rm h}$40$^{\rm m}$ and
declination $-5\deg$--$-35\deg$ (Blauuw 1978). We will refer to this
area as ``Sco-Oph''. We adopt distances of 125 pc for the $\rho$ Oph
clouds and 160 pc for Upper Sco (de Geus, de Zeeuw, \& Lub 1989).
Surveys which have searched for binaries in Sco-Oph include those of
Mathieu et al.\ (1989), Ghez et al.\ (1993), Reipurth \& Zinnecker
(1993), and Simon et al.\ (1992, 1995). These surveys vary greatly in
their target lists and the range of binary separations to which they
are sensitive. The characteristics of the surveys are summarized in
Table \ref{table:binary_surveys}. In addition, several PMS binaries
have been found by observations that were not part of surveys. AK Sco
was discovered to be a spectroscopic binary by Andersen et al.\
(1989). WL 2 and WL 20 were both found to be binaries by infrared
imaging (Rieke, Ashok, \& Boyle 1989, Barsony et al.\ 1989). VV Sco
was noted as a visual binary by Gregorio-Hetem et al.\ (1992). DoAr
51 was found to be a binary by Koresko (1995) using speckle
interferometry.
Currently only spectroscopic observations can detect binaries with
separations less than $\sim$ 1 AU at the distance of Sco-Oph. All but
one (AK Sco) of the known spectroscopic binaries in Sco-Oph were found
in a radial-velocity survey of x-ray selected stars in Sco-Oph
(Mathieu et al.\ 1989). Independent of multiplicity, most of the x-ray
selected stars surveyed by Mathieu et al.\ (1989) do not have infrared
excesses or strong H$\alpha$ emission (Walter et al.\ 1994), the
classical signatures of disks. Thus the binaries discovered in that
survey may not be representative of PMS spectroscopic binaries in
general, particularly in terms of the disk properties with which we
are concerned here.
In contrast to the spectroscopic observations of Mathieu et al.\
(1989), the other surveys for binaries in Sco-Oph have drawn their
target lists primarily from lists of H$\alpha$- and infrared-selected
PMS stars. Ghez et al.\ (1993) and Simon et al.\ (1995) also include
some x-ray selected PMS stars in their target lists. The targets of
these surveys were not initially discovered to be young stars using a
uniform set of selection criteria, and thus the combined sample of
Sco-Oph binaries from these surveys is not a well-defined,
uniformly-selected PMS binary sample. However, the diversity of
targets of these surveys reflects the variety of techniques that have
been used to search for young stars. Thus, while the sample of
binaries discovered by these surveys may not be uniformly defined, it
should be reasonably representative of the known population of PMS
stars in Sco-Oph in general.
Because the spectroscopic binaries are drawn from a distinctly
different sample of PMS stars than are the other binaries, in this
paper we limit our analysis to binaries with projected separations
greater than 1 AU\null. This sample should be neither more nor less
biased toward the presence of disks than the known Sco-Oph PMS
population as a whole. For these binaries, we present a quantitative
analysis of the distribution of submillimeter fluxes with projected
separation and discuss the implications of our data for binary-disk
interactions. We will discuss the submillimeter fluxes and spectral
energy distributions of binaries with projected separations less than
1 AU in a later paper.
Simon et al.\ (1992, 1995) argue that for separations less than
10\arcsec, contamination of the binary sample from chance
superposition of stars should be negligible. Thus, we adopt this as
the separation upper bound for our sample. We have taken projected
separations or projected semimajor axes for Sco-Oph binaries from the
binary surveys discussed above.
The other primary requirement for inclusion in our sample is
availability of an 800 \micron\ or 1300 \micron\ flux measurement.
(For convenience, we will refer to either of these as ``submillimeter
fluxes.'') Submillimeter fluxes or flux limits are from this work and
Andr\'e \& Montmerle (1994, hereafter AM), which together cover about
90\% of the currently known PMS binaries in Sco-Oph.
Our goal is to explore the influence of multiplicity on the properties
of circumstellar and circumbinary disks. In order to avoid confusion
introduced by other factors that may also influence submillimeter
emission, we have further constrained our sample.
Our sample is limited to PMS stars with spectral types of F
and later so as to reduce the range of
stellar mass, luminosity, and temperature.
We have also excluded Class I sources as defined in the infrared
classification scheme of Lada (1987). Terebey, Chandler, \& Andr\'e
(1993) suggest that a significant fraction of the 1300 \micron\
emission from Class I sources arises in an envelope rather than a
disk; this is consistent with the fact that Class I sources have
significantly higher 1300 \micron\ fluxes on average than Class II or Class
III sources and that Class I sources tend to be extended whereas Class
II sources are unresolved (AM). Class I sources are also heavily
embedded and presumably younger than Class II or III sources (AM).
In fact, the spectral type and infrared class criteria remove only a few
systems from our sample.
After applying these selection criteria, we obtain a sample of
30\ multiple systems in Sco-Oph. This is comparable to
the 42 systems in Tau-Aur studied in Paper I\null. With the addition
of data from Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995), the present Tau-Aur sample
includes 55\ multiple systems. We also analyze this
expanded sample below.
In addition to the binaries, we adopt a sample of single stars for
comparison. Single stars provide a ``control'' sample, revealing
submillimeter fluxes produced in the absence of any stellar-mass
companion. We take our single-star sample from the targets observed
by AM which are not known to have stellar companions within 10\arcsec.
We apply the same spectral type and IR class criteria described above.
From the $\rho$ Oph region, we adopt only the sources that AM have
marked with a ``\#'' in their Table 1, since these are all confirmed
PMS stars which have been observed at a uniform sensitivity. In
addition, we adopt the other single PMS stars which AM observed that
lie outside $\rho$ Oph but within Sco-Oph. This yields a total of
47\ stars.
We note that this definition of our single star sample is less
restrictive than in Paper I for the Tau-Aur sample, where we adopted as
single only those stars which had been surveyed using speckle
interferometry or lunar occultation and found not to have companions.
However, the surveys for binaries in Sco-Oph have been less
comprehensive and less uniform than in Tau-Aur; applying such a
criterion to Sco-Oph would yield a prohibitively small sample of 15
stars. Thus, here we adopt as single those stars not known to have
companions, whether or not they have been surveyed with
high-resolution techniques. To estimate the contamination from
unresolved companions in our single-star sample, we note that of
47\ stars in the ``single'' sample, 15 have been surveyed
using high-resolution techniques, leaving 32 of unknown multiplicity.
Adopting a multiplicity frequency of 50\% (Simon et al.\ 1995 find
48\% for Tau-Aur and Oph), we then expect $\sim 16$ binaries out of
47\ stars in the sample. Wide companions ($a_p \gtrsim
1\arcsec$) would be more likely to have been previously discovered, so
the contamination is likely to be predominantly close binaries. Thus
the expected effect of contamination of the single sample by
undetected binaries would be to weaken the statistical significance of
any differences between the flux distributions of the close binaries
and single stars.
\section{The dependence of submillimeter flux on binary separation}
\subsection{Combining 1300 \micron\ and 800 \micron\ flux measurements}
The bulk of the submillimeter and millimeter continuum flux
measurements of PMS stars in the literature are contained in the
surveys of BSCG, Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995) (both including Tau-Aur),
and AM (Sco-Oph). All of these surveys were made at a wavelength of
1300 \micron\ while our observations were made at 800 \micron.
Combining these measurements raises the
question of how to compare fluxes measured at 1300 \micron\ with those
measured at 800 \micron. Because of the existence of a large number
of 1300 \micron\ flux measurements of PMS stars in the literature, we
have chosen to scale our 800 \micron\ fluxes or flux limits to 1300
\micron\ for comparison with existing data. Submillimeter and
millimeter fluxes from dust around PMS stars are dominated by emission
on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the Planck function, and thus if the
emission is optically thick the flux density $F_\nu$ should vary with
frequency as $\nu^2$. If the emission is optically thin and the
submillimeter dust opacity varies as $\kappa_{\nu} \propto \nu^\beta$,
then the flux should vary as $\nu^{2+\beta}$. Since dust opacity is
thought to increase with increasing frequency (i.e.\ $\beta$ is
positive; Beckwith \& Sargent 1991, Pollack et al.\ 1994, Agladze et
al.\ 1994), then the variation of submillimeter and millimeter thermal
continuum emission with frequency should be {\em at least\/} as steep
as $F_\nu \propto \nu^2$. In fact, observations of PMS stars at
multiple millimeter wavelengths bear this out. Beckwith \& Sargent
(1991) observed 25 PMS stars and found that 19 out of 25 have
millimeter spectral slopes greater than or equal to $\nu^2$ within
their 1$\sigma$ uncertainties.
Thus, for systems with upper limits on their 800 \micron\ fluxes we
calculate 1300 \micron\ upper limits by multiplying the 800 \micron\
flux limits by $(\nu_{1300}/ \nu_{800})^2 = 0.38$. Since the true
spectral slope may be steeper than $\nu^2$, this scaling provides a
conservative but secure upper limit on the 1300 \micron\ flux. For
systems with upper limits at both 800 and 1300 \micron, the measured
1300 \micron\ limit is compared to the 800 \micron\ limit scaled to
1300 \micron, and the lower of the two values is used.
One system in our Sco-Oph sample was detected at 800 \micron\ but not
1300 \micron. Haro 1-4 was not detected by AM with a 1300-\micron\
flux limit of $F_\nu < 50 $ mJy. This limit is consistent with our
800 \micron\ detection of $F_\nu = 58 $ mJy. To estimate the 1300
\micron\ flux of Haro 1-4, we extrapolated the 800-\micron\ flux to
1300 \micron\ assuming a spectral slope of $\nu^2$, the most common
slope found by Beckwith \& Sargent (1991). Nonetheless, the unknown
spectral slope leads to an uncertain 1300 \micron\ flux. However,
tests using different slopes to determine the flux of Haro 1-4, or
leaving it out of the sample altogether, show that the effect of this
uncertainty on our results is negligible.
A few binary systems do not show the variation of submillimeter flux
with wavelength expected for thermal emission from dust. We treat
these on a case-by-case basis. V773 Tau was detected at 1300 \micron\
by BSCG with a flux of $42 \pm 6$ mJy and by Osterloh \& Beckwith
(1995) with a flux of $24 \pm 4$ mJy. However, we did not detect it
at 800 \micron\ with a $3\sigma$ upper limit of 29 mJy (Paper I). The
apparent variability at 1300 \micron, the 800--1300 \micron\ spectral
slope much flatter than $\nu^2$, and the strong non-thermal centimeter
wavelength emission (Phillips, Lonsdale, \& Feigelson 1991) suggest
that at least some of the 1300 \micron\ flux from V773 Tau is produced
by a non-thermal process and is not emission from circumstellar
dust. As in Paper I, we proceed on the assumption that the 1300
\micron\ emission is non-thermal, and we use the 800 \micron\ limit
from Paper I to derive an upper limit on the 1300 \micron\ disk emission.
Two binaries in Sco-Oph (SR 9 and DoAr 24E) show a similar
disagreement of 800 \micron\ and 1300 \micron\ fluxes. We did not
detect SR 9 at 800 \micron\ with a $3\sigma$ upper limit of 28 mJy.
Scaling this to 1300 \micron\ by $\nu^2$ yields an upper limit of 11
mJy, whereas AM list it as a weak detection ($\sim 4\sigma$) at 1300
\micron\ with a flux of 15 mJy. However, in this case there is no
independent evidence of non-thermal emission; SR 9 was undetected at 6
cm (Andr\'e et al.\ 1990). SR 9 may be similar to the few systems
found by Beckwith \& Sargent (1991) to have submillimeter spectral
slopes slightly flatter than $\nu^2$ (i.e.\ $-1 < \beta < 0$).
Because of the lack of other evidence for non-thermal contributions to
the millimeter flux and the relatively modest deviation from expected
dust-emission spectral slope, for SR 9 we adopt the 1300 \micron\ flux
measured by AM for our analysis. DoAr 24E, however, shows a larger
disagreement between 800 and 1300 \micron\ fluxes. We measured a flux
of $37\pm 8$ mJy at 800 \micron, while AM measured 65 mJy at 1300
\micron. These measurements imply $\beta \approx -3.2$, well outside
the range of $\beta$ values found by Beckwith \& Sargent (1991).
Reipurth \& Zinnecker (1993) report a 1300 \micron\ flux from DoAr 24E
of $\sim 20$ mJy. Although no radio continuum measurements of DoAr
24E are known to us, its unusual submillimeter spectral slope and
apparent variability (as in the case of V773 Tau) suggest a
non-thermal contribution to its 1300 \micron\ flux. Thus, we adopt
our 800 \micron\ flux scaled to 1300 \micron\ by $\nu^2$ as the best
estimate of the disk contribution to submillimeter emission for the
analysis below. Finally, we emphasize that, given the size of our
sample, the particular choice of flux for these three systems (or even
their inclusion or omission) does not affect the conclusions of our
analysis.
\subsection{Assignment of flux in unresolved triple and quadruple systems}
Five systems in our Sco-Oph sample each comprise three or four stars
that lie within the JCMT beam: V853 Oph, SR 24, 155913$-$2233,
162814$-$2427 (ROX 42C), and 162819$-$2423 (ROX 43A/B). In the Tau-Aur binary
sample, there are six systems which are triples with all components
within 10\arcsec\ of each other: HP Tau/G3, V807 Tau, HV Tau, RW Aur,
UZ Tau, and UX Tau. In the absence of spatially-resolved flux
measurements of the individual components of such higher-order
multiple systems, it is unknown whether any detected flux should be
associated with the binary, the tertiary, or both.
Thus the positions of such
systems in a plot of flux vs.\ projected separation are ambiguous.
For systems that are not detected, we know that neither the close pair
nor the wide companion has substantial submillimeter flux; thus the
system is reasonably represented by two points, one at each projected
separation.\footnote{However, a counter argument to this is that a
hierarchical quadruple system is quite different from just a wide
binary, since this ``wide pair'' would not be expected to have a
large flux if both close binaries cleared their disks. The only
quadruple in our sample is 162819$-$2423 (ROX 43A/B), which is
represented by three data points, one at each projected separation
in the system. However, the closest pair in the system (the
spectroscopic binary 162819$-$2423S) has a separation smaller than
the 1 AU lower bound of our sample. Thus only two points for this
system appear on the plots and in the statistical analysis. } For
detected systems, the flux could arise from the close pair, the wide
companion, or both. For these systems we have also plotted two
points, one at each projected separation. For the pair with the
larger projected separation, at least one member (whether that member
is single or multiple) of the wide pair has detectable submillimeter
flux. Thus, there is still detectable flux in the presence of a wide
companion which should be represented by a point on the plot at the
wider projected separation. For the pair with the closer projected
separation, there {\em may\/} be detectable submillimeter flux from a
close pair, and thus we adopt the conservative approach of putting a
point on the plot to represent this possibility. Since we have argued
in Paper I that close pairs have smaller fluxes on average than wide
pairs, this method of assigning fluxes provides the most rigorous test
of our hypothesis.
Two triple systems, SR 24 and UZ Tau, have been treated
differently because the wide pair in each has been resolved at
millimeter wavelengths. SR 24 N and S are separated by 6\arcsec, and
SR 24N is a close binary with a projected separation of 0\farcs2
(Simon et al.\ 1995). AM mapped the area around SR 24 using an
``on-the-fly'' mapping technique and a 12\arcsec\ (FWHM) beam, and
they conclude that the detected 1300 \micron\ emission arises from an
unresolved area around SR 24S, with an upper limit of 30 mJy on
emission from SR 24N, the close binary. They give fluxes of 280 mJy
for SR 24S and $<30$ mJy for SR 24N, though they note that the latter
limit is uncertain due to possible contamination from SR 24S\null.
This is consistent with the results of Reipurth et al.\ (1993), who
found the total SR 24 flux in a 23\arcsec\ beam to be $259 \pm 14$ mJy
at 1300 \micron. We adopt the flux values given by AM for our
analysis. For UZ Tau, the wide pair has been resolved at 1300
\micron\ in interferometric observations using the Owens Valley
Millimeter Array (Jensen, Koerner, \& Mathieu 1995, in preparation).
UZ Tau W, the close binary, has a flux of $32 \pm 9$ mJy at 1300 \micron,
while UZ Tau E has a flux of $137 \pm 28$ mJy. In our analysis we have
assigned UZ Tau W its measured 1300 \micron\ flux and assigned the
combined flux of both components to the wide E-W pair. Because of the
availability of observations which resolve the wide pairs, these two
systems are not marked as triples in Figures
\ref{fig:sco-oph}--\ref{fig:clearing-model}.
\subsection{The submillimeter flux distribution as a function of
binary separation}
Figure \ref{fig:sco-oph} shows the 1300 \micron\ flux of Sco-Oph
binaries plotted as a function of projected binary separation. Filled
symbols are detections and open symbols represent 3$\sigma$ upper
limits. Squares show measurements at 1300 \micron, while triangles
are 800 \micron\ measurements scaled to 1300 \micron\ as described
above. To aid in determining which points may be confused by the
presence of higher-order multiplicity, each point representing a pair
in an unresolved higher-order multiple system is marked with a
``T'' to the right of the point. Different pairings from
the same system can be associated by having the same flux measurement.
(Note that in three instances the systems include a spectroscopic
binary with a separation smaller than the limit of the figure.) All
fluxes have been scaled to a distance of 140 pc, roughly the mean
distance between the 125 pc distance to $\rho$ Oph and the 160 pc
distance to Upper Sco.
A dependence of submillimeter flux on projected binary separation is
evident in Figure \ref{fig:sco-oph}. Binaries with projected
separations $a_p$ less than roughly 100 AU tend to have lower fluxes
than wider binaries. Among binaries with $a_p \ge 100$ AU, 7 of 15 are
detected, while only 3 of 16 closer systems are detected, and two of
these have separations very near 100 AU\null. More importantly, the
close binaries which were not detected have flux upper limits
substantially lower than most of the detections among the wider
binaries. Clearly the submillimeter flux distribution differs between
binaries with separations greater or less than roughly 100 AU, with
the distribution extending to larger fluxes among the wider binaries.
In order to quantify the dependence of submillimeter flux on
binary separation, we applied statistical tests to compare the
distributions of flux among different groups of binaries. We used the
techniques of survival analysis which allow quantitative analysis of
data which include upper limits. We used the software package ASURV
Rev.\ 1.1 (LaValley, Isobe, \& Feigelson 1992) which implements the
methods presented in Feigelson \& Nelson (1985). We divided the data
into subsets based on projected separation and then compared pairs of
these subsets using the Gehan, logrank, Peto-Peto, and Peto-Prentice
two-sample tests. These tests yield probabilities that the
distributions of flux in the two samples are drawn from the same
parent distribution. The various tests are sensitive to different
underlying flux distributions; since the true flux distribution for
our sample is unknown, we have applied all of the tests and report the
spread of the results.
We have divided the sample into close and wide binaries using
separations of both 50 AU and 100 AU as in Paper I\null. The results
of the two-sample tests are given in Table~\ref{table:asurv_results},
expressed as percentage confidence levels that the flux distributions
of the two samples are different. These results support the
conclusion reached by visual examination of Figure \ref{fig:sco-oph}:
at the 90--95\% confidence level binaries with projected separations
less than or equal to 100 AU do not have the same submillimeter flux
distribution as binaries with greater projected separations. When the
sample is divided at 50 AU, the same result is found with similar
confidence levels.
Simon et al.\ (1992, 1995) found that young binaries as a group (i.e.\
of all separations) have lower submillimeter fluxes on average than
young single stars. We have also compared the sample of ``single''
stars to the known binaries, but we have considered the close and
wide binaries separately. The confidence levels at which the
distributions of binaries and single stars differ are given in
Table~\ref{table:asurv_results}. The close binaries have a different
flux distribution from the single stars at confidence levels around
95\%. In contrast, the fluxes from the wide binaries and single
stars are consistent with being drawn from the same distribution.
We have applied the same two-sample tests discussed above to the PMS
binaries and single stars in the Taurus-Auriga star-forming region.
These results are also given in Table~\ref{table:asurv_results}, and
the Taurus-Auriga binaries are plotted in Figure \ref{fig:tau-aur}.
As expected, the results are the same as from similar previous
analyses (Paper I; Osterloh \& Beckwith 1995): the submillimeter flux
distribution of the close binaries is distinct from that of the wide
binaries at high confidence levels. Thus, the same variation of
submillimeter flux with binary separation is seen in two independent
samples of PMS stars. Finally, we combine the Sco-Oph and Tau-Aur
samples (Figure \ref{fig:combined-sample}), obtaining confidence
levels greater than 99\% that the submillimeter flux distributions of
close and wide binaries, and of close binaries and single stars, are
distinct.
Hence we conclude that at a statistically secure level the
submillimeter flux distribution among binaries with separations
between 1 AU and 50--100 AU is different than that of wider binaries
or single stars. The sense of the difference is that submillimeter
emission is weaker in close binaries.
The binary separation at which the transition occurs is not well
defined but appears to be roughly 50 AU to 100 AU\null. This
separation is comparable to the radius typically derived for dust
disks around PMS stars (e.g.\ Beckwith \& Sargent 1993). As pointed
out by Osterloh \& Beckwith (1995), this transition separation
strongly suggests that the emitting material does lie in disks in most
cases. If the material were in extended envelopes (e.g.\ Terebey et
al.\ 1993), binaries at this separation would not be expected to
influence the submillimeter emission.
The low submillimeter fluxes from close binaries are not due to age;
the closer binaries have the same distribution of ages as the wider
binaries or single stars. In addition, within the range of ages
(roughly $10^5$--$10^7$ yr) in our sample, we find no dependence of
submillimeter flux on age of the system for the wide binaries.
\section{Interpreting the relationship between disk emission and
binary separation}
\subsection{Resonant clearing of gaps in disks}
The presence of a stellar companion at a separation less than the disk
radius must influence the spatial distribution of the disk material.
Theoretical calculations and numerical simulations show that a binary
embedded within a disk will rapidly clear a region on the size scale
of the binary separation, thus isolating circumstellar and
circumbinary disks (see e.g.\ Lin \& Papaloizou 1993 for a review).
The extent of the region cleared depends on the details of the given
system, specifically the binary mass ratio, orbital eccentricity, and
disk viscosity. Artymowicz \& Lubow (1994) find that circumstellar
disks will have outer radii of less than half the binary semi-major
axis, and circumbinary disks will have inner radii of greater than
roughly twice the binary semi-major axis.
Disk clearing of this type creates a natural link between binary
separation and the submillimeter fluxes from binary systems which is
very similar to that observed. Assume that disks have a certain
characteristic outer radius $R_d$. For the purposes of this
discussion, this radius could be either a physical limit on the extent
of disk material or an effective radius inside which most of the
disk's submillimeter emission originates (even though there may be
additional cold or low-density material outside it). In binary
systems with separations greater than a few times $R_d$, each
component of the system could have a circumstellar disk that is
relatively undisturbed by its companion, and the submillimeter
emission from such a system would be comparable to that from a single
star with a circumstellar disk. In systems with separations much less
than $R_d$ only a small hole at the center of the circumbinary disk
will be cleared, leaving a circumbinary disk which could be
similar in extent and emission to disks around single stars. Binaries
with separations somewhat less than $R_d$, however, will
clear regions whose extent represents a large fraction of the surface
area of an undisturbed disk. This reduction in emitting surface area
will result in reduced submillimeter fluxes, as observed.
In order to investigate the effect of gap clearing on submillimeter
flux in a more quantitative way, we have introduced gaps into a simple
disk model. Following a standard approach in modeling infrared and
submillimeter disk emission (e.g.\ Adams, Lada, \& Shu 1988, Adams,
Emerson, \& Fuller 1990, BSCG), we use a geometrically thin disk with
power-law temperature and surface-density distributions:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:temperature}
T(r) = T_1(r/{\rm (1\ AU)})^{-q},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(r) = \Sigma_0(r/r_0)^{-p}.
\end{equation}
The emission from such a disk is then given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:disk_emission}
F_{\nu} = \frac{\cos\theta}{D^2} \int_{r_0}^{R_d} B_{\nu}[T(r)] (1 -
e^{-\tau_\nu(r)})2\pi r \, dr,
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the distance from the observer to the system, $\theta$ is
the angle between the line of sight and the normal to the disk plane,
and $\tau_\nu$ is the line-of-sight optical depth through the disk,
related to the mass opacity $\kappa_\nu$ by
\begin{equation}
\tau_\nu(r) = \frac{\kappa_\nu \Sigma(r)}{\cos \theta}.
\end{equation}
To simulate disk clearing by a binary companion, we made a
simple modification to this disk model. For each model binary-disk
system, we set the disk surface density (and thus the emission) equal
to zero between radii $r_{in}$ and $r_{out}$, designating the inner
and outer edges of the gap:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:surface_density}
\Sigma(r) = \cases{0,& if $r_{in} < r < r_{out}$;\cr
\Sigma_0(r/r_0)^{-p},& otherwise.}
\end{equation}
These radii are determined by the parameters of a given binary system,
especially the binary semi-major axis $a$. We considered two
different cases. In the first, $r_{in} = 0.4a$ and $r_{out} = 1.8a$.
This is the clearing expected for a binary with a circular orbit, and
the minimum clearing expected for any binary system (Artymowicz \&
Lubow 1994). In the second case, $r_{in} = 0.2 a$ and $r_{out} = 3a$.
This level of clearing is expected for a binary with an orbital
eccentricity of 0.4, roughly the mean eccentricity for pre--main-sequence\ and
main-sequence binaries with known orbits (Mathieu 1994, Duquennoy \&
Mayor 1991).\footnote{These clearing radii also depend on the disk
viscosity and the binary mass ratio. The numbers quoted here are
for a Reynolds number of $10^5$ and a binary mass ratio of 7:3.
However, changing these values within reasonably expected bounds
does not greatly affect the expected disk clearing. For a range of
Reynolds numbers from $10^4$ to $10^6$ and eccentricity of 0.4, the
inner gap edge ranges from $0.19a$ to $0.25a$ and the outer gap edge
from $2.7a$ to $3.1a$ (Artymowicz \& Lubow 1994). We adopt the
numbers above as representative of an ``average'' binary.}
For a given set of disk parameters ($M_d$, $q$, $T_1$; $p = 1.5$, $R_d
= 100$ AU) we calculated the expected submillimeter flux from binaries
having a range of separations from 0.01 AU to 2000 AU, spanning the
observed range of separations in our sample. We then calculated
models with a range of inclination angles and averaged their fluxes
based on the frequency of occurrence of a given value of $\theta$ in a
random distribution of disk inclinations. The result for one
particular disk model is shown in Figure \ref{fig:clearing-model}.
The model is superimposed on the combined submillimeter data from the
Sco-Oph and Tau-Aur regions, with all fluxes scaled to a distance of
140 pc. The solid line shows the expected submillimeter flux as a
function of separation if gaps extend from $0.2 a$ to $3 a$ (eccentric
orbits), and the dashed line shows the expected flux if gaps extend
from $0.4 a$ to $1.8 a$ (circular orbits).
As expected, the gap-clearing model shows the submillimeter fluxes of
the closest and widest binaries to be unaffected by gap clearing,
while binaries of intermediate separations have lower fluxes. For the
particular model shown the reduction in flux occurs for binaries with
separations between roughly 1 AU and 300 AU, with a minimum flux
around 25 AU\null. Thus our simple model for gap clearing reproduces
the qualitative features of the observed submillimeter flux dependence
on binary separation.
If the gaps are of the size expected for eccentric binary systems, the
reduction of submillimeter flux due to gaps can be as much as a factor
of 15. This is comparable to the difference between typical detected
fluxes among wide binaries and the available upper limits for the
close binaries. The model shown in Figure \ref{fig:clearing-model}
provides a specific case for quantitative discussion. This model has
$M_d = 0.05\ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}$, $q = 0.65$, and $T_1 = 125\ {\rm K}$ and was
chosen to match typical flux levels among detected wide binaries. The
minimum submillimeter flux in this particular model is a factor of
nine less than the flux of the disk with no gap. The dashed line
(circular binary) lies well above most of the observed flux upper
limits between 1 and 100 AU and thus is not consistent with the
observations. However, most binaries have eccentric orbits. The
solid line ($e=0.4$) passes through the upper limits for
binaries with separations around 25 AU and exceeds the typical upper
limits for binaries of somewhat larger and smaller separations by a
factor of two to three at most.
{\em The essential conclusion to be drawn from this simple model is
that the lack of detected submillimeter emission among the closer
binaries does not necessarily imply that disk material is not
present, nor that disk surface densities are much lower than found
among wide binaries or single stars. The large reduction in emitting
surface area due to gap clearing can in and of itself reduce flux to
levels comparable to many of the present upper limits.} Thus, while
it is clear from these submillimeter data that binary companions with
separations less than 100 AU significantly influence the nature of
associated disks, it remains an outstanding question to what extent
circumstellar and circumbinary disks are present in these binaries. We
return to these issues in Sections \ref{sec:cs-disks} and
\ref{sec:cb-disks}
Given the presence of a companion, the physical conditions of the
disk(s) in our simple model are certainly oversimplified, and thus a
detailed comparison of the model with observations is likely not
merited. Nonetheless, we note that the model appears less successful
for binaries with separations between 1 AU and 10 AU\null. In
particular, the model flux is symmetric in $\log(a_p)$ around binary
separations of a few tens of AU, while in fact submillimeter fluxes
remain low at separations less than 10 AU\null. Unfortunately, the
sample size in this separation range is small; the two-sample tests
give probabilities of only 78--90\% that the submillimeter fluxes of
binaries with $1 < a_p < 10$ AU are drawn from a different
distribution than the fluxes of binaries with $a_p > 100$ AU\null.
Furthermore, most of the binaries with $1 < a_p < 10$ AU were
discovered via lunar occultation techniques, so that the measured
separation is a projection against the lunar limb. As such, many of
these binaries may have wider separations projected on the sky than
those shown in Figure \ref{fig:clearing-model}. Thus, while there is
a suggestion that there is a larger reduction in flux among the
closest binaries than predicted by the model, the case is not strong
with the present data.
If the reduction in submillimeter flux does extend to separations as
small as 1 AU, this would be difficult to reproduce with our simple
annular gap model. We note that the flux predicted by the model for
binaries with separations of less than 10 AU is largely from
circumbinary disks. Indeed for binaries with separations of only a few
AU the surface areas of circumstellar disks are too small to produce
detectable submillimeter emission. Hence weak submillimeter emission
from such binaries would suggest lower mass, temperature, and/or dust
opacity of circumbinary material.
Finally, we note that the most submillimeter-luminous binaries, such
as GG Tau, T Tau, and AS 205, cannot be easily incorporated into this
simple picture. GG Tau in particular has a projected separation of 40
AU and yet is the most luminous binary in the Tau-Aur and Sco-Oph
regions. Furthermore, interferometric observations at millimeter
wavelengths reveal a circumbinary disk with a radial extent of at
least 800 AU (Dutrey, Guilloteau, \& Simon 1994). The millimeter
emission also shows a central depression which Dutrey et al.\
attribute to a central cavity of radius 180 AU\null. They attribute this
cavity to a clearing process similar to that invoked here for gaps,
but clearly this system is substantially different from both our
standard model for a 40 AU binary and from other binaries with
projected separations of tens of AU\null.
\subsubsection{Effect of disk parameters on the flux-separation relation}
\label{sec:disk-params}
The model shown in Figure \ref{fig:clearing-model} is only one
realization of a large range of physical conditions found in disks.
Therefore it is useful to establish whether other combinations of
model parameters can better reproduce the observed variation of flux
with separation. In Figure \ref{fig:4-clearing-models} we explore the
influence of disk parameters on the distribution of submillimeter flux
with binary separation. In panels a, b, and c, one of the disk
parameters $T_1$, $q$, and $M_d$ is varied while the others are held
fixed. In panel d, all three disk parameters are held fixed while the
wavelength at which the flux is calculated is varied.
One general trend that can be seen in these figures is that changes in
disk properties which give lower submillimeter fluxes also tend to
decrease the binary separation corresponding to the minimum flux.
This is because the contribution of the hotter, more optically thick
inner regions of the disk contribute a larger percentage of the total
flux when the disk luminosity is low. For more luminous disks whose
outer regions are hotter (through higher $T_1$ or lower $q$) or more
optically thick (through higher $M_d$), the contribution of the outer
disk to the total flux is significant. In such disks gap clearing
in the outer regions has a larger effect on the total submillimeter
flux.
A discontinuous change in slope can be seen in some of the models in
Figure \ref{fig:4-clearing-models} (as well as in Figure
\ref{fig:clearing-model}). This is due to the assumption in the
models that the disks have a sharp outer radius $R_d$, here taken to
be 100 AU\null. The slope discontinuity occurs when the outer edge of
the gap $r_{out}$ reaches the outer edge of the disk. Increasing
$R_d$ would increase the separation that gives the minimum flux for a
few of the models shown in Figure \ref{fig:4-clearing-models}, though
most would be unchanged.
Interestingly, the choice of 1300 \micron\ or 800 \micron\ as an
observing wavelength makes little difference in the
binary separation producing the minimum flux (Figure
\ref{fig:4-clearing-models}d). This is due to the interplay of two
opposing factors. Shorter-wavelength emission is more sensitive to
disk material at higher temperatures, suggesting that 800 \micron\
emission would tend to probe gaps at smaller disk radii than 1300
\micron\ emission. However, for emission in the Rayleigh limit the
tradeoff between increasing surface area and decreasing optical depth
with radius tends to emphasize the emission from the region in the
disk near $\tau_\nu = 1$ (BSCG). Because dust opacity increases with
frequency, $\tau_\nu = 1$ lies at a larger radius for 800 \micron\
than for 1300 \micron. These two effects largely cancel each other
and emission at both wavelengths is sensitive to roughly the same disk
radii. However, 60 \micron\ flux is sensitive to smaller disk radii
because much of the disk is too cold to produce appreciable 60
\micron\ emission.
We draw two main conclusions from this exploration of model parameter
space. First, under no circumstances does gap clearing at the level
expected for binaries with circular orbits produce a reduction in flux
that is comparable to that observed. Second, no combination of model
parameters does significantly better than that in Figure
\ref{fig:clearing-model} at reproducing the depth, breadth, and
location of the reduction in submillimeter fluxes observed among the
close binaries.
\subsubsection{Estimates of disk masses}\label{sec:masscalc}
Gap clearing may affect not only the distribution of submillimeter
flux with separation, but also the disk mass derived for a given
system based on its submillimeter flux. Submillimeter fluxes have
commonly been used to infer disk masses by adopting a model for a
continuous disk, deriving the disk temperature distribution from
infrared data, and then adjusting the disk mass until the model flux
agrees with the observed submillimeter flux at one or more wavelengths
(Adams et al.\ 1990, BSCG, AM, Osterloh \& Beckwith 1995). However,
if binaries clear gaps in their disks, the geometry of the emitting
material is significantly different than that assumed in conventional
disk modeling and may affect the mass calculation. Here we derive
disk masses assuming the disk-clearing model discussed above and
compare them to masses derived assuming continuous disks. Because
disk clearing has little effect on disk mass estimates for wider
binaries, we derive masses only for Sco-Oph binaries with $a_p < 300$
AU\null.
The temperature distribution of the disk is determined by fitting the
10--100 \micron\ data for each system with a power law and determining
$q$ and $T_1$ from the parameters of the fit (BSCG). Some of the
binaries in our sample do not have sufficient infrared data available
in the literature for this to be possible, and we could not derive
masses for these systems. For the remaining systems, we took published
values of $q$ and $T_1$ from AM for some sources and used infrared
data from the literature to derive $q$ and $T_1$ for the others.
Though emission at 10--100 \micron\ is likely to be dominated by the
inner part of the circumstellar disk, we assume that the derived
temperature distribution applies to the whole disk.
To calculate the disk mass in the presence of a gap, we assume the
emission from the disk is given by Eq.\ \ref{eq:disk_emission}, with
the disk surface density given by Eq.\ \ref{eq:surface_density}. We
calculate masses for three cases: no clearing, circular-orbit clearing
($r_{in} = 0.4a$, $r_{out} = 1.8a$), and eccentric-orbit clearing
($r_{in} = 0.2a$, $r_{out} = 3a$). For triple or quadruple systems,
we choose the projected separation closest to 50 AU since this pair
will most affect the derived disk mass. Following BSCG, we take $p =
1.5$, $\theta = 0$, $r_0 = 0.01$ AU, and $R_d = 100$ AU\null.
Following Beckwith \& Sargent (1991), we use the opacity law
$\kappa_\nu = 0.1\,(\lambda/250\ \micron)^{-\beta}$, with $\beta = 1$.
We then numerically integrate Eq.\ \ref{eq:disk_emission} and vary
$\Sigma_0$ until the calculated flux matches the observed flux. These
masses are given in Table \ref{table:disk_masses}.
The table shows that gap clearing does not greatly affect the derived
mass for most systems. We further explored this affect using an
ensemble of model binary systems with a range of disk properties. For
gaps from $0.4 a$ to $1.8 a$, the derived disk mass typically differs
by a factor of two or less from the mass calculated assuming a
continuous disk; for gaps from $0.2 a$ to $3 a$, the difference is
typically a factor of three or less. For some combinations of disk
properties and gap locations, the variations are somewhat greater.
Gap clearing can either increase or decrease the mass derived from a
given flux, depending on whether the area cleared is efficient or
inefficient at radiating submillimeter flux compared to the rest of
the disk. Thus, gap clearing introduces an additional uncertainty
into disk mass calculations for close binary systems.
\subsection{Circumstellar disks in binary environments}\label{sec:cs-disks}
While gap clearing can plausibly explain the reduction of
submillimeter flux from binaries
with separations of less than 50-100 AU, the upper limits on
fluxes from such binaries can be equally well explained if the physical
conditions (such as surface densities or temperatures) of disks in
closer binaries differ from those in wide binaries. Indeed, one
straightforward interpretation of the lack of submillimeter emission is
the complete absence of disk material.
However, 2 \micron\ and 10 \micron\ excesses indicate that
circumstellar disks are present in at least 50\% of PMS binaries
(Mathieu 1994). Similarly, Simon et al.\ (1995) find the same binary
frequency in systems with and without circumstellar disks based on $K
- L$ colors, and Simon \& Prato (1995) find the same frequency of $K -
N$ color excesses for single stars as for binaries. But
observations at these wavelengths only sample material very near
stellar surfaces. In addition the high dust opacities at these
wavelengths typically do not permit derivation of surface densities.
Longer wavelength IRAS measurements also support a high frequency of
circumstellar disks. Mid-infrared (e.g.\ 60 \micron) flux originates
in the inner regions of disks (typically $\le 10$ AU); thus for most
of the binaries in our sample 60 \micron\ flux originates in
circumstellar disks. Figure \ref{fig:iras} shows IRAS 60 \micron\
flux plotted as a function of projected separation for the Tau-Aur and
Sco-Oph binaries. IRAS fluxes or upper limits were taken from Weaver
\& Jones (1992), Strom et al.\ (1989), Clark (1991), Hartmann et al.\
(1991), Wilking, Lada, \& Young (1989), and the IRAS Point Source
Catalog. Filled symbols represent detections and open symbols are
upper limits. All fluxes are scaled to a distance of 140 pc.
Fourteen systems out of 85 do not have IRAS measurements in any of the
above references and are not shown here. These systems are
approximately equally divided between wide and close binaries.
Figure \ref{fig:iras} has two notable features. First, the fraction
of binaries detected at 60 \micron\ is much higher than at
submillimeter wavelengths. If 60 \micron\ flux is taken to originate
in disks, then at least one circumstellar disk is present in most PMS
binaries. As such, the low level of submillimeter emission from the
close binaries is not the result of a total absence of disk material.
Second, there is no marked dependence of 60 \micron\ flux on binary
separation akin to that seen at submillimeter wavelengths. The same
two-sample tests performed on the submillimeter data show no
difference in the 60 \micron\ flux distributions of the close and wide
binaries divided at 10, 50, or 100 AU\null.
These 60 \micron\ flux measurements can provide meaningful constraints
on the surface-density normalizations of circumstellar disks. Because
dust opacity is much higher at 60 \micron\ than at submillimeter
wavelengths, disks remain optically thick at 60 \micron\ to much lower
surface densities than in the submillimeter. An explicit assumption of
previous analyses of disk masses is that the disks are optically thick
at 60 \micron\ and thus reflect the disk temperature distributions.
However, given only an upper limit on submillimeter flux and thus
circumstellar disk surface density, this assumption need not hold.
For a power-law radial temperature distribution one signature of
optically thin 60 \micron\ emission would be a steepening of the
spectral slope between 12 \micron\ and 60 \micron. In fact, several
binaries show such steepening at a formally significant level given
the quoted uncertainties on the IRAS fluxes. Thus some circumstellar
disks may be partially optically thin at 60 \micron. However, given
that other binaries also show deviations from single spectral slopes
in other senses (e.g., high 12 \micron, 25 \micron, or 60 \micron\
fluxes at formally significant levels), we do not feel that in any
given case the conclusion of optical thinness is secure.
Rather we choose to use the binaries with steepening spectral slopes
to derive lower limits on masses and surface densities of
circumstellar disks. Specifically we have chosen three Tau-Aur
binaries with $a_p < 50$ AU and for which the slope of $\lambda
F_\lambda$ from 25 to 60 \micron\ is steeper than the slope from 12 to
25 \micron: DF Tau, FO Tau, and CZ Tau. These binaries have the
highest quality IRAS flux measurements and no additional
companions.\footnote{CZ Tau lies 30\arcsec\ from DD Tau, but Weaver \&
Jones (1992) list CZ Tau as a ``better positional fit'' to the IRAS
source.} The IRAS fluxes of these three binaries lie in the middle of
the range of detected fluxes, and thus we take these systems to be
representative examples of young binary systems. For each binary we
have derived disk masses using the method described in \S
\ref{sec:masscalc}, except that the disk temperature was derived from
only the IRAS 12 and 25 \micron\ fluxes and the disk radius was taken
to be half the projected binary separation. The disk surface density
was then varied so that the model flux matched the observed 60
\micron\ flux. We used the dust opacity law given by Adams et al.\
(1988) since Beckwith \& Sargent (1991) do not give opacities for IRAS
wavelengths.
The circumstellar disk masses derived for these binaries range from $5
\times 10^{-6}$ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ to $7 \times 10^{-5}$ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}. These numbers
cannot be directly compared with masses derived for disks around
single stars because of the smaller disk radii used here. A more
significant comparison is the disk surface-density normalization
($\Sigma_0$; Eq.\ \ref{eq:surface_density}). The derived
surface-density normalizations for these circumstellar disks are roughly two
orders of magnitude smaller than those for disks around single stars
detected at submillimeter wavelengths. {\em The essential conclusion
to be drawn from this analysis is that the mechanism reducing the
submillimeter flux from binaries with $1 < a_p < $ 50--100 AU does
not entirely destroy circumstellar disks or inhibit their
formation.}
We stress that these mass and surface density estimates are best
considered as lower limits. While the steepening spectral slopes of
these binaries may be indicative of partial optical thinness at 60
\micron\ as presumed in these calculations, we cannot rule out
fluctuations in the IRAS fluxes larger than the formal errors. At the
same time, we have shown that in the presence of gaps the
submillimeter flux upper limits do not require that the circumstellar
surface densities be significantly lower than found in disks around
single stars. Thus, the available data require circumstellar disk
surface densities in close binaries to be in a range from 1\% to the
same as typical disks around single stars. These limits constrain the
degree of depletion of circumstellar disks by the various processes
discussed in the Introduction.
The lack of dependence of 60 \micron\ emission on binary separation is
not inconsistent with the gap model. The specific model shown in Figure
\ref{fig:4-clearing-models}d predicts a factor of $\sim 5$ decrease in
60 \micron\ flux for binaries with separations between 1 AU and 10
AU\null. Given the small number of systems in this separation range,
such a change would be undetectable with current data. In addition,
as noted previously most binaries at these small separations were
discovered via lunar occultation, so that their true separations may
be substantially underestimated.
Finally, it is plausible that the temperature distributions of disks
in close binary environments would differ from those in wide binaries
or around single stars, also influencing submillimeter and infrared
emission. We used the $T_1$ and $q$ values (see Eq.\
\ref{eq:temperature}) for the Sco-Oph and Tau-Aur binaries to
investigate whether the temperature parameters vary systematically
with separation. We find no evidence for a dependence of disk
temperature on binary separation. These parameters only provide
information about the inner 10 AU or so of the disk. The temperature
distribution of the disks elsewhere---and in particular at radii
comparable to most binary separations---is largely unconstrained by
current observations.
\subsection{Circumbinary disks}
\label{sec:cb-disks}
Because of their low temperatures, circumbinary disks in all but the
closest binaries emit predominantly at far-infrared and longer
wavelengths. However, since substantial emission at these wavelengths
can arise from a large range of radii within a disk, securely
associating unresolved flux measurements with circumbinary disks can
be problematic. On the other hand, upper limits on submillimeter
emission unambiguously place upper limits on circumbinary disk masses.
For optically-thin emission at $\lambda = 1300$ \micron\ with
$\kappa_\nu = 0.02$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$, the circumbinary mass $M_{cb}$
that produces a given flux $F_\nu$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cb-mass}
M_{cb} = 2.6 \times 10^{-4}\, \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ (F_\nu/{\rm mJy})\
(e^{(11.1\ {\rm K}/T)} - 1)
\end{equation}
assuming a distance of 140 pc and emission in the Rayleigh limit.
Taking $T=15$ K as a minimum dust temperature and $F_\nu < 15$ mJy as
a typical flux upper limit for binaries with separations of less than
$\sim 100$ AU, we find $M_{cb} < 4.3 \times 10^{-3}$ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}. This upper limit is
conservative given that some emission may derive from a circumstellar
disk. On the other hand if the circumbinary material were optically
thick, the derived mass limit would be higher. {\em Thus we conclude
that binaries with projected separations between a few AU and $\sim 100$
AU typically do not have circumbinary disks with masses greater than
0.005 \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}.}
There is one notable counterexample, however. As discussed above, a
ring-like circumbinary disk around the 40 AU binary GG Tau has been
resolved at 3 mm (Dutrey et al.\ 1994). The mass derived for this
ring from the continuum emission is 0.13 \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}. GG Tau is unusual in
being the most luminous submillimeter source in our sample (Figure
\ref{fig:combined-sample}) and one of the younger binaries in Tau-Aur.
Most PMS binaries of similar projected separation do not have
similarly massive or luminous circumbinary disks, suggesting the
possibility that GG Tau represents a brief phase in early circumbinary
disk evolution.
Circumbinary disks have also been found around several very close
binaries. For example, in HP Tau (one of the closest binaries in our
sample with detected 1300 \micron\ emission), a simple calculation
shows that a circumbinary disk must be present. If the binary orbit
were filled with optically-thick material emitting at the stellar
temperature, the resulting submillimeter flux would be comparable to
that observed; however, the optical flux of such a quantity of hot
material would be $\sim 10^4$ times the observed flux. Thus, the
submillimeter-emitting region in HP Tau must be substantially larger
than a few AU in radius and therefore must lie primarily outside the
binary orbit. A similar calculation requires the presence of
circumbinary disks around the PMS spectroscopic binaries GW Ori
(Mathieu et al.\ 1995), AK Sco and V4046 Sgr (detected in this work), and
DQ Tau (Mathieu 1995).
To conclude, our flux limits place upper limits on circumbinary disk
masses of 0.005 \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ for most binaries with separations of less than
roughly 100 AU\null. Indeed, it remains possible that most binaries do
not have circumbinary disks. The present submillimeter flux detections
and upper limits for almost all binaries with separations greater than
a few AU are entirely consistent with emission from only circumstellar
disks.
\section{Conclusion}
We have made sensitive 800 \micron\ continuum observations of most
(25) pre--main-sequence\ binaries with projected separations $a_p \lesssim 150$ AU
in the Scorpius-Ophiuchus star-forming region, and we have
supplemented these data with previous 1300 \micron\ continuum
observations to obtain a sample of 30\ systems. We have
also created a similar database from the literature for
55\ systems in Taurus-Auriga. We have used these data to
study the nature of disks in young binary environments, and we find:
1) Submillimeter fluxes from binaries with $1 < a_p <$ 50--100 AU are
lower on average than from wider binaries or single stars, whereas the
flux distributions of wide binaries and single stars are
indistinguishable. This dependence of submillimeter flux on binary
separation is seen independently in the Sco-Oph and Tau-Aur samples.
When the samples are combined the effect is found at greater than the
99\% confidence level. The transition separation of 50--100 AU is
similar to typically derived radii for dust disks around young stars,
strongly suggesting that the reduction in submillimeter emission among
closer binaries is due to the influence of the companions on disks.
2) The reduction in submillimeter flux from binaries with $1 < a_p <$
50--100 AU can plausibly be attributed to gaps cleared in disks by
binaries with eccentric orbits. As such, the present upper limits
permit but do not require a large reduction in the surface densities
of disk material outside such gaps compared to surface densities of
disks among wide binaries or single stars.
3) Most of the binaries in our sample were detected at 60 \micron\ by
IRAS, indicating that each of these binaries has at least one circumstellar
disk. Presuming the disks to be optically thick at 60 \micron, the
flux measurements place lower limits of roughly $10^{-5}$ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ on
circumstellar disk masses. This lower limit corresponds to circumstellar
disk surface densities no more than two orders of magnitude smaller
than surface densities of most disks detected at submillimeter
wavelengths.
4) We place upper limits of 0.005 \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}\ on circumbinary disk masses
around most binaries with projected separations between 1 AU and 100 AU\null.
Circumbinary disks as massive as that found around GG Tau
are rare for these binaries. However,
submillimeter detections of binaries with
separations less than a few AU show that massive circumbinary disks
can exist around the closest binaries.
The present body of data is consistent with the following picture for
disks in PMS binary environments. Binaries with semimajor axes of a
few hundred AU or greater have circumstellar disks with
properties very similar to those of disks found around single stars.
Binaries with semimajor axes between a few AU and 50--100 AU also
typically have at least one circumstellar disk each. The binaries truncate
these disks, thus limiting their submillimeter emission. Their surface
densities remain uncertain within a range of 0.01 to 1 times the
surface densities of disks around single stars. Binaries in this
separation range typically do not have massive ($M > 0.005$ \hbox{${M}_{\sun}$})
circumbinary disks. Binaries with semimajor axes of less than a few
AU can have massive circumbinary disks. Such binaries truncate the
inner edges of circumbinary disks at radii of only a few AU or less,
leaving most of the disk undisturbed on dynamical timescales.
Notably absent from this morphological picture is any discussion of
the detailed physical conditions of the disks, such as temperature,
surface-density, and opacity distributions in both circumstellar and
circumbinary disks. In addition to clearing gaps, companions are
expected to influence these disk properties (e.g.\ Syer \& Clarke
1995). At the same time, the present submillimeter flux upper limits
can only just be explained by our model, even assuming relatively
large gaps driven by eccentric binaries. We anticipate that disks in
young binary environments are substantially more complex than the
simple disk model employed here.
Finally, we note that binaries are the primary product of star
formation, and thus the frequency of other planetary systems is
intimately linked to the issues raised here. For binaries with
separations of less than 100 AU, present upper limits on submillimeter
flux imply upper limits on total disk mass of a few times $10^{-3}$
\hbox{${M}_{\sun}$}. This is roughly an order of magnitude smaller than typical
estimates for the minimum mass of the early solar nebula (e.g.\
Weidenschilling 1977). Such a disk could conceivably form terrestrial
planets, but it is unlikely to form gaseous giant planets. However,
these mass estimates are insensitive to material in grains or
planetesimals larger than a few mm in size. Thus, it remains possible
that close binaries can form planets, but it would appear that
sufficient disk material to form planetary systems like our own is
most likely to be found in wide binaries or single stars.
\acknowledgements{ We thank the referee, Steve Beckwith, for useful
comments which improved the presentation of this paper. We are
grateful to the staff of the JCMT for their knowledgeable support
and good humor. ELNJ gratefully acknowledges the support of a
Grant-in-Aid of Research from the National Academy of Sciences
through Sigma Xi, as well as funding from the National Space Grant
College and Fellowship Program and the Wisconsin Space Grant
Consortium. RDM appreciates funding from the Presidential Young
Investigator program, a Guggenheim Fellowship, the Morrison Fund of
Lick Observatory, and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Fund. GAF
acknowledges the support of an NRAO Jansky Fellowship. This
research has made use of the Simbad database, operated at CDS,
Strasbourg, France. }
|
\section{Introduction}
\noindent
\noindent
Effective actions of gauge theories are
space--time integrals over gauge and Lorentz invariant
expressions. From the mathematical point of view, they are, up to some
factors, functional traces of heat kernel coefficients, known as
Schwinger--DeWitt,\cite{SD} Gilkey--Seeley,\cite{GS} or Hadamard
coefficients.\cite{H} In flat
space-time, these coefficients are polynomials
constructed from a matrix potential and from the gauge field strength
tensor by multiplication, gauge covariant differentiation, and
contraction of Lorentz indices. Due to Bianchi identities and the
product rule for covariant derivatives, the form of the coefficients is not
unique. Furthermore, the physically interesting functional trace
of the coefficients allows cyclic exchanges of matrix factors and
integration by parts.
New methods of computing effective actions, such as the
string--inspired world line path integral formalism,\cite{worldline
formalism,fliegner} but also the
implementation of established calculation algorithms on
computers\cite{lanyov} enable the extension of known
results to higher order in the inverse mass expansion.
To manage the corresponding increasing number of terms
and to compare results of different
methods,\cite{methods,results} a standard
basis of invariants is needed, in terms of
which all results can be expressed. An algorithm should be
provided to convert a Lorentz scalar given in a non--standard form
into terms of the basis.
For gravitational invariants, constructed from the Riemann and
the metric tensor, such normal forms were presented up to order eight in
the mass dimension by Fulling et al.\cite{Fulling et al.}
In the general case with matter, gauge fields, and gravity,
basis sets of non--local invariants up to third order in the
curvature were constructed. They are used in the
expansion of effective actions in terms of Barvinsky--Vilkovisky
form factors.\cite{BV}
This contribution analyzes the formal structure of invariant monomials
in non--Abelian gauge theories with matter in flat space--time. Step
by step, the operations applicable to invariants are used to
convert them into a fixed form. Thus, a basis of invariants is
specified, and simultaneously, a procedure to expand an arbitrary
given Lorentz invariant expression in terms of the basis is
obtained. The proof of the basis property of the specified set of
invariants will be published elsewhere.\cite{proof}
\section{Notations}
\label{graph.not}
\noindent
Notations are introduced on the basis
of a concrete example. Let us consider a gauged scalar field
theory described by the massive complex field $\phi^a$ and the
Hermitian matrix valued gauge field $A_\mu^{ab}$. The gauge
covariant derivative in the fundamental representation is
${\cal D}_\mu^{ab}=\delta^{ab}\partial_\mu-\i A_\mu^{ab}$. The
coupling constant is contained in the gauge field.
Integrating the quantum fluctuations of the field $\phi^a$ in the
given backgrounds $\varphi^a$ and $A_\mu^a$, we obtain, in a first
approximation, the one--loop effective action
$\Gamma^{(1)}[\varphi,A]$ which can be expanded in gauge invariant
terms\cite{methods}
\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{equation}\label{generic result}
\Gamma^{(1)}[\varphi,A]={\rm\;Tr}\ln\left(-{\cal D}^2+V+m^2\right)=
\int\d^dx\sum_i\frac{C_i}{m^{\mu_i-d}}{\rm\;tr}\left(I_i\left(F,V\right)\right).
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\end{equation}
$V$ is a matrix potential originating from the matter fields.
The $C_i$ are complex numbers and $I_i\left(F,V\right)$ matrix valued
Lorentz scalars composed of the potential $V$,
the field strength tensor
\begin{math}
F_{\mu\nu}^{ab}=\i\comm{{\cal D}_\mu}{{\cal D}_\nu}^{ab}=
\partial_\mu A_\nu^{ab}-\partial_\nu A_\mu^{ab}-
\i\comm{A_\mu}{A_\nu}^{ab},
\end{math}
and the gauge covariant derivative in the adjoint representation
\begin{math}
D_\mu =\comm{{\cal D}_\mu}{.}=\partial_\mu -\i \comm{A_\mu}{.}.
\end{math}
$D_\mu$ acts on the matrix potential and on the field strength
tensor. $d$ is the dimension of space--time. $\mu_i$ is the mass
dimension of the scalar $I_i(F,V)$ according to the
mass dimensions of its constituents $[V]=2$,
$\left[F_{\mu\nu}\right]=2$, and
$\left[{\cal D}_\mu\right]=\left[D_\mu\right]=1$.
The form (\ref{generic result}) is not unique due to
several equalities, namely the product rule for
covariant derivatives, integration by parts, cyclic permutations,
the Bianchi identity, the antisymmetry of the field strength tensor,
and the exchange of derivatives:
\begin{displaymath}
\refstepcounter{equation}
\label{manipulations}
\begin{array}{c@{\quad}cr}
D_\mu(XY)=D_\mu XY+XD_\mu Y,&
\int\d x{\rm\;tr}\left(D_\mu X_\mu Y\right)
=-\int\d x{\rm\;tr}\left(X_\mu D_\mu Y\right)\!,&
\makebox[0.8cm][r]{(\theequation\rm a,b)\hspace{-0.2cm}}\\
{\rm\;tr}(XY\ldots Z)={\rm\;tr}(Y\ldots ZX), &
D_\mu F_{\kappa\lambda}=D_\kappa F_{\mu\lambda}+D_\lambda
F_{\kappa\mu},&
\makebox[0.45cm][r]{(\theequation\rm c,d)\hspace{-0.2cm}}\\
F_{\mu\nu}=-F_{\nu\mu},&
D_\mu D_\nu X=D_\nu D_\mu X-\i\comm{F_{\mu\nu}}{X}.&
\makebox[0.45cm][r]{(\theequation\rm e,f)\hspace{-0.2cm}}
\end{array}
\end{displaymath}
Let us call a $V$, an $F$, or covariant derivatives of them
a {\em simple factor\/}, i.e.
\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\begin{equation}\label{factors}
(\mbox{simple factor})\in\{
V,\;
F_{\kappa\lambda},\;
D_{\mu_1}D_{\mu_2}\ldots D_{\mu_n}V,\;
D_{\mu_1}D_{\mu_2}\ldots D_{\mu_n}F_{\kappa\lambda}\}.\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\end{equation}
Simple factors containing the matrix potential are called
{\em $V$--factors}, the others {\em $F$--factors}. With the
product rule (\ref{manipulations}a), expression (\ref{generic result})
can be converted into a form where the invariants $I_i(F,V)$ are
monomials, i.e. products of simple factors.
Subsequently, the invariants are supposed to have this form.
If the gauge group representation is unitary, the
additional symmetries
\vspace*{-0.15cm}
\begin{equation}\label{symmetries}
V^\dagger=V,\quad
A_\mu^\dagger=A_\mu,\quad
F_{\mu\nu}^\dagger=F_{\mu\nu},\quad
\left(D_\mu X\right)^\dagger=D_\mu X\quad\mbox{if}\quad
X^\dagger=X\vspace*{-0.15cm}
\end{equation}
hold. Consequently, simple factors are Hermitian. For simple factors
$X$, $Y$, and $Z$ this leads to
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\begin{equation}\label{mirror transform}
\overline{{\rm\;tr}\left(XYZ\ldots\right)}=
{\rm\;tr}\left(\ldots Z^\dagger Y^\dagger X^\dagger\right)=
{\rm\;tr}\left(\ldots ZYX\right).\vspace*{-0.15cm}
\end{equation}
Thus, an invariant monomial can be expressed by the complex conjugate
of its mirror image with identical factors, but in inverted order.
Therefore we call eq.~(\ref{mirror transform}) a mirror
transformation. In general, a monomial and its complex conjugate are
independent of each other, so that operation (\ref{mirror
transform}) cannot
be used to reduce the number of terms in eq.~(\ref{generic result}).
However, Lagrangians are real. Hence, in an appropriate basis, an
arbitrary invariant monomial $I(F,V)$ and its mirror image have
complex conjugate coefficients $C$ and $\bar{C}$ so
that they add to $2\Re{\rm e}\left(C\cdot I(F,V)\right)$. An\-other exception
occurs for real $\phi^a$ and imaginary $A_\mu^{ab}$.\footnote{This
is the case for real orthogonal representations of the gauge
group. Then $\i A_\mu^{ab}$ is real and antisymmetric in $a$ and $b$.}
Then $V$--factors are real and $F$--factors imaginary. In this
case, monomials and
their complex conjugates are not independent of each other and
eq.~(\ref{mirror transform}) reduces the number of terms in
eq.~(\ref{generic result}) indeed.
\section{The Basis}
\label{construction}
\vspace*{-0.4cm}
\subsection{The reduction algorithm}
\noindent
We start from an arbitrary Lorentz invariant given in the form
(\ref{generic result}). The product rule must be used whenever
derivatives of products are encountered. This may happen at each stage
of the algorithm. The
manipulations (\ref{manipulations}b--f, \ref{mirror transform}) must be
applied in the sequence of the following sub-subsections to obtain a
standard result. The rules given there do not
entirely fix all details of the algorithm. Therefore, the algorithm
can be executed in different ways, but
the results will be expressed by the same basis of
invariants and, hence, will be identical.
The procedure will require exchanges
of derivatives by eq.~(\ref{manipulations}f).
Since thereby additional invariants
with more $F$--factors and fewer derivatives are
produced, the algorithm starts with the invariants with the most
$F$--factors and descends to invariants with fewer
and fewer $F$--factors.
\subsubsection{Integration by parts}
\noindent
The indices in a Lorentz invariant monomial can be contracted
between different factors and within the same factor. We call the
latter self--contractions. They
always include a co\-var\-i\-ant derivative.
Therefore, {\it we apply integration by parts to covariant derivatives
in self--contractions.} Thereby all self--contractions are
eliminated.
\subsubsection{The Bianchi identity}
\noindent
The Bianchi identity (\ref{manipulations}d) exchanges the index of
one derivative with the indices of $F_{\mu\nu}$ within an
$F$--factor. All other factors remain
unchanged. Therefore, we need a prescription that
specifies the derivatives which are candidates for applying the
Bianchi identity in the $F$--factor under consideration.
Let us consider the example
\vspace*{-0.3cm}
\begin{equation}\label{example sectors}
{\rm\;tr}(
\underbrace{
\stackrel{\mbox{L}}{D_\mu}
\stackrel{\mbox{R}}{D_\nu}
\stackrel{\mbox{M}}{D_\rho}
D_\sigma
F_{\kappa\lambda}}_{\makebox[0cm]{\parbox{2.1cm}{\centering factor
under\\consideration}}}
\underbrace{\ldots X_\nu'\ldots}_{\parbox{1.5cm}{\centering right sector}}
Y_{\sigma\kappa}
\underbrace{\ldots X_\rho''\ldots}_{\parbox{1.5cm}
{\centering middle sector}}Z_\lambda
\underbrace{\rule{0cm}{1.85ex}
\ldots X_\mu\ldots}_{\makebox[0cm][l]{\parbox{1.5cm}{\centering
left sector}}})\quad.\vspace*{-0.1cm}
\end{equation}
The indices of $F_{\kappa\lambda}$ are contracted with the factors
$Y_{\sigma\kappa}$ and $Z_\lambda$, which divide the remaining factors
into three, possibly empty, sectors. We call them ``right sector'', ``middle
sector'', and ``left sector'', as indicated, because, due to cyclic
invariance (\ref{manipulations}c), the ``left sector'' is connected
with the left--hand side of the factor under consideration.
The derivatives of the factor under consideration are called
left (``L''), right (``R''), and middle (``M'') corresponding to the sector
they are contracted with. Not all derivatives are left, right, or
middle (e.g.~$D_\sigma$). The Bianchi identity (\ref{manipulations}d)
mixes all three kinds of derivatives. Therefore it can be used to
eliminate one kind of index in all factors of all monomials. Since
the middle sector is invariant under the mirror transformation (left and
right sectors are interchanged), {\it we apply the Bianchi identity to
middle derivatives.} Each such application of the Bianchi identity
reduces the number of factors in the corresponding middle
sector. Thus, after finitely many steps, all middle derivatives are
eliminated.
Finally, we convert multiple contractions between factors
into a standard form by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{multiple1}\textstyle
\ldots F_{\mu\nu}\ldots D_\mu D_\nu X\ldots&\Rightarrow&\textstyle
-\frac{\i}{2}\ldots F_{\mu\nu}\ldots\comm{F_{\mu\nu}}{X}\ldots\\
\label{multiple2}\textstyle
\ldots F_{\mu\nu}\ldots D_\mu F_{\nu\kappa}\ldots&\Rightarrow&\textstyle
\frac{1}{2}\ldots F_{\mu\nu}\ldots D_\kappa F_{\nu\mu}\ldots\\
\label{multiple3}
\ldots D_\mu F_{\nu\kappa}\ldots D_\nu F_{\mu\lambda}\ldots&\Rightarrow&
\ldots D_\mu F_{\nu\kappa}\ldots D_\mu F_{\nu\lambda}\ldots+\nonumber\\
&&\textstyle\hspace{1cm}+
\frac{1}{2}\ldots D_\kappa F_{\nu\mu}\ldots D_\lambda F_{\mu\nu}\ldots\quad.
\end{eqnarray}
The first equality uses the antisymmetry
(\ref{manipulations}e) of the field strength tensor and the commutation
rule (\ref{manipulations}f). The second transformation relies on the
antisymmetry
(\ref{manipulations}e) together with the Bianchi identity
(\ref{manipulations}d). The third rule results by applying
the Bianchi identity (\ref{manipulations}d) to one of the factors
and subsequently using eq.~(\ref{multiple2}).
\subsubsection{The arrangement of factors}
\noindent
Cyclic factor permutations (\ref{manipulations}c) and, possibly, mirror
transformations (\ref{mirror transform}) can be used to identify
invariants. Applying eqs. (\ref{manipulations}c) and (\ref{mirror
transform}) in all possible ways to a given invariant monomial,
we obtain a class of equivalent invariants. {\em We pick a
representative of each equivalence class.} This may be done by
introducing an ordering relation in the equivalence classes
Then we pick the smallest (or greatest) invariant of each
equivalence class as the representative.
\subsubsection{The arrangement of indices}
\label{index convention}
\noindent
Derivatives and indices of $F$'s can be exchanged by means of
eqs.~(\ref{manipulations}f) and (\ref{manipulations}e) in all factors
of all invariant monomials. Let us consider a certain factor within an
invariant. It can be shifted completely to the left--hand side
by eq.~(\ref{manipulations}c), as a result of which the achieved
arrangement of factors is temporarily destroyed\footnote{The
arrangement of the factors has to be restored after reordering
the indices and is, in the end, not affected by this procedure.}
\hspace{0.1cm} (cf.\ example~(\ref{example sectors})).
{\it After this operation, we rearrange the derivatives and/or
indices of the $F$ (if present) in the considered factor according
to the contracted counter indices.\/}
In example~(\ref{example sectors}) $Y_{\sigma\kappa}$ is located left
of $Z_\lambda$. Thus the indices of $F_{\kappa\lambda}$ have the
correct order. The locations of $X_\nu'$, $Y_{\sigma\kappa}$,
$X_\rho''$, and $X_\mu$ define the correct order of the
derivatives to be $D_\nu D_\sigma D_\rho D_\mu$. Since the mirror
transformation inverts the ordering of the factors, it has to be applied
{\it before\/} rearranging the indices. Cyclic factor permutations
and the arrangement of indices do not interfere with each other.
\subsection{The defining properties of the basis}
\noindent
Pursuing the above algorithm,
we state the following properties of basis
invariants:\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\begin{itemlist}
\item The invariants are products of simple factors.
\item Indices are contracted only between different factors of an
invariant monomial.
\item There are no ``middle'' derivatives.
\item In multiple contractions between factors, derivatives are
contracted with de\-riv\-a\-tives and indices of $F$'s with indices of
$F$'s (cf.\ eqs.~(\ref{multiple1} -- \ref{multiple3})) except for
contractions of an index of an $F$ with a derivative where the
other index of the $F$ is contracted with a third factor.
\item The order of derivatives and of indices of the $F$'s is as
described in sub-subsection 3.1.4.\vspace*{-0.2cm}
\end{itemlist}
These properties allow to count the basis invariants of a certain
mass dimension. Up to mass dimension 16, this was performed by a C
language program (table \ref{number of invariants}). Results of higher
dimension or divided by the number of $F$'s are available.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\tcaption{The number of basis invariants {\bf with} and {\it
without} the mirror transformation. $v$ is the number of
occurrences of the matrix potential $V$ in the
invariants.}
\label{number of invariants}
\vspace*{1ex}\footnotesize\baselineskip=10pt
\raggedright
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||rr||rr|rr|rr|}
\hline
&Mass dim.&\multicolumn{2}{c||}{Total}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$v=0$}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{1}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{2}\\
\hline
1&2&\bf 1&\it 1&\bf 0&\it 0&\bf 1&\it 1&&\\
2&4&\bf 2&\it 2&\bf 1&\it 1&\bf 0&\it 0&\bf 1&\it 1\\
3&6&\bf 5&\it 5&\bf 2&\it 2&\bf 1&\it 1&\bf 1&\it 1\\
4&8&\bf 17&\it 18&\bf 7&\it 7&\bf 4&\it 5&\bf 4&\it 4\\
5&10&\bf 79&\it 105&\bf 29&\it 36&\bf 24&\it 36&\bf 17&\it 23\\
6&12&\bf 554&\it 902&\bf 196&\it 300&\bf 184&\it 329&\bf 119&\it 191\\
7&14&\bf 5283&\it 9749&\bf 1788&\it 3218&\bf 1911&\it 3655&
\bf 1096&\it 2020\\
8&16&\bf 65346&\it 127072&\bf 21994&\it 42335&\bf 24252&\it 47844&
\bf 13333&\it 25861\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\\[1ex]
Table \ref{number of invariants}. (Continued)\\
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||rr|rr|rr|rr|rr|rr|}
\hline
&Mass dim.&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$v=3$}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{4}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{5}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{6}&
\multicolumn{2}{c|}{7}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{8}\\
\hline
1&2&&&&&&&&&&&&\\
2&4&&&&&&&&&&&&\\
3&6&\bf 1&\it 1&&&&&&&&&&\\
4&8&\bf 1&\it 1&\bf 1&\it 1&&&&&&&&\\
5&10&\bf 6&\it 7&\bf 2&\it 2&\bf 1&\it 1&&&&&&\\
6&12&\bf 39&\it 63&\bf 13&\it 16&\bf 2&\it 2&\bf 1&\it 1&&&&\\
7&14&\bf 370&\it 670&\bf 96&\it 158&\bf 18&\it 24&\bf 3&\it 3&
\bf 1&\it 1&&\\
8&16&\bf 4452&\it 8638&\bf 1095&\it 2020&\bf 186&\it 329&
\bf 30&\it 41&\bf 3&\it 3&\bf 1&\it 1\\
\hline
\end{tabular}\vspace*{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusions and Outlook}
\noindent
A prescription for defining a standard basis set of invariants in
non--Abelian gauge theories was obtained. A reduction algorithm was
presented to
convert a given Lorentz scalar by partial integration, by the Bianchi
identity, and by cyclic invariance of the trace into a linear
combination of this basis set of invariants. The proof that this set
is a basis indeed, relies on a graphical representation of
invariants and is given elsewhere.\cite{proof}
For cases where, in addition, the mirror transformation reduces the
number of independent invariants, a general proof of the basis property
is still lacking. However at least up to mass dimension 16, it can be shown
by counting the invariants that the standard set remains a basis.
Another open problem is to take into account additional identities
which exist for particular choices of the gauge group representation.
\vspace*{-1mm}
\nonumsection{Acknowledgements}
\noindent
The author would like to thank C.~Schubert for indicating the need to
clarify this problem and D.~Fliegner for
discussions on the reduction algorithm. The proof--reading of the
manuscript by D.~Lehner and G.~Weigt is gratefully
acknowledged.\vspace*{-1mm}
\nonumsection{References}
\noindent
\vspace*{-4ex}
|
\section{Introduction}
Quarks are not observed as free particles, but only indirectly inside
hadrons; this confinement of the quarks is an essential and very
intriguing property of QCD, both from a theoretical and from an
experimental point of view. Despite a lot of effort, there are still a
lot of open questions about the confinement mechanism and confined
particles. One of such questions is what the behavior of the full
propagator of a confined particle is: e.g. does it have the same kind
of analyticity properties as a bare quark propagator? If the full
quark propagator has no mass singularity in the timelike region, it
can never be on mass-shell and thus never be observed as a free
particle \cite{Co80,GoMa89,Gr91,RoWiKr92}. So in this way the absence
of a mass singularity implies directly confinement, and thus the
analytic structure of the full quark propagator might be connected
with confinement.
Since confinement is a nonperturbative phenomenon, the analytic
properties of the full fermion propagator in a confining theory have
to be studied in a nonperturbative way. The Dyson--Schwinger equation
is a very powerful tool to study nonperturbative phenomena, and it is
commonly used for studying dynamical chiral symmetry breaking, but it
can also be useful in studies of confinement \cite{RoWi94}. The usual
truncation schemes of the Dyson--Schwinger equation show that the full
fermion propagator in QED and QCD has complex branchpoints, instead of
the expected mass singularity on the real timelike axis
\cite{AtBl79,StCa90,MaHo92,StCa92,Ma94}. Although this phenomenon
might be an artifact of the approximations, as believed about 15 years
ago when it was first discovered \cite{AtBl79}, it has been suggested
more recently that it might be a genuine property of the full theory,
connected with confinement, especially in QCD
\cite{StCa90,MaHo92,StCa92}. If the quark propagator has a mass-like
singularity at complex momenta, instead of a mass singularity in the
timelike region, it can never be on mass-shell and is thus confined.
Not only in QCD the fermions are confined, also in several other
theories there is confinement. Quantum electrodynamics in two space-
plus one time-dimension (QED3) is such a theory, with a confining
potential for the fermions, at least at the classical level; for the
full theory it depends on the behavior of the vacuum polarization
\cite{BuPrRo92}. It is also a very interesting model to study
dynamical mas generations, and for this purpose the Dyson--Schwinger
equation has been extensively studied on the Euclidean axis
\cite{Pi84,appetal,DaKoKo89,PeWe88,AtJoMa90,Penetal92}. The theory is
super-renormalizable, and does not suffer from the ultraviolet
divergences which are present in the corresponding four-dimensional
theories. That means that we do not need to introduce any artificial
cutoff, and the only mass scale in massless QED3 is the dimensionful
coupling. In this way we are provided with a very interesting model,
from which we can learn a lot about the analytic structure of the
propagator, and which is mathematically easier to analyze than
four-dimensional theories. The result can be very useful as guidance
for other, more complicated, theories like QCD. Apart from the the
interesting features connected with dynamical mass generation and
confinement in general, it might also have some direct physical
relevance, both in condensed matter physics (in connection with
phenomena occurring in planes) and as the high-temperature limit of
the corresponding four-dimensional theory.
In this paper we study the analytic structure of the fermion
propagator in QED3, using the Dyson--Schwinger equation and some
different approximations for the full photon propagator. We show that,
if there is a confining potential, the fermion propagator has complex
mass-like singularities, but if there is no confining potential, the
mass singularities are located almost on the real timelike axis, as we
would expect. The presence or absence of the confining potential
depends on the particular approximation for the photon propagator.
This paper is organized as follows: in the next section we review the
analytic structure of the fermion propagator in the context of
perturbation theory and what we would expect for the propagator of a
confined particle. In Sec.~\ref{secform} we introduce the model we are
considering and its confining properties. Next, we discuss the
Dyson--Schwinger equation, the truncation scheme we are using, and our
numerical procedures. In Sec.~\ref{secres} we present our results, and
finally we give some conclusions in Sec.~\ref{secconc}.
\section{Analytic structure of propagators}
\label{secans}
\subsection{Mass singularities}
The analytic structure of the bare fermion propagator is well-known:
in momentum space, it has a single pole at the bare mass of the
fermion. In Minkowski metric (which we will use in this section only,
out of convenience), we have for the bare propagator
\begin{eqnarray}
S(p) &=& \frac{1}{\not{\! p} - m_0 + i\varepsilon} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with a mass-pole which is located at timelike momentum
$p^2_{\hbox{\scriptsize Mink}} = m^2_0$. The integration contour one
encounters in all kinds of calculations, goes around this singularity
due to the $i\varepsilon$-prescription, and this $i\varepsilon$ also
allows us to perform the usual Wick rotation from Minkowski space to
Euclidean space.
In perturbation theory, the full fermion propagator has a similar
structure, at least on the first Riemann sheet: a single pole at the
physical mass of the particle, and a more complicated structure for
momenta beyond some threshold energy for multi-particle production,
see Fig.~\ref{fig1}. If we are dealing with massless particles, as in
QED, where we have massless photons, this single pole becomes a
logarithmic branchpoint, see e.g. \cite{itzu}.
In general, we expect a similar structure for the full fermion
propagator in a nonperturbative calculation, at least if the fermion
corresponds to a stable physical particle. In a theory of interacting
particles {\em with asymptotic states} we have the K\"allen--Lehmann
representation
\begin{eqnarray} \label{klrep}
S_F(p) &=& Z_2 \frac{\not{\! p} + m_{\hbox{\scriptsize phys}}}
{p^2 - m_{\hbox{\scriptsize phys}}^2}
+ \int_{\tilde m^2}^\infty {\rm d}\mu^2
\frac{\not{\! p} \rho_1(\mu^2) + \rho_2(\mu^2)}
{p^2 - \mu^2 + i\varepsilon} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the spectral weight functions $\rho_i(p^2)$ real and nonnegative,
and $\tilde m \ge m_{\hbox{\scriptsize phys}}$ the threshold for
multi-particle production. We therefore expect a full electron
propagator with a mass singularity at the physical mass of the
electron, which is located on the real axis in the timelike region at
$p^2_{\hbox{\scriptsize Mink}} = m^2_{\hbox{\scriptsize phys}}$, and a
logarithmic branch-cut along the real axis, beyond this singularity.
However, the derivation of the K\"allen--Lehmann representation breaks
down in the absence of the asymptotic states; the above argument only
holds in cases were the fermion is indeed a stable, physically
observable particle. If we are considering a theory with confined
fermions, which means that there are no asymptotic states for these
fermions, we do not have a rigorous proof of the existence of a
K\"allen--Lehmann representation, so we do not know a priori the
analytic structure of the propagator of such a confined particle.
The mass singularities of the propagator at the physical mass of the
particle are crucial for the existence of observable asymptotic
states. Without such mass singularities, the particles can never be on
mass shell, and thus never be observed as real particles. In other
words, confinement might very well be related to the absence of such
mass singularities, and thus to the absence of a K\"allen--Lehmann
representation for the propagator of such a particle
\cite{Co80,GoMa89,Gr91,RoWiKr92}.
\subsection{Complex singularities}
If the propagator of a confined particle does not have a a
K\"allen--Lehmann representation, what (other) analytic structure can
we expect? Writing the full fermion propagator as
\begin{eqnarray}
S(p) &=& Z(p^2)\frac{\not{\! p} + m(p^2)}{p^2 - m^2(p^2)} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
we can now ask the question: what analytic structure is possible?
In principle there are the following possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item the propagator has complex singularities
(at zeros of the denominator);
\item the propagator is an entire function;
\item the propagator has compensating zeros
(both the denominator and the wavefunction renormalization $Z(p)$ are
zero at the same point, which might be located in the timelike region).
\end{itemize}
During the last couple of years, analyses of the fermion propagator
using the Dyson--Schwinger equation in the complex momentum plane show
complex mass-like singularities in a variety of models and truncation
scheme. This phenomenon was first discovered by Atkinson and Blatt
\cite{AtBl79} in quenched ladder QED4, and it was generally believed
to be an artifact of the approximations. However, in a theory with
confined particles, it might very well be a genuine property of the
full theory: the absence of a mass singularity at timelike momenta
will effectively confining the particles, in the sense that they will
not be observable as physical stable states. Recently, it has been
suggested by several authors, that the complex singularities one finds
by solving the Dyson--Schwinger equation for complex momenta, are
indeed a signal for confinement, especially in a confining theory like
QCD \cite{StCa90,MaHo92,StCa92}. In this paper we show that there is
indeed a connection between a confining potential and complex
mass-like singularities in QED3.
Note however that also other analytic structures, like a fermion
propagator which is an entire function, will effectively confine the
fermions; and in principle there are also other confinement mechanisms
possible which do allow for a physical mass pole for the fermion
propagator.
\section{QED3}
\label{secform}
\subsection{Formalism}
In Minkowski space, we need the artificial $i\varepsilon$ description,
in order to define the path integrals, and to select the integration
path around the mass singularities in all kinds of calculations.
Alternatively, we could set up our field theory in Euclidean space, in
which case the integrals are well-defined from the beginning. In
principle the Wick rotation allows us to go from Euclidean to
Minkowski space and back, and both formulations seem to be equivalent,
but in the presence of complex singularities this easy connection
between Euclidean and Minkowski space is destroyed. Since the theory
is better defined in Euclidean metric, we will use that formalism.
Once we know the Euclidean Green's functions, we can obtain the
Wightman functions in coordinate space by an analytic continuation in
the time-coordinates, and from them the physically relevant Minkowski
Green's functions \cite{glijaf}. In this way we can (in principle)
extract all of the physically relevant information in Minkowski space,
even after setting up the formalism in Euclidean space.
The Lagrangian in Euclidean space is
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}(\psi, \bar\psi, A) &=&
\bar\psi \left( \gamma^\mu(\partial^\mu + ieA^\mu) + m_0 \right) \psi
+ \textstyle{\frac{1}{4}} F^{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}
+ \textstyle{\frac{1}{2a}} (\partial^\mu A^\mu)^2 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
In QED3, only three anti-commuting $\gamma$-matrices are needed, which
can be realized by taking a two-dimensional representation for these
matrices, e.g. the Pauli spin matrices. In that case we also have
two-dimensional spinors, instead of the four-dimensional spinors one
would use in four-dimensional theories. However, here we will use the
formulation with a four-dimensional spinor-space, and use the same
$\gamma$-matrices as in four space-time dimensions. In order to study
dynamical mass generations, and its influence on confinement, we take
the bare fermions to be massless: $m_0 = 0$. In QED3 with
four-dimensional spinors one can have two types of mass terms for the
fermions, namely a parity-breaking and a parity-conserving mass term.
We will only consider the dynamical generation of a parity-even mass
\cite{appetal}; it has been shown that there is no dynamical breakdown
of parity \cite{VaWi84}.
The full fermion propagator can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{-1}(p) &=& Z(p) \left( i\not{\! p} + m(p) \right) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and the full photon propagator is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{photprop}
D^{\mu\nu}(q) &=& \frac{1}{q^2(1 + \Pi(q))}
\left( \delta^{\mu\nu} - \frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^2} \right)
+ a \frac{q^\mu q^\nu}{q^4} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
in a general covariant gauge. In this equation, $\Pi(q)$ is the vacuum
polarization, $a$ the gauge parameter, $m(p)$ the dynamical mass
function of the fermion, and $Z(p)$ the fermion wavefunction
renormalization. For sake of simplicity, we use the Landau gauge
($a=0$).
The exact Dyson--Schwinger equation for the fermion propagator is
\begin{eqnarray} \label{dseqn}
S^{-1}(p) &=& i\not{\! p} + e^2 \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\gamma^\mu S(p) \Gamma^\nu(p,k) D^{\mu\nu}(p-k) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the unknown full vertex $\Gamma^\nu(p,k)$, and the full photon
propagator $D_{\mu\nu}(p-k)$. In analyzing the fermion
Dyson--Schwinger equation, we have to truncate this equation. In this
paper, we discuss both the socalled quenched ladder approximation
(bare photon and bare vertex), and two approximations based on the
$1/N$ expansion.
\subsection{$1/N$ Expansion}
A very popular truncation scheme in QED3 is the $1/N$ expansion:
consider $N$ massless fermion flavors, and use the large $N$ limit in
the following way: let $N \rightarrow \infty$ and $e^2 \rightarrow 0$
in such a way that the product $e^2 N$ remains fixed. It has been
shown that massless QED3 is infrared finite order by order in such a
$1/N$ expansion \cite{expansion}. For convenience we choose the
coupling, which defines our mass scale, to be
\begin{eqnarray}
e^2 &=& \frac{8 \alpha}{N} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
and keep $\alpha$ fixed.
Such a $1/N$ expansion means that we have to take into account the
one-loop vacuum polarization: the coupling is of order $1/N$, but
there are $N$ fermion loops contributing to the vacuum polarization
tensor
\begin{eqnarray} \label{vacpol}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q) &=& - e^2 \, N \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
{\rm Tr}\left[ \gamma^\mu S(k+q) \Gamma^\nu(k+q,k) S(k) \right] \,.
\end{eqnarray}
This vacuum polarization tensor has an ultraviolet divergence in its
part proportional to $\delta^{\mu\nu}$, which can be removed by
evaluating it using a gauge-invariant regularization scheme. Defining
the vacuum polarization $\Pi(q)$ by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q) &=&
\left(q^2 \delta^{\mu\nu} - q^\mu q^\nu \right) \Pi(q) \,,
\end{eqnarray}
we can get the regularized vacuum polarization by contracting the
vacuum polarization tensor with \cite{RoWi94,BuPrRo92}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( q^2 \delta^{\mu\nu} - 3 q^\mu q^\nu \right) /q^4 \,,
\end{eqnarray}
which is orthogonal to $\delta^{\mu\nu}$ and thus projects out the
divergent part. Note that this regularization gives the same result as
dimensional regularization, but this projection is much easier to
perform if we take into account dynamical fermions, in
Sec.~\ref{subsecdyn}. Using bare, massless fermions and a bare vertex,
we have for this vacuum polarization
\begin{eqnarray} \label{vacpolml}
\Pi(q) &=& \frac{e^2 \, N}{8 \sqrt{q^2}} \;=\; \frac{\alpha}{q} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
whereas the one-loop vacuum polarization with massive fermions gives
\begin{eqnarray} \label{vacpolmass}
\Pi(q) &=& \frac{2\alpha}{\pi \, q^2}
\left( 2m + \frac{q^2 - 4m^2}{q}
\arcsin{\frac{q}{\sqrt{q^2 + 4m^2}}} \right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The crucial difference between the vacuum polarization with massless
and with massive fermions lies in the infrared region: with massless
fermions the vacuum polarization blows up at the origin, $\Pi(0)
\rightarrow \infty$. With massive fermions however, with a constant
mass $m$, the vacuum polarization is finite in the infrared
\begin{eqnarray} \label{vacpolmassir}
\Pi(0) &\rightarrow& \frac{4\alpha}{3\pi \, m} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Confining potential}
One of the interesting properties of QED3 is that it exhibits
confinement \cite{GoMa82}. We can define a ``classical'' potential for
the fermions in coordinate space \cite{BuPrRo92}
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\vec{x}) &=& -e^2 \int\frac{{\rm d}^2q}{(2\pi)^2}
e^{i\vec{q}\cdot\vec{x}} \frac{1}{\vec{q}^2(1+\Pi(\vec{q}^2))} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Pi(q)$ is the vacuum polarization. In lowest order in
perturbation theory, we can neglect the effects of the vacuum
polarization and simply calculate the potential. This leads to a
logarithmically rising potential
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\vec{x}) &=& \frac{e^2}{2\pi} \ln(e^2 |x|) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Because this potential increases at large distances, it effectively
confines the fermions, and there are no free asymptotic one-fermion
states possible.
Of course, this potential will change under the influence of the
vacuum polarization. As our results show, the correct inclusion of the
vacuum polarization is indeed essential for confinement. The relevant
region for the question whether or not there is a confining potential
is the infrared region, corresponding to large spatial separations in
configuration space. As is shown by Burden {\em et al.}
\cite{BuPrRo92}, under quite general and natural conditions for the
vacuum polarization, the potential associated with the full photon
propagator behaves like
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\vec{x}) &=& \frac{e^2\,\ln{\big(e^2 |x|\big)} }{(1 + \Pi(0))\,2\pi}
+ \hbox{constant} + {\cal O}\left(\frac{1}{|x|}\right) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
This behavior can be derived assuming that the vacuum polarization is
bounded and continuously differentiable for Euclidean momenta, and that
it falls of at least as $1/q$ as $q \rightarrow \infty$.
{}From this equation, we can see immediately that, depending on the
behavior of the vacuum polarization in the infrared region, there are
two possibilities
\begin{itemize}
\item a confining potential if $\Pi(0)$ is finite;
\item no confining potential if $\Pi(0) \rightarrow \infty$.
\end{itemize}
If we know look at the one-loop perturbative vacuum polarization, we
see that there is an essential difference between massless and massive
QED3. For massive fermions, the vacuum polarization at the origin,
$\Pi(0)$, is finite as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{vacpolmassir}).
Therefore there is a logarithmically confining potential in leading
order in $1/N$ for massive fermions.
On the other hand, if the fermions are massless, there is no confining
potential to leading order to $1/N$; the one-loop vacuum polarization
blows up at $q^2 \downarrow 0$, see Eq.~(\ref{vacpolml}), and the
photon propagator is softened in the infrared region. Perturbatively,
to leading order in $1/N$, the fermion propagator is just the bare
propagator, with a single pole at the origin, corresponding to an
observable massless fermion. However, a dynamically generated fermion
mass might very well change this leading-order behavior.
\section{Dyson--Schwinger equation}
\label{secdse}
In order to determine the analytic structure of the fermion propagator
nonperturbatively, we use the Dyson--Schwinger equation. In general,
after reducing the $\gamma$-algebra, the Dyson--Schwinger equation,
Eq.~(\ref{dseqn}), becomes
\begin{eqnarray} \label{dsmassgen}
Z^{-1}(p)\,m(p) &=& e^2 \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}
{\rm Tr}[\gamma^\mu S(k) \Gamma^\nu(p,k) D^{\mu\nu}(q)] \,,
\\ %
\label{dswavegen}
Z^{-1}(p) & = & 1 - \frac{e^2}{p^2} \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\textstyle{\frac{1}{4}}
{\rm Tr}[\not\! p \gamma^\mu S(k) \Gamma^\nu(p,k) D^{\mu\nu}(q)] \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the photon propagator $D^{\mu\nu}(q)$ as defined by
Eq.~(\ref{photprop}), with the unknown vacuum polarization, and the
unknown full vertex function $\Gamma^\nu(p,k)$. The general approach
to solve this equation is to choose a specific truncation scheme for
the vertex and the photon propagator, and then to solve the resulting
equations numerically.
\subsection{Truncation scheme}
Here, we will adopt the bare vertex approximation, replacing the full
vertex by the bare one, $\gamma^\mu$. We also neglect the effects of
the wavefunction renormalization, so we put $Z(p) = 1$. This
truncation is based on the leading-order behavior of the vertex and
the wavefunction renormalization in the $1/N$ expansion. Such an
approximation scheme is also consistent with the requirement following
from the Ward--Takahashi identity that the wavefunction
renormalization and the vertex renormalization are equal. It is
usually referred to as the ladder or rainbow approximation, and it
leads to a finite critical number of fermion flavors below which the
chiral symmetry is broken dynamically \footnote{Using this
approximation, the equation for the wavefunction renormalization,
Eq.~(\ref{dswavegen}), is formally satisfied up to order $1/N$. It is
known that the effects of the wavefunction renormalization (together
with a more sophisticated Ansatz for the vertex) will change the
results found in this $1/N$ truncation scheme
\cite{PeWe88,AtJoMa90,Penetal92}, but we will not address that problem
here.}. Note that in the Landau gauge, with a bare photon propagator
and bare vertex (the quenched ladder approximation),
Eq.~(\ref{dswavegen}) gives $Z(p)=1$ exactly.
For the photon propagator we use some different approximations, to
determine the influence of the infrared behavior of the vacuum
polarization on the analytic structure of the fermion propagator and
on the (confining) potential. We compare in detail the results as
obtained in
\begin{enumerate}
\item the quenched approximation: a bare photon propagator;
\label{trunc1}
\item the $1/N$ expansion using the analytical formula for
the one-loop vacuum polarization with bare, massless fermions,
Eq.~(\ref{vacpolml})
\label{trunc2}
\item the $1/N$ expansion using the one-loop vacuum polarization
with full fermions, {\em with the dynamically generated fermion
mass function}.
\label{trunc3}
\end{enumerate}
In both \ref{trunc2} and \ref{trunc3}, we take a bare vertex in the
expression for the vacuum polarization.
This truncation scheme gives us the following expression for the mass
function
\begin{eqnarray} \label{genmasseq}
m(p) &=& \frac{e^2}{2\,\pi^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d}k
\frac{k^2 \, m(k)}{k^2 + m^2(k)} {\rm K}(p,k) \,,
\\ %
{\rm K}(p,k) &=& \int_0^\pi \frac{\sin{\theta} \, {\rm d}\theta}
{(p^2-2pk\cos{\theta}+k^2)(1+\Pi(p^2-2pk\cos{\theta}+k^2))} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
with the kernel ${\rm K}(p,k)$ depending on the particular
approximation we use for the photon propagator.
\subsection{Numerical calculations}
Once we have truncated the equations, we can solve the resulting
integral equation for the mass function numerically. We start by
solving the equation for Euclidean momenta $0 \leq p^2 < \infty$.
However, we are not really interested in the result on the Euclidean
axis (for a more detailed discussion about the existence of a critical
number of fermion flavors for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking we
refer to the literature
\cite{appetal,DaKoKo89,PeWe88,AtJoMa90,Penetal92}), but we want to
know the behavior of the propagator in the complex momentum plane. For
that purpose we have used two different approaches: one is a direct
analytic continuation of the integral equation, Eq.~(\ref{genmasseq}),
into the complex plane. This can be done by deforming the integration
contour and solving the integral equation along this new contour. Note
that it is not possible to keep the integration variable $k$ real, and
take only the external variable $p$ complex (after solving the
integral equation on the real axis), because of the analytic structure
of the kernel ${\rm K}(p,k)$. With massless photons, and thus a photon
propagator which has a singularity at the origin, there is a pinch
singularity at $p=k$, and we are forced to integrate through the point
$p=k$. So for complex momenta $p$ we have to solve the integral
equation along a deformed contour in the complex plane.
In practice, we change the integration contour by rotating it in the
complex plane, multiplying both the internal and the external variable
by a phase factor ${\rm e}^{i\phi}$, so we get the complex variables
$\tilde k = {\rm e}^{i\phi} k$ and $\tilde p = {\rm e}^{i\phi} p$, see
Fig.~\ref{fig2}. Since in QED3 the integral falls off rapidly enough
in the ultraviolet, there is no need to take into account the
contribution coming from the arc at infinity, in contrast to theories
with a finite cutoff like QED4. This procedure works quite well, until
one comes close to a singularity caused by a zero of the denominator
of the integration kernel
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{k^2 + m^2(k)} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
where the numerical integration procedure becomes unstable. The
location in the complex plane of the actual singularity itself can be
obtained by extrapolating the numerical results to the ``physical''
mass $\mu$, defined by the zero of this denominator
\begin{eqnarray}
- \mu^2 + m^2(\sqrt{-\mu^2}) &=& 0 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
For more details about our numerical procedure and the analytic
continuation, we refer to \cite{pmthesis}. In this way we can in
principle find the singularities in the complex plane, but it is a
very time-consuming numerical process, and does not always converge to
a stable solution.
Therefore we also used another method, based on the Euclidean-time
Schwinger function, to determine whether or not the propagator
corresponds to a physical observable state \cite{RoWi94,HoRoMc92}.
We define
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(p^2) &=& \frac{m(p)}{p^2 + m^2(p)} \,,
\\
\Delta(t) &=& \int{\rm d}^2 x \int \frac{{\rm d}^3p}{(2\pi)^3}
{\rm e}^{i(p_3 t + \vec{p}\cdot\vec{x})} \sigma(p^2) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Using this Schwinger function, one can show that if there is a stable
asymptotic state associated with this propagator, with a mass $m$,
then
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(t) &\sim& {\rm e}^{- m t}
\end{eqnarray}
for large (Euclidean) $t$, so for the logarithmic derivative we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{t \rightarrow\infty} \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}
\ln\left(\Delta(t)\right) &=& - m \,,
\end{eqnarray}
whereas two complex conjugate mass-like singularities, with complex
masses $\mu = a \pm i\,b$, lead to an oscillating behavior like
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta(t) &\sim& {\rm e}^{- a t} \cos{(bt + \delta)}
\end{eqnarray}
for large $t$. This method is much less time-consuming to see whether
or not the propagator has a real mass-singularity or not, but it is
less accurate than solving the Dyson--Schwinger equation for complex
momenta in determining the (complex) mass-singularities.
\section{Results}
\label{secres}
\subsection{Quenched QED3}
\label{subsecquen}
In massless quenched QED3, there is no free parameter: the coupling in
QED3 is dimensionful and thus defines the energy scale, and there are
no other parameters. By choosing the Landau gauge, we satisfy the
requirement that the wavefunction renormalization and the vertex
renormalization are exactly equal: from Eq.~(\ref{dswavegen}) it
follows directly that in quenched QED using the Landau gauge,
$Z(p)=1$, and the equation for the mass function reduces to
\begin{eqnarray}
m(p) &=& \frac{e^2}{2\pi^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d}k
\frac{m(k)}{k^2 + m^2(k)} \frac{k}{2p} \ln{\frac{(p+k)^2}{(p-k)^2}} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Solving this equation on the Euclidean axis shows that there is
dynamical mass generation in this case, and the infrared mass $m(0)$
is proportional to the dimensionful coupling, as expected.
Next, we have calculated the Schwinger function, using the mass
function on the Euclidean axis, see Fig.~\ref{fig3}. This figure
clearly shows that there is no stable asymptotic one-fermion state
associated with this propagator, in other words, the fermions cannot
be observed as free particles and are thus confined. The oscillations
in this figure strongly suggest that the fermion propagator has
complex mass-like singularities, corresponding to two
complex-conjugate masses. Using
\begin{eqnarray} \label{schwcmplxmass}
\Delta(t) &\sim& {\rm e}^{- a t} \cos{(bt + \delta)} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
to extract such a complex mass, we estimate this to be
\begin{eqnarray}
\mu &=& (0.80 \pm 0.71 \, i)\,m(0)
\end{eqnarray}
However, this method might be not very accurate in determining the
actual value of the (complex) masses, since Eq.~(\ref{schwcmplxmass})
only holds for large values of $t$, whereas for large values of $t$
the numerical noise in calculating the Euclidean-time Schwinger
function destroys the signal. So we have used values of $t$ up to $t
\sim 10/m(0)$ (we rescale all dimensionful quantities by $m(0)$), and
use only the first oscillations to determine the imaginary part of the
complex mass. Furthermore, Eq.~(\ref{schwcmplxmass}) is based on the
assumption that only these (complex) singularities contribute to the
Schwinger function (at least at large $t$), but if there are complex
singularities, there might be more than just two complex-conjugate
mass-like singularities.
Therefore we also used the other method to determine the analytic
structure of the propagator, and have solved the integral equation in
the complex plane. This leads to two complex-conjugate singularities,
located at
\begin{eqnarray}
|\mu| &=& 0.104 \,e^2 \;=\; 1.01\,m(0) \,,
\\
\theta_\mu &=& {\textstyle{\frac{\pi}{2}}} - \phi \; = \; 0.819 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
This result confirms the estimate based on the Schwinger function,
given the inaccuracy of the estimate of the complex mass.
So both the Schwinger function and a direct search for mass-like
singularities show that there is a complex mass singularity, which
makes it impossible for the fermion propagator to become on
mass-shell, end thus effectively confines the fermion. This is in
agreement with the fact that in quenched massless QED3 there is a
confining potential.
\subsection{One-loop vacuum polarization}
\label{subsecbare}
Next, we include the one-loop vacuum polarization, using bare massless
fermions, Eq.~(\ref{vacpolml}). As already mentioned before,
perturbatively the $1/N$ expansion gives to leading order no confining
potential, and a full fermion propagator which is the same as the bare
one, and thus corresponding to a massless stable asymptotic state. In
the case of dynamical mass generation, which we consider here, the
situation is more complicated. Since the number of fermion flavors is
the only free parameter in this case, we present our results as a
function of $N$.
For simplicity we use Landau gauge, as in the quenched approximation,
and we can perform the angular integration in the Dyson--Schwinger
equation analytically to arrive at the equation for the mass function
\begin{eqnarray} \label{masseqnml}
m(p) &=& \frac{4\,\alpha}{N\,\pi^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d}k
\frac{m(k)}{k^2 + m^2(k)} \frac{k}{p}
\ln{\frac{|p+k|+\alpha}{|p-k|+\alpha}} \,,
\end{eqnarray}
This can be solved numerically as an integral equation, or after
expanding the logarithm and some further approximations reduced to a
second-order nonlinear differential equation \cite{appetal}. Both the
integral and the differential equation show that there is dynamical
mass generation if $N < N_c = 3.24$, see Fig.~\ref{fig4mass}; this
critical number is in agreement with analytical calculations using
bifurcation theory, leading to $N_c = 32/\pi^2$.
We have calculated the Schwinger function, using the mass function on
the Euclidean axis, see Fig.~\ref{fig3}. This figure strongly suggest that
there is a stable asymptotic one-fermion state, which means that the
fermions are not confined and can be observed. Up to the largest
values of $t$ at which the Schwinger function gives a numerically
stable result, we find an almost constant logarithmic derivative.
{}From this Schwinger function we have derived a value for the
asymptotic mass for some different number of fermion flavors, and the
results are listed in Table~\ref{table}. We do not find any evidence
for oscillations which would signal a complex mass, as there were in
the quenched approximation.
We have also solved the integral equation in the complex plane. This
reveals that the mass singularities are not exactly on the real
timelike axis, but that they do have small imaginary parts, see
Table~\ref{table}. In Fig.~\ref{fig5phase} we have plotted the phase
of these singularities as a function of $N$, by numerically solving
both the integral equation and the differential equation which can be
derived from Eq.~(\ref{masseqnml}), and those results almost coincide.
Given the fact that we have only solved the truncated Dyson--Schwinger
equation, it is not unreasonable to expect a small deviation of the
physical mass from the real axis, and given the relative smallness of
the imaginary part this could very well be an artifact of the
approximations, especially since the singularity tends to move toward
the real timelike axis if the number of flavors goes to the critical
number.
The reason for not finding this imaginary part of the mass
singularities using the Schwinger function lies in its smallness:
since the imaginary part is of the order of $10\%$ of the real part
(or even less), we will not find a clear signal for it at $t \leq
10/m$, where $m$ is the typical infrared mass-scale; however, the
numerical noise destroys the signal completely at these (or larger)
values of $t$.
So our conclusion is that this approximation, using the one-loop
vacuum polarization of bare massless fermions, leads to (almost)
stable observable asymptotic states, with an (almost) real physical
mass. This agrees well with the fact that in this case we do not have
a confining potential.
\subsection{Full vacuum polarization}
\label{subsecdyn}
Finally, we include the one-loop vacuum polarization,
Eq.~(\ref{vacpol}), with dynamical fermions and a bare vertex. In other
words, we consider the coupled Dyson--Schwinger equations for the
photon and propagator, in the bare vertex approximation. This leads
to two coupled integral equations to solve
\begin{eqnarray}
m(p) &=& \frac{4\,\alpha}{N\,\pi^2} \int_0^\infty {\rm d}k
\frac{k^2 \, m(k)}{k^2 + m^2(k)}
\int_{-1}^{1}\frac{{\rm d}z}{(p^2-2pkz+k^2)(1+\Pi(p^2-2pkz+k^2))} \,,
\\
\Pi(q^2) &=& \frac{8\alpha}{q^2} \int\frac{{\rm d}^3k}{(2\pi)^3}
\frac{2 k^2 - 4 k\cdot q - 6 (k\cdot q)/q^2}
{(k^2 + m^2(k))((k+q)^2 + m^2(k+q))} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
Again, this can be solved numerically: we start by solving the mass
equation for a given vacuum polarization, and use that resulting mass
function to calculate the vacuum polarization numerically and iterate
this procedure. Just as in the previous case, it leads to dynamical
mass generation if the number of fermion flavors is below a critical
number, see Fig.~\ref{fig4mass}. The behavior of the infrared mass is
quite similar, and also the critical number is the same as in the
previous approximation, $N_c = 3.24$, as could be expected on grounds
of bifurcation theory.
Also in this case we have calculated the Schwinger function, see
Fig.~\ref{fig3extra}. This shows that there are no stable asymptotic
one-fermion states associated with this propagator, just as in
quenched QED3, but in sharp contrast to the previous case. We have
also shown the result with a fixed mass ($m=m(0)$) in the analytical
formula for the vacuum polarization, Eq.~(\ref{vacpolmass}). This
gives qualitatively the same result as when using the dynamical mass
function. In both cases the oscillations indicate complex mass-like
singularities, and we have given estimates for these complex masses in
Table~\ref{table}.
We have also solved the integral equation in the complex plane, which
confirms the observation based on the Schwinger function that there
are complex mass-like singularities. The phase of these singularities
is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig5phase}, and for some different values of
$N$ we have given our result in Table~\ref{table}. Given the
inaccuracy in the estimates based on the Schwinger function, there is
a good agreement between both methods.
It is clear that the the effects of the fermion mass in the loop for
the vacuum polarization confines the fermions: the potential becomes
confining, the mass singularities move into the complex plane, and
there are no stable observable asymptotic states.
\subsection{Discussion of the results}
\label{subsecdisc}
Our results show that the correct treatment of the vacuum polarization
is essential in a nonperturbative calculation of the fermion
propagator. Based on bifurcation theory, one can argue that the
influence of the dynamically generated mass function can be neglected
in studying the chiral phase transition. Although this is indeed true
for the value of the critical coupling, and maybe also for the
behavior of the infrared mass $m(0)$ close to the critical coupling,
it is certainly not true for the behavior of the {\em physical} mass,
defined at the zero of $p^2 + m^2(p)$.
On the real axis, the dynamical mass function in quenched QED3 is
qualitatively quite similar to the mass function in the $1/N$
expansion, both with massless fermions and with massive fermions in
the vacuum polarization, see Fig.~\ref{fig6}(a). There is a scale
difference between the different approximations, but all mass
functions are almost constant in the (far) infrared region, and fall
of to zero as $1/p^2$ in the (far) ultraviolet. Only in the
intermediate-energy region there are some differences due to the
inclusion of the vacuum polarization.
In contrast, in the complex plane the behavior is not similar at all,
leading to a drastic different analytic structure. This difference can
be traced back to the difference in the infrared behavior of the
photon propagator: with a confining photon propagator there are
complex mass-like singularities, whereas with a deconfining
photon propagator these singularities are located almost on the real
timelike axis. Surprisingly, this difference can be seen very clearly
by using the Euclidean-time Schwinger function, which can be
calculated using the mass function on the real Euclidean axis only.
So although the behavior of the mass function in the Euclidean region
looks quite similar, there are essential differences which can be
shown explicitly by calculating this Schwinger function. This means
that this method is indeed a useful way to determine whether the
propagator corresponds to a confined particle or to a physical
observable particle.
The difference in analytic structure is due to the difference in the
infrared behavior of the photon, or more precisely, due to the
different behavior of $\Pi(0)$ in the different approximations. In
Fig.~\ref{fig6}(b) we have plotted both the one-loop vacuum
polarization, for massless and massive fermions, and the full vacuum
polarization calculated numerically with dynamical massive fermions.
Only in the infrared region there is a difference, and it is exactly
this difference that causes the different behavior of the fermion
propagator in the complex plane; it is also this infrared behavior
which makes the potential confining or not. Therefore our conclusion
is that (at least in this model) confinement is caused by the infrared
behavior of the photon propagator, and is connected with complex
mass-like singularities of the fermion propagator, thus preventing the
fermions from being on mass-shell.
Finally, we should remark that these calculations are all done in the
bare vertex approximation in the Landau gauge. It is known that the
effects of vertex corrections, together with the wavefunction
renormalization $Z(p)$ which we have set equal to $1$, can change the
results quite drastically \cite{PeWe88,AtJoMa90,Penetal92}. Another
question is what happens in other gauges, whether or not our results
are gauge independent. As a qualitative indication whether or not our
conclusions about confinement in QED3 also hold beyond the bare vertex
approximation and in other gauges, we could compare our numerical
vacuum polarization with the vacuum polarization as obtained by Burden
{\em et al}. They solved the Dyson--Schwinger equation for the fermion
propagator in quenched QED3 with the Ball--Chiu Ansatz for the vertex,
and used this propagator to calculate the vacuum polarization, again
with the Ball-Chiu vertex. Qualitatively our result for the vacuum
polarization agrees with theirs, both in the infrared region, where we
find a finite value of $\Pi(0)$ if we take into account the fermion
mass, and in the ultraviolet region. In the infrared region there is a
quantitative difference, but this can be explained by the fact that
the value of $\Pi(0)$ strongly depends on the infrared value of the
mass function $m(0)$, which is quite different in different
approximations. Of course, we should keep in mind that if the behavior
looks similar on the real axis, it does not necessarily mean that they
are indeed similar in the entire complex plane. However, the fact that
they also found a finite value of $\Pi(0)$ indicates that also beyond
the bare vertex approximation there is a confining potential, and we
would expect complex singularities as well. Whether or not these
singularities are gauge independent (with a suitable vertex Ansatz),
will be addressed in the future. Note that also the vacuum
polarization itself should be explicitly gauge-independent.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{secconc}
Our results show very clearly that there is a relation between a
confining potential, the absence of stable asymptotic states, and
complex mass-like singularities. Both in quenched QED3, and in
massive QED3 using the $1/N$ expansion (with a dynamically generated
fermion mass), there is a logarithmically confining potential, and we
show that there are no stable asymptotic states. The Euclidean-time
Schwinger function has an oscillatory behavior in these cases,
indicating complex mass-like singularities. By solving the
Dyson--Schwinger equation directly in the complex momentum plane, we
show that there are indeed such complex singularities.
On the other hand, using massless bare fermions in the one-loop vacuum
polarization, there is no confining potential. In this approximation,
the Schwinger function indicates a stable asymptotic state. A direct
analysis of the Dyson--Schwinger equation in the complex plane reveals
that there are complex singularities even in this case, but that they
are located very close to the real timelike axis. Given the
approximations made, it is not unreasonable to assume that this small
(less than $10\%$) deviation from the real timelike axis is caused by
the truncation of the Dyson--Schwinger equation.
These results are obtained with a dynamically generated fermion mass,
starting with massless bare fermions. For $N > N_c$, in the chirally
symmetric phase, there is no dynamical fermion mass, and the fermion
propagator has a singularity at the origin, just as the bare one. This
also agrees with the fact that in there is no confining potential in
this massless phase (in the $1/N$ expansion), due to the infrared
softening of the photon propagator in the presence of massless
fermions. Thus the chiral phase transition is a confining phase
transition as well, at least in this model.
Interpreting the absence of a mass singularity on the real axis in the
timelike region as confinement does not completely explain the
phenomenon of complex mass-like singularities. If they are indeed a
genuine property of the full theory, it leads automatically to
confinement, but it has more consequences. One of the consequences is
that the naive Wick rotation is not allowed, and one should take into
account the contributions coming from the complex singularities in
going from Euclidean to Minkowski metric (and back). Another problem
is connected with questions of unitarity an causality; however, one
should keep in mind that these are requirements for the S-matrix of
physical processes, and not necessarily for the propagator of an
unphysical (confined) particle.
Another question is whether or not these complex singularities have a
physical interpretation. Naively, the real part (or the absolute
value) could be interpreted as the ``constituent'' mass, and the
imaginary part as some ``hadronization length'', in terms of QCD and
quark confinement. Such an interpretation is analogous to the
interpretation of the poles of instable particles in terms of mass and
decay width. A crucial requirement for such an interpretation is that
the singularities are gauge independent, which has to be studied in
detail.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I would like to thank Qing Wang, Craig Roberts, and David Atkinson
for useful comments. This work has been financially supported by
the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Standard Model involves three gauge couplings $g_i$,
($i=1,2,3$), a Higgs mass parameter $\mu$ and quartic coupling
$\lambda$, and the fermion Yukawa couplings.
In the Standard Model Lagrangian one must specify the
three Yukawa matrices $\lambda^E_{ij}$, $\lambda^D_{ij}$,
$\lambda^U_{ij}$,
corresponding to up to 54 real parameters, which after
diagonalisation lead to 9 physical masses (6 quark masses and 3
charged lepton masses) and 4 physical
quark mixing parameters. Thus the fermion sector of the Standard
Model involves either 54 or 13 unknown free parameters,
depending on how you choose to count them. Either way, from
a fundamental point of view the situation is unacceptable
and the fermion mass problem, as it has been called,
is one motivation for going beyond the Standard Model.
The big question of course is what lies beyond it?
We have not yet experimentally studied the mechanism of electroweak
symmetry breaking, so one might argue that it is premature to study
the fermion mass problem. Unless we can answer this, we have no hope
of understanding anything about fermion masses since we do not have a
starting point from which to analyse the problem. However LEP has
taught us that whatever breaks electroweak symmetry must do so in a
way which very closely resembles the standard model. This observation
by itself is enough to disfavour many dynamical models involving large
numbers of new fermions. By contrast the minimal supersymmetric
standard model (MSSM) mimics the standard model very closely.
Furthermore, by accurately measuring the strong coupling constant, LEP
has shown that the gauge couplings of the MSSM merge very accurately
at a scale just above $10^{16}$ GeV, thus providing a hint for
possible unification at this scale. On the theoretical side,
supersymmetry (SUSY) and grand unified theories (GUTs) fit together
very nicely in several ways, providing a solution to the technical
hierarchy problem for example. When SUSY GUTs are extended to
supergravity (SUGRA) the beautiful picture of universal soft SUSY
breaking parameters and radiative electroweak symmetry breaking via a
large top quark yukawa coupling emerges. Finally, there is an on-going
effort to embed all of this structure in superstring models, thereby
allowing a complete unification, including gravity.
Given the promising scenario mentioned above, it is hardly surprising
that many authors have turned to the SUSY GUT framework as a
springboard from which to attack the problem of fermion masses
\cite{Rabyi}. Indeed in recent years there has been a flood of papers
on fermion masses in SUSY GUTs. Although the approaches differ in
detail, there are some common successful themes which have been known
for some time. For example the idea of bottom-tau Yukawa unification
in SUSY GUTs \cite{btauold} works well with current data
\cite{btaunew}. A more ambitious extension of this idea is the
Georgi-Jarlskog (GJ) ansatz (see later)
which provides a successful description of
all down-type quark and charged lepton masses
\cite{GJ}, and which also works well with current data
\cite{DHR}.
In order to understand the origin of the texture zeroes, one must
consider the details of the model at the scale $M_X \sim 10^{16}$
GeV. The alternative is to simply make a list of
assumptions about the nature of the Yukawa matrices at $M_X$
\cite{frogetal}. For example Ramond, Roberts and Ross (RRR)
\cite{RRR} assumed symmetric Yukawa matrices at $M_X$, together with
the GJ ansatz for the lepton sector. It is difficult to proceed
beyond this without specifying a particular model. Indeed, this model
dependence may be a good thing since it may mean that the fermion mass
spectrum at low energies is sensitive to the theory at $M_X$, so it
can be used as a window into the high-energy theory. Therefore in
what follows we shall restrict ourselves to a very specific gauge
group at $M_X$.
Twenty-one years ago Pati and Salam proposed a model in which the
standard model was embedded in the gauge group SU(4)$\otimes$SU(2)$_L
\otimes $SU(2)$_R$ \cite{pati}. More recently a superpersymmetric
(SUSY) version of this model was proposed in which the gauge group is
broken at $M_{X}\sim 10^{16}$ GeV \cite{leo1}. The model \cite{leo1}
does not involve adjoint representations and later some attempt was
made to derive it from four-dimensional strings, although there are
some difficulties with the current formulation \cite{leo2}.
The absence of adjoint representations is not an
essential prerequisite for the model to descend from the superstring,
but it leads to some technical simplifications. Also in the present
model, the colour triplets which are in separate representations
{}from the Higgs doublets, become heavy in a very simple way so the
Higgs doublet-triplet splitting problem does not arise. These two
features (absence of adjoint representations and absence of the
doublet-triplet splitting problem,) are shared by flipped
SU(5)$\otimes $U(1)
\cite{flipped}, which also has a superstring formulation. Although
the present model and flipped SU(5)$\otimes $U(1) are similar in many
ways, there are some important differences. Whereas the Yukawa
matrices of flipped SU(5)$\otimes$U(1) are completely unrelated at the
level of the effective field theory at $M_{X}$ (although they may have
relations coming from the string model) in the present model there is
a constraint that the top, bottom and tau Yukawa couplings must all
unify at that scale. In addition there will be Clebsch relations
between the other elements of the Yukawa matrices, assuming they are
described by non-renormalisable operators, which would not be present
in flipped SU(5)$\otimes $U(1). In these respects the model resembles
the SO(10) model recently analysed by Anderson et al \cite{Larry}.
However it differs from the SO(10) model in that the present model
does not have an SU(5) subgroup which is central to the analysis of
the SO(10) model. In addition the operator structure of the present
model is totally different. Thus the model under consideration is in
some sense similar to flipped SU(5)$\otimes$U(1), but has third family
Yukawa unification and precise Clebsch relationships as in SO(10). We
find this combination of features quite remarkable, and it seems to us
that this provides a rather strong motivation to study the problem of
fermion masses in this model \cite{422}.
\section{The 422 Model}
Here we briefly summarise the parts of the model
which are relevant for our analysis.
The gauge group is,
\begin{equation}
\mbox{SU(4)}\otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_L \otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_R. \label{422}
\end{equation} The left-handed quarks and leptons are accommodated in
the following representations,
\begin{equation} {F^i}^{\alpha a}=(4,2,1)=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc} u^R & u^B & u^G & \nu \\ d^R & d^B & d^G &
e^-
\end{array} \right)^i
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} {\bar{F}}_{x \alpha}^i=(\bar{4},1,\bar{2})=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\bar{d}^R & \bar{d}^B & \bar{d}^G & e^+ \\
\bar{u}^R & \bar{u}^B & \bar{u}^G & \bar{\nu}
\end{array} \right)^i
\end{equation} where $\alpha=1\ldots 4$ is an SU(4) index, $a,x=1,2$
are SU(2)$_{L,R}$ indices, and $i=1\ldots 3$ is a family index. The
Higgs fields are contained in the following representations,
\begin{equation} h_{a}^x=(1,\bar{2},2)=
\left(\begin{array}{cc} {h_2}^+ & {h_1}^0 \\ {h_2}^0 & {h_1}^- \\
\end{array} \right) \label{h}
\end{equation} (where $h_1$ and $h_2$ are the low energy Higgs
superfields associated with the MSSM.) The two heavy Higgs
representations are
\begin{equation} {H}^{\alpha b}=(4,1,2)=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc} u_H^R & u_H^B & u_H^G & \nu_H \\ d_H^R &
d_H^B & d_H^G & e_H^-
\end{array} \right) \label{H}
\end{equation} and
\begin{equation} {\bar{H}}_{\alpha x}=(\bar{4},1,\bar{2})=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
\bar{d}_H^R & \bar{d}_H^B & \bar{d}_H^G & e_H^+ \\
\bar{u}_H^R & \bar{u}_H^B & \bar{u}_H^G & \bar{\nu}_H
\end{array} \right). \label{barH}
\end{equation}
The Higgs fields are assumed to develop VEVs,
\begin{equation} <H>=<\nu_H>\sim M_{X}, \ \
<\bar{H}>=<\bar{\nu}_H>\sim M_{X}
\label{HVEV}
\end{equation} leading to the symmetry breaking at $M_{X}$
\begin{equation}
\mbox{SU(4)}\otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_L \otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_R
\longrightarrow
\mbox{SU(3)}_C \otimes \mbox{SU(2)}_L \otimes \mbox{U(1)}_Y
\label{422to321}
\end{equation} in the usual notation. Under the symmetry breaking in
Eq.\ref{422to321}, the Higgs field $h$ in Eq.\ref{h} splits into two
Higgs doublets $h_1$, $h_2$ whose neutral components subsequently
develop weak scale VEVs,
\begin{equation} <h_1^0>=v_1, \ \ <h_2^0>=v_2 \label{vevs}
\end{equation} with $\tan \beta \equiv v_2/v_1$.
Below $M_{X}$ the part of the
superpotential involving quark and charged lepton fields is just
\begin{equation} W
=\lambda^{ij}_UQ_i\bar{U}_jh_2+\lambda^{ij}_DQ_i\bar{D}_jh_1
+\lambda^{ij}_EL_i\bar{E}_jh_1+ \ldots \label{NMSSM}
\end{equation} with the boundary conditions at $M_{X}$,
\begin{equation}
\lambda^{ij}_U=\lambda^{ij}_D=\lambda^{ij}_E.
\label{boundary}
\end{equation}
The same Yukawa relations also occur in minimal $SO(10)$.
\section{The Basic Strategy}
Such Yukawa relations as in Eq.\ref{boundary}
taken at face value
are a phenomenological disaster. For example
consider the minimal $SU(5)$ prediction
$\lambda^{ij}_D=\lambda^{ij}_E$. After diagonalisation
this leads to
$\lambda_e = \lambda_d$,
$\lambda_{\mu} = \lambda_s$,
$\lambda_{\tau} = \lambda_b$,
(at the scale $M_X$)
and hence
\begin{equation}
\frac{\lambda_s}{\lambda_d} = \frac{\lambda_{\mu}}{\lambda_e}
\end{equation}
which is RG invariant and fails badly at low-energy.
On the other hand the third family relation leads to
the low-energy prediction (assuming the SUSY RG equations)
$\lambda_b / \lambda_{\tau} \approx 2.4$ which works well.
A possible fix is provided by the GJ texture,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^E &=& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \lambda_{12} & 0 \\
\lambda_{21} & 3 \lambda_{22} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \lambda_{33} \\ \end{array}\right) \\
\lambda^D &=& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \lambda_{12} & 0 \\
\lambda_{21} & \lambda_{22} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \lambda_{33} \\ \end{array}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
With predictions (at $M_{X}$)
\begin{eqnarray}&&\begin{array}{cc}
\lambda_s = \lambda_\mu/3, & \lambda_d = 3\lambda_e, \\ \end{array}
\end{eqnarray}
which is viable.
As
it turns out, the idea of full top-bottom-tau
Yukawa unification works rather well for the
third family \cite{Yuk}, leading to the prediction of a large top
quark mass $m_t>165$ GeV, and $\tan \beta \sim m_t/m_b$ where $m_b$ is
the bottom quark mass. However Yukawa unification for the first two
families is not successful, since it would lead to unacceptable mass
relations amongst the lighter fermions, and zero mixing angles at
$M_{X}$. In order to cure these problems, we require
something akin to the GJ texture, in which the Yukawa relations
are altered by group theoretical Clebsch coefficients, leading
to enhanced predictivity.
One interesting proposal has recently been put forward to account for
the fermion masses in an SO(10) SUSY GUT with a single Higgs in the 10
representation \cite{Larry}. According this approach, only the third
family is allowed to receive mass from the renormalisable operators in
the superpotential. The remaining masses and mixings are generated
from a minimal set of just three specially chosen non-renormalisable
operators whose coefficients are suppressed by some large scale.
Furthermore these operators are only allowed to contain adjoint 45
Higgs representations, chosen {}From a set of fields denoted $45_Y$,
$45_{B-L}$, $45_{T_{3R}}$, $45_X$ whose VEVs point in the direction of
the generators specified by the subscripts, in the notation of
\cite{Larry}.
This is precisely the strategy we wish to follow. We shall
assume that only the third family receives its mass {}from a
renormalisable Yukawa coupling. All the other renormalisable Yukawa
couplings are set to zero. Then non-renormalisable operators are
written down which will play the role of small effective Yukawa
couplings. The effective Yukawa couplings are small because they
originate {}from non-renormalisable operators which are suppressed by
powers of the heavy scale $M$. We shall restrict
ourselves to all possible non-renormalisable operators which can be
constructed from different group theoretical contractions of the
fields:
\begin{equation} O_{ij}\sim (F_i\bar{F}_j
)h\left(\frac{H\bar{H}}{M^2}\right)^n+{\mbox h.c.} \label{op}
\end{equation} where we have used the fields $H,\bar{H}$ in
Eqs.\ref{H},\ref{barH} and $M$ is the large scale $M>M_{X}$. The idea
is that when $H, \bar{H}$ develop their VEVs such operators will
become effective Yukawa couplings of the form $h F \bar{F}$ with a
small coefficient of order $M_X^2/M^2$. Although we
assume no intermediate symmetry breaking scale (i.e. SU(4)$\otimes
$SU(2)$_L \otimes $SU(2)$_R$ is broken directly to the standard model
at the scale $M_X$) we shall allow the possibility that there are
different higher scales $M$ which are relevant in determining the
operators. For example one particular contraction of the indices of
the fields may be associated with one scale $M$, and a different
contraction may be associated with a different scale $M'$. We shall
either appeal to this kind of idea in order to account for the various
hierarchies present in the Yukawa matrices, or to higher dimensional
operators which are suppressed by a further factor of $M$.
In the present model, although there are no adjoint representations,
there will in general be non-renormalisable operators which closely
resemble those in SO(10) involving adjoint fields. The simplest such
operators correspond to $n=1$ in Eq.\ref{op}, with the $(H
\bar{H})$ group indices contracted together.
These operators are similar to those of ref.~\cite{Larry} but with
$H\bar{H}$ playing the r\^{o}le of the adjoint Higgs representations.
It is useful to define the following combinations of fields,
corresponding to the different $H\bar{H}$ transformation properties
under the gauge group in Eq.\ref{422},
\begin{eqnarray} (H \bar{H})_A & = & (1,1,1)
\nonumber \\ (H \bar{H})_B & = & (1,1,3)
\nonumber \\ (H \bar{H})_C & = & (15,1,1) \label{big} \\ (H \bar{H})_D
& = & (15,1,3)
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
It is straightforward to construct the
operators of the form of Eq.\ref{op} explicitly, and hence deduce the
effect of each operator. For example for $n=1$ the four operators
are, respectively,
\begin{equation} O^{A,B,C,D}_{ij}\sim F_i\bar{F}_jh\frac{(H
\bar{H})_{A,B,C,D}}{M^2}+H.c.
\label{n1}
\end{equation} where we have suppressed gauge group indices.
These operators lead
to quark-lepton and isospin splittings, as shown
explicitly below:
\begin{eqnarray} O^{A}_{ij} & = & a_{ij} (Q_{i}\bar{U}_{j}h_2 +
Q_{i}\bar{D}_{j}h_1 + L_{i}\bar{E}_{j}h_1 + H.c.) \nonumber \\
O^{B}_{ij} & = & b_{ij} (Q_{i}\bar{U}_{j}h_2 - Q_{i}\bar{D}_{j}h_1 -
L_{i}\bar{E}_{j}h_1 + H.c.) \nonumber \\ O^{C}_{ij} & = & c_{ij}
(Q_{i}\bar{U}_{j}h_2 + Q_{i}\bar{D}_{j}h_1 -3L_{i}\bar{E}_{j}h_1 +
H.c.) \nonumber \\ O^{D}_{ij} & = & d_{ij} (Q_{i}\bar{U}_{j}h_2 -
Q_{i}\bar{D}_{j}h_1 + 3L_{i}\bar{E}_{j}h_1 + H.c.)
\label{effective}
\end{eqnarray} where the coefficients of the operators
$a_{ij},b_{ij},c_{ij},d_{ij}$ are all of order
$\frac{M_X^2}{M^2}$.
\section{Results and Conclusions}
Using operators such as those above, together with
more complicated $n=2$ operators, it is possible
to account for the entire fermion mass spectrum.
The successful ansatze \cite{422} involve 8
real parameters
plus an unremovable phase. With these 8
parameters we can describe the 13 physical
masses and mixing angles.
Third family Yukawa unification leads to a prediction for $m_t
(\mbox{pole}) = 130-200$ GeV and $\tan \beta = 35-65$, depending on
$\alpha_S (M_Z)$ and $\bar{m}_b$. More accurate predictions could be
obtained if the error on $\alpha_S(M_Z)$ and $\bar{m}_b$ were
reduced.
The analysis of the lower 2 by 2 block
of the Yukawa matrices leads to 2 possible
predictions for $\lambda_{\mu}/\lambda_s=3,4$ at the scale $M_X$
($3$ is the GJ prediction).
In the upper 2 by
2 block analysis we are led to 5 possible predictions for
$\lambda_{d}/\lambda_e=2,8/3,3,4,16/3$.
(again $3$ is the GJ prediction.) Finally, we have a
prediction that $|V_{ub}|>0.004$\cite{422}.
The high values of $\tan \beta$ required by our model (also predicted
in SO(10)) can be arranged by a suitable choice of soft SUSY breaking
parameters as discussed in ref.\cite{Carenaetal}, although this leads
to a moderate fine tuning problem \cite{Yuk}. The high value of $\tan
\beta$ is not stable under radiative corrections unless some other
mechanism such as extra approximate symmetries are invoked. $m_t$ may
have been overestimated, since for high $\tan \beta$, the equations
for the running of the Yukawa couplings in the MSSM can get
corrections of a significant size from Higgsino--stop and
gluino--sbottom loops. The size of this effect depends upon the mass
spectrum and may be as much as 30 GeV. For our results to be
quantitatively correct, the sparticle corrections to $m_b$ must be
small. This could happen in a scenario with non-universal soft
parameters, for example. Not included in our analysis are threshold
effects, at low or high energies. These could alter our results by
several per cent and so it should be borne in mind that all of the
mass predictions have a significant uncertainty in them. It is also
unclear how reliable 3 loop perturbative QCD at 1 GeV is.
Despite a slight lack of predictivity of the model compared to SO(10), the
SU(4) $\otimes$SU(2)$_L \otimes$SU(2)$_R$ model has the twin
advantages of having no doublet-triplet splitting problem, and
containing no adjoint representations, making the model technically
simpler to embed into a realistic string theory. Although both these
problems can be addressed in the SO(10) model~\cite{new}, we find it
encouraging that such problems do not arise in the first place in the
SU(4)$\otimes$SU(2)$_L \otimes$SU(2)$_R$ model. Of course there are
other models which also share these advantages such as flipped SU(5)
or even the standard model. However, at the field theory level, such
models do not lead to Yukawa unification, or have precise Clebsch
relations between the operators describing the light fermion masses.
It is the combination of all of the attractive features mentioned
above which singles out the present model for serious consideration.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
As QCD is the accepted theory of the strong interactions, it is no doubt
desirable to understand all hadronic phenomena directly in terms of the
fundamental fields of QCD.
However, QCD being asymptotically free, perturbation theory is
applicable only for very short distances and cannot cover the complete range
of interest. At present lattice gauge simulations are the only way to study
such systems. In a first approach, the static approximation is the natural
choice,
where the gluonic degrees of freedom are integrated out, and quark loops are
ignored (the quenched approximation), giving rise to a potential between the
stationary quarks. The potential of the quark-antiquark system, where this
approach---leading to the familiar Wilson Loop---is very well known,
has been calculated extensively in Monte Carlo lattice simulations.
(For recent data, see e.g.~\cite{booth}.)
The ground state potential of this static system has also been calculated
in perturbation theory upto sixth order~\cite{fisch}.
Here we shall describe how to generalize this procedure to multi-quark systems,
especially to $(q\bar{q})^k$ systems. However, even
with present-day computers, $q\bar{q}$ lattice simulations are
still very demanding, and the amount of computations needed increases rapidly
with the number of interacting quarks. Reliable models for multi-quark systems
expressing their
potentials e.g.\ in terms of the well known $q\bar{q}$-systems
would therefore be of great help. Such two-body approximations have proven
successful in many areas of physics, and these models can be formulated
without difficulty. For the $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$-system, which is the simplest
one that can be considered consisting of two colour singlets, this model has
been tested against numerical data
from a Monte Carlo simulation \cite{paton}. For
small distances the agreement has been found reasonable. It has also been
observed \cite{mor} that the two-body model corresponds
to lowest order perturbation theory.
We shall be able to show that it is correct even to fourth order. To
sixth order, however, three- and four-body forces begin to appear.
\section{The Generalized Wilson Loop}
While the concepts discussed below
are of course well known in the context of the
Wilson Loop for the $q\bar{q}$-system,
we find it useful to start with rephrasing these concepts in the case of an
arbitrary number
of quarks, leading to a study of more complicated systems.
When we have assembled a
system of several quarks (and antiquarks),
gluons will mediate a force between them.
Treating this system in an approximation
as a quantum mechanical system of several static
quarks, the interactions between the quarks
are incorporated into a potential.
This assembly of quarks is then expected to propagate
in time with the usual factor of $e^{-itH}$,
where the interesting piece of the Hamilton operator
$H$ is the potential energy.
Thus, by calculating appropriate Green functions,
the potentials of eigenstates
of $H$ can be extracted.
\subsection{Setting up Gauge Invariant States}
\label{sin}
Because of confinement, it makes sense only to talk about systems of quarks
where the overall
states have colour singlet quantum numbers.
The problem with setting up say a
$q\bar{q}$-system in a singlet is that the quark and antiquark
are located a distance apart.
This problem can be overcome by inserting the path ordered exponential
$U(x,y,A) = {\cal P}e^{ig\int^x_y T^aA_a^{\mu}(z)dz_{\mu}}$ between the
locations
$x$ and $y$ of the quarks in the presence of the gauge potential $A$.
Here $g$ denotes the coupling constant and $T^a$ the representation matrices.
Thus $\bar{\psi}(x)U(x,y)\psi(y)|0\rangle$ will serve as a basis state
in this case.
We must also know how many basis states there are. When dealing with Green
functions coming from Monte Carlo lattice simulations,
they will have contributions from excited states of the gluonic field,
and there are infinitely many of them even in the $q\bar{q}$-case.
With suitable methods, the lowest potentials can be extracted, and several
have been calculated for the quenched $q\bar{q}$-system -- see for example
\cite{hunt}, \cite{mich}.
The situation is different for Green functions calculated in perturbation
theory. Here, unlike the lattice simulations,
we can and must go to the infinite time limit.
We do not expect to reach excited states of the gluon field in finite order
perturbation theory, and thus the number of basis states for a system
of several quarks is given by the usual arguments of group representation
theory, e.g.\ one for the
$q\bar{q}$-system and two for the $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$-system.
In the large time limit we expect that the effects of `introducing'
the quarks into the vacuum will be irrelevant in comparison
to their time evolution, and the notion of a potential makes sense.
\subsection{Diagonalization}
\label{diag}
It may be shown that the state
\[
|\mbox{ quarks }q_i\mbox{ and antiquarks }\bar{q}_j\mbox{ at time
}t\rangle
\]
\begin{equation}
= \bar{\psi}_{i}(-t,x_i)\ldots U(-t,x_i,y_i,A)\ldots \psi(-t,y_i)|0\rangle
\label{e1}
\end{equation}
satisfies Schr\"odinger's equation.
Forming the overlap of states at time $-t$ and $t$,
we get an equation between Green functions
and expressions of the form
${\bf A}_{ij}\stackrel{def}{=}\langle A_i|e^{-itH}|A_j\rangle$,
where $|A_i\rangle$ stands for some basis state and we have introduced the
matrix $\bf A$.
By assuming a decomposition of these basis states into eigenstates of $H$,
a diagonalization procedure will yield the potentials.
In the case of the Green functions coming from lattice
simulations, one considers a practical number of basis states,
expands them in energy eigenstates and drops contributions
with $e^{-itE_i}$ for energies $E_i$ above a certain limit.
Of course we implicitly assume Wick-rotation.
In perturbation theory, where a power expansion of $e^{-itE_i(g)}$ in
the coupling
$g$ will not be exponentially damped, we need to consider all linearly
independent basis
states, a number that is finite, as remarked in the last section.
Because of this finiteness,
we can find an invertible transformation to energy eigenstates,
and the diagonalization is straightforward.
In fact, given a matrix ${\bf A}$ satisfying certain
consistency relations, we can perturbatively
prove \cite{t} the existence
of a time-independent basis transformation
such that in this new basis ${\bf A}$ is not only diagonal,
but its eigenvalues are of the form $e^{-itE_i(g)}$.
Here the energy $E_i(g)$ of
the $i$-th
basis state, which can be calculated perturbatively, is for static quarks
equal to the $i$-th potential (apart from an irrelevant constant, the rest
mass).
\subsection{Loops}
\label{loops}
What remains to be done is to bring the Green functions
of the last paragraph to more familiar forms.
Since we work within the static approximation, the full quark
propagator in the presence of gauge fields can be
calculated \cite{eichtenfeinberg}:
\begin{eqnarray}
S_0(x,y,A)&=&-i[{\cal P}e^{ig\int^x_yT^aA_a^{\mu}(z)dz_{\mu}}]
e^{-im|x^0-y^0|}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})
\times\nonumber\\
&&[\frac{1+\gamma^0}{2}\Theta(x^0-y^0)+\frac{1-\gamma^0}{2}
\Theta(y^0-x^0)]
\label{eq21}
\end{eqnarray}
We shall now outline how various contour integrations, i.e.\ loops arise.
Considering the
well-known $q\bar{q}$-case, we find a path-ordered
line integral from antiquark to quark
arising from the $U$ in eq.~(\ref{e1}), then the path-ordered line integral
propagating
the quark forward in time from eq.~(\ref{eq21}).
Another $U$ and the antiquark
propagating
backwards in time close the rectangle of the familiar Wilson loop.
Starting with the Green functions described below eq.~(\ref{e1})
and evaluating them for propagation from $-t/2$ to $t/2$,
the following diagrammatic rule for calculating the Green function
dealing with an arbitrary number $k/2$ of quark-antiquark pairs
(i.e.\ $k$ quarks and antiquarks)
partitioned into $q\bar{q}$ singlets is seen to hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Draw two horizontal lines, the lower denoting time $-t/2$, the upper
$t/2$. Mark the position of every quark and antiquark on the lower line and
once again vertically above it on the upper line.
\item At the $-t/2$ level connect every quark-antiquark pair
that is set up as a singlet at $-t/2$ with a line,
having an arrow pointing from antiquark to quark.
\item At the $t/2$ level connect every quark-antiquark pair
that is set up as a singlet at $t/2$ with a line,
the arrow in which points from quark to antiquark.
\item Join the quarks at the $-t/2$ level
with quarks at the same position at
the $t/2$ level, arrow pointing upwards, i.e.\ forward in time.
\item Join the antiquarks at the $t/2$ level
with the antiquarks at the $-t/2$
level, arrow pointing downwards, i.e.\ backwards in time.
\item Associate a path-ordered exponential of
$e^{ig\oint_CT^aA_a^{\mu}(z)dz_{\mu}}$
together with a trace for every closed loop $C$ occurring.
\item Determine the overall sign:
If the pairings at the $-t/2$ level are the
same as those on the $t/2$ level, there must be a $+$ sign.
(This follows from the positivity of the norm on a Hilbert space
if one lets $t\rightarrow 0$.)
If this is not so, determine the sign of the permutation of antiquarks
on the upper line that is necessary to give the same pairings
as on the lower line. This is the overall sign.
\item Multiply by $(\delta(\vec{0})e^{-imt})^{k}$,
where $k$ is the total number
of quarks and antiquarks.
\item Insert the factor so obtained in the numerator\footnote{With $\eta$ we
denote the ghost fields, with $\cal L$ the Lagrangian without fermions} of
$\frac{\int[DA^a_{\mu}][D\eta_a^*][D\eta_a]e^{i\!\int\!d^4\!x[{\cal
L}]}}{\int[DA^a_{\mu}][D\eta_a^*][D\eta_a]e^{i\!\int\!d^4\!x[{\cal L}]}}$
\end{enumerate}
This gives the Green function in the chosen singlet structure.
\section{The $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$-Potentials}
In $SU($N$)$ gauge theory with quarks in the fundamental representation,
we want to calculate the $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$-potential
in perturbation theory to fourth order.
It has been remarked in subsection~\ref{sin} that there are two independent
basis states for
this system,
and one easily recognises a choice of these
in the two possible ways of pairing the system
into two quark-antiquark singlets.
Assuming the first static quark at position $R_1$, the second at $R_2$, and
the antiquarks at $R_3$ and $R_4$,
we will label the two states $|A_1\rangle =
{\bf 1}_{13}{\bf 1}_{24}$ and $|A_2\rangle =
{\bf 1}_{14}{\bf 1}_{23}$.
\subsection{Calculating the Green Functions}
According to subsection~\ref{loops},
we encounter the following types of loops:
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(350,150)
\thicklines
\put(0,35){\line(1,0){100}}
\put(0,35){\vector(1,0){ 50}}
\put(100,135){\line(-1,0){100}}
\put(100,135){\vector(-1,0){50}}
\put(300,135){\line(-1,0){100}}
\put(300,135){\vector(-1,0){50}}
\put(200,35){\line(1,0){100}}
\put(200,35){\vector(1,0){50}}
\put(0,135){\vector(0,-1){50}}
\put(0,135){\line(0,-1){100}}
\put(100,35){\vector(0,1){50}}
\put(100,35){\line(0,1){100}}
\put(200,135){\vector(0,-1){50}}
\put(200,135){\line(0,-1){100}}
\put(300,35){\line(0,1){100}}
\put(300,35){\vector(0,1){50}}
\put( 0, 15){$R_4$}
\put(100, 15){$R_2$}
\put(200, 15){$R_3$}
\put(300, 15){$R_1$}
\put(310, 35){$-t/2$}
\put(310,125){$t/2$}
\put(350,80){$C_{\langle A_1,-t/2|A_1,t/2\rangle}$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
and
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(350,150)
\thicklines
\put(0,35){\line(1,0){300}}
\put(0,35){\vector(1,0){150}}
\put(100,135){\line(-1,0){100}}
\put(100,135){\vector(-1,0){50}}
\put(300,135){\line(-1,0){100}}
\put(300,135){\vector(-1,0){50}}
\put(200,40){\line(-1,0){100}}
\put(200,40){\vector(-1,0){50}}
\put(0,135){\vector(0,-1){50}}
\put(0,135){\line(0,-1){100}}
\put(100,40){\vector(0,1){50}}
\put(100,40){\line(0,1){95}}
\put(200,135){\vector(0,-1){50}}
\put(200,135){\line(0,-1){95}}
\put(300,35){\line(0,1){100}}
\put(300,35){\vector(0,1){50}}
\put( 0, 15){$R_4$}
\put(100, 15){$R_2$}
\put(200, 15){$R_3$}
\put(300, 15){$R_1$}
\put(310, 35){$-t/2$}
\put(310,125){$t/2$}
\put(350,80){$C_{\langle A_2,-t/2|A_1,t/2\rangle}$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
In calculating the Green functions,
we will adopt dimensional regularization in dimension $D=4-2\epsilon$
with a mass scale $M$.
A wave-function renormalization
will remove infinities associated with a diagram of the form
\input FEYNMAN
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(10000,13000)
\thicklines
\put(5000,1500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(5000,1500){\vector(0,1){5000}}
\put(5000,4000){\circle*{500}}
\put(5000,9000){\circle*{500}}
\put(-2000,6500){${\tau}_1=$}
\drawline\gluon[\E\REG](5200,9000)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\SE\REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\S\REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\SW\REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\W\REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\end{picture}
\end{center}
while a coupling constant renormalization is needed to make the sum
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(10000,15000)
\thicklines
\put(5000,3500){\vector(0,1){10000}}
\put(5000,8500){\circle*{500}}
\put(5000,11000){\circle*{500}}
\put(5000,6000){\circle*{500}}
\put(5000,1500){${\tau}_2$}
\put(5500,8400){$x$}
\drawline\gluon[\E\FLIPPED](5100,6000)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\NE\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\N\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\NW\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\W\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[\W\FLIPPED](4900,8500)[2]
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10000,13000)
\thicklines
\put(10000, 3500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(10000, 3500){\vector(0,1){ 5000}}
\put(10000,8500){\circle*{500}}
\put(10000,8500){\line(1,1){1200}}
\put(10000,8500){\line(1,-1){1200}}
\put(10000,8500){\line(-1,1){1200}}
\put(10000,8500){\line(-1,-1){1200}}
\drawline\gluon[\W\FLIPPED]( 9800,8500)[2]
\end{picture}
\end{center}
finite. The full gluon propagator is renormalized in the usual way.
Note that, contrary to a smallest distance regularization
frequently encountered in this context,
there is no renormalization of the quark mass $m$.
Making the expansion in $\alpha = \frac{g^2{\it c_3}}{4\pi^2}$
rather than in $g$ and also expanding
in time, a calculation yields for
\begin{equation}
{\bf A}={\bf A}\!(1)
+\alpha{\bf A}\!(\alpha)+\alpha^2{\bf A}\!(\alpha^2)+\alpha
t{\bf A}\!(\alpha t)+
\alpha^2t{\bf A}\!(\alpha^2t)+\frac{(\alpha t)^2}{2}{\bf A}\!
(\frac{(\alpha t)^2}{2})
\label{eq36}
\end{equation}
the expressions:
{\footnotesize
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{{\bf A}(1)=
\left(
\begin{array}{rr}
N^2&-N\\-N&N^2
\end{array}
\right)}
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{{\bf A}(\alpha)=
\left(\!\!
\begin{array}{ll}
N^2 \left\{4 \ln(M^2R_{13}R_{24})\right\}&
-N\left\{\ln\left(\frac{R^3_{13}R^3_{14}R^3_{23}
R^3_{24}M^8}{R^2_{12}R^2_{34}}
\right)-\mbox{e}_1-\mbox{e}_2\right\}\\
-N\left\{\ln\left(\frac{R^3_{13}R^3_{14}R^3_{23}
R^3_{24}M^8}{R^2_{12}R^2_{34}}
\right)-\mbox{e}_1-\mbox{e}_2\right\}&
N^2 \left\{4 \ln(M^2R_{14}R_{23})\right\}
\end{array}
\!\!\right)}
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{{\bf A}(\alpha T)\,=
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
N^2\left\{-V_{s1}\right\}&
-N\left\{-V_{s1}-V_{s2}+V_{d}\right\}\\
-N\left\{-V_{s1}-V_{s2}+V_{d}\right\}&
N^2\left\{-V_{s2}\right\}
\end{array}
\right)}
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{{\bf A}(\alpha^2 T)\,=}
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\!\!N^2\left\{
-4V_{s1}\ln\left(M^2R_{13}R_{24}\right)
\right.
&
-N \left\{
\left[-V_{s1}-V_{s2}+V_{d}\right]\times
\right.
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{2{\it c_2}}{N{\it
c_3}}\left[-V_{s2}+V_d\right]\times
\right.
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[\ln\left(\frac{R^3_{13}R^3_{14}R^3_{23}R^3_{24}M^8}
{R^2_{12}R^2_{34}}\right)
-\mbox{e}_1-\mbox{e}_2\right]
\right.
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[\ln\left(\frac{R_{14}R_{23}}{R_{12}R_{34}}\right)-\mbox{e}_1\right]
\right\}
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\mbox{e}_1(V_d\!-\!V_{s1})
+\mbox{e}_2(V_d\!-\!V_{s2})\right]\!\!
\right.
\\
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }-\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{12}R_{34})(V_{s1}\!+\!V_{s2}\!-\!2V_d)\right]
\right.\!\!
\\
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{13}R_{24})(V_{s2}-V_d)\right]
\right.
\\
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{14}R_{23})(V_{s1}-V_d)\right]
\right\}
\\
\\
\!\!-N\left\{
\left[-V_{s1}-V_{s2}+V_{d}\right]\times
\right.
&
N^2\left\{
-4V_{s2}\ln\left(M^2R_{14}R_{23}\right)
\right.
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[\ln\left(\frac{R^3_{13}R^3_{14}R^3_{23}R^3_{24}M^8}
{R^2_{12}R^2_{34}}
\right)
-\mbox{e}_1
-\mbox{e}_2\right]
\right.
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{2{\it c_2}}{N{\it
c_3}}\left[-V_{s1}+V_d\right]\times
\right.
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\mbox{e}_1(V_d-V_{s1})
+\mbox{e}_2(V_d-V_{s2})\right]
\right.
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[\ln\left(\frac{R_{13}R_{24}}{R_{12}R_{34}}\right)
-\mbox{e}_2\right]
\right\}
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }-\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{12}R_{34})(V_{s1}\!+\!V_{s2}\!-\!2V_d)\right]
\right.
&
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{13}R_{24})(V_{s2}-V_d)\right]
\right.
&
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it
c_3}}\left[\ln(R_{14}R_{23})(V_{s1}-V_d)\right]
\right\}
&
\end{array}
\!\!\!\right)
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{{\bf A}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\alpha T)^2\right)\,=}
\nonumber\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&
\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
N^2\left\{V_{s1}^2+\frac{{\it c_2}}{N{\it c_3}}(V_{s2}-V_d)^2
\right\}
&
-N \left\{
(V_{s1}+V_{s2}-V_d)^2
+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it c_3}}\times
\right.
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }
\right.
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[V_dV_{s1}+V_dV_{s2}-V_{s1}V_{s2}-V_d^2\right]
\right\}
\\ \\
-N\left\{
(V_{s1}+V_{s2}-V_d)^2
+\frac{{\it c_1}}{2{\it c_3}}\times
\right.
&
N^2\left\{V_{s2}^2+\frac{{\it c_2}}{N{\it
c_3}}\left(V_{s1}-V_d\right)^2
\right\}
\\
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \
}\left[V_dV_{s1}+V_dV_{s2}-V_{s1}V_{s2}-V_d^2\right]
\right\}
&
\left.
\mbox{\ \ \ \ }
\right.
\end{array}
\right)
\nonumber\end{eqnarray}
}
where, to save writing, the following shorthand notation has been adopted:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mbox{edge}(\vec{R_3},\vec{R_1},\vec{R_4},\vec{R_2})\!\!
&\!\stackrel{def}{=}\!&
\!\!\int\!\!\int_{-1/2}^{1/2}
\frac{(\vec{R_3}-\vec{R_1})(\vec{R_4}-\vec{R_2})\,\,\,dw\,dx}
{\left[\frac{\vec{R_3}+\vec{R_1}}{2}\!+\!w(\vec{R_3}\!-\!\vec{R_1})
\!-\!\frac{\vec{R_4}\!+\!\vec{R_2}}{2}\!-\!x(\vec{R_4}\!
-\!\vec{R_2})
\right]^2}\\
\mbox{e}_1&\stackrel{def}{=}&\mbox{edge}(R_1,R_3,R_2,R_4)\\
\mbox{e}_2&\stackrel{def}{=}&\mbox{edge}(R_1,R_4,R_2,R_3)\\
V_{s1}&\stackrel{def}{=}&V(R_{13})+V(R_{24})\\
V_{s2}&\stackrel{def}{=}&V(R_{14})+V(R_{23})\\
V_{d}&\stackrel{def}{=}&V(R_{12})+V(R_{34})\\
\end{eqnarray*}
\vspace{-5 ex}
\[
\begin{array}{rrrrr}
{\it c_1}\delta_{ab}&=&\sum_{cd}{\it f}_{acd}{\it f}_{bcd}&=&N\delta_{ab}
\\
{\it c_2}\delta_{ab}&=&{\it Tr\/}[T^aT^b]&=&\frac{1}{2}\delta_{ab}
\\
{\it c_3}{\bf 1}&=&\sum_a T^aT^a&=&\frac{N^2-1}{2N}{\bf 1}
\end{array}
\]
and $V(R_{pq})$ is the two-body potential
between a quark `p' and an antiquark
`q' a
distance $R_{pq}$ apart.
Diagonalization yields for the two possible energy eigenstates
the two potentials correct to fourth order:
\begin{eqnarray}
V_0\!&=&\!\frac{
\left(N^2\!-\!2\right)
\left(V_{s1}\!+\!V_{s2}\right)
+2V_{d}
-N\sqrt{
N^2\left(V_{s1}\!-\!V_{s2}\right)^2
+4\left(V_{s1}\!-\!V_d\right)\!\left(V_{s2}\!
-\!V_d\right)
}
}{2\left(N^2-1\right)}
\nonumber\\
V_1\!&=&\!\frac{
\left(N^2\!-\!2\right)
\left(V_{s1}\!+\!V_{s2}\right)
+2V_{d}
+N\sqrt{
N^2\left(V_{s1}\!-\!V_{s2}\right)^2
+4\left(V_{s1}\!-\!V_d\right)\!\left(V_{s2}\!
-\!V_d\right)
}
}{2\left(N^2-1\right)}
\nonumber\\
\label{potentials}
\end{eqnarray}
These potentials are exactly equal to those
given by a naive two-body model (see~\cite{paton})---and are one of the
main conclusions of this work.
\subsection{Consistency Relations and Edge Effects}
When integrating out the gluonic degrees of freedom
and reducing a field theory to a quantum mechanical system,
we have made assumptions which may need some justification.
This is especially so in the perturbative case where we have postulated
a finite number of energy eigenstates.
We, therefore, want to have a look at the consistency of this approach.
There are certain
relations which must hold in order to guarantee proper exponentiation.
We have remarked at the end of subsection~\ref{diag}
that after diagonalization we expect the diagonal
entries of the matrix $\bf A$ to be
(apart from a normalization factor) of the form $e^{-itE_i(g)}$.
An actual calculation will give a power expansion in $g$ and $t$ for
these diagonal entries. This will not only determine the energy $E_i(g)$
as the coefficient of $t$, but will also allow us
to check the consistency of our calculation by inspecting
the relations between the coefficients of higher powers of $t$.
We were able to verify these consistency relations
in our calculation to fourth order.
Another important point to notice is that the terms we have abbreviated
$\mbox{edge}(\vec{R_p},\vec{R_q},\vec{R_r},\vec{R_s})$ have cancelled in
eq.~(\ref{potentials}).
These terms are coming from the space-like contour integrations. In
subsection~\ref{sin}
we had introduced these space-like contour integrations
via the path-ordered exponential $U$ in order to establish
colour singlets. The exact integration contour in $U$
was of course arbitrary, and the physical potentials
must not depend on it. Another way of looking at it is that
in the large time limit the processes associated with bringing the
quarks into their position in the distant past
(and removing them again in the distant future)
should become irrelevant.
One may also make an adiabatic argument, turning on the coupling
$g$ in the distant past and off again in the distant future,
thus making the notion of a colour singlet state at these times
well-defined in spite of the spatial separation of the quarks.
In any case, for the potentials of eq.~(\ref{potentials}) to be
meaningful, they must not involve terms originating in contour
integrations in the distant past or future, and indeed they do not.
\subsection{Three- and Four-Body Forces in Sixth Order}
The fact that a straightforward two-body model is correct also to
next-to-leading order
may be surprising in light of the non-abelian nature of QCD.
Hence we want to mention that we believe that the two-body model fails
at sixth order as three- and four-body forces appear at this order.
While many diagrams that seem to give rise to such deviations
from the two-body model actually vanish, we see no reason why
for example effects from the following two diagrams should cancel
in the calculation of the four-quark potentials to sixth order.
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(10000,13000)
\thicklines
\put(0,11500){\vector(0,-1){5000}}
\put(10000,1500){\vector(0,1){5000}}
\put(0,1500){\vector(1,0){5000}}
\put(10000,11500){\vector(-1,0){5000}}
\put(0,11500){\line(0,-1){10000}}
\put(10000,1500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(0,1500){\line(1,0){10000}}
\put(10000,11500){\line(-1,0){10000}}
\put(0,9000){\circle*{500}}
\put(10000,4000){\circle*{500}}
\drawline\gluon[ \E \REG]( 250, 9000)[12]
\drawline\gluon[\SE \REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[ \E\FLIPPED]( 9800, 4000)[3]
\drawline\gluon[\NE\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10000,13000)
\put(5000,6500){\circle{1000}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10000,13000)
\thicklines
\put(0,11500){\vector(0,-1){5000}}
\put(10000,1500){\vector(0,1){5000}}
\put(0,1500){\vector(1,0){5000}}
\put(10000,11500){\vector(-1,0){5000}}
\put(0,11500){\line(0,-1){10000}}
\put(10000,1500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(0,1500){\line(1,0){10000}}
\put(10000,11500){\line(-1,0){10000}}
\put(0,9000){\circle*{500}}
\put(0,4000){\circle*{500}}
\drawline\gluon[ \W\FLIPPED]( 100, 9000)[3]
\drawline\gluon[\SW\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[ \W \REG]( 100, 4000)[3]
\drawline\gluon[\NW \REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(10000,15000)
\thicklines
\put(0,13500){\vector(0,-1){5000}}
\put(10000,3500){\vector(0,1){5000}}
\put(0,3500){\vector(1,0){5000}}
\put(10000,13500){\vector(-1,0){5000}}
\put(0,13500){\line(0,-1){10000}}
\put(10000,3500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(0,3500){\line(1,0){10000}}
\put(10000,13500){\line(-1,0){10000}}
\put(0,11000){\circle*{500}}
\put(10000,6000){\circle*{500}}
\drawline\gluon[ \E \REG]( 250,11000)[12]
\drawline\gluon[\SE \REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[ \E\FLIPPED]( 9800, 6000)[3]
\drawline\gluon[\NE\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10000,15000)
\put(5000,8500){\circle{1000}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(10000,15000)
\thicklines
\put(0,13500){\vector(0,-1){5000}}
\put(10000,3500){\vector(0,1){5000}}
\put(0,3500){\vector(1,0){5000}}
\put(10000,13500){\vector(-1,0){5000}}
\put(0,13500){\line(0,-1){10000}}
\put(10000,3500){\line(0,1){10000}}
\put(0,3500){\line(1,0){10000}}
\put(10000,13500){\line(-1,0){10000}}
\put(0,11000){\circle*{500}}
\put(10000,6000){\circle*{500}}
\drawline\gluon[ \W\FLIPPED]( 0,11000)[3]
\drawline\gluon[\SW\FLIPPED](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\drawline\gluon[ \W \REG](10250, 6000)[13]
\drawline\gluon[\NW \REG](\gluonbackx,\gluonbacky)[1]
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}( 3000, 8000)
\put( 0, 4000){where}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}( 5000, 8000)
\put( 2500, 4000){\circle{1000}}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}( 5000, 8000)
\put( 0, 4000){stands for}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(15000,8000)
\thicklines
\put(5000,4000){\circle*{500}}
\put(10000,4000){\circle*{500}}
\drawline\gluon[\E \REG ]( 5250, 4000)[4]
\drawline\gluon[\NW\FLIPPED]( 5000, 4000)[2]
\drawline\gluon[\SW\FLIPPED]( 5000, 4000)[2]
\drawline\gluon[\NE\REG ](10000, 4000)[2]
\drawline\gluon[\SE\REG ](10000, 4000)[2]
\end{picture}
\end{center}
Hence three- and four-body forces will be introduced.
In general, their nature seems to be complicated, but
for some geometries simplifications are possible; e.g.
for the four quarks on the corners of a regular
tetrahedron there will be no contribution from quark self-
interactions to four-body forces to sixth order.
\section{Relation of our Result to Lattice Simulations}
Looking at the Monte Carlo lattice calculations for the
$qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$-system
discussed in~\cite{paton}, we observe that for small interquark distances
of a few lattice spacings (with a lattice spacing of $a\approx 0.12$ fm)
the two-body model gives a reasonable approximation in the sense
that the four-quark potentials calculated from eq.~(\ref{potentials})
using the Monte Carlo two-body potentials are comparable to the four-quark
potentials from the lattice simulation.
The agreement improves the smaller the distances get. By comparing the
perturbative (i.e.\ $1/R$) and
non-perturbative (i.e. linear) part in the usual parametrization of the
$q\bar{q}$-potential,
one would expect to start entering the perturbative regime
at distances of about two lattice spacings.
However, at that stage the approximation
provided by the two-body model is already very good. The
fact that the two-body model is correct to fourth order
in perturbation theory
certainly suggests that it should be a reasonable approximation
in the perturbative domain. So our result supports the belief
that the results of the lattice simulations for small
enough distances indeed are correlated
to continuum perturbation theory,
and thus that continuum physics is extracted
from the Monte Carlo calculations.
\vspace{5 ex}
\paragraph{Acknowledgements}
One of the authors (J. L.) wants to express his gratitude to the `Stiftung
Maximilianeum' which made possible his stay at Oxford,
during which time most of
this work was carried out.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The machinations of black holes have been studied extensively in
recent years
using two dimensional models \cite{CGHS,RST}.
In\cite{BGHS,SHE},the original {\sl CGHS} model was solved numerically
for
explicitly static equilibrium scenarii. The {\sl CGHS} lagrangian
is a
dilaton gravity model which is made up of a classical part, which
comes directly from low energy string theory in two dimensions,
and a quantum correction described by Polyakov in\cite{POL} which
takes into account the one-loop effects of the matter fields. The
number of these fields can be proliferated so that the effect of
other quantum corrections is small compared to that of the matter.
In another paper, by Lemos and S\` a\cite{LEMSA}, the classical
lagrangian considered is more general than that of the {\sl CGHS}
model.
A variable multiplicative parameter is included in the kinetic
dilaton term. By choosing certain values for this parameter, a
set of classical models which includes low energy string theory
in two dimensions, Jackiw-Teitelboim theory, and planar general
relativity is obtained.
In this paper, the idea is to combine and extend the work of
\cite{LEMSA} and \cite{BGHS,SHE}.
The more general classical core lagrangian of \cite{LEMSA}
will be combined with the Polyakov quantum matter correction, and
a set of static numerical solutions to various models with and
without the correction are displayed.
The static black holes in equilibrium with Hawking radiation can be
studied numerically.
One motivation for studying such solutions is to understand the
`quantum' singularity which
was discovered shortly after the appearance of the original
{\sl CGHS}
paper\cite{RSTA,BAN}. Birnir {\it et al} noted that this
singularity occurred at the finite dilaton value, and that the
metric was actually finite there, unlike the classical
case. We would like to investigate this further here.
The static
solutions might be a candidate final state of black
hole evaporation, {\it i.e.} as massive remnants.
This was rejected
in\cite{BGHS} since the ADM mass for these solutions is
divergent because there is non-zero radiation density out to
infinity. Here we shall find the expression for the
ADM mass in that case and show that it is indeed infinite.
For equilibrium in two dimensions, this divergence is actually
necessary, but we shall see that the solutions are nevertheless
interesting.
In the following section,
a general two dimensional homogeneous dilaton gravity model is
introduced, whose field equations for static solutions are
written down. The initial
conditions for regular-horizon spacetimes are then given.
In section three,
a general introduction to the results
is given.
Static regular horizon solutions in which the dilaton is
initially and
remains sub- or super-critical are then found for a range of
classical cores with and without quantum corrections.
The solutions being static, and numerical, it
is difficult to be precise about global structure away
from the singularities at infinity, though one can
give some details about the singularity itself and the
horizon.
We restrict a
fuller description and interpretation to
the case whose classical core is that of planar general
relativity.
In section four are the conclusion and discussion.
\section{General Homogeneous Two-dimensional Model}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\label{sect:models}
\subsection{Introduction}
A general homogeneous lagrangian with
semi-classical minimal
scalars is of the form
\begin{equation}
I = \frac 1 {2\pi}\int d^2 x \sqrt{\pm g}
\Big[ R\tilde\chi(\Phi)+4\omega e^{-2\phi}{\nabla \phi}^2+V(\Phi)
-\frac {\kappa} 4 {\nabla Z}^2-\frac 1 2 \sum_{i=1}^N(\nabla f_i)^2 \Big]
-\frac 1 {\pi} \int d \Sigma \sqrt{\pm h} K\tilde\chi, \label{eq:gen}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde\chi=\frac {\kappa} 2 Z + \Phi,$ and $\Phi$ is a function
of the dilaton
field $\phi$ and any other fields that are required.
The terms involving Z in the volume term of this action have replaced
the
usual Polyakov term\cite{POL}
$\frac {\kappa} 4 R(x) \int d^2 x' \sqrt{-g(x')} G(x,x')R(x') $
which comes from the matter contribution to the
associated path integral. $G(x,x')$ is the scalar Green's function.
The trace anomaly of the Z scalar field is
that of the N minimal scalars.
One could choose the
function of the dilaton field so as to make the theory have
vanishing
central charge\cite{ABC}, but for simplicity models for which
$V(\Phi)=4\lambda^2,$
will be
restricted to here. The function $\tilde\chi$ takes into account
both
the classical
coupling of the dilaton to gravity, and any one-loop terms which
come
from quantising
additional fields. The classical part will be taken to be
$e^{-2\phi},$
and the one-loop corrections to be those of the
{\sl CGHS} model, so that
$\tilde\chi=e^{-2\phi}-\frac {\kappa} 2 (\epsilon\phi-Z)$,
where $\epsilon=0$
\footnote{The {\sl RST} \cite{RST}
model has $\epsilon=1,\omega=1$.}.
The {\sl CGHS} model is regained when $\omega=1.$
If one tries to work in the two-dimensional analogy of
the `Eddington-Finkelstein' gauge\cite{JH2}, the action and field
equations are still complicated although the work on entropy
which depends on the position of the horizon might be
simplified.
However for static solutions one should use the conformal gauge
where the line element is \begin{equation}
dl^2=-e^{2\rho}dx^{+}dx^{-}. \label{eq:conf1}
\end{equation} The field equations then imply that $Z=2\rho$,
up to a solution of the wave equation.
The action (\ref{eq:gen}) now becomes
\begin{equation}
I=-\frac 1 {\pi} \int d^2 x \sqrt{g} \Big[e^{-2\phi}
(2\partial_- \partial_+ \rho -4\omega\partial_- \phi\partial_+ \phi+
\lambda^2e^{2\rho} )+
\frac 1 2 \partial_+ f_{i}\partial_- f_{i}
-\kappa(\partial_- \rho\partial_+ \rho +
\epsilon\phi\partial_- \partial_+ \rho) \Big] \label{eq:action}
\end{equation}
The surface term is omitted from now on.
\subsection{Field Equations}
\label{sect:fe}
The following applies to static solutions which are functions of
the static variable $s=-x^+x^-$
only.
Terms in
$f_i$ have been set to zero.
Denoting
$'=\frac d {ds}$, the field equations become
\begin{equation}
Q(\phi) [\phi '' +\frac 1 s \phi '] =
2{\phi '}^2(P(\epsilon,\phi)-\frac 1 2 \omega\kappa e^{2\phi})-
\frac {\lambda^2} {2s}e^{2\rho}(P(\epsilon,\phi)-\frac 1 2 \kappa e^{2\phi})
\label{eq:field1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
Q(\phi) [\rho '' +\frac 1 s \rho '] =
2\omega{\phi '}^2(2-P(\epsilon,\phi))-\frac {\lambda^2}
{2s}e^{2\rho}(2\omega-P(\epsilon,\phi))
\label{eq:field2}
\end{equation}
where $P(\epsilon,\phi)=1+\frac {\epsilon\kappa} 4 e^{2\phi}$ and
$Q(\phi)=P(\epsilon,\phi)^2-\omega\kappa
e^{2\phi}$.
The constraint equations are
\begin{equation}
P(\epsilon,\phi)(\phi '' -2\rho '\phi ')
+2(\omega-1){\phi '}^2 + \frac 1 2 \kappa e^{2\phi} ({\rho '}^2 -\rho ''+
\frac t
{s^2})=0 \label{eq:con}
\end{equation}
where t is given by the boundary conditions required.
These
equations which will reduce in the case of $\omega=1$ to either the CGHS
($\epsilon=0$) or
RST ($\epsilon=1$) model.
\subsection{Initial Conditions}
One can solve the dynamical equations numerically for $\rho,$ $\phi$ and their
derivatives, by rewriting them as a coupled set of four first order
differential
equations. The boundary conditions chosen are such that the origin
in $s$ is regular.
This requires that
\begin{equation}
s\rho''(0)=s\phi''(0)=0, \label{eq:cdn1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
t=0, \label{eq:cdn2}
\end{equation}
A shift in $\rho$ allows one to remove $\lambda$ from the equations.
$\phi$ can also be
redefined so that the equations are independent of $\kappa$. One then
finds that the
derivatives at the origin should be
\begin{equation}
\rho '(0)=\frac {-\frac 1 2
e^{2\rho_{0}}[P(\phi_0)-2\omega]} {Q(\phi_0)}
\label{eq:dero}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\phi '(0)=\frac {-\frac 1 2
e^{2\rho_{0}}[P(\phi_0)-\frac 1 2 e^{2\phi_{0}}]} {Q(\phi_0)}
\label{eq:derphi}
\end{equation}
These equations reduce to those of \cite{BGHS} in the case $\omega=1,
\epsilon=0.$
Varying the initial value of $\rho$ simply scales the equations.
The initial value of $\phi$ at the origin is related to the `size'
of the black hole. That is, moving towards the critical value initially,
reduces the coordinate distance to the singularity from the horizon.
\subsection{Choice of $\omega$-Parameter}
\label{sect:which}
In order to choose the smallest set of values of
$\omega$ each of
which produce
different behaviour,
one can consider the expression
(\ref{eq:rq}) for the
curvature, $R=-8e^{-2\rho}\frac {d} {ds}+s\frac {d^2} {ds^2}\rho$.
the field equations
(\ref{eq:field1},\ref{eq:field2})
and the values of $\omega$
and $\phi_0$ which change the sign of the initial values of
$\frac {d\rho} {ds}$ and
$\frac {d\phi } {ds}$. The critical value of $\phi$
\footnote{$\omega$ is multiplied by $\kappa$ in the logarithm
if $\kappa$ has not been scaled out.} is given by
\begin {equation}
\phi_{cr}=-\frac 1 2 \log\omega.
\end{equation}
Singularities will therefore
occur at increasingly weak coupling as $\omega$ is increased.
The CGHS model(see section \ref{sect:models}.1) corrections are used
in the following,
{\it i.e.} $\epsilon=0$ and so $P(\phi,\epsilon)=1$.
The initial value of
$\frac {d\phi } {ds}$
is then zero at $\phi_0=\frac 1 2 \log 2$, unless $\omega=\frac 1 2 $.
One can divide the cases first into those for which $\omega>\frac 1 2 $,
$\omega=\frac 1 2 $, and
$\omega<\frac 1 2 $. Then for the former case one has
$\phi_0<\phi_{cr}$,$\phi_{cr}<\phi_0<\frac 1 2 \log 2$ and
$\phi_0>\frac 1 2 \log 2$. When $\omega<\frac 1 2 $,
we have $\phi _0<\frac 1 2 \log 2 $, $\frac 1 2 \log 2<\phi_0<\phi_{cr}$
and $\phi_0>\phi_{cr}$. For $\omega=\frac 1 2$, one simply has
sub- and super-critical initial values, $\phi_0<\phi_{cr}$ and
$\phi_0>\phi_{cr}$.
One
can also compare with the classical counterparts for which $\kappa=0$
in the field
equations. The critical values of $\phi$ do not exist in the
classical case.
By inspection of the field equations
(\ref{eq:field1},\ref{eq:field2}), the regions from
which one would
like to consider a value of $\omega$ are
\begin{equation}
{\omega<0; \omega=0; 0<\omega<\frac 1 2 ; \omega=\frac 1 2 ;
\frac 1 2 <\omega<1; \omega=1; \omega>1}
\end{equation}
Lemos and Sa\cite{LEMSA} also show that the
global structure differs
for the cases
$1<\omega<2$,$\omega=2$,and $\omega>2$. The
numerical analysis does
not distinguish qualitatively between these cases.
We leave until later a fuller discussion of the
case $\omega=\frac 1 2$.
\newpage
\section{Solutions}
Since the corrected solutions are static by ansatz,
and there is in general non-zero radiation density outside
the black hole due to the Polyakov term associated with the
minimal matter fields, they
represent equilibrium scenarii. The ADM mass may
be calculated as follows\cite{W}.
Let
$g_{ab}=\eta_{ab}+h_{ab}$ , and $\phi=\Phi_{L}+\varphi$,
be perturbations from flat space
$\eta_{ab}$,
and from linear dilaton $\Phi_{L}$, where $h_{ab}$ and $\varphi$
vanish at infinity.
The total mass measured by an observer at right infinity
is given by
\begin{equation}
M = \int t_{0\mu}\xi^{\mu} dx \label{eq:mass}
\end{equation}
where $t_{0j}$ comes from the linearised energy-momentum tensor
for the classical theory,
$\xi^j$ is a timelike Killing vector, and $x$ is a suitable radial
coordinate.
For this calculation, one needs the generalised asymptotic
expansions of $\rho$ and $\phi$. In the case $\omega=1$, we have
these expressions\cite{SHE}. Below, we shall note the result for
this case, which is representative of the $\omega>0$ cases.
It would seem that $M\to\pm\infty$ except when $\omega=0$. This
is due to the thermodynamics
peculiar to two dimensions.
There is
by construction, an horizon on $s=0$ in all the cases.
For example, in the
case $\omega=1$, when one reproduces the classical black hole of
Witten\cite{W},
there is
a curvature singularity at finite negative $s$, behind the horizon
at the origin.
One can see how the
distance from the origin to the singularity decreases as one goes
toward the critical
value of dilaton. This corresponds to a smaller black hole, which
would appear later in a
sequence of static black holes that one might use to represent black
hole evolution.
However, the sequence can never be complete
because of the
divergences as one approaches the critical value.
\subsection{Classical Solutions}
There will be given a set of plots of the numerical regular-horizon
solutions of the
model with the various values of the parameter $\omega$ considered
in \cite{LEMSA} for the
classical case which has $\kappa=0$. For $\kappa=0$, one can show that there
exists a timelike
killing vector, so the most general solution is static
\cite{GIBPERB}.
In the classical case, the initial value of the gradient of $\phi$
is given by
\begin{equation}
\phi '(0)=-\frac 1 2 e^{2\rho_{0}} \label{eq:derphii}
\end{equation}
and $\rho_{0}=0$ is chosen in each case. This initial value is
independent of $\omega$.
For the initial gradient of $\rho$
\begin{equation}
\rho '(0)=-\frac 1 2 (2\omega-1) e^{2\rho_{0}} \label{eq:derrhoi}
\end{equation}
which clearly depends on $\omega$ and goes through zero at
$\omega=\frac 1 2 $.
Let the operator
\begin {equation}
D=\frac {d} {ds}+s\frac {d^2} {ds^2}. \label{eq:D}
\end{equation}
The classical equations are
\begin{equation}
D \phi = 2s{\phi '}^2-\frac 1 2 e^{2\rho},
\label{eq:field1c}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
D \rho = 2s\omega{\phi '}^2-\frac 1 2 e^{2\rho}(2\omega-1).
\label{eq:field2c}
\end{equation}
Notice that $\phi$ only appears in the equations as a derivative of
s. This means that
it will not matter as far as qualitative changes are concerned what
the initial value of
$\phi$ is: there are no {\it critical} values of $\phi_0$.
The initial conditions given above are applied, which ensure
that the solution is
regular at the horizon, $s=0$.
The initial value of $\rho$ simply scales, and is taken in every
case to be zero.
The coordinates $x^+,x^-$ are
analogous to the Kruskal
coordinates in the Schwarzschild solution, and cover the extended
manifold. The two
coordinate invariant functions $\phi$ and the curvature scalar R,
are plotted, along with
the metrical factor
$\rho$ for several values of $\omega$.
In order to obtain solutions which are regular at the origin, one
has to integrate
from the origin in both directions using particular initial
conditions on $\rho$ and
$\phi$ and their derivatives.
The key points are
to note singularities, or lack of singularities in the curvature and
whether they
occur at weak or stong coupling in $\phi$, and also to note
divergences in $\rho$
and/or $\phi$, whilst the curvature is finite.
Further physical conclusions are difficult to make since these
are numerical solutions which are static, and thus effectively
one-dimensional. The following gives the legend for the numerical
solution plots:
\vbox{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.35\displaywidth
\epsfbox{legend.ps}\\
\end{array}\]}
Our classical numerical
results are in
agreement with the analytical solutions of \cite{LEMSA} for their
$A>|B|$, with $\lambda^2>0$. It is necessary to reproduce these so
that one can compare with the new semi-classical solutions given
later. In the following, brief physical comments are made upon each
of the solutions, which should be read in conjunction with FIGS.
1-3.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf A. \ $\omega<0$}
\smallskip
We take for example $\omega=-1$. Towards positive $s$,
$\phi$ diverges to
minus infinity, whilst $\rho\to\infty$, at finite coordinate
distance. The curvature is
approximately constant and negative. Thus we have a timelike right
infinity, at weak
coupling. To the left we have $\phi\to\infty$, whilst
$\rho\to-\infty$. The curvature
goes to $-\infty$ so we have a timelike singularity. The
extended manifold is given in \cite{LEMSA}, as for all the following
classical cases.
\smallskip
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{cpfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 1. The dilaton field for the five cases of $\omega$-parameter
at the classical level.}
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf B. \ $\omega=0$ }
This is the Jackiw-Teitelboim theory considered in \cite{JT}.
It represents constant curvature anti-de Sitter space with strong
coupling to the
left, and weak coupling to the right.
The second field equation above (\ref{eq:field2c}) is precisely the
statement that the
curvature scalar will be $R=-4$, and this is borne out in
FIG. 3.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf C. \ $\omega=\frac 1 2 $ }
\smallskip
This is planar general relativity.
The gradient of $\rho$ is initially zero. In the above
cases it is positive, and becomes increasingly negative as $\omega$
increases.
There is a spacelike singularity at strong
coupling($\phi\to\infty$) to the left as in the previous case and
for all $\omega>0$. To the right, $\phi$
diverges to minus infinity, and the curvature tends to a constant
negative value.
There is thus a black hole with a timelike right infinity.
\vbox{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{crhfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 2. The conformal factor for the five cases of
$\omega$-parameter at the classical level.}
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf D. \ $\omega=1$ }
\smallskip
This is the classical black hole of Witten\cite{W}, which was
found in low energy string theory. There is a
spacelike singularity at
strong coupling($\phi\to\infty$), and the curvature tends to zero
at right infinity, which is null.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf E. \ $\omega>1$}
\smallskip
We consider $\omega=\frac 3 2$. This has the
spacelike singularity
at left infinity at strong coupling($\phi\to\infty$), but at right
infinity, $\phi$,
$\rho$ and the curvature all go to minus infinity logarithmically.
The rate at which the
curvature does so increases as $\omega$ increases. This means that
these spacetimes
have singularities to the right and left, spacelike and timelike
respectively. More details can be found in \cite{LEMSA}.
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{crfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 3. The scalar curvature at the classical level.}
\subsection{Quantum Corrections}
It is clear that the quantum corrections make significant
qualitative changes to the overall structure of the spacetime, as
can be seen by comparing the $\phi$, $\rho$, and curvature scalar
plots for classical and quantum
cases. But one
would expect such differences from looking for example at the
expressions for the
curvature scalar as a function of $\omega$, $\phi$, and $\rho$.
The curvature scalar is given by
\begin {equation}
R=-8e^{-2\rho}D\rho.
\end{equation}
The field equations can be used to rewrite this expression as
\begin {equation}
R_{cl}=4(2\omega-1)-16\omega s{\phi'}^2 e^{-2\rho},
\end{equation}
\begin {equation}
R_{q}=\frac {4(2\omega-1)-16\omega s{\phi'}^2 e^{-2\rho}}
{P(\epsilon,\phi)^2- \omega e^{2\phi}}
\label{eq:rq}
\end{equation}
in the classical and quantum-corrected cases respectively.
Therefore at weak coupling $(\phi<<0)$, the two quantities may be
approximately equal,
but clearly, there are large effects near the critical value.
Indeed, several
examples will be seen of the `semi-classical' type of
singularity which
happens when $\phi$ hits
the critical value.
Let us define the {\it semi-classical singularity} to be one
where the
dilaton field is finite. The coordinates may or may not diverge at
this point, but this clearly depends on the coordinate system.
The key difference between this singularity and the classical ones
is simply that the dilaton field no longer diverges there.
Note that if $\omega\leq 0$ there can be
no semi-classical singularities, although in some cases there are still
qualitative
differences in causal structure due to the corrections.
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q1pfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 4. The dilaton at the semi-classical level for
subcritical initial value.}
\subsection{Quantum Solutions}
In the work of \cite{BGHS}, given in their
FIG. 2, $\phi_{cr}=-2$, and
$\kappa=e^4$. One should note again that this singularity
occurs at finite $\phi$ and $\rho$. Indeed for this choice of
$\kappa$, the singularity is actually at
weak coupling $g_s=e^{-2}$.
The same equations have been solved here in the case
$\omega=1$, with the same initial conditions but different $\kappa$
and initial value of dilaton. The results are qualitatively
identical as expected.
In the new plots given here, $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ have been
scaled out of the equations by
using field redefinitions of the variables $\rho$ and $\phi$.
For the quantum case, in general, three sets of graphs for each
value of
$\omega$ are needed, whereas in all the classical plots, $\phi$
ranges $(-\infty,+\infty)$. In FIG. 4, for $\omega=1$, however,
$\phi<0$. Witten\cite{W},
regarded the dilaton field as a
coordinate-independent measure of an observers position. Viewing
it as such, one might believe some of space to have been omitted as
the region
$\phi\ge 0$ does not exist.
This is why we may need to plot more than one graph
for each $\omega$. Then, combining
the solutions, $\phi$ ranges $(-\infty,+\infty)$ as in the classical
case. Although there
will be a singularity as $\phi$ goes through the critical value,
the metric will
be finite there, unlike at the classical counterparts. It is not
sensible, in the
context of semi-classical dilaton gravity, to talk about how objects
could pass through
the singularity. However, one can find solutions for values of
$\phi$ above
critical, and thus approach the singularity from
`either side' as far as the dilaton is concerned.
As one approaches the critical value however, the equations which
are derived here from the action(\ref{eq:gen}) no longer represent
the quantum theory of the action. This is because the
graviton-dilaton loops become comparable to the large N matter field
corrections. Thus, it is not clear how one should interpret the
semi-classical singularity. One cannot make definite statements because we
do not have a perturbative expansion or exact theory which indicates
whether or not it persists. On either side of the singularity,
however, the equations should be reliable.
In \cite{BGHS}, purely super-critical solutions were
considered interesting, and such a solution, that of constant
curvature space, was presented.
There exist four-dimensional extremal black hole solutions for
which the asymptotic dilaton value is super-critical\cite{BAN}.
For this reason, this author believes that it is useful to include
the super-critical solutions here, even if some of the section on
planar general relativity is superceded, because
the quantum theory may turn out not to have a
well-defined evolution through the critical value.
The semi-classical appearance of a
singularity is a limitation. It cannot be
integrated through
numerically and there is no contact between the sub- and
super-critical dilaton regions of spacetime.
A smoothed singularity
should be passed
through by test particles. In that case it seems plausible that
one consider how to
paste together semi-classical spacetimes which display
singularities which do not
appear at infinitely strong dilaton
coupling. Naturally, an objection is that
one has to reapply boundary conditions for the super-critical region,
and so the solutions may have nothing to do with the subcritical
ones. However, it is plausible to apply equivalent conditions. This
is supported by the fact that the dilaton field is continuous
across the critical line when one considers attaching
sub- and super-critical solutions.
As long as one has a classical
spacetime picture,
it would seem difficult to go further than this. However, it is
precisely this type of operation that one has in mind for
evaporating black holes which develop baby universes. The
spacelike boundary is removed and replaced with a region to
the future, disconnected from the external space.
The quantum-corrected cases are commented upon individually in
the following.
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q1rhfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 5. The conformal factor at the semi-classical level for
subcritical initial value.}
\subsection{Sub-Critical Solutions}
Since the critical value is at $\phi_{cr}=-\frac 1 2\log \omega$, the
lowest two cases, $\omega=0,-1$ do not have such
a critical value. But since there is a change of initial gradient of
$\phi$ when $\phi_{0}=\frac 1 2 \log 2$, we use this to divide the
cases, whilst the other cases, $\omega=\frac 1 2, 1, \frac 3 2$ are
genuinely subcritical in the FIG. 4-6.
Generally speaking, the subcritical corrected cases resemble their
classical partners at weak coupling, which is why sub-critical
solutions have received more attention.
The differences become clearer
as the critical value is approached from below.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf A. \ $\omega=-1; \phi_0=0$ }
\smallskip
This case covers the qualitative behaviour for all
$0>\omega>-\infty$.
At strong coupling toward negative $s$, the curvature goes to minus
infinity at $s=-\infty$. To the right, $\phi\to -\infty$ and
$\rho\to\infty$ at finite s, whilst the curvature
is always negative and finite. Thus we have a timelike
{\it classical type} singularity
to the left, and timelike infinity to the right, rather like the
extremal Reissner-Nordstrom spacetime in four dimensions. This
does not differ globally from the classical case.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf B. \ $\omega=0$; $\phi_0=0$}
\smallskip
The classical and quantum types of
singularity coincide, because the place where the quantum
singularity occurs in the
case of $\omega=0$ is at infinity, as in the classical case.
This is again anti-de Sitter space. The global structure is the same
as for the classical case, though the dilaton goes to infinity
toward the left in a logarithmic fashion in the corrected case.
Lemos and S\` a showed that the classical Jackiw-Teitelboim theory
contains a non-singular black hole, and this would appear to apply
also to the quantum-corrected case. This black hole has zero
radiation density as $\omega=0$, and zero temperature, as Cadoni and
Mignemi showed\cite{CM}.
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q1rfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 6. The curvature at the semi-classical level for
subcritical initial value.}
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf C. \ $\omega=\frac 1 2, 1, \frac 3 2 $}
\smallskip
For $\omega=\frac 1 2$, the critical value coincides with the
important value $\phi=\frac 1 2\log 2$, (see \ref{eq:derphi}).
Each of these cases has a spacelike singular black hole to the
left, as do higher values of $\omega$. The singularities occur at
finite $\phi$, so the $\phi$(FIG. 6) and $\rho$(FIG. 7) graphs are
truncated behind the horizon. In the asymptotic region to the right,
the behaviour is as classically as expected at weak coupling for
sub-critical plots, quantum corrections being small; the cases
$\omega=\frac 1 2$ and $\omega=1$ are asymptotically anti-de Sitter
and flat respectively, whereas for $\omega>1$ the curvature goes to
minus infinity logarithmically, giving a timelike singularity,
though
this fact is not clear from FIG. 6, but can easily be confirmed
by plotting to larger $s$.
This zero coupling timelike singularity seems somewhat
unphysical. The $\omega=1$ case agrees with the work of
Birnir {\it et al}\cite{BGHS}.
{}From the generalised asymptotic expansion given in\cite{SHE},
\begin{equation}
\rho=\log{2b} -
{K+L\log s \over s^{2b}} +
\Big[{K+L\log s \over s^{2b}}\Big]^2 + ... \label{eq:rho}
\end{equation}
where $K$,$L$ and $b$ are arbitrary constants to be determined,
and
\begin{equation}
\phi = \rho - b\log s - c. \label{eq:phi}
\end{equation}
Using(\ref{eq:mass}), in terms of the coordinate $2x=b\log s+2c$,
where c is a constant,
the ADM mass is
\begin{equation}
M = e^{2c}(K + {1\over{2b}}L(x+\alpha))_{x\to \infty}.
\label{eq:infty}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a constant.
The mass is therefore formally infinite, as was seen in\cite{BGHS}.
It is because of the correspondence with classical theory that we
regard the sub-critical case as physically interesting.
But this has
meant that the super-critical case has been left uninvestigated,
and
the semi-classical singularity mysterious. In the following
`the other side'
of the singularity, on which the dilaton is super-critical, and
which was originally termed the `Liouville Region',
is considered.
\vbox{
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q3pfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 7. The dilaton at the semi-classical level for
super-critical initial value.}
\subsection{Super-Critical Solutions}
The super-critical initial value is taken to be $\phi_{0}=\log 2$
in the following five cases, which are given in FIG.s 7-9.
For the
cases $\omega=1,\frac 3 2$, there is another region between the
critical value and $\phi_{0}=\frac 1 2\log2$ in which the dilaton
remains confined. This additional super-critical pair of solutions
is given in FIG.s 10-12 for completeness.
\vbox{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q3rhfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 8. The conformal factor at the semi-classical level, for
supercritical initial value.}
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf A. \ $\omega=-1,0$}
\smallskip
Now the strong coupling region is toward positive $s$, and $\phi$
decreases slowly at negative $s$. The space is again anti-de Sitter
for $\omega=0$, while for $\omega=-1$ the curvature varies from
zero at positive $s$, to $-4$ at negative $s$, where the spacetime
approaches the anti-de Sitter space of the $\omega=0$ case.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf B. \ $\omega=\frac 1 2$}
\smallskip
This is the only case which has a spacelike singularity; the other
cases are disconnected from their critical values in this region. In
particular, the critical value is $\phi_{cr}=\frac 1 2 \log 2$.
To the left $\phi$ diverges but the curvature is negative and
slowly varying, while to the right, there is a singularity hidden by
a horizon. We return to this case below.
\vbox{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q3rfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 9. The curvature at the semi-classical level, for
supercritical initial value.}
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf C. \ $\omega=1,\frac 3 2$;
$\phi_0>\frac 1 2 \log 2$ }
\smallskip
These have finite curvature everywhere in this region.
Toward negative
$s$, at strong coupling, the space is asymptotically flat, while
toward positive $s$, as $\phi\to\frac 1 2\log 2$, the curvature
$R\to -4$. These results are in FIG.s 7-9.
\vspace{0.3in}
\centerline{\bf D. \ $\omega=1,\frac 3 2$;
$\phi_{cr}<\phi_0<\frac 1 2 \log 2$ }
\smallskip
One can also consider the region immediately above the singularity
as far as $\phi$ is concerned for these parameter values. The two
examples are qualitatively similar. They have a timelike
singularity at negative $s$ as the dilaton descends toward the
critical value, and have approximately constant negative
curvature at positive $s$, where $\phi\to\frac 1 2\log 2$ and
$\rho$ diverges. These comments are given graphically in FIG.s
10-12.
\vbox to \vsize{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q2pfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 10. The dilaton for
$\omega=1,\frac 3 2$ at the semi-classical level, for
initial value which is above critical but below $\frac 1 2 \log 2$.
\bigskip
\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q2rhfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 11. The conformal factor for
$\omega=1,\frac 3 2$ at the semi-classical level, for
initial value which is above critical but below $\frac 1 2 \log 2$.\vfil}
\vbox{\[
\begin{array}{c}
\epsfxsize=0.6\displaywidth
\epsfbox{q2rfig.ps}\\
\end{array}\]
FIG. 12. The curvature for
$\omega=1,\frac 3 2$ at the semi-classical level, for
initial value which is above critical, but below $\frac 1 2 \log 2$.}
\subsection{Planar General Relativity}
The classical core of this case has been discussed in\cite{LEM}.
The classical solution given earlier is actually a solution
of general relativity.
In this case, there are only two regions necessary to
cover all values of $\phi$ along the real line, because the critical
value coincides with the value $\phi=\frac 1 2\log 2$, which was
discussed earlier. Generally, in such cases where there exists
a finite region $\phi_{cr}<\phi<\frac 1 2 \log 2$,
there is a solution in which the dilaton is
confined between these outside values so that
a third initial value will be necessary for the dilaton to range
the full real line.
Consider the results given in FIGS. 4 and 7.
The curve $\omega=\frac 1 2$ in FIG. 7 increases monotonically
from
the asymptotic region at the right until it reaches $\phi_{cr}=
\frac 1 2\log 2$ when there is a singularity and the integration
breaks down. In FIG. 4, the curve descends monotonically to this
value
and has the same gradient there. If one were to attach these two
curves, the dilaton would be a continous monotonic function
{\it through} the singularity. There would be a small discontinuity
in the conformal factor there. For other, asymetric initial
dilaton values, the dilaton curve is no longer smooth, but it
remains monotonic and piecewise continuous.
The reader is reminded, however, that the equations are not valid at
the singularity, so this point may not be important in a fuller
theory.
The Penrose diagrams for the
extended
spacetime corresponds to the two sets of solutions are given in
FIG. 13. Dashed regions are copies of their undashed counterparts.
\setlength{\unitlength}{0.0050in}%
\hspace{60mm}
\begin{picture}(160,520)(320,260)
\put(680,440){\line( 0, 1){160}}
\put(520,440){\line( 0, 1){160}}
\put(680,440){\line(-1, 1){160}}
\put(520,440){\line( 1, 1){160}}
\put(520,600){\line( 1, 0){160}}
\put(523,597){\line( 1, 0){154}}
\put(520,440){\line( 1, 0){160}}
\put(523,443){\line( 1, 0){154}}
\put(650,520){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{I}}}
\put(595,565){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{II}}}
\put(595,465){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{II'}}}
\put(530,520){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ I'}}}
\put(530,400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\phi=\frac 1 2 \log 2$}}}
\put(685,500){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ $\phi=+\infty$}}}
\put(540,350){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ Case 2.}}}
\put(380,440){\line( 0, 1){160}}
\put(220,440){\line( 0, 1){160}}
\put(380,440){\line(-1, 1){160}}
\put(220,440){\line( 1, 1){160}}
\put(220,600){\line( 1, 0){160}}
\put(223,597){\line( 1, 0){154}}
\put(220,440){\line( 1, 0){160}}
\put(223,443){\line( 1, 0){154}}
\put(350,520){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ I}}}
\put(295,565){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{II}}}
\put(295,465){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{II'}}}
\put(230,520){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ I'}}}
\put(230,620){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\phi=\frac 1 2 \log 2$}}}
\put(100,500){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{$\phi=-\infty$}}}
\put(240,350){\makebox(0,0)[lb]
{\raisebox{0pt}[0pt][0pt]{ Case 1.}}}
\end{picture}
\centerline{FIG. 13: Penrose diagrams of
quantum-corrected planar general relativity.}
\vspace{0.2in}
At the spacelike singularities of both boxes,
$\phi=\frac 1 2\log 2$. One could draw a line from the
timelike infinity in case 1., region I. where $\phi=-\infty$,
through the singularity, where one identifies with a point on the
lower singularity of case 2., and on through region II',
out to timelike infinity in region I' where $\phi\to\infty$.
A plausible pasting together of the two spacetimes would be to
place the box corresponding to case 2. on top of that of case 1. and
identify the singularities where the dilaton is $\frac 1 2\log 2$.
This is very literally `toy modelling'.
The interpretation of the resulting single diagram is open
to debate. As expected, there is now a singularity at
finite coupling in the {\it middle} of the diagram.
Semi-classically, the singularity is final.
However, in quantum gravity, the singularity may be
smoothed, and test particles may be able to pass through the
region of high curvature. The diagram here suggests a strong
curvature wormhole shrouded on either `side' by an horizon, at which
the curvature goes through zero, and is asymptotically
anti-de Sitter.
An observer who begins in the asymptotic region I of case I could
avoid the wormhole by constantly accelerating
immediately to timelike infinity, when $\phi=-\infty$,
staying in region I. Alternatively, he might
remain stationary, in which case he would pass through the
wormhole at $\phi=\frac 1 2 \log 2$, after which he could
constantly accelerate so that he reached another timelike infinity
in the second box, where $\phi=\infty$.
\section{Conclusions}
A general, two-dimensional model has been considered and solved
numerically for static, equilibrium solutions.
There are many
configurations which depend on both the value of the
parameter $\omega$ and
on the initial value of the dilaton field at the origin.
The classical solutions found, bore out the results of
\cite{LEMSA},
and the semi-classical $\omega=1,\phi<\phi_{cr}$ case,
those of \cite{BGHS}.
The extreme Reissner-Nordstrom type solution $\omega=-1$, the
Schwarzschild type black hole $\omega=1$, of low-energy string
theory, the black hole with timelike anti-de Sitter infinity
$\omega=\frac 1 2$, of planar general relativity, the
spacetime with both timelike and spacelike singularities,
$\omega=\frac 3 2$, and the non-singular Jackiw-Teitelboim
black hole $\omega=0$, were all seen both classically and at
the semi-classical level, where they in general represented
black holes in the Hartle-Hawking equilibrium state.
These sub-critical solutions are the most clearly physically
interesting solutions since they correspond with their classical
counterparts and four-dimensional analogues.
Of all these
solutions, the unique parameter value which yields a solution
which has everywhere positive curvature and is asymptotically
flat, is that of string theory, $\omega=1$.
Super-critical solutions for all cases were
also found, and for ($\omega=\frac 1 2$), it appeared plausible
to paste the super-critical to the sub-critical solution.
Then, as in classical theories, the dilaton
ranges the full real
line and is continuous across the singularity.
This construction is not
possible in classical
theory since in that case, the singularity always occurs at
divergent dilaton field.
At the semi-classical level,
the two regions are
still
divided by a curvature singularity.
This singularity was not expected originally\cite{CGHS}, and
was met with puzzlement when discovered in subsequent work
\cite{RSTA,BAN,BGHS}.
In the {\sl RST} model, the singularity is
taken seriously as a `central' boundary, analogous to the origin
in Schwarzschild spacetime. However, it
is known that there are energy conservational problems at the
endpoint\cite{PS}, which may be related to this potential
misinterpretation.
The equations which generate the singularity become
inappropriate in its vicinity, but
one can still consider
sub-critical and super-critical solutions independently.
The singularity is a modification to classical theory which
may or may not go away in quantum gravity,
or is generically spurious.
Birnir {\it et al}\cite{BGHS} discussed the possibility of sailing
through this mild singularity.
Horowitz and
Marolf \cite{HM} have recently discussed the behaviour of quantum
test particles which have well-defined motion even in singular
spacetimes.
\newpage
\section{Acknowledgements}
I thank Stephen Hawking and Gary Gibbons
for reading the paper, and for conversations and suggestions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The energy range of present and future particle colliders opens a
kinematic regime, where the observation of jet events
containing large rapidity gaps can provide interesting
physical insight into the underlying exchange mechanisms.
The presence of rapidity gaps can also serve as triggering
signal in high-mass scale physics
\cite{BJOne,BJSurvivalProbability,DokshitzerKhozeEtAl}.
Events containing large rapidity gaps have recently been
observed at hadron-hadron collider \cite{FermilabGaps}
and lepton-hadron collider \cite{HeraDISGaps,HeraPhotoproductionGaps}.
However, the possibility of observing
jets separated by large gaps is not limited to
hadron-hadron or lepton-hadron colliders. In fact,
lepton-lepton collisions can also generate these
events \cite{EEGaps,LEPIIGaps}.
Purely leptonic collisions provide
an environment free of spectator interactions, and can give
interesting complementary information to the rapidity
gap physics of hadronic collisions.
Photon initiated collisions should provide
yet another environment for the observation of
jet events with rapidity gaps.
The initial photons could be either real
(for instance, by using a laser-backscattering
beams \cite{GinzburgKotkinSerboTelnov}), or
quasi-real, as those produced in the photoproduction events
in $ep$ and $e^+e^-$colliders via the Weis\"acker-Williams
equivalent photon mechanism \cite{WeisackerWilliams}.
In fact, in the DESY HERA case, the gap events occur both
at the deep-inelastic regime \cite{HeraDISGaps} as well as the
photoproduction regime \cite{HeraPhotoproductionGaps}.
(See also the theoretical models in Ref. \cite{HeraGapModels}.)
However, at the moment the experimental situation has focused
on the low $|t|$ region, where the proton or its low-mass
excited state (like a $\Delta$) propagates in the forward
direction, escaping detection. In this paper we explore into
the higher $|t|$ region, where the proton is broken and
a hard jet with $p_T^2 \sim |t| \gg 1$ GeV$^2$ is generated
from the broken proton. This corresponds to the double
diffractive dissociation of the $\gamma p$ system.
{}From the study of resolved photon processes
\cite{Witten,LlewellynSmith,BrodskyEtAl}
(for a review, see Ref. \cite{DreesGodbolePramana}),
we know that for the generation of jet events
with fragments in forward and backward beam direction,
the initial lepton can themselves be treated
as containing hadronic components.
Thus, one can talk about quark and gluon contents of
electrons. For these jet events, the initial leptons
would behave like supplier of the partons for the
hard subprocess, much like the initial hadrons in
hadron-hadron colliders.
It is well known \cite{DreesGodboleLinearColliders} that
as the collision energy $\sqrt{s}$ increases,
the cross section for the annihilation events at lepton
colliders decreases like $1/s$ or at best $\ln s/s$.
At the same time, the cross section for the
simplest hard two-photon process, $e^+e^- \to
e^+e^- q \bar q$ increases like $\ln^3 s$,
for fixed transverse momentum of the quarks or
fixed invariant mass of the $q\bar q$ pair.
In fact, at high enough energies $\sqrt{s} \sim
1 \ {\rm TeV}$, the combination of the increased
cross section for resolved photon processes and
the enhanced photon flux due to beamstrahlung
can lead to severe hadronic backgrounds at
$e^+e^-$ supercolliders.
The photon content of electron
is suppressed by $\alpha_{\rm em}$, but enhanced
by a logarithmic factor $\sim \ln(s/4m_{\rm e}^2)$.
In the kinematic regime of our interest
($ \sqrt{s} > 300$ \ GeV), this means
that an electron beam can be qualitatively
visualized as carrying a photon
beam with a flux $5 \sim 10$\% that of the electron.
Now, about a fraction $\alpha_{\rm em} \sim 10^{-2}$ of the time,
we find a parton (quark or gluon) inside a photon.
That is, taking all effects, electrons carry hadronic
partons at the $10^{-3}$ level. If we consider
double resolved processes, this means a factor of
$10^{-3} \times 10^{-3} = 10^{-6}$ reduction in the flux.
However, the parton diffractive scattering cross section is
rather large, and it is essentially controlled by the cut-off in
transverse momentum. This should be contrasted
to the $e^+e^-$ annihilation cross section, which
is controlled by the total center-of-mass
energy $\sqrt{s}$. While the annihilation cross section becomes
very small at large $\sqrt{s}$, the diffractive cross section
at fix transverse momentum cut increases with $\sqrt{s}$.
Therefore, we would expect the resolved photon diffractive
events to be produced at an reasonable level at future $e^+e^-$
colliders, despite the flux reduction.
For the real $\gamma\gamma$ colliders, we expect
cross sections much larger than the $e^+e^-$ case, because the
photons now are not coming from the electrons, hence
there is less suppression of parton flux.
( At high energies, such as is planned for the
Next Linear Collider \cite{Waikoloa},
potentially one should also consider
$W$ and $Z$ bosons as partons inside electrons. But we will
limit our scope here to the resolved photon contribution. )
For the resolved photon mechanism of generating jet events
containing large rapidity gaps, we expect the spectator
partons inside the photon to interact with the spectator
partons inside the opposite beam particle. That is, the
situation is similar to the case of hadron-hadron collider.
The soft spectator interaction can generate particles and spoil
the rapidity gap. The rapidity survival probability
$\langle S^2 \rangle$ is defined as the probability that
no other interaction occurs beside the hard interaction of interest
\cite{BJSurvivalProbability}.
This probability is most readily estimated as an average over
the hadron-hadron impact parameter $B$ \cite{BJSurvivalProbability}:
\begin{equation}
\langle S^2 \rangle
=
\frac{\int d^2 B f(B) S^2(B)}
{\int d^2 B f(B)},
\end{equation}
where $S^2(B)$ is the probability that the colliding
hadrons do not interact inelastically, and $f(B)$ is
the cross section for the hard collision of interest.
Different estimates for $\langle S^2 \rangle$ in
hadron collisions, based on a variety of phenomenological
models, are presented in Ref.
\cite{GotsmanLevinMaor}, where $\langle S^2 \rangle$ is
estimated to be between $0.05$ and $0.2$.
$\langle S^2 \rangle$ is expected to depend on the colliding
energy, but only weakly on the size of the rapidity gap.
In Ref. \cite{Fletcher} the author uses a Good-Walker model
for diffraction, and obtains a much higher value for the
survival probability ($44\%$ at Tevatron energies, and
$33\%$ at $40$ TeV.) On a related issue, the authors in
Ref. \cite{ButterworthEtAl} have used the HERWIG Monte Carlo
program and found that in $\gamma\gamma$ and $\gamma p$
collisions, the mean number of hard interactions per event
ranges from $1.04$ to $1.123$ for various particle colliders.
To obtain the cross section of jet events with rapidity
gaps, we must multiply the hard collision cross section
by the survival probability, that is,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm gap} = \langle S^2 \rangle \sigma_{\rm hard}.
\end{equation}
Qualitatively, we expect the survival probability
involving photon initial states to be approximately the
same of the survival probability involving only hadronic
initial states. This can be argued based on the vector meson dominance
picture. However, it would be very interesting to study
the difference of survival probabilities from hadronic
and photonic initial states. The measurement of resolved photon
gap events can clarify this difference.
In this paper we will present only the hard cross sections,
without taking into the soft physics of the survival
probability. But it will be implicitly understood that
in order to obtain the final cross sections, the factor
$\langle S^2 \rangle$ must be multiplied.
This paper is structured as follows.
In Section II we will study the gap event cross section at HERA
in the photon-proton double diffractive dissociation region.
In Section III we analyze the
situation at future linear collider energies ($0.5$ to $1.5$ TeV),
and in Section IV we analyze the situation for $\gamma\gamma$
colliders for a similar region of energies. Finally, in Section
V we give the conclusions.
\section{Resolved Photon Gap Events at HERA}
The mechanism of generating resolved photon
gap events at HERA $ep$ collider is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The partons that participate in the hard collision
subprocess can be either quarks or gluons. We will
consider the hard collision regime $|t| \gg 1$ GeV$^2$ where
the perturbative pomeron is applicable. Notice that this
kinematic regime differs from the previous gap event regimes
in Ref. \cite{HeraDISGaps,HeraPhotoproductionGaps}, where
the proton remains unbroken or is excited to a low-mass
state, and propagates down the beam pipe, escaping detection.
That is, the rapidity gaps observed so far in HERA are
between the real or virtual photon fragments and the
unbroken proton or its excited state. This situation is
different from the gap events observed at hadron-hadron
colliders \cite{FermilabGaps}, where the rapidity gap is
observed between two measured jets. Here in our paper,
we consider a situation similar to the hadron-hadron
collision case. That is, hard jets are generated both from
the photon fragmentation and the proton fragmentation regions.
This corresponds to the double diffractive dissociation of
the $\gamma p$ system, and the rapidity gap exists between
the two observed hard jets.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfxsize=3.00in
\epsfbox{fig1.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Resolved photon mechanism for producing jet
events with a large rapidity gap in $ep$
collision. The partons inside the photon and
the proton undergo a hard scattering via the
exchange of a perturbative QCD pomeron.
}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
The diffractive scattering cross section
for the quark-quark $t$-channel color-singlet exchange case
has been obtained by Mueller and Tang \cite{MuellerTang}
(see also Ref. \cite{MorePomeron}) by using the
Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov (BFKL) model
\cite{BFKLPomeron}:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma_{qq}}{dt} =
\bigl(\alpha_{\rm s} C_{\rm F}
\bigr)^4
\frac{\pi^3}{4t^2}
\frac{e^{2(\alpha_{\rm P}-1)y}}
{ \Bigl[ \frac{7}{2} \alpha_{\rm s}
C_{\rm A} \zeta (3) y
\Bigr]^3
},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_{\rm s}=\alpha_{\rm s}(-t)$
is the strong coupling constant,
$y= \ln(-\hat{s}/t)$ is the rapidity interval
between the two out-going partons as measured
from the beam axis, where $\hat{s}$ is the
total center-of-mass energy squared of the
$qq$ system;
$\alpha_{\rm P} = 1+(4\alpha_{\rm s}C_{\rm A}/\pi) \ln 2$ the slope
of the pomeron trajectory, $\zeta(3)=1.20206\dots$, and
$C_{\rm A} = 3$ and $C_{\rm F} = 4/3$
the values of the Casimir operators in the adjoint and fundamental
representations of the $SU(3)$ group.
For the case of gluon-gluon elastic scattering
with color-singlet $t$-channel exchange, we need only to replace
the $C_{\rm F}$ factor in $d\sigma_{qq}/dt$ by $C_{\rm A}$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma_{gg}}{dt} =
\alpha_{\rm s} C_{\rm A}
\frac{\pi^3}{4t^2}
\frac{e^{2(\alpha_{\rm P}-1)y}}
{ \Bigl[ \frac{7}{2} \zeta (3) y
\Bigr]^3
}.
\end{equation}
To obtain the total cross section, we must integrate the
cross section of the hard collision weighed by the
respective structure functions.
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{ep} (s,m_{\rm cut}^2,Y_{\rm cut})
&=&
\int_{(m_{\rm cut}^2, Y_{\rm cut})}
dz dx_1 \ dx_2 \ dt \
f_{\gamma|e} (z,s)
\cr
& &
P_{\gamma}(x_1,-t) \ P_p(x_2,-t) \
\frac{d\sigma_{gg}}{dt}
\bigl( \hat{s} = z x_1 x_2 s, t
\bigr).
\label{EqHeraGapCrossSection}
\end{eqnarray}
In the above formula, $z$ is the momentum fraction of the
incoming electron carried by the photon, $x_1$ and $x_2$
are the momentum fraction of the partons carried by
the photon and proton, respectively.
$\sqrt{s}$ is the total center-of-mass energy of the
$ep$ system, $m_{\rm cut}^2$ is the minimum transverse
momentum squared of the hard tagging jets,
and $Y_{\rm cut}$ is the minimum rapidity interval separating
the two hard jets.
The number of photons carrying a fraction $z$
of the energy of an emitting electron in leading
log approximation is given by
$f_{\gamma|{\rm e}}(s,z)=
\alpha_{\rm em}/(2\pi z)
[1+(1-z)^2] \ln(s/4m_{\rm e}^2)
$, with $\sqrt{s}$ the total center-of-mass energy
of the colliding $ep$ system
and $m_{\rm e}$ the electron mass
\cite{WeisackerWilliams,BawaStirling}.
However, this formula overestimates the direct
$\gamma\gamma \to q \bar{q}$ contribution
\cite{BhattacharyaSmithGrammer}.
An improved expression including non-leading terms
is \cite{BrodskyKonishitaTerazawa}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_{\gamma|{\rm e}}(z,s)=
\frac{\alpha_{\rm em}}{2 \pi z}
&\Biggl\{& \Bigl[ 1 + (1-z)^2
\Bigr]
\Bigl( \ln(s/4m_{\rm e}^2) -1
\Bigr)
\cr
&+& z^2 \Biggl[ \ln \frac{2 (1-z)}{z} + 1
\Biggr]
+ (2-z)^2 \ln \frac{2 (1-z)}{2-z}
\Biggr\},
\end{eqnarray}
This formula has been shown
\cite{BhattacharyaSmithGrammer} to give accurate
results not only for total (direct) jet rates but
also for distributions.
In Eq. (\ref{EqHeraGapCrossSection}), the quantities
$P_{\gamma}(x_1,-t)$ and $P_p(x_2,-t)$ correspond
to the parton structure functions of the photon and
proton, respectively, and they are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{\gamma}(x,Q^2)
&=&
f_{g|\gamma} (x,Q^2)
+
\Biggl( \frac{C_{\rm F}}{C_{\rm A}}
\Biggr)^2
\sum_q
\Bigl[ \ f_{q|\gamma} (x,Q^2)
+ f_{\bar{q}|\gamma} (x,Q^2) \
\Bigr],
\cr
P_p(x,Q^2)
&=&
f_{g|p} (x,Q^2)
+
\Biggl( \frac{C_{\rm F}}{C_{\rm A}}
\Biggr)^2
\sum_q
\Bigl[ \ f_{q|p} (x,Q^2)
+ f_{\bar{q}|p} (x,Q^2) \
\Bigr].
\end{eqnarray}
For the photon structure functions, we have the identity
$f_{q|\gamma} (x,Q^2)= f_{\bar{q}|\gamma} (x,Q^2)$.
There exist many parametrizations for the
parton distributions inside proton and photon.
For the photon distribution functions, we will limit
ourselves to the Drees-Godbole (DG) parametrization
\cite{DreesGodboleParametrization}
and to the Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt (GRV-LO) parametrization
\cite{GluckReyaVogtParametrization}. (We thank the
authors for providing the programs.)
Numerically, the largest uncertainty in our calculation
comes from the gluon density inside photon, where
little experimental result is available.
The quark densities are better understood. See the
recent results by the TRISTAN's collaborations
TOPAZ \cite{TOPAZ} and AMY \cite{AMY} on the measurement
of the photon structure function $F_2^\gamma(x,Q^2)$.
It is worth mentioning that the gluon density of the
photon in the GRV-LO parametrization
is consistent with the
recent measurement by the H1 Collaboration
at HERA \cite{H1PhotonStructure}.
For the proton structure function, we choose the
CTEQ 2'M parametrization from the CERN PDFLIB
routine library \cite{PlothowBesch}.
We use $Q^2=-t$
for the scale of the photon and proton
structure functions.
We perform the numerical integration with the Monte Carlo
integration program VEGAS \cite{Vegas}.
The integration limits are
\begin{eqnarray}
&& 0 \le z, x_1, x_2 \le 1, \cr
&& m_{\rm cut}^2 \le |t| \le x_1 x_2 e^{-Y_{\rm cut}} s,
\end{eqnarray}
where we integrate over all events with jet transverse momentum
larger than $m_{\rm cut}^2$ and a rapidity separation between the jet
centers larger than $Y_{\rm cut}$. It should be pointed out that due to
the hadronization effect, the hadron fragments typically
scatter around the jet centers, within a circle of radius
$\sim 0.7$ units of rapidity \cite{BJSurvivalProbability}.
Hence the observed effective gap is $Y_{\rm eff} \sim Y - 1.4$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfysize=5.00in
\epsfbox{fig2.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Resolved photon gap event cross section at HERA,
for various values of the transverse moment cut
$m_{\rm cut}$. The solid lines are obtained with
the Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt parametrization of the
photon structure functions, and the broken lines
with the Drees-Godbole parametrization.
}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
In Fig. 2 we present the result of the calculation.
For $Y_{\rm cut}=4$ and $m_{\rm cut}=5$ \ GeV, even taken into account
the survival probability consideration and uncertainty
for the gluon distribution inside the photon, the
gap events should still be produced at an observable
rate. As we stated before, gap events have been observed
at HERA both in the deep-inelastic regime \cite{HeraDISGaps}
and in the photoproduction regime \cite{HeraPhotoproductionGaps},
where the rapidity gap exists between the photon (real
or virtual) fragmentation region and the forward,
undetected proton (or its excited state.)
It would be interesting to verify the existence of
rapidity gap between two observed hard jets at HERA, and
study the dependence of these gap event
cross sections on the rapidity interval $Y_{\rm cut}$ and on the
transverse moment cut $m_{\rm cut}^2$, and compare with our
calculation here. We should note, however, that smaller rapidity
gaps can also arise from random fluctuation of the fragments of
hadronization process. A systematic study of rapidity gap
physics here and in other environments \cite{FermilabGaps} will
gradually allow better understanding of the relative
importance of gap events from perturbative mechanisms and
from random fluctuations, as well as insight to
the survival probability involving photons.
It is important to point out, though, that our current
knowledge of the photon structure functions is rather
imprecise. This is especially true for the gluon content
of photon, which numerically forms the dominant contribution
to the gap event cross section. Therefore, an uncertainty
of half an order of magnitude above or below the calculated curves
would not be unreasonable. Hopefully the gluon content of
the photon can be better measured at HERA in the future
\cite{H1PhotonStructure}.
\section{Resolved Photon Gap Events at NLC}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfxsize=3.00in
\epsfbox{fig3.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Resolved photon mechanism for producing jet
events with a large rapidity gap in $e^+e^-$
collision. The partons inside the photons
undergo a hard scattering via the exchange
of a perturbative QCD pomeron.
}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
The production mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 3.
Currently, the energy projected for future $e^+e^-$
colliders is in the range $0.5$ to $1.5$ TeV. At
this energy range, the resolved photon contributions
should be substantial. However, due to beamstrahlung
background, the detectors for these colliders are
not expected to be sensitive to jet production in the forward
or backward direction.
That is, many of the gap events will not be detected.
We will analyze the production cross section
of gap event by taking
into account also the detector limitation. Here we will
assume that the detector is only capable of observing hard jets
produced in the rapidity region
$[-\eta_{\rm det}, \eta_{\rm det}]$.
Given this limitation, the observable
rapidity gap events can be classified into three cases:
(a) both hard jets are observed, (b) only the forward hard jet is
observed, and (c) only the backward hard jet is observed.
These situations are illustrated in Fig. 4. In the cases (b) and
(c), since one of the hard jets is not measured, it is not
possible to know the true size of the rapidity gap. For these
cases, we define the empirical rapidity gap as the size of the
rapidity interval between the hard jet and the detector limit
on the opposite side. Mathematically, if $y_1$ and $y_2$ represent
the rapidities of the forward and the backward hard jet, then
we define the empirical gap to be
\begin{equation}
Y = {\rm Min}
\left\{ y_1 - y_2,
y_1 + \eta_{\rm det},
\eta_{\rm det} - y_2
\right\} ,
\end{equation}
Naturally, the size of the rapidity gap cannot exceed
the detector range: $Y < 2 \eta_{\rm det}$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfxsize=4.00in
\epsfbox{fig4.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Three possible cases for the observation
of jet events containing rapidity gaps:
(a) both hard jets are observed, (b) only
the forward jet is observed, and (c) only
the backward jet is observed. In the cases
of (b) and (c), the gap size is measured from
the jet center to the rapidity edge of the
detector on the opposite side.
}
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
To integrate the event cross section, we take into account
the kinematic cuts from 1) detector limitation: $\eta_{\rm det}$,
2) rapidity gap cut: $Y_{\rm cut}$,
and 3) transverse momentum cut: $m_{\rm cut}^2$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_{e^+e^-} (s,m_{\rm cut}^2,Y_{\rm cut},\eta_{\rm det})
&=&
\int_{(m_{\rm cut}^2, Y_{\rm cut}, \eta_{\rm det})}
dz_1 dz_2 dx_1 \ dx_2 \ dt \
f_{\gamma|e} (z_1,s)
f_{\gamma|e} (z_2,s)
\cr
& &
P_{\gamma}(x_1,-t) \ P_{\gamma}(x_2,-t) \
\frac{d\sigma_{gg}}{dt}
\bigl( \hat{s} = z_1 z_2 x_1 x_2 s, t
\bigr).
\label{EqNLCGapCrossSection}
\end{eqnarray}
The photon momentum fractions inside the electron and
the positron are respectively $z_1$ and $z_2$. Other
quantities that appear in this formula have
been explained in the previous section. The integration
momentum fractions are constrained to:
$0 \le z_1, z_2, x_1, x_2 \le 1.$
The gap and transverse momentum constraints impose
the following limits for the $t$ integration. For the
case (a),
\begin{equation}
{\rm Max}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
m_{\rm cut}^2 \\
x_1^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2\eta_{\rm det}} s \\
x_2^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2\eta_{\rm det}} s \\
\end{array}
\right\}
\ < \ \left| t \right|
\ < \
x_1 x_2 z_1 z_2 e^{-Y_{\rm cut}} s .
\label{EqLimitA}
\end{equation}
For the case (b),
\begin{equation}
{\rm Max}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
m_{\rm cut}^2 \\
x_1^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2\eta_{\rm det}} s \\
\end{array}
\right\}
\ < \ \left| t \right|
\ < \
{\rm Min}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
x_1^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2(Y_{\rm cut}-\eta_{\rm det})} s \\
x_2^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-\eta_{\rm det}} s
\end{array}
\right\} .
\label{EqLimitB}
\end{equation}
And for the case (c),
\begin{equation}
{\rm Max}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
m_{\rm cut}^2 \\
x_2^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2\eta_{\rm det}} s \\
\end{array}
\right\}
\ < \ \left| t \right|
\ < \
{\rm Min}
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
x_1^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-\eta_{\rm det}} s \\
x_2^2 z_1 z_2 e^{-2(Y_{\rm cut}-\eta_{\rm det})} s \\
\end{array}
\right\} .
\label{EqLimitC}
\end{equation}
We include all three contributions in our integration of
the event cross sections. In Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are the
results of the gap event cross sections, for $0.5$ and
$1.5$ TeV center-of-mass energy. We consider three values
for the maximum detector rapidity:
$\eta_{\rm det} = 2, 3, 4$, which means that the maximum
detectable rapidity gaps are respectively $Y=4, 6, 8$.
The curves are plotted for two values of the transverse
momentum cut: $m_{\rm cut} = 5, 10$ GeV.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfysize=5.00in
\epsfbox{fig5.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Gap event cross section for $e^+e^-$ collider
at $E_{\rm cm}=0.5$ TeV, for various values
of transverse momentum cut $m_{\rm cut}=5,10$ GeV
and detector rapidity limits $\eta_{\rm det}=2,3,4$.
The maximum observable rapidity gaps are
$2 \eta_{\rm det} = 4,6,8$ and are indicated by the
dot-dashed vertical lines. The solid lines are
obtained by using the Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt parametrization
of the photon structure functions, and the broken lines
by using the Dree-Godbole parametrization.
}
\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfysize=5.00in
\epsfbox{fig6.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Same as Fig. 5, but at a center-of-mass energy
of $E_{\rm cm} = 1.5$ TeV.
}
\label{Fig6}
\end{figure}
With the projected luminosity for the future linear
colliders $\sim 10^{34}$ [cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$] ,
the detectors should be sensitive to the physics at
cross section level of $\sim 1$ [fb]. Hence,
unless the detector has very narrow range of rapidity,
gap events with $Y_{\rm cut} = 4$ and $m_{\rm cut} = 5$ GeV
should be produced at an observable rate, this even
when the survival probability is taken into account. Notice that
in going from $0.5$ to $1.5$ TeV, the gap event cross section
increases by about an order of magnitude.
(Naturally, we also have to keep in mind the uncertainty from the
photon structure functions.)
In Ref. \cite{LEPIIGaps}, various mechanisms for the production
of rapidity gap events at LEP-II have been analyzed. These mechanisms
can be characterized as the annihilation of $e^+e^-$
into two gauge bosons, which subsequently decay into jet pairs.
As opposed to the resolved photon mechanism studied here, in
the annihilation mechanisms all the beam energy goes into
the production of the hadronic jets. In principle, it is possible
to distinguish these two mechanisms, by measuring the
presence or absence of the $e^+e^-$ in the forward or backward
direction. (Calorimetry may also help, although the lepton colliders
are not expected to be sensitive to forward and backward jets due
to the background problems). In practice, this distinction may not
always be feasible. In terms of orders of magnitude, the
annihilation mechanisms like $e^+e^- \to \gamma^*\gamma^* \to jets$ and
$e^+e^- \to \gamma^* Z \to jets$ may be produced at a competing level
with the resolved photon cases (at least for the $0.5$ TeV machine). Also,
there are other mechanisms of producing gap events, such as coming from
$W$ and $Z$ bosons, via annihilation or resolved mechanisms.
In summary, there is a rich phenomenology still to be studied.
We limit our scope here only to the resolved photon contribution,
and postpone a more comprehensive
analysis of rapidity gap jet events at NLC for the future.
\section{Resolved Photon Gap Events at $\gamma\gamma$ Collider}
As opposed to the $e^+e^-$ case, there is no photon flux suppression
for real photon collisions. Therefore, we expect the resolved
photon events to provide a much larger cross section for gap
events.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfxsize=3.00in
\epsfbox{fig7.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Resolved photon mechanism for producing jet
events with a large rapidity gap in $\gamma\gamma$
collision. The partons inside the photons
undergo a hard scattering via the exchange
of a perturbative QCD pomeron.
}
\label{Fig7}
\end{figure}
The production mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 7.
As in the case of $e^+e^-$ collider, we will assume
a rapidity range of $[-\eta_{\rm det}, \eta_{\rm det}]$
for the detector. Although theoretically a $\gamma\gamma$
collider should have little beamstrahlung effects, hence the
detectors should be able to observe jets near the forward
and backward direction, in practice this may not be
true. There remains serious technological challenge
to the conversion of $e^+e^-$ colliders into $\gamma\gamma$
colliders. In particular, the distance between the
laser-backscattering points and the $\gamma\gamma$ collision
point may not be large enough for the deflection of
the remnant $e^+e^-$ beams \cite{Heusch}.
We also consider $0.5$ to $1.5$ TeV
as the range for the center-of-mass energy. The event
cross section is
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\gamma\gamma} (s,m_{\rm cut}^2,Y_{\rm cut},\eta_{\rm det})
=
\int_{(m_{\rm cut}^2, Y_{\rm cut}, \eta_{\rm det})}
dx_1 \ dx_2 \ dt \
P_{\gamma}(x_1,-t) \ P_{\gamma}(x_2,-t) \
\frac{d\sigma_{gg}}{dt}
\bigl( \hat{s} = x_1 x_2 s, t
\bigr).
\label{EqGammaGammaGapCrossSection}
\end{equation}
And the integration limits for the $t$ variable are similar
to those ones given in Eq.
(\ref{EqLimitA}), (\ref{EqLimitB}) and (\ref{EqLimitC}),
upon substituting $z_1=z_2=1$.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfysize=5.00in
\epsfbox{fig8.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Gap event cross section for $\gamma\gamma$ collider
at $E_{\rm cm}=0.5$ TeV, for various values
of transverse momentum cut $m_{\rm cut}=5,10$ GeV
and detector rapidity limits $\eta_{\rm det}=2,3,4$.
The maximum observable rapidity gaps are
$2 \eta_{\rm det} = 4,6,8$ and are indicated by the
dot-dashed vertical lines. The solid lines are
obtained by using the Gl\"uck-Reya-Vogt parametrization
of the photon structure functions, and the broken lines
by using the Dree-Godbole parametrization.
}
\label{Fig8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\leavevmode
{
\epsfysize=5.00in
\epsfbox{fig9.eps}
}
\end{center}
\caption[*]{
Same as Fig. 8, but at a center-of-mass energy
of $E_{\rm cm} = 1.5$ TeV.
}
\label{Fig9}
\end{figure}
The results for the cross sections are plotted in Fig. 8 and
Fig. 9. We can see that compared to the $e^+e^-$ case, the
cross sections are now two to three orders of magnitude larger.
Hence the gap events will be produced copiously at $\gamma\gamma$
colliders. This would provide the ideal environment of the
study of survival probability involving photon initial states.
\section{Conclusions}
We have seen that resolved photons provides a mechanism
of producing jet events containing large rapidity gaps,
and we have analyzed the event cross section at HERA
$ep$ collider and future $e^+e^-$ and $\gamma\gamma$
colliders. We have seen that in all three cases the
event cross section are at the reach of the experiments.
In the case of HERA, it would be interesting to
observe the existence of rapidity gaps between two
hard jet systems (one in the forward direction and
the other one in the backward direction), and analyze
the dependence of the cross section on the rapidity
gap cut $Y_{\rm cut}$ and on the transverse momentum
cut $m_{\rm cut}$. This would provide a first
look into the survival probability involving
photon-hadron collision. In the case of $\gamma\gamma$
collision we have seen that the event cross section
becomes two to three orders of magnitude larger
than the $e^+e^-$ case. We have also seen
that the resolved photon gap events increase
significantly with the total center-of-mass energy.
The observation of these events will allow the study
of the perturbative QCD pomeron physics in environments
alternative to the hadron-hadron
colliders, provide insight into the survival
probability physics of photons, and also allow further
understanding on the relative importance of gap events
coming from random fluctuation of hadronization effects
and from perturbative mechanisms.
We very especially thank Wai-Keung Tang, for all the help
received during the preparation of this work. We also thank
Ina Sarcevic, Stanley Brodsky and Clemens A. Heusch for helpful
conversations, and M. Drees, M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya and A. Vogt
for providing the subroutines for the photon structure functions.
This work was supported by U.S. Department of Energy
Grants No. DE--FG03--93ER40792.
|
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank the Graduiertenkolleg ``Mathematik im Bereich
ihrer Wechselwirkung mit der Physik'' of the Ludwig Maximilian
University Munich , in particular Prof. Batt and Prof. Schottenloher,
for the possibility of a stay of T. A. at Munich where most of the
ideas took form. G.H. is also indebted to Prof. Baum, Prof.
Friedrich, Prof. Petry and W. Posch for helpful discussions on exotic
spinors. T.A. thanks also Prof. Keiper for useful discussions.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We thank Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya and T. Yoshi\'e for showing us their unpublished
data and for useful discussions.
Numerical calculations for the present work have been
carried out at Center for Computational Physics and on VPP500/30 at Science
Information Processing Center, both at University of Tsukuba.
This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of
the Ministry of Education(Nos. 04NP0701, 06640372).
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\indent
Nonlinear differential equations
with fixed critical points
define a natural extension
\cite{PaiOeuvres} of linear equations.
Let us recall that a singular point is said
{\it critical} if several determinations of the solution are permuted
around it,
and {\it movable} (contrary {\it fixed}) if its location
depends on the initial conditions.
The {\it Painlev\'e property} (PP) of a differential equation,
is defined \cite{PaiOeuvres}
as the absence of movable critical points in the general solution
of the differential equation.
The {\it Painlev\'e test} \cite{Chamonix1994}
is the set of all methods
to build necessary conditions for a differential equation to possess the PP,
without guarantee on their sufficiency.
The most powerful of them is the ``$\alpha-$method'' of Painlev\'e
\cite{PaiBSMF},
but its difficulty is differential
since at each step one must integrate a differential equation.
All other methods
(Kowalevskaya \cite{Kowalevskaya1889,ARS1980},
Bureau \cite{Bureau1939},
Conte, Fordy and Pickering \cite{FP1991,CFP1993})
have only an algebraic difficulty
and therefore are easy to automatize.
But all those algebraic methods share a restriction,
which this Letter proposes to remove,
thus adding to the Painlev\'e test a new algebraic method
which very often allows to conclude to a failure more rapidly than with the old
algebraic methods.
In section \ref{sectionPerturbative},
we recall the lemma of Painlev\'e which establishes the perturbative
framework,
then we define our extension to the Painlev\'e test.
Section \ref{sectionChazy} is a pedagogical example
quite useful to explain the method.
Two examples are then considered,
one from mathematics section \ref{eqsectionBureau},
the second one from physics section \ref{sectionBianchi}.
Both exhibit movable logarithms
and provide a shorter proof of failure of the test than before.
\section{The perturbative framework
\label{sectionPerturbative}}
\indent
All the methods of the Painlev\'e test \cite{Chamonix1994},
whether differential (Painlev\'e)
or algebraic (Kowalevskaya, Bureau, Conte {\it et al.}),
are based on the following lemma
of Painlev\'e \cite{PaiBSMF}.
{\it Lemma}.
Consider an algebraic differential equation of order $N$
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}(x,{\bf u},\varepsilon)=0,
\end{equation}
(the boldface characters mean multicomponent)
depending analytically on a small complex parameter $\varepsilon$,
defined in the canonical form of Cauchy
\begin{equation}
{\hbox{d} {\bf u} \over \hbox{d} x}={\bf K}[x,{\bf u},\varepsilon],\
x \in {\cal C},\ {\bf u} \in {\cal C}^N,\ \varepsilon \in {\cal C},
\label{eqLemma}
\end{equation}
with ${\bf K}$ assumed holomorphic at $\varepsilon=0$.
If the general solution of (\ref{eqLemma})
has no movable critical points
for every $\varepsilon$ except maybe for $\varepsilon=0$,
then
\begin{itemize}
\item{}
the point $\varepsilon=0$ is no exception,
i.e.~the general solution has also no movable critical points there,
\item{}
every coefficient of the Taylor series of ${\bf u}$
\begin{equation}
{\bf u}=\sum_{n=0}^{+ \infty} \varepsilon^n {\bf u}^{(n)}
\label{eqPerturbu}
\end{equation}
has no movable critical points.
\end{itemize}
A detailed proof of this lemma has been established by
Bureau \cite{Bureau1939,BureauI},
in place of the too short proof by Painlev\'e,
who merely considered it as an immediate consequence of the classical
theorem of perturbations of Poincar\'e.
Let us introduce the notation
\begin{equation}
{\bf E}(x,{\bf u},\varepsilon)
\equiv\sum_{n=0}^{+ \infty} \varepsilon^n
{\bf E}^{(n)}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)},\dots,{\bf u}^{(n)})=0
\end{equation}
in which the equation ${\bf E}^{(0)}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)}) = 0$ is nonlinear
and every equation
\hfill \par \noindent
${\bf E}^{(n)}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)},\dots,{\bf u}^{(n)})=0,n\ge 1$
is linear inhomogeneous in ${\bf u}^{(n)}$.
Consider an equation ${\bf E}(x,{\bf u})=0$ independent of $\varepsilon$,
a case in which the lemma still applies (ref.~\cite{Goursat} vol.~III).
The equations
${\bf E}(x,{\bf u})=0$ and ${\bf E}^{(0)}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)}) = 0$
are then the same,
the equation ${\bf E}^{(1)}=0$ is the linearized of ${\bf E}$ at ${\bf u}^{(0)}$
and equations ${\bf E}^{(n)}=0, n \ge 2,$ only differ from ${\bf E}^{(1)}=0$
in the r.h.s.,
\begin{eqnarray}
n=0:\
{\bf E}^{(0)}
& \equiv &
{\bf E}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)}) = 0,
\label{eqNL0}
\\
n=1:\
{\bf E}^{(1)}
& \equiv &
{\bf E}'(x,{\bf u}^{(0)}) {\bf u}^{(1)} = 0,
\label{eqLin0}
\\
\forall n \ge 2:\
{\bf E}^{(n)}
& \equiv &
{\bf E}'(x,{\bf u}^{(0)}) {\bf u}^{(n)}
+ {\bf R}^{(n)}(x,{\bf u}^{(0)},\dots,{\bf u}^{(n-1)}) = 0.
\label{eqOrdern}
\end{eqnarray}
Suppose one knows a solution ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ which is
global and without movable critical points,
but which depends on an insufficient number $M<N$ of arbitrary parameters.
We require,
first,
that its perturbation (\ref{eqPerturbu})
in the neighborhood of $\varepsilon=0$
represents the general solution,
secondly,
that each ${\bf u}^{(n)}$, in particular ${\bf u}^{(1)}$ in this Letter,
be without movable critical points.
Painlev\'e showed (ref.~\cite{PaiBSMF} p.~209 note 1) that $M$ of the $N$
solutions of the linearized equation (\ref{eqLin0}) are already known,
these are the derivatives of ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ with respect to its $M$ parameters,
evidently without movable critical points.
Satisfying the first point is not so evident.
Indeed,
a peculiarity of nonlinear differential equations is that they sometimes
possess,
in addition to a general solution
and its particular solutions,
other solutions called singular solutions.
Those are impossible to obtain from the general solution
by giving special values
to the arbitrary integration constants.
For instance, the equation \cite{ChazyThese}
\begin{equation}
u'''=2 u' u'' + 2 i u'' \sqrt{u'' - u'^2 - 1}
\end{equation}
has for general solution:
$u=e^{2 c_1 x + c_2} + (c_1^2 - 1) x /(4 c_1) + c_3$
and for singular solution:
$u=- \mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits \cos (x + C_1) + C_2$,
showing the absence of correlation \cite{ChazyThese}
between the structure of singularities of the general solution
and that of the possible singular solutions.
Singular solutions are for sure excluded,
as requested by the definition of the PP
and the application of the above lemma,
if the equation ${\bf E}^{(1)}=0$ is exactly of order $N$.
Indeed, the singular solutions,
which generalize the notion of envelope,
satisfy a differential equation with an order smaller than $N$.
But the mean used by the available algebraic methods
to satisfy this requirement is to ask that the equation
(\ref{eqLin0}) possesses exactly $N$ Fuchs indices
[
for the basic vocabulary
(singular regular, singular irregular, Fuchsian, non-Fuchsian,
essential singularity, Fuchs indices)
and methods concerning linear differential equations
in the complex plane,
the reader can refer to the classical book of Ince \cite{Ince},
chapters XV to XVII
]
at the movable poles $x_0$ of ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ located at a finite distance,
which implicitly
discards possible non-Fuchsian solutions,
even if they have no movable critical points.
Let us briefly recall the differences between Fuchsian and non-Fuchsian
for our purpose which is the question of local singlevaluedness.
Near a regular singular point $x=0$,
there exist $N$ linearly independent solutions
\begin{equation}
x^{\lambda_i} \sum_{j=0}^{m_i} \varphi_{ij}(x) (\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits x)^{j},\
i=1,N
\label{eqFundamentalSetFuchs}
\end{equation}
in which the $\lambda_i$'s are complex numbers (the Fuchs indices),
$m_i$ positive integers (their multiplicity),
$\varphi_{ij}$ converging Laurent series of $x$ with finite principal parts.
The necessary and sufficient condition of local singlevaluedness of the
general solution of the linear equation is: $\lambda_i$ all integer,
no $\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits$ terms.
Near an irregular singular point $x=0$,
there exist $N$ linearly independent solutions
\begin{equation}
e^{Q_i(1/z_i)} x^{s_i} \sum_{j=0}^{m_i} \varphi_{ij}(z_i) (\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits x)^{j},\
z_i=x^{1/q_i},\
i=1,N
\label{eqFundamentalSetNonFuchs}
\end{equation}
in which
$q_i$ is a positive integer,
$Q_i$ a polynomial,
$s_i$ a complex number,
$\varphi_{ij}$ a {\it formal} Laurent series with finite principal part.
The question of local singlevaluedness of the general solution
cannot be settled so easily, because formal series are
generically divergent.
In this Letter, we go back to the lemma of Painlev\'e
and we implement two features.
The {\it first feature} is to also accept that $x_0$ be non-Fuchsian for
the linearized equation (\ref{eqLin0}):
we require the existence of a fundamental set of
solutions ${\bf u}^{(1)}$ of ${\bf E}^{(1)}=0$
which are locally single valued
near $\chi=x-x_0=0$,
and the same property for
a particular solution ${\bf u}^{(n)}$ of each ${\bf E}^{(n)}=0,n \ge 2$.
The {\it second feature} needs an additional assumption,
namely that the given solution ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ be known globally
(in closed form).
The singular points of equation (\ref{eqLin0}) can be classified into
three types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the fixed singularities of equation (\ref{eqNL0})
located at a finite distance,
\item
the movable poles $x_0,x_1,\dots$ of ${\bf u}^{(0)}$
located at a finite distance,
\item
the point at infinity, which is fixed.
\end{enumerate}
All three types can be studied because ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ is known globally.
The first type of singularities
must not be studied because the PP allows any behaviour around them.
Each point $x_0,x_1,\dots$ of the second type must be studied,
with the same requirements than in the first feature.
As to the third type, namely the point at infinity,
it should generally not be tested for it is fixed.
However, in case there are no critical singularities of the first type
(fixed critical singularities at a finite distance),
one can also require the existence of a fundamental set of solutions
locally single valued near $\infty$;
in particular, it may happen the favourable event that,
while the point $x_0$ is non-Fuchsian, the point $\infty$ is Fuchsian
and allows to conclude about {\it global} singlevaluedness.
\medskip
Our addition to the Painlev\'e test can be detailed as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Assume a given solution ${\bf u}^{(0)}$
which is global and has at least one
movable pole at a finite distance denoted $x_0$.
\item
Require the linearized equation at ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ to have exactly order $N$,
so as to discard singular solutions.
\item
Near every movable pole $x_0$ of ${\bf u}^{(0)}$ located at a finite distance,
build a fundamental set of solutions ${\bf u}^{(1)}$
and require it to be locally single valued.
\item
In case of at least one non-Fuchsian point among $x_0,x_1,\dots$ at the
preceding step,
and if there is no fixed critical singularity at a finite distance,
build a fundamental set of solutions ${\bf u}^{(1)}$ near $\chi=\infty$
and require it to be locally single valued.
\item
At each higher perturbation order $n \ge 2$,
build similarly particular solutions ${\bf u}^{(n)}$
and require the same properties.
\end{enumerate}
We will call a {\it family} {\it Fuchsian} or {\it non-Fuchsian}
according to the nature (Fuchsian or non-Fuchsian)
of the singular point $\chi=0$
of the linearized equation.
The most likely event to occur in our extension of the test,
leading to its failure,
is the detection of a movable logarithm
coming from two integer Fuchs indices at the point $\chi=\infty$,
of course under the condition of absence of any fixed critical singularity
at a finite distance.
The information (pass or fail) which we propose to extract is
\begin{enumerate}
\item
not accessible to the method of Kowalevskaya,
which accepts the Fuchsian families
as well as the non-Fuchsian ones
but does not consider the perturbation (\ref{eqPerturbu}),
\item
not accessible to the method of Bureau,
which rejects the non-Fuchsian families
(because the representation by divergent series forbids to conclude)
and does not consider the perturbation (\ref{eqPerturbu}),
\item
accessible to the method of Conte, Fordy and Pickering,
which rejects the non-Fuchsian families for the same reason than Bureau
and extracts the information from Fuchsian families
only at the expense of a {\it Fuchsian} perturbative computation
which may sometimes be long.
\end{enumerate}
\section{An explanatory example: Chazy's class III ($N=3,M=2$)
\label{sectionChazy}}
\indent
The simplified (i.e.~scaled) equation of class III of Chazy \cite{ChazyThese}
\begin{equation}
E(x,u) \equiv u''' - 2 u u'' + 3 u'^2 = 0.
\label{eqChazy}
\end{equation}
admits the global two-parameter solution
\begin{eqnarray}
u^{(0)}
& = &
c \chi^{-2} - 6 \chi^{-1},\ \chi=x-x_0,\ (x_0,c) \hbox{ arbitrary}.
\label{eqChazyOrder0}
\end{eqnarray}
For that equation, this solution arises from the {\it local} search
for all the families of movable singularities
$ u \sim u_0 \chi^p,\ E \sim E_0 \chi^q,\ \chi=x-x_0 \to 0$
represented by Laurent series with a finite principal part
\begin{eqnarray}
p=-1,\
q=-4,\
u^{(0)}
& = &
-6 \chi^{-1},
\label{eqChazyFamily1}
\\
p=-2,\
q=-6,\
u^{(0)}
& = &
c \chi^{-2} - 6 \chi^{-1},\ c \hbox{ arbitrary}.
\label{eqChazyFamily2}
\end{eqnarray}
The linearized equation at (\ref{eqChazyOrder0})
\begin{equation}
E'(x,u^{(0)}) u^{(1)} \equiv
[ \partial_x^3
- 2 u^{(0)} \partial_x^2
+ 6 u^{(0)}_x \partial_x
- 2 u^{(0)}_{xx}] u^{(1)} = 0,
\label{eqChazyLin}
\end{equation}
has effectively order $N$
(which means that solution (\ref{eqChazyOrder0}) is a particular one,
not a singular one),
it possesses the two single valued global solutions
$\partial_{x_0} u^{(0)}$ and $\partial_c u^{(0)}$,
i.e.~$u^{(1)}=\chi^{-3},\chi^{-2}$,
and it has only two singular points $\chi=0,\infty$.
The point $\chi=0$ is irregular singular of rank two
for the non-Fuchsian family (\ref{eqChazyFamily2})
(and regular singular for the Fuchsian family (\ref{eqChazyFamily1}),
with Fuchs indices $-4,-3,-2$),
and it defines a third {\it formal} solution
admitting an essential singularity at $\chi=0$
(ref.~\cite{Ince} chap.~XVII)
\begin{equation}
\chi \to 0,\
c \not=0:\
u^{(1)}=e^{a / \chi} \chi^{s} w(\chi),
\end{equation}
in which
$(a,s)$ denote constants and
$w(\chi)$ a formal Taylor series generically asymptotic,
i.e.~with a null radius of convergence.
This is not the case here,
where computation yields $a=-2c,s=-2,w=1$,
thus defining the fundamental set of {\it global} solutions
\begin{eqnarray}
\forall \chi\
\forall c:\
u^{(1)} & = & \chi^{-2},\
\chi^{-3},\
(e^{-2 c / \chi} - 1 + 2 c \chi^{-1}) \chi^{-2} / (2 c^2)
\label{eqChazySGOrder1}
\end{eqnarray}
and solving the question for the perturbation order $n=1.$
The point $\chi=\infty$ is therefore, in this too simple an example,
useless to study.
This point is regular singular with Fuchs indices $2,3,4$,
and without any more computation one concludes to the {\it local}
singlevaluedness
since index $4$ cannot generate a logarithm.
{\it Remarks}.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Going on with the formalism of Painlev\'e's lemma at higher orders
constitutes the rigorous mathematical framework of the local representation
of the general solution obtained by Joshi and Kruskal \cite{JoshiKruskal1993}
\begin{equation}
u= - 6 \chi^{-1}
+ c \chi^{-2} (1 + z - z^2 / 8 + z^3 / 144 - 7 z^4 / 13824
+ O(\varepsilon^5)),\
z=(\varepsilon / c) e^{- 2 c / \chi}.
\end{equation}
This representation reduces to the one given by Chazy (Taylor series in
$1/ \chi$)
if one starts from the Fuchsian family (\ref{eqChazyFamily1}).
\item
The lowering by $M=2$ units of the order of the linearized equation
is obtained by the change of function
\begin{equation}
u^{(1)}=\chi^{-3} v:\
(\partial_x + 3 \chi^{-1} - 2 c \chi^{-2}) v''=0,
\end{equation}
which yields the third global solution by three quadratures.
\end{itemize}
The simplified equation (\ref{eqChazy}),
which possesses the PP \cite{ChazyThese}
and therefore for which no $u^{(n)}$ is multivalued,
only shows the method.
We now illustrate on other examples the interest of non-Fuchsian families
to detect the presence of a movable critical singularity,
very often as soon as the first perturbation order.
\section{An equation of Bureau ($N=4,M=2$)
\label{eqsectionBureau}}
\indent
The equation (ref.~\cite{BureauMII} p.~79)
\begin{equation}
E(x,u) \equiv u'''' + 3 u u'' - 4 u'^2 = 0
\end{equation}
possesses the global two-parameter solution \cite{CFP1993}
\begin{equation}
u^{(0)}=c \chi^{-3} - 60 \chi^{-2},\ \chi=x-x_0,
\end{equation}
for which the linearized equation
\begin{equation}
E^{(1)} = E'(x,u^{(0)}) u^{(1)} \equiv
[ \partial_x^4
+ 3 u^{(0)} \partial_x^2
- 8 u^{(0)}_x \partial_x
+ 3 u^{(0)}_{xx}] u^{(1)} = 0,
\label{eqBureauLin}
\end{equation}
whose only two singular points are $\chi=0$ and $\chi=\infty$,
admits the two global single valued solutions
$\partial_{x_0} u^{(0)}$ and $\partial_c u^{(0)}$,
i.e.~$u^{(1)}=\chi^{-4},\chi^{-3}$,
leaving only two other solutions to examine.
For $c=0$ it has four global single valued solutions
$u^{(1)}=\chi^{-5},\chi^{-4},\chi^{-3},\chi^{18}$,
and from now on we assume $c\not=0$.
The point $\chi=0$ is singular irregular with rank one,
and the two other solutions are non-Fuchsian and {\it formally} given as
\begin{equation}
\chi \to 0,\
c \not=0:\
u^{(1)}=e^{\pm \sqrt{-12c/ \chi}}\chi^{31/4} (1 + O(\sqrt{\chi})),
\end{equation}
detecting the presence in (\ref{eqBureauLin})
of an essential singularity at $\chi=0$,
but the generically null radius of convergence of the formal series forbids
to immediately conclude to the multivaluedness of $u^{(1)}$.
The point $\chi=\infty$ is singular regular, with Fuchs indices
$-18,3,4,5$.
The highest index, $5$, yields a converging series
$u^{(1)}=(1/\chi)^{5} w_{5}(1/\chi)$,
locally single valued.
As for the test for the existence of a series
$u^{(1)}=(1/\chi)^{-18} w_{-18}(1/\chi)$,
it detects a logarithm arising from the index $3$
when one tries to solve the recursion relation for the twenty-second
coefficient of the series $w_{-18}$.
One thus concludes here as soon as order one,
to be compared with
order seven necessary to ref.~\cite{CFP1993},
after a computation practically untractable without a computer.
{\it Remark}.
The lowering by $M=2$ units of the order of the linearized equation
(\ref{eqBureauLin}) is obtained with
\begin{equation}
u^{(1)}=\chi^{-4} v:\
(\partial_x^2 -16 \chi^{-1} \partial_x +3 c \chi^{-3} - 60 \chi^{-2}) v'' = 0,
\end{equation}
and it yields the two other solutions in global form
\begin{eqnarray}
c \not=0:\
v''_1
& = &
\chi^{-3} {}_{0} F_{1} (24;-3c/\chi)
=
\chi^{17/2} J_{23}(\sqrt{12 c/\chi}),
\\
v''_2
& = &
\chi^{17/2} N_{23}(\sqrt{12 c/\chi}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the hypergeometric fonction ${}_{0} F_{1} (24;-3c/\chi)$
is single valued and possesses an isolated essential singularity at $\chi=0$,
while the fonction $N_{23}$ of Neumann is multivalued because of a
$\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits \chi$ term.
{\it Remark}.
The value $n=7$ of the perturbation order in $\varepsilon$
needed by ref.~\cite{CFP1993} is the root of the linear
equation
$n (i_{\rm min}-p) + (i_{\rm max}-p)=-1$,
with $p=-2,i_{\rm min}=-5,i_{\rm max}=18$,
linking the pole order $p$ in the Fuchsian case $c=0$,
the smallest and the greatest Fuchs indices.
It expresses the condition for the first occurence of a power $\chi^{-1}$,
leading by integration to a logarithm,
in the r.h.s.~$R^{(n)}$ of the linear inhomogeneous equation
(\ref{eqOrdern}),
r.h.s.~created by the nonlinear terms $3 u u'' - 4 u'^2 $.
\section{An example in cosmology: Bianchi IX ($N=6,M=4$)
\label{sectionBianchi}}
\indent
The Bianchi IX cosmological model in vacuum
\cite{LandauLifshitzTheorieChamps}
is ruled by the sixth order system
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2 (\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits A)'' = A^2 - (B-C)^2
\hbox{ and cyclically},\
\sigma^2= \pm 1,
\label{eqBianchi1}
\end{equation}
and it does not possess the PP \cite{CGR1994,LMC1994}.
Let us prove it with our method.
In the neighborhood of the global solution
depending on the four arbitrary parameters $(k_1,k_2,\tau_1,\tau_2)$
\cite{Taub}
($x$ is here denoted $\tau$)
\begin{equation}
A^{(0)}= \sigma {k_1 \over \mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits k_1 (\tau-\tau_1)},\
B^{(0)}=C^{(0)}
= \sigma
{k_2^2 \mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits k_1 (\tau-\tau_1) \over k_1 \mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits^2 k_2 (\tau-\tau_2)},
\label{eqTaub}
\end{equation}
the perturbation
\begin{eqnarray}
& &
A= A^{(0)} (1 + \varepsilon A^{(1)} + O(\varepsilon^2))
\hbox{ and cyclically}
\end{eqnarray}
generates a linearized system whose order is indeed equal to $N=6$
(which proves that solution (\ref{eqTaub}) is a particular solution,
not a singular solution),
and the lowering by $M=4$ units of its order
is obtained by the change of function
dictated by the symmetry of the system:
$P^{(1)}=B^{(1)}+C^{(1)},M^{(1)}=B^{(1)}-C^{(1)}$ \cite{LMC1994}
\begin{eqnarray}
& &
\sigma^2 A^{(1)''} - 2 A^{(0)^2} A^{(1)} = 0,\
\label{eqTaub1A}
\\
& &
\sigma^2 P^{(1)''} - 2 A^{(0)} B^{(0)} P^{(1)}
= 4 (A^{(0)} B^{(0)} - A^{(0)^2}) A^{(1)},\
\label{eqTaub1P}
\\
& &
\sigma^2 M^{(1)''} + 2 (A^{(0)} B^{(0)} - 2 B^{(0)^2}) M^{(1)} = 0.
\label{eqTaub1M}
\end{eqnarray}
Indeed, the four single valued global solutions
\begin{equation}
(A^{(1)},P^{(1)})=\partial_c (\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits A^{(0)},\mathop{\rm Log}\nolimits (B^{(0)}+C^{(0)})),\
c=k_1,k_2,\tau_1,\tau_2,
\end{equation}
are those of the equations (\ref{eqTaub1A})--(\ref{eqTaub1P}),
\begin{equation}
(A^{(1)},P^{(1)} + 2 A^{(1)})=
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
(
(\tau - \tau_1) \coth k_1 (\tau - \tau_1) - 1/k_1
,
0
),
\\
(
0
,
(\tau - \tau_2) \coth k_2 (\tau - \tau_2) - 1/k_2
),
\\
(
\coth k_1 (\tau - \tau_1)
,
0
),
\\
(
0
,
\coth k_2 (\tau - \tau_2)
),
\end{array}
\right.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and there only remains to study the equation (\ref{eqTaub1M}),
the singular points of which (modulo the period of $\mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits$) are
$\tau-\tau_2=0$ and $\tau=\infty$.
At $\tau-\tau_2=0$,
the equation (\ref{eqTaub1M})
genericaly possesses irregular singular points of rank two
since the coefficient $B^{(0)^2}$ has there quadruple poles.
Its two non-Fuchsian solutions are {\it formally} (ref.~\cite{Ince} chap.XVII)
\begin{equation}
\tau - \tau_2 \to 0:\
M^{(1)}=
e^{\alpha / (\tau - \tau_2)}
\sum_{k=0}^{+ \infty} \lambda_k (\tau-\tau_2)^{k+s},\
\lambda_0 \not=0,
\end{equation}
with \cite{LMC1994}
\begin{equation}
\alpha= \pm 2 k_1^{-1} \mathop{\rm sinh}\nolimits k_1 (\tau_2 - \tau_1),\
s =1 \mp 2 \mathop{\rm cosh}\nolimits k_1 (\tau_2 - \tau_1).
\end{equation}
The two generically irrational values for the exponents $s$
allow to conclude
only if the Taylor series $\lambda_k (\tau-\tau_2)^{k}$ can be summed,
which is the case at least for $k_1=k_2=0$
where the two solutions are globally known \cite{LMC1994}:
\begin{eqnarray}
k_1=k_2=0:\
& &
{\hbox{d}^2 M^{(1)} \over \hbox{d} t^2}
+ \left({2 \over t^2} - {4 (t-1)^2 \over t^4} \right) M^{(1)}=0,\
t={\tau - \tau_2 \over \tau_1 - \tau_2},
\nonumber
\\
& &
M^{(1)}=
e^{-2/t} t^{-1},\
e^{-2/t} t^{-1} \int^{1/t} z^{-4} e^{4 z} \hbox{d} z,
\end{eqnarray}
The second solution implies the presence of a logarithmic branch point
at $t=0$, or at $t=\infty$ as well.
This singularity persists for $(k_1,k_2)\not=(0,0)$
and this proves the absence of the Painlev\'e property
for the Bianchi IX model in vacuum.
\section{Conclusion
\label{sectionConclusion}}
\indent
The main application of this extension to the Painlev\'e test
is the case of a non-Fuchsian family:
if the unperturbed solution is known in closed form
and if the linearized equation has no fixed singularity at a finite distance,
the study of the point at infinity
often allows to conclude to non-integrability
(in the sense of absence of the PP)
much more rapidly than the above mentioned algebraic methods.
The present method constitutes an algorithmic extension to the Painlev\'e test.
For the two examples given where the Painlev\'e test fails,
this failure was already known,
and we do not know yet if there exist equations where a failure would only be
detectable by the present extension and, of course, by the $\alpha-$method.
Nevertheless, the algorithmic cost of the present method is much smaller than
the cost of earlier methods,
and this is particularly sensitive on the example of Bureau.
Moreover, in our two examples, the perturbation order $n=1$ is sufficient
to dectect a failure,
which the perturbative Fuchsian test detects at the respective orders
$n=7$ (Bureau) and $n=2$ (Bianchi IX).
Despite the examination of several other equations without the PP
and admitting a non-Fuchsian family,
we could not find an example
requiring an order $n$ greater than one to exhibit a failure of the test.
Such a feature may be generic and certainly deserves future investigations.
{\it Acknowledgements}.
We thank D.~Bessis, A.~Latifi, A.~Mezincescu and A.~Pickering
for fruitful discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
Kinematics of a very thin vortex tube in three-dimensional fluid may
be described by the filament equation in the local induction
approximation\ \cite{LI1,LI2}.
It is formulated as
\begin{equation}
\pd{\gamma}{t}=\pd{\gamma}{s}\times\dpd{\gamma}{s},
\label{filament}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma=\gamma\,(t,s)$ denotes the position of the vortex
filament in $\ensuremath{\mathsf R}^3$ with $t$ and $s$ being the time and the
arc-length parameter respectively.
Hasimoto\ \cite{H} introduced a map $h:\gamma\mapsto\psi=\kappa\,
\exp [i\int^s\tau(u)du]$, in order to transform the filament
equation into the nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger (NLS) equation for
$\psi$.
Here $\kappa$ and $\tau$ respectively denote the curvature and the
torsion along $\gamma$.
Since the integrability of the NLS equation was well known, the
filament equation was naturally expected to be integrable.
Mardson and Weinstein\ \cite{MW} first described the filament
equation as a Hamiltonian equation with the Hamiltonian simply
being the length $\ell\,[\gamma]$ of the vortex filament.
Later Langer and Perline\ \cite{LP} used this Hamiltonian structure
to prove the existence of an infinite sequence of constants of
motion in involution, and studied the evolution of the vortex
filaments in connection with the solitons in the NLS equation.
With this concern in mind, we have investigated the filament
equation in a curved three-manifold $M$.
Although Langer and Perline have limited $M$ to $\ensuremath{\mathsf R}^3$, we find an
analogous integrable hierarchy in the case of constant curvature.
We further study the classical partition function for the vortex
filaments
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta)=\int_{\Gamma}\, e^{-\beta\,\ell\,[\gamma]}\,{\cal D}
\gamma{}.
\label{partition}
\end{equation}
It is not clear if the Duistermaat-Heckman formula\ \cite{DH}
applies to this case, because our phase space $\Gamma$ is neither
finite dimensional nor compact, and furthermore because the
Hamiltonian flow may not be periodic.
But the perturbative calculation in our mode reveals that the loop
corrections to the formula vanish up to the 3-loop.
\section{Integrability}
We begin this section by describing a symplectic structure for the
vortex filament in a three-manifold $M$ equipped with a Riemann
metric $g$.
Everything is considered in the smooth category for simplicity.
Let $\Gamma$ be the space of vortex filaments with fixed end points
$p$ and $q$;
$\Gamma$ is the quotient space of $\{\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow M
\mid\gamma(0)=p,\gamma(1)=q\}$ with the reparametrization of
$\gamma$.
Hereafter $\gamma$ denotes the representative for which
the parameter $x\in[0,1]$ is a multiple of the arc-length $s$,
namely
\begin{equation}
\frac{ds}{dx}=\norm{\frac{d\gamma}{dx}}=
\sqrt{(\frac{d\gamma}{dx},\frac{d\gamma}{dx})}
\end{equation}
is independent of $x$.
Here $(\ \,,\ )$ denotes the inner product on
the tangent space $T_{\gamma\,(x)}M$.
One can identify the tangent space $T_{\gamma}\Gamma$ with the
subspace of $\Gamma(\gamma^{\ast}TM)$, and expand
$X\in\Gamma(\gamma^{\ast}TM)$
in the Frenet-Serret frame along $\gamma$ such that
\begin{equation}
X=f\,\ensuremath{\mathsf T}+g\,\ensuremath{\mathsf N}+h\,\ensuremath{\mathsf B},
\end{equation}
where $\ensuremath{\mathsf T}$ is the unit tangent vector to $\gamma$, $\ensuremath{\mathsf N}$ is the unit
normal vector and $\ensuremath{\mathsf B}$ is the unit binormal vector.
Let $\ell\,[\gamma]$ be the length of $\gamma$, so that
$s=\ell\,[\gamma]\,x$. The Frenet-Serret equations are
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{s}\ensuremath{\mathsf T}=\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf N},\ \ \ \
\nabla_{s}\ensuremath{\mathsf N}=-\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf T}+\tau\,\ensuremath{\mathsf B},\ \ \ \
\nabla_{s}\ensuremath{\mathsf B}=-\tau\,\ensuremath{\mathsf N},
\label{FS}
\end{equation}
with $\nabla$ being the connection on $\gamma^{\ast}TM$ induced by
the Levi-Civita connection on $TM$.
Let $\wp$ be the projection from $\Gamma(\gamma^{\ast}TM)$ to
$T_{\gamma}\Gamma$,
then one can show that the tangent component of $v=\wp\,(X)\in
T_{\gamma}\Gamma$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dx}\,v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf T}}=\ell^{-1}(\nabla_{x}v,\frac{d\gamma}{dx})+
\ell\,\kappa\,v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}},
\end{equation}
and $(\nabla_{x}v,d\gamma/dx)$ is a constant.
Fixing this constant by the boundary conditions $X(0)=X(1)=0$,
one obtains
\begin{equation}
\wp\,(X)=v=\ell\,(\int^{x}_{0}\kappa\,v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}dx -
x\,\int^{1}_{0}\kappa\,v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}dx)\,\ensuremath{\mathsf T} +v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}\ensuremath{\mathsf N}+v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}}\ensuremath{\mathsf B}\ .
\end{equation}
Geometrical structures on $\Gamma$ were first studied by Marsden
and Weinstein\ \cite{MW} for the vortex filament in $\ensuremath{\mathsf R}^3$,
and generalized to the loop space for a three-manifold $M$ by
Brylinski\ \cite{B}.
It is straightforward to find those for the vortex filament in $M$.
{\parindent=0pt i) Complex structure}
For the tangent vector $v\in T_{\gamma}\Gamma$, $J$ generates the
90-degree rotation
\begin{equation}
J(v)=-\,\wp\,(\ensuremath{\mathsf T}\times v)\ ,\ \ \ J^2=-1.
\end{equation}
Choosing $(v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}},v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}})$ as coordinates for $T_{\gamma}\Gamma$,
we find that $J$ corresponds to the multiplication by $i$ for the
complex function $v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}(x)+i\,v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}}(x)$.
Hence $J$ induces a complex structure on $\Gamma$.
{\parindent=0pt ii) Riemann structure}
The Riemann structure on $\Gamma$ is simply defined by
\begin{equation}
\ip{u}{v}_{\Gamma}=\ell\,\int_{0}^{1}(u_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}+u_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}}v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}})\,dx
\end{equation}
for $u,v\in T_{\gamma}\Gamma$, and satisfies the hermitian condition
\begin{equation}
\ip{u}{v}_{\Gamma}=\ip{J(u)}{J(v)}_{\Gamma}.
\end{equation}
Note that even though $\ip{\ \,}{\ }_{\Gamma}$ ignores the
$\ensuremath{\mathsf T}$-components, it is non-degenerate.
{\parindent=0pt iii) Symplectic structure}
The volume form $\nu$ on $M$ associated with the Riemann metric
$g$ provides the symplectic structure on $\Gamma$, namely
\begin{equation}
\omega(u,v)=\int_0^1\nu(\frac{d\gamma}{dx},u,v)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Using the Frenet-Serret frame, one can rewrite this as
\begin{equation}
\omega(u,v)=\ell\,\int_0^1(u_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}}v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}}-u_{\ensuremath{\mathsf B}}v_{\ensuremath{\mathsf N}})\,dx,
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to the one constructed from the above two
structures
\begin{equation}
\omega(u,v)=\ip{u}{J(v)}_{\Gamma}.
\end{equation}
Having set out the basic structures, we now turn to the Hamiltonian
flows for the vortex filament.
Let $\ell\,:\Gamma\mapsto\ensuremath{\mathsf R}$ be a smooth Hamiltonian function,
then the Hamiltonian vector field $X_{\ell}$ has the form
\begin{equation}
X_{\ell}=J(\ensuremath{\mathrm{grad}\,}\ell).
\end{equation}
Choosing $i_{X_{\ell}}\,\omega=d\,\ell$ and putting
$v=d\gamma_t/dt\mid_{t=0}$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
v\,\ell\,[\gamma]&=&\frac{d}{dt}\left.\int_0^1
\sqrt{\left(\pd{\gamma_t}{x},
\pd{\gamma_t}{x}\right)}dx\right|_{t=0},\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{\ell\,[\gamma]}\int_0^1
\left(\nabla_xv,\frac{d\gamma}{dx}\right)dx,\\
&=&-\ell\,[\gamma]\,\int_0^1\left(v,\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf N}\right)dx.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
$\ensuremath{\mathrm{grad}\,}\ell=-\wp(\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf N})$ follows, and therefore
\begin{equation}
X_{\ell}=\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf B}.
\end{equation}
This yields a natural generalization of the filament equation in
$M$\ \cite{K}
\begin{equation}
\pd{\gamma}{t}=\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf B}
=\ell^{-3}\,\pd{\gamma}{x}\times\nabla_{x}\pd{\gamma}{x}.
\end{equation}
The evolution equations for $\kappa$ and $\tau$ are the followings
\begin{eqnarray}
\pd{\kappa}{t}&=&\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ric}\,}(\ensuremath{\mathsf B},\ensuremath{\mathsf N})-\ell^{-1}
(2\tau\pd{\kappa}{x}+\kappa\pd{\tau}{x}),\\
\pd{\tau}{t}&=&\tau\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ric}\,}(\ensuremath{\mathsf T},\ensuremath{\mathsf N})+\ell^{-1}
\pd{}{x}(\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2+\ell^{-2}\kappa^{-1}\dpd{\kappa}{x}
-\tau^{2}+\rho(\ensuremath{\mathsf T},\ensuremath{\mathsf B})),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\ensuremath{\mathrm{Ric}\,}$ and $\rho$ denote the Ricci tensor and the sectional
curvature on $M$ respectively.
In the case of constant curvature, these equations take
simpler forms
\begin{eqnarray}
\pd{\kappa}{t}&=&-\ell^{-1} (2\tau\pd{\kappa}{x}+
\kappa\pd{\tau}{x}),\label{evol1}\\
\pd{\tau}{t}&=&\ell^{-1}\pd{}{x}
(\frac{1}{2}\kappa^2+\ell^{-2}\kappa^{-1}\dpd{\kappa}{x}
-\tau^{2}),\label{evol2}
\end{eqnarray}
which turn out to be identical with the equations appeared
in\ \cite{H}.
Hence we can get the following proposition for a three-manifold
with constant curvature.
\vskip 8pt
{\parindent=0pt {\bf Proposition}}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] The filament equation is transformed into the NLS
equation by the Hasimoto map.
\item[(b)] There is an infinite sequence of constants of motion.
\item[(c)] These constants are in involution.
\end{itemize}
\vskip 8pt
{\parindent=0pt {\bf Proof}}
We assume that $\kappa$, $\tau$ and their derivatives of arbitrary
order vanish at the boundaries.
Then it is straightforward to prove (a) and (b) due to the evolution
equations\ (\ref{evol1}) and (\ref{evol2}).
Using the explicit form of the Hamiltonian vector fields $X_n$ (see
Remark (2)), we can confirm the commutativity $\omega(X_n,X_m)=0$
for any $n$ and $m$ with the help of\ \cite{LP}, and consequently
prove (c).
\vskip 8pt
{\parindent=0pt {\bf Remarks}}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] The constants of motion are as follows\ \cite{LP}:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{-2}[\gamma]&=&\ell\,[\gamma], \ \ \ I_{-1}[\gamma]=
\ell\,\int_{0}^{1}\tau\,dx,\\
I_{n}[\gamma]&=&\tilde I_{n}\circ h[\gamma]\ \ \ (n=0,1,2,\ldots),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $h$ is the Hasimoto map
$h[\gamma]=\kappa\,\exp[i\ell\,[\gamma]\int_0^x\tau\,dx]$, and
$\tilde I_{n}$'s are the constants of motion in the NLS
equation\ \cite{FT} given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde I_{n}[\psi]=\ell\,\int_{0}^{1}
\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}\,\bar\psi\,\tilde J_{n}(\psi,\bar\psi)\,dx,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde J_{0}=\psi,\ \ \
\tilde J_{n+1}=-i\,\frac{d}{ds}\tilde J_{n}-
\frac{1}{4}\,\bar\psi\sum_{k=1}^{n}\tilde J_{k-1}\,\tilde J_{n-k}.
\end{equation}
\item[(2)] We find mutually commuting Hamiltonian vector fields
$X_{n}$ for $I_{n}[\gamma]$:
\begin{eqnarray}
X_{-2}&=&\kappa\,\ensuremath{\mathsf B}, \ \ \ X_{-1}=R\,X_{-2},\\
X_{n}&=&R^{n+2}X_{-2}-c\,R^{n}X_{-2}\ \ \ (n=0,1,2,\ldots),
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $c$ denotes the constant curvature and $R$ the ``recursion
operator" defined by
\begin{equation}
R(v)=-\ell^{-1}\,\wp(\ensuremath{\mathsf T}\times\nabla_{x}v)
\end{equation}
for $v\in T_{\gamma}\Gamma$.
$R$ coincides with the one appeared in\ \cite{LP} when we restrict
$v$ to the Hamiltonian vector fields.
\item[(3)] Langer and Perline interpreted the Hasimoto map as a
Poisson map between the Poisson structure on the space of the
vertex filaments
and the ``forth" Poisson structure on the space of the NLS fields.
We have found no such correspondence in our model, because the
deformation of the vortex filament also changes its length $\ell$.
In the case of\ \cite{LP}, however, the vortex filament extends
boundlessly, so that the arc-length parameter is simply a parameter
and does not change under the deformation.
A different approach to the integrability of the vortex filaments
has been investigated in\ \cite{S} recently.
\end{itemize}
The filament equation belongs to an infinite hierarchy of
Hamiltonian systems
$\{\partial\gamma/\partial t_n=X_n\mid n=-2,-1,0,\ldots\}$,
and all Hamiltonian flows in this hierarchy are transformed into
those in the NLS hierarchy.
In fact, the differential of $h$ yields
\begin{equation}
dh:X_n\longmapsto\tilde{X}_{n+4}-2c\,\tilde{X}_{n+2}+c^2\,
\tilde{X}_{n}\ \ \ \pmod{i\psi},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{X}_{-2}=\tilde{X}_{-1}=0$, and $\tilde{X}_{n}\
(n=0,1,2,\ldots)$
are the Hamiltonian vector fields associated with
$\tilde{I}_n[\psi]$,
{\it i.e.}, $\tilde{X}_{n}=-i\,\ensuremath{\mathrm{grad}\,}\tilde{I}_{n}$; first two are
\begin{eqnarray}
dh(X_{-2})&=&i\,(\frac{d^2\psi}{ds^2}+
\frac{1}{2}\mid\psi\mid^{2}\psi),\\
dh(X_{-1})&=&\frac{d^3\psi}{ds^3}+
\frac{3}{2}\mid\psi\mid^{2}\frac{d\psi}{ds}+
2c\,\frac{d\psi}{ds}.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Classical partition function}
In this section we evaluate the classical partition function\
(\ref{partition}) with ${\cal D}\gamma$ being the symplectic volume
form on $\Gamma$.
The stationary phase method provides an asymptotic expansion for
$Z(\beta)$ as $\beta\mapsto\infty$, such that
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta)=\sum_{\ensuremath{\mathrm{grad}\,}\ell\,[\gamma]\,=0}Z_{\mathrm
WKB}[\gamma,\beta]\,
(1+\frac{a_1[\gamma]}{\beta}+\frac{a_2[\gamma]}{\beta^2}+\cdots).
\label{asymptotic}
\end{equation}
The exactness of the stationary phase (WKB) approximation has been
of interest due to the Duistermaat-Heckman formula\ \cite{DH},
where they have shown that if $\Gamma$ is a compact symplectic
manifold and $\ell$ is a periodic Hamiltonian with isolated
critical points,
WKB approximation becomes exact for\ (\ref{partition}), {\it i.e.},
the asymptotic expansion terminates at $Z_{\mathrm WKB}$.
In more general arguments presented in\ \cite{A}, the fixed points
are not necessarily isolated, and it is not mandatory to consider
the circle action alone according to the analogous results obtained
for higher dimensional tori.
For the infinite dimensional symplectic manifolds, the WKB exactness
has not been proved rigorously, but a ``proper" version of WKB
approximation should yield a reliable result for a large class of
integrable models\ \cite{N1,N2,N3,N4}.
With this notion in mind, we present the explicit calculation of the
asymptotic expansion\ (\ref{asymptotic}).
For simplicity, we will assume the followings:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] $M$ is a three-manifold with a constant curvature $c$,
so that the filament equation is integrable in the sense of
Proposition.
\item[(2)] Two points $p$ and $q$ on $M$ are not conjugate.
Consequently, the Hamiltonian $\ell$ is a Morse function on
$\Gamma$,
{\it i.e.}, critical points are the geodesics on $M$ connecting
$p$ and $q$,
and further the Hessian operator $H_{\gamma}$ at each geodesic
$\gamma$ is a non-degenerate Jacobi operator
\begin{equation}
H_{\gamma}=-\nabla_{x}\nabla_{x}-c\,\ell[\gamma]^2.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Let us first expand the Hamiltonian $\ell$ around a geodesic
$\gamma$.
As we can see in (\ref{FS}), the curvature along the geodesic
vanishes identically, and $\xi(x)\in T_{\gamma(x)}M$ thus
satisfies the condition $(\xi,\ensuremath{\mathsf T})=0$.
Using an infinitesimal deformation of $\gamma$ generated by the
exponential map
$\gamma_s(x)=\exp_{\gamma(x)}[s\,\ell\,\xi(x)]$,
we can find the expansion
\begin{eqnarray}
\ell\,[\gamma_s]&=&\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^n}{n!}
\left.\frac{d^n}{ds^n}\ell\,[\gamma_s]\right|_{s=0},\\
&=&\ell\,[\gamma]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{s^{2n}}{(2n)!}
\int_0^1 W_{2n}(\xi)dx.
\end{eqnarray}
Here the integrand $W_{2n}$ is given by the Bell Polynomial
$Y_m$\ \cite{Bell}, namely
\begin{equation}
W_{2n}(\xi)=Y_{2n}(f_{1},\ldots,f_{2n};g_1(\xi),\ldots,g_{2n}(\xi)),
\end{equation}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
f_m&=&(-)^{m-1}\frac{(2m-3)!!}{2^m},\nonumber\\
g_2(\xi)&=&2\,(\nabla_x\xi,\nabla_x\xi)-2c\,\ell^2(\xi,\xi),
\nonumber\\
g_{2m}(\xi)&=&(-)^{m}2^{2m-1}\,\{
(c\,\ell^2)^{m}(\xi,\xi)^{m}\label{vertices}\\
&+&(c\,\ell^2)^{m-1}(\xi,\xi)^{m-2}
[(\nabla_x\xi,\xi)^2-(\xi,\xi)(\nabla_x\xi,\nabla_x\xi)]\}
\ \ \ (m\geq 2),\nonumber\\
g_{2m+1}(\xi)&=&0.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
First few are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
W_0=1, & \ \ \ \ & W_2=f_1\,g_2,\\
&&\\
W_4=f_1\,g_4+3\,f_2\,g_2^2, & \ \ \ \ &
W_6=f_1\,g_6+15\,f_2\,g_4\,g_2+15\,f_3\,g_2^3.\\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Now let us evaluate the WKB partition function
\begin{eqnarray}
Z_{\mathrm WKB}[\gamma,\beta]&=&e^{-\beta\ell[\gamma]}
\int{\cal D}\,\xi
\exp\left[-\frac{\beta\ell[\gamma]}{2}\int_0^1W_2(\xi)dx\right],
\label{WKB}\\
\int_0^1W_2(\xi)dx&=&\ip{\xi}{H_{\gamma}(\xi)}_{\Gamma}.
\end{eqnarray}
Using the zeta-function regularization technique, we can perform the
infinite dimensional integral in\ (\ref{WKB}), and obtain\ \cite{AS}
\begin{equation}
Z_{\mathrm WKB}[\gamma,\beta]=
e^{-\beta\,\ell[\gamma]\pm\frac{\pi}{4}
i(\eta_{H}(0)-\zeta_{H}(0))}
e^{\frac{1}{2}\zeta_{H}'(0)}\,
(\beta\,\ell[\gamma])^{-\frac{1}{2}\zeta_{H}(0)},
\end{equation}
with $\eta_{H}(z)$ and $\zeta_{H}(z)\ (z\in\ensuremath{\mathsf C})$ being eta and zeta
functions associated with the Hessian operator $H_{\gamma}$
respectively.
Evaluating these functions for $\gamma$ with the Morse index
$\mu(\gamma)$, we find
\begin{equation}
\eta_{H}(0)=-1-2\,\mu(\gamma), \ \ \ \zeta_{H}(0)=-1, \ \ \
\zeta_{H}'(0)=2\ln\left|\frac{\sqrt{c}\,\ell[\gamma]}
{2\sin(\sqrt{c}\,\ell[\gamma])}\right|,
\end{equation}
and eventually this gives us an explicit expression
\begin{equation}
Z_{\mathrm WKB}[\gamma,\beta]=\frac{1}{2}\,e^{-\beta\,\ell[\gamma]}
\sqrt{\beta\,\ell[\gamma]}
\left|\frac{\sqrt{c}\,\ell[\gamma]}{\sin(\sqrt{c}\,\ell[\gamma])}
\right|
e^{\mp\frac{\pi}{2}i\,\mu(\gamma)}.
\end{equation}
Since $\mu(\gamma)$ is an even integer, the last factor contains no
ambiguities.
We now proceed to the higher-order calculation.
It is convenient to choose an orthogonal frame $\{e_1,e_2\}$ along
$\gamma$ such that
\begin{equation}
\nabla_x\,e_i=0,\ \ \ (\ensuremath{\mathsf T},e_i)=0 \ \ \ \mathrm {for} \ i=1,2.
\end{equation}
In this frame, the kernel of the Jacobi operator $H_{\gamma}$
becomes diagonal,
and both of the diagonal elements are identical to the Dirichlet
Green function
\begin{equation}
G(x,x')=2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\sin(n\pi x)\sin(n\pi x')}
{(n\pi)^2-\lambda},
\end{equation}
with $\lambda=c\,\ell^2$.
The 2-loop amplitude $a_1=-\beta^2\,\langle W_4/4!\rangle$ consists
of four diagrams depicted in Fig.\ 1, and those are respectively
\begin{eqnarray}
&(a)\hskip 30pt& \lambda^2\,\int_0^1\,G(x)^2=
\frac{\lambda}{8}-\frac{3}{8}\sqrt{\lambda}\,X+\frac{3}{8}\lambda\,
X^2, \nonumber\\
&(b)\hskip 30pt& \lambda\,\int_0^1\,G'(x)^2=
\frac{\lambda}{8}-\frac{1}{8}\sqrt{\lambda}\,X+\frac{1}{8}\lambda\,
X^2, \nonumber\\
&(c)\hskip 30pt& \lambda\,\int_0^1\,G(x)\,G''(x)=
-\frac{\lambda}{8}-\frac{1}{8}\sqrt{\lambda}\,X+\frac{1}{8}\lambda\,
X^2,\nonumber\\
&(d)\hskip 30pt& \,\int_0^1\,G''(x)^2=\lambda^2\,\int_0^1\,G(x)^2,
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $X=\cot\sqrt{\lambda}$,
$G(x)=G(x,x')\mid_{x=x'}$,
$G'(x)=(\partial/\partial x)\,G(x,x')\mid_{x=x'}$ and
$G''(x)=(\partial^2/\partial x\,\partial x')\,G(x,x')\mid_{x=x'}$.
While $G(x)$ and $G'(x)$ are convergent, $G''(x)$ diverges at the
boundaries, thus we have found (c) and (d) by executing the
$x$-integration first and then by regularizing the infinite
$n$-summation in terms of the following analytic continuations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n^2+a^2)^s}&=&
-\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}} a^{-2s}+\frac{\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}}{2}\,
\frac{\Gamma(s-\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}})}{\Gamma(s)}\,a^{-2s+1}\nonumber\\
&+&2\,\frac{\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\Gamma(s)}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}\,K_{s-\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}(2\pi na),\\
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{n^2}{(n^2+a^2)^s}&=&
\frac{\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}}{4}\,\frac{\Gamma(s-\frac{3}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\,
a^{-2s+3}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\Gamma(s)}\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\frac{3}{2}}\,
K_{s-\frac{3}{2}}(2\pi na)\\
&-&2\,\frac{\pi^{\frac{5}{2}}}{\Gamma(s)}\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\,n^2\,\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\frac{5}{2}}\,
K_{s-\frac{5}{2}}(2\pi na),\nonumber\\
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{n^4}{(n^2+a^2)^s}&=&
-\frac{3}{8}\,\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}\,
\frac{\Gamma(s-\frac{5}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\,
a^{-s+\frac{5}{2}}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{3}{2}\,\frac{\pi^{\ensuremath{\frac{1}{2}}}}{\Gamma(s)}\,
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\frac{5}{2}}\,
K_{s-\frac{5}{2}}(2\pi na)\nonumber\\
&-&6\,\frac{\pi^{\frac{5}{2}}}{\Gamma(s)}\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\,n^2\,\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\frac{7}{2}}\,
K_{s-\frac{7}{2}}(2\pi na)\\
&+&2\,\frac{\pi^{\frac{9}{2}}}{\Gamma(s)}\,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
\,n^4\,\left(\frac{\pi n}{a}\right)^{s-\frac{9}{2}}\,
K_{s-\frac{9}{2}}(2\pi na),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $K_{\nu}(z)$ is the modified Bessel function.
Multiplying (a) through (d) with the weights of the diagrams,
we conclude that the 2-loop amplitude vanishes.
Beyond the 2-loop, however, we ought to generalize the analytic
continuation for a multiple infinite summation.
One might think that applying the analytic continuation method
directly to the Green function, we could regularize the Green
function, and thereby making all loop amplitude finite.
This is certainly true, but regularizing the Green function in this
way, we also eliminate the necessarily singularity at $x=x'$, and
obtain non-vanishing 2-loop amplitude as a result.
We may avoid this difficulty by treating $G(x,x')$ as a
distribution w.r.t.\ $x$.
Let us first examine this on the 2-loop and check if the amplitude
vanishes.
Since $G(x,x')$ may naturally be extended periodically (period 2)
to $\ensuremath{\mathsf R}$ as a function of $x$,
one can redefine it as a distribution $\tilde G(x,x')$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde G(x,x')&=&-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}\sin\sqrt{\lambda}}
\sum_{n\in\ensuremath{\mathsf Z}}\,
\left\{\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-2n)]\,\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,
(x'-1)]\,H(x;2n,x'+2n)\right.\nonumber\\
&\ &\hskip 30pt
+\left.\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,x']\,\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-2n-1)]\,
H(x;x'+2n,2n+1)\right\}\label{Green}\\
&+&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}\sin\sqrt{\lambda}}
\sum_{n\in\ensuremath{\mathsf Z}}\,\left\{\,x\rightarrow -x\,\right\},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $H(x;a,b)$ denotes the characteristic function for the
interval $[a,b]\subset\ensuremath{\mathsf R}$.
Similarly $\tilde G(x)$ may also be extended periodically (period 1)
to $\ensuremath{\mathsf R}$
\begin{equation}
\tilde G(x)=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\lambda}\sin\sqrt{\lambda}}
\sum_{n\in\ensuremath{\mathsf Z}}\,\left\{\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-n)]\,
\sin[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-n-1)]\,H(x;n,n+1)\right\}.
\label{loop}
\end{equation}
Using the periodic delta function $\delta(x;n)$ ($n$ is the period),
we may evaluate the second derivative
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\,\partial x'}\,\tilde G(x,x')&=&
-\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{\sin\sqrt{\lambda}}\sum_{n\in\ensuremath{\mathsf Z}}\,
\left\{\cos[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-2n)]\,\cos[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x'-1)]\,
H(x;2n,x'+2n)\right.\nonumber\\
&\ &\hskip 30pt
+\left.\cos[\sqrt{\lambda}\,x']\,\cos[\sqrt{\lambda}\,(x-2n-1)]\,
H(x;x'+2n,2n+1)\right\}\\
&-&\!\!\!\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{\sin\sqrt{\lambda}}
\sum_{n\in\ensuremath{\mathsf Z}}\,\left\{\,x\rightarrow -x\,\right\}+
\delta(x-x';2)+\delta(x+x';2),\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly
\begin{equation}
\tilde G''(x)=-\lambda\,\tilde
G(x)-\sqrt{\lambda}\,\cot\sqrt{\lambda}+
\frac{1}{2}\,\delta(x;1).
\end{equation}
The delta function appears only in $\tilde G''(x)$, and we confirm
the vanishing of the 2-loop amplitude by using
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1dx\,\delta(x;1)^2=\delta(0;1)=0,
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the
$\zeta$-function regularization because of
$\delta(0;1)=1+2\,\zeta(-1)$.
The 3-loop amplitude
$a_2=\beta^3\,\langle\beta (W_4/4!)^2/2-W_6/6!\rangle$
consists of 30 diagrams depicted in Fig.\ 2.
Evaluating them by means of\ (\ref{Green}), (\ref{loop}) and
$\delta(0;1)=0$,
we find that 29 diagrams contain no ambiguities due to the the
integration formulae
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^1dx\int_0^xdy\,\delta(x;1)\,\delta(y;1)\,F(x,y)
&=&\frac{1}{8}\,F(0,0)+\frac{1}{4}\,F(1,0)+\frac{1}{8}\,F(1,1),\\
\int_0^1dx\int_0^xdy\,[\delta(x-y;2)+\delta(x+y;2)]&\ &\hskip -24pt
[\delta(x;1)+\delta(y;1)]\,F(x,y)\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\,F(0,0)+\frac{1}{2}\,F(1,1),\label{pq}\\
\int_0^1dx\int_0^xdy\,[\delta(x-y;2)+\delta(x+y;2)]^2\,F(x,y)&=&
\frac{1}{8}\,F(0,0)+\frac{1}{8}\,F(1,1).
\end{eqnarray}
Here the last equality follows from $\delta(0;2)=0$.
Yet, in the diagram whose weight is $-480$, we encounter an
ambiguous integral
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1dx\int_0^xdy\,[\delta(x-y;2)+\delta(x+y;2)]\delta(x;1)\,
F(x,y)=p\,F(0,0)+q\,F(1,1),
\end{equation}
where $p+q=1/2$ as is shown in\ (\ref{pq}), but $p$ or $q$ alone
cannot be determined unless we specify the regularization of the
delta function.
If we were able to define the analytic continuation of the infinite
double sum, this ambiguity would not appear,
but we have no choice at our hand other than putting $q=1/16$,
and obtain the vanishing 3-loop amplitude as a result.
Ambiguities appearing in higher loops are inevitable, because they
relate to the regularization ambiguity of the integration measure
${\cal D}\gamma$, which has never been defined rigorously in the
first place.
Both methods we have presented here reveal that the degree of
ambiguity gets larger as the order of loops increases.
In the analytic continuation method, ambiguity arises from the
variety of the analytic continuation applicable to the multiple
infinite summation,
whereas in the distribution method, the delta-function integration,
particularly the finite part of the boundary contribution,
is the source of the ambiguity.
Nevertheless our lower order calculations suggest that by
regularizing ${\cal D}\gamma$ order by order,
one can eliminate all higher loop corrections, and thereby
preserving the Duistermaat-Heckman formula.
The symplectic structure has been studied thoroughly in compact
finite dimensional manifolds, but little is known for the
infinite dimensional ones, which include most of the integrable
hierarchies.
This is exactly the place where the physical interests are, and the
Duistermaat-Heckman formula would throw a new light over the
integrable hierarchies as we have caught a glimpse of it here.
\vskip 12pt
The authors would like to thank Dr.\ N.\ Sasaki for helpful
discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec1}
The observation in 1984 by Shechtman et al\cite{Shechtman} of a sharp
diffraction pattern in a AlMn alloy with
the symmetry of the icosahedron, opened a new
field in condensed matter physics. Ever since experimental
evidence of other materials having sharp diffraction patterns with
symmetries forbidden by classical crystallography has continued to
grow.
The name quasicrystals has been coined
to represent systems with perfect order but without periodicity, i.e.
quasiperiodic systems.
Since the nonperiodic three-dimensional ($3D$) Penrose tiling
\cite{Elser}
has a diffraction pattern closely similar to that of icosahedral
alloys, it
has been extensively studied to account for icosahedral point symmetry
and also because of its relative simplicity. The $3D$
Penrose tiling is usually constructed by projection from
a $6D$ simple cubic lattice.
The projection is performed by first
defining an acceptance domain in the $3D$ complementary space in
order to select
what points of the $6D$ simple cubic lattice are effectively projected
to form the $3D$ quasilattice.
In the present investigation the $3D$ Penrose tiling
has been generated by a special
choice of the shape and size of the acceptance domain as
described by Elser\cite{Elser}.
The last step to model a quasicrystal concerns the decoration i.e., the
location of the lattice points forming the quasicrystal and a choice
for
the pair interaction potential.
Of the many questions about quasicrystals, one concerns the stability
of
these phases.
The first theoretical approaches to such a question\cite{mermin,kalu}
were based upon the Landau theory of crystallization where the free
energy is expanded in powers of an order parameter related to density
waves with icosahedral symmetry. As a main result it was shown that
multi-component systems are required to achieve stability, a fact that
agrees with the experimental findings\cite{mermin}.
On the other hand and from a more microscopic viewpoint,
the analysis of the stability of quasicrystals may be
rather difficult on general
grounds, but an important simplification occurs if a hard-sphere pair
potential is assumed. Indeed, a simple calculation of the maximum
packing fraction, i.e. the fraction of the total volume occupied by
the
spheres, provides an important criterion of the stability chances. For
instance, a $3D$ Penrose tiling with all vertices occupied by
identical
hard spheres leads to a fluid-like packing fraction and thus it must
certainly be
discarded as a model of a quasicrystal. Moreover, the interest of
considering hard-sphere quasicrystals goes far beyond simplicity.
Thus,
numerical studies\cite{Roth} have shown that the crucial criterion for
the quasicrystal stability with
more realistic, e.g., Lennard-Jones, interactions is the
packing fraction of the quasicrystalline hard-sphere decoration.
There are basically two ways of improving the poor packing fraction of
the
above fully occupied Penrose tiling. These options are to change the
decoration\cite{Henley} or the acceptance domain\cite{Oguey}. Both
procedures
give approximately the same optimal packing fraction $\simeq 0.63$, a
value
that now indeed justifies a further stability study. Recently,
McCarley
and Ashcroft\cite{Ash} have studied the hard-sphere
quasicrystal using a modification of
the acceptance domain\cite{Oguey}, to obtain from the modified
weighted density
approximation a metastable quasicrystal with respect to the
crystalline and fluid phases. Their method is entirely formulated in
the $6D$ reciprocal
space which avoids direct summations over the quasilattice.
However, a drawback of this method is that a truncation of the
sum in the $6D$ reciprocal lattice is needed,
the induced estimate error in the free energy per particle of the
quasilattice being $\simeq 2\%$.
In the present paper we will consider the above optimal hard-sphere
decoration of the Penrose tiling. Our treatment is based on
the generalized effective liquid
approximation\cite{Lutsko}
which has been previously applied to perfect hard spheres and hard
disks crystals
yielding very accurate results as compared to the simulation data.
The quasilattice sums are calculated in the $3D$ real
space using a method which substantially improves convergence errors
in
comparison to previous $6D$ reciprocal lattice treatments.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{sec2} we briefly
review
the generation of the $3D$ Penrose tiling which allows us to introduce
the
hard-sphere decoration. Section \ref{sec3} summarizes the generalized
effective liquid approximation for the determination
of the free energy of the quasicrystal.
Our results are presented in section \ref{sec4} together with a
discussion concerning the evaluation of quasilattice sums, while in
the
final section \ref{sec5} we gather our conclusions.
\section{The icosahedral quasilattice}
\label{sec2}
In what follows, we consider the icosahedral quasilattice obtained by
projecting a subset (to be specified below) of the
$6D$ simple cubic lattice onto
a $3D$ hyperplane\cite{Elser} $X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}$. The
orientation of
$X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}$
relative to the lattice is determined by requiring that the
projected vectors $\{\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j
\}$ of the
$6D$ basis vectors
$\{\mbox{{\bf e}}^j\}$ ($j=1,2,...6$) coincide with the
six vertex axes of the icosahedron, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\label{21}
\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j=P_{{
\scriptscriptstyle
\parallel}
}^{jk}\mbox{{\bf e}}^k
\end{equation}
where a summation over repeated labels is understood. The matrix
representation of the projection operator $P_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\parallel}}$
is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{22}
P_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}} =\frac{1}{\sqrt{20}}
\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrr}
\sqrt{5} & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
1 & \sqrt{5} & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & \sqrt{5} & 1 & -1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & 1 & \sqrt{5} & 1 & -1 \\
1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & \sqrt{5} & 1 \\
1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & \sqrt{5} \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{equation}
and an elementary calculation leads to $|\mbox{{\bf e}}^j_
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}|^2=
1/2$ ($j=1,2,...6$) and
\[ \cos({\bf e}^1_{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel},{\bf e}^j_
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel})=\sqrt{5}/5\;\;\;
(j=2,...,6) \]
\[ \cos({\bf e}^{2+j}_{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel},{\bf e}^{2+k}_
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel})=\left\{ \begin{array}{rll}
\sqrt{5}/5 & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; & j-k=\pm1,\, \pm4 \\
- \sqrt{5}/5 & \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; & j-k=\pm 2,\, \pm 3
\end{array}
\right. \]
showing that the vectors $\{\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\parallel}}^j\}$
may be identified
with the six vertex directions of the icosahedron.
We also consider the $3D$ hyperplane perpendicular
to $X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}$,
$X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}$, obtained upon projection of the
$6D$ basis
vectors
$\{\mbox{{\bf e}}^j\}$ by the complementary projector
$P_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\perp}}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{23}
\mbox{{\bf e}}^j_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}=
P_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}
^{jk}\mbox{{\bf e}}^k; \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,
P_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^{jk} = \delta^{jk}
-P_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\parallel}}^{jk}
\end{equation}
where $\delta^{jk}$ is the Kronecker delta. It can be readily
shown that
the projected vectors $\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j$
may also
be identified
with the six vertex directions of the icosahedron, but permuted
with respect to the projected vectors $\mbox{{\bf e}}_{
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j$, i.e.
$\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j\cdot\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{
\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^k=
-\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j\cdot\mbox{{\bf e}}_{
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^k$ ($j\neq k$).
Both projections are dense in the $3D$ space but a
quasilattice of finite density can be constructed by projecting onto
$X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}$ only those points whose
perpendicular space
projection lies
within a bounded region $\chi$ known as the acceptance
domain\cite{Elser}.
To construct this bounded region we
take the twenty distinct triplets
$\{\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^i,\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{
\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j,\mbox{{\bf
e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^k\}$
of the projected vectors in $X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}$. Each
triplet
defines a
rhombohedron of volume
$v_{ijk}=|\mbox{{\bf
e}}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^i\times\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{
\scriptscriptstyle
\perp}}^j\cdot\mbox{{\bf e}}_{{
\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^k|$.
It is easily found that half of these rhombohedra are ``large'', i.e.
$v_{ijk}=\sqrt{8}\,\mbox{sin}(2\pi/5)/10$
and half ``small'', i.e.
$v_{ijk}=\sqrt{8}\,\mbox{sin}(4\pi/5)/10$. The disjoint union of these
twenty rhombohedra defines a closed convex region $\chi$ named the
{\em triacontahedron}
of volume $v=\sqrt{8}\,[\mbox{sin}(2\pi/5)+\mbox{sin}(4\pi/5)]$. The
triacontahedron is therefore the projection onto $X_{{
\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}$ of the unit
cell of the $6D$ cubic lattice.
The selection of a subset of the $6D$ simple cubic lattice is
accomplished
by requiring that the orthogonal projections \{${\bf r}_{{
\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j\}$ of
the lattice
points \{${\bf r}^j\}$ of the $6D$ simple cubic lattice lie
within the triacontahedron\cite{nota}. This construction yields a
quasilattice in $X_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}$ which may also
be regarded
as a tiling of
the $3D$
space by two kinds of rombohedra\cite{Henley}.
Using a one-parameter Gaussian approximation for the density peaks of
the quasilattice, the one-particle density can be written as:
\begin{equation}
\label{24}
\rho({\bf r}) = \left(\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}\sum_j
W({\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j) \mbox{e}^{-\alpha({\bf r}
-{\bf r}_{
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j)^2}
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over the Bravais lattice vectors of the $6D$
simple cubic
crystal, $\alpha$ is
the inverse width of the
Gaussians and the weight function $W({\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\perp}}^j)$
is defined by:
\begin{equation}
\label{25}
W({\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j)=\left\{\begin{array}{cl}
1\;\;\;\;\; &
{\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j\in\chi\\
0\;\;\;\;\; & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.
\end{equation}
It can be shown that the first three neighbour separations
of the icosahedral quasilattice
are\cite{Henley}: $r_1^2=(3-6\sqrt{5}/5)a^2$, $r_2=a$ and $r_3^2=
(2-2\sqrt{5}/5)a^2$ where $a=\sqrt{2}/2$. Their average coordination
numbers
are $2/\tau^2$, 6 and 6, respectively, with
$\tau$ denoting the golden ratio $\tau=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$.
By locating a hard-sphere of diameter $\sigma=r_1$ at every vertex of
the quasilattice, the packing fraction (the fraction of the total
volume occupied by the spheres) is $\simeq 0.14$, i.e. a packing
fraction characteristic of a fluid phase. On the other hand, if we
look
for accomodating hard spheres of diameter $\sigma=a$ at every vertex,
the short distance $r_1$ does not allow this. But since the frequency
of
the
nearest-neighbor separation is small, a better packing of hard spheres
in the quasilattice can be obtained if one of the two vertex of each
$r_1$-bond is left vacant.
These short bonds form closed rings of 10 links and chains of even or
odd links. If we also require that two adjacent sites cannot be empty
there are only two ways of placing the hard
spheres on rings and chains. In the present investigation we have
randomly located a hard sphere on a vertex of every ring and in an
endpoint of each chain. This determines
the accomodation of the remaining hard spheres, the effect of taking
different initial localizations having a negligible effect on our
results as the number of vertex of the quasilattice increases. It can
be shown\cite{Henley} that with this procedure,
the volume occupied by the hard spheres increases
leading to a hard-sphere packing
fraction
$\eta\simeq 0.629$, which is close to the random packing fraction
($\simeq 0.64$) and below the packing fraction of the crystal
structures
($\simeq 0.74$ and $\simeq 0.68$ for the fcc and bcc crystals,
respectively). This is, to our knowledge, the best icosahedral
packing
fraction of identical hard spheres reported so far.
\section{Free energy of the hard-sphere icosahedral quasilattice}
\label{sec3}
In recent years, the freezing of hard spheres into perfect crystals
has been successfully described
by several nonperturbative density functional theories.
We here
consider the stability of the hard-sphere icosahedral quasilattice
described in \ref{sec2} within one of such approaches, the
generalized
effective liquid approximation, which is now briefly summarized.
The Helmholtz free energy $F$ of a solid
characterized by a one-particle density $\rho({\bf r})$ is a
functional of $\rho({\bf r})$, denoted by $F=F[\rho]$, which can be
split as $F[\rho] =F_{\mbox{id}}[\rho]+F_{\mbox{ex}}[\rho]$ where
\begin{equation}
\label{31}
\beta F_{\mbox{id}}[\rho] = \int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})
[\ln\{\Lambda^3\rho({\bf r})\}-1]
\end{equation}
is the ideal contribution with $\beta=1/k_BT$ the inverse temperature
and $\Lambda$ the thermal de Broglie wavelength and
\begin{equation}
\label{32}
\beta F_{\mbox{ex}}[\rho] = - \int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})\,\int\,
d{\bf
r}^{\prime} \rho({\bf
r}^{\prime})\,\int_0^1\,d\lambda\,(1-\lambda)\,
c({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};[\lambda\rho])
\end{equation}
is the excess term.
In (\ref{32}) $c({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};[\lambda\rho])$
is the direct correlation function of the solid and
$\lambda$ ($0\leq\lambda\leq 1$)
is a parameter defining a linear path of integration in the space of
density functions $\rho_{\lambda}({\bf r})=\lambda\rho({\bf r})$
connecting a zero reference density to the one-particle
density $\rho({\bf r})$ of the solid.
The equilibrium solid density $\rho({\bf r})$,
determined by functional differentiation, is the
minimimum value of $F[\rho]$ at constant average density.
This variational calculation
implies the direct correlation function of the solid which is the only
unknown in (\ref{31}-\ref{32}) and hence some explicit approximations
for $F_{\mbox{ex}}[\rho]$ are required.
Based on the similarity of the thermodynamic properties of the
solid and fluid phases, the generalized effective liquid
approximation first maps the excess free energy per particle of the
solid onto that of some effective liquid, i.e.:
\begin{equation}
\label{33}
\frac{1}{N} \int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})\,\int\,d{\bf
r}^{\prime} \rho({\bf
r}^{\prime})\,\int_0^1\,d\lambda\,(1-\lambda)\,
c({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};[\lambda\rho]) =
\hat{\rho}\,\int\,d{\bf r}\,\int_0^1\,d\lambda\,(1-\lambda)\,
c(|{\bf r}|;\lambda\hat{\rho})
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\rho}$ is the density of the effective liquid,
$N=\int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})$ is the number of particles, and
$c(|{\bf r}|;\lambda\hat{\rho})$
is the direct correlation function of the
liquid.
Equation (\ref{33}) is referred to as the thermodynamic mapping.
In a second step, the generalized effective liquid approximation
defines
an structural mapping in which the direct correlation function of the
solid is mapped onto that of a liquid. However, this mapping
cannot be done directly because the direct correlation function of the
liquid is translationally invariant while that of the solid
is not. But taking into account that in
(\ref{32}) the direct correlation function of the solid appears
doubly weighted by the solid density , the difficulty is
overcome by defining the structural mapping as:
\begin{equation}
\label{34}
\int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})\,\int\,d{\bf
r}^{\prime} \rho({\bf
r}^{\prime})\,
c({\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime};[\rho]) =
\int\,d{\bf r}\rho({\bf r})\,\int\,d{\bf
r}^{\prime} \rho({\bf
r}^{\prime})\,
c(|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime}|;\hat{\rho}[\rho])
\end{equation}
With (\ref{32}-\ref{34}) a self-consistent non-linear integral
equation
is obtained for the determination of $\hat{\rho}[\rho]$ in terms of
$\rho({\bf
r})$ and the direct correlation function of the liquid. The
complicated functional
dependence $\hat{\rho}[\rho]$ can be simplified if $\rho({\bf r})$
is described in terms of a single order parameter $\alpha$ as in
(\ref{24})
in which case $\hat{\rho}$ becomes an ordinary function of $\alpha$.
The equilibrium solid density (i.e. $\alpha$) is
then determined by minimizing at constant average density the solid
free
energy with respect to the Gaussian width parameter $\alpha$ for a
given
crystal structure.
As explained elsewhere\cite{Tejero},
the non-linear integral equation for the
determination of $\hat{\rho}[\rho]$ can be further transformed
into a system of two coupled nonlinear differential
equations in $\hat{\eta}(\lambda)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{35}
\hat{\eta}^{\prime}(\lambda)
= \frac{z(\lambda)-\psi(\hat{\eta}(\lambda))}
{\lambda\psi^{\prime}(\hat{\eta}(\lambda))}
\end{equation}
and $z(\lambda)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{36}
z^{\prime}(\lambda)=\Phi(\hat{\eta}(\lambda))
\end{equation}
where $\hat{\eta}(\lambda) = \pi\hat{\rho}(\lambda)\sigma^3/6$ is the
effective liquid packing fraction and $\sigma$ is the hard-sphere
diameter.
Using the one-parameter approximation (\ref{24}) for the one-particle
density of the quasilattice, $\Phi(\hat{\eta}(\lambda))$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{37}
\Phi(\hat{\eta}(\lambda))= -\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\,W({\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle
\perp}}^i)\,W({\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\perp}}^j)
\int_0^{\infty}\, dR\,R\, c(R;\hat{\eta}(\lambda)) S(R;\alpha,r_{ij})
\end{equation}
where $r_{ij}= |{\bf r}_{{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^i-{\bf r}_{
{\scriptscriptstyle\parallel}}^j|$ and
\begin{equation}
\label{38}
S(R;\alpha,r_{ij}) =\left[\frac{\alpha}{2\pi r_{ij}^2}\right]^{1/2}
\left[ \exp(-\alpha(R-r_{ij})^2/2)-\exp(-\alpha(R+r_{ij})^2/2)\right]
\end{equation}
In (\ref{35}) and (\ref{36}) the
prime denotes the derivative with respect to the argument
and $\psi(\hat{\rho})/\beta$
is the excess free energy per particle of the fluid
phase. For the latter we will use the Carnahan-Starling
compressibility
factor to obtain $\psi$ by thermodynamic integration of the
equation of state while the Percus-Yevick
equation is used for the structure of the fluid phase, i.e.
the direct
correlation function.
Eqs. (\ref{35}) and (\ref{36}) have to be integrated numerically from
$\lambda=0$ to $\lambda=1$ with
initial conditions $\hat{\eta}(0) =z(0)=0$ and the excess free energy
per
particle of the quasilattice (\ref{32}) is finally determined as
$\psi(\hat{\eta}(1))$.
\section{Results}
\label{sec4}
Before looking for a numerical solution of (\ref{35}-\ref{36}),
we deal with a delicate point concerning the convergence of
the quasilattice sums in (\ref{37}). In order to emphasize it
let us rewrite the rigth hand side of
eq. (\ref{37}) in the form:
\begin{equation}
\label{41}
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}A(r_{ij})
\end{equation}
We first note that
for a Bravais lattice (\ref{41}) reduces to,
\begin{equation}
\label{42}
\sum_{j}\, z_j A(r_j)
\end{equation}
where the sum runs over spherical shells of sites centered around the
site at the origin, $r_j$ is the distance of shell $j$ to the origin,
and $z_j$ is the number
of sites at the $jth$-shell. In passing from (\ref{41}) to (\ref{42})
the translational symmetry of the Bravais lattice has been used.
Moreover, since $A(r_j)$ decreases rapidly with
distance, only a relatively small number of shells around the origin
give a nonnegligible contribution to the sum
leading to a rapid convergence of (\ref{42}).
But if the lattice does not have translational symmetry,
the evaluation of (\ref{41}) becomes a delicate numerical problem if
one
looks for achieving a rapid convergence.
For instance, if we consider a quasilattice of $N$
sites the
convergence of (\ref{41}) (resulting from considering the $N(N-1)/2$
different pairs $i\neq j$) becomes so slow as $N$ increases
that it remains unreachable through usual computational efforts. This
is also the case for a Bravais lattice as it may be tested by
evaluating
the sum (\ref{41}) which, on the other hand, can be easily
determined through (\ref{42}).
As stated above, a possible way for dealing with the
quasilattice sum\cite{Ash} is
to use the $6D$ reciprocal lattice. However, this procedure
only provides a partial solution to the convergence of the sum since
it
is necessary to truncate the sum at some maximum value of the
reciprocal
lattice vector leading to an
estimate error in the free energies of about $2\%$.
We here propose an alternative solution to the convergence problem
of (\ref{41}) which provides a substantial
reduction of errors and computation time in the determination of the
quasicrystal free energy. By starting with the $6D$ simple cubic
lattice, we
construct the quasilattice using the projection formalism described
in
\ref{sec2}. Let $M>>1$ be the number of the lattice points generated
in
the quasilattice
and draw an spherical surface containing almost all the
lattice points. Inside the sphere we construct a concentric
sphere with $N>>1$ ($N<M$) lattice points.
By rewriting (\ref{41}) as:
\begin{equation}
\label{43}
A(0) + \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left[\sum_{j\neq i}A(r_{ij})\right]
\end{equation}
where we have separated the $r_{ij}=0$ contributions, we calculate the
the $i\neq j$-terms by first choosing a lattice point $i$ ($i =
1,2,... N$) inside the sphere and
then summing consecutively over all neighbouring $j$ lattice points
until the
relative error of the sum in brackets in (\ref{43}) is less than a
prefixed value. For
lattice points $i$ well inside the sphere, our procedure takes into
account all the relevant ``interactions'' in (\ref{41}). However,
if the lattice point $i$ lies near the surface of the sphere,
our procedure overestimates the ``interactions'' in (\ref{41}) because
the sum in brackets contains points outside the sphere. We have found
that
these boundary errors can be reduced by increasing $N$ (and therefore
$M$), in such a way that for $M = 22000$ and $N = 10000$, the estimate
error of the free energy per particle of the quasilattice is about
$0.1\%$.
Under such conditions, the computation time needed for evaluating the
variational free energy (for each pair $\alpha$-$\eta$) is around $20'
$
c.p.u. in a VAX 9000.
In Fig. 1, the variational free energy per particle of the
quasicrystal
$\beta\phi=\beta F/N-3\ln(\Lambda/\sigma)+1$ is represented
versus $Y=(\alpha\sigma^2/2)^{1/2}$
for different packing fractions. We have found minima for the
quasicrystal free energy as a function of the Gaussian width parameter
$\alpha$ for $\eta\geq 0.51$, i.e. a stable or metastable
quasicrystalline phase.
Similarly to ref.\cite{Ash} we have found that the quasicrystal turns
out to be the more localized phase since the minima are always
situated at greater $Y$-values than the compact fcc crystalline
phase. Our results are gathered in Table \ref{tab1}
where the free energy and the Gaussian width parameter at the
free energy mimimum of the quasicrystal
are compared to those of the fcc crystal.
In Fig. 2 we represent the solid free energy per particle versus the
packing fraction $\eta$ for
the three solid phases (fcc, bcc and quasicrystal).
We also include in the figure the fluid free energy obtained by
thermodynamic integration of the Carnahan-Starling equation of state.
It is seen that the quasicrystal is always metastable with respect
to the remaining phases, the gaps of the free energy being somewhat
less than those reported by M$^{c}$Carley and Ashcroft\cite{Ash}.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec5}
We have analyzed the stability of a hard-sphere quasicrystal obtained
from a simple decoration of the $3D$ Penrose tiling which has been
designed for
optimizing the packing fraction.
The stability has been analyzed using the generalized effective liquid
approximation. A simple method for evaluating the
quasilattice sums in the $3D$ real space has been formulated. The
method
minimizes the boundary effects of finite quasilattices leading to a
substantially better convergence than previous works.
Our results show that the quasicrystal is metastable with
respect to the crystalline and fluid phases. Such results agree with
recent reported\cite{Ash} calculations for a hard-sphere quasicrystal
obtained from the modified weighted density approximation.
Therefore, within these nonperturbative density functional theories
entropy is insufficient to stabilize one-component quasicrystals.
Since all known quasicrystals have complex metallic alloy phase
structures it has been argued that for the stability of quasicrystals
it
is neccesary to have at least two class of atoms. The generalization
of
the one-component quasicrystal structure to an ordered two-component
structure has been investigated by M$^{c}$Carley and Ashcroft
\cite{Ash}
who concluded that small changes in the diameter ratio of the
two-component hard-sphere quasicrystal are not a stabilizing factor.
It should
be expected that energetic contributions resulting from considering
more
realistic interactions would propitiate stability. This possibility
seems to be ruled out using the well-known perturbation schemes when
applied
to quasicrystals in view of the great free energy differences between
the crystalline and quasicrystalline hard-sphere phases. Thus, the
stability of quasicrystal structures within the modern
density functional approaches is at present an open question.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank R. Brito and J. M. R. Parrondo for useful discussions.
H. M. Cataldo has been supported by grants PID 97/93 from
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cient\'{\i}ficas y T\'ecnicas
(Argentina) and EX100 from Universidad de Buenos Aires.
C. F. Tejero acknowledges the DGICYT, Spain (PB91-0378) for its
financial support.
|
\section{MATERIALS AND METHODS}
Wet-spun oriented samples were prepared from calf-thymus DNA
(Pharmacia) with a molecular weight of $\sim 1.6 \times 10^7$ by the
standard method \cite{bib12}. This spinning allows controlled
production of sufficient amounts of highly oriented thin films by
spooling DNA fibres which are continuously stretched during
precipitation into an aqueous alcohol solution. Films of thickness of
$\sim 0.5~\rm mm$ and surface area between $\rm 5$ and $10~\rm mm^2$
were used in the experiments reported here.
Unoriented fibers of high MW ($\sim 1 \times 10^8$) DNA were prepared
from whole adult chicken blood (Truslow Farms, Chestertown, MD) as
described in McGhee {\sl et al.} \cite{bib11}. This DNA was further
purified with three extractions against phenol/chloroform (50:50) and
once with chloroform alone. Then DNA was ethanol precipitated in sodium
acetate, pelleted by centrifugation, washed twice with 70\% ethanol
and dried. This DNA was used in all preparations involving unoriented
fibers.
Oriented as well as unoriented DNA fibers were equilibrated with
various solutions of PEG (20,000 MW) in 0.5 M NaCl, 10 mM Tris/ 1 mM
EDTA, pH 7 in vast excess. Under these conditions, PEG (20,000 MW) is
completely excluded from the DNA phase for concentrations greater than
$\approx 7 \% $(w/w). The equilibration time was usually from four
days to a week. Measurements on both orientationally ordered
(wet-spun) as well as ``powder'' samples show that there is
essentially no difference in osmotic pressure vs. concentration
(interhelical spacing) dependence between the two preparations. The
two preparations differ only in the size of the oriented domains.
X-ray diffraction was performed at $20^{\circ}$C with an Enraf-Nonius
Service Corp. (Bohemia, NY) fixed-anode FR 590 x-ray generator
equipped with image plate detectors. Image plates were read and
digitized by a Phosphor Imager (Molecular Dynamics, CA) and processed
with NIH Image 1.55 program (W. Rasband, NIH, Bethesda, MD) modified
by us. The position of the first order diffraction peaks
($r_{1.max}$) is obtained by radially averaging the scattering profile
around the direct beam. Angular intensity profiles were taken at the
position of the maximum of the first order diffraction peak and were
then Fourier transformed to extract the bond orientational order
parameter ${\cal C}_6$, {\sl i.e.} the sixth order Fourier
coefficient. If there were perfect alignment of the x-ray beam and
the average director of the oriented DNA sample , the angular
dependence of the six-fold symmetric scattering function could be
Fourier analyzed in terms of \cite{strandburg}
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}(\theta,r_{1.max}) = I_0(r_{1.max})\left[{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} +
\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {\cal C}_{6n}~\cos{6n(\theta - \theta_0)}\right] + I_{BG},
\label{equ0}
\end{equation}
where $I_{BG}$ is the background intensity. Because the orientation
was only approximate there was usually a small ${\cal C}_2$ component
present in the Fourier analyzed angular profiles. We have rescaled the
value of ${\cal C}_{6}$ to correct for this .
DNA samples at various densities were sealed between microscope cover
glass and were observed under a microscope (Olympus) equipped with
crossed polarizers. The image was digitized and analyzed with NIH
Image 1.55. The ``fingerprint'' cholesteric pattern \cite{biophys}
with long fragment DNA was never as regular as is typical of short
fragment DNA. Rather long DNAs achieve oriented domains of much smaller
size.
The $\rm ^{31}P$ NMR measurements were performed on a Bruker MSL-300
spectrometer (Billerica, MA) using a high power probe with a 5 mm
solenoidal sample coil which was doubly tuned for $\rm ^{31}P$
(121.513 MHz) and protons (300.13 MHz). Gated broadband decoupled $\rm
^{31}P$ spectra were observed with a phase cycled Hahn echo sequence.
A delay time between the 90 degree pulse and 180 degree pulse of 30
microseconds was chosen. Typically 20,000 to 80,000 scans with a
recycle delay time of 1s were accumulated. Exponential linebroadening
with a linewidth of 200 Hz was used.
First moments of the NMR spectra ($M_1$) were calculated in standard
fashion according to
\begin{equation}
M_1 = \frac{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(\omega)~\omega
d\omega}{\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(\omega)~d\omega},
\label{equM1}
\end{equation}
where $f(\omega)$ is the spectral intensity at the frequency $\omega$.
The frequency of the center of the spectrum, determined as half height
of the integral $\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(\omega)~d\omega$, was set
to zero.
The measured dependence of the osmotic pressure of the DNA phase on
DNA concentration allows one to evaluate the reversible work done at
constant temperature, pressure and chemical potential of salt as the
system is brought from an initial (i) to a final (f)
configuration. The difference in free energy is
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta {\cal G} &=& - \int^{V^{f}}_{V^{i}} \Pi(V_{DNA})~dV_{DNA}.
\label{equ1}
\end{eqnarray}
The excess or packing energy per unit length of the DNA helix can now
be obtained as
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta{\cal G}}{L} = - \sqrt{3} \int^{D_f}_{D_i}~\Pi(D)~DdD,
\label{equ4}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the interhelical spacing assuming the DNA array is at
least locally hexagonal. Since the DNA osmotic pressure decays
exponentially at small and intermediate values of $D$, a finite
density interval is sufficient to evaluate the above integral to
satisfactory accuracy. We have taken $D_i$ corresponding to the
concentration $15 {\rm mg/ml}$ (data not shown on Fig.1), which marks
the onset of the condensed (anisotropic) DNA phase \cite{kunal}.
Since thermal fluctuations are contributing to the free energy it is
reasonable to express the calculated free energy per unit length,
$\frac{\Delta{\cal G}(D)}{L}$, in its ``natural'' units of $kT$ per
persistence length ${\cal L}_p$ ( $\approx 500$ \AA). In these units
one can write
\begin{equation}
\frac{\left(\Delta {\cal G}(D)/kT\right)}{{L}/{\cal L}_p} =
\frac{{\cal L}_p}{\zeta (D)},
\label{extra1}
\end{equation}
where ${\zeta (D)}$ is the contour length of DNA associated with kT of
packing energy in the condensed phase.
\vfill
\eject
\section{RESULTS}
\subsection{\sl Osmotic Stress Measurements}
The dependence of osmotic pressure on the concentration of the
unoriented DNA subphase has been investigated in detail \cite{bib9,
bib10, bib14}. The corresponding interhelical spacings were obtained
by measuring the first order x-ray diffraction peak on unoriented DNA
samples assuming local hexagonal packing symmetry. This assumption
was verified experimentally in the high density region (I) (see Fig.1)
through the existence of weak higher order reflections and now by
observing well developed six-fold symmetric bond orientational order
(see section 2.2).
Similar measurements were performed on oriented samples that show the
same interaxial spacing (or density) dependence on $\Pi$ as the
unoriented samples (see Fig. 1) and thus have the same free energy,
within experimental error. There are two distinct regions in the
${\Pi} - D$ curve. In the high pressure regime, the interhelical
distance does not depend on the salt concentration . The forces
between helices in this region were interpreted as resulting from
water - mediated structural forces \cite{bib9}. At lower pressures a
sensitivity of D to salt concentration is clearly discernible. The
effective decay length for the interhelical interactions, however, is
about twice the predicted Debye screening length \cite{bib15} for salt
concentrations $<$ 1.0 M, where electrostatic interactions are not
overwhelmed by hydration forces. The two scaling regimes of the
osmotic pressure are separated by a narrow crossover region in the
${\Pi} - D$ curve at about $ 32 - 34$~\AA.
\subsection{\sl Packing Symmetry}
The two regimes in the osmotic pressure curve are also clearly evident
in the qualitative characteristics of the X-ray diffraction on
oriented samples (see Fig. 2). For oriented samples of DNA in the
high osmotic pressure regime (I) the cross section of the first order
interaxial diffraction peak with the DNA helical axis oriented
parallel to the incoming beam is a circular ring with six-fold
modulation in the intensity which clearly reflects the six-fold
symmetric long range bond orientational order of the underlying DNA
lattice Fig.2 (inset). Azimuthal modulation of the first order
diffraction peak at close DNA spacings has been observed previously in
neutron diffraction studies \cite{bib13} with fibers of NaDNA and
LiDNA at low excess salt content. As the osmotic pressure is lowered
the six-fold modulation of the first order diffraction peak disappears
and is unobservable below the transition, 32-34 \AA, region (see inset
Fig.2) in the $\Pi - D$ curve. For spacings less than 35 ~\AA~ the
changes in the six-fold modulation of the diffraction peak were
reversible. However, once the bond orientational order is lost, it
cannot be regained by simply increasing the osmotic pressure. The
subsequent chain entanglement due to the looser nature of the packing
in this low pressure phase apparently precludes the reestablishment of
long range bond orientational order. The details of the first order
diffraction peak are irretrievably lost leading to a circular powder
pattern.
The details of the azimuthal profile of the diffraction pattern were
independent of the X-ray beam size up to cross sectional areas on the
order of $\sim \rm mm^2$. The bond orientational order thus appears to
be of very long range indeed. The translational order, on the other
hand, estimated crudely from the radial linewidth of the first order
diffraction peak \cite{chaikin} and extremely weak higher order
reflections (J. R\" adler, personal communication), appears to be of a
much shorter range, on the order of several lattice spacings.
To quantify this change in orientational bond order, we have measured
the azimuthal intensity distribution of the first order diffraction
peak and extracted the corresponding Fourier coefficients shown in
Fig.2. Generally the Fourier spectra showed pronounced peaks for
${\cal C}_n$ with $n = 0 ~{\rm and}~ 6$, with typically a small, but
discernible additional contribution from ${\cal C}_2$, most probably
reflecting a slight misorientation of the x-ray beam direction and the
average director of the oriented DNA sample. The extracted ${\cal
C}_6$ coefficients, that are also corrected for misalignment, shows a
gradual loss of lateral bond orientational order as the DNA density
passes from the high to low osmotic pressure regimes .
The nature of the low osmotic pressure phase can be further
ascertained by polarized light microscopy which clearly reveals the
existence of a ``fingerprint'' texture characteristic of a cholesteric
phase \cite{Livolant}. Though the pitch of the cholesteric phase
varies with density of the DNA phase in the vicinity of I
$\longrightarrow$ II transition, we were unable to quantify this
accurately because the orientational domain sizes were, in general,
small. Due to the high molecular weight of the DNA, the samples could
not be manipulated by an applied external orienting magnetic field to
increase the domain size.
\subsection{\sl Phosphate Backbone Dynamics}
An earlier analysis of the $\Pi - D$ curve suggested that there was a
relatively sudden change in lattice fluctuations, inferred from
changes in x-ray scattering peak widths, within the 32-34 \AA\
transition region, \cite{bib10}. This change in motion can now be seen
very clearly in the $\rm ^{31}P$ NMR spectra. The insert in Fig. 3
shows two $\rm ^{31}P$ NMR spectra - one within the high pressure
regime and one in the low pressure, cholesteric phase - that clearly
demonstrate a symmetry change in the effective tensor of chemical
shift. While any quantitative relation between the values of the
effective tensor of chemical shift, the spectral first moment, and the
details of the molecular motions is highly model dependent, it is
clear that there is a qualitative difference in the DNA dynamics
between the two pressure regimes. We have quantified this change by
analyzing the first moments of the $\rm ^{31}P$ NMR spectra, shown in
Fig.3. If there are no other processes contributing to resonance
broadening and since osmotically equilibrated samples are
monophasic, the observed increase of the first moment as the
interaxial spacing decreases is due to a decreased mobility of DNA
helices.
The molecules are obviously immobilized to a substantial degree in the
high pressure phase though the spectral first moment does decrease
somewhat , see Fig.3, as the 32-34 \AA\ transition region is
approached. In the low pressure region, the phosphate mobility
appears to be significantly greater. The difference in the spectral
first moments between the two pressure regimes suggests a drastic
increase of motional amplitudes for the cholesteric phase but the
mobility appears not to change substantially with density within this
phase.
Typical principal values of the chemical shift tensor extracted from
spectra at high applied osmotic stress are $\sigma_{xx} \approx -60$
ppm, $\sigma_{yy} \approx -5$ ppm, and $\sigma_{zz} \approx 65$ ppm.
Comparable values for essentially completely immobilized dry DNA, are
$-83$ ppm, $-22$ ppm and $110$ ppm (measured relative to 85\%~
phosphoric acid as a standard) \cite{shindo}. The effective tensor for
DNA in the high pressure regime shows that phosphate motions are quite
restricted. No fast rotation around one axis is present because this
would have resulted in a tensor with axial symmetry.
\vfill
\eject
\section{DISCUSSION}
\subsection{\sl Structure and Dynamics}
This study, together with earlier measurements of intermolecular
forces \cite{bib9,bib10}, presents a departure from the usual
gravimetric method of sample preparation. By bringing ordered phases
into equilibrium with large "reservoirs" of salt-plus-polymer
solutions rather than by making stoichiometric mixtures of salt, water
and DNA, it is possible to set all the intensive thermodynamic
variables associated with the resulting single liquid-crystalline phase.
These simultaneous measurements of the structure, motion and
thermodynamic functions of DNA phases have focused on high density DNA
phases (with interhelical spacings between about 25 and 55 \AA) at one
ionic strength (0.5 M NaCl). This density region extends from $\sim
120~\rm mg/ml$ to $\sim 600~\frac{mg}{ml}$. At lower densities there
is a transition to a cholesteric phase from one of the (presumably)
blue phases \cite{amelie}, while at higher densities there is a
transition into a three dimensional crystal with a simultaneous B
$\longrightarrow$ A transition in DNA conformation. For the long
fragment DNA investigated here, the isotropic $\longrightarrow$
anisotropic transition is still quite remote ($\sim 10~\rm mg/ml$
\cite{kunal}).
The structural, dynamic, and osmotic stress data presented here are
all consistent with the existence of two different DNA phases
separated by a transition region at a DNA density of $\sim 320 - 360
{}~\rm mg/ml$, corresponding to interhelical spacings of $\sim 32 -
34$~\AA. Previous work on short fragment ($146~{\rm bp} \sim 500$~\AA~
long) DNA \cite{bib3} also gave clear evidence for the existence of a
series of structurally distinct regions as a function of DNA
concentration. The transition from a cholesteric to a 2D-hexagonal
phase for short fragment DNA was observed at $\sim 32$~\AA. Remarkably
the $\sim 32$~\AA~ interaxial spacing is also close to the spacing
from which ${\rm Mn}^{2+}$ or ${\rm Co}^{3+}$-DNA collapses in a first
order transition under osmotic stress \cite{don}. Is this a distance
at which the details of the chiral double-helical structure come to be
sensed in molecular interaction?
What these experiments do not show clearly is the nature and the order
of the transition between bond orientationally ordered and cholesteric
phases. There is no detectable discontinuity ( the accuracy of the
measurement of the interhelical spacing in this regime of DNA
densities is $\sim 1$ \AA ) in the $\Pi$ {\sl vs.} interaxial
separation curve that is seen when DNA makes a clear first-order
transition \cite{don}. This should not be taken as definitive
evidence, however, that the transition is second order. An extremely
narrow phase coexistence window could simply be a property of polymers
in liquid crystalline mesophases \cite{edwards}. The accuracy of the
azimuthal scans of the first order diffraction peak as well as the
first moment of the $\rm ^{31}P$ NMR spectra also precludes a
definitive measure of the order of the transition.
\subsection{\sl Free Energy and Intermolecular Forces}
The "osmotic stress" exerted by the excluded polymer is the rate of
change of free energy with change in the amount of solution in the DNA
phase, i.e., $\Pi = -{\partial G}/{\partial V_{DNA}}$. By integrating
the osmotic pressure curve one thus obtains the change in the system
free energy, Eq.\ref{equ4}. In the insert to Fig. 1 we have plotted
this free energy as a function of molecular separation. It
is given in thermal units of kT per persistence length (see
Eq.\ref{extra1}), and spans a wide range of energy scales, from about
kT per 2.5~\AA~ at $\log(\Pi) \sim 8~{\rm dynes/cm^2}$ to about kT
per 100~\AA~ at $\log(\Pi) \sim 6~{\rm dynes/cm^2}$.
Previous work \cite{bib14} has established that forces in the high
pressure regime are dominated by exponentially decaying hydration
interactions with a decay length $\lambda \sim 3 - 4$~\AA~ that is
basically independent of the ionic strength. In the low pressure
regime, the interaxial spacing dependence on osmotic stress is also
exponential, but the effective decay length is about twice the
expected Debye decay length (at least for salt concentrations between
{}~ 0.2 and $\sim 0.8$~ M). The enhanced decay length and a rescaling of
the strength of the interactions between DNA helices in this regime of
DNA densities was shown to be due to the progressive onset of
conformational disorder characterized by the fluctuations in the mean
position of the molecules along the average director \cite{bib14, flu}
and deduced from the width of the interhelical x-ray scattering
peaks. The switch between fluctuation enhanced forces and bare
potentials was not found to be gradual, but rather quite abrupt as the
DNA density passed the $\sim 340~\rm mg/ml$ limit \cite{bib10},
correlating nicely with emergence of longitudinal order between
helices seen in the studies of Livolant {\sl et al.} \cite{bib3} on
short fragment DNA, as well as with the onset of lateral bond
orientational order and broadening of the phosphate NMR peak reported
here.
The fluctuation-enhanced effective interactions observed in DNA arrays
have the same origin as the effective interactions in smectic
arrays. They are due to the interplay between conformational
fluctuations and bare short range potentials \cite{bib15}. The
clearly emerging enhancement of electrostatic decay length to about
twice the Debye length, not yet so easily seen in lipid bilayer
smectic arrays, could be connected with the different dimensionalities
of the two systems (2D periodicity {\sl vs.} 1D periodicity).
\subsection{\sl Perspectives and Directions}
Molecular interactions in DNA arrays, extracted from the measured
osmotic pressure of the array, are expected \cite{bib10} to vary with
the interaxial spacing $D$ as $\sim K_0(D/\lambda)$ , where $ K_0(x)$
is the modified Bessel function with asymptotic behavior $ K_0(x)
\approx (\pi /2x)^{1/2}~e^{-x}$, with a decay length $\lambda$
dependent on the salt concentration \cite{bib14}. In this respect, as
noted by Nelson \cite{nelson2}, the interactions between helices in
condensed DNA mesophases are formally and surprisingly closely related
to the interactions between magnetic vortex lines in flux-line
lattices of high-$\rm T_c$ superconductors which, apart from the lack
of hard core repulsions, share the same form of interaction potential.
The existence of a line (polymer) hexatic phase, intermediate between a line
crystal and a line liquid, was hypothesized by Marchetti and Nelson
\cite{nelson1} specifically for the case of magnetic flux-line
lattices. It appears that the bond ordered DNA phase (region I)
described above is perhaps this type of intermediate phase. The
transition from a line hexatic phase in DNA into one of the possible
less ordered phases is complicated by the presence of chiral coupling
in the molecular interactions at lower densities, leading to the
cholesteric, not a line liquid, phase. The occurrence of line hexatic
between the cholesteric and the crystalline (A-form DNA) phases makes
it difficult to compare directly with existing theoretical
predictions. Its existence nevertheless introduces a new possible
scenario into the melting sequence of ordered polyelectrolyte arrays.
To say that DNA provides an opportunity to learn about liquid-crystals
is not to say that it has already given clear answers to basic
questions. What is the nature of the transition from a phase with well
developed six-fold symmetric bond orientational order to a a skewed,
cholesteric phase when the molecules are allowed to move apart? Why
does this change in symmetry couple with the molecular motions that
cause extra interaxial separation \cite{bib10}? What is the nature of
molecular packing in the long polymer cholesteric phase compared to
the more common twisted nematic phases of shorter molecules? These
combined structural studies \cite{bib3}, osmotic stress measurements
of free energies, and x-ray \& NMR probes of molecular disorder and
motion now provide a direction and an opportunity for further
development of systematic theoretical analyses.
\vfill
\eject
|
\chapter{Introduction}
Cosmology has over the past fifteen years emerged as a vibrant and exciting
subfield of physics. It is based on the marriage of quantum field theory and
particle physics on the one hand with classical general relativity on the
other. One of the main goals of modern cosmology is to explain the structure
of the Universe on the scale of galaxies and beyond. Thus, the
experimental/observational basis of the field lies in astronomy, and there is a
lot of interaction between theoretical cosmologists and observational
astronomers and astrophysicists.
The main goal of these lectures is to give an introduction to the two most
developed classes of structure formation theories: those based on inflation and
those based on topological defects. I will give a brief survey of relevant
observational results from large-scale structure surveys and from searches for
cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies, and I will attempt a
preliminary comparison with theoretical predictions. A summary of some recent
speculative ideas concerning the connection possible solutions of the
singularity problem of classical cosmology will be presented. These notes are
intended
as a pedagogical introduction rather than as a comprehensive review. For
comprehensive discussions of inflation, the reader is referred to Refs. 1-3,
and for detailed reviews of topological defect models to Refs. 4-7. An
introduction to quantum field theory methods used in modern cosmology can be
found in Ref. 8. These notes are an updated and expanded version of earlier
lecture notes$^{9)}$ and draw on material presented elsewhere$^{10)}$ in
which some of the topics are treated in more detail.
I hope to persuade the reader that cosmology is an exciting area of physics
with close connections to particle and high energy physics, and with a steady
stream of new data from astronomy and astrophysics. There is also a close
connection with fundamental physics. In fact, cosmology may well be the only
arena in which theories such as superstring theory are testable.
The outline of these lectures is as follows: Section 2 is a review of standard
cosmology, focusing on its basic principless, its observational support and its
problems.
Section 3 is a brief overview of ``new cosmology." I argue why, to obtain an
improved cosmological scenario, we need to treat matter using particle physics
and field theory. Next, I introduce the basic idea of the inflationary
Universe scenario and explain how it leads to a solution of some of the
problems of standard cosmology. In particular, it provides a mechanism for the
formation of structure in the Universe. The section continues with a brief
introduction to the topological defect models of structure formation, an
explanation for the need of dark matter, and a survey of the present models.
In Section 4, I present the basics of structure formation, beginning with a
survey of some of the relevant large-scale structure data. Structure in the
Universe is assumed to grow by gravitational instability. I summarize the
essentials of the Newtonian theory of cosmological perturbations (valid on
length scales smaller than the apparent horizon (Hubble radius)) and of the
relativistic theory$^{11)}$ (required to study scales beyond the horizon). I
also discuss free streaming.
Section 5 contains an overview of inflationary Universe models and of the
mechanism for the generation and evolution of perturbations which they provide.
Section 6 presents an overview of topological defect models of structure
formation. To begin, a classification of defects is given. Next it is shown
that in models which admit topological defects, they are inevitably formed
during a symmetry breaking phase transition$^{12)}$. Cosmic string and global
texture models of structure formation are discussed in detail. In particular,
it is pointed out that if defects are responsible for seeding galaxies, there
must be new physics at a scale of $\eta \sim 10^{16}$ GeV.
Section 7 focuses on CMB anisotropies. It is shown why theories of structure
formation inevitably produce such anisotropies, the predictions of the various
models are reviewed, and a comparison with recent observations is given.
Finally, Section 8 contains a summary of a modified theory of gravity in which
many of the singularities of classical cosmology can be smoothed out. The
theory is based on a {\it limiting curvature construction}. Also discussed are
some possible connections between superstring theory and cosmology. In
particular, a mechanism which might single out three large spatial dimensions
is suggested.
In this writeup, units in which $c = \hbar = k_B = 1$ are used unless mentioned
otherwise. The space-time metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ is taken to have signature
$(+,-,-,-)$. Greek indices run over space and time, latin ones over spatial
indices only. The Hubble expansion rate is $H (t) = \dot a (t) / a (t)$, with
$a(t)$ the scale factor of a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) Universe. The
present value of $H$ is $100 h$ kms$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, where $0.4 < h <1$.
Unless stated otherwise, the value of $h$ is taken to be 0.5. The cosmological
redshift at time $t$ is denoted by $z(t)$. As usual, the symbols $G$ and
$m_{pl}$ stand for Newton's constant and Planck mass, respectively. Distances
are measured in pc (``parsec") or Mpc, where 1 pc corresponds to 3.1 light
years.
\chapter{Review of Standard Cosmology}
\section{Principles}
The standard big bang cosmology rests on three theoretical pillars: the
cosmological principle, Einstein's general theory of relativity and a perfect
fluid description of matter.
The cosmological principle$^{13)}$ states that on large distance scales the
Universe is homogeneous. From an observational point of view this is an
extremely nontrivial statement. On small scales the Universe looks rather
inhomogeneous. The inhomogeneities of the solar system are obvious to
everyone, and even by the naked eye it is apparent that stars are not randomly
distributed. They are bound into galaxies, dynamical entities whose visible
radius is about $10^4$ pc. Telescopic observations show that galaxies are not
randomly distributed, either. Dense clumps of galaxies can be identified as
Abell clusters. In turn, Abell cluster positions are correlated to produce the
large-scale structure dominated by sheets (or filaments), with typical scale
100 Mpc, observed in recent redshift surveys$^{14)}$. Until recently, every
new survey probing the Universe to greater depth revealed new structures on the
scale of the sample volume. In terms of the visible distribution of matter
there was no evidence for large-scale homogeneity. This situation changed in
1992 with the announcement$^{15)}$ that a new redshift survey, complete to a
depth of about $500 h^{-1}$ Mpc, had discovered no prominent structures on
scales larger than $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc. This is the first observational evidence
from optical measurements in favor of the cosmological principle. However, to
put this result in perspective we must keep in mind that the observed isotropy
of the CMB temperature$^{16)}$ to better than $10^{-5}$ on large angular scales
has been excellent evidence for the validity of the cosmological principle.
The second theoretical pillar is general relativity, the theory which
determines the dynamics of the Universe. According to the cosmological
principle, space at any time $t$ is a three dimensional surface with maximal
symmetry (translations and rotations). There are three families of such
spaces$^{17)}$: flat Euclidean space $R^3$, the three sphere $S^3$, and the
hypersphere $H^3$. The proper distance $ds^2$ on these three surfaces can be
written in spherical coordinates as
$$
ds^2 = a(t)^2 \, \left[ {dr^2\over{1-kr^2}} + r^2 (d \vartheta^2 + \sin^2
\vartheta d\varphi^2) \right] \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The constant $k$ is $+1, \, 0$, or $-1$ respectively for $S^3, \, R^3$ and
$H^3$.
The Einstein equations of general relativity imply that $a(t)$ -- called the
scale factor of the Universe -- evolves in time. The proper distance/time in
space-time is
$$
ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2 \left[ {dr^2\over{1-kr^2}} + r^2 (d \vartheta^2 + \sin^2
\vartheta d\varphi^2) \right] \, . \eqno\eq
$$
By a coordinate transformation, $a(t)$ can be set equal to 1 at the present
time $t_0$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{bfig1.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 1:} Sketch of the expanding Universe. Concentric circles
indicate space at fixed time, with time increasing as the radius gets larger.
Points at rest have constant comoving coordinates. Their world lines are
straight lines through the origin (e.g. $L$).}
\medskip
To obtain a simple visualization of an expanding Universe, consider space to
be the surface of a balloon. We draw a grid on the surface and use it to
define coordinates $\underline{x}^c$ (the superscript $c$ stands for comoving).
Points at rest on the surface of the balloon have constant comoving
coordinates. However, if the balloon is being inflated, then the physical
distance $\Delta x^p$ betwen two points at rest with comoving separation
$\Delta x^c$ increases:
$$
\Delta x^p = a(t) \Delta x^c \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The scale factor $a(t)$ is proportional to the radius of the balloon (see Fig.
1).
According to Einstein's equivalence principle, particles in the absence of
external nongravitational forces move on geodesies, curves which extremize
$ds^2$. The velocity of a particle relative to the expansion of the Universe
is called peculiar velocity $v_p$
$$
v_p = a(t) \, {dx^c\over dt} \eqno\eq
$$
and obeys the equation
$$
\ddot v_p + {\dot a\over a} \, v_p = 0 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
from which it follows that
$$
v_p (t) \sim a^{-1} (t) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The dynamics of an expanding Universe is determined by the Einstein equations,
which relate the expansion rate to the matter content, specifically to the
energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$. For a homogeneous and isotropic
Universe, they reduce to the Friedmann-Robertston-Walker (FRW) equations
$$
\left( {\dot a \over a} \right)^2 - {k\over a^2} = {8 \pi G\over 3 } \rho
\eqno\eq
$$
$${\ddot a\over a} = - {4 \pi G\over 3} \, (\rho + 3 p) \, .\eqno\eq
$$
These equations can be combined to yield the continuity equation (with Hubble
constant $H = \dot a/a$)
$$
\dot \rho = - 3 H (\rho + p) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The third key assumption of standard cosmology is that matter is described by
an ideal gas with an equation of state
$$
p = w \rho \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For cold matter, pressure is negligible and hence $w = 0$. From (2.9) it
follows that
$$
\rho_m (t) \sim a^{-3} (t) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\rho_m$ is the energy density in cold matter. For radiation we have $w
= {1/3}$ and hence it follows from (2.9) that
$$
\rho_r (t) \sim a^{-4} (t) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$\rho_r (t)$ being the energy density in radiation.
\section{Observational Pillars}
The first observational pillar of standard cosmology is Hubble's
redshift-distance relationship$^{18)}$ (Fig. 2)
$$
z = H d \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $H$ is the present Hubble expansion constant, $d$ is the distance to a
galaxy, and $z$ is its redshift
$$
z \equiv {\lambda_0\over \lambda_e} - 1 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$\lambda_e (\lambda_0)$ being the wavelength of light at the time of emission
(detection).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig2.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 2:} A recent redshift-distance plot of galaxies$^{19)}$.
The distances are determined using the Tully-Fisher method. See Ref. 31 for a
detailed discussion of the method and errors.}
\medskip
There is an easy intuitive derivation of this result. A wave in an expanding
background will have a wavelength which increases as the scale factor $a(t)$.
Hence for light emitted at time $t_e$
$$
z (t_e) = {a (t_0)\over{a (t_e)}} - 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For light emitted close to the present time we can Taylor expand the above
result to obtain
$$
z (t_e) \simeq {\dot a (t_0)\over{a (t_0)}} \, (t_0 - t_e) \simeq H (t_0) \, d
\, . \eqno\eq
$$
Equation (2.15) defines the cosmological redshift, which can be used as a
measure of cosmic time.
The second observational pillar of standard cosmology is the existence and
black body nature of the CMB$^{20, 21)}$
To understand the connection$^{17)}$, consider matter in an expanding Universe.
As we go backwards in time, the density of matter increases as $a^{-3} (t)$,
and as a consequence the temperature grows. Above a temperature of 13.6 eV,
atoms are ionized, and a bath of photons in thermal equilibrium must be
present. Photons still scatter frequently below this temperature. At some
time $t_{rec}$ the scattering length of a photon becomes longer than the Hubble
radius. After that, photons travel without scattering. At $t_{rec}$, the
distribution of photons is of black body type. A special feature of black body
spectra is that the spectral shape is maintained even after $t_{rec}$. The
only change is that the temperature redshifts
$$
T(t) = {a (t_{rec})\over{a(t)}} \, T (t_{rec}) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Hence, the standard Big Bang model predicts a black body spectrum of photons
with temperature
$$
T_o = T_{rec} z (t_{rec})^{-1} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $T_{rec}$ is the temperature at $t_{rec}$, determined by comparing the
largest rate of scattering of photons below recombination, that due to Thomson
scattering, with the Hubble expansion rate, yielding the result
$$
T_{rec} \simeq 0.25 \, {\rm eV} \simeq 4000^\circ {\rm K} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The corresponding redshift is determined by measuring $T_o$.
In 1965, Penzias and Wilson$^{22)}$ discovered this remnant black body
radiation at a temperature of about 3$^\circ$ K. Since the spectrum peaks in
the microwave region it is now called the CMB (cosmic microwave background).
Recent satellite (COBE)$^{23)}$ and rocket$^{24)}$ experiments have confirmed
the black body nature of the CMB to very high accuracy. The temperature is
2.73$^\circ$ K$= T_0$ which corresponds to
$$
z (t_{rec}) = z_{rec} \sim 10^3 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Given the existence of the CMB, we know that matter has two components: dust
(with energy density $\rho_m (t)$) and radiation (with density $\rho_r (t)$).
At the present time $t_0$, $\rho_m (t) \gg \rho_r (t)$. The radiation energy
density is determined by $T_0$, and the matter energy density can be estimated
by analyzing the dynamics of galaxies and clusters and using the virial
theorem. However, since by (2.11) and (2.12) $\rho_m (t) \sim a (t)^{-3}$ and
$\rho_r (t) \sim a (t)^{-4}$, as we go back in time the fraction of energy
density in radiation increases, and the two components become equal at a time
$t_{eq}$, the time of equal matter and radiation. The corresponding redshift
is
$$
z_{eq} \simeq \Omega \, h^{-2}_{50} \, 10^4 \eqno\eq
$$
where
$$
\Omega = {\rho\over{\rho_c}} \, (t_0)\, , \eqno\eq
$$
$\rho_c$ being the density for a spatially flat Universe (the critical
density), and $h_{50}$ is the value of $H$ in units of 50 km s$^{-1}$
Mpc$^{-1}$.
The time $t_{eq}$ is important for structure formation. As we will see in
Section 4, it is only after $t_{eq}$ that perturbations on scales smaller than
the Hubble radius $H^{-1} (t)$ can grow. Before then, the radiation pressure
prevents growth. A temperature-time plot of the early Universe is sketched in
Fig. 3, Note that $t_{eq} < t_{rec}$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{bfig3.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 3:} Temperature-time diagram of standard big bang
cosmology. The present time, time of last scattering and time of equal matter
and radiation are $t_0$, $t_{rec}$ and $t_{eq}$ respectively. The Universe is
radiation-dominated before $t_{eq}$ (Region A) and matter-dominated in Region
B. Before and after $t_{rec}$, respectively, the Universe was opaque and
transparent, respectively, to microwave photons.}
\medskip
The third observational pillar of standard big bang cosmology concerns
nucleosynthesis$^{25, 26)}$ - the production of light elements (heavy elements
are formed in supernovae). Above a temperature of about $10^9 $ K, the nuclear
interactions are sufficiently fast to prevent neutrons and protons from fusing.
However, below that temperature, it is thermodynamically favorable for
neutrons and protrons to fuse and form deuterium, helium 3, helium 4 and
lithium 7 through a long and interconnected chain of reactions. The resulting
light element abundances depend sensitively on the expansion rate of the
Universe and on $\Omega_B$, the fraction of energy density $\rho_B$ at present
in baryons relative to the critical density $\rho_c$. In Fig. 5, recent
theoretical calculations$^{27)}$ of the abundances are shown and compared with
observations. Demanding agreement with all abundances leaves only a narrow
window
$$
3 \times 10^{-10} < \eta < 10^{-9} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\eta$ is the ratio of baryon number density $n_B$ to photon number
density $n_\gamma$
$$
\eta = {n_b\over n_\gamma} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
{}From (2.23), it follows that $\Omega_B$ is constrained:
$$
0.01 < \Omega_B h^2 < 0.035 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In particular, if the Universe is spatially flat and the cosmological constant
is negligible, there must be nonbaryonic dark matter. We will return to the
dark matter issue in Section 3.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10.5cm \epsfbox{bfig5.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 4:} Light element abundances as a function of the baryon
to entropy ratio $\eta$ (from Ref. 27). The solid curves are the predictions of
homogeneous big bang nucleosynthesis. The observational limits are indicated on
the left vertical axis. Theory and observations are only consistent for a
narrow
range of values of $\eta$.}
\medskip
The final pillar of standard cosmology is the near isotropy of the CMB$^{16)}$.
After subtracting the dipole anisotropy which is presumed to be due to the
motion of the earth relative to the rest frame defined by the CMB, no
anisotropies have been detected to a level of better than $10^{-4}$, i.e., the
temperature difference $\delta T(\vartheta)$ between two beams pointing in
directions in the sky separated by an angle $\vartheta$ (Fig. 4) satisfies
$$
{\delta T (\vartheta)\over{\bar T}} < 10^{-4} \eqno\eq
$$
on all angular scales $\vartheta$. Here $\bar T$ is the average temperature.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=4.8cm \epsfbox{bfig4.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 5:} Sketch of a CMB anisotropy experiment. Two radio
antennas with beam width $b$ collect microwave radiation from points in the sky
separated by an angle $T$. The difference in beam intensities is measured.}
\medskip
Until recently, the isotropy of the CMB was the only observational support for
the cosmological principle. Any inhomogeneities of the Universe on length
scales comparable to the comoving Hubble radius at $t_{rec}$ and larger would
generate temperature anisotropies by a mechanism discussed in detail in Section
7. Hence, the near isotropy of the CMB implies that density fluctuations on
large scales must have been very small in the early Universe.
To summarize, the observational pillars of standard cosmology are Hubble's
redshift-distance relation, the existence and black body nature of the CMB,
primordial nucleosynthesis, and the isotropy of the CMB. Note, in particular,
that no tests of big bang cosmology say anything about the evolution of the
Universe before the time of nucleosynthesis. Note, also, that not all
astronomers accept the above observations as support of the Big Bang model.
For a recent criticism see Ref. 28 (and Ref. 29 for a reply to the criticism).
\section{Problems}
Standard Big Bang cosmology is faced with several important problems. Only one
of these, the age problem, is a potential conflict with observations. The
others which I will focus on here -- the homogeneity, flatness and formation of
structure problems (see e.g. Ref. 30) -- are questions which have no answer
within the theory and are therefore the main motivation for the new
cosmological models which will be discussed in the rest of these lectures.
{}From the FRW equations (2.7) and (2.8) it is easy to calculate the age of
the Universe, given the expansion law (2.11) which holds throughout most of the
history of the Universe. For a spatially flat Universe, the age $\tau$ depends
on the expansion rate $H$, i.e. on the constant $h$ which is in the range $0.4
< h < 1$:
$$
\tau \simeq {7\over h} 10^9 {\rm yr} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Globular cluster ages have been estimated to lie in the range $12 - 18 \times
10^9$ yr. Thus, theory and observations are only consistent if $h < 0.55$ (see
e.g. Ref. 31). In an open Universe the problem is less severe. Recent
observations have not led to a decrease in the uncertainty in the value of $h$.
Observations by the Hubble space telescope$^{209)}$ and on supernovae
observations$^{210)}$ indicate a fairly large value ($h \simeq 0.8$), but
direct measurements based on the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and using more
distant galaxy clusters yield$^{211)}$ a small value ($h \simeq 0.5$). Modern
cosmological models do not add any insight into the age problem since they only
modify the evolution of the Universe at very early times $t \ll t_{eq}$.
The final three problems mentioned above, the homogeneity, flatness and
formation of structure problems, provided a lot of the motivation for the
development of the inflationary Universe scenario$^{30)}$ and will hence be
discussed in detail.
The horizon problem is illustrated in Fig. 6. As is sketched, the comoving
region $\ell_p (t_{rec})$ over which the CMB is observed to be homogeneous to
better than one part in $10^4$ is much larger than the comoving forward light
cone $\ell_f (t_{rec})$ at $t_{rec}$, which is the maximal distance over which
microphysical forces could have caused the homogeneity:
$$
\ell_p (t_{rec}) = \int\limits^{t_0}_{t_{rec}} dt \, a^{-1} (t) \simeq 3 \, t_0
\left(1 - \left({t_{rec}\over t_0} \right)^{1/3} \right) \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\ell_f (t_{rec}) \int\limits^{t_{rec}}_0 dt \, a^{-1} (t) \simeq 3 \, t^{2/3}_0
\, t^{1/3}_{rec} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
{}From the above equations it is obvious that $\ell_p (t_{rec}) \gg \ell_f
(t_{rec})$. Hence, standard cosmology cannot explain the observed isotropy of
the CMB.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6.5cm \epsfbox{bfig6.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent
{\bf Figure 6:} A space-time diagram (physical distance $x_p$ versus time $t$)
illustrating the homogeneity problem: the past light cone $\ell_p (t)$ at the
time $t_{rec}$ of last scattering is much larger than the forward light cone
$\ell_f (t)$ at $t_{rec}$.}
\medskip
In standard cosmology and in an expanding Universe, $\Omega = 1$ is an unstable
fixed point. This can be seen as follows. For a spatially flat Universe
$(\Omega = 1)$
$$
H^2 = {8 \pi G\over 3} \, \rho_c \, , \eqno\eq
$$
whereas for a nonflat Universe
$$
H^2 + \varepsilon \, T^2 = {8 \pi G\over 3} \, \rho \, , \eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
\varepsilon = {k\over{(aT)^2}} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The quantity $\varepsilon$ is proportional to $s^{-2/3}$, where $s$ is the
entropy density. Hence, in standard cosmology, $\varepsilon$ is constant.
Combining (2.30) and (2.31) gives
$$
{\rho - \rho_c\over \rho_c} = {3\over{8 \pi G}} \, {\varepsilon T^2\over
\rho_c} \sim T^{-2} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Thus, as the temperature decreases, $\Omega - 1$ increases. In fact, in order
to explain the present small value of $\Omega - 1 \sim {\cal O} (1)$, the
initial energy density had to be extremely close to critical density. For
example, at $T = 10^{15}$ GeV, (2.33) implies
$$
{\rho - \rho_c\over \rho_c} \sim 10^{-50} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
What is the origin of these fine tuned initial conditions? This is the
flatness problem of standard cosmology.
The last problem of the standard cosmological model I will mention is the
``formation of structure problem." Observations indicate that galaxies and
even clusters of galaxies have nonrandom correlations on scales larger than 50
Mpc (see e.g. Ref. 14). This scale is comparable to the comoving horizon at
$t_{eq}$. Thus, if the initial density perturbations were produced much before
$t_{eq}$, the correlations cannot be explained by a causal mechanism. Gravity
alone is, in general, too weak to build up correlations on the scale of
clusters after $t_{eq}$ (see, however, the explosion scenario of Ref. 32).
Hence, the two questions of what generates the primordial density perturbations
and what causes the observed correlations, do not have an answer in the context
of standard cosmology. This problem is illustrated by Fig. 7.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6.5cm \epsfbox{bfig7.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent
{\bf Figure 7:} A sketch (conformal separation vs. time) of the formation of
structure problem: the comoving separation $d_c$ between two clusters is larger
than the forward light cone at time $t_{eq}$.}
\medskip
Finally, let us address the cosmological constant problem. All known
symmetries of nature and principles of general relativity allow for the
presence of a term in the Einstein equations which acts like matter with energy
$\Lambda$ and pressure $-\Lambda$, i.e., with an equation of state $p = -
\rho$. If it is not to dominate the present expansion rate of the Universe,
the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ must be very small
$$
\Lambda < 3 H^2_0 \sim 10^{-83} {\rm GeV}^2 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
On dimensional grounds, we would expect $\Lambda$ to be of the order $m_{pl}^2
\sim 10^{38} \, {\rm GeV}^2$. Thus, the cosmological constant is about 140
orders of magnitude smaller than what we would expect it to be (for recent
reviews of the cosmological constant problem, see Ref. 33).
As we will see, modern cosmology does not address the cosmological constant
problem. If anything, the problem will manifest itself in a more apparent
manner. For some recent ideas on how infrared effects in field theory might
solve the cosmological constant problem see Ref. 212.
Due to the formation of structure problem, there can be no causal physical
theory for the origin of structure (with nontrivial spatial correlations) in
the Universe in the context of the Standard Big Bang theory. The main
breakthrough of modern cosmology is that it provides solutions to this problem.
The key to understanding this breakthrough in cosmology is the realization of
the internal inconsistency of the standard picture when extrapolated to times
much before nucleosynthesis. Standard cosmology is based on the assumption
that matter continues to be described by an ideal radiation gas to arbitrarily
high temperatures. This is clearly in contrast to what nuclear and particle
physics tells us. As we go backwards in time towards the Big Bang, nuclear
physics and eventually particle physics effects will take over. To describe
matter correctly, a quantum field theoretic description must be used. Note,
however, that at a fundamental level there is an inconsistency if matter is
described quantum mechanically while maintaining a classical description of
gravity. Hence, we cannot hope that any of the present cosmological theories
will be the ultimate theory.
\chapter{New Cosmology and Structure Formation}
The goal of this section is to present an overview of what can be gained if we
go beyond standard cosmology and allow matter to be described in terms of
concepts from particle physics. Detailed discussions of the models will be
given in later sections.
\section{The Inflationary Unvierse}
The idea of inflation$^{30)}$ is very simple. We assume there is a time
interval beginning at $t_i$ and ending at $t_R$ (the ``reheating time") during
which the Universe is exponentially expanding, i.e.,
$$
a (t) \sim e^{Ht}, \>\>\>\>\> t \epsilon \, [ t_i , \, t_R] \eqno\eq
$$
with constant Hubble expansion parameter $H$. Such a period is called ``de
Sitter" or ``inflationary." The success of Big Bang nucleosynthesis sets an
upper limit to the time of reheating:
$$
t_R \ll t_{NS} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$t_{NS}$ being the time of nucleosynthesis.
\medskip \epsfxsize=7cm \epsfbox{bfig8.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 8:} The phases of an inflationary Universe. The times
$t_i$ and $t_R$ denote the beginning and end of inflation, respectively.
In some models of inflation, there is no initial radiation domintated FRW
period. Rather, the classical space-time emerges directly in an inflationary
state from some initial quantum gravity state.}
\medskip
The phases of an inflationary Universe are sketched in Fig. 8. Before the
onset of inflation there are no constraints on the state of the Universe. In
some models a classical space-time emerges immediately in an inflationary
state, in others there is an initial radiation dominated FRW period. Our
sketch applies to the second case. After $t_R$, the Universe is very hot and
dense, and the subsequent evolution is as in standard cosmology. During the
inflationary phase, the number density of any particles initially in thermal
equilibrium at $t = t_i$ decays exponentially. Hence, the matter temperature
$T_m (t)$ also decays exponentially. At $t = t_R$, all of the energy which is
responsible for inflation (see later) is released as thermal energy. This is a
nonadiabatic process during which the entropy increases by a large factor. The
temperature-time evolution in an inflationary Universe is depicted in Fig. 9.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{bfig9.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 9:} The time dependence of matter temperature in an
inflationary Universe. During the period of exponential expansion, the
temperature decreases exponentially. At the end of inflation the energy density
of the scalar field responsible for inflation is transferred to ordinary
matter. This leads to reheating. The critical temperature $T_c$ is the
temperature at which the initial matter thermal energy density becomes less
than the scalar field energy density (see Chapter 5).}
\medskip
Fig. 10 is a sketch of how a period of inflation can solve the homogeneity
problem. $\Delta t = t_R - t_i$ is the period of inflation. During
inflation, the forward light cone increases exponentially compared to a model
without inflation, whereas the past light cone is not affected for $t \geq
t_R$. Hence, provided $\Delta t$ is sufficiently large, $\ell_f (t_R)$ will be
greater than $\ell_p (t_R)$. The condition on $\Delta t$ depends on the
temperature $T_R$ corresponding to time $t_R$, the temperature of reheating.
Demanding that $\ell_f (t_R) > \ell_p (t_R)$ we find, using the analogs of
(2.28) and (2.29), the following criterion
$$
e^{\Delta t H} \geq \, {\ell_p (t_R)\over{\ell_f (t_R) }} \simeq \left(
{t_0\over t_R} \right)^{1/2} = \, \left({T_R\over T_0} \right) \sim 10^{27}
\eqno\eq
$$
for $T_R \sim 10^{14}$GeV and $T_0 \sim 10^{-13}$GeV (the present microwave
background temperature). Thus, in order to solve the homogeneity problem, a
period of inflation with
$$
\Delta t \gg 50 \, H^{-1} \eqno\eq
$$
is required.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 10:} Sketch (physical coordinates vs. time) of the
solution of the homogeneity problem. During inflation, the forward light cone
$l_f(t)$ is expanded exponentially when measured in physical coordinates.
Hence, it does not require many e-foldings of inflation in order that $l_f(t)$
becomes larger than the past light cone at the time of last scattering. The
dashed line is the forward light cone without inflation.}
\medskip
Inflation also can solve the flatness problem$^{34, 30)}$ The key point is
that the entropy density $s$ is no longer constant. As will be explained
later, the temperatures at $t_i$ and $t_R$ are essentially equal. Hence, the
entropy increases during inflation by a factor $\exp (3 H \Delta t)$. Thus,
$\epsilon$ decreases by a factor of $\exp (-2 H \Delta t)$. With the numbers
used in (3.3):
$$
\epsilon_{\rm after} \sim 10^{-54} \, \epsilon_{\rm before} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Hence, $(\rho - \rho_c) / \rho$ can be of order 1 both at $t_i$ and at the
present time. In fact, if inflation occurs at all, the theory then predicts
that at the present time $\Omega = 1$ to a high accuracy (now $\Omega < 1$
would require special initial conditions).
What was said above can be rephrased geometrically: during inflation, the
curvature radius of the Universe -- measured on a fixed physical scale --
increases exponentially. Thus, a piece of space looks essentially flat after
inflation even if it had measurable curvature before.
Most importantly, inflation provides a mechanism which in a casual way
generates the primordial perturbations required for galaxies, clusters and even
larger objects. In inflationary Universe models, the Hubble radius
(``apparent" horizon), $3t$, and the ``actual" horizon (the forward light cone)
do not coincide at late times. Provided (3.3) is satisfied, then (as sketched
in Fig. 11) all scales within our apparent horizon were inside the actual
horizon since $t_i$. Thus, it is in principle possible to have a casual
generation mechanism for perturbations$^{35-38)}$.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 11:} A sketch (physical coordinates vs. time of the
solution of the formation of structure problem. Provided that the period of
inflation is sufficiently long, the separation $d_c$ between two galaxy
clusters is at all times smaller than the forward light cone. The dashed line
indicates the Hubble radius. Note that $d_c$ starts out smaller than the Hubble
radius, crosses it during the de Sitter period, and then reenters it at late
times.}
\medskip
The generation of perturbations is supposed to be due to a causal microphysical
process. Such processes can only act coherently on length scales smaller than
the Hubble radius $\ell_H (t)$ where
$$
\ell_H (t) = H^{-1} (t) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
A heuristic way to understand the meaning of $\ell_H (t)$ is to realize that it
is the distance which light (and hence the maximal distance any causal effects)
can propagate in one expansion time:
$$
\ell_H (t) \sim a (t) \int\limits_{t}^{t+H^{-1} (t)} a (t^\prime)^{-1} \,
dt^\prime \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In Section 5 a more mathematical justification for the definition and role of
$\ell_H (t)$ will be given.
As will be discussed in Section 5, the density perturbations produced during
inflation are due to quantum fluctuations in the matter and gravitational
fields$^{36, 37)}$. The amplitude of these inhomogeneities corresponds to a
tempertuare $T_H$
$$
T_H \sim H \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the Hawking temperature of the de Sitter phase. This implies that at all times
$t$ during inflation, perturbations with a fixed physical wavelength $\sim
H^{-1}$ will be produced. Subsequently, the length of the waves is streched
with the expansion of space, and soon becomes larger than the Hubble radius.
The phases of the inhomogeneities are random. Thus, the inflationary Universe
scenario predicts perturbations on all scales ranging from the comoving Hubble
radius at the beginning of inflation to the corresponding quantity at the time
of reheating. In particular, provided that inflation lasts sufficiently long
(see (3.4)), perturbations on scales of galaxies and beyond will be generated.
Note, however, that it is very dangerous to interpret de Sitter Hawking
radiation as thermal radiation. In fact, the euation of state of this
``radiation" is not thermal$^{213)}$.
Now that the reader is (hopefully) convinced that inflation is a beautiful
idea, the question arises how to realize this scenario. The initial hope was
that the same scalar fields (Higgs fields) which particle physicists introduce
in order to spontaneously break the internal symmetries of their field theory
models would lead to inflation. This hope was based on the fact that the
energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$ of a real scalar field $\varphi
(\underline{x}, t)$ are given by
$$
\eqalign{\rho (\varphi) & = {1\over 2} \, \dot \varphi^2 + {1\over 2} \,
(\nabla \varphi)^2 + V (\varphi) \cr
p (\varphi) & = {1\over 2} \dot \varphi^2 - {1\over 6} (\nabla \varphi)^2 - V
(\varphi) \, .} \eqno\eq
$$
Thus, provided that at some initial time $t_i$
$$
\dot \varphi (\underline{x}, \, t_i) = \nabla \varphi (\underline{x}_i \, t_i)
= 0 \eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
V (\varphi (\underline{x}_i \, t_i) ) > 0 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the equation of state of matter will read
$$
p = - \rho \eqno\eq
$$
and, from the FRW equations it will follow that
$$
a (t) = e^{tH} \> , \> H^2 = \, {8 \pi G\over 3} \, V (\varphi) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The next question is how to realize the required initial conditions (3.10) and
to maintain the key constraints
$$
\dot \varphi^2 \ll V (\varphi) \> , \> (\nabla \varphi)^2 \ll V (\varphi)
\eqno\eq
$$
for sufficiently long (see (3.4)). This typically requires potentials which
are very flat near $\varphi (\underline{x}, \, t_i)$. Worse yet, the
parameters of the potential $V (\varphi)$ must be chosen such that the final
amplitude of density perturbations is sufficiently small to agree with the
limits on CMB anisotropies. As we will demonstrate in Section 5, these
conditions impose severe constraints on the constants which appear in $V
(\varphi)$.
In light of these difficulties it is important to keep in mind that inflation
can also be generated by modifying gravity at high curvatures (see e.g., Refs.
39-41). It is also wise to investigate alternative theories of structure
formation which do not rely on inflation.
\section{Topological Defect Models}
According to particle physics theories, matter at high energies and
temperatures must be described in terms of fields. Gauge symmetries have
proved to be extremely useful in describing the standard model of particle
physics, according to which at high energies the laws of nature are invariant
under a nonabelian group $G$ of internal symmetry transformations
$$
G = {\rm SU} (3)_c \times {\rm SU} (2)_L \times U(1)_Y \eqno\eq
$$
which at a temperature of about 200 MeV is spontaneously broken down to
$$
G^\prime = {\rm SU} (3)_c \times {\rm U} (1) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The subscript on the SU(3) subgroup indicates that it is the color symmetry
group of the strong interactions, ${\rm SU} (2)_L \times $ U(1)$_Y$ is the
Glashow-Weinberg-Salam (WS) model of weak and electromagnetic interactions, the
subscripts $L$ and $Y$ denoting left handedness and hypercharge respectively.
At low energies, the WS model spontaneously breaks to the U(1) subgroup of
electromagnetism.
Spontaneous symmetry breaking is induced by an order parameter $\varphi$ taking
on a nontrivial expectation value $< \varphi >$ below a certain temperture
$T_c$. In some particle physics models, $\varphi$ is a fundamental scalar
field in a nontrivial representation of the gauge group $G$ which is broken.
However, $\varphi$ could also be a fermion condensate, as in the BCS theory of
superconductivity.
The transition taking place at $T = T_c$ is a phase transition and $T_c$ is
called the critical temperature. From condensed matter physics it is well
known that in many cases topological defects form during phase transitions,
particularly if the transition rate is fast on a scale compared to the system
size. When cooling a metal, defects in the crystal configuration will be
frozen in; during a temperature quench of $^4$He, thin vortex tubes of the
normal phase are trapped in the superfluid; and analogously in a temperature
quench of a superconductor, flux lines are trapped in a surrounding sea of the
superconducting Meissner phase (see Fig. 12 for an example$^{42)}$ of defect
formation).
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 12:} A simulation of defect formation in the $2 + 1$
dimensional Abelian Higgs model$^{42)}$ in an expanding background. The total
energy density is plotted against the two spatial coordinates. The initial
conditions were specified by thermal initial conditions with random phases of
the order parameter on Hubble scales. At later times, the thermal noise has
redshifted away, leaving behind trapped energy density in vortices.}
\medskip
In cosmology, the rate at which the phase transition proceeds is given by the
expansion rate of the Universe. Hence, topological defects will inevitably be
produced in a cosmological phase transition$^{12)}$, provided the underlying
particle physics model allows such defects.
Topological defects can be point-like (monopoles), string-like (cosmic
strings)$^{43)}$ or planar (domain walls), depending on the particle physics
model (see Section 6). Also of importance are textures$^{44, 45)}$, point
defects in space-time.
Topological defects represent regions in space with trapped energy density.
These regions of surplus energy can act as seeds for structure formation as is
illustrated in Fig. 13. For point-like defects, the force which causes
clustering about the seed can be understood using Newtonian gravity. The
process is called gravitational accretion. For precise calculations (and in
the case of other defects), general relativistic effects must be taken into
account (see Section 6).
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 13:} Sketch of the basic gravitational accretion
mechanism. The topological defect (in this case a cosmic string loop) is a
configuration of trapped energy density. This excess density produces a
Newtonian gravitational attractive force on the surrounding matter.}
\medskip
No stable topological defects arise in the breaking of the WS model. However,
there is good evidence for phase transitions at very high energies. The
coupling constants of SU(3)$_c$, SU(2) and U(1) are seen to converge at an
energy scale $\eta$ of about
$$
\eta \sim 10^{16} \, {\rm GeV} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
It is therefore not unreasonable to speculate that the standard model results
from the breaking of a larger symmetry group $G_0$ at a scale $\eta$. A large
class of unified gauge theories$^{46)}$ based on a symmetry breaking
$$
G_0 \longrightarrow G = {\rm SU} (3) \times {\rm SU}(2) \times {\rm U}(1)
\eqno\eq
$$
admit topological defects, many theories have cosmic string solutions.
Topological defect models of structure formation will be discussed in detail in
Section 6. Here I will briefly point out by which mechanism correlations on
all cosmological scales are induced. To be concrete, I consider the cosmic
string model$^{47, 48)}$. Cosmic strings are one-dimensional defects without
ends. Hence, they must be either infinite in length or else closed loops. The
fact that at the time of the phase transition $t_c$, the order parameter has
random phases on scales larger than the initial correlation length implies that
at $t_c$ a random walk-like network of infinite strings will form$^{12)}$.
This implies nontrivial correlations of structures seeded by these strings on
all scales larger than the initial correlation length.
\section{Need for Dark Matter}
At this point we have illustrated two classes of mechanisms by which structure
formation in the Universe can be seeded: quantum fluctuations during a period
of inflation, and topological defects. To completely specify a theory of
structure formation, however, we must also specify what the ``dark matter"
which dominates the energy density of the Universe today consists of (see e.g.
Ref. 49).
The evidence for dark matter has been accumulating over the past decade.
Measurements of galaxy velocity rotation curves indicate that a large fraction
of the mass of a galaxy does not shine. In Fig. 14, the measured rotation
velocity $v$ is plotted as a function of the distance $r$ from the center of
the galaxy. This velocity is compared to the velocity $\hat v (r)$ which
results from the virial theorem, assuming that light traces mass (the
luminosity profile is given in the upper frame). The data is for the spiral
galaxies NGC2403 and NGC3198$^{50)}$. The comparison shows that the mass of
these galaxies extends significantly beyond the visible radius and that --
assuming Newtonian gravity is applicable -- a large fraction of the mass of a
spiral galaxy must be dark.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 14:} Velocity rotation curves for two galaxies (from Ref.
50). The upper panel shows the luminosity of the galaxy as a function of the
distance from the center, the lower panel presents the velocity (vertical axis,
in units of $km s^{-1}$) as a function of the same distance. The solid curve is
the velocity inferred from the observed luminosity curve, using the virial
theorem, the dotted curves are the observational results. The fact that the
velocity rotation curves remain constant beyond the visible radius of the
galaxy is strong evidence for galactic dark matter.}
\medskip
The fraction of matter that shines can be expressed as a fraction $\Omega_{\rm
lum}$ of the critical density $\rho_c$. The present estimates give
$$
\Omega_{\rm lum} \ll 0.01 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
whereas the fraction $\Omega_g$ of mass in galaxies is much larger$^{51)}$
$$
\Omega_g \sim 0.03 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
It is also possible to estimate the fraction $\Omega_{cl}$ of mass which is
gravitationally bound in clusters. Current estimates using the virial theorem
give$^{51)}$
$$
\Omega_{cl} \sim 0.1 - 0.2 \eqno\eq
$$
(this comes mainly from studying the infall of galaxies towards the Virgo
cluster).
Finally, the amount $\Omega_{LSS}$ of mass in large-scale structures can be
estimated by measuring the large-scale peculiar velocities and inferring the
mass required to generate such velocities. Current estimates give$^{52, 53)}$
$$
\Omega_{LSS} = 0.8 \pm 0.5 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
As mentioned in Section 2, nucleosynthesis provides independent limits on the
fraction $\Omega_B$ of mass in baryons (see (2.25)). Comparing (3.19-3.22)
with (2.25) we conclude:
\item{i)} There must be baryonic dark matter. In fact, most of the dark matter
in galaxies and/or clusters could be baryonic, and some of this baryonic dark
matter may have recently been discovered by gravitational microlensing.
\item{ii)} If $\Omega = 1$, then most of the matter in the Universe consists of
nonbaryonic dark matter. In fact, there is increasing evidence (see (3.22))
that nonbaryonic dark matter must exist independent of the theoretical
prejudice for $\Omega = 1$.
The dark matter in the Universe is visible only through its gravitational
effects. Hence, nonbaryonic dark matter candidates can be divided into two
classes, cold dark matter (CDM) and hot dark matter (HDM).
CDM particles are cold, i.e., their peculiar velocity $v$ is negligible at the
time $t_{eq}$ when structure formation begins:
$$
v (t_{eq}) \ll 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Candidates for CDM include the axion (coherent oscillations of a low mass
scalar field) and neutralinos (the lightest stable supersymmetric particle,
which must be neutral).
HDM particles are relativistic at $t_{eq}$:
$$
v (t_{eq}) \sim 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The prime candidate is a $25 h^{+2}_{50}$eV tau neutrino. Note that this mass
is well within the experimental bounds for the tau neutrino mass, and also that
many particle physics models -- in particular those which lead to neutrino
oscillations -- predict masses of this order of magnitude.
\section{Survey of Models}
Any theory of structure formation must specify both the source of fluctuations
and the composition of the dark matter. The reader is warned that the model
called the ``CDM Model" is a model with CDM {\bf AND} perturbations generated
by quantum fluctuations during a hypothetical period of inflation.
Inflation-based models were the first to be considered in quantitative detail,
initially assuming a HDM-dominated Universe. Almost immediately, however,
contradictions with basic observations appeared$^{54)}$ (see, however, Ref. 214
for an opposing point of view).
The problem of HDM-based inflationary models is related to neutrino free
streaming$^{55)}$. The primordial perturbations in this theory are dark matter
fluctuations, but because of the large velocity of the dark matter particles,
the inhomogeneities are washed out on all scales below the neutrino free
streaming length $\lambda^c_j (t)$,
$$
\lambda^c_j (t) \sim v (t) z (t) t \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which is the comoving distance the particles move in one Hubble expansion time.
Since the neutrino velocity $v(t)$ and the redshift $z(t)$ both scale as
$a(t)^{-1}$, the free streaming length decreases as
$$
\lambda^c_j (t) \sim t^{-1/3} \eqno\eq
$$
after $t_{eq}$ (before $t_{eq}$ the radiation pressure dominates). Hence, in
an inflationary HDM model all perturbations on scales $\lambda$ smaller than
the maximal value of $\lambda^c_j (t)$ are erased. The critical scale
$\lambda^{\rm max}_j$ is given by the value of $\lambda^c_j (t)$ at the time
when the neutrinos become non-relativistic which is in turn determined by the
neutrino mass $m_{\nu}$. The result is
$$
\lambda^{\rm max}_j \simeq 30 \, {\rm Mpc} \, \left({{m_{\nu}} \over {25 {\rm
eV}}} \right)^{-2} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
a scale much larger than the mean separation of galaxies and clusters. Since
we observe galaxies outside of large-scale structures, this model is in blatant
disagreement with observations.
Inflation-based models are hence only viable if (at least a substantial
fraction of) the dark matter is cold. Such models have become known as ``CDM
models", and are to a first approximation rather successful at predicting the
clustering properties of galaxies and galaxy clusters$^{56)}$. There are many
parameters in CDM models: the amplitude of the density perturbations, the power
of the spectrum (see Section 4), the value of $\Omega$, the fraction
$\Omega_B$ of baryons, to mention some of the main ones. It is also possible
to add a small fraction $\Omega_v$ of hot dark matter (yielding a class of
so-called ``Mixed Dark Matter" models).
Topological defect models were first developed in the context of CDM. Theories
based on cosmic strings$^{57-59)}$ or on global textures$^{45, 60)}$ have also
been fairly successful in explaining observations (again to a first
approximation).
It is important to note that if perturbations are seeded by long-lived
topological defects (e.g., cosmic strings), then the above arguments against
hot dark matter disappear$^{61, 62)}$. The seed perturbations can survive
neutrino free streaming as long as the seeds remain present for many Hubble
expansion times. If we consider a comoving scale $\lambda$ much smaller than
$\lambda^{\rm max}_j$ of (3.27), then a dark matter perturbation will begin to
grow about the seed fluctuations at a time $t(\lambda)$ when
$$
\lambda^c_j (t (\lambda)) = \lambda \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Cosmic string based hot dark matter models have also been successful at
explaining the qualitative features of observations$^{63)}$.
\chapter{Basics of Structure Formation}
In the structure formation models mentioned in the previous section, small
amplitude seed perturbations are predicted to arise due to particle physics
effects in the very early Universe. They then grow by gravitational
instability to produce the cosmological structures we observe today. In order
to be able to make the connection between particle physics and observations, it
is important to understand the gravitational evolution of fluctuations. This
section will introduce the basic concepts of this topic. We begin, however,
with an overview of some of the relevant data.
\section{Survey of Data}
It is length scales corresponding to galaxies and larger which are of greatest
interest in cosmology when attempting to find an imprint of the primordial
fluctuations produced by particle physics. On these scales, gravitational
effects are assumed to be dominant, and the fluctuations are not too far from
the linear regime. On smaller scales, nonlinear gravitational and
hydrodynamical effects determine the final state and mask the initial
perturbations.
To set the scales, consider the mean separation of galaxies, which is about
5$h^{-1}$ Mpc$^{64)}$, and that of Abell clusters which is around 25$h^{-1}$
Mpc$^{65)}$. The largest coherent structures seen in current redshift surveys
have a length of about 100$h^{-1}$ Mpc, the recent detections of CMB
anisotropies probe the density field on length scales of about $10^3 h^{-1}$
Mpc, and the present horizon corresponds to a distance of about $3 \cdot 10^3
h^{-1}$ Mpc.
Galaxies are gravitationally bound systems containing billions of stars. They
are non-randomly distributed in space. A quantitative measure of this
non-randomness is the ``two-point correlation function" $\xi_2 (r)$ which gives
the excess probability of finding a galaxy at a distance $r$ from a given
galaxy:
$$
\xi_2 (r) = < \, {n (r) - n_0\over n_0} \, > \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Here, $n_0$ is the average number density of galaxies, and $n(r)$ is the
density of galaxies a distance $r$ from a given one. The pointed braces stand
for ensemble averaging.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=13cm \epsfbox{bfig15.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 15:} Recent observational results for the two point
correlation function of IRAS galaxies, in both a volume limited subsample and a
complete galaxy sample (see Ref. 66 which explains the meaning of the measure
$J_3(r)$).}
\medskip
Recent observational results from a redshift survey of IRAS (infrared) galaxies
yields reasonable agreement$^{66)}$ with a form (see Fig. 15)
$$
\xi_2 (r) \simeq \left({r_0\over r} \right)^\gamma \eqno\eq
$$
with scaling length $r_0 \simeq 5 h^{-1}$ Mpc and power $\gamma \simeq 1.8$. A
theory of structure formation must explain both the amplitude and the slope of
this correlation function.
Galaxies do not all have the same mass. There are more smaller galaxies than
large ones (our galaxy is a large one). The distribution of galaxy masses is
given by the ``galaxy mass function" $n(M)$, where $n (M) dM$ is the number
density of galaxies in the mass range $[M, \, M+dM]$. Since we can only
measure luminosity but not mass, the observable measure of the galaxy
distribution is $\phi (L)$, the ``galaxy luminosity function." Now, $\phi (L)
dL$ is the number density of galaxies with luminosity $L$ in the interval $[L,
\, L+dL]$. Recent results for $\phi (L)$ from the IRAS galaxy survey are
reproduced in Fig. 16$^{67)}$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=11cm \epsfbox{bfig16.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 16:} The luminosity function of IRAS galaxies. The
vertical axis is $\phi (L)$, the horizontal axis is luminosity $L$ in units of
solar luminosity. The solid curve represents the data, the dashed curve is a
fit to a theoretical model (see Ref. 67).}
\medskip
Theories must also be able to explain the internal mass distribution of
galaxies which can be inferred from the galaxy rotation curves (see Fig. 14).
According to the virial theorem, the velocity $v(r)$ at a distance $r$ from the
center of a galaxy is determined by the mass $M(r)$ inside of $r$:
$$
{mv^2\over r} = G \, {m M(r)\over r^2} \eqno\eq
$$
where $m$ is a test mass. Hence
$$
v (r) = \left(G \, {M (r)\over r} \right)^{1/2} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
A constant rotation velocity implies $M(r) \sim r$ and hence a density profile
$\rho (r)$ of
$$
\rho (r) \sim r^{-2} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
This condition puts constraints on the possible composition of the galactic
dark matter.
An Abell cluster$^{68)}$ is a region in space with greater than fifty bright
galaxies in a sphere of radius $1.5 h^{-1}$ Mpc, i.e., a region with a very
high overdensity of galaxies. Observations indicate that Abell clusters are
not distributed randomly in space. The cluster two point correlation function
$\xi_c (r)$ has a form similar to (4.2)$^{65, 69)}$:
$$
\xi_c (r) \simeq \left({r_0\over r} \right)^\gamma \eqno\eq
$$
with $r_0 \simeq 15 h^{-1}$ Mpc and $\gamma \simeq 2$ (see Fig. 17 which is
taken from a recent analysis of rich clusters of galaxies selected from the APM
Galaxy Survey$^{69)}$).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=11cm \epsfbox{bfig17.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 17:} The two point correlation function $\xi_c$ (denoted
by $\xi_{cc}$ in the figure) of clusters of galaxies drawn from the APM galaxy
survey as a function of their separation $s$. Results for two different samples
of clusters are given.}
\medskip
There are several remarkable features about the clustering of galaxies and
galaxy clusters. First, there is evidence for universality of the functional
form of $\xi (r)$; its slope is about 2 for both populations. Secondly,
relative to their respective mean separations, galaxies are more clustered than
galaxy clusters. This can be explained by the action of gravity. Gravity has
had longer to act on the scales of galaxies than on that of clusters, and has
hence amplified the galaxy correlation function relative to that of clusters.
There is a wide spread of cluster masses which can be described by the cluster
multiplicity function $\Phi_c (n)$, where $\Phi_c (n) dn$ is the number density
of clusters containing between $n$ and $n+dn$ galaxies. Fig. 18 is a sketch of
the observed cluster multiplicity function taken from Ref. 70. Note that the
cluster mass function inferred from Fig. 18 and the galaxy mass function
deduced from the galaxy luminosity function of Fig. 16 match up quite well at a
mass of about $10^{12} M_\odot$. Below this mass, the objects are well defined
dynamical entities whereas for larger masses they are composed of fragments. A
reason for the difference may be due to the fact that clouds of more than
$10^{12} M_\odot$ cannot cool without fragmenting$^{71)}$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10.5cm \epsfbox{bfig18.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 18:} The cluster multiplicity function $\Phi_c (n)$
(denoted as $n$ on the figure) as a function of the number $n$ (horizontal
axis).}
\medskip
On scales larger than galaxy clusters there is not at present a clear
mathematical description of structure. Many galaxy redshift surveys have
discovered coherent filamentary and planar structures and voids on scales of up
to $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc$^{14, 72-75)}$. For example, the astronomers working on
the ``Center for Astrophysics" redshift survey$^{14)}$ have analyzed many
adjacent slices of the northern celestial sphere. For all galaxies above a
limiting magnitude of 15.5 they measured the redshifts $z$. Fig. 19 is a
sketch of redshift versus angle $\alpha$ in the sky for one slice. The second
direction in the sky has been projected onto the $\alpha -z$ plane. The most
prominent feature is the band of galaxies at a distance of about $100h^{-1}$
Mpc. This band also appears in neighboring slices and is therefore presumably
part of a planar density enhancement of comoving planar size of at least $(50
\times 100) \times h^{-2}$ Mpc$^2$. This structure is often called the ``great
wall." It is a challenge for theories of structure formation to explain both
the observed scale and topology of the galaxy distribution.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig19.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 19:} Results from the CFA redshift survey. Radial distance
gives the redshift of galaxies, the angular distance corresponds to right
ascension. The results from several slices of the sky (at different
declinations) have been projected into the same cone.}
\medskip
Until 1992 there was little evidence for any convergence of the galaxy
distribution towards homogeneity. Each new survey led to the discovery of new
coherent structures in the Universe on a scale comparable to that of the
survey. In 1992, preliminary results of a much deeper redshift survey were
announced$^{15)}$ which for the first time found no new coherent structures on
scales larger than $100 h^{-1}$ Mpc. This is the first direct evidence for the
cosmological principle from optical surveys (the isotropy of the CMB has for a
long time been a strong point in its support).
In summary, a lot of data from optical and infrared galaxies alone are
currently available, and new data are being collected at a rapid rate. The
observational constraints on theories of structure formation are becoming
tighter. A lot of theoretical work is needed in order to allow for detailed
comparisons between theory and observations.
\section{Gravitational Instability}
In this article we only discuss theories in which structures grow by
gravitational accretion. The basic mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 20.
Consider first a flat space-time background. A density perturbation with
$\delta \rho > 0$ will then give rise to an excess gravitational attractive
force $F$ acting on the surrounding matter. This force is proportional to
$\delta \rho$, and will hence lead to exponential growth of the perturbation
since
$$
\delta \ddot \rho \sim F \sim \delta \rho \Rightarrow \delta \rho \sim \exp
(\alpha t) \eqno\eq
$$
with some constant $\alpha$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=8.2cm \epsfbox{bfig20.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 20:} Sketch of the gravitational instability mechanism.
The vertical axis is the density perturbation $D$ as a function of a line in
space ($x$). A small initial overdensity ($A$) will cause a gravitational
acceleration $g$ towards it, which will lead to an increase in the perturbation
($B$). Note that in general underdense regions develop in addition to the
growing overdense areas.}
\medskip
In an expanding background space-time, the acceleration is damped by the
expansion. If $r (t)$ is the physcial distance of a test particle from the
perturbation, then on a scale $r$
$$
\delta \ddot \rho \sim F \sim \, {\delta \rho\over{r^2 (t)}} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which results in power-law increase of $\delta \rho$. The goal of this
subsection is to discuss the growth rates of inhomogeneities in more detail
(see e.g. Refs. 76 and 77 for modern reviews).
Because of our assumption that all perturbations start out with a small
amplitude, we can linearize the equations for gravitational fluctuations. The
analysis is then greatly simplified by going to Fourier space in which all
modes $\delta (\underline{k})$ decouple. We expand the fractional density
contrast $\delta (\underline{x})$ as follows:
$$
\delta (\underline{x}) = {\delta \rho (x)\over \rho} = (2 \pi)^{-3/2} V^{1/2}
\int d^3 k \> e^{i \underline{k} \cdot \underline{x}} \delta (\underline{k}) \,
, \eqno\eq
$$
where $V$ is a cutoff volume which disappears from all physical observables.
The ``power spectrum" $P(k)$ is defined by
$$
P (k) = < |\delta (k) |^2 > \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where the braces denote an ensemble average (in most structure formation
models, the generation of perturbations is a stochastic process, and hence
observables can only be calculated by averaging over the ensemble. For
observations, the braces can be viewed as an angular average).
The physical measure of mass fluctuations on a length scale $\lambda$ is the
r.m.s. mass fluctuation $\delta M/M (\lambda)$ on this scale. It is determined
by the power spectrum in the following way. We pick a center $\underline{x}_0$
of a sphere $B_\lambda (x_0)$ of radius $\lambda$ and calculate
$$
\big| {\delta M\over M} \big|^2 \, (\underline{x}_0 , \, \lambda) = \big|
\int\limits_{B_\lambda (\underline{x}_0)} d^3 x \delta (\underline{x}) \,
{1\over{V (B_\lambda)}} \big|^2 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $V (B_\lambda)$ is the volume of the sphere. Inserting the Fourier
decomposition (4.3) we obtain
$$
\eqalign{
\big| {\delta M\over M} \big|^2 (\underline{x}_0 , \, \lambda) = & {V\over{(2
\pi)^3}} \, {1\over{V(B_\lambda )^2}} \int\limits_{B_\lambda (0)} d^3 x_1 \,
\int\limits_{B_\lambda (0)} d^3 x_2 \, \int d^4 k_1 d^4 k_2 e^{i
(\underline{k}_1 - \underline{k}_2) \cdot \underline{x}_0}\, \cr
& e^{i \underline{k}_1 \cdot \underline{x}_1} e^{-i \underline{k}_2 \cdot
\underline{x}_2} \delta (\underline{k}_1)^{\ast} \, \delta (\underline{k}_2) \,
. } \eqno\eq
$$
Taking the average value of this quantity over all $\underline{x}_0$ yields
$$
< \left( {\delta M\over M} \right)^2 (\lambda) > = \int d^3 k W_k (\lambda) |
\delta (\underline{k} |^2 \eqno\eq
$$
with a window function $W_k (\lambda)$ with the following properties
$$
W_k (\lambda) \cases{\simeq 1 & $k < k_\lambda = 2 \pi / \lambda$ \cr
\simeq 0 & $k > k_\lambda$ .\cr} \eqno\eq
$$
Therefore the r.m.s. mass perturbation on a scale $\lambda$ becomes
$$
< \big| {\delta M\over M} (\lambda) \big|^2 > \sim k_{\lambda}^3 P(k_{\lambda})
\, . \eqno\eq
$$
Astronomers usually assume that $P(k)$ grows as a power of $k$:
$$
P (k) \sim k^n \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$n$ being called the index of the power spectrum. For $n = 1$ we get the
so-called Harrison-Zel'dovich scale invariant spectrum$^{78)}$.
Both inflationary Universe and topological defect models of structure formation
predict a roughly scale invariant spectrum. The distinguishing feature of this
spectrum is that the r.m.s. mass perturbations are independent of the scale $k$
when measured at the time $t_H (k)$ when the associated wavelength is equal to
the Hubble radius, i.e., when the scale ``enters" the Hubble radius. Let us
derive this fact for the scales entering during the matter dominated epoch.
The time $t_H (k)$ is determined by
$$
k^{-1} a (t_H (k)) = t_H (k) \eqno\eq
$$
which leads to
$$
t_H (k) \sim k^{-3} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
According to the linear theory of cosmological perturbations discussed in the
following subsection, the mass fluctuations increase as $a(t)$ for $t >
t_{eq}$. Hence
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, t_H (k)) = \left( {t_H (k)\over t} \right)^{2/3} \,
{\delta M\over M} \, (k, t) \sim {\rm const} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
since the first factor scales as $k^{-2}$ and -- using (4.15) and inserting
$n=1$ -- the second as $k^2$.
\section{Newtonian Theory of Cosmological Perturbations}
The Newtonian theory of cosmological perturbations is an approximate analysis
which is valid on wavelengths $\lambda$ much smaller than the Hubble radius $t$
and for negligible pressure $p$, i.e., $p \ll \rho$. It is based on expanding
the hydrodynamical equations about a homogeneous background solution.
The starting points are the continuity, Euler and Poisson equations
$$
\dot \rho + \underline{\nabla} (\rho \underline{v}) = 0 \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\underline{\dot v} + (\underline{v} \cdot \underline{\nabla}) \underline{v} = -
\underline{\nabla} \phi - {1\over \rho} \, \underline{\nabla} p \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\nabla^2 \phi = 4 \pi G \rho \eqno\eq
$$
for a fluid with energy density $\rho$, pressure $p$, velocity $\underline{v}$
and Newtonian gravitational potential $\phi$, written in terms of physical
coordinates $(t, \, \underline{r})$.
The transition to an expanding space is made by introducing comoving
coordinates $\underline{x}$ and peculiar velocity $\underline{u} =
\underline{\dot {x}}$:
$$
\underline{r} = a (t) \underline{x} \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\underline{v} = \dot a (t) \underline{x} + a (t) \underline{u} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The first term on the right hand side of (4.24) is the expansion velocity.
The perturbation equations are obtained by linearizing Equations (4.20-22)
about a homogeneous background solution $\rho = \bar \rho (t) , \> p = 0$ and
$\underline{u} = 0$. Using the definition
$$
\delta \equiv {\delta \rho\over \rho} \, ,\eqno\eq
$$
the linearization ansatz can be written
$$
\rho (\underline{x}, t) = \bar \rho (t) (1 + \delta (\underline{x}, t) ) \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
If we consider adiabatic perturbations (no entropy density variations), then
after some algebra the linearized equations become
$$
\dot \delta + \nabla \cdot \underline{u} = 0 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\underline{\dot {u}} + 2 {\dot a\over a} \underline{u} = - a^2 (\nabla \delta
\phi + c^2_s \nabla \delta) \eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
\nabla^2 \delta \phi = 4 \pi G \bar \rho a^2 \delta \, , \eqno\eq
$$
with the speed of sound $c_s$ given by
$$
c^2_s = {\partial p\over{\partial \rho}} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The two first order equations (4.27) and (4.28) can be combined to yield a
single second order differential equation for $\delta$. With the help of
(4.29) this equation reads
$$
\ddot \delta + 2 H \dot \delta - 4 \pi G \bar \rho \delta - {c^2_s\over a^2}
\nabla^2 \delta = 0 \eqno\eq
$$
which in Fourier space becomes
$$
\ddot \delta_{\underline{k}} + 2 H \dot \delta_{\underline{k}} + \left( {c^2_s
k^2 \over a^2} - 4 \pi G \bar \rho \right) \delta_{\underline{k}} = 0 \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
Here, $H(t)$ as usual denotes the expansion rate, and $\delta_{\underline{k}}$
stands for $\delta (\underline{k})$.
Already a quick look at Equation (4.32) reveals the presence of a distinguished
scale for cosmological perturbations, the Jeans length
$$
\lambda_J = {2 \pi\over k_J} \eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
k^2_J = \left( {k\over a} \right)^2 = {4 \pi G \bar \rho\over c^2_s} \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
On length scales larger than $\lambda_J$, the spatial gradient term is
negligible, and the term linear in $\delta$ in (4.32) acts like a negative mass
square quadratic potential with damping due to the expansion of the Universe,
in agreement with the intuitive analysis leading to (4.7) and (4.8). On length
scales smaller than $\lambda_J$, however, (4.32) becomes a damped harmonic
oscillator equation and perturbations on these scales decay.
For $t > t_{eq}$ and for $\lambda \gg \lambda_J$, Equation (4.32) becomes
$$
\ddot \delta_k + {4\over{3t}} \, \dot \delta_k - {2\over{3t^2}} \, \delta_k = 0
\eqno\eq
$$
and has the general solution
$$
\delta_k (t) = c_1 t^{2/3} + c_2 t^{-1} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
This demonstrates that for $t > t_{eq}$ and $\lambda \gg \lambda_J$, the
dominant mode of perturbations increases as $a(t)$, a result we already used in
the previous subsection (see (4.19)).
For $\lambda \ll \lambda_J$ and $t > t_{eq}$, Equation (4.32) becomes
$$
\ddot \delta_k + 2 H \dot \delta_k + c_s^2 \left({k\over a} \right)^2 \delta_k
= 0 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and has solutions corresponding to damped oscillations:
$$
\delta_k (t) \sim a^{-1/2} (t) \exp \{ \pm i c_s k \int dt^\prime a
(t^\prime)^{-1} \} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
As an important application of the Newtonian theory of cosmological
perturbations, let us compare sub-horizon scale fluctuations in a
baryon-dominated Universe $(\Omega = \Omega_B = 1)$ and in a CDM-dominated
Universe with $\Omega_{CDM} = 0.9$ and $\Omega = 1$. We consider scales which
enter the Hubble radius at about $t_{eq}$.
In the initial time interval $t_{eq} < t < t_{rec}$, the baryons are coupled to
the photons. Hence, the baryonic fluid has a large pressure $p_B$
$$
p_B \simeq p_r = {1\over 3} \, \rho_r \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Hence, the speed of sound is relativistic
$$
c_s \simeq \left( {p_r\over \rho_m} \right)^{1/2} = {1\over{\sqrt{3}}} \,
\left({\rho_r\over \rho_m} \right)^{1/2} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The value of $c_s$ slowly decreases in this time interval, attaining a value of
about $1/10$ at $t_{rec}$. From (4.34) it follows that the Jeans mass $M_J$,
the mass inside a sphere of radius $\lambda_J$, increases until $t_{rec}$ when
it reaches its maximal value $M_J^{max}$
$$
M_J^{max} = M_J (t_{rec}) = {4 \pi\over 3} \, \lambda_J (t_{rec})^3 \bar \rho
(t_{rec}) \sim 10^{17} (\Omega h^2)^{-1/2} M_{\odot} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
At the time of recombination, the baryons decouple from the radiation fluid.
Hence, the baryon pressure $p_B$ drops abruptly, as does the Jeans length (see
(4.34)). The remaining pressure $p_B$ is determined by the temperature and
thus continues to decrease as $t$ increases. It can be shown that the Jeans
mass continues to decrease after $t_{rec}$, starting from a value
$$
M^-_J (t_{rec}) \sim 10^6 (\Omega h^2)^{-1/2} \, M_\odot \eqno\eq
$$
(where the superscript ``$-$" indicates the mass immediately after $t_{eq}$.
In contrast, CDM has negligible pressure throughout the period $t > t_{eq}$ and
hence experiences no Jeans damping. A CDM perturbation which enters the Hubble
radius at $t_{eq}$ with amplitude $\delta_i$ has an amplitude at $t_{rec}$
given by
$$
\delta^{CDM}_k (t_{rec}) \simeq \, {a (t_{rec})\over{a (t_{eq})}} \, \delta_i
\, , \eqno\eq
$$
whereas a perturbation with the same scale and initial amplitude in a
baryon-dominated Universe is damped
$$
\delta_k^{BDM} (t_{rec}) \simeq \, \left({a (t_{eq})\over{a (t_{eq})}}
\right)^{-1/2} \, \delta_i \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In order for the perturbations to have the same amplitude today, the initial
size of the inhomogeneity must be much larger in a BDM-dominated Universe than
in a CDM-dominated one:
$$
\delta^{BDM}_k (t_{eq}) \simeq \left( {z (t_{eq})\over{z (t_{eq})}}
\right)^{3/2} \delta_k^{CDM} \, (t_{eq}) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For $\Omega = 1$ and $h = 1/2$ the enhancement factor is about 30.
In a CDM-dominated Universe the baryons experience Jeans damping, but after
$t_{rec}$ the baryons quickly fall into the potential wells created by the CDM
perturbations, and hence the baryon perturbations are proportional to the CDM
inhomogeneities (see Fig. 21).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig21.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 21:} Comparison of the growth of fluctuations in baryon
and CDM dominated Universes. The horizontal axis is time, the vertical axis is
the density perturbation. The curve labelled by $a$ describes the evolution of
fluctuations in a BDM Universe. The growth of CDM perturbations follows the
curve $b$, and curve $c$ is a sketch of the time development of baryon
perturbations in a CDM dominated Universe. To be specific, perturbations on a
scale which enters the Hubble radius at $t_{eq}$ are considered.}
\medskip
The above considerations, coupled with information about CMB anisotropies, can
be used to rule out a model with $\Omega = \Omega_B = 1$. The argument goes as
follows (see Section 7). For adiabatic fluctuations, the amplitude of CMB
anisotropies on an angular scale $\vartheta$ is determined by the value of
$\delta \rho/\rho$ on the corresponding length scale $\lambda (\vartheta)$ at
$t_{eq}$:
$$
{\delta T\over T} (\vartheta) = {1\over 3} \, {{\delta \rho} \over \rho} (
\lambda (\vartheta), \, t_{eq} ) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
On scales of clusters we know that (for $\Omega = 1$ and $h = 1/2$)
$$
\left({{\delta \rho} \over \rho} \right)_{CDM} \, (\lambda (\vartheta), \,
t_{eq})
\simeq z (t_{eq})^{-1} \simeq 10^{-4} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
using the fact that today on cluster scales $\delta \rho/\rho \simeq 1$. The
bounds on $\delta T/ T$ on small angular scales are
$$
{\delta T\over T} << (\vartheta) 10^{-4} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
consistent with the predictions for a CDM model, but inconsistent with those of
a $\Omega = \Omega_B = 1$ model, according to which we would expect
anisotropies of the order of $10^{-3}$. This is yet another argument in
support of the existence of nonbaryonic dark matter.
To conclude this subsection, let us briefly discuss Newtonian perturbations
during the radiation-dominated epoch. We consider matter fluctuations with
$c_s = 0$ in a smooth relativistic background. In this case, Equation (4.32)
becomes
$$
\ddot \delta_k + 2 H \dot \delta_k - 4 \pi G \bar \rho_m \delta_k = 0 \, ,
\eqno\eq
$$
where $\bar \rho_m$ denotes the average matter energy density. The Hubble
expansion parameter obeys
$$
H^2 = {8 \pi G\over 3} (\bar \rho_m + \bar \rho_r) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
with $\bar \rho_r$ the background radiation energy density. For $t < t_{eq}$,
$\bar \rho_m$ is negligible in both (4.49) and (4.50), and (4.49) has the
general solution
$$
\delta_k (t) = c_1 \log t + c_2 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In particular, this result implies that CDM perturbations which enter the
Hubble radius before $t_{eq}$ have an amplitude which grows only
logarithmically in time until $t_{eq}$. This is sometimes called the Meszaros
effect.
\section{Relativistic Theory of Cosmological Perturbations}
On scales larger than the Hubble radius $(\lambda > t)$ the Newtonian theory of
cosmological perturbations obviously is inapplicable, and a general
relativistic analysis is needed. On these scales, matter is essentially frozen
in comoving coordinates. However, space-time fluctuations can still increase
in amplitude.
In principle, it is straightforward to work out the general relativistic theory
of linear fluctuations$^{79)}$. We linearize the Einstein equations
$$
G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu\nu} \eqno\eq
$$
(where $G_{\mu\nu}$ is the Einstein tensor associated with the space-time
metric $g_{\mu\nu}$, and $T_{\mu\nu}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of matter)
about an expanding FRW background $(g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} ,\, \varphi^{(0)})$:
$$
\eqalign{
g_{\mu\nu} (\underline{x}, t) & = g^{(0)}_{\mu\nu} (t) + h_{\mu\nu}
(\underline{x}, t) \cr
\varphi (\underline{x}, t) & = \varphi^{(0)} (t) + \delta \varphi
(\underline{x}, t) \, \cr} \eqno\eq
$$
and pick out the terms linear in $h_{\mu\nu}$ and $\delta \varphi$ to obtain
$$
\delta G_{\mu\nu} \> = \> 8 \pi G \delta T_{\mu\nu} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In the above, $h_{\mu\nu}$ is the perturbation in the metric and $\delta
\varphi$ is the fluctuation of the matter field $\varphi$. We have denoted all
matter fields collectively by $\varphi$.
In practice, there are many complications which make this analysis highly
nontrivial. The first problem is ``gauge invariance"$^{80)}$ Imagine starting
with a homogeneous FRW cosmology and introducing new coordinates which mix
$\underline{x}$ and $t$. In terms of the new coordinates, the metric now looks
inhomogeneous. The inhomogeneous piece of the metric, however, must be a pure
coordinate (or "gauge") artefact. Thus, when analyzing relativistic
perturbations, care must be taken to factor out effects due to coordinate
transformations.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9.5cm \epsfbox{bfig22.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 22:} Sketch of how two choices of the mapping from the
background space-time manifold ${\cal M}_0$ to the physical manifold ${\cal M}$
induce two different coordinate systems on ${\cal M}$.}
\medskip
The issue of gauge dependence is illustrated in Fig. 22. A coordinate system
on the physical inhomogeneous space-time manifold ${\cal M}$ can be viewed as a
mapping ${\cal D}$ of an unperturbed space-time ${\cal M}_0$ into ${\cal M}$.
A physical quantity $Q$ is a geometrical function defined on ${\cal M}$. There
is a corresponding physical quantity $^{(0)}Q$ defined on ${\cal M}_0$. In the
coordinate system given by ${\cal D}$, the perturbation $\delta Q$ of $Q$ at
the space-time point $p \, \epsilon \, {\cal M}$ is
$$
\delta Q (p) = Q (p) - \,^{(0)}Q \, (D^{-1} (p) ) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
However, in a second coordinate system $\tilde {\cal D}$ the perturbation is
given by
$$
\delta \tilde Q (p) = Q (p) - \,^{(0)}Q (\tilde {\cal D}^{-1} (p) ) \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
The difference
$$
\Delta Q (p) = \delta Q (p) - \delta \tilde Q (p) \eqno\eq
$$
is obviously a gauge artefact and carries no physical meaning.
There are various methods of dealing with gauge artefacts. The simplest and
most physical approach is to focus on gauge invariant variables, i.e.,
combinations of the metric and matter perturbations which are invariant under
linear coordinate transformations.
The gauge invariant theory of cosmological perturbations is in principle
straightforward, although technically rather tedious. In the following I will
summarize the main steps and refer the reader to Ref. 11 for the details and
further references (see also Ref. 81 for a pedagogical introduction and Refs.
82-87 for other approaches).
We consider perturbations about a spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker
metric
$$
ds^2 = a^2 (\eta) (d\eta^2 - d \underline{x}^2) \eqno\eq
$$
where $\eta$ is conformal time (related to cosmic time $t$ by $a(\eta) d \eta
= dt$). A scalar metric perturbation (see Ref. 88 for a precise definition)
can be written in terms of four free functions of space and time:
$$
\delta g_{\mu\nu} = a^2 (\eta) \pmatrix{2 \phi & -B_{,i} \cr
-B_{,i} & 2 (\psi \delta_{ij} + E_{,ij} \cr} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Scalar metric perturbations are the only perturbations which couple to energy
density and pressure.
The next step is to consider infinitesimal coordinate transformations
$$
x^{\mu^\prime} = x^\mu + \xi^\mu \eqno\eq
$$
which preserve the scalar nature of $\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ and to calculate the
induced transformations of $\phi, \psi, B$ and $E$. Then we find invariant
combinations to linear order. (Note that there are in general no combinations
which are invariant to all orders$^{89)}$.) After some algebra, it follows
that
$$
\eqalign{
\Phi & = \phi + a^{-1} [(B - E^\prime) a]^\prime \cr
\Psi & = \psi - {a^\prime\over a} \, (B - E^\prime) \cr} \eqno\eq
$$
are two invariant combinations. In the above, a prime denotes differentiation
with respect to $\eta$.
There are various methods to derive the equations of motion for gauge invariant
variables. Perhaps the simplest way$^{11)}$ is to consider the linearized
Einstein equations (4.54) and to write them out in the longitudinal gauge
defined by
$$
B = E = 0 \eqno\eq
$$
and in which $\Phi = \phi$ and $\Psi = \psi$, to directly obtain gauge
invariant equations.
For several types of matter, in particular for scalar field matter, the
perturbation of $T_{\mu \nu}$ has the special property
$$
\delta T^i_j \sim \delta^i_j \eqno\eq
$$
which imples $\Phi = \Psi$. Hence, the scalar-type cosmological perturbations
can in this case be described by a single gauge invariant variable. The
equation of motion takes the form$^{90, 9, 10)}$
$$
\dot \xi = O \left({k\over{aH}} \right)^2 H \xi \eqno\eq
$$
where
$$
\xi = {2\over 3} \, {H^{-1} \dot \Phi + \Phi\over{1 + w}} + \Phi \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The variable $w = p/ \rho$ (with $p$ and $\rho$ background pressure and energy
density respectively) is a measure of the background equation of state. In
particular, on scales larger than the Hubble radius, the right hand side of
(4.64) is negligible, and hence $\xi$ is constant.
The result that $\dot \xi = 0$ is a very powerful one. Let us first imagine
that the equation of state of matter is constant, {\it i.e.}, $w = {\rm
const}$. In this case, $\dot \xi = 0$ implies
$$
\Phi (t) = {\rm const} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
{\it i.e.}, this gauge invariant measure of perturbations remains constant
outside the Hubble radius.
Next, consider the evolution of $\Phi$ during a phase transition from an
initial phase with $w = w_i$ to a phase with $w = w_f$. Long before and after
the transition, $\Phi$ is constant because of (4.66), and hence $\dot \xi = 0$
becomes
$$
{\Phi\over{1 + w}} + \Phi = {\rm const} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
In order to make contact with matter perturbations and Newtonian intuition, it
is important to remark that, as a consequence of the Einstein constraint
equations, at Hubble radius crossing $\Phi$ is a measure of the fractional
density fluctuations:
$$
\Phi (k, t_H (k) ) \sim {\delta \rho\over \rho} \, ( k , \, t_H (k) ) \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
(Note that the latter quantity is approximately gauge invariant on scales
smaller than the Hubble radius).
\chapter{Inflationary Universe Scenarios}
\section{Preliminaries}
Cosmological inflation$^{30)}$ is a period in time during which the Universe is
expanding exponentially, {\it i.e.},
$$
a (t) = e^{tH} \eqno\eq
$$
with constant Hubble expansion rate $H$. From the FRW equations (2.7) and
(2.9) it follows that the condition for inflation (in the context of Einstein
gravity in a spatially flat Universe) is an equation of state for matter with
$$
p = - \rho \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which neccessitates abandoning a description of matter in terms of an ideal
gas.
As was indicated in Section 3.1, it is possible to achieve inflation if matter
is described in terms of scalar fields, provided that at some period
$$
\eqalign{
\dot \varphi^2 \ll V (\varphi) \cr
(\nabla \varphi)^2 \ll V (\varphi) }\eqno\eq
$$
(see Eqs. (3.9) which give the equation of state for scalar field matter).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig23.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 23:} A sketch of two potentials which can give rise to
inflation.}
\medskip
Two examples which can give inflation are shown in Fig. 23. In (a), inflation
occurs at the stable fixed point $\varphi (\underline{x}, t_i) = 0 = \dot
\varphi (\underline{x}, t_i)$. However, this model is ruled out by
observation: the inflationary phase has no ending. $V(0)$ acts as a permanent
nonvanishing cosmological constant. In (b), a finite period of inflation can
arise if $\varphi (\underline{x})$ is trapped at the local minimum $\varphi =
0$ with $\dot \varphi (\underline{x}) = 0$. However, in this case $\varphi
(\underline{x})$ can make a sudden transition at some time $t_R > t_i$ through
the potential barrier and move to $\varphi (\underline{x}) = a$. Thus, for
$t_i < t < t_R$ the Universe expands exponentially, whereas for $t > t_R$ the
contribution of $\varphi$ to the expansion of the Universe vanishes and we get
the usual FRW cosmology. There are three obvious questions: why does the field
start out at $\varphi = 0$, how does the transition occur and why should the
scalar field have $V(\varphi) = 0$ at the global minimum? In the following
section the first two questions will be addressed. The third question is part
of the cosmological constant problem for which there is as yet no convincing
explanation. Before studying the dynamics of the phase transition, we need to
digress and discuss finite temperature effects.
\section{Finite Temperature Field Theory}
\par
The evolution of particles in vacuum and in a thermal bath are very different.
Similarly, the evolution of fields changes when coupled to a thermal bath.
Under certain conditions, the changes may be absorbed in a temperature
dependent potential, the finite temperature effective
potential.
Here, a heuristic derivation of this potential will be given. The reader is
referred to Ref. 8 or to the original articles$^{91)}$ for the actual
derivation.
We assume that the scalar field $\varphi (\undertext{x},t)$ is
coupled to a thermal bath which is represented by a second scalar field
$\psi (\undertext{x}, t)$ in thermal equilibrium. The
Lagrangian for $\varphi$ is
$$
{\cal L} = {1\over 2} \partial_\mu \varphi \partial^\mu \varphi \, - \,
V(\varphi) \, - \, {1\over 2} \hat \lambda \varphi^2 \psi^2\, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\hat \lambda$ is a coupling constant. The action from which the
equations of motion are derived is
$$
S \, = \, \int d^4 x \, \sqrt{-g} {\cal L}\eqno\eq
$$
where $g$ is the determinant of the metric (2.2). The resulting equation of
motion for $\varphi (\undertext{x},t)$ is
$$
\ddot \varphi + 3 H \dot \varphi \, - a^{-2} \bigtriangledown^2 \varphi \, =
\,- V^\prime (\varphi) - \hat \lambda \psi^2 \varphi \, . \eqno\eq
$$
If $\psi$ is in thermal equilibrium, we may replace $\psi^2$ by its thermal
expectation value $<\psi^2>_T$. Now,
$$
<\psi^2>_T \sim T^2\eqno\eq
$$
which can be seen as follows: in thermal equilibrium, the energy density of
$\psi$ equals that of one degree of freedom in the thermal bath. In
particular, the potential energy density $V (\psi)$ of $\psi$ is of that order
of magnitude. Let
$$
V (\psi) \, = \, \lambda_\psi \psi^4\eqno\eq
$$
with a coupling constant $\lambda_\psi$ which we take to be of the order 1
(if $\lambda_\psi$ is too small, $\psi$ will not be in thermal equilibrium).
Since the thermal energy density is proportional to $T^4$, (5.7) follows.
(5.6) can be rewritten as
$$
\ddot \psi + 3H \dot \varphi \, - \, a^{-2} \bigtriangledown^2 \varphi \, = \,
- V_T^\prime (\varphi),\eqno\eq
$$
where
$$
V_T (\varphi) \, = \, V (\varphi) \, + \, {1\over 2} \hat \lambda T^2
\varphi^2\eqno\eq
$$
is called the finite temperature effective potential. Note that in
(5.10),
$\hat \lambda$ has been rescaled to absorb the constant of proportionality in
(5.7).
\par
These considerations will now be applied to Example A, a scalar field model
with
potential
$$
V (\varphi) \, = \, {1\over 4} \lambda (\varphi^2 - \sigma^2)^2\eqno\eq
$$
($\sigma$ is called the scale of symmetry breaking). The finite temperature
effective potential becomes (see Fig. 24)
$$
V_T (\varphi) \, = \, {1\over 4} \lambda \varphi^4 - {1\over 2}
\, \left(\lambda \sigma^2 - \hat \lambda T^2\right) \varphi^2 +
\, {1\over 4} \, \lambda \sigma^4 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For very high temperatures, the effective mass term is positive
and hence the energetically favorable state is $<\varphi> = 0$.
For very low temperatures, on the other hand, the mass term has a
negative sign which leads to spontaneous symmetry breaking. The
temperature at which the mass term vanishes defines the critical
temperature $T_c$
$$
T_c \, = \, \hat \lambda^{-1/2} \lambda^{1/2} \sigma\,.\eqno\eq
$$
\smallskip \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{bfig24.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 24:} The finite temperature effective potential
for Example A.}
\medskip
As Example B, consider a theory with potential
$$
V (\varphi) = \, {1\over 4} \varphi^4 - {1\over 3} \, (a + b) \varphi^3 +
{1\over 2} ab \varphi^2\eqno\eq
$$
with ${1\over 2} a > b > 0$. The finite temperature effective potential is
obtained by adding ${1\over 2} \hat \lambda T^2 \varphi^2$ to the
right hand side of (5.14). ${ V_T} (\varphi)$
is sketched in Fig. 25 for various values of $ T$. The critical temperature
$T_c$ is defined as the temperature when the two minima of ${V_T}(\varphi)$
become degenerate.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{bfig25.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 25:} The finite temperature effective potential
for Example B.}
\medskip
It is important to note that the use of finite temperature effective potential
methods is only legitimate if the system is in thermal equilibrium. This
point was stressed in Refs. 92 and 93, although the conclusion should be
obvious from the derivation given above. To be more precise, we require the
$\psi$ field to be in thermal equilibrium and the coupling constant $\hat
\lambda$ of (5.4) which mediates the energy exchange between the $\varphi$
and $\psi$ fields to be large. However, as shown in Chapter 4, in inflationary
Universe models, the observational
constraints stemming from the amplitude of the primordial energy density
fluctuation spectrum force the self coupling constant $\lambda$ of $\varphi$
to be extremely small. Since at one loop order, the interaction term ${1\over
2} \hat \lambda \varphi^2 \psi^2$ induces contributions to $\lambda$, it is
unnatural to have $\lambda$ very small and $\hat \lambda$ unsuppressed.
Hence, in many inflationary Universe models - in particular in new
inflation$^{94)}$ and in chaotic inflation$^{92)}$ - finite temperature
effective potential methods are inapplicable.
\section{Phase Transitions}
\par
The temperature dependence of the finite temperature effective potential in
quantum field theory leads to phase transitions in the very early Universe.
These transitions are either first or second order.
\par
Example $A$ of the previous section provides a model in which the transition -
at least according to the above mean field analysis -
is second order (see Fig. 24). For $T \gg T_c$, the expectation value of the
scalar field $\varphi$ vanishes at all points $\undertext{x}$ in space:
$$
< \varphi (\undertext{x}) > = 0 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For $T < T_c$, this value of $< \varphi (\undertext{x}) >$ becomes unstable
and $< \varphi (\undertext{x})>$ evolves smoothly in time to a new value $\pm
\sigma$. The direction is determined by thermal and quantum fluctuations and
is therefore not uniform in space. There will be domains of average radius
$\xi (t)$ in which $< \varphi (\undertext{x}) >$ is coherent. By causality,
the coherence length is bounded from above by the horizon. However, typical
values of $\xi (t)$ are proportional to $\lambda^{-1} \sigma^{-1}$ if
$\varphi$ was in thermal equilibrium before the phase
transition.
\par
In condensed matter physics, a transition of the above type is said to proceed
by spinodal decomposition$^{95)}$, triggered by a rapid quench.
\par
In Example B of the previous section, (see Fig. 25) the phase
transition is first order. For $T > T_c$, the expectation value
$<\varphi (x) >$ is approximately $0$, the minimum of the high
temperature effective potential. Provided the zero temperature
potential has a sufficiently high barrier separating the metastable
state $\varphi = 0$ from the global minimum (compared to the energy
density in thermal fluctuations at $T = T_c$), then $\varphi
(\undertext{x})$ will remain trapped at $\varphi = 0$ also for $T <
T_c$. In the notation of Ref. 96, the field $\varphi$ is trapped in
the false vacuum. After some time (determined again by the potential
barrier), the false vacuum will decay by quantum tunnelling.
\par
Tunnelling in quantum field theory was discussed in Refs. 96-99 (for
reviews see e.g., Refs. 100 and 8). The transition proceeds by bubble
nucleation. There is a probability per unit time and volume that at a
point $\undertext{x}$ in space a bubble of ``true vacuum" $\varphi
(\undertext{x}) = a$ will nucleate. The nucleation radius is
microscopical. As long as the potential barrier is large, the bubble
radius will increase with the speed of light after nucleation. Thus,
a bubble of $\varphi = a$ expands in a surrounding ``sea" of false
vacuum $\varphi = 0$.
\par
To conclude, let us stress the most important differences between the
two types of phase transitions discussed above. In a second order
transition, the dynamics is determined mainly by
classical physics. The transition occurs homogeneously in space
(apart from the phase boundaries which -- as discussed below -- become
topological defects), and $< \varphi (x) >$ evolves continuously in
time. In first order transitions, quantum mechanics is essential.
The process is extremely inhomogeneous, and $< \varphi (x) >$ is
discontinuous as a function of time. As we shall see in the following
sections, the above two types of transitions are the basis of various
classes of inflationary Universe models.
\section{Models of Inflation}
At this stage we have established the formalism to be able to discuss models of
inflation. I will focus on ``old inflation," ``new inflation"" and ``chaotic
inflation." There are many other attempts at producing an inflationary
scenario, but there is as of now no convincing realization.
\subsection{Old Inflation}
\par
The old inflationary Universe model$^{30, 101)}$ is based on a scalar field
theory which undergoes a first order phase transition. As a toy
model, consider a scalar field theory with the potential $V (\varphi)$
of Example B (see Fig. 25). Note that this potential is fairly general
apart from the requirement that $V (a) = 0$, where $\varphi = a$ is
the global minimum of $V (\varphi)$. This condition is required to
avoid a large cosmological constant today (no inflationary Universe
model manages to circumvent or solve the cosmological constant problem).
\par
For fairly general initial conditions, $\varphi (x)$ is trapped in the
metastable state $\varphi = 0$ as the Universe cools below the
critical temperature $T_c$. As the Universe expands further, all
contributions to the energy-momentum tensor $T_{\mu \nu}$ except for
the contribution
$$
T_{\mu \nu} \sim V(\varphi) g_{\mu \nu} \eqno\eq
$$
redshift. Hence, the equation of state approaches $p = - \rho$, and
inflation sets in. Inflation lasts until the false vacuum decays.
During inflation, the Hubble constant is given by
$$
H^2 = {8 \pi G\over 3} \, V (0) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{bfig26.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 26:} A sketch of the spatially inhomogeneous
distribution of $\varphi$ in Old Inflation.}
\medskip
After a period $\Gamma^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is the tunnelling decay
rate, bubbles of $\varphi = a$ begin to nucleate in a sea of false
vacuum $\varphi = 0$. For a sketch of the resulting inhomogeneous
distribution of $\varphi (x)$ see Fig. 26. Note that inflation stops
after bubble nucleation.
\par
The time evolution in old inflation is summarized in Fig. 27. We denote the
beginning of inflation by $t_i$ (here $t_i \simeq t_c$), the end by $t_R$
(here $t_R \simeq t_c + \Gamma^{-1}$).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig8.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 27:} Phases in the old and new inflationary Universe.}
\medskip
It was immediately realized that old inflation has a serious ``graceful exit"
problem$^{102)}$. The bubbles nucleate after inflation with radius $r \ll
2t_R$ and would today be much smaller than our apparent horizon. Thus, unless
bubbles percolate, the model predicts extremely large inhomogeneities inside
the Hubble radius, in contradiction with the observed isotropy of the
microwave background radiation.
\par
For bubbles to percolate, a sufficiently large number must be produced so that
they collide and homogenize over a scale larger than the present Hubble
radius. However, with exponential expansion, the volume between bubbles
expands
exponentially whereas the volume inside bubbles expands only with a low power.
This prevents percolation.
\subsection{New Inflation}
Because of the graceful exit problem, old inflation never was considered to be
a viable cosmological model. However, soon after the seminal paper by
Guth, Linde and independently Albrecht and Steinhardt put
forwards a modified scenario, the New Inflationary Universe$^{94)}$ (see also
Ref. 103).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{bfig28.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 28:} A sketch of the spatial distribution of
$\varphi$ in New Inflation after the transition. The symbols $+$ and
$-$ indicate regions where $\varphi = + \sigma$ and $\varphi = -
\sigma$ respectively.}
\medskip
The starting point is a scalar field theory with a double well potential which
undergoes a second order phase transition (Fig. 24). $V(\varphi)$ is
symmetric and $\varphi = 0$ is a local maximum of the zero temperature
potential. Once again, it was argued that finite temperature effects confine
$\varphi(\undertext{x})$ to values near $\varphi = 0$ at temperatures $T \ge
T_c$. For $T < T_c$, thermal fluctuations trigger the instability of $\varphi
(\undertext{x}) = 0$ and $\varphi (\undertext{x})$ evolves towards $\varphi =
\pm \sigma$ by the classical equation of motion
$$
\ddot \varphi + 3 H \dot \varphi - a^{-2} \bigtriangledown^2 \varphi = -
V^\prime (\varphi)\, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
The transition proceeds by spinodal decomposition (see Fig. 28) and hence
$\varphi(\undertext{x})$ will be homogeneous within a correlation length. The
analysis will be confined to such a small region. Hence, in Eq.
(5.18)
we can
neglect the spatial gradient terms. Then, from (3.9) we can read off the
induced equation of state. The condition for inflation is
$$
\dot \varphi^2 \ll V (\varphi)\, ,\eqno\eq
$$
\ie~ slow rolling.
\par
Often, the ``slow rolling" approximation is made to find solutions of
(5.18).
This consists of dropping the $\ddot \varphi$ term. In this case,
(5.18)
becomes
$$
3 H \dot \varphi \, = - \, V^\prime (\varphi)\, . \eqno\eq
$$
As an example, consider a potential which for $|\varphi| < \sigma$ has the
following expansion near $\varphi = 0$
$$
V (\varphi) = V_0 - {1\over 2} m^2 \varphi^2\, . \eqno\eq
$$
With the above $V (\phi)$, (5.20) has the solution
$$
\varphi (t) \, = \, \varphi (0) \exp \left({m^2\over{3H}} t \right)\eqno\eq
$$
(taking $H = \rm const$ which is a good approximation). Thus, provided $m \ll
\sqrt{3} H \, , \, \ddot \varphi$ is indeed smaller than the other terms in
(5.18) and the slow rolling approximation seems to be satisfied.
\par
However, the above conclusion is premature$^{104)}$. Equation (5.18) has a
second solution. For $m > H$ the solution is
$$
\varphi (t) \simeq \varphi (0) e^{mt}\eqno\eq
$$
and dominates over the previous one. This example shows that the slow rolling
approximation must be used with caution. Here, however, the conclusion
remains that provided $m \ll H$, then the model produces enough inflation to
solve the cosmological problems.
\par
There is no graceful exit problem in the new inflationary Universe. Since the
spinodal decomposition domains are established before the onset of inflation,
any boundary walls will be inflated outside the present Hubble radius.
\par
The condition $m^2 \ll 3 H^2$ which must be imposed in order to obtain
inflation, is a fine tuning of the particle physics model -- the first sign of
problems with this scenario. Consider \eg~ the model (5.11). By expanding $V
(\varphi)$ about $\varphi = 0$ we can determine both $H$ and $m$ in terms of
$\lambda$ and $\sigma$. In order that $m^2 < 3 H^2$ be satisfied we need
$$
\sigma > \, \left( {1 \over{6 \pi}}\right)^{1/2} m_{pl} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which is certainly an unnatural constraint for models motivated by particle
physics.
\par
Let us, for the moment, return to the general features of the new inflationary
Universe scenario. At the time $t_c$ of the phase transition, $\varphi (t)$
will start to move from near $\varphi = 0$ towards either $\pm \sigma$ as
described by the classical equation of motion, \ie~ (5.22). At or soon after
$t_c$, the energy-momentum tensor of the Universe will start to be dominated
by $V(\varphi)$, and inflation will commence. $t_i$ shall denote the time of
the onset of inflation. Eventually, $\phi (t)$ will reach large values for
which (5.21) is no longer a good approximation to $V (\varphi)$ and for which
nonlinear effects become important. The time at which this occurs is $t_B$.
For $t > t_B \, , \, \varphi (t)$ rapidly accelerates, reaches $\pm \sigma$,
overshoots and starts oscillating about the global minimum of $V (\varphi)$.
The amplitude of this oscillation is damped by the expansion of the Universe
and (predominantly) by the coupling of $\varphi$ to other fields. At time
$t_R$,
the energy in $\varphi$ drops below the energy of the thermal bath of
particles produced during the period of oscillation.
\par
The evolution of $\varphi (t)$ is sketched in Fig. 29. The time period
between $t_B$ and $t_R$ is called the reheating period and is usually short
compared to the Hubble expansion time. The time evolution of the temperature
$T$ of the thermal radiation bath is also shown in Fig. 29.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{bfig29.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 29:} Evolution of $\varphi (t)$ and $T (t)$ in the new
inflationary Universe.}
\medskip
Reheating in inflationary Universe models has been considered in Refs.
105-108.
One way to view the process is as follows$^{107, 108)}$. Consider a second
scalar
field $\psi$ coupled to $\varphi$ via the interaction Lagrangian
$$
{\cal L}_I = {1\over 2} g \varphi^2 \psi^2\, . \eqno\eq
$$
Then, an oscillating $\varphi (t)$ will act as a time dependent mass with
periodic variations in the equation of motion for $\psi$
$$
\ddot \psi_k + 3 H \dot \psi_k + \left(m_\psi^2 + k^2 a^{-2} (t) + g \varphi^2
(t) \right) \psi_k = 0\eqno\eq
$$
where we have neglected nonlinear terms and expanded $\psi$ into Fourier modes
$\psi_k$. If the expansion of the Universe can be neglected and for periodic
$\varphi^2 (t)$, the above is the well known Mathieu equation$^{109)}$ whose
solutions have instabilities for certain values of $k$. These instabilities
correspond to the production of $\psi$ particles with well determined
momenta$^{107, 108)}$. These particles eventually equilibrate and
regenerate a thermal bath.
\par
For $t > t_R$, the Universe is again radiation dominated. Hence, the stages
of the new inflationary Universe are the same as for old inflation
(Fig. 27).
There is a useful order of magnitude relation between the scale of symmetry
breaking $\sigma$ and $H$. From
$$
H^2 = \, {8 \pi G\over 3} \, V(0)\eqno\eq
$$
and from the form of the potential (see (5.11)) it follows that
$$
\left({H\over \sigma}\right) \sim \, \lambda^{1/2} \,
\left({\sigma\over{m_{pl}}}\right)\, .\eqno\eq
$$
In particular, for $\sigma \sim 10^{15}$GeV (typical scale of grand
unification) and $\lambda \sim 1$ we obtain $H \sim 10^{11}$GeV.
\par
The new inflationary Universe model -- although it was for a long time
presented as a viable model -- suffers from severe fine tuning and initial
condition problems. In (5.24) we encountered the first of these problems: in
order to obtain enough inflation, the potential must be fairly flat near
$\varphi = 0$. A more severe problem will be derived in Section 5.5:
Inflationary Universe models generate energy density perturbations. The
steeper the potential, the larger the density perturbations. For a potential
which near $\varphi = 0$ or $\varphi = H$ has the following expansion
$$
V (\varphi) = V (0) - \lambda \, \varphi^4\, ,\eqno\eq
$$
the density perturbations conflict with observations unless (see later)
$$
\lambda < 10^{-12}\, .\eqno\eq
$$
\par
This in itself is an unexplained small number problem. However, even if we
were
willing to accept this we would run into initial condition
problems$^{92, 93)}$. For the new inflationary Universe to proceed in the way
outlined above, it is essential that the field $\varphi$ be in thermal
equilibrium with other fields. This implies that the constant $g$ coupling
$\varphi$ to other fields should not be too small. However, a coupling term of
the form (5.25) induces
one loop quantum corrections to the self coupling constant $\lambda$
of the order $g^2$. Hence, the constraint $\lambda < 10^{-12}$ implies a
constraint $g < 10^{-6}$. Thus, $\varphi$ will not be in thermal equilibrium
at $t_c$, and hence there will be no thermal forces which localize $\varphi$
close to $\varphi = 0$.
\par
Note that the above problem is not an artifact of using quartic potentials
such as (5.29). Similar constraints would arise in other (\eg~ quadratic)
models. However, (5.29) was long considered to be the prototypical shape of
$V (\varphi)$ for small values of $\varphi$ since it is the shape which arises
in Coleman-Weinberg$^{110)}$ models.
\par
In the absence of thermal forces which constrain $\varphi$ to start close to
$\varphi = 0$, the only constraints on $\varphi - \,$ at least using classical
physics alone -- come from energetic considerations. Obviously, it is
unnatural to assume that at the initial time $t_i$ the energy density in
$\varphi$ exceeds the energy density of one degree of freedom of the thermal
bath at time $t_i$ (temperature $T_i$). This implies
$$
\eqalign{V (\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i)) & < {\pi^2\over{30}} T_i^4\cr
| \bigtriangledown \varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i) |^2 & < {\pi^2\over{30}} T_i^4
a^2 (t_i)\cr
| \dot \varphi^2 (\undertext{x}, t_i) |^2 &< {\pi^2\over{30}} T_i^4}\eqno\eq
$$
In particular, for the double well potential of (5.11), (5.31) implies that
$\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i)$ can be of the order
$$
\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i) \sim \lambda^{-1/4} T_i\eqno\eq
$$
which for $T_i > \sigma$ is much larger than $\sigma$. In a weakly coupled
model, the only natural time to impose initial conditions on $\varphi
(\undertext{x})$ is the Planck time, \ie~ $T_i \sim m_{pl}$. Hence, the
initial conditions allow and in fact suggest
$$
\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i) \sim \lambda^{-1/4} m_{pl} \, \gg \, m_{pl} \quad
\rm{for} \> T_i \sim T_{pl},\eqno\eq
$$
These observations lead to the chaotic inflation scenario, the only of the
original inflationary Universe models which can still be considered as a
viable scenario today.
\subsection{Chaotic Inflation}
\par
Chaotic inflation$^{92)}$ is based on the observation that for weakly coupled
scalar fields, initial conditions which follow from classical considerations
alone lead to very large values of $\varphi (\undertext{x})$ (see
(5.32)).
\par
Consider a region in space where at the initial time $\varphi (\undertext{x})$
is very large, homogeneous (we will make these assumptions quantitative
below) and static. In this case, the energy-momentum tensor will be
immediately dominated by the large potential energy term and induce an
equation of state $p \simeq - \rho$ which leads to inflation. Due to the
large Hubble damping term in the scalar field equation of motion, $\varphi
(\undertext{x})$ will only roll very slowly towards $\varphi = 0$. The
kinetic energy contribution to $T_{\mu \nu}$ will remain small, the spatial
gradient contribution will be exponentially suppressed due to the expansion of
the Universe, and thus inflation persists. This is a brief survey of the
chaotic inflation scenario. Note that in contrast to old and new inflation,
no initial thermal bath is required. Note also that the precise form of
$V(\varphi)$ is irrelevant to the mechanism. In particular, $V(\varphi)$ need
not be a double well potential. This is a significant advantage, since for
scalar fields other than Higgs fields used for spontaneous symmetry breaking,
there is no particle physics motivation for assuming a double well potential,
and since the inflaton (the field which gives rise to inflation) cannot be a
conventional Higgs field due to the severe fine tuning constraints.
\par
Let us consider the chaotic inflation scenario in more detail. For
simplicity, take the potential
$$
V (\varphi) = \, {1\over 2} \, m^2 \varphi^2\eqno\eq
$$
and consider a region in space in which $\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i)$ is
sufficiently homogeneous. To be specific, we require
$$
{1\over 2} \, a^{-2} (t_i) | \bigtriangledown \varphi \, (\undertext{x},
t_i)|^2 \, \ll \, V\left(\varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i)\right)\eqno\eq
$$
over a region of size $d_i$
$$
d_i \ge 3 H^{-1} (t_i)\, .\eqno\eq
$$
We also require that the kinetic energy be negligible at the initial time
$t_i$,
$$
\dot \varphi (\undertext{x}, t_i)^2 \, \ll \,
V (\varphi \left(\undertext{x}, t_i) \right)\, ,\eqno\eq
$$
although this assumption can be relaxed without changing the
results$^{111)}$.
{}From (5.35) and (5.37) it follows that at $t_i$ the equation of state is
inflationary, \ie~ $p (t_i) \simeq - \rho (t_i)$. Condition (5.36) ensures
that no large inhomogeneities can propagate from outside to the center of the
region under consideration. With these approximations, the equation of motion
for $\varphi$ becomes
$$
\ddot \varphi + 3 H \dot \varphi = - m^2 \varphi\eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
H = \left({4 \pi\over 3}\right)^{1/2} \, {m\over{m_{pl}}} \, \varphi\, .
\eqno\eq
$$
\par
Since we expect $\varphi (\undertext{x}, t)$ to be changing slowly, we make
the slow rolling approximation
$$
3 H \dot \varphi = - m^2 \varphi\eqno\eq
$$
which gives
$$
\dot \varphi = - \left({1\over{12 \pi}}\right)^{1/2} m \, m_{pl}\eqno\eq
$$
and shows that the approximation is self consistent. In order to get
inflation, we require
$$
{1\over 2} \, \dot \varphi^2 < {1\over 2} m^2 \, \varphi^2\eqno\eq
$$
which (by (5.41)) is satisfied if
$$
\varphi > \left({1\over{12}}\right)^{1/2} m_{pl}\, . \eqno\eq
$$
In order to obtain a period $\tau > 50 H^{-1} (t_i)$ of inflation, a slightly
stronger condition is needed:
$$
\varphi > 3 m_{pl}\, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
With chaotic inflation, the initial hope that grand unified theories could
provide the answer to the homogeneity and flatness problems has been
abandoned. The inflaton is introduced as a new scalar field (with no
particular particle physics role) which is very weakly coupled to itself and to
other fields (see Ref. 112 for an attempt to couple the inflaton to non-grand
unified particle physics). In supergravity and in superstring inspired models
there are scalar fields which are candidates to be the inflaton. I refer the
reader to Refs. 113-115 for a discussion of this issue. However, even in such
models the time when the inflaton $\varphi$ decouples from the rest of physics
is the Planck time $t_i = t_{pl}$. Thus, the chaotic inflation scenario is
often called primordial inflation.
\par
Chaotic inflation is a much more radical departure from standard cosmology
than old and new inflation. In the latter, the inflationary phase can be
viewed as a short phase of exponential expansion bounded at both ends by
phases of radiation domination. In chaotic inflation, a piece of the Universe
emerges with an inflationary equation of state immediately after the quantum
gravity epoch.
The chaotic inflationary Universe scenario has been developed in great detail
(see {\it e.g.}, Ref. 116 for a recent review). One important addition is the
inclusion of stochastic noise$^{117)}$ in the equation of motion for $\varphi$
in order to take into account the effects of quantum fluctuations. It can in
fact be shown that for sufficiently large values of $| \varphi |$, the
stochastic force terms are more important than the classical relaxation force
$V^\prime (\varphi)$. There is equal probability for the quantum fluctuations
to lead to an increase or decrease of $| \varphi |$. Hence, in a substantial
fraction of comoving volume, the field $\varphi$ will climb up the potential.
This leads to the conclusion that chaotic inflation is eternal. At all times,
a large fraction of the physical space will be inflating. Another consequence
of including stochastic terms is that on large scales (much larger than the
present Hubble radius), the Universe will look extremely inhomogeneous.
\subsection{General Comments}
Old, new and choatic inflation are all based on the use of new fundamental
scalar fields which cannot be the Higgs field of an ordinary gauge theory.
Instead of introducing new physics via scalar fields -- an approach which makes
the cosmological constant problem more severe -- it is possible to look for
realizations of inflation based on some alternative new physics which do not
invoke fundamental scalar fields.
One possibility is to consider modifications of Einstein gravity which can lead
to inflation. In fact, the first model of inflation$^{39)}$ was based on
considering an action for gravity of the form
$$
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \, (R + \varepsilon R^2) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $R$ is the Ricci scalar of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. As shown first by
Whitt$^{118)}$, the equations of motion resulting from this action are the same
as those from Einstein gravity in the presence of a scalar field with a special
potential which allows for chaotic inflation. The relationship is obtained via
a conformal transformation.
Since perturbative quantum gravity calculations and considerations based on
quantum field theory in curved space-time all point to the presence of higher
derivative terms in the action for gravity, it is not unlikely that successful
inflation will come from the gravity sector. A recently proposed
theory$^{41)}$, in which the curvature is bounded for all solutions, predicts
that our Universe will have started out in an inflationary period.
Another interesting possibility is that inflation is a result of new physics
associated with a unified theory of all forces such as superstring theory.
Interesting speculations along these lines have recently been made in Ref. 119.
\par
As has hopefully become clear, inflation
is a nice idea which solves many problems of standard big bang
cosmology. However, no convincing realization of inflation which does
not involve unexplained small numbers has emerged (for a general
discussion of this point see Ref. 120).
\par
It is important to distinguish between models of inflation which are
self consistent and those which are not. We have shown that new
inflation is not self consistent, whereas chaotic
inflation is. One of the key issues involves
initial conditions. In new inflation, the initial conditions required
can only be obtained if the inflaton field is in thermal equilibrium
above the critical temperature, which however is not possible because
of the density fluctuation constraints on coupling constants.
\par
In chaotic inflation, it can be shown that -- provided the
spatial sections are flat -- a large phase space of initial conditions
(much larger than is apparent from (5.35) and (5.37)) gives chaotic
inflation$^{121-123)}$, whereas the probability to relax dynamically$^{124)}$
to
field configurations which give new inflation (this possibility is
only available in double well potentials) is negligibly small.
\section{Generation and Evolution of Fluctuations}
\subsection{Preliminaries}
\par
In this section, the origin of the primordial density perturbations required
to seed galaxies will be discussed within the context of inflationary Universe
models. From Chapter 3, we recall the basic reason why in inflationary
cosmology a causal generation mechanism is possible: comoving scales of
cosmological interest today originate inside the Hubble radius early in the de
Sitter period (see Fig. 11). Hence, it is in principle possible that density
perturbations on these scales can be generated by a causal mechanism at very
early times.
\par
First, let us demonstrate why the Hubble radius $H^{-1} (t)$ is the length
scale of relevance in these considerations. Consider a scalar field theory
with action
$$
S (\varphi) = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \, \left[ {1\over 2} \partial_\mu \varphi
\partial^\mu \varphi - V (\varphi) \right] \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The resulting equation of motion is
$$
\ddot \varphi + 3 H \dot \varphi - a^{-2} \nabla^2 \varphi = - V^\prime
(\varphi) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The second term on the left hand side is the Hubble damping term, the third
represents microphysics (spatial gradients). To simplify the consideration,
assume that $V^\prime (\varphi) = 0$. Then, the time evolution is influenced
by microphysics and gravity. For plane wave perturbations with wave number
$k$, the gravitational force is proportional to $H^2 \varphi$ whereas the
microphysical force is $a^{-2} k^2 \varphi$. Thus, for $ak^{-1} < H^{-1}$,
i.e., on length scales smaller than the Hubble radius, microphysics dominates,
whereas for $ak^{-1} > H^{-1}$, i.e., on length scales larger than the Hubble
radius, the gravitational drag dominates.
\par
Based on the above analysis we can formulate the main idea of the fluctuation
analysis in inflationary cosmology. In linear order, all Fourier
modes
decouple. Hence, we fix a mode with wave number $k$. There are two very
different time intervals to consider. Let $t_i (k)$ be the time when the
scale crosses the Hubble radius in the de Sitter phase, and $t_f (k)$ the time
when it reenters the Hubble radius after inflation (see Fig. 30). The first
period lasts until $t = t_i (k)$. In this time interval microphysics
dominates. We shall demonstrate that quantum fluctuations generate
perturbations during this period$^{35-38, 125)}$. The second time interval is
$t_i (k) < t <
t_f (k)$. Now microphysics is unimportant and the evolution of perturbations
is determined by gravity. At $t_i (k)$, decoherence sets in; the quantum
mechanical wave functional evolves as a statistical ensemble of
classical configurations after this time.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig30.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 30:} Sketch (physical distance $x_p$ versus time $t$) of
the evolution of two fixed
comoving scales labelled $k_1$ and $k_2$ in the inflationary Universe.}
\medskip
It is possible to give a heuristic derivation of the shape of the spectrum of
cosmological perturbations in an inflationary Universe based on simple
geometrical arguments$^{35)}$. Consider first the process of generation of
fluctuations. If the generation mechanism produces inhomogeneities at all
times on a fixed physical wavelength with an amplitude determined by the
``Hawking temperature" $T_H$ of de Sitter space$^{126)}$,
$$
T_H = {H\over{2 \pi}} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
then the evolution of perturbations on different scales between when they are
formed and when they leave the Hubble radius at times $t_i (k)$ is related by
time translation, and the amplitude of the fluctuations when measured at time
$t_i (k)$ will be independent of $k$:
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, t_i (k)) = {\cal A}_i = \, {\rm const.} \eqno\eq
$$
In fact, the amplitude ${\cal A}_i$ will be given by the thermal energy
associated with the Hawking temperature (5.49) divided by the ``false vacuum"
energy density $\rho_0$ responsible for inflation
$$
{\cal A}_i \sim {T_H^4\over \rho_0} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In Chapter 4 it was shown (see (4.68)) that the gauge invariant measure of
density fluctuations evolves trivially on scales outside of the Hubble radius:
it changes by a factor which only depends on the equations of state in the
inflationary and past-inflationary phases. In particular, this factor is
independent of $k$. Hence, using (4.68), we arrive at the conclusion that
perturbations are independent of scale when they enter the Hubble radius
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, t_f (k)) = {\cal A}_f = \, {\rm const} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Hence, we have demonstrated that a scale invariant spectrum of density
perturbations is a generic feature of an inflationary Universe scenario.
{}From (4.67) and (4.68) if follows that
$$
{\cal A}_f \sim {\cal A}_i \, {1 + w (t_f (k))\over{1 + w (t_i (k))}} \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
On scales which enter the Hubble radius after $t_{eq}$,
$$
1 + w (t_f (k)) = 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The initial value of $w = p /\rho$ during inflation can be determined by using
the expressions (3.9) for energy density and pressure of the scalar field
responsible for inflation.
The result is
$$
1 + w (t_i (k)) = \, {\dot \varphi^2 (t_i (k))\over{\rho (t_i (k))}} \sim
{H^4\over \rho_0} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where the last proportionality follows by dimensional analysis. Thus,
combining (5.50-5.54) we obtain
$$
{\delta M\over M} \, (k, t_f (k)) \sim 1 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which is at least four orders of magnitude too large to conform with the
constraints from CMB anisotropy measurements.
The above problem is known as the ``fluctuation problem"$^{127, 90)}$ and is
common to most inflationary Universe models. The only known solutions involve
small numbers introduced into the particle physics sector. This defeats one of
the aims of inflation which is to avoid the need for unnaturally small
constants. To study this problem in more detail we must turn to a quantitative
analysis of the generation and evolution of fluctuations.
\subsection{Quantum Generation of Fluctuations}
The question of the origin of classical density perturbations from quantum
fluctuations in the de Sitter phase of an inflationary Universe is a rather
subtle issue. Starting from a homogeneous quantum state ({\it e.g.}, the
vacuum state in the FRW coordinate frame at time $t_i$, the beginning of
inflation), a naive semiclassical anaylsis would predict the absence of
fluctuations since
$$
< \psi | T_{\mu\nu} (x) | \psi > = {\rm const} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
However, as a simple thought experiment shows, such a naive analysis is
inappropriate. Imagine a local gravitational mass detector $D$ positioned
close to a large mass $M$ which is suspended from a pole (see Fig. 31). The
decay of an alpha particle will sever the cord (at point $T$) by which the mass
is held to the pole and the mass will drop. According to the semiclassical
prescription
$$
G_{\mu\nu} = 8 \pi G < \psi | T_{\mu\nu} | \psi > \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the metric ({\it i.e.}, the mass measured) will slowly decrease. This is
obviously not what happens. The mass detector shows a signal which corresponds
to one of the classical trajectories which make up the state $| \psi >$, a
trajectory corresponding to a sudden drop in the gravitational force measured.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6.5cm \epsfbox{bfig31.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 31:} Sketch of the thought experiment discussed in the
text.}
\medskip
The origin of classical density perturbations as a consequence of quantum
fluctuations in a homogeneous state $| \psi >$ can be analyzed along similar
lines. The quantum to classical transition is picking out$^{128-130)}$ one of
the typical classical trajectories which make up the wave function of $| \psi
>$. We can implement$^{131, 132)}$ the procedure as follows: Define a
classical scalar field
$$
\varphi_{cl} (\underline{x} , t) = \varphi_0 (t) + \delta \varphi
(\underline{x} , t) \eqno\eq
$$
with vanishing spatial average of $\delta \varphi$. The induced classical
energy momentum tensor $T^{cl}_{\mu\nu} (\underline{x}, t)$ which is the source
for the metric is given by
$$
T^{cl}_{\mu\nu} (\underline{x}, t) = T_{\mu\nu} (\varphi_{cl} (\underline{x},
t) ) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $T_{\mu\nu} \, (\varphi_{cl} (\underline{x}, t))$ is defined as the
canonical energy-momentum tensor of the classical scalar field $\varphi_{cl}
(\underline{x}, t)$. Unless $\delta \varphi$ vanishes, $T^{cl}_{\mu\nu}$ is
inhomogeneous.
For applications to chaotic inflation, we take $| \psi >$ to be a Gaussian
state with mean value $\varphi_0 (t)$
$$
< \psi | \varphi^2 (\underline{x}, t) | \psi > = \varphi_0^2 (t) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Its width is taken to be the width of the vacuum state of the free scalar field
theory with mass determined by the curvature of $V(\varphi)$ at $\varphi_0$.
This state is used to define the Fourier transform $\delta \tilde \varphi
(k,t)$ by
$$
| \delta \tilde \varphi (k) |^2 = < \psi | \, | \tilde \varphi (k) |^2 \, |
\psi > \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The amplitude of $\delta \tilde \varphi (k)$ is identified with the width of
the ground state wave function of the harmonic osciallator $\tilde \varphi
(k)$. (Recall that each Fourier mode of a free scalar field is a harmonic
oscillator). Note that no divergences arise in the above construction. In
principle, quantum fluctuations contribute a term to $\varphi_0 (t)$; this
backreaction effect has not yet been studied. The quantum corrections to
(5.60) are divergent and must be
regularized and renormalized (see {\it e.g.}, Ref. 133). They are the source
of the stochastic driving forces in stochastic chaotic inflation.
By linearizing (5.59) about $\varphi_0 (t)$ we obtain the perturbation of the
energy-momentum tensor. In particular, the energy density fluctuation $\delta
\tilde \rho (k)$ is given by
$$
\delta \tilde \rho (k) = \dot \varphi_0 \delta \dot {\tilde \varphi} (k) +
V^\prime (\varphi_0) \delta \tilde \varphi (k) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
To obtain the initial amplitude ${\cal A}_i$ of (5.49), the above is to be
evaluated at the time $t_i (k)$.
\par
The computation of the spectrum of density perturbations produced in the de
Sitter phase has been reduced to the evaluation of the expectation value
(5.61). First, we must specify the state $| \psi >$. (Recall that
in non-Minkowski space-times there is no uniquely defined vacuum state of a
quantum field theory). We pick the FRW frame of the pre-inflationary
period. In this frame, the number density of particles decreases
exponentially. Hence we choose $| \psi >$ to be the ground state in this
frame (see Ref. 134 for a discussion of other choices). $\psi [ \tilde \varphi
(\undertext{k}), t]$, the wave functional of $|\psi >$, can be calculated
explicitly. It is basically the superposition of the ground state
wave functions for all oscillators
$$
\psi [ \tilde \varphi (\undertext{k}), t] = N \exp \left\{ - {1\over 2} (2
\pi)^{-3} a^3 (t) \int d^3 k \omega (\undertext{k}, t) | \tilde \varphi
(\undertext{k})|^2 \right\} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
$N$ is a normalization constant and $\omega (\undertext{k}, t) \sim H$ at $t =
t_i (k)$. Hence
$$
\delta \tilde \varphi (\undertext{k}, t) = (2 \pi)^{3/2} a^{-3/2}
\omega (\undertext{k}, t)^{-1/2} \sim (2 \pi)^{3/2} k^{-3/2} H \, , \,
t = t_i (k)\, . \eqno\eq
$$
\subsection{Evolution of Fluctuations}
Given the above determination of the intitial amplitude of density
perturbations at the time when they leave the Hubble radius during the de
Sitter phase, and the general relativistic analysis of the evolution of
fluctuations discussed in Section 4.4, it is easy to evaluate the r.m.s.
inhomogeneities when they reenter the Hubble radius at time $t_f (k)$.
First, we combine (5.62), (5.64), (5.49), (4.10) and (4.15) to obtain
$$
\left( {\delta M\over M} \right)^2 \, (k, t_i (k)) \sim k^3 \left({V^\prime
(\varphi_0) \delta \tilde \varphi (k, t_i (k))\over \rho_0} \right)^2 \sim
\left({V^\prime (\varphi_0) H\over \rho_0 } \right)^2 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and thus
$$
{\cal A}_i \sim \, {V^\prime (\varphi_0 (t_i (k)) H\over \rho_0} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
If the background scalar field is rolling slowly, then
$$
V^\prime (\varphi_0 (t_i (k))) = 3 H | \dot \varphi_0 (t_i (k)) | \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
Combining (5.66) and (5.67) with (5.52) and (5.54) we get
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, \, t_f (k)) = {\cal A}_f \sim \, {3 H^2 | \dot \varphi_0
(t_i (k)) |\over{\dot \varphi^2_0 (t_i (k))}} = {3 H^2\over{| \dot \varphi_0
(t_i (k))}} = {3H^2\over{| \dot \varphi_0 (t_i (k))|}} \eqno\eq
$$
This result can now be evaluated for specific models of inflation to find the
conditions on the particle physics parameters which give a value
$$
{\cal A}_f \sim 10^{-5} \eqno\eq
$$
which is required if quantum fluctuations from inflation are to provide the
seeds for galaxy formation and agree with the CMB anisotropy limits.
For chaotic inflation with a potential
$$
V (\varphi) = {1\over 2} m^2 \varphi^2 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the dynamics of $\varphi$ was analyzed in Section 5b (see in particular (5.43)
and (5.44)). We have
$$
\varphi (t_i (k)) \sim m_{pl} \eqno\eq
$$
and hence
$$
H (t_i (k)) \sim m^{-1}_{pl} m \, \varphi (t_i (k)) \sim m \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Therefore,
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, t_f (k)) \sim 3 {H^2\over{| \dot \varphi_0 (t_i (k))|}}
\sim 10 {m\over m_{pl}} \eqno\eq
$$
which implies that
$$
m \sim 10^{13} \, {\rm GeV} \eqno\eq
$$
to agree with (5.70).
Similarly, for a potential of the form
$$
V (\varphi) = {1\over 4} \lambda \varphi^4 \eqno\eq
$$
we obtain
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, \, t_f (k)) \sim 10 \cdot \lambda^{1/2} \eqno\eq
$$
which requires
$$
\lambda \leq 10^{-12}. \eqno\eq
$$
in order not to conflict with observations.
The conditions (5.74) and (5.77) require the presence of small parameters in
the particle physics model. It has been shown quite generally$^{120)}$ that
small parameters are required if inflation is to solve the fluctuation problem.
\subsection{Discussion}
\par
Let us first summarize the main results of the analysis of density
fluctuations in inflationary cosmology:
\item{-} Quantum vacuum fluctuations in the de Sitter phase of an inflationary
Universe are the source of perturbations.
\item{-} The quantum perturbations decohere on scales outside the Hubble
radius and can hence be treated classically.
\item{-} The classical evolution outside the Hubble radius produces a large
amplification of the perturbations. In fact, unless the particle physics
model contains very small coupling constants, the predicted fluctuations are
in excess of those allowed by the bounds on cosmic microwave anisotropies.
\item{-} Inflationary Universe models generically produce a scale invariant
\hfill \break Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k , t_f (k) ) = {\rm const.} \eqno\eq
$$
It is not hard to construct models which give a different spectrum. All that
is required is a significant change in $H$ during the period of
inflation.
\par
I have chosen to present the analysis of fluctuations in inflationary cosmology
in two separate steps in order to highlight the crucial physics issues.
Having done this, it is possible to step back and construct a unified
analysis in which expectation values of gauge invariant variables
are propagated from $t \ll t_i (k)$ to $t_f (k)$ in a consistent way$^{135,
11)}$, and in
which the final values of the expectation values of quadratic operators
are used to construct $T^{cl}_{\mu \nu} (\undertext{x} , t)$.
Once inside the Hubble radius, the evolution of the mass perturbations is
influenced by the damping effects discussed in Section 4.3, which is turn
depend on the composition of the dark matter. The dominant effects are the
Meszaros effect and free streaming.
On scales which enter the Hubble radius before $t_{eq}$, the perturbations can
only grow logarithmically in time between $t_f(k)$ and $t_{eq}$. This implies
that (up to logarithmic corrections), the mass perturbation spectrum is flat
for wavelengths smaller than $\lambda_{eq}$, the comoving Hubble radius at
$t_{eq}$:
$$
{{\delta M} \over M} (\lambda, t) \simeq {\rm const}, \,\,\,\,\,\,\,
t \leq t_{eq}, \, \lambda < \lambda_{eq}, \eqno\eq
$$
whereas on larger scales
$$
{{\delta M} \over M} (\lambda, t) \propto \lambda^{-2}. \eqno\eq
$$
Equations (5.79) and (5.80) give the power spectrum in an $\Omega = 1$
inflationary CDM model.
If the dark matter is hot, then neutrino free streaming cuts off the power
spectrum at $\lambda_J^{max}$ (see (3.27)). The inflationary HDM and CDM
perturbation spectra are compared in Fig. 32.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9.5cm \epsfbox{bfig32.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 32:} The linear theory power spectra for inflationary CDM
(upper curve) and HDM models. The horizontal axis is mass, expressed in units
of solar masses. $M_{eq}$ is the mass inside the comoving horizon at $t_{eq}$,
and $M_{FS}$ is the mass inside the maximal comoving neutrino free streaming
volume.}
\medskip
\chapter{Topological Defects and Structure Formation}
\section{Classification}
\par
In the previous section we have seen that symmetry breaking phase
transitions in unified field theories arising in particle physics
({\it e.g.,} Grand Unified Theories (GUT)$^{46)}$) do not lead, in general, to
inflation. In most models, the coupling constants which arise in the
effective potential for the scalar field $\varphi$ driving the phase
transition are too large to generate a period of slow rolling which
lasts more than one Hubble time $H^{-1} (t)$. Nevertheless, there are
interesting remnants of the phase transition: topological
defects.
\par
Consider a single component real scalar field with a typical symmetry breaking
potential
$$
V (\varphi) = {1\over 4} \lambda (\varphi^2 - \eta^2)^2 \eqno\eq
$$
Unless $\lambda \ll 1$ there
will be no inflation. The phase transition will take place on a short time
scale $\tau < H^{-1}$, and will lead to correlation regions of radius $\xi <
t$ inside of which $\varphi$ is approximately constant, but outside of which
$\varphi$ ranges randomly over the vacuum manifold ${\cal M}$, the set of
values
of $\varphi$ which minimizes $V(\varphi)$ -- in our example $\varphi
= \pm \eta$. The correlation regions are separated by domain walls, regions in
space where $\varphi$ leaves the vacuum manifold ${\cal M}$ and where,
therefore, potential energy is localized. Via the usual gravitational
force, this energy density can act as a
seed for structure.
Topological defects are familiar from solid state and condensed matter
systems. Crystal defects, for example, form when water freezes or
when a metal crystallizes$^{136)}$. Point defects, line defects and planar
defects are possible. Defects are also common in liquid crystals.
They arise in a temperature quench from the disordered to the ordered
phase$^{137)}$. Vortices in $^4$He are analogs of global cosmic strings.
Vortices and other defects are also produced during a quench below the
critical temperature in $^3$He$^{138)}$. Finally, vortex lines also play an
important role in the theory of superconductivity$^{139)}$.
The analogies between defects in particle physics and condensed matter
physics are quite deep. Defects form for the same reason: the vacuum
manifold is topologically nontrivial. The arguments which say that in
a theory which admits defects, such defects will inevitably form, are
applicable both in cosmology and in condensed matter physics.
Different, however, is the defect dynamics. The motion of defects in
condensed matter systems is friction-dominated, whereas the defects in
cosmology obey relativistic equations, second order in time
derivatives, since they come from a relativistic field theory.
After these general comments we turn to a classification of
topological defects. We consider theories with an $n$-component order
parameter $\varphi$ and with a potential energy function (free energy
density) of the form (6.1) with
$$
\varphi^2 = \sum\limits^n_{i = 1} \, \varphi^2_i \, . \eqno\eq
$$
There are various types of local and global topological defects
(regions of trapped energy density) depending on the number $n$ of components
of
$\varphi$. The more rigorous mathematical definition refers to the homotopy
of ${\cal M}$. The words ``local" and ``global" refer to whether the symmetry
which is broken is a gauge or global symmetry. In the case of local
symmetries, the topological defects have a well defined core outside of which
$\varphi$ contains no energy density in spite of nonvanishing gradients
$\nabla \varphi$: the gauge fields $A_\mu$ can absorb the gradient,
{\it i.e.,} $D_\mu \varphi = 0$ when $\partial_\mu \varphi \neq 0$,
where the covariant derivative $D_\mu$ is defined by
$$
D_\mu = \partial_\mu + ie \, A_\mu \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$e$ being the gauge coupling constant.
Global topological defects, however, have long range density fields and
forces.
\par
Table 1 contains a list of topological defects with their topological
characteristic. A ``v" markes acceptable theories, a ``x" theories which are
in conflict with observations (for $\eta \sim 10^{16}$ GeV).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=12cm \epsfbox{table1.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt}
\par
Theories with domain walls are ruled out$^{140)}$ since a single domain wall
stretching
across the Universe today would overclose the Universe. Local monopoles are
also ruled out$^{141)}$ since they would overclose the Universe. Local
textures are ineffective at producing structures (see Section 6).
We now describe examples of domain walls, cosmic strings, monopoles and
textures, focussing on configurations with maximal symmetry.
\par
\undertext{Domain walls} arise in theories with a single real order
parameter and free energy density given by (6.1). The vacuum manifold
of this model consists of two points
$$
{\cal M} = \{ \pm \eta \} \eqno\eq
$$
and hence has nontrivial zeroth homotopy group:
$$
\Pi_0 ({\cal M}) \neq 1 \eqno\eq
$$
(readers not familiar with homotopy groups can simply skip all of the
following statements involving $\Pi_n ({\cal M})$. They are not
required for an understanding of the physics).
To construct a domain wall configuration with planar symmetry (without
loss of generality the $y-z$ plane can be taken to be the plane of
symmetry), assume that
$$
\eqalign{
\varphi (x) \simeq \eta \>\>\> & x \gg \eta^{-1} \cr
\varphi (x) \simeq - \eta \>\>\> & x \ll - \eta^{-1} } \eqno\eq
$$
By continuity of $\varphi$, there must be an intermediate value of $x$
with $\varphi (x) = 0$. We can take this point to be $x = 0$, {\it
i.e.},
$$
\varphi (0) = 0 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The set of points with $\varphi = 0$ constitute the center of the
domain wall. Physically, the wall is a thin sheet of trapped energy
density. The width $w$ of the sheet is given by the balance of potential
energy and tension energy. Assuming that the spatial gradients are
spread out over the thickness $w$ we obtain
$$
w V (0) = w \lambda \eta^4 \sim {1\over w} \, \eta^2 \eqno\eq
$$
and thus
$$
w \sim \lambda^{-1/2} \eta^{-1} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
See Fig. 33 for a sketch of this domain wall configuration.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=4.5cm \epsfbox{bfig33.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 33:} A low temperature field configuration containing a
domain wall. The sketch shows a plane $P$ in space. At positions with a $+$ or
$-$, the value of the scalar field is $\eta$ or $- \eta$, respectively. The
solid line is the intersection with $P$ of the plane of points in space with
$\varphi = 0$.}
\medskip
A theory with a complex order parameter $(n = 2)$ admits
\undertext{cosmic strings}. In this case the vacuum manifold of the
model is
$$
{\cal M} = S^1 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which has nonvanishing first homotopy group:
$$
\Pi_1 ({\cal M}) = Z \neq 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
A cosmic string is a line of trapped energy density which arises
whenever the field $\varphi (x)$ circles ${\cal M}$ along a closed path
in space ({\it e.g.}, along a circle). In this case, continuity of
$\varphi$ implies that there must be a point with $\varphi = 0$ on any
sheet bounded by the closed path. The points on different sheets
connect up to form a line overdensity of field energy (see Fig. 34).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6cm \epsfbox{bfig34.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 34:} Sketch of the topological argument for the existence
of cosmic string configurations. Given a field configuration with nontrivial
winding along a circle normal to the plane of this figure, there must be a
point with $\varphi = 0$ on every disk bounded by the circle. Three disks are
depicted: $D$, $D'$ and $D''$, and the respective points with $\varphi = 0$
are $z$, $z'$ and $z''$. The union of all such points $z$ forms the center
$z(\lambda)$ of the string.}
\medskip
To construct a field configuration with a string along the $z$ axis$^{43)}$,
take $\varphi (x)$ to cover ${\cal M}$ along a circle with radius $r$
about the point $(x,y) = (0,0)$:
$$
\varphi (r, \vartheta ) \simeq \eta e^{i \vartheta} \, , \, r \gg
\eta^{-1} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
This configuration has winding number 1, {\it i.e.}, it covers ${\cal
M}$ exactly once. Maintaining cylindrical symmetry, we can extend
(6.12) to arbitrary $r$
$$
\varphi (r, \, \vartheta) = f (r) e^{i \vartheta} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $f (0) = 0$ and $f (r)$ tends to $\eta$ for large $r$. The
width $w$ can again be found by balancing potential and tension
energy. The result is identical to the result (6.9) for domain walls.
For local cosmic strings, {\it i.e.}, strings arising due to the
spontaneous breaking of a gauge symmetry, the energy density decays
exponentially for $r \gg \eta^{-1}$. In this case, the energy $\mu$
per unit length of a string is finite and depends only on the symmetry
breaking scale $\eta$
$$
\mu \sim \eta^2 \eqno\eq
$$
(independent of the coupling $\lambda$). The value of $\mu$ is the
only free parameter in a cosmic string model.
To see how the finiteness of the mass per unit length $\mu$ comes
about, consider the simplest theory admitting local strings, the
Abelian Higgs model with Lagrangean
$$
{\cal L} = {1\over 2} \, D_\mu \varphi D^\mu \varphi - V (\varphi) +
{1\over 4} F_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\varphi$ is a complex order parameter with potential (6.1),
$D_\mu$ is the gauge covariant derivative
$$
D_\mu = \partial_\mu + ie \, A_\mu \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the field $A_\mu$ is a U(1) gauge potential with associated field
strength
$$
F_{\mu\nu} = \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and $e$ is the gauge coupling constant.
For an order parameter configuration (6.12), the gauge fields $A_\mu$
will take on values such that
$$
D_\mu \varphi \simeq 0 \>\>\> r \gg \eta^{-1} \eqno\eq
$$
even though $\partial_\mu \varphi \neq 0$. Hence, the energy density
decays exponentially for $r \gg \eta^{-1}$. For strings in a global
theory (no gauge potential), the spatial gradient energy
$(\partial_\mu \varphi)^2$ cannot be cancelled at large $r$, and hence
the mass per unit length is logarithmically divergent as a function of
a large $r$ cutoff.
If the order parameter of the model has three components $(n = 3)$,
then \undertext{monopoles} result as topological defects. The vacuum
manifold is
$$
{\cal M} = S^2 \eqno\eq
$$
and has topology given by
$$
\Pi_2 ({\cal M}) \neq 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Given a sphere $S$ is space, it is possible that $\varphi$ takes on
values in ${\cal M}$ everywhere on $S$, and that it covers ${\cal M}$
once. By continuity, there must be a point in space in the interior
of $S$ with $\varphi = 0$. This is the center of a point-like defect,
the monopole.
To construct a spherically symmetric monopole with the origin as its
center, consider a field configuration $\varphi$ which defines a map
from physical space to field space such that all spheres $S_r$ in
space of radius $r \gg \eta^{-1}$ about the origin are mapped onto
${\cal M}$ (see Fig. 35):
$$
\eqalign{
\varphi: \> & S_r \longrightarrow {\cal M} \cr
& (r, \vartheta,\varphi) \longrightarrow (\vartheta,
\varphi) \, . }\eqno\eq
$$
This configuration defines a winding number one magnitude monopole.
Domain walls, cosmic strings and monopoles are examples of
\undertext{topological} \undertext{defects}. A topological defect has a
well-defined
core, a region in space with $\varphi \notin {\cal M}$ and hence $V
(\varphi) > 0$. There is an associated winding number which is
quantized, {\it i.e.}, it can take on only integer values. Since the
winding number can only change continuously, it must be conserved, and
hence topological defects are stable. Furthermore, topological
defects exist for theories with global and local symmetries.
Now, let us consider a theory with a four-component order parameter
({\it i.e.,} $n = 4$), and a potential given by (6.1). In this case,
the vacuum manifold is
$$
{\cal M} = S^3 \eqno\eq
$$
and the associated topology is given by
$$
\Pi_3 ({\cal M}) \neq 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The corresponding defects are called ``\undertext{textures}".$^{44, 45)}$
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{bfig35.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 35:} Construction of a monopole: left is
physical space, right the vacuum manifold. The field configuration
$\phi$ maps spheres in space onto ${\cal M}$. However, a core region
of space near the origin is mapped onto field values not in ${\cal
M}$.}
\medskip
Textures, however, are quite different than the previous topological defects.
The texture construction will render this manifest (Fig. 36). To construct a
radially symmetric texture, we give a field configuration $\varphi (x)$ which
maps physical space onto ${\cal M}$. The origin 0 in space (an arbitrary point
which will be the center of the texture) is mapped onto the north pole $N$ of
${\cal
M}$. Spheres surrounding 0 are mapped onto spheres surrounding $N$. In
particular, some sphere with radius $r_c (t)$ is mapped onto the equator
sphere of ${\cal M}$. The distance $r_c (t)$ can be defined as the radius of
the texture. Inside this sphere, $\varphi (x)$ covers half the vacuum
manifold.
Finally, the sphere at infinity is mapped onto the south pole of ${\cal M}$.
The configuration $\varphi (\undertext{x})$ can be parameterized
by$^{60)}$
$$
\varphi (x,y,z) = \left(\cos \chi (r), \> \sin \chi (r) {x\over r}, \>
\sin \chi (r) {y\over r}, \> \sin \chi (r) {z\over r} \right) \eqno\eq
$$
in terms of a function $\chi (r)$ with $\chi (0) = 0$ and $\chi (\infty) =
\pi$. Note that at all points in space, $\varphi (\undertext{x})$ lies in
${\cal
M}$. There is no defect core. All the energy is in spatial gradient (and
possibly kinetic) terms.
\par
In a cosmological context, there is infinite energy available in an infinite
space. Hence, it is not necessary that $\chi (r) \rightarrow \pi$ as $r
\rightarrow \infty$. We can have
$$
\chi (r) \rightarrow \chi_{\rm max} < \pi \>\> {\rm as} \>\> r \rightarrow
\infty \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\smallskip \epsfxsize=12cm \epsfbox{bfig36.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 36:} Construction of a global texture: left is
physical space, right the vacuum manifold. The field configuration
$\phi$ is a map from space to the vacuum manifold (see text).}
\medskip
In this case, only a fraction
$$
n_W = {\chi_{\rm max}\over \pi} - {\sin (2 \chi_{\rm max})\over{2 \pi}}
\eqno\eq
$$
of the vacuum manifold is covered: the winding number $n_W$ is not quantized.
This is a reflection of the fact that whereas topologically nontrivial maps
from $S^3$ to $S^3$ exist, all maps from $R^3$ to $S^3$ can be deformed to
the trivial map.
\par
Textures in $R^3$ are unstable. For the configuration described above, the
instability means that $r_c (t) \rightarrow 0$ as $t$ increases: the texture
collapses. When $r_c (t)$ is microscopical, there will be sufficient energy
inside the core to cause $\varphi (0)$ to leave ${\cal M}$, pass through 0 and
equilibrate at $\chi (0) = \pi$: the texture unwinds.
\par
A further difference compared to topological defects: textures are relevant
only for theories with global symmetry. Since all the energy is in spatial
gradients, for a local theory the gauge fields can reorient themselves such as
to cancel the energy:
$$
D_\mu \varphi = 0 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
Therefore, it is reasonable to regard textures as an example of a new class of
defects, \undertext{semitopological defects}. In contrast to topological
defects, there is no core, and $\varphi (\undertext{x}) \in {\cal M}$ for all
$\undertext{x}$. In particular, there is no potential energy. In addition,
the
winding number is not quantized, and hence the defects are unstable. Finally,
they exist only in theories with a global internal symmetry.
\section{Formation}
\par
The Kibble mechanism$^{12)}$ ensures that in theories which admit
topological or semitopological defects, such defects will be produced
during a phase transition in the very early Universe.
Consider a mechanical toy model, first introduced by Mazenko, Unruh
and Wald$^{93)}$ in the context of inflationary Universe models, which
is useful in understanding the scalar field evolution. Consider (see
Fig. 37) a lattice of points on a flat table. At each point, a pencil
is pivoted. It is free to rotate and oscillate. The tips of nearest
neighbor pencils are connected with springs (to mimic the spatial
gradient terms in the scalar field Lagrangean). Newtonian gravity
creates a potential energy $V(\varphi)$ for each pencil ($\varphi$ is
the angle relative to the vertical direction). $V(\varphi)$ is
minimized for $| \varphi | = \eta$ (in our toy model $\eta = \pi /
2$). Hence, the Lagrangean of this pencil model is analogous to that
of a scalar field with symmetry breaking potential (6.1).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=10cm \epsfbox{bfig37.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 37:} The pencil model: the potential energy of a
simple pencil has the same form as that of scalar fields used for
spontaneous symmetry breaking. The springs connecting nearest
neighbor pencils give rise to contributions to the energy which mimic
spatial gradient terms in field theory.}
\medskip
At high temperatures $T \gg T_c$, all pencils undergo large amplitude
high frequency oscillations. However, by causality, the phases of
oscillation of pencils with large separation $s$ are uncorrelated.
For a system in thermal equilibrium, the length $s$ beyond which
phases are random is the correlation length $\xi (t)$. However, since
the system is quenched rapidly, there is a causality bound on
$\xi$:
$$
\xi (t) < t \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $t$ is the causal horizon.
The critical temperature $T_c$ is the temperature at which the
thermal energy is equal to the energy a pencil needs to jump from
horizontal to vertical position. For $T < T_c$, all pencils want to
lie flat on the table. However, their orientations are random beyond
a distance of $\xi (t)$ determined by equating the free energy gained by
symmetry breaking (a volume effect) with the gradient energy lost (a surface
effect). As expected, $\xi (T)$ diverges at $T_c$. Very close to $T_c$, the
thermal energy $T$ is larger than the volume energy gain $E_{corr}$ in a
correlation volume. Hence, these domains are unstable to thermal fluctuations.
As $T$ decreases, the thermal energy decreases more rapidly than $E_{corr}$.
Below the Ginsburg temperature $T_G$, there
is insufficient thermal energy to excite a correlation volume into the
state $\varphi = 0$. Domains of size
$$
\xi (t_G) \sim \lambda^{-1} \eta^{-1} \eqno\eq
$$
freeze out$^{12, 142)}$. The boundaries between these domains become
topological defects. An improved version of this argument has recently been
given by Zurek$^{214)}$ (see also Ref. 215).
We conclude that in a theory in which a symmetry breaking phase
transitions satisfies the topological criteria for the existence of a
fixed type of defect, a network of such defects will form during the
phase transition and will freeze out at the Ginsburg temperature. The
correlation length is initially given by (6.29), if the field
$\varphi$ is in thermal equilibrium before the transition.
Independent of this last assumption, the causality bound implies that
$\xi (t_G) < t_G$.
For times $t > t_G$ the evolution of the network of defects may be
complicated (as for cosmic strings) or trivial (as for textures). In
any case (see the caveats of Refs. 143 and 144), the causality bound
persists at late times and states that even at late times, the mean
separation and length scale of defects is bounded by $\xi (t) \leq t$.
Applied to cosmic strings, the Kibble mechanism implies that at the
time of the phase transition, a network of cosmic strings with typical
step length $\xi (t_G)$ will form. According to numerical
simulations$^{145)}$, about 80\% of the initial energy is in infinite
strings (strings with curvature radius larger than the Hubble radius) and 20\%
in closed loops.
Note that the Kibble mechanism was discussed above in the context of a
global symmetry breaking scenario. As pointed out in Ref. 146, the
situation is more complicated in local theories in which gauge field
can cancel spatial gradients in $\varphi$ in the energy functional,
and in which spatial gradients in $\varphi$ can be gauged away.
Nevertheless, as demonstrated numerically (in $2 + 1$ dimensions) in
Refs. 42 and 147 and shown analytically in Ref. 148, the Kibble mechanism also
applies to local symmetries.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=8cm \epsfbox{bfig38.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 38:} Formation of a loop by a self intersection of an
infinite string. According to the original cosmic string scenario, loops form
with a radius $R$ determined by the instantaneous coherence length of the
infinite string network.}
\medskip
The evolution of the cosmic string network for $t > t_G$ is
complicated (see Section 6.4). The key processes are loop production
by intersections of infinite strings (see Fig. 38) and loop shrinking
by gravitational radiation. These two processes combine to create a
mechanism by which the infinite string network loses energy (and
length as measured in comoving coordinates). It will be shown (in Section 6.4)
that as
a consequence, the correlation length of the string network is always
proportional to its causality limit
$$
\xi (t) \sim t \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Hence, the energy density $\rho_\infty (t)$ in long strings is a fixed
fraction of the background energy density $\rho_c (t)$
$$
\rho_\infty (t) \sim \mu \xi (t)^{-2} \sim \mu t^{-2} \eqno\eq
$$
or
$$
{\rho_\infty (t)\over{\rho_c (t)}} \sim G \mu \, . \eqno\eq
$$
We conclude that the cosmic string network approaches a ``scaling
solution" in which the statistical properties of the
network are time independent if all distances are scaled to the
horizon distance.
Applied to textures, the Kibble mechanism implies that on all
scales $r \geq t_G$, field configurations with winding number $n_W
\geq n_{cr}$ are frozen in with a probability $p (n_{cr})$ per volume
$r^3$. The critical winding number $n_{cr}$ is defined as the winding
number above which field configurations collapse and below which they
expand. Only collapsing configurations form clumps of energy which
can accrete matter.
The critical winding $n_{cr}$ was determined numerically in Refs. 149
\& 150 and analytically in Ref. 151 (see also Ref. 152). It is
slightly larger than 0.5. The probability $p (n_{cr})$ can be
determined using combinatorial arguments$^{153)}$.
For $t > t_G$, any configuration on scale $\sim t$ with winding number
$n_W \ge n_{cr}$ begins to collapse (before $t$, the Hubble damping
term dominates over the spatial gradient forces, and the field
configuration is frozen in comoving coordinates). After unwinding,
$\varphi (\undertext{x})$ is homogeneous inside the horizon.
The texture model thus also leads to a scaling solution: at all times
$t > t_G$ there is the same probability that a texture configuration
of scale $t$ will enter the horizon, become dynamical and collapse
with a typical time scale $t$.
\section{Topological Defects and Cosmology}
Topological defects are regions in space with trapped energy density.
By Newtonian gravity, these defects can act as seeds about which the
matter in the Universe clusters, and hence they play a very important
role in cosmology.
As indicated in Table 1, theories with domain walls or with local
monopoles are ruled out, and those with only local textures do not give
rise to a structure formation model. As mentioned earlier, theories with
domain walls are
ruled out since a single wall stretching across the present Universe
would overclose it. Local monopoles are also problematic since they
do not interact and come to dominate the energy density of the
Universe. Local textures do not exist as coherent structures with
nonvanishing gradient energy since the gauge fields can always
compensate scalar field gradients.
\par
Let us demonstrate explicitly why stable domain walls are a
cosmological disaster$^{140)}$. If domain walls form during a phase transition
in the early Universe, it follows by causality (see however the caveats
of Refs. 143 and 144) that even today there will be at least one wall
per Hubble volume. Assuming one wall per Hubble volume, the energy
density $\rho_{DW}$ of matter in domain walls is
$$
\rho_{DW} (t) \sim \eta^3 t^{-1} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
whereas the critical density $\rho_c$ is
$$
\rho_c = H^2 \, {3\over{8 \pi G}} \sim m^2_{p\ell} \, t^{-2} \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
Hence, for $\eta \sim 10^{16}$ GeV the ratio of (6.33) and (6.34) is
$$
{\rho_{DW}\over \rho_c} \, (t) \sim \, \left({\eta\over{m_{p\ell}}}
\right)^2 \, (\eta t) \sim 10^{52} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The above argument depends in an essential way on the dimension of the
defect. One cosmic string per Hubble volume leads to an energy
density $\rho_{cs}$ in string
$$
\rho_{cs} \sim \eta^2 \, t^{-2} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Later in this section we shall see that the scaling (6.36) holds in the
cosmic string model. Hence, cosmic strings do not lead to
cosmological problems. On the contrary, since for GUT models with
$\eta \sim 10^{16}$ GeV
$$
{\rho_{cs}\over \rho_c} \sim \, \left({\eta\over m_{p \ell}} \right)^2
\sim 10^{-6} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
cosmic strings in such theories could provide the seed perturbations
responsible for structure formation.
Theories with local monopoles are ruled out on cosmological
grounds$^{141)}$ (see again the caveats of Refs. 143 and 144) for
rather different reasons. Since there are no long range forces
between local monopoles, their number density in comoving coordinates
does not decrease. Since their contribution to the energy density
scales as $a^{-3} (t)$, they will come to dominate the mass of the
Universe, provided $\eta$ is sufficiently large.
Theories with global monopoles$^{154, 155)}$ are not ruled out, since
there are long range forces between monopoles which lead to a
``scaling solution" with a fixed number of monopoles per Hubble
volume.
In the following we will describe aspects of two of the promising
topological defect models of structure formation, those based on
cosmic strings and on global textures. The global monopole scenario is in many
aspects similar to the texture theory.
\section{Cosmic String Evolution and Scaling}
If the evolution of the cosmic string network were trivial in the sense that
all strings would only stretch as the universe expands, there would be an
immediate cosmological disaster. Consider a fixed comoving volume $V$ with a
string passing through. The energy in radiation decreases as $a^{-1} (t)$
while the energy in string increases as $a (t)$. Hence trivial evolution
would immediately lead to a string dominated universe, a cosmological
disaster. In order to study the evolution of a cosmic string network, it is
neccessary to know the effective action for a string, and to study what happens
when two strings cross.
\par
The equations of motion of a string are determined by the Nambu action
$$
S = - \mu \int d \sigma d \tau \left(- \det g^{(2)}_{ab} \right)^{1/2} \> \>
a, b = 0, 1\eqno\eq
$$
where $g^{(2)}_{ab}$ is the world sheet metric and $\sigma$ and
$\tau$ are the world sheet coordinates. In flat space-time, $\tau$
can be taken to be coordinate time, and $\sigma$ is an affine
parameter along the string. In terms of the string
coordinates $X^\mu (\sigma, \tau)$ and the metric $g^{(4)}_{\mu\nu}$ of
the background space-time,
$$
g^{(2)}_{ab} = X^\mu_{,a} X^v_{,b} g^{(4)}_{\mu\nu} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
{}From
general symmetry considerations, it is possible to argue that the
Nambu action is the correct action. However, I shall follow
Foerster$^{156)}$ and
Turok$^{157)}$ and give a direct heuristic derivation. We start from a
general quantum field theory Lagrangean ${\cal L}_{QFT}$. The action is
$$
S = \int d^4 y {\cal L}_{QFT} \left(\varphi (y)\right)\eqno\eq
$$
We assume the existence of a linear topological defect at $X^\mu (\sigma,
\tau)$. The idea now is to change variables such that $\sigma$ and $\tau$ are
two of the new coordinates, and to expand $S$ to lowest order in $w/R$, where
$w$ is the width of the string and $R$ its curvature radius. As the other new
coordinates we take the coordinates $\rho^2$ and $\rho^3$ in the normal plane
to
$X^\mu (\sigma, \tau)$. Thus the transformation takes the
old coordinates $y^\mu (\mu = 0, 1, 2, 3)$ to new ones $\sigma^a = (\tau,
\sigma, \rho^2, \rho^3)$:
$$
y^\mu (\sigma^a) = X^\mu (\sigma, \tau) + \rho^i n^\mu_i (\sigma,
\tau)\eqno\eq
$$
where $i = 2,3$ and $n^\mu_i$ are the basis vectors in the normal plane to the
string world sheet. The measure transforms as
$$
\int d^4 y = \int d \sigma d \tau d \rho^2 d \rho^3 (\det M_a^\mu)\eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
M^\mu_a = \, {\partial y^\mu\over{\partial \sigma^a}} = \, \pmatrix{\partial
X^\mu/\partial (\sigma, \tau)\cr
n^\mu_i\cr} + O (\rho)\, .\eqno\eq
$$
The determinant can easily be evaluated using the following trick
$$
\det M^\mu_a = \, \left( - \det \eta_{\mu \nu} M^\mu_a M^\nu_b \right)^{1/2}
\equiv \sqrt{- \det D_{ab}}\eqno\eq
$$
$$
D = \, \pmatrix{{\partial x^\mu\over{\partial (\sigma, \tau)}} \, {\partial
X^\nu\over{\partial (\sigma, \tau)}} \eta_{\mu \nu} & {\partial X^\mu\over
{\partial (\sigma , \tau)}} n^\nu_b \eta_{\mu\nu}\cr
{\partial X^\mu\over{\partial (\sigma, \tau)}} n^\nu_a \eta_{\mu\nu} & n^\mu_a
n^\nu_b \eta_{\mu\nu}\cr} = \pmatrix{X^\mu_{,a} X^\nu_{,b} \eta_{\mu\nu} & 0\cr
0 & \delta_{ab}\cr} + 0 \, \left({w\over R}\right) \eqno\eq
$$
Hence
$$
\eqalign{S &= \int d \sigma d \tau \left( - \det g^{(2)}_{ab} \right)^{1/2}
\int d \rho^2 d \rho^3 {\cal L} (y (\sigma, \tau, \rho^2, \rho^3)) + O
\left({w\over R} \right)\cr
&= - \mu \int d \sigma d \tau \left( - \det g^{(2)}_{ab} \right)^{1/2} + O
\left({w\over R}\right)\, . }\eqno\eq
$$
$- \mu$ is the integral of {\cal L} in the normal plane of $X$. To first
order in $w/R$, it equals the integral of $-{\cal H}$; hence it is the mass per
unit length.
\par
This derivation of the Nambu action is instructive as it indicates a method
for calculating corrections to the equations of motion of the string when
extra fields are present, \eg\ for superconducting cosmic strings. It also
gives a way of calculating the finite thickness corrections to the equations
of motion which will be important at cusps (see below).
\par
In flat space-time we can consistently choose $\tau = t, \dot x \cdot x^\prime
= 0$ and $\dot x^2 + x^{\prime^2} = 0$. The equations of motion derived from
the Nambu action then become
$$
\ddot {\undertext{x}} - \undertext{x}^{\prime\prime} = 0\, . \eqno\eq
$$
where $\prime$ indicates the derivative with respect to $\sigma$. The general
solution can be decomposed into a left moving and a right moving mode$^{158)}$
$$
\undertext{x} (t, \sigma) = {1\over 2} \, \left[ \undertext{a} (\sigma - t) +
\undertext{b} (\sigma + t ) \right] \eqno\eq
$$
The gauge conditions imply
$$
\dot {\undertext{a}}^2 = \dot {\undertext{b}}^2 = 1\eqno\eq
$$
For a loop, $\undertext{x} (\sigma, t)$ is periodic and hence the time average
of $\dot {\undertext{a}}$ and $\dot {\undertext{b}}$ vanish. $\dot
{\undertext{a}}$
and $\dot {\undertext{b}}$ are hence closed curves on the unit sphere with
vanishing
average. Two such curves generically intersect if they are
continuous. An intersection corresponds to a point with
$\undertext{x}^\prime = 0$ and $\dot {\undertext{x}} = 1$. Such a point moving
at the speed of light is called a cusp. $\dot {\undertext{x}} (\sigma, t)$
need
not be continuous. Points of discontinuity are called kinks. Note that both
cusps and kinks will be smoothed out by finite thickness
effects$^{159)}$.
\par
The Nambu action does not describe what happens when two strings hit. This
process has been studied numerically for both global$^{160)}$ and
local$^{161)}$ strings. The authors of these papers set up scalar field
configurations
corresponding to two strings approaching one another and evolve the complete
classical scalar field equations. The result of the analysis is that strings
do not cross but exchange ends, provided the relative velocity is smaller than
0.9. Thus, by self intersecting, an infinite string will split off a loop
(Fig. 38). An important open problem is to understand this process
analytically. For a special value of the coupling constant Ruback$^{162)}$ has
given a mathematical explanation (see also Shellard and
Ruback in Ref. 161).
\par
There are two parts to the nontrivial evolution of the cosmic string network.
Firstly, loops are produced by self intersections of infinite strings. Loops
oscillate due to the tension and slowly decay by emitting gravitational
radiation. Combining the two steps we have a process by which energy
is transferred from the cosmic string network to radiation.
\par
There are analytical indications that a stable ``scaling solution"
(already described in Section ) for the
cosmic string network exists. In the scaling solution, on the order of 1
infinite string segment crosses every Hubble volume. The correlation length
$\xi (t)$
of an infinite string is thus of the order $t$. A heuristic argument for the
scaling solution is due to Vilenkin$^{5)}$. Take
$\tilde \nu (t)$ to be the mean number of infinite string segments per Hubble
volume. Then the energy density in infinite strings is
$$
\rho_\infty (t) = \mu \tilde \nu (t) t^{-2} \eqno\eq
$$
The number of loops $n(t)$ produced per unit volume is proportional to the
square of $\tilde \nu$, since it takes two string segments to generate a string
intersection. Hence,
$$
{d n (t)\over{dt}} = c \tilde \nu^2 t^{-4} \eqno\eq
$$
where $c$ is a constant of the order $1$. Conservation of energy in strings
gives
$$
{d \rho_\infty (t)\over{dt}} + {3\over{2 t}} \, \rho_\infty (t) = - c^\prime
\mu t \, {dn\over{dt}} = - c^\prime \mu \tilde \nu^2 t^{-3} \eqno\eq
$$
or, written as an equation for $\tilde \nu (t)$
$$
\tilde {\dot \nu} - \, {\tilde \nu\over{2 t}} = - cc^\prime \tilde \nu^2 t^{-
1}\eqno\eq
$$
Thus if $\tilde \nu \gg 1$ then $\tilde {\dot \nu} < 0$ while if $\tilde \nu
\ll 1$ then $\tilde {\dot \nu} > 0$. Hence there will be a stable solution
with $\tilde \nu \sim 1$.
The precise value of $\tilde \nu$ must be determined in numerical simulations.
These simulations are rather difficult because of the large dynamic range
required and due to singularities which arise in the evolution equations near
cusps. In the radiation dominated epoch, $\tilde \nu$ is still uncertain by a
factor of about 10. The first results were reported in Ref. 163.
More recent results are due three groups.
Bennett and Bouchet$^{164)}$ and Allen and Shellard$^{165)}$ are
converging on
a value $10 < \tilde \nu < 20$, whereas Albrecht and Turok$^{166)}$ obtain a
value which is about 100.
\par
The scaling solution for the infinite strings implies that the network of
strings looks the same at all times when scaled to the Hubble radius. This
should also imply that the distribution of cosmic string loops is scale
invariant in the same sense. At present, however, there is no convincing
evidence from numerical simulations that this is really the case.
\par
A scaling solution for loops implies that the distribution of $R_i (t)$, the
radius of loops at the time of formation, is time independent after dividing
by $t$. To simplify the discussion, I shall assume that the
distribution is monochromatic, \ie\
$$
R_i (t)/t = \alpha\, . \eqno\eq
$$
Based on Fig. 38, we expect $\alpha \sim 1$. The numerical
simulations$^{164-166)}$,
however, now give $\alpha < 10^{-2}$. This is due to the fact that there is a
lot of small scale structure on the long strings, and that the typical scale of
loop production is not determined by the overall curvature radius of the long
strings, but rather by the typical lengths of the small scale structure.
\par
{}From the scaling solution (6.50) for the infinite strings we can derive the
scaling solution for loops. We assume that the energy density in long strings
-- inasmuch as it is not redshifted -- must go into loops. $\beta$ shall be a
measure for the mean length $\ell$ in a loop of ``radius" $R$
$$
\ell = \beta R\, . \eqno\eq
$$
If per expansion time and Hubble volume about 1 loop of radius $R_i (t)$ is
produced, then we know that the number density in physical coordinates of loops
of
radius $R_i (t)$ is
$$
n (R_i (t), t) = ct^{-4}\eqno\eq
$$
with a constant $c$ which can be calculated from (6.50), (6.54) and
(6.55).
Neglecting gravitational radiation, this number density simply redshifts
$$
n (R,t) = \, \left({z (t)\over{z (t_f (R))}} \right)^3 n (R, t_f (R))\, ,
\eqno\eq
$$
where $t_f (R)$ is the time when loops of radius $R$ are formed. Isolating
the $R$ dependence, we obtain
$$
n (R, t) \sim R^{-4} z (R)^{-3}\eqno\eq
$$
where $z (R)$ is the redshift at time $t=R$. We have the following special
cases:
$$
\eqalign{n (R, t) \sim R^{-5/2} t^{-3/2} \qquad & t < t_{eq}\cr
n (R, t) \sim R^{-5/2} t_{eq}^{1/2} t^{-2} \qquad & t > t_{eq} \, , \, t_f
(R) < t_{eq}\cr
n (R, t) \sim R^{-2} t^{-2} \qquad & t > t_{eq} \, , \, t_f (R) > t_{eq} \,
.}\eqno\eq
$$
\par
The proportionality constant $c$ is
$$
c = {1\over 2} \beta^{-1} \alpha^{-2} \tilde \nu\eqno\eq
$$
(see \eg\ Ref. 167). In deriving (6.60) it is important to note that $n (R_i
(t), t) dR_i$ is the number density of loops in the radius interval $[R_i ,
R_i + dR_i]$. Hence, in the radiation dominated epoch
$$
n (R, t) = \nu R^{- 5/2} t^{-3/2} \eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
\nu = {1\over 2} \beta^{-1} \alpha^{1/2} \tilde \nu \, .\eqno\eq
$$
\par
{}From (6.62) we can read off the uncertainties in $\nu$ based on the
uncertainties in the numerical results. Both $\alpha^{1/2}$ and $\tilde \nu$
are determined only up to one order of magnitude. Hence, any quantitative
results which depend on the exact value of $\nu$ are rather uncertain.
\par
Gravitational radiation leads to a lower cutoff in $n (R, t)$. Loops with
radius smaller than this cutoff were all formed at essentially the same time
and hence have the same number density. Thus, $n (R)$ becomes flat. The
power in gravitational radiation $P_G$ can be estimated using the quadrupole
formula$^{168)}$. For a loop of radius $R$ and mass $M$
$$
P_G = {1\over 5} G < \dot{\ddot Q} \dot{\ddot Q} > \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $Q$ is the quadrupole moment, $Q \sim MR^2$, and since the frequency of
oscillation is $\omega = R^{-1}$
$$
P_G \sim G (MR^2)^2 \omega^6 \sim (G \mu) \mu \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
Even though the quadrupole approximation breaks down since the loops move
relativistically, (6.64) gives a good order of magnitude of the power of
gravitational radiation. Improved calculations give$^{169)}$
$$
P_G = \gamma (G \mu) \mu\eqno\eq
$$
with $\gamma \sim 50$. (6.55) and (6.65) imply that
$$
\dot R = \tilde \gamma G \mu\eqno\eq
$$
with $\tilde \gamma \equiv \gamma/\beta \sim 5$ (using $\beta \simeq
10$). Note that the rate of decrease is constant. Hence,
$$
R (t) = R_i - (t - t_i) \tilde \gamma G \mu\eqno\eq
$$
and the cutoff loop radius is
$$
R_c \sim \tilde \gamma G \mu t_i\, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
Let us briefly summarize the scaling solution
\item{1)} At all times the network of infinite strings looks the same when
scaled by the Hubble radius. A small number of infinite string segments cross
each Hubble volume and $\rho_\infty (t)$ is given by (6.50).
\item{2)} There is a distribution of loops of all sizes $0 \le R < t$.
Assuming scaling for loops, then
$$
n (R, t) = \nu R^{-4} \, \left({z (t)\over{z (R)}}\right)^3 \, , \> R
\> \epsilon \> [ \tilde \gamma G \mu t, \alpha t]\eqno\eq
$$
where $\alpha^{-1} R$ is the time of formation of a loop of radius $R$. Also
$$
n (R, t) = n ( \tilde \gamma G \mu t, t) \, , \> R < \tilde \gamma G \mu t\,
. \eqno\eq
$$
Although the qualitative characteristics of the cosmic string scaling
solution are well established, the quantitative details are not. The
main reason for this is the fact that the Nambu action breaks down at
kinks and cusps. However, kinks and cusps inevitably form and are
responsible for the small scale structure on strings. In fact, coarse
graining by integrating out the small scale structure may give an
equation of state for strings which deviates from that of a Nambu
string$^{170)}$. Attempts at understanding the small scale structure
on strings are at present under way$^{171)}$.
\section{Cosmic Strings and Structure Formation}
The starting point of the structure formation scenario in the cosmic
string theory is the scaling solution for the cosmic string network,
according to which at all times $t$ (in particular at $t_{eq}$, the
time when perturbations can start to grow) there will be a few long
strings crossing each Hubble volume, plus a distribution of loops of
radius $R \ll t$ (see Fig. 39).
\smallskip \epsfxsize=6.5cm \epsfbox{bfig39.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 39.} Sketch of the scaling solution for the
cosmic string network. The box corresponds to one Hubble volume at
arbitrary time $t$.}
\medskip
The cosmic string model admits three mechanisms for structure
formation: loops, filaments, and wakes. Cosmic string loops have the same
time averaged field as a point source with mass$^{172)}$
$$
M (R) = \beta R \mu \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$R$ being the loop radius and $\beta \sim 2 \pi$. Hence, loops will be seeds
for spherical accretion of dust and radiation.
For loops with $R \leq t_{eq}$, growth of perturbations in a model
dominated by cold dark matter starts at $t_{eq}$. Hence, the mass at
the present time will be
$$
M (R, \, t_0) = z (t_{eq}) \beta \, R \mu \, . \eqno\eq
$$
In the original cosmic string model$^{47, 48, 57)}$ it was assumed
that loops dominate over wakes. In this case, the theory could be
normalized ({\it i.e.}, $\mu$ could be determined) by demanding that loops
with the mean separation of clusters $d_{cl}$ (from the discussion in
Section 6.4 it follows that the loop radius $R (d_{cl})$ is determined
by the mean separation) accrete the correct mass, {\it i.e.}, that
$$
M (R (d_{cl}), t_0) = 10^{14} M_{\odot} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
This condition yields$^{57)}$
$$
\mu \simeq 10^{32} {\rm GeV}^2 \eqno\eq
$$
Thus, if cosmic strings are to be relevant for structure formation,
they must arise due to a symmetry breaking at energy scale $\eta
\simeq 10^{16}$GeV. This scale happens to be the scale of unification (GUT)
of weak, strong and electromagnetic interactions. It is tantalizing
to speculate that cosmology is telling us that there indeed was new
physics at the GUT scale.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=12cm \epsfbox{bfig40.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 40.} Sketch of the mechanism by which a long
straight cosmic string $S$ moving with velocity $v$ in transverse
direction through a plasma induces a velocity perturbation $\Delta v$
towards the wake. Shown on the left is the deficit angle, in the
center is a sketch of the string moving in the plasma, and on the
right is the sketch of how the plasma moves in the frame in which the
string is at rest.}
\medskip
The second mechanism involves long strings moving with relativistic
speed in their normal plane which give rise to
velocity perturbations in their wake$^{173)}$. The mechanism is illustrated in
Fig. 40:
space normal to the string is a cone with deficit angle$^{174)}$
$$
\alpha = 8 \pi G \mu \, . \eqno\eq
$$
If the string is moving with normal velocity $v$ through a bath of dark
matter, a velocity perturbation
$$
\delta v = 4 \pi G \mu v \gamma \eqno\eq
$$
[with $\gamma = (1 - v^2)^{-1/2}$] towards the plane behind the string
results. At times after $t_{eq}$, this induces planar overdensities,
the most
prominent ({\it i.e.}, thickest at the present time) and numerous of which were
created at $t_{eq}$, the time of equal matter and
radiation$^{58, 59, 63)}$. The
corresponding planar dimensions are (in comoving coordinates)
$$
t_{eq} z (t_{eq}) \times t_{eq} z (t_{eq}) v \sim (40 \times 40 v) \,
{\rm Mpc}^2
\, . \eqno\eq
$$
The thickness $d$ of these wakes can be calculated using the
Zel'dovich approximation$^{63)}$. The result is
$$
d \simeq G \mu v \gamma (v) z (t_{eq})^2 \, t_{eq} \simeq 4 v \, {\rm
Mpc} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\par
Wakes arise if there is little small scale structure on the string.
In this case, the string tension equals the mass density, the string
moves at relativistic speeds, and there is no local gravitational
attraction towards the string.
In contrast, if there is small scale structure on strings,
then the string tension $T$ is smaller$^{170)}$ than the mass per unit
length $\mu$ and the metric of a string in $z$ direction becomes$^{175)}$
$$
ds^2 = (1 + h_{00}) (dt^2 - dz^2 - dr^2 - (1 - 8G \mu) r^2 dy^2 )
\eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
h_{00} = 4G (\mu - T) \ln \, {r\over r_0} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$r_0$ being the string width. Since $h_{00}$ does not vanish, there
is a gravitational force towards the string which gives rise to
cylindrical accretion, thus producing filaments.
As is evident from the last term in the metric (6.79), space
perpendicular to the string remains conical, with deficit angle given
by (6.75). However, since the string is no longer relativistic, the
transverse velocities $v$ of the string network are expected to be
smaller, and hence the induced wakes will be shorter and thinner.
Which of the mechanisms -- filaments or wakes -- dominates is
determined by the competition between the velocity induced by $h_{00}$
and the velocity perturbation of the wake. The total velocity
is$^{175)}$
$$
u = - {2 \pi G (\mu - T)\over{v \gamma (v)}} - 4 \pi G \mu v \gamma
(v) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the first term giving filaments, the second producing wakes. Hence,
for small $v$ the former will dominate, for large $v$ the latter.
By the same argument as for wakes, the most numerous and prominent
filaments will have the distinguished scale
$$
t_{eq} z (t_{eq}) \times d_f \times d_f \eqno\eq
$$
where $d_f$ can be calculated using the Zel'dovich approximation$^{216)}$.
The cosmic string model predicts a scale-invariant spectrum of density
perturbations, exactly like inflationary Universe models but for a
rather different reason. Consider the {\it r.m.s.} mass fluctuations
on a length scale $2 \pi k^{-1}$ at the time $t_H (k)$ when this scale
enters the Hubble radius. From the cosmic string scaling solution it
follows that a fixed ({\it i.e.}, $t_H (k)$ independent) number
$\tilde v$ of strings of length of the order $t_H (k)$ contribute to
the mass excess $\delta M (k, \, t_H (k))$. Thus
$$
{\delta M\over M} \, (k, \, t_H (k)) \sim \, {\tilde v \mu t_H
(k)\over{G^{-1} t^{-2}_H (k) t^3_H (k)}} \sim \tilde v \, G \mu \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
Note that the above argument predicting a scale invariant spectrum
will hold for all topological defect models which have a scaling
solution, in particular also for global monopoles and textures.
The amplitude of the {\it r.m.s.} mass fluctuations (equivalently: of
the power spectrum) can be used to normalize $G \mu$. Since today on
galaxy cluster scales
$$
{\delta M\over M} (k, \, t_0) \sim 1 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the growth rate of fluctuations linear in $a(t)$ yields
$$
{\delta M\over M} \, (k, \, t_{eq}) \sim 10^{-4} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and therefore, using $\tilde v \sim 10$,
$$
G \mu \sim 10^{-5} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
A big advantage of the cosmic string model over inflationary Universe
models is that HDM is a viable dark matter candidate. Cosmic string
loops survive free streaming, as discussed in Section 3.4, and can
generate nonlinear structures on galactic scales, as discussed in
detail in Refs. 61 and 62. Accretion of hot dark matter by a string wake
was studied in Ref. 63. In this case, nonlinear perturbations
develop only late. At some time $t_{nl}$, all scales up to a distance
$q_{\rm max}$ from the wake center go nonlinear. Here
$$
q_{\rm max} \sim G \mu v \gamma (v) z (t_{eq})^2 t_{eq} \sim 4 v \,
{\rm Mpc} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and it is the comoving thickness of the wake at $t_{nl}$. Demanding
that $t_{nl}$ corresponds to a redshift greater than 1 leads to the
constraint
$$
G \mu > 5 \cdot 10^{-7} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Note that in a cosmic string and hot dark matter model, wakes form nonlinear
structures only very recently. Accretion onto loops and small scale structure
on the long strings provide two mechanisms which may lead to high redshift
objects such as quasars and high redshift galaxies. The first mechanism has
recently been studied in Ref. 217.
The power spectra in the cosmic string models with CDM and HDM are
obviously different on scales smaller than the maximal neutrino free
streaming length (3.27). Recent calculations$^{176, 177)}$ of the power
spectra are shown in Fig. 41.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=12cm \epsfbox{bfig41.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 41:} Power spectra for cosmic string HDM and CDM theories
(dashed curves), compared to those for inflationary HDM and CDM models (solid
curves). In each case, the top curve is for CDM, the bottom one for HDM. Note
that there is substantial power on small scales in the cosmic string HDM
theory.}
\medskip
\section{Global Textures and Structure Formation}
The starting point of the texture scenario of structure formation$^{60)}$ is
the
scaling solution for textures: at any time $t$, there is a fixed
probability $p (n_w) \, dn_w$ that the scalar field configuration over
a Hubble volume covers between $n_w$ and $n_w + dn_w$ of the vacuum
manifold, {\it i.e.}, we have a texture with winding number in the
interval $[n_w, \, n_w + dn_w ]$ entering the Hubble radius.
The dynamics of a texture is easy to understand. Consider the
spherically symmetric texture configuration of (6.24) with $\chi (r)$
increasing from 0 to $\chi_{\rm max}$ over a distance $d$. If $d$ is
larger than the Hubble radius, then the Hubble damping term dominates
the equation of motion for $\varphi$ and the field configuration is
frozen in. Once the Hubble radius $t$ catches up with $d$, the
microphysical forces become dominant and the texture field begins to
evolve.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig42.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 42:} A sketch of the forces acting on a spherically
symmetric texture configuration and which cause unwinding in case (a) in which
the winding number is larger than the critical winding, and dissipation if the
winding is smaller than its critical value (case (b)). $r$ is the distance from
the center of the texture, and the vertical axis shows the value of the $\chi$
field.}
\medskip
The evolution of $\varphi$ tends to minimize the field energy.
Consider first large distances from the texture center. The spatial
gradient energy can be decreased by having $\chi_{\rm max}$ increase
(if $\chi_{\rm max} > \chi_c$) or decrease (if $\chi_{\rm max} <
\chi_c$) (see Figure 42). The winding associated with $\chi_c$ is called the
critical
winding $n_c$ (see (6.26)). For a single texture in an infinite
volume we would expect
$$
\chi_c = {\pi\over 2} \, (i.e., \, n_c = 0.5) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For realistic textures there will be a ``finite volume cutoff"
determined by the separation of textures. A semi-analytical analysis
and numerical simulations give$^{149-151)}$
$$
n_c \simeq 0.6 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
If $n_W < n_c$, then the field configuration will relax to a trivial
one. No localized energy concentrations will be generated, and we
cannot speak of a ``texture." However, if $n_W > n_c$ the field
evolution will be more interesting. At large $r$, $\chi (r)$ will
increase. In addition, the radius $r (\chi)$ where $\chi$ takes on a
fixed value $\chi$ tends to decrease, since this leads to a
concentration of gradient energies over a smaller region. Hence, the
field configuration will contract (see Fig. 42), with increasing total
winding number. Eventually, close to $r = 0$ there is sufficient
tension energy for $\varphi$ to be able to leave the vacuum manifold
and jump from $\chi = 0$ to $\chi = \pi$. This is the texture
unwinding event. After unwinding, energy is radiated radially in the
form of Goldstone bosons.
In the texture model it is the contraction of the field configuration which
leads to density perturbations$^{178)}$. At the time when the texture enters
the
horizon, an isocurvature perturbation is established: the energy density in
the scalar field is compensated by a deficit in radiation. However, the
contraction of the scalar field configuration leads to a clumping of gradient
and kinetic energy at the center of the texture (Fig. 43). This, in turn,
provides the
seed perturbations which cause dark matter and radiation to collapse in a
spherical manner$^{179, 180)}$.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=9cm \epsfbox{bfig43.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent {\bf Figure 43}: A sketch of the density perturbation produced
by a collapsing texture. The left graph shows the time evolution of
the field $\chi (r)$ as a function of radius $r$ and time (see
(5.18)). The contraction of $\chi (r)$ leads to a spatial gradient
energy perturbation at the center of the texture, as illustrated on
the right. The energy is denoted by $\rho$. Solid lines denote the
initial time, dashed lines are at time $t + \Delta t$, and dotted
lines correspond to time $t + 2 \Delta t$, where $\Delta t$ is a
fraction of the Hubble expansion time (the typical time scale for the
dynamics).}
\medskip
As in the cosmic string model, also in the global texture scenario the
length scale of the dominant structures is the comoving Hubble radius
at $t_{eq}$. Textures generated at $t_{eq}$ are the most numerous,
and the perturbations induced by them have the most time to grow.
As mentioned in the previous subsection, the texture model predicts a
scale-invariant spectrum of density perturbations. Hence, in order to
differentiate topological defect models from inflationary scenarios,
and to distinguish between different topological defect theories, we
need statistics which are not determined by the power spectrum alone.
We need statistics which are sensitive to the non-random phases of
topological defect models. One such statistic is the genus curve$^{181)}$.
For a surface $S$ embedded in $R^3$, the genus $g$ is
$$
g (S) = {\rm \# \, of \, holes \, of} \, S - \, {\rm \# \, of \,
disconnected \, components \, of} \, S + 1 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The genus $g$ can now be evaluated for the isodensity surface $S
(\rho)$, the surface of points in space with density equal to $\rho$.
The curve
$$
g (\rho) = g (S (\rho)) \eqno\eq
$$
is the genus curve. To reduce numerical errors, $g$ can also be
evaluated based on a cell decomposition of the volume. Now, $g (n)$
is the genus of the boundary of the cell complex in which each cell
contains more than $n$ galaxies. In this case, the genus is simply
$$
g = 1 - {1\over 2} (V-E-F) \eqno\eq
$$
where $V,E,F$ are the number of vertices, edges, and faces of the
polygonal surface, respectively.
\smallskip \epsfxsize=11.5cm \epsfbox{bfig44.eps}
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 44:} Comparison of the genus curve (genus as a function of
galaxy density) of different toy models of structure formation. Except for the
Gaussian model, all theories have the same linear power spectrum. The
`filament', `wake' and `texture' toy models are based on laying down at random
linear, planar and spherical overdense regions of galaxies. Thus, the figure
demonstrates that the genus statistic is able to distinguish between theories
with different topologies but identical power spectra. The `CDM' model
predictions are computed from linear theory, and the `Poisson' model is
obtained by randomly distributing galaxies. See the senior thesis by
Aguirre$^{182)}$ for further details.}
\medskip
As shown in Fig. 44, the genus statistic is able to distinguish
between models with the same power spectrum but different phase correlations
and topology$^{182)}$. For a texture toy model, the genus curve
is mostly negative, for a cosmic string wake model, it is
predominately positive. The differences compared to a random phase
inflationary model are statistically significant.
The differences shown in Fig. 44 will only be apparent in large-scale
samples of galaxies, {\it i.e.}, on scales exceeding the comoving
radius at $t_{eq}$. Such samples should, however, become available in
the near future, and at that point genus curve and other statistics
sensitive to non-random phases should become a powerful tool for
distinguishing the predictions of the different models of structure
formation.
A final word concerning textures: since they are short-lived, only CDM
is a viable dark matter candidate in the context of this structure
formation scenario.
\chapter{Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies}
As mentioned in Section 3, the near-isotropy of the CMB is the
strongest evidence in support of the cosmological principle. By the
same reasoning, any density inhomogeneities in the early Universe will
give rise to CMB anisotropies. Since our present theories of galaxy
formation are based on the gravitational instability scenario, they
predict such inhomogeneities. The CMB temperature fluctuations probe
the structure of space at $t_{rec}$, the time of last scattering, a
time when the density perturbations still have a small amplitude and can
be analyzed in linear theory. Hence, a study of CMB anisotropies will
yield a lot of constraints for structure formation models. The
information gained will be robust, {\it i.e.}, independent of the
uncertainties of nonlinear gravitational and hydrodynamical effects,
but it will deal only with large scales (comparable or larger than the
comoving horizon at $t_{rec}$). In this section we shall give a brief overview
of the theory of CMB anisotropies and summarize some recent observational
results.
\section{Basics}
As illustrated in Fig. 45, there are three main sources of CMB
anisotropies. The first are gravitational potential perturbations at
$t_{rec}$ which lead to fluctuations of the surface of last
scattering. This produces deviations in the light travel time between
last scattering and detection, and -- given that the photons have the
same temperature on the surface of last scattering -- to temperature
fluctuations for the observer.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 45:} Space-time plot sketching the origin of CMB
temperature anisotropies. The surface labelled $T_{rec}$ is the last scattering
surface. ${\cal O}$ is the observer at the present time measuring photons
$\gamma$ impinging from directions in the sky separated by an angle $\theta$.
The shaded area labelled $C$ is the world volume of a local overdensity,
leading to distortions of geodesics. Possible velocities of observer and
emitter are indicated by ${\vec v}_o$ and ${\vec v}_e$, respectively.}
\medskip
The second source is due to gravitational perturbations along the line
of sight which lead to deviations of the geodesics and hence to
temperature differences. A Newtonian way of understanding this effect
is to consider a photon passing through a large mass concentration.
On the way towards the center, the photon is falling into a potential
well and acquires a blueshift, whereas on its way out it is
redshifted. In an expanding background, this redshift does not
exactly cancel the initial blueshift, and a temperature fluctuation
results.
The third source contributing to CMB anisotropies are peculiar
velocities on the surface of last scattering and of the observer. The
peculiar motion of the earth gives rise to a dipole anisotropy$^{183)}$
$$
{\delta T\over T} \big|_{\rm dipole} \simeq \, 10^{-3} \eqno\eq
$$
Peculiar velocities induce temperature fluctuations by means of the
Doppler effect.
For linear adiabatic density perturbations in a matter dominated
Universe, the line of sight contributions to $\delta T/T$ can be
written as total time derivative and thus reduces to a contribution
from the surface of last scattering and can be simply combined with
the potential fluctuations at $t_{rec}$. This is the case first
studied by Sachs and Wolfe, and the combined effect is now called the
Sachs-Wolfe effect$^{184)}$.
An analysis of the Sachs-Wolfe effect reveals a very simple
relationship between temperature fluctuations $\delta T/T \,
(\vartheta)$ on an angular scale $\vartheta$ and the magnitude of
density perturbations on the corresponding lengths scale $\lambda
(\vartheta)$, where at last scattering $\lambda (\vartheta)$ equals
the distance subtended by two light rays with angular separation
$\vartheta$ (see Fig. 45). A simple derivation$^{11, 185)}$ of this
relationship
makes use of the gauge invariant theory of cosmological perturbations
described in Section 4.4.
The starting point is the phase space distribution function $f (x^\alpha,
\, p_i)$ which would be a function of $p / T$ exclusively in the
absence of inhomogeneities. In the presence of inhomogeneities, the
deviation of $f$ from homogeneity is associated with temperature
fluctuations:
$$
f (x^\alpha , \, p_i) = \bar f (p / \bar T + \delta T) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\bar T$ is the average temperature and $\bar f (p / T)$ is the
background phase space density.
The phase space distribution function satisfies the collisionless
Boltzmann equation
$$
{d x^\alpha\over{d \eta}} \, {\partial f\over{\partial x^\alpha}} + {d
p_i\over{d \eta}} \, {\partial f\over{\partial p_i}} = 0 \eqno\eq
$$
where, as in Section 4.4, the variable $\eta$ denotes conformal time.
This equation can be integrated along the perturbed geodesics which
are given by
$$
{d p_\alpha\over{d \eta}} = 2p {\partial \Phi\over{\partial x^\alpha}}
\eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
{d x^i\over{d \eta}} = l^i (1 + 2 \Phi), \eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
l^i = - {1\over p} \, p_i \eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
p^2 = p_i p_i \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Inserting these relations into the Boltzman equation gives
$$
\left( {\partial\over{\partial \eta}} + l^i \partial_i \right) \,
{\delta T\over T} = - 2 l^i \partial_i \Phi \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Since in the matter dominated period $\partial_\eta \Phi = 0$ we can
rewrite (7.8) as
$$
\left( {\partial\over{\partial_\eta}} + l^i_i \right) \, \left({\delta
T\over T} + 2 \Phi \right) = 0 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which implies that
$$
{\delta T\over T} + 2 \Phi = \, {\rm const} \eqno\eq
$$
along the perturbed geodesics.
For isothermal primordial perturbations $( {\delta T\over T} \,
(t_{rec}) = 0)$, the result (7.10) implies that
$$
{\delta T\over T} (\eta_0) = 2 \Phi (\eta_{rec}) + l^i v_i
(\eta_{rec}) \eqno\eq
$$
whereas for primordial adiabatic perturbations (vanishing initial
entropy perturbations)
$$
{\delta T\over T} (\eta_0) = {1\over 3} \Phi (\eta_{rec}) + l^i v_i
(\eta_{rec}) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
{\it i.e.}, the combination of initial curvature fluctuations and line
of sight effects leads to a partial cancellation of the anisotropy.
The second term on the {\rm r.h.s.} of (7.11) and (7.12) is the
Doppler term, and it arises from a determination of the constant in
(7.10) based on considering the initial conditions at $t_{rec}$.
Since $\Phi$ is constant both between $t_{eq}$ and $t_{rec}$ and while
outside the Hubble radius, and since
$$
\Phi (t_H) \sim {\delta \rho\over \rho} \, (t_H) \eqno\eq
$$
at Hubble radius crossing $t_H$, our results imply that (modulo
Doppler terms) for adiabatic perturbations
$$
{\delta T\over T} (\vartheta, \, t_0) = {1\over 3} \Phi (\lambda
(\vartheta), \, t_{eq}) \sim {1\over 3} \, {\delta M\over M} \,
(\lambda (\vartheta), \, t_H)) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
We conclude that the spectrum of primordial mass perturbations can be
normalized by CMB anisotropy detections. For a scale invariant
spectrum of density perturbations, the {\it r.m.s.} temperature
fluctuations are predicted to be independent of $\vartheta$ on angular
scales larger than the Hubble radius at $t_{rec}$ (between 1 and 2
degrees).
\section{Specific Signatures}
All theories of structure formation give rise to Sachs-Wolfe type
temperature fluctuations given by (7.13) and (7.14). In topological
defect models there are, in addition, specific signatures which cannot
be described in a linear perturbative analysis.
As described in Section 6.5, space perpendicular to a long straight
cosmic string is conical with deficit angle given by (6.75). Consider
now CMB radiation approaching an observer in a direction normal to the
plane spanned by the string and its velocity vector (see Fig. 46).
Photons arriving at the observer having passed on different sides of
the string will obtain a relative Doppler shift which translates into
a temperature discontinuity of amplitude$^{186)}$
$$
{\delta T\over T} = 4 \pi G \mu v \gamma (v) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $v$ is the velocity of the string. Thus, the distinctive
signature for cosmic strings in the microwave sky are line
discontinuities in $T$ of the above magnitude.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 46:} Sketch of the Kaiser-Stebbins effect by
which cosmic strings produce linear discontinuities in the CMB. Photons
$\gamma$ passing on different sides of a moving string $S$ (velocity $v$)
towards the observer ${\cal O}$ receive a relative Doppler shift due to the
conical nature of space perpendicular to the string (deficit angle $\alpha$).}
\medskip
Given ideal maps of the CMB sky it would be easy to detect strings.
However, real experiments have finite beam width. Taking into account
averaging over a scale corresponding to the beam width will smear out
the discontinuity, and it turns out to be surprisingly hard to
distinguish the predictions of the cosmic string model from that of
inflation-based theories using quantitative statistics which are easy
to evaluate analytically, such as the kurtosis of the spatial gradient
map of the CMB$^{187)}$.
Textures produce a distribution of hot and cold spots on the CMB sky
with typical size of several degrees$^{188)}$. This signature is much easier
to see in CMB maps. The mechanism which produces these hot and cold
spots in the CMB is illustrated in Fig. 47.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 47:} Space-time diagram of a collapsing texture. The
unwinding occurs at the point $TX$. The shaded areas correspond to overdense
regions. Photons like $\gamma_1$ are redshifted, those like $\gamma_2$ are
blueshifted.}
\medskip
Photons arriving at the observer having passed through a texture as in the case
of the ray
$\gamma_1$ in Fig. 47 will be redshifted relative to the average
photons since they have to climb out of a potential well, whereas
those in orientation $\gamma_2$ will be blueshifted since they fall
into a potential well. Taking into account reionization produced by
texture collapse gives an amplitude of $\delta T/T$ of$^{189, 190)}$
$$
{\delta T\over T} \sim 0.06 \times 16 \pi G \eta^2 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
A number of about ten hot and cold spots of angular scale 10$^\circ$
is predicted by the texture model.
Theories of structure formation can now be normalized from CMB
anisotropy data and from large-scale structure considerations. An
inflationary model with CDM yields agreement between these two
normalizations provided$^{191)}$
$$
b \simeq 1 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $b$ is the bias factor determining the ratio of fractional mass
to light perturbations on a scale of 8h$^{-1}$ Mpc.
$$
{\delta L\over L} \Big|_{8 {\rm h}^{-1}{\rm Mpc}} = b \, {\delta
M\over M} \Big|_{8 {\rm h}^{-1} {\rm Mpc}} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
However, agreement between galaxy and cluster correlation properties
seem to require$^{192)}$
$$
b \sim 2 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Normalizations of the texture model from large-scale structure and CMB
observations$^{189, 190, 193)}$ require a bias
$$
b \sim 3 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
whereas for cosmic strings the two normalizations agree well. Based
both on numerical simulations and analytical calculations, a
normalization of the cosmic string model from the COBE CMB anisotropy
data gives$^{194, 195)}$
$$
G \mu = (1.3 \pm 0.5) 10^{-6} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
\section{Experimental Results}
Over the past couple of years there has been a spectacular
breakthrough on the observational front. The DMR experiment on the
COBE satellite$^{196)}$ has produced a temperature map of the entire sky with
beam width of 7$^\circ$, which shows a clear detection of CMB
anisotropies. Independent confirmation has come from two 5$^\circ$
experiments, FIRAS$^{197)}$ which has mapped 1/4 of the sky, and the Tenerife
experiment$^{198)}$ which surveyed a strip of 70$^\circ$ length in right
ascension at a declination 40$^\circ$. The FIRAS data cross
correlate very well with the COBE results, and there is even good agreement in
the location of a pronounced feature
in the Tenerife map with a that of a comparable feature in the
two-year COBE maps.
In addition, there are many small angular scale experiments which have
detected anisotropies. A partial list of observational results is
given in Table 2 . In this table, ``Angular Scale" denotes the beam width, the
``results for $\delta
T/T$" stands for the variance of $\delta T$ computed from the CMB
maps, ``cover" indicates the area of the sky mapped. MAX 1 and MAX 2
denote two separate MAX measurements of $\delta T/T$, one in a region of
the sky $\mu \, {\rm Peg}$, the second near GUM. OVRO 1 is the first
Owens Valley experiment, a measurement near the North Galactic Cap,
the second is a ring survey. The large numer of anisotropy experiments which
have announced detections of temperature fluctuations since April 1992
indicates the rapid progress in this field.
To a first approximation, the present experimental results are in
agreement with the predictions of a scale invariant spectrum of
density perturbations. A popular way to show the results is to expand
$T(\undertext{n})$ in spherical harmonics
$$
T (\undertext{n}) = \sum_l \sum_{m = -l}^l a_{lm} Y_{lm} (\undertext{n})
,\eqno\eq
$$
where $\undertext{n}$ is a unit vector on the sky, and to calculate
the temperature correlation function
$$
< T (\undertext{n}_1) T (\undertext{n}_2 ) > = {1\over{4 \pi}}
\sum\limits_l (2 l + 1) C_l P_l (\undertext{n}_1 \cdot \undertext{n}_2
) \eqno\eq
$$
where
$$
< a^\ast_{lm} \, a_{l^\prime m^\prime} > = C_l \delta_{ll^\prime}
\delta_{mm^\prime} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
For a power spectrum of density perturbations
$$
P (k) \sim k^n \eqno\eq
$$
the prediction for the Sachs-Wolfe contribution to $\delta T$ is
$$
l^2 C_l \sim l^{n-1} \eqno\eq
$$
on scales larger than the Hubble radius at $t_{rec}$ ({\it i.e.}, for
small values of $l$).
A direct comparison between theory and experiment is complicated by
two effects: the Doppler contribution to $\delta T/T$ creates a peak
in the $l^2 C_l$ curve at values of $l$ which correspond to wavelengths
comparable to the Hubble radius at
$t_{rec}$, whose amplitude depends strongly on the ionization history
of the Universe. Reionization also leads to a decrease in $C_l$ for
large $l$.
The COBE results combined with Tenerife observations favor$^{198)}$ a value of
$n$ larger than what is predicted by simple inflationary models.
However, the error bars are large and the difference is not (yet)
statistically significant. At present there is the intriguing puzzle
as to why the signal of certain small scale experiments is larger than
the upper limit of other observations at the same angular scale
elsewhere in the sky. A search for possible non-Gaussian features in
the CMB sky will have high priority in the next years.
\midinsert
\bigskip
\settabs 5\columns
\centerline{{\bf TABLE 2}:~ CMB Anisotropy Results}
\medskip
\+ Experiment & Angular Scale & Result for ${\delta T\over T}$ & Cover
& Location \cr \vskip 10pt
\+ & & & & \cr \vskip 12pt
\+ COBE-DMR$^{196)}$ & 7$^\circ$ & 1.1 $\pm$ 0.2 & 4$\pi$ & space
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ Tenerife$^{198)}$ & 5.6$^\circ$ & 1.7 $\pm$ 0.4 & 350 deg$^2$ & ground
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ FIRS$^{197)}$ & 4$^\circ$ & 1 - 3 & $\pi$ & balloon
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ SK93$^{199)}$ & 1.45$^\circ$ & 1.4 $\pm$ 0.5 & & ground
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ SP91$^{200)}$ & 1.4$^\circ$ & 1.1 $\pm$ 0.5 & 13.8 deg$^2$ &
ground \cr \vskip 12pt
\+ ARGO$^{201)}$ & 1$^\circ$ & 2.2 $\pm$ 0.8 & & balloon
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ Python$^{202)}$ & 0.75$^\circ$ & 3 & 8 deg$^2$ & ground
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ MAX 1$^{203)}$ & 0.5$^\circ$ & $< 3$ & & balloon \cr \vskip
12pt
\+ MAX 2$^{204)}$ & 0.5$^\circ$ & 4.9 $\pm$ 0.8 & 6 deg$^2$ &
balloon\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ MSAM$^{205)}$ & 0.47$^\circ$ & 1.6 $\pm$ 0.4 & 6 deg$^2$ &
balloon\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ White Dish$^{206)}$ & 0.2$^\circ$ & $< 2.3$ & & ground
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ OVRO 1$^{207)}$ & 1.8$^\prime$ & $<1.9$ & 0.03 deg$^2$ & ground
\cr \vskip 12pt
\+ OVRO 2$^{208)}$ & 1.8$^\prime$ & 3.4 $\pm$ 1.1 & 0.1 deg$^2$ &
ground \cr
\bigskip
\endinsert
\bigskip
\bigskip
\chapter{Modern Cosmology and Planck Scale Physics}
\medskip
\section{Introduction}
Through its implications for very early Universe cosmology, Planck
scale physics (and specifically string theory) might well
have directly observable consequences for the physical world. The aim
of this chapter is to explore some possibilities of how this may
occur.
As was explained in Chapter 5, standard particle physics
models do not yield a convincing realization of inflation since in this
context, inflation requires a fundamental
scalar field with a reasonably flat potential (in order to have
inflation) and with very small coupling constants (in order that
quantum fluctuations present during inflation do not lead to CMB
temperature anisotropies in excess of those recently detected.
Such potentials are not generic in particle physics
models.
The first challenge from cosmologists to Planck scale physics is
therefore to provide a generic mechanism for inflation. It may be
that Planck scale physics predicts the type of scalar field potentials
for which successful inflation results. Another possibility is that Planck
scale physics leads to a realization of inflation which does not involve scalar
fields. A possible scenario for this
is suggested in Section 2. Finally, it may be that Planck scale
physics leads to a solution of the homogeneity and flatness problems
which does not require inflation.
Standard and modern cosmology are plagued by an internal inconsistency. They
predict that the Universe started at a ``Big Bang" singularity with
infinite curvature and matter temperature. However, it is known that the
physics on which the standard cosmological model is built must break down at
very high temperature and curvature. Therefore, the second challenge for
Planck scale physics is to find a solution to the singularity problem.
Two very different scenarios in which this may happen are suggested in
Sections 2 and 3.
Finally, Planck scale physics (string theory as a concrete example)
allows us to ask questions about the physical world which cannot be
posed in standard physics. For example, is there a dynamical
mechanism which singles out a Universe in which three space and one time
dimensions are observable? One mechanism in the context of string
theory will be reviewed in Section 3.
I will review two very different approaches to Planck scale cosmology.
The first is an attempt to incorporate Planck scale effects on the
space-time structure by writing down an effective action for the
space-time metric. It will be shown that a class of effective actions
exists whose solutions have a less singular structure. More
specifically, all homogeneous and isotropic solutions are nonsingular
(see Section 2).
In Section 3, I will summarize some aspects of string cosmology and
indicate how in the context of string theory the cosmological
singularities can be avoided. A dynamical mechanism which explains
why at most three-spatial dimensions are large (and thus observable)
is suggested.
\section{A Nonsingular Universe}
\subsection{Motivation}
Planck scale physics will generate corrections to the Einstein action
which determines the dynamics of the space-time metric $g_{\mu\nu}$.
This can be seen by considering the effective action obtained by
integrating out quantum matter fields in the presence of a dynamical
metric, by calculating first order perturbative quantum gravity
effects, or by studying the low energy effective action of a Planck
scale unified theory such as string theory.
The question we wish to address in this section is whether it is
possible to construct a class of effective actions for gravity which
have improved singularity properties and which predict inflation,
with the constraint that they give the correct low curvature limit.
What follows is a summary of recent work$^{41, 218, 219)}$ in which we have
constructed an effective action for gravity in which all solutions
with sufficient symmetry are nonsingular. The theory is a higher
derivative modification of the Einstein action, and is obtained by
a constructive procedure well motivated in analogy with the analysis
of point particle motion in special relativity. The resulting theory
is asymptotically free in a sense which will be specified below.
A possible objection to our approach is that near a singularity
quantum effects will be important and therefore a classical analysis is
doomed to fail. This argument is correct in the usual picture in
which at high curvatures there are large fluctuations and space-time
becomes more like a ``quantum foam." However, in our theory, at high
curvature space-time becomes highly regular and thus a classical
analysis of space-time is self-consistent. The property of asymptotic
freedom is essential in order to reach this conclusion.
Our aim is to construct a theory with the property that the metric
$g_{\mu\nu}$ approaches the de Sitter metric $g_{\mu\nu}^{DS}$, a
metric with maximal symmetry which admits a geodesically complete and
nonsingular extension, as the curvature $R$ approaches the Planck
value $R_{pl}$. Here, $R$ stands for any curvature invariant.
Naturally, from our classical considerations, $R_{pl}$ is a free
parameter. However, if our theory is connected with Planck scale
physics, we expect $R_{pl}$ to be set by the Planck scale.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 48:} Penrose diagrams for collapsing Universe (left) and
black hole (right) in Einstein's theory (top) and in the nonsingular Universe
(bottom). C, E, DS and H stand for contracting phase, expanding phase, de
Sitter phase and horizon, respectively, and wavy lines indicate singularities.}
\medskip
If successful, the above construction will have some very appealing
consequences. Consider, for example, a collapsing spatially
homogeneous Universe. According to Einstein's theory, this Universe
will collapse in finite proper time to a final ``big crunch" singularity (top
left Penrose diagram of Figure 48).
In our theory, however, the Universe will approach a de Sitter model as
the curvature increases. If the
Universe is closed, there will be a de Sitter bounce followed by
re-expansion (bottom left Penrose diagram in Figure 48). Similarly, in our
theory spherically
symmetric vacuum solutions would be nonsingular, i.e., black holes
would have no singularities in their centers. The structure of a
large black hole would be unchanged compared to what is predicted by
Einstein's theory (top right, Figure 48) outside and even slightly inside the
horizon, since
all curvature
invariants are small in those regions. However, for $r \rightarrow 0$
(where $r$ is the radial Schwarzschild coordinate), the solution
changes and approaches a de Sitter solution (bottom right, Figure 48). This
would have interesting consequences for the black hole information
loss problem.
To motivate our effective action construction, we turn to a well known
analogy, point particle motion in the theory of special relativity.
\subsection{An Analogy}
The transition from the Newtonian theory of point particle motion to
the special relativistic theory transforms a theory with no bound on
the velocity into one in which there is a limiting velocity, the speed
of light $c$ (in the following we use units in which $\hbar = c = 1$).
This transition can be obtained$^{41)}$ by starting with the action of a
point particle with world line $x(t)$:
$$
S_{\rm old} = \int dt {1\over 2} \dot x^2 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and adding$^{220)}$ a Lagrange multiplier which couples to $\dot
x^2$, the quantity to be made finite, and which has a potential
$V(\varphi)$:
$$
S_{\rm new} = \int dt \left[ {1\over 2} \dot x^2 + \varphi \dot x^2 -
V (\varphi) \right] \, .\eqno\eq
$$
{}From the constraint equation
$$
\dot x^2 = {\partial V\over{\partial \varphi}} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
it follows that $\dot x^2$ is limited provided $V(\varphi)$ increases
no faster than linearly in $\varphi$ for large $|\varphi|$. The small
$\varphi$ asymptotics of $V(\varphi)$ is determined by demanding that
at low velocities the correct Newtonian limit results:
$$
\eqalign{V (\varphi) \sim \varphi^2 \> & {\rm as} \> |\varphi|
\rightarrow 0 \, , \cr
V (\varphi) \sim \varphi \> & {\rm as} \> |\varphi| \rightarrow \infty
\, . } \eqno\eq
$$
Choosing the simple interpolating potential
$$
V (\varphi) = {2 \varphi^2\over{1 + 2 \varphi}} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the Lagrange multiplier can be integrated out, resulting in the well-known
action
$$
S_{\rm new} = {1\over 2} \int dt \sqrt{1 - \dot x^2} \eqno\eq
$$
for point particle motion in special relativity.
\subsection{Construction}
Our procedure for obtaining a nonsingular Universe theory$^{41)}$ is based
on generalizing the above Lagrange multiplier construction to gravity.
Starting from the Einstein action, we can introduce a Lagrange
multiplier $\varphi_1$ coupled to the Ricci scalar $R$ to obtain a
theory with limited $R$:
$$
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} (R + \varphi_1 \, R + V_1 (\varphi_1) ) \, ,
\eqno\eq
$$
where the potential $V_1 (\varphi_1)$ satisfies the asymptotic
conditions (8.4).
However, this action is insufficient to obtain a nonsingular gravity
theory. For example, singular solutions of the Einstein equations
with $R=0$ are not effected at all. The minimal requirements for a
nonsingular theory is that \underbar{all} curvature invariants remain
bounded and the space-time manifold is geodesically complete.
Implementing the limiting curvature hypothesis$^{221)}$, these conditions
can be reduced to more manageable ones. First, we choose one
curvature invariant $I_1 (g_{\mu\nu})$ and demand that it be
explicitely bounded, i.e., $|I_1| < I_1^{pl}$, where $I_1^{pl}$ is the
Planck scale value of $I_1$. In a second step, we demand that as $I_1
(g_{\mu\nu})$ approaches $I_1^{pl}$, the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ approach
the de Sitter metric $g^{DS}_{\mu\nu}$, a definite nonsingular metric
with maximal symmetry. In this case, all curvature invariants are
automatically bounded (they approach their de Sitter values), and the
space-time can be extended to be geodesically complete.
Our approach is to implement the second step of the above procedure by
another Lagrange multiplier construction$^{41)}$. We look for a curvature
invariant $I_2 (g_{\mu\nu})$ with the property that
$$
I_2 (g_{\mu\nu}) = 0 \>\> \Leftrightarrow \>\> g_{\mu\nu} =
g^{DS}_{\mu\nu} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
introduce a second Lagrange multiplier field $\varphi_2$ which couples
to $I_2$ and choose a potential $V_2 (\varphi_2)$ which forces $I_2$
to zero at large $|\varphi_2|$:
$$
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} [ R + \varphi_1 I_1 + V_1 (\varphi_1) +
\varphi_2 I_2 + V_2 (\varphi_2) ] \, , \eqno\eq
$$
with asymptotic conditions (8.4) for $V_1 (\varphi_1)$ and conditions
$$
\eqalign{V_2 (\varphi_2) & \sim {\rm const} \>\> {\rm as} \> |
\varphi_2 | \rightarrow \infty \cr
V_2 (\varphi_2) & \sim \varphi^2_2 \>\> {\rm as} \> |\varphi_2 |
\rightarrow 0 \, ,} \eqno\eq
$$
for $V_2 (\varphi_2)$. The first constraint forces $I_2$ to zero, the
second is required in order to obtain the correct low curvature limit.
These general conditions are reasonable, but not sufficient in order
to obtain a nonsingular theory. It must still be shown that all
solutions are well behaved, i.e., that they asymptotically reach the
regions $|\varphi_2| \rightarrow \infty$ of phase space (or that
they can be controlled in some other way). This must be done for a
specific realization of the above general construction.
\subsection{Specific Model}
At the moment we are only able to find an invariant $I_2$ which
singles out de Sitter space by demanding $I_2 = 0$ provided we assume
that the metric has special symmetries. The choice
$$
I_2 = (4 R_{\mu\nu} R^{\mu\nu} - R^2 + C^2)^{1/2} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
singles out the de Sitter metric among all homogeneous and isotropic
metrics (in which case adding $C^2$, the Weyl tensor square, is
superfluous), all homogeneous and anisotropic metrics, and all
radially symmetric metrics.
We choose the action$^{41)}$
$$
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left[ R + \varphi_1 R - (\varphi_2 +
{3\over{\sqrt{2}}} \varphi_1) I_2^{1/2} + V_1 (\varphi_1) + V_2
(\varphi_2) \right] \eqno\eq
$$
with
$$
V_1 (\varphi_1) = 12 \, H^2_0 {\varphi^2_1\over{1 + \varphi_1}} \left( 1
- {\ln (1 + \varphi_1)\over{1 + \varphi_1}} \right) \eqno\eq
$$
$$
V_2 (\varphi_2) = - 2 \sqrt{3} \, H^2_0 \, {\varphi^2_2\over{1 +
\varphi^2_2}} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The general equations of motion resulting from this action are quite
messy. However, when restricted to homogeneous and isotropic metrics
of the form
$$
ds^2 = dt^2 - a (t)^2 (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
the equations are fairly simple. With $H = \dot a / a$, the two
$\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ constraint equations are
$$
H^2 = {1\over{12}} V^\prime_1 \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\dot H = - {1\over{2\sqrt{3} }} V^\prime_2 \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and the dynamical $g_{00}$ equation becomes
$$
3 (1 - 2 \varphi_1) H^2 + {1\over 2} (V_1 + V_2) = \sqrt{3} H (\dot
\varphi_2 + 3 H \varphi_2) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The phase space of all vacuum configurations is the half plane $\{
(\varphi_1 \geq 0, \, \varphi_2) \}$. Equations (8.16) and (8.17)
can be used to express $H$ and $\dot H$ in terms of $\varphi_1$ and
$\varphi_2$. The remaining dynamical equation (8.18) can then be recast
as
$$
{d \varphi_2\over{d \varphi_1}} = - {V_1^{\prime\prime}\over{4
V^\prime_2}} \, \left[ - \sqrt{3} \varphi_2 + (1 - 2\varphi_1) -
{2\over{V^\prime_1}} (V_1 + V_2) \right] \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The solutions can be studied analytically in the asymptotic regions
and numerically throughout the entire phase space.
The resulting phase diagram of vacuum solutions is sketched in Fig. 49
(for numerical results, see the second article in Ref. 41). The point
$(\varphi_1, \,
\varphi_2) = (0,0)$ corresponds to Minkowski space-time $M^4$, the
regions $|\varphi_2 | \rightarrow \infty$ to de Sitter space. As
shown, all solutions either are periodic about $M^4$ or else they
asymptotically approach de Sitter space. Hence, all solutions are
nonsingular. This conclusion remains unchanged if we add spatial
curvature to the model.
{\baselineskip=13pt
\noindent{\bf Figure 49:} Phase diagram of the homogeneous and isotropic
solutions of the nonsingular Universe. The asymptotic regions are labelled by
A, B, C and D, flow lines are indicated by arrows.}
\medskip
One of the most interesting properties of our theory is asymptotic
freedom$^{41)}$, i.e., the coupling between matter and gravity goes to
zero at high curvatures. It is easy to add matter (e.g., dust or
radiation) to our model by taking the combined action
$$
S = S_g + S_m \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $S_g$ is the gravity action previously discussed, and $S_m$ is
the usual matter action in an external background space-time metric.
We find$^{41))}$ that in the asymptotic de Sitter regions, the trajectories of
the solutions in the $(\varphi_1, \, \varphi_2)$ plane are unchanged
by adding matter. This applies, for example, in a phase of de Sitter
contraction when the matter energy density is increasing exponentially
but does not affect the metric. The physical reason for asymptotic
freedom is obvious: in the asymptotic regions of phase space, the
space-time curvature approaches its maximal value and thus cannot be
changed even by adding an arbitrary high matter energy density.
Naturally, the phase space trajectories near $(\varphi_1, \,
\varphi_2) = (0,0)$ are strongly effected by adding matter. In
particular, $M^4$ ceases to be a stable fixed point of the evolution
equations.
\subsection{Connection with Dilaton Gravity}
The low energy effective actions for the space-time metric in 4
dimensions which come from string theory are only known
perturbatively. They contain higher derivative terms, but not if the
exact same form as the ones used in our construction. The connection
between our limiting curvature construction and string theory-motivated
effective actions is more apparent in two
space-time dimensions$^{218, 219)}$.
The most general renormalizable Lagrangian for string-induced dilaton
gravity is
$$
{\cal L} = \sqrt{-g} [ D(\varphi) R + G (\varphi) (\nabla \varphi)^2 +
H (\varphi) ] \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\varphi (x,t)$ is the dilaton. In two space-time dimensions,
the kinetic term for $\varphi$ can be eliminated, resulting in a
Lagrangian (in terms of rescaled fields) of the form
$$
{\cal L} = \sqrt{-g} [ D(\varphi) R + V (\varphi) ] \, . \eqno\eq
$$
We can now apply the limiting curvature construction to find classes
of potentials for which the theory has nonsingular black hole$^{218)}$ and
cosmological$^{219)}$ solutions. In the following, we discuss the
nonsingular two-dimensional black hole.
To simplify the algebra, the dilaton is redefined such that
$$
D (\varphi) = {1\over \varphi} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The most general static metric can be written as
$$
ds^2 = f (r) dt^2 - g (r) dr^2 \eqno\eq
$$
and the gauge choice
$$
g (r) = f (r)^{-1} \eqno\eq
$$
is always possible. The variational equations are
$$
f^\prime = - V (\varphi) {\varphi^2\over \varphi^\prime} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
$$
\left( {\varphi^\prime\over \varphi^2} \right)^\prime = 0 \eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
\varphi^{-2} R = {\partial V\over{\partial \varphi}} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where a prime denotes the derivative with respect to $r$.
Equation (8.27) can be integrated to find (after rescaling $r$)
$$
\varphi = {1\over{Ar}} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
To give the correct large $r$ behavior for the metric, we need to
impose that
$$
f (r) \rightarrow 1 - {2m\over r} \>\>\> {\rm as} \> r \rightarrow
\infty \, . \eqno\eq
$$
{}From (8.26) this leads to the asymptotic condition
$$
V (\varphi) \rightarrow 2 m A^3 \varphi^2 \>\>\> {\rm as} \> \varphi
\rightarrow 0 \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The limiting curvature hypothesis requires that $R$ be bounded as
$\varphi \rightarrow \infty$. From (8.28) this implies
$$
V (\varphi) \rightarrow {2\over{\ell^2 \varphi}} \>\>\> {\rm as} \>
\varphi \rightarrow \infty \, , \eqno\eq
$$
where $\ell$ is a constant which determines the limiting curvature.
As an interpolating potential we can choose
$$
V (\varphi) = {2 m A^3 \varphi^2\over{1+ m A^3 \ell^2 \varphi^3}} \, ,
\eqno\eq
$$
which allows (8.26) to be integrated explicitly$^{218)}$ to obtain $f(r)$.
The resulting metric coefficient $f(r)$ describes a nonsingular black
hole with a single horizon at $r \simeq 2m$. The metric is
indistinguishable from the usual Schwarzschild metric until far inside
of the horizon, where our $f(r)$ remains regular and obtains vanishing
derivative at $r = 0$, which allows for a geodesically complete
extension of the manifold.
\subsection{Discussion}
We have shown that a class of higher derivative extensions of the
Einstein theory exist for which many interesting solutions are
nonsingular. This class of models is very special. Most higher
derivative theories of gravity have, in fact, much worse singularity
properties than the Einstein theory. What is special about this class
of theories is that they are obtained using a well motivated Lagrange
multiplier construction which implements the limiting curvature
hypothesis. We have shown that
\item{\rm i)} all homogeneous and isotropic solutions are
nonsingular$^{41)}$
\item{\rm ii)} the two-dimensional black holes are nonsingular$^{218)}$
\item{\rm iii)} nonsingular two-dimensional cosmologies exist$^{219)}$.
\noindent
We also have evidence that four-dimensional black holes and
anisotropic homogeneous cosmologies are nonsingular$^{222)}$.
By construction, all solutions are de Sitter at high curvature. Thus,
the theories automatically have a period of inflation (driven by the
gravity sector in analogy to Starobinsky inflation$^{39)}$) in the
early Universe.
A very important property of our theories is asymptotic freedom. This
means that the coupling between matter and gravity goes to zero at
high curvature, and might lead to an automatic suppression mechanism
for scalar fluctuations.
In two space-time dimensions, there is a close connection between
dilaton gravity and our construction. In four dimensions, the
connection between fundamental physics and our class of effective
actions remains to be explored. In particular, it would be nice to investigate
the connection between our limiting curvature construction and the
`pre-big-bang cosmology' scenario proposed on the basis of dilaton gravity in
Ref. 119.
\section{Aspects of String Cosmology}
\subsection{Motivation}
In the previous section we studied effective actions for the space-time
metric which might arise in the intermediate energy regime of a fundamental
theory such as string theory. However, it is also of interest to
explore the predictions of string theory which depend specifically on
the ``stringy" aspects of the theory and which are lost in any field
theory limit. It is to a description of a few of the string-specific
cosmological aspects to which we turn in this section.
\subsection{Implications of Target Space Duality}
Target space duality$^{223)}$ is a symmetry specific to string theory.
As a simple example, consider a superstring background in which all
spatial dimensions are toroidally compactified with equal radii. Let
$R$ denote the radius of the torus.
The spectrum of string states is spanned by oscillatory modes which
have energies independent of $R$, by momentum modes whose energies
$E_n$ (with integer $n$) are
$$
E_n = {n\over R} \, , \eqno\eq
$$
and by winding modes with energies $E^\prime_m$ ($m$ integer)
$$
E^\prime_m = mR \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Target space duality is a symmetry between two superstring theories,
one on a background with radius $R$, the other on a background of
radius $1/R$, under which winding and momentum modes are interchanged.
Target space duality has interesting consequences for string
cosmology$^{224)}$. Consider a background with adiabatically changing
$R(t)$. While $R(t) \gg 1$, most of the energy in thermal equilibrium
resides in the momentum modes. The position eigenstates $|x >$ are
defined as in quantum field theory in terms of the Fourier transform
of the momentum eigenstates $|p >$
$$
|x > = \sum\limits_p e^{i x \cdot p} |p > \, . \eqno\eq
$$
However, for $R (t) \ll 1$, most of the energy flows into winding
modes, and it takes much less energy to measure the ``dual distance"
$| \tilde x >$ than $|x >$, where
$$
| \tilde x > = \sum\limits_w e^{i \tilde x \cdot w} | w > \eqno\eq
$$
is defined in terms of the winding modes $| w>$.
We conclude that target space duality in string theory leads to a
minimum physical length in string cosmology. As $R(t)$ decreases
below 1, the measured length starts to increase again. This could
lead to a bouncing or oscillating cosmology$^{224)}$.
It is well known that for strings in thermal equilibrium there is a
maximal temperature, the Hagedorn temperature$^{225)}$. Target space
duality implies that in thermal equilibrium the temperature in an
adiabatically varying string background begins to decrease once $R(t)$
falls below 1:
$$
T \left({1\over R} \right) = T(R) \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Thus, the $T(R)$ curve in string cosmology is nonsingular and very
different from its behavior in standard cosmology. For further
discussions of the thermodynamics of strings see, e.g., Refs. 226 and
227 and references therein.
\subsection{Strings and Space-Time Dimensionality}
Computations$^{224)}$ using the microcanonical ensemble show that for
all spatial directions compactified at large total energy $E$, the
entropy $S$ is proportional to $E$:
$$
S = \beta_H E \, , \eqno\eq
$$
with $\beta_H$ denoting the inverse of the Hagedorn temperature $T_H$.
Thus, the $E(R)$ curve in string cosmology is very different from the
corresponding curve in standard cosmology.
For large $R \gg 1$, most of the energy in a gas of strings in thermal
equilibrium will flow into momentum modes, and the thermodynamics will
approach that of an ideal gas of radiation for which
$$
E (R) \sim {1\over R} \, . \eqno\eq
$$
By duality, for small $R$
$$
E (R) \sim R \, . \eqno\eq
$$
If, however, for some reason the string gas falls out of equilibrium,
the $E(R)$ curve will look very different. Starting at $R= 1$ with a
temperature approximately equal to $T_H$, a large fraction of the
energy will reside in winding modes. If these winding modes cannot
annihilate, thermal equilibrium will be lost, and the energy in
winding modes will increase linearly in $R$, and thus for large $R$:
$$
E (R) \sim R \, . \eqno\eq
$$
Newtonian intuition tells us that out of equilibrium winding modes
with an energy relation (8.42) will prevent the background space from
expanding$^{224}$. The equation of state corresponding to a gas of
straight strings is
$$
p = - {1\over N} \rho \eqno\eq
$$
where $p$ and $\rho$ denote pressure and energy density, respectively, and
$N$ is the number of spatial dimensions.
According to standard general relativity, an equation of state with
negative pressure will lead to more rapid expansion of the background.
It turns out that the Newtonian intuition is the correct one and that
general relativity gives the wrong answer$^{228)}$. At high densities,
the specific stringy effects -- in particular target space duality
-- become crucial.
The Einstein action violates duality. In order to restore duality, it
is necessary to include the dilaton in the effective action for the
string background. The action for dilaton gravity is
$$
S = \int d^{N+1} x \sqrt{-g} e^{-2 \phi} [ R+ 4 (D \phi)^2 ] \eqno\eq
$$
where $\phi$ is the
dilaton. It is convenient to use new fields $\varphi$ and $\lambda$
defined by
$$
a (t) = e^{\lambda t} \eqno\eq
$$
and
$$
\varphi = 2 \phi - N \lambda \, . \eqno\eq
$$
The action (8.44) has the duality symmetry
$$
\lambda \rightarrow - \lambda, \> \varphi \rightarrow \varphi \, .
\eqno\eq
$$
The variational equations of motion derived from (8.44) for a
homogeneous and isotropic model are$^{228, 229)}$
$$
\eqalign{& \dot \varphi^2 = e^\varphi E + N \dot \lambda^2 \cr
& \ddot \lambda - \dot \varphi \dot \lambda = {1\over 2} e^\varphi P \cr
& \ddot \varphi = {1\over 2} e^\varphi E + N \dot \lambda^2 \, ,
}\eqno\eq
$$
where $P$ and $E$ are total pressure and energy, respectively. For a
winding mode-dominated equation of state (and neglecting friction
terms) the equation of motion for $\lambda (t)$ becomes
$$
\ddot \lambda = - {1\over{2N}} e^\varphi E(\lambda) \, , \eqno\eq
$$
which corresponds to motion in a confining potential. Hence, winding modes
prevent the background toroidal
dimensions from expanding.
These considerations may be used to put forward the conjecture$^{224)}$
that string cosmology will single out three as the maximum number of
spatial dimensions which can be large ($R \gg 1$ in Planck units).
The argument proceeds as follows. Space can, starting from an initial
state with $R \sim 1$ in all directions, only expand if thermal
equilibrium is maintained, which in turn is only possible if the
winding modes can annihilate. This can only happen in at most three spatial
dimensions (in a higher number the probability for
intersection of the world sheets of two strings is zero). In the
critical dimension for strings, $N=3$, the evolution of a string gas
has been studied extensively in the context of the cosmic string
theory (see Chapter 6). The winding
modes do, indeed, annihilate, leaving behind a string network with
about one winding mode passing through each Hubble volume. Thus, in
string cosmology only three spatial dimensions will become large
whereas the others will be confined to Planck size by winding modes.
\section{Summary}
Planck scale physics may have many observational consequences and may
help cosmologists solve some of the deep puzzles concerning the origin
of inflation, the absence of space-time singularities and the
dimensionality of space-time.
A lot of work needs to be done before these issues are properly
understood. I have outlined two ways to address some of these
questions. The first investigation was based on classical physics
and attempted
to analyze what can be said about the origin of inflation and about
singularities from an effective action approach to gravity. We
constructed a class of higher derivative gravity actions without
singular cosmological solutions (i.e., no singular homogeneous and
isotropic solutions) and which automatically give rise to inflation.
The second approach was an exploration of some of the cosmological
consequences of target space duality in string theory. A nonsingular
cosmological scenario was proposed which might even explain why only
three-spatial dimensions are large.
\medskip
\chapter{Conclusions}
Modern cosmology has led to the development of several theories of
structure formation, most prominently theories based on inflation, and
topological defect models. These new theories are all based on the
union between particle physics and general relativity. The models of
structure formation obey the usual causality principle of relativistic physics.
All of the current theories of structure formation have their
problems. Most importantly, they do not address the cosmological
constant problem but rather, inasmuch as they make use of scalar matter
fields, make the problem worse. The inflationary Universe
scenario is still lacking a convincing realization. Present versions
require very special scalar field potentials. Topological defect
models, on the other hand, do not explain why the Universe is nearly
homogeneous and spatially flat (however, they are consistent with a low
$\Omega$ Universe). In my opinion, we should regard our
current theories as toy models with which we work and from which we
learn, but which will eventually be replaced by improved and more
convincing theories.
Nevertheless, our present theories are predictive. To a first
approximation, they all predict a scale invariant spectrum of density
perturbations and induced CMB anisotropies. Typically, the models
contain one intrinsically free parameter (plus maybe a couple more
parameters with which we can describe our ignorance of the detailed
evolution of the models). The free parameter can be normalized from
any one of several observables. It is remarkable that the different
normalizations of the models are consistent (to a first
approximation). This lets us entertain the hope that we are on the
right track: structure formation proceeds via gravitational
instability (Sections 4.3 and 4.4) with the seed perturbations being
provided by a particle physics theory of the very early Universe.
There is already a wealth of observational data which is fit quite
well by our present toy models. More and higher accuracy data is
rapidly becoming available. The data concerns on one hand structure
in the Universe gleamed from optical and infrared galaxy surveys, and
on the other hand from the temperature map of the CMB sky.
With the wealth of data available and steady flow of new observational
results, and given that many important questions remain unresolved,
modern cosmology will remain an exciting area of research for the
forseeable future.
The basic problems which are not addressed by our present theories of cosmology
might be resolved by some as yet unknown unified theory of all forces. Some
speculations along these lines were entertained in the last chapter of these
lecture notes. It is of particular interest to investigate whether string
theory leads to a more convincing realization of inflation, and whether there
is a mechanism which predicts why our Universe consists of three large spatial
dimensions.
\centerline{\bf Acknowledgments}
I wish to thank Professor Mario Novello for inviting me to give these lectures
in Angra, and all the organizers and participants for their wonderful
hospitality and for their many stimulating questions.
I am grateful to all of my research collaborators, on whose work I have
freely drawn. Partial financial support for the preparation of this manuscript
has been provided at Brown by the US Department of Energy under Grant
DE-FG0291ER40688,
Task A, and at UBC by the Canadian NSERC under Grant 580441.
\bigskip
\REF\one{A. Linde, `Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology'
(Harwood, Chur, 1990).}
\REF\two{S. Blau and A. Guth, `Inflationary Cosmology,' in `300 Years
of Gravitation' ed. by S. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge Univ.
Press, Cambridge, 1987).}
\REF\three{K. Olive, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 190}, 307 (1990).}
\REF\four{T.W.G. Kibble, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 67}, 183 (1980).}
\REF\five{A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 121}, 263 (1985).}
\REF\six{N. Turok, `Phase Transitions as the Origin of Large-Scale
Structure,' in `Particles, Strings and Supernovae' (TASI-88) ed. by
A. Jevicki and C.-I. Tan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1989).}
\REF\seven{A. Vilenkin and E.P.S. Shellard, `Strings and Other Topological
Defects' (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994).}
\REF\eight{R. Brandenberger, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 57}, 1
(1985).}
\REF\nine{R. Brandenberger, ``Modern Cosmology and Structure Formation", in `CP
Violation and the Limits of the Standard Model (TASI94)', ed. J. Donoghue
(World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).}
\REF\ten{R. Brandenberger, in `Physics of the Early Universe,' proc.
of the 1989 Scottish Univ. Summer School in Physics, ed. by J. Peacock, A.
Heavens and A. Davies (SUSSP Publ., Edinburgh, 1990); \nextline
R. Brandenberger, in `1991 Summer School
in High Energy Physics and Cosmology', eds. E. Gava et al. (World
Scientific, Singapore, 1992); \nextline
R. Brandenberger, `Lectures on Modern Cosmology and Structure Formation', in
`Particles and Fields', ed. by O. Eboli and V. Ribelles (World Scientific,
Singapore 1994).}
\REF\eleven{V. Mukhanov, H. Feldman and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys.
Rep.} {\bf 215}, 203 (1992).}
\REF\twelve{ T.W.B. Kibble, {\it J. Phys.} {\bf A9}, 1387 (1976).}
\REF\thirteen{E. Milne, {\it Zeits. f. Astrophys.} {\bf 6}, 1 (1933).}
\REF\fourteen{V. de Lapparent, M. Geller and J. Huchra, {\it Ap. J.
(Lett)} {\bf 302}, L1 (1986).}
\REF\fifteen{S. Shechtman, P. Schechter, A. Oemler, D. Tucker, R. Kirshner and
H. Lin, Harvard-Smithsonian preprint CFA 3385 (1992), to appear in `Clusters
and Superclusters of Galaxies', ed. by A. Fabian (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993);
\nextline
S. Shechtman et al., `The Las Campanas Fiber-Optic Redshift Survey', CFA
preprint (1994), to be publ. in the proc. of the 35th Herstmonceaux Conference
`Wide Field Spectroscopy and the Distant Universe'.}
\REF\sixteen{R. Partridge, {\it Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 647 (1988).}
\REF\seventeen{see e.g., S. Weinberg, `Gravitation and Cosmology'
(Wiley, New York, 1972); \nextline
Ya.B. Zel'dovich and I. Novikov, `The Structure and Evolution of the
Universe' (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983).}
\REF\eighteen{E. Hubble, {\it Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.} {\bf 15}, 168
(1927).}
\REF\nineteen{J. Mould et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 383}, 467 (1991).}
\REF\twenty{R. Alpher and R. Herman, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf
22}, 153 (1950); \nextline
G. Gamov, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf 70}, 572 (1946).}
\REF\twentyone{R. Dicke, P.J.E. Peebles, P. Roll and D. Wilkinson,
{\it Ap. J.} {\bf 142}, 414 (1965).}
\REF\twentytwo{A. Penzias and R. Wilson, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 142}, 419
(1965).}
\REF\twentythree{J. Mather et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 354}, L37
(1990).}
\REF\twentyfour{H. Gush, M. Halpern and E. Wishnow, {\it Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bf 65}, 937 (1990).}
\REF\twentyfive{R. Alpher, H. Bethe and G. Gamov, {\it Phys. Rev.}
{\bf 73}, 803 (1948); \nextline
R. Alpher and R. Herman, {\it Nature} {\bf 162}, 774 (1948).}
\REF\twentysix{For an excellent introduction see S. Weinberg, `The
First Three Minutes' (Basic Books, New York, 1988).}
\REF\twseven{T. Padmanabhan, `Structure Formation in the Universe' (Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993), Chap. 3 and refs. therein.}
\REF\tweight{H. Arp, G. Burbidge, F. Hoyle, J. Narlikar and N.
Vickramasinghe, {\it Nature} {\bf 346}, 807 (1990).}
\REF\twnine{P.J.E. Peebles, D. Schramm, E. Turner and R. Kron, {\it Nature}
{\bf 352}, 769 (1991).}
\REF\thirty{A. Guth, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D23}, 347 (1981).}
\REF\thone{P.J.E. Peebles, `Principles of Physical Cosmology' (Princeton Univ.
Press, Princeton, 1993).}
\REF\thtwo{J. Ostriker and L. Cowie, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf
243}, L127 (1981).}
\REF\ththree{S. Weinberg, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 61}, 1 (1989);\nextline
S. Carroll, W. Press and E. Turner, {\it Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf
30}, 499 (1992).}
\REF\thfour{D. Kazanas, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 241}, L59 (1980).}
\REF\thfive{W. Press, {\it Phys. Scr.} {\bf 21}, 702 (1980).}
\REF\thsix{G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, `Galaxy Formation and
Phonons,' Lebedev Physical Institute Preprint No. 162 (1980);
\nextline
G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf
200}, 535 (1982).}
\REF\thseven{V. Lukash, {\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 31}, 631
(1980).}
\REF\theight{K. Sato, {\it Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 195},
467 (1981).}
\REF\thnine{A. Starobinsky, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 91B}, 99 (1980).}
\REF\fourty{M. Mijic, M. Morris and W.-M. Suen, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
D34}, 2934 (1986).}
\REF\foone{V. Mukhanov and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.
Lett.} {\bf 68}, 1969 (1992); \nextline
R. Brandenberger, V. Mukhanov and A. Sornborger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D48},
1629 (1993).}
\REF\fotwo{J. Ye and R. Brandenberger, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B346}, 149
(1990).}
\REF\fothree{H. Nielsen and P. Olesen, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B61}, 45
(1973).}
\REF\fofour{R. Davis, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D35}, 3705 (1987).}
\REF\fofive{N. Turok, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 63}, 2625 (1989).}
\REF\fosix{see e.g., G. Ross, Grand Unified Theories (Benjamin, Reading,
1985).}
\REF\foseven{Ya.B. Zel'dovich, {\it Mon. Not. R. astron. Soc.} {\bf 192},
663 (1980).}
\REF\foeight{A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 46}, 1169 (1981).}
\REF\fonine{J. Primack, D. Seckel and B. Sadoulet, {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part.
Sci.} {\bf 38}, 751 (1988).}
\REF\fifty{T. van Albada and R. Sancisi, {\it Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London},
{\bf A320}, 447 (1986).}
\REF\fone{V. Trimble, {\it Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys.} {\bf 25}, 423 (1987).}
\REF\ftwo{E. Bertschinger and A. Dekel, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 336},
L5 (1989).}
\REF\fthree{M. Strauss, M. Davis, A. Yahil and J. Huchra, {\it
Ap. J.} {\bf 385}, 421 (1992).}
\REF\ffour{S. White, C. Frenk and M. Davis, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 274}, L1
(1993).}
\REF\ffive{J. Bond, G. Efstathiou and J. Silk, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 45},
1980 (1980); \nextline
J. Bond and A. Szalay, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 274}, 443 (1983).}
\REF\fsix{G. Blumenthal, S. Faber, J. Primack and M. Rees, {\it Nature} {\bf
311}, 517 (1984); \nextline
M. Davis, G. Efstathiou, C. Frenk and S. White, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 292}, 371
(1985).}
\REF\fseven{N. Turok and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D33},
2175 (1986); \nextline
A. Stebbins, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 303}, L21 (1986); \nextline
H. Sato, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 75}, 1342 (1986).}
\REF\feight{T. Vachaspati, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 57}, 1655 (1986).}
\REF\fnine{A. Stebbins, S. Veeraraghavan, R. Brandenberger, J. Silk and
N. Turok, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 322}, 1 (1987).}
\REF\sixty{N. Turok, {\it Phys. Scripta} {\bf T36}, 135 (1991).}
\REF\sione{R. Brandenberger, N. Kaiser, D. Schramm and N. Turok, {\it
Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 59}, 2371 (1987).}
\REF\sitwo{R. Brandenberger, N. Kaiser and N. Turok, {\it Phys. Rev.}
{\bf D36}, 2242 (1987).}
\REF\sithree{R. Brandenberger, L. Perivolaropoulos and A. Stebbins, {\it
Int. J. of Mod. Phys.} {\bf A5}, 1633 (1990); \nextline
L. Perivolarapoulos, R. Brandenberger and A. Stebbins, {\it Phys.
Rev.} {\bf D41}, 1764 (1990); \nextline
R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Scripta} {\bf T36}, 114 (1991).}
\REF\sifour{M. Davis and J. Huchra, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 254}, 437 (1982).}
\REF\sifive{N. Bahcall and R. Soneira, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 270}, 20 (1983);
\nextline
A. Klypin and A. Kopylov, {\it Sov. Astr. Lett.} {\bf 9}, 41 (1983).}
\REF\sisix{M. Strauss et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 385}, 421 (1992).}
\REF\siseven{A. Yahil et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 372}, 380 (1991).}
\REF\sieight{G. Abell, {\it Ap. J. Suppl.} {\bf 3}, 211 (1958).}
\REF\sinine{G. Daulton et al., `The two-point correlation function of rich
clusters of galaxies: results from an extended APM cluster redshift survey',
Oxford Univ. preprint, 1994, MNRAS, in press.}
\REF\seventy{W. Zurek, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 324}, 19 (1988).}
\REF\sone{M. Rees and J. Ostriker, {\it Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc.} {\bf 179}, 541
(1977).}
\REF\stwo{Ya.B. Zel'dovich, J. Einasto and S. Shandarin, {\it Nature}
{\bf 300}, 407 (1982); \nextline
J. Oort, {\it Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 21}, 373 (1983);
\nextline
R.B. Tully, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 257}, 389 (1982); \nextline
S. Gregory, L. Thomson and W. Tifft, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 243}, 411
(1980).}
\REF\sthree{G. Chincarini and H. Rood, {\it Nature} {\bf 257}, 294
(1975); \nextline
J. Einasto, M. Joeveer and E. Saar, {\it Mon. Not. R. astron. Soc.}
{\bf 193}, 353 (1980); \nextline
R. Giovanelli and M. Haynes, {\it Astron. J.} {\bf 87}, 1355 (1982);
\nextline
D. Batuski and J. Burns, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 299}, 5 (1985).}
\REF\sfour{R. Kirshner, A. Oemler, P. Schechter and S. Shechtman, {\it
Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 248}, L57 (1981).}
\REF\sfive{M. Joeveer, J. Einasto and E. Tago, {\it Mon. Not. R. astron.
Soc.} {\bf 185}, 357 (1978); \nextline
L. da Costa et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 327}, 544 (1988).}
\REF\ssix{see e.g., G. Efstathiou, in `Physics of the Early
Universe,' proc. of the 1989 Scottish Univ. Summer School in Physics,
ed. by J. Peacock, A. Heavens and A. Davies (SUSSP Publ., Edinburgh,
1990).}
\REF\sseven{T. Padmanabhan, `Structure Formation in the Universe' (Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993).}
\REF\seight{E. Harrison, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D1}, 2726 (1970);
\nextline
Ya.B. Zel'dovich, {\it Mon. Not. R. astron. Soc.} {\bf 160}, 1p
(1972).}
\REF\snine{E. Lifshitz, {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 16}, 587 (1946);
\nextline
E. Lifshitz and I. Khalatnikov, {\it Adv. Phys.} {\bf 12}, 185 (1963).}
\REF\eighty{W. Press and E. Vishniac, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 239}, 1 (1980).}
\REF\eone{R. Brandenberger, H. Feldman, V. Mukhanov and T. Prokopec,
`Gauge Invariant Cosmological Perturbations: Theory and Applications,'
publ. in ``The Origin of Structure in the Universe," eds. E. Gunzig and P.
Nardone (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993).}
\REF\etwo{J. Bardeen, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D22}, 1882 (1980).}
\REF\ethree{R. Brandenberger, R. Kahn and W. Press, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
D28}, 1809 (1983).}
\REF\efour{H. Kodama and M. Sasaki, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.} No.
78, 1 (1984).}
\REF\efive{R. Durrer and N. Straumann, {\it Helvet. Phys. Acta} {\bf
61}, 1027 (1988).}
\REF\esix{D. Lyth and M. Mukherjee, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D38}, 485
(1988).}
\REF\eseven{G.F.R. Ellis and M. Bruni, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D40}, 1804
(1989).}
\REF\eeight{J. Stewart, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.} {\bf 7}, 1169 (1990).}
\REF\enine{J. Stewart and M. Walker, {\it Proc. R. Soc.} {\bf A341}, 49
(1974).}
\REF\ninety{J. Bardeen, P. Steinhardt and M. Turner, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
D28},
679 (1983).}
\REF\none{D. Kirzhnits and A. Linde, {\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp.
Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 15}, 745 (1972); \nextline
D. Kirzhnits and A. Linde, {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 67}, 1263
(1974);\nextline
C. Bernard, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 3313 (1974);\nextline
L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 3320 (1974);\nextline
S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D9}, 3357 (1974).}
\REF\ntwo{A. Linde, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 129B}, 177 (1983).}
\REF\nthree{G. Mazenko, W. Unruh and R. Wald, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
D31}, 273 (1985).}
\REF\nfour{A. Linde, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 108B}, 389 (1982);
\nextline
A. Albrecht and P. Steinhardt, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 48}, 1220
(1982).}
\REF\nfive{J. Langer, {\it Physica} {\bf 73}, 61 (1974).}
\REF\nsix{S. Coleman, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D15}, 2929 (1977);
\nextline
C. Callan and S. Coleman, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D16}, 1762 (1977).}
\REF\nseven{M. Voloshin, Yu. Kobzarev and L. Okun, {\it Sov. J. Nucl.
Phys.} {\bf 20}, 644 (1975).}
\Ref\neight{M. Stone, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D14}, 3568 (1976);\nextline
M. Stone, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 67B}, 186 (1977).}
\Ref\nnine{P. Frampton, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}, {\bf 37}, 1380 (1976).}
\Ref\hundred{S. Coleman, in `The Whys of Subnuclear Physics' (Erice 1977), ed
by
A. Zichichi (Plenum, New York, 1979).}
\REF\hone{A. Guth and S.-H. Tye, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
44}, 631 (1980).}
\Ref\htwo{A. Guth and E. Weinberg, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B212}, 321 (1983).}
\Ref\hthree{S. Hawking and I. Moss, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 110B}, 35 (1982).}
\Ref\hfour{R. Matzner, in `Proceedings of the Drexel Workshop on Numerical
Relativity', ed by J. Centrella (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1986).}
\Ref\hfive{A. Albrecht, P. Steinhardt, M. Turner and F. Wilczek, {\it Phys.
Rev.
Lett.} {\bf 48}, 1437 (1982).}
\Ref\hsix{L. Abbott, E. Farhi and M. Wise, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 117B}, 29
(1982).}
\Ref\hseven{J. Traschen and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D42},
2491 (1990).}
\REF\height{L. Kofman, A. Linde and A. Starobinski, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
73}, 3195 (1994);\nextline
Y. Shtanov, J. Traschen and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D51}, 5438
(1995).}
\REF\hnine{L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, `Mechanics' (Pergamon, Oxford,
1960); \nextline
V. Arnold, `Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics' (Springer,
New York, 1978).}
\REF\hten{S. Coleman and E. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D7}, 1888
(1973).}
\REF\htone{M. Markov and V. Mukhanov, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 104A}, 200
(1984); \nextline
V. Belinsky, L. Grishchuk, I. Khalatnikov and Ya. Zel'dovich, {\it
Phys. Lett.} {\bf 155B}, 232 (1985); \nextline
L. Kofman, A. Linde and A. Starobinsky, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 157B},
36 (1985); \nextline
T. Piran and R. Williams, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 163B}, 331 (1985).}
\REF\httwo{S.-Y. Pi, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 52}, 1725 (1984); \nextline
K. Freese, J. Frieman and A. Olinto, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 65}, 3233
(1990).}
\REF\htthree{D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive, M. Srednicki and K. Tamvakis, {\it
Phys. Lett.} {\bf 123B}, 41 (1983); \nextline
J. Ellis, K. Enqvist, D. Nanopoulos, K. Olive and M. Srednicki, {\it
Phys. Lett.} {\bf 152B}, 175 (1985); \nextline
R. Holman, P. Ramond and C. Ross, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 137B}, 343
(1984).}
\REF\htfour{A. Goncharov and A. Linde, {\it JETP} {\bf 59}, 930 (1984);
\nextline
A. Goncharov and A. Linde, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 139B}, 27 (1984);
\nextline
A. Goncharov and A. Linde, {\it Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 1}, L75
(1984).}
\REF\htfive{I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, J. Hagelin and D. Nanopoulos, {\it
Phys. Lett.} {\bf 205B}, 459 (1988); \nextline
I. Antoniadis, J. Ellis, J. Hagelin and D. Nanopoulos, {\it Phys.
Lett.} {\bf 208B}, 209 (1988).}
\REF\htsix{A. Linde, D. Linde and A. Mezhlumian, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49},
1783 (1994); \nextline
A. Linde, `Lectures on Inflationary Cosmology', Stanford preprint SU-ITP-94-36,
hep-th/9410082 (1994).}
\REF\htseven{A. Starobinsky, in `Current Trends in Field Theory, Quantum
Gravity, and Strings', Lecture Notes in Physics, ed. by H. de Vega and N.
Sanchez (Springer, Heidelberg, 1986).}
\REF\hteight{B. Whitt, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 145B}, 176 (1984).}
\REF\htnine{M. Gasperini and G. Veneziano, {\it Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 1}, 317
(1993); \nextline
R. Brustein and G. Veneziano, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B329}, 429 (1994).}
\REF\htw{F. Adams, K. Freese and A. Guth, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D43},
965 (1991).}
\REF\htwone{H. Feldman and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf
227B}, 359 (1989).}
\REF\htwtwo{J. Kung and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D42},
1008 (1990).}
\REF\htwthree{D. Goldwirth and T. Piran, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 64},
2852 (1990);\nextline
D. Goldwirth and T. Piran, {\it Phys. Rep.} {\bf 214}, 223 (1992).}
\REF\htwfour{A. Albrecht and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D31},
1225 (1985).}
\REF\htwfive{G. Chibisov and V. Mukhanov, {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 33}, 532
(1981);\nextline
V. Mukhanov and G. Chibisov, {\it Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 83}, 475
(1982).}
\REF\htwsix{A. Lapedes, {\it J. Math. Phys.} {\bf 19}, 2289 (1978);
\nextline
R. Brandenberger and R. Kahn, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 119B}, 75
(1982).}
\REF\htwseven{A. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 49}, 1110
(1982); \nextline
S. Hawking, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 115B}, 295 (1982); \nextline
A. Starobinsky, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 117B}, 175 (1982); \nextline
R. Brandenberger and R. Kahn, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D28}, 2172 (1984);
\nextline
J. Frieman and M. Turner, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D30}, 265 (1984);
\nextline
V. Mukhanov, {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 41}, 493 (1985).}
\REF\htweight{W. Zurek, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D24}, 1516 (1982); \nextline
W. Zurek, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D26} 1862 (1982).}
\REF\htwnine{E. Joos and H. Zeh, {\it Z. Phys.} {\bf B59}, 223 (1985);
\nextline
H. Zeh, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 116A}, 9 (1986); \nextline
C. Kiefer, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.} {\bf 4}, 1369 (1987); \nextline
T. Fukuyama and M. Morikawa, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D39}, 462 (1989);
\nextline
J. Halliwell, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D39}, 2912 (1989); \nextline
T. Padmanabhan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D39}, 2924 (1980); \nextline
W. Unruh and W. Zurek, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D40}, 1071 (1989);
\nextline
E. Calzetta and F. Mazzitelli, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D42}, 4066
(1990); \nextline
S. Habib and R. Laflamme, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D42}, 4056 (1990);
\nextline
H. Feldman and A. Kamenshchik, {\it Class. Quantum Grav.} {\bf 8}, L65
(1991).}
\REF\hthirty{M. Sakagami, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 79}, 443
(1988);\nextline
R. Brandenberger, R. Laflamme and M. Mijic, {\it Mod. Phys.
Lett.} {\bf A5}, 2311 (1990).}
\REF\hthone{J. Bardeen, unpublished (1984).}
\REF\hthtwo{R. Brandenberger, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B245}, 328 (1984).}
\REF\hththree{N. Birrell and P. Davies, `Quantum Fields in Curved Space'
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1982).}
\REF\hthfour{R. Brandenberger and C. Hill, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 179B},
30 (1986).}
\REF\hthfive{W. Fischler, B. Ratra and L. Susskind, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf
B259}, 730 (1985).}
\REF\hthsix{D. Mermin, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 51}, 591 (1979).}
\REF\hthseven{P. de Gennes, `The Physics of Liquid Crystals' (Clarendon Press,
Oxford, 1974); \nextline
I. Chuang, R. Durrer, N. Turok and B. Yurke, {\it Science} {\bf 251}, 1336
(1991); \nextline
M. Bowick, L. Chandar, E. Schiff and A. Srivastava, {\it Science} {\bf 263},
943 (1994).}
\REF\htheight{M. Salomaa and G. Volovik, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 59}, 533
(1987).}
\REF\hthnine{A. Abrikosov, {\it JETP} {\bf 5}, 1174 (1957).}
\REF\hfourty{Ya.B. Zel'dovich, I. Kobzarev and L. Okun, {\it Zh. Eksp.
Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 67}, 3 (1974).}
\REF\hfoone{Ya.B. Zel'dovich and M. Khlopov, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 79B},
239 (1978); \nextline
J. Preskill, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 43}, 1365 (1979).}
\REF\hfotwo{T.W.B. Kibble, {\it Acta Physica Polonica} {\bf B13}, 723
(1982).}
\REF\hfothree{P. Langacker and S.-Y. Pi, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 45}, 1
(1980).}
\REF\hfofour{T.W.B. Kibble and E. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D43},
3188 (1991).}
\REF\hfoseven{T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D30},
2036 (1984).}
\REF\hfoeight{S. Rudaz and A. Srivastava, {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} {\bf A8}, 1443
(1993).}
\REF\hfnine{F. Liu, M. Mondello and N. Goldenfeld, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
66}, 3071 (1991).}
\REF\hsixty{M. Hindmarsh, A.-C. Davis and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Rev.}
{\bf D49}, 1944 (1994); \nextline
R. Brandenberger and A.-C. Davis, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B332}, 305 (1994).}
\REF\hsione{T. Prokopec, A. Sornborger and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys.
Rev.} {\bf D45}, 1971 (1992).}
\REF\hsitwo{J. Borrill, E. Copeland and A. Liddle, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf
258B}, 310 (1991).}
\REF\hsithree{A. Sornborger, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D48}, 3517 (1993).}
\REF\hsifour{L. Perivolaropoulos, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D46}, 1858
(1992).}
\REF\hsifive{T. Prokopec, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 262B}, 215 (1991);\nextline
R. Leese and T. Prokopec, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D44}, 3749
(1991).}
\REF\hfofive{M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 63},
341 (1989).}
\REF\hfosix{S. Rhie and D. Bennett, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 65}, 1709
(1990).}
\REF\hsisix{D. Foerster, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B81}, 84 (1974).}
\REF\hsiseven{N. Turok, in `Proceedings of the 1987 CERN/ESO Winter School
on Cosmology and Particle Physics' (World Scientific, Singapore,
1988).}
\REF\hsieight{T.W.B. Kibble and N. Turok, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 116B}, 141
(1982).}
\REF\hsinine{R. Brandenberger, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B293}, 812 (1987).}
\REF\hseventy{E.P.S. Shellard, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B283}, 624 (1987).}
\REF\hsone{R. Matzner, {\it Computers in Physics} {\bf 1}, 51 (1988);
\nextline
K. Moriarty, E. Myers and C. Rebbi, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 207B}, 411
(1988); \nextline
E.P.S. Shellard and P. Ruback, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 209B}, 262
(1988).}
\REF\hstwo{P. Ruback, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B296}, 669 (1988).}
\REF\hsthree{A. Albrecht and N. Turok, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 54},
1868 (1985).}
\REF\hsfour{D. Bennett and F. Bouchet, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 60},
257 (1988).}
\REF\hsfive{B. Allen and E.P.S. Shellard, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
64}, 119 (1990).}
\REF\hssix{A. Albrecht and N. Turok, {\it Phys. Rev. } {\bf D40}, 973
(1989).}
\REF\hsseven{R. Brandenberger and J. Kung, in `The Formation and Evolution
of Cosmic Strings' eds. G. Gibbons, S. Hawking and T. Vachaspati
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990).}
\REF\hseight{see e.g., C. Misner, K. Thorne and J. Wheeler, `Gravitation'
(Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).}
\REF\hsnine{T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D31},
3052 (1985); \nextline
N. Turok, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B242}, 520 (1984); \nextline
C. Burden, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 164B}, 277 (1985).}
\REF\heighty{B. Carter, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D41}, 3869 (1990).}
\REF\heone{E. Copeland, T.W.B. Kibble and D. Austin, {\it Phys. Rev.}
{\bf D45}, 1000 (1992).}
\REF\hetwo{N. Turok, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B242}, 520 (1984).}
\REF\hethree{J. Silk and V. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 53},
1700 (1984).}
\REF\hefour{A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D23}, 852 (1981);
\nextline
J. Gott, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 288}, 422 (1985); \nextline
W. Hiscock, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D31}, 3288 (1985); \nextline
B. Linet, {\it Gen. Rel. Grav.} {\bf 17}, 1109 (1985); \nextline
D. Garfinkle, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D32}, 1323 (1985); \nextline
R. Gregory, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 59}, 740 (1987).}
\REF\hefive{D. Vollick, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D45}, 1884 (1992);
\nextline
T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 67}, 1057 (1991).}
\REF\hesix{A. Albrecht and A. Stebbins, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 68}, 2121
(1992).}
\REF\heseven{A. Albrecht and A. Stebbins, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69}, 2615
(1992).}
\REF\heeight{D. Spergel, N. Turok, W. Press and B. Ryden, {\it Phys. Rev.}
{\bf D43}, 1038 (1991).}
\REF\henine{A. Gooding, D. Spergel and N. Turok, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)}
{\bf 372}, L5 (1991); \nextline
C. Park, D. Spergel and N. Turok, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 373}, L53 (1991).}
\REF\hninety{R. Cen, J. Ostriker, D. Spergel and N. Turok, {\it Ap. J.}
{\bf 383}, 1 (1991).}
\REF\hnone{J. Gott, A. Melott and M. Dickinson, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 306},
341 (1986).}
\REF\hntwo{S. Ramsey, Senior thesis, Brown Univ. (1992); \nextline
D. Kaplan, Senior thesis, Brown Univ. (1993); \nextline
R. Brandenberger, D. Kaplan and S. Ramsey, `Some statistics for measuring
large-scale structure', Brown preprint BROWN-HET-922 (1993); \nextline
A. Aguirre, Senior thesis, Brown Univ. (1995).}
\REF\hnthree{D. Fixen, E. Cheng and D. Wilkinson, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf
50}, 620 (1983).}
\REF\hnfour{R. Sachs and A. Wolfe, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 147}, 73 (1967).}
\REF\hnfive{V. Mukhanov and G. Chibisov, {\it Sov. Astron. Lett.} {\bf 10}, 890
(1984).}
\REF\hnsix{N. Kaiser and A. Stebbins, {\it Nature} {\bf 310}, 391
(1984).}
\REF\hnseven{R. Moessner, L. Perivolaropoulos and R. Brandenberger, {\it Ap.
J.} {\bf 425}, 365 (1994).}
\REF\hneight{N. Turok and D. Spergel, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 64}, 2736
(1990).}
\REF\thundred{R. Durrer, A. Howard and Z.-H. Zhou, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49},
681 (1994).}
\REF\twhone{U.-L. Pen, D. Spergel and N. Turok, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D49}, 692
(1994).}
\REF\twhtwo{E. Wright et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 396}, L13 (1992).}
\REF\twohthree{S. White, C. Frenk, M. Davis and G. Efstathiou, {\it Ap. J.}
{\bf 313}, 505 (1987).}
\REF\twohfive{D. Bennett and S. Rhie, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 406}, L7
(1993).}
\REF\twohfour{D. Bennett, A. Stebbins and F. Bouchet, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)}
{\bf 399}, L5 (1992).}
\REF\twohsix{L. Perivolaropoulos, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf 298B}, 305 (1993).}
\REF\twohseven{G. Smoot et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 396}, L1
(1992).}
\REF\twoheight{S. Meyer, E. Cheng and L. Page, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 371},
L7 (1991);\nextline
K. Ganga, E. Cheng, S. Meyer and L. Page, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 410}, L57
(1993).}
\REF\twohnine{S. Hancock et al., {\it Nature} {\bf 317}, 333 (1994).}
\REF\twohten{E. Wollack et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 419}, L49 (1993).}
\REF\twoheleven{T. Gaier et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 398}, L1 (1992);
\nextline
J. Schuster et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 412}, L47 (1993).}
\REF\twohtwelve{P. de Bernardis et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 422}, L33
(1994).}
\REF\twohthteen{M. Dragovan et al., Princeton preprint (1993).}
\REF\twohfourteen{P. Meinhold et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 409}, L1
(1993).}
\REF\twohfifteen{J. Gunderson et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 413}, L1
(1993).}
\REF\twohsixteen{E. Cheng et al., {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf 422}, L37 (1994).}
\REF\twohseventeen{G. Tucker, G. Griffin, H. Nguyen and J. Peterson, {\it Ap.
J. (Lett.)} {\bf 419}, L45 (1993).}
\REF\twoheighteen{A. Readhead et al., {\it Ap. J.} {\bf 346}, 566 (1989).}
\REF\twohnineteen{S. Myers, A. Readhead and A. Lawrence, {\it Ap. J.} {\bf
405}, 8 (1993).}
\REF\twotw{W. Freedman et al., {\it Nature} {\bf 371}, 757 (1994); \nextline
M. Pierce et al., {\it Nature} {\bf 371}, 385 (1994).}
\REF\twotwone{A. Riess, W. Press and R. Kirshner, {\it Ap. J. (Lett.)} {\bf
438}, L17 (1995).}
\REF\twotwtwo{M. Jones et al., {\it Nature} {\bf 365}, 320 (1993).}
\REF\twotwthree{R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B129}, 397 (1983).}
\REF\twotwfour{N. Tsamis and R. Woodard, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B301}, 351
(1993).}
\REF\twotwfive{W. Zurek, {\it Acta Phys. Pol.} {\bf B24}, 1301 (1993).}
\REF\twotwsix{T. Kibble and A. Vilenkin, ``Density of strings formed at a
second order cosmological phase transition", Imperial preprint
IMPERIAL-TP-94/95-9A,
hep-ph/9501207 (1995).}
\REF\twotwseven{A. Aguirre and R. Brandenberger, ``Accretion of hot dark matter
onto slowly moving cosmic strings", Brown preprint BROWN-HET-995,
astro-ph/9505031,
{\it Int. J. Mod. Phys. D}, in press (1995).}
\REF\twotweight{R. Moessner and R. Brandenberger, ``Formation of high redshift
objects in a cosmic string model with hot dark matter", Brown preprint
BROWN-HET-1001 (1995).}
\REF\ffsix{M. Trodden, V. Mukhanov and R. Brandenberger, {\it Phys.
Lett.} {\bf B316}, 483 (1993).}
\REF\ffseven{R. Moessner and M. Trodden, {\it Phys.
Rev.} {\bf D51}, 2801 (1995).}
\REF\ffeight{B. Altshuler, {\it Class. Quant. Grav.} {\bf 7}, 189
(1990).}
\REF\ffnine{M. Markov, {\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz.} {\bf 36}, 214
(1982); \nextline
M. Markov, {\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz.} {\bf 46}, 342 (1987);
\nextline
V. Ginsburg, V. Mukhanov and V. Frolov, {\it Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz.}
{\bf 94}, 3 (1988); \nextline
V. Frolov, M. Markov and V. Mukhanov, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D41}, 383
(1990).}
\REF\fften{R. Brandenberger, M. Mohazzab, V. Mukhanov, A. Sornborger and
M. Trodden, in preparation (1995).}
\REF\fftwelve{K. Kikkawa and M. Yamasaki, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B149},
357 (1984); \nextline
N. Sakai and I. Senda, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 75}, 692 (1986);
\nextline
B. Sathiapalan, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 58}, 1597 (1987);
\nextline
P. Ginsparg and C. Vafa, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B289}, 414 (1987).}
\REF\ffthirteen{R. Brandenberger and C. Vafa, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf
B316}, 391 (1989).}
\REF\fffourteen{R. Hagedorn, {\it Nuovo Cimento Suppl.} {\bf 3}, 147
(1965).}
\REF\fffifteen{D. Mitchell and N. Turok, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B294},
1138 (1987).}
\REF\ffsixteen{N. Deo, S. Jain and C.-I. Tan, {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf
D40}, 2626 (1989).}
\REF\ffseventeen{A. Tseytlin and C. Vafa, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B372},
443 (1992).}
\REF\ffeighteen{G. Veneziano, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B265}, 287 (1991).}
\refout
\end
|
\section*{\large \bf References}
\parskip=.5ex plus 1.0pt
\def\bibitem{\par \noindent \hangindent\parindent
\hangafter=1}}
\def\par \endgroup{\par \endgroup}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\pagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip=21pt
\rightline{UMN-TH-1402/95}
\rightline{astro-ph/9508086}
\rightline{August 1995}
\vskip .2in
\begin{center}
{\large{\bf The Local Abundance of $^3$He: A Confrontation
Between Theory and Observation}} \end{center}
\vskip .1in
\begin{center}
Sean T. Scully$^1$, Michel Cass\'e$^2$, Keith A. Olive$^1$,
David N. Schramm$^{3,4}$, James Truran$^3$,
and Elisabeth Vangioni-Flam$^5$
$^1${\it School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Minnesota}
{\it Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA}
$^2${\it Service d'Astrophysique, DSM, DAPNIA, CEA, France}
$^3${\it Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Enrico Fermi Institute,
The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637-1433}
$^4${\it NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Center,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 60510-0500}
$^5${\it Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, 98bis
Boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France}
\end{center}
\vskip .5in
\centerline{ {\bf Abstract} }
\baselineskip=18pt
Determinations of the \he3 concentrations in Galactic matter
serve to impose interesting and important constraints both
on cosmological models and on models of Galactic chemical
evolution. At present, observations of \he3 in the solar system
and in the interstellar medium today suggest that the \he3
abundance has not increased significantly over the history
of the Galaxy, while theoretical models of Galactic chemical
evolution (utilizing current nucleosynthesis
yields from stellar evolution
and supernova models) predict a rather substantial increase
in \he3.
We consider the possibility that the solar \he3 abundance may
have been affected by stellar processing in the solar neighborhood
prior to the formation of the solar system. Such a discrepancy between
solar abundances and average galactic abundances by as much as a factor
of two, may be evidenced by
several isotopic anomalies. Local destruction of \he3 by a similar
amount could serve to help to reconcile the expected increase in the
\he3 abundance predicted by models of galactic chemical evolution.
We find however, that the production
of heavier elements, such as oxygen, places a strong constraint on
the degree of \he3 destruction.
We also explore the implications of both alternative models of Galactic
chemical evolution and the stellar yields for \he3 in low mass stars,
which can explain the history of the \he3
concentration in the Galaxy.
\noindent
\end{titlepage}
\baselineskip=18pt
\def~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~}
\def~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}~{~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}~}
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\section{Introduction}
There is an inherent difficulty associated with the utilization
of the observed abundances
of D and \he3 to predict their primordial values. Namely,
the connection between the primordial abundances of D and \he3
and their solar or present-day values depends sensitively on models
of galactic chemical evolution. In principle, measurements
of D in quasar absorption systems could dramatically help us to bridge
this gap, by providing directly the primordial abundance of D and hence
the value of the baryon-to-photon ratio, $\eta$, from big bang
nucleosynthesis (Walker {\it et al.}~ 1991). However,
recent measurements of this
kind (Carswell {\it et al.}~ 1994; Songaila {\it et al.}~ 1994;
Tytler \& Fan 1995) must be
viewed as preliminary, as the determined D abundance
in the two absorption systems
observed are not concordant with each other.
Until such measurements yield a single
consistent value for primordial D, we must continue to be guided by
models of galactic chemical evolution.
It has been well established that models of galactic chemical evolution,
consistent with the constraints imposed by element abundance
determinations, are capable of destroying significant amounts
of deuterium (Truran \& Cameron 1971;
Gry {\it et al.}~ 1984; Delbourgo-Salvador {\it et al.}~ 1985;
Vangioni-Flam and Audouze 1988; Vangioni-Flam, Olive \& Prantzos
1994; Vangioni-Flam \& Cass\'{e}, 1995). However,
as was recently discussed in Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995),
the problem rests not with the destruction of D, but rather with
the production of \he3.
Though \he3 is partially destroyed in massive stars, \he3 production
in low mass stars generally leads to a net increase in the \he3
abundance over the evolutionary history of the galaxy.
Observations of large \he3 enhancements in planetary nebulae
(Rood, Bania \& Wilson, 1992; Rood, Bania, Wilson \& Balser,
1995) support the conclusion that \he3
is indeed produced in low mass stars.
An excess of \he3 is difficult to avoid if low mass stars are strong
producers of this isotope, as indicated by the calculations of Iben and
Truran (1978) and more recently Vassiliadis and Wood (1993) and
Weiss {\it et al.}~ (1995). However, recent models with
increased mixing have been calculated, which both bring
the carbon and oxygen isotopic ratios to
their observed level in red giants and lead to a
net destruction of \he3 (Charbonnel 1994; Wasserburg {\it et al.}~ 1995;
Hogan 1995). At present, these models are quite preliminary,
and it is premature to draw a firm conclusion. However, if their
results are confirmed, \he3 will be significantly less problematic,
unless the primordial D abundance is as high as observed by Songaila {\it et al.}~
(1994) and Carswell {\it et al.}~ (1994); in this case we would still require
\he3 destruction factors in excess of what current calculations bear out
(Olive {\it et al.}~ 1995).
Abundance
determinations of \he3 at the time of the formation of the solar system
seem to indicate that the solar \he3 abundance
is very close to that of the primordial abundance.
Here, we will examine in some detail the
possibility that the \he3 abundance in the
solar system may be depleted with respect to galactic
averages at the time of its formation.
We find, however, that the abundances of the heavier
elements, most notably
oxygen and neon, impose a strong constraint on the
degree of depletion of \he3.
We are therefore left with the following possibilities: either the
initial deuterium abundance is
low, D/H $\sim 3 \times 10^{-5}$ (we will
discuss rough lower limits imposed by models of chemical
evolution); or more dramatic changes are required in models of
chemical evolution, which have the effect of maintaining a rather
flat evolution of \he3 with time
(we will show an example of this type of model below); or the stellar yields
of \he3 in low mass stars are lower than previously thought.
Because deuterium is converted to \he3 in the
pre-main-sequence phase of
stellar evolution, models without a significantly
depressed initial D abundance are subject to
problems with \he3 production. If the initial
abundance of D is rather
low (D $ ~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~ 3 \times 10^{-5}$), the present day
\he3 abundance found in standard
models of galactic chemical evolution are not
excessive and are consistent
with the observed range of $1 - 5 \times 10^{-5}$ (Balser {\it et al.}~ 1994).
However, even in these
cases, there appears to be a problem with the
abundance of \he3 as measured in
meteorites, giving the pre-solar value of \he3.
That is, on the basis of chemical evolution models,
we expect more \he3 than is observed in the
solar system (Olive {\it et al.}~ 1995;
Galli {\it et al.}~ 1995; Tosi {\it et al.}~ 1995). In this paper, we will thus
consider in turn,
the possibilities that \he3 in the solar system
has been depleted with respect to the
galactic average; the accuracy of the measurement
of solar \he3; and what we
can learn from galactic chemical evolution.
\section{Solar Depletion of \he3?}
In principle, it is possible that the abundance of \he3 at the
time of the formation of the solar system does not
reflect the galactic average at that time.
It is necessary to consider the degree to which
element abundances in the solar system
were affected by the explosions of
supernovae in the solar neighborhood,
immediately prior to the formation
of the solar system (Reeves 1978; Olive \& Schramm 1982).
This may be evidenced by several ``anomalous"
isotopes (of Carbon, Oxygen and Neon) seen in cosmic rays.
However, late contributions to the abundances of $^{16}$O and $^{20}$Ne,
which are produced solely in Type II supernovae, may render the
solar system isotopic ratios
of these elements anomalous. That is,
the solar abundances may not represent the true average galactic
abundance. For the oxygen and neon isotopes, these differences
may be as large as a factor of two. We now examine the possibility
that the solar \he3 abundance may also not be representative of the
true galactic abundance.
{}From the observed anomalies in $^{26}$Al and
$^{107}$Pd (Lee 1979; and references therein) and more recently $^{41}$Ca,
and the short time scales associated with their
half-lives ($\sim 10^6$ years), the
element abundances in our solar system were probably
affected by at least one
supernova within that time period prior to formation.
Even a single supernova
explosion in a star forming region can have dramatic
consequences on the element
abundances of that region. As was argued by Olive \&
Schramm (1982), a handful of the first
few supernovae in an early OB association, is capable of
producing nearly the entire
observed solar abundance of $^{16}$O and $^{20}$Ne.
Thus we would expect that the
solar isotopic ratios such as $^{17,18}$O/$^{16}$O and
$^{22}$Ne/$^{20}$Ne may be
diluted with respect to the galactic average.
It is therefore of interest to question
whether or not the abundance of \he3 (which would be
depleted in the ejecta of
the first few supernovae in an association) is comparably depleted.
To deplete \he3, we must require that a significant
amount of material
in the solar neighborhood underwent stellar processing prior to the formation
of the solar system. Let us suppose that a
fraction $f$ of the total initial gas of
the association went into stars prior to
the solar epoch. It is then reasonable
to assume that a fraction $\sim 0.1f$ of the gas
went into stars with masses
greater than 10 $M_\odot$. (For example, with a
Salpeter (1955) initial mass function
(IMF) $\phi(m) \propto m^{-2.35}$
between, 0.1 and 100 $M_\odot$, the fraction is
12\%; for a Scalo (1986) mass function
it may range from 5--15\% depending on the star formation rate (SFR)).
If we denote by $X_*$ the mass fraction of
some heavy element (such as O)
ejected by massive stars,
the total mass fraction of the element after the
explosions of stars more massive
than 10 $M_\odot$ which thus determines (and must be less than)
the solar abundance, is then given by
\begin{equation}
X_f = {0.1fX_* + (1-f)X_i \over (1-f) + 0.1 f} < X_\odot
\label{xf}
\end{equation}
where $X_i$ is the initial mass fraction of the
element and we have assumed that $0.9f$
of the initial gas mass is still locked in stars.
To maximize our estimate of
\he3 destruction (as this will maximize our estimate for $f$),
we can assume that $X_i = 0$. Solving for $f$, we have,
\begin{equation}
f < {X_\odot \over 0.1X_* + 0.9 X_\odot}
\end{equation}
For oxygen, $X_* \sim 0.1$ and $X_\odot \sim 0.01$, so that $f ~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~ 1/2$.
Thus, we can cycle no more than 1/2 the mass of the
association through stars
prior to the formation of the solar system.
Although a significant amount of gas may be cycled
through stars, only a small fraction
of \he3 depleted gas can be released back into
the association. If we take $X$
to represent \he3 in Eq. (\ref{xf}), and now
take $X_* = 0$ (which assumes that
\he3 is totally destroyed in massive stars),
and $X_i $ to be the primordial
\he3 mass fraction, we find
\begin{equation}
X_f = {(1-f)X_i \over 1 - 0.9f} ~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{<}{\sim}$}}~ .9 X_i
\end{equation}
This indicates that only about 10\% of the initial \he3 can be
destroyed, even though changes in the
heavy element abundances occur at a level of a factor of 2.
It is possible, of course, to further deplete
\he3 in the gas which forms the solar system
at the expense of excessive metal production.
Such overproduction of metals can perhaps be reconciled with
\he3 depletion, if the heavy elements could somehow be
expelled from the solar neighborhood.
As Lattimer, Schramm \& Grossman (1977) pointed out, the bulk
of the heavy element ejecta from supernovae can rapidly form into
dust grains. These dust grains can behave like explosive ``shrapnel"
and penetrate regions exterior to the association. This might allow
the association itself and hence the solar
system, to fail to show a large heavy
element excess, even though the total heavy element enrichment would be part
of the integrated galactic enrichment. This assumes, of course,
that the entire association region is not totally disrupted by the
supernovae explosion prior to the formation of the solar system.
However, as was shown in Olive \& Schramm (1982),
a significant amount of oxygen
and neon is produced which should not be trapped in
grains. Because of the behaviors of these
elements, we believe that is unlikely that more than
about 10\% of the \he3 present
in the association could be destroyed before the
formation of the solar system.
An obvious recourse to resolving the problem of
the overproduction of \he3 at the solar epoch,
is to question the measurement of the solar
\he3 abundance. In the next section, we
examine the observational data on the solar abundances of D and \he3.
\section{D and $^3$He in Pre-solar Nebulae}
Because the crucial data in attempts to estimate the primordial D/H and
$^3$He/H
values come from solar system measurements, it is useful to
examine critically
the origin of these abundances and to attempt to provide an accurate
estimate of their
uncertainties.
The determination of the solar abundances of D and \he3 involves
$^3$He/$^4$He measurements both in
meteorites and also directly
in the solar wind. Direct D/H measurements are
irrelevant
for the Sun, since D is completely burned to $^3$He in the solar
convective
zone. Moreover, D/H measurements are
difficult to interpret in planetary bodies (Earth, Jupiter, etc.);
because D preferentially enters molecules relative to H,
abundance determinations thus require a knowledge of
complex chemical fractionation histories.
However, because essentially all
primordial D has been burned to $^3$He in the solar convective zone and
because
the convective zone is not hot enough to burn $^3$He, the solar wind
measurement of $^3$He/$^4$He provides a measurement of the pre-solar
abundance of ${{\rm D + ^3He}
\over ^4 He}|_\odot$ by number.
Solar wind measurements, made using foil
collectors during Apollo lunar
missions, yielded values for $^3$He/$^4$He ranging from 4 to 5.5 $\times
10^{-4}$. Geiss and Reeves (1972) and Bochsler \& Geiss (1989)
(see also Geiss (1993) for a recent review)
argue that the variation can be corrected for, and that the best
solar
wind ratio is ${\rm ^3 He/ ^4 He \vert _{sw} = 4.1
\pm 1 \times 10^{-4}}$
(where the error is statistical). This is in good agreement with the low
temperature component emitted by carbonaceous chondrites in step-wise
heating
experiments (Black 1972; Weiler {\it et al.}~ 1991),
for which ${\rm ^3 He/ ^4 He \vert _{sw} \simeq 4.5
\pm 1 \times 10^{-4}}$, and also with the ISEE-3 solar wind data
(Coplan {\it et al.}~, 1984), which yields $4.4 \times 10^{-4}$.
However, some fractionation
in all
the solar wind $^3$He/$^4$He measurements cannot
be excluded, which would add
an
additional systematic error to the above value.
The extreme value for $^3$He/$^4$He
observed for the Apollo solar wind measurement of
$5.5 \times 10^{-4}$ can not be excluded as a central value, hence
a systematic uncertainty
of $1.4 \times 10^{-4}$ for $^3$He/$^4$He cannot be
excluded at present. The most recent measurement of
$^3$He/$^4$He in the solar wind
from the over-the-solar-pole measurements
made with the
SWICS
instrument on the ULYSSES spacecraft gives \he3/\he4 $= (4.4 \pm 0.4) \times
10^{-4}$ (Bodmer {\it et al.}~ 1995).
The pre-solar $^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_\odot$ ratio is thought to be best
measured
in meteorites. Initially, Black (1971) proposed
that the high temperature
component emitted by step-wise heating experiments using carbonaceous
chondrites
(see also Eberhardt 1974) was the primordial component. $^3$He/$^4 {\rm
He} \sim 1.5 \times 10^{-4}$. However, Weiler {\it et al.}~ (1991)
have argued that this
high temperature component is dominated by gas
trapped in pre-solar grains
(diamonds) which formed in locations far removed from the solar system.
Weiler
{\it et al.}~ propose that another gas component known as ``Q" is a better
candidate
for the primordial component. Fortunately,
the difference in $^3$He/$^4$He
between the high T carbonaceous chondrite component and Q is relatively
small
\begin{equation}
^3 He/^4 He \vert_Q = 1.6 \pm 0.04 \times 10^{-4}
\end{equation}
However, a potential interpretational (systematic) error persists,
since
neither Q nor diamonds nor the high T carbonaceous
chondrite component has
been
unequivocally proven to represent $^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_\odot$. Taking
$^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_q$ as
$^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_\odot$, but allowing for
systematics to include the range of relevant meteoritic $^3$He/$^4$He
values,
yields
$^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_\odot = 1.6 \pm 0.04
\pm 0.3 \times 10^{-4}$. The
pre-solar
D is estimated by subtracting
$^3$He/$^4{\rm He}\vert_\odot$ from the SWICS solar
wind
value. To convert to ratios relative to
hydrogen requires multiplying by
the
number ratio of ${\rm ^4He/H \vert_\odot}$, which is
estimated to be $0.09 \pm
0.01$
(note, this is 10\% lower than that used by Geiss 1993)
from the best fit
solar
model $Y = 0.27$ (Turck-Chieze {\it et al.}~ 1988;
Bahcall and Pinnsoneault 1992) with
metallicity Z = 0.02. This yields
\begin{equation}
({{D + ^3 He} \over H})_\odot = 4.1 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
{{^3 He} \over H} \vert_{\odot} = 1.5 \pm 0.2 \pm 0.3 \times 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
and thus
\begin{equation}
{{D} \over H}_{\odot} = 2.6 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.4 \times 10^{-5}
\end{equation}
This latter number is in reasonable agreement with the ${\rm {HD} \over
{H_2}}
= 1 - 3 \times 10^{-5}$ ratio measured in Jupiter (Smith, Scherpp \&
Barnes,
1989). Although planetary D ratios are subject to chemical
fractionation, this is minimized for HD on Jupiter, since the bulk of the
deuterium and hydrogen is in HD and H$_2$
there. However, molecular line blanketing does still
allow
for significant systematic errors.
For this reason, Jupiter is still not the best
source
for a solar system D determination, but it does provide a consistency check.
\section{Chemical Evolution}
The solar system abundance of $^3$He is thus seen to be approximately
a factor of two lower than predicted by
even the more optimistic models of
Galactic chemical evolution, which tend to yield abundance ratios
at least as high as $3 \times 10^{-5}$
for \he3/H, when \he3 production in lower mass
stars is included (Olive {\it et al.}~ 1995).
In what follows, we will look at three different
approaches to resolving the
problem of excess solar \he3. We first consider
possibilities for which the
primordial value of D/H is low. A low initial
D/H lowers \he3/H, as there is less
D to be converted to \he3 in the pre-main-sequence
evolution of stars. However, as we
will show, one can not take arbitrarily low values
of D/H (of course D/H
is always bounded from below by the ISM measurements
of D/H yielding
D/H = $1.6 \pm 0.09 {}^{+0.05}_{-0.1}$
(Linsky {\it et al.}~ 1993, 1995)), since some
amount of deuterium destruction necessarily
accompanies the production of heavy elements
in the galaxy. We then consider ``higher"
values of D/H, which require
some dramatic changes to simple models of
chemical evolution, such as an
increased production of massive stars in the
early galaxy as well as metal enriched
outflow. We will also examine some remaining
alternatives regarding the stellar
production of \he3. Note however, that there may be a
quite disturbing dispersion of D/H in the local ISM which would
complicate the analysis (Vidal-Madjar 1991; Ferlet 1992, Linsky
private communication)
As was noted earlier, the questions concerning
high verses low D/H may become moot, if the determinations of primordial D/H
in quasar absorption systems yield a single
consistent value. To date there are three
measurements of D/H in quasar absorption systems.
Two (in the same system) yield
a high value for D/H $\approx 1.9-2.5 \times
10^{-4}$ (Carswell {\it et al.}~ 1994; Songaila
{\it et al.}~ 1994), while the third (in a different system
yields a significantly lower value, D/H $\approx 1-2 \times
10^{-5}$. It is clear that, on the basis
of these measurements, we
can not with confidence claim any knowledge
of the primordial abundance of
deuterium. Indeed, it has been argued ( Levshakov \& Takahara 1995)
that measurements of this type may
not be able to determine D/H to better
than an order of magnitude. In other
words, they would expect a large dispersion in the observational data.
Is this what we are seeing?
Interestingly enough, the two values for D/H identified above are
in some respects both
beneficial and detrimental to big bang
nucleosynthesis. The high value of D/H
corresponds to a value for the baryon-to-photon
ratio $\eta \simeq 1.5 \times
10^{-10}$ (Walker {\it et al.}~, 1991). Consequences
of this high D/H were recently discussed in
Vangioni-Flam \& Cass\'e (1995). With regard
to the other light elements produced
in big bang nucleosynthesis, the low value
for $\eta$ corresponds to a \he4 mass
fraction $Y_P \simeq 0.23$, which is in
remarkable agreement with what one expects
from the data on \he4 from extragalactic
H\thinspace{$\scriptstyle{\rm II}$}~regions (Olive \& Steigman 1995; Olive \& Scully 1995).
\li7/H is predicted to be around $2 \times
10^{-10}$ which is also compatible
within errors, with recent data (Molaro {\it et al.}~ 1995).
The problem occurs with the evolution
of \he3,
when \he3 production is included
(note that models of chemical evolution
can be constructed which can account
for the necessary D/H destruction in this case).
In Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995), it was found that
the abundance of \he3 at the time of solar system formation
could be high by as much
as a factor 10. Even in the absence of
\he3 production, it was found that massive
stars were required to destroy at least 90\%
of their initial D + \he3, in order to
reproduce the solar and ISM values of \he3.
This amount of destruction is excessive,
even for the most massive stars (Dearborn, Schramm \& Steigman, 1986).
On the other hand, the low value of D/H
between 1 and 2 $\times 10^{-5}$ corresponds
to a value of $\eta \approx 7 - 9 \times 10^{-10}$.
In contrast to the high
D/H case, we would expect
a much milder problem with \he3 (to be discussed below).
However, now the \he4 mass
fraction is predicted to be $Y_P > 0.249$, a value larger
than most of the \he4 measurements
(Pagel {\it et al.}~, 1992; Skillman {\it et al.}~ 1995)
in extragalactic H\thinspace{$\scriptstyle{\rm II}$}~ regions, which already
contain some non-primordial \he4. (However, again, possible systematic
errors can not be excluded Copi {\it et al.}~, 1995a; Sasselov \&
Goldwirth, 1995.)
In addition, \li7/H is expected to be $> 5
\times 10^{-10}$ requiring a significant
amount of \li7 depletion, contrary to what
one expects (Steigman {\it et al.}~ 1993) from the
positive measurements of \li6 in halo stars
(Smith Lambert \& Nissen, 1992;
Hobbs \& Thorburn, 1994).
Furthermore, as we will next show, a minimal
amount of D destruction is
demanded for consistency with the observed level of
heavy element production in the Galaxy.
A completely flat evolution for D is probably excluded on these grounds.
The classical constraints on galactic evolution are characterized
by varying degrees of stringency.
Among these, the trends in [Fe/H] with time are easily satisfied,
since the age-metallicity
relation suffers from a large dispersion over the observed age
range (Edvardsson {\it et al.}~ 1993; Nissen 1995). The [O/Fe] vs [Fe/H]
relationship is mainly sensitive to the stellar yields and not to the
different histories of star formation (assuming a constant IMF).
The metallicity distribution of
disk stars is far from being definitely established. Indeed, much
work is needed before a clear picture of the metallicity distribution
can be reached (e.g. Olsen 1994; Cayrel, private communication).
Information on metallicities,
ages and kinematics, with the same high
accuracy as obtained by Edvarsson {\it et al.}~ (1993), is needed for a much
larger stellar sample. Moreover, Grenon (1989, 1990) remarks that
the radial migration of stars in the Galaxy can blur the local
metallicity distribution.
Other global characteristics which should be considered are the gas
fraction, $\sigma$, the overall metallicity, Z, and individual abundance ratios
(Fe/H, O/H,...) at solar birth and in the present ISM.
To the list of constraints, we must also add the D/H and \he3/H ratios at
solar birth and at present time, in relation to the primordial value.
Indeed, since primordial nucleosynthesis is much more constrained
than galactic evolution, it is reasonable to harmonize the second to
the first, and not the contrary (as has sometimes been done recently).
Many models have been proposed to follow the chemical evolution
of the Milky Way, invoking, for example, a prompt initial
enrichment ( Truran \& Cameron 1971), infall
of primordial material (Timmes {\it et al.}~ 1995; Fields 1995), metal
enriched infall originating from the halo (Ostriker and Thuan 1975),
and early massive star formation ((Larson 1986; Wyse and Silk
1987).
Studies of galactic chemical evolution remain in their infancy, however,
since we do not yet have good theories of galaxy formation
and star formation. It would be
unwise, for the sake of simplicity, to limit the investigation to
``classical" models under the pretext that they have been widely
used. In effect, if the high primordial D/H ratio is confirmed, special
models leading to a strong D destruction avoiding overproduction of
\he3 and Z will be required.
An alternative way of looking at variations from the galactic mean has
been carried out by Copi, Schramm \& Turner (1995b) looking at
the stochastic variations from galactic evolution models.
Their conclusions concerning the allowed range of primordial
D and \he3 are similar to, and compatible with, those we discuss here.
\subsection{Low D/H}
We will first explore the possible consequences of a very low primordial
value of D/H and examine the extent to which a low D/H could explain the
apparent flatness of the \he3/H evolution in the Galaxy.
We begin by estimating the minimum possible amount of D/H destruction.
In simplified models of galactic chemical evolution, it is possible to
derive some analytic relations between abundances, yields, the
gas fraction, and the IMF, if one assumes the instantaneous
recycling approximation (that is, that the enriched mass that is ultimately
to be ejected from a star is incorporated into the ISM at the time of
formation of the star, in contrast to its appropriate delayed entry
at the end of the star's lifetime).
Indeed, the degree to which
deuterium is destroyed can be expressed simply by (Ostriker and Tinsley 1975)
\begin{equation}
{\rm \frac{D}{~D_p}} = \sigma^{R/(1-R)}
\label{D}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is the gas mass fraction and the return fraction, $R$,
is given by
\begin{equation}
R = \int_{M_1}^{M_{sup}} (M-M_{rem}) \phi(M) dM
\label{R}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{R}), $M_1$ is the main-sequence turnoff mass (normally a function of
time), $M_{sup}$ is the upper mass limit for star formation, and
$M_{rem}$ is the remnant mass.
It is also possible to express the metallicity in terms of the gas mass
fraction
and the yields of metals in stars (Searle \& Sargent 1972)
\begin{equation}
Z = {P_Z \over (1 - R)} \ln \sigma^{-1}
\label{Z}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
P_Z = \int_{M_1}^{M_{sup}} ({M_Z \over M}) M \phi(M) dM
\end{equation}
and $M_Z/M$ is the mass fraction ejected in metals. Equations (\ref{D})
and (\ref{Z})
can be combined yielding
\begin{equation}
{\rm {D \over ~D_p}} = e^{-{ZR \over P_Z}}
\end{equation}
As one can see from Eq. (\ref{D}), a low primordial value for
D/H, will require a small return fraction, $R$. In principle, one can easily
adjust the IMF to yield a small value for $R$. However, because
of the similarity in the definitions of $R$ and $P_Z$, their ratio
is almost independent of the details of the IMF.
Thus ${\rm D/D_p}$ near unity, implies a
metallicity much less than solar.
The interdependence between deuterium and
metallicity can be seen in Figure 1.
In order to reach solar metallicity at the
time the solar system formed, we require a deuterium
destruction factor of at least 1.6, implying that
D/H$_p ~\mbox{\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{>}{\sim}$}}~ 2.5 \times 10^{-5}$.
We note that this factor is somewhat dependent upon
the assumed yields for the heavier elements. For example,
this limit was obtained using the stellar yields of Woosley \& Weaver (1993),
whereas
had we used the yields of Maeder (1992), which allow for more
heavy element production in the mass range from 9 - 11 M$_\odot$,
the minimum destruction factor could be lowered to about 1.3.
It is worth noting that, beyond the uncertainties of the yields which
are essentially related to those associated with
the $^{12}$C($\alpha,\gamma$)$^{16}$O
reaction rate, the lower mass limit of the stellar progenitor of
the Type II supernovae which synthesize the heavy elements
is influential because of the preference in the IMF towards lower mass
stars. Indeed the limit is greatly increased as the slope of the IMF
is decreased. All of these effects can be seen in Figure 1, where
we have plotted
(for various choices of the parameters which govern the
SFR) the metallicity at the solar
epoch in units of solar metallicity, Z/Z$_\odot$, as a function of
the ratio of the {\em present} deuterium abundance to the primordial one,
thus indicating the total deuterium destruction factor for a variety
of galactic
evolution models. We have chosen
a SFR proportional to the mass in gas,
and an IMF, $\phi(m) \propto m^{-2.7}$; shown here by the upper
set of points denoted by circles (yields from Maeder (1992)) and crosses
(yields from Woosley \& Weaver (1993)). For the lower set of points,
a steeper IMF, $\phi(m) \propto m^{-3}$ was chosen. In each case, the lower
mass limit of the IMF was 0.4 M$_\odot$ (lowering this choice to 0.1 M$_\odot$
would further lower the curves).
It is important to note that, when \he3 production is taken into account, even
the modest deuterium destruction factor (of 1.6),
yields an overproduction
by about a factor of 2 in solar \he3.
\subsection{Higher D/H}
In this section, we will consider an alternative to low primordial
D/H and rely on more distinctive models of galactic chemical
evolution to resolve the problem concerning the solar \he3 abundance.
As we have stated earlier, the choice of a higher value for primordial D/H
alleviates some of the pressure in matching the BBN calculations to the
observational determinations of \he4 and \li7.
Clearly, the higher the value we choose
for primordial D/H, the more difficult it
will be to keep \he3 under control.
We choose specifically the value D/H$|_{\rm p} = 7.5 \times 10^{-5}$
which corresponds roughly to the \li7 trough and is in modest agreement with
\he4 (at the 2 $\sigma$ plus systematics level).
The models we consider below specifically involve mass outflow.
Open galactic models have been considered in the past
(Tinsley 1980, Tosi 1988), but infall has been invoked more often
than outflow. Formally, the two reverse processes are included in
the general formalism of chemical galactic evolution (Tinsley 1980)
and cosmochronology (Cowan {\it et al.}~ 1989).
There is clear evidence for galactic winds in external
galaxies, even for spirals (Wang {\it et al.}~ 1995), and particularly those
experiencing bursts of star formation, whereas evidence for significant infall
of extragalactic matter are meager (Murphy {\it et al.}~ 1995).
Of course this reflects only constraints arising from
the present state of the solar vicinity, and
proves nothing about the early galaxy.
Outflow has its own merit: as we will see below, it will help to explain
very high destruction factors of D
(Vangioni-Flam \& Cass\'{e} 1995) while, if necessary, avoiding, an
overproduction of metals. At the same time it could reduce the rise of the
\he3/H ratio.
De Young \& Heckman (1994) proposed that energy from supernova
explosions and stellar driven winds results in blowing portions of the
ISM containing enriched material out of the galaxy.
Different kinds of outflows can be imagined,
which vary considerably in their
durations, intensities and compositions. For our
present purposes, it is sufficient
to distinguish whether the outflowing matter consists solely
of the ejecta of massive stars, or rather whether it is composed
of normal ISM material
being blown out by supernova driven winds. In Cass\'{e} {\it et al.}~ (1995),
we will return to these distinctions in greater detail.
The three specific ingredients that must be added to canonical galactic
evolutionary models in order to obtain significant D destruction
without the overproduction of \he3 are: (i) an
early phase of massive star formation, which presents the advantage
of destroying D and \he3 rapidly; (ii) a galactic wind related to the
corresponding SNII rate, which limits the rise of Z and \he3, leading
to an even more pronounced decrease of D; and (iii) possible
modifications of stellar models, leading to an efficient destruction
of \he3, especially in low mass stars.
One way we have found
in which the solar value of \he3 may be lowered is to assume that the IMF
prior to the formation of the solar system was skewed more toward
massive star formation. The presence of fewer lower mass stars
reduces \he3 production,
while more massive stars ultimately return only a fraction of the \he3
present during the
pre-main sequence phase to the ISM.
We therefore
consider
models which begin with an IMF favoring more massive stars
early on galactic history but resemble a more normal IMF at later
times.
The problem that we immediately encounter is that the emphasis on
more massive stars results in an overproduction of heavy elements,
such as $^{16}$O. We have found that the (closed box) models
which are most successfully in keeping \he3 flat, while
destroying enough D, also overproduce
$^{16}$O by a factor of $\sim$10. This problem
is alleviated by including outflow.
Indeed,
McCray \& Snow (1979) have shown that supernovae can generate ``chimneys,"
which can directly transport much of the
heavy element rich supernova debris out
of the galaxy.
We have therefore included ``enriched''
(relative to the ISM) outflow in our models, both to help solve the heavy
element overproduction problem and to obtain a
flatter \he3/H evolution. In order to simulate this effect,
we have incorporated outflow into our models at a
rate proportional to the rate of ejection of materials from supernovae.
Since massive stars can lose large amounts of \he3 depleted outer material
via winds before they explode, it is certainly possible
for them to deplete \he3 in their surrounding
ISM material and eject their metals out of the Galaxy.
We allow the outer (hydrogen) envelope of the star which is
deficient in \he3 to return via winds to the ISM.
Then, in order to maximize the possible effect of an outflow which is tied to
the ejecta of exploding stars (M $>$ 8-10 M$_\odot$),
a fraction
of the core is then expelled from the Galaxy.
Such models provide a natural way to understand the heavy element
abundances in the X-ray gas observed in clusters of galaxies
(typically, the heavy element enriched outflow is produced by elliptic
galaxies, (see e.g. Elbaz, Arnaud, Vangioni-Flam 1995)).
It might also be noted that early expulsion of metal rich supernova ejecta
is even easier in merger models,
where the early galactic building blocks have a lower mass.
Due to the epoch of more massive star formation at earlier
times, D is generally very efficiently destroyed in these models.
We should note at this point that our assumptions concerning winds from
massive stars prior to the supernova stage may be inappropriate at
early galactic epochs. The rate of mass loss is generally expected to
be dependent upon the initial metallicity of the star (Maeder, Lequeux,
\& Azzopardi 1980; Maeder \& Meynet 1994). Expectations from
theoretical studies are generally consistent with e.g. trends in the
frequency of Wolf-Rayet stars, as inferred from studies of the
Magellanic Clouds (Massey {\it et al.}~ 1995). This suggests that the fraction
of the \he3 depleted outer envelopes of massive stars that is
returned to the ISM via winds (prior to supernova-triggered mass ejection)
in low metallicity populations may be significantly reduced.
We stress however, that our aim here is to see how efficiently the
evolution of the \he3 abundance can be held relatively flat over the
history of the Galaxy. As we will see, we find only modest success
despite rather poignant assumptions.
An obvious observational constraint on our choice of an IMF that is
skewed toward more massive star production
at early times, $\phi(m) \propto m^{-(1.25 + O/O_\odot)}$,
is provided by its consistency with the present day IMF that
results from our model. Fig. 2 shows a comparison of the observed and
modeled present day IMF.
The observed values are taken from Scalo (1986) and are
in good agreement with our model for the more massive stars. This is as
expected, since the more numerous massive stars formed early on have long
since
died out.
It is be useful to compare the results we have obtained here with those of
our previous study, in which we considered a more
standard model. In model 1 of Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995),
we chose a SFR, $\psi = 0.25\sigma$, with an IMF,
$\phi(m) \propto m^{-2.7}$ between 0.4 and 100 M$_\odot$.
The \he3 abundance at the solar formation epoch (taken to be at $t = 9.4$ Gyr)
was \he3/H = 5.7 $\times 10^{-5}$, rising to 8.8 $\times 10^{-5}$
today. Infall was not included.
For a primordial ratio D/H = $7.5 \times 10^{-5}$,
the results for D/H and \he3/H as a function of time,
for a model with an IMF which
favors massive stars early,
and contains enriched outflow in which the rate is proportional to
the ejection rate, is compared with model 1 of Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995)
in Figure 3.
The outflowing gas contains only material below
the outer envelope, while the latter \he3 depleted material is returned to the
ISM. In this model, the SFR is $\psi = 0.26 M_{\rm gas}$,
and the fraction of outflowing gas is 90\% of the supernova ejecta.
The IMF is now extended down to 0.1 M$_\odot$, to help keep
the metallicity and gas mass fraction reasonably low. We view this as a rather
extreme model, in which a considerable amount of enriched material
has been expelled from the galaxy. Indeed, we impose a limit, arising from the
observed metallicity of hot X-ray gas in clusters, on the amount of
metals expelled by outflow to be less than 20 times the amount of metals
in the galaxy. This imposes a constraint on the fraction of outflowing gas
(90\%
in this case).
As one can see from Fig. 3, our present model, which is based on
an IMF skewed towards massive stars early on and contains
enriched outflow, reduces the abundance of \he3 by a factor of about 2,
relative to the standard case with a normal IMF and no outflow.
Parameters of the model have been chosen such that the degree of deuterium
destruction is comparable (and agrees with the data) in the two cases.
However, although the present \he3 abundance is acceptable
\he3/H$|_o = 5.1 \times 10^{-5}$, the solar abundance is still
high by a factor of slightly over two; \he3/H$|_\odot = 3.7 \times 10^{-5}$.
While this represents a definite improvement, it can not be regarded as a
solution to the problem. Although it appears from Figure 3, better
agreement with the solar data is possible if one assumes a lower
time for the formation of the solar system, the model must be adjusted
to destroy D on a faster time scale. For example, with $\psi = .34M_{\rm gas}$
the evolution of deuterium matches the solar
(and present-day) observations at $t =
6$ Gyr (corresponding to an age of the Galaxy of 10.6 Gyr), but now
\he3/H$|_\odot$
$\simeq 3.1 \times 10^{-5}$ and the present abundance is 4.9 $\times 10^{-5}$;
a further improvement, but solar \he3 is still too high.
Of course as is well known, the problem concerning \he3 is also
alleviated somewhat by going to higher values of $\eta$.
In model 3 of Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995), we assumed a primordial abundance of
deuterium of D/H = 3.5 $ \times 10^{-5}$. In this case
\he3/H$|_\odot = 3.4 \times 10^{-5}$, an overproduction by a factor greater
than two. The present \he3 was also slightly high, \he3/H = $6 \times
10^{-5}$.
In models with outflow as described above, these numbers are reduced
to \he3/H$|_\odot = 2.3 \times 10^{-5}$ and \he3/H = $3.2 \times
10^{-5}$ today.
Before, we move on, we wish to stress that the problems concerning \he3
that we are discussing here, prevail only because we are including
the production of \he3 in low mass stars. When such production is ignored
there is no problem in matching the solar and ISM data for both
D and \he3 in models of these types as was shown by Vangioni-Flam,
Olive \& Prantzos (1994). The crises in big bang nucleosynthesis claimed
by Hata {\it et al.}~ (1995) is only a crises because of the limit on the degree
of \he3 destruction they allowed. Although the final \he3 abundance
in a given star relative to the initial D + \he3 abundance, usually
called $g_3$, is always larger than 0.25 as assumed by Hata {\it et al.}~,
even simple models such as the type considered here (without outflow)
and in Vangioni-Flam,
Olive \& Prantzos (1994) have an effective $g_3$ which is lower than
0.25 vitiating the purported crises.
\subsection{Alternatives}
A critical consideration with regard to the establishment of any
realistic constraints on cosmological D and D + $^3$He is that
associated with $^3$He production in low mass stars. Essentially
all early estimates of D and $^3$He constraints on cosmology
(see, e.g., Truran \& Cameron 1971; Rood, Steigman, \& Tinsley
1976) were based upon the stellar evolution models of Iben (1967 a,b),
for which analytical fits to the detailed model characteristics
were subsequently provided by Iben \& Truran (1978). The problem of
$^3$He then is simply the fact that, with the use of the Iben \&
Truran (1978) prescriptions, $^3$He production in stars in the mass
range $\sim$ 1-3 M$_\odot$ is sufficient to overproduce $^3$He in
Galactic chemical evolution models (Olive {\it {\it et al.}~} 1995;
Galli {\it et al.}~ 1995; Timmes
\& Truran 1995), relative both to the solar system value of $^3$He and
to the $^3$He concentration in the ISM at the present time (Balser
{\it {\it et al.}~} 1994). Further strong confirmation of this behavior has
been provided by recent stellar evolution calculations (Vassiliadis
\& Wood 1994; Weiss {\it et al.}~ 1995). It would seem to be necessary either to
utilize rather extreme assumptions regarding the history of our
Galaxy or to identify some significant problem in stellar evolution
theory.
An interesting recent paper by Wasserburg, Boothroyd, \& Sackmann
(1995) has called attention to the fact that the long-standing
problems associated with understanding both low $^{12}$C/$^{13}$C ratios
in low mass red giant branch stars and low $^{18}$O/$^{16}$O ratios
in asymptotic giant branch stars can be resolved, with the assumption
of the occurrence of deep circulation currents extending below the
bottom of the standard convective envelope. A concomitant of this
process of ``cool bottom burning'' is the destruction of $^3$He. In
particular, for the case of a 1 M$_\odot$ star, their models predict
that after a 1$^{st}$ dredge-up $^3$He enhancement of a factor $\sim$ 6,
cool bottom processing acts to reduce the $^3$He concentration by a
factor $\sim$ 10, yielding a net \underbar{depletion} of $^3$He by a
factor $\sim$ 2. If this model is indeed correct, this would aid substantially
in the problem of $^3$He overproduction, with which we are so
concerned in this paper.
To test the effect of such a reduction in the \he3 yields,
we incorporated the results of Wasserburg {\it et al.}~ (1995) by lowering the
Iben \& Truran (1978) yields of \he3 at 1 M$_\odot$ by a factor of 10.
For an initial deuterium abundance of 7.5 $\times 10^{-5}$, this
corresponds to a $g_3 = 0.27$. We reduced the degree to which the
Iben \& Truran yields were modified at higher masses such that,
at M $>$ 3 M$_\odot$, we once again were using the Iben \& Truran
yields. The results of such a reduction in model 1 of Olive {\it et al.}~ (1995)
are shown in Figure 4. Here the evolution of D/H and \he3/H are shown
in model 1 with both the Iben \& Truran yields and the reduced yields.
Even in this case, there remains a mild overproduction of \he3 by a factor of
about 2. That is, at $t = 9.4$ Gyr, \he3/H = 3 $\times 10^{-5}$.
In Figure 5, we show the effect of the reduced \he3 yields in the
model with outflow discussed in the previous section.
Here finally, we find a value for \he3/H at the solar epoch
which is perhaps acceptable. At $t = 9.4$ Gyr, \he3/H = 2.4 $\times 10^{-5}$.
A further improvement is possible by considering models which evolve on shorter
time scales as discussed above.
An obvious problem with the reduction in \he3 yields at low stellar masses is
the observation of high $^3$He concentrations in planetary nebula
ejecta (Rood {\it {\it et al.}~} 1992, 1995), which would seem to confirm the
predictions of the more standard models for the evolution of low
mass stars along the giant branch. It is clear that this issue must
be resolved before a more definitive statement can be made with respect
to Galactic evolution constraints on the primordial abundances of D and
$^3$He.
A further question of interest is that concerning the composition of
the matter involved in ``mass infall,'' during the later stages of evolution
of our Galaxy.
In this context, we note that while we have not considered such infall
models in this paper (see, e.g., Olive {\it et al.}~ 1995), they may provide
plausible alternative solutions to the \he3 problem.
The implications of infall of matter of primordial composition
of the light elements D. $^3$He, and $^7$Li are certainly quite different
from those of processed matter, which may generally be expected to be
metal enriched and deuterium depleted.
Infall of
primordial material is generally beneficial, with the adoption of the
lower primordial D abundance, while infall of D- and $^3$He-depleted matter
improves the situation for the case of a higher primordial D abundance.
The fact that the nature and origin of such infalling material is presently
uncertain, makes it necessary to treat its composition as an additional
parameter.
This problem is further
complicated by the fact that it is even possible
for the in falling gas both to be metal enriched and to
have an essentially primordial composition of D and $^3$He.
Such could occur if, for example, the ejecta of the first generation of
massive stars in the halo of our Galaxy were lost to the surrounding
intergalactic medium.
The ejecta of stars of M $>$ 10M$_\odot$ collectively represents
$\sim$ 10 \% of the initial mass formed into stars (e.g., for a Salpeter
IMF over the range 0.1-100 M$\odot$) and is characterized by a metal
abundance $>$ 10 Z$_\odot$. Assuming $\sim$ 10$^{10}$ M$_\odot$ of
early halo star formation would yield $\sim$ 10$^9$ M$_\odot$ of
metal enriched gas ejected, which could contaminate $\sim$ 10$^{10}$
M$_\odot$ to solar metallicity and yet have deuterium at a level of
only $\sim$ 0.9 its primordial value.
\section{Conclusions}
What can we conclude from this analysis? We have shown that,
unlike the the abundances of some of the heavier elements such as
oxygen and neon which can differ by as much as
a factor of two locally relative to their average
galactic abundance by prior supernova in the solar neighborhood, the
local \he3 abundance could only have been affected by at most 10\%.
It also appears that the \he3 data from a variety of sources is consistent
and yields a value \he3/H$|_\odot = 1.5 \times 10^{-5}$ for the presolar
\he3 abundance.
Standard models of galactic chemical evolution yield an excess
of \he3 at the solar epoch by a factor which ranges from 2 to 12
depending on the assumed primordial value for D/H. For models
with D/H = $7.5 \times 10^{-5}$ initially, the factor nearly 4
excess in \he3 can be brought down to an excess of about 2
in models which favor massive stars early on, and include the possibility
for a substantial amount of metal enriched outflow. In such models,
the solar \he3 abundance is brought down to nearly acceptable levels
when primordial D/H $< 3.5 \times 10^{-5}$.
Finally, we considered the possibility that part of the problem may
lie in the stellar yields of \he3. Though it appears that the cut in
yields suggested by Wasserburg {\it et al.}~ (1995) may not in itself be
sufficient to lower the solar \he3 abundance, that reduction in conjunction
with chemical evolution models may.
We feel justified in claiming that
any apparent ``crises" in big bang nucleosynthesis is rather
a (potential) problem for chemical evolution and/or stellar
evolution.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank J. Audouze, C. Copi, R. Lewis, R. Pepin, G. Steigman
F. Timmes, and M. Turner for helpful
conversations. The work of KAO was supported in part by DOE grant
DE-FG02-94ER-40823. The work of DNS was supported in part by the DOE
(at Chicago and Fermilab) and by the NASA through NAGW-2381 (at
Fermilab) and a GSRP fellowship at Chicago.
The research of JWT has been supported by the
National Science Foundation under grant
NSF AST 92-17969 and by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under
grant NASA NAG 5-2081.
The work of EV-F was
supported in part by PICS $n^o$114, ``Origin and Evolution of the
Light Elements", CNRS.
\newpage
\begingroup \section*{\large \bf References
\bibitem Bahcall, J.N. \& Pinsonneault, M.H. 1992, Rev. Mod. Phys.,
64,885
\bibitem Balser, D.S., Bania, T.M., Brockway, C.J.,
Rood, R.T., \& Wilson, T.L. 1994, ApJ, 430, 667
\bibitem Black, D.C. 1971, Nature Phys. Sci., 234, 148
\bibitem Black, D.C. 1972, Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 36, 347
\bibitem Bochsler, P. \& Geiss, J. 1989, in {\it Proc. Yosemite
Conf. on Outstanding Problems in the Solar System} p.133
\bibitem Bodmer, R., Bochsler, P., Geiss, J., Von Steiger, R.,
\& Gloeckler, G. 1995, Spa. Sci Rev., 72, 61
\bibitem Carswell, R.F., Rauch, M., Weymann, R.J., Cooke, A.J. \&
Webb, J.K. 1994, MNRAS, 268, L1
\bibitem Cass\'{e}, M., Olive, K.A., Scully, S.T., \& Vangioni-Flam, E.
1995, in preparation
\bibitem Charbonnel,C. 1994, A \& A, 282, 811
\bibitem Copi, C. Schramm,D.N. \& Turner, M.S. 1995a, Science,
267,192
\bibitem Copi, C. Schramm,D.N. \& Turner, M.S. 1995b, {ApJ Lett}
submitted
\bibitem Coplan, M.A., Ogilvie, K.W., Bochsler, P., \& Geiss, J.
1984, Solar Phys., 93, 415
\bibitem Cowan, J.J., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Truran, J.W. 1987, ApJ, 323, 543
\bibitem Dearborn, D. S. P., Schramm, D.,
\& Steigman, G. 1986, ApJ, 302, 35
\bibitem Delbourgo-Salvador, P., Gry, C.,
Malinie, G., \& Audouze, J. 1985,
A\&A, 150, 53
\bibitem De Young, D.S. \& Heckman, T.M. 1994, ApJ, 431, 598
\bibitem Eberhardt, P. 1974, Earth Planet. Sci., 24, 182
\bibitem Edvardsson, B., Anderson, J., Gustafson, B.,
Lambert, D.L., Nissen, P.E., \& Tomkin, J. 1993, A \& A, 275, 101
\bibitem Elbaz, D., Arnaud, M., \& Vangioni-Flam, E. 1995, A \& A, in press
\bibitem Fields, B. 1995, ApJ, in press
\bibitem Galli, D., Palla, F. Ferrini, F., \& Penco,U. 1995, ApJ,
433, 536
\bibitem Geiss, J. 1993, in {\it Origin
and Evolution of the Elements} eds. N. Prantzos,
E. Vangioni-Flam, and M. Cass\'{e}
(Cambridge:Cambridge University Press), p. 89
\bibitem Geiss, J. \& Reeves, H. 1972, A \& A, 18,126
\bibitem Grenon, M. 1989, Astrophys. \& Science, 156, 29
\bibitem Grenon, M. 1990, in {\it Astrophysical Ages and Dating Methods},
ed. E. Vangioni-Flam {\it et al.}~ (Ed. Frontieres, Paris), p. 153
\bibitem Gry, C., Malinie, G., Audouze, J.,
\& Vidal-Madjar, A. 1984, in
Formation and Evolution of Galaxies and Large
Scale Structure in the Universe,
eds. J. Audouze \& J. Tran Tranh Van (Reidel, Dordrecht) p 279
\bibitem Hata, N., Scherrer, R.J., Steigman, G., Thomas, D.,
Walker, T.P., Bludman, S., \& Langacker, P. 1995, preprint
hep-ph/9505319
\bibitem Hobbs, L. \& Thorburn, J. 1994, ApJ, 428, L25
\bibitem Hogan, C.J. 1995, ApJ, 441, L17
\bibitem Iben, I. 1967a, ApJ, 147, 624
\bibitem Iben, I. 1967b, ApJ, 147, 650
\bibitem Iben, I. \& Truran, J.W. 1978, ApJ, 220,980
\bibitem Larson, R.B. 1986, MNRAS, 218, 409
\bibitem Lattimer, J., Schramm, D.N., \& Grossman, L. 1977, ApJ, 214, 819
\bibitem Lee, T. 1979, Rev. Geophys. Space Phys., 17, 1591
\bibitem Levshakov, S.A., \& Takahara, F. 1995, preprint
\bibitem Linsky, J.L., Brown, A., Gayley, K., Diplas, A., Savage, B. D.,
Ayres, T. R., Landsman, W., Shore, S. N., Heap, S. R. 1993, ApJ, 402, 694
\bibitem Linsky, J.L., Diplas, A., Wood, B.E., Brown, A.,
Ayres, T. R., Savage, B. D., 1995, ApJ, in press
\bibitem Maeder, A. 1992, A \& A 264, 105
\bibitem Maeder, A. \& Meynet, G. 1994, A\&A, 287, 803
\bibitem Maeder, A., Lequeux, J., \& Azzopardi, M. 1980, A\&A, 90, L17
\bibitem Massey, P., Lang, C.C., DeGiola-Eastwood, K., \& Garmany, C.D. 1995,
ApJ, 438, 188
\bibitem McCray, R. \& Snow, T.P. 1979, ARAA, 17, 213
\bibitem Molaro, P., Primas, F., \& Bonifacio, P. 1995, A \& A, 295, L47
\bibitem Murphy, E.M., Lockman, F.J. \& Savage, B.D. 1995, ApJ, 447, 642
\bibitem Nissen, P.E. 1995, in IAU Symposium 164, {\it
Stellar Populations}, to be published
\bibitem Olive, K.A., Rood, R.T., Schramm, D.N., Truran, J.W.,
\& Vangioni-Flam, E. 1995, ApJ, 444, 680
\bibitem Olive, K.A., \& Schramm, D.N. 1981, ApJ, 257, 276
\bibitem Olive, K.A., \& Scully, S.T. 1995, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A,
in press
\bibitem Olive, K.A., \& Steigman, G. 1995, ApJ S, 97, 49
\bibitem Olsen, E.H. 1994, A\&A Supp, 104, 429
\bibitem Ostriker, J.P., \& Thuan, T.X. 1975, ApJ, 202, 353
\bibitem Ostriker, J.P., \& Tinsley, B. 1975, ApJ, 201, L51
\bibitem Pagel, B E.J., Simonson, E.A., Terlevich, R.J.
\& Edmunds, M. 1992, MNRAS, 255, 325
\bibitem Reeves, H. 1978, in {\it Protostars and Planets},
ed. T. Gehrels
(Tucson:University of Arizona Press)
\bibitem Rood, R.T., Bania, T.M., \& Wilson, T.L. 1992, Nature, 355, 618
\bibitem Rood, R.T., Bania, T.M., Wilson, T.L., \& Bania, D.S. 1995,
in {\it
the Light Element Abundances, Proceedings of the ESO/EIPC Workshop},
ed. P. Crane, (Berlin:Springer), p. 201
\bibitem Rood, R.T., Steigman, G. \& Tinsley, B.M. 1976, ApJ, 207, L57
\bibitem Salpeter, E.E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
\bibitem Sasselov, D. \& Goldwirth, D.S. 1995, ApJ, 444, L5
\bibitem Scalo, J. 1986, Fund. Cosm. Phys. 11, 1
\bibitem Searle, L. \& Sargent, W.L. 1972, ApJ, 173, 25
\bibitem Skillman, E., {\it et al.}~\ 1995, ApJ Lett (in preparation)
\bibitem Smith, V.V., Lambert, D.L., \& Nissen, P.E., 1992, ApJ 408, 262
\bibitem Smith, Scherpp \& Barnes 1989, ApJ, 336, 167
\bibitem Songaila, A., Cowie, L.L., Hogan, C. \& Rugers, M. 1994
Nature, 368, 599
\bibitem Steigman, G., Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., Schramm, D. N.,
\& Walker, T. P., 1993, ApJ 415, L35
\bibitem Timmes, F.X., \& Truran, J.W. 1995, preprint
\bibitem Timmes, F.X., Woosley, S.E., \& Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJSupp,
98, 617
\bibitem Tinsley, B.M. 1980, Fund. Cosmic Phys., 5, 287
\bibitem Tosi, M. 1988, A\&A, 197, 33
\bibitem Tosi, M., Steigman, G. \& Dearborn, D.S.P. 1995, in {\it
the Light Element Abundances, Proceedings of the ESO/EIPC Workshop},
ed. P. Crane, (Berlin:Springer), p.228
\bibitem Truran, J.W., \& Cameron, A.G.W. 1971, ApSpSci, 14, 179
\bibitem Turck-Chi\`eze, S., Cahen, S., Cass\'e, M., \&
Doom, C. 1988, ApJ, 335, 415
\bibitem Tytler, D. \& Fan, X.-M. 1995, BAAS, 26, 1424
\bibitem Vangioni-Flam, E., \& Audouze, J. 1988,
A\&A, 193, 81
\bibitem Vangioni-Flam, E. \& Cass\'{e}, M. 1995, ApJ, 441, 471
\bibitem Vangioni-Flam, E., Olive, K.A., \& Prantzos, N. 1994,
ApJ, 427, 618
\bibitem Vassiladis, E. \& Wood, P.R. 1993, ApJ, 413, 641
\bibitem Vidal-Madjar, A. 1991, Adv. Space Res., 11, 97
\bibitem Walker, T. P., Steigman, G., Schramm, D. N., Olive, K. A.,
\& Kang, H. 1991 ApJ, 376, 51
\bibitem Wang, Q.D., Walterbos, R.A.M., Steakley, M.F., Norman, C.A.,
\& Braun, R. 1995, ApJ, 439, 176
\bibitem Wasserburg, G.J., Boothroyd, A.I., \& Sackmann, I.-J. 1995, ApJ,
447, L37
\bibitem Weiler, R., Anders, E., Bauer, H., Lewis, R.
\& Signer, P. 1991, Geochim \& Cosmochim Acta, 55, 1709
\bibitem Weiss, A., Wagenhuber, J., and Denissenkov, P. 1995, preprint
\bibitem Woosley, S.E. \& Weaver, T.A. 1993, in {\it Supernova, Les Houches
Summer School Proceedings, Vol. 54}, ed. S. Bludman, R. Mochkovitch, \&
J. Zinn-Justin (Geneva: Elsevier Science Publishers), p. 100
\bibitem Wyse, R., \& Silk, J. 1987, ApJ, 313, L11
\par \endgroup
\newpage
\noindent{\bf{Figure Captions}}
\vskip.3truein
\begin{itemize}
\item[]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[]
\begin{enumerate}
\item[{\bf Figure 1:}] The dependence of the metallicity produced
as a function of the deuterium destruction
factor D/D$_p$, for a large sample of models. The metallicity is
plotted in solar units. The SFR used was $\psi \propto M_{\rm gas}$
where the constant of proportionality ranges from 0.01 to 1.0
The circles correspond to the choice of stellar yields from Maeder (1992)
while the crosses correspond to the yields of Woosley \& Weaver (1993).
A power law IMF was chosen with a slope of -2.7 for
the upper two sets of points and -3.0 for the lower two sets.
\item[{\bf Figure 2:}] The present day mass function of our adopted
model as compared with the data from Scalo (1986).
\item[{\bf Figure 3:}] The evolution of
D/H and \he3/H
as a function of time, for a standard model
of galactic chemical evolution (solid line) and for one which
favors massive stars early and includes metal enriched outflow (dashed line).
Also shown are the values of these ratios at the time of formation of the sun,
$t \approx 9.4$ Gyr, and today, for
D/H (open squares) and \he3/H (filled circles).
The present day \he3 abundance simply shows the range of observed
values; the data point does not represent an average.
The models were chosen
so that D/H is destroyed by a total factor of 5, to the present.
\item[{\bf Figure 4:}] As in Figure 3, for a standard model
(solid) and for one in which
the stellar yields of \he3 at low masses have been reduced (dotted).
Deuterium is the same in both cases.
\item[{\bf Figure 5:}] As in Figure 3, for the model with enriched outflow
from Figure 3
(dashed) and for one with outflow in which
the stellar yields of \he3 at low masses have been reduced (dotted).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the study of the two-dimensional integrable models of quantum field
theories and statistical models, the Yang-Baxter equation (YBE)
plays essential roles in establishing the integrability and
solving the models. In the field theories, the YBE provides a consistency
condition for the two-body scattering amplitudes ($S$-matrices) in the
multi-particle scattering processes since the scattering is factorizable.
With unitarity and crossing symmetry, the YBE can determine the $S$-matrix
completely, although not uniquely due to the CDD factor which is
any function of the rapidity satisfying the unitarity and crossing symmetry
conditions.
This CDD factor is usually neglected under the the minimality assumption.
In the statistical models,
if the Boltzmann weights satisfy the YBE, row-to-row transfer matrices
with different values of the spectral parameter commute each other so that
the models are integrable.
Recently there has been a lot of efforts in extending these
approaches to models with boundaries.
The main motivation is that these models can be applied to 3D spherically
symmetric physical systems where $s$-wave element becomes dominant.
One-channel Kondo problem, monopole-catalyzed proton decay are
frequently cited examples.
Also one can generalize the conventional periodic boundary condition
of the statistical models to other types like the fixed and free conditions.
The existence of the boundary adds new quantities like
boundary scattering amplitudes and boundary Boltzmann weights,
and one needs to extend the YBE to include these objects.
The boundary Yang-Baxter equation (BYBE) (also known as the reflection
equation) \cite{cher} plays the role of the YBE for the integrable statistical
models \cite{skly,oth} and quantum field theories \cite{zam} in the
presence of a boundary; it is the necessary condition for the
integrability of these models.
The equation takes the form
\begin{equation}
R_{1}(u)S_{12}(u^{'}+u)R_2(u^{'})S_{12}(u^{'}-u)=S_{12}(u^{'}-u)S_2(u^{'})
S_{12}(u^{'}+u)R_{1}(u)
\end{equation}
where $R_{1(2)}$ is the boundary scattering (or reflection) matrix in the
auxiliary space $1(2)$ and
$S_{12}$ is the solution to the YBE.
In general, $R(u)$ need not be a ${\bf C}$-number matrix, so the
equation may be taken as the defining relation for the associative
algebra generated by the symbols $R(u)$ \cite{ryu}. This algebra
possesses a very rich
structure and has been found to be connected with braid groups \cite{kul1},
lattice current algebra \cite{alek}, twisted Yangian \cite{naz} and so on.
Taking the quantum space of $R(u)$ to be trivial, the BYBE is
a quadratic matrix equation which allows the matrix $R(u)$ to be solved
for given $S(u)$. To date, several solutions of the BYBE have
appeared in the form
of vertex representation, far less is known however for the
solution in the solid on solid (SOS) or restricted solid on solid (RSOS)
representation \cite{kul,pea}. Also less clear is the vertex-SOS
correspondence associated with this algebra. In particular there is
no reason to expect the vertex-SOS transformation for the
YBE continue to hold for this algebra. Therefore finding solution in
the RSOS form may help to clarify the issue of the vertex-SOS
correspondence. Moreover, the RSOS solution will reveal the special
mathematical structure associated with this algebra when the
deformation parameter is a root of unity.
{}From a physical point of view, the solutions have applications
in statistical mechanics and field theory. In the context of statistical
mechanics, the solutions give rise to integrable SOS/RSOS models with
boundaries where the ${\bf C}$-number solution of the BYBE provides
the Boltzmann weights of the statistical models at the boundary.
The first nontrivial case gives the tri-critical Ising model. The study of
integrable statistical model with boundary will shed light on the
issue of the dependence of the Casimir energy on the boundary
and surface properties \cite{yung,bau}.
{}From the field theory point of view, the solutions are relevant to the study
of the restricted sine-Gordon model \cite{abl} and the
perturbed (coset \cite{bl,an}) conformal field theory (CFT) \cite{zam1}
with boundary. In this case, solutions to the BYBE are scattering matrices
of the particles with the boundary.
In this paper we construct the
BYBE in the RSOS/SOS representation. The
equation is studied for the diagonal and non-diagonal cases,
and the most general trigonometric solutions are found up to an
overall factor. This factor is then fixed using the boundary
crossing and unitarity conditions \cite{zam} (up to the usual CDD
ambiguity). We then construct an integrable RSOS/SOS model
using the diagonal solution and propose an algebraic Bethe ansatz method
to diagonalize the transfer matrix of the SOS model.
\section{Solutions to the boundary Yang-Baxter equation}
\subsection{Generalities}
In this section we solve the BYBE for the
$\mbox{RSOS}(p)\;;$ $p=3,4\ldots$ scattering theory. The $\mbox{RSOS}(p)$
scattering theory is based on a $(p-1)$~-~fold degenerate vacuum structure,
vacua can be associated with nodes of the ${\cal A}_{p-1}$ Dynkin diagram.
The quasi particles in the scattering theory are kinks that interpolate
neighboring vacua, they can be denoted by non-commutative symbols
$K_{ab}(u)$ where $|a-b|=1$ with $a,b=1,\ldots,p-1$ and
$u$ is related to the the kink
rapidity $\theta$ by $u=-i\theta/p$, so that the physical strip is given by
$0<{\rm Re}\;u<\pi/p$. In the rest of the paper, we will refer to $a,b$
as heights or spins.
Formally, scattering between two kinks can be represented by the following
equation (see Fig.(\ref{f1}))
\begin{equation}
K_{da}(u)K_{ab}(u^{'})=\sum_{c}S^{ab}_{dc}(u-u^{'})
K_{dc}(u^{'})K_{cb}(u)
\end{equation}
where the $S$-matrix is given by
\begin{equation}
S^{ab}_{dc}(u)={\cal U}(u)
\left(\frac{[a][c]}{[d][b]}\right)^{-u/2\gamma}W^{ab}_{dc}(u)
\label{eq:bulk}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
W^{ab}_{dc}(u)=
\left(\sin u \delta_{bd}\left(\frac{[a][c]}{[d][b]}\right)^{1/2}+
\sin(\gamma-u)\delta_{ac}\right)
\end{equation}
satisfies the YBE in the RSOS representation.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\input{face1}
\caption{\label{f1} The bulk RSOS scattering matrix $S^{ab}_{dc}(u-u^{'})$}
\end{figure}
Here $[a]$ denotes the usual $q$-number given by
\[
[a]=\frac{\sin(a\gamma)}{\sin\gamma}\qquad
\gamma=\frac{\pi}{p}
\]
and the overall factor ${\cal U}(u)$ is a product of Gamma functions
satisfying the relations
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\cal U}(u){\cal U}(-u)\sin(\gamma-u) \sin(\gamma+u)&=&1\\
{\cal U}(\gamma-u)&=&{\cal U}(u)\;,
\end{eqnarray*}
and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal U}(u)&=&\frac{1}{\pi}\Gamma\left(\frac{\gamma}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-{u\over{\pi}}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-{\gamma\over{\pi}}+{u\over{\pi}}\right)
\prod^{\infty}_{l=1}{F_l(u)F_l(\gamma-u)\over{F_l(0)F_l(\gamma)}},\nonumber\\
F_l(u)&=&{\Gamma\left({2l\gamma\over{\pi}}-{u\over{\pi}}\right)
\Gamma\left(1+{2l\gamma\over{\pi}}-{u\over{\pi}}\right)\over{
\Gamma\left({(2l+1)\gamma\over{\pi}}-{u\over{\pi}}\right)
\Gamma\left(1+{(2l-1)\gamma\over{\pi}}-{u\over{\pi}}\right)}}\;.\label{eq:fac}
\end{eqnarray}
This factor, together with the overall $q$-number factor, ensures
that the $S$-matrix satisfies both crossing and unitarity
constraints:
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{ab}_{dc}(u)&=&S^{bc}_{ad}(\gamma-u)\\
\sum_{c^{'}}S^{ab}_{dc^{'}}(u)S^{c^{'}b}_{dc}(-u)&=&\delta_{ac}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Consider now the above scattering theory in the presence of a boundary
denoted formally by ${\bf B}_{a}$, then the scattering between the kink and
the boundary is described by the equation
\begin{equation}
K_{ab}(u){\bf B}_{a}=\sum_c R^b_{ac}(u) K_{bc}(-u){\bf B}_{c}
\end{equation}
which can be given a graphical representation shown in Fig.(\ref{f2}). Notice
that in this representation, the boundary naturally carries an RSOS spin.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\input{face2}
\caption{\label{f2} The boundary RSOS scattering matrix $R^b_{ac}(u)$}
\end{figure}
The function $R^{b}_{ac}$ is called the boundary scattering
matrix and satisfies
the BYBE, which in the RSOS representation
takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\sum_{a^{'},b^{'}}R^a_{bb^{'}}(u)S^{ac}_{b^{'}a^{'}}(u^{'}+u)
R^{a'}_{b^{'}b^{''}}(u^{'})S^{a^{'}c}_{b^{''}a^{''}}(u^{'}-u)=}
\nonumber\\
&&
\sum_{a^{'},b^{'}}S^{ac}_{ba^{'}}(u^{'}-u)
R^{a^{'}}_{bb^{'}}(u^{'})S^{a^{'}c}_{b^{'}a^{''}}(u^{'}+u)
R^{a''}_{b^{'}b^{''}}(u)\;. \label{eq:bybe}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation is illustrated graphically in Fig.(\ref{f}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\input{face3}
\caption{\label{f} The boundary Yang-Baxter equation}
\end{figure}
In general, the function $R^{a}_{bc}(u)$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
R^{a}_{bc}(u)={\cal R}(u)\left(\frac{[b][c]}{[a][a]}\right)^{-u/2\gamma}
\left[\delta_{b\neq c}X^{a}_{bc}(u)+\delta_{bc}
\left\{\delta_{b,a+1}U_a(u)+\delta_{b,a-1}D_a(u)\right\}\right]\label
{eq:boundary}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal R}(u)$ has to be determined from the boundary crossing and
unitarity constraints, while $X^{a}_{bc}$ and $U_a,D_a$ have to be
determined from the BYBE. An overall $q$-number factor has also been
multiplied to the above to cancel that from the bulk $S$-matrix
in order to simplify the BYBE.
If $X^{a}_{bc}$ does not vanish, the boundary $R$-matrix describes non-diagonal
scattering process, otherwise the scattering is called diagonal.
Note that due to the restriction
that vacuum assumes value $1,\ldots,p-1$, $X^{1}_{bc},X^{p-1}_{bc},D_1,U_{p-1}$
are not defined. The case $p=3$
has only diagonal scattering, so $X^a_{bc}$ does not exist.
\subsection{Non-diagonal scattering}
We consider the scattering where the off-diagonal component $X^a_{bc}$
is non-vanishing. To start, consider the case $b\neq c\neq b^{''}$ in
eqn.(\ref{eq:bybe}) where the BYBE gives
\begin{equation}
X^a_{a-1,a+1}(u^{'})X^{a+2}_{a+1,a+3}(u)=X^a_{a-1,a+1}(u)
X^{a+2}_{a+1,a+3}(u^{'})\;;2\leq a\leq p-4
\end{equation}
which implies that $X^{a}_{a\pm 1,a\mp 1}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
X^{a}_{a\pm 1,a\mp 1}(u)=h_{\pm}(u)X_{\pm}^{a}
\end{equation}
where $h_{\pm}(u)$ depends only on $u$ and
$X^{a}_{\pm}$ only on $a$.
On the other hand, the case $c=b=b^{''}, a=a^{''}$ gives
\begin{equation}
X^a_{a-1,a+1}(u^{'})X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}(u)=X^a_{a-1,a+1}(u)
X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}(u^{'})\;;2\leq a\leq p-2
\end{equation}
which implies that
\begin{equation}
h_{+}(u^{'})h_{-}(u)=h_{+}(u)h_{-}(u^{'})\;,
\end{equation}
from which we conclude that
\begin{equation}
h_{+}(u)={\rm (const.)}h_{-}(u)\;.
\end{equation}
Absorbing the constant in the above equation into $X^{a}_{-}$ or $X^a_{+}$, we
can make $h_{+}$ equal to $h_{-}$ so that we can absorb
the $h_{\pm}(u)$ into the overall ${\cal R}(u)$ factor and
treat $X^{a}_{bc}$ as $u$ independent from now on.
With this simplification, eqn.(\ref{eq:bybe}) can be broken
down into the following independent equations in addition to the above
two equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{U^{'}_{a}D_{a+2}f_{+}\left(1+f_{-}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)+
D^{'}_{a+2}D_{a+2}f_{-}\left(1+f_{+}{[a+2]\over{[a+1]}}\right)} \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{}+X^{a+2}_{a+1,a+3}X^{a+2}_{a+3,a+1}f_{-}=U_{a}D^{'}_{a+2}f_{+}
\left(1+f_{-}{[a+2]\over{[a+1]}}\right) \nonumber \\
&&\mbox{}+U^{'}_{a}U_{a}f_{-}\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)
+X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}f_{-}\label{eq:s0}
\end{eqnarray}
for $1\leq a\leq p-3$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&D^{'}_{a+1}f_{-}\left(1+f_{+}{[a+1]\over{[a]}}\right)+
U^{'}_{a-1}f_{+}\left(1+f_{-}{[a-1]\over{[a]}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{1cm}}=U_{a-1}f_{+}-U_{a+1}f_{-}\label{eq:s1a}\\
&&\nonumber\\
&&U^{'}_{a}f_{-}\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)+
D^{'}_{a+2}f_{+}\left(1+f_{-}{[a+2]\over{[a+1]}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{1cm}}=D_{a+2}f_{+}-D_{a}f_{-}\label{eq:s1b}
\end{eqnarray}
for $2\leq a\leq p-3$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
&&U^{'}_{a-2}f_{+}f_{-}{[a][a-2]\over{[a-1]^2}}-U^{'}_{a}
+D^{'}_{a}\left(1+f_{-}{[a]\over{[a-1]}}\right)
\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a-1]}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{1cm}}=D_{a}\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a-1]}}\right)
-U_{a}\left(1+f_{-}{[a]\over{[a-1]}}\right)
\label{eq:s2a}\\&&\nonumber \\
&&D^{'}_{a+2}f_{+}f_{-}{[a][a+2]\over{[a+1]^2}}-D^{'}_{a}+
U^{'}_{a}\left(1+f_{-}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)
\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{1cm}}=U_{a}\left(1+f_{+}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)
-D_{a}\left(1+f_{-}{[a]\over{[a+1]}}\right)\label{eq:s2b}
\end{eqnarray}
for $2\leq a\leq p-2$. The last four equations are derived based on
the assumption that the off-diagonal weight $X^a_{bc}$ is {\bf nonvanishing}.
In the above equations, we used a compact notation
where
$U_a=U_a(u),\ U^{'}_a=U_a(u^{'})$ (similarly for $D_a$)
and
\[f_{\pm}=\sin(u^{'}\pm u)/\sin(\gamma-u^{'}\mp u)\;.\]
In addition, it should also be mentioned that the last term
in the rhs (lhs) of eqn.(\ref{eq:s0}) is present only when $a\neq 1 (p-3)$
and the first terms of eqns.(\ref{eq:s2a}) and (\ref{eq:s2b}) are
allowed only for $a\neq 2$ and $a\neq p-2$, respectively. Let us call these
terms that are not supposed to be there the ``unwanted'' terms.
The way to solve these equations is to construct some recursion
relations for the functions $U_a,D_a,X^a_{a\pm 1,a\mp 1}$ and
solve the recursion relations subject to the conditions
that the above mentioned ``unwanted'' terms are zero.
Explicitly, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{1}_{0,2}X^{1}_{2,0}&=X^{p-1}_{p-2,p}X^{p-1}_{p,p-2}&=0\;,\label{eq:bc}\\
U_0&=D_{p}&=0\;.\label{eq:bc2}
\end{eqnarray}
A few comments are in order here. Notice that the coefficients of $U_0$ and
$D_p$ in eqns.(\ref{eq:s2a}), (\ref{eq:s2b}) are $[0]$ and $[p]$ respectively,
which vanish by construction. So in principle, one needs not impose the above
condition, eqn.(\ref{eq:bc2}), for the recursion relations of
$U_a,D_a$. However, we shall see later that a particular solution of
$U_a,D_a$ is given by
\begin{equation}
U_a=-D_a={\rm (const.)}\frac{1}{[a]}
\end{equation}
which cancels the vanishing coefficients at $a=0, p$, and renders the
unwanted terms nonvanishing. Therefore, we have to impose eqn.(\ref{eq:bc2})
on the above solution.
Notice also that most of the above equations do not apply to the case
$p=4$, so we shall deal with this case separately.
{}From the above it is clear that eqns.(\ref{eq:s0})-(\ref{eq:bc}) can be
divided into two parts;
eqn.(\ref{eq:s1b})-eqn.(\ref{eq:s2b}) determine $U_a$ and $D_a$ while
eqns.(\ref{eq:s0}),(\ref{eq:bc}) determine $X^{a}_{bc}$.
Indeed, comparing eqn.(\ref{eq:s1a}) with
eqn.(\ref{eq:s2a}) and similarly eqn.(\ref{eq:s1b}) with
eqn.(\ref{eq:s2b}), we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray}
(D_a^{'}-D_a)\left(1+f_{+}\frac{[a]}{[a-1]}\right)&=&(U^{'}_{a-2}-U_{a-2})
f_{+}\frac{[a]}{[a-1]}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+(U_a^{'}-U_a)\\
(U_a^{'}-U_a)\left(1+f_{+}\frac{[a]}{[a+1]}\right)&=&(D^{'}_{a+2}-D_{a+2})
f_{+}\frac{[a]}{[a+1]}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+(D_a^{'}-D_a)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting one into another, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{(U^{'}_{a+2}-U_{a+2})-(U^{'}_{a}-U_{a})}{(U^{'}_{a}-U_{a})
-(U^{'}_{a-2}-U_{a-2})}&=&\frac{\sin\left((a+1)\gamma+u^{'}+u\right)}
{\sin\left((a-1)\gamma+u^{'}+u\right)}\label{eq:rec1}\\
\frac{(D^{'}_{a+2}-D_{a+2})-(D^{'}_{a}-D_{a})}{(D^{'}_{a}-D_{a})
-(D^{'}_{a-2}-D_{a-2})}&=&\frac{\sin\left((a+1)\gamma-u^{'}-u\right)}
{\sin\left((a-1)\gamma-u^{'}-u\right)}\label{eq:rec2}
\end{eqnarray}
and writing the rhs respectively as
\begin{eqnarray*}
&\frac{\textstyle\cos\left(2u^{'}+(a+1)\gamma\right)
-\cos\left(2u+(a+1)\gamma\right)}
{\textstyle\cos\left(2u^{'}+(a-1)\gamma\right)
-\cos\left(2u+(a-1)\gamma\right)}&\\
&\frac{\textstyle\cos\left(2u^{'}-(a+1)\gamma\right)
-\cos\left(2u-(a+1)\gamma\right)}
{\textstyle\cos\left(2u^{'}-(a-1)\gamma\right)
-\cos\left(2u-(a-1)\gamma\right)}&\;,
\end{eqnarray*}
it is clear that
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{a+2}(u)-U_{a}(u)&=&\cos\left(2u+(a+1)\gamma\right)+\beta^{'}_a\\
D_{a+2}(u)-D_{a}(u)&=&-\cos\left(2u-(a+1)\gamma\right)+\phi^{'}_a
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\beta^{'}_a,\phi^{'}_a$ are unknown functions of $a$ only.
Iterating the above, one finds
\begin{eqnarray}
U_a(u)&\propto&\sin(2u+a\gamma)+\alpha(u)+\beta_a\\
D_a(u)&\propto&\sin(2u-a\gamma)+\gamma(u)+\phi_a
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha(u),\gamma(u)$ are unknown functions of $u$,
and $\beta_a,\phi_a$ of $a$.
Furthermore, from eqns.(\ref{eq:s0})-(\ref{eq:s2b}), one can establish
the following symmetry
\begin{equation}
U_a(u)=-D_a(-u)\;,\label{eq:sym}
\end{equation}
which reduces the number of unknown functions to two, namely,
$\alpha(u)$ and $\beta_a$.
To determine them, we have to substitute the above expressions
for $U_a,D_a$ back into eqns.(\ref{eq:s1a})-(\ref{eq:s2b}).
Notice, however, that
these equations are linear in $U_a,D_a$, so it suffices to consider
$\alpha(u)$ and $\beta_a$ separately. Doing this amounts to finding
special solutions to eqns.(\ref{eq:s1a})-(\ref{eq:s2b}) where
$U_a,D_a$ have only $u$ or $a$ dependence. The solutions are given by
\begin{equation}
\alpha(u)={\rm(const.)}\frac{1}{\sin(2u)}\;,\hspace{2cm}\beta_a={\rm(const.)}\frac{1}{\sin(a\gamma)}
\end{equation}
respectively.
Imposing eqn.(\ref{eq:bc2}) on $\alpha(u),\beta_a$, one finds
\begin{equation}
\beta_a=0\;.
\end{equation}
So far the above $U_a,D_a$ are obtained based on the assumption that
the numerators and denominators of the lhs of
eqns.(\ref{eq:rec1}),(\ref{eq:rec2}) are nonvanishing. In fact, there are
additional solution to these recursion relations where the above mentioned
numerators and denominators vanish;
\begin{eqnarray*}
U_{a+2}(u^{'})-U_{a}(u^{'})-U_{a+2}(u)+U_{a}(u)&=&0\\
D_{a+2}(u^{'})-D_{a}(u^{'})-D_{a+2}(u)+D_{a}(u)&=&0\;.
\end{eqnarray*}
The additional solution is given by
\begin{equation}
U_a(u)={\rm(const.)}\frac{\sin(a\gamma+2u)}{\sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma)}\;,
\hspace{1cm}
D_a(u)={\rm(const.)}\frac{\sin(a\gamma-2u)}{\sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma)}\;.
\end{equation}
However, on imposing the condition eqn.(\ref{eq:bc2}), one finds
that they have to be zero.
In summary, the general non-diagonal solution to the four linear
equations is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
U_a(u)&=&\sin(2u+a\gamma)+{\rm (const.)}\frac{\textstyle 1}
{\textstyle \sin(2u)}
\\
D_{a+1}(u)&=&\sin\left(2u-(a+1)\gamma\right)+{\rm (const.)}\frac{\textstyle 1}
{\textstyle \sin(2u)}
\end{array}\label{eq:udn}
\end{equation}
where $1\leq a\leq p-2$.
Having found $U_a,D_a$, the function $X^a_{bc}$ can be
easily obtained from eqn.(\ref{eq:s0}),
which can be further simplified with the symmetry properties given
in eqn.(\ref{eq:sym}) and taking $u^{'}$ to be $-u$ since $X^a_{bc}$
does not depend on the rapidity. This gives
\[X^{a+2}_{a+1,a+3}X^{a+2}_{a+3,a+1}-X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}
=D_{a+2}(u)U_{a+2}(u)-D_{a}(u)U_a(u)\;.
\]
Substituting $U_a,D_a$ into the rhs and iterating the equations, we get
\begin{equation}
X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}=\sin^2\gamma-\sin^2(a\gamma)\label{eq:xn}
\end{equation}
where the use of eqn.(\ref{eq:bc}) forces the first term to be
$\sin^2\gamma$ and the coefficient of $\frac{1}{\sin(2u)}$ to vanish.
Since this equation determines only the product, $X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}$
and $X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}$ are determined up to a gauge factor.
These solutions have the property that
\begin{equation}
U_{p-a}(u)=-D_a(u)\;,\hspace{1cm}X^{p-a}_{p-a-1,p-a+1}
X^{p-a}_{p-a+1,p-a-1}=X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}\;.
\end{equation}
Next, we consider the BYBE for $p=4$.
The functions $U_2,D_2$ and $X^2_{13},X^2_{31}$ satisfy the following equations
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{2}_{13}(u^{'})X^2_{31}(u)&=&X^{2}_{13}(u)X^{2}_{31}(u^{'})\label{eq:ss0}\\
\lefteqn{U_{2}\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{-}\right)+D_{2}^{'}\left(1+\sqrt{2}
f_{+}\right)\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{-}\right)}\hspace{3cm}\nonumber\\
&=&U_2^{'}+D_{2}\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{+}\right)\\
\lefteqn{D_{2}\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{-}\right)+U_{2}^{'}\left(1+\sqrt{2}
f_{+}\right)\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{-}\right)}\hspace{3cm}\nonumber\\
&=&D_2^{'}+U_{2}\left(1+\sqrt{2}f_{+}\right)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The functions $U_1, D_3$ are diagonal scattering components and
do not couple to the above equations and we shall defer to next
section for their computation.
Here we have used the compact notation introduced earlier for
$U_a, D_a$, and written out explicitly the rapidity dependence of $X^a_{bc}$.
As before, the last two equations have been derived based on the assumption
that $X^2_{13},X^2_{31}$ are nonvanishing. From eqn.(\ref{eq:ss0}), we deduce
that
\begin{equation}
X^2_{13}(u)={\rm (const.)}X^2_{31}(u)\;.
\end{equation}
We are free to take $X^2_{31}$ as unity and the above implies that
$X^2_{13}$ is just a gauge factor, which we call $g$.
The rest of the equations can be turned into ordinary
differential equations in the limit $u^{'}\rightarrow u$,
giving
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\dot{U}_2(u)+\dot{D}_2(u)\right)\tan(2u)+2\left(U_2(u)
+D_2(u)\right)&=&0\\
\left(\dot{U}_2(u)-\dot{D}_2(u)\right)\cot(2u)-2\left(U_2(u)
-D_2(u)\right)&=&0\;,
\end{eqnarray}
which can be integrated to give
\begin{eqnarray}
U_2(u)&=&B/\sin(2u)+C\cos(2u)\\
D_2(u)&=&B/\sin(2u)-C\cos(2u)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
with $B,C$ as free parameters.
This completes the determination of the non-diagonal solutions of the BYBE.
\subsection{Diagonal scattering}
For the diagonal scattering, we take
\begin{equation}
R^{a}_{bc}(u)=([b]/[a])^{-u/\gamma}{\cal R}(u)
\delta_{bc}\left[\delta_{b,a+1}U_a(u)+\delta_{b,a-1}D_a(u)\right]\;,
\end{equation}
and the BYBE is equivalent to a single equation
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{U_{a-1}(u^{'})D_{a+1}(u)\sin(u^{'}+u)
\sin(a\gamma-u^{'}+u)}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+D_{a+1}(u^{'})D_{a+1}(u)\sin(u^{'}-u)
\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}+u)=\nonumber\\
\lefteqn{U_{a-1}(u)D_{a+1}(u^{'})\sin(u^{'}+u)
\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}-u)}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+U_{a-1}(u^{'})U_{a-1}(u)\sin(u^{'}-u)
\sin(a\gamma-u^{'}-u)\;,\label{eq:dia}
\end{eqnarray}
which holds only for $2\leq a\leq p-2$. So the functions $U_{p-2}$
and $D_2$ can not be determined from the BYBE.
The above can be recast into
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{[\cos(a\gamma+2u)Z(u)-\cos(a\gamma-2u)][Z(u^{'})-1]=}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{ }[\cos(a\gamma+2u^{'})Z(u^{'})-\cos(a\gamma-2u^{'})][Z(u)-1]
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[Z_a(u)\equiv D_{a+1}(u)/U_{a-1}(u)\;.\]
One can easily find that the general solution is
\begin{equation}
\frac{D_{a+1}(u)}{U_{a-1}(u)}=\frac{\sin(\xi_a+u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-u)}
{\sin(\xi_a-u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma+u)}\label{eq:ratio}
\end{equation}
where $\xi_a$ is a free parameter.
Thus for the diagonal solution, there are $p-3$ parameters $\xi_a$.
This solution gives $p-1$ distinct diagonal scattering theories of
kinks, each with a specific boundary ${\bf B}_a$. There is one free
parameter $\xi_a$ for each theory, except for the cases of
$a=1,p-1$ where there is no free parameter.
This solution includes a particular case of $p=4$ which has
been omitted earlier.
Further relations from boundary unitarity and crossing symmetry will be
required to disentangle $U_{a-1}$ and $D_{a+1}$, and determine $U_2$
and $D_{p-2}$, see later.
\subsection{Boundary unitarity and crossing symmetry}
The boundary unitarity and crossing symmetry conditions of the scattering
matrix $R^a_{bc}(u)$ determine to some extent the overall factor $R(u)$.
These conditions can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{c}R^{a}_{bc}(u)R^{a}_{cd}(-u)&=&\delta_{bd}\\
\sum_{d}S^{ac}_{bd}(2u)R^{d}_{bc}(\gamma/2+u)&=&R^{a}_{bc}(\gamma/2-u)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Consider the non-diagonal scattering ($p>4$) first.
Substituting the expression for $R^a_{bc}$ into the unitarity
condition, we get the following
\[{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)\left[X^a_{bd}X^a_{db}\delta_{b\neq d}
-U_a(u)D_a(u)\right]=1\]
where use has been made of the symmetry eqn.(\ref{eq:sym}). Applying the
results eqns.(\ref{eq:udn}), (\ref{eq:xn}) to the above leads to
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)\left(\sin^2\gamma-4\sin^2u+4\sin^4u\right)=1\;.
\label{eq:r1}
\end{equation}
While for crossing symmetry condition we get
\begin{equation}
{\cal U}(2u){\cal R}(\gamma/2+u)\sin(\gamma-2u)=
{\cal R}(\gamma/2-u)\label{eq:r2}
\end{equation}
using the relations
\begin{eqnarray}
&&D_{a+2}(\gamma-u){[a+2]\over{[a+1]}}+
U_a(\gamma-u){[a]\over{[a+1]}}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}=f(2u)\left(U_a(u)-U_a(\gamma-u)\right)\\
&&U_a(\gamma-u){[a]\over{[a+1]}}+D_{a+2}(\gamma-u)
{[a+2]\over{[a+1]}}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2cm}=f(2u)\left(D_{a+2}(u)-D_{a+2}(\gamma-u)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
which are obtained from eqn.(\ref{eq:s1b}) in the limit
$u^{'}\rightarrow \gamma-u$. Here $f(u)=\sin u /\sin(\gamma-u)$.
The factor ${\cal R}(u)$ can be determined from eqns.(\ref{eq:r1}),
(\ref{eq:r2}) up to the usual CDD ambiguity by separating
${\cal R}(u)={\cal R}_0(u){\cal R}_1(u)$ where ${\cal R}_0$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
{\cal R}_{0}(u){\cal R}_0(-u)&=&1\\
{\cal U}(2u){\cal R}_0(\gamma/2+u)\sin(\gamma-2u)&=&{\cal R}_0(\gamma/2-u)\;,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
whose minimal solution reads
\begin{equation}
R_0(u)=\frac{F_0(u)}{F_0(-u)}
\end{equation}
where $F_l(u)$ has been given in eqn.(\ref{eq:fac}). While ${\cal R}_1$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ll}
&{\cal R}_1(u){\cal R}_1(-u)\left(\sin^2\gamma-4\sin^2u+4\sin^4u\right)=1\\
&{\cal R}_1(u)={\cal R}_1(\gamma-u)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
with minimum solution
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_1(u)=\frac{1}{2}\sigma(\frac{\gamma}{2},u)\sigma(\frac{\pi-\gamma}{2},u)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
\sigma(x,u)&=&\frac{\textstyle\prod(x,\frac{\gamma}{2}-u)
\prod(-x,\frac{\gamma}{2}-u)
\prod(x,-\frac{\gamma}{2}+u)\prod(-x,-\frac{\gamma}{2}+u)}
{\textstyle\prod^2(x,\frac{\gamma}{2})\prod^2(-x,\frac{\gamma}{2})}\\&&\\
\prod(x,u)&=&\displaystyle\prod_{l=0}^{\infty}
\frac{\textstyle\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+(2l+\frac{1}{2})\frac{\gamma}{\pi}
+\frac{x}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)}
{\textstyle\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+(2l+\frac{3}{2})
\frac{\gamma}{\pi}+\frac{x}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)}\;.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
For $p=4$, the crossing symmetry condition is the same as eqn.(\ref{eq:r2}),
but unitarity now requires that
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)\left(g+C^2\cos^2(2u)-B^2/\sin^2(2u)\right)=1
\end{equation}
These equations can again be solved by separation (see \cite{meahn}
for details).
It should be remarked that there are two parameters in this case while
there is only one in the higher $p$ cases.
Next, we consider the diagonal case. For convenience, we
set the undefined terms $U_{0},D_{p}$ to be zero. Unitarity and
crossing symmetries relations give respectively
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)U_a(u) U_a(-u)&=&1\\
{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)D_{a+1}(u) D_{a+1}(-u)&=&1
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{c}
{\cal U}(\gamma-2u){\cal R}(\gamma-u)
\left[U_a(\gamma-u)\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma+2u)\right.\\
\mbox{ }\left.+D_{a+2}(\gamma-u)\sin(\gamma-2u)
\sin\left((a+2)\gamma\right)\right]
={\cal R}(u)U_a(u)\sin((a+1)\gamma)\\ \\
{\cal U}(\gamma-2u){\cal R}(\gamma-u)
\left[D_{a+1}(\gamma-u)\sin\gamma\sin\left((a+1)\gamma-2u\right)\right.\\
\mbox{ }\left.+U_{a-1}(\gamma-u)\sin(\gamma-2u)
\sin\left((a-1)\gamma\right)\right]
={\cal R}(u)D_{a+1}(u)\sin(a\gamma)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $ 1\leq a\leq p-2$.
These equations can be solved separately; we set
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
{\cal R}(u){\cal R}(-u)&=&1\\
{\cal U}(2u){\cal R}(\gamma/2+u)\sin(\gamma-2u)&=&{\cal R}(\gamma/2-u)\;,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
so that ${\cal R}(u)$ has exactly the same solution as that of ${\cal R}_0(u)$
considered earlier. While $U_a,D_a$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
U_a(u)U_a(-u)&=&1\\
D_{a+1}(u) D_{a+1}(-u)&=&1
\end{array}\;\label{eq:u1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
U_a(\gamma-u)\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma+2u)+D_{a+2}(\gamma-u)
\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\\
\mbox{\hspace{2cm}}=U_a(u)\sin(2u)\sin((a+1)\gamma)\;,\\
D_{a+1}(\gamma-u)\sin\gamma\sin((a+1)\gamma-2u)+U_{a-1}(\gamma-u)
\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin((a-1)\gamma)\\
\mbox{\hspace{2cm}}=D_{a+1}(u)\sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma)\;.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
for $1\leq a\leq p-2$.
Substituting eqn.(\ref{eq:ratio}) into the above
we get a relation between $U_a(u)$
($D_a(u)$) and $U_a(\gamma-u)$ ($D_a(\gamma-u)$);
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\textstyle U_{a-1}(u)}{\textstyle U_{a-1}(\gamma-u)}&=&
\frac{\textstyle \sin(2(\gamma-u))\sin(\xi_a-u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma+u)
}{\textstyle \sin(2u)\sin(\xi_a-(\gamma-u))\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma+(\gamma-u))}\\
&&\\
\frac{\textstyle D_{a+1}(u)}{\textstyle D_{a+1}(\gamma-u)}&=&
\frac{\textstyle \sin(2(\gamma-u))\sin(\xi_a+u)
\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-u)}{\textstyle \sin(2u)
\sin(\xi_a+(\gamma-u))\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-(\gamma-u))}\;.
\end{array}\label{eq:diag2}
\end{equation}
These relations together with eqn.(\ref{eq:u1}) give the minimal
solutions of $U_a(u)$ and $D_a(u)$
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{a-1}(u)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sin 2(\gamma-u)\sin(\xi_a-u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma+u)
\sigma(\gamma,u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}\times\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma,u)
\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\xi_a,u)\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\xi_a-a\gamma,u)
\label{eq:udsol1}\;,\\
D_{a+1}(u)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sin 2(\gamma-u)\sin(\xi_a+u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-u)
\sigma(\gamma,u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}\times\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma,u)
\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\xi_a,u)\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\xi_a-a\gamma,u)\;.
\label{eq:udsol2}
\end{eqnarray}
for $2\leq a\leq p-2$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
U_{p-2}(u)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sin 2(\gamma-u)\sigma(\gamma,u)
\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma,u)\;,\\
D_{2}(u)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sin 2(\gamma-u)\sigma(\gamma,u)
\sigma(\frac{\pi}{2}-\gamma,u)\;.
\end{eqnarray}
To summarize, there are two classes of solutions to the BYBE;
diagonal and non-diagonal. Unlike the solution in vertex representation,
the former is not a special limit of the latter.
In fact, the diagonal solution carries $p-3$ free parameters
while nondiagonal has non.
\subsection{Comments on the SOS model}
We have considered from the start heights take values from $1$ to
$p-1$, which is necessary for the bulk scattering weights to be finite as
the parameter $\pi/\gamma=p$ is a positive integer. When $\pi/\gamma$
is not a rational number, there is no bounds on the heights and the
corresponding representation is known as solid-on-solid (SOS).
The removal of the heights'
restriction certainly affects the solution of the BYBE.
For the diagonal solution,
it is clear that essentially there is no difference
between the SOS and RSOS solution, where the SOS solution is given
by eqns.(\ref{eq:udsol1}),(\ref{eq:udsol2}) for any integer
$a$ and the overall factor ${\cal R}(u)$ is the same as before.
Hence there is a free parameter
for each height.
While for the non-diagonal solution,
the conditions eqns.(\ref{eq:bc}),(\ref{eq:bc2})
of the recursion relations do not apply at
all, thus $\beta_a\neq 0$ and the corresponding diagonal weights are given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lcl}
U_a(u)&=&c_1\sin(2u+a\gamma)+c_2\frac{\textstyle 1}{\textstyle \sin(a\gamma)}
+c_3\frac{\textstyle \sin(a\gamma+2u)}{\textstyle \sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma)}
+c_4\frac{\textstyle 1}{\textstyle \sin(2u)}\\ \\
D_a(u)&=&c_1\sin(2u-a\gamma)-c_2\frac{\textstyle 1}{\textstyle \sin(a\gamma)}
+c_3\frac{\textstyle \sin(a\gamma-2u)}{\textstyle \sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma)}
+c_4\frac{\textstyle 1}{\textstyle \sin(2u)}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $c_i\;;i=1,\ldots,4$ are free parameters. The off-diagonal
weights satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
X^{a}_{a-1,a+1}X^{a}_{a+1,a-1}&=&c^2_0+2c_1c_4\cos(a\gamma)
-c_1^2\sin^2(a\gamma)-c_2^2\frac{1}{\sin^2(a\gamma)} \nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}-2c_2c_3\frac{\cos(a\gamma)}{\sin^2(a\gamma)}
-c_3^2\frac{1}{\sin^2(a\gamma)}
\label{eq:xn1}\;
\end{eqnarray}
and are determined up an additive constant $c_0$.
Of these five free parameters one is an overall factor, so there are
four free parameters in this case. The overall
factor ${\cal R}_0$ is given as before, but ${\cal R}_1(u)$ now contains all the
information of the boundary conditions and has to satisfy
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal R}_1(u){\cal R}_1(-u)\left(c_0^2-c_1^2\sin^2(2u)+2c_1c_2\cos(2u)-
\frac{\textstyle c_3^2+2c_3c_4\cos(2u)+c_4^2}{\textstyle\sin^2(2u)}\right)=1\\
{\cal R}_1(u)={\cal R}_1(\gamma-u)
\end{array}
\end{equation}
whose minimum solution is
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_1(u)=\frac{2\sigma(\vartheta_1,u)\sigma(\vartheta_2,u)
\sigma(\vartheta_3,u)\sigma(\vartheta_4,u)
}{(c_3+c_4)\sigma(0,u)}{\cal S}(u)
\end{equation}
where $\vartheta_i$ are related to $c_i$ via
\begin{eqnarray*}
\prod_{i=1}^4\cos^2\vartheta_1&=&\left(\frac{c_3+c_4}{4c_1}\right)^2\;,\\
\sum_{i<j<k=1}^4\cos^2\vartheta_i\cos^2\vartheta_j\cos^2\vartheta_k
&=&\frac{c_0^2+c_3c_4+2c_1c_2}{4c_1^2}\;,\\
\sum_{i<j=1}^4\cos^2\vartheta_i\cos^2\vartheta_j
&=&\frac{c_0^2+5c_1c_2+4c_1^2}{4c_1^2}\;,\\
\sum_{i=1}^4\cos^2\vartheta_i&=&\frac{c_1c_2+2c_1^2}{c_1^2}
\end{eqnarray*}
and $\sigma(x,u)$ has been given before, while
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}(u)=\prod_{l=0}^{\infty}\frac{\Gamma\left((2l+1)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}
+\frac{u}{\pi}\right)\Gamma\left((2l+2)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}+\frac{u}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-(2l+1)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-(2l+2)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)}
{\Gamma\left((2l+1)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left((2l+2)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}-\frac{u}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-(2l+1)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}+\frac{u}{\pi}\right)
\Gamma\left(1-(2l+2)\frac{\gamma}{\pi}+\frac{u}{\pi}\right)}\;.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to point out that the $c_2,c_3,c_4$ terms in $U_a,D_a$
are related to the boundary $K$-matrix of the 6-vertex model\cite{gon} via
the vertex-SOS intertwiner\cite{bax,zou,men}. In this light, one can
regard the term $c_1$ to be the solution special to the SOS/RSOS
representation of the BYBE. In fact, it is not clear whether there
exist an intertwiner that relate it to the $K$-matrix of the 6-vertex
model. It is then natural to wonder if similar special solution
occur in the elliptic case\cite{hou}.
Also intriguing is that restricting SOS to RSOS corresponds to
\begin{equation}
c_2=c_3=c_4=0,\qquad c_0=c_1\sin(a\gamma)\;.
\end{equation}
\section{Commuting transfer matrix}
Following the technique proposed in \cite{skly} for the vertex model,
one can similarly construct
a family of commuting transfer matrix for the RSOS/SOS model with boundary.
To start, it can be shown that if $R^{a}_{bc}$ is a solution to the
BYBE in the RSOS/SOS form then the following combination
\begin{equation}
\sum_a S^{fe}_{ba}(u-u_1)S^{ae}_{cd}(u+u_1)R^a_{bc}(u)
\end{equation}
also satisfies the BYBE, where $S^{fe}_{ba}(u)$ is the solution of the
bulk YBE given in eqn.(\ref{eq:bulk}) and $u_1$ is an arbitrary parameter.
The proof is essentially the same as the vertex case
given in \cite{skly} and we shall not repeat it here.
It is convenient
to think of the BYBE as the defining relation of some associative
algebra generated by the symbol $R^a_{bc}$. So the solutions given in the
previous section correspond to particular representations of this
algebra where the ``quantum space'' is trivial and the auxiliary space
is the space of a one-step path ${\cal P}_1$ on a truncated Bratteli
diagram with $ab$ and $ac$ being in- and out-state, respectively.
In this context, the above ``decorated'' solution then corresponds
to a representation
whose quantum space is isomorphic to ${\cal P}_1$ that is formed by
the nodes $f,b$ ($d,c$). Clearly, the above construction can be
repeated for an arbitrary number
of times (say $N+1$) giving a boundary $R$-matrix that acts on ${\cal P}_{N}$,
the collection of $N$-step paths on a truncated Bratteli diagram.
We shall denote such a solution as ${\bf R}^{a}_{bc}$ which should be
regarded as an operator acting on ${\cal P}_{N}$.
Its matrix element is explicitly given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf R}^a_{bc}(u)_{a_0,\cdots,a_{N};a^{''}_0,\cdots,
a^{''}_{N}}&=&\delta_{aa^{'}_N}\delta_{b a_N}
\delta_{ca^{''}_N}\prod_{i=1}^N\sum_{a^{'}_{i-1}}
\left( S^{a_ia^{'}_i}
_{a_{i-1}a^{'}_{i-1}}(u-u_i)\right.\nonumber\\
&&{}\times\left.S^{a^{'}_{i-1}a^{'}_i}_{a^{''}_{i-1}
a^{''}_{i}}(u+u_i)\right)R^{a^{'}_{0}}_{a_{0}
a^{''}_{0}}(u)\label{eq:matrix}
\end{eqnarray}
which has the graphical representation given in Fig.(\ref{f4}).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\input{face4}
\caption{\label{f4} ``Decorated" boundary scattering matrix}
\end{figure}
It carries $N$ parameters $u_i$ from the bulk $S$-matrices and
additional ones from $R^a_{bc}$.
To form a commuting transfer
matrix out of ${\bf R}^a_{bc}$, like in the vertex case, one has to
combine it with another BYBE solution (denoted here as $\tilde{R}$) as follows
\begin{equation}
{\bf T}(u)_{a_0,\cdots,a_{N};a^{''}_0,\cdots,
a^{''}_N}\equiv \sum_{a,b,c}\tilde{R}^{a}_{cb}(u)
{\bf R}^a_{b,c}(u)_{a_0,\cdots,
a_N;a^{''}_0,\cdots,a^{''}_N}\;. \label{eq:transfer}
\end{equation}
Hence the transfer matrix ${\bf T}(u)$ is again an operator
acting on ${\cal P}_{N}$.
To show that
\[[{\bf T}(u),{\bf T}(u^{'})]=0\;,\]
one inserts four bulk $S$-matrices using the unitarity condition
\[\sum_{\alpha}S^{ac}_{b\alpha}(u^{'}+u) S^{\alpha c}_{bd}(-u^{'}-u)\propto
\delta_{ac}\;,\]
and the crossing-unitarity condition
\[\sum_{\alpha}S^{b\alpha}_{cd}(u^{'}+u)
S^{d\alpha}_{ab}(\gamma-u+\gamma-u^{'})\propto
\delta_{ac}\;,\]
into ${\bf T}(u){\bf T}(u^{'})$. Then, one uses the BYBE to permute the
${\bf R}$'s, and the $\tilde{R}$'s. Because of the argument
$\gamma-u+\gamma-u^{'}$ that appears in the crossing-unitarity condition,
one can take
\begin{equation}
\tilde{R}^{a}_{bc}(u)\equiv R^a_{bc}(\gamma-u)\label{eq:rbm}\;.
\end{equation}
\section{Diagonalization of the Transfer matrix}
So far, we managed to obtain solutions to the BYBE and construct the
corresponding commuting transfer matrix. It would be necessary
to diagonalize the transfer matrix in order to study the
statistical models given by these solutions. For applications
to field theory, diagonalization of the transfer matrix is also
needed in order to write down the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz equation.
For this purpose,
a systematic approach generalizing the algebraic Bethe ansatz for the case of
the periodic boundary condition has been devised in \cite{skly}.
However, the method
relies upon the conservation of the $S^z$ in the vertex language
and is thus applicable only to diagonal boundary scattering theories.
Therefore, we shall consider only the diagonal scattering solution
and adapt the algebraic Bethe ansatz method devised in \cite{skly},
along the line of \cite{devg}, to the SOS model with boundary.
The algebraic Bethe ansatz relies upon the existence of some pseudo-vacuum,
which in the vertex model, is a state with either all spins equal to $1/2$
or $-1/2$. In the SOS model, such a state corresponds to a
path which takes the form of a $45^{\rm o}$-oriented straight line in the
Bratteli diagram.
It is obvious that some heights on such a path,
for lattice size $N$ large enough ($>p$), have to exceed the
bounds $1$ or $p-1$. Therefore, this pseudo-vacuum
does not belong to the {\bf truncated} Bratteli diagram and
the algebraic Bethe ansatz that we are going to use is applicable to
the SOS model only.
For consistency, we have to assume that $\gamma/\pi$ is an irrational number.
To diagonalize the transfer matrix given in eqn.(\ref{eq:transfer}), we
have to first write down the algebraic relations satisfied
by ${\bf R}^a_{bc}$.
As before, we express the operator ${\bf R}^a_{bc}$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf R}^{a}_{bc}(u)&=&{\cal R}_N(u)\left(\frac{[b][c]}{[a][a]}\right)^{-u/2\gamma}
\prod_{j=2}^{N}\left(\frac{[a_j^{''}]}{[a_j]}\right)^{(u_j-u_{j-1})/2\gamma}
\left(\delta_{b\neq c}{\bf X}^{a}_{bc}(u)\right. \nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{2cm}}\left.+\delta_{bc}
(\delta_{b,a+1}{\bf U}_a(u)+\delta_{b,a-1}{\bf D}_a(u))\right)
\label{eq:operator}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\[{\cal R}_N(u)={\cal R}(u)\prod_{i=1}^{N}{\cal U}(u-u_i){\cal U}(u+u_i)\;,\]
which, along with $q$-number factors, ensures the boundary crossing
and unitarity symmetry of ${\bf R}^a_{bc}$.
Here ${\bf X}^a_{bc},{\bf U}_a,{\bf D}_a$ are now
non-commutative operators that satisfy the algebraic
relations encoded by the BYBE. (see appendix)
Because $\tilde{R}^a_{bc}$ is diagonal, the commuting transfer matrix
can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf T}(u)&=&{\cal R}(\gamma-u){\cal R}_N(u)\prod_{j=1}^{N-1}
\left(\frac{[a_j^{''}]}{[a_j]}\right)^{(u_j-u_{j+1})/2\gamma}
\left(\frac{[b-1]}{[b]}U_{b-1}(\gamma-u){\bf U}_{b-1}(u)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{\hspace{2cm}}\left.+
\frac{[b+1]}{[b]}D_{b+1}(\gamma-u){\bf D}_{b+1}(u)\right)\;.\label{eq:comtran}
\end{eqnarray}
It is important to bear in mind that the RSOS heights
$a_{0},a_{0}^{''}$ on the ``bottom''
boundary (see Fig.(\ref{f4})) are set to be the same
since we consider only diagonal scattering.
Let us denote them as $a$, while the heights
on the other boundary are taken to be $b$ as evident from the above equation.
Hence the statistical model associated with the transfer matrix is
the one defined on a square lattice whose boundary heights are shown
in Fig.(\ref{f5}), where heights denoted by open-circles are summed over.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\input{face5}
\caption{\label{f5} Lattice generated by the transfer matrix }
\end{figure}
Consider the column of heights in Fig.(\ref{f4})
where $a_j=a+j$ and denote this state as $\omega_a^{a+N}$.
By construction, $\omega_a^{a+N}$ is an
eigenstate of ${\bf U}_{a+N-1}(u)$ and ${\bf D}_{a+N+1}(u)$
since the top and bottom heights of ${\bf U}_{a+N-1}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}$ and
${\bf D}_{a+N+1}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}$ are $a+N$ and $a$ respectively.
Furthermore, it is annihilated by ${\bf X}^{a+N+1}_{a+N+2,a+N}(u)$ due to the
constraint that neighboring heights differ by $\pm 1$.
Explicitly,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U}_{a+N-1}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}&=&{\cal U}_{a}^{N}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}\nonumber\\
{\bf D}_{a+N+1}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}&=&{\cal D}_{a}^{N}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}\nonumber\\
{\bf X}^{a+N+1}_{a+N+2,a+N}(u)\omega_a^{a+N}&=&0
\end{eqnarray}
where the eigenvalues are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal U}_a^N(u)&=&\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left(\prod_{i=j+1}^{N}{\cal A}_{a+i}(u_i)
\right){\cal B}_{a+j}(u_j)\left(\prod_{k=1}^{j-1}{\cal C}_{a+k}(u_k)\right)
D_{a+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+\prod_{j=1}^{N}{\cal A}_{a+j}(u_j)U_{a-1}(u)\nonumber\\
{\cal D}_a^N(u)&=&\prod_{j=1}^{N}{\cal C}_{a+j}(u_i)D_{a+1}(u)
\end{eqnarray}
with
\[\begin{array}{lll}
{\cal A}_{a+i}(u_i)&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle \sin((a+i)\gamma)
\sin((a+i-2)\gamma)\sin(u-u_i)\sin(u+u_i)}
{\textstyle \sin^2((a+i-1)\gamma)}\\
{\cal B}_{a+i}(u_i)&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle\sin^2\gamma
\sin((a+i-1)\gamma+u-u_i)
\sin((a+i-1)\gamma+u+u_i)}{\textstyle\sin^2((a+i-1)\gamma)}\\
{\cal C}_{a+i}(u_i)&\equiv&\sin(\gamma-u+u_i)\sin(\gamma-u-u_i)
\end{array}\]
and $U_{a-1}(u),D_{a+1}(u)$ are given by
eqns.(\ref{eq:udsol1}),(\ref{eq:udsol2}).
The state ${\bf X}^{a+N-1}_{a+N-2,a+N}(\lambda)\omega_a^{a+N}$ is
non-zero, which
corresponds to a column of spins where the ``bottom'' and ``top'' spins
have heights $a$ and $a+N-2$ respectively.
So to obtain a state whose top spin has height
given by $b$, one has to act on $\omega_a^{a+N}$ successively
with $M\equiv (N+a-b)/2$ operators
${\bf X}^{a+N-i}_{a+N-i-1,a+N-i+1}(\lambda_i)\;\;,i=1,\cdots,M$.
We shall denote such a state as
\begin{equation}
\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})\equiv {\bf X}^{b+1}_{b,b+2}(\lambda_1)
\cdots{\bf X}^{a+N-1}_{a+N-2,a+N}(\lambda_M)\omega_a^{a+N}\label{eq:state}
\end{equation}
which is the Bethe ansatz state, and the set of parameters
$\vec{\lambda}\equiv (\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_{M})$ have to
satisfy some consistency
condition necessary for $\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})$ to be an eigenstate of the
transfer matrix. Notice that $M$ is always an integer fixed by the
heights $a,b$ and $N$.
The algebraic relations among ${\bf X}^a_{a\pm 1,a\mp 1}, {\bf U}_a,{\bf D}_a$
necessary for our purpose are (see Appendix)
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf U}_{a-1}(u^{'}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u)&=&g_{1a}(u^{'},u)
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u){\bf U}_{a+1}(u^{'})
+g_{2a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf U}_{a+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&+&g_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf D}_{a+3}(u)
+g_{4a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u){\bf D}_{a+3}(u^{'})\nonumber\\
{\bf D}_{a+1}(u^{'}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u)&=&f_{1a}(u^{'},u)
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u){\bf D}_{a+1}(u^{'})
+f_{2a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf D}_{a+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&+&f_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf U}_{a+1}(u)\;,
\label{eq:nuse1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
g_{1a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin(a\gamma)\sin((a+1)\gamma)
\sin(\gamma-u^{'}+u)\sin(2\gamma-u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
g_{2a}(u^{'},u)&=&\frac{\sin\gamma\sin((a+1)\gamma)
\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}-u)\sin(2\gamma-u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
g_{3a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin\gamma\sin((a+1)\gamma)
\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}+u)\sin(2\gamma-u^{'}+u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
g_{4a}(u^{'},u)&=&\frac{\sin\gamma\sin(2\gamma)
\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}+u)\sin((a+1)\gamma+u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
f_{1a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin(u^{'}+u)
\sin(\gamma+u^{'}-u)}
{\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
f_{2a}(u^{'},u)&=&\frac{\sin\gamma\sin(u^{'}+u)
\sin((a+2)\gamma-u^{'}+u)}
{\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
f_{3a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin\gamma\sin((a+2)\gamma-u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)}\\
\end{eqnarray*}
The action of the transfer matrix on the state
$\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})$ can be
evaluated by commuting ${\bf U}_{b-1}(u)$ and ${\bf D}_{b+1}(u)$
through ${\bf X}^{a+N-i}_{a+N-i-1,a+N+i-1}(\lambda_i)$. However, the presence
of the $g_{4a}(u^{'},u)$ term in the
first commutation relation complicates matters considerably.
Like the vertex case, it is desirable to define a new operator
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\bf U}_{a-1}(u)\equiv {\bf U}_{a-1}(u)+h_a(u){\bf D}_{a+1}(u)
\end{equation}
with
\[h_a(u)=-\frac{\sin\gamma\sin((a-1)\gamma+2u)}{\sin((a-1)\gamma)
\sin(\gamma-2u)}\;.\]
so that
the operators $\tilde{\bf U}_{a-1}(u),{\bf D}_{a+1}(u)$ satisfy
simplified relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\bf U}_{a-1}(u^{'}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u)&=&\alpha_{1a}(u^{'},u)
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u)\tilde{\bf U}_{a+1}(u^{'})
+\alpha_{2a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'})
\tilde{\bf U}_{a+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+\alpha_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf D}_{a+3}(u)\\
{\bf D}_{a+1}(u^{'}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u)&=&\beta_{1a}(u^{'},u)
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u){\bf D}_{a+1}(u^{'})
+\beta_{2a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf D}_{a+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+\beta_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'})
\tilde{\bf U}_{a+1}(u)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha_{1a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin(a\gamma)\sin((a+1)\gamma)
\sin(\gamma-u^{'}+u)\sin(2\gamma-u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
\alpha_{2a}(u^{'},u)&=&\frac{\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma)
\sin((a+1)\gamma+u^{'}-u)\sin(2\gamma-2u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-2u^{'})\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
\alpha_{3a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma)
\sin(2u)\sin(a\gamma+u^{'}+u)\sin(2\gamma-2u^{'})}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+1)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(\gamma-2u^{'})}\\
\beta_{1a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin(u^{'}+u)
\sin(\gamma+u^{'}-u)}
{\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
\beta_{2a}(u^{'},u)&=&\frac{\sin\gamma\sin(2u)
\sin((a+1)\gamma-u^{'}+u)}
{\sin((a+1)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}\\
\beta_{3a}(u^{'},u)&=&-\frac{\sin\gamma\sin((a+2)\gamma-u^{'}-u)}
{\sin((a+2)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)}\;.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover the eigenvalue $\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(u)$ of $\tilde{\bf U}_{a-1}(u)$
on $\omega_a^{a+N}$ is much simplified and given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(u)=-\frac{\sin(a\gamma)\sin(2u)
\sin(\xi_a+(a-1)\gamma+u)\sin(\xi_a+\gamma-u)}
{\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma+u)
\sin(\xi_a-u)}\prod_{j=1}^N {\cal A}_{a+j}(u_j)U_{a-1}(u)
\end{equation}
where use has been made of the relation
\begin{equation}
{\cal B}_{a+i}(u_i)+h_{a+i}(u){\cal C}_{a+i}(u_i)=h_{a+i-1}(u)
{\cal A}_{a+i}(u_i).
\end{equation}
Another important relation we need is
\begin{equation}
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u){\bf X}^{a+3}_{a+2,a+4}(u^{'})=
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}(u^{'}){\bf X}^{a+3}_{a+2,a+4}(u)
\end{equation}
which implies that the Bethe ansatz state $\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})$ is a
symmetric function in the $\lambda_i$'s, which is useful in obtaining
the Bethe ansatz equation.
It is now straight forward to compute the action of
$\tilde{\bf U}_{b-1}(u),{\bf D}_{b+1}(u)$ on $\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})$ giving
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
\tilde{\bf U}_{b-1}(u)\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})&=\alpha_{1b}(u,\lambda_1)
\alpha_{1b+2}(u,\lambda_2)\cdots\alpha_{1 a+N-2}(u,\lambda_{M})
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(u)\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})\\
+&\left[\alpha_{2b}(u,\lambda_1)\alpha_{1b+2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)
\cdots\alpha_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_{M})
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(\lambda_1)\right.\\
+&\left.\alpha_{3b}(u,\lambda_1)\beta_{1b+2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)
\cdots\beta_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_{M})
{\cal D}_a^N(\lambda_1)\right]\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_1)\\
+&\cdots\\
+&\left[\alpha_{2b}(u,\lambda_M)\alpha_{1b+2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_2)
\cdots\alpha_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_{M-1})
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(\lambda_M)\right.\\
+&\left.\alpha_{3b}(u,\lambda_M)\beta_{1b+2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_2)
\cdots\beta_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_{M-1})
{\cal D}_a^N(\lambda_M)\right]\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_M)\\
\end{array}\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rl}
{\bf D}_{b+1}(u)\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})&=\beta_{1b}(u,\lambda_1)
\beta_{1b+2}(u,\lambda_2)\cdots\beta_{1 a+N-2}(u,\lambda_{M})
{\cal D}_a^N(u)\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})\\
+&\left[\beta_{2b}(u,\lambda_1)\beta_{1b+2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)
\cdots\beta_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_{M})
{\cal D}_a^N(\lambda_1)\right.\\
+&\left.\beta_{3b}(u,\lambda_1)\alpha_{1b+2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)
\cdots\alpha_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_{M})
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(\lambda_1)\right]\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_1)\\
+&\cdots\\
+&\left[\beta_{2b}(u,\lambda_M)\beta_{1b+2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_2)
\cdots\beta_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_{M-1})
{\cal D}_a^N(\lambda_M)\right.\\
+&\left.\beta_{3b}(u,\lambda_M)\alpha_{1b+2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_2)
\cdots\alpha_{1 a+N-2}(\lambda_M,\lambda_{M-1})
\tilde{\cal U}_a^N(\lambda_M)\right]\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_M)\;,\\
\end{array}\end{equation}
where the state $\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_i)$ is defined as in
eqn.(\ref{eq:state}) with $\lambda_i$ replaced by $u$. Combining the above
in the transfer matrix (see eqn.(\ref{eq:comtran})),
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf T}(u)&\propto&\frac{\sin(2\gamma-2u)
\sin(\xi_b-u)\sin(\xi_b+b\gamma+u)D_{b+1}(\gamma-u)}
{\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin(\xi_b+\gamma-u)\sin(\xi_b+(b-1)\gamma+u)}
{\bf D}_{b+1}(u)\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{}+\frac{\sin((b-1)\gamma) U_{b-1}(\gamma-u)}{\sin(b\gamma)}
\tilde{\bf U}_{b-1}(u)\;,
\end{eqnarray}
the state $\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda})$ is an
eigenstate of the transfer matrix if the coefficients of
$\psi_a^b(\vec{\lambda};\lambda_i),\;i=1,\cdots,M$ vanish, which
gives the following Bethe ansatz equation to be satisfied
for $\lambda_i$'s
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l} \displaystyle
\frac{\textstyle\sin(\xi_b-\gamma+\lambda_i)\sin(\xi_b+(b+1)\gamma-\lambda_i)
\sin(\xi_a+\gamma-\lambda_i)\sin(\xi_a+(a-1)\gamma+\lambda_i)}
{\textstyle\sin(\xi_b-\lambda_i)\sin(\xi_b+b\gamma+\lambda_i)
\sin(\xi_a+\lambda_i)\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-\lambda_i)}\\ \\
= \displaystyle\prod_{\begin{array}{ccc} \scriptstyle
j&\scriptstyle =&\scriptstyle 1\\\scriptstyle j&\scriptstyle \neq&
\scriptstyle i\end{array}}^{M}
\frac{\textstyle\sin(\lambda_i+\lambda_j)\sin(\gamma
+\lambda_i-\lambda_j)}{\textstyle\sin(2\gamma-\lambda_i-\lambda_j)
\sin(\gamma-\lambda_i+\lambda_j)}\prod_{k=1}^{N}
\frac{\textstyle\sin(\gamma-\lambda_i+u_k)
\sin(\gamma-\lambda_i-u_k)}{\textstyle\sin(\lambda_i-u_k)
\sin(\lambda_i+u_k)}\;,\\ \hspace{8cm}\mbox{ for } i=1,\cdots,M
\end{array}\label{eq:bae}
\end{equation}
and the eigenvalue $\Lambda_a^b(u,\vec{u};\vec{\lambda})$ of the
transfer matrix
is given by
\begin{equation}\begin{array}{rcl}
\displaystyle\Lambda_a^b(u,\vec{u};\vec{\lambda})&=&{\cal R}(\gamma-u){\cal R}_N(u)
U_{b-1}(\gamma-u)D_{a+1}(u)\\
&&\displaystyle\times\left(\frac{\sin(2\gamma-2u)\sin(\xi_b-u)
\sin(\xi_b+b\gamma+u)}{\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin(\xi_b-\gamma+u)
\sin(\xi_b+(b+1)\gamma-u)}\right.\\
&&\displaystyle\times\prod_{i=1}^{M}\frac{\sin(u+\lambda_i)
\sin(\gamma+u-\lambda_i)}{\sin(\lambda_i-u)
\sin(\gamma-u-\lambda_i)}\prod_{k=1}^N\sin(\gamma-u+u_k)\sin(\gamma-u-u_k)\\
&-&\displaystyle\frac{\sin(2u)\sin(\xi_a+\gamma-u)
\sin(\xi_a+(a-1)\gamma+u)}{\sin(\gamma-2u)\sin(\xi_a+u)
\sin(\xi_a+a\gamma-u)}\\
&&\displaystyle\left.\times\prod_{i=1}^{M}\frac{\sin(u+\lambda_i-2\gamma)
\sin(\gamma-u+\lambda_i)}{\sin(u-\lambda_i)\sin(\gamma-u-\lambda_i)}
\prod_{k=1}^N\sin(u-u_k)\sin(u+u_k)\right)\;\label{eq:eigen}
\end{array}\end{equation}
In the above analysis, $\xi_a$ and $\xi_b$ are respectively the free parameters
associated with the boundary $R$-matrices at the bottom and top boundaries.
They need not be related at all, hence more generally one should write them as
$\xi_{a}^{-}$ and $\xi_b^{+}$ to distinguish their origins.
\section{Discussion and open problems}
In this paper, we present the general trigonometric RSOS/SOS solution to the
BYBE. By comparing them with the corresponding solution in the
vertex representation, one may be able to obtain useful information about
the vertex-SOS transformation matrix for the BYBE \cite{zou}. Indeed,
for the diagonal solution, in the limit $\xi_a\rightarrow\pm i\infty$,
$U_{a-1}$ and $D_{a+1}$ are equal so they contribute as an overall factor
for the transfer matrix, since each bulk weight $S_{db}^{ac}$ is invariant
under the action of the quantum group ${\rm U}_q sl(2)$ symmetry
($q=e^{i\gamma}$), the transfer matrix possesses the quantum symmetry.
In this limit, the vertex-SOS transformation \cite{pas} is well known
and has a precise meaning in terms of the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients of
${\rm U}_q sl(2)$. Thus for generic $\xi_a$, the vertex-SOS transformation
can be considered as an extension of that of the ${\rm U}_q sl(2)$ case.
The SOS/RSOS solutions indicate that the diagonal solution is
not a special case of non-diagonal solution, in particular, there
is no way of adjusting the free parameters to make all the off-diagonal
scattering weights $X^a_{bc}$ vanish. The diagonal solution is the
most favorable case to be studied as we have demonstrated how
the transfer matrix of the SOS lattice built up from this solution
may be diagonalized. On the other hand, it is not obvious how such
method can be applied to the RSOS case. In the limit
$\pi/\gamma$ becomes a rational number, solutions to the Bethe ansatz
equation for the SOS model should contain those for the
RSOS. However, except at the special point where there
is a ${\rm U}_qsl(2)$ symmetry \cite{dev2}, it is not
clear how the RSOS solutions may be extracted. It would be an interesting
challenge to extend the idea to any $\xi_a$. The RSOS model
is indeed a very interesting case to consider; it has been shown that for
a different geometry where bulk faces are oriented at an angle $45^{\rm o}$
with respective to the boundaries, the
RSOS boundary condition where all spins have height $a$ corresponds in the
continuum limit to the boundary conformal state $|\tilde{h}_{1,a}\rangle$
and that with all boundary spins and their neighbors have
respectively heights $a,a+1$ corresponds to $|\tilde{h}_{a,1}\rangle$
\cite{bau}. The lattice model that we considered has a different gemeotry
from that in \cite{bau}, however, we believe that the difference is
not significant in the scaling limit. Then the former boundary condition
in fact can be obtained as the $\xi_a\rightarrow\pm i\infty$ limit
of the RSOS diagonal solution since the weights $U_{a-1},D_{a+1}$ become
the same. While the latter boundary condition can be obtained with
$\xi_a=u$. So for generic $\xi_a$, the RSOS diagonal solution is in
fact a mixture of the two above-mentioned boundary conditions and
it would be interesting to examine which boundary conformal state it
corresponds to in the scaling limit. Similarly, the non-diagonal solution,
which gives to some extent a free boundary-like condition, may correspond
to boundary conformal state $|\tilde{h}_{r,s}\rangle$ with $r,s\neq 1$
\cite{card} in the scaling limit.
As a scattering theory, our results should be related to
the conformal boundary conditions of the boundary minimal CFT
and perturbations by relevant operators
in the bulk and on the boundary. The non-diagonal solution, which has no
free parameter, can be interpreted as the bulk
$\Phi_{13}$ perturbation of the CFT with
free boundary condition where all possible spins are allowed on the boundary.
Additional integrable boundary perturbations introduce CDD-like factor
in the scattering amplitudes.
Each diagonal solution describes a perturbed CFT
with a fixed boundary condition where the boundary ${\bf B}_a$
has fixed spin $a$. The parameter $\xi_a$ in the solution should be related
to the coupling constant of the boundary perturbing field.
It is an open problem to relate our solutions to the specific
conformal boundary conditions and boundary perturbations of generic
minimal CFTs. The case $p=4$ has been analyzed in \cite{chim}.
One can also generalize our results to the coset CFTs
${\rm SU}(2)_k\otimes {\rm SU}(2)_l/{\rm SU}(2)_{k+l}$ perturbed by
the least relevant operator in the bulk and by some boundary fields.
The bulk-scattering matrices are given by
\[ S=S_{{\rm RSOS}(k+2)}\otimes S_{{\rm RSOS}(l+2)}\;,\]
where $S_{{\rm RSOS}(p)}$ is the RSOS $S$-matrix of the kinks.
In this theory, particles carry two sets of RSOS spins
and can be represented as
$\vert K_{ab}\rangle\otimes\vert K_{a^{'}b^{'}}\rangle$ \cite{bl}.
For the BYBE eqn.(\ref{eq:bybe}) with the above bulk scattering matrix,
the boundary $R$-matrix given by
\[ R=R_{{\rm RSOS}(k+2)}\otimes R_{{\rm RSOS}(l+2)}\;,\]
is a solution, where $R_{{\rm RSOS}(p)}$ is the $R$-matrix
given in eqn.(\ref{eq:boundary}). In particular, with $k=2$, this
is the $N=1$ super CFTs with boundary perturbed by the least relevant
operator and the $R$-matrix
is given by that of the tri-critical Ising model tensored with that of the
RSOS.
To answer some of the questions raised, finding the Bethe ansatz equation
and diagonalizing the transfer matrix for the RSOS case are the essential
first step. It is quite likely that one needs an alternative method
such as functional approach for this purpose.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We thank A. LeClair who collaborated in the early stage of this work
and H. Saleur for many useful discussion, WMK also
acknowledges valuable discussion with P.Pearce. CA is supported
in part by KOSEF 95-0701-04-01-3, 961-0201-006-2
and BSRI 95-2427 and WMK by a grant from KOSEF
through CTP/SNU.
\section*{Note added in proof}
After completing this work, we learned that some of the results
presented in section 2, 3 have also been independently
obtained in \cite{pea,hou} as their trigonometric limit.
\section*{Appendix}
We present here the complete set of algebraic relations satisfied by
the operators ${\bf X}^{a}_{bc}(u)$, ${\bf U}_a(u)$, ${\bf D}_a(u)$.
These relations are obtained from the BYBE using
eqn.(\ref{eq:operator}) for the boundary scattering matrix.
Expanding the BYBE equation and considering the various allowed heights, we
get
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{1a}(u_{+})c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
+c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}
+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}\\
\mbox{}=c_{1a}(u_{+})c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}{\bf U}_{a-1}
+c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}
+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}{\bf U}_{a-1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{2a}(u_{+})c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
+c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}
+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}\\
\mbox{}=c_{2a}(u_{+})c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}{\bf D}_{a+1}
+c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}
+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}{\bf D}_{a+1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{1a}f_{-}(u_{+}){\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
+c_{2a}f_{+}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
+f_{-}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}\\
\mbox{}=c_{2a}f_{-}(u_{+}){\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}{\bf D}_{a+1}
+c_{1a}f_{+}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}{\bf D}_{a+1}
+f_{-}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{2a}f_{-}(u_{+}){\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
+c_{1a}f_{+}(u_{-}){\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
+f_{-}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}\\
\mbox{}=c_{1a}f_{-}(u_{+}){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}{\bf U}_{a-1}
+c_{2a}f_{+}(u_{-}){\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}{\bf U}_{a+1}
+f_{-}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{2a-2}(u_{+}){\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}
+{\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}=c_{2a-2}(u_{+}){\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}
{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}\\
\mbox{ }+{\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{1a+2}(u_{+}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}
+{\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}=
c_{1a+2}(u_{+}){\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}\\
\mbox{ }+{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}{\bf D}_{a+1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf X}^{a}_{a-1,a+1}{\bf X}^{'a+2}_{a+1,a+3}=
{\bf X}^{'a}_{a-1,a+1}{\bf X}^{a+2}_{a+1,a+3}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf D}_{a-1}^{'}
+c_{1a}(u_{+}){\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}
=c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf D}_{a-1}\\
\mbox{}+c_{1a}(u_{+})c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf U}^{'}_{a+1}
+c_{2a}(u_{+}){\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}
=c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}{\bf U}_{a+1}\\
\mbox{ }+c_{2a}(u_{+})c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf D}^{'}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}
+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}
\end{array}\label{eq:use1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf U}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}
+c_{2a}(u_{+})c_{2a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf D}^{'}_{a+1}\\
\mbox{ }+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}
={\bf U}^{'}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}+c_{2a}(u_{+}){\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}
{\bf D}_{a+1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf D}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}
+c_{1a}(u_{+})c_{1a}(u_{-}){\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}{\bf U}^{'}_{a-1}\\
\mbox{ }+c_{3a}(u^{'},u){\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
={\bf D}^{'}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}+c_{1a}(u_{+})
{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf U}_{a-1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
f_{+}{\bf U}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}=f_{-}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a,a+2}
{\bf U}_{a+1}+c_{1a}(u_{-})f_{+}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}\\
\mbox{ }+c_{2a}(u_{+})f_{-}{\bf D}^{'}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a,a+2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
f_{+}{\bf D}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}=f_{-}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a,a-2}
{\bf D}_{a-1}+c_{2a}(u_{-})f_{+}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}\\
\mbox{ }+c_{1a}(u_{+})f_{-}{\bf U}^{'}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a,a-2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
f_{-}{\bf U}_{a+1}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}+c_{1a}(u_{-})f_{+}
{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf U}_{a-1}^{'}+
c_{2a}(u_{+})f_{-}{\bf X}^{a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf D}^{'}_{a+1}\\
\mbox{ }=f_{+}{\bf X}^{'a+1}_{a+2,a}{\bf U}_{a-1}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
f_{-}{\bf D}_{a-1}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}+
c_{2a}(u_{-})f_{+}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf D}_{a+1}^{'}
+c_{1a}(u_{+})f_{-}{\bf X}^{a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf U}^{'}_{a-1}\\
\mbox{ }=f_{+}{\bf X}^{'a-1}_{a-2,a}{\bf D}_{a+1}\label{eq:use2}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where
\[\begin{array}{lll}
c_{1a}(u)&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma-u)}
{\textstyle\sin(a\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u)}\\
c_{2a}(u)&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle\sin\gamma\sin(a\gamma+u)}
{\textstyle\sin(a\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u)}\\
c_{3a}(u^{'},u)&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle\sin((a-1)\gamma)\sin((a+1)\gamma)
\sin(u^{'}+u)\sin(u^{'}-u)}
{\textstyle\sin^2(a\gamma)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}-u)\sin(\gamma-u^{'}+u)}\\
f_{\pm}&\equiv&\frac{\textstyle\sin(u^{'}\pm u)}
{\textstyle\sin(\gamma-u^{'}\mp u)}\\
u_{\pm}&\equiv&u^{'}\pm u\;.
\end{array}\]
Here again, we abbreviate
\[\begin{array}{ccc}
{\bf U}_a&\equiv& {\bf U}_a(u)\\
{\bf U}_a^{'}&\equiv& {\bf U}_a(u^{'})
\end{array}\] and similarly for ${\bf D}_a$, ${\bf X}^a_{bc}$.
Among them eqns.(\ref{eq:use1}),(\ref{eq:use2}) are of interest to
us, with the help of the latter the former can be turned into
the first equation in eqn.(\ref{eq:nuse1})
which is more convenient for the algebraic Bethe ansatz computation.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The investigation of semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons into light
mesons is important for the determination of the
Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $V_{ub}$, which is the most
poorly studied. At present the value of $V_{ub}$ is mainly determined
from the endpoint of the lepton spectrum in semileptonic $B$-decays
\cite{1}. Unfortunately, the theoretical interpretation of the
endpoint region of the lepton spectrum in inclusive $B\to X_u\ell \bar
\nu $ decays is very complicated and suffers from large uncertainties
\cite{2}. The other way to determine $V_{ub}$ is to consider
exclusive semileptonic decays $B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu$. These are the
heavy-to-light transitions with a wide kinematic range. In contrast
to the heavy-to-heavy transitions, here we can not expand matrix
elements in the inverse powers of the final quark mass. It is also
necessary to mention that the final meson has a large recoil momentum
almost in the whole kinematical range. Thus the motion of final
$\pi(\rho)$ meson should be treated relativistically. If we consider
the point of maximum recoil of the final meson, we find that
$\pi(\rho)$ bears the large relativistic recoil momentum $\vert{\bf
\Delta}_{max}\vert$ of order $m_b/2$ and the energy of the same
order. Thus at this kinematical point it is possible to expand the
matrix element of the weak current both in inverse powers of
$b$-quark mass of the initial $B$ meson and in inverse powers of
the recoil momentum $\vert {\bf \Delta}_{max}\vert$ of the final
$\pi(\rho)$ meson. As a result the expansion in powers $1/m_b$ arises
for the $B\to \pi(\rho)$ semileptonic form factors at $q^2=0$, where
$q^2$ is a momentum carried by the lepton pair. The aim of this
paper is to realize such expansion in the framework of relativistic
quark model. We show that this expansion considerably simplifies the
analysis of exclusive $B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu$ semileptonic decays.
Our relativistic quark model is based on the quasipotential approach
in
quantum field theory with the specific choice of the $q\bar q$
potential. It provides a consistent scheme for calculation of all
relativistic corrections at a given order of $v^2/c^2$ and allows for
the heavy quark $1/m_Q$ expansion. This model has been applied for the
calculations of meson mass spectra \cite{3}, radiative decay widths
\cite{4}, pseudoscalar decay constants \cite{5}, heavy-to-heavy
semileptonic \cite{6} and nonleptonic \cite{7} decay rates. The heavy
quark $1/m_Q$ expansion in our model for the heavy-to-heavy
semileptonic transitions has been developed in \cite{8} up to
$1/m_Q^2$ order. The results are in agreement with the model
independent predictions of the heavy quark effective theory (HQET)
\cite{9}. The $1/m_b$ expansion of rare radiative decay form factors
of $B$ mesons has been carried out in \cite{10} along the same lines
as in the present paper. We have briefly presented the results for
$B\to\pi e\nu$ and $B\to \rho e\nu$ decays in ref.~\cite{10a}, where
the expansion up to the first order in $1/m_b$ has been carried out.
In the present paper we extend the analysis up to the second order and
give a detailed discussion of the expansion method and results.
The paper is organized as follows. The relativistic quark model is
described in Sect.~2. In Sect.~3 we give the detailed description of
the method of calculating decay matrix elements between heavy-heavy
and heavy-light meson states, based on the quasipotential approach. We
show that the heavy-to-heavy decay matrix elements can be expanded in
inverse powers of the heavy quark masses at zero
recoil of the final meson. On the other hand, the heavy-to-light decay
matrix elements can be expanded in inverse powers of the initial heavy
quark mass at the maximum recoil of
the final light meson. These expansions permit the calculation of
decay matrix elements with the account of relativistic effects. In
Sect.~4 the method is applied to the calculation of the semileptonic
$B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$ decay form factors. Our numerical
results for the form factors and decay rates are presented in
Sect.~5. Therein we discuss the $q^2$-dependence of the form factors
and the relations between semileptonic $B\to\rho e\nu$ and rare
radiative $B\to\rho(K^*)\gamma$ decays. Sect.~6 contains our
conclusions. The formulae for the form factors at the point of maximum
recoil of the final light meson are given in Appendix.
\section{RELATIVISTIC QUARK MODEL}
In the quasipotential approach \cite{11} meson with the mass $M$ and
relative momentum of quarks {\bf p} is described by
a single-time quasipotential wave function $\Psi_M({\bf p})$,
projected onto positive-energy states. This wave function satisfies
the quasipotential equation
\begin{equation} \label{1} \left(M-({\bf
p}^2+m_a^2)^{1/2}-({\bf p}^2+m_b^2)^{1/2}\right) \Psi_M({\bf p}) =
\int \frac{d^3 q}{(2\pi)^3} V({\bf p},{\bf q};M)\Psi_M({\bf q}),
\end{equation}
The quasipotential equation (\ref{1}) can be
transformed into a local Schr\"odinger-like equation~\cite{12}
\begin{equation} \label{2} \Big(\frac{b^2(M)}{2\mu_{R}}-\frac{{\bf
p}^2}{2\mu_{R}}\Big)\Psi_{M}({\bf p})=\int\frac{d^3 q}{(2\pi)^3}
V({\bf p,q};M)\Psi_{M}({\bf q}),\end{equation}
where the relativistic reduced mass is
\begin{equation} \label{3}
\mu_{R}=\frac{M^4-(m^2_a-m^2_b)^2}{4M^3};\end{equation}
and the square of the relative momentum on the mass shell is
\begin{equation} \label{4}
b^2(M)=\frac{[M^2-(m_a+m_b)^2][M^2-(m_a-m_b)^2]}{4M^2}, \end{equation}
$m_{a,b}$ are the quark masses. While constructing the kernel of this
equation $V({\bf p,q};M)$ --- the quasipotential of quark-antiquark
interaction --- we have assumed that effective interaction is the sum
of the one-gluon exchange term with the mixture of long-range vector
and scalar linear confining potentials. We have also assumed that at
large distances quarks acquire universal nonperturbative anomalous
chromomagnetic moments and thus the vector long-range potential
contains the Pauli interaction. The quasipotential is defined by
\cite{3}:
\begin{equation} \label{5} V({\bf p,q},M)=\bar{u}_a(p)
\bar{u}_b(-p)\Big\{\frac{4}{3}\alpha_SD_{ \mu\nu}({\bf
k})\gamma_a^{\mu}\gamma_b^{\nu}+V^V_{conf}({\bf k})\Gamma_a^{\mu}
\Gamma_{b;\mu}+V^S_{conf}({\bf
k})\Big\}u_a(q)u_b(-q),\end{equation}
where $\alpha_S$ is the QCD coupling constant, $D_{\mu\nu}$ is the
gluon propagator; $\gamma_{\mu}$ and $u(p)$ are the Dirac matrices and
spinors; ${\bf k=p-q}$; the effective long-range vector vertex is
\begin{equation} \label{6} \Gamma_{\mu}({\bf k})=\gamma_{\mu}+
\frac{i\kappa}{2m}\sigma_{\mu\nu}k^{\nu},\end{equation}
$\kappa$ is the anomalous chromomagnetic quark moment. Vector and
scalar confining potentials in the nonrelativistic limit reduce to
\begin{equation} \label{7} V^V_{conf}(r)=(1-\varepsilon)(Ar+B),\ \
V^S_{conf}(r)=\varepsilon(Ar+B),\end{equation}
reproducing $V_{nonrel}^{conf}(r)=V^S_{conf}+V^V_{conf}=Ar+B$, where
$\varepsilon$ is the mixing coefficient. The explicit expression for
the quasipotential with the account of the relativistic corrections of
order $v^2/c^2$ can be found in ref. \cite{3}. All the parameters of
our model: quark masses, parameters of linear confining potential $A$
and $B$, mixing coefficient $\varepsilon$ and anomalous chromomagnetic
quark moment $\kappa$ were fixed from the analysis of meson masses
\cite{3} and radiative decays \cite{4}. Quark masses: $m_b=4.88$ GeV;
$m_c=1.55$ GeV; $m_s=0.50$ GeV; $m_{u,d}=0.33$ GeV and parameters of
linear potential: $A=0.18$ GeV$^2$; $B=-0.30$ GeV have standard values
for quark models. The value of the mixing coefficient of vector and
scalar confining potentials $\varepsilon=-0.9$ has been primarily
chosen from the consideration of meson radiative decays, which are
very sensitive to the Lorentz-structure of the confining potential:
the resulting leading relativistic corrections coming from vector and
scalar potentials have opposite signs for the radiative Ml-decays
\cite{4}. Universal anomalous chromomagnetic moment of quark
$\kappa=-1$ has been fixed from the analysis of the fine splitting of
heavy quarkonia ${ }^3P_J$- states \cite{3}.
Recently we have considered the expansion of the matrix elements of
weak
heavy quark currents between pseudoscalar and vector meson states up
to
the second order in inverse powers of the heavy quark masses \cite{8}.
It has been found that the general structure of leading, subleading
and second order $1/m_Q$ corrections in our relativistic model is in
accord with the predictions of HQET. The heavy quark symmetry and QCD
impose rigid constraints on the parameters of the long-range potential
of our model. The analysis of the first order corrections \cite{8}
allowed to fix the value of effective long-range anomalous
chromomagnetic moment of quarks $ \kappa =-1$, which coincides with
the result, obtained from the mass spectra \cite{3}. The mixing
parameter of vector and scalar confining potentials has been found
from the comparison of the second order corrections to be $
\varepsilon =-1$. This value is very close to the previous one
$\varepsilon =-0.9$ determined from radiative decays of mesons
\cite{4}. Therefore, we have got QCD and heavy quark symmetry
motivation for the choice of the main parameters of our model. The
found values of $\varepsilon$ and $\kappa$ imply that confining
quark-antiquark potential has predominantly Lorentz-vector structure,
while the scalar potential is anticonfining and helps to reproduce the
initial nonrelativistic potential.
\section{MATRIX ELEMENTS OF ELECTROWEAK CURRENT BETWEEN HEAVY-HEAVY
AND HEAVY-LIGHT MESON STATES}
The matrix element of the local current $J$ between bound states in
the quasipotential method has the form \cite{13}
\begin{equation}\label{8} \langle M' \vert J_\mu (0) \vert M\rangle
=\int \frac{d^3p\, d^3q}{(2\pi )^6} \bar \Psi_{M'}({\bf
p})\Gamma _\mu ({\bf p},{\bf q})\Psi_M({\bf q}),\end{equation}
where $M(M')$ is initial (final) meson, $\Gamma _\mu ({\bf p},{\bf
q})$ is the two-particle vertex function and $\Psi_{M,M'}$ are the
meson wave functions projected onto the positive energy states of
quarks.
This relation is valid for the general structure of the current
$J=\bar Q'GQ$, where $G$ can be an arbitrary combination of Dirac
matrices. The contributions to $\Gamma$ come from Figs.~1 and 2. Thus
the vertex functions look like
\begin{equation} \label{9}\Gamma^{(1)}({\bf
p},{\bf q})=\bar u_{Q'}(p_1)G u_Q(q_1)(2\pi)^3\delta({\bf p}_2-{\bf
q}_2),\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{10} \Gamma^{(2)}({\bf
p},{\bf q})&=&\bar u_{Q'}(p_1)\bar u_q(p_2) \Bigl\{G
\frac{\Lambda_Q^{(-)}(
k_1)}{\varepsilon_Q(k_1)+\varepsilon_Q(p_1)}\gamma_1^0V({\bf p}_2-{\bf
q}_2)\nonumber \\ & &+V({\bf p}_2-{\bf
q}_2)\frac{\Lambda_{Q'}^{(-)}(k_1')}{ \varepsilon_{Q'}(k_1')+
\varepsilon_{Q'}(q_1)}\gamma_1^0 G\Bigr\}u_Q(q_1)
u_q(q_2),\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf k}_1={\bf p}_1-{\bf\Delta};\qquad
{\bf k}_1'={\bf q}_1+{\bf\Delta};\qquad {\bf\Delta}={\bf p}_M-{\bf
p}_{M'}; \qquad \varepsilon (p)=(m^2+{\bf p}^2)^{1/2}$;
$$\Lambda^{(-)}(p)=\frac{\varepsilon(p)-\bigl( m\gamma
^0+\gamma^0({\bf \gamma p})\bigr)}{ 2\varepsilon (p)}.$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*} p_{1,2}&=&\varepsilon_{1,2}(p)\frac{p_{M'}}{M'}
\pm\sum_{i=1}^3 n^{(i)}(p_{M'})p^i,\\
q_{1,2}&=&\varepsilon_{1,2}(p)\frac{p_M}{M} \pm \sum_{i=1}^3 n^{(i)}
(p_M)q^i,\end{eqnarray*}
here
$$ n^{(i)\mu}(p)=L_{p_i}^\mu=\left\{ \frac{p^i}{M},\ \delta_{ij}+
\frac{p^ip^j}{M(E+M)}\right\},$$
Note that the contribution $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is the consequence
of the projection onto the positive-energy states. The form of the
relativistic corrections resulting from the vertex function
$\Gamma^{(2)}$ is explicitly dependent on the Lorentz-structure of
$q\bar q$-interaction.
The general structure of the current matrix element (\ref{8}) is
rather complicated, because it is necessary to integrate both with
respect to $d^3p$ and $d^3q$. The $\delta$-function in the expression
(\ref{9}) for the vertex function $\Gamma^{(1)}$ permits to perform
one of these integrations. As a result the contribution of
$\Gamma^{(1)}$ to the current matrix element has usual structure and
can be calculated without any expansion, if the wave functions of
initial and final meson are known. The situation with the contribution
$\Gamma^{(2)}$ is different. Here instead of $\delta$-function we have
a complicated structure, containing the potential of $q\bar
q$-interaction in meson. Thus in general case we cannot get rid of one
of the integrations in the contribution of $\Gamma^{(2)}$ to the
matrix element (\ref{8}). Therefore, it is necessary to use some
additional considerations. The main idea is to expand the vertex
function $\Gamma^{(2)}$, given by (\ref{10}), in such a way that it
will be possible to use the quasipotential equation (\ref{1}) in order
to perform one of the integrations in the current matrix element
(\ref{8}). The realization of such expansion differs for the cases of
heavy-to-heavy and heavy-to-light transitions.
\subsection{Heavy-to-heavy decay matrix elements}
At first we consider the heavy-to-heavy meson decays, such as
semileptonic $B\to De\nu$ decays, and radiative transitions in
quarkonia and $B^*\to B\gamma$, $D^*\to D\gamma$. Here we have two
natural expansion parameters, which are the heavy quark masses in
initial and final meson. The most convenient point for the expansion
of vertex function $\Gamma^{(2)}$ in inverse powers of the heavy quark
masses for semileptonic decays is the point of zero recoil of final
meson, where ${\bf\Delta}=0$. For radiative decays the momentum
transfer is fixed $\vert{\bf\Delta}\vert=\frac{M_M^2-M_{M'}^2}{2M}$.
The difference of initial and final meson masses is proportional to
the fine or hyperfine splitting and thus $\vert{\bf\Delta}\vert/M =
o(1/M^2)$, so zero recoil is a good approximation.
It is easy to see that $\Gamma^{(2)}$ contributes to the current
matrix element at first order of $1/m_Q$ expansion for transitons
between mesons consisting from heavy and light quarks ($B$, $D$
mesons) \cite{8} and at second order of $v/c$ expansion for mesons
consisting from two heavy quarks of the same flavour (quarkonia
$\Upsilon$, $J/\Psi$) \cite{4}. We limit our analysis to the
consideration of the terms up to the second order in $1/m_Q$ or $v/c$
expansions. We substitute the Dirac matrices $G$ and spinors $u$ in
the vertex function $\Gamma^{(2)}$ and consider the cases of
Lorentz-scalar and Lorentz-vector (with Pauli term) $q\bar
q$-interaction potential. Then we expand $\Gamma^{(2)}$ to the desired
order and see that it is possible to integrate either with respect to
$d^3p$ or $d^3q$ in the current matrix element (\ref{8}) using
quasipotential equation (\ref{1}). Performing these integrations and
taking the sum of the contributions of $\Gamma^{(1)}$ and
$\Gamma^{(2)}$ we get the expression for the current matrix element,
which contains the ordinary mean values between meson wave functions.
Thus this matrix element can be easily calculated numerically if the
meson wave functions are known. The described method has been applied
to the calculations of heavy-to-heavy semileptonic decays in
\cite{6,8} and radiative decays in \cite{4}.
\subsection{Heavy-to-light decay matrix elements}
Now we consider the heavy-to-light meson decays, such as semileptonic
$B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu$ and rare radiative $B\to K^*\gamma$ decays. In
these decays the final meson contains only light quarks ($u$, $d$,
$s$), thus, in contrast to the heavy-to-heavy transitions, we cannot
expand matrix elements in inverse powers of the final quark mass. The
expansion of $\Gamma^{(2)}$ only in inverse powers of the initial
heavy quark mass at ${\bf\Delta}=0$ does not allow to use the
quasipotential equation for performing one of the integrations in
corresponding current matrix element (\ref{8}). However, as it was
already mentioned in the introduction, the final light meson has the
large recoil momentum almost in the whole kinematical range. At the
point of maximum recoil of final light meson \footnote{In the case of
rare radiative decays the recoil momentum of final light meson is
fixed at the maximum value ${\bf\Delta}_{max}$.} the large value of
recoil momentum ${\bf\Delta}_{max}\sim m_Q/2$ allows for the
expansion of decay matrix element in $1/m_Q$. The contributions to
this expansion come both from the inverse powers of heavy $m_Q$ from
initial meson and from inverse powers of the recoil momentum
$|{\bf\Delta}_{max}|$ of the final light meson. The large value of
recoil momentum $|{\bf\Delta}_{max}|$ permits to neglect ${\bf p}^2$
in comparison with ${\bf\Delta}_{max}^2$ in the light quark energy
$\varepsilon_{q,Q'}(p+\Delta)$ in final meson in the expression for
the matrix element originating from $\Gamma^{(2)}$. Such approximation
corresponds to omitting terms of the third order in $1/m_Q$
expansion and is compatible with our analysis, which is carried out up
to the second order. It is easy to see that we can now perform one of
the integrations in the current matrix element (\ref{8}) using the
quasipotential equation as in the case of heavy final meson. As a
result we again get the expression for the current matrix element,
which contains only the ordinary mean values between meson wave
functions, but in this case at the point of maximum recoil of final
light meson. This method has been applied to calculation of rare
radiative decays of $B$ mesons in ref.~\cite{10} and in the next
section we use it for consideration of $B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$
semileptonic decays.
\section{$B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu $ DECAY FORM FACTORS}
\subsection{Decay form factors at $q^2=0$}
The form factors of the semileptonic decays $B\to \pi e\nu$ and $B\to
\rho e\nu$ are defined in the standard way as:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{11}\langle\pi(p_\pi)\vert \bar q\gamma_\mu
b\vert B(p_B) \rangle& =& f_+(q^2)(p_B+p_\pi)_\mu +
f_-(q^2)(p_B-p_\pi)_\mu,\\
\label{12}\langle\rho(p_\rho,e)\vert \bar
q\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma^5) b \vert B(p_B)\rangle &=&
-(M_B+M_\rho)A_1(q^2)e^*_\mu + \frac{A_2(q^2)}{M_B+M_\rho}
(e^* p_B)(p_B+p_\rho)_\mu\nonumber\qquad\qquad\hfil\hfill\\ & &
+\frac{A_3(q^2)}{M_B+M_\rho}(e^*
p_B)(p_B-p_\rho)_\mu + \frac{2V(q^2)}{M_B+M_\rho}i\epsilon_{\mu\nu
\tau\sigma}{e^*}^\nu p_B^\tau p_\rho^\sigma,\end{eqnarray}
where $q=p_B-p_{\pi(\rho)}$, $e$ is a polarization vector of $\rho $
meson. In the limit of vanishing lepton mass, the form factors $f_-$
and $A_3$ do not contribute to the decay rates and thus will not be
considered.
It is convenient to consider the decay $B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$ in the $B$
meson rest frame. Then the wave function of the final $\pi(\rho)$
meson
moving with the recoil momentum ${\bf\Delta}$ is connected with the
wave function at rest by the transformation \cite{13}
\begin{equation}\label{13}\Psi_{\pi(\rho)\,{\bf\Delta}}({\bf
p})=D_q^{1/2}(R_{L{\bf\Delta}}^W)D_q^{1/2}(R_{L{
\bf\Delta}}^W)\Psi_{\pi(\rho)\,{\bf 0}}({\bf p}),\end{equation}
where $D^{1/2}(R)$ is the well-known rotation matrix and $R^W$ is the
Wigner rotation.
The meson wave functions in the rest frame have been calculated by
numerical
solution of the quasipotential equation (\ref{2}) \cite{14}. However,
it is more convenient to use analytical expressions for meson wave
functions. The examination of numerical results for the ground state
wave functions of mesons containing at least one light quark has shown
that they can be well approximated by the Gaussian functions
\begin{equation}\label{14}\Psi_M({\bf p})\equiv \Psi_{M\,{\bf 0}}({\bf
p})=\Bigl({4\pi\over \beta_M^2} \Bigr)^{3/4}\exp\Bigl(-{{\bf p}^2\over
2\beta_M^2}\Bigr),\end{equation}
with the deviation less than 5\%.
The parameters are
$$\beta_B=0.41\ {\rm GeV};\qquad\beta_{\pi(\rho)}=0.31\ {\rm GeV}.$$
Now we apply the method for calculation of decay matrix elements,
described in the previous section. At the point of maximal recoil
of final light meson
\begin{equation}\label{15} |{\bf \Delta}_{max}| = \frac{M_B^2-
M_{\pi(\rho)}^2}{2M_B}, \end{equation}
we expand the vertex function $\Gamma^{(2)}$ for the Lorentz-scalar
and Lorentz-vector (with Pauli term) $q\bar q$-interactions up to the
second order in $1/m_b$. Then we substitute the vertex functions
$\Gamma^{(1)}$ and $\Gamma^{(2)}$ in the matrix element (\ref{8}) and
take into account the Lorentz transformation of the final meson wave
function (\ref{13}). Performing one of the integrations in the current
matrix element (\ref{8}) (using the $\delta$-function in
$\Gamma^{(1)}$ and the quasipotential equation in the contribution of
$\Gamma^{(2)}$) we get for the form factors of $B\to\pi e\nu$ and
$B\to\rho e\nu$ decays the following expressions at $q^2=0$ point
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{16}
f_+(0)&=&f_+^{(1)}(0)+\varepsilon f_{+}^{S(2)}(0)+(1-\varepsilon)
f_{+}^{V(2)}(0),\\
\label{17}
A_1(0)&=&A_1^{(1)}(0)+\varepsilon A_{1}^{S(2)}(0)+(1-\varepsilon)
A_{1}^{V(2)}(0),\\
\label{18}
A_2(0)&=&A_2^{(1)}(0)+\varepsilon A_{2}^{S(2)}(0)+(1-\varepsilon)
A_{2}^{V(2)}(0),\\
\label{19}
V(0)&=&V^{(1)}(0)+\varepsilon V^{S(2)}(0)+(1-\varepsilon)
V^{V(2)}(0),
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_+^{(1)}$, $f_{+}^{S,V(2)}$, $A_{1,2}^{(1)}$,
$A_{1,2}^{S,V(2)}$, $V^{(1)}$ and $V^{S,V(2)}$ are given in Appendix,
the superscripts ``(1)" and ``(2)" correspond to Figs.~1 and 2, S and
V --- to the scalar and vector potentials of $q\bar q$-interaction.
\subsection{$1/m_b$ expansion for decay form factors}
Let us proceed further and for the sake of consistensy carry out the
complete expansion of form factors (\ref{16})--(\ref{19}) in inverse
powers of $b$-quark mass. For this expansion we will use some model
independent results obtained in HQET \cite{9}.
In HQET the mass of $B$ meson has the following expansion in $1/m_b$
\cite{9}
\begin{equation}\label{20}M_B=m_b+\bar\Lambda+\frac{\Delta m_B^2}{
2m_b}+O\left(\frac{1}{ m_b^2}\right),\end{equation}
where parameter $\bar\Lambda$ is the difference between the meson and
quark masses in the limit of infinitely heavy quark mass. In our model
$\bar\Lambda $ is equal to the mean value of light quark energy inside
the heavy meson $\bar\Lambda=\langle\varepsilon_q\rangle_B\approx
0.54$~GeV \cite{8}. $\Delta m_B^2$ arises from the first-order power
corrections to the HQET Lagrangian and has the form \cite{9}:
\begin{equation}\label{21}\Delta
m_B^2=-\lambda_1-3\lambda_2.\end{equation}
The parameter $\lambda_1$ results from the mass shift due to the
kinetic operator, while $\lambda_2$ parameterizes the chromomagnetic
interaction \cite{9}. The value of spin-symmetry breaking parameter
$\lambda_2$ is related to the vector-pseudoscalar mass splitting
$$\lambda_2\approx {1\over 4}(M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2)=0.12\pm 0.01\ {\rm
GeV}^2.$$
The parameter $\lambda_1$ is not directly connected with
observable quantities. Theoretical predictions for it vary in a wide
range: $\lambda_1=-0.30\pm 0.30 \ {\rm GeV}^2$ \cite{9,15}.
In the limit $m_Q\to \infty$, meson wave functions become independent
of the flavour of heavy quark. Thus the Gaussian parameter $\beta_B$
in (\ref{14}) should have the following expansion \cite{8}
\begin{equation}\label{22}\beta_B=\beta-\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{
m_b}+O\left(\frac{1}{ m_b^2}\right),\qquad \beta \approx 0.42 \
{\rm GeV},\end{equation}
where the second term breaks the flavour symmetry and in our model is
equal to $\Delta\beta^2\approx 0.045\ {\rm GeV}^2$ \cite{8}.
Substituting (\ref{20}) in (\ref{15}) and (\ref{a13}) we get the
$1/m_b$ expansion of the recoil momentum and the energy of final
vector meson:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{23}\vert{\bf\Delta}_{max}\vert&=&\frac{m_b}{
2}\left(1+\frac{1}{m_b}\bar\Lambda +\frac{1}{ m_b^2}\left(\frac{\Delta
m_B^2}{ 2}-M_{\pi(\rho)}^2\right)\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{m_b^2}\right)
,\nonumber\\
E_{\pi(\rho)}&=&\frac{m_b}{ 2}\left(1+\frac{1}{ m_b}\bar
\Lambda+\frac{1}{ m_b^2}\left(\frac{\Delta m_B^2}{2}
+M_{\pi(\rho)}^2\right)\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{
m_b^2}\right).\end{eqnarray}
Now we use the Gaussian approximation for the wave functions
(\ref{14}). Then shifting the integration variable ${\bf p}$ in
(\ref{a1})--(\ref{a12}) by $-\frac{\varepsilon_q}{
E_{\pi(\rho)}+M_{\pi(\rho})}{\bf\Delta}_{max}$, we can factor out the
${\bf\Delta}_{max}$ dependence of the meson wave function overlap in
form factors $f_+$, $A_{1,2}$, $V$. The result can be written in the
form
\begin{equation}\label{24}f_+(0)={\cal
F}_+({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)\exp(-\zeta {\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2),\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{25}A_{1,2}(0)={\cal
A}_{1,2}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)\exp(-\zeta {\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2),\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{26}V(0)={\cal
V}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)\exp(-\zeta {\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2),\end{equation}
where $\vert{\bf\Delta}_{max}\vert$ is given by (\ref{15}) and
\begin{equation}\label{27}\zeta{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2=
\frac{2\tilde\Lambda^2
{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}{(\beta_B^2+\beta_{\pi(\rho)}^2)(E_{\pi(\rho)}+
M_{\pi(\rho)})^2} =\frac{\tilde\Lambda^2}{ \beta_B^2
}\eta\left(\frac{M_B-M_{\pi(\rho)}}{M_B+M_{\pi(\rho)}}\right)^2,
\end{equation}
here $\eta = \frac{2\beta_B^2}{\beta_B^2+\beta_{\pi(\rho)}^2}$ and
$\tilde\Lambda$ is equal to the mean value of light quark energy
between $B$ and $\pi(\rho)$ meson states:
\begin{equation}\label{28}\tilde\Lambda =\langle\varepsilon_q\rangle
\approx 0.53\ {\rm GeV}, \end{equation}
Expanding (\ref{27}) in powers of $1/m_b$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{29}\zeta{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2
=\frac{\tilde\Lambda^2}{ \beta^2}\eta\left(1-4{M_{\pi(\rho)}\over
m_b}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{ m_b^2}\right). \end{equation}
We see that the first term in this expansion for the decay into $\rho$
meson is large. Really, $4{M_\rho / m_b}\approx 0.63$. The value of
this correction is also increased by the exponentiating in
(\ref{24})--(\ref{26}). Therefore, we conclude that the first order
correction in $1/m_b$ expansion for the form factors of
$B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$ decay, arising from the meson wave function
overlap, is large.\footnote{The same situation occurs for the rare
radiative $B$ decays \cite{10}.} Thus, taking into account that our
method of calculating decay matrix elements does not require the
expansion of the meson wave function overlap, we use unexpanded
expression (\ref{27}) in the exponential of the form factors
(\ref{24})--(\ref{26}).
In contrast to the meson wave function overlap the factors ${\cal
F}_1({\bf \Delta}_{max}^2) $, ${\cal A}_{1,2}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)$
and ${\cal V}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)$, which originate from the vertex
functions $\Gamma^{(1),(2)}$ and Lorentz-transformation
(\ref{13}) of the final meson wave function, have a well defined
$1/m_b$ expansion. The first and second order corrections are small.
Substituting the Gaussian wave functions (\ref{13}) in the expressions
for the form factor (\ref{16})--(\ref{19}) and
(\ref{a1})--(\ref{a12}), with the value of anomalous chromomagnetic
quark moment $\kappa=-1$, and using (\ref{24})--(\ref{26}) and the
expansions (\ref{20})--(\ref{23}), we get up to the second order in
$1/m_b$ expansion:
\nopagebreak \\ \medskip \nopagebreak
\noindent a) $B\to\pi e\nu$ decay
\nopagebreak
\begin{eqnarray}\label{30}{\cal F}_+({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&{\cal
F}_+^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+ \varepsilon{\cal
F}_+^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+(1-\varepsilon){\cal F}_+^{V(2)}({\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2);\\
\label{31}
{\cal F}_1^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&N\biggl\{1+\frac{1}{
m_b}X_1+\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(Y_+-2\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle
-\frac{3}{4}\tilde\Lambda^2\eta^2+\tilde\Lambda\eta(2m_q+M_\pi)
\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{2}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}
\right\rangle \left(2\tilde\Lambda\eta-m_q-2M_\pi-
\frac{1}{2}\bar\Lambda\right) \biggr)\biggr\};\\
\label{32}
{\cal F}_+^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2) &=&N\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl\{
-2m_q(M_\pi-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle) -\frac{1}{3}\left\langle
\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle(M_\pi(1-R)
+2m_q(1-2R)-2\bar\Lambda R)\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{2}{3}\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle(1-2R)+\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda
\eta\left(2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle(1-2R)-M_\pi(1-R)
+2\bar\Lambda R -\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar
\varepsilon_q}\right\rangle\right)\biggr\};\\
\label{33}
{\cal F}_+^{V(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2) &=&N \biggl\{-\frac{1}{m_b}
(2RZ_1+(1+2R)Z_2) +\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl( -\frac{2}{3}m_qRZ_3
+4\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle\left(1-\frac{3}{4}R\right)\nonumber\\
& & -\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle
\left( 2M_\pi
\left(1-\frac{1}{3}R\right) +4m_q\left(1-\frac{5}{4}R\right)
+\frac{5}{3}\bar\Lambda R\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\left(\left(2M_\pi
+\eta\frac{\beta_\pi^2}{\beta^2}\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{\beta}\right)
(1+2R)-2m_q(1-2R)\right)Z_2\biggr)\biggr\};
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent b) $B\to\rho e\nu$ decay
\nopagebreak
\begin{eqnarray}\label{34}{\cal A}_1({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&{\cal
A}_1^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+ \varepsilon{\cal
A}_1^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+(1-\varepsilon){\cal A}_1^{V(2)}({\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2);\\
\label{35}
{\cal A}_1^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&N\biggl\{1+\frac{1}{
m_b}X_-+\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(Y_-+M_\rho(M_\rho-m_q)
+\bar\Lambda(M_\rho+m_q)-\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda\eta(5m_q+3M_\rho)
\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf
p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q} \right\rangle
\left(2\tilde\Lambda\eta-m_q-3M_\rho\right) \biggr)\biggr\};\\
\label{36} {\cal A}_1^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)
&=&N\biggl\{ \frac{2}{m_b}(M_\rho-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle)+
\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(
-2(M_\rho+\bar\Lambda+3m_q)(M_\rho-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle)
\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{2}{3}\left\langle \frac{{\bf
p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle(M_\rho R +m_q(1+3R)+
\bar\Lambda(1+R))
+\frac{2}{3}\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle(1+3R)\nonumber\\
& &-\tilde\Lambda \eta\left( M_\rho(2+R)
-\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle(7+3R)
+\bar\Lambda(3+ R) +\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar
\varepsilon_q}\right\rangle(1+R)\right)\biggr\};\\
\label{37}
{\cal A}_1^{V(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2) &=&N \biggl\{\frac{1}{m_b}
(4RZ_1+2RZ_2) +\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl( \frac{4}{3}(m_q-3M_\rho)RZ_3
-10\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle\left(1-\frac{2}{3}R\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle
\left( 2M_\rho
\left(2+\frac{13}{3}R\right) +8m_q\left(1-\frac{4}{3}R\right)
\right)\nonumber\\
& & +2\left(2m_q(1-R)-2M_\rho R
+\eta\frac{\beta_\rho^2}{\beta^2}\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{\beta}R\right)Z_.
\nonumber\\
& &+2\tilde\Lambda\eta\biggl(\left\langle\frac{1}{\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q}\right\rangle\tilde\Lambda\eta\left(M_\rho\left(1-
\frac{5}{3}R\right)
-\bar\Lambda +m_q\left(1-\frac{10}{3}R\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& &+2(3\bar\Lambda -M_\rho-\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle)
-\tilde\Lambda\eta\left(1 -\frac{10}{3}R\right)
-\frac{10}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}
{\bar\varepsilon_q}\right\rangle\biggr)\biggr)\biggr\};
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{38}{\cal A}_2({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&{\cal
A}_2^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+ \varepsilon{\cal
A}_2^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+(1-\varepsilon){\cal A}_2^{V(2)}({\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2);\\
\label{39}
{\cal A}_2^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&N\biggl\{1+\frac{1}{
m_b}X_-+\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(Y_--M_\rho(3M_\rho-m_q)
+\bar\Lambda(M_\rho-m_q)-\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda\eta(M_\rho-7m_q)
\nonumber\\
& & -2\tilde\Lambda^2\eta^2+\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf
p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q} \right\rangle
\left(2\tilde\Lambda\eta-m_q+5M_\rho\right) \biggr)\biggr\};\\
\label{40} {\cal A}_1^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)
&=& {\cal A}_1^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}) +N\biggl\{
\frac{1}{m_b^2}4M_\rho(M_\rho-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q
\rangle)\biggr\};\\
\label{41}
{\cal A}_2^{V(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2) &=&N \biggl\{\frac{1}{m_b}
(4RZ_1+2RZ_2) +\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl( \frac{4}{3}(M_\rho-m_q)RZ_3
-2\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle\left(1-\frac{10}{3}R\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle
\left(\frac{2}{3}M_\rho \left(1-11R\right) +\frac{2}{3}\bar\Lambda
+2m_q(1+R) \right)\nonumber\\ & &
+2\left(m_q(1+3R)-3M_\rho R
+\eta\frac{\beta_\rho^2}{\beta^2}\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{\beta}R\right)Z_.
\nonumber\\
& &+2\tilde\Lambda\eta\biggl(-\left\langle\frac{1}{\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q}\right\rangle\tilde\Lambda\eta\left(M_\rho\left(1+
\frac{5}{3}R\right)
+\bar\Lambda +m_q\left(3+\frac{10}{3}R\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& &+3\bar\Lambda -M_\rho-\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle
+\tilde\Lambda\eta\left(3 +\frac{10}{3}R\right)
-\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}
{\bar\varepsilon_q}\right\rangle\biggr)\biggr)\biggr\};
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{42}{\cal V}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&{\cal
V}^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+ \varepsilon{\cal
V}^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)+(1-\varepsilon){\cal V}^{V(2)}({\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2);\\
\label{43}
{\cal V}^{(1)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)&=&N\biggl\{1+\frac{1}{
m_b}X_++\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(Y_-+M_\rho(M_\rho-m_q) +\frac{1}{2}m_q^2
+\bar\Lambda(2m_q-M_\rho)+\frac{7}{2}\tilde\Lambda\eta M_\rho
\nonumber\\
& &-4\frac{1}{3}\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle
-\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}
\right\rangle (M_\rho-m_q) \biggr)\biggr\};\\
\label{44} {\cal V}^{S(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)
&=&N\biggl\{ -\frac{2}{m_b}(M_\rho-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle)+
\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(
-2(M_\rho-\bar\Lambda-m_q)(M_\rho-2\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle)
\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{2}{3}\left\langle \frac{{\bf
p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle(M_\rho(1-R) +m_q(2-3R)-
\bar\Lambda R)
+\frac{2}{3}\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle(2-3R)\nonumber\\
& &+\tilde\Lambda \eta\left(- M_\rho(1+2R)
+6\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle R+
2\bar\Lambda(1- R) -\frac{2}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar
\varepsilon_q}\right\rangle(2-R)\right)\biggr\};\\
\label{45}
{\cal V}^{V(2)}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2) &=&N \biggl\{\frac{1}{m_b}
(8RZ_1-2(1-R)Z_2) +\frac{1}{m_b^2}\biggl(-
\frac{8}{3}(M_\rho-m_q)RZ_3 +20\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle\nonumber\\
& & -\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q}\right\rangle
\left( 2M_\rho \left(\frac{11}{3}-4R\right) +\frac{22}{3}\bar\Lambda
+4m_q\left(5+2R\right) \right)\nonumber\\ & &
+2\left(\bar\Lambda +\left(M_\rho R
+\eta\frac{\beta_\rho^2}{\beta^2}\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{\beta}\right)
(1-R)+m_q(1+R)\right)Z_2 \nonumber\\
& &+\tilde\Lambda^2\eta^2\biggl(17-
\left\langle\frac{1}{\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q}\right\rangle\left(\frac{16}{3}M_\rho
+\frac{19}{3}\bar\Lambda +17m_q \right)
\biggr)\biggr)\bigg\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $N=\left(\frac{2\beta_B\beta_{\pi(\rho)}}{
\beta_B^2+\beta_{\pi(\rho)}^2}\right)^{3/2}
=\left(\frac{\beta_{\pi(\rho)}}{\beta_B}\eta\right)^{3/2}$ is due to
the normalization of Gaussian wave functions in (\ref{14});
$\bar\varepsilon_q =\sqrt{{\bf p}^2+m_q^2+\tilde\Lambda^2\eta^2}
$, i.~e. the energies of light quarks in final light meson
acquire additional contribution from the recoil momentum. The
averaging $\langle\dots\rangle$ is taken over the Gaussian wave
functions of $B$ and $\pi(\rho)$ mesons, so it can be carried out
analytically. For example,
\begin{equation}\label{q}\langle\bar\varepsilon_q\rangle= N^{-1}\int
\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3}\bar\Psi_{\pi(\rho)}({\bf
p})\bar\varepsilon_q(p)\Psi_B({\bf p}) = \frac{1}{ \sqrt\pi}\frac{\bar
m_q^2}{\beta_{\pi(\rho)}\sqrt\eta}e^zK_1(z),
\end{equation}
where $\bar m_q^2=m_q^2+\tilde\Lambda^2\eta^2$ and $K_1(z)$ is the
modified Bessel function; $z={\bar m_q^2/(2\eta\beta_{\pi(\rho)}^2)}$.
Analogous expressions can be obtained for the other matrix elements in
(\ref{30})--(\ref{45}).
We have introduced the following notations:
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_1&=&\frac{2}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q}\right\rangle -\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda\eta,\\
X_\pm&=&\frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q}\right\rangle +\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda\eta \pm(M_\rho-m_q),\\
Y_\pm &=& -\frac{11}{24}\langle{\bf p}^2\rangle
+\frac{1}{2}(M_{\pi(\rho)}^2-m_q^2) \pm\frac{1}{2}\tilde\Lambda
\eta^2\left(\frac{1}{4}\tilde\Lambda+ \frac{\beta_{\pi(\rho)}^2}
{\beta^2}\frac{\Delta\beta^2}{\beta}\right),\\
Z_1& =& \frac{1}{3}\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{(\bar\varepsilon_q
+m_q)^2}\right\rangle(\bar\Lambda +M_{\pi(\rho)}+3m_q)
-\left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q +m_q}\right\rangle,\\
Z_2 &=& \tilde\Lambda\eta\left(\frac{1}{3}\left\langle \frac{{\bf
p}^2}{\bar\varepsilon_q(\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q)}\right\rangle
+\left\langle\frac{1}{\bar\varepsilon_q+m_q)}\right\rangle
(\bar\Lambda+M_{\pi(\rho)}+3m_q)-3\right),\\
Z_3 &=& \left\langle\frac{{\bf p}^2}{(\bar\varepsilon_q +m_q)^2}
\right\rangle(\bar\Lambda+M_{\pi(\rho)}+3m_q)
\end{eqnarray*}
and
$$R=\frac{m_b}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}+2}.$$
\section{RESULTS AND DISCUSSION}
Using the parameters of Gaussian wave functions (\ref{14}) and the
value of the mixing coefficient of vector and scalar confining
potentials $\varepsilon=-1$ \cite{8} in the expressions (\ref{24}),
(\ref{30})--(\ref{33}) for the $B\to \pi$ transition form factor
$f_+(0)$ and the eqs.~(\ref{25}), (\ref{26}), (\ref{34})--(\ref{45})
for the $B\to \rho$ transition form factors $A_1(0)$, $A_2(0)$ and
$V(0)$ we get
\begin{eqnarray}\label{46} f_+^{B\to \pi}(0)&=&0.20\pm 0.02\qquad
V^{B\to \rho}(0) =0.29\pm 0.03\nonumber\\ A_1^{B\to\rho}(0)&=&0.26\pm
0.03\qquad A_2^{B\to \rho}(0)=0.31\pm 0.03.\end{eqnarray}
The theoretical uncertainty in (\ref{46}) results mostly from the
approximation of the wave functions by Gaussians (\ref{14}) and does
not exceed 10\% of form factor values. In ref.~\cite{10a} we have
presented the results for $B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$ decay form factors up to
the first order in $1/m_b$ expansion. The found values of form factors
\cite{10a} are very close to (\ref{46}), this indicates that the
second order correctons in $1/m_Q$ are small (less than 5\% of form
factor values).
We compare our results (\ref{46}) for the form factors of $B\to
\pi(\rho)e\nu$ decays with the predictions of quark models
\cite{16,17}, QCD sum rules \cite{18,19,19a} and lattice calculations
\cite{l1,l2} in Table 1. There is an
agreement between our value of $f_+^{B\to \pi}(0)$ and QCD sum rule
and
lattice predictions. Our $B\to \rho e\nu$ form factors agree with
lattice
and QCD sum rule ones \cite{19a}, while they are approximately
1.5 times less than QCD sum rule results of refs.~\cite{18,19}.
To calculate the $B\to \pi(\rho)$ semileptonic decay rates it is
necessary to determine the $q^2$-dependence of the form factors.
Analysing the ${\bf\Delta}_{max}^2$ dependence of the expressions
(\ref{a1})--(\ref{a12}), (\ref{24})--(\ref{27}) for the form factors
$f_+$, $A_1$, $A_2$ and $V$, we find that the $q^2$-dependence of
these form factors near $q^2=0$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray} \label{47}
f_+(q^2)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\pi}{2\sqrt{M_B
M_\pi}}\tilde\xi(w){\cal F}_+({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2),\\
\label{48}
A_1(q^2)&=&\frac{2\sqrt{M_B M_\rho}}{M_B+M_\rho}\frac{1}{2}(1+w)
\tilde\xi(w){\cal A}_1 ({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2),\\
\label{49}
A_2(q^2)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_B M_\rho}}\tilde\xi(w){\cal A}_2
({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2),\\
\label{50}
V(q^2)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_B
M_\rho}}\tilde\xi(w){\cal V} ({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2),\end{eqnarray}
where $w=\frac{M_B^2+M_{\pi(\rho)}^2-q^2}{2M_B M_{\pi(\rho)}}$; ${\cal
F}_+({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)$ and ${\cal A}_{1,2}({\bf
\Delta}_{max}^2)$, ${\cal V}({\bf\Delta}_{max}^2)$ are defined
by (\ref{24})--(\ref{26}), (\ref{30})--(\ref{45}). We have introduced
the function
\begin{equation} \label{51} \tilde\xi(w)=\left({2\over
w+1}\right)^{1/2}\exp
\left(-\eta\frac{\tilde\Lambda^2}{\beta^2_B}\frac{w-1}{w+1}\right),
\end{equation}
which in the limit of infinitely heavy quarks in the
initial and final mesons coinsides with the Isgur-Wise function of our
model \cite{8}. In this limit eqs.~(\ref{47})--(\ref{50}) reproduce
the leading order prediction of HQET~\cite{9}.
It is important to note that the form factor $A_1$ in (\ref{48}) has a
different $q^2$-dependence than the other form factors (\ref{47}),
(\ref{49}), (\ref{50}). In the quark models it is usually assumed the
pole \cite{16} or exponential \cite{17} $q^2$-behaviour for all form
factors. However, the recent QCD sum rule analysis indicates that the
form factor $A_1$ has $q^2$-dependence different from other form
factors \cite{18,19,19a}. In \cite{19} it even decreases with the
increasing $q^2$ as
\begin{equation} \label{52} A_1(q^2)\simeq
\left(1-\frac{q^2}{M_b^2}\right)A_1(0) \simeq \frac{2M_B
M_\rho}{(M_B+M_\rho)^2}(1+w)A_1(0). \end{equation}
Such behaviour corresponds to replacing $\tilde\xi(w)$ in (\ref{48})
by $\tilde\xi(w_{max})$.
We have calculated the decay rates of $B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu$ using our
form factor values at $q^2=0$ and the $q^2$-dependence
(\ref{47})--(\ref{51}) in the whole kinematical region (model A). We
have also used the pole dependence for form factors $f_+(q^2)$,
$A_2(q^2)$, $V(q^2)$ and $A_1(q^2)=\frac{2M_B
M_\rho}{(M_B+M_\rho)^2}(1+w) \frac{A_1(0)}{ 1-q^2/m_P^2}$ (model B),
which corresponds to replacing the function $\tilde\xi(w)$ (\ref{51})
by the pole form factor. The results are presented in Table 2 in
comparison with the quark model \cite{16,17}, QCD sum rule
\cite{18,19} and lattice (for $B\to\pi e\nu$) \cite{l1} predictions.
Lattice accuracy, at present, is not enough to estimate $B\to\rho
e\nu$
rates \cite{l3}. We see that our results for the above
mentioned models A and B of form factor $q^2$-dependence coincide
within errors. The ratio of the rates $\Gamma(B\to \rho
e\nu)/\Gamma(B\to \pi e\nu)$ is considerably reduced in our model
compared to the BSW \cite{16} and ISGW \cite{17} models with the
simple pole or exponential $q^2$-behaviour of all form factors.
Meanwhile our prediction for this ratio is in agreement with QCD sum
rule results \cite{18,19}. The absolute values of the rates
$\Gamma(B\to\pi e\nu)$ and $\Gamma(B\to\rho e\nu)$ in our model are
close to those from QCD sum rules \cite{19}. The predictions for the
rates with longitudinally and transversely polarized $\rho$ meson
differ considerably in these approaches. This is mainly due to
different $q^2$-behaviour of $A_1$ (see (\ref{48}), (\ref{52}) or
pole dominance model \cite{16}). Thus the measurement of the
ratios $\Gamma(B \to\rho e\nu)/\Gamma(B\to\pi e\nu)$ and
$\Gamma_L/\Gamma_T$ should provide the test of $q^2$-dependence of
$A_1$ and may discriminate between these approaches.
The differential decay spectra $\frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d\Gamma}{d x}$
for $B\to \pi(\rho)$ semileptonic transitions, where
$x=\frac{E_l}{M_B}$
and $E_l$ is the lepton energy, are presented in ref.~\cite{10a} (see
Fig.~3).
We can use our results for $V$ and $A_1$ to test the HQET relation
\cite{20} between the form factors of the semileptonic and rare
radiative decays of $B$ mesons. Isgur and Wise \cite{20} have shown
that in the limit of infinitely heavy $b$-quark mass an exact relation
connects the form factors $V$ and $A_1$ with the rare radiative decay
$B\to\rho\gamma$ form factor $F_1$ defined by:
\begin{eqnarray} \label{53}
\langle \rho(p_\rho,e)\vert \bar ui\sigma _{\mu \nu}q^\nu P_Rb\vert
B(p_B)\rangle&=&i\epsilon_{\mu \nu \tau \sigma }e^{*\nu }p_B^\tau
p_\rho^\sigma F_1(q^2)\nonumber\\ & &+\big[e_\mu
^*(M_B^2-M_\rho^2)-(e^* q)(p_B+p_\rho)_\mu\big]G_2(q^2).\end{eqnarray}
This relation is valid for $q^2$ values sufficiently close to
$q^2_{max}=(M_B-M_\rho)^2$ and reads:
\begin{equation} \label{54}
F_1(q^2)=\frac{q^2+M_B^2-M_\rho^2}{ 2M_B}
\frac{V(q^2)}{
M_B+M_\rho}+\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2M_B}A_1(q^2).\end{equation}
It has been argued in \cite{21,22,19}, that in these processes the
soft contributions dominate over the hard perturbative ones, and thus
the Isgur-Wise relations (\ref{54}) could be extended to the whole
range of $q^2$. In \cite{10} we developed $1/m_b$ expansion for the
rare radiative decay form factor $F_1(0)$ using the same ideas as in
the present discussion of semileptonic decays. It was shown that
Isgur-Wise relation (\ref{54}) is satisfied in our model at leading
order of $1/m_b$ expansion. The found value of the form factor of rare
radiative decay $B\to\rho\gamma$ up to the second order in $1/m_b$
expansion is \cite{10}
\begin{equation} \label{55}
F_1^{B\to\rho}(0)=0.26\pm 0.03.\end{equation}
Using (\ref{54}) and the values of form factors (\ref{46}) we
find
\begin{equation} \label{56}
F_1^{B\to\rho}(0)=0.27\pm 0.03,\end{equation}
which is in accord with (\ref{55}). Thus we conclude that $1/m_b$ and
$1/m_b^2$ corrections do not break the Isgur-Wise relation (\ref{54})
in our model.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
We have presented in detail the method of the calculation of
electroweak decay matrix elements for transitions between different
meson states, based on the quasipotential approach in quantum field
theory. It has been shown that the heavy-to-heavy decay matrix element
can be expanded in inverse powers of the initial and final heavy quark
masses at the point of zero recoil of the final meson. On the other
hand, the heavy-to-light decay matrix element can be expanded in
inverse powers of the initial heavy quark mass and
large recoil momentum of final light meson at the point of maximum
recoil of final meson. As a result the expansion of the heavy-to-light
decay matrix element in inverse powers of initial heavy quark mass
arises. This method permits the calculation of various radiative
and weak decays of heavy mesons with the complete account of
relativistic effects.
This method has been applied to the investigation of the
semileptonic decays of $B$ mesons into light mesons. The recoil
momentum of final $\pi(\rho)$ meson is large compared to the
$\pi(\rho)$ mass almost in the whole kinematical range. This requires
the completely relativistic treatment of these decays. On the other
hand, the presence of large recoil momentum, which for $q^2=0$ is of
order $m_b/2$, allows for the $1/m_b$ expansion of weak decay
matrix element at this point. The contributions to this expansion come
both from the heavy $b$-quark mass and large recoil momentum of the
light final meson.
We have performed the $1/m_b$ expansion of
the semileptonic decay form factors at $q^2=0$ up to the second order.
The $q^2$-dependence of the form factors near $q^2=0$ has been
determined. It has been found that the axial form factor $A_1$ has a
$q^2$-behaviour different from other form factors (see
(\ref{47})--(\ref{50})). This is in agreement with recent QCD sum
rule results \cite{18,19,19a}. The ratios $\Gamma(B\to\rho
e\nu)/\Gamma(B\to\pi e\nu)$ and $\Gamma_L/\Gamma_T$ are very sensitive
to the $q^2$-dependence of $A_1$, and thus their experimental
measurement may discriminate between different approaches.
We have considered the relation between semileptonic decay form
factors and the rare radiative decay form factor \cite{20}, obtained
in the limit of the infinitely heavy $b$-quark. It has been found that
in our model $1/m_b$ corrections do not violate this relation.
\bigskip
\noindent {\bf ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS}
\nopagebreak
\medskip
\noindent We express our gratitude to B.~A.~Arbuzov, M.~A.~Ivanov,
J.~G.~K\"orner, V.~A.~Matveev, M.~Neubert, V.~I.~Savrin, B.~Stech, A.
Vainshtein for the interest in our work and helpful discussions of the
results. This research was supported in part by the Russian Foundation
for Fundamental Research under Grant No.94-02-03300-a and by the
Interregional Centre for Advanced Studies.
\begin{appendix}
\section{ APPENDIX: HEAVY-TO-LIGHT
SEMILEPTONIC DECAY FORM FACTORS AT $q^2=0$ POINT}
\noindent a) $B\to\pi e\nu$ decay form factor
\nopagebreak
\begin{eqnarray}\label{a1} f_+^{(1)}(0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_\pi}{ M_B}}
\int\frac{d^3p}{ (2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\pi\left({\bf
p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{ E_\pi+M_\pi}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_b(p)+m_b}{2m_b}}
\biggl\{1+\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}
+\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}
\biggl(\frac{\varepsilon_q(p +\Delta_{max})-m_q}{2m_b}\nonumber\\
& & + (M_B-E_\pi)\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p +\Delta_{max})+m_q}+
\frac{1}{2m_b}\right)\biggr)
+(p_x^2+p_y^2)\Biggl(\frac{E_\pi-M_\pi}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p+
\Delta_{max}) +m_q)}\nonumber \\ & &\times \left(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right)
+\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{E_\pi+M_\pi}\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p
+\Delta_{max}) +m_q} -\frac{1}{2m_b}\right)\nonumber\\ & &\times
\left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max}) +m_q}\right)\biggr)\Biggr\}
\Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a2}
f_+^{S(2)}(0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_\pi}{ M_B}} \int\frac{d^3p}{
(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\pi\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{\left(\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}-
\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right)
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(
\Delta_{max})}\left(M_\pi-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+
\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{2{\bf \Delta}_{max}^2}\biggl[\biggl(
\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)} \nonumber \\ & & -
(M_B-E_\pi)\left(\frac{1}{
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}+
\frac{1}{m_b(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)}\right)\biggr)
\nonumber \\
& & \times\left(M_B+M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber \\
& & - \frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{2m_b(\varepsilon_b(
\Delta_{max})+m_b)}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p))
+\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{2m_b\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}\nonumber \\ & &
\times\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-
m_q}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
+m_q}
\left(M_\pi-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\pi
+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr]\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{2(\varepsilon_q(p) +m_q)}\biggl[\biggl(
\frac{E_\pi-M_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(p+
\Delta_{max})+m_q)^2} \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{E_\pi+M_\pi}\biggl(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
- \frac{1}{m_b(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)}\biggr)\biggr)
\nonumber\\
& &\times\left(M_B+M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{(E_\pi-M_\pi)(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p))}{
m_b(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
+m_q)}- \frac{M_B-E_\pi}{(E_\pi+M_\pi)m_b\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}
\nonumber\\
& &\times\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}
{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\left(M_\pi- 2\varepsilon_q\left(p+
\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr]\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf
p}),\\
\label{a3}
f_+^{V(2)}(0)&=&\sqrt{\frac{E_\pi}{ M_B}} \int\frac{d^3p}{
(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\pi\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& & \times \Biggr\{-\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{(\varepsilon_q(p)
+m_q)}\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right)\nonumber\\
& & \times \biggl(\frac{E_\pi -M_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(p+
\Delta_{max})+m_q} \biggl(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max}) +m_b}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\biggr)\nonumber \\
& &-\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{E_\pi+M_\pi}\biggl(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q} -
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\biggr)\biggr) \nonumber\\
& &\times\left(M_B+M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{{\bf \Delta}_{max}^2}\frac{1}{
\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q} \biggl[ (\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max}) -m_q)
\nonumber\\ & & \times
\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}- \frac{m_q}
{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max}) (\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
\right)\nonumber \\
& & + (M_B-E_\pi)\left(\frac{1}{ \varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\right)\biggr]
\nonumber \\
& & \times\left(M_B+M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}\biggl[
\frac{M_B-M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)+2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)}{2\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\frac{M_B+M_\pi-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\pi+M_\pi}\Delta_{max}\right)}{2\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)} \nonumber \\
& & +\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q} -\frac{1}{2m_b}
\left(1-\frac{M_B-E_\pi}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right)
\right)\frac{M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p)}{\varepsilon_b(
\Delta_{max})+m_b} \biggr]\Biggr\}\Psi_B({\bf p}),
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent b) $B\to \rho e\nu$ decay form factors
\nopagebreak
\begin{eqnarray}\label{a4} A_1^{(1)}(0)&=&\frac{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}{
M_B+M_\rho} \sqrt{\frac{E_\rho}{ M_\rho}} \int\frac{d^3p}{ (2\pi)^3}
\bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_b(p)+m_b}{2m_b}}
\Biggl\{1+\frac{1}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
\biggl((E_\rho-M_\rho)\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}
\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{1}{3}{\bf p}^2 -({\bf p\Delta}_{max})\biggr)\Biggr\}
\Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a5} A_1^{S(2)}(0)&=&\frac{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}{
M_B+M_\rho} \sqrt{\frac{E_\rho}{ M_\rho}} \int\frac{d^3p}{ (2\pi)^3}
\bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}
\left(M_\rho
-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}
\right)\right) \nonumber\\ & &
-\frac{(p_x^2+p_y^2)(E_\rho-M_\rho)}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)
(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\nonumber\\
& & \times\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)
-\varepsilon_q(p))\biggr] + \frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}
{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2} \frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{2}
\biggl[\biggl( \frac{1}{m_b(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)}
\nonumber\\ & &
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
+m_q)}\biggr) \left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{m_b\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p))\biggr]\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a6} A_1^{V(2)}(0)&=&\frac{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}{
M_B+M_\rho} \sqrt{\frac{E_\rho}{ M_\rho}} \int\frac{d^3p}{ (2\pi)^3}
\bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{\frac{(p_x^2+p_y^2)(E_\rho-M_\rho)}
{(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
\biggl(\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})
+m_b)} \nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)^2}\biggr)
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ & &
+\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}\biggl[ \frac{1}{2\varepsilon_q
(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)} \biggl(
\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-
m_q}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\nonumber\\
& &\times\biggl(M_\rho
-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+
M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\biggr)
-(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p))\biggr)\nonumber\\
& &-\frac{1}
{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\left(\frac{1}{3(\varepsilon_q(
\Delta_{max})+m_q)}+\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\nonumber\\
& &\times\left(M_\rho-
2\varepsilon\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+
M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\right)\biggr]- \frac{({\bf
p\Delta}_{max})} {{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}
(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q) \nonumber \\
& &\times\biggl[\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q
(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}\biggl(2(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p))
\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
+m_q}\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}\left(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}+
\frac{m_q}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})
+m_q)}\right) \nonumber\\
& & \times \left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr]\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf
p}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{a7} A_2^{(1)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{E_\rho+ M_\rho} \int\frac{d^3p}{
(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& & \times \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_b(p)+m_b}{2m_b}}
\Biggl\{1+\frac{M_\rho}{M_B}\left(1-\frac{E_\rho+M_\rho}
{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right) -\frac{p_z^2}{2m_b
(\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q)}\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{(\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q)
(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}\left(\frac{E_\rho+M_\rho}{2m_b}
+\frac{M_\rho}{M_B}\right) \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}\left(
\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})-m_q}{2m_b} +\frac{M_\rho}{M_B}
\left(1+\frac{E_\rho}{m_b}\right)\right)\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a8} A_2^{S(2)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{E_\rho+ M_\rho} \int\frac{d^3p}{
(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{\left(\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}+2\frac{M_\rho}{M_B}\right)
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})} \left(M_\rho
-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}
\right)\right) \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}
\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\nonumber\\ & &
\times\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)
-\varepsilon_q(p))\biggr] + \frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}
{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2} \frac{1}{2}\biggl[\biggl(\frac{
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}{m_b(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)}
\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\biggr)
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{m_b}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p))\biggr]\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a9} A_2^{V(2)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{E_\rho+ M_\rho} \int\frac{d^3p}{
(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}
{(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
\biggl(\frac{E_\rho+M_\rho}{(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)(\varepsilon_b(
\Delta_{max}) +m_b)} \nonumber\\ &
&+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\biggr)
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\
& & -\frac{{\bf p}^2}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}\biggl[
\frac{1}{2\varepsilon_q
(\Delta_{max})(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)} \nonumber\\
& &\times\biggl(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p)
-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+
M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\biggr) \nonumber\\
& &+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}
\left(\frac{1}{3(\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q)}
+\frac{1}{m_b}\right)\left(M_\rho-2\varepsilon\left(p
+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+ M_\rho}\Delta_{max}
\right)\right)\biggr]\nonumber\\
& &- \frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}
\biggl[\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q} \left(
\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})
+m_b}+\frac{m_q}{2\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})} \right)\nonumber\\
& &\times \left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}\biggl(3(M_B-
\varepsilon_b(p)
-\varepsilon_q(p))\nonumber\\
& &-\left(M_\rho-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr)\biggr]\Biggr\}
\Psi_B({\bf
p}),\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{a10} V^{(1)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}
+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{ E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& & \times \sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_b(p)+m_b}{2m_b}}
\Biggl\{1+\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{E_\rho+M_\rho}\left(
\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}
-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}\right)\nonumber\\
& & +\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}\left( 1-
\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{2m_b} \right)
\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf p}),\\
\label{a11} V^{S(2)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}
+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{ E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\
& &\times \Biggl\{-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}
\left(M_\rho -2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}
{E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\right)
+\frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{2m_b(E_\rho+M_\rho)(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}
\nonumber\\
& & \times\biggl[\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})-m_q}
{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})}
\left(M_\rho -2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}
{E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\right) \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}{\varepsilon_b
(\Delta_{max}) +m_b} \left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\biggr]\nonumber\\ & & -
\frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})} {{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}
\biggl[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})} -
\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}{ m_b
(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max}) +m_b)}\right)\nonumber\\ & &\times
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ &
&-\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})-m_q}{2m_b
\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})} \left(M_\rho
-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}
{E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max} \right)\right) \biggr]\Biggr\}
\Psi_B({\bf p}),\\ \label{a12}
V^{V(2)}(0)&=&\frac{M_B+M_\rho}{2\sqrt{M_BM_\rho}}
\int\frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_\rho\left({\bf p}
+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+M_\rho}{\bf\Delta}_{max}\right)
\frac{2\sqrt{E_\rho M_\rho}}{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\sqrt{\frac{\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})+m_q}{
2\varepsilon_q(p+\Delta_{max})}} \nonumber \\ & &\times
\Biggl\{\frac{2(p_x^2+p_y^2)}{(E_\rho+M_\rho)
(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}\biggl(\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}
{(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)(\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b)} \nonumber\\
& &-\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}\biggr)
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-
\varepsilon_q(p)-2\varepsilon_q\left(p+ \frac{2\varepsilon_q}{
E_\rho+M_\rho}\Delta_{max}\right)\right)\nonumber\\ & & -\frac{{\bf
p}^2}{2m_b(\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q)}\biggl[
\frac{1}{\varepsilon_b(\Delta_{max})+m_b}(M_B-\varepsilon_b(p)
-\varepsilon_q(p))\nonumber\\ & &
+\frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}
\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p)-
2\varepsilon\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+ M_\rho}\Delta_{max}
\right)\right)\biggr] \nonumber\\ & & + \frac{({\bf p\Delta}_{max})}
{{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2} \frac{1}{\varepsilon_q(p)+m_q}\left(1-
\frac{\varepsilon_q(\Delta_{max})+m_q}{\varepsilon_b
(\Delta_{max})+m_b}\right)\nonumber\\
& &\times\left(M_B+M_\rho-\varepsilon_b(p)-\varepsilon_q(p)-
2\varepsilon\left(p+\frac{2\varepsilon_q}{E_\rho+ M_\rho}\Delta_{max}
\right)\right)\Biggr\} \Psi_B({\bf p}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the superscripts ``(1)" and ``(2)" correspond to Figs.~1 and 2,
$S$ and $V$ --- to the scalar and vector potentials of $q\bar
q$-interaction;
\begin{equation}\label{a13}\vert {\bf\Delta}_{max}\vert=\frac{M_B^2-
M_{\pi(\rho)}^2}{ 2M_B};\qquad E_{\pi(\rho)}=\sqrt{M_{\pi(\rho)}^2+
{\bf\Delta}_{max}^2}= \frac{M_B^2+ M_{\pi(\rho)}^2}{ 2M_B};
\end{equation}
and $z$-axis is chosen in the direction of ${\bf\Delta}_{max}$.
\end{appendix}
\frenchspacing
|
\section{Introduction}
The contouring methods described by
\CITEX{Lewis-MiraldaEscude-Rich-Wambs93} and
\CITEX{Witt93-contouring-APJ} are very efficient for obtaining the
magnification of a point source moving along a straight track in the
source plane. For finite sources, however, the amplification {\em
must} be computed for numerous parallel tracks and then convolved
with the source profile. Rayshooting, on the other hand, is an
efficient algorithm for relatively large sources, but the computing
time increases with the inverse of the source area for a given noise
level.
\section{The hybrid method}
\label{sec:method}
By using the method described in
\CITEX{Lewis-MiraldaEscude-Rich-Wambs93}, all the images of a
straight, infinite line in the source plane can be found. The images
are the borders between those parts of the lens plane projected above
the straight line, and those parts projected below the straight line.
After finding the images of one line below the source and one line
above the source, it is clear that those parts of the lens plane that
are projected between the two infinite lines in the source plane are
the areas between the images of the infinite lines.
Furthermore, those segments corresponding to the upper and lower edges
of a box surrounding the source may be identified. The end points of
these segments are projected onto the corners of the ``source box''.
Starting from the corner points, the contouring method can be ``turned
around'' 90 degrees, and all the lines joining all the corner points
of the ``source box'' are found. After this step, all the images of
the source box are placed within known, closed polygons. Rayshooting
is then performed within all the closed polygons, and the lightcurve
is produced in the usual way.
\section{Efficiency}
\label{sec:efficiency}
The efficiency of the rayshooting part of the method compared to
crude, non-optimized rayshooting can be found by comparing the size of
the areas where rayshooting has to be performed. A target area in the
source plane with length $2l$, and height $2r_{\rm s}$ gives an effective
lightcurve length $L_{\rm c} = 2l-2r_{\rm s}$, where $r_{\rm s}$ is the source radius.
The theoretical efficiency $f$ can be shown to be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f &\approx& \left\{
\begin{array}[c]{l}
(1 + \bfrac{10\sqrt{\kappa_*}}{r_{\rm s}} + %
{} \bfrac{100\kappa_*}{lr_{\rm s}}) \\[.5cm]
(1+ \bfrac{20\sqrt{\kappa_*}}{r_{\rm s}} + \bfrac{100\kappa_*}{r_{\rm s}^2})
\end{array} \right.
\begin{array}[l]{l}
\mbox{For $l \gg r_{\rm s}$} \\[.5cm]
\mbox{For $l = r_{\rm s}$, $L_{\rm c}=0$.}
\end{array}
\label{eq:ratio}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The above arguments give a theoretical efficiency factor on the order
of $10^5$ for e.g. a snapshot of the source with $r_{\rm s}=0.01$, $l=r_{\rm s}$
and $\kappa_*=0.4$. However, the most time-consuming task for the
hybrid method is going to be the contouring itself. For a snapshot
like the example above, the contouring amounts to about $10^5$ shots
\cite{Lewis-MiraldaEscude-Rich-Wambs93}. This must be compared with
the total number of shots necessary to get a specific signal to noise
ratio, generally about $10^3$ shots. The highest estimates of $f$ thus
have to be lowered by roughly a factor of $100$, depending on the
specific parameters $r_{\rm s}$, $\kappa_*$, $\gamma$, and $l$.
Even so, the proposed hybrid method has the potential to be a very
efficient workhorse for producing accurate model lightcurves for small
but extended sources.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank Rolf Stabell and Sjur Refsdal for
comments during the preparation of this poster.
|
\section{Introduction}
Nuclear reactions reveal various aspects of hadronic many-body
problem as a function of
the target and projectile combination, the incident energy
and the angular momentum involved.
In nucleon induced reactions, for example, the compound process
is dominant in low energy region, while the pre-equilibrium
and spallation processes become more likely as the incident energy
increases.
In heavy-ion collisions, we also have to introduce various models
of different natures depending on each specific process.
However,
most of them are restricted to the specific energy regime or
specific phenomenon and some of them have too many parameters
to obtain a definite physical conclusion from the analysis.
The main purpose of the series of our work is to develop a model
which can describe the various aspects of nuclear reactions
in an unified way.
We try to seek a model with minimum number of parameters,
a wide range of applicability,
and a quantitative agreement with as many observables as
possible.
In addition to these requests, we demand the model to be
so simple that one can run its computer code on
work stations.
In the heavy-ion physics, microscopic models, which describe
reactions in terms of the dynamics of the interacting
nucleons, are commonly used to extract the information of the
nuclear matter under extreme conditions
from the final observables.
The most popular models of this type are the
Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck/Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck
(BUU/VUU) \cite{vuu00},
the quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) \cite{qmd00},
and CASCADE type models \cite{cascade00,cascade01}.
So far these microscopic models have shedded light on
several exciting topics in heavy-ion physics, e.g. the
multifragmentation, the flow of the nuclear matter, and
the energetic particle production.
However
the parameters of the models such as
the effective interaction, elastic and
inelastic channels of $NN$ cross section, differ substantially
from one model to the other even in the same type of model.
Furthermore, these models have not been tested intensively
in much simpler light-ion reactions
except for an analysis of (p,xn) reaction
carried out by Peilert et al \cite{peilert}.
In their analysis, however, the lower part of neutron energy spectra
cannot be treated, since
statistical decay following the QMD process was not included.
We thus start the series of our work
from the analysis of the simplest type
of the reactions, the $(N,xN')$ (nucleon in, nucleon out)
reaction in this paper,
aiming to establish an unified model for various nuclear reactions.
In the subsequent works, we are planning to analyze $(N,x\pi)$,
$(\pi,xN)$ reactions and heavy-ion reactions.
We restrict our subject to the reactions
of nucleon-nucleus, meson-nucleus and nucleus-nucleus collisions
with energies well above Coulomb barrier up to several GeV/nucleon,
where the classical treatment of the collisions is justified
in a first-order approximation.
We do not deal with the phenomena which are dominated by the
quantum effects.
In this energy regime, the whole reaction process could be divided
into two parts, i.e. dynamical process and statistical process.
These two processes are well separated in their time scales.
In the dynamical process, the direct reactions, nonequilibrium
reactions, and dynamical formation of highly-excited fragments
take place during typical collision times of the order $10^{-22}$
sec. After that, the evaporation and fission decay, which we call
the statistical process, occur in the longer time scale
of the order $10^{-21}-10^{-15}$ sec.
We thus employ a two step model,
namely, we incorporate quantum molecular dynamics (QMD)
for the dynamical process with statistical decay model (SDM).
Similar hybrid models have been used in the analysis of the
heavy-ion collisions \cite{maru92a,g-qmd,f-qmd}.
In this paper, we define the basic ingredients of
QMD plus SDM model and discuss
how these two are combined without introducing
any additional parameter.
We then apply this model systematically
to $(N,xN')$ reactions,
and discuss which element in the model is crucial
for describing these reactions
and what is necessary to develop the model further.
In Sec. II we describe the details of the QMD,
the effective interaction, $NN$ elastic and inelastic cross
sections, the relativistic corrections and the statistical
decay model employed in our model.
In Sec. III we compare the various double differential cross
sections calculated by this model
with the experimental data for proton induced reactions
with incident energies from 100 MeV up to 3 GeV.
We summarize and conclude this work in Sec. IV.
\section{Description of the Basic Model}
As we mentioned above, our basic model consists of two part,
the quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) and
the statistical decay model (SDM).
The reason of employing the QMD model for the description of the
dynamical processes is that the QMD can calculate the fragment
formation in a natural and practical way.
Though the QMD method is widely used in the study of nuclear
fragmentation \cite{qmd00}, the details of the prescription
differ from author to author.
Aiming to establish a simple standard model,
we will start from the standard type of QMD,
taking into account of the relativistic
kinematics and the relativistic correction for the effective
interaction.
Additionally, we treat the resonances of nucleon, $\Delta$ and
$N^*(1440)$, and real pions with their isospin degrees of
freedom in the equation of motion.
For the statistical decay process, we use a simple prescription
including only the light particle evaporation.
\subsection{Quantum Molecular Dynamics}
\subsubsection{Basic equations and effective interaction}
The QMD method is a semi-classical simulation method in which
each nucleon state is represented by a Gaussian wave function of
width $L$,
\begin{equation}
\phi_i({\bf r}) = \frac{1}{(2\pi L)^{3/4}} \exp \left[
- \frac{({\bf r} - {\bf R}_i)^2}{4L} +
\frac{i}{\hbar} {\bf r} \cdot {\bf P}_i \right],
\end{equation}
where ${\bf R}_i$ and ${\bf P}_i$ are the centers of position
and momentum of $i$-th nucleon, respectively.
The total wave function is assumed to be a direct product of
these wave functions.
Thus the one-body distribution function is obtained by the Wigner
transform of the wave function,
\begin{equation}
f({\bf r},{\bf p}) = \sum_i { f_i({\bf r},{\bf p}) },
\label{f0}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
f_i({\bf r},{\bf p}) = 8 \cdot
\exp\left[-{({\bf r}-{\bf R}_i)^2\over 2L}
-{2L({\bf p}-{\bf P}_i)^2\over \hbar^2}\right].
\label{fi}
\end{equation}
The time evolution of ${\bf R}_i$ and ${\bf P}_i$ is described by
Newtonian equations and the stochastic two-body collision term.
The Newtonian equations are derived on the basis of the
time-dependent variational principle \cite{qmd00} as
\begin{equation}
\dot{{\bf R}}_i = \frac{\partial H}{\partial {\bf P}_i},
\;\;\;\;
\dot{{\bf P}}_i = - \frac{\partial H}{\partial {\bf R}_i},
\label{newton00}
\end{equation}
where the Hamiltonian $H$ consists of the single-particle
energy including the mass term
and the energy of the two-body interaction.
As for the effective interaction, we adopt the Skyrme type,
the Coulomb, and the symmetry terms in this paper.
By using the Gaussian function of nucleons [Eq.\ (\ref{fi})],
we get
\begin{eqnarray}
H & = & \sum_i\;{ E_i } \nonumber \\
& & \; + \; {1\over 2}{A \over\rho_{0}}\sum_i<\rho_i>
\; + \; {1\over 1+\tau}{B \over \rho_{0}^{\tau}}
\sum_i<\rho_i>^{\tau} \nonumber \\
& & \; + \; {1\over 2}\sum_{i , j(\neq i)} c_{i} \, c_{j} \,
{e^2\over|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|} \,
\> {\rm erf}\left( |{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|/\sqrt{4L}
\right) \nonumber \\
& & \; + \; {C_{\rm s}\over 2\rho_0} \sum_{i , j(\neq i)} \,
( 1 - 2 | c_i - c_j | ) \; \rho_{ij},
\label{ham1}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
E_i = \sqrt{ m_i^2 + {\bf P}_i^2} \;,
\end{equation}
where erf denotes the error function.
In the above equation, $c_i$ is 1 for protons and 0 for neutrons,
while $<\rho_i>$ is an overlap of density with
other nucleons defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
<\rho_i> & \equiv & \sum_{j\neq i} \; \rho_{ij} \;
\equiv \sum_{j\neq i}
{ \int { d{\bf r} \; \rho_i({\bf r}) \;
\rho_j({\bf r}) }} \nonumber \\
& = & \sum_{j\neq i}{ (4\pi L)^{-3/2}
\exp \left[ - ( {\bf R}_i - {\bf R}_j ) ^2
/ 4L \right] },
\label{rhoij}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_i({\bf r}) & \equiv & \int \frac{d{\bf p}}{(2\pi \hbar)^3}
\; f_i({\bf r},{\bf p}) \nonumber \\
& = & (2\pi L)^{-3/2}
\exp \left[ - ( {\bf r} - {\bf R}_i ) ^2
/ 2L \right].
\end{eqnarray}
In this paper we use the parameters $A=-219.4$ MeV,
$B=165.3$ MeV, and $\tau=4/3$ which yield a compressibility of
$K=237.3$ MeV, saturation at $\rho = \rho_0 = 0.168
{\rm fm}^{-3}$ and
a binding energy of 16 MeV per nucleon for infinite nuclear
matter.
The symmetry energy parameter $C_{\rm s}$ is chosen to be 25 MeV.
The width of Gaussian $L$ is a parameter of the QMD and fixed
as $L=2.0 \; {\rm fm}^2$ in this paper.
\subsubsection{Two-body collision term}
In addition to the Newtonian equation Eq.\ (\ref{newton00}),
the time evolution of the system is affected by the
two-body collision term.
In the QMD method, the stochastic two-body collision process
is introduced in a phenomenological way on the analogy of
the test-particle calculation of the BUU collision term
\cite{vuu00}.
It includes the Pauli blocking factor
$(1-f({\bf r},{\bf p},t))$,
which is lacking in the cascade collision process
\cite{cascade00,cascade01}.
We follow basically the prescription of the two-body collision term
used in the BUU calculation done by Wolf et al. \cite{wolf,wolf2},
and modify it to extend the energy range up to 3 GeV.
We thus describe here the outline of the procedure of
Ref.\ \cite{wolf,wolf2}
and explain the extensions introduced in this paper.
Further details of the collision term and
the dynamics of $\Delta$'s, $N^*$'s, and pions discussed
below can be found in Ref.\ \cite{wolf,wolf2}.
It is assumed that two particles collide if their impact parameter
defined in a covariant way is smaller than a given value
$b_{{\rm max}}=\sqrt{\sigma/\pi}$ obtained
from cross section~$\sigma$.
The collisions are considered as instantaneous interaction and
a collision event is specified by the two points in space-time
where the collision happens.
Therefore it is hard to retain the covariance,
since one has to choose a common reference frame
for the QMD calculations.
Hence the average proper time of the collision
points defined by each particle is used to determine
the time step in which the collision happens.
This collision prescription was checked for
heavy-ion collisions from 400 MeV/nucleon to 2.1 GeV/nucleon,
and it was found that the disturbance of the covariance
was very small \cite{wolf}.
In order to treat the reactions with high bombarding energies,
we include in our QMD simulation the nucleons ($N$), deltas
($\Delta$(1232)), $N^*$(1440)'s and pions with their
isospin degree of freedom.
The $\Delta$'s and $N^*$'s are propagated in the same
interactions as the nucleons except for the symmetry term,
while pions feel only the Coulomb interaction.
The creation and absorption of these particles are
treated in the collision term.
In the following, we list all channels included in the collision
term, where $B$ denotes a baryon and $N$, more specifically,
a nucleon:
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{llllllll}
1.\;& B_i & +\;& B_j & \to \;& B_i & +\;& B_j \\
2. & N & + & N & \to & N & + & \Delta \\
3. & N & + & \Delta & \to & N & + & N \\
4. & N & + & N & \to & N & + & N^* \\
5. & N & + & N^* & \to & N & + & N \\
6. & N & + & \pi & \to & \Delta & & \\
7. & N & + & \pi & \to & N^* & & \\
8. & \Delta & + & \pi & \to & N^* & . & \\
\end{array}
\label{channel1}
\end{eqnarray}
The channel 8 has been added to the prescription of
Wolf et al. \cite{wolf},
which is the inverse process of the additional decay channel
of $N^*$(1440)'s (cf. channel 11 below).
We use the following parametrization
for all baryon-baryon elastic cross section
(channel 1 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})),
\begin{equation}
\sigma =
\frac{C_1}{1+100 \sqrt{s} \; '} + C_2 \; ({\rm mb}),
\label{signn1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\sqrt{s} \; ' =
\max( 0, \sqrt{s} - M_i - M_j - {\rm cutoff} ) \;
({\rm GeV}),
\end{equation}
where cutoff is 0.02 GeV for nucleon-nucleon channel, while
it is zero for the others.
This is the conventional
Cugnon parametrization form \cite{vuu00,cascade01}.
We use this form up to
$\sqrt{s} \; ' = 0.4286 \; ({\rm GeV})$,
which corresponds to 1 GeV Lab energy
for nucleon-nucleon case.
Above 1 GeV, we parametrize the experimental
$p$-$p$ and $p$-$n$ elastic
cross section \cite{ptable,data1} as,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma =
C_3 \left[ 1 - \frac{2}{\pi} \tan^{-1} \left(
1.5 \sqrt{s} \; ' - 0.8 \right) \right]
+ C_4 \; ({\rm mb}).
\label{signn2}
\end{eqnarray}
In order to connect Eqs.\ (\ref{signn1}) and (\ref{signn2})
smoothly, we slightly modified the parameters of Cugnon
\cite{vuu00,cascade01}.
The actual values of the parameters $C_i$ in the above equations
are listed in Table \ref{table1}.
The angular distribution of the elastic channels is taken from
the same form as Cugnon parametrization \cite{vuu00,cascade01}.
For the production of baryonic resonances
(channel 2 and 4 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})),
we adopt the total cross section based on the
parametrization of VerWest and Arndt
\cite{west}, in which the pion cross sections are parametrized
assuming the pions are produced through baryonic resonances.
Their parametrization was performed by fitting the
experimental data up to 1.5 GeV incident energy.
In order to extend the energy range up to 3 GeV,
we have modified the parameters in the following way.
In the model of VerWest and Arndt,
the cross sections are parametrized according
to the initial and final total isospin $i$ and $f$ of the
two-nucleon system \cite{west} as
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{if}(s) = \frac{\pi(\hbar c)^2}{2p^2}
\; \alpha \left( \frac{p_r}{p_0}\right)^{\beta}
\frac{m_0^2 \Gamma^2 (q/q_0)^3}
{(s^* - m^2_0)^2 + m_0^2 \Gamma^2},
\label{wests}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
p_0^2 & = & {1\over 4} s_0 - m^2_N , \;\;\;\;\;
s_0 = (m_N+m_0)^2 , \nonumber \\
p_r^2(s) & = &
\frac{[s-(m_N-\langle M \rangle )^2][s-(m_N+\langle M \rangle )^2]}
{4s}, \\
q^2(s^*) & = &
\frac{[s^*-(m_N-m_\pi )^2][s^*-(m_N+m_\pi )^2]}
{4s^*}, \nonumber \\
s^* & = & \langle M \rangle^2 , \;\;\;\;
q_0 = q(m_0^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and $\langle M \rangle$ is the mean mass of the resonance \cite{west}
obtained from a Breit-Wigner distribution with $M_0 = 1220$ MeV,
$\Gamma_0 = 120$ MeV for the $\Delta$ and $M_0 = 1430$ MeV
and $\Gamma_0 = 200$ MeV for the $N^*$.
From these cross sections, we determine the production cross
section of $\Delta$'s \cite{wolf} as
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{lllllllll}
p & + & p & \to & n & + & \Delta^{++}
& : & \sigma_{10}+{1\over 2}\sigma_{11} ,\\[0.5ex]
p & + & p & \to & p & + & \Delta^{+}
& : & {3\over 2}\sigma_{11} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & p & \to & p & + & \Delta^{0}
& : & {1\over 2}\sigma_{11}+{1\over 4}\sigma_{10} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & p & \to & n & + & \Delta^{+}
& : & {1\over 2}\sigma_{11}+{1\over 4}\sigma_{10} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & n & \to & p & + & \Delta^{-}
& : & \sigma_{10}+{1\over 2}\sigma_{11} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & n & \to & n & + & \Delta^{0}
& : & {3\over 2}\sigma_{11} .
\end{array}
\label{delta}
\end{eqnarray}
We have effectively included the cross section of the $\pi d$ final
state, parametrized as $\sigma^d_{10}$ in \cite{west},
in the cross section of $\sigma_{10}$.
We assume in this paper that the cross section $\sigma_{01}$
in \cite{west} contributes only to the $N^*$ production
independently
of the isospin components.
Thus we rename $\sigma_{01}$ as $\sigma_{N^*}$, and the
$N^*$ production cross sections are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{lllllllll}
p & + & p & \to & p & + & N^{*+}
& : & {3\over 2}\sigma_{N^*} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & p & \to & p & + & N^{*0}
& : & {3\over 4}\sigma_{N^*} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & p & \to & n & + & N^{*+}
& : & {3\over 4}\sigma_{N^*} ,\\[0.5ex]
n & + & n & \to & n & + & N^{*0}
& : & {3\over 2}\sigma_{ N^*} .\\[0.5ex]
\end{array}
\label{nstar}
\end{eqnarray}
The new parameters in Eq.\ (\ref{wests}) are given in
Table \ref{table3}.
In order to determine these parameters and the parameters of
elastic cross section in high energy part defined in
Eq.~(\ref{signn2}),
we fitted the experimental $p$-$p$ and $p$-$n$ cross sections
\cite{ptable,data1}.
In Fig.\ \ref{pptot}, we show the $p$-$p$ (a) and $p$-$n$ (b)
total (solid line), elastic (long dashed line),
and inelastic (dot-dashed line) cross sections.
The inelastic cross section is the sum of the
$\Delta$ (short dashed line) and $N^*$
(dotted line) production cross section, calculated by
Eqs.~(\ref{signn1},\ref{signn2},\ref{wests},\ref{delta},\ref{nstar}).
In the same figure, we show the corresponding
experimental total (open circles),
elastic (open triangles), and inelastic (open boxes)
cross sections \cite{data1} with error bars.
For the $p$-$p$ case, the present parametrization of
elastic and inelastic cross sections fits to the data
for whole energy range up to 3 GeV except for the some
deviation around 1 GeV, which is due to the
elastic cross section and does not affect the result.
On the other hand, for $p$-$n$ case where only the total cross
section is available in the data,
we fitted it at the energy higher than 0.7 GeV up to 3 GeV,
and adopt the Cugnon's type elastic cross section
in the low momentum region instead of the free elastic cross
section.
In Fig.\ \ref{pppi} we show the pion cross section of
$pn \to nn\pi^+ + pp\pi^-$ (solid line)
obtained by our new parametrization
of Table \ref{table3}.
In the same figure, the gray bold line denotes the result of the
original
parametrization of VerWest and Arndt \cite{west},
while the experimental data are taken from Ref.\ \cite{data1}.
By this new parameter set,
our pion production cross section below 1.5 GeV
does not differ so much from
the original results of VerWest and Arndt \cite{west},
which are essentially the same as the data.
However, above 1.5 GeV,
our result fitted the experimental data,
while the result obtained by extrapolating the
original parametrization of VerWest and Arndt to higher energy
shows a big bump, which has no experimental support.
In the higher energy region, the role of $N^*$ becomes important.
One of the good quantities which shows the characteristics of the
higher resonances is the elementary two pion production cross
section.
In the present prescription it is described only by $\sigma_{N^*}$
combined with the decay modes of the resonances which will be
mentioned below.
For example, it is shown in our prescription that
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma(pn \to pp \pi^0 \pi^-) & = & \frac{1}{15} \sigma_{N^*},
\nonumber \\
\sigma(pn \to pn \pi^+ \pi^-) & = & \frac{5}{12} \sigma_{N^*},
\label{twopi} \\
\sigma(pp \to pp \pi^+ \pi^-) & = & \frac{1}{3} \sigma_{N^*}.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We thus plot the $\sigma_{N^*}$ in Fig.\ \ref{signn3}
as well as the experimental two pion production cross sections
\cite{data1} scaled by above factors.
This figure shows that our parametrization fitted the gross
features of the experimental data for the energy range up to
3 GeV.
Although this parametrization should be modified if two delta
production channel or the direct two pion decay of $N^{*}$ or
higher resonances are included,
the present prescription of the elementary inelastic channels
could roughly reproduce the experimental single and two
pion production cross sections for the energy range up to
3 GeV.
We do not take into account the direct s-state pion production
mechanism but all pions are assumed to be produced through
baryonic resonances.
The masses of the resonances are randomly distributed according to
the Breit-Wigner distribution with the momentum-dependent width
\cite{moniz}, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
f(M) = \frac{0.25 \Gamma^2}{(M-M_r)^2 + 0.25 \Gamma^2},
\label{masdis1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\Gamma = \left( \frac{q}{q_r} \right)^3 \frac{M_r}{M}
\left( \frac{v(q)}{v(q_r)} \right)^2 \Gamma_r,
\label{masdis2}
\end{equation}
where $q$ denotes the c.m. momentum in the $\pi N$ channel,
and index $r$ refers to the values at the mass $M_r$, and
\begin{equation}
v(q) = \frac{\beta_r^2}{\beta_r^2 + q^2}.
\label{masdis3}
\end{equation}
We have applied this momentum dependent width not only to
the $\Delta$-resonance but also to $N^*$(1440). The values
of the parameters used in this paper are listed
in Table~\ref{table4}.
Another important ingredient of the resonance production
(channel 2 and 4 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})) is the angular
distribution of the resonances.
Wolf et al. \cite{wolf} parametrized the angular distribution
of the experimental data \cite{ange1} for
$p+p \to n+\Delta^{++}$ and assumed the same angular dependence
for each isospin channel in the following form,
\begin{equation}
g_{\rm R}(s,\cos\theta) = a_0(s)
\; [ a_1(s) + 3 a_3(s) \cos^2\theta ],
\label{angwolf1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
a_0(s) = \frac{1}{4 \pi ( a_1(s) + a_3(s) ) }.
\label{angwolf2}
\end{equation}
The values of $a_1(s)$ and $a_3(s)$ are given in Table~\ref{table5}.
In the high energy region $\sqrt{s} > 2.4 $ GeV, which
corresponds to the laboratory energy higher than 1.2 GeV,
this angular distribution is assumed to be constant,
since there is no experimental data to be fitted in this energy
region.
However, above the resonance region $E_{{\rm lab}} > 1.2 $~GeV,
this is not justified because, for example,
the angular distribution of protons from
$^{27}$Al$(p,p')$ at 3.17 GeV reaction
calculated by Eq.\ (\ref{angwolf1})
deviates from the experimental data
(cf. discussions on Fig.\ \ref{enyo1} in the next section).
In order to get a better parametrization for high energy part,
we assume that the angular dependence is effectively
written as a sum of $g_{\rm R}$ and another term $g_{\rm D}$ as
\begin{equation}
g_{\rm A}(s,\cos\theta) = \frac{1}{2} \, \left[
g_{\rm R}(s,\cos\theta)
+ g_{\rm D}(s,\cos\theta) \right].
\label{angtot}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
g_{\rm D}(s,\cos\theta) = b_0(s)
\; \exp \left[ - 2 \, p^2(s) \, b_1(s)
\; ( 1 - \cos\theta ) \right],
\label{angdir1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
b_0(s) & = & \frac{p^2(s) \, b_1(s)}
{\pi \, ( \, 1- \exp[ -4 \, p^2(s) \, b_1(s)] \, ) },
\\[3ex]
b_1(s) & = & \frac{0.14 \, s^2 \, [3.65 \,
( \sqrt{s} -m_N -m_R) \, ]^6 }
{1 + [3.65 \, ( \sqrt{s} -m_N -m_R) \, ]^6 }, \\[3ex]
p^2(s) & = & \frac{[s-(m_N-m_R)^2][s-(m_N+m_R)^2]}
{4s}.
\end{eqnarray}
This form of $g_{\rm D}$ is obtained by modifying the
Cugnon parametrization \cite{vuu00,cascade01}
of the $NN$ elastic angular distribution so as to
trace the angular distribution of Eq.~(\ref{angwolf1})
in the resonance region, and approach the elastic-like angular
distribution for the higher momentum region.
We use this angular distribution for $\Delta$-resonance and
$N^*$(1440).
For the latter case, we apply this formula by shifting
the energy $\sqrt{s}\;$ by the mass
difference of the two resonances, i.e., 208 MeV.
The energy dependence of this angular distribution is shown
in Fig.\ \ref{angf}, where we plot
$g_{\rm R}$ (gray bold dashed lines)
and $g_{\rm D}$ (solid lines) in (a), while
$g_{\rm R}$ (gray bold dashed lines)
and $g_{\rm A}$ (solid lines) in (b).
In these figures, we symmetrized the elastic-like angular
distribution,
i.e., $ \frac{1}{2} [ g_{\rm D}(s,\cos\theta)
+ g_{\rm D}(s,-\cos\theta)] $,
in order to compare it with the angular distribution
of Eq.\ (\ref{angwolf1}) (gray bold dashed lines).
In the next section, we will discuss
the dependence of the final results of $(N,xN')$ reactions on this
angular distribution of the hadronic resonances.
The cross sections for the channel 3 and 5 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})
are determined by the law of detailed balance from the cross
section of channel 2 and 4 with taking into account the mass
dependence of the cross section \cite{wolf2}.
For the pion absorption cross section on nucleons (channel 6 and 7
in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})) we take the maximum cross sections from
the particle data table \cite{ptable} and scale them according to
the Breit-Wigner formula.
For the case of pion absorption on $\Delta$
(channel 8 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1})),
we assume the same cross section as the channel 7 with shifting
the energy by the mass difference of the $\Delta$ and nucleon.
Apart from the collision term, we take into account the decay of
the baryonic resonances during the propagation as
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{rlllll}
9. & \Delta & \to & N & + & \pi \\
10. & N^* & \to & N & + & \pi \\
11. & N^* & \to & \Delta & + & \pi \\
\end{array}
\label{channel2}
\end{eqnarray}
The decay probability of the resonances is determined by
a exponential decay law using their momentum-dependent width
Eq.\ (\ref{masdis2})
and their proper time.
The decay is assumed to be isotropic in their rest frame.
The branching ratio of the channel 10.\ and 11.\
of Eq.\ (\ref{channel2})
is taken from the particle data table \cite{ptable} as
$\Gamma_{N^* \to \Delta+\pi}
/ [\Gamma_{N^*\to \Delta+\pi} + \Gamma_{N^*\to N+\pi}]
= 0.4$.
The other branching ratios concerning their isospin are determined
from the appropriate Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
\subsubsection{Relativistic corrections}
Non-covariant framework is
another problem of applying the QMD method
to the reactions at higher bombarding energies.
As explained above, we have already introduced the relativistic
form of energy expression in the Hamiltonian
Eq.\ (\ref{ham1}) and adopted the relativistic kinematics in the
collision term.
However a covariant formulation of the interaction term is necessary
for a full relativistic description.
A Lorentz covariant extension of the QMD, dubbed relativistic
quantum molecular dynamics (RQMD), has been proposed
by Sorge et al. \cite{rqmd}
based on the Poincar\'e-invariant constrained Hamiltonian dynamics.
Although the RQMD is a numerically feasible extension of QMD
toward a fully covariant approach, it still costs too much computing
time to apply the RQMD model to heavy systems.
We thus make the following alternative extension of QMD
and include the main part of the relativistic dynamical effects
in our model.
Lehmann et al. \cite{lehmann} have compared
the time evolution of the phase space and the particle production
obtained by QMD and RQMD, looking for the relativistic effects
in heavy-ion collisions in the intermediate energy regime.
They found that there is no significant difference between the
results of QMD and RQMD in the $\eta$ and $\pi$ meson production
cross sections \cite{lehmann} and the proton inclusive spectra
\cite{rqmdt}.
The difference appeared only in the values of the maximum density
\cite{rqmdt} and the transverse flow \cite{rqmdm}.
Both are larger in RQMD.
Their studies showed that a large part of the difference comes
from the Lorentz contraction of the initial phase space
distribution in RQMD.
If this Lorentz contraction is employed in the normal QMD, however,
the transverse flow is overestimated.
Thus they concluded that in RQMD this effect is partially
counterbalanced by the covariant treatment of the interaction,
but there still remains an increased flow
compared with the normal QMD calculation.
Based on their investigation, we introduce in this paper
the Lorentz-scalar quantities into the
arguments of the interactions in Eq.\ (\ref{ham1})
as well as
the Lorentz contraction of the initial phase space distribution.
By these modifications the main part of the
relativistic dynamical effects would be approximately
included in our QMD.
All arguments of the interaction in Eq.\ (\ref{ham1}) are written
as a function of the squared spatial distance:
\begin{equation}
{\bf R}_{ij}^2 = ({\bf R}_i - {\bf R}_j)^2.
\end{equation}
In the RQMD \cite{lehmann,rqmdt},
these arguments are replaced by the squared transverse
four-dimensional distance $-q_{{\rm T}_{ij}}^2$ defined as
\begin{equation}
-q_{{\rm T}_{ij}}^2 = -q_{ij}^2 + \frac{(q_{ij} \cdot p_{ij})^2}
{p_{ij}^2},
\end{equation}
where $q_{ij}$ is the four dimensional distance
$q_i-q_j$, while $p_{ij}$ denotes the sum of the four momenta of
the two particle $p_i+p_j$.
In the c.m.s of the particle $i$ and $j$,
the squared covariant transverse distance $-q_{{\rm T}_{ij}}^2$
reduces to the usual squared distance.
We therefore change the argument in Eq.\ (\ref{ham1}) from
the ${\bf R}_{ij}^2$ to the squared distance in the c.m.s.
of the two particles
$\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2$,
where the tilde means the quantities defined
in the c.m.s of the two particles,
\begin{equation}
\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2 = {\bf R}_{ij}^2 + \gamma_{ij}^2
\left( {\bf R}_{ij} \cdot {\vec \beta}_{ij} \right)^2,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\vec \beta}_{ij} = \frac{{\bf P}_i + {\bf P}_j}
{ E_i + E_j }, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\gamma_{ij} = {1\over \sqrt{1-{\vec \beta}_{ij}^2}}.
\end{equation}
By this change, all interactions of the Hamiltonian
[Eq.\ (\ref{ham1})] depend also on the momentum.
The form of the equation of motion [Eq.\ (\ref{newton00})]
changes to
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{{\bf R}}_i & = & \frac{{\bf P}_i}
{\sqrt{m_i^2+{\bf P}_i^2}}
+ \sum_j D_{ij} \,
\frac{\partial \;{\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2}}
{\partial \,{\bf P}_i},
\label{eom01} \\
\dot{{\bf P}}_i & = & - \sum_j D_{ij} \,
\frac{\partial \;{\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2}}
{\partial \,{\bf R}_i},
\label{eom02}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
D_{ij} & = &
- \> \frac{1}{2} \frac{A}{\rho_0} \> \frac{1}{2L} \> \rho_{ij}
\nonumber \\
& & - \> \frac{1}{1+\tau} \frac{B}{\rho_0^{\tau}} \> \frac{\tau}{2}
\left( < \rho_i>^{\tau-1} + < \rho_j>^{\tau-1}
\right) \> \frac{1}{2L} \> \rho_{ij} \nonumber \\
& & + \> \frac{e^2}{2} c_i c_j \left\{ - \frac{1}
{|\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}|}
\> {\rm erf} \left( \frac{|\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}|}{\sqrt{4L}}
\right) + 8 \pi L \> \rho_{ij} \right\}
\frac{1}{\tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2}
\nonumber \\
& & - \> \frac{C_{\rm s}}{2\rho_0} \>
(1-2|c_i-c_j|) \> \frac{1}{2L} \> \rho_{ij},
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial \; \tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2}{\partial \, {\bf R}_i}
& = & 2 {\bf R}_{ij} + 2 \gamma_{ij}^2 \left( {\bf R}_{ij}
\cdot \vec \beta_{ij} \right)
\vec \beta_{ij} \label{dev1} \label{eom11} \\
\frac{\partial \; \tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2}{\partial \, {\bf P}_i}
& = & \frac{2 \gamma_{ij}^2}{E_i + E_j} \left( {\bf R}_{ij}
\cdot \vec \beta_{ij} \right) \nonumber \\
& \times &
\left\{ {\bf R}_{ij} + \gamma_{ij}^2
\left( {\bf R}_{ij} \cdot \vec \beta_{ij} \right)
\left( \vec \beta_{ij} - \frac{ {\bf P}_i}{E_i} \right)
\right\} \;, \label{eom12}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho_{ij}$ is defined in Eq.\ (\ref{rhoij}).
We also introduce the Lorentz-scalar quantities into the one-body
phase-space distribution function Eq.\ (\ref{fi}) as
\begin{equation}
f_{ij} = 8 \cdot
\exp\left[ - {1\over 2L} \> \tilde {\bf R}_{ij}^2
-{2L\over \hbar^2} \> \tilde {\bf P}_{ij}^2 \right] ,
\end{equation}
where $\tilde {\bf P}_{ij}^2$ denotes the squared relative momentum
in the c.m.s of the particle $i$ and $j$,
which is expressed for two particles with the same mass
as
\begin{equation}
\tilde {\bf P}_{ij}^2 = {\bf P}_{ij}^2 - ( E_i - E_j )^2,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\bf P}_{ij} = {\bf P}_i - {\bf P}_j.
\end{equation}
At the starting point of the QMD calculation,
we boost the ground state of projectile
(and target as well if c.m.s of the
target and projectile is chosen as a reference frame)
according to the beam energy.
The coordinate ${\bf R}_{iz}^{\rm b}$ and momentum
${\bf P}_{iz}^{\rm b}$
of the nucleon in the beam direction $z$
after the boost are obtained by the Lorentz transformation
from those before the boost, ${\bf R}_{iz}$ and ${\bf P}_{iz}$,
as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf R}_{iz}^{\rm b} & = & ( {\bf R}_{iz} - {\bf R}_{0z} )
\> / \, \gamma \> + \> {\bf R}_{0z}, \\
{\bf P}_{iz}^{\rm b} & = & \gamma \> ( {\bf P}_{iz} + \beta E_i ),
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf R}_0$ denotes the initial c.m.\ coordinate of the
nucleus, while $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the boosting velocity
and its gamma factor, respectively.
At this moment, the potential energy of the system
and the phase-space distribution function keep the same values
as those before the boost due to their Lorentz-scalar properties
discussed above.
During the propagation of the boosted nuclei, however,
those quantities are changing slightly even in the above
prescriptions, since the equations of motion Eq.\ (\ref{eom01})
and (\ref{eom02}) are not covariant.
But the disturbance due to the non-covariant feature of the
equation of motion is negligibly small up to the energy
3 GeV/nucleon.
We thus introduce the relativistic corrections discussed
above to the non-covariant QMD to save the computing time
instead of using the full covariant framework.
We should mention here that
if one employs the Lorentz contraction for the boosted initial
state but does not replace the arguments of
the interaction and phase-space distribution by
the Lorentz-scalar ones,
the potential energy decreases about
80 MeV and the phase-space factor at each nucleon's point
changes about 40 \% after the boost
in the case of $^{40}{\rm Ca}$ even at 1~GeV/nucleon boosting energy.
This means that the boosted ground state obtained by this way
may decay spontaneously before it collides with the other nucleus.
By our prescription, we are free from this problem.
We have checked the above prescription
by analyzing the transverse flow,
which is sensitive to the treatment of the relativity
as discussed in Ref.\ \cite{lehmann}.
In Fig.\ \ref{fig-flow} we show the energy dependence of
so called directed transverse momentum $<{\bf P}^{{\rm dir}}_x>$,
which is a measure for the transverse flow and
defined by
\begin{equation}
<{\bf P}^{{\rm dir}}_x> = {1\over N} \sum_{i=1}^N {\rm sign} \left[
Y_{{\rm CM}}(i) \right] {\bf P}_{ix},
\end{equation}
where $Y_{{\rm CM}}(i)$ is the rapidity of the $i$-th baryon in the
c.m.s and ${\bf P}_{ix}$ its transverse momentum in the
reaction plane.
We plot the result of the present QMD
simulation (solid line with full boxes) as a differences from
that of RQMD \cite{rqmdt}
for $^{40}{\rm Ca}$ + $^{40}{\rm Ca}$ reactions
at $b$ = 2~fm, for the energy range from 150 MeV/nucleon
to 4 GeV/nucleon.
In these calculations, we use the same ground states
(mentioned below), the same gaussian wave packets and
the same interaction (mentioned before).
We omitted the Coulomb interaction and two-body collision
term for a simplicity.
In Fig.\ \ref{fig-flow}, we also plot the other results obtained
by the standard QMD (dot-dashed line with open circles)
without the initial Lorentz contraction and without the
relativistic corrections,
and by the standard QMD only with the Lorentz contraction
(dashed line with open boxes).
As mentioned before, the Lorentz contraction of the initial
phase space distribution increases the flow, which is shown by
the change from the dot-dashed line to the dashed line.
By the full covariant treatment of the interaction, however,
this effect is counterbalanced, but still remains an increased flow
\cite{lehmann}.
As seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig-flow},
our prescription does not deviate so much from the full covariant
treatment up to 3 GeV/nucleon.
We thus expect that our QMD simulation with the relativistic
corrections is very close to the covariant simulation RQMD
in this energy regime.
At much higher energy, however, our result is decreasing linearly
from that of RQMD.
This deviation comes from the different treatment of the potential
between the RQMD \cite{rqmdt} and our QMD;
a Lorentz scalar type in the former, while a time-component of the
vector type in the later, respectively.
This is understood qualitatively by considering
a single particle motion under a fixed external potential $U$.
In the Lorentz scalar treatment of the potential $U$,
the single particle energy $p_i^0$ is expressed in this simple
case as
\begin{equation}
p_i^0 = \sqrt{p_i^2 + m_i^2 + 2m_i U}.
\end{equation}
Accordingly the equation of motion is
\begin{equation}
\dot{{\bf P}}_i = -
\frac{m_i}{p^0_i} \frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf R}_i}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand in our prescription they are
\begin{equation}
p_i^0 = \sqrt{p_i^2 + m_i^2 } + U,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\dot{{\bf P}}_i = - \frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf R}_i}.
\end{equation}
In this test calculations, the form of
$\frac{\partial U}{\partial {\bf R}_i}$,
which is attractive in the beginning,
is almost the same in our QMD and in the RQMD.
Thus the force of our QMD becomes larger and deviates linearly
from that of the RQMD as energy increases.
Above 3 GeV/nucleon, therefore, the full covariant prescription
is necessary to describe the reactions particularly
the nucleus-nucleus collisions.
This is out of scope of this paper.
Some details of actual numerical calculations should be mentioned
here, since all potential terms depend on the momentum by the
relativistic corrections.
In order to keep a numerical accuracy, we use the second order
Runge-Kutta method to integrate the equations of motion.
For the energy conservation for the collision term, we assume
\begin{equation}
E_i + E_j + U_{{\rm pot}} = E_i' + E_j' +U_{{\rm pot}}',
\label{econ1}
\end{equation}
where $E_i$, $E_j$, and $E_i'$, $E_j'$ are the energies of particle
$i$ and $j$ before and after the collision, while $U_{{\rm pot}}$
and $U_{{\rm pot}}'$ the potential energy of the system.
We determine iteratively the final momenta of
the colliding particles so as to satisfy the energy conservation
Eq.\ (\ref{econ1}).
This prescription is applied to the channels 1 to 5 in
Eq.\ (\ref{channel1}), 9 to 11 in Eq.\ (\ref{channel2}).
For the pion absorption channels of 6, 7 and 8
in Eq.\ (\ref{channel1}),
the energy conservation is written as
\begin{equation}
E_i + E_j + U_{{\rm pot}} = E_R +U_{{\rm pot}}',
\label{econ2}
\end{equation}
where $E_R$ is the resonance energy.
In this case, we determine iteratively the rest mass of the
resonance to conserve the energy.
\subsubsection{Properties of ``ground state''}
An important ingredient of the QMD calculation is how to
determine the initial phase space distribution
of the projectile and target.
For that we cannot use the real ground state (energy minimum state)
of the system defined by the Hamiltonian Eq.\ (\ref{ham1}),
since the model does not have the Fermionic properties.
However, it is necessary to obtain a stable ``ground state''.
Also some typical properties of the real ground
state should approximately be fulfilled,
especially the binding energy and
phase space distribution.
To get such ``ground state'', we employ the following
random packing procedure \cite{f-qmd};
We distribute the centers of position ${\bf R}_i$ of the individual
Gaussian wave packet
according to a distribution of the Woods-Saxon shape
with the radius $R_0 = 1.124 \; A^{1/3} - 0.5 $ fm
and the diffuseness parameter $a = 0.2 $ fm.
We cut off the Woods-Saxon tail at
$R_{{\rm max}} = 1.124 \; A^{1/3} $ fm.
In this procedure, we impose minimum distance between the centers
of the Gaussians in order to reduce the density fluctuation.
We use 1.5 fm for the identical nucleons and 1.0 fm for
the other.
Now we can calculate the density and potential energy at any point
(here, we do not need the relativistic correction
discussed in the previous sub-section).
Then the center of momentum ${\bf P}_i$ is randomly sampled
from the sphere of radius $p_{\rm F}({\bf R}_i)$ which is the Fermi
momentum obtained by the local Thomas-Fermi approximation.
This sampling is rejected and another value is sampled
if the sum of kinetic and potential energy of the particle is
positive or the phase space factor $f({\bf R}_j,{\bf P}_j)$
(cf. Eqs.~(\ref{f0}) and (\ref{fi}) )
for the nucleon $j$ which have been previously accepted
violates the Pauli principle \cite{f-qmd}.
Finally, we check the total binding energy with the
simple mass formula \cite{bm1}, i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{{\rm bin}} = & - & 15.56 \; A
+ 17.23 \; A^{2/3} \nonumber \\
& + & 46.57 \; \frac{(N-Z)^2}{2\,A}
+ \frac{3}{5} \; \frac{Z^2e^2}{1.24\,A^{1/3}}.
\label{liquid-e}
\end{eqnarray}
If the binding energy per nucleon obtained by our sampling
lies within $E_{{\rm bin}}\pm 0.5$,
we adopt this configuration as a ``ground state''.
Thus the ``ground state'' obtained by this procedure always
has an appropriate binding energy.
However, there is still open phase space below the Fermi surface,
since the ``ground state'' is not the energy minimum state of the
Fermions.
In fact, during the time evolution of the ``ground state''
under the QMD dynamics described in previous sub-section,
only 70~\% of the collisions are blocked by the final state
Pauli blocking in the two-body collision term.
It is allowed at a collision that
one nucleon goes down to the lower
energy state and the other goes up to the positive energy state.
This means that some nucleons could be spontaneously emitted
after some time due to the fluctuation of the configuration.
To avoid this problem, we assume from a technical point of view
that any pair of nucleons originated in the same nucleus
does not collide each other until at least one of them experience
a collision with a nucleon from the other nucleus.
By this assumption the number of the emitted nucleons from the
``ground state'' is reduced to less than about 1~\% of the nucleons
up to the time 200 fm/$c$.
The density profile of the ``ground state'' obtained here has
high density in the center and
rather wide surface shape.
This is due to the large width of Gaussian $L = 2.0 \; {\rm fm}^2$
used in this paper.
On the other hand, the momentum distribution of the ``ground state''
well reproduces the result of Hartree-Fock calculation.
In Fig.\ \ref{denmom}, we show (a) the density $\rho(r)$
distribution and (b) the momentum distribution $\rho(p)$
for the ``ground state''
of $^{40}{\rm Ca}$ obtained by QMD simulation (solid lines).
The results shown here are averaged quantities over time evolution
up to 200 fm/$c$ and over 100 events.
The error bars in Fig.\ \ref{denmom} denote the fluctuations
in time evolution averaged over 100 events.
Although the fluctuation of the one event is much larger,
this figure shows that the ground state profile is very stable
in time on the average over the events.
In the same figure, we also plot the results of Hartree-Fock
calculation (dot-dashed lines) and the limit of infinite nuclear
matter (dashed lines).
The energy spectra of the emitted particles given in the next
section, particularly of the subthreshold particle production
\cite{niita1}
are more sensitive to the momentum distribution than the density
profile.
This is the reason why we adopted a parametrization which leads to
a better momentum distribution at the cost of diffuse density
profile.
\subsection{Statistical Decay Model}
At the end of the dynamical stage of the reactions,
the QMD simulation yields many fragments,
which are normally in highly excited states.
One may think that the decay process of the excited fragments
might be described by the QMD dynamics
if we can continue the calculation for enough long time.
However, we do not follow this method but instead we stop
the QMD calculation and switch to the statistical decay model (SDM)
at the end of the dynamical stage.
There are two reasons for this hybrid model.
One is that the time scales of
the dynamical and statistical processes are quite different.
It is not clever or even practically impossible to continue
the reliable QMD calculation more than $10^{-20}$ sec
which is necessary to calculate the decay process.
Another is a more fundamental reason that the Fermi statistics,
which is essential to describe the decay process of the fragments,
cannot be traced correctly in the QMD simulation \cite{ohnishi1}.
We identify the fragments together with
their excitation energies
at about 100 $\sim$ 150 fm/$c$ of the QMD simulation.
The dependence of the final results on this switching time
will be discussed in the next section.
Each fragment is recognized by using a minimum distance chain
procedure, i.e.,
two nucleons are considered to be bound in a fragment if the
distance
between their centroids is smaller than 4 fm.
We then calculate the total energy of the fragment in its rest frame
and estimate the excitation energy by subtracting
the ground state energy given by Eq.\ (\ref{liquid-e}).
Though there have been proposed many sophisticated statistical
decay codes so far,
we use here the simple model of light particle evaporation.
We consider only $n$, $p$, $d$, $t$, $^3$He, and $\alpha$
evaporation.
The emission probability $P_x$ of these particles $x$ is given with
the Fermi gas model as,
\begin{equation}
P_x = (2J_x +1) \,
m_x \, \epsilon \, \sigma_x(\epsilon) \, \rho(E) \, d\epsilon ,
\label{prob1}
\end{equation}
where $J_x, m_x,$ and $\epsilon$ are the spin, mass and kinetic
energy of the particle $x$, while $\sigma_x(\epsilon)$ and
$\rho(E)$ denote the inverse cross section
for the absorption of the particle with energy $\epsilon$
and the level density of the residual
nucleus with the excitation energy $E$, respectively.
We use the following simple form for $\rho(E)$,
\begin{equation}
\rho(E) = w_0 \, \exp\left( 2 \sqrt{a\, E} \right),
\label{level1}
\end{equation}
with $a = A/8 \; {\rm MeV}^{-1}$ and $w_0$ is a constant.
The inverse cross section is assumed to have the form
\begin{equation}
\sigma_x(\epsilon) = \left\{
\begin{array}{lr}
\left(1-U_x/\epsilon\right) \, \pi R^2 &
: \epsilon > U_x \\ [1ex]
\; 0 & : \epsilon \le U_x \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{invers}
\end{equation}
where $R$ denotes the absorption radius and
$U_x$ is a Coulomb barrier for the particle $x$,
for which we employ empirical values used in the existing
statistical decay code \cite{gemini}.
The excitation energy $E$ in Eq.\ (\ref{level1}) is given by
\begin{equation}
E = E_0 - \epsilon - Q,
\label{excite}
\end{equation}
where $E_0$ denotes the excitation energy of the parent nucleus
and $Q$ is the reaction Q-value calculated
from the mass formula Eq.\ (\ref{liquid-e}).
The total emission probability $R_x$ of the particle $x$ is obtained
by integrating the available energy of Eq.\ (\ref{prob1}) as
\begin{eqnarray}
R_x & = & (2J_x+1) \, m_x \, \nonumber \\[1ex]
& & \times \int_{U_x}^{E_0-Q_x} \,
\epsilon \, \sigma_x(\epsilon) \, \rho(E_0-Q_x-\epsilon)
\, d\epsilon.
\label{totalp}
\end{eqnarray}
This integration can be calculated analytically and the
energy spectrum of the emitted particles is given by
\begin{equation}
N(\epsilon_x) \, d\epsilon_x = \frac{\epsilon_x - U_x}{T_x^2}
\, \, \exp\left\{ - \frac{\epsilon_x - U_x}{T_x}
\right\} \, \, d\epsilon_x,
\label{spec1}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
a\, T_x^2 = E_0 - U_x - Q_x.
\label{spec2}
\end{equation}
In this formulation, we do not consider the $\gamma$ decay nor
the angular momentum dependence.
The latter is important for the heavy-ion reactions but
not so serious for the nucleon-induced reactions considered
in this paper.
We simulate the whole statistical decay process as a sequential
light particle evaporation discussed above by making use of the
Monte-Carlo method until no more particle can be emitted.
\section{Analysis of the (N,xN') Reactions}
In this section, we systematically apply the QMD plus SDM method
described in the previous section to $(N,xN')$
(nucleon in, nucleon out) type reactions.
In order to get sufficient statistics, we performed the QMD
calculations for a large number of events, typically 50000 events,
and averaged them to obtain the following results.
We first check the dependence on the switching time $t_{{\rm sw}}$
when the QMD calculation is stopped and switched to
SDM, which is an ambiguous point of the present model.
In Fig.\ \ref{pb15001}, we show a typical neutron energy
spectrum at $30^{\circ}$ laboratory angle for the reaction
$p(1.5 {\rm GeV}) + ^{208}$Pb.
Note that x-axis is plotted in a logarithmic scale to compare
the calculated results in detail with the experimental data
particularly
in a low energy region.
The experimental data (full boxes with error bars) are taken from
Ref.\ \cite{ishibashi}.
The solid histogram denotes the final result of the QMD + SDM
calculation.
In this case, we switch the QMD calculation to SDM at 100 fm/$c$.
In the same figure, we also plot the spectrum of the neutron
obtained only by the QMD calculation up to 100 fm/$c$
(dot-dashed histogram)
and that coming from the QMD fragments calculated with SDM
(dashed histogram), respectively.
The former shows a cascade and/or preequilibrium energy spectrum,
while the latter an evaporation spectrum.
These two components of spectrum are affected by changing
the switching time $t_{{\rm sw}}$.
However, the total spectrum shape,
which is the sum of the two components,
stays almost unchanged
if an adequately long time is chosen for the switching time
$t_{{\rm sw}}$.
This is shown in Fig.\ \ref{pb15002}, where we plot results of
the total spectra calculated by QMD + SDM
with three different switching times, 50 fm/$c$ (dashed line),
100 fm/$c$ (solid line) and 150 fm/$c$ (dot-dashed line).
This figure shows that although the latter two lines resemble
each other, they deviate definitely from the first line.
This indicates that the QMD fragments before 100 fm/$c$ are not in
thermal equilibrium
and that within a time interval from 100 fm/$c$ to 150 fm/$c$
the decay processes of the excited fragments described by QMD
and SDM are nearly equivalent.
Although we should keep in mind that these two are not identical
at low temperature as the former is always dominated by the
classical statistics \cite{ohnishi1},
we can conclude that
the final results are not sensitive to the switching
time $t_{{\rm sw}}$ as long as it is chosen
after the time when the thermal equilibrium is achieved
and before the time the temperature of the fragments
become low and classical statistics breaks down seriously.
The similar conclusion has been obtained in Ref.\ \cite{maru92a},
which indicates that the minimum switching time
to get stable results depends on the size of system and the
incident energy.
For the case of nucleon induced reactions, we found that
100 fm/$c$ is enough to get stable results and we use this value
for all systems in the present study.
Next check is the detailed examination of the inelastic channels
in the two-body collision term.
For this purpose we compare our results with the experimental
data at high incident energy of proton on the light-mass target,
which directly reflects the elementary processes included
in the model.
In Fig.\ \ref{enyo1}, we plot the invariant cross section of
the proton (left-hand-side) and negative pion (right-hand-side)
emission for the reaction $p \,(3.17 {\rm GeV}) +^{27}$Al.
The experimental data (full boxes with error bars) are taken
from Ref.\ \cite{enyos} and the results of QMD + SDM are
denoted by solid histograms.
In the same figure, we plot results of QMD + SDM
with the different choice of the
angular distribution of the resonances.
The dashed histograms are the results obtained with only
the resonance-like angular distribution of Eq.\ (\ref{angwolf1}),
while the dot-dashed histograms are those with the direct-like
angular distribution of Eq.\ (\ref{angdir1}), respectively.
This figure shows that the average of the two components
of the angular distribution of
Eq.\ (\ref{angtot}) well fits
the experimental proton spectra.
On the other hand, the pion spectra are rather insensitive
to the angular distribution of the resonances.
Instead, their spectra are dominantly determined by the mass
distribution of the resonances of Eq.\ (\ref{masdis1}).
Although the authors of Ref.\ \cite{enyos} analyzed these data
by making use of the two-moving-source model,
our QMD + SDM can reproduce excellently the proton and pion
spectra at the same time without any special assumption.
In Figs.\ \ref{fe113}-\ref{pb3000}, we compare the neutron energy
spectra obtained by the QMD + SDM calculations
with the experimental data \cite{ishibashi,Meier}
for Fe and Pb targets at the proton energy from
113 MeV up to 3 GeV.
In the fields of application of accelerators,
such as spallation neutron sources, accelerator-based
transmutation systems,
and shielding
of cosmic ray in space activity,
the production of slow neutrons plays an important role.
That is the reason we chose these data \cite{ishibashi,Meier}
to compare with, since the neutron spectra
from 1 MeV up to the beam energy are available.
For efficient comparisons of the calculations and the data,
both for low energy and high energy regions,
we plot the same results in two figures with the x-axis in
a logarithmic scale (left-hand-side)
and in a linear scale (right-hand-side).
One can see the detail of
the thermal and preequilibrium neutron spectra
in the former figure,
while the direct-like components of the spectra in the latter
figure, respectively.
These figures indicate that over the broad range of
the incident energies from 100 MeV to 3 GeV,
independently of the targets, and of all angles of the outgoing
neutrons, our results of the neutron energy spectra
agree well with the data from 1 MeV up to the beam energy.
Though one may notice some disagreement at the high energy part of
the most forward angle, which will be discussed later,
the overall agreement is satisfactory.
Particularly a remarkable agreement of the present calculations
with the low energy neutron data below several tens MeV confirms
that the QMD gives proper excitation spectra of the excited
fragments from which the statistical neutron emission takes place.
With a suitable chosen fixed set of parameters, our QMD plus SDM
model is able to reproduce quantitatively the overall neutron spectra
for the broad range of the incident energies and target masses.
At 113 MeV, we additionally compare our results with the prediction
of the intranuclear cascade plus light particle evaporation model
(NUCLEUS) \cite{nucleus}.
This model is essentially the intranuclear reaction part of
NMTC \cite{nmtc} and HETC \cite{hetc} codes.
Calculations with NUCLEUS yield almost the same results as ours
in the forward angles but give lower values in the backward angle,
which is denoted by the dashed histogram at 150 degree
in Fig.\ \ref{fe113}.
In this energy regime it has been reported \cite{blann1,blann2}
that the semiclassical preequilibrium models based on
an intranuclear cascade model also fail to reproduce the angular
distributions.
We found from the detailed comparison of the calculations
that the underestimation of the backward angle in the above
models is due to the insufficient treatment of
the soft interaction of a nucleon with all the rest of the nucleons
in the nucleus,
which is naturally included in the QMD formalism.
One may think that this explanation is
in contradiction with
Ref.\ \cite{peilert,blann3} where
they attribute the failure to the insufficient contributions
from second and higher order collisions.
To resolve this problem,
we have checked that the NUCLEUS has almost the same prescription of
hard nucleon-nucleon interaction
and has almost the same momentum distribution in the ground state
as QMD.
Difference is that our QMD part includes the soft nucleon-nucleon
interaction but NUCLEUS does not.
This soft interaction diffracts the nucleon.
As a result, the yields of the backward angle increase
and by the same reason
the number of multiple hard collisions also increases.
On the other hand,
a multistep model of
the Feshbach-Kerman-Koonin (FKK) \cite{fkk}
has been also applied to the energy regime
around 100 MeV \cite{blann3}.
Although the FKK approach successively reproduced
the angular distribution,
the overall absolute values of their results
are very sensitive to the strength parameter of
the residual interaction,
which is adjusted to fit the experimental data.
The strength so determined depends on the incident particle,
target nucleus and incident energy.
In QMD, on the contrary, the parameters of the soft
nucleon-nucleon interaction in Eq.~(\ref{ham1})
are taken common to all reactions and
determined from the nuclear saturation condition.
In addition,
the final results are not so sensitive to them.
The first analysis of $(p,xn)$ reactions by the QMD approach
in the energy regime up to 800 MeV
has been done by Peilert et al. \cite{peilert}.
The neutron spectra of their results are very similar to
those of the present work above several tens MeV.
Their analysis, however, cannot predict a whole spectra of
neutron, since the contribution of the statistical decay
from the excited fragments produced in the QMD calculation
was not considered in their work.
Though the present results show overall agreement with the data
for the very broad energy regime,
one can see a systematic deviation from the data in the high
energy part of the neutron spectra at the most forward angle
at incident energy from 113 MeV up to 800 MeV
(see the right-hand-side of Fig.\ \ref{fe113}-\ref{pb800}).
We suppose that the soft nucleon-nucleon interaction
is responsible for this deviation.
One possibility is a momentum dependent interaction
that is not included in the present QMD,
by which
the nucleon could be affected coherently by the surrounding
nucleons when its momentum is drastically changed
by the hard nucleon-nucleon scattering.
For the higher incident energies (see Fig. \ref{pb1500} and
\ref{pb3000}), this deviation disappears.
In those cases, we have checked that the neutrons
in the high energy part of the forward angle emerge after
at least once experiencing the resonances of nucleon, and that
the effects of the soft interaction is relatively small.
The analysis by the QMD including the momentum dependent interaction
will be reported in the forthcoming paper.
\section{Summary and Conclusion}
We have proposed the quantum molecular dynamics (QMD) incorporated
with the statistical decay model (SDM)
aiming to describe various nuclear
reactions in a unified way,
and applied this model to the $(N,xN')$ reactions.
We have checked and found that the final results do not depend on
the switching time when the QMD simulation is stopped and switched
to the SDM calculation as long as the switching time is chosen
between 100 fm/$c$ and 150 fm/$c$ for the nucleon induced reactions.
Therefore there left little ambiguity
with respect to the switching of two different
kinds of models to describe whole process of the reactions
in a unified way.
In order to describe the reactions at high incident energies up to
3 GeV,
we have taken into account two baryonic resonances,
the $\Delta$(1232)
and the $N^*$(1440) as well as the pions in the QMD model.
The elementary cross sections related to these resonances and pions
are basically taken from the experimental data.
The angular distributions of the resonances, which information is
very poor in the experimental data, have been fixed to fit the
$^{27}$Al$(p,p')$ data \cite{enyos} at 3.17 GeV.
It should be noted that the energy spectra of the nucleons from the
$(N,xN')$ reactions on the small target are suitable quantities
to obtain the detailed information of the angular distribution
of the resonances,
while the pion spectra are useful to extract the information of
the mass distribution of the resonances.
In addition to the relativistic kinematics and approximately
covariant prescription of the collision term,
we have introduced the Lorentz-scalar quantities to the arguments
of the interactions and to the phase space factor.
By this relativistic corrections together with the Lorentz
contraction of the
initial phase space distribution, the main part of the relativistic
dynamical effects is approximately described in our QMD
for the energy regime up to 3 GeV/nucleon.
Validity of this model has been confirmed by the analysis
of the transverse flow for the
heavy-ion collisions in comparison with the results obtained by
the covariant version of quantum molecular dynamics (RQMD).
We have applied systematically QMD + SDM to the $(N,xN')$ reactions
for a broad range of incident energies from 100 MeV to 3 GeV and
of target masses.
The present model reproduced the overall
feature of the outgoing neutrons quite well
without assuming any reaction mechanism,
and without changing a parameter set.
Although there are a lot of parameters in the model
which have not been investigated extensively in this paper,
the final neutron spectra analyzed here do not depend so much
on them,
for example, the equation of state (choice of the interaction),
width of the gaussian wave packets, and the detail of the
statistical decay process.
The main ingredients of the model,
which produce the present results of the neutron
spectra down to the energy of several MeV,
are the parametrization of the elastic and inelastic
elementary cross section
and the many-body dynamics itself,
which have been discussed both in detail in this paper.
We thus conclude that the present QMD + SDM scheme gives
a unified picture
of the major three reaction mechanisms of $(N,xN')$ reactions;
i.e. compound, pre-equilibrium and spallation processes.
Finally, we should mention that the present model is ready to be
applied directly to the heavy-ion reactions in its original form.
A study of heavy-ion reaction using this model is now under
consideration.
\acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Profs. K. Ishibashi and M. M. Meier for
supplying us with the experimental data prior to the publication.
|
\section{Introduction}
QCD in two space-time dimensions ($QCD_2$) is believed to be a useful
laboratory
to examine ideas about the hadronic physics of the real world.
One such an idea, the expansion in large number of colors $N_c$,
was applied in the pioneering work of
't Hooft \cite{thooft}.
A mesonic spectrum of a ``Regge trajectory" type was discovered in that work
for $QCD_2$ with Dirac fermions in the
fundamental representation.
The large $N_c$ limit is taken while keeping $e^2N_c$ fixed, where $e$ is the
gauge coupling. The ``orthogonal" approach, the strong coupling
limit, was also found to be a fruitful technique
when combined with bosonizing the system.
In that framework the low energy effective
action of the theory can be derived exactly. Quantization
of soliton solutions of that effective theory led to the low lying
semi-classical baryonic spectrum\cite{DFS}.
The large $N_c$ approach combined with a light-front quantization
was applied to the study of $QCD_2\ $ with Majorana fermions in the adjoint
representation. Unlike the case of fundamental fermions, for adjoint fermions
pair creation is not suppressed in the large $N_c$ limit. The bosonic spectrum
includes an infinite number of approximately linear Regge trajectories which
are associated with an exponential growing density of states at
high-energy\cite{kutasov,gyan}. Recently, a ``universality" behavior of $QCD_2\ $ was
found in the sense that the physics of massive states depends only on the
gauge group and the afine Lie algebra level but not on the
representation of the group\cite{kutasov2}.
In the present paper we combine the bosonization technique with that of a
large $N$ expansion and a light-front quantization
in the analysis of the massive mesonic spectrum of several $QCD_2\ $ models.
The massless sector which was discussed in ref.\cite{kutasov2}
is not addressed in the present work.
The models include massless fermions in the adjoint representation
and multi flavor fundamental representations.
In the former case we expand in $N_c-$ the
number of colors whereas in the latter case we consider large $N_f-$
number of flavors .
In case of massless fermions the bosonization formalism is convenient since it
separates the color, flavor and baryon number degrees of freedom\cite{FSrep}.
Moreover the generalization from fermions coupled to YM fields
to an arbitrary gauged afine Lie algebra system is natural in the bosonized
picture.
The basic difference between our approach and the one taken in refs.
\cite{kutasov,gyan} is the use of current quanta rather then those of
quarks in constructing the mass operator $M^2$ and thus also the wave equation
and
the Hilbert space.
Our results are in agreement with the results of refs.\cite{kutasov,gyan} for
the case of adjoint fermions. In the large $N_f$ it is shown that
the exact massive spectrum is a single particle with
$M^2={{e^2 N_f} \over \pi}$.
This phenomenon is explained by the fact that this limit can be viewed as
an ``abelianization" of the model.
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we present
the models. The actions are written down in their bosonized versions.
We then derive
explicit expressions for the momentum operators and the mass operator.
The afine Lie algebra currents are expanded in terms of annihilation
and creation
operators with which a Fock space of physical states is built.
In section 3 the model with adjoint fermions is analyzed in the
large $N_c$ limit.
We introduce wave functions and write down an eigenvalue equation which
generalizes 't Hooft equation\cite{thooft}. The massive mesonic spectrum
was then deduced.
In section 4 we find that the exact spectrum of multi-flavor QCD
with fundamental fermions in the regime of $N_f \gg N_c$ include only one
single mesonic state. We discuss the relation of this spectrum
to that of multi-flavor QED.
The case of large level $WZW$ models is also considered.
Some conclusions and certain open problems are discussed in section 5.
\section{The Models}
Consider two dimensional $SU(N_c)$ Yang-Mills gauge fields
coupled to (i) $N_f$ massless Dirac
fermions in the fundamental representation, or (ii) massless Majorana
fermions in the adjoint representation.
These theories are described by the following classical Lagrangian:
\beq
{\cal L}=-{1\over {4e^2}}Tr[ F_{\mu\nu}^2+i\bar \Psi\not{\hbox{\kern-4pt $D$}}\Psi]
\eeq
where $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial _\mu A_\nu - \partial _\nu A_\mu + i[A_\mu ,A_\nu]$
and the trace is over the
color and flavor indices. For the case (i)
$\Psi$ has the following group structure $\Psi_{ia}$ where $i=1,...,N_c$
and $a=1,...,N_f$, $D_\mu=\partial_\mu -iA_\mu$
whereas for
the case (ii) $\Psi\equiv \Psi^i_j$
and $D_\mu=\partial_\mu -i[A_\mu,\ ]$.
In both cases
$\Psi$ is a two spinor parametrized as follows
$\Psi = \left( \begin{array}{c} \bar \psi \\ \psi \end{array} \right) $.
It is useful to handle these models in the framework of
the light-front quantization, namely, to use light-cone space-time
coordinates and to choose the chiral gauge
$A_-=0$. In this scheme the quantum
Lagrangian takes the form
\beq
{\cal L}=-{1\over {2e^2}} {(\partial _-A_+)}^2+i\psi ^\dagger \partial_+\psi
+i\bar \psi ^\dagger \partial_-\bar \psi + A_+J^+
\eeq
where color and flavor indices were omitted and $J^+$ denotes the $+$
component of the color current
$J^+ \equiv \psi ^\dagger \psi$.
By choosing $x^+$ to be the `time' coordinate it is clear that $A_+$
and $\bar \psi$ are non-dynamical degrees of freedom.
In fact, $\bar \psi$ are decoupled from the other fields
so in order to
extract the physics of the dynamical degree of freedom
one has to functionally integrate over
$A_+$. The result of this integration is the following simplified Lagrangian
\beq
{\cal L}={\cal L}_0+{\cal L}_I=i\psi ^\dagger \partial_+\psi+i\bar\psi ^\dagger
\partial_-\bar\psi
-e^2J^+{1\over {\partial _- ^2}}J^+\label{SimAc}
\eeq
Since our basic idea is to solve the system in terms of the ``quanta" of the
colored currents, it is natural to introduce bosonization descriptions of the
various models.
(i) The bosonized action of colored flavored Dirac fermions in the fundamental
representation is expressed in terms of a WZW\cite{witten} action of a group
element $u\in U(N_c\timesN_f)$ with an additional mass term that couples the
color, flavor and baryon number sectors\cite{FS2}. In the massless case when
the latter term is missing the action takes the following form
\beq
S^{fun}_0=S^{WZW}_{(N_f)}(g) + S^{WZW}_{(N_c)}(h)+
{1 \over 2} \int d^2x \partial _\mu \phi \partial ^\mu \phi\label{BLfc}
\eeq
where $g\in SU(N_c),\ h\in SU(N_f)$ and $e^{i\sqrt{4\pi\over N_cN_f}\phi}\in
U_B(1)$ with $U_B(1)$ denoting the baryon number symmetry and
\ber
\lefteqn{S^{WZW}_{(k)}(g)={k\over{8\pi}}\int _\Sigma d^2x \ tr(\partial _\mu
g\partial ^\mu g^{-1}) + } \\
&& {k\over{12\pi}}\int _B d^3y \epsilon ^{ijk} \
tr(g^{-1}\partial _i g) (g^{-1}\partial _j g)(g^{-1}\partial _k g),
\eer
(ii) The current structure of free Majorana fermions in the adjoint
representation can be recast in terms of a WZW action of level $k=N_c$,
namely, $ S^{adj}_0=S^{WZW}_{(N_c)}(g)$ where now $g$ is in the adjoint
representation of $SU(N_c)$, so that it carries a conformal dimensions of
${1\over 2}$\cite{usss}.
Multi-flavor adjoint fermions can be described as $S^{WZW}_{N_f}(g) +
S^{WZW}_{N_c^2-1}(h)$ where $g\in SO(N_c^2-1)$ and $h\in SO(N_f)$. In the
present work we discuss only gauging of $SU(N_c)$ WZW so the latter model
would not be considered.
Substituting now $S^{fun}_0$ or $S^{adj}_0$ for $S_0$ the action that
corresponds to \eqref{SimAc} is given by
\beq
S= S_0-{e^2 \over 2}\int d^2x J^+{1\over{\partial _- ^2}}J^+
\eeq
where
the current
$J^+$ now reads $J^+=i{k\over{2\pi}}g\partial _- g^\dagger$,
where the level $k=N_f$ and $k=N_c$
for the multi-flavor fundamental and adjoint cases respectively.
The light-front quantization scheme is very convenient because the
corresponding momenta generators $P^+$ and $P^-$ can be expressed only in terms
of $J^+$. We would like to emphasize that this holds only for the massless
case.
Using the Sugawara construction, the contribution of the colored currents to
the momentum operator, $P^+$,
takes the following simple form:
\beq
P^+={1\over{N+k}}\int dx^- :J^i_j(x^-)J^j_i(x^-):
\eeq
where $J \equiv \sqrt \pi J^+$,
$N_c$
in the denominator is the second Casimir operator of the adjoint
representation and the level $k$ takes the values mentioned above.
Note that for future purposes we have added the color indices $i,j=1
\ldots N_c$ to the currents.
In the absence of the interaction with the gauge fields
the second momentum operator, $P^-$ vanishes. For the various
$QCD_2$ models it is given by
\beq
P^-=-{e^2 \over {2\pi}}\int dx^-:J^i_j(x^-){1\over{\partial _- ^2}}J^j_i(x^-):
\eeq
In order to find the massive
spectrum of the model we should diagonalize the mass
operator $M^2=2P^+P^-$.
Our task is therefore to solve the eigenvalue equation
\beq
2P^+P^-\state{\psi} = M^2\state{\psi}.
\eeq
We write $P^+$ and $P^-$ in term of the Fourier transform of $J(x^-)$
defined by $J(p^+)=\int {dx^- \over {\sqrt{2\pi}}} e^{-ip^+x^-} J(x^-)$.
Normal ordering in the expression of $P^+$ and $P^-$ are naturally with respect
to $p$, where $p<0$ denotes a creation operator.
To simplify the notation we
write from here on $p$ instead of $p^+$. In terms of these variables the
momenta
generators are \bea
&P^+={2\over{N+k}}\int ^\infty _0dp J^i_j(-p)J^j_i(p) \nonumber \\
&P^-={e^2 \over \pi}\int ^\infty _0dp {1\over{p^2}}J^i_j(-p)J^j_i(p)
\label{P}
\eea
Recall that the light-cone currents $J^i_j(p)$ obey a level $k$, $SU(N_c)$
affine Lie algebra \beq
[J^k_i(p),J^n_l(p')]={1\over 2}kp(\delta ^n_i\delta ^k_l - {1\over N}\delta
^k_i
\delta ^n_l)\delta (p+p')+
\half (J^n_i(p+p')\delta ^k_l - J^k_l(p+p')\delta ^n_i)
\label{Kac}
\eeq
We can now construct the Hilbert space. The vacuum $\state{0,R}$ is defined
by the annihilation property:
\beq
\forall p>0,\ J(p)\state{0,R}=0
\eeq
Where R is an ``allowed" representations depending on the level\cite{gepner}.
Thus, a typical state in Hilbert space is \\
$Tr\ J(-p_1)\ldots J(-p_n)\state{0,R}$.
Diagonalizing $M^2$, is in general, a complicated task, hence we will
examine in detail some special cases of the theory.
\section{Large $N_c$ Adjoint Fermions}
The first case we analyze is $QCD_2$ with fermions in the adjoint
representation. This model was investigated in the past \cite{kutasov}
\cite{gyan} and recently it was shown \cite{kutasov2}
that its massive spectrum is the same as the model of $N_f=N_c$ fundamental
quarks.
Since an exact solution of the model is beyond our reach we employ a large
$N=N_c$ approximation where some simplifications occur. As stated above the
$N_c=N$ is also the corresponding level of the model.
First, we write down the general symmetric singlet states:
\ber
\state{\psi} = \sum ^\infty _{n=2} {1\over {N^n}} \int ^P _0 \ldots \int ^P _0
dp_1 \ldots dp_n \delta (P-\sum ^n _{i=1} p_i) \phi _n (p_1,\ldots ,p_n)\times
\\ \times {1\over n} \sum_\sigma J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_{\sigma (1)})
J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_{\sigma(2)}) \ldots J^{j_n}_{j_1}(-p_{\sigma (n)}) \state{0}
\eer
\ber
\state{\psi} '= \sum ^\infty _{n=2} {1\over {N^n}} \int ^P _0 \ldots \int ^P _0
dp_1 \ldots dp_n \delta (P-\sum ^n _{i=1} p_i) \chi _n (p_1,\ldots ,p_n)\times
\\ \times {1\over n} \sum_\sigma J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_{\sigma (1)})
J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_{\sigma(2)}) \ldots J^{j_n}_{j_{n+1}}(-p_{\sigma (n)})
\state{0} ^{j_{n+1}}_{j_1}
\eer
Here $\phi _n,\chi _n$ are the Schr\"{o}dinger wave functions, and the
summation over $\sigma$ is, as explained below, over the cyclic
group $Z_n$. The difference
between the two states is that in $\state{\psi}$ the currents act on
the identity vacuum,
whereas in $\state{\psi} '$ the currents act on the adjoint vacuum.
The latter is
a state that transforms in the adjoint representation of $SU(N)$ and obeys
$J(p) \state{0} ^i_j=0$ for all $p>0$.
The two states form two distinct equivalence classes, in a sense that
one state can
not be related to another one by acting with an operator which is built from
a finite number of current operators.
In principle, other vacuum representations are allowed, but is was proven
\cite{kutasov2}
that in the large $N$ limit it is sufficient to consider only the identity
vacuum
and the adjoint vacuum. Other representations lead to multi particle
states
which are suppressed in the large $N$ limit.
Note that $M^2 \state{0}=0$, but $M^2 \state{0} ^i_j = m_0^2 \state{0} ^i_j
\ne 0$.
The reason is that the zero mode of the current $J^i_j(0)$ does not annihilate
the adjoint vacuum and actually $J^k_l(0)J^l_k(0) \state{0} ^i_j = N
\state{0} ^i_j$\cite{gepner} .The factor N is the second Casimir
of the adjoint representation. Thus $M^2 \state{0} ^i_j = 2P^+P^-
\state{0} ^i_j = 2\times {1 \over {2N}}\times N \times {e^2 \over {2\pi}}
\times N \state{0} ^i_j = {e^2 N \over {2\pi}} \state{0}^i_j $.
This non-zero value of $m_0^2$ will lead to mass splitting between
eigenvalues of $\state{\psi}$ and $\state{\psi} '$.
The summation of $\sigma$ over all elements of the cyclic group $Z_n$ was
introduce to achieve the following symmetry property of the wave functions
\bea
\phi _n(p_1,p_2,\ldots ,p_{n-1},p_n)=\phi _n(p_n,p_1,p_2,\ldots ,p_{n-1})
\nonumber \\
\chi _n(p_1,p_2,\ldots ,p_{n-1},p_n)=\chi _n(p_n,p_1,p_2,\ldots ,p_{n-1})
\label{bc1}
\eea
Another property of $\phi _n,\chi_n$ is their boundary condition
\bea
\phi _n(0,p_2,\ldots ,p_n)=0 \nonumber \\
\chi _n(0,p_2,\ldots ,p_n)=0
\label{bc2}
\eea
which is a consequence of hermiticity of the operators\cite{thooft}.
A general state whether of the type $\state{\psi}$ or $\state{\psi} '$ is an
eigenstate of $P^+$ with eigenvalue $P$
\beq
P^+\state{\psi} =P\state{\psi}
\eeq
\beq
P^+\state{\psi} '=P\state{\psi} '
\eeq
due to the following commutation
relation
\beq
[P^+,J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p)]=pJ^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p).
\eeq
In the more familiar CFT terminology this relation translates into
$[L_0, J_n]= -nJ$.
The calculation of the commutator $[P^-,J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p)]$ is more
complicated.
In the procedure of evaluating the spectrum we find the eigen wave-function by
solving an integral equation that generally mixes $\phi_n$ (or $\chi_n$) with
different $n$'s, namely, it mixes the number of currents. Since the general
equation is highly non-trivial we will use an approximation in which we
take into account only
singular terms and terms with the same number of current operators.
Those terms have the dominant contribution to the wave
equation\cite{kutasov}.
A detailed
calculation of the commutators which includes all the terms
is written in the Appendix.
Here we write only the most significant term of the commutator
\bea
\lefteqn {[P^-,J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)]= } \nonumber \\
&& {e^2\over \pi}\half
\int ^\infty _0 dp({1\over {{(p\!+\!p_1)}^2}} - {1\over p^2})
(J^i_{j_2}(-p\!-\!p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p)-J^{j_1}_i(-p\!-\!p_1)J^i_{j_2}(p))
\nonumber \\
&& + other\ terms
\eea
The above term includes an annihilation operator $J(p)$, which has non-zero
contribution when it commutes with another creation operator, say $J(-p')$.
A non-negligible commutator occurs only with a `neighbor' of
$J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)$, namely, a commutator with a current
which carries the same group
indices. Other commutators are
suppressed by factors of ${1\over N}$. A tedious
though straightforward calculation yields
\bea
&\half \int ^\infty _0 dp({1\over {{(p\!+\!p_1)}^2}} - {1\over
p^2})[(J^i_{j_2}(-p\!-\!p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p)-J^{j_1}_i(-p\!-\!p_1)J^i_{j_2}(p),
J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)]= \nonumber \\
&{N\over 2}\times \int ^{p_2}_0
dp({1\over {{(p_1\!+\!p_2\!-\!p)}^2}}-{1\over {{(p_2\!-\!p)}^2}})
J^{j_1}_i(-p_1\!-\!p_2\!+\!p)J^i_{j_3}(-p)
+ other\ terms
\eea
were `other terms' are either terms that are suppressed in large $N$, or terms
that change the number of currents.
We comment on the validity of dropping the latter terms in section 5.
The result of the last two commutators is that
if one starts with two currents $J(-p_1)$ and $J(-p_2)$ he ends with two other
currents which are multiplied by singular denominators. This result leads to
the
following eigenvalue equation
\bea
M^2\phi _n(p_1,\ldots ,p_n) = -{e^2N \over \pi}\int dy {1\over {(p_1-y)}^2}
\phi _n(y,p_1\!+\!p_2\!-\!y,p_3,\ldots ,p_n) + \nonumber \\
cyclic\ permutations \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{thoofteq}
\eea
This is a generalization of
\begin{em}
't Hooft's equation.
\end{em}
Obviously, the same equation holds also for $\chi _n$.
Equation \eqref{thoofteq} can be solved analytically with the boundary
conditions
\eqref{bc1} and \eqref{bc2}. The simplest solution is for $\phi _2$:
\ber
\phi _2(x) = \sin (\pi kx) & k\in 2Z+1 \nonumber \\
M^2_k = e^2N\pi k
\eer
The general solution for $\phi_{2n}$ is quite involved but the
eigenvalues are rather simple:
\beq
M^2_{k_1,k_2,\ldots ,k_n}= e^2N\pi (k_1\!+\!k_2\!+\! \ldots \!+\! k_n)
\ \ \ \ k_1,k_2,\ldots ,k_n \in 2Z+1
\eeq
The result for the $\state{\psi} '$ sector is similar, with the small $m_0^2$
difference:
\beq
M^2_{k_1,k_2,\ldots ,k_n}= e^2N\pi (k_1\!+\!k_2\!+\! \ldots \!+\! k_n)
+ m_0^2 \ \ \ \ k_1,k_2,\ldots ,k_n \in 2Z+1
\eeq
This expression of the eigenvalues indicates
an exponential growth of the number of states, in accordance with previous
results \cite{kutasov}. There is, however, a slight difference
between our results and those of ref.\cite{kutasov}. We found that the
values of the integers must be odd whereas
in Kutasov's
paper, they are even. The source of this difference is
the symmetric boundary conditions that we have used \eqref{bc1}.
The spectrum contains two blocks. The identity-block has integer dimension
and hence can be interpreted as the boson-block,whereas the adjoint-block
has half integer dimension and thus will be referred as the fermion-block.
We have seen that the two blocks have similar structure
since the
two sectors obey the same wave function equation.
Furthermore, mixture between the two sectors is avoided due to the
fact that the hamiltonian creates and destroys even numbers of ``quarks".
The``quark" content of the spectrum is determined
by
the relation between the currents and the quarks. This relation is given by
\beq
J^i_j(-p)=\int ^\infty _{-\infty } dq \psi ^i_k(q)\psi ^k_j(-p-q)
\eeq
which is the Fourier transform of $J(x)=\psi (x)\psi (x)$, and hence the "boson
-block" can be written as
\ber
\lefteqn{\sum_\sigma J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_{\sigma (1)})
J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_{\sigma(2)}) \ldots J^{j_n}_{j_1}(-p_{\sigma (n)}) \state{0}
= } \\
&& \sum_\sigma
\int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq_1 \psi ^{j_1}_{i_1}(q_1)
\psi ^{i_1}_{j_2}(-p_{\sigma(1)}-q_1)
\int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq_2 \psi ^{j_2}_{i_2}(q_2)
\psi ^{i_2}_{j_3}(-p_{\sigma(2)}-q_2) \\
&& \ldots \int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq_n \psi ^{j_n}_{i_n}(q_n)
\psi ^{i_n}_{j_1}(-p_{\sigma(n)}-q_n) \state{0}
\eer
and can be thought of as a mixture of $2n,2n-2,\ldots ,2$ quarks. In a similar
way, a state in the fermion-block is a mixture of $2n+1,2n-1,\ldots ,3$ quarks.
\section{Large $N_f$ QCD}
Massless $QCD_2$ with
$N_f$ flavors of quarks in the fundamental representation is
described by the Lagrangian of \eqref{BLfc}. Setting aside the flavor and
baryon number sectors, the left over system is that of a $k=N_f$ level
$SU(N_c)$ WZW action with an additional non-local interaction term.
We are thus led to analyze the spectrum of the model with level equal to
$N_f$. In practical terms the latter means substituting $k$ by $N_f$ in
the expression for $P^+$ eqn.
\eqref{P} and in the Affine Lie algebra eqn. \eqref{Kac}.
The idea is to invoke a large $N_f$ approximation, namely, to consider models
in which $k=N_f \gg N_c$.
Models with number of colors and flavors which fall into this regime, are
significantly simpler than models that don't obey this inequality. The basic
reason for that is the simplification of the algebra eqn. \eqref{Kac}.
The commutator of $P^-$ with $J$
in the large $N_f$ limit takes the form
\beq
[P^-,J^i_j(-p)]={e^2 N_f\over {2\pi p}} J^i_j(-p) + e^2 JJ\ term
\eeq
which means that
\beq
M^2\ {J^i_j(-p) \over {N_f^{1\over 2}}} \state{0,R} =
{e^2N_f \over \pi} \ {J^i_j(-p) \over {N_f^{1\over 2}}} \state{0,R}
+ e^2 N_f^{1\over 2} {JJ \over N_f} \state {0,R}\label{Slnf}
\eeq
Upon neglecting the second term which is suppressed by a factor of ${1\over
{\sqrtN_f}}$ we get the following solution to the eigenvalue problem
\beq
M^2\ J^i_j(-p) \state{0}^{ja}_{ib} =
{e^2N_f \over \pi} \ J^i_j(-p) \state{0}^{ja}_{ib}.
\eeq
Notice that
the current operator
acts
on the adjoint vacuum and not on the identity vacuum.
The reason for that is obviously the requirement that
states have to be color singlets.
$\state{0}^{ja}_{ib}$ stands for $\state{0}^{j}_{i}\otimes \state{0}^{a}_{b}$,
namely, the tensor product of the color adjoint vacuum and its flavor
counterpart. Recall that following eqn. \eqref{BLfc} the vacuum state is
an outer
product of the vacua of the three independent Hilbert-spaces of the color,
flavor and baryon number sectors. This ``decoupling" of these spaces of
states is an artifact of the massless limit of the bosonized picture. It is
further discussed in section 5.
The above state is the only one-particle state of the theory. All other
massive state are multi particle state which are built from this 'meson'.
The content of massless multi-flavor $QCD_2$
in the large $N_f$ limit is thus very simple and is in fact
closely related to multi-flavor massless QED\cite{rabin}.
In the latter case model the spectrum of single particles
contains the following single state
\beq
M^2\ J(-p) \state{0} = {e^2 N_f \over \pi} \ J(-p) \state{0}
\eeq
The reason of this similarity is very clear.
Neglecting the $O(N_f^{-{1\over 2}})$
term
in eqn.\eqref{Slnf} corresponds to dropping the structure constant term in
the
Affine-Lie algebra.
In other words, in this limit we perform an Abelianization of the
theory.
However, one may identify a difference
in the substructure of the two mesons. The Abelian
meson is built up from two quarks since current quanta is made out of two
quarks, whereas the non Abelian meson is a more complex object. The difference
can be seen by writing the state explicitly in terms of quarks operators. The
(traceless) current is written as:
\beq
J^i_j(-p) = \int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq \psi ^{\dagger i}_c(q)\psi ^c_j(-p-q)
- {{\delta ^i _j} \over N_c}
\int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq \psi ^{\dagger k}_c(q)\psi ^c_k(-p-q)
\eeq
The flavored adjoint vacuum is written as:
\beq
\state{0} ^{ja}_{ib} = \psi ^{\dagger j}_b(0) \psi ^a_i(0) \state{0}
\eeq
It is a state of two quarks with zero (light-cone) momentum acting on the
identity vacuum.
Thus the massive meson is
\ber
& J^i_j(-p) \state{0}^{ja}_{ib} = (\int ^\infty _{-\infty} dq [\psi ^{\dagger
i}_c(q)\psi ^c_j(-p-q)
- {{\delta ^i _j} \over N}
\psi ^{\dagger k}_c(q)\psi ^c_k(-p-q)])\times
\psi ^{\dagger j}_b(0) \psi ^a_i(0) \state{0}\nonumber \\
& = \int ^p_0 dq \psi ^{\dagger i}_c(-q) \psi ^c_j(-p+q) \psi ^{\dagger
j}_b(0)
\psi^a_i(0) \state{0}
- {1\over N} \int ^p_0 dq \psi ^{\dagger i}_c(-q) \psi ^c_i(-p+q)
\psi ^{\dagger j}_b(0) \psi ^a_j(0) \state{0} \nonumber \\
& + {{N^2-1} \over N} \psi ^{\dagger i}_b(-p) \psi ^a _i(0) \state{0},
\eer
namely, a color singlet which is a mixture of four quarks
and two quarks.
The basic feature used in this section has been the fact that
$k\gg N_c $. This holds, in fact, not only for large number of fundamental
representations but obviously also for any large level gauged WZW $SU(N)$
model.
\section{summary}
In this work we have calculated the mesonic
spectra of several $QCD_2\ $ models by
employing bosonization, light-front quantization and expansion in large
number of colors or flavors.
The main results of the work are
a) An approximated spectrum of the ``adjoint fermions" model.
b) The exact leading order in ${1\over N_f}$
spectra of multi-flavor fundamental representation.
As for (a), our approximation is similar to the one used
in the fermionic picture \cite{kutasov}, namely, dropping the
terms that mix wave-functions with different
number of current creation operators. The physical meaning
of such approximation is suppressing pair creation and pair annihilation.
This approximation is not quite justified, but it gives us hint about
the structure of the spectrum. Obviously, the most urgent task in this
direction is to look for methods to solve the full wave equation.
The second result states that the spectrum of the large $N_f$ fundamental
fermions is built out of a single massive
particle with $M^2\sim e^2 N_f $. For comparison see ref.\cite{Engel} where
an analysis of similar cases is discussed in the Hamiltonian formalism.
In fact, it is a universal behavior of any gauged $SU(N)$ WZW model with
$k \gg N$.
The interesting question that naturally arise is what happens in the
intermediate region, where $k \sim N$. This region can be realized for
instance, in the case of
multi-flavor $QCD_2$ with $N_f \sim N_c$. It is reasonable to expect
that the mesonic spectrum in this region will
lie between that of a single massive state and that with an exponential
density growth. In the absence of exact analytical methods one may have
to invoke
numerical diagonalization
of the bosonized $M^2$ operator in a similar way to that of the fermionic
picture\cite{gyan}.
For the analysis of the baryonic spectrum in the bosonization approach
it is essential to consider the case of massive quarks\cite{DFS}.
This maybe also the case for the mesonic spectrum since the mass term
couples the colored, flavored and baryon number sectors.
In fact, even for the massless case a better strategy is to
solve the massive case
and then go to the massless limit. The extraction of
the mesonic spectrum in the massive case is much more evolved since the
mass term can not be written in a simple fashion in terms of the currents.
However, one can systematically expand the mass term in powers of
${m_q\over e}$ where $m_q$ is the quark mass. Solving the wave equations
in the presence of these massive perturbation deserves a further future
study.
Recently, the theories of $YM_2$ and $QCD_2\ $
were analyzed as ``perturbed" topological coset models\cite{FHS}. The spectrum
in that approach which was deduced using a BRST procedure includes a
peculiar massive state which was not detected in other approaches including
the present. This discrepancy maybe related to the different approximation
used in that approach. Clearing up this point as well as the implementation
of that method
to the case of adjoint fermions and other possible
generalization deserves a further investigation. Other methods inherited
from string theory and conformal field theory can be also be applied to the
analysis of the models discussed\cite{abdalla}.
$QCD_2\ $ models can be generalized to a much richer class of theories which are
also gauge invariant and renormalizable\cite{Doug}.
The framework of this generalization
is the formulation of the $YM_2$
functional integral in terms of
an action which is linear in $F$ and includes an additional
auxiliary pseudoscalalr field. Ordinary $QCD_2\ $ has a quadratic term in the
latter field while taking any arbitrary function $f$ of this
auxiliary field spans the space of
generalized models. The analysis presented in the present paper
can be applied also to those models.
The momentum operator $P^-$ rather then being quadratic in
$ {1\over{\partial _- }}J $ it will take the general form of
$ f({1\over{\partial _- }}J) $.
It will be interesting to compare the outcome of the methods used in the
current work to those derived in ref.\cite{Doug}.
\bigskip \bigskip {\begin{center} \begin{large
We thank for M. Engelhardt, Y. Frishman and D. Kutasov for
stimulating conversations. We would specially like to thank S. Yankielowicz
for numerous discussions in various part of the work.
\section{Appendix}
A detailed calculation of currents commutators.
We would like to calculate $[P^-,J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)]$,
where $P^-={e^2 \over \pi}\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} J^i_j(-p)J^j_i(p)$.
Therefore we would calculate $[\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} J^i_j(-p)
J^j_i(p),J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)]$ by using the affine Lie algebra\eqref{Kac}:
\ber
\lefteqn{[\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} J^i_j(-p)J^j_i(p),
J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)]=} \\ &&
\\ &&
\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} J^i_j(-p)[J^j_i(p),J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)] +
\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} [J^i_j(-p),J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)]J^j_i(p) = \\ &&
\\ &&
\int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} J^i_j(-p)\{ p{k\over 2}
(\delta ^j_{j_2} \delta ^{j_1}_i
-{1\over N}\delta ^j_i \delta ^{j_1}_{j_2})\delta (p-p_1) \\ &&
+\half
(J^{j_1}_i(p-p_1)\delta ^j_{j_2}-J^j_{j_2}(p-p_1)\delta ^{j_1}_i) \} \\ &&
+\half \int ^\infty _0 {dp\over {p^2}} (J^{j_1}_j(-p-p_1)\delta ^i_{j_2}
-J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)\delta ^{j_1}_j)J^j_i(p) = \\ &&
\\ &&
{k\over 2p_1}J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1) \\ &&
+\half
\int ^\infty _{-p_1} {dp \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p)
-\half
\int ^\infty _{-p_1} {dp \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} J^{j_1}_j(-p-p_1)J^j_{j_2}(p) \\
&&
+\half
\int ^\infty _0 {dp \over {p^2}} J^{j_1}_j(-p-p_1)J^j_{j_2}(p)
-\half
\int ^\infty _0 {dp \over {p^2}} J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p) = \\ &&
\eer
The above expression includes annihilation currents as well creation ones.
Separating them one from the other we obtain:
\ber
\lefteqn{={k\over 2p_1}J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1)} \\ &&
+\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1 \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p) \\ &&
-\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1 \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
J^{j_1}_j(-p-p_1)J^j_{j_2}(p) \\ &&
+\half
\int ^0 _{-p_1} {dp \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p) \\ &&
-\half
\int ^0 _{-p_1} {dp \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} J^{j_1}_j(-p-p_1)J^j_{j_2}(p) = \\ &&
\\ &&
{k\over 2p_1}J^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1) \\ &&
+\half NJ^{j_1}_{j_2}(-p_1) \int ^0 _{-p_1} {dp \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} \\ &&
+\half \int ^0 _{-p_1} dp ({1 \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
J^{j_1}_j(p)J^j_{j_2}(-p-p_1) \\ &&
+\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1 \over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
\{ J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p) - J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)J^i_{j_2}(p)\} \\ &&
\eer
In the above expression there are four terms:
The first one ${k\over 2p}J(-p)$,
does not change the number of currents (it has only one current) and it
is proportional to the level $k$. It will play a central role in the large
$k$ limit.
The second term is similar to the first one, but it is proportional to $N$
and it diverges. The divergent part will be compensated by another divergent
term (which arises from the fourth term).
The third term include two creation currents. Thus the interaction $P^-$,
with the help of the algebra created a current. In our discussion we
will ignore this part, for the sake of simplicity.
The last term includes annihilation currents, and therefore we should evaluate
its commutator with other creation current.
\ber
\lefteqn{[\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
\{ J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_i(p) - J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)J^i_{j_2}(p)\},
J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)]=} \\ &&
\\ &&
\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
\{ J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)[J^{j_1}_i(p),J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)] \\ &&
+[J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1),J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)]J^{j_1}_i(p)
-J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)[J^i_{j_2}(p),J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)] \\ &&
-[J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1),J^{j_2}_{j_3}(-p_2)]J^i_{j_2}(p)\} = \\ &&
\\ &&
\half \int ^\infty _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
\{ J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)p{k\over 2}(\delta ^{j_2}_i \delta ^{j_1}_{j_3} - {1\over
N}
\delta ^{j_1}_i \delta ^{j_2}_{j_3}) \delta (p-p_2) \\ &&
\half J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_2}_i(p-p_2)\delta ^{j_1}_{j_3}
-\half J^i_{j_2}(-p-p_1)J^{j_1}_{j_3}(p-p_2) \delta ^{j_2}_i \\ &&
-\half NJ^i_{j_3}(-p-p_1-p_2)J^{j_1}_i(p) \\ &&
-J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)p{k\over 2}(\delta ^i_{j_3} \delta ^{j_2}_{j_2} - {1\over N}
\delta ^i_{j_2} \delta ^{j_2}_{j_3}) \delta (p-p_2) \\ &&
+\half NJ^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)J^i_{j_3}(p-p_2) \\ &&
-\half J^{j_2}_i(-p-p_1-p_2)J^i_{j_2}(p)\delta ^{j_1}_{j_3}
+\half J^{j_1}_{j_3}(-p-p_1-p_2)J^i_{j_2}(p)\delta ^{j_2}_i \} =
\eer
This leads to the following expression:
\ber
\lefteqn {=-\half p_2 N{k\over 2}({1\over {{(p_1+p_2)}^2}} - {1\over
{{p_2}^2}})
J^{j_1}_{j_3}(-p_2-p_1)} \\ &&
+{1\over 2}
\int ^\infty _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}}) \times \\ &&
\times \{ J^i_j(-p-p_1)J^j_i(p-p_2)-J^j_i(-p-p_1-p_2)J^i_j(p)\}
\delta ^{j_1}_{j_3} \\ &&
+{N\over 2}
\int ^\infty _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}}) \times \\ &&
\times
\{ J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)J^i_{j_3}(p-p_2)-J^i_{j_3}(-p-p_1-p_2)J^{j_1}_i(p)\}
\eer
A few remarks about the last expression:
The first term includes only creation currents, therefore there is no need to
evaluate its commutators with other currents.
The second term contains creation and annihilation currents, but it is
suppressed in the large $N$ limit.
The last term is an important term. It is not suppressed at large $N$, and
it contains the following expression in it:
\beq
{N\over 2} \int ^{p_2} _0 dp ({1\over {{(p+p_1)}^2}} - {1\over {p^2}})
J^{j_1}_i(-p-p_1)J^i_{j_3}(p-p_2)
\eeq
Which may rewritten as:
\beq
{N\over 2}
\int ^{p_2} _0 dp ({1\over {{(p_1+p_2-p)}^2}} - {1\over {{(p_2-p)}^2}})
J^{j_1}_i(p-p_1-p_2)J^i_{j_3}(-p)
\eeq
This expression leads to the generalized 't Hooft equation.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:Intro}
The Complex Ginzburg-Landau Equation (CGLE) is the amplitude equation
describing universal features of the dynamics of extended systems near a Hopf
bifurcation \cite{CrossHohenberg,hohenbergsaarloos}.
\begin{equation}
\partial_{t} A = a A + ( D_r + {\it i} D_i ) \nabla^{2} A -
(b_r + {\it i} b_i ) \mid A \mid^{2} A \ .
\label{cgle}
\end{equation}
Examples of this situation include
binary fluid convection \cite{kolodner94}, transversally
extended lasers \cite{coullet} and chemical turbulence\cite{kuramoto81}. We
will considered here only the one-dimensional
case, $A=A(x,t)$, with $x \in [0,L] $. Suitable scaling of the complex
amplitude $ A $,
space, and time shows that for fixed sign of $a$ there are only
three independent parameters
in (\ref{cgle}) (with $D_r$ and $b_r>0$ that we assume henceforth). They can
be chosen to be $L$, $c_1 \equiv D_i/D_r$, and $c_2 \equiv b_i/b_r$.
The CGLE for $a>0$ displays a rich variety of complex spatio-temporal dynamical
regimes that have been recently classified in a phase diagram in the parameter
space $\{c_1,c_2\}$ \cite{chate1,chate2,chate3}. It is commonly stated that
such nontrivial dynamical behavior, occurring also in other nonequilibrium
systems, originates from the non-potential or non-variational character of
the dynamics \cite{nonvariational}. This general statement needs to be
qualified because it involves some confusion in the terminology. For example
the term ``non-variational" is often used meaning that there is no Lyapunov
functional for the dynamics. But Graham and co-workers, in a series of papers
\cite{grahamtel90,grahamtel90a,grahamtel91,graham92,graham93}, have
shown that a Lyapunov functional does exist for the CGLE, and they have
constructed it approximately in a small-gradient approximation. The correct
statement for the CGLE is that it is not a gradient flow. This means that
there is no
real functional of $A$ from which the right hand side of (\ref{cgle}) could be
obtained by functional derivation.
Part of the confusion associated with the qualification of
``nonvariational" dynamics comes from the idea that the dynamics of systems
having non-trivial attractors, such as limit cycles or strange chaotic
attractors, can not be deduced from the minimization of a potential which plays
the
role of the free energy of equilibrium systems. However, such idea does not
preclude the existence of a Lyapunov functional for the dynamics. The Lyapunov
functional can have local minima which identify the attractors.
Once the system has reached an attractor which is not a fixed point,
dynamics can proceed on the attractor
due to ``nonvariational" contributions to the dynamical flow which do not
change
the value of the Lyapunov functional. This just means that the dynamical flow
is
not entirely determined once the Lyapunov functional is known. This situation
is very common and well known in the study of dynamical properties within the
framework of conventional statistical mechanics: The equilibrium free energy
of the system is a Lyapunov functional for the dynamics, but equilibrium
critical dynamics \cite{hohenberg78} usually involves contributions, such
as mode-mode coupling terms, which are not determined just by the free energy.
The fact that the dynamical evolution is not simply given by the minimization
of
the free energy is also true when studying the nonequilibrium dynamics of a
phase transition in which the system evolves between an initial and a final
equilibrium state after, for example, a jump in temperature across the critical
point \cite{gunton83}.
A Lyapunov functional plays the role of a potential which is useful in
characterizing global properties of the dynamics, such as attractors,
relative or nonlinear stability of these attractors, etc. In fact, finding such
potentials is one of the long-sought goals of nonequilibrium physics
\cite{graham89,graham95}, the hope being that they should be instrumental in
the
characterization of nonequilibrium phenomena through phase transitions
analogies. The use of powerful and very general methods based on these
analogies
has been advocated by a number of authors
\cite{ciliberto1,ciliberto2,chate1,chate2,chate3}.
In this context, it is a little surprising that the finding of a Lyapunov
functional for the CGLE \cite{grahamtel91,graham92,graham93} has not
received much attention in the literature. A possible reason for this is that
the
construction of nonequilibrium potentials has been historically associated
with the study of stochastic processes, in particular in the search of
stationary probability distributions for systems driven by random noise
\cite{graham89,graham95,tira3}. We want to make clear that the finding of the
Lyapunov
functional for the CGLE \cite{grahamtel91,graham92,graham93}, as well as the
whole approach and discussion the present paper is completely within a purely
deterministic framework and it does not rely on any noise considerations. A
second possible reason for the relative little attention paid to the Lyapunov
functional for the CGLE is the lack of any numerical check of the uncontrolled
approximations made on its derivation. The main purpose of this paper is
precisely to report such numerical check of the results of Graham and
collaborators, thus delimiting the range of validity of the approximations
involved. We also provide a characterization of the time evolution of the
Lyapunov functional in different regions of the phase diagram of the CGLE
\cite{chate1,chate2,chate3}, which illustrates the use of such potential.
Our main findings are that the expressions by Graham and coworkers behave
to a good approximation as a proper Lyapunov potential when phase
singularities (vanishing of the
modulus of $A$) are not present. This includes non-chaotic regimes as well
as states of phase turbulence. In this last case some small but
systematic discrepancies with the predictions are found. In the presence of
phase singularities the potential is ill-defined and then it is not a correct
Lyapunov functional.
The paper is organized as follows. For pedagogical purposes, we first discuss
in
Sect. II a classification of dynamical flows in which notions like
relaxational
or potential flows are considered. The idea of a potential for the CGLE is
clearer
in this context. In Sect. III we review basic phenomenology of the CGLE and
the
main analytical results for the Lyapunov functional of the CGLE. Sections IV
and
V contain our numerical analyses. Section IV is devoted to the Benjamin-Feir
stable regime of the CGLE and Sect. V to the Phase Turbulent regime. Our main
conclusions are summarized in Sect.VI.
\section{A classification of dynamical flows}
\label{pot}
\noindent In the following we review a classification of dynamical systems
that, although rather well established in other contexts
\cite{graham89,graham95}, it is
often overlooked in general discussions of deterministic spatio-temporal
dynamics. Non-potential dynamical systems are often defined as those for which
there is no Lyapunov potential. Unfortunately, this definition is also applied
to cases in which there is no {\sl known} Lyapunov potential. To be more
precise, let us consider dynamical systems of the general form
\begin{equation} \partial_{t} A_i = V_i[A]
\label{ds}
\end{equation}
where $A_i$ represents a set of, generally complex, dynamical variables
which are spatially dependent fields: $A_i=A_i({\bf x},t)$. $V_i[A]$ is a
functional of them. The notation $A_i^*$ represents the
complex conjugate of $A_i$ and for simplicity we will keep the index $i$
implicit.
Let us now split $V$ into two contributions:
\begin{equation}
\label{split} V[A]=G[A]+N[A] \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $G$, the {\sl relaxational} part, will have the form
\begin{equation} G[A]=-{\Gamma \over 2} {\delta F[A] \over \delta A^*} \ ,
\label{G}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $F$ a real and scalar functional of $A$. $\Gamma$ is an
arbitrary hermitic and positive-definite operator (possibly depending
on $A$). In the particular case of real variables there is no need of taking
the
complex conjugate, and hermitic operators reduce to symmetric ones. The
functional $N[A]$ in (\ref{split}) is the remaining part of
$V[A]$. The important point is that, if the splitting (\ref{split}) can
be done in such a way that the following orthogonality condition is
satisfied (c.c. denotes the complex conjugate expression):
\begin{equation}
\int d{\bf x} \left( {\delta F[A] \over \delta A({\bf x})} N[A({\bf x})] +
{\rm c.c.} \right)=0\ ,
\label{preHJ}
\end{equation}
\noindent then the terms in $N$ neither increase nor decrease the value of
$F$,
which due to the terms in $G$ becomes a decreasing function of time:
\begin{equation}
{dF[A({\bf x},t)] \over dt} \le 0 \ .
\label{decreasing}
\end{equation}
If $F$ is bounded from below then it is a Lyapunov potential for the dynamics
(\ref{ds}). Equation (\ref{HJ}) with $N=V-G$, that is
\begin{equation}
\label{HJ}
\int d{\bf x} \left( {\delta F[A] \over \delta A({\bf x})}
\left( V[A({\bf x})] + {\Gamma \over 2} {\delta F[A] \over \delta A^*({\bf x})} \right)
+ {\rm c.c.} \right)=0\ ,
\end{equation}
can be interpreted as an
equation for the Lyapunov potential $F$ associated to a given dynamical system
(\ref{ds}). It has a Hamilton-Jacobi structure. When dealing with systems
perturbed by random noise, $\Gamma$ is fixed by statistical requirements,
but in deterministic contexts such as the present paper, it can be arbitrarily
chosen in order to simplify (\ref{HJ}).
Solving (\ref{HJ}) is in general a difficult task, but a number of non-trivial
examples of the splitting (\ref{split})-(\ref{decreasing}) exist in the
literature. Some of these examples correspond to solutions of (\ref{HJ}) found
in the search of potentials for dynamical systems
\cite{grahamtel91,grahamtel90,grahamtel90a}. Other examples just
correspond to a natural splitting of dissipative and non-dissipative
contributions in the dynamics of systems with well established equilibrium
thermodynamics, as for example models of critical dynamics
\cite{hohenberg78} or the equations of nematodynamics in liquid crystals
\cite{sagues87}.
Once the notation above has been set-up, we can call relaxational systems
those
for which there is a solution $F$ of (\ref{HJ}) such that $N=0$, that is all
the
terms in $V$ contribute to decrease $F$. Potential systems can be defined as
those for which there is a nontrivial (i.e. a non-constant) solution $F$ to
(\ref{HJ}). In relaxational systems there is no long-time dynamics, since
there is no time evolution of $A$ once a minimum of $F$ is reached. On the
contrary,
for potential systems for which $N\neq 0$, the minima of $F$ define the
attractors of the dynamical flow, but once one of these attractors is reached,
nontrivial sustained dynamics might exist on the attractor. Such dynamics is
determined by $N$ and maintains a constant value for the functional $F$.
A possible more detailed classification of the dynamical flows is the
following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.-] Relaxational gradient flows: Those dynamical systems for which
$N=0$ with $\Gamma$ proportional to the identity operator. In this case the
time
evolution of the system follows the lines of steepest descent of $F$. A well
known
example is the so called Fisher-Kolmogorov equation, also known as model A of
critical dynamics \cite{hohenberg78}, or (real) Ginzburg-Landau equation
for a real field $A({\bf x},t)$:
\begin{equation} \label{modela}
\dot A = \alpha A + \gamma \nabla^{2} A - \beta \mid A \mid ^{2} A\ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are real coefficients. This
equation is of the form of Eqs. (\ref{ds})-(\ref{G}) with $N=0$, $\Gamma = 1$,
and $F = F_{GL}[A]$, the Ginzburg-Landau free energy:
\begin{equation} \label{GL}
F_{GL}[A] = \int d{\bf x} \left( -{\alpha}\mid A \mid ^{2} +
{\gamma } \mid \nabla A \mid ^{2} + {\beta \over 2} \mid A \mid ^{4} \right)
\end{equation}
\item[2.-] Relaxational non-gradient flows: Still $N=0$ but with $\Gamma$ not
proportional to the identity, so that the relaxation to the minimum of $F$
does
not follow the lines of steepest descent of $F$. The matrix operator $\Gamma$
might depend on $A$ or involve spatial derivatives. A well known example of
this
type is the Cahn-Hilliard equation of spinodal decomposition, or model B of
critical dynamics for a real variable $A$. \cite{hohenberg78}:
\begin{equation} \label{modelb}
\dot A = (- {1 \over 2}\nabla^2)
\left( -{\delta F_{GL}[A] \over \delta A} \right) \ ,
\end{equation}
The symmetric and positive-definite operator $(- \nabla^2)$ has its origin in a
conservation law for $A$.
\item[3.-] Non-relaxational potential flows: $N$ does not vanish, but the
potential $F$, solution of (\ref{HJ}) exists and is non-trivial. Most models
used in equilibrium critical dynamics \cite{hohenberg78} include
non-relaxational contributions, and therefore belong to this category. A
particularly simple example is
\begin{equation} \label{ANLS}
\dot A = -(1+i) {\delta F_{GL}[A] \over \delta A^*} \ ,
\end{equation}
\noindent where now $A$ is a complex field. Notice that we can not interpret
this
equation as being of type 1, because $(1+i)$ is not a hermitic operator, but
still
$ F_{GL}$ is a Lyapunov functional for the dynamics. Equation (\ref{ANLS}) is a
special case of the Complex Ginzburg- Landau Equation (CGLE), in which $V[A]$
is
the sum of a relaxational gradient flow and a nonlinear-Schr\"odinger-type
term $N[A]=-i {\delta F_{GL}[A] \over \delta A^*} \ $.
The general CGLE\cite{hohenbergsaarloos} is of the form (\ref{modela}) but
$A$ is complex and $\alpha$, $\gamma$ and $\beta$ are arbitrary complex
numbers. For
the special case in which $\frac{Re[\gamma]}{Im[ \gamma ]} =
\frac{Re[\beta]}{Im[\beta]}$, as for example in (\ref{ANLS}), the Lyapunov
functional for the CGLE is known exactly \cite{tel82}. Such choice of
parameters has important dynamical consequences\cite{tira2}. Beyond such
special cases, the calculations by Graham and coworkers indicate
\cite{graham92,graham93} that the CGLE, a paradigm of complex
spatio-temporal dynamics, might be classified within this class of
non-relaxational potential flows because a solution of (\ref{HJ}) is found.
The difficulty is that the explicit form of the potential is, so far, only
known as
a uncontrolled small-gradient expansion.
\item[4.-] Non-potential flows: Those for which the only solutions $F$ of
(\ref{HJ}) are the trivial ones (that is $F=$ constant). Hamiltonian systems as
for example the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation are of this type.
\end{itemize}
\section{A LYAPUNOV FUNCTIONAL FOR THE CGLE}
\label{pheno}
It is well known that for $a<0$ the one dimensional CGLE (\ref{cgle}) has $A=0$
as a
stable solution, whereas for $a>0$ there are Travelling Wave (TW) solutions of
the form
\begin{equation}
A_k= A_{0}e^{i(k x +\omega t)+\varphi_0}
\label{tw}
\end{equation}
\noindent with $A_{0} = \sqrt{(a - D_r k^{2})/b_r}$, $|k|<\sqrt{a/b_r}$,
and $\omega = ( b_i a +D_- k^2)/b_r$.
We have introduced
\begin{equation}
D_{-} \equiv D_r b_i - D_i b_r \ .
\label{lalinea}
\end{equation}
$\varphi_0$ is any arbitrary constant phase.
The linear stability of the homegeneus solution ( (\ref{tw}) with $k=0$ ) with
respect to long wavelength fluctuations divides the parameter space $ \{ c_1
,c_2 \}$ in two regions: the Benjamin-Feir (BF) stable and the BF
unstable zone. This line is given by \cite{bf1,bf2}
\begin{equation}
D_{+} \equiv D_r b_r +D_i b_i = 0 ,
\label{bfline}
\end{equation}
In the BF unstable region ($D_+<0$) there are no stable TW solutions,
while in the BF stable
region ($D_+>0$) TW's with a wavenumber $k<k_E$ are linearly stable. For
$k>k_E$, TW's
become unstable through the long wavelength instability known as the Eckhaus
instability \cite{eckhaus1,janiaud1}. The Eckhaus wavenumber $k_E$ is given by
\begin{equation}
k_E^2 = \frac{a b_r D_+}{D_r (3 D_+ b_r + 2 D_- b_i)}
\label{keckhaus}
\end{equation}
Recent numerical work for $a>0$ and $L$ large
\cite{chate1,chate2,chate3,egolf195} has identified regions of the
parameter space displaying different kinds of regular and spatio-temporal
chaotic behavior (obtained at long times from random initial conditions and
periodic boundary conditions), leading to a ``phase diagram" for the CGLE. The
five different regions, each leading to a different asymptotic phase, are
shown
in Fig.\ \ref{fig1} as a function of the parameters $c_1$ and $c_2$ ($a>0$,
$L$
large). Two of these regions are in the BF stable zone and the other three in
the BF
unstable one. One of the main distinctions between the diferent asymptotic
phases is in the behavior of the modulus of $A$ at long times. In some regions
it
never vanishes, whereas in others it vanishes from time to time at different
points. A more detailed description of the asymptotic behavior in the
different
regions is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Non-Chaotic region. The evolution here ends in one of the
Eckhaus-stable TW solutions for almost all the initial conditions.
\item Spatio-Temporal Intermittency region. Despite the fact that there
exist stable TW, the evolution from random initial conditions is not
attracted by them but by a chaotic attractor in which typical
configurations of the field $A$ consist of patches of TW interrupted by
turbulent bursts. The modulus of $A$ in such bursts typically touches zero
quite often.
\item Defect Turbulence. This is a strongly disordered phase in which
the modulus of $A$ has a
finite density of space-time zeros. In addition
the space and time correlation functions have a quasi-exponential
decay \cite{chate1,chate2}.
\item Phase Turbulence. This is a
weakly disordered phase in which $|A(x,t)|$ remains away from zero. The
temporal
correlations decay slower than exponentially \cite{chate1,chate2}.
\item Bi-Chaos region. Depending on the particular initial condition, the
system ends on attractors similar to the ones in regions 3, 4, or in a
new attractor in which the configurations of $A$ consists of
patches of phase and defect turbulence.
\end{enumerate}
An approximate Lyapunov functional for the CGLE was calculated by Graham and
collaborators \cite{graham92,graham93,descalzi}. Earlier attempts to find
a Lyapunov functional were based on polynomial
expansions\cite{tel82,graham75,walgraef82,walgraef83}, while more
recent and successful approaches focussed in solving the Hamilton-Jacobi
equation (\ref{HJ}) with $\Gamma=1$ in different ways. This was done first by a
minimization procedure involving an action
integral\cite{grahamtel90,grahamtel90a,grahamtel91}, and more recently
by a more direct expansion method \cite{graham92,graham93,descalzi}. This
last method provides also expressions in higher dimensions, but we will
restrict here to the one-dimensional case. In any case, the solution
involves an
uncontrolled gradient expansion around space-independent solutions of the
CGLE. Such expansion obviously limits the validity of the result to regions in
the phase diagram in which there are not strong gradients. Since the expansion
was actually performed in polar coordinates, this excludes the regions in
which
zeros in the modulus of $A$ are typical, since the phase of $A$ becomes
singular
there. In particular Spatio-temporal intermittency regimes, Bi-chaos and
Defect Turbulence are out of the range of validity of Graham's expansion. The
meaningfulness of the potential in the other regions of parameter space remains
still an open question because of the uncontrolled small gradient
approximations used to calculate it, and calls for some numerical check.
In their solution of the Hamilton Jacobi equation, Graham and collaborators
find different branches of the Lyapunov functional with expressions valid for
different values of the parameters. In particular they identify the BF line
(\ref{bfline}) as separating two branches of the solution to (\ref{HJ}).
The explicit expressions (obtained with $\Gamma=1$) are given in polar
coordinates:
\begin{equation}
A(x,t) = r(x,t)e^{i \varphi(x,t)}
\label{polar}
\end{equation}
In terms of the amplitude $r$, the phase $\varphi$, and their spatial
derivates (denoted as $r_x$, $\varphi_x$,$\varphi_{xx}$, etc.) the Lyapunov
functional per unit of length $\Phi \equiv F/L$
was found\cite{graham92,graham93}, for $a<0$:
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \int \biggl\{ b_{r} r^{4} - 2 a r^{2} + 2 \biggl[ D_{r} + \frac{D_{-}
b_{i}
r^{4}} {3 ( a - b_{r} r^{2} )^{2} } \biggr] r_{x}^{2} - \frac{ 2 D_{-}
r^{3}} {3 ( a -
b_{r} r^{2} ) } r_{x} \varphi_{x} + 2 D_{r} r^{2} \varphi_{x}^{2} \biggr\} dx
\label{anep0}
\end{equation}
\noindent We note that even in this relatively simple case $a<0$, the result
for
$\Phi $ is only approximate and its structure reveals a highly non-trivial
dynamics.
For $a>0$, in the BF stable region ($D_+>0$) the expression for $\Phi$
results:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi & = & \int \biggl\{ b_{r} r^{4} - 2 a r^{2} \nonumber \\
& + &\biggl[ (A_{1} r +
B_{1}/r^{2})r^{2}_{x} + (A_{2} r + B_{2}/r) r_{x} \varphi_{x} + 2 (D_{r}
r^{2} -
D_{-} b_{i} a / \mid b \mid^{2}b_{r} ) \varphi^{2}_{x} \biggr] \nonumber \\
& + & \biggl[ \frac{D_{-} D_{r} b_{i}}{3 b_{r} \mid b \mid^{2}}
\varphi^{4}_{x} +
\biggl( - \frac{D_{-}^{2} a}{2 b^{4}_{r} r^{2}} - \frac{D_{-}}{b_{r}^{2}} (
D_{-}/b_{r} + 2 D_{i} ) \ln r + C_{1} \biggr) \varphi^{2}_{xx} + \frac{2 D_{-}
D_{r}}{3 b^{2}_{r} \mid b\mid^{2}} (b^{2}_{i} - b^{2}_{r}
)\frac{\varphi^{3}_{x} r_{x}}{r} \nonumber \\
& + & \frac{2 D_{-} D_{r} b_{i}}{3 b_{r}^{3} \mid b \mid^{2}} (b^{2}_{i} - 2
b^{2}_{r}) \frac{\varphi^{2}_{x} r^{2}_{x}}{r^{2}} - \frac{4
D_{r}b_{i}D_{-}}{3 b^{3}_{r} r} \biggl( 1 + \frac{ \ln(b_{r} r^{2}/a) }{1 -
b_{r} r^{2}/a } \biggr) r_{x} \varphi_{x} \varphi_{xx} \biggr] \biggr\} dx
\label{anep1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{1} &=& 2 (D_{r} + b_{i}D_{-}/3b_{r}^{2}) ,\nonumber \\
A_{2} &=& 2 D_{-}/ b_{r} ,\nonumber \\
B_{1 }&=& \frac{2 D_{-} b_{i} a}{3 b_{r}^{3} \mid b \mid^{2}} (2 b^{2}_{r}
- b^{2}_{i} ) ,\nonumber \\
B_{2} &=& \frac{2 D_{-} a}{ b_{r}^{2} \mid b \mid^{2}} ( b^{2}_{r}
- b^{2}_{i} ) ,\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
Clearly, $\Phi$ is ill-defined when $r=0$.
By writing-out the Euler-Lagrange equations associated to the minimization of
$\Phi$ the TW solutions (\ref{tw}) are identified as local extrema of $\Phi$.
Since they occur in families parametrized by the arbitrary phase $\varphi_0$,
the minima associated to the TW of a given $k$ are not isolated points but lay
on a
one-dimensional closed manifold. The non-variational part of the dynamics
($N$ in (\ref{split})) can be explicitly written-down by substracting $G=-{1
\over 2} {\delta F \over \delta A^*}$ with $F=L\Phi$ to the right-hand-side of
(\ref{cgle}). It is seen to produce, when evaluated on the manifold of minima
of
$\Phi$ with a given $k$, constant motion along it. This produces the periodic
time dependence in (\ref{tw}) and identify the TW attractors as limit cycles.
The value of $k$ for which the corresponding extrema change character from
local
minima to saddle points is precisely the Eckhaus wavenumber $k_E$. It is
remarkable that, although expression (\ref{anep1}) was obtained in a gradient
expansion around the homogeneous TW, their minima identify exactly all the
TW's
of equation (\ref{cgle}), and their frequencies and points of instability are
also exactly reproduced. This gives confidence on the validity of Graham's
approximations. It should be stressed however that they are not exact and can
lead to unphysical consequences. For instance, the value of the potential
$\Phi$ evaluated on a TW of wavenumber $k$ ($|k|<\sqrt{a/b_r}$) is
\cite{grahamtel91}
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{k} \equiv \Phi[A_k] = \frac{2 D_{+} a}{\mid b \mid^2} k^{2} \left( 1 -
\frac{k^{2}}{6 k_{E}^{2}} \right) + \Phi_{k=0}
\label{fisuk}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\Phi_{k=0}= - a^{2}/b_r$. For a range of parameter values
this
expression gives mathematical sense to the intuitive fact that the closer to
zero is $k$ the more stable is the associated TW (because its potential is
lower).
But for some parameter values the minimal potential corresponds to large
wavenumbers close to $\pm \sqrt{a/b_r}$. This is counterintuitive and calls
for some numerical test. The test will be described below and it will be shown
that
the wavenumbers close to $\pm \sqrt{a/b_r}$ are out of the range of validity
of
the small gradient approximations leading to (\ref{anep1}).
We already mentioned in the previous section that the Lyapunov functional for
the CGLE is exactly known for special values of the parameters
\cite{grahamtel91,graham92,tira2}. This happens for $D_{-}\equiv D_r b_i -
D_i b_r = 0$, which lies in the BF-stable region as indicated in Fig.\
\ref{fig1} .
In this case it is clear that (\ref{cgle}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\dot A = - {1 \over 2}{\delta F_{GL}[A] \over \delta A^*} + i b_i \left(-\mid
A
\mid^2 + \frac{D_r}{b_r}\nabla^2 \right) A \ ,
\label{special}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $ F_{GL}[A]$ is (\ref{GL}) for complex $A$ and with
$\alpha=2a$, $ \beta = 2 b_r$, and $\gamma = 2 D_r$. It is readily shown that
the
term proportional to $b_i$ is orthogonal to the gradient part, so that
$F_{GL}$
is an exact solution of (\ref{HJ}) for these values of the parameters, and
(\ref{special}) is a relaxational non-gradient flow (see classification in
section \ref{pot}). It is seen that the approximate expressions (\ref{anep0})
and (\ref{anep1}) greatly simplify when $D_-=0$ leading both to the same
expression:
\begin{equation}
L \Phi = \int \biggl\{- 2 a r^{2} + b_{r} r^{4} + 2 D_{r} r r^{2}_{x}
+ 2 D_{r} r^{2} \varphi^{2}_{x} \biggr\} dx
\label{anepsp}
\end{equation}
When expressed in terms of $A$ and $A^*$ it reproduces $F_{GL}$ in
(\ref{special}). Thus the gradient expansion turns out to be exact on the line
$D_-=0$.
In the Benjamin-Feir unstable region ($a>0, D_+<0$) the gradient expansion for
$\Phi$ becomes\cite{graham93,descalzi}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi & = & \int \biggl\{ b_{r} r^{4} - 2 a r^{2} +\biggl[ (A_{1} r +
\tilde{B_{1}}/r^{2})r^{2}_{x} + (A_{2} r + \tilde{B_{2}}/r) r_{x} \varphi_{x}
+
2 D_{r}( r^{2} -\frac{a}{b_{r}}) \varphi^{2}_{x} \biggr]
\nonumber \\ & + &
\biggl[ \frac{D_{r}^{2} }{ b_{r} } \varphi^{4}_{x} + \biggl( \frac{b_{r}}{2
a^{2} r^{2}} \biggl( \frac{\tilde{B_{2}}^{2}}{4} + \frac{4 D_{r}^{2}
a^{2}}{b_{r}^{2}} \biggr) \bigl(r^{2} - \frac{a}{b_{r}} \bigr) -
\frac{A_{2}}{2 b_{r}} \bigl( \frac{A_{2}}{4} + D_{i} \bigr) \ln \bigl(
\frac{r^{2} b_{r}}{a} \bigr) + \frac{D_{i}^{2}}{b_{r}} \biggr) \varphi^{2}_{xx}
\nonumber \\ & - &
\frac{4 D_{r} b_{i} D_{-}}{b_{r}^{3} r} \biggl( 1+ \frac{D_{r}\mid b\mid^{2} +
2 b_{r} D_{+}}{b_{i} D_{-} (1 - \frac{b_{r} r^{2}}{a})} \ln \bigl( \frac{r^{2}
b_{r}}{a} \bigr) \biggr) \varphi_{x} r_{x}\varphi_{xx}
\nonumber \\ & + &
\frac{2 D_{r}}{3 b_{r}^{2} r} ( 5 b_{i} D_{r} + D_{i} b_{r} ) \varphi^{3}_{x}
r_{x} +
\frac{2 b_{i}D_{r}}{3 b_{r}^{3} r^{2}} ( 7 b_{i}D_{r}+ D_{i} b_{r})
\varphi^{2}_{x} r^{2}_{x} \biggr] \biggr\} dx
\label{anep3}
\end{eqnarray}
where, in addition to the previous definitions
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{B_{1 }}&=& \frac{2 D_{-} b_{i} a}{3 b_{r}^{3} \mid b \mid^{2}} (2
b^{2}_{r}
- b^{2}_{i} ) ,\nonumber \\
\tilde{B_{2}} &=& - \frac{2 a}{b_{r}^{2} } (D_{r} b_{i} + D_{i} b_{r} ) ,
\nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
It was noted before that this expression can be adequate, at most, for the
Phase Turbulent regime, since in the other BF unstable regimes $|A|$ vanishes
at some points and instants, so that (\ref{anep3}) is ill-defined.
The long time dynamics occurs in the attractor defined by the minima of
$\Phi$. The Euler-Lagrange equations associated to the
minimization of (\ref{anep3}) lead to a relationship between
amplitude and phase of $A$ which implies the well known adiabatic following of
the amplitude to the phase dynamics commonly used to describe the phase
turbulence regime by a nonlinear phase equation. The explicit form of this
relationship is
\begin{eqnarray}
r^2 & = & \frac{a}{br} - \frac{D_r}{b_r} (\nabla \varphi)^2 - \frac{D_i}{b_r}
\nabla^2 \varphi + \frac{b_i D_i^2}{2 a b_r^2} \nabla^4 \varphi + 2
\frac{D_r
D_i b_i}{a b_r^2} \nabla \varphi \nabla^3 \varphi \nonumber \\
& +& 2 \frac{b_i D_r^2}{a b_r^2} \nabla \varphi \nabla \nabla^2 \varphi
+ \left[
\frac{D_r D_i b_i}{a b_r^2} - \frac{ \mid D \mid^2 }{a b_r} \right] (\nabla^2
\varphi)^2
\label{radiab}
\end{eqnarray}
It defines the attractor characterizing the phase turbulent
regime. Dynamics in this attractor follows from the nonrelaxational part
$N$ in (\ref{split}). When (\ref{radiab}) is imposed in such nonrelaxational
part of the dynamics the generalized Kuramoto-Shivashinsky equation containing
terms up to fourth order in the gradients \cite{sakaguchi2}
is obtained \cite{graham93,descalzi}.
We finally note that in the phase turbulent
regime the Lyapunov functional $\Phi$ gives the same value
\cite{graham93,descalzi} when evaluated for any
configuration satisfying (\ref{radiab}), at least within the small gradient
approximation. This corresponds to the evolution on a
chaotic attractor (associated to the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky dynamics coming from
$N$) which is itself embedded in a region of constant $\Phi$ (the potential
plateau \cite{graham95}). This plateau consists of the functional
minima of $\Phi$ (\ref{radiab}). All the (unstable) TW are also contained
in the same plateau, since they satisfy (\ref{radiab}).
\section{NUMERICAL STUDIES OF THE LYAPUNOV FUNCTIONAL IN THE BENJAMIN-FEIR
STABLE REGIME}
\label{results}
We numerically investigate the validity of $\Phi[A]$ in (\ref{anep0}),
(\ref{anep1}), and (\ref{anep3}) as an approximate Lyapunov functional for
the CGLE. When evaluated on solutions $A(x,t)$ of (\ref{cgle}) it should
behave
as a monotonously decreasing function of time, until $A(x,t)$ reaches the
asymptotic attractor. After then, $\Phi$ should maintain in time a constant
value characteristic of the particular attractor.
All the results reported here were obtained using a pseudo-spectral code with
periodic boundary conditions and second-order accuracy in time. Spatial
resolution was typically 512 modes, with runs of up to 4096 modes to confirm
the
results. Time step was typically $\Delta t = .1$ except when differently stated
in the figure captions. Since very small effects have been explored, care has
been taken of confirming the invariance of the results with decreasing time
step
and increasing number of modes. System size was always taken as $L=512$, and
always $D_r =1$ and $b_i=-1$, so that $c_1=D_i$ and $c_2=-1/b_r$. When a
random
noise of amplitude $\epsilon$ is said to be used as or added to an initial
condition it means that a set of uncorrelated Gaussian numbers of zero mean
and
variance $\epsilon^2$ was generated, one for each collocation point in the
numerical lattice.
\subsection{Negative $a$}
\label{amenor0}
The uniform state $A =0$ is stable for $a<0$. We start our numerical
simulation
with a plane wave $A=A_0 e^{ikx}$ of arbitrary wavenumber $k=0.295$ and
arbitrary amplitude $A_0=1$ (note that the TW's (\ref{tw}) do not exist for
$a<0$), and calculate $\Phi$ for the evolving configurations. In order to have
relevant nonlinear effects during the relaxation towards $A=0$ we have chosen
a
small value for the coefficient of the linear term ($a= -0.01$). The remaining
parameters were $D_i=1$ and $b_r=1.25$ ($c_1=1$, $c_2=-0.8$). Despite the
presence of non-relaxational terms in (\ref{cgle}), $\Phi$ decreases
monotonously (see Fig.\ \ref{fig2}) to the final value $\Phi( t = \infty ) =
\Phi[A=0] = 0$ confirming its adequacy as a Lyapunov potential.
\subsection{Positive $a$. Benjamin-Feir stable regime}
\label{bajobf}
We take in this section always $a=1$. Non-chaotic (TW) states and
Spatio-Temporal Intermittency are the two phases found below the BF line in
Fig.\ \ref{fig1}. We first perform several numerical experiments in the
non-chaotic region:
A first important case is the one on the line $D_{-} = 0$, for which
(\ref{anepsp})
is an exact Lyapunov functional $F_{GL}$. We take $D_i=-1$ and $b_r=1$
($c_{1}=c_{2} = -1$), on the $D_-=0$ line, and compute the evolution of
$\Phi=\frac{ F_{GL}}{L}$ along a solution of (\ref{cgle}), taking as initial
condition for $A$ a Gaussian noise of amplitude $\epsilon = 0.01$. Despite of
the
strong phase gradients present specially in the initial stages of the
evolution, and of the presence of non-relaxational terms, $\Phi$ decays
monotonously in time (Fig.\ \ref{fig3}). The system evolved towards a TW
attractor of wavenumber $k = 0.0245$. The value of $\Phi$ in such state is,
from
Eq. (\ref{fisuk}), $\Phi_{k=0.0245}=-0.998796$. It is important to notice
that our numerical solution for $A$ and numerical evaluation of the
derivatives
in $\Phi$ reproduce this value within a $0.3 \%$ in the last
time showed in Fig.\ ref{fig3}, and continues to approach the theoretical
value
for the asymptotic attractor at longer times\footnote{If a smaller time step is
used greater
accuracy is obtained. For example, if the time step is reduced to $0.05$ the
value
of $\Phi$ is reproduced within $10^{-7} \%$. But this takes quite a long
computing time.}.
We continue testing the Lyapunov functional for $D_i=1$, $b_r=1.25$
($c_{1}=1$ ,$c_{2} = -0.8$. This is still in the non-chaotic region but, since
$D_-\neq0$, $\Phi$ is not expected to be exact, but only a small gradient
approximation. We check now the relaxation back to an stable state after a
small
perturbation. As initial condition we slightly perturb a TW of Eckhaus-stable
wavenumber ($k=0.13<k_{E}$) by adding random noise of amplitude $\epsilon
=0.09$. $\Phi$ decays monotonously (Fig.\ \ref{fig4}) from its perturbed
value to the value $\Phi_{k=0.13}=-0.796632$ as the perturbation is being
washed out, as expected for a good Lyapunov functional.
A more demanding situation was investigated for $D_i= -1$ and $b_r = 0.5$
(again in the non-chaotic region, $c_{1} = -1$ and $c_{2} = -2$,
and $D_-\neq 0$). Two TW of different
wavenumbers ($k_1 = 0.4 , k_2 = 0.08$, both Eckhaus-stable) were joined
and the resulting state
(see inset in Fig.\ \ref{fig5}) was used as initial condition. The TW of
smaller
wavenumber advances into the other, in agreement with the idea that it is
nonlinearly more stable since it gives a smaller value to the potential.
As the
difference between the two frequencies is large the speed at which one wave
advances onto the other is quite large. The interface between the two
TW's contains initially a discontinuity in the gradient of the phase which
is washed out in a few integration steps. An important observation is that
during the whole process the modulus of $A(x,t)$ never vanishes and then
the winding number, defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{winding}
\nu \equiv\int_0^L \nabla \varphi dx
\end{equation}
remains constant ($\nu=20$) (with periodic boundary conditions $\nu$ is
constant except at the instants in which the phase becomes singular, that is
when
$r=0$). After the TW with the smallest wavenumber completely replaced the
other, still a phase diffusion process in which the wave adjusts its local
wavenumber to the global winding number occurs. The state (limit cycle)
finally
reached is a TW of $k = 2\pi\nu/L=0.245$. Despite of the complicated and
non-relaxational processes occurring $\Phi$ behaves as a good Lyapunov
functional monotonously decreasing from the value $\Phi(t=0) = -1.825$
corresponding to the two-wave configuration to the value $\Phi = -1.863$ of
the
final attractor (Fig.\ ref{fig5}). It would be interesting, as happens in some
relaxational models \cite{chan}, finding some relationship between the speed
of propagation of the more stable wave onto the less stable one and the
difference
in $\Phi$ between the two states.
The good behavior of $\Phi$ will be obviously lost if the field $A(x,t)$
vanishes
somewhere during the evolution. As the next numerical experiment (for $D_i=1$
and $b_r=1.25$, that is $c_{1} = 1$, $c_{2} =-0.8$) we used as initial
condition a
small ($\epsilon=0.01$) random Gaussian noise. The system was left to evolve
towards its asymptotic state (a TW). Fig.\ \ref{fig6} shows that after a
transient $\Phi$ monotonously decreases. During the initial transient it
widely fluctuates, increasing and decreasing and loosing then its validity as
a
Lyapunov functional. This incorrect behavior occurs because during the
initial stages $A(x,t)$ is small and often vanishes, changing $\nu$. When $A$
(and then $r$) vanishes the phase and (\ref{anep1}) are ill-defined and out of
the range of validity of a small gradient approximation. Note the contrast
with
the case $D_-=0$ in which the potential is exact and well behaved even when
$\nu$
is strongly changing. The particular values of the maxima and minima during
the
transient in which $\nu$ is changing depend on the spatial and temporal
discretization, since it is clear from (\ref{anep1}) that $\Phi$ is
ill-defined or divergent when $r$ vanishes. Note that this incorrect behavior
of $\Phi$ for $D_-\neq 0$ is not a problem for the existence of a Lyapunov
functional, but comes rather from the limited validity of the hypothesis used
for its approximate construction. Nevertheless, as soon as the strong
gradients disappear $\Phi$ relaxes monotonously to the value
$\Phi=-0.79997$, corresponding to the final state, a TW of wavenumber $k =
-0.0123$.
As another test in the non-chaotic region, for $D_i=-1$ and $b_r=0.5$ ($c_{1}
=
-1$, $c_{2} = -2$) we use as initial condition an Eckhaus-unstable TW
($k=0.54>k_{E}=0.48$) slightly perturbed by noise. The system evolves to an
Eckhaus-stable TW ($k = 0.31$) by decreasing its winding number (initially
$\nu
= 44$ and finally $\nu = 26$). Fig.\ \ref{fig7} shows the evolution of $\Phi$
from
its initial value $\Phi(0) = -1.485$ the final one $\Phi = -1.77$. Although
there
is a monotonously decreasing baseline, sharp peaks are observed corresponding
to the vanishing of $r$ associated with the changes in $\nu$. When $\nu$
finally
stops changing, so that $A$ is close enough to the final TW, $\Phi$ relaxes
monotonously as in Fig.\ \ref{fig4}.
It was explained in Sect. \ref{pheno} that there are parameter ranges in which
$\Phi$ is smaller near the boundaries for existence of TW, that is near
$k =\pm \sqrt{a/b_r}$, than for the homogeneous TW: $k=0$. This happens for
example for $D_i=1$, $b_r=1.25$ ($c_{1} = 1$, $c_{2} = -0.8$). The
corresponding function $\Phi_k$ is shown
in Fig.\ \ref{fig8}. If this prediction is true, and if $\Phi$ is a
correct
Lyapunov functional, evolution starting with one of these extreme and
Eckhaus-unstable TW would not lead to any final TW, since this would increase
the value of the Lyapunov functional. This would imply the
existence for this value of the parameters of an attractor different from
the TW's perhaps related to the Spatio-Temporal Intermittency phenomenon.
We use as initial condition at the parameter values of Fig.\ \ref{fig8}
an unstable TW of wavenumber $k = 0.64$ ($\Phi \approx -0.81$), slightly
perturbed by noise. From Fig.\ \ref{fig8}, the system should evolve to a state
with a value of $\Phi$ value even lower than that. What really happens
can be seen in Fig.\ \ref{fig9}. The system changes its winding number from
the initial value $\nu=52$,
a process during which $\Phi$ widely fluctuates and is not a correct
Lyapunov functional, and ends-up in a state
of $\nu = 5$, with a value of $\Phi$ larger than the initial one. After
this the system relaxes to the associated stable TW of
$k=2\pi\nu/L=0.061 < k_{E}= 0.23$. As clearly stated by Graham and coworkers,
the expressions for the potential are only valid for small gradients. Since
$k$ is a phase gradient, results such as Fig.\ \ref{fig8} can only be trusted
for $k$ small enough.
Finally, we show the behavior of $\Phi$ in the
Spatio-Temporal Intermittency regime. Since $\nu$ is constantly changing
in this regime it is clear that (\ref{anep1}) will not be a good Lyapunov
functional and this simulation
is included only for completeness. We take $D_i=0$ and $b_r=0.5$
($c_1=0$, $c_2=-2$) and choose as initial condition a
TW with $k= 0.44>k_{E}= 0.30$ ($\Phi=-1.89814$), with a small amount of noise
added. The TW decreases its winding number and the system reaches soon
the disordered regime called Spatio-Temporal Intermittency. Fig.\ \ref{fig10}
shows
that the time evolution of $\Phi$ is plagued with divergences, reflecting
the fact that $\nu$ is constantly changing (see inset). It is interesting
to observe however that during the initial escape from the unstable TW
$\Phi$ shows a decreasing tendency, and that its average value in the
chaotic regime, excluding the divergences, seems smaller than the initial one.
\section{NUMERICAL STUDIES OF THE LYAPUNOV FUNCTIONAL IN THE PHASE TURBULENCE
REGIME}
\label{pt}
The Phase Turbulence regime is characterized by the
absence of phase singularities (thus $\nu$ is constant). This
distinguishes it as the only chaotic regime for which $\Phi$ would be
well-defined. Graham and
co-workers\cite{graham93,descalzi} derived especially for this region an
expression proposed as Lyapunov functional in the small gradient
approximation (\ref{anep3}).
We recall that the calculations in \cite{graham93,descalzi} predict that
the phase turbulent attractor lies on a potential plateau, consisting
of all the complex functions satisfying (\ref{radiab}), in which all the
unstable TW cycles are also embedded. The value of the potential on such
plateau can be easily calculated by substituting in (\ref{anep3}) an arbitrary
TW, and the result is
\begin{equation}
\label{plateau}
\Phi_{pl}=-{a^2 \over b_r} \ .
\end{equation}
We note that this value does not depend on $D_i$ nor $D_r$ and then it
is independent of $c_1$, the vertical position in the diagram of
Fig.\ \ref{fig1}, within the phase turbulence region.
In this section we take also $a=1$. We perform different simulations
for $D_i=1.75$ and $b_r=1.25$ ($c_1=1.75$, $c_2=-0.8$).
In the first one, we start the evolution with the homogeneous oscillation
solution (TW of $k=0$). This
solution is linearly unstable, but since no perturbation is added, the
system does not escape from it. The potential value predicted by
(\ref{plateau}) is $\Phi_{pl}=-0.8$. This value is reproduced by the
numerical simulation up to the sixth significant figure for all times
(Fig.\ \ref{fig11}, solid line). This agreement,
and the fact that the unstable TW is maintained, gives confidence in
our numerical procedure.
In a second simulation, a smooth perturbation (of the form $\mu e^{iqx}$ with
$q=0.049$ and $\mu=0.09$) is
added to the unstable TW and the result used as initial condition. This choice
of perturbation was taken to remain as much as possible within the range of
validity of the small gradient hypothesis. After a transient the perturbation
grows and the TW is
replaced by the phase turbulence state (the winding number remains fixed to
$0$).
The corresponding evolution of $\Phi$
is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig11} (long-dashed line). The value of the potential
increases
from $\Phi_{pl}$ to a higher value, and then irregularly oscillates around it.
Both the departure and the fluctuation are very small, of the order of
$10^{-4}$ times the value of $\Phi$. Simulations with higher precisions
confirm that these small discrepancies from the theoretical predictions are
not an artifact of our
numerics, but should be attributed to the terms with higher gradients
which are not included in (\ref{anep3}). As a conclusion, the prediction
that the phase turbulence dynamics, driven by non-relaxational terms,
maintains constant $\Phi$ in a value equal to the one for TW is confirmed
within a great accuracy.
It is interesting however to study how systematic
are the small deviations from the theory. To this end we repeat the
launching of the TW with a small perturbation for several values of
$D_i=c_1$,
for the same value of $b_r$ as before. The prediction is that $\Phi$
should be independent of $c_1$. The inset in Fig.\ \ref{fig11} shows that
the theoretical value $\Phi_{pl}=-0.8$ is attained near the BF line, and
that as $c_1$ is increased away from the BF line there are very small but
systematic discrepancies. The values shown for the potential are time averages
of its instantaneous values, and the error bars denote the standard deviation
of the fluctuations around the average.
Again for $c_1=1.75$, $c_2=-0.8$, we perform another simulation
(Fig.\ \ref{fig11}, short-dashed line) consisting in
starting the system in a random Gaussan noise configuration, of
amplitude $0.01$, and letting it to evolve towards the phase turbulence
attractor.
As in other cases, there is a transient in which $\Phi$ is ill-defined since
the winding number is constantly changing. After this $\Phi$ decreases. This
decreasing is not monotonous but presents small fluctuations around a
decreasing trend. The decreasing finally stops and $\Phi$ remains oscillating
around approximately the same value as obtained from the perturbed TW initial
condition. The final state has $\nu=-1$, so that in fact the attractor reached
is different from the one in the previous runs ($\nu=0$) but the difference
is the smallest possible and the difference in value of the associated
potentials can not be distinguished within the fluctuations of
Fig.\ \ref{fig11}.
These observations confirm the idea of a potential which decreases as
the system advances towards an attractor, and remains constant there, but
at variance with the cases in the non-chaotic region here the decreasing
is not perfectly monotonous, and the final value is only approximately
constant.
Since the small discrepancies with the theory increase far from the BF line,
and
since it is known that condition (\ref{radiab}) can be obtained from an
adiabatic-following of the modulus to the phase that losses accuracy far from
the BF line, one is lead to consider the role of adiabatic following on the
validity of $\Phi$ as a potential. To this end we evaluated $\Phi$ along
trajectories $A(x,t)$ constructed with the phase obtained from solutions of
(\ref{cgle}), but with modulus replaced by (\ref{radiab}), so enforcing the
adiabatic following of the modulus to the phase. No significant improvement
was
obtained with respect to the cases in which the adiabatic following was not
enforced since that, in fact, adiabatic following was quite welll accomplished
by the solution of (\ref{cgle}). Then it is not the fact that the solutions of
(\ref{cgle}) do not fulfill (\ref{radiab}) exactly, but the absence of higher
gradient terms in both (\ref{radiab}) and (\ref{anep3}) the responsible for
the small failures in the behavior of $\Phi$.
Finally, it is interesting to show that the Lyapunov potential $\Phi$
can be used as a diagnostic tool
for detecting changes in behavior that would be difficult to monitor by
observing the complete state of the system. For example the time
at which the phase turbulence attractor is reached can
be readily identified from the time-behavior of $\Phi$ in Fig.\ \ref{fig11}.
More interestingly it can be used to detect the escape from metastable states.
For example, Fig.\ \ref{fig12} shows $\Phi$ for evolution from a Gaussian
noise initial condition ($\epsilon=0.01$). $D_i=2$ and $b_r=1.25$ ($c_1=2$,
$c_2=-0.8$). The system reaches first a long lived state with $\nu=2$
not too different from the usual phase turbulent state of $\nu=2$. After
a long time however the system leaves this metastable state and approaches
a more ordered state that can be described \cite{montagne3} as phase turbulent
fluctuations around quasiperiodic configurations related to those of
\cite{janiaud1}. More details about this state will be described elsewhere
\cite{montagne3}. What is of interest here is that from Fig.\ \ref{fig12}
one can easily identify the changes between the different dynamical
regimes. In particular the decrease in the fluctuations of $\Phi$ near
$t \approx 1000$ identifies the jump from the first to the second
turbulence regimes.
\section{CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK}
\label{conclusiones}
The validity of the expressions for the Lyapunov
functional of the CGLE found by Graham and coworkers has been numerically
tested. The most important
limitation is that they were explicitly constructed in a
approximation
limited to small gradients of modulus and phase. This precludes its
use for evolution on attractors such that zeros of $r$ and thus
phase singularities appear
(defect turbulence, bi-chaos, spatio-temporal intermittency).
The same problem applies to transient states of evolution towards more regular
attractors, if phase singularities appear in this transient (for instance
decay of an Eckhaus unstable TW, evolution from random states close to $A=0$,
etc.). A major step forward would be the calculation of the Lyapunov
potential for small gradients of the real and imaginary components of $A$,
which would be a well behaved expansion despite the presence
of phase singularities.
Apart from this, if changes in winding number are avoided, expressions
(\ref{anep0}), (\ref{anep1}), and (\ref{anep3}) display the correct properties
of a Lyapunov functional: minima on stable attractors, where non-relaxational
dynamics maintains it in a constant value, and decreasing value during
approach to the attractor. These properties are completely satisfied in
the non-chaotic region of parameter space, even in complex situations
such as TW competition, as long as large gradients do not appear.
It is remarkable that, although the potential is constructed trough an
expansion around the $k=0$ TW, its minima identify exactly the remaining
TW, its stability, and the non-relaxational terms calculated by substracting
the potential terms to (\ref{cgle}) give exactly their frequencies.
In the phase turbulence regime, however, there are small discrepancies with
respect to the theoretical predictions: lack of monotonicity in the approach
to the attractor, small fluctuations around the asymptotic value, and
small discrepancy between the values of the potential of TW's and of
turbulent configurations, that were predicted to be equal. All
these deviations are very small but systematic, and grow as we go deeper
in the phase turbulence regime. They can be fixed in principle by
calculating more terms in the gradient expansion.
In addition in order to clarify the conceptual status of non-relaxational and
non-potential dynamical systems one can ask about the utility of having
approximate expressions for the Lyapunov functional of the CGLE. Several
applications have been already developped for the case in which (\ref{cgle})
is perturbed with random noise. In particular the stationary probability
distribution is directly related to $\Phi$, and in addition barriers and
escape times from metastable TW have been calculated
\cite{grahamtel91,descalzi}. In the absence of random noise, $\Phi$ should
be still useful in stating the nonlinear stability of the
different attractors. In practice however there will be limitations in
the validity of the predictions, since $\Phi$ has been constructed in an
expansion which is safe only near one particular attractor
(the homogeneous TW).
Once known $\Phi$, powerful statistical mechanics techniques (mean field,
renormalization group, etc. ) can in principle be applied to it to obtain
information on the static properties of the CGLE (the dynamical properties, as
time-correlation functions, would depend also on the non-relaxational terms
$N$, as in critical dynamics \cite{hohenberg78}). Zero-temperature Monte
Carlo methods can also be applied to sample the phase turbulent attractors, as
an
alternative to following the dynamical evolution on it. All those promising
developments will have to face first with the complexity of Eqs.
(\ref{anep0}),
(\ref{anep1}), and (\ref{anep3}). Another use of Lyapunov potentials (the one
most used in equilibrium thermodynamics) is the identification of attractors
by minimization instead of by solving the dynamical equations. In the case of
the
TW attractors, solving the Euler-Lagrange equations for the minimization of
$\Phi$ is in fact more complex than solving directly the CGLE with a TW
ansatz. But
the limit cycle character of the attractors, and their specific form, is
derived, not guessed as when substituting the TW ansatz. For the case of
chaotic
attractors (as in the phase turbulence regime) minimization of potentials can
provide a step towards the construction of inertial manifolds. In this
respect
it should be useful considering the relationships between the Lyapunov
potential of Graham and coworkers and other objects based on functional norms
used also to characterize chaotic attractors \cite{doering1,doering2}.
\section{ Acknowledgments}
We acknowledge very helpful discussions on the subject of this paper with R.
Graham. We also acknowledge helpful inputs of E. Tirapegui and R. Toral on the
general ideas of nonequilibrium potentials. RM and EHG acknowledge financial
support from DGYCIT (Spain)
Project PB92-0046. R.M. also acknowledges partial support from the Programa de
Desarrollo de
las Ciencias B\'asicas (PEDECIBA, Uruguay), the Consejo Nacional de
Investigaciones Cient\'\i ficas Y T\'ecnicas (CONICYT, Uruguay) and the
Programa de Cooperaci\'on con Iberoam\'erica (ICI, Spain).
|
\section{Introduction}
\footnotetext[1]{Mathematisches Institut, Universit\"at G\"ottingen,
Bunsenstra{\ss}e 3-5, 37073 G\"ottingen, Germany
\newline
email: <EMAIL>}
\thispagestyle{empty}
In this paper we will suggest a construction for height functions for line
bundles on arithmetic varieties. Following the philosophy of
\cite{Bost/Gillet/Soule 93} heights should be objects in arithmetic geometry
analogous to degrees in algebraic geometry. So let
$K$
be a number field,
${\cal O}_{K}$
its ring of integers and
${\cal X} / {\cal O}_{K}$
an arithmetic variety, i.e. a regular scheme, projective and flat over
${\cal O}_{K}$,
whose generic fiber
$X / K$
we assume to be connected of dimension
$d$.
Then we have to fix a metrized line bundle
$( {\cal T}, \| . \| )$
or, equivalently, its first Chern class
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{{c}_{1}} ({\cal T} , \| . \| ) = (T,g_{T}) \in ~
\stackrel{\wedge}{{ \rm CH}^{1}} ({\cal X}) ~~.$$
The height of a line bundle
${\cal L}$
on
${\cal X}$
should be the arithmetic degree of the intersection of
$\stackrel{\wedge}{{c}_{1}}({\cal L} )$
with
$(T,g_{T})^{d}$.
For this a natural hermitian metric has to be chosen on
${\cal L}$.
We fix a K\"ahler metric
$\omega_{0}$
on
${\cal X} ({\Bbb{C}})$,
invariant under complex conjugation
$F_{\infty}$,
as in \cite{Arakelov 74}. Then it is well known that the condition on the Chern
form to be harmonic defines
$\| .\|$
up to a locally constant factor.
In order to determine this factor we require
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \det R \pi_{*} {\cal L}, \| . \|_{Q} \Big) = 0
.$$
Here
$\pi : {\cal X} \longrightarrow {\rm Spec}~ {\cal O}_{K}$
is the structural morphism and
$\| . \|_{Q}$
is Quillen's metric (\cite{Quillen 85}, \cite{Bismut/Gillet/Soule 88}) at the
infinite places of
$K$.
\begin{thm} {\bf Fact.} {\rm a)} If the Euler characteristic
$\chi ({\cal L})$
does not vanish, such a metric exists.
\newline
{\rm b)}
$\stackrel{\wedge}{{c}_{1}} ({\cal L}, \| .\|)$
is uniquely determined up to a summand
$(0,C)$,
where
$C = (C_{\sigma})_{\sigma : K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}}$
is a system of constants on
$X \times_{{\rm Spec K}, \sigma} {\rm Spec} ~ \Bbb{C}$
with
$$\sum_{\sigma : K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} C_{\sigma} = 0 ~~~~~(and
{}~~C_{\sigma} = C_{\bar{\sigma}}).$$
\end{thm}
\begin{thm} {\bf Fact.}
Such
$(0,C) \in ~ \stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}} ({\cal X})$
are numerically trivial.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm Now we can state our fundamental} \newline
{\bf Definition.}
The {\rm height} of the line bundle
${\cal L}$
is given by
$$h_{{\cal T}, \omega_{0}} ({\cal L}) := ~ \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} ~\pi_{*} \,
\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{{c}_{1}} ({\cal L}, \| . \|) \cdot (T, g_{T})^{d} \Big]
,$$
where
$\| . \|$
is one of the distinguished metrics specified above.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{main}
{\rm In this paper we will analyze this definition in the case of arithmetic
surfaces. Our main result is} \newline
{\bf Theorem.}
Let
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$
be a regular projective variety of dimension
$2$,
flat over
${\cal O}_{K}$
and generically connected of genus
$g$,
$x \in ({\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\rm Spec} ~ K) (K)$
be a
$K$-valued
point and
$\Theta$
be the Theta divisor on the Jacobian
$J = {\rm Pic}^{g} (C)$
(defined using
$x$).
On
$$\coprod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} \Big( {\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec}
{\cal O}_{K}, \sigma} {\rm Spec} ~ \Bbb{C} \Big) (\Bbb{C})$$
let
$\omega$
be a K\"ahler form invariant under
$F_{\infty}$
and normalized by
$$\int_{({\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}, \sigma} {\rm Spec}
\Bbb{C})(\Bbb{C})} \omega = 1$$
for every
$\sigma$.
Then, for line bundles
${\cal L} / {\cal C}$,
fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g$
and of degree of absolute value less than
$H$
on every irreducible component of the special fibers of
${\cal C}$
(with some constant
$H \in \Bbb{N}$)
$$h_{x,\omega} ({\cal L}) = h_{\Theta} ({\cal L}_{K}) + {\rm O}(1) ,$$
where
$h_{\Theta}$
is the height on
$J$
defined using the ample divisor
$\Theta$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm} {\bf Remark.}
{\rm Another connection between heights on the Jacobian of a curve and
arithmetic intersection theory was obtained by Faltings \cite{Faltings 84} and
Hriljac \cite{Hriljac 85}. Recently it has been generalized to higher
dimensions and higher codimension Chow groups by K\"unnemann \cite{Kunnemann
95}. They can write down an explicit formula for the N\'{e}ron-Tate height
pairing on the Jacobian (higher Picard variety) in terms of arithmetic
intersection theory. The main point is that they consider line bundles (cycles)
algebraically equivalent to zero. So there is no need for them to scale a
metric (to specify the infinite part of the arithmetic cycles occuring). Our
approach, to the contrary, seems to work best for sufficiently ample algebraic
equivalence classes of line bundles. A formal relationship between our approach
and the other one is not known to the author.}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm} {\rm In order to prove the two facts above we will use the
following simple} \newline
{\bf Lemma.}
Let
$f: X \longrightarrow Y$
be a smooth proper map of complex manifolds, where
$X$
has a K\"ahler structure
$\omega$
and
$Y$
is connected, and
$E$
be a holomorphic vector bundle on
$X$.
For a hermitian metric
$\| . \|$
on
$E$
and a constant factor
$D > 0$
we have
$$ h_{Q,(E,D \cdot \| . \|)} = h_{Q,(E,\| . \|)} \cdot D^{\chi (E)} .$$
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof.}
The homomorphism
\begin{eqnarray*}
(E,\| . \|) & \longrightarrow & (E, D \cdot \| . \|) \\
s & \mapsto & \frac{1}{D} \cdot s
\end{eqnarray*}
is an isometry inducing the isometry
\pagebreak
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Big( \det R\pi_{*} E, h_{Q,(E,\| . \|)} \Big) & \longrightarrow & \Big( \det
R\pi_{*} E, h_{Q,(E,D \cdot \| . \|)} \Big) \\
x & \mapsto & D^{-\chi (E)} \cdot x ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proof of Fact 1. Existence:} {\rm Multiplication of
$\| . \|$
by
$D$
will change the Quillen metric by the factor
$D^{\chi (E)}$
and therefore
$\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \det R \pi_{*} E$
by the summand
$[K:{\Bbb{Q}}] \chi(E) \log D$.
\newline
{\bf Uniqueness:} The harmonicity condition and invariance under
$F_{\infty}$
determine
$\| . \|$
up to constant factors
$D_{\sigma} > 0$
for each
$\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}$
with
$D_{\sigma} = D_{\bar{\sigma}}$.
The scaling condition requires
$$\prod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} D_{\sigma}^{\chi(E)} = 1$$
or
$\sum_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} \log D_{\sigma} = 0.$ }
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proof of Fact 2.} {\rm Let
$(Z,g_{Z}) \in ~ \stackrel{\wedge}{\rm CH}_{1}({\cal X})$. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
(0,C) \cdot (Z,g_{Z}) & = &
(0,g_{Z} \cdot \omega_{(0,C)} + C \cdot \delta_{Z}) \\
& = & (0,C \cdot \delta_{Z}) ~~~~~~~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
$Z$
is a zero-cycle on
$X$,
so
$\delta_{Z}$
will have, independently on
$\sigma$,
always the integral
$\deg Z$.
Therefore
\begin{eqnarray*}
\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} ~ \pi_{*} \Big[ (0,C) \cdot (Z,g_{Z}) \Big] & = &
\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2} ~ \sum_{\sigma} ~~ \left[ C_{\sigma}
\int_{X \times_{{\rm Spec K}, \sigma} {\rm Spec} ~ {\Bbb{C}} (\Bbb{C})}
\delta_{Z} \right] \\
& = & \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2} ~ (\sum_{\sigma} C_{\sigma}) \cdot
\deg Z \\
& = & 0 ~~.
\end{eqnarray*} }
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\section{Divisors versus points of the Jacobian}
\begin{thm}
{\rm The remainder of this paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem \ref{main}.
So let
$C/K$
be a regular proper algebraic curve of genus
$g$
with
$C(K) \neq \emptyset$.
We consider a regular projective model
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$.
Denote by
$J = {\rm Pic}^{g}_{C/K}$
the Jacobian of
$C$.
When
$x \in C(K)$
is chosen we have a canonical isomorphism
${\rm Pic}^{g-1}_{C/K} \longrightarrow {\rm Pic}^{g}_{C/K} = J$
and thus the divisor
$\Theta$
on
$J$.
$\Theta$ induces a closed embedding
$i^{'}: J \hookrightarrow {\bf P}^{N}_{K}$
and a "naive" height for
$K$-valued
points of
$J$:
$$h_{\Theta} (D) := \log ~ \left( \prod_{\nu \in M_{K}} \max \left\{ \|
i(D)_{0} \|_{\nu}, ~ \ldots ~ , \| i(D)_{N} \|_{\nu} \right\} \right) ~~.$$
Accordingly
$j^{*} (\Theta)$
induces a morphism
$i: C^{g} \stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow} J \stackrel{i^{'}}{\longrightarrow}
{\bf P}^{N}_{K}$
and a height function
$h_{j^{*} (\Theta)}$
for
$K$-valued
points of
$C^{g}$.
Here
$j$
denotes the natural map sending a divisor to its associated line bundle. A
general construction for heights defined by a divisor, the "height machine", is
given in [CS, Chapter VI, Theorem 3.3].
The underlying height
$h$
for
$K$-valued points of
${\bf P}^{N}_{K}$
is a height in the sense of Arakelov theory \cite{Bost/Gillet/Soule 93} as
follows: We choose the regular projective model
${\bf P}^{N}_{{\cal O}_{K}} \supseteq {\bf P}^{N}_{K}$.
Every \linebreak
$K$-valued
point
$y$
of
${\bf P}^{N}_{K}$
can be extended uniquely to an
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued point
$\underline{y}$
of
${\bf P}^{N}_{{\cal O}_{K}}$.
Let
$\overline{{\cal O} (1)}$
be the hermitian line bundle on
${\bf P}^{N}_{{\cal O}_{K}}$,
where the hermitian metrics at the infinite places are given by
$$\left\| x_{0} \right\| := \left( 1 + \left| \frac{x_{1}}{x_{0}} \right|^{2} +
\ldots + \left| \frac{x_{N}}{x_{0}} \right|^{2} \right)^{- \frac{1}{2}}
{}~~~~~~~~~ ({\rm i.e.~~} \left\| x_{i} \right\| := \left( \left|
\frac{x_{0}}{x_{i}} \right|^{2} + \ldots + 1 + \ldots + \left|
\frac{x_{N}}{x_{i}} \right|^{2} \right)^{- \frac{1}{2}} ) ~~.$$
Then
$h = h_{\overline{{\cal O} (1)}}$
is the height defined by
$\overline{{\cal O} (1)}$
in the sense of [BoGS, Definition 3.1.; \linebreak formula (3.1.6)].
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm
We need a better understanding of
${\cal O} (j^{*} (\Theta))$.
By Riemann's Theorem [GH, Chapter 2, \S 7] one has
$\Theta = \frac{1}{(g-1)!} j_{*} ((x) \times C^{g-1})$,
where
$j: C^{g} \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} C^{(g)} \stackrel{c}{\longrightarrow}
J$
factors into a morphism finite flat of degree
$g!$
and a birational morphism. So
$j^{*} (\Theta)$
is an effective divisor containing the summands
$\pi_{k}^{*} (x)$,
where
$\pi_{k}: C^{g} \longrightarrow C$
denotes
$k$-th
projection.
$${\cal O} \Big( j^{*} \left( \Theta \right) \Big) = \bigotimes_{k=1}^{g}
\pi_{k}^{*} \Big( {\cal O} (x) \Big) \otimes {\cal O} \Big( p^{*} (R) \Big)$$
Intuitively, the divisor
$R$
on
$C^{(g)}$
corresponds to the divisors on
$C$
moving in a linear system. This can be made precise, but we will not need that
here.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm It is a difficulty that there are no regular projective models available
for
$J$
and
$C^{g}$,
such that arithmetic intersection theory does not work immediately. So we
follow [BoGS, Remark after Proposition 3.2.1.] and consider a projective (not
necessarily regular) model of
$C^{g}$,
namely
${\cal C}^{g} := {\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} \ldots \times_{{\rm
Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$.
Hereon let
$\overline{\cal T}$
be a line bundle extending
$\bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} {\cal O} (x)$
equipped with a hermitian metric. One has to define a height
$h_{\overline{\cal T}}$
induced by
$\overline{\cal T}$.
Consider more generally a projective (singular) arithmetic variety
${\cal X} / {\cal O}_{K}$
and a hermitian line bundle
$\overline{\cal U}$
on
$\cal X$.
Then there is a morphism
$\iota: {\cal X} \longrightarrow P$
into a projective variety
$P$
smooth over
${\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}$
and a line bundle
${\cal U_{P}}$
on
$P$
such that
$\iota^{*} (\cal U_{P}) = {\cal U}$
(see [Fu, Lemma 3.2.], cf. [BoGS, Remark 2.3.1.ii)]). We can even choose
$\iota$
in such a way that the hermitian metric on
$\overline{\cal{U}}$
is a pullback of one on
${\cal U}_{P}$
(e.g. as a closed embedding).
$$\iota^{*} \Big( \overline{{\cal U}_{P}} \Big) = \overline{{\cal U}}$$
Then for an
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued
point
$\underline{y}$
of
${\cal X}$
one defines
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{\overline{\cal U}} \Big( \underline{y} \Big) & := & h_{\overline{\cal
U}_{P}} \Big( \iota_{*} (\underline{y}) \Big) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{{\cal
U}_{P}} ) \Big| \iota_{*} (y) \Big) ~~,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$( . | . )$
denotes the pairing
$\stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}} (P) \times {\rm Z}_{1} (P) \longrightarrow ~
\stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}} ({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} )_{\Bbb{Q}}$
from [BoGS, 2.3.]. In [BoGS, Remark after Proposition 3.2.1.] independence of
this definition of the
$\iota$
chosen is shown. In particular it becomes clear at this point that the pairing
$\Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ( . ) \Big| . \Big)$
can be extended to arbitrary (singular) projective arithmetic varieties over
${\cal O}_{K}$
and satisfies the projection formula
$$ \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (L) \Big| f_{*} (Z) \Big) = \Big(
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (f^{*} (L)) \Big| Z \Big) ~~ .$$
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{sing}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm If
${\cal X} / {\cal O}_{K}$
is a regular arithmetic variety, one has another pairing
\begin{eqnarray*}
[.,.]: \stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}} ({\cal X}) ~ \times
\stackrel{~^{\scriptstyle{\wedge}}}{{\rm CH}_{1}} ({\cal X}) & \longrightarrow
& \stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}} ({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K})_{\Bbb Q} \\
(z, y) & \mapsto & \pi_{*} [z \cdot y] ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
We note that also
$\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (.) , . \Big]$
can be extended to arbitrary (singular away from the generic fiber) projective
arithmetic varieties. One has to represent
$y$
by a cycle
$(Y, g_{Y})$
and to put
$$\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal U}) , Y \Big] := \Big(
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal U}) \Big| Y \Big) + \Big(0, \Big(
\int_{{\cal X} ({\Bbb C})} ~ g_{Y} \omega_{\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}}
(\overline{\cal U})} \Big)_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow {\Bbb C}} \Big)$$
obtaining a pairing satisfying the projection formula
$$\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (f^{*} (\overline{\cal U})) , y \Big] = \Big[
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal U}) , f_{*} (y) \Big]$$
for
$f$
proper and smooth on the generic fiber. In particular, independence of the
cycle chosen carries over from the regular case. Indeed, concerning a trivial
arithmetic
$1$-cycle
one is automatically reduced to surfaces and resolution of singularities is
known for two-dimensional schemes [CS, Chapter XI by M. Artin]. Let
$f$
be one. Note that for cycles with
$\omega_{y} = 0$
the push-forward
$f_{*}$
makes sense for any proper
$f$.
If
$f$
is a proper birational map inducing an isomorphism on the generic fibers one
has
$f_{*} f^{*} w = w$
for arithmetic one-cycles and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{fun}
\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (f^{*} (\overline{\cal U})) , f^{*} (w) \Big] =
\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal U}) , w \Big] ~~.
\end{equation}
This is useful for the special case of a (singular) projective arithmetic
surface. There
$[ . , . ]$
can be specialized to a pairing
$\Big[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (.) , \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (.) \Big]$
between hermitian line bundles. This one is symmetric. Indeed, formula
(\ref{fun}) tells us, that it is enough to show that after pullback by a
birational morphism. But for regular arithmetic surfaces symmetry is clear.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{class}
{\bf Lemma.}
Let
${\cal X} / {\cal O}_{K}$
be a (singular) projective arithmetic variety and
$X/K$
its generic fiber which is assumed to be regular. Further, let
$D$
be a divisor on
$X$
and
$\overline{\cal U}$
be a hermitian line bundle extending
${\cal O} (D)$.
Then
$h_{D} = h_{\overline{\cal U}} + {\rm O} (1)$
for
$K$-valued
points of
$X.$
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm There is a very ample line bundle on
$X$
that can be extended to
${\cal X}$.
So we may assume
$D$
to be basepoint-free (very ample). Then the two height functions arise from the
situations
$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccc}
& & & & \overline{{\cal O} (1)} & ~~ & & ~~ & & &
{}~~~~\overline{\cal U}~~~~ & & \overline{{\cal U}_{P}}~~ & \\
& & & & | & ~~ & {\rm and} & ~~ & & & | & & | & \\
{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} & \stackrel{y}{\hookrightarrow} & {\cal X} & -
\stackrel{i}{-} \rightarrow & {\bf P}^{N}_{{\cal O}_{K}} & ~~ & & ~~ & {\rm
Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} & \stackrel{y}{\hookrightarrow} & {\cal X} &
\stackrel{\iota}{\longrightarrow} & P & ~~.
\end{array}$$
Here
$i$
is the rational map defined by an extension
${\cal U}^{'}$
of
${\cal O} (D)$
over
${\cal X}$.
In the generic fiber
$i$
is defined everywhere. Note that
$iy$
is a morphism by the valuative criterion. Of course, it comes from sections of
the line bundle
$y^{*} {\cal U}^{\prime}$.
Note that
${\cal U}^{'}$
is equipped with a hermitian metric induced by that on
${\cal O} (1)$.
$\iota: {\cal X} \longrightarrow P$
is a morphism into a smooth scheme as described above. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{D} (y) & = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left(
\overline{{\cal O} (1) } \right) \Big| (iy)_{*} ({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K})
\right) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( (iy)^{*}
\overline{{\cal O} (1) } \right) \Big| {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} \right) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( (iy)^{*}
\overline{{\cal O} (1) } \right) \right) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( y^{*}
\left( \overline{{\cal U}^{'}} \right) \right) \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
and, correspondingly,
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{\overline{\cal T}} (y) & = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left(
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \overline{{\cal U}_{P}} \right) \Big| (\iota
y)_{*} ({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}) \right) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( y^{*}
\left( \overline{\cal U } \right) \right) \Big| {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}
\right) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( y^{*}
\left( \overline{\cal U } \right) \right) \right) ~~~ .
\end{eqnarray*}
But
$\overline{{\cal U}^{'}}$
and
$\overline{\cal U}$
coincide as line bundles on the generic fiber. As bundles their difference is
some
${\cal O} (E)$
where
$E$
is a divisor contained in the special fibers of
${\cal X}$,
while the hermitian metrics differ by a continuous, hence bounded, factor.
Therefore, the first arithmetic Chern classes of the pullbacks considered
differ only at the infinite and a finite number of finite places by bounded
summands.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.} {\rm a) When one considers
$L$-valued
points instead of
$K$-valued
ones, where
$L$
is a number field with
$[L:K] = d$,
the error term becomes
${\rm O}(d)$;
i. e. there is a constant
$C$
such that
$$ \Big| h_{D} (x) - h_{\overline{\cal U}} (x) \Big| < C \cdot d$$
for
$L$-valued
points
$x$
of
$X$
and an arbitrary number field
$L/K$.
The reason for that is simply that the number of the critical places occuring
grows as
${\rm O}(d)$.
\newline
b) The lemma can be applied to
${\cal X} = {\cal C}^{g}$
and
$D = \sum_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} (x)$,
since
$\bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} {\cal O} (\overline{x})$
extends
${\cal O} (D)$.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{div}
{\rm The height defined by an extension
${\cal U}$
of
$\bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} ({\cal O} (x))$
is understood by the following
}
\newline
{\bf Proposition.}
On
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K} $
let
$\overline{\cal S}$
be the line bundle
${\cal O} (\overline{x})$,
where
$\overline{x}$
denotes the closure of
$x$
in
$\cal C$,
equipped with a hermitian metric. For
$L$-valued
points
$P = (P_{1}, \ldots ,P_{g})$
of
$C^{g}$
we consider the divisor
$\underline{P} := (P_{1}) + \ldots + (P_{g})$
on
$C$.
Then
$$ h_{\overline{\cal S}} (\underline{P}) = h_{\overline{\cal U}} (P) + O(d)
{}~~.$$
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof.}
By [BoGS, Proposition 3.2.2.ii)] we may assume
${\cal U} = {\cal O} \Big( \sum_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} (\overline{x}) \Big)$,
where
$\overline{x}$
is the closure of
$x$
in
${\cal C}$.
The extensions of
$P$
and
$\underline{P}$
over
$\cal C$
and
${\cal C}^{g}$
will be denoted by
$(\overline{P_{1}}) + \ldots + (\overline{P_{g}})$,
respectively
$(\overline{P_{1}}, \ldots , \overline{P_{g}})$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{\overline{\cal S}} \Big( (\overline{P_{1}}) + \ldots + (\overline{P_{g}})
\Big) & = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}}
(\overline{\cal S}) \Big| (\overline{P_{1}}) + \ldots + (\overline{P_{g}})
\Big) \\
& = & \sum_{k=1}^{g} \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}}
(\overline{\cal S}) \Big| (\overline{P_{k}} ) \Big) \\
& = & \sum_{k=1}^{g} \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}}
\Big( \pi_{k}^{*} (\overline{\cal S}) \Big) \Big| (\overline{P_{1}}, ~ \ldots ~
, \overline{P_{g}} ) \Big) ~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm "projection ~formula"}\\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left(
\bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} \left( \overline{\cal S} \right) \right)
\bigg| \left( \overline{P_{1}}, ~ \ldots ~ , \overline{P_{g}} \right) \right)
{}~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
But by construction
$\bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} (\overline{\cal S})$
is the line bundle
${\cal U}$,
equipped with a hermitian metric (and by definition the formula
$\Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\bigotimes_{k} \overline{{\cal L}_{k}}) \Big|
Z \Big) = {\displaystyle\sum}_{k} \Big( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}}
(\overline{{\cal L}_{k}}) \Big| Z \Big) $
holds in singular case, too). So we have
$$h_{\overline{\cal S}} \Big( (\overline{P_{1}}) + \ldots + (\overline{P_{g}})
\Big) = h_{\overline{{\cal U}}^{'}} \Big( (\overline{P_{1}} , ~ \ldots ~ ,
\overline{P_{g}}) \Big) ~~~,$$
\newpage
{}~
\newline
where
$\overline{{\cal U}}^{'}$
differs from
$\overline{\cal U}$
only by the hermitian metric. The claim follows from [BoGS, Proposition
3.2.2.i)].
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\begin{thm}
\label{two}
{\bf Corollary.}
Let
$P \in C^{g}(L)$
and
$\underline{P}$
be the associated divisor on
$C$.
Then
$$h_{\Theta} ({\cal O} (\underline{P})) = h_{\overline{\cal S}} (\underline{P})
+ h_{R} (p_{*} P) + {\rm O}(d) ~~,$$
where
$h_{R}$
denotes the height for points of
$C^{(g)}$
defined by
$R$.
\end{thm}
\section{An observation concerning the tautological line \newline bundle}
In this section we start analyzing the fundamental definition 1.3. First we
will consider only varieties over number fields and forget about integral
models.
\begin{thm}
{\bf Definition.}
Let
$\Delta$
be the diagonal in
$C \times C$.
Then
$$\underline{\underline{\cal E}} := \bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k,g+1}^{*} \Big(
{\cal O} (\Delta) \Big) $$
will be called the {\rm tautological line bundle} on
$C^{g} \times C$.
Note that the restriction of
$\underline{\underline{\cal E}}$
to
$\{ (P_{1}, \ldots , P_{g}) \} \times C$
equals
${\cal O} (P_{1} + \ldots + P_{g})$.
By construction
$\underline{\underline{\cal E}}$
is the pullback of some line bundle
$\cal E$,
said to be {\rm the tautological} one on
$C^{(g)} \times C$.
$$\underline{\underline{\cal E}} = (p \times id)^{*} ({\cal E})$$
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proposition.}
We have
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal E} = {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} (-R)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm This will be a direct consequence of the following} \newline
{\bf Lemma.}
Let
$\underline{\cal E} := {\cal E} \otimes \pi_{C}^{*} ({\cal O} (-x))$ be a
tautological line bundle fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g-1$.
Then
$$\det R \pi_{*} \underline{\cal E} = {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} \Big( -c^{*} (\Theta)
\Big) ~~.$$
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof.}
The canonical map
$c: C^{(g)} \longrightarrow J$
is given by
${\cal E}$
using Picard functoriality. So for a tautological line bundle
${\cal M}$,
fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g$
on
$J \times C$,
one has
$${\cal E} = (c \times id)^{*} {\cal M} \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal H} ~~,$$
where
$\cal H$
is a line bundle on
$C^{(g)}$.
Putting
${\cal M}_{0} := {\cal M} \otimes \pi_{C}^{*} {\cal O} (-x)$,
where
$\pi_{C}: J \times C \longrightarrow C$
denotes here the canonical projection from
$J \times C$,
we get
$$\underline{\cal E} = (c \times id)^{*} {\cal M}_{0} \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal H}
{}~~.$$
It follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\det R \pi_{*} \underline{\cal E} & \cong & \det R \pi_{*} \Big[ (c \times
id)^{*} {\cal M}_{0} \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal H} \Big] \\ & = & \det R \pi_{*}
\Big[ (c \times id)^{*} {\cal M}_{0} \Big] \\ & = & c^{*} \det R \pi_{*} {\cal
M}_{0} ~~,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we first used the projection formula, which is particularly simple here,
since line bundles, fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g-1$,
have relative Euler characteristic
$0$,
and afterwords noted \pagebreak
that the determinant of cohomology commutes with arbitrary base change
\cite{Knudsen/Mumford 76}. But by [MB, Proposition 2.4.2] or [Fa, p. 396] we
know
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal M}_{0} = {\cal O}_{J} (- \Theta)$.
The assertion follows.
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proof of the Proposition.}
{\rm The short exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow \underline{\cal E} \longrightarrow {\cal E} \longrightarrow
{\cal E}|_{C^{(g)} \times \{ x \} } \longrightarrow 0 $$
gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\det R \pi_{*} {\cal E} & = & \det R \pi_{*} \underline{\cal E} \otimes {\cal
O} \left( {\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle g!}} p_{*} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{g}
\pi_{k}^{*} (x) \right) \right) \\
& = & {\cal O} \left( - c^{*} (\Theta) \right) \otimes {\cal O} \left(
\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle g!} p_{*} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*}
(x) \right) \right) \\
& = & {\cal O} (-R) ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Corollary.}
\label{glatt}
$\det R \pi_{*} ({\cal E} \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal O} (R)) = {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}}$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm This is the projection formula for the determinant of cohomology.}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm Let
$\cal J$
be the N\'eron model of the Jacobian
$J$
of
$C$.
It is smooth over
${\cal O}_{K}$,
consequently
${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is smooth over
${\cal C}$
and therefore regular. We note that any
$K$-valued
point of
$J$
can be extended uniquely to an
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued
point of
$\cal J$.
On
$J \times C$
we have a tautological line bundle
${\cal M}$,
fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g$.
${\cal M}$ can be extended over
${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$.
For this let
${\cal M} = {\cal O} (D)$
with some Weil divisor
$D$
on
$J \times C$.
Its closure
$\overline{D}$
in
${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is obviously flat over
${\cal O}_{K}$
and therefore it has codimension
$1$.
We choose the extension
${\cal O} ({\overline{D}})$
and denote it by
$\cal M$
again.
$\cal M$
is a perfect complex of
${\cal O}_{{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}}$-modules. For
the existence of the Knudsen-Mumford determinant we need that
$$\pi: {\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C} \longrightarrow {\cal
J}$$
has finite
${\rm Tor}$-dimension.
For this there exists a closed embedding
${\cal C} \longrightarrow P$,
where
$P$
is smooth over
${\cal O}_{K}$.
Thus
$\pi$
factorizes as
$${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}
\stackrel{i}{\hookrightarrow} {\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} P
\stackrel{{\rm smooth}}{\twoheadrightarrow} {\cal J} ~~.$$
By [SGA 6, Expos\'e III, Proposition 3.6] it is enough to show that
$i$
has finite
${\rm Tor}$-dimension.
But
$i_{*}$
is exact and
${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} P$
is regular implying quasi-coherent sheaves have locally finite free resolutions
of bounded length.
${\cal M}$
has, relative to
$\pi$,
Euler characteristic
$1$.
Therefore
$\cal M$
can be changed by an inverse image of a line bundle on
${\cal J}$,
trivial on the generic fiber, in such a way, that we are allowed to assume
$$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal M} \cong {\cal O}_{\cal J} ~~.$$
}
\end{thm}
\section{Choosing hermitian metrics continuously depending on moduli space}
\setcounter{equation}{1}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Fact.}
On
${\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}}$
there exists a hermitian metric
$\underline{h}$
such that for every point
$y \in J ({\Bbb{C}})$
the curvature form satisfies
$$c_{1} ({\cal M}_{{\Bbb{C}},y}, \underline{h}_{y}) = g \omega$$
on
$( \{ y \} \times C) ({\Bbb{C}}) \cong C (\Bbb{C})$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm The statement is local in
$C^{g} (\Bbb{C})$
by partition of unity. By the Theorem on cohomology and base change
$R^{0} \pi_{*} {\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}} (g-1)$
is locally free and commutes with arbitrary base change. Hence there exists,
locally on
$J (\Bbb{C})$,
a rational section
$s$
of
$\cal M$
that is neither undefined nor identically zero in any fiber.
First we choose an arbitrary hermitian metric
$\| . \|$
on
${\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}}$.
Then
\begin{equation}
\omega^{'} := -d_{C} d_{C}^{c} \log \| s \|^{2}
\end{equation}
defines a smooth
$(1,1)$-form
on
$(J \times C) ({\Bbb{C}}) \backslash {\rm div} (s)$,
that is fiber-by-fiber the curvature form to be considered. Since construction
(2) is independent of
$s$
as soon as it makes sense at a point, we obtain
$\omega^{'}$
as a smooth
$(1,1)$-form
on
$(J \times C) (\Bbb{C})$
closed under
$d_{C}$
and cohomologous to
$g \omega$
on
$\{ y \} \times C(\Bbb{C})$
for any
$y \in C^{g} (\Bbb{C})$.
The setup
$\| . \|_{\underline{h}} = f \cdot \| . \|$
gives the equation
\begin{equation}
\omega^{'} - g \omega = d_{C} d_{C}^{c} \log | f |^{2} ~~.
\end{equation}
But
$d d^{c}$
is an elliptic differential operator on the Riemann surface
$C (\Bbb{C})$,
so by Hodge theory it permits a Green`s operator
$G$
compact with respect to every Sobolew norm
$\| . \|_{\alpha}$.
Consequently, there exists a solution
$f$
of (3) being smooth on
$(J \times C) (\Bbb{C})$.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm We note, that
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal M} \cong {\cal O}_{\cal J}$
and the isomorphism is uniquely determined up to units of
${\cal O}_{K}$.
Namely, one has
${\rm Aut}_{{\cal O}_{\cal J}} ({\cal O}_{\cal J}) = \Gamma ({\cal J}, {\cal
O}_{\cal J}^{*})$
and already
$\Gamma (J, {\cal O}_{J}^{*})$
consists of constants only. In particular, there is a unitary section, uniquely
determined up to units of
${\cal O}_{K}$,
$${\bf 1} \in \Gamma ({\cal J}, \det R \pi_{*} {\cal M}) ~~.$$
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Corollary.}
Let
$R \in \Bbb{R}$.
Then, on
${\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}}$
there exists exactly one hermitian metric
$h$,
such that for every point
$y \in J(\Bbb{C})$
the curvature form
$c_{1} ({\cal M}_{{\Bbb{C}}, y}, h_{y}) = \omega$
and for the Quillen metric one has
$$h_{Q,h} ({\bf 1}) = R ~~,$$
where
${\bf 1} \in \Gamma (\{ y \} , \det R \pi_{*} {\cal M}_{{\Bbb{C}}, y} )$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm Let
$\underline{h}$
be the hermitian metric from the preceeding fact. We may replace
$\underline{h}$
by
$f \cdot \underline{h}$
with
$f \in C^{\infty} (J(\Bbb{C}))$
without any effort on the curvature forms, since they are invariant under
scalation. As
$\cal M$
has relative Euler characteristic
$1$,
exactly
$$h := \frac{R}{h_{Q, \underline{h}} ({\bf 1})} \cdot \underline{h} $$
satisfies the conditions required.}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm We have to consider
${\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}}$
on
$J({\Bbb{C}}) \times (\coprod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow {\Bbb{C}}} C
(\Bbb{C}))$.
The metric
$h$
on
${\cal M}_{\Bbb{C}}$
has to be invariant under
$F_{\infty}$,
its curvature form is required to be
$g \omega$
and we want to realise
\begin{equation}
\prod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} h_{Q,h} ({\bf 1}) = 1
\end{equation}
simultaneously for all
$y \in J(\Bbb{C})$.
The first is possible since
$\omega$
is invariant under
$F_{\infty}$
and the corollary above already gives conditions uniquely determining
$h$.
(4) can be obtained by scalation with a constant factor over all
$J({\Bbb{C}}) \times (\coprod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow {\Bbb{C}}}
C({\Bbb{C}}))$.
Altogether, for every line bundle of degree
$g$
on
$C$
we have found a distinguished hermitian metric and seen that it depends, in
some sense, continuously on the moduli space $J$.
One obtains
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proposition.}
\label{Ara}
Let
$K$
be a number field and
$({\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}, \omega)$
a regular connected Arakelov surface. Then, on the (non proper) Arakelov
variety
$({\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}, \pi_{C}^{*} \omega)$
there is a hermitian line bundle
$\overline{\cal M}$
with the following properties.
\newline
{\rm a)}
$$(c \times id)^{*} ({\cal M} |_{J \times C}) = {\cal E} \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal
O} (R)$$
is the modified tautological line bundle found in section 3.
\newline
{\rm b)} The hermitian metric
$h$
on
${\cal M} |_{\coprod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} (J \times C)
({\Bbb{C})}}$
is invariant under
$F_{\infty}$
and has curvature form
$g \omega$.
\newline
{\rm c)} For any
$y \in J(K)$
one has
$\overline{\{ y \}} \subseteq {\cal J}$
and
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \det R \pi_{*} \left( {\cal M} |_{\overline{\{
y \} } \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}}, h_{{\cal M},y} \right) , \|
. \|_{Q,h} \right) = 0 ~~.$$
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm b) and c) are clear. For a) we know
${\cal E} = (c \times id)^{*} ({\cal M}|_{J \times C}) \otimes \pi^{*} {\cal
H}$
from 4.3. But
$\cal H$
is determined by
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal E} = {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} (-R)$
and
$\det R \pi_{*} ({\cal M}|_{J \times C}) = {\cal O}_{J}$.
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
}
\end{thm}
\section{An integral model of the symmetric power}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm It turns out here to be very inconvenient to work directly with the
N\'eron model
$\cal J$
of the Jacobian of
$C$.
When one considers the tautological line bundle
${\cal M} |_{J \times C}$,
fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g$
on
$J \times C$
with
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal M}|_{J \times C} \cong {\cal O}_{J},$
then
${\cal M}|_{J \times C}$
will even have an (up to constant factor) canonical section.
$$\pi_{*} {\cal M}|_{J \times C} \cong {\cal O}_{J}$$
But this section is zero over a codimension two subset of
$J$
such that one is led to blow up this subset.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Lemma.}
{\rm a)}
$C^{(g)}$
is a projective variety.
\newline
{\rm b)}
The divisor
$S := \frac{1}{g!} p_{*} \Big( \sum_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} (x) \Big) =
\frac{1}{(g-1)!} p_{*} \Big( (x) \times C^{g-1} \Big)$
"one of the points is
$x$"
on
$C^{(g)}$
is ample.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm
a) There are at least two good reasons for that. First
$C^{(g)}$
is proper as a quotient of the proper variety
$C^{g}$
and b) gives an ample line bundle. On the other hand we can give a high-powered
argument as follows.
$C^{(g)}$
is the Hilbert scheme
${\rm Hilb}_{C/K}^{g}$
by [CS, Chapter VII by J. S. Milne, Theorem 3.13] and this is known to be
projective for a long time [FGA, Expos\'e 221, Theorem 3.2].
\pagebreak
\newline
b) By [EGA III, Proposition 2.6.2] it is enough to show that
$p^{*} {\cal O} (S) = \bigotimes_{k=1}^{g} \pi_{k}^{*} {\cal O} (x)$
is an ample line bundle on
$C^{g}$,
which is obvious.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proposition.}
The morphism
$c: C^{(g)} \longrightarrow J$
is the blow-up of some ideal sheaf
${\cal I} \subseteq {\cal O}_{J}$
with
$$c^{-1} {\cal I} = {\cal O} (-NR) ~~,$$
where
$N$
is a positive integer.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm
$c$
is birational and by the lemma it is a projective morphism. So it is a blow-up
of some ideal sheaf
${\cal I} \subseteq {\cal O}_{J}$.
Going through the lines of the proof of [Ha, Chapter II, Theorem 7.17] one sees
that
$c_{*} ({\cal O} (NS))$
for
$N \gg 0$,
up to tensor product with line bundles in order to make them ideal sheaves, can
be used as
$\cal I$.
But
$c^{*} {\cal O} (\Theta) = {\cal O} (S) \otimes {\cal O} (R)$
gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_{*} ({\cal O} (NS)) & = & c_{*} \Big( {\cal O} (-NR) \otimes c^{*} {\cal O}
(N \Theta) \Big) \\
& = & c_{*} \Big( {\cal O} (-NR) \Big) \otimes {\cal O} (N \Theta)
\end{eqnarray*}
and therefore
${\cal I} = c_{*} {\cal O} (-NR)$
for some
$N \gg 0$.
We have a short exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} (-NR) \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}}
\longrightarrow {\cal O}_{R_{N}} \longrightarrow 0 ~~,$$
where
$R_{N}$
denotes the
$N$-th
infinitesimal neighbourhood of
$R$.
It follows exactness of
$$0 \longrightarrow c_{*} {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} (-NR) \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{J}
\longrightarrow c_{*} {\cal O}_{R_{N}} ~~.$$
Now the image of
${\cal O}_{J} \longrightarrow c_{*} {\cal O}_{R_{N}}$
is the structure sheaf of the scheme-theoretic image
$I_{N}$
of
$R_{N}$
in
$J$.
So
${\cal I} = c_{*} {\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} (-NR) = {\cal I}_{I_{N}} \subseteq {\cal
O}_{J}$.
But
${\cal O}_{C^{(g)}} / c^{-1} {\cal I}_{I_{N}} = c^{*} ({\cal O}_{C^{g}} / {\cal
I}_{I_{N}})$
and therefore
$c^{-1} {\cal I} = c^{-1} {\cal I}_{I_{N}}$
is the ideal sheaf of
$I_{N} \times_{J} C^{(g)}$
in
${\cal O}_{C^{(g)}}$.
$c^{-1} {\cal I}$
is known to be invertible, so
$I_{N} \times_{J} C^{(g)}$
is necessarily pure of codimension
$1$
and by construction it contains the scheme
$R_{N}$.
But
$R = c^{*} c_{*} S - S$
contains with one point its complete fiber in
$c: C^{(g)} \longrightarrow J$.
So
$I_{N} \times_{J} C^{(g)}$
must be an infinitesimal thickening of
$R_{N}$.
On the other hand, when one replaces
$R$
by
$S$
and considers the scheme-theoretic image
$\underline{I_{N}}$
of the
$N$-th
infinitesimal neighbourhood
$S_{N}$,
then
$\underline{I_{N}} \times_{J} C^{(g)} \supseteq I_{N} \times_{J} C^{(g)}$
is a pure codimension
$1$
subscheme not containing any thickening of
$R_{N}$,
but only other additional summands (it corresponds to the divisor
$c^{*} (N \Theta)$).
So, necessarily
$I_{N} \times_{J} C^{(g)} = R_{N}$
and
$$c^{-1} {\cal I} = {\cal O} (-NR) ~~.$$
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm Denote by
$\tilde{\cal J}$
the normalization of the blow-up of
$\cal J$
with respect to some extension
$\underline{\cal I}$
of the ideal sheaf
$\cal I$
over
$\cal J$.
}
\newline
{\bf Facts.}
{\rm a)}
$\tilde{\cal J}$
is some (singular) arithmetic variety proper over
$\cal J$.
\newline
{\rm b)}
It is an integral model of
$C^{(g)}$.
\newline
{\rm c)}
On
$\tilde{\cal J}$
one has the line bundle
$${\cal R} := (c^{-1} \underline{\cal I})^{\vee}$$
extending
${\cal O} (NR)$
for some
$N > 0$.
\newline
{\rm
Note that we do not know whether we have an extension of
${\cal O} (R)$
over
$\tilde{\cal J}$.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm
On
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
we will consider the hermitian line bundle
$$\overline{\cal F} := (c \times id)^{*} \overline{\cal M} ~~,$$
where
$c: \tilde{\cal J} \longrightarrow {\cal J}$
denotes here the extension of
$C^{(g)} \longrightarrow J$
(the blow-down morphism).
}
\newline
{\bf Facts.}
{\rm a)}
${\cal F}|_{J \times C} = {\cal E} \otimes {\cal O} (R)$.
\newline
{\rm b)}
One has
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal F} \cong {\cal O}_{\tilde{\cal J}}$.
\newline
{\rm Note here,
$\tilde{\cal J}$
is not regular, so we do not know whether
$\pi: \tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C} \longrightarrow
\tilde{\cal J}$
has finite Tor-dimension. Thus
$\det R \pi_{*}$
does may be not exist as a functor, but for line bundles, coming by base change
from
${\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$,
the definition makes sense.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm
All in all we obtain a decomposition
$$\overline{\cal F}^{\otimes N} \cong \overline{\cal K} \otimes \pi^{*}
\overline{\cal R}$$
of hermitian line bundles, where
${\cal K}$
extends
${\cal E}^{\otimes N}$,
the
$N$-th
power of the tautological line bundle on
$C^{(g)} \times C$.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm Any line bundle of degree
$g$
on
$C$
gives an
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued
point
$y: {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} \longrightarrow {\cal J}$
and
${\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} \times_{{\cal J}, y} \tilde{\cal J}$
will be proper over
${\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}$.
So at least for some finite field extension
$L/K$
there will be an
${\cal O}_{L}$-valued
point
$\underline{y}: {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{L} \longrightarrow \tilde{\cal J}$
lifting
$y$.
Proposition \ref{Ara}.c) gives
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \det R \pi_{*} \left( {\cal F} |_{\overline{\{
y \} } \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}}, h_{{\cal F},y} \right) , \|
. \|_{Q,h} \right) = 0 ~~.$$
}
\end{thm}
\section{Decomposition into two summands}
\begin{thm}
{\rm In this section we will restrict to the case that
${\cal C}$
is {\it semistable}, i. e.
$\pi: {\cal C} \longrightarrow {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}$
is smooth up to codimension
}
$2$.
\newline
{\bf Lemma.}
{\rm a)}
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is a normal scheme.
\newline
{\rm b)}
$\tilde{\cal J}$
is quasi-projective over
${\cal O}_{K}$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm a)
$\tilde{\cal J}$
is normal, so
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}^{\rm smooth}$
is normal by [SGA1, Expos\'e I, Corollaire 9.10]. In particular
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is regular in codimension
$1$.
Further
$\pi: \tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C} \longrightarrow
\tilde{\cal J}$
is flat with one dimensional fibers. By [EGA IV, Corollaire 6.4.2]
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is Cohen-Macaulay in codimension
$2$.
\newline
b)
$\cal J$
is quasi-projective over
${\cal O}_{K}$
by [CS, Chapter VIII by M. Artin, \S 4] and blow-ups are projective morphisms.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Remark.}
{\rm Let
$\underline{y}: {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{L} \longrightarrow \tilde{\cal J}$
be an
${\cal O}_{L}$-valued
point lifting an
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued
point \linebreak
$y: {\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K} \longrightarrow {\cal J}$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal M}|_{y \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}}
\right) & = & \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle [L:K] N}
\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \pi_{*} \left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left(
\overline{\cal F}^{\otimes N} |_{\underline{y} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}}
{\cal C}} \right) \cdot (x,g_{x}) \right] \\
& = & \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle [L:K] N} \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg}
\pi_{*} \left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \overline{\cal K}
|_{\underline{y} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}} \right) \cdot
(x,g_{x}) \right] \\
& + & \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle [L:K] N} \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg}
\pi_{*} \left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \pi^{*} \overline{\cal R}
|_{\underline{y} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}} \right) \cdot
(x,g_{x}) \right] ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
We note here, on
${\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{L} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
being in general a singular scheme,
$\pi_{*}$
of an intersection with an arithmetic Chern class is defined using an embedding
into a regular scheme, where the line bundle comes from by base change (Remark
\ref{sing}, \cite{Fulton 75}.) The first equality comes from projection
formula. Note that
$x$
means here an
${\cal O}_{L}$-valued
point of
${\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{L} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
whose push-forward to
$\cal C$
is
$[L : K] (x)$.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm Let us investigate the first summand. We have
${\cal K} |_{C^{(g)} \times C} = {\cal E}^{\otimes N}$
and this line bundle has a canonical section
$s$,
which can be extended over the finite places. Using this section we obtain the
arithmetic cycle
$({\rm div} ~ (s), -\log \| s \|^{2})$
representing
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal K}) \in ~ \stackrel{\wedge}{CH^{1}}
\left( \tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C} \right) ~~.$$
The scheme part
${\rm div} (s)$
of this cycle is an extension of the tautological divisor representing
$c_{1} ({\cal E}^{\otimes N}) \in {\rm CH}^{1} (C^{(g)} \times C)$
(whose restriction to
$\{ (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}) \} \times C$
is
$N (x_{1}) + \ldots + N (x_{g})$).
So
${\rm div} ~ (s)$
is the closure of that divisor, possibly plus a finite sum of divisors over the
finite places. We note, that
$\cal K$
is given by that divisor since
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}$
is normal. Consequently, if
$\underline{y}$
restricts to the
$L$-valued
point corresponding to the divisor
$D$
on
$C$,
then
$$c_{1} \left( {\cal K} |_{\underline{y} \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal
C}} \right) = \left( \overline{D} \right) + ({\rm correction ~ terms}) ~~,$$
where
$\overline{D}$
denotes the closure of
$N D$
over
$\cal C$
and the correction terms are vertical divisors which (over all the
$y$)
occur only over a finite amount of finite places. Their intersection numbers
with
$(x, g_{x})$,
i. e. with the line bundle
${\cal O} (x)$,
are bounded by
${\rm O} ([L:K])$.
The infinite part
$f$
of
$\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal K}) = ({\cal D}, f)$
is a function on
$(C^{(g)} \times C) \backslash {\rm div} ~ (s)$
whose pullback to
$C^{g} \times C$
satisfies all the assumptions of Lemma \ref{Int}. We obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle [L:K] N} \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \pi_{*}
\left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \overline{\cal K} |_{\underline{y}
\times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}} \right) \cdot (x,g_{x}) \right] & =
& \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle [L:K] N} \left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg}
\left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \overline{{\cal O} (x)} \right) ~ \Big|
{}~ \left( {\cal D} |_{\underline{y} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ O_{K}} {\cal C}}
\right) \right) ~~~ \ldots \right. \\
& ~ & ~~~\ldots ~~~ + \left. \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle 2}
\sum_{\sigma : L \hookrightarrow {\Bbb {C}}} \int_{C ({\Bbb{C}})} f_{D}
\omega_{x} \right] \\
& = & \frac{\scriptstyle 1}{\scriptstyle N} h_{\overline{\cal S}} (N D) + {\rm
O} (1) \\
& = & h_{\overline{\cal S}} (D) + {\rm O} (1) ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note, for the first equation we used the symmetry of the intersection form for
hermitian line bundles (Remark \ref{sing}). The denominator
$[L:K]$
disappears by [BoGS, formula (3.1.8)].
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\rm The second summand is simpler. One has
\begin{eqnarray*}
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( \pi^{*} \overline{\cal R} |_{\underline{y}
\times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}} \right) \cdot (x, g_{x}) & = &
\pi^{*} \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( {\cal R} |_{\underline{y}} \right)
\cdot (x, g_{x}) \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( {\cal R} |_{\underline{y}} \right) +
\left( 0, g_{x} \omega_{R} (\underline{y}) \right) ~~,
\end{eqnarray*}
when one identifies
$\tilde{\cal J} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}} \overline{ \{ x \} }$
with
$\tilde{\cal J}$.
The integral
$\int_{C ({\Bbb C})} ~ g_{x} \omega_{R} ( . )$
depends smoothly on the parameter,
in particular it is bounded. So the push-forward of the right summand is
bounded by
${\rm O} ([L:K])$.
On the other hand
$\pi_{*} \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( {\cal R} |_{\underline{y}} \right) =
\left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal R}) ~ \Big| ~ \underline{y}
\right) $,
where the last term is defined by embedding
$\tilde{\cal J}$
into a scheme
$P$
smooth and projective over
${\cal O}_{K}$
\cite{Fulton 75}. Note here we use
$\tilde{\cal J}$
is quasi-projective. Thus Lemma \ref{class} gives
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{\cal R}) ~
\Big| ~ \underline{y} \right) = \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left(
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} (\overline{{\cal R}_{P}}) ~ \Big| ~ \iota_{*}
(\underline{y}) \right) = h_{\overline{{\cal R}_{P}}} \left( \iota_{*}
(\underline{y}) \right) = h_{R_{P}} \left( \iota_{*} D \right) = h_{R} (D)
{}~~,$$
where
$D$
is the divisor corresponding to the restriction of
$\underline{y}$
to
$C^{(g)}$.
}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{stab}
{\rm We obtain}
\newline
{\bf Proposition.}
Assume
$\cal C$
is semistable and
${\cal L} = {\cal O} (\overline{D})$,
where
$\overline{D}$
is the closure of some divisor on
$C$.
Then Theorem \ref{main} is true.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm By Corollary \ref{two} this is now proven for line bundles coming by
restriction from
$\cal M$.
This way one can realize the line bundles
${\cal O} (D)$
on the generic fiber
$C$
for arbitrary divisors
$D$
(defined over
$K$)
of degree
$g$
over
$C$.
Consider the degrees
$$\deg {\cal M} |_{y \times_{{\rm Spec} {\cal O}_{K}} {\cal C}_{{\goth p},
i}}$$
for
${\cal O}_{K}$-valued
points
$y$
of
$\cal J$,
where
${\cal C}_{{\goth p}, i}$
denote the irreducible components of the special fiber
${\cal C}_{\goth p}$.
They are even defined for
$\overline{{\cal O} / {\goth p}}$-valued
points, where the bar denotes algebraic closure here, and are locally constant
over the special fiber
${\cal J}_{\goth p}$.
In particular they are bounded since the N\'eron model of an abelian variety is
of finite type. The Proposition follows from Lemma \ref{degr}.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\section{End of the proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{blow}
{\bf Lemma.}
{\rm Let
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$
be a regular projective arithmetic surface and
$p: \tilde{\cal C} \longrightarrow {\cal C}$
be a blow-up of one point. Then
$$h_{x, \omega} ({\cal L}) = h_{x, \omega} (p^{*} {\cal L}) ~~,$$
where
$x \in {\cal C} ({\cal O}_{K}) = \tilde{\cal C} ({\cal O}_{K})$
and
$\cal L$
is a line bundle with
$\chi ({\cal L}) \neq 0$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
Obviously
$p_{*} p^{*} {\cal L} = {\cal L}$
and [SGA6, Expos\'e VII, Lemma 3.5] gives
$R^{i} p_{*} p^{*} {\cal L} = 0$
for
$i \geq 1.$
In particular
$R p_{*} (p^{*} {\cal L}) = {\cal L}$,
$R (\pi p)_{*} (p^{*} {\cal L}) = R \pi_{*} {\cal L}$
and
$\det R (\pi p)_{*} (p^{*} {\cal L}) = \det R \pi_{*} {\cal L}$.
\linebreak This means that
$\cal L$
and
$p^{*} {\cal L}$
get identical distinguished metrics and therefore \linebreak
$\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( p^{*} {\cal L}, \| . \|_{p^{*} {\cal L}}
\right) = p^{*} \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( {\cal L}, \| . \|_{{\cal L}}
\right) $.
On the other hand
$p^{*} (x, g_{x}) = (x, g_{x}) + ({\rm exceptional ~ divisor})$,
but an exceptional divisor intersects trivially with cycles coming from
downstairs. Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray*}
h_{x, \omega} (p^{*} {\cal L}) & = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} (\pi p)_{*} \left[
p^{*} \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ({\cal L}, \| . \|_{\cal L}) \cdot p^{*} (x,
g_{x}) \right] \\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} (\pi p)_{*} p^{*} \left[
\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ({\cal L}, \| . \|_{\cal L}) \cdot (x, g_{x}) \right]
\\
& = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \pi_{*} \left[ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ({\cal
L}, \| . \|_{\cal L}) \cdot (x, g_{x}) \right] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{\rm
"projection ~ formula"}\\
& = & h_{x, \omega} ({\cal L}) ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Corollary.}
\label{model}
{\rm (Change of model.)}
\newline
Let
${\cal C}_{1}, {\cal C}_{2} / {\cal O}_{K}$
be two regular projective models of the curve
$C/K$
of genus
$g$.
Then, for divisors
$D$
of degree
$g$
on
$C$
$$h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{1}} (\overline{D}) \right) = h_{x,
\omega} \left( {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{2}} (\overline{D}) \right) + {\rm O} (1)
{}~~,$$
where
$\overline{D}$
denotes the closure of
$D$
in
${\cal C}_{1}$,
respectively
${\cal C}_{2}.$
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm By [Li, Theorem II.1.15] one is reduced to the case of the blow-up of one
point
$p: {\cal C}_{2} \longrightarrow {\cal C}_{1}$.
By Lemma \ref{blow} we have to bound the difference
$h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{2}} (\overline{D}) \right) - h_{x,
\omega} \left( p^{*} {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{1}} (\overline{D}) \right)$.
$\overline{D}$
will meet the point blown up
$i$
times
($0 \leq i \leq g$).
We get an exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{2}} (\overline{D}) \longrightarrow
p^{*} {\cal O}_{{\cal C}_{1}} (\overline{D}) \longrightarrow {\cal O}_{E^{i}}
\longrightarrow 0 ~~,$$
where
$E$
is the exceptional curve and
$E^{i}$
denotes its
$i$-th
infinitesimal neighbourhood. But now the assertion is a direct consequence of
Lemma \ref{red}.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Lemma.}
{\rm (Change of base field.)}
\newline
Let
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$
be a regular arithmetic surface, generically of genus
$g$,
$L/K$
a finite field extension and
$$p: {\cal C}^{'} = \overline{{\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}} {\rm
Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{L}} \longrightarrow {\cal C}$$
be some resolution of singularities of the base change to
${\cal O}_{L}$.
Then, for divisors
$D$
of degree
$g$
on
$C = {\cal C} \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K}} {\rm Spec} ~ K$,
$$h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O}_{{\cal C}^{'}} (\overline{p^{*} D}) \right) =
[L:K] \cdot h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O}_{\cal C} (\overline{D}) \right) +
{\rm O} (1) ~~.$$
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm
$p$
is a composition of blow-ups and finite morphisms [CS, Chapter XI by M. Artin].
\linebreak Using the first formulas in the proof of Lemma \ref{blow}
successively we obtain
\linebreak
$R p_{*} p^{*} {\cal O} (\overline{D}) = {\cal O} (\overline{D})$
and
$\det R (\pi p)_{*} p^{*} \left( {\cal O} (\overline{D}) \right) = \det R
\pi_{*} {\cal O} (\overline{D})$
such that
${\cal O} (\overline{D})$
and
$p^{*} {\cal O} (\overline{D})$
get identical distinguished metrics. Here it follows
$$h_{x, \omega} \left( p^{*} {\cal O} (\overline{D}) \right) = [L:K] \cdot
h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O} (\overline{D}) \right) ~~,$$
since
$p$
is a morphism of degree
$[L:K]$
and the projection formula gives
$p_{*} p^{*} Z = [L:K] Z$.
$p^{*} {\cal O} (\overline{D})$
and
${\cal O} (\overline{p^{*} D})$
differ by a limited combination of the exceptional divisors such that the
assertion follows from Lemma \ref{red}.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{hori}
{\bf Proposition.}
For line bundles
${\cal L} = {\cal O} (\overline{D})$,
where
$\overline{D}$
is the closure of some divisor of degree
$g$
on
$C$,
Theorem \ref{main} is true.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm By [AW, Corollary 2.10] there is a stable model for
$C \times_{{\rm Spec} ~ K} {\rm Spec} ~ L$
after some finite field extension
$L/K$.
The assertion follows from Proposition \ref{stab}.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Proposition.}
Theorem \ref{main} is true.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm This is a direct consequence of Proposition \ref{hori} and Lemma
\ref{degr}.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\section{Some technical Lemmata}
\begin{thm}
\label{fibe}
{\bf Lemma.}
{\rm (Fibers do not change the height.)}
\newline
If
$\cal L$
is a line bundle on
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$
with
$\chi ({\cal L}) \neq 0$,
then
$$h_{x, \omega } \left( {\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}) \right) = h_{x,
\omega } ({\cal L})$$
for every prime ideal
$\goth{p} \subseteq {\cal O}_{K}$.
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm One has
${\cal O} (\goth{p}) = \pi^{*} (\goth{p}^{-1})$,
hence by projection formula
$$\det R \pi_{*} \left( {\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}) \right) \cong \det
R \pi_{*} {\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} ({\goth p})^{- \chi ({\cal L})} ~~.$$
Let
$\| . \|$
be one of the distinguished metrics on the line bundle
${\cal L}_{\Bbb{C}}$
on
$\coprod_{\sigma: K \hookrightarrow \Bbb{C}} C(\Bbb{C})$.
\linebreak
We put
$\| . \|_\goth{p} = C \cdot \| . \|$
for a distinguished hermitian metric on
$({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}))_{\Bbb{C}} = {\cal L}_{\Bbb{C}}$.
It follows
\linebreak
$h_{Q, \det R \pi_{*} ({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}))} = C^{\chi ({\cal
L})} \cdot h_{Q, \det R \pi_{*} {\cal L}}$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \left( \det R \pi_{*} ({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O}
(\goth{p})), h_{Q, \det R \pi_{*} ({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}))}
\right) & = & \stackrel{\wedge}{\deg} \Big( \det R \pi_{*} {\cal L}, h_{Q, \det
R \pi_{*} {\cal L}} \Big) \\ & + & \chi ({\cal L}) \Big[ [K : {\Bbb{Q}}] \log
C - \log (\sharp {\cal O} / \goth{p}) \Big] ~~.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus a distinguished hermitian metric on
$({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}))_{\Bbb{C}}$
can be given by
$\| . \|_\goth{p} = ( \sharp {\cal O} / \goth{p})^{\frac{1}{[K : {\Bbb Q}]}}
\cdot \| . \|$
and it follows
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ({\cal L} \otimes {\cal O} (\goth{p}), \| .
\|_\goth{p}) = ~ \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} ({\cal L}, \| . \|) + \pi^{*} \left(
\goth{p} ; - \frac{\scriptstyle 2}{\scriptstyle [K : \Bbb{Q}]} \log (\sharp
{\cal O} / \goth{p}) ,\ldots ,- \frac{\scriptstyle 2}{\scriptstyle [K :
\Bbb{Q}]} \log (\sharp {\cal O} / \goth{p}) \right) ~~.$$
But the arithmetic cycle
$\left( \goth{p} ; - \frac{2}{[K : \Bbb{Q}]} \log (\sharp {\cal O} / \goth{p}),
\ldots, - \frac{2}{[K : \Bbb{Q}]} \log (\sharp {\cal O} / \goth{p}) \right) \in
{}~ \stackrel{\wedge}{{\rm CH}^{1}}({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K})$
vanishes after multiplication with the class number
$\sharp {\rm Pic} ~ ({\rm Spec} ~ {\cal O}_{K})$,
hence it is torsion and therefore numerically trivial.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{red}
{\bf Lemma.}
Let
$F$
be some vertical divisor on
${\cal C} / {\cal O}_{K}$.
Then, for line bundles
${\cal L} / {\cal C}$,
fiber-by-fiber of degree
$g$,
$$h_{x, \omega} ({\cal L} (F)) = h_{x, \omega} ({\cal L}) + {\rm O} (1) ~~.$$
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm By Lemma \ref{fibe} we may assume that
$E := -F$
is effective. Using induction we are reduced to the case
$E$
is an irreducible curve. We have a short exact sequence
$$0 \longrightarrow {\cal L} (F) \longrightarrow {\cal L} \longrightarrow {\cal
L}_{E} \longrightarrow 0$$
inducing the isomorphism
$$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal L} (F) \cong \det R \pi_{*} {\cal L} \otimes (\det R
\pi_{*} {\cal L}_{E})^{\vee} ~~.$$
But
$\det R \pi_{*} {\cal L}_{E}$
depends only on the Euler characteristic of
${\cal L}_{E}$
and for the degree of that bundle there are only
$g+1$
possibilities. So up to numerical equivalence there are only
$g+1$
possibilities for
$$\stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \left( {\cal L} (F), \| . \|_{{\cal L} (F)} \right)
- \stackrel{\wedge}{c_{1}} \Big( {\cal L}, \| . \|_{\cal L} \Big) ~~,$$
where
$\| . \|_{\cal L}$
and
$\| . \|_{{\cal L} (F)}$
denote distinguished hermitian metrics.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
\label{degr}
{\bf Lemma.}
Consider line bundles
${\cal L}$,
generically of degree
$g$
on
${\cal C}$,
equipped with a section
$s \in \Gamma (C, {\cal L}_{C})$
over the generic fiber, and assume the degrees
$\deg {\cal L} |_{{\cal C}_{{\goth p}, i}}$
of the restrictions of
$\cal L$
to the irreducible components of the special fibers to be fixed. Then
$$h_{x, \omega} ({\cal L}) = h_{x, \omega} \left( {\cal O} \left(
\overline{{\rm div} (s)} \right) \right) + {\rm O} (1) ~~.$$
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm We have
${\cal L} = {\cal L}^{'} (E)$,
where
${\cal L}^{'} = {\cal O} \left( \overline{{\rm div} (s)} \right)$
is a line bundle induced by a horizontal divisor and
$E$
is a vertical divisor. By Lemma \ref{fibe} we may assume
$E$
to be concentrated in the reducible fibers of
$\cal C$.
So, using induction, let
$E$
be in one such fiber
${\cal C}_{{\goth p}}$.
Then for the degrees
$\deg {\cal O} (E) |_{{\cal C}_{{\goth p}, i}}$
there are only finitely many possibilities. But by [Fa, Theorem 4.a)] the
intersection form on
${\cal C}_{\goth p}$
\pagebreak
is negative semi-definite where only multiples of the fiber have square
$0$. \linebreak
Hence, for
$E$
there are only finitely many possibilities up to addition of the whole fiber,
which does not change the height. Lemma \ref{red} gives the claim.
}
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}
{\bf Lemma.}
\label{Int}
Let
$X$
be a compact Riemann surface and
$g \in \Bbb{N}$
be a natural number. Denote by
$\Delta$
the diagonal in
$X \times X$,
by
$\delta_{M}$
the
$\delta$-distribution
defined by
$M$
and by
$\pi_{i}: X^{g} \times X \longrightarrow X$
(resp.
$\pi_{i,g+1}: X^{g} \times X \longrightarrow X \times X$)
the canonical projection on the
$i$-th
component (resp. to the product of the
$i$-th
and
$(g+1)$-th
component.) Further let
$$f: (X^{g} \times X) \backslash \bigcup_{i=1}^{g} \pi_{i,g+1}^{-1} (\Delta)
\longrightarrow {\Bbb{C}}$$
be a smooth function such that the restriction of
$$-d_{X} d_{X}^{c} f + \delta_{\Delta} \circ \pi_{1,g+1} + \ldots +
\delta_{\Delta} \circ \pi_{g,g+1} = \rho ~~,$$
to
$\{ (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}) \} \times X$
is a smooth
$(1,1)$-form
smoothly varying with
$(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g})$.
Let
$\omega$
be a smooth
$(1,1)$-form
on
$X$.
Then
$$\int_{X} f(x_{1}, \ldots ,x_{g}, \cdot) \omega$$
depends smoothly on
$(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}) \in X^{g}.$
\newline
{\bf Proof.}
{\rm Without restriction we may assume
$\int_{X} \omega = 1$.
Then, for any
$x \in X$
there exists a function
$h \in C^{\infty} (X \backslash \{ x \})$,
having a logarithmic singularity in
$x$,
such that
$\omega = -dd^{c} h + \delta_{x}$.
It follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{X} f(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, \cdot) \omega & = & -\int_{X} f(x_{1}, \ldots,
x_{g}, \cdot) dd^{c} h + f(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, x) \\
& = & -\int_{X} \Big( d_{X} d_{X}^{c} f(x_{1}, \ldots ,x_{g}, \cdot) \Big) h +
f(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, x) \\
& = & \int_{X} \rho (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, \cdot) h - h(x_{1}) - \ldots -
h(x_{g}) + f(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, x) \\
& = & \int_{X} \rho (x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, \cdot) h - \Big[ h(x_{1}) - G(x,
x_{1}) \Big] - \ldots - \Big[ h(x_{g}) - G(x, x_{g}) \Big] \\
& - & \Big[ G(x, x_{1}) + \ldots + G(x, x_{g}) - f(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}, x)
\Big] ~~,
\end{eqnarray*}
where
$G$
is the Green's function of
$X$.
Because
$h$
has only a logarithmic singularity it is allowed to differentiate under the
integral sign. So the integral is smooth. The other summands are solutions of
equations of the form
$dd^{c} F = \sigma$
with a smooth
$(1,1)$-form
$\sigma$
on
$X$
satisfying
$\int_{X} \sigma = 0$
(in
$x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g}$,
respectively
$x$).
Since
$dd^{c}$
is elliptic, these solutions exist as smooth functions and are unique up to
constants. In particular, also the last summand must depend smoothly on
$(x_{1}, \ldots, x_{g})$,
even when some of the
$x_{i}$
equal
$x$.
Note that the symmetry of the Green's function is used here essentially.
\begin{center}
$\Box$
\end{center}
}
\end{thm}
{}~
\newline
{\footnotesize {\bf Acknowledgement.} When doing this work, the author had
fruitful discussions with U. Bunke (Berlin), who explained him much of the
analytic part of the theory. He thanks him warmly.}
\newpage
{}~
\vspace*{-1.20truecm}
\thispagestyle{myheadings}
\markright{\rm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jahnel}
\small
|
\section{Introduction}
The standard model\ of strong and electroweak\ interactions,
though extremely successful in describing present day data,
is known to be plagued by a number of shortcomings.
There is no doubt that
it is merely the low energy limit
of a more profound underlying theory.
In particular,
the peculiar similarities between the quark and lepton sectors
and their miraculous anomaly cancellations
are indicative of a deeper interconnection
between these two types of particles.
Many models have been proposed
which establish a closer link between quark and lepton degrees of freedom.
They generally involve a new class of fields
which carry both lepton and baryon number
and mediate lepton-quark transitions.
Such bosons
can come in many combinations of the different quantum numbers
and are generically called leptoquark s.
They can,
for example,
emerge as composite scalar or vector states
of techni-fermions \cite{etc} or preons \cite{comp}.
Leptoquarks also arize naturally
as gauge vectors or Higgs scalars
in many grand unified models \cite{gut}
or superstring-derived models \cite{ss}.
In principle,
$e^-p$ scattering provides the privileged reaction for discovering leptoquark s.
Direct searches at HERA \cite{brw,ed}
should be able to exclude leptoquark s below {\em ca} 300 GeV
and a coupling to leptons and quarks above $0.03e$.
The LEP-LHC combination could of course extend these limits much further
and would also provide a powerful tool
for discriminating different leptoquark\ types \cite{slava}.
However,
today the most stringent limits
still originate from low-energy experiments \cite{sacha}.
These bounds could be greatly improved
at linear collider s of the next generation,
though.
In particular,
the \mbox{$e^+e^-$}\ mode is very promising
because it can abundantly pair-produce leptoquark s
even if their couplings to leptons and quarks are tiny \cite{br}.
In this paper
we consider the production of single leptoquark s
in \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ collisions,
with laser backscattered photons.
This reaction proceeds inevitably
via the leptoquark-lepton-quark coupling,
and may thus be suppressed if the latter is small.
However,
it may probe much higher leptoquark\ masses
than the electron-positron annihilation \cite{br}
or photon-gluon fusion \cite{ed}
processes,
which necessarily need to produce two leptoquark s.
Moreover,
since the standard model\ background s can easily be rendered harmless
the data analysis should be exceedingly simple,
in contrast to the electron-quark fusion reaction \cite{brw}.
The angular distributions of the emerging leptoquark s
have complicated patterns,
which can be used advantageously
to tell apart different types of leptoquark s.
The study of scalar leptoquark\ production
in \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ collisions
was first discussed in Ref.~\cite{hp}.
Similarly, vector leptoquark s were considered in Ref.~\cite{ce}.
It was also shown \cite{nl}
that even kinematically inaccessible scalar leptoquark s
can also be probed this way
if their couplings to fermions are large.
For lighter scalar leptoquark s,
it was pointed out \cite{bln}
that substantial rates can be obtained
even with Weizs\"acker-Williams photons
in \mbox{$e^+e^-$}\ scattering.
Because of the hadronic content of the photon,
leptoquark s can also be probed via electron-quark fusion
in \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ scattering \cite{eboli}.
It was also shown that this resolved photon contribution
may help determining leptoquark\ properties \cite{dg}.
In the next section
we introduce a model-independent framework
for describing a large class of leptoquark s \cite{brw}
and provide the analytical expressions
of the integrated cross section s
for producing the various types of leptoquark s.
We then shortly review the generation and properties
of the photon beam \cite{ginzburg}.
After this,
we discuss the leptoquark\ discovery potential
of \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ scattering,
which is conveniently summarized by Eq.~(\ref{osc}).
Finally,
in the last section
we discuss
the possibility of determining
the nature of the discovered leptoquark s
with the help of polarized beams
and at hand of their angular distributions.
\section{Cross sections}
Because of the large number of possible leptoquark\ types,
it is important to perform an analysis
which is as model-independent as possible.
Therefore,
to describe the leptoquark-lepton-quark interactions
we use the most general
$SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ invariant
effective lagrangian
of lowest dimension
which conserves lepton $(L)$ and baryon $(B)$ number.
It can be separated into two parts,
each involving
either leptoquark s which carry no fermion number $F=3B+L=0$,
or leptoquark s with fermion number $F=2$ \cite{brw}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{F=0} \quad =
& &
\bigl(
h_{2L} \bar{u}_R \ell_L
+ h_{2R} \bar{q}_L i \sigma_2 e_R
\bigr) R_2
+ \tilde{h}_{2L} \bar{d}_R \ell_L \tilde{R}_2
\\
& + &
\bigl(
h_{1L} \bar{q}_L \gamma^\mu \ell_L
+ h_{1R} \bar{d}_R \gamma^\mu e_R
\bigr) U_{1 \mu}
+ \tilde{h}_{1R} \bar{u}_R \gamma^\mu e_R \tilde{U}_{1 \mu}
\nonumber\\
& + &
h_{3L} \bar{q}_L \mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \gamma^\mu \ell_L
\mbox{\boldmath$U$}_{3 \mu}
\nonumber\\
& + & \mbox{ h.c.}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
{\cal L}_{F=2} \quad =
& &
\bigl(
g_{1L} \bar{q}^c_L i\sigma_2 \ell_L
+ g_{1R} \bar{u}^c_R e_R
\bigr) S_1
+ \tilde{g}_{1R} \bar{d}^c_R e_R \tilde{S}_1
\\
& + &
g_{3L} \bar{q}^c_L i\sigma_2\mbox{\boldmath$\sigma$} \ell_L
\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_3
\nonumber\\
& + &
\bigl(
g_{2L} \bar{d}^c_R \gamma^\mu \ell_L
+ g_{2R} \bar{q}^c_L \gamma^\mu e_R
\bigr) V_{2 \mu}
+ \tilde{g}_{2L} \bar{u}^c_R \gamma^\mu \ell_L \tilde{V}_{2 \mu}
\nonumber\\
& + & \mbox{ h.c.}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the \boldmath$\sigma$'s\unboldmath\ are Pauli matrices,
while $q_L$ and $\ell_L$ are the $SU(2)_L$ quark and lepton doublets
and $u_R$, $d_R$, $\ell_R$ are the corresponding singlets.
The subscripts of the leptoquark s
indicates the size of the $SU(2)_L$ representation
they belong to.
The $R$- and $S$-type leptoquark s are spacetime scalars,
whereas the $U$ and $V$ are vectors.
Family and colour indices are implicit.
Since all these leptoquark s carry an electric charge,
they must also couple to the photon.
These interactions are described by the kinetic lagrangians
for scalar and and vector bosons \cite{ed}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{J=0}
& = &
\sum_{\rm{scalars}} \quad
\left(D_\mu\Phi\right)^{\dag} \left(D^\mu\Phi\right)
-
m^2 \Phi^{\dag}\Phi
\\
{\cal L}_{J=1}
& = &
\sum_{\rm{vectors}} \quad
-{1\over2} \left(D_\mu\Phi^\nu-D_\nu\Phi^\mu\right)^{\dag}
\left(D^\mu\Phi_\nu-D^\nu\Phi_\mu\right)
+
m^2 \Phi_\mu^{\dag}\Phi^\nu
\label{comp}
\end{eqnarray}
with the covariant derivative
\begin{equation}
D_\mu = \partial_\mu - ieQA_\mu
\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ and $A$ are the leptoquark\ and photon fields,
$m$ and $Q$ are the leptoquark\ mass and electromagnetic\ charge
and $e$ is the electromagnetic\ coupling constant.
This lagrangian describes the minimal vector boson coupling,
typical of a composite leptoquark.
If, however,
the vector leptoquark s are gauge bosons,
an extra Yang-Mills piece has to be added
in order to maintain gauge invariance \cite{ed}:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{G} =
\sum_{\rm{vectors}} \quad
-ie ~\Phi_\mu^{\dag}\Phi_\nu \left(\partial^\mu A^\nu - \partial^\nu
A^\mu\right)
\ .\label{ym}
\end{equation}
\begin{comment}{
If this piece is not included,
tree-level unitarity is bound to be lost.
This, however,
is expected,
since the effective lagrangian (\ref{comp})
is no longer valid at energies
of the order of the compositeness scale.
At those higher energies
the terms which decouple at lower energies become relevant
and the full (gauge) theory from which (\ref{comp}) was derived
has to be considered.
}\end{comment}
Ignoring the resolved photon contributions,
the following leptoquark\ reactions are possible to lowest order in \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ collisions:
\begin{eqnarray*}
F=0:~\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
~J=0:~\left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_R ~ \gamma & \to
& u_L ~ R_2^{-5/3} \\
&& d_L ~ R_2^{-2/3} \\
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_L ~ \gamma & \to
& u_R ~ R_2^{-5/3} \\
&& d_R ~ \tilde R_2^{-2/3} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\\\\
~J=1:~\left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_R ~ \gamma & \to
& u_R ~ \tilde U_1^{-5/3} \\
&& d_R ~ U_1^{-2/3} \\\\
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_L ~ \gamma & \to
& u_L ~ U_3^{-5/3} \\
&& d_L ~ U_1^{-2/3} \\
&& d_L ~ U_3^{-2/3} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{f0}
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
F=2:~\left\{
\begin{array}{rl}
~J=0:~\left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_R ~ \gamma & \to
& \bar u_R ~ S_1^{-1/3} \\
&& \bar d_R ~ \tilde S_1^{-4/3} \\\\
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_L ~ \gamma & \to
& \bar u_L ~ S_1^{-1/3} \\
&& \bar u_L ~ S_3^{-1/3} \\
&& \bar d_L ~ S_3^{-4/3} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\\\\
~J=1:~\left\{
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_R ~ \gamma & \to
& \bar u_L ~ V_2^{-1/3} \\
&& \bar d_L ~ V_2^{-4/3} \\
\end{array}
\qquad
\begin{array}{@{~}r@{~}c@{~}l}
e^-_L ~ \gamma & \to
& \bar u_R ~ \tilde V_2^{-1/3} \\
&& \bar d_R ~ V_2^{-4/3} \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{f2}
\end{eqnarray*}
The superscripts of the leptoquark s indicate their electromagnetic\ charge.
The typical $s$-, $t$- and $u$-channel Feynman diagrams
for the $F=0$ and $F=2$ leptoquark\ production
are shown in Fig.~\ref{feyn}.
The cross section s, though,
do not depend explicitly on this quantum number.
There are 24 different types of processes,
depending on
whether the produced leptoquark\ is a scalar, vector or gauge boson,
whether it couples to right- or left-handed leptons
and what is its electromagnetic\ charge ($Q=-1/3,-2/3,-4/3,-5/3$).
The differential cross section s are lengthy
and we do not report them here.
We agree with the unpolarized expressions
reported in Refs~\cite{hp,ce,nl}\footnote{
The colour factor is not explicitly stated in Refs~\cite{hp,nl}.
},
though.
Let us define
\begin{equation}
x = {m^2 \over s}
\ ,\label{x}
\end{equation}
where $m$ is the leptoquark\ mass and $s$ is the centre of mass\ energy squared.
We also use the generic leptoquark\ coupling $\lambda$ to the electrons and quarks,
and denote the electron and photon polarizations
$P_e$ and $P_\gamma$.
We find for the integrated scalar cross section s
\begin{eqnarray}
\makebox[0cm][l]{\hskip-5mm$\displaystyle
\sigma(J=0)
\quad =
\quad {3\pi\alpha^2\over2s}
\quad \left({\lambda\over e}\right)^2
\quad {1 \pm P_e \over 2}
\quad \times$}
\label{s0}\\
& \biggl\{\quad &
\left(-\left(3+4Q\right) + \left(7+8Q+8Q^2\right)x\right)
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
+4Q\left( Q - \left(2+Q\right)x \right)
\quad x \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
-2\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x + 2x^2 \right)
\quad \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
& \pm~P_\gamma~\Bigl[~ &
\left(-\left(7+12Q+4Q^2\right) + 3x\right)
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
+4Q^2
\quad x \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
-2\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x \right)
\quad \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\quad \Bigr] \quad \biggr\}
\nonumber~.
\end{eqnarray}
The unpolarized part
($P_e=P_\gamma$=0)
of this expression
agrees with the result reported in Ref.~\cite{bln},
up to the colour factor,
which we include explicitly here.
The vector cross section s are
\begin{eqnarray}
\makebox[0cm][l]{\hskip-5mm$\displaystyle
\sigma(J=1)
\quad =
\quad {3\pi\alpha^2\over8m^2}
\quad \left({\lambda\over e}\right)^2
\quad {1 \pm P_e \over 2}
\quad \times$}
\label{c0}\\
& \biggl\{\quad &
\left(Q^2 + \left(8-16Q-Q^2\right)x + 8\left(7+8Q+8Q^2\right)x^2\right)
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
-4Q\left( Q + \left(8+3Q\right)x - 8Qx^2 + 8\left(2+Q\right)x^3 \right)
\quad \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
-16\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x + 2x^2 \right)
\quad x \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
& \pm~P_\gamma~\Bigl[~ &
\left(- 3Q^2 + \left(40+48Q+63Q^2\right)x + 24x^2\right)
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
-4Q\left( -3Q + 8\left(3+Q\right)x \right)
\quad x \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
+16\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x \right)
\quad x \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\quad \Bigr] \quad \biggr\}
\nonumber~.
\end{eqnarray}
Finally,
if the vector is a gauge field,
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\makebox[0cm][l]{\hskip-5mm$\displaystyle
\sigma^{\rm YM}(J=1)
\quad =
\quad {3\pi\alpha^2\over m^2}
\quad \left({\lambda\over e}\right)^2
\quad {1 \pm P_e \over 2}
\quad \times$}
\label{v0}\\
& \biggl\{\quad &
\left(4Q^2 + \left(1-4Q\right)x + \left(7+8Q+8Q^2\right)x^2\right)
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
-4Q\left( 2 - Qx + \left(2+Q\right)x^2 \right)
\quad x \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
-2\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x + 2x^2 \right)
\quad x \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
& \pm~P_\gamma~\Bigl[~ &
\left(\left(5+4Q+12Q^2\right) + 3x\right) x
\quad (1-x)
\nonumber\\
&&
+4Q\left( Q - \left(4+Q\right)x \right)
\quad x \ln x
\nonumber\\
&&
+2\left(1+Q\right)^2\left( 1 - 2x \right)
\quad x \ln{m_q^2/s\over\left(1-x\right)^2}
\quad \Bigr] \quad \biggr\}
\nonumber~.
\end{eqnarray}
The electron and quark masses have been set equal to zero everywhere
to derive Eqs~(\ref{s0}-\ref{v0}),
except in the squared $u$-channel matrix elements.
It is essential to perform the calculation of these terms
with a finite quark mass,
because it regulates the singularity
which occurs when a leptoquark\ is emitted in the direction of the incoming electron.
The approximation
$\ln m_q^2/s/(1-x)^2$
we have written
for this $u$-channel logarithm
stays more than accurate
up to within a few quark masses from the threshold.
It is straightforward to compute the full expression \cite{bln}.
Moreover,
the integration in the backward direction
introduces non-vanishing contributions of the order
${\cal O}(m_q^2/m_q^2)$
to the non-logarithmic parts of the cross section s (\ref{s0}-\ref{v0})\footnote{
I am very much indebted to David London and H\'el\`ene Nadeau
for pointing this out to me.
}.
The threshold behaviour of the cross section s,
around $x=1$,
mainly depends on the $u$-channel singularity
and on the electron and photon relative polarizations:
\begin{equation}
x=1: \left\{ \quad
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle{\sigma(J=0) \quad \propto \quad ~(1+Q)^2
\quad (1 \mp P_\gamma) (1 \pm P_e) }
\\\\
\displaystyle{\sigma(J=1) \quad \propto \quad 2(1+Q)^2
\quad (1 \pm P_\gamma) (1 \pm P_e) }
\end{array}
\right.
\label{thresh}
\end{equation}
The scalar cross section\ quickly drops to zero
for like-sign initial state electrons and photons polarizations,
whereas the vector cross section\ is suppressed
when these polarizations have opposite signs.
For equal couplings,
the vector threshold cross section s are twice as intense as the scalar ones.
In the asymptotic region,
for $x=0$,
the $J=0$ and $J=1$ leptoquark s also display very different behaviours.
Whereas the scalar cross section s decrease like
$1/s$,
the vector cross section s eventually increase like
$\ln s$.
If the vectors are gauge fields, though,
their cross section s saturate for large values of $s$.
\section{Photon Beams}
The cross section s (\ref{s0}-\ref{v0})
still have to be folded
with a realistic Compton backscattered photon spectrum \cite{ginzburg}:
\def\,{\rm d}{\,{\rm d}}
\begin{equation}
\sigma(s) = \int_{x_{\rm min}}^{x_{\rm max}} \,{\rm d} x
{\,{\rm d} n(x) \over \,{\rm d} x} \sigma(xs)
\ ,\label{fold}
\end{equation}
where the probability density of a photon to have the energy fraction
$x = E_\gamma/E_{\rm beam}$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\,{\rm d} n(x) \over \,{\rm d} x} =
\frac{1}{\cal N}
& \Biggl\{ & 1 - x + \frac{1}{1 - x} - \frac{4 x }{z ( 1 - x) }
+ \frac{4 x^2 } {z^2 (1 - x)^2} \nonumber \\
& + & P_{\rm beam} P_{\rm laser} \frac{x (2 - x)}{1 - x}
\left[ \frac{2 x} {z (1 - x)} - 1 \right]
\Biggr\}
\ , \label{spec}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal N}
& = &
\frac{z^3 + 18 z^2 + 24 z + 8}{2 z (z + 1)^2 }
+ \left( 1 - \frac{4}{z} - \frac{8}{z^2} \right) \ln (1 + z)
\\
& + &
P_{\rm beam} P_{\rm laser} \left[ 2 - \frac{z^2}{(z + 1)^2}
- \left( 1 + \frac{2}{z} \right) \ln (1 + z) \right]
\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
z = \frac{4 E_{\rm beam} E_{\rm laser} }{m_e^2}
\ ,
\end{equation}
$m_e$ being the mass of the electron,
By design,
the energy fraction $x$ of the photons is limited from above to
\begin{equation}
x_{\rm max} = \frac{ 2+2\sqrt{2}}{ 3+2\sqrt{2}} \approx 0.8284
\label{xmax}
\end{equation}
in order to prevent electron-positron pair-production
from photon rescattering.
In practice,
it is also limited from below,
because only the harder photons are produced at a small angle
with respect to\ the beam-pipe
according to
\begin{equation}
\theta_\gamma (x) \simeq {m_e \over E_{\rm beam}} \sqrt{{z \over x}-z-1}
\ .
\end{equation}
The softer photons are emitted at such large angles
that they are bound to miss the opposite
highly collimated electron beam.
Assuming a conversion distance of {\em ca} 5 cm
and a beam size of 500 nm diameter,
the lower bound we adopt for the photon energy fraction is
\begin{equation}
x_{\rm min} = .5
\ . \label{xmin}
\end{equation}
Of course,
if the beams are very flat,
this cut-off will be somewhat softened out.
However,
in the threshold region is has no effect.
When it sets in,
at $s=m^2/x_{\rm min}=2m^2$,
it is visible on the plots of Fig.~\ref{eny}
as a slight kink in the slopes.
The polarization of the backscattered photons is given by
\begin{equation}
P_\gamma (x) = \frac{P_{\rm laser} \zeta (2 - 2 x + x^2) + P_{\rm beam} x ( 1
+ \zeta^2)}
{ (1 -x ) (2 - 2 x + x^2) - 4 x ( z - z x - x)/z^2
- P_{\rm beam} P_{\rm laser} \zeta x ( 2 - x) }
\ , \label{polar}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\zeta = 1 - x ( 1 + 1/z)
\ . \label{e103}
\end{equation}
All these features of the Compton backscattered photon beams
are displayed in Fig.~\ref{photon}.
In particular,
it appears that
if the signs
of the polarizations of the laser and the Compton scattered electron beams
are chosen to be opposite,
we obtain the most intense, hard and highly polarized photon beam.
We adopt this choice throughout the rest of this paper.
\section{Leptoquark Discovery Limits}
To present our results,
we have chosen to work with a quark mass in the $u$-channel propagator
$m_q=10$ MeV.
Since the dependence of the cross section s on this mass is only logarithmic,
the error does not exceed a few \%\
and is mainly confined to the immediate threshold region.
We also assumed both the unaltered and the Compton scattered electron beams
to be 90\%\ polarized.
This should be fairly easy to realize at a linear collider\ of the next generation.
In Fig.~\ref{eny}
we have displayed the behaviours of the cross section s (\ref{s0}-\ref{v0})
as functions of the collider centre of mass\ energy.
For the purpose of these plots,
we have set the leptoquark-electron-quark coupling
equal to the electromagnetic\ coupling constant
$\lambda=e$.
In general,
leptoquark s which are produced in the reactions (\ref{s0}-\ref{v0}),
will decay into a charged lepton and a jet
with a substantial branching ratio.
If the leptoquark s are bound to a single generation,
the decay lepton is an electron.
Around threshold,
the $u$-channel pole is dominant,
so the quarks and leptoquark s are mostly produced at very small angles
from the beampipe.
Since the leptoquark s are almost at rest,
most of the electron and quark into which they decay
are emitted at large angles.
The leptoquark\ signature is thus
a low transverse momentum\ (or even invisible) jet,
and a high transverse momentum\ electron and jet pair
whose invariant mass is closely centered around the leptoquark\ mass.
Away from threshold,
the $u$-channel is no longer dominant,
and the leptoquark\ signature becomes
a high transverse momentum\ electron and pair of jets,
where the electron and one of the jets
have a combined invariant mass close to the leptoquark\ mass.
If all jet pairs with an invariant mass around the $Z^0$ mass are cut out,
there is no $Z^0$ Compton scattering background.
The next order background which then subsists is
the quark photoproduction process
$\mbox{$e^-\gamma$} \to e^-q\bar q$.
This background, though,
will not show any peak in the electron-jet invariant mass distribution
at the leptoquark\ mass,
and can moreover be drastically reduced
by requiring a minimum transverse momentum\ for the electron.
If one allows for leptoquark s
which couple equally well to different generations,
the final state can contain a muon instead of an electron.
In this case, of course,
there is no standard model\ background at all.
To estimate the leptoquark\ discovery potential
of \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ collisions,
we have plotted in Fig.~\ref{lim}
the boundary in the $(m_{LQ},\lambda/e)$ plane,
below which the cross section\
$\sigma(J=1,Q=-5/3)$
in Eq.~(\ref{v0})
yields less than 10 events.
For this we consider four different collider energies
and assume 10 fb$^{-1}$ of accumulated luminosity.
In general,
as can be inferred from Eq.~(\ref{thresh}),
these curves are closely osculated by the relation
\begin{equation}
{\lambda \over e} \quad = \quad 0.03
\quad {m/\mbox{TeV} \over \sqrt{{\cal L}/{\rm fb}^{-1}}}
\quad \sqrt{{n \over (J+1) (1+Q)^2 }}
\qquad
\left(
m \le .8\sqrt{s_{ee}}
\right)
\ ,\label{osc}
\end{equation}
where
$\lambda$ is the leptoquark's coupling to leptons and quarks,
$m$ its mass,
$Q$ its charge,
$J$ its spin,
$n$ is the required number of events and
$\cal L$ is the available luminosity.
This scaling relation
provides a convenient means to gauge
the leptoquark\ discovery potential of \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ scattering.
It is valid for leptoquark\ masses short off 80\%\ of the collider energy
and assumes
the electron beams to be 90\%\ polarized
($|P_e|=.9$)
while the chirality of the fully polarized photon beam is chosen
such as to enhance the threshold cross section\
({\em cf.} Eq.~(\ref{thresh})).
In comparison,
the best bounds on the leptoquark\ couplings
which have been derived indirectly from low energy data \cite{sacha}
are no better than
\begin{equation}
{\lambda \over e} \quad \ge \quad m/\mbox{TeV}
\ ,
\end{equation}
for leptoquark\ interactions involving only the first generation.
Similar bounds on couplings involving higher generations
are even poorer.
\section{Leptoquark-Type Discrimination}
If a leptoquark\ is discovered someday,
it is interesting to determine its nature.
In principle,
\mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ scattering may discriminate between the 24
combinations of the quantum numbers
$J$, $Q$ and $P$,
where the latter is the chirality of the electron to which the leptoquark\ couples.
For the case $J=1$ we make the distinction between
gauge and non-gauge leptoquark s.
It is of course trivial to determine $P$
by switching the polarization of the electron beam.
Similarly,
it is almost as easy to distinguish scalars from vectors.
Indeed,
as can be inferred from Eqs~(\ref{thresh})
and from Fig.~\ref{eny},
all threshold cross section s are very sensitive
to the relative electron and photon polarizations.
Since this effect works in opposite directions
for $J=0$ and $J=1$,
a simple photon polarization flip upon discovery
should suffice to determine
the spin of the discovered leptoquark s.
Determining the other quantum numbers,
unfortunately,
is not as easy.
In practice this task is not facilitated
by the fact all the different models involving leptoquark s
predict very different values for their couplings to leptons and quarks,
if at all.
Basically,
we have no idea what to expect.
Fig.~\ref{eny} indicates that
it may be possible to discriminate some of the different vector leptoquark s,
by combining the information gathered from
polarization flips and an energy scan.
It will, however,
be exceedingly difficult to differentiate for instance the different
scalar leptoquark s from eachother
using the information from total cross section s alone.
Much more discriminating power can be obtained
from the differential distributions,
though.
We do not report their long analytical forms here.
As it turns out,
the interferences between the different channels
result into rather complex angular dependences of the cross section s.
There are even radiation zeros
for the reactions involving
scalar and Yang-Mills leptoquark s of charges -1/3 and -2/3.
Note that in the cross-channel reaction
$e^-q \to LQ\gamma$
these radiation zeros occur
for the scalar and Yang-Mills leptoquark s of charges -4/3 and -5/3 \cite{slava}.
These very salient features
could well be observed
away from threshold,
where the $u$-channel pole is no longer so dominant.
Of course,
the convolution with the photon energy and polarization spectra
washes out to some extent these prominent features.
But,
as can be gathered from Fig.~\ref{ang},
even so
the angular distributions of the different leptoquark s
retain their distinctive characteristics.
In this figure,
we have considered 400 GeV leptoquark s produced at a 1 TeV collider.
To roughly estimate the \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ potential
for discriminating the different types of leptoquark s,
we compare these differential distributions
with a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.
Say $a$ and $b$ are two different kinds of leptoquark s
and $a$ is the one which is observed.
The probability that $b$ could be mistaken for $a$
is related to the statistic
\begin{equation}
D~=~\sqrt{N_a} ~\sup
\left|
{1\over\sigma_a}\int^\theta\,{\rm d}\theta{\,{\rm d}\sigma_a\over\,{\rm d}\theta}
-
{1\over\sigma_b}\int^\theta\,{\rm d}\theta{\,{\rm d}\sigma_b\over\,{\rm d}\theta}
\right|
\label{eks}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the polar angle of the leptoquark\
and $N_a={\cal L}\sigma_a$ is the number of observed events.
Focusing on the case of Fig.~\ref{ang},
where a 400 GeV leptoquark\ is studied at a 1 TeV collider,
Tables~\ref{ts} and \ref{tv}
summarize the minimal values of
$$
{\lambda \over e} \quad \sqrt{{\cal L}/{\rm fb}^{-1}}
$$
needed to tell apart
two different types of leptoquark s
with 99.9\%\ confidence,
{\em i.e.},
setting $D=1.95$ in Eq.~(\ref{eks}).
Assuming each combination of electron and photon polarizations
has accumulated 50 fb$^{-1}$ of data,
some leptoquark\ types have so different angular distributions
that a coupling as small as $\lambda=.0085e$
is quite sufficient to tell them apart.
Others need as much as $\lambda=.31e$.
Obviously,
these numbers are only valid for this particular choice
of leptoquark\ mass and collider energy,
and could be improved with a more sophisticated analysis.
Nevertheless,
they should be indicative of what resolving power
an \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ scattering experiment can achieve.
\section{Conclusions}
We have studied leptoquark\ production
in the \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ mode of a linear collider\ of the next generation.
To perform this analysis,
we have considered all types of scalar and vector leptoquark s,
whose interactions with leptons and quarks
conserve lepton and baryon number
and are invariant under the standard model\
$SU(3)_c \otimes SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$
gauge group.
For the vectors we distinguish between leptoquark s
which couple minimally to photons
and Yang-Mills fields.
The advantage of an \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ experiment over,
{\em e.g.},
\mbox{$e^+e^-$}\ annihilation
is that the leptoquark s need not be produced in pairs.
Hence higher masses can be explored.
The disadvantage
is that the \mbox{$e^-\gamma$}\ reactions proceed only via the
{\em a priori}
unknown leptoquark-lepton-quark couplings.
The standard model\ backgrounds can be reduced to almost zero
by simple kinematical cuts,
and the discovery potential is conveniently summarized
by the scaling relation Eq.~(\ref{osc}).
The spin of the leptoquark s can easily be determined
at threshold
by inverting the polarization of the photon beam.
Moreover,
each leptoquark\ type
displays very characteristic angular distributions,
some of which having even radiation zeros.
Therefore,
the prospects for discriminating
different leptoquark s of the same spin
can be greatly enhanced
by studying angular correlations.
All our results have been obtained
with a realistic electron beam polarization
and Compton backscattered photon spectra.
\begin{ack}
It is a pleasure to thank Stan Brodsky and Clem Heusch
for their hospitality at SLAC and UCSC,
where this project was initiated.
Many fruitful discussions with
Sacha Davidson,
Paul Frampton,
Slava Ilyin,
David London and
H\'el\`ene Nadeau
are gratefully acknowledged.
I am also particularly indebted to
David London
for pointing out Refs~\cite{hp,ce,nl,bln,eboli,dg} to me and to
H\'el\`ene Nadeau
for helping me eliminate an error from my calculations.
\end{ack}
|
\section{Introduction}
Rational vertex operator algebras, which play a fundamental role
in rational conformal field theory (see [BPZ] and [MS]),
single out an important class of vertex
operator algebras. Most vertex operator algebras which have been studied
so far are rational vertex operator algebras. Familiar
examples include
the moonshine module $V^{\natural}$ ([B], [FLM], [D2]), the vertex operator
algebras $V_L$ associated with positive definite even lattices $L$ ([B],
[FLM], [D1]),
the vertex operator algebras $L(l,0)$ associated with integrable
representations of affine Lie algebras [FZ] and the vertex operator algebras
$L(c_{p,q},0)$ associated with irreducible highest weight representations
for the discrete series of the Virasoro algebra ([DMZ] and [W]).
A rational vertex operator algebra as studied in this paper is a
vertex operator algebra such that any {\em admissible} module is a
direct sum of simple ordinary modules (see Section 2). It is
natural to ask if such complete reducibility holds for an arbitrary
weak module (defined in Section 2). A rational vertex operator algebra
with this property is called a {\em regular} vertex operator algebra. One
motivation for studying such vertex operator algebras arises in trying to
understand the appearance of negative fusion rules (which are computed
by the Verlinde formula) for vertex operator algebras $L(l,0)$ for
certain rational $l$ (cf. [KS] and [MW]).
In this paper we give several sufficient conditions under which a rational
vertex operator algebra is regular. We prove that the
rational vertex operator algebras $V^{\natural},$ $L(l,0)$ for positive
integers $l,$ $L(c_{p,q},0)$ and $V_L$ for positive definite even lattices
$L$ are regular. Our result for $L(l,0)$
implies that any restricted integrable
module of level $l$ for the corresponding affine Lie
algebra is a direct sum of irreducible highest weight integrable modules.
This result is expected to be useful in comparing
the construction of tensor
product of modules for $L(l,0)$ in [F] based on Kazhdan-Lusztig's
approach [KL] with the construction of tensor product of modules [HL]
in this special case. We should remark that $V_L$ in general
is a vertex algebra in the sense of [DL] if $L$ is not positive definite.
In this case we establish the complete reducibility of any weak module.
Since the definition of vertex operator algebra is by now well-known, we
do not define vertex operator algebra in this paper. We refer the reader
to [FLM] and [FHL] for their elementary properties.
The reader can find the details of the constructions of $V^{\natural}$ and
$V_L$ in [FLM], and $L(l,0)$ and $L(c_{p,q},0)$ in [DMZ], [DL], [FLM], [FZ],
[L1] and [W].
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, after defining the
notion of weak module for a vertex operator algebra and the definition
of rational vertex operator algebra, we discuss the rational vertex
operator algebras $V^{\natural},$ $V_L,$ $L(l,0)$ and $L(c_{p,q},0).$
Section 3 is devoted to regular vertex operator algebras. We begin
this section with the definition of regular vertex operator
algebra. We show that the tensor product of regular vertex operator
algebras is also regular and that a rational vertex operator algebra
is regular under either of the assumptions (i) it contains a regular vertex
operator subalgebra, or (ii) any weak module contains a simple
ordinary module.
These
results are then used to prove that $V^{\natural},$ $V_L$ ($L$ is positive
definite), $L(l,0)$ and
$L(c_{p,q},0)$ are regular. We also discuss the complete reducibility
of weak $V_L$-modules for an arbitrary even lattice $L.$ Based
on these results, we
conjecture that {\em any} rational vertex operator algebra is regular.
We thank Yi-Zhi Huang for pointing out a mistake in a prior version of
this paper.
\section{Rational vertex operator algebras}
Let $(V,Y,{\bf 1},\omega)$ be a vertex operator
algebra (cf. [B], [FHL] and [FLM]). A {\em weak module}
$M$ for $V$ is a vector space equipped with a linear map
$$\begin{array}{l}
V\to (\mbox{End}\,M)[[z^{-1},z]]\label{map}\\
v\mapsto\displaystyle{ Y_M(v,z)=\sum_{n\in\Bbb Z}v_nz^{-n-1}\ \ \ (v_n\in
\mbox{End}\,M)}
\end{array}$$
(where for any vector space $W,$ we define $W[[z^{-1},z]]$ to be the vector
space of $W$-valued formal series in $z$)
satisfying the following conditions for $u,v\in V$,
$w\in M$:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &Y_M(v,z)=\sum_{n\in \Bbb Z}v_nz^{-n-1}\ \ \ \ \mbox{for}\ \
v\in V;\label{1/2}\\
& &v_nw=0\ \ \
\mbox{for}\ \ \ n\in \Bbb Z \ \ \mbox{sufficiently\ large};\label{vlw0}\\
& &Y_M({\bf 1},z)=1;\label{vacuum}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}\label{jacobi}
\begin{array}{c}
\displaystyle{z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_2}{z_0}\right)
Y_M(u,z_1)Y_M(v,z_2)-z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_2-z_1}{-z_0}\right)
Y_M(v,z_2)Y_M(u,z_1)}\\
\displaystyle{=z_2^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_0}{z_2}\right)
Y_M(Y(u,z_0)v,z_2)}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{vir}
[L(m),L(n)]=(m-n)L(m+n)+\frac{1}{12}(m^3-m)\delta_{m+n,0}(\mbox{rank}\,V)
\end{equation}
for $m, n\in {\Bbb Z},$ where
\begin{eqnarray}
& &L(n)=\omega_{n+1}\ \ \ \mbox{for}\ \ \ n\in{\Bbb Z}, \ \ \
\mbox{i.e.},\ \ \ Y_M(\omega,z)=\sum_{n\in{\Bbb Z}}L(n)z^{-n-2};\nonumber\\
& &\frac{d}{dz}Y_M(v,z)=Y_M(L(-1)v,z).\label{6.72}
\end{eqnarray}
This completes the definition. We denote this module by
$(M,Y_M)$ (or briefly by $M$).
\begin{de}\label{r2.2} An (ordinary) $V$-module is a weak $V$-module which
carries a $\Bbb C$-grading
$$M=\coprod_{\lambda \in{\Bbb C}}M_{\lambda} $$
such that $\dim M_{\lambda }$ is finite and $M_{\lambda +n}=0$
for fixed $\lambda $ and $n\in {\Bbb Z}$ small enough. Moreover one requires that
$M_{\lambda }$ is the $\lambda $-eigenspace for $L(0):$
$$L(0)w=\lambda w=(\mbox{wt}\,w)w, \ \ \ w\in M_{\lambda }.$$
\end{de}
This definition is weaker than that of [FLM], for example, where the grading
on $M$ is taken to be rational. The extra flexibility attained by allowing
$\Bbb C$-gradings is important $-$ see for example [DLM1] and [Z].
We observe some redundancy in the definition of weak module:
\begin{lem}\label{r2.1} Relations (\ref{vir}) and (\ref{6.72}) in the
definition of weak module are consequences of (\ref{1/2})-(\ref{jacobi}).
\end{lem}
{\bf Proof. } To establish (\ref{6.72}) note that
$L(-1)u=L(-1)u_{-1}{\bf 1}=u_{-2}{\bf 1}$ for $u\in V.$ Then
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\ \ \ Y_{M}(L(-1)u,z_{2})\nonumber\\
& &=Y_{M}(u_{-2}{\bf 1},z_{2})\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}z_{0}^{-2}Y_{M}(Y(u,z_{0}){\bf 1},z_{2})\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}{\rm Res}_{z_{1}}z_{0}^{-2}
\left(z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_2}{z_0}\right)
Y_M(u,z_1)Y_M({\bf 1},z_2)\right.\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ \left.-z^{-1}_0\delta\left(\frac{z_2-z_1}{-z_0}\right)
Y_M({\bf 1},z_2)Y_M(u,z_1)\right)\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{1}}z_{0}^{-2}z_2^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{z_1-z_0}{z_2}\right)
Y_{M}(u,z_{1})\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{1}}z_{0}^{-2}z_1^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{z_2+z_0}{z_1}\right)
Y_{M}(u,z_{2}+z_{0})\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}z_{0}^{-2}Y_{M}(u,z_{2}+z_{0})\nonumber\\
& &={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}z_{0}^{-2}e^{z_0\frac{d}{d z_2}}Y_{M}(u,z_{2})\nonumber\\
& &={d\over dz_{2}}Y_{M}(u,z_{2}).
\end{eqnarray}
This establishes (\ref{6.72}), and together with
(\ref{jacobi}) and $Y(\omega,z_0)\omega=\frac{1}{2}({\rm rank}V)z_0^{-4}
+2\omega z_0^{-2}+L(-1)\omega z_0^{-1}+$ regular terms we can easily deduce
(\ref{vir}). \ \ \ $\Box$
Thus we may just use (\ref{1/2})-(\ref{jacobi}) as the axioms
for a weak $V$-module.
\begin{de}\label{d2.2} An {\em admissible} $V$-module is
a weak $V$-module $M$ which carries a
${\Bbb Z}_{+}$-grading
$$M=\coprod_{n\in {\Bbb Z}_{+}}M(n)$$
($\Bbb Z_+$ is the set all nonnegative integers) satisfying
the following condition: if $r, m\in {\Bbb Z} ,n\in {\Bbb Z}_{+}$ and $a\in V_{r}$
then
\begin{eqnarray}
a_{m}M(n)\subseteq M(r+n-m-1).\label{2.7}
\end{eqnarray}
We call an admissible $V$-module $M$ {\em simple}
in case $0$ and $M$ are the only $\Bbb Z_+$-graded submodules.
$V$ is called {\em rational} if every admissible
$V$-module is a direct sum of simple admissible $V$-modules. That is,
we have complete reducibility of admissible $V$-modules.
\end{de}
\begin{rem}\label{r2.4} (i) Note that any ordinary $V$-module is admissible.
(ii) It is proved in [DLM1] that
if $V$ is rational then conversely, every simple admissible $V$-module is an
ordinary module. Moreover $V$ has only a finite number of inequivalent
simple modules.
(iii) Zhu's definition of rational vertex operator algebra $V$ is as follows
[Z]: (a) all admissible $V$-module are completely reducible, (b) each simple
admissible $V$-module is an ordinary $V$-module, (c) $V$
only has finitely many inequivalent simple modules. Thanks to (ii), Zhu's
definition of rational thus coincides with our own.
\end{rem}
We next introduce a certain category
$\cal{O}$ of admissible $V$-modules in analogy with the well-known
category $\cal O$ of Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand. First some
notation: for any weak $V$-module $M$ we set for $h\in \Bbb C:$
$$M_{h}=\{m\in M|
(L(0)-h)^km=0\ {\rm for\ some} \ k\in\Bbb Z_{+}\}.$$
So $M_h$ is a {\em generalized} eigenspace for $L(0),$ and in particular
$M_h$ is the $h$-eigenspace for $L(0)$ if $L(0)$ is a semisimple operator.
Now define $\cal{O}$ to be the category of weak $V$-modules $M$ satisfying
the following two conditions:
(1) $L(0)$ is locally finite in the sense that if $m\in M$ then
there is a finite-dimensional $L(0)$-stable subspace of $M$
which contains $m.$
(2) There are $h_{1}, \cdots, h_{k}\in\Bbb C$ such that $$M=\oplus
_{i=1}^{k}\oplus _{n\in {\Bbb Z}_{+}}M_{n+h_{i}}.$$ These are the {\em
objects} of $\cal O.$ Morphisms may be taken to be $V$-module
homomorphisms, though we will not make use of them in the sequel.
\begin{rem}\label{r2.5} (i) Any weak $V$-module which belongs to $\cal O$
is necessarily admissible: a $\Bbb Z_+$-grading obtains by defining
$M(n)=\oplus_{i=1}^kM_{h_i+n}.$ Condition (\ref{2.7}) follows in the
usual way.
(ii) Suppose that $M$ is a weak $V$-module and that $W$ is a weak
$V$-submodule of $M.$ Then $M$ lies in $\cal O$ if, and only if,
both $W$ and $M/W$ lie in $\cal O.$
(iii) If $V$ is rational, any weak $V$-module
in $\cal{O}$ is a direct sum of simple $V$-modules (use Remark \ref{r2.4}
(ii)).
\end{rem}
Next we briefly discuss some familiar examples of rational vertex
operator algebras. The reader is referred to the references for notation
and the details of the constructions.
(1) Let $L$ be an even lattice and $V_{L}$ the corresponding
vertex algebra (see [B], [DL] and [FLM]). It is proved in [D1] that
if $L$ is positive definite then
$V_{L}$ is rational and its simple modules are parametrized by
$L'/L$ where $L'$ is the dual lattice of $L.$
(2) Let ${\frak g}$ be a finite-dimensional simple Lie algebra with a Cartan
subalgebra ${\frak h}$ and $\hat \frak g=\Bbb C[t,t^{-1}]\otimes \frak g\oplus\Bbb C c$
the corresponding affine Lie algebra. Fix a positive integer $l.$
Then any $\lambda\in \frak h^*$ can be viewed as a linear
form on $\Bbb C c\oplus \frak h\subset \hat \frak g$ by sending $c$ to $l.$
Let us denote the
corresponding irreducible highest weight module for $\hat\frak g$ by
$L(l,\lambda).$ Then $L(\ell,0)$ is a rational vertex operator algebra
([DL], [FZ], [L1]).
(3) Let $c$ and $h$ be two complex numbers and let $L(c,h)$ be the lowest
weight irreducible
module for the Virasoro algebra with central charge $c$ and lowest weight $h$.
Then $L(c,0)$ has
a natural vertex operator algebra structure (cf. [FZ]).
Moreover, $L(\ell,0)$ is rational if, and only if,
$c=c_{p,q}=1-\frac{6(p-q)^{2}}{pq}$ for $p,q\in \{2,3,4,\cdots\}$ and
$p, q$ are relatively prime (see [DMZ] and [W]).
(4) Let $V^{\natural}$ be the moonshine module vertex operator algebra
constructed by Frenkel, Meurman and Lepowsky [FLM] (see also [B]).
It is established in [D2] that $V^{\natural}$ is {\em holomorphic} in the
sense that $V^{\natural}$ is rational and the only simple
module is $V^{\natural}$ itself.
(5) Let $V^{1},\cdots, V^{k}$ be vertex operator algebras.
Then $V=\otimes_{i=1}^{k}V^{i}$ is
a vertex operator algebra of rank $\sum_{i=1}^{k}{\rm rank} V^{i}$ and
any simple $V$-module $M$ is isomorphic to a tensor product module
$M^{1}\otimes \cdots \otimes M^{k}$ for some simple $V^{i}$-module $M^i$
[FHL].
Furthermore, $V^{1}\otimes V^{2}\otimes \cdots\otimes V^{k}$ is rational
if, and only if, each $V^i$ is rational [DMZ].
(6) Let $V^{1}, \cdots, V^{k}$ be vertex operator algebras of the same
rank. Then $\oplus_{i=1}^{k}V^{k}$ is a vertex operator algebra [FHL].
It is clear that
$\oplus_{i=1}^{k}V^{i}$ is rational if each $V^{i}$ is rational. The vacuum
space of the resulting vertex operator algebra is not one-dimensional, and
we will not consider this particular example further in this
paper.
\section{Regular vertex operator algebras}
In Section 2 we made use of the complete reducibility of admissible modules in
order to
define rational vertex operator algebras.
The study of complete reducibility of an arbitrary weak module
for a rational vertex operator algebra
leads us to the following notion of regular vertex operator algebra:
\begin{de}\label{d2.4}
A vertex operator algebra $V$ is said to be {\em regular} if any weak
$V$-module $M$ is a direct
sum of simple ordinary $V$-modules.
\end{de}
\begin{rem}\label{r3.2} A regular vertex operator algebra $V$ is necessarily
rational. Indeed if $M$ is a weak $V$-module then, being a direct sum
of ordinary simple $V$-module, it is admissible (Remark \ref{r2.4} (i)) and,
for the same reason, a direct sum of simple admissibles.
\end{rem}
The main result of the present paper is to show that the rational
vertex operator algebras in examples (1)-(4) of Section 2 are each
regular. First we have some general results which will be useful
later.
\begin{prop}\label{p2.5}
Let $V^{1}, \cdots, V^{k}$ be regular vertex operator algebras. Then
$V=V^{1}\otimes V^{2}\otimes \cdots \otimes V^{k}$ is regular.
\end{prop}
{\bf Proof.} Let $M$ be a weak $V$-module. For each $1\le i\le k$, we may
regard $V^{i}$ as a vertex operator subalgebra with a different Virasoro
element. Then
$M$ is a weak $V^{i}$-module. Since $V^i$ is regular, $M$ is a direct
sum of simple ordinary $V^{i}$-modules. Note that
there are only finitely many simple $V^{i}$-modules up to
equivalence. Thus $M$ is a $V^{i}$-module in category $\cal{O}$ of weak
$V^i$-modules.
Denote the generators of the Virasoro algebra of $V^i$ by $L_i(n).$
Then $L(0)=L_{1}(0)+\cdots +L_{k}(0)$ and $L_{i}(0)$'s commute with each
other. This implies that $M$ is in category $\cal{O}$ of weak
$V$-modules. So $M$ is completely reducible by Remarks \ref{r3.2} and
\ref{r2.5} (iii). $\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{p2.6}
Let $V$ be a rational vertex operator algebra such that there is a regular
vertex operator subalgebra $U$
with the same Virasoro element $\omega$. Then $V$ is regular.
\end{prop}
{\bf Proof.} Let $M$ be a weak $V$-module. Then $M$ is a weak $U$-module,
so that $M$ is a direct
sum of simple ordinary $U$-modules. Thus $L(0)$ acts semisimply on $M$.
Let $W^{1},\cdots, W^{k}$ be all simple $U$-modules up to equivalence.
Then we can write $M=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\oplus_{n\in {\Bbb Z}_{+}}M_{n+h_{i}}$,
where $h_{i}$ is the lowest weight of $W^{i}$.
Thus $M$ is in the category $\cal{O}$ for $V.$
The complete reducibility of $M$ follows immediately as
$V$ is rational.$\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{prop}\label{p2.8}
Let $V$ be a rational vertex operator algebra such that any nonzero
weak $V$-module contains a simple ordinary $V$-submodule. Then $V$ is
regular.
\end{prop}
{\bf Proof.} Let $M$ be any weak $V$-module and let $W$ be the sum of all
simple ordinary submodules.
We have to prove that $W=M$. If $M\ne W$, $M/W$ is a nonzero weak
$V$-module so that by assumption, there is a simple ordinary
$V$-submodule $M^{1}/W$ of $M/W$.
Then both $W$ and $M^{1}/W$ are in the category $\cal{O}$.
Thus $M^{1}$ is in the category $\cal{O}$ and $M^{1}$ is a direct sum of
simple ordinary $V$-modules. This contradicts
the choice of $W$. $\;\;\;\;\Box$
Now we are ready to
show that the
vertex operator algebras $L(l,0),$ $L(c_{p,q},0),$ $V^{\natural}$ and
$V_L$ are regular.
Recall from example (2) that $\frak g$ is a finite-dimensional simple Lie
algebra with Cartan subalgebra $\frak h;$ $L(l,0)$ is a vertex operator
algebra. We shall denote the corresponding root system by $\Delta.$
\begin{lem}\label{l2.9} There is a basis $\{a^{1},\cdots, a^{m}\}$ for ${\frak
g}$ such that for $1\leq i,j\leq m$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eb}
[Y(a^{i},z_{1}),Y(a^{i},z_{2})]=0\;\;\mbox{ and }Y(a^{i},z)^{3\ell+1}=0
\end{eqnarray}
as operators on $L(\ell,0).$
\end{lem}
{\bf Proof.} Let $\alpha\in\Delta$ and $e\in {\frak g}_{\alpha}$.
If ${\frak g}$ is of
type $A, D,$ or $ E$, it is proved in [MP1] and [DL] that $Y(e,z)^{\ell+1}=0$.
In general, it is proved in [L1] and [MP2] that $Y(e,z)^{3\ell+1}=0$.
It is well known (cf. [H], [K1]) that there are elements
$e_{\alpha}\in {\frak g}_{\alpha}, f_{\alpha}\in {\frak g}_{-\alpha},
h_{\alpha}\in \frak h$
which linearly span a subalgebra naturally isomorphic to $sl_{2}$. Set
$\sigma_{\alpha}=e^{(e_{\alpha})_{0}}$
where $(e_{\alpha})_0$ is the component operator of $Y(e_{\alpha},z)$
(cf. (\ref{1/2})) corresponding to $z^{-1}.$
Then $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is an automorphism of the vertex
operator algebra $L(\ell,0)$ (see Chap. 11 of [FLM]). A straightforward
calculation gives
$\sigma_{\alpha}(f_{\alpha})=f_{\alpha}+h_{\alpha}-2e_{\alpha}$. Since
$e_{\alpha}, f_{\alpha}, h_{\alpha}$ form a basis of ${\frak g}$ for
$\alpha\in \Delta,$
$e_{\alpha}, f_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\alpha}(f_{\alpha})$ also form a basis of
${\frak g}$. It is clear that this basis satisfies condition (\ref{eb}).
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{thm}\label{t2.10}
Let $\ell$ be a positive integer. Then
the vertex operator algebra $L(\ell,0)$ is regular.
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof.} By Proposition \ref{p2.8}, it is enough to prove that any nonzero
weak
$L(\ell,0)$-module $M$ contains a simple $L(\ell,0)$-module. This
will be established in three steps.
{\bf Claim 1:} {\em There exists a nonzero $u\in M$ such that
$(t{\Bbb C}[t]\otimes {\frak g})u=0$.} Set $\frak g(n)=t^n\otimes \frak g$ for
$n\ne 0.$
For any nonzero $u\in M$, by the definition of a weak module,
${\frak g}(n)u=0$ for sufficiently large
$n.$ So $(t{\Bbb C}[t]\otimes {\frak g})u$ is finite-dimensional.
For any $u\in M$, we define $d(u)=\dim (t{\Bbb C}[t]\otimes {\frak g})u$.
If there is a $0\ne u\in M$ such that $d(u)=0$, then
$(t{\Bbb C}[t]\otimes {\frak g})u=0$. Suppose that $d(u)>0$ for any $0\ne u\in M$.
Take $0\ne u\in M$ such that $d(u)$ is minimal.
Let $a^{i}$ ($1\le i\le m$) be a basis of ${\frak g}$ satisfying
condition (\ref{eb}) and let $k$ be the positive integer such that
${\frak g}(k)u\ne 0$ and ${\frak g}(n)u=0$ whenever $n>k$. By
definition of $k$, $a^{i}(k)u\ne 0$ for some $1\le i\le m$. Since
$Y(a^{i},z)^{3\ell+1}=0$, by Proposition 13.16 in [DL],
$Y_{M}(a^{i},z)^{3\ell+1}=0$. Extracting the coefficient of
$z^{-(k+1)(3\ell+1)}$ from $Y_{M}(a^{i},z)^{3\ell+1}u=0$ we obtain
$(a^{i}_{k})^{3\ell+1}u=0$.
Let $r$ be a nonnegative integer such that $(a^{i}_{k})^{r}u\ne 0$
and $(a^{i}_{k})^{r+1}u=0$. Set $v=(a^{i}_{k})^{r}u$. We will obtain
a contradiction by showing that
$d(v)<d(u)$.
First we prove that if $a_{n}u=0$ for some $a\in {\frak g}, 1\le n\in {\Bbb Z}$,
then $a_{n}v=0$. In the following we will show by induction
on $m$ that $a_n(a_k^i)^mu=0$ for
any $a\in \frak g$ and $m\in \Bbb Z$ nonnegative. If $m=0$ this is immediate by the
choice of $u.$ Now assume that the result holds for $m.$
Since $[a,a^{i}]_{k+n}u=0$ (from the definition of $k$) and $a_{n}u=0,$ by the
induction assumption that $a_n(a_k^i)^mu=0$
we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
[a,a^{i}]_{k+n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m}u=0,\;a_{n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m}u=0.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
&
&a_{n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m+1}u=[a_{n},a^{i}_{k}](a^{i}_{k})^{m}u+a^{i}_{k}a_{n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m}u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \
=[a,a^{i}]_{k+n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m}u+a^{i}_{k}a_{n}(a^{i}_{k})^{m}u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ =0,
\end{eqnarray}
as required. In particular, we see that
$a_{n}v=a_{n}(a^{i}_{k})^{r}u=0$.
Therefore, $d(v)\le d(u)$. Since $a^{i}_{k}v=0$ and $a^{i}_{k}u\ne 0$, we have
$d(v)< d(u)$.
{\bf Claim 2:} {\em There is a nonzero $u\in M$ such that ${\frak g}(n)u=0$
for $n>0$ and ${\frak g}_+u=0$ where $\frak g_+=\sum_{\alpha\in \Delta_+}\frak
g_{\alpha}$
for a fixed positive root system $\Delta_+.$}
Set
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega(M)=\{u\in M| (t{\Bbb C}[t]\otimes {\frak g})u=0\}.
\end{eqnarray}
Then $\Omega(M)$ is a nonzero ${\frak g}$-submodule of $M$ by Claim 1.
Let $0\ne e_{\theta}\in {\frak g}_{\theta}$
where $\theta$ is the longest positive root in $\Delta$. Then
$Y_{M}(e_{\theta},z)^{\ell+1}=0$ (see [DL] and [FZ]). Extracting the
coefficient of $z^{-\ell-1}$ from
$Y_{M}(e_{\theta},z)^{\ell+1}\Omega(M)=0$,
we obtain $e_{\theta}^{\ell+1}\Omega(M)=0$.
By Proposition 5.1.2 of [L1] $\Omega(M)$ is a direct sum of finite-dimensional
irreducible
${\frak g}$-modules. Then any highest weight vector for ${\frak g}$ in
$\Omega(M)$ meets our need.
{\bf Claim 3:} {\em Any lowest weight vector for $\hat{{\frak g}}$ in $M$
generates a simple
$L(\ell,0)$-module.} Let $u$ be a lowest weight vector for $\hat{{\frak g}}$ in
$M$.
Extracting the constant term from
$Y_{M}(e_{\theta},z)^{\ell+1}u=0$, we obtain $(e_{\theta})_{-1}^{\ell+1}u=0$.
Then $u$ generates an integrable highest weight $\hat{{\frak g}}$-module. It
follows from [K1] that
$u$ generates an irreducible $\hat{{\frak g}}$-module of level $\ell$.
Since any submodule of $M$
for the affine Lie algebra is a submodule of $M$ for $L(\ell,0)$,
such $u$ generates a simple
$L(\ell,0)$-module.$\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{rem}\label{r2.3'} This theorem has been proved
in [DLM2] under the assumption that $t\Bbb C[t]\otimes \frak h$ acts locally
nilpotently on any weak module. See Proposition 5.6 in [DLM2].
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
Recall that a $\hat{{\frak g}}$-module $M$ is called {\em restricted }
(cf. [K1]) if for any $u\in M$, there is an integer $k$ such that
$(t^{n}\otimes {\frak g})u=0$ for $n>k;$
$M$ is called an {\em integrable} module
if the Chevalley generators $e_i,f_i$ of $\hat{{\frak g}}$
act locally finitely on $M$ [K2] (note that in the definition of
integrable module, we do not assume that the action of $\frak h$
is semisimple). At affine Lie algebra level, Proposition \ref{p2.8}
and Theorem \ref{t2.10}
essentially assert
that any restricted integrable $\hat{{\frak g}}$-module is a direct sum of
irreducible highest weight integrable $\hat{{\frak g}}$-modules.
\end{rem}
Next we turn our attention to the vertex operator algebras $L(c_{p,q},0).$
First we recall some results from [DL]. Let $V$ be a vertex operator
algebra and $M$ be a weak $V$-module. Then for any $u,v\in V$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{ef}
Y(u_{-1}v,z)=Y(u,z)^{-}Y(v,z)+Y(v,z)Y(u,z)^{+},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
Y(u,z)^{+}=\sum_{n\ge 0}u_{n}z^{-n-1}, \; Y(u,z)^{-}=\sum_{n<0}u_{n}z^{-n-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $Y(u,z)=Y(u,z)^{+}+Y(u,z)^{-}$ and that $Y(u,z)^{+}$ (reps.
$Y(u,z)^{-}$) involves only
nonpositive (resp. nonnegative) powers of $z$.
For convenience we will write $c=c_{p,q}.$
For any nonnegative integer $n$, we set
$\omega^{(n)}={1\over n!}L(-1)^{n}\omega$. Then $L(-n-2)=\omega^{(n)}_{-1}.$
We need the following lemmas.
\begin{lem}\label{l2.12}
Let $M$ be a weak $L(c,0)$-module and $u\in M.$ Let
$k$ be a positive integer such that
$L(k)u\ne 0$ and that $L(n)u=0$ whenever $n>k$. Then for any nonnegative
integers $n_{1},..., n_{r}$ the lowest power of $z$ in
$Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})}_{-1}\cdots \omega^{(n_{r})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)u$
(in the sense that the coefficients of $z^m$ is zero
whenever $m$ is smaller than the lowest power) is
$-r(k+2)-n_{1}-\cdots -n_{r}$ with coefficient
$\displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{r}{-k-2\choose n_{i}}L(k)^{r}u}.$
\end{lem}
{\bf Proof.} We prove this lemma by induction on $r$. If $r=1$, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &Y_M(\omega^{(n_{1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)u=Y_M(\omega^{(n_{1})},z)u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ =\frac{1}{n_1!}\left({d\over
dz}\right)^{n_{1}}Y_M(\omega,z)u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ =\sum_{n\in {\Bbb Z}}{-n-2\choose n_{1}}z^{-n-2-n_{1}}L(n)u
\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ =\sum_{n\le k}{-n-2\choose n_{1}}z^{-n-2-n_{1}}L(n)u.
\end{eqnarray}
Then the lowest power of $z$ is $-(k+2)-n_{1}$ with a coefficient
${-k-2\choose n_{1}}L(k)u$. That is, the
lemma holds for $r=1$.
Suppose that this lemma holds for some positive integer $r$.
By formula (\ref{ef}) we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r})}_{-1}\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf
1},z)u=Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})},z)^{-}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)
u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ \ +Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots \omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf
1},z)
Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})},z)^{+}u.\label{a2.15}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})},z)^{-}$ involves only nonnegative powers of $z$,
it follows from
the inductive assumption, the lowest power of $z$ in the first term of the
right hand side of (\ref{a2.15}) is
$-r(k+2)-n_{2}-\cdots -n_{r+1}$. It is easy to observe that for
any $v$ in the algebra,
$$Y_M(L(-1)v,z)^+=\frac{d}{dz}Y_M(v,z)^+.$$
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &\ \ \ \ Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots \omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)
Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})},z)^{+}u\\
& &=\frac{1}{n_1!}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots \omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}
{\bf 1},z)\left(\frac{d}{dz}\right)^{n_1}Y_{M}(\omega,z)^{+}u\\
& &=\sum_{n=-1}^k{-n-2\choose n_1}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)L(n)uz^{-n-2-n_1}\\
& &=\sum_{n=0}^k{-n-2\choose n_1}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)L(n)uz^{-n-2-n_1}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ +{-1\choose n_1}L(-1)Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)uz^{-1-n_1}\\
& &\ \ \ \ \ +{-1\choose
n_1}\left(\frac{d}{dz}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)\right)uz^{-1-n_1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Note that $L(m)L(n)u=(m-n)L(m+n)u+L(n)L(m)u=0$ for $0\leq n\leq k$ and
$m>k.$ Applying the inductive hypothesis to $L(n)u$ we see that the lowest
power of $z$ in
$$\sum_{n=0}^k{-n-2\choose n_1}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)L(n)uz^{-n-2-n_1}$$
is $-(r+1)(k+2)-n_1-\cdots -n_{r+1}$ with coefficient
$\displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{r+1}{-k-2\choose n_i}L(k)^{r+1}u.}$ Also by the
induction assumption
the lowest power of $z$ in $L(-1)Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)uz^{-1-n_1}$ is
$-r(k+2)-n_1-\cdots -n_{r+1}-1$ and the lowest power of $z$ in
$\left(\frac{d}{dz}Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{2})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r+1})}_{-1}{\bf 1},z)\right)uz^{-1-n_1}$
is $-r(k+2)-n_1-\cdots -n_{r+1}-2.$
Thus the lowest power of
$z$ in the second
term of right hand side of (\ref{a2.15}) is $-(r+1)(k+2)-n_{1}-\cdots -n_{r+1}$
with coefficient
$\displaystyle{\prod_{i=1}^{r+1}\left(\begin{array}{c}-k-2\\n_{i}\end{array}\right)
L(k)^{r+1}u},$ as desired. $\;\;\;\;\Box$
\bigskip
Let $V$ be a vertex operator algebra and let $A(V)$ (which is a certain
quotient space
of $V$ modulo a subspace $O(V)$) be the corresponding
associative algebra defined in [Z]. We refer the reader to [Z] for details.
Recall from [DLM1] or [L2] that for any weak $V$-module $M,$
$\Omega(M)$ consists of vectors $u\in M$ such that
$a_{m}u=0$ for any homogeneous element $a\in V$ and for any $m>{\rm wt}\,a-1$.
In other words,
$u\in \Omega(M)$ if and only if $z^{m}Y_{M}(a,z)u\in M[[z]]$ for any
homogeneous element $a\in V$
and for any $m>{\rm wt}a-1$. The following result can be found in [DLM1], [L2]
and [Z].
\begin{lem}\label{al} (1) $\omega+O(V)$ is in the center of $A(V).$
(2) $A(V)$ is semisimple if $V$ is rational.
(3) $\Omega(M)$ is an $A(V)$-module under the action $a+O(V)\mapsto
a_{{\rm wt}\,a-1}$ for homogeneous $a\in V.$
\end{lem}
Now we take $V=L(c,0).$
Set $\bar{\Omega}(M)=\{ u\in M|L(n)u=0\;\mbox{ for any }n>0\}$. Then it is
clear that
$\Omega(M)\subseteq \bar{\Omega}(M)$.
\begin{lem}\label{l2.13}
Let $M$ be a weak $L(c,0)$-module. Then $\Omega(M)=\bar{\Omega}(M)$.
\end{lem}
{\bf Proof.} It suffices to prove that $a_{m}u=0$ for any $u\in
\bar{\Omega}(M)$ and for any
homogeneous element $a\in L(c,0)$ whenever $m>{\rm wt}a-1$. We shall prove
this by induction on the weight of $a$.
If ${\rm wt}a=0$, $a={\bf 1}$. Since ${\bf 1}_{m}=0$ for $m\ge 0$, there is
nothing to prove.
Suppose that $a_{m}u=0$ for any homogeneous element $a\in L(c,0)$ of weight
less than $n$ and for any
$m>{\rm wt}a-1$. Let $b\in L(c,0)$ be a homogeneous element of weight $n$ and
let $m\in {\Bbb Z}$ such that $m>{\rm wt}b-1$.
Let $a\in L(c,0)$ be any homogeneous element of weight less than $n$, let $k$
be any positive integer
and let $m>{{\rm wt}}\,(L(-k)a)-1$ $(={\rm wt}\,a+k-1)$. Then from the Jacobi
identity (\ref{jacobi}) we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &(L(-k)a)_{m}u={\rm Res}_{z_{0}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}z_{0}^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}Y_{M}(Y(\omega,z_{0})a,z_{2})u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ ={\rm Res}_{z_{1}}{\rm Res}_{z_{0}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}z_{0}^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}\cdot \nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ \cdot\left(
z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{z_{1}-z_{2}}{z_{0}}\right)Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u
-z_{0}^{-1}\delta\left(\frac{z_{2}-z_{1}}{-z_{0}}\right)Y_{M}(a,z_{2})Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})u\right)
\nonumber\\
& &\ \ ={\rm Res}_{z_{1}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(z_{1}-z_{2})^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u
\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ -{\rm Res}_{z_{1}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(-z_{2}+z_{1})^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})u.
\end{eqnarray}
Since $m>{\rm wt}\,(L(-k)a)-1={\rm wt}a+k-1>{\rm wt}a-1$, we have:
$${\rm Res}_{z_{1}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(z_{1}-z_{2})^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u=0.$$
For the second term, we have:
\begin{eqnarray}
& &\ \ \ -{\rm Res}_{z_{1}}{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(-z_{2}+z_{1})^{1-k}z_{2}^{m}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})Y_{M}(\omega,z_{1})u
\nonumber\\
& &=-{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{1-k}z_{2}^{m+1-k}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})L(-1)u
-{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{-k}(1-k)z_{2}^{m-k}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})L(0)u\nonumber\\
& &=-{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{1-k}z_{2}^{m+1-k}L(-1)Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u
+{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{1-k}z_{2}^{m+1-k}{d\over
dz_{2}}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ -{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{-k}(1-k)z_{2}^{m-k}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})L(0)u\nonumber\\
& &=-{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{1-k}z_{2}^{m+1-k}L(-1)Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u
-{\rm Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{1-k}(m+1-k)z_{2}^{m-k}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})u\nonumber\\
& &\ \ \ -{\rm
Res}_{z_{2}}(-1)^{-k}(1-k)z_{2}^{m-k}Y_{M}(a,z_{2})L(0)u\nonumber\\
&
&=(-1)^kL(-1)a_{m+1-k}u+(-1)(m+1-k)a_{m-k}u+(-1)^{k-1}a_{m-k}L(0)u.\label{2.17}
\end{eqnarray}
Since $L(0)u\in \bar{\Omega}(M)$ and $m-k>{\rm wt}a-1$ all the three terms
in (\ref{2.17}) are zero by the inductive hypothesis. Thus $(L(-k)a)_mu=0.$
Note that $b$ is a linear combination of all
$L(-k)a$, where ${\rm wt}a<n$ and $k$ is a positive integer.
This shows $b_{m}\bar{\Omega}(M)=0$ for $m>{\rm wt}\,b-1,$ as desired.
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
Now we are in a position to prove
\begin{thm}\label{t2.11}
The vertex operator algebra $L(c,0)$ associated with the lowest weight
irreducible module for
the Virasoro algebra with central charge $c=c_{p,q}$ is regular.
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof:} By Proposition \ref{p2.8}, it is enough to prove that any
nonzero weak $L(c,0)$-module $M$ contains a simple $L(c,0)$-module.
{\bf Claim 1:} {\em The space $\Omega(M)$ is not zero.}
For any $0\ne u\in M$, we define $l(u)$ to be the integer $k$ such that
$L(k)u\ne 0$ and $L(n)u=0$
whenever $n>k$. Since $L(n)u\ne 0$ for some $n$ (because $c\ne 0$),
$l(u)$ is well-defined.
Suppose that $\Omega(M)=0$. Then by Lemma \ref{l2.13}
$l(u)\ge 1$ for any $0\ne u\in M$. Let $0\ne u\in M$ such that $l(u)=k$ is
minimal.
It is well known [FF] that there are two singular vectors in the
Verma module $M(c,0)$ for the Virasoro algebra. One singular
vector is $L(-1){\bf 1}$ and the other is:
\begin{eqnarray}
v=L(-2)^{pq}{\bf 1}+\sum a_{n_{1},\cdots, n_{r}}\omega^{(n_{1})}_{-1}\cdots
\omega^{(n_{r})}_{-1}{\bf 1},
\end{eqnarray}
where the sum is over some $(n_{1},\cdots, n_{r})\in {\Bbb Z}_{+}^{r}$
such that $2pq=2r+n_{1}+\cdots +n_{r}$ and $n_{1}+\cdots +n_{r}\ne
0$. By Lemma \ref{l2.12}, the lowest power of $z$ in
$$Y_{M}(L(-2)^{pq}{\bf 1},z)u=Y_{M}((\omega_{-1})^{m}{\bf 1},z)u$$ is
$-pq(k+2)$ with $L(k)^{pq}u$ as its coefficient and the lowest power
of $z$ in
$$Y_{M}(\omega^{(n_{1})}_{-1}\cdots \omega^{(n_{r})}_{-1}{\bf
1},z)u$$
is greater than $-pq(k+2)$ for any nonnegative integers
$n_{1},\cdots, n_{r}$ such that $2pq=2r+n_{1}+\cdots +n_{r}$ and
$n_{1}+\cdots +n_{r}\ne 0$. Thus the coefficient of $z^{-pq(k+2)}$ in
$Y_{M}(v,z)u$ is $L(k)^{pq}u$. Since $v=0$ in $L(c,0)$ we have
$Y_{M}(v,z)=0$. In particular the coefficient $L(k)^{pq}u$
of $z^{-pq(k+2)}$ in $Y_M(v,z)$ is zero. Let $s$ be the nonnegative
integer such that $L(k)^{s}u\ne 0$ and $L(k)^{s+1}u=0$ and set
$u'=L(k)^{s}u$. Then it is clear that $l(u')<l(u)$. This is a
contradiction.
{\bf Claim 2:} {\em Any weak $L(c,0)$-module $M$ contains a simple ordinary
$L(c,0)$-module.} Since $L(c,0)$ is rational, Lemma \ref{al} tells us that
$A(L(c,0))$ is semisimple and that
the central element $\omega+O(L(c,0))$ acts
semisimply on $\Omega(M)$ as $L(0).$ Since $\Omega(M)$ is nonzero by Claim
1 we can take $0\ne u\in \Omega(M)$ such that $L(0)u=hu$ where $h\in \Bbb C.$
Again since $L(c,0)$ is rational [W], $u$ generates a simple (ordinary)
$L(c,0)$-module. The proof is complete.
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{coro}\label{cm}
The moonshine module vertex operator algebra $V^{\natural}$ is regular.
\end{coro}
{\bf Proof.} From [DMZ], $V^{\natural}$ contains $L({1\over
2},0)^{\otimes 48}$ as a vertex operator subalgebra. Then the result follows
from Theorem \ref{t2.11}, Propositions \ref{p2.5} and \ref{p2.6}.
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
Finally we discuss the complete reducibility of
weak $V_L$-modules for an even lattice $L.$ We refer the reader to
[FLM] and [D1] for the construction of $V_L$ and related notations.
Let $M$ be any weak $V_L$-module. Define the vacuum space
$$\Omega_M=\{u\in M| \alpha(i)u=0\ {\rm for}\ \alpha \in L,\ i>0\}.$$
\begin{lem}\label{p2.14}
Let $L$ be an even lattice. Then for any
weak $V_{L}$-module $M,$ $\Omega_M\ne 0.$
\end{lem}
{\bf Proof.} For $u\in M$ then $A_u={\rm span}\{\alpha (n)u|\alpha\in L, n>0\}$ is
finite-dimensional as $\alpha (n)u=0$ if $n$ is sufficiently large and as
the rank of $L$ is finite. Set $d(u)=\dim A_u.$ Note that $d(u)=0$ if
and only if $u\in \Omega_M.$ So it is enough to show that $d(u)=0$ for
some nonzero $u\in M.$ Assume this is false, and
take $0\ne u\in M$ such that $d(u)$ is
minimal.
Let $k$ be the smallest positive integer such that $\alpha (k)u\ne 0$ and
$\beta (n)u=0$ whenever $n>k$ for some $\alpha \in L$ and all $\beta \in L.$
Let $a\in \hat L$ such that $\bar a=\alpha .$ Then from the
formula (3.4) of [D1] we have
$$\frac{d}{dz}Y(\iota(a),z)=Y(L(-1)\iota(a),z)=Y(\alpha(-1)\iota(a),z)
=\alpha(z)^-Y(\iota(a),z)+Y(\iota(a),z)\alpha(z)^+$$
where
$$\alpha(z)^-=\sum_{n<0}\alpha(n)z^{-n-1},\ \
\alpha(z)^+=\sum_{n\geq 0}\alpha(n)z^{-n-1}.$$
Clearly the submodule generated by $u$ is not zero. Note that the vertex
algebra $V_L$ is simple (see [D1]).
By Proposition 11.9
of [DL], $Y(\iota(a),z)u\ne 0.$ Let $r$ be an integer such that
$\iota(a)_{r+m}u=0$ and $\iota(a)_{r}u\ne 0$ for any positive integer
$m.$ Thus the lowest power of $z$ in
$$\frac{d}{dz}Y(\iota(a),z)u=-\sum_{m\leq r}(m+1)\iota(a)_muz^{-m-2}$$
is at most $-r-2.$ It is obvious that the lowest power of $z$ in $
\alpha(z)^-Y(\iota(a),z)u$ is at most $-r-1.$
Use the following commutator formula which is a result from the
Jacobi identity
\begin{equation}\label{gr}
[\beta(m),\iota(a)_n]=\<\alpha ,\beta \>\iota(a)_{m+n}
\end{equation}
to obtain
$$\iota(a)_m\alpha(n)u=-\<\alpha ,\alpha \>\iota(a)_{m+n}u+\alpha(n)\iota(a)_mu=0$$
if $m>r$ and $n\geq 0.$ This gives
$$Y(\iota(a),z)\alpha(z)^+u=
\sum_{m\leq r}\sum_{n=0}^k\iota(a)_m\alpha (n)z^{-m-n-2}.$$
Thus the coefficient $\iota(a)_{r}\alpha (k)u$ of $z^{-r-k-2}$ in the formula
above is zero as $k$ is positive. This shows by (\ref{gr}) again
that $\alpha(n)\iota(a)_ru=0$ for any positive integer greater than or equal
to $k.$
Note from (\ref{gr}) that if $\beta (m)u=0$ for positive $m$ then
$\beta (m)\iota(a)_ru=0.$ Thus $d(\iota(a)_ru)< d(u).$ This is a contradiction.
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
\begin{thm}\label{tvl}
Let $L$ be an even lattice. Then any weak $V_L$-module
is completely reducible and any simple weak $V_L$-module is isomorphic
to $V_{L+\beta}$ for some $\beta $ in the dual lattice of $L.$
In particular, $V_L$ is regular if $L$ is positive definite.
\end{thm}
{\bf Proof.} By Lemma \ref{p2.14}, $\Omega_M\ne 0$ for a weak $V_L$-module
$M$.
It is proved in [D1] that if $M$ is also simple then it
is necessarily isomorphic to
$V_{L+\beta}$ for some $\beta $ in the dual lattice of $L.$ So
it remains to show
the complete reducibility of any weak $V_L$-module $M.$
Let $W$ be the sum of all simple submodules of $M.$ Assume that
$M'=M/W$ is not zero. Then $\Omega_{M'}\ne 0.$ It is essentially proved
in [D1] that $M'$ contains a simple module $W^1/W$ (here $W^1$ is
a weak $V_L$-submodule of $M$ which contains $W$) generated
by $w^1+W$ where $w^1$ is a common eigenvector for the operators
$\alpha (0)$ for $\alpha \in L.$ It follows from the proof of Theorem 3.1 of [D1]
that the submodule of $M$ generated by $w^1$ is simple. Thus
$W^1$ is a sum of certain simple submodules of $V_L.$ This is
a contradiction.
$\;\;\;\;\Box$
At this point we have proved that almost all known rational vertex
operator algebras are regular. We conclude this paper by presenting
the following conjecture:
\begin{conj}
Any rational vertex operator algebra is regular.
\end{conj}
|
\section{Introduction}
As was recently noted by Blaylock, Seiden, and Nir\cite{Blaylock}
due to final state interaction (FSI) a term
proportional to $\Delta M ~t~ e^{-\Gamma t}$ may appear in the rate
of wrong sign $D$ decays
even in the absence of CP violation. Moreover, in some extensions
of Standard Model which have large values of both $\Delta M$
and significant CP violation, a similar term may arise.
Blaylock {\it et al.} have suggested that a value of
$\Delta M$ larger than the
present experimental limit can be accomodated if one of these
previously neglected terms
destructively interferes with the other time dependent terms
which arise from mixing (proportional to $t^2 ~e^{-\Gamma t}$)
and from doubly Cabibbo suppressed decays (DCSD) (proportional
to $e^{-\Gamma t}$).
They suggest that this may invalidate the use of existing limits from time
dependent mixing studies at fixed target
experiments \cite{E691} , \cite{E791}
to constrain extensions of the Standard Model.
Below, we give expressions for the time
dependence in the general case and then
attempt to estimate the
maximum size of the terms proportional to $t e^{-\Gamma t}$.
\section{Formalism for Mixing}
We follow the notation of references
\cite{Blaylock},\cite{liu1},\cite{liu2}. Let the mass eigenstates
be $D_S$, $D_L$. Then
\[
|D_S> = p |D^0> + q |\bar{D}^0>
\]
\[
|D_L> = p |D^0> - q |\bar{D}^0>
\]
In the limit of no CP violation, $p$=$q$=$1/\sqrt{2}$.
Let $\Delta M= M_L- M_S$ and $\Delta \Gamma = \Gamma_L-\Gamma_S$
denote the mass difference and lifetime difference, respectively.
Let A denote the amplitude for $<f|H|D^0>$,
B the amplitude for $<f|H|\bar{D}^0>$. Let
$\displaystyle\lambda={p \over q}{A\over B}$ and
$\displaystyle\bar{\lambda}={q \over p}{\bar{A}\over \bar{B}}$.
The decay rate is then given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^0(t)\to K^+\pi^-) = {e^{-\Gamma t} \over 4} |B|^2 |{q\over p}|^2
\{ 4 |\lambda|^2 + ({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2
+ 2 Re(\lambda) \Delta\Gamma t + 4 Im(\lambda) \Delta M t \}
\label{mixeqn1}
\end{equation}
up to terms of order $t^2$~\cite{Blaylock}. The decay rate for the
charge conjugate reaction is given by the same expression replacing
$\lambda$
with $\bar{\lambda}$, $B$ with $\bar{B}$, and $q/p$ by $p/q$.
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(\bar{D}^0(t)\to K^-\pi^+) = {e^{-\Gamma t} \over 4}
|\bar{B}|^2 |{p\over q}|^2
\{ 4 |\bar{\lambda}|^2 + ({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2
+ 2 Re(\bar{\lambda}) \Delta\Gamma t + 4 Im(\bar{\lambda}) \Delta M t \}
\label{mixeqn2}
\end{equation}
In the past, it was assumed that the term proportional to $\Delta M ~t$
changes sign when averaging over a sample with equal numbers
of $D^0$ and $\bar{D^0}$ mesons\cite{Bigi},\cite{Browder}.
This assumption is not correct in general
as was noted in Reference\cite{Blaylock}.
The previous experimental
analyses\cite{E691}, \cite{Browder}, \cite{E791}
considered the deterioration
of the limit in the case when the term proportional to
$\Delta \Gamma ~t$ interfered
destructively with the mixing and DCSD components.
The Standard Model expectation for $\Delta \Gamma$ is
many orders of magnitude below the current experimental sensitivity so
this interference scenario is very unlikely.
In most new physics scenarios which would give $r_{mix}\sim O(10^{-3})$,
$\Delta\Gamma$ is not enhanced
whereas values of $\Delta M$ much
larger than those expected from the Standard Model are possible.
It is also possible to
experimentally verify that $\Delta \Gamma$ can be neglected by measuring
the $D$ meson lifetime in a CP eigenstate e.g.
$D^0\to K^-K^+$ and comparing to the lifetime
in $D^0\to K^-\pi^+$\cite{liu1},\cite{liu2}.
We now consider equations ~(\ref{mixeqn1}),~(\ref{mixeqn2}) in the following
situation. Let
\[
{p\over q}=\beta e^{i \phi}
\]
\[
{A\over B}=\alpha e^{i \delta}
\]
and $\displaystyle \alpha^2=
{\Gamma(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)\over \Gamma(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)}$.
The phase $\phi$ is due to CP violation in the mass matrix.
A non-zero value of $\delta$ may arise if the amplitudes
A and B have different FSI. Alternatively, if there are
complex contributions to one of the amplitudes (e.g. A) that are not
present in the other (e.g. B), this can lead to an overall phase in
$\displaystyle{A\over B}$.
We have assumed that there is no
direct CP violation in the amplitudes (and hence e.g.
$\Gamma(D^0\to K^- \pi^+)=\Gamma(\bar{D}^0\to K^+ \pi^-)$)\cite{phase}.
In addition, we neglect the small phase in $A/B$ from the CKM matrix,
which is approximately $A^2\lambda^4\eta$ in the
Wolfenstein parameterization and which lies
in the range $(2.3-5.3)\times 10^{-4}$.
The decay rate for wrong sign $D^0$ decays to $K^+\pi^-$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma(D^0(t)\to K^+\pi^-) & = &
{e^{-\Gamma t} \over 4} |B|^2
\times \\
& & {1\over \beta^2} \{ 4 \alpha^2 \beta^2 +
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2 \\
& & + 2 \alpha \beta \cos(\phi+\delta)(\Delta \Gamma t)
+4 \sin(\phi+\delta)\alpha\beta \Delta M t \}
\end{eqnarray*}
The corresponding rate for the charge conjugate reaction is
obtained by replacing $\phi$ the phase from CP violation with $-\phi$
and by changing $\beta$ to $1/\beta$
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma(\bar{D}^0 (t)\to K^-\pi^+) &= & {e^{-\Gamma t} \over 4}
|\bar{B}|^2 \times \\
& & {\beta^2} \{ 4 {\alpha^2 \over \beta^2} +
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2 \\
& & + 2 {\alpha \over \beta} \cos(-\phi+\delta)(\Delta \Gamma t)
+4 \sin(-\phi+\delta){\alpha\over\beta} \Delta M t \}
\end{eqnarray*}
In the experimental analyses, the time dependent rate integrated
over both types of particles is used:
$$
\Gamma (D^0(t)\to K^+\pi^-) + \Gamma (\bar{D}^0(t)\to K^-\pi^+)
$$
This rate, which will be denoted by
$\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t))$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t)) &= & 2 F(t) \times \\
& & \{ 4 \alpha^2 +
{1\over 2}(\beta^2+{1\over \beta^2})
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \alpha (\beta\cos(-\phi+\delta)
+{1\over\beta}\cos(\phi+\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t \nonumber \\
& & + 2 \alpha (\beta\sin(-\phi+\delta)
+ {1\over\beta}\sin(\phi+\delta))\Delta M ~t \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\displaystyle F(t)={1\over 4} e^{-\Gamma t} ~|B|^2$.
\bigskip
\section{Effects of FSI and CP Violation}
Two scenarios are considered in what follows. First the
case of no CP violation but significant final state interactions (FSI)
and then the case of both large CP violation and
significant final state interaction are examined.
\subsection{Effects of FSI}
In the first scenario, consider the case of large mixing
with $\Delta M>>\Delta M_{SM}$,
the value in the Standard Model.
Assume that this does not lead to an enhancement
of $\Delta \Gamma$ i.e.
$\Delta\Gamma_{SM}=\Delta\Gamma<<\Delta M$ and allow for non-zero $\delta$
but no CP violation ($\phi=0, \beta=1$). The above equation then reduces to
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t)) = 2 F(t)
\{ 4 \alpha^2 +
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2
+4 \alpha (\sin(\delta))\Delta M ~t \}
\end{equation}
In order to determine the size of the new term proportional
to $\Delta M ~t$,
the values of the phase difference $\delta$ are considered
in various models. This will allow
an estimate of the additional
experimental systematic error that is incurred from ignoring FSI.
This phase difference $\delta$ is zero in the limit of exact SU(3) symmetry.
The values of $\delta$ from various models
are given in Table~\ref{Tbdelta}.
Large values of the phase $\delta$ occur when
SU(3) breaking is largest. We
use the experimental result from CLEO~II for $D^0\to K^+ \pi^-$
($\alpha^2=0.0077\pm 0.0025 \pm 0.0025$) and assume that it is entirely
due to DCSD. This is found numerically
to give the most conservative upper limit
on the size of the interference effect.
In general, the amplitudes for the $D^0\to K^- \pi^+$
and $D^0\to K^+ \pi^-$ can be written as:
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+) = e^{i \delta_3}
[(A_1 + C) e^{i (\delta_1-\delta_3)} + A_3 ]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^+\pi^-) = -\theta_c^2
e^{i \delta_3} [ (\tilde{A}_1 + \tilde{C}) e^{i (\delta_1-\delta_3)}
+ \tilde{A}_3 ]
\end{equation}
where $A_1$ and $A_3$ are the quark decay contributions into $I=1/2$ and
$I=3/2$ final states respectively. C is the W-exchange contribution and
$\delta_1$ and $\delta_3$ are the FSI phases. $\tilde{A_i}$, $\tilde{C}$
are the corresponding DCSD amplitudes after the CKM factor $-\theta_c^2$
has been factored out.
The phase shifts in a given isospin eigenstate for particles
and antiparticles are identical by CPT invariance (which we assume
as stated explicitly).
The phase $\delta$ vanishes if two conditions are satisfied:
(i) $\delta_1-\delta_3= \tilde{\delta}_1-\tilde{\delta}_3$
and (ii) $A_3/A_1=\tilde{A_3}/\tilde{A_1}$. The first condition
follows from CPT invariance and the second is satisfied if $SU(3)$
symmetry holds. Hence if $SU(3)$ is an approximate symmetry, the phase
$\delta$ should be small. The models used have been tuned to reproduce
the observed magnitude of $SU(3)$ breaking in $D$ decays.
To obtain more information, we turn to the detailed
model fits.
\subsection{Details of the Models}
In the model of Chau and Cheng,
\begin{equation}
A_1 \cong 0.82, ~A_3\cong 0.16,~C\cong -0.13
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}_1 \cong 1.14, ~\tilde{A}_3\cong 0.33, ~\tilde{C}\approx C
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\delta_1-\delta_3 \approx 90^{0},~ \delta_3\approx 0.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)\cong (0.72) e^{i ~76^{0}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)\cong -\theta_c^2 (1.01) e^{i ~72^{0}}
\end{equation}
This yields a phase difference between the two decay modes
of $\delta=4^{0}$. If the W-exchange
contribution $C$ is omitted, the phase difference becomes
$\delta=5^{0}$.
In the model of Buccella {\it et al.}, one has
\begin{equation}
{A}_1 \cong 4.35,~ {A}_3\cong -2.3, ~{C}\approx -0.5
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{A}_1 \cong 5.2, ~\tilde{A}_3\cong -2.3, ~\tilde{C}\approx -C
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\delta_1 - \delta_3 \cong 25^{0}, \delta_3\approx 0.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)\cong (2) e^{i ~54.3^{0}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
A(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)\cong -\theta_c^2 (3.7) e^{i ~41.2^{0}}
\end{equation}
leading to a phase difference of $\delta=13^{0}$. Omitting the
W-exchange term gives a slightly smaller value of $6^{0}$.
It should be noted that a $\delta_1=25^{0}$ relates to
$\delta_R$ for the $I=1/2$ $0^+$ resonance in the $K\pi$ channel
by
\begin{equation}
\tan \delta_R = {\Gamma \over {2 \Delta}} = {B \sin\delta_1 \over
{B \cos\delta_1 + (1- B)}}
\end{equation}
where $B=BR(0^+\to K \pi)\approx 0.50$, $\Gamma\approx 200$ MeV,
$\Delta=M_R- M_D\approx 70$ MeV and $\delta_R = (55-65)^{0}$.
The models discussed above predict
\begin{equation}
{ {BR(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)} \over { BR(D^0\to K^-\pi^+)}} =
(2.3-3.4)\tan^4\theta_c
\end{equation}
which is compatible with the CLEO~II measurement.
There are also other models for $D$ decays in which a value for
the phase difference $\delta$ can be extracted\cite{Kaedin}.
Since it is difficult
to assign errors to these predictions, we regard $0^{0}-13^{0}$ as
a reasonable range for $\delta$.
In order to explore the range of $\delta$ in the models, we have
calculated the value of $\delta$ omitting the W-exchange term.
This corresponds to a dramatic change in the parameters of the models.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{Values of $\delta$ in various phenomenological
models of $D$ meson decay.}
\label{Tbdelta}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
& $\delta$ \\ \hline
Exact SU(3) limit \cite{wolf2} & $0^{0}$ \\
Chau and Cheng\cite{chaucheng} & $4^{0}$ \\
Chau and Cheng (no W-exchange)\cite{chaucheng} & $5^{0}$ \\
Buccella et al. & $13^{0}$ \\
Buccella et al. (no W-exchange) & $6^{0}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Summary of the Interference Effect from FSI}
To summarize, the phenomenological models which have been tuned
to agree with the observed branching fractions
and the fits to the $D$ meson data give $\delta$
in the range of $5^{0}-13^{0}$. To evaluate the possible experimental
consequences, consider the case of maximal
destructive interference ($\phi=0$, $\beta=1$), with $\delta=13^{0}$.
We allow a one standard deviation variation on
$R_{DCSD}=\alpha^2$ from
the CLEO~II measurement in order to obtain an upper limit on the effect
of the interference term.
We set $r_{mix}$, the ratio of integrated rates for mixed events relative to
unmixed events, to the E691 upper bound\cite{defrmix}.
The contributions
of the mixing term, the DCSD term, and the term proportional
to $\Delta M t$ are shown in Figure 1. These time dependent searches
are most sensitive to excess events from
mixing for $t>0.22$ ps $\displaystyle ={\tau_{D^0}\over 2}$, where the
combinatorial backgrounds are manageable and where the mixing term
is expected to peak. In addition, there is no loss in efficiency
for the mixing component when this cut is imposed. An upper limit
of $t<4.0$ ps is also imposed.
The change in the observed event yield for various values
of $R_{DCSD}$ and maximal destructive interference
are given in Table~\ref{Tbyield}. These were
calculated for the scenario
with maximal destructive interference and $\delta=13^{0}$.
We also give the change in the observed event yield for $t>2\tau_{D^0}$
(this is the region where mixing peaks and the
experiments are most sensitive) in Table~\ref{Tblong}.
This change is at most 10-15\% and is well within the experimental
systematic error assigned by the E691 and E791 experiments to their limits.
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{The change in wrong sign event yield
for $t>0.22$ ps with maximal destructive interference, $r_{mix}=0.37\%$,
and $\delta=13^{0}$.}
\medskip
\label{Tbyield}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$R_{DCSD}$ & $\Delta$ Yield (\%) \\ \hline
0.0052 & $ 10\%$ \\
0.0077 & $ 8\%$ \\
0.0102 & $ 1\%$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{The change in wrong sign event yield
for $t>0.88$ ps (2$\tau_{D^0}$) with maximal destructive interference,
$r_{mix}=0.37\%$, and $\delta=13^{0}$.}
\medskip
\label{Tblong}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$R_{DCSD}$ & $\Delta$ Yield (\%) \\ \hline
0.0052 & $ 12\%$ \\
0.0077 & $ 10\%$ \\
0.0102 & $ 9\%$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Effects of CP Violation}
Now consider the contribution of CP violation. Let
$\beta=1 -\epsilon$ and
$\displaystyle{1\over \beta}=1+\epsilon$\cite{epsfoot}.
We assume $\epsilon$ is small compared to 1 and retain only terms linear
in $\epsilon$; this is justified in the SM and even more so when
$\Delta M$ is enhanced and $\Delta \Gamma/\Delta M<<1$. We allow the phase
$\phi$ to be arbitrary.
With these definitions and $\Delta \Gamma < <\Delta M$, the expression
for $\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t))$ now becomes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t)) & = & \\
2 F(t) \times & & \{ 4 \alpha^2 +
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2 \nonumber \\
& & + \alpha (\cos(-\phi+\delta)+\cos(\phi+\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t
+\alpha \epsilon (\cos(\phi+\delta)-
\cos(-\phi+\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t \nonumber \\
& & +2 \alpha (\sin(-\phi+\delta) + \sin(\phi+\delta))\Delta M ~t
+2 \alpha \epsilon(\sin(-\phi+\delta)
- \sin(\phi+\delta))\Delta M ~t \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The quantity
$\epsilon$ is assumed to be small as in Ref\cite{Blaylock}, however,
the CP violating phase $\phi$ can be large as is the
case for certain extensions of the Standard Model.
The quantity $\epsilon$ for $D$ mixing is given by\cite{BGHP}
\begin{equation}
\epsilon \approx {-2 ~{\rm Im}({M_{12}^* \Gamma_{12} \over 2}) \over
{ {1\over 2} \Delta M^2 + {\Delta \Gamma^2\over 4} } }
\end{equation}
in the Standard Model and is already small ($\epsilon<O(2\%)$)\cite{BGHP}.
In new physics scenarios with $\Delta\Gamma_{SM}=\Delta\Gamma<<\Delta M$,
\begin{equation}
\tan\phi \cong {{\rm Im}(M_{12}) \over \Delta M}
\end{equation}
For non standard models with ${\rm Im}(M_{12})/\Delta M$
of order unity, $\tan\phi$ may be large (O(1)).
By contrast,
\begin{equation}
{\epsilon} \cong 2 ( {\Delta \Gamma \over \Delta M})
{{\rm Im}(M_{12})\over \Delta M}
\approx 2({\Delta\Gamma \over \Delta M}) << 1
\end{equation}
The crucial point is that $\epsilon$ is proportional to
$1/\Delta M$ and is highly suppressed if $\tan\phi$ is of order unity
and $\Delta M$ is enhanced.
It is important to note that while $\tan(\phi)$ can be much larger than
the Standard Model expectation
$\epsilon$ will be even smaller than
the value in the Standard Model for new physics scenarios in which
$\Delta M$ is enhanced.
The total wrong sign rate can then be reduced to
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t)) & = & 2 F(t) \\
& & \{ 4 \alpha^2 +
({\Delta M}^2 + {{\Delta \Gamma}^2 \over 4}) t^2 \nonumber \\
& & + 2 \alpha (\cos(\phi)\cos\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t
- 2 \alpha \epsilon (\sin(\phi)\sin(\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t \nonumber \\
& & +4 \alpha \epsilon (\cos(\delta)\sin(\phi))\Delta M ~t
+4 \alpha (\sin(\delta) \cos(\phi))\Delta M ~t \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
With $\epsilon$ as given above and $\Delta \Gamma << \Delta M$,
the expression for $\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t))$ becomes
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t)) & = & 2 F(t) \\
& & \{ 4 \alpha^2 +
({\Delta M}^2 ) t^2 \nonumber \\
& &
+4 \alpha (\sin(\delta) \cos(\phi))\Delta M ~t \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, the term due to CP violation is too small to be observable
when $\Delta M$ and $\rm{Im}(M_{12})$ are enhanced.
As experimental sensitivity improves and become
sensitive to mixing at the level $r_{mix}<10^{-4}$, it is possible
that better sensitivity to $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing can
be achieved by fitting the time distribution of
$\Gamma(D^0\to K^+\pi^-)-\Gamma(\bar{D}^0\to K^-\pi^+)$.
This rate, which will henceforth
be denoted $\Gamma(D^0(t)-\bar{D}^0(t))$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(D^0(t)-\bar{D}^0(t)) & = & 2 F(t) \times \\
&& \{
2 \alpha \epsilon (\cos(\phi)\cos\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t
- 2 \alpha (\sin(\phi)\sin(\delta))\Delta \Gamma ~t \nonumber \\
&& +4 \alpha (\cos(\delta)\sin(\phi))\Delta M ~t
+4 \alpha \epsilon (\sin(\delta) \cos(\phi))\Delta M ~t \} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the limit that $\Delta\Gamma<< \Delta M$ and $\phi$ is large,
this reduces to
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^0(t)-\bar{D}^0(t)) \cong 2 F(t)
\{
4 \alpha (\cos(\delta)\sin(\phi))\Delta M ~t
+4 \alpha \epsilon (\sin(\delta) \sin(\phi))\Delta M ~t \}
\end{equation}
or neglecting the small term proportional to $\epsilon \sin(\delta)$,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(D^0(t)-\bar{D}^0(t)) \cong
2 F(t) [4 \alpha (\cos(\delta)\sin(\phi))\Delta M ~t ]
\end{equation}
Note that in this case, the long lived tail of DCSD does not
contribute to the signal.
In addition, as noted by Wolfenstein\cite{wolf2},
for small values of $\Delta M$, the term proportional
to $\Delta M ~t$ will be larger than the
term in $\Gamma(D^0(t)+\bar{D}^0(t))$ which is
proportional to $(\Delta M ~t)^2$. This feature is illustrated
in Figs. 2~(a),~2~(b).
\section{Conclusions}
The formalism presented here must be modified
for the case of multibody modes such as $D^0\to K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$
or $D^0\to K^+ \pi^- \pi^+ \pi^-$. For these other modes,
an additional complication is that
the value of the final state phase difference, $\delta$,
may be different from the value in the case of $D^0\to K^+ \pi^-/
\bar{D}^0\to K^+\pi^-$
and is not guaranteed to be small.
It should also be remembered that limits on $D^0-\bar{D}^0$ mixing
from studies of
semileptonic decays do not have the complications from DCSD and
other hadronic effects discussed here.
At the present level
of sensitivity and with reasonable (though model dependent) values
for the phase difference $\delta$,
the $\Delta M~t$ term which arises
from FSI does not dramatically change the observed event yield for
experiments which study the time dependence of mixing and is not yet a
significant systematic experimental limitation.
We suggest that future experiments determine systematic
errors on their limits by using an upper limit on the phase difference
$\delta$.
The contribution
from the corresponding term proportional to $\Delta M~t$ due to
CP violation which arises
in extensions of Standard Model is highly suppressed. This
term is not observable at the present level of experimental sensitivity.
However, as emphasized by Liu\cite{liu1}
and by Wolfenstein\cite{wolf2}, this term should not
be neglected as
experimental examination of the $D^0(t)-\bar{D}^0(t)$ distribution
may allow more sensitive searches for $D^0-\bar{D^0}$ mixing
in the future if the CP violating phase is large.
This work was supported in part by the United States
Department of Energy under grant DE-FG 03-94ER40833 and by Tokkuri Tei.
We thank
G. Burdman, E. Golowich, J. Hewett, D. Kaplan, T. Liu, Y. Nir,
and M. Witherell for useful and enjoyable
discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:int}
The mechanism for breaking the symmetry of the electroweak interactions
has not been directly accessed in experiments thus far. One possibility
is that the Higgs boson is so heavy that it will not be produced even in
the next generation of colliders. In this case and in other strongly
interacting symmetry-breaking scenarios, it is interesting to
parametrize the symmetry-breaking sector in a model independent way
through the use of chiral lagrangians \cite{appel}. In this approach,
the low energy effects of new physics are represented by an infinite
tower of non-renormalizable effective operators which are consistent
with the $SU(2)_L \otimes U(1)_Y$ symmetry of the standard model (SM).
The lowest order chiral Lagrangian exhibits an universal behavior for
the dynamics of the electroweak interactions, being independent of the
details of the mechanism of symmetry-breaking. However, at the
next-to-leading order in the chiral expansion, there are 14 effective
operators whose coefficients are dictated by the underlying dynamics.
Among the next-to-leading operators, there is only one that is CP
conserving but parity violating \cite{apwu}. This operator also breaks
the custodial $SU(2)_C$ symmetry \cite{cust} and is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{11} = \alpha_{11} g~ \epsilon^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu}
\text{Tr} \left ( \tau^3 U^\dagger D_\mu U \right )~
\text{Tr} \left ( U^\dagger W_{\alpha\beta} D_\nu U \right )
\; ,
\label{lag:gz5}
\end{equation}
where the dimensionless unitary unimodular matrix $U = \exp ( i \xi^a
\tau^a / v^2 )$ contains the would-be Goldstone bosons $\xi^a$, $v
\simeq 246$ GeV is the symmetry-breaking scale, the $SU(2)_L \otimes
U(1)_Y$ covariant derivative is
\begin{equation} D_\mu U = \partial_\mu U + i~ \frac{g}{2}~ W^j_\mu \tau^j U
- i~ \frac{g^\prime}{2}~ B_\mu U \tau^3
\; ,
\end{equation}
and the field strength tensors are written in terms of $W_\mu = W^j_\mu
\tau^j$
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{1}{2} \left ( \partial_\mu W_\nu
- \partial_\nu W_\mu + \frac{i}{2} [ W_\mu, W_\nu] \right )
\; , \\
B_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{1}{2} \left ( \partial_\mu B_\nu
- \partial_\nu B_\mu \right ) \tau^3
\; .
\end{eqnarray}
The physical content of the above operator is more transparent in the
unitary gauge, $U = 1$, where the effective Lagrangian (\ref{lag:gz5})
gives rise to anomalous contributions to the triple vertex $W^+ W^- Z$
and to the four-gauge-boson vertex $W^+ W^- Z \gamma$. In the standard
notation of Ref.\ \cite{dieter}, we have the correspondence for the
triple gauge-boson vertex
\begin{equation}
g^Z_5 = \frac{e^2}{s_W^2 c_W^2} \alpha_{11} \; ,
\end{equation}
where we denote the sine (cosine) of the weak mixing angle by $s_W$
($c_W$). The expected size of $g^Z_5$ depends upon whether or not the
underlying dynamics respects the custodial symmetry. In models
with a custodial symmetry, $g^Z_5$ should be of the order of $10^{-4}$,
while for models without this symmetry we expect $g^Z_5 \sim 10^{-2}$.
At low energies, the bounds on this operator come from one-loop
contributions to meson decays and to the vertex $ Z f \bar{f}$. From the study
of the decay $K_L \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^-$, we obtain limits of the order
$g^Z_5 \lesssim 1$ \cite{kl}, while the precise measurements of
the $Z$ flavor diagonal couplings imply that $g^Z_5 \lesssim 0.04$
\cite{sdaw}. These bounds are obtained using the naturalness assumption
that no cancellations take place between contributions from different
anomalous interactions. However, a closer look at the interaction
(\ref{lag:gz5}) reveals that it is momentum dependent, and consequently
it can be better studied directly in processes at high energies.
The Next Linear $e^+e^-$ Collider (NLC) \cite{pal} will reach a
center-of-mass energy between 500 and 2000 GeV with an yearly integrated
luminosity of at least $10$ fb$^{-1}$. An interesting feature of this
new machine is the possibility of transforming an electron beam into a
photon one through the laser backscattering mechanism \cite{las0,laser}.
This process will allow the NLC to operate in three different modes,
$e^+e^-$, $e\gamma$, and $\gamma\gamma$, opening up the opportunity for
a wider search for new physics. However, it is important to stress that
the collider can operate in only one of its three modes at a given time,
therefore, it is imperative to study comparatively the different
features of each of these setups.
Previously, the phenomenological implications of the operator
(\ref{lag:gz5}) to the reaction $e^+e^- \rightarrow W^+ W^- Z $ at high
energies were analyzed in Ref.\ \cite{sdaw:ee}, which showed that it is
possible to obtain limits of the order of $g^Z_5 \lesssim 0.3$ for a
center-of-mass energy of 500 GeV. However, this sensitivity to $g^Z_5$
can only be achieved for a high degree of $e^-$ polarization. This
interaction was also studied in $e\gamma$ collisions in Ref.\
\cite{sdaw:eg} through the process $e^- \gamma \rightarrow W^- Z
\nu_e$, that will be able to lead to constraints $g^Z_5 \lesssim 0.12$
for a center-of-mass energy of 500 GeV and an integrated luminosity of
$10$ fb$^{-1}$. It is interesting to notice that the bounds obtained in
the above processes originate from the direct tree-level contributions
of the anomalous interaction.
In this work we examine the capability of the next generation of $e^+e^-$
colliders operating in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode to place direct bounds on
the effective operator (\ref{lag:gz5}) through the reaction $\gamma
\gamma \rightarrow W^+ W^- Z$ \cite{our,our:ano}. In a $\gamma\gamma$
collider, this process exhibits tree-level contributions from the
anomalous interaction (\ref{lag:gz5}) and contains the minimum number of
final state particles. We show that for a center-of-mass of $500$
($1000$) GeV it is possible to obtain bounds $g^Z_5 \lesssim 0.15$ ($4.5
\times 10^{-2}$) for an integrated luminosity of $10$ fb$^{-1}$.
\section{Results}
The most promising mechanism to generate hard photon beams
in an $e^+ e^-$ linear collider is laser backscattering. Assuming
unpolarized electron and laser beams, the backscattered photon
distribution function \cite{laser} is
\begin{equation}
F_{\gamma/e} (x,\xi) \equiv \frac{1}{\sigma_c} \frac{d\sigma_c}{dx} =
\frac{1}{D(\xi)} \left[ 1 - x + \frac{1}{1-x} - \frac{4x}{\xi (1-x)} +
\frac{4
x^2}{\xi^2 (1-x)^2} \right] \; ,
\label{f:l}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
D(\xi) = \left(1 - \frac{4}{\xi} - \frac{8}{\xi^2} \right) \ln (1 + \xi) +
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{8}{\xi} - \frac{1}{2(1 + \xi)^2} \; ,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_c$ is the Compton cross section, $\xi \simeq 4
E\omega_0/m_e^2$, $m_e$ and $E$ are the electron mass and energy
respectively, and $\omega_0$ is the laser-photon energy. The quantity
$x$ stands for the ratio between the scattered photon and initial
electron energy and its maximum value is
\begin{equation}
x_{\text{max}}= \frac{\xi}{1+\xi} \; .
\end{equation}
In what follows, we assume that the laser frequency is such that $\xi
= 2(1 +\sqrt{2})$, which leads to the hardest possible spectrum of
photons with a large luminosity.
The cross section for $W^+W^-Z$ production via $\gamma\gamma$ fusion can
be obtained by folding the elementary cross section for the
subprocesses $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow W^+W^-Z$ with the photon-photon
luminosity ($dL_{\gamma\gamma}/dz$), {\it i.e.},
\begin{equation}
d\sigma (e^+e^-\rightarrow \gamma\gamma \rightarrow WWZ)(s) =
\int_{z_{\text{min}}}^{z_{\text{max}}} dz ~ \frac{dL_{\gamma\gamma}}{dz} ~
d \hat\sigma (\gamma\gamma \rightarrow WWZ) (\hat s=z^2 s) \; ,
\end{equation}
where $\sqrt{s}$ ($\sqrt{\hat{s}}$) is the $e^+e^-$ ($\gamma\gamma$)
center-of-mass energy, $z^2= \tau \equiv \hat{s}/s$, and the
photon-photon luminosity is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d L_{\gamma\gamma}}{dz} = 2 ~ z ~
\int_{z^2/x_{\text{max}}}^{x_{\text{max}}} \frac{dx}{x}
F_{\gamma/e} (x,\xi)F_{\gamma/e} (z^2/x,\xi) \; .
\label{lum}
\end{equation}
The analytical calculation of the cross section for the subprocess
$\gamma\gamma \rightarrow W^+W^-Z$ requires the evaluation of 12
Feynman diagrams in the unitary gauge and it is very lengthy and tedious
despite being straightforward. We evaluated numerically the
helicity amplitudes for this process using the techniques outlined in Refs.\
\cite{bar:num,zep:num} in order to obtain our results in an efficient
and reliable way. As a check of our results, we explicitly verified that
the amplitudes were Lorentz and $U(1)_{\text em}$ invariant. The phase
space integrations were performed numerically using the Monte Carlo
routine VEGAS \cite{lepage}.
The total cross section for the process $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow
W^+ W^- Z$ is a quadratic function of the anomalous coupling
$g^Z_5$, {\it i.e.}
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\text{tot}} = \sigma_{\text{sm}} + g^Z_5~ \; \sigma_{\text{int}}
+ (g^Z_5)^2~ \; \sigma_{\text{ano}} \; ,
\label{base}
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{\text{sm}}$ stands for the SM cross section \cite{our}
and $\sigma_{\text{int}}$ ($\sigma_{\text{ano}}$) is the interference
(pure anomalous) contribution. We evaluated these contributions for
unpolarized backscattered photons imposing that the polar angles of the
produced vector bosons with the beam pipe are larger than $10^\circ$. In
Table \ref{sigmas:z}, we present our results for several $e^+e^-$
center-of-mass energies. The interference term vanishes since the
anomalous amplitude has a phase of $90^\circ$ with respect to the
standard model amplitude for an unpolarized initial state.
In order to quantify the effect of the new couplings, we defined
the statistical significance ${\cal S}$ of the anomalous signal
\begin{equation}
{\cal S} = \frac{|\sigma_{\text tot} -
\sigma_{\text sm}|}{\sqrt{\sigma_{\text sm}}} \;
\sqrt{\cal L} \; ,
\label{sig}
\end{equation}
which can be easily evaluated using the parametrization (\ref{base})
with the coefficients given in Table \ref{sigmas:z}. We list in Table
\ref{const} the values of the anomalous couplings that correspond to a
$3\sigma$ effect in the total cross section for the different
center-of-mass energies of the associated $e^+e^-$ collider, assuming an
integrated luminosity ${\cal L}= 10$ fb$^{-1}$. From this table, we can
learn that a $\gamma\gamma$ collider leads to bounds on $g^Z_5$ that are
better than the ones that can be obtained in the usual $e^+e^-$ mode.
Moreover, $\gamma\gamma$ and $e\gamma$ collider lead to similar
constraints on $g^Z_5$.
The kinematical distributions of the final state particles can be used,
at least in principle, to increase the sensitivity of the $\gamma\gamma$
reactions to anomalous interactions, improving consequently the bounds
on them. In order to reach a better understanding of the effects of the
anomalous interaction (\ref{lag:gz5}) in the reaction $\gamma \gamma
\rightarrow W^+ W^- Z$, we present in Fig.\ \ref{fig:1}--\ref{fig:3}
various representative distributions of the final state gauge bosons,
adopting the values of the anomalous coupling constants that lead to a
$3\sigma$ deviation in the total cross section.
In Fig.\ \ref{fig:1} we show the normalized distribution in the
rapidity $y_W$ of the $W^\pm$ for a center-of-mass energy of $0.5$ and
$1$ TeV. The distributions for $W^+$ and $W^-$ coincide due to the
absence of the interference term in the cross section. It is
interesting to notice that the anomalous coupling $g^Z_5$ enhances the
production of $W^\pm$ in the central region of the detector, where
they can be more easily reconstructed. Furthermore, increasing the
center of mass energy, the $W$'s tend to populate the high rapidity
region, as it happens in the process $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow W^+
W^-$. Consequently, the cut in the $W$ angle with beam pipe discards a
larger fraction of events at high energies.
The normalized invariant mass distributions of $W^\pm Z$ pairs are
presented in Fig.\ \ref{fig:2} for a center-of-mass energy of $0.5$ and
$1$ TeV. Once again the $W^+Z$ and $W^-Z$ curves coincide. From this
Figure we can learn that the presence of the anomalous interaction
increases slightly the invariant mass of the $W^\pm Z$ pairs since the
new couplings are proportional to the photon momentum. Moreover, as the
center-of-mass energy of the collider is increased, the distributions
broaden and shift toward higher invariant masses.
Figure \ref{fig:3} shows the laboratory energy distribution of the $Z$
gauge boson. As we can see from this figure, the introduction of the
anomalous interaction favors the production of more energetic $Z$
bosons, because of the new momentum-dependent couplings. At lower
center-of-mass energies the distribution is rather peaked around small
values for the energy of the $Z$ boson because of the available
phase space. However, as the center-of-mass energy of the collider
increases, the distributions broaden, exhibiting many $Z$ bosons with
high energies.
Up to this point we were able to demonstrate that a $\gamma\gamma$
collider can reveal the existence of an anomalous interaction such as the
one described by (\ref{lag:gz5}). However, the determination that the
anomalous events are because of this interaction is a much harder task. In
principle this could be done through the study of kinematical
distributions. Notwithstanding, several anomalous interactions lead to
distributions similar to the ones that we presented, see for instance
Ref.\ \cite{our:ano}. The effective operator (\ref{lag:gz5}) could be
singled out through the forward-backward asymmetry associated to
parity violation, however, this does not happen for unpolarized
photons since the interference term vanishes, see Table \ref{sigmas:z}.
Therefore, in order to determine which anomalous interaction is
responsible for the anomalous events we must employ polarized
backscattered photons. As an illustration, we show in Fig.\
\ref{fig:4} the normalized $W^\pm$ rapidity distributions for the
subprocess $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow W^+ W^- Z$ with $\sqrt{\hat{s}}
= 0.5$ TeV, assuming that one photon has a left-handed polarization
while the other is right-handed. As we can see from this figure, the
rapidity distribution for the $W^+$ and $W^-$ do not coincide, despite
the result being clearly $CP$ invariant. This a feature unique to the
anomalous interaction (\ref{lag:gz5}).
\section{Conclusions}
We analyzed in this work the capability of an $e^+e^-$ collider
operating in the $\gamma\gamma$ mode to unravel the existence of the
anomalous interaction (\ref{lag:gz5}). We demonstrated that for a
center-of-mass energy of $0.5$ ($1$) TeV and an integrated luminosity
of $10$ fb$^{-1}$, the study of the reaction $\gamma\gamma \rightarrow
W^+ W^- Z$ can lead to bounds $|g^Z_5| \le 0.15$ ($4.5 \times
10^{-2}$). These bounds are similar to the ones that can be obtained
in the $e\gamma$ mode of the collider and are better than the one
steaming from the usual $e^+e^-$ mode. Moreover, at higher energies
the luminosity of $\gamma\gamma$ colliders can be larger than the
corresponding $e\gamma$ because of problems in the construction this last
mode \cite{berk}. Consequently, the $\gamma\gamma$ mode will be the
most powerful one to analyze the $g^Z_5$ anomalous coupling.
\acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy
under Contract No. DE-FG02-95ER40896, by the University
of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds granted by the Wisconsin
Alumni Research Foundation, by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Cient\'{\i}fico e Tecnol\'ogico (CNPq), and by Funda\c{c}\~ao de
Amparo \`a Pesquisa do Estado de S\~ao Paulo (FAPESP).
|
\section{Introduction}
The Calogero-Sutherland (CS) models \cite{Calogero,CS,Moser}
describe one-dimensional quantum many-body systems with
inverse-square long-rang interactions.
Among many variants of the CS model \cite{rev-CS},
a class of models which are not translationally invariant
has been known over the passed years \cite{O-Pa}.
In particular the so-called CS model of $BC_N$-type
(abbreviated as the $BC_N$-CS model hereafter)
is the most general model with $N$ interacting particles.
The $BC_N$-CS model
is intimately related to the root system of type $BC_N$
and invariant under the action of the Weyl group of type $B_N$.
Namely, the model is invariant under coordinate transformations
\begin{equation}
\label{Weyl-group}
(q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_N)
\mapsto
(\epsilon_1 q_{\sigma(1)},
\epsilon_2 q_{\sigma(2)},\cdots,
\epsilon_N q_{\sigma(N)}),
\end{equation}
where $(q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_N)\in \mbox{{\bf R}}^N$
denote the coordinates of $N$ particles,
$\epsilon_j\in\{\pm 1\}$
and $\sigma$ is an element of
the symmetric group of $N$ letters.
Roughly speaking,
the Weyl group of type $B_N$
consists of the ordinary exchange of particle coordinates
and the sign change of coordinates.
As we will see below
the latter is understood as
the mirror image of particles with respect to a boundary.
Recent works have made it clear that
the $BC_N$-CS model is relevant to
one-dimensional physics with boundaries. For instance,
it was pointed out that
the non-relativistic dynamics of quantum sine-Gordon
solitons in the presence of a boundary is described by
the $BC_N$-CS model (with $\sinh$-interaction)\cite{K-S94}.
This model is interesting in view of the quantum electric transport
in mesoscopic systems\cite{B-R,Caselle}.
The Haldane-Shastry model,
which is the discrete version of the CS model,
with open boundary conditions
can also be constructed by utilizing
the root system of type $BC_N$ \cite{S-A94,B-P-S}.
We shall present further evidence for
the relevance of the $BC_N$-CS model
to our understanding
in one-dimensional physics including boundary effects.
In this article we will analyze
the long-distance critical properties of the $BC_N$-CS model.
Since the exact energy spectrum of the model
is available \cite{Nao94},
we may apply the method
of finite-size scaling developed
in conformal field theory (CFT)
to study the critical behavior.
The same technique has already been employed
when the critical properties of the CS model
of $A_{N-1}$-type were considered \cite{K-Y91}.
The universality class of the $A_{N-1}$-CS model
is identified as a Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid
which is equivalent to $c=1$ Gaussian CFT.
In what follows we will show that,
in contrast to the $A_{N-1}$-CS model,
the $BC_N$-CS model exhibits the critical behavior described by
$c=1$ CFT with boundaries \cite{Cardy}.
Hence the universality class will be found to be
a chiral Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid \cite{ch-TLL}.
In the next section
we first introduce the $BC_N$-CS model
and review the energy spectrum of
the model obtained by using the asymptotic Bethe-ansatz.
In section 3
we consider the thermodynamic properties.
In section 4
the finite-size scaling analysis of the energy spectrum
is performed. Finally, in section 5,
we discuss various critical exponents of correlation functions.
\section{The $BC_N$-CS model}
Let us write down the Hamiltonian of the $BC_N$-CS model \cite{O-Pa}.
We put the system in finite geometry with
linear size $L$ and impose periodic boundary conditions.
The Hamiltonian is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}
=
-\sum_{j=1}^N
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_j^2}
&+&
2\lambda(\lambda-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq N}
\left\{
\frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L}(q_j-q_k)}}
+\frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L}(q_j+q_k)}}
\right\} \nonumber \\
+
\lambda_1(\lambda_1 &+& 2\lambda_2-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L} q_j}}
+
4\lambda_2(\lambda_2-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L} 2q_j}},
\label{b-tri-hamiltonian1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\lambda, \, \lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$
are coupling constants
which are assumed to be non-negative.
It is clearly seen that the Hamiltonian
(\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian1}) is invariant
under the action (\ref{Weyl-group})
of the Weyl group of type $B_N$.
There exist several interaction terms
which will need explanation.
The term
$1/\sin^2(\pi/L)(q_j+q_k)$
expresses the two-body interaction
between the $j$-th particle
and
the ``mirror-image'' (we place a mirror at
the origin $q=0$)
of the $k$-th particle ($j\ne k$).
The term
$1/\sin^2(\pi/L)q_j^2$
may be interpreted as
the potential due to {\it impurity}
located at the origin.
The term
$1/\sin^2(\pi/L)2q_j$ describes
the interaction between
the $j$-th particle
and its own ``mirror-image''.
All these terms
required by
invariance
under the
action of the Weyl group
of type $B_N$
violate translational invariance.
Therefore,
the total momentum
is not a good quantum number for the $BC_N$-CS model.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian1})
can be cast into another form just by using
the elementary identity
$\sin 2A=2\sin A\cos A$.
One gets
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}
=
-\sum_{j=1}^N
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_j^2}
&+&
2\lambda(\lambda-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq N}
\left\{
\frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L}(q_j-q_k)}}
+\frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L}(q_j+q_k)}}
\right\}
\nonumber
\\
&+&
\mu(\mu-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\sin^2\frac{\pi}{L} q_j}}
+
\nu(\nu-1)
\left(\frac{\pi}{L}\right)^2
\sum_{j=1}^N \frac{1}{\displaystyle{
\cos^2\frac{\pi}{L} q_j}},
\label{b-tri-hamiltonian2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\mu=\lambda_1+\lambda_2$, $\nu=\lambda_2$.
In this form of the Hamiltonian
the term $1/\sin^2(\pi/L)(q_j+q_k)$ is regarded
as the boundary potential as before, while the last two terms in
(\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian2}) are regarded as the impurity potentials with
the strength determined by $\mu$ and $\nu$ respectively.
The Hamiltonian (\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian2}) is suitable for our
present considerations.
The eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian
(\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian2}) of the
$BC_N$-CS model
have been obtained by
one of the authors\cite{Nao94}\footnote{%
Precisely speaking,
this reference treated the case
with $\nu=0$ (the $B_N$-CS model).
However, we can easily obtain the formula for
the $BC_N$-CS model. The spectrum was also derived in
\cite{B-P-S}.}.
The energy spectrum so obtained is
shown to be reproduced exactly with
the use of the
asymptotic Bethe-ansatz (ABA) method
\cite{Nao94}.
Let us recall the ABA formula for the $BC_N$-CS
model. First of all the total energy of the system
takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{one-exc-ene}
E_N
=
\sum_{j=1}^N
{k_j}^2,
\end{equation}
where pseudomomenta $k_j$'s
satisfy
$k_1>k_2>\cdots>k_N>0$ and obey
the ABA equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{exci-rapidi}
k_j L
&=&
2\pi I_j
+
\pi
(\lambda-1)
\sum_{l=1,l\ne j}^N
\left\{
\mbox{sgn}(k_j-k_l)
+
\mbox{sgn}(k_j+k_l)
\right\}
\nonumber
\\
& &
+
\pi
(\mu-1)
\mbox{sgn}(k_j)
+
\pi
(\nu-1)
\mbox{sgn}(k_j),\hskip10mm j=1,\cdots,N,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\mbox{sgn}(x)=1$ for $x>0$, $=0$ for $x=0$ and $=-1$ for $x<0$.
Here
$I_j\ (j=1,\cdots,N)$ are
positive integers
with $I_1>I_2>\cdots>I_N>0$.
These are quantum numbers
which
characterize the excited states.
We emphasize here that, in contrast to the
$A_{N-1}$-CS model, the Fermi surface of the
$BC_N$-CS model consists of a single point.
This is due to the fact that
pseudomomenta $k_j$ which are
solutions to (\ref{exci-rapidi})
are distributed only over the semi-infinite region
as is shown in Fig.1a.
Therefore,
in view of the bosonization picture,
it implies that the
low-energy critical behavior
of the $BC_N$-CS model
will be effectively
described by
a left (or right)-moving sector of
CFT (see Fig.1b).
In addition to this, we also notice that
the form of our Bethe-ansatz
equations (\ref{exci-rapidi}) is quite close to that
appeared in the studies
of the nonlinear Schr\"{o}dinger equation
on the half line\cite{gaudin71,B-M88}
as well as the $XXZ$ model with
open boundary conditions \cite{H-Q-B87,A-B-B-B-Q87}.
The critical behavior observed in these
models \cite{gaudin71,B-M88,H-Q-B87,A-B-B-B-Q87}
is well described by boundary CFT \cite{Cardy}.
It is inferred from these points that boundary CFT
will play a role in our study of the $BC_N$-CS model.
{}Finally we rewrite
our ABA equation (\ref{exci-rapidi}) for further convenience.
As has already been mentioned,
all the pseudomomenta $k_j$ are positive.
However, one can make a trick so that
$k_j$ takes values in $(-\infty, \infty)$
as in the
bulk system.
To realize this let us define
$I_{-j}=-I_j,\, I_0=0,\, k_{-j}=-k_j$ and $k_0=0$
with $j=1,\cdots,N$,
then we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{extent}
k_j
&=&
4\pi\frac{1}{2L}I_j
+
2\pi(\lambda-1)
\frac{1}{2L}
\sum_{l=-N}^N
\mbox{sgn}(k_j-k_l)
\nonumber
\\
& &
+
\frac{\pi}{L}(\mu+\nu-2)\mbox{sgn}(k_j)
-
\frac{\pi}{L}(\lambda-1)\mbox{sgn}(2k_j)
-
\frac{\pi}{L}(\lambda-1)\mbox{sgn}(k_j),
\end{eqnarray}
where $j=-N,-N+1,\cdots,N$.
The last two terms
in (\ref{extent})
arise since
the summation in (\ref{exci-rapidi})
does not include the terms
$l=j$ and $l=0$.
Now the system
turns out to have
linear size
$2L$ and the number of particles
becomes $2N+1$.
Note that the density of the system
does not change.
This doubling trick is
known to be efficient when studying
one-dimensional physics
with boundaries \cite{gaudin71,B-M88,H-Q-B87,A-B-B-B-Q87}.
\section{Thermodynamic Properties}
The purpose in this section is to discuss
thermodynamics of the $BC_N$-CS model.
Let us first consider the
system at zero temperature.
All the states inside of the interval
$[-k_F,k_F]$ are occupied,
where the Fermi momentum $k_F$
is defined as $k_F=\mbox{max}\{k_j\}$.
The thermodynamic limit is taken by
$2L\rightarrow \infty,\ 2N+1\rightarrow \infty$
with the density $(2N+1)/2L$ fixed.
As usual we define the
density of states
by
\begin{equation}
\label{d-s}
\lim_{L\mapsto \infty}
\frac{1}{2L(k_j-k_{j+1})}
=\rho(k),
\end{equation}
and the sum is converted into integral
\begin{equation}
\label{integral}
\frac{1}{2L}\sum_{j=-N}^N (\ )
\mapsto
\int_{-k_F}^{k_F}dk\rho(k) (\ ).
\end{equation}
{}From
(\ref{extent}), (\ref{d-s}), (\ref{integral})
and
$\frac{d}{d x}\mbox{sgn}(x)
=2\delta(x)$,
it is shown that
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twice-aba-eq}
1
=
4\pi\rho(k)
&+&
4\pi(\lambda-1)
\int_{-k_F}^{k_F}
dk'\delta(k-k')\rho(k')
+
\frac{2\pi}{L}(\mu+\nu-2\lambda)\delta(k),
\end{eqnarray}
where the boundary effect
manifests itself
in the last term ($\sim 1/L$).
Notice that even for
$\mu=\nu=0$,
it still modifies the equation.
Upon taking the thermodynamic limit one can neglect the boundary
term.
The resulting
equation is the same as for the
$A_{N-1}$-CS model \cite{CS}.
Then it is immediate to get
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{density}
\rho(k)
&=&
\frac{1}{4\pi \lambda},
\\
\label{fermi-mo}
k_F
&=&
2\pi\lambda d,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have put $d=N/L$.
It is also straightforward to compute
the ground-state energy,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{energy-aba}
E^{(0)}
=
\sum_{j=-N}^{N}(k_j^{(0)})^2
=
2L
\int_{-k_F}^{k_F}
dkk^2\rho(k)
=
2L\cdot \epsilon^{(0)}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\epsilon^{(0)}=4
\pi^2\lambda^2d^3/3$
in the $2L \rightarrow \infty$ limit.
It is not difficult to extend the above analysis to the
finite temperature case.
At finite temperatures the
pseudomomenta distribute over the infinite region
$(-\infty,\infty)$.
One finds
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{twice-aba-eq-finite}
1
=
4\pi(\rho(k)+\rho^h(k))
&+&
4\pi(\lambda-1)
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
dk'\delta(k-k')\rho(k')
\nonumber
\\
&+&
\frac{2\pi}{L}(\mu+\nu-2\lambda)\delta(k),
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\rho^h(k)$
is the hole density.
Let $2L\rightarrow \infty$, then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{finite-tba}
\rho(k)+\frac{1}{\lambda}\rho^h(k)
=
\frac{1}{4\pi \lambda}.
\end{equation}Following now the familiar procedure,
we obtain the thermodynamic Bethe-ansatz equation,
\begin{equation}
\label{tba}
\epsilon(k)
=
k^2-\mu_c
+
(\lambda-1)T
\log
\left\{
1
+
\exp
\left(
-
\frac{1}{T}
\epsilon(k)
\right)
\right\},
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the temperature,
$\mu_c$
is the chemical potential and the energy
density $\epsilon(k)$ of particles
is defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{p-p-d}
\frac{\rho(k)}{\rho^h(k)}
=
\exp
\left(
-\frac{1}{T}
\epsilon(k)
\right).
\end{equation}
Performing the low-temperature expansion
of the free energy $F(T)$ which is given by
\begin{equation}
(F(T)-\mu_c(2N+1))/(2L)
=
-
\frac{T}{4\pi}\int_{-\infty}^\infty
dk \log(1+e^{-\frac{1}{T}\epsilon(k)}),
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\label{lte}
F(T)
\simeq
F(T=0)
-
\frac{\pi T^2}{6(4\pi \lambda d)}.
\end{equation}
The second term in (\ref{lte}) is responsible for the linear specific heat
$C$ as $T\rightarrow 0$.
It is well recognized that the coefficient in $C$
is universal modulo the Fermi velocity $v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}$
which is not universal \cite{B-C-N}.
In translationally invariant systems the Fermi velocity is
determined by the dispersion relation.
In the $BC_N$-CS model, however, one cannot rely on
the dispersion relation since the momentum
is not a good
quantum number.
So, in order to determine $v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}$,
we have to take another point of view.
As we observed, eqs.(\ref{density}), (\ref{fermi-mo}) and (\ref{finite-tba})
coincide with those obtained in the $A_{N-1}$-CS model.
Hence we may regard the $A_{N-1}$-CS model as the bulk
counterpart of the $BC_N$-CS model.
Since the $A_{N-1}$-CS model is described in terms of $c=1$ CFT \cite{K-Y91}
we assume that the central charge for the $BC_N$-CS model
is also given by $c=1$. Then, comparing $C$ obtained from (\ref{lte})
to the formula $C=\pi cT/(3v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}})$ \cite{B-C-N}
with $c=1$ we find $v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}=4\pi\lambda d$.
We shall see in section 5 that the finite-size spectrum is in fact in accord
with $c=1$ CFT.
\section{Finite-size scaling analysis}
In this section we perform the finite-size
scaling analysis of the energy spectrum of the $BC_N$-CS model.
To begin with, we summarize several fundamental formulas in boundary CFT
\cite{Cardy} which we will need to analyze the energy spectrum.
Let us first recapitulate the finite-size
scaling form of the ground-state energy predicted by
conformal invariance under {\it free boundary conditions}
\cite{B-C-N}
\begin{equation}
E^{(0)}
=
L\epsilon^{(0)} + 2f - \frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{24L}c \ ,
\label{fsscft}
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon^{(0)}$ and $f$ are, respectively,
the bulk limits of the ground-state energy density
and the boundary energy,
$v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}$ is the velocity of the elementary excitations.
The Virasoro central charge $c$
which specifies the universality class of the system
appears as the universal amplitude of the $1/L$ term in (\ref{fsscft}).
{}From the scaling behavior of the excitation energy one can read off
the boundary critical exponents $x_b$ \cite{Cardy}.
This exponent $x_b$ governs the power-law decay
(parallel to the boundary surface) of a two-point function.
Suppose a critical system on the half-plane
$\{(y,\tau)\in
\mbox{{\bf R}}_{\geq 0}\times \mbox{{\bf R}}\}$
with a surface at $y=0$.
($y$ is the perpendicular distance from a point $(y,\tau)$
to the boundary
and $\tau$ means the imaginary time.)
Let ${\cal O}(y,\tau)$ be a local operator.
We consider its two-point correlation function
$G(y_1,y_2,\tau)=
\langle{\cal O}(y_1,\tau_1){\cal O}(y_2,\tau_2)\rangle$,
which is a function of $\tau=\tau_1-\tau_2$ because
of translational invariance along the surface. For
$|\tau|\gg y_1,\, y_2$, we obtain
the asymptotic form of $G$,
\begin{equation}
\label{long-time-asymp}
G(y_1,y_2,\tau)
\sim
\frac{1}{\tau^{2x_b}}.
\end{equation}
To evaluate $x_b$ we have to examine the scaling law
\begin{equation}
E-E^{(0)}
= \frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}x_b
\label{ex-corr}
\end{equation}
with $E$ being the excitation energy.
It usually happens that the value of $x_b$ is distinct from that of
the bulk exponent for certain scaling operator.
In terms of CFT, the bulk exponent is expressed as
the sum of left and right conformal weights,
while the boundary exponent is equal to the left (or right)
conformal weight.
Let us now turn to the $BC_N$-CS model.
It is convenient to manipulate the ABA equations
(\ref{exci-rapidi}) directly.
We can easily solve (\ref{exci-rapidi})
to obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
k_j
&=&
\frac{2\pi}{L}
\left[
I_j
-
\left(
N-j+1
\right)
\right]
+
k_j^{(0)}, \hskip10mm j=1,\cdots,N,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{gra-rapidi}
k_j^{(0)}
=
\frac{2\pi}{L}
\left[
\lambda(N-j)+\frac{\mu+\nu}{2}
\right].
\end{equation}
The ground state is thus specified by the quantum numbers
$I_j^{(0)}=N-j+1,\ (j=1,\cdots,N)$, from which
we get the Fermi point $I_1^{(0)}=N$
and the Fermi momentum
$k_F=2\pi\lambda N/L+\pi(\mu+\nu-2\lambda)/L$.
The ground-state energy is then obtained as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{one-gro-ene}
E_N^{(0)}
&=&
\sum_{j=1}^N
\left(
k_j^{(0)}
\right)^2
\nonumber
\\
&=&
\left(
\frac{2\pi}{L}
\right)^2
\left[
\frac{1}{3}
\lambda N
+
\frac{1}{2}
\lambda(\mu+\nu-\lambda)N^2
+
\frac{1}{12}
\left(
3(\mu+\nu-\lambda)^2-\lambda^2
\right)N^3
\right].
\end{eqnarray}
We make a power expansion of (\ref{one-gro-ene}) with respect to
$1/L$ while keeping the particle density
$d=N/L$ fixed.
The result reads
\begin{equation}
\label{fss-gro}
E_N^{(0)}
=
\epsilon^{(0)}L
+
2f
+
\frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}
\lambda(\Delta N_b)^2
-
\frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{12L}\lambda,
\end{equation}
where $f=
\pi^2
\lambda
(\mu+\nu-\lambda)d^2$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta N_b
=
\frac{\mu+\nu-\lambda}{2\lambda}.
\end{eqnarray}
In (\ref{fss-gro})
there appear no higher-order terms with $L^{-m}(m\geq 2)$.
Note also the symmetric dependence
of $f$ and $\Delta N_b$ on $\mu, \, \nu$.
There are several points
which should be noticed in (\ref{fss-gro}). First of all,
besides the thermodynamic energy density $\epsilon^{(0)}$
already computed in (\ref{energy-aba}), one finds
the {\it boundary energy} $2f$
in the term of order $L^0$, which is due to the absence of
translational invariance in the system.
The next order corrections proportional to $1/L$ turn out to provide
valuable information on "boundary effects".
To see this, let us proceed a bit carefully by having decomposed the
$1/L$-contributions into the last two terms in (\ref{fss-gro}).
We first recall that the size-dependence of the interaction
is inevitably introduced for $1/r^2$ systems, as
seen in (\ref{b-tri-hamiltonian2}),
when dealing with interacting particles in finite geometry.
This gives rise to nonuniversal
$1/L$-corrections to the ground-state energy in addition to the universal one,
as observed in the $A_{N-1}$-CS model \cite{K-Y91}.
In (\ref{fss-gro}), therefore, we think that
the term $-\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}} \lambda /(12L)$ suffers from such
nonuniversal contaminations which,
in direct comparison with (\ref{fsscft}), yield the wrong
value for the central charge.
The other $1/L$-correction term, $\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}
\lambda (\Delta N_b)^2/L$, is
more interesting and understood as the
"boundary effect" which consists of
two kinds of contributions.
As seen from (\ref{extent}), when we convert the $BC_N$ system to
the {chiral} system by using a trick of mirror image,
we are left with particles moving only in one
direction feeling the {\it boundary potential}
depending on $\lambda$, in addition to
the {\it impurity potential} depending on $\mu$ and $\nu$.
These two types of scattering effects
are combined into a quadratic form with respect to
the "fractional quantum number" $\Delta N_b$
depending on both $\mu+\nu$ and $\lambda$. Note that
the quantum number $\Delta N_b$ physically represents the
phase shift due to the scattering by the impurity- and
boundary-potentials.
Thus our ground-state energy $E_N^{(0)}$ is considered as
the phase-shifted ground-state energy\cite{A-L94}.
If we imagine a hypothetical system which does not include these boundary
contributions, the corresponding ground-state
energy $\tilde{E}_N^{(0)}$ is written as
\begin{equation}
\label{new-b-e}
\tilde{E}_N^{(0)} = E_N^{(0)} - \frac{2\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}
\frac{\lambda}{2}(\Delta N_b)^2.
\end{equation}
Having discussed the ground-state energy in detail,
we next wish to calculate the finite-size corrections to the
excited states. Looking at the ABA equations (\ref{exci-rapidi})
let us create an excited state by adding $\Delta N$ particles to
the ground-state configuration. In this case,
we have the pseudomomenta
\begin{equation}
\label{p-n-c}
k_j= \frac{2\pi}{L}
\left[ \lambda(N+\Delta N-j) +\frac{\mu+\nu}{2}
\right],
\end{equation}from which we immediately obtain
the finite-size corrections to leading order in
$1/L$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{nun-dis}
E_{N+\Delta N}^{(0)}-E_{N}^{(0)} &\simeq&
\mu_c^{(0)} \Delta N + \frac{\pi}{L}
\left[ 4\pi\lambda(\mu+\nu-\lambda)d\Delta N
+ 4\pi\lambda^2d(\Delta N)^2\right]
\nonumber
\\
&=&
\mu_c^{(0)} \Delta N + \frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L} \lambda
\left( \Delta N + \Delta N_b\right)^2
- \frac{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}
\lambda(\Delta N_b)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mu_c^{(0)} =\partial \epsilon^{(0)}/\partial d
={k_F}^2$
is the chemical potential. Note that this expression for the finite-size
spectrum is essentially the same as that derived for the charge sector in the
Kondo problem (see (49) in \cite{fky}). If we redefine $E_N^{(0)}$ by
$E_N^{(0)}-\mu_c^{(0)} N$, we find
\begin{equation}
\label{s-fss}
E_{N+\Delta N}^{(0)} - \tilde{E}_N^{(0)}
= \frac{2\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}
\frac{\lambda}{2} \left(\Delta N + \Delta N_b \right)^2.
\end{equation}
Since any excitations which carry currents with
large momentum transfer are barred
due to the absence of translational invariance
in the $BC_N$-CS model, the remaining possible
type of low-energy excitations are provided by
particle-hole excitations labeled by non-negative integers
$n$.
The corresponding energy is simply obtained by adding
$2\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}n/L$ to (\ref{s-fss}).
Hence we have
\begin{equation}
\label{s-fss-all}
E - \tilde{E}_N^{(0)}
=
\frac{2\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}{L}
\left[
\frac{\lambda}{2}
\left(\Delta N + \Delta N_b \right)^2+n \right],
\end{equation}
where $E$ denotes the energy of the excited state
specified by $(\Delta N,\Delta N_b,n)$.
In the next section we argue that our result (\ref{s-fss-all})
is in accordance with the scaling law in $c=1$ boundary CFT.
\section{Correlation functions}
Now that we have evaluated the finite-size corrections it is possible to
read off various critical exponents using the scaling relation (\ref{ex-corr}).
When comparing our result (\ref{s-fss-all})
with (\ref{ex-corr}) we have to replace $L$ with
$2L$ since $L$ has been defined as the periodic length of the system.
Bearing this in mind let us take an operator $\psi_b$
which corresponds to the phase-shifted ground state.
This operator can be assumed to be the boundary changing
operator\cite{A-L94}. With this point of view, the phase-shifted ground state
is an excited state relative to $\tilde E^{(0)}_N$ in (\ref{new-b-e}).
The scaling
dimension of $\psi_b$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
x_{\psi_b}
=
\frac{L}{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}
\left(
E_N^{(0)}
-
\tilde{E}_N^{(0)}
\right)
=
\frac{1}
{2\xi^2}
\left(
\Delta N_b
\right)^2,
\label{bound-ex-gra}
\end{equation}
where we have put
$\xi=1/\sqrt{\lambda},\ \zeta=1/\sqrt{\mu+\nu}$, and hence
$\Delta N_b=(\xi^2-\zeta^2)/(2\zeta^2)$.
We next consider an operator
$\phi$ which induces the particle number change as well as the
particle-hole excitation
in the phase-shifted ground state. From (\ref{s-fss})
and (\ref{ex-corr}) we have
\begin{equation}
x_{\phi}
=
\frac{L}{\pi v_{\mbox{{\tiny F}}}}
\left(
E_{N+\Delta N}^{(0)}
-
\tilde{E}_N^{(0)}
\right)
=
\frac{1}
{2\xi^2}
\left(
\widehat{\Delta N}
\right)^2+n,
\label{bound-ex}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{modi-q-n}
\widehat{\Delta N}
=
\Delta N
+
\Delta N_b.
\end{equation}
Scaling dimensions
(\ref{bound-ex-gra}) and
(\ref{bound-ex}) take the form of conformal weights characteristic of
$c=1$ CFT. The radius $R$ of compactified $c=1$ free boson is taken to be
$R=\xi$. Let us concentrate on the self-dual point $R=1/\sqrt{2}$
({\it i.e.} $\lambda =2$) where the symmetry is known to be enhanced to
the level-1 $SU(2)$ Kac-Moody algebra. In the $BC_N$-CS model we have
the other continuous parameters $\mu, \, \nu$ which should also be tuned
to achieve the $SU(2)$ point. It turns out that $\mu +\nu =0,\, 1,\, 2,\, 3$
and $4$ with $\lambda =2$ are the desired points.
This follows from the following observations:
When $\mu +\nu =2$ we have $\Delta N_b=0$ and hence
\begin{equation}
x_{\phi}=\frac{1}{4} (2\Delta N)^2+n
\end{equation}
which is the conformal weight for the spin-0 irreducible representation
of the level-1 $SU(2)$ Kac-Moody algebra. When $\mu +\nu =4$ or $0$ we get
$\Delta N_b=\pm 1/2$ and thus
\begin{equation}
x_{\phi}=\frac{1}{4} (2\Delta N +1)^2+n
\end{equation}
which is the conformal weight of spin-$1/2$ irreducible representation.
When $\mu +\nu =3$ or $1$ we have $\Delta N_b=\pm 1/4$, thereby
\begin{equation}
x_{\phi}=\frac{1}{16} (4\Delta N +1)^2+n.
\end{equation}
This is the conformal weight for the unique irreducible representation
of the level-1 twisted $SU(2)$ Kac-Moody algebra \cite{twist}.
The highest-weight state with $x_\phi =1/16$ is a twist field in $c=1$
CFT. Several
$SU(2)$ points identified in \cite{B-P-S} are in agreement with our result.
Thus we conclude that
the low-energy critical behavior of the $BC_N$-CS model
is described in terms of $c=1$ boundary CFT,
{\it i.e.} the universality class of a chiral Tomonaga-Luttinger liquid.
{}Further considerations on the low-energy critical properties
of the $BC_N$-CS model require a clear distinction between two pictures
corresponding to two possible sets of quantum numbers. One is a set
of quantum numbers $(\Delta N,\Delta N_b,n)$ and the other is a set of
$(\widehat{\Delta N},\ n)$ where $\widehat{\Delta N}$ is regarded as
the ordinary particle number change in (\ref{bound-ex})
(forgetting about $\Delta N_b$ in
(\ref{modi-q-n})). The picture based on the set
$(\Delta N,\Delta N_b,n)$ is relevant when describing
the long-time asymptotic behavior
of the system in which we suddenly turn on the boundary effects
in the ground state. The X-ray
absorption singularity in the Kondo problem, for instance,
is considered in this type of picture \cite{A-L94,fky}.
The boundary changing operator $\psi_b$ is described
in this picture with $(\Delta N,\Delta N_b,n)=(0,\Delta N_b,0)$.
If we use the set $(\widehat{\Delta N},\ n)$ instead,
our picture is independent of $\zeta$
and adequate to compute the critical exponents of
ordinary correlation functions with boundary effects.
Let us consider the one-particle Green function
in the above two pictures. Let $(\Delta N,\Delta N_b,n)
=(1,\Delta N_b,0)$ in the first picture.
This choice of quantum numbers determines the
long-time asymptotic behavior of
the field correlator (the one-particle Green function)
when boundary potentials are turned on at $\tau=0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{scaling}
\langle \Psi^{\dag}(\tau)\Psi(0) \rangle_{{\rm sudden}}
\sim
\frac{1}{\tau^{2x_{G}}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{s-d}x_{G}
= \frac{1}{2\xi^2}(1+\Delta N_b)^2
= \frac{1}{8\xi^2}
\left(
1
+
\frac{\xi^2}{\zeta^2}
\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Here $\langle \cdots \rangle_{{\rm sudden}}$ stands for the expectation value
when the boundary potential is suddenly
switched on.
On the other hand, if we let $(\widehat{\Delta N},n)
=(1,0)$ in the second picture,
the field correlator takes the form,
\begin{equation}
\label{scaling2}
\langle \Psi^{\dag}(\tau)\Psi(0) \rangle
\sim
\frac{1}{\tau^{2x_{g}}},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{s-d2}
x_{g}
=
\frac{1}{2\xi^2},
\end{equation}
which describes the ordinary one-particle Green function.
In this case, the boundary critical exponent $x_{g}$
linearly depends on $\lambda$.
Contrary to these Green functions,
the density-density correlation function
is controlled by the excitations which do not change
the number of particles. Hence, it should have
the long-time asymptotic form,
\begin{equation}
\langle \rho(\tau)\rho(0) \rangle
\sim
\frac{1}{\tau^{2}},
\end{equation}
which follows by taking the quantum number $(\widehat{\Delta N},n)=(0,1)$
in (33).
Note that there do not appear anomalous exponents
in this correlator. One can easily see that this is also the case for
sub-leading terms $\tau^{-2k}$ in which
the quantum number is chosen as $(\widehat{\Delta N},n)=(0,k)$.
This fact will be confirmed shortly in the following.
We now compare our result with the explicit calculations of
the dynamical correlation function.
In the case $\lambda=1,\, \nu=0$ with $\mu$ arbitrary
which corresponds to the noninteracting system,
the dynamical density-density correlation function for
the $BC_N$-CS model
has been obtained by Mac\^{e}do \cite{Macedo}
(see also \cite{MIT}).
In the thermodynamic limit, the density-density correlation function
$G(y_1,y_2,\tau)$ has the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{auto-corr}
G(y_1,y_2,\tau)
=
\frac{\pi^4}{4}
y_1 y_2
&&
\int_1^\infty d u_1
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\pi^2\tau u_1}
J_{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(\pi y_1 \sqrt{u_1})
J_{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(\pi y_2 \sqrt{u_1})
\nonumber
\\
\times
&&
\int_0^1 d u_2
e^{\frac{1}{2}\pi^2 \tau u_2}
J_{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(\pi y_1 \sqrt{u_2})
J_{\mu-\frac{1}{2}}(\pi y_2 \sqrt{u_2}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $J_{\nu}(z)$ is the Bessel function and
$\tau$ is the imaginary time.
When $\mu=1/2+m\ (m=0,1,\cdots)$ it is not difficult to evaluate the
large-$\tau$ asymptotic behavior by making use of the series expansion of
$J_m(z)$. After some algebra we obtain
\begin{equation}
\label{special-case}
G(y_1,y_2,\tau)
=
\sum_{k=1}^\infty
A_k(y_j)
\left(
\frac{1}{\tau}
\right)^{2k}
+
\sum_{l=0}^\infty
B_l(y_j)
\left(
\frac{1}{\tau}
\right)^{l+m+2}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}\pi^2\tau},
\end{equation}
where
$A_k(y_j), B_l(y_j)$ are some functions.
As $\tau\rightarrow \infty$ with $y_1,\, y_2$ fixed, the second term vanishes
exponentially, yielding
\begin{equation}
\label{asymp-kappa}
G(y_1,y_2,\tau) \simeq \frac{A_1}{\tau^2}+\frac{A_2}{\tau^4}
+\frac{A_3}{\tau^6}+\cdots .
\end{equation}
Notice that the exponents are independent of
$m$ ({\it i.e.}, $\mu$).
The density-density correlation function is
considered in the picture based on $(\widehat{\Delta N},\ n)$.
Then we see from (\ref{bound-ex}) that all these exponents are
precisely understood in terms of the excitations
$(\widehat{\Delta N},\ n)=(0,k)$.
This means that the correlation function $G$
is dominated by the particle-hole excitations,
and hence there
is no way of depending on $\lambda$.
Therefore the result (\ref{asymp-kappa})
completely agrees with our prediction
by CFT analysis. We are thus led to conclude that
the power-law decay in (\ref{asymp-kappa}) is universal irrespective of
$\lambda$ (but with $\nu =0$ fixed)
though (\ref{asymp-kappa}) is verified at $\lambda =1$.
We stress that this remarkable feature in the density-density
correlation function is inherent in {\it chiral}
Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids \cite{ch-TLL}.
{}Finally we briefly mention possible applications to
the (chiral) random matrix theory\cite{Mehta91}.
Let us recall the $B_N$ Calogero-Moser model ($B_N$-CM model)
in the rational form \cite{O-Pa},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cm-model}
{\cal H}_{\mbox{{\tiny C-M}}}
=
-\sum_{j=1}^N
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_j^2}
&+&
2\lambda(\lambda-1)
\sum_{1\leq j<k\leq N}
\left\{
\frac{1}{(x_j-x_k)^2}
+
\frac{1}{(x_j+x_k)^2}
\right\}
\nonumber
\\
&+&
\mu(\mu-1)
\sum_{j=1}^N
\frac{1}{x_j^2}
+
\omega^2
\sum_{j=1}^N x_j^2,
\end{eqnarray}
with $\omega>0$. In the thermodynamic limit,
this model belongs to the same universality class as the $B_N$-CS model
which is equivalent to the $BC_N$-CS model at $\nu =0$.
The ground-state wave function for the $B_N$-CM model takes the form of
Jastrow-type \cite{O-Pa}
\begin{equation}
\label{cm-gr-st}
\Psi^{(0)}
(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_N)
=
{\cal N} \prod_{1\leq j<k\leq N}
|x_j^2-x_k^2|^{\lambda}
\prod_{l=1}^N
|x_l^2|^{\frac{\mu}{2}}
\exp
\left(
-\frac{1}{2}\omega x_l^2
\right),
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N}$ is a calculable normalization constant.
Notice that
$\Psi^{(0)}
(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_N)$
depends only on the $x_j^2$'s.
Then, introducing new variables $z_j=x_j^2$, one should note that
$|\Psi^{(0)} (x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_N)|^2$ is identical to the probability
distribution function for the eigenvalues $z_j$ of the
Laguerre ensemble when $\lambda=1/2,1$ and $2$
(with appropriate values of
$\mu$ and $\omega$) corresponding to the ensembles of orthogonal,
unitary and symplectic types \cite{Mehta91},
respectively.
Therefore, it will be very interesting if
the long-time asymptotic behavior of
correlation functions in the $B_N$-CM model obtained in the present work
is directly compared with the
results in the Laguerre random matrix theory.
In summary, we have investigated
boundary critical phenomena in the $BC_N$-CS model.
The boundary effects come from both
the impurity potentials and interactions
between particles and ``image'' particles.
Making use of boundary CFT, we have obtained boundary critical
exponents, and clarified the
critical properties of the $BC_N$-CS model
in terms of chiral Tomonaga-Luttinger liquids.
\vskip10mm
{\bf Acknowledgements}\\
T.Y. was supported by the Yukawa memorial foundation
and the COE (Center of Excellence) researchers program
of the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.
N. K. was partly supported by a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry
of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.
The work of S.-K.Y. was supported in part by Grant-in-Aid
for Scientific Research on Priority Area 231 ``Infinite Analysis'',
the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.
|
\section{Introduction}
Experiments on spinodal decomposition in polymer blends show that the
coarsening process may sometimes slow dramatically or even cease
before reaching equilibrium \cite{hasegawa88} - \cite{lauger94}. In
these systems, spinodal decomposition --- which is the process by
which a thermodynamically unstable mixture demixes to a stable,
phase-separated equilibrium state \cite{cahn} - \cite{glotzer95} ---
proceeds normally for some time following a quench to the unstable
region ($T<T_s$), and then stops. A break-up of the characteristic,
interconnected pattern is observed to precede this pinning phenomenon.
The nonequilibrium, microphase-separated blend has been observed to
remain in this pinned state over an appreciable time scale where
little domain growth occurs. The eventual breakup of the evolving
morphology into separated droplets is a natural consequence of the
asymmetric composition in an off-critical blend \cite{hayward87};
nevertheless, it may also occur in near-critical blends due to other
forces (e.g. gravity). Polymer blends in which pinning has recently
been observed for off-critical composition include X-7G/poly(ethylene
teraphthalate) (a liquid crystalline polymer/homopolymer blend)
\cite{hasegawa88}, poly(styrene-ran-butadiene)/polybutadiene
\cite{hashimoto92}, poly(styrene-ran-butadiene)/polyisoprene
\cite{hashimoto92}, and polybutadiene/polyisoprene \cite{lauger94}.
The specific mechanism responsible for pinning in these blends is
poorly understood, and is currently a topic of considerable
discussion. While there is general agreement that growth stops soon
after the breakup into separated ``droplets'' or ``clusters'' (a so-called
``percolation-to-cluster transition'' \cite{hashimoto92,hayward87}),
the mechanism that prevents further coarsening of disconnected domains
remains to be clarified. One intriguing scenario points to an
entropic barrier as the reason for the observed arrested growth of
off-critical phase separating blends. Kotnis and Muthukumar (KM)
\cite{kotnis92} have suggested that due to the connectivity of the
chains and the reduced conformational entropy near domain interfaces
\cite{helfand}, the usual evaporation-condensation mechanism
of coarsening \cite{lifshitz61}
observed in small-molecule mixtures is suppressed in polymer blends,
and instead coarsening occurs via parallel transport of chains along
the interface \cite{huse86}. Consequently, KM postulate that if the
concentration of the minority-rich phase becomes smaller than the
percolation threshold, the parallel coarsening mechanism will be
inhibited and the clusters will ``freeze'' after an initial growth
period.
Hashimoto and coworkers have instead postulated that the enthalpy of
mixing, rather than the entropy, provides the barrier to further
coarsening following the percolation-to-cluster transition
\cite{hashimoto92}. They argue that the increase in enthalpy of
mixing suffered upon removing a chain of species $A$ and degree of
polymerization $N$ from the surface of an $A$-rich domain is $\Delta
H_{\rm mix} \propto \chi N k_BT$, where $\chi$ is the Flory
interaction parameter, $k_B$ is Boltzmann's constant, and $T$ is
temperature. In the strong segregation limit $\chi N \gg 1$, and thus
evaporation of the chain from the domain surface, which would occur
with a Boltzmann probability proportional to $\exp (-\Delta H_{\rm
mix}/ k_BT)$, is highly unfavorable. Thus, when the parallel
transport mechanism is eliminated by the breakup into droplets,
coarsening ceases.
In this paper, we re-explore the kinetics of spinodal decomposition in
off-critical polymer blends described by the Flory-Huggins-De Gennes
(FHDG) free energy functional, through numerical simulations of the
Cahn-Hilliard (CH) equation. In Sec.~\ref{sec:theory}, we discuss the
CH-FHDG equation and the origin of the concentration-dependent square
gradient coefficient that has been proposed by KM to cause pinning in
off-critical blends. The discretization and numerical integration
scheme used to solve this equation, and our numerical results, are
presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:solution} and discussed in
Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}. Finally, a summary of our main conclusions,
and speculations on possible mechanisms of pinning in blends, is
discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Theoretical Model}
\label{sec:theory}
Model blends are typically described by the Flory-Huggins-De Gennes
free energy functional \cite{degennes80,pincus81,binder83}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{F\{\phi({\bf r})\} \over k_B T}= \int d^3r \left[{f_{FH}(\phi ({\bf
r}))\over k_BT} + \kappa(\phi)(\nabla \phi)^2 \right],
\label{eq:fhdg}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa(\phi) = {\sigma_a ^2 \over 36 \phi} + {\sigma_b^2
\over 36 (1-\phi)} + \chi \lambda ^2,
\label{eq:kappa}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi({\bf r})$ is the local concentration of component $A$ (so
that 1-$\phi$ is the concentration of component $B$), $\sigma_A$ and
$\sigma_B$ are the Kuhn lengths of the two species, $\lambda$ is an
effective interaction distance between monomers, and the Flory-Huggins
free energy is \cite{flory,huggins}
\begin{eqnarray}
{{f_{FH}(\phi)}\over k_BT} = {\phi \over N_A} \ln \phi + {(1-\phi) \over N_B}
\ln (1-\phi) + \chi \phi (1-\phi),
\label{eq:fh}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_A$ ($N_B$) is the degree of polymerization of chains $A$
($B$). Whereas in small molecule mixtures the square gradient
coefficient is enthalpic (arising from short range interactions
between molecules) and independent of the local concentration
\cite{fredrickson92}, De Gennes proposed that the connectivity of
polymer molecules in inhomogeneous blends manifests itself through an
additional, concentration-dependent contribution to the square
gradient coefficient $\kappa(\phi)$ \cite{degennes80}. The expression
for $\kappa(\phi)$ in Eq.~\ref{eq:kappa} was derived to be consistent
with the random phase approximation result for the inverse structure
factor of an incompressible polymer blend
\cite{binder83,edwards66,akcasu},
\begin{eqnarray}
S^{-1}({\bf q}) = {1\over {N_A\phi_o D(q^2R_A^2)}} +
{1\over {N_B(1-\phi_o) D(q^2R_B^2)}} - 2\chi.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $R_i^2$ is the average square radius of gyration of species $i$,
$\phi_o$ is the average value of the concentration
and the Debye function is $D(x) = 2[x-1+ e^{-x}]/x^2$, with $x \equiv
q^2R_i^2$. In the weak segregation limit, the interfacial width
is much larger than the chain dimensions \cite{fredrickson92}, so that
the length scales of interest are larger than $R_i$ ($q^2R_i^2 \ll
1$), and thus the Debye function may be approximated by $D^{-1}(x) =
1+x/3+O(x^2)$. The square gradient coefficient in Eq.~\ref{eq:kappa}
is then obtained from the coefficient of the $q^2$ term in the Taylor
expansion of the inverse structure factor, which is related to the
free energy functional by \cite{binder83} $S^{-1}({\bf q}) = (k_BT)^{-1}
\delta^2\!F/\delta \phi^2$, where the r.h.s. is evaluated in q-space.
Because of the approximations made in the calculation of the square
gradient expression, the Flory-Huggins-de Gennes free energy
functional describes the physics of blends in the weak segregation
limit, and on length scales much larger than the average chain
dimension \cite{binder94,fredrickson92,tang92}. In
strongly-segregating blends ($\chi N \gg 1$) for which $\chi$ is small
but $N \to \infty$, Eq.~2.2 with a different prefactor in the
$\phi$-dependent part is typically used \cite{tang92,roe86,mcmullen92}.
The local part of the free energy (Eq.~\ref{eq:fh}) has the same
Ginzburg-Landau type of double-well structure as small molecules or
Ising-like systems \cite{goldenfeld92}.
Thus, the only difference between the free
energy functionals for the simplest small molecule and polymeric
systems arises from the chain connectivity, which is expressed in the
FHDG functional through the reduction of the entropic part of the
local term, and by the $\phi$-dependent part of the square-gradient
coefficient. KM proposed that the entropic contribution to the
nonlocal part of the free energy, namely the concentration-dependent
square-gradient coefficient, provides the barrier to coarsening which,
when combined with the percolation-to-cluster transition, causes
pinning of the off-critical phase-separating blend. In the next
section, we re-examine the numerical solution of the time evolution of
the CH-FHDG equation for both critical and off-critical blends.
Specifically, we show that for this model pinning is {\it not observed} in
the continuum limit, regardless of the blend composition,
although a dynamical exponent slightly smaller than $1/3$ is found.
The theoretical description of spinodal decomposition in binary blends
is based on the Cahn-Hilliard-Cook equation for the time evolution of
the concentration, originally derived for small
molecule systems \cite{cahn,cook}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \phi \over \partial t} = \nabla \cdot \left(M(\phi) \nabla
{\delta F\{\phi\} \over \delta \phi}\right) + \eta({\bf r},t).
\label{eq:ch}
\end{eqnarray}
In this equation, $M(\phi)$ is the mobility, $F\{\phi\}$ is the
coarse-grained free energy functional, and $\eta$ is thermal noise.
For polymers, the free energy functional is typically taken to be of
the Flory-Huggins-De Gennes form in Eq.~\ref{eq:fhdg}, but more
general free energy functionals may be included.
In the following, we will always consider for simplicity a symmetric
blend, for which $N_A = N_B \equiv N$ and $\sigma_A = \sigma_B \equiv
\sigma$. In this case, the mobility
\begin{eqnarray}
M(\phi) = N D \phi (1-\phi)
\label{eq:mob}
\end{eqnarray}
has been proposed \cite{degennes80}, where $D$ is the self-diffusion
coefficient. We will also take the effective interaction distance $\lambda$
equal to the Kuhn length $\sigma$.
Substituting in Eq.~\ref{eq:ch} the functional derivative of $F$ and
the expression for $M$, the time evolution of the concentration is
given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \phi({\bf r}, t) \over \partial t} = N D
\nabla \left\{ \phi (1-\phi)
\nabla \left[ {1 \over N} \ln {\phi \over 1- \phi} + \chi (1- 2\phi) - \right.
\right. \cr \cr
\left(2 \chi \sigma^2 + {\sigma^2 \over 18 \phi (1-\phi)} \right) \nabla^2 \phi
\left. \left. + {(1-2 \phi) \sigma^2 \over 36 \phi^2 (1- \phi)^2} (\nabla
\phi)^2 \right]
\right\}.
\label{eq:chfhdg1}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that in Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg1} we have neglected the thermal noise
term. Since we are interested in the presence or absence of pinning
due to the FHDG free energy functional alone, and since it has been
shown that the presence of thermal noise in the analogue of this
equation for small molecule systems does not influence the scaling
function or the growth exponent during coarsening\cite{binder90,rogers88},
we will neglect noise in our simulations\cite{ctgm89,brown93}.
Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg1} can be rescaled so that it depends on dimensionless
space and time variables. The transformation, valid only in the
unstable region, is the following \cite{kotnis92}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf x} = {(\chi - \chi_s)^{1/2} \over \sigma} {\bf r}
\hspace{1cm}
\tau = {D (\chi - \chi_s)^2 \over \sigma^2 \chi_s} t,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\chi_s = 1/(2N \phi_0 (1-\phi_0))$ gives the spinodal curve and
$\phi_0$ is the average value of concentration.
(This rescaling differs from the rescaling commonly used in experiments
by a simple numerical factor.) After this transformation, Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg1}
becomes \cite{kotnis92}:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \phi({\bf x}, \tau) \over \partial \tau} = {1 \over 2 \phi_0
(1-\phi_0)} \nabla \left\{ \phi (1-\phi)
\nabla \left[ {\chi_c \over 2(\chi - \chi_s)} \ln {\phi \over 1- \phi} - 2
{\chi
\over \chi - \chi_s} \phi - \right. \right. \cr \cr
\left. \left. \left(2 \chi \sigma^2 + {\sigma^2 \over 18 \phi (1-\phi)} \right)
\nabla^2 \phi
+ {(1-2 \phi) \sigma^2 \over 36 \phi^2 (1- \phi)^2} (\nabla \phi)^2 \right]
\right\}.
\label{eq:chfhdg2}
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Numerical Solution}
\label{sec:solution}
The solution of this continuum equation (~\ref{eq:chfhdg2}, which was first
studied by KM\cite{kotnis92}, describes the time evolution of the
concentration field after a quench to $\chi>\chi_s$ in the unstable
region \cite{ctgm89,brown93}. The initial condition before the
quench, corresponding to high temperature, is given by a uniform field
with random fluctuations about its average value $\phi_0$. At early
times following the quench, the uniform concentration is unstable with
respect to the long wavelength fluctuations arising from the initial
condition, and the two components begin to spatially separate.
Domains rich in one or the other component form, and then coarsen so
as to remove interfaces and minimize the free energy. In
small-molecule mixtures described by, e.g., the Ginzburg-Landau free
energy functional, these domains coarsen until phase separation is
complete regardless of the relative composition and the presence of
thermal noise. Our goal in this paper is to determine if the same
is true for the FHDG free energy functional \cite{brown93}.
In the late stages of decomposition, the system can be characterized
by the evolution of the typical size of growing domains. The scaling
hypothesis \cite{binder74} states that this length $L$ (as calculated
from, e.g., the inverse of the peak position of the structure factor,
the inverse of the first moment of the structure factor, the position
of the first zero in the pair correlation function, etc.) evolves in
time according to
\begin{eqnarray}
L \sim \tau^{\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray}
The choice of one particular definition of $L$ is dictated only by
convenience. Numerical simulations,
experiments, and analytical results strongly support the
validity of the scaling hypothesis in small molecule systems, giving
in the absence of hydrodynamic forces the value $\alpha = 1/3$
independent of quench depth, relative composition, and the presence of
noise\cite{binder90}. While polymers are believed to belong to the same static
universality class as small molecules, the situation is less clear
with respect to dynamics.
To study the kinetics of spinodal decomposition in polymer blends, we
numerically integrate Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} via a finite difference
scheme for both time and space variables. The continuous space of
position vectors is replaced by $n^3$ sites on a simple cubic lattice
with mesh size (lattice spacing) $\Delta x$. The temporal
discretization is achieved by replacing the continuous time variable
$\tau$ by a series of $m$ discrete time steps of duration $\Delta
\tau$. The value of the concentration field at all sites at each time
step is then computed by a first-order Euler numerical integration
scheme \cite{numrecipes}, described in detail in the Appendix.
Although a large time step and mesh size would speed up the
computation, the mesh size must be chosen carefully so as to be
smaller than the smallest important length scale in the problem at all
times --- here the interfacial width, which decreases in time
until the latest stages of demixing. The size of the time step is in
turn limited by the mesh size. A time step that is too large could
generate instabilities and spurious solutions \cite{rogers88,numrecipes}.
Thus, these discrete variables must be chosen carefully in concert.
A linear stability analysis can be helpful in suggesting reasonable
trial values. If the algorithm is stable
with these values of $\Delta x$ and $\Delta \tau$, one can then vary
them to find optimum values and to ensure that the solution is
accurate and {\it independent} of the choice of these parameters.
We have studied the effect on the numerical solution of
Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} of changing $\Delta x$; $\Delta \tau$ is changed
suitably so as to maintain stability. The boundary conditions are
periodic in all three directions. Initial conditions are given by
random values of the concentration field, with average $\phi_0$ and a
flat distribution between $\phi_0 - \Delta
\phi_0$ and $\phi_0 + \Delta \phi_0$. $\Delta \phi_0$ has a strong
influence on the behavior during the initial regime, but does not
affect the late stage behavior. Therefore we fix $\Delta \phi_0 =
0.1$. Several realizations of the initial conditions were averaged
together for every set of parameters.
The phase separation is monitored visually in real space, and
quantitatively by determining the time evolution of $k_1(\tau)$, the
first moment of the spherically-averaged structure factor
\cite{glotzer95}; this is the inverse length that is used to determine
the exponent $\alpha$. For the purposes of comparison with previous
studies\cite{kotnis92,brown93}, we take $\chi$ to be related to $T$
(K) by \cite{wiltzius}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi = 0.326/T -2.3 \cdot 10^{-4},
\end{eqnarray}
and fix $T_c = 62\:^o C$. The system was quenched to temperatures
$T=54.5, 49$ and $25 \;^o C$ for critical composition ($\phi_o = 0.5$),
and to temperatures $T=35$ and $15 \; ^o C$ for off-critical composition
($\phi_o = 0.4$).
We first consider the solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} obtained with a
mesh size $\Delta x = 1$, time step $\Delta \tau = 0.01$ and $n = 32$
(Fig.~\ref{n=32}). This choice of mesh size gives, e.g. for $T=35 \; ^o
C$ and $\phi_0 = 0.4$, an equivalent dimensional mesh size of $\Delta
r \approx 6 R_g$, where $R_g$ is the average chain radius of gyration.
With these choices, we are exactly repeating the integration of
Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} previously performed by Kotnis and Muthukumar.
Our results reproduce their findings. For critical quenches ($\phi_0=
0.5$), after an initial transient, the system enters the late stage
regime, where $k_1$ decays in time with a power law. The exponent
$\alpha$ appears to be smaller than $1/3$, the value expected for
spinodal decomposition in small molecule systems and for polymer
blends in the intermediate stages of demixing (ie.~without
hydrodynamics). For off-critical quenches ($\phi_0=0.4$), domain
growth stops before the phase separation is complete.
Results change drastically when the mesh size is reduced to $\Delta x
= 0.5$, for which the time step must be reduced to $\Delta \tau =
0.002$ to maintain numerical stability (Fig.~\ref{n=64}). (Note that
in this case we must take $n = 64$ to keep the system size the same as
before --- $n \cdot \Delta x = 32$). This choice of mesh size gives,
e.g. for $T=35 \;^o C$ and $\phi_0 = 0.4$, an equivalent dimensional
mesh size of $\Delta r \approx 3 R_g$. In this case, the late stage
behavior is the same for both critical and off-critical quenches, even
after the blend undergoes the percolation-to-cluster transition.
After an initial transient, the late stage scaling regime is reached:
$k_1$ decays as a power law and no pinning is observed. The values of
$\alpha$ can be computed from the slopes of the curves in
Fig.~\ref{n=64} and are reported in Table~\ref{tab1}. In all cases
$\alpha$ is found to be greater than $1/4$ and smaller than $1/3$. We
believe that the latter is the true asymptotic value for this free
energy functional; the small systematic error may be attributed to the
crossover from the preasymptotic regime and, possibly, to the
numerical slowing down given by a still oversized mesh size (see
Sec.~\ref{sec:discussion}). Increased accuracy might be obtained by
using an even smaller value for $\Delta x$, but this implies a
suitable reduction in the value of $\Delta \tau$, and as a result, a
prohibitively large computation time.
The critical relevance of the mesh size to the late stage behavior of
the system is also evident from Fig.~\ref{comparison}, where a
``pinned'' state obtained with $\Delta x = 1$ is ``depinned'' by
reducing the mesh size to $0.5$.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}
The absence of pinning for small mesh sizes in our simulations even
for off-critical quenches clearly shows that what is observed for
$\Delta x = 1$ is not a physical effect but only an artifact of the
discretization. By integrating Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} via a
discretization scheme, we are actually changing the model under
consideration: the solution of the discrete model exactly reproduces
that of the continuum equation only in the limit where $\Delta t$ and
$\Delta x$ approach zero. For this reason one must always confirm
that the numerical results are independent of the values of the
discretization variables. In particular, it was recently shown
that an oversized mesh size can cause a
non-physical freezing of interfacial motion for systems with
non-conserved order parameter\cite{osher94}. ``Spurious pinning'' was
already noted by Rogers et al. \cite{rogers88}
in a conserved order parameter system, who showed that
for the Cahn-Hilliard equation with the Ginzburg-Landau free energy
functional, a mesh size $\Delta x >1.7$ causes an unphysical decrease
in the effective growth exponent.
In general, the solution of the discrete model should reproduce the
behavior of the continuum equation if $\Delta x$ is much less than the
smallest physical length modeled in the system. In the case under
investigation, we are studying a polymer blend in the weak segregation
limit ($\chi \ge \chi_c, \chi \ll 1$). The smallest physical length
that must be resolved is the interfacial width, which during the late
stages of phase separation is of the order of the correlation length $\xi$
\cite{fredrickson92}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi \sim {R_g \over (\chi - \chi_c)^{1/2} \cdot N^{1/2}} \sim {\sigma \over
(\chi - \chi_c)^{1/2}},
\end{eqnarray}
which is close to unity in rescaled units. Choosing $\Delta x = 1$
implies that we are resolving the system at a length {\it equal} to
the correlation length. The spatial derivatives at the interfaces are
consequently computed inaccurately with this mesh size, thereby
producing unphysical results. This picture is confirmed by
Fig.~\ref{profile} showing that when $\Delta x = 1$ the interface
appears only one mesh size wide. When $\Delta x = 0.5$ the interface
is smoother, and larger than the mesh size; hence no pinning occurs. This
effect also explains the low estimates of $\alpha$ for critical quenches
when $\Delta x =1$ ---
the sharpness of the interface unphysically slows down the evolution
of the solution, even if it is not sufficient to pin it. Possibly
also the results for $\Delta x = 0.5$ are slightly biased by this
effect.
It is possible to understand the origin of this problem in another way
by looking directly at the equation of motion. Consider for
simplicity a one-dimensional small molecule system (i.e. the
square-gradient coefficient $\kappa$ and the mobility $M$ are constant),
where the concentration profile goes from one bulk value ($\phi_1$) at
site $x_i-\Delta x$ to the other ($\phi_2$) at site $x_i+\Delta x$, through an
interface.
For the domain size to grow, the interface must move, and thus $\phi(x_i)$ must
change from $\phi_1$ to $\phi_2$. The driving force for this change
is the square gradient term in the free energy, which yields a
Laplacian in the functional derivative of $F$. This force must
overcome the double well potential given by the local term in the free
energy expression, as stated by the Cahn-Hilliard equation:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\partial \phi \over \partial t} = M \nabla^2 \left({\partial f \over \partial
\phi} - \kappa \nabla^2 \phi \right).
\end{eqnarray}
In the discrete version of this equation, the local part does not
depend on $\Delta x$, while the Laplacian is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla^2 \phi = {1 \over (\Delta x) ^2} \left[ \phi(x_i+\Delta x)+
\phi(x_i-\Delta x) - 2 \phi(x_i) \right].
\end{eqnarray}
When we increase $\Delta x$ the denominator grows indefinitely, while
the numerator is bounded above by $\phi_2+\phi_1- 2 \phi(x_i)=
\mbox{const}$. Then, increasing $\Delta x$
{\it decreases} the value of the Laplacian term, while the local term
is unchanged. For $\Delta x$ large enough
the Laplacian cannot overcome the local term, the solution stops
evolving, and the system artificially ``pins''.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In summary, we have shown that both critical and off-critical polymer
blends described by the Flory-Huggins-De Gennes free energy functional
undergo spinodal decomposition via the Cahn-Hilliard equation without
pinning of the domain growth as observed in some experiments. Even in
the absence of thermal noise\cite{brown93}, the solution of the
discretized equation of motion shows coarsening without evidence of
pinning, regardless of the relative concentration of the blend
components. We have also shown that previous solutions of the CH-FHDG
equation that exhibited pinning were artifacts of an oversized mesh
size used in the discretization and numerical integration of the
equation of motion, and {\it not} a result of the
concentration-dependence of the square gradient coefficient as
previously suggested \cite{kotnis92}. This suggests the FHDG free
energy functional alone, as written in Eq.~\ref{eq:fhdg} is not sufficient
to describe the physics responsible for pinning in real blends.
Evidently, a model able to describe the arrested growth observed in
experiments must include additional physical ingredients.
One should consider that experimental blends which exhibit pinning often
contain components which are not simple homopolymers; such is the case with
Hashimoto's random copolymer/homopolymer blends, as well as with
Hasegawa's liquid-crystalline polymer/homopolymer blend, in which the
liquid-crystalline component is anistropic at the quench temperatures
at which pinning was observed. These blends may not be describable by
the simple Flory-Huggins-De Gennes expression, and consequently we
should not expect the CH-FHDG equation to mimic their behavior during
spinodal decomposition. It is
also important to note that a significant fraction of homopolymer
blends never exhibit pinning, regardless of the relative composition.
However, for those that do, it is possible that either the mobility,
or free energy functional, or both, must be appropriately modified.
The simplified expression for mobility (Eq.~\ref{eq:mob}) used in the
CH-FHDG equation, which was originally derived only for the special
case of a perfectly symmetric blend \cite{degennes80}, may neglect
important contributions to mobility arising from the connectivity
within the polymer chains.
With respect to possible free energy
modifications, it is well known that interfacial growth can be slowed
or stopped by decreasing the interfacial tension. This can be achieved by,
e.g. using surfactants in the case of small molecules\cite{surfactants},
diblock copolymers in the case of polymers\cite{copolymers}, or impurities
in the case of alloys\cite{impurities}.
If the experimental blends contain even a small
number of impurities, or specific interaction regions that act as
impurities \cite{ggscs94}, these impurities could arrest the demixing
process and cause pinning. Finally, the FHDG free energy functional
in Eq.~\ref{eq:fhdg} describes incompressible blends; real blends are
in fact compressible. A coupling of concentration fluctuations and
density fluctuations may be responsible for pinning in blends
\cite{douglas}, in which case a reformulation of the free energy
functional as well as the addition of a second order
parameter field is necessary.
We are extremely grateful to J. Douglas, B. Hammouda, P. Gallagher, C.
Han, E. DiMarzio, G. McFadden, A. Coniglio, F. Corberi and J. Warren,
and especially to M. Muthukumar, A. Chakrabarti and G. Brown, for
useful discussions.
We thank the Center for Computational Science at Boston University and
the University of Maryland for generous use of their CM-5.
CC would like to thank the Structure and Mechanics
Group in the Polymers Division at NIST, and the NIST Center for
Theoretical and Computational Materials Science, for their
hospitality.
\section{Appendix}
The numerical solution of Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} is performed via iteration
of the following map:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi^{m+1}_{i,j,k} = \phi^m_{i,j,k} +
\Delta \tau {\partial \phi^m_{i,j,k} \over \partial \tau}.
\end{eqnarray}
This map, given the value of the concentration field $\phi^m_{i,j,k}$ at
time $m \Delta \tau$ at each of the $n^3$ sites of a simple cubic
lattice with mesh size $\Delta x$, yields the value of $\phi^{m+1}_{i,j,k}$ at
each site at time $(m+1) \Delta \tau$. Note that the mesh size is
taken to be the same in all directions.
The time derivative $\partial \phi^m_{i,j,k} / \partial \tau$ is given
by the discretization of the left hand side of Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2},
with spatial derivatives centrally discretized. This means the
chemical potential $\mu^m_{i,j,k}$ that appears in square brackets in
Eq.~\ref{eq:chfhdg2} is computed using:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\nabla \phi({\bf x},\tau)\right]^2 \to
\left( {\phi^m_{i+1,j,k} - \phi^m_{i-1,j,k} \over 2\Delta x}\right)^2 +
\left( {\phi^m_{i,j+1,k} - \phi^m_{i,j-1,k} \over 2\Delta x}\right)^2 +
\left( {\phi^m_{i,j,k+1} - \phi^m_{i,j,k-1} \over 2\Delta x}\right)^2,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla^2 \phi({\bf x},\tau) \to
{\phi^m_{i+1,j,k} - 2\phi^m_{i,j,k} + \phi^m_{i-1,j,k} \over (\Delta x)^2} +
{\phi^m_{i,j+1,k} - 2\phi^m_{i,j,k} + \phi^m_{i,j-1,k} \over (\Delta x)^2} +
\cr \cr
{\phi^m_{i,j,k+1} - 2\phi^m_{i,j,k} + \phi^m_{i,j,k-1} \over (\Delta x)^2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The divergence of the product $\phi (1-\phi) \nabla \mu$ is evaluated
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nabla \cdot \{ \phi (1-\phi) \nabla \mu \} \to
\left( {X^m_{i+1,j,k} - X^m_{i-1,j,k} \over 2\Delta x} \right) +
\left( {Y^m_{i,j+1,k} - Y^m_{i,j-1,k} \over 2\Delta x} \right) + \cr \cr
\left( {Z^m_{i,j,k+1} - Z^m_{i,j,k-1} \over 2\Delta x} \right),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
X^m_{i,j,k} =
\left( {\mu^m_{i+1,j,k} - \mu^m_{i-1,j,k} \over 2\Delta x} \right)
\left( \phi^m_{i,j,k} (1 - \phi^m_{i,j,k}) \right),
\end{eqnarray}
and $Y^m_{i,j,k}$ and $Z^m_{i,j,k}$ are defined accordingly.
|
\section{Introduction}
The basic measurement
in deeply inelastic scattering (DIS)
is a measurement of the cross section \proc{ep}{eH}
in terms of the structure function $F_2$,
where $H$ stands for any hadronic system.
A wealth of information upon the partonic structure of
the proton and its dynamics have been obtained from
structure function measurements.
Measurements of the properties of the hadronic final state $H$
provide complementary
information which cannot be obtained from
inclusive structure functions.
In the simple quark parton model (QPM) of DIS, a quark is scattered
out of the proton by the virtual boson
emitted from the scattering
lepton. QCD modifies this picture. Partons may be radiated
before and after the boson-quark vertex, and the boson may
also fuse with a gluon inside the proton by producing a
quark-antiquark pair (\fref{qcdgraphs}).
In fact, the parton which is probed
by the boson may be the end point in
a whole cascade of parton branchings.
This parton shower materializes in the hadronic final state,
allowing experimental access to the dynamics governing the
cascade.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(0.,30.){QPM} \end{picture}
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(120.,30.){BGF} \end{picture}
\epsfig{file=qpm.eps,width=4cm,
bbllx=50pt,bblly=483pt,bburx=522pt,bbury=771pt,clip=}
\epsfig{file=bgf.eps,width=4cm,
bbllx=68pt,bblly=435pt,bburx=289pt,bbury=661pt,clip=}
\epsfig{file=qcdc.eps,width=8 cm}
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(-230.,30.){QCDC} \end{picture}
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(-110.,30.){QCDC} \end{picture}
\caption{\em Diagrams for DIS in $O(\mbox{$\alpha_s~$}^0)$ (quark parton model - QPM)
and in $O(\mbox{$\alpha_s~$}^1)$:
boson-gluon fusion (BGF)
and QCD Compton (QCDC) processes.}
\label{qcdgraphs}
\end{figure}
HERA has opened a new kinematic domain to study QCD in DIS,
and most contributions in this working group were
concerned with HERA physics.
In HERA electrons of $E_e \approx 27 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$ collide with
protons of $E_p=820 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$, resulting in a centre of mass energy
of $\sqrt{s}\approx 300 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$.
The kinematic region covered with the present data is roughly
$10^{-4}<x<10^{-1}$, $7 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}<Q^2<5000 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$ and
$40\mbox{\rm ~GeV~}<W<300\mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$,
where \mbox{$W~$}\ is the invariant mass of the hadronic system, \mbox{$Q^2~$}\ the
negative 4-momentum transfer squared, and \xb the Bjorken scaling
variable, to be identified with the proton momentum fraction carried
by the scattering parton.
HERA offers the opportunity to study
the evolution of physics quantities over a large
kinematic range.
The large phase space available for hard QCD radiation,
which can be treated in perturbative QCD,
leads
to prominent jets observable in the final state.
Another area of recent interest
is the kinematic regime at small $x$ ($x\mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<} 10^{-3}$)
but sizeable \mbox{$Q^2~$},
not accessible at pre-HERA DIS experiments,
where
novel QCD dynamics are expected to play a r\^{o}le (e.g. \cite{levin}).
The two HERA detectors ZEUS and H1 \cite{detectors}
are large multipurpose,
``almost 4$\pi$'' detectors built around the beam line.
Inner tracking detectors
for charged particle detection are surrounded by a magnet and calorimetry.
Both the scattered electron serving as a tag for DIS events and the hadronic
final state are measured.
Note that a substantial part of the hadronic final state,
the proton remnant, leaves the detectors unobserved in
the beam pipe. The region close to the proton beam direction is
often referred to as the forward region.
Apart from the laboratory frame,
the hadronic centre of mass
system (CMS) and the Breit frame are used in the analyses.
The Breit frame
is defined by the condition that the virtual photon does not transfer
energy, only momentum. In the QPM picture the scattering quark would thus
just reverse its momentum of magnitude $Q/2$.
The
CMS is defined as the centre of mass system of the incoming
proton and the virtual boson, i.e. the CMS of the hadronic final
state with invariant mass $W$.
In both systems
the hemisphere defined by the virtual photon direction is referred
to as the current region, the other (containing the proton remnant)
as the target region.
The CMS current and target systems are back to back with momentum
$W/2$ each.
Longitudinal and transverse quantities are calculated w.r.t. the
boson direction.
With a longitudinal boost
from the Breit frame into the CMS, particles formerly assigned
to the target hemisphere may now end up in the current hemisphere.
Monte Carlo (MC) models based upon QCD phenomenology are used to simulate
the DIS process.
The MEPS model (Matrix Element plus Parton Shower),
an option of the LEPTO generator \cite{lepto},
incorporates the QCD matrix elements up to first order, with additional
soft emissions generated by adding leading log parton showers.
In the colour dipole model (CDM) \cite{dipole,ariadne}
radiation stems from
a chain of independently radiating dipoles formed by
the colour charges.
Both programs
use the Lund string model \cite{string} for hadronizing the
partonic final state.
Deficiencies of the Herwig parton shower model \cite{herwig}
have now been fixed
by adding matrix element corrections \cite{seymour,webber}.
This model implements an alternative
(cluster) fragmentation scheme \cite{cluster},
allowing for valuable cross
checks in the future.
\section{Jet physics}
The processes contributing to DIS up to first order in \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} are shown
in figure \ref{qcdgraphs}. The QPM process results in a so-called
``1+1'' jet topology, while the QCDC and BGF processes give
``2+1'' jet events, where the ``+1'' refers to the unobserved remnant jet.
{}From a measurement of the 2+1 jet rate at large
\xb and \mbox{$Q^2~$}, where the parton densities are well known,
\mbox{$\alpha_s~$} can be measured.
At small \xb and \mbox{$Q^2~$}, one can
determine the largely unknown gluon density from the
rate of 2+1 jet events,
which is then dominated by the BGF graph
(assuming \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} to be known).
Complications arise from the fact that
the initial state contains strongly interacting particles,
leading to the evolution of parton showers.
Such effects need to be taken into account with
the help of MC simulations.
\subsection{The strong coupling constant \mbox{$\alpha_s~$}}
Both H1 and ZEUS use the modified JADE algorithm \cite{jade}
with resolution parameter $\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$}=0.02$ to define jets in
the \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} analysis.
A pseudoparticle is introduced to account for
the unobserved remnant, and then all particles $i,j$
satisfying $m_{ij}^2<\mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$} \cdot W^2$ are merged into jets.
The chosen \mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$} value is a compromise between statistical
precision (small \mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$}), and controllable higher
order corrections (large \mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$}) \cite{graudenz}.
In the H1 analysis \cite{h1alphas}
an angular cut $\mbox{$\theta_{\rm jet}~$} > 10^\circ $ (w.r.t. the proton direction)
protects against
parton showers close to the remnant.
The obtained jet rates are corrected for detector effects,
remaining parton shower contributions and hadronization with the MEPS model.
In order to extract \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} from the measured jet rates, it is important
to take next to leading order (NLO) corrections into account to
reduce dependencies upon \mbox{$y_{\rm cut}~$} and the chosen renormalization and
factorization scales \cite{graudenz}.
Using
PROJET \cite{projet} as
NLO calculation,
the measured jet rate then yields measurements of $\mbox{$\alpha_s~$}(Q^2)$
in the range
$10 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}< \mbox{$Q^2~$} < 3000 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$, which can be seen to
run according to the QCD expectation \cite{h1alphas}.
However, below $\mbox{$Q^2~$}=100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$, the corrections are very model dependent
(MEPS vs. CDM). Therefore only data at $\mbox{$Q^2~$}>100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$
are used to extract $\mbox{$\alpha_s~$}(\mbox{$m_Z~$}^2)=0.123 \pm 0.018$ \cite{h1alphas}.
For 2+1 jet events with $\mbox{$Q^2~$}>160\mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$ and $x>0.01$,
ZEUS has measured the jet distribution in the
Lorentz invariant \mbox{$z_p~$} variable \cite{zjets},
which in the centre of mass frame
of the virtual photon and the incoming parton is an angular
variable $\mbox{$z_p~$}=\frac{1}{2}\cdot (1-\cos \hat{\theta}_{\rm jet})$.
Here
$\hat{\theta}_{\rm jet}$ is the angle of the
jet w.r.t. the
direction of the incoming parton.
Perturbation theory in next to
leading order (NLO) \cite{projet} is able to describe the jet
angular distribution
down to $\mbox{$z_p~$} \approx 0.1$. For
$\mbox{$z_p~$}<0.1$ an excess of jets is observed.
Both, the MEPS (LO matrix element + parton showers)
and ME (pure LO matrix element) simulations are similar to the
NLO calculation \cite{zjets}. The excess of jets at $\mbox{$z_p~$}<0.1$
is therefore unlikely to be cured by next to NLO calculations.
For the \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} extraction,
a cut $\mbox{$z_p~$}>0.1$ restricts the data
to a region well described by NLO perturbation theory and
QCD models \cite{grindhammer}.
The preliminary \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} measurements \cite{grindhammer}
for $100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$} \mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<} \mbox{$Q^2~$} \mathrel{\mathpalette\@versim<} 3600\mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$
demonstrate the potential of HERA to study the dependence
of \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} upon the renormalization scale,
and agree well with the QCD expectation (see \fref{as}).
It is expected that
already the analysis of the 1994 HERA data, once finalized,
will yield a very competitive measurement of $\mbox{$\alpha_s~$}(\mbox{$m_Z~$}^2)$.
\subsection{The gluon density in the proton}
The 2+1 jet sample (defined with the cone algorithm in the CMS)
in the range $10\mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}<\mbox{$Q^2~$}<100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$ is used to
extract the gluon density \mbox{$g(x_g,Q^2)$~}, because there the BGF
graph (\fref{qcdgraphs}) dominates
(BGF:QCDC $\approx 4:1$ \cite{grindhammer,h1gx}).
The momentum fraction \mbox{$x_g~$}
which the gluon carries is calculated from the invariant mass$^2$ \mbox{$\hat{s}~$}
of the
hard subsystem forming the 2 jets via
$\mbox{$x_g~$}=x(1+\hat{s}/\mbox{$Q^2~$})\approx \hat{s}/W^2$.
Special cuts remove events affected by parton showers
\cite{grindhammer,h1gx}.
The MEPS model is used to unfold detector effects,
the QCDC contribution, QPM background and
remaining parton
shower contributions.
The MEPS model
employs a cut-off for invariant parton-parton masses
$m_{ij}^2>\mbox{$y_{\rm min}~$}\cdot W^2$
to regulate
divergencies of its LO matrix element.
In order to access \mbox{$x_g~$} as small as possible,
\mbox{$\hat{s}~$} is chosen as small as experimental resolution allows,
and as problems with the diverging LO matrix
element can be avoided.
It has to be ensured that the
BGF events to be analyzed
are actually generated by the model and
do not fall below that cut-off \cite{grindhammer,h1gx}.
The H1 analysis \cite{grindhammer}
uses a fixed cut-off $\hat{s}>100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$ to define
BGF events, and they parametrize the MEPS cut-off such
as to follow
the limit
at which the order \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} contribution
exceeds the total cross section
within a margin of $\Delta \sqrt{\hat{s}} = 2 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$.
ZEUS uses the standard \mbox{$y_{\rm min}~$} cut-off scheme in the MEPS model and defines
BGF events via $\hat{s}>\mbox{$y_{\rm min}~$} \cdot W^2$. The parameter \mbox{$y_{\rm min}~$} is then
varied between 0.0025 and 0.01
to study its influence on the result.
The H1 and ZEUS results \cite{grindhammer}
agree well with each other,
but yield different size systematic errors
(figure~\ref{xgluon}).
The ZEUS errors receive large contributions from the \mbox{$y_{\rm min}~$} variation.
The
rise of the measured gluon density
towards small \xb
can be
described by a LO gluon density \cite{grv} following the
DGLAP (Dokshitzer-Gribov-Lipatov-Altarelli-Parisi)
\cite{dglap} equations.
The data are also consistent with the indirect
determination of \mbox{$g(x_g,Q^2)$~} from the scaling violations of $F_2$ \cite{qcdfit},
providing a non-trivial test of QCD.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=alphas.ps,width=7cm,
bbllx=52pt,bblly=188pt,bburx=494pt,bbury=610pt,clip=}
\caption{\em
Preliminary $\mbox{$\alpha_s~$} (Q)$ measurements from ZEUS,
compared to the QCD predictions
corresponding to \mbox{$\Lambda_{\rm \bar{MS}}~$} =~100, 200 and 300~GeV.}
\label{as}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(160.,55.){prelim.} \end{picture}
\epsfig{file=gx.ps,width=7cm,
bbllx=25pt,bblly=291pt,bburx=520pt,bbury=631pt,clip=}
\caption{\em
The gluon density in the proton, determined in leading order (LO)
from the rate
of 2+1 jet events. Shown are data from H1 and ZEUS, compared
to the LO GRV \protect\cite{grv} gluon density parametrization.}
\label{xgluon}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Open Points}
Lack of understanding of parton showers close to the remnant
(model dependent corrections, failure of NLO calculations)
currently prevents
the \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} analysis to make full use of the large statistics data at
$\mbox{$Q^2~$} < 100 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$.
Though increasing HERA luminosity
will allow the \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} analysis to be restricted to
higher \mbox{$Q^2~$} to reduce uncertainties,
the understanding of the forward region remains a challenge.
So far the \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} measurements rely solely upon the JADE algorithm,
being the only algorithm for which NLO jet cross sections are
calculated \cite{nlo}.
NLO calculations
for other algorithms, such as the cone \cite{cone}
or the theoretically preferred $k_T$ \cite{kt} algorithm
are desirable.
Such a program,
which would also be able to calculate
event shape variables
like energy-energy correlations, Thrust, etc.,
is being worked upon by D. Graudenz, but results
cannot be expected in a short term.
Theoretical uncertainties could also be reduced by resumming
higher order corrections.
The validity of corrections from hadronic to partonic
final states, defined either in LO or NLO,
need to be checked with models based upon different
parton shower and hadronization schemes.
Unfortunately, a MC generator incorporating the QCD matrix
elements beyond LO is missing.
The gluon density has so far been determined in LO. A method
allowing a measurement in NLO is presently under study \cite{graudenz}.
How can \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} be determined consistently, considering it is input
for the evolution of parton densities which are used
in the analysis \cite{vogt}?
\section{Novel QCD dynamics}
The observed strong rise of the structure function $F_2$ towards small
$x$ \cite{f2}
has caused much debate on whether the QCD evolution of the
parton densities can still be described by the conventional
DGLAP \cite{dglap} equations, or whether the HERA data extend into a new regime
at small $x$ where the dynamics is governed by the BFKL
(Balitsky-Fadin-Kuraev-Lipatov) \cite{bfkl} equation.
It would be extremely interesting to test QCD in such a new regime.
While the rise is consistent with the expectation from BFKL dynamics,
it can however also be described by a DGLAP evolution \cite{akms}.
At lowest order the BFKL and DGLAP equations resum the leading
logarithmic $(\mbox{$\alpha_s~$} \ln 1/x)^n$ or $(\mbox{$\alpha_s~$} \ln (\mbox{$Q^2~$}/ Q_0^2))^n$ contributions
respectively. In this approximation the leading diagrams are of the
ladder type (\fref{cascade}). The leading log
DGLAP ansatz corresponds to a strong
ordering of the transverse momenta \mbox{$k_T~$} (w.r.t. the proton beam)
in the parton cascade
($Q_0^2 \ll \mbox{$k_T~$}_1^2 \ll ... \mbox{$k_T~$}_j^2 \ll ... \mbox{$Q^2~$}$),
while
there is no such ordering in the BFKL ansatz
($\mbox{$k_T~$}_j^2 \approx \mbox{$k_T~$}_{j+1}^2$)
\cite{ordering}.
Measurements on the hadronic final state emerging from the cascade
therefore offer another handle to search for signatures of the BFKL
behaviour.
They are compared to analytical calculations as
well as to the QCD models MEPS and CDM.
The CDM description
of gluon emission is similar to that of the BFKL evolution,
because the gluons emitted by the dipoles
do not obey strong ordering in \mbox{$k_T~$}~\cite{bfklcdm}.
The MEPS model with its leading log parton shower is
based upon DGLAP dynamics, and the emitted partons
are thus ordered in \mbox{$k_T~$}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\epsfig{file=cascade.eps,width=2cm}
\caption{\em
Parton evolution in the ladder approximation.
The selection of forward jets in DIS events is illustrated.}
\label{cascade}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Transverse Energy Production}
As a consequence of the strong \mbox{$k_T~$} ordering the DGLAP
evolution is expected to produce less transverse energy \mbox{$E_T~$} in a
region between the current region and the proton remnant
than the BFKL evolution \cite{durham}.
H1 and ZEUS have measured the flow of transverse
energy in the laboratory frame
as a function of pseudorapidity $\eta = - \ln \tan (\theta/2)$,
where $\theta$ is the angle of the energy deposition w.r.t the
proton beam axis \cite{h1flow2,haas,h1flow3}.
The measurements are made
for varying ranges in \xb
($2 \mbox{$\cdot 10^{-4}$} < \av{\xb} < 5 \mbox{$\cdot 10^{-3}$}$)
and \mbox{$Q^2~$}
($7\mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$} < \av{\mbox{$Q^2~$}} < 30 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$
and agree well between the experiments
\cite{haas}.
The \mbox{$E_T~$} flows
for large \xb and \mbox{$Q^2~$} are reasonably well described by MEPS and CDM.
For smaller \xb and \mbox{$Q^2~$}
both models predict a more pronounced enhancement
in the current fragmentation region than is seen in the data.
Between the current
system and the proton remnant
(the lab. forward region),
the data are reasonably well described
by the CDM, while the MEPS model produces too little \mbox{$E_T~$} \cite{h1flow2,haas}.
This intermediate region is expanded in \fref{et93},
because there perturbative calculations,
based either on DGLAP or on BFKL dynamics, are available \cite{durham}.
The BFKL calculation comes out
close to the data, while the DGLAP calculation predicts
much less \mbox{$E_T~$}.
However, the non-perturbative hadronization phase is missing
in these calculations.
\ffig{et93.eps}{60mm}
{\em Transverse energy flow in the forward region at H1
\protect\cite{h1flow2}
and ZEUS \protect\cite{haas} for $x<10^{-3}$.
The proton direction is to the right. The calorimeter acceptances
end at $\eta$ around 3.5.
The data are compared to the CDM (here labelled CDMBGF)
and MEPS models and to partonic
calculations based upon the DGLAP and BFKL equations
\protect\cite{durham}.}
{et93}
H1 has determined the average \mbox{$E_T~$},
measured centrally
in the CMS
as a function of \xb and \mbox{$Q^2~$} (\fref{etx}).
They find an increase of \av{\mbox{$E_T~$}} with decreasing \xb,
which is a characteristic BFKL prediction \cite{durham}.
The data are
in agreement with the BFKL calculation \cite{sutton}, if one assumes
an \mbox{$E_T~$} contribution from hadronization of about 0.4 GeV per unit rapidity
(independent of \xb). That estimate is taken from
the CDM, which agrees with the BFKL calculation at the parton level.
\ffig{etx.eps}{60mm}
{\em Transverse energy \av{\mbox{$E_T~$}} per unit of pseudorapidity $\eta^\ast$
as a function of \xb for three different
values of \mbox{$Q^2~$},
measured centrally at $\eta^\ast = 0$
in the CMS (corresponding to the lab. forward region).
The data are compared to the CDM and MEPS models including
hadronization, and to the BFKL calculation (no hadronization).}
{etx}
The apparent failure of the MEPS model
has caused many questions
about its ingredients: the way the parton shower is ``matched'' to
the matrix element, the colour connection between the current and the
remnant system and its effect upon hadronization, and the remnant
fragmentation itself which is little tested.
It seems that re-arranging colour configurations can produce
enough \mbox{$E_T~$} through hadronization to compensate the \mbox{$E_T~$} deficit
in the DGLAP cascade of the MEPS model \cite{ingelman}.
A MEPS version thus modified should be available soon for
detailed testing.
The flexibility in the hadronization modelling presently
precludes unambiguous tests of the DGLAP evolution through
\mbox{$E_T~$} measurements.
For
the same reasons the intriguing success of the CDM without \mbox{$k_T~$} ordering
may be fortuitous.
A MC model invoking explicitly the BFKL evolution,
currently being developed by K. Golec-Biernat et al.,
would help interpreting the data.
In any case, the \mbox{$E_T~$} data provide important input for QCD
phenomenology.
\subsection{Forward Jets}
At present strong conclusions upon the validity of the BFKL or DGLAP
parton evolutions at small $x$ from the \mbox{$E_T~$} measurements are hampered
by the uncertainties about hadronization.
Jet production should be less affected by hadronization. A signature
for BFKL dynamics proposed by \cite{mueller} is the production of
``forward jets'' with $\mbox{$x_{\rm jet}$}=\mbox{$E_{\rm jet}$}/E_p$, the ratio of jet energy and
proton beam energy,
as large as possible, and with
transverse momentum \mbox{$k_{T {\rm jet}}$} ~close to \mbox{$Q~$} in order to reduce the phase
space for the \mbox{$k_T~$} ordered DGLAP evolution (see \fref{cascade}).
An enhanced rate of events with such jets is thus expected in the BFKL
scheme \cite{mueller,dhotref}.
The experimental difficulty is to detect these
``forward'' jets which are close to the beam hole in proton
direction.
The rate of forward jets measured by H1 \cite{deroeck,h1flow3}
(\fref{fwdjets})
is larger at low \xb
than at high $x$.
This is expected from BFKL
calculations, in contrast
to calculations without BFKL ladder \cite{dhotref,delduca}.
The behaviour of the data is better represented by the CDM
than by the MEPS model.
However, neither of them describe the
energy spectrum of the observed jets correctly, and the model predictions
for the jet rates are thus cut dependent \cite{deroeck,h1flow3}.
The analysis of a larger
statistics sample should allow more firm conclusions.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(40.,40.){preliminary} \end{picture}
\epsfig{file=fwdjets.eps,width=5cm}
\caption{\em
The rate of forward jets
(selected with $\mbox{$x_{\rm jet}$}>0.025$,
$0.5 < \mbox{$k_{T {\rm jet}}$}^2/\mbox{$Q^2~$} <4$ and $\mbox{$k_{T {\rm jet}}$}>5 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$) in the kinematic
range $2 \mbox{$\cdot 10^{-4}$} < \xb < 2 \mbox{$\cdot 10^{-3}$}$ and $\mbox{$Q^2~$} \approx 20 \mbox{${\rm ~GeV}^2~$}$.
The measurement is compared to the CDM and MEPS models.}
\label{fwdjets}
\end{figure}
ZEUS has measured an inclusive jet cross section
${\rm d}\sigma / {\rm d} \mbox{$E_{T {\rm jet}}$}$ in the Breit frame \cite{deroeck}.
Many more jets are found in the target region with a harder \mbox{$E_{T {\rm jet}}$}~
spectrum than in the current region, reflecting the differences
in phase space in the two regions.
The current region data are reasonably well described by the
CDM and MEPS models.
In the target region however there is a substantial excess of
jets over the model predictions,
which can be linked with an excess of $2+1$ jet events \cite{deroeck}.
In the laboratory frame
this excess is located in the forward region at angles
$\theta_{\rm jet}<20^\circ$ (\fref{thjet}).
The data on jet production in the forward region
(lab. frame), or the target region (Breit frame)
certainly pose a challenge to theory.
So far cross sections are calculated
\cite{dhotref,delduca} only for partons, while
experiments measure
hadron jets.
This gap has to be bridged from both sides to
allow a strictly valid comparison.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\vspace{-3.8cm}
\begin{picture}(1,1) \put(80.,90.){ZEUS preliminary} \end{picture}
\epsfig{file=thnew.ps,width=8cm,
bbllx=22pt,bblly=165pt,bburx=522pt,bbury=645pt,clip=}
\caption{\em
The laboratory angular distribution of jets detected either in
the Breit current or target hemisphere.}
\label{thjet}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Jet correlations}
Apart from calculations of forward jet rates, Del Duca \cite{delduca}
discussed
angular correlations for forward jets.
If a BFKL ladder is inserted in between the electron-photon vertex
and the forward jet,
the angular correlation between the forward jet and the electron
imposed by momentum conservation is relaxed.
Such angular decorrelation could be another footprint of BFKL dynamics.
The fact that 4\% of the H1 forward jet events contain a second
forward jet \cite{deroeck}
opens another route of investigation, namely correlations
between such jets.
If these jets can be identified with gluons emitted from
the ladder, it would be possible to check the parton ordering
directly.
\subsection{Dipole emission}
An interesting ansatz
to calculate final state observables was
presented by R. Peschanski \cite{peschanski}.
The starting point is
onium-onium scattering \cite{onium}
with onium wave functions which can be
derived from QCD. Such a reaction is analogous to an interaction
of the current system with the remnant system in DIS.
Radiation is treated in the dipole picture, leading to a copious
production of dipoles in the central rapidity region of the interaction.
Once such an ansatz yields
quantitative predictions,
it could be tested in DIS, e.g.
with \mbox{$E_T~$} flow measurements.
Bo Andersson \cite{andersson}
discussed DIS final states in terms of a chain
of radiating colour dipoles, and its connection with
the Ciafaloni-Catani-Fiorini-Marchesini ansatz \cite{ccfm}.
In principle this model could provide
a complete picture of the hadronic final state in DIS.
The implementation in the Ariadne
\cite{ariadne} MC generator is in progress
to allow detailed predictions.
\subsection{QCD Instantons}
The
standard model contains processes which cannot be
described by perturbation theory, and which violate
classical conservation laws like baryon and lepton number
in the case of the electroweak sector and chirality for
the strong interaction \cite{thooft}.
Such anomalous processes are induced by instantons \cite{belavin}.
At HERA, QCD instantons may lead to observable effects
in the hadronic final state in DIS \cite{ringwald,schrempp},
which were discussed by F. Schrempp.
The instanton should decay isotropically into a high
multiplicity state of gluons and all quark flavours
simultaneously which are kinematically allowed.
A MC program to simulate instanton events
has become available \cite{gibbs}.
Due to the isotropic decay, one expects a densely populated
region in rapidity, other than the current jet, which is
isotropic in azimuth. The presence of strangeness and charm
could provide an additional signature.
However remote the a priori chances to see such signals may appear,
here is a chance for a major discovery at HERA!
\section{Charged Particle Spectra}
The H1 and ZEUS measurements of inclusive charged particle spectra \cite{pavel}
are performed either in the Breit
frame or in the CMS.
In the Breit frame in- and outgoing quark have equal but opposite sign
momenta $Q/2$ (QPM picture),
and in \mbox{$e^+e^-$} annihilation the outgoing quark and antiquark
have equal but opposite momenta $\sqrt{s}/2=Q/2$.
Due to this similarity it is interesting to compare
particle spectra in the Breit current hemisphere in DIS with
\mbox{$e^+e^-$} data. DIS experiments have the advantage over \mbox{$e^+e^-$} experiments
that they cover a large span in \mbox{$Q~$}, presently from 3 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~} to
50 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}, in a single experiment. The current mean charged multiplicity
at HERA rises $\sim \ln Q$ within errors,
and agrees with \mbox{$e^+e^-$} data (divided by 2) where they overlap
\cite{breit,pavel}.
Colour coherence should lead to a suppression of soft gluon
emission. The HERA data \cite{breit,pavel}
on the scaled charged particle momentum
distribution $\ln 1/x_p$ with $x_p=2\cdot p/Q$ exhibit the
expected hump
backed plateau \cite{basics},
the evolution of which with \mbox{$Q~$} is in agreement with
the assumption of colour coherence.
However, like in \mbox{$e^+e^-$} annihilation,
this behaviour can also be mimicked
through the Lund string fragmentation
\cite{pavel}.
The scaled momentum spectrum of \xf in the CMS, where the
particle longitudinal momenta $p_z$
are divided by the maximal possible momentum,
$\xf=2 \cdot p_z/W$, are shown in \fref{xf} for the current region
(the target region is not observed).
Comparing HERA data at
$W \approx 120 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~}$ \cite{h1flow2,pavel} with fixed target
data at \mbox{$W~$} = 14 and 18 \mbox{\rm ~GeV~} \cite{emc,e665},
significant scaling violations
are observed, in agreement with QCD expectations: the large
value of \mbox{$W~$} at HERA results in a large phase space for QCD radiation,
softening the \xf spectrum w.r.t. data at lower $W$.
It can be expected that such data will
be used to extract \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} in the future.
\ffig{xf.eps}{80mm}
{\em The \xf spectra measured at HERA
compared with the QPM (dotted line) without QCD radiation,
the MEPS model (full line), and
with fixed target DIS data
at lower $W$.}
{xf}
The effect of QCD radiation is clearly seen in the
``seagull plot'' (\fref{sg}), where the mean transverse momenta \mbox{$p_T^{2}~$}
squared of the particles is plotted as a function of \xf.
As a consequence of increased
QCD radiation, much larger \mbox{$p_T^{2}~$} are observed
at HERA \cite{h1flow2,pavel} than at EMC \cite{emc} at smaller $W$,
again in agreement with QCD expectation.
ZEUS has also compared DIS events with and without a large
rapidity gap \cite{gap} in this respect \cite{pavel}.
Much smaller $p_T^2$
than in normal DIS events are
observed in events with a large rapidity gap, thought to
stem from diffractive processes
and accounting for approximately
10\% of the total sample
\cite{gap}.
This indicates that the scale
governing radiation
is much smaller than \mbox{$W~$} for rapidity gap events.
\section{Conclusion}
Two complementary approaches to the HERA data can be
distinguished.
In one approach, one tries to identify a region which is
``well understood'', meaning that the observation agrees
with the theory and the models. Under this condition, the
data can be interpreted in the framework of the theory,
and physical quantities which are defined within the theory
can be extracted. The measurements of \mbox{$\alpha_s~$} and \mbox{$g(x_g,Q^2)$~} fall into
this category.
However, we have also seen data which are not yet understood
theoretically, namely hadron and jet production
in the forward region.
Such
data currently pose a challenge to the theory, and experimentalists
should make every effort to provide theory with solid data
to work with.
\begin{center}
{\large\bf Acknowledgements}
\end{center}
I would like to thank my fellow conveners, A. Doyle and G. Ingelman,
for the pleasant cooperation, the organizers of the workshop for their
efficient support and the participants of the session
for their contributions and inspiring discussions in the working group.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\epsfig{file=sg_new.eps,width=68mm}
\caption{\em
The seagull plot. Shown are the mean transverse momenta
squared $\av{p_T^2}$
as a function of \xf in the CMS for HERA data with and without
a rapidity gap (LRG/NRG)
compared
to the QPM prediction (dotted line) and the MEPS model (full line),
and to EMC
data at lower $W$.}
\label{sg}
\end{figure}
\Bibliography{100}
\bibitem{levin}
J. Bartels and J. Feltesse,
Proc. of the Workshop on Physics at HERA, Hamburg 1991,
eds. W. Buchm\"uller and G. Ingelman,
vol. 1, p. 131;\\
E.M. Levin, Proc. QCD -- 20 Years Later, Aachen 1992,
eds. P.M. Zerwas, H.A. Kastrup, vol. 1, p. 310.
\bibitem{detectors}
H1 Collab., I. Abt et al., DESY 93-103 (1993);\\
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., Phys. Lett. B293 (1992) 465.
\bibitem{lepto}
G. Ingelman,
Proc. of the Workshop on Physics at HERA, Hamburg 1991,
eds. W. Buchm\"uller and G. Ingelman,
vol. 3, p. 1366.
\bibitem{dipole}
G. Gustafson, Ulf Petterson, Nucl. Phys. B306 (1988); \\
G. Gustafson, Phys. Lett. B175 (1986) 453; \\
B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, L. L\"onnblad, Ulf Petterson,
Z. Phys. C43 (1989) 625.
\bibitem{ariadne}
L. L\"onnblad,
Comp. Phys. Comm. 71 (1992) 15.
\bibitem{string}
T. Sj\"ostrand, Comp. Phys. Comm. 39 (1986) 347; \\
T. Sj\"ostrand and M. Bengtsson, Comp. Phys. Comm. 43 (1987) 367;
T. Sj\"ostrand, CERN-TH-6488-92 (1992).
\bibitem{herwig}
G. Marchesini, B.R. Webber, G. Abbiendi, I.G. Knowles, M.H. Seymour and
L. Stanco,
Comp. Phys. Comm. 67 (1992) 465.
\bibitem{seymour} M. Seymour, Lund preprint LU-TP-94-12 (1994).
\bibitem{webber}
B. Webber, these proceedings.
\bibitem{cluster} B.R. Webber,
Nucl. Phys. B238 (1984) 492.
\bibitem{jade}
JADE Collab., W. Bartel et al., Z. Phys. C33 (1986) 23.
\bibitem{graudenz}
D. Graudenz, these proceedings.
\bibitem{h1alphas}
H1 Collab., T.~Ahmed et al., Phys. Lett. B346 (1995) 415.
\bibitem{projet}
D. Graudenz, Projet 4.13 manual, CERN-TH 7420/94.
\bibitem{zjets}
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., DESY 95-016.
\bibitem{grindhammer}
G. Grindhammer, these proceedings.
\bibitem{h1gx}
H1 Collab., S. Aid et al.,
DESY 95-086 (1995).
\bibitem{grv}
M. Gl\"uck, E. Reya, A. Vogt, U. Dortmund preprint DO-TH-94-24.
\bibitem{qcdfit}
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., Phys. Lett. B345 (1995) 576;\\
H1 Collab., S. Aid et al.,
DESY 95-081 (1995).
\bibitem{f2}
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., Z. Phys. C65 (1995) 379;
H1 Collab., T. Ahmed et al., Nucl. Phys. B439 (1995) 471.
\bibitem{dglap}
Yu. L. Dokshitzer, Sov. Phys. JETP 46 (1977) 641; \\
V.N. Gribov and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 15 (1972) 438 and 675; \\
G. Altarelli and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. 126 (1977) 297.
\bibitem{nlo}
D. Graudenz, Phys. Lett. B256 (1991) 518; Phys. Rev. D49 (1994) 3291; \\
T. Brodkorb, J.G. K\"orner, Z. Phys. C54 (1992) 519; \\
T. Brodkorb, E. Mirkes, U. Wisconsin preprint MAD/PH/820 (1994).
\bibitem{cone}
B. Webber, J. Phys. G19 (1993) 1567.
\bibitem{kt}
S. Catani, Y.L. Dokshitzer, B. Webber, Phys. Lett. B285 (1992) 291.
\bibitem{vogt}
A. Vogt, DESY 95-068.
\bibitem{bfkl}
E.A. Kuraev, L.N. Lipatov and V.S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45 (1972) 199; \\
Y.Y. Balitsky and L.N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28 (1978) 282.
\bibitem{akms}
A.J. Askew, J. Kwieci\'{n}ski, A.D. Martin and P.J. Sutton,
Phys. Lett. B325 (1994) 212.
\bibitem{ordering}
J. Bartels, H. Lotter, Phys. Lett. B309 (1993) 400; \\
A. Mueller, Columbia preprint CU-TP-658 (1994).
\bibitem{bfklcdm}
A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415 (1994) 373;\\
L. L\"onnblad, Z. Phys. C65 (1995) 285 and CERN-TH/95-95.
\bibitem{durham}
J. Kwieci\'{n}ski, A.D. Martin, P.J. Sutton and K. Golec-Biernat,
Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 217. \\
K. Golec-Biernat, J. Kwieci\'{n}ski, A.D. Martin and P.J. Sutton,
Phys. Lett. B335 (1994) 220.
\bibitem{h1flow2}
H1 Collab., I. Abt et al.,
Z. Phys. C63 (1994) 377.
\bibitem{haas}
T. Haas, these proceedings.
\bibitem{h1flow3}
H1 Collab., S. Aid et al., DESY-95-108.
\bibitem{sutton} calculation by P. Sutton on the basis of \cite{durham}.
\bibitem{ingelman} G. Ingelman, these proceedings.
\bibitem{mueller}
A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 18C (1990) 125;
J. Phys. G17 (1991) 1443.
\bibitem{dhotref}
J. Kwieci\'{n}ski, A.D. Martin, P.J. Sutton, Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 921.
\bibitem{deroeck}
A. DeRoeck, these proceedings.
\bibitem{delduca}
V. Del Duca, these proceedings.
\bibitem{andersson}
B. Andersson, these proceedings
\bibitem{ccfm}
M. Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B296) (1988) 49; \\
S. Catani, F. Fiorani and G. Marchesini, Phys. Lett. B234 (1990) 339;
Nucl. Phys. B336 (1990) 18.
\bibitem{peschanski} R. Peschanski, these proceedings.
\bibitem{onium}
A.H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415 (1994) 373; ibid. B437 (1995) 107. \\
A.H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425 (1994) 471.\\
A. Bialas and R. Peschanski, Saclay-Orsay preprint T95/032,
LPTHE-95/29.
\bibitem{thooft}
G. 't Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 8; Phys. Rev. D14 (1976) 3432.
\bibitem{belavin}
A. Belavin, A. Polyakov, A. Schwarz and Yu. Tyupkin,
Phys. Lett. B59 (1975) 85.
\bibitem{ringwald}
A. Ringwald, Nucl. Phys. B330 (1990) 1; \\
O. Espinosa, Nucl. Phys. B343 (1990) 310.
\bibitem{schrempp}
A. Ringwald and F. Schrempp, DESY 94-197.
\bibitem{gibbs}
M. Gibbs, A. Ringwald and F. Schrempp, work presented by
F. Schrempp at this workshop.
\bibitem{pavel}
N. Pavel, these proceedings.
\bibitem{breit}
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al., DESY 95-007;\\
H1 Collab., I. Abt et al., DESY 95-072.
\bibitem{basics}
Y. Dokshitzer, V. Khoze, A. Mueller and S. Troyan,
``Basics of Perturbative QCD'', Gif-sur-Yvette, France (1991).
\bibitem{e665}
E665 Collab., M.R. Adams et al., Phys. Rev. D50 (1994) 1836.
\bibitem{emc}
EMC Collab., J. Ashman et al., Z. Phys. C52 (1991) 361.
\bibitem{gap}
ZEUS Collab., M. Derrick et al.,
Phys. Lett. B315 (1993) 481;\\
H1 Collab., T. Ahmed et al.,
Nucl.Phys. B429 (1994) 477.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Chiral perturbation theory is an effective theory which obeys the
symmetries of QCD and contains a number of parameters which
must be determined experimentally.
If the theory reflects nature, then the parameters should
be universal. This can be tested through one-loop SU(3)
breaking calculations for the decays of the
octet and decuplet baryons. Uncalculable
terms may yield corrections of up to 30 percent to these
predictions, but if the variance in the comparison to
experiment goes beyond this,
the validity of the chiral expansion is questioned for that
process, and the reliability of estimating unmeasured
processes is open.
The two-body weak $\Delta s=1$ decays of hyperons are a natural place
to investigate the validity of chiral perturbation theory.
The experimental observables have been well measured,
and calculations including leading logarithmic corrections
(which appear through one-loop SU(3) breaking diagrams)
have been performed\cite{Wise,EJ}. A comparison of these
results, however,
showed that the parameters which fit the S-wave
decays was inadequate for describing the P-wave decays.
This caused concern about the legitimacy of the chiral
Lagrangian expansion, at least for these processes\cite{Wise,Georgi}.
In this paper, previously
omitted diagrams have been included in the calculation of
P-wave amplitudes for nonleptonic hyperon decay. A correlated
fit to the
three weak parameters is performed
and compared to previous results. The fit to the data improves
markedly when one of the strong parameters, which
is not well constrained at present, is
also allowed to vary.
\section{The Chiral Lagrangian for Nonleptonic Decays.}
Heavy Baryon Chiral Perturbation Theory (HBChPT), which is
used to make predictions for hadronic processes
at momentum transfers much less than one GeV,
is introduced and well described in Ref.\cite{mj}.
The weak interaction portion of the Lagrangian
needed for $\Delta s=1$ hyperon decays, which
transforms under ${\rm SU(3)_L}\otimes {\rm SU(3)_R}$
as an $(8_L,1_R)$,
is outlined in Ref.\cite{Wise,EJ}. The Lagrangian
$${\cal L} = {\cal L}_{strong} + {\cal L}_{weak}$$
contains the particles which are dynamic in the
energy regime relevant for hyperon decay. This includes
the lowest mass octet and decuplet of
baryons, and the octet of pseudo-Goldstone bosons.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{strong}
{\cal L}_{strong} &=& i \ {\rm Tr}\ \bar B_v\ \left(v\cdot {\cal D}
\right)B_v
+ 2\ D\ {\rm Tr}\ \bar B_v\ S_v^\mu\ \{ A_\mu, B_v \}
+ 2\ F\ {\rm Tr}\ \bar B_v\ S_v^\mu\ [A_\mu, B_v]
\nonumber \\
&&-\ i\ \bar
T_v^{\mu}\ (v \cdot {\cal D}) \ T_{v \mu}
+ \Delta m\ \bar T_v^{\mu}\ T_{v \mu}
+ {\cal C}\ \left(\bar T_v^{\mu}\ A_{\mu}\ B_v + \bar B_v\ A_{\mu}\
T_v^{\mu}\right){\phantom {f^2 \over 4}}
\nonumber\\
&& +\ 2\ {\cal H}\ \bar T_v^{\mu}\ S_{v \nu}\ A^{\nu}\ T_{v \mu}
+ {f^2 \over 8}\ {\rm Tr}\ \partial_\mu \Sigma \partial^\mu
\Sigma^\dagger
+ \mu\ {\rm Tr} \left( m_q\Sigma + m_q^\dagger\Sigma^\dagger \right) \
+\ \cdots \ \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f \sim 93$ MeV is the meson decay constant, the light quark
mass matrix $m_q={\rm diag}\{m_u,m_d,m_s\}$, and
${\cal D_\mu}= \partial_\mu+[V_\mu, \; ]$
is the covariant chiral derivative. The subscript $v$ on the baryon
fields makes explicit that, in HBChPT, velocity is a good
quantum number and labels the field for this portion of the Lagrangian.
The actual full Lagrangian is a sum over all such velocities on terms
like that above.
The $B_v$ are the octet of baryons, and the $T_v^\mu$ are the
decuplet of baryons (the $\mu$ index is the Lorentz superscript for
this Rarita-Swinger field).
The vector and axial vector chiral currents used are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
V_\mu&=&{1 \over 2} (\xi\partial_\mu\xi^\dagger +
\xi^\dagger\partial_\mu\xi)
\nonumber \\
A_\mu&=&{i \over 2} (\xi\partial_\mu\xi^\dagger -
\xi^\dagger\partial_\mu\xi)
\ \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Higher dimension operators, which contain
more derivatives or insertions of the light quark mass matrix,
are not needed in \eqn{strong} to the order we are working.
The octet of pseudo-Goldstone bosons, $M$, appears through
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma = \xi^2= {\rm exp}\left( {2 i M\over f} \right) \ \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The strong couplings constants $F, D, {\cal C}$, and ${\cal H}$
have
been obtained by comparing one-loop computations of axial matrix
elements between octet baryons to semileptonic baryon decay
measurements\cite{mj}.
The constants ${\cal C}$ and ${\cal H}$ are further
constrained through the one-loop computation
of the strong decays of decuplet baryons \cite{bss}.
This yields,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{strongFDCH}
D = 0.6\pm 0.1& \hskip 2cm & F = 0.4\pm 0.1\ \ \nonumber \\
1.1 < |{\cal C}| < 1.8& \hskip 2cm &-2.8 < {\cal H} < -1.6
\ \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent Note that the sign of ${\cal C}$ remains a convention.
The errors do not include theoretical errors.
Assuming octet
dominance (the $\Delta I={1 \over 2}$ rule), the $\Delta s = 1$
weak Lagrangian is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{weak}
{\cal L}_{weak} &=&
G_F\ m_\pi^2\ \sqrt{2} f_\pi\ h_D\ {\rm Tr}\ {\overline B}_v\
\lbrace \xi^\dagger h\xi \, , B_v \rbrace \;
+ \;
G_F\ m_\pi^2\ \sqrt{2} f_\pi\ h_F\ {\rm Tr}\ {\overline B}_v\
{[\xi^\dagger h\xi \, , B_v ]} \; \nonumber \\ &&
+ G_F\ m_\pi^2\ \sqrt{2} f_\pi\ h_C\ {\overline T}^\mu_v\
(\xi^\dagger h\xi)\ T_{v \mu} \; + \;
G_F\ m_\pi^2\ h_\pi\ { f_\pi^2 \over 4}\ {\rm Tr} \left( h \, \partial_\mu
\Sigma
\partial^\mu
\Sigma^\dagger \right)
\ + \ \cdots\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
h = \left(\matrix{0&0&0\cr 0&0&1\cr 0&0&0}\right) \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent picks out just the $\Delta s=1$ piece needed for hyperon decays.
The constants $f_\pi$, $h_D, h_F, h_\pi$ and $h_C$ are
then fit to reproduce experimental data. Predictive
power is obtained because there are many more observables
than parameters.
The pion decay constant $f_\pi \sim 93$ MeV.
Factors of $ G_Fm_\pi^2 \sqrt{2} f_\pi $ are inserted in \eqn{weak}\
so that the constants $h_D$, $h_F$, and $h_C$ are
dimensionless. Nonleptonic kaon decays suggest that the weak meson
coupling
$h_\pi = 1.4$.
\section{Hyperon Decay Amplitudes}
In this section, the formulae for the S-wave and P-wave amplitudes
for $\Delta S=1$ nonleptonic hyperon decay are discussed. The
S-wave amplitudes were calculated previously\cite{EJ}. The
portion of the P-wave amplitudes coming from the
diagrams in Figure \ref{P1}
were also calculated in \cite{EJ}.
The pieces which are new and the subject of this work affect the
P-wave amplitudes and arise from
the diagrams in Figure \ref{P2}.
The total amplitude for a decay of an initial octet
baryon to a final octet baryon, $B_i \rightarrow B_f \pi$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{spamp}
{\cal A} = i\ G_F\ m_\pi^2\ \sqrt{2}\ f_\pi\ \overline{u}_{B_f} \ \left[
{\cal A}^{(S)} +
2 k \cdot S_v {\cal A}^{(P)} \right] u_{B_i} \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $k$ is the outgoing momentum of the pion and $S_v$ is
the spin operator for the baryons.
The amplitudes ${\cal A}^{(S)}$ and ${\cal A}^{(P)}$ are the
S-wave and
P-wave amplitudes. Of all physically possible decays within
the octet of baryons, only four are independent after isospin
symmetry has been imposed. In keeping with Refs. \cite{Wise,EJ},
we will continue to choose those four to be
$\Sigma^+ \rightarrow n \pi^+$,
$\Sigma^- \rightarrow n \pi^-$, $\Lambda \rightarrow p \pi^-$, and
$\Xi^- \rightarrow \Lambda \pi^-$.
The results will be given using the following definitions of
${\cal A}^{(S)}$ or ${\cal A}^{(P)}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal A}^{S,P}_{if}=\alpha^{S,P}_{if} + \left(\beta^{S,P}_{if} -
\lambda^{S,P}_{if}\ \alpha^{S,P}_{if}\right){m_K^2 \over 16\pi^2 f_K^2}
\log\left({m_K^2 \over
\Lambda_\chi^2}\right) \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta^{(P)}_{if}=\beta^{(P1)}_{if}+\beta^{(P2)}_{if} \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The kaon decay parameter and mass are $f_K$ and $m_K$, respectively,
and the chiral symmetry breaking scale, $\Lambda_\chi \sim 1$ GeV.
The $\alpha^{(S)}_{if}$, $\beta^{(S)}_{if}$ (including both
octet and decuplet intermediate states, denoted
$\overline{\beta}^{(S)}_{if}$ in Ref.\cite{EJ}), and
$\lambda^{(S)}_{if}$ terms can be found in Ref.\cite{EJ}.
Despite apparent differences in amplitude definitions, these
can be taken straight across because of the units used. The
values finally obtained will be different simply because the fit to
parameters will include the changes in the P-wave amplitudes.
Similarly, the $\alpha^{(P)}_{if}$ and $\lambda^{(P)}_{if}$
are unaffected by the inclusion of the graphs in Figure \ref{P2}.
The $\overline{\beta}^{(P)}_{if}$ in Ref.\cite{EJ}
will now be called $\beta^{(P1)}_{if}$ and the new graphs will
give $\beta^{(P2)}_{if}$. The diagrams in Fig. \ref{P2} yield
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta^{(P2)}_{\Sigma^+ n} &=& {D \over 3}
{h_D +3h_F \over m_\Lambda-m_N} \ \lambda_\Lambda +
F \ {h_F -h_D \over m_\Sigma-m_N} \ \lambda_\Sigma -
{(F+D)(h_F -h_D) \over m_\Sigma-m_N} \ \lambda_N \nonumber \\
\beta^{(P2)}_{\Sigma^- n} &=& {D \over 3} \
{h_D +3h_F \over m_\Lambda-m_N} \ \lambda_\Lambda -
F \ {h_F -h_D \over m_\Sigma-m_N} \ \lambda_\Sigma \nonumber \\
\beta^{(P2)}_{\Lambda p} &=&
{2 D \over \sqrt{6}} \ {h_F -h_D \over m_\Sigma-m_N}
\ \lambda_\Sigma -
{F+D \over \sqrt{6}} \ {3h_F +h_D \over m_\Lambda-m_N}
\ \lambda_N \nonumber \\
\beta^{(P2)}_{\Xi \Lambda} &=&
- \ {D-F \over \sqrt{6}} \
{3h_F -h_D \over m_\Xi-m_\Lambda} \ \lambda_\Xi +
{2 D \over \sqrt{6}} \ {h_F +h_D \over m_\Xi - m_\Sigma}
\ \lambda_\Sigma \ \ \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_N &=& {17 \over 6}D^2-5DF+{15 \over 2}F^2+
{1 \over 2}{\cal C}^2 \nonumber \\
\lambda_\Lambda &=&{7 \over 3}D^2+9F^2+{\cal C}^2 \nonumber \\
\lambda_\Sigma &=& {13 \over 3}D^2+3F^2+{7 \over 3}{\cal C}^2 \nonumber \\
\lambda_\Xi &=& {17 \over 6}D^2+5FD+{15 \over 2}F^2+
{13 \over 6}{\cal C}^2 \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
\section{Discussion}
The amplitudes obtained from including the diagrams in Fig. \ref{P2}
are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The experimental measurements, including
errors, are shown in the first column. The second column contains
the tree level SU(3) predictions, where the chiral parameters
used are the ones extracted from tree-level fits.
The third column shows the results of Ref. \cite{EJ}.
The fourth column contains
the chiral one-loop predictions using weak parameters obtained
by fitting only to the S-wave experimental values. To most
closely match the analysis of Ref. \cite{EJ}, the strong interaction
couplings are chosen to be F=0.4, D=0.61, $|{\cal C}|=1.6$, and
${\cal H}=-1.9$. Letting the weak parameters $h_D$, $h_F$, and $h_C$
vary,
a fit to the S-wave decays yields \cite{min}
\begin{eqnarray}
h_D = -0.32 \pm 0.01, \hskip 1cm h_F = 0.98 \pm 0.03, \hskip 1cm h_C = -1.37
\pm 0.27 \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The errors shown are only those which arise from the experimental
variances. The parameter
$h_C$ is not well determined and large variations in its value
do not appreciably change the predicted amplitudes.
The S-wave predictions are essentially unchanged using the
parameters above, and
the loop corrected chiral predictions are in excellent agreement
with experiment, as demonstrated in Ref. \cite{EJ}.
The situation for the P-wave
predictions is improved for $\Sigma^+ \rightarrow n \pi^+$,
where the agreement is within the allowed 30 percent
variation for chiral predictions. For the decays
$\Sigma \rightarrow n \pi^-$
and $\Lambda \rightarrow p \pi^-$, the additional graphs
bring the prediction back to tree level values, while the $\Xi \rightarrow
\Lambda \pi^-$ decay remains essentially unchanged.
The fifth column in Tables 1 and 2 contains the results from using
both S-wave and P-wave amplitudes to fit the weak chiral parameters.
The tree level $\Omega$ decays for which there are experimental
results are used as well. Expressions for these are in Ref. \cite{EJ}.
The strong decays of the decuplet favor midpoint values for
$|{\cal C}|$ and
${\cal H}$ of 1.2 and --2.2, respectively \cite{bss}.
A fit to $h_D$, $h_F$, and
$h_C$ in this scenario yields
\begin{eqnarray}
h_D = -0.38 \pm 0.01, \hskip 1cm h_F = 0.92 \pm 0.01,
\hskip 1cm h_C = 0.74 \pm 0.18 \ \ .
\end{eqnarray}
The S-waves are still within 30
percent, but the P-waves get worse.
The nonleptonic hyperon decays clearly favor
a larger value for $|{\cal C}|$ than do the strong
decuplet decays. The dependence on ${\cal H}$ is not
as sensitive.
Using the eight independent
nonleptonic hyperon decays, along with the $\Omega$ decays,
and ${\cal H}=-2.2$, the parameters ${\cal C}$, $h_D$, $h_F$,
and $h_C$ are allowed to vary. The best fit is
obtained when
\begin{eqnarray}
|{\cal C}| = 1.76\pm 0.01&\hskip 2cm& h_D = -0.42\pm 0.01, \nonumber \\
h_F = 0.76\pm 0.01&\hskip 2cm& h_C=0.26\pm 0.10
\end{eqnarray}
The matrix of correlation coefficients for this fit, given in the order
($h_C$, $h_D$, $h_F$, ${\cal C}$) is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left( \begin{array}{rrrr}
1.000&-0.914&-0.974& 0.149 \\
-0.914& 1.000 &0.919&-0.024 \\
-0.974& 0.919& 1.000&-0.009 \\
0.149&-0.024&-0.009& 1.000 \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{eqnarray}
The S-wave and P-wave amplitude predictions using
these parameters are given in the final column of each Table.
The S-waves remain well described, and
all but the $\Lambda \rightarrow p \pi^-$ P-wave modes
do as well as the S-waves. This later decay amplitude
becomes positive for parameter values still within ranges
allowed by other observables, but the agreement
remains poor.
Still, the additional diagrams have improved
the situation to the point where the chiral expansion
appears to be on more solid footing with respect to the P-wave decays.
As Jenkins points out in Ref. \cite{EJ}, the large
corrections which the loop diagrams give to the tree-level
results need not be taken as evidence that the chiral
expansion is ill-behaved if it is the leading order terms
which are anomalously small rather than the loop effects
which are unnaturally large.
\vskip 1.0cm
\begin{tabular}{|| c || c | c | c | c | c | c ||}
\hline\hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm} & \multicolumn{6}{c||}{\em S-waves}
\\*[0.1cm] \cline{2-7}
\rule{0cm}{0.7cm} {\em decay}
& exp & tree & theory\cite{EJ} & theory (S) & theory ($\Delta$) & theory
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Sigma^+ \rightarrow n \pi^+$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.06 $\pm$ 0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.00 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.09 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.09 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.00 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.13 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Sigma^- \rightarrow n \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.88$\pm$0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.21 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.90 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.88 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.74 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.90 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Lambda \rightarrow p \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.42$\pm$0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.91 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.44 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.42 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.44 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.28 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Xi^- \rightarrow \Lambda \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --1.98$\pm$0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --1.19 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --2.04 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --1.98 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --1.91 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --2.02 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.5cm
\parbox{6in}{Table 1. The S-wave $\Delta s=1$
hyperon amplitudes. The first column is the experimental
result and the next is the tree level prediction of chiral
perturbation theory \cite{Wise,EJ}. The third column
contains the loop corrected results of Ref.\cite{EJ}. The
``theory (S)'' column gives the fit using S-wave predictions only,
with the Ref. \cite{EJ} values
$|{\cal C}|$ = 1.6 and ${\cal H}$ = --1.9.
The ``theory ($\Delta$)'' column fits both S-wave and P-wave
expressions, but uses $|{\cal C}|$=1.2 and ${\cal H}$ = --2.2
taken from the strong
decuplet decays.
The last column uses the parameters which were obtained from
a best fit including both S-waves and P-waves, ${\cal H}$ = --2.2,
and ${\cal C}$ fit, including the diagrams
of Fig. \ref{P2}.}
\vfill\eject
\vskip 1.0cm
\begin{tabular}{|| c || c | c | c | c | c | c ||}
\hline\hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm} & \multicolumn{6}{c||}{\em P-waves}
\\*[0.1cm] \cline{2-7}
\rule{0cm}{0.7cm} {\em decay}
& exp & tree & theory\cite{EJ} & theory (S) & theory ($\Delta$) & theory
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.5cm} \Sigma^+ \rightarrow n \pi^+$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.81$\pm$0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.06 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.82 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.54 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.10 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 1.83 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Sigma^- \rightarrow n \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.06$\pm$0.01 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.13 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.34 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.16 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.34 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.04 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Lambda \rightarrow p \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.52$\pm$0.02 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.28 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.52 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.27 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.51 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} --0.11 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline
\rule{0cm}{0.5cm}$\hspace{0.2cm} \Xi^- \rightarrow \Lambda \pi^-$
\hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.48$\pm$0.02 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.11 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.35 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.34 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.67 \hspace{0.2cm}
&\hspace{0.2cm} 0.48 \hspace{0.2cm}
\\*[0.1cm] \hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 0.5cm
\parbox{6in}{Table 2. The P-wave $\Delta s=1$
hyperon amplitudes. The first column is the experimental
result and the next is the tree level prediction of chiral
perturbation theory \cite{Wise,EJ}. The third column
contains the loop corrected results of Ref.\cite{EJ}. The
column labelled ``theory (S)'' uses the parameters obtained
from fitting to the S-wave expressions only, with
$|{\cal C}|$ = 1.6 and ${\cal H}$ = --1.9, and includes
the P-wave diagrams of Fig. \ref{P2}. The ``theory ($\Delta$)''
column fits both S-wave and P-wave decays, but uses
$|{\cal C}|$=1.2 and ${\cal H}$ = --2.2 taken from strong
decuplet decays.
The last column is the result of parameters extracted from a
best fit of both S-wave and P-wave expressions, with ${\cal H}$ = --2.2,
and ${\cal C}$ fit, including the diagrams
of Fig. \ref{P2}.}
\vskip 1.0cm
\section{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the
University of
Washington, where much of this work was completed,
for their kind hospitality. I gratefully acknowledge
advice from Martin Savage
and Ted Allen. I thank Martin for many discussions and
his always interesting
observations and suggestions, and Ted for invaluable
assistance with computers, codes, and error analysis.
This work is supported in part by the US Dept. of Energy under
grant number DE-FG05-90ER40592.
|
\section{Introduction}
The density of states (DOS) in two-dimensional electron systems with a
pseudo-gap is a subject of interest for a number of physical situations
discussed recently \cite{fradkin,lee,hats,osh,fifra,lud,zie0,tsvel,xiang}.
A typical model with a pseudo-gap is represented by the Dirac Hamiltonian in
two dimensions
\begin{equation}
H=i\nabla_1\sigma_1+i\nabla_2\sigma_2+m\sigma_3,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_\mu$ are Pauli matrices including the $2\times2$ unit matrix
$\sigma_0$. The Dirac equation for a state $\psi$ then is
$-\partial\psi/\partial t=H\psi$.
The dispersion relation is $E(k_1,k_2)=\pm\sqrt{m^2+k_1^2+k_2^2}$ in the
continuum limit. (The lattice will be considered later.) The two signs
describe the particle and the hole band, respectively. Both bands touch each
other if the Dirac mass vanishes, as one can see in the DOS $\rho(E)\propto
|E|\Theta(E^2-m^2)$, where $\Theta$ is the step function. The touching bands is
also a feature of a second order phase transition
because the decay length of the corresponding Green's function diverges as one
goes to the special (critical) point $m=0$. This behavior is indeed formally
related to a number of critical phenomena in two-dimensional systems like the
ferromagnetic phase transition of the two-dimensional Ising model
\cite{dotsenko}.
Another physical example, described by the Dirac Hamiltonian, is the
degenerate semiconductor which exists for $m=0$ \cite{fradkin}. Furthermore,
the large scale limit of a two-dimensional electron gas on a square lattice
near the integer quantum Hall transition for certain commensurate flux
situations (e.g., half a flux quantum per plaquette)
is described by Dirac fermions \cite{hats,osh,fifra,lud,zie0}.
A common
feature of all these systems is that the DOS at the touching bands
(i.e., at $m=0$) is zero, i.e., there is a pseudo-gap. This raises the
question whether there is a mechanism which creates states in the
pseudo-gap,
for instance, electron-electron interaction or quenched disorder.
This is important in order to understand if there is a non-vanishing
density of low-energy excitations created by interaction or disorder.
In this article only the effect of quenched disorder will be analyzed.
There is a number of studies for the effect of disorder in the pseudo-gap
of Dirac fermions.
A numerical calculation for an electron on a square lattice with
half a flux quantum per plaquette shows a non-zero density at low
energies \cite{hats}.
A coherent potential approximation (CPA) of the Dirac fermions with random
energy term $E\sigma_0$ added to $H$ also gives a non-zero DOS \cite{fradkin}.
A similar result was found for a random mass term $m\sigma_3$ in
a modified model with $N$ fermion levels per site, using the $N\to\infty$
limit \cite{zie00}. However, these are essentially mean-field results
which may be affected strongly by fluctuations in the two-dimensional
system. It is possible that the CPA or $N\to\infty$ result are destroyed
by fluctuations
in $d=2$. Therefore, as an alternative approach a renormalization group
treatment was applied to this problem \cite{dotsenko}. From this it turned out
that there is asymptotic freedom indicating that the pseudo-gap, which is
controlled by large scale degrees of freedom, is not affected by a random
Dirac mass (marginally irrelevant perturbation).
However, a rigorous estimation leads to a non-zero lower bound of the DOS in
the pseudo-gap \cite{zie1}, at least for a random Dirac mass. The
renormalization group calculation indicates that the random energy term
is a relevant perturbation, in agreement with the CPA result. A third type
of disorder was studied recently by adding a random vector potential to $H$
\cite{lud}. The renormalization group and bosonization treatment indicate
a more complicated behavior of the pseudo-gap in this case:
The average DOS vanishes like $|E|^\alpha$ with a non-universal
exponent $\alpha>0$ if the randomness is weaker than a critical strength.
On the other hand, the average DOS diverges if the randomness is stronger
than the critical strength because of $\alpha<0$. (For more detailed
results see Sect. III.)
A similar system with a pseudo-gap is the d-wave superconductor.
Nersesyan et al. \cite{tsvel}
analyzed this system in $d=2$ and found for the pseudo-gap of the average DOS
$\rho(E)\sim |E|^{1/7}$ in contrast to the linear behavior of the pure system.
However, this result is in disagreement with others which also find
a destruction of the pseudo-gap \cite{xiang}. The effect of disorder in the
d-wave superconductor will be discussed in a separate article.
The aim of this article is to present an exact solution for the imaginary part
of the single particle Green's function of disordered Dirac fermions.
\noindent
There are several examples in the theory of a quantum particle in a random
potential where the average one-particle Green's function can be calculated
exactly.
Apart from a number of one-dimensional examples \cite{LGP}, there is the
Lloyd model \cite{Lloyd}. It is defined by the Hamiltonian $H=H_0+V$, where
$H_0$ is a Hermitean matrix
(e.g., a tight-binding Hamiltonian for a particles on a lattice). $V$ is a
random potential distributed according to a Lorentzian (or Cauchy) distribution
\begin{equation}
P(V)dV=(\tau/\pi)[\tau^2+(V-V_0)^2]^{-1}dV
\label{1}
\end{equation}
The distribution density has two poles: $V=V_0\pm i\tau$.
The Green's function $G(z)=(H+z)^{-1}$ must be averaged with respect to the
random potential. $G(z)$ as a function of $V_x$ for a fixed site $x$ is
analytic
in the upper (lower) complex half-plane if $\Im z$ is positive (negative),
respectively. Therefore, the path of integration of $V_x$ can be closed in that
half-plane where $G$ is analytic. As a result, only the pole of the Lorentzian
density contributes to the integral $\int G P(V_x)dV_x$.
This integration can be performed for all lattice sites
leading eventually to the average Green's function
\begin{equation}\langle G(z)\rangle =[H_0+V_0+z+i sign(\Im z)\tau]^{-1}
\equiv G(z+i sign(\Im z)\tau).
\label{2}
\end{equation}
The average DOS then reads
\begin{equation}\langle\rho(E)\rangle =-(1/N\pi)\lim_{\epsilon\to0}\Im Tr
\langle G(E+i\epsilon)\rangle
,\label{3}
\end{equation}
where $Tr$ is the trace operator and $N$ is the number of lattice sites.
Another examples for an exact solution
is the DOS of a particle in a homogeneous magnetic field in
two dimensions. If the corresponding Hilbert space of the particle is projected
onto the lowest Landau level \cite{Weg}, the average DOS for a white noise
potential can be calculated exactly by summing up all terms of the
perturbation theory with respect to the white noise potential.
The exact solution is related to the fact that the lowest Landau level system
is equivalent to a zero-dimensional model.
It was discovered by Br\'ezin et al. \cite{BGI} that the latter is a
manifestation of the dimensional reduction of the two-dimensional system by 2
due to a supersymmetry of the lowest Landau level problem.
Unfortunately, the simplicity of the average DOS of the lowest Landau level
cannot be extended to higher Landau levels. It
is also in sharp contrast to the complexity of the description of the
localization properties \cite{Pruis}.
\noindent
There is some hope that the treatment of an electron on the square lattice in
a strong magnetic field is simpler than a continuum model. The lattice model
is motivated by numerical simulations \cite{chalk} and analytic
calculations \cite{osh,fifra,lud,zie0}. The reason for a simplification is
that the electron near a quantum Hall transition behaves like a Dirac fermion
\cite{osh,fifra} because the excitations near the Fermi energy have a linear
dispersion. The Hamiltonian of the Dirac fermions on a square lattice with
unit lattice constant is
\begin{equation}
H+i\epsilon\sigma_0=(i\nabla_1+a)\sigma_1+i\nabla_2\sigma_2+m\sigma_3
+i\epsilon\sigma_0.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
The lattice gradient
$i\nabla_\mu$, with $\nabla_\mu f(x)=(1/2)[f(x+e_\mu)-f(x-e_\mu)]$ and lattice
unit vectors $e_1$, $e_2$, is Hermitean.
Two types of disorder are discussed subsequently: a random Dirac mass $m$
and a random vector potential $a$. The vector potential term is chosen in
(\ref{4}) in the same way as in Ref.\cite{lud}. It can be considered as a weak
disorder approximation of a fluctuating Peierls phase factor in Landau gauge.
The Green's function now reads $G(m,i\epsilon)=(H+i\epsilon\sigma_0)^{-1}$,
i.e., $m$ and $\epsilon$ correspond
with the real and imaginary part of $z$ in the Green's function of the Lloyd
model, respectively. The treatment of this problem is rather technical,
although the aim is always to find a $G$ with $\Im G=\Im G'$, where the
analytic properties of $G$ and $G'$ are different:
$G=(H+i\epsilon\sigma_0)^{-1}$, as a function of a random variable at a given
site, has poles on {\it both} complex half-planes whereas
$G'=(H'+i\epsilon\sigma_0)^{-1}$ has only a pole on {\it one} of the complex
half-plane. The Hamiltonian $H'$ is obtained from $H$ by multiplication with
a diagonal matrix. The latter depends on the specific type of randomness.
The article is organized as follows. In Sect. II the random Dirac mass and in
Sect. III a random vector potential are analyzed. The problem of species
multiplication due to the lattice is discussed in Sect. IV and the
projection onto the homogeneous modes on the lattice is given.
\section{Random Dirac Mass}
The matrix $H+i\epsilon\sigma_0$
depends on the two complex variables $\pm m_x+i\epsilon$. Thus, in contrast to
the Lloyd model, $G(m,i\epsilon)$ may have singularities in both complex
half-planes. Therefore,
the Green's function of Dirac fermions is similar to the two-particle
Green's function of a non-relativistic particle. However, it will be shown
subsequently that there is an alternative representation for the imaginary
part of the Green's function which depends only on a single complex variable
like the Green's function of the Lloyd model. As a first step,
$H+i\epsilon\sigma_0$ is multiplied by a diagonal matrix $D\sigma_3$ from the
right ($D$ is the staggered diagonal matrix $D_{x,x'}=(-1)^{x_1+x_2}
\delta_{x,x'}$ with the two-dimensional space coordinates $x=(x_1,x_2)$)
\begin{equation}
H'=i(i\nabla_1)D\sigma_2+i(i\nabla_2)D\sigma_1+mD\sigma_0+i\epsilon D\sigma_3,
\label{5}\end{equation}
where $\nabla_\mu D$ is Hermitean, since $D$ anticommutes with $\nabla_\mu$.
Hermitean conjugation of $H'$ yields
\begin{equation}{H'}^\dagger=i(i\nabla_1)D\sigma_2+i(i\nabla_2)D\sigma_1+mD
\sigma_0-i\epsilon D\sigma_3.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
Moreover, $\sigma_3$ anticommutes
with $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$. Consequently, $i\epsilon D\sigma_3$ {\it
commutes} with all other terms in $H'$. These properties lead to the product
\begin{equation}H'{H'}^\dagger=[i(i\nabla_1)D\sigma_2+i(i\nabla_2)D\sigma_1+mD
\sigma_0]^2+\epsilon^2\sigma_0.
\label{7}
\end{equation}
From the definition of $H'$ follows directly
\begin{equation}H'{H'}^\dagger=
[H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]\sigma_3D\sigma_3D[H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]^\dagger
=[H+i\epsilon\sigma_0][H-i\epsilon\sigma_0]= [H-i\epsilon\sigma_0][H+
i\epsilon\sigma_0].
\label{8}
\end{equation}
The r.h.s. of (\ref{7}) can also be written $H''{H''}^\dagger$ with
\begin{equation}
H''=i(i\nabla_1)D\sigma_2+i(i\nabla_2)D\sigma_1+(mD+i\epsilon)\sigma_0.
\label{9}
\end{equation}
As a result, $H''$ depends only on one complex variable $(-1)^{x_1+x_2}m_x
+i\epsilon$ for a given site $x$.
The imaginary part of the Green's function $(H+i\epsilon\sigma_0)^{-1}$
reads
$(i/2)([H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]^{-1}-[H-i\epsilon\sigma_0]^{-1})=
\epsilon({[H-i\epsilon\sigma_0][H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]})^{-1}$,
i.e., it depends on the Hamiltonian only via $H^2$. Therefore, the identity
$H^2+i\epsilon^2\sigma_0=H''{H''}^\dagger$ can be used to write
\begin{eqnarray}
{i\over2}([H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]^{-1}-[H-i\epsilon\sigma_0]^{-1})
=\epsilon({[H-i\epsilon\sigma_0][H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]})^{-1}
=\epsilon(H''^\dagger H'')^{-1}
\nonumber\\
={i\over2}[H''^{-1}-(H''^\dagger)^{-1}].
\label{main}
\end{eqnarray}
Thus the imaginary part of the average Green's function
$(H-i\epsilon\sigma_0)^{-1}$ can be
calculated exactly for a Lorentzian distribution due to (\ref{main}),
where $m_x$ can be integrated out explicitly as in the Lloyd model. Only a
pole of the distribution contributes leading to the replacements
$\epsilon\to\tau+\epsilon$ and $m\to m_0$ in $H$. This implies
\begin{equation}
{i\over2}\langle[H+i\epsilon\sigma_0]^{-1}-[H-i\epsilon
\sigma_0]^{-1})\rangle
={i\over2}[{\bar H}^{-1}-({\bar H}^\dagger)^{-1}]
\label{maina}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
{\bar H}=i\nabla_1\sigma_1+i\nabla_2\sigma_2+i(\epsilon+\tau)\sigma_0+m_0
\sigma_3.
\label{13}
\end{equation}
The imaginary $\tau$-term leads always to an exponential
decay of the average Green's function with a typical decay
length $\xi\sim (m_0^2+\tau^2)^{-1/2}$ at $\epsilon=0$.
Moreover, from equ. (\ref{3}) follows for the average DOS
\begin{equation}
\langle\rho(i\epsilon,m_0)\rangle=-{1\over N\pi}\Im Tr[{\bar
H}^{-1}].
\label{12}\end{equation}
The dependence on the energy $E$ is obtained from an analytic continuation
$i\epsilon\to i\epsilon+E$.
The resulting average DOS is plotted in Fig.1 for $\tau=0.01$ and
in Fig.2 for $\tau=0.1$. The non-vanishing DOS is in agreement with a
rigorous
proof \cite{zie1} and a numerical result \cite{hats}. For Gaussian disorder
with variance $g$ there is a lower bound \cite{zie1}
\begin{equation}
\langle\rho(0,0)\rangle\ge c_1e^{-c_2/g}.
\end{equation}
with some positive constants $c_1$, $c_2$, independent of $g$.
In the continuum limit it was argued, using a one-loop renormalization group
calculation, that random fluctuations of the Dirac mass are irrelevant on
large scales \cite{lud,tsvel}. This implies a linearly vanishing DOS and a
divergent correlation length at $E=m_0=0$.
\section{Random Vector Potential}
A calculation analogous to that of the random mass system can be performed for
a random vector potential. For this purpose the orthogonal transformation
$(\sigma_1+\sigma_3)/\sqrt{2}$ is
applied to the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H+i\epsilon\sigma_0\to(i\nabla_1+a)\sigma_3-i\nabla_2\sigma_2+m\sigma_1
+i\epsilon\sigma_0.
\label{20}
\end{equation}
The multiplication of the massless Hamiltonian (i.e., $m=0$) from the r.h.s.
with $D'\sigma_3$ (where $D'_{x,x'}=(-1)^{x_2}\delta_{x,x'}$) yields
\begin{equation}
H'=(i\nabla_1+a)D'\sigma_0-i(i\nabla_2)D'\sigma_1+i\epsilon D'\sigma_3.
\label{21}
\end{equation}
The lattice difference operators
$i\nabla_1D'$ and $i(i\nabla_2)D'$ are Hermitean. Since $D'\sigma_3$ commutes
with the first two terms of $H'$, one obtains
\begin{equation}
[H+i\epsilon\sigma_0][H-i\epsilon\sigma_0]=H'H'^\dagger=[(i\nabla_1+a)D'
\sigma_0-i(i\nabla_2)D'\sigma_1]^2+
\epsilon^2\sigma_0=H''{H''}^\dagger
\label{22}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H''=(i\nabla_1+a)D'\sigma_0-i(i\nabla_2)D'\sigma_1++i\epsilon\sigma_0
\label{23}
\end{equation}
which can be used to establish again equation (\ref{main}).
For $\langle a\rangle=0$ the average imaginary part of the Green's function
and, therefore, the average DOS for $m_0=0$ is related to the Hamiltonian
${\bar H}$ as given in (\ref{13}).
In contrast to this result, the bosonization of the Dirac fermions
in the continuum limit leads to a different behavior \cite{lud}.
For instance, the DOS reads
\begin{equation}
\langle\rho(E,0)\rangle\sim E^{(2-z)/z},
\end{equation}
where $z=1+\Delta_A/\pi$ ($\Delta_A$ is the variance of the fluctuations
of the vector potential). I.e., the DOS vanishes at $E=0$ for $z<2$ (weak
disorder) and diverges for $z>2$ (strong disorder). The Green's function
behaves like
\begin{equation}
\langle G_{0,x}(E,m=0)\rangle\sim e^{i|x|/\lambda}e^{-|x|/\xi_1}
\end{equation}
where for $E\sim0$
\begin{equation}
\lambda\sim E^{-(1-\Delta_A/\pi)}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\xi_1\sim E^{-1}/\Delta_A.
\end{equation}
Thus the Green's function decays exponentially for $E\ne0$. There is
a critical point $E=0$
where the correlation length diverges with $E^{-1}$.
The difference of the results of \cite{lud} and the present work
is probably related to the order of taking the
continuum limit and averaging over disorder. It is not a consequence of the
difference
of disorder distributions (Gaussian in \cite{lud} versus Lorentzian
distribution here) because the Gaussian distribution could also be treated for
${H''}^{-1}-{H''^\dagger}^{-1}$ in a strong disorder expansion.
The result of this expansion is also a finite non-zero DOS and a finite
correlation length of $G$.
\section{Remark on Species Multiplication}
The phenomenon of species multiplication in a fermion lattice theory
is well-known from lattice gauge field theories \cite{kogut}. It is due to
several nodes in the energy dispersion of the lattice
model which indicate the existence of low energy excitations on different
length scales.
The dispersion of the Dirac fermions considered in this article for $m=a=0$
is $E(k_1,k_2)=\pm\sqrt{\sin^2k_1+\sin^2k_2}$. It has 9 nodes at
$k_j=0,\pm\pi$ (cf. Fig.3).
In contrast to the lattice model the corresponding continuum
model, with $E(k_1,k_2)=\pm\sqrt{k_1^2+k_2^2}$,
has low energy excitations only for small wavevectors (i.e., on large
scales) as discussed in the Introduction. It will be shown in this Section,
using the random mass model of Section II, that the species multiplication
is not the reason for the smooth properties of the one-particle Green's
function.
The degeneracy of the low energy behavior of the lattice model can be
lifted by introducing additional terms in the Hamiltonian \cite{kogut}.
A possible way is to replace the Hamiltonian $H$ by the
new Hamiltonian $H+\delta(\Delta-2)\sigma_3$, where $\delta$ is
a positive number ($0<\delta\le1$) and
$\Delta$ is a lattice operator with $\Delta f(x)= [f(x+e_1)+f(x-e_1)+
f(x+e_2)+f(x-e_2)]/2$. The dispersion of the new $H$ is
$E(k_1,k_2)=\pm\sqrt{\delta^2(\cos k_1+\cos k_2-2)^2+\sin^2k_1+\sin^2k_2}$
for $m=a=0$. This is shown in Fig.4 for $\delta=1/2$.
It is not clear to the author which tranformation can be
applied to relate the imaginary part Green's function with the new Hamiltonian
in order to get the analytic behavior necessary to perform the Cauchy
integration with respect to the randomness. However, this difficulty can be
circumvented by generalizing $H$ to ${\hat H}$ with
\begin{equation}
{\hat H}=\pmatrix{
H+\delta(\Delta-2)\sigma_3&m'\sigma_3\cr
m'\sigma_3&H-\delta(\Delta+2)\sigma_3\cr
},
\end{equation}
where $m'$ is a random variable which is statistically independent of $m$ with
mean zero.
Now the orthogonal transformation
\begin{equation}
{1\over\sqrt{2}}\pmatrix{
\sigma_0&\sigma_0\cr
\sigma_0&-\sigma_0\cr
}
\end{equation}
rotates the diagonal part $(\Delta\sigma_3,-\Delta\sigma_3)$ in the
off-diagonal positions and the off-diagonal part into the diagonal position
$(m'\sigma_3,-m'\sigma_3)$ such that
\begin{equation}
{\hat H}=\pmatrix{
H-(2\delta-m')\sigma_3&\Delta\sigma_3\cr
\Delta\sigma_3&H-(2\delta+m')\sigma_3\cr
}.
\end{equation}
The random variables $M_x\equiv -2\delta+m_x+m_x'$ and $
M'_x\equiv -2\delta+m_x-m_x'$ in the diagonal part
of ${\hat H}$ can now be considered as new independent random variables.
The transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat H}\to\pmatrix{
\sigma_0&0\cr
0&-\sigma_0\cr
}{\hat H}\pmatrix{
D\sigma_3&0\cr
0&D\sigma_3\cr
}
\nonumber\\
=\pmatrix{
HD\sigma_3-(2\delta-m')D\sigma_0&\Delta D\sigma_0\cr
D\Delta\sigma_0&-HD\sigma_3-(2\delta+m')D\sigma_0\cr
}={\hat H}'
\label{trans}
\end{eqnarray}
generates the Hermitean matrix ${\hat H}'$.
Using for the r.h.s. of (\ref{trans}) the notation $T_0{\hat H}T_1$ and
applying the property
\begin{equation}
T_0{\hat H}T_1=T_1{\hat H}T_0
\label{comm}
\end{equation}
one obtains
\begin{equation}
({\hat H}'-i\epsilon D\gamma_3)({\hat H}'+i\epsilon D\gamma_3)=
T_0({\hat H}-i\epsilon\gamma_0)T_1T_0({\hat H}+i\epsilon\gamma_0)T_1
=T_0({\hat H}-i\epsilon\gamma_0)({\hat H}+i\epsilon\gamma_0)T_0
\label{prod1}
\end{equation}
with the diagonal matrices $\gamma_0=(\sigma_0,\sigma_0)$ and
$\gamma_3=(\sigma_3,-\sigma_3)$.
Moreover, one has for the imaginary part of the one-particle Green's
function as before
$(i/2)\Big[({\hat H}+i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}
-({\hat H}-i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}\Big]
=\epsilon\Big[({\hat H}-i\epsilon\gamma_0)({\hat H}
+i\epsilon\gamma_0)\Big]^{-1}$.
Due to (\ref{prod1}) and $T_0^{-1}=T_0$ this can be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\epsilon
T_0\Big[({\hat H}'-i\epsilon D\gamma_3)({\hat H}'+i\epsilon D\gamma_3)\Big]
^{-1}T_0.
\label{prod2}
\end{equation}
The l.h.s. of (\ref{prod1}) reads
\begin{equation}
({\hat H}'-i\epsilon D\gamma_3)({\hat H}'+i\epsilon D\gamma_3)=
({\hat H}')^2+\epsilon^2\gamma_0=
({\hat H}'-i\epsilon\gamma_0)({\hat H}'+i\epsilon\gamma_0)
\end{equation}
because $H'$ and $D\gamma_3$ commute. This implies for (\ref{prod2})
\begin{equation}
\epsilon
T_0\Big[({\hat H}'-i\epsilon\gamma_0)({\hat H}'+i\epsilon\gamma_0)\Big]
^{-1}T_0
={i\over2}\Big[({\hat H}'+i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}
-({\hat H}'-i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}\Big].
\end{equation}
Consequently, the imaginary part of the Green's function satisfies
\begin{equation}
{i\over2}\Big[({\hat H}+i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}
-({\hat H}-i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}\Big]
={i\over2}T_0\Big[({\hat H}'+i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}
-({\hat H}'-i\epsilon\gamma_0)^{-1}\Big]T_0,
\end{equation}
analogously to (\ref{main}).
At a given site $x$ the matrix ${\hat H}'+i\epsilon\gamma_0$ depends on
the random variables in the combinations $(-1)^{x_1+x_2}M_x+i\epsilon$ and
$(-1)^{x_1+x_2}M'_x+i\epsilon$. Assuming a Lorentzian distribution for $M_x$
and $M'_x$, the integration can be performed again as in Sect. II. As a
result the imaginary part of the average Green's function is
\begin{equation}
\Im\pmatrix{
{\bar H}+\delta(\Delta-2)\sigma_3&0\cr
0&{\bar H}-\delta(\Delta+2)\sigma_3\cr
}^{-1},
\end{equation}
where ${\bar H}$ is the average Hamiltonian (\ref{13}).
Thus the lifting of the degeneracy of the nodes in the dispersion relation
does not change the analytic behavior of the average one-particle Green's
function.
\section{Conclusion}
An exact expression for the average imaginary part of the one-particle
Green's function and the average DOS of two-dimensional lattice
Dirac fermions have been derived for a random Dirac mass and for a random
vector potential. We have shown that there is a non-zero DOS
due to disorder and there is a finite decay length for the
average one-particle Green's function. This implies the creation of a
non-vanishing density of low-energy excitations due to disorder in a vicinity
of $E=M=0$.
These lattice results are in agreement with numerical simulation \cite{hats}.
However, they are in disagreement with the results of
a renormalization group calculation and a bosonization approach for a
continuous system of Dirac fermions \cite{lud,tsvel}, where the DOS vanishes
or diverges at $E=M=0$. Moreover, the lattice model does not exhibit the
critical properties of the Green's function and the DOS found in the
renormalization group calculation and in the bosonization approach. It is
possible to take the continuum limit of the lattice model after the averaging
over disorder, for instance, in the Hamiltonian (\ref{13}). This, however, does
not lead to a critical behavior. It seems that the critical behavior of the DOS
is a consequence of taking the continuum limit first and performing the
averaging over disorder afterwards. This is plausible because the effect of
randomness is much stronger in the continuum due to statistically independent
fluctuations on arbitrarily short scales.
It is shown in Sect. IV that species multiplication, which is a special effect
of the lattice model, is not the reason for the smooth behavior of the average
DOS.
\noindent
Acknowledgement: I am grateful to D. Braak for interesting discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The introduction of supersymmetry ({\sc SuSy}) can solve the hierarchy
problems in the Standard Model (SM) only if {\sc SuSy} is broken at
the TeV scale. This implies that the {\sc SuSy} partners of the known
particles should be produced at $e^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $\ and $pp$ collider machines planned for
the next years. The possibility of observing the new states depends
not only on their production cross sections but also on their
particular decays and consequent signatures, that might or might not
allow their detection in real experiments. Hence, a complete knowledge
of the decay structure and relevant branching ratios (BR's) of the
lightest {\sc SuSy} states (the first that could be detected) is
crucial for discussing the discovery potential of the different
machines.
In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) \cite{hk}, among
the lightest particles in the {\sc SuSy} spectrum, there are 4
neutralinos (the {\sc SuSy} partners of the neutral electroweak (EW)
gauge and Higgs bosons) and 2 charginos (the partners of the charged
gauge and Higgs bosons). In most scenarios, apart from the Lightest
{\sc SuSy} Particle (LSP), which is in general assumed to be the
lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $)
(stable and invisible), the particles that could be first observed at
future experiments are the next-to-lightest neutralino
($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $) and the light chargino
($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 $). In particular, the
production of $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ pairs at
$e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ colliders could
allow the study of a wide region of the {\sc SuSy} parameter space
\cite{amb-mele}. To this respect, it is crucial to know as well as
possible the decay characteristics of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $, that determine the features
of the observed signal.
Analytical results for the neutralino decay widths have been
thoroughly studied in \hbox{Refs.~}{}\cite{bartl}-\cite{hab-wyl}.
Nevertheless, at the present time, a complete phenomenological
analysis, that investigates the different kinematical and dynamical
features of neutralino decays corresponding to different regions of
the {\sc SuSy} parameter space, is still missing to our knowledge.
In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the partial decays
widths and BR's (including the radiative decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$ and the decay into a
light Higgs $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $)
of the next-to-lightest neutralino in the MSSM. The dependence on all
the {\sc SuSy} parameters is carefully considered, and non-trivial
behaviours are found when varying the different parameters.
We assume the usual MSSM framework \cite{hk}, that is: \\ 1) Minimal
content of particles and gauge groups, \\ 2) Unification conditions
for gauge couplings, gaugino and scalar masses at the GUT
(Grand-Unification Theory) scale, \\ 3) $R$-parity conserved.
We also assume that the lightest neutralino is the LSP.
All masses and couplings are set by choosing the values of a finite
set of parameters at the GUT scale: $m_0$ (the common scalar mass),
$m_{1/2}$ (the common gaugino mass), $\mu$ (the {\sc SuSy}
Higgs-mixing mass) and $\tan \beta $ (the ratio of vacuum expectation
values for the two Higgs doublets). A further parameter,
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $, is needed to describe the Higgs
sector, in case one does not use the constraints coming from the
requirement that the radiative electroweak-symmetry breaking take
place at the correct scale.
In Appendices A and B, we describe the equations that allow to get the
complete {\sc SuSy} mass spectrum and couplings starting from the
above parameters in a standard approximation. We neglect the
possibility of mixing between left and right scalar partners of
fermions, that can be relevant in the top-stop sector, since this has
a marginal role in our study. As for the Higgs sector (that is
composed by two minimal doublets), we include the leading logarithmic
radiative corrections to masses and couplings, as described in
Appendix B.
The present work complements \hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}, where
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ production rates and
signatures have been studied at LEP2, by studying extensively the
decay features of the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ for a
wide choice of {\sc SuSy} parameters. Particular attention is paid to
scenarios that are typical of LEP2 physics.
The plan of the paper is the following. In section 2, all the
next-to-lightest neutralino decay channels in the MSSM are reviewed.
Also, we study contour plots of the neutralino-neutralino and
neutralino-chargino mass differences, that are crucial for the
analysis of the kinematical features of the decays. In section 3,
neutralino BR's are presented in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane. In section 4,
some specific scenarios, that are of interest for LEP2 neutralino
searches, are analysed. In section 5, the hypothesis of a light Higgs
boson is considered. Finally, in section 6, the radiative decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$ is studied. In
Appendices A and B, as anticipated above, the neutralino and chargino
mass matrices and the scalar-sector mass spectrum are discussed,
respectively.
\section{Neutralino-decay classification}
\label{sec:class}
In the MSSM, four fermionic partners of the neutral components of the
SM electroweak gauge and Higgs bosons are predicted: the photino
$\tilde{\gamma} $, the Z-ino $\tilde{Z} $ (mixtures of the U(1)
$\tilde{B}$ and SU(2) $\tilde{W}_3$ gauginos), and the two higgsinos
$\tilde{H}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{H}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ (partners of the two
Higgs-doublet neutral components). In general, this interaction
eigenstates mix, their mixing being controlled by a mass matrix $Y$
(see Appendix A). By solving a 4-th degree eigenvalue equation, one
can find the expressions of $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_i} $ ($i=1,\ldots,4$)
and of the physical composition of the corresponding eigenstates in
terms of the set of independent parameters $\mu$, $M_2$ and $\tan
\beta $. Here, we are mainly concerned with the two lightest
neutralino states ($i =1,2$). The best direct experimental limits on
the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ masses exclude the ranges
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} < 20 {\rm\,GeV} $ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} <
46 {\rm\,GeV} $, under the assumption that $\tan \beta > 2$, at LEP1.
These limits disappear if $\tan \beta > 1.6$ \cite{L3}. At LEP2, due
to the smaller relative importance of the $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}
$-exchange diagram in the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ production, different
physical components of neutralinos (and not only higgsinos) come into
play and the common scalar mass $m_0$ becomes a relevant parameter
too. In this framework, in order to put new direct limits on the
neutralino masses, one must have a complete knowledge also of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decay pattern.
In \hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}, the behaviour of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_{1,2} $ gaugino and higgsino
components is studied in detail in the {\sc SuSy} parameter space.
This is crucial also to understand the dynamics of the neutralino
decays, since different components are coupled to different particles.
For instance, in the tree level decays of neutralinos
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_i \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_j f\bar{f} $, there are two main
contributions coming from the $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ and
sfermion exchanges. While the gaugino components couple to the
scalars, the higgsino components couple only to the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ boson, with different strength (in the
$m_f = 0$ limit). Also the neutralino mass spectrum depends on the
same three parameters $\mu$, $M_2$ and $\tan \beta $. A detailed
discussion on the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_i $ mass
spectrum can be found in \hbox{Refs.~}{}\cite{amb-mele} and
\cite{bartl89}.
In what follows, we list all the possible next-to-lightest neutralino
decays in the MSSM. In general, these channels are valid also for
heavier neutralinos, although the possibility of cascade decays can
make the decay structure of the heavier neutralinos more complicated.
\begin{description}
\item[a)] Decay into charged leptons:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} \; ,
\label{n2ton1ee}
\end{equation}
or $e^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} \rightarrow
\mu^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} , \; \tau^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} $;
\item[b)] decay into a neutrino pair:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} \bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} \; ,
\label{n2ton1vv}
\end{equation}
where $\ell = e, \mu, \tau$;
\item[c)] decay into a light-quark pair:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 q\bar{q} \; ,
\label{n2ton1qq}
\end{equation}
where $q=u,d,s,c,b$;
\item[d)] cascade decay through a real chargino:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{r c l}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
& \rightarrow &
f_1 \bar{f}_1^{\prime} \;
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 \\
& & \phantom{f_1 \bar{f}_1^{\prime} \;}
\:\raisebox{1.3ex}{\rlap{$\vert$}}\!\rightarrow
f_2 \bar{f}_2^{\prime}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \; ,
\end{array}
\label{eq:cascade}
\end{equation}
where each pair of fermions $f_i f_i^{\prime}$ in the final state
is an isospin doublet of either leptons or light quarks;
\item[e)] decay into a light scalar ($h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $)
or pseudoscalar ($A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $) Higgs:
\begin{mathletters}
\label{ntoh}
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
& \rightarrow & \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} \label{n2ton1h} \; , \\
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
& \rightarrow & \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} \label{n2ton1A} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
where $h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ and $A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $
are part of the MSSM Higgs doublet;
\item[f)] radiative decay into a photon:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma \; .
\label{n2ton1ph}
\end{equation}
\end{description}
The first three channels occur through either a $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle
0} $ or a scalar-particle exchange. Different scalar partners come
into play: (left or right) selectron (in channel {\bf a}), (left)
sneutrino (in channel {\bf b}) and (left or right) squark (in channel
{\bf c}) (see \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{fey3bneut}). Assuming massless
fermions makes the channels proceeding through neutral Higgs bosons
vanish in {\bf a}, {\bf b} and {\bf c}. We name $s$-channels the
contributions from diagrams with the two neutralinos entering the same
vertex ($Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ exchange), and ($t,u$)-channels
the ones where the two neutralinos enter different vertices (sfermion
exchange).
Whenever the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ is heavier than
some scalar fermions, the corresponding channels will proceed through
two steps via real sparticles.
A possible gluino in the final state
($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{g}
q\bar{q} $) is excluded by the gaugino mass unification hypothesis,
that makes gluinos considerably heavier than light neutralinos.
Cascade decays through a real chargino ({\bf d}) occur via similar
graphs (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{fey3bcasc}). The diagrams for the
second-step decay (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Eq.~}{}(\ref{eq:cascade})) can
be obtained by the same graphs by exchanging the neutralino and the
chargino.
As for the channel {\bf e}, there are five possible Higgses (either
neutral or charged) that could contribute to the tree-level
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decays into a scalar Higgs
boson plus a light neutralino or chargino. For the next-to-lightest
neutralino, only decays into the two lightest bosons (\hbox{i.e.}{},
the lightest neutral scalar and the pseudoscalar Higgses) can be
present, for the moderate $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $
masses we are considering here (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{fey2bhiggs}).
One important point to keep in mind in the decay study is that,
whenever the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ can decay into
a real scalar plus a fermion (\hbox{e.g.}{}, a selectron plus an
electron or a Higgs plus a lightest neutralino), this channel tends to
saturate the corresponding width and BR. The same occurs when the mass
difference between the two lightest neutralino is sufficient to allow
the decay into a real $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $. In the latter
case, the relevant BR's for different signatures recover the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ ones. However, the last possibility never
occurs in the LEP2 parameter regions.
We point out that, apart from the decays into Higgses, that are
considered only if the two-body on-shell decay is allowed by the phase
space, our treatment of the three-body decays always takes into
account properly the possibility of decays into two real particles,
whenever this is permitted.
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-n1mass}, we show the contour plot for the
mass difference between $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $, for $\tan \beta = 1.5$ and
30, in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane. From these plots, one can immediately
infer, for a given scalar mass, which are the parameter regions where
the decays into real scalars are kinematically allowed, and
consequently can dominate the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
$ decay.
Furthermore, in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-c1mass}, the difference between
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} $ and $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1} $ is plotted.
Shaded area represent situations where this difference is negative and
the neutralino cascade decays through a chargino are not allowed. For
small $\tan \beta $, one can anticipate a sizeable BR for cascade
decays in the positive $\mu$ half-plane (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ section 3).
Diagrams contributing to the radiative decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$ are shown in
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{feyrad}, where the corresponding graphs with
clockwise circulating particles in the loops must be added. The fields
$G^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} $ are the Goldstone quanta giving masses
to charged vector bosons. We assume the nonlinear R-gauge, that is
described in \hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{hab-wyl}. One can see that there are
many physical charged particles flowing in the loops: all charged
standard fermions and their corresponding scalar partners, the charged
vector and Higgs bosons and their fermionic partners, the charginos.
In the {\sc SuSy} parameter scheme we adopt, relevant contributions
come mostly from the $W^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} $/chargino and the
top/stop loops, with non-negligible interferences. In this decay, the
visible part of the final state is given by a monochromatic photon.
{}From \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-n1mass}, one can get information on the
final photon energy.
In the following analysis, we mainly concentrate on the MSSM parameter
regions not excluded at LEP1. Particular attention is given to regions
explorable at the forthcoming experiments, especially at LEP2 (that
are shown in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}).
For definiteness, we restrict to the following ranges of {\sc SuSy}
parameters:
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eq:parng}
\begin{eqnarray}
0 \le
& M_2 & \le 4 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} \\
-4M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} \le
& \mu & \le 4 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} \\
40 {\rm\,GeV} \le
& m_0 & \le 500 {\rm\,GeV} \\
1 < & \tan \beta
& \le 60 \\
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} \le
& m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} & \le 3 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
The lower limit on $m_0$ is connected to present experimental limits
on the masses of the {\sc SuSy} partners of leptons and quarks.
It generally excludes scenarios where the LSP is a scalar.
\section{Study of the $\protect\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2$
BR's in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane}
\label{sec:BRvsmum2}
In this section, we make a detailed study of the BR's for the decay
channels {\bf a-e} (defined in the previous section) in the $(\mu,
M_2)$ plane, at fixed values of $m_0$ and $\tan \beta $. We assume
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = 3 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $, that,
unless $\tan \beta $ is near 1, generally implies a
$h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ mass above the threshold for the channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $,
in the $(\mu, M_2)$ region covered by LEP2 searches. The light-Higgs
case will be considered in section 5, while in section 6 we will
concentrate on the radiative decay $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$.
Everywhere, the widths and BR's connected to the decays into charged
leptons are relative to a single species, while the decays into
neutrinos are summed over three families and the decays into quarks
over five light flavours. Analogously, for cascade decays, the BR for
the leptonic channel is for one single species, while the hadronic
channels are summed over two light quark doublets. At this stage, the
second-step decay of the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 $
is not considered.
The BR's for each channel are studied in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane for
four different choices of the $m_0$ and $\tan \beta $ parameter,
namely:
\begin{mathletters}
\label{br_cases}
\begin{eqnarray}
{(\rm a)}: \:\: (m_0, \tan \beta )
& = & (M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 1.5), \\
{(\rm b)}: \:\: \phantom{(m_0, \tan \beta )}
& = & (M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 30), \\
{(\rm c)}: \:\: \phantom{(m_0, \tan \beta )}
& = & (3M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 1.5), \\
{(\rm d)}: \:\: \phantom{(m_0, \tan \beta )}
& = & (3M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 30),
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
for $|\mu| \le 4 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ and $0 \le M_2 \le 4
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. The observed behaviour is in general
highly non-trivial, due to both the sharp dependence of the neutralino
physical composition on $\mu$ and $M_2$ \cite{amb-mele} and the
corresponding variation in the neutralino mass spectrum
(\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-n1mass}). Also a weak dependence
on $M_2$ comes from the spectrum of the scalar masses that enter the
$t$-channel contributions to the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 $ decay (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{fey3bneut}).
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnee}, we present the BR for the decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 e^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $. In order to get large BR's, in this
case, one needs relatively small $m_0$ values, so that the $t$-channel
contributions get substantial with respect to the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange channel. In this way, one
obtains leptonic BR's much larger than the corresponding
BR($Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} \rightarrow \ell^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $). For instance, when $m_0 =
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnee}a,b), one always
gets wide regions of the plane where
BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 e^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $) is larger than 25\% (that corresponds
to a BR $\ge 75\%$ when summed over three lepton species). However,
when considering the LEP2 realm (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}), the
relative importance of these regions is reduced, especially for large
$\tan \beta $ values. Note that at large $\tan \beta $, the behaviour
tends to be more symmetric with respect to the line $\mu = 0$
(\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnee}b,d).
In order to guarantee the detectability of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 e^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ final state in ordinary collider
experiments, it is also useful to consider a threshold on the minimum
energy for an observable $e^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ state. The effect of this condition can
be guessed through \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-n1mass}, since
$(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} )$ is directly
connected to the final $e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle
-} $ energy. For instance, one can see that the rejection of the
areas where $(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} ) < 20
{\rm\,GeV} $ has a moderate influence on LEP2 physics (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}).
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnee}a, the large BR at moderate values of
$M_2$ and $\mu < 0$ is due to the opening of the tree-level channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
e^{\scriptscriptstyle \mp} \tilde{e}^{\scriptscriptstyle
\pm}_{\scriptscriptstyle R} $ at $m_0 \approx M_{\scriptscriptstyle
Z} $, which is not contrasted by $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e}
\tilde{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle e,L} $ (in general $m_{\tilde{e}_R} <
m_{\tilde{\nu}_{e,L}} $, \hbox{cfr.}{}\ Appendix B). See
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a} for further details.
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnvv}, the channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} $ is studied. As in the previous
case, low $m_0$ values tend to enhance the BR. Note that, in both the
charged lepton and the neutrino case, the corresponding
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ BR's are recovered in the region of small
$|\mu|$ and $M_2 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
\raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\;$ (1-2) $M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. Indeed, in
this region, the higgsino components and, consequently, the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange channel are dominant,
independently of $m_0$ and $\tan \beta $.
This is also true for the hadronic channel that is considered in
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnqq}. On the other hand, in the hadronic decay, a
low $m_0$ value can decrease the BR with respect to the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-channel expectation. This is due, for a
given $m_0$, to the larger value of the squark masses (entering the
$t$-channel contribution), compared to the slepton masses
(\hbox{cfr.}{}\ Appendix B). For large $m_0$, $t$-channels tend to
vanish, and the BR for $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 f\bar{f} $
recovers the $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} \rightarrow f\bar{f} $ one.
Cascade-decay BR's are shown in \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brclv} and
\ref{brcqq} for the channels $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1
e^{\scriptscriptstyle \mp} \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e} $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow \sum_q
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 q \bar{q}^{\prime}$,
respectively. At small values of $\tan \beta $, the importance of this
channel is restricted to the positive-$\mu$ half-plane in connection
to the regions where $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 $ is
sufficiently lighter than $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $
(\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brclv}a,c, \ref{brcqq}a,c and
\ref{n2-c1mass}). The leptonic channel can reach a BR of 10\% for each
leptonic species at low $\tan \beta $. The relevance of this decay is
further increased at larger $m_0$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brclv}c). Raising $\tan \beta $ makes the pattern
symmetrical with respect to the $\mu = 0$ axis, although the BR never
reaches a sizeable level in the interesting regions (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brclv}b,d). An analogous situation is observed for
the decay into $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 q
\bar{q}^{\prime}$ in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brcqq}.
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnlh} we study the channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $.
Whenever the light-Higgs mass is lighter than the difference
$(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} )$, this process has a
large BR due to the two-body nature of the decay. The Higgs mass
spectrum is fixed here by $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = 3
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $, that corresponds to
$m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ in the range $ 50 \div 90 {\rm\,GeV}
$, at $\tan \beta = 1.5$ and $100 \div 130 {\rm\,GeV} $, at $\tan
\beta = 30$, for the assumed range of $m_0$ and $M_2$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
Appendix B).
The most favourable case for the process
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ is
the one with small $\tan \beta $ and $m_0$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnlh}a). Even in this case, the decay threshold
opens mostly at relatively large values of $|\mu|$, that correspond to
heavier neutralinos. Increasing $m_0$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnlh}c), slightly restricts the allowed regions,
due to the $m_{\tilde{t}} $ dependence of the
$m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ radiative corrections (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
Appendix B), but, at the same time, increases the branching fraction,
due to the depletion of all the other
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 f\bar{f} $ channels. At $\tan
\beta = 30$, the decay $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ is not allowed in almost the whole $(\mu,
M_2)$ plane considered, due to the increase of
$m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ with $\tan \beta $ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
Appendix B) and also to the decrease of $(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} -
m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} )$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{n2-n1mass}). In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brnlh}b,d an
intermediate-$\tan \beta $ situation is shown.
Note that the case of a lighter $h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ (or
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $) can considerably alter the pattern
of the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ BR's. The case of a
lighter Higgs will be considered in section 5.
\section{Neutralino decays at LEP2}
\label{sec:LEP2dec}
In our analysis of the production of $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_1 \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ pairs at LEP2 in
\hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}, we have identified particular regions
and scenarios in the parameter space. These are characterized by
specific dynamical and kinematical properties of the light
neutralinos. We have defined as NR$^{\rm \pm}$ ({\it Neutralino
Regions}) the areas of the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane where:
\begin{equation}
m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} + m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}
< \sqrt{s} < m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1} \; ,
\label{NR}
\end{equation}
at fixed $\tan \beta $, where $\sqrt{s} $ is the \hbox{c.m.}{}\
collision energy at LEP2 ($\sqrt{s} \simeq 190 {\rm\,GeV} $)
(\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}). In this regions, chargino pair
production is kinematically forbidden, while, for moderate values of
scalar masses, the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ production can have sizeable
cross sections. Of course, neutralino-pair production can be of help
also below the Neutralino Regions, where it complements chargino
production. On the other hand, the largest rates for
$e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ arise for $|\mu|
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\;
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ and $ M_2
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\;
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ (what we call HCS$^{\rm \pm}$, that stands
for {\it High Cross Section} regions), although, in these zones,
chargino production is also allowed. Here, the higgsino components of
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ are dominant and the main
production mechanism is through $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ exchange.
In these regions, for $\tan \beta = 1.5$, we have chosen a set of six
specific points (shown in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}a), that can
schematize the spectrum of possibilities for the neutralino couplings
and masses: scenarios A, B, C and D in the Neutralino Regions and
H$^{\rm \pm}$ in the High Cross Section regions. In
\hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15}, we show the masses and physical
components of the two lightest neutralinos and the mass spectrum of
charginos and heavier neutralinos, corresponding to these points in
the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane. Moreover, we show the sfermion spectrum (that
also influences the decay properties of neutralinos) corresponding to
these cases for $m_0 = M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. A more detailed
analysis of the dynamical characteristics of these scenarios can be
found in \hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}.
In this section, we present a study of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ widths and BR's in these
specific cases. Although the values $\tan \beta = 1.5$ (associated to
the definition of such scenarios) and $m_0 = M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z}
$ correspond to particularly favourable cases for neutralino
production rates, we also study the behaviour of decay widths and BR's
in a large range of $\tan \beta $ and $m_0$ values. We will call
$\tilde{A}$-$\tilde{H}^{\pm}$ the scenarios with the same values of
$\mu$ and $M_2$ as A-H$^{\rm \pm}$, but $\tan \beta \ne 1.5$ (see,
\hbox{e.g.}{}, \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}b where $\tan \beta =
30$).
If not otherwise specified, we will assume that decays into real Higgs
bosons are not kinematically allowed. In this case, there is some
influence of the Higgs sector only in the radiative channel.
Accordingly, the results presented in this section are obtained for
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = 3 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. The
effect of varying $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ will be discussed
in section 5.
In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a}--\ref{wbrvsm0hp}, we present all
partial widths and BR's versus $m_0$ in the scenarios A, B, C, D,
H$^{\rm -}$ and H$^{\rm +}$. In order to understand the general
pattern of the decay widths, one must recall the specific ordering of
the scalar masses at fixed $m_0$, that is predicted by the
renormalization group equations and unification assumptions. For
instance, one always gets: $m_{\tilde{q}_{L,R}} >
m_{\tilde{\ell}_{L,R}} $ and $m_{\tilde{f}_L} > m_{\tilde{f}_R} $.
When $m_0$ is sufficiently small, as to allow
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decays into one or more real
scalars, the largest decay widths are associated to the corresponding
channels, that in general are the leptonic ones. For instance, this
occurs for $m_0 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
\raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 100 {\rm\,GeV} $, in
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a}, where we study the scenario A
($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_{1,2} $ dominantly gauginos,
\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15}). One can see that
the largest rates (up to $1 \div 100 {\rm\,MeV} $) are by far those
corresponding to decays into real sleptons. The width for
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} \bar{\tilde{\nu}}_{\scriptscriptstyle
\ell,L} \rightarrow \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_1$ is summed over all neutrino flavours, contrary to the
charged-lepton channel. For $m_0 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
\raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 60 {\rm\,GeV} $, all sleptons are produced on
the mass-shell. By increasing $m_0$, one meets, in order, the
$m_{\tilde{\ell}_L} $, $m_{\tilde{\nu}_{\ell,L}} $ and
$m_{\tilde{\ell}_R} $ thresholds. At large $m_0$, only the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange contributions survive. Note also
the peaks of the leptonic cascade-decay width, that correspond to the
chain of on-shell decays $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{e}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_{\scriptscriptstyle
L} e^{\scriptscriptstyle \mp} \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e}
e^{\scriptscriptstyle \mp}$ and $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle e,L}
\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e} \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 e^{\scriptscriptstyle \mp}
\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e}$. When $m_0
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 100
{\rm\,GeV} $, no two-body decay is allowed. On the other hand, in the
parameter range considered, one has in general $m_{\tilde{q}_{L,R}} >
m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} $ and the width for the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow q\bar{q}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ is relatively small and
almost constant (between 0.1 and 1 KeV) when varying $m_0$. Concerning
the radiative decay, the curves are obtained through the complete
results of \hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{hab-wyl}. The width for
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$ never exceeds 1 KeV for
$m_0 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\;
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $.
The corresponding BR pattern closely reflects the scalar-mass
threshold structure (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a}). Indeed, for $m_0
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 75 {\rm\,GeV}
$, the BR for the invisible channel $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \sum_{\ell}\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ is more than 80\%. Hence, in
this regime, the next-to-lightest neutralino is phenomenologically
almost equivalent to the LSP, which means that most of the times it
just produces missing energy and momentum in the final states. This
effect tends to concern even larger ranges of $m_0$ when $\tan \beta $
increases, due to the relative lowering of the sneutrino mass with
respect to the charged-slepton masses. Also, notice that the presence
of two close thresholds for the decay into a real
$\tilde{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell,L} $ and a real
$\tilde{\ell}_{\scriptscriptstyle R} $ gives rise to a peak structure
in the BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle +}\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle -}
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $) at $m_0 \simeq 83 {\rm\,GeV}
$. This corresponds to a fast deepening in the invisible BR. For $80
{\rm\,GeV} \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\;
m_0 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 200
{\rm\,GeV} $, the largest BR is that for charged leptons
($\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 60\%$, for
all the three lepton species). For $m_0
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 200
{\rm\,GeV} $, the hadronic channel gets more and more important. It
reaches 80\% for $m_0 \simeq \frac{1}{2} {\rm\,TeV} $. The BR for the
radiative decay grows with $m_0$, although at $m_0 \simeq 500
{\rm\,GeV} $ one still has only BR$\simeq 4\%$. Anyhow, concerning
searches at LEP2, one has to keep in mind that, for $m_0
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 300
{\rm\,GeV} $, the production rate for
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ pairs is below the
detectability threshold for a realistic machine luminosity (see
\hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}).
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0b}, we deal with the scenario B, where
the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ is mainly a photino and
the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ is mainly a
$\tilde{H}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_b $ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15}). In general, the behaviour of
widths and BR's is qualitatively similar to the ones in scenario A,
apart from the absence of the decay into
$\tilde{\ell}_{\scriptscriptstyle L} $ (whose mass is above
threshold) and the presence of rather strong destructive interference
effects in the leptonic channels. The latter are clearly visible for
the process $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} $ around $m_0 \simeq 64
{\rm\,GeV} $ and in the case $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ for $m_0 \simeq
130 {\rm\,GeV} $ (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0b}). Indeed, the different
physical nature of $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ gives rise, in particular
$m_0$ ranges, to a comparable size for the $s$- and $t$-channel decay
contributions with negative interference of the same order of
magnitude. For instance, in the minimum of the width for the decay
into electrons, the $s$-channel and $t$-channel contribute 65 and 50
MeV, respectively, while their interference gives -95 MeV.
In the scenario C (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15})
the larger value of $M_2$ with respect to the previous scenarios
generates larger masses in the scalar sector, particularly in the
left-handed sector. As a consequence, only the
$\tilde{\ell}_{\scriptscriptstyle R} $ can go on mass-shell, while
both the invisible and the hadronic widths, that are dominated by the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange, keep constant
(\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0c}). As for BR's, the charged leptonic
channels saturate the width up to $m_0 \simeq 64 {\rm\,GeV} $
(BR$\simeq 33\%$ for each lepton species)
(\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0c}). Note that the relatively small widths
for the tree level channels enhance the BR for the radiative decay,
for $m_0 \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 70
{\rm\,GeV} $, up to about 15\%.
The scenario D is chosen in the positive-$\mu$ range (contrary to the
previous ones) and, in particular, in the area of the Neutralino
Regions where $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ cascade decays
through a light chargino are allowed. The physical composition of
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_{1,2} $ is given by a mixture of
comparable components of $\tilde{\gamma} $ and $\tilde{Z} $ with a
small percentage of higgsino components (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15}). In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0d},
the only qualitative new feature in the decay pattern is the presence
of sizeable widths for cascade decays. The latter are almost constant
versus $m_0$ and give rise to BR's up to 15\% for the channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 q \bar{q}^{\prime}$ and up
to 3\% for $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 e^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}
\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} $ at $m_0 \simeq 500 {\rm\,GeV} $.
In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0hm} and \ref{wbrvsm0hp}, we present the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ widths and BR's in the High
Cross Section regions. In particular, we consider the scenarios
H$^{\rm \pm}$, defined in \hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{tab:scentgb15}. One can
check that the higgsino components in these cases are dominant and the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ are mostly coupled to the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ boson. Hence, a small dependence on the
scalar masses is found. This is the case especially in the H$^{\rm -}$
scenario (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0hm}), where the BR
for the $q\bar{q} $, $\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle
+}\ell^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ and $\nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} $ channels are quite the same as
for $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ decays. In
\hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0hm} and \ref{wbrvsm0hp}, the widths and
BR's for the cascade channels are also reported. The relative
importance of these decay modes is considerable only in the H$^{\rm
+}$ case, where the corresponding BR's reach about 18\% for the
hadronic mode, and more than 2\% for each leptonic channel.
We now proceed to the study of the $\tan \beta $ dependence of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decay pattern. To this end,
as anticipated, we define six new scenarios $\tilde{A}$, $\tilde{B}$,
$\tilde{C}$, $\tilde{D}$, $\tilde{H}^{\pm}$, that are obtained from
the above scenarios by fixing $m_0 = M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $, and
letting free the $\tan \beta $ value. We then study the effect of
changing $\tan \beta $ in the range $1 \div 60$. Note that, although
scenarios A-D were originally defined as lying in the Neutralino
Regions, the variation of $\tan \beta $ can shift such regions above
some of these scenarios (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}).
This corresponds to study situations in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane where
also chargino production is allowed. Furthermore, changing $\tan \beta
$ varies both the mass spectrum and the physical composition of
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_{1,2} $. For instance, in
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{massdiffvstgb}, the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
$-$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
$-$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 $ mass differences (that
are crucial quantities entering the phase-space factor of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ widths) are shown versus
$\tan \beta $, for the scenarios $\tilde{A}$-$\tilde{H}^+$ Some
influence of $\tan \beta $ is also observed in the scalar mass
spectrum (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ Appendix B).
In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgba}--\ref{wbrvstgbhp}, the behaviour of
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ widths and BR's as functions
of $\tan \beta $ is shown. In the scenario $\tilde{A}$, we can
distinguish three different regimes. For $\tan \beta
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 1.3$, the
tree level decay into a light Higgs $h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ is
allowed and the corresponding BR is greater than 80\%. Around $\tan
\beta = 1.5$, there is a small transition region where the
charged-leptonic channel saturates the BR, since the decay into a
$\tilde{e}_{\scriptscriptstyle L,R} $ is the only possible two-body
real channel (this corresponds to the scenario A described above). For
larger $\tan \beta $, there is a combined effect of the relative
decreasing of the sneutrino mass with respect to the charged slepton
masses (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ Appendix B) and the increasing Z-ino component
in the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $, that enhances the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell}
\bar{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle \ell} $ decay. Therefore, for large
$\tan \beta $ the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ gives rise
mostly to missing energy and momentum. In the scenario $\tilde{B}$
(\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgbb}), $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 q\bar{q} $
is dominant in the whole $\tan \beta $ range considered, although the
charged lepton channel has a considerable BR for $\tan \beta
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 5 \div 10$.
In scenario $\tilde{C}$ (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgbc}), the hadronic
channel is the main one for $\tan \beta
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 1.5$-2, while
the leptonic channels get comparable to the former at higher $\tan
\beta $. Note that, for $\tan \beta \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
\raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 10$, also cascade decays into a
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm}_1 $ give a sizeable
contribution.
As for scenario $\tilde{D}$, we note in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgbd}
a maximum in both the invisible and the hadronic BR's curves
corresponding to a deepening of the charged-leptonic one for $\tan
\beta \simeq 10$. This is due to the sudden opening of the channel
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
e^{\scriptscriptstyle \pm} \tilde{e}^{\scriptscriptstyle
\mp}_{\scriptscriptstyle L,R} $.
In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgbhm} and \ref{wbrvstgbhp}, we study the
scenarios $\tilde{H}^{\mp}$. Here, we observe again a BR pattern
closely connected to the $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ BR's with some
deviation due to the possible presence of a light chargino in the
cascade decays (see also \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{massdiffvstgb}). In the
scenario H$^{\rm -}$, the cascade decays contribute considerably at
large $\tan \beta $, while, in the scenario H$^{\rm +}$, they decrease
with $\tan \beta $. Note the strong (although not phenomenologically
relevant) deepening of the radiative decay width at $\tan \beta
\simeq 2.2$, due to destructive interference among various
contributions.
\section{Decreasing the Higgs masses}
\label{sec:Higgs}
In this section we study the sensitivity of the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decay widths and BR's to a
$m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ change. In particular, we set
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ which,
compared to the case $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = 3
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ studied in section 3, corresponds to a
lowering of $m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ down to 40-70 GeV, at
$\tan \beta = 1.5$, and to 90-91 GeV, at $\tan \beta = 30$ in the
considered range of $m_0$ and $M_2$ (\hbox{cfr.}{}\ section 3).
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brLH}a, we show the
BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $),
when $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ is lowered down to
$M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. The corresponding reduction of the
threshold for the decay $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ considerably extends (with respect to
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnlh}) the area where
BR$(\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} )
> 30\%$ in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane, down to regions of interest for
LEP2 physics. In particular, this happens in the regions where the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_{1,2} $ gaugino components are
large, which implies a considerable decrease in the BR's for all the
other decay channels in these regions (as can be checked by comparing
\hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brLH}b-d with \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{brnee}a,
\ref{brnvv}a and \ref{brnqq}a). On the contrary, the situation is not
altered in the higgsino region, where $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} $ and
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} $ tend to be degenerate, and the decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $ is
not allowed.
In \hbox{Figs.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a_LH} and \ref{wbrvstgba_LH}, we study
the influence of the $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ decrease in the
scenarios $A/\tilde{A}$ considered in section 4. The scenario A is the
only one, out of the six defined in \hbox{Tab.~}{}\ref{lep2scen}, that
falls in the area of large BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} )$ for $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} =
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a_LH}, one
can see the $m_0$ dependence of widths and BR's (already studied in
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a} for $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} =
3M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $), when one sets $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}} = M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $. The influence of $m_0$ on the
decay width into a Higgs comes from the radiative correction to
$m_{h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ through the stop mass (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
Appendix B). After the low-$m_0$ range, where the invisible decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\nu}_{\scriptscriptstyle e,L} \nu_{\scriptscriptstyle e} $ is
still dominant, we have an intermediate range $M_{\scriptscriptstyle
Z} \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; m_0
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$<$}\; 350
{\rm\,GeV} $, where the $b\bar{b} +\not\!\! E $ signature
(corresponding to the decay into $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_1 h^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $) is largely dominant. After that,
the old pattern of \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvsm0a} is recovered with a
large hadronic BR from $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 q\bar{q} $,
through the $Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange. As for the $\tan
\beta $ dependence (\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgba_LH}), the main effect
of lowering $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ with respect to
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{wbrvstgba} is an extension of the $\tan \beta $
range where the decay into a light Higgs is relevant, from about
(1-1.4), up to about (1-2). Hence, the $\tan \beta $ range where the
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ decays in something visible
is quite widened, in the scenario $\tilde{A}$.
\section{The radiative
$\protect\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2$ decay}
\label{sec:raddec}
In this section, we study the BR for the decay
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$. Provided the mass
difference $(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} )$ is large
enough as to give rise to a sufficiently energetic photon, this
channel can produce a beautiful signature. A monochromatic photon plus
missing energy and momentum should be observed. Although in all cases
considered in the previous sections,
BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$) never exceeds 15\%, it
can reach values as large as 100\% in particular regions of the $\mu,
M_2, \tan \beta $ space, as we are going to show.
In \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnph}, the BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}_2 \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$)
in the $(\mu, M_2)$ plane at fixed $m_0$ and $\tan \beta $ is studied.
We will assume $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} = 3
M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ everywhere. Indeed, although
$m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ sets the mass of the charged Higgs
that flows in the virtual loops (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{feyrad}), this parameter is the less critical in
this study. We have checked that varying $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle
0}} $ in the range $(M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 1 {\rm\,TeV} )$ can
change BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$) by at most $\pm 10\%$
(with increasing BR when $m_{A^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}} $ grows). The
scenarios studied in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnph} assume either $\tan
\beta = 1.5$ or 4. The BR for the radiative channel decreases
substantially at larger $\tan \beta $. Furthermore, we set either $m_0
= M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $ or $3 M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} $, as in
the previous sections. One can distinguish a specific area where
BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 \rightarrow
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$) is large, that,
particularly for large $m_0$ values (\hbox{cfr.}{}\
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnph}c,d), evolves roughly around the $M_2 = - 2
\mu$ line. This corresponds to the region where
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ is a pure higgsino-B, while
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ is mostly a photino
(\hbox{cfr.}{}, \hbox{e.g.}{}, \hbox{Figs.~}{} 2.2 and 2.3 in
\hbox{Ref.~}{}\cite{amb-mele}). This situation hinders all the
tree-level decays, since the scalar-exchange decays require gaugino
components in both $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $, while the
$Z^{\scriptscriptstyle 0} $-exchange ones need higgsino components.
By the way, the different gaugino/higgsino nature of the two lightest
neutralinos also depletes the $\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1
\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ pair production in
$e^{\scriptscriptstyle +}e^{\scriptscriptstyle -} $ collisions. In
\hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brnph}, also note that a large fraction of the
high-BR region lies in the area excluded by LEP1 searches.
Nevertheless, one can single out particular situations (of interest
for LEP2 physics and even beyond), where one can have very large BR's
for the radiative channel.
For instance, in \hbox{Fig.~}{}\ref{brvstgbfot}, we study two
different scenarios versus $\tan \beta $: \\ (i) $\mu = -70
{\rm\,GeV} $, $M_2 = 130 {\rm\,GeV} $, $m_0 = M_{\scriptscriptstyle
Z} , 3M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 1 {\rm\,TeV} $; \\ (ii) $\mu = -120
{\rm\,GeV} $, $M_2 = 230 {\rm\,GeV} $, $m_0 = M_{\scriptscriptstyle
Z} , 3M_{\scriptscriptstyle Z} , 1 {\rm\,TeV} $. \\ The scenario (i)
is of interest for LEP2 searches. For instance, for $\tan \beta =
1.5$, one has $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} \simeq 65 {\rm\,GeV} $ and
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \simeq 75 {\rm\,GeV} $. The scenario (ii)
concerns heavier neutralino states: for $\tan \beta = 1.5$, one gets
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} \simeq 113 {\rm\,GeV} $ and
$m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \simeq 127 {\rm\,GeV} $.
Fig. \ref{brnph} shows that BR($\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2
\rightarrow \tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 \gamma$) is
particularly large at moderate $\tan \beta $, although the total width
can be as low as a few 10$^{-3}$ eV. The BR is enhanced by increasing
$m_0$, since this makes all the other decays widths decrease further.
On the other hand, one can check that, at $\tan \beta = 1$,
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_1 $ and
$\tilde{\chi}^{\scriptscriptstyle 0}_2 $ are almost degenerate, while
their mass difference grows monotonically with $\tan \beta $. In order
to have a sufficiently energetic photon, \hbox{e.g.}{}\ $E_{\gamma}
\ge 10 {\rm\,GeV} $, one should restrict to $\tan \beta
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 1.5$ in the
case (i) and $\tan \beta \;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}
\raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 1.35$ in the case (ii), which imply
$(m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} )
\;\raisebox{-.5ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.5ex}{$>$}\; 10 {\rm\,GeV}
$.
A more in-depth study of the case of large radiative BR will be
carried out in a forthcoming paper \cite{amb-mele2}.
\acknowledgments
We thank Guido Altarelli for constant encouragement and discussions.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
The question of how fast a pulsar can spin has recently been discussed by
several authors (see {\it e.g.\ } Friedman \& Ipser 1992, Cook et al. 1994a, b).
Independently of the
possible mechanisms of pulsar spin-up, for any particular equation
of state there is always an upper limit for the final allowed
rotational speed, $\Omega_{\rm max}$. The limit is determined either
by the mass shedding condition, {\it i.e.} that the angular velocity
of the configuration, stable with respect to axisymmetric perturbations,
equals the Keplerian velocity at the surface, or by the
condition of the onset of non-axisymmetric (e.g. gravitational radiation
reaction) instabilities. In this paper
we discuss the limit given by the mass shedding condition.
Haensel and Zdunik (1989; hereafter HZ) noticed that for realistic
equations of state of dense matter,
the numerically calculated values of the shedding
limit $\Omega_{\rm max}$ can be fitted, with an accuracy better than
5\%, by an empirical formula
$$
\Omega_{\rm max} = {\cal C}_{\Omega}\left ({GM_{\rm max}}\over {R_{\rm
max}^3}\right )^{1/2}, \eqno(1.1)
$$
where $M_{\rm max}$ is the maximal mass of the non-rotating neutron
stars with the same equation of state, $R_{\rm max}$ is the radius
corresponding to $M_{\rm max}$, and ${\cal C}_{\Omega}$ is a dimensionless
phenomenological constant, independent of the equation of state.
$\Omega_{\rm max}$ is an angular velocity of rigid rotation as
measured by a
stationary observer at infinity. HZ determined that the best fit is
for ${\cal C}_{\Omega} = 0.67$.
The calculations of Friedman, Ipser and Parker (1989),
performed for a very broad set of equations of state, yielded
${\cal C}_\Omega=0.66$, quoted in Friedman (1989), Friedman and
Ipser (1992). It should be mentioned, that the value of ${\cal
C}_\Omega=0.62$, quoted in the original paper of Friedman, Ipser
and Parker (1989), was actually a very rough estimate of ${\cal
C}_\Omega$ (J.L. Friedman, private communication).
Calculations based on recent very accurate numerical methods are
in good
agreement with the original HZ choice of $C_\Omega$. For example, values of
$\Omega_{\rm max}$ calculated for several equations of state by
Lattimer et al. (1990) differ from the HZ version
of the empirical formula by less than 4\%.
Most recent calculations
in the full framework of General Relativity by Salgado et al. (1994a,b;
hereafter SBGH)
based on the spectral methods (Bonazzola et al. 1993) show that
configurations with causal equations of state (EOS) satisfy (1.1) with
${\cal C}_{\Omega} =0.67$ with an accuracy of better than 5\%
(Haensel, Salgado and Bonazzola 1995, hereafter HSB).
Results
obtained for causal EOS by Cook et al. (1994b) lead to very
similar ``best fit" value of ${\cal C}_\Omega$.
HSB found that the empirical relation with ${\cal C}_\Omega=0.67$
fails for configurations constructed with non-causal equations of
state, where the sound speed, $(\partial P/\partial \rho)^{1/2}_{
S}$, may be greater than the speed of light within the neutron
star models.
Empirical relations of universal character, valid for a broad
range of realistic equations of state of dense matter, can
obtained also for
other bulk parameters of neutron star models. For
example, a simple and surprisingly good
universal relation, connecting the maximum moment
of inertia for slow, rigid rotation, $I_{\rm max}$, to the mass and
radius of a static configuration with maximum allowable mass
(which is different from that with $I_{\rm max}$ !) was pointed
out by Haensel (1992). The existence of such universal empirical
relations is of practical importance: for any realistic EOS,
empirical formulae enable rapid and still quite precise
calculation of the upper bounds on global parameters of neutron
stars from the easily calculated parameters of the static
configuration with maximum allowable mass. A different type
of a universal formula was obtained by Ravenhall and Pethick
(1994). Their formula, valid for a broad range of realistic
equations of state of dense matter, and useful for all except
lightest neutron stars, expresses the moment of inertia in
terms of stellar mass and radius.
The few attempts to explain the empirical relation, Eq. (1.1),
were not concluded with
satisfactory results. The most elaborate discussion was presented by
Weber and Glendenning (1991; 1992). They used numerical models of
rotating neutron stars calculated in the slow rotation approximation
of Hartle and Thorne (1968) to show that these also obey the
empirical
formula, albeit with ${\cal C}_{\Omega} \approx 0.75$.
Although this is
obviously an important result, still lacking is a clear physical
understanding of the problem.
In a recent work Glendenning and Weber (1994) derived a
formula which relates $\Omega_{\rm max}$
to $M_{\rm max}/ R_{\rm max}^3 $ , in the slow
rotation approximation, where $M_{\rm max}$ and $R_{\rm max}$
correspond to rotating configurations, but they do not discuss the
connection between this relation and the formula (1.1).
As we shall see below the slow rotation
approximation cannot be applied consistently to maximally rotating
neutron stars, as pointed out already by Hartle and Thorne (1968).
\section{THE EMPIRICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN
NON-ROTATING AND MAXIMALLY ROTATING CONFIGURATIONS}
One can see that, to a good approximation,
the ``constant" ${\cal C}_{\Omega}$ is in fact
a slowly varying function of one variable, characterizing the
EOS of dense matter, ${\cal C}_\Omega{\rm (EOS)}$ (Table 1 and
HSB).
Indeed Fig. 1 shows the
values of ${\cal C}_{\Omega}$ as given by eq. (1.1) for 12
maximally rotating
models calculated by SBGH, as a function of the parameter
$$ x_{\rm s} = {2 G M_{\rm max}\over R_{\rm max} c^2}
\eqno (2.1) $$
for static maximum mass configurations.
It is clear that ${\cal C}_\Omega({\rm EOS})$
is slowly varying, and for the range of
parameters of interest, can be well approximated by
a monotonic function of $x_{\rm s}$.
If one restricts to realistic EOS, which
are both causal and stiff enough to support observed masses of pulsars, the
range of relevant $x_{\rm s}$ becomes rather narrow and the approximation
of ${\cal C}_{\Omega}({\rm EOS})$ by a constant is
quite satisfactory (see HSB).
It is well known that for realistic EOS,
rotation increases the value of maximum mass
of a neutron star by about 20$\%$. We find however that,
with a very good approximation,
there exists
a {\it universal} relation between the maximum mass of non-rotating neutron
star configuration and the mass of a configuration rotating with
an angular speed $\Omega_{\rm max}$. The relation is:
$$M_{\rm max}({\rm rot}) = {\cal C}_M M_{\rm max}({\rm stat}) ,
\eqno (2.2) $$
where $ M_{\rm max}({\rm rot})$ and $ M_{\rm max}({\rm stat})$ are
respectively the
mass of the configuration in maximum rotation and the maximum mass of the
static neutron star for the same equation of state. Of course,
a similar relation holds trivially for any specific EOS, and
yields a specific value of the proportionality constant,
${\cal C}_M({\rm EOS})$. The values of
${\cal C}_M ({\rm EOS}) $, calculated for a broad set of EOS using the results
of SBGH, are given in Table 1. The best fit of relation (2.2) to
numerical results of SBGH is obtained for ${\cal C}_M=1.18$.
Then, relation (2.2) reproduces exact results within better
than 3\% (Fig.2).
A similar relation is found for the radii of the corresponding
configurations:
$$R_{\rm max}({\rm rot}) = {\cal C}_R R_{\rm max}({\rm stat}) ,
\eqno (2.3) $$
where $R_{\rm max}({\rm rot})$ and $R_{\rm max}({\rm stat})$
are the radii
of the maximally rotating and the static configurations respectively.
The best fit value of a {\it constant}
${\cal C}_R$ in relation (2.3), based on numerical results of
SBGH for causal EOS, is ${\cal C}_R=1.34$. Relation (2.3) reproduces
then exact results for {\it causal} EOS within better than 4\%
(Fig. 3).
As in the case of relation (2.2), one can
introduce the factor ${\cal C}_R ({\rm EOS})$ (Table 1). The
dependence of ${\cal C}_R$ on the EOS can be well approximated
by a monotonically decreasing function of $x_{\rm s}$ - this is
visualized in Fig. 4. No such a trend was found for
${\cal C}_M{\rm (EOS)}$), Fig. 5.
Our analysis have been based on a set of numerical results,
obtained for twelve realistic EOS in SBGH. We
have restricted to the SBGH set in order to keep the homogeneity
of the sample of numerical results. Numerical results obtained
by other authors (Friedman, Ipser \& Parker 1989, Cook et al.
1994b) are found to be slightly different from those of SBGH.
This is due to the fact, that the precise
determination of the maximally rotating
configuration -- which requires very high precision of numerical
procedure -- turns out to be sensitive to such details as, e.g.,
the interpolation method used for the determination of the maximum
frequency model
(Stergioulas \& Friedman 1995, E. Gourgoulhon, private communication).
However, uncertainties resulting from this dependence on the
specific sample of numerical results obtained for realistic
EOS, are consistent with the precision of relations (2.2), (2.3),
discussed above.
One can easily see that the empirical ${\cal C}_\Omega$
constant may be obtained, within a very good approximation,
from the formula:
$$ {\cal C}_\Omega \simeq {\cal C}\equiv
\left(
{ {\cal C}_M \over {{\cal C}_R}^3 }
\right)^{1/2}.
\eqno (2.4) $$
As can be seen from Table 1, for causal EOS Eq. (2.4)
reproduces the actual values of
${\cal C}_\Omega({\rm EOS})$ within better than 5\%. In the case
when one considers also non-causal EOS, the precision of
approximation (2.4) worsens to 7\%.
Relation (2.4) implies, that the angular velocity for mass shedding
is approximated by the formula
$$ \Omega_{\rm max} \simeq\left({G M_{\rm max}({\rm rot})\over
R_{\rm max}^3({\rm rot})}\right)^{1/2}~.
\eqno (2.5)$$
The value of $\Omega_{\rm max}$ can be thus well approximated by the
frequency of a particle in stable circular orbit at the equator
of a fictitious {\it non-rotating} star of mass equal to $M_{\rm max}({\rm
rot})$ and of the radius equal to the equatorial radius of the
maximally rotating configuration, $R_{\rm max}({\rm rot})$ (in
the case of non-rotating star the general relativistic formula
for the particle frequency is identical to the newtonian one,
see {\it e.g.} Misner, Thorne \& Wheeler 1973).
Up to now, we considered only {\it realistic} EOS of dense
matter.
It is instructive to study also the case of polytropic configurations with
an equation of state in the form $P=K {n_{\rm b}}^{\Gamma}$,
where $n_{\rm b}$ is baryon density of matter.
Extensive calculations of rotating polytropic models were
presented in Cook et al. (1992, 1994a).
For a fixed value of $\Gamma$, static and rotating models
exhibit useful scaling properties with respect to change of $K$
(Cook et al. 1992, 1994a).
Consequently, the relativistic parameter $x_{\rm s}$, and
${\cal C}_M({\rm EOS})$,
${\cal C}_R({\rm EOS})$ turn out to
be functions of $\Gamma$ only; they are given in Table 2.
For a fixed value of $\Gamma$, relations (1.1), (2.2), and
(2.3) are thus exact, with $\Gamma$-dependent values of
the numerical coefficients.
The realistic EOS are not polytropes, and their local
adiabatic index, $\Gamma=(n_{\rm b}/P){\rm d}P/{\rm d}n_{\rm
b}$, depends on the density, $\Gamma=\Gamma(n_{\rm b})$. Two
specific examples of the density dependence of $\Gamma$ are
shown in Fig. 6. In both cases, the value of $\Gamma$ varies
within the relevant interval of $n_{\rm b}$ by more than $30\%$
of its maximum value. Clearly, such EOS cannot be represented by
single polytropes. This explains, e.g., the lack of monotonic trend
in the dependence of ${\cal C}_M({\rm EOS})$ on $x_{\rm s}({\rm
EOS})$ for realistic EOS, displayed in Fig. 5. Such a
non-monotonic, irregular behavior, characteristic of realistic
EOS, is to be contrasted with a monotonic dependence ${\cal
C}_M(x_{\rm s})$ for polytropes, Table 2. In spite of this
irregular behavior of ${\cal C}_M({\rm EOS})$ for realistic
EOS, the values of ${\cal C}({\rm EOS})$ for realistic EOS,
calculated from (2.4), show a clear trend for a monotonic
increase with $x_{\rm s}$. This results from a clear trend in
${\cal C}_R({\rm EOS})$ to decrease with $x_{\rm s}$, which --
magnified by the third power within the bracket of formula
(2.4) -- dominates the ${\cal C}$ -- $x_{\rm s}$ relation.
The trend for a monotonic increase of ${\cal C}_\Omega$ with
$x_{\rm s}$, Fig. 1, can be well reproduced by a linear function
${\cal C}_\Omega^{\rm lin}(x_{\rm s})=
0.468 + 0.378x_{\rm s}$.
This function, obtained by a least squares fit to the points
shown in Fig. 1, reproduces
${\cal C}_\Omega({\rm EOS})$
(and
$\Omega_{\rm max}({\rm EOS})$,
if inserted in Eq. (1.1)) with
precision better than $1.5\%$, with typical relative error being
less than $1\%$. It should be stressed, however, that such a
linear approximation
${\cal C}_\Omega^{\rm lin}(x_{\rm s})$
is valid only within a rather narrow interval of $x_{\rm s}$,
characteristic of realistic EOS, $0.45<x_{\rm s}<0.7$. In
contrast to the one-parameter empirical formula with
${\cal C}_\Omega=0.67$,
${\cal C}_\Omega^{\rm lin}(x_{\rm s})$ does not work
for the EOS
of the free neutron gas (see HSB).
\section{THE SLOW ROTATION APPROXIMATION}
Weber and Glendenning (1991, 1992) tried to derive the empirical
formula, equation (1.1), by using the slow rotation approximation of
the Einstein equations.
One should notice however that a neutron star rotating with $\Omega_{\rm max}$ may
not be really considered to be a slow rotator (Hartle \& Thorne 1978).
Indeed, let us define a
dimensionless angular velocity $\Omega_*$,
$$ \Omega_*^{~2} \equiv {\Omega}^2/\left({GM\over R^3}\right),
\eqno (3.1)$$
where $M$ is the mass of the static star, $R$ its radius and
${\Omega}$ is the angular velocity
measured by observers at infinity. The assumption of the slow
rotation means that (Hartle 1967),
$$ \Omega_*^{~2} \ll 1. \eqno (3.2)$$
From equation (1.1) with ${\cal C}_{\Omega}=0.67$ it follows that
$$ \Omega_{*\ \rm max}^{~2}\approx 0.45, \eqno(3.3) $$
so that the use of slow-rotation approximation for maximally rotating
configurations requires some additional justification.
It is unlikely that this approximation will give accurate results
considering the fact that at the stellar surface the linear speed of
rotation is a significant fraction of the speed of light (Hartle \&
Thorne 1968):
$$ {v_S \over c} = {1\over \sqrt 2} \left({x_s \over 1 - x_s}\right)^{1/2}
\eqno(3.4) $$
For the maximally rotating models of SBGH one gets typically
$v_S/c \approx 0.7$.
In the slow rotation approximation, one can obtain for
$\Omega_{\rm max}$ an expression of the form, which seems to be
similar to that of the empirical formula (1.1) (see also
Glendenning and Weber 1994):
$$ \Omega_{\rm max} =
{\cal C}_{\rm sr}\left ({GM_{\rm max}({\rm rot})
\over R_{\rm max}^{~3}({\rm rot})}\right)^{1/2}
+ {\cal O}(\Omega_*^3), \eqno (3.5)$$
with
$$ {\cal C}_{\rm sr} \approx \left [ 1
+ {{I}\over {MR^2}} {{R_G}\over R}\left(1 - 2.5{I\over MR^2}
\left({R\over R_G}\right)^4
\left(1 -{R_G\over R}\right)Q^{'2}_2(u)\cdot
\left(1-{{QMc^2}\over J^{2}}\right) \right)
\right]^{-{1\over 2}}~.
\eqno (3.6)$$
Here $R_G$ is the gravitational radius,
$$ R_G = {{2GM}\over c^2}, \eqno (3.7)$$
$J$ is the angular momentum, $I$ the moment of inertia, $Q$ is
the quadrupole moment of the rotating configuration, and
$Q^{'2}_{2}(u)$ is the derivative, with respect to
$u=1-R/R_G$, of the associated Legendre function of the second kind.
The quantities $M$ and $R$ are those for the
maximally rotating configuration, but -- within our
approximation --- we can as well replace them by
$M_{\rm max}({\rm stat})$, $R_{\rm max}({\rm stat})$.
Equations (3.5) and (3.6) give $\Omega_{\rm max}$ in terms of the mass,
equatorial radius, moment of inertia, angular momentum
and the quadrupole moment of the maximally {\it
rotating} configuration. At first glance (and neglecting terms
$\sim \Omega_*^{~3}$ and higher),
expression (3.5 -- 3.6) may seem to be similar to
empirical formula (1.1).
It has been shown by Abramowicz and Wagoner (1978) and recently confirmed
by Ravenhall and Pethick (1994) that moments of inertia,
expressed in the units of $MR^2$, are -
to a good approximation - functions of
only $x=R/R_G$.
Moreover, results of SBGH show that ${QMc^2}/ J^{2}$
is a decreasing
function of $x_s$. Expression (3.5) seems thus to possess
similar properties as
the empirical formula. Unfortunately {\it it is not} the
empirical formula since it involves $M_{\rm max}$ and $R_{\rm
max}$ of {\it rotating} configurations, and therefore it
corresponds to some approximation of eq. (2.5) and not to eq. (1.1).
Further expansions of $M_{\rm max}({\rm rot})$ and $R_{\rm
max}({\rm rot})$ in $\Omega_*$ are not justified - in view of
the large value of this parameter (notice that rotation increases
the value of $R_{\rm max}$ by some 30\%).
So, only some external ``empirical input" (such as
assumption of a ``typical" effect of rotation on $M_{\rm max}$,
$R_{\rm max}$, and on eccentricity of rotating star, made in
Weber \& Glendenning (1992)) can lead to an expression of type
(1.1). A consistent application of the slow rotation
approximation cannot reproduce the empirical formula for
$\Omega_{\rm max}$.
This is
not very surprising if one considers that one should get to the 8-th
order in $\Omega_*$ to get a precision of 4\%, characteristic
of empirical formula.
\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}
The proportionality constant appearing in the empirical formula for
$\Omega_{\rm max}$ for realistic EOS of dense matter,
is in fact a function of the
relativistic parameter $x_s$. In the range of parameters
describing maximally rotating configurations with causal equations
of state ${\cal C}_{\Omega}$ is a rather slowly varying function
of $x_s$, which results in a high precision of empirical formula
with an appropriate choice of a universal proportionality
constant.
We found universal relations connecting maximal masses and corresponding radii
of static neutron stars,
calculated for realistic EOS of dense matter,
with those of maximally rotating configurations.
The empirical formula follows from those relations.
Although the slow rotation approximation allows one to reproduce some
of the properties of the empirical formula this approximation is
not appropriate for maximally rotating configurations.
It is a great pleasure to thank Silvano Bonazzola for his role in
stimulating this research. We are grateful to him, Eric Gourgoulhon,
Marcelo Salgado and R\'emi Hakim for very useful discussions.
We thank the second referee of this paper for useful suggestions and comments.
This research was partially supported by the Polish State Committee
for Scientific Research (KBN) grant, and by PICS/CNRS no. 198
``Astronomie Pologne".
|
\section{Introduction}
In recent years, various kinds of nonequilibrium lattice models
exhibiting a continuous phase transition from a reactive phase
into an absorbing (inactive) phase have been studied extensively
\cite{Liggett,Dickb}.
Most of models investigated are found to belong to the directed
percolation (DP) universality class \cite{Jan,Grass82,Cardy,Grin}.
A common feature of these
models is that the absorbing phase consists of a {\em single}
absorbing state. Even some models with infinitely many absorbing
states also exhibit critical behavior in the DP universality class
\cite{Jen932,Jen933}.
Only a few models have been studied which are not in the DP
universality class. Those are the model
A and B of probabilistic cellular automata \cite{Grass84,Grass89},
nonequilibrium kinetic Ising models with two different dynamics
\cite{Meny94,Meny95}, and interacting monomer-dimer models
\cite{Park94,Park951,Park952}. Numerical
investigations show that they belong to the same but non-DP
universality class.
These models share a common property that the absorbing phase
consists of two {\em equivalent} absorbing states.
Recently, the branching annihilating random walks (BAW)
have been studied intensively \cite{Bram,Sud,Taka,Jen934,Jen931,Jen941}.
The BAW model is a lattice model where
a walker can hop to a nearest neighbor site with probability $p$
and branch with $n$ offsprings in nearest neighborhood
with probability $1-p$. Two walkers
annihilate immediately when they meet. In general, this model
exhibits a continuous phase transition from an active state
into the absorbing state (vacuum) at finite hopping probability
$p_c$.
Even though the BAW model has a single
absorbing state, its critical property depends on the parity of the
number of offsprings created in a branching process.
Dynamics of the BAW models with even $n$ conserve the number of walkers
modulo 2, while the BAW models with odd $n$ evolve without any conservation.
The BAW models with odd $n$ exhibit the DP critical behavior
\cite{Taka,Jen934}, while
the BAW models with even $n$ exhibit the same non-DP behavior
as in the models with two equivalent absorbing states
\cite{Grass89,Park94,Park951,Park952,Jen941}.
One can find that the total number of kinks are conserved modulo 2
in models with two equivalent absorbing states. Therefore this conservation
law may be responsible for the non-DP critical behavior.
The critical exponents characterizing the non-DP behavior
are measured accurately by extensive Monte Carlo simulations for the BAW
model with $n=4$ in one dimension \cite{Jen941}.
Unfortunately, the BAW model with $n=2$ which is simpler
does not have an active phase ($p_c=0$) \cite{Sud,Taka2}.
Recently, ben-Avraham {\em et al} \cite{Redner}
introduce another parameter which controls the two-walker
annihilation process and show that the BAW model with $n=2$
exhibits a continuous phase transition at a finite value of
$p_c$ except for the case of infinite annihilation rate (the ordinary BAW
model). But the values of the critical exponents are not reported there.
As the annihilation rate becomes smaller, it is clear that
the system gets more active (more walkers survive) so the critical
probability $p_c$ goes higher.
In the ordinary BAW models, there are two competing elementary processes,
i.e.~hopping and branching. The hopping process does not increase
the number of walkers but can decrease it by two-walker annihilations.
As the hopping probability becomes larger, the system tends to
trap into the absorbing state (vacuum). The branching process may
increase the number of walkers so it can make the system more active.
That is why the BAW model with one offspring exhibits a phase transition
from an active state into vacuum as $p$ becomes larger.
Therefore one may argue that increasing the number of offsprings in the
branching process will make the system more active so the
critical probability $p_c$ will go higher as $n$ becomes bigger.
However, numerical and analytical study of the BAW models with $n$ offsprings
show that $p_c$ is not a monotonically increasing function of $n$.
In fact, the values of $p_c$ are 0.1070(5), 0, 0.459(1), 0.7215(5),
and 0.718(1) for $n=1-5$ \cite{Taka,Jen934,Jen941}.
These results contradict the conventional
wisdom mentioned above and there is no consistent manner in making
the system more active by changing the number of offsprings.
In order to understand this rather surprising result, we introduce
a model which interpolates the BAW models with one offspring
and with two offsprings.
In this model, the branching process creates one offspring or
two offsprings with relative ratio. We map out the phase diagram
by dynamic Monte Carlo simulations which shows a reentrant phase
transition from vacuum to an active state and finally into
vacuum again as the relative rate of the two-offspring process increases
at fixed hopping probability. The second phase transition occurs at
quite high rates of the two-offspring process (more than $80\%$).
We argue that the second transition is due to the static reflection
symmetry of the two-offspring branching process (one offspring
to the left and the other to the right of the branching walker:
{\em static branching}).
This reentrant second transition disappears and
our conventional wisdom is recovered when the dynamic reflection
symmetry is introduced (both offsprings to the left or to the right
of the branching walker with equal probability: {\em dynamic branching}).
In the next section, we describe the BAW model with one and two
offsprings with relative ratio. Dynamic Monte Carlo results
are discussed which show the reentrant phase diagram.
In Sec.~III, the BAW model with dynamic branching
is introduced. Our numerical results for $n=2$ find the existence
of the non-DP critical behavior at finite hopping probability.
In Sec.~IV, we study the BAW model with one and two offsprings
created by dynamic branching. The reentrant
behavior disappears entirely as expected. We conclude in Sec.~V
with brief summary.
\section{The BAW model with one and two offsprings: Static branching}
We consider the BAW model with one and two offsprings with relative
ratio in one dimension. The evolution rules of this model are given
as follows. First, choose a walker at random. It may hop to
a randomly chosen nearest neighbor site with probability $p$.
If this site is already occupied by another walker, both walkers
annihilate immediately. With probability $1-p$, the randomly chosen
walker creates two offsprings symmetrically at nearest neighbor sites
with relative probability $r$ ($0\le r \le 1$) or
creates one offspring at a randomly chosen nearest neighbor
site with relative probability $1-r$.
When an offspring is created on a site already occupied, both
walkers annihilate immediately.
The case $r=0$ corresponds
to the BAW model with one offspring which exhibits
a continuous phase transition from an active phase into vacuum
at $p\simeq 0.1070$ \cite{Jen934}.
The other limiting case $r=1$ corresponds to
the BAW model with two offsprings which does not have an active
state at finite values of $p$ \cite{Sud,Taka2}.
We perform dynamic Monte Carlo simulations for this model
with various values of $r=0$, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 0.8, 0.85, 0.9,
0.95, and 1.
We start with two nearest neighbor
walkers at the central sites of a lattice. Then the system evolves
along the dynamical rules of the model.
After one attempt of hopping or branching on the average per lattice
site (one Monte Carlo step), the time is incremented by one unit.
A numer of independent runs, typically $10^5$, are made up to
2000 time steps for various values of $p$ near the critical
probability $p_c$. Most runs, however, stop earlier because the
system gets into the absorbing state.
We measure the survival probability $P(t)$ (the
probability that the system is still active at time $t$),
the number of walkers $N(t)$ averaged over all
runs, and the mean-square distance of spreading $R^2 (t)$ averaged
over the surviving runs.
At criticality, the values of these quantities scale
algebraically in the long time limit \cite{Grass79}
\begin{eqnarray}
P(t) &\sim& t^{-\delta},\nonumber \\
N(t) &\sim& t^{\eta},\\
R^2(t) &\sim& t^{z},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and double-logarithmic plots of these values against time
show straight lines. Off criticality, these plots show
some curvatures.
More precise estimates for the scaling exponents can be obtained
by examining the local slopes of the curves.
The effective
exponent $\delta(t)$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
-\delta(t) = \frac{\log \left[ P(t) / P(t/b) \right]}{\log ~b}
\end{equation}
and similarly for $\eta (t)$ and $z(t)$. In Fig.~1, we plot
the effective exponents against $1/t$ with $b =5$ for $r=0.25$.
Off criticality these plots
show upward or downward curvatures. From Fig.~1, we estimate
$p_c = 0.1265(5)$ and dynamic exponents
$ \delta = 0.158(2)$, $\eta = 0.310(3)$, $z = 1.27(1)$.
These values are in an excellent accord with those of the
DP universality class; $\delta=0.1596(4),
\eta=0.3137(10)$, and $z=1.2660(14)$ (see reference \cite{Jen941}).
This result supports the conjecture that models with a single
absorbing state and no conservation laws should belong to the DP
universality class.
Similarly we determine the values of the critical probability $p_c$
and the dynamic exponents for various values of $r$. As expected
from the above conjecture, the values
of the dynamic exponents stay almost unchanged except for $r=1$.
Estimates of $p_c$ for various values of $r$ are listed in Table I.
The value of $p_c$ slowly increases as $r$ varies upto $\sim 0.75$ and
drastically decreases to zero as $r$ approaches the value of unity.
The $r-p$ phase diagram is drawn in Fig.~2 where a reentrant
phase transition is explicitly shown. At fixed values of
$p=0.11\sim 0.14$, the system undergoes phase transitions from
vacuum to an active state and finally into vacuum again as $r$
becomes larger (more offsprings are created).
The second transition occurs at quite high rates of
the two-offspring branching process.
This result implies that our conventional wisdom does not
apply near $r=1$.
The BAW model with two-offsprings can be solved exactly
at $p=0$, where pairs of nearest neighbor walkers diffuse
like the ordinary random walks, i.e.~$\cdots 001100\cdots \rightarrow
\cdots 000110\cdots$ where `$1$' represents an occupied site and `$0$'
a vacant site.
When two pairs collide each other, they just bounce back.
So the number of walkers is bounded in this model, in contrast
to the BAW model with one offspring where the number of walkers
is not bounded. So our conventional wisdom that the BAW model
with more offsprings may be more active does not work.
For $p>0$, these pairs annihilate by hopping processes so the system
becomes inactive in the long time limit.
We notice that picture of diffusing pairs
is mainly due to the static reflection symmetry of the branching
process. If the dynamic reflection symmetry is adopted instead of
the static one,
this diffusing-pair picture is no longer valid. In this case,
a walker branches two offsprings both to the left or to the
right of itself with equal probability. The reflection
symmetry is not broken on average, but this branching
process allows a formation of long chains of walkers,
i.e.~$\cdots 00011000 \cdots \rightarrow
\cdots 01111000\cdots$. So
the number of walkers is not bounded from above and
an active phase may appear at finite hopping probability.
\section{The BAW model with two offsprings: Dynamic branching}
We study the BAW model with two offsprings created by
dynamic branching. The hopping process is the same as
in the ordinary BAW models, but in the branching process
a randomly chosen walker creates two
offsprings both on the sites to the left or to the right of the walker
with equal probability.
We perform dynamic Monte Carlo simulations, starting
from a pair of walkers at the central sites of a lattice.
$10^6$ independent runs are made during 2000 time steps
and we measure $P(t)$, $N(t)$, and $R^2 (t)$.
In Fig.~3, we plot the effective exponents $\delta(t)$,
$\eta(t)$, and $z(t)$ against $1/t$ with $b=5$.
These plots clearly show the existence of an active phase.
We estimate $p_c=0.5105(7)$ and the dynamic exponents
$\delta=0.287(1)$, $\eta=0.000(3)$, and $z=1.155(5)$.
These values are in an excellent accord with those of
the non-DP universality class; $\delta=0.285(2)$, $\eta=0.000(1)$,
and $z=1.141(2)$ for the BAW model with four offsprings.
This result supports the conjecture that models with
particle number conservation of modulo 2 should belong
to the same but non-DP universality class.
We also perform dynamic simulations with a different
initial configuration. We start with a single walker at
the center of a lattice. Conservation of the number of
walkers of modulo 2 prevents the system
from entering the absorbing state (vacuum). So the survival
probability exponent $\delta$ must be zero. Our numerical results
conclude that the dynamic exponents $\eta=0.283(5)$ and
$z=1.15(1)$. These values also agree very well with those of
the BAW model with four offsprings ($\eta=0.282(4)$, $z=1.140(5)$).
Compared with the ordinary BAW model with two offsprings, it is clear
that the static reflection symmetry is responsible for the
nonexistence of an active phase and the dynamic reflection symmetry
makes the system more active. To support this idea, we employ the
mean field theory on spreading of the active region.
Difference between these two models lies on the branching process.
So we only consider the effect of different branching mechanism
on the boundary of the active region. The boundary can move by
branching of walkers at the boundary or nearby. For example,
a branching process of a walker at the boundary increases the
active region by one unit in the BAW model with the static symmetry.
For the BAW model with the dynamic symmetry, the same process
increases the active region by the same amount (one unit on average).
However, a branching process of a walker near the boundary inside
of the active region decreases the active region
differently for these two models.
Considering all possible cases that the boundary can move and
using the mean field theory to assign a proper probability to
each case, we find the outward velocity of the boundary as
\begin{eqnarray}
v_s &=& (1-p)\rho (1-\rho), \nonumber\\
v_d &=& (1-p)\rho (1-\frac{\rho^2}{2}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $v_s$ ($v_d$) is the outward velocity of the boundary for the
model with the static (dynamic) symmetry and $\rho$ is the
walker density. The first term comes from the branching
process of a walker at the boundary and the second term near the
boundary. The effect of hopping on the boundary velocity is omitted.
We find that $v_s$ is always smaller than $v_d$.
This result implies that the active region grows faster in the
model with the dynamic symmetry, so this model should be more
active than the model with the static symmetry. This mean field
argument can be easily generalized to the models with general $n$
offsprings.
As the critical probability depends enormously on the symmetry
of branching processes (especially $n=2$), it is meaningless
to ask whether $p_c$ monotonically increases with $n$ for
the ordinary BAW models. These models have not
been classified by the symmetry of branching processes.
The branching process of the
ordinary BAW model with one offspring basically belongs to
the process with the dynamic symmetry. If we compare
the critical probabilities of the BAW models with dynamic
branching only, we expect that $p_c$ will monotonically increase with
$n$, i.e.~the dynamic branching process always makes the system
more active. In the next section, we study the BAW model
with one and two offsprings created by dynamic branching
and examine whether the reentrant behavior seen in the case
of static branching (Sec.~II) disappears.
\section{The BAW model with one and two offsprings: Dynamic branching}
We consider the BAW model with one and two offsprings branched
dynamically with relative ratio. The evolution rules of this model
are exactly the same as in Sec.~2 except that static branching
is replaced with dynamic branching for the two-offspring branching
process.
We perform dynamic Monte Carlo simulations for $r=0.25$, 0.50, 0.75.
Estimated values of $p_c$ are listed in Table II. As expected,
$p_c$ monotonically increases as $r$ becomes larger (more offsprings
are created). The reentrant phase transition disappears entirely
in this model with dynamic branching (see Fig.~4).
Of course, the critical behavior at the absorbing
transitions belongs to the DP universality class for $0\le r <1$.
\section{Summary}
We study the BAW models with static (ordinary)
branching and dynamic branching.
With the static branching, the BAW model with
one and two offsprings shows a reentrant phase transition from
vacuum to an active state and finally into vacuum again as the
relative rate of the two offspring process increases. We argue that
this reentrant property originates from the static reflection
symmetry of the two-offspring branching process.
The ordinary BAW model with two offsprings does not have an active
phase at finite values of hopping
probability. We introduce the BAW model with two offsprings created
by dynamic branching and show that this model
exhibits a continuous phase transition from an active phase into vacuum
at finite hopping probability. Its critical behavior belongs to
the same non-DP universality class as in the ordinary BAW model with four
offsprings. We also study the BAW model with one and two offsprings
created by dynamic branching. The reentrant behavior disappears
and our conventional wisdom is recovered as
expected. Our results shed light on how the system can be active
by different branching processes and the BAW model with dynamic
branching may serve as another simple model exhibiting the non-DP
critical behavior.
\section*{acknowledgements}
We wish to thank Heungwon Park for interesting
discussions. This work is supported in part by the BSRI, Ministry of
Education (Grant No.~95-2409) and by an Inha University research
grant (1995).
|
\section{ Introduction}
The purpose of this article is to describe a numerically stable
Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm to calculate zero-temperature
imaginary time displaced Green functions:
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{x,y}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)
\frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{x}(\tau) c_{y}^{\dagger} | \Psi_0 \rangle}
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle}
- \Theta(-\tau)
\frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{y}^{\dagger}(-\tau) c_{x} | \Psi_0 \rangle}
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle },
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{equation}
{\rm where } \; \; \; \;
c_{x}(\tau) = e^{ \tau (H - \mu N) } c_{x}
e^{-\tau (H - \mu N)}.
\end{equation}
Here $ |\Psi_0 \rangle $ denotes the ground state of the
considered Hamiltonian $H$,
$c_{x}^{\dagger}$ creates an electron with quantum numbers $x$,
$\Theta(\tau)$ is the Heaviside function and
$\mu $ is the chemical potential which has to satisfy:
\begin{equation}
\label{chem}
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{ {\rm Tr} \left( e^{-\beta (H - \mu N)} N \right) }
{ {\rm Tr} \left( e^{-\beta (H - \mu N)} \right) }
=
\frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | N | \Psi_0 \rangle }
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle },
\end{equation}
in the zero-temperature limit $T \equiv 1/\beta \rightarrow 0$.
The above equation implies that the chemical potential corresponding
to the desired particle density, $n(\mu)$, has to be
known prior to the simulation.
In a metallic state $n(\mu)$ is in general not known a priori.
However, in an insulating state at zero-temperature $n(\mu)$
is constant and
in general known for chemical potentials within the charge gap $\Delta_c$.
In this situation, the here described algorithm proves to be a
powerful tool.
The above $T=0$ Green functions have already been calculated with QMC methods
by Deisz et al \cite{John}. Since their algorithm does not incorporate
a numerical stabilization scheme, they are restricted
to relatively small values of $\tau$
(i.e. $\tau = 2.5 $ in units of the hopping
matrix element for the one-dimensional Hubbard model).
This articles follows the work of Deisz et al. and describes
a numerical
stabilization scheme which allows one to calculate $T=0$ Green functions
for arbitrary values of $\tau$.
To demonstrate the efficiency of the algorithm, we calculate
$G_{x,y}(\tau) $ for the two-dimensional half-filled Hubbard
model:
\begin{equation}
\label{Hubb}
H = \sum_{\vec{i},\vec{j}, \sigma}
c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger}T_{\vec{i},\vec{j}} c_{\vec{j},\sigma}
+ U \sum_{\vec{i}} \left( n_{\vec{i}, \uparrow} - \frac{1}{2} \right)
\left( n_{\vec{i}, \downarrow} - \frac{1}{2} \right).
\end{equation}
The quantum numbers $\vec{i}$ and $\sigma$ denote lattice site and
{\it z}-component of spin respectively,
$n_{\vec{i},\sigma } = c_{\vec{i},\sigma}^{\dagger}
c_{\vec{i}\sigma}$ , and $T_{\vec{i},\vec{j}} = -t$ if
$\vec{i}$ and $\vec{j}$ are nearest-neighbors. In this
notation half-band filling corresponds to $\mu = 0$.
As a non-trivial test of the algorithm, one may fit the tail of
$G_{x,x}(\tau)$ ($x = (\vec{i}, \sigma))$
to the form $ e^{-\tau \Delta_c}$ to obtain
the charge gap $\Delta_c$. At $U/t = 4$ and after
extrapolation to the thermodynamic limit, our QMC data yields
$\Delta_c/t = 0.67 \pm 0.02 $. This value stands in good agreement
with previously determined values of $\Delta_c$
\cite{Furukawa}.
The article is organized in the following way. In the next section,
we briefly describe the zero-temperature auxiliary-field QMC
algorithm for the Hubbard model \cite{Koonin,Sandro,Imada,Assaad}.
We then present our solution for
the numerical stabilization of the time displaced Green
functions. In section 3 we describe our
calculation of the charge gap for the two-dimensional Hubbard
model at $U/t = 4$.
In the last section, we draw some conclusions and discuss the
potential applications of the algorithm.
\section{The zero-temperature QMC algorithm }
Since the Hubbard model conserves particle number, and we are
working in the canonical ensemble, one may factorize the chemical
potential to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{factor}
G_{x,y}(\tau) = \Theta(\tau)
\left. \frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{x}(\tau) c_{y}^{\dagger} | \Psi_0 \rangle }
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle } \right|_{\mu = 0} e^{\tau \mu}
- \Theta(-\tau)
\left. \frac{ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{y}^{\dagger}(-\tau) c_{x} | \Psi_0 \rangle }
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle }\right|_{\mu = 0} e^{\tau \mu}.
\end{equation}
Due to the above relation we consider the calculation of the
$T=0$ Green functions at $\mu = 0$.
The idea behind the zero temperature QMC algorithm is to filter
out the ground state from a trial wave function $| \Psi_T\rangle $ which is
required to be non-orthogonal to the ground state:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\langle \Psi_0 | c_{x}(\tau) c_{y}^{\dagger} | \Psi_0 \rangle }
{\langle \Psi_0 | \Psi_0 \rangle }
= \lim_{ \Theta \rightarrow \infty }
\frac{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-\Theta H }
c_{x}(\tau) c_{y}^{\dagger}
e^{-\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle }
{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-2\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle }, \; \; \tau > 0.
\end{equation}
The QMC calculation of
\begin{equation}
G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau) \equiv \frac{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-\Theta H }
c_{x}(\tau) c_{y}^{\dagger}
e^{-\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle }
{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-2\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle }
\end{equation}
proceeds in the following way.
The first step is to carry out a Trotter
decomposition of the imaginary time propagation:
\begin{equation}
\label{Trotter}
e^{-2\Theta H } =
\left( e^{- \Delta \tau H_t/2 } e^{- \Delta \tau H_U}
e^{- \Delta \tau H_t/2 } \right)^{m} + O( (\Delta \tau)^2).
\end{equation}
Here, $H_t$ ($H_U$) denotes the kinetic (potential)
term of the Hubbard model and $m \Delta \tau = 2\Theta$.
Having isolated the two-body interaction term, $H_U$, one may carry
out a discrete Hubbard Stratonovitch (HS)
transformation \cite{Hirsch} to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{HS}
e^{-\Delta \tau H_U} = C \sum_{\vec{s}} \exp
\left( \sum_{x,y} c_{x}^{\dagger} D_{x,y}(\vec{s}) c_{y} \right),
\end{equation}
where $\vec{s}$ denotes a vector of HS Ising fields.
For the Hubbard model (\ref{Hubb}), we take:
\begin{equation}
D_{\vec{i}\sigma, \vec{j}\sigma'} (\vec{s}) =
\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'} \delta_{\vec{i},\vec{j}}
{\rm cosh}^{-1} (\Delta \tau U/2) s_{\vec{i}} \sigma.
\end{equation}
The constant $C = {\rm exp} ( -\Delta \tau N U/2)/ 2^N $ for the
$N$-site system will be dropped below.
The imaginary time propagation may now be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
& & e^{-2\Theta H } =
\sum_{\vec{s}} U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) + O( (\Delta \tau)^2)
\nonumber \\
{\rm where} \; \; \;
& &U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) = \prod_{n = 1}^{m}
e^{- \Delta \tau H_t/2 }
\exp \left( \sum_{x,y} c_{x}^{\dagger} D_{x,y}(\vec{s}_n) c_{y} \right)
e^{- \Delta \tau H_t/2 }.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above notation, $ G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau)$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau) = \frac
{ \sum_{\vec{s}} \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, \Theta + \tau)
c_x U_{\vec{s}}(\Theta + \tau,\Theta)
c_y^{\dagger} U_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,0) | \Psi_T \rangle }
{\sum_{\vec{s}} \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) | \Psi_T \rangle }
+ O( (\Delta \tau)^2).
\end{equation}
The trial wave function is required to be a Slater determinant:
\begin{equation}
\label{Trial}
|\Psi_T \rangle
= \prod_{n=1}^{N_p} \left( \sum_x c_{x}^{\dagger} P_{x,n} \right)
|0\rangle .
\end{equation}
Here $N_p$ denotes the number of particles and $P $ is an $N_s \times N_p$
rectangular matrix where $N_s$ is the number of single particle
states.
Since $U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0)$ describes the propagation of non-interacting
electrons in an external HS field,
one may integrate out the fermionic degrees of freedom to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{G>}
G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau) =
\sum_{\vec{s}} P_{\vec{s}}
\left[ \left( B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta + \tau, \Theta)\right)
G_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,\Theta) \right]_{x,y} + O( (\Delta \tau)^2).
\end{equation}
In the above equation,
\begin{eqnarray*}
B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta_2, \Theta_1) = \prod_{n = n_1 + 1}^{n_2}
e^{-\Delta \tau T /2}
e^{D(\vec{s_n})}
e^{-\Delta \tau T /2} \; \; {\rm where } \; \;
n_1 \Delta \tau = \Theta_1 \; \; {\rm and} \; \; n_2 \Delta \tau = \Theta_2,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_{\vec{s}} = P^{T} B_{\vec{s}} (2\Theta, 0 ) P,
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{\vec{s}} = \frac{ \det(M_{\vec{s}}) }
{ \sum_{\vec{s}} \det(M_{\vec{s}}) }
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\rm and} \; \; \;
\left( G_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,\Theta) \right)_{x,y} =
\frac { \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, \Theta)
c_x c_y^{\dagger} U_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,0) | \Psi_T \rangle }
{ \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) | \Psi_T \rangle } = \\
\left( I - B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta,0)P M_{\vec{s}}^{-1}
P^{T} B_{\vec{s}} (2\Theta,\Theta) \right)_{x,y}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here $I$ is the unit matrix, $I_{x,y} = \delta_{x,y}$.
In the same notation one obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{G<}
G^{<}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau)
& \equiv & - \frac{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-\Theta H }
c_{y}^{\dagger}(\tau) c_{x}
e^{-\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle }
{ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-2\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle } \nonumber \\
& = &
\sum_{\vec{s}} P_{\vec{s}} \left[
\left( G_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,\Theta) - I \right)
B_{\vec{s}}^{-1}(\Theta + \tau, \Theta) \right]_{x,y}, \; \; \tau > 0.
\end{eqnarray}
Summarizing,
the zero-temperature imaginary-time Green function may be calculated from:
\begin{equation}
G_{x,y}(\tau) = \lim_{\Theta \rightarrow \infty } \left(
\Theta(\tau) G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau) +
\Theta(-\tau) G^{<}_{x,y}(\Theta,-\tau) \right)
+ O( (\Delta \tau)^2).
\end{equation}
At half-band filling and due to particle hole symmetry, one may chose
a trial wave function such that $P_{\vec{s}}$ is positive definite.
$P_{\vec{s}} $ may be interpreted as a probability distribution
and sampled with Monte-Carlo methods.
\subsection{ Numerical Stabilization}
The origin of the numerical instabilities occurring in the calculation
of Green functions may be understood by considering free electrons on a
two-dimensional square lattice.
\begin{equation}
H = -t \sum_{<\vec{i},\vec{j}>}
c_{\vec{i}}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{j}}.
\end{equation}
Here, the sum runs over nearest-neighbors. For this Hamiltonian one has:
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi_0 | c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger}(\tau) c_{\vec{k}} | \Psi_0 \rangle =
\exp \left( \tau (\epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu) \right)
\langle \Psi_0 | c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{k}} | \Psi_0 \rangle,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon_{\vec{k}} = -2t(\cos(\vec{k} \vec{a}_x) +
\cos(\vec{k} \vec{a}_y) ) $, $\vec{a}_x$, $\vec{a}_y$ being
the lattice constants.
The chemical potential satisfies equation (\ref{chem}) and we will assume
$ | \Psi_0 \rangle $ to be non-degenerate.
In a numerical calculation the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
above Hamiltonian will be known up to machine precision, $\epsilon$.
In the case $ \epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu > 0 $,
$ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger} c_{\vec{k}} | \Psi_0 \rangle \equiv 0$.
However,
on a finite precision machine the later quantity will take a value of
the order of $\epsilon$. When calculating
$ \langle \Psi_0 | c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger}(\tau) c_{\vec{k}} | \Psi_0 \rangle $ this
roundoff error will be blown up exponentially and the result for large
values of $\tau$ will be unreliable.
In order to circumvent this problem, one may do the calculation at finite
temperature and then take the limit of vanishingly small temperatures:
\begin{equation}
\langle \Psi_0 | c_{\vec{k}}^{\dagger}(\tau) c_{\vec{k}} | \Psi_0 \rangle =
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty} \frac
{ \exp \left( \tau (\epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu) \right) }
{ 1 + \exp \left( \beta (\epsilon_{\vec{k}} - \mu) \right) }.
\end{equation}
Even if the eigenvalues are known only up to machine precision, the right hand
side of the above equation for large but finite values of $\beta$ is
a numerically stable operation. Although very simple, this example
reflects the underlying numerical instabilities occurring in the calculation
of the Green functions.
We now consider the calculation of
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{GST}
& & G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta + \tau, \Theta) =
B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta + \tau, \Theta) G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta, \Theta)
\; \; {\rm and } \nonumber \\
& & G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta , \Theta + \tau) =
\left( G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta , \Theta) - I \right)
B_{\vec{s}}^{-1} (\Theta + \tau, \Theta)
\end{eqnarray}
required to compute $G^{>}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau)$ (see equation (\ref{G>}))
and $G^{<}_{x,y}(\Theta,\tau)$ (see equation (\ref{G<})) respectively.
The equal-time Green functions, $G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta, \Theta)$,
may be calculated to machine precision \cite{Sandro,Imada,Assaad}.
The matrices $B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta + \tau, \Theta) $ contain scales
which grow and decrease exponentially with $\tau$. As in the above example,
a straightforward multiplication of both matrices will lead to numerical
instabilities for large values of $\tau$. Here, the problem is much more
severe since the presence of the HS field mixes
different scales.
In order to circumvent this problem, we propose the
following stabilization scheme.
Since the trial wave function is a Slater determinant, we can find a single
particle Hamiltonian, $H_0 = \sum_{x,y} c^{\dagger}_x (h_0)_{x,y} c_y $,
which has $ | \Psi_T \rangle $ as a non-degenerate ground state.
The equal time Green functions may then be written as:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{GS}
\left( G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta, \Theta) \right)_{x,y} \equiv & &
\frac { \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, \Theta)
c_x c_y^{\dagger} U_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,0) | \Psi_T \rangle }
{ \langle \Psi_T | U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) | \Psi_T \rangle } =
\nonumber \\
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty }
\frac { {\rm Tr} \left( e^{-\beta H_0} U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, \Theta)
c_x c_y^{\dagger} U_{\vec{s}}(\Theta,0) \right) }
{ {\rm Tr} \left( e^{-\beta H_0} U_{\vec{s}}(2\Theta, 0) \right) }
& & = \lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty }
\left( I + B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta,0)e^{-\beta h_0}
B_{\vec{s}} (2 \Theta, \Theta) \right)^{-1}_{x,y}
\end{eqnarray}
The last equality follows after integration of the fermionic degrees of
freedom. Inspiring ourselves from the work of Hirsch
\cite{Hirsch1} we calculate the time displaced Green functions
in equation (\ref{GST}) with:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{\beta \rightarrow \infty }
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I & B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta,0)e^{-\beta h_0}
B_{\vec{s}}(2 \Theta, \Theta + \tau ) \\
-B_{\vec{s}}(\Theta + \tau, \Theta) & I \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} = \nonumber \\
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta, \Theta) &
G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta, \Theta + \tau ) \\
G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta + \tau , \Theta) &
G_{\vec{s}} ( \Theta + \tau, \Theta + \tau ) \\
\end{array}
\right)
\end{eqnarray}
For very large but finite values of $\beta$, we can calculate
the left hand side of the above equation by using matrix
stabilization techniques developed for finite temperature QMC algorithms.
The basic idea behind those numerical stabilization techniques
is to keep the different scales occurring in the matrices $B_{\vec{s}}$
separate
(for a review see reference \cite{Loh}). This is achieved by decomposing
the matrices $B_{\vec{s}}$ into
a $UDV$ form where $U$ is an orthogonal matrix, $D$ a
diagonal matrix containing
the exponentially large and exponentially small scales, and $V$ a triangular
matrix.
The calculation of the left hand side of the above equation is done
in the following way:
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I & B_{\vec{s}} (\Theta,0)e^{-\beta h_0}
B_{\vec{s}}(2 \Theta, \Theta + \tau ) \\
-B_{\vec{s}}(\Theta + \tau, \Theta) & I \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} =
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
I & U_1 D_1 V_1 \\
U_2 D_2 V_2 & I \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} =
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
V_2 & 0 \\
0 & V_1 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\left(V_2 U_1 \right)^{-1} & D_1 \\
D_2 & \left(V_1 U_2 \right)^{-1} \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
U_1 & 0 \\
0 & U_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1} =
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
V_2 & 0\\
0 & V_1\\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}
\left( U_3 D_3 V_3\right)^{-1}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
U_1 & 0 \\
0 & U_2 \\
\end{array}
\right)^{-1}.
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equation, the matrix $D_3$ contains only exponentially
large scales since the matrices
$\left(V_2 U_1 \right)^{-1} $ and
$\left(V_1 U_2 \right)^{-1} $ act as a cutoff to the exponentially
small scales in the matrices $D_2$ and $D_1$. Since the other
matrices are all well conditioned, the final matrix multiplication
is well defined.
A convenient choice of $H_0$ is obtained in a basis where
the trial wave function may be written as:
\begin{equation}
| \Psi_T \rangle = \prod _{n = 1}^{N_p} \gamma_n^{\dagger} | 0 \rangle.
\end{equation}
In this basis, we define $H_0$ through
\begin{equation}
H_0 \gamma_n^{\dagger} | 0 \rangle =
\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
- \gamma_n^{\dagger} | 0 \rangle \;\; {\rm if } \;\;
\gamma_n^{\dagger} \gamma_n | \Psi_T \rangle =
| \Psi_T \rangle \\
+ \gamma_n^{\dagger} | 0 \rangle \;\; {\rm if } \;\;
\gamma_n^{\dagger} \gamma_n | \Psi_T \rangle = 0 \\
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
(Here, the energy unit is set by the hopping matrix element $t$.)
For this choice of $H_0$ values of $\beta t \sim 40$ were well sufficient
to satisfy equation (\ref{GS}) within required numerical precision
\cite{Note1}.
The above numerical stabilization scheme was indeed successful in
all examined cases.
\section{Evaluation of the charge gap for the two dimensional
Hubbard model}
We carried out our simulations
on $4 \times 4$ to $12 \times 12$ lattices
for the two-dimensional half-filled ($\mu = 0$) repulsive
Hubbard model (\ref{Hubb}) at $U/t = 4$. Periodic boundary
conditions were assumed.
A spin singlet ground state of the kinetic energy in
the Hubbard Hamiltonian was used as a trial wave function.
We test the quality of this trial wave function on a
$6 \times 6$ lattice.
Figure 1 plots
$ \langle \Psi_T |e^{-\Theta H } O e^{-\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle /
\langle \Psi_T |e^{-2\Theta H } | \Psi_T \rangle $
as a function of the projection parameter $\Theta$ for
$ O = S(\pi,\pi)/N = \frac{4}{3N} \sum_{\vec{r}}
\exp \left( i \vec{Q} \vec{r} \right)
\vec{S}(\vec{r}) \cdot \vec{S}( \vec{0} ) $ (solid circles
in Figure 1a)
and
$ O = E/N = H/N - U/4$ (solid circles in Figure 1b).
Here $\vec{Q}= (\pi, \pi)/a$,
$\vec{S}(\vec{r})$ is the spin operator on site $\vec{r}$ and
$N$ denotes the number of sites.
Already for values of $\Theta t = 2.5$, both considered observables
have converged within our estimated statistical uncertainty.
For comparison, we have plotted
$ {\rm Tr } \left( e^{-2 \Theta H } O \right) /
{\rm Tr } \left( e^{-2\Theta H } \right) $ for
the same observables (triangles in Figure 1). Values of $\Theta t$ at
least twice as large are required to obtain approximate ground
state results.
Another source of systematic errors comes from the discretization
of the imaginary time propagation. In Table \ref{table1} the
$\Delta \tau$ dependence of the energy and $S(\pi,\pi)$ is given.
The data are obtained form the zero-temperature QMC algorithm
on a $6 \times 6$ lattice and at $2\Theta t = 5$.
The values at $\Delta \tau = 0$ are obtained from a least square fit
of the finite $\Delta \tau$ results to the form
$a + b (\Delta \tau )^2$. We carried out our simulations at
$\Delta \tau t = 0.125$. As may be seen from Table \ref{table1},
this value of $\Delta \tau t$ produces a systematic error contained
in the quoted errorbars for the energy and a systematic error
of less than $1 \% $ for $ S(\pi,\pi) $.
To obtain an estimate of the charge gap, we consider
\begin{equation}
G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{x} G_{x,x}(\tau),
\; \; \tau > 0.
\end{equation}
Here, $x$ stands for spin and site indices.
Inserting a complete set of eigenstates
of the Hamiltonian $H$ in the $N+1$ particle Hilbert space yields:
\begin{equation}
G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau) = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n,x}
| \langle \Psi_{0}^{N} | c_x | \Psi_{n}^{N +1} \rangle |^2
\exp \left( -\tau \left( E_n^{N+1} - E_0^N \right) \right).
\end{equation}
where $H | \Psi_{n}^{N +1} \rangle = E_n^{N+1} | \Psi_{n}^{N +1} \rangle $
and $H | \Psi_{0}^{N} \rangle = E_0^N | \Psi_{0}^{N} \rangle $.
At large values of $\tau t $, $G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau) \sim
\exp \left( - \tau \Delta_c \right) $ where
$ \Delta_c \equiv E_0^{N+1} - E_0^N $ corresponds to the charge gap.
Our results are plotted in Figure 2. For those simulations we
have chosen $\Theta t = 13.5$. Since values of $\tau$
up to $\tau_{max} t = 12 $ were considered, the effective projection
parameter is given by: $\Theta_{eff} = \Theta - \tau_{max}/2 = 7.5/t$.
As may be seen from Figure 1, this value of the projection parameter
is more than sufficient to filter out the ground state from the trial wave
function.
The solid lines in Figure 2 correspond to least square fits of the tail
of $G(\vec{r} = 0, \tau)$ to the
form $\exp( - \tau \Delta_c) $ \cite{Note2}.
The estimated value of the gap as a function of system size is
plotted in Figure 3. A least square fit
of the data to the form $a + b/L$, where $L$ denotes the linear
length of the lattice, yields
$\Delta_c/t = 0.67 \pm 0.02$ in the thermodynamic limit.
This value stands in good agreement with the value of the charge
gap obtained by Furukawa and Imada \cite{Furukawa}:
$\Delta_c/t = 0.58 \pm 0.08$
(solid circle in Figure 3.) As may be seen from the
comparison of errorbars, the accuracy of the estimation
has been much improved in the present study.
\section{Conclusions}
We have presented an efficient, numerically stable, QMC algorithm
to calculate $T=0$ imaginary time Green functions for Hubbard type
models. As a non-trivial test application of this
algorithm, we have obtained an accurate
estimate of the charge gap for the two-dimensional
half-filled repulsive Hubbard model at $U/t = 4$:
$\Delta_c/t = 0.67 \pm 0.02$.
The algorithm is formulated in the canonical ensemble. Hence, the relation
$n(\mu)$ has to be known prior to the simulation. This
renders the algorithm hard to use in a metallic state. However,
in an insulating state at zero temperature
$n(\mu)$ is constant, and generally known,
for chemical potentials within the
charge gap. In this
situation the here presented algorithm proves to be
a powerful tool. We illustrate this by considering the two-dimensional
Hubbard model. Due to Equation (\ref{factor}), it suffices to know the
Green functions at $\mu = 0$ (half-filling) to be able to
determine them trivially for any other chemical potential within
the charge gap. At $\mu = 0$, we are not confronted with a sign problem
due to particle-hole symmetry and the statistical fluctuations
do not blow-up exponentially with growing lattice sizes and projection
parameters $\Theta$.
It is however clear from equation (\ref{factor}) that statistical
fluctuations will increase (decrease) exponentially with growing
positive values
of $\tau$ for $\mu > 0$ ($\mu < 0$).
In comparison, finite temperature algorithms in
the grand-canonical ensemble,
are faced with a sign problem away from $ \mu = 0$.
Hence, statistical fluctuations grow exponentially with growing
lattice size and inverse temperature. Away from $\mu = 0$, it is
thus extremely hard to extrapolate any zero temperature result
from the finite temperature grand-canonical algorithms for large lattice
sizes. This renders the here presented algorithm a powerful
tool for the study of the metal-insulator transition from the insulator
side \cite{Assaad1}.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
F.F. Assaad thanks the JSPS for financial support.
The numerical calculations were carried out on the Fujitsu VPP500 of the
Supercomputer Center of the Institute for Solid State Physics, Univ.
of Tokyo. This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
Research on the Priority Area "Anomalous Metallic State near the Mott
Transition" from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan.
|
\section{Introduction}
Our vantage point inside the Milky Way disk offers us the possibility
of a unique insight into the structure of at least our galaxy; however
this same location causes many unique problems. It is undoubtedly
useful to compare the Milky Way with other, more distant spiral
galaxies, but this rarely happens on an equal footing: sometimes the
Milky Way serves as a local well-understood calibrator for the
external galaxies, other times it is the other galaxies which provide
inspiration and guidance necessary for us to be able to interpret the
observations of our own Galaxy. Though the study of the dynamics of
the inner regions of the Milky Way may be said to be still in the
`borrowing from other galaxies' phase, the many data being gathered
make it likely that eventually we will be able to `give' as well.
This review covers the mounting evidence that the center of the Galaxy
harbours a bar with a size of a few kpc. Early evidence for a bar
(\S2) was championed mostly by de Vaucouleurs, but received little
following until interest was rekindled about five years ago by results
from near-infrared surveys. Since then, many detections of a barred
distortion, broadly consistent with each other (at least as regards
direction of the bar major axis) have appeared. They fall into two
broad categories, those based on photometric data (surface photometry
and star counts, \S3) and those based on kinematics of stars and gas
(\S4). More recently, the gravitational microlensing searches in the
direction of the Galaxy bulge have turned up many more events than had
been originally expected based on a simple axisymmetric model for the
Milky Way. A bar may significantly enhance these expected rates, and
may well be required to explain the microlensing data (\S5). This
review ends with a wish list of some observations which might help
constrain the bar parameters in the future (\S6).
\begin{table}
\caption{Properties of the Galaxy with a bearing on its Hubble type,
according to de Vaucouleurs (1970). Each property/morphological type
pair at stage Sbc is
assigned a score of $+1$ (good agreement), 0 (indifferent), or $-1$
(conflict).}
\label{tabdv}
\begin{centering}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
Criterion & (a) & (b) & (c) & (d) & (e) & (f) & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Sum} \\
\tableline
A(s) & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & & $-$ & $-5$ \\
AB(s) & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & + & $-$ & $-4$ \\
B(s) & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & & & $-$ & $-4$ \\
B(rs) & & + & + & & & + & +3 \\
B(r) & & + & & + & & & +2 \\
AB(r) & + & + & & & & & +2 \\
A(r) & & & & $-$ & & $-$ & $-2$ \\
A(rs) & & & + & $-$ & + & $-$ & 0 \\
AB(rs) & + & + & + & & & + & +4 \\
\tableline\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{centering}
\tablenotetext{a}{High spiral arm multiplicity}
\tablenotetext{b}{Inner ring diameter of 6kpc}
\tablenotetext{c}{Broken ring structure}
\tablenotetext{d}{Radio structure of the nucleus}
\tablenotetext{e}{Yerkes spectral type}
\tablenotetext{f}{Non-circular {\sc Hi} motions}
\end{table}
\section{Early Evidence}
De Vaucouleurs (1964, 1970) early on suggested that the Milky Way was
in fact a barred spiral. His argument relied on comparing many
morphological features of the Milky Way with other spirals of
different revised Hubble types, the crucial step in this analysis
being to associate the {\sc Hi} feature known as the 3-kpc arm (also
interpreted in terms of a bar by Kerr 1967) as part of a broken {\sc
Hi} ring. For a list of properties, he gave each of the subtypes
(r,rs,s) and (A,AB,B) a score reflecting their goodness of fit for the
Milky Way, and obtained an overall score by a simple unweighted sum
(see Table~1). The best fit was the completely mixed type SAB(rs)bc:
a galaxy with fairly weak rings and a bar with not-quite grand design
spiral structure. It is interesting, and reassuring, that this
conclusion does not appear to be dominated by a single column in
Table~\ref{tabdv} (though three of the six diagnostics pertain to the
3-kpc expanding arm). There thus appeared to be a good case for taking
this suggestion seriously.
However, much of the effort in understanding Galactic structure in
subsequent years was focused on the problem of maintaining spiral
density waves, and the idea that the Milky Way had a bar fell out of
fashion. Only in the last five years has it returned into favour.
\section{Photometric Evidence}
Because the Galaxy is virtually edge-on, we cannot see a bar
directly. However, unless the bar happens to be aligned along or
perpendicular to the
sun-Galactic center line, a bar will create systematic
differences between points at equal and opposite longitudes: if the
major axis of the bar lies in the first quadrant, for instance,
(longitude $0<\ell<90^\circ$) then objects in that quadrant will on
average be closer to the sun than those in the fourth quadrant. Such
effects can show up both in surface brightness and in star counts.
\subsection{Surface photometry}
Blitz \& Spergel (1991), in their search for non-axisymmetric
structure in the Milky Way, analysed the near-IR data of Matsumoto et
al.\ (1982) and showed that there were indeed systematic differences
between positive and negative longitudes near the Galactic center.
They showed that these could be understood as a perspective view of a
bar: the near side (in the first quadrant) would appear more
vertically extended on the sky than the far side, and the surface
brightness of the near side should be greater, both as observed.
Furthermore, in the innermost regions the asymmetry in surface
brightness is actually reversed, and this feature too is reproduced in
the data.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{dwekbar2.ps}
\caption{The bar models `G2' (solid lines) and 'E3' (dashed)
of Dwek et al. (1995) projected onto the Galactic plane. Contours are
spaced at factors of 3 in mid-plane density; the outermost contour
corresponds to $3\times10^6L_\odot/\rm kpc^{-3}$. The position of the
sun ($R_0=8$kpc) is indicated, and galactic longitude increases
counterclockwise from the right.}
\end{figure}
Superior data from the DIRBE experiment on the COBE satellite have
confirmed and sharpened this result. After dereddening the near-IR
data, Dwek et al. (1995) derive a best-fit model `G2' for the
emissivity of the bar of the form
\begin{equation}
\rho(x,y,z)\propto e^{-s^2/2}
\end{equation}
where (assuming the sun is 8kpc from the Galactic center)
\begin{equation}
s^4=\left[\left(x\over1490\rm
pc\right)^2+\left(y\over580\rm pc\right)^2\right]
+\left(z\over400\rm pc\right)^4
\end{equation}
and $(x,y,z)$ are Galactic coordinates rotated by $13.4^\circ$ about
the Galactic minor ($z$-) axis. This functional form implies an
ellipsoidal shape for the bar projected onto the galactic plane, but
makes boxy bulge isophotes as seen from earth, as observed. (To some
at this conference, the boxy isophotes are already strong evidence for
a bar!). The axis ratios are 2.6:1:0.7. There are still uncertainties
in this deprojection, which was derived as a least-square fit to a
fairly restricted set of models---it will be hard to do better given
the usual problems associated with recovering a three-dimensional
emissivity from a two-dimensional surface brightness map. For
instance, model `E3', a triaxial version of Kent's (1992) modified
Bessel function model fits almost as well as G2, but with major axis
position angle $40^\circ$ (this model does have the unsatisfactory
feature that the z:y axis ratio is greater than 1). Further
uncertainty arises from the correction for the disk contribution to
the surface brightness. A sketch of both bar models is shown in
Figure~1.
\subsection{Star counts}
Counts of individual objects also reveal left-right asymmetries of the
Galactic center region. All such data sets show an effect in the same
direction: objects at positive longitudes appear brighter and
therefore are presumably closer. These data sets include SiO masers
(Nakada et al. 1991, Izumiura et al.\ 1994), IRAS AGB stars (Weinberg
1992), IRAS Miras (Whitelock \& Catchpole 1992), the OGLE red clump
stars (Stanek et al. 1994), and OH/IR stars (Sevenster, this volume).
Furthermore, the globular clusters also appear to show a bar-like
distortion (Blitz 1993). Typical magnitude offsets are 0.2--0.5, the
best-measured one being that of the OGLE group ($0.37\pm0.03$). For
comparison, the Dwek et al. (1995) G2 model would allow at most a 0.2
magnitude offset between brightness of objects at positive and
negative longtudes within $6^\circ$ of the galactic center (Figure~2).
\begin{figure}
\plotone{dwekdm.ps}
\caption{The average magnitude offset between objects at galactic coordinates
$(\ell,b)$ and $(-\ell,b)$ in the Dwek et al. bar model. Different
curves correspond to different latitudes: (top to bottom)
$b=0,2,4,6,8,10^\circ$.}
\end{figure}
While all these studies agree on the sign of the asymmetry, the
agreement mostly ends there: the magnitude offset between positive and
negative $\ell$ varies considerably from survey to survey (though part
of the effect may be due to small number statistics in some of these
data sets, and different depths of the different samples). Also, the
results of the bulge surface photometry imply a very much smaller bar
than the IRAS AGB counts of Weinberg: the former extends out to
longitudes of about $10^\circ$, and the latter out to about
$40^\circ$. It is therefore quite possible that the Milky Way in fact
contains {\em several} bars.
It is interesting to note that, had we not known about bars in other
galaxies, we might not have chosen to interpret these left-right
asymmetries in such terms. On the sky, the asymmetries suggest a
lop-sided ($m=1$) distortion instead, and it might have seemed
far-fetched to attribute these to perspective effects of an inherently
$m=2$ bar.
\section{Kinematic Evidence}
Bars also show up as kinematic distortions of the velocity fields of
stars and gas, since the closed orbits in a pattern-rotating barred
potential are no longer circular, but rather elongated along or
perpendicular to the bar. Resonances (chiefly inner and outer Lindblad
and corotation) affect the orbit structure profoundly. Some closed
orbits are self- or mutually intersecting, making them unsuitable as
gas orbits and consequently generating gaps and shocks in the gas
distribution (see the review by Athanassoula in this volume), and the
distribution of stellar orbits follows similar behaviour. Unlike
photometric signatures (except perspective effects discussed above),
these kinematic effects of a bar are also visible in edge-on systems,
and so provide a means of detecting bars in such galaxies.
Both the kinematics of gas and stars could reveal evidence for a bar
in the Milky Way, but each have their problems when it comes to
quantifying bar parameters. Gas, because it tends to dissipate down to
the closed, non-intersecting orbits, delineates the orbit structure
and hence the potential most clearly, but the most striking features
are associated with the resonances where hydro-dynamic effects are a
major factor. It is still very difficult to model all the relevant
processes at these locations well. Stellar orbits, on the other hand,
are dominated by gravitational forces, but because of the absence of
dissipation the accessible orbits are much more varied. It is still an
unsolved problem to derive the gravitational potential from observed
radial velocity distributions in stationary elliptical galaxies, and
the barred galaxy problem, which also involves unknown figure
rotation, is even more complicated. Therefore, though it is possible
to rule out axisymmetric models on the basis of kinematic data,
producing a unique bar model is a considerably harder problem.
\subsection{Gas kinematics}
The distribution of gas within $5^\circ$ of the Galactic center is
complicated. Significant features for our purposes are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Large forbidden CO and {\sc Hi} velocities
\item A fast outwards decline in {\sc Hi} tangent point velocities
\item A {\em very} lopsided CO distribution
\item A dramatic change in the CO kinematics near longitudes $+1.7$
and $-1^\circ$.
\item A tilted (by $\sim7^\circ$ projected onto the sky) {\sc Hi}
(and maybe CO) plane.
\end{itemize}
The CO velocity structure, from the Bell Labs survey (Bally et al.\
1987, 1988) is shown in Figure~3.
\begin{figure}
\plotone{parall.ps}
\caption{Left: the distribution of CO emission in longitude and radial
velocity, from the Bell Labs.\ survey. Emission at $b=-3'$ is shown.
Contours are drawn at brightness temperatures of 1,2,4,8 and 16
K. Note the parallelogram-shaped envelope of the emission. Right: a
model for the parallelogram, from Binney et al.\ (1992). The cusped
orbit is viewed from the direction of the thick arrow, and gas streams
around the orbit as indicated.}
\end{figure}
The forbidden velocities (negative velocities in the first quadrant,
positive ones in the fourth) imply non-axisymmetry, assuming the gas
to be a dynamically cold tracer of the potential. However, per se they
say little about the nature of this deviation from circularity: in
particular, local expanding features in the gas may cause features
similar to those observed (e.g. Oort 1977, Uchida et al. 1994).
So far, no coherent {\em dynamical} model has been formulated which
addresses all observed features (but see Weinberg's paper in this
volume). However, several analyses have focused on subsets of these
observations. All these investigations have centered on single-bar
models, though reality may well be more complex.
Liszt \& Burton (1980) have modelled the kinematics of the {\sc Hi} in
the central few kpc as a tilted, elliptically streaming disk (an
earlier fit as an expanding disk was equally succesful, if less
plausible). Their model succesfully fits the observed distribution of
{\sc Hi} in position on the sky and radial velocity, though it offers
no dynamical origin for this disk. If the ellipticity is caused by a
bar, then the least satisfactory aspect of this model is the absence
of pattern rotation. It seems plausible, though, that a pattern speed
could fairly simply be accomodated in such a kinematic model.
Mulder \& Liem (1986) attempted to construct a global model for the
{\sc Hi}. Using non-selfgravitating hydrodynamical simulations
(pioneered in this context by Sanders \& Huntley 1976), they showed
that a multitude of kinematic features in the Galactic {\sc Hi} could
be explained with a simple model in which a gas disk is forced into a
quasi-steady flow by a simple model for a weak, rotating bar. In
particular, the 3kpc arm could be identified with shocked material
near the inner Linblad resonance, while the sun's position near
corotation (implying quite a slow pattern speed) explained the three
nearby spiral arms. Forbidden velocities in the central few degrees
could also be accounted for. Their striking results, however, appear
to have received relatively little interest at the time.
Binney et al.\ (1992) concentrated on the distribution of the CO and
other molecular gas at $b=0$ (Fig.~3), and
interpreted it in terms of a dynamical model in which the gas is allowed
to move on closed, non-intersecting orbits only. No attempt was made
to address the tilt of the inner plane. They identify the striking
parallellogram shape of the orbit with the smallest orbit outside the
inner Lindblad resonance which does not intersect itself---gas further
in will strongly dissipate kinetic energy and end up in inside the ILR
on an `$x_2$ disk'. The parallelogram orbit is cusped, and seen from a
fairly narrow range of angles, its projection into the
longitude-velocity plane takes on the observed shape. Because this
orbit is strongly affected by the resonances, the pattern speed of the
Binney et al.\ model is very well constrained, with corotation around
$2.4\pm0.5\,$kpc. Furthermore, the parallellogram projection of the
orbit only appears from viewing angles of the bar about $16^\circ$ off
end-on. The distribution of {\sc Hi} at larger radii is consistent
with the closed orbits outside corotation, as is the radial dependence
of the model bar density with that of the observed bulge light.
In spite of these successes, a worrying aspect of this model is the
left-right asymmetry of the parallelogram. The data show such an
effect in the sense expected from perspective, but it is much more
pronounced than expected from the model. Rigorous modelling of the
observed asymetry (the cusps of the orbit appear at longitudes
$\sim+1.7^\circ$ and $-1^\circ$) implies that the cusps of the
parallelogram orbit lie at radius $\sim R_0/5\simeq1.6$kpc. An orbit
of this size would have to be aligned within $6^\circ$ of the line of
sight, and would have to be very slender if we were indeed viewing it
down its sides. A more plausible, if perhaps less elegant, explanation
invokes some lopsidedness to the central kinematics, which spoils the
perspective of the bar orbit. Such a component may be needed anyway to
explain the rather large velocity difference of the gas deduced to lie
near the cusps: this gas should have zero velocity in the bar frame.
The dynamics of the tilt of the inner gas are a puzzle. It may have
consequences for the bar analysis: when Liszt \& Burton (1980)
restrict their model to the Galactic plane (rather than the tilted
inner disk plane), velocity crowding of the gas mimicks the observed
distribution of CO very nicely. It therefore appears that the
identification of the parallellogram with a specific CO orbit is not
unique, and a more detailed consideration of the CO distribution out
of the galactic plane is required. (Initial suggestions by Blitz \&
Spergel (1991) that the stellar emission is tilted in the same
direction as the gas were shown by the COBE data to have been an
artefact of extinction. The stellar distribution is consistent with
being aligned with the Galactic plane).
Weiner \& Sellwood (1995) have concentrated on fitting the kinematics
of the {\sc Hi}, particularly the sharp falloff of the tangent point
velocity, outside longitudes $4^\circ$. They use a hydrodynamic code
to model the steady-state behaviour of the gas. Their results appear
inconsistent with the findings of Binney et al.: they find that only
bars seen over $30^\circ$ off end-on can generate forbidden velocities
over a sufficiently large longitude range. Their best-fit model also
has a significantly larger corotation radius of 3.6kpc.
The differences between the various analyses of the gas kinematics
partly reflect differences between the kinematics of the different
tracers, possibly due to nongravitational effects, but to some extent
also is an indication of the collisionality of the interstellar
medium: it remains a gross simplification to model gas as perfect
tracers of the closed non-intersecting orbits in a smooth,
pattern-rotating potential. For instance, the lop-sided distribution
of the central gas distribution is possibly a transient feature (e.g.,
a fluctuation associated with the relatively small number of large
clumps in the central few 100pc, or the result of a dynamical
instability or interaction) whose amplitude raises concerns about
fitting equilibrium bisymmetric models to the dynamics. An
investigation by Jenkins \& Binney (1994) shows that stochastic
processes in the gas distribution will indeed cause lopsidedness, but
they have difficulty reproducing effects as dramatic as those
observed. Quite possibly, self-gravity or low-temperature cooling
(neither of which is included in their calculations) can make a
substantial difference here.
Future refinements of the analyses of the observed gas dynamics may
well be inspired on observations of the CO distributions in
other barred galaxies (see reviews by Turner and Kenney in this
volume), which may establish when molecular gas does and does not
trace the closed orbits allowed by the potential.
\subsection{Stellar kinematics}
Given the possible problems with the dynamics of the gas, in how far
can stellar dynamics help?
At the moment, the answer is, unfortunately, not very much. The large
velocity dispersions in the bulge region wash out signatures of
non-axisymmetry, which only large numbers of stars sampled at a range
of longitude or integrated-light velocity distributions (see Kuijken
\& Merrifield 1995 or Merrifield, this volume) can overcome.
Apart from the difficulty of getting sufficiently detailed
observations, there is also a theoretical bottleneck: we do not know
what the velocity distributions in realistic galactic bars actually
look like, because there are large families of possible combinations
of stellar orbits which can be combined to make the same bar. Whereas
gas modelling can be simplified by considering closed orbits, this
constraint is not available in the case of stars. Ideally, it should
be replaced by a further observational phase-space measurement:
distance down the line of sight and/or proper motions. In any case,
just about the simplest axisymmetric model that can be constructed for
the bulge, an oblate isotropic rotator, appears to fit all available
stellar-kinematic data (Kent 1992), including recently published M
giant samples (Blum et al. 1995). This good fit is not evidence
against a bar, but rather an illustration of the difficulty of
detecting a bar in the stellar kinematics of the bulge. The strongest
feature in radial velocity data that argues in favour of a bar is the
bimodality of the OH/IR stars: in addition to a hot `bulge'
population, the central degree or so contains quite a cold stellar
disk, whose kinematics are similar to those of the inner CO gas
(Lindqvist et al. 1992). It is possible that these stars were formed
from the gas that lives inside the inner Lindblad resonance (an `$x_2$
disk').
The most detailed model constructed for the Milky Way's stellar bar is
that of Zhao (this volume). Analysis of the Spaenhauer et al.\
(1991) sample of stars with proper motion in Baade's Window (Zhao,
Spergel \& Rich 1994) shows possible signatures of triaxiality (vertex
deviations of metal-weak and metal-poor stars incompatible with
axisymmetry), but since the sample is small the statistical
weight of this study is rather low. Similar analyses of larger samples
in different parts of the bulge currently offer the best hope of
understanding the bar dynamics from stellar kinematics.
Long-range perturbations of the stellar kinematics by the quadrupole
field of a bar may also be detectable. Perturbation formulae for the
stellar velocity field, as well as the velocity dispersions, in a
barred, pattern-rotating potential, have been derived by Kuijken \&
Tremaine (1991). Weinberg (1994) has shown that the resonances of a
bar with a decreasing pattern speed will trace out a characteristic
signature across a disk, and he finds some evidence in the kinematics of
old K giants for such a feature.
\subsection{The pattern speed from stellar kinematics}
A particularly important product of stellar kinematics might be the
measurement of the pattern speed $\Omega_p$ of the bar. Such
measurements can be made in model-dependent ways by identifying
certain morphological features (typically of the gas) with resonances,
or less so via an integral constraint derived from the continuity
equation (Tremaine \& Weinberg 1984, TW). The TW method involves
integration along a given line of the velocity component perpendicular
to it. It was originally formulated for application to moderately
inclined external barred galaxies, in which case it requires
measurement of mean radial velocity along a line parallel to the major
axis. In that form it is inapplicable to edge-on galaxies such as our
own, but two modifications are: the first involves integration of
heliocentric radial velocities around the galactic equator (Kuijken \&
Tremaine 1991) and the second integration of transverse velocities
down a single line of sight near the Galactic center. Neither variant
is currently practical, however: the second requires accurate
distances and proper motions at $b=0$, whereas the first would rely on
full longitude coverage in the densest parts of the galactic plane,
with complete radial velocity coverage. Nevertheless, future large
near-infrared surveys may one day allow these measurements to be made.
\section{Gravitational Microlensing Evidence}
Microlensing of stars by foreground objects which pass at very small
projected impact parameters has recently developed from
an elegant curiosity to a new tool in galactic structure research. As
shown by Refsdal (1964), if a foreground object of mass $m$ at
distance $x$ from us passes within a radius
\begin{equation}
R_E(x)=2\sqrt{Gmx(1-x/L)}/c\propto m^{1/2}
\end{equation}
from the line of sight to a source at distance $L>x$, the
source will be magnified (`microlensed') by a factor $>1.34$. Since in
general the lens will move with respect to the line of sight, the
brightening will only last for a certain time, typically of the order of
1-100 days (depending on the lens mass). The average number of lenses
in the `microlensing tube' $R(x)<R_E(x)$ is called the optical depth
$\tau$, and depends on the number density $\nu$ of lenses along the
line of sight:
\begin{equation}
\tau=\int_0^L\nu(x)\pi R_E(x)^2dx\propto m^0\overline\rho
\end{equation}
where $\overline\rho$ is a mean mass density in lenses. $\tau$
therefore depends only on the mass density in lenses, not on the
masses of individual lenses (but the detectability does depend on $m$
via the timescale of typical events).
Whereas the detection rate for microlensing towards the Magellanic
clouds may be disappointingly low (Alcock et al.\ 1995a), the `control
experiments' towards the Galactic bulge have surprisingly turned up
many more events than had initially been expected: the optical depth
to the average bulge star is about $3\times10^{-6}$ (Udalski et al.\
1994, Alcock et al.\ 1995b). Along the line of sight towards Baade's
Window, a double exponential disk can produce at most
$\tau_D<1.2\times10^{-6}$, with a more likely number being less than
half that (Fig.~4).
\begin{figure}
\plotone{taudisk.ps}
\caption{The optical depth of bulge stars to microlensing by a double
exponential disk $\rho\propto \exp(-R/a-z/H_d)$, constrained to produce
a maximum rotation speed below 180km/s. The sun symbol shows the
optical depth due to a less than maximal disk, consistent with the
measurements of Kuijken \& Gilmore (1991).}
\end{figure}
The early calculations were based on axysymmetric models, and on the
assumption that the bulge stars were only lensed by foreground disk
and halo objects. It was later realized (Kiraga \& Paczinski 1994)
that bulge stars are so common that lensing of a far-side bulge star
by one on the near side contributes a significant signal
($\tau_B\sim0.7\times10^{-6}$ if one uses the Kent model for the
bulge). This signal is enhanced further if the bulge is extended along
our line of sight, for then the near-side stars are in a fatter part
of the microlensing tubes for lensing of the far-side bulge stars.
The effect can be as much as a factor of two if the bulge has the axis
ratio of the Dwek et al.\ (1995) model, raising the optical depth to
bulge sources to around $1.2\times10^{-6}$. The numbers are still a
little low, and larger numbers of microlensing events will have to be
analysed before it is clear whether there still is a problem or not.
Further constraints on bulge-bulge lensing can be derived by searching
for a systematic offset between the (unmagnified) brightnesses of
lensed stars with the general population. If far-side bulge sources
are systematically lensed more often than near-side ones, the lensed
sources should be systematically fainter. The magnitude of the offset
can be used to constrain the axis ratio and orientation of the bar
(Stanek 1995, and this volume).
\section{Conclusions and Wishlist of Further Observations}
It is clear that a variety of lines of evidence point towards the
existence of non-axisymmetric structure in the central few kpc of the
Milky Way. Equally impressive is the lack of evidence to the contrary!
While the precise details have not yet been characterised, rapid
progress is being made, partly driven by the need to understand the
new microlensing data. Major stumbling blocks at the moment are the
difficulty of realistically simulating hydro\-dynamical processes.
In conclusion, it seems useful to compile a list of observations which
may help pin down the nature and parameters of the bar. These
include:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\em To see the bar in stellar kinematics.} Proper motions of
samples of stars throughout the bulge will greatly help define the
orbit structure, and hence the gravitational potential and pattern
speed of the bar.
\item{\em An optical depth map of the bulge region.} As shown by Kiraga
(1994), such a map provides an entirely separate constraint on the
mass distribution in the central regions.
\item{\em evolutionary history of the bulge as traced by stellar
abundances and their ratios.} Such data can be used to constrain the
star formation history of the bulge/bar, and combination with
kinematic data ultimately will allow the evolutionary relation between
the bar, bulge (if indeed they are separate) and disk to be addressed.
\item{\em Self-gravitating hydrodynamic simulations of gas flow in
barred potentials} will help address issues related to central
lopsidedness, stability and possible tilts.
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is part of a series of papers describing the
construction and maintenance of a quasi--inertial reference frame
in both the radio and optical domain.
Extensive work on the radio reference frame has been accomplished
in the last 5 years and published in a series of papers I--VII
(see Johnston et al. \markcite{rmRORF} 1995 for further details).
A rigorous global new reduction of all then applicable Mark III VLBI
radio observations has been used to construct a radio reference frame
of 560 sources from first principles (Johnston et al. \markcite{rmRORF} 1995).
Based on these results a list of
defining and candidate sources has been provided to the IAU
Working Group on Reference Frames (IAU, \markcite{rmIAUWG} 1995).
While a dense radio frame with an accuracy level of 1
milliarcsecond (mas) for most of the source positions is now
in place, optical observations on a 30--50 mas level are available
for only a fraction of these sources.
Previous results already have shown the deficiencies of the
currently used optical FK5/J2000 reference frame, with deviations
from a uniform inertial reference system as large as $\approx 200$ mas
at the current epoch.
The Hipparcos astrometry satellite mission will soon provide
a new optical system on the 2 mas level
at the Hipparcos mean epoch ($\approx 1991.5$),
and 2 mas/year in proper motion error,
but this instrumental
system must be linked to the radio system to become quasi--inertial.
Most of the primary optical reference objects (stars)
are bright, both in the FK5 (3 to 6 mag)
and the Hipparcos (5 to 9 mag) catalogs, while the optical counterparts
of the extragalactic sources are optically faint (the majority in the
range 17 to 21 mag).
Due to the relatively low quantum efficiency of photographic astrometry,
which requires long exposure times on large telescopes in good seeing,
progress in the optical observations has been slow.
The use of CCD detectors has dramatically improved this situation,
because they allow smaller telescopes which have greater availability
and more objects can be observed due to much shorter exposure times.
Not until recently has the fieldsize of CCD's became large enough to
contain a sufficient number of reference stars for precise astrometry.
This paper outlines the reduction procedure in detail and gives
results for a representative subset of the observed sources.
It is a pilot investigation to assess the astrometric properties
of these telescopes and the capabilities of this technique.
The first successful attempt to use CCD's for this project has been made
earlier (de Vegt \markcite{rm1CCD} et al. 1987),
although it was severely limited by the lack
of reference stars in a tiny 2' by 3' field of view.
In Section 2 we discuss the telescopes, CCD's and observations
and in Section 3 the reference star data.
Section 4 describes the reduction procedure, while results are
presented in Section 5.
An accuracy estimate of the procedure and comparison with
other investigations is made in Section 6.
\section{OBSERVATIONS}
\subsection{The Telescopes}
The 0.9 m (36 in) Kitt Peak National Observatory (KPNO)
telescope is a Ritchey--Chr\'etien system with an additional
2--element field corrector about $250 \ mm$ before
the focal plane.
This gives a large ($\approx 1\deg$) flat field of view,
which also gives the offaxis guide scope good image quality.
Frequent focus measurements and the use of the correlation
between focus setting and telescope
temperature ensured optimal image quality for all
object frames.
The image quality at the KPNO instrument was found to
be uniformly good over the entire field of the CCD.
The 0.9 m (36 in) Cerro Tololo Inter--American Observatory
(CTIO) telescope is a cassegrain system without a
field corrector. At the edge of the CCD frame optical aberrations
are visible and it is difficult to achieve a well focused CCD frame with
round images over most of the chip area due to instabilities in
the mirror--supporting structure.
We also had occasional guiding problems.
On the positive side the longer focal length of the CTIO 0.9 m with
its better sampling, makes it more suitable for structure analysis of
the objects than the KPNO 0.9 m. Getting enough reference stars for the
astrometric link was found to be the bottleneck with the CTIO 0.9 m.
Properties of both telescopes and the CCD's used
are summarized in Table 1.
\subsection{The Data Acquisition System}
Both telescopes use the same type of Tektronix 2K CCD chip,
with square pixels of size $24 \ \mu m$ and a filling factor of 100\%,
with a different camera controller.
For good astrometric results, a large
S/N ratio is required, whereas an optimized
digitization at the background level is of minor importance.
In order to cover the large magnitude
range between the reference stars and the extragalactic sources,
a large gain of 8.2 was chosen for the KPNO instrument
to utilize the full dynamic range, including the full well
capacity of the chip.
For the CTIO camera, a gain of 3.3 was sufficient because of
the larger digitization range (16 bit) available with that camera controller.
The readout time for the KPNO instrument was well over
2 minutes. The new ARCON controller at CTIO
allowed a faster readout of the full frame in about 70 seconds
with two readout amplifiers.
All frames have been taken in a red spectral bandpass.
A Gunn r filter was used for the long exposure frames
to record the extragalactic objects.
For each object, additional short exposure frames
have been taken in order to get unsaturated images of the
reference stars (12 to 14 mag).
With the KPNO 0.9 m, most of these short exposure frames have been
taken with a narrow (FWHM = 12 nm) filter centered near $H\alpha$.
The better sampling of the CTIO instrument
allowed the use of the same Gunn r filter for the short exposure frames
because the flux of the secondary reference stars was spread out over
more pixels, thus avoiding saturation.
The IRAF software system was used for the data acquisition at both sites.
\subsection{Observation Procedure}
A summary of the observing runs is presented in Table 2.
Between April and October 1994 the dome seeing was improved
at the 0.9 m KPNO telescope.
In the first observing run at each site many calibration and test
frames were obtained in order to evaluate the
astrometric quality and possible systematic errors
of the instrumentation, as well as to determine the
best observing strategy.
The second runs at each telescope were pure production runs,
taking at least 2 long and 2 short exposure frames per field.
Depending on the brightness of the sources,
an exposure time of 200 to 900 seconds was used for the deep
frames and 40 to 120 seconds for the others.
At the KPNO telescope
a typical deep frame covers an astrometrically useable range of
$14 \ to \ 20^{m}$, while the short exposures cover $10.5 \ to \ 16.5^{m}$.
At CTIO the corresponding ranges are
$13 \ to \ 20^{m}$ and $11 \ to \ 18^{m}$.
All frames were taken within 1 hour of the meridian and
at least $30\deg$ away from the Moon.
In fields of high galactic latitude the density of the
secondary reference stars are usually not sufficient for
a good astrometric reduction.
In those cases a mosaic of short exposures (2 x 2 frames),
centered on the object and shifted by 500" in $x$ and $y$
were obtained at KPNO.
The overlap of 41\% in area
allows a rigid tie to the central frames and
the area covered for potential reference stars
was increased by a factor of 2.5.
Because of the much smaller useable field size of the CTIO
0.9 m, a similar 2 x 2 mosaic with shifts of 240" in x
and y were obtained for all fields at that telescope.
This is an overlap of 50\% by area.
A few additional calibration fields were taken
with at least a 3 x 3 set of frames of 2--3 minutes
exposure time.
On some nights, additional sets of short exposure
(10, 20, 40 seconds) frames
were obtained in order to investigate the
limits set by atmospheric turbulence on astrometric accuracy.
Results will be published elsewhere (Zacharias \markcite{rmZatm} 1996).
It was necessary to have two observers present,
in order to obtain online quality control.
On each deep frame, the object was identified
and radial profile and contour maps were generated.
A few objects were found to be optical doubles on the
2 to 7 arcsecond level, most likely due to foreground
stars.
Depending on the seeing, these objects were skipped or
the exposure time was adjusted, if required.
All frames were checked for focus and overall image
quality.
The short exposures in addition were checked
for saturation of the reference star images and
the exposure time was adjusted accordingly.
\section{Reference Stars}
The currently used primary reference system is the
IRS (International Reference Stars),
(Corbin \& Urban \markcite{rmIRSp} 1990, Corbin \& Warren \markcite{rmIRSc}
1991).
The IRS gives positions and proper motions in the FK5/J2000 system
for approximately 36,000 stars in the magnitude range of
$V \approx 6 \ to \ 9$, nearly uniformly distributed on the sky.
Nearly all radio source fields from our candidate list
(Johnston et al. \markcite{rmRORF} 1995)
already were observed with modern high precision astrographs.
The northern hemisphere plates were taken with the 23 cm Hamburg
Zone Astrograph (ZA) (de Vegt \markcite{rmCDS} 1978) and the southern
hemisphere
plates were obtained with the yellow lens (BY) of the U.S. Naval
Observatory 8 in Twin Astrograph (Routly \markcite{rmTA} 1983)
from the Black Birch Astrometric Observatory (BBAO) in New Zealand.
The field sizes of these instruments are $ 6\deg \times 6\deg$ (ZA)
and $ 5\deg \times 5\deg$ (BY) respectively.
Both instruments use $6^{m}$ objective gratings in order to obtain
diffraction images of bright stars for high precision position
measurements.
The range of magnitudes covered is $V \approx 5 \ to \ 14$
in 15--minute exposures on microflat 103aG emulsion.
Both instruments have 2 meter focal length, corresponding to
a plate scale of about $100"/mm$.
All IRS and Hipparcos Input Catalog (HIC) stars
(Turon et al. \markcite{rmINCA} 1992)
have been measured on these plates together with all faint
stars to the plate limit in an area of $1\deg \times 1\deg$
centered on the radio source position.
These stars in the magnitude range of $V \approx 11 \ to \ 14$
serve as secondary reference stars for the reduction of
the CCD frames.
In addition, the 0.5 m Lick Carnegie Astrograph (LA) was used
to provide a denser net of secondary reference stars in selected fields.
The LA has a field size of $ \approx \ 3\deg \times 3\deg$
on $240 \ mm \ \times \ 240 \ mm$ plates
but a limiting magnitude of $V \approx 15.5$ in 30--minute
exposures with a plate scale of $55"/mm$.
For many fields on the southern hemisphere, plates from
the ESO Schmidt telescope are available, which often show
measurable images of the radio sources.
All Schmidt plates provide at least a set of tertiary
reference stars in the magnitude range of $R \approx 14 \ to \ 18$.
Measuring of all those plates is in progress
at Hamburg Observatory with the HAM--I machine
(Winter et al. \markcite{rmW1} 1992, Winter \markcite{rmW2} 1994,
Zacharias et al. \markcite{rmZ161} 1994).
An accuracy of $\approx 0.8 \ \mu m$ per coordinate is obtained for
the measurement of a single image on a good astrograph plate.
For the present pilot study only a subset of CCD observations were
used to obtain positions of the optical counterparts of the
extragalactic sources.
A publication for all fields is in progress and will
be based on the Hipparcos catalog.
Ultimately all CCD frames of the 0.9 m telescopes depend
entirely on the astrograph observations,
which provide the high precision secondary reference star positions.
The Guide Star Catalog (GSC) is not precise enough
for this project and results from CCD transit circle
instruments are premature at the moment.
The future Tycho catalog alone will not be dense enough
to provide a good reduction of the current CCD observations.
\section{Reduction Procedure}
\subsection{Calibration of Raw CCD Frames}
The standard IRAF software package
(version 2.10, NOAO, Univ. of Arizona, Tucson)
was used for the initial reduction steps of the raw CCD data.
About 20 bias frames were combined for a master Zero for each night.
Most of the KPNO frames were calibrated with flatfields derived from
a large number of object frames from a group of nights in which the
dust grain pattern on the filter and dewar window remained constant.
CCD frames taken with the narrow filter at KPNO and all CTIO frames
were calibrated with twilight flats.
\subsection{Pre--processing Statistics}
Statistical information such as
noise characteristics of the frame and full width half maximum (FWHM)
values of the image profiles were obtained from all calibrated images
using standard IRAF commands.
An approximate pixel position and count rate of the extragalactic objects
were obtained from radial profile fits, as well as relative position offsets
for the short exposure frames.
This information is read by our reduction programs for
an automatic data handling of multiple frames and fields.
\subsection{Determination of $x,y$ Coordinates}
In order to obtain centroid positions of star images ($x,y$ coordinates)
two different software packages were investigated for comparison.
First, the IRAF/DAOPHOT routines provided three different sets of
$x,y$ coordinates:
\ a) a center of mass position,
\ b) a 1--D gaussian fit to the $x,y$ marginal distribution of the pixel data,
and \ c) a point spread function (PSF) fit after subtraction of a gaussian.
Only options a) and b), provided by the routine {\em phot}, include
an error estimate on the derived $x,y$.
Option c) is obtained with {\em allstar} (Stetson \markcite{rmDAOPHOT} 1987)
which can handle crowded fields
by a simultaneous fit of profiles to a group of stars and gives
superior photometric results, but is not designed for astrometry.
Second, {\em SAAC} (Software for Analysing Astrometric CCD's) was used.
SAAC was developed at Hamburg Observatory
(Winter \markcite{rmW2} 1994) with various modifications and adaptions
performed by
N.Zacharias at USNO and
performs 2--D fits on the star profiles with a choice of various models.
Slightly saturated images of bright stars usually are of good astrometric
quality
as long as there is no bleeding into adjacent pixels.
These images were kept, with caution, in the following reduction steps.
Both program packages exclude significantly elongated images, mostly galaxies
and various defects due to restrictions imposed on various image selection
parameters.
Positions of radio sources presented in this paper
are based exclusively on the circular gaussian 2--D fit,
which proved to be the best option for astrometry.
For optical doubles the same fit model was used
either with the cut--out or with a fit--up procedure (Schramm
\markcite{rmSdiss} 1988) or both.
In the cut--out option all
pixels containing the companion image are excluded from the profile fit
observation equations (interactively selected).
In the fit--up procedure the background level is raised to a higher
value up to the maximum count rate from the companion within the
used window.
Bright companion star images were first fitted by these methods exclucing
the image of the etragalactic source.
The thus obtained image profile was subtracted from the original
pixel data and finally the position of the extragalactic source determined.
The {\em allstar}(DAOPHOT) procedure was used for comparison in some cases.
\subsection{Comparison of $x,y$ Data}
Unique star numbers were assigned to all images of all stars of
each field using our multi--step match program, based on position only.
Coordinates were corrected for approximate third--order optical
distortion, derived from a pilot investigation of a subset of the frames.
Then all matches within a large search radius
are recorded and the distribution of the coordinate differences
of the matches in x and y are analyzed for a peak.
Only the most likely identified matched
images are used for a linear transformation using an unweighted least
squares adjustment.
Finally the transformed coordinates are compared to the
reference coordinates and a position match with small tolerance is performed.
Optionally, all images identified as multiple on a few arcseconds level are
rejected except for manual 'fine tuning' for some radio source images.
A transformation program was developed for comparing
$x,y$ data of all overlapping CCD frames of the same field.
Various mapping models are available and
the residuals can be analyzed and displayed with already
existing software from the photographic plate reduction package.
The transformation program was used for comparing
$x,y$ coordinates of the same CCD frame as obtained by
different pixel fit algorithms, as well as to estimate
field distortions and positional accuracy.
Optionally, the obtained transformation parameters were applied
to {\em combine} the $x,y$ data of all frames of each field
into a superframe, from which spherical coordinates could be derived.
\subsection{Combining $x,y$ Data}
One option to derive positions from the combination of all CCD frames
of a field is the traditional way of adjusting
each individual CCD frame's $x,y$ data to spherical coordinates
($\alpha, \delta$) by means of reference stars and then combining these
to obtain (weighted) mean positions.
This option is not likely to give best results here.
The number of available reference stars is usually small.
Also, the deep exposure frames have overexposed images
of the reference stars and an iterative process involving tertiary
reference stars' $\alpha, \delta$ then is required, starting from
the short exposure frames.
Combining the $x,y$ data first is feasible
without loss in accuracy due to the small field of view,
the simple transformation geometry required here,
and the large overlap in area of $\approx 40 \ to \ 100 \%$ for all
our CCD frames of a field.
Our software allows for a rigorous correction for refraction,
but this effect was found to be negligible for our data.
A significant third--order optical distortion term was
removed before the weighted least squares adjustment with
a linear transformation model for overlapping frames.
Weights were obtained from the precision of the image profile
fits, which strongly depend on the magnitude of the stars.
In addition a constant variance per frame was added to account for
atmospheric effects, scaled by the inverse exposure time
of the CCD frames.
This approach allows using simultaneously more reference stars
in a larger field of view in cases when mosaic CCD frames are
available, and at the same time combines all measurable images
of long and short exposure frames into a common system.
\subsection{Adjustment to Reference Star Positions}
Our standard plate reduction software package, as part of HBAPP
(Hamburg Block Adjustment Program Package, Zacharias \markcite{rmZdiss} 1987),
was used for the unweighted least--squares adjustment of the $x,y$ data
to the reference star positions.
The precision of the secondary reference stars contributes the largest
part of the errors in this adjustment. The differences in the precision
of the CCD $x,y$ data, e.g. due to the dependence on magnitude or
the atmospheric effects as a function of exposure time, are not
relevant here.
Experiments with weights obtained from the astrograph reductions
did not reveal any significant improvement.
Several pilot investigations were run to determine the most realistic
mapping function of the telescopes (plate model).
A linear plate model was finally adopted for routine processing with
third--order optical distortion corrected prior to the adjustment.
\subsection{External Comparisons}
Field, as well as magnitude--dependent, systematic
errors can be investigated externally by comparing
$\alpha, \delta$ coordinates obtained from our CCD frames
with positions obtained from a different telescope.
For some fields ESO (European Southern Observatory) Schmidt
plates, Lick Astrograph plates or prime focus plates from other
telescopes are available.
Due to the high precision of our CCD data a comparison with
Schmidt plates only reveals systematic errors in those plates.
Positions obtained from prime focus plates depend on the same
secondary reference stars of that field already used for the CCD
reductions.
Thus the Lick Astrograph offers the most promising external
comparison. Plate measuring is in progess and results
will be published in an upcoming paper.
Here only a comparison between different KPNO and CTIO runs
will be made.
A comparison of the optical positions with the quasi--error--free
radio position can also reveal systematic errors.
But our aim is to calibrate the optical data independently of that
comparison in order to draw astrophysically significant conclusions.
\section{Results}
Because no photometric observations were obtained, all magnitudes
in this paper are instrumental with the zeropoint adjusted to the mean
photographic V magnitudes of the secondary reference stars.
\subsection{Internal $x,y$ Precision}
In this section we will compare the astrometric performance of
various image profile fit models
used to obtain $x,y$ coordinates from the pixel data of the CCD frames.
Initial tests with the 1--dimensional center of mass algorithm
showed significantly larger errors in positions as compared to other
algorithms and thus was not further investigated.
We compared the 1--dimensional gaussian fit (1DG)
and the {\em allstar} point spread function fit (ALS) from the DAOPHOT/IRAF
package, as well as the 2--dimensional circular gaussian fit (2DG)
from our astrometric software package (SAAC).
All comparisons were made only with stars appearing
on all lists of $x,y$ coordinates obtained for the different profile fit models
per frame, thus a unique limiting magnitude was used.
All $x,y$ data were corrected for third--order optical distortion
by applying the same value for the distortion coefficient (D3) and the
location of the optical axis on the frame ($x_{0}, y_{0}$) to all frames prior
to the transformation with a linear model.
For routine reduction of the CCD frames in order to derive positions of
extragalactic sources, the 2--dimensional circular gaussian (2DG) was adopted
as our standard fit model because of its superior performance with
respect to random, as well as systematic, errors as will be explained in the
following two subsections.
\subsubsection{KPNO 0.9 m Telescope}
Table 3 shows some results for the KPNO field of the source 1656+053.
The CCD frames with internal numbers 68 and 74 are long exposures (300 sec),
while all others are short exposures (40 sec).
Frames 68,74 and 73 are centered on the QSO radio source,
while all others are part of a mosaic with offsets of 500" (735 pixel)
in each coordinate.
The seeing for all frames was $FWHM \approx 2.5$ pixel.
Most of the $x,y$ data obtained from the 1DG fit
show a significant magnitude--dependent error
in both coordinates for the faint stars as compared to the $x,y$ positions
from the same CCD frame obtained by the other fit models.
An example is shown in Figure 1 a) for the x coordinate of frame 73
in the comparison of fit model 2DG - 1DG.
The other coordinate, as well as the data from other frames, looks similar.
The average position difference, as obtained by different profile
fit models for the same pixel data, is on the order of 0.01 to 0.03
pixel, which is about 7 to 20 mas for the KPNO telescope.
This is clearly a function of magnitude, increasing to the faint end.
Figure 2 a) shows an example of the fit precision, $\sigma_{fit}$, as a
function
of magnitude for the 2DG fit of the pixel data obtained at KPNO from a
300--second exposure CCD frame of the field 0906+015.
The saturation limit for this frame is at $\approx 13.0^{m}$.
A best positional precision of 0.01 pixel is found for star images
in the magnitude range from the saturation limit to 3 magnitudes below.
For faint stars the fit precision decreases sharply.
Outliers have been visually inspected on the CCD frame and only
galaxies and close double stars have been found to cause
significantly larger fit errors than the mean for that magnitude,
providing a good method for detecting non--stellar images.
Positions from multiple CCD frames of the same exposure time and the
same field center were compared next.
The standard error $\sigma_{xy}$ of such a frame--to--frame position
transformation includes, besides the fit error $\sigma_{fit}$,
also errors introduced by the atmospheric turbulence $\sigma_{atm}$.
Figure 3 a) shows an example of $\sigma_{x}$ vs. magnitude
for 2 frames from the field 0906+015 with a 300--second exposure time each.
The limiting precision of $\approx 5 $ mas
can entirely be accounted for by the turbulence in the atmosphere.
According to Lindegren \markcite{rmLin} (1980)
we have for our case $\sigma_{atm} \approx 10 $ mas.
Compared to the previous figure either $\sigma_{fit}$ or $\sigma_{atm}$
or both are overestimated.
An explanation for overestimating $\sigma_{fit}$ for bright stars is
the difference of the observed image profile as compared to the assumed model.
On the other hand, significant nightly variations of $\sigma_{atm}$
are also well known.
Positions obtained for the brighter stars have been found to be less dependent
on the profile fit algorithm used than those obtained for fainter stars.
There was no systematic radial difference vs. radius found in
any fit model comparisons of the same KPNO CCD frame.
The transformation of $x,y$ coordinates of the frames with short exposure times
show a larger sigma than those of long exposure times for all fit models
(Table 3) because of the noise added by the atmosphere.
In comparing the performance of the different fit models,
the 2DG shows the smallest random errors for the KPNO frames.
\subsubsection{CTIO 0.9 m Telescope}
Table 4 shows some of the results for the CTIO telescope for the field
0646--306.
Frames 53 and 54 are long exposures (600 sec, 300 sec), while all others are
short exposures (40 sec). Frames 53, 54 and 57 are centered on the QSO,
while all others are part of a mosaic with offsets of
240" = 600 pixel in both coordinates.
Frame 53 has the poorest image quality as compared to the other frames.
Contrary to the results obtained with the KPNO telescope, here the simple
1DG fit is in good agreement with the 2DG fit.
An example is shown in Figure 1 b) for the difference in x--coordinates vs.
magnitude for frame 57.
No magnitude--dependent systematic errors were found in the test field.
The CTIO telescope has better sampling
and with FWHM $\approx 3.8 \ px$ in this test field there is a sufficient large
number of pixels for both algorithms to determine consistent positions
over a dynamic range of almost 8 magnitudes.
With the CTIO data the DAOPHOT {\em allstar} algorithm
show small magnitude--dependent systematic differences ($\approx 10 $ mas/mag)
as compared to the 2DG and 1DG fit results as well as $\approx 20 $ mas
systematic differences as a function of position in the field,
when used with a single average point spread function (PSF) for the entire
field of view.
Figure 4 shows an example for the radial difference (2DG-ALS) vs. radius in
frame 57.
Clearly visible slightly elongated images at the edges of many CTIO frames
require field--dependent PSF's to be used in DAOPHOT in order to
obtain better results.
The difficulty is how to relate these PSF's to each other
astrometrically in order to get $x,y$ coordinates in a unique system
for all stars in that frame on the 0.01 pixel level.
In the frame--to--frame comparison again the 2DG shows the best results as
judged from the standard deviations of the transformations of the $x,y$ data.
The 1DG algorithm performs nearly as good as the 2DG in this respect,
while the ALS is clearly inferior.
For comparison with the KPNO results, Figure 2 b) shows a plot of the
fit precision vs. magnitude.
The limiting precision here is only $\approx $ 0.02 pixel.
This can be explained by the poorer image quality of the CTIO
as compared to the KPNO telescope, with variable deviations from the circular
symmetric gaussian image profile depending on the location in the field.
Expressed in arcseconds, both telescopes perform to about the
same level of precision due to the better scale of the CTIO telescope.
Figure 3 b) shows a frame--to--frame comparison, $\sigma_{x}$
vs. magnitude; both frames have been exposed for 600 seconds.
Again a limit of $\approx 5 $ mas in precision is reached for
bright stars in a {\em single} exposure.
The atmosphere seems to be the limiting factor.
\subsection{Basic Mapping Model}
In this chapter the appropriate mapping model between the measured
$x,y$ coordinates of the CCD frames and the corresponding
standard coordinates ($\xi, \eta$) will be investigated.
In order to allow for possible differences in scale and non--orthogonality
of the axis a full linear transformation was adopted as
our basic model. With orthogonal and non--orthogonal terms
separated we have
\[ \xi = a x + b y + c + e x + f y \]
\[ \eta = -b x + a y + d + e y - f x \]
\subsubsection{Optical Distortion Coefficient}
A third--order optical distortion term (D3) was determined from
$x,y$ data of mosaic frames.
A conventional plate adjustment (CPA) of even a field with
many ($\approx 20$) reference stars revealed no significant D3 term.
The mean error on the D3 term is approximately $1.0 \times 10^{-9} \ "/"^{3}$.
In order to obtain a reliable value for the D3 term a procedure
similar to that of the AGK 2 catalog project
(Schorr \& Kohlsch\"utter, \markcite{rmAGK2} 1951)
was followed without the need for reference stars.
Pairs of overlapping CCD frames with offsets in their centers in the
order of half a field size have been transformed onto each other
by extending the linear model with the appropriate D3 term
\[ \Delta \xi = D3 \ (x_{1} r_{1}^{2} - x_{2} r_{2}^{2} ) \]
\[ \Delta \eta = D3 \ (y_{1} r_{1}^{2} - y_{2} r_{2}^{2} ) \]
with $x_{1},y_{1}$ and $x_{2}, y_{2}$ being the measured coordinates
with respect to the center of distortion on frame 1 and frame 2 respecively and
$ r_{i}^{2} = x_{i}^{2} + y_{i}^{2} \ , \ i=1,2 $.
This algorithm assumes a common distortion term D3 for both frames,
which is very realistic for frames taken shortly after each
other with the same instrument and roughly the same location in the sky.
This assumption was verified by comparing results for D3 obtained
from various frame pairs.
The mean values for D3 and their errors for both telescopes are
given in Table 5 along with the maximal effect per coordinate
on these 2K CCD's.
The D3 term is highly significant and can be determined very
precisely by this method.
For convenience, conversion factors between the different units
for quadratic and third--order terms in the CPA process are
given in Table 6.
\subsubsection{Optical Distortion Center}
A significant offset of the center of distortion (optical axis)
with respect to the geometric center of the CCD frame of $250 \pm 50$ pixel
was found for the CTIO telescope in observing run 4.
A similar offset of $\approx 100 \pm 70$ pixel in another direction
was found for the same telescope in observing run 3, while no such
offsets were found for the KPNO telescope (observing runs 1,2).
Figure 5 a) shows a vector plot of average differences (run 4 - run 3)
of $x,y$ data of field 0743-006 with optical distortion
applied at the geometric frame centers prior to combining the $x,y$ data
of frames for each run.
Figure 5 b) shows the corresponding plot with optical distortion
applied with respect to the optical axis as determined in a pilot
investigation.
In Figure 5 a) there is a systematic error of $\approx 70$ mas
{\em at the frame center} which would have affected all source
positions of that observing run.
According to CTIO staff, such an offset of $\approx 200$ pixel
is within the collimation tolerances of the instrument setup
for each new observing run.
\subsubsection{Tilt Terms}
A difference in tangential points of two overlapping frames
causes tilt terms (p,q) of the form (K\"onig, \markcite{rmK} 1933)
\[ \Delta \xi = p x^{2} + q xy \]
\[ \Delta \eta = p xy + q y^{2} \]
Similar terms arise when individual frames are not perpendicular
to the optical axis or the location of the tangential point is
uncertain.
A maximum difference in the location of tangential points for
overlapping mosaic frames of 10 arcminutes was used here.
This results in p,q terms as large as $ 1.4 \times 10^{-8} "/"^{2}$
(see Table 6).
A maximum effect of $\Delta x \approx \Delta y \approx 0.01 \ pixel
\ \le \ 7 $ mas is thus predicted for the edge of the field of view,
which is totally negligible.
Even assuming a tilt of the CCD plane with respect to the focal plane
of the telescope (e.g. due to misalignment of the CCD camera)
of $1^{\circ}$ results in a maximum effect of 0.06 pixel
at the edge of the CCD frame, which would
have little effect on the CPA results.
As expected, no significant p,q terms were found neither in
the $x,y$ transformation of overlapping plates, nor in the CPA of
selected fields.
A CPA with typical secondary reference stars is about a factor of 100
less sensitive to detect p,q terms
as is the $x,y$ data transformation of overlapping frames.
\subsection{External Calibration}
Both instruments show field--dependent systematic errors
of the order of $\approx 20 $ mas after applying the basic mapping model
including third--order optical distortion (see e.g. Figure 5b).
Unfortunately, presently no external calibration with respect to
a precise reference star catalog can be made.
Plates were taken at the Lick Astrograph with very small
epoch difference (2 months) from some CCD observing runs.
When Hipparcos results will become available, a position
catalog to $\approx 30 $ mas precision for individual stars in
an area of a few square degrees and down to 15th magnitude can
be constructed for these external calibrations of our CCD data.
A rigorous calibration of these FDP's (field distortion patterns) will
then be possible, similar to the procedure used in photographic
astrometry (Zacharias, \markcite{rmFDP} 1995).
\subsection{Optical Positions of Reference Frame Sources}
Here we present position results for 16 sources,
selected as a representative subset of all optical counterparts
on the current list of candidates ($> 400$ sources)
for the extragalactic radio--optical reference frame.
The sources were selected from all 4 CCD
observing runs, sampling all areas in the sky as well as
a wide range in magnitudes.
Problematic cases, e.g. close doubles and sparce fields
were prefered in order to challenge the reduction technique.
Sources with multiple observations (different observing runs)
as well as fields with more than one set of seconday reference stars
were selected in order to obtain accuracy estimates by
external comparisons.
Table 7 gives a summary of the results.
The positions are in the FK5/J2000 system as represented by the IRS catalog,
and based on the 2--dimensional circular gaussian (2DG) fit model.
The radio positions are taken from our radio reference frame
(Johnston \markcite{rmRORF} et al. 1995).
The rms difference (radio--optical) is $\approx 100$ mas for
$\Delta \alpha \cos(\delta)$ and $\Delta \delta$.
Compared to the expected internal errors this only shows
the "wobbles" of the current optical system
and gives no insight into the accuracy of the CCD observations.
A reduction based on a Hipparcos intermediate solution was performed for
the Hipparcos Working Group on Reference Link and shows
an external error consistent with our error estimations.
Detailed results will be published when the final Hipparcos catalog
becomes available.
\subsection{Remarks on Individual Sources}
The following sources are optical doubles, most likely due to a foreground
star. The images of both the extragalactic source and the companion
are consistent with a stellar profile in all cases.
No extended structure, e.g. of an underlying galaxy, was detected.
All these sources are suitable for the radio--optical reference frame link,
at least for now at the 30 mas level.
0153+744 is an optical double with a separation of $\approx 7 \ arcsec$ (10
pixel),
which could be resolved without any problems.
0605-085 is an optical double with a flux of the companion 5 times {\em
brighter}
than the extragalactic source and a separation of 3 arcsec
(4.5 px at KPNO, 7 px at CTIO).
A subtraction of the image profile of the companion was required to obtain
a position of the extragalactic source.
0607-157 is an optical double with a companion 2 times weaker than the
extragalactic source with a separation of 4 arcsec (6 px at KPNO, 10 px at
CTIO).
The cut--out and fit--up procedures (see Section 4) allowed consistent
image profile fits.
0743-006 is an optical double with a companion about a factor of 4 weaker
than the extragalactic source and separated by 2.7 arcsec (6 px at CTIO).
The fit--up and cut--out procedures with the 2DG fit gave
consistent positions within 10 mas, while the {\em allstar} result
was different by $\approx 30$ mas.
Figure 6 shows a contour plot of this source, obtained from a 200--second
exposure CTIO CCD frame in 1.5 arcsec seeing (3.7 pixel FWHM).
1800+440 is an optical double (3 arcsec)
which was successfully fitted with the {\em allstar} algorithm
as well as with the 2DG with use of cut--out and fit--up procedures.
A contour plot of this source has been shown elsewhere
(Zacharias et al. \markcite{rmZ166} 1995).
The large number of optical doubles (5 out of 16 sources) presented here is
not representative for all observations.
These objects were selected for this pilot investigation.
\subsection{Comparison of Multiple Data Sets}
The sources 0336-019, 0605-085, 0607-157 and 0743-006 have been
observed in more than one observing run.
The mean quadratic difference in positions of the same source (see Table 7)
obtained from different runs is $\approx 25 \ mas$,
showing the high accuracy of the CCD observations.
For 0743-006 there are 2 sets of secondary reference stars available
from the Hamburg and Black Birch astrographs respectively.
The agreement between the sets of secondary reference stars is on the
same $\approx 25$ mas level, indicating the high accuracy of the
secondary reference stars and the successful control of
possible magnitude--dependent systematic errors in the astrograph fields.
\section{Discussion}
\subsection{Astrometric Properties of Both Telescopes}
Based on the results of the previous section we estimate some
individual random and systematic error contributions for observations
made with both telescopes.
The error of a single $x,y$ observation depends on the magnitude of the object.
For faint objects the photon statistics limit the
precision and the internal error obtained from the profile fit
or the $x,y$ transformation from frame to frame is a good estimate of
the accuracy of the position.
For bright objects the random errors are as low as
$\approx 0.01$ pixel and the systematic errors dominate.
The astrometrically usable dynamic range depends on the pixel scale
(positions for faint stars are getting worse when undersampled),
as well as on the sky background level.
Although most of our candidates are bright enough to be observed
successfully within the full--Moon period, this has compromised the
usable dynamic range, stressing the
importance of the additional short exposure frames.
Depending on the magnitude of the extragalactic reference link sources,
a typical value
for the random error of an $x,y$ coordinate of a single image on a CCD frame
is $\sigma_{xy} \approx 15 $ mas, but the range was found to be as large as
5 to 31 mas (see Table 7).
Systematic errors as a function of magnitude are expected to be
$\le 10 $ mas over the magnitude range from secondary reference stars to
extragalactic objects when using the appropriate profile fit model (2DG).
Systematic errors as a function of location on the CCD frame are
found on the $\approx 20 $ mas level, being larger far from the
optical axis but negligible at the frame centers, where the image of the
extragalactic object is usually located.
These systematic errors will average out for different fields because
of the different location of reference stars in each field.
A more rigorous calibration of these FDP's is
in progress which needs to be performed for each observing run separately,
at least for the CTIO telescope.
\subsection{Accuracy Estimate for the Link Procedure}
In this section we will combine all estimates of individual error contributions
for the optical observations of the reference frame link procedure based on
counterparts of extragalactic radio sources.
Special consideration is given to systematic errors in this multi--step
procedure.
We will refer to step 1 as the primary optical reference system.
Options considered here are the IRS and the future Hipparcos and
Tycho catalogs.
By step 2 we denote the secondary reference stars which usually are
obtained photographically by wide--field astrographs.
An intermediate step 3 is sometimes taken with tertiary reference stars
obtained either by Schmidt telesopes or CCD observations with wide fields.
The last step is always the optical observation of the radio source
counterpart itself, either photographically or with CCD.
All error estimates given here are approximate.
The aim is to identify the largest error contribution,
to compare the performance of different options
and to find the limits of this approach to the radio--optical reference
frame link procedure.
All formulae and values to follow are for one coordinate.
As can be seen from the results in Table 7, the standard error of unit
weight $\sigma_{CPA}$ of the adjustment of CCD $x,y$ to secondary reference
star positions can be as low as $\approx 45$ mas,
indicating a sub--micrometer accuracy from a single astrograph plate.
Values for $\sigma_{CPA}$ increase with epoch
difference of the secondary reference star observations and the CCD
observations. This is due to the unknown proper motions in the
secondary reference star data.
No systematic corrections (e.g. galactic rotation) were
applied here.
\subsubsection{Algorithm}
First we will define some quantities to be used in the link of
step $i$ to step $i+1$.
Let $n_{i}$ be the number of stars to be used as reference stars
to link step $i$ to step $i+1$.
The random error of such a link star in step $i$ we denote with $\sigma
ran_{i}$,
and $\sigma sys_{i+1}$ is the systematic error for the link of step $i$ to
$i+1$.
Similarly,
$\sigma xy_{i+1}$ is the precision (random error) of a single $x,y$ observation
for
a link star in step $i+1$,
and $m_{i+1}$ is the number of observations (exposures) for each link star in
step $i+1$.
The random error of a star position obtained in step $i+1$ then is
approximately
\begin{equation}
\sigma ran_{i+1} \ = \ \frac{\sigma xy_{i+1}}{\sqrt{m_{i+1}}}
\end{equation}
Because there is only a limited number of link stars with associated errors
between the two steps, the link of the system of step $i$ and $i+1$ can not
be made error--free.
The uncertainty in the zeropoint offset, $\sigma z_{i+1}$, between the
coordinate systems
in step $i$ and $i+1$ is approximately
\begin{equation}
\sigma z_{i+1} \ = \ \sqrt{\frac{\sigma^{2}ran_{i} \ + \ \sigma^{2}ran_{i+1}}
{n_{i}}}
\ = \ \frac{\sigma_{CPA}} {\sqrt{n_{i}}}
\end{equation}
Here $\sigma_{CPA}$ is the standard error of unit weight in the least--squares
adjustment
of {\em combined} $x,y$ data of step i+1 to reference star data of step i.
But these formulae hold only for the central area of a frame (plate)
and for a simple (linear) mapping model.
In addition, a factor larger than one is required for other cases,
and a rigorous derivation is given by Eichhorn \& Williams \markcite{rmEW}
(1963).
Our zeropoint offset can be considered as a special case of the
error contribution due to error progapation of the plate constants to field
star
positions.
Finally, the accuracy of a position of an extragalactic link source,
$\sigma_{Q}$ ,
is approximately the rms sum of all zero point offsets from previous steps
plus the systematic errors and the precision, $\sigma ran_{Q}$,
of all optical observations of the source itself
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{Q} \ = \ \sqrt{\sigma^{2}ran_{Q} \ + \
\sum_{i=2}^{k} \sigma^{2}z_{i} \ + \
\sum_{i=2}^{k} \sigma^{2}sys_{i}}
\end{equation}
With systematic errors we mean here errors not averaging out with the number
of stars used for the link of a single extragalactic source.
It is assumed that such systematic errors (e.g. depending on magnitude for a
particular plate) will be different for different extragalactic source fields
and thus (at least partly) random when results for many sources are combined.
Systematic errors inherent in this technique and not averaging out with
different fields can't be investigated here.
An external comparison with other methods for the extragalactic link
procedure will be made in the future.
\subsubsection{Accuracy Estimate for the Secondary Reference Star Positions}
Here we will start out with 3 options for the primary optical reference system
(step 1) and discuss 12 cases for determining secondary reference star
positions
(step 2).
All cases are summarized in Table 8.
The currently available IRS system has a density of $\approx 0.9 \
stars/degree^{2}$
and a precision of $\approx 200 $ mas for epochs of 1980 to 1994, where most
of our data were taken.
The usable field of views for the Hamburg Zone Astrograph (ZA),
the Black Birch Astrometric Observatory (BBAO) astrograph and the Lick
Astrograph
are approximately 36, 25 and 9 $degree^{2}$ respectively.
For the Hipparcos catalog we assume a mean $\sigma ran_{1} = 10 $ mas
for the epoch range of our data.
After the Tycho catalog is combined with the Astrographic Catalog (AC)
data in order to obtain proper motions, we assume
a mean $\sigma ran_{1} = 50 $ mas for that catalog at the epoch of our data.
Systematic errors depending on magnitude are controlled with a diffraction
grating at the astrographs.
Preliminary results indicate magnitude terms on the
order of $0 \ to \ 1 \ \mu m $ per 5 magnitudes, this is up to $20 $ mas/mag.
The error on determining this term is about $ 2 $ mas/mag.
This is a systematic error for a plate or field, which varies from
field to field.
All cases 4 are based on a $ 1 \ deg^{2}$ CCD frame.
Cases 4b and 4c assume a mini--block adjustment of an area of $\approx 9 \
deg^{2}$.
As can be seen from Table 8, a considerable improvement will be gained
from the Hipparcos catalog as compared to the current IRS.
A further improvement can be obtained by using the Tycho catalog,
but this means a tremendous effort on plate measuring and the availability
of the AC in order to derive good proper motions to be combined with
the original Tycho observations.
This is only worth the effort if the systematic errors can be controlled
to this level.
The CCD option is only competitive here when used with block adjustment
techniques, at least in local fields.
Because of the expected lower systematic errors, e.g. as a function of
magnitude, this may be the way to go in the future.
Such CCD observations could be based directly on Hipparcos stars with
about the same precision as could be obtained from a Tycho--based
solution, thus excluding possible systematic errors from the
Tycho proper motions.
\subsubsection{Position Accuracy of the Extragalactic Sources}
With the algorithm as above and a typical internal precision of
a CCD observation of $\sigma xy \approx 15 $ mas and $m = 2$
observations per source, we have a random error for the optical
position of an extragalactic source of $\sigma ran_{Q} \approx 11 $ mas.
Random errors from the CCD observations of the link stars
(secondary reference stars) are even smaller due to their brightness,
a typical value is $\sigma_{fit} \le 10 $ mas.
The largest error contribution here is the influence due to the
atmosphere in case of the short exposure frames.
According to Lindegren \markcite{rmLin} (1980) this amounts to
$\sigma xy_{3} \approx 30 $ mas for a single exposure;
with $m_{3} \approx 4$ we have according to Eq. (1)
$\sigma ran_{3} \approx 15 $ mas.
Let us assume a random error from the astrograph observations of
a link star (secondary reference star) of
$\sigma ran_{2} \approx 70 $ mas.
With $n_{2} \approx 15$ stars for that link
between step 2 (secondary reference stars) and
step 3 (CCD observations) we thus obtain according to Eq. (2)
a zeropoint error of $\sigma z_{3} \approx 20 $ mas.
This strongly depends on the number of stars used and the epoch
difference between the CCD and astrograph observations.
Individual results of the precision and accuracy properties of the
CCD observations can be found in Table 7.
Putting everything together, and assuming
$\sigma sys_{2} \approx \sigma sys_{3} \approx 10 $ mas,
we expect an accuracy of the optical
position of an extragalactic object to be in the order of
$\sigma_{Q} \approx 30 $ mas plus $\sigma z_{2}$ as discussed
in the previous section, which is negligible in case of
Hipparcos--catalog--based secondary reference stars
($\sigma z_{2} \approx 5 $ mas).
When using the IRS catalog we have $\sigma z_{2} \approx 45 $ mas
plus $\sigma sys_{1} \approx 100 $ mas.
Individual estimates of $\sigma_{Q}$ (based on the Hipparcos catalog)
are given in Table 7 for each object.
Thus currently the largest error contribution comes from the primary system,
the FK5, as represented by the IRS.
With the use of the Hipparcos results the largest error contribution
comes from the weak link of the secondary reference stars to the
CCD observations due to the small field of view of the CCD's and
the relatively poor limiting magnitude of the secondary reference stars.
A large epoch difference between the secondary reference star
and the QSO observations significantly increases the noise in
this crucial step, regardless of any additional possible systematic
errors indroduced by unknown proper motions.
\subsection{Comparison to Other Investigations}
Other major procedures for the position link of the radio and optical
reference frame are the HST (Hubble Space Telescope)
observations of selected pairs of Hipparcos stars and bright extragalactic
candidates and the VLBI/VLA observations of Hipparcos radio stars.
The HST observations are of higher internal precision than our observations
but are not so numerous ($\approx 40$ pairs) and depend on the absolute
calibration of the FGS fields.
The radio star approch is very precise and direct but is based only on
less than 10 objects which are not well distributed over the sky.
Our approach contributes significantly to the link process and allows the
important check to be made on possible systematic errors of the other methods.
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) will be helpful in order to
densify the grid of secondary (and tertiary) reference stars
in the galactic north pole region.
The positional accuracy of the optical counterparts of the
extragalactic radio sources from SDSS will be inferior to our observations
due to shorter integration time.
\section{Conclusions}
The feasibility of this approach to the radio--optical reference frame link
has been proven here using wide field CCD observations
with the KPNO and CTIO 0.9 m telescopes.
The link to the primary reference star system, as represented by the
Hipparcos catalog in the near future,
is based entirely on photographic plates obtained with dedicated
astrographs in both hemispheres.
A deeper limiting magnitude and higher precision for the link stars
is most important now, and CCD observations at the astrographs are in progress
to provide more reference star positions.
These observations will also provide an additional determination
of possible magnitude--dependent systematic errors in the entire
procedure.
The 0.9 m telescope CCD observations have acquired a huge amount of
high precision optical observations of extragalactic sources within
a short period of time.
The precision for a single long exposure
is in the range of 5 to 31 mas (average $\approx 15$ mas)
depending on the magnitude of the object.
Field--dependent systematic errors exist on a 20 mas level,
but they will be externally calibrated in the near future.
A 20 mas precision level was reached previously with prime focus
photography, but only for few objects per year at large telescopes.
With 3 more CCD runs we hope to complete observations at the 0.9 m
telescopes for about 400 sources which would allow a position tie to
the Hipparcos system on the 1 mas level.
In addition to the position information, a {\em structure} analysis
of the optical counterparts is highly desirable.
Because these objects have already been selected to be
compact, the search for structure has to be made
with much higher resolution than the 0.9 m ground--based
telescopes can offer.
Optical interferometry, adaptive optics or the HST are the only options
at the moment.
Currently our structure analysis is limited to identify suitable
candidates for the link process, i.e. optical sources
free of nearby disturbing foreground stars and galaxies.
After a sufficiently rigid link between the radio and optical
systems has been established, our observations will be used
to identify outliers which will have astrophysical implications
about the nature of these compact extragalactic objects.
The biggest advantage of our approach to the extragalactic
reference frame link is the large number of sources involved.
Observations can easily be maintained in the future from
ground--based telescopes, providing also an epoch
difference large enough for a proper motion tie of the
Hipparcos system within the next decade.
With only minor improvements and more observations
a much higher precision and accuracy can be reached by
this technique in the near future.
Position results of a large number of sources will be
published after the Hipparcos catalog becomes available.
No conclusions should be drawn from the positions published
here based on the IRS system.
When using a Hipparcos intermediate solution, as required
for the Hipparcos Working Group on Reference Link,
positional results with respect to the radio frame
are in agreement with the error estimation given above.
Ultimately a space mission like
FAME (Johnston \markcite{rmFAME} 1995)
or GAIA (Perryman \& van Leeuwen \markcite{rmGAIA} 1996)
will provide optical positions for some (in case of FAME)
or most (in case of GAIA) of these objects with an accuracy
better than current VLBI radio observations.
Until then we will hopefully have a much better understanding
of the astrophysical and astrometric properties of
these objects in order to be able to concentrate on the
most suitable candidates for a reference frame.
\acknowledgments
Chr. de Vegt wishes to thank the
Bundesministerium f\"ur Forschung und Technologie (BMFT)
for financial support under Grant No. 50008810 (Hipparcos).
We further thank J.L. Russell and M.I. Zacharias for assistance
with observing, as well as J. M\"unkel for
assistance with the astrographic plate measuring and reduction
process.
\newpage
|
\section*{}
A method for making sure that the relativity effects are
specified correctly (according to Einstein's General Relativity) can
be described rather briefly. It agrees with Ashby's approach but
omits all discussion of how, historically or logically, this
viewpoint was developed. It also omits all the detailed
calculations. It is merely a statement of principles.
One first banishes the idea of an ``observer''. This idea aided
Einstein in building special relativity but it is confusing and
ambiguous in general relativity. Instead one divides the theoretical
landscape into two categories. One category is the
mathematical/conceptual model of whatever is happening that merits
our attention. The other category is measuring instruments and the
data tables they provide.
For GPS the measuring instruments can be taken to be either ideal
SI atomic clocks in trajectories determined by known forces, or else
electromagnetic signals describing the state of the clock that
radiates the signal. Each clock maintains its own proper time (but
may convert this via software into other information when it
transmits). We simplify to assume it transmits its own proper time
without random or systematic errors, so that its increments $d\tau_T$
are simple physical data. Any other clock receiving these signals
can record data tables showing the increments $d\tau_R$ in the SI
proper time of the clock at the receiver corresponding to differences
$d\tau_T$ in the proper times encoded in the signal it receives from
some other identified transmitting clock. Once conventional zeros of
time are identified for each clock, each transmitting and receiving
pair produces a data table $\tau_R(\tau_T)$. These segments of data
are to be reproduced by computations from the conceptual model, with
any residuals understood on the basis of expected sources of noise
and unmodelled phenomena.
A user ``fix'' or relativistic ``event'' is the simultaneous
reception of signals from four GPS satellites, or its equivalent from
short extrapolations from nearly simultaneous signals. This user may
not have a reliable clock but should be able to determine the time
and position of the event from knowledge of the proper times encoded
in the received signals, the identities of the transmitters, and the
mathematical/conceptual model that defines the meaning of time and
position for this purpose. System software aims to make the user
calculations standard and practical, with many of the computational
results encoded in the transmitted signals.
What is the conceptual model? It is built from Einstein's
General Relativity which asserts that spacetime is curved. This
means that there is no precise intuitive significance for time and
position. [Think of a Caesarian general hoping to locate an outpost.
Would he understand that 600 miles North of Rome and 600 miles West
could be a different spot depending on whether one measured North
before West or visa versa?] But one can draw a spacetime map and
give unambiguous interpretations. [On a Mercator projection of the
Earth, one minute of latitude is one nautical mile everywhere, but
the distance between minute tics varies over the map and must be
taken into account when reading off both NS and EW distances.] There
is no single best way to draw the spacetime map, but unambiguous
choices can be made and communicated, as with the Mercator choice for
describing the Earth.
The conceptual model for a relativistic system is a spacetime map
or diagram plus some rules for its interpretation. For GPS the
attached Figure is a simplified version of the map. The real
spacetime map is a computer program that assigns map locations $xyzt$
to a variety of events. In the Figure the $t$ time axis is vertical,
and two of the three space $xyz$ axes are suggested horizontally. The
wide center swath is the Earth which occupies the same location,
centered on the central axis of the map, at all times. Marked on the
surface of the Earth is a long spiral representing, e.g., a clock at
USNO. The position of this clock as the Earth rotates is described by
the coordinates of this curve on the (corresponding conceptual four
dimensional) map, $x(t), y(t), z(t)$ where $xyzt$ are distances
measured by a Euclidean ruler on the (conceptual four dimensional)
graph paper parallel to its axes. The scale factors needed for
interpreting this spacetime map are provided by the metric. In the
map projection (coordinate system) from which the GPS model starts
(an Earth Centered Inertial coordinate system, ECI) the metric is
\begin{equation}\label{e-ECI}
{d\tau}^2 = [1 + 2(V - \Phi_0)/c^2]dt^2
- [1 - 2V/c^2]
(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)/c^2 \quad .
\end{equation}
Here $V$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential of the
Earth, approximately
\begin{equation}\label{e-phi}
V = - (GM/r) [1 - \half J_2 (R/r)^2 (3 \cos^2 \theta -1)] \quad .
\end{equation}
The constant $\Phi_0$ is chosen so that a standard SI clock ``on
the geoid'' (e.g., USNO were it at sea level) would give, inserting
its world line $x(t), y(t), z(t)$ into equation~(\ref{e-ECI}), just
$d\tau = dt$ where $d\tau$ is the physical proper time reading of the
clock. It is a theorem that if this choice is made for one clock on
the geoid it applies to all.
Equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) defines not only the gravitational field
that is assumed, but also the coordinate system in which it is
presented. There is no other source of information about the
coordinates apart from the expression for the metric. It is also not
possible to define the coordinate system unambiguously in any way that
does not require a unique expression for the metric. In most cases
where the coordinates are chosen for computational convenience, the
expression for the metric is the most efficient way to communicate
clearly the choice of coordinates that is being made. Mere words
such as ``Earth Centered Inertial coordinates'' are ambiguous unless
by convention they are understood to designate a particular
expression for the metric, such as equation~(\ref{e-ECI}).
Using equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) one can place tic marks along the
world line of any clock to show changes in its proper time (which are
to be physical changes directly displayed and transmitted by the
clock). The computation is just to insert the clock trajectory $x(t),
y(t), z(t)$ to find $d\tau$ from equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) as a thus
specified multiple of $dt$. This applies both to Earth fixed clocks,
to satellite clocks, and to clocks with any other motion $x(t), y(t),
z(t)$ that has been incorporated in the map. The ``map'' here means
a computer program that is designed to produce the trajectories
$x(t), y(t), z(t)$ of each modelled object.
The rules for drawing clock world lines or trajectories on the
spacetime map (in the computer program) are simplest for dragfree
satellites and for electromagnetic signals in vacuum. In these cases
the world line must be a (timelike, resp.\ lightlike) geodesic of the
metric~(\ref{e-ECI}), i.e., a solution of an ordinary differential
equation constructed using the coefficients (scale factors) in
equation~(\ref{e-ECI}). The electromagnetic signals have the special
property that their trajectories also satisfy $d\tau^2 = 0$ in
equation~(\ref{e-ECI}). By finding a lightlike geodesic that connects
one tic mark $\tau_T$ on one clock world line to another mark
$\tau_R$ on another clock, the map shows how one entry in the physical
data table $\tau_R(\tau_T)$ is computed in the mathematical model.
Once the observed data tables are being reproduced adequately in the
mathematical model, its assignments of $xyzt$ coordinates to events
identify the time and position of those events.
In sum, the $txyz$ time and position values provided by GPS are
not simple physical times and positions. Physical times and
positions exist but, due to spacetime curvature, cannot be naturally
associated with quadruples of numbers. Physical times and positions
are identified on a spacetime map by their $xyzt$ map coordinates
which depend on the ``projection'' (coordinate system) chosen in
designing that particular map. The ECI map defined by
equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) is the simplest to describe. More practical
maps have been defined in which the space coordinates of geodetic
benchmarks on Earth are nearly constant and change only due to
tectonic and volcanic activity. To identify such an Earth fixed
coordinate system one gives these coordinates as specified functions
of those used in the ECI metric. This results in a metric
expression different from equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) and allows results
computed in the ECI coordinate system to be reported in the second
coordinate system.
\section*{Figure}
This spacetime diagram shows the Earth, a fixed location (USNO) on
the rotating Earth, a satellite orbiting the Earth, and an
electromagnetic (EM) signal propagating from an event T on the
satellite's world line to an event R on the USNO world line. Two of
the three $xyz$ space axes are indicated. The $t$ time axis is at
the center of the Earth. Any point on this diagram or map can be
located by its $xyzt$ coordinates which are measured along the
coordinate axes as conventional Cartesian coordinates for points
(events) on this map. To deduce physical separations between
(nearby) points on the map one must use equation~(\ref{e-ECI}) to
convert the separations $dx\,dy\,dz\,dt$ read from the map into
a physically measurable proper time interval $d\tau$.
\section*{References}
Neil Ashby, ``A tutorial on Relativistic Effects in the Global
Positioning System'', NIST Contract No.40RANB9B8112, February 1990.
Neil Ashby, ``Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning
System'', NIST Contract No.40RANB9B8112, August 1995.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}\indent
The electrostatic potential of a homogeneously charged cube appears in
theoretical studies of Wigner lattices \cite{Nijboer:88}. In computer
simulations of ionic systems using minimum-image electrostatics, it
determines the electrostatic self-interaction of ions
\cite{Sloth:90,Sorensen:91,Hummer:93,Hummer:95:c,Figueirido:95}. In
Ref.~\cite{Hummer:95:c}, Hummer {\em et al.} presented a simple
calculation of the electrostatic potential at the center of a
homogeneously charged cube. In this work, a closed form of the
electrostatic potential will be determined for arbitrary positions.
This analytic form can be used for the evaluation of lattice sums. It
can also be applied as a correction when electrostatic potentials are
calculated on a grid, assuming that the grid volumes are uniformly
charged rather than carrying a point charge at the center. The
analytic form of the potential will be compared with multipole
expansions \cite{Nijboer:88,Durand:64:cube}
\section{Calculation of the electrostatic potential of a cube}\indent
The electrostatic potential $\phi_c$ of a cube $[-1/2,1/2]^3$ with
charge density one will be calculated by integration. The potential at
a point with Cartesian coordinates $(u,v,w)$ can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(u,v,w) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dx \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dy
\int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dz \left[ (x-u)^2 + (y-v)^2 + (z-w)^2 \right]^{-1/2}~,
\label{eq:int}
\end{eqnarray}
where Gaussian units are used. $\phi_c$ can be rewritten as
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{-1/2-u}^{1/2-u} dx \int_{-1/2-v}^{1/2-v} dy \int_{-1/2-w}^{1/2-w} dz
\left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 \right)^{-1/2}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Summation of the results of partial integration with respect to $x$,
$y$, and $z$ yields a reduction to three two-dimensional integrals,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
2 \phi_c(u,v,w) = \int_{-1/2-u}^{1/2-u} dx \int_{-1/2-v}^{1/2-v} dy
\left[ z \left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 \right)^{-1/2} \right]^{z=1/2-w}_{z=-1/2-w}
}\nonumber\\
&&\mbox{+ cyclic permutations }
(x,u;y,v;z,w)\rightarrow (y,v;z,w;x,u) \mbox{ and } (z,w;x,u;y,v)~.
\end{eqnarray}
The two-dimensional integrals can be further reduced using
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{x_0}^{x_1} dx \int_{y_0}^{y_1} dy
\left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 \right)^{-1/2} & = &
\int_{x_0}^{x_1} dx \; \frac{1}{2} \left[
\ln \frac{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}+y}{(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}-y} \right]
_{y_0}^{y_1}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_0$, $x_1$, $y_0$, and $y_1$ are arbitrary integral boundaries.
The remaining one-dimensional integrals can be calculated using partial
integration and conventional substitution for algebraic integrands,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\int dx \ln[(x^2+a^2)^{1/2}+b] =
x \ln[ (x^2+a^2)^{1/2} + b ] -x}\nonumber\\ &&+ 2 | a^2 - b^2 |^{1/2}
\;A\!\left[ \frac{x+(x^2+a^2)^{1/2}+b}{|a^2-b^2|^{1/2}}\right] + b \ln [ x
+ ( x^2 + a^2 )^{1/2} ]~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A(x) & = & \left\{ \begin{array}{lll}
\arctan(x) & \mbox{for} & a^2 > b^2\\
\mbox{artanh}(x) & \mbox{for} & a^2 < b^2~.
\end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray}
Combining the previous results yields a closed form for the
electrostatic potential of a unit cube:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\phi_c(u,v,w) = \frac{1}{2} \left\{ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{1}
\sum_{j=0}^{1} \sum_{l=0}^{2} (-1)^{i+j} \; c_{i,l} \; c_{j,l+1} \right.}
\nonumber\\
&&\times\ln\frac{
\left[\left( c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+1}^2 + c_{1,l+2}^2 \right)^{1/2} +
c_{1,l+2} \right]^3
\left[\left( c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+1}^2 + c_{0,l+2}^2 \right)^{1/2} -
c_{0,l+2} \right]}{
\left[\left( c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+1}^2 + c_{1,l+2}^2 \right)^{1/2} -
c_{1,l+2} \right]
\left[\left( c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+1}^2 + c_{0,l+2}^2 \right)^{1/2} +
c_{0,l+2} \right]^3} \label{eq:c3}\\
&&\left. +\sum_{i=0}^{1} \sum_{j=0}^{1} \sum_{k=0}^{1} \sum_{l=0}^{2}
(-1)^{i+j+k+1} \; c_{i,l}^2 \; \arctan\frac{
c_{i,l} \; c_{k,l+2}}{
c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+2}^2 + c_{j,l+1}
\left( c_{i,l}^2 + c_{j,l+1}^2 + c_{k,l+2}^2 \right)^{1/2} } \right\}~.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The integration boundaries are defined as $c_{0,0} = - {1/2} - u$,
$c_{1,0} = {1/2} - u$, $c_{0,1} = - {1/2} - v$, $c_{1,1} = {1/2} - v$,
$c_{0,2} = - {1/2} - w$, and $c_{1,2} = {1/2} - w$. The values of
$l+1$ and $l+2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) are defined modulo 3, {\em i.e.},
$c_{0,3} \equiv c_{0,0}$ etc.\ \ The $\arctan$ function to be used in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) takes into account the sign of numerator and
denominator and yields results between $-\pi$ and $\pi$ (``atan2'' in
FORTRAN and C).
An immediate consequence of Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) is the electrostatic
potential at the center of a unit cube
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(0,0,0) & = & 3 \ln \left( 3^{1/2} + 2 \right) - \frac{\pi}{2}~.
\label{eq:phinull}
\end{eqnarray}
Previous calculations of $\phi_c(0,0,0)$ involved rather elaborate
manipulations \cite{Nijboer:88,Sorensen:91}.
\section{Calculation of the electrostatic potential of a square}\indent
In two-dimensional electrostatics, the charge interaction (Green's
function of the Laplacian) is given by $-\ln r$, where $r$ is the
distance. The electrostatic potential $\phi_s$ of a square
$[-1/2,1/2]^2$ with unit charge density will again be calculated by
integration. $\phi_s$ is also the electrostatic potential of a square
cylinder that is infinitely extended in $z$ direction. The potential
at a point with Cartesian coordinates $(u,v)$ is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_s(u,v) & = & - \frac{1}{2} \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dx \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dy
\ln \left[ (x-u)^2 + (y-v)^2 \right]~.
\end{eqnarray}
Elementary integration yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_s(u,v) & = & - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i=0}^{1} \sum_{j=0}^{1} \left[
x_i \; y_j \; \ln \left( x_i^2 + y_j^2 \right) - 3 \; x_i \; y_j +
y_j^2 \; \arctan\frac{x_i}{y_j} +
x_i^2 \; \arctan\frac{y_j}{x_i} \right]~, \nonumber\\
\label{eq:c2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_0 = -1/2 - u$, $x_1 = 1/2 - u$, $y_0 = -1/2 - v$, and $y_1 =
1/2 - v$. The appropriate $\arctan$ function to be used in
Eq.~(\ref{eq:c2}), yields values between $-\pi/2$ and $\pi/2$
(``atan'' in FORTRAN and C).
\section{Multipole expansion}\indent
The electrostatic potential of a cube can be expanded in ``kubic''
harmonics, {\em i.e.}, harmonic functions with cubic symmetry
\cite{Nijboer:88,Hummer:93,vdLage:47,Slattery:80,Adams:87}. For the
exterior, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(\mbox{\bf r}) & = &
\frac { 1 } { r } + C_4 \; K_4(\mbox{\bf r}) \; r^{-9}
+ C_6 \; K_6(\mbox{\bf r}) \; r^{-13} + \cdots ~, \label{eq:mout}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mbox{\bf r}=(u,v,w)$, $r=|\mbox{\bf r}|$. With
$T_n=u^n+v^n+w^n$, the kubic harmonics of order 4 and 6 can be written
as \cite{Adams:87}
\begin{eqnarray}
K_4(\mbox{\bf r}) & = & T_4 - \frac{3}{5} \; r^4 \\
K_6(\mbox{\bf r}) & = & T_6 - \frac{15}{11} \; T_4 \; r^2 + \frac{30}{77}
\; r^6~.
\end{eqnarray}
For this form, the expansion coefficients are $C_4=-7/192$ and
$C_6=11/192$ \cite{Nijboer:88,Durand:64:cube}.
For the interior of the cube, we derive the multipole-expansion
coefficients of order 2, 4, and 6 from a direct Taylor expansion in
$x$ direction. The angular dependence can then be inferred by cubic
symmetry.\footnote{Some higher-order kubic harmonics are degenerate
\cite{Slattery:80}, requiring two independent expansion directions to
get the correct angular dependence.} The electrostatic potential on
the $x$ axis can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(u,0,0) & = & \int_{-1/2-u}^{1/2-u} dx \; f(x)~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x) & = & \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dy \int_{-1/2}^{1/2} dz
\left( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 \right)^{-1/2}\nonumber\\
& = & 2 \ln \frac{(4x^2+2)^{1/2}+1}{(4x^2+2)^{1/2}-1} - 2\;x\;
\arctan\frac{4x(4x^2+2)^{1/2}}{16x^4+8x^2-1}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Taylor expansion of $\phi_c(u,0,0)$ around $u=0$ yields the expansion
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(\mbox{\bf r}) & = & 3 \ln \left( 3^{1/2} + 2 \right) - \frac{\pi}{2}
-\frac{2\pi}{3} \; r^2 - \frac{40}{243^{1/2}} K_4(\mbox{\bf r})
- \frac{308}{19683^{1/2}} K_6(\mbox{\bf r}) + \cdots~. \label{eq:min}
\end{eqnarray}
Figure~\ref{fig:axis} shows the electrostatic potential $\phi_c$ along
the directions $(u,0,0)$, $(u,u,0)$, and $(u,u,u)$ calculated from the
exact result Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) and the expansions Eq.~(\ref{eq:mout})
and (\ref{eq:min}), both including terms up to $K_4$. The expansions
show the largest disagreement near the surface of the cube ($u=1/2$)
where they start to diverge. Otherwise, they closely reproduce the
exact potential [Eq.~(\ref{eq:mout}) for $r\rightarrow\infty$ and
Eq.~(\ref{eq:min}) for $r\rightarrow 0$].
The divergent behavior reflects an inherent problem of the near- and
far-field expansions. By construction, the Laplacians of
Eqs.~(\ref{eq:mout}) and (\ref{eq:min}) are a delta function at $r=0$
and a constant $-4\pi$, respectively, independent of the order of the
expansions. The former corresponds to a unit point charge and is
correct only outside the cube; the latter corresponds to a homogeneous
charge density and is correct only inside the cube.
\section{Conclusion}\indent
Nijboer and Ruijgrok \cite{Nijboer:88} analyzed the difference between
the energy per particle in a Wigner lattice and the energy of a point
charge in the field of the other charges. These authors studied an
infinite replication of neutral cubes consisting of a unit point
charge at the center and a compensating background. A reduction of the
electrostatic potential $\phi_c$ of a homogeneously charged cube to a
one-dimensional integral resulted in
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_c(u,v,w) & = & \frac{\pi}{8} \int_{0}^\infty dt \; t^{-2} \;
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \left[ h(u,t) h(v,t) h(w,t) \right]~,
\label{eq:NR}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
h(x,t) & = & \mbox{erf}\left[\left(x+\frac{1}{2}\right)t\right]
- \mbox{erf}\left[\left(x-\frac{1}{2}\right)t\right]
\end{eqnarray}
and $\mbox{erf}$ is the error function.\footnote{Eq.~(2.6) of
Ref.~\cite{Nijboer:88} is missing a factor $\pi$ on the right-hand
side. Eq.~(2.8) of Ref.~\cite{Nijboer:88} has the correct pre-factor.}
The solution of the one-dimensional integral in Eq.~(\ref{eq:NR})
would give the closed form Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) of this work.
Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}), numerical integration of Eq.~(\ref{eq:NR}), and
direct Monte Carlo integration of Eq.~(\ref{eq:int}) were compared for
a few hundred points and gave identical results within the error
margins of the numerical integration in Eq.~(\ref{eq:NR}) and the
statistical errors of the Monte Carlo procedure. Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) has
the advantage of being analytical. It can be evaluated fast and with
arbitrary precision on the computer.
The electrostatic potential $\phi_c(0,0,0)$ at the center of the cube
as listed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:phinull}) can be used to correct effectively
for finite-size effects in computer simulations of ionic systems under
periodic boundary conditions, when minimum-image electrostatics is
used \cite{Allen:87}. An example is the calculation of single-ion
chemical potentials
\cite{Sloth:90,Sorensen:91,Hummer:93,Hummer:95:c,Figueirido:95}, where
the electrostatic energy of an excess ion has to be calculated. The
system-size dependence is greatly reduced if the excess charge is
compensated with a homogeneous background. The electrostatic energy
$u$ of the excess charge $q$ at ${\bf r}=0$ is then the sum of the
interactions with the other charges $q_i$ at $\mbox{\bf r}_i$ and
with the background,
\begin{eqnarray}
u & = & q \sum_{i=1}^{N} q_i / r_i + q^2 \phi_c(0,0,0)/L~,
\end{eqnarray}
where a cubical box of length $L$ is used.
Another application is the calculation of electrostatic potentials
when charges are given on a grid, for instance, when ionic density
distributions are known \cite{Klement:91}. Usually, the grid charges
are assumed to be point charges. In an improved description, the
charges are smeared out over the grid cells. The electrostatic
potentials can then be calculated using Eq.~(\ref{eq:c3}) or the
multipole expansions Eq.~(\ref{eq:mout}) and (\ref{eq:min}). This
eliminates the singularities in the electrostatic potential and gives
a more accurate description near local charge concentrations.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
A lot of progress has been made in the last few years in the
understanding of S-duality as a symmetry of four dimensional gauge
theories. The conjecture of Montonen and Olive \cite{mo} that $N=4$
supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories were invariant under strong-weak
coupling with the exchange of the gauge group by its dual was tested
in \cite{vw}, were it was shown that in fact the partition function
transformed as a modular form. Some progress has been also made for
$N=2$ and $N=1$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories \cite{sw,seiberg}.
However a path integral derivation of S-duality is in general still
unknown. In \cite{witten} Witten showed that S-duality in four
dimensional abelian gauge theories \cite{cr,cardy,shw} can be
implemented at the level of the path integral in a very similar way to
T-duality in non-linear sigma models in String Theory \cite{reviews}.
The idea is to consider a global isometry of the Lagrangian which can
be expressed as translations of a given coordinate (the adapted
coordinate), gauge this isometry by introducing a fake gauge field and
impose the constraint that the curvature tensor associated to this
gauge field is zero so that the gauge field is non-propagating.
Integrating the Lagrange multiplier and fixing the gauge field to zero
the original theory is recovered and integrating the gauge field and
fixing the adapted coordinate to zero the new dual theory is obtained.
In the case of T-duality the initial variables are 0-forms and the
global isometry that is gauged is $\theta\rightarrow \theta+\epsilon$
where $\theta$ is the adapted coordinate. In the case of abelian gauge
theories the initial variables are 1-forms and the isometry which is
gauged is $A\rightarrow A+\epsilon$ where now the $\epsilon$ parameter
is a 1-form. Then the gauge field which has to be introduced is a
2-form and its field strength a 3-form. In 4 dimensions the Lagrange
multiplier imposing that the field strength vanishes is a 1-form, like
the original gauge field, and the dual theory is expressed also in
terms of 1-forms. Also for this non-supersymmetric case the partition
function transforms as a modular function with a modular weight
proportional to the Euler characteristic and the signature of the
manifold \cite{witten,verlinde}.
Given the analogy with T-duality a canonical transformation must be
beyond this path integral manipulation, since this is the case in
T-duality \cite{venezia,aagl2,la}. In section 2 we present the
explicit generating functional producing this transformation and show
that it is the generalization of the functional in 2-dimensional
non-linear sigma models to 4 dimensions and 1-forms. Under this
transformation electric and magnetic degrees of freedom get
interchanged (with the minus relative sign) as shown in abelian
lattice gauge theories in \cite{cardy}. The canonical transformation
approach is the simplest in order to obtain the dual theory, also in
this case in which in the Hamiltonian formulation one has to be
careful with the constraints. It is easy to show that both the initial
and the dual theory are defined in the same subspace of the phase
space after the canonical transformation is performed. We show that in
phase space the partition functions of the initial and dual theories
coincide and that only after integrating out the momenta degrees of
freedom the modular anomaly \cite{witten,verlinde} appears.
The same canonical transformation applied to the non-abelian case
seems to relate Yang-Mills theories with inverted couplings.
However a careful analysis of the constraints points out that this
is not the case.
The dual theory is in fact of Freedman-Townsend's
type \cite{ft}, i.e. it is expressed as a function of arbitrary 2-forms
which are not derived from a vector potential.
We show this in section 3.
The results presented in section 2 can be easily generalized to the
case of $d$ dimensional abelian gauge theories of $p$-forms, as it is
explained in section 4. The modular anomaly in the transformation of
the partition function is obtained. The implementation at the level of
the path integral using a coset construction was presented in
\cite{barbon}.
\section{The abelian case}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we construct the explicit canonical transformation
which produces the change
\begin{equation}
\label{2uno}
\tau\rightarrow -1/\tau
\end{equation}
with $\tau=\theta/2\pi+4\pi i/g^2$, for
$U(1)$ four dimensional euclidean gauge theories.
Let us consider the Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2dos}
L&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}(\frac{4\pi}{g^2}F_{mn}F^{mn}+\frac{i\theta}{4\pi}
\epsilon_{mnpq}F^{mn}F^{pq}) \nonumber\\
&=&\frac{i}{8\pi}({\bar \tau}
F^+_{mn}F^{+mn}
-\tau F^-_{mn}F^{-mn})
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2tres}
F^+_{mn}&=&\frac12 (F_{mn}+\,^*F_{mn})=\frac12
(F_{mn}+\frac12 \epsilon_{mnpq}F^{pq}),\nonumber\\
F^-_{mn}&=&\frac12 (F_{mn}-\,^*F_{mn})=\frac12
(F_{mn}-\frac12 \epsilon_{mnpq}F^{pq})
\end{eqnarray}
and $F_{mn}=\partial_m A_n-\partial_n A_m$. It was shown in
\cite{witten} that the transformation (\ref{2uno}) could be derived at
the level of the path integral by the usual Rocek and Verlinde's
procedure \cite{rv} one follows to construct abelian T-duals of two
dimensional sigma models in String Theory. In this case given a global
abelian continuous isometry of the sigma model one can turn it local
by introducing a fake gauge field in the Lagrangian by minimal
coupling and imposing the constraint that this gauge field is
non-dynamical. Solving this constraint and fixing the gauge field to
be zero one recovers the original theory. If instead the gauge field
is integrated and the gauge is fixed in the original variables a sigma
model written in terms of the Lagrange multiplier introduced to impose
the constraint is obtained. This is the dual sigma model. In
\cite{witten} the same construction is applied to obtain the dual of
the four dimensional abelian gauge theory.
The global continuous abelian isometry in
this theory is
\begin{equation}
\label{2cuatro}
A\rightarrow A+\epsilon
\end{equation}
where now the isometry parameter is a 1-form. This global isometry can
be gauged by introducing a gauge field $G$, 2-form,
which is imposed to be non-dynamical with the term
\begin{equation}
\label{2cinco}
\int_M d^4 x {\tilde A} dG
\end{equation}
where the Lagrange multiplier ${\tilde A}$ is a 1-form. Integrating
${\tilde A}$ the
constraint $dG=0$ is obtained, ie. $G$ pure gauge, and we can recover
(\ref{2dos}) by either fixing $A=0$ or $G=0$. On the other hand by
integrating out $G$ and then fixing $A=0$ the following Lagrangian is
gotten:
\begin{equation}
\label{2seis}
{\tilde L}=\frac{i}{8\pi}(-\frac{1}{{\bar \tau}} {\tilde F}^+_{mn} {\tilde
F}^{+mn}
+\frac{1}{\tau} {\tilde F}^-_{mn}{\tilde F}^{-mn})
\end{equation}
with ${\tilde F}^{\pm}$ the self- and antiself-dual components of
${\tilde F}_{mn}\equiv\partial_m {\tilde A}_n-\partial_n {\tilde A}_m$.
This is the S-dual of the initial electromagnetic theory since
in the particular case $\theta=0$ it corresponds to the inversion of
the coupling constant $g$.
In this procedure we have made an integration by parts in the Lagrange
multipliers term and neglected a total derivative\footnote{This term
is seen in the gauge $A=0$.}. However this total derivative contains
some information, in particular it implies that the initial and dual
Lagrangians are equal up to a total time derivative, exactly what
happens when two theories are related by a canonical transformation.
To be more precise, the generating functional of a canonical
transformation from $\{q^i,p_i\}$ to $\{Q^i,P_i\}$ is such that
\begin{equation}
\label{2siete}
p_i \dot{q^i}-H(q^i,p_i)=P_i \dot{Q^i}-\tilde{H}(Q^i,P_i)+
\frac{d{\cal F}}{dt}.
\end{equation}
If ${\cal F}$ is a type I generating functional (depending only on coordinates)
$H=\tilde{H}$ if and only if\footnote{We assume ${\cal F}$ does not depend
explicitly on time.}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2ocho}
&&\frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial q^i}=p_i \nonumber\\
&&\frac{\partial {\cal F}}{\partial Q^i}=-P_i
\end{eqnarray}
Under duality\footnote{We
have dropped
the global $i/8\pi$ factor. It will then appear when exponentiating
these quantities.}:
\begin{equation}
\label{2nueve}
{\tilde L}({\tilde A})=L(A)+d{\tilde A}\wedge dA
\end{equation}
which implies\footnote{Our convention for the product of forms is:
${\tilde F}\wedge F=\epsilon^{mnpq}{\tilde F}_{mn} F_{pq}$.}
\begin{equation}
\label{2diez}
\epsilon^{mnpq} (\partial_m {\tilde A}_n-\partial_n {\tilde A}_m)
(\partial_p A_q-\partial_q A_p)=-(\frac{\delta {\cal F}}{\delta {\tilde A}_m}
\dot{{\tilde A}}_m
+\frac{\delta {\cal F}}{\delta A_m}\dot{A}_m)
\end{equation}
This produces the canonical transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{2once}
&&{\Pi}^\alpha=\frac{\delta {\cal F}}{\delta A_\alpha}=
-4\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha}
,\qquad \Pi^0=0, \nonumber\\
&&{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha=-\frac{\delta {\cal F}}{\delta {\tilde A}_\alpha}
=4\,^*F^{0\alpha},
\qquad {\tilde \Pi}^0=0
\end{eqnarray}
plus a constraint
\begin{equation}
\label{2doce}
\Pi^\alpha\partial_\alpha A_0={\tilde \Pi}^\alpha\partial_\alpha
{\tilde A}_0,
\end{equation}
where greek indices run over spatial coordinates.
The generating functional producing this canonical transformation
is
\begin{equation}
\label{2trece}
{\cal F}=-2\int_{M, t fixed} d^3 x ({\tilde A}_\alpha\,^*F^{0\alpha}+
A_\alpha\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha})=-\frac12 \int_M d^4 x
{\tilde F}\wedge F.
\end{equation}
This is the result one would expect a priori from what is known in
two-dimensional sigma-models, where the generating functional is given in
terms of the adapted coordinate to the isometry $\theta$ and the Lagrange
multiplier ${\tilde \theta}$ by \cite{venezia,aagl2}
\begin{equation}
\label{2catorce}
{\cal F}=-\frac12 \int_{M_2} d{\tilde \theta}\wedge d\theta.
\end{equation}
The Hamiltonian associated to (\ref{2dos}) is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{2quince}
H=\frac{1}{4(\bar{\tau}-\tau)}\Pi_\alpha \Pi^\alpha+\partial_\alpha A_0
\Pi^\alpha-\frac{\bar{\tau}+\tau}{\bar{\tau}-\tau}\Pi_\alpha
\,^*F^{0\alpha}
+\frac{4\bar{\tau}\tau}{\bar{\tau}-\tau}\,^*F^{0\alpha}
\,^*F_{0\alpha}
\end{equation}
plus the constraints
\begin{equation}
\label{2dieciseis}
\Pi_0=0,\qquad \partial_\alpha \Pi^\alpha=0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{2dieciseisbis}
\Pi^\alpha=
4{\bar \tau} F^{+0\alpha}-4\tau F^{-0\alpha}.
\end{equation}
$\Pi_0$ is a primary constraint and $\partial_\alpha \Pi^\alpha=0$
is the secondary constraint emerging from the equation of motion for
$\Pi_0$. They imply that the theory is defined in the reduced phase
space
given by $\Pi_0=0$, $\partial_\alpha \Pi^\alpha=0$.
These constraints are also satisfied in the dual theory,
since they are obtained directly
from the canonical transformation. Then the dual theory is
defined in the same reduced phase space than the original one.
The relation (\ref{2doce}) is
trivial in this subspace. However we need to consider it in
order
to recover the dual Lagrangian from the canonically transformed
Hamiltonian, since for
that we need the naive Hamiltonian without taking into
account the constraints. Our purpose is to show that the
canonically
transformed Lagrangian is the dual Lagrangian and for that we do not
need to study
in detail the way the theory gets defined in the Hamiltonian formalism
\cite{Ramond}, it is enough to show that both the initial and dual
theories
are defined in the same reduced phase space.
The canonically transformed Hamiltonian reads:
\begin{equation}
\label{2diecisiete}
{\tilde H}=\frac14 \frac{\bar{\tau}\tau}{\bar{\tau}-\tau}
{\tilde \Pi}_\alpha
{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha+\partial_\alpha {\tilde A}_0 {\tilde \Pi}^\alpha+
\frac{\bar\tau
+\tau}{\bar{\tau}-\tau}{\tilde \Pi}_\alpha\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha}+
\frac{4}{\bar{\tau}-\tau}\,^*{\tilde F}_{0\alpha}
\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding Lagrangian is given by the dual
Lagrangian (\ref{2seis}). Recall that (\ref{2once}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{217a}
&&\Pi^\alpha=-4\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha}, \nonumber\\
&&{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha=4\,^*F^{0\alpha} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
corresponds to the usual interchange between electric and magnetic
degrees of freedom when there is no $\theta$-term.
Some useful information can be obtained within this approach.
The generating functional (\ref{2trece}) is linear in both the original
and dual variables. Then the following relation holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{217b}
H e^{\frac{i{\cal F}}{8\pi}}={\tilde H}e^{\frac{i{\cal F}}{8\pi}}
\end{equation}
which implies:
\begin{equation}
\label{217c}
\psi_k[{\tilde A}]=N(k)\int {\cal D}A(x^\alpha)
e^{\frac{i}{8\pi}{\cal F}[{\tilde
A},A(x^\alpha)]}
\phi_k[A(x^\alpha)]
\end{equation}
with $\phi_k[A]$ and $\psi_k[{\tilde A}]$ eigenfunctions of the
initial
and dual Hamiltonians respectively with the same eigenvalue
and $N(k)$ a normalization factor \cite{ghandour}.
{}From this relation global properties can be easily worked out.
The Dirac quantization condition:
\begin{equation}
\label{217d}
\int_{\Sigma}F=2\pi n,\quad n\in Z,
\end{equation}
for $\Sigma$ any closed two-surface in the manifold,
implies for ${\tilde F}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{217e}
\int_{\Sigma}{\tilde F}=2\pi m,\quad m\in Z
\end{equation}
and ${\tilde F}$ must live in the dual lattice.
Also from (\ref{217c}) the
transformation applies to any four dimensional manifold $M$ since
$\phi_k[A]$ can be the result of integrating the theory in an
arbitrary manifold with boundary.
We can obtain in phase space the modular anomaly emerging in the
transformation of the partition function \cite{witten,verlinde}.
The argument goes
as follows. In phase space the partition function is given
by\footnote{In order to have a well-defined partition function we have
to fix the gauge symmetry. The following arguments are in this
sense formal.}:
\begin{equation}
\label{2dieciocho}
Z_{ps}=\int {\cal D}A_\alpha {\cal D}\Pi^\alpha e^{-
\frac{i}{8\pi}\int d^4x (\dot{A}_\alpha
\Pi^\alpha-H)}
\end{equation}
Under (\ref{2once})
\begin{equation}
\label{218b}
{\cal D}A_\alpha {\cal D}\Pi^\alpha={\cal D}{\tilde A}_\alpha {\cal D}
{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha.
\end{equation}
Then the dual phase space partition
function is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{2diecinueve}
{\tilde Z}_{ps}=\int {\cal D}{\tilde A}_\alpha
{\cal D}{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha
e^{-\frac{i}{8\pi}\int d^4x (\dot{{\tilde A}}_\alpha
{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha-{\tilde H})}=Z_{ps}
\end{equation}
showing that in phase space the partition function is invariant
under duality.
Integration on momenta in (\ref{2dieciocho}) gives:
\begin{equation}
\label{2veinte}
Z_{ps}=\int {\cal D}A_\alpha ({\rm Im} \tau)^{B_2/2} e^{-\int d^4x L}
\end{equation}
with $L$ given by (\ref{2dos}). The factor $({\rm Im} \tau)^{B_2/2}$ in the
measure is the regularized $({\rm det\,Im}\tau)^{1/2}$ coming from the
gaussian integration over the momenta. $B_2$ is the dimension of the
space of
2-forms in the four dimensional manifold $M$ (regularized on
a lattice) and emerges because the momenta are 2-forms.
The same calculation in the dual phase space partition function gives:
\begin{equation}
\label{2veintiuno}
{\tilde Z}_{ps}=\int {\cal D}{\tilde A}_\alpha ({\rm det}
({\rm Im} -\frac{1}{\tau}))^{1/2}
e^{-\int d^4x {\tilde L}}
\end{equation}
with ${\tilde L}$ given by (\ref{2seis}). We regularize the factor
\begin{equation}
\label{2veintidos}
({\rm det}({\rm Im} -\frac{1}{\tau}))^{1/2}=({\rm det}({\rm Im}
\tau /(\tau {\bar\tau})))^{1/2}
\end{equation}
by
\begin{equation}
\label{2veintitres}
({\rm Im} \tau)^{B_2/2}\bar\tau^{-B_2^+/2}\tau^{-B_2^-/2}
\end{equation}
where $B_2^+$ and $B_2^-$ are respectively the dimensions of the
spaces
of self-dual and
anti-self-dual 2-forms.
In configuration space the partition function is defined by \cite{witten}:
\begin{equation}
\label{2veinticuatro}
Z=({\rm Im} \tau)^{(B_1-B_0)/2}\int {\cal D}A_\alpha e^{-S}=
({\rm Im} \tau)^{(B_1-B_0-B_2)/2} Z_{ps}
\end{equation}
and in the dual model
\begin{equation}
\label{2veinticinco}
{\tilde Z}=(\frac{{\rm Im} \tau}{\tau \bar\tau})^{(B_1-B_0)/2}
\int {\cal D}
{\tilde A}_\alpha e^{-{\tilde S}}.
\end{equation}
{}From $Z_{ps}={\tilde Z}_{ps}$ we arrive to
\begin{equation}
\label{2veintiseis}
Z=\tau^{-(\chi-\sigma)/4}{\bar\tau}^{-(\chi+\sigma)/4} {\tilde Z}
\end{equation}
where $\chi=2(B_0-B_1)+B_2$ is the Euler number (the regularization is
such
that $B_p=B_{4-p}$) and $\sigma=B_2^+-B_2^-$ is
the signature of the manifold. This is the modular factor appearing in
\cite{witten,verlinde}. In phase space the partition function is simply
defined as the integration over coordinates and momenta and it transforms
as a scalar with modular weight equal to zero. Is only when going to the
configuration space that the integrations over the momenta produce some
determinants which after being regularized yield the modular factor
found in \cite{witten,verlinde}. A very similar argument should apply
to the transformation of the dilaton in two-dimensional non-linear
sigma-models.
\section{The non-abelian case}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The canonical transformation approach can be
generalized to the case
of
non-abelian gauge theories with compact group $G$.
The initial Lagrangian is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{4uno}
L&=&\frac{1}{8\pi}(\frac{4\pi}{g^2}F^{(a)}_{mn} F^{(a)mn}+
\frac{i\theta}{4\pi}\epsilon^{mnpq}F^{(a)}_{mn} F^{(a)}_{pq})
\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{i}{8\pi}({\bar \tau} F^{(a)+}_{mn} F^{(a)+ mn}-\tau
F^{(a)-}_{mn}F^{(a)- mn})
\end{eqnarray}
where $F=dA-A\wedge A$ and we have chosen $Tr(T^a T^b)=\delta^{ab}$
($T^a$ are the generators of the Lie algebra). The conjugate momenta
and the Hamiltonian are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{i1}
&&\Pi^{a\alpha}=
2({\bar \tau}-\tau)F^{(a)0\alpha}+2({\bar \tau}+\tau)\,
^*F^{(a)0\alpha} \nonumber\\
&&\Pi^{a0}=0
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
\label{i2}
H=\frac14 \frac{1}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}\Pi^a_\alpha \Pi^{a\alpha}+
(\partial_\alpha A^a_0+f_{abc}A^b_0A^c_\alpha)\Pi^{a\alpha}-
\frac{{\bar \tau}+\tau}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}\Pi^{a\alpha}\,
^*F^{(a)}_{0\alpha}+\frac{4{\bar \tau}\tau}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}
\,^*F^{(a)}_{0\alpha}\,^*F^{(a)0\alpha},
\end{equation}
with $f_{abc}$ the structure constants of the Lie algebra.
The equations of motion of the primary constraints $\Pi^{a0}=0$
imply:
\begin{equation}
\label{41bf}
\partial_\alpha \Pi^{a\alpha}-f_{abc}A^b_\alpha\Pi^{c\alpha}=0,
\end{equation}
so that we can ignore the second term in the Hamiltonian
keeping in mind that the theory is defined in the reduced phase space
given by the constraints.
In the non-abelian case it proves more useful to use
$\{\,^*F_{0\alpha},\Pi^\alpha\}$ as the coordinates in phase space and
look for a canonical transformation
\begin{equation}
\label{41bb}
\{\,^*F_{0\alpha},\Pi^\alpha\}\rightarrow \{\,^*{\tilde F}_{0\alpha},
{\tilde \Pi}^\alpha\}.
\end{equation}
Then in order to define correctly the phase space of the theory we
have to introduce first order formalism for the initial Lagrangian.
The idea is to introduce a Lagrangian $L[{\tilde F},A]$, where now
${\tilde F}$ are arbitrary two-forms in the manifold, arranged to
give ${\tilde F}=dA-A\wedge A$ from its equations of motion.
Now the ${\tilde F}$ have no dynamical meaning since they have no
time derivative, and the momenta are conjugate to the $A$-variables:
\begin{equation}
\label{cor1}
\Pi^{am}=\frac{\delta L[{\tilde F},A]}{\delta {\dot A}^a_m}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that the following Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
\label{cor2}
L[{\tilde F},A]=\frac{i}{8\pi}Tr(-\frac{1}{{\bar \tau}}
{\tilde F}^+_{mn}{\tilde F}^{+mn}+\frac{1}{\tau}
{\tilde F}^-_{mn}{\tilde F}^{-mn}-2({\tilde F}^+_{mn}F^{+mn}-
{\tilde F}^-_{mn}F^{-mn})),
\end{equation}
with $F=dA-A\wedge A$, is such that (\ref{4uno}) is obtained when
solving the equations of motion for ${\tilde F}$.
The canonical momenta are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cor3}
&&\Pi^{a\alpha}=\frac{\delta L[{\tilde F},A]}{\delta {\dot A}^a_\alpha}
=-4\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)0\alpha} \nonumber\\
&&\Pi^{a0}=0
\end{eqnarray}
and coincide with (\ref{i1}) when substituting the equations of
motion. The Hamiltonian is also given by (\ref{i2}).
The canonical transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{41bc}
&&\Pi^{a\alpha}=-4\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)0\alpha} \nonumber\\
&&{\tilde \Pi}^{a\alpha}=4\,^*F^{(a)0\alpha},
\end{eqnarray}
i.e. the usual interchange between electric and magnetic degrees of
freedom, produces the following ``dual'' Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
\label{corr1}
{\tilde H}=\frac14 \frac{{\bar \tau}\tau}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}
{\tilde \Pi}^{a\alpha}{\tilde \Pi}^a_\alpha+
\frac{{\bar \tau}+\tau}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}{\tilde \Pi}^{a\alpha}
\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)}_{0\alpha}+\frac{4}{{\bar \tau}-\tau}
\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)0\alpha}\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)}_{0\alpha},
\end{equation}
which is of the same form than the Hamiltonian of the initial
theory with ${\tilde \tau}=-1/\tau$. However one must be careful
with the constraints. In particular the secondary constraints
(\ref{41bf}) imply for the dual theory:
\begin{equation}
\label{cor8}
\partial_\alpha\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)0\alpha}-
f_{abc}A^b_\alpha ({\tilde F})
\,^*{\tilde F}^{(c)0\alpha}=0.
\end{equation}
These equations are not satisfied by the Yang-Mills theory defined
from ${\tilde F}$, so although (\ref{corr1}) would naively imply
that the dual theory is a Yang-Mills theory with
${\tilde \tau}=-1/\tau$, the analysis of the constraints shows that
this is not the case. For the abelian theory the corresponding
equation implies that ${\tilde F}$ is defined from a dual vector
potential ${\tilde A}$, but the absence of a non-abelian analogue
of Poincar\`e's lemma does not allow to conclude the same in the
non-abelian case. Inversely if we would consider (\ref{cor8})
as an equation determining $A({\tilde F})$ we would find
incompatibility with (\ref{41bc}).
We can then conclude that the usual interchange between electric
and magnetic degrees of freedom does not relate Yang-Mills
theories with inverted couplings.
Let us now obtain the ``true'' dual theory. The point is to
realize that in (\ref{cor2}) we can integrate $A$ instead of
${\tilde F}$ and in this way a new theory is obtained.
The equations of motion for $A$ are:
\begin{equation}
\label{cor5}
\partial_n \,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)mn}-f_{abc} A^b_n\,^*{\tilde F}^{(c)mn}
=0,
\end{equation}
which imply:
\begin{equation}
\label{ultima}
A^a_m=R^{ab}_{mn}\partial_p
\,^*{\tilde F}^{(b)np},
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the inverse of ${\rm ad}\,^*{\tilde F}$ and it is a well
defined matrix for arbitrary ${\tilde F}$ in four dimensions.
Substituting in (\ref{cor2}) we get:
\begin{equation}
\label{cor9}
{\tilde L}=\frac{i}{8\pi} (-\frac{1}{{\bar \tau}}
{\tilde F}^{(a)+}_{mn}{\tilde F}^{(a)+mn}+\frac{1}{\tau}
{\tilde F}^{(a)-}_{mn}{\tilde F}^{(a)-mn}+
2 R^{ab}_{mn}(\,^*{\tilde F})\partial_q\,^*{\tilde F}^{(a)qm}
\partial_p\,^*{\tilde F}^{(b)np}),
\end{equation}
where ${\tilde F}$ are arbitrary two-forms in the manifold\footnote{
We have not written explicitly the determinant coming from the
gaussian integration.}. This
Lagrangian is of Freedman-Townsend's type \cite{ft}, i.e.
${\tilde F}$ is the ``fundamental'' variable, not defined
from a vector potential ${\tilde A}$, and it has been already
shown to be dual to Yang Mills \cite{hfs,moha,gs}. We should
remark that in order to have a well defined dual theory a
prescription must be given for the pole when $R$ becomes singular
\cite{gs}.
The Hamiltonian associated to (\ref{cor9}) looks quite different
from the Hamiltonian of Yang-Mills and it is not easy to see if
they could be related by a canonical transformation.
In any case such a transformation would have to map a
phase space of two-forms $\{\,^*F_{0\alpha},\Pi^\alpha\}$ into a
phase space of two and one forms $\{{\tilde F},{\tilde \Pi}\}$
(since the canonical momenta are conjugate to two forms),
which means that if existing at all it would be quite
different from an
interchange between electric and magnetic degrees of freedom.
Let us point out however that
the first equation in (\ref{41bc}) (which maps two-forms on
two-forms) produces the mapping from the
constraint (\ref{41bf}) of the initial theory to the equation
of motion (\ref{cor8})
of the dual. This means that after all this interchange could have
some physical meaning.
\vspace*{0.5cm}
In this section we have been able to obtain the dual theory
by manipulating the path integral in a similar way to the one
known in the abelian case.
One just needs to consider the intermediate Lagrangian
$L[{\tilde F},A]$ and integrate out either ${\tilde F}$ or $A$ to
obtain the initial or the dual Lagrangians.
The group in which the dual variables live is the dual of
the original group
(the metric defined by its weight vectors is the inverse of the one in the
original
gauge group). In order to see this one needs to proceed more carefully
in
the previous derivation and take the original gauge fields in the fundamental
representation of the gauge Lie algebra and the metric defined by the
weight vectors $g_{ab}\equiv d_{ab}$. Following the steps explained
above one arrives to a dual Lagrangian with metric
${\tilde g}_{ab}={\tilde d}_{ab}$ where ${\tilde d}_{ab}d^{bc}\equiv
\delta^c_a$.
\section{Generalization to p-forms abelian gauge theories}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The generalization to $p$-forms abelian gauge theories in
$d$ dimensions is direct
from what we have studied in section 2\footnote{Dualization of
spin-0 and spin-2 gravity-like theories has been studied in \cite{curt}.}.
We are going to
consider the case $d=2(p+1)$ which is the one in which both the
initial
and dual theories are expressed as functions of
$(p+1)$-forms\footnote{In the
arbitrary case the dual theory would depend on $(d-p-1)$ forms.}.
The generalized S-duality transformation is implemented in the path
integral
by gauging the global isometry
\begin{equation}
\label{3uno}
A\rightarrow A+\epsilon
\end{equation}
where now $A$ and the gauge parameter are $p$-forms. The total derivative
term that gives information about the generating functional of the
canonical transformation is $d{\tilde A}\wedge dA$, with
${\tilde A}$, the Lagrange
multiplier, also a $p$-form.
It is immediate to show that the canonical transformation is
generated by the type-I generating functional\footnote{Our conventions
are: $\,^*F^{i_1\dots i_{p+1}}=\frac{1}{(p+1)!}\epsilon^{i_1\dots
i_d}
F_{i_{p+2}\dots i_d}$ and ${\tilde F}\wedge F=\epsilon^{i_1\dots i_d}
{\tilde F}_{i_1\dots i_{p+1}}F_{i_{p+2}\dots i_d}$.}:
\begin{equation}
\label{3dos}
F=-\frac{1}{(p+1)!}\int d^dx d{\tilde A}\wedge dA
\end{equation}
which produces:
\begin{equation}
\label{3tres}
\Pi^{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}=\frac{\delta F}{\delta
A_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}}=
-((p+1)!)^2\,^*{\tilde F}^{0\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{3cuatro}
{\tilde \Pi}^{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}=-\frac{\delta F}{\delta
{\tilde A}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}}=
((p+1)!)^2\,^*F^{0\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_p}
\end{equation}
The same relation (\ref{217c}) for the wave functionals holds in this
case since the generating functional is linear in the initial and dual
variables. From it we can obtain global information about the dual
variables.
We can also obtain the modular weight appearing in the transformation
of the partition function \cite{barbon}.
Let us consider first the case $p$ odd. $p+1$ is even and then the
theory
allows for a $\theta$-term. In phase space (we omit the $p$ indices):
\begin{equation}
\label{3cinco}
Z_{ps}=\int {\cal D}A {\cal D}\Pi e^{-\frac{i}{8\pi}
\int d^dx({\dot A}\Pi-H)}=
({\rm Im}\tau)^{B_{p+1}/2}\int {\cal D}A e^{-S},
\end{equation}
after regularizing the determinant coming from the gaussian
integration on
the momenta, $(p+1)$-forms in this case. The dual phase space partition
function coincides with the initial one and it is given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{3seis}
{\tilde Z}_{ps}=\int {\cal D}{\tilde \Pi}{\cal D}{\tilde A}
e^{-\frac{i}{8\pi}\int d^dx ({\dot {\tilde A}}{\tilde \Pi}-{\tilde H})}
=({\rm Im}\tau)^{B_{p+1}/2} \tau^{-B^-_{p+1}/2}
{\bar \tau}^{-B^+_{p+1}/2} \int {\cal D}{\tilde A} e^{-{\tilde S}}
\end{equation}
The configuration space partition function is:
\begin{equation}
\label{3siete}
Z=({\rm Im}\tau)^{N_p/2}\int {\cal D}A e^{-S}
\end{equation}
where we have followed the notation in \cite{barbon}, $N_p$ being the
dimension
of the space of $p$ forms after substracting all the gauge invariances
(see \cite{barbon} for the detailed analysis). In the dual model the
partition function is the
same with $\tau\rightarrow -1/\tau$. Then we have:
\begin{equation}
\label{3ocho}
Z=\tau^{-\frac{\chi-\sigma}{4}}{\bar \tau}^{-\frac{\chi+\sigma}{4}}
{\tilde Z}
\end{equation}
where $\chi=2(-1)^p N_p+(-1)^{p+1}B_{p+1}$ is the Euler number and
$\sigma=B^+_{p+1}-B^-_{p+1}$ the signature of the manifold.
In the case $p$ even a $\theta$-term does not exist. Similar
arguments to the ones above yield:
\begin{equation}
\label{3nueve}
Z=(\frac{4\pi}{g^2})^{\chi/2}{\tilde Z}
\end{equation}
All these results agree with the ones presented in \cite{barbon}.
\section{Conclusions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We have seen that for non-supersymmetric abelian four dimensional
gauge theories
S-duality can be
implemented
as a canonical transformation in the phase space of the theory which
is the usual interchange between electric and magnetic degrees
of freedom. This
transformation can be generalized to the case of non-abelian
gauge theories, where it seems to yield a Yang-Mills theory
with inverted couplings. However in this case the canonical transformation
produces some constraints in the dual theory which in the absence
of a non-abelian analogue of Poincar\`e's lemma do not imply that
a dual vector potential exists. The dual theory is not a
Yang-Mills theory but rather a
Freedman-Townsend's
type of theory \cite{ft} with inverted couplings.
This is shown by defining an intermediate Lagrangian depending on
the initial vector potential $A$ and the dual variables ${\tilde F}$
and from which the initial and dual Lagrangians are obtained
by integrating ${\tilde F}$ or $A$ respectively. It is argued that
if a canonical transformation relating the two theories exists it
would be far different from an interchange between electric and
magnetic degrees of freedom.
For the abelian case we have seen that in phase space the
partition function is invariant
under
S-duality and it is only after integrating out the momenta degrees of
freedom
that a modular factor appears and the partition function in
configuration
space transforms as a modular function.
We have generalized the canonical transformation approach to
$d$-dimensional
abelian
gauge theories defined with $p$ forms and obtained the
corresponding modular weights appearing in the transformation of the
partition function.
It could be very interesting to generalize the results presented in this
paper to the case of supersymmetric gauge theories.
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank O. Alvarez and N. Mohammedi
for useful discussions and especially J.L.F. Barb\'on for
interesting
remarks leading to the final form of this paper.
A Fellowship from M.E.C. (Spain)
is acknowledged for partial financial support.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
The Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect gives the contribution to the
microwave background anisotropy from a very large scale adiabatic
density perturbation, under the standard hypothesis that this
perturbation is a typical realization of a homogeneous Gaussian random
field. In this paper we place upper bounds on the spectrum of density
perturbations on very large scales in an open universe, corresponding
to a density parameter $\Omega_0<1$ with no cosmological constant.
In order to facilitate the discussion, let us make the usual assumption
that the microwave background anisotropy, as well as the large scale
structure, arises entirely from the spectrum of density
perturbations. It is convenient to work not with the density
perturbation itself, but with the primordial curvature perturbation
that corresponds to it. On scales much smaller than the observable
universe the spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation can be
probed directly, because there is a wealth of data relating to such
scales. At the most direct level (though of course oversimplified) one
can Fourier analyze the observed galaxy number density, and the
primordial curvature perturbation on each scale is then related to the
Fourier coefficient, up to uncertainties regarding the correct
transfer function and the possibility of biased galaxy formation. In
this way one finds that the primordial spectrum is approximately scale
independent.
On larger scales the only relevant data consist of the low multipoles
of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy, and here the situation
is less clear-cut. Roughly speaking these low multipoles measure the
low-order spatial derivatives of the curvature perturbation, averaged
over the observable universe. For this reason, the standard hypothesis
is that they probe the spectrum on scales of order the size of the
observable universe. If the spectrum is taken to be the
scale-independent extrapolation of the one measured on smaller scales,
this will indeed give a good account of the data, for either flat or
open universes.
The question is whether the spectrum on scales much larger than the
observable universe could mimic the same effect. Could the low
derivatives of the curvature perturbation, measured by the cosmic
microwave background anisotropy, come from very long wavelength and
large amplitude contributions to the spectrum? More generally, what
{\em upper limit} can one place on the long wavelength spectrum of the
curvature perturbation, by requiring that its contribution to the low
multipoles be no bigger than the observed total?
For a spatially flat universe this question was asked, and essentially
answered, by Grishchuk and Zel'dovich \cite{GZ}. They found that a
very long wavelength contribution would be present only in the
quadrupole, and such a contribution has come to be known as the
Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect. On the basis of upper bounds on the
quadrupole existing at that time, they showed that if the geometry
distortion is of order unity on some very large scale, then that scale
must be at least a factor of a hundred bigger than the observable
universe.
In the case of a flat universe, little has changed since their
pioneering paper. Despite the fact that the large angle anisotropies
have now been measured by the COBE satellite \cite{COBE}, there is no
indication of a contribution from very large scales affecting the
quadrupole, making it stand out relative to the higher
multipoles. Consequently, one still has only a limit on how quickly
the perturbation spectrum can rise on large scales and the numerical
value of the scale at which the curvature perturbation can reach unity
is not much changed.
Now let us turn to the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect in the open
universe, which necessarily explores scales on which spatial curvature
is significant barring the exceptional case that $\Omega_0$ is very
close to one. Until recently, considerable confusion existed about the
correct treatment of such scales. In order to describe a cosmological
perturbation one performs a mode expansion, using eigenfunctions of
the comoving Laplacian so that, to first-order, each mode
decouples. It has long been known to cosmologists that in the open
universe any square integrable {\em function} can be generated using
only {\em sub-curvature} modes, defined as those whose eigenvalue is
in the range $-\infty$ to $-1$ in units of the curvature
scale. Presumably with this in mind, cosmologists have retained only
these modes in the expansion. But in the cosmological application we
want to generate not a single function but a Gaussian {\em random
field}, consisting of a set of functions together with a probability
distribution, and this is done by assigning an independent Gaussian
probability distribution to each coefficient in the mode
expansion. (The spectrum is essentially the variance of the Gaussian
distribution, and it defines the random field completely.)
Cosmologists have only recently \cite{LW} discovered the fact, known
to mathematicians for half a century~\cite{krein}, that the most
general homogeneous Gaussian random field contains modes with
eigenvalue in the entire range from $-\infty$ to $0$, including not
only the sub-curvature modes but also {\em super-curvature} modes,
with eigenvalues in the range $-1$ to $0$. (An illustration of the need for
super-curvature modes is provided by equation (\ref{opencorr}) below;
it shows that the correlation length, defined as the distance out to which
the correlation function is roughly constant, can be arbitrarily large
if super-curvature modes are included, whereas it is at most of order
the curvature scale if these modes are omitted.)
The Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect explores by definition scales that
are much bigger than the size of the observable universe, so, ignoring
for the moment the exceptional case that $\Omega_0$ is very close to
one, it necessarily explores very large super-curvature scales
corresponding to an eigenvalue close to zero. This fact was first
recognized in \cite{LW}, previous analyses \cite{turner,KS,KTF} having
failed to recognize it. On the other hand, in the limit of infinitely
large scales the perturbations become homogeneous and thus can be
represented by superpositions of Bianchi type~V models \cite{Lukash}
which are the anisotropic generalization of the open FRW metric. The
microwave background anisotropy in such models has been discussed
elsewhere \cite{Nature}. The present paper explores the
Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect in detail for the first time, quantifying
the upper bound that can be placed on the spectrum and explaining its
physical significance.
\section{Mode Functions and Microwave Anisotropies}
The line element for an open universe can be written as
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t)\left[dr^2 + \sinh^2 r \left( d\theta^2 + \sin^2
\theta \, d\phi^2 \right) \right] \,.
\label{line}
\end{equation}
In this expression $a(t)$ is the scale factor of the universe,
normalized so that the spatial curvature scalar is
\begin{equation}
\label{rthree}
R^{(3)}=-6/a^2 \,.
\end{equation}
Space is practically flat on scales much less than $a(t)$ but strongly
curved on much larger scales, so one may call the distance $a(t)$ the
physical {\em curvature scale}. In these units, the comoving curvature
scale is unity.
The Friedmann equation can be written
\begin{equation}
\label{omega}
1-\Omega= \frac 1{(aH)^2} \,,
\end{equation}
where as usual $H=\dot a/a$ is the Hubble parameter, and the
time-dependent quantity $\Omega$ is the energy density measured in
units of the critical density $3H^2/8\pi G$. From this equation it is
clear that the Hubble distance $H^{-1}$ is always less than the
curvature scale.
It is useful to employ conformal time, defined by $\eta \equiv \int
dt/a(t)$, which has the interpretation of being the coordinate
distance to the particle horizon. Its present value $\eta_0$ is an
excellent approximation to the distance to the last scattering surface
and, making the approximation (valid except for very low $\Omega_0$) that the
universe can be treated as matter dominated since last scattering, it is
given by
\begin{equation}
\eta_0 = \cosh^{-1} \left[ \frac{2-\Omega_0}{\Omega_0} \right] \,,
\end{equation}
where subscript `0' always indicates present value. For $\Omega_0 <
2/(1 + \cosh 1) \simeq 0.786$, the surface of last scattering is located
beyond the curvature scale.
In analyzing the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect, one needs the full
paraphernalia of mode functions appropriate to an open universe. This
has recently been given in considerable detail by Lyth and Woszczyna
\cite{LW}, and we shall simply repeat the formulae here. The mode
expansion of a generic function $f$ is
\begin{equation}
f(r,\theta,\phi,t)=\int_0^\infty \mbox d k \sum_{lm} f_{klm}(t)
\Pi_{kl}(r) Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi) \,,
\end{equation}
Here $-(k/a)^2$ is the eigenvalue of the Laplacian corresponding to
the eigenfunction $\Pi_{kl}(r) Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)$. For brevity we
shall refer to $k/a$ as the wavenumber, even though one cannot
usefully define plane waves in curved space.
We introduce the notation $q^2=k^2-1$; sub-curvature modes correspond
to $0 < q^2 < \infty$ and super-curvature modes correspond to $-1 <
q^2 < 0$. The angular functions are the usual spherical harmonics. The
radial functions $\Pi_{kl}$ for the sub-curvature modes are given by
\cite{HAR}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{kl} & \equiv & N_{kl} \tilde \Pi_{kl} \,, \\
\tilde \Pi_{kl} & \equiv & q^{-2} (\sinh r)^l\left(\frac{-1}{\sinh r}
\frac{{\mbox d}}{{\mbox d} r}\right)^{l+1} \cos(q r) \,, \\
N_{kl} & \equiv & \sqrt\frac2\pi q^2 \prod_{n=0}^l (n^2+q^2)^{-1/2} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
For the super-curvature modes they can be obtained by analytic
continuation
\cite{LW}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Pi_{kl} & \equiv & N_{kl}\tilde\Pi_{kl} \,, \\
\tilde \Pi_{kl} & \equiv & |q|^{-2} (\sinh r)^l\left(\frac{-1}{\sinh r}
\frac{{\mbox d}}{{\mbox d} r}\right)^{l+1} \cosh(|q| r) \,, \\
N_{kl} & \equiv & \sqrt\frac2\pi |q| \prod_{n=1}^l (n^2+q^2)^{-1/2}
\hspace{3em} (l\geq1) \,.
\end{eqnarray}
To construct a Gaussian random field the amplitude $f_{klm}$ of each
mode is given an independent Gaussian probability distribution, whose
variance is defined by the spectrum ${\cal P}_f(k)$ through
\begin{equation}
\label{fullspec}
\langle f^*_{klm} f_{k'l'm'}\rangle = \frac{2\pi^2}{k|q|^2} {\cal P}_f(k)
\delta(k-k') \delta_{ll'} \delta_{mm'} \,,
\end{equation}
where the angle brackets denote the ensemble average. It determines the
two-point correlation function through the relation
\begin{equation}
\label{opencorr}
\langle f(1)f(2) \rangle = \int^\infty_0 \frac{\mbox d k}{k}
{\cal P}_f(k) \frac{\sin(q r)}{q\sinh r} \,.
\end{equation}
The correlation function depends only on the geodesic distance $ar$
between the comoving points 1 and 2 provided that the spectrum is
independent of $l$ and $m$, and the Gaussian field is then said to be
homogeneous (with respect to the group of transformations leaving the
distance invariant). Evaluated at $r=0$ it gives the
position-independent mean-square
\begin{equation}
\label{mssc}
\langle f^2 \rangle = \int_0^\infty \frac{{\mbox d} k}{k}{\cal P}_f(k) \,.
\end{equation}
We are interested in the perturbation $\delta R^{(3)}_{klm}$ in the
curvature scalar of comoving hypersurfaces (those orthogonal to
comoving worldlines), away from its average value $6/a^2$. It is
conveniently characterized by a quantity ${\cal R}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
4(k^2+3) {\cal R}_{klm}/a^2 =\delta R^{(3)}_{klm} \,.
\label{rdef}
\end{equation}
After matter domination (which is the only era that concerns us)
${\cal R}$ is practically constant until $\Omega$ breaks away from 1.
Before that happens, ${\cal R}$ is equal to $- 5/2$ times the gauge
invariant gravitational potential $\Phi$ \cite{Bardeen},
but afterwards $\Phi$ is multiplied by a factor
$F(\eta)$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{FETA}
F(\eta) = 5\,\frac{\sinh^2\eta-3\eta\sinh\eta+4\cosh\eta-4}
{(\cosh\eta-1)^3}\,.
\end{equation}
As long as it is constant, ${\cal R}$ is related to the density perturbation
on comoving hypersurfaces by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho}= \frac{2}{5} \, \frac{k^2+3}{a^2H^2} \,
{\cal R}_{klm} \,.
\label{denspert}
\end{equation}
{}From now on $\cal R$ will refer exclusively to the constant, early time
value.
The only important effect on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy from
large scales will be gravitational, through the usual Sachs--Wolfe effect.
As the usual practice is to work with the monopole and dipole subtracted from
measured anisotropies, we shall concentrate on the multipoles from the
quadrupole ($l=2$) upwards. However, one must also consider the question of
whether or not the dipole induced by the perturbations is compatible with
observations, and we discuss this in the Appendix.
Following Lyth and Woszczyna \cite{LW}, the appropriate expression (for $l
\geq 2$) is
\begin{equation}
\label{openswsc}
l(l+1)C_l = 2\pi^2 l(l+1) \int^\infty_0 \frac{{\mbox d} k}{k}
{\cal P}_{\cal R}(k) I_{kl}^2 \ ,
\end{equation}
where $C_l$ is the radiation angular power spectrum (defined as usual
as the ensemble average of the $l$-th multipole of the temperature
anisotropy), and ${\cal P}_{\cal R}$ is the spectrum of the
time-independent primordial curvature perturbation. The function
$I_{kl}^2$ is the `window function' which indicates how a given scale
$k$ contributes to the $C_l$. It is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{window}
q I_{kl} = \frac{1}{5} \,\Pi_{kl}(\eta_0) + \frac{6}{5} \int^{\eta_0}_0
\mbox d r \,\Pi_{kl}(r)\,F'(\eta_0-r) \,,
\end{equation}
where in calculating the $I_{kl}$, one must use the mode expansion
appropriate to whether the mode is sub-curvature or super-curvature.
In order to uncover the complete form of the window functions for
$\Omega_0 < 1$ it is necessary to evaluate them numerically, both for
sub- and super-curvature modes. We show the window functions
corresponding to the first three multipoles in Figure 1, for the case
$\Omega_0 = 0.2$. As expected, they behave smoothly across the
curvature scale $k = 1$.
The window functions show that if the spectrum continues to be flat or
falling as one goes to larger scales, then there will be little effect
from the large scale modes, and so the large angle cosmic microwave
anisotropy will indeed be dominated by modes of order the Hubble
scale. Only if the spectrum rises can the effect of very large scales
be significant. This is true regardless of the value of $\Omega_0$.
\section{The sub-curvature scale Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect}
We are interested in the effect on the microwave anisotropies of
scales far bigger than the observable universe. If $\Omega_0$ is close
to one the curvature scale becomes large compared with the size of the
observable universe, giving the possibility that the large scales can
still be in the sub-curvature regime. We consider this first, moving
on to the question of the super-curvature regime in the following
Section. We shall see that in the limit $\Omega_0 \to 1$, only the
sub-curvature effect is important.
As we have chosen the scale factor $a$ to be equal to the curvature
scale, the limit $\Omega_0=1$ corresponds to the limit $a \to \infty$.
Since a physical wavenumber is $k/a$ and a physical radial distance is
$ar$, it also corresponds to $k \to \infty$ and $r \to 0$ with $kr$
fixed. One can identify $q$ with $k$ in this limit, and the radial
functions are related to the spherical Bessel functions by
\begin{equation}
\label{jlim}
\Pi_{kl}( r)\to \sqrt\frac{2}{\pi} \, k j_l(k r) \,.
\end{equation}
The correlation function expression becomes the usual
\begin{equation}
\label{flatcorr}
\langle f(1)f(2) \rangle = \int^\infty_0 \frac{\mbox d k}{k}
{\cal P}_f(k) \frac{\sin(k r)}{kr} \,,
\end{equation}
and the relation between ${\cal R}$ and the curvature scalar becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{tweiflat}
4 k^2 {\cal R}_{klm}/a^2 = \delta R^{(3)}_{klm} \,.
\end{equation}
The integral in Eq.~(\ref{window}) vanishes and one finds
\begin{equation}
\label{clflat}
l(l+1) C_l= \frac{4\pi}{25} l(l+1) \int_0^{\infty} \frac{\mbox d k }{k} \,
{\cal P}_{\cal R}(k)\, j_l^2 (\eta_0 k) \,.
\end{equation}
If the curvature perturbation spectrum is scale independent this gives a
constant value of $l(l+1)C_l$
\begin{equation}
l(l+1)C_l=\frac{2\pi}{25}{\cal P}_{\cal R} \,,
\end{equation}
which is consistent with the COBE data \cite{COBE}.
We represent the effect of large scale modes by a delta function
contribution to the spectrum. We consider a very large scale {\em
sub-curvature} mode
\begin{equation}
\label{vvlarge}
{\cal P}_{{\cal R}}^{\rm SUB} \simeq \delta(\ln k- \ln k_{\rm SUB})
\langle {\cal R}^2 \rangle _{\rm SUB} \,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
1 \ll k_{\rm SUB} \ll a_0H_0= (1-\Omega_0)^{-1/2} \,.
\label{ksub}
\end{equation}
Since $j_l(x) \propto x^l$ as $x \to 0$, the quadrupole dominates all
other multipoles and is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{subquad}
6 C^{\rm SUB}_2 = \frac{148\pi}{1875} \left(\frac{k_{\rm
SUB}}{a_0H_0}\right)^4 \langle {\cal R}^2 \rangle_{\rm SUB} \,.
\end{equation}
This, in more modern and precise notation, is the result derived by
Grishchuk and Zel'dovich \cite{GZ} for the case $\Omega_0=1$.
In the COBE data the quadrupole is not markedly higher than the others
(quite the reverse if anything), so we take the observational value of
$l(l+1)C_l$ as an upper limit on the effect. This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{climit2}
l(l+1) C_l^{\rm SUB}<8 \times 10^{-10} \,.
\end{equation}
We have taken the observational limit as that corresponding to a flat
spectrum evaluated for $\Omega_0=1$ with an upper limit of $20\mu$K on
the expected quadrupole $Q = \sqrt{5C_2/4\pi}$ \cite{Gorski}. This
leads to the bound
\begin{equation}
\label{omega1con}
\left( \frac{k_{{\rm SUB}}}{a_0H_0}\right)^2 \langle {\cal R}^2
\rangle^{1/2}_{{\rm SUB}} < 6 \times 10^{-5}\,.
\end{equation}
This bound was derived under the assumption that $k_{{\rm SUB}}$ is a
large {\em sub-curvature} scale, $k_{{\rm SUB}} \gg 1$, which is
consistent with Eq.~(\ref{omega1con}) only if $1-\Omega_0 \lesssim
10^{-4} \langle {\cal R}^2 \rangle^{-1/2}_{{\rm SUB}}$. As we shall
see in Section \ref{phys}, the biggest permissible geometry distortion
corresponds to $\langle {\cal R}^2 \rangle_{{\rm SUB}}\sim 1$, and
with this value consistency requires $1-\Omega_0 \lesssim 10^{-4}$. In
words, a curvature perturbation of order unity on sub-curvature scales
is allowable only if $\Omega_0$ is very close to one \cite{KTF}. This
is to be expected, since otherwise there are no sub-curvature scales
much bigger than the observable universe.
\section{The super-curvature scale Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect}
If $\Omega_0$ is not close to one, scales far larger than the
observable universe are necessarily much bigger than the curvature
scale, corresponding to super-curvature modes with $0<k\ll 1$. We
again consider a delta function power spectrum, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{dfps}
{\cal P}_{\cal R}^{\rm VL} \simeq \delta(\ln k-\ln k_{\rm VL})
\langle {\cal R}^2 \rangle_{\rm VL} \,,
\end{equation}
where $k_{\rm VL}$ is a scale satisfying $0<k_{\rm VL} \ll 1$. The
effect of such a contribution was investigated qualitatively in
Refs.~\cite{LW,Munich}, but here we present a full quantitative
calculation and also explain more fully the physical significance of
the result.
The limit of small $k$ can be taken partly analytically, though one
can obtain the same results by numerical calculation from the full
expressions given above. In this limit, $\Pi_{k0} \to 1$, but the
other radial functions are proportional to $k$. It is convenient to
define
\begin{eqnarray}
N_l &\equiv& \lim_{k\to0}\ k\,N_{kl} \ ,\\
\tilde\Pi_l &\equiv& \lim_{k\to0}\ \tilde\Pi_{kl}/k^2 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
from which one finds
\begin{equation}
N_l = \sqrt{\frac2\pi} \,\prod_{n=2}^l(n^2-1)^{-1/2}
\hspace{5mm}(l\geq 2) \ .
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{PI12}
\tilde\Pi_{1}(r) &=& {1\over2}\left[\coth\,r - {r\over\sinh^2 r}\right]
\,, \\
\tilde\Pi_{2}(r) &=& {1\over2}\left[1 +
{3(1 - r\,\coth\,r)\over\sinh^2 r}\right] \,.
\end{eqnarray}
The other radial functions follow from the recurrence relation
\begin{equation}
\tilde\Pi_{l}(r) = - l(l-2)\,\tilde\Pi_{l-2}(r) + (2l-1)\,\coth\,r\
\tilde\Pi_{l-1}(r)\,.
\end{equation}
Using these results, the contribution to the mean square multipoles
becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{clvl}
l(l+1)\,C_l^{\rm VL} = l(l+1)\,N_l^2\,B_l^2\, k^2_{\rm VL}
\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm VL} \,,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B_{l} \equiv \frac{1}{5} \, \tilde\Pi_l(\eta_0)+\frac{6}{5} \,
\int^{\eta_0}_0 {\rm d}r\,\tilde\Pi_l(r)\,F'(\eta_0- r)\ .
\end{equation}
By evaluating the full expressions in Eq.~(\ref{openswsc})
numerically, we have found that these limits are an excellent
approximation for calculating $C_l$, at least for the low multipoles
we consider. For $k_{\rm VL} \leq 0.1$ the approximation is good to
within a few percent for any reasonable $\Omega_0$.
\subsection{The shape of the spectrum}
In the case $\Omega_0=1$ the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect comes
entirely from the sub-curvature modes that we discussed in the
previous Section, and is present only in the quadrupole. It was noted
in Refs.~\cite{LW,Munich} that for $\Omega_0<1$, on the other hand,
the super-curvature Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect is present in all
multipoles\footnote{As $\Omega_0$ becomes small, the actual pattern produced
by a single infinite scale mode becomes a hot (or cold) spot on the sky of
angular size $\sim 80\, \Omega_0$ degrees \cite{Nature}.}. However, in those
papers the $l$ dependence was not evaluated.
For $\Omega_0$ close to one, it can be shown analytically that $C_l^{\rm VL}
\propto (1-\Omega_0)^l$, so that the quadrupole dominates.\footnote{This
result that the quadrupole dominates refers to the very large scale
super-curvature modes corresponding to $k\ll 1$. In the previous Section we
found that the quadrupole also dominates for large scale sub-curvature modes
corresponding to $1\ll k\ll a_0H_0$. It also dominates for the intermediate
scales $k \sim 1$; the origin of this result is that for small $r$, both sub-
and super-curvature modes have the same leading behaviour when expanded in
small $|q|r$.} The prefactor can be evaluated analytically, yielding
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{C2KR}
6 C_2^{\rm VL} & \simeq & \frac{64}{625\pi} \, k^2_{{\rm VL}}
\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm VL} \, (1-\Omega_0)^2 \,, \\
\label{C3KR}
12 C_3^{\rm VL} & \simeq & \frac{4096}{30625\pi} \, k^2_{{\rm VL}}
\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm VL} \, (1-\Omega_0)^3 \,.
\end{eqnarray}
We have confirmed that our numerical code reproduces these
coefficients. It demonstrates that these expressions are very accurate
for $\Omega_0 > 0.9$, and still a reasonable approximation for
$\Omega_0 = 0.8\,$.
For $\Omega_0$ significantly below one, numerical calculation is
essential. In Figure 2 we show the shape of the radiation power
spectra for several different values of $\Omega_0$, normalized such
that all have the same $C_2$. One sees a complicated behaviour, which
is not so surprising since standard calculations of the multipoles
using spectra of sub-curvature modes already show a very complex
behaviour with $\Omega_0$ even if only the Sachs-Wolfe terms are
included \cite{KS,KRSS}. Unusual behaviour is particularly marked for
$\Omega_0 \simeq 0.35$; an `accidental' suppression of the quadrupole
even from curvature-scale perturbations, due to cancellation between
the `intrinsic' and `line-of-sight' terms, has already been noted
\cite{KTF}. For this $\Omega_0$ the contribution of very large scales
to the octopole is considerably larger than that to the quadrupole.
A question one would like to address is whether for any $\Omega_0$ the
shape induced by the super-curvature modes resembles the shape observed by
COBE. A convenient way of characterizing the observed shape is to note that
it is compatible with the one induced in an $\Omega_0=1$ universe by
power-law spectra of density perturbations, with the spectral index $n$
roughly constrained to a range 0.7 to 1.4 about the Harrison--Zel'dovich
value $n=1$ \cite{Gorski}. As we have remarked, the assumption of $n=1$ leads
to $l(l+1) C_l$ being constant. We have illustrated the allowed slopes of
the spectra in Figure 2 for comparison.
We find that over very short ranges of multipoles it is possible for
the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect to mimic the observations, which is
not possible in a flat universe. However, for no value of $\Omega_0$
is the spectrum sustained as approximately flat even over just the
limited range up to $l = 10$. We conclude then that the
Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect cannot be responsible for the entire
shape of the radiation power-spectrum (a conclusion which will
surprise nobody!), but that it remains possible for some fraction of
the measured multipoles to be due to this effect. In the flat space
limit only the quadrupole can be partly generated this way.
\subsection{The amplitude of the spectrum}
Earlier papers \cite{LW,Munich} assumed that the quantities $N_l$ and
$B_l$ are roughly of order one for low multipoles. However, we find
considerable cancellations in $B_l$ and in fact their typical sizes
are somewhat smaller. Continuing with the choice of a delta function
power spectrum, we evaluate them numerically and compare the
anisotropies to the observational limit, demanding again that they be
less than the observed value
\begin{equation}
l(l+1) C_l^{\rm VL} <8 \times 10^{-10} \,.
\label{climit}
\end{equation}
In Figure 3 we plot the dependence of the $l = 2$, $3$, $4$ and $5$
multipoles on $\Omega_0$. In accordance with Eq.~(\ref{clvl}),
$l(l+1)C_l$ scales with $k^2_{\rm VL} \langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm
VL}$, so we have plotted it normalized by this quantity. Near
$\Omega_0 = 1$, the analytic approximations of Eqs.~(\ref{C2KR}) and
(\ref{C3KR}) can be used.
By taking the upper limits on the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect given
above, one can obtain a maximum permitted value for $k^2_{\rm VL}
\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}}$, as a function of $\Omega_0$, and
this is plotted in Figure 4. We have imposed the constraint on
multipoles up to $l = 6$ rather than just the quadrupole, since the
`accidental' cancellation of the quadrupole for $\Omega_0 \simeq
0.35$ would otherwise distort the constraint.
We see from Figure 4 that for $0.25 \lesssim \Omega_0 \lesssim 0.8$
the bound is fairly constant
\begin{equation}
k^2_{\rm VL}\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm VL} \lesssim 10^{-6} \,.
\label{omegasmall}
\end{equation}
For $\Omega_0<0.25$ it becomes more severe. On the other
hand, for $0.8 \lesssim \Omega_0 < 1$, the dependence of Eq.~(\ref{C2KR})
yields
\begin{equation}
k_{{\rm VL}}^2 \langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}} < \frac{3 \times
10^{-8}} {(1-\Omega_0)^2} \,.
\label{omegabig}
\end{equation}
These bounds were derived under the assumption that $k_{{\rm VL}} \ll
1$, so Eq.~(\ref{omegasmall}) is automatically satisfied if
$\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}} \lesssim 10^{-6}$ and
Eq.~(\ref{omegabig}) is automatically satisfied if $\langle {\cal R}^2
\rangle_{{\rm VL}} \lesssim 10^{-8}/(1-\Omega_0)^2$. As we shall see
later, the biggest permissible geometry distortion corresponds to
$\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}} \sim 1$. Even with this maximal
value, Eq.~(\ref{omegabig}) is automatically satisfied if $1-\Omega_0
\lesssim 10^{-4}$; in this regime, the maximal geometry distortion is
allowed on all super-curvature scales with $k_{{\rm VL}} \ll 1$. This
result is hardly surprising, since super-curvature scales move off to
infinity in the limit $\Omega_0 \to 1$.
The bound can also be written in terms of $k/(aH)$, which is the
physical wavenumber in Hubble units. For $0.25 \lesssim \Omega_0
\lesssim 0.8$ it becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{omegasmall2}
\frac{k^2_{\rm VL}}{a_0^2 H_0^2} \langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{\rm VL}
\lesssim 10^{-6} (1-\Omega_0) \,,
\end{equation}
and for $0.8 \lesssim \Omega_0 < 1$ it becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{omegabig2}
\frac{k^2_{\rm VL}}{a_0^2 H_0^2} \langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}}
\lesssim \frac{3 \times 10^{-8}}{1-\Omega_0} \,.
\end{equation}
Provided $\Omega_0$ is not too close to one, then, assuming the
maximal value $\langle{\cal R}^2\rangle_{{\rm VL}} \sim 1$, these
results say that that the inverse wavenumber must be at least about a
thousand times the Hubble distance (for $\Omega_0 > 0.25$). As
$\Omega_0$ approaches one, the bound weakens slowly. At $1-\Omega_0
\simeq 10^{-4}$, it requires the inverse wavenumber to be at least a
factor of about a hundred times the Hubble distance, and by this time
super-curvature scales are far enough outside the observable universe
to automatically satisfy this requirement.
\section{Physical interpretation of the bounds}
\label{phys}
In order to interpret these bounds physically, we have to explain the
meaning of the curvature perturbation ${\cal R}$, showing that within
the context of a homogeneous Gaussian random field it can be at most
of order one.
For this physical interpretation, we assume that the observed
curvature perturbation is a typical realization of a homogeneous
Gaussian random field not only within the observable universe, but
also in a far bigger region, much bigger in fact than the correlation
length.
Even though the background space has negative curvature, the presence
of a large perturbation can render regions of the universe positively
curved. Moreover, within a region no bigger than the correlation
length the curvature is practically homogeneous so that we are dealing
with a practically homogeneous space just as in the unperturbed
universe. But in a homogeneous space with positive curvature scalar
$R^{(3)}$, the biggest sphere that can be drawn has radius $d$ given
by\footnote{This equation follows from the positive-curvature version
of Eq.~(\ref{line}), given by $\sinh\to \sin$, corresponding to the
maximum value $r=\pi$. When it is small, $R^{(3)} d^2$ is a linear
measure of the geometry distortion within the sphere so that for
instance the area of the sphere is equal to $(1-2R^{(3)} d^2)$ times
its Euclidean value $4\pi d^2$.}
\begin{equation}
R^{(3)} d^2=\pi^2/6\sim 1 \,.
\end{equation}
In other words, positive curvature inside a given sphere cannot exceed
this value. One can say that for bigger positive curvature, space
would `close in on itself', indicating that our underlying assumptions
break down. What we are going to do is demonstrate that, at least for
a perturbation coming solely from a single scale, this requirement is
equivalent to ${\cal R}\lesssim 1$.
The situation is
different for sub- and super-curvature scales, and we begin by
considering the former. In that case the correlation length $d_{\rm
VL}$, defined as the distance $ar$ within which correlation function
Eq.~(\ref{flatcorr}) is practically constant, is simply the inverse
wavenumber
\begin{equation}
d_{\rm SUB}=a\, k_{\rm SUB}^{-1} \,.
\end{equation}
Within a typical sphere of this radius ${\cal R}$ is practically constant,
and the curvature scalar given by Eq.~(\ref{rdef}) is
\begin{equation}
4 {\cal R}= d_{\rm SUB}^2 \delta R^{(3)}\, .
\end{equation}
If ${\cal R}\sim 1$ the perturbation $\delta R^{(3)}$ always dominates
the background value $R^{(3)}=-6/a^2$ because $k_{\rm SUB}\gg 1$.
According to the linear cosmological perturbation theory that we are
invoking in this paper, the actual value of $\cal R$ within a randomly
located sphere of fixed radius has a Gaussian probability
distribution.\footnote{In referring to a `randomly located' sphere we are
taking for granted the ergodic property, which is essentially the statement
that choosing a randomly located sphere for a fixed realization of the random
field is equivalent to choosing a random realization of the field at a fixed
location. Only in the latter case is the Gaussian property an immediate
consequence of our assumptions. However the ergodic property can be proved
\cite{adler} under weak assumptions for a Euclidean geometry corresponding to
$\Omega_0=1$, and we see no reason to suppose that it fails for the case of
curved space.} Taken literally the linear theory therefore predicts the
existence of regions in which ${\cal R}\gg 1$, in contradiction with the
physical interpretation of that quantity. It follows that at least within the
framework that we are adopting the mean square contribution $\langle {\cal R}
\rangle^2_{\rm SUB}$ cannot exceed one.\footnote{In what follows we assume
that linear cosmological perturbation theory is valid right up to this
maximum value, or in other words that it is valid as long as it predicts only
rare regions of space with the unphysical value ${\cal R} \gtrsim 1$. This
seems very likely because there is no obvious criterion which would indicate
earlier non-linearity. In particular, on the large scales that we are
considering the fractional density perturbation Eq.~(\ref{denspert})
on comoving hypersurfaces is small if ${\cal R}$ is small.} With this
maximal value, Eq.~(\ref{omega1con}) becomes
\begin{equation}
d_{\rm SUB} \gtrsim 130 \, H_0^{-1} \,.
\end{equation}
This discussion of the sub-curvature case has led to no surprises. Consider
now the super-curvature case, corresponding to the scale $k_{\rm VL}\ll 1$.
{}From Eq.~(\ref{opencorr}) it follows that the correlation length is now
given by
\begin{equation}
d_{\rm VL}=a_0 \, k_{\rm VL}^{-2} \,.
\end{equation}
This differs from the Euclidean result through the appearance of $k^2$
instead of $k$. As pointed out in \cite{LW}, the different power can be
understood from the different relation between volume and area.\footnote{In
Eq.~(50) of Ref.~\cite{LW}, the symbol $f$ should be replaced by $\xi$.}
Within a sphere whose radius is of order $d_{\rm VL}$, the correlation
length ${\cal R}$ is practically constant and so is the corresponding
curvature scalar given by Eq.~(\ref{rdef}) as
\begin{equation}
12 {\cal R} \simeq a^2 \delta R^{(3)} \,.
\end{equation}
Since the background curvature is $R^{(3)}=-6/a^2$ we see that $2{\cal
R}$ is equal to the {\em fractional} change in the geometry
distortion. It will be negative in some regions and positive in
others, but on scales much bigger than the curvature scale the
background distortion is huge (the ratio of area to volume is
exponentially large compared with the Euclidean ratio). As a result
the maximum allowed positive value of ${\cal R}$ is again of order one
and we again require for the mean square $\langle {\cal R}^2
\rangle_{{\rm VL}} \lesssim 1$. But this maximal value now corresponds
to a huge distortion of the geometry.
For the maximal super-curvature geometry distortion $\langle{\cal R}
\rangle^2_{\rm VL} \sim 1$, the correlation length must satisfy
\begin{equation}
d_{\rm VL}\gtrsim 10^6 \, H_0^{-1} (1-\Omega_0)^{-1/2} \,,
\end{equation}
if $0.25 \lesssim \Omega_0 \lesssim 0.8$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{supcons}
d_{\rm VL} \gtrsim 4\times 10^7 \, H_0^{-1}(1-\Omega_0)^{3/2} \,,
\end{equation}
if $\Omega_0 \gtrsim 0.8$. As stated earlier, this second bound is
automatically satisfied in the extreme case $1-\Omega_0\lesssim 10^{-4}$.
To summarize, if there is a maximal geometry distortion on a
super-curvature scale, then this scale must be more than a million
times the Hubble distance if $\Omega_0=0.25$. As $\Omega_0$ rises the
constraint weakens, but only in the extreme regime $1-\Omega_0\lesssim
10^{-4}$ does it disappear completely, so that all super-curvature
correlation lengths $d_{\rm VL}$ are allowed. This is just the regime
in which one can have maximal geometry distortion also on
sub-curvature scales, provided that the correlation length is more
than a hundred times the Hubble distance.
\section{Discussion}
While it remains possible that some component of the observed cosmic
microwave background anisotropies is due to the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich
effect, there is no evidence that this is the case and so at present
one is left with a null result. In absolute generality, this null
result tells us nothing at all about the nature of the universe beyond
our horizon. This is because the observed anisotropies are due
entirely to the spatial and temporal variation of the curvature
perturbation at or within the last scattering surface; anything could
happen to it immediately outside our observable universe without any
effect being noticeable. In order to say anything further, one must
adopt the hypothesis that even far beyond the observable universe the
curvature perturbation is a typical realization of a homogeneous
Gaussian random field. In that case one expects to be able to break
the perturbation up into modes {\em including} very large scale modes,
and the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect then dictates how rapidly the
perturbations may reach large amplitudes as one goes to large scales.
Although there is no way of testing whether the random field
hypothesis is actually correct, the idea that the curvature
perturbation is of such a form is the basis for most work in large
scale structure. It makes particular sense in the case of a flat
universe; remembering that the horizon scale at last scattering is
much smaller than at present, it would be strange for the hypothesis
to only break down at precisely the present epoch. In the case of an
open universe, the hypothesis seems {\em a priori} more restrictive,
because the geometry has selected out a special scale, the curvature
scale, beyond which different physics might apply.
While our results have been framed in a particularly general manner,
it is interesting to consider their implications in the context of
open universe inflationary scenarios. The motivation in the early
papers on the open universe Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect
\cite{turner,KS,KTF} was an attempt to render unlikely the prospect of
open universe inflation, which at that time was modeled as chaotic
inflation of sufficiently short duration that the universe was not
forced to spatial flatness \cite{ELM}. This was on the grounds that
such inflation could not explain the homogeneity of the universe in a
comoving region bigger than the Hubble distance at the beginning of
inflation (and hence on any comoving scale where the curvature is
significant). However, in the strictest sense as discussed above, the
absence of the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect cannot be construed as
evidence that the universe is indeed homogeneous in such a
region. These papers also failed to provide a complete treatment;
Turner \cite{turner} ignored spatial curvature and none of
Refs.~\cite{turner,KS,KTF} included super-curvature modes.
More interesting are the recently discussed `single-bubble' models of open
inflation \cite{hist,STYY,STY,BGT,LM,YST}, which are capable of erasing large
scale perturbations even above the curvature scale while still resulting in
an open universe. This undermines the original motivation of the early
work on the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect, but at the same time offers
a new motivation, because it appears possible for super-curvature
modes to be generated in such models. Indeed, in Ref.~\cite{STY} a
primordial spectrum for such models is calculated and, provided the
inflaton mass is sufficiently small, it includes a single discrete
super-curvature mode (which approaches $k = 0$ in the massless limit) as well
as a continuum of sub-curvature modes. This ties in nicely with our
delta-function analysis. In Ref.~\cite{YST} the microwave anisotropies for
such a composite spectrum are calculated, and as far as we can ascertain from
their figures their results are in good agreement with ours.
In conclusion then, we have confirmed that, even in an open universe,
the low multipoles of the observed microwave anisotropies cannot be due
solely to an adiabatic density perturbation on scales much larger than the
observable universe, given the usual assumption that the perturbation is a
typical realization of a homogeneous Gaussian random field. We have also
provided limits as to how quickly the typical amplitude of perturbations can
reach unity as one moves to larger scales. Although the entire observed
anisotropies cannot be due to the Grishchuk--Zel'dovich effect, it remains
possible that some component of them does have such an origin. This may be
the case in the `single-bubble' models of open inflation.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
JGB and DW are supported by PPARC (UK) and ARL by the Royal Society. We thank
John Barrow and Leonid Grishchuk for discussions.
|
\section*{Figure Captions}
\noindent Figure 1: Ratio of non-equilibrium density to equilibrium
density and temperature as functions of time at SPS, RHIC and LHC energies.
\end{document}
|
\subsection{Dispersion relation for the
$NN\to NN$ amplitude}
For $NN\to NN$ and $N\overline N \to N\overline N$ scattering the field
theoretical scattering amplitude $T$ is related to the standard
$S$-matrix by
\begin{equation}
S_{fi}=\delta_{fi}-i(2\pi)^{-2}\delta^{(4)}(p_1'+p_2'-p_1-p_2) \left (
\frac{m_N^4}{E_1'E_2'E_1E_2} \right) ^{\frac{1}{2}} T_{fi} \ .
\end{equation}
If we neglect isospin for the moment, the $s$-channel ($NN\to NN$)
amplitude can be written as
\begin{equation}
T_s(p_1',p_2';p_1,p_2)=\overline u(p_1',\lambda_1') \overline
u(p_2',\lambda_2') \hat T u(p_1,\lambda_1)u(p_2,\lambda_2) \quad,
\label{invampI}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where
\begin{equation}
u(p,\lambda)=\sqrt{{E(p)+m_N\over 2m_N}}\left (
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\{2\lambda p \over E(p)+m_N}\end{array}\right ) |\lambda>
\end{equation}
is a Dirac helicity spinor normalized to $\overline u u =1$. (The spin
dependence is suppressed on the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{invampI}).)
For on-shell scattering, $\hat T$ can be expressed as a linear
combination of five invariant operators $\hat C_j$; the expansion
coefficients $c_j$ are scalar functions of the Mandelstam variables
$s\equiv (p_1+p_2)^2$ and $t\equiv (p_1'-p_1)^2$. ($u$ is not
independent, but given by $u=4m_N^2-s-t$.) $\hat T$ can then be
written as
\begin{equation}
\hat T=\sum^5_{j=1} c_j(t,s)\hat C_j \ .
\label{expans}
\end{equation}
In contrast to our former work dealing with correlated $\pi\pi$ exchange
\cite{Kim94} we now use, instead of the so-called perturbative
invariants (see Ref.~\cite{Kim94}) the Fermi-invariants
\begin{eqnarray}
S &=& (I)^{(1)}\, (I)^{(2)} \nonumber \\ P &=& (\gamma_5)^{(1)}\,
(\gamma_5)^{(2)} \nonumber \\ V &=& (\gamma^\mu)^{(1)}\,
(\gamma_\mu)^{(2)} \nonumber \\ A &=& (\gamma_5\gamma^\mu)^{(1)}\,
(\gamma_5\gamma_\mu)^{(2)} \nonumber \\ T &=& (\sigma^{\mu\nu})^{(1)}\,
(\sigma_{\mu\nu})^{(2)} \ \ .
\label{Fermi}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\sigma_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{i}{2}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]$.
Correspondingly, the amplitude for the $t$-channel ($N\overline N \to N
\overline N$) process defined in Fig.~\ref{figone} then reads
\begin{equation}
T_t(-p_1',p_2';p_1,-p_2)=\overline v(-p_1',\bar\lambda_1') \overline
u(p_2',\lambda_2') \hat T v(p_1,\lambda_1)u(-p_2,\bar \lambda_2) \ .
\label{invampII}
\end{equation}
Here
\begin{equation}
v(- p,\lambda)=\sqrt{{E(p)+m_N\over 2m_N}} \left (
\begin{array}{c}
{p\over E(p)+m_N} \\ -2\lambda\end{array}\right ) |-\lambda>
\end{equation}
is the Dirac spinor for an antiparticle. Due to crossing symmetry $\hat
T$ can be represented in the same way as before (Eq.~(\ref{expans})),
with precisely the same functions $c_j$, however in a different $s$, $t$
domain obtained by replacing $p_1'$ by $-p_1'$ and $p_2$ by $-p_2$.
The functions $c_j$ arising from (correlated) $\pi\rho$ exchange are
assumed to fulfill a dispersion relation over the unitarity cut,
\begin{equation}
c_j(t,s)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int^\infty_{(m_\pi+m_\rho)^2} \frac{ {\rm Im}\,
c_j(t',s)} {t'-t-i\epsilon}dt' \ .
\label{Disp}
\end{equation}
\noindent
(Throughout we take the $\rho$ to be a stable particle with $m_\rho$=769
MeV.) Thus the $c_j$ can be determined if their imaginary part is known
in the pseudophysical region ($t'\ge (m_\pi+m_\rho)^2$) of the
$t$-channel reaction and for $s\ge 4m_N^2$.
\subsection{Determination of the spectral functions from unitarity}
The required information about the spectral functions
$\rho_j(t',s)\equiv {\rm Im}\ c_j(t',s)$ can be obtained from the
relevant unitarity relation (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{figtwo})
\begin{equation}
i<N\overline N |\hat T-\hat T^\dagger|N \overline N> =\sum_{\pi\rho}
\Omega_{\pi\rho}<N\overline N |t^\dagger|\pi\rho> <\pi\rho |t|N
\overline N> \delta^{(4)}(k_1+k_2+p_1'-p_1)
\label{unit}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\Omega_{\pi\rho}$ is a $\pi\rho$ phase-space factor. We first do
a partial wave decomposition,
\begin{eqnarray}
T_t ({\bf p'} \lambda_N'\lambda_{\overline N}'; {\bf p}
\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t) &=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_J\,(2J+1)
d^J_{\lambda\lambda'}(\cos\vartheta) T_t^J ( p'
\lambda_N'\lambda_{\overline N}'; p \lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt
t)\nonumber \\ t({\bf k} \lambda_\rho; {\bf p}
\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t) &=&\frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_J\,(2J+1)
d^J_{\lambda\bar\lambda}(\cos\bar\vartheta) t^J(k \lambda_\rho; p
\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t)
\label{PWZ}
\end{eqnarray}
with
\begin{equation}
\lambda'\equiv \lambda_N'-\lambda_{\overline N}',\quad
\bar\lambda\equiv \lambda_\rho-\lambda_\pi=\lambda_\rho, \quad
\lambda\equiv \lambda_N-\lambda_{\overline N}\quad,
\end{equation}
${\bf p}$, ${\bf p'}$, ${\bf k}$ being the relative 3-momenta in the
center-of-mass (cm) system and the angles $\vartheta=\angle({\bf
p},{\bf p'})$, $\bar\vartheta=\angle({\bf p},{\bf k})$. After
transformation into LSJ basis Eq.~(\ref{unit}) goes into
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\rm Im}[T_t^J (p_0,L'\,S';p_0,L\,S;\sqrt t)] \nonumber \\ &&= -
C\sum_{L_{\pi\rho}}[t^J(k_0,L_{\pi\rho}\,1;p_0,L'\,S';\sqrt t)]
^\dagger\ t^J(k_0,L_{\pi\rho}\,1;p_0,L\,S;\sqrt t) \equiv\
^J\!N(L'S';LS)
\label{UniRel}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $C\equiv k_0/(32\pi^2\sqrt t)$ and $p_0$, $k_0$ denote the
on-shell momenta of the $N\overline N$ and $\pi\rho$ system,
respectively.
As for the $2\pi$-exchange case, we want to restrict ourselves to the
$J=0,1$ $\pi\rho$ exchange contributions, which act in channels
corresponding to the quantum numbers of the pion ($J=0$), and the
$\omega$, $A_1$, and $H_1$ meson ($J=1$). Table~\ref{Tabone} shows the
quantum numbers and possible transitions from the $N\overline N$ to the
$\pi\rho$ system obtained from the conditions
\begin{eqnarray}
(-1)^{L_{N\overline N}+1}\ \ \ \ \ \ &=&P_\pi P_\rho(-1)^{L_{\pi\rho}}
=(-1)^{L_{\pi\rho}}\\ (-1)^{L_{N\overline N}+S_{N\overline N}+I}&=&G_\pi
G_\rho =-1
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
due to parity and G-parity conservation. We therefore obtain for the
different relevant channels
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l}
^0N(00;00) = -C (t^0_{0+})^\dagger t^0_{0+}
\hspace{2.6cm} \pi \\ \\ \left.
\begin{array}{l}
^1N(01;01) = -C (t^1_{-1})^\dagger t^1_{-1}
\hspace{1cm} \\ ^1N(21;01) = -C (t^1_{+1})^\dagger t^1_{-1}
\hspace{1cm} \\ ^1N(01;21) = -C (t^1_{-1})^\dagger t^1_{+1}
\hspace{1cm} \\ ^1N(21;21) = -C (t^1_{+1})^\dagger t^1_{+1}
\hspace{2cm} \\
\end{array}
\right \} \omega \\ \\ ^1N(11;11) = -C [(t^1_{1-})^\dagger
t^1_{1-}+(t^1_{1+})^\dagger t^1_{1+}] \ \ A_1 \\ ^1N(10;10) = -C
[(t^1_{0-})^\dagger t^1_{0-}+(t^1_{0+})^\dagger t^1_{0+}] \ \ H_1 \\
\end{array}
\label{LSJamps}
\end{equation}
The knowledge of $^JN$ determines the spectral functions. With the help
of Appendix A, we have explicitly
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho^\pi_P(s,t)\ = \ -{1\over 8\pi\beta^2 }\ \ ^0N(00;00) \nonumber \\
&&\rho^\pi_{\{S,V,T,A\}}(s,t)= 0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^\omega_S(s,t) &=&\ \, \ {1\over 16\alpha^2
\pi\beta}\cos\vartheta\nonumber \\ &&
\hspace{0.9cm} [\sqrt 2 (\beta-1)^2\ ^1N(01;21) + (2\beta^2+5\beta+2)\
^1N(21;21) -2(\beta-1)^2\ ^1N(01;01) ] \nonumber \\ \rho^\omega_V(s,t)&
=& \ - {1\over 16\alpha^2 \pi\beta}\ [\sqrt 2 (2\beta+1)\ ^1N(01;21) +
(\beta^2+2)\; ^1N(21;21) +2(\beta-1)\ ^1N(01;01)] \nonumber \\
\rho^\omega_T(s,t)&=& {1\over 128\,\alpha^2 \pi\beta^2\,m_N^2}\,t\,
\nonumber \\ &&
\hspace{0.9cm} [\sqrt 2 (\beta+2)\ ^1N(01;21) + (2\beta+1)\ ^1N(21;21)
-2(\beta-1)\ ^1N(01;01)] \nonumber \\ \rho^\omega_P(s,t)& =& {1\over
16\pi\beta^2} \cos\vartheta [\sqrt 2 (\beta+2)\ ^1N(01;21) + (2\beta+1)\
^1N(21;21) -2(\beta-1)\ ^1N(01;01)] \nonumber \\ \rho^\omega_{A}(s,t)&
=&\ \, \ 0 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\rho^{A_1}_P(s,t)\ = \ -{3\over 16\alpha^2\pi\beta^2}\ \ ^1N(11;11)
\nonumber \\ &&\rho^{A_1}_A(s,t)\ =\ -{3\over 16\alpha^2\pi}\ \
^1N(11;11)\nonumber \\ &&\rho^{A_1}_{\{S,V,T\}}(s,t) = 0 \nonumber \\
\nonumber \\ &&\rho^{H_1}_P(s,t)\ = \ -{3\over 8\pi\beta^2}\
\cos\vartheta \ \ ^1N(10;10) \nonumber \\
&&\rho^{H_1}_{\{S,V,T,A\}}(s,t) = 0 \\
\label{SpecFunc}
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with $\beta^2\equiv E^2(p)/m_N^2$ and $\alpha^2\equiv \beta^2-1$.
\subsection{Microscopic model for the $N\overline N\to\pi\rho$ process}
The determination of the spectral functions $\rho_i$ requires the
knowledge of the transition amplitude $t_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}$
including $\pi\rho$ correlations. In our dynamical model whose
structure is visualized in Fig.~\ref{figVPVGT} this quantity is obtained
from
\begin{equation}
t_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}=v_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}+ \,v_{N\overline
N\to\pi\rho} G_{\pi\rho}T_{\pi\rho\to\pi\rho}\ ,
\label{nnprlse}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $v_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}$ is the transition potential specified
later, $G_{\pi\rho}$ is chosen to be the Blankenbecler-Sugar
\cite{Blankenbecler66} propagator of the $\pi\rho$ system, and
$T_{\pi\rho\to\pi\rho}$ is the $\pi\rho\to\pi\rho$ amplitude essentially
taken from the dynamical model \cite{JanssenPRC94}. After partial wave
decomposition Eq.~(\ref{nnprlse}) reads more explicitly, in the helicity
state basis,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&t^J(k \lambda_\rho; p \lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t) = v^J(k
\lambda_\rho; p \lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t) \nonumber \\ &&
\ \ + \sum_{\lambda_\rho'}\int_0^\infty dk' k'^2
{\omega_\rho(k')+\omega_\pi(k')\over
(2\pi)^32\,\omega_\rho(k')\omega_\pi(k')} \ {v^J(k' \lambda_\rho'; p
\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t)\; T^J(k
\lambda_\rho;k'\lambda_\rho';\sqrt t) \over
t-(\omega_\rho(k')+\omega_\pi(k'))^2} \quad .
\end{eqnarray}
\subsubsection{The transition potential $v_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}$.}
Our model for the transition potential $v_{N\overline N\to\pi\rho}$ is
based on nucleon and $\Delta$ exchange, together with an $\omega$ pole
term (Fig.~\ref{fignnprpot}). In principle, further pole terms exist in
the channels considered in this work which are, however, not included in
the present calculations for the following reasons: In case of the pion,
its mass lies far below the $\pi\rho$ threshold so that such a diagram
has a negligible influence on the dispersion integral,
Eq.~(\ref{Disp}). In case of the $A_1$ and $H_1$ little is known about
their coupling strength to the nucleon. On the other hand, the (bare)
$\omega NN$ coupling constant can be fixed by adjusting the final result
to the empirical $NN$ repulsion (see below).
The starting point for the evaluation of the corresponding potential
expressions is the set of interaction Lagrangians
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}_{\pi NN}&=&\frac{f_{\pi NN}}{m_\pi}\overline\psi\gamma^5
\gamma^\mu\vec\tau\partial_\mu\vec\pi\psi \nonumber \\
\noalign{\vskip5pt} {\cal L}_{\rho NN}&=&g_{\rho NN}\ \overline
\psi\left[\gamma^\mu\vec \tau\psi\vec\rho_\mu
+\frac{\kappa}{4m_N}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\vec\tau(\partial_\mu\vec
\rho_\nu-\partial_\nu \vec\rho_\mu)\right]\psi \nonumber \\
\noalign{\vskip5pt} {\cal L}_{\pi \Delta N}&=&\frac{f_{\pi \Delta
N}}{m_\pi}\overline\psi \vec {\cal T}\psi_\mu\partial^\mu\vec \pi \ +\
h.c. \nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt} {\cal L}_{\rho \Delta
N}&=&\frac{f_{\rho \Delta N}}{m_\rho}\overline\psi i \gamma^5\gamma^\mu
\vec {\cal T}\psi^\nu (\partial_\mu\vec \rho_\nu-\partial_\nu \vec
\rho_\mu)\ +\ h.c. \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt} {\cal
L}_{\omega NN}&=&g_{\omega NN}\ \overline
\psi\gamma^\mu\omega_\mu\psi\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt} {\cal
L}_{\omega\pi\rho}&=&g_{\omega\pi\rho}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\tau}
\partial_\mu\omega_\nu\partial_\sigma\vec\rho_\tau\vec\pi
\label{Lagr}
\end{eqnarray}
We then obtain for the structure of the potential matrix elements
\medskip
\noindent
nucleon exchange:
\begin{equation}
v_s= i\;f\,F^2\,\frac{f_{NN\pi}g_{NN\rho}}{m_\pi}\ \frac{\bar v(q_2)
\left\{ \gamma^5 k\hspace{-5pt}/ _2\ [p\hspace{-5pt}/_x+m_N]\
(\epsilon\hspace{-5pt}/^*- \frac{\kappa}{4m_N}k\hspace{-5pt}/_1
\epsilon\hspace{-5pt}/^* +\frac{\kappa}{4m_N}\epsilon\hspace{-5pt}/^*
k\hspace{-5pt}/_1 ) \right\} u(q_1)}{p_x^2-m_N^2}
\end{equation}
\noindent
$\Delta$ exchange:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&v_s= -i\;f\,F^2\,\frac{f_{N\Delta\pi}g_{N\Delta\rho}}{m_\pi m_\rho}\
\bar v(q_2) \ (k_2)_\mu\ S^{\mu\nu}\ \gamma^5\gamma^\sigma \
[(k_1)_\nu\epsilon^*_\sigma-(k_1)_\sigma\epsilon^*_\nu]\ u(q_1)
\nonumber \\ &&\
S^{\mu\nu}=\frac{p\hspace{-5pt}/_x+m_\Delta}{p_x^2-m_\Delta^2}
\left\{-g^{\mu\nu}+\frac{1}{3}\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu+\frac{2}{3m_\Delta^2}
p_x^\mu p_x^\nu-\frac{1}{3m_\Delta}(p_x^\mu p_x^\nu-p_x^\nu
p_x^\mu)\right\} \ \ \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
$\omega$ exchange:
\begin{equation}
v_t=-f\,F^2\,\frac{g^{(0)}_{\pi\rho\omega}g^{(0)}_{NN\omega}}
{m_\omega}\ \frac{\sqrt t}{p_x^2-(m^{(0)}_\omega)^2} \
\epsilon^{0\nu\sigma\tau}\,(k_1)_\sigma\,\epsilon^*_\tau\ \bar
v(q_2)\,\gamma_\nu\,u(q_1)
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $k_1$ ($k_2$) and $q_1$ ($q_2$) denote the four-momenta of the
$\rho$($\pi$) and nucleon (antinucleon), respectively. $p_x$ is the
momentum of the exchanged particle; for the $\omega$ exchange term, in
the cm system, $p_x=(\sqrt t, 0)$. $\epsilon^*$ is the polarization
vector for the outgoing $\rho$ meson. $F^2$ denotes the product of
vertex form factors, for which we used
\begin{eqnarray}
s{\rm-channel:}\ \ \ &&F^2=\left ( \frac{2\Lambda_{\pi
NX}^2-M^2_X}{2\Lambda_{\pi NX}^2-p_x^2} \right )^2 \left (
\frac{2\Lambda_{\rho NX}^2-M^2_X}{2\Lambda_{\pi NX}^2-p_x^2} \right )^2
\nonumber \\ t{\rm-channel:} \ \ \ \ &&F^2=\left( \frac{\Lambda_{\pi\rho
X}^2+m^2_X} {\Lambda_{\pi\rho X}^2+[\omega_\pi(k)+\omega_\rho(k)]^2}
\right )^2 \left( \frac{2\Lambda_{NN\, X}^2+m^2_X}{2\Lambda_{NN\,
X}^2+4E(p_x)^2} \right )^2 \ \ , \nonumber \\
\label{ffnnpr}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $X$ stands for the exchanged particle. $f$ denotes the isospin
factor; corresponding values are given in Table~\ref{tabparaI}. The
coupling constants are either experimentally known or fixed from our
former studies. An exception is the bare $\omega NN$ coupling
$g^{(0)}_{\omega NN}$ which, as mentioned before, will be fixed
later. Values for coupling constants and cutoff masses used are given in
Table~\ref{tabparaII}. [The $s$-channel cutoff masses have been
adjusted to reproduce the overall strength of $N\overline N \to\pi\rho$
potential used in earlier studies~\cite{Mull91}. This potential
produces good agreement with empirical information above the $N\overline
N$ threshold, but is based on a different off-shell behavior
(time-ordered perturbation theory rather than BbS).] The zero-th
components of momenta are determined by the BbS reduction \cite{Aaron76}
to be $q_1^0=q_2^0=\sqrt t/2$, $k_1^0=\frac{1}{2}[\sqrt
t+\omega_\rho(k)-\omega_\pi(k)]$, and $k_2^0=\frac{1}{2}[\sqrt
t+\omega_\pi(k)-\omega_\rho(k)]$. The potential matrix elements are then
decomposed into LSJ partial waves in the standard way. Further
$u$-channel diagrams arising from $N$ and $\Delta$ exchange can be taken
into account by adding a factor of 2 in the (partial wave) $s$-channel
contributions.
\subsubsection{The amplitude $T_{\pi\rho\to\pi\rho}$.}
Our model for the correlation amplitude $T_{\pi\rho\to\pi\rho}$
\cite{JanssenPRC94} is generated from the three-dimensional BbS
\cite{Blankenbecler66} scattering equation
\begin{equation}
T({\bf k'},{\bf k};E)=V({\bf k'},{\bf k};E)+ \int\,d\,^3\,k''\, V({\bf
k'},{\bf k''};E) G({\bf k''};E)T({\bf k''},{\bf k};E) \ ,
\label{LSE}
\end{equation}
\noindent ($\bf k$, $\bf
k'$, $\bf k''$ are corresponding cm relative momenta) with the potential
$V$ containing the diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{figformI}. It contains,
besides non-pole pieces, pole terms with bare parameters (masses,
coupling constants) which are renormalized by the iteration in
Eq.~(\ref{LSE}) and in this way acquire their physical properties.
Basic interaction Lagrangians have been taken from the nonlinear
$\sigma$-model in the meson sector where the vector mesons are
introduced as gauge bosons of a hidden $SU(2)$ or $SU(3)$ symmetry. In
this way one obtains the coupling of the $\rho$ to the $\pi$ meson and
to itself, i.e.\ ${\cal L}_{\pi\pi\rho}$ and ${\cal L}_{\rho\rho\rho}$ ,
with a unified value for the coupling constants. Note that we have left
out a corresponding pion pole term. The reason is the very small pion
mass lying far below the $\pi\rho$ threshold, so that such a diagram
should have a negligible influence in the dispersion integral,
Eq.~(\ref{Disp}).
In addition to the model presented in Ref. \cite{JanssenPRC94} the
present calculations include the $H_1$ ($J^P=1^+$, $I^G=0^-$) channel;
therefore $V$ now contains an $H_1$-pole term. The corresponding
expression is analogous to the $A_1$-term, see \cite{JanssenPRC94}, with
the isospin factor $f=3\delta_{I,0}$, bare coupling constant
$(g^{(0)}_{H_1 \pi\rho})^2/4\pi=1.3$ and bare mass $m^{(0)}_{H_1}$ =
1100 MeV. As Fig.~\ref{figformII} shows, we obtain a reasonable
description of the $H_1$ mass distribution, although compared to the
$A_1$ case the model underestimates the empirical situation somewhat.
Still, the rough agreement should be sufficient to estimate the
relevance of the $H_1$ channel for the correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange
$NN$ interaction.
\subsection{$NN$ interaction arising from correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange}
\label{sect:NNpot}
In the last section we specified the dynamical model for the $N\overline
N \to\pi\rho$ amplitude, which yields the spectral functions
$\rho(s,t)$, Eq.~(\ref{SpecFunc}). The dispersion integral,
Eq.~(\ref{Disp}), then determines the invariant amplitudes
$c_j(t,s;t<0)$ and thus the scattering operator $\hat T$
(Eq.~(\ref{expans})). The various $NN$ potential contributions are then
obtained by sandwiching $\hat T$ between in- and outgoing spinors (cf.\
Eq.~(\ref{invampI})).
Such a calculation can be directly pursued for the $\pi$ and $A_1$
channel since these spectral functions do not depend on $\cos\vartheta$,
which is, in terms of the Mandelstam variables,
\begin{equation}
\cos\vartheta \ = \ {4m_N^2-t-2s \over t-4m_N^2}\ = \ {u-s \over
t-4m_N^2} \ \ .
\label{cos}
\end{equation}
When transforming into the $NN$ channel, corresponding values for $s>4
m_N^2$ have to be inserted, and, in principle, the $t$-dependence in
$\cos\vartheta$ should be integrated over in the dispersion
integral. However, it is then not guaranteed that the typical structure
of $s$-channel vector meson exchange is obtained. Namely, starting from
the conventional vector meson Lagrangian,
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}\ = \ g\, \bar \psi\gamma^\mu\psi\, V_\mu \;+\; f/4m_N\;\bar
\psi \sigma^{\mu\nu}\psi\,(\partial_\mu\,V_\nu
-\partial_\nu\,V_\mu)\quad,
\end{equation}
\noindent
one obtains for the scattering operator ($m_V$ is the mass of the vector
meson)
\begin{equation}
{\hat T} \, = \, {1\over t-m_V^2} \left\{g^2\,[-V]-gf\,[\,V+{u-s\over
4m_N^2}S+{t\over 8m_N^2}T +{u-s\over 4m_N^2}P\,]-f^2\,[\,{t\over 8m_N^2}
T + {u-s\over 4m_N^2}P\,]\right\} \ \ .
\label{Vectexneu}
\end{equation}
Obviously a characteristic factor $u-s \sim \cos\vartheta$ occurs in
front of the invariants $S$ and $P$ as well as a factor $t$ in front of
$T$. This structure is, for the case of $\rho$ exchange, of decisive
importance for a correct behavior of the $NN$ interaction. However,
since we have to apply approximations when evaluating the dispersion
integral (by introducing a cutoff $t_c = 4m_N^2$), this structure is not
automatically obtained when doing a straightforward
calculation. Therefore we decided to transform these factors directly
into the $NN$ channel and to apply the dispersion integral for the
remaining part of the spectral functions. (In a more formal language,
new invariant operators have to be defined which include these factors.)
Trivially the results are then forced to have the structure of
$s$-channel vector meson exchange.
Another important modification of the above formulas remains to be
introduced. So far, by construction (see Fig.~\ref{figVPVGT}), our
results contain not only the correlated part we are interested in, but
also the uncorrelated contribution, cf.\ Fig.~\ref{figintI}. Therefore
the latter has to be removed. We do this by subtracting the Born term
part of the $^JN$ functions of Eq.~(\ref{LSJamps}), which leads to new
functions $^JN_{corr}$ given by
\begin{equation}
^JN_{corr}(00;00)=-C[(t^0_{0+})^\dagger t^0_{0+}-(v^0_{0+})^\dagger
v^0_{0+}]
\end{equation}
\noindent
for the pion and analogous extensions for the other channels. These new
functions $^JN_{corr}$ are actually used when evaluating the spectral
functions by means of Eq.~(\ref{SpecFunc}).
We still have to transform the isospin part of the $N\overline N\to
N\overline N$ amplitude into the $s$-channel. Resulting isospin factors
are provided by the isospin crossing matrix~\cite{Martin70}. In general
we have
\begin{eqnarray}
&&f^{I=0}_{NN} = {1\over 2}(f^{I=0}_{N\overline N} -3f^{I=1}_{N\overline
N}) \nonumber \\ &&f^{I=1}_{NN} = {1\over 2}(f^{I=0}_{N\overline N}
+f^{I=1}_{N\overline N})
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
for the connection of isospin factors in both channels. The factors for
our $N\overline N\to N\overline N$ amplitude are already implicitly
taken into account by including corresponding factors in $v_{N\overline
N \to \pi\rho}$ and $T_{\pi\rho\to\pi\rho}$. For the (isospin zero)
$\omega$ and $H_1$ channels we thus have $f^I_{N\overline
N}=\delta_{I,0}$ whereas in $\pi$ and $A_1$ we have $f^I_{N\overline
N}=\delta_{I,1}$. Therefore our final result for the correlated
$\pi\rho$ exchange $NN$ potential can be written as operator in isospin
space in the following way:
\begin{equation}
V_{\pi\rho,corr}=\frac{\kappa}{2}\sum_i \left [ \sum_{\alpha=\omega,H_1}
\int^{t_c}_{(m_\pi+m_\rho)^2}dt' \frac{\rho^\alpha_i(t')}{t'-t} C_i {\bf
1} +\sum_{\beta=\pi,A_1} \int^{t_c}_{(m_\pi+m_\rho)^2}dt'
\frac{\rho^\beta_i(t')}{t'-t} C_i {\bf \tau}_1\cdot {\bf \tau}_2 \right
] \quad,
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $C_i$, according to the foregoing discussion, are matrix elements
between nucleon helicity spinors of slightly modified invariants
$(u-s)S$, $(u-s)P$, $V$, $A$, $tT$. The factor
$\kappa=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{m_N^2}{\sqrt{E_1E_1'E_2E_2'}}$ arises
because $V_{\pi\rho,corr}$ is to be defined as part of the Bonn
potential whose $T$-matrix is defined by
\begin{equation}
S_{fi}=\delta_{fi}-i\,2\pi\,\delta^{(4)}(p_1'+p_2'-p_1-p_2) T_{fi} \ .
\end{equation}
In order to be used in a scattering equation the resulting potential
must be given off shell, as function of the in- and outgoing cm relative
momenta and total energy in the $s$ ($NN$) channel, i.e.\ $V =
V(p',p;E_{cm})$. On shell, for $p'=p=p_0$ with $E_{cm}^2 =
4(m_N^2+p_0^2)$, the relation of these variables to the Mandelstam
variables is unique and given by
\begin{eqnarray}
s&=&4E(p)^2 \nonumber \\ t&=&-2p^2(1-\cos\vartheta) \nonumber \\
u&=&-2p^2(1+\cos\vartheta) \ .
\label{on}
\end{eqnarray}
Half-off-shell, i.e.\ for $p'\ne p$, we take the plausible prescription
$t=-({\bf p}-{\bf p'})^2$ and $s=4E(p)E(p')$, which of course agrees
with Eq.~(\ref{on}) on shell. Dependence on the starting energy is
assumed to be of the same type as in time-ordered perturbation theory
applied in the Bonn potential. Here the propagator of an exchanged meson
reads
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\omega\, (E_{cm}-E(p)-E(p')-\omega)} \ .
\vspace{0.3cm}
\end{equation}
In order to obtain a natural generalization of this expression we first
define the `on-mass-shell energy of an exchanged $\pi\rho$ system',
$\Omega\equiv\sqrt{t'+({\bf p}-{\bf p'})^2}=\sqrt{t'-t}$ and replace the
energy denominator of the dispersion integral by the on-shell-equivalent
expression
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{t'-t}\to\frac{1}{\Omega\, (E_{cm}-E(p)-E(p')-\Omega)} \ .
\vspace{0.3cm}
\end{equation}
Finally the resulting potentials have to fall off sufficiently rapidly
in order to be able to solve the scattering equation. For this reason we
introduce an additional form factor, $\left
(\frac{n\Lambda^2-m^2}{n\Lambda^2-t}\right )^n \to\left
(\frac{n\Lambda^2-t'}{n\Lambda^2-t} \right )^n$, with $\Lambda=$5 GeV,
$n$=5, into the dispersion integral. The large cutoff mass chosen
ensures that the results are not modified on shell.
\subsection{Determination of effective coupling constants and masses}
\label{sect:effcoup}
It is convenient to parametrize our correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange
results in terms of single, sharp-mass effective meson exchange, as done
for the analogous case of correlated $\pi\pi$ in the $NN$ \cite{Kim94}
and $\pi N$ \cite{Schuetz94} system. For reasons to be discussed below,
this can only be done successfully for the $\pi$ and $\omega$ channel
contributions. For an effective $\pi'$ the scattering operator reads
\begin{equation}
\hat T= -g_{\pi'NN}^2\, \vec \tau_1\vec\tau_2\, \frac{1}
{t-m_{\pi'}^2}\, P
\end{equation}
For the $\omega'$, the expression has already been given in
Eq.~(\ref{Vectexneu}). By comparison of the coefficients belonging to
the invariants with the corresponding dispersion-theoretic terms one can
determine an effective coupling constant, which will in general be
$t$-dependent. For example we have for the pionic channel
\begin{equation}
-g_{\pi'NN}^2(t)\;\frac{1}{t-m_{\pi'}^2}\ = \ \frac{1}{2} \left [
{1\over\pi}\int\limits_{(m_\pi+m_\rho)^2}^\infty {\rho^\pi_P(t')\over
t'-t} dt'\right ]\ \ ,
\end{equation}
The effective mass $m_{\pi'}$ is chosen such that $g_{\pi' NN}$ becomes
essentially independent of $t$. It turns out that for the $H_1$ channel
such a mass cannot be found. For channels involving several invariants,
different coupling constants (and masses) are obtained which depend on
the specific invariant for which the comparison is made. Obviously such
a parametrization is successful if the resulting values only weakly (if
at all) depend on the invariant chosen. This is the case for the
$\omega$-channel but not for the $A_1$-channel.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{sect:results}
Having introduced the necessary formalism for the evaluation of
correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange we now present the results and investigate
their consequences for the $NN$ interaction. We start with the results
obtained in the $t$-channel, i.e.\ for the $N\overline N \to\pi\rho$
amplitude and the spectral functions. We then discuss the properties of
the resulting potential contribution, which is obtained from the
(dispersion-theoretic) transformation into the $s$-channel, and point
out its role within the Bonn meson exchange $NN$ interaction
\cite{Machleidt87}.
\subsection{The $\pi$ channel}
The pionic channel of correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange is of special
importance. As mentioned in the introduction it is a natural candidate
to provide additional (short ranged) tensor force required to fit
empirical $NN$ data with models using a realistic, soft $\pi NN$ form
factor.
Fig.~\ref{figresI} shows the $N\overline N \to\pi\rho$ (on-shell)
potential $v_{N\overline N \to\pi\rho}$ and the corresponding amplitude
$t_{N\overline N \to\pi\rho}$ obtained from Eq.~(\ref{nnprlse}), which
contains the effect of $\pi\rho$ correlations. The purely imaginary
potential has a strong increase at the pseudophysical $\pi\rho$
threshold and a maximum near $t=50m_\pi^2$. $\pi\rho$ correlations
strengthen this maximum; in addition they generate a real part in the
amplitude. Note that these modifications act quadratically in the $NN\to
NN$ amplitude and therefore also in the $NN$ potential, so that the
final effect of $\pi\rho$ correlations is stronger than
Fig.~\ref{figresI} suggests.
Indeed, the spectral function $\rho_P^\pi(t)$ in Fig.~\ref{figresII}
demonstrates that the piece due to correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange has a
considerable strength, although it is smaller than the uncorrelated part
generated by the transition potential only. One has to keep in mind that
a good part of the latter contribution consists of iterative $\pi\rho$
box diagrams involving $NN$ intermediate states, which are not part of
$V_{NN}$ but are generated by the $NN$ scattering equation. Consequently
the role of uncorrelated processes in $V_{NN}$ is considerably smaller
than suggested from the figure.
The spectral function of the correlated part has a clear maximum at
about $t$=60 $m_\pi^2$, thus representing the mass distribution of a
broad, heavy effective particle with pionic quantum numbers. A rough
parametrization of this contribution by sharp-mass particle exchange
appears to require a mass of about 1 GeV, noticeably smaller than chosen
in Ref. \cite{Holinde90} for the phenomenological $\pi'$.
In the $s$-channel we first demonstrate the influence of the resulting
on-shell potentials in the $^3S_1-\,^3D_1$ and $^1S_0$ partial waves as
function of the nucleon lab energy. In Fig.~\ref{figresIII} the dotted
and dashed curves show the corresponding one-pion-exchange (OPE)
potentials; obviously there is a strong suppression of OPEP when the
$\pi NN$ cutoff mass is reduced from the value of 1.3 GeV used in the
full Bonn potential to 1 GeV. Most importantly, the addition of the
potential due to correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange in the pionic channel to
the dotted curve restores the original tensor force strength; obviously
it is able to counterbalance the suppression induced by the smaller $\pi
NN$ cutoff mass. The $^3S_1-\,^3D_1$ partial wave is of special
importance in this connection since it exclusively contains a tensor
force component, which is decisive for a realistic description of
deuteron properties.
It should be added that the above result is in remarkable agreement with
a previous calculation of the $\pi NN$ form factor \cite{JanssenPRL94},
Fig.~\ref{figresIV}, which consistently used the same $\pi\rho$
$t$-matrix and $N\overline N \to\pi\rho$ transition potential, and
independently arrived at $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ = 1 GeV.
As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sect:effcoup}, correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange
in the $\pi$ and $\omega$ channels can be parametrized by sharp-mass
one-boson-exchange (OBE) potentials, provided that the effective
coupling constants are allowed to become
$t$-dependent. Fig.~\ref{figresV} shows such coupling constants for the
exchange of a heavy $\pi'$ for various chosen masses of $\pi'$.
Obviously the coupling becomes $t$-independent for a mass of 1020 MeV,
quite near the maximum of the correlated spectral function in
Fig.~\ref{figresII}, and the resulting coupling constant is $g_{\pi'
NN}^2/4\pi\simeq 9$. If we choose $m_{\pi'}$ =1200 MeV as in
\cite{Holinde90}, the resulting coupling constant is noticeably
$t$-dependent; its strength is much smaller than used in
\cite{Holinde90}. There are two reasons for this discrepancy: First the
authors of \cite{Holinde90} applied a $\pi' NN$ form factor, which
reduces the strength at $t$=0 (relevant for $NN$ scattering) by more
than a factor of 2. Second, the strength of the $\pi'$ was
phenomenologically chosen in \cite{Holinde90} to compensate for a much
softer $\pi NN$ form factor, with a cutoff mass of 800 MeV. (Indeed a
much smaller value ($g_{\pi' NN}^2/4\pi$= 70) is sufficient to
compensate for a form factor with $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ = 900
MeV~\cite{Haidenbauer94}.) Obviously correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange can
only partly explain the phenomenological $\pi'$; another possible
mechanism is correlated $\pi\sigma$ exchange \cite{Ueda92} (where
$\sigma$ stands for correlated $\pi\pi$ exchange in the S-wave channel).
In order to show that the compensation for a softer $\pi NN$ form factor
by correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange is valid not only for on-shell
potentials, but also for $NN$ amplitudes and observables, we extrapolate
the correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange off shell as described in
Sect.~\ref{sect:NNpot}, add this piece to the (full) Bonn potential
(with a reduced $\pi NN$ cutoff mass of 1 GeV) and solve the
relativistic Schroedinger equation relevant for the Bonn potential. Only
a slight readjustment of the coupling of the isospin-one scalar meson
($\delta$ in \cite{Machleidt87}) in the original Bonn potential is
required in order to obtain again a good description of $NN$ phase
shifts.
As Table~\ref{TABdeut} demonstrates convincingly the deuteron
observables also can be reproduced with a considerably softer $\pi NN$
form factor (characterized by $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ = 1 GeV), provided that
correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange in the pionic channel is included.
\subsection{The $\omega$-channel}
Since the mass of the physical $\omega$-meson is only slightly below the
$\pi\rho$ threshold, genuine pole terms have been included in the
$\pi\rho$ amplitude \cite{JanssenPRC94} as well as in our model for the
transition potential $v_{N\overline N\to \pi\rho}$. As
Fig.~\ref{figresVI}(a) shows, the contribution of such pole terms leads
to a reduction of the (imaginary) transition potential above the
$\pi\rho$ threshold, whose amount depends on the value of the bare
coupling constant $g^{(0)}_{\omega NN}$. (The reason for our choice
$g^{(0)}_{\omega NN}/4\pi$ = 4.40 will be discussed later.)
Fig.~\ref{figresVI}(b) shows the resulting amplitude $t_{N\overline N\to
\pi\rho}$. Similarly to the pionic channel, $\pi\rho$ correlations
enhance the maximum of the amplitude near threshold.
The inclusion of the $\omega$-meson pole terms in our dynamical model
ensures that the imaginary part of the $N\overline N\to N\overline N$
amplitude, and therefore the resulting $NN$ potential, contains, besides
`true' correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange (Fig.~\ref{figresVII}(e)) generated
by the non-pole parts of the corresponding amplitudes, also genuine
$\omega$ exchange processes (Fig.~\ref{figresVII}(a)-(d)).
Corresponding propagators and vertex functions are dressed by $\pi\rho$
loop corrections. For example, the $\omega$ propagator has the
following structure (for details we refer the reader to
\cite{JanssenPRC94}):
\begin{equation}
d=\frac{1}{t-(m^{(0)}_{\omega})^2-\Sigma(t)}, \quad {\rm with}\quad
\Sigma(t)\sim \int f^{(0)} G_{\pi\rho} f \quad,
\label{prop}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $f^{(0)}$ and $f$ are bare and dressed $\omega\to\pi\rho$ vertex
functions, respectively, and $G_{\pi\rho}$ denotes the $\pi\rho$
propagator.
The bare parameters $g_{\omega\pi\rho}^{(0)}$ and $m^{(0)}_\omega$ have
been adjusted such that $d$ has a pole at $t=m_\omega^2$. The imaginary
part of the $N\overline N\to N\overline N$ amplitude, and therefore the
corresponding spectral functions, consist of a $\delta$-function at
$t=m_\omega^2$, which precisely corresponds to the exchange of a
(physical) $\omega$-meson with point-like $\omega NN$ coupling, i.e.\
without any form factor. However it is important to realize that $d$,
and therefore the diagrams in Fig.~\ref{figresVII}(a)-(d), provide a
further contribution, since $\pi\rho$ intermediate states make the
self-energy $\Sigma$ complex above the $\pi\rho$ threshold. Such
intermediate states likewise occur at the vertices in diagrams (b)-(d),
leading to additional contributions to the spectral functions.
Fig.~\ref{figresVIII} shows the resulting spectral functions. Note that
although we assumed the bare $\omega NN$ coupling to be of pure vector
type, small contributions to $\rho_S$, $\rho_T$, and $\rho_P$ occur,
which are generated by the $\pi\rho$ loops in
Fig.~\ref{figresVII}(b)-(d). First we have the $\delta$-function piece
(dashed); above $\pi\rho$ threshold we have additional contributions
from diagrams \ref{figresVII}(a)-(d) (dash-dotted) which have opposite
sign to the $\delta$-function. They act as vertex corrections which
suppress the point-like coupling of $\omega$ exchange and thus generate
a form factor effect. Finally there is a sizable non-pole contribution
(dotted curve); throughout it has opposite sign to the part generated by
the vertex corrections and roughly counterbalances their effect, a fact
found already in the pionic channel.
Again, after presenting the results in the $t$-channel, we now want to
look at the corresponding on-shell potentials in the $s$-channel. Since
we deal with rather short-ranged contributions we show, as two
characteristic examples, the results for the $^1S_0$ and $^3P_1$ partial
waves (Fig.~\ref{figresIX}). Note that the bare $\omega NN$ coupling
($g^{(0)}_{\omega NN}$=4.40), which determines the size of diagrams
(a)-(c), has been chosen such that the total repulsion generated by all
diagrams of Fig.~\ref{figresVII} agrees (at low energies) with the
effective $\omega$ exchange in the Bonn potential needed
empirically. The dashed curves are generated by the $\delta$-functions
in Fig.~\ref{figresVIII}, with a predicted renormalized coupling
constant of $g^2_{\omega NN}$= 11.0. Apparently this contribution alone
provides almost the same repulsion as in the Bonn potential although the
coupling constant is about a factor of 2 smaller. The reason is that the
phenomenological form factor in the Bonn potential, with the monopole
cutoff mass (1.5 GeV) of only twice the $\omega$ mass, leads to a strong
reduction of the coupling constant in the physical region ($g^2_{\omega
NN}$($t$=0)=10.6). The vertex corrections (generated by diagrams
(a)-(d) above $\pi\rho$ threshold) strongly reduce the repulsion in the
physical region, leading to the dash-dotted curve. This suppression is
essentially cancelled by the `true' correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange
(diagram \ref{figresVII} (e)), as already demonstrated for the spectral
functions. Obviously the latter contribution is remarkably strong; it
explains about 40\% of effective $\omega$ exchange.
The new reduced coupling constant (11.0) is still about a factor of 2
larger than provided by customary SU(3) estimates, which use
$g^2_{\omega NN}$= 9$g^2_{\rho NN}$. Thus with $g^2_{\rho NN}/4\pi$=0.55
as determined by Hoehler and Pietarinen \cite{Hoehler75} we have
$g^2_{\omega NN}/4\pi\simeq$5. Note however that the above relation
between $\omega$ and $\rho$ coupling constants is based, apart from
ideal mixing, on the assumption of vanishing $\phi NN$ coupling. For
$g_{\phi NN}$ unequal to zero the above relation goes into
\begin{equation}
g_{NN\omega}=3g_{NN\rho}-\sqrt 2 g_{NN\phi} \ .
\end{equation}
Thus if we take $g_{\phi NN}$= -$g_{\rho NN}$ (which amounts to a rather
small deviation from zero) we have $g^2_{\omega NN}\approx 20 g^2_{\rho
NN}$, in rough agreement with our results. Such a value for the $\phi
NN$ coupling to the nucleon and the negative sign is well conceivable,
if the $\phi$ couples to the nucleon via the $K\overline K$ continuum
\cite{Mullpriv}.
As discussed before, for practical reasons it is convenient to
parametrize also the non-pole contribution of diagram \ref{figresVII}(e)
by an effective one-boson-exchange. Results are shown in
Fig.~\ref{figresX}, for the dominant vector as well as the tensor
coupling. Obviously they can be reasonably represented by $g^2_{\omega'
NN}/4\pi$=8.5, $f_{\omega' NN}/g_{\omega' NN}$=0.4, and
$m_{\omega'}$=1120 MeV. Using the mass of the physical $\omega$ meson
$m_\omega=$782 MeV we find a ($t$-dependent) effective $\omega$ coupling
strength characterized by $g^2_{\omega NN} \simeq$ 4. It is interesting
to note that the suppression of the tensor coupling, in some sense
enforced in the pole terms by assuming the corresponding bare coupling
to be zero, also happens in the non-pole term.
\subsection{The $A_1$/$H_1$-channel}
After the discussion of the $\pi$ and $\omega$ channel we now want to
investigate the $A_1$ and $H_1$ channels together since their structure
is very similar. Compared to the $\pi$ and $\omega$ channels we have
important differences. First the $A_1$ as well as the $H_1$ mass lie
above the $\pi\rho$ threshold, and both particles decay with a very
large width into $\pi\rho$. Consequently their propagators now acquire a
pole in the complex plane. Second, in contrast to the $\pi$ and $\omega$
channels, the Bonn potential \cite{Machleidt87} does not contain
$A_1$/$H_1$ OBE contributions, which could be used to fix the bare $A_1
NN$ and $H_1 NN$ coupling constants, as was done in the $\omega$
channel. Since there is no other {\em a priori} information about these
couplings, we will in this first extrapolatory study, simply put them to
zero, i.e.\ take only diagrams of type \ref{figresVII}(d) and (e) into
account. If, in a later stage, those couplings turn out to be needed
(e.g.\ in order to obtain a quantitative fit to the $NN$ data), they
should be included.
There is a further structural difference which has an enormous impact on
the results and requires an extended discussion. In general, besides the
unitarity cut for $t>(m_\pi +m_\rho)^2$ treated in the dispersion
integral (Eq.~(\ref{Disp})), there exists a left hand cut for $t<t_0$ in
the $N\overline N \to \pi\rho$ amplitude generated by $s$-channel poles
due to nucleon and $\Delta$-isobar exchange (Fig.~\ref{fignnprpot}).
$t_0$ is fixed by the condition $s-m^2_{N/\Delta}$=0. There are two
solutions for each exchange; the largest value (generated by nucleon
exchange) is at $t_0\approx 42 m_\pi^2$, i.e.\ just below the $\pi\rho$
threshold. Consequently this branch point will influence the resulting
potentials near threshold considerably.
In the $\pi$ and $\omega$ channels the corresponding potentials act in
P-waves and are thus proportional to the $\pi\rho$ on-shell momentum
$k_0$, with the effect that the corresponding transition potentials
start to increase first when approaching the threshold, but are then
suppressed by the $k_0$ factor. In this way one obtains the
characteristic structure of a maximum near threshold, which we have
observed in such channels. The point now is that both the $A_1$ and
$H_1$ are $\pi\rho$ S-waves; therefore the transition potentials do not
contain the damping factor $k_0$ anymore. Indeed, Figs.~\ref{figresXII}
and \ref{figresXIII} show the overwhelming effect of the left hand cut
near threshold, in both channels. It essentially remains when $\pi\rho$
correlations (which contain the $A_1$ resonance) are included, although
the influence of the $A_1$ is clearly seen.
Fig.~\ref{figresXIV} shows the resulting spectral functions
$\rho_P^{H_1}$, $\rho_A^{A_1}$, and $\rho_P^{A_1}$. Again the strong
effect of the left hand cut near threshold is obvious. Note also that
for $\rho_P$, $A_1$ and $H_1$ provide roughly similar contributions, but
with opposite sign.
In Fig.~\ref{figresXV} we present the resulting on-shell potentials in
some selected partial waves. For both S-states, the (attractive) $A_1$
contribution strongly dominates the result arising from the $H_1$
channel but is considerably smaller (as far as the modulus is concerned)
compared to the corresponding piece in the $\omega$ channel, cf.\
Fig.~\ref{figresX}. For $^3P_1$ both contributions have opposite sign
and roughly cancel; the total result is negligible compared to the
$\omega$ channel.
In contrast to the $\pi$, $\omega$ channels discussed before, the above
results cannot be suitably parametrized in terms of sharp-mass
exchanges. In case of the $A_1$, no reasonable mass can be found which
works for both spectral functions; moreover all effective coupling
constants become strongly $t$-dependent. The basic reason is again the
dominance of the left hand cut, which destroys the conventional bump
structure of the spectral functions found in other channels of
correlated $\pi\pi$ and $\pi\rho$ exchange.
\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sect:concl}
In this work we have determined the contribution to the $NN$ interaction
due to the exchange of a correlated $\pi\rho$ pair between two
nucleons. The correlations between $\pi$ and $\rho$ have been taken into
account using a realistic meson exchange model of the $\pi\rho$
interaction \cite{JanssenPRC94}. In a first step we evaluated the
$t$-channel amplitude $N\overline N \to N\overline N$ including
$\pi\rho$ correlations. The transformation into the $s$-channel with the
help of dispersion-theoretic methods then yields the correlated
$\pi\rho$ exchange $NN$ potential. We have investigated four relevant
channels of the $\pi\rho$ system characterized by the quantum numbers of
the physical particles $\pi$, $\omega$, $A_1$, and $H_1$.
In the pionic channel correlated $\pi\rho$ exchange yields a
short-ranged contribution, which roughly corresponds to an exchange of a
heavy (effective) $\pi'$ with a mass of about 1 GeV. The additional
tensor force generated by this potential is sufficient to compensate for
a reduction of the $\pi NN$ cutoff mass $\Lambda_{\pi NN}$ from 1.3 GeV
to 1.0 GeV in the one-pion-exchange potential. For basic theoretical
reasons, such a reduction is highly welcome, since various models of
nucleon structure unanimously predict a rather soft $\pi NN$ form factor
characterized by $\Lambda_{\pi NN}\simeq 0.8\ {\rm GeV}$. Such a small
value might be reached if correlated $\pi\sigma$ exchange is included,
too, which is also missing in the Bonn potential. (As usual, $\sigma$
stands for a low mass correlated $\pi\pi$ pair in the $0^+$ channel.)
Thus it appears that in the Bonn potential~\cite{Machleidt87} the
one-pion-exchange potential together with a hard form factor is an
effective description of `true' one-pion exchange (with a soft form
factor) plus correlated $\pi\rho$ (and $\pi\sigma$) exchange in the
pionic channel.
In the $\omega$ channel, the exchange of a correlated $\pi\rho$ pair
also provides a sizable contribution to the $NN$ interaction. Since the
$\omega$ mass is near the $\pi\rho$ threshold we have included the
genuine $\omega$-meson explicitly and replaced the (effective) $\omega$
exchange in the Bonn potential by the resulting correlated $\pi\rho$
potential, which can be decomposed into a pole and a non-pole piece. The
former provides a microscopic model for `true' $\omega$ exchange leading
to a renormalized $\omega NN$ coupling constant, $g^2_{\omega NN}/4\pi$
= 11.0, which is about a factor of two smaller than the effective value
of 20 used in the Bonn potential. Thus `true' correlated $\pi\rho$
exchange (Fig.~\ref{figintI}(e)) provides almost half of the empirical
repulsion needed in the $NN$ interaction; it can be parametrized by
sharp-mass $\omega'$ exchange with $g^2_{\omega'NN}\simeq 8.5$,
$f_{\omega' NN}/g_{\omega' NN}\simeq$ 0.4 and $m_{\omega '}\simeq$ 1120
MeV.
Our present result for the $\omega$ coupling constant ($g_{\omega
NN}^2\approx 20 g_{\rho NN}^2 $) is well compatible with $SU(3)$,
provided that there exists a small, negative $\phi NN$ coupling of
vector type, with the magnitude of the order of the
$\rho$-coupling. Such a $\phi NN$ coupling (especially the required
negative sign) occurs naturally if it is supposed to arise via the
$K\overline K$ continuum. Although corresponding $\phi$ exchange in the
$NN$ interaction provides only a small contribution to the repulsion, it
makes the above relation between $\omega$ and $\rho$ couplings agree
with $SU(3)$ predictions. Consequently there appears to be little room
for explicit quark-gluon effects in being responsible for the
short-range $NN$ repulsion.
Additional contributions arise in the $A_1$ and $H_1$ channels. They are
sizable individually, mainly due to left-hand cut effects arising from
nucleon and $\Delta$ exchange in a $\pi\rho$ S-wave. However, in some
partial waves strong cancellations occur between the $A_1$ and $H_1$
contributions. Further contributions are, in principle, generated by
direct coupling of the $A_1$/$H_1$ to the nucleon. The size of such
couplings is, however, not known; these terms are therefore omitted in
the present work. It remains to be seen whether a precise fit of the
$NN$ observables requires such terms and thereby establishes their
existence.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Determination of spectral functions}
In this appendix we derive Eq.~(\ref{SpecFunc}) of the main text, which
provides the connection between the spectral functions needed in
Eq.~(\ref{Disp}) and the imaginary part of the $N\overline N\to
N\overline N$ amplitude in the LSJ basis ($^JN$) obtained from the
unitarity relation (Eq.~(\ref{unit})). For the latter it was necessary
to work in the LSJ basis in order to identify the allowed $N\overline N
\to \pi\rho$ transitions. In order to establish the connection to the
spectral functions however, matrix elements of the invariants $\hat C_j$
are required, which is most suitably done in the helicity state basis.
The imaginary part of the $N\overline N\to N \overline N$ amplitude is
now defined by (cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{UniRel}) for the analogous definition in
LSJ basis) $^JN( \lambda_N' \lambda_{\overline
N}';\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N})\equiv {\rm Im}\,T^J (p' \lambda_N'
\lambda_{\overline N}'; p \lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N};\sqrt t)$ and
the relation between LSJ and helicity basis amplitudes is given by the
standard expressions (cf.\ \cite{Machleidt87})
\begin{eqnarray}
^J N_1&=&\ \frac{1}{2}\ ^JN(J0;J0)+a^2\ ^JN(J-1 1;J-11)-ab\
^JN(J+11;J-11) \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ -ab\ ^JN(J-11;J+11)+b^2 \
^JN(J+11;J+11) \nonumber \\ ^JN_2&=&-\frac{1}{2}\ ^JN(J0;J0) +a^2\
^JN(J-1 1;J-11)-ab\ ^JN(J+11;J-11) \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ -ab\
^JN(J-11;J+11)+b^2 \ ^JN(J+11;J+11) \nonumber \\ ^J N_3&=&\ \
\frac{1}{2}\ {^JN(J1;J1)}+b^2\ ^JN(J-1 1;J-11)+ab\ ^JN(J+11;J-11)
\nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ +ab\ ^JN(J-11;J+11)+a^2 \ ^JN(J+11;J+11)
\nonumber \\ ^JN_4&=&-\frac{1}{2}\ {^JN(J1;J1)}+b^2\ ^JN(J-1 1;J-11)+ab\
^JN(J+11;J-11) \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ +ab\ ^JN(J-11;J+11)+a^2 \
^JN(J+11;J+11) \nonumber \\ ^J N_5&=&\ \ ab \ ^JN(J-1 1;J-11)-b^2\
^JN(J+11;J-11) +a^2\ ^JN(J-11;J+11) \nonumber \\ && \ \ \ \ -ab \
^JN(J+11;J+11) \nonumber \\ ^JN_6 &=&\ ^JN_5 \ \ \ \ (\rm on-shell)
\label{bla}
\end{eqnarray}
where we used the short-hand notation for the $^JN$ amplitudes defined
in Table~\ref{bull} and
\begin{equation}
a=\sqrt{{J\over 2(2J+1)}} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ b=\sqrt{{J+1 \over 2(2J+1)}} \ \
{}.
\end{equation}
\noindent
The various channel contributions to ${\rm Im} T({\bf
p'}\lambda_N'\lambda_{\overline N}'; {\bf p} \lambda_N\lambda_{\overline
N};\sqrt t)$ are then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi:&& N_i\equiv N( \lambda_N' \lambda_{\overline
N}';\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N})\equiv
\frac{1}{4\pi}d^0_{\lambda\lambda'}(\cos\vartheta)\ ^0N( \lambda_N'
\lambda_{\overline N}';\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N})
\equiv\frac{1}{4\pi}d^0_{\lambda\lambda'}(\cos\vartheta)\ ^0N_i
\nonumber \\ \omega,A_1,H_1:&& N_i\equiv N( \lambda_N'
\lambda_{\overline N}';\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N})\equiv
\frac{3}{4\pi}d^1_{\lambda\lambda'}(\cos\vartheta)\ ^1 N(\lambda_N'
\lambda_{\overline N}';\lambda_N\lambda_{\overline N}) \equiv
\frac{3}{4\pi}d^1_{\lambda\lambda'}(\cos\vartheta)\ ^1N_i \nonumber \\
\end{eqnarray}
We now define a vector $ {\bf N}^\alpha=\left (
\begin{array}{ccccc}
N_1^\alpha & N_2 ^\alpha& N_3^\alpha & N_4^\alpha & N_5^\alpha \\
\end{array}
\right ) $, $\alpha=\pi,\omega,A_1, H_1$,
\noindent
and use Eqs.~(\ref{LSJamps}) and (\ref{bla}) to express its components
in terms of the LSJ amplitudes $^JN(L'S';LS)$ for each of the
contributing channels. We obtain
\begin{equation}
{\bf N}^\pi=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{8\pi}\ ^0N(00;00) \\-\frac{1}{8\pi}\ ^0N(00;00) \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{array}
\right ) \quad,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf N}^{A_1}=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\ 0 \\ \frac{3(1+\cos\vartheta)}{16\pi}\ ^1N(11;11) \\
\frac{3(-1+\cos\vartheta)}{16\pi}\ ^1N(11;11) \\ 0
\end{array}
\right ) \quad ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf N}^{H_1}=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{3\cos\vartheta}{8\pi}\ ^1N(00;00) \\ -\frac{3\cos\vartheta}{8\pi}\
^1N(00;00) \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{array}
\right ) ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
{\bf N}^\omega=\left (
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{3}{4\pi}\cos\vartheta [\frac{1}{6}\ ^1N(01;01)
-\sqrt{\frac{2}{9}}\ ^1N(01;21)+\frac{1}{3}\ ^1N(21;21)] \\
\frac{3}{4\pi}[\frac{1}{6}\ ^1N(01;01) -\sqrt{\frac{2}{9}}\
^1N(01;21)+\frac{1}{3}\ ^1N(21;21)] \\
\frac{1}{16\pi}(1+\cos\vartheta)[2\ ^1N(01;01) +2\sqrt{2}\ ^1N(01;21)+\
^1N(21;21)] \\ -\frac{1}{16\pi}(-1+\cos\vartheta)[2\ ^1N(01;01)
+2\sqrt{2}\ ^1N(01;21)+\ ^1N(21;21)] \\ \frac{1}{16\pi}\sin\vartheta[-2\
^1N(01;01) +\sqrt{2}\ ^1N(01;21)+2\ ^1N(21;21)]
\end{array}
\right )\ \ .
\end{equation}
The decomposition of the imaginary part of Eq.~(\ref{expans}) can now be
written for the helicity state matrix-elements in matrix notation
\begin{equation}
{\bf N}^{\pi,\omega,A_1,H_1} =\left (
\begin{array}{ccccc}
S_1 & V_1 & T_1 & P_1 & A_1 \\ S_2 & V_2 & T_2 & P_2 & A_2 \\ S_3 & V_3
& T_3 & P_3 & A_3 \\ S_4 & V_4 & T_4 & P_4 & A_4 \\ S_5 & V_5 & T_5 &
P_5 & A_5
\end{array}
\right ){\bf R}\equiv {\bf M} {\bf R}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where ${\bf R}=(\rho_S \ \rho_V \ \rho_T \ \rho_P \ \rho_A)$. $S_i$,
$V_i$, $T_i$, $P_i$, and $A_i$ are helicity state matrix-elements of the
Fermi invariants using the same indexing as for the $N$ amplitudes and
we find
\begin{equation}
{\bf M} =\left (
\begin{array}{ccccc}
\beta^2-1 & -\cos\vartheta& -2\cos\vartheta & -\beta^2 & 1 \\ \beta^2-1
& -\cos\vartheta& 2\cos\vartheta(-2\beta^2+1) & \beta^2 & -1 \\ 0 &
-\beta^2(1+\cos\vartheta) & -2(1+\cos\vartheta) & 0 &
-(\beta^2-1)(1+\cos\vartheta) \\ 0 & -\beta^2(1-\cos\vartheta) &
-2(1-\cos\vartheta) & 0 & (\beta^2-1)(1-\cos\vartheta) \\ 0 &
\beta\sin\vartheta & 2\beta\sin\vartheta & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right )
\end{equation}
The spectral functions are then simply obtained by calculating ${\bf R
}={\bf M}^{-1}{\bf N}^{\pi,\omega,A_1,H_1}$ yielding the result of
Eq.~(\ref{SpecFunc}).
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Scaled Phase Space}
The most important constraint on any calculation of
pions from proton-antiproton annihilation at rest
is that of energy momentum conservation. That is,
the rate for finding $n$ pions of three-momenta
$\mbox{\bf k}_i$, with $i=1...n$, should be proportional
to the differential
phase space factor $\rho_n(s, \{\mbox{\bf k}_i\})$ given
by
\begin{equation}
\rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\}) = \delta^4(k_t -\sum_{i=1}^n k_i)
\prod_{i=2}^n \frac{d^3\mbox{\bf k}_i}{2 \omega_i}
\end{equation}
where $s = (k_t)^2$, $k_t$ is the total four-momentum of the
annihilating pair and $\omega_i$ is the energy of the
$i$-th pion, $\omega_i= \sqrt{\mbox{\bf k}_i^2+\mu^2}$, with
$\mu$ the pion mass. For annihilation at rest
$k_t = (2M, \mbox{\bf 0})$, with $M$ the nucleon
mass. The ``phase space only" (PSO) assumption is that
all other aspects of the annihilation process depend
very weakly on $\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\}$ so that the entire dependence
is given by $\rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\})$. For example
the single pion momentum spectrum for
$n$ pions is obtained by integrating $\rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\})$
over all but one of the final momenta. We will return
below to the result of that integration.
If we want to compare the branching ratio for
$n$ to that for $n+1$ pions we observe that the corresponding integrals
in (1) differ in dimension by two units of momentum. Thus to compare them,
all other things being equal, we must construct a quantity of uniform
dimension, $R(n)$, by scaling the total phase space for $n$ pions
we write
\begin{equation}
R(n) = \frac{(L)^{2n}}{n!} \int \rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\})
\end{equation}
where $L$ is a length
and an $n$ independent overall normalization factor
is set equal to 1. We call this picture for
relating multiplicities by a dimensional scaling
``scaled phase space," SPS. In terms of $R(n)$ one can calculate
the average number of pions in the SPS picture by
\begin{equation}
\hat{n} = \frac{\sum_n n R(n)}{\sum_n R(n)}
\end{equation}
This $\hat{n}$ depends on $L$ which can be varied to give
the experimental value, $\hat{n} = 5$. With the
scaling length fixed by
this empirical constraint, the resulting pion multiplicity distribution,
the normalized $R(n)$, looks very much like the experimental
one. Fig.~1 shows the pion multiplicity distribution
calculated in the SPS
formalism\footnote{The non-relativistic form
of phase space leads to very
similar distributions, as we have checked and as
was already reported in \cite{Dover} }
with $L = 1.2$ fm,
adjusted to give the correct average pion number.
It has a gaussian shape
with an average of 5 (put in by hand)
and a variance of 1. Note no statistical assumption has been
made to obtain the observed gaussian distribution
or the correct variance. Fig.~1 also displays
the corresponding Skyrme-coherent
state calculation of Sect.~2 and the measured distribution. Both
calculations agree excellently with the data.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-10mm}
\mbox{\epsfysize=6cm\epsffile{cohst1.epsf}}
\vspace*{5mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{Fig1}%
Pion multiplicity distribution in proton antiproton
annihilation at rest. The open dots are from the scaled phase space
model and the solid dots the from Skyrme-coherent state approach.
Both have been fixed to give an average pion multiplicity of 5. The
histogram is the data presented in \protect\cite{Dover,Sedlak}.
}
\end{figure}
In earlier treatments of the scaling model $L$ was connected to
a volume \cite{Dover,old} by
$V=(2 \pi L)^3$. The $2 \pi$ comes from the normalization
of phase space density.
The volume needed to give $\hat{n}=5$ turns out to be very large
by nucleon standards, of order $(2\pi)^3$ fm$^3$. There
is much discussion in the early literature about the meaning of
this large volume \cite{Dover,old}.
An alternate picture is that one should write
$V = g^2 \cdot v$
where $v$ is a reasonable volume ($\sim \frac{4 \pi}{3}\mu^{-3}$
= $12.5$ fm$^3$) while $g$
is a dimensionless number that gives the amplitude for emitting
one more pion. Now it is $g$ that is large. The notion that
the amplitude for emitting $n$ pions should be proportional to
$g^n$, the coupling constant to the $n$-th power, makes sense
perturbatively, but is being employed here for $g$ large.
Annihilation is nonperturbative. Thus the
dynamical origin of the SPS picture remains obscure, even though
it can certainly fit the pion multiplicity distribution with one
free parameter.
Historically statistical approaches were
unable to account for the pion multiplicity distribution
in a pions only picture
with a ``reasonable" scaling parameter, or to connect the
picture to more fundamental theory. Adding heavy mesons that
decay sequentially to pions helps the phenomenology, but
at the expense of more free parameters \cite{van}. There have also
been attempts to make thermodynamic models of annihilation without
imposing the constraints of energy-momentum conservation \cite{Blumel}.
These do poorly for the pion multiplicity distribution even when
$\hat{n}$ is fixed at 5. This serves to further emphasize
the primary importance of the four-momentum phase space constraint.
For fixed multiplicity, $n$, the PSO picture has no dynamics.
Relating the amplitude for
one $n$ to the next implies dynamical
assumptions outside PSO as in the
scaled phase space scheme SPS, discussed above.
For a natural candidate that introduces genuine dynamics we turn to
the Skyrme-coherent state approach. It relates the weights and momentum
spectra of $n$ pion emission in a transparent way to the properties
of the underlying annihilation process.
\section{Skyrme-Coherent State Approach}
In the Skyrme-coherent state approach one uses a classical meson
field theory in which baryons appear as topologically stable
solitons to model the dynamics of annihilation. This picture, invented
by T.H.R. Skyrme \cite{Skyrme}, is connected to QCD in the limit
of a large number of colors, and through that to the long wave
length or nonperturbative limit of QCD \cite{tHooft,Witten}.
It is found that in the Skyrme approach, annihilation
proceeds very rapidly leading to a burst of
relatively intense classical pion radiation \cite{SSLK,SWA}.
To connect with the physical pion quanta of
experiment, that classical wave is used to generate a quantum mechanical
coherent state \cite{Klauder}. There are two steps to this
process, the use of Skyrme dynamics to generate
the classical pion radiation from annihilation, and the subsequent
quantization of that radiation using coherent states. The
circumstances of annihilation seem particularly well suited to
this combination.
A standard coherent state does not have fixed
four-momentum, but as we saw above, that constraint is crucial. Hence
the coherent state must be projected onto a state of definite
energy-momentum \cite{HornSilver}, and if we are interested in
pion charge ratios, a state of definite isospin \cite{UCSB}.
We have developed the formalism for doing all this \cite{us}.
A pion coherent state contains an exponential in
the pion field creation operator. It is a single
quantum state containing all pion numbers. This is the
physics appeal of the coherent state approach, namely
that all the pion channels are collected into a single state.
Thus questions about the relation of the rate or spectrum in
the $n$ pion channel to that in the $n+1$ channel, are naturally
answered. No new parameters or assumptions are needed to address
them. Since the coherent state approach can also be generalized to
include energy-momentum conservation, the results discussed in
Sect.~1 come out, but now with a clear origin for
the relationship among the channels.
In the Skyrme-coherent state approach,
the difficult dynamics of nucleon-antinucleon
interaction and subsequent annihilation into pions is done
classically, and quantum mechanics only enters to describe the
propagation of the coherent state after the fields have
reached the radiation zone, where they are non-interacting. Although
this program is far simpler than the corresponding full quantum
QCD calculation of annihilation, it is still complicated
to execute with the
classical, nonlinear field equations of Skyrme and
up to now has not been fully implemented.
We have not studied the development of the annihilation
process itself, but rather have begun with an assumed
initial spherically symmetric
configuration of classical pion field. It is
in this initial pion configuration, that free parameters
enter. The remaining dynamics is completely determined.
We take a simple initial pion configuration
characterized by a size and magnitude. The magnitude
is fixed by the total energy of the
system, $2M$, leaving only the size to be determined.
This is fit to the average pion multiplicity, or
equivalently, the inclusive single pion momentum distribution.
We find a size of order 1~fm, a completely reasonable result.
Note that if at some future date we are able to do the
Skyrme calculation of annihilation from the beginning, there
would be no free parameters whatsoever.
The introduction of a finite source size for the pion radiation
leads to a form factor for pion emission $f(k_i)$. This
form factor is the Fourier transform of the classical asymptotic
pion field. As such it is similar to, but not identical to the Fourier
transform of the pion
source distribution because of
the intervening Skyrmion dynamics.
For the coherent state formalism of \cite{us} we must replace (2) by
\begin{equation}
R^{COH}(n) = \frac{1}{n!} \int \prod_{i=2}^n |f(k_i)|^2
\rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\})
\end{equation}
(without the complication of isospin). This expression is
completely specified by the coherent state formalism through
the form factors. Hence in
the Skyrme-coherent state approach the ratios of multiplicities
are controlled not by some arbitrary volume, but by the
intensity of the classical radiation field.
In this work we take the analytic form for the form factor
which we have used before \cite{us}.
Adapted to the relativistic phase space convention it reads
\begin{equation}
|f(k)|^2 = \frac {2 C_0 \mbox{\bf k}^2}{
\omega (\mbox{\bf k}^2+\alpha^2)^2 (\omega^2+\alpha^2)^2}
\label{fk}
\end{equation}
with $\alpha = 3.0 \mu$
and $C_0= 0.061$ GeV$^5$. $C_0$ has been determined by requiring that
the energy release of the classical pion source is $2 M$.
The size parameter $\alpha$ has been adjusted to the measured average
multiplicity $\hat{n}=5$ imposing energy
momentum-conservation\footnote{\label{a
\mbox{Without energy momentum conservation the classical mean pion
multiplicity}
\mbox{$\int |f(k)|^2 d^3\mbox{\bf k} (2 \omega)^{-1}$} is $4.5$ for $\alpha = 3 \mu$.}
as in \cite{us}.
Note that any classical field theory capable of describing
the evolution of classical pion radiation from
annihilation will lead to
a quantum coherent state and to form factors. We
emphasize the Skyrme method because
it is the only one we know that naturally
gives annihilation and subsequent pion radiation.
For the pion multiplicity
spectrum we have seen in Fig.~1 that the introduction of form factors
in the coherent state approach leads to results equivalent to those of
the SPS model and in agreement with experiment. However now the
relative weighting of different multiplicities has a simple physical
origin in the strength and size of the initial pion source. The strength
is determined by the energy release and the spatial distribution
corresponding to (\ref{fk}) has
an r.m.s. of 0.7~fm which is reasonable.
Next we calculate the single pion momentum spectra for the pion
multiplicities individually, by integrating the phase space
over all but one of the pion momenta
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN_n(K)}{dK} & = & \frac {1}{n!}
\int \delta(K - |K_1|) \prod_{i=2}^n
|f(k_i)|^2 \rho_n(s,\{\mbox{\bf k}_i\}) \\
\frac{dN(K)}{dK} & = & \sum_n \frac{dN_n(K)}{dK} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where we use the notation $K = |\mbox{\bf k}| $.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\vspace*{-12mm}
\mbox{\epsfysize=12cm\epsffile{cohst2.epsf}}
\vspace*{-18mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{Fig2}%
The single pion inclusive momentum distribution ($dN_n/dK$) for
annihilation to channels with pion multiplicity $n=3$ to $8$. The
solid line is from the Skyrme-coherent state approach and
the dotted line is phase space only. All distributions are
normalized to one.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfysize=8cm\epsffile{cohst3.epsf}}
\vspace*{-12mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{Fig3}%
The single pion inclusive momentum distributions
$dN_n/dK$ for each multiplicity weighted by the probability
of that multiplicity and the sum of these, $dN/dK$, which is the
full inclusive pion momentum spectrum.
The Skyrme-coherent state case is shown on the left
and the scaled phase space case on the right. The
probabilities of the different multiplicities are shown on
the graph. The summed spectrum is normalized to one.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\mbox{\epsfysize=8cm\epsffile{cohst4.epsf}}
\vspace*{-12mm}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{Fig4}%
The single pion momentum distribution, $dN/dK$,
summed over all multiplicities, normalized to the
total number of pions. The dotted line is from the scaled
phase space model, the solid line from the Skyrme-coherent
state approach and the data are from \protect\cite{Sedlak}.
}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~2 we show the single particle
spectra ($dN_n/dK$) for $n=3$ to $8$ final pions for
the scaled phase space
model SPS and for the coherent state approach \cite{us,LuAmado}.
For each $n$, each graph is normalized to 1. We see that there is some
difference in detail between the SPS and the coherent state
approach, but they are quite similar in general shape.
We have been unable to find recent data with which to
compare these pion spectra for fixed $n$.
In Fig.~3 we show the single pion
momentum spectra of Fig.~2 with their
correct relative weights. The probabilities of the
different multiplicities, $P_n$ are listed on the figure.
For the coherent state case the relative weights
come out of the dynamics, for the phase space case they
are put in through the scaling, fit to give $\hat{n} =5$.
We see that in both cases only the $n=4,5,6$ multiplicities
have substantial weight. Also shown in Fig.~3 are the
weighted sum (normalized to one)
of the momentum distributions in each
multiplicity, the inclusive single pion momentum
spectrum. In Fig.~4 we show that inclusive pion spectrum
again (this time normalized to the total number of direct pions)
comparing the SPS result, the coherent state result
and the data reported in \cite{Dover}.
The two calculations agree qualitatively,
giving an equivalently good
account of the data.
\section{Conclusions}
We have seen that the principal features of the pion multiplicity
distribution and of the pion momentum spectrum in proton
antiproton annihilation at rest can come from phase space so long as one
connects the probabilities for different pion multiplicities.
This can be done in an ad hoc way in
the scaled phase space picture by introducing
a scaling volume or in a dynamically
motivated way in the context of the Skyrme-coherent
state approach. The scaling volume needed in the phase space picture,
$(2 \pi)^3$~fm$^3$, is an order of magnitude too large.
No such volume interpretation is
required in the Skyrme approach. Rather a form factor appears naturally
the strength of which is fixed by the magnitude of the
classical pion field, or equivalently by the energy released
in annihilation, $2M$, and the range of which is fit to
get an average pion number of 5, yielding a size of about $0.7$ fm.
Furthermore
if a complete calculation of annihilation using Skyrme
dynamics were carried out (a difficult but not impossible
task) there would be no free parameters in its description of annihilation.
Finally we should point out that we have only discussed
inclusive pion multiplicity and
momentum spectra here. The Skyrme-coherent state picture has also been used
to calculated pion charge branching ratios and extended to include
vector mesons all with no new free parameters \cite{LuAmado}.
These vector mesons
are generated by the extended Skyrme dynamics since we take the
initial configuration to be pions only. The calculated charge
branching ratios and branching ratios into vector mesons ($\rho$ and
$\omega$) are in qualitative agreement with experiment \cite{Dover,Sedlak}.
A corresponding
phase space only calculation would require additional free parameters to
generate these branching ratios. Further afield, two pion correlations,
which have been
discussed in the Skyrme-coherent state picture \cite{ACDLL94,LA2},
find no natural explanation in the scaled phase space approach.
\section{Acknowledgments}
RDA, FC, and J-PD thank the theory group of the Division of Nuclear
and Particle Physics of the Paul Scherrer Institute for, once again,
providing a stimulating environment for this work.
The work of RDA is partially
supported by the United States National Science Foundation.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
It is roughly a decade since the $\xi(2220)$, now known as the
$f_4(2220)$, was discovered by the MARK III collaboration
in $J/\psi$ radiative decays to
$K^+ K^-$ and $K_S K_S$
final states \cite{markiii}. Its most interesting property, which
attracted considerable attention, was its narrow width of roughly
30~MeV. Because the width was inconsistent with expectations for a
conventional $q\bar{q}$ meson with such a large mass, the $\xi$'s
discovery led to speculation that it might be
a Higgs boson \cite{higgs},
a bound state of coloured scalars \cite{scalar},
a four quark state \cite{4quark,pakvasa},
a $\Lambda \bar{\Lambda}$ bound state \cite{ono87},
a hybrid \cite{hybrid},
or a glueball \cite{glueball}.
Despite the prevailing wisdom, the authors of
Ref.~\cite{godfrey84,pakvasa}
argued that the properties of the $\xi(2220)$ could be consistent with
those of a conventional meson: the L=3 $s\bar{s}$ meson with
$J^{PC}=2^{++}$ or $J^{PC}=4^{++}$.
In the original analysis of L=3 $s\bar{s}$ properties it was shown
that of the $q\bar{q}$ states with the appropriate $J^{PC}$
quantum numbers only the
$^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ states
of the first L=3 multiplet have masses
consistent with the $\xi(2220)$ \cite{godfrey84}.
According to this analysis these
two states were exceptional in that they have a limited number of
available decay modes which are all relatively weak. However, the
analysis was not exhaustive in that it did not calculate the decay
widths to all possible final states. In particular it made the
assumption, which we will see to be incorrect, that the decays to
an $L=1$ meson and a $K$ or $\eta$ were small on the basis of phase space
arguments alone.
To further complicate the discussion, more recent experiments have
observed a hadronic state decaying to $K\bar{K}$ in different reactions and
with different properties.
The various experimental results relevant to the $\xi(2220)$ are
summarized in Table \ref{table1}.
The most recent measurement of the
$\xi(2220)$ properties by the BES collaboration \cite{bes}
indicates that its decays are approximately
flavour symmetric giving support to the glueball interpretation.
At the same time, although the narrow
$\xi(2220)$ was not seen in $J/\psi$ radiative decays by the DM2 experiment
despite the fact that DM2 has slightly higher statistics, DM2 did
observe a broader state decaying into $K\bar{K}$ \cite{dm2}. If all
the experiments are taken at face value the overall picture is
confused and contradictory.
In this paper we re-examine the nature of the $\xi(2220)/f_4(2220)$ meson
and calculate the partial widths of the $^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$
$s\bar{s}$ states to all OZI-allowed 2-body final states allowed
by phase space. To give a measure of the reliability of our
analysis we calculate the widths using both the $^3P_0$ decay model (often
referred to as the quark-pair creation
decay model) \cite{leyaouanc73,roberts}
and the flux-tube breaking decay model \cite{kokoski87}. As an additional
consistency check we
calculated several partial widths using the pseudoscalar decay
model \cite{godfrey85}.
Our goal is to shed some light on the nature of the
$\xi(2220)$ by comparing the quark model predictions for the hadronic
widths to the various experimental results.
The outline of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec2} we briefly
outline the models of hadron decays and the
fitting of the parameters of the models. We relegate the details to
the appendices. In section \ref{sec3} we present
the results of our calculations for the $L=3$ mesons and discuss our
results. In the final section we attempt to make sense of the
various contradictory experimental results and put forward our
interpretation along with some suggested measurements which may
clear up the situation.
\section{MODELS OF MESON PROPERTIES AND DECAYS}
\label{sec2}
The quark model has proven to be a useful tool to describe the
properties of hadrons. The quark model
has successfully described weak, electromagnetic, and strong
couplings \footnote{See for example Ref. \cite{godfrey85}.}.
In some cases we will use simplified meson wavefunctions which have
been used elsewhere to describe hadronic decays \cite{kokoski87}
while in other cases we will
use more complicated wavefunctions from a relativized quark model
which includes one-gluon exchange
and a linear confining potential \cite{godfrey85}.
The strong decay analysis was performed using the QCD based
flux-tube breaking
model \cite{kokoski87}. It has the attractive feature of
describing decay rates to all possible
final states in terms of just one fitted parameter.
We also include results for the $^3P_0$ model, often referred to
as the quark-pair creation model \cite{leyaouanc73,roberts}, which is a
limiting case of
the flux-tube breaking model and which greatly simplifies the calculations
and gives similar results. As a final check we calculated
some partial widths using the pseudoscalar emission model \cite{godfrey85}
and confirmed that it also gave results similar to those
of the flux-tube breaking model.
\subsection{Decays by the $^3P_0$ Model}
The $^3P_0$ model \cite{leyaouanc73,roberts} is applicable to OZI-allowed
strong decays of a meson into two other mesons, as well as the two-body strong
decays of baryons and other hadrons.
Meson decay occurs when a
quark-antiquark pair is produced from the vacuum in a state suitable for
quark rearrangement to occur, as in Fig.~\ref{3p0decay}.
The created pair will have the quantum numbers of the vacuum, $^3P_0$.
There is one undetermined parameter $\gamma$ in the model - it represents
the probability that a quark-antiquark pair will be created from the vacuum.
The rest of the model is just the description of the overlap of the initial
meson (A) and the created pair with the two final mesons (B,C), to calculate
the probability that rearrangement (and hence decay) will occur.
A brief description of the model is included in Appendix \ref{appa}, and the
techniques by which the calculations were performed are discussed in Appendices
\ref{appc} and \ref{appd}.
\subsection{Decays by the Flux-Tube Breaking Model}
In the flux-tube picture a meson consists of a quark and antiquark connected by
a tube of chromoelectric flux, which is treated as a vibrating string. For
mesons the string is in its vibrational ground state. Vibrational excitations
of the string would correspond to a type of meson hybrid, particles whose
existence have not yet been confirmed.
The flux-tube breaking decay model \cite{kokoski87} is similar to the
$^3P_0$ model, but extends it by considering the actual dynamics of the
flux-tubes. This is done by including a factor representing the overlap of
the flux-tube of the initial meson with those of the two outgoing mesons.
A brief review of the model is given in Appendix \ref{appb}, and the
techniques by which the calculations were performed are discussed in Appendices
\ref{appc} and \ref{appd}.
\subsection{Fitting the Parameters of the Decay Models}
The point of these calculations is to obtain a reliable estimate
of the $^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ meson decay
widths. To do so we considered several variations of the
flux-tube breaking model. By seeing how much the results vary under the
various assumptions we can estimate the reliability of the predictions.
The first variation lies with the normalization of the mock meson wavefunctions
and the phase space used to calculate the decay widths
\cite{geiger94}. In the Appendices we
have normalized the mock meson wavefunctions relativistically to $2 E$ and used
relativistic phase space, which leads to a factor of $E_B E_C/M_A$ in the final
expression for the width in the centre of mass frame. We will refer to this as
relativistic phase space/normalization (RPSN). However, there are arguments
\cite{isgurpc} that heavy quark effective theory fixes the assumptions in the
mock meson prescription and suggests that the energy factor be replaced by
$\widetilde{M}_B \widetilde{M}_C/\widetilde{M}_A$, where the $\widetilde{M}_i$
are the calculated masses of the meson $i$ in a spin-independent
quark-antiquark potential \cite{kokoski87}. (In other words $\widetilde{M}_i$
is given by the hyperfine averaged mass that is equal to the centre of gravity
of the triplet and singlet masses of a multiplet of given $L$.) We will refer
to this as the Kokoski-Isgur phase space/normalization (KIPSN).
The second variation in our
results is the choice of wavefunctions. We calculate decay widths
for two cases. In the first we use simple harmonic oscillator (SHO)
wavefunctions with a common oscillator parameter for all mesons.
In the second case we use the
wavefunctions, calculated in a relativized quark model, of
Ref. \cite{godfrey85} which we will label RQM.
In all we looked at six
cases: the $^3P_0$ model using the SHO wavefunctions,
the flux-tube breaking model again using the SHO wavefunctions,
and the flux-tube breaking model using
the RQM wavefunctions of Ref. \cite{godfrey85}; in all three cases
we used both choices of phase space/normalization.
Some comments about the details of the calculations are in order.
For the SHO
wavefunctions, we took for the oscillator parameter $\beta = 400$~MeV
which is the value used by Kokoski and Isgur \cite{kokoski87}.
However, different quark models find different values of $\beta$ so
that there is the question of the sensitivity of our results to
$\beta$. We will address this issue below.
We used quark masses in the ratio $m_u:m_d:m_s = 3:3:5$ --- this
differs from the calculations of Ref. \cite{kokoski87}, which
ignored the strange-quark mass difference. In the RQM wavefunctions these
parameters are already set --- the values of $\beta$ were found individually
for
each meson, and the quark masses were fitted: $m_u = 220$~MeV, $m_d = 220$~MeV,
and $m_s = 419$~MeV. We have treated all mesons as narrow
resonances, and have ignored mass differences between members of the same
isospin multiplet \footnote{The one exception was for the decay
$\phi \to K^+ K^-$ where the charged and neutral kaon mass
difference is significant to the phase space.}. Masses were taken from the
Review of Particle Properties 1994 \cite{pdb} if the state was included in
their Meson Summary Table \footnote{The one exception was the $1^3P_0$
$s \bar{s}$ state --- see Table \ref{table4}.}.
If it was not, then the masses predicted in
Ref.~\cite{godfrey85} were used. (This includes the masses of the $1^3F_2$
and $1^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ mesons: 2240~MeV and 2200~MeV
respectively.) Meson flavour wavefunctions were also taken from
Ref.~\cite{godfrey85} - for the isoscalars we assumed ideal mixing ($\phi_{\rm
non strange} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u \bar{u}+d \bar{d})$, $\phi_{\rm strange} =
s \bar{s}$), except for the radial ground state pseudoscalars, where we assumed
perfect mixing ($\phi_\eta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_{\rm non
strange}-\phi_{\rm strange})$, $\phi_{\eta'} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\phi_{\rm non
strange}+\phi_{\rm strange})$).
We fitted $\gamma$, the one undetermined parameter of the model, in a global
least squares fit of 28 of the best known meson decays. (We minimized the
quantity defined by $\chi^2 =\sum_i (\Gamma^{model}_i -
\Gamma^{exp}_i)^2/\sigma_{\Gamma_i}^2$ where $\sigma_{\Gamma_i}$ is the
experimental error \footnote{For the calculations in the flux-tube breaking
model, a 1\% error due to the numerical integration was added in quadrature
with the experimental error.}.) The experimental values for these decays and
the fitted values for the six cases are listed in Table \ref{table2}. To give
a more descriptive picture of the results we plotted in Fig.~\ref{figure2}, on
a logarithmic scale, the ratio of the fitted values to the experimental values.
From Table \ref{table2} one can see that the results for the $^3P_0$ and
flux-tube breaking models for the SHO wavefunctions are very
similar\footnote {The one exception to this is the S-wave decay
$K^*_0(1430) \to K\pi$
which seems particularly sensitive to the model.}. We therefore only plotted
the $^3P_0$ model results using the SHO wavefunctions and the flux-tube
breaking model results for the RQM wavefunctions. A reference line is drawn in
each case for $\Gamma^{model}/\Gamma^{exp}=1$ to guide the eye. Since all the
partial widths are proportional to $\gamma^2$, using a different fit strategy
rescales $\gamma$. This is equivalent to simply shifting all points on the
plot simultaneously making it easy to visualize any change in agreement for
specific decays.
The KIPSN gives a better overall fit to the data. Even so, certain decays,
$K_3^*(1780) \to K\rho$ and $f_4(2050) \to \omega\omega$ for example, are fit
much better using the RPSN. For both the RPSN and KIPSN one can see in
Fig.~\ref{figure2} that a significant number of the decays differ from the
experimental values by factors of two or more. Decays with two pseudoscalars
in the final state tend to do better with the KIPSN but the KIPSN generally
underestimates decays of high L mesons with vector mesons in the final states.
On the other hand the RPSN tends to overestimate decays with two pseudoscalars
in the final states. Similar observations can be made for the flux-tube
breaking model using the RQM wavefunctions. Having said all this we stress
that these are only general observations and exceptions can be found to any of
them in Table \ref{table2}. One must therefore be very careful not to take the
predictions at face value but should try if possible to compare the predicted
decay to a similar one that is experimentally well known.
Finally, we consider the sensitivity of our results to $\beta$. In addition to
the fits discussed above, we
performed simultaneous fits of both $\gamma$ and $\beta$ to the 28
decay widths for both the RPSN and the KIPSN. The resulting values of
$\gamma$ and $\beta$ are 13.4 and 481~MeV respectively for RPSN and
5.60 and 371~MeV respectively for KIPSN. In both cases the overall
fits improved slightly, with some widths in better agreement and some
in worse agreement with experiment when compared to the fits for
$\beta=400$~MeV. However, the fitted widths of the most relevant
$^3F_4$ decays improve slightly for RPSN but show mixed results for
KIPSN. We also redid our fits of $\gamma$ to the
decay widths for $\beta=350$~GeV
and $\beta=450$~GeV. For $\beta=350$~MeV the overall fit improves
slightly for KIPSN although the predicted $f_4(2050)$ decay widths
are a little worse and
the $K_4(2045)$ widths are a little better. For RPSN the overall fit is
a little
worse as are the $^3F_4$ decays. For $\beta=450$~MeV the overall fit with
KIPSN becomes a little worse as does the fitted $^3F_4$ widths while
for RPSN the overall fit and fitted $^3F_4$ widths become a little
better.
We conclude that while there is some sensitivity to $\beta$, the
results for modest changes in $\beta$ (including the $\beta$ we obtain by
fitting $\gamma$ and $\beta$ simultaneously)
are consistent with those for $\beta=400$~MeV within the overall
uncertainty we assign to our results. It should be stressed that it
is not sufficient to simply change $\beta$ but that a new value of
$\gamma$ must be fitted to the experimental widths included in our
fit.
\section{RESULTS FOR $^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $\lowercase{s}\bar{\lowercase{s}}$
MESON DECAYS}
\label{sec3}
Using the $\gamma$'s obtained from our fit we calculated all kinematically
allowed partial widths for the $^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ meson decays.
The results are given in Tables \ref{table3} and \ref{table4}.
For the $^3F_4$ state the main decay modes are:
\begin{equation}
f_4' \to K^*(892) K^*(892), \; K\bar{K}, \; KK^*(892), \;
\phi\phi, \; K K_2^*(1430), \; K K_1(1400), \; \eta\eta, \; \eta \eta'
\end{equation}
For the KIPSN and the SHO wavefunctions the total width is 132~MeV with the
$^3P_0$ model. For this set of assumptions the $K\bar{K}$, $\eta\eta$, and
$\eta\eta'$ modes are probably reasonably good estimates. However, the decay
widths to $K K^*(892)$ and $K^*(892) K^*(892)$ are likely to be larger than the
predictions. On this basis it does not seem likely to us that the $f_4'$ width
is less than the predicted total width by a factor of two or more, i.e. we do
not expect it to be less than about 70~MeV. If anything, we would expect it to
be larger than the predicted width, i.e. $ > 140$~MeV.
For the $^3F_2$ state we obtain results similar to the $^3F_4$ state for the
$K\bar{K}$, $KK^*(892)$, and $K^*(892) K^*(892)$ modes. However, the $^3F_2$
also has large partial widths to $K K_1(1270)$, $K^*(892) K_1 (1270)$,
$K K_2^*(1430)$ and $\eta f_1(1510)$. In fact, $K K_1(1270)$ is the
dominant decay mode. It
is large in all variations of the calculation we give in Table IV. The most
closely related decay in our fit is the decay $\pi_2(1670) \to f_2(1270) \pi$
which is relatively large and is well reproduced by the KI normalization and
SHO wavefunction case. The total width for this case is $\sim 400$~MeV
\footnote{We note that the LASS collaboration has observed a $K_2^*(1980)$
state with a large total width of $373\pm 33 \pm 60$~MeV which could be
associated with the strange meson partner of the $^3F_2 (s\bar{s})$ meson
\cite{pdb}}. Even if this width
is overestimated by a factor of two, it would
still be too large to identify with the $\xi(2220)$.
Although this result appears surprising it has a straightforward explanation.
Examining Table \ref{table4}, the lowest angular momentum final states in
$f_2'$ decay are P-waves. All of these decays are relatively broad but the
$f_2' \to K_1(1270) K$ is the P-wave decay with the largest available
phase space. In fact, one could almost order the P-wave decays using
phase space alone. The analogous decay of the $f_4'$ is in an F-wave and
therefore is subject to a larger angular momentum barrier. The lowest angular
momentum partial wave for $f_4'$ decays is a D-wave which although it has the
largest partial width of all $f_4'$ decays is still smaller than the P-wave
$f_2'$ decay.
As another measure of the reliability of these predictions we calculated
the widths of the $K_4^*(2045)$ and $f_4(2050)$ mesons (the $^3F_4$ $K$-like
and non-strange isovector mesons, respectively). The results for all
significant kinematically allowed final states are given for the $^3P_0$ model
using SHO wavefunctions in Tables \ref{table5} and \ref{table6} respectively.
The results are consistent with the general fit results
given in Table \ref{table2} and Fig.~\ref{figure2}.
In general, the widths calculated using RPSN
tend to be larger and those calculated using the KIPSN
tend to be smaller. More specifically, decays to two pseudoscalar
mesons using RPSN are generally overestimated while the results
calculated using KIPSN are in reasonable agreement with
experiment. There is no pattern for the decays to two vector final
states. The decay $K_4^*(2045) \to K^*(892) \rho$ is greatly overestimated
using RPSN but is in good agreement using KIPSN. In
contrast, the predicted decay $f_4(2050) \to \omega\omega$ agrees well
using RPSN but is greatly underestimated using KIPSN.
The total widths tend to be overestimated using RPSN but are
underestimated using KIPSN, both to varying degrees. The
only conclusion we can draw from these results is that the total
width probably lies between the two estimates but it is difficult to
guess if it is closer to the lower or upper value.
Finally, in Table VII we give the predicted total widths for the
$^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ states for the different values of
$\beta$ considered in the previous section. Although they vary
considerably, by roughly a factor of 2 going from $\beta=350$~MeV to
$\beta=450$~GeV (except for the $\Gamma(^3F_2)$ with RPSN which
varies by a factor of 3), these values are consistent within the large
uncertainties we assign to our results.
\section{DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS}
The motivation for this paper was to re-examine the possibility that the
$\xi(2220)$ is an L=3 $s\bar{s}$ meson. This question is especially timely
given the recent BES measurements of a narrow resonance with a mass of 2.2~GeV
seen in $J/\psi$ radiative decays. To do so we calculated all kinematically
allowed hadronic decays of the $^3F_2$ and $^3F_4$ $s\bar{s}$ states using
several variations of the flux-tube breaking decay model.
It appears very unlikely that the $\xi(2220)$ can be understood as the $^3F_2$
$s\bar{s}$ state. All variations of our calculation indicate that the $^3F_2$
$s\bar{s}$ is rather broad, $\gtrsim 400$~MeV.
The dominant decay mode is the
difficult to reconstruct $K K_1(1270)$ final state. Other final
states with
large branching ratios are
$K^*(892) K_1(1270)$, $K K^*(892)$, $K^*(892) K^*(892)$, $K K_2^*(1430)$,
$K\bar{K}$, and $\eta f_1(1510)$.
It is more likely that the $^3F_4(s\bar{s})$ state can be associated
with the $\xi(2220)$. The calculated width is $\sim 140$~MeV but
given the uncertainties of the models it is possible, although
perhaps unlikely, that the
width could be small enough to be compatible with the width
reported in the Review of Particle Properties 1994 \cite{pdb}.
In this scenario the
largest decay modes are to $K^*(892) K^*(892)$, $K \bar{K}$, $K K^*(892)$, and
$\phi\phi$. Since only the $K\bar{K}$ final state has been observed
an important test of this interpretation would be the observation of
some of these other modes.
There are, however, some problems with the $^3F_4(s\bar{s})$
identification of the $\xi(2220)$. Foremost is the flavour symmetric
decay patterns recently measured by the BES collaboration
\cite{bes}. These results contradict the expectations for a
conventional $s\bar{s}$ meson. Second is the wide range of measured
widths for this state. Although the Review of Particle Properties 1994
lists an
average width of $38^{+15}_{-13}$~MeV the widths measured in
hadron production experiments, LASS and E147, are larger while those
measured in $J/\psi$ radiative decay tend to be narrow. The
exception is the DM2 experiment which does not see, in $J/\psi$
radiative decay, a narrow state in $J/\psi \to \gamma K\bar{K}$ but
does observe a relatively broad state at this mass.
To account for these contradictions we propose a second explanation
of what is being observed in this mass region --- that two different
hadron states are observed, a narrow state produced in
$J/\psi$ radiative decay and a broader state produced in hadron beam
experiments. The broader state would be identified with the
$^3F_4(s\bar{s})$ state. The predicted width is consistent with
the quark model predictions and the LASS collaboration shows
evidence that its quantum numbers are $J^{PC}=4^{++}$. We would
then identify the narrow hadron state observed in the gluon rich
$J/\psi$ radiative decays as a glueball candidate predicted by
lattice gauge theory results \cite{lattice}. Recent lattice results
indicate that glueballs may be narrower than one might naively
expect \cite{lattice2}. The scalar glueball width
is expected to be less that 200 MeV and one might expect a higher angular
momentum state to be even narrower.
The narrow state is not seen in
hadron beam production because it is narrow,
is produced weakly in these experiments through intermediate gluons,
and is hidden by the
$s\bar{s}$ state. Conversely, the broader state is not seen in
$J/\psi$ radiative decays since this mode preferentially produces
states with a high glue content. Crucial to this explanation is the
experimental verification of the BES results on the flavour symmetric
couplings of the state produced in $J/\psi$ radiative decay and the
observation of other decay modes for the broader state in addition to the
theoretical verification that the predicted tensor glueball is as
narrow as the observed width.
The $\xi(2220)$ has been a longstanding source of controversy. It is
a dramatic reminder that there still is much that we don't
understand about hadron spectroscopy and demonstrates the need for
further experimental results to better understand this subject and
ultimately better understand non-Abelian gauge theories, of which QCD
is but one example.
\acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada.
S.G. thanks Nathan Isgur and Eric Swanson for helpful conversations.
|
\section*{Acknowledgements}
D. G. B. was supported by CNPq and FUJB, Brasil,
L. E. O. by CONICET , Argentina, and C. D. F. by
ICTP, Italy.
We acknowledge F. A. Schaposnik for useful comments.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Since the discovery of $p$-brane theories with manifest spacetime
supersymmetry \cite{pol,berg}, it has become increasingly clear that there
is a close relationship between such theories and the set of soliton-like
solutions to supergravity theories \cite{town}. All the known supersymmetric
$p$-brane theories achieve a matching of the on-shell world-volume bosonic
and fermionic degrees of freedom, by virtue of a local
fermionic symmetry known as $\kappa$ symmetry. This symmetry compensates
for the excess of fermionic over bosonic degrees of freedom by gauging away
half of the former. The consistency of $\kappa$ symmetry with spacetime
supersymmetry places severe constraints on the spacetime dimension $D$ and
the world volume dimension $d=p+1$ \cite{achu}. Four classic families of
super $p$-branes were found to satisfy the consistency criterion. The
members within each family are related by a process of double dimensional
reduction \cite{dhis}, in which both the spacetime and the world volume are
simultaneously compactified on a circle, and the dependence on the extra
direction is dropped in each space. Thus the classic super $p$-branes may
be classified by giving the maximal-dimensional member of each of the four
families. These occur in $(D,d)= (11,3)$, $(10,6)$, $(6,4)$ and $(4,3)$.
On a plot or `brane scan' of $D$ {\it vs} $d$, the additional $p$-branes
obtained by double dimensional reduction lie on the North-east/South-west
diagonal lines descending from the maximal cases.
The idea that a super $p$-brane could be viewed as a long-wavelength
description of a topological defect in a supersymmetric theory originated
in the construction of the supermembrane in $D=4$ \cite{pol}. This
supermembrane occurs as a kink solution of a $D=4$ chiral
scalar supermultiplet theory with a potential giving a degenerate vacuum. A
crucial feature of this solution is that half the original supersymmetry
is left unbroken. This partial breaking of supersymmetry is also a general
feature of all the subsequently-discovered $p$-brane solitons.
Another feature of super $p$-branes became clear with the
curved-superspace construction of the $D=11$ supermembrane action in
\cite{berg}, and its generalisations to the other classic super $p$-branes.
This new feature was the occurrence of integrability conditions on the
supergravity background that are required for the existence of the
world-volume $\kappa$ symmetry. In the case of the $D=11$ supermembrane,
and of the type IIA string, related to it by double dimensional reduction,
these integrability conditions imply the full set of supergravity field
equations \cite{berg,dhis}.
The association of super $p$-branes to supergravity is also natural
because the supersymmetric $p$-branes can be viewed as the natural `matter'
sources for the corresponding supergravity theories. A very specific
r\^ole in this association is played by the antisymmetric tensor field
strengths, whose gauge potentials couple directly to the
$(p+1)$-dimensional world volumes. In the coupled solutions of super
$p$-branes and their corresponding supergravity backgrounds, the
backgrounds are naturally singular on the $p$-brane world volumes, which
can act like delta-function sources. These singularities may or may not be
clothed by horizons, depending upon the circumstances. Such singular
supergravity solutions are called `elementary,' in distinction to
the non-singular `solitonic' solutions described previously.
The association of $p$-branes with singular supergravity solutions was
made concrete with the explicit construction of superstring solutions in the
case of $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity \cite{dabl}. These solutions preserve
half of the original supersymmetry, and consequently they saturate a
Bogomol'ny bound on the energy density. Subsequently, an analogous
elementary membrane solution of $D=11$ supergravity was found \cite{dust}.
Many further solutions of supergravity theories have also been found, both
for elementary $p$-branes \cite{pew1} and for solitonic $p$-branes
\cite{pew2}. (There are also solitonic solutions in supergravity theories
coupled to Yang-Mills, such as that based upon Yang-Mills instantons, and
corresponding to the heterotic string \cite{pew3}.)
The multiplicity of elementary and solitonic $p$-brane solutions to
supergravity theories, covering many more values of $(D,d)$ than the
classic $\kappa$-symmetric points on the brane scan, suggests that the
original classification needs to be generalised. Leaving aside for the
moment the problem of formulating more general $\kappa$-symmetric actions,
it is worthwhile to try to find the general pattern of elementary and
solitonic $p$-brane solutions in supergravity theories.
Many supergravity theories in $D\le10$ dimensions can be obtained
from $D=11$ supergravity by Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction, in which a
consistent truncation of the higher-dimensional to the lower-dimensional
theory is made. Since the truncation is consistent, it follows that
solutions of the lower-dimensional theory are also solutions of the
higher-dimensional one. This lifting of solutions to the higher dimension
is known as dimensional oxidation. In some cases, an elementary or
solitonic brane solution in the lower dimension oxidizes to another
elementary or solitonic brane solution in the higher dimension. The
ability to view an oxidized brane solution as itself being a brane solution
depends upon whether the isotropicity of the lower-dimensional solution
extends to an isotropicity in the higher-dimensional sense. For the
isotropicity to extend, the extra coordinate of the higher-dimensional
spacetime must either become isotropically grouped with the $p$-brane
coordinates of the lower dimension, making a $(p+1)$-brane, or else it must
become isotropically grouped with the coordinates of the transverse space,
making a $p$-brane in the higher dimension. As we shall show later, the
latter can never happen within the framework of Kaluza-Klein dimensional
reduction. The former, on the other hand, can occur under certain
circumstances. This is the direct analogue, at the level of solutions to
supergravity theories, of the process of double dimensional reduction of
$p$-brane actions \cite{dhis}. Just as for those actions, it is useful in
classifying the brane solutions to distinguish between the ones that can be
oxidized to isotropic brane solutions of a higher-dimensional supergravity
theory, and those that cannot be isotropically oxidized. We shall call the
former solutions `rusty,' and the latter solutions `stainless.' Thus when
constructing a brane scan of supergravity solutions, one may omit the rusty
solutions, which are simply the Kaluza-Klein descendants of stainless
solutions in some higher dimension. The full solution set is thus
characterised by the stainless solutions.
A frequently-encountered contention in the recent literature is that
the only fundamental brane solutions occur in $D=11$ and $D=10$
supergravities, and that all the others are simply obtained by
dimensional reduction. In this paper, we shall show that this is not the case,
given our requirement of isotropicity in the oxidation process.\footnote{
An opposite viewpoint is to regard all oxidations of brane solutions as branes
in the higher dimension. We prefer not to adopt this viewpoint since, if the
isotropicity requirement on the world volume is dropped, the solutions are not
ordinary extended objects, and moreover it would not then be clear what degree
of anisotropicity should be regarded as acceptable.} In particular, we shall
find new stainless brane solutions to supergravity theories in all $5\le
D\le9$. (We shall not be concerned in the present paper with supersymmetric
$p$-brane solutions to super Yang-Mills or other rigid supersymmetric
theories.) Amongst other stainless examples, we shall find a 6-brane and a
5-brane in $D=9$, and a string in $D=5$, none of which are obtainable from
$D=11$ or $D=10$ $p$-brane solutions by dimensional reduction.
\section{Solutions and Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction}
\subsection{$p$-brane solutions}
We are concerned with elementary and solitonic solutions
of supergravity theories that admit interpretations as
$p$-branes embedded in spacetime. These solutions will in general involve the
metric tensor $g_{\sst{MN}}$, a dilaton $\phi$ and an $n$-index
antisymmetric tensor $F_{\sst{M_1\cdots M_n}}$ in $D$ dimensions. The
Lagrangian for these fields takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = e R - \ft12 e(\partial\phi)^2 - {1\over 2\, n!} e e^{-a \phi} F^2\ ,
\label{boslag}
\end{equation}
where $e=\sqrt{-g}$ is the determinant of the vielbein. The equations of
motion are
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathord{\dalemb{6.8}{7}\hbox{\hskip1pt}} \phi &=& -{a\over 2 n!}\, e^{-a \phi} F^2\ ,\nonumber\\
R_{\sst{MN}} &=& \ft12 \partial_{\sst{M}}\phi\,\partial_{\sst{N}}\phi +
S_{\sst{MN}} \ ,\label{eqmo1}\\
\partial_{\sst{M_1}} (e e^{-a \phi} F^{\sst{M_1\cdots M_n}}) &=& 0\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $S_{\sst{MN}}$ is a symmetric tensor given by
\begin{equation}
S_{\sst{MN}} = {1\over 2 (n-1)!}\, e^{-a \phi}\,\Big( F^2_{\sst{MN}} -
\fft{n-1}{n(D-2)} F^2 g_{\sst{MN}}\Big) \ .\label{smndef}
\end{equation}
The ansatz for the metric for the $D$ dimensional spacetime is given
by \cite{dabl,dkl}
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = e^{2A}\, dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} +
e^{2B}\, dy^m dy^n \delta_{mn}\ ,\label{metrform}
\end{equation}
where $x^{\mu}$ $(\mu = 0, \ldots, d-1)$ are the coordinates of the
$(d-1)$-brane world volume, and $y^m$ are the coordinates of the
$(D-d)$-dimensional transverse space. The functions $A$ and $B$ depend
only on $r=\sqrt{y^my^m}$. Note that the form of the metric ansatz is
preserved under the replacement $r\longrightarrow 1/r$. The Ricci tensor
for the metric (\ref{metrform}) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\mu\nu} &=& -\eta_{\mu\nu} e^{2(A-B)} \Big ( A'' + d {A'}^2
+ {\tilde d} A' B' + \fft{{\tilde d}+1}{r}\, A'\Big)\ ,\nonumber\\
R_{mn} &=& -\delta_{mn} \Big(B'' + d A' B' + {\tilde d} {B'}^2 + \fft{2{\tilde d} +1}r\, B'
+ \fft{d}r\, A'\Big) \label{ricci}\\
&& -{y^my^n \over r^2} \Big({\tilde d} B'' + d A'' - 2d A'B' + d {A'}^2 -
{\tilde d} {B'}^2 -\fft{{\tilde d}}{r}\, B' - \fft{d}{r} \, A'\Big)\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\tilde d}= D -d - 2$ and a prime denotes a derivative with respect to
$r$. A convenient choice of vielbein basis for the metric
(\ref{metrform}) is $e^{\underline \mu} = e^{A} d x^\mu$ and $
e^{\underline m} = e^{B} dy^m$, where underlined indices denote tangent
space components. The corresponding spin connection is
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^{{\underline\mu}{\underline n}} &=& e^{-B}\partial_n A\, e^{\underline \mu}
\ ,\qquad \omega^{{\underline \mu}{\underline \nu}} = 0\ ,\nonumber\\
\omega^{{\underline m}{\underline n}} &=& e^{-B} \partial_n B\, e^{\underline m}
-e^{-B} \partial_m B\, e^{\underline n}\ .\label{spincon0}
\end{eqnarray}
For the elementary $p$-brane solutions, the ansatz for the
antisymmetric tensor is given in terms of its potential, and takes the form
\cite{dabl}
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-1}} = \epsilon_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-1}} e^C
\ ,\label{eleans}
\end{equation}
and hence
\begin{equation}
F_{m\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-1}} = \epsilon_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-1}} \partial_m e^C\ ,
\label{eleans2}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a function of $r$ only. Here and throughout this paper
$\epsilon_{\sst{M\cdots N}}$ and $\epsilon^{\sst{M\cdots N}}$ are taken to
be the tensor densities of weights $-1$ and 1 respectively, with purely
numerical components $\pm 1$ or $0$. Note in
particular that they are not related just by raising and lowering indices using
the metric tensor. The dimension of the world volume is given by $d=n-1$
for the elementary $p$-brane solutions.
For the solitonic $(d-1)$-brane solutions, the ansatz for the
antisymmetric tensor is \cite{pew2}
\begin{equation}
F_{m_1\cdots m_n} = \lambda \epsilon_{m_1\cdots m_n p }\, {y^p\over r^{n+1}}
\ ,\label{solans}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a constant. The power of $r$ is governed by the
requirement that $F$ should satisfy the Bianchi identity. The dimension of
the world volume is given by $d=D-n-1$ for the solitonic $p$-brane
solutions.
For both types of solution, the symmetric tensor $S_{\sst{MN}}$
takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{\mu\nu} &=& -\fft{{\tilde d}}{2(D-2)}\, S^2\, e^{2(A-B)}
\eta_{\mu\nu} \ ,\nonumber\\
S_{mn} &=& \fft{d}{2(D-2)}\, S^2 \,\delta_{mn} -
\ft12\, S^2\, {y^my^n \over r^2}
\ .\label{smnform}
\end{eqnarray}
The function $S$ is given in the two cases by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm elementary:}&& S = e^{-\ft12 a\phi - d A + C}\, C'\qquad \ \ \ d=n-1\ ,
\nonumber\\
{\rm solitonic:}&& S = \lambda e^{-\ft12 a\phi - {\tilde d} B}\, r^{-{\tilde d}-1}
\qquad d= D-n-1\ .\label{sforms}
\end{eqnarray}
With these ans\"atze, the equations of motion for the dilaton and the
metric tensor in (\ref{eqmo1}) become
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi'' + d A' \phi' + {\tilde d} B' \phi' + \fft{{\tilde d} +1}r\, \phi' &=&\ft12
\epsilon a S^2\ ,\nonumber\\
A'' + d {A'}^2 + {\tilde d} A' B' + \fft{{\tilde d}+1}r \, A' &=& \fft{{\tilde d}}{2(D-2)} S^2\
,\nonumber\\
B'' + d A' B' + {\tilde d} {B'}^2 + \fft{2{\tilde d} +1}r \, B' + \fft{d}r\, A' &=&
-\fft{d}{2(D-2)} S^2 \ ,\label{eqmo2}\\
{\tilde d} B'' + d A'' - 2 d A' B' + d {A'}^2 - {\tilde d} {B'}^2 -
\fft{{\tilde d}}r \, B' - \fft{d}r \, A' + \ft12 {\phi'}^2 &=& \ft12 S^2\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\epsilon = 1$ for the elementary ansatz and $\epsilon = -1$
for the solitonic ansatz. The equation of motion for the field strength
$F$ in (\ref{eqmo1}) is automatically satisfied by the solitonic ansatz
(\ref{solans}), whilst for the elementary ansatz (\ref{eleans}) it gives
rise to the equation
\begin{equation}
C'' + C'(C' + {\tilde d} B' - dA' - a \phi') + \fft{{\tilde d}+1}r \, C' = 0\ .
\label{ceq}
\end{equation}
Solutions to the equations of motion (\ref{eqmo2}) and (\ref{ceq}) can
be obtained by making the following ansatz:
\begin{equation}
A' =\fft{\epsilon}{\Lambda}\, S\ ,\qquad \phi' = \fft{\epsilon(D-2)a}{{\tilde d}}
\, A'\ ,\label{soluans}
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is a constant. By choosing $\Lambda$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Lambda^2 = \fft{(D-2)^2 a^2}{{\tilde d}^2} + \fft{2d(D-2)}{{\tilde d}}\ ,\label{betaeq}
\end{equation}
one can eliminate the non-linear terms ${A'}^2$, ${B'}^2$ and $A' B'$ from
a linear combination of the last three equations in
(\ref{eqmo2}).\footnote{There are more general solutions of the equations
(\ref{eqmo2}) than those that follow from the ansatz
(\ref{soluans},\ref{betaeq}). However, as we shall see later, when one
considers supergravity theories the equations implied by requiring that
half the superymmetry be preserved are equivalent to
(\ref{soluans},\ref{betaeq}).} Then it
is a simple matter to solve the equations; the solution is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
B&=&-\fft{d}{{\tilde d}} \, A \ , \qquad \phi = \fft{a(D-2)}{\epsilon {\tilde d}} \, A
\ ,\nonumber\\
e^{-c A} &=& 1 + \fft{k}{r^{{\tilde d}}}\ ,\label{solution1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $k = \epsilon \Lambda\lambda/(2(D-2))$ and $ c= d + a^2
(D-2)/(2{\tilde d})$. In the elementary case, the function $C$ satisfies the
equation
\begin{equation}
(e^C)' = \lambda\, e^{2cA}\, r^{-{\tilde d} -1}\ .\label{csol}
\end{equation}
In presenting these solutions we have chosen simple values for some
integration constants where no loss of generality is involved.
The solutions (\ref{solution1}) are valid when $d{\tilde d}>0$. For the cases
$d=0$ or ${\tilde d}=0$, the solutions can also be straightforwardly obtained; an
example will be given in section 4.2. Note that the forms of the metrics for
both elementary and solitonic $(d-1)$-branes are the same, although, as we
saw earlier, the solutions are obtained from a $(d+1)$-form antisymmetric
tensor field strength in the former case, and from a $(D-d-1)$-form
antisymmetric tensor field strength in the latter case.
So far, we have obtained solutions for the bosonic theory described
by the Lagrangian (\ref{boslag}) for arbitrary values of the constant $a$,
and with an antisymmetric tensor of arbitrary degree. In supergravity
theories, however, there occur antisymmetric tensors of certain specific
degrees only, each with its corresponding specific value of the constant
$a$. We may summarise the $a$ values arising in supergravity theories as
follows. Without loss of generality, we may discuss all theories in
versions where all antisymmetric tensor field strengths have
degrees $n\le D/2$. The $a$ values are given by
\begin{equation}
a^2 = \Delta -\fft{2d{\tilde d}}{D-2}\ ,\label{avalue}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
d{\tilde d}=(n-1)(D-n-1)\ .\label{ndep}
\end{equation}
Some examples of values of $\Delta$ that arise in supergravity theories
are $\Delta =4$ for $n \ne 2$, and $\Delta = 4$ and 2 for $n=2$. (See
\cite{SS}, where a large class of supergravity theories in various dimensions
can be found.) We shall
discuss the set of $\Delta$ values in more detail in section 4.1. Note that
in cases where there is no dilaton, the solution for the $A$ and $B$
functions that appear in the metric ansatz is precisely given by
(\ref{solution1}) with the value of $a$ taken to be zero. In this sense
we can assign the value $\Delta = 2d{\tilde d}/(D-2)$, which, by eqn
(\ref{avalue}), sets $a=0$, in a supergravity theory where there is no
dilaton. For example $\Delta=4$ for the 4-form field strength in $D=11$
supergravity, $\Delta=2$ for the 3-form field strength in $D=6$ self-dual
supergravity, and $\Delta=\ft43$ for the 2-form field strength in $D=5$
simple supergravity.
It follows from
eqn (\ref{solution1}) that the metrics for the brane solutions are given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = \Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{\tilde d}}\Big)^{-\ft{4{\tilde d}}{(D-2)\Delta}}\, dx^\mu dx^\nu
\eta_{\mu\nu} + \Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{\tilde d}}\Big)^{\ft{4d}{(D-2)\Delta}}
\, dy^m dy^m\ .\label{metrsol}
\end{equation}
This coincides with the results given in ref.\ \cite{dkl} for the
case of $\Delta=4$. Note from (\ref{betaeq}) and (\ref{solution1}) that in
terms of $\Delta$, the functions $A$, $B$ and $\phi$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
A'=\fft{\epsilon{\tilde d}}{(D-2)\sqrt\Delta} \, S\ ,\qquad B'=-
\fft{\epsilon d}{(D-2)\sqrt\Delta} \, S\ , \qquad\phi'=\fft{a}{\sqrt\Delta}
\, S\ ,
\label{abphirel}
\end{equation}
and the dilaton is given by $e^\phi=(1+ kr^{-\tilde d})^{-2a/\Delta
\epsilon}$ with $k=\ft12 \sqrt{\Delta}\lambda/\tilde d$.
As we shall see in detail in the next section, some of the
$(d-1)$-brane solutions that we have obtained in a $D$-dimensional
supergravity can be isotropically oxidized to $d$-brane solutions in a
$(D+1)$-dimensional supergravity. The
degree of the antisymmetric tensor involved in a $p$-brane solution, and
the value of the constant $a$, play crucial r\^oles in determining whether
the solution can or cannot be isotropically oxidized in this way.
At this point, a remark about supersymmetry is in order. In order for
the solutions that we have obtained above to acquire an interpretation as
{\it super} $(d-1)$-branes embedded in $D$-dimensional spacetime, we shall
have to verify that these solutions preserve half of the supersymmetry of
the corresponding supergravity theories. We have verified, case by case,
that this is indeed true, at least as long as the antisymmetric tensor is
part of the supergravity multiplet. In fact, the conditions arising from
the requirement of preserving half of the supersymmetries turn out to be
precisely equivalent to those that we imposed in the ansatz
(\ref{soluans}).
In concluding this subsection, we return to a more detailed discussion
of a point to which we alluded earlier, namely that we may choose, when
discussing the solution set of elementary and solitonic branes in
supergravity theories, to restrict our attention to the versions of the
various supergravity theories in which all antisymmetric tensors $F_n$ have
degrees $n$ that do not exceed $D/2$. The reason why we may do this
without losing generality is that an elementary or solitonic solution of a
version of a supergravity theory in which the antisymmetric tensor
participating in the solution is dualised is {\it precisely} the same as
the solitonic or elementary solution, respectively, of the undualised form
of the supergravity theory. To see this, consider the solitonic solution
of (\ref{eqmo1}), with $F_n$ given by the ansatz (\ref{solans}). This has
\begin{equation}
F_n=\fft{1}{n!} F_{m_1\cdots m_n}\,dy^{m_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge d y^{m_n}=
\fft{\lambda}{n!} e^{-nB}\, \epsilon_{m_1\cdots m_n p}\, \fft{y^p}{r^{n+1}}
\, e^{{\underline m}_1}\wedge \cdots \wedge e^{{\underline m_n}}\ .
\end{equation}
Thus the Hodge dual of this $n$-form is given by
\begin{equation}
*F_n= \fft{\lambda}{(D-n)!}\, \fft{y^m}{r^{n+1}}\,
e^{-nB}\, \epsilon_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_d}
\, e^{\underline m}\wedge e^{{\underline\mu}_1}\wedge
\cdots \wedge e^{{\underline \mu}_d}\ .\label{fdual}
\end{equation}
In the dual version of the theory, the $(D-n)$-form
$\widetilde F$ whose Bianchi identity implies the field equation for $F_n$
given in (\ref{eqmo1}) is $\widetilde F= e^{-a\phi} *F_n$, which, from
(\ref{fdual}), has components given by
\begin{equation}
{\widetilde F}_{m\mu_1\cdots \mu_d} = \fft{\lambda y^m}{r^{n+1}} \, e^{dA-{\tilde d}
B -a\phi}\, \epsilon_{\mu_1\cdots \mu_d}\ .
\end{equation}
Hence by using (\ref{solution1}), with ${\tilde d}=n-1$, we see
that ${\widetilde F}_{m\mu_1\cdots \mu_d}$ is precisely of the form of the
elementary ansatz (\ref{eleans}) for a $(d+1)$-index field strength, where
the function $C$ satisfies its equation of motion (\ref{csol}). Thus we
see that the solitonic solution of the dualised theory is precisely the
same thing as the elementary solution of the undualised theory, and {\it vice
versa}, with the
antisymmetric tensor written in different variables. We may therefore,
without loss of generality, consider all supergravity theories in their
versions where the degrees of their antisymmetric tensors $F_n$ satisfy
$n\le D/2$. The set of all elementary and solitonic brane solutions of these
theories spans the entire set of inequivalent brane solutions of these
theories together with their dualised versions.
\subsection{Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction}
In order to describe the processes of oxidation and reduction, we need
to set up the Kaluza-Klein procedure for dimensional reduction from $(D+1)$
to $D$ dimensions. Let us denote the coordinates of a
$(D+1)$-dimensional spacetime by $x^{\hat\sst{M}}=(x^{\sst{M}}, z)$, where
$z$ is the coordinate of the extra dimension. The $(D+1)$-dimensional
metric $d\hat s^2$ is related to the $D$-dimensional metric $ds^2$ by
\begin{equation}
d\hat s^2 = e^{2\alpha\varphi} ds^2 + e^{2\beta\varphi} (dz + {\cal
A}_{\sst{M}} dx^{\sst{M}})^2\ ,\label{kkans}
\end{equation}
where $\varphi$ and ${\cal A}$ are taken to be independent of the extra
coordinate $z$. The constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ will be determined
shortly. A convenient choice for the vielbein
$\hat e^{\hat\sst{A}}{}_{\hat\sst{M}}$ of the $(D+1)$-dimensional
spacetime is
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat e^{\sst{A}}{}_{\sst{M}} = e^{\alpha\varphi} \, e^{\sst{A}}{}_{\sst{M}}
\ ,&& \hat e^{\underline z}{}_{\sst{M}} = e^{\beta\varphi}\, {\cal
A}_{\sst{M}} \ , \nonumber\\
\hat e^{\sst{A}}{}_{z} = 0\ , && \hat e^{\underline z}{}_z = e^{\beta\varphi}\
{}.
\end{eqnarray}
Note that $M$ and $z$ denote world indices, whilst $A$ and $\underline z$
denote tangent-space indices.
The spin connection is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat \omega^{\sst{AB}} &=& \omega^{\sst{AB}} + \alpha e^{-\alpha\varphi}\,
\Big(\partial^{\sst{B}}\varphi\, \hat e^{\sst{A}} - \partial^{\sst{A}}\varphi\,
\hat e^{\sst{B}}\Big) -\ft12 {\cal F}^{\sst{AB}} e^{(\beta-2\alpha)\varphi}
\, \hat e^{\underline z}\ ,\nonumber\\ \hat\omega^{{\sst{A}}\underline z}
&=& -\beta e^{-\alpha\varphi}\, \partial^{\sst{A}} \varphi\, \hat e^{\underline
z} -\ft12 {\cal F}^{\sst{A}}{}_{\sst{B}} \, e^{(\beta-2\alpha)\varphi}\,
\hat e^{\sst{B}}\ ,\label{spincon}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\partial_{\sst{A}}= E_{\sst{A}}{}^{\sst{M}} \partial_{\sst{M}}$ is the
partial derivative with a tangent-space index, and ${\cal F}_{\sst{MN}}=
2\partial_{[\sst{M}} {\cal A}_{\sst{N}]}$.
Here, $E_{\sst{A}}{}^{\sst{M}}$ is the inverse vielbein in $D$ dimensions.
Choosing $\beta = -(D-2)
\alpha $, we find that the $(D+1)$-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action
$\hat e\, \hat R$ reduces to
\begin{equation}
\hat e \hat R = e R -(D-1)(D-2) \alpha^2\, e (\partial\varphi)^2 -
\ft14 e\, e^{-2(D-1)\alpha\varphi}\, {\cal F}^2\ .\label{ricscal}
\end{equation}
The Kaluza-Klein dilaton $\varphi$ may be given its canonical normalisation
by choosing the constant $\alpha$ such that
\begin{equation}
\alpha^2= \fft{1}{2(D-1)(D-2)}\ .\label{alphaval}
\end{equation}
It is sometimes useful to have expressions for the $(D+1)$-dimensional
Ricci tensor. Its tangent-space components are given, after setting
$\beta=-(D-2)\alpha$, by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat R_{\sst{AB}} &=& e^{-2\alpha\varphi} \Big(R_{\sst{AB}} -
(D-1)(D-2)\alpha^2\, \partial_{\sst{A}}\varphi\, \partial_{\sst{B}}\varphi -
\alpha\, \mathord{\dalemb{6.8}{7}\hbox{\hskip1pt}}\varphi \, \eta_{\sst{AB}}\Big) -
\ft12 e^{-2D\alpha\varphi}\, {\cal F}_{\sst{A}}{}^{\sst{C}} {\cal F}_{\sst{
BC}}\ ,\nonumber\\
{\hat R}_{{\sst{A}}\underline z} &=& \ft12 e^{(D-3)\alpha\varphi}\,
\nabla^{\sst{B}}\Big( e^{-2(D-1)\alpha\varphi}\, {\cal F}_{\sst{AB}} \Big)\ ,
\label{ricten}\\
\hat R_{\underline z \underline z} &=& (D-2)\, \alpha\, e^{-2\alpha\varphi}\,
\mathord{\dalemb{6.8}{7}\hbox{\hskip1pt}} \varphi +\ft14 e^{-2D\alpha\varphi}\, {\cal F}^2\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now apply the above formalism to the case of a bosonic
Lagrangian of the form (\ref{boslag}), but in $(D+1)$ rather than $D$
dimensions:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \hat e \hat R -\ft12 \hat e (\partial \hat\phi)^2 - \fft1{2\, n!}
\hat e e^{-\hat a\hat\phi}\, {\hat F_n}^2\ ,\label{higherbos}
\end{equation}
where we add a subscript index $n$ to indicate that $F$ is an $n$-form.
The Kaluza-Klein ansatz for $\hat\phi$ is simply $\hat\phi=\phi$, where
$\phi$ is independent of the extra coordinate $z$. For $\hat F_n$, which
is written locally in terms of a potential $\hat A_{n-1}$ as $\hat F_n=d
\hat A_{n-1}$, the ansatz for $\hat A_{n-1}$ is
\begin{equation}
\hat A_{n-1}=B_{n-1} + B_{n-2}\wedge dz\ ,\label{aans}
\end{equation}
where $B_{n-1}$ and $B_{n-2}$ are potentials for the $n$-form field
strength $G_n=dB_{n-1}$ and the $(n-1)$-form field strength $G_{n-1}=d
B_{n-2}$ in $D$ dimensions. Defining
\begin{equation}
G'_n=G_n - G_{n-1}\wedge {\cal A}\ ,
\end{equation}
where ${\cal A}={\cal A}_{\sst{M}} dx^{\sst{M}}$, one finds
\begin{equation}
\hat F_n = {G'}_n + G_{n-1}\wedge (dz+ {\cal A})\ .\label{transgress}
\end{equation}
The tangent-space components of $\hat F_n$ in $(D+1)$ dimensions are
therefore given by $\hat F_{\sst{A_1\cdots A_n}}=
{G'}_{\sst{A_1\cdots A_n}} e^{-n\alpha\varphi}$
and $\hat F_{{\sst{A_1\cdots A_{n-1}}} {\underline z}}=
G_{\sst{A_1\cdots A_{n-1}}}
e^{-(n-1)\alpha\varphi -\beta\varphi}$. Substituting into
(\ref{higherbos}), and using $\beta=-(D-2)\alpha$, we obtain the reduced
$D$-dimensional Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L} &=& e R -\ft12 e (\partial\phi)^2 -\ft12 e (\partial\varphi)^2 -
\ft14 e e^{-2(D-1)\alpha\varphi} \, {\cal F}^2 \nonumber\\
&&-\fft{e}{2\, n!} e^{-2(n-1)\alpha\varphi-\hat a \phi}\, {G'}_n^2 -
\fft{e}{2\, (n-1)!} e^{2(D-n)\alpha\varphi -\hat a\phi}\, G_{n-1}^2 \ ,
\label{bosred}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha$ is given by (\ref{alphaval}). As one sees, different
combinations of $\varphi$ and $\phi$ appear in the exponential prefactors
of ${G'}_n^2$ and $G_{n-1}^2$. Nonetheless, each of these prefactors may
easily be seen to be of the form $e^{-a_n\tilde\phi}$, where $\tilde\phi$
is an $SO(2)$ rotated combination of $\varphi$ and $\phi$. In these
prefactors, the coefficients $a_n$ satisfy the formula (\ref{avalue}) in
$D$ dimensions, with $d{\tilde d}$ given by (\ref{ndep}), and with the {\it same}
value of $\Delta$ as for $\hat a$ in $(D+1)$ dimensions. (Note that $d{\tilde d}$
in (\ref{avalue}) is $n$-dependent, so one obtains different values for the
${G'}_n^2$ and $G_{n-1}^2$ prefactors.) The 2-form field strength ${\cal
F}$ has an $a$ value given by (\ref{avalue}) with $\Delta=4$.
Most supergravity theories can be obtained from 11-dimensional
supergravity {\it via} Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction. Any such
dimensional reduction can be viewed as a sequence of reductions by one
dimension at a time, of the kind we are discussing here.
Any solution of a lower-dimensional supergravity theory in such a sequence can
therefore be reinterpreted as a solution of any one of the higher
theories in the sequence by use of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz (\ref{kkans}).
In particular, this implies that any elementary or solitonic $p$-brane solution
is also a solution in the higher dimensions. However, it is important to
realise that the resulting higher dimensional solution may not necessarily
preserve the isotropic form of the $p$-brane ansatz (\ref{metrform}).
In this paper, we are using the term `stainless' to describe the property
of a brane solution of a lower-dimensional supergravity that cannot be
oxidized into an isotropic brane solution in any supergravity in the next
higher dimension.\footnote{We note that in defining a stainless $p$-brane
to be one that cannot be oxidized to an isotropic brane in a higher
dimension, we have not wanted to prejudge what a non-stainless
$p$-brane may oxidize into. {\it A priori}, one could envisage that the
extra dimension acquired upon oxidation could either become isotropically
included into the world-brane dimensions, giving a $(p+1)$-brane in $(D+1)$
dimensions, {\it or} that the extra dimension could be isotropically
included into the transverse dimensions, in which case one would still have
a $p$-brane in the $(D+1)$ dimensions. The latter possibility, however, can
never be realised within the scheme of Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction
because all fields are by construction taken to be independent of the extra
coordinate, and this would be inconsistent with our ansatz
(\ref{metrform}).} On the other hand, a $(p+1)$-brane solution in $(D+1)$
dimensions necessarily gives rise under dimensional reduction to an
isotropic $p$-brane solution in $D$ dimensions. This automatic
preservation of isotropicity for solutions under dimensional reduction
corresponds directly to the process of double dimensional reduction
\cite{dhis} of $p$-brane actions.
The above ideas can be illustrated in our example of the bosonic
Lagrangians (\ref{higherbos}) and (\ref{bosred}). First, we shall show that
the elementary and solitonic solutions in $(D+1)$ dimensions reduce
respectively to elementary and solitonic solutions in $D$ dimensions. In
the case of an elementary solution, the $n$-index antisymmetric tensor in
$(D+1)$ dimensions leads to
an elementary brane with world volume dimension $\hat d =n-1$. The elementary
ansatz for the $(D+1)$-dimensional field strength $\hat F_n$ in
(\ref{higherbos}) is $\hat F_{m\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-2} z} =
\epsilon_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-2} z} \partial_m e^C$. It follows from
eqn (\ref{transgress}) that the corresponding $D$ dimensional fields
$G_{n-1}$, ${G'}_n$ and ${\cal A}$ become
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{m\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-2}} &=& \epsilon_{\mu_1\ldots\mu_{n-2}} \partial_m e^C
\ ,\nonumber\\
{G'}_{\sst{M_1}\ldots\sst{M_n}} &=& 0\ ,\qquad
{\cal A}_{\sst{M}}=0 \ .\label{elered}
\end{eqnarray}
This is nothing but the usual elementary-type ansatz for an $(n-1)$-index
antisymmetric tensor in $D$ dimensions, and thus gives rise to an elementary
brane solution (\ref{solution1}) with world volume dimension $d=n-2$.
The metric ansatz in $(D+1)$ dimensions is given by $d\hat s^2 =
e^{2\hat A}(dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} + dz^2) + e^{2\hat B} dy^m dy^m$.
In the elementary solution in $(D+1)$ dimensions, it follows from
(\ref{solution1}) that $\phi= \hat a (D-1) \hat A/{\tilde d}$, and $\hat B= -(d+1)
\hat A/{\tilde d}$. (Note that ${\tilde d}$ is the same for both $D$ and $(D+1)$
dimensions since, by definition, ${\tilde d} +2$ is the codimension of the world
volume of the brane.) On the other hand in $D$ dimensions, we see from
(\ref{bosred}) that the combination of scalar fields $-2(D-n)\alpha\varphi+
\hat a\phi=a\tilde\phi$, with $a^2=\hat a^2 +4(D-n)^2 \alpha^2$, defines the
$SO(2)$-rotated $D$-dimensional dilaton $\tilde \phi$, whilst the
orthogonal combination $2(D-n)\alpha \phi+ \hat a\varphi$ is set to zero.
Since $n=d+2$, it then follows from (\ref{alphaval}) that $\hat a$
and $a$ are related by
\begin{equation}
\hat a^2 = a^2 - \fft{2{\tilde d}^2}{(D-2)(D-1)}\ .\label{arelation}
\end{equation}
Thus we find that $\tilde\phi=a (D-2) A/{\tilde d}$, $B=-d A/{\tilde d}$ and $e^{c A}=
e^{\hat c\hat A}$, since, from
the Kaluza-Klein ansatz (\ref{kkans}) for the metric, we have $\hat
A=A+\alpha\varphi$ and $\hat B= B +\alpha\varphi$. But these expressions for
$\tilde\phi$ and $B$ are precisely of the form given in (\ref{solution1})
for the elementary $(d-1)$-brane in $D$ dimensions. Thus we conclude that
under dimensional reduction, an elementary $d$-brane in $(D+1)$ reduces to
an elementary $(d-1)$-brane in $D$ dimensions.
In the case of solitonic solutions, the analysis is parallel. The
ansatz for the $n$-index antisymmetric tensor, which leads to a solitonic
brane solution with world volume dimension $d=D-n$ in $(D+1)$ dimensions,
takes the form $\hat F_{m_1\ldots m_n} = \lambda \epsilon_{m_1\ldots m_n p}
\, y^p\, r^{-n-1}$. It follows from eqn (\ref{transgress}) that the
corresponding $D$ dimensional fields ${G'}_n$, $G_{n-1}$ and ${\cal A}$ become
\begin{eqnarray}
{G'}_{m_1\ldots m_n} &=&\lambda \epsilon_{m_1\ldots m_n
p}\, y^p\, r^{-n-1} \ ,\nonumber\\
G_{\sst{M_1}\ldots\sst{M_{n-1}}} &=& 0\ ,\qquad
{\cal A}_{\sst{M}} = 0 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
This is indeed just the field configuration for a solitonic $(d-1)$-brane
in $D$ dimensions. The analysis of the relation between the metrics in
$(D+1)$ and $D$ dimensions is very similar to that in the elementary case.
It is of interest to note that in the reduction of a $d$-brane in
$(D+1)$ dimensions to a $(d-1)$ brane in $D$ dimensions, the degree of the
antisymmetric tensor involved in the solution reduces by one in the
elementary case, but remains unchanged in the solitonic case. Note also
that the relation between $\hat a$ and $a$ in eqn (\ref{arelation}) is
always satisfied in the dimensional reduction of a brane solution in $(D+1)$
to one in $D$ dimensions. This implies, conversely, that eqn
(\ref{arelation}) is a {\it necessary} condition for the reverse procedure
to be possible. It is easy to verify that the relation (\ref{arelation})
is uniquely satisfied with $\hat a$ and $a$ given by eqn (\ref{avalue}),
provided that $\Delta$ is the same for both $\hat a$ and $a$.
We have seen that brane solutions in higher dimensions can be reduced
to those in lower dimensions {\it via} the Kaluza-Klein procedure; however,
the inverse procedure is not necessarily possible. For example the
$D$-dimensional bosonic Lagrangian (\ref{bosred}) that is derived from the
$(D+1)$-dimensional Lagrangian (\ref{higherbos}) admits six brane
solutions, namely an elementary and a solitonic solution for each of the
three antisymmetric tensors $G_n$, $ G_{n-1}$ and $\cal F$. Two of these
solutions are isotropically oxidizable to brane solutions in $(D+1)$
dimensions, by reversing the procedure discussed above, namely the elementary
solution using $G_{n-1}$ and the solitonic solution using $G_n$. The remaining
four solutions are stainless because they cannot be oxidized to isotropic brane
solutions of the $(D+1)$ dimensional theory defined by eqn (\ref{higherbos}).
To illustrate this, consider the elementary solution that uses the
antisymmetric tensor $G_n$ in the $D$-dimensional Lagrangian (\ref{bosred}).
The solution for the metric in $D$ dimensions is given by (\ref{metrform}) with
$A$ and $B$ given in eqn (\ref{solution1}). This solution can be oxidized
into a solution in $(D+1)$ dimensions, whose metric is given by
\begin{equation}
d\hat s^2 = e^{2\hat A} dx^\mu dx^\nu\eta_{\mu\nu} +
e^{2\hat B} (dy^m dy^m + dz^2)\ ,\label{genoxiele}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\hat A = \fft{(D-2)({\tilde d} +1)}{(D-1){\tilde d}} \, A\ ,\qquad
\hat B = - \fft{(D-2)d}{(D-1){\tilde d}}\, A\ .\label{noname2}
\end{equation}
{}From the form of this $(D+1)$-dimensional metric, we can see that it does
not describe an isotropic $d$-brane, since the different $r$-dependent
prefactor for $dz^2$ prevents $z$ from being grouped together with the
coordinates $x^\mu$. Note also that, although $dz^2$ does have the same
prefactor as $dy^mdy^m$, this metric is still not isotropic in the
transverse directions because the prefactors $e^{2\hat A}$ and $e^{2\hat
B}$ are functions of $r=\sqrt{y^my^m}$ and not of $\sqrt{y^my^m + z^2}$.
To summarise, we have seen that an elementary or solitonic
$(p+1)$-brane solution in $(D+1)$ dimensions can always be reduced respectively
to an elementary or solitonic $p$-brane solution in $D$ dimensions. On the
other hand, the inverse process of dimensional oxidation to an isotropic
brane solution is not always possible. Thus in a brane scan of elementary
and solitonic solutions, we may factor out the rusty solutions and
characterise the full solution set by the stainless $p$-branes only.
There are three cases in which a $p$-brane solution
can turn out to be stainless. The first case is when a brane solution
arises in a supergravity theory that cannot be obtained by dimensional
reduction, such as $D=11$ supergravity or type IIB supergravity in $D=10$.
In the remaining two cases, the supergravity theory itself can be obtained
by dimensional reduction, but oxidation to an isotropic brane solution is
nonetheless not possible. In the second case, no $(D+1)$-dimensional
supergravity theory has the necessary antisymmetric tensor for an isotropic
brane solution. Specifically, if the $D$-dimensional solution is
elementary, the $(D+1)$-dimensional theory would need an antisymmetric
tensor of degree one higher than that in the $D$-dimensional theory. If it
is instead a solitonic solution, the $(D+1)$-dimensional theory would need
an antisymmetric tensor of the same degree as in the $D$-dimensional
theory. In the third case, an antisymmetric tensor of the required degree
exists in the $(D+1)$-dimensional theory, but the exponential dilaton
prefactor has a coefficient $\hat a$ that does not satisfy eqn
(\ref{arelation}). We shall meet examples of all three cases in the
subsequent sections.
\section{$D\ge10$ supergravity}
$D=11$ is the highest dimension for any supergravity theory, and
hence all the $D=11$ $p$-brane solutions are necessarily stainless. Since
there is only one antisymmetric tensor field strength in the theory, namely
a 4-index field, there is just one elementary membrane solution \cite{dust} and
one solitonic 5-brane solution \cite{guv}. (Original papers giving $D=11$
supergravity, and all the other supergravities in various dimensions that we
will consider here, can be found in \cite{SS}.)
Dimensional reduction of $D=11$ supergravity to $D=10$ yields type
IIA supergravity. The type IIA theory contains: a 2-form field strength
giving rise to a particle and a 6-brane; a 3-form giving rise to a string
and a 5-brane; and a 4-form giving rise to a membrane and a 4-brane. In
each case we have listed first the elementary and then the solitonic
solution. All of these solutions break half of the $D=10$, $N=2$
supersymmetry. Of the six solutions two, namely the elementary string
and the solitonic 4-brane, can be oxidized to the corresponding elementary
membrane and solitonic 5-brane in $D=11$. The remaining four solutions
are stainless since $D=11$ supergravity lacks the necessary antisymmetric
tensors. Note that the $11\longrightarrow 10$ situation corresponds
precisely to the bosonic example we discussed in section 2.2.
In addition, in $D=10$, there is the type IIB supergravity, which
cannot be obtained by dimensional reduction from $D=11$. This theory
contains a complex 3-form field strength giving rise to an elementary
string and a solitonic 5-brane solution; and a self-dual 5-form
field strength giving rise to a self-dual 3-brane \cite{dulu}. The string and
5-brane are in fact also solutions of $D=10$, $N=1$ supergravity, and are hence
identical to the string and 5-brane solutions of the type IIA theory.
Thus, although the type IIB theory cannot itself be obtained by
dimensional reduction from $D=11$, these particular solutions of the IIB
theory do have an oxidation pathway up to isotropic solutions in $D=11$.
In such situations, we do not consider brane solutions to be stainless.
The remaining solution, the self-dual 3-brane, is the only solution that
belongs exclusively to the IIB theory. It is stainless and breaks half of
the $N=2$ supersymmetry.
\section{$D=9$ supergravity}
\subsection{$N=1$, $D=9$ supergravity}
$N=1$ supergravity in $D=9$ \cite{sgn} contains a 2-form field strength
giving rise to an elementary particle and a solitonic 5-brane; and a 3-form
field strength giving rise to an elementary string and a solitonic
4-brane. The solitonic 4-brane solution can be isotropically oxidized to the
solitonic 5-brane of $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity. The situation is somewhat
more complicated for the oxidation of the elementary string solution.
Obviously, this solution cannot be oxidized isotropically to an elementary
membrane solution of $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity because this theory lacks
the necessary 4-form field strength, and thus no elementary membrane exists
in the $N=1$, $D=10$ theory. Nonetheless, the $D=9$ string solution is not
stainless because there is a different oxidation pathway available to it.
The $D=9$ string can also be viewed as a solution of $N=2$, $D=9$
supergravity. In this guise, it can oxidize isotropically to a solution of
type IIA $D=10$ supergravity, which {\it does} have a 4-form field strength.
The elementary particle and solitonic 5-brane solution that arise
from the 2-form field strength are stainless. Na\"\i vely, one might
expect these solutions could oxidize up to the elementary string and
solitonic 6-brane solutions of type IIA $D=10$ supergravity. However, as we
showed in section 2.2, even when the necessary forms are present in the
higher-dimensional theory an isotropic oxidation is possible only when
the coefficient $a$ appearing in the dilaton prefactor $e^{-a\phi}$
satisfies the relation (\ref{arelation}). In the case of $N=1$, $D=9$
supergravity, the coefficient $a$ is given by eqn (\ref{avalue}) with
$\Delta=2$. On the other hand, the coefficient $a$ in the type IIA, $D=10$
theory is given by eqn (\ref{avalue}) with $\Delta=4$. Since the $\Delta$
value has to be preserved under dimensional reduction, it follows that the
particle and 5-brane solutions in $D=9$ are stainless.
There {\it are} elementary particle and solitonic 5-brane
descendants in $D=9$, nonetheless. These {\it are} obtained by dimensional
reduction from the type IIA $D=10$ elementary membrane and solitonic
6-brane. From the $D=9$ point of view, these are obtained as solutions to
$N=2$ supergravity using a 2-form field strength whose dilaton prefactor
indeed has an $a$ coefficient given by (\ref{avalue}) with the necessary
$\Delta=4$. The difference in $\Delta$ values establishes the distinctness
of the stainless particle and 5-brane discussed above from those obtained
by dimensional reduction. The metrics for the stainless elementary
particle and solitonic 5-brane are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm elementary}:&& ds^2 = - \Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{6}}\Big)^{-12/7} dt^2 +
\Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{6}}\Big)^{2/7} dy^mdy^m \ ,\nonumber\\
{\rm solitonic}:&& ds^2 =\Big (1+\fft{k}{r}\Big)^{-2/7} dx^\mu dx^\nu
\eta_{\mu\nu} + \Big(1+\fft{k}{r}\Big)^{12/7} dy^mdy^m\ .
\end{eqnarray}
By contrast, the metrics for the elementary particle and solitonic
5-brane that can oxidize to an elementary string and a solitonic 6-brane
in $D=10$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm elementary}:&& ds^2 = - \Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{6}}\Big)^{-6/7} dt^2 +
\Big(1+\fft{k}{r^{6}}\Big)^{1/7} dy^mdy^m \ ,\nonumber\\
{\rm solitonic}:&& ds^2 = \Big(1+\fft{k}{r}\Big)^{-1/7} dx^\mu dx^\nu
\eta_{\mu\nu} + \Big(1+\fft{k}{r}\Big)^{6/7} dy^mdy^m\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Let us now examine in detail the new stainless $D=9$ solutions. In
particular, we need to verify that they preserve half of the
supersymmetry. Since these solutions cannot be obtained from isotropic
solutions in $D=10$, we
do not have an automatic guarantee that half of the supersymmetry will be
preserved. To investigate this, we first give the bosonic sector of the
Lagrangian and the supersymmetry transformations. The bosonic sector of
the Lagrangian is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}=eR-\ft12e(\partial\phi)^2-
\ft1{12}ee^{-\sqrt{\fft87}\phi}\, G_{\sst{MNP}}G^{\sst{MNP}}-
\ft14ee^{-\sqrt{\fft27}\phi}\, F_{\sst{MN}}F^{\sst{MN}}\ ,
\label{d9lag}
\end{equation}
where $F_{\sst{MN}}=2\partial_{[\sst M}A_{\sst N]}$ and
$G_{\sst{MNP}}=3\partial_{[\sst M}B_{\sst{NP}]}+\ft32 A_{[\sst M}F_{\sst{NP}]}$
\cite{sgn}. By
comparison with eqn (\ref{avalue}) it is easy to verify that the
$\Delta$ value for the 3-form $G$ is 4, but the value for the 2-form $F$
is 2. The supersymmetry transformation rules for the bosonic fields are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta e^{\sst A}{}_{\sst M} &=& -{\rm i} \, \bar\varepsilon\Gamma^{\sst
A}\psi_{\sst M}\ ,\qquad \delta\phi = {\rm i}\sqrt2\, \bar\varepsilon\chi\
,\nonumber\\
\delta A_{\sst M} &=&
-\ft2{\sqrt{14}}\, e^{\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\,
\bar\varepsilon\Gamma_{\sst M}\chi
+ \sqrt2 \, e^{\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, \bar\varepsilon\psi_{\sst M}\ ,
\label{d9bostr}\\
\delta B_{\sst{MN}} &=& -2{\rm i}\,
e^{\sqrt{\fft27}\phi}\, \bar\varepsilon\Gamma_{[\sst M}\psi_{\sst N]} +
\ft{2{\rm i}}{\sqrt{7}}\, e^{\sqrt{\fft27}\phi}\, \bar\varepsilon
\Gamma_{\sst{MN}}\chi +
A_{[\sst M}\delta A_{\sst N]}\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For the fermionic fields, the supersymmetry transformations are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\chi &=& -\ft1{2\sqrt2}\Gamma^{\sst M}\varepsilon\, \partial_{\sst M}\phi
+\ft1{12\sqrt7}\, e^{-\sqrt{\fft27}\phi}\, G_{\sst{MNP}}
\Gamma^{\sst{MNP}}\varepsilon
-\ft{{\rm i}}{4\sqrt{14}}\, e^{-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, F_{\sst{MN}}
\Gamma^{\sst{MN}}\varepsilon\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta\psi_{\sst M} &=& D_{\sst M}\varepsilon +
\ft1{84}e^{-\sqrt{\fft27}\phi}\, G_{\sst{NPQ}}\Big(
\Gamma_{\sst M}{}^{\sst{NPQ}}
- \ft{15}2\delta_{\sst M}^{\sst N}\, \Gamma^{\sst{PQ}}\Big)\varepsilon
\nonumber\\
&& -\ft{{\rm i}}{28\sqrt2}\, e^{-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, F_{\sst{NP}}\Big(
\Gamma_{\sst M}{}^{\sst{NP}} - 12\delta_{\sst M}^{\sst N}\, \Gamma^{\sst
P}\Big)\varepsilon\ .\label{d9fertr}
\end{eqnarray}
The elementary particle and solitonic 5-brane in $D=9$ dimensions are
obtained from the ans\"atze for the 2-index antisymmetric tensor field
strength $F_{\sst{MN}}$ given in (\ref{eleans}) and (\ref{solans})
respectively. The solutions are given by (\ref{solution1}). We shall
first verify that the solitonic 5-brane solution preserves half of the
supersymmetry. We begin by making a $6+3$ split of the gamma matrices:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^{\mu} = \gamma^\mu \otimes \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\ ,\qquad
\Gamma^{m} = \gamma_7 \otimes \gamma^m \ ,\label{d95bs}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_7 = \gamma_0\gamma_1\ldots\gamma_5$ on the world volume and
$\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3={\rm i}$ in the transverse space. Here, and
throughout the paper, we adopt the convention that $\gamma_\mu$ and
$\gamma_m$ are purely numerical matrices, with flat indices.
The transformation rules for the fermionic fields in (\ref{d9fertr}) become
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \chi &=& -\fft1{2\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-B}\, \partial_m \phi\, \gamma_7\otimes
\gamma_m \varepsilon + \fft{\lambda}{2\sqrt{14}}\,
e^{ -2B-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi
}\, \fft{y^m}{r^3}\, \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l} \otimes \gamma_m \varepsilon \ ,\nonumber\\
\delta \psi_\mu&=& \fft12 \partial_m A\, e^{A-B}\, \gamma_\mu \gamma_7\otimes
\gamma_m \varepsilon + \fft\lambda{14\sqrt2}\, e^{A-2B-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}
\, \fft{y^m}{r^3}\, \gamma_\mu\otimes \gamma_m \varepsilon\ ,\label{d9soltr}\\
\delta \psi_m &=& \partial_m \varepsilon + \fft{{\rm i}}2 \partial_n B
\varepsilon_{mnp} 1\otimes \gamma_p +
\fft{\lambda}{14\sqrt2}\, e^{-B-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, \fft{y^m}{r^3}\,
\gamma_7\otimes \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\, \varepsilon \nonumber\\
&&- \fft{3{\rm i}\lambda}{7\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{- B-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi} \, \varepsilon_{mnp} \,
\fft{y^n}{r^3}\, \gamma_7\otimes \gamma_p\, \varepsilon\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the solitonic solution (\ref{solution1}) and noting that
$\phi'$ and $A'$ satisfy (\ref{soluans}) and (\ref{betaeq}), we find that
these variations all vanish provided that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = e^{\ft12 A} \, \varepsilon_0\ ,\qquad
\gamma_7\otimes\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\, \varepsilon_0 = \varepsilon_0\ ,\label{d9epso}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_0$ is a constant spinor. Thus our solitonic 5-brane
solution preserves half of the supersymmetry.
We shall now verify that the elementary particle solution also
preserves half the supersymmetry. We make a $1+8$ split of the gamma
matrices:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma^0 = {\rm i} \gamma_9\ ,\qquad \Gamma^m = \gamma^m\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_9=\gamma_1\gamma_2\cdots\gamma_8$. The transformation rules
(\ref{d9fertr}) for the fermionic fields become
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \chi &=& -\ft1{2\sqrt2}\, e^{-B} \partial_m \phi\, \gamma_m \varepsilon
+ \ft1{2\sqrt{14}}\, e^{-A - B +C- \sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, \partial_m C \,\gamma_m
\gamma_9 \varepsilon\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta \psi_0 &=& \ft{\rm i}{2} e^{A-B}\, \partial_m A\, \gamma_m\gamma_9 \varepsilon
-\ft{3{\rm i}}{7\sqrt2}\, e^{-B+C-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, \partial_m C
\,\gamma_m \varepsilon\ ,\label{d9eletr}\\
\delta \psi_m &=& \partial_m \varepsilon +\ft{{\rm i}}2 \partial_n B\, \gamma_{mn}
\varepsilon + \ft{1}{14\sqrt2}\, e^{-A +C-\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi}\, \partial_m C\,
\gamma_{mn}\gamma_9 \varepsilon\nonumber\\
&& -\ft3{7\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-A+C -\sqrt{\fft1{14}}\phi} \,
\partial_m C \,\gamma_9 \varepsilon\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Analogously to the solitonic case, the elementary particle solution also
preserves half of the supersymmetry provided that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = e^{\ft12 A}\, \varepsilon_0\ ,\qquad
\gamma_9\, \varepsilon_0 =\varepsilon_0\ ,\label{d9epel}
\end{equation}
So far we have obtained a stainless elementary particle and stainless
solitonic 5-brane. Both solutions break half of the supersymmetry. The
reason why these two solutions cannot be isotropically oxidized into
$D=10$ dimensions is that both are obtained from the 2-index
antisymmetric tensor field strength with the dilaton prefactor
$e^{-a\phi}$ where the $a$ coefficient is given by (\ref{avalue}) with
$\Delta = 2$, instead of the value $\Delta=4$ that characterises the
prefactors of antisymmetric tensor field strengths in $D=10$.
At first sight the occurrence of this new value of $\Delta$
may seem paradoxical since, Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction preserves
the value of $\Delta$, as we discussed for the scalar field $\tilde \phi$
defined below eqn (\ref{bosred}). Since $N=1$, $D=9$ supergravity can be
obtained by dimensional reduction of $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity, which has
a single 3-form field strength, with a $\Delta = 4$ prefactor, it follows
that all the antisymmetric tensors in $D=9$ will have $\Delta=4$
prefactors.
The resolution of this apparent paradox involves details of the
truncation of dimensionally reduced $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity to the
pure $N=1$ supergravity multiplet in $D=9$. The truncation removes a
single $D=9$ Maxwell multiplet. The Lagrangian of the bosonic sector of
$N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \hat e \hat R - \ft12 e (\partial\phi)^2 -\ft1{12} \hat e e^{-\phi}
\, \hat F_{\sst{MNP}} \hat F^{\sst{MNP}}\ .
\end{equation}
Following the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction scheme discussed in
section 2.2, this leads to the $D=9$ Lagrangian
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L} &=& e R -\ft12 e(\partial\phi)^2 -\ft12 e(\partial\varphi)^2 -\ft1{12} e
e^{-\phi -\sqrt{\fft17}\varphi}\, {G'}_3^2 \nonumber\\
&& -\ft14 e e^{-\fft4{\sqrt7}\varphi}\, {\cal F}^2 -\ft14 e e^{-\phi +
\fft3{\sqrt7}\varphi}\, G_2^2\ .\label{n1d9lag}
\end{eqnarray}
As it stands, one cannot consistently truncate out either of the 2-form
field strengths or either of the two scalars. Nonetheless, it is possible
to make a consistent truncation to the bosonic sector of pure $N=1$, $D=9$
supergravity.\footnote{The possibility of making a consistent truncation to
the $N=1$, $D=9$ supermultiplet may be shown using arguments similar to
those in ref.\ \cite{zilch}} In order to do this, we must first rotate the
basis for the scalar fields:
\begin{equation}
\phi = \sqrt{\ft78} \phi_1 -\sqrt{\ft18} \phi_2\ ,\qquad
\varphi = \sqrt{\ft18} \phi_1 + \sqrt{\ft78} \phi_2\ .
\end{equation}
In terms of this rotated basis, the Lagrangian (\ref{n1d9lag}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L} &=& e R -\ft12 e(\partial\phi_1)^2 -\ft12 e(\partial\phi_2)^2 -\ft1{12} e
e^{-\sqrt{\fft87} \phi_1 }\, {G'}_3^2 \nonumber\\
&& -\ft14 e e^{-\sqrt{\fft27} \phi_1 -\sqrt{2} \phi_2 }\, {\cal F}^2 -\ft14 e
e^{- \sqrt{\fft27} \phi_1 +\sqrt{2}\phi_2}\, G_2^2\ .\label{n1d9lag2}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we can see that it is consistent with the equation of motion for
$\phi_2$ to set $\phi_2=0$ provided that at the same time we set ${\cal F}$
equal to $G_2$. Defining then $F= \sqrt2{\cal F} = \sqrt2 G_2$, we obtain the
Lagrangian for the bosonic sector of pure $N=1$, $D=9$ supergravity:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = e R -\ft12 e(\partial \phi_1)^2 -\ft1{12} e e^{-\sqrt{\fft87}\phi_1}
{G'}_3^2 -\ft14 e e^{-\sqrt{\fft27}\phi_1} F^2\ ,\label{n1d9sez}
\end{equation}
where $d {G'}_3 + \ft12 F\wedge F =0$. This result coincides with the
Lagrangian given in ref.\ \cite{sgn}, which appears in eqn (\ref{d9lag}).
Thus although the value of $\Delta$ for the combinations $- \sqrt{\ft27}
\phi_1 \pm \sqrt{2}\phi_2$ occurring in the 2-form field strength
prefactors before truncation is $\Delta=4$, the value after the truncation
in which $\phi_2$ is set equal to zero is $\Delta = 2 $.\footnote{
Another point of view for resolving the apparent paradox is to
regard the stainless particle and 5-brane as solutions of the full
dimensionally reduced $N=1$, $D=10$ supergravity, {\it i.e.}\ $N=1$, $D=9$
supergravity plus the Maxwell multiplet. From this point of view, these
solutions fall outside out $p$-brane ans\"atze (\ref{eleans}) and
(\ref{solans}) because more than one antisymmetric tensor field strength
takes a non-vanishing value. The solutions arising from this new ansatz
are equivalent to those in the truncated $N=1$ theory with $\Delta = 2$.}
Having studied this example in detail, we are now in a position to be
more precise about the possible values of $\Delta$ that can arise in
supergravity theories. We have seen that we may treat $D=11$
supergravity, which has no dilaton, as having the value $\Delta=4$ for its
4-form field strength, since this value corresponds, by virtue of eqn
(\ref{avalue}), to $a=0$. We have also seen that pure Kaluza-Klein
dimensional reduction, where one performs no truncation on the
lower-dimensional theory, preserves the values of $\Delta$ from the higher
dimension. Thus in the absence of any truncation, all supergravity theories
that are obtained by dimensional reduction from $D=11$ will have $\Delta=4$
for all dilaton couplings. However, as we demonstrated in the case of
$N=1$, $D=9$ supergravity above, if a supergravity theory in a
lower dimension is
obtained by a process of {\it truncation} as well as dimensional reduction,
then the values of $\Delta$ for the coupling of the particular combinations of
dilaton fields that survive the truncation to the antisymmetric tensor
combinations that survive the truncation can differ from 4. For example,
one can have $\Delta=2$ for 2-form field strengths in $D\le9$
supergravities.
Before ending this section, it is of interest to investigate the warped
metrics that one does obtain in $D=10$ if one oxidizes the stainless
elementary particle and solitonic 5-brane from $D=9$, so as to compare them
with the isotropic metrics of the elementary string and and solitonic
6-brane occurring in $D=10$. The metrics obtained by oxidizing the stainless
$D=9$ solutions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm elementary:}&& d\hat s^2 = \Big ( 1 + \fft{k}{r^6}\Big )^{-7/4} dx^\mu
dx^\nu\eta_{\mu\nu} + \Big (1+ \fft{k}{r^6} \Big)^{1/4} \Big (dy^m dy^m +
(dz + {\cal A})^2\Big)\ , \nonumber\\
{\rm solitonic:} && d\hat s^2 = \Big ( 1 + \fft{k}{r}\Big )^{-1/4}
\Big( dx^\mu dx^\nu\eta_{\mu\nu} + (dz + {\cal A})^2\Big) +
\Big (1+ \fft{k}{r} \Big)^{7/4} dy^m dy^m\ .\label{d9oxid}
\end{eqnarray}
Here we see that we have pushed oxidation too far: neither of these two
metrics describes isotropic brane solutions in $D=10$. In both cases there
is a non-vanishing gauge potential ${\cal A}={\cal A}_{\sst M} dx^{\sst M}$,
which describes a
topologically non-trivial field configuration, implying that $z$ is a
coordinate on a non-trivial $U(1)$ fibre bundle, and thus the metric is
`twisted.' Furthermore, in order for this coordinate to be well defined, it
must be taken to be periodic with period $\Delta z = \int {\cal F}$ (or
$\int{\cal F}$ divided by any integer). In the elementary case, as we also
saw in the general example given in eqn (\ref{genoxiele}), the metric would
not be isotropic even if ${\cal A}$ were equal to zero, for the reasons we
discussed. By contrast, the metrics for the
{\it isotropic} elementary string and solitonic 6-brane are given by
(\ref{metrsol}) with $D=10$ and $\Delta = 4$, by taking $d=2$ and $d=7$
respectively.
\subsection{$N=2$, $D=9$ supergravity}
$N=2$ supergravity in $D=9$ contains three 2-form, two 3-form and one
4-form field strengths. In addition there are three scalar fields. Two
of these behave like dilatons and appear undifferentiated in exponential
prefactors multiplying the kinetic terms for the antisymmetric tensors. The
third scalar does not appear in exponential prefactors in the Lagrangian;
furthermore, its kinetic term itself has a dilaton prefactor. Thus we may
view this scalar field as the 0-form potential for a 1-form field strength.
We can use this field strength to obtain a solitonic 6-brane in $D=9$.
$N=2$, $D=9$ supergravity has not yet been constructed; however, it
could be easily obtained by dimensional reduction of type IIA supergravity in
$D=10$. We expect that the elementary and solitonic brane solutions that
are obtained from the 2-form, 3-form and 4-form field strengths are either
obtainable by dimensional reduction from those in $D=10$ or are
equivalent to the stainless solutions we constructed in $N=1$, $D=9$
supergravity. However, the solitonic 6-brane that is associated with the
1-form field strength is necessarily stainless, since the 1-form field
strength appears first in $D=9$ supergravity in the descent from eleven
dimensions. We shall first obtain the solution and then shall verify that it
preserves half of the supersymmetry.
The Lagrangian of the relevant part of the bosonic sector of $N=2$, $D=9$
supergravity can be obtained by Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction of the
metric, dilaton and 2-form field strength in type IIA supergravity in
$D=10$, whose Lagrangian is given by eqn (\ref{higherbos}) with $n=2$ and
$\hat a = 3/2$. The reduced $9$-dimensional Lagrangian is given by
(\ref{bosred}), again with $n=2$ and $\hat a=3/2$. In order to obtain a
solitonic 6-brane solution, we can consistently set ${\cal F}=0$,
${G'}_2=0$ and furthermore truncate out one of the two scalar field degrees of
freedom by setting
\begin{equation}
\ft32 \phi - 14\alpha \varphi = 2 \tilde \phi\ ,\qquad
14\alpha \phi + \ft32 \varphi = 0\ .
\end{equation}
Thus the Lagrangian for the relevant bosonic fields in $D=9$ is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = e R - \ft12 e (\partial \tilde\phi)^2 - \ft12 e e^{-2\tilde \phi}
\, G_1^2\ .
\end{equation}
This construction, which precisely parallels the previous discussions for
general values of $n$, emphasises that $G_{\sst M}=\partial_{\sst{M}}b$ should
properly be thought of as the field strength for the 0-form gauge potential
$b=\hat A_z$, since it has its origin in the gauge field $\hat F_2$ in
$D=10$. Thus it is legitimate for $G_1$ to take the necessary
topologically non-trivial form in the solitonic 6-brane solution in $D=9$,
in which its 0-form potential is well-defined only in patches.
Using the ansatz for $G_1$ given by eqn
(\ref{solans}), we can obtain the 6-brane solution. However in this case
${\tilde d}=0$, and hence the general solution given by eqn (\ref{solution1}) no
longer applies. Nonetheless the equations (\ref{eqmo2}) are easy to
solve; the metric of the solitonic 6-brane in $D=9$ is given by
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} + (1 + k \log{r}) \, dy^m dy^m\ ,
\end{equation}
and the dilaton field $\tilde \phi$ is given by $e^{\tilde \phi} = 1+ k
\log r$. It satisfies $\tilde\phi'=S$, where $S$ is given in eqn
(\ref{sforms}).
If $N=2$, $D=9$ supergravity had been constructed, it would have been a
simple matter to check whether the above solution preserved half of the
supersymmetry. In lieu of this, we may exploit the fact that Kaluza-Klein
dimensional reduction preserves unbroken supersymmetry, and carry out the
computation for the corresponding oxidized brane solution in $D=10$. Of
course, since the 6-brane in $D=9$ is stainless, the resulting oxidized
metric will not be an isotropic 7-brane. In fact it takes the form
\begin{equation}
d\hat s^2 = e^{-\fft18 \tilde\phi}\, dx^\mu dx^\nu \eta_{\mu\nu} +
e^{\fft78 \tilde\phi}\, \Big (dy^m dy^m + dz^2\Big)\ .\label{ox6brane}
\end{equation}
The relevant terms in the fermionic transformation rules of type IIA,
$D=10$ supergravity, involving the non-vanishing
2-form field strength $\hat F_2$, are:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \chi &=& \ft{\sqrt2}{4} \partial_{\hat\sst{M}}\phi\, \hat\Gamma^{\hat
\sst{M}} \hat\Gamma^{11}\varepsilon -\ft{3}{16\sqrt 2} e^{-\fft34\phi}\,
\hat F_{\hat\sst{M}\hat\sst{N}} \hat\Gamma^{\hat\sst{M}\hat\sst{N}}
\varepsilon\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta \psi_{\hat\sst{M}} &=& \hat D_{\hat\sst{M}}\varepsilon -\ft1{64}
e^{-\fft34 \phi}\, \hat F_{\hat\sst{N}\hat\sst{P}}\Big(
\hat\Gamma_{\hat\sst{M}}{}^{
\hat\sst{N}\hat\sst{P}} -14 \delta_{\hat\sst{M}}^{\hat\sst{N}}\,
\hat\Gamma^{\hat\sst{P}}\Big)\hat\Gamma^{11}\varepsilon \ .\label{d10susy}
\end{eqnarray}
It follows from (\ref{transgress}) that the 2-form field strength
is given by $\hat F_{mz} = G_m = \lambda\varepsilon_{mn}\, y^n/r^2$.
The functions $A$ and $B$ appearing in the $D=9$ solitonic 6-brane
metric, the Kaluza-Klein scalar $\varphi$, and the $D=10$ dilaton $\phi$
are given in terms of $\tilde\phi$ by $A=0$, $B=\ft12\tilde\phi$,
$\alpha\varphi=-\ft1{16}\tilde\phi$, $\phi=\ft34\tilde\phi$. The Kaluza-Klein
vector potential ${\cal A}_{\sst M}$ is equal to zero. With these, and
the expressions (\ref{spincon}) for the $D=10$ spin connection appearing in
$\hat D_{\hat\sst{M}}$ in terms of the $D=9$ spin connection and $\varphi$,
it is now straightforward to substitute the
oxidized solution into the fermionic transformation rules given in eqn
(\ref{d10susy}). We find that half the supersymmetry is preserved if
$\varepsilon$ satisfies the conditions
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon = e^{-\ft1{32}\tilde\phi}\, \varepsilon_0\ ,\qquad
\hat\Gamma_{{\underline m}{\underline n}}\, \varepsilon_0 =
- \epsilon_{mn}\, \hat\Gamma_{\underline z}\, \hat\Gamma^{11}\,
\varepsilon_0\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_0$ is a constant spinor. Having demonstrated in $D=10$
that the non-isotropic oxidation (\ref{ox6brane}) of the 6-brane preserves
half of the type IIA, $D=10$ supersymmetry, it follows that the 6-brane
solution itself in $D=9$ also preserves half of the $N=2$, $D=9$
supersymmetry.
\section{$D\le 8$ supergravity}
As one descends through the dimensions, starting at $D=11$, one
encounters various stainless brane solutions. First of all, they occur if
the supergravity theory in a given dimension cannot be obtained from
dimensional reduction. This happens in $D=11$, and $D=10$ for type IIB
supergravity. A second reason for the occurrence of stainless brane solutions
is if no supergravity theory in the next higher dimension has the necessary
antisymmetric tensor field strength. The above two reasons account for all the
stainless brane solutions in $D=11$ and $D=10$, and the stainless solitonic
6-brane in $D=9$. By the time one has reached $D=9$, all possible degrees
$n\le D/2$ for antisymmetric tensor field strengths have occurred. Because of
this, any further stainless brane solutions in $D\le 8$ will arise only for
the third of the reasons we discussed in section 2.2, namely, that the $\Delta$
values for the exponential dilaton prefactors of the relevant antisymmetric
tensors in the higher and lower dimensions differ. This phenomenon already
occurred for the 2-form field strength in $D=9$, giving rise to the stainless
elementary particle and solitonic 5-brane, as we discussed in the previous
section.
In view of the above considerations, it is not surprising that
further stainless brane solutions in $D\le 8$ are relatively sparse.
However, we shall not attempt in this paper to give a full classification
of the super $p$-brane solutions for $D\le 8$. In $D=8$ and $D=7$, there
are stainless elementary particle solutions. These solutions arise using
the 2-form field strength with $\Delta = 2$. They are stainless since all
the 3-form field strengths in one dimension higher have $\Delta = 4$.
In $D=6$, analogously to the cases of $D=8$ and $D=7$, there is also a
stainless elementary particle obtained from the 2-form field strength with
$\Delta =2$, which is part of the supergravity multiplet in $N=2$, $D=6$
supergravity. In $N=1$, $D=6$ supergravity, on the other hand, there
exists a self-dual 3-form field strength, and there is no dilaton. As we
discussed in section 2.2, brane solutions are still given by eqn
(\ref{solution1}), with $a$ set to zero, even in the absence of the
dilaton. Thus this self-dual string solution is equivalent to the case
where $\Delta = 2$, with the metric given by (\ref{metrsol}). Since there
is no supergravity theory in $D=7$ that contains a 3-form or 4-form field
strength with $\Delta=2$, the self-dual string in $D=6$ is stainless.
The existence of a 3-form with $\Delta=2$ in $D=6$ implies that there is
no further stainless elementary particle in $D\le 5$ that arises from the
2-form field strength with $\Delta = 2$. However, in $N=1$, $D=5$
supergravity, a new value of $\Delta$ for the 2-form field strength arises,
namely $\Delta = 4/3$. This reflects the fact that there is no dilaton in
the theory. This 2-form field strength accordingly gives rise to a
stainless elementary particle and a stainless solitonic string \cite{GHT},
with metrics given by eqn (\ref{metrsol}). To see how this works, we can
carry out the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction of $N=1$, $D=6$
supergravity. Its bosonic sector comprises just the metric tensor and the
self-dual 3-form field strength mentioned above. Since there is no
covariant action for this theory, we must instead implement the dimensional
reduction on the equations of motion themselves. The bosonic equations of
motion are given by
\begin{equation}
\hat R_{\hat\sst{M} \hat\sst{N}} = \ft14 \hat F_{\hat\sst{M}\hat\sst{P}
\hat\sst{Q}}\hat F_{\hat\sst{N}}{}^{\hat\sst{P}\hat\sst{Q}}\ ,\qquad
{\hat F}_{\hat\sst{M}\hat\sst{N}\hat\sst{P}}= *{\hat
F}_{\hat\sst{M}\hat\sst{N}\hat\sst{P}} \ .\label{d6eqmo}
\end{equation}
The Kaluza-Klein ansatz for the metric and the antisymmetric tensor are
given by (\ref{kkans}) and (\ref{transgress}) as usual, but now, the
self-duality condition $\hat F= *\hat F$ implies that the lower-dimensional
2-form and 3-form field strengths $G_2$ and ${G'}_3$ are related:
\begin{equation}
{G'}_{\sst{ABC}}= \ft12 e^{4\alpha\varphi}\,
\epsilon_{\sst{ABCDE}}\, G^{\sst{DE}}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$, given by (\ref{alphaval}), takes the value $\alpha=1/(2\sqrt6)$.
Substituting these ans\"atze into the 6-dimensional equations of motion
(\ref{d6eqmo}), and making use of the expressions (\ref{ricten}) for the
Ricci-tensor components, we obtain the 5-dimensional equations of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{\sst{AB}} &=& \ft12 \partial_{\sst{A}}\varphi\, \partial_{\sst{B}}\varphi +
\ft12 e^{-8\alpha\varphi}\,
({\cal F}^2_{\sst{AB}} -\ft16 {\cal F}^2 \eta_{\sst{AB}}) +
e^{4\alpha\varphi}\, (G^2_{\sst{AB}}
-\ft16 G^2 \eta_{\sst{AB}})\ ,\nonumber\\
\nabla^{\sst{B}}\Big( e^{-8\alpha\varphi}\, {\cal F}_{\sst{AB}} \Big) &=&
\ft14 e^{3\alpha\varphi}
\epsilon_{\sst{ABCDE}} G^{\sst{BC}} G^{\sst{DE}}\ ,\label{d5eqmo}\\
\mathord{\dalemb{6.8}{7}\hbox{\hskip1pt}} \varphi &=& 2\alpha e^{4\alpha\varphi}\, G^2 - 2\alpha e^{-8\alpha \varphi}\, {\cal
F}^2\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We see that we may consistently truncate these fields to those of
minimal $D=5$ supergravity, whose bosonic sector comprises just the metric
and a 2-form field stength, by setting $\varphi=0$ and ${\cal F}_{\sst{AB}}
=G_{\sst{AB}}$. Defining $F_{\sst{AB}}\equiv \sqrt3{\cal F}_{\sst{AB}}=
\sqrt3 G_{\sst{AB}}$, we find that the
equations of motion for the remaining fields can be derived from the
Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} =e R -\ft14 e F^2 -\ft1{12\sqrt3}\epsilon^{\sst{MNPQR}}\,
F_{\sst{MN}} F_{\sst{PQ}} A_{{\sst R}}\ ,\label{d5lag}
\end{equation}
where $F_{\sst{MN}}=2\partial_{[\sst{M}} A_{\sst{N}]}$. This Lagrangian
describes the bosonic sector of minimal $D=5$ supergravity. We see
that a 2-form field strength with a new value of $\Delta$ has emerged in
the descent to five dimensions, namely $\Delta=\ft43$ and hence $a=0$. It
follows that brane solutions in minimal $D=5$ supergravity, which make use
of this 2-form field strength, cannot be oxidized to give isotropic brane
solutions in any higher dimension. In this way, we obtain the stainless
elementary particle and solitonic string solutions referred to above.
Their metrics are given by (\ref{metrsol}), with $d=1$, ${\tilde d}=2$ and $d=2$,
${\tilde d}=1$ respectively, where $\Delta=\ft43$.
To check the unbroken supersymmetry of these solutions, we need the
gravitino transformation rule in $D=5$ simple supergravity, which reads
\begin{equation}
\delta \psi_{\sst M} = D_{\sst M}\varepsilon -\ft{{\rm i}}{8\sqrt3}
F_{\sst{NP}}\Big(\Gamma_{\sst
M}{}^{\sst{NP}} -4 \delta_{\sst M}^{\sst N} \Gamma^{\sst P} \Big)\varepsilon
\ .\label{d5susy}
\end{equation}
For the solitonic string, we decompose the $D=5$ gamma matrices in the
$2+3$ split $\Gamma^\mu=\gamma^\mu\otimes \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}$, $\Gamma^m=\gamma_3
\otimes \gamma^m$, where $\gamma_0 \gamma_1 =\gamma_3$ on the brane volume,
and $\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3={\rm i}$ in the transverse space. Thus we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\psi_\mu &=& \fft12 \partial_m A\, e^{A-B}\, \gamma_\mu\gamma_3\otimes
\gamma_m \varepsilon +\fft{\lambda}{4\sqrt3}\, e^{A-2B}\, \fft{y^m}{r^3}\,
\gamma_\mu\otimes \gamma_m \varepsilon\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta\psi_m &=& \partial_m\varepsilon +\fft{{\rm i}}{2}\partial_n B\, \epsilon_{mnp}
\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\otimes\gamma_p \varepsilon + \fft{\lambda}{4\sqrt3} e^{-B}\,
\fft{y^m}{r^3}\, \gamma_3\otimes\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\, \varepsilon -\fft{{\rm i}
\lambda}{2\sqrt3}e^{-B}\, \fft{y^n}{r^3}\, \gamma_3\otimes\gamma_p\,
\varepsilon \ .\label{d5solsusy}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the solitonic string solution, which, from (\ref{abphirel})
in the limit $a=0$ has $A'=-\ft12 B'= -\lambda/(2\sqrt3) e^{-B}r^{-2}$, we
find that half of the supersymmetry is preserved provided that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon =e^{\ft12 A}\, \varepsilon_0\ , \qquad \gamma_3\otimes\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}
\, \varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_0\ ,\label{stringeps}
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_0$ is a constant spinor.
For the elementary particle, we decompose the $D=5$ gamma matrices in
the $1+4$ split $\Gamma^0={\rm i} \gamma_5$, $\Gamma^m= \gamma^m$, where
$\gamma_5=\gamma_1\gamma_2\gamma_3\gamma_4$. The supersymmetry
transformation rule (\ref{d5susy}) becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\psi_0 &=& \ft{{\rm i}}{2} e^{A-B}\,\partial_m A\, \gamma_m\gamma_5\varepsilon
-\ft{{\rm i}}{2\sqrt3} e^{C-B}\, \partial_m C\, \gamma_m \varepsilon\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta\psi_m &=& \partial_m\varepsilon +\ft12 \partial_n B\, \gamma_{mn}\varepsilon
+\ft{1}{4\sqrt3} e^{C-A}\, \partial_n C\, \gamma_{mn}\gamma_5\varepsilon
-\ft{1}{2\sqrt3} e^{C-A}\, \partial_m C\, \gamma_5\varepsilon\ .
\label{d5susyele}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting the elementary particle solution, which, from
(\ref{abphirel}) in the limit $a=0$ has $A'=-2B'= (1/\sqrt3) e^{C-A}\, C'$,
we find that half of the supersymmetry is preserved provided that
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon=e^{\ft12 A}\, \varepsilon\ ,\qquad \gamma_5\, \varepsilon_0=
\varepsilon_0\ ,
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_0$ is a constant spinor.
It is interesting to note that there
are in total {\it three} inequivalent solitonic string solutions in $D=5$,
namely the stainless example we have just derived, a rusty string that
oxidizes to our stainless 5-brane in $D=9$, and another rusty string that
oxidizes to the stainless 6-brane in $D=10$. Their metrics in $D=5$ are
given by (\ref{metrsol}) with $d=2$ and ${\tilde d}=1$, by taking $\Delta=\ft43$,
$\Delta=2$ and $\Delta=4$ respectively. Upon dimensional reduction to
$D=4$, they give rise to particles with $a=1/\sqrt3$, 1 and
$\sqrt 3$ respectively. These correspond to the black hole solutions of
$D=4$ string theory (see, for example, \cite{dkl}).\footnote{We are
grateful to J. Rahmfeld for drawing our attention to the black hole
solutions in the $D=4$ string.}
\section{Zero modes}
In the previous sections, we described stainless $p$-brane solutions in
various dimensions. The complete set of brane solutions is thus given
by those solutions together with their descendants {\it via} Kaluza-Klein
double dimensional reduction. All of these solutions break half of the
supersymmetry.
Each broken supersymmetry transformation in a $p$-brane solution gives
rise to a corresponding fermionic Goldstone zero mode. There will also be
bosonic zero modes associated with the breaking of local bosonic gauge
symmetries by the non-vanishing $p$-brane background solution. These will
certainly include the translational zero modes corresponding to the broken
constant general coordinate transformations $\delta y^m=c^m$ in the
space transverse to the $p$-brane world volume. Thus there will be
$D-d={\tilde d}+2$ such bosonic zero modes. Since supersymmetry remains partially
unbroken by the solution, it follows that the fermionic and bosonic zero
modes must form supermultiplets under the remaining unbroken supersymmetry.
In particular, there must be equal numbers of fermionic and bosonic
zero-mode degrees of freedom.
The matching of the zero modes for the bosonic and fermionic
fields is straightforward in the case of the elementary membrane in $D=11$
and the solitonic 5-brane in $D=10$, and also for all their descendants {\it
via} dimensional reduction. In all of these cases, the number of translational
zero modes is precisely the same as that of the fermionic zero
modes, {\it i.e.}\ the number of on-shell fermionic zero-mode degrees of
freedom. Thus for the supermembrane in $D=11$, there are $8=32/2/2$
fermionic zero modes, where the original 32 components of the supersymmetry
parameter in $D=11$ are halved once to arrive at the number of on-shell
degrees of freedom, and halved again because half of the supersymmetries
are broken. The membrane solution breaks translational invariance in the
$y^m$ directions, giving rise to $8=11-3$ bosonic zero modes. The same
counting of $8+8$ degrees of freedom holds for the dimensional reduction to
the string in $D=10$. For the solitonic 5-brane in $N=1$, $D=10$
supergravity, there are $4=16/ 2/2$ fermionic zero modes, and $4=10-6$
bosonic translational zero modes. This matching of $4+4$ degrees of
freedom holds for the various stages of dimensional reduction all the way
down to the string in $D=6$ and the superparticle in $D=5$.
In all the other brane solutions, the number of translational zero modes
is less than the number of fermionic zero modes. Since we know that the
remaining unbroken symmetry guarantees a matching of the bose and fermi zero
modes, it follows that the there must be further bosonic zero modes
associated with these solutions. They arise from the breaking of
antisymmetric tensor gauge symmetries. The simplest way to find these
additional bosonic zero modes is first to construct the fermionic zero
modes, and then to obtain their bosonic partners by transforming them under
the remaining unbroken supersymmetries.
We shall carry out this procedure first for the stainless solitonic
5-brane in $N=1$, $D=9$ supergravity, which we constructed in section 4.1.
This solution has four fermionic zero modes; however, it has only $9-6=3$
translational zero modes. As we shall see, there is one further bosonic
zero mode associated with the breaking of the gauge invariance of the 2-form
field strength that takes a non-zero value in the background solution.
The fermionic supersymmetry transformations in the background of the
solitonic 5-brane are given by eqn (\ref{d9soltr}). As we discussed in
section 4.1, these variations vanish for spinors $\varepsilon$ satisfying
(\ref{d9epso}), which includes a chirality condition. They correspond to
the unbroken supersymmetry generators. The broken generators, on the other
hand, correspond to supersymmetry parameters $\eta$ that have the opposite
chirality under the $\gamma_7$ matrix on the world volume. Specifically, we
shall consider spinors $\eta$ given by
\begin{equation}
\eta= e^{-\ft12 A}\, \eta_0\ ,\qquad \gamma_7\otimes\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\, \eta_0 =-\eta_0\
,
\label{etasol}
\end{equation}
where $\eta_0$ is constant. This choice is motivated by the
simplifications to the fermionic zero-mode structure that result. Note
that any other asymptotically constant spinors with the same $\gamma_7$
eigenvalue could equally well have been chosen. These would lead to
zero-modes differing from ours by pure gauge transformations whose
parameters die off at infinity. With our choice, it follows from
(\ref{d9soltr}) that the purely bosonic 5-brane soliton background varies
into the following fermionic configuration:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi&=& \ft{1}{\sqrt2} e^{-\ft12 A-B} \, \partial_m\phi\,
\rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\otimes\gamma_m\, \eta_0\ ,\nonumber\\
\psi_\mu&=& -\partial_m A\, e^{\ft12 A -B}\,\gamma_\mu\otimes\gamma_m\, \eta_0 \ ,
\label{d95brfermzm}\\
\psi_m&=& \partial_n B\, e^{-\ft12 A}\, \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\otimes\gamma_{mn}
\eta_0\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
These, then, describe the four fermionic zero modes, parametrised by the
eight independent spinors $\eta_0$ that satisfy the chirality condition
given in (\ref{etasol}). (Recall that for $d\ge3$, the count of on-shell
fermionic degrees of freedom is half that of the off-shell spinor fields.)
We can substitute these spinors into the bosonic transformation rules
(\ref{d9bostr}), taking the supersymmetry parameter $\varepsilon$ to be one
of the eight unbroken generators given by (\ref{d9epso}), in order to
obtain the bosonic superpartners of the fermionic zero modes.
Carrying out this procedure, we find the following non-vanishing
results for the bosonic zero modes:
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\phi &=& \delta_{\rm Diff}\, \phi\, \nonumber\\
\delta e^{\underline\mu}{}_\nu &=& \delta_{\rm Diff}\,
e^{\underline\mu}{}_\nu + \Omega^{\underline\mu}{}_{\underline\rho} \,
e^{\underline \rho}{}_\nu\ ,\nonumber\\
\delta e^{\underline m}{}_n &=& \delta_{\rm Diff}\, e^{\underline m}{}_n +
\Omega^{\underline m}{}_{\underline p} \,
e^{\underline p}{}_n\ ,\label{zmodes}\\
\delta A_m &=& \delta_{\rm Diff}\, A_m + \partial_m\widetilde\Lambda\ ,
\nonumber\\
\delta B_{mn} &=& \delta_{\rm Diff}\, B_{mn} -\ft12 \widetilde\Lambda F_{mn}
+ \partial_{[m} \widetilde\Lambda_{n]}\ ,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta_{\rm Diff}$ denotes a diffeomorphism transformation,
$\delta_{\rm Diff}\, V_m = c^n\partial_n V_m + \partial_m c^n\, V_n$, {\it etc}., and
the composite transformation parameters are given by\footnote{These results
could be obtained from the commutator algebra of the local supersymmetry
transformations. To see this, note that the bosonic zero modes $b$ can be
written in terms of the femionic zero modes $f$ as $b=\delta_\epsilon f$.
However, $f$ can be written as $f=\delta_\eta B$, where $B$ represents the
supersymmetric bosonic background fields. Since $\delta_\epsilon B=0$, we can
write $b=[\delta_\epsilon,\delta_\eta] B= \delta_c B+\delta_{\Lambda_{0}}
B+\delta_{\Lambda_1} B+\delta_\Omega$, where $c$, $\Lambda_{0}$, $\Lambda_{1}$
and $\Omega$ are the composite parameters for the general coordinate, abelian
gauge, antisymmetric gauge and Lorentz transformations, respectively.}
\begin{eqnarray}
c^m &\equiv& {\rm i} e^{-B} {\bar \varepsilon}_0 \rlap 1\mkern4mu{\rm l}\otimes \gamma_m\eta_0\ ,
\nonumber\\
\Lambda &\equiv& \sqrt2 e^{-A}\, {\bar \varepsilon}_0\eta_0\ ,\nonumber\\
\Lambda_m &\equiv& -\ft74 e^{-2A}\, c_m\ ,\label{zmodeparms}\\
\widetilde\Lambda &\equiv& \Lambda -c^m A_m\ , \qquad \widetilde \Lambda_m
\equiv \Lambda_m - \Lambda A_m + 2 c^p B_{mp}\ \nonumber\\
\Omega^{\underline \mu}{}_{\underline\rho} &\equiv& {\rm i} \bar\varepsilon_0
\gamma^{\mu}{}_\rho\otimes \gamma_m \eta_0 \,e^{-B}\, \partial_m A\ ,\nonumber\\
\Omega^{\underline m}{}_{\underline p} &\equiv& \partial_m c^p - \partial_p c^m
-\epsilon^m{}_{pq}\, \bar\varepsilon_0 \eta_0 \,e^{-B}\,\partial_q B\ .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The quantities $\widetilde\Lambda$ and $\widetilde\Lambda_m$ are gauge
transformation parameters for the potentials $A_m$ and $B_{mn}$ respectively;
$\widetilde\Lambda$ appears also in the $B_{mn}$ transformation because its
field strength is given by $G=dB + \ft12 A\wedge F$. As one chooses different
constant spinors $\varepsilon_0$ and $\eta_0$, satsifying their respective
$\pm1$ chirality conditions under $\gamma_7$, the diffeomorphism parameter
$c^m$ and gauge transformation parameter $\Lambda_m$ jointly fill out a
3-dimensional space of gauge transformations that are constant and
non-vanishing as $r$ tends to infinity. Likewise, $\Lambda$ describes a
further independent asymptotically constant non-vanishing gauge transformation.
Taken together, we have the four independent bosonic zero modes of the
solitonic 5-brane in $D=9$ dimensions. Note that $\Omega^{\underline
\mu}{}_{\underline \rho}$ and $\Omega^{\underline m}{}_{\underline p}$ are
parameters of Lorentz transformations that die off at infinity and thus do not
contribute to the true zero modes, which correspond to the broken generators of
the global asymptotic symmetry group.
The zero-modes of the 5-brane in $D=9$ are thus properly balanced
between the bose and fermi sectors. With respect to the unbroken $N=1$, $D=6$
supersymmetry, they form a hypermultiplet, in the form where the four scalars
occur as an $SU(2)$ triplet plus a singlet. The spinor zero-modes form an
$SU(2)$-Majorana doublet. Note that while the zero-modes form a
supermultiplet under the unbroken supersymmetry in $d=6$, as they must, not
all of the scalars correspond to translational zero-modes. In the reduction
from 9 to 6 dimensions, only three translational modes occur, leaving one
more to arise from a different broken gauge symmetry. In the present case, this
extra scalar mode arises from the broken gauge symmetry of the $A_{\sst M}$
potential, {\it i.e.}\ the $\Lambda$ zero mode in
(\ref{zmodeparms}).\footnote{Note also that giving an expectation value to an
Abelian field strength can cause symmetry breaking in the present context,
unlike in an ordinary Yang-Mills context, because of the structure of the
linked gauge symmetry involving $A_{\sst M}$ and $B_{\sst{MN}}$.}
The other $p$-brane solutions discussed in this paper all leave half
the original $D$-dimensional supersymmetry unbroken, and form appropriate
supermultiplets of the unbroken supersymmetry. As another example,
consider the string solution in $N=1$, $D=5$ supergravity that we discussed
in section 5. Of the original 8 real components of the supersymmetry
transformation, 4 are unbroken by the solution and 4 are broken, giving rise
to 4 fermionic zero-mode {\it fields}. Of the bosonic zero-modes, there are
obviously 3 corresponding to the broken translations. One more
scalar zero-mode arises from the broken gauge symmetry of the 2-form field
strength. In order to organise these into a supermultiplet of the unbroken
$d=2$ supersymmetry, one needs to recall one of the characteristic
features of $d=2$ supersymmetry. As one may see from eqn (\ref{stringeps}),
the surviving $d=2$ supersymmetry is {\it holomorphic}; it is in fact a
(4,0) supersymmetry. This supersymmetry relates the 4 fermionic
zero-mode fields to 4 holomorphic bosonic modes. The usual style of
counting zero-modes in $d\ge3$, in which the count of fermionic zero-modes
is taken to be half of the number of fermionic fields, is not particularly
convenient in $d=2$. In $d=2$, the bosons also need to be split into
holomorphic and antiholomorphic parts. Although our solitonic string
solution clearly will have both holomorphic and antiholomorphic components
of the bosonic zero-modes propagating according to the worldsheet equations
of motion, only one of these sectors becomes paired with the fermionic zero
modes in the (4,0) supermultiplet. The other sector remains unpaired as a
set of supersymmetric singlets.
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we have searched for supersymmetric $p$-brane solutions
of supergravity theories in diverse dimensions. As these solutions occur
in families related by dimensional reduction, we have concentrated on the
maximal, or stainless, solution in each family. In addition to the
previously-known examples, we have found a number of new solutions in $5\le
D\le 9$ dimensions. (The lower dimensional bound arises here because we
have restricted our attention to solutions of supergravity theories, and
have not considered $p$-branes in theories with rigid supersymmetry.) Our
new stainless solutions cannot oxidize isotropically to brane solutions in
higher dimensions. Put another way, this means that these new solutions
cannot simply be viewed as dimensional reductions of previously-known brane
solutions in $D=11$ or $D=10$ dimensions.
A question that we have not addressed so far concerns the world brane
actions that should describe the zero-mode fluctuations around the static,
isotropic solutions considered here. From supersymmetry, one has detailed
knowledge of the supermultiplet structure of the zero modes that would
appear in a gauge-fixed world brane action. In general, one expects that
such gauge-fixed actions should be extendable to spacetime supersymmetric
and Lorentz invariant actions by adding the appropriate additional
unphysical degrees of freedom and their associated local world volume gauge
symmetries. For the four classic sequences of super $p$-branes, these
actions are generalisations of the $D=10$ superstring \cite{gsch,pol} or $D=11$
supermembrane \cite{berg} actions. Very little is known about the
structure of the covariant world volume actions for any of the other
$p$-brane cases; this subject remains an important open problem.
In the absence of detailed knowledge of the world volume action, some
information can be extracted if one assumes that the bosonic sector of the
action takes the general form of a Nambu-Goto action coupled to the
spacetime metric, dilaton, and a $d$-form gauge potential, with the
non-polynomiality removed by the introduction of a world-volume metric
$\gamma_{ij}$ as an auxiliary field \cite{bhd}:
\begin{eqnarray}
I_{\rm brane} &=& \int d^d\xi \Big(-\ft12 \sqrt{-\gamma} \gamma^{ij}\,
\partial_i X^{\sst M} \partial_j X^{\sst N}\, g_{\sst{MN}}\, e^{b\phi}
+\fft{d-2}{2} \sqrt{-\gamma} \nonumber\\
&&- \fft{1}{d!}\, \epsilon^{i_1\cdots i_d}\,
\partial_{i_1} X^{{\sst M}_1}\cdots \partial_{i_d} X^{{\sst M}_d}\, A_{{\sst
M}_1\cdots {\sst M}_d}\Big) \ .\label{bract}
\end{eqnarray}
The exponent $b$ of the dilaton coupling in the first term is {\it a
priori} unknown. One way of selecting a value for it in a number of cases
is by resorting to an argument based on a scaling symmetry of the pure
supergravity theory \cite{dkl}. Under the constant rescalings
\begin{equation}
e^\phi\longrightarrow \lambda^\alpha\, e^\phi\ ,\qquad
g_{\sst{MN}}\longrightarrow \lambda^{2\beta}\, g_{\sst{MN}}\ ,\qquad
A_{\sst{M}_1\cdots \sst{M}_d}\longrightarrow \lambda^\gamma\,
A_{\sst{M}_1\cdots \sst{M}_d}\ ,\label{scale}
\end{equation}
the action given by (\ref{boslag}) scales by an overall factor
$\lambda^{\beta(D-2)}$, provided that we choose $\gamma=\beta d + a \alpha$.
Requiring that $I_{\rm brane}$ scale in the same way, one finds that the
parameters must be related by
\begin{equation}
\alpha=\fft{d{\tilde d}}{a(D-2)}\ ,\qquad \beta=\fft{d}{D-2}\, \qquad \gamma=d\ ,\qquad
b=\fft{a}{d}\ .\label{solpar}
\end{equation}
Substituting the ans\"atze (\ref{metrform}) and (\ref{eleans}) into
(\ref{bract}), one finds that the branewave equation following from
(\ref{bract}) implies \cite{dkl}
\begin{equation}
(e^C)'= (e^{dA + a\phi/2})'\ .\label{branewave}
\end{equation}
Comparing with the solution given by (\ref{solution1}) and (\ref{csol}),
one finds that $a$ must satisfy
\begin{equation}
a^2=4 -\fft{2d{\tilde d}}{D-2}\ .\label{dudelta}
\end{equation}
Thus requiring that the elementary brane solution should also satisfy the
branewave equation, with the parameter $b$ in (\ref{bract}) determined by
requiring the above scaling symmetry, the value of $a$ appearing in
(\ref{boslag}) is in all cases given by (\ref{avalue}) with $\Delta=4$.
All of the antisymmetric tensors in $D=11$ and $D=10$ supergravities have
$\Delta=4$, as we have seen. Thus the elementary $p$-brane solutions
associated to these antisymmetric tensors accord with the above discussion.
However, as we have seen, there are other values of $\Delta$ that also
occur in lower dimensional supergravity theories. Elementary $p$-brane
solutions in such cases cannot have zero modes that are described by the
action (\ref{bract}) with the choice of parameter $b$ dictated by the
scaling symmetry. An example is provided by the self-dual string in $D=6$,
for which the self-dual 3-form has $\Delta=2$.
In this case, since there is no action for $N=1$, $D=6$ supergravity, one
has to implement the scaling argument at the level of the equations of
motion. The supergravity equations of motion themselves (\ref{d6eqmo}) are
invariant under the scaling $g_{\sst{MN}}\longrightarrow \lambda^{2\beta}
g_{\sst{MN}}$ and $G_{\sst{MNP}}\longrightarrow \lambda^{2\beta}
G_{\sst{MNP}}$, for arbitrary $\beta$. However, the energy-momentum tensor
$T_{\sst{MN}}(x)= -\int d^2\xi \sqrt{-\gamma}\gamma^{ij} \partial_i X^{\sst P}
\partial_j X^{\sst Q}\, g_{\sst{MP}} g_{\sst{NQ}}\delta^6(x-X)/\sqrt{-g}$
scales with a factor $\lambda^{-2\beta}$. Thus the coupled
supergravity-string equations break the scaling symmetry. In fact all of
the new stainless elementary $p$-branes, which have $\Delta=2$ or
$\Delta=\ft43$, exhibit a similar breaking of the scaling symmetry in their
couplings.
The ultimate significance of the scaling symmetry used in the above
arguments remains unclear to us. Are elementary $p$-brane solutions that
respect the scaling symmetry in their couplings more fundamental than
others? We do not have an answer to this question at present. We would
remark, however, that couplings that break scaling symmetries present in
pure uncoupled gravity and supergravity theories are not at all uncommon.
Take, for example, a massless charged particle coupled to Einstein-Maxwell
theory in $D=4$. The Einstein-Maxwell action $I=\int d^4x (e R -\ft14 e
F^2)$ in the absence of the particle coupling scales as $I\longrightarrow
\rho^2 I$ under $g_{\mu\nu}\longrightarrow\rho^2 g_{\mu\nu}$,
$A_\mu\longrightarrow \rho A_\mu$. But once the particle is coupled in,
{\it via} the standard worldline-reparametrisation invariant action $\int
d\tau (e^{-1}\dot X^\mu\dot X^\nu g_{\mu\nu} + A_\mu\dot X^\mu)$, the
scaling symmetry is broken by the electromagnetic coupling $A_\mu\dot
X^\mu$.
Another reason why the status of the scaling symmetries remains in
doubt comes from quantisation. The supergravity theories arising as
low-energy effective field theories of superstring theories have field
equations determined {\it via} the beta functions from the requirement that
the string's conformal invariance be preserved. The leading terms of these
effective field equations reproduce standard supergravity field equations,
but there are also an infinite series of quantum corrections, all of which
break the scaling symmetries.
Nonetheless, it is intriguing that a purely bosonic discussion
based upon the coupling of Nambu-Goto-type actions and preservation of
scaling symmetries fixes dilaton couplings to antisymmetric tensor
gauge fields in a way that agrees with many of the couplings actually found in
supergravity theories ({\it i.e.}\ the $\Delta=4$ couplings).
In concluding, we shall summarise the results that we have obtained
in this paper in a revised brane-scan, in which we plot only the stainless
members of each $p$-brane family. In accordance with our discussion at the
end of section 2.1, we may, without loss of generality, consider only the
versions of the various supergravity theories where all the antisymmetric
tensors have degrees $n\le D/2$, since no further inequivalent elementary
or solitonic brane solutions arise from dualised versions of the theories.
Accordingly, in the stainless brane-scan, we denote solutions of the $n\le
D/2$ theories that are elementary by open circles, solutions that are
solitonic by solid circles, and self-dual solutions by cross-hatched
circles. The dashed lines extending diagonally downwards from the various
points on the brane scan indicate that each stainless solution gives rise
to its own set of dimensionally-reduced descendants.
\newpage
\begin{center}
{\bf \Large Brane Scan of Stainless Supergravity Solutions}
\vskip1cm
\epsfbox{bscan.eps}
\bigskip\bigskip
(For supergravity theories in their $n\le D/2$ versions)
\end{center}
\section*{Acknowledgements}
H.L., C.N.P. and K.S.S. thank SISSA, Trieste, and E.S. thanks ICTP,
Trieste, for hospitality during the course of this work.
|
\section{Introduction}
Classical gauge field theories may be defined by a set of fields ${\cal A}$,
subject to a set of constraints ${\cal B}$, which, in turn, generate
gauge transformations. The quantization of such theories is not a
unique procedure. Indeed, already in the two best-established
quantization methods very different technical setups are chosen.
On the one hand, one has the canonical operator formalism,
originating with Heisenberg and Pauli \cite{Heisenberg}, and now
well-adapted to handle non-abelian gauge theories \cite{Kugo},
whereas on the other hand Feynman's path integral formalism
\cite{Feynman} allows the quantization of such theories through
the Faddeev-Popov procedure \cite{Faddeev}.
Both methods lead to identical perturbative expansions, but even
at a mathematically heuristic level their possible equivalence is
only known in perturbation theory.
It is certainly of general interest to have as many conceptually
and mathematically different quantization schemes as
possible, and to examine the particular features of each of them.
The hope of obtaining some hints on how to quantize gravity may
provide further motivation for investigating new quantization
schemes. Especially, the modern formulation of classical mechanics
in terms of symplectic manifolds and Poisson algebras
(see e.g. \cite{MaRa}) has suggested more refined quantization procedures,
such as geometric quantization \cite{Woodhouse}, and strict deformation
quantization \cite{Rie91,NPLJGP}.
A particular feature of classical gauge theories that should somehow
be reflected in the quantization method is that the physical (reduced)
phase space may be written as a so-called Marsden-Weinstein
quotient \cite{Arms,BFS}. It was shown in \cite{Landsman} that this classical
reduction procedure has a satisfactory quantum analogue in a procedure
from operator algebra theory known as Rieffel induction \cite{Rieffel}.
The way we apply this technique is mainly operator-theoretic, but a
certain aspect of the path integral formalism, viz.\ the integration over the
gauge group, will play a r\^{o}le as well.
This work discusses certain features of the Rieffel induction procedure,
as applied to the quantization of constrained systems, which provides a
conceptually and technically
new method for the quantization of certain gauge field theories.
The method in question has already been successfully applied
to certain finite-dimensional constrained systems \cite{Landsman},
as well as to free quantum electrodynamics \cite{Landswied,UAW}.
The present work draws on these
results. Its aim is two-fold. Firstly, we would like to present
the strategy of this new quantization method in a form accessible
to a wider scientific community. Therefore, in Chapter 2,
we briefly review the main line of argument, leading to the quantization
proposal. To keep our presentation reasonably short, we refer for some
of the technicalities to the aforementioned papers. Subsequently, in Chapter
3 we apply the new quantization scheme to the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model.
This toy model has often been used
in the investigation of the Higgs mechanism and of spontaneous
symmetry breaking, see e.g.\ \cite{Morchio}.
Here, we have chosen it since it already shows many of the typical
complications of spontaneously broken gauge theories without the need
to restrict oneself to a perturbative discussion.
As we shall demonstrate explicitly for this model,
the Rieffel induction procedure provides a scheme
for the construction of the physical state space of a
constrained quantum theory, starting from a larger (unphysical) state
space on which the unconstrained theory is defined.
Our discussion will focus on the particular properties of this
Rieffel-induced physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$.
Especially, we find that ${\cal H}_{phys}$ carries a trivial
representation of the gauge group and a massive representation of
the Poincar\'e group. Also, the positive spectrum condition turns out to be
satisfied. As an important by-product, we are able to trace back
how ``would-be Goldstone bosons rearrange to a massive,
longitudinal component'' in a theory exhibiting the Higgs mechanism.
The context of our work is modern symplectic geometry and reduction
theory on the classical side, and algebraic quantum field theory on
the quantum side. We only use the `soft' side of these
theories. Good recent introductions are \cite{MaRa,Haag,BW},
respectively.
\section{The quantization of gauge theories with Rieffel induction}
After presenting schematically the strategy which leads to Rieffel
induction in the quantization of theories with constraints, the
remainder of this section briefly specifies some notational and
technical prerequisites.
\subsection{Quantization of Marsden-Weinstein
reduction}
The general symplectic reduction procedure, which is quantized by
Rieffel induction in its full generality, is described in \cite{Landsman}.
Here we are merely concerned with a special case, viz.\
Marsden-Weinstein reduction at the zero level of the moment map,
cf.\ \cite{MaRa,MW}. To introduce our notation, let us consider free
classical electrodynamics. For the functional-analytic and other
details which are suppressed in what follows, we refer
the interested reader to \cite{Landswied}.
We start with the space $M$ of four-component real-valued
weak solutions $A_{\mu}$ of the wave equation whose
Fourier-transformed Cauchy-data lie in
$ L^2({\Bbb R}^3)\otimes {\Bbb C}^4 $. That is, $M =
{\lbrace{ A_{\mu} | {\Box}A_{\mu} = 0 }\rbrace}$. The imaginary part
\begin{equation}
B(A,A') = 2{\rm Im}(A,A')_M
= -i \int {d^3{\bf p}\over (2\pi)^3} {\lbrack{A^{\mu}({\bf
p})\overline{A'}_{\mu}({\bf p}) - \overline{A}^{\mu}({\bf
p}) {A'}_{\mu}({\bf p})}\rbrack} \ll{sympl-form}
\end{equation}
of the indefinite covariant scalar product $(*,*)_M$ turns $M$
into a symplectic space $(M,B)$, which is the phase space of the
unconstrained classical system. The set of constraints is given
by the gauge group $G$, which acts on $M$
via $A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu} + {\partial}_{\mu}g$, where
\begin{equation}
G = {\lbrace{
g\in {\cal S}'({\Bbb R}^4)\mid {\Box}g=0; dg \in M }\rbrace}.
\end{equation}
Here, the space of distributions ${\cal S}'({\Bbb R}^4)$ is the dual of
the usual Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing test functions. In
the present example, the reduced phase space $(M_c,B_c)$ of
the corresponding constrained system may be obtained by a so-called
Marsden-Weinstein reduction \cite{MW}. This involves the moment map $J$
from $M$ into the dual of the Lie algebra of $G$. As $G$ is a vector
space, we may identify it with its Lie algebra, so we simply write
$J_g(A)$ for the value of $J(A)$ on $g\in G$.
Explicitly, the moment map turns out to be $J_g(A) = {\rm
Im}({\partial}g,A)_M$, cf. \cite{Landswied}. The preimage of its zero
level is
\begin{equation}
J^{-1}(0) = {\lbrace{ A_{\mu}\in M \mid {\partial}_{\mu}A^{\mu} =
0}\rbrace}.
\end{equation}
Then, $M_c$ is given by the Marsden-Weinstein quotient
\begin{equation}
M_c = J^{-1}(0) / G,
\end{equation}
and $B_c$ inherits its structure from $B$. It is easy to see that
$(M_c,B_c)$ defined this way indeed describes the physical degrees
of freedom of free electrodynamics: picking $J^{-1}(0)$ fixes the
gauge (thus imposing the Gauss law constraint, which on elements of
$M$ becomes the Lorentz gauge condition), and quotienting by $G$
removes the gauge degeneracy of the symplectic form $B$ with respect
to the action of $G$ on $J^{-1}(0)$.
In principle, there are two possibilities to quantize a reduced phase
space $(M_c,B_c)$. Either, we directly quantize the Marsden-Weinstein
reduced (i.e. constrained) classical system $(M_c,B_c)$, or we quantize
the unconstrained classical system $(M,B)$ together with the set of
constraints. In the latter case, a scheme has to be found which
imposes constraints on the unconstrained quantized theory,
thereby providing a quantum analogue of the classical
Marsden-Weinstein reduction. Examples of such schemes are
the Dirac or the BRST method. According to the proposal of \cite{Landsman},
the so-called Rieffel induction procedure of operator algebra
theory \cite{Rieffel} (which we explain below) provides a rival scheme,
which in all examples studied so far works as well as, or better than
the methods mentioned above.
More precisely, let us consider schematically a quantization prescription
$Q_{\hbar}$ which relates the symplectic space $(M,B)$ (or rather the
Poisson algebra of functions on it) to some algebra of field operators
on a Hilbert space ${\cal A}$, $G$ to some algebra ${\cal B}$ generated
by $G$, and $(M_c,B_c)$ to some (a priori unknown) algebra of
observables (in the sense of gauge-invariant operators) ${\cal A}_{obs}$.
Then, according to our quantization proposal, the following diagram
commutes:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{ccc}
(M,B) ; G &
\stackrel{Q_{\hbar}}{\longrightarrow}& {\cal A}; {\cal B}\\
\vcenter{
\llap{$\scriptstyle{\rm Marsden-Weinstein\,\, Reduction}$}}
\Big\downarrow&
&\Big\downarrow\vcenter{
\rlap{$\scriptstyle{\rm Rieffel\,\, Induction}$}}\\
(M_c,B_c) &
\stackrel{Q_{\hbar}}{\longrightarrow}& {\cal A}_{obs}
\end{array} \ll{diag1}
\end{equation}
Our program in this paper is to specify the entries of this
diagram for the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model. To this end,
we briefly recall how, for a linear field theory, a symplectic space
$(M,B)$ can be related to a field algebra ${\cal A}$ of canonical commutation
relations, and we explain how Rieffel induction allows one to construct
new Hilbert spaces for quantum field theories, thereby eventually specifying
${\cal A}_{obs}$.
\subsection{Weyl algebras of canonical commutation relations}
The general theory behind this subsection is explained in great detail
and rigour in, e.g., \cite{BW}, and the application to electromagnetism
is from \cite{CGH}. We merely mention some of the main points.
For ${\phi}, {\phi}' \in M$, the operators $W({\phi})$, $W({\phi}')$,
satisfying the Weyl form of the canonical commutation relation (CCR)
\begin{equation}
W({\phi})W({\phi}') = W({\phi}+{\phi}')
e^{{-i\over 2}B({\phi},{\phi}')}, \ll{ccr-qed-weyl}
\end{equation}
specify a field algebra with $C^*$-structure which we denote by
${\cal A}(M,B)$. In most cases, one is primarily interested in
the properties of the operator vector potential $A_{\mu}$, for which
we use the same notation as for its classical counterpart, as no
confusion will arise. The $A_{\mu}$ satisfy the canonical commutation
relations
\begin{equation}
[A_{\mu}(x), A_{\nu}(y)] = -ig_{\mu\nu} D(x-y),\ll{ccr-qed-vect}
\end{equation}
where $D$ denotes the commutator function satisfying $\Box{D}=0$, with
initial conditions $D({\bf x},0)=0$,
${\partial\over{\partial t}} D({\bf x},t){\mid}_{t=0} =
-{\delta}^{(3)}({\bf x})$. To see the connection between
(\ref{ccr-qed-weyl}) and (\ref{ccr-qed-vect}), we consider the vector
potential $A(f) = \int d^4x A_{\mu}(x)f^{\mu}(x)$, smeared with real
test functions $f$. Now, (\ref{ccr-qed-vect})
reads $[A(f),A(g)]=i\sigma(f,g)$, where
$\sigma(f,g) = -\int d^4x d^4y D(x-y)f^{\mu}(x)g_{\mu}(y)$.
Formally, this allows for the introduction of the operators
$U(f)=e^{[iA(f)]}$ which according to the
Baker-Campbell-Haussdorff formula satisfy the Weyl form of the
canonical commutation relations
$U(f)U(g) = U(f+g) e^{[-{i\over 2}\sigma(f,g)]}$.
Here, however, $U(f)$ and $U(f')$ have the same commutation relations
as long as $\int d^4x D(x-y) (f^{\mu}(x) - {f'}^{\mu}(x)) = 0$
for almost all $y$. To remove this degeneracy and
to obtain a one-to-one correspondence between Weyl operators and test
functions, one uses the map $f\to\phi$, defined by the
convolution ${\phi}_{\mu} = D*f_{\mu}$. Then, the space $M$ of
solutions of the wave equation $\Box{\phi}_{\mu}=0$,
$ {\phi}_{\mu}({\bf x},t) = {1\over {{(2\pi)}^3}} \int {d^3{\bf k}\over
2k_0} [{\phi}_{\mu}({\bf k})e^{-ikx}$ $+
\overline{{\phi}_{\mu}}({\bf k})e^{ikx}]$, is\footnote{
Our notation does not distinguish between functions $\phi$ and their Fourier
transforms, since no confusion should arise.}
\begin{equation}
M = \overline{\lbrace{ \phi = D*f}\rbrace} =
L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes{{{\Bbb C}}\,}^4. \ll{M-qed}
\end{equation}
Now, the operators $W(\phi) = U(f)$, $\phi\in M$
satisfy (\ref{ccr-qed-weyl}) with symplectic form $B$ induced
by $\sigma$ and given in (\ref{sympl-form}).
Having established the connection between Weyl operators and
vector potentials, we can
introduce formal annihilation and creation operators
$a_{\mu}$, $a_{\mu}^*$. E.g. for the free electromagnetic field,
$ A_{\mu}(x) = \int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^32k_0}\,
{\lbrack{e^{-ikx} a_{\mu}({\bf k}) + e^{ikx} a_{\mu}^*({\bf
k})}\rbrack}{\mid}_{k_0={\bf k}}$,
\begin{equation}
iA(f) = \int {d^3{\bf k}\over {(2\pi)}^32k_0} {\lbrack{ a_{\mu}({\bf
k})\overline{{\phi}_{\mu}}({\bf k}) - a_{\mu}^*({\bf k})
{\phi}_{\mu}({\bf k})}\rbrack} =: a_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu}) -
a_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu})^*. \ll{crean}
\end{equation}
Clearly, in terms of the annihilation and creation operators, the
Weyl operators read
$ W({\phi}^{\mu}) = \exp{\lbrack{a_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu}) -
a_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu})^*}\rbrack}$, where
${\lbrack{a_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu}), a_{\nu}({{\phi}'}^{\nu})^*}\rbrack}
= ({\phi}',{\phi})_M$, $(.,.)_M$ denoting the indefinite Minkowski inner
product. Heuristically, one has
\begin{equation}
{d\over d\lambda}W(\lambda{\phi})|_{\lambda=0} = iA(f).\ll{deriv-W}
\end{equation}
It is well-known that this derivative does not exist in the
operator norm but with respect to regular representations only,
and thereby the $a_{\mu}$, $a_{\mu}^{*}$ only exist in such
representations, too. Nevertheless, in what follows we shall adopt
the formal expressions (\ref{crean}) and (\ref{deriv-W}), even when
no explicit reference to a particular representation is made.
As a final preparatory step, we point out that subalgebras
of ${\cal A}(M,B)$ can be specified by selecting subspaces
of $M$. In particular, for free QED,
\begin{eqnarray}
N &=& {\lbrace{ {\phi}_{\mu}\in M | k^{\mu}{\phi}_{\mu}({\bf k}) = 0}
\rbrace} = {\lbrace{ {\phi}_{\mu}\in M | {\partial}^{\mu}
{\phi}_{\mu}(x) = 0}\rbrace}, \nonumber \\
T &=& {\lbrace{ {\phi}_{\mu}\in M | {\phi}_{\mu}({\bf k}) =
ik^{\mu}g({\bf k})}\rbrace} =
{\lbrace{ {\phi}_{\mu}\in M | {\phi}_{\mu}(x) =
{\partial}^{\mu}g(x), \Box g(x) = 0}\rbrace} \nonumber \\ \ll{subspace}
\end{eqnarray}
define subalgebras ${\cal A}(N,B)$, ${\cal A}(T,B)$ of
${\cal A}(M,B)$. Note that $T\subset N$, so that
${\cal A}(T,B)$ $\subset {\cal A}(N,B)$. These
subalgebras are Poincar\'e-invariant, as may be seen by
recalling that the action of elements $(\Lambda, a)$ of the
Poincar\'e group ${\cal P}$ on ${\cal A}(M,B)$ is defined via
the algebraic automorphism ${\alpha}_{(\Lambda, a)}$,
\begin{equation}
{\alpha}_{(\Lambda, a)}(W({\phi}^{\mu})) =
W({\gamma}_{(\Lambda, a)}({\phi}^{\mu})) \qquad\mbox{with}\qquad
({\gamma}_{(\Lambda, a)}({\phi}^{\mu}))(x) =
{\Lambda}^{\mu}_{\nu}{\phi}^{\nu}({\Lambda}^{-1}(x-a)).\ll{Poincare}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Rieffel induction}
This subsection gives a quick `review by example' of some parts of
the theory developed in \cite{Landsman} and \cite{Landswied}.
In physics, induction methods are mainly known from Wigner's
classification and construction of all irreducible unitary
representations of the Poincar\'e group $P$. In general, the method of
induced representations of (locally compact) groups allows one to
construct a representation of the complete group from
a representation of a subgroup, cf.\ e.g.\ \cite{Barut}.
Also, in the theory of operator algebras (particularly $C^*$-algebras)
a method exists for constructing a representation of an algebra,
given a representation of some other algebra \cite{Rieffel}.
The latter is not necessarily a subalgebra of the former;
instead, the two algebras need to be connected by a bimodule
with certain additional properties. Whatever the technical details,
the main idea is that the representation one induces from should be
straightforward, and yet capable of producing an appropriate
representation of the algebra one is really interested in.
This idea will be fully realized in our context, for the second
algebra will be the algebra generated by the gauge group, and the
representation induced from is the trivial one. With a suitable
choice of bimodule, the induced representation of the algebra of
observables comes out to be the vacuum representation
on a Fock space of physical photon states.
To facilitate our presentation, we proceed by example, abstracting
general features afterwards. For free QED, in the diagram (\ref{diag1})
we choose the field algebra ${\cal A} = {\cal A}(M,B)$ and the
`algebra of constraints' ${\cal B} = {\cal A}(T,B)$ (cf.\ the previous
subsection), where the choice of ${\cal B}$ is motivated by observing
that the gauge group $G$ equals $T$,
cf. (\ref{subspace}).\footnote{ For simplicity, we here ignore
some mathematical difficulties in defining algebras ${\cal B}$
for groups $G$ which are not locally compact. This greatly
simplifies our presentation. For more details, we refer to
\cite{Landswied,UAW}.}
Also, we introduce the `algebra of weak observables' ${\cal A}_c :=
{\cal A}(N,B)$, which is the largest subalgebra of
${\cal A}={\cal A}(M,B)$ commuting with ${\cal B} = {\cal A}(T,B)$.
The Rieffel induction procedure will produce a representation of
${\cal A}_c$ induced from a representation of $\cal B$. To this end,
we need a bimodule for ${\cal A}_c$ and $\cal B$, that is, a
linear space on which ${\cal A}_c$ acts from the left, and $\cal B$
acts from the right (that is, in an anti-representation), so that these
two actions commute. In the case at hand, ${\cal A}_c$ and ${\cal B}$,
which is abelian, are each other's commutant in the field algebra $\cal
A$, so that a representation of $\cal A$ on a Hilbert space $\cal H$
automatically defines such a bimodule. Finally, we need a representation
of $\cal B$ to induce from. This is the trivial one,
defined on the Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{tr}={\Bbb C}$. Schematically,
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_c \longrightarrow {\cal H} \longleftarrow {\cal B}
\longrightarrow {\cal H}_{tr}. \ll{diag2}
\end{equation}
The restriction of the action $\pi$ on $\H$ of $\cal A$ to its
subalgebra $\cal B$ defines a representation $U$ of the gauge group,
that is, one has $U(\phi)=\pi(W(\phi))$.
As will be discussed in more detail below, this setup allows the
construction of a positive semidefinite sesquilinear form $(.,.)_0$
on $L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$, where $L$ is a suitable dense subspace
of $L$. In the present case, this form is given by
\begin{equation}
(\psi\otimes v,\varphi \otimes w)_0 = v\overline{w}
\int_G [{\cal D}\phi] (U(\phi) \psi,\varphi). \ll{0-prod}
\end{equation}
Here $[{\cal D}\phi]$ denotes the non-existent `Lebesgue' measure on
the gauge group $G$. The point is, however, that this flat `measure'
combines with a factor in the integrand to define a mathematically
well-defined path integral (cylindrical) measure on $G$ \cite{Landswied}.
Furthermore, $\psi, \varphi $ are in $ {\cal H}$,
$v,w \in {\cal H}_{tr} = {{\Bbb C}}$, and $(.,.)$ is the inner product on $\H$.
Irrespective of the explicit form of $(.,.)_0$, the induced
physical Hilbert space is then defined as the completion of the
quotient of $L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ by the null space of $(.,.)_0$,
i.e.,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{phys} = \overline{(L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}) / {\cal N}}, \ll{quotient}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal N} \subset L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ is the subset of
vectors with vanishing $(.,.)_0$ norm. The collection of vectors in
${\cal H}_{phys}$ of the form $\psi\tilde{\otimes}v$, defined as the
image of $\psi\otimes v\in L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ under the
quotient projection from $L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ to ${\cal H}_{phys}$,
are clearly dense in ${\cal H}_{phys}$. The action of
elements $A$ of ${\cal A}_c$ on ${\cal H}_{phys}$ is then given on this
dense set by
${\pi}_{phys}(A)\psi\tilde{\otimes}v = ({\pi}(A)\psi)\tilde{\otimes}v$.
Under appropriate continuity conditions \cite{Rieffel,Landswied} this
action may be extended to all of ${\cal H}_{tr}$.
The reader should note that ${\cal H}_{phys}$ satisfies an essential
requirement of a non-degenerate physical Hilbert space:
the gauge degeneracy of elements of ${\cal A}_c$ is removed in
${\pi}_{phys}({\cal A}_c)$. To see this, choose an arbitrary element
$W(\phi) \in {\cal A}_c$. From equation (\ref{0-prod}), it is obvious
that for ${\phi}_t \in T$ (which, we recall, coincides with the gauge
group $G$), ${\pi}_{phys}(W(\phi))\psi\tilde{\otimes}v =
{\pi}_{phys}(W(\phi + {\phi}_t))\psi\tilde{\otimes}v$
for all vectors $\psi\tilde{\otimes}v \in {\cal H}_{phys}$. Hence,
${\pi}_{phys}(W(\phi)) = {\pi}_{phys}(W(\phi + {\phi}_t))$. This
removal of the gauge degeneracy of ${\cal A}_c$ is independent of the
choice of ${\cal H}$, and hence we indentify ${\pi}_{phys}({\cal A}_c)$
with the representation-independent algebra of observables ${\cal A}_{obs}$,
cf.\ (\ref{diag1}).
Let us now turn to the abstract setting which has led to the
$(.,.)_0$-inner product (\ref{0-prod}). As stated, the aim of the
Rieffel induction procedure is to obtain a representation
${\pi}_{phys}$ of ${\cal A}_c$ induced from a representation of
${\cal B}$ on some Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{\chi}$. Our example,
and all similar examples involving gauge theories, have the special
feature that ${\cal H}_{\chi}={\cal H}_{tr}={{\Bbb C}}$, that
is, one induces from the trivial representation of the gauge group.
This will imply that the algebra of constraints ${\cal B}$ is
represented trivially on the induced space ${\cal H}_{phys}$.
Technically, the construction of ${\pi}_{phys}$ proceeds
according to the following three step method.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
Given a bimodule $L$ for ${\cal A}_c$ and $\cal B$, a ${\cal B}$-valued
scalar product ${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$ has to be found on $L$,
that is, for $\psi, \varphi \in L \subset {\cal H}$,
${\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B} \in {\cal B}$,\footnote{
Mathematically, ${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$ is a so-called
rigging map which has to satisfy the
following conditions for all $\psi$, $\varphi\in L$ \cite{Rieffel}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
${\langle{\lambda\psi,\mu\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B} =
\overline{\lambda}\mu{\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B}$
$\hbox{ }$ for all ${\lambda},\mu\in{{\Bbb C}}$;
\item
${\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B}^* =
{\langle{\varphi,\psi}\rangle}_{\cal B}$ (where the $\mbox{}^*$ denotes
the hermitian conjugate in $\cal B$);
\item
${\langle{\psi,\varphi
B}\rangle}_{\cal B} = {\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B}B$
$\hbox{ }$ for all $B\in {\cal B}$ (on the left-hand side, $B$
acts in the given right-representation on the bimodule $L$,
whereas on the right-hand side $B$ acts by multiplication
in the algebra $\cal B$);
\item
${\langle{A\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B} =
{\langle{\psi,A^*\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B}$ $\hbox{ }$ for all $A\in
{\cal A}$.
\item
${\langle{A\psi,A\psi}\rangle} \leq {\parallel{A}\parallel}^2
{\langle{\psi,\psi}\rangle}$ $\hbox{ }$ for all $\psi \in L$, $A\in
{\cal A}$.
\end{enumerate}}
\item
Given such an operator-valued scalar product, the tensor product
$L\otimes {\cal H}_{\chi}$ is equipped with a sesquilinear form $(.,.)_0$,
\begin{equation}
(\psi\otimes v,\varphi\otimes w)_0 := ({\pi}_{\chi}({\langle{\varphi,
\psi}\rangle}_{\cal B})v,w)_{\chi}.\ll{rigged}
\end{equation}
Crucially, this form is positive-semidefinite if the postivity
condition \\ $\pi_{\chi}
({\langle{\psi,\psi}\rangle}_{\cal B})\geq 0$ for all $\psi\in L$
is satisfied, which is the case in all our examples.
\item
The subspace ${\cal N} \subset L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ of vectors
with vanishing $(.,.)_0$-norm is determined and the physical
Hilbert space is defined as in
(\ref{quotient}).
\end{enumerate}
The most difficult part of this procedure is to find
${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$. Here, one is guided by
mathematical examples \cite{Landsman}.
One may consider e.g. ${\cal B} = C^*(G)$, the $C^*$-group
algebra of a locally compact group $G$ (cf.\ \cite{BW}; this is
essentially the convolution algebra on the group w.r.t.\ the Haar
measure). Then, it can be shown that a rigging map
${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$ is defined as follows:
${\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B}$
has to be some element of $C^*(G)$, i.e., a function on the group,
and we prescribe that the value of this function at $g\in G$ is given by
${\langle{\psi,\varphi}\rangle}_{\cal B} (g) = (U(g)\varphi,\psi)$,
where $U$ is a continuous unitary representation of $G$ on ${\cal H}$,
commuting with ${\pi}({\cal A}_c)$, $x\in G$. Inducing from the trivial
representation ${\cal H}_{tr} = {{\Bbb C}}$, one obtains\footnote{
In what follows, we use the shorthand $(\psi,\varphi)_0$ for
$(\psi\otimes v,\varphi\otimes w)_0$, since $v,w \in {{\Bbb C}}$ are
complex numbers which can be absorbed in the definition of
$\psi$ and $\varphi$.}
\begin{equation}
(\psi,\varphi)_0 = \int_G dx (U(x)\psi,\varphi), \ll{0-prod-G}
\end{equation}
of which (\ref{0-prod}) is a special case, at least in a heuristic sense.
In what follows, we shall take a suitable
generalization of (\ref{0-prod-G}) as our starting point,
thereby obviating the need for a discussion of the explicit form
and a verification of the mathematical properties of
${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$. In fact, our presentation of the
Rieffel induction procedure for quantum field theories has been
slightly oversimplified with respect to this point. While the
existence of a so-called `rigged' inner product $(.,.)_0$, defined
in (\ref{rigged}), is always sufficient for the quantization proposal to
apply, it is not always possible to derive it from a mathematically
well-defined rigging map ${\langle{.,.}\rangle}_{\cal B}$. We refer
to \cite{Landswied} for a discussion of the technical points involved.
To sum up: In this chapter, we have seen that Rieffel induction
provides a well-defined scheme for the construction of a physical
Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$, on which gauge transformations
act trivially. In the corresponding algebra of observables
${\pi}_{phys}({\cal A}_c)$, all gauge degeneracies are removed,
i.e., Rieffel induction is a method to impose constraints on
quantum field theories. The physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$
is obtained by forming the quotient of a larger Hilbert space
$L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$ with respect to a null space.
This is somehwat reminiscent of the BRST (or, in case of QED,
the Gupta-Bleuler) procedure, with the major difference that with
Rieffel induction no negative-norm subspace exists, obviating the
need to select a physical subspace of $\cal H$. Also, certain
functional-analytic problems that appear in the BRST as well as
in the Dirac method are absent with our present
techniques \cite{Landsman,Landswied}. By definition of the inner
product on the physcial Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$, calculations
of correlation functions of operators in ${\cal A}_c$ (as represented
on ${\cal H}_{phys}$) may be performed in $L\otimes {\cal H}_{tr}$,
\cite{UAW}.
\section{Application to the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model}
In this chapter, we specify (\ref{diag2}) and
(\ref{0-prod}) for the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model, thereby
constructing a physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$ for
this model.
The St\"uckelberg-Kibble model is an abelian Higgs model with the
modulus $\eta$ of the scalar field $\phi(x) = \eta(x)
e^{\varphi(x)}$ frozen to unity, $\eta(x) =1$. It is given by the
Lagrangian
\begin{equation} {\cal L}= -{1\over 4} F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu} - {1\over 2} \left(
{\partial}_{\mu}\varphi + eA_{\mu}\right)\left(
{\partial}^{\mu}\varphi + eA^{\mu}\right).
\end{equation}
Despite its linearity, this model has non-trivial features, and has
been used as testing ground for investigations of the Higgs mechanism
before \cite{Morchio}. Its equations of motion can be written in terms
of a gauge-invariant current $j^{\mu} =
{\partial}^{\mu}\varphi + e A^{\mu}$, satisfying
\begin{equation}
\left( \Box + e^2\right) j^{\mu} = 0 \qquad \hbox{;}\qquad
{\partial}_{\mu}j^{\mu} = 0. \ll{j-equ}
\end{equation}
In fact, this is nothing but the Proca equation \cite{Itzykson} of
a massive gauge-invariant vector field. To make this model amenable
to treatment by symplectic reduction and quantum induction methods, we
now make a move that is analogous to rewriting the Maxwell equation
for $A_{\mu}$ as a massless Klein-Gordon equation plus a subsidiary
Lorentz condition. Thus we pass back to the gauge-dependent fields
$A_{\mu}$ and $\varphi$, and choose what is essentially the 't Hooft
gauge as the subsidiary condition:
\begin{equation} {\partial}_{\mu} A^{\mu} = e\varphi. \ll{thg}
\end{equation}
With this constraint, the equations of motion read
\begin{equation}
\left( \Box + e^2\right) A^{\mu} = 0 \qquad \hbox{,} \qquad
\left( \Box + e^2\right) \varphi = 0, \ll{g-equ}
\end{equation}
and the gauge group $G={\lbrace{g| \left( \Box + e^2\right)g = 0}\rbrace}$
acts on $A_{\mu}$, $\varphi$ via
\begin{equation}
A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu} + {\partial}_{\mu}g \qquad\mbox{ , }\qquad
\varphi \to \varphi - eg. \ll{g-trafo}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Marsden-Weinstein reduction for the St\"uckelberg-Kibble
model}
A mathematically rigorous treatment of the following material, in the
style of \cite{Landswied}, is possible, but we leave the details to the
interested reader; instead, readability commands us to give
somewhat loose formulations.
Our investigation of the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model starts from
the symplectic space $(M_{sk},B_{sk})$, defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& M_{sk} = {\lbrace{ ( A_{\mu},{\varphi}) \mid A_{\mu}\in
L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{{\Bbb C}}\,}^4, {\varphi}\in L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3); \left( \Box +
e^2\right) A_{\mu}= \left( \Box + e^2\right){\varphi}=0
}\rbrace},\nonumber \\
&&B_{sk}( A_{\mu},{\varphi};{A'}_{\mu},{\varphi}') =
2{\rm Im}( A_{\mu},{A'}_{\mu})_M - 2{\rm Im}({\varphi},{\varphi}').
\ll{sk-sympl}
\end{eqnarray}
The gauge group $G$ acts on this space by the gauge transformation
(\ref{g-trafo}). This action is strongly Hamiltonian, and hence,
in particular, it is symplectic. We evidently may identify the gauge
group with the following subspace of $M_{sk}$
\begin{equation}
T_{sk} = {\lbrace{ ( A_{\mu},{\varphi}) \in M_{sk} \mid A_{\mu}=
{\partial}_{\mu}g, {\varphi}= -eg; g\in L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3);
\left( \Box + e^2\right) g = 0}\rbrace}.\ll{tsk}
\end{equation}
{}From this, the Marsden-Weinstein reduced space $(M_{c,sk},B_{c,sk})$
is easily calculated. With similar notation as in subsection 2.1,
the moment map reads
\begin{equation}
J_g( A_{\mu},\varphi) =
2{\rm Im}({\partial}_{\mu}g,A_{\mu})_M
- 2{\rm Im}(-eg,{\varphi}),
\end{equation}
which leads to
\begin{equation}
J^{-1}(0) = \{( A_{\mu},{\varphi}) \in M_{sk}
| {\partial}_{\mu} A^{\mu} = e\varphi\}. \ll{jmoo}
\end{equation}
Hence in view of (\ref{thg}) the Marsden-Weinstein quotient reads
\begin{equation}
M_{c,sk} = J^{-1}(0)/G = {\lbrace{ j_{\mu} \in
L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{{\Bbb C}}\,}^4| \left( \Box + e^2\right)j_{\mu}=0 ;
{\partial}_{\mu}j^{\mu} = 0}\rbrace}.
\end{equation}
The symplectic form $B_{c,sk}$ on $M_{c,sk}$ inherits its structure
from $B_{sk}$, and is given by
\begin{equation}
B_{c,sk}(j,j') = {2\over e^2} {\rm Im}(j_{\mu}, {{j}'}_{\mu})_M.
\end{equation}
Clearly, $(M_{c,sk},B_{c,sk})$ is the phase space of a massive vector
boson, which indeed represents the physical degrees
of freedom of the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model. This
completely specifies the left-hand side of the diagram (\ref{diag1}).
\subsection{Rieffel induction for the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model}
\subsubsection{Construction of the field algebra}
Consider the canonical commutation relations of the operator fields
$A_{\mu}$ and $\varphi$ (denoted by the same
symbol as their classical counterparts):
\begin{eqnarray}
[{\varphi}(x),{\varphi}(y)] &=& i{\triangle}(x-y), \nonumber \\
{[ A_{\mu}(x), A_{\nu}(y)]} &=&
-ig_{\mu\nu}{\triangle}(x-y), \ll{ccrsk}
\end{eqnarray}
where the commutator function ${\triangle}$ satisfies
$(\Box + e^2){\triangle}(x) =0$ with initial conditions
${\triangle}({\bf x},0) =0$, ${{\partial}\over {\partial}t}
{\triangle}({\bf x},t){\mid}_{t=0} = -{\delta}^{(3)}({\bf x})$.
In analogy with our discussion of free QED, we specify
the formal connection between the fields $A_{\mu}$, $\varphi$
and the corresponding Weyl operators,
$
W({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}) = e^{iA_{\mu}(f^{\mu}) +
i\varphi(f)},$
where ${\phi}_{\mu} = \triangle * f_{\mu}$, ${\phi} = \triangle * f$.
Here, either as a consequence of (\ref{ccrsk}), or imposed axiomatically,
the operators $W({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi})$, $W({{\phi}'}_{\mu},{\phi}')$
satisfy the Weyl form of the canonical commutation relations
\begin{equation}
W({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi})W({\phi}_{\mu}',{\phi}')
= W({\phi}_{\mu} + {\phi}_{\mu}',{\phi} + {\phi}') e^{-{i\over
2}B_{sk}({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi};{{\phi}'}_{\mu},{\phi}')}.
\end{equation}
The field algebra of the model is then defined as the Weyl algebra
${\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$ generated by the $W$'s subject to these
commutation relations (cf.\ \cite{BW}).
Now, we want to construct the quantum counterpart of Marsden-Weinstein
reduction, i.e., we want to complete the right hand side of
the diagram (\ref{diag1}). Therefore, we invoke the
quantization prescription for symplectic spaces as discussed in
Chapter 2. This leads to the field algebra
${\cal A}\equiv {\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$ defined by (\ref{sk-sympl}).
Also, in analogy with our discussion in Chapter 2, we choose the algebra of
constraints ${\cal B}={\cal A}(T_{sk},B_{sk})$; once again, the motivation
for this is that it is the ($C^*$) algebra generated by the gauge group.
Consequently, the algebra of weak observables, which by
definition is the largest subalgebra of ${\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$
commuting with ${\cal B}(T_{sk},B_{sk})$, is given by ${\cal
A}_c={\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$, where
\begin{equation}
N_{sk} = {\lbrace{ ({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}) \mid
{\partial}^{\mu}{\phi}_{\mu}= e{\phi} }\rbrace} \subset M_{sk}; \ll{nsk}
\end{equation}
compare this with (\ref{jmoo}).
The subspaces $N_{sk}$ and $T_{sk}\subset N_{sk}$ of $M_{sk}$ are
invariant under the action of symplectic transformations
${\gamma}_{\Lambda,a}$ associated with elements $(\Lambda,a)$
of the Poincar\'e group ${\cal P}$,
$({\gamma}_{\Lambda,a}({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}))(x) :=
({\Lambda}^{\nu}_{\mu}{\phi}_{\nu},{\phi})({\Lambda}^{-1}(x-a)))$,
cf. (\ref{Poincare}). Consequently, the subalgebras ${\cal A}_c$ and
${\cal B}$ are Poincar\'e-invariant.
\subsubsection{Representing the algebra of observables}
Rieffel induction starts from the input data of diagram
(\ref{diag2}). So far, we have determined the algebra of weak
observables ${\cal A}_c={\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$ and
the algebra of constraints ${\cal B}={\cal A}(T_{sk},B_{sk})$
of the St\"uckelberg-Kibble
model; note that ${\cal B}\subset {\cal A}_c$. What is needed
is a representation of these
algebras on some subspace $L$ of a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. In this
subsection, we give such a representation on a bosonic Fock space
(cf.\ the corresponding procedure for QED in \cite{Landswied}).
For simplicity, in a first step we introduce a representation for
elements $W({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}=0) \in {\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$
only. This will subsequently be generalized to the whole algebra.
We start from the canonical
commutation relations for the smeared annihilation and creation operators
$\hat{a}_{\mu}$, $\hat{a}_{\mu}^*$,
\begin{equation}
\hat{a}(f)= \hat{a}_{\mu}(f^{\mu}) =
\int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^32k_0} \lbrack{ \hat{a}_0({\bf
k})\overline{f}_0({\bf k}) + \hat{a}_i({\bf k})\overline{f}_i({\bf
k})}\rbrack,
\end{equation}
namely
\begin{equation}
{\lbrack{ {\hat{a}(f)}, {\hat{a}^*(g)} }\rbrack} = (g,f)_E
:= \int {d^3{\bf k}\over (2\pi)^32k_0}
{g}_{\mu}({\bf k}) {\delta}^{\mu\nu} \overline{f}_{\nu}({\bf
k}). \ll{ccr-euclid}
\end{equation}
For reasons to become clear soon, we have employed the so-called
Fermi trick \cite{CGH} which consists in defining the creation and
annihilation operators of a vector field such that their commutator
is a Euclidean scalar product.
Introducing a vacuum state $|0\rangle$ with the property $
\hat{a}(f)|0\rangle=0$ for all $f$, the creation and annihilation
operators generate a bosonic Fock space $\H_1$ in the usual way.
Mathematically $\H_1$ is, of course, the symmetric Hilbert space
\cite{Guichardet} over $L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^4$.
We can now represent the field algebra $\cal A$, and thence its
subalgebras ${\cal A}_c$ and $\cal B$, on $\H_1$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
{\pi}(W({\phi}^{\mu}, {\phi}=0)) = e^{\lbrack{
{\hat{a}_{\mu}(\tilde{\phi}_{\mu})} - {\hat{a}_{\mu}(\tilde{\phi}_{\mu})^*}
}\rbrack},
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\phi}_{\mu}=\left( -\overline{\phi}_0, {\phi}_i \right)$,
and the symbol ${\pi}$ for a representation has been introduced.
The essential point is that the Euclidean commutation relations
(\ref{ccr-euclid}) are able to represent the Minkowski commutators
(\ref{ccrsk}) because of the special definition of $\tilde{\phi}_{\mu}$.
Now, we present a very economical
notation for symmetric $n$-particle states by introducing `exponential
vectors' \cite{Guichardet}. To this aim, we represent the algebra
${\cal A}_c$ on the dense subset $L_1$ of ${\cal H}_{1}$,
which is the span of all exponential vectors
\begin{eqnarray}
L_1 &=& {\lbrace{\sum_{i=1}^N{\lambda}_{i}e^{{\psi}^{(i)}} \mid
{\lambda}_i\in{{\Bbb C}}, {\psi}^{(i)}\in
L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^4, N<\infty}\rbrace};
\nonumber \\
e^{\psi} &:=& 1\oplus\psi \oplus {1\over \sqrt 2}\psi\otimes\psi
\oplus {1\over \sqrt{3!}}\psi\otimes\psi\otimes\psi \oplus\ldots ,
\ll{exp-vect}
\end{eqnarray}
where the tensor products are understood to be symmetrized.
Note that the prefactors $1\over \sqrt{n!}$ of the $n$-particle
contributions to $e^{\psi}$ have been chosen differently from those of a
Taylor expansion of $e^x$. This allows for a simple form of the
scalar product on $L_1$,
\begin{equation}
(e^{\psi},e^{\varphi}) = e^{(\psi,\varphi)_E}.\ll{e-scalar-prod}
\end{equation}
A useful remark is now that symmetric $n$-particle states can be
obtained from suitably normalized derivatives of exponential vectors,
\begin{equation}
{\psi}_1{\otimes}_s ... {\otimes}_s {\psi}_n = {1\over \sqrt{n!}}
{d\over dr_1} ... {d\over dr_n} e^{\sum_ir_i{\psi}_i} |_{r_i = 0}.
\ll{deriv}
\end{equation}
The representation of $W({\phi}_{\mu},0)$ takes a very simple
form on $L_1$. From (\ref{exp-vect}) we
have
$e^{\hat{a}_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu})} e^{\psi} =
e^{{(\psi,\phi)_E}}e^{\psi}$,
$e^{\hat{a}_{\mu}({\phi}^{\mu})^*} e^{\psi} =
e^{(\psi+\phi)}$
and hence\footnote{
To see that this defines a
representation, we check that
$$ {\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},0)) {\pi}(W({\varphi}_{\mu},0)) = e^{\lbrack{i{\rm
Im}{\lbrack{ (\overline{\phi}_0,\overline{\varphi}_0)_E +
({\phi}_i,{\varphi}_i)_E}\rbrack}}\rbrack}
{\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu}+{\varphi}_{\mu},0)),$$
where
$ {\rm Im}{\lbrack{ (\overline{\phi}_0,\overline{\varphi}_0)_E +
({\phi}_i,{\varphi}_i)_E}\rbrack} =
B_{sk}({\varphi}_{\mu},0;{\phi}_{\mu},0)$.}
\begin{equation}
{\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},0))e^{\psi} = e^{{-1\over
2}(\phi,\phi)_E+(\psi,\tilde{\phi})_E}
e^{(\psi-\tilde{\phi})}.
\end{equation}
The construction given above is easily generalized to
the whole algebra ${\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$ acting on the dense
subspace $ L = L_1 \otimes L_2$
of
$
{\cal H} ={\cal H}_1\otimes {\cal H}_2$, where ${\cal H}_2$ is the
bosonic Fock space over $L^2({\Bbb R}^3)$. With
\begin{equation}
L_2 = {\lbrace{ \sum_i^N {\lambda}_i e^{{\psi}^{(i)}} \mid
{\psi}^{(i)} \in L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3); {\lambda}_i\in{\Bbb C}, N<\infty
}\rbrace}
\end{equation}
the scalar product of vectors in $L$, reads
\begin{equation}
(e^{{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{{\psi}},e^{{\chi}_{\mu}}\otimes
e^{{\chi}}) = e^{ ({\psi}_{\mu},{\chi}_{\mu})_E +
({\psi},{\chi})},
\end{equation}
and the action of ${\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$ (denoted by $\pi$ as well,
with slight abuse of notation) is
\begin{equation}
{\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi})) e^{{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes
e^{{\psi}} = e^{{-1\over 2}({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}_{\mu})_E +
({\psi}_{\mu},\tilde{{\phi}_{\mu}})_E}
e^{{-1\over 2}({\phi},{\phi}) + ({\psi},{\phi})}
e^{{\psi}_{\mu}- \tilde{{\phi}_{\mu}}} \otimes e^{{\psi}-\phi}.
\ll{sk-rep}
\end{equation}
It should be pointed out that $L$ is only stable under finite linear
combinations of the $W$'s (which span a dense subalgebra of $\cal A$),
and not under all elements of $\cal A$.
Hence, strictly speaking, the induction process is performed relative
to the corresponding dense
subalgebras of ${\cal A}_c$ and $\cal B$.
\subsubsection{Constructing the physical one-particle Hilbert space}
With (\ref{sk-rep}), we have specified the bimodule $L$ for
${\cal A}_c$ and $\cal B$, which in this case is a subspace of an
`unphysical' Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. Our next step is to construct
the corresponding physical Hilbert space, i.e., to carry out the
discussion following
(\ref{diag2}). In this and the next subsection, we determine the null
space ${\cal N}_{sk}$ for the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model, thereby eventually
obtaining ${\cal H}_{phys}$.
We start from the inner product on elementary vectors in $L$
\begin{equation}
(e^{{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\psi},
e^{{\chi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\chi})_0 = \int_{T_{sk}} [{\cal D}g]
({\pi}(W({\partial}_{\mu}g,-eg))
e^{{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\psi},
e^{{\chi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\chi}), \ll{pisk}
\end{equation}
which is a natural generalization of (\ref{0-prod}) (and can, at least
heuristically, be derived from an appropriate rigging map defined by a
unitary representation of the gauge group on $\cal H$).
As in \cite{Landswied}, the heuristic path integral (\ref{pisk}) can
be turned into a well-defined integral w.r.t.\ a certain cylindrical
measure on $T_{sk}=G$, but here we shall proceed with the formal flat
measure ${\cal D}g$, and certify that all manipulations below can be
rigorously justified.
Using the representation (\ref{sk-rep}) of
${\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$, we obtain, with $k_0 = \sqrt{e^2 + {\bf k}^2}$,
and $d\tilde{k} = {d{\bf k}^3\over ({2\pi})^32k_0}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
(e^{{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\psi}&,&
e^{{\chi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{\chi})_0\nonumber \\
&& = e^{\int \tilde{dk} {-1\over k_0^2}{\lbrack{ (k_i{\psi}_i-
ie\psi)k_0{\psi}_0 +
(k_i\overline{\chi}_i + ie\overline{\chi})k_0\overline{\chi}_0
}\rbrack}}\nonumber \\
&&\times e^{ \int \tilde{dk} {\psi}_i{\left({ {\delta}_{ij} -
{k_ik_j\over {\bf
k}^2}}\right)} \overline{\chi}_j + {\left({ {e\over k_0}{\psi}_i + i
{k_i\over k_0}\psi}\right)} {k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2} \overline{\left({
{e\over k_0}{\chi}_j + i {k_j\over k_0}\chi}\right)}
},\ll{sk-0-prod}
\end{eqnarray}
where we have used
$ {\left({ {\delta}_{ij} - {k_ik_j\over k_0^2}}\right)}
= {\left({ {\delta}_{ij} - {k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2}}\right)} + {e^2
k_ik_j\over k_0^2 {\bf k}^2}$ to write (\ref{sk-0-prod}) in terms
of projection operators.
To investigate the structure of the null space ${\cal N}_{sk}$, we
derive the $(.,.)_0$-inner product for $n$-particle vectors in
${\cal H}$ from (\ref{sk-0-prod}). For one-particle vectors in
the (unphysical) space ${\cal H}$, we have
\begin{equation}
{d\over dr} e^{r{\psi}_{\mu}}\otimes e^{r\psi}|_{r=0} =
{\psi}_{\mu} \otimes {\Omega}' + {\Omega}''\otimes\psi,
\end{equation}
where ${\Omega} = {\Omega}''\otimes {\Omega}'$ denotes the vacuum
state in ${\cal H}$. Since such expressions become cumbersome for
higher derivatives, for notational convenience we define
\begin{equation}
{\psi}_*^{(1)}\times ...\times {\psi}_*^{(n)}
:= {1\over \sqrt{n!}}{d\over dr_1} ... {d\over dr_n}
e^{\sum_i r_i {\psi}_{\mu}^{(i)}} \otimes e^{\sum_j r_j
{\psi}^{(j)}} {\mid}_{r_i=0}.
\end{equation}
Then, the $(.,.)_0$-inner product on one-particle
vectors in ${\cal H}$ reads
\begin{equation}
({\psi}_*,{\chi}_*)_0 =
{ \int \tilde{dk} {\psi}_i{\left({ {\delta}_{ij} -
{k_ik_j\over {\bf
k}^2}}\right)} \overline{\chi}_j + {\left({ {e\over k_0}{\psi}_i + i
{k_i\over k_0}\psi}\right)} {k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2} \overline{\left({
{e\over k_0}{\chi}_j + i {k_j\over k_0}\chi}\right)}}. \ll{one-part-prod}
\end{equation}
Clearly, the two transversal components $P_T{\psi}_* :=
{\left({ {\delta}_{ij} - {k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2}}\right)} {\psi}_j$
and a linear combination $P_L{\psi}_*$ of the
longitudinal component ${k_ik_j\over{\bf k}^2}{\psi}_j({\bf k})$
with the scalar component ${\psi}({\bf k})$ survive, while the remaining
two components lie in ${\cal N}_{sk}$. To be more precise, we
introduce for ${\psi}_*$ the {\it Bogoliubov-transformed components}
${\psi}_L$, ${\psi}_N$,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\psi}_{L,i}({\bf k}) &:=& \cos\theta {k_ik_j{\psi}_j({\bf k})\over
{\bf k}^2} + i\sin\theta {k_i{\psi}({\bf k})\over |{\bf k}|}
,\nonumber \\
{\psi}_{N,i}({\bf k}) &:=& -\sin\theta {k_ik_j{\psi}_j({\bf k})\over
{\bf k}^2} + i\cos\theta {k_i{\psi}({\bf k})\over |{\bf k}|},
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\cos\theta = {e\over k_0}$, $\sin\theta =
{|{\bf k}|\over k_0}$.
With ${\psi}_L$, ${\psi}_T$ and ${\psi}_N$, the five-component
vector ${\psi}_*^{(i)}$ can be specified as
\begin{equation}
{\psi}_*({\bf k}) := \left({P_T{\psi}_{\mu}({\bf k}),
{\psi}_L({\bf k}), {\psi}_N({\bf k}), {\psi}_0({\bf
k})}\right),
\end{equation}
and the projection operator $P_p$ onto the `physical' one-particle
components is given by
\begin{equation}
(P_p{\psi}_*)({\bf k}) = \left({P_T{\psi}_{\mu}({\bf k}),
{\psi}_L({\bf k}),0,0}\right). \ll{one-part-phys}
\end{equation}
This is exactly what one expects: the five `unphysical' degrees of
freedom have combined into three physical ones in such a way that the
longitudinal component in ${\cal H}$ has mixed with the scalar
component.
\subsubsection{The physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$}
To extend (\ref{one-part-phys}) to $n$-particle states, we
rewrite (\ref{sk-0-prod}), using
$$\exp(\sum_ir_i{\psi}_*^{(i)}) := \exp(\sum_ir_i{\psi}_{\mu}^{(i)})
\otimes \exp(\sum_ir_i{\psi}^{(i)}),$$
\begin{equation}
(e^{{\psi}_*},e^{{\chi}_*})_0 = (e^{{\psi}_*},\Omega)_0
(\Omega, e^{{\chi}_*})_0 (e^{P_p{\psi}_*},e^{P_p{\chi}_*}). \ll{nullsk}
\end{equation}
Here we have used the remark following (\ref{one-part-prod}),
which implies that
$$ (\exp(P_p{\psi}_*),\exp(P_p{\chi}_*))_0 =
(\exp(P_p{\psi}_*),\exp(P_p{\chi}_*)).$$
{}From (\ref{nullsk}) we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\psi}_*^{(1)}\times ... \times{\psi}_*^{(n)} &=&
{d\over dr_1}...{d\over dr_n} (e^{\sum_ir_i{\psi}_*^{(i)}},\Omega)_0
e^{\sum_ir_i{\psi}_*^{(i)}} |_{r_i=0}\nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{q=0}^n \sum_{(p_i)_1^q\in {\cal P}_{q,n}}
{\lambda}_{(p_i)_1^q}
(P_p{\psi}_*^{(p_1)}){\times} ... {\times}(P_p{\psi}_*^{(p_q)})
+ \vec{n},\ll{n-part-unphys}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal P}_{q,n}$ contains all sets of $q$ indices
${\lbrace{(p_i)_1^q}\rbrace}$ out of
${\lbrace{1,...,n}\rbrace}$, such that
${\lbrace{(p_i)_1^q}\rbrace}$ $\cup$
${\lbrace{(\hat{p_i})_1^{n-q}}\rbrace}$ $={\lbrace{1,...,n}\rbrace}$.
Here,
\begin{equation}
{\lambda}_{(p_i)_1^q} =
\sqrt{(q)! (n-q)!\over n!} ({\psi}_*^{(\hat{p}_1)}\times ... \times
{\psi}_*^{(\hat{p}_{n-q})}{\mid}_{p_q(I_{n,q})},\Omega)_0
\end{equation}
are $c$-number coefficients and $\vec{n}$ denotes an element in
${\cal N}_{sk}$.
Vectors of the type (\ref{one-part-phys}) generate a Hilbert space
of physical one-particle states. The bosonic Fock space over this
one-particle space is evidently ${\cal F}_{phys}:={\cal
S}(L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^3)$, the symmetric Hilbert space over
$(L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^3)$. It should be clear from equation
(\ref{n-part-unphys}) that the induced space ${\cal H}_{phys}$ from
the Rieffel induction procedure is naturally isomorphic to this
physical Fock space.\footnote{
Of course, all Hilbert spaces of the same dimension are unitarily
equivalent, but to impose such equivalence one generally has to pick
a basis. We use the term `naturally isomorphic' to indicate that a
unitary equivalence exists which doesn't require the choice of a basis.
{}From the point of view of representation theory, this equivalence
intertwines the actions of appropriate operator algebras,
cf.\ the next subsection.}
To prove this, we define a map $V:L\rightarrow {\cal F}_{phys}$ by linear
extension of $V\exp(\psi_*)=(\exp(\psi_*),\Omega)_0\exp(P_p\psi_*)$.
It follows from an argument similar to the one in section 3.3 of
\cite{Landswied} that this map is well-defined (which is a
nontrivial property, as the basis $\{\exp(\psi_*)\}$ is overcomplete).
Eq.\ (\ref{nullsk}), and the fact that the inner product in
${\cal F}_{phys}$ is just the one in $\cal H$, restricted to the
physcial states, then implies the crucial property
\begin{equation}
(V\Psi,V\Phi)=(\Psi,\Phi)_0 \ll{crucial}
\end{equation}
for all $\Psi,\Phi\in L$, where the inner product on the l.h.s.\
is evidently the one in ${\cal F}_{phys}$. Hence the null space
${\cal N}_{sk}$ of $(.,.)_0$ is precisely the kernel of $V$,
and the quotient map
$\tilde{V}: L/{\cal N}_{sk}\rightarrow {\cal F}_{phys}$
can be extended to a unitary map (denoted by the same symbol)
$\tilde{V}: {\cal H}_{phys}\rightarrow {\cal F}_{phys}$.
\subsubsection{$n$-point correlation functions and gauge-invariance}
Having specified the physical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$, the
next step is to determine the action of ${\pi}_{phys}({\cal A}_c)$.
To this end, we consider the generating functional ${\omega}_{vac}$ for
vacuum expectation values,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\omega}_{vac}({\phi}^{\mu},\phi) &:=&
({\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi))\Omega, \Omega)_0 \nonumber \\
&=& e^{{1\over 2}({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}_{\mu})_M} e^{-{1\over
2}({\phi},{\phi})} e^{-{1\over
k_0^2}(k_0\overline{\phi}_0(k_{\mu}{\phi}_{\mu} +
ie\phi))}, \ll{vac-exp}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Omega \in {\cal H}$ is the (unphysical) `vacuum' state.
By construction, only ${\cal A}_c={\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$ acts on
${\cal H}$ (cf.\ (\ref{nsk})), and for $({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi}) \in N_{sk}$,
$k_0{\phi}_0 = k_i{\phi}_i - ie{\phi}$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
{\omega}_{vac}({\phi}^{\mu},\phi)
&=& e^{-{1\over 2}({\phi}_{\mu},P_T{\phi}_{\mu})_E}
e^{-{1\over 2}({e\over k_0}{\phi}_i + i{k_i\over k_0}\phi)
{k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2} ({e\over k_0}\overline{\phi}_j - i{k_i\over
k_0}\overline{\phi})}\nonumber \\
&=:& ({\pi}_{phys}(\tilde{W}(P_p{\phi}_*)){\Omega}_{phys},
{\Omega}_{phys})_{phys} \nonumber \\
&=&
e^{-\mbox{\footnotesize $\frac{1}{2}$}\int d\tilde{k} [\overline{P_T\phi({\bf k})}P_T\phi({\bf k})
+ \overline{\phi}_{L,i}({\bf k}){\phi}_{L,i}({\bf k})]}.
\end{eqnarray}
Here, ${\Omega}_{phys} \in {\cal H}_{phys}$ is the physical
vacuum state; it is just the projection of $\Omega\in L$ onto $L/{\cal
N}_{sk}\, \subset {\cal
H}_{phys}$.
We observe that for $({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)\in
T_{sk}$, ${\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi))$ equals the unit operator,
cf.\ (\ref{tsk}). This implies that the gauge group is represented
trivially on ${\cal H}_{phys}$. Moreover, one infers that
${\cal A}_{obs}:= {\pi}({\cal A}_c)\simeq {\cal A}(N_{sk}/T_{sk},B_{c,sk})$,
since the image of a representation of a $C^*$-algebra is isomorphic to
the algebra quotiented by the kernel of the representation.
Now $N_{sk}/T_{sk}\simeq P_p N_{sk}$ as vector spaces (but not as
carrier spaces of actions of the Poincar\'{e} group!), so that,
equally well, ${\cal A}_{obs}\simeq {\cal A}(P_p N_{sk},B_{sk})$.\footnote{
However, the isomorphism between ${\cal A}(P_p N_{sk},B_{sk})$ and
${\cal A}(N_{sk}/T_{sk})$ does not preserve the (automorphic) action
of the Poincar\'{e} group, which, indeed, acts on the latter but not
on the former, cf.\ \cite{CGH}.}
Then, it is clear from section 3.1 that ${\cal A}_{obs}$ is precisely
the Weyl algebra over de Marsden-Weinstein reduced
space (i.e., the physical phase space) of the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model.
Hence it describes three gauge-invariant, massive field components.
Thus $\tilde{W}(P_p{\phi}_*))$ can be viewed as a Weyl operator in
${\cal A}(P_pN_{sk},B_{sk})$. In particular, the representation of
${\cal A}(P_pN_{sk},B_{sk})$ on exponential vectors
$e^{\psi} \in {\cal H}_{phys} = {\cal S}(L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^3)$
is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\pi}_{phys}(\tilde{W}(P_p{\phi}_*))e^{\psi} =
e^{-\mbox{\footnotesize $\frac{1}{2}$}(P_p{\phi}_*,P_p{\phi}_*)_p + (\psi,P_p{\phi}_*)_p}
e^{(\psi - P_p{\phi}_*)} \nonumber \\
(\psi,P_p{\phi}_*)_p =
\int d\tilde{k} [\overline{P_T\phi({\bf k})}P_T\phi({\bf k})
+ \overline{\phi}_{L,i}({\bf k}){\phi}_{L,i}({\bf k})].
\end{eqnarray}
{}From ${\omega}_{vac}({\phi}_{\mu},{\phi})$, $n$-point correlation
functions can be obtained as multiple derivatives of
$\tilde{W}(P_p{\phi}_*) := e^{i\tilde{A}(f)}$, where
$P_p{\phi}_* = \triangle * f \in L^2({{\Bbb R}}^3)\otimes {{\Bbb C}}^3$.
\begin{eqnarray}
&i^n& ({\pi}_{phys}(\tilde{A}(f_1)...\tilde{A}(f_n){\Omega}_{phys},
{\Omega}_{phys})_{phys} =
{d\over dr_1}...{d\over dr_n} {\omega}_{vac}(\sum_ir_i{\phi}_{\mu}^{(i)},
\sum_ir_i{\phi}^{(i)})|_{r_i=0}\nonumber \\
&=& \sum_{(p_i,q_i)_i^{n\over 2} \in {\cal S}_n} \prod_{i=1}^{n\over 2}
({\pi}_{phys}(\tilde{A}(f_{p_i})\tilde{A}(f_{q_i}){\Omega}_{phys},
{\Omega}_{phys})_{phys}(-1)^{n\over 2} \ll{n-point}
\end{eqnarray}
for $n$ even and zero otherwise. Here, ${\cal S}_n$ denotes the set of all
symmetric partitions of ${\lbrace{1, ...,n}\rbrace}$ into a set of
unordered pairs $(p_i,q_i)$. We conclude from (\ref{n-point})
that the $n$-point correlation functions can be decomposed into
products of $2$-point correlation functions, i.e., Wick's theorem
is satisfied.
The reader should note, however, that this form of Wick's theorem is
satisfied for elements in ${\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$ only. The crucial
point is that in general, the $(.,.)_0$-inner product preserves the
adjoint for test functions in $N_{sk}$ only. This can be seen by
comparing, e.g.,
${d\over dr_1}{d\over dr_2} ({\pi}(W(\sum_ir_i{\phi}_{\mu}^{(i)},$
$\sum_ir_i{\phi}^{(i)}))\Omega,\Omega)_0 |_{r_i=0}$ with
${d\over dr_1}{d\over dr_2} ({\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu}^{(1)},$
${\phi}^{(1)}))\Omega, {\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu}^{(2)},
{\phi}^{(2)}))\Omega)_0 |_{r_i=0}$, cf. (\ref{vac-exp}).
There is an interesting parallel between this restriction of the
Rieffel induced expectation values to ${\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$ and
the general set-up of the Gupta-Bleuler indefinite metric formalism
as presented in \cite{Strocchi}. In the latter, one starts from an
unphysical Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{GB}$ from which the physical one
is obtained as a quotient ${\cal H}'/{\cal H}''$. Without reviewing
this construction, we note that ${\cal H}$ has to be restricted to a
suitable subspace ${\cal H}' \subset {\cal H}_{GB}$ before quotiening
by a null space ${\cal H}'$. Obviously, in our setting, a
similar restriction is needed on the level of the algebra,
${\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})\subset {\cal A}(M_{sk},B_{sk})$.
This restriction emerges in a systematic way, for as we pointed out
before, the subalgebra in question is the commutant of the algebra
generated by the constraints (i.e., by the gauge group).
This observation is closely related to the result of Narnhofer and
Thirring \cite{Narnhofer} that covariant formulations without indefinite
inner metric are possible as long as the representation on the physical
Hilbert space is restricted to a certain subalgebra of weak observables.
In the example of Narnhofer and Thirring, non-regular states have
to be introduced. This can be avoided in the Rieffel induction setting,
cf. \cite{Landswied,UAW} for further details.
\subsubsection{Positivity of the Hamiltonian and action of the
Poincar\'e group}
On the algebra of weak observables of the St\"uckelberg-Kibble model
${\cal A}(N_{sk},B_{sk})$, the time evolution is given
as an automorphism group ${\tau}_t$,
\begin{equation}
{\tau}_t[W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)] = W(e^{it\sqrt{D+e^2}}{\phi}_{\mu},
e^{it\sqrt{D+e^2}}\phi ),
\end{equation}
where $(D{\phi})_{\mu} = (-{\triangle}{\phi}_0, -{\triangle}{\phi}_1,
-{\triangle}{\phi}_2, -{\triangle}{\phi}_3)$.
We want to construct the Hamiltonian $H$, corresponding to ${\tau}_t$
on ${\cal H}$. $H$ is a
representation-dependent operator, implementing the time evolution
${\tau}_t$ in the representation ${\pi}$ by
\begin{equation}
e^{itH}{\pi}(W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)) e^{-itH} =
{\pi}({\tau}_t[W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)]).
\end{equation}
Comparing this with the explicit form of the representation in terms of
annihilation and creation operators $\hat{a}_{\mu}^*$, $\hat{a}_{\mu}$
for the vector field and $\hat{b}^*$, $\hat{b}$ for the
scalar field, we obtain
\begin{equation}
H = - \int d\tilde{k} \sqrt{{\bf k}^2+e^2} \hat{a}_{\mu}^*({\bf k})
g^{\mu\nu} \hat{a}_{\nu}^({\bf k}) + \int d\tilde{k} \sqrt{{\bf
k}^2+e^2} \hat{b}^*({\bf k}) \hat{b}({\bf k}).
\end{equation}
Regarded as an operator on $\cal H$ (with its Hilbert space inner product),
this Hamiltonian clearly has the entire real axis as its spectrum. However,
it is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
({\Psi}, H {\Psi})_0 \geq 0
\end{equation}
for all $\Psi \in {\cal H}$.
The point is that arbitrary (normalized) components of the physical
one-particle state space,
${\left({ {\delta}_{ij} - {k_ik_j\over {\bf k}^2}}\right)}{\psi}_j$ and
${k_i\over {\bf k}}{\psi}_i \cos\theta + i\psi\sin\theta$
pick up (the same) positive energy contributions. For multi-particle
states, this holds true due to their decomposition into such
components. The elements of ${\cal H}$ carrying the negative
energy spectrum have ended up in the null space. Hence the induced
Hamiltonian $H_{phys}$ on ${\cal H}_{phys}$ is positive.
Finally, we note that ${\cal H}_{phys}$ carries a massive
representation of the Poincar\'e group ${\cal P}$. Indeed, ${\omega}_{vac}$
is Poincar\'e invariant on $N_{sk}$ and hence \cite{Haag,BW} there exists a
Poincar\'e invariant vacuum state ${\Omega}_{phys}\in {\cal H}_{phys}$
and a representation $U_p$ of the Poincar\'e group, such that
\begin{equation}
U_p(\Lambda,a){\pi}_{phys}(W({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)){\Omega}_{phys} =
{\pi}_{phys}(W({\gamma}_{\Lambda,a}({\phi}_{\mu},\phi))){\Omega}_{phys}
\end{equation}
for all $({\phi}_{\mu},\phi)\in N_{sk}$. It is easily shown that $H_{phys}$
is the generator of the time-translation part of the representation
thus defined. Since the spectrum of the Hamiltonian $H_{phys}$
shows a mass gap, we are dealing with a massive
representation ($m^2 = e^2$) of the Poincar\'e group, i.e.,
the three components of the vector $P_p{\psi}_*^{(i)}$ transform
as a massive one-particle state under the action of the little group
$SO(3)$ \cite{Barut}.
We conclude that ${\cal H}_{phys}$ has the main properties required
by a physical Hilbert space: it transforms trivially under the gauge
group, satisfies the positive spectrum condition and carries a
unitary representation of the Poincar\'e group.
\section{Conclusion}
The quantization proposal employed in this paper provides a detailed
scheme for imposing
constraints on gauge quantum field theories. As explained in Chapter 2,
the main tool of this proposal is the Rieffel induction procedure,
which provides a systematic scheme for the construction of
representations of $C^*$-algebras. It
may be viewed as the quantum counterpart of the symplectic reduction
technique; as we have shown, this is particulary obvious for Weyl
$C^*$-algebras. This leads to a new
quantization method for gauge field theories.
In the present work, we have applied this method to the
St\"uckelberg-Kibble model. To this end, we have defined a field
algebra ${\cal A}$ corresponding to the field content of the
Lagrangian, and an algebra of constraints ${\cal B}$ corresponding
to the gauge group acting on ${\cal A}$. Also, we have specified
a representation ${\pi}$ of subalgebras of ${\cal A}$ on a
(unphysical) Hilbert space ${\cal H}$. From these input data, we have
constructed a representation of the physical, gauge-invariant
fields on a new Hilbert space ${\cal H}_{phys}$.
The construction of ${\cal H}_{phys}$ shows some parallels to the
Gupta-Bleuler indefinite metric formalism. In both settings, a
degenerate inner product is defined on a (unphysical) Hilbert
space ${\cal H}$, and ${\cal H}_{phys}$ is constructed by
quotiening ${\cal H}$ by a null space with respect to this degenerate
inner product. Yet, there are important differences. In contrast to the
indefinite metric inner product ${\langle{.,.}\rangle}$, defined on
${\cal H}_{GB}$ in the Gupta-Bleuler formalism, the $(.,.)_0$-inner
product is positive semidefinite. More importantly, it is
a conceptual advantage of our quantization method that
$(.,.)_0$ is derived from first principles (namely from the
requirement to impose quantum constraints by a quantized version
of the classical phase space reduction method), whereas the
Gupta-Bleuler formalism takes ${\langle{.,.}\rangle}$ as
starting point without further justification. A similar comment
applies to the BRST technique: although a classical analogue of
this procedure exists, the quantum BRST procedure is {\em not} in
any satisfactory sense the quantization of the classical scheme.
Another remarkable difference between both formalisms
is that the Gupta-Bleuler formalism restricts the unphysical Hilbert
space before forming the quotient while the proposal of \cite{Landsman}
restricts itself to a representation of the subalgebra
${\cal A}_c$ of weak observables on ${\cal H}$, before quotiening
by the appropriate null space.
As a consequence, the $(.,.)_0$-inner product preserves
the adjoint for elements in ${\cal A}_c$ only. It remains to be
seen how far this feature alters applications of usual perturbative
techniques in more complicated models.
Most of our effort in Chapter 3 has gone into characterizing the
particular features of the physical state space ${\cal H}_{phys}$.
By construction, ${\cal H}_{phys}$ carries a trivial representation
of the gauge group. Also, the states are physical in the sense that
they obey a positive spectrum condition and that they carry a
massive representation of the Poincar\'e group. Since the
St\"uckelberg-Kibble model has been widely used in investigations
of the Higgs mechanism, we emphasize again the result obtained
for the one-particle subspace in ${\cal H}_{phys}$. The point is
that in our proposal, the particular construction method of
${\cal H}_{phys}$ allows one to trace back how the (unphysical) components
of ${\cal H}$ end up in the physical Hilbert space. In the present
case, we have shown that the longitudinal physical one-particle
component arises from a particular Bogoliubov-transformation of the
unphysical longitudinal and the scalar component. As expected from
general considerations, two of the five components in ${\cal H}$ have
ended up in the one-particle null space.
We conclude our discussion of the Rieffel induction procedure by
pointing out that our presentation has focused on a
particular way of applying Rieffel induction to gauge quantum field
theories. Conceptually, the scheme is much wider. It remains
to be seen how far other choices for the inner product $(.,.)_0$ and
the unphysical Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ allow for other realisations
of the physical observables of gauge field theories.
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\bigskip
In previous papers [1--4] the Hamilton--Jacobi formulation of singular systems
has been studied. This formulation leads us to the following total differential
equations:
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{1.\arabic{equation}}
\begin{equation}
dq_a={\partial H'_\alpha\over\partial p_a}\ dx_\alpha ,\quad dp_a=-{\partial
H'_\alpha\over\partial q_a}\ dx_\alpha,\quad dp_\alpha =-{\partial
H'_\beta\over\partial x_\alpha}\ dx_\beta
\end{equation}
$$
\alpha ,\beta =0,1,\dots , r;\qquad a=1,2,\dots , n-r\
$$
with constraints
\begin{equation}
H'_\alpha =H_\alpha (x_\beta , q_a,p_a)+p_\alpha
\end{equation}
(Note that we are adopting summation convention in this work.) Solutions of
Eqs.(1.1) give the field, $q_a$, in terms of independent coordinates
\begin{equation}
q_a\equiv q_a(t,x_\mu ),\qquad \mu =1,2,3,\dots ,r
\end{equation}
where $x_0=t$. The link between the Hamilton--Jacobi approach and the Dirac
approach is studied in Ref.[5].
In Ref.[6] the singular Lagrangians are treated as continuous systems. The
Euler--Lagrange equations of constrained systems are proposed in the form
\begin{equation}
{\partial\over\partial x_\alpha}\ \left[ {\partial L'\over \partial
(\partial_\alpha q_a)}\right] -{\partial L'\over\partial q_a}=0;\quad
\partial_\alpha q_a={\partial q_a\over\partial x_\alpha}\ .
\end{equation}
with constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
dG_0&=&-{\partial L'\over\partial t}\ dt\\
dG_\mu &=& -{\partial L'\over\partial x_\mu}\ dt
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
L'(x_\alpha ,\partial_\alpha q_a,\dot x_\mu ,q_a)\equiv L(q_a,x_\alpha ,\dot
q_a=(\partial_\alpha q_a)\dot x_\alpha )
\end{equation}
$$
\dot x_\mu ={dx_\mu\over dt};\qquad \dot x_0=1
$$
\begin{equation}
G_\alpha =H_\alpha \left( q_a,x_\beta ,p_a={\partial L\over\partial \dot
q_a}\right)
\end{equation}
The variation of constraints (1.5,6) should be taken into consideration in
order to have a consistent theory.
An instructive work is the canonical formalism for degenerate Lagrangians
[7--9]; the starting point of this formalism is to consider Lagrangians with
ranks of the Hessian matrix less than $n$. Shanmugadhasan has called these
systems as degenerate. For such systems some of the Euler--Lagrange equations
do not contain acceleration. Following Refs.[7--9] these equations are
considered as constraints. In other words, if the rank of Hessian matrix is
$(n-r)$, with $r<n$, then the Euler--Lagrange equations can be expressed in the
form
\begin{eqnarray}
{d\over dt}\ \left({\partial L\over\partial\dot q_a}\right) -{\partial
L\over\partial q_a} &=& 0\\
{d\over dt}\ \left({\partial L\over\partial\dot x_\mu}\right) -{\partial
L\over\partial x_\mu} &=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
With the aid of Eq.(1.9), Eq.(1.10) can be identically satisfied, i.e. $0=0$,
or they lead to equations free from acceleration. These equations are diveded
into two types: type--$A$ which contains coordinates only and type--$B$ which
contains coordinates and velocities [9]. The total time derivative of the above
two types of constraints should be considered in order to have a consistent
theory.
In this paper we would like to study the link between the treatment of singular
Lagrangians as field systems [6] and the well--known Lagrangian formalism. In
Section 2 the relation between the two approaches is discussed, and in Section
3 two examples of singular Lagrangians are constructed and solved using the two
approaches. In Section 4 the treatment of a singular Lagrangian with Hessian
matrix of zero rank is discussed.
\section{THE RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO APPROACHES}
One should notice that Eqs.(1.4) are equivalent to Eqs.(1.9). In other words
the expressions
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{2.\arabic{equation}}
\begin{equation}
(\partial_\alpha\ q_a)\ \dot x_\alpha
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\partial_\beta (\partial_\alpha\ q_a\ \dot x_\alpha )\ \dot x_\beta
\end{equation}
In Eqs.(1.4) can be be replaced by $\dot q_a$ and $\ddot q_a$ respectively in
order to obtain Eqs.(1.9). Following Refs.[1--6], we have
\begin{equation}
G_0\equiv H_0\ ,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
G_\mu\equiv H_\mu =-p_\mu
\end{equation}
Thus, Eqs.(1.6) lead to
\begin{equation}
{dp_\mu\over dt}={\partial L\over\partial x_\mu}
\end{equation}
Making use of the definition of momenta, Eqs.(2.5) lead to Eqs.(1.10). Hence
Eqs.(1.5,6) are equivalent to Eqs.(1.9,10).
\section{EXAMPLES}
The procedure described in Section 2 will be demonstrated by the following
examples.\\ \\
A.\quad Let us consider a Lagrangian of the form
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{3.\arabic{equation}}
\begin{equation}
L={1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_1+\dot q_1\dot q_2+{1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_2+4q_1\dot
q_2+(2q^2_1+4q_1q_2)
\end{equation}
The Euler--Lagrange equations then read as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\ddot q_1+\ddot q_2-4\dot q_2-4(q_1+q_2)=0\\
&&\ddot q_1+\ddot q_2+4\dot q_1-4q_1=0
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting Eq.(3.2) in Eq.(3.3), gives a $B$--type constraint
\begin{equation}
B_1=\dot q_2+\dot q_1+q_2=0
\end{equation}
For consistent theory, the time derivative of Eq.(3.4) should be equal to zero.
This leads to the new $B$--type constraint
\begin{equation}
B_2=5\dot q_2+4(q_2+q_1)=0
\end{equation}
Taking the time derivative for the new constraints we get a second order
differential equation for $q_2$
\begin{equation}
5\ddot q_2-4q_2=0
\end{equation}
which has the following solution
$$
q_2=A\ e^{{2\over\sqrt 5}\ t} +B\ e^{-{2\over\sqrt 5}\ t}
$$
Now, let us look at this Lagrangian as a field system. Since the rank of the
Hessian matrix is one, the above Lagrangian can be treated as a field system in
the form
\begin{equation}
q_1=q_1(t,q_2);\qquad x_2=q_2
\end{equation}
Thus, the expression
\begin{equation}
\dot q_1={\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot
q_2
\end{equation}
can be replaced in Eq.(3.1) to obtain the following modified Lagrangian $L'$:
\begin{eqnarray}
L' &=& {1\over 2}\ \left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial
q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]^2+\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial
t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]\ \dot q_2\nonumber\\
&&+{1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_2+4q_1\dot q_2+(2q^2_1+4q_1q_2)
\end{eqnarray}
Making use of Eqs.(1.4), we have
\begin{equation}
{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t\ \partial q_2}\
\dot q_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot q_2+{\partial^2q_1\over\partial
q^2_2}\ \dot q^2_2+\ddot q_2-4\dot q_2-4(q_1+q_2)=0
\end{equation}
Note that we have made the substitution $\alpha =0,2$ and $a=1$, in order to
get the above equation. Making use of Eq.(3.8) and the fact that
\begin{equation}
\ddot q_1={\partial^2q_1\over\partial t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t\
\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot
q_2+{\partial^2q_1\over\partial q^2_2}\ \dot q^2_2
\end{equation}
Eq.(3.10) will be the same as Eq.(3.2).
According to Refs.[1--4] the quantity $H_2$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
H_2=-(\dot q_1+\dot q_2+4q_1)
\end{equation}
Hence,
\begin{equation}
G_2=-\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot
q_2\right] -\dot q_2-4q_1
\end{equation}
and taking the total differential of Eq.(3.13) one gets,
\begin{eqnarray}
dG_2 &=&-\Biggl\{\left[{\partial^2q_1\over\partial
t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial q_2\ \partial t}\ \dot q_2+{\partial^2
q_1\over\partial q^2_2}\ \dot q_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot
q_2\right] +\Biggr.\nonumber \\
&&\Biggl. +4\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t} +{\partial q_1\over\partial
q_2}\
\dot q_2\right] +\ddot q_2\Biggr\}\ dt
\end{eqnarray}
Replacing the expression in the first parenthesis from Eq.(3.10) one gets
\begin{equation}
dG_2=-\left\{ 4\dot q_2+4[q_1+q_2]+4\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial
t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]\right\}\ dt
\end{equation}
Making use of Eq.(1.6), one finds
\begin{equation}
dG_2=-4q_1\ dt
\end{equation}
Equating Eq.(3.16) with Eq.(3.15), we have the following constraint
\begin{equation}
F_1=\dot q_2+q_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\
\dot q_2=0
\end{equation}
Using the expression (3.8), one observes that this constraint is equivalent to
the $B$--type constraint (3.4).
For a valid theory, the variation of $F_1$ should be zero; thus one gets
\begin{equation}
dF_1=F_2\ dt=0
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F_2=5\dot q_2+4q_1+4q_2=0
\end{equation}
This is $B_2$ constraint defined in Eq.(3.5).
Again taking the total differential of the new constraint $F_2$, we have
\begin{equation}
dF_2=[5\ddot q_2-4q_2]\ dt=0
\end{equation}
Thus
\begin{equation}
5\ddot q_2-4q_2=0
\end{equation}
This is a second order differential equation for $q_2$ and is the same as
Eq.(3.6). In addition, the function $G_0$ can be evaluated and
\begin{equation}
G_0={1\over 2}\ \left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial
q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]^2+{1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_2+\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial
t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]\ \dot q_2-2q^2_1-4q_1q_2
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
dG_0=4\dot q_2\ F_1\ dt
\end{equation}
and this does not lead to any further constraints.\\ \\
B.\quad Consider the Lagrangian of the form
\begin{equation}
L={1\over 2}\ (\dot q^2_1+\dot q^2_2)+\dot q_1\dot q_2+{1\over 2}\
(q^2_1+q^2_2)
\end{equation}
Then, the Euler--Lagrange equations are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\ddot q_1+\ddot q_2-q_1 & = & 0\\
\ddot q_1+\ddot q_2-q_2 & = & 0
\end{eqnarray}
Expressing Eq.(3.25) as
\begin{equation}
q_1=\ddot q_1+\ddot q_2
\end{equation}
and substituting in Eq.(3.26), one gets an $A$--type constraint
\begin{equation}
A_1=q_1-q_2=0
\end{equation}
There are no further constraints. Thus Eq.(3.26) takes the form
\begin{equation}
2\ddot q_2-q_2=0
\end{equation}
As in the previous example, this system can be treated as field system, and the
modified Lagrangian $L'$ reads as
\begin{equation}
L'={1\over 2}\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial
q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]^2+{1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_2+\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial
t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]\ \dot q_2+{1\over 2}\
(q^2_1+q^2_2)
\end{equation}
The Euler--Lagrange equation for this field system is obtained as
\begin{equation}
{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t\ \partial
q_2}\ \dot q_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot
q_2+{\partial^2q_1\over\partial q^2_2}\ \dot q^2_2+\ddot q_2-q_1=0
\end{equation}
Again replacing $\ddot q_1$ by the expression (3.11), Eq.(3.31) will be the
same as Eq.(3.25). Besides, the function $G_2$ can be calculated as
\begin{equation}
G_2=-\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot
q_2\right] -\dot q_2
\end{equation}
and the total differential of $G_2$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
dG_2=-\left[{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t\
\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2+{\partial^2q_1\over\partial\dot q^2_2}\ \dot
q^2_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot q_2+\ddot q_2\right]\ dt
\end{equation}
Using Eq.(3.31) and Eq.(1.6), we have
\begin{equation}
dG_2=-q_1\ dt=-q_2\ dt
\end{equation}
which leads to the following constraint
\begin{equation}
F_1=q_1-q_2=0
\end{equation}
This is an $A$--type constraint of the form (3.28).
Taking the total differential of $F_1$, we have
\begin{equation}
dF_1=\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot
q_2-\dot q_2\right]\ dt=0
\end{equation}
and this leads to a new constraint
\begin{equation}
F_2={\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot
q_2-\dot q_2=0
\end{equation}
which is equivalent to the total time derivative of the constraint (3.28).
Again calculating the total differential of $F_2$, one gets
\begin{equation}
dF_2=\left[{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t^2}+2{\partial^2q_1\over\partial t\
\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2+{\partial^2q_1\over\partial q^2_2}\ \dot
q^2_2+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \ddot q_2-\ddot q_2\right]\ dt=0
\end{equation}
and making use of Eqs.(3.31) and (3.35), we get
\begin{equation}
2\ddot q_2-q_2=0
\end{equation}
which is the same as Eq.(3.29). Besides the function $G_0$ is calculated as
\begin{equation}
G_0={1\over 2}\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial
q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]^2+{1\over 2}\ \dot q^2_2+\left[{\partial q_1\over\partial
t}+{\partial q_1\over\partial q_2}\ \dot q_2\right]\ \dot q_2-{1\over 2}\
[q^2_1+q^2_2]
\end{equation}
Thus, the total differential of $G_0$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
dG_0=\dot q_2\ F_1\ dt=0
\end{equation}
and with the aid of Eq.(3.35), it is identically satisfied.
\section{A SINGULAR LAGRANGIAN WITH ZERO RANK HESSIAN MATRIX}
According to the treatment of singular Lagrangians as field systems: if the
Hessian matrix has rank equal to zero, the Lagrangian cannot be treated as
field system. Whereas, the equation of motion which does not contain
acceleration can be obtained using the constraints (1.6).
As an example let us consider the following Lagrangian which was given in
Ref.[10]:
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{4.\arabic{equation}}
\begin{equation}
L=(q_2+q_3)\ \dot q_1+q_4\ \dot q_3+{1\over 2}\ (q^2_4-2q_2q_3-q^2_3)
\end{equation}
The momenta are obtained as
\begin{equation}
p_1=q_2+q_3,\quad p_2=0,\quad p_3=q_4,\quad p_4=0
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray}
G_1 &=& -(q_2+q_3)\\
G_2 &=& 0\\
G_3 &=& -q_4\\
G_4 &=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
Making use of Eqs.(1.6), one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
dG_1 &=& -(\dot q_2+\dot q_3)\ dt=0\\
dG_2 &=& 0=-(\dot q_1-q_3)\ dt\\
dG_3 &=& -\dot q_4\ dt =-(\dot q_1-q_2-q_3)\ dt\\
dG_4 &=& 0=-(\dot q_3+q_4)\ dt
\end{eqnarray}
These equations lead to the following equations of motion
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot q_2+\dot q_3 &=& 0\\
\dot q_1-q_3 &=& 0\\
\dot q_4-\dot q_1+q_2+q_3 &=& 0\\
\dot q_3+q_4 &=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
and these are the Euler--Lagrange equations which are free from acceleration,
and are of $B$--type constraints.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
As it was mentioned in the introduction if the rank of the Hessian matrix for
discrete systems is $(n-r); 0<r<n$, the systems can be treated as field
systems. It can be observed that the treatment of Lagrangians as field systems
is always in exact agreement with the general approach. The equations of motion
(1.4) are equivalent to the equations of motion (1.9). Besides, the constraints
(1.6) are equivalent to the equations (1.10).
The consistent theory in the treatment of Lagrangians as field systems also
leads to two types of constraints: a $B$--type which contains at least one
member of the set $\left\{\dot q_\mu ,{\partial q_a\over\partial t},{\partial
q_a\over\partial q_\mu}\right\}$, and an $A$--type which contains coordinates
only. As we have seen, in the first example $F_1$ and $F_2$ are $B$--types;
while the constraint $F_1$ in the second example is an $A$--type.
In the general approach the constraints can be obtained from the
Euler--Lagrange
equations, whereas, in the treatment of Lagrangians as field systems, the
constraints can be determined from the relations (1.5,6) and the new
constraints can be obtained using the variations of these relations.
\vspace{1cm}
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgments}
The author would like to thank the International Centre for Theoretical
Physics, Trieste, for hospitality.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
Magnetic ordering phenomena of both classical and quantum
antiferromagnets on non--bipartite lattices are a fascinating subject.
The simplest and most frequently studied model of this type is the
Heisenberg antiferromagnet on a triangular lattice (HAFT). While the
question of whether or not the typical features of this model have
been observed in experiments is still a controversial issue \cite{EXP90},
the theoretical understanding of these features has advanced rapidly
during recent years
\cite{ADJ90,ADM92,AWE92,LR93,DE93}. In contrast to antiferromagnets on
bipartite lattices, the HAFT exhibits non--collinear magnetic order in
its classical and most likely also in its quantum ground state. As a
consequence, the order parameter of the HAFT is represented locally by
a set of three mutually orthogonal unit vectors or, alternatively, by
a rotation matrix which defines the local orientation of this set
relative to some fixed frame of reference. Renormalization group (RG)
studies of appropriate nonlinear sigma (NL$\sigma$) models
\cite{ADM92,AWE92} have revealed a number of interesting properties of
the HAFT.
The symmetry of the model was found to be dynamically
enhanced from $O(3)\otimes O(2)$ to $O(4)$, and in a two loop RG
calculation for the classical HAFT \cite{ADM92}, the temperature
dependence of the correlation length $\xi$ was obtained as
\begin{equation}
\xi = \Delta \; C^{\xi}_{RG} \; \sqrt{T/B} \; e^{B/T}\; ,
\label{1}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ is the lattice constant,
$B=\sqrt{3} \pi (\frac{\pi}{4} + \frac{1}{2}) =6.994$. The prefactor
$C^{\xi}_{RG}$ is left undetermined by the RG calculation.
It follows from topological considerations that the order--parameter
field of the HAFT allows for excitations of the form of $Z_2$ vortices
\cite{KM84,M79}. A numerical study of the classical HAFT \cite{KM84} has
revealed that these vortices become abundant above a threshold
temperature $T_{th} \simeq 0.3$ and that they unbind for $T>T_{th}$,
similarly as the $Z$ vortices in the planar $XY$ model above the
Kosterlitz--Thouless (KT) transition temperature $T_{KT}$ \cite{KT73}.
Further evidence for this similarity beween the dissociation mechanism
of the $Z_2$ vortices and that of the $Z$ vortices has been provided by
Kawamura and Kikuchi \cite{KK93}.
In recent work \cite{WEA94}, we have studied the influence of the
vortices on the partition function of the classical HAFT on the basis
of the NL$\sigma$ model. While a true KT--type phase--transition can
be ruled out for the HAFT, our results suggest that for $T>T_{th}$
the vortices will affect the properties of the HAFT rather drastically.
In particular, the disorder induced by the unbinding of the vortices
can be expected to lead to a crossover from the T--dependence Eq. (\ref{1})
of the correlation length in the low temperature regime $T<T_{th}$
to a KT--type behavior
\begin{equation}
\xi = \Delta \; C^{\xi}_{KT} \; \exp( b/(T-T_{th})^{\frac{1}{2}} )
\label{2}
\end{equation}
in the high temperature regime.
It is the aim of the present paper to supplement our recent analytical
study \cite{WEA94}, which was based on a continuum description of the
HAFT by a Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of the original lattice model. A
similar study has recently been published by Southern and Young
\cite{SY93}. While we closely follow the method of these authors, our
conclusions will be quite different from theirs.
In the next Section, we first give a brief account of the technique we
used. Subsequently we present the results for the correlation length
$\xi$ and the antiferromagnetic susceptibility $\chi({\bf Q})$. While
these quantities are directly accessible to simulations in the high
temperature regime, where the disordering effect of the vortices
limits the range of the correlations, the key quantity to be computed
in the low temperature regime is the spin stiffness
\cite{CADM94,SY93}. Our numerical results for this last quantity will
be presented and discussed in Section III. Finally, we summarize the
evidence for a vortex induced crossover transition in Section IV.
\section{Correlation Length and antiferromagnetic Susceptibility}
The classsical Hamiltonian of the triangular Heisenberg
antiferromagnet can be defined as
\begin{equation}
H = \sum_{<i,j>} {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j \;\;.
\label{3}
\end{equation}
Here, the ${\bf S}_i$ are three dimensional unit vectors and the sum
extends over all distinct pairs of nearest neighbor sites of a
triangular lattice of $L^{2}$ sites. The exchange constant has been
set to unity. The classical ground state of the
Hamiltonian Eq. (\ref{3}) is a coplanar arrangement in which the spins on
the three sublattices are oriented at $120^{o}$ relative to each other,
\begin{equation}
{\bf S}_i = {\bf e}_{1} cos( {\bf Q} {\bf R}_{i} ) +
{\bf e}_{2} sin( {\bf Q} {\bf R}_{i} )\;\;.
\label{4}
\end{equation}
Here, ${\bf e}_{1}$, ${\bf e}_{2}$ are a pair of mutually orthogonal
unit vectors and ${\bf Q}$ can be any one of the six vectors pointing
towards the corners of the hexagonal Brillouin zone of the triangular
lattice, e.g. ${\bf Q} = \frac{2\pi}{\Delta} (\frac{2}{3},0)$. The
correlation length $\xi$ can be obtained assuming a Ornstein Zernicke
form for the structure factor
\begin{eqnarray}
S({\bf q}) &=& \frac{1}{L^{2}} \sum_{i,j}
e^{i {\bf q} ({\bf R}_{i} - {\bf R}_{j}) }
< {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j > \label{5}\\
&=& \frac{S({\bf Q})} {1+ \xi^{2} ({\bf q}-{\bf Q})^{2} }\;\;.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
$\chi({\bf Q})=S({\bf Q})/T$ is then the susceptibility of the system at
the ordering wavevector. The spin correlations $< {\bf S}_i \cdot
{\bf S}_j >$ in Eq. (\ref{5}) can be determined by MC techniques.
We used the local algorithm described by Kawamura and Miyashita \cite{KM84}.
The lattice is divided into independent sublattices.
Then, the spins of each of these sublattices are updated sequentially.
For a given spin, a new
direction is chosen at random and the standard Metropolis rule is used
to decide whether the new direction is to be accepted. If it is
discarded, a precessional motion through a randomly chosen angle about
the direction of the local mean field is performed. We apply this
method to systems of linear sizes $L=12 \cdot 2^{n}, n=0,1,..5$. For
the smaller systems, $n\le3$, we discard the first $2\cdot10^4$ sweeps
for equilibration and average over the next $2\cdot 10^5$ sweeps. For
$n=4$, we average over $4\cdot 10^5$ sweeps after discarding the
initial $10^5$ sweeps, and for $n=5$, the average is over $1.8\cdot
10^6$, and $2\cdot 10^5$ sweeps are discarded.
A selection of results for the correlation length $\xi$ and for the
antiferromagnetic susceptibility $\chi({\bf Q})$ which have been
obtained by averaging over 3-5 independent runs of these lengths is
tabulated in Table \ref{tab_ksi_chi}. As will become apparent shortly,
the data shown in this Table are crucial in checks of theoretical
predictions for the temperature dependence of $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$.
To exhibit possible finite size effects, the Table contains two pairs
of data for each temperature which correspond to two different system
sizes $L$, $2L$. In general, $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ decrease with $T$, but
increase with the system size $L$. If, for a given temperature $T_0$
and a given system size $L_0$, the data for $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ exhibit
no size dependence upon doubling the system size, then one can conclude
that the system size $L_0$ suffices to obtain size independent data for
all $T>T_0$. Data which are size independent by this criterion are
marked by an asterisk in Table \ref{tab_ksi_chi}. Obviously, we cannot
exclude that the data for the lowest temperature $T=0.3$ obtained
for the $L=384$ system are still size dependent. Certainly, however,
our data for $T=0.3$ are lower bounds to the thermodynamic limits of
$\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ at this temperature. To facilitate the comparison
of our data with the RG predictions we include in Table \ref{tab_ksi_chi}
the values for $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ which result from fits of the
expressions Eq. (\ref{1}) and Eq. (\ref{6}) to these data \cite{SY93}.
In Figs. \ref{ksi-T} and \ref{chi-T}, we show our complete sets of
results for the correlation length and for the antiferromagnetic
susceptibility as functions of the temperature. Obviously, for any
given system size $L$, there is an inflection point in the sequences
of data for $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$. This point defines a temperature
$T_L$ below which both $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ begin to exhibit finite
size effects. In fact, as can be seen in Fig. \ref{ksi-T}, the
correlation length increases linearly with the system size for
sufficiently low temperatures $T \ll T_L$.
Figs. \ref{ksi-T} and \ref{chi-T} also
contain fits of different theoretical predictions to the numerical
data. The dashed lines represent fits of the RG result, Eq. (\ref{1}),
to our data for $\xi$ and of the form
\begin{equation}
\chi({\bf Q})=C^{\chi}_{RG}(T/B)^4\exp(2B/T) \;,
\label{6}
\end{equation}
proposed by Southern and Young \cite{SY93} on the basis of RG
calculations, to our data for $\chi({\bf Q})$.
In these RG predictions, the constants $C^{\xi}_{RG}$ and
$C^{\chi}_{RG}$ are the only undetermined parameters. In our fits,
we neglect the data points for temperatures $T \leq T_L$ which
contain finite size effects. In agreement with Southern and Young
\cite{SY93} we find $C^{\xi}_{RG} \simeq 3 \cdot 10^{-8}$ and
$C^{\chi}_{RG}\simeq 6 \cdot 10^{-12}$. The solid lines represent
fits of the KT forms Eq. (\ref{2}) and
\begin{equation}
\chi({\bf Q})=C^{\chi}_{KT}
\exp( \frac{7}{4} \cdot b/(T-T_{th})^{\frac{1}{2}} )
\label{7}
\end{equation}
to the data. With the KT form for $\xi$, Eq. (\ref{2}), the last
expression follows from the general relation
$S({\bf Q})\sim \xi^{2-\eta}$ for the structure factor
at the ordering wave vector, if $\eta$ is assumed to take the value
$\eta=1/4$ as for a proper KT transition. For the threshold
temperature, we use the value $T_{th}=0.28$, which we can be inferred
from the temperature dependence of the spin stiffness as will be
discussed in the next section. This leaves the constant $b$ which is
common to the expressions Eq. (\ref{2}) and Eq. (\ref{7}) and the
constant factors $C^{\xi}_{KT}$ and $C^{\chi}_{KT}$ of
Eq. (\ref{2}) and Eq. (\ref{7}) as fit parameters.
As before, we ignore data points for $T \leq T_L$ in our
fits. The results are $b=0.77$, $C^{\xi}_{KT}=0.47$ and
$C^{\chi}_{KT}=0.40$. Obviously, for temperatures $T\geq0.3$, the
$\exp(b/(T-T_{th})^{\frac{1}{2}})$-temperature dependence of the KT
forms fits the data better than the $\exp(B/T)$-temperature dependence
predicted by the RG analysis. In Figs. \ref{ksi-wT} and \ref{chi-wT}
we plot $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ logarithmically against
$(T-T_{th})^{-1/2}$ so that the KT forms Eq. (\ref{2}) and
Eq. (\ref{7}) appear as straight lines.
These lines are seen to fit the data quite well in the
temperature interval $0.30 \leq T \leq 0.34$, whereas the agreement
between the curves representing the RG forms is restricted to a narrow
interval around $T \approx 0.31$. In particular, we emphasize that for
$T=0.3$, the RG predictions are incompatible with the data points for
$\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ which are listed in Table \ref{tab_ksi_chi} with
their respective errors.
In this context, we recall that if our data for $T=0.3$ do not represent
the thermodynamic limits of $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$, they are certainly
lower bounds to these limits. Hence, the discrepancy between the RG
predictions and the true values of $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ may even
be larger than has been inferred here.
We note that the fit of the KT form, Eq. (\ref{7}),
to the data for the susceptibility $\chi({\bf Q})$ is better than that
of the RG form, Eq. (\ref{2}), to $\xi$. This may be attributable to the
lower quality of the data for $\xi$ which are obtained indirectly from
the Ornstein-Zernicke expression Eq. (\ref{5}) in the limit
$\xi|{\bf Q}- {\bf q}|\ll 1$.
In summary, we observe that our results combined with the earlier
findings of Kawamura and Miyashita \cite{KM84} support the view that
in the temperature range $T>T_{th}$ the spin correlations of the HAFT
are decisively influenced by unbound vortices, so that a perturbative
treatment of the model is inadequate in this temperature regime. It
should be obvious, however, that in the above analysis of our numerical
results we have been guided by our previous prediction \cite{WEA94} that,
in the case of the HAFT, the vortex unbinding mechnism leads to a KT-type
temperature dependence of the correlation length above a crossover
temperature $T_{th}$. While we do not claim to have found compelling
evidence for this prediction, we regard our numerical results as
strong support for it.
\section{spin stiffness}
To further corroborate the above view and in order to get insight into
the low temperature regime, where the correlation length exceeds the
accessible system sizes, we also determined the spin stiffness $\rho$
in our simulations.
The diagonal components $\rho_{\alpha}, \alpha = 1,2,3$, of the spin
stiffness tensor are the second derivatives of the free energy density
$f(\theta_{\alpha})$ with respect to the twist angles
$\theta_{\alpha}$ of the spins around three mutually orthogonal axes
${\bf e}_{\alpha}$ \cite{CADM94,SY93},
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\alpha} =
&-& \frac{2}{\sqrt{3} L^2} < \sum_{<i,j>}
\left[ {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j -
({\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf e}_{\alpha})
({\bf S}_j \cdot {\bf e}_{\alpha}) \right]
({\bf u} \cdot {\bf e}_{ij})^2 >\nonumber \\
&-& \frac{2}{\sqrt{3} T L^2} < \left[ \sum_{<i,j>}
{\bf S}_i \times {\bf S}_j \cdot {\bf e}_{\alpha}
({\bf u} \cdot {\bf e}_{ij}) \right]^2 > \;\; .
\label{8}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, ${\bf u}$ is the lattice direction along which the twist is
applied and ${\bf e}_{ij}$ is the direction of the bond between
nearest neighbor lattice sites $i$ and $j$. The prefactor in Eq. (\ref{8})
has been chosen such that Eq. (\ref{8}) is the stiffness per unit area.
In the simulation, the thermal averages on the right hand side of
Eq. (\ref{8}) are replaced by averages over configurations which are
generated by a large number of successive MC sweeps. For a finite
system, the ordered spin structure will change its orientation in
space in the course of the simulation. In a sufficiently large number
of sweeps, one will therefore measure the average spin stiffness
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{3} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{3} \rho_{\alpha} \;\;.
\label{9}
\end{equation}
Since there is no long range order in the HAFT for any finite temperature,
$\rho$ must vanish for the HAFT in the thermodynamic limit for any finite
temperature. However, for finite system sizes $L$, $\rho$ will be finite
for sufficiently low temperatures such that $\xi >L$.
According to Eq. (\ref{1}), this condition should be satisfied for system sizes
$L<10^3$ up to temperatures of the order of unity, unless the constant
$C^{\xi}_{RG}$ is exceedingly small as has been suggested by Southern
and Young \cite{SY93}.
As we have argued above, the results for $\xi $ in the high temperature
regime, $T>T_{th}$, should not be interpreted as evidence for such a
small value of $C^{\xi}_{RG}$. In fact, a naive integration of the 2--loop
renormalization group equations which starts with the microscopic
parameters of the HAFT as initial values yields the result Eq. (\ref{1}) with
$C^{\xi}_{RG}=\sqrt{(\frac{\pi}{4}+\frac{1}{2})}
e^{- (\frac{\pi}{4}+\frac{1}{2})} = 0.314$.
In our simulations, we determine the three $\rho_{\alpha}$
separately in each sweep and thus obtain the averages $\rho$
for each sweep. In Fig. \ref{rho-T}, we show the average spin
stiffness as a function of the temperature for system sizes $L=12,24,
\dots 384$. The steep drop in $\rho$ which occurs as $T$
increases beyond $T_{th} \simeq 0.28$ is consistent with the rapid
decrease of $\xi$ in the same temperature regime in which the
vortices become unbound \cite{KM84}. In contrast to the spin stiffness
of the planar XY model, $\rho$ does not saturate in the low
temperature regime $T<T_{th}$ with increasing system size $L$ but
decreases with increasing $L$. This behavior is to be expected, since
in contrast with the correlation length of the XY model, the
correlation length of the HAFT remains finite for low temperatures,
where the vortices are bound in pairs. As $T \rightarrow 0$,
our data for $\rho$ approach the correct limiting value $1/\sqrt3$.
In Fig. \ref{rho-L}, we display $\rho$ for various
temperatures and system sizes. The data are averages over 3-5
independent runs of lengths comparable to those which we have
described above, error bars indicate the standard deviation.
In the low temperature regime, the thermodynamics of the classical
HAFT should be captured by the appropriate NL$\sigma$ model
\cite{DR89,ADM92,AWE92}. On the basis of a renormalization group
treatment of this model, Azaria {\it et al.} \cite{ADJM92} have made
detailed predictions for the dependence of the spin stiffness on the
linear system size $L$ and the correlation length $\xi$. In their MC
study of the classical HAFT, Southern and Young \cite{SY93} found
excellent agreement with the predicted $L$ dependence of the spin
stiffness tensor at the temperature $T=0.2$.
In order to be able to compare our numerical results with the
predictions of the RG analysis of the NL$\sigma$ model, we integrated
the two loop RG equations of Azaria {\it et al.} \cite{ADJM92}
starting from the initial conditions $\rho (L=\Delta)=1/\sqrt3$
and $\rho _3(L=\Delta)/\rho _1(L=\Delta)=2$. Here, $\rho _1$ and $\rho
_3$ are the two main components of the spin stiffness tensor with
respect to the reference frame of the local order parameter
\cite{SY93}. By the above initial conditions we identify $\rho _1$ and
$\rho _3$ with their microscopic values on the scale of the lattice
constant $\Delta$. We find that in the temperature regime under
consideration, $T\leq 0.3$, the average stiffness $\rho$
varies linearly with $\ln L$ to a very good approximation on the scale
$12\leq L\leq 384$ covered by our simulations, see Fig.
\ref{rho-lnksi} below.
{}From the RG equations, one can also infer that the slope
$\rho '(L)=-d\rho (L)/d\ln L$ decreases from
$\rho '=T/(3\pi)$ to $\rho '=T/(4\pi)$, when $L$ increases from
a value of the order of the lattice constant, $L \sim \Delta$, to
a value of the order of the correlation length, $L \sim \xi $. In
Fig. \ref{rho-L}, the straight lines are least squares fits to the
data. The slopes of these lines, normalized to the maximal theoretical
slope $\rho '=T/(3\pi)$, are tabulated in Table \ref{Gefaelle}.
For $T\leq 0.25$, the slopes are seen to be rather close to their
maximal value which obtains, when $L$ is of the order of the lattice
constant. This is not unexpected since according to the RG
calculations, the correlation length is many orders of magnitude
larger than our maximal system size $L=384$ for these temperatures.
The larger values of $\rho '$ which we find for $T\geq 0.28$ are
incompatible with the RG theory. Hence we conclude that for $T\geq
0.28$ unbound vortices, not being taken into account by the RG
analysis, begin to limit the range of the spin correlations in
the HAFT.
If one defines the correlation length $\xi$ through the matching
condition $\rho (L=\xi)=0$, then the result of the integration of
the two loop RG equations can be cast into the following form
\begin{equation}
\rho = f(T,L) \; \ln (\xi/L) \;\; . \label{10}
\end{equation}
This is shown for two different temperatures in the two graphs in Fig.
\ref{rho-lnksi}. Obviously, the function $f(T,L)$ depends weakly on L.
The relation Eq. (\ref{10}) makes it possible to obtain the correlation
length from the Monte Carlo simulation, even in the low temperature
regime where $\xi$ is much larger than the system size $L$. Inserting
our MC data for $\rho $ into Eq. (\ref{10}) and solving for $\xi$, we
obtain the data points shown in Fig. \ref{Reklame} for $T \leq 0.28$.
This Figure also includes the data for $T \geq 0.28$ which have
already been shown in Fig. \ref{ksi-T}.
The dashed and solid lines in Fig. \ref{Reklame} represent fits of
the RG and KT forms, Eqs. (1) and (2), to the MC data for $T \leq 0.28$
and $T \geq 0.28$, respectively.
\section{Summary}
We have shown that the MC simulation of the HAFT yields compelling
evidence for the influence of vortices on the spin correlations and
hence on the thermodynamics of this model. In agreement with earlier
findings by Kawamura and Miyashita \cite{KM84} we find that the
disordering effect of the vortices sets in rather abruptly at a
temperature $T_{th} \simeq 0.28$. Up to this temperature, our data
for the spin stiffness $\rho$ and the ensuing temperature dependence
of the correlation length $\xi$ are consistent with the predictions of
the RG analysis of the HAFT which ignores the existence of topological
defects such as vortices. For $T>T_{th}$, however, the simulation yields
temperature dependences of the correlation length $\xi$ and the
antiferromagnetic susceptibility $\chi({\bf Q})$ which are incompatible
with the RG predictions. Instead, in this temperature regime, the
temperature dependences of $\xi$ and $\chi({\bf Q})$ which follow from
the KT picture of unbinding vortex pairs provide satisfactory fits of
the data.
A rapid increase of the density of unbound vortices for $T>0.3$
had already been found by Kawamura and Miyashita in their simulation
of the HAFT \cite{KM84}. It had not been clear, however, whether this
phenomenon would lead to the same temperature dependences of the
correlations of the HAFT as had been predicted for the planar XY model
by Kosterlitz and Thouless \cite{KT73}. In our recent analytical study
\cite{WEA94}, we were led to the conclusion that this should indeed be
the case. The present numerical study fully supports this conclusion.
As we have discussed in Ref. \cite{WEA94}, the crossover transition from
the RG type behavior to the KT type behavior of the correlations of
the HAFT cannot imply a phase transition in the proper sense,
because the correlation length is finite both below and above the
transition temperature $T_{th}$. The results shown in Fig. \ref{Reklame}
indicate, however, that the transition happens in a very narrow
interval around $T_{th}$. Therefore we consider it possible that the
derivative of the correlation length with respect to the temperature
develops a discontinuity at $T_{th}$ in the thermodynamic limit.
\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
The numerical calculations were carried out in part at the Regionales
Rechenzentrum Niedersachsen, Hannover.
|
\section{Introduction:}
The CCT concept has been outlined in a previous publication
\cite{nim94} and described in detail in an internal CLEO
collaboration document\cite{cbx}. The technique uses the
correlation between photon pathlength and $\check{\rm C}$erenkov production
angle to infer this angle by measuring the time taken for
the totally internally reflected $\check{\rm C}$erenkov photons
to ``bounce'' to the end of the radiator.
The most typical radiator geometry is
that of a quartz bar having rectangular
cross-section, typically a few centimeters on a side, and
having a length of about a meter. This is very similar to
the radiators in the DIRC design of Ratcliff\cite{dirc}.
The key parameters of a CCT system will all be related to
timing performance. In practical terms this translates to
photo detector efficiency and transit-time jitter, quality
of the radiator bars in terms of geometry
and transparency, and our ability to make high quality optical
couplings between bars and detectors. All of these issues are
addressed below.
\section{Timing Considerations:}
The technique relies exclusively on fast timing information,
hence an important aspect of its evaluation will be to study the
various available photon detector technologies. The most obvious
of these, and hence the initial choice, are photomultipliers.
Most CCT geometries under study involve radiators whose
cross-section have widths of about 4 cm, and thicknesses varying
between 1 and 4 cm. A standard 2" photomultiplier provides an
acceptable match to this. For example, the 12 stage Hamamatsu
H2431 has an active photocathode diameter of 4.6cm, which will
cover 93\% (100\%) of the end of a $4 \times 4$ cm$^2$
($4 \times 2$ cm$^2$) bar.
This particular tube, which was used extensively in our beam-test
experiments\cite{kichimi}, is also one of the fastest available 2"
photomultiplier tubes, having a single photoelectron
timing jitter ($\sigma_{1pe}$) of about 160ps.
Even this seemingly outstanding performance may become
a limiting factor in a real CCT device. For a relativistic
charged particle normally incident on a quartz bar (n=1.4)
at a distance $z=1$ meter from its end, the angular
resolution of the $\check{\rm C}$erenkov angle per unit of timing uncertainty
($d\theta/dt$) is about 150 mr/ns, degrading to about 550 mr/ns for
tracks incident at 25 degrees from normal incidence\cite{zdepencence}.
If we set
15 mr resolution as a conservative goal (this would provide
$>2\sigma~ K-\pi$ separation up to about 2 GeV/c momentum using
CCT alone\cite{addtof}) we see that we will need timing resolution
of 100 ps (27 ps) at $0^\circ$ ($25^\circ$) incidence.
It is clear that if we use conventional photomultipliers we
will have to rely on photon statistics to
obtain the required timing performance. We would expect the
resolution to scale roughly as $\sigma_{1pe}/\sqrt{N_{prompt}}$,
where $N_{prompt}$
is the number of photoelectrons detected in a time window
starting at the nominal photon arrival time, having a width
small compared to $\sigma_{1pe}$\cite{prompt}. Clearly, both
phototube jitter and photon yield are critical parameters.
We have measured the transit-time spread of the 1", 10 stage Hamamatsu
H5321 photomultiplier, the fastest conventional tube commercially available
at the time of our test. Our experimental setup was similar to that used
by Kuhlen\cite{kuhlen}, and is not described here. We measure the standard
deviation of the single-photon transit time to be
$\sigma_{1pe} = 82\pm 25$ ps,
consistent with Hamamatsu's claim of 160 ps FWHM. The timing distribution
is observed to have a tail on the high-time side, consistent with expectation
\cite{kuhlen}.
Although the performance of both the 1" tube tested in our
laboratory and the 2" tube used in our beam test were sufficient for the
CCT prototypes built so far, the availability of a photon detector with
much smaller jitter would let us trade timing performance for photon yield.
This in turn would make thinner radiators a possibility, or perhaps even
the use of UV plastic as a replacement for quartz. Photon yield is discussed
in the following section.
\section{Optical Transmission Studies:}
The number of $\check{\rm C}$erenkov photons produced by a charged particle
traversing a radiator depends only on the speed of the particle, and
the index of refraction of the material, which is fairly constant at
around $n = 1.47$ for most solid radiators. The parameters that will
ultimately determine the number of detected photoelectrons will
therefore be those
that describe the transport of photons from their production point to
the photodetectors. Most notable of these is the optical
transparency of the radiator material and any coupling compounds
used.
In this section we describe measurements of transmission spectra performed
on three possible radiator materials (fused silica quartz and two kinds
of plastic), as well as several optical coupling compounds.
Radiation length measurements are presented in another paper\cite{kichimi}.
The transmission vs. wavelength studies were performed using
McPherson 218 0.3m scanning monochromator illuminated by a deuterium
lamp. The sample under test was mounted at the exit port of the
monochromator, and the transmitted light intensity was measured by a
photomultiplier tube feeding its anode current to a precision electrometer.
The wavelength scan and data acquisition was controlled by a PC with
a custom-built interface. Anode-current versus wavelength
spectra were accumulated for each of the materials under study, and each was
normalized to a ``no sample'' spectrum to yield the transmission curves
presented here. In each case we look for the wavelength at which the material
transmission ``turns on'', (defined as the 50\% transmission point), and
the width of the turn-on, (defined as the change in wavelength between 10\% and
90\% transmission).
Three radiator materials were tested:
(i) Nippon fused silica quartz machined into a $4\times 4\times 50$~cm$^3$ bar by
Surface Finishes Inc, (ii) A $2\times 2\times 0.5$~cm$^3$ piece of Mitsubishi
Acrylite 000 provided by KEK, and (iii) A $2\times 2\times 0.5$~cm$^3$ piece of
Kuraray plastic LightGuide-S provided by KEK. The transmission spectra of these
materials is shown in Figure \ref{transmission}. The quartz is clearly superior,
turning on at a lower wavelength with a sharper edge than either of the organic
materials.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig1.ps,bbllx=92bp,bblly=176bp,bburx=530bp,bbury=626bp,height=5cm}}
\caption{Transmission spectra for quartz (solid) acrylic (dashed) and plastic (dotted) radiators.}
\label{transmission}
\end{figure}
\smallskip
We also tested four possible optical coupling compounds:
(i) Oken 6262A grease\cite{grease}, provided by KEK,
(ii) Dow Corning Q2-3067 grease,
(iii) General Electric Viscasil grease, and
(iv) Dupont Krytox oil.
The results are summarized in Table 1.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Transmission properties of three possible CCT radiators
and four optical coupling compounds}
\vskip 2 mm
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Material & $\lambda_{50\%}$ (nm) & $\Delta\lambda_{10-90}$ (nm)\\
\hline
Quartz & $265\pm 3$ & $15\pm 3$ \\
Acrylic & $290\pm 5$ & $25\pm 5$ \\
Plastic & $285\pm 5$ & $35\pm 10$\\
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{Coupling Compound} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{}\\
\hline
Oken & $280\pm 5$ & $25\pm 5$ \\
Corning & $275\pm 5$ & $20\pm 5$ \\
Viscasil & $195\pm 10$ & $25\pm 10$ \\
Krytox & $< 150$ & -- \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{transprop}
\end{table}
The Oken and Corning compounds are quite similar in performance,
whereas the Viscasil has a significantly lower wavelength cutoff. Remarkably,
the cutoff of the Krytox oil was below the reach of our apparatus. This
material is a fluorinated lubricant developed by Dupont, and has
other interesting properties\cite{dupont}.
\section{Quartz Quality Studies:}
The performance of a CCT detector is determined by the time resolution
of the photon detector and by the quality of the quartz radiator. These
two parameters will also set the total cost of the detector.
The price of the quartz is controlled by its UV transparency and by
the quality of the surface finish.
The second point is closely related to the geometry
of the bar. Standard polishing machines limit the bars to lengths less than
approximately 1.20 m and square bars are easier to handle than designs with
a large aspect ratio.
Parameters relevant for a CCT device include the transparency of the quartz,
losses due to absorption or imperfections and the surface quality needed to
preserve the angle information. We have devised a series of tests to study these
parameters and
the results of our investigation are presented in the following
sections.
Only two manufactures were able to produce quartz bars to our specification:
Surface Finishes Inc. (SF) and Zygo Inc. We bought two 50 cm long
bars from SF and one 120 cm long bar from Zygo in order to
find out if material of sufficient quality can
be obtained.
Details of the
specification can be found in Table 2.
\begin{table}
\caption{Quartz Bar Specifications}
\vskip 2 mm
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& SF & Zygo \\
\hline
Grade & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Semiconductor}\\
Length & 0.5 m & 1.2 m\\
Width & 4.0 cm & 4.0 cm \\
Height & 4.0 cm & 2.0 cm\\
Roughness & & 7 \AA (rms) \\
Flatness & 0.002 mm & \\
Parallelism & 0.02 mm & 0.01\\
Perpendicularity & 90$^o\pm$30''& \\
Edges & beveled & sharp \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{spec}
\end{table}
UV-grade quartz which is transparent down to wavelengths around 150 nm
should be the material of choice for a {\v C}erenkov detector but our
simulation shows that the gain in the number of photons is offset by
the large dispersion in this wavelength region. For this reason and
to reduce the overall costs we have selected semiconductor grade
quartz.
In a CCT detector the {\v C}erenkov photons propagate toward the photon detector via
total internal reflection.
During this process a small amount of energy travels a short distance as a surface wave
outside the medium. Ideally this is loss free but any surface imperfection
will change this. With the large number of total internal reflections possible in a CCT device
it is important to study this experimentally.
We have set up a HeNe laser with several Al mirrors that
give us complete control over the light direction in the quartz bar.
Photodiodes are used to measure the intensity of the incident, reflected and
transmitted laser beam. By changing the angle of incidence we varied the number of
total internal reflections and obtained the results shown in Figure \ref{reflection}.
Fitting to a straight line gives
$0.4 \pm 0.07$\% loss per reflection for the bar from Surface Finishes and for the Zygo
bar we find a
$0.1\pm 0.03$\% loss per reflection. For 50 bounces this results in a total
loss of 5\% (20\%) for Zygo (SF).
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig2.ps,bbllx=92bp,bblly=176bp,bburx=530bp,bbury=626bp,height=5cm}}
\caption{Loss as function of the number of internal reflections for the
Surface Finishes bar (a) and the Zygo bar (b).}
\label{reflection}
\end{figure}
In our study we have carefully avoided the corners of the bar.
Should the light hit
a corner, losses are significantly larger: For the Zygo bar we measured
4\% per reflection, and losses are even
larger for the bar from Surface Finishes due to the beveled edges.
Semiconductor grade quartz can have some inclusions such as air bubbles.
As much as 10\% of the light was lost when we directed the laser
beam on a small air bubble in the Zygo bar.
At a momentum of 2.5 GeV or higher the pion and kaon {\v C}erenkov angles differ by
only a few mr and this small angle difference has to be preserved as the
{\v C}erenkov photons travel toward the photon detector. This places severe
requirements on the geometry of the quartz bar.
In particular, we were interested in determining if the manufacturers
could achieve the parallelism and perpendicularity specified.
In a first series of tests we used an optical bench to verify that
the macroscopic (geometrical) properties of both quartz bars were
within our specification. We then searched for small scale variations
in the thickness that could change the photon angles. Using two lenses
we widened the beam of a HeNe laser to a spot size of approximately 1 cm
which we directed on one of the long sides of the quartz bar. Changes
in the interference pattern between light reflected at the near and far
side reveal variations in the thickness of the quartz bar.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\psfig{file=fig3.eps,bbllx=42bp,bblly=32bp,bburx=513bp,bbury=434bp,height=7cm}}
\caption{Thickness variation over the length of the bar from Surface Finishes (a). For the
Zygo bar both height and width variations are shown (b).}
\label{interference}
\end{figure}
The results of this study are shown in Figures \ref{interference}a and b for
the Surface Finishes bar and the Zygo bar, respectively.
The distance between two interference fringes corresponds to a thickness variation of
$\Delta s \; = \; \lambda/2n \; = \; 0.2 \mu m$\cite{factoroftwo}.
While the wide sides
of the Zygo bar are very flat and parallel, significant curvature is found
for the narrow sides confirming the initial expectation that a large aspect
ratio makes the polishing process more difficult.
For both bars, thickness variations become more pronounced close to
the corners. Quantitatively, we find a thickness variation of approximately
1-2~$\mu$m for the Surface Finishes bar and better than
0.5~$\mu$m (2-3~$\mu$m, narrow sides)
for the Zygo bar. Both values are acceptable for a CCT detector.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation, and the A. P. Sloan Foundation.
We would also like to express our thanks to Prof. S.Iwata and
Prof. F.Takasaki at KEK for their support of this work.
|
\section{History}
Remote observing has been widely used in radio astronomy for the
last decade. However, in the optical and infrared domain very few
observatories have been successful in supporting it. One reason for
this difference is that optical/infrared telescopes are more
demanding in the sense of object acquisition and amount of science
data produced. Another reason could be that optical astronomers
have less trust in the performance of the telescope and instruments.
In the early 1980's a number of observatories started experimenting
in remote observing (Raffi \& Tarenghi 1984, Longair et al. 1986,
Raffi \& Ziebell 1986). Most of these early attempts failed,
mainly because the technology was not yet matured. The
communication links were not reliable and the data transmission
rates were too low. It also became evident that it was very
difficult to operate a telescope originally designed for local
control in remote mode.
In the late eighties the situation became more favourable. First,
there was a general improvement in communication infrastructure:
cheaper, more reliable and faster, not to forget the development of
Internet and, more recently, of the World-Wide Web. Second, a new
generation of 3--4-m class telescopes was designed and went into
operation. For some of these, remote observing had been foreseen
already during the design phase (Loewenstein \& York 1986, Raffi et
al. 1990). This led to the successful use of several different modes
of remote observing, ranging from fully automatic telescopes to
interactive long-distance instrument and/or telescope control.
In 1992 a workshop dedicated to remote observing was held in Tucson
(ed. Emerson \& Clowes 1993), where many of the available forms were
extensively discussed. We will first summarize the terminology
adopted at this conference for the various remote-observing modes,
before discussing the pros and cons and the technical requirements
for remote observing. In the second part of the paper we discuss the
experience obtained at ESO, with emphasis on the observing
efficiency, the support structure and the feedback from astronomers.
\section{Definitions of Remote-observing Modes}
\hskip \the\parindent {\it Robotic Telescopes} - A telescope and
instrument which is programmed beforehand and needs little or no
interaction during the night. An entire night's observing program
may be downloaded during the day and the scientific data uploaded
during the observations or later.
{\it Remote Engineering} - A remote engineer performs
engineering activities, e.g. installations, diagnostics,
troubleshooting, on local equipments. Although this is not an
observing mode it should be included in the context, because if
remote engineering is available, remote observing may come for free.
Remote engineering can be very effective, especially since often
engineers need to come to the telescope for relatively minor tasks
and the travel distance can be significant.
{\it Service Observing} - An astronomer fully specifies the
objects to be observed and the instrument configuration beforehand,
and the actual observation is carried out by the observatory staff.
The astronomer is awarded observational data rather than telescope
time.
{\it Passive Remote Observing} - A remote observer monitors an
observation carried out at a telescope by a collaborator or service
observer. The remote observer has access to the data obtained and,
optionally, observation parameters, and interacts with the local
observer via voice, ``talk'', or e-mail. This is also called {\it
Eavesdropping}. It is probably fairly common, but observatories tend
not to keep track of this.
{\it Active Remote Observing} - A remote observer interactively
controls an instrument and, optionally, a telescope at an
observatory. In most cases a local telescope operator is required
for safety reasons and sometimes to operate some telescope and
auxiliary equipment. This is also called {\it Remote Control}.
Combinations of these observing modes are of course possible, and
may in fact give additional advantages.
{\it Robotic telescopes} are by far the most popular of these
options. They are typically small telescopes (50cm) and there are
two important uses: the first is for long-term monitoring programs
(an example is the network of small telescopes looking for solar
oscillations) and the second is for educational purposes: some
universities now have a small robotic telescope where astronomy
students can send in requests electronically for short observations.
At the other extreme, {\it active remote observing} is rare. The
only large telescope for which this mode is the norm is the 3.5m on
Apache Point Observatory (APO), which is run by a consortium of US
universities. This telescope is operated for 80\% of the time
available for scientific observations in remote control. Typically,
a night will be split between several projects, and each astronomer
can carry out the observations from his or her campus. ESO
has two telescopes which can be operated in remote control: the 1.4m
CAT which is used for high-resolution spectroscopy mainly of bright
stars, and the 3.5m NTT.
\section{Pros and Cons}
The motivation for remote observing has been debated for some time
in the literature and a high level of agreement on the main
arguments has been obtained (e.g. Emerson \& Clowes 1993). These are
summarized in Table 1 and briefly discussed below.
\begin{table}
\caption{Weighing the pros and cons of remote observing}
\begin{tabular}{||l|l||l|l||} \hline \hline
Proven & Likely & Likely & Proven
\\
advantages & advantages & disadvantages & disadvantages
\\
\hline \hline
Flexibility & More than one & More difficult & Expensive
\\
& participating & to concentrate & - personnel
\\
& astronomer & on observing & - communication
\\ \hline
Shorter obser- & May save costs & Not as efficient&
\\
ving programs & in some cases & as classical &
\\ \hline
Convenient for & & &
\\
astronomer & & &
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The main arguments in favour of remote observing are all related to
the fact that the astronomer does not need to travel to the
observatory. This is a strong argument if the observatory is in an
inaccessible place, the most extreme example being the planned
observatory on the Antarctic Plateau for which remote observing is
envisaged (Burton 1995). It also allows for the observing schedule
to be made at short notice (as is done at the VLA). However,
flexible and queue scheduling is not recommended in active remote
control and/or eavesdropping: for the astronomer to be directly
involved the time of the observations needs to be known in advance.
Instead it is possible to schedule shorter observing programs, in
units of hours instead of nights. Monitoring
programs also become easier to schedule without an astronomer at the
observatory having to be involved. The elimination of long travel
times and acclimatization results in savings of astronomer's time --
an important point for researchers at universities who may have
teaching duties.
Remote observing very often allows more than one astronomer to take
part in the observations. The impression at ESO is that, for the
large telescopes, astronomers prefer to come with more than one
person: while one person does the observing, the other concentrates
on the on-line data analysis. For remote control, financial
support for an extra observer is easier to arrange. ESO also
attracts some Eastern-European astronomers for remote observing
who could not possibly afford to travel to Chile. For them remote
observing can save costs, but for the observatory this will in
general not be true unless the required communication links are
free, or very cheap, and little additional support is required.
Cost is the main argument against remote observing. In order not to
degrade the scientific efficiency, the remote observer must get the
same support as the local observer. This means that often the
support personnel have to be duplicated. Sufficient bandwidth is
also required in order not to have idle telescope time and the
cost of this bandwidth can very easily overtake the savings in
travel cost. Table 2 shows typical cost estimates for the case of
ESO, illustrating that remote observing only reduces total costs
when it is used for a significant fraction of the observing
proposals for at least two telescopes. A second argument against
remote observing is, that, due to limitations in bandwidth, there
is a time delay before the observer sees the data coming from the
instrument. (This problem is not unique
to remote observing but is experienced by everyone observing with
CCDs.) This becomes a problem whenever the extra delay is a
significant fraction of the average integration time per exposure.
Finally, if the observations are done from one's own office, the
distractions due to the normal office activity may easily cause a
loss of efficiency.
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparing operational cost (in kDM/month)}
\begin{tabular}{||l||l||l|l|l|l||} \hline \hline
No. of telescopes & 0\% RO & 10\% RO & 30\% RO & 50\% RO &
100\%RO\\
and observing runs& 0 rem op& 1 rem op& 2 rem op& 2 rem op&
3 rem op\\
\hline
1 tel.5 runs/mon. & 20 & 46 & 53 & 50 & 52
\\
1 tel.10 runs/m. & 40 & 61 & 68 & 62 & 56
\\
1 tel.20 runs/m. & 80 & 102 & 100 & 86 & 64
\\
CAT+NTT 20r/m & 80 & 102 & 100 & 86 & 64
\\
\hline
& 0 rem op& 1 rem op& 3 rem op& 4 rem op&
6 rem op\\
\hline
4 tel.80 runs/m. & 320 & 322 & 291 & 250 & 142
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
{\footnotesize
The following assumptions are used for the calculations:\\
Classical observing run (travel, accommodation etc.) = kDM 4\\
Remote observing run (travel, accommodation etc.) = kDM 0.8 \\
Remote operator (rem op) = kDM 10/month\\
Link cost (50\% of total cost) = kDM 18/month\\
Same local support for classical and remote observing}
\end{table}
\section{Requirements and Techniques}
The main requirement for all modes of remote observing except
robotic telescopes is a fast data transfer from the observatory to
the remote site. Data files produced by modern instruments are
large (a typical CCD frame is 2 to 8 Mbytes), and they should
ideally be transferred in no more than a few minutes. To achieve
this a fairly high bandwidth is required, although modern data
compression algorithms can improve
the transfer rate. Compression based on the H-wavelet transform has
been successfully applied at a number of observatories. Both the
availability and the reliability of the communication link need to
be very high.
A second requirement is that the telescope and instrument must be
reliable and stable. Solving technical problems is generally more
time consuming during remote observing, due to the extra feedback
time. A good way to limit unforeseen problems is by keeping
instrument change-overs to a minimum. Limiting the instrumentation
is also a better way to ensure adequate know-how at the
remote-observing site.
Internet is certainly the main carrier of remote observing traffic.
The tremendous advances in bandwidth and number of users and, more
important, the fact that Internet is still ``free'', makes it the
obvious first candidate to implement the communication link. The
World-Wide Web gives a convenient interface which is already used
for some robotic telescopes. A future commercialization of Internet
may make some of these advantages obsolete. Also, for observatories
located in remote places it may be difficult to obtain a fast
Internet access. As an alternative, dedicated links to more
populated areas with Internet access can be acquired. Although
dedicated links are more expensive they also offer advantages like
guaranteed bandwidth and propagation delays.
A {\it Remote Observing Center} is a dedicated geographical site
from where the observation is carried out. This is typically
located in a major astronomical research institute and the remote
observer has to travel to this site. The advantages are that
expert knowledge, similar to a local observatory, can be built up
in order to provide accurate support to the visiting astronomer.
{\it Distributed Remote Observing} is when any site with a network
connection, normally Internet, can perform remote observing. The
obvious advantage is that no travel is required. However, it
assumes that the remote observer has expert knowledge, and does not
need dedicated personal support.
\section{ESO Experience}
ESO currently supports {\it active remote observing} with two
telescopes. The 1.4m CAT has been operated routinely in
active-remote-observing mode about 50\% of the time for the last six
years (Baade 1993).
The NTT was the first ESO telescope specifically designed to
accommodate remote observing. Remote observing was first offered to
the user community in 1993, and since then about 15\% (four to five
nights per month) of the time is scheduled in
active-remote-observing
mode. Early experiences with the system are described in Balestra et
al. (1992), Baade at al. (1993) and Wallander (1994).
At ESO Headquarters in Garching a {\it Remote Observing Center}
provides the interface for remote observers to the La Silla
Observatory in Chile. Observing from other sites and institutes is
not supported. A dedicated satellite link provides the bandwidth
between the two sites. The system provides fully interactive {\it
active remote observing} based on dedicated remote software
executing at the remote site. The architecture of the NTT remote
observing system was reported in detail in Wallander (1993).
In November, 1994 the $64\,$kbps (used by NTT) and the analogue
(used by CAT) PTT-leased communication links were replaced with a
$2\,$Mbps ``roof-to-roof'' satellite link.
The complete system was obtained as a turn-key project
from an external contractor. Although this involved a considerable
capital investment, the actual operation costs did not increase. It
turned out that by leasing the bandwidth directly from the satellite
provider, instead of via national PTT's, a 26-fold increase in
bandwidth could be acquired for a lower price. In addition, by
mounting the antennae directly on the ESO premises and becoming
independent of PTT's, the reliability of the link increased. During
the period November 1994 to June 1995 the availability of the link
has been over 99.8\%. This should be compared to the record of the
previous $64\,$kbps PTT-leased line, which in the period 1991 to
1994 had an average availability of 95\%.
Figure 1 shows the data transfer rate from La Silla to Garching,
averaged every five minutes, over the last ten months. The
saturation of the previous $64\,$kbps link, of which 32--48$\,$kbps
was allocated for data, is clearly visible. The zoom of the first
two weeks of April shows that remote observing is a main, but not
the only, user of the link.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{10cm}
\caption{ Link utilization }
\end{figure}
\section{Observing Efficiency}
We define the observing efficiency as the fraction of time between
nautical twilights that the shutter of the instrument is open. This
number is automatically derived from the computer-based operation
log and we have routinely recorded it for the NTT since November
last year. We only used data from nights without any technical
problems or time lost for weather, and where the instrument, EMMI
or SUSI, was used in one of the standard modes. The result is shown
in Figure 2.
With the exception of one remote observing run (2 nights) the
obtained efficiency for classical and remote observing are very
similar. Performing some statistics on the data we get the result
shown in Table 3, where the first number gives the efficiency
expressed as a percentage, with its standard deviation, and the
number in braces gives the number of nights used in the
calculation. The first night of a run is listed separately because
of possible familiarization effects (``first-night syndrome''),
which are indeed present.
\begin{figure}
\vspace{10cm}
\caption{Comparing classical and remote observing efficiency }
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparing classical and remote observing efficiency}
\begin{tabular} {||l|l||l|l||} \hline \hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Classical observing} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Remote observing} \\
First night & Later nights & First night & Later nights
\\
\hline \hline
64+/-11\% (22)& 71+/-10\% (29)& 60+/-18\% (11)& 67+/-18\% (8)
\\
& & 65+/-10\% (10)& 73+/-9\% (7)
\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Due to the still small number of nights, the difference between
remote and local observing (a few per cent) can entirely be
attributed to the one observing run which reached very low
efficiency (which explains the larger standard deviation).
Removing this run we get identical figures. We conclude from this
that for normal observations remote observing is now competitive.
\section{Observing Support}
The support given to the remote observer requires special attention.
Socially, there are more distractions making it more difficult to
concentrate on observing. The time difference between La Silla and
Garching is such that the second half of the night in Chile
corresponds to the morning in Garching, when office life goes on as
usual. Having a separate observing room is a necessity. It is also
more difficult to locate people with adequate technical knowledge of
the system who can introduce the observer and help with preparing
the observations. This is especially true if the remote observing
system is only used occasionally.
It should be noted that very few people have so much observing
experience on the NTT that they do not need any introduction. In
practice, most astronomers only use a particular telescope a few
nights per year, and they will probably try to use a different mode
from the one before. In order to allow the observer efficient use of
the telescope, it is essential to arrange for good support. For the
NTT, we now have a group of four post-doctoral fellows and students
who give introductions in Garching. During the observing night the
astronomer is also supported by a remote-control operator in
Garching, who controls the telescope, and a local night assistant
present at the telescope. The latter is present only as a
safeguard, but essential to assist in case of problems.
One could describe the support problem as trying to build an
observatory-environment away from the telescopes. People need to
have the know-how and be aware of recent problems and changes (which
requires good communication channels with the observatory). At ESO,
the introduction of a ``telescope team'' for the NTT, with staff
both from Garching and La Silla, has helped significantly in
improving communications. The effort put into the support
structure is considerable, but is necessary if remote observing is
to be more than a tool for highly experienced observers, which most
astronomers are not.
The experience at ESO is that in almost all cases, the home
institute pays for a second observer in addition to the one paid
for by ESO, in the case of remote control. This 'self-support' also
helps to improve the efficiency of the observations. It may be of
importance from an educational point of view as well.
\section{Perceptions by Astronomers}
Astronomers who have used the remote control system are often, but
not always, satisfied. Often their feedback has resulted in
improvements of the system or of the support. When applying for
observing time with the NTT, the astronomer has to specify why the
program would not be suited for remote observing. We do not force
people to use remote observing against their will, which would
certainly backfire, but the remarks give a good impression of the
perceived problems with remote observing.
Occasionally, the overheads are thought to be larger in remote
observing. This may be true for complicated programs, and is
certainly true if the observer waits for the image to arrive before
deciding what to do next, as some do. Part of this problem has been
solved with the new, much faster link.
More commonly, the astronomer feels that the judgment whether the
conditions are photometric are more difficult in remote observing
mode. It is not so clear whether this argument is correct. It is
always difficult to judge how photometric conditions are when using
CCDs, especially during dark time when no moon is present. The
La Silla night assistant keeps an eye on the weather, but
astronomers have been reluctant to accept his opinion. There have
been cases where the observer wanted to continue while the moon was
no longer visible. Data from the meteomonitor, which displays
seeing, windspeed, temperature, etc., are displayed on-line and
this is one of the most popular things to watch in the control room.
Twilight flats are seen as the most demanding part of the
observations, because there is little time available and the
observer cannot wait for the image to arrive before knowing what
the count levels were in the previous flat. The solution here is to
do fast
statistics on the data on the La Silla workstation, where the
original file first arrives. This is perfectly possible, either by
the observer working over the link or by the night assistant on La
Silla who sees each image immediately after it has been read out.
Good results have been obtained by using the Tyson sequences for
twilight flats (Tyson \& Gal 1993). The program to calculate these
sequences is available on-line.
Some astronomers also express doubt about focussing. The instrument
is generally focussed using one or more exposures of a random field
(preferably close to the target). Here the image transfer can be
very quick because it is not normally necessary to read out the full
CCD. The image is normally analysed by the night assistant in La
Silla, but it has been done remotely as well. This took 30 seconds
longer and gave the same answer.
The most serious argument used by astronomers is that their object
is very faint and that it is difficult to position it at the slit.
If the object is not visible on the video screen, it is necessary
to take acquisition images and to move the telescope such that the
selected object falls in the slit. Often two such exposures are
needed. The additional overhead becomes larger if the science
exposures are relatively short and there are many targets: if many
acquisition images need to be taken the observer should go to La
Silla.
\section{Future}
What is the future of remote observing? There is clearly a demand
from the ESO community, seeing that a third of the optical NTT
proposals request this mode. Part of this may be due to the fact
that it is easier to come with more than one person in this mode.
The recent experience has shown that, for many programs, remote
control is competitive with local observing, being as efficient in
telescope usage while giving a saving of the astronomer's time. At
the same time, there is a large group of people who prefer to
travel to La Silla. We will for the time being continue to offer
remote observing as a service to the community, but not force it
upon people. We will try to improve the system to alleviate the
doubts as expressed above.
A major upgrade of the NTT control system is being undertaken as
part of the NTT Upgrade Project. The aim of this activity is on the
one hand to verify the concept and software to be used for the VLT,
on the other hand to provide an identical interface on the NTT for
higher level operational tools, procedures and methods to be used
on VLT. It is expected that the VLT technology and software
architecture will give essential performance advantages also for
remote observing. Faster computers, more efficient communication
protocols, on-the-fly data compression and fast data forwarding
will reduce the data-transfer rate. The limiting factor of a CCD
display will become the readout time, independent of where the
display unit is located.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown that the observing efficiency does not degrade when
using {\it active remote observing} for the ESO NTT as compared to
classical observing. This allows more flexibility in scheduling,
shorter observing programs, long term monitoring programs, and
savings of astronomer's time.
However, {\it active remote observing} is nothing else than moving
classical observing to another site. It does not address the
``first-night syndrome''. To increase the scientific efficiency,
service observing may be a more important observing mode than remote
observing. Assuming the service observer will be at the telescope,
we would expect increased demands for {\it eavesdropping}
capabilities. The requirements for this to be successful are a
sufficiently fast link and adequate communication facilities, i.e.
not much different from those of {\it active remote observing}.
The main role of {\it active remote observing} may be found in the
new generation of large telescopes, where the observing runs may be
very short, and for astronomers in places where travel money is
difficult to get.
\vskip 20pt
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements} Manfred Ziebell, with support from Joar
Brynnel, has been responsible for the very successful installation
and operation of the new satellite link. We thank Miguel Albrecht
for providing the observing efficiency data and Jesus Rodriguez for
helping us obtaining information from several observatories. The
successful operation of ESO remote observing would not have been
possible without dedicated support from the whole operation crew,
both at La Silla and in Garching.
\section{References}
\begin{list}
{}{\itemsep 0pt \parsep 0pt \leftmargin 3em \itemindent -3em}
\item Baade D. 1993, Observing at a Distance, ed. Emerson
D., Clowes R. (World Scientific, Singapore), p. 131
\item Baade D., et al. 1993, The ESO Messenger, 72, 13
\item Balestra A., et al. 1992, The ESO Messenger, 69, 1
\item Burton M. 1995, in ASP Conf. Series, 73, p559-562
\item Emerson D., Clowes R. 1993, Observing at a Distance,
(World Scientific, Singapore)
\item Loewenstein R.F., York D.G. 1986, SPIE 627
\item Longair M.S., Stewart J.M., Williams P.M. 1986,
Q. Jl R. Astr. Soc. 27,153
\item Raffi G., Tarenghi M. 1984, The ESO Messenger 37, 1
\item Raffi G., Ziebell M. 1986, The ESO Messenger 44, 26
\item Raffi G. et al. 1990, SPIE 1235
\item Tyson N.D., Gal R.R. 1993, AJ, 105, 1206
\item Wallander A. 1993, Observing at a Distance, ed. Emerson
D., Clowes R. (World Scientific, Singapore), p. 199
\item Wallander A. 1994, Nuclear Instr. and Methods in
Physics Research Vol. A347, 258
\end{list}
\end{document}
|
\section{\label{INTRO} INTRODUCTION}
The compounds SrCu$_2$O$_3$ \cite{takano} and (VO)$_2$P$_2$O$_7$
\cite{johnston}
consist of arrays of weakly interacting two--chain metal--oxide ladders.
In SrCu$_2$O$_3$, CuO$_2$ ladders are coupled by a weak, frustrated,
ferromagnetic coupling\cite{rice}, and in (VO)$_2$P$_2$O$_7$,
VO$_4$ ladders are well separated in the structure of the material.
These materials have a half--filled conduction band,
corresponding to one conduction electron per metal--oxide unit and are
insulators with short--range antiferromagnetic correlations and a spin
gap.
Very recently Z.\ Hiroi and M.\ Takano\cite{hit95} succeeded in doping
the two--leg ladder compound La$_{1-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_{2.5}$.
They observe a fall in resistivity with doping, possibly to a metallic
state, but no sign of superconductivity. The spin--gap found in
half--filled LaCuO$_{2.5}$ persists, but decreases with doping.
In this publication we will address the half--filled situation only.
The undoped materials have been described by
a Heisenberg model on two coupled chains \cite{rice,dagotto,barnes1,whiteprl},
which explains a number of experimentally observed magnetic
properties of the materials, including the size of the spin gap, and
the spectrum of the spin triplet excitations.
The Hubbard model on two coupled chains, which at half--filling and in
the limit of strong on--site Coulomb repulsion can be
mapped onto the Heisenberg model, gives an itinerant electron picture
of these systems \cite{nws94} which includes charge as well as spin
fluctuations.
While the ground state and the low--energy properties of the
two--chain Heisenberg
and half--filled Hubbard model are becoming well understood, less is
known about the finite frequency one-- and two--particle response.
The dynamic spin response of the Heisenberg model was studied in
Ref.\ 5
and the single particle and spin response was examined for a
$t$--$J$ model with two holes in Ref.\ 8
using analytic continuation of Lanczos
exact diagonalization calculations on small clusters.
The dynamic properties are important because they can be measured with
a variety of experimental techniques.
For example, the one--particle spectral weight can be probed by
photoemission and inverse photoemission, the dynamic charge
correlation function by optical response measurements, and the dynamic
spin structure factor by inelastic neutron scattering.
Here we examine the dynamic one-- and two--particle correlation
functions of the two--chain Hubbard model at half--filling using
Quantum Monte Carlo simulations analytically continued to real
frequencies using a Maximum Entropy technique\cite{maxent}.
We study the dynamic response for large, intermediate, and small
values of the perpendicular hopping $t_\perp$.
This is interesting for two reasons:
first, when the electron--electron interaction is turned off ($U=0$)
in the two--chain system, there is a metal--insulator transition from
a two--band metal to a band insulator due to the separation of the bonding
and antibonding bands with increasing $t_\perp$.
For the interacting ($U \ne 0$) case, it is generally believed that the
two--chain system is always insulating (see, for example, Ref. 11
for a discussion within a weak--coupling RG picture).
The QMC simulations do find an insulator for all $t_\perp$, but also
reveal a crossover from four--band
insulating behavior for small $t_\perp$ to two--band behavior for
\mbox{$t_\perp/t$ {\raise3pt\hbox{$>$}\llap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim $}}} $2$}.
A similar crossover occurs for weak coupling
($U$ {\raise3pt\hbox{$<$}\llap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim $}}} $t$)
within
antiferromagnetic Hartree--Fock (AFHF) theory, as we shall discuss in
section \ref{AFHFSEC}.
One interesting and important result of this paper is that this
four--band to two--band crossover scenario survives in the
intermediate to
large $U$ regime in the system, despite the fact that the
many--body physics for
$t_\perp$ {\raise3pt\hbox{$>$}\llap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim $}}} $t$
is not even qualitatively
reproduced in the AFHF approximation.
No such crossover is present as a function of $J_\perp/J$ in the
Heisenberg model, because the
mapping to the Heisenberg model breaks down when
$J_\perp \sim 4 t_\perp^2/U$ is of the order of $t_\perp$.
In other words, the effect of the electronic band structure is not
present in the Heisenberg model.
As we shall see, this crossover can also be described in terms of the
crossover from a localized rung picture, in which localized
excitations form a Bloch state along the chains
for large $t_\perp$, to a picture with longer range
antiferromagnetic correlations with many features that can be
qualitatively described by
AFHF
spin--wave theory for small
$t_\perp$.
Secondly, in the small to intermediate $t_\perp$ regime, this
system displays features of the single--particle spectral weight
$A({\bf k},\omega)$ seen
in recent numerical treatments of both the 1D\cite{preuss1d,newpreuss1d} and
2D\cite{preuss2d,dagotto2d} Hubbard model.
We find two features also generic to the 1D and 2D systems:
a dispersive band whose width is of the order
of the effective exchange interaction $J\sim 4t^2/U$
and an incoherent background of width several times the parallel
hopping integral $t$.
For the one and two chain systems, but not the 2D system, the
dispersive band is well described by renormalized spin--wave--theory.
We consider the single band Hubbard model on two coupled chains of
length $L$:
\begin{eqnarray}
H&=&-t\sum_{i,\lambda\sigma} (c^\dagger_{i,\lambda\sigma}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i+1,\lambda\sigma} + h.c.)
\nonumber\\
&& -t_\perp \sum_{i,\sigma} (c^\dagger_{i,1\sigma}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,2\sigma} + h.c.)
+U\sum_{i\lambda} n_{i,\lambda\uparrow}
n_{i,\lambda\downarrow}.
\label{hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $c^\dagger_{i,\lambda\sigma}$ and
$c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,\lambda\sigma}$ create and annihilate electrons
on rung $i$ and chain $\lambda$ with spin
$\sigma$, respectively,
the hopping integral parallel to the chains is
$t$, the hopping between the chains $t_\perp$, and $U$ is an on-site
Coulomb interaction.
We use periodic boundary conditions parallel to and
open boundary conditions perpendicular to the chains.
The non--interacting, $U=0$, Hamiltonian can be diagonalized by
writing the hopping term in terms of bonding and antibonding states on
a rung and Fourier--transforming parallel to the chains.
The energy is then given by
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{\bf k} = -(2t \cos k + t_\perp \cos k_\perp)
\label{eqepsilon}
\end{equation}
with ${\bf k}=(k,k_\perp)$,
where $k_\perp=0$ and $k_\perp=\pi$ corresponds to the energy of the
bonding and antibonding band, respectively, and $k$ is the momentum
along the chains.
Both bands will be occupied when $t_\perp < t_{\perp c}$,
whereas when $t_\perp > t_{\perp c}$, only the bonding band will be
occupied.
Here $t_{\perp c}/t \equiv 1 - \cos \pi \langle n \rangle$ and
$\langle n \rangle \equiv \langle \sum_\sigma c^\dagger_{i,\lambda,\sigma}
c_{i,\lambda,\sigma}\rangle$.
For half--filling $t_{\perp c}/t=2$, and the system is
a two--band metal for $t_\perp/t < 2$, and a band insulator
with a completely occupied bonding band for $t_\perp/t > 2$.
\section{\label{SINGLE} SINGLE--PARTICLE SPECTRAL WEIGHT}
\subsection{ Quantum Monte Carlo Results}
In order to calculate the dynamical properties of the
above model we employ the grand--canonical Quantum
Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm to determine the
expectation values of the correlation functions in imaginary time.
At half--filling, the simulations are not limited by the fermion sign problem
and accurate results can thus be achieved at low temperatures and large
system sizes.
We analytically continue the imaginary--time data to real frequencies
using a Maximum Entropy method\cite{maxent}. For example, the spectral weight
function given by
\begin{eqnarray}
A({\bf k},\omega) &=& {1\over Z}
\sum_{l,l^\prime} e^{-\beta E_l}(1+e^{-\beta\omega})
\vert \langle l\vert c_{{\bf k},\uparrow}\vert l^\prime \rangle \vert^2
\nonumber\\
&& \phantom{{1\over Z}\sum_{l,l^\prime}}
\cdot\delta(\omega-(E_{l^\prime}-E_l)),
\label{Akomegadef}
\end{eqnarray}
where $Z$ is the partition function, $\vert l>$ and $\vert l^\prime>$ are
the exact many-body eigenstates with the corresponding energies $E_l$ and
$E_{l^\prime}$ and $c_{{\bf k},\sigma}=\sum_{i,\lambda}
c_{i,\lambda\sigma} e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf R}_{i,\lambda}}/\sqrt{2L}$,
can be calculated by inverting the spectral theorem
\begin{equation}
G({\bf k},\tau)\equiv \langle c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf k},\uparrow}(\tau)
c^\dagger_{{\bf k},\uparrow}(0) \rangle
= \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
{e^{-\tau\omega}\over 1+e^{-\beta\omega}}
A({\bf k},\omega) d\omega
\label{eqGtaudef}
\end{equation}
with the Maximum Entropy algorithm using the raw QMC data
$G({\bf k},\tau)$.
To achieve high resolution, it is important to use a likelihood
function which takes the error--covariance matrix of the QMC data and
its statistical inaccuracy consistently into account\cite{preussmaxent}.
The results presented here are based on QMC data with good statistics,
i.e. averages over $10^5$ updates of all the Hubbard--Stratonovich
variables result in $G({\bf k}, \tau)$'s with absolute errors less
than or of the order of $5 \times 10^{-4}$.
Correlations of the data in imaginary time were taken into account by
making use of the covariance matrix in the Maximum Entropy procedure
\cite{preussmaxent}.
As suggested in previous work by White\cite{whi91}, various moments of
the spectral weight were also incorporated in extracting
$A({\bf k},\omega)$.
We calculate the spectral function $A({\bf k},\omega)$ at half--filling
for a $2\times 16$-lattice with $U/t=8$ for different values of
$t_\perp$ at an inverse temperature of $\beta=10/t$.
Our results are given in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0} for
$t_\perp/t=2.0$,
in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc1.0} for $t_\perp/t=1.0$,
and in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc0.5} for $t_\perp/t=0.5$.
Note that $t_\perp/t=1.0$ corresponds to the
isotropic case, $J_\perp\approx J$, relevant to the SrCu$_2$O$_3$,
(VO)$_2$P$_2$O$_7$, and LaCuO$_{2.5}$ compounds.
Parts (a) and (b) in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}--\ref{figqmc0.5}
are three-dimensional plots of
$A({\bf k},\omega)$ versus $\omega$ for $k$--values in the 1D
Brillouin zone, whereas part (c) in all three figures summarize these
results in the usual ``band structure'' $\omega$ versus $k$ plot.
The shaded areas represent regions with significant spectral weight,
with the darker shading representing more weight.
Due to particle--hole symmetry,
$A({\bf k}=(k,\pi),\omega)=A({\bf k}=(\pi-k,0),-\omega)$ where
${\bf k}=(k,k_\perp)$.
In other words, one reflects $k$ about $k=\pi/2$ and $\omega$ about 0 to
get $A({\bf k},\omega)$ for $k_\perp=\pi$ from $A({\bf k},\omega)$ for
$k_\perp=0$.
This symmetry can be seen by comparing parts (a) and (b) of Fig.\
\ref{figqmc2.0}--\ref{figqmc0.5}.
Since this symmetry is not enforced by the Maximum Entropy
procedure, it is only present approximately, and the extent to which
the reflected spectra at $k_\perp=0$ do not match those at
$k_\perp=\pi$ gives an indication of the accuracy of the analytic
continuation procedure.
In the density plots in parts (c), we show only the $k_\perp=0$ components.
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$, there is a heavily weighted coherent band of
width $\sim 3t$ in the photoemission ($\omega < 0$) part of the spectrum.
In the inverse photoemission spectrum ($\omega > 0$) there is very
little total spectral weight.
There are therefore two bands with significant spectral weight, one
in the photoemission spectrum for $k_\perp=0$ and one in the inverse
photoemission spectrum for $k_\perp=\pi$.
Each band is about $2t$ away from the Fermi surface, leading to a gap
of approximately $4t$.
Therefore, for large $t_\perp$, the system is a two-band insulator.
In contrast, for $t_\perp/t=1.0$ and $t_\perp/t=0.5$, $A({\bf k},\omega)$
has substantial spectral weight in four bands, one in the
photoemission spectrum ($\omega<0$) for $k_\perp=0$ and
$k_\perp =\pi$ and one in the inverse photoemission spectrum
($\omega >0$) for both values of $k_\perp$.
In this regime, the system is thus a four--band insulator.
For $t_\perp/t=0.5$ (Fig.\ \ref{figqmc0.5}) the spectral weight
is present for both values of $k_\perp$ concentrated between $k=0$
and $k=\pi/2$ in the photoemission part and between $k=\pi/2$
and $k=\pi$ in the inverse photoemission part of the spectrum.
For the isotropic case ($t_\perp/t=1.0$, Fig.\ \ref{figqmc1.0}), there
is some shift of spectral weight to the photoemission part for
$k_\perp=0$ and to the
inverse photoemission part for $k_\perp=\pi$.
The maxima of the photoemission band in the $k_\perp=0$ part
occurs at $k^*=\pi$ for $t_\perp/t=2.0$, at $k^*\approx 0.7\pi$ for
$t_\perp/t=1.0$, and at $k^*=\pi/2$ for $t_\perp/t=0.5$.
Therefore we would
expect to see a maxima at $k^*\approx 0.7\pi$ in a photoemission
experiment on the isotropic ladder compounds, an experiment which has,
to our knowledge, not yet been done.
It is also important to note that the QMC $A({\bf k},\omega)$ results for
$t_\perp/t=0.5$ as well as for the isotropic case, $t_\perp/t=1.0$,
display two general features which have recently been observed in both the
1D\cite{newpreuss1d} and 2D\cite{preuss2d} cases using
the improved Maximum Entropy techniques described above\cite{preussmaxent}.
One feature is that $A({\bf k},\omega)$ contains a rather
dispersionless ``incoherent background'' extending over several $t$
($\sim 6t$ for $U/t=8$ in 2D) in both the electronically occupied
($\omega < 0$) and unoccupied ($\omega > 0$) parts of the spectrum.
The crucial structure, not resolved in previous 1D and 2D
QMC simulations, is a dispersive structure at low energies with a small
width of the order of the exchange coupling $J=4t^2/U$.
It is this latter coherent ``band'' which defines the gap $\Delta$ and
which, for larger $U$ ($U/t\sim 10$), is well--separated from the
higher--energy background.
As in the 1D and 2D cases, the splitting in the
low--energy band and the higher--energy background is
especially pronounced near $k=0$ and $k=\pi$ due to a relative weight
shift from negative to positive energies as $k$ moves through $k^*$.
\subsection{\label{AFHFSEC}Spin--Wave Theory}
At half--filling, the two chain Hubbard system at $T=0$ is a spin
liquid with a spin gap and a finite spin--spin correlation length.
The system is therefore less ordered than either the 1D system, which
is at the critical point and has power law decay of the spin--spin
correlation function and no spin gap, or the 2D system, which has
long--range spin order and gapless spin--wave--like excitations.
However, at large $U/t$ the scale of the spin gap for the two chain
system is set by $J_\perp \sim 4t_\perp^2/U$, and the spin--spin
correlation length $\xi$ grows longer as the spin gap gets smaller.
The range of the spin ordering can therefore be tuned by varying
$t_\perp/t$.
This is illustrated by Fig.\ \ref{figDMRG}, in which we plot the
spin--spin correlation function,
$S(r)=(-1)^r \langle M_{0,\lambda}^z M_{r,\lambda}^z \rangle$ on a
semilog scale for $t_\perp/t=2.0$, $t_\perp/t=1.0$ and $t_\perp/t=0.5$.
Here $M_{r,\lambda}^z=(n_{r,\lambda,\uparrow} - n_{r,\lambda,\downarrow})$
is twice the $z$ component of the on--site spin.
These calculations were done using the Density Matrix Renormalization
Group method\cite{nws94} (DMRG) on a system with open boundaries at zero
temperature.
For $t_\perp/t=0.5$, the data was averaged over a number of
different pairs of points for a given $r$ in order to reduce
oscillations due to the open boundaries.
For distances greater than a few lattice spacings, the correlation
functions are very well fit by a pure exponential form $A\exp(-r/\xi)$,
from which the spin--spin correlation length $\xi$ can be determined.
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$, $\xi=0.83$, for $t_\perp/t=1.0$, $\xi=4.3$,
and for $t_\perp/t=0.5$, $\xi=9.5$ lattice spacings.
Therefore, the spins are almost completely uncorrelated along the chains
for $t_\perp/t=2.0$, but for $t_\perp/t=1.0$ and for $t_\perp/t=0.5$
are correlated on length
scales of the order of the size of the $2\times 16$ lattice studied here,
although the long--range behavior is that of a gapped spin liquid in
all three cases.
It is therefore reasonable to calculate the single particle
spectral weight
$A({\bf k},\omega)$ in two simple ways:
first, when the spin gap is small and $\xi \approx L$, and we consider
wavelengths smaller than $\xi$ and frequencies larger than the spin
gap, it is useful to explore the consequences of a simple SDW
approximation based on an ordered state,
i.e. AFHF
theory. Secondly,
one can solve for the exact eigenstates on a rung and then
consider states composed of a product of exact rung singlets only and a
delocalized one--hole state in a background of rung singlets.
(We call this the Local Rung Approximation, LRA.)
The LRA starts with a state with uncorrelated rungs and then treats
the interactions between rungs perturbatively, and is thus a good
starting point when $\xi$ is small.
As we shall see, the LRA gives a single particle spectral weight
distribution that agrees well with QMC in the large $t_\perp$ regime,
while AFHF qualitatively describes most features of the
spectral weight distribution for small $t_\perp$.
We first discuss the AFHF calculation in more detail.
The Hartree-Fock one--particle Hamiltonian can be written as
\begin{equation}
H_{HF}={\sum_{{\bf k},\sigma}}^\prime E_{\bf k}
(b^{c\dagger}_{{\bf k},\sigma} b^{c\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf k},\sigma}
- b^{v\dagger}_{{\bf k},\sigma} b^{v\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf k},\sigma}),
\end{equation}
where ${\sum_{{\bf k},\sigma}}^\prime$ means that the sum runs only over
the magnetic zone ($-\pi/2 < k\le \pi/2$, $k_\perp=0,\pi$).
The operators $b^c_{{\bf k},\sigma}$ and
$b^v_{{\bf k},\sigma}$ are given by the following transformation\cite{swz89}:
\begin{eqnarray}
b^c_{{\bf k},\sigma} & = & u_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k},\sigma} \mp
v_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q},\sigma},\\
b^v_{{\bf k},\sigma} & = & v_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k},\sigma} \pm
u_{\bf k} c_{{\bf k}+{\bf Q},\sigma},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\bf Q}=(\pi,\pi)$, the upper (lower) sign corresponds to
$\sigma=\uparrow$ ($\sigma=\downarrow$), and
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{\bf k} & = & \sqrt{{1\over 2}(1+\varepsilon_{\bf k}/E_{\bf k})},\\
v_{\bf k} & = & \sqrt{{1\over 2}(1-\varepsilon_{\bf k}/E_{\bf k})},\\
E_{\bf k} & = & \sqrt{\Delta^2+{\varepsilon_{\bf k}}^2}.
\label{eqAFHFdisp}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\varepsilon_{\bf k}$ is the free particle energy ($U=0$) defined in
Eq.\ (\ref{eqepsilon}).
The spin--density--wave gap, $\Delta$, is
self--consistently determined by the equation
\begin{equation}
{1\over U} = {1\over 2L}{\sum_{\bf k}}^\prime {1\over E_{\bf k}}.
\label{eqAFHFgap}
\end{equation}
The band structure of the AFHF Hamiltonian is given by
$\pm E_{\bf k}=\pm\sqrt{\Delta^2+{\varepsilon_{\bf k}}^2}$ in the
magnetic Brillouin zone.
The SDW gap $\Delta$, calculated by solving Eq.\ (\ref{eqAFHFgap})
self--consistently, is shown as a function of $t_\perp/t$ for $U/t=2$,
4, and 8 in Fig.\ \ref{figAFHFgap}.
The transition from a two--band metal to a band insulator in the $U=0$
system occurs at $t_\perp/t=t_{\perp c} = 2.0$.
As $U$ is turned on for $t < t_{\perp c}$ in the AFHF, a gap develops
in both the bonding and antibonding bands, leading to a four--band
insulator.
If $t_\perp$ is then increased, $\Delta$ will go to zero at
approximately the noninteracting ($U=0$) $t_{\perp c}/t=2.0$, as seen
for $U/t=2$ in
Fig.\ \ref{figAFHFgap}, leading to a transition from a four--band to a
two--band insulator.
For large $U$ and small $t_\perp$, $\Delta \approx U/2$, as seen for
$U/t=8$ in Fig.\ \ref{figAFHFgap}, so the
Coulomb splitting of the bands will dominate over $U=0$ band structure
effects.
In this case, the gap will go to zero, i.e. the system will undergo
a transition to a band
insulator only when the band structure
splitting $2 t_\perp$, is of the order of the Coulomb splitting, so that
$t_{\perp c} \approx \Delta \approx U/2$.
The spectral weight within the AFHF approximation is
\begin{equation}
A({\bf k},\omega) = u_{\bf k}^2 \delta (\omega - E_{\bf k})
+ v_{\bf k}^2 \delta (\omega + E_{\bf k}).
\end{equation}
We show
the spectral weight $A({\bf k},\omega)$ from AFHF for the same
parameters as in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0} and Fig.\ \ref{figqmc0.5} in
Fig.\ \ref{figAFHF}(a) for $t_\perp/t=2.0$ and Fig.\ \ref{figAFHF}(b)
for $t_\perp/t=0.5$.
The band splitting $2 \Delta \approx U$ in both cases, as can also be
seen in Fig.\ \ref{figAFHFgap}.
Since both the bonding and antibonding bands are split by this gap,
there are two peaks in $A({\bf k},\omega)$ as a function of $\omega$
for each ${\bf k}$, leading to a four--band insulator for both values
of $t_\perp/t$.
Since the band splitting is set by $U$ rather than $2 t_\perp$, the
spectral weight is
almost evenly distributed between two coherent bands for both
$t_\perp/t=2.0$ and $t_\perp/t=0.5$.
Therefore, for $t_\perp/t=2.0$, as can be seen by comparing
the QMC results in
Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0} with Fig.\ \ref{figAFHF}(a), the AFHF spectral
weight distribution for $t_\perp/t=2.0$ is
completely wrong, with too much weight in the upper, $\omega>0$, band
for $k_\perp=0$ and the $\omega < 0$ band for $k_\perp=\pi$.
While the average positions of the AFHF bands, shown as thick solid
lines in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(c), are approximately the same as those of
the QMC bands, the band widths are too small by approximately a factor
of two.
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$ and $U/t=8$, then, the AFHF calculation results in a
four--band insulator in which there is long--range antiferromagnetic
order, while the QMC results show that the system is a two--band insulator,
with only very short range antiferromagnetic correlations.
While the AFHF picture does produce a two--band insulator for
$t_\perp/t$ {\raise3pt\hbox{$>$}\llap{\lower3pt\hbox{$\sim $}}} $4.5$,
the physical picture of the transition to this
phase is quite different (see section C).
For $t_\perp/t=0.5$, as seen in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc0.5}
and Fig.\ \ref{figAFHF}(b), AFHF
gives two dispersive bands in the $k_\perp=0$ branch of width of order
$J \sim 4 t^2/U$, similar to the coherent bands seen in the QMC data.
However, in the AFHF, the single particle gap is somewhat too large,
the weight distribution extends too far towards $k=\pi$ and too far
towards $k=0$ for the photoemission and inverse photoemission parts of
the spectrum, respectively, and the broad incoherent
background is not present.
We have also carried out mean--field slave boson
calculations\cite{slaveboson} in order to try to improve on the AFHF
picture.
These calculations give a gap about 15\% smaller than AFHF, and
a bandwidth about 3\% smaller, but do not qualitatively improve on the
AFHF calculations.
The same holds for $t_\perp/t=1.0$, where the AFHF describes approximately
the coherent part of the spectrum and also produces a too large single
particle gap
and a slightly different spectral weight distribution.
Therefore, for $t_\perp/t=0.5$ and for $t_\perp/t=1.0$,
AFHF would give a reasonable description
of the dispersion and general spectral weight distribution of the
coherent spin--wave bands, if the gap were
phenomenologically adjusted to a smaller value, but fails to even
qualitatively describe the spectral weight distribution for
$t_\perp/t=2.0$.
\subsection{\label{RUNGSINGLET} Local Rung Approximation}
For very large $t_\perp$, a better starting point is the
limit of weak interaction between the rungs.
In this limit, we split the Hamiltonian of Eq.\ (\ref{hamiltonian})
into $H=H_0 + H_I$ with
\begin{eqnarray}
H_0&=&-t_\perp \sum_{i,\sigma} (c^\dagger_{i,1\sigma}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i,2\sigma} + h.c.)
+ U\sum_{i\lambda} n_{i,\lambda\uparrow} n_{i,\lambda\downarrow},
\nonumber\\
H_I&=&-t\sum_{i,\lambda\sigma} (c^\dagger_{i,\lambda\sigma}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{i+1,\lambda\sigma} + h.c.),
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_0$ denotes the non--interacting rung limit.
The ground state of $H_0$ is a product of individual rung eigenstates.
Accordingly, we first diagonalize
the Hubbard Hamiltonian on the two sites making up the
rung in order to find the rung eigenstates.
A schematic diagram of the exact eigenstates for a single rung is
shown in Fig.\ \ref{figrunglevels}.
The ground state for the half--filled rung $i$ (two particles per
rung) is a spin singlet state
with $k_\perp=0$ and energy
$E_0/L = E_0^{\text{rung}} = \left( U- \sqrt{U^2+ 16 t_\perp^2} \right)/2$
denoted by $\vert S_i\rangle$.
For large values of
$U$, the energy of this two-site state is given by the exchange
coupling $-J_\perp \sim -4t_\perp^2/U$.
Note that $\vert S_i\rangle$ contains terms which have
double occupied sites as well as the usual singlet construction
$(\vert\uparrow,\downarrow\rangle -\vert\downarrow,\uparrow\rangle)/\sqrt 2$.
We can then form an approximation to the ground state for the
half--filled system by
taking a state which is just a product of the rung states,
\begin{equation}
|\psi_0\rangle = | S_1 \rangle | S_2 \rangle ... | S_L \rangle .
\label{eqsingstate}
\end{equation}
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$, the binding energy of a singlet formed on a rung
is about four times lower than the energy of a singlet between
neighboring sites along a chain, and therefore we
expect $|\psi_0\rangle$ to be a good approximation
to the exact ground state.
In order to obtain the $\omega<0$ spectral weight for the
half--filled system, we need to calculate the matrix element of
$c_{{\bf k}, \sigma}$ given in Eq.\ (\ref{Akomegadef}).
In other words, we need matrix elements between a half--filled
state and a state with one particle removed.
We form the approximate one hole state by replacing one bond singlet
state at rung $\ell$, $|S_\ell\rangle$, with the lowest energy
one--particle state, the one with bonding ($k_\perp=0$) symmetry,
$|B_{\ell\uparrow}\rangle$
(We remove a spin down electron for definiteness.) and define
\begin{equation}
|\ell\rangle = | S_1 \rangle | S_2 \rangle ...
|B_{\ell\uparrow}\rangle ...| S_L \rangle.
\label{eqlocalsing}
\end{equation}
We delocalize the single--particle state with a plane wave ansatz by
constructing the state\cite{barnes1,bos93}
\begin{equation}
|\psi_1(k)\rangle = L^{-1/2}\sum_{\ell=1}^L e^{ik\ell} |\ell\rangle.
\label{eqdelocalsing}
\end{equation}
Trivially, this state is an exact eigenstate of $H_0$.
We will take this state as the ground state for the system with one
hole with momentum ${\bf k} = (k,0)$.
The spectral weight $A({\bf k},\omega)$ at zero
temperature ($\beta\rightarrow\infty$) is then approximated
by using
only the two states $|\psi_0\rangle$ and $|\psi_1(k)\rangle$ in
Eq.\ (\ref{Akomegadef}).
For $k_\perp=0$,
the energy dispersion $\omega(k)$ of $A({\bf k},\omega)$ for
$\omega < 0$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega(k) &=&\langle\psi_0\vert H \vert\psi_0\rangle -
\langle \psi_1(k)\vert H \vert\psi_1(k) \rangle - \mu \nonumber\\
&=&-\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{U^2+ 16 t_\perp^2} + t_\perp -tA \cos k,
\label{eqLRAwk}
\end{eqnarray}
with
$A=(1+E_2/2t_\perp)^2/(1 + E_2^2/4t_\perp^2)$,
$E_2=( U + \sqrt{U^2+ 16 t_\perp^2})/2$,
and the corresponding spectral weight by
$\vert\langle\psi_1(k)\vert c_{k,\downarrow} \vert\psi_0 \rangle\vert^2$.
The dispersion given by Eq.\ (\ref{eqLRAwk})
for $U/t=8$ and $t_\perp/t=2.0$ is plotted in
Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(c) and the spectral weight for
$k_\perp=0$ is shown in Fig.\ \ref{figLRA}.
One can see that the
position of the peak of the $\omega < 0$ LRA band, denoted LRA1
in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(c), lays almost exactly on the QMC
data.
However, the position and the dispersion of the $\omega > 0$ band,
which were obtained in
the same way as for $\omega<0$, are not exactly matched by
the LRA1 calculation.
While this band is not very important in the sense that it contains
very little spectral weight, we can understand how to improve
the LRA1 calculation by
considering the states of a four site cluster.
In order to generate the inverse photoemission spectrum, we need to
calculate matrix elements between the half--filled state and a state
with one {\it additional} particle.
{}From Fig.\ \ref{figrunglevels}, we see that a rung state with three
particles and $k_\perp=0$ has approximately twice the
excitation energy of
the $k_\perp=0$ one--particle state which is relevant for the
photoemission part of the spectrum.
(Recall that due to the particle--hole symmetry at half--filling, this
state will map to one in the inverse photoemission part of spectrum for
$k=\pi$; one can see this symmetry in Fig.\ \ref{figrunglevels}.)
Since the relevant three--particle single rung state is high in energy,
configurations involving intrachain effects might also be important.
We include the effect of such configurations by replacing two rung
singlet states by the lowest energy state of five particles on four
sites in the bonding channel.
We can then form a delocalized plane wave state from this state as
in Eq.\ (\ref{eqdelocalsing}).
The results of this calculation are labeled as LRA2 in
Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(c).
The location and width of the $k_\perp=0$ inverse photoemission band
are more closely fit than by the LRA1 calculation.
In Fig.\ \ref{figLRA} the spectral weight distribution of the LRA1
calculation for the photoemission part of the spectrum ($\omega<0$) and the
distribution of the LRA2 calculation for the inverse photoemission
part ($\omega>0$) is plotted. The result is in good accordance with the
QMC data in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(a).
\section{\label{SPINCHARGE} SPIN AND CHARGE DYNAMIC CORRELATION FUNCTIONS}
In order to determine the nature of the low lying excitations, we also
consider the spin and charge susceptibilities
$\chi_{s,c}({\bf q},\omega)$ which, in a Lehmann representation, are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_{s,c}({\bf q},\omega)&=&
{i\over Z}\sum_{l,l^\prime}e^{-\beta E_l}
(1-e^{-\beta\omega})
\vert\langle l\vert O_{s,c}({\bf q})\vert l^\prime\rangle\vert^2
\nonumber\\
&&\phantom{{i\pi\over Z}\sum_{l,l^\prime}}
\cdot\delta(\omega-(E_{l^\prime}-E_l)),
\label{eqtwocorrdef}
\end{eqnarray}
with $O_{s}({\bf q})=\sum_{\bf p}
(c^\dagger_{{\bf p}+{\bf q},\uparrow}c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf p},\uparrow}
-c^\dagger_{{\bf p}+{\bf q},\downarrow}
c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf p},\downarrow})$
and
$O_{c}({\bf q})=\sum_{{\bf p},\sigma} c^\dagger_{{\bf p}
+{\bf q},\sigma}c^{\phantom{\dagger}}_{{\bf p},\sigma}$.
We calculate the two--particle dynamic response from the two--particle
imaginary time Green's function, as in Eq.\ (\ref{eqGtaudef}) and use
the Maximum Entropy method described above for the analytical
continuation of $\chi_{s,c}({\bf q},\omega)$ to real frequencies.
In Fig. \ref{figspin} we show the dynamical spin--spin correlation
function $\chi_{s,c}({\bf q},\omega)$ for
$t_\perp/t=2.0$ and $t_\perp/t=1.0$.
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$, the $q_\perp=0$ component [Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(a)]
has a broad, lightly weighted structure centered approximately at
$\omega=3t$, with the spectral weight vanishing for small $q$.
For $q_\perp=\pi$ [Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(b)],
there is a coherent, dispersive band with a width set by
$J \approx 4 t^2/U = 0.5t$, a minimum at $q=\pi$ and a maximum at
$q=0$.
The minimum spin gap is approximately $0.8t$, which agrees well with
the value we obtain using Projector Quantum Monte Carlo, indicated by
the dashed line on the plot.
The spectral weight is most heavily concentrated around $q=\pi$.
The dynamic spin response at half--filling measures the response of
the system to spin triplet excitations.
Since here $t_\perp$ is large, we consider the effect of triplet
excitations on product rung states of the type considered in
Eq.\ (\ref{eqsingstate}), in the LRA calculation.
A triplet excitation will change the total spin of the state from
$S=0$ to $S=1$.
Referring to Fig.\ \ref{figrunglevels}, the only triplet
excited state on a single rung has momentum $\pi$ (corresponding to
odd parity under chain interchange) leading to a change
in momentum $q_\perp=\pi$ for the triplet excitation.
The size of this triplet excitation $\Delta E^{\text{rung}}_{\text{s}}$
is marked on Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(b) by the solid line.
This local triplet excited state can be moved to a near neighbor rung
by a process which is second order in $H_I$.
The local triplet excited states can then be delocalized into a Bloch
wave as in Eq.\ (\ref{eqlocalsing}) and Eq.\ (\ref{eqdelocalsing}).
For large $U$, one then obtains a dispersion relation of the form
$\Delta E^{\text{rung}}_{\text{s}} + J \cos q$,
where $J\sim 4t^2/U$, a form similar to that obtained in
Ref.\ 5
for the two chain Heisenberg model.
The coherent band in Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(b) does have a minimum at $q=\pi$,
and has approximately this form.
Within the LRA picture, it is also possible to excite a $q_\perp=0$
(even under chain interchange) triplet excitation via a
``two--magnon'' process, as discussed in Ref.\ 5.
This corresponds to making two local triplet excitations on rungs in
the non--interacting rung picture, and would lead to an excitation
energy whose scale, in the Heisenberg limit, is set by
$\omega \sim 2J_\perp$ rather than $\omega \sim J_\perp$.
The overall position of the lightly weighted band seen for $q_\perp=0$
in Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(a) is consistent with this two--magnon band,
although the band is too lightly weighted and our resolution too low
to extract a dispersion relation.
For the physical relevant isotropic case
($t_\perp/t=1.0$), shown in Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(c) and (d),
the spin response looks quite different. (Because the $t_\perp/t=0.5$
results are qualitatively similar to the $t_\perp/t=1.0$ results,
we show only the isotropic ($t_\perp/t=1.0$) case here.)
In Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(c) and (d),
there are dispersive bands in both the $q_\perp=0$ and
$q_\perp=\pi$ branches, with the position of the peak going to a
finite minimum at ${\bf q}=(0,\pi)$ and ${\bf q}=(\pi,0)$, and
appears to vanish as ${\bf q} \rightarrow (\pi,\pi)$.
However, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{figDMRG}, the correlation length
is 4.3 lattice spacings in this regime, and there should be a
spin gap.
Using DMRG calculations on lattices of $2 \times 8$ to $2 \times 32$
sites\cite{nws94}, we estimate the spin gap to be of order $0.12t$.
Due to finite size effects and finite resolution in the analytic
continuation, this gap is too small to resolve in Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(d).
Near ${\bf q}=(0,0)$ [Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(c)], the dispersion of the
peak is hard to discern because there is very little
spectral weight.
This lack of spectral weight at ${\bf q}=(0,0)$ is present in all the
dynamic charge and spin correlations and is due to
a selection rule that comes about because $O_{s,c}({\bf q=0})$
in Eq.\ (\ref{eqtwocorrdef}) commutes with the Hamiltonian, leading
to a vanishing of the matrix element of $O_{s,c}({\bf q})$ as
${\bf q} \rightarrow 0$.
Therefore, the system has relatively long--range spin order in this
regime and, to within the resolution of our calculations, shows
the characteristics of an ordered state with gapless excitations.
Thus it is interesting to compare the QMC spectra to the results of
spin--wave theory calculations.
In order to extract the low--lying spin excitations using spin--wave theory
it is necessary to
consider the RPA transverse spin susceptibility
$\chi^{+-}_{\rm RPA}({\bf k},{\bf k}^\prime,\omega)$.
It is obtained
by applying the random--phase approximation to the response function
$\chi^{+-}_0({\bf k},{\bf k}^\prime,\omega)$, which is calculated directly
in real time using the AFHF ground state $\vert\Omega\rangle$,
calculated in section \ref{AFHFSEC}:
\begin{equation}
\chi^{+-}_0({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,t)=
{i\over 4L} \langle\Omega\vert T S^+_{\bf q}(t)S^-_{-{\bf q}^\prime}
(0)\vert\Omega\rangle,
\end{equation}
with $S^\pm=S_x\pm iS_y$.
Due to the broken spin rotational symmetry of $\vert\Omega\rangle$,
$\chi^{+-}_{\rm RPA}({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)$ contains a gapless mode,
as predicted by the Goldstone theorem.
Following the procedure of Schrieffer et al.\cite{swz89}, one obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\chi^{+-}_{\rm RPA}({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)=}\ \ \ \ \ \nonumber\\
&&\sum_{\bf p} \chi_0^{+-}({\bf q},{\bf p},\omega)
[1-U\chi_0^{+-}({\bf p},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)]^{-1},
\end{eqnarray}
where $[1-U\chi_0^{+-}({\bf p},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)]^{-1}$ is a
matrix inverse of a $2\times 2$ matrix in ${\bf q}$-space and
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi^{+-}_0({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)&=&
\delta({\bf q}-{\bf q}^\prime)\chi_0^{+-}({\bf q},\omega)\nonumber\\
&&+ \delta({\bf q}-{\bf q}^\prime+{\bf Q})\chi_Q^{+-}({\bf q},\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
with
$\chi^{+-}_0({\bf q},\omega)$ and $\chi^{+-}_Q({\bf q},\omega)$ given
by the usual ``bubble'' diagrams and printed in detail in
Ref.\ 16
[up to a misprint of a factor of 2 in $\chi^{+-}_Q({\bf q},\omega)$].
The dispersion of $\chi^{+-}_{\rm RPA}({\bf q},{\bf q},\omega)$ is indicated
as a solid line in Fig.\ \ref{figspin}(c) and \ref{figspin}(d).
The RPA spin--wave dispersion goes to zero at ${\bf q}=(0,0)$ and
${\bf q}=(\pi,\pi)$, and goes to a finite minimum at ${\bf q}=(0,\pi)$
and ${\bf q}=(\pi,0)$, consistent with the QMC data.
The spin--wave velocity, the width of the bands, and the gaps at
${\bf q}=(0,\pi)$ and ${\bf q}=(\pi,0)$ are also in
reasonable agreement with the QMC data.
The QMC results for the dynamic charge correlation function are shown in
Fig.\ \ref{figcharge} for $t_\perp/t=2.0$ and $t_\perp/t=1.0$.
For $t_\perp/t=2.0$, almost all of the spectral weight is in the
$q_\perp=\pi$ component, so we do not show the $q_\perp=0$ component.
There exist two important features: one is a heavily weighted,
relatively flat band at $\omega \sim 10t$ with heaviest weight near $q=0$.
This band becomes somewhat incoherent as $q$ increases.
The second is a flat, dispersive, less heavily weighted band
with a minimum of order $5t$ near $q=\pi$.
The spectral weight in this band extends from about $q=\pi/4$ to $q=\pi$,
and the size of the charge gap is set by this lightly weighted lower band.
In the large $t_\perp$ limit,
one can understand the structure of the charge response from the LRA
picture described in section \ref{RUNGSINGLET}.
In the single rung picture, a charge excitation will occur through a
transition to an excited state conserving the number of particles on
the rung and the total spin; in
other words, the important transition will be in the middle column of
Fig.\ \ref{figrunglevels}, from the low-lying $S=0$ state to the
higher $S=0$ states.
There are two possible charge excited states on the rung, one with
momentum $k_\perp=0$ (even parity) and one with momentum
$k_\perp=\pi$ (odd parity).
In a single rung picture, an optical transition from the $k_\perp=0$
ground state to a $k_\perp=0$ excited state is forbidden
because the $q_\perp=0$ density operator $O_c(0)$ commutes with
the Hamiltonian.
This selection rule forbidding a $q_\perp=0$ optical transition
remains present when the rung charge excited states are constructed as
in Eq.\ (\ref{eqlocalsing}) and delocalized in a
state like that in Eq.\ (\ref{eqdelocalsing}).
This is why there is almost no spectral weight in the $q_\perp=0$
portion of the charge response for $t_\perp/t=2.0$.
Of course, the system is not exactly in a LRA state, so there will
be some higher order processes that will introduce a very small amount
of spectral weight into the $q_\perp=0$ branch.
The energy of the $q_\perp=\pi$ single rung transition, indicated by a
solid line on the Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(a), gives an excitation energy
that agrees well with energy of the heavily weighted region at $q=0$.
In order to qualitatively understand the origin of the dispersion of
the charge
response, one can consider the possible particle--hole excitations
within the one--particle band structure given by
$A({\bf k},\omega)$ in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}.
There will be significant amplitude in the two--particle charge
response when there is significant amplitude for a transition at a
particular ${\bf q}=(q,q_\perp)$ and $\omega$ for a particle--hole
excitation built up from the one--particle spectral weight.
For example, to understand the heavily weighted amplitude at
${\bf q} = (0,\pi)$, one has to integrate over all transitions from
the photoemission band in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(a) to the inverse
photoemission band in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc2.0}(b) which transfer this
momentum.
Since the single--particle bands are sharp and parallel, one should
obtain a single well--defined peak for ${\bf q} = (0,\pi)$, which we
see in Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(a) by considering excitations between
the $\omega<0$, $k_\perp=0$ band, and the $\omega>0$, $k_\perp=\pi$
band.
In addition, the transition at ${\bf q} = (0,\pi)$ has odd parity
between the chains, and is thus allowed by the selection rules for the
density operator as $q\rightarrow 0$.
As the parallel component $q$ is increased, one can see that there
will be a continuum of excitation energies which gets wider as $q$
increases.
The minimum excitation energy (position of the lower band) from this
construction is shown in Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(a) by the line with
solid dots.
However, the excitation energy obtained
is consistently smaller than the energy of the lowest heavily
weighted band from QMC.
Using the single particle bands to construct the two--particle
excitations is equivalent to calculating the charge response using the
lowest order ``bubble'' diagram, but with exact single--particle
propagators, neglecting all particle--hole interactions.
The particle--hole interactions on the rung, which are included in the
rung eigenenergies, thus raise the charge
excitation energy by a substantial amount\cite{oldhanke}.
For $t_\perp/t=1.0$, the charge response looks quite different.
As shown in Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(b) and (c),
there is substantial spectral weight for both
$q_\perp=0$ and $q_\perp=\pi$.
For ${\bf q} \rightarrow (0,0)$, the density operator has even parity,
causing the matrix element and thus the spectral weight to
vanish, whereas
at ${\bf q} \rightarrow (0,\pi)$, the density operator has odd parity
so that optical transitions are allowed and there is spectral weight.
In both channels, the size of the charge gap is approximately $4t$,
and there is a broad structure of width $\sim 7t$.
For $q_\perp=0$, most of the spectral weight occurs as a dispersive peak
whose energy increases with
increasing $q$, whereas for $q_\perp=\pi$ two peaks seem
to contribute to the spectral weight distribution.
The peaks are not well-defined enough over a range of $q$ to extract a
dispersion, but the upper peak is heavily weighted near $q=\pi$, at
$\omega \approx 9t$.
We can qualitatively understand the broad incoherent structure of the
charge response by considering particle--hole excitation in the single
particle $A({\bf k},\omega)$ in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc1.0}.
There are four dispersive bands and a broad background, so there
should be weight in both the $q_\perp=0$ and $q_\perp=\pi$ branches of
the charge response, and broad structure above a minimum excitation
energy, which we see in Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(c) and (d).
From the single particle bands in Fig.\ \ref{figqmc0.5}, one can
estimate the minimum particle--hole excitation energy to be
$\sim 4t$.
In Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(c) and (d), the spectral weight near this
minimum excitation energy is suppressed due to the particle--hole vertex.
We have also carried out a calculation of charge response
$\chi^{00}_{\text{RPA}}({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)$ within the
antiferromagnetic RPA approximation described above, using the SDW
dispersion in Eq.\ (\ref{eqAFHFdisp}), and also find a
relatively broad structure above the charge gap for both
$q_\perp=0$ and $q_\perp=\pi$.
We plot the minimum excitation energy of
$\chi^{00}_{\text{RPA}}({\bf q},{\bf q}^\prime,\omega)$ in
Fig.\ \ref{figcharge}(b) and (c) as lines with solid dots.
This line is located in the middle of the broad band in both plots.
The spin and charge response functions for $t_\perp/t=0.5$ show the same
general
features as in the isotropic ($t_\perp/t=1.0$) case and are therefore not shown
here. The spin susceptibility $\chi_s({\bf q},\omega)$ is also
qualitatively identical to the RPA result
$\chi^{+-}_{\rm RPA}({\bf q},{\bf q},\omega)$ with a smaller spin velocity
than in the $t_\perp/t=1.0$ case. The charge susceptibility $\chi_c({\bf
q},\omega)$ shows a clear dispersive band centered around the low--lying
RPA excitations in the $q_\perp=0$ channel, whose energy increases with
increasing $q$. In the $q_\perp=\pi$ channel, there is a broad structure
of width $\sim 8t$ with again two peaks in the spectral weight distribution.
\section{\label{CON} CONCLUSION}
In summary, the single and two--particle dynamical properties of the
two chain Hubbard model at half--filling can be understood by starting
from two limits: the limit of non--interacting rungs treated exactly,
which gives a good starting point for the large $t_\perp$ case for
which the spin--spin correlation length along the chains is less than
a lattice spacing, and
the limit of an antiferromagnetically ordered state, which gives a
good starting point for the small $t_\perp$ case when the spin--spin
correlation length is large.
The dynamical properties in the two regimes look quite different.
For the large $t_\perp$ regime, the remnants of the level transitions
of the two site system representing a single rung, suitably broadened
into bands, can explain the major features of
the single--particle, spin and charge responses.
In the small $t_\perp$ case, calculations based on an
antiferromagnetically ordered starting point, such as
antiferromagnetic Hartree--Fock theory and spin--wave theory give a
good qualitative picture of the coherent spin--wave part of the single
particle spectral weight and of the two--particle spin dynamic
correlation function.
In addition, there is a broad incoherent band in the single particle
spectral weight similar to that found in recent numerical work on the
1D and 2D systems.
We also have shown the single particle spectral weight and the spin and charge
response functions for the physical relevant, isotropic case
($t_\perp/t=1.0$). The results are qualitatively similar to these in the small
$t_\perp$ region and can therefore be understood from an antiferromagnetic
Hartree--Fock or spin--wave theory picture. The real ladder compounds
have approximately the same coupling strength parallel to and perpendicular
to the chains, and it will therefore be interesting to
compare these isotropic $t_\perp/t=1.0$ results with future
experiments.
\section*{ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
We would like to thank R.\ Preuss, A.\ Muramatsu, and W.\ Ziegler for
helpful discussions.
H.E., W.H., and R.M.N.\ are grateful to the Bavarian "FORSUPRA" program
on high $T_c$ research and the DFG under Grant No.\ Ha 1537/12-1 for financial
support.
D.P. acknowledges support from the EEC Human Capital and Mobility
program under grant CHRX-CT93-0332, and D.J.S. from the NSF under
Grant No.\ DMR 92-2507.
The calculations were performed on Cray YMP's at the HLRZ in
J\"ulich and at the LRZ M\"unchen.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sect-introduction}
In $3+1$ numerical relativity, one often wishes to locate the black
hole(s) in a (spacelike) slice. As discussed by Refs.~\cite{Hawking-73
Hawking-Ellis}, a black hole is rigorously defined in terms of its
event horizon, the boundary of future null infinity's causal past.
Although the event horizon has, in the words of Hawking and Ellis
(Ref.~\cite{Hawking-Ellis-quote}), ``a number of nice properties'',
it's defined in an inherently {\em acausal\/} manner: it can only be
determined if the entire future development of the slice is known.
(As discussed by Refs.~\cite{ABBLMSSSW-94,LMSSW-95}, in practice the
event horizon may be located to good accuracy given only the usual
numerically generated approximate development to a nearly stationary
state, but the fundamental acausality remains.)
In contrast, an apparent horizon, also known as a marginally outer
trapped surface, is defined (Refs.~\cite{Hawking-73,Hawking-Ellis})
locally in time, within a single slice, as a closed 2-surface whose
outgoing null geodesics have zero expansion. An apparent horizon
is slicing-dependent: if we define a ``world tube'' by taking the
union of the apparent horizon(s) in each slice of a slicing, this
world tube will vary from one slicing to another. In a stationary
spacetime event and apparent horizons coincide, although this generally
isn't the case in dynamic spacetimes. However, given certain technical
assumptions, the existence of an apparent horizon in a slice implies
the existence of an event horizon, and thus by definition a black
hole, containing the apparent horizon. (Unfortunately, the converse
doesn't always hold. Notably, Wald and Iyer (Ref.~\cite{Wald-Iyer-91})
have constructed a family of angularly anisotropic slices in Schwarzschild
spacetime which approach arbitrarily close to $r = 0$ yet contain no
apparent horizons.)
There is thus considerable interest in numerical algorithms to find
apparent horizons in numerically computed slices, both as diagnostic
tools for locating black holes and studying their behavior (see, for
example, Refs.~\cite{ABBLMSSSW-94,ABBHSS-94}), and for use ``on the fly''
during numerical evolutions to help in choosing the coordinates and
``steering'' the numerical evolution (Refs.~\cite{Thornburg-talk-91
Seidel-Suen-92,Thornburg-PhD,ADMSS-95}). This latter context makes
particularly strong demands on a horizon-finding algorithm: Because
the computed horizon position is used in the coordinate conditions,
the horizon must be located quite accurately to ensure that spurious
finite difference instabilities don't develop in the time evolution.
Furthermore, the horizon must be re-located at each time step of the
evolution, so the horizon-finding algorithm should be as efficient as
possible. Finally, when evolving multiple-black-hole spacetimes in
this manner it's desirable to have a means of detecting the appearance
of a new outermost apparent horizon surrounding two black holes which
are about to merge. We discuss this last problem further in
section~\ref{sect-finding-outermost-apparent-horizons}.
In this paper we give a detailed discussion of the \defn{Newton's method}
apparent-horizon-finding algorithm. This algorithm poses the
apparent horizon equation as a nonlinear elliptic (boundary-value)
PDE on angular-coordinate space for the horizon shape function
$r = h(\theta,\phi)$, finite differences this PDE, and uses some
variant of Newton's method to solve the resulting set of simultaneous
nonlinear algebraic equations for the values of $h$ at the
angular-coordinate grid points. This algorithm is suitable for both
axisymmetric and fully-general spacetimes, and we discuss both cases.
As explained in section~\ref{sect-notation}, we assume a locally
polar spherical topology for the coordinates and finite differencing,
though we make no assumptions about the basis used in taking tensor
components.
\section{Notation}
\label{sect-notation}
Our notation generally follows that of Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler
(Ref.~\cite{MTW}), with $G = c = 1$ units and a $(-,+,+,+)$ spacetime
metric signature. We assume the usual Einstein summation convention
for repeated indices regardless of their tensor character, and we use
the Penrose abstract-index notation, as described by (for example)
Ref.~\cite{Wald}. We use the standard $3+1$ formalism of Arnowitt,
Deser, and Misner (Ref.~\cite{ADM-62}) (see Refs.~\cite{York-79
York-83} for recent reviews).
We assume that a specific spacetime and $3+1$ (spacelike) slice are
given, and all our discussions take place within this slice. We use
the term \defn{horizon} to refer to the (an) apparent horizon in this
slice. We often refer to various sets in the slice as being 1, 2,
or 3-dimensional, meaning the number of {\em spatial\/} dimensions --
the time coordinate is never included in the dimensionality count.
For example, we refer to the horizon itself as 2-dimensional.
We assume that the spatial coordinates $x^i \equiv (r,\theta,\phi)$
are such that in some neighborhood of the horizon, surfaces of constant
$r$ are topologically nested 2-spheres with $r$ increasing outward,
and we refer to $r$ as a \defn{radial} coordinate and $\theta$ and
$\phi$ as \defn{angular} coordinates. For pedagogical convenience
(only), we take $\theta$ and $\phi$ to be the usual polar spherical
coordinates, so that if spacetime is axisymmetric (spherically symmetric),
$\phi$ is ($\theta$ and $\phi$ are) the symmetry coordinate(s). However,
we make no assumptions about the detailed form of the coordinates,
i.e.~we allow all components of the 3-metric to be nonzero.
We emphasize that although our assumptions about the local topology
of $r$ are fundamental, our assumptions about the angular coordinates
are for pedagogical convenience only, and could easily be eliminated.
In particular, all our discussions carry over unchanged to multiple
black hole spacetimes, using (for example) either \v{C}ade\v{z}{}
conformal-mapping equipotential coordinates (Ref.~\cite{Cadez-PhD})
or multiple-coordinate-patch coordinate systems (Ref.~\cite{Thornburg-87}).
We use $ijkl$ for spatial (3-) indices, and $uvwxy$ for indices
ranging over the angular coordinates only. $g_{ij}$ denotes the
3-metric in the slice, $g$ its determinant, and $\nabla_i$ the associated
3-covariant derivative operator. $K_{ij}$ denotes the 3-extrinsic
curvature of the slice, and $K$ its trace.
We use $\A$ to denote the 2-dimensional space of angular coordinates
$(\theta,\phi)$. We sometimes need to distinguish between field
variables defined on $\A$ or on the (2-dimensional) horizon, and
field variables defined on a 3-dimensional neighborhood $\N$ of
the horizon. This distinction is often clear from context, but
where ambiguity might arise we use prefixes $\two$ and $\three$
respectively, as in $\two\! H$ and $\three\! H$.
We use italic Roman letters $H$, $h$, etc., to denote {\em continuum\/}
coordinates, functions, differential operators, and other quantities.
We use sans serif Roman letters $\H$, $\h$, etc., to denote grid
functions, and small capital Roman indices $\I$, $\J$, and $\K$ to
index grid points. We use subscript grid-point indices to denote
the evaluation of a continuum or grid function at a particular grid
point, as in $H_\I$ or $\H_\I$. We use $\Jac[\P(\Q)]$ to denote the
Jacobian matrix of the grid function $\P = \P(\Q)$, as defined by
\eqref{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]}, and ${} \cdot {}$ to denote the product of
two such Jacobians or that of a Jacobian and a grid function. We
use $\Jacc[P(Q)]$ to denote the linearization of the differential
operator $P = P(Q)$ about the point $Q$.
We use $\MM$ as a generic finite difference molecule and $\M$ as
a generic index for molecule coefficients. We write $\M \in \MM$
to mean that $\MM$ has a nonzero coefficient at position $\M$.
Temporarily taking $\langle \M \rangle$ to denote some particular
coordinate component of $\M$, we refer to
$\max_{\M \in \MM} | \langle \M \rangle |$ as the \defn{radius} of
$\MM$, and to the number of distinct $\langle \M \rangle$ values
with $\M \in \MM$ as the \defn{diameter} or \defn{number of points}
of $\MM$. (For example, the usual symmetric 2nd~order 3-point molecules
for 1st~and 2nd~derivatives both have radius~1 and diameter~3.) We
often refer to a molecule as itself being a discrete operator, the
actual application to a grid function being implicit.
Given a grid function $f$ and a set of points $\{ x_k \}$ in its
domain, we use \,\,$\interp(f(x), x=a)$\,\, to mean an interpolation
of the values $f(x_k)$ to the point $x=a$ and \,\,$\interp'(f(x), x=a)$\,\,
to mean the derivative of the same interpolant at this point. More
precisely, taking $I$ to be a smooth interpolating function (typically
a Lagrange polynomial) such that $I(x_k) = f(x_k)$ for each $k$,
\,\,$\interp(f(x), x=a)$\,\, denotes $I(a)$ and \,\,$\interp'(f(x), x=a)$\,\,
denotes $\Bigl. (\partial I / \partial x) \Bigr|_{x=a}$.
\section{The Apparent Horizon Equation}
\label{sect-apparent-horizon-equation}
As discussed by (for example) Ref.~\cite{York-89}, an apparent
horizon satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
H \equiv \two\! H \equiv
\nabla_i n^i + K_{ij} n^i n^j - K = 0
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-horizon}
\end{equation}
where $n^i$ is the outward-pointing unit normal to the horizon,
all the field variables are evaluated on the horizon surface, and
where for future use we define the \defn{horizon function}
$H \equiv \two\! H$ as the left hand side of~\eqref{eqn-horizon}.
(Notice that in order for the 3-divergence $\nabla_i n^i$ to be
meaningful, $n^i$ must be (smoothly) continued off the horizon, and
extended to a field $\three n^i$ in some 3-dimensional neighborhood
of the horizon. The off-horizon continuation is non-unique, but
it's easy to see that this doesn't affect $H$ on the horizon.)
To solve the apparent horizon equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon}, we
begin by assuming that the horizon and coordinates are such that
each radial coordinate line $\{ (\theta,\phi)=\text{constant} \}$
intersects the horizon in exactly one point. In other words, we
assume that the horizon's coordinate shape is a \defn{\Strahlkorper},
defined by Minkowski as ``a region in $n$-dimensional Euclidean
space containing the origin and whose surface, as seen from the
origin, exhibits only one point in any direction''
(Ref.~\cite{Schroeder-quote}). Given this assumption, we can
parameterize the horizon's shape by $r = h(\theta,\phi)$ for some
single-valued \defn{horizon shape function} $h$ defined on the
2-dimensional domain $\A$ of angular coordinates $(\theta,\phi)$.
Equivalently, we may write the horizon's shape as $\three\! F = 0$,
where the scalar function $\three\! F$, defined on some 3-dimensional
neighborhood $\N$ of the horizon, satisfies $\three\! F = 0$ if and
only if $r = h(\theta,\phi)$, and we take $\three\! F$ to increase
outward. In practice we take
$\three\! F(r,\theta,\phi) = r - h(\theta,\phi)$.
We define the non-unit outward-pointing normal (field) to the horizon
by
\begin{equation}
s_i \equiv \three\! s_i = \nabla_i \three\! F
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
i.e.~by
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-s-d(h)}
\begin{eqnarray}
s_r & = & 1 \\
s_u & = & - \partial_u h
\, \text{.}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
and the outward-pointing unit normal (field) to the horizon by
\begin{eqnarray}
n^i \equiv \three n^i
& = & \frac{s^i}{\|s^k\|} \\
& = & \frac{g^{ij} s_j}{\sqrt{g^{kl} s_k s_l}}
\label{eqn-n-u(s-d)}
\\
& = & \frac{g^{ir} - g^{iu} \partial_u h}
{ \sqrt{ g^{rr}
- 2 g^{ru} \partial_u h
+ g^{uv} (\partial_u h) (\partial_v h) } }
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-n-u(h)}
\end{eqnarray}
Henceforth we drop the $\three$ prefixes on $\three\! s_i$ and
$\three n^i$.
Substituting \eqref{eqn-n-u(h)} into the apparent horizon
equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon}, we see that the horizon function
$H(h)$ depends on the (angular) 2nd derivatives of $h$. In fact,
the apparent horizon equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon} is a 2nd~order
elliptic (boundary-value) PDE for $h$ on the domain of angular
coordinates $\A$. The apparent horizon equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon}
must therefore be augmented with suitable boundary conditions to
define a (locally) unique solution. These are easily obtained by
requiring the horizon's 3-dimensional shape to be smooth across the
artificial boundaries $\theta = 0$, $\theta = \pi$, $\phi = 0$, and
$\phi = 2\pi$.
\section{Algorithms for Solving the Apparent Horizon Equation}
\label{sect-algorithms-survey}
We now survey various algorithms for solving the apparent horizon
equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon}. Ref.~\cite{Nakamura-Oohara-Kojima-87}
reviews much of the previous work on this topic.
In spherical symmetry, the apparent horizon equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon}
degenerates into a 1-dimensional nonlinear algebraic equation for
the horizon radius $h$. This is easily solved by zero-finding on
the horizon function $H(h)$. This technique has been used by a number
of authors, for example Refs.~\cite{Petrich-Shapiro-Teukolsky-85
Choptuik-PhD,Seidel-Suen-92,ADMSS-95}. (See also
Ref.~\cite{Bizon-Malec-OMurchadha-88} for an interesting analytical
study giving necessary and sufficient conditions for apparent
horizons to form in non-vacuum spherically symmetric spacetimes.)
In an axisymmetric spacetime, the angular-coordinate space $\A$ is
effectively 1-di\-men\-sional, so the apparent horizon
equation~\eqref{eqn-horizon} reduces to a nonlinear 2-point boundary
value (ODE) problem for the function $h(\theta)$, which may be solved
either with a shooting method, or with one of the more general methods
described below. Shooting methods have been used by a number of
authors, for example Refs.~\cite{Cadez-74,Dykema-PhD
Abrahams-Evans-92,Bishop-82,Bishop-84,Shapiro-Teukolsky-92
Abrahams-Heiderich-Shapiro-Teukolsky-92}.
The remaining apparent-horizon-finding algorithms we discuss are all
applicable to either axisymmetric spacetimes (2-dimensional codes) or
fully general spacetimes (3-dimensional codes).
Tod (Ref.~\cite{Tod-91}) has proposed an interesting pair of
\defn{curvature flow} methods for finding apparent horizons.
Bernstein (Ref.~\cite{Bernstein-93}) has tested these methods in
several axisymmetric spacetimes, and reports favorable results.
Unfortunately, the theoretical justification for these methods'
convergence is only valid in time-symmetric ($K_{ij} = 0$) slices.
The next two algorithms we discuss are both based on a pseudospectral
expansion of the horizon shape function $h(\theta,\phi)$ in some
complete set of basis functions (typically spherical harmonics or
symmetric trace-free tensors), using some finite number of the expansion
coefficients $\{ a_k \}$ to parameterize of the horizon shape. One
algorithm rewrites the apparent horizon equation $H(a_k) = 0$ as
$\|H(a_k)\| = 0$, then uses a general-purpose function-minimization
routine to search $\{ a_k \}$-space for a minimum of $\|H\|$. This
algorithm has been used by Refs.~\cite{Brill-Lindquist-63,Eppley-77}
in axisymmetric spacetimes, and more recently by
Ref.~\cite{Libson-Masso-Seidel-Suen-95} in fully general spacetimes.
Alternatively, Nakamura, Oohara, and Kojima
(Refs.~\cite{Nakamura-Kojima-Oohara-84,Oohara-Nakamura-Kojima-85
Oohara-86}) have suggested a functional iteration method for directly
solving the apparent horizon equation $H(a_k) = 0$ for the expansion
coefficients $\{ a_k \}$, and have used it in a number of fully general
spacetimes. Kemball and Bishop (Ref.~\cite{Kemball-Bishop-91}) have
suggested and tested several modifications of this latter algorithm
to improve its convergence properties.
The final algorithm we discuss, and the main subject of this paper,
poses the apparent horizon equation $H(h) = 0$ as a nonlinear elliptic
(boundary-value) PDE for $h$ on the angular-coordinate space $\A$.
Finite differencing this PDE on an angular-coordinate grid
$\{ (\theta_\K,\phi_\K) \}$ gives a set of simultaneous nonlinear
algebraic equations for the unknown values $\{ h(\theta_\K,\phi_\K) \}$,
which are then solved by some variant of Newton's method. This
\defn{Newton's-method} algorithm (we continue to use this term even
if a modification of Newton's method is actually used) has been used
in axisymmetric spacetimes by a number of authors, for example
Refs.~\cite{Eardley-75,Cook-PhD,Cook-York-90,Cook-Abrahams-92
Thornburg-PhD}, and is also applicable in fully general spacetimes
when the coordinates have a (locally) polar spherical topology.
Huq (Ref.~\cite{Huq-talk-93}) has extended this algorithm to fully
general spacetimes with Cartesian-topology coordinates and finite
differencing, and much of our discussion remains applicable to his
extension.
The Newton's-method algorithm has three main parts: the computation
of the discrete horizon function $\H(\h)$, the computation of the
discrete horizon function's Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\H(\h)]$, and the
solution of the simultaneous nonlinear algebraic equations $\H(\h) = 0$.
We now discuss these in more detail.
\section{Computing the Horizon Function}
\label{sect-horizon-function}
In this section we discuss the details of the computation of the
discrete horizon function $\H(\h)$. More precisely, first fix an
angular-coordinate grid $\{ (\theta_\K,\phi_\K) \}$. Then, given a
\defn{trial horizon surface} $r = h(\theta,\phi)$, which need not
actually be an apparent horizon, we define $\h(\theta,\phi)$ to be
the discretization of $h(\theta,\phi)$ to the angular-coordinate
grid, and we consider the computation of $\H(\h)$ on the discretized
trial horizon surface, i.e.~at the points
$\{ ( {r=\h(\theta_\K,\phi_\K)}, {\theta=\theta_\K}, {\phi=\phi_\K} ) \}$.
The apparent horizon equation \eqref{eqn-horizon} defines
$H \equiv \two\! H$ in terms of the field variables and their
spatial derivatives on the trial horizon surface. However, these
are typically known only at the (3-dimensional) grid points of the
underlying $3+1$ code of which the horizon finder is a part. We
therefore extend $\two\! H$ to some (3-dimensional) neighborhood
$\N$ of the trial horizon surface, i.e.~we define an extended
horizon function $\three\! H$ on $\N$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\three\! H
& = & \nabla_i n^i + K_{ij} n^i n^j - K \\
& = & \partial_i n^i
+ (\partial_i \ln \sqrt{g}) n^i
+ K_{ij} n^i n^j
- K
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-3H(n-u)}
\end{eqnarray}
To compute $\two \H(\h)$ on the (discretized) trial horizon surface,
we first compute $\three \H(\h)$ on the underlying $3+1$ code's
(3-dimensional) grid points in $\N$, then radially interpolate these
$\three \H$ values to the trial-horizon-surface position to obtain
$\two \H(\h)$,
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-2H(3H)}
\begin{equation}
\two \H(\theta,\phi)
= \interp \Bigl( \three \H(r,\theta,\phi), r=\h(\theta,\phi) \Bigr)
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
\two \H_\I
= \interp \Bigl( \three \H_{\langle r\I \rangle}, r=\h_\I \Bigr)
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
where $\I$ is an angular grid-point index and the $\langle r\I \rangle$
subscript denotes that the interpolation is done independently at each
angular coordinate along the radial coordinate line
$\{ \theta=\theta_\I, \phi=\phi_\I \}$. In practice any reasonable
interpolation method should work well here: Refs.~\cite{Cook-York-90
Cook-Abrahams-92} report satisfactory results using a spline interpolant;
in this work we use a Lagrange (polynomial) interpolant centered on
the trial-horizon-surface position, also with satisfactory results.
Neglecting the interpolation error, we can also write~\eqref{eqn-2H(3H)}
in the form
\begin{equation}
\two \H(\theta,\phi) = \three \H(r=\h(\theta,\phi), \theta, \phi)
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-2H(3H)-no-interp}
\end{equation}
We consider two basic types of methods for computing the extended
horizon function $\three \H(\h)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item A \defn{2-stage} computation method uses two sequential
numerical finite differencing stages, first explicitly
computing $\s_i$ and/or $\n^i$ by numerically finite
differencing $\h$, then computing $\three \H$ by
numerically finite differencing $\s_i$ or $\n^i$.
\item A \defn{1-stage} computation method uses only a single
numerical (2nd) finite differencing stage, computing
$\three \H$ directly in terms of $\h$'s 1st~and 2nd
angular derivatives.
\end{itemize}
Figure~\ref{fig-H(h)-methods} illustrates this.
To derive the detailed equations for these methods, we substitute
\eqrefs{eqn-s-d(h)} and \eqrefs{eqn-n-u(s-d)} into \eqref{eqn-3H(n-u)}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\three\! H
& = & \nabla_i n^i + K_{ij} n^i n^j - K
\\
& = & \partial_i n^i
+ (\partial_i \ln \sqrt{g}) n^i
+ K_{ij} n^i n^j
- K
\\
& = & \partial_i \frac{g^{ij} s_j}{(g^{kl} s_k s_l)^{1/2}}
+ (\partial_i \ln \sqrt{g})
\frac{g^{ij} s_j}{(g^{kl} s_k s_l)^{1/2}}
+ \frac{K^{ij} s_i s_j}{g^{kl} s_k s_l}
- K
\\
& = & {}
\frac{A}{D^{3/2}}
+ \frac{B}{D^{1/2}}
+ \frac{C}{D}
- K
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-3H(ABCD)}
\end{eqnarray}
where the subexpressions $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$ are given by
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-ABCD(s-d)}
\begin{eqnarray}
A & = & {}
- (g^{ik} s_k) (g^{jl} s_l) \partial_i s_j
- \tfrac{1}{2} (g^{ij} s_j) \Bigl[ (\partial_i g^{kl}) s_k s_l \Bigr]
\\
B & = & (\partial_i g^{ij}) s_j
+ g^{ij} \partial_i s_j
+ (\partial_i \ln \sqrt{g}) (g^{ij} s_j)
\\
C & = & K^{ij} s_i s_j
\\
D & = & g^{ij} s_i s_j
\, \text{,}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
i.e.
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-ABCD(h)}
\begin{eqnarray}
A & = & (g^{ur} - g^{uw} \partial_w h)
(g^{vr} - g^{vw} \partial_w h)
\partial_{uv} h
\nonumber \\
& & \quad
{}
- \tfrac{1}{2}
(g^{ir} - g^{iu} \partial_u h)
\Bigl[
\partial_i g^{rr}
- 2 (\partial_i g^{ru}) \partial_u h
+ (\partial_i g^{uv}) (\partial_u h) (\partial_v h)
\Bigr]
\\
B & = & \Bigl[
\partial_i g^{ir} - (\partial_i g^{iu}) \partial_u h
\Bigr]
- g^{uv} \partial_{uv} h
+ (\partial_i \ln \sqrt{g}) (g^{ir} - g^{iu} \partial_u h)
\\
C & = & K^{rr}
- 2 K^{ru} \partial_u h
+ K^{uv} (\partial_u h) (\partial_v h)
\\
D & = & g^{rr}
- 2 g^{ru} \partial_u h
+ g^{uv} (\partial_u h) (\partial_v h)
\, \text{.}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
Comparing the 1-stage and 2-stage methods, the 2-stage methods'
equations are somewhat simpler, so these methods are somewhat easier
to implement and somewhat cheaper (faster) to compute. However, for
a proper comparison the cost of computing the horizon function must
be considered in conjunction with the cost of computing the horizon
function's Jacobian. Compared to the 1-stage method, the 2-stage
methods double the effective radius of the net $\H(\h)$ finite
differencing molecules, and thus have 2(4)~times as many nonzero
off-diagonal Jacobian elements for a 2(3)-dimensional code. In practice
the cost of computing these extra Jacobian elements for the 2-stage
methods more than outweighs the slight cost saving in evaluating the
horizon function. We discuss the relative costs of the different
methods further in section~\ref{sect-methods-comparison}.
\section{Computing the Jacobian}
\label{sect-Jacobian}
In this section we discuss the details of the computation of the
Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\H(\h)]$ of the horizon function $\H(\h)$ on
a given trial horizon surface.
\subsection{Computing the Jacobian of a Generic Function $\P(\Q)$}
We consider first the case of a generic function $P(Q)$ in $d$~dimensions,
finite differenced using $N$-point molecules. We define the Jacobian
matrix of the discrete $\P(\Q)$ function by
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]}
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\P(\Q)]_{\I\J} = \frac{\partial \P_\I}{\partial \Q_\J}
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
or equivalently by the requirement that
\begin{equation}
\delta \P_\I \equiv
\Bigl[ \P(\Q + \delta \Q) - \P(\Q) \Bigr]_\I
= \Jac[\P(\Q)]_{\I\J} \cdot \delta \Q_\J
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
for any infinitesimal perturbation $\delta \Q$ of $\Q$.
We assume that $\P$ is actually a {\em local\/} grid function of $\Q$,
so the Jacobian matrix is sparse. (For example, this would preclude
the nonlocal 4th~order \defn{compact differencing} methods described by
Refs.~\cite{Ciment-Leventhal-75,Hirsh-75}.) We assume that by exploiting
the locality of the discrete $\P(\Q)$ function, any single $\P_\I$ can
be computed in $O(1)$ time, independent of the grid size.
\subsubsection{Computing Jacobians by Numerical Perturbation}
\label{sect-numerical-perturbation}
We consider two general methods for computing the Jacobian matrix
$\Jac[\P(\Q)]$. The first of these is the \defn{numerical perturbation}
method. This involves numerically perturbing $\Q$ and examining the
resulting perturbation in $\P(\Q)$,
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\P(\Q)]_{\I\J} \approx
\left[ \frac{\P(\Q + \mu \e^{(\J)}) - \P(\Q)}{\mu} \right]_\I
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-NP}
\end{equation}
where $\e^{(\J)}$ is a Kronecker-delta vector defined by
\begin{equation}
\left[ \e^{(\J)} \right]_\I
= \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}
1 & \text{if $\I = \J$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
and $\mu$ is a ``small'' perturbation amplitude. This computation
of the Jacobian proceeds by columns: for each $\J$, $\Q_\J$ is perturbed,
and the resulting perturbation in $\P(\Q)$ gives the $\J$th column of
the Jacobian matrix.
The perturbation amplitude $\mu$ should be chosen to balance the
truncation error of the one-sided finite difference approximation
\eqref{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-NP} against the numerical loss of significance
caused by subtracting the nearly equal quantities $\P(\Q + \mu \e^{(\J)})$
and $\P(\Q)$. Refs.~\cite{Curtis-Reid-74,Stoer-Bulirsch-80-quote}
discuss the choice of $\mu$, and conclude that if $\P(\Q)$ can be
evaluated with an accuracy of $\varepsilon$, then
$\mu \approx \sqrt{\varepsilon}$ ``seems to work the best''. In
practice the choice of $\mu$ isn't very critical for horizon finding.
Values of $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-6}$ seem to work well, and the inaccuracies
in the Jacobian matrix resulting from these values of $\mu$ don't
seem to be a significant problem.
This method of computing Jacobians requires no knowledge of the
$\P(\Q)$ function's internal structure. In particular, the $\P(\Q)$
function may involve arbitrary nonlinear computations, including
multiple sequential stages of finite differencing and/or interpolation.
This method is thus directly applicable to the $\two \H(\h)$ computation.
Assuming that $\P(\Q)$ is already known, computing $\Jac[\P(\Q)]$ by
numerical perturbation requires a total of $N^d$ $\P_\I$ evaluations
at each grid point, i.e.~it requires a perturbed-$\P_\I$ evaluation
for each nonzero Jacobian element.
\subsubsection{Computing Jacobians by Symbolic Differentiation}
\label{sect-symbolic-differentiation}
An alternate method of computing the Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\P(\Q)]$
is by \defn{symbolic differentiation}. This method makes explicit
use of the finite differencing scheme used to compute the discrete
$\P(\Q)$ function.
Suppose first that the continuum $P(Q)$ function is a position-dependent
local {\em linear\/} differential operator, discretely approximated
by a position-dependent local finite difference molecule $\MM$,
\begin{equation}
\P_\I = \sum_{\M \in \MM(\I)} \MM(\I)_\M \Q_{\I+\M}
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-P(Q)-mol}
\end{equation}
Differentiating this, we have
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\P(\Q)]_{\I\J} \equiv \frac{\partial \P_\I}{\partial \Q_\J}
= \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}
\MM(\I)_{\J-\I} & \text{if $\J-\I \in \MM(\I)$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-from-mol}
\end{equation}
so that the molecule coefficients at each grid point give the
corresponding row of the Jacobian matrix.
More generally, suppose $P$ is a position-dependent local nonlinear
algebraic function of $Q$ and some finite number of $Q$'s derivatives,
say
\begin{equation}
P = P(Q, \partial_i Q, \partial_{ij} Q)
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-P(Q)-and-derivs}
\end{equation}
Logically, the Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\P(\Q)]$ is defined
(by \eqref{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]}) in terms of the linearization of the
discrete (finite differenced) $\P(\Q)$ function. However, as
illustrated in figure~\ref{fig-linearize-vs-FD}, if the discretization
(the finite differencing scheme) commutes with the linearization,
we can instead compute the Jacobian by first linearizing the continuum
$P(Q)$ function, then finite differencing this (continuum) linearized
function. (This method of computing the Jacobian is essentially just
the ``Jacobian part'' of the Newton-Kantorovich algorithm for solving
nonlinear elliptic PDEs.)
That is, we first linearize the continuum $P(Q)$ function,
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta P
& = & \frac{\partial P}{\partial Q}
\, {\delta Q}
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_i Q)}
\, \delta \partial_i Q
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_{ij} Q)}
\, \delta \partial_{ij} Q \\
& = & \frac{\partial P}{\partial Q}
\, {\delta Q}
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_i Q)}
\, \partial_i \delta Q
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_{ij} Q)}
\, \partial_{ij} \delta Q
\, \text{.}
\label{eqn-P(Q)-and-derivs-linearized}
\end{eqnarray}
We then view the linearized function $\delta P(\delta Q)$ as a
linear differential operator, and discretely approximate it by
the position-dependent finite difference molecule
\begin{equation}
\MM = \frac{\partial P}{\partial Q} \II
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_i Q)} \dd_i
+ \frac{\partial P}{\partial (\partial_{ij} Q)} \dd_{ij}
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-mol-from-P(Q)-Jac-coeffs}
\end{equation}
where $\II$ is the identity molecule and $\dd_i$ and $\dd_{ij}$ are
finite difference molecules discretely approximating $\partial_i$
and $\partial_{ij}$ respectively. Finally, we apply
\eqref{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-from-mol} to the molecule $\MM$ defined by
\eqref{eqn-mol-from-P(Q)-Jac-coeffs} to obtain the desired Jacobian
matrix $\Jac[\P(\Q)]$.
In practice, there's no need to explicitly form the molecule $\MM$
-- the Jacobian matrix elements can easily be assembled directly from
the known $\II$, $\dd_i$, and $\dd_{ij}$ molecule coefficients and
the \defn{Jacobian coefficients} $\partial P / \partial Q$,
$\partial P / \partial (\partial_i Q)$, and
$\partial P / \partial (\partial_{ij} Q)$. Once these coefficients
are known, the assembly of the actual Jacobian matrix elements is very
cheap, requiring only a few arithmetic operations per matrix element
to evaluate \eqrefs{eqn-mol-from-P(Q)-Jac-coeffs}
and~\eqrefb{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-from-mol}. The main cost of computing a
Jacobian matrix by symbolic differentiation is thus the computation
of the Jacobian coefficients themselves. Depending on the functional
form of the $P(Q)$ function, there may be anywhere from 1 to 10
coefficients, although in practice these often have many common
subexpressions.
In other words, where the numerical perturbation method requires
a $\P_\I$ evaluation per nonzero Jacobian {\em element\/}, the
symbolic differentiation method requires the computation of ``a few''
Jacobian-coefficient subexpressions per Jacobian {\em row\/}. More
precisely, suppose the computation of all the Jacobian coefficients
at a single grid point is $J$ times as costly as a $\P_\I$ evaluation.
Then the symbolic differentiation method is approximately $N^d/J$
times more efficient than the numerical perturbation method.
\subsection{Semantics of the Horizon Function Jacobian}
\label{sect-Jacobian-semantics}
We now consider the detailed semantics of the horizon function
Jacobian. We define the Jacobian of $\H(\h) \equiv \two \H(\h)$,
$\Jac[\H(\h)] \equiv \Jac[\two \H(\h)]$, by
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]}
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\two \H(\h)]_{\I\J} = \frac{d \, \two \H_\I}{d \h_\J}
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
(where $\I$ and $\J$ are angular grid-point indices), or equivalently
by the requirement that
\begin{equation}
\delta \two \H_\I
\equiv \Bigl[ \two \H(\h + \delta \h) - \two \H(\h) \Bigr]_\I
= \Jac[\two \H(\h)]_{\I\J} \cdot \delta \h_\J
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
for any infinitesimal perturbation $\delta \h$. Here $\I$ and $\J$
are both angular (2-dimensional) grid-point indices. Notice that this
definition uses the {\em total\/} derivative $d \, \two \H / d \h$.
This is because $\two \H(\h)$ is defined to always be evaluated
{\em at the position $r = \h(\theta,\phi)$ of the trial horizon surface\/},
so the Jacobian $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ must take into account not only
the direct change in $\two \H$ at a fixed position due to a perturbation
in $\h$, but also the implicit change in $\two \H$ caused by the
field-variable coefficients in $\two \H$ being evaluated at a
perturbed position $r = \h(\theta,\phi)$.
It's also useful to consider the Jacobian $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ of
the extended horizon function $\three \H(\h)$, which we define
analogously by
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-Jac[3H(h)]}
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\three \H(\h)]_{\I\J} = \frac{\partial \, \three \H_\I}{\partial \h_\J}
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
or equivalently by the requirement that
\begin{equation}
\delta \, \three \H_\I
\equiv
\Bigl[ \three \H(\h + \delta \h) - \three \H(\h) \Bigr]_\I
= \Jac[\three \H(\h)]_{\I\J} \cdot \delta \h_\J
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
for any infinitesimal perturbation $\delta \h$. Here $\I$ is a
3-dimensional grid-point index for $\three \H$, while $\J$ is an
(angular) 2-dimensional grid-point index for $\h$. In contrast
to $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$, this definition uses the {\em partial\/}
derivative $\partial \, \three \H / \partial \h$. This is because
we take $\three \H(\h)$ to be evaluated at a fixed position (a
grid point in the neighborhood $\N$ of the trial horizon surface)
{\em which doesn't change with perturbations in $\h$\/}, so
$\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ need only take into account the direct
change in $\three \H$ at a fixed position due to a perturbation
in $\h$.
$\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ thus has much simpler semantics than
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$. We have found $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ very
useful, both as an intermediate variable in the computation of
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ (described in the next section), and also
conceptually, as an aid to {\em thinking\/} about the Jacobians.
\subsection{Computing the Horizon Function Jacobian}
\label{sect-computing-horizon-function-Jacobian}
Table~\ref{tab-methods-comparison} (discussed further in
section~\ref{sect-methods-comparison}) summarizes all the
Jacobian-computation methods in this paper, which we now describe
in detail. We tag each method with a shorthand \defn{code}, which
gives the method's basic properties: whether it computes
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ directly or computes $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ as
an intermediate step, whether it uses symbolic differentiation or
numerical perturbation, and whether it uses a 1-stage or a 2-stage
horizon function computation.
The simplest methods for computing $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ are the
\defn{2-dimensional} ones, which work directly with $\two \H(\h)$
in angular-coordinate space, without computing $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$
as an intermediate step. Since $\two \H(\h)$ isn't given by a
simple molecule operation of the form \eqref{eqn-P(Q)-mol}, symbolic
differentiation isn't directly applicable here. However, numerical
perturbation in angular-coordinate space is applicable, using either
a 1-stage or a 2-stage method to compute $\two \H(\h)$. We refer
to the resulting Jacobian computation methods as the \defn{2d.np.1s}
and \defn{2d.np.2s} methods respectively.
Our remaining methods for computing $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ are
all \defn{3-dimensional} ones, which first explicitly compute
$\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$, then compute $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ from this
in the manner described below.
If $\three \H(\h)$ is computed using the 1-stage method, i.e.~via
\eqrefs{eqn-3H(ABCD)} and~\eqrefb{eqn-ABCD(h)}, then either numerical
perturbation or symbolic differentiation may be used to compute
$\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$. We refer to these as the \defn{3d.np.1s}
and \defn{3d.sd.1s} methods respectively. The symbolic-differentiation
Jacobian coefficients for the 3d.sd.1s method are tabulated in
appendix~\ref{app-SD-Jac-coeffs}.
Alternatively, if $\three \H(\h)$ is computed using a 2-stage
method, then $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ may be computed either by the
simple numerical perturbation of $\three \H(\h)$ (the \defn{3d.np.2s}
method), or by separately computing the Jacobians of the individual
stages and matrix-multiplying them together. For the latter case,
either numerical perturbation or symbolic differentiation may be
used to compute the individual-stage Jacobians, giving the
\defn{3d.np2.2s} and \defn{3d.sd2.2s} methods respectively. The
symbolic-differentiation Jacobian coefficients for the 3d.sd2.2s
method are tabulated in appendix~\ref{app-SD-Jac-coeffs}.
For any of the 3-dimensional methods, once $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$
is known, we compute $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Jac[\two \H(\h)]_{\I\J}
& \equiv &
\frac{d \, \two \H_\I}{d \h_\J}
\\
& = & \frac{d \, \two \H(\theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
{d \h(\theta_\J, \phi_\J)}
\\
& = & \frac{d \,
\three \H(r=\h(\theta_\I,\phi_\I), \theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
{d \h(\theta_\J, \phi_\J)}
\qquad
\text{(by~\eqref{eqn-2H(3H)-no-interp})}
\\
& = & \left.
\frac{\partial \, \three \H(r, \theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
{\partial \h(\theta_\J, \phi_\J)}
\right|_{r = \h(\theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
+
\left.
\frac{\partial \, \three \H(r, \theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
{r}
\right|_{r = \h(\theta_\I, \phi_\I)}
\\
& = & \interp \Bigl(
\Jac[\three \H(\h)]_{{\langle r\I \rangle} \J},
r = \h_\I
\Bigr)
+
\interp' \Bigl(
\three \H_{\langle r\I \rangle}, r = \h_\I
\Bigr)
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]-from-Jac[3H(h)]}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $\langle r\I \rangle$ subscripts in
\eqref{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]-from-Jac[3H(h)]} denote that the interpolations
are done along the radial line $\{ \theta=\theta_\I, \phi=\phi_\I \}$,
analogously to \eqref{eqn-2H(3H)}, and where we neglect the
interpolation errors in~\eqref{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]-from-Jac[3H(h)]}.
Notice that the \,\,$\interp'(\dots)$\,\, term
in~\eqref{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]-from-Jac[3H(h)]} may be computed very cheaply
using the same $\three \H$ data values used in computing $\two \H$,
cf.~\eqref{eqn-2H(3H)}. (The number of $\three \H$ data points used
in the radial interpolation at each angular grid position will probably
have to be increased by one to retain the same order of accuracy in the
\,\,$\interp'(\dots)$\,\, term in \eqref{eqn-Jac[2H(h)]-from-Jac[3H(h)]}
as in the \,\,$\interp(\dots)$\,\, term.) It's thus easy to compute
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ once $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ is known.
\subsection{Comparing the Methods}
\label{sect-methods-comparison}
Table~\ref{tab-methods-comparison} summarizes all the
horizon-function and Jacobian computation methods described
in sections~\ref{sect-horizon-function}
and~\ref{sect-computing-horizon-function-Jacobian}. The table also
shows which Jacobian matrices the methods use, the methods' measured
relative CPU times in our axisymmetric-spacetime (2-dimensional) code
(discussed further in appendix~\ref{app-code-details}), and our
estimates of the methods' approximate implementation effort
(programming complexity).
As can be seen from the table, for our implementation the 3d.sd.1s
method is by far the most efficient of the Jacobian computation
methods, being about a factor of $5$ faster than any of the numerical
perturbation methods. In fact, the computation of the Jacobian
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ by the 3d.sd.1s method is only $1.5$--$2$ times
more expensive than the simple evaluation of the horizon function
$\two \H(\h)$.
The relative performance of the different methods will of course
vary considerably from one implementation to another, and especially
between axisymmetric-spacetime (2-dimensional) and fully-general-spacetime
(3-dimensional) codes. However, counting the number of operations
needed for each method shows that the 3d.sd.1s method should remain
the fastest for any reasonable implementation. (We omit details of
the counting in view of their length and lack of general interest.)
Notably, the 3d.sd.1s method's relative advantage over the other
methods should be approximately a factor of the molecule diameter
{\em larger\/} for fully-general-spacetime (3-dimensional) codes
than for axisymmetric-spacetime (2-dimensional) codes such as ours.
Considering now the implementation efforts required by the various
methods, in general we find that these depend more on which Jacobian
matrices are involved than on how the Jacobians are computed: The
2-dimensional methods, involving only $\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$, are the
easiest to implement, while the 3-dimensional methods involving (only)
$\Jac[\two \H(\h)]$ and $\Jac[\three \H(\h)]$ are somewhat harder to
implement. The 3-dimensional methods involving the individual-stage
Jacobians $\Jac[\s_i(\h)]$, $\Jac[\n^i(\h)]$, $\Jac[\three \H(\s_i)]$,
and/or $\Jac[\three \H(\n^i)]$ are considerably more difficult to
implement, due to these Jacobians' more complicated sparsity patterns.
All the Jacobian matrices are highly sparse, and for reasonable
efficiency it's essential to exploit this sparsity in their storage
and computation. We have done this in our code, and our CPU-time
measurements and implementation-effort estimates all reflect this.
We briefly describe our sparse-Jacobian storage scheme in
appendix~\ref{app-sparse-Jacobian-storage}. This scheme is very
efficient, but its programming is a significant fraction of the
overall Jacobian implementation effort, especially for the
individual-stage Jacobians.
Comparing numerical perturbation and symbolic differentiation methods,
we had previously suggested (Ref.~\cite{Thornburg-PhD-SD-Jac-comments})
that symbolic-differentiation Jacobian computations would be very
difficult to implement, necessarily requiring substantial support
from a (computer) symbolic computation system. Several colleagues
have expressed similar opinions to us. We had also previous suggested
(Ref.~\cite{Thornburg-PhD-SD-Jac-comments}) that due to the structure
of the $H(h)$ function, a Jacobian-coefficient formalism of the type
described in sections~\ref{sect-symbolic-differentiation}
and~\ref{sect-computing-horizon-function-Jacobian} would not be
valid for the horizon function, so symbolic differentiation methods
would require explicitly differentiating the finite difference
equations.
These suggestions have proven to be incorrect: using the
Jacobian-coefficient formalism described in
sections~\ref{sect-symbolic-differentiation}
and~\ref{sect-computing-horizon-function-Jacobian}, only the continuum
equations need be differentiated, and this is easily done by hand.
More generally, using this formalism we find the actual programming
of the symbolic differentiation methods to be only moderately more
difficult than that of the numerical perturbation methods. Some of
the Jacobian coefficients tabulated in appendix~\ref{app-SD-Jac-coeffs}
are fairly complicated, but no more so than many other computations
in $3+1$ numerical relativity.
In order to be confident of the correctness of any of the
Jacobian-computation methods except the simple 2-dimensional
numerical perturbation ones, we feel that it's highly desirable to
program an independent method (which may be programmed for simplicity
at the expense of efficiency) and make an end-to-end comparison of
the resulting Jacobian matrices. (We have successfully done this
for each of the Jacobian matrices computed by each of the methods
listed in table~\ref{tab-methods-comparison}, and our implementation-effort
estimates there include doing this.) If, and only if, the Jacobians
agree to within the expected truncation error of the numerical-perturbation
Jacobian approximation~\eqref{eqn-Jac[P(Q)]-NP}, then we can have a
high degree of confidence that both calculations are correct. If
they disagree, then we find the detailed pattern of which matrix
elements differ to be a very useful debugging aid.
Summarizing our comparisons, then, we find that the best Jacobian
computation method is clearly the 3d.sd.1s one. It's much more
efficient than any of the other methods, and still quite easy to
implement.
\section{Convergence Tests}
\label{sect-convergence-tests}
Before continuing our discussion of Newton's-method horizon finding,
in this section we digress to consider the convergence of finite
differencing computations to the continuum limit.
As has been forcefully emphasized by Choptuik
(Refs.~\cite{Choptuik-PhD,Choptuik-91,Choptuik-Goldwirth-Piran-92}),
a careful comparison of a finite differencing code's numerical results
at different grid resolutions can yield very stringent tests of the
code's numerical performance and correctness. In particular, such
\defn{convergence tests} can yield reliable numerical estimates of a
code's {\em external\/} errors, i.e.~of the deviation of the code's
results from those that would be obtained by exactly solving the
continuum equations. With, and only with, such estimates available,
we can safely draw inferences about solutions of the continuum equations
from the code's (finite-resolution) numerical results.
To apply this technique in the horizon-finding context, suppose first
that the (a) true (continuum) apparent horizon position $h^\ast$ is
known. For a convergence test in this case, we run the horizon finder
twice, using a 1:2 ratio of grid resolutions. As discussed in detail
by Ref.~\cite{Choptuik-91}, if the code's numerical errors are dominated
by truncation errors from $n$th~order finite differencing, the numerically
computed horizon positions $\h$ must satisfy
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-h(dx:dx/2)}
\begin{eqnarray}
\h[\Delta x]
& = & h^\ast + (\Delta x)^n f + O((\Delta x)^{n+2})
\label{eqn-h(dx:dx/2)-dx}
\\
\h[\Delta x / 2]
& = & h^\ast + (\Delta x / 2)^n f + O((\Delta x)^{n+2})
\label{eqn-h(dx:dx/2)-dx/2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
at each grid point, where $\h[\Delta x]$ denotes the numerically
computed horizon position using grid resolution $\Delta x$, and $f$
is an $O(1)$ smooth function depending on various high order derivatives
of $h^\ast$ and the field variables, but {\em not\/} on the grid
resolution. (We're assuming centered finite differencing here in
writing the higher order terms as $O((\Delta x)^{n+2})$, otherwise
they would only be $O((\Delta x)^{n+1})$.) Neglecting the higher order
terms, i.e.~in the limit of small $\Delta x$, we can eliminate $f$ to
obtain a direct relationship between the code's errors at the two
resolutions,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\h[\Delta x / 2] - h^\ast}{\h[\Delta x] - h^\ast}
= \frac{1}{2^n}
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-conv-test-dx:dx/2}
\end{equation}
which must hold at each grid point common to the two grids.
To test how well any particular set of (finite-resolution) numerical
results satisfies this convergence criterion, we plot a scatterplot
of the high-resolution errors $\h[\Delta x / 2] - h^\ast$ against the
low-resolution errors $\h[\Delta x] - h^\ast$ at the grid points common
to the two grids. If, and given the arguments of Ref.~\cite{Choptuik-91},
in practice {\em only\/} if, the error expansions~\eqref{eqn-h(dx:dx/2)}
are valid with the higher order error terms negligible, i.e.~if and only
if the errors are indeed dominated by the expected $n$th~order finite
difference truncation errors, then all the points in the scatterplot
will fall on a line through the origin with slope $1/2^n$.
Now suppose the true (continuum) apparent horizon position $h^\ast$ is
unknown. For a convergence test in this case, we run the horizon finder
three times, using a 1:2:4 ratio of grid resolutions. Analogously to
the 2-grid case, we now have
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-h(dx:dx/2:dx/4)}
\begin{eqnarray}
\h[\Delta x]
& = & h^\ast + (\Delta x)^n f + O((\Delta x)^{n+2})
\\
\h[\Delta x / 2]
& = & h^\ast + (\Delta x / 2)^n f + O((\Delta x)^{n+2})
\\
\h[\Delta x / 4]
& = & h^\ast + (\Delta x / 4)^n f + O((\Delta x)^{n+2})
\, \text{,}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{mathletters}
at each grid point, with $f$ again independent of the grid resolution.
Again neglecting the higher order terms, we can eliminate both $f$
and $h^\ast$ to obtain the \defn{3-grid} convergence criterion
\begin{equation}
\frac{\h[\Delta x / 2] - \h[\Delta x / 4]}{\h[\Delta x] - \h[\Delta x / 2]}
= \frac{1}{2^n}
\label{eqn-conv-test-dx:dx/2:dx/4}
\end{equation}
which must hold at each grid point common to the three grids. We
test this criterion using a scatterplot technique analogous to that
for the 2-grid criterion~\eqref{eqn-conv-test-dx:dx/2}.
We emphasize that for a 3-grid convergence test of this type, the
true continuum solution $h^\ast$ need not be known. In fact, nothing
in the derivation actually requires $h^\ast$ to be the true continuum
horizon position -- it need only be the true continuum solution to
some continuum equation such that the truncation error formulas
\eqref{eqn-h(dx:dx/2:dx/4)} hold. We make use of this latter case
in sections~\ref{sect-Newton-Kantorovich-method}
and~\ref{sect-global-conv-HSF-errors} to apply 3-grid convergence
tests to intermediate Newton iterates (trial horizon surfaces) of
our horizon finder.
For both the 2-grid and the 3-grid convergence test, we find that
the {\em pointwise\/} nature of the scatterplot comparison makes it
significantly more useful than a simple comparison of gridwise norms.
In particular, the scatterplot comparison clearly shows convergence
problems which may occur only in a small subset of the grid points
(for example near a boundary), which would be ``washed out'' in a
comparison of gridwise norms.
Notice also that the parameter $n$, the order of the convergence, is
(should be) known in advance from the form of the finite differencing
scheme. Thus the slope-$1/2^n$ line with which the scatterplot points
are compared isn't fitted to the data points, but is rather an a~priori
prediction with {\em no\/} adjustable parameters. Convergence tests
of this type are thus a very strong test of the validity of the finite
differencing scheme and the error expansions \eqref{eqn-h(dx:dx/2)}
or~\eqref{eqn-h(dx:dx/2:dx/4)}.
\section{Solving the Nonlinear Algebraic Equations}
\label{sect-nonlinear-algebraic-equations}
Returning to our specific discussion of horizon finding, we now
discuss the details of using Newton's method or a variant to solve
the simultaneous nonlinear algebraic equations $\H(\h) = 0$.
\subsection{Newton's Method}
\label{sect-Newton's-method}
The basic Newton's-method algorithm is well known: At each iteration,
we first linearize the discrete $\H(\h)$ function about the current
approximate solution $\h^{(k)}$,
\begin{equation}
\H(\h^{(k)} + \delta \h)
= \H(\h^{(k)})
+ \Jac[\H(\h^{(k)})] \cdot \delta \h
+ O(\|\delta \h\|^2)
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-H(h)-linearized}
\end{equation}
where $\delta \h$ now denotes a finite perturbation in $\h$, and
where $\Jac[\H(\h^{(k)})]$ denotes the Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\H(\h)]$
evaluated at the point $\h = \h^{(k)}$. We then neglect the higher
order (nonlinear) terms and solve for the perturbation $\delta \h^{(k)}$
such that $\H(\h^{(k)} + \delta \h^{(k)}) = 0$. This gives the
simultaneous linear algebraic equations
\begin{equation}
\Jac[\H(\h^{(k)})] \cdot \delta \h^{(k)} = - \H(\h^{(k)})
\label{eqn-Newton-delta-h}
\end{equation}
to be solved for $\delta \h^{(k)}$. Finally, we update the approximate
solution via
\begin{equation}
\h^{(k+1)} \leftarrow \h^{(k)} + \delta \h^{(k)}
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-Newton-h-update}
\end{equation}
and repeat the iteration until some convergence criterion is satisfied.
Notice that here we're using the word ``convergence'' in a very
different sense from that of section~\ref{sect-convergence-tests}
-- here it refers to the \defn{iteration-convergence} of the Newton
iterates $\h^{(k)}$ to the exact solution $\h^\ast$ of the discrete
equations, whereas there it refers to the
\defn{finite-difference-convergence} of a finite difference
computation result $\h[\Delta x]$ to its continuum limit $h^\ast$
as the grid resolution is increased.
Once the current solution estimate $\h^{(k)}$ is reasonably close
to $\h^\ast$, i.e.~in practice once the trial horizon surface is
reasonably close to the (an) apparent horizon, Newton's method converges
extremely rapidly. In particular, once the linear approximation in
\eqref{eqn-H(h)-linearized} is approximately valid, Newton's method
roughly squares the relative error $\|\h - \h^\ast\| / \|\h^\ast\|$
at each iteration, and can thus bring the error down to a negligible
value in only a few (more) iterations. (This rapid \defn{quadratic}
convergence depends critically on the mutual consistency of the horizon
function and Jacobian matrix used in the computation, and is thus a
useful diagnostic for monitoring the Jacobian's correctness.) (For a
detailed discussion of Newton's method, including precise formulations
and proofs of these statements, see, for example,
Ref.~\cite{Stoer-Bulirsch-80-Newton's-method}.)
However, if the initial guess $\h^{(0)}$ for the horizon position, or
more generally any Newton iterate (trial horizon surface) $\h^{(k)}$,
differs sufficiently from $\h^\ast$ so that the linear approximation
in \eqref{eqn-H(h)-linearized} isn't approximately valid, then Newton's
method may converge poorly, or fail to converge at all.
\subsection{Modifications of Newton's Method}
\label{sect-modifications-of-Newton's-method}
Unfortunately, as discussed in section~\ref{sect-global-conv-HSF-errors},
for certain types of initial guesses Newton's method fails to converge
unless the initial guess is very close to the exact solution of the
finite difference equations. There's an extensive numerical analysis
literature on more robust \defn{modified Newton} algorithms for solving
nonlinear algebraic equations, for example Refs.~\cite{Bank-Rose-80
Bank-Rose-81,Dennis-Schnabel-83,MINPACK,Numerical-Recipes-2nd-edition
ZIB-90-11,ZIB-91-10}. We have found Ref.~\cite{Dennis-Schnabel-83} to
be a particularly useful introduction to this topic.
For horizon finding, the Jacobian matrix's size is the number of
angular grid points on the horizon surface. This is generally large
enough that it's important for the nonlinear-algebraic-equations
solver to support treating the Jacobian as either a band matrix
(for axisymmetric-spacetime codes) or a fully general sparse matrix
(for fully-general-spacetime codes). It's also desirable for the
nonlinear-algebraic-equation solver to permit explicit bounds on the
solution vector, so as to ensure the trial horizon surfaces never
fall outside the radial extent of the code's main 3-dimensional grid.
Unfortunately, these requirements rule out many nonlinear-algebraic-equation
software packages.
For the sake of expediency, in the present work we chose to write
our own implementation of a relatively simple modified-Newton
algorithm, the \defn{line search} algorithm described by
Refs.~\cite{Dennis-Schnabel-83,Numerical-Recipes-2nd-edition}.
However, a much better long-term solution would be to use an extant
nonlinear-algebraic-equations code embodying high-quality implementations
of more sophisticated algorithms, such as the {\sc GIANT} code described
by Refs.~\cite{ZIB-90-11,ZIB-91-10}. We would expect Newton's-method
horizon-finding codes using such software to be considerably more
robust and efficient than our present code.
The modified-Newton algorithm used in this work, the line-search
algorithm of Refs.~\cite{Dennis-Schnabel-83,Numerical-Recipes-2nd-edition},
is identical to the basic Newton's-method algorithm, except that
the Newton's-method update \eqref{eqn-Newton-h-update} is modified
to $\h^{(k+1)} \leftarrow \h^{(k)} + \lambda \, \delta \h^{(k)}$,
where $\lambda \in (0,1]$ is chosen at each \defn{outer} iteration
by an inner \defn{line search} iteration to ensure that $\|\H\|_2$
decreases monotonically. Refs.~\cite{Dennis-Schnabel-83
Numerical-Recipes-2nd-edition} show that such a choice of $\lambda$
is always possible, and describe an efficient algorithm for it.
Sufficiently close to the solution $\h^\ast$, this algorithm always
chooses $\lambda = 1$, and so takes the same steps as Newton's method.
The overall modified-Newton algorithm thus retains the extremely
rapid convergence of Newton's method once the linear approximation
in \eqref{eqn-H(h)-linearized} is good.
The line-search algorithm described by Refs.~\cite{Dennis-Schnabel-83
Numerical-Recipes-2nd-edition} always begins by trying the basic Newton
step $\lambda = 1$. For horizon finding, we have slightly modified
the algorithm to decrease the starting value of $\lambda$ if necessary
to ensure that $\h^{(k)} + \lambda \, \delta \h^{(k)}$ lies within
the radial extent of our code's main (3-dimensional) numerical grid
at each angular grid coordinate. Our implementation of the algorithm
also enforces an upper bound (typically 10\%) on the relative change
$\|\lambda \, \delta \h^{(k)} / \h^{(k)}\|_\infty$ in any component
of $\h^{(k)}$ in a single outer iteration. However, it's not clear
whether or not this latter restriction is a good idea: although it
makes the algorithm more robust when the $\H(\h)$ function is highly
nonlinear, it may slow the algorithm's convergence when the $\H(\h)$
function is only weakly nonlinear and the error in the initial guess
is large. We give an example of this latter behavior in
section~\ref{sect-accuracy}.
\subsection{The Newton-Kantorovich Method}
\label{sect-Newton-Kantorovich-method}
We have described the Newton's-method algorithm, and the more robust
modified versions of it, in terms of solving the discrete $\H(\h) = 0$
equations. However, these algorithms can also be interpreted
directly in terms of solving the continuum $H(h) = 0$ equations.
This \defn{Newton-Kantorovich} method, and its relationship to the
discrete Newton's method, are discussed in detail by Ref.~\cite{Boyd}.
For the Newton-Kantorovich algorithm, at each iteration, we first
linearize the continuum differential operator $H(h)$ about the current
continuum approximate solution $h^{(k)}$,
\begin{equation}
H(h^{(k)} + \delta h)
= H(h^{(k)}) + \Jacc[H(h^{(k)})] (\delta h) + O(\|\delta h\|^2)
\, \text{,}
\label{eqn-continuum-H(h)-linearized}
\end{equation}
where $\delta h$ is now a finite perturbation in $h$, and where the
linear differential operator $\Jacc[H(h^{(k)})]$ is now the linearization
of the differential operator $H(h)$ about the point $h = h^{(k)}$.
We then neglect the higher order (nonlinear) terms and solve for the
perturbation $\delta h^{(k)}$ such that $H(h^{(k)} + \delta h^{(k)}) = 0$.
This gives the linear differential equation
\begin{equation}
\Jacc[H(h^{(k)})](\delta h^{(k)}) = - H(h^{(k)})
\label{eqn-Newton-Kantorovich-dh}
\end{equation}
to be solved for $\delta h^{(k)}$. Finally, we update the approximate
solution via
\begin{equation}
h^{(k+1)} \leftarrow h^{(k)} + \delta h^{(k)}
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
and repeat the iteration until some convergence criterion is satisfied.
Now suppose we discretely approximate this continuum Newton-Kantorovich
algorithm by finite differencing the iteration equation
\eqref{eqn-Newton-Kantorovich-dh}. If the finite differencing and
the linearization commute in the manner discussed in
section~\ref{sect-symbolic-differentiation}, then {\em this
finite-difference approximation to the Newton-Kantorovich algorithm
is in fact identical to the discrete Newton's-method algorithm applied
to the (discrete) $\H(\h) = 0$ equations obtained by finite differencing
the continuum $H(h) = 0$ equation\/}. (In a simpler context, our
Jacobian-coefficient formalism described in
section~\ref{sect-symbolic-differentiation} essentially just exploits
the ``Jacobian part'' of this identity.)
Therefore, when using the discrete Newton's method to solve the
$\H(\h) = 0$ equations, we can equivalently view each Newton iterate
(trial horizon surface) $\h^{(k)}[\Delta x]$ as being a finite difference
approximation to the corresponding continuum Newton-Kantorovich iterate
(trial horizon surface) $h^{(k)}$. As the grid resolution is increased,
each Newton iterate $\h^{(k)}[\Delta x]$ should therefore show proper
finite-difference-convergence {\em regardless of the iteration-convergence
or iteration-divergence of the Newton or Newton-Kantorovich iteration
itself\/}.
Moreover, once we verify the individual Newton iterates'
finite-differencing-convergence (with a 3-grid convergence test), we
can safely extrapolate the iteration-convergence or iteration-divergence
of this discrete iteration to that of the continuum Newton-Kantorovich
algorithm applied to the (continuum) $H(h) = 0$ equations. In other
words, by this procedure we can ascribe the iteration-convergence or
iteration-divergence of Newton's method to inherent properties of the
continuum $H(h) = 0$ equations, as opposed to (say) a finite differencing
artifact. We make use of this in section~\ref{sect-global-conv-HSF-errors}.
\section{Global Convergence of the Horizon Finder}
\label{sect-global-convergence}
We now consider the global convergence behavior of the Newton's-method
horizon finding algorithm. That is, how close must the initial guess
$\h^{(0)}$ be to the (an) exact solution $\h^\ast$ of the finite
difference equations in order for the iterates (trial horizon surfaces)
$\h^{(k)}$ to converge to $\h^\ast$? In other words, how large is the
algorithm's radius of convergence?
\subsection{Global Convergence for Schwarzschild Spacetime}
To gain a general picture of the qualitative behavior of $H(h)$ and
its implications for Newton's-method horizon finding, it's useful to
consider Schwarzschild spacetime. We use the Eddington-Finkelstein
slicing, where the time coordinate is defined by requiring $t + r$
to be an ingoing null coordinate. (These slices aren't maximal: $K$
is nonzero and spatially variable throughout the slices.)
Taking the black hole to be of dimensionless unit mass, the (only)
apparent horizon in such a slice is the coordinate sphere $r = 2$.
More generally, a straightforward calculation gives
\begin{equation}
H = \frac{2 (r-2)}{r^{3/2} \sqrt{r + 2}}
\end{equation}
for spherical trial horizon surfaces with coordinate radius $r$.
Figure~\ref{fig-Schw-H} shows $H(r)$ for these surfaces. As expected,
$H = 0$ for the horizon $r = 2$. However, notice that $H$ reaches a
maximum value at $r = r^{\max} = \tfrac{1}{2} (3 + \sqrt{33}) \approx 4.372$,
and in particular that for $r > r^{\max}$, $H > 0$ and $dH / dr < 0$.
Because of this, almost any algorithm -- including Newton's method
and its variants -- which tries to solve $H(r) = 0$ using only local
information about $H(r)$, and which maintains the spherical symmetry,
will diverge towards infinity when started from within this region,
or if any intermediate iterate (trial horizon surface) ever enters it.
In fact, we expect broadly similar behavior for $H$ in any black hole
spacetime: Given an asymptotically flat slice containing an apparent
horizon or horizons, consider any 1-parameter family of topologically
2-spherical nested trial horizon surfaces starting at the outermost
apparent horizon and extending outward towards the 2-sphere at spatial
infinity. $H = 0$ for the horizon and for the 2-sphere at spatial
infinity, so $\|H\|$ must attain a maximum for some finite trial horizon
surface somewhere between these two surfaces. We thus expect the
same general behavior as in the Schwarzschild-slice case, i.e.~divergence
to infinity if the initial guess or any intermediate iterate (trial
horizon surface) lies outside the maximum-$\|H\|$ surface. This
argument isn't completely rigorous, since the algorithm could move
inward in an angularly anisotropic manner, but this seems unlikely.
Fortunately, in practice this isn't a problem: the black hole area
theorem places an upper bound on the size of an apparent horizon,
and this lets us avoid overly-large initial guesses, or restart the
Newton iteration if any intermediate iterate (trial horizon surface)
is too large.
\subsection{Global Convergence in the Presence of
High-Spatial-Frequency Errors}
\label{sect-global-conv-HSF-errors}
Assuming the initial guess is close enough to the horizon for the
divergence-to-infinity phenomenon not to occur, we find the global
convergence behavior of Newton's method to depend critically on the
angular spatial frequency spectrum of the initial guess's error
$\h^{(0)} - \h^\ast$: If the error has only low-spatial-frequency
components (in a sense to be clarified below), then Newton's method
has a large radius of convergence, i.e.~it will converge even for
a rather inaccurate initial guess. However, {\em if the error has
significant high-spatial-frequency components, then we find that
Newton's method has a very small radius of convergence, i.e.~it often
fails to converge even when the error $\h^{(0)} - \h^\ast$ is very
small\/}.
This behavior is {\em not\/} an artifact of insufficient resolution
in the finite difference grid. Rather, it appears to be caused by a
strong nonlinearity in the continuum $H(h)$ function for high-spatial-frequency
components in $h$. In this context there's no sharp demarcation
between ``low'' and ``high'' spatial frequencies, but in practice we
use the terms to refer to angular Fourier components varying as (say)
$\cos m\theta$ with $m \lesssim 4$ and $m \gtrsim 8$ respectively.
\subsubsection{An Example}
As an example of this behavior, consider Kerr spacetime with
dimensionless angular momentum $a \equiv J/M^2 = 0.6$. We use the
Kerr slicing, where the time coordinate is defined by requiring
$t + r$ to be an ingoing null coordinate. (These slices generalize
the Eddington-Finkelstein slices of Schwarzschild spacetime, and are
similarly nonmaximal, with $K$ nonzero and spatially variable throughout
the slices.) Taking the black hole to be of dimensionless unit mass,
the (only) apparent horizon in such a slice is the coordinate sphere
$r = h^\ast(\theta,\phi) = 1 + \sqrt{1 - a^2} = 1.8$.
For this example we consider two different initial guesses for
the horizon position: one containing only low-spatial-frequency
errors, $r = h^{(0)}(\theta,\phi) = 1.8 + 0.1 \cos 4 \theta$, and one
containing significant high-spatial-frequency errors,
$r = h^{(0)}(\theta,\phi) = 1.8 + 0.1 \cos 10 \theta$. Notice that
both initial guesses are quite close to the actual horizon shape,
differing from it by slightly less than 5\%. We use a finite
difference grid with $\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50}$, which
is ample to resolve all the trial horizon surfaces occurring in
the example.
Figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-Kerr-hp4-hp10}(a)} shows the behavior of
Newton's method for the low-spatial-frequency-error initial guess.
As can be seen, here Newton's method converges without difficulty.
Figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-Kerr-hp4-hp10}(b)} shows the behavior of
Newton's method for the high-spatial-frequency-error initial guess.
Here Newton's method fails to converge: the successive iterates
(trial horizon surfaces) $\h^{(k)}$ move farther and farther away
the horizon, and rapidly become more and more nonspherical.
Figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-Kerr-hp4-hp10}(c)} shows the behavior of the
modified Newton's method for this same high-spatial-frequency-error
initial guess. Although the first iteration still moves the trial
horizon surface somewhat inward from the horizon, the nonsphericity
damps rapidly, and the successive iterates (trial horizon surfaces)
quickly converge to the horizon.
Notice that all the intermediate iterates (trial horizon surfaces)
in this example are well-resolved by the finite difference grid. To
verify that insufficient grid resolution isn't a factor in the behavior
of the horizon finder here, we have rerun all three parts of this example
with several higher grid resolutions, obtaining results essentially
identical to those plotted here.
More quantitatively, following our discussion of the Newton-Kantorovich
method in section~\ref{sect-Newton-Kantorovich-method}, we have made
3-grid convergence tests of each intermediate iterate (trial horizon
surface) in this example. For example, figure~\ref{fig-Kerr-hp10-Newton-conv}
shows a 3-grid convergence test for the Newton iterate (trial horizon
surface) $\h^{(2)}$ plotted in figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-Kerr-hp4-hp10}(b)},
using grids with resolutions
$\Delta \theta
= \frac{\pi/2}{50}$:$\frac{\pi/2}{100}$:$\frac{\pi/2}{200}$.
Notice that despite the iteration-divergence of the Newton iteration,
this iterate shows excellent 4th~order finite-difference-convergence.
The other Newton and modified-Newton iterates (trial horizon surfaces)
in our example all similarly show excellent 4th~order
finite-difference-convergence.
We conclude that the iteration-divergence of Newton's method seen in
figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-Kerr-hp4-hp10}(b)}, is in fact an inherent property
of the continuum Newton-Kantorovich algorithm for this initial guess
and slice. Looking at the internal structure of this algorithm, we
see that its only approximation is the linearization of the continuum
$H(h)$ function in \eqref{eqn-continuum-H(h)-linearized}, so the
algorithm's iteration-divergence must (can only) be due to nonlinearity
in the continuum $H(h)$ function.
\subsubsection{The Horizon-Perturbation Survey}
To investigate how general the poor convergence of Newton's method
seen in this example is, and to what extent it also occurs for the
modified Newton's method, we have made a Monte Carlo numerical survey
of both algorithms' behavior over a range of different initial-guess-error
spatial frequency spectra.
For this survey we first fix a particular horizon-finding algorithm.
Suppose we are given a slice containing an apparent horizon at the
continuum position $h^\ast$, and consider running the horizon finder
with the generic perturbed initial guess
\begin{equation}
h = h^\ast
+ \sum_{{\scriptstyle m = 0} \atop {\scriptstyle \text{$m$ even}}}
^M
c_m \cos m\theta
\end{equation}
for some set of initial-guess-error Fourier coefficients $\{ c_m \}$.
(Here we include only even-$m$ cosine terms in $\theta$ so as to
preserve axisymmetry and equatorial reflection symmetry, which our
code requires.)
For each value of $M$ we define the horizon finder's
\defn{convergence region} in $\{ c_m \}$-space to be the set of
coefficients $\{ c_m \}$ for which the horizon finder converges
(we presume to the correct solution). For example, the convergence
region will in practice always include the origin in $\{ c_m \}$-space,
since there $h = h^\ast$, so the initial guess differs from the
exact solution of the discrete $\H(\h) = 0$ equations only by the
small $\H(\h)$ finite differencing error.
We define $V_M$ to be the (hyper)volume of the convergence region.
As described in detail in appendix~\ref{app-hps-details}, we estimate
$V_M$ by Monte Carlo sampling in $\{ c_m \}$-space. Given $V_M$, we
then define the \defn{volume ratio}
\begin{equation}
R_M = \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\quad}l}
V_0 & \text{if $M = 0$} \\[1ex]
{\displaystyle \frac{V_M}{V_{M-2}}}
& \text{if $M \geq 2$}
\end{array}
\right.
\, \text{,}
\end{equation}
so that $R_M$ measures the average radius of convergence of the
horizon finder in the $c_M$ dimension.
\subsubsection{Results and Discussion}
We have carried out such a horizon-perturbation survey for the same
Kerr slices of the unit-mass spin-$0.6$ Kerr spacetime used in the
previous example, for both the Newton and the modified-Newton algorithms,
for $M = 0$, $2$, $4$, \dots, $12$. Figure~\ref{fig-Kerr-hps} shows
the resulting volume ratios. Although the precise values are somewhat
dependent on the details of our implementation and on the test setup
(in particular on the position of the inner grid boundary, which is
at $r = 1$ for these tests), the relative trends in the data should
be fairly generic. These tests use a grid with
$\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50}$, which is adequate to resolve all
the perturbed trial horizon surfaces.
As can be seen from the figure, the modified-Newton algorithm is
clearly superior to the Newton algorithm, increasing the radius of
convergence by a factor of $2$--$3$ at high spatial frequencies.
However, both algorithms' radia of convergence still fall rapidly
with increasing spatial frequency, approximately as $1 / M^{3/2}$,
although the rate is slightly slower for the modified-Newton than
for the Newton algorithm. The radius of convergence of Newton's
method falls below~0.1 ($\sim \! 5\%$~of the horizon radius)
by~$M \gtrsim 10$, and the data suggest that the radius of convergence
of the modified-Newton method would be similarly small by~$M \gtrsim 18$.
Since the grid resolution is adequate, we again conclude that the
small radius of convergence of Newton's method must be due to a
strong high-spatial-frequency nonlinearity in the continuum $H(h)$
function. Our horizon-perturbation survey covers only a single
axisymmetric initial slice and generic axisymmetric perturbations of
the initial guess, but it seems unlikely that the nonlinearity would
diminish for more general cases. Huq (Ref.~\cite{Huq-95}) has made
limited tests with nonaxisymmetric spacetimes and high-spatial-frequency
perturbations, and has found (poor) convergence of Newton's method
similar to our results.
Although we write the continuum horizon function as $H = H(h)$, it's
more accurate to write this as $H = H(g_{ij},K_{ij},h)$, since $H$ also
depends on the slice's field variables and their spatial derivatives.
Examining the functional form of the $H(g_{ij},K_{ij},h)$ function
in~\eqrefs{eqn-3H(ABCD)} and~\eqrefb{eqn-ABCD(h)}, we see that $H$
depends on the $g^{ij}$ components in a manner broadly similar to its
dependence on $h$. We thus conjecture that the $H(g_{ij},K_{ij},h)$
function may exhibit strong high-spatial-frequency nonlinearity in the
field variables, in particular in the $g^{ij}$ components, similar to
its nonlinear dependence on $h$.
If this is the case, then high-spatial-frequency variations in the
field variables, such as would be caused by high-frequency gravitational
radiation, might well impair the convergence of Newton's method in
a manner similar to high-spatial-frequency perturbations in $h$.
Further investigation of this possibility, either by analytical
study of the nonlinear structure of the $H(g_{ij},K_{ij},h)$ function,
or by numerical investigations, would be very interesting. Fortunately,
however, those (few) dynamic black hole spacetimes which have been
explicitly computed thus far (for example Ref.~\cite{AHSSS-95}) seem
to contain mainly low-frequency gravitational radiation.
In general, how serious a problem is the poor high-spatial-frequency
convergence of Newton's method? Given a sufficiently good initial
guess, Newton's method still converges very rapidly (quadratically),
so the key question is, how good is the initial guess in practice?
Two cases seem to be of particular importance: If the horizon finder
is being used to update a horizon's position at each time step of a
time evolution, then the previous time step's horizon position probably
provides a sufficiently good initial guess for Newton's method to
converge well. In contrast, if the horizon finder is being used on
initial data, or in a time evolution where there is no nearby horizon
in the previous time step, then significant initial-guess errors can
be expected, and Newton's method may converge poorly.
\section{Accuracy of the Horizon Finder}
\label{sect-accuracy}
We now consider the accuracy of the Newton's-method horizon finding
algorithm. That is, assuming the Newton or modified-Newton iteration
converges, how close is the horizon finder's final numerically
computed horizon position to the (a) true continuum horizon position
$h^\ast$?
The horizon finder computes Newton or modified-Newton iterates
(trial horizon surfaces) $\h^{(k)}$ for $k = 0$, $1$, $2$, \dots,
until some convergence criterion is satisfied, say at $k = p$.
Because of the extremely rapid convergence of the Newton and
modified-Newton iterations once the error is sufficiently small
(cf.~section~\ref{sect-Newton's-method}), there's little extra cost
in using a very strict convergence criterion, i.e.~in solving the
discrete $\H(\h) = 0$ equations to very high accuracy. In our horizon
finder we typically require $\| \H(\h^{(p)}) \|_\infty < 10^{-10}$.
We denote the exact solution of the discrete $\H(\h) = 0$ equations
by $\h^\ast$. Given that $\| \H(\h^{(p)}) \|$ is reasonably small,
then from standard matrix-perturbation theory (see, for example,
Refs.~\cite{Linpack-book-conditioning,Golub-Van-Loan-conditioning}),
$\| \h^{(p)} - \h^\ast \| \lesssim \kappa \| \H(\h^{(p)}) \|$, where
$\kappa$ is the condition number of the (presumably nonsingular)
Jacobian matrix $\Jac[\H(\h)]$ at the horizon position.
If we take the convergence tolerance to be strict enough for
$\| \h^{(p)} - \h^\ast \|$ to be negligible, then the overall
accuracy of the horizon finder, i.e.~the external error
$\| \h^{(p)} - h^\ast \|$ in the computed horizon position, is thus
limited only by the closeness with which the discrete $\H(\h) = 0$
equations approximate the continuum $H(h) = 0$ equations, i.e.~by
the accuracy of the $\H(\h)$ finite differencing. This potential
for very high accuracy is one of the main advantages of the
Newton's-method horizon-finding algorithm.
For an example of the accuracy attainable in practice, we again
consider the Kerr slices of the unit-mass spin-$0.6$ Kerr spacetime.
However, to make the horizon deviate from a coordinate sphere and
hence be a more significant test case for our horizon finder, we
apply the spatial coordinate transformation
\begin{mathletters}
\label{eqn-w4Kerr-coord-xform}
\begin{equation}
r \to r + \frac{b^2}{b^2 + r^2}
\Bigl( a_2 \cos 2 \theta + a_4 \cos 4 \theta \Bigr)
\end{equation}
to the slice, where the parameters are given by
\begin{equation}
b = 5 \qquad a_2 = 0.75 \qquad a_4 = 0.05
\, \text{.}
\end{equation}
\end{mathletters}
As shown in figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-w4Kerr}(a)}, in the transformed
coordinates this gives a strongly non-spherical ``peanut-shaped''
horizon, similar in shape to those around a pair of coalescing
black holes.
We have run our horizon finder on this slice, using the
warped-coordinate coordinate sphere $r = 1.8$ as an initial guess
and a grid resolution of $\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50}$. We
used the modified-Newton algorithm, which converged to the horizon
without difficulty. (The convergence took 9~iterations, but would
have taken only 6~iterations in the absence of our 10\% restriction
on the relative change in any component of $\h$ in a single outer
iteration, cf.~section~\ref{sect-modifications-of-Newton's-method}.)
Figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-w4Kerr}(a)} shows the initial guess and the
final numerically computed horizon position.
Figure~\hbox{\ref{fig-w4Kerr}(b)} shows the results of a 2-grid
convergence test of the final numerically computed horizon position
for this example, using grids with resolutions
$\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50}$:$\frac{\pi/2}{100}$. As can be
seen, the numerically computed solution shows excellent 4th~order
convergence. Moreover, the numerically computed horizon positions
are very accurate, with $\| \h^{(p)} - h^\ast \| \sim 10^{-5} (10^{-6})$
for a grid resolution of
$\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50} (\frac{\pi/2}{100})$. Errors of
this magnitude are typical of what we find for Newton's-method horizon
finding using 4th~order finite differencing, so long as the grid
adequately resolves the horizon shape.
\section{Finding {\em Outermost\/} Apparent Horizons}
\label{sect-finding-outermost-apparent-horizons}
The main focus of this paper is on locally finding apparent horizons,
i.e.~on finding an apparent horizon in a neighborhood of the initial
guess. However, there's a related global problem of some interest
which has heretofore attracted little attention, that of finding or
recognizing the {\em outermost\/} apparent horizon in a slice.
(By \defn{recognizing} the outermost apparent horizon we mean the
problem of determining whether or not a given apparent horizon is
in fact the outermost one in a slice.)
These global problems are of particular interest when apparent
horizons are used to set the inner boundary of a black-hole-excluding
grid in the numerical evolution of a multiple-black-hole spacetime,
as discussed by Refs.~\cite{Thornburg-talk-91,Seidel-Suen-92
Thornburg-PhD,ADMSS-95}. In this context, we can use the appearance
of a new outermost apparent horizon surrounding the previously-outermost
apparent horizons around two black holes as a diagnostic that the
black holes have collided and coalesced into a single (distorted)
black hole. As suggested by Ref.~\cite{Thornburg-PhD}, we can then
generate a new numerical grid and attach it to the new outermost
apparent horizon, and continue the evolution on the exterior of the
new (distored) black hole.
So far as we know, no reliable algorithms are known for finding or
recognizing outermost apparent horizons in nonspherical spacetimes.
(For spherical spacetimes, a 1-dimensional search on $H(r)$ suffices.)
If started with a very large 2-sphere as the initial guess, the
curvature flow method might well converge to the outermost horizon
in the slice, but as mentioned in section~\ref{sect-algorithms-survey},
the theoretical justification for this method's convergence is only
valid in time-symmetric ($K_{ij} = 0$) slices.
For the remaining local-horizon-finding algorithms surveyed in
section~\ref{sect-algorithms-survey}, including the Newton's-method
one, we know of no better method for locating or recognizing outermost
horizons than trying the local-horizon-finder with a number of
different initial guesses near the suspected position of an outermost
horizon. If this method succeeds it locates a horizon, but there's
still no assurance that this horizon is the outermost one in the
slice. Moreover, if all the local-horizon-finding trials fail, this
may mean that there's no horizon in the vicinity of the initial guesses,
or it may only mean that a horizon is present nearby but the method
failed to converge to it. It's also not clear how many local-horizon-finding
trials should be made, nor just how their initial guesses should be
chosen.
This is clearly not a satisfactory algorithm. Further research to
develop reliable algorithms for finding or recognizing outermost
apparent horizons in generic (nonspherical, nonmaximal) slices would
be very useful.
\section{Conclusions}
We find Newton's method to be an excellent horizon-finding algorithm:
it handles fully generic slices, it's fairly easy to implement, it's
very efficient, it's generally robust in its convergence, and it's very
accurate. These properties are all well known, and Newton's method is
widely used for horizon finding. In this paper we focus on two key
aspects of this algorithm: the computation of the Jacobian matrix, and
the algorithm's global convergence behavior.
Traditionally, the Newton's-method Jacobian matrix is computed by a
numerical perturbation technique. In this paper we present a much
more efficient ``symbolic differentiation'' technique. Conceptually,
this entails differentiating the actual finite difference equations
used to compute the discrete horizon function $\H(\h)$. However,
provided the finite differencing scheme commutes with linearization,
the computation can instead be done by first differentiating the
continuum horizon function $H(h)$, then finite differencing. (This
is essentially just the ``Jacobian part'' of the Newton-Kantorovich
method for solving nonlinear PDEs.)
In our axisymmetric-spacetime (2-dimensional) numerical code, this
method is about a factor of~$5$ faster than than any other Jacobian
computation method. In fact, the Jacobian computation using this
method is only $1.5$--$2$ times more expensive than the simple
evaluation of $\H(\h)$. We expect the symbolic differentiation
method's relative advantage over other Jacobian computation methods
to be roughly similar for other axisymmetric-spacetime (2-dimensional)
codes, and an additional factor of $\sim \! 3$--$5$ larger for
fully-general-spacetime (3-dimensional) codes.
We had previously suggested (Ref.~\cite{Thornburg-PhD}) that
symbolic-differentiation Jacobian computations would be quite difficult,
necessarily requiring substantial support from a (computer) symbolic
computation system. Several colleagues have expressed similar opinions
to us. However, this turns out not to be the case: we computed all
the symbolic-differentiation Jacobian coefficients for our horizon finder
by hand in only a few few pages of algebra. Some of the coefficients
are fairly complicated, but no more so than many other computations
in $3+1$ numerical relativity.
We find the actual programming of the symbolic differentiation
Jacobian computation to be only moderately more difficult than that
of a numerical perturbation computation. In order to be confident
of the correctness of a symbolic differentiation Jacobian computation,
we feel that it's highly desirable to program an independent numerical
perturbation method and make an end-to-end comparison of the resulting
Jacobian matrices. The comparison Jacobian computation may be
programmed for simplicity at the expense of efficiency, so it needn't
add much to the overall symbolic-differentiation implementation effort.
Turning now to the convergence behavior of Newton's method, we
find that so long as the error in the initial guess (its deviation
from the true horizon position) contains only low-spatial-frequency
components, a Newton's-method horizon finder has a large (good)
radius of convergence, i.e.~it converges even for rather inaccurate
initial guesses. However, if the error in the initial guess contains
significant high-spatial-frequency components, then we find that
Newton's method has a small (poor) radius of convergence, i.e.~it
may fail to converge even when the initial guess is quite close to
the true horizon position. In this context there's no sharp demarcation
between ``low'' and ``high'' spatial frequencies, but in practice we
use the terms to refer to angular Fourier components varying as (say)
$\cos m\theta$ with $m \lesssim 4$ and $m \gtrsim 8$ respectively.
Using a Monte Carlo survey of initial-guess-error Fourier-coefficient
space, we find that the radius of convergence for Newton's method
falls rapidly with increasing spatial frequency, approximately as
$1 / m^{3/2}$. A simple ``line-search'' modification of Newton's
method roughly doubles the horizon finder's radius of convergence,
and slightly slows the rate of decline with spatial frequency. Using
a robust nonlinear-algebraic-equations code to solve the discrete
$\H(\h) = 0$ equations would probably give some further improvement,
but we doubt that it would change the overall trend.
Using quantitative convergence tests, we demonstrate that the poor
high-spatial-frequency convergence behavior of Newton's method is
{\em not\/} an artifact of insufficient resolution in the finite
difference grid. Rather, it appears to be inherent in the (a) strong
nonlinearity of the continuum $H(h)$ function for high-spatial-frequency
components in $h$. We conjecture that $H$ may be similarly nonlinear
in its high-spatial-frequency dependence on the inverse-metric components.
If so, then the presence of high-frequency gravitational radiation
might well also impair the convergence of Newton's method, and possibly
other horizon-finding methods as well. Further investigation of this
possibility would be very interesting.
Fortunately, if the horizon finder is being used to update a
horizon's position at each time step of a time evolution, then the
previous time step's horizon position probably provides a sufficiently
good initial guess for Newton's method to converge well.
Provided it converges, the Newton's-method algorithm for horizon
finding is potentially very accurate, in practice limited only by
the accuracy of the $\H(\h)$ finite differencing scheme. Using
4th~order finite differencing, we demonstrate that the error in
the numerically computed horizon position, i.e.~the deviation of
$\h$ from the true continuum horizon position, shows the expected
$O((\Delta \theta)^4)$ scaling with grid resolution $\Delta \theta$,
and is typically $\sim \! 10^{-5} (10^{-6})$ for a grid resolution of
$\Delta \theta = \frac{\pi/2}{50} (\frac{\pi/2}{100})$.
Finally, we have argued that considerable further research is needed
to develop algorithms for finding or recognizing the {\em outermost\/}
apparent horizon in a slice. This is an important problem for the
numerical evolution of multiple-black-hole spacetimes with the black
holes excluded from the numerical evolution, but so far as we know
no reliable algorithms are known for it except in spherical symmetry.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank M.~Huq for numerous useful conversations on horizon finding,
and for helpful comments on various drafts of this paper. We thank
D.~Bernstein for communicating unpublished research notes on the
curvature-flow method to us. We thank W.~G.~Unruh and the University
of British Columbia Physics Department for their hospitality and the
use of their research facilities. We thank J.~Wolfgang for major
assistance in setting up computer facilities, and G.~Rodgers for
financial support.
|
\section*{Figure Captions}
\begin{description}
\item {1.)} Comparison of the two structure functions used in the
QCD analysis, MRS D-' and CTEQ2M, in the $x$ and $Q^2$ range relevant to the
collider experiment, $Q^2 \sim (p_T^{\gamma})^2$. Also shown is the most
recent parametrization MRS G. Fig.~1a: Density distribution of gluons,
fig.~1b: Valence and sea quark distribution.
\item {2a.)} Fractional difference between the NLO QCD calculation and data
taken at low energies, $\sqrt{s} \leq 30.6$ GeV.
\item {2b.)} Fractional difference between the NLO QCD calculation and data
taken at the intermediate energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 630 GeV by UA2.
\item {2c.)} Fractional difference between the NLO QCD calculation and data
taken at the Tevatron at $\sqrt{s}$ = 1.8 TeV.
\end{description}
\clearpage
\end{document}
|
\section{#1}}
\newcommand{\subsect}[1]{\subsection{#1}}
\newcommand{\subsubsect}[1]{\subsubsection{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\def\footnote{\footnote}
\footskip 1.0cm
\def\sxn#1{\bigskip\bigskip \sect{#1} \medskip}
\def\subsxn#1{\bigskip \subsect{#1} \medskip}
\def\subsubsxn#1{\bigskip \subsubsect{#1} \medskip}
\begin{document}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\setcounter{page}{0}
\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
\footskip 1.0cm
\thispagestyle{empty}
\setcounter{page}{0}
\begin{flushright}
SU-4240-615\\
July, 1995 \\
\end{flushright}
\centerline {\bf A DISCRETIZED VERSION OF KALUZA-KLEIN THEORY }
\centerline {\bf WITH TORSION AND MASSIVE FIELDS }
\vspace*{10mm}
\centerline {\bf Nguyen Ai Viet \footnote{ On leave of absence from the High
Energy Division, Centre of Theoretical Physics, P.O.Box 429 Bo Ho 10000, Hanoi
Vietnam.}
\footnote{ Address after September 1, 1995: Physics Department, Rockerfeller
University, New York, NY, USA }
and Kameshwar C.Wali }
\vspace*{3mm}
\centerline {\it Department of Physics, Syracuse University,}
\centerline {\it Syracuse, NY 13244-1130, U.S.A.}
\vspace*{10mm}
\normalsize
\centerline {\bf Abstract}
We consider an internal space of two discrete points in the fifth dimension of
the Kaluza-Klein theory by using the formalism of noncommutative geometry
developed in a previous
paper \cite{VIWA} of a spacetime supplemented by two discrete points. With the
nonvanishing internal torsion 2-form there are no constraints implied on the
vielbeins. The theory contains a pair of tensor, a pair of vector and a pair
of scalar fields. Using the generalized Cartan structure equation we are able
not
only to determine uniquely the hermitian and metric compatible connection
1-forms, but also the nonvanishing internal torsion
2-form in terms of vielbeins. The resulting action has a rich and complex
structure, a particular feature being the existence of massive modes. Thus the
nonvanishing internal torsion generates a Kaluza-Klein type model with zero and
massive modes.
\bigskip
\newpage
\section{ Introduction}
It is generally believed that our current description of spacetime underlying
both classical physics as well as quantum field theories is
unsatisfactory and inadequate to deal with the description of phenomena at
short distances. One is seeking a mathematical formalism that provides a
quantum
description of natural phenomena that, a priori, does not speak about spacetime
in its basic formulation, but spacetime of classical physics as well as quantum
field theories emerges in certain limiting regimes- just as classical behaviour
of quantum systems can emerge in certain limiting regimes \cite{QUAN}. The
recent
proposal of Connes \cite{CO} and the so called noncommutative geometry
(NCG) appears very promising towards the achievement of such a goal. It has
given rise to the description of the Standard Model \cite{COLO} with new
insights as regards spontaneous symmetry breaking and quark and lepton masses.
It is natural to ask whether and how the classical general relativity fits into
the scheme of NCG.
The first step in answering this question was taken by Chamseddine et al
\cite{CFF}, whose starting point was an abstract two-sheeted continuum that
could be considered as the direct product of a single spacetime continuum and
two discrete
points. This led to gravity coupled to a Brans-Dicke scalar field. The
scalar field can be interpreted as the distance between the two sheets
\footnote{ More recently, other authors using different approaches have
obtained
essentially the same result. See Ref.\cite{VIWA} for references to related work
.}.
Similarly, it is always extremely tempting to give geometrical meaning to other
physical fields.
Thus, in the traditional Kaluza-Klein
theory massless tensor, vector and scalar fields together with their massive
excitations
appear as result of extending the physical four-dimensional spacetime by an
additional continuous fifth dimension.
Unfortunately, the massive
modes are infinite in number. In a previous paper \cite{VIWA},
we have developed the formalism for a discretized version of Kaluza-Klein
theory within the framework of NCG. The starting point, as in Ref.\cite{CFF},
is an extended spacetime
that includes two discrete points of the continuous internal fifth dimension of
the Kaluza-Klein theory. We presented a generalization of the usual Riemannian
geometry in the new context that demanded a vielbein consisting, to begin with,
a pair of tensor, a pair of vector and a pair of scalar fields. Following the
usual steps in building a theory of gravitation with the new geometry, we
imposed torsion free, metric compatibility conditions on the connection 1-forms
from which we constructed the action through the Ricci scalar curvature.
We found that the imposed conditions altered the field content of the theory in
a dramatic way, requiring in addition to the tensor, vector and scalar fields,
new
dilaton-like dynamical fields. The connection 1-forms and hence the Ricci
scalar curvature were determined uniquely in terms of these fields. The
resulting action provided a rich structure that lent itself to intriguing
interpretations. One of the dilaton fields, for instance, could give rise to
masses and cosmological constant. Moreover by imposing a reality condition on
the vielbein 1-forms we could make the dilaton fields disappear leading to
the zero-mode sector of the Kaluza-Klein theory as in Ref.\cite{LVW}. The
previous NCG models that contain gravity coupled to
the Brans-Dicke scalar can be considered as a particular case when the vector
field is set to zero.
While these interpretations are interesting in
themselves to merit further study, we seek in this paper a formulation that
does not alter the initial field content of the theory of two independent
tensor, vector and scalar fields. From the viewpoint of the underlying
mathematical framework of NCG, this is a reasonable requirement: the vielbein
1-forms should be free of constraints, retaining their most general form.
The problem is how to achieve this. Now for physical reasons, it is necessary
that we
impose the metric compatibility condition. We recall that in the ordinary
Cartan-Riemannian geometry the vanishing of torsion yields unique connection
1-forms in terms of the metric coefficients and their derivatives.
Non-vanishing torsion requires additional
information besides the metric. In our formulation, we find a way to avoid this
situation. We impose a reality condition on the
connection 1-forms and release the strict torsion free condition.
In order to keep as close as possible to the usual Riemannian
geometry, we assume that the usual spacetime indexed torsion 2-forms do vanish.
However, we do not assume that the
discrete internal space indexed torsion 2-form vanishes.
This results in the unique determination of the related connection 1-forms.
As we shall see, the nonvanishing internal torsion 2-form can be also
determined in terms of the given vielbeins. This way we have an action that
describes the
general field content that we started with initially. The most remarkable
result is that this discrete version of Kaluza-Klein theory contains a finite
number of massive modes.
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section we will review briefly
the basic formalism and give the necessary formulas in order to make this paper
self-contained. In Sect.3, we discuss how we compute the connection 1-forms,
internal torsion and the Ricci scalar curvature. In Sect.4, we present the
general structure of the action and consider special cases. The final section
is devoted to a summary and conclusions.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{ Two-point internal space and vielbein}
\subsection{ Algebra of smooth functions and generalized derivatives}
We consider a physical space-time manifold
${\cal M}$ extended by a discrete internal space of two points to which we
assign a $Z_2$-algebraic structure.
With this extended space-time, the customary algebra of smooth functions
${\cal C}^\infty ({\cal M})$ is generalized to ${\cal A} ~=~
{\cal C}^\infty({\cal M})\oplus{\cal C}^\infty({\cal M})$ and any
generalized function $F \in {\cal A}$ can be written as
\begin{equation}
F(x)= f_+(x) e + f_-(x) r~ ,
\end{equation}
where
$ e,r \in Z_2 = \{ e,r~|~ e^2=e~,~ r^2=e~,~ er=re=r ~\}$.
We adopt a $ 2 \times 2$ matrix representation for $ e,r $:
\begin{equation}
e =\pmatrix{1&0\cr
0&1\cr} ~~ ,~~ r=\pmatrix{1&0\cr
0&-1\cr}~.
\end{equation}
Then the function $ F(x)$ assumes a $2 \times 2$ matrix form,
\begin{equation}
F ~=~f_+(x)\pmatrix{1&0\cr
0&1\cr} ~ + ~ f_-(x) \pmatrix{1&0\cr
0&-1\cr} ~=~\pmatrix{f_1(x)&0\cr
0&f_2(x)\cr}~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f_\pm(x)= 1/2.( f_1(x) \pm f_2(x) ) .
\end{equation}
In this paper we will use small
letters to denote the quantities of ordinary geometry and capital letters
for generalized quantities of NCG.
With the algebra ${\cal A}$ of smooth functions, we have what we may consider
as the algebra of the generalized 0-forms $ \Omega^0({\cal M})=
{\cal C}^\infty({\cal M})
\oplus {\cal C}^\infty({\cal M})$. To build the corresponding generalized
higher forms, we need an exterior derivative or the Dirac operator
$ D$ \cite{CO,COLO} in the language of NCG. For this purpose, as in
Ref.\cite{VIWA}, let us define derivatives $ D_N ( N= \mu, 5) $ by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{CODER}
&& D_\mu = \pmatrix{\partial_\mu &0\cr
0 &\partial_\mu\cr} ,~~~\mu = 0,1,2,3~,
\cr
&& D_5 = \pmatrix{0& m\cr
-m&0\cr} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ m $ is a parameter with dimension of mass.
We specify the action of the derivatives on the 0-form elements as given by
\begin{equation}\label{COMDER}
D_N(F)= [D_N, F] ~~,~~N=\mu, 5 ~~~~,
\end{equation}
satisfying the Newton-Leibnitz rule,
\begin{equation}
D_N(FG) = D_N(F) G + F D_N(G).
\end{equation}
Then the exterior derivative operator $D$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
D \doteq (~DX^\mu D_\mu~+~ DX^5 \sigma^\dagger D_5~),
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma^\dagger ~=~ \pmatrix{ ~0 & -1\cr
1 & 0 \cr}.
\end{equation}
$ DX^M $ are in general $ 2 \times 2 $ matrices that form a basis of
the generalized 1-forms. They are direct generalizations of the
differential elements. When spacetime becomes curved, as in general
relativity (GR), $ DX^M $ denote a generalized curvi-linear differential
elements. Their
concrete form can be given in a concrete basis. The explicit form of $DX^M$ in
the orthonormal basis will be given in the next subsection.
\subsection{ General and orthonormal basis of 1-forms }
The possible metric structure
is guaranteed by the existence of a local orthonormal basis: the vielbein
$ E^A $. Analogously to GR, if we work in the locally flat basis the vielbein
$E^A$ can be chosen to be orthonormal. In Ref.\cite{VIWA}, we chose a diagonal
representation for the curvi-linear basis $DX^\mu$ and $DX^5\sigma^\dagger$ to
construct generalized one- and higher forms in analogy with the usual
Riemannian geometry. However, it is more convenient to work in a representation
in which the vielbeins $ E^A ( A= a,\dot 5) $ are diagonal. Locally, $E^A$ is
given as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
E^a &~~=~~& \pmatrix{e^a & 0 \cr
0 & e^a \cr} ~~,\cr
E^{\dot 5} &~~=~~& \pmatrix{ 0 & \theta \cr
\theta & 0 \cr}~~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ e^a $ is some ordinary vierbein 1-forms and $\theta $ is some hermitian
Clifford element\footnote{
Completely, in analogy with GR, we can represent $ e^a $ and $ \theta $ as the
locally flat Dirac matrices $\gamma^a $ and $ \gamma^5 $ as in the spinorial
representation of Connes-Lott model.( This representation is used widely in
literature. See for example \cite{CO,COLO,CFF} for details. However, in our
formalism the two sheets are not necessarily the ones of different chiralities.
Hence $ \theta $ in general will be kept as an abstract Clifford element).}.
In this basis
the wedge product can be defined as follows
\begin{equation}\label{wedge}
E^A \wedge E^B = - E^B \wedge E^A.
\end{equation}
In the orthonormal and locally flat basis $E^A$, the curvi-linear differential
elements $ DX^M $ are in general not diagonal any more. Conversely, we can
choose to
work in the representation in which $ DX^M$ are diagonal. Then $E^A$ is not
diagonal anymore
as discussed in Ref.\cite{VIWA}. Both basis span the space of generalized
1-forms; hence
an arbitrary 1-form $ U $ in NCG is given by
\begin{equation}
U~~=~~E^A U_A ~~= DX^M U_M ,
\end{equation}
where $ U_A $ and $ U_M $ are the components of the 1-form $ U $
in the $E^A$ and $ DX^M $ basis respectively.
As $E^A$ and $DX^M$ themselves are also 1-forms, we can express them in terms
of each other as follows
\begin{eqnarray}
E^A~ &~~=~~& DX^M E^A_{~M} ~~,\cr
DX^M &~~=~~& E^A E^M_{~A} ~~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ E^A_M $ and $E^M_A$ are generalized functions satisfying
\begin{eqnarray}
E^A_{~N} E^N_{~B} &~~=~~& \delta ^A_{~B} \cr
E^A_{~N} E^M_{~A} &~~=~~& \delta^M_{~N}~~ .
\end{eqnarray}
Without any loss of generality we can choose $ E^A_{~M} $ as follows :
\begin{eqnarray}\label{VIELBEIN}
E^a_\mu ~=~ \pmatrix{ e^a_{1\mu}(x) & 0 \cr
0 & e^a_{2\mu}(x) \cr}&~~,~~& E^a_5 ~~=~~0 \cr
E^{\dot 5}_\mu ~~=~~ \pmatrix{ a_{1\mu}(x) & 0 \cr
0 & a_{2\mu}(x) \cr} = A_\mu &~~,~~&
E^{\dot 5}_5 = \pmatrix{ \varphi_1(x) & 0 \cr
0 & \varphi_2(x) \cr} ~~=~~\Phi,
\end{eqnarray}
( We use a ${\dot 5}$ index in the orthonormal basis to distinguish it from the
index $5$ in the curvi-linear basis ).
Thus
\begin{equation}\label{TRANS}
DX^\mu ~=~E^a E^\mu_a ~~,~~ DX^5~=(E^{\dot 5} - E^a A_a) \Phi^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $ A_a = E^\mu_a A_\mu $.
Now we can derive the transformation rules for the components of an arbitrary
1-form $ U $ between the two basis
\begin{eqnarray}
U_a ~~=~~ E^\mu_a ( U_\mu + A_\mu U_5) &~~~,~~~& U_{\dot 5} = \Phi^{-1} U_5 ~~,
\cr
U_\mu ~~=~~ E^a_\mu U_a - A_\mu \Phi U_{\dot 5} &~~~,~~~& U_5 =
\Phi U_{\dot 5}~~.
\end{eqnarray}
To this end we note that the exterior derivative of a general 1-form $ U
=DX^M U_M = E^A U_A $ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
D U &~~=~~& (DX^\mu + DX^5\sigma^\dagger D_5 ) U ~~,\cr
&~~=~~& E^a\wedge E^b ~( D U)_{ab} + E^a\wedge E^{\dot 5}~ 2 ({\cal
D}U)_{a{\dot5}} ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
Using Eq.(\ref{TRANS}), we find
\begin{eqnarray}\label{DER1F}
( DU)_{bc} &~~=~~& {1\over 2} E^\mu_{~b} E^\nu_{~c}( \partial_\mu
E^a_{~\nu} - \partial_\nu E^a_{\mu}) U_a
- {1\over 2} E^\mu_{~b} E^\nu_{~c}
(\partial_\mu A_\nu -\partial_\nu A_\mu ) \Phi U_{\dot 5} \cr
&~~~+~&
{1\over 2} (E^\mu_{~b} \partial_\mu U_c - E^\nu_{~c} \partial_\nu U_b)
+ {m \over 2} [ (A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} -A_c {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b})
E^a_{~\nu} U_a + ( A_c {\tilde U}_b - A_b {\tilde U}_c) \cr
&~~~+~& (A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} -A_c {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b})
({\tilde A}_\nu -A_\nu) \Phi U_{\dot 5}] , \cr
( DU)_{b{\dot 5}} &~~=~~& {1\over 2}~{\tilde E}^\mu_{~b}~
({\partial_\mu \Phi
\over\Phi} U_{\dot 5} +\partial_\mu U_{\dot 5})
+ {m\over 2}( \Phi^{-1}({\tilde U}_b -{\tilde E}^\mu_{~b}E^c_{~\mu}U_c) \cr
&~~~+~& {\tilde E}^\mu_{~b}\Big( A_\mu - {\tilde A}_\mu) (1+ {\tilde
\Phi}^{-1}\Phi)~\Big)U_{\dot 5} + {\tilde A}_b {\tilde U}_{\dot 5})~~ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have redefined $ A_\mu $ in Eq.(\ref{VIELBEIN}) as $-A_\mu\Phi^{-1} $.
In the $ E^A $ basis the hermitian conjugate of an arbitrary 1-form
$ U = E^a U_a + E^{\dot 5}U_{\dot 5} $ is the 1-form $ U^\dagger = E^a U_a +
E^{\dot 5} {\tilde U}_{\dot 5} $ where
\begin{equation}
{\tilde F} ~=~ \pmatrix{ f_2 & 0 \cr
0 & f_1\cr} ~~, ~~{\rm for~any~ function~}
F ~=~\pmatrix{f_1 & 0 \cr
0 & f_2 \cr}~~.
\end{equation}
In the orthonormal basis, we have chosen $ E^A$ to be hermitian, the general
1-forms need not be hermitian, neither does the $DX^M$ basis.
\subsection{Generalized metric}
Following Ref.\cite{VIWA,LVW}, we define the metric ${\cal G}$ as the
sesquilinear inner product of two 1-forms $ U $ and $ V$ satisfying
\begin{eqnarray} \label{METRIC1}
< U~ F~,~ V~ G > & ~=~ & F < U~,~V> G ~~ , \cr
< U \otimes R ~,~ V\otimes S> &~=~& R^\dagger < U~,~V> S ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $F, G$ are functions and $R, S $ are 1-forms.
Assuming the existence of the local orthonormal basis $ E^A $, we have
\begin{equation} \label{METRIC2}
< E^A~, ~ E^B > ~~=~~ \eta^{AB},
\end{equation}
where $\eta^{AB} ~=~ signature(~-~,~+~+~+~+~) $.
{}From Eqs.(\ref{METRIC1}) and (\ref{METRIC2}) we obtain the generalized metric
tensor in the familiar form
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal G }_{M N } &~=~& E^{A}_{~M} \eta_{AB} E^B_{~N}, \cr
{\cal G }^{M N} &~=~& E^M_{~A} \eta^{AB} E^N_{~B}.
\end{eqnarray}
With the vielbeins given in Eq.(\ref{VIELBEIN}), the components of the metric
tensors ${\cal G}^{MN}$ and ${\cal G}_{MN}$ turn out to be
\begin{eqnarray}\label{METRIC}
{\cal G}^{\mu\nu} &~= ~& G^{\mu\nu} ~{\dot =}~ \pmatrix{ g_1^{\mu\nu} & 0 \cr
0 & g_2^{\mu\nu} \cr} , \cr
{\cal G}^{\mu 5} &~ =~ & A^\mu ~=~ {\cal G}^{5 \mu} ~~ , \cr
{\cal G}^{55} & = & \Phi^{-2}+ A^2 ~~,\cr
{\cal G}_{\mu\nu} &~=~ &G_{\mu \nu} + A_\mu A_\nu ~{\dot =}~
\pmatrix{ g_{1\mu\nu} & 0 \cr
0 & g_{2\mu\nu}\cr} + A_\mu A_\nu ~~, \cr
{\cal G}_{\mu 5} &~ =~ & {\cal G}_{5\mu} ~=~ A_{\mu}\Phi ~~,\cr
G_{55} & = & \Phi^2 .
\end{eqnarray}
where $g_i^{\mu \nu} = e^\mu_{ia}\eta^{ab} e^\nu_{ib}~,~ i=1,2$ are
the metric tensors on the two sheets.
In passing we note that the components of the metric tensor are identical in
form with
those in the 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory except that in the present case,
the usual continuous $x^5$-dependence is replaced by the matrix form.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{ Connection, torsion and curvature}
\subsection {Hermitian and metric compatible connection 1-forms}
We have shown in Ref.\cite{VIWA,LVW} that the metric compatible or Levi-Civita
connection 1-form $\Omega_{AB}$ satisfies \footnote{ The interested reader
might see Ref.\cite{VIWA} for the relation between the connection and the
covariant derivative.}
\begin{equation}\label{comp1}
\Omega^{~~\dagger}_{~AB}~~=~~ -~ \Omega_{~BA}~~ .
\end{equation}
In this paper we will impose an additional reality condition on the
connection,
\begin{equation}\label{reality}
\Omega^{~~\dagger}_{~AB} ~=~ \Omega_{~AB}~~.
\end{equation}
Together with the metric compatibility condition (\ref{comp1}) the reality
condition implies the following conditions on the components $\Omega_{ABC}$
of the connection 1-form $\Omega_{AB}$ in the $E^A$ basis
\begin{eqnarray}\label{comp2}
\Omega_{~abc} & ~=~ & -~\Omega^{bac}, \cr
\Omega_{~ab {\dot 5}} & ~=~ & -~\Omega_{~ba{\dot 5}}~ = ~
\omega_{~ab {\dot 5}} e~~,\cr
\Omega_{~a{\dot 5}b} & ~=~ & - ~\Omega_{~{\dot 5}ab}, \cr
\Omega_{~a{\dot 5}{\dot 5}} & ~=~ & -~ \Omega_{~{\dot 5}a{\dot 5}} ~=~
\omega_{~a{\dot 5}{\dot 5}} e,\cr
\Omega_{~{\dot 5}{\dot 5}a}&~ =~ & \Omega_{~{\dot 5}{\dot 5}{\dot 5}} ~=~0 ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
That is to say, the reality condition (\ref{reality}) requires that the
internal indexed components of the connection 1-forms are ordinary functions.
\subsection{ The first structure equation and torsion 2-forms}
The first Cartan structure equation defines the torsion 2-forms $ T^A $ as
given by:
\begin{equation}\label{TORSION}
T^A = D E^A - E^B \wedge \Omega^A_{~~B}~,
\end{equation}
In Ref.\cite{VIWA}, we had assumed $ T^A = 0 ~~(A=a,{\dot 5})$ to determine the
connection $\Omega$. As noted before, we were lead to a theory with a tensor,
vector and scalar fields and also additional dilaton-like fields. In the
present paper, we shall assume
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TORFREE}
T_{abc} &~~=~~& T_{ab{\dot 5}} ~~=~~0 ~~,\cr
T_{{\dot 5}AB} &~~=~~& t_{{\dot 5}AB} r .
\end{eqnarray}
In other words, the torsion 2-forms involving the external physical spacetime
index vanish while the torsion 2-form involving the internal index
${\dot 5}$ as in Eq.(\ref{TORFREE}) does not vanish. Then we can determine
$ t^{\dot 5}_{~AB}$ as well as the hermitian and metric compatible connection
1-forms $ \Omega_{~AB}$ in terms of the vielbeins.
Using the general formula (\ref{DER1F}), it is straightforward to compute the
exterior derivatives $ DE^A$ needed to calculate $\Omega_{ABC}$ in
Eq.(\ref{TORSION}). We omit the details and give only the results.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{DERVIEL}
(DE_a)_{bc} &~~=~~& -~( DE_a)_{cb}~~=~~ {1\over 2}~\Big [~
(E^\mu_{~b}
E^\nu_{~c} - E^\mu_{~c}E^\nu_{~b})\partial_\mu E_{a\nu} ~~\cr
&~~~+~& m \Big(~( A_b
{\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} - A_c{\tilde E}^\nu_{~b})E_{a\nu} + (A_c\eta_{ab} -
A_b\eta_{ac})~\Big)~\Big ]~~,\cr
( DE_a)_{b{\dot 5}} &~~=~~& -~( DE_a)_{{\dot 5}b}~~=~~
{m\over 2} \Phi^{-1}( \eta_{ab} - {\tilde E}^\mu_b E_a^{~ \mu} )~~, \cr
( DE_{\dot 5})_{bc} &~~=~~& -~( DE_{\dot 5})_{cb}
{}~~=~~-~{1\over 2}~\Big [~(E^\mu_{~b}
E^\nu_{~c} - E^\mu_{~c}E^\nu_{~b})\Phi \partial_\mu A_\nu ~~\cr
&~~~+~& m (A_b
{\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} - A_c{\tilde E}^\nu_{~b})({\tilde A}_\nu - A_\nu )\Phi
{}~\Big]~~,\cr
( DE_{\dot 5})_{b{\dot 5}} &~~=~~& -~( DE_{\dot 5})_{{\dot 5}b}~~=~~
{1\over 2}~{\tilde E}^\mu_b \Big [~ {\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi } + m (A_\mu
-{\tilde A}_\mu \Phi {\tilde \Phi }^{-1})~ \Big ] ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
In component form, the first Cartan structure equation reduces to
\begin{equation}
T_{ABC} ~~=~~ (DE_A)_{BC} - {1\over 2 }( \Omega_{ABC} - \Omega_{ACB})~~.
\end{equation}
With the condition (\ref{TORFREE}) on the torsion 2-forms we obtain
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{abc} ~~=~~ ( DE_a)_{bc}+( DE_b)_{ca}- ( DE_c)_{ab}
{}~~,
\end {equation}
which in conjunction with Eqs.(\ref{DERVIEL}) determines $ \Omega_{abc}$ in
terms
of vielbeins.
The condition (\ref{TORFREE}) together with Eq.(\ref{comp2}) leads to
the following equation
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{ab{\dot 5}} - T_{{\dot 5} ab}~~ = ~~( DE_a)_{b{\dot 5}} +
( DE_b)_{{\dot 5}a}- ( DE_{\dot 5})_{ab}
{}~~,
\end{equation}
from which we can determine $ \Omega_{ab{\dot 5}} = \omega_{ab{\dot 5}}e $
and $ T_{{\dot 5}ab} = t_{{\dot 5}ab} r $ .
Finally, from
\begin{equation}
\Omega_{{\dot 5}c {\dot 5}} = 2 ( T_{{\dot 5} {\dot 5} c} - ( DE_{\dot 5}
)_{{\dot 5} c})
\end{equation}
we can determine $\Omega_{{\dot 5}c {\dot 5}}= \omega_{{\dot 5}c{\dot 5}} e $
and $T_{{\dot 5}{\dot 5} c} = t_{{\dot 5}{\dot 5} c} r$ .
The final results are as follows :
The components of the torsion 2-form $ T^{{\dot 5}}$ are
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TOR5}
T_{{\dot 5} ab} &~~=~~& {1\over 2}~ {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}~\Big[~ {\tilde
E}^\nu_{~b} {\tilde \Phi} {\tilde F}_{\mu\nu} - E^\nu_{~b}\Phi F_{\mu \nu }
{}~\Big] + {m \over 4}~ \Big[ ~ (E^\mu_{~a} {\tilde E}_{b\mu } - E^\mu_{~b}
{\tilde E}_{a\mu}) {\tilde \Phi}^{-1} \cr
&~~~+~& \Phi^{-1}( {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a\mu } - {\tilde E}^\mu_a E_{b\mu })
+ 2( {\tilde A}_\mu \Big(~(A_b {\tilde E}^\mu_{~b} - A_b {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a})
\Phi - ( {\tilde A}_a E^\mu_{~b} - A_b E^\mu_{~a}) {\tilde \Phi}~\Big] ~~,\cr
T_{{\dot 5} a {\dot 5}} &~~=~~& {1\over 4} ~\Big [~ (~ {\tilde E}^\mu_{~b}{
\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi} - E^\mu_{~b}{\partial_\mu {\tilde \Phi} \over
{\tilde \Phi}}~) + m (~ {\tilde E}^\mu_{~b} A_\mu - E^\mu_{~b} {\tilde A}_\mu
\cr
&~~~+~& A_b {\tilde \Phi} \Phi^{-1} - {\tilde A}_b \Phi {\tilde
\Phi}^{-1}~)~\Big] ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
The components of the connection 1-forms $ \Omega_{AB} $ are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{OMEGA}
\Omega_{abc} &~~=~~& {1\over 2}~\Big[~E^\mu_{~b}E^\nu_{~c}
(\partial_\mu E_{a\nu}
-\partial_\nu E_{a\mu }) + E^\mu_{~c}E^\nu_{~a} (\partial_\mu E_{b\nu}
-\partial_\nu E_{b\mu }) - E^\mu_{~a}E^\nu_{~b} (\partial_\mu E_{c\nu}
-\partial_\nu E_{c\mu })~\Big] \cr
&~~~+~& {m \over 2}~ \Big[~ (A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} - A_c {\tilde E}^\nu_{~c}
)
E_{a\nu} + (A_c {\tilde E}^\nu_{~a} - A_a {\tilde E}^\nu_{~c} )
E_{b\nu} - (A_a {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b} - A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~a} )
E_{c\nu} \cr
&~~~+~& 2( A_a\eta_{cb} -A_b \eta_{ac})~ \Big] ~~,\cr
\Omega_{ab{\dot 5}}&~~=~~& {1\over 4}~ \Big (~E^\mu_{~a} E^\nu_{~b}
F_{\mu \nu} \Phi +
{\tilde E}^\mu_{~a} {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b}
{\tilde F}_{\mu \nu}{\tilde \Phi}~\Big) +
{m \over 4}~ \Big[~ \Phi^{-1} ({\tilde E}^\mu_{~a} E_{b\mu} -
{\tilde E}^\mu_{~b} E_{a\mu}) \cr
&~~~+~& { \tilde \Phi}^{-1} ( E^\mu_{~a}{\tilde E}_{b\mu} - E^\mu_{~b}
{\tilde E}_{a\mu}) + ({\tilde A}_\nu - A_\nu ) \Big(~( {\tilde A}_a E^\nu_{~b}
- {\tilde A}_b E^\nu_{~a}){\tilde \Phi} \cr
&~~~-~& ( A_a {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b}
- A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~a}) \Phi~ \Big)~ \Big ] \cr
\Omega_{{\dot 5}ab}&~~~=~& -~{1\over 4}~\Big(~E^\mu_{~a} E^\nu_{~b}
F_{\mu \nu} \Phi + {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a} {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b}
{\tilde F}_{\mu \nu}{\tilde \Phi}~\Big)
+ {m \over 4}~ \Big[~ \Phi^{-1}\Big(~ ( 4\eta_{ab} - (3 {\tilde E}^\mu_{~b}
E_{a\mu} + {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}
E_{b\mu})~\Big) \cr
&~~~+~& { \tilde \Phi}^{-1} ( E^\mu_{~b}{\tilde E}_{a\mu} + E^\mu_{~a}
{\tilde E}_{b\mu}) - ({\tilde A}_\nu - A_\nu ) \Big(~ ( {\tilde A}_a E^\nu_{~b}
- {\tilde A}_b E^\nu_{~a}){\tilde \Phi} \cr
&~~~-~& ( A_a {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b}
- A_b {\tilde E}^\nu_{~a}) \Phi~ \Big)~ \Big] \cr
\Omega_{{\dot 5} b{\dot 5}} & ~~=~~& -~ \Omega_{b {\dot 5}{\dot 5}} ~~=~~
{1\over 2}~\Big[~{\tilde E}^\mu_b {\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi }
+ E^\mu_b {\partial_\mu {\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi}}~ \Big] +
{ m \over 2}\Big[~ {\tilde E}^\mu_b ( A_\mu
-{\tilde A}_\mu \Phi {\tilde \Phi }^{-1}) \cr
&~~~+~& E^\mu_b ({\tilde A}_\mu
- A_\mu {\tilde \Phi} \Phi^{-1})~\Big ] ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection { Second structure equation, curvature and the action}
The second Cartan structure equation defines curvature 2-forms as follows
\begin{equation}\label{CARTAN2}
R_{AB} ~~=~~ D\Omega_{AB} + \Omega_{AC} \wedge \Omega^C_{~B}
\end{equation}
It is straightforward to use the expressions for the connection 1-forms
given in
Eq.(\ref{OMEGA}) to compute the components $ R_{ABCD}$ of the curvature
2-forms. We recall from Ref.\cite{VIWA} the expression of the Ricci scalar
curvature \footnote{ The interested reader can see the Ref.\cite{VIWA} for
the expression of R in an inner product form.}
\begin{equation}
R~~=~~ \eta^{AC} R_{ABCD} \eta^{BD}.
\end{equation}
After a lengthy but straightforward calculation we obtain the final expression
of the generalized Ricci scalar curvature in the form
\begin{equation}\label{RICCI}
R ~~=~~ \pmatrix{ R_1 & 0 \cr
0 & R_2 \cr}~~=~~ R^{(0)} + R^{(1)} + R^{(2)},
\end{equation}
where $ R^{(0)},~R^{(1)},~R^{(2)} $ represent terms proportional to
$ m^0,~m,~m^2 $ respectively.
The explicit expressions of $ R^{(0)}, R^{(1)}$ and $ R^{(2)}$ are given as
follows:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{R0}
R^{(0)} &~~=~~&
{1\over 2}~\pmatrix{ r_1 & 0 \cr
0 & r_2 \cr} - {1\over 32}~\Big(~ 3 \Phi^2
F^2 +2 \Phi {\tilde \Phi}{\tilde E}^{a\mu}E^\rho_{~a}{\tilde E}^{b\nu }
E^\tau_{~b} {\tilde F}_{\mu \nu } F_{\rho \tau } -
{\tilde \Phi}^2 {\tilde F}^2~\Big)
\cr &~~~-~&
{1\over 2}~{\tilde E}^{a\mu} E^\nu_{~a} {\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi }
{\partial_\nu {\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi}} +
{1\over 2} ~{\tilde E}^{a\mu} E^\nu_{~a} {\partial_\mu {\tilde \Phi} \over
{\tilde \Phi}} {\partial_\nu {\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi}}
- {1\over 2}~{\tilde G}^{\mu \nu } {\partial_\mu \partial_\nu \Phi \over \Phi}
\cr &~~~-~&
{1\over 2}~{\tilde E}^{\mu a}E^\nu_{~a}{\partial_\mu \partial_\nu
{\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi} } - {1\over 2}~ {\tilde E}^{a\mu}\partial_\mu
E^\nu_{~a} {\partial_\nu \Phi \over \Phi} - {1\over 2}~ {\tilde E}^{a\mu}
\partial_\mu E^\nu_{~a} {\partial_\nu {\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi}} \cr
&~~~+~& {1\over 4}~\Big(~{\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}{\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi}
+ {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}{\partial_\mu {\tilde \Phi} \over {\tilde \Phi}}~\Big)
\Big[~E^{a\nu} E^{b\rho}( \partial_\rho E_{b\nu} - \partial_\nu E_{b\rho}) \cr
&~~~+~& {\tilde E}^{a\nu} {\tilde E}^{b\rho}( \partial_\rho {\tilde E}_{b\nu} -
\partial_\nu {\tilde E}_{b\rho})~\Big],
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{R1}
R^{(1)} &~~=~~&
m \bigg [~{1\over4}~ (\partial_\mu E_{a\nu} - \partial_\nu E_{a\mu})
\Big(~
3 E^{a\nu} E^\mu_{~b}{\tilde E}^{b\rho}A_\rho - 4 E^{a\nu} A^\mu
({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho}) - 4 E^\mu_{~b}A^a {\tilde E}^{b\nu }
\cr &~~~+~&
4 A^\mu E^a_{~\rho}{\tilde E}^{b\rho} E^\nu_{~b} + 8 A^\mu
{\tilde E}^{a \nu } + 12 A^\nu E^{a\mu } +
E^{a\mu}G^{\nu \rho}{\tilde A}_\rho
- E^{b\nu} E^{a\mu}{\tilde A}_b \Phi{\tilde \Phi}^{-1}
\cr &~~~-~&
A^\nu E^{a\mu }{\tilde \Phi} \Phi^{-1}~\Big)
+{1\over 4}~ (\partial_\mu {\tilde E}_{a\nu} - \partial_\nu {\tilde E}_{a\mu})
\Big(~4 {\tilde E}^{a\mu} A^b {\tilde E}^{\nu }_{~b} +
{\tilde E}^{a\mu}{\tilde G}^{\nu \rho} A_\rho
\cr &~~~-~&
{\tilde A}^\nu {\tilde E}^{a\mu } \Phi {\tilde \Phi }^{-1}
+ {\tilde E}^{a\mu}
{\tilde E}^{b\nu} E^{\rho}_{~b}{\tilde A}_\rho
- {\tilde E}^{b\nu }{\tilde E}^{a\mu} A_b
\Phi^{-1}{\tilde \Phi}~\Big) - {1\over 4} F_{\mu\nu}~\Big(~{5\over 2}~
{\tilde E}^{a\mu} E^\nu_{~a}
\cr &~~~+~&
{3\over 2}~\Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1} G^{\nu\rho}
E^{b\mu }{\tilde E}_{b\rho }
+ ( {\tilde A}_\rho - A_\rho)~( 2\Phi {\tilde \Phi} G^{\mu\rho}
{\tilde A}_a E^{a\nu} + 3 \Phi^2 A^\mu E^{a\nu} {\tilde E}^\rho_{~a} )~\Big)
\cr &~~~+~&
{1\over 4}~ {\tilde F}_{\mu \nu}~\Big(~{3\over 2} ( {\tilde A}_\rho -A_\rho)
\Phi {\tilde \Phi}
A^b {\tilde G}^{\mu \rho} {\tilde E}^\nu_{~b}
- {1\over 2}~ {\tilde \Phi} \Phi^{-1} {\tilde G}^{\mu \rho}
{\tilde E}^{a\nu }E_{a\rho} + {1\over 2} {\tilde E}^{a\mu} E^\nu_{~a}
\cr &~~~+~&
{\tilde \Phi}^2 ({\tilde A}_\rho - A_\rho)
{\tilde A}^\mu {\tilde E}^{b\nu}E^\rho_b ~\Big)
+{1\over 2}~{\tilde E}^{a\mu }\partial_\mu \Big( {\tilde E}^{\rho}_{~a}
(A_\rho - {\tilde A}_\rho \Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1}) + E^\rho_{~a}
( {\tilde A}_\rho - A_\rho {\tilde \Phi}\Phi^{-1})~\Big)
\cr &~~~-~&
E^\mu_{~a} \partial_\mu \Big(~ A_\rho {\tilde E}^{a\rho} - A^a (
{\tilde E}^{b\rho} E_{b\rho}) + 3 A^a~\Big )
+{1\over 4}~ {\partial_\mu \Phi \over \Phi}~\Big( ~3A^a {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}
- A^a {\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
\cr &~~~+~&
3 {\tilde E}^{a\mu}E^\rho_{~a} {\tilde A}_\rho
- {\tilde A}^\mu (E^{b\rho} {\tilde E}_{b\rho}) + 3 {\tilde A}^\mu
+ {\tilde G}^{\mu\rho} A_\rho - 2 {\tilde E}^{a\mu} A_a {\tilde \Phi}
\Phi^{-1}~\Big) \cr
&~~~+~& {1\over 4}{\partial_\mu {\tilde \Phi}\over {\tilde \Phi}}
{}~ \Big(~ 3A^\mu -A^\mu ({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
+ G^{\mu\rho} {\tilde A}_\rho - {\tilde A}^a E^{b\rho} {\tilde
E}_{b\rho}E^\mu_{~a} + 3 {\tilde A}^a E^\mu_{~a} \cr
&~~~-~& {\tilde
E}^{a\rho}E^\mu_{~a}A_\rho
+ 2\Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1} E^\mu_{~a} {\tilde A}^a ~\Big)~\bigg]~~ ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{R2}
R^{(2)}
&~~=~~&
{m^2 \over 16} ~\bigg[~ \Phi^{-2}~\big(- 32 +
48 {\tilde E}^{b\rho} E_{b\rho}
- 7{\tilde E}^{b\mu} E_{a\mu} {\tilde E}^{a\rho} E_{b\rho} - {\tilde G}^{\mu
\nu} G_{\mu \nu } - 8 ({\tilde E}^{b\rho} E_{b\rho} )^2~\big)
\cr &~~~+~&
{\tilde \Phi}^{-2}~\big( E^{b\rho}{\tilde E}_{a\rho} E^{a\nu} {\tilde
E}_{b\nu} - G^{\mu \nu } {\tilde G}_{\mu \nu } \big) - 2 \Phi^{-1}{\tilde
\Phi}^{-1}~\big( 4 - {\tilde E}^{a\rho} E_{b \rho} {\tilde E}^b_{~\nu}
E^\nu_{~a}\big)~\bigg]
\cr &~~~+~&
{m^2\over 4} ( {\tilde A}_\mu - A_\mu) \bigg[~ A_\rho
{\tilde G}^{\mu\rho} -
A_a {\tilde E}^{a\rho} E_{b\rho}{\tilde E}^{b\mu } + \Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1}
\big( E^\nu_{~a}{\tilde E}^{a\mu} A_b{\tilde E}^b_{~\nu} - A^\mu \big)~\bigg]
\cr &~~~+~&
{m^2 \over 4}~\bigg[~ - 6 A_\nu {\tilde E}^{b\nu}E_{b\rho}{\tilde E}^{a
\rho} A_a - A_\nu {\tilde E}^{a\nu}A_a - 2 A^2 ({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})^2
+ 4 A^2 ({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
\cr &~~~-~& 12 A^2 + 3 A_\nu A_a {\tilde E}^{a\nu}({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
+ 3 A^2 {\tilde E}^{b\nu}E_{b\mu }{\tilde E}^{a\mu}E_{a\nu} -
3 A_a{\tilde E}^{a\rho} A_b {\tilde E}^{b\nu} G_{\rho \nu}
\cr &~~~+~&
3 A^2{\tilde G}^{\mu\nu}G_{\mu\nu}
+ 7{\tilde A}_\rho A^\rho - 4 {\tilde A}_a A^a ({\tilde E}_{b\rho}E^{b\rho})
+ 10 {\tilde A}^a A_a - {\tilde A}^\mu A_\mu ({\tilde E}_{b\rho}E^{b\rho})
\cr &~~~-~&
A^\mu {\tilde A}_\mu({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
+ 3 {\tilde A}^\mu A_\mu
+ {\tilde A}_\nu G^{\mu \nu } {\tilde A}_\mu - {\tilde A}_\mu E^{a\mu}
{\tilde A}_a ({\tilde E}_{b\rho}E^{b\rho})
\cr &~~~+~&
3 {\tilde A}_\rho E^{a\rho}{\tilde A}_a
+4 A_\mu{\tilde A}^\mu \Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1} -2 {\tilde A}^2 \Phi^2 {\tilde
\Phi}^{-2} + 2 {\tilde A}_a E^{a\rho}{\tilde A}_\rho \Phi {\tilde \Phi}^{-1}
\cr &~~~+~&
2 A_a {\tilde E}^{a\mu} A_\mu {\tilde\Phi} \Phi^{-1}~\bigg]
- {m^2 \over 4}~\big ({\tilde A}_a\Phi {\tilde \Phi }^{-1} + A_a {\tilde \Phi}
\Phi^{-1}\big)~\bigg[~ A_\nu{\tilde E}^{a\nu} - A^a
({\tilde E}^{b\rho}E_{b\rho})
\cr &~~~+~&
3 A^a + {\tilde A}_\nu E^{a\nu} -
{\tilde A}^a ({\tilde E}_{b\rho}E^{b\rho}) + 3 {\tilde A}^a ~\bigg]~
\cr &~~~+~&
{m^2 \over 16} \big({\tilde A}_\mu - A_\mu \big) ({\tilde A}_\nu - A_\nu)~
\bigg[~ 6\Phi {\tilde \Phi}\big( A^\mu {\tilde A}^\nu - {\tilde A}^a A_a
{\tilde E}^{a\mu} E^\nu_{~a} \big)
\cr &~~~+~&
5 \Phi^2 ~\big( A^2 {\tilde G}^{\mu \nu} - A_b {\tilde E}^{b\mu } {\tilde E}^{a
\nu} A_a) + {\tilde \Phi}^2~\big( {\tilde A}^2 G^{\mu \nu} - {\tilde A}_a
{\tilde A}_b E^{a\nu} E^{b\mu }\big)~\bigg]~~,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
F_{\mu \nu }= \partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu = \pmatrix{ f_{1\mu\nu} &
0 \cr
0 & f_{2\mu\nu} \cr} ~~,
\end{equation}
and $r_1$ and $ r_2$ are the ordinary Ricci scalar curvatures on the first and
second copies of spacetime, respectively.
The volume element is given by
\begin{equation}\label{volume}
D^5X~=~D^4X \sqrt{-det | {\cal G}|}
\end{equation}
Here $det|{\cal G}|$ denotes the determinant of our generalized metric
defined in Eq.(\ref{METRIC}) and is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
det|{\cal G}|& \doteq &{1\over 5!}{\epsilon }_{N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4 N_5}
{\epsilon}_{M_1 M_2 M_3 M_4 M_5}{\cal G}^{N_1 M_1}{\cal G}^{N_2 M_2}
{\cal G}^{N_3 M_3} {\cal G}^{N_4 M_4} {\cal G}^{N_5 M_5} \cr
& = &
{1\over 4!}{\epsilon}_{ \nu_1 \nu_2 \nu_3 \nu_4}
{\epsilon}_{\mu_1
\mu_2 \mu_3 \mu_4 } {\cal G}^{\nu_1\mu_1} {\cal G}^{\nu_2 \mu_2}
{\cal G}^{\nu_3 \mu_3}{\cal G}^{\nu_4
\mu_4} {\cal G}^{55} \equiv det|G|\Phi~{\bf 1},
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\epsilon}$'s are the fully antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensors and
\begin{equation}
det|G| ~~=~~ \pmatrix{ det |g_1| & 0 \cr
0 & det |g_2| \cr }.
\end{equation}
The action then is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{action}
S &~~=~~& {1\over m. \kappa}~Tr~(\int dx^4 \sqrt{-det~G}~ R)~~,\cr
&~~=~~& S_1 + S_2 ~~,\cr
S_1&~~=~~& \sqrt{-det |g_1|}\varphi_1 R_1~~,\cr
S_2&~~=~~& \sqrt{-det |g_2|}\varphi_2 R_2~~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\kappa = 16\pi^2G^{-2}/m $ and $ G $ is the Newton
constant.
The integration over the discrete space follows naturally to be
${1\over m} Tr $.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{ Mass terms:}
The full action of our model (\ref{action}) contain six independent interacting
fields $ e^a_{1\mu},~e^a_{2\mu},~a_{1\mu},~a_{2\mu},
{}~\varphi_1 $ and $ \varphi_2 $.
Since the full expression for the Ricci scalar curvature $ R $ in
Eqs.(\ref{RICCI})-(\ref{R2}) is obviously extremely complex, here we will
concentrate on the massive modes in our model. We will concentrate on the
gravity sector first.
\subsection{ Gravity and massive tensor field}
To find the mass content of the tensor field we consider the part of the
action that contains only tensor fields. It turns out to be
\begin{eqnarray}\label{TENSORS}
R_t &~~=~~& \int dx^4~\sqrt{-det |G|}~ \bigg[ ~{1\over 2}~
\pmatrix{ r_1 & 0 \cr
0 & r_2 \cr} +
{m^2 \over 16} ~\bigg(~ - 40 +
48 {\tilde E}^{b\rho} E_{b\rho}
\cr &~~-~~& 7{\tilde E}^{b\mu} E_{a\mu} {\tilde E}^{a\rho} E_{b\rho} -
{\tilde G}^{\mu
\nu} G_{\mu \nu } - 8 ({\tilde E}^{b\rho} E_{b\rho} )^2~
\cr &~~~+~&
E^{b\rho}{\tilde E}_{a\rho} E^{a\nu} {\tilde
E}_{b\nu} - G^{\mu \nu } {\tilde G}_{\mu \nu }
+ 2 {\tilde E}^{a\rho} E_{b \rho} {\tilde E}^b_{~\nu}
E^\nu_{~a}~\bigg)~\bigg].
\end{eqnarray}
{}From the terms proportional to $ m^2$, we can see that $ e^\mu_{1a} $
and $ e^\mu_{2a}$ are not the fields corresponding to mass eigenstates since
their products appear in these terms giving rise to mixing.
To find mass eigenstates we write
\begin{eqnarray}\label{EPM}
E^\mu_{~a}&~~=~~& {1\over 2}~ \bigg(~e^\mu_{+a} {\bf 1} + e^\mu_{-a}
r~~\bigg)~~,\cr
{\tilde E}^\mu_{~a}&~~=~~& {1\over 2}~\bigg(~ e^\mu_{+a} {\bf 1} +
e^\mu_{-a} r~~\bigg)~~,
\end{eqnarray}
and substitute for them in Eq.(\ref{TENSORS}). We note that a proper mass term
has the general form $ m^2 b^{a\mu} b_{a\mu} $, where $ b^a_{~\mu}$
represents the massive tensor field.
With this in mind, we find two possibilities for identifying the massive
fields:
i) If we choose $ e^\mu_{+a} $ as the vielbein for the metric that represents
gravity, we find the mass term for the tensor field $e^a_{-\mu}$ as
$ \sim 15/16 m^2 e^{a\mu}_- e_{-a\mu}$ in Eq.(\ref{TENSORS}). The terms in pure
$ e^a_{+\mu} $ give a cosmological constant. In the case we are considering,
these terms and the constant term cancel and consequently there is no
cosmological constant. Further
we note that, in the vacuum $ e_+$ is a physical field as $ e_- \rightarrow 0 $
and $ e^\mu_{+a} \rightarrow \delta^\mu_a $.
ii) If we choose $ e^\mu_{-a} $ as the vielbein for the gravity metric. The
same terms that give a mass to $ e^\mu_{-a}$ in the previous case, now becomes
the mass terms for $ e^a_{+\mu}$. Since the terms in pure $ e^a_{+\mu}$ and the
constant terms do not cancel, there is a cosmological constant in this case.
In vacuum, $ e^a_{+\mu}\rightarrow 0 $ and $e^\mu_{-a} \rightarrow
\delta^\mu_{~a} $.
The mass term for $ e^\mu_{+a}$ in this case is $ -9/16 m^2 e^{a\mu}_+
e_{+a\mu} $. There are also quartic terms in $ e^\mu_{+a}$. It would be
interesting to see whether this negative mass terms lead to spontaneous
symmetry breaking patters.
In the two limiting cases, when the massive tensor field is set to zero we
have the usual Einstein theory with the vielbein $e^\mu_{-a}$ or the
theory with the vielbein $e^\mu_{+a}$ together with a cosmological constant.
Now we will consider the mass terms of the vector and scalar fields with
the above two choices.
\subsection{ Mass terms of vector and scalar fields}
At classical level the tensor fields do not alter the mass terms of
vector and scalar fields. Hence we will turn off the tensor fields and consider
two limiting cases $ E^\mu_{~a} = \delta^\mu_{~a}$ and
$ E^\mu_{~a}= \delta^\mu_{~a}r $.
After inserting the particular $ E^\mu_{~a}$ into the the expression for
$R^{(2)}$ we find:
i) $ E^\mu_{~a}=\delta^\mu_{~a} $ : There is no mass terms for the scalar
fields. However, the mass term for vector fields is $ 4 m^2 a_{-\mu}^2 $ where
$ a_{\pm \mu} = 1/2 ( a_{1\mu}-a_{2\mu})$. This means that in this case
$ a_{+\mu}$ is massless and $ a_{-\mu}$ is massive.
ii) $ E^\mu_{~a} =\delta^\mu_{~a}r$ : The mass terms in this case are given
by
\begin{equation}
R^{(2)}~~=~~ -96m^2 \varphi_{-}^{2} - 36 m^2 a_{-}^2~~,
\end{equation}
where $ \varphi_{\pm} = \varphi_1 \pm \varphi_2 $.
The action for this part is
\begin{equation}
S_m ~~\sim~~ \int dx^4 -96 m^2(\varphi_{-}^{3} +\varphi_{+}\varphi_{-}^{2})
- 36 m^2( \varphi_{+} + \varphi_{-}) a_{-}^2 ~~.
\end{equation}
Note that in vacuum $ \varphi_+ = 1 $. Therefore $ \varphi_{-} $ is the
physical mode while we have to expand $\varphi_{+}$ in terms of the physical
field $\sigma $ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\varphi_{+} ~~=~~2 exp(-\sigma ) ~~,
\end{equation}
where in vacuum $\sigma \rightarrow 0 $.
Using this expansion, the mass terms of $ a_{-\mu}$ and $ \varphi_{-}$
are $-36 m^2 a^2_{-}$ and $ -96m^2 \varphi^2_{-}$ respectively. These mass
terms
as well as the mass term for the tensor field $e^\mu_{+a}$
in this case are negative. It would be interesting to include the quartic terms
to see whether these negative mass terms lead to some spontaneous symmetry
breaking patterns. The quartic potential for vector fields are already there
in Eq.(\ref{R2}). To have the quartic potential for the scalar field, however,
one has to modify the wedge product of forms in Eq.(\ref{wedge}). Such
modifications will be discussed elsewhere.
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\section{Summary and Conclusions:}
We have in the previous papers \cite{VIWA,LVW} developed a discretized
version of
Kaluza-Klein theory by replacing the continuous fifth dimension by two discrete
points. In the language of NCG, we may speak of two copies of spacetime instead
of an infinite number of them in the standard Kaluza-Klein theory ( For every
internal point in the fifth dimension we have a four-dimensional spacetime).
The geometry of the extended spacetime permitted us to introduce a generalized
vielbein consisting of a pair of tensor, a pair of vector and a pair of scalar
fields. When we imposed the standard metric compatibility and torsion free
conditions to determine the connection 1-form, we found constraints on the
vielbeins in the form of dynamical dilaton fields that implied new and
interesting consequences.
In the present paper we have pursued the investigation further to see whether
we can eliminate the constraints on the vielbeins by relaxing the torsion free
condition. In order to remain as close to the Riemannian geometry as possible,
we still require that the torsion 2-forms corresponding to the physical
spacetime do vanish. However, by making an ansatz about torsion 2-form
corresponding to the internal space, we determine uniquely not only all the
connection 1-form coefficients, but also the nonvanishing torsion components in
terms of the assumed vielbeins. This is in contrast to the usual Riemannian
geometry where nonvanishing torsion does not lead to a unique determination of
the connection coefficients.
With the unique determination of the connection coefficients, we obtain a
Lagrangian and an action that has a rich and complex structure with interacting
tensor, vector and scalar fields. It appears as sum of two terms $ S_1$ and $
S_2$, each consisting of all the six independent fields and each representing a
generally covariant action. In $ S_1 (S_2)$, the vierbein $e^\mu_{1a}~(
e^\mu_{2a})$ acts as the metric field with appropriate kinetic term while the
other $e^\mu_{2a}~(e^\mu_{1a}) $ coupled to $e^\mu_{1a}~(e^\mu_{2a})$ in
quadratic and quartic terms. This suggests that $ e^\mu_{1a}$ and
$e^\mu_{2a}$ are not eigenstates of mass. Instead we have two mass eigenstates
as $e^\mu_{\pm a}= e^\mu_{1a} \pm e^\mu_{2a} $. We have two possibilities
of choosing $e^\mu_{+a} $ or $ e^\mu_{-a}$ as representing the gravity field.
In the first case, $e^a_{-\mu}$ and $ a_{-\mu} $ are massive fields
while the scalar fields and $a_{+\mu} $ are massless. There is no cosmological
constant in this case. In the second case, there is a cosmological
constant and negative mass terms for tensor, vector and scalar fields.
In conclusion, we like to observe that our discretized version of Kaluza-Klein
theory within the framework of NCG demonstrates an extremely promising approach
to internal structure of elementary particles. If the internal space is
discrete, one obtains only a finite number of massive modes and thus avoids the
problem of infinite number of massive modes and of the necessity of truncation.
In addition to having mass, the fields have interactions proportional to the
mass parameter $ m $ and the Newton constant $ G$.It is extremely interesting
to explore the consequences of such theory on gravity. The highly correlated
interactions also suggest strong quantum implications that are fascinating to
study.
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgments.}
This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract
number DE-FG02-85ER40231. One of the authors ( N.A.V.) thanks Profs T.N.Truong
and Y.X. Pham for financial support and invitation to give talks
on NCG at \'Ecole Polytechnique and University Paris VI where the hospitality
and stimulating discussions inspired many ideas in this paper. K.C.W.
would like to thank the Fulbright Foundation for a grant and Dr.G.C.Joshi for
many useful discussions and his hospitality at the University of Melbourne,
Australia where this work was partially done. The contribution of G.Landi at
the
initial stage of this research program, mainly in Ref.\cite{LVW} is greatly
appreciated.
\bigskip
|
\section*{Introduction}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) continue to confound astrophysicists nearly a
quarter century after their discovery \cite{KSO73}. Before the
launch of CGRO, most scientists thought that GRBs came from magnetic
neutron stars residing in a thick disk (having a scale height of up to
$\sim$ 2 kpc) in the Milky Way \cite{HigLin90,Hard91}. The data
gathered by BATSE showed the existence of a rollover in the cumulative
brightness distribution of GRBs and that the sky distribution of even
faint GRBs is consistent with isotropy \cite{Meegan92,Briggs95}.
This rules out a thick Galactic disk source population, with
\cite{Smith94} or without \cite{MaoP92} spiral arms.
Consequently, the primary impact of the BATSE results has been to
intensify debate about whether the bursts are Galactic or cosmological
in origin. Galactic models attribute the bursts primarily to
high-velocity neutron stars in a Galactic corona, which must
extend one sixth or more of the distance to Andromeda ($d_{\rm M31} \sim
690$ kpc) in order to avoid any discernible anisotropy
\cite{Hak94,Hartmann94}. Cosmological models place the GRB sources at
distances $d \sim 1 - 3$ Gpc, corresponding to redshifts $z\sim 0.3 -
1$. A source population at such large distances naturally produces an
isotropic distribution of bursts on the sky, and the expansion of the
universe or source evolution can reproduce the observed rollover in the
cumulative brightness distribution \cite{Fen93}.
Within the context of this workshop, we focus on Galactic corona models
involving high velocity neutron stars.
A recent discussion of cosmological models may be found in, e.g., Blaes
\cite{Blaes94}.
\section*{High Velocity Neutron Stars}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Only a few years ago scientists thought that neutron stars had
velocities of 100 - 200 km s$^{-1}$ \cite{LAS82}. But recent studies
show \cite{LyneLori94,FrailGW94} that as much as 50\% of neutron stars
have velocities $v > 800$ km s$^{-1}$. These velocities are so high
that these neutron stars escape from the Galaxy and produce a distant,
previously unknown Galactic "corona."
The evidence that many neutron stars have high velocities comes from
two independent directions. In the first case, long-wavelength radio
observations have discovered that many young radio pulsars are
associated with young ($t_{\rm age} < 10^4$ yrs) supernova remnants
\cite{FrailGW94}. Sometimes the young pulsar lies within
the shell-like supernova remnant; sometimes it is passing through the
shell, as the spectacular radio image of the "duck" supernova remnant
and pulsar PSR1757-24 reveals; and sometimes the young pulsar is
associated only with a comet-like "plerion," or filled remnant. In
every case the pulsar lies far from the center of the remnant. These
offsets imply median transverse velocities $\sim 500$ km s$^{-1}$, with
$\sim$ 1/3 of the neutron stars having transverse velocities $> 1000$
km s$^{-1}$ \cite{FrailGW94}.
In the second case, a new model for the electron density in the Milky
Way and a greater understanding of an important observational bias that
affects the determination of pulsar velocities has dramatically
increased the velocities inferred for older pulsars. The new electron
density model shows that the distance to, and therefore the transverse
velocity of, nearby pulsars was underestimated by about a factor of two
in previous models \cite{TayCordes93}. The observational bias that
affects the determination of pulsar velocities arises because young
radio pulsars are born close to the Galactic plane, and move rapidly
away from it if their velocity is high. After some time, the pulsars
that remain within detectable range are mostly those with small
velocities. The strength of the bias is illustrated by the fact that
the mean of the distribution of transverse velocities is $345 \pm 70$
km s$^{-1}$ for pulsars with spindown ages $\tau <$ 3 Myr, whereas it
is $105 \pm 25$ km s$^{-1}$ for pulsars with $\tau \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >}$ 70 Myr
\cite{LyneLori94}.
Recent studies that incorporate these discoveries yield median neutron
star total velocities $\langle v \rangle_{\rm median} \sim 600$ km
s$^{-1}$, with as many as half of all neutron stars having velocities
$v > 800$ km s$^{-1}$ \cite{LyneLori94,Chernoff95}. These results have
revolutionized our understanding of the spatial distribution of neutron
stars in the Galaxy. Since the escape velocity from the Milky Way is
$\approx 500$ km s$^{-1}$ in the solar neighborhood and $\approx 600$
km s$^{-1}$ in the Galactic bulge, where most neutron stars are born,
all of these high velocity neutron stars will escape from the Milky
Way. They form a distant, previously unknown "corona" around the Milky
Way. This distant corona contains an ample population of sources which
appear isotropic when viewed from the Earth.
\section*{The Galactic Corona}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Prior to the launch of CGRO, many scientists believed it likely that
gamma-ray bursts came from a thick Galactic disk. But, while a
Galactic disk population was the most conservative and perhaps the most
popular model \cite{HigLin90,Hard91}, extended halo populations have
also had a long and illustrious history (see, e.g.,
\cite{Fish79,Jenn82,Jenn80,Shklov85}).
What did exist was a consensus that
gamma-ray bursts come from magnetic neutron stars in the Galaxy. There
were many reasons for this, several of which we describe below.
Following the discovery by BATSE that the faint bursts are distributed
isotropically on the sky, Galactic halo and corona models found new
flavor (see, e.g., \cite{Hartmann94,Brainerd92,DT92,LiDer:92,SmithLamb93})
as an
attractive way of reconciling all of the evidence about GRBs which favors
Galactic neutron stars with isotropy. However,
these models were considered somewhat ad hoc, particularly by advocates
of cosmological models, because no means of producing large numbers of
neutron stars in an extended Galactic halo was known [see, e.g.
\cite{Pac93}]. .
Consequently, the debate about whether GRBs are Galactic or
cosmological in origin was characterized as one between those who
advocated objects which we know produce burst-like phenomena (high
velocity neutron stars; see below) but which were not known to have the
necessary spatial distribution (extended Galactic halo) {\it vs.} those
who advocated objects which we do not know can produce burst-like
phenomena (e.g., coalescing neutron star binaries or failed supernovae)
but were known to have the necessary spatial distribution
(cosmological).
The subsequent discovery that many neutron stars have velocities high
enough to escape from the Milky Way
has given models a tremendous boost. Nevertheless, these models
must answer several important questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Can a Galactic corona of high velocity neutron
stars account for the isotropic sky distribution and the rollover in
the brightness distribution of GRBs seen by BATSE?
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Why do only high velocity neutron stars produce
GRBs?
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Are GRBs beamed along the direction of
motion of the neutron star or, if not, why is bursting activity
delayed?
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Are there energy sources sufficient to power
GRBs in such a model?
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Can the energy needed be
released over 500 Myr or more?
\item[\rm $\bullet$] Can cyclotron lines formed in regions where the magnetic
field is $\sim 2\times 10^{12} - 10^{13}$ G be produced by magnetic
neutron stars in GRBs with luminosities $L_{\rm burst } \sim 10^{41}
- 10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$?
\end{itemize}
We consider each of these questions below.
\subsection*{Ingredients in High Velocity Neutron Star Models}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{\psfig{file=mn_dot01.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=kg_dot01.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Distribution of neutron stars with an initial kick velocity of
$1000$~\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ found using the Miyamoto and Nagai (1975) potential (left panel)
and using the Kuijken and Gilmore (1989) potential (right panel). Note
the increased concentration of stars in an extended disk due to the
focusing described in the text.}\vspace{-5mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
We have calculated detailed models of the spatial distribution expected
for a population of high-velocity neutron stars born in the Galactic
disk and moving in a Galactic potential that includes the bulge, disk,
and a dark matter halo. All earlier studies of which we are aware that
included these components of the gravitational potential employed the potential
given by Miyamoto and Nagai \cite{MN75}.
For studies of high-velocity neutron stars, it is
essential to use a potential that is realistic out to very large
distances. We find that the Miyamoto and Nagai \cite{MN75}
implies the existence
of an extended disk, far beyond the observed Galactic disk.
Approximately $\approx$ 20\% of the mass lies outside $r = 20$ kpc,
whereas in more realistic exponential disks less than 4\% of the mass
lies outside $20$~kpc.
The
focusing effect of such a disk can be seen by calculating the ratio of
the $z$ components of the force using the Miyamoto and Nagai \cite{MN75}
potential to the force due to a point mass for $r\gg a, b, z$:
\begin{equation}
{F_z^{MN}\over F_z^{PM}} = 1 + {a\over(b^2 +z^2)^{1/2}},
\end{equation}
where $a,b$ are parameters describing the Miyamoto and Nagai potential.
Typically $a\approx 4$~kpc, $b\approx 0.2$~kpc, so that
$F_z^{MN}/F_z^{PM} \rightarrow \; \approx 20$ as $z \rightarrow 0$. The
use of the Miyamoto and Nagai \cite{MN75}
potential
distorts the orbits of neutron stars whose initial velocity vectors lie
in or near the plane of the disk, and leads to an anisotropic spatial
distribution that is entirely an artifact of the unrealistic disk
potential (see Figure 1).
We therefore use the mass distribution and potential given by
Kuijken and Gilmore \cite{KG:89}. Details of our calculation are given
in \cite{BulLam95a}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{\psfig{file=plo2cth.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=plo2sb2.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}} \\
{\psfig{file=plo2m31.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=plo2pf2.ps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}} \\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of a Galactic corona model with
the inclusion of M31 in which neutron stars
are born with a kick velocity of $1000$~\hbox{km~s$^{-1}$}\ and have a burst-active
phase lasting $\Delta t = 500$ million years with a carefully-selected
sample of 285 bursts from the BATSE 2B catalogue. Panels (a), (b), and (c)
show the contours in the ($\delta t$, $d_{\rm max}$)-plane along which
the Galactic dipole, Galactic
quadrupole moments, and dipole towards M31 of the model differ from
those of the data by $\pm$ 1$\sigma$ (solid lines), $\pm$ 2$\sigma$
(dashed line), and $\pm$ 3$\sigma$ (short-dashed line) where $\sigma$
is the model variance; the thin line in panel (a)-(c) shows the contour
where the dipole moment for the model equals that for the data. Panel
(d) shows the contours in the ($\delta t$, $d_{\rm max}$)-plane along
which 32\%, 5\%, and $4 \times 10^{-3}$ of simulations of the
cumulative distribution of 285 bursts drawn from the peak flux
distribution of the model have KS deviations $D$ larger than that of
the data.
}
\vspace{-6mm}
\end{figure}
\subsection*{Sky and Brightness Distributions of Bursts}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Our detailed dynamical calculations of the Galaxy show that a distant
corona of high velocity neutron stars can easily account for the
isotropic angular distribution and the brightness distribution of
GRBs (Figure 2) [see also \cite{LiDer:92,LTD:94,Pods:94}].
\figside{\leavevmode\psfig{file=batse_pvo.ps,width=5cm,angle=-90}}
{\footnotesize{\bf FIG.~\ref{batse_pvo}}. \footnotesize
\baselineskip 1mm
Comparison of the brightness distribution of bursts from a Galactic
corona of high velocity neutron stars (thin line) and the brightness
distribution of both BATSE and PVO gamma-ray bursts (thick lines)
\cite{Fen93}.}{\label{batse_pvo}}
In high-velocity neutron star models, the slope of the cumulative peak
flux distribution for the brightest BATSE bursts and the PVO bursts
reflects the space density of the relatively small fraction of burst
sources in the vicinity of the Sun ($d \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 50$ kpc). A spread in
neutron star kick velocities, in neutron star ages at which bursting
behavior begins, or in the burst luminosity function tends to produce a
cumulative peak flux distribution with a slope of -3/2, the value
expected for a uniform spatial distribution of sources which emit
bursts that are ``standard candles.'' Figure~\ref{batse_pvo}
shows that a spread of
less than a factor of 10 in the luminosity function, which is
consistent with what know about GRBs,
is sufficient to produce agreement with not
only the BATSE, but also the PVO, brightness distribution of GRBs.
Beaming along the direction of motion of the
neutron star can also reproduce the combined BATSE and PVO brightness
distributions \cite{DLT:93,LTD:94}.
The Galactic corona model predicts subtle anisotropies as a function of
burst brightness, which are a signature of the model and may offer a
means of verifying or rejecting it
\cite{LiDer:92,DLT:93,Pods:94,BulLam95a}.
\begin{figure}[th]
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lr}
{\psfig{file=bd.100.ps,width=4.1cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=map.100.01.ps,width=7.3cm,angle=-90}} \\
{\psfig{file=bd.300.ps,width=4.1cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=map.300.01.ps,width=7.3cm,angle=-90}} \\
{\psfig{file=bd.500.ps,width=4.1cm,angle=-90}} &
{\psfig{file=map.500.01.ps,width=7.3cm,angle=-90}}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.5mm}
\caption{Sky distribution and brightness distribution of bursts from
a Galactic corona of high velocity neutron stars for BATSE sampling
distances $d_{\rm max}$ = 100, 300, and 500 kpc. Note that an excess
of the bursts appears only when $d_{\rm max}$~=~500~kpc.}
\vspace{-7mm}
\end{figure}
It has often stated that Andromeda, a bright galaxy similar to our
own Milky Way and lying only $700$ kpc away, imposes a severe
constraint on extended halo models \cite{Hak94}.
This is true, however, only if the halo extends to large
distances \cite{BT87}.
However, the halo of the
Milky Way can extend only 1/3 - 1/2 of the distance to Andromeda
because of tidal disruption.
A similar statement has been thought to be true for corona models
because in such models Andromeda produces its own ``wind'' of high
velocity neutron stars. Some of these will travel toward us, and when
they produce GRBs, BATSE should detect them.
However, Andromeda imposes little constraint if the bursts are beamed
along the direction of motion of the neutron star, as some models posit
\cite{DLT:93,LTD:94}.
Then
only the rare neutron star in the corona of Andromeda whose motion is
almost directly toward or away from us would be visible. So long as
the BATSE sampling depth $d_{\rm max} <$ 700 kpc (the distance to
Andromeda), the few bursts visible from Andromeda would always be
swamped by bursts from the many high velocity neutron stars born in the
Milky Way and moving away from us. Only if $d_{\rm max} >$ 700 kpc, so
that a large number of the neutron stars in the Andromeda corona
whose motions are away from us are visible, would an excess toward
Andromeda be detectable \cite{BulCopLam:95c}.
Even if the bursts radiate isotropically in all directions, detailed
dynamical calculations of the motion of neutron stars in the combined
gravitational potential of the Milky Way and Andromeda show that an
excess of bursts toward Andromeda is not detected until one samples
distances $d_{\rm max} \sim 500$ kpc from Earth (see Figure~4)
\cite{Pods:94,BulCopLam:95c}.
Thus there is ample parameter space
(BATSE sampling distances $d_{\rm max} \approx 100 - 500$ kpc) for a
population of sources in a Galactic corona.
A larger sample of BATSE bursts or a more sensitive instrument might
reveal an excess of bursts toward Andromeda.
If so, this would constitute definitive evidence that the
bursts are Galactic in origin. Lack of an excess toward Andromeda
would be compelling evidence that the bursts are cosmological in origin
only if made by an instrument at least 50 times more sensitive than
BATSE, given the possibility that the bursts are beamed along the
direction of motion of the neutron star and current constraints on the
Galactic corona model.
\section*{Soft Gamma-Ray Repeaters}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
We have seen that a Galactic corona of high velocity neutron stars can
easily account for the BATSE sky distribution and brightness
distribution of gamma-ray bursts. Is there any evidence that high
velocity neutron stars can produce burst-like behavior?
Yes, there is. Soft gamma-ray repeaters produce high energy transients
whose durations overlap with those of GRBs,
and whose characteristic spectral energies form a continuum with those
of GRBs. The main distinction between SGRs and GRBs
is that the former have been
clearly shown to repeat on time scales of days to years
whereas the latter have
been thought not to repeat. But recently, a number of scientists have
found significant evidence that GRBs also repeat
\cite{QL93,WangLing93,WangLing95,Quashnock95}.
Three soft gamma-ray repeaters are known. Two lie in the Galactic disk
at distances of tens of kpc (SGRs 1806-20 and 1900+14); the third lies
in in the Large Magellanic Cloud in the halo of the Milky Way at a
distance of 50 kpc. All three are associated with young supernova
remnants
\cite{Evans80,Kulkarni93,Kouvel94,Murakami94,Hurley94}.
In two cases, the
soft gamma-ray repeater lies far away from the center of the supernova
remnant, implying a neutron star velocity of $\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >} 1000$ km
s$^{-1}$ \cite{Evans80,Hurley94}
Clearly, high
velocity neutron stars can produce burst-like behavior.
If GRBs come from high velocity neutron stars in a distant
Galactic corona, there are additional similarities between GRBs
and SGRs. Both have luminosities $L \sim
10^{41}-10^{43}$ erg s$^{-1}$. Both also appear to have strong
magnetic fields, as we discuss below. These similarities and the ones
we discussed above suggest a physical or evolutionary relationship
between SGRs and GRBs. The unification
of these two phenomena is a very attractive feature of the Galactic
hypothesis.
\section*{The Famous 1979 March 5 Gamma-Ray Transient}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
We have seen that high velocity neutron stars can produce burst-like
behavior. Have high velocity neutron stars ever been seen to produce
an event that looks like GRBs? The answer is ``yes.'' The
event is the famous 1979 March 5 gamma-ray transient.
The source of this famous event is SGR 0526-66, which lies in in the
Large Magellanic Cloud in the halo of the Milky Way at a distance of 50
kpc. It is associated with the young supernova remnant N49
\cite{Evans80,Rotsch94}
SGR 0526-66 lies far away from the center of the supernova
remnant, implying a velocity greater than 1200 km s$^{-1}$.
Seventeen bursts have been observed from this source
\cite{Mazets79,Golen84}.
The distribution of the durations of
these bursts overlaps completely with that of GRBs.
The burst had
an intense spike which lasted $\sim 0.2$ s, followed by $\sim 200$ s of
emission which exhibited an 8 s periodicity \cite{Mazets79}.
The
association with the supernova remnant N49 and the 8 s periodicity
leave little doubt that this object is a neutron star. The existence
of pulsations implies a strong magnetic field. The spectrum of the
emission following the intense spike had a characteristic spectral
energy $\langle E \rangle \approx 40$ keV, typical of SGR bursts.
Although nine different
satellites observed the March 5th event \cite{Evans80},
the intensity of the spike produced so-called ``dead-time'' and ``pulse
pike-up'' effects which precluded reliable analyses of the spectrum.
Recently, Fenimore et al. \cite{Feni95} used the power of present-day
computers to unravel these effects in the ICE and PVO instruments.
They found that the spike has a characteristic spectral energy
$\langle E \rangle \approx 200$ keV, with no soft component,
like a typical gamma-ray burst.
Whether the 1979 March 5 event is a GRB or a unique event
can be argued either way. But either way, it demonstrates that distant
high velocity neutron stars in the Galactic halo can produce events
that have the energy, the spectrum, and the duration of GRBs.
This evidence strongly supports the high velocity neutron star
model.
\section*{Energetics}
\vspace{-3.1mm}
We take $F_{\rm peak} \sim 10^{-7}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ as
the typical peak energy flux of a BATSE burst. Then the typical burst
luminosity is
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm burst} \sim 10^{41}
\left({F_{\rm peak} \over {10^{-7} \; \hbox{erg} \; \hbox{cm}^{-2} \; \hbox{s}^{-1}}}\right)
\left({d \over {100 \,\hbox{kpc}}}\right)^2 \; \hbox{erg} \; \hbox{s}^{-1} \; .
\end{equation}
Taking 5 s as the average photon flux-to-energy flux conversion
factor for BATSE bursts \cite{Fen93}, the typical burst energy is
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm burst} \sim 5 \times 10^{41}
\left({F_{\rm peak} \over {10^{-7} \; \hbox{erg} \; \hbox{cm}^{-2} \; \hbox{s}^{-1}}}\right)
\left({d \over {100\, \hbox{kpc}}}\right)^2 \; \hbox{erg} \; .
\end{equation}
The rate of burst detection by BATSE corresponds to an all-sky rate
$R^{\rm BATSE}_{\rm burst} \sim 800$ bursts yr$^{-1}$.
Assuming a neutron star birth rate $R_{\rm NS} \sim 3 \times 10^{-2}$
yr$^{-1}$, each neutron star must produce a total number of bursts
\begin{equation}
N \approx {R^{\rm BATSE}_{\rm burst} /( {f_{\rm escape} R_{\rm NS}})}
\approx 8 \times 10^4 \left({{f_{\rm escape}} / {0.3}} \right)^{-1} \; ,
\end{equation}
during its burst-active phase, where $f_{\rm escape}$ is the fraction
of neutron stars born with velocities high enough to escape from the
Galaxy. Then the total supply of energy needed by each neutron star in
the Galactic corona is
\begin{equation}
\label{etot}
E \sim N ({E_{\rm burst}/ {5 \times 10^{41}}}) \sim 10^{46} \; \hbox{erg} \; ,
\end{equation}
Among possible energy sources are gravitational energy from accretion
of planetesimals \cite{Cole95,Woosley95}, crustal strain energy
from spin down of the neutron star, and magnetic field energy stored in
the interior of the neutron star \cite{Pods:94}. Below we discuss each
possibility in turn.
\subsection*{Accretion}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
The gravitational energy released by accretion is
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm burst} = {{GM \,\Delta M_{burst}}/ R}\, .
\end{equation}
Taking a neutron star mass $M=1.4M_\odot$ and radius $10$~km,
\begin{equation}
\Delta M_{burst} \approx 10^{21} \left( {E_{\rm burst}/ {5 \times 10^{41} \;
\hbox{erg}}} \right) \hbox{g} \, .
\end{equation}
Then the total mass needed to power the GRBs from each neutron star is
\begin{equation}
M \approx N \Delta M \approx 10^{27} \left({E_{\rm burst} /
{5 \times 10^{41} \; \hbox{erg}}}\right) \hbox{g} \approx 10^{-6} M_\odot\, .
\end{equation}
This amount of mass can be supplied by a planetesimal.
\subsection*{Crustal Strain Energy}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
The rotational energy in a neutron star at birth is
\begin{equation}
E_\Omega \approx {1 \over 2} I \Omega^2 \approx 3 \times 10^{47} \left({P
/ {0.3\, \hbox{s}}}\right)^{-2} \hbox{erg}\, .
\end{equation}
However, only a fraction of this energy can be stored in the neutron star crust
and released at much later time is \cite{Pods:94}
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm strain} \approx 0.5 \, \mu \,\theta_{\rm max}^2 \,4\, \pi \, R^2\,
\Delta R_{\rm crust} \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{\rm max}$ is the maximum strain the crust can withstand before
braking, $R$ is the radius of the neutron star and $\Delta R$ is the thickness
of the crust.
Taking $\mu \approx 3 \times 10^{29}$ dyne cm$^{-2}$, $\theta_{\rm max}
\approx 10^{-2}$, and $\Delta R_{\rm crust} \approx 0.1 R \approx 10^5$
cm, the maximum strain energy that the crust can store is
\begin{equation}
\label{estrain}
E_{\rm strain} \approx 2 \times 10^{43} \hspace{-0.5mm}\left({\mu \over
{3\times 10^{29}\,
\hbox{dyne}\, \hbox{cm}^{-2}}}\right)\hspace{-0.5mm}\left({\theta_{\rm max} \over
10^{-2}}\right)^2 \hspace{-0.5mm}
\left({R \over {10^6\,
\hbox{cm}}}\right)^2\hspace{-0.5mm}\left({{\Delta R_{\rm crust}} \over {0.1
R}}\right) \hbox{erg} \; .
\end{equation}
This energy is much smaller that given by equation \ref{etot}.
Thus the strain energy that can be
stored in the neutron star crust as it solidifies while the neutron
star is rotating rapidly appears unable to supply the total energy
needed to power the bursts in the Galactic corona model.
\subsection*{Magnetic Field Energy}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
We know from accretion-powered pulsars and rotation-powered pulsars
that the surface fields of most neutron stars lie in the range $B_s
\sim 10^{11} - 10^{13}$ G. We have virtually no knowledge about the
internal magnetic fields of neutron stars. If the internal field
exceeds $10^{16}$ G, then superconductivity is quenched and the total
energy stored in the internal magnetic field is
\begin{equation}
E^{\rm normal}_{\rm magnetic} \approx {{4\pi} \over 3} R^3 {B^2 \over
{8\pi}} \approx {1 \over 6} R^3 B^2 \approx 10^{49} \left({B \over {10^{16}\,
\hbox{G}}}\right)^2 \hbox{erg} \; .
\end{equation}
If the internal magnetic field is less than $10^{16}$ G, it is expected
that the interior of the neutron star will be superconducting. Then
the total energy stored in the internal magnetic field is \cite{Pods:94}
\begin{equation}
E^{\rm super}_{\rm magnetic} \approx {1 \over 6} R^3 B B_c \approx
10^{49} \left({B \over {6 \times 10^{13}\, \hbox{G}}}\right)\left({B_c \over {10^{16}
\, G}}\right)
\hbox{erg} \; .
\end{equation}
However, the energy stored in the interior magnetic field might then
be released
on the time scale,
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm spindown} \approx 10^7 P^2 (B/10^{12}\, \hbox{G})^{-2}\, \hbox{yr} \ll 5
\times 10^8 \, \hbox{yr} \; ,
\end{equation}
if the spin vortices in the superfluid drag the magnetic flux tubes toward the
surface of the
neutron star\cite{Srinivasan90}.
Thus, if the interior of the neutron star is superconducting, the
amount of energy stored in the interior magnetic field is sufficient to
power the bursts in the Galactic corona model but may be released over
a period of time much less than the required lifetime of such
sources.
If magnetic field instabilities stress the neutron star crust, then
from equation \ref{estrain} above, the energy released would be
\cite{Pods:94}
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm strain} \approx 2 \times 10^{42} \left({\mu \over {3 \times 10^{29}
\,\hbox{dyne}\, \hbox{cm}^{-2}}}\right) \left({\theta \over 10^{-3}}\right)^2
\left({R \over {10^6
\, \hbox{cm}}}\right)^2 \left({{\Delta R_{\rm crust}} \over {0.1 R}}\right) \hbox{erg} \; ,
\end{equation}
which is about right for GRBs.
\section*{Radiative Processes}
\vspace{-3.1mm}
\subsection*{Pair Fireballs}
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lp{4cm}}
\raisebox{-4.3cm}
{\leavevmode\psfig{file=windtb.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}} &
{\footnotesize{\bf FIG.~\ref{windtb.ps}}
Neutron star magnetosphere, showing the region at the magnetic
pole where super-Eddington luminosities may drive a relativistic pair
wind, and the region at the magnetic equator where super-Eddington
luminosities may create a trapped pair fireball \cite{TD95}.}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\refstepcounter{figure} \label{windtb.ps}
\vspace{-8mm}
\end{figure}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Our discussion of pair fireballs follows that of M\'esz\'aros \cite{Mesz95}.
A compactness parameter $
\tau_{\gamma \gamma} \approx ({{L_{burst} \sigma_T} / {4 \pi r c
\epsilon_\gamma \Gamma^2}})\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 1$
is required for photons to be observed above an energy
$\epsilon_\gamma$, where
$r$ is the radius of the source
and $\Gamma$ measures the relativistic velocity. For $r \approx R$,
$\tau_{\gamma \gamma} \gg 1$ at
$\epsilon_\gamma \approx 1$ MeV unless $\Gamma \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov >} 10^4$. This
result suggests that the initial stages of pair fireball in a gamma-ray
burst is optically thick.
If so, we expect that the sudden release of the energy that powers the
burst will produce a trapped fireball in the region of closed magnetic
fields lines in the neutron star magnetosphere and a mildly
relativistic wind from the regions of open field lines at the magnetic
poles (see Figure 5). This picture is similar in many respects to the
soft gamma-ray repeater model of Thompson and Duncan \cite{TD95}.
The energy required in a solid angle $\theta$ is
\begin{equation}
E_{\rm burst} \approx 10^{41}\left({F_{\rm peak} \over {10^{-7} \,\hbox{erg}\,
\hbox{cm}^{-2}\, \hbox{s}^{-1}}}\right) \left({d \over {100 \,\hbox{kpc}}}\right) \theta^2 \,
\hbox{erg} \; .
\end{equation}
Pair production occurs if
$\epsilon_\gamma > 4 (m_e c^2)^2 \epsilon_t^{-1} \alpha^{-2} \; ,
$
where $\epsilon_t$ is the lab frame target photon energy and $\alpha$
is the relative angle between the two photons.
Causality implies $\alpha \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} \Gamma^{-1}$, or
$
\Gamma^{-1} \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} \alpha \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 2 m_e c^2 (\epsilon_t
\epsilon_\gamma)^{-1/2} \; ,
$
and
\begin{equation}
\epsilon_\gamma \mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 10^4 (\epsilon_t/\hbox{MeV})^{-1} (\Gamma/10^2)^2
\hbox{MeV} \; .
\end{equation}
This implies relativistic expansion and therefore beaming. How large
might $\Gamma$ be? In AGN, an initial value (near the central source)
as large as $\Gamma\sim 10^4$ is often assumed. If the wind is powered by
Compton scattering, a value $\Gamma \approx 10$ or so is expected.
If $(E_{\rm burst}/\delta m_{\rm burst} c^2 )\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 1$,
where $\delta M_{\rm burst}$ is the amount of baryonic matter entrained
in the outflow, then the wind will be subrelativistic due to baryonic
poisoning.
\subsection*{Cyclotron Lines}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Almost fifteen years ago
Mazets et al. \cite{Mazets81,Mazets82} reported seeing
single lines in the spectra of GRBs at low energies ($E
\mathrel{\mathpalette\simov <} 70$ keV). Later Hueter \cite{Hueter88} reported single lines at low
energies in the spectra of two bursts seen by HEAO-1 A4. However,
the statistical significance of the lines was modest.
More recently, equally-spaced lines were seen by {\it Ginga} in the
spectra of three bursts
\cite{Murakami88,Fenimore88,Graziani92,Yoshida92}
with high significance \cite{Fenimore88,Graziani92,Freeman95}.
The
line features in these three bursts have been studied extensively, and
there is no doubt that they exist.
Lines have not been definitively seen by BATSE \cite{Palmer94},
but this fact does not strongly contradict earlier observations
\cite{Band94}.
Similar line features are seen in the spectra of accretion-powered
pulsars\cite{MakiMih92},
which are known to
be magnetic neutron stars. The equally-spaced lines seen in GRBs and in
accretion-powered pulsars are easily explained in terms
of cyclotron resonant scattering in a strong magnetic field
\cite{Wang89,B92}.
Magnetic neutron stars in the Galactic corona appear able to produce
cyclotron lines even though the luminosities of the bursts might greatly
exceed the so-called Eddington luminosity at which radiation pressure
and gravity balance. Cyclotron lines may form, for example, in a
relativistic wind flowing out from the magnetic poles of the neutron
star \cite{Miller91},
or at the magnetic equator \cite{Freeman95}
where hot plasma is trapped by the magnetic field
\cite{Lamb82,Katz82,Katz95,TD95}.
\section*{Conclusions}
\vspace{-3.1mm}
Detailed dynamical calculations show that a distant Galactic
corona of high velocity neutron stars can easily account for the
isotropic angular distribution and the brightness distribution of
GRBs.
Gravitational potential energy from accretion and magnetic field energy
seem the most promising sources of energy which are
capable of powering bursts from such a population of neutron stars.
In a GRB hot plasma will likely flow from the polar cap in a relativistic wind,
but will be trapped at the magnetic equator by the magnetic field.
Cyclotron lines might form in either region.
\subsection*{Future Prospects}
\vspace*{-3.1mm}
Below we mention several key observations that might confirm or refute
the hypothesis that the GRBs come from a distant Galactic corona of
high velocity neutron stars.
{\bf Sky distribution.} Our ability to detect or place upper
limits on any anisotropies in the burst sky distribution, especially as
a function of burst brightness, will increase slowly but steadily as
BATSE detects more bursts. Confirmation of significant Galactic dipole
and/or quadrupole moments as a function of burst brightness, or
overall, would provide definitive evidence that the bursts are
Galactic. Further limits on any angular anisotropy will constrain, and
might rule out, the Galactic hypothesis. However, the limits that
BATSE will be able to achieve are not likely to be definitive, since
the angular distribution of bursts from the distant Galactic corona can
be very isotropic.
Detection of a concentration of bursts toward Andromeda, either by
BATSE, or by a
more sensitive experiment
would constitute
definitive evidence that the bursts are Galactic in origin. Lack of an
excess toward Andromeda would be compelling evidence that the bursts
are cosmological in origin only if made by an instrument at least 50
times more sensitive than BATSE, given the possibility that the bursts
are beamed along the direction of motion of the neutron star and
current constraints on the Galactic corona model
{\bf Cyclotron lines.} Other spectroscopy instruments are now
operating (TGRS and Konus on Wind) or will soon be flown (e.g., HETE,
Konus on Spectrum X-Gamma, etc.) which will search for lines. Further
confirmation of the existence of cyclotron lines would provide strong
evidence in favor of the Galactic hypothesis.
{\bf Repeating}. The new bursts in the third BATSE catalog are not
expected to suffer from the same limitations which afflicted bursts in
the second year of observations due to failure of the tape recorders on
board the {\it Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory}. It is therefore
expected that the third BATSE catalogue will provide an excellent
opportunity to test the repeating hypothesis. Confirmation of
repeating would doom most cosmological models.
\vspace{-3.1mm}
|
\section{Introduction}
The polarimetry of the interstellar medium (hereafter ISM) testifies that dust
grains are aligned.
The original explanation of this phenomenon in Davis
\& Greenstein \shortcite{dg} as being due to paramagnetic relaxation
was later criticized in Jones \& Spitzer \shortcite{js} as inadequate
unless enhanced imaginary part of grain
magnetic susceptibility was assumed. At the same time, alignment involving
purely mechanical processes, pioneered in Gold (1951, 1952), was shown
to have its own problems (see Davis 1955, Purcell 1969, Purcell \&
Spitzer 1971). A new important contribution to the field was done by
Roberge \& Hanany (1990), who proposed an interesting idea, that grain
alignment can be caused by ambipolar diffusion. A comprehensive study of
alignment of thermally
rotating grains
through the ambipolar diffusion is given in
Roberge, Messinger, \& Hanany (1995). Such an alignment is likely to be
important for molecular clouds. However it is possible to show, that
supersonic ambipolar diffusion cannot persist over extensive regions of the
ISM.
A really profound step in elucidating
the dynamics of the ISM dust grains was done by Purcell (1975, 1979)
who introduced a concept of suprathermal rotation. However, it was
shown in Spitzer \& McGlynn \shortcite{sm} that this only marginally
improves the efficiency of paramagnetic alignment for high rates
of resurfacing. In fact, specialists in the field believe
that `a relaxation mechanism orders of magnitude more efficient than
that given by normal paramagnetism' is required \cite{chg}.
This paper was preceded by our earlier papers devoted to the same issue.
First, in Lazarian (1994) (henceforth Paper I)
we provided a quantitative description of mechanical
alignment of non-spherical grains. However, at that point it was unclear
whether grains can be aligned mechanically, if they rotate at suprathermal
velocities.
Therefore, only alignment of thermally rotating grains was
discussed. Then, in Lazarian (1995a) (henceforth Paper II)
we addressed the problem of paramagnetic
alignment of suprathermally rotating grains and showed that diffusion of
oxygen over grain surface and existence of potential barrier for H$_{2}$
formation (Tielens \& Allamandola 1987) bring into being the grain critical
size $l_{cr}$
and the critical number of active sites $\nu_{cr}$. It was found out that
for grains with sizes less than $l_{cr}$ suprathermal
rotation due to H$_{2}$ formation is suppressed and that the poisoning
of active sites is accelerated when the number of active sites becomes greater
than $\nu_{cr}$. However, only the case $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ was quantitatively
discussed and no processes of desorption were invoked; this is a disadvantage
of the latter study.
The aim of this paper is to determine roughly the relative importance of
processes, that can provide alignment of suprathermally rotating grains.
Therefore the
contribution is rather miscellaneous. First of all, in Sect.~2 we remind our
reader of the Purcell's concept of suprathermal rotation. Then,
we address in
Sect.~3 mechanical processes, which are usually believed to be incapable
of aligning suprathermally rotating grains. We show that this is not true and
discuss a process that can provide efficient alignment of such grains.
In Sect.~4 we address the paramagnetic alignment and discuss poisoning
of grain active sites when
$\nu>\nu_{cr}$ and the processes of desorption of molecules blocking the access
to active sites.
To provide a more comprehensive picture of alignment of
suprathermally rotating grains, we touch upon the alignment of helical grains,
grains subjected to
radiative flows, as well as alignment due to grain magnetic moments.
\section{Suprathermal rotation of grains}
Here we discuss the suprathermal rotation due to formation of H$_{2}$
molecules on the ISM grains.
The number of molecules ejected per second from an individual site is
$\sim \gamma_{1} l^{2}n_{H}v_{1}\nu^{-1}$, where $\gamma_{1}$ is the
portion of H atoms absorbed by a grain of diameter $l$ while
$\nu$ is the number of
sites. A recoil from a
molecule departing the grain is $m_{H2}v_{H2}=
(2 m_{H2} E_{H2})^{1/2}$, where $E_{H2}$ is
the kinetic energy of H$_{2}$ molecule ($0.2$~eV)
\cite{williams1}. Then the average squared $z$ component of torque is
\begin{equation}
\langle[M_{z}]^{2}\rangle\approx\frac{\gamma_{1}^{2}}{32}l^{6}n^{2}_{H}m_{H2}
v_{1}^{2}E_{H2}\nu^{-1}.
\label{7}
\end{equation}
Thus an individual grain spins up to high angular
velocities, limited only by friction forces. As a result, the attainable
value of angular velocity $\Omega$ is proportional to
$\langle[M_{z}]^{2}\rangle^{1/2}\kappa^{-1}$, where $\kappa$
is the constant of rotational friction $\sim I_{z}t_{d}^{-1}$. Note,
that $I_{z}$ is the $z$ component of the momentum of inertia and
$t_{d}$ is the rotational dumping time. The latter is
\begin{equation}
t_{d}\approx C t_{m}= C\frac{\varrho_{s}V}{S\Phi},
\label{e.4}
\end{equation}
where $t_{m}$ is the time that takes a grain to collide with gaseous atoms
of the net mass equal to the mass of the grain, $V$ and $\varrho_{s}$ are
grain volume and density respectively; $S$ is the
grain cross-section for a supersonic
flux, the coefficient $C=0.6$ is a precise result for a spherical grain
(Purcell \& Spitzer 1971) and $\Phi$ is the mass flux which is $v_{1}nm_{a}$
for supersonic $v_{1}$.
Therefore assuming $\gamma_{1}=0.2$ and $n_{H}=n$, one obtains
$\Omega\approx 2\cdot
10^{8}$~s$^{-1}$, for $\nu=10^{2}$.
Some grains are not subjected to the torques caused by H$_{2}$ formation.
For instance, it was shown in Paper II that those are
aromatic carbonaceous grains, as H$_{2}$ molecules are being
formed is states of
low excitation over their surface (Duley \& Williams 1993). Nevertheless, such
grains can rotate suprathermally, for instance, due to variations of the
accommodation
and/or photoelectric emission coefficients (see Purcell 1979). Further on,
we will show that unlike suprathermal rotation due to H$_{2}$ formation,
some of those processes may result in alignment on
their own.
Our estimates of $\Omega$ above are relevant to the long-lived spin-up
(Spitzer \& McGlynn 1979). For short-lived spin-up, namely, the correlation
time of Purcell rockets $t_{L}$ is much less than
$t_{d}$ our estimate of $\Omega$ must be multiplied
by $\sqrt{t_{L}/t_{d}}$. Speaking about Purcell alignment we will be mostly
concerned with the long-lived spin-up. Paramagnetic alignment
corresponding to the short-lived spin-up does not differ much from
the Davis-Greenstein one corresponding to the enhanced temperature of
grain rotation $KT_{gas}$, where
\begin{equation}
K=\frac{I_{z}\langle[M_{z}]^{2}\rangle t_{d}t_{L}}{kT_{gas}}.
\label{3}
\end{equation}
It was pointed out by Bruce Draine (private communication), that such an
enhancement can be essential in molecular clouds where temperatures of
gas and grains are very close.
In fact, suprathermal rotation can arise not only from
H$_{2}$ formation, but also by the variations of the
accomodation coefficient. We discuss these such processes in
Section~5, as we show, that such variations can cause mechanical
alignment of
its own irrespectively from the action of the paramagnetic relaxation.
\section{Mechanical alignment}
\subsection{Supersonic motions}
To produce mechanical alignment grains should drift supersonically
in respect to gas.
In Paper I it is showed that Alfv\'{e}nic perturbations are efficient in
providing supersonic drift perpendicular to magnetic field lines. Two
main phenomena may be invoked: Alfv\'{e}nic
waves and ambipolar
diffusion.
It is generally accepted, that supersonic drift by ambipolar diffusion is
present within
sufficiently strong shocks (see fig.1 in Pilipp et al 1990). However, this
cannot be the cause of alignment for the majority of the ISM grains. Indeed,
it was pointed out by B.Draine, that the dissipation due to
ion-neutral streaming with velocity $v_{in}$ is approximately
\begin{equation}
G=0.5n n_{i} \langle \sigma_{T}v_{T}\rangle m_{a} v_{in}^{2}
\end{equation}
which for supersonic $v_{in}=1$km s$^{-1}$ provides a dissipation rate per
H atom
$G/n \approx 1.7 \times 10^{-25}$erg s$^{-1}$, which is well in excess of
the energy that supernova is likely to eject into the turbulent motions.
In other words, the
ambipolar diffusion may be important for molecular clouds and localized regions
in within diffuse clouds, but for the large scale alignment other processes
must be invoked.
It was hinted in Paper I that large grains are inertial and therefore
should decouple from ionized gas in the course of
high frequency Alfv\'{e}nic oscillations.
Although this process of alignment does not entail strong dissipation,
it is possible to show that the limitations
imposed on grain size by both damping of high frequency Alfv\'{e}nic waves
and grain charge are rather strict.
Indeed, if a grain without electric
charge is placed within partially ionized gas subjected to Alfv\'{e}nic
perturbations, e.g. with velocity $v=v_{0}\sin\omega_{A}t$, it
is easy to see that the
amplitude of grain drift scales as $v_{0}/\sqrt{1+\mu^{2}}$, where
$\mu \approx 0.4 (\rho_{n}/\rho_{g})(v_{0}/(l\omega_{A}))$ and $\rho_{n}$
and $\rho_{g}$ are, respectively, gas and grain densities.
Therefore $\mu < 1$ provides the first constrain. In its turn,
Alfv\'{e}nic frequency cannot be arbitrary, as the waves of frequency higher
than that of collisional frequency for ions are critically damped (see
McKee et al 1994). The corresponding value of $\omega_{cr}$ provides the
minimal value of $\mu$. Another constrain stems from the grain charge, as if
$\omega_{A}$ is less than the grain Larmour frequency, the drift velocity
scales as $v_{0}(\omega_{A}/\omega_{L})$. For a given grain size
only oscillations within the range $\omega_{L}<\omega_{A}<\omega_{cr}$ are
efficient in the sense of providing supersonic drift. Therefore,
even if the overall non-thermal line broadening of
emission lines is observed, it is not
clear a priori for a given grain, that this inequality is fulfilled
and that the Alfv\'{e}nic motions within aforementioned
range of frequencies
are supersonic. The estimates in Lazarian (1995b) show,
that for the ionization ratio $10^{-4}$
it is difficult to expect grains with radii less than $10^{-5}$ cm to
experience supersonic drift in the diffuse ISM, if grains are collisionally
charged (see Spitzer 1978, Draine \& Sutin 1987). It is gratifying, that
such a dichotomy is observed and grains of sizes less than
$10^{-5}$ cm are not aligned (Kim \& Martin 1994, 1995).
Radiation pressure can also cause grain drift. For this drift to be
supersonic
the following inequality $Q_{\it ext}P_{\it rad}>4P_{\it gas}$
should be satisfied (Purcell 1969), where $Q_{\it ext}$ is the ratio of the
optical to geometrical cross sections, while $P_{rad}$ and $P_{\it gas}$ are,
respectively, radiation and gaseous pressures.
For hydrogen with density 10~cm$^{-3}$ and temperature 100~K,
$P_{\it gas}\approx 10^{-13}$~dyn/cm$^{-2}$. Usually $Q_{\it ext}<1$ and this
means that it is difficult to obtain sufficient radiation pressure to account
for large-scale ISM polarization. Thus supersonic drift due to radiation
pressure
is confined to regions in the vicinity of bright sources. As grains
carry charge, their motion under the radiation pressure is usually
constrained to following magnetic field lines (Spitzer 1978, p.~202).
It is shown in Habing {\it et al}. (1994) that grains should move
with supersonic relative velocities within the outflows around cool giants
(carbon-stars, Mira variables and OH/IR stars) due to
radiation pressure. The velocities of metallic grains should be greater than
those of dielectric grains in such circumstances (Il'in 1994) and this may
have observational consequences in view of mechanical alignment.
To summarize, supersonic drift is an essential feature of interstellar
grain
dynamics. In the vicinity of stars this
drift takes place mostly due to radiation pressure and happens along magnetic
field lines. Within molecular and atomic clouds at sufficient distances
from bright sources, this drift takes place due to Alfv\'{e}nic perturbations
and grains move mostly perpendicular to magnetic field lines.
\subsection{Cross section alignment}
Grain alignment can be quantitatively described by the following measure:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{J}=\frac{3}{2}\left\langle\cos^2\beta-\frac{1}{3}\right\rangle,
\label{star}
\end{equation}
where $\beta$ is the angle between the angular momentum and the
alignment axis. The
latter can coincide with the direction of a corpuscular flux, if precession
on the time scale of alignment is negligible, or with the direction of
magnetic field, if the period of grain precession is much smaller than the
said time scale.
For suprathermally
rotating grains the axis of major inertia is tightly coupled to the
angular momentum (Purcell 1979). Therefore for oblate spheroidal
grains, $\sigma_{J}$ coincides with the Rayleigh reduction
factor $\sigma$ introduced in Greenberg (1968). For prolate spheroids it is
easy to show that
$\sigma=-0.5\sigma_{J}$.
One of the major questions that we need to answer here is whether
suprathermally rotating
grains can be aligned by a supersonic flow. A naive answer would be ''no``
as such rapidly rotating grains resemble gyroscopes and therefore
should not be sensitive to gaseous bombardment.
However, this answer ignores the role of
crossovers. Further on we will show, that when
both random and regular torques are dominated by recoils caused by
H$_{2}$ formation,
an efficient
alignment of non-spherical grains is possible.
We remind our reader, that during crossovers grain angular velocity becomes
close to zero and a substantial randomization of $\bf J$ is present.
A comprehensive theory of crossovers is given in Spitzer \& McGlynn (1979)
and further on we will use the results of this study.
Let us assume,
for simplicity, that randomization is complete during a crossover,
which is apparently true for sufficiently small grains (see Paper II for
an explicit expression of the disorientation parameter). An incomplete
randomization only alters the time of alignment. For instance,
grain may need not one, but several crossovers to come to the state
uncorrelated with an initial one. This, however, does not change anything
for our further treatment.
If $t_{L}$ is a characteristic correlation time for the existence of the
sites of H$_{2}$ formation, the mean time back to crossover is given by
\begin{equation}
t_{x}\approx 1.3(t_{d}+t_{L})
\label{5}
\end{equation}
(Purcell 1979). Usually, it is
assumed that the time of the existence of active sites is the time necessary
for accreting a monolayer of refractory material (Spitzer \& McGlynn
1979). Another process that can determine $t_{L}$ is
poisoning of the active sites (see Paper II and Sect.~4 of this paper).
However, for our simplified treatment we do not distinguish between the
two processes limiting the life time of Purcell's rockets. Indeed, what is
important for us is that, for a chosen grain, $t_{L}$ is the time of accreting
of $N$ heavy atoms. The latter value depends on particular processes involved,
but we will see that this is not critical for the mechanism below.
Consider at first a toy model, namely, assume
that the axis of suprathermally rotating oblate
grain can have only two positions, namely perpendicular ($\bot$) and parallel
($\parallel$) to the axis of a
gaseous flux. In this model, grain axis stays for the time $t_{x}$ in one
position and then undergoes the crossover and has equal chances to get
either the same or the perpendicular alignment (disorientation is complete!).
In the
absence of the gaseous flux time scales $t_{x \parallel}$ and $t_{x \bot}$
are the same and, naturally, there is no preferential position. However, if
the gaseous supersonic
flux is present, $t_{d}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{e.4}) is inversely
proportional to gas-grain cross sections $S_{n \parallel}$
and $S_{n \bot}$ in the two positions. Moreover, it is natural to assume
that the
number of heavy atoms adsorbed by the grain is proportional to the overall
number of atoms striking it. Thus $t_{L}$ and $t_{x}$ are both
inversely proportional to the cross section. Assuming that the time of
the crossover is negligible as compared with the time of a spin-up, we
conclude that for an individual grain the time averaged probability
of finding the grain in a position $\bot$ or $\parallel$ is inversely
proportional, respectively, to $S_{n \bot}$ and $S_{n \parallel}$. To find the
constant of
proportionality one needs to recall,
that the probability of finding the
grain in either of two positions is unity. According to the
ergodic hypothesis this probability coincides with
the ensemble averaged one.
The above considerations can be generalized.
It is easy to see, that for a continues distribution of
axis positions
the probability of
finding grain axis within at a particular angle is inversely proportional
to the cross section corresponding to this angle.
It was assumed above, that both $t_{L}$ and $t_{d}$ are controlled by the
same process, namely, by the
interaction of a gaseous flow with a grain. One may
imagine situations when $t_{L}$ and $t_{d}$ are controlled by {\it different}
physical processes. If one of the times $t_{L}$ or $t_{d}$ is much less than
the other,
\footnote{We should bear in mind that Eq.~(\ref{5}) is an approximate
one and it is checked in the range of $0.1<t_{L}/t_{d}<10$ (Purcell 1979).}
the longest of the two controls the alignment. For instance, for
$t_{L}\ll t_{d}$ we deal with alignment by friction, which may remind one
the the idea suggested in Salpeter \& Wickramasinghe (1969). However,
these processes are different, as we deal here with
suprathermally rotating grains,
while Salpeter \& Wickramasinghe discussed alignment of grains with
enhanced rotational temperature. It is possible to show, that the alignment
in the latter case is rather marginal. In the opposite limiting case, namely,
$t_{L}\gg t_{d}$ we show in Sect.~5 that alignment due to photodesorption
may be efficient. We do not dwell upon all these interesting possibilities
here,
as believe, that the alignment of suprathermally rotating grains under the
simultaneous action
of several processes deserves a separate study.
Consider the alignment of grains subjected to Alfv\'{e}nic perturbations.
If, for the sake of simplicity, we approximate grains by thin discs
the cross section will vary as
\begin{equation}
S_{n}=\pi r^{2} |\sin\varphi \cos\psi|
\end{equation}
where $\varphi$ is the angle between the disc axis and magnetic field,
$\psi$ is an angle in the plane perpendicular to the magnetic field and $|..|$
denote that we take the absolute value of the trigonometric functions.
To account for the Larmour precession, we should perform averaging over
$\psi$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}
\langle \cos^{2}\varphi \rangle=C \int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\psi}{|\cos\psi|}
\int_{0}^{\pi}\cos^{2}\varphi d\varphi
\end{equation}
where the normalization constant $C$ is
\begin{equation}
C^{-1}=\pi \int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{d\psi}{|\cos\psi|}.
\end{equation}
In short, it is easy to see that $\langle \cos^{2}\varphi \rangle=0.5$ and
the Rayleigh reduction factor
(Greenberg, 1968), is equal to $0.25$. Grain long axis tends to be
perpendicular to magnetic field, but the alignment is not perfect (compare
Paper I).
In another important case, when flakes stream along magnetic field lines,
similar computations provide $\sigma=-0.5$, which corresponds to the perfect
alignment with grain long axis along magnetic field.
More efficient alignment for streaming along magnetic field
as compared
with Alfv\'{e}nic perturbations
is a consequence of the fact, that in the former case
the Larmour precession
does not change the grain -- gas cross section.
It easy to see, that this type of
alignment is efficient for flakes, as the cross section
difference averaged over the period of rotation is maximal for such grains.
Contrary to this,
the difference in cross sections
is not large for prolate grains. For instance, for needles
the
ratio of the maximal to minimal averaged
cross sections is just $\pi/2$ and the $\sigma$
for the most favorable conditions (a flow parallel to the magnetic field
lines) is about $0.07$.
Therefore the alignment of prolate grains is marginal due to the mechanism.
It was implicitly assumed above that the angular momentum associated with
gaseous bombardment is not important
during a crossover. It is possible to show that, this is true unless grain
drift velocity is comparable with velocity of H$_{2}$ molecules and/or
accommodation coefficient is substantially different from unity and/or
atomic hydrogen is largely converted into molecular form.
A detailed discussion of the effects of gaseous bombardment
is given in Lazarian (1995c).
\section{Purcell alignment}
We will call paramagnetic alignment of suprathermally rotating grains the
Purcell alignment to distinguish it from the Davis-Greenstein mechanism
acting on thermally rotating grains. Various aspects of the Purcell alignment
were addressed in Paper II. Here we extend
one aspect of the aforementioned
analysis, namely, the one dealing with poisoning of active sites.
Back in Paper II it was established that a critical number of
active sites exists. This number, $\nu_{cr}$, is the mean
number of sites with chemically adsorbed H atoms, that a
hydrogen atom arriving
to the grain surface can visit before reacting at any of these
sites. It is easy to see that, if the number of active sites is less than
$\nu_{cr}$, there cannot be on average more than one active site, which is
left empty since a recent H$_{2}$ formation. However, if the number of active
sites $\nu$ is greater than $\nu_{cr}$, the number of empty sites scales as
$\nu/\nu_{cr}$ for $\nu_{cr}\gg 1$. These empty sites are the primary targets
of
oxygen atoms
hopping over grain surface and it was observed in Paper II that
for $\nu>\nu_{cr}$ poisoning increases. Therefore only the case of
$\nu<\nu_{cr}$ was discussed.
Here we study the case of $\nu>\nu_{cr}$. Similarly to Paper II
we assume that oxygen is being immobilized on hydrogenation (Leitch-Devlin
\& Williams 1984, Williams, private communication).
If $\nu/\nu_{cr}$ is the expected number of empty active sites, the probability
of an oxygen atom to fill any of them as a result of an individual hop is
$\nu/(\nu_{cr}N_{ph})$, where $N_{ph}$ is the number of sites of physical
adsorption. Therefore the probability of an empty site not to be filled in one
hop of an oxygen atom is $(1-\nu/(\nu_{cr}N_{ph}))$; the same probability for
$m_{h}$ hops is
\begin{equation}
\left(1-\frac{\nu}{\nu_{cr}N_{ph}}\right)^{m_{h}} \approx \exp
\left(-\frac{\nu}{\nu_{cr}}
\frac{m_{h}}{N_{ph}}\right).
\label{ff}
\end{equation}
Therefore the characteristic time of poisoning of $\nu/2$ active sites is
\footnote{ We assume that not more than one oxygen
atom hop over grain surface at any
particular time. This may not be true for dense cores of molecular clouds,
where the concentration of atomic hydrogen is low.}
\begin{equation}
t_{p}=\nu t_{O}\frac{1}{1-\exp \left(-\frac{\nu}{\nu_{cr}}
\frac{m_{h}}{N_{ph}}\right)},
\end{equation}
where $t_{O}$ is the time of an oxygen atom arrival at grain surface.
For $\frac{\nu}{\nu_{cr}}\frac{m_{h}}{N_{ph}}\ll 1$ it is possible to expand
the exponent in Eq~(\ref{ff})
\begin{equation}
t_{p} \approx \nu_{cr} t_{O}
\frac{N_{ph}}{m_{h}}\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{m_{h}}
{N_{ph}} \frac{\nu}{\nu_{cr}}-O\left(\frac{m_{h}^{2}}{N_{ph}^{2}}
\frac{\nu^{2}}
{\nu_{cr}^{2}}\right)\right].
\end{equation}
The number of hops $m_{h}$ is the ratio of the time required to hydrogenate
oxygen, which we denote $t_{ch}$ to the time of an individual hop
$t_{h}\approx 10^{-12}\exp(E_{h}/(kT_{s}))$ s, where $E_{h}$ is the energy of
potential barrier and $T_{s}$ is the grain temperature.
When the number of active sites exceeds $\nu_{cr}$ any hydrogen atom scans
only the fraction $\nu_{cr}/\nu$ of the entire surface before either reacting
with
another H atom at the active site or being trapped by an empty active site.
The probability, that O atom adsorbed by the grain is present over
this part of the surface is proportional to $\nu_{cr}/\nu$. Therefore the
time hydrogenation of oxygen is of the order of the $\nu/\nu_{cr}$ over the
timescale of hydrogen arrival. Therefore
\begin{equation}
t_{p}\approx \nu_{cr}\frac{\nu_{cr}}{\nu}\frac{t_{O}}{t_{H}}t_{h}N_{ph}
\left[1+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\nu^{2}t_{H}}{\nu_{cr}^{2}t_{h}N_{ph}}-
O\left(\frac{\nu^{4}
t_{H}^{2}}{\nu_{cr}^{4}t_{h}^{2}N_{ph}^{2}}\right)\right],
\label{12}
\end{equation}
where the ratio $t_{O}/t_{H}=(\gamma_{1}n_{H}v_{O})/(n_{O}v_{H})$; $n_{H}$ \&
$v_{H}$ and $n_{O}$ \& $v_{O}$ are the densities \& velocities of,
respectively,
hydrogen and oxygen. Note, that for thermal motions $v_{O}/v_{H}$ is equal
to $0.25$.
If the ratio $\eta=\nu/N_{ph}$ stays constant for different grains,
it is evident from Eq.(\ref{12}) that $t_{p}$ at the first approximation is
$\approx 0.25\frac{\nu_{cr}^{2}}{\eta\gamma_{1}}t_{h}\frac{n_{H}}{n_{O}}$,
i.e. it is independent of the number of active sites for $\nu>\nu_{cr}$.
This is a new result, which was not foreseen in Paper II. This result means,
for instance, that the estimates of $t_{p}$
obtained there for
$\nu=\nu_{cr}$ are applicable to a wide range of grains with
$\nu>\nu_{cr}$.
Poisoning of active sites is essential for the Purcell alignment.
A parameter that enters this
theory is the ratio of $t_{x}$ given by Eq.(\ref{5}) to the time scale of
paramagnetic relaxation $t_{mag}$ (see eq.~(58) in Purcell 1979, also see
Roberge et al 1993). To provide
sufficient alignment this ratio should be greater than unity (see fig.2 in
Purcell 1979). To obtain this for standard values of the ISM parameters
\footnote{It is argued in Paper II that these standard values may be misleading
for particular regions of diffuse clouds, but we avoid discussing
this issue here.} one needs to assume long-lived spin-up, i.e.
$t_{L}\gg t_{d}$
(Spitzer \& McGlynn 1979) and therefore $t_{x}\sim t_{L}$. It is easy to
check that $t_{mag}$ scales as $l^{2}$, where $l$ is a grain size and therefore
on its own paramagnetic alignment favors small grains (see Johnson 1982).
For $\nu>\nu_{cr}$ in the first approximation we have obtained that $t_{p}$
scales as $l^{0}$ (see Eq.~(12)).
Note, that for $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ our arguments above are not applicable. The
corresponding study in Paper II showed, that in this case not more than
one active site is expected to be empty and the time of poisoning
is proportional to $\nu t_{O} N_{ph}/m_{h}$ for $m_{h}\ll N_{ph}$. The
number of hops for $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ is the ratio of time scale of the arrival of
a hydrogen atom $t_{H}$ and the time scale of the hop of the oxygen atom
$t_{h}$. Therefore both $t_{O}$ and $m_{h}$ scale as $l^{-2}$, while
both $N_{ph}$ and $\nu$ scale as $l^{2}$. As a result the time of poisoning
scales as $l^{4}$, which makes long-lived spin-up more probable for
large grains.
In general, the life time of Purcell's rockets $t_{L}$ is the minimal of
the following time scales: $t_{p}$ and the time scale of
accreting one monolayer of refractory
material. In diffuse clouds, as a rule, accreting of ice mantles is
suppressed (see Tanaka et al 1990). It is also believed, that hydrogenated
nitrogen and carbon within
diffuse clouds do not form mantles either. As the abundance of
heavier elements is negligible, it is natural to assume that in diffuse clouds
$t_{L}$ is controlled by poisoning of active sites.
Above we disregarded photodesorption. The characteristic time
for this process $t_{pd}$ scales as $l^{0}$ for smooth grains.
The situation $t_{pd}\gg t_{p}$ corresponds to that studied in
Paper II. If $t_{pd}< t_{p}$, photodesorption removes molecules
blocking the access to active sites quicker that these sites are being
poisoned. Thus a long-lived spin-up is called into being.
As a result the following qualitative picture emerges. For small grains
poisoning dominates, i.e. $t_{pd}> t_{p}$, and therefore the spin-up is
short-lived. The time of poisoning for $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ grows with the
size as $l^{4}$ and for some size becomes equal to $t_{ph}$. Starting from
this
size we deal with long-lived spin-up; $t_{L}$ grows with the size until
$\nu=\nu_{cr}$. After the critical number of active sites is exceeded,
$t_{L}$ is stabilized at the attained level. In other words, marginal
alignment is expected for small grains and good alignment for large grains;
this corresponds to observations (see Kim \& Martin 1994, Kim \& Martin 1995).
Using both results obtained above and in Paper II we may attempt to
write equations for the dinamics of the number of active sites. Indeed,
while photodesprption, cosmic ray bombardment etc. create (or recover)
active sites, poisoning removes them. The rate of active site creation
per unit area $A$ may be assumed constant, while the rate of
poisoning is different for $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ and $\nu>\nu_{cr}$.
If $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ the results obtained in Paper II indicate, that the
rate of poisoning can be approximated by $CN_{ph}^{-1}$, where $C=
10^{12}\exp(-E_{h}/kT_{s})$ s$^{-1}$, while this rate is of the
order of $CN_{ph}^{-1}\nu^{2}\nu_{cr}^{-2}$ if $\nu>\nu_{cr}$.
Therefore for $\nu<\nu_{cr}$ the number of the active sites
changes as
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d}\nu}{{\rm d} t}=A-C\frac{1}{N_{ph}},
\label{nu1}
\end{equation}
while for $\nu>\nu_{cr}$ the following equation is valid:
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d}\nu}{{\rm d} t}=A-C\frac{1}{N_{ph}}\frac{\nu^{2}}{\nu_{cr}^{2}}.
\label{nu2}
\end{equation}
Evidentely, Eq.~(\ref{nu1}) envisages a linear change of the number of
active sites. If the rate of desorption is greater than poisoning,
the number of active sites will increase linearly with time, unless all
the possible active sites are invoked over grain surface, provided, that
this number
is less than $\nu_{cr}$) or alternatively
the number of active sites is reached
$\nu_{cr}$. In the opposite case when the rate of desorption is less than
the rate of poisoning the number of active sites decreases with time
untill all the active sites disappear. If $\nu>\nu_{cr}$ the solution
of the Eq.~(\ref{nu2}) is as follows:
\begin{equation}
\nu=\nu_{cr}\sqrt{\frac{AN_{ph}}{C}}\frac{1+B\exp(-\frac{2}{\nu_{cr}}
\sqrt{\frac{AC}{N_{ph}}}t)}{1-B\exp(-\frac{2}{\nu_{cr}},
\sqrt{\frac{AC}{N_{ph}}}t)}.
\label{nu3}
\end{equation}
where B is related to the number of active sites $\nu_{in}$ at $t=0$ in the
following way:
\begin{equation}
B=\frac{\nu_{in}-\sqrt{\frac{A}{C}}}{\nu_{in}+\sqrt{\frac{A}{C}}}.
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{nu3}) testifies, that the number of active sites
tend to stabilize at the level $\nu_{cr}\sqrt{AN_{ph}/C}$.
Therefore for $A$ a bit larger than $C/N_{ph}$, the number of
active sites is expected to be of the order $\nu_{cr}$ in correspondence
with a qualitative conclusion reached in Paper II.
Unfortunately, in our ignorance of many parameters involved, it is extremely
difficult to quantify this otherwise luring picture. First of all, we have
rather uncertain knowledge of the density of active sites as well as of other
parameters of grain surface.
Then, photodesorption presents another problem, as the rates obtained in some
laboratory
experiments (see Bourdon, Prince \& Duley 1982) are very low.
We are not sure either whether the photodesorption is driven by UV quanta
only or also by 3 $\mu$m radiation as it is claimed in Williams et al (1992).
In view of this ambiguities, we need to treat the picture above as a
conjecture only. We believe, that further research in the field will test
this conjecture.
An interesting feature of Eq~(\ref{12}) that it shows that $t_{p}$
is proportional to the number of sites of physical adsorption. Therefore
fractal grains with large surface area should correspond to larger
$N_{ph}$. The alignment of fractal grains was studied in Lazarian (1995d),
where the excess of the physical area for such grains over that for smooth
grains was invoked in order to improve the efficiency of alignment.
This study
indicated a possibility of a substantial improvement of alignment, provided
that molecules blocking the access to active sites had sufficient mobility.
This assumption seems to be a shortcoming of the
latter study. However, it is possible to show that the
dependences for alignment measure on the fractal dimension
obtained in Lazarian (1995d) are valid
without this assumption just as the result of the dependence of $t_{p}$
on $N_{ph}$. Another worry in Lazarian (1995d) was, that
for fractal grains the majority of H$_{2}$ formation events
may take place within
narrow pores, and this may suppress suprathermal rotation.
Our arguments above show, that the sites within grain pores
are likely to be poisoned and therefore H$_{2}$ formation should take place
mainly over open surfaces of grains, which are kept clean e.g.
due to photodesorption. At the same time, surfaces within pores provide oxygen
with more space for its random walk hopping.
To summarize, we have shown, that the Purcell (1979) mechanism analogously
to the Mathis (1986) one favors large grains.
To tell these two mechanisms it is advantageous to
study dependences of degree of alignment on grain temperatures.
Our discussion above indicates, that $t_{p}$ is proportional to $t_{h}$,
which varies exponentially with temperature. Therefore the Purcell alignment,
unlike the Mathis one
should be very sensitive to changes of grain temperature.
Above we assumed that initially the concentration of active sites over
grain surface is high. Although this corresponds to the modern picture of
grain chemistry (see Tielens \& Allamandola 1987, Buch \& Zhang 1991),
an alternative approach to the problem is also possible. Indeed, if
the surface density of
active sites may be less than $10^{-5}$ cm$^{2}$ and than only grains
larger than $10^{-5}$ cm are likely to have at least one active site
(Lazarian 1994b).\footnote{I suggested this possibility, but did not
treat it seriously untill it got support from John Mathis.}
This idea requires further study, but here we would like
to point out, that the case of high and low density of active sites can
be distinguished by temperature dependence. It is easy to see, that
if the density of active sites is low, while nascent H$_{2}$0 molecules
are ejected on formation, the temperature dependence of the
Purcell alignment is suppressed.
\section{Other possibilities of alignment}
{\bf Alignment of helical grains.}
Grains studied above were symmetric.
However, real grains may have helicity. In fact, grains
in Purcell (1975, 1979), that rotate suprathermally due to variations of
the accommodation coefficient
or photoelectric emission coefficient are helical. What was omitted in the
above study is that the two aforementioned effects can produce alignment even
without paramagnetic relaxation. For instance, radiation is, as a rule,
anisotropic and this may influence the rotation caused by photoelectric
emission.
There is a substantial difference when a helical grain is subjected to
a isotropic bombardment of atoms or photons and when it is subjected to a flux.
In the former case, there is no difference between H$_{2}$ formation
and other causes of suprathermal rotation; with high degree of accuracy
it is possible to assume, that the regular torque acts only along the axis of
major inertia (see Spitzer \& McGlynn 1979). If, however, a helical grain is
subjected to a radiative or
corpuscular flux, the component of torque perpendicular to the axis of
major inertia can cause
precession, which may significantly alter the alignment.
An interesting example of
helical grains was discussed in Dolginov \& Mytrophanov (1976). There,
grains subjected to regular torques due to the difference in
scattering of left- and right- circular polarized photons were considered.
It was found, that if grains, either due to their
chemical composition or due to their shape, have different cross-sections for
left- and right-hand polarized quanta (see Dolginov \& Silantev 1976)
their scattering of unpolarized light results in the
spin-up. The efficiency of this process is maximal for
wavelengths $\sim l$. For twisted prolate grains, increments of grain
angular momentum can be shown \cite{dm} to be of the order of
$0.25\Phi_{p}\hbar l^{2}(n_{r}-1)^{4}$, where $\Phi_{p}$ is the
flux of photons and $n_{r}$ is the refraction coefficient ($\sim
1.3$). Then the characteristic angular velocity is
\begin{equation}
\Omega\approx\frac{1}{8}\frac{\Phi_{p}(n_{r}-1)^{4}\hbar}{nm_{a}v_{a}l^{2}},
\end{equation}
which is of the order $10^{7}$~s$^{-1}$ for the typical concentration
of photons in the ISM $\sim 3\cdot 10^{9}$~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ and
may become much higher in the vicinity of bright sources.
For optimal shape suggested in Dolginov \& Mytrophanov (1976)
the scattering efficiency is sufficient to account for the alignment over
vast regions, but one
may expect the grains to have relatively small deviations towards the optimal
form. Such grains are believed to be a natural product of evolution
(Mathis 1990).
However, numerical studies of the interaction of irregular grains with
radiation by Bruce Draine (private communication) showed, that grains
that do not resemble helicies can exibit high efficiency of spin-up
due to scattering of radiation. These studies can shed the light on
the problem, whether grain spin-up arising from light scattering
is an exeption or a rule. Note, that such a spin-up is expected to
be long-lived one. Indeed, it is not the surface, but grain volume,
that should be altered substantially to cause a crossover event.
Such a change is expected to take place over timescale much longer
as compared with the time of gaseous damping, which means that
the spin-up should be long-lived. For such a spin-up the alignment is
nearly perfect just due to paramagnetic relaxation.
However, helical grains can be aligned mechanically on the timescale
much shorter than the one relevant to the paramagnetic alignment.
Mechanical alignment of helical grains is a complex problem and we
are going to
subject this issue to scrutiny in our next paper. Here we
just refer to the study in Dolginov \& Mytrophanov (1976) where it was shown,
that grains asymptotically tend to align perfectly with their helicity
axes along the direction of magnetic field, if the time of precession is
much less than that of alignment, and along the flux direction, if the opposite
is true. In their paper Dolginov \& Mytrophanov considered a tilted oblate
grain which helicity axis coincided with the major inertia axis and a tilted
prolate grain where the two axis were perpendicular. The conclusion reached
in Dolginov \& Mytrophanov (1976) was that the two species subjected to a flux
should be aligned orthogonally. However, the above study omits the influence
of internal relaxation. Due to this effect a prolate grain initially rotating
about its axis of minimal inertia
will in a short period of time turn to rotate about the axis of major inertia.
In other words, long axis of prolate and oblate grains should be aligned in
the same direction.
To obtain quantitative results applicable to the ISM and circumstellar regions
one needs to estimate the relative importance of this particular type of
suprathermal rotation. Estimates in Purcell (1979) show that, as a rule,
angular velocity of rotation due to H$_{2}$ formation should dominate
for the ISM. Therefore, it seems unlikely that alignment due to
grain helicity is more important in diffuse
clouds in comparison with the one discussed in Sect.~3.
However, the alignment of helical grains may be essential in the vicinity of
bright sources.\\
{\bf Alignment due to radiation fluxes.}
Above we discussed both mechanical and
paramagnetic alignment of suprathermally rotating grains. One may
wonder whether alignment can be caused by absorption of quanta. Indeed,
due to absorption of an individual quantum a grain gains $\hbar$ angular
momentum. This physical process is invoked in Harwit (1970).
However, it was shown later in Purcell \& Spitzer (1971)
that if a grain is being subjected to a radiation flux, the drift produced
by the radiation pressure entails Gold alignment, which is far more efficient
than the Harwit one. It is not difficult to show, that the ratio of squared
increments of angular momentum for the Harwit process $\langle( \triangle
J_{H}^{2})\rangle$ to the one for the Gold process
$\langle( \triangle J_{G}^{2})\rangle$
is negligible even for rather special conditions of alignment
discussed in Aitken et al (1985). Note, that in the aforementioned
study the Gold alignment was neglected and therefore a conclusion, that
Harwit mechanism is efficient was reached. We claim, that this inference can
be true only, if the Gold alignment is suppressed. The latter happens, for
instance, if charged grains are trapped by close loops of magnetic field
and cannot be accelerated under radiation pressure. In any case, such
an inefficient process as a Harwit one, is unlikely to influence the
dynamics of suprathermally rotating grains.
This, however, does not mean,
that radiation cannot influence alignment of suprathermally rotating
grains in a way other than
through differential scattering of circular polarized quanta. For instance,
we may suggest a mechanism based on photodesorption. Indeed, if suprathermal
rotation is due to H$_{2}$ formation, we may refer to the toy model discussed
in Sect.~3, but use a radiation flux instead of gaseous one. If this radiation
flux
desorbs molecules blocking the access to active sites, the life time of
Purcell's rockets and therefore $t_{L}$ will be different for $\bot$ and
$\parallel$
orientation of our grain. It is easy to see, that this alignment is most
efficient if $t_{L}\gg t_{d}$. However, in some cases, e.g. for hot and
small grains discussed in Purcell \&
Spitzer (1971), the radiation dumping may dominate the gaseous one. In this
case the grain temperature should depend on the
grain orientation and $t_{L}\gg t_{d}$ is not required for efficient alignment.
However, a
detailed study of these processes is beyond the scope of our present
paper.\\
{\bf Alignment due to grain magnetic moments}.
To make our discussion more complete, we need to mention the alignment due
to grain magnetic moments. One of the causes of these moments can be
charge (Martin 1971, Draine \& Salpeter 1979, Draine \& Sutin 1987)
over rotating grains (Rowland effect). The torques that act on a rotating
charged grain were studied in Davis \& Greenstein (1951), along with their
famous prediction of paramagnetic alignment. However, the influence of the
ambient gas
was omitted in their analysis, and thus the conclusion that the
`distribution must be completely independent of the field' was made.
This was quoted in other sources and therefore may still cause confusion.
Consider an isolated rotating charged grain in magnetic field. Its rotation
creates a magnetic moment ${\bf \cal M}=
\Sigma_{i}{\rm e}(2c)^{-1}a_{i}^{2}{\bf J}({\it I})^{-1}$,
where $a_{i}$ is the distance from an elementary charge over the grain
surface to the axis of rotation. This causes grain precession
in the magnetic field according to the Larmour equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\rm d}{\bf J}}{{\rm d}{\it t}}=
{\bf \cal M}\times{\bf B}=
\omega_{g} {\bf J}\times\frac{{\bf B}}{|
{\bf B}|}
\label{56}
\end{equation}
where $\omega_{g}=\sum \frac{{\rm e}a_{i}^{2}B}{3cI}$, which is quite close to
the grain Larmour frequency
$\omega_{L}$. In the course of this precession the angle between
${\bf \cal M}$ and ${\bf B}$ does not change,
i.e. the precession by
itself cannot change the energy of the system. The calculations
in Davis \& Greenstein (1951) reflect this fact. However,
the energy changes due to the interaction of grains with surrounding
gas. Indeed,
the impact in the direction of the Larmour precession arising from
grain interaction with an atom results in
the torque, that cause the precession around the axis which is
perpendicular to the magnetic field. Eq.~(\ref{56}) shows
that the angle between ${\bf \cal M}$ and
${\bf B}$ increases. If
the impact is directed against the direction the Larmour precession,
this angle decreases.\footnote{Note, that in reality
we assume a uniform distributions
of atomic impacts and subdivide the impacts as having component either
in the direction of the precession or opposite to it.}
The collisions
of the first type disalign ${\bf \cal M}$ and
${\bf B}$, while the collisions of the second type align the two
vectors. The alignment effect prevails as the impacts against
precession are stronger than those in the direction of precession.
In our arguments above we used the fact, that the Larmour precession
influences the direction, but not the magnitude of the vector $\bf J$.
Therefore the magnitude of ${\bf \cal M}$ (i.e. $|{\bf \cal M}|$)
is not altered by the Larmour precession. In fact, in terms of
grain interaction with magnetic field, the grain behaves as a magnetic dipole
and the alignment due to the Rowland effect is similar to the alignment of
magnetic dipoles. Such an alignment is not complete due to random torques
acting upon grains.\footnote{Thermal fluctuations within grain material
can randomize alignment as well, but the influence of such fluctuations
for suprathermally rotating grains is negligible.} These random torques
determine the effective temperature $T$ and this temperature influences the
equilibrium distribution of ${\bf \cal M}$. If the suprathermal rotation
is caused by the variations of the accommodation coefficient
(see Purcell 1979),
this temperature will be the mean of the grain and gas temperatures,
provided that gas-grain collisions are inelastic. In the case of the
suprathermal rotation caused by H$_{2}$ formation, $T$ will be of the
order of $E_{H2}/k$, provided that every hydrogen atom that hits
grain surface leaves it as a part of H$_{2}$ molecule.
Indeed, if the spin-up is very long, then grains should behave
as magnetic moments whose motion is disturbed by stochastic torques due to
H$_{2}$ formation.\footnote{Note, that we are speaking about averaged
$J^{2}$ components of the torque.} These magnetic
moments are peculiar in a sense, that the randomization of their precession
requires time much greater than usual damping time. However, if the life time
of Purcell's rockets exceeds this time, the treatment in mu228rv2 should be
applicable.
In the extreme case of the short spin-up, when all torques are
essentially stochastic one may introduce the averaged magnetic moment and
study
precession of this moment in the magnetic field. Our arguments
should be applicable and the damping of the precession should occur over
the timescale of the order of rotational damping time.
The equilibrium distribution of grain axes of major inertia
in magnetic field $B$ is proportional to $\exp(- \mbox{$\cal E$}/(kT))$,
where ${\cal E}=-{\bf \cal M}{\bf B}$.
It is easy to see that
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mbox{$\cal E$}}{kT}\approx
\frac{\rm e}{2c}l^{2}\frac{\omega_{T}B}{kT}
\sim\frac{\omega_{L}}{\omega_{T}}
\label{54}
\end{equation}
for a thermally rotating grain and
$\mbox{$\cal E$}(kT)^{-1}\approx
\omega_{L}\omega_{r}\omega_{T}^{-2}$ for a suprathermally rotating grain,
$\omega_{T}$ is the frequency of
rotation corresponding to the temperature $T$,
$\omega_{r}$ is the frequency of the suprathermal rotation and $\omega_{L}$
is the Larmour frequency.
In fact, grain alignment due to the Rowland effect is in no way
different from the alignment of ferromagnetic grains with high permanent
magnetization discussed in Spitzer \& Tukey (1951). The difference
is of quantitative nature; ferromagnetic grains have much larger magnetic
moments and therefore much more susceptible for such an alignment. However,
even with ferromagnetic grains the alignment was shown to be not efficient for
diffuse clouds \footnote{ It is possible to show that Spitzer \& Tukey
alignment may not be negligible in dark clouds, where both grain and gas
temperatures are low, while magnetic fields $> 10^{-4}$ are commonplace.
However, such grains are not expected to rotate suprathermally and thus
we do not discuss them there.} (Spitzer \& Tukey 1951). Therefore alignment
due to the Rowland effect is negligible for the majority of the foreseeable
cases. This a fortiori true, as paramagnetic grains obtain much larger
magnetic moments through the Barnett, rather than through Rowland effect.
Assuming that $\omega_{T}\approx 10^{5}$~s$^{-1}$,
$B \approx 3\times 10^{-6}$~G, $\omega_{r}\approx 10^{4}\omega_{T}$,
we still fall short by approximately six orders of magnitude
to produce any measurable alignment due to this effect.
To summarize, magnetic
moments irrespectively of their nature (the Rowland effect, the Barnett
effect, permanent magnetization) do produce alignment, but this alignment
is negligible for suprathermally rotating grains in diffuse clouds.
\section{Conclusions}
Several mechanisms of alignment of suprathermally rotating grains were
discussed and it was shown that
I. Paramagnetic alignment stays the strongest candidate to account for
grain alignment
over vast regions of the diffuse clouds. Its modification suggested
in Purcell (1979) depends on subtle processes
over grain surfaces and this provides an opportunity to test it.
II. Alignment of grains due to the cross section effect that was introduced
in this paper can also be important for the diffuse ISM. This mechanism,
similar to the
paramagnetic one,
tends to align
long grain axis perpendicular to magnetic field lines, provided that
the grain drift is caused by Alfv\'{e}nic perturbations.
III. Radiation can drive alignment in the vicinity of bright sources even
in the absence of supersonic drift. Such an alignment is more likely to
arise from
differential photodesorption, although in some particular cases
anisotropic radiation field can also
provide the alignment of ''helical`` grains. Therefore additional care is
required
in interpreting the corresponding polarimetric data.
IV. Magnetic moments of grains both arising from
the Barnett effect and due to their charge produce alignment,
but the expected degree of alignment is
negligible.
{\bf Acknowledgement}\\ The initial impetus for this work came from
comments
by B.~Draine. I also would like to thank him for a subsequent discussion of
the results and for numerous suggestions, remarks and comments, which
considerably improved
the paper.
This work also owes much to my discussions with A.~Goodman,
R.~Kulsrud, P.~Myers, M.~Rees, L.~Spitzer
and D.~Williams. The research was partially supported by Isaak Newton
Scholarship from IoA, University of Cambridge (UK), Visiting Fellowship at
CfA, and NASA grant NAG5 2773.
|
\section{Introduction}
\eqnum{0}
\hspace*{\parindent}
The unification of all fundamental interactions including
gravity is one of the final goals of theoretical physics.
The electromagnetic
and weak interactions were unified by Weinberg and
Salam, and grand unified theories (GUTs) have been proposed
as a unification model of three fundamental interactions. In
this unification scheme, all interactions are described
by gauge fields. Furthermore, supersymmetry is
proposed to unify interaction (bosons) and matter
(fermions), and gravity could be included in a
supergravity theory. Such unified theories are sometimes
discussed in higher-dimensions. Then, the idea of
superstring arises as an approach to the unification of all
interactions and particles, giving ``theory of everything".
Then we have recognized that gravity is one of the most
important keys for unification. In order to understand
the role of gravity in a fundamental unified theory, it
is necessary and helpful to study concrete
physical phenomena with strong gravity such as cosmology or
black holes. We find new aspects of gravity and other
fundamental fields through such theoretical studies, which might give
us hints about unification.
In the
effective theories derived from the higher-dimensional unified
theories\cite{Callan}, the dilaton field couples
to other known matter fields. The
coupling constant depends on the fundamental unified
theory and the dimensionality of spacetime. Thus it is
important to study how the coupling affects physical
phenomena.
The coupling plays some
important roles in
black hole physics\cite{GM} as well as in
cosmology\cite{Dcos}.
In this paper, we further study
effects of a dilaton
field on black hole physics, and in particular we will analyze
the role of Hawking's quantum radiation.
We consider the
model with a dilaton field coupled to a U(1) gauge field,
i.e., the Einstein--Maxwell--dilaton theory. The action is
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \int \mbox{d}^{4} x \sqrt{- g}
\left[ R - 2 \left( \nabla \phi \right)^{2} - \mbox{e}^{-
2 \alpha \phi} F^{2} \right] \; ,
\label{eqn:dilaction}
\end{equation}
where
$\phi$ and $F_{\mu\nu}$ are a dilaton field and U(1)
gauge field, respectively, with coupling
constant $\alpha$\cite{unit}. For a superstring, we may also
include an axion field $H_{\mu\nu\rho}$. The action
is then
\begin{equation}
S = \frac{1}{16 \pi} \int \mbox{d}^{4} x \sqrt{- g}
\left[ R - 2 \left( \nabla \phi \right)^{2} - \mbox{e}^{-
2 \phi} F^{2} - \frac{1}{12} \mbox{e}^{- 4 \phi} H^2
\right] \; .
\label{eqn:senaction}
\end{equation}
The
action (\ref{eqn:dilaction}) reduces to the
Einstein--Maxwell theory when the coupling constant $\alpha
= 0$. The black hole solution for this case is the well
known Kerr--Newman family. The case of
$\alpha = \sqrt{3}$
corresponds to the 4-dimensional effective
model reduced from the 5-dimensional Kaluza--Klein
theory.
The
action (\ref{eqn:senaction}), in which the dilaton coupling
constant $\alpha$ to the U(1) gauge field is unity, is a
bosonic part of the low energy limit of superstring theory.
The exact spherically-symmetric dilatonic
black hole solution with arbitrary coupling
constant $\alpha$ is known\cite{GM,GHS}. They have some interesting
thermodynamical properties, which are not found in the
conventional charged (Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m) black hole. In
particular, the temperature of the black hole in the extreme
limit depends drastically on $\alpha$. If $\alpha < 1$, the
temperature of the black hole vanishes in the extreme limit, as
does that of the Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole. On the other
hand, the temperature of the extreme black hole with
$\alpha > 1$ diverges. For $\alpha = 1$,
it is a non-zero finite value. This new thermodynamical
property implies that the emission rate of Hawking
quantum radiation may be completely different, depending on
the coupling constant. We expect that when $\alpha > 1$,
the emission rate diverges in the extreme limit, because the
temperature diverges.
The black hole may evaporate very rapidly.
However, it was pointed
out \cite{HW} that for $\alpha >1$, the effective potential,
over which created particles travel to
an asymptotically flat region to evaporate, grows infinitely
high in the extreme limit. Hence, Holzhey and Wilczek
expected that the emission rate will be suppressed to a
finite value. Since these two features are competing processes in
Hawking radiation, it is not trivial to decide whether or not
the emission rate from the extreme dilatonic black holes
with $\alpha > 1$ diverges. Thus, we analyze the emission rates numerically
under the assumption that the charge is conserved, and
clarify what happens in the extreme limit. This is the main
purpose of the present paper.
In
addition to the spherically symmetric black hole,
rotating dilatonic black holes
also have similar thermodynamical
properties\cite{HH,Sen,KM}. We
considered superradiance around the rotating dilatonic
black holes in the previous paper\cite{KM} and showed that
there is a critical value ($\alpha \sim 1$) beyond which the
emission rate changes drastically. In this paper, we extend
our analysis to include the role of the temperature, i.e.,
Hawking quantum radiation, which automatically includes a
superradiant effect, and discuss the fate of rotating black
holes due to the evaporation process. We only know two exact rotating
black hole solutions for the
action (\ref{eqn:dilaction}): Kerr--Newman
($\alpha = 0$) and Kaluza--Klein solution ($\alpha =
\sqrt{3}$)\cite{FZB}. In the superstring case ($\alpha =
1$), Sen\cite{Sen} derived a rotating black hole solution
for the action(\ref{eqn:senaction}). This solution is not
exactly the same as those in the model
(\ref{eqn:dilaction}), but we
expect that the existence of the axion field will not
drastically change the dependence of the emission rate
on the dilaton
coupling. Hence, we analyze
these three black hole solutions and compare their emission rates.
Besides these exact solutions, we
consider an approximate solution of slowly rotating black
holes with arbitrary coupling
$\alpha$\cite{HH,Shiraishi1}.
All rotating dilatonic black holes
reduce to the Kerr solution when their charges vanish.
We expect that the coupling constant dependence is
most noticeable when the black hole is highly charged.
We therefore analyze Hawking radiation from highly
charged black holes.
As we know, a charged black hole generally emits its
charge at a high rate in the process of evaporation and so
its charge will be quickly lost, unless the charge is
conserved. Because we are now interested in
the effect of the dilaton coupling on the emission rates,
we first assume that the charge is conserved, which is
true for a central charge.
We then study the discharge processes to see
how it is affected by the dilaton coupling.
This paper is organized as follows. In the next
section, we study Hawking radiation for a
spherically symmetric dilatonic black hole and analyze the
behaviour of the emission rate in the extreme limit. The
emission rates from rotating black holes are
presented
in the section 3. It is assumed that the charge
of the black hole is conserved. We discuss the
evolution and fate of these black holes.
The effects of the discharge process are considered by calculating
superradiance in the spherically symmetric black hole
in the section 4. Finally, we give our conclusions and
remarks in the final section.
\section{Hawking Radiation from Spherically Symmetric
Dilatonic Black Holes}
\eqnum{0}
\hspace*{\parindent}
We first consider spherically symmetric dilatonic black holes.
In this case we know the exact solution with arbitrary
coupling constant $\alpha$ \cite{GM,GHS}, which is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d}s^{2} & = & -{\Delta(\rho) \over {R^2(\rho)}}
\: \mbox{d}t^{2} + \frac{{R^2(\rho)}}{\Delta(\rho)} \: \mbox{d}\rho^{2} +
{ {R}^{2}(\rho)} (\mbox{d} \theta^{2} + \sin^{2}\theta \:
\mbox{d} \varphi^{2} ) \: , \nonumber \\
A_{t} & = & \frac{Q}{\rho}, \; \; \; \phi = \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^{2}}
\ln \left(1 - \frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right) \; , \label{eqn:nonrotsol}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta (\rho) = \left( \rho - \rho_{+} \right) \left( \rho -
\rho_{-} \right),
\; \; \;
R (\rho) = \rho \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right)^{\alpha^{2}/(1
+\alpha^{2})} , \nonumber \\
\end{equation}
and $A_t$ is the $t$-component of the gauge potential $A_\mu$.
The outer and `inner' horizons $\rho_{+}$ and $\rho_{-}$ are given
by the mass $M$, the electric charge of the black hole $Q$ and
$\alpha$ as
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\pm} = \frac{(1+\alpha^2) (M \pm \sqrt{
M^{2} - \left( 1-\alpha^{2} \right) Q^{2}})}{\left(1 \pm
\alpha^{2} \right)}.
\label{eqn:parametersph}
\end{equation}
$\rho = \rho_{-}$ is the curvature singularity for $\alpha \neq 0$.
The maximum value of the charge is $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} \equiv
\sqrt{1+\alpha^2} M$. When $|Q| = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, $\rho_{+}$
and $\rho_{-}$ coincide, and we call it an extreme black hole.
However, it has to be emphasized that when $\rho_{+} = \rho_{-}$,
a naked singularity appears at $\rho = \rho_{+}$ and the area
of black hole vanishes for $\alpha \neq 0$, and it is therefore not
a black hole solution\cite{GM}. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
The temperature $T$ of the black hole is given as
\begin{equation}
T = \frac{1}{4 \pi \rho_{+}} \left(1-\frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho_{+}}
\right)^{(1-\alpha^2)/(1+\alpha^2)} .
\end{equation}
It possesses an interesting property\cite{GM}. When $\alpha < 1$,
$T$ in the extreme limit vanishes, whereas it diverges in the case
of $\alpha > 1$, and has the non-zero finite value $1 / 8 \pi M$
(as the Schwarzschild black hole) for $\alpha = 1$. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Here we consider a neutral and massless scalar field which
does not couple to the dilaton field\cite{Shiraishi2}, which is
described by the Klein--Gordon equation
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{,\mu}^{~;\mu} = 0 \; .
\label{eqn:KGeq}
\end{equation}
The energy emission rate of Hawking radiation is
given\cite{Hawking} by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mbox{d} M}{\mbox{d} t} = - \frac{1}{2 \pi}
\sum_{l,m} \int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{\omega \: (1 - |A|^2)}{\exp \left[ \omega / \: T
\right] - 1} \: \mbox{d} \omega ,
\label{eqn:dMsph}
\end{equation}
where $l$, $m$ are the angular momentum and its azimuthal component,
$\omega$ is the energy of the particle, and $|A|^2$ is
a reflection coefficient in a scattering problem
for the scalar field $\Phi$. The Klein-Gordon equation
(\ref{eqn:KGeq}) in this black hole spacetime
can be made separable, by setting
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \frac{\chi(\rho^*)}{R(\rho)} \: S(\theta) \:
\mbox{e}^{\mbox{\scriptsize i} m \varphi} \:
\mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega t} . \label{eqn:Phiputform}
\end{equation}
Then, Eq.(\ref{eqn:KGeq}) is reduced to the Legendre equation
for $S(\theta)$ and the radial equation,
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\mbox{d}^2}{{\mbox{d} {\rho}^*}^{2}} +
\omega ^{2} - {V}^2 (\rho)
\right] \chi ({\rho}^*) = 0 ,
\label{eqn:KGsph}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
V^2 (\rho) & \equiv &
\frac{\Delta (\rho)}{R^{2} (\rho)}
\left[
\frac{l(l+1)}{R^{2} (\rho)} +
\frac{1}{R (\rho)}
\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} \rho}
\left(
{\Delta(\rho) \over {R^2(\rho)}}
\frac{\mbox{d} R (\rho)}{\mbox{d} \rho}
\right)
\right] \: , \label{eqn:effpot} \\
\mbox{d} {\rho}^* & \equiv & \frac{ {R^2(\rho)}}{\Delta (\rho)} \;
\mbox{d} \rho . \label{eqn:tortdef}
\end{eqnarray}
The reflection coefficient $|A|^2$ can be calculated by solving
the wave equation (\ref{eqn:KGsph}) numerically under
the boundary condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi & \rightarrow & \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i}
\omega \rho^*} + A \: \mbox{e}^{\mbox{\scriptsize i}
\omega \rho^*} ~~~~~~ \mbox{as} ~~~ \rho^* \rightarrow \infty \: ,
\nonumber \\
\chi & \rightarrow & B \: \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i}
\omega \rho^*} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{as}
~~~ \rho^* \rightarrow - \infty \; .
\label{eqn:boundcond}
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\parindent}
The dependence of the temperature $T$ on $\alpha$ might be
expected to imply that the behaviour
of Hawking radiation, which is thermal and has an emission rate
proportional to $T^4$, is drastically affected by
the dilaton coupling, particularly for $\alpha > 1$,
for which the temperature $T$ diverges in the extreme limit.
However, as Holzhey and Wilczek\cite{HW} pointed out,
since the effective potential $V$ (\ref{eqn:effpot})
for $\alpha > 1$ grows infinitely high at the horizon
in the extreme limit, the transmission probability
$1 - |A|^2$ for particles to escape to infinity is suppressed.
These two tendencies have opposite effects on
Hawking radiation, and it is not clear whether
or not the emission rate is actually suppressed. Here,
we solve the wave equation (\ref{eqn:KGsph}) numerically
to get the spectrum, and integrate Eq.(\ref{eqn:dMsph}).
In this and subsequent calculations, we consider
only the dominant modes with $l \leq 1$ since
the contribution from higher angular momentum modes
is suppressed by the centrifugal barrier. We integrate Eq.(\ref
{eqn:dMsph}) numerically to $\omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$
($\omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} = 25 T$
for the present non-rotating case), which is justified
since the spectrum is suppressed at the high energy regime
by the exponential decay in the Planck distribution. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
To see how the emission rate varies as the black hole
reaches to the extreme limit, we plot the emission rate,
normalized by mass of the black hole $M$, against $Q / Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$
for five values of the coupling constant: $\alpha = 0$,
$0.5$, $1$, $1.5$, $2$. It is shown in Fig.1. Here, we assume
the charge of the black hole is positive, without loss of generality.
\begin{figure}
\singlefig{10cm}{dMsph.ps}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:dMsph}{15cm}
The emission rate for the non-rotating dilatonic black holes. \\
The charge $Q$ is normalized by $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ and the emission rate $-d M/d
t$ is normalized by $M$. Each line corresponds to (1):$\alpha = 0$,
(2):$\alpha = 0.5$, (3):$\alpha = 1$, (4):$\alpha = 1.5$, and (5):$\alpha =
2$, respectively.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
In this figure, we see that although the emission rates
for each value of $\alpha$ coincide at $Q =0$, since
the black hole solution, with any $\alpha$, is identically
the Schwarzschild spacetime for $Q = 0$, the difference becomes
large as the charge increases. In particular,
the emission rate for $\alpha > 1$ blows up near
the extreme limit. This means that the divergence
of the temperature $T$ in the extreme limit overcomes
that of the potential $V$. Furthermore, the emission rate
(\ref{eqn:dMsph}) of the extreme black hole
with $\alpha < 1$ is exactly zero because
the temperature vanishes, and that for $\alpha = 1$ is
non-zero but finite, as we see in the figure. Therefore,
we may conclude that the behaviour of the emission
rate in the extreme limit changes drastically
at the value of $\alpha = 1$, as we naively expect
from the behaviour of the temperature, despite
the effect of the potential barrier. We may also speculate
that nearly extreme black holes with $\alpha > 1$
are not stable objects.
\section{Hawking Radiation from Rotating Dilatonic Black Holes}
\subsection{Rotating Dilatonic Black Holes}
\eqnum{0}
\hspace*{\parindent}
Next, we consider Hawking radiation from rotating black holes.
In the rotating case, we know only two exact solutions
in the model (\ref{eqn:dilaction}): the Kerr--Newman ($\alpha = 0$)
and the Kaluza--Klein ($\alpha = \sqrt{3}$) solution\cite{FZB}.
Besides these two, in the $\alpha = 1$ case, an exact rotating
black hole solution is derived by Sen\cite{Sen} in the model
(\ref{eqn:senaction}). We first summarize these
exact solutions and their thermodynamical properties. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Firstly, the Kerr--Newman black hole solution is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d}s^2 & = & - \frac{\Delta - a^2 \sin^2\theta}{\Sigma}
\: \mbox{d}t^2 - \frac{2 a \sin^2\theta \left( r^2 + a^2
- \Delta \right)}{\Sigma} \: \mbox{d}t \mbox{d}\varphi
\nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\left( r^2 + a^2 \right)^2 - \Delta
a^2 \sin^2\theta}{\Sigma} \sin^2\theta
\: \mbox{d}\varphi^2 + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta}
\, \mbox{d}r^2 + \Sigma \: \mbox{d}\theta^2 \: , \nonumber \\
A_t & = & \frac{Q r}{\Sigma} , \; \; \; A_\varphi
= - \frac{a Q r \sin^2\theta}{\Sigma} \; ,
\label{eqn:KNsol}
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $\Delta$ and $\Sigma$ are defined by
\begin{equation}
\Delta \equiv r^2 - 2 M r + a^2 + Q^2 \; , \; \; \;
\Sigma \equiv r^2 + a^2 \cos^2\theta \; .
\end{equation}
The coordinate $r$ and $\rho$ in the previous section are related
by $r = \rho - \rho_{-}$ in the spherically symmetric case.
The temperature $T$ and the angular velocity $\Omega_{H}$ are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T ~ & = & \frac{1}{2 \pi} \frac{\sqrt{M^2 - a^2 - Q^2}}{r_{\scriptscriptstyle H}^2 + a^2}
\: , \label{eqn:TKN} \\
\Omega_{H} & = & \frac{a}{r_{\scriptscriptstyle H}^2 + a^2} \label{eqn:OmHKN} \: ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
r_{\scriptscriptstyle H} = M + \sqrt{M^2 - a^2 - Q^2}
\end{equation}
is the horizon radius, $M$, $Q$, and $J = M a$ are the mass, the charge,
and the angular momentum of the black hole, respectively. \\
\hspace*{\parindent}
Secondly, the Kaluza--Klein black hole solution is
derived by a dimensional reduction of the boosted
5-dimensional Kerr solution to four dimensions\cite{FZB,GW}.
It is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d}s^{2} & = &- \frac{\Delta -a^2 \sin^2 \theta}{B
\Sigma} \mbox{d}t^{2} - 2 a \sin^{2} \theta \frac{1}{
\sqrt{1-v^{2}}} \frac{Z}{B} \mbox{d}t \mbox{d} \varphi
\nonumber \\
& & + \left[ B \left( r^{2} + a^{2} \right) + a^{2}
\sin^{2} \theta
\; \frac{Z}{B} \right] \sin^{2} \theta \; \mbox{d}
\varphi^{2} + \frac{B \Sigma}{\Delta} \mbox{d}r^{2}
+ B \Sigma \,
\mbox{d} \theta^{2} \: , \nonumber \\
A_{t} & = &\frac{v}{2 \left( 1-v^{2} \right) } \frac{Z}{B^{2}}, \; \; \;
A_{ \varphi } = \; - a \sin^{2} \theta \frac{v}{2 \sqrt{1-v^{2}}}
\frac{Z}{B^{2}}, \; \; \;
\phi = \; - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \ln B \; ,
\label{eqn:rotKKBHsol}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta \equiv r^{2} - 2 \mu r + a^{2}, \; \; \;
\Sigma \equiv r^{2} + a^{2} \cos^{2} \theta, \; \; \;
Z \equiv \frac{2 \mu r}{\Sigma}, \; \; \;
B \equiv \left( 1 + \frac{v^{2} Z}{1-v^{2}} \right)^{\frac{1}{2}} .
\label{eqn:funcdefKK}
\end{equation}
The physical mass $M$, the charge $Q$, and the angular momentum
$J$ are expressed by the parameters $v$, $\mu$, and $a$, as
\begin{equation}
M = \mu\left[1 + {v^2 \over 2(1-v^2)} \right] \; , \; \; \;
Q = {\mu v \over 1-v^2} \; , \; \; \;
J = {\mu a \over \sqrt{1-v^2}} \; .
\label{eqn:physKK}
\end{equation}
The horizon radius is given by
\begin{equation}
r_{\scriptscriptstyle H} = \mu + \sqrt{ \mu^{2} - a^{2}} \; ,
\label{eqn:horizonKK}
\end{equation}
and then the regular horizon exists if
\begin{equation}
\mu^2 \geq a^2 \; ,
\label{eqn:horizoncond}
\end{equation}
and this condition may be rewritten as
\begin{equation}
\left({J \over M^2}\right)^2 \leq \frac{1}{4}
\left[ 2- 10 \left({Q \over M} \right)^2 - \left({Q \over M} \right)^4
+ 2 \left(1+ 2 \left({Q \over M} \right)^2 \right)^{3/2}
\right] \; . \label{eqn:parameterrangeKK}
\end{equation}
The parameter range of the condition (\ref{eqn:parameterrangeKK})
is shown in Fig.2. It should be noted again that the solutions
with $|Q| = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} \: (= 2 M)$ are not black hole solutions and
these points are indicated by small circles in Fig.2.
\begin{figure}
\singlefig{10cm}{ParameterRange.ps}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:ParameterRange}{15cm}
The parameter ranges of three types of black hole. \\
The extreme lines are shown in $Q/M$--$J/M^2$ plane for (1):the
Kerr--Newman, (2):the Sen, and (3):the Kaluza--Klein black holes.
The region
inside each line guarantees a regular event horizon, except the points
denoted by a small circle where a naked singularity appears.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
\\ \hspace*{\parindent}
As for the thermodynamical properties of this black hole, we find
that the temperature $T$ and the angular velocity $\Omega_{H}$ are
given as
\begin{eqnarray}
T ~ & = & \frac{\sqrt{1 - v^2}}{2 \pi} \frac{\sqrt{\mu^2
- a^2}}{r_{\scriptscriptstyle H}^2 + a^2} \label{eqn:TKK} \; , \\
\Omega_{H} & = & \frac{a \sqrt{1 - v^{2}}}{r_{\scriptscriptstyle H}^{2}
+ a^{2}} \; . \label{eqn:OmKK}
\end{eqnarray}
The temperature $T$ in the limit of $|Q| \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$
for the non-rotating black hole diverges, as was pointed out
in the previous section. However, the temperature $T$ of
the extreme rotating black hole ($\mu = |a|$) vanishes
from Eq.(\ref{eqn:TKK}). When we take
the limit $|Q| \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, keeping the black hole
extreme with $J \neq 0$ (whereas $J \rightarrow 0$ in the limit),
the limiting value is still zero, and different from that
of the non-rotating case. That is, the temperature is discontinuous
at $|Q| = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ where a naked singularity appears.
A similar feature is found in the behaviour of $\Omega_{H}$.
If we take a limit $|Q| \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, $\Omega_{H}$ of
a rotating black hole diverges, whereas $\Omega_{H}$ of
a non-rotating black hole is zero. The fact that $J$ vanishes
while $\Omega_{H}$
diverges in the limit
$|Q| \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ is understood by observing
that the area of the black hole vanishes in that limit. Those features
are illustrated in Fig.3.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{11cm}{TKK.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{OmKK.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:thermKK}{15cm}
The thermodynamical behaviour of the Kaluza--Klein black hole.\\
The behaviour of (a):the temperature $T$, and (b):the angular velocity
$\Omega_{H}$ is depicted on $Q/M$--$J/M^2$ plane ($Q \geq 0$, $J \geq 0$).
The constant angular momentum lines are drawn in solid lines for $J =
0$, $0.05 M^2$, and $0.2 M^2$.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
\\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Thirdly, the Sen black hole\cite{Sen}, which is a solution in the action
(\ref{eqn:senaction}), is expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d}s^2 & = & -\frac{\Delta - a^2 \sin^2\theta}{\Sigma} \: \mbox
{d}t^2 - \frac{4 \mu r a \cosh^2\beta \sin^2\theta}{\Sigma} \: \mbox
{d}t \mbox{d} \varphi \nonumber \\
& & + \frac{\Sigma}{\Delta} \: \mbox{d} r^2 + \Sigma \: \mbox{d}
\theta^2
+ \frac{\Lambda}{\Sigma} \sin^2\theta \; \mbox{d} \varphi^2 \: ,
\nonumber \\
A_{t} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{\mu r \sinh2\beta}{\Sigma} \: , \;
\; \; A_{\varphi} = - \frac{a}{\sqrt{2}} \sin^2\theta \; \frac{\mu r
\sinh2\beta}{\Sigma} \: , \nonumber \\
\phi & = & - \frac{1}{2} \: \ln \frac{\Sigma}{r^2 + a^2 \cos^2\theta} \: ,
\; \; \; B_{t \varphi} = 2 a \sin^2\theta \; \frac{\mu r \sinh^2\beta}
{\Sigma} \; ,
\label{eqn:Sensol}
\end{eqnarray}
where the functions $\Delta$, $\Sigma$, and $\Lambda$ are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta & \equiv & r^2 - 2 \mu r + a^2 , \; \; \; \Sigma \equiv r^2 + a^2
\cos^2\theta + 2 \mu r \sinh^2\beta \: , \nonumber \\
\Lambda & \equiv & \left( r^2 + a^2 \right) \left( r^2 + a^2 \cos^2
\theta \right) + 2 \mu r a^2 \sin^2\theta \nonumber \\
& & + 4 \mu r \left( r^2 + a^2 \right) \sinh^2\beta + 4 \mu^2 r^2
\sinh^4\beta \; .
\label{eqn:Senfuncdef}
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\parindent}
The antisymmetric two rank tensor $B_{\mu\nu}$ generates the axion
field $H_{\mu\nu\rho}$, together with $A_{\mu}$, by
\begin{equation}
H_{\mu\nu\rho} = \left( \partial_{\mu} B_{\nu\rho} - 2 A_{\mu} F_
{\nu\rho} \right) + \mbox{[cyclic permutations]} \; .
\end{equation}
The mass $M$, the charge $Q$, and the angular momentum $J$ are given
by parameters $\mu$, $\beta$, and $a$ as
\begin{equation}
M = \frac{\mu}{2} \left( 1+\cosh2\beta \right), \; \; \; Q = \frac{\mu}
{\sqrt{2}} \sinh2\beta, \; \; \; J = \frac{a \mu}{2} \left( 1+\cosh2\beta
\right) \: ,
\end{equation}
and the horizon radius is given by the same equation as Eq.(\ref
{eqn:horizonKK}). The condition for the solution to be a black hole is
also the same as Eq.(\ref{eqn:horizoncond}), which is now rewritten as
\begin{equation}
|J| \leq M^2 - \frac{Q^2}{2} \: .
\label{eqn:parameterrangeSen}
\end{equation}
The parameter range of the condition (\ref{eqn:parameterrangeSen}) is
also shown in Fig.2. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
This black hole has similar thermodynamical properties to the
Kaluza--Klein solution. The temperature $T$ and the angular velocity
$\Omega_{H}$ of this black hole are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
T & = & \frac{\sqrt{\left( 2 M^2 - Q^2 \right)^2 - 4 J^2}}{4 \pi M \left[
2 M^2 - Q^2 + \sqrt{\left( 2 M^2 - Q^2 \right)^2 - 4 J^2} \right]} \; ,
\nonumber \\
\Omega_{H} & = & \frac{J}{M \left[ 2 M^2 - Q^2 + \sqrt{\left( 2 M^2 - Q^2
\right)^2 - 4 J^2} \right]} \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
and these quantities are discontinuous at $|Q| = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} \: (= \sqrt{2}
M)$, although they never diverge but approach finite values. The
behaviour of these quantities is shown in Fig.4.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{11cm}{TSen.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{OmSen.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:thermSen}{15cm}
The thermodynamical behaviour of the Sen black hole.\\
The same figures as Fig.3 are depicted for the Sen black hole.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
\\ \hspace*{\parindent}
These discontinuities indicate that the emission rate of Hawking
radiation may be completely different from that of the non-rotating case.
In addition to the thermal effect of the temperature and the effective
potential, which we considered in the previous section, new effects by
the angular velocity are important in the rotating cases: in
other words, superradiance.
\subsection{Hawking Radiation of Rotating Black Holes}
\hspace*{\parindent}
Here, we discuss the radiation from rotating dilatonic black holes
when the black hole charge is conserved. Hereafter, we can
assume that $Q$
and $J$ are positive without loss of generality. The Klein--Gordon
equation (\ref{eqn:KGeq}) for the neutral massless scalar field is
separated into the spheroidal equation
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{1}{\sin\theta} \frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} \theta} \left(
\sin\theta \frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} \theta} \right) - \left\{ a^2
\omega^2 \sin^2\theta + \frac{m^2}{\sin^2\theta} \right\} \right] S
(\theta) = - \lambda S(\theta)
\label{eqn:Spheroidaldil}
\end{equation}
and the radial equation
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\mbox{d}^{2}}{\mbox{d} r^{* 2}}
+ \left(\omega - m \Omega (r) \right)^2
- V^2(r) \right]
\chi \left( r^* \right) = 0 ,
\label{eqn:radialeqn}
\end{equation}
by setting
\begin{equation}
\Phi = \frac{\chi(r^*)}{R(r)} \: S(\theta) \: \mbox{e}^{\mbox
{\scriptsize i} m \varphi} \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega t} .
\end{equation}
Here the tortoise coordinate $r^*$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\mbox{d} r^* \equiv \frac{R^2(r)}{\Delta(r)} \mbox{d} r \; .
\end{equation}
The functions $\Omega$, $R$, and $V$ are defined
for the Kerr--Newman black hole as
\begin{displaymath}
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\Omega(r) \equiv (2 M r -Q^2) \frac{a}{R^4(r)} \: , \; \; \; \;
R^2(r) \equiv \left. \Sigma \right|_{\theta=0} = r^2 + a^2 \: ,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
V^2(r) \equiv {\Delta (r) \over R^2 (r) }
\left\{ \frac{\lambda }{R^{2}(r)}
+ \frac{1}{R(r)} \frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} r}
\left[ \frac{\Delta (r)}{R^2(r)}
\frac{\mbox{d} R(r)}{\mbox{d}r} \right]
- {m^2 a^2 \over R^6 (r) }
(r^2 + a^2 - Q^2 + 2 M r)
\right\} ,
\label{eqn:KGKNfncdef}
\end{equation}
for the Kaluza--Klein black hole as
\begin{displaymath}
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\Omega(r) \equiv {2 \mu r \over \sqrt{1-v^2}}{a
\over R^4(r)} \: , \; \; \;
R^{2}(r) \equiv B \Sigma |_{\theta =0} =
(r^{2} + a^{2}) \left( 1 + \frac{v^{2}}{1-v^{2}}
\frac{2 \mu r}{r^{2} + a^{2}}
\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \: ,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
V^2(r) \equiv {\Delta (r) \over R^2 (r) }
\left\{ \frac{\lambda }{R^{2}(r)}
+ \frac{1}{R(r)} \frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} r}
\left[ \frac{\Delta (r)}{R^2(r)}
\frac{\mbox{d} R(r)}{\mbox{d}r} \right]
- {m^2 a^2 \over R^6 (r) }
\left( r^2 +a^2 +{2 \mu r \over 1-v^2} \right)
\right\}
, \label{eqn:KGKKfncdef}
\end{equation}
and for the Sen black hole as
\begin{displaymath}
\! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \! \!
\! \! \! \! \!
\Omega(r) \equiv 2 \mu r \cosh^2 \beta \frac{a}{R^4(r)} \: , \; \; \;
R^2(r) \equiv \Sigma |_{\theta = 0} = r^2 + a^2 + 2 \mu r \sinh^2 \beta \;
,
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
V^2(r) \equiv {\Delta (r) \over R^2 (r) }
\left\{ \frac{\lambda}{R^2(r)} + \frac{1}{R(r)} \frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox
{d} r} \left[ \frac{\Delta(r)}{R^2(r)} \frac{\mbox{d} R(r)}{\mbox{d} r}
\right]
- \frac{m^2 a^2}{R^6(r)} \left( r^2 + a^2 + 2 \mu r \cosh 2\beta \right)
\right\}
. \label{eqn:KGSenfncdef}
\end{equation}
\hspace*{\parindent}
The emission rates of energy and angular momentum\cite{Hawking} are
given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mbox{d} M}{\mbox{d} t} & = & - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l, m}
\int^{\infty}_{0}
\frac{\omega \left( 1 - | A |^{2} \right)}{\exp \left[ \left( \omega
- m \Omega_{H} \right) / \: T \right] - 1} \: \mbox{d} \omega \; , \nonumber
\\
\frac{\mbox{d} J}{\mbox{d} t} & = & - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l, m} \int^
{\infty}_{0}
\frac{m \left( 1 - | A |^{2} \right)}{\exp \left[ \left( \omega - m
\Omega_{H} \right) / \: T \right] - 1} \: \mbox{d} \omega \; .
\label{eqn:radrot}
\end{eqnarray}
The reflection coefficient $|A|^2$ is calculated by solving the wave
equation (\ref{eqn:radialeqn}) under the boundary condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi & \rightarrow & \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega r^*} + A
\: \mbox{e}^{\mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega r^*} ~~~~~~ \mbox{as} ~~~
r^* \rightarrow \infty \; , \nonumber \\
\chi & \rightarrow & B \: \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \widetilde
{\omega} r^*} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{as} ~~~ r^* \rightarrow -
\infty \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{\omega} \equiv \omega - m \Omega_{H}$. We integrate
Eq.(\ref{eqn:radrot}) by setting the upper bound of the integration
as
$\omega_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}} = \max(25T, 1.5\Omega_{H} )$
for a rotating black
hole. The eigenvalue $\lambda$ of the spheroidal equation (\ref
{eqn:Spheroidaldil}) is calculated perturbatively\cite{Bouwkamp} as
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{0.2cm}
\addtolength{\jot}{0.2cm}
\begin{eqnarray}
\addtolength{\abovedisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\belowdisplayskip}{-0.2cm}
\addtolength{\jot}{-0.2cm}
\lambda & = & l(l+1) + \frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{(2m-1) (2m+1)}{(2l-1)
(2l+3)}+1 \right] a^2 \omega^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left[ \frac{(l-m-1) (l-m)
(l+m-1) (l+m)}{(2l-3) (2l-1)^3 (2l+1)} \right. \nonumber \\
& & \left. -\frac{(l-m+1) (l-m+2) (l+m+1) (l+m+2)}{(2l+1) (2l+3)^3 (2l+
5)} \right] a^4 \omega^4 + {\cal O} (a^6 \omega^6) .
\end{eqnarray}
This approximation is valid, since $a \omega < 1$ and the coefficient of
each term is small for all the cases we analyzed, although $\omega M > 1$
in some instances. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
As we mentioned before, the coupling constant dependence of the
temperature or the angular velocity is remarkable in highly charged
black holes. Hence we analyze such cases. If the black hole has a large
charge, it carries only a small angular momentum, as is seen from Fig.2.
Because of this, we consider the black holes with a small angular
momentum, which is fixed at $J = 0.01 M^2$, and vary the charge to see
how the emission rates for each solution change in the extreme limit.
The result is shown in Fig.5. The charge is normalized by the maximal
value $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize ex}}$ for the black hole with $J = 0.01 M^2$, which is a little
less than $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ (See Fig.2). The values of $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize ex}}$ are $0.999 \:
Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, $0.995 \: Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, and $0.972 \: Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ for the Kerr--Newman,
the Sen and the Kaluza--Klein black holes, respectively.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{10cm}{dMrotex.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{dJrotex.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:radrot}{15cm}
The emission rate of (a):the energy $-dM/dt$ and (b):the angular
momentum $-dJ/dt$ for three types of rotating black holes. \\
$Q$ is normalized by $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize ex}}$. Each line corresponds to (1):the
Kerr--Newman, (2):the Sen, and (3):the Kaluza--Klein black holes,
respectively. $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize ex}}$ is $0.999 \: Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, $0.995 \: Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, and $0.972
\: Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ for Kerr--Newman, for the Sen, and for the Kaluza--Klein
black hole, respectively.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
In Fig.5, we see the Kaluza--Klein black hole radiates much more energy and
angular momentum near the extreme limit than
the Kerr--Newman and the Sen black holes. The behaviour of the
energy emission rates (Fig.5 (a)) is very similar to that of
non-rotating black holes, except in the vicinity of the extreme
limit. This is
because we have chosen a very small value for the angular momentum.
However, in the Kaluza--Klein black hole, the emission rate drops a
little near the extreme limit and does not diverge, so we find a
different result from the non-rotating case. This is because the
temperature of the rotating Kaluza--Klein black hole vanishes in the
extreme limit whereas that of the non-rotating case is divergent in the
same limit. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
There appears to be a critical value of the dilaton coupling constant at
$\alpha \sim 1$, although we cannot give a definite critical value from
our analysis of exact black hole solutions. However there is another
way to investigate such a critical value in the extreme limit. The
temperatures of rotating black holes vanish in the extreme limit, and it
is known that Hawking radiation becomes purely superradiant\cite
{Unruh}, that is, the emission rates (\ref{eqn:radrot}) are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mbox{d} M}{\mbox{d} t} & = & - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l, m}
\int^{m \Omega_{H}}_{0}
\omega \left( | A |^{2} -1 \right) \mbox{d} \omega
\; , \nonumber \\
\frac{\mbox{d} J}{\mbox{d} t} & = &- \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l, m} \int^
{m \Omega_{H}}_{0}
m \left( | A |^{2} -1 \right) \mbox{d} \omega .
\label{eqn:radrotsup}
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\parindent}
In the previous paper\cite{KM}, we analyzed superradiance of the
rotating dilatonic black holes, which we will briefly summarize.
To see
how superradiance depends on the dilaton coupling constant, we
considered the slowly rotating approximate solution with arbitrary
coupling constant\cite{HH,Shiraishi1}, which is given by adding an
angular momentum perturbation to the spherically symmetric solution
(\ref{eqn:nonrotsol}), as well as the three exact solutions. This solution
is expressed, in the same coordinates as the spherically symmetric
solution in the section 2, as
\begin{eqnarray}
\mbox{d}s^{2} & = & -{\Delta(\rho) \over {R^2(\rho)}}
\mbox{d}t^{2} + \frac{{R^2(\rho)}}{\Delta(\rho)} \mbox{d}\rho^{2} + {
{R}^{2}(\rho)} (\mbox{d} \theta^{2} + \sin^{2} \theta \mbox{d} \varphi^
{2} ) - 2 a f(\rho) \sin^{2}\theta \: \mbox{d} t \mbox{d} \varphi
\nonumber \\
A_{t} & = & \frac{Q}{\rho}, \; \; \; A_{\varphi} = - a \sin^{2} \theta
\frac{Q}{\rho}, \; \; \; \phi = \frac{\alpha}{1+\alpha^{2}} \ln \left(1 -
\frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right) \; , \label{eqn:slowsol}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta (\rho) & \equiv & \left( \rho - \rho_{+} \right) \left( \rho -
\rho_{-} \right),
\; \; \;
R (\rho) \equiv \rho \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right)^{\alpha^
{2}/(1 +\alpha^{2})} \; , \nonumber \\
f (\rho) & \equiv & \frac{\left( 1+\alpha^{2} \right)^{2}}{\left( 1-
\alpha^{2}
\right) \left( 1-3\alpha^{2} \right) } \left({\rho \over \rho_{-}}
\right)^2
\left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho}
\right)^{2\alpha^{2}/(1 +\alpha^{2})} - \left( 1 -
\frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right)^{(1-\alpha^{2})/(1+\alpha^{2})}
\nonumber \\
& \times & \left( 1 + \frac{\left( 1+\alpha^{2} \right)^{2}}{\left(
1-\alpha^{2} \right) \left( 1-3\alpha^{2} \right) }
\left({\rho \over \rho_{-}}\right)^2
+ \frac{1+\alpha^{2}}{1-\alpha^{2}} \left({\rho \over \rho_{-}}\right)
- \frac{\rho_{+}}{\rho} \right) \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\rho_{\pm} = \frac{(1+\alpha^2) (M \pm \sqrt{
M^{2} - \left( 1-\alpha^{2} \right) Q^{2}})}{\left(1 \pm \alpha^{2}
\right)}, \; \; \;
a = \frac{2 (1 + \alpha^2) J}{ (1 + \alpha^2) \rho_{+} +
(1-\alpha^{2}/3) \rho_{-}} .
\label{eqn:parameteraprx}
\end{equation}
This solution is valid only when the parameter $a$ is sufficiently
small. Although
$ f(\rho) $ seems to diverge at $ \alpha = 1/\sqrt{3} $, $ \alpha = 1 $ or
$ \rho_{-} = 0 $, $f(\rho)$ approaches a finite limiting value when we
expand this function around each point. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
The Klein-Gordon equation is now separated into the Legendre equation
and the radial equation
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\mbox{d}^2}{{\mbox{d} {\rho}^*}^{2}} + \left( \omega - m
\Omega (\rho) \right)^{2} - {V}^2 (\rho)
\right] \chi ({\rho}^*) = 0 \; ,
\label{eqn:radialslow}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega (\rho) & \equiv &
\frac{a f (\rho)}{ R^{2} (\rho)},\\
V^2 (\rho) & \equiv &
\frac{\Delta (\rho)}{R^{2} (\rho)}
\left[
\frac{l(l+1)}{R^{2} (\rho)} +
\frac{1}{R (\rho)}
\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} \rho}
\left(
{\Delta(\rho) \over {R^2(\rho)}}
\frac{\mbox{d} R (\rho)}{\mbox{d} \rho}
\right)
\right],
\end{eqnarray}
and
${\rho}^*$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\mbox{d} {\rho}^* \equiv \frac{ {R^2(\rho)}}{\Delta (\rho)} \: \mbox{d}
\rho \; . \label{eqn:tortoiseaprx}
\end{equation}
The emission rates by superradiance for this approximate black hole
solution are shown in Fig.6, with the calculations using the three exact
rotating black hole solutions.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{10cm}{dMrotsup.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{dJrotsup.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:radsup}{15cm}
Superradiance from slowly rotating black holes. \\
(a) and (b) show the energy emission rate $-dM/dt$, and the angular
momentum emission rate $-dJ/dt$, respectively. Each line corresponds
to (1):$\alpha = 0$, (2):$\alpha = 0.5$, (3):$\alpha = 0.9$, (4):$\alpha =
1.1$, (5):$\alpha = 1.5$, (6):$\alpha = \sqrt{3}$, and (7):$ \alpha = 2$. In
addition, we plot the results for three exact solutions (the circles for
the Kerr--Newman, the squares for the Sen, and the triangles for the
Kaluza--Klein black holes). The charge is normalized by $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
We find that the emission rate from the large coupling constant
black holes blows up as the black hole approaches the extreme one,
whereas with small $\alpha$, the emission rate remains quite small.
These two types of
behaviour are divided by a value of the coupling constant of about
unity. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Again we cannot determine the exact value of the critical coupling
constant, for the following reason. As we mentioned before, this
approximate black hole solution is valid only when the angular
momentum is sufficiently small. In addition to this condition,
there is another
requirement that must be satisfied, namely, that the black hole
charge should not be so large. This is found by observing that the
maximally charged black hole ($Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$) in the approximate
solution can carry an angular momentum, while the exact solution
cannot (e.g., consider the Kerr--Newman black hole). Quantitatively, the
angular velocity $\Omega_{H} \equiv \Omega(\rho_{+})$ of the black hole is
divergent in the extreme limit for $\alpha \geq 1/\sqrt{3}$ and
vanishes for smaller coupling constants, but this critical value is derived
from the approximate solution and may differ from the value of the exact
solution, which we do not know. In fact, the angular velocity in the
extreme limit of the Sen black hole, which is a solution of the model
(\ref{eqn:senaction}) ($\alpha = 1$), is finite and non-zero, although
this solution is obtained from a different action from
the Kerr--Newman and the
Kaluza--Klein black holes. The qualitative behaviour of the angular
velocity in the approximate solution seems to follow that of the
exact solution closely, although that of the temperature does not.
Hence we may
give a qualitative discussion of superradiance by using this
approximate solution. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
We may conclude from the above that the critical coupling constant at
which the behaviour of the superradiant emission changes exists and is
about unity. As we have already shown, the behaviour of the emission
rate by thermal radiation from the non-rotating black hole also
changes at $\alpha = 1$. Naively speaking, Hawking radiation for the
rotating black hole consists of two components, that is, thermal
radiation and superradiance. So we naturally expect that the
emission of Hawking radiation from rotating black
holes is drastically changed at $\alpha \sim 1$.
\subsection{The Fate of Dilatonic Black Holes}
\hspace*{\parindent}
The dependence of the emission on the coupling constant leads to a
difference in the evolution of black holes by evaporation. To
investigate the evolution of the three exact rotating solutions above, we
describe the black hole state by a pair of quantities $(Q/M, J/M^2)$, and
analyze their time variations, which are given by the
emission rates as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} t} \left( \frac{Q}{M} \right) & = & - \frac{Q}
{M^2} \frac{\mbox{d} M}{\mbox{d} t} \; , \label{eqn:evolQ} \\
\frac{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d} t} \left( \frac{J}{M^2} \right) & = & \frac{1}
{M^2} \frac{\mbox{d} J}{\mbox{d} t} - 2 \frac{J}{M^3} \frac{\mbox{d} M}
{\mbox{d} t} \; , \label{eqn:evolJ}
\end{eqnarray}
for the three exact black hole solutions. We recognize these two
quantities
as a vector field on the $Q/M$--$J/M^2$ plane shown in Fig.2, and show
it in Fig.7.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{5.7cm}{evolKN.ps}{(a)}
\hspace{2cm}
\segmentfig{7.66cm}{evolSen.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\vskip 2cm
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{16cm}{evolKK.ps}{(c)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:EvolVec}{15cm}
The evolution of three types of black hole. \\
Each figure represents
(a):the Kerr--Newman, (b):the Sen, and (c):the Kaluza--Klein black hole.
The arrow shows the direction and magnitude of
the evolution of the black hole
by Hawking evaporation at each point. The scale of the arrow is
enlarged 2500 times. Although the arrows
near $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ are very small for the Kerr--Newman and
the Sen black holes, those in the Kaluza--Klein black hole
are considerably larger.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
Since we assume that the black hole charge is conserved, and
the black
holes lose mass energy, Eq.(\ref{eqn:evolQ}) is always positive, so $Q/
M$ increases and the black hole approaches the extreme state. In
Fig.7, near the extreme lines, each vector points to a direction inside the
extreme line, so the black hole does not evolve beyond the extreme line
and eventually approaches the $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ state. From the figure,
we can see that the Kerr--Newman black hole stops its evolution as it
approaches $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ whereas the evolution of the Kaluza--Klein
black hole is accelerated as $Q / M$ increases, and in particular,
the evolution is very fast near $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. This is because
the emission rates of the Kaluza--Klein black hole near $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$
state are very large. As we mentioned before, the $Q = Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ state is
not a black hole solution and a naked singularity appears at this point.
So it is indicated from our analysis that the Kaluza--Klein black hole
evolves rapidly into a naked singularity. As we
have already seen, the area of the Kaluza--Klein black hole vanishes as
$Q \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. This situation is quite similar to the
evaporation of the Schwarzschild black hole, for which the area of the
black hole vanishes and the emission rate increases infinitely large in
the final stage, where a naked singularity might appear. The Sen black
hole shows an intermediate behaviour between that of the Kerr--
Newman and the the Kaluza--Klein black holes.
\section{Discharge of Dilatonic Black Holes by Superradiance}
\eqnum{0}
\hspace*{\parindent}
So far, we have considered only the case where the charge of the black
hole is conserved. Usually, however, black holes may create charged
particles and lose their charge. In this section we study the discharge
process by superradiance of a charged scalar field described by the
equation of motion
\begin{equation}
\left[ \left( \nabla^\mu + \mbox{i} e A^\mu \right) \left( \nabla_\mu +
\mbox{i} e A_\mu \right)- \mu^2 \right] \Phi = 0 \; ,
\label{eqn:KGq}
\end{equation}
where $e$ and $\mu$ are the charge and the rest mass of the particle,
respectively. Shiraishi\cite{Shiraishi2} analyzed superradiance of a
charged scalar field $\Phi$ coupled to the dilaton $\phi$ in the spherically
symmetric dilatonic black hole. Here we do not consider such a coupling
because we are only interested in the pure quantum properties
of the dilatonic
black hole, but not the extra effects on the quantum radiation, which
come from a direct coupling between $\Phi$ and the dilaton field. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
The timescales of the loss of energy, angular momentum, and charge
depend on the temperature $T$, the angular velocity $\Omega_{H}$,
and the electric potential $\Phi_{H}$ in the Planck distribution of
Hawking
radiation as
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\exp\left[\left(\omega - m \Omega_{H} - e \Phi_{H}\right) / T \right]}
\; .
\end{equation}
If the electric potential is large enough compared with the temperature
and the angular velocity, the dominant component of the emission is
that of the superradiant discharge process. In order to estimate
how important the
discharge process is in Hawking radiation, we calculate
the superradiant emission rates in a spherically symmetric dilatonic
black hole, in which the electric potential $\Phi_{H}$ is
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{H} = \frac{Q}{\rho_{+}} \; .
\label{eqn:phiHdil}
\end{equation}
The horizon radius $\rho_{+}$ is given by Eq.(\ref{eqn:parametersph}). If
superradiance is large compared to the emission calculated in the
previous sections, where we assumed that the charge is conserved, the
discharge process is important and should not be ignored, while, if it is
small, the discharge process is not essential in Hawking radiation.
\\ \hspace*{\parindent}
The emission rates are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mbox{d} M}{\mbox{d} t} & = & - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l , m , e}
\int_{\mu}^{e \Phi_{H}} \omega \left( |A|^2 - 1 \right) \mbox{d}\omega
\label{eqn:dMRNsuper} \; , \\
\frac{\mbox{d} Q}{\mbox{d} t} & = & - \frac{1}{2 \pi} \sum_{l , m , e}
\int_{\mu}^{e \Phi_{H}} e \left( |A|^2 - 1 \right) \mbox{d}\omega \: , \label
{eqn:dQRNsuper}
\end{eqnarray}
where the reflection coefficient $|A|^2$ is obtained by solving the
radial wave equation
\begin{equation}
\left[ \frac{\mbox{d}^2}{{\mbox{d} {\rho}^*}^{2}} + \left( \omega - e
\frac{Q}{\rho} \right)^{2} - \mu^2 \frac{\Delta(\rho)}{R^2(\rho)} - {V}^2
(\rho)
\right] \chi ({\rho}^*) = 0 \; ,
\label{eqn:Radialdis}
\end{equation}
which is derived by setting in the same way as Eq.(\ref
{eqn:Phiputform}), under the boundary condition of
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi & \rightarrow & \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega \rho^*}
+ A \: \mbox{e}^{\mbox{\scriptsize i} \omega \rho^*} ~~~~~~ \mbox
{as} ~~~ \rho^* \rightarrow \infty \; , \nonumber \\
\chi & \rightarrow & B \: \mbox{e}^{- \mbox{\scriptsize i} \widetilde
{\omega} \rho^*} ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{as} ~~~ \rho^*
\rightarrow - \infty \; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widetilde{\omega}$ is now defined as $\widetilde{\omega} =
\omega - e \Phi_{H}$, and the tortoise coordinate $\rho^*$, functions $R
(\rho)$ and $\Delta(\rho)$, and the potential $V^2$ are the same as those in
the section 2. Here we consider only the dominant mode
of $l = 0$. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
The wave equation (\ref{eqn:Radialdis}) is not invariant under rescaling
by the black hole mass $M$, in contrast to the case of the massless field
considered in the previous sections. The first and the last terms in the
bracket in Eq.(\ref{eqn:Radialdis}) are roughly proportional to $M^{-2}$,
whereas the second and the third terms are independent of the mass
scale. This results in that the transmission probability $|A|^2 - 1$
depends explicitly on the mass of the black hole. Hence we have to
calculate the emission rates for each mass scale and analyze the mass
dependence of the emission, in addition to the coupling constant
dependence. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
First we consider the Planck mass black hole $(M = M_{\mbox
{\scriptsize PL}})$. We show the emission rates in Fig.8 for four values
of the coupling constant: $\alpha = 0$, $0.5$, $1$, $1.5$. $Q$ is now
normalized by the mass of the black hole $M$, but not $Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$, because
$Q$ itself is essential in this process, but not $Q/Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$. We set the
particle mass $\mu = 0.001 M_{\mbox{\scriptsize PL}}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{10cm}{dMdisq1.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{dQdisq1.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:discharge1}{15cm}
Discharge by superradiance from non-rotating black holes with
mass $M = M_{\mbox{\scriptsize PL}.}$ \\
(a) and (b) show the energy emission rate $-dM/dt$, and the charge
emission rate $-dQ/dt$ normalized by the Planck mass $M_{\mbox
{\scriptsize PL}}$, respectively. Each line corresponds to (1):$\alpha =
0$, (2):$\alpha = 0.5$, (3):$\alpha = 1$, and (4):$\alpha = 1.5$.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
{}From this figure, we find that the emission rates are greater
in the black hole with
the smaller coupling constant, in contrast to the results of
the previous two sections. In particular, emission from the highly
charged black hole with larger coupling constant is very small. There
are two reasons for this. One is the behaviour of the electric potential
$\Phi_{H}$. From Eq.(\ref{eqn:phiHdil}), we can see the electric potential
becomes smaller when the coupling constant $\alpha$ increases. The
second reason is that the effective potential in Eq.(\ref{eqn:Radialdis})
is very high near the extreme limit for the black hole with $\alpha > 1$
and the transmission probability becomes much smaller, as in the previous
cases.
\\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Now we analyze the dependence of the emission rates on the mass of
the black hole. To see how the emission rate changes, we calculate the
case of $M = 10 M_{\mbox{\scriptsize PL}}$ and show the result in
Fig.9.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\segmentfig{10cm}{dMdisq10.ps}{(a)}
\vskip 1cm
\segmentfig{10cm}{dQdisq10.ps}{(b)}
\end{center}
\begin{figcaption}{fig:discharge10}{15cm}
Discharge by superradiance from non-rotating black holes with
mass $M = 10 M_{\mbox{\scriptsize PL}.}$ \\
(a) and (b) show the energy emission rate $-dM/dt$, and the charge
emission rate $-dQ/dt$, respectively. Each line corresponds to
(1):$\alpha = 0$, (2):$\alpha = 0.5$, (3):$\alpha = 1$, and (4):$\alpha =
1.5$.
\end{figcaption}
\end{figure}
Comparison with Fig.8 shows that the emission rates generally
increase when the mass increases. This tendency is clearer in the highly
charged black holes with
larger coupling constant. The dependence on the coupling constant
is smaller than the case of $M = M_{\mbox{\scriptsize
PL}}$. This is because the height of the effective potential, which is
roughly proportional to $M^{-2}$, is effectively lower than that in the
case of a Planck mass black hole. In particular, the emission of a highly
charged black hole with large mass becomes insensitive to the coupling
constant because the potential barrier gets small, compared with the
case of a Planck mass-scale black
hole where the potential is very high for the large coupling constant
and the emission is suppressed near the
extreme limit. Consequently, we expect that the coupling constant
dependence of the emission rate will become smaller as we increase the
mass of the black hole. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
For a black hole larger than $10 M_{\mbox{\scriptsize PL}}$, the
numerical calculation becomes difficult because we have to deal with a
very large scale black hole and a very small scale particle
simultaneously. Fortunately, for a massive black hole with small
charge, the $V^2$ term in Eq.(\ref{eqn:Radialdis}) is very small and can be
neglected. Furthermore, the rest of the potential terms (the second
and the third terms in the bracket) in Eq.(\ref{eqn:Radialdis}) vary very
slowly,
so we can use the W.K.B. approximation to calculate the transmission
probabilities, as in Ref.\cite{Shiraishi2,Gibbons}. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
When the black hole mass $M$ is sufficiently large and $Q/M$ is small,
the radial wave equation (\ref{eqn:Radialdis}) is approximated by
\begin{equation} \left[ \frac{\mbox{d}^2}{{\mbox{d} {\rho}^*}^{2}} +
\left( \omega - e \frac{Q}{\rho} \right)^{2} - \mu^2 \frac{\Delta(\rho)}
{R^2(\rho)} \right] \chi ({\rho}^*) = 0 \; ,
\label{eqn:RadialWKB}
\end{equation}
and the transmission probability $|A|^2 - 1$ can be estimated from
\begin{eqnarray}
|A|^2 - 1 & = & \exp\left[ - 2 \int^{\rho_{2}^*}_{\rho_{1}^*} \sqrt{|W|} \: \mbox{d}\rho^
* \right] \nonumber \\
& = & \exp\left[ - 2 \int^{\rho_{2}}_{\rho_{1}} \sqrt{|W|} \: \frac{R^2}
{\Delta} \: \mbox{d}\rho \right] \; ,
\label{eqn:WKBtrs}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
W = \left( \omega - e \frac{Q}{\rho} \right)^{2} - \mu^2 \frac{\Delta
(\rho)}{R^2(\rho)} \; ,
\end{equation}
and $\rho_{1}^*$ and $\rho_{2}^*$ ($\rho_{1}^* < \rho_{2}^*$) are the corresponding tortoise
coordinates to two roots $\rho_{1}$, $\rho_{2}$ of $W(\rho) = 0$. \\
\hspace*{\parindent}
In the $\alpha = 0$ case, in which the black hole is described by the
Reissner--Nordstr\"om solution and
\begin{equation}
W = \left( \omega - e \frac{Q}{\rho} \right)^2 - \mu^2 \left( 1 - \frac{2
M}{\rho} + \frac{Q^2}{\rho^2} \right) \; ,
\end{equation}
Eq.(\ref{eqn:WKBtrs}) is integrated, giving
\begin{equation}
|A|^2 - 1 = \exp\left[ - 2 \pi \mu^2 \frac{e Q - \left( \omega - k \right)
M}{k \left( \omega + k \right)} \right] \; ,
\label{eqn:transRN}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
k \equiv \sqrt{\omega^2 - \mu^2} \; .
\end{equation}
{}From this, we find Schwinger's formula for the emission rate
$\mbox{d}Q/\mbox{d}t$
\begin{equation}
\frac{\mbox{d} Q}{\mbox{d} t} \sim - \frac{e^4 Q^3}{\rho_{+}} \exp\left
[-\frac{\pi \mu^2 \rho_{+}^2}{e Q} \right]
\end{equation}
in the small charge limit\cite{Gibbons}. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
We can also explicitly calculate the transmission probability in
the superstring case ($\alpha = 1$), in which
\begin{equation}
W = \left( \omega - e \frac{Q}{\rho} \right)^2 - \mu^2 \left( 1 - \frac
{\rho_{+}}{\rho} \right) \; .
\end{equation}
It gives exactly the same result as Eq.(\ref{eqn:transRN}). In
addition, for the case of small charged black holes with
arbitrary coupling constant, we can use the approximation
\begin{equation}
\frac{Q}{Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}} \ll 1 \; ,
\end{equation}
so $\rho_{+} \gg \rho_{-}$, and then
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Delta(\rho)}{R^2(\rho)} = \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{+}}{\rho} \right)
\left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{-}}{\rho} \right)^{(1 - \alpha^2)/(1 + \alpha^2)}
\sim \; \left( 1 - \frac{\rho_{+}}{\rho} \right) \left( 1 - \frac{\tilde
{\rho}_{-}}{\rho} \right) \; ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho}_{-} \: \equiv \:
\frac{1 - \alpha^2}{1 + \alpha^2} \: \rho_{-} \; ,
\end{equation}
and we find the same transmission probability as Eq.(\ref
{eqn:transRN}). Hence, for the dilatonic black hole with a fixed mass
and charge, the transmission probability of the particle with the same
energy is hardly influenced by the coupling constant. As for the total
emission rate, the black hole with the larger coupling constant emits a
little bit less energy, because the energy range of the superradiant
modes, i.e., $\mu \leq \omega \leq e \Phi_{H}$, becomes narrow as the
coupling constant increases. When the charge of the black hole
increases, the emission rate increases. In the extreme limit, the black
hole with larger
coupling constant can carry a larger charge. Hence we may
expect that the nearly extreme black hole with a larger coupling constant
emits larger energy than that with a smaller coupling constant. However,
near the extreme limit for $\alpha > 1$, the W.K.B. approximation breaks
down and the effective potential becomes very steep. As a
result, emission may not increase so much.
So we expect that the
dependence of the emission on the coupling constant becomes smaller
for a more massive black hole. This has been confirmed by our numerical
calculations.
\section{Conclusion and Discussion}
\eqnum{0}
\hspace*{\parindent}
In summary, we first studied the evaporation of dilatonic black
holes under the assumption that the black hole charge is conserved, and
analyzed its dependence on the dilaton coupling constant.
We found that the
emission rate of the non-rotating black hole changes drastically at
$\alpha = 1$, which is the value predicted by superstring theory.
In the case of
the coupling constant below unity, the emission rate vanishes in the
extreme limit, while the black hole with $\alpha > 1$ emits a large
amount of energy in the same limit, even though the potential barrier
becomes infinitely high in this case. This means the effect of the
temperature on the emission is stronger than that of the potential
barrier. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
As for rotating black holes, the temperature is zero for the
extreme black holes and the thermal emission also vanishes for all
known exact black hole solutions. However, in the maximally
charged limit $Q \rightarrow Q_{\mbox{\scriptsize max}}$ of the Kaluza--Klein black hole,
while the angular momentum itself is still small, the angular
velocity of the black hole becomes very large and
the effect of superradiance
becomes important. In superradiance, we also find the critical value of
the coupling constant $\alpha \sim 1$, above which the emission rate
increases rapidly as the black hole approaches the maximally
charged state. Therefore, we may reasonably conclude that $\alpha \sim 1$
is the critical coupling constant together with the thermal component
of the quantum radiation. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
As a result, a highly charged Kaluza--Klein black hole ($\alpha =
\sqrt{3}$) is inevitably accelerated towards evaporation into a naked
singularity. This situation is very similar to the final stage of the
evaporation of the Schwarzschild black hole where the emission blows
up and the area of the black hole vanishes. We expect that black
holes with $\alpha > 1$ show a similar evaporation process to the
Kaluza--Klein case, since the emission rates for such black holes are
very large in the maximally charged limit. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
We have also considered the discharge process by calculating
superradiance for non-rotating dilatonic black holes. If the mass of
the black hole is on the Planck scale, the emission is suppressed for large
coupling constants, compared with the Reissner--Nordstr\"om black hole
($\alpha = 0$), especially near the extreme limit. Hence, the effect of
the discharge may not be so important for highly charged black holes with
$\alpha > 1$. As the mass of the black hole increases, however, the
dependence of the emission on the coupling constant becomes small and a
black hole with any $\alpha$ will discharge efficiently. \\ \hspace*{\parindent}
Holzhey and Wilczek\cite{HW} pointed out that, in the maximally
charged limit of the dilatonic black holes, the thermodynamical
interpretation breaks down. The solution of the maximally charged
limit represents a naked singularity, and the higher order quantum
effects will become important near this limit.
This means that the black hole
thermodynamics may deviate from the conventional approach,
which is based
on the semiclassical treatment of Hawking radiation. We should make
some comments on this point. The problems related to this paper are:
(1) The emission rate becomes very large, so we have to consider the
backreaction of the quantum effects on the metric, (2) The area of the
black hole vanishes in the maximally charged limit, which means we
have to deal with a horizon radius smaller than the Planck
scale, (3) To clarify the coupling constant dependence, we discuss
the Planck mass-scale black hole. In order to study
such problems properly, we may need quantum gravity. However, before
investigating the full quantum theory, we first have to clarify
the
behaviour in the semiclassical regime.
\vspace{0.5cm}
{\bf Acknowledgment}\\
We would like to thank R. Easther for reading the paper carefully.
This work was supported partially by the
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund of the
Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (No.
06302021 and No. 06640412), and by Waseda University
Grant for Special Research Projects.
\vskip 2cm
\baselineskip .2in
|
\section{Introduction}
The existence of gravitational waves is an unambiguous
prediction of the theory of general relativity
\cite{Thorne87}. Yet,
despite efforts originating in the early nineteen sixties,
gravitational waves have not been detected directly.
Nevertheless, observation of the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16
convinces us that gravitational waves do exist, and that they are
correctly described by Einstein's theory
\cite{Taylor}. That gravitational
waves have not yet been detected on Earth is simply due to their
incredible weakness: typical waves would produce in a
bulk of matter a strain $\Delta L/L$, where $L$ is the
extension of the matter, of order $10^{-21}$
\cite{Thorne87}. Needless to
say, to measure this effect is a great challenge for
experimentalists.
\section{Interferometric detectors}
There is reasonable hope that gravitational waves will be
detected within the next ten years, thanks to a new
generation of detectors which use interferometry to
monitor the small displacements induced by the passage
of a gravitational wave. Two groups are currently involved
in building large-scale interferometers: the American LIGO
team, and the French-Italian VIRGO team.
The LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory)
project \cite{LIGO} involves two detectors, to be built in Hanford,
Washington, and in Livingston, Louisiana. Construction has
begun at both sites. Each interferometer has an
armlength of approximately 4 km. LIGO should be completed
by the turn of the century.
The VIRGO (so named after the galaxy cluster) project
\cite{VIRGO} involves
a single interferometer, to be built near Pisa, Italy, with
an armlength of approximately 3 km. VIRGO should also be
completed by the turn of the century.
The basic idea behind interferometric detectors is the
following \cite{Thorne87}:
The interferometer is composed of two long
(4 km for LIGO) vacuum pipes forming the letter {\bf L}.
A laser beam is split in two at the corner of the {\bf L},
and is sent into each arm of the interferometer. Each beam
then bounces off a mass which is suspended at each end of the
{\bf L} (a mirror has been coated onto each mass). The light is
finally recombined at the beam splitter, and its intensity is
measured by a photodiode.
When no gravitational wave is present at the interferometer,
the length of each arm is so adjusted that when measured
by the photodiode, the light's intensity is precisely zero
(the recombined beams are arranged to be precisely out
of phase). However, when a gravitational wave passes through
the interferometer, the armlengths are no longer constant,
and the recombined beams no longer precisely out of phase.
More precisely, during the first half of its cycle the
gravitational wave increases the length of one arm, and
decreases the length of the other. During the second half
cycle, the first arm is now shorter, and the second arm
longer. The light's intensity therefore oscillates with
the gravitational-wave frequency.
The intensity is a measure of $\Delta L / L
= h$, where $L$ denotes the interferometer armlength,
and $h$ the gravitational-wave field.
\section{Detector noise}
Interferometers are subject to various sources of noise which
limit the detector's sensitivity to gravitational waves. The
relative importance of each source depends on the frequency at
which the interferometer oscillates \cite{LIGO}.
At low frequencies ($f < 10\ \mbox{Hz}$) the detector's
sensitivity is limited by seismic noise, which is due to
the Earth's seismic activity. At frequencies larger
than 10 Hz the seismic noise can be eliminated with
sophisticated isolation stacks; these fail at low frequencies.
At high frequencies ($f > 100\ \mbox{Hz}$) the detector's
sensitivity is limited by photon shot noise, which is due to
statistical errors in the counting of photons by the photodiode.
This source of noise can be reduced by increasing the laser
power, or making use of ``light recycling'' \cite{LIGO}.
At intermediate frequencies ($f$ between 10 Hz and 100 Hz) the
noise is dominated by thermal noise, which is due to spurious
motions of thermal origin. For example, the suspended masses
are thermally excited and vibrate with their normal-mode
frequencies; this evidently affects the recombined laser beam.
Interferometers are therefore broad-band detectors, with
good sensitivity in the range \cite{LIGO}
\begin{equation}
10\ \mbox{Hz} < f < 1\ 000\ \mbox{Hz}.
\label{1}
\end{equation}
The required sensitivity for full-scale interferometers
is approximately $h_n \sim 10^{-22}$ at peak sensitivity ---
a tall order. [The subscript $n$ stands for ``noise level'';
we will define $h_n(f)$ precisely below. A plot of $h_n(f)$,
appropriate for an interferometric detector with ``advanced''
sensitivity, is given in Fig.~1.] For comparison,
we may mention that the Caltech 40 m prototype has already
achieved $h_n \simeq 10^{-19}$ at peak sensitivity
$(f=450\ \mbox{Hz})$. It is not implausible that
improved technology and a factor of 100 in armlength
will permit to reach the desired goal.
\section{More about detector noise}
\begin{figure}[t]
\special{hscale=50 vscale=50 hoffset=60.0 voffset=-300.0
angle=0.0 psfile=fig1.ps}
\vspace*{3.2in}
\caption[Fig. 1]{Noise level in an interferometric
detector with advanced sensitivity.}
\end{figure}
The detector noise can be measured when no gravitational
wave is present at the interferometer, the typical
situation. Then the detector
output $s(t) = \Delta L(t)/L$ is given by noise alone:
\begin{equation}
s(t) = n(t),
\label{2}
\end{equation}
where $n(t)$ represents the noise. The noise is a
random process
\cite{Reif}: the function $n(t)$ takes purely random
values. Consequently, the noise can only be studied
using statistical methods.
In the presence of a gravitational wave, Eq.~(\ref{2}) must
be replaced by $s(t) = h(t) + n(t)$, where $h(t)$ is the
gravitational-wave field.
The statistical properties of the noise can be
determined by careful measurement. For example,
the time average
\begin{equation}
\overline{n(t)} =
\lim_{T\to\infty}\, \frac{1}{2T} \int_{-T}^{+T}
n(t)\, dt
\label{3}
\end{equation}
can be constructed. This mean value can then be subtracted
from $n(t)$ and, without loss of generality, we can
put $\overline{n} = 0$. Also from measurements, the
noise's {\it autocorrelation function} $C_n(\tau)$
can be constructed:
\begin{equation}
C_n(\tau) = \overline{n(t) n(t+\tau)};
\label{4}
\end{equation}
$C_n(0)$ gives the mean squared deviation of the
noise with respect to the mean value.
In the following we will assume that the noise is
{\it stationary}, in the sense that its statistical
properties do not depend on time \cite{Reif}. This means, in
particular, that the autocorrelation function does
not depend explicitly on the origin of time $t$, but only on
the variable $\tau$, as was expressed in Eq.~(\ref{4}).
We shall also assume that the noise satisfies the
{\it ergodic hypothesis}, so that time averages can
be replaced with ensemble averages \cite{Reif}. Here, the noise
is imagined to be drawn from a representative ensemble,
and the probability that it takes a particular realization
$n(t)$ is given by a specified probability distribution.
The statistical properties of the noise then refer to this
(infinite dimensional) distribution function.
In full generality, the statistical properties of the
noise can only be summarized by constructing all the
higher moments $\overline{n \cdots n}$. If, however,
the noise is assumed to be Gaussian, in the sense that
its probability distribution function is an infinite
dimensional Gaussian distribution \cite{Helstrom},
then the autocorrelation function contains all the
information.
Real detector noise is neither strictly stationary nor
strictly Gaussian. However, on a timescale of hours,
which is long compared with typical gravitational-wave
bursts, the noise appears stationary to a good approximation
\cite{LIGO}.
And non-Gaussian components to the noise can be removed,
to a large extent, by cross-correlating detector outputs
from two widely separated interferometers
\cite{LIGO}. It is therefore
a satisfactory approximation to take the noise to be
stationary and Gaussian.
Under these assumptions the statistical properties of the
detector noise are fully summarized by $C_n(\tau)$.
It is convenient to work instead in
the frequency domain, and to define \cite{Reif} the noise's
{\it spectral density} $S_n(f)$ as
\begin{equation}
S_n(f) = 2 \int C_n(\tau) e^{2\pi i f \tau}\, d\tau.
\label{5}
\end{equation}
The spectral density is defined for $f>0$ only;
as $C_n(\tau)$ is a real and even function, the
negative frequencies only duplicate the information
contained in the positive frequencies.
As $n(t)$ is dimensionless, the spectral density has
dimensions of time. By multiplying $S_n(f)$ with the
frequency and taking the square root (since the
spectral density represents the mean squared
noise), one obtains the {\it noise level} $h_n(f)$:
\begin{equation}
h_n(f) = \sqrt{ f S_n(f) }.
\label{6}
\end{equation}
This gives the equivalent gravitational-wave amplitude
which would make the interferometer oscillate at just
the noise level \cite{Thorne87};
this quantity was introduced in the
preceding section (see Fig.~1).
\section{Coalescing compact binaries}
Coalescing compact binaries, composed of neutron stars
and/or black holes, are the most promising source of
gravitational waves for interferometric detectors
\cite{Thorne87,Schutz}.
Consider the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16
\cite{Taylor}. This system
consists of two neutron stars, each of $1.4\ M_\odot$,
in orbital motion around each other. Its present
orbital period $P$ is approximately 8 hours, corresponding
to orbital separations of about $5\times 10^5$ times
the total mass. (Here and throughout we use units such that
$G=c=1$.) Its present eccentricity is approximately
equal to 0.6.
The binary's orbital period is observed
to decay at a rate $dP/dt = -2 \times 10^{-12}$
corresponding precisely to a loss of energy and angular
momentum to gravitational waves \cite{Taylor}.
In a timescale of approximately $10^8$ years the orbital
period will have decreased to less than a tenth of a second,
corresponding to orbital separations smaller than
one hundred times the total mass. In this time, the
eccentricity will have been reduced to extremely small
values (by the radiation reaction), so that the
orbits are practically circular. The gravitational
waves produced then have a frequency larger than 10 Hz, and
the frequency keeps increasing as the system evolves.
{\it During this late stage of orbital evolution, the
gravitational waves sweep through the frequency bandwith
of interferometric detectors, and thus become visible.}
By the time the orbital separation becomes as small as
a few times the total mass, the neutron stars begin to
merge. The gravitational waves produced during the final
merger cannot be detected by interferometric detectors,
at least in the broad-band configuration described
above \cite{foot1}:
the gravitational-wave frequency is then larger than 1 000 Hz,
for which the detector noise is large.
Of course, it would be foolish to wait $10^8$ years in order
for PSR 1913+16 to produce gravitational waves with appropriate
frequency. Fortunately, interferometric detectors will be
sensitive enough to monitor binary coalescences
occurring in quite a large volume of the universe,
approximately $10^7\ \mbox{Mpc}^3$ (corresponding to
a radius of 200 Mpc \cite{LIGO}).
It has been estimated \cite{Phinney} that as many
as 100 coalescences could occur every year in such a volume
(this includes coalescences of black-hole
systems as well). This potentially large event rate is one
of the factors that make gravitational waves from
coalescing compact binaries especially promising.
The other factor comes from the fact that compact
binaries are extremely clean astrophysical systems.
It can be estimated \cite{Kochanek} that tidal interactions
between the two stars are completely negligible, up
to the point where the objects are about to merge.
In particular, no mass transfer occurs. The system
can therefore be modeled, to extremely good accuracy,
as that of two point masses with a limited number of
internal properties (such as mass, spin, and quadrupole
moment). The challenge in modeling coalescing compact binaries
resides in formulating and solving the equations of
motion and wave generation for a general relativistic
two-body problem \cite{Damour}.
\section{Waveform according to the quadrupole formula}
At the crudest level, the gravitational-wave signal
corresponding to an inspiraling binary system can be
calculated by (i) assuming that the orbital motion is
Newtonian (with the effects of radiation reaction
incorporated) and (ii) using the standard quadrupole
formula for wave generation \cite{MTW}.
As motivated above, we
may also assume that the orbits are circular.
We define $h(t)$ to be the gravitational-wave signal.
This is given by a linear combination, appropriate
for interferometric detectors, of the two
fundamental polarizations, $h_+$ and $h_\times$,
of the gravitational-wave field. At this
level of approximation, the signal is given
by \cite{Thorne87}
\begin{equation}
h(t) = Q(\mbox{angles})\, ({\cal M}/r)\,
(\pi {\cal M} f)^{2/3}\, \cos \Phi(t).
\label{7}
\end{equation}
As expected, the signal decays as the inverse power
of $r$, the distance to the source.
In Eq.~(\ref{7}), $Q$ is a function of all the angles
relevant to the problem: position of the source in the
sky, orientation of the orbital plane, position and
orientation of the detector on Earth. The parameter
${\cal M}$ is called the {\it chirp mass} and
represents a particular combination of the masses,
given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} = (m_1 m_2)^{3/5} / (m_1 + m_2)^{1/5}.
\label{8}
\end{equation}
The waveform depends on the chirp mass only, and not
on any other combination of the masses. The symbol
$f$ represents the gravitational-wave frequency,
which is equal to {\it twice} the orbital frequency.
Because the system loses energy and angular momentum
to gravitational waves, the frequency is not constant,
but increases in time according to \cite{Thorne87}
\begin{equation}
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{96}{5\pi {\cal M}^2}
(\pi {\cal M} f)^{11/3}.
\label{9}
\end{equation}
As a consequence, Eq.~(\ref{7}) shows that the
amplitude of the signal, which is proportional
to $(\pi {\cal M} f)^{2/3}$, also increases with
time. A signal which increases both in frequency
and in amplitude is known as a {\it chirp}, and this is
the origin of the term ``chirp mass''. Finally,
the phase function $\Phi(t)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi(t) = \int^t 2\pi f(t')\, dt'.
\label{10}
\end{equation}
Because the frequency is not a constant, the
phase accumulates nonlinearly with time.
For a system of two neutron stars, the gravitational-wave
signal undergoes approximately 16 000 oscillations
as it sweeps through the frequency bandwith of an
interferometric detector. The timescale for the
frequency sweep is approximately 15 minutes.
The orbital separation ranges from approximately
180 to 10 times the total mass
$M = m_1 + m_2$, and the orbital velocity
\begin{equation}
v \equiv (\pi M f)^{1/3}
\label{11}
\end{equation}
ranges from approximately 0.1 to 0.4. This indicates that
relativistic corrections must be inserted in
Eqs.~(\ref{7}) and (\ref{9}) in order
to obtain a satisfactory degree of accuracy.
\section{Matched filtering}
How does one go about finding a gravitational-wave signal
in a noisy data stream, when typically the signal is not
very strong? And once the signal is found, how does one
go about extracting the information it contains? For
signals of precisely known form, one goes about this using
the technique of {\it matched filtering} \cite{Wainstein}.
Signals from inspiraling compact binaries, since they
can be calculated with high precision, belong to this class.
The basic idea behind matched filtering is to use our
knowledge about the signal in order to go find it in the
data stream, after the noisy frequencies have been filtered
out.
Suppose a signal of known form $h(t;\vec{\mu})$ is
present in the data stream. Here, the vector
$\vec{\mu}$ collectively denotes all the parameters
characterizing the signal. In the case of inspiraling
binaries, these would be the time of arrival, the initial
phase, the distance to the source, the position angles,
the chirp mass, and other parameters to be introduced
in Sec.~12. The detector output is given by
\begin{equation}
s(t) = h(t;\vec{\mu}) + n(t),
\label{12}
\end{equation}
where $n(t)$ is the noise, whose statistical properties
are fully summarized by the spectral density $S_n(f)$, as
discussed in Sec.~4.
The first step in matched filtering
\cite{CutlerFlanagan} is to pass $s(t)$
through a linear filter which removes the noisy
frequencies. The idea here is to use our knowledge
about the detector noise contained in $S_n(f)$ in
order to discard that part of the detector output for
which the detector noise is large. The output is imagined
to be decomposed into Fourier modes according to
$s(t) = \int \tilde{s}(f) e^{-2\pi i f t}\, df$;
the filter suppresses the modes $\tilde{s}(f)$
for which $S_n(f)$ is large.
In mathematical terminology, a linear filter is a linear
operation on a function $s(t)$. This operation can
always be written as \cite{Wainstein}
\begin{equation}
s(t) \to \int w(t-t') s(t')\ dt',
\label{13}
\end{equation}
where $w(t-t')$ is the filter function. The filter
which removes the noisy frequencies is the one
such that
\begin{equation}
\tilde{w}(f) = \frac{2}{S_n(|f|)};
\label{14}
\end{equation}
the factor of 2 is conventional.
The next step in matched filtering consists of computing
the overlap integral between the filtered output (\ref{13})
and the known signal $h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$. The
true value $\vec{\mu}$ of the source parameters is not
known prior to the measurement. This operation must therefore
be repeated for a large number of trial values
$\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}$; the corresponding signals
$h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$ are known as {\it
templates}. The overlap integral defines
the function $S(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$ given by
\begin{eqnarray}
S(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) &=& \int
h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) w(t-t') s(t')\, dt'\, dt
\nonumber \\
&=& \bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) \bigm| s
\bigr\rangle.
\label{15}
\end{eqnarray}
To obtain the second line we have inserted the Fourier
decompositions of $h$, $w$, and $s$, and carried out
the integrations over time. The inner product
$\langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\langle a | b \rangle = 2 \int_0^\infty
\frac{\tilde{a}^*(f) \tilde{b}(f) +
\tilde{a}(f) \tilde{b}^*(f)}{S_n(f)}\, df,
\label{16}
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are arbitrary functions of time,
with Fourier transforms $\tilde{a}$ and $\tilde{b}$.
A quantity analogous to $S(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
can be defined for the
noise alone, by replacing $s$ to the right of
Eq.~(\ref{15}) by $n$. Operationally, this amounts to
filtering the detector output when a gravitational-wave
signal is known {\it not} to be present. Because the
noise is a random function, the integrals
$\int h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})
w(t-t') n(t')\, dt'\, dt$ are random also.
And because the noise is assumed to have zero mean, to
take an average over all possible realizations of the
noise (by repeating the measurements many times) would
yield a zero value. None of these
quantities would be especially useful. We are therefore
led to consider the root-mean-square average of these
integrals,
\begin{eqnarray}
N(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) &=& \mbox{rms} \int
h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) w(t-t') n(t')\, dt'\, dt
\\ \nonumber
&=& \sqrt{ \bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) \bigm|
h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) \bigr\rangle } \equiv
\rho(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}).
\label{17}
\end{eqnarray}
To go from the first to the second line requires some
machinery which will not be presented in this review.
We refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Wainstein} for
the missing steps.
\section{The signal-to-noise ratio}
The {\it signal-to-noise ratio} is defined to be the
ratio of $S$ over $N$:
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) = \frac{
\bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})
\bigm| s \bigr\rangle}{\rho(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})}.
\label{18}
\end{equation}
It is clear that $\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
is a random function, since $s(t)$ is itself a random function,
being the superposition of signal plus noise.
Its expectation value, or average over all possible
realizations of the noise, is zero in the absence of
signal (since $\overline{n} = 0$), and
\begin{equation}
\overline{\mbox{\small SNR} (\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})}
= \frac{ \bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})
\bigm| h(\vec{\mu}) \bigr\rangle}{
\rho(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})}
\label{19}
\end{equation}
in the presence of the signal $h(t;\vec{\mu})$. It
is important to notice that in Eq.~(\ref{19}), the
numerator is the overlap integral between the
true signal $h(t;\vec{\mu})$ and the templates
$h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$. In the absence
or presence of a signal, the variance in the
signal-to-noise ratio is precisely equal to
unity \cite{CutlerFlanagan},
independently of the values of $\vec{\mu}$ and
$\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}$. This fully summarizes the
statistical properties of the signal-to-noise ratio,
since $\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
is a Gaussian random function. [This can be seen
from the fact that $s(t)$ itself is Gaussian,
being the superposition of signal plus Gaussian
noise.]
It is intuitively clear that choosing a template
with $\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial} = \vec{\mu}$
will produce the largest possible expectation
value of the signal-to-noise ratio. This statement,
known as {\it Wiener's theorem}
\cite{Wainstein}, can easily be
shown to be true by applying Schwarz's inequality
to the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{19}). We have
\begin{equation}
\mbox{max} \Bigl\{ \overline{ \mbox{\small SNR}
(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})} \Bigr\} =
\overline{\mbox{\small SNR} (\vec{\mu})} = \rho(\vec{\mu}) =
\sqrt{ \bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}) \bigm|
h(\vec{\mu}) \bigr\rangle }.
\label{20}
\end{equation}
The fact that the signal-to-noise ratio has a variance of unity
indicates that a signal can be concluded to be present only
if $\rho(\vec{\mu})$ is significantly larger than 1. We will
come back to this point in the next section.
The true value of the source parameters can therefore
be determined by maximizing $\mbox{\small SNR}
(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$ over all possible values of
the trial parameters. The fact that the signal-to-noise
ratio has a variance of unity implies that this
determination can only have
a limited degree of accuracy. The statistical
errors decrease with increasing $\rho(\vec{\mu})$; since
this is proportional to the signal's amplitude,
a stronger signal gives better accuracy.
Maximizing the signal-to-noise ratio is essentially
equivalent to maximizing the overlap integral
\[
\bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})
\bigm| h(\vec{\mu}) \bigr\rangle.
\]
It is easy to see how the choice of the parameters
$\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}$ can affect the overlap
integral. Consider a toy waveform with three parameters:
arrival time, initial phase, and chirp mass. A mismatch in
the arrival times clearly reduces the overlap integral: the
signal and the template, taken to be functions of time, might
have support in entirely different regions of the time axis,
leading to a vanishing overlap. Supposing that the arrival
times are matched, a mismatch in the initial phases can also
reduce the overlap integral: the signal and the template
might be out of phase with each other, leading
to an oscillating integrand and a vanishingly small overlap.
Finally, supposing that both the arrival times and initial
phases are matched, a mismatch in the chirp masses would also
reduce the overlap integral. This is because the chirp mass
governs the rate at which the signal's frequency changes with
time; cf.~Eq.~(\ref{9}). Signal and template, starting
at the same time with the same phase, might thereafter
go out of phase, thereby reducing the overlap.
\section{Signal detection}
The first order of business when analysing the output
of a gravitational-wave detector is to
decide whether or not a signal is present. Here
we assume that the signal must be of a specific
form, corresponding to a coalescing binary
system. In this section we discuss signal detection
--- how the technique of matched filtering can be
employed to find the signal in the noisy data stream.
In the next section we will discuss signal
measurement --- how matched filtering is used to estimate
the value of the source parameters once the signal has been
found.
As mentioned in the previous section, a signal can be concluded
to be present if the maximum
value of the signal-to-noise ratio, $\mbox{\small SNR} \equiv
\mbox{max}\{\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})\}$, is
significantly larger than unity. In fact, there
exists a threshold value $\mbox{\small SNR}^*$
such that a signal is concluded to present,
with a certain confidence level,
if $\mbox{\small SNR} > \mbox{\small SNR}^*$. To
figure out how large this threshold must be is
a standard application of the statistical theory
of signal detection \cite{Helstrom}, which was developed largely
for the purpose of detecting radar signals. The
theory can easily be taken over to the case gravitational-wave
signals \cite{Finn}. To go into the detail of this theory
would be outside the scope of this review.
We shall simply state that $\mbox{\small SNR}^*$ is
fixed by selecting a small, acceptable value for the
probability that a signal would falsely be concluded
to be present --- the false alarm probability. (This is the
Neyman-Pearson criterion \cite{Helstrom}, which is more
precisely formulated in terms of the likelihood ratio,
the ratio of the probability that a signal is present
to the probability that it is absent.)
Once $\mbox{\small SNR}^*$ is
fixed, the level of confidence that a signal is
indeed present increases with
$\mbox{\small SNR} > \mbox{\small SNR}^*$. A
typical ballpark value for the threshold is
$\mbox{\small SNR}^* = 6$.
In the preceding paragraph it was assumed that the
signal-to-noise ratio
$\mbox{\small SNR}$ is computed using template
waveforms which are functions of the parameters
$\vec{\mu}$ introduced in Sec.~7.
These parameters have direct physical meaning; they
include the chirp mass and other meaningful parameters
to be introduced in Sec.~12. However, since these
parameters are {\it not} estimated during the detection
stage of the data analysis (they are estimated only
{\it after} a signal has been found), there is no
particular need to parametrize the templates with $\vec{\mu}$.
In fact, it may be desirable,
in order to minimize the computational
effort, to parametrize the signal in a completely
different way. The new parameters, $\vec{\alpha}$,
would then have no particular physical significance.
What is required is that the new templates,
$h(t;\vec{\alpha})$, reproduce the behaviour of
the expected gravitational-wave signal. In other
words, the templates $h(t;\vec{\mu})$ and
$h(t;\vec{\alpha})$ should span the same
``signal space'', but $h(t;\vec{\alpha})$
should do so most efficiently. Unlike
$h(t;\vec{\mu})$, $h(t;\vec{\alpha})$ need
not be derived from the field equations of
general relativity. With these new
{\it detection templates}, the signal-to-noise
ratio is defined as
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\small SNR} =
\mbox{max} \bigl\{ \mbox{\small SNR}
(\vec{\alpha}) \bigr\},
\label{21}
\end{equation}
where $\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\alpha})$ is defined as in
Eq.~(\ref{18}). As before, a signal is concluded
to be present if $\mbox{\small SNR}
> \mbox{\small SNR}^*$.
\section{Signal measurement}
Once the detection templates $h(t;\vec{\alpha})$
have been used to conclude that a signal
is present in the data stream, they are
replaced with the {\it measurement templates}
$h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$ in order to
estimate the value of the physical parameters
$\vec{\mu}$.
The procedure to estimate the source parameters
was explained in Sec.~8.
As was mentioned, the idea
is to maximize over all possible values of the trial
parameters the overlap integral
\[
\bigl\langle h(\vec{\mu}) \bigm|
h(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial}) \bigr\rangle .
\]
We already have
discussed the effect of a mismatch in the value of
the parameters. What remains to be discussed is
the effect of a mismatch in the functional form
of the template with respect to that of the true
waveform.
The true waveform is governed by the exact laws of
general relativity. The template, on the
other hand, is necessarily constructed using an
approximation to the exact laws. (That approximations
must be made in analytic calculations is obvious; in
a numerical treatment the approximation resides in
the finite differencing of the field equations.)
This, clearly, must have an effect on our
strategy for extracting the information contained
in the gravitational-wave signal. This can be
seen simply from the fact that Wiener's theorem,
as stated in Sec.~8, strictly requires signal
and template to have the same functional form;
they are allowed to differ only in the value of
their parameters.
Suppose that gravitational waves coming from a
given source are received without noise, so that
the true signal $h(t;\vec{\mu})$ is measured accurately.
Suppose also that the true value $\vec{\mu}$ of the
source parameters is known (God has spoken). Then
a computation of the overlap integral with
$\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial} = \vec{\mu}$ but with
an approximate template $h(t;\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
will not yield the maximum possible value for
$\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$.
This is because the approximation differs from the
true signal, both in amplitude and in phase. Since both
signal and template undergo a large number of oscillations
(recall that for a system of two neutron
stars, this number is approximately 16 000), the overlap
integral is most sensitive to phase differences: a
slight phase lag causes the integrand to oscillate,
thereby severely reducing the signal-to-noise ratio
with respect to its maximum possible value.
A gravitational-wave astronomer doesn't know before the
measurement the true value of the source parameters, and must
work with an approximation to the true general-relativistic
waveform. We have seen that the phase lag occurring between
the true signal and the approximate template when the parameters
are matched reduces the signal-to-noise ratio from its
maximum possible value. It follows that maximizing
$\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
with approximate templates introduce
{\it systematic errors} into the estimation of
the source parameters: evaluating the signal-to-noise
ratio with $\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial} = \vec{\mu}
+ \delta \vec{\mu}$ will return,
for some $\delta \vec{\mu}$, a number larger
than $\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu})$. The systematic errors are
precisely the value of $\delta \vec{\mu}$ for which
the signal-to-noise ratio is largest. If the templates are
a poor approximation to the true signal, then
the systematic errors will be larger than the statistical
errors arising because
$\mbox{\small SNR}(\vec{\mu}_{\rm trial})$
is a random function (see Sec.~8).
We therefore appreciate the need for constructing measurement
templates which are as accurate as possible, especially
in phase \cite{FinnChernoff,Cutleretal}.
The requirement is that the systematic errors
in the estimated parameters must be smaller than the
statistical errors. An estimate for the required degree of
accuracy comes from the observation that the overlap
integral will be significantly reduced if the template
loses phase by as much as one wave cycle with respect to
the true signal. Since the total number of wave cycles is
approximately 16 000, we have
\begin{equation}
\mbox{accuracy} \sim \frac{1}{16\ 000} \sim
10^{-4}.
\label{22}
\end{equation}
Since the orbital velocity $v$ is of order $10^{-1}$
when the gravitational-wave frequency is in the relevant
bandwidth, relativistic corrections {\it at
least} of order $v^4$ are required to improve the
quadrupole-formula expression given in Sec.~6.
As we shall see, this is an underestimate.
\section{Waveform calculations: post-Newtonian theory}
We have seen that accurate measurement templates are
required to make the most of the gravitational-wave
signals originating from coalescing compact binaries.
We also have seen that the quadrupole-formula waveform,
Eq.~(\ref{7}), is not sufficiently accurate; relativistic
corrections at least of order $v^4$ are required. How
does one go about calculating these?
A possible line of approach is to use a slow-motion
approximation to the equations of general relativity.
This is based on the requirement that if $v$ is a
typical velocity inside the matter source, then
\begin{equation}
v \ll 1.
\label{23}
\end{equation}
We shall call this approximation ``post-Newtonian
theory'' \cite{Will}. We point out that for binary systems,
post-Newtonian theory makes no assumption regarding
the relative size of the two masses. This is to
be contrasted with the perturbation approach,
discussed in Sec.~13, in which the mass ratio
is assumed to be small, but no restriction
is put on $v$.
In post-Newtonian theory \cite{BlanchetDamour}, one starts
by defining fields $h^{\alpha\beta}$ as
\begin{equation}
h^{\alpha\beta} = \sqrt{-g}\, g^{\alpha\beta}
- \eta^{\alpha\beta},
\label{24}
\end{equation}
where $g^{\alpha\beta}$ is the inverse of the
true metric $g_{\alpha\beta}$ with determinant $g$, and
$\eta^{\alpha\beta}$ is the metric of Minkowski spacetime.
When the harmonic gauge conditions
\begin{equation}
\partial_\beta h^{\alpha\beta} = 0
\label{25}
\end{equation}
are imposed, the {\it exact} Einstein field equations
reduce to
\begin{equation}
\Box h^{\alpha\beta} = 16\pi (-g) T^{\alpha\beta}
+ \Lambda^{\alpha\beta}.
\label{26}
\end{equation}
Here, $\Box=\eta^{\alpha\beta} \partial_\alpha
\partial_\beta$ is the flat-spacetime wave operator,
$T^{\alpha\beta}$ is the stress-energy
tensor of the source, and $\Lambda^{\alpha\beta}$
is nonlinear in $h^{\alpha\beta}$
and represents an effective stress-energy
tensor for the gravitational field.
The detailed way in which one solves these equations is
quite complicated, and will not be described here. The
essential ideas are these \cite{BlanchetDamour}:
One first integrates the equations in the near zone
($r < \lambda$, where $r$ is the flat-space radius
and $\lambda$ the gravitational wavelength) assuming
slow motion, or $\partial h^{\alpha\beta} / \partial t
\ll \partial h^{\alpha\beta} / \partial x^i$. One does
this by iterations: the nonlinear terms in
Eq.~(\ref{26}) are first neglected, and the
resulting linear equations integrated. These solutions
are then used as input for the next iteration. This
process is continued until the desired degree of
accuracy is obtained. This is the standard post-Newtonian
approach \cite{Damour}.
One next integrates the equations everywhere in the
vacuum region outside the source. This is done once
again by iterations, assuming $h^{\alpha\beta} \ll 1$,
but assuming nothing about the relative size of
$\partial h^{\alpha\beta} / \partial t$ with
respect to the spatial derivatives. This is because
the vacuum region contains the wave zone, in which
the field propagates with the speed of light; a
slow-motion assumption would therefore not do for
the field itself. This is the
post-Minkowskian approach \cite{Damour}.
Using the post-Minkowskian approach one constructs,
by successive approximations, the
most general solution to the Einstein equations outside
the source. This is characterized by two infinite
sets of arbitrary multipole moments
\cite{Thorne80}, the mass moments
$M_{\ell m}(t-r)$ and the current moments $J_{\ell m}(t-r)$,
were $\ell$ and $m$ are the standard spherical-harmonic indices.
(In practice, the fields $h^{\alpha\beta}$ are equivalently
expressed in terms of symmetric-trace-free
moments, not spherical-harmonic
moments.) The general solution is then matched to the
near-zone solution in the region of common validity, and the
multipole moments are thus determined.
Finally, one expresses the radiation field ---
the time-varying, $O(1/r)$ part of the gravitational
field --- in terms of the derivatives of the mass and current
multipole moments \cite{Thorne80}.
This gives the gravitational waveform.
The gravitational-wave luminosity $dE/dt$ can also be obtained
from the radiation field.
\section{Waveform to second post-Newtonian order}
To date, the post-Newtonian calculation of the waveform
has been carried out accurately through
second post-Newtonian order --- $O(v^4)$ --- beyond
the leading-order, quadrupole-formula expressions
given in Sec.~6. The complete waveform will not
be displayed here. Instead, we will focus solely
on the waveform's {\it phasing}.
The phasing of the waves can be determined from
$df/dt$, the rate of change of the gravitational-wave
frequency. This can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
\frac{df}{dt} = \frac{dE/dt}{dE/df},
\label{27}
\end{equation}
where $dE/dt$ is (minus) the gravitational-wave luminosity,
and $dE/df$ relates orbital energy to orbital frequency
($f$ is twice the orbital frequency; the orbits are assumed
to be circular). Both these quantities
can be expanded in powers of
\begin{equation}
v \equiv (\pi M f)^{1/3},
\label{28}
\end{equation}
with leading-order terms \cite{MTW}
\begin{equation}
\biggl( \frac{dE}{dt} \biggr)_{\!\!N} = -\frac{32}{5}
\eta^2 v^{10}, \qquad
\biggl( \frac{dE}{df} \biggr)_{\!\!N} = -\frac{\pi}{3}
\mu M v^{-1},
\label{29}
\end{equation}
where the subscript $N$ stands for ``Newtonian''. We
have introduced the reduced mass $\mu$, the total mass
$M$, and the mass ratio $\eta$ as
\begin{equation}
\mu = \frac{m_1 m_2}{m_1 + m_2}, \qquad
M = m_1 + m_2, \qquad
\eta = \frac{\mu}{M}.
\label{30}
\end{equation}
Notice that $\eta$ is restricted to the interval
$0 < \eta \leq 1/4$, with $\eta=1/4$ for $m_1=m_2$.
It is easy to check that Eqs.~(\ref{27}) and (\ref{29})
reproduce Eq.~(\ref{9}) above; the chirp mass can be
expressed as ${\cal M} = \eta^{3/5} M$.
For simplicity we will, in the following, focus on the
quantity $dE/dt$. To second post-Newtonian order,
the luminosity takes the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE}{dt} = \biggl( \frac{dE}{dt} \biggr)_{\!\!N}
\Biggl[ 1 -
\biggl( \frac{1247}{336} + \frac{35}{12}\, \eta \biggr) v^2 +
\bigl( 4\pi - \mbox{\small SO} \bigr) v^3 - \biggl(
\frac{44711}{9072} - \frac{9271}{504}\, \eta -
\frac{65}{18}\, \eta^2 + \mbox{\small SS} \biggr) v^4 + \cdots
\Biggr].
\label{31}
\end{equation}
Here, the terms {\small SO} and {\small SS} are due to spin-orbit
and spin-spin interactions, respectively \cite{KWW}; these occur if
the masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ are rotating. Let $\vec{S}_1$
and $\vec{S}_2$ be the spin angular momentum of each mass,
and define the dimensionless quantities $\vec{\chi}_a =
\vec{S}_a/{m_a}^2$, for $a=\{1,2\}$. Let also $\hat{L}$
be the direction of orbital angular momentum. Then \cite{KWW}
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\small SO} = \frac{1}{4} \sum_{a=1}^2 \Bigl[
11 (m_a/M)^2 + 5\eta \Bigr] \hat{L} \cdot \vec{\chi}_a
\label{32}
\end{equation}
is the spin-orbit term, and
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\small SS} = \frac{\eta}{48} \Bigl(
103 \vec{\chi_1} \cdot \vec{\chi_2} -
289 \hat{L} \cdot \vec{\chi}_1 \,
\hat{L} \cdot \vec{\chi}_2 \Bigr)
\label{33}
\end{equation}
is the spin-spin term.
In Eq.~(\ref{31}), the leading-order term was first calculated
in 1963 by Peters and Mathews
\cite{PetersMathews} using the standard quadrupole
formula. The first post-Newtonian correction, at order $v^2$,
was calculated in 1976 by Wagoner and Will
\cite{WagonerWill}. The $4\pi v^3$
term is due to wave propagation effects: As the waves
propagate out of the near zone they are scattered by
the curvature of spacetime, and this modifies both the
amplitude and the phase of the waveform; this ``tail term''
was first calculated in 1993 by this author
\cite{paperI}, and then
independently by Wiseman
\cite{Wiseman} and Blanchet and Sch\"afer
\cite{BlanchetSchafer}. The
second post-Newtonian correction, at order $v^4$, was
calculated in 1994 by Blanchet, Damour, Iyer, Will,
and Wiseman \cite{BDIWW}. Finally, the spin-orbit and spin-spin
corrections were calculated in 1993 by Kidder, Will,
and Wiseman \cite{KWW}.
We see from Eq.~(\ref{31}) that the post-Newtonian corrections
bring a number of additional source parameters into the picture.
The waveform no longer depends uniquely upon the chirp mass ${\cal M}$;
it now depends upon the masses $m_1$ and $m_2$ separately,
and upon the spin-orbit and spin-spin parameters (which
stay approximately constant as the system evolves toward
coalescence). These new parameters must be included into
$\vec{\mu}$ when the signal is analyzed using matched filtering.
What we have at this point is an expression for the
waveform which is accurate to second post-Newtonian
order. The question facing us is whether this waveform
is sufficiently accurate to be used as measurement
templates. In other words, are the systematic errors
generated by these templates guaranteed to be smaller
than the statistical errors?
Evidently, to answer this question is difficult,
since we do not have access to the exact waveform in
order to make comparisons. In the next section we will
consider a model problem for which the waveform {\it can}
be calculated exactly, thereby enabling us to judge
the accuracy of the post-Newtonian expansion. We will
find, in Sec.~15, that the answer to this question is,
most likely, no: the second post-Newtonian waveform is
not sufficiently accurate.
\section{Waveform calculations: perturbation theory}
A different line of attack for solving Einstein's
equations for a compact binary system is to assume
that one of the bodies is very much less massive
than the other \cite{Poisson}. We therefore demand
\begin{equation}
\mu / M \ll 1,
\label{34}
\end{equation}
where $\mu$ is the reduced mass and $M$ the total mass.
In this limit $\mu$ is practically equal to the smaller
mass $m_1$, and $M$ is practically equal to the larger
mass $m_2$. In contrast with the post-Newtonian approach,
we assume {\it nothing} about the size of the
velocity $v$.
This approach takes advantage of the fact that when
Eq.~(\ref{34}) is valid, the smaller mass creates only
a small perturbation in the gravitational field of the
larger mass, which can be taken to be the
Schwarzschild field. The
total gravitational field can therefore be written as
\begin{equation}
g_{\alpha\beta} = g_{\alpha\beta}^{(0)} + h_{\alpha\beta},
\label{35}
\end{equation}
where $g_{\alpha\beta}^{(0)}$ represents the background
Schwarzschild metric, and $h_{\alpha\beta}$ the perturbation.
Writing Einstein's equations for $g_{\alpha\beta}$ and
linearizing with respect to $h_{\alpha\beta}$, one finds
that the perturbation must satisfy an inhomogeneous wave
equation in the Schwarzschild spacetime. Schematically,
\begin{equation}
\Box^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu} h_{\mu\nu} = 8\pi T^{\alpha\beta},
\label{36}
\end{equation}
where $\Box^{\alpha\beta\mu\nu}$ is an appropriate
curved-spacetime wave operator, and $T^{\alpha\beta}$
the stress-energy tensor associated with the orbiting mass.
We will specifically assume that the central body is
a Schwarzschild black hole of mass $M$. This assumption
is made for simplicity, and removes the need to model
the star's interior. As a matter of fact, the internal
structure of the bodies is irrelevant, except during
the last few orbital cycles before coalescence;
this was discussed in Sec.~5. Taking advantage
of this, we model the orbiting body as a point
particle of mass $\mu$, so that its stress-energy tensor
is a Dirac distribution with support on the particle's world
line. For simplicity, and also because it is physically
well motivated (as explained in Sec.~5), we take the world line
to be a circular geodesic of the Schwarzschild spacetime.
With $\{t,r,\theta,\phi\}$ as the usual Schwarzschild
coordinates, $r_0$ denotes the orbital radius, and
$\Omega = d\phi/dt$ is the angular velocity. We have
\begin{equation}
v \equiv \Omega r_0 = (M/r_0)^{1/2} = (M\Omega)^{1/3},
\label{37}
\end{equation}
and the gravitational-wave frequency $f$ is given by
$2 \pi f= 2\Omega$. We stress once more that in the
perturbation approach, $v$ is not required to be
small. The only limitation on $v$ comes from the
fact that for $r_0 \leq 6M$, circular orbits are
no longer stable; this implies $v < 6^{-1/2}
\simeq 0.4082$.
Black-hole perturbations are conveniently treated with the
Teukolsky formalism \cite{Teukolsky},
in which gravitational perturbations
are represented by the complex-valued function $\Psi_4$,
a particular component of the perturbed Weyl tensor;
the tensor $h_{\alpha\beta}$ can be reconstructed from $\Psi_4$.
The equation satisfied by $\Psi_4$ admits a separation of
the variables. When $\Psi_4$ is expanded in spherical
harmonics and decomposed into Fourier modes $e^{-i\omega t}$,
one obtains an ordinary second-order differential equation ---
the Teukolsky equation --- for the radial function $R_{\omega
\ell m}(r)$. Here, $\ell$ and $m$ are the usual
spherical-harmonic indices. Schematically, and omitting the
subscript $\omega \ell m$, this equation takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal D} R(r) = T(r),
\label{38}
\end{equation}
where $\cal D$ is a second-order differential operator, and
$T(r)$ the source, constructed from the particle's
stress-energy tensor \cite{Poisson}.
Equation (\ref{38}) can be integrated in the standard
way by constructing a Green's function $G(r,r')$ out
of two linearly independent solutions to the
homogeneous equation. These solutions, $R_<(r)$ and
$R_>(r)$, respectively satisfy appropriate boundary
conditions at the inner ($r=2M$) and outer
($r=\infty$) boundaries. Schematically, $G(r,r') =
R_<(r_<) R_>(r_>)$, where $r_<$ ($r_>$) is the
lesser (greater) of $r$ and $r'$. The
solution to Eq.~(\ref{38}) can then be expressed
as $R(r) = \int G(r,r') T(r')\, dr'$, and $\Psi_4$
can be reconstructed by summing over all the modes.
Finally, the gravitational waveform $h$ and the
luminosity $dE/dt$ can be obtained from the
asymptotic behaviour of $\Psi_4$ when $r\to\infty$.
To integrate Eq.~(\ref{38}) therefore reduces to
solving the homogeneous Teukolsky equation,
${\cal D} R(r)=0$, for the functions $R_<(r)$
and $R_>(r)$. This, it turns out,
is equivalent to integrating the Regge-Wheeler
equation \cite{ReggeWheeler}
\begin{equation}
\Biggl\{
\frac{d^2}{dr^{*2}} + \omega^2 -
\biggl(1 - \frac{2M}{r} \biggr)
\biggl[ \frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{r^2} - \frac{6M}{r} \biggr]
\Biggr\} X_{\omega\ell}(r) = 0,
\label{39}
\end{equation}
for the functions $X_<(r)$ and $X_>(r)$; here,
$d/dr^* = (1-2M/r) d/dr$. This comes about because
a solution to the homogeneous Teukolsky equation can easily
be related to a solution to the Regge-Wheeler equation. The
relation is known as the Chandrasekhar
transformation \cite{Chandra}.
\section{Luminosity from the perturbation approach}
The problem of calculating the gravitational waveform for
a compact binary system with small mass ratio can
therefore be reduced
to the simple one of integrating Eq.~(\ref{39}). The relevant
dimensionless parameter entering this equation is $M\omega$,
where, for circular orbits, $\omega = m\Omega$
\cite{Poisson}. We therefore
have, using Eq.~(\ref{37}), $M\omega = m v^3$.
For arbitrary values of $M\omega$ the Regge-Wheeler equation must
be integrated numerically \cite{paperII}. This must be
done separately for each selected value of
$v$ in the interval $0.1 < v < 0.4$ (approximately corresponding,
for systems of a few solar masses, to the frequency interval
$10\ \mbox{Hz} < f < 1\ 000\ \mbox{Hz}$). \cite{Reif}
\begin{figure}[t]
\special{hscale=70 vscale=70 hoffset=50.0 voffset=-500.0
angle=0.0 psfile=fig2.ps}
\vspace*{3.2in}
\caption[Fig. 2]{Various representations of
$(dE/dt)/(dE/dt)_N$ as a function of orbital
velocity $v$. The solid curve represents the exact
results, obtained numerically. The various broken curves
represent the various post-Newtonian approximations, as
explained in the text.}
\end{figure}
Once again we will focus on $dE/dt$, the gravitational-wave
luminosity. In Fig.~2 we present a plot of $(dE/dt)/(dE/dt)_N$
as a function of $v$. This is the ratio of the luminosity as
calculated exactly (numerically) using the perturbation
approach, to the quadrupole-formula expression
\begin{equation}
\biggl( \frac{dE}{dt} \biggl)_{\!\!N} =
- \frac{32}{5} \Bigl(\frac{\mu}{M} \Bigr)^2\, v^{10}.
\label{40}
\end{equation}
The numerical results are depicted as a solid curve.
Apart from negligible numerical errors, these results are
{\it exact} to all orders in $v$; the only assumption used
in the calculation concerns
the smallness of $\mu/M$. The various broken curves will be
described below. The figure shows that $(dE/dt)/(dE/dt)_N$
tends toward unity as $v\to 0$, and stays within
15\% of unity everywhere in the interval $0 < v < 6^{-1/2}$.
It is now easy to judge the accuracy of the post-Newtonian
expansion for $dE/dt$ in the limit $\mu/M \to 0$. One simply
evaluates Eq.~(\ref{31}) in this limit, with $\mbox{\small SO} =
\mbox{\small SS} = 0$, and compare with the numerical results.
This post-Newtonian curve is labeled ``4'' in the figure, and we
see that the numerical results are only imperfectly reproduced.
The consequences of this will be discussed in the next section.
One can in fact do better than this. The perturbation approach
is not only suitable for exact, numerical computations. By
combining it with a slow-motion approximation --- putting
$v \ll 1$ on top of $\mu/M \ll 1$ --- it also becomes suitable
for approximate, analytical computations. Methods for integrating
the Regge-Wheeler equations analytically in the limit
$M\omega \ll 1$ were devised by various authors
\cite{paperI,Poisson,Sasaki}.
The basic idea is to proceed by iterations:
Eq.~(\ref{39}) with $M\omega=0$ is solved
in terms of spherical Bessel functions, and this zeroth
order solution is used as input for the first iteration.
Using these methods, Tagoshi and Sasaki
\cite{TagoshiSasaki} were able to calculate
$dE/dt$ analytically, accurately through fourth post-Newtonian order,
two full orders beyond Eq.~(\ref{31}). They derive the rather
impressive expression
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dE}{dt} &=& \biggl( \frac{dE}{dt} \biggr)_{\!\!N}
\Biggl[
1 - \frac{1247}{336}\, v^2 + 4\pi\, v^3
- \frac{44711}{9072}\, v^4
- \frac{8191}{672}\, \pi\, v^5
\nonumber \\ & & \mbox{}
+ \biggl( \frac{6643739519}{69854400} -
\frac{1712}{105}\, \gamma +
\frac{16}{3}\, \pi^2 -
\frac{3424}{105}\, \ln 2 -
\frac{1712}{105}\, \ln v
\biggr)\, v^6
- \frac{16285}{504}\, \pi \, v^7
\nonumber \\ & & \mbox{}
+ \biggl( - \frac{323105549467}{3178375200} +
\frac{232597}{4410}\, \gamma -
\frac{1369}{126}\, \pi^2 +
\frac{39931}{294}\, \ln 2 -
\frac{47385}{1568}\, \ln 3 +
\frac{232597}{4410}\, \ln v
\biggr)\, v^8
\nonumber \\ & & \mbox{}
+ \cdots
\Biggr].
\label{41}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice the presence of $\ln v$ terms in this expansion,
as well as that of the Euler number $\gamma \simeq
0.5772$. Notice also that the first four terms reproduce
Eq.~(\ref{31}) in the limit $\mu/M \to 0$, when
$\mbox{\small SO} = \mbox{\small SS} = 0$. This, of
course, is as it should be.
The broken curves in Fig.~2 represent plots of Eq.~(\ref{41})
truncated to various orders in $v$. For example, the
curve labeled ``6'' is a plot of Eq.~(\ref{41}) with all terms
of order $v^7$ and $v^8$ discarded. We see from the figure
that the post-Newtonian expansion converges poorly. (The
suspicion, in fact, is that the series is only asymptotic.)
Witness in particular the poor quality of the curve ``5'' with
respect to ``4'', and compare also ``8'' to ``7''.
\section{Accuracy of the post-Newtonian expansion}
We have seen that in the $\mu/M \to 0$ limit, the post-Newtonian
expansion for $dE/dt$ converges poorly. A similar statement can be
made about $dE/df$: the post-Newtonian expansion
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE}{df} = \biggr( \frac{dE}{df} \biggr)_{\!\!N}
\biggl( 1 - \frac{3}{2}\, v^2 - \frac{81}{8}\, v^4 -
\frac{675}{16}\, v^6 - \frac{19845}{128}\, v^8 + \cdots
\biggr),
\label{42}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\biggl( \frac{dE}{df} \biggr)_{\!\!N} =
-\frac{\pi}{3} \mu M v^{-1},
\label{43}
\end{equation}
converges slowly to the exact result \cite{foot2}
\begin{equation}
\frac{dE}{df} = \biggr( \frac{dE}{df} \biggr)_{\!\!N}
\bigl( 1 - 6v^2 \bigr) \bigl( 1 - 3v^2 \bigr)^{-3/2}.
\label{44}
\end{equation}
Contrary to Eq.~(\ref{41}), the expansion (\ref{42})
is actually {\it known} to converge (for all values of
$v$ in the interval $0 < v < 6^{-1/2}$).
In this section we address the issue as to how much of an
obstacle the poor convergence of the post-Newtonian
expansion poses to the construction of accurate
measurement templates \cite{paperVI}.
We will answer this question
for binary systems with small mass ratios, using the
results described in the preceding section. Since there
is no reason to believe that the convergence of the
post-Newtonian expansion would be much improved for
systems of comparable masses, our results should also
apply, at least qualitatively, for such systems.
One way to address this question is to ask, given a
waveform constructed from the exact numerical results,
how much signal-to-noise ratio is lost by matched filtering
the exact signal with an approximate post-Newtonian template?
{}From Sec.~8 we know that filtering with the exact signal
$h(t)$ would give $\mbox{\small SNR}|_{\rm max}$, the largest
possible value of the signal-to-noise ratio. On the other
hand, filtering with a post-Newtonian template $h_n$, where
$n$ denotes the order in $v$ to which the expansion is taken
(for example, $n=4$ represents a waveform accurate to
second post-Newtonian order), gives the smaller value
$\mbox{\small SNR}|_{\rm actual}$. From the results of
Sec.~7 and 8 we obtain
\begin{equation}
{\cal R}_n \equiv
\frac{ \mbox{\small SNR}|_{\rm actual} }{
\mbox{\small SNR}|_{\rm max} } =
\frac{ | \langle h | h_n \rangle |}{
\sqrt{ \langle h | h \rangle
\langle h_n | h_n \rangle }}.
\label{45}
\end{equation}
The detail of how to compute ${\cal R}_n$ is
presented in Ref.~\cite{paperVI}.
The calculation described here
can only be carried out for binary systems with
small mass ratios, because only for these do we have
access to the exact waveform $h(t)$. Nevertheless, in
the following we shall let $\mu/M$ become large, without
altering our expressions for the exact and post-Newtonian
waveforms. This is done without justification, but reflects
the adopted point of view that the quality of the
post-Newtonian approximation should not be appreciably
affected by the finite-mass corrections.
In doing this extrapolation, some thought must be given
as to the interpretation of the ratio $\mu/M$. In the
limit $\mu/M \to 0$ this can be taken to be both the ratio
of the individual masses or the ratio of reduced mass to
total mass. In the case of comparable masses, some choice
must be made. We note that as $\mu/M$ is allowed to grow large,
expressions (\ref{40}) and (\ref{43}) for the Newtonian quantities
$(dE/dt)_N$ and $(dE/df)_N$ must be replaced by expressions
(\ref{29}), {\it which are formally identical}.
This shows that when extrapolating to the
case of comparable masses, $\mu$ is to be interpreted as the
{\it reduced mass}, and $M$ as the {\it total mass}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
$n$ & PN & EXACT \\
\hline
4 & 0.5796 & 0.4958 \\
5 & 0.4646 & 0.5286 \\
6 & 0.7553 & 0.9454 \\
7 & 0.7651 & 0.9864 \\
8 & 0.7568 & 0.9695 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption[Table I]{Reduction in signal-to-noise ratio
incurred when matched filtering with approximate, post-Newtonian
templates. The first column lists the order $n$ of the approximation,
the second column lists ${\cal R}_n$ as calculated using
the post-Newtonian approximation for $dE/df$, and the
third column lists ${\cal R}_n$ as calculated using the
exact expression for $dE/df$.}
\end{table}
We quote the results for ${\cal R}_n$ corresponding to a
system of two neutron stars, each of 1.4 $M_\odot$;
these are displayed in the second column of Table 1. We see
that even at quite a high order in the post-Newtonian
expansion, only three quarters of the
signal-to-noise ratio is reproduced by the post-Newtonian
template. This shows that the apparently small discrepancies
between the exact and post-Newtonian results for $dE/dt$
and $dE/df$ provide a serious obstacle to the construction
of accurate measurement templates.
It is interesting to ask how much of the signal-to-noise
ratio would be recovered if $dE/df$ were kept exact instead
of being expressed as a post-Newtonian expansion. The third
column of the table displays the values of ${\cal R}_n$
calculated in this way. We see that most of the signal-to-noise is
recovered: ${\cal R}_n$ can now be as large as 0.9864 instead
of 0.7651. Why does the exact expression for $dE/df$ give
such better results? It can be established
\cite{paperVI} that this has to do
with the following fact: While the exact expression for $dE/df$
correctly goes to zero at $v = 6^{-1/2}$ (at the innermost circular
orbit), its post-Newtonian analogue fails to do so. [For
example, the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{42}), truncated
to order $v^8$, goes to zero at $v\simeq 0.4236 > 6^{-1/2}$,
corresponding to a radius $r_0 \simeq 5.572 M$.] When corrected
for this, the post-Newtonian template gives much better
results.
\section{Conclusion}
We therefore see that the poor convergence of the
post-Newtonian expansion is a serious obstacle to
the construction of accurate measurement templates.
Devising ways to extract the
information contained in gravitational waves produced
during the late inspiral of a compact binary system
poses a great challenge to theoretical physicists. It is
not clear that ``simply'' pushing to higher order in
post-Newtonian theory will be enough to produce
sufficiently accurate measurement templates (such that
the systematic errors will be smaller than the
statistical errors). There may be a need for theorists
to develop alternative ways of dealing with this
problem.
It should be stressed that the convergence problem does
not arise when constructing {\it detection templates}.
Indeed, as was discussed in Sec.~9,
there is no particular need for these templates to be
derived from the equations of general relativity. And since
the detection templates need not involve any parameters of
direct physical significance, the notion of systematic errors does
not apply to them. The only requirement for constructing
detection templates is that they should span the appropriate
``signal space'', and that they should do so the most
efficiently.
The poor convergence of the post-Newtonian expansion is
therefore not an obstacle for {\it detecting} gravitational
waves from coalescing compact binaries. It is only an obstacle
for extracting the information that the waves contain. To
overcome this obstacle will undoubtedly be a theorist's
challenge for years to come. This state of affairs is highly
interesting from a historical point of view: Never
before in the history of gravitational physics has experiment
demanded such a high degree of sophistication on theoretical
calculations.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences Foundation
under Grant No.~PHY 92-22902 and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration under Grant No.~NAGW 3874. This
article was completed while visiting the Theoretical Physics
Institute of the University of Alberta; the author is most
grateful to Werner Israel for his warm hospitality.
|
\section{Introduction}
Most first-principles calculations on condensed matter are nowadays based
on density functional theory (DFT)~\cite{hoh64,koh65,jon89,gil91,pay92}.
This theory is formally exact,
but in practice an approximation has to be made to the exchange-correlation
energy, and the vast majority of calculations employ the local density
approximation (LDA). The basic assumption is that the exchange-correlation
energy per electron at any point in the system is related to the electron
density at that point in the same way as in a uniform electron gas,
and density gradients are ignored. Some theoretical justification
can be given for this~\cite{har74,gun76,lan77},
and in practice the LDA works well
in a wide range of situations. However, its accuracy is not always
satisfactory, particularly when energy differences associated with
changes of bonding are needed, as in e.g. molecular dissociation or
the adsorption of molecules at surfaces. Attempts to improve the
situation by adding lowest-order corrections in powers of the density
gradient are not successful, but important progress has been made
recently by requiring that the dependence of the energy on the gradients
satisfies certain physical requirements. This has led to various
forms of generalized gradient corrections
(GGC)~\cite{lan83,per86,pw86,bec88,lac93}.
In the last few years, there has been a large amount of work on the
influence of different GGC schemes on the total energies of
atoms and molecules~\cite{lan83,per86,pw86,lan85,kut88,bos90,mly91},
the equilibrium structure and cohesive energies
of covalent crystals~\cite{gar92,kon90,ori92,jua93,sei95},
the ground state of iron~\cite{zhu92,hag93},
and the energetics
of molecular adsorption on metal surfaces~\cite{whi94a,hu94,gun94}.
However, so far as we are
aware, there has been little work on the effect of GGC on the
properties of partially ionic materials such as the oxides TiO$_2$ and
SnO$_2$ treated here. The surface properties of materials like these
are extremely important, because of their application as gas sensors and
catalysts. We have recently reported a detailed study of the bulk and surface
properties of SnO$_2$~\cite{IanYY,IanXX},
and we have initiated work on the interaction
of molecules with the surfaces of both TiO$_2$ and SnO$_2$~\cite{unp}.
An understanding
of GGC is of considerable importance in this general area. The goal
of the present paper is to study the effect on the bulk and surface
properties of TiO$_2$ and SnO$_2$ of the two widely used GGC schemes due to
Perdew and Wang~\cite{per86,pw86}
and Becke and Perdew~\cite{per86,bec88}.
\section{Techniques}
The calculations are performed using the pseudopotential
method~\cite{gil91,pay92},
so that only the valence electrons are represented explicitly, the
valence-core interaction being represented by non-local norm-conserving
pseudopotentials, which are generated by first-principles calculations
on isolated atoms. Periodic boundary conditions are used, with the occupied
electronic orbitals expanded in a plane-wave basis. The expansion includes
all plane waves whose kinetic energy $\hbar^2 k^2 / 2m$ ($k$ the
wavevector, $m$ the electronic mass) is less than a chosen cutoff energy
$E_{\rm cut}$. The inclusions of gradient corrections within the
pseudopotential plane-wave technique has recently been discussed
in detail by White and Bird~\cite{whi94}, who show that a robust and
accurate calculation of the GGC exchange-correlation energy and potential
can be achieved by summation on exactly the same real-space grid as
would be used for the LDA. This technique has been used in the present work.
The first-principles pseudopotentials in Kleinman-Bylander
representation~\cite{kle82} were generated using the optimization
scheme of Lin {\em et al.}~\cite{lin93} in order to reduce the required
value of the plane-wave cutoff $E_{\rm cut}$. The pseudopotentials
used in the GGC calculations were constructed consistently by including
gradient corrections in the generation scheme. The Sn
pseudopotential was generated using the $5s^2 5p^2$ configuration for
$s$- and $p$-wave components, and the $5s^15p^{0.5}5d^{0.5}$
configuration for the $d$-wave. The core radii were equal to 2.1, 2.1 and
2.5~a.u. for the $s$, $p$ and $d$ components respectively.
The Ti pseudopotential was generated using
the $4s^{1.85}3d^2$ configuration for $s$ and $d$ waves
and the $4s^14p^{0.5}3d^{0.5}$ configuration for the
$p$ wave, with core radii of 2.2, 1.5 and 2.4 a.u. for $s$, $p$ and $d$ waves
respectively.
The oxygen pseudopotential used in our LDA calculations
was generated
using the $2s^2 2p^4$ configuration for the $s$ and $p$ waves and the
$2s^2 2p^{2.5} 3d^{0.5}$ configuration for the $d$ wave,
with a single core radius of 1.65~a.u. For the
gradient-corrected oxygen pseudopotential, we have used the single
configuration $2s^2 2p^{3.5} 3d^{0.45}$ and the same core radius.
The use of a core radius of 1.65~a.u. means that there is an appreciable
overlap of the oxygen and metal core spheres in the SnO$_2$ and TiO$_2$
crystals, and in principle this could cause inaccuracies. However,
direct comparisons of the present results with our earlier work
on SnO$_2$~\cite{IanXX}, which employed an oxygen pseudopotential with the
smaller core radius of 1.25~a.u., show that any errors due to core overlap are
very small.
The calculations have been done using a plane wave cut-off
$E_{\rm cut}$ of 600~eV for SnO$_2$ and 1000~eV
for TiO$_2$. Our tests show that with these cut-offs the energy per
unit cell is converged to within 0.2~eV, the convergence with respect to
$E_{\rm cut}$ being not noticeably influenced by the inclusion of gradient
corrections, even though the gradient corrected pseudopotentials
are less smooth and regular than the LDA ones~\cite{gar92,ort91}.
The calculations were performed using the CETEP code~\cite{cla92}
(the parallel version of the serial CASTEP code~\cite{pay92}) running
on the 64-node Intel iPSC/860 machine at Daresbury Laboratory. The code
uses the band-by-band conjugate-gradient technique to minimize the total
energy with respect to plane-wave coefficients. The LDA calculations
were performed using the Ceperley-Alder (CA)
exchange-correlation function~\cite{cep80}.
For the ground states calculations Brillouin zone sampling is performed
using the lowest order Monkhorst-Pack set of k--points~\cite{mon76},
as in our earlier work on SnO$_2$~\cite{IanYY}.
Electronic densities
of states (DOS) associated with the ground state were calculated
using the tetrahedron method~\cite{jep71,leh72}, with $k$-point
sampling corresponding to 750 tetrahedra in the whole Brillouin zone.
\section{Results and discussion}
\subsection{Perfect SnO$_2$ and TiO$_2$ crystals}
The 6-atom rutile unit cell of SnO$_2$ and TiO$_2$ is
characterized by the two lattice parameters $a$ and $c$ and the internal
parameter $u$: the positions of the four oxygens are $(\pm u, \pm u, 0)$,
$( \frac{1}{2} \pm u, \frac{1}{2} \mp u, \frac{1}{2} )$.
The equilibrium structure has then been determined by relaxation with
respect to the lattice parameters $a$ and $c$ and the
internal parameter $u$. The equilibrium values of these
parameters both with and without gradient corrections are given in
Table~\ref{tab1}.
As usually happens, there is a tendency for the LDA to underestimate the
lattice parameter. This is especially noticeable for SnO$_2$, where there
may also be an effect due to our treatment of the 4$d$ shell as
part of the core. The inclusion of gradient corrections tends to increase
the lattice parameters, as has already been found for semiconducting
and metallic systems~\cite{gar92,jua93,sei95}. The increase is 4~\%
or more for the Perdew-Wang GGC, and leads to results for $a$ and $c$ that
are appreciably greater than experimental values. For the Becke-Perdew
GGC, the increase is roughly 3~\%. Both the $c/a$ ratio and the $u$
parameter are almost unaffected, and this suggests that the gradient
corrections have the effect of an isotropic negative pressure, as
pointed out by Seifert {\em et al.}~\cite{sei95}.
We have calculated the electronic DOS for the SnO$_2$ perfect crystal using
both LDA and the two GGC schemes, but the changes caused by GGC are very
small and we do not show the results here.
\subsection{The SnO$_2$ and TiO$_2$~(110) surfaces}
Our calculations on the stoichiometric (110) surface of
both materials have been done with the usual repeating slab geometry.
The rutile structure can be regarded as consisting of (110) planes of atoms
containing both metal (M) and oxygen (O) atoms, separated by planes
containing oxygen alone, so that the sequence of planes is
O - M$_2$O$_2$ - O - O - M$_2$O$_2$ - O etc. The entire crystal can
then be built up of symmetrical 3-plane O - M$_2$O$_2$ - O units.
The slabs we use contain three of these units, and our repeating cell
contains 18 atoms (6~M and 12~O).
The perfect (110) surface consists of rows of bridging oxygens lying
above a metal-oxygen layer.
The vacuum separating the slabs has been taken wide enough to
ensure that interactions between neighboring slabs are small.
The width we use corresponds to two O - M$_2$O$_2$ - O units, and
is such that planes of bridging oxygens on
the surfaces facing each other across the vacuum are
separated by about 6.8~\AA.
The surface structure has been determined by relaxing the
entire system to equilibrium, and the calculations have
been done with and without gradient corrections. As in
our previous work on SnO$_2$~(110)~\cite{IanXX}, and the work of
Ramamoorthy {\em et al.} on TiO$_2$~(110)~\cite{ram94a}, we find
displacements of the surface atoms of order 0.1~\AA, with
5-fold and 6-fold coordinated metal atoms (M$_{\rm II}$ and M$_{\rm I}$) moving
respectively into and
out of the surface, in-plane oxygens (O$_{\rm II}$) moving out and bridging
oxygens (O$_{\rm I}$) moving very little. The changes of the bond lengths
between the surface atoms, including sub-bridging oxygens (O$_{\rm III}$)
and the uppermost oxygens (O$_{\rm IV}$) of the following O - M$_2$O$_2$ - O
unit,
for LDA and gradient corrected calculations are given in Table~\ref{tab2}.
{}From these results, it is clear that gradient corrections have
only a minor effect on the relaxed equilibrium structure.
As we have already noted for the perfect crystal case,
modifications of atomic structure with respect to LDA results are more
pronounced in the PW scheme.
We have calculated the surface formation energy in the standard way,
by subtracting
from the slab total energy (18 atoms) three times the energy of a 6-atom
perfect crystal unit cell and dividing by the total surface area.
We find that the relaxed surface energy of SnO$_2$~(110) is
1.66~Jm$^{-2}$ in the LDA, 1.13~Jm$^{-2}$ in PW-GGC and 1.16~Jm$^{-2}$ for
BP-GGC. The LDA result is close to the value of 1.50~Jm$^{-2}$ reported
earlier~\cite{IanXX}. For TiO$_2$~(110), the values are 1.14, 0.82
and 0.84~Jm$^{-2}$ respectively. Our LDA result
for TiO$_2$ (110) is close to the value of 1.06~Jm$^{-2}$ reported by
Ramamoorthy {\em et al.}~\cite{ram94a}.
Comparison of LDA and GGC results shows that gradient
corrections have a substantial effect on the surface energies.
For both GGC schemes, the surface energies are lowered by about 30\% with
respect to the LDA values, the difference between PW and BP being very small.
This decrease of surface energy by GGC is consistent with the general tendency
of gradient corrections to remove the systematic overestimation of
electronic binding energy in the LDA.
The electronic DOS of the SnO$_2$~(110) surface using the LDA and the two
GGC schemes are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
In order to separate out effects of electronic structure, all the calculations
are done at the equilibrium lattice parameters and the relaxed positions
produced by the BP scheme. Overall, the differences between the three sets
of results are small. However, there are significant differences at the top
of the valence band and at the top of the O(2s) band. As we found in our
previous work~\cite{IanYY} there are peaks at the top of both bands due to
surface states, these states being concentrated on the bridging oxygens.
The effect of GGC is to reduce the intensity of the peak at the top of
O(2s) band. The effect on the intensity of the valence band peak is less
systematic, since BP increases it but PW decreases it.
The reason why these effects are interesting is that there appears to be no
experimental evidence for the surface--state peak at the top of the valence
band, so that the LDA predictions seems not to be consistent with experiment.
The present results suggest the possibility that this inconsistency may be
due to inaccurate treatament of exchange and correlation.
\section{Conclusions}
Our calculations show that gradient corrections increase the lattice
parameters of TiO$_2$ and SnO$_2$ by $\sim$~4~\% for the Perdew-Wang
scheme and $\sim$~3~\% for the Becke-Perdew scheme. These effects
are similar to those reported previously for metals and semiconductors.
For the surfaces we examined, gradient corrections have very little effect
on the relaxed surface structure, but the surface energies are
substantially reduced -- by $\sim$~30~\% in both the Perdew-Wang
and the Becke-Perdew schemes. The effects of gradient corrections on the
electronic DOS of SnO$_2$~(110) surface are very small, except at the top
of the O(2s) and O(2p) bands. The changes we find at the top of the O(2p)
band may be relevant to apparent inconsistences between calculated and
experimental results for the surface DOS in this region.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The work of JG is supported by EPSRC grant GR/J34842. The major
calculations were performed on the Intel iPSC/860 parallel computer
at Daresbury Laboratory, and we are grateful for a generous
allocation of time on the machine. Analysis of the results was
performed using local hardware funded by EPSRC grant GR/J36266.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intr}
In a recent paper \cite{KeIr95}, we demonstrated the power of finite--size
scaling applied to Lee--Yang zeroes \cite{LY} in uncovering logarithmic
corrections to scaling in the two--dimensional $XY$-- or $O(2)$ spin model.
In this paper we apply the same techniques to the closely related \lq step
model\rq{} \cite{GuJoTh72,GuJo73},
also known \cite{LeSh87,LeSh88} as the sgn $O(2)$
model. The question of criticality of this model has, until now, been unresolved
despite several analyses based on high temperature series (see \cite{LeSh88}
for a review) and on numerical simulation \cite{NyIr86,SVWi88}. The interest
in the model arises from its possible membership of the $XY$--model universality
class which exhibits the Kosterlitz--Thouless [KT] phase transition \cite{KT}.
Like the $XY$--model, the step model has a
configuration space which is globally and continuously symmetric.
Unlike the $XY$--model, however, the interaction function
is discontinuous and the Mermin--Wagner theorem \cite{MeWa66} does not apply.
Nonetheless, it is expected that if a phase transition exists in the step model,
it should not be to a phase with long range order \cite{GuJo73,SVWi88,GuNy78}.
S\'anchez--Velasco and Wills \cite{SVWi88} presented evidence of critical
behaviour starting at $\beta_c=1/T_c=0.91\pm0.04$. This was based on
finite--size scaling [FSS] of the spin susceptibility. Since the associated
critical index $\eta(T_c)$ was significantly greater than that measured for
the $XY$--model, it was concluded that the step and $XY$ models are not
in the same universality class. In this paper we present evidence that the
step model is {\em not} critical at that temperature. However it {\em is}
critical at lower temperatures with a critical index $\eta(T_c)$ compatible
with the $XY$ value. The accuracy afforded by the Lee--Yang zeroes study
is a crucial part of the analysis.
\section{The step model and the $XY$--model}
\label{sec:step}
Consider the partition function
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta,h)
=
\sum_{\{{\vec{s}}_x\}}{
e^{- \beta H
+ h {\hat{n}}\cdot{\vec{M}}
}
}
\, ,
\label{eqn:pf}
\end{equation}
where the Boltzmann factor is $\beta = 1/kT$, ${\hat{n}}$ is a unit vector
defining the direction of the external magnetic field and $h$ is a scalar
parameter representing its strength. The summation is over all
configurations open to the system and ${\vec{s}}_x$ is a unit length
two-component spin at each site $x$ in the cubic lattice
$\Lambda\equiv L^d$ ($d=2$). The magnetisation for a given configuration is
\begin{displaymath}
{\vec{M}} =
\sum_{x \in \Lambda}
{\vec{s}}_x
\, .
\end{displaymath}
In the case of the $XY$--model, the interaction hamiltonian is
\begin{displaymath}
H_{{XY}}
=
-
\sum_{x \in \Lambda}
\sum_{\mu = 1}^{d}
{\vec{s}}_x\cdot
{\vec{s}}_{x+\mu}
\, ,
\end{displaymath}
while for the step model it is
\begin{displaymath}
H_{\rm{step}}
=
-
\sum_{x \in \Lambda}
\sum_{\mu = 1}^{d} \hbox{sgn}(
{\vec{s}}_x\cdot
{\vec{s}}_{x+\mu})
\, .
\end{displaymath}
Thus the continuous (cosine) dependence of the interaction energy
in the usual $XY$--model is replaced by a discrete step function dependence.
The leading infinite volume critical behaviour of the 2D $XY$--model is
characterized by exponential divergences (essential singularities) in the
thermodynamic functions \cite{KT}. In terms of the reduced temperature
$t\equiv 1-\beta/\beta_c \rightarrow 0^+$ the (leading)
infinite volume scaling behaviour
of the correlation length and the zero-field magnetic susceptibility is
(respectively) \cite{KT}
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_\infty(t) & \sim & e^{at^{-\nu}} \, , \label{eqn:ktxi}
\\
\chi_\infty(t) & \sim & \xi_\infty^{2-\eta}\, , \label{eqn:ktchi}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\nu = 1/2$ and $\eta = 1/4$. The $XY$--model remains critical for all
$ \beta > \beta_c$.
For models obeying the Lee--Yang theorem \cite{LY},
the partition function zeroes in the magnetic
field strength ($h$) plane (the Lee--Yang zeroes)
are all on the imaginary axis. In the high temperature
phase these zeroes remain away from the
real axis, pinching it only as $t \rightarrow 0^+$ (in the
thermodynamic limit).
The zero closest to the real axis marks the edge of the distribution
of zeroes and is known as the Yang--Lee edge, $z_{\rm{YL}}$.
The theorem has been proved only for certain models, the $XY$--model included
\cite{DuNe75}.
In \cite{KeIr95} we used this fact to show the above leading
critical behaviour for the $XY$--model and
the corresponding behaviour of the Yang--Lee edge, $z_{\rm{YL}}$ are, in
fact, modified by logarithmic corrections:
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_\infty (t) & \sim & \xi_\infty^{2 - \eta} t^{r}\, ,
\label{eqn:chis}
\\
z_{\rm{YL}}(t) & \sim & \xi_\infty^{\lambda} t^{p}\, ,
\label{eqn:edges}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\lambda= -\frac{1}{2}(d+2 -\eta) = -{{15}\over 8}
\label{eqn:lambda}
\end{equation}
and the parameters $r$ and $p$ ($=-r/2)$ are logarithmic correction indices
\cite{KeIr95}. The corresponding FSS behaviour for the susceptibility and
the first zero $z_1$ ($=z_{YL}$) at $t=0$ is \cite{KeIr95}
\begin{eqnarray}
\chi_L (0) & \sim & L^{2 - \eta} (\ln{L})^{-\frac{r}{\nu}}\, ,
\label{eqn:chifss}
\\
z_1(0) & \sim & L^{\lambda} (\ln{L})^{r}
\label{eqn:edgefss}
\, .
\end{eqnarray}
For the 2D $XY$--model the numerical value of $r$ was found to be small
but non-zero ($-0.023\pm 0.010$) \cite{KeIr95}.
The objects of the present analaysis were to establish
\begin{enumerate}
\item if the scaling behaviour of the very precisely determined Yang--Lee
edge would unequivocably determine whether the step model had a critical
phase
\item if so, whether the phase transition is in the same universality class
as the $XY$--model.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Method and results}
\label{sec:meth}
The methods used are those described in \cite{KeIr95}. A single cluster
algorithm \cite{Wo89} is used to generate a large number of measurements
(100K for each lattice size $L$ and temperature $1/\beta$) of the energy
$H$ and the magnetisation ${\vec{M}}$ at zero external magnetic field.
Such data were obtained for lattice sizes $L=32$, $48$, $64$, $128$ and
$256$ covering the $\beta$ range $0.86$ to $1.40$ with varying degrees
of spacing. Multi--histogram techniques \cite{FeSw88,KaKa91} were used to
combine data at different values of $\beta$ and so obtain detailed $\beta$
dependence. In the neighborhood of possible critical points we used
sufficiently fine spacing (typically 0.025) to ensure adequate overlap
between histograms for a given size of lattice.
The partition function for a complex magnetic field ($h=h_r+ih_i$,
$h_r,h_i \in \mbox{\math R} $) can be written in terms of a real and an imaginary
part \cite{KeIr95,KeLa93,KeLa94} as
\begin{equation}
Z(\beta,h_r + i h_i)
=
{\rm{Re}} Z(\beta,h_r + i h_i)
+ i
{\rm{Im}} Z(\beta,h_r + i h_i)
\, ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm{Re}} Z(\beta,h_r + i h_i)
& = &
Z(\beta,h_r)
\langle
\cos{(h_i M)}
\rangle_{\beta,h_r}
\label{ReZ}
\, ,
\\
{\rm{Im}} Z(\beta,h_r + i h_i)
& = &
Z(\beta,h_r)
\langle
\sin{(h_i M)}
\rangle_{\beta,h_r}
\label{ImZ}
\, .
\end{eqnarray}
Here the subscripts indicate that the expectation values are taken at
(inverse) temperature $\beta$ and in a (real) external field $h_r$.
No specific proof of the Lee--Yang theorem exists for the step model.
We can, however, use (\ref{ReZ}) and (\ref{ImZ}) to (numerically)
determine the loci along which the real and imaginary parts of the
partition function separately vanish. These formulae concern
expectation values of real quantities in a real external field
and at no stage is a simulation involving a complex action involved.
The Lee--Yang zeroes are then the points in the complex $h$--plane
where the loci intersect \cite{KeLa94}.
We have determined these loci
and thereby the Lee--Yang zeroes close to the real $h$--axis.
We were able to determine the first 15 zeroes and found
that they lie on the imaginary $h$--axis for all the lattices
studied. Thus we have numerical evidence that the step model
obeys the Lee--Yang theorem. The following analysis applies to
the first zeroes only (the Yang--Lee edge) and we defer the study of higher
zeroes to a later paper \cite{bbig}.
The analysis began with a rough search for the leading critical behaviour
predicted by (\ref{eqn:edgefss}). An independent test was also made
using the (less accurate) susceptibility data and (\ref{eqn:chifss}).
Both methods indicated critical behaviour setting in for $\beta$
\raisebox{-.75ex}{ {\small \shortstack{$>$ \\ $\sim$}} } $1.2$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:typscal} we show a typical log--log plot of
$z_1$ the Yang--Lee edge versus $L$. This is at a typical candidate value
of the critical temperature ($\beta=1.22$). The errors are considerably
smaller than the symbols. For example, at $\beta=1.22$ we found
$z_1=0.0024136(7)$ and $0.00017902(6)$ at $L=32$ and $128$ respectively.
The slope of Fig.~\ref{fig:typscal} gives the effective leading index
$\lambda_{\hbox{eff}}$ ignoring corrections. At $\beta=1.22$ this is
$\lambda_{\hbox{eff}} = -1.8761(2)$ where the chi-squared per degree
of freedom ($\chi^2/{\rm{dof}}$) for the linear fit shown is $0.85$.
In Fig.~2(a) we display the result of such fits as a function of $\beta$.
The effective exponent $\lambda_{\hbox{eff}}$ is just the slope of the
log--log linear fit which should obtain if critical behaviour is present
(ignoring logarithmic corrections). The corresponding $\chi^2/{\rm{dof}}$
for the linear fit is also shown. Acceptable values are only found for
$\beta$ in excess of around 1.2. To quantify this statement we demand
\begin{equation}
\chi^2/{\rm{dof}} \leq 2.0
\label{eqn:chisq}
\end{equation}
which means
$\beta \raisebox{-.75ex}{ {\small \shortstack{$>$ \\ $\sim$}} } 1.185$.
We note that the corresponding values of $\lambda_{\hbox{eff}}$
($ \raisebox{-.75ex}{ {\small \shortstack{$<$ \\ $\sim$}} } -1.872(2)$)
include that ($-15/8 = -1.875$) corresponding to the KT prediction.
Fig.~\ref{fig:lambda} is evidence for ({\em{i}}) the validity of FSS
over a range of values $\beta \ge \beta_c \simeq 1.185$ and ({\em{ii}})
at $\beta_c$ the exponent
$\lambda_{\hbox{eff}}$ very close to the expected KT value (-15/8).
Observation ({\em{i}}) means that, as in the $XY$ case, the system
remains critical for
$\beta \ge \beta_c$ and ({\em{ii}}) is evidence that
$\lambda$ is in fact -15/8 and the question of whether or not the step
model belongs to the same universality class as the $XY$ model must now
be answered by determination of the correction exponent $r$.
We therefore {\em assume} the behaviour (\ref{eqn:edgefss}) with
$\lambda = -15/8$ at $\beta=\beta_c$. The expected
leading behaviour is removed and linear fits to
\begin{equation}
\ln \left( z_1 L^{15/8}\right) \quad\hbox{vs.}\quad\ln\ln L
\end{equation}
performed. The results are shown in Fig.~3. Since the value $\lambda=-15/8$
($\eta=1/4$) is only expected at $\beta_c$ these results can be used to
identify the possible values of critical temperature and to test for the
presence of logarithmic corrections as in the $XY$--model \cite{KeIr95}.
Applying the same criterion (\ref{eqn:chisq}) as for the leading behaviour,
we search for a range of $\beta_c$ values giving an acceptable fit. We find
\begin{equation}
1.195\leq\beta_c\leq 1.295\quad\hbox{and correspondingly,}\quad
0.009\geq r \geq -0.034\, .
\end{equation}
The range of acceptable $r$ values includes that found \cite{KeIr95} for
the $XY$--model ($-0.023 \pm 0.010$) and that corresponding to no
logarithmic corrections ($r=0$). As in our previous work \cite{KeIr95},
this range excludes the prediction $r = -1/16$ coming from an
approximate renormalisation group treatment of the $XY$--model \cite{KT}.
Thus we conclude that the present data are compatible with the step model
being in the same universality class as the $XY$--model. We do not, however,
exclude other possibilities.
The susceptibility data are consistent with the above analysis. If one
assumes the KT value of $\eta(\beta_c)=1/4$, one can construct a
so-called Roomany--Wyld beta function approximant \cite{RW} from the
finite--size data and use
its zero to locate $\beta_c$ \cite{KeIr95}. These approximants, based on
pairs of lattice size $L, L'$, converge
very rapidly \cite{RW}. We estimate $\beta_c=1.22 \pm 0.02$.
This last analysis
of course neglects possible logarithmic corrections to scaling.
We have also studied the specific heat. As for the $XY$--model, the step
model data show a broad peak with no obvious relationship to the
position of the leading critical point. The finite--size dependence is
not dramatic and is likely to be of little value in further elucidating the
criticial behaviour. A related question is to what extent one can make
use of the Fisher zeroes \cite{KeLa93,Fi72},
i.e. zeroes of the partition function in the
complex $\beta$ plane at zero external magnetic field $h$. For both this
and the $XY$--model, these are much harder to locate than the Lee--Yang
zeroes and are consequently less accurately determined.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:conc}
The use of finite--size scaling applied to Lee--Yang zeroes has allowed
us to present detailed evidence of critical behaviour in the
two-dimensional step (sgn $O(2)$ spin) model.
The data are consistent with this model being in the same universality
class as the $XY$-- ( $O(2)$ spin) model. That is, it undergoes a
Kosterlitz--Thouless type transition with susceptibility index
$\eta({\beta_c})=1/4$ and we determine that $\beta_c$ lies in the range
$1.195 \leq \beta_c \leq 1.295$.
With the available statistics, we found the logarithmic correction exponent
to lie in the range $ -0.034 \leq r \leq 0.009$.
This should be compared with our measurement for the $XY$ correction exponent
\cite{KeIr95}, $-0.033 \leq r \leq -0.013$ with which it is compatable.
The step model results are however also compatable with no logarithmic corrections
($r=0$ corresponds to $\beta_c = 1.21$ and $\chi^2/{\rm{dof}}= 0.92$).
The Mermin--Wagner theorem \cite{MeWa66} does not apply directly
to the step model because of the discontinuous nature of the interaction
hamiltonian.
However, it has long been believed \cite{GuJo73,SVWi88} that if
a phase transition does exist, it will not involve a phase with long range
order. The evidence presented here supports this view.
This raises a question as to the nature of the
mechanism driving the phase transition
in the step model.
The KT phase transition of the
$XY$--model is understood to be driven by the binding/unbinding of topological
solutions (vortices).
However, the energetics of vortex formation are
very different in the step model \cite{GuNy78,LeSh88,SVWi88}.
Since vortices with effectively zero excitation energy
can be created at all non-zero temperatures,
the usual KT argument does not naturally lead one to expect
such a phase transition in the step model.
If this is indeed the case, some other driving mechanism must be
responsible for any phase transition. It would then be remarkable
if --- as the evidence presented here indicates -- both models
belong to the one universality class.
|
\section{Introduction}
Black holes seem to be a never-ending source of surprises.
While much has been learned about their behavior, much remains to
be understood -- even at the classical level. In this paper we study
the classical supersymmetric solutions in a general theory with
N = 2 supersymmetry. Previous work on this subject can be found in
\cite{GH,T}. The solutions appear to have a richer structure
than the more thoroughly studied N = 4 case. In section 2 we recall some
aspects of N = 2 supergravity. In section 3 the magnetic solutions are
described in terms of trajectories in the special geometry of the N = 2
moduli space which terminate at a supersymmetric fixed point at the
horizon. In section 4 we find that the equations can be
integrated for a restricted but large class of cases. An intriguing
relation between the K\"{a}hler potential on the moduli space and the metric
conformal factor emerges. Some simple examples are worked out in detail in
section 5. We do not attain a complete characterization of the
classical geometry of N = 2 black holes in this paper, but we hope
that our results prove useful for future efforts in this direction.
\section{Special Geometry and N = 2 Supersymmetry}
We study N = 2 supergravity coupled to $n$ \ N = 2 vector multiplets in the
framework
of special geometry \cite{CREM}--\cite{CAFP}. In this section
some formulae that will be needed in the following are recalled.
Further details can be found in \cite{WLP} whose notation we adopt.
The supergravity theory is defined in terms of a projective covariantly
holomorphic section $(X^\Lambda(\phi^i), -{i\over 2}F_\Lambda(\phi^i))$,
$\Lambda = 0, 1, ..., n, ~~i=1,...,n$, of an ~$Sp(2n+2)$ vector bundle over the
moduli space parametrized by $\phi^i$. (We note that alternate conventions
are often employed in which the definition of $F_\Lambda$ differs by a factor
of $2i$.)
In some cases the theory can be described in terms of a covariantly
holomorphic function
$F(X)$
of degree two:
\begin{equation}\label{2}
F_\Lambda(\phi^i) = F_\Lambda(X(\phi^i)) = {\partial\over
\partial X^\Lambda} F(X) \ .
\end{equation}
Given a prepotential $F(X)$, or a covariantly holomorphic section
$(X^\Lambda,\, -{i \over 2} F_\Lambda)$, one can construct the entire scalar
and vector parts of the action.
It is convenient to introduce the
inhomogeneous coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{10}
Z^\Lambda = {X^\Lambda(\phi_i)\over X^0(\phi_i)} \ , ~~~~~~
Z^0 = 1 \ .
\end{equation}
We assume $Z^\Lambda(\phi_i)$ to be invertible, so that, in special
coordinates, ${\partial Z^\Lambda\over
\partial
\phi^i} =\delta^\Lambda_i$. ~In this case the complex scalars $Z^i = \phi^i$
{}~($
i =
1,...,n$) represent the lowest component of the $n$ vector multiplets of N = 2
supersymmetry. The K\"{a}hler potential determining the metric of these fields
is
\begin{eqnarray}\label{22}
&&K(Z,\bar Z)=2\ln |X^0| = -\ln \left (N_{\Lambda\Sigma}(Z,\bar Z)\,
Z^\Lambda\bar Z^\Sigma\right )\nonumber \\
&&= - \ln {1\over 2} [f(Z) + \bar f(\bar Z) + {1\over 2} (Z^i - \bar Z^i) (\bar
f_i - f_i)]
\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_{\Lambda\Sigma} = {1\over 4}(F_{\Lambda\Sigma} + \bar
F_{\Lambda\Sigma})$ and $f(Z) = (X^0)^{-2} F(X)$.
In the conformal gauge \cite{WLP}
\begin{equation}\label{conf}
N_{\Lambda\Sigma} X^\Lambda \bar X^{\Sigma}=1 \ .
\end{equation}
The graviphoton field strength, as well as the field strengths of the $n$
Abelian vector
multiplets, are constructed out of $n+1$ field strengths $\hat
F^\Lambda_{\mu\nu}
= \partial_\mu W^\Lambda_\nu - \partial_\nu W^\Lambda_\mu$. The graviphoton
field strength is
\begin{equation}\label{23}
T_{\mu\nu}^{+} = {4 N_{\Lambda\Sigma} X^\Lambda\over N_{IJ} X^I X^J} \ \hat
F_{\mu\nu}^{+\Sigma} \ ,
\end{equation}
where the superscript + (-) denotes the (anti)-self-dual part. This
defines the central charge of the theory, since it enters into
gravitino
transformation rules. The vector field strengths which enter the gaugino
supersymmetry
transformations
are
\begin{equation}\label{24}
{\cal F}_{\mu\nu}^{+\Lambda} = {\hat F}_{\mu\nu}^{+\Lambda}
-{1\over 4} X^\Lambda\, T_{\mu\nu }^{+} \ .
\end{equation}
The anti-self-dual vector field strengths ${\hat
F}^{-\Lambda}$ are part of the symplectic vector
\begin{equation}\label{11}
\pmatrix{
{\hat F}^{-\Lambda} \cr -2i
\bar { \cal N}_{\Lambda\Sigma}\,{\hat F}^{-\Sigma} \equiv
i G^-_{\Lambda}
\cr } ,
\end{equation}
where again the expression for the matrix
${\cal N}_{\Lambda\Sigma}$ is
derived from the prepotential $F(X)$ \cite{WLP}--\cite{CAFP}. The vector part
of the
action is then
proportional to
\begin{equation}\label{12}
\mbox{ Re}\ {\hat F}^{-\Lambda} G^-_\Lambda \ ,
\end{equation}
and the graviphoton field strength can be written in the manifestly symplectic
form
\begin{equation}\label{tst}
T_{\mu\nu}^- = 2X^\Lambda G^-_{\Lambda\mu\nu}+ F_{\Lambda}
{\hat F}_{\mu\nu}^{-\Lambda} \ .
\end{equation}
The Lagrangian for the scalar components of the vector multiplets is
defined by
the K\"{a}hler potential as
\begin{equation}\label{13}
g_{i\bar j}\,\partial_\mu\phi^i\, \partial_\nu\bar\phi^{\bar j}\, g^{\mu\nu} \
,
\end{equation}
where $g^{\mu\nu}$ is the space-time metric, and
\begin{equation}\label{14}
g_{i\bar j}= \partial_i \partial_{\bar j} K(\phi, \bar\phi) \ .
\end{equation}
The gravitino supersymmetry transformation law, to leading order in fermi
fields, is
\begin{equation}\label{grt}\delta \psi^\alpha _\mu=2\nabla_\mu\epsilon^\alpha
-{1 \over 16}\gamma^{\nu\lambda}T^-_{\nu\lambda}\gamma_\mu
\epsilon^{\alpha \beta}
\epsilon_\beta+iA_\mu\epsilon^\alpha \ ,
\end{equation}
where $ \alpha, \beta=1,2$ are $SU(2)$ indices and $A_\mu= {i \over 2}
N_{\Lambda\Sigma} [\bar X^\Lambda \partial_\mu X^\Sigma
- (\partial_\mu \bar X^\Lambda) X^\Sigma]$.
The gaugino transformation law is
\begin{equation}\label{ggt}\delta \Omega^\Lambda_\alpha
=2\gamma^\mu\nabla_\mu X^\Lambda
\epsilon_\alpha
+{1 \over 2}\gamma^{\nu\lambda}
{\cal F}^{+\Lambda}_{\nu\lambda} \epsilon_{\alpha \beta}
\epsilon^\beta+2i\gamma^\mu A_\mu\epsilon_\alpha \ .
\end{equation}
BPS states of the N = 2 theory have a mass equal to the central charge $z$.
It follows from the supersymmetry transformation rules that this is simply
the graviphoton charge
\cite{CAFP}
\begin{equation}\label{15}
M = |z| =
|q^{(e)}_\Lambda X^\Lambda - {i \over 2} q_{(m)}^\Lambda F_\Lambda|=
e^{K/2} |q^{(e)}_0 + q^{(e)}_i Z^i + {i \over 2} (q_{(m)}^0 Z^i -
q_{(m)}^i)f_i - iq^0_{(m)} f|
\ ,
\end{equation}
where $q^{(e)}$ and $q_{(m)}$ are electric and magnetic charges
associated to $i\cal G$ and $\hat F$ and comprise a symplectic vector.
Duality transformations of the N = 2 theory correspond to
different choices of the symplectic representative
$(X^\Lambda,-{i \over 2}F_\Lambda)$ of
the symplectic geometry.
\section{ Magnetic N = 2 BPS Black Holes}
In this section we discuss the general form of the supersymmetric magnetic
black hole solutions and their interpretation as interpolating solitons.
It has been shown by Tod \cite{T} in general that, for N = 2 theories,
a static metric admitting supersymmetries can be put in the form
\begin{equation}\label{17}
ds^2 = -e^{2U} dt^2 + e^{-2U} d\vec x^2 \ .
\end{equation}
For spherically symmetric black hole solutions $U$ will be a function
only of the radial coordinate $r$. By solving the Bianchi
identities $d \hat F^\Lambda = 0$ we then find for the
radial component of the magnetic\footnote{ It follows from equation (7) that
for a
generic prepotential $F$ the electric
charge will be nonzero despite the fact that $\hat
F$ is a magnetic field strength.
In general this electric charge will not respect the charge
quantization condition.
This can be avoided by restricting the prepotential as in the examples in
section 5.
} field strengths $ \hat F^\Lambda_r
\equiv 2{\epsilon_r}^{\theta \phi} \hat F^\Lambda_{\theta \phi}$ :
\begin{equation}\label{26}
\hat F^\Lambda_r = {q^\Lambda\over r^2} \, e^{U(r)} \ .
\end{equation}
Inserting (\ref{17}) and (\ref{26}) into the gravitino transformation law,
and demanding that the variation vanish for some choice of $\epsilon$,
we derive the following first order
differential equation:
\begin{equation}\label{27}
4 U'= -\sqrt{(\bar ZNq) (ZNq) (\bar Z N Z)\over (ZNZ)
(\bar Z N \bar Z)}~e^{U}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $U' \equiv {\partial U\over \partial \rho}$, $\rho\equiv 1/r$,
and we employ the notation $(ZNq)\equiv Z^\Lambda N_{\Lambda\Sigma}\,q^\Sigma$.
Equation (\ref{27})
may be viewed as determining
$U$ as a function of the moduli fields $Z^\Lambda$.
A vanishing \ gaugino
transformation further requires that the moduli fields obey
\begin{equation}\label{28}
(Z^\Lambda)' = -{e^{U}\over 4}\, \sqrt{(ZNZ) (\bar Z Nq) (\bar Z NZ)
\over (\bar Z N \bar Z) (ZNq)}~
\Bigl(
Z^\Lambda q^0 - q^\Lambda\Bigr) \ .
\end{equation}
Differentiating again with respect to $\rho$ and substituting (\ref{27})
leads to the second order differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{28g}
(Z^\Lambda)''-\left(
{ (ZNq) \over
(ZNZ) }+q^0 \right)
{((Z^\Lambda )')^2 \over Z^\Lambda q^0 - q^\Lambda}
+{1 \over 2} \left(\ln {(ZNZ) (\bar Z Nq) (\bar Z NZ)
\over (\bar Z N \bar Z) (ZNq)}
\right)' (Z^\Lambda )'=0\ .
\end{equation}
This equation is independent of $U$ and
can be viewed as a generalized geodesic equation which describes how $Z$
evolves as one moves into the core of the black hole. Initial conditions
for $Z$ are specified at infinity ($\rho=0$) corresponding to the
asymptotic values
of the field. The first derivative of $Z$ is then fixed in terms of the
charge of the black hole by the supersymmetry constraint (\ref{28}). $Z$
will then evolve until it runs into a fixed point. It is evident from
(\ref{28}) and (\ref{28g}) that these fixed points are at
\begin{equation}\label{zf}
Z^\Lambda_{fixed}={q^\Lambda \over q^0} \ ,
\end{equation}
where $(Z^\Lambda)'=0$. Each fixed point is typically
surrounded by a
finite basin of attraction. The limiting form of the metric at
such a fixed point is found by integrating (\ref{27}),
\begin{equation}\label{uc}
e^{-U}={c \over 4}\, \rho \ ,
\end{equation}
where the constant $c$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{cv}
c ={\sqrt{ q^\Lambda N_{\Lambda\Sigma}\,q^\Sigma }}
=q^0\, e^{-K(Z^\Lambda_{fixed} )/2}\ .
\end{equation}
This corresponds to the maximally symmetric charged Robinson-Bertotti universe.
Thus, as in \cite{GT}, the extremal black holes may be viewed as
solitons which interpolate between maximally symmetric vacua at infinity and
the horizon.
The locations of the fixed points (\ref{zf}) depend on the charges
but not on the asymptotic values of the moduli fields. Thus if the
the asymptotic values of those fields are adiabatically changed, the
geometry of the black hole near the horizon remains fixed.
Symplectic invariance implies a similar structure for many of the dyonic and
electrically charged extremal black holes.
\section{Space-Time Geometry from K\"{a}hler Geometry}
In this section we consider a remarkably simple special class of solutions
which exist for a generic prepotential. We will work in a symplectic basis in
which $q^0=0$
in order to simplify the equations.
In such a basis the fixed points $Z^\Lambda_{fixed}$
move to infinite coordinate values. Thus solutions for which the moduli field
is constant at the fixed point (which corresponds to the Reissner-Nordstr\"om
solution) cannot be described in this basis\footnote{However, by using the
manifestly symplectic constraint \cite{CAFP} instead of the superconformal one
\cite{WLP}, one can describe the Reissner-Nordstr\"om configuration in terms
of the K\"{a}hler potential, see example 5.4.2}.
In the $q^0=0$ basis it is straightforward to check that (\ref{27}) and
(\ref{28}) are solved by
\begin{equation}\label{31}
e^{2U(\rho)}=
e^{K(Z,\bar Z)- K_\infty} \ ,
\end{equation}
and \begin{equation}\label{harmreal}
Z^i = Z^i_{\infty} + {q^i \over 4} \rho \, e^{-K_\infty/2} \ ,
\end{equation}
provided that the asymptotic value of $Z^i$ is restricted to obey
\begin{equation}\label{hrm}
Z^i_{\infty} = \bar Z^i_{\infty} \ .
\end{equation}
Alternatively we may have
\begin{equation}\label{harmimagin}
Z^i = Z^i_{\infty} + i {q^i \over 4} \rho \, e^{-K_\infty/2} \ ,
\end{equation}
provided that the asymptotic value of $Z^i$ is restricted to obey
\begin{equation}\label{hrm2}
Z^i_{\infty} = - \bar Z^i_{\infty} \ .
\end{equation}
The restrictions imply that these solutions exist only at special points
in the moduli space where all $Z^i$ are either real or imaginary. More general
solutions
may be obtained from these by symplectic transformations.
Thus the space-time metric is
\begin{equation}\label{34}
ds^2 = e^{K(Z^i,\bar Z^i=Z^i) - K_\infty}\, dt^2 -
e^{-K(Z^i,\bar Z^i=Z^i) + K_\infty}\,
d\vec x^2 \ ,
\end{equation}
where each $Z^i$ solves a three-dimensional harmonic equation and is given in
eq. (\ref{harmreal}) or (\ref{harmimagin}).
Hence the logarithm of the spatial conformal factor is identified with the
moduli space K\"{a}hler potential.
\section{Examples of\, ${\bf N \geq 2}$\, BPS states}
\subsection{ Calabi-Yau magnetic black holes}
The prepotential is
\begin{equation}\label{44}
F = i d_{ABC}\, {X^A X^B X^C \over X^0} \ .
\end{equation}
We consider pure imaginary $Z^A$ and real $d_{ABC}$ (corresponding to the
classical Calabi-Yau moduli space)
\begin{equation}
\qquad e^{- K(Z,\bar Z)} = - 2 d_{ABC} \, {\rm Im} Z^A \, {\rm Im} Z^B \,
{\rm Im} Z^C,
\end{equation}
where ${\rm Im} Z^A = {1\over 2i} (Z^A - \bar Z^A)={\rm Im} (Z^A)_\infty + ~
{q^A_{(m)}\over
r}\, e^{-K_\infty/2}$.
\begin{equation}\label{45}
ds^2 = \left( { \, d_{ABC} \, {\rm Im} Z^A \, {\rm Im} Z^B \, {\rm Im} Z^C
\over \, [d_{ABC} \, {\rm Im} Z^A \, {\rm Im} Z^B \, {\rm Im} Z^C]_\infty
}\right )^{-1}\, dt^2 -
\left( { \, d_{ABC} \, {\rm Im} Z^A \, {\rm Im} Z^B \, {\rm Im} Z^C \over
\, [d_{ABC} \, {\rm Im} Z^A \, {\rm Im} Z^B \, {\rm Im} Z^C]_\infty }\right
)\,
d\vec x^2 \ .
\end{equation}
\subsection{Massive and massless ${\bf SU(1,n) \over SU(n)} $ supersymmetric
white holes}
The prepotential is
\begin{equation}\label{36}
F(X^0,X^1) = (X^0)^2- (X^i)^2 \ , \qquad e^{- K(Z,\bar Z)} = 1-|Z^i|^2 \ .
\end{equation}
Here the $Z^i$ are real:
\begin{equation}\label{38}
Z^i = Z_\infty^i + {q^i \over r}\, e^{-K_\infty/2} \ ,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{39}
ds^2 = \left({1-|Z|^2\over 1-|Z_\infty|^2}\right)^{-1}\, dt^2 -
\left({1-|Z|^2\over 1-|Z_\infty|^2}\right)\,
d\vec x^2 \ .
\end{equation}
In particular in the simplest case of $i=1$ we get
\begin{equation}\label{40}
g_{tt} = g_{rr}^{-1} = \left(1- {2 Z_\infty\, q\over r}\,e^{K_\infty/2} -
{q^2\over
r^2}\right)^{-1} .
\end{equation}
To satisfy the supersymmetry bound we require
\begin{equation}\label{41}
M =- {Z_\infty \, q\over\sqrt{1-|Z_\infty|^2}} \geq 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
and the geometry is
\begin{equation}\label{42}
g_{tt} = g_{ii}^{-1} = \left(1+{2 M\over r} - {q^2\over
r^2}\right)^{-1}.
\end{equation}
These configurations are non-trivial in the limit when the ADM mass tends to
zero.
It will be interesting to understand if or when such states can arise in a
physical
theory.
The limit $M \to 0$ can be achieved via $Z_\infty \to 0$. In this limit the
scalar field
becomes inversely proportional to the radius $r$,
\begin{equation}\label{43}
Z(r) = {q\over r} \ .
\end{equation}
For N = 4 BPS states the analogous massless states have been
studied recently \cite{Klaus2}--\cite{CYHETS}. The configuration exhibits a
repulsive (i.e. antigravitating) singularity and was referred to as a
supersymmetric white hole \cite{KL}.
The difference between the metric (\ref{42}) for N= 2 and the corresponding
metric obtained in \cite{Klaus2}--\cite{KL}\, for N = 4 is that $g^{N =
4}_{tt} =
(g^{N = 2}_{tt})^{1/2}$.
This does not change the repulsive nature of the singularity.
\subsection{$\bf { SO (2,1)\over SO(2) } \times {SO(2,n) \over SO(2) \times
SO(n)}$\, BPS states}
Here again we consider pure imaginary $Z$.
\begin{equation}\label{48}
F = -i\, {X^s \over X^0}\, \Bigl((X^1)^2 - \sum^n_{a = 2}(X^a)^2 \Bigr) \ ,
\qquad
e^{- K(Z,\bar Z)} = 2 {\rm Im} Z^s\, \Bigl(( {\rm Im} Z^1)^2 - \sum^n_{a= 2}(
{\rm Im} Z^a)^2 \Bigr)\ .
\end{equation}
The metric of the BPS configuration defined by the K\"{a}hler potential is
given by
\begin{equation}\label{49}
g_{tt} = g^{-1}_{ i i} = \left[{ {\rm Im} Z^s \Bigl(({\rm Im} Z^1)^2 -
({\rm Im} Z^a)^2\Bigr)\over
\left[ {\rm Im} Z_s \Bigl(({\rm Im} Z^1)^2 - ({\rm Im}
Z^a)^2\Bigr)\right]_{\infty} }\right]^{-1}.
\end{equation}
The configurations presented in this example may contain both types of
supersymmetric states, those with attractive singularities and those with the
repulsive ones, depending on the choice of the parameters describing the
harmonic functions
\begin{equation}\label{46a}
Z^i = Z^i_\infty + ~ i {q^i_{(m)}\over
r}\,e^{-K_\infty/2}\ ,~~~~~ i = \{ s, 1, a=2, \dots , n \} .
\end{equation}
Note that this example actually provides one of the particular choices of
Calabi-Yau magnetic black holes.
\subsection{$\mbox{N=4, 2}$ pure supergravity black holes from K\"{a}hler
geometry perspective}
Here we will analyse some previously known\, supersymmetric black hole
solutions in the framework of the manifestly symplectic formalism \cite{CAFP}.
The K\"{a}hler potential is different from the conformal gauge (\ref{conf})
(here $X_\Lambda, \, F_\Lambda $ are holomorphic
sections) and is
given by
\begin{equation}\label{a7}
e^{- K(X, \bar X) } = \bar X^\Lambda N_{\Lambda \Sigma} X^\Sigma \ .
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{$\mbox {SL(2,Z)}$ axion-dilaton dyons}
It is instructive to analyse the known
$SL(2,Z)$-invariant axion-dilaton dyonic
black hole solution \cite{KO} of N = 4 supergravity as a particular solution
of N = 2
supergravity coupled to an N = 2 vector multiplet.
These solutions have complex moduli. The prepotential for this
theory is $F(X) = 2 X^0 X^1$.
The holomorphic section includes
\begin{equation}\label{a4}
\left (\matrix{
X^\Lambda\cr
-{i\over 2} F_\Lambda \cr
}\right ) \Longrightarrow \left (\matrix{
X^0\cr
-iX^1\cr
}\right ), ~~ \left (\matrix{
X^1\cr
-iX^0
\cr
}\right ).
\end{equation}
For the axion-dilaton black hole $X^0$ and $X^1$ can be identified with two
complex harmonic functions ${\cal H}_1$, ${\cal H}_2$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{a6}
X^1 = {\cal H}_1(\vec x) \ , ~~~~~ X^0 = i {\cal H}_2(\vec x) \ .
\end{equation}
The K\"{a}hler potential is
\begin{equation}\label{a7a}
e^{- K(X, \bar X) } = i \,(\bar {\cal H}_1 {\cal H}_2 -\bar {\cal H}_2
{\cal H}_1) = g_{tt}^{-1}(\vec x) \ ,
\end{equation}
in agreement with the metric of the axion-dilaton black hole found
in \cite{KO}.
\subsubsection{Reissner-Nordstr\"om solution}
The prepotential for pure $N=2$ supergravity is $F(X) = ( X^0 )^2$.
The K\"{a}hler potential of this theory in the manifestly symplectic formalism
\cite{CAFP} is given by
\begin{equation}\label{a7aa}
e^{- K(X, \bar X) } = X^0 \bar X^0 = V^{-1} (\vec x ) \bar V^{-1} (\vec x )
=e^{-2U (\vec x)}\ ,
\end{equation}
where $X^0=V^{-1} (\vec x )$ is a real (imaginary) harmonic function for
electric (magnetic) Reissner-Nordstr\"om extremal supersymmetric black hole
\cite{GH,T}.
\vskip .5 cm
In conclusion, we have found a simple relation between the special geometry
describing the couplings of scalars and vectors in extended
locally supersymmetric theories and the space-time geometry of the
black-hole-type solutions in these theories. It is likely that more general
solutions with complex moduli
will be found in this framework.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are grateful to the Aspen Center for Physics where this work was
initiated. S.F. was supported by DOE
grants DE-AC0381-ER50050 and DOE-AT03-88ER40384,Task E, and by EEC
Science Program SC1*CI92-0789.\, R.K. was supported
by NSF grant PHY-8612280.\, A.S. was supported by DOE grant DOE-91ER40618.
|
\section{Introduction}
\hspace{0.8cm} Particles in the expanding Robertson-Walker
Universe are decelerated in the comoving frame.
Ignoring backreaction, they obey the geodesic equation and lose
their physical momentum $P_{phys}$ as
\begin{equation}
P_{phys} = \frac{P_{conf}}{a} \rightarrow 0,
\end{equation}
where $P_{conf}$ is a conserved conformal momentum and $a$ is
a scale factor growing in time. In general
particles in deceleration can
emanate radiation, or some massless particles.
We call this process geometric bremsstrahlung\footnote{ This process
is also called by DeWitt and Brehme
electro-gravitic bremsstrahlung in ref \cite{DB}.} due to
the cosmic expansion.
Many analyses on phenomena in
the early Universe have been performed so far
using results of high energy particle physics and proposed
a lot of interesting features of the Universe\cite{KT}.
However they are based on calculations of transition matrices
in the flat spacetime, emphasizing the fact that rates
of interactions are much larger than expansion rate given by
Hubble parameter,
and no careful attention seems to be paid to the geometric bremsstrahlung
process, which actually gives no contribution in the flat spacetime.
We shall argue
in this paper that geometric bremsstrahlung may play
impotant roles in the early Universe. In the section 2, emission of
electromagnetic wave
from a classical charged particle in the expanding Universe
is discussed, taking account of backreaction.
Our argument in the classical level suggests that the
emission rate may not be simply ignored and the damping time
may nearly equal to expansion time.
Thus in the section 3, we treat photon emission from charged a particle
quantum mechanically.
High momentum limit of the transition probability can be
obtained analytically. We stress that massless limit
should be treated carefully and is nontrivial.
In this paper, we adopt the natural units, the light velocity $c=1$ and
the Planck constant $\hbar =1$. Signature of metric is taken as $(+,-,-,-)$.
\section{Classical Geometric Bremsstrahlung in the Early Universe}
\hspace{0.8cm}The radiation reaction has
been neglected in the study of the early
Universe. However particles are deaccelerated due to the cosmic
expansion and thus they will emit the radiation. If the damping time
due to the radiation reaction is comparable to the expansion time,
the effect of the radiation reaction may not be simply neglected.
We shall study in detail this phenomenon in the case of
classical charged particles.
The study of the radiation reaction for a charged particle has a long
history. The first relativistic calculation was performed by
Dirac\cite{Dirac}.
His calculation has been generalized by DeWitt-Brehme\cite{DB}
for the motion
in gravitational field. They have shown that bremsstrahung induced by
the spacetime curvature which we call geometric bremsstrahlung
occured in addition to the usual radiation
damping. The effect is nonlocal in general which is caused by the
so-called tail term in the Green function.
It was Hobbs\cite{Hobbs}
who corrected the result of De Witt-Brehme and pointed
out that the tail term vanishes identically in the case of the
conformally flat spacetimes.
His equation of motion for a particle with 4 velocity
$ u^\mu $, mass $m$, charge $e$ without external electromagnetic
field may be written in the following form in conformally flat spacetime.
\begin{eqnarray}
m \frac{D u^\mu}{D\tau}
= \frac{2 e^2}{3}
\left(
\frac{D^2 u^\mu}{D \tau^2}
+ u^\mu
\left(
\frac{D u}{D\tau}
\right)^2
\right)
+\frac{2e^2}{3}
( \Omega_{,\alpha\beta}
- \Omega_{,\alpha} \Omega_{,\beta} )
\left(
g^{\mu\alpha} u^\beta
- u^\mu u^\alpha u^\beta
\right) \label{20}
\end{eqnarray}
where $D/D\tau $ is the absolute derivative along the worldline of the
particle with $ \tau$ the proper time and the $ \exp (2 \Omega ) $ is
the conformal factor, $ g_{\mu\nu} = e^{2\Omega} \eta_{\mu\nu} $
with $ \eta_{\mu\nu} $ the flat Minkowskii metric.
Here we are interested in the
radiation reaction induced by the cosmic expansion in the early
Universe and thus we will restrict ourselves to the case where
the conformal factor depends only on the time variable.
We shall take a different approach from Hobbs and
evaluate explicitly the damping time scale due to the
geometric bremsstrahlung
in the
early Universe.
\bigskip
We shall take the standard form for the action of a charged particle
with mass $m$ and charge $e$ in the gravitational field,
$$ S = - m \int \sqrt{g_{\mu\nu} {\dot{x}}^\mu
{\dot{x}}^\nu } d\tau
- e \int A_\mu \dot{x}^\mu d\tau
- {1\over 4} \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}
g^{\alpha\beta} g^{\mu\nu} F_{\alpha\mu} F_{\beta\nu} .
$$
The dot denotes the derivative with respect to the proper time $\tau$.
The equation of motion derived from the above action may be written as
follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
m {{D u^\mu}\over {D\tau}}
= m \left( {{du^\mu}\over {d\tau}}
+ \Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}u^\alpha u^\beta \right)
= e F^{\mu\nu} u_\nu.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Since we are interested in the early Universe, we may neglect the
spatial curvature and thus take the spatially flat Robertson-Walker
model as our background geometry,
$$ ds^2 = a^2 (\eta) ( d\eta^2 - d{\vec{x}}^{\ 2} )
=dt^2 -a^2 d{\vec{x}}^{\ 2} .
$$
Since the metric is conformally flat, it is convenient to work
in the conformally related flat spacetime.
Defining the conformally related proper time $ d\tau_f = a^{-1}
d\tau $, we shall define the conformally related 4 velocity
$$ {\tilde u}^\mu = {{dx^\mu}\over {d\tau_f}} . $$
Then the equation of motion may be written as follows.
$$ m {{D u^\mu}\over {D\tau}}
= m a^{-2} \left( {{d{\tilde u}^\mu}\over {d\tau_f}}
+ {{a'}\over a} {{d\eta}\over {d\tau_f}} {\tilde u}^\mu
- {{a'}\over a} \delta^\mu_0 \right)
= e a^{-3} \eta^{\mu\alpha} F_{\alpha\beta} {\tilde u}^\beta .
$$
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to the conformal
time $\eta $. By using the self field of the particle in the right
hand side of the above equation, we shall obtain the radiation
reaction force.
Before calculating the reaction force explicitely, let us compare
the timescale due to the radiation damping with that due to
the cosmic expansion
to see the importance of the radiation reaction in the early
Universe. The damping time may be roughly evaluated as follows.
$$ {1\over {t_{r}}} \sim
\left| {1\over E_{conf}} {{dE_{conf}}\over {ad\eta}} \right|
= {1\over p_{conf}} \, {2\over 3 a} e^2
\left({{d{\tilde{u}} }\over {d\eta}}\right)^2
=\frac{2e^2}{3p_{conf} a}
\left(\frac{p_{conf} }{m a^2} \frac{da}{d\eta} \right)^2
= {2\over 3} e^2 \, {{p_{phys} H^2}\over {m^2}}
$$
where
$$
H= \frac{1}{a}\frac{da}{dt}
$$
is the Hubble parameter, $p_{conf}$ is the conformal momentum
and
we have used the
fact that the physical momentum $ p_{phys}= m{\tilde{u}}=p_{conf}/a $
decays as $ a^{-1}$ if the
radiation reaction is neglected.
Thus the ratio between the Hubble time $ t_{exp} = H^{-1} $ and
the damping time is
$$ {{t_{exp}}\over {t_{r}}}
\sim {{2e^2}\over {3m^2}} p_{phys} H .
$$
This ratio is much larger than the unity for a relativistic
particle at sufficiently early times in the Universe.
Thus the radiation reaction may not be simply ignored and might play
an important role in the early Universe.
\bigskip
For the calculation of the reaction force, we shall need
the field equation derived from the above action,
$$ \eta^{\mu\nu} \eta^{\alpha\beta} F_{\alpha\nu,\beta}
= e \int d \tau_f \delta^4 ( x - x( \tau_f)) {\tilde u}^\mu .
$$
Taking the following non-covariant gauge
$$ \eta^{\mu\nu} A_{\mu,\nu} = 0, $$
we arrive at the field equation which has the same form with that in
the flat spacetime,
$$ \eta^{\alpha\beta} A^\mu_{,\alpha\beta}
= e \int d \tau_f {\tilde u}^\mu \delta^4 ( x - x(\tau_f)) .
$$
Then the calculation by Dirac \cite{Dirac} applies here and we obtain
the standard expression for the
reaction force in the flat spacetime,
$$ F^{\mu}_{react} =e\ \eta^{\mu\alpha} F_{\alpha\beta} {\tilde u}^\beta
= {2\over 3} e^2
\left[ {{d^2 {\tilde u}^\mu}\over {d\tau_f}^2}
+ \left( {{d{\tilde u}}\over {d\tau_f}}\right)^2
{\tilde u}^\mu \right] .
$$
It can be shown by a direct calculation that our expression of the
equation of motion with radiation reaction in the conformally related
flat spacetime coincides with eqn(\ref{20})
when transformed back to the original physical frame.
\bigskip
In order to see the effect of the radiation reaction explicitly,
we shall forcus our attention to an 1-dimensional motion. Then the
above equation is simplified as
$$ {d\over {d\tau_f}} ( a m {\tilde u} )
= {2\over 3} e^2 \left[ {{d^2{\tilde u}}\over {d\tau_f}^2}
- {{\tilde u}\over { 1 + {\tilde u}^2}}
\left({{d{\tilde u}}\over {d\tau_f}}\right)^2 \right] .
$$
Without the radiation reaction, the conformal momentum
$ p_{conf} = am{\tilde{u}} $ is conserved as expected.
Now we shall rewrite the above equation using the conformal
momentum $p_{conf}$ and the background time $ dt = a d\eta $,
\begin{eqnarray}
{{d^2 p_{conf}}\over {dt^2}}
= \left( H + {{3m}\over {2e^2 \sqrt{ 1 + (p_{phys}/m)^2}}} \right)
{{d p_{conf}}\over {dt}} + {{dH}\over {dt}} p_{conf} .
\label{21}
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that there will be no classical geomotric bremsstrahlung in the case
of de Sitter expansion, namely $H= const$.
We shall be interested in the relativistic case in the early
universe, namely
$$ p_{phys} \gg {{3m^2}\over {2e^2 H}}, \; \; \; m . $$
Then the second term in the coefficient of $ dp_{conf}/dt $
in eqn(\ref{21})
is negligible.
Thus when the particle is relativistic, its evolution is governed
by the reaction force only and the Hubble time will be the only
available time scale in this situation.
In fact, the solution in this case may be written as follows.
$$ p_{conf} (t) = p_0 \left( 1 - H(t_0) \int^t_{t_0} d t'
\exp \left( - \int^{t'}_{t_0} H(x) dx \right) \right)
\exp \left( \int^t_{t_0} H(t') dt' \right)
$$
where we have taken the following initial conditions;
$$ p_{conf} (t=t_0) = p_0, \; \; \; {{dp_{conf}}\over {dt}}(t=t_0) = 0 $$
The second condition expresses the fact that the reaction force is
absent at the initial time. The solution shows that the momentum decays
in the Hubble time. Thus this process should not be simply neglected.
However the
above conclusion is obtained as a classical effect and it is not clear
if the geometric bremsstrahlung is still effective when the quantum effect
is taken into account. We shall discuss quantum geometrobremsstrahlung
in the next section.
\section{Quantum Geometric Bremsstrahlung}
\hspace{0.8cm} As argued in the section 2,
geometric bremsstrahlung may work efficiently classical mechanically
in the early Universe. Whether
this notable process survives or not after
taking quantum effects into account is rather nontrivial and this question
will be addressed next.
To define well-behaved quantum amplitudes in the expanding Universe,
we consider spacetimes with Minkowskian in- and out- regions. The way of
expansion is chosen arbitrary. The scale factor is described as
\begin{equation}
a(\eta) = C(\lambda \eta)\label{1001}
\end{equation}
where $\eta$ is the conformal time, $\lambda^{-1}$ is a constant exhibiting
typical time scale of the expansion.
The function $C(x)$ in eqn(\ref{1001}) is arbitrary except the following
constraints,
\begin{eqnarray}
C(x\sim -\infty ) &=&b ,\label{1011}\\
C(x\sim \infty) &=&1,\label{1012}\\
C(x) &>& 0,\label{1013}
\end{eqnarray}
where $b$ is some positive constant describing ratio of initial scale
factor to final one.
Consider first the photon emission process
in massive scalar QED with conformal coupling to the background
curvature.
The action reads
\begin{eqnarray}
S= \int d^4 x &\sqrt{-g}
&\left(
(\nabla_{\mu} +ieA_{\mu}) \Phi^{\ast}
(\nabla^{\mu} -ieA^{\mu} )\Phi
\right. \nonumber\\
&&\left. +(\frac{1}{6} R-m^2 )\Phi^{\ast} \Phi
- \frac{1}{4} F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}
\right).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The photon emission process is prohibited in the flat spacetime
by energy-momentum conservation. However in the
expanding spacetimes the energy
conservation law gets broken and the transition can take place.
The transition amplitude is given in the lowest order of
pertubation such that
\begin{equation}
Amp = -ie
\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g}
i\left(
\Phi_f^{\ast}\nabla^{\mu} \Phi_i
-\nabla^{\mu} \Phi_f^{\ast} \Phi_i
\right)
A^{\ast}_{\mu} \label{24}
\end{equation}
where $\Phi_i$($\Phi_f$) is initial(final) mode function of
massive charged scalar field and $A^{\ast}_{\mu}$ is final mode
function of electromagnetic field. The scalar mode functions satisfy
\begin{equation}
\left(\nabla^2 +m^2 -\frac{1}{6}R\right) \Phi =0.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Redefining the field $\tilde{\Phi}=\Phi\cdot a(\eta)$, the wave equation
becomes the Klein-Gordon equation with a time-dependent mass,
\begin{equation}
\left(\partial^2 +m^2 a(\eta)^2 \right) \tilde{\Phi} =0.\label{1002}
\end{equation}
Here we introduce $g_{\vec{p}_i}^{in} (\eta)$ and $g_{\vec{p}_f}^{out} (\eta)$
satisfying
a Schr{\"o}dinger-type equation,
\begin{equation}
\left[-\frac{d^2}{d\eta^2} -m^2 a(\eta)^2 \right]g_{\vec{p}}
=\vec{p}^{\ 2} g_{\vec{p}},\label{9}
\end{equation}
with the boundary conditions in the asymptotic in and out regions as
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\vec{p}_i}^{in} (\eta) &\rightarrow &
\frac{
\exp
\left(
-i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} + m^2 b^2}
\right)
}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2 \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2}}
}
\ \ \ (\eta\sim -\infty),\nonumber\\
g_{\vec{p}_f}^{out} (\eta) &\rightarrow &\frac{\exp\left(
-i\eta\sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} +m^2}
\right)
}{
\sqrt{(2\pi)^3 2\sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} +m^2 }}
}
\ \ \ (\eta\sim \infty).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
They also satisfy the following normalization condition.
\begin{equation}
i\left(g^{\ast}_{\vec{p}} {g'}_{\vec{p}}
-{g'}^{\ast}_{\vec{p}} g_{\vec{p}} \right)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^3 },\nonumber
\end{equation}
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $\eta$.
Then the mode functions can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_f^{\ast} &=&\frac{1}{a}\tilde{\Phi}^{\ast}_f
=\frac{1}{a} e^{-i\vec{p}_f \cdot \vec{x} }g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f},\nonumber\\
\Phi_i &=&\frac{1}{a}\tilde{\Phi}_i
=\frac{1}{a} e^{i\vec{p}_i \cdot \vec{x} }g_{\vec{p}_I}^{in}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The electromagnetic final mode function satisfies the Maxwell equation
in curved spacetime,
\begin{equation}
\nabla^{\mu}( \nabla_{\mu} A^{\ast}_{\nu} -\nabla_{\nu} A^{\ast}_{\mu} )
=0.\label{23}
\end{equation}
Notice that in 4-dimensional conformally flat spacetimes
this eqn(\ref{23}) can be reduced into the
same form in the flat spacetime,
\begin{equation}
\partial^{\mu}( \partial_{\mu} A^{\ast}_{\nu}
-\partial_{\nu} A^{\ast}_{\mu} ) =0.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Therefore we get easily the final mode function
\begin{equation}
A^{\ast}_{\mu} = \epsilon^{\ast}_{\mu} (\vec{k})
\frac{\exp\left(
i|\vec{k} |\eta-i \vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}
\right)
}{
\sqrt{(2\pi)^3 2|\vec{k}|}
},\nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon^{\ast}_{\mu}$ is a helicity factor.
Using the rescaled field, the amplitude, eqn(\ref{24}), is rewritten as
\begin{equation}
Amp = -ie
\int d^4 x
i\left(
\tilde{\Phi}_f^{\ast}\partial^{\mu} \tilde{\Phi}_i
-\partial^{\mu} \tilde{\Phi}_f^{\ast} \tilde{\Phi}_i
\right)
A^{\ast}_{\mu}.\nonumber
\end{equation}
Because the photon emission lasts only during the epoch of expansion,
the concept of the probability {\it per unit time} is ambiguious. So
we shall use the transition probability itself.
The transition probability $W$
can be obtained from the amplitude such that
\begin{equation}
W = \sum_{h=L, R} \frac{(2\pi)^3}{V}\int d^3 p_f d^3 k |Amp|^2,\nonumber
\end{equation}
where the summation is performed over the photon helicity and $V$ is
the conformal volume of the space, which is cancelled by the factor
$(2\pi)^3 \delta(\vec{0})$
coming from the conformal momentum conservation in $|Amp|^2$ .
After the helicity summation, the explicit form of $W$ is obtained as
follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
W &=&
(2\pi)^6 e^2 \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3 2|\vec{k}|} \int d^3p_f
\delta(\vec{k}+\vec{p}_f -\vec{p}_i ) \nonumber\\
&&\times\left[ (\vec{p}_f +\vec{p}_i )^2 \left| \int
d\eta \ e^{i|\vec{k}|\eta}
g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f} g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i} \right|^2
-\left| \int d\eta\ e^{i|\vec{k}|\eta} (
g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f} {g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i}}'
-{g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f}}' g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i} )
\right|^2
\right]\ .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
By virtue of the Wronskian relation;
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{d\eta}\left(
g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f} {g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i}}'
-{g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f}}' g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i}
\right)
=
(\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} -\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} ) g^{out\ast}_{\vec{p}_f} g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i},
\nonumber
\end{equation}
the form of $W$ is more simplified such that
\begin{eqnarray}
W= (2\pi)^3 e^2 \int \frac{d^3 k}{ 2|\vec{k}|}
4\left(
\vec{p_i}^2 -\frac{ (\vec{k}\vec{p}_i )^2 }{\vec{k}^2 }
\right)
\left|
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
d\eta \ e^{i|\vec{k}|\eta}
g^{out\ast}_{\ \vec{p}_i -\vec{k}} g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i}
\right|^2 .\label{100}
\end{eqnarray}
To grasp the behavior of $W$ in the $|\vec{p}_i|\rightarrow \infty$ limit,
we first argue a case with scale factor
\begin{equation}
a(\eta) = \Theta (\eta) + b \Theta (-\eta).\label{8}
\end{equation}
Then the exact mode functions are derived as
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{in}_{\vec{p}_i} &=&
\Theta(-\eta)
\frac{
\exp
\left(
-i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} + m^2 b^2}
\right)
}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2 \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2}}
}
\nonumber\\
&&+\Theta(\eta)
\frac{
A(\vec{p}_i)\exp
\left(
-i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} + m^2}
\right)
+B(\vec{p}_i)\exp
\left(
i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} + m^2 }
\right)
}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2 \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2}}
},\label{1}\\
g^{out}_{\vec{p}_f} &=&
\Theta(\eta)
\frac{
\exp
\left(
-i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} + m^2}
\right)
}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2 \sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} +m^2 }}
}
\nonumber\\
&&+\Theta(-\eta)
\frac{
A(\vec{p}_f)\exp
\left(
-i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} + m^2 b^2}
\right)
+B(\vec{p}_f)\exp
\left(
i\eta \sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} + m^2 b^2}
\right)
}{\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2 \sqrt{\vec{p}_f^{\ 2} +m^2 }}
},\nonumber\\
&&\ \label{2}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
A(\vec{p}) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{ \frac{\vec{p}^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2}
{\vec{p}^{\ 2} + m^2} }\right),\nonumber\\
B(\vec{p}) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\sqrt{ \frac{\vec{p}^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2}
{\vec{p}^{\ 2} + m^2} }\right).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting eqn(\ref{1}) and eqn(\ref{2}) into eqn(\ref{100}) and
taking the high momentum limit, $|\vec{p}_i|\rightarrow \infty$, it is
shown that the
terms proportinal to $B$
do not contribute to $W$ because of the damping behavior of $B$.
Notice that taking the high momentum limit, the energy conservation law
almost restores in the following sense.
\begin{equation}
|\vec{p}_i|\sim |\vec{k}|+|\vec{p}_i -\vec{k}|. \label{103}
\end{equation}
This can be read easily from the $\eta$ integration part in eqn
(\ref{100}).
Contribution from the region where eqn(\ref{103}) does not hold is
severely suppressed by the energy conservation factor.
Using the polar
coordinate decomposition
$\vec{p}_i \cdot \vec{k} =|\vec{p}_i |k \cos \theta$ with $k=|\vec{k}|$
and taking
$|\vec{p}_i|$ much larger than $m$,
it is easily derived that
no contribution comes from
the $k$ integral region lying between $|\vec{p}_i|$and $\infty$.
Hence we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&W(|\vec{p}_i|\sim \infty)\nonumber\\
&&= \frac{e^2 |\vec{p}_i|}
{2 (2\pi)^2} \int^{|\vec{p}_i|}_{|\vec{p}_i| \delta} dk
\frac{k}{|\vec{p}_i| -k} \int^{\pi}_0
d\theta\sin^3 \theta
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\left|
\left[k-\sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 }
+\sqrt{(|\vec{p}_i| -k)^2
+2|\vec{p}_i|k(1-\cos\theta)
+m^2 }
\right]^{-1} \right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.
-\left[k-\sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 b^2 }
+\sqrt{(|\vec{p}_i| -k)^2
+2|\vec{p}_i|k(1-\cos\theta)
+m^2 b^2}
\right]^{-1}
\right|^2 .\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{1112}
\end{eqnarray}
We need infra-red
cutoff $|\vec{p}_i|\delta$ in eqn(\ref{1112})
due to the existance of massless
photon. This infra-red divergence
is well known one in flat spacetime quantum
field theories with massless particles
and it should be cancelled by an infra-red divergence of the self energy
term \cite{BN}. The cutoff $\delta$ is physically
determined by resolving power of
soft photon observation.
The $\theta$ integration in eqn(\ref{1112})
can be
straightforwardly calculated. After performing this
integration and taking the high momentum limit
$|\vec{p}_i|\rightarrow\infty$, the $k$ integration is simplified and
we finally obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
W(|\vec{p}_i|\rightarrow \infty)
= \frac{e^2}{4\pi^2} \left(
\ln \frac{1}{\delta}+\delta -1 \right)
\left(\frac{1+b^2}{1-b^2}\ln \frac{1}{b^2} -2\right). \label{56}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that we have taken the helicity sum in eqn(\ref{56}).
Instead, it is also possible to
evaluate $W(b)$ independently
with a fixed photon helicity. For left and
right handed helicity, each probability is the same, a half of $W$ in
eqn(\ref{56}).
Furthermore we can also obtain
the analytic forms of $W(b)$ in the spinor
QED for the case of eqn(\ref{8}). Because both of
the charged fermion and photon
have degree of helicity freedom, 4 helicity contributions
must be considered separately.
The probability in the high momentum limit
for 1/2 helicity fermion decaying into
fermion with helicitity $h_{fermion}$
and photon with helicity $h_{photon}$ is
denoted by $W(1/2; h_{fermion} , h_{photon} )$ and is given for each case
as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
&&W(1/2 ; 1/2 ,1)
= \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2} \left(
\ln \frac{1}{\delta} \right)
\left(\frac{1+b^2}{1-b^2}\ln \frac{1}{b^2} -2\right).\label{12}\\
&&W(1/2 ; 1/2, -1)
= \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2} \left(
\ln \frac{1}{\delta} -\frac{\delta^2}{2} +2 \delta -\frac{3}{2} \right)
\left(\frac{1+b^2}{1-b^2}\ln \frac{1}{b^2} -2\right).\label{13}\\
&&W(1/2;-1/2,1)
= \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}
\left(1- \frac{b}{1-b^2}\ln \frac{1}{b^2} \right).\label{10}\\
&&W(1/2;-1/2, -1)
= 0.\label{11}
\end{eqnarray}
No infra-red cutoff $\delta$ appears in eqn(\ref{10}) and
eqn(\ref{11})
because spinflip of the fermion enables observers to distinguish the
bremsstrahlung from the self energy process.
\bigskip
There exists a very useful aspect of $W$ in the high momentum limit.
It is supposed that the results eqn(\ref{56})$\sim$eqn(\ref{11}) are
exact not only for the special way of the expansion given by eqn(\ref{8})
but also arbitrary way satisfying eqn(\ref{1001}) $\sim$ eqn(\ref{1013}).
This implies that
$W(|\vec{p}_i|\rightarrow \infty)$ possesses a remarkable universality
with respect to the ways of the cosmic expansion.
This property may be explained as the
Lorentz contraction effect from the view point of the high energy
particle. Imagine a particle running in the comoving frame.
Suppose that the Universe begins to expand when the particle passes
through a point A and the Universe ceases to expand when the particle
reaches point B.
The particle catches energy
from the expansion only while running
from A to B. Taking the high momentum limit,
the length between A and B contracts
to zero in the rest frame of the particle.
Therefore the particle cannot see the details of
the way how the Universe expands and thus
the universality of $W$ crops up.
To see the universality more quantitatively, we shall discuss
the scalar QED with an adiabatically
slow evolution of the scale factor $a(\eta)$ satisfying
eqn(\ref{1001}) $\sim$ eqn(\ref{1013}).
In the zeroth
order adiabatic approximation(WKB approximation) the mode functions
satisfying eqn(\ref{9}) is written as
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{in}_{\vec{p}} \sim g^{out}_{\vec{p}} \sim
\frac{
\exp \left[ i\vec{p}\cdot\vec{x} -i\int^\eta_0 d\eta'
\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\ 2}+ m^2 a(\eta ')^2 }
\right]
}
{
\sqrt{ (2\pi)^3 2\sqrt{\vec{p}^{\ 2} +m^2 a(\eta )^2} }
}.\label{101}
\end{eqnarray}
Substituting eqn(\ref{101}) into eqn(\ref{100}) and introducing the polar
coordinate decomposition;
$\vec{p}_i \cdot \vec{k} =|\vec{p}_i |k \cos \theta$,
we get
\begin{eqnarray}
&&W \sim
\frac{e^2 |\vec{p}_i|^2}
{2 (2\pi)^2} \int^{\infty}_{|\vec{p}_i| \delta} dk k \int^{\pi}_0
d\theta\sin^3 \theta
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\left| \int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
d\eta \
\frac{
\exp \left[ik\eta -i\int^\eta d\eta
'\sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 a(\eta ')^2}
+i\int^\eta d\eta '\omega(\vec{p}_i -\vec{k},\eta ') \right]
}
{
\sqrt{\omega(\vec{p}_i -\vec{k},\eta ) \sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 a(\eta
)^2}
} }
\right|^2\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{102}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega(\vec{p}_i -\vec{k},\eta )=
\sqrt{(|\vec{p}_i| -k)^2
+2|\vec{p}_i|k(1-\cos\theta)
+m^2 a^2}$ and $|\vec{p}_i|\delta$ is the inra-red cutoff.
Consider the high momentum
limit in eqn(\ref{102}). As mentioned before nonvanishing contribution to $W$
comes from the integral region where the momentum holds
the relation eqn(\ref{103}).
Thus it is enough to restrict the momentum region
between $|\vec{p}_i|$ and
$|\vec{p}_i|\delta$.
Here it should be searched
which integral region of $\theta$
contributes, accompanied with the influence of $a(\eta)$,
to the nonvanishing value of $W$ in
eqn(\ref{102}).
Due to eqn(\ref{103}), only emittion to nearly forward direction
($\theta\sim0$)
is permitted
and especially the integral region of $\theta$ safisfying
$$0\leq \theta\leq O\left(m/|\vec{p}_i|\right)$$
gives the scale factor dependence to the $W$.
Several expansions like
\begin{eqnarray}
\sqrt{\vec{p}_i^{\ 2} +m^2 a(\eta ')^2}
\sim |\vec{p}_i |+\frac{m^2 a(\eta ')^2}{2|\vec{p}_i |} \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
yield finally
\begin{eqnarray}
&&W \sim
\frac{e^2 |\vec{p}_i|}{2 (2\pi)^2}
\int^{|\vec{p}_i|}_{|\vec{p}_i|\delta}
dk
\frac{k}{|\vec{p}_i| -k}
\int^{O\left(\frac{m}{|\vec{p}_i|}\right) }_0
d\theta\ \theta^3
\nonumber\\
&&\times
\left|
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
d\eta \
\exp \left[
-i\int^\eta_0 d\eta '
\left(
\frac{m^2 a(\eta ')^2 }{2|\vec{p}_i|}
-\frac{m^2 a(\eta ')^2}{2(|\vec{p}_i| -k)}
-\frac{|\vec{p}_i|k\theta^2 )}{2(|\vec{p}_i| -k)}
\right)
\right]
\right|^2 \nonumber\\
&&=
\frac{ e^2 }{(2\pi)^2} \int^1_{\delta} dy \frac{y}{1-y}
\int^{O(1)}_0 dz z^3 \nonumber\\
&&\times
\left|
\int^{\infty}_{-\infty}
d\tilde{\eta} \
\exp \left[
-i\int^{\tilde{\eta}}_0 d\tilde{\eta}'
\left(
C\left(\frac{2\lambda|\vec{p}_i|}{m^2}\tilde{\eta}'\right)^2
-\frac{C(\frac{2\lambda|\vec{p}_i|}{m^2}\tilde{\eta}')^2
}{1-y}
-\frac{y z^2}{1-y}
\right)
\right]
\right|^2
,\nonumber\\
&&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{104}
\end{eqnarray}
where we change the integral variables in the following way,
\begin{eqnarray}
k&=& |\vec{p}_i| y,\nonumber\\
\theta&=& \frac{m}{|\vec{p}_i|}z,\nonumber\\
\eta&=& \frac{2|\vec{p}_i|}{m^2} \tilde{\eta}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that the function
$C(\frac{2\lambda|\vec{p}_i|}{m^2}\tilde{\eta})$ in eqn(\ref{104})
approaches in the high momentum limit to a step function,
\begin{eqnarray}
C\left(\frac{2\lambda|\vec{p}_i|}{m^2}\tilde{\eta}\right) \sim
\Theta (\tilde{\eta}) + b\ \Theta(-\tilde{\eta}).\label{1.11}
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore the value of $W$ for arbitrary adiabatical cosmic
expansion satisfying eqn(\ref{1001}) $\sim$ eqn(\ref{1013})
must equal to the specified value for
eqn(\ref{8}), and the universality is surely realized.
If we dismiss the adiabatic approximation,
the mode functions have reflection wave
terms like in eqn(\ref{1}) and eqn(\ref{2}). However amplitude of the
reflection waves vanishes in the high momentum limit and the
universality are thought to survive.
\bigskip
Here we have a comment on the rate of the
geometric bremsstrahlung.
Comparing with the classical results in the section 2,
it is noticed from
eqn(\ref{56})$\sim$ eqn(\ref{11})
that
interaction rate of quantum geometric bremsstrahlung
does not so large compared with classical one.
This is due to the fact that quantum effect smears position of
the classical point particle and dilutes the charge density.
\bigskip
Now
it is worth considering implication of the results;
eqn(\ref{56})$\sim$eqn(\ref{11}) in connection with
the conformal symmetry.
Since the massless limit $m\rightarrow 0$
forces the speed of the particle to reach the light velocity,
the universality with respect to the way of the cosmic
expansion is maintained.
In the lowest pertubation of
the QED,
the massless limit is shown to be equivalent with
the $|\vec{p}_i| \rightarrow \infty$ limit.
Therefore again the same results, eqn(\ref{56})$\sim$
eqn(\ref{11}), come up in the $m\rightarrow 0$ limit and $W$ really
possesses the non-vanishing value. One might naively
expect for the massless case
that the amplitude in the conformally flat spacetime vanishes
as in the Minkowskian spacetime, by virtue of the conformal symmetry
guaranteed at least classical mechanically.
However this is {\it not}
true unless $b=1$ as argued above.
\bigskip
Next let us discuss the rate of the geometric bremsstrahlung.
Taking large expansion limit $b\sim 0$,
the transition probablity can be typically expressed
as
\begin{eqnarray}
W(b\sim 0) \sim O(1) \frac{N^{\ast}e^2}{4\pi^2} \ln \frac{1}{b } ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $N^{\ast}$ is the number of final modes. In our spinor QED model
we take $N^{\ast} =2$ due to contributions of
eqns (\ref{12}) and (\ref{13}). However in the standard model
we have more particles and $N^{\ast} \sim O(10)$.
Moreover extended theories (like GUT and SUSY) can gives us
$N^{\ast} \sim O(100)$.
The process is thought to occur when $W\sim 1$. Thus
when the Universe expands enough to satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{b}=\frac{a_f}{a_i}\sim
\exp \left[ \frac{4\pi^2 O(1)}{N^{\ast} e^2} \right] \label{555}
\end{eqnarray}
the event will take place. If we specify a model of the Unvierse
evolution, we can get the rate itself. For example
let us assume that the expansion is dominated by
the radiation, $a(t) \propto t^{1/2}$. Then we get the following
estimation for the transition rate.
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma \sim
\frac{1}{t_f}
= b^2 \frac{1}{t_i}
\sim \exp\left[ - \frac{8\pi^2 O(1)}{N^{\ast} e^2} \right] H_i
\sim e^{-\frac{O(100)}{N^{\ast}} }H_i,
\end{eqnarray}
where $H_i =1/t_i$ is the Hubble parameter at the initial time.
Thus we cannot neglect the quantum bremsstrahlung
naively when $N^{\ast}\sim O(100)$. It might be also worth
reminding that rates of ohther gauge interection
processes different from the geometric bremsstrahlung is much smaller
than the Hubble parameter when the temparature of the
Universe is higher than $O(10^{15})$ GeV. Thus the bremsstrahlung may
be the most dominant process in such a early era.
\section*{ Acknowledgement}
The authors wish to thank T. Goto, I.Joichi,
T. Moroi, M. Tanaka and M. Yoshimura for
fruitful discussions. We also thank to K.Hikasa and J.Arafune for
their critical comments.
|
\section{Motivation}
As a result of work in the 1960's and 1970's \cite{Allan}, some of which has
continued beyond then, it is recognized that air showers of energy 10$^{17}$ eV
are accompanied by radio-frequency pulses, whose polarization and frequency
spectrum suggest that they are due mainly to the separation of positive and
negative charges of the shower in the Earth's magnetic field. The most
convincing data have been accumulated in the 50--100 MHz frequency range.
However, opinions have differed regarding the strength of the pulses, and
atmospheric and ionospheric effects have led to irreproducibility of results.
In particular, there may also be pulses associated with cosmic-ray-induced
atmospheric discharges \cite{atm}.
A study is being undertaken of the feasibility of equipping the Auger array
with the ability to detect such pulses. It is possible that the higher energy
of the showers to which the array would be sensitive would change the
parameters of detection. Before a design for large-scale RF pulse detection
can be produced, it is necessary to retrace some of the steps of the past 30
years by conclusively demonstrating the existence of the pulses for 10$^{17}$
eV showers, and by controlling or monitoring some of the factors which led to
their irreproducibility in the past.
In this note we describe the prototype activity at the CASA/MIA site, mention
related activities, and set forth some considerations regarding plans for the
Auger project. More concrete plans for RF detection must await the outcome of
protoyping work at the CASA/MIA site.
\section{CASA/MIA Prototype setup}
In order to verify the claim \cite{Allan} that 10$^{17}$ eV showers are
accompanied by RF pulses with significant energy in the 50--100 MHz range, a
prototype detector is being set up at the CASA/MIA site in Dugway, Utah. This
section describes the status of that effort.
\subsection{Large-event trigger}
A trigger based on the coincidence of several muon ``patches'' was set
to select ``large'' showers with a rate of several per hour. The MIA
Patch-Sum trigger was sent into a fan-in/fan-out. From this, the signal was
put into a LeCroy 821 Discriminator. This produced a pulse of height $-0.8$ V
(on 50 Ohm output). The width of the output pulse was set to 200 nsec. The
frequency of the output could be varied by adjusting the threshold on the
discriminator. The observed rates as a function of this threshold
were as follows:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c||} \hline
Threshold & Patches & Rate \\ \hline
$-350$ mV & 6 & 45 Hz (highly variable) \\
$-400$ mV & 7 & $3.7 \pm 0.25$ Hz \\
$-450$ mV & 8 & $2.21 \pm 0.19$ Hz \\
$-500$ mV & 9 & $1.23 \pm 0.10$ Hz \\
$-560$ mV & 10 & $1.00 \pm 0.07$ Hz \\
$-690$ mV & 12 & $0.52 \pm 0.03$ Hz \\
$-750$ mV & 13 & $ 5.8 \pm 0.8 $ min$^{-1}$ \\
$-810$ mV & 14 & $0.65 \pm 0.18$ min$^{-1}$ \\
$-870$ mV & 15 & $ 2.0 \pm 0.8$ hr$^{-1}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The rate varied somewhat depending on how noisy any particular patch is. In
particular, below 6 patches, the rate was not observed to be very stable.
The electronics was initially set up at the 15 patch level. This was estimated
to be $5 \times 10^{16}$ eV to $10^{17}$ eV, based on the rate at $10^{18}$ eV
of 1/km$^2$/day/sr.
The performance of this trigger was monitored during two runs (17985 and 17987)
on June 30, 1995. During a period in which 26 million CASA triggers had been
registered (estimated to be about 16 days assuming a 20 Hz rate), 240
``large-event triggers'' had been registered, or about 15 per day. The counters
were reset on the evening of 6/29/95. During the subsequent 12.5 hours, 7
counts were registered between 7:12 pm MDT 6/29 and 7:47 am MDT 6/30,
consistent with the above rate. This is considerably less than the hoped-for
several per hour or the 2 per hour noted in the table above.
On the morning of 6/30/95, the large-event trigger level was reset from $-869$
mV to $-822$ mV. At this level, it was checked that several counts per hour
would be registered. The large-event trigger was used to key a transceiver
which then broadcast a digitally recorded voice message which was picked up
remotely.
Times of receipt of the trigger message were measured to an accuracy of about 5
seconds. During remote receipt of trigger notifications, other tasks were being
performed, such as setting up of antenna, monitoring of RF backgrounds, and
testing of preamplifier. Thus it is possible that some notifications were
missed. For future studies it would be very helpful to record ``large-event
triggers'' with a time stamp and, if possible, a pulse voltage level to
determine by what amount a given threshold was exceeded.
A file of events with at least 15 muon patches was generated after the day's
runs:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
Run & Events & Live time & Events/minute \\
& & (minutes) & \\ \hline
17985 & 446 & 354 & $1.26 \pm 0.06$ \\
17987 & 495 & 354 & $1.40 \pm 0.06$ \\
Both & 941 & 708 & $1.33 \pm 0.04$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
The times of events in this file which matched within 5 seconds of those found
using the remote-monitoring system mentioned were recorded. Of 58 potential
matches between large-event triggers and events in the above file, only 27
actual matches were found. Although this correlation appears higher than
accidental, it is clear that many large-event triggers failed to match with
events in the actual data record. Consequently, more effort is being devoted
to construction of an efficient large-event trigger. It is notable that in
measuring HiRes - MIA coincidences for events of 10$^{17}$ eV, a rate of
somewhat less than 1 per hour was achieved \cite{coincs}.
\subsection{Monitoring of RF noise environment}
It was a concern that the RF noise of the local electronics and the presence of
an extensive lightning-protection array might dictate the placement of one or
more antennas outside the periphery of the array, or might make the site
unsuitable altogether. The behavior of a single CASA board was investigated at
the University of Chicago. The various clock signals were detected at short
distances ($< 1$ m) from the board, but a much more intense set of harmonics of
78 kHz emanated from the switching power supplies. These harmonics persisted
well above 100 MHz. At 144--148 MHz, they overlapped, leading to intense
broad-band noise.
An initial survey of RF noise at the CASA site was performed. On the basis of
the results, which indicated some RF noise within the array, it was decided to
perform an initial follow-up survey sitting just outside the array. The
original log-periodic antenna used to detect RF pulses at Chacaltaya in the
1960's and 1970's was obtained, tested for bandwidth, taken out to Utah, and
used in a follow-up study of RF noise in the 60--85 MHz frequency range.
Sources of most strong RF signals in this range appeared to be due to either
the receiver itself or to local TV stations. Spectrum analysis techniques may
be suitable for removing such monochromatic signals.
\subsection{Near-term plans}
It is proposed to monitor the RF noise and to detect pulses by mounting the
log-periodic antenna near the CASA central trailer site, just above the
lightning protection grid. A digital storage scope will be used to register
several microseconds of RF data on a rolling basis. These data will then be
captured and inspected visually upon receipt of a large-event trigger.
The experiment will be repeated using successively greater amounts of
amplification and narrower band-pass filters once these become available. The
filters are being developed at the University of Chicago. Once the large-event
trigger has been demonstrated to select events of 10$^{17}$ eV and above,
permanent digital recording of coincident pulses will be undertaken.
Still to be performed are experiments which seek to monitor RF pulses at lower
frequencies and at greater distances from the array. For these pulses, whose
strengths may be correlated with atmospheric electric fields, it is planned to
monitor such fields with the help of a field mill.
A spectrum analyzer will be used to make a broader survey of the RF noise in
various frequency ranges and may be of help in detecting potential sources of
interference to RF communications in the Auger project.
\section{Recent information on related activities}
\subsection{FORTE, BLACKBEARD, SNO, and other projects requiring digitizers}
Discussions with John Wilkerson at the University of Washington have been very
productive. Wilkerson was engaged in projects at Los Alamos with the acronyms
FORTE and BLACKBEARD whose aim was detection of electromagnetic pulses,
including those produced by cosmic-ray-induced electromagnetic discharges, with
frequency ranges in the 30--100 MHz range. Many of the fast-digitization and
memory problems appear to be identical to those in the proposal for a protoype
pulse detector at CASA/MIA. Time-frequency plots have been obtained by the
BLACKBEARD project which are exactly those one would hope to generate in a
survey at CASA/MIA.
Wilkerson has also encountered requirements similar to ours for digitization of
SNO data. His estimate is that one can use Maxim MAX 100 A/D chips for less
than \$1K per channel, but that feeding their output into memory may well
amount to another \$1K per channel. Other references on digitizers have been
obtained \cite{Atiya,Bryman}. Discussions with Wilkerson will continue, and
further discussions with Dan Holden at Los Alamos are envisioned.
\subsection{Status of GHz detection}
David Wilkinson, who visited the University of Chicago during the spring of
1995, has promised to look into the power radiated at frequencies of several
GHz, where new opportunities exist associated with the availability of
low-noise receivers. At latest report he had planned to complete the
relevant calculations during the summer of 1995.
\subsection{Other options}
Dispersion between arrival times of GPS signals on two different frequencies
may serve as a useful monitor of air shower activity. The possibility of
correlation of large showers with such dispersion events will be investigated.
It may be possible at the CASA/MIA site to monitor commercial broadcast
signals in the 55 - 88 MHz range to detect momentary enhancements associated
with large showers, in the same sense that meteor showers produce such
enhancements. Television Channels 3 and 6, for which no nearby stations
exist, offer one possibility.
\section{Considerations for Auger project}
At present we can only present a rough sketch of criteria for detection in the
50--100 MHz range. Data would be digitized at a 500 MHz rate at each station
and stored in a rolling manner, with at least 10 microseconds of data in the
pipeline at any moment. Upon receipt of a trigger signaling the presence of a
``large'' shower ($> 10^{17}$ eV), these data would be merged into the rest of
the data stream at each station.
Per station, we estimate the following additional costs, in US dollars,
for RF pulse detection:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l l c} \hline
Two antennas and impedance transformers: & 200 & (a) \\
Mounting hardware: & 100 & (b) \\
Cables and connectors: & 200 & (c) \\
Preamps and lightning protection: & 100 & (d) \\
Digitization and memory electronics: &2000 & (e) \\ \hline
Total per station: &2600 & (f) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\noindent
\noindent
(a) Two commercial log-periodic TV antennas with commercial 4:1 baluns;
crossed polarizations. Difference signal to be detected.
\noindent
(b) Highly dependent on other installations at site. Antennas are
to be pointed vertically but optimum elevation not yet determined.
\noindent
(c) Antennas are mounted near central data acquisition site of each station.
\noindent
(d) Commercial GaAsFET preamps and gas discharge tubes.
\noindent
(e) Subject to prototype development experience. Power requirements
not yet known.
\noindent
(f) The number of stations equipped with RF detection will not exceed 2000
per array, but could easily be fewer, depending on prototype experience.
\bigskip
The above estimate assumes that one can power the preamps and DAQ electronics
from the supply at each station without substantial added cost. It also
assumes that the ``large-event trigger'' will be available at each station.
A further assumption is that the difference signal suffices to characterize
the pulse. Additional preamplification and DAQ electronics may be required if
this is not so. A major consideration may be the acquisition of antennas robust
enough to withstand extreme weather (particularly wind) conditions.
For detection at frequencies above or below 50--100 MHz, the criteria are not
yet well enough developed to permit any cost estimate.
\section{Acknowledgments}
I thank Jim Cronin for inviting me to consider these questions for the Auger
project, Lucy Fortson for help in surveying RF noise generated by a CASA board,
Kevin Green for setting up the ``large-event trigger,'' Dick Gustafson for
discussions and for information about SSC equipment, Gerard Jendraszkiewicz and
Dave Smith for technical advice in the design of the ``alert module,'' Larry
Jones for supplying the original antennas used on Mount Chacaltaya and for
discussions, Brian Newport for logistical help at the CASA/MIA site and for
generating the file of events from runs 17985 and 17987, Rene Ong for
performing the initial RF survey work at the CASA/MIA site, Dave Peterson for
the loan of equipment used for monitoring RF at the CASA/MIA site, Leslie
Rosenberg for first interesting me in this problem, Fritz Toevs for technical
advice and laboratory space at the University of Washington, Augustine M. Urbas
for help with antenna measurements and filter design, John Wilkerson for
discussions regarding electronics and RF pulse detection, Dave Wilkinson for
stressing the importance of on-line monitoring of events during the initial RF
survey work, and Bob Williams for laboratory space. This work was performed in
part during a visit to the Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of
Washington, and was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
under Grant No.~DE FG02 90ER40560.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{int}
The study of the electroweak interaction between leptons and
hadrons has been a challenging topic ever since the standard model was
proposed by Glashow, Salam and Weinberg. This model predicts the coupling
of the electroweak currents to leptons and quarks in terms of the electric
charge $e$ and the Weinberg angle $\theta_{W}$. In particular, the weak
neutral current is mediated by the exchange of the $Z^0$ gauge boson. At
low and moderate momentum transfer its contribution is suppressed relative
to photon exchange by a factor $q^2/M_Z^2$, where $q$ is the four-momentum
of the exchanged boson and $M_Z$ the mass of the $Z^0$. The interference
term beween photon and $Z^0$ exchange contains a parity violating (PV)
effect, which becomes visible as an asymmetry by scattering polarized
electrons with helicity along the direction of the beam $h = +1$ or
opposite to it $h = -1$,
\begin{equation}
\label{def_a}
A = \frac{ \sigma(h = +1) - \sigma(h = -1)}{ \sigma(h = +1)
+ \sigma(h = -1)} \, .
\end{equation}
The quantity $\sigma$ in this equation should represent an inclusive
cross section. In the case of a coincidence experiment, e.g.
$e + N \rightarrow e + N + \pi$,
there also appear parity conserving asymmetries due to the
electromagnetic interaction. Specifically, the so-called 5th response
function will generate a background of helicity-dependent contributions,
which are parity conserving and, therefore, generally larger than
the PV effects by several orders of magnitude.
The pioneering experiment to measure PV asymmetries has been performed at
SLAC \cite{Pr78} by deep inelastic electron scattering
on a deuterium target. This
experiment has been followed by investigations of PV quasifree scattering
off $^9 B$ at Mainz \cite{He89}
and PV elastic scattering off $^{12} C$ at MIT/Bates \cite{So90}.
In the latter case the momentum transfer was only
$q^2 = - (150 \mbox{ MeV})^2$,
leading to the tiny asymmetry
$A = (0.60\pm 0.14 \pm 0.02) \cdot 10^{-6}$.
These experiments were originally devised to test the
standard model, in particular to measure the Weinberg angle. The value
obtained for this angle by high-energy experiments was confirmed within
the error bars of about 10\%. With the advent of new electron accelerators
like CEBAF, MAMI and MIT/Bates, having high intensity, high duty-factor
and
a polarized beam, the quality of the data can be considerably improved.
Moreover, with $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.2319 (5)$ known to 4 decimal
places and the
standard model firmly established, the strategy of the new experiments will
be redirected towards an improved understanding of the structure of the
nucleon. In particular, PV elastic electron scattering will provide
information on the strangeness content of the nucleon. Three such
experiments are being planned with the 4 GeV CEBAF beam
\cite{Be92,So91,Bei91} and there are also
proposals to measure the electric radius and the magnetic moment of
strange quark pairs at MAMI \cite{Ha93}
and MIT/Bates \cite{MK89} in the region of 1 GeV.
Assuming that the present experimental activities will soon yield novel
information on the ground state of the nucleon, we deem it appropriate to
study the effect of PV interactions for inelastic processes. It is
therefore the aim of this contribution to investigate the PV asymmetries
for electroproduction of pions. Previous calculations of
Nath et al.\cite{Na82} and Jones et al.\cite{Jo80}
at medium energies and of Cahn et al.\cite{Ca78} at higher
energies have been based on the production of stable $\Delta$ isobars.
However, there should be non-negligible background contributions
interfering coherently with the resonance. Estimates for such
contributions
have been reported earlier by Ishankuliev et al.\cite{Is80}
and by Li et al.\cite{Li82}. In particular, Li et al.\cite{Li82}
have also considered PV effects in the hadronic
wave function, i.e. at the $\pi N$ vertex. It turns out,
however, that such
contributions are of the order of $10^{-7}$, much smaller than the
expected asymmetries due to PV interferences in the electroweak
interaction, which are of the order of $10^{-4} q^2/\mbox{ GeV}^2$.
In the following section we will briefly review the kinematics, the cross
section and the decomposition of both vector and axial currents into the
invariant amplitudes. Sect. 3 presents our model using effective
Lagrangians. It includes a background of Born terms with pseudovector
$\pi N$ coupling and the $\Delta$ isobar treated as a Rarita-Schwinger
field with phenomenological $N\Delta$ transition currents.
Assuming that the hadronic currents are dominated
by $u$ and $d$ quarks, the weak neutral current may
be decomposed in terms of strong isospin \cite{Mu94}
and related to hadronic currents.
The matrix elements are then decomposed into invariant
amplitudes \cite{Ad68}
and according to their isospin structure. The numerical results are
presented in Sect. 4. As a test we have first calculated the inclusive
electromagnetic cross section.
The experimental data for this process \cite{Ly67,Co67}
can be well reproduced by the model. We present our results for PV
asymmetries as function of excitation energy, scattering angle and
momentum and compare our asymmetries with previous calculations. Finally,
we give a summary and some conclusions in Sect. 5.
\section{Formalism}
\label{form}
\subsection{Kinematics}
We consider the reaction shown in Fig. \ref{fig1} .
$P_i = (E_i,\vec{P_i})$ and $P_f = (E_f,\vec{P_f})$ are the
4-momenta of the nucleon in the initial and the final state,
respectively, the produced pion has momentum
$k_\pi = ( \omega_\pi,\vec{k_\pi})$. The momentum transfer
$q = ( \omega,\vec{q} )$ is the difference of the 4-momenta
of the ingoing and outgoing electron $k_i - k_f$, with $k_l =
( \varepsilon_l,\vec{k_l})$. The spins of nucleons and electrons
in the initial and final states are denoted by $S_i$, $S_f$, $s_i$,
and $s_f$. If not stated otherwise, the kinematical
variables are evaluated in the
laboratory system, which is defined by $P_i = (m,\vec {0})$.
Furthermore, the Mandelstam variables
\begin{eqnarray}
s &=& ( P_i + q )^2 ,\quad
t = ( q - k_\pi)^2 , \quad
u = ( P_i - k_\pi)^2 ,
\end{eqnarray}
are equivalent to the following set of Lorentz invariant
kinematic variables \cite{Ad68}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu &=& \frac{P \cdot q}{m} \, ,\qquad
\nu_B = -\frac{ k_\pi \cdot q }{ 2 m} \, , \qquad
W = \sqrt{s} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $P = \frac{1}{2}(P_i + P_f)$.
The latter set of variables will be used from now on.
Besides, the coincidence experiment is characterized by the angles
shown in Fig. \ref{fig2} . The polar angle
$\Theta_\pi$ is the angle between the pion 3-momentum $\vec{k}_\pi$
and the momentum transfer $\vec {q}$, the azimuthal angle
$\phi_\pi$ is the angle between the scattering plane,
defined by $\vec{k_i}$ and $\vec{k_f}$,
and the reaction plane, spanned by $\vec{k_\pi}$
and $\vec{q}$. Furthermore, the scattering angle of
the electron is $\Theta_e$. In the following sections we will
be interested in the inclusive cross section, i.e. the
cross section has to be integrated over the pion angles.
\subsection{Invariant matrix element}
The differential cross section \cite{Re90}
\begin{equation}
\label{wq}
d \sigma =
\frac{ (2 \pi)^4 \delta^4( P_i + q - P_f - k_\pi )}{4 [ (P_i
\cdot k_i)^2 - m_e^2 m^2 ]^{\frac{1}{2}}}
\prod^{n_f}_{j = 1} \frac{ d^3 \vec{p}_j }{ ( 2 \pi)^3 2 E_j }
\mid {\cal M}_{fi} \mid^2 ,
\end{equation}
has to be integrated over the momenta of the pion and
the final nucleon.
In the one boson exchange approximation and for
momentum transfers $q^2 \ll {M_Z}^2$,
the invariant matrix element is of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{q^4}{e^4} \mid {\cal M}_{fi} \mid^2 &=&
\mid j_\nu^{EM} J^\nu_{EM}
+ \frac{q^2}{{M_Z}^2} j_\nu^{NC} J^\nu_{NC} \mid^2
+ O( \frac{q^4}{{M_Z}^4} ) \\
& &= {j_\mu^{EM}}^\dagger j_\nu^{EM} {J^\mu_{EM}}^\dagger J^\nu_{EM}
+ \frac{q^2}{{M_Z}^2} \left( {j_\mu^{EM}}^\dagger j_\nu^{NC}
{J^\mu_{EM}}^\dagger J^\nu_{NC} + h.c. \right)
+ O( \frac{q^4}{{M_Z}^4} ) \nonumber \\
& &= \eta_{\mu\nu}^{EM} W^{\mu\nu}_{EM}
+ \frac{q^2}{{M_Z}^2} \eta_{\mu\nu}^{I} W^{\mu\nu}_{I}
+ O( \frac{q^4}{{M_Z}^4} ) \; . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In this expression, the photon couples to the electromagnetic
current of the nucleon, $J_\nu^{EM} = V_\nu^{EM}$, and the $Z^0$
gauge boson to the familiar combination of vector and axial currents
$J_\nu^{NC} = V_\nu^{NC} + A_\nu^{NC}$. The corresponding
currents of the electron are denoted by $j_\nu^{EM}$ and
$j_\nu^{NC}$. These currents may be combined to
$ W^{\mu\nu}$ and $\eta_{\mu\nu}$, the hadronic and leptonic
tensors. The tensors may be decomposed into symmetric and
antisymmetric parts. If we neglect the electron mass, the
leptonic tensor is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lept}
\eta_{\mu\nu}^{(s)} &=& 2 ( 2 K_\mu K_\nu + \frac{1}{2}
( q^2 g_{\mu\nu} - q_\mu q_\nu ) ) \, ,\\
\eta_{\mu\nu}^{(a)} &=&
- 2 i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} q^\alpha K^\beta \, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $q = ( k_i - k_f )$ and $K = \frac{1}{2} ( k_i + k_f )$.
A reasonable definition for the hadronic tensor is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{w}
W_{\mu\nu}^{EM} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{S_i,S_f}
\langle P_f | \hat J_\mu^{EM}| P_i \rangle^\dagger
\langle P_f | \hat J_\nu^{EM} | P_i \rangle \, , \\
W_{\mu\nu}^{I} &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{S_i,S_f} \left[
\langle P_f | \hat J_\mu^{EM} | P_i \rangle^\dagger
\langle P_f | \hat J_\nu^{NC} | P_i \rangle
+ h.c. \right] \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Invariant amplitudes and isospin structure}
The hadronic matrix elements have the structure
\begin{equation}
\label{stru}
{\cal M} = \epsilon^\mu J_\mu \, ,
\end{equation}
where $\epsilon^\mu$ is an abbreviation for the leptonic
matrix element. These matrix elements may be decomposed
in isospace according to
\begin{equation}
\label{iso}
{\cal M} = \underbrace{\chi_{f}^{\dagger} \tau_\pi
\chi^{\ }_{i} }_{=: I^0} {\cal M}^0
+ \underbrace{\chi_{f}^{\dagger} \frac{1}{2} \{ \tau_\pi , \tau_3 \}
\chi^{\ }_{i} }_{=: I^+} {\cal M}^+
+ \underbrace{\chi_{f}^{\dagger} \frac{1}{2} [ \tau_\pi , \tau_3 ]
\chi^{\ }_{i} }_{=: I^-} {\cal M}^- \, ,
\end{equation}
with $\chi^{\ }_{f}$ and $\chi^{\ }_{i}$
the isospinors of the nucleon in the final and initial state,
respectively, and $\tau_\pi$ the isospin matrix characterizing
the produced pion. Furthermore,
the hadronic transition currents are decomposed into invariant
amplitudes \cite{Ad68}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ia}
V_\mu^{(\pm, 0)} &=& \sum_{j = 1}^6 V_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(\nu,\nu_B,q^2)
\bar u(\vec{P_f}) M_\mu^j u(\vec{P_i}) \, , \\
A_{\mu}^{(\pm, 0)} &=& \sum_{j = 1}^8 A_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(\nu,\nu_B,q^2)
\bar u(\vec{P_f}) N_\mu^j u(\vec{P_i}) \nonumber \, .
\end{eqnarray}
The amplitudes $V_{j}^{(\pm, 0)},A_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}$
depend on the three independent variables
$\nu,\nu_B$, and $q^2$, and the superscript
$(\pm, 0)$ refers to the isospin decomposition (\ref{iso}).
A reasonable choice for the vector $(M_\mu^j)$ and axial vector
$(N_\mu^j)$ operators is \cite{Ad68}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}l}
M_\mu^1 = \frac{i}{2} \gamma_5 ( \gamma_\mu \dida{q} -
\dida{q} \gamma_\mu ) & \zeta_1^V = 1 \\
M_\mu^2 = - 2 i \gamma_5 ( P_\mu \; k^\pi \cdot q
- P \cdot q \; k^\pi_\mu ) & \zeta_2^V = 1 \\
M_\mu^3 = i \gamma_5 ( \gamma_\mu \; k^\pi \cdot q -
\dida{q} k^\pi_\mu ) & \zeta_3^V = -1 \\
M_\mu^4 = 2 i \gamma_5 [ ( \gamma_\mu \, P \cdot q -
\dida{q} P_\mu) -\frac{m}{2}(\gamma_\mu \dida{q} -
\dida{q} \gamma_\mu ) ] & \zeta_4^V = 1 \\
M_\mu^5 = - i \gamma_5 ( q_\mu \; k^\pi \cdot q -
q^2 k^\pi_\mu ) & \zeta_5^V = -1 \\
M_\mu^6 = i \gamma_5 ( q_\mu \dida{q} -
q^2 \gamma_\mu ) & \zeta_6^V = -1
\label{ia_v}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{ia_a}
\begin{array}{l@{\qquad}l}
N_\mu^1 = \frac{i}{2} ( \gamma_\mu \dida{k^\pi} -
\dida{k^\pi} \gamma_\mu ) & \zeta_1^A = -1 \\
N_\mu^2 = -2 i P_\mu & \zeta_2^A = -1 \\
N_\mu^3 = -i k^\pi_\mu & \zeta_3^A = 1 \\
N_\mu^4 = -i m \gamma_\mu & \zeta_4^A = -1 \\
N_\mu^5 = 2 i \dida{q} P_\mu & \zeta_5^A = 1 \\
N_\mu^6 = i \dida{q} k^\pi_\mu & \zeta_6^A = -1 \\
N_\mu^7 = -i {q}_\mu & \zeta_7^A = 1 \\
N_\mu^8 = i \dida{q} {q}_\mu & \zeta_8^A = -1. \\
\end{array}
\end{equation}
The vector current operators are explicitly
gauge invariant by construction,
$q \cdot M^j \equiv 0 \quad \forall j = 1 \ldots 6$.
The constants $\zeta_j^V$ and $\zeta_j^A$ specify the
behavior of the invariant amplitudes under the crossing
transformation $\nu \rightarrow -\nu$\ \cite{Ad68},
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{cross}
V_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(\nu,\nu_B,q^2) &=& (\pm, +) \zeta_j^V
V_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(-\nu,\nu_B,q^2) \, , \\
A_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(\nu,\nu_B,q^2) &=& (\pm, +) \zeta_j^A
A_{j}^{(\pm, 0)}(-\nu,\nu_B,q^2) \nonumber \, .
\end{eqnarray}
\subsection{Multipole decomposition}
The vector and axial currents of (\ref{ia}) may be decomposed into a
multipole series following the work of Adler \cite{Ad68}.
The leading $S$-wave contributions to the currents are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{mulzer}
\epsilon \cdot V &=& \frac{4 \pi i W}{m} \chi_f^{\dagger}
\big\{ \frac{\vec{\sigma}
\cdot \hat{q}}{\mid \vec{q}\mid \omega} (\epsilon_0 \, Q^2
+ \omega \; \epsilon \cdot q) L_{0+} - \vec{\sigma} \cdot
\vec{\epsilon}_T E_{0+} + \ldots \big\} \chi_{i} \; , \\
\epsilon \cdot A &=& \frac{4 \pi W}{m} \chi_{f}^{\dagger}
\big\{ \epsilon_0 \, {\cal L}_{0+} + i \vec{\sigma}
\cdot (\hat{q} \times \vec{\epsilon}) {\cal M}_{0+}
+ \epsilon \cdot q \;
{\cal H}_{0+} + \ldots \big\} \chi_i \; .\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In these equations all variables have to be expressed in the
{\it cm} frame, in particular the components of the 4-momentum transfer,
$q = (\omega, \vec{q})$, the polarization vector of the virtual photon,
$\epsilon = (\epsilon_0, \vec{\epsilon})$ and the nucleon
spin $\vec{\sigma}$. Furthermore, $Q^2 = - q^2$ and $\vec{\epsilon}_T$
is the polarization vector transverse to the direction of
the virtual photon.
The ellipses denote $P$-waves and higher multipoles. Since the
polarization vector $\epsilon_{\mu}$ is proportional to the transition
current of the electron, $j_{\mu}$ or $j_{\mu}^5$, the four-product
$\epsilon \cdot q$ vanishes exactly for the (conserved) vector current.
However, it can also be safely neglected in the case of the axial vector,
because the divergence of the axial current is proportional
to the mass of the electron.
The threshold values of the $S$-wave multipoles have been predicted by
general principles following the arguments of low energy theorems (LET).
Since these theorems assume Lorentz and gauge invariance and the PCAC
relation, they should be obeyed by our model, too.
However, there have been
recently reported large modifications to LET due to loop corrections.
Concerning the vector current these corrections are particular
large for neutral pion photoproduction at threshold \cite{Me91},
but do not play an important role for the inclusive cross section,
which is dominated by charged pion production.
However, it is interesting that two of
the multipoles for the axial vector have contributions containing the
$\pi N$ $\sigma$-term. According to \cite{Me94} these are
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{mul}
{\cal L}_{0+}^{(+)} &=& \frac{1}{3\pi m_{\pi} f_{\pi}} \left[ \sigma
(q^2 - m_{\pi}^2) - \frac{1}{4} \sigma (0) \right]
- \frac{a^+ f_\pi}{m_\pi} + O (m_{\pi})\, , \\
{\cal H}_{0+}^{(+)} &=& \frac{a^+ f_{\pi}}{q^2 - m_{\pi}^2}
+ \frac{\sigma (0) - \sigma (q^2 - m_{\pi}^2)}{12 \pi f_{\pi}
(q^2 - m_{\pi}^2)} + O (m_{\pi})\, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{\pi} = 93$ MeV is the pion decay constant and $a^+$ the isospin
even $S$-wave $\pi N$-scattering length. As we see from
(\ref{mulzer}) and the above considerations,
the multipole ${\cal H}_{0+}$ does not contribute in the
limit of a vanishing lepton mass. The longitudinal multipole
${\cal L}_{0+}$, however, contributes and its threshold
value is dominated by the $\sigma$-term.
Unfortunately, it appears in combination with the vector coupling of
the $Z^0$ at the vertex of the electron, i.e. this interesting term is
suppressed by a factor $(4 \sin^2 \theta_W -1)$.
\subsection{Explicit structure of the tensors}
In this subsection the explicit structure of the
Lorentz tensors will be given.
The electromagnetic lepton tensor has the familiar form
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\mu\nu}^{EM}
&=& \eta_{\mu\nu}^{(s)} + h \eta_{\mu\nu}^{(a)} \; ,
\end{eqnarray} where $h$
denotes the helicity of the incoming electron. The antisymmetric
part can be omitted for unpolarized nucleons,
because the electromagnetic hadronic tensor is symmetric in this case.
The interference tensor for the lepton is
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_{\mu\nu}^{I}
&=& g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl V}}}^e (\eta_{\mu\nu}^{(s)} +h \eta_{\mu\nu}^{(a)} )
+ g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl A}}}^e (\eta_{\mu\nu}^{(a)} + h \eta_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}) \\
&=& \eta_{\mu\nu}^{I,(s)} + \eta_{\mu\nu}^{I,(a)} , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} where
$g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl V}}}^e$ and $g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl A}}}^e$ denote the weak neutral current couplings of the
electron
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl V}}}^e &=& \frac{1}{4 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W}
(-1 + 4 \sin^2 \theta_W) \, , \\
g_{\mbox{\tiny{\sl A}}}^e &=& \frac{1}{4 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W}
\, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Using current conservation, the electromagnetic tensor of
the nucleon has the Lorentz structure
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\mu\nu}^{EM} &=& -g_{\mu\nu} W_1^{EM}
+ P^i_\mu P^i_\nu \frac{W_2^{EM}}{m^2}
+ k^\pi_\mu k^\pi_\nu \frac{W_3^{EM}}{m^2}
- \frac{1}{2} ( P^i_\mu k^\pi_\nu + P^i_\nu k^\pi_\mu )
\frac{1}{k_\pi \cdot q \; P_i \cdot q \; m^2} \\ & &
(q^2 m^2 W_1^{EM} + ( P_i \cdot q)^2 W_2^{EM}
\vphantom{\frac{1}{2}}
+ ( k_\pi \cdot q )^2 W_3^{EM} - q^4 W_4^{EM} ) \; .
\vphantom{\frac{1}{2}} \nonumber \end{eqnarray}
The symmetric part of the hadronic interference tensor
$W_{\mu\nu}^{I}$ has the same structure as $W_{\mu\nu}^{EM}$.
The corresponding antisymmetric part is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Wia}
W_{\mu\nu}^{I,(a)} &=&
-i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} P_i^\alpha q^\beta \frac{W_5^{I}}{m^2}
-i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} k_\pi^\alpha P_i^\beta
\frac{W_{6}^{I}}{m^2}
-i \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} k_\pi^\alpha q^\beta \frac{W_{7}^{I}}{m^2}
-i ( P^i_\mu k^\pi_\nu - P^i_\nu k^\pi_\mu ) \frac{W_{8}^I}{m^2}
\\ & &
-i ( P^i_\mu \epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}
- P^i_\nu \epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma} )
k_\pi^\alpha q^\beta P_i^\gamma \frac{W_{9}^I}{m^4}
-i ( k^\pi_\mu \epsilon_{\nu\alpha\beta\gamma}
- k^\pi_\nu \epsilon_{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma} )
k_\pi^\alpha q^\beta P_i^\gamma \frac{W_{10}^I}{m^4} \, .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
As the axial currents are not conserved, there are in principle
additional terms proportional to $q_\mu$ or $q_\nu$.
Since these terms vanish after contraction with the leptonic
tensor (\ref{lept}), they have been omitted in (\ref{Wia})
right away. The structure functions $W_j(\nu,\nu_B,q^2)$
can be expressed in terms of the invariant amplitudes (\ref{ia})
in a straightforward way. The result of this
calculation is given in Appendix \ref{strf}.
\section{Model for the Hadronic Currents}
\label{mod}
In this section we will present the
phenomenological model that is used to calculate the
hadronic currents. It contains contributions of the Born terms
and a phenomenological description of the $\Delta(1232)$ resonance.
\subsection{Nonresonant contributions}
The background of the Born terms contains both
vector current and axial vector current contributions.
Since we neglect the strangeness of the nucleon,
the weak vector current differs from the electromagnetic
current only by a coupling constant. Accordingly,
we have to calculate the Feynman diagrams of Fig. \ref{fig3}.
While all diagrams contribute to the vector current,
the pion pole diagram does not contribute to the axial current.
For the calculation of the Feynman diagrams we use the following
interaction Lagrangians
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{L}
{\cal L}_{\pi N N}^{PV} &=& \frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi} \bar{\psi}
\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \vec{\tau} \psi \cdot \partial^\mu \vec{\phi}
\, , \\
{\cal L}_{V^\mu N N} &=& - e \, \bar{\psi} \frac{1}{2}
\bigg[ (\xi_V^{I=0} F_1^s + \xi_V^{I=1} \tau_3 F_1^v)
\gamma_\mu V^\mu
- (\xi_V^{I=0} \kappa_s F_2^s + \xi_V^{I=1} \kappa_v
\tau_3 F_2^v) \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}}{2 m} \partial^\nu V^\mu
\bigg] \psi \, , \nonumber \\
{\cal L}_{V^\mu \pi \pi} &=& -e\,\xi_V^{I=1} F_\pi
( \vec{\phi} \times \partial_\mu \vec{\phi}
)_3 V^\mu \, , \nonumber \\
{\cal L}_{V^\mu N N \pi} &=& e \, \xi_V^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{g_a m_\pi} G_A \bar{\psi}
( \vec{\tau} \times \vec{\phi} )_3
\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \psi \, V^\mu , \, \nonumber \\
{\cal L}_{A^\mu N N} &=& - e \, \xi_A^{I=1}
\bar{\psi} \left[ G_A \gamma_\mu A^\mu
+ G_P \frac{i \partial_\mu}{2 m} A^\mu
\right] \gamma_5 \frac{\tau_3}{2} \psi \, ,
\nonumber \\
{\cal L}_{A^\mu N N \pi} &=& e \, \xi_A^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{ g_a m_\pi} \bar{\psi}
( \vec{\tau} \times \vec{\phi} )_3
\left( F_1^v \gamma_\mu A^\mu
- \kappa_v F_2^v \frac{ \sigma_{\mu\nu}}{2 m}
\partial^\nu A^\mu \right) \psi \, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $\kappa_{(s,v)} = (\kappa_p \pm \kappa_n)$.
The isospin factors $\xi$ follow from the decomposition of
the corresponding quark current operators according to strong
isospin \cite{Mu94}. For the electromagnetic current these
factors are equal to unity, for the weak neutral current we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi_V^{I=1} &=& \frac{1}{2 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W}
( 1 - 2 \sin^2 \theta_W ) \, ,\\
\xi_V^{I=0} &=& -\frac{1}{2 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W} 2 \sin^2
\theta_W \, , \nonumber \\
\xi_A^{I=1} &=& -\frac{1}{2 \sin \theta_W \cos \theta_W} \, .
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that there appears no isoscalar contribution to the axial
vector current, i.e. $\xi_A^{I=0} = 0$, because strange quarks
have been neglected.
The form factors $F_1$, $F_2$, $F_\pi$, $G_A$ and $G_P$
are functions of momentum transfer $q^2$. Since our calculation
will be performed at relatively small momentum transfer, we have
used simple dipole forms for the Sachs form factors, with the
assumption $G_A/g_a = F_\pi = F_1^v$. This insures gauge
invariance without additional gauge terms.
With standard methods and neglecting the lepton mass terms, we
obtain the invariant matrix elements
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{mat_b}
{\cal M}_s &=& \xi_V^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi} \bar{u}(\vec{P_f})
\bigg[ \gamma_5 \dida{k_\pi}
\frac{\didag{P_i} + \dida{q} + m}{s - m^2}
\left( \tilde I_s^D \dida{\epsilon}
+ i \tilde I_s^P \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}}{2 m} q^\nu
\epsilon^\mu \right) \bigg] u(\vec{P_i})\, , \\
{\cal M}_u &=& \xi_V^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi} \bar{u}(\vec{P_f})
\bigg[ \left( \tilde I_u^D \dida{\epsilon}
+ i \tilde I_u^P \frac{\sigma_{\mu\nu}}{2 m} q^\nu
\epsilon^\mu \right)
\frac{\didag{P_i} - \dida{k_\pi} + m}{u - m^2}
\gamma_5 \dida{k_\pi} \bigg] u(\vec{P_i})\, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}_t &=& \xi_V^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi}
\frac{\epsilon \cdot ( 2 k_\pi - q)}{t - m_\pi^2}
2 m I_t F_\pi
\bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) \gamma_5 u(\vec{P_i})
\, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}_{c} &=& \xi_V^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{g_a m_\pi} I_t G_A
\bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) \dida{\epsilon} \gamma_5 u(\vec{P_i})
\, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}_s^{5} &=& -\xi_A^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi} \bar{u}(\vec{P_f})
\left[ \dida{k_\pi} \frac{\didag{P_i} + \dida{q} - m}{s - m^2}
\tilde I_s^A \dida{\epsilon}
\right] u(\vec{P_i})\, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}_u^{5} &=& -\xi_A^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{m_\pi} \bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) \left[
\tilde I_u^A \dida{\epsilon}
\frac{\didag{P_i} - \dida{k_\pi} - m}{u - m^2}
\dida{k_\pi} \right] u(\vec{P_i})\, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}_{c}^{5} &=& \xi_A^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N N}}{g_a m_\pi} I_t \bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) \left[
\gamma_\mu F_1^v + i \frac{F_2^v}{2 m} \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu
\right] \epsilon^\mu u(\vec{P_i})\, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Note that there do not appear any induced pseudoscalar terms,
because the lepton mass terms have been neglected.
The electromagnetic matrix element is the
sum of the first 4 terms in (\ref{mat_b}), corresponding to
s, u and t channel pole terms and the contact term(''c''). The matrix
element of the weak neutral current is the corresponding sum
of the combinations ${\cal M} +{\cal M}^5$.
The following abbreviations for the isospin matrix
elements have been used in (\ref{mat_b}):
\begin{eqnarray}
I_t &=& I^- , \\
\tilde I_{(s,u)}^D &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[
\frac{\xi_V^{I=0}}{\xi_V^{I=1}} F_1^s I^0
+ F_1^v ( I^+ \pm I^-) \right], \nonumber \\
\tilde I_{(s,u)}^P &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[
\frac{\xi_V^{I=0}}{\xi_V^{I=1}} F_2^s I^0
+ F_2^v ( I^+ \pm I^-) \right], \nonumber \\
\tilde I_{(s,u)}^A &=& \frac{1}{2} \left[
G_A ( I^+ \pm I^-) \right]
\, , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with $I^{(\pm,0)}$ as defined in (\ref{iso}).
The invariant amplitudes obtained from (\ref{mat_b}) are
identical to the results of \cite{Ad68}.
They can be found in Appendix \ref{iam_b}.
\subsection{Resonant contributions}
In the kinematical region between
threshold and about 400 MeV excitation energy,
the dominant resonant contributions are due to the $\Delta(1232)$.
We treat the $\Delta$ as a Rarita-Schwinger field
and use the on-shell form of the propagator
modified by a phenomenological constant width,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{d_prop}
\Delta_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{\dida{p} + M}{p^2 -M^2 + i \Gamma M }
\left( g_{\mu\nu} -\frac{1}{3} \gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu
-\frac{2 p_\mu p_\nu}{3 M^2} +\frac{p_\mu \gamma_\nu -\gamma_\mu
p_\nu}{3 M} \right) \, .
\end{eqnarray}
$M = 1210 \mbox{ MeV}$ is obtained as
the real part of the $\Delta$ pole \cite{PDG94}.
The width $\Gamma = 85 \mbox{ MeV}$ is fitted to the
experimental data for pion electroproduction \cite{Co67,Ly67},
which is close to the imaginary part of the pole \cite{PDG94},
$\Gamma = 100 \mbox{ MeV}$ .
The Feynman diagrams to be calculated are shown in Fig. \ref{fig4}.
We use the
phenomenological $N \Delta$ transition currents \cite{Na82}
\begin{eqnarray}
{J}_{\mu}^{EM} &=& \bar{u}^{\lambda}(\vec{p'})
\left[ \left( \frac{C_3^{\gamma}}{m} \gamma^{\nu}
+ \frac{C_4^{\gamma}}{m^2} {p'}^{\nu} + \frac{C_5^{\gamma}}{m^2} p^{\nu}
\right) (g_{\lambda\mu} g_{\rho\nu} - g_{\lambda\rho} g_{\mu\nu})
q^{\rho} \gamma_5 \right] u(\vec{p})\, , \\
{J}_{\mu}^{NC} &=& \bar{u}^{\lambda}(\vec{p'})
\left[ \left( \frac{C_{3V}^{Z}}{m} \gamma^{\nu}
+ \frac{C_{4V}^{Z}}{m^2} {p'}^{\nu} + \frac{C_{5V}^{Z}}{m^2} p^{\nu}
\right) \vphantom{\frac{1}{2}}
(g_{\lambda\mu} g_{\rho\nu} - g_{\lambda\rho} g_{\mu\nu})
q^{\rho} \gamma_5 + C_{6V}^Z g_{\lambda\mu} \gamma_5 \right.
\nonumber \\ & &+ \left. \left( \frac{C_{3A}^{Z}}{m}
\gamma^{\nu} + \frac{C_{4A}^{Z}}{m^2} {p'}^{\nu} \right)
(g_{\lambda\mu} g_{\rho\nu} - g_{\lambda\rho} g_{\mu\nu}) q^{\rho}
+ C_{5A}^Z g_{\lambda\mu} + \frac{C_{6A}^{Z}}{m^2} p_{\lambda}
q_{\mu} \right] u(\vec{p}) \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The form factors $C_3$ to $C_6$
are taken from Nath et al.\cite{Na82},
with a $q^2$ dependence as in \cite{La88}.
The $\pi N \Delta$ vertex has the
effective form \cite{Ti78}
\begin{equation}
\label{piND}
\Lambda^{\mu}_{\pi N \Delta} = \frac{f_{\pi N \Delta}}{m_{\pi}}
k_\pi^{\mu}\, .
\end{equation}
With (\ref{d_prop})-(\ref{piND}) we obtain
the invariant matrix elements for s channel $\Delta$ production,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}^{EM}_{s \Delta} &=& \frac{f_{\pi N \Delta}}{m m_{\pi}}
\bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) k^{\pi}_{\sigma} \Delta^{\sigma \lambda}
\bigg[ C_3^{\gamma}( q_\lambda \gamma_\mu - g_{\lambda \mu} \dida{q})
+\frac{C_4^{\gamma}}{m}( q_\lambda(P_f + k_\pi)_{\mu}
\\ & &
-q \cdot ( P_f + k_\pi) g_{\lambda \mu} ) \bigg] \gamma_5
\epsilon^\mu u(\vec{P_i}) \, , \nonumber \\
{\cal M}^{NC}_{s \Delta} &=& \xi_V^{I=1}
{\cal M}^{EM}_{s \Delta} \vphantom{\frac{1}{2}}, \nonumber \\
{\cal M}^{5 NC}_{s \Delta} &=& -\xi_A^{I=1}
\frac{f_{\pi N \Delta}}{m m_{\pi}}
\bar{u}(\vec{P_f}) k^{\pi}_{\sigma} \Delta^{\sigma \lambda}
\bigg[ C_3^{A}( q_\lambda \gamma_\mu - g_{\lambda \mu} \dida{q})
+\frac{C_4^{A}}{m}( q_\lambda(P_f + k_\pi)_{\mu}
\nonumber \\ & &
-q \cdot ( P_f + k_\pi) g_{\lambda \mu} )
- C_5^{A} m g_{\lambda \mu}
\bigg] \epsilon^\mu u(\vec{P_i}) \, . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The corresponding u channel amplitudes are constructed by using
the crossing properties of the invariant amplitudes
(\ref{cross}).
These invariant matrix elements can now be decomposed into
invariant amplitudes as in (\ref{ia}).
The result of this calculation is listed in Appendix \ref{iam}.
\section{Results}
\label{res}
As a first test of the model we have calculated the inclusive
electromagnetic cross section. The experimental data for this
process \cite{Co67,Ly67} could be reproduced
within about 5\% over the whole energy region from threshold
to about 400 MeV excitation energy.
Fig. \ref{fig5} shows the asymmetry for the proton
and the neutron in various kinematical situations.
The two upper figures compare the asymmetry for
proton and neutron as function of the photon equivalent energy,
\begin{equation}
k_{\gamma} = (W^2 - m^2)/2m \, ,
\end{equation}
the {\it lab} energy necessary to excite a hadronic system with
{\it cm} energy W. At small excitation energies the asymmetry is
essentially given by background contributions,
whereas the $\Delta$ resonance dominates at the higher
energies. While the individual contributions vary strongly,
the coherent sum is essentially constant. In particular,
the resonance structure of the inclusive cross sections
is essentially wiped out when the asymmetries are
calculated. As demonstrated in the two lower figures of
Fig. \ref{fig5}, this effect is quite independent of
the kinematics except for a trivial dependence on the
momentum transfer. For the proton this $Q^2$
dependence is well described by the simple estimate
\begin{equation}
\label{gr_a}
A \approx -\frac{G_F Q^2}{e^2} \approx -10^{-4} Q^2/\mbox{ GeV}^2 \; ,
\end{equation}
where $G_F$ is the Fermi coupling constant. In the case
of the neutron, the asymmetry is somewhat smaller,
at about 80\% of the proton case,
showing a slight enhancement in the resonance peak.
In Fig. \ref{fig6} the asymmetry is shown at an incident
electron energy of $\epsilon_i = 800 \mbox{ MeV}$ and at
$W = 1232 \mbox{ MeV}$, directly
in the resonance peak. In this kinematical situation,
the asymmetry is strongly dominated by the $\Delta$,
the background contributions cancel against the interference
terms (upper panel). Therefore, the neglect of
background terms as in the work of Nath et al.\cite{Na82}
is well justified. As is shown in the lower panel of this figure,
we are able to reproduce those results except for an overall
scaling factor of about 90 \%.
In the work of Cahn et al.\cite{Ca78} the vector
coupling between the $Z^0$ and the electron has been neglected.
This corresponds to $\sin^2 \theta_W = 1/4$
and produces a somewhat lower curve with a flat
distribution in $Q^2$.
We have also compared our calculation to the results of
Li et al. \cite{Li82} and find a reasonable agreement. However,
the calculation of Ishankuliev et al. \cite{Is80} disagrees
with all others by a factor $1/2$ seemingly due
to a wrong coupling constant.
Preliminary studies of the $\pi N$ $\sigma$-term (\ref{mul})
have shown only small
effects of this physically interesting quantity on the asymmetry.
Unfortunately, the coupling of the $Z^0$ to the axial current
of the hadron appears together with the vector coupling to
the electron which is strongly suppressed by the value of the
Weinberg angle. In addition, the $S$-wave multipole
${\cal L}_{0+}$ contributes to the asymmetry only by interference
with the electromagnetic $P$-waves. In the usual conventions
this contribution is proportional to $(2 M_{1+}
+ M_{1-}) {\cal L}_{0+}$. As a consequence, the
multipole ${\cal L}_{0+}$ is further suppressed near threshold.
\section{Summary and Conclusions}
\label{conc}
The aim of this work has been to investigate parity violating (PV)
contributions to pion electroproduction. Only PV effects due to
interference between $\gamma$ and $Z^0$ exchange have been considered.
PV effects in the strong interaction,
as discussed by Li et al.\cite{Li82}, have been neglected.
The appropriate observable to study these effects is the
asymmetry defined in (\ref{def_a}).
A simple phenomenological model with effective Lagrangian densities
has been constructed that allows for the calculation
of the asymmetry in the kinematical region from pion threshold to
$\Delta(1232)$ resonance. The model is fully relativistic,
fulfils the crossing symmetry and
is gauge invariant due to our simple choice of the form factors.
The invariant amplitudes for the nonresonant contributions
respect PCAC. The $\Delta$ resonance is treated as a
Rarita-Schwinger field with phenomenological transition currents.
For the propagator, the on-shell form
with the $\Delta$ pole of the $\pi N$ scattering matrix is used.
The nonresonant contributions are created by the
usual pseudovector $\pi N$ coupling and phenomenological transition
currents. The weak neutral vector
current is traced back to the electromagnetic one by decomposing
the quark currents according to strong isospin.
For the axial current, a contact term has been introduced in
addition to the $s$ and $u$ channel nucleon Born terms.
This contact term is necessary to fulfil the low energy theorem of
Adler \cite{Ad68} for the nonresonant contributions.
The calculated asymmetry is nearly constant as function of excitation
energy. It increases linearly with the square of the
four-momentum transfer, $A \approx 10^{-4} q^2 /\mbox{GeV}^2$
for the proton, and has about 80\% of that
value for the neutron.
Previous calculations for the excitation of the $\Delta$
isobar could be reproduced reasonably well, while our results are at
variance with some of the earlier work on the background contributions.
In conclusion we find the following results:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The asymmetry grows linearly with the momentum transfer $Q^2$ and is
nearly independent of the excitation energy.
\item
The expected asymmetries for pion electroproduction are
comparable with the asymmetries found for elastic
electron scattering.
\item
Because of the value of the Weinberg angle, the vector
coupling of the $Z^0$ at the electron vertex is suppressed.
As a consequence, the asymmetry is
dominated by the hadronic vector current,
the contributions of the hadronic
axial currents being of the order of 10 - 20 \% only.
\item
A precision measurement of the asymmetries is potentially an
independent experiment to determine the important
$\pi N$ $\sigma$-term, which appears
in the $S$-wave multipole ${\cal L}_{0+}$ of the hadronic axial current.
Unfortunately, the $\sigma$-term will be difficult to measure,
because the hadronic axial current is suppressed and furthermore,
the multipole ${\cal L}_{0+}$ appears in the asymmetry only by its
interference with $P$-wave multipoles.
\end{itemize}
Finally, we would like to comment on some possible improvements of the
calculations:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The simple superposition of Born and resonance terms violates the Watson
theorem. It would be necessary to perform a multipole decomposition
and to unitarize at least the multipoles carrying the phase of the
$\Delta(3,3)$ resonance.
\item
We have neglected the contribution of the strange sea to the hadronic
transition currents. Taking account of such effects would require
additional, as yet undetermined form factors. However,
it is unlikely that pion production would be strongly modified
by strangeness degrees of freedom.
\item
Though we have not found large contributions of the $\sigma$-term to the
asymmetry, this matter deserves more systematical studies. Clearly, any
further independent measurement of this important quantity would be
invaluable.
\end{itemize}
|
\section{Introduction}
The soft particle production in a very high energy hadron-hadron
or nucleus-nucleus collision is an interesting phenomenon.
Occasionally, the collision creates a large number of low
energy (small $p_t$) particles, mainly pion quanta, initially
populating in a small interaction volume and subsequently undergoing
a rapid expansion. The perturbative QCD is not applicable
in describing the dynamics since it involves a large number of
quanta and the interactions are highly nonlinear. One may
anticipate some novel dynamical feature of the nonperturbative
QCD. Although there is some evidence that the $p_t$ distribution
of these particles follows the scaling law with an effective
temperature, it is not clear whether or not these low energy
particles can actually thermalize so that their distribution can
be described by thermodynamics. In fact, some deviation from
the thermal distribution in the very small $p_t$ region, say,
$p_t<100$ MeV, has been observed though data are poor in this
region at present.
On the other hand, it has been suggested, first by
Horn and Silver \cite{horn}, that these low energy
pions may be described by a classical theory. The number ($N$) of
quanta involved is large, the quantum fluctuation is suppressed
by $1/\sqrt{N}$. In addition, the low energy theorem on the
pion-pion scatterings dictates that the quantum corrections to
the scattering amplitudes are suppressed by a factor of
$p^2/(4\pi f_\pi)^2$. More recently, a scenario of disoriented
chiral condensate \cite{DCC,rw} suggests that these
low energy pions may be out of equilibrium and undergo a quench
following a chiral phase transition, and their interactions
should be described by the classical chiral dynamics.
In this paper, we shall determine the possible classical
field evolutions that these low energy pions may follow
based on the nonlinear $\sigma$-model.
The advantage of the {\it nonlinear} $\sigma$-model over
the {\it linear} $\sigma$
model is that the constraint of the vacuum expectation value on
the fields is
built in and that the pion fields always describe the massless modes
irrespective of the vacuum orientation in the background.
The $\sigma$ mass is taken to be infinity so the low energy
structure of the theory is evident.
We have obtained in an analytic form a class of classical solutions to
the nonlinear $\sigma$-model in $3+1$ space-time dimensions as the
candidates
of the disoriented chiral condensate in QCD.
Our general solutions have a
transverse momentum distribution and need not
be subject to a boost-invariance
constraint. The solution with a nonuniform isospin orientation is constructed
by the chiral $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ rotation from a uniformly oriented solution.
In the limit of a boost invariance and no transverse momentum,
our solutions reduce to those of Blaizot and Krzywicki \cite{blaiz}.
We study the distribution of the neutral pion fraction $f$ for the pions
that disintegrate from the disoriented vacua. We find that the
distribution dP/df = 1/(2$\sqrt{f})$ holds for the uniformly oriented vacua
and also for the boost-invariant vacua with an infinitely large uniform spread
in the transverse direction, but it does not hold for the vacuum whose
isospin orientation is nonuniform in space-time. However this distribution
should be correct if one selects pions from within a small region in the
$y$-${\bf k}_\bot$ plot event by event. This conclusion is reached
through the analysis using the classical field theory method and also by
studying the quantum pion states.
We organize the paper as follows. In Sec.\ 2, we start with the
analysis for
the boost-invariant solutions with no transverse momentum. In Sec.\ 3, we
make the observation that all solutions with a nonuniform isospin orientation
are obtained by the chiral rotations from
a uniformly oriented solution whose energy
is degenerate with the nonuniform ones. In Sec.\ 4, we give a general
solution with a uniform isospin orientation, from which we can
obtain the nonuniform solutions by the chiral rotations according to
the prescription given in Sec.\ 3. The general solution has a nontrivial
transverse momentum distribution and is not subject to
the boost-invariance constraint.
In Sec.\ 5, we examine the charge distribution of the pions
disintegrating from these disoriented vacua. The picture of classical field
theory leading to the distribution dP/df = 1/(2$\sqrt{f})$ does not apply to
the nonuniformly oriented vacua except in the boost invariant limit with zero
transverse momentum. For a general
solution which has rapidity and transverse momentum dependence,
the distribution holds only within
each small segment in the $y$-${\bf k}_\bot$ plot.
The charge distribution is
also studied from the viewpoint of quantum multipion states, following
Horn and Silver \cite{horn}. The modification of the
distribution is attributed to the fact that
for the general nonuniform solution, more than one orbital state
is available
for pions to occupy so that there are many different ways to construct
multipion states.
\section{Boost-Invariant Solution in $1+1$ Dimensions}
In high energy hadron or nucleus collisions, the
configurations approximately invariant
along the collision axis are of particular interest.
We first focus on this
class of solutions ignoring the transverse spatial dependence.
We choose a {\it nonlinear} $\sigma$-model
as the dynamical model for QCD at low energy.
The solutions that
we obtain in this Section are equivalent to those of Blaizot and Krzywicki
$\cite{blaiz}$ though they are dervied in a slightly different way in order
to clarify a relation between the
uniformly oriented solutions and the nonuniformly
oriented ones which plays an important role
when we extend our argument to the more general case later.
The phase and radial
representation of the nonlinear $\sigma$-model is,
\begin{equation}
\Sigma (x) = e^{i{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}
\cdot{\bf n}(x)\theta(x)}}.
\end{equation}
No matter what values the classical phase fields take, the state remains at the
bottom of the potential valley because $|\Sigma| = 1$. This facilitates
greatly the search for the DCC-type solutions which are realized at the
bottom of potential well. Define the pion field
\begin{equation}
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}
(x) = f_{\pi}{\bf n}(x)\,\theta(x).
\end{equation}
where ${\bf n}(x)$ is an unit
isovector field obeying ${\bf n}(x)\cdot{\bf n}
(x) = 1$. Alternatively one defines $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} (x)$
by $\sigma + i\mbox{\boldmath $\tau\cdot\pi$} =
f_{\pi}\Sigma$ with the constraint $\sigma =\sqrt{f_{\pi}^2 -
\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}^2}$.
In this case the pion fields are given by $\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x) =
f_{\pi}{\bf n}(x)\:{\rm sin}\theta(x)$. In either case,
${\bf n}$ determines the isospin orientation of the pion field.
The lagrangian is given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \frac{f_{\pi}^2}{4}
{\rm tr} \Bigl(\partial_{\mu}\Sigma^\dagger(x)
\partial^{\mu}\Sigma(x)\Bigr), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\Sigma$ transforms like $\Sigma\rightarrow U_L\Sigma U_R^\dagger$ under
$SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R$ rotations.
In terms of $\theta(x)$ and ${\bf n}(x)$,
the lagrangian is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = \frac{f_{\pi}^2}{2}(\partial_{\mu}\theta\:\partial^{\mu}\theta +
\sin^{2}\theta\partial_{\mu}{\bf n}\cdot\partial^{\mu}{\bf n}) +
\frac{\lambda f_{\pi}^2}{2}({\bf n}^2 -1),
\end{equation}
where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier.
We will not include an explicit chiral symmetry breaking throughout this paper.
The Euler-Lagrange equations are
\begin{equation}
\Box\theta = \sin\theta\:
\cos\theta\:\partial_{\mu}{\bf n}\cdot\partial^{\mu}
{\bf n},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\mu}(\sin^{2}\theta\:\partial^{\mu}{\bf n}) = \lambda{\bf n}.
\end{equation}
The chiral $SU(2)_{L}\times SU(2)_{R}$ symmetry assures the
conservation of the
vector and axial-vector currents. In terms of $\theta$ and ${\bf n}$,
the current conservation is written as
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\mu}(\sin^{2}\theta\:{\bf n}\times\partial^{\mu}{\bf n}) = 0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\partial_{\mu}({\bf n}\:\partial^{\mu}\theta + \sin\theta\:
\cos\theta\:\partial^{\mu}{\bf n}) = 0.
\end{equation}
The isospin current conservation (7) follows also from (6), while
the axial-vector current conservation (8) can be derived from
(5) by repeated use of $({\bf n}\cdot d{\bf n}/d\tau) = 0$.
(4), (5), (6) and (7) are most general with no assumptions or
approximations made.
We consider a boost-invariant case in 1+1 dimensions where
the fields $\theta(x)$ and ${\bf n}(x)$ are only functions of the variable
$\tau$:
\begin{equation}
\tau = \sqrt{t^{2}-x^{2}}.
\end{equation}
For a function only of $\tau$, a partial derivative
$\partial_{\mu}f(\tau)$ is equal to $(x_{\mu}/\tau)df/d\tau$.
Furthermore, $\partial_{\mu}(f(\tau)\partial^{\mu}g(\tau)) =
(1/\tau^2)(d(\tau^{2}fg^\prime)/d\tau)$ where $g^\prime = dg/d\tau$.
The current conservation relations can be integrated into
\begin{equation}
\tau \: \sin^{2}\theta\:{\bf n}\times\frac{d{\bf n}}{d\tau}= {\bf a},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tau\,{\bf n}\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}+\tau\,\sin\theta\:\cos\theta\:
\frac{d{\bf n}}{d\tau}= {\bf b},
\end{equation}
where ${\bf a}$ and ${\bf b}$ are constant vectors in the isospin space
whose magnitudes are denoted as $a$ and $b$ respectively.
It is immediately obvious from (10) and (11) that ${\bf a}$
and ${\bf b}$ are orthogonal to each other:
\begin{equation}
{\bf a}\;\bot\;{\bf b}.
\end{equation}
The isovector field ${\bf n}(\tau)$ stays perpendicular to ${\bf a}$
as $\tau$ varies. By multiplying (10) with ${\bf n}$ vectorially and using
${\bf n}\cdot (d{\bf n}/d\tau) = 0$, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\frac{d{\bf n}}{d\tau} = \frac{{\bf a}\times{\bf n}}{\tau\sin^{2}\theta},
\end{equation}
a standard equation for a vector ${\bf n}$
to precess around a constant vector ${\bf a}$. The
precession frequency $|{\bf a}|/\tau\sin^2\theta$
varies with the proper time $\tau$. The relations among ${\bf a}$,
${\bf b}$ and ${\bf n}$ are illustrated in Figure 1.
Squaring (11) gives
\begin{equation}
\Biggl(\tau\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}\Biggr)^{2}+ \sin^{2}\theta\:\cos^{2}\theta\
\Biggl(\tau\frac{d{\bf n}}{d\tau}\Biggr)^{2} = b^{2}.
\end{equation}
Eliminating $d{\bf n}/d\tau$ from the these equations, one obtains the
differential equation for $\theta(\tau)$:
\begin{equation}
\Biggl(\tau\frac{d\theta}{d\tau}\Biggr)^{2} = a^{2}+ b^{2} -
\frac{a^{2}}{\sin^{2}\theta},
\end{equation}
where $a = |{\bf a}|$ and $b = |{\bf b}|$.
(13) and (15) combined contain the same information as the first integrals
of the Euler-Lagrange equations for $\theta$ and ${\bf n}$ so that
we may proceed with the current conservation laws.
(15) is analytically integrable into the most general boost-invariant
solution for $\theta(\tau)$ in 1+1 dimension:
\begin{equation}
\cos\theta(\tau) = (b/\kappa)\; \cos\Bigl(\kappa\:{\rm ln}(\tau/\tau_0)
+ \vartheta_0\Bigr),
\end{equation}
where $\kappa^2 = a^2+b^2$ and $ \cos\vartheta_0 =(\kappa/b)\,\cos
\theta
(\tau_0)$.
Substituting $\theta(\tau)$ in the integral from the isovector current
conservation, one obtains the general solution for ${\bf n}(\tau)$. Since
${\bf n}(\tau)$
and ${\bf b}$ both lie in the plane perpendicular to ${\bf a}$, it is
convenient to express the unit isovector field ${\bf n}(\tau)$ in terms of
a single angle $\beta(\tau)$ measured from the direction of ${\bf b}$:
\begin{equation}
{\bf n}(x)\cdot{\bf b} = b \cos\beta(x).
\end{equation}
The solution for $\cos\,\beta(\tau)$ can be expressed
in terms of $\theta(\tau)$
\begin{equation}
\cos\,\beta(\tau) =\frac{a}{b}\sqrt{\frac{\kappa^2}{a^2}
-\frac{1}{\sin^{2}\theta(\tau)}}.
\end{equation}
The DCC configuration may be obtained
from the boost-invariant solution multiplied by
a step function ${\rm\Theta}(\tau^2)$:
\begin{equation}
\Sigma(x)_{DCC} = e^{i\theta (x)\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$ }
\cdot{\bf n}(x)}{\Theta}(\tau^2),
\end{equation}
such that the causality condition
is satisfied. Our solutions should only apply to the
inside of the light-cone.
Once $\Theta(\tau^2)$ is inserted,
there appears a source on the light cone at $\tau = 0$ which triggers
the formation of a DCC. The energy density ${\cal E}(x)$ of our solution is
singular as we approach the light cone:
\begin{equation}
{\cal E}(x) = \frac{f_{\pi}^2}{2}
\Biggl(\frac{t^2+z^2}{\tau^2}\Biggr)(a^2+b^2),
\end{equation}
for both the uniform and nonuniform solutions. The isospin vectors ${\bf a}$
and ${\bf b}$ enter the energy density in the combination of $a^2+b^2$ as
required by $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ invariance. The lowest energy solution of
$a^2+b^2 =0$ is a trivial solution obtained from (16), (17) and (18)
by taking the limit of $a, b \rightarrow 0$:
\begin{equation}
\theta(x) = {\rm constant},\; {\bf n}(x) = {\rm constant\;vector}.
\end{equation}
Blaizot and Krzywicki \cite{blaiz} expressed the pion fields
by $\pi = f_{\pi}{\bf n}\,\sin\theta$. If we choose
our $\it{initial}$ condition such that $\sin\,\vartheta_0 = 0$, that is,
$\cos\theta(\tau_0)=b/\kappa$, our general solution given by (16) and (18)
coincides with theirs.
\section{Chiral Rotation and Nonuniform Solution}
In this Section we focus on the relation between the
space-time dependence of the isovector field ${\bf n}$(x)
and $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ invariance of the lagrangian.
It is easy to see in (18) that our solutions have a uniform isospin
orientation when the isospin vector ${\bf a}$ vanishes. When ${\bf a}
=0$, $\beta(\tau) = 0\;({\rm mod}\; 2\pi)$, that is, ${\bf n}$ points to the
direction of ${\bf b}$ for all uniform DCC's. Because of the
$SU(2)\times SU(2)$ invariance, it is always possible to rotate the vector
${\bf a}$ by an appropriate axial rotation to the direction of the vector
${\bf b}$. After the rotation the solution has a uniform isospin
orientation and is degenerate in energy with the nonuniform solution
prior to the rotation. It is not unfamiliar that if a system possesses
some
symmetry, a set of infinitely many new solutions may be obtained by making
the symmetry transformation on a single solution.
To be explicit in the present case, let us rotate a uniform solution
\begin{equation}
\Sigma_0 (x) = e^{i\theta_0(x)\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}\cdot{\bf n}_0},
\end{equation}
where ${\bf n}_0$ is space-time independent. Upon a
general chiral
rotation parametrized by $U_L = e^{i\xi\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}
\cdot{\bf n}_L}$ and $U_R =
e^{i\eta\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}
\cdot{\bf n}_R}$, the uniform solution is rotated into $\Sigma (x)
= U_L\Sigma_0 (x) U_R^{-1}$. The transformed $\theta$ and ${\bf n}$
fields are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
c_\theta & = & \Bigl(c_\xi c_\eta + ({\bf n}_L\cdot{\bf n}_R)s_\xi s_\eta
\Bigr) c_0 + \nonumber \\
& & \Bigl(({\bf n}_0\cdot{\bf n}_R)c_\xi s_\eta -
({\bf n}_0\times{\bf n}_L) s_\xi c_\eta +({\bf n}_0\times
{\bf n}_L)\cdot{\bf n}_R\, s_\xi s_\eta\Bigr)s_0,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf n} s_\theta & = &\Bigl({\bf n}_L s_\xi c_\eta -{\bf n}_R c_\xi s_\eta
+({\bf n}_L\times{\bf n}_R)s_\xi s_\eta\Bigr) c_0 \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} + \Biggl({\bf n}_0\, c_\xi c_\eta +
({\bf n}_0\times{\bf n}_L)s_\xi c_\eta +
({\bf n}_0\times{\bf n}_R)c_\xi s_\eta \nonumber \\
& & \mbox{} +\Bigl(({\bf n}_0\cdot{\bf n}_L){\bf n}_R +({\bf n}
_0\cdot{\bf n}_R){\bf n}_L
-({\bf n}_L\cdot{\bf n}_R){\bf n}_0\Bigr)s_\xi s_\eta\Biggr)s_0,
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{\theta}$ and $s_{\theta}$ stand for $\cos\theta$ and $\sin\theta$,
respectively, and so forth, while $c_0 = \cos\theta_0$ and $s_0 = \sin
\theta_0$.
For an isospin rotation, we choose $\xi = \eta$ and ${\bf n}_L = {\bf n}_R$.
Then the rotated fields are
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos\theta(\tau)&=& \cos\theta_0(\tau), \nonumber \\
{\bf n} & =& ({\bf n}_0\cdot{\bf n}_L){\bf n}_L - \Bigl({\bf n}_0 -
({\bf n}_0\cdot{\bf n}_L){\bf n}_L\Bigr)\cos 2\xi
+ ({\bf n}_0\times{\bf n}_L)\,\sin 2\xi.
\end{eqnarray}
Since this is a global isospin rotation, the resulting field is another
uniformly oriented solution with the same $\theta (x)$.
For an axial rotation, $\xi = \eta$ and ${\bf n}_L = - {\bf n}_R$, in
particular, if ${\bf n}_L, {\bf n}_R \;\bot\;
{\bf n}_0$, one obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos\theta(\tau) & = & \cos 2\xi\: \cos\theta_0(\tau), \nonumber \\
{\bf n}(\tau)\,\sin\theta(\tau) & = & {\bf n}_0\, \sin\theta_0(\tau) +
{\bf n}_L\, \sin 2\xi\: \cos\theta_0(\tau).
\end{eqnarray}
The axial rotations turn a uniform solution
into nonuniform solutions. We can
actually show that our general nonuniform solution given by (16) and (18)
is reproduced with a suitable choice of the rotation angle:
\begin{equation}
\tan 2\xi = a/b.
\end{equation}
Then (26) gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\cos\theta(\tau) & = & (b/\kappa)\cos\theta_0(\tau), \nonumber \\
\cos\,\beta(\tau) & = & {\bf n}\cdot{\bf n}_0
= \sin\theta_0(\tau)/\sin\theta(\tau).
\end{eqnarray}
The result in (18) for $\cos\beta$ is obtained by solving
the above equations.
In this way we are able to obtain the
nonuniform solutions from uniform ones by the
axial-vector rotations.
In the boost-invariant 1+1 dimensional case, we have obtained in Sec.\ 2
all nonuniform
solutions by solving explicitly the nonlinear differential equations.
We have shown that they are
all related by the axial rotations to the nonuniform solutions
with the same energy density ${\cal E}(x)$.
All possible solutions are exhausted in this way.
\section{General Solution Without Boost Invariance}
Even without boost invariance, it is straightforward to solve for
the
uniformly oriented solutions. Once we obtain a uniform solution, we can
transform it into the
nonuniform solutions by $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ rotations. The
equations for $\theta(x)$ and ${\bf n}(x)$ from (5) to (8) in Sec.\ 2 are
also valid in the boost-noninvariant case. We look for the uniform solution in
which ${\bf n} = {\rm constant}$
so that $\partial_{\mu}{\bf n}=0$. In this case the
equation of motion reduces simply to
\begin{equation}
\Box\theta = 0.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to use the space-time variables
\begin{equation}
\tau =\sqrt{t^2 - z^2},\;\;\; \eta =\frac{1}{2}
{\rm ln}\Biggl(\frac{t+z}{t-z}\Biggr),
\;\;\; {\bf x}_\bot. \nonumber
\end{equation}
The origin of space-time coordinates is identified with the collision
point of
the hadron collisions. The z-axis is chosen along the collision axis of the
initial hadrons. Note that the meaning of variable $\tau$ is a little
different from the 1+1 dimensional case.
The surface of $\tau=0$ lies outside
the light cone with respect to the space-time origin except for the exactly
forward and
backward directions. With these space-time variables, $\Box\theta = 0$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tau}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Biggl(\tau
\frac{\partial\theta}
{\partial\tau}\Biggr) -
\frac{1}{\tau^2}\frac{\partial^2\theta}{\partial^2\eta}-
\triangle_\bot\theta = 0.
\end{equation}
Since the differential equation is homogeneous, it can be solved by
the method of separation of variables in the form
\begin{equation}
\theta(x) = T(\tau)H(\eta)X({\bf x_\bot})\:{\rm\theta}(\tau^2-{\bf x}_\bot^2).
\end{equation}
We solve for $\theta(x)$ inside the light cone, $\tau^2 - {\bf x}_\bot^2 > 0$.
For the transverse direction
${\bf x_\bot}$, the general solutions are the Bessel and the Neumann
functions. If we require that the solution be regular on the collision axis
$\rho =|{\bf x_\bot}|= 0$, the Neumann functions are excluded. Note however
that a singular behavior means an infinite oscillation toward $\rho = 0$, not
an indefinite increase, in terms of the pion field
$\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$} = f_{\pi}{\bf n}\,
\sin\theta$. One may also require that
$X({\bf x_\bot})$ should not increase
indefinitely as $\rho \rightarrow\infty$.
With these requirements, the parameter $\mu^2$
defined by
$\triangle_\bot X = -\mu^2 X$ must be positive. We choose $\mu
> 0$. $X({\bf x}_\bot)$ is expressed in terms of
the Bessel functions of integer
order:
\begin{equation}
X({\bf x_\bot}) = C_0J_0(\mu\rho)
+ \sum_{m=1}^\infty J_m(\mu\rho)(C_m \cos m\phi + D_m \sin m\phi),
\end{equation}
where $C_0$, $C_m$, and $D_m$ are the numerical
coefficients to be determined by the boundary conditions. The
magnitude of $\mu$ determines a transverse size of a DCC and
therefore a spread of the $p_t$ distribution
of the final pions. Since a
DCC will have an extended size in the transverse direction, the value of $\mu$
is likely to be a fraction of $f_{\pi}$ or less.
The spatial rapidity dependence $H(\eta)$ is simply solved
\begin{equation}
H(\eta) = \cosh \lambda\eta \;\;\; or \;\;\;\sinh \lambda\eta.
\end{equation}
The parameter $\lambda$ can be any complex number in general (If it is complex,
one should take the real part of $\theta(x)$ at the very end).
The special case
$\lambda = 0$ leads to the boost-invariant solutions.
For the approximately boost-invariant DCC configurations, the magnitude of
$\lambda$ is much smaller than unity. The region of large values of $\eta$
corresponds to the forward and backward edges of DCC where energetic leading
hadrons are moving outward while the small values of $\eta$ describe the cool
central region. In this picture, it appears appropriate to choose
$H(\eta)$ such that the pion density is higher at a larger
$\eta$ than at a smaller
$\eta$. We therefore choose $\lambda$ to be real (and positive) in the
following. It should be emphasized however that our choice
for a real $\lambda$
over purely imaginary or complex $\lambda$ is more for the convenience
of the presentation.
Given $X({\bf x_\bot})$ and $H(\eta)$, $T(\tau)$ obeys the
differential equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\tau}\frac{\partial}{\partial\tau}\Biggl(\tau\frac{\partial T}
{\partial \tau}\Biggr) + \Biggl(\mu^2 - \frac{\lambda^2}{\tau^2}\Biggr)T = 0.
\end{equation}
The solution is given by $ J_\lambda(\mu\tau)$
and/or $ N_\lambda(\mu\tau)$. The
main difference between $J_\lambda(\mu\tau)$ and
$N_\lambda(\mu\tau)$ is their different behavior as $\mu\tau$ approaches $0$.
In the limit of a boost-invariance,
$\lambda\rightarrow 0$, $J_\lambda (\mu\tau)$
approaches unity
while $N_\lambda(\mu\tau) \rightarrow \ln (\mu\tau)$. If there is no
transverse momentum, the latter approaches the uniform solution ($a = 0$,
$\kappa = b$) described in Sec.\ 2,
while the former coincides with the lowest energy
solution given in (21).
Putting all together,
one obtains the uniform solution in a complete form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\theta(x){\bf n}_0 & = & \Bigl(a\:J_\lambda(\mu\tau) +
b\:N_\lambda(\mu\tau)\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& & \times \Bigl(A\:\cosh\lambda\eta +
B\:\sinh\lambda\eta\Bigr)\nonumber \\
& & \times J_m(\mu\rho)(C_m \cos m\phi +
D_m \sin m\phi)\,{\bf n}_0\;{\rm \Theta}(\tau^2-{\bf x}_\bot^2),
\end{eqnarray}
where one may superpose these solutions in $\lambda$, $\mu$, and $m$.
It is much harder to solve directly for nonuniform solutions when there is no
boost-invariance constraint. Though some simple special solutions can be
obtained by luck, finding all nonuniform solutions is a formidable task.
In contrast, it is straightforward to perform $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ rotations
on the uniform solutions. The rotation formulas (23) and (24) are most
general and applicable to the boost-noninvariant case as well. Therefore
the nonuniform solutions can be obtained by the chiral rotation from
the uniform one in (36).
An important question is whether we exhaust all nonuniform
solutions by the
axial rotations from the uniform solutions.
In other words, are there any
nonuniform solutions that cannot be rotated into
a uniform one? If such a class of solutions exists, it
would have some topological quantum number like a soliton. Note however that
the solutions of our interest are time-dependent, and that their energies and
actions are not necessarily finite.
Unless these topologically nontrivial solutions exist,
the uniform solution (36) and the $SU(2)\times SU(2)$ rotations on it
exhaust all solutions.
\section{Pion Charge Distribution}
It has been predicted that the pions decaying from a DCC will show
a distinct
charge distribution when the charge ratio is plotted event by event in
$f= N_{\pi^0}/(N_{\pi^0}+N_{\pi^\pm})$.
The distribution
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP}{df} =
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{f}} \label{dpdf}
\end{equation}
has been derived in two very different ways.
The first derivation
assumes that an isosinglet multipion state is created by the decay of a
DCC \cite{horn}.
All pions decaying from a given DCC are assumed to occupy an identical orbital
state that is determined by the spatial configuration of DCC.
The Bose statistics allows only one isosinglet $2N$-pion state:
\begin{equation}
|2N\pi\rangle =
(2a_{+}^\dagger a_{-}^\dagger - a_0^\dagger a_0^\dagger)^N|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $a_{\pm,0}^\dagger$ are the creation operators of the pions in the same
single orbital state. Making a binomial expansion of the right-hand side at
large $N$, one obtains a simple rule
$dP/df = 1/(2\sqrt{f})$. It is later pointed out that
the relative phase between
$a_{+}^\dagger a_{-}^\dagger$ and $a_0^\dagger a_0^\dagger$ is inessential to
the final prediction of $dP/df$ \cite{kog}.
The second derivation is based on a more
intuitive picture in classical field theory. Assuming
that the isospin orientation is uniform in space-time and
that all isospin directions are equally probable, one
obtains $dP/d\Omega = 1/4\pi$, where $\Omega$ is the solid angle for
an isospin
direction in isospin space. Since the $\pi^0$ fraction $f$ is
proportional to the square
of the third component of the pion field,
($f\propto\cos^2\beta$), one obtains again distribution (\ref{dpdf}).
In this derivation,
the interference effects are completely ignored.
Let us examine whether or not
this prediction remains valid for the nonuniform DCC's.
In the first derivation, it is crucial that only one orbital state is
available for pions and therefore the isosinglet state is unique: For
two pions, the isosinglet is nothing but $(2a_{+}^\dagger a_{-}^\dagger -
a_0^\dagger a_0^\dagger)|0\rangle$ by the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients. For four
pions, the
group theory alone would allow two isosinglets. One is to
combine the ${\bf 0}_{2\pi}$ from
${\bf 1}_\pi\otimes{\bf 1}_\pi ={\bf 0}_{2\pi}
+ {\bf 1}_{2\pi}$ with the other
${\bf 0}_{2\pi}$ from ${\bf 1}_\pi\otimes{\bf 1}_\pi ={\bf 0}_{2\pi}
+{\bf 1}_{2\pi}$. The other is to contract the ${\bf 1}_{2\pi}$ from
${\bf 1}_\pi\otimes{\bf 1}_\pi= {\bf 0}_{2\pi} + {\bf 1}_{2\pi}$ with the other
${\bf 1}_{2\pi}$ from ${\bf 1}_\pi\otimes{\bf 1}_\pi={\bf 0}_{2\pi}+
{\bf 1}_{2\pi}$. The
Bose statistics forbids ${\bf 1}_{2\pi}$ for two identical pions
in the same orbital state so that only ${\bf 0}_{2\pi}\otimes {\bf 0}_{2\pi}
|0\rangle$ = $(2a_{+}^\dagger a_{-}^\dagger -a_0^\dagger a_0^\dagger)^2|0
\rangle$ is allowed. This argument goes through for any $2N$, leading to the
$|2N\pi\rangle$ in (38). If there are more than one orbital states
available,
the four-pion singlet state would generally take the form
\begin{equation}
|4\pi\rangle = \Bigl(A({\bf 0}_{2\pi}\otimes{\bf 0}_{2\pi})+B({\bf 1}_{2\pi}
\otimes{\bf 1}_{2\pi})\Bigr)|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $A$ and $B$ are dynamics-dependent. There are
increasingly many more isosinglets for $6\pi$'s, $8\pi$'s {\it etc}, as
$N$ goes up.
In the above example, the $A$-type term and the $B$-type term give
quite different pion compositions: there is $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ in the
$A$-type
term, but no $\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0\pi^0$ in the $B$-type term.
In order to obtain the distribution $dP/df = 1/(2 \sqrt{f})$, there must be
only
the $A$-type term and nothing else in the $2N\pi$ state ($N\rightarrow\infty$).
One can construct
explicitly the $4\pi$ state when the isovector field ${\bf n}(x)$ is nonuniform
in space-time.
Let us parametrize the direction of ${\bf n}(x)$ by the azimuthal
and polar angles $\alpha(x)$ and $\beta(x)$ with respect to the isospin z-axis.
To simplify our computation a little,
we consider as an example a DCC whose isospin is nonuniform only in the polar
direction $\beta$, but not in the azimuthal direction by choosing
$\alpha
= 0$. We shall use the representation
$\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x)= f_{\pi}{\bf n}(x)\sin
\theta(x)$ instead of $\pi(x) = f_{\pi}{\bf n}(x)\theta(x)$ for the
following discussion
since the former automatically incorporates the periodicity of
$\Sigma(x)$ in $\theta(x)\rightarrow\theta(x)\pm 2\pi$.
The Cartesian isospin components of the pion field are
\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_1 & = & f_{\pi}\sin\theta(x)\;\sin\beta(x),\nonumber\\
\pi_2 & = & 0, \nonumber \\
\pi_3 & = & f_{\pi}\sin\theta(x)\;\cos\beta(x).
\end{eqnarray}
The DCC state is described by the quantum
coherent state, up to an overall normalization
\begin{equation}
|DCC(\theta,\beta)\rangle = \exp\Bigl(a_1^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta)
+ a_3^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta)\Bigr)|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
a_1^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta) & = &
\int\sqrt{2|{\bf k}|}\phi_{ss}
({\bf k})a_1^\dagger({\bf k}) d^3{\bf k},\nonumber \\
a_3^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta) & = &
\int\sqrt{2|{\bf k}|}\phi_{sc}
({\bf k})a_3^\dagger({\bf k}) d^3{\bf k},
\end{eqnarray}
with $\phi_{ss}$ and $\phi_{sc}$ being the three-dimensional Fourier transforms
of $f_{\pi}\sin\theta\sin\beta$ and $f_{\pi}\sin\theta\cos\beta$
respectively. Unlike $a_i^\dagger({\bf k})$, the operators
$a_1^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta)$
and $a_3^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta)$ are not canonically normalized, but the
normalization is irrelevant to the isospin structure.
The $|N\pi\rangle$ projection of the DCC state is
\begin{equation}
|N\pi(\theta(x)\,\beta(x))\rangle
=\frac{1}{N!}\Bigl(a_1^\dagger(s_\theta\,s_\beta) + a_3^\dagger
(s_\theta\,c_\beta)\Bigr)^N|0\rangle.
\end{equation}
Under the assumption that the DCC's
appear in the intermediate state with $I=0$ and the
production processes conserve
isospin, if one DCC can be produced, all other
DCC's that are related to it by the isospin rotations can be produced with
an equal probability. The isosinglet DCC state can be constructed from
the state in (41) by integrating out
the Euler angles over the entire isospin
space.
The $4\pi$ state of an isosinglet DCC is obtained by averaging
$|4\pi(\theta(x)\, \beta(x))\rangle$ over isospin space. The
computation is
straightforward though a little tedious. Up to an overall normalization,
the result is
\begin{equation}
|4\pi(I=0)\rangle =
\Biggl(\Bigl(\Bigl|{\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta)\Bigr|^2
+\Bigl|{\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta)\Bigr|^2\Bigr)^2
-4\Bigl|{\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta)\times
{\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta)\Bigr|^2\Biggr)|0\rangle,
\end{equation}
where $|{\bf a}^\dagger|^2 = 2a_{+}^\dagger a_{-}^\dagger - a_0^\dagger
a_0^\dagger$.
The first and second terms in the right-hand side are the $A$-type terms
in (39),
while the last term is the $B$-type term.
As we anticipate, the isosinglet $4\pi$
state of the nonuniform DCC is no longer of the form postulated in (38).
For a uniform DCC, that is, $\beta(x)\rightarrow\,{\rm constant}$,
${\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta c_\beta)$ and ${\bf a}^\dagger(s_\theta s_\beta)$
are identical up to a factor
(in the 1+1 boost-invariant solution in Sec.\ 2,
$\beta(x)$ is so defined that $\beta(x)\rightarrow 0$, namely
${\bf a}^\dagger\rightarrow 0$, in the uniform limit).
Therefore, the $B$-type term
cannot exist for the uniform DCC's.
Our construction of the isosinglet $4\pi$ state and the existence of the
$B$-type terms
cast a serious doubt on the distribution for the nonuniform DCC's.
Alternatively, let us study the problem by assuming that
$|{\rm DCC}(\theta(x),\beta(x))\rangle$ with
different $\theta(x)$ and $\beta(x)$
do not have the quantum interference with each other.
It is in accordance with
the classical field picture. For a large number of pions, ignoring the
interference may be justified.
The momentum spectrum
of pion quanta ($i=1,2,3$) decaying from a classical field is given \cite{hen}
\begin{equation}
(2\pi)^3\frac{dN_i}{d^3{\bf k}}
= \frac{|\tilde{\rho}_i({\bf k},|{\bf k}|)|^2}{2|{\bf k}|},
\label{dn}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{\rho}_i({\bf k},|{\bf k}|)$
is the four-dimensional on-mass-shell
Fourier transform of the pion source function $\rho_i({\bf x},t)$ defined by
$\Box \mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}(x)=\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}(x)$:
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\rho}_i({\bf k}, |{\bf k}|) = \int \rho_i({\bf x}, t)\,
e^{-i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf x} +i|{\bf k}|t}d{\bf x}dt.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to perform the space-time integral
using variables $\tau,\;\eta$ and
${\bf x}_\bot$ for which $d{\bf x}dt = \tau d\tau d\eta d{\bf x}_\bot$,
and
\begin{equation}
E= |{\bf k}|, \;\;\; y =\frac{1}{2}{\rm ln}
\Biggl(\frac{E+k_{\|}}{E-k_{\|}}\Biggr),
\;\;\;{\bf k}_\bot ,\label{m}
\end{equation}
for the momentum variables. (\ref{dn}) becomes
\begin{equation}
(2\pi)^3\frac{dN_i}{dy\,d^2{\bf k}_\bot}
= \Bigl|\int \rho_i(\tau,\,\eta,\,{\bf x}_\bot)\;e^{i|{\bf k}_\bot|\tau
\,\cosh(\eta - y) -i{\bf k}_\bot\cdot{\bf x}_\bot }
\tau\,d\tau\,d\eta\,d^2{\bf x}_\bot\Bigr|^2.
\end{equation}
If a DCC is boost-invariant along the collision axis,
$\rho(\tau,\eta,{\bf x}_\bot)$ does not depend on $\eta$.
In this case, $\eta$ is integrated out and the energy spectrum
$dN_i/dy\,d^2{\bf k}_\bot$ is independent of the rapidity variable $y$,
as it is well known.
Let us look into the isospin structure of the Fourier transform of the source
that enters the right-hand side of (48). After the space-time
integration is performed, the isovector
$\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}$ is generally
of the form
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}({\bf k}, |{\bf k}|) =
F(y,{\bf k}_\bot)\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf k})\; ,
\end{equation}
where $F(y,{\bf k}_\bot)$ is an isoscalar, Lorentz-scalar function of ${\bf k}$
and of whatever parameters that
characterize a DCC; $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf k})$ is a unit vector
in isospin space.
The pion spectrum is simply
\begin{equation}
(2\pi)^3\frac{dN_i}{dy\,d^2{\bf k}_\bot}
= |F(y,{\bf k}_\bot) e_i({\bf k})|^2.
\end{equation}
For each {\em fixed} ${\bf k}$, one may
repeat the classical field derivation
and reproduce
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP}{df({\bf k})} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{f({\bf k})}}.\label{dpdfk}
\end{equation}
However,
it is clear that the pion number $N_i$ no
longer obeys distribution (\ref{dpdf}) when the momentum ${\bf k}$ is
integrated over.
To illustrate this point, consider a toy DCC for
which $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf k})$
points to one direction for a half of the range of
rapidity $y$ and to another direction perpendicular to it for the other half
of $y$. Such a DCC is not one of the solutions that we have obtained, but it
serves to make a point.
Since there is no way to align the two ${\bf e}({\bf k})$'s to the same
direction by isospin rotation, there are no DCC's in this isospin family
that emit only $\pi^0$, even though all directions are equally probable
in isospin space. For a family of nonuniform DCC's, $dP/df$
is zero at $f=0$ ({\em Centauro}) and at
$f=1$({\em anti-Centauro}), and tends to bulge in the central region of $f$,
unlike that for a family of uniform DCC's. Only if the uniform
DCC's dominate over the nonuniform ones, can distribution (\ref{dpdf}) hold
approximately.
The abundance of the uniform DCC's has a measure zero
relative to that of the
nonuniform
DCC's in the phase space of the rotation angles. Unless the production of
the
nonuniform DCC's by the initial hadrons is
strongly suppressed for some dynamical
reason, $dP/df= 1/(2\sqrt{f})$ cannot hold even approximately.
The spectacular
Centauro and anti-Centauro events will be far rarer than
our naive expectation based on the uniform DCC's.
However, there may be a chance to observe distribution (\ref{dpdfk})
by selecting pions of the same $y$ and ${\bf k}_\bot$ within
small uncertainties.
A special case is a boost-invariant DCC in $1+1$ dimensions
where $\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}(x)$ is $\eta$-independent so that
$\tilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}({\bf k})$
is $y$-independent.
In this case, $\mbox{\boldmath $e$}({\bf k})$
becomes a constant vector
independent of ${\bf k}$ and distribution (\ref{dpdf}) follows even for the
nonuniform DCC's. One the other hand,
for the $4\pi$ state that we studied in this Section,
we see nothing special about the boost-invariant nonuniform case
with ${\bf k}_\bot = 0$
from the general boost-noninvariant case. Do two derivations
contradict with each other?
It is difficult to make a connection between the two
arguments. In analyzing the $|N\pi(I=0)\rangle$ state, the
interference between
different DCC's is essential while
in the classical field analysis, each DCC state is not an
eigenstate of isospin and the interference from different DCC's
is completely
discarded. Though the both methods have led to the same $dP/df$ distribution,
it is not clear how much similar or mutually compatible their physical
pictures are. With this unsolved uncertainty,
we state our conclusion in
a less assertive way: if we follow the isospin analysis of $|2N\pi\rangle$,
we see no mechanism that leads to distribution (\ref{dpdf}) for
the nonuniform DCC's.
If we argue instead in
the classical field picture, the distribution does not hold
except for the
boost-invariant DCC with zero ${\bf k}_\bot$. However,
distribution (\ref{dpdf})
should hold for pions which are selected from a small segment of rapidity $y$
and transverse momentum ${\bf k}_\bot$.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
We wish to thank J.D.\ Bjorken for giving us his
notes on his solutions and many useful discussions.
This work was supported in part by the Director, Office of Energy
Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy
Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and
in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under grant PHY-90-21139.
One of us (Z.H.) acknowledges the support from the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
\newpage
|
\section{#1}}
\renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\newcommand{\app}[1]{\setcounter{section}{0}
\setcounter{equation}{0} \renewcommand{\thesection}
{\Alph{section}}
\section{#1}}
\def\noindent{\noindent}
\def\begin{array}{rcl}{\begin{array}{rcl}}
\def\end{array}{\end{array}}
\def\rangle{\rangle}
\def\langle{\langle}
\newcommand{\begin{equation}}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\begin{eqnarray}}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\end{equation}}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\end{eqnarray}}{\end{eqnarray}}
\def{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12}}{{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12}}}
\def{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12\ldots n}}{{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12\ldots n}}}
\def{\cal F}_{12}{{\cal F}_{12}}
\def{\cal F}_{12\ldots n}{{\cal F}_{12\ldots n}}
\def{\cal H}{{\cal H}}
\def\otimes{\otimes}
\def\mbox{id}{\mbox{id}}
\def\mbox{\it i.e.\/ }{\mbox{\it i.e.\/ }}
\def\mbox{\it e.g.\/ }{\mbox{\it e.g.\/ }}
\def{\cal C}{{\cal C}}
\def1_{\cal A}{1_{\cal A}}
\def1_{\cal U}{1_{\cal U}}
\def\Upsilon{\Upsilon}
\def\mbox{\bf g}{\mbox{\bf g}}
\def\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}{\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}}
\def\mbox{Fun$(G_{q})$}{\mbox{Fun$(G_{q})$}}
\newcommand{\triangleright}{\triangleright}
\newcommand{{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}}{{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}}
\def\mbox{$\times \!\rule{0.3pt}{1.1ex}\,$}{\mbox{$\times \!\rule{0.3pt}{1.1ex}\,$}}
\def{\mbox{$\cal A$} \cross \mbox{$\cal U$}}{{\mbox{$\cal A$} \mbox{$\times \!\rule{0.3pt}{1.1ex}\,$} \mbox{$\cal U$}}}
\def\mbox{$\cal R$}{\mbox{$\cal R$}}
\newcommand{\mbox{$\cal Y$}}{\mbox{$\cal Y$}}
\newcommand{\mbox{$\cal Z$}}{\mbox{$\cal Z$}}
\def\mbox{$\cal A$}{\mbox{$\cal A$}}
\def\mbox{$\cal U$}{\mbox{$\cal U$}}
\def\mbox{$\cal F$}{\mbox{$\cal F$}}
\def\mbox{$\cal V$}{\mbox{$\cal V$}}
\def\mbox{$\cal O$}{\mbox{$\cal O$}}
\newcommand{\Delta _{\cal A}}{\Delta _{\cal A}}
\newcommand{{}_{\cal A}\Delta }{{}_{\cal A}\Delta }
\newcommand{{}_{\cal U}\Delta }{{}_{\cal U}\Delta }
\newcommand{\Delta_{\cal U}}{\Delta_{\cal U}}
\newcommand{\mbox{d}}{\mbox{d}}
\def\hspace*{9mm}{\hspace*{9mm}}
\def\hspace{3mm}{\hspace{3mm}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright}}{\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright}}
\def{\cal I}_{\rm left}{{\cal I}_{\rm left}}
\def{\Gamma}_{\rm left}{{\Gamma}_{\rm left}}
\def\mbox{\boldmath $i$}{\mbox{\boldmath $i$}}
\def\Ix#1{\mbox{\boldmath $i$}_{\chi_#1}}
\def\hbox{\large\it \pounds}{\hbox{\large\it \pounds}}
\def\Lix#1{\hbox{\large\it \pounds}_{\chi_#1}}
\def\Lio#1#2{\hbox{\large\it \pounds}_{O_#1{}^#2}}
\def\mbox{\bf d}{\mbox{\bf d}}
\newcommand{\mbox{\bf D}}{\mbox{\bf D}}
\newcommand{\mbox{$\omega$}}{\mbox{$\omega$}}
\newcommand{\alpha}{\alpha}
\newcommand{\epsilon}{\epsilon}
\newcommand{\mbox{Fun({\bf M}$_{q}$)}}{\mbox{Fun({\bf M}$_{q}$)}}
\newcommand{\mbox{${\cal T}_q(\mbox{\bf M}_q)$}}{\mbox{${\cal T}_q(\mbox{\bf M}_q)$}}
\newcommand{\mbox{${\cal T}_q({G}_q)$}}{\mbox{${\cal T}_q({G}_q)$}}
\def\mbox{${\cal T}_q$}{\mbox{${\cal T}_q$}}
\def\mbox{\boldmath$\delta $}{\mbox{\boldmath$\delta $}}
\newcommand{\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleleft}}{\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleleft}}
\newcommand{{\bf C}}{{\bf C}}
\newcommand{{\bf R}}{{\bf R}}
\newcommand{{\bf Z}}{{\bf Z}}
\newcommand{{\bf N}}{{\bf N}}
\begin{document}
\begin{titlepage}
\begin{center}
August 1995 \hfill LMU-TPW 95-10\\
\mbox{} \hfill (revised, Feb.\ 1996)\\
\vskip.6in
{\Large \bf Identical Particles and Quantum Symmetries}
\vskip.4in
Gaetano Fiore* and Peter Schupp
\vskip.25in
{\em Sektion Physik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at
M\"unchen\\
Theoretische Physik --- Lehrstuhl Professor Wess\\
Theresienstra\ss e 37, 80333 M\"unchen\\
Federal Republic of Germany}
\end{center}
\vskip1in
\begin{abstract}
We propose a solution to the problem of compatibility of
Bose-Fermi statistics
with symmetry transformations implemented by
compact quantum groups of Drinfel'd type.
We use unitary transformations to conjugate multi-particle
symmetry postulates, so as to obtain a twisted realization
of the symmetric groups $S_n$.
\end{abstract}
\vfill
\noindent \hrule
\vskip.2cm
\noindent{\footnotesize *A.~v.~Humboldt-fellow\hfill {\it e-mail: }
Fiore, Schupp \ @ \ ls-wess.physik.uni-muenchen.de}
\end{titlepage}
\newpage
\setcounter{page}{1}
\sect{Introduction}
Quantum groups \cite{dr,ji,frt} have received much attention in
recent years as
candidates for generalized symmetry transformations in physics.
Among
other applications, they look promising in relation to generalized
space-time\footnote{These are symmetries of a proposed
non-commutative structure of space-time \cite{wess}.}
and/or internal symmetries in Quantum Field Theory.
One way to
approach QFT consists first
in finding a consistent procedure
to implement quantum group transformations in Quantum
Mechanics with a finite number of particles, then
to pass to QFT through second
quantization. Various models describing systems of one
particle (see e.g. ref. \cite{wess1,wess2,fio,fioeu,wei}) or a finite number of
{\em distinct}
particles consistently transforming under the action of a quantum
group have been constructed so far; as known, the quantum group
coproduct plays a specific role in extending quantum group
transformations from one-particle to multi-particle systems.
In this article we would like to study whether the notions of
identical particles and quantum group transformations
are compatible in quantum mechanics (in
first quantization).
The setting that we have in mind is a quantum
mechanical system transforming under generalized (symmetry)
transformations realized by some $*$-Hopf algebra $H$ \footnote{The
transformations may correspond to a symmetry
either in the sense that they leave the {\it dynamics} of
the particular system under consideration invariant
(e.g. rotation symmetry
of its Hamiltonian), and therefore are associated to conservation
laws for the latter; or in the sense that they leave
the {\it form} of the physical description of {\it any}
system invariant
(covariance of the physical description), as it happens e.g. with the
Poincar\'e transformations in Special Relativity.} (in particular, a
$*$-quantum group \cite{dr}). In order that a system
of $n$ bosons/fermions transforms under the action of $H$ its Hilbert space
of states should carry both a representation of the symmetric group $S_n$
and of $H$.
In the case that the $H$ is quantum group, one might expect that
this is impossible.
We recall that in the standard quantum mechanical formalism the
elements of $S_n$ are realized as ordinary permutation operators.
On the other hand, in the Hopf algebra formalism the action of
$H$ on a multiparticle
system is defined through the coproduct $\Delta$. Given
a representation $\rho$ of $H$ on a ``one-particle'' Hilbert space ${\cal H}$, and
considering (for simplicity) the case of two particles, the
action of $H$ on ${\cal H} \otimes {\cal H}$ is defined through
$(\rho\otimes\rho)\circ \Delta$. In the case that $H$ is cocommutative
(\mbox{\it e.g.\/ } $H=U(su(2))$), the coproduct takes the form
$\Delta(X_i)= X_i\otimes 1 + 1\otimes X_i$ on all the generators $X_i$
(in the case $H=U(su(2))$ this expresses the classical addition law
of angular momentum); therefore the above action preserves
the symmetric and antisymmetric subspaces
$({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm$ defined by $P_{12} ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm =
\pm ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm$ respectively ($P_{12}$ denotes the permutation
operator). When $H$ is not cocommutative, \mbox{\it e.g.\/ } it is a quantum group,
$\Delta$ is no more symmetric under the action of $P_{12}$, so that
the above action mixes $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_+$ and $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_-$.
Therefore, fermions and bosons in the ordinary sense seem impossible,
and it is natural to speculate that in the quantum group context
some new (or ``$q$-") statistics
is necessary or even that the notion of identical particles must be
abandoned.
Even if $H$ is just a {\em slight\/} deformation of a co-commutative Hopf algebra
(e.g. an ordinary Lie group)
a new statistics would result into a drastic discontinuity of
the number of allowed states of the multi-particle system in the limit of
vanishing deformation parameter ($\ln q$ in the $H=\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$-case):
in fact, elementary particles cannot be ``almost identical'', they
can only be either identical or different. However,
such a discontinuity appears physically unacceptable if we think of
$H$ as a slight modification of some experimentally
well-established symmetry of elementary particle physics.
A previously suggested ``quick fix'' of the problem is the
naive symmetrization of coproducts
---this approach will however
destroy any true quantum symmetry.
It is also important to realize that
it is not enough to make sense of $\Delta(H), \Delta^2(H),$ {\em etc}.
The spaces of multi-particle operators have to be larger than that
to be in one-to-one correspondence with their
classical (symmetrized) counterparts. In the $H=U_q(su(2))$ case,
for instance, we would like to construct the q-analog of the
(classically) symmetric operators $X_i\otimes X_i$, which are not
the coproduct of anything.
In this work we want to show that a solution to the problem is a
modification of our notions of
symmetry and
anti-symmetry associated to
bosons and fermions. The point is that ordinary permutations
are not the only possible realization of elements of the abstract
group $S_n$; an alternative one can be obtained by applying
some unitary transformation $F_{12\ldots n}$ to the permutators
(see section \ref{twistmult}). The question (see section \ref{qsym})
is therefore whether
for any number of particles
$n$ there exists some $F_{12\ldots n}$ (the ``twist")
such that the corresponding realization
of $S_n$ is compatible with the action of $H$.
Due to some theorems by Drinfel'd,
this turns out to be the case {\em at least\/} if $H = \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ \cite{dr,ji,frt} is
one of the standard quantum groups associated to the
compact\footnote{For U${}_q$({\bf g}) this requires $q \in {\bf R}$.
To study the problem in the case of $q$ on the
unit circle the reader should consult \cite{mascho} for the structure of weak
quasi-Hopf algebras.}
simple Lie algebras
$\mbox{\bf g}$ of the classical series---the case of $U_q \mbox{su}(2)$
will be studied in some detail in section \ref{example}---or
if $H$ is a triangular Hopf algebra arising from the
quantization of
a solution of the classical Yang-Baxter equation
\cite{drinf,Taktadjan}
or from a twist of type \cite{resh} as {\em e.g.}\/ studied
in \cite{luk}\footnote{Twisted coproducts are here interpreted as
clustered 2-particle states.}.
The precise criterion is that $H$ must be the twist of a
co-commutative
(quasi-)Hopf algebra \cite{Drinfeld}; in either case we
also need the existence of a $*$-conjuga\-tion.
In the case where $H$ is a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra one
might have
expected to see anyons arise as a consequence of the
braid group character
of $\mbox{$\cal R$}$; however, in our formulation this does not happen: The
statistics parameter is not modified---bosons stay
bosons\footnote{See \cite{voza,nelson} and the extended list of
references therein for a discussion
of this point in the context of $q$-deformed oscillators.}, fermions
stay fermions, and anyons (though not studied explicitly) stay anyons.
The extreme case of $q = -1$ is especially instructive in this
context \cite{zachos,zhang}.
Let us ask now how in the context of identical particles
the existence of quantum group symmetries
of the above kind could
manifest itself experimentally:
The dynamical evolution of a system of $n$ identical particles will
contain new physics only if we adopt an Hamiltonian which is {\em natural\/}
to the twisted picture. One can always obtain a Hamiltonian {\em consistent\/}
with twisted symmetrization postulates by a
unitary transformation (through $F_{12\ldots n}$) on a Hamiltonian
corresponding to some undeformed model, however,
such a Hamiltonian will in general be
of a very complicated, {\em i.e.\/} unnatural form.
In section \ref{onemany} we will analyze a scattering
experiment to see how the twist will
manifest itself in the
transformation of the initial and final data (which is essentially
the tensor product of one-particle states) into the
equivalent twisted (anti-)symmetrized states upon which
the evolution operator describing the scattering acts.
The $F_{12\ldots n}$ can again be absorbed in a redefined Hamiltonian, so
that an
experiment cannot decide whether we are in the twisted picture or not. (It is
just a change of base.) We can only tell what picture is more natural.
The main message is then that the twisted picture can be consistently
introduced. (Contrary to expectation, there are no problems with statistics.)
The twisted picture may lead to the development of models that one would
probably not think of otherwise.
One would expect to see {\em direct\/} consequences of the twists only
in particle
creation and annihilation processes; this however belongs to the realm of
quantum field theory and will be treated elsewhere.
For readers not familiar with
the notion of Hopf algebras, we give a very brief introduction
to the subject in section \ref{appendix}.
After completion of this work we became aware of the very interesting
paper in Ref. \cite{wopu}, which gives a quantization scheme for fields
transforming covariantly under $SU_q(N)$.
In a future work we will compare our results
with the ones therein while considering the issue of second
quantization.
\sect{Twisted Multi-Particle Description}
\label{twistmult}
Let us forget the issue of quantum symmetry and
hence the coproduct
for the moment,
and just consider pure quantum mechanics
for identical particles.
Consider a one-particle
system, denote by ${\cal H}$ the Hilbert space of its states,
and by $\mbox{$\cal A$}$
the $*$-algebra of observables acting on ${\cal H}$.
$n$-particle states and $n$-particle operators
will live in as yet to be determined subspaces of ${\cal H}^{\otimes n}$ and
$\mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n}$ respectively.
Let us consider states of two identical particles. The
corresponding state
vector $|\psi^{(2)}\rangle$ will be some element of the tensor product
of two copies of
the one-particle Hilbert
space ${\cal H}$. Let $ P_{12}$ be
the permutation operator on
${\cal H} \otimes {\cal H}$:\ $ P_{12}(|a\rangle \otimes |b\rangle) \equiv
|b\rangle \otimes |a\rangle$. (In the sequel we will also use the symbol $\tau$ to
denote the abstract
permutation map of two tensor factors, $ \tau(a \otimes b) \equiv b \otimes a$.)
The fact that we are dealing with identical particles manifests
itself in the properties of state vectors under permutation:
\begin{equation}
P_{12}|\psi^{(2)}\rangle = e^{i \nu}|\psi^{(2)}\rangle,\label{stat}
\end{equation}
where $\nu = 0$ for Bose-statistics and
$\nu = \pi$ for Fermi-statistics. For the corresponding
expectation value of an arbitrary
operator ${\cal O} \in \mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$}$ we then find
\begin{equation}
\langle\psi^{(2)}|{\cal O}|\psi^{(2)}\rangle = \langle\psi^{(2)}| P_{12}\:
{\cal O}\: P_{12}|\psi^{(2)}\rangle
\end{equation}
because the phases $e^{-i \nu}$ and $e^{i \nu}$ from the bra and
the ket
cancel. This means that the operators $\cal O$ and
$ \tau({\cal O}) \equiv
P_{12} {\cal O} P_{12}$ are members of the same
equivalence
class as far as expectation values go.
One particular representative of each such equivalence
class is the symmetrized operator
\begin{equation}
{1 \over 2}({\cal O} + \tau({\cal O}) ) \in (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+.
\end{equation}
It plays a special role because it preserves the two-particle Hilbert
spaces
for any statistic (\ref{stat}), as we will recall below.
We can hence avoid redundant operators
by restricting $\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$}$ to the sub-algebra
\begin{equation}
(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+ := \{ a \in \mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$} : [P_{12}, a ] = 0 \}
\label{symop}
\end{equation}
(note that $[P_{12}, a ] = 0 \Leftrightarrow \tau(a) = a$).
In this article we will show how to find an analog of $(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+$
compatible with quantum group transformations.
We summarize the relevant equations characterizing a system of two
bosons or fermions:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P_{12}|u\rangle_\pm = \pm|u\rangle_\pm \hspace*{9mm} \mbox{for} \hspace{3mm} |u\rangle_{\pm} \in
({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm \label{fb}\label{from}\\
&& a:({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm \rightarrow ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm \hspace*{9mm} \mbox{for}
\hspace{3mm} a
\in (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+ \label{ahh}\\
&& *_2: (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+\rightarrow (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+,
\hspace*{9mm}\mbox{where}\hspace{3mm} *_2 \equiv * \otimes * .\label{to}
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{fb}) defines bosonic $(+)$ and fermionic $(-)$
states as in
(\ref{stat}).
Equation (\ref{ahh}) follows from
$[P_{12}, (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+] = 0$
and shows that symmetrized operators transform boson states
into
bosons states and fermion states into fermion states.
Similar statements as given here for two particles
obviously apply also to states of 3 and more identical particles
and to
other statistics (anyons).
Can one also describe in a non-standard way the system of $n$
identical particles,
using what we know for one particle, so that the description is
perfectly
consistent from the physical viewpoint? Let us concentrate on
two-particle
systems for the moment:
For a unitary and in general not symmetric
operator $F_{12} \in \mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$}$, $F_{12}^{*_2} = F_{12}^{-1}$
where $*_2 = * \otimes *$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_{\pm}^{{F_{12}}} & := & F_{12} ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm\\
P_{12}^{F_{12}}& := & F_{12} P_{12} F_{12}^{-1} \\
(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}& := & F_{12}(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+ F_{12}^{-1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+$ is as given above.
We then find in complete analogy to equations (\ref{from} --
\ref{to})
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P_{12}^{F_{12}}|u\rangle_\pm = \pm|u\rangle_\pm \hspace*{9mm} \mbox{for} \hspace{3mm}
|u\rangle_\pm \in
({\cal H} \otimes{\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12}}\\
&& a:({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})^{F_{12}}_\pm \rightarrow ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})^
{F_{12}}_\pm \hspace*{9mm}
\mbox{for}\hspace{3mm} a \in (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes
\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}\label{aHH}\\
&& *_2: (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}\rightarrow (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}
\end{eqnarray}
and $a^{F_{12}}:= F_{12} a F_{12}^{-1}$ is hermitean iff $a$ is.
Equation (\ref{aHH}) follows from
\begin{equation}
[P_{12}^{F_{12}}, (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}] = 0.
\label{commop}
\end{equation}
In general, $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})^{F_{12}}_\pm$ will not be
(anti-)symmetric, nor
will $(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}$ be symmetric.
Can we still interpret $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12}}$ as
the Hilbert space of states of
the system of two bosons or fermions of equal type and
$(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}$ as
the corresponding $*$-algebra of observables?
We can. In fact, we have just conjugated the standard description
of the
2-particle system through $F_{12}$ into a unitary equivalent one.
(This agrees with the general viewpoint put forward in \cite{eng,engnote}.
See also next section for a discussion from the physical point of view.)
Obviously the idea of conjugation can be generalized
to a system of $n$ identical particles:
Let $F_{12\ldots n} \in \mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n}$
be unitary,
\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } $(F_{12\ldots n})^{*_n} = (F_{12\ldots n})^{-1}$, where $*_n :=
*^{\otimes n}$, and define
\begin{eqnarray}
({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes {\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12\ldots n}}& := & F_{12\ldots n}
({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes {\cal H})_\pm \label{def1}\\
P_{12}^{F_{12\ldots n}}& := & F_{12\ldots n} P_{12}
(F_{12\ldots n})^{-1}\\
& \vdots & \nonumber \\
P_{n-1,n}^{F_{12\ldots n}}& := & F_{12\ldots n} P_{n-1,n}
(F_{12\ldots n})^{-1}\\
(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}& := & F_{12\ldots n}
(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+(F_{12\ldots n})^{-1}
\label{twistop}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$$
(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+ := \{ a \in \mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$} : [P_{i,i+1} , a] =0 ,
i=1,\ldots n-1\},
$$
and $P_{i,i+1}$ is the permutator of the $i^{th},(i\!+\!1)^{th}$
tensor factors.
Then
\begin{eqnarray}
&&P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}|u\rangle_\pm =
\pm |u\rangle_\pm \hspace*{9mm}\mbox{for}\hspace{3mm} |u\rangle_\pm \in ({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes
{\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12\ldots n}} \label{astate}\\
&&a: ({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes {\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12\ldots n}}\rightarrow
({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes {\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12\ldots n}} \label{aHdH}\\
&& \hspace*{9mm}\z\hspace*{9mm}\z\hspace*{9mm}\mbox{for}\hspace{3mm} a \in
(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}\\
&&*_n: (\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \ldots \otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}\rightarrow
(\mbox{$\cal A$} \otimes \ldots \otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_
+^{F_{12\ldots n}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Equation (\ref{aHdH}) follows from
\begin{equation}
[P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}, (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^
{F_{12\ldots n}}] = 0.
\label{asop}
\end{equation}
Note that in eqs. (\ref{astate}) to (\ref{asop}) the twist
$F_{12\ldots n}$
does not explicitly appear any more; these equations give an
{\it intrinsic}
characterization of the twisted multi-particle description,
involving only
the operators $P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}$.
By construction $P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}$
is hermitean, its square is
the identity and (consequently) has only eigenvalues $\pm 1$;
moreover, the degeneracy of these eigenvalues is the same as
in the untwisted case. The operators $P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}$
give a realization of the group $S_n$ of permutation of $n$
objects,
because they satisfy the same algebraic relations as the
ordinary permutators $P_{i,i+1}$; correspondingly,
$(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}$,
$({\cal H} \otimes\ldots\otimes{\cal H})_\pm^{F_{12\ldots n}}$ carries
irreducible representations of $S_n$.
Viceversa, one could easily prove that, given
operators satisfying these conditions, one can find a unitary
$F_{12\ldots n}$ such that equations (\ref{def1}) to (\ref{twistop})
hold.
It will turn out that, even though the twists which are relevant for
the quantum
symmetry issue are very hard to compute, the
$P_{i,i+1}^{F_{12\ldots n}}$
are much less so; see section~\ref{example}.
\noindent {\em Remark:} If we replace the nilpotent $P_{12}$ by some
braid group
generator one could also conjugacy transform anyons.
\sect{Identical Versus Distinct Particles }
\label{onemany}
In some situations particles of the same kind can be equivalently
treated as {\it identical} or {\it distinct}, and
there exists a precise correspondence between these two
descriptions.
The twist $F$ directly enters the rule governing this
correspondence
while in the twisted postulates (\ref{astate}) to (\ref{asop})
(intrinsic formulation) it
appears only hidden in the $P^F$ (together with its inverse).
Transforming one kind of description into the other one
is often needed for practical purposes, as we illustrate
by the following example.
Consider a gedanken experiment of a scattering of
two identical particles. One can distinguish three stages.
In the initial stage, the two particles are far
apart and are assumed to be prepared
in two separate one-particle normalized states $|\psi_1\rangle$,
$|\psi_1\rangle$ with vanishing overlap.
In the intermediate stage, the particles approach each other and
scatter. In the
final stage, long after the collision, the particles are
again far apart and are detected by one-particle detectors.
In the initial and final stage we perform essentially
one-particle preparations/measurements, i.e. we have the choice to
treat the
particles as distinct, whereas in the intermediate stage
the collision is correctly described only if we apply a
symmetric evolution operator to a properly
(anti-)symmetrized two-particle state, that is, if we treat
the two particles as identical. The existence
of two equivalent descriptions (``distinct" versus ``identical")
of the two-particle system in the initial and final stages
and the {\it correspondence rule} that relates the two is an essential
ingredient of the standard quantum-mechanical
formalism.
In this section we want to determine how
the conditions for the existence of two
equivalent descriptions (``distinct" and ``identical")
and the correspondence rule between the latter are modified
in the twisted formalism.
As a by-product,
we will realize that closed systems can still be described consistently:
If we e.g. want to describe a system of identical particles in our lab
we are essentially
allowed to forget about the existence of other particles
of the same kind in the universe.
Let us consider two-particle scattering again:
Let initial states
$|\psi_1\rangle,|\psi_2\rangle$ range on some orthogonal
subspaces ${\cal H}_1, {\cal H}_2$
of the whole Hilbert space.\footnote{More
generally, if the preparation were uncomplete, we would assume
that particle 1,2 is in a {\it mixture} of states of ${\cal H}_1, {\cal H}_2$
respectively.}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[\bf(1)] We can treat the two particles
as {\it distinct} particles described by the state
\begin{equation}
|\psi_d\rangle:= |\psi_1\rangle\otimes|\psi_2\rangle \hspace*{9mm}\in\hspace*{9mm} {\cal H}_1\otimes {\cal H}_2.
\label{stated}
\end{equation}
A measurement process is
described
via a two-particle observable ${\cal O}_1\otimes {\cal O}_2$,
${\cal O}_i:{\cal H}_i\rightarrow {\cal H}_i$; the probability amplitude
to find the two-particle system in a state
$|\psi_d'\rangle:= |\psi_1'\rangle\otimes|\psi_2'\rangle$
is
$\langle\psi_d|\psi_d'\rangle=\langle\psi_2|\psi_2'\rangle\langle\psi_1|\psi_1'\rangle$.
This amounts respectively to measuring
${\cal O}_1$ on the first
{\it and} ${\cal O}_2$ on the second, and to the probability
amplitude to find particle 1 in state $|\psi_1'\rangle$
{\it and} particle 2 in state $|\psi_2'\rangle$.
In particular, setting ${\cal O}_2=id$, $|\psi_2'\rangle=|\psi_2\rangle$
means that we neglect the information that we have on the second particle,
\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } we ignore its existence.
\item[\bf(2)] We can treat them as {\it identical} particles
forming a two-particle system
and describe the latter by the twisted (anti)symmetrized state
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle=
P^{F_{12}}_{S/A}|\psi_d\rangle:=\frac {F_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
|\psi_1\rangle\otimes|\psi_2\rangle
\pm |\psi_2\rangle
\otimes|\psi_1\rangle\right)\in ({\cal H}\otimes{\cal H})^{F_{12}}_{\pm}
\label{sstate}
\end{equation}
of bosons $(+)$ or fermions $(-)$.
The measurement
process of (1) is now described by acting on
$|\psi\rangle$
through the twisted symmetrized two-particle observable
$F_{12}\left({\cal O}_1\otimes {\cal O}_2+{\cal O}_2\otimes {\cal
O}_1\right)F_{12}^{-1}\in (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes A)^{F_{12}}_+$.
\end{enumerate}
Description (2) is perfectly equivalent to (1) because
the mapping (1)$\rightarrow$(2) preserves
scalar products between states (\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } probability
amplitudes:
$\langle\psi'|\psi\rangle=\langle\psi_d'|\psi_d\rangle=
\langle\psi_1'|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_2'|\psi_2\rangle)$
and spectra of the observables (\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } results of
measurements).
For the dynamical evolution, including the collision, it
is necessary to use description (2), which involves in an
essential way the quantum statistics.
Nevertheless, if for later
times the state $|\psi\rangle(t)$ becomes a combination of states
of the form
\begin{equation}
|\psi\rangle(t)=\sum\limits_{i,j}a_{ij}
\frac {F_{12}}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
|i\rangle\otimes|j\rangle\pm |j\rangle\otimes|i\rangle\right),
\end{equation}
where $|i\rangle\in {\cal H}_1'$, $|j\rangle\in {\cal H}_2'$, and
${\cal H}_1'$, ${\cal H}_2'$ are {\it orthogonal} subspaces
of ${\cal H}$ (describing e.g. the states of the particle
in detectors 1,2 respectively) then
description (1) can be implemented again:
we can apply $F^{-1}_{12}$ and drop the
(anti-)symmetrization to get the state
\begin{equation}
|\psi_d\rangle(t)=\sum\limits_{i,j}a_{ij}
|i\rangle\otimes|j\rangle,
\end{equation}
which will give the final correlation between the
potential measurements in the two detectors.
The case of more than two particles can be treated in analogy to the
case of two particles. Now however we will want to split the
collection of particles into two (or more) {\em subsystems\/} instead
of into single particles. If there is negligeable overlap between
subsystems we are again not forced to treat {\em all\/} particles as
identical particles; we can describe
particles belonging to different subsystems as distinct, but
we still have to twist (anti-)symmetrize
each subsystem.
If we look at the dynamical evolution,
then the same considerations as in the case of two particles will
apply. In particular
as long as the interaction (of any kind) between a
subsystems and the remaining particles is
negligeable then we have the choice to consider one subsystem
as isolated (implying that we forget the other particles) or
of treating all particles
as identical.
These considerations hold
also when the total number of particles of one kind is very large (virtually infinite)
compared to the number in one subsystem. Take this subsystem to
be our laboratory and we see that
as in the standard formulation,
to compute any concrete prediction
we can but we don't have to consider all particles of the given
type present in the universe at the same time [description ``identical''],
namely we may ignore the ones ``outside our laboratory''
[description ``distinct'']. In principle however we could
apply the postulates of identical particles, through description
``identical'',
to {\it all} particles of the same type in the universe, without
finding
inconsistent predictions. In other words, the twisted postulates of
Quantum Mechanics for identical particles are completely general and
self-consistent.
\sect{Quantum Symmetries}
\label{qsym}
While their introduction was shown to be consistent,
there was so far no need for the $F_{12\ldots n}$. Now we take the
issue of
quantum group symmetries into consideration.
The picture we have in mind is that of a multi-particle
quantum mechanical model (consisting of identical particles)
on which we would like to implement generalized (symmetry)
transformations through the action of a generic
Hopf algebra $H$.\footnote{Later we will concentrate on the case of a
twisted image of a cocommutative (quasi-) Hopf algebra;
{\em e.g.\/} $U_q(g)$.}
As given data we take the constituent one-particle
system, governed by a $*$-algebra $\mbox{$\cal A$}$ of
operators that act on a Hilbert space ${\cal H}$, a $*$-Hopf algebra
$H$ with coproduct $\Delta$, counit $\varepsilon$, antipode $S$ and
complex conjugation $*$, and a unitary realization $\rho$ of $H$ in $\mbox{$\cal A$}$.
The key idea that leads to a construction of multi-particle systems that
consistently transform under Hopf algebra actions is that properties of the
coproduct should have to do with
(twisted) (anti-)symmetry of states and operators.
We will find that coproducts should
be considered as being (twisted) symmetric---even when we are
dealing with
non-cocommutative Hopf algebras as symmetries.
Let us start by recalling what it means that a one-particle system
transforms
under the action of $H$.
\subsection{One-Particle Transformations}
\label{onep}
To begin, we need a representation $\rho$ of $H$ on ${\cal H}$ which
realizes $H$ in $\mbox{$\cal A$}$:\footnote{A given algebra of operators might
first have
to be extended for this scope.}
\begin{equation}
\rho\, : \: H \: \rightarrow \: \mbox{$\cal A$};
\end{equation}
the map $\rho$ is linear and an algebra homomorphism
$\rho(x y) = \rho(x)\rho(y)$; $\rho(1_H) = 1_{\cal A}$
is the identity operator on
${\cal H}$.
It is called a unitary representation if in addition
\begin{equation}
\rho(x)^* = \rho(x^*).
\label{unitrep}
\end{equation}
(For a representation that is not unitary we would find
in contrast
$\rho(x)^* = \overline{\rho^\vee}( x^*)$,
where $\overline{\rho^\vee}$ is the complex conjugate of the
contragredient
representation. For a matrix representation:
$(T^\vee)^i{}_j = S(T^j{}_i) = (T^{-1})^j{}_i$. )
Let $x \in H$, $\mbox{$\cal O$} \in \mbox{$\cal A$}$ and $|\psi\rangle \in {\cal H}$.
The actions of $x$ on the one-particle states $|\psi\rangle$ and
and $\mbox{$\cal O$} |\psi\rangle$ are given
via $\rho$
\begin{eqnarray}
x \triangleright |\psi\rangle & = & \rho(x) |\psi\rangle,\label{actsta1}\\
x \triangleright \big(\mbox{$\cal O$} |\psi\rangle \big) & = & \rho(x) \mbox{$\cal O$} |\psi\rangle,
\label{actsta2}
\end{eqnarray}
while on the other hand the action of $x$ on the product
$\mbox{$\cal O$} |\psi\rangle$ (that is, on an element
of the bigger $H$-module containing both $\mbox{$\cal A$}$ and ${\cal H}$)
should be computed with the coproduct $\Delta$, \mbox{\it i.e.\/ }
\begin{equation}
x \triangleright \big(\mbox{$\cal O$} |\psi\rangle \big) = (x_{(1)} {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}) (x_{(2)} \triangleright |\psi\rangle ).
\label{actsta3}
\end{equation}
Here and in the sequel we will use Sweedler's notation
$\Delta(x)\equiv x_{(1)}\otimes x_{(2)} $ for the coproduct (in the RHS
a sum
$\sum_i x^i_{(1)}\otimes x^i_{(2)}$
of many terms is implicitly understood); similarly,
$\Delta^{(n-1)}(x) \equiv x_{(1)}\otimes\ldots\otimes x_{(n)}$
for the $(n\!-\!1)$-fold coproduct in Sweedler's notation.
As known, it follows that the action of $H$ on the one-particle
operator $\mbox{$\cal O$}$ is given by\footnote{See however the remark on page~\ref{rem}.}
\begin{equation}
x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$} = \rho(x_{(1)}) \:\mbox{$\cal O$}\: \rho(S x_{(2)}),
\qquad x \in H,\ \mbox{$\cal O$} \in \mbox{$\cal A$}.
\label{adjoint}
\end{equation}
As a concrete example, the reader may think of the
case of quantum mechanics in ordinary three-dimensional space
with transformations consisting of ordinary rotations; in that case
$H$ is the (undeformed) universal enveloping algebra
$U(su(2))$ of the
(covering of the) Lie group $SO(3)$. $\rho$ maps elements of
$U (su(2))$
into operators acting on ${\cal H}$, out of which we can single out
unitary
operators ``$U$'' realizing finite rotations (i.e. elements of $SO(3)$),
as well as
hermitean ones ``$x$'' realizing infinitesimal rotations (i.e. elements
of $su(2)$)
and generating the whole algebra; in these two cases the action
(\ref{adjoint}) reduces respectively
to conjugation $U\mbox{$\cal O$} U^{-1}$ and to taking the
commutator
$[ix,\mbox{$\cal O$}]$. A rotation
symmetry of the Hamiltonian usually turns elements of
$\rho(U(su(2))$
(\mbox{\it e.g.\/ } angular momentum components) into useful observables for
studying the dynamics of the system.
\subsubsection{Unitary Transformations}
Hermitean conjugation turns an element of ${\cal H}$, a ``ket'',
into
a ``bra'' which lives in ${\cal H}^*$ and transforms under the
contragredient
representation. This picture should be preserved under
transformations.
As we know, in the classical case only unitary and---in the
infinitesimal case---anti-hermitean transformation
operators have the required property. In the general Hopf
algebra case
the required property is
$S(x) = x^*$; we will call such elements of $H$
{\em quantum unitary}.
We stress the point that there are two notions
of unitarity which should not be confused: that of a
representation,
and that of a transformation.
Quantum unitary elements also leave
the $*$-structure of $\mbox{$\cal A$}$ invariant \cite{thesis}. The condition for
an element $u \in H$ to satisfy
\begin{equation}
(u {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$})^* = u {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^* \qquad \forall \mbox{$\cal O$} \in A \label{requ}
\end{equation}
is again
\begin{equation}
u^* = S(u) \qquad \label{quop}\mbox{(quantum unitary operator)}.
\end{equation}
This is seen as follows:
$*$-conjugating both sides of equation
(\ref{adjoint}) we find a condition
\begin{equation}
\rho(S u_{(2)})^* \otimes \rho(u_{(1)})^* \stackrel{!}{=}
\rho(u_{(1)}) \otimes \rho(S u_{(2)}),
\end{equation}
or, using that $\rho$ is a unitary representation,
\begin{equation}
(S u_{(2)})^*\otimes (u_{(1)})^* \stackrel{!}{=} u_{(1)}\otimes S u_{(2)}.
\end{equation}
Taking the counit $(\varepsilon \otimes id)$ of this equation gives
condition (\ref{quop}). A straightforward calculation that uses
again unitarity
of the representation $\rho$ and standard facts about $*$-Hopf algebras, like \
$* \circ S = S^{-1} \circ *$ shows that condition (\ref{quop}) is in fact
sufficient for (\ref{requ}).
{\em Remark:}\/ There exist pathological Hopf algebras
(\mbox{\it e.g.\/ } with $\tau\circ\Delta = (id \otimes S^2)\Delta$) that
are not $*$-Hopf algebras but still
allow unitary transformations in a non-standard way.
\subsection{Multi-Particle Transformations}
To implement symmetry transformations (the action of $H$)
on multi-particle systems one makes use of the
coproduct of $H$,
which enters the game in two essentially different ways.
First, the coproduct is needed to extend the action of $H$ from
one-particle {\it states} to $n$-particle states in a way that
preserves the twisted (anti)-symmetry of identical particle
states.
This will constrain the choice of $F$
in section~\ref{twistmult}, and consequently also the twisted
symmetry of
operators, according to formula (\ref{twistop}). On the other hand,
the coproduct also enters the action of $H$ on single and multiparticle
operators $\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}$ [see formula (\ref{adjoint}) for the
one-particle case];
if the particles are identical this action should again preserve the
twisted symmetry of the operators.
It turns out that both consistency requirements can be simultaneously
satisfied through
an appropriate choice of the $F$'s.
\subsubsection{Transformation of States}
\label{transta}
We have so far required that ${\cal H}$ be a $*$ $H$-module, \mbox{\it i.e.\/ } that
it carries
a $*$ representation of $H$.
The main task in constructing Hilbert spaces for identical particles
is then to find an operation of twist (anti-)
sym\-me\-tri\-za\-tion that is
compatible with the action of $H$, \mbox{\it i.e.\/ } compatible with the quantum
symmetry transformations.
The action of $H$ on a multi-particle Hilbert space is given once
$\rho^{(n)}$ is known. A representation $\rho$ on the
1-particle Hilbert space
extends to a unitary representation on the $n$-particle Hilbert space
via the $(n-1)$-fold coproduct of $H$:
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(n)} = \rho^{\otimes n} \circ \Delta^{(n-1)}\,: \:
H \: \rightarrow \: \mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n} \,:
{\cal H}^{\otimes n} \: \rightarrow {\cal H}^{\otimes n}.
\end{equation}
If $\rho$ is unitary then so is $\rho^{(n)}$,
$\rho^{(n)}(x)^{*_n} = \rho^{(n)}(x^*)$, because
$(* \otimes *) \circ \Delta= \Delta \circ *$.
Let $x \in H$ and $|\psi^{(n)}\rangle \in {\cal H}^{\otimes n}$, then
\begin{equation}
x \triangleright |\psi^{(n)}\rangle = \rho^{(n)}(x)|\psi^{(n)}\rangle =
\rho(x_{(1)}) \otimes\ldots\otimes \rho(x_{(n)})|\psi^{(n)}\rangle.
\label{actstam}
\end{equation}
As always we will first consider the case of two particles.
Similar considerations
will apply to the
case of $n\ge 3$ particles.
Let $P_{12}$ be the permutation operator on ${\cal H} \otimes {\cal H}$.
\paragraph{Symmetric coproduct}
In the
case of a {\em co-commutative}\/ (\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } symmetric under permutation)
coproduct we have
$$
P_{12}\: \Big((\rho \otimes \rho)\Delta_c(x)\Big)
= \Big((\rho \otimes \rho)\Delta_c(x)\Big)\: P_{12}
$$
and hence
$$
P_{12} (x \triangleright |\psi^{(2)}\rangle) = x \triangleright (P_{12}|\psi^{(2)}\rangle).
$$
This fact allows us to define symmetrizers
$P_S = {1 \over 2}(I + P_{12})$
and anti-symmetrizers $P_A = {1 \over 2}(I - P_{12})$ that
commute with
the action of $x$, and (anti-) symmetrized Hilbert spaces
\begin{eqnarray}
P_S({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H}) & \equiv & ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_+,\\
P_A({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H}) & \equiv & ({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_-,
\end{eqnarray}
that are invariant under the action of $x$. This happens
for instance if $H = U(\mbox{\bf g})$, $\mbox{\bf g} = ${\it Lie}$(G)$. Then $U(\mbox{\bf g})$ is
generated
by primitive elements $X_i$ with coproduct
\begin{equation}
\Delta^{(n)}(X_i) = \Delta_c^{(n)}(X_i) = X_i \otimes 1 \otimes\ldots\otimes 1 +
\ldots + 1 \otimes\ldots\otimes X_i;
\end{equation}
$\Delta_c^{(n)}(X_i)$ is invariant under permutations and we can
set
$F_{12\ldots n} ={\bf 1}\otimes\ldots\otimes {\bf 1}$.
\paragraph{Deformed coproduct}
If the coproduct is
{\em not co-commutative}, as it happens for a generic Hopf
algebra,
then the problem arises that the action of $H$ on $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})$
will no more preserve the subspaces $({\cal H} \otimes {\cal H})_{\pm}$.
While we should not change the form
of the coproduct (it is at the very heart of quantum groups and
tells us how to act on tensor products) we may however modify our
notion of symmetric operators and (anti-) symmetrized Hilbert
spaces. We can require that
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(n)}(H) \subset (\underbrace{\mbox{$\cal A$}
\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$}}_{\mbox{$n$-times}})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}
\label{delop}
\end{equation}
for some $F_{12\ldots n}$,
so that the
system of $n$ identical particles carries a $*$-representation of
$H$ as well.
This is certainly satisfied if
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(n)}(X) = F_{12..n} \rho^{(n)}_c(X) F_{12..n}^{-1},
\label{deltwist}
\end{equation}
where $\rho^{(n)}_c:=\rho^{\otimes n} \circ \Delta^{(n-1)}$ and
$\Delta_c$ is a co-commutative coproduct. Equation (\ref{deltwist})
has to be read as
a condition on both $\Delta_c$ and $F_{12..n}$.
If $H = \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ \cite{dr,ji,frt}, where $\mbox{\bf g}$ is the Lie algebra of one of
the simple
Lie groups of the classical series, the following theorem due to
Drinfel'd and Kohno will be our
guidance to the correct choice of the $F$'s we need to satisfy
equations
(\ref{delop}) and (\ref{deltwist}):
\noindent
{\bf Drinfel'd Proposition 3.16 in Ref. \cite{Drinfeld}}
\begin{enumerate}
{\em
\item There exists an algebra isomorphism
$\phi: \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$} \stackrel{~}{\leftrightarrow}
(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$, where $h = \ln q$ is the deformation parameter.
\item If we identify the isomorphic elements of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ and
$(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$
then there exists an $\mbox{$\cal F$} \in \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$} \otimes \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\Delta(a) = \mbox{$\cal F$} \Delta_c(a) \mbox{$\cal F$}^{-1},\hspace*{9mm} \forall a \in \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$} \stackrel{~}{=}
(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]]) \label{fdf}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta$ is the coproduct of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ and $\Delta_c$ is the
(co-commutative) coproduct of $U(\mbox{\bf g})$.
\item $(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$ is a quasi-triangular quasi-Hopf algebra
(QTQHA)
with universal $\mbox{$\cal R$}_\Phi = q^{t/2}$ and a
quasi-coassociative structure given by an element $\Phi \in
\left((U \mbox{\bf g})^{\otimes 3}([[h]])\right)$ that is expressible in terms of $\mbox{$\cal F$}$.
$(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$ as QTQHA can be transformed via the twist by $\mbox{$\cal F$}$
into the
quasi-triangular Hopf algebra $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$; in particular, the universal
$\mbox{$\cal R$}$
of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ is given by $\mbox{$\cal R$}= \mbox{$\cal F$}_{21}\mbox{$\cal R$}_\Phi \mbox{$\cal F$}^{-1}$. }
\end{enumerate}
Here $(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$ denotes the algebra of formal power series in
the
elements of a basis of $\mbox{\bf g}$, with coefficients being
entire functions of $h$; $(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])|_{h=0}=U\mbox{\bf g}$. Point 1)
essentially
says that it is possible to find $h$-dependent functions of the
generators
of $U\mbox{\bf g}$ which satisfy the algebra relations of the Drinfel'd-Jimbo
generators
of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ and vice versa.
We recall here that the quasi-triangular Hopf algebras
$\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ can be obtained as quantizations of Poisson-Lie groups
associated with solutions of the modified classical
Yang-Baxter equations (MCYBE) corresponding to $\mbox{\bf g}$.
If the Hopf algebra $H$ can be obtained as the quantization of a
Poisson-Lie group associated with a solution
of the classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE) corresponding to
some
$\mbox{\bf g}$,\footnote{In this case $H$ is is triangular, \mbox{\it i.e.\/ }
$\mbox{$\cal R$}_{21}\mbox{$\cal R$}_{12}={\bf 1}$}
then another (and chronologically preceding)
theorem by Drinfel'd \cite{drinf} states the existence of a different
$\mbox{$\cal F$}$
with similar properties as in the previous theorem---except that
now it is
enough to twist $(U \mbox{\bf g})([[h]])$ equipped with the ordinary
{\it coassociative} structure in order to obtain $H$. The
quasi-coassociative structure $\Phi$ and the quasi-triangular
structure
$\mbox{$\cal R$}_\Phi$ of point 3) in the theorem reduce to
$\Phi={\bf 1}\otimes {\bf 1} \otimes {\bf 1}$, $\mbox{$\cal R$}_\Phi={\bf 1}\otimes {\bf 1}$ ;
the universal $\mbox{$\cal R$}$ is given by $\mbox{$\cal R$}= \mbox{$\cal F$}_{21} \mbox{$\cal F$}^{-1}$.
A simple introduction to these topics can be found for instance in
Ref. \cite{Taktadjan}.
As shown in Ref. \cite{jurco}, one can
always choose a unitary $\mbox{$\cal F$}$, if $H$ is a compact section of $U_q(g)$
(\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } when $q\in {\bf R}$). If the $\mbox{$\cal F$}$ one starts with is not unitary,
when one simply multiplies it with the invariant (!) tensor $(\mbox{$\cal F$}^*
\mbox{$\cal F$})^{-1/2}$
to obtain a new $\tilde{\mbox{$\cal F$}}$ that is unitary.
These theorems suggest that one can use the unitary twisting
operator $\mbox{$\cal F$}$ to build
$F_{12}$ for a 2-particle sytem.
For example:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mbox{$\cal A$} =\rho( \mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$})$, then we choose
$$ F =\rho^{\otimes 2}( \mbox{$\cal F$}) .$$
\item If $\mbox{$\cal A$} =$ classical Heisenberg algebra
$\otimes U^{\mbox{spin}}(su(2))
\otimes \rho(\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$})$, were $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ plays the role of an internal
symmetry,
then we can set
$$ F_{12} = \mbox{id}^{(2)}_{\mbox{Heisenberg}} \otimes
\mbox{id}^{(2)}_{\mbox{spin}}
\otimes \rho^{\otimes 2}( \mbox{$\cal F$}) $$
\item If $\mbox{$\cal A$}$ is the q-deformed Poincar\'e algebra of ref.
\cite{wess2,majid},
and
$H$ is the corresponding q-deformed Lorentz Hopf algebra,
realized through $\rho$ in $\mbox{$\cal A$}$, then we can again define
$$ F_{12} = \rho^{\otimes 2}( \mbox{$\cal F$}),$$
where $\mbox{$\cal F$}$ belongs to the homogeneous part.
The same applies for other
inhomogeneous algebras, like the q-Euclidean ones, constructed
from
the braided semi-direct
product \cite{majid} of a quantum space and of the corresponding
homogeneous quantum group. For both of these examples the
one-particle representation theory is known \cite{wess2,fioeu}.
\end{enumerate}
For $n$-particle systems one can set
$F_{12...n}=\rho^{\otimes n}( \mbox{$\cal F$}_{12...n})$,
where now we should choose one particular element $\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12...n}$ of
$H^{\otimes n}$ satisfying the condition
\begin{equation}
\Delta(x)=\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12...n}\Delta_c(x)(\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12...n})^{-1}.
\label{condition}
\end{equation}
To obtain one such $\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12...n}$ it is enough to act on eq.
(\ref{fdf})
$(n-2)$ times with the coproduct in some arbitrary order.
When $n=3$, for instance, one can use
either $\mbox{$\cal F$}'_{123}:=[(\Delta\otimes id)(\mbox{$\cal F$})]\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12}$ or
$\mbox{$\cal F$}''_{123}:=[(id\otimes\Delta)(\mbox{$\cal F$})]\mbox{$\cal F$}_{23}$. These two elements
coincide in
the case previously mentioned
of Hopf algebras associated to solutions of the CYBE, as proved by
Drinfeld \cite{drinf}. In the the case of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$, they do not
coincide, but
nevertheless
$\Phi:=\mbox{$\cal F$}''_{123}(\mbox{$\cal F$}'_{123})^{-1}\neq {\bf 1}\otimes{\bf 1}\otimes{\bf 1}$
commutes with $\Delta^{(2)}(H)$. In section (\ref{example}) we
will show
(in the $U_q(su(2))$ case) how to find a continuous family of
$\mbox{$\cal F$}_{123}$ interpolating between $\mbox{$\cal F$}'_{123}$ and $\mbox{$\cal F$}''_{123}$.
\paragraph{Note:}
{}From (\ref{fdf}) follows $(\tau\circ\Delta)(a) =
{\cal M} \Delta(a)
{\cal M}^{-1}$ with ${\cal M} := \mbox{$\cal F$}_{21} \mbox{$\cal F$}^{-1}.$
This is not the usual relation $(\tau\circ\Delta)(a) = \mbox{$\cal R$} \Delta(a)
\mbox{$\cal R$}^{-1}$ of
a quasi-triangular Hopf algebra; the latter is rather obtained by
rewriting
equation (\ref{fdf}) in the form
$\Delta(a) = \mbox{$\cal F$} q^{t/2} \Delta_c(a) q^{-t/2} \mbox{$\cal F$}^{-1}$
where $t = \Delta_c(C_c) - 1\otimes C_c - C_c \otimes 1$ is the invariant
tensor \
($[t , \Delta_c(a) ] = 0 \hspace{3mm}\forall\hspace{3mm} a \in U \mbox{\bf g}$) \ corresponding to
the Killing metric, and $C_c$ is the quadratic casimir of $U\mbox{\bf g}$.
${\cal M}$, unlike $\mbox{$\cal R$}$, has not nice properties
under the coproducts $\Delta\otimes id$, $id\otimes \Delta$.
The reader might wonder whether we could use equation
$[P_{12}R, (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})'_+]=0$ (where $R=\rho^{\otimes 2}(\mbox{$\cal R$})$),
instead of eq. (\ref{commop}), to single out a
modified symmetric algebra $(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})'_+ \subset \mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$}$; in fact,
the former is also an equation fulfilled by
$\rho^{\otimes 2}(\Delta(H))$
and reduces to the classical eq. (\ref{symop}) in the limit
$q\rightarrow 1$.
However $[P_{12}R, (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})'_+]=0$ is fulfilled {\it only} by the
sub-algebra
$\rho^{\otimes 2}(\Delta(H))\subset(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})$ itself, essentially because
$q^{t / 2}$ does not commute with {\em all}\/ symmetric operators,
but only with the ones corresponding to coproducts. Therefore,
$(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+'$ defined via $P_{12}R$ (instead of $P_{12}^{F_{12}}$)
is not big enough to be
in one-to-one correspondence with the classical $(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+$, \mbox{\it i.e.\/ }
is not suitable for our purposes.
Explicit universal $\mbox{$\cal F$}$'s for $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ are not given in the literature,
up to our knowledge; an explicit universal $\mbox{$\cal F$}$ for a family of
deformations (which include quantizations of solutions of
both of a CYBE and of a MCBYE) of the Heisenberg group in one
dimension was given in Ref. \cite{bonechi}.
However, for most practical purposes one has to deal with
representations $F$ of $\mbox{$\cal F$}$. A general method for constructing
the matrices $F$ acting on tensor products of two arbitrary
irreducible representations of compact sections of $\mbox{$U_{q}{\/\mbox{\bf g}}$}$ is
presented
in Ref. \cite{eng}---there explicit formulas are given for
the $A,B,C,D$-series
in the fundamental representation.
In \cite{cuza} matrices twisting the classical coproduct into the $q$-deformed
one were constructed from $q$-Clebsch-Gordan coefficients.
Moreover, in the intrinsic formulation of the twisted
(anti-)symmetrization
postulates [eqs. (\ref{astate}) -- (\ref{asop})] one only needs
the twisted
permutators $P_{12\ldots n}^{F_{12\ldots n}}$
(not the $F_{12\ldots n}$ themselves); explicit universal
expressions for the
latter can be found much more easily, as we show in section
\ref{example}
for $P_{12}^{\tiny\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12}}$ in the case $H=U_q(su(2))$.
We conclude that the quantum symmetry is compatible with identical particle
{\em states}\/ in the twisted multi-particle description.
\subsubsection{Transformation of Operators}
\label{operators}
Now we want to see if a consistent transformation of the
twisted-symmetric operators can be defined.
As we have
seen in section \ref{onep}, the action on one-particle operators
which makes
eq. (\ref{actsta3}) consistent with eq. (\ref{actsta2}) looks formally
like the quantum adjoint
action. A subtle but important change in the
definition of the action on multi-particle operators is needed
in order to reach the same goal for multi-particle systems.
Our task in this section is twofold: first we have to find
the right
action of the Hopf algebra $H$ for tensor products of $\mbox{$\cal A$}$,
then we have to show that the definition of ``twist symmetric''
operators (associated to identical particles) is
stable under this action. As before, we assume
that $\rho$ is a unitary representation that
realizes the Hopf algebra $H$ of transformations in $\mbox{$\cal A$}$.
Let $\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} \in \mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n}$ (or a properly
symmetrized subspace), $|\psi_n\rangle\in{\cal H}^{\otimes n}$ (or a properly
(anti)symmetrized subspace); we require, as in the one-particle
case,
\begin{equation}
(x_{(1)} {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}) (x_{(2)} \triangleright |\psi_n\rangle ) = x \triangleright \big(\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}
|\psi_n\rangle \big)
= \rho^{(n)}(x) \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} |\psi_n\rangle.
\label{actsta4}
\end{equation}
Recalling eq. (\ref{actstam})
it is easy to see that to satisfy this goal
the action (\ref{adjoint}) has to
generalize to multi-particle operators in the following way:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} & = & \rho^{(n)}(x_{(1)})\: \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}
\:\rho^{(n)}(S x_{(2)})\\
& = & \rho^{\otimes n} \big(x_{(1)}\otimes \ldots \otimes x_{(n)}\big)
\:\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} \:\rho^{\otimes n}\big(S x_{(2n)}\otimes
\ldots \otimes S x_{(n+1)}\big).\label{symmetry}
\end{array}
\end{equation}
{\em Remark:}\ In the case that $\mbox{$\cal O$} = \rho(y)$ with $y \in H$ the
action
on one-particle operators is nothing but the
adjoint action $x \stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright} y = x_{(1)} y S(x_{(2)})$. The action on
multi-particle
operators is however different: For instance in the case that $
\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(2)} =
(\rho\otimes\rho)(y_i\otimes y^i)$ with $y_i\otimes y^i \in H \otimes H$ we get
$$x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} (y_i\otimes y^i) = x_{(1)} y_i S x_{(4)} \otimes x_{(2)} y^i S x_{(3)}$$
and {\em not}\/
$$
x \stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright} (y_i\otimes y^i) = x_{(1)} \stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright} y_i \otimes x_{(2)}\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright} y^i
= x_{(1)} y_i S x_{(2)} \otimes x_{(3)} y^i S x_{(4)}
$$
as one might have expected. Both actions ``$\stackrel{\mbox{\scriptsize ad}}{\triangleright}$'' and ``${\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}$''
coincide
for co-commutative coproducts.
The former action treats multi-particle operators as tensor products
of $H$-modules, the latter action is related to the natural Hopf
algebra
structure on $\Delta(H)$ that is given in Sweedler's book
\cite{Sweedler}.
Briefly, Sweedler's argument is the following. For any given
number $n$,
$\Delta^{(n-1)}(H)$ can be viewed as a Hopf algebra with a
natural
coproduct. Now formula (\ref{adjoint}) is applicable for any
$n$---we just have to take care to use the natural Hopf algebra
structure
for each of the $\Delta^{(n-1)}(H)$.\footnote{The action ``${\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}$''
was also
used in Ref.~\cite{SWZ} to define covariance properties of
tensors in
$H^{\otimes n}$}
The notion of unitary multi-particle transformations generalizes to
$n$ particles in an obvious way,
\begin{equation}
(u {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)})^* = u {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} (\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)})^* \qquad \forall \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}
\in A
\end{equation}
and again is satisfied if $u^* = S(u)$.
We now want to show that the transformation we have found is
compatible
with the symmetrization of operators in the twisted
multi-particle description.
\paragraph{Symmetric coproduct} First consider the co-commutative case. Let
$$
(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+ = \{ a \in \mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$} : [P_{i,i+1} , a] =0 ,
i=1,\ldots n-1\}
$$
be the completely symmetrized space of $n$-particle operators.
In the case of a co-commutative \mbox{\it i.e.\/ } {\em
symmetric}\/ coproduct $\Delta_c$
any of the permutation operators $P_{i,i+1}$ will commute with the
action (\ref{symmetry}):
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
\Big[P_{i,i+1} \, , \, \big(x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big) \Big]
& = & \Big[ P_{i,i+1} \, , \,\rho^{\otimes n} \Big(
\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(x_{c(1)}) \Big)
\:\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\: \rho^{\otimes n}\Big(\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(S_c x_{c(2)})\Big)\Big]\\
& = & x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \big[P_{i,i+1} \, , \,\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big], \qquad \mbox{for }
\Delta_c \mbox{ cocommutative }.
\end{array} \label{cococ}
\end{equation}
Here $x_{c(1)}\otimes x_{c(2)}\equiv\Delta_c(x)$ and $S_c$
is the cocommutative antipode.
\paragraph{Deformed coproduct} Let ${\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12\ldots n}}\in H^{\otimes n}$ be
as in equation (\ref{condition}) namely
such that
$\Delta^{(n-1)}(x) = {\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12\ldots n}}\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(x)
{\mbox{$\cal F$}_{12\ldots n}}^{-1}$ for all $x \in H$.
As in the previous section
we will use its representation $F_{12\ldots n} \equiv
\rho^{\otimes n}({F_{12\ldots n}})$ for the similarity transformation of
section~\ref{twistmult}.
We note that relation (\ref{cococ}) also holds with $x_{c(1)}\otimes x_{c(2)}$
and $S_c$ replaced by the non-cocomutative $x_{(1)}\otimes x_{(2)}\equiv\Delta(x)$
and the corresponding antipode $S$:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{rcl}
& & \Big[ P_{i,i+1} \, , \,\rho^{\otimes n} \big(
\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(x_{(1)}) \big)
\:\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\: \rho^{\otimes n}\big(\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(S x_{(2)})\big)\Big]\\
& & = \rho^{\otimes n} \big(\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(x_{(1)}) \big)
\big[P_{i,i+1} \, , \,\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big]
\rho^{\otimes n}\big(\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(S x_{(2)})\big).
\end{array} \label{mcococ}
\end{equation}
Conjugating this relation by $F_{12\ldots n}$
we easily find the non-cocommutative analog of equation
(\ref{cococ}), because $\rho^{(n)}(x) =
\rho^{\otimes n}(\Delta^{(n-1)}(x)) = F_{12\ldots n}
\rho^{\otimes n}(\Delta_c^{(n-1)}(x))
F^{-1}_{12\ldots n}$:
\begin{equation}
\Big[P^{F_{12\ldots n}}_{i,i+1} \, , \, \big(x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big) \Big]
= x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \big[P^{F_{12\ldots n}}_{i,i+1} \, , \,\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big] \qquad
\forall x \in H.
\label{noncococ}
\end{equation}
Consequently, since the LHS vanishes if the RHS does:
\begin{equation}
H\,:\: (\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}\:\rightarrow\:
(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes\ldots\otimes\mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12\ldots n}}.
\end{equation}
The quantum symmetry is hence compatible with identical
particle {\em operators}\/
in the twisted multi-particle description.\\[1em]
{\em Remark:}\ The transformation (\ref{symmetry}) is not the
only one \label{rem}
compatible with the twisted symmetrization. The important point is that the
transformation must be based on $\rho^{(n)}(x) = \rho^{\otimes
n}(\Delta^{(n-1)}(x))$. The ordinary
commutator
$\big[\rho^{(n)}(x)\, , \, \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big]$ also leaves
$(\mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n})^{F_{12\ldots n}}_+$ invariant, simply because
$\rho^{(n)}(x) \in
(\mbox{$\cal A$}^{\otimes n})^{F_{12\ldots n}}_+$. These two transformations
usually
coincide in ordinary quantum mechanics. Here they have different
interpretations:
Let $h \subset H$ be a sub-algebra of $H$.
The operator $\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}$, $n\ge 1$,
is symmetric (\mbox{\it i.e.\/ } invariant) under the transformations
generated by $x\in h$ if
\begin{equation}
x {\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} = \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} \epsilon(x);
\label{invar}
\end{equation}
it may be simultaneously diagonalizable with elements in $h$ if
\begin{equation}
\big[\rho^{(n)}(x)\, , \, \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}\big] = 0.
\label{commu}
\end{equation}
The two properties coincide if $\Delta(h) \subset h \otimes H$.
This can be seen as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^{(n)}(x) \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}|\psi_n\rangle & \stackrel{(\ref{actstam})}{=}&
x{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} (\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}|\psi_n\rangle) \nonumber\\
\stackrel{(\ref{actsta4})}{=}
(x_{(1)}{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,} \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)})(x_{(2)}{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}|\psi_n\rangle) &
\stackrel{(\ref{invar})}{=}
&\varepsilon(x_{(1)}) \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}(x_{(2)}{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}|\psi_n\rangle) \\
= \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} (x{\,\stackrel{s}{\triangleright}\,}|\psi_n\rangle) & = & \mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} \rho^{(n)}(x)|\psi_n\rangle
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
for any $|\psi_n\rangle\in {\cal H}^{\otimes n}$, so that eq. (\ref{invar}) implies
eq (\ref{commu}); in the same way one proves the converse.
The physical relevance of this case is self-evident: if both
$\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)} $ and $\rho^{(\otimes n)}(x)$ are hermitean,
then they can be diagonalized simultaneously; if one of the two,
say $\rho^{(\otimes n)}(x)$, is not hermitean, given an eigenvector
$|\psi_n\rangle$ of $\mbox{$\cal O$}^{(n)}$, $\rho^{(\otimes n)}(x)|\psi_n\rangle$ will be
another
belonging to the same eigenvalue.
\sect{Explicit Example: $H=U_q(su(2))$}
\label{example}
We consider as a simple example of a one-particle quantum
mechanical system transforming under a quantum group action
the case of a q-deformed rotator,
$\mbox{$\cal A$}\equiv \rho(H):=\rho[U_q(su(2))]$,
with $q\in {\bf R}^+$. We determine the twisted symmetry of
the systems consisting of $n\ge 2$ particles of the same kind.
\subsection{$n=2$ particles}
\label{example1}
Let us first assume that
the states of the system belong to an irreducible
$*$-repre\-sent\-ation
of $H$, namely
${\cal H}\equiv V_j$, where $V_j$ denotes the highest weight
representation of
$U_q(su(2))$ with highest weight $j=0,\frac 12,1, ...$. It is very
instructive to find
out what $({\cal H}\otimes {\cal H})_{\pm}^{F_{12}}$ and
$(\mbox{$\cal A$}\otimes \mbox{$\cal A$})_+^{F_{12}}$ in this
example are.
According to point 1. of the Drinfel'd theorem, we can
identify $U_q(su(2))$
and $U(su(2))$ as algebras; therefore, $V_j$ can be thought as
the representation
space of either one. Similarly, $V_j\otimes V_j$ can be considered as
the carrier space
of a (reducible) representation space of either
$U_q(su(2))\otimes U_q(su(2))$
or $U(su(2))\otimes U(su(2))$; moreover,
$F_{12}(V_j\otimes V_j)=V_j\otimes V_j$. Thus,
we can decompose it into irreducible components either of
$U_q(su(2))$ or $U(su(2))$, the
operators on it being defined as
$\rho^{(2)}(X)=\rho^{\otimes 2}[\Delta(X)]$ or
$\rho^{(2)}_c(X)=\rho^{\otimes 2}[\Delta_c(X)]$ respectively:
\begin{equation}
V_j\otimes V_j=\cases{\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le j}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)}^q\oplus
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le j-\frac 12}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)-1}^q \cr
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le j}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)}\oplus
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le j-\frac 12}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)-1}; \cr}
\end{equation}
here $\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ (resp. $\mbox{$\cal V$}_J$) denotes the irreducible component
of
$U_q(su(2))$ (resp. $U(su(2))$) with highest weight $J$.
Moreover,
from point 2) of the theorem it follows
\begin{equation}
F_{12}\mbox{$\cal V$}_J=\mbox{$\cal V$}_J^q,
\label{vtwist}
\end{equation}
Let us recall now that the $\mbox{$\cal V$}_J$'s have well-defined symmetry
w.r.t the permutation, namely
$\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2j}, \mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-1)}, \ldots$ are symmetric,
$\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2j-1},\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2j-3},...$ are
antisymmetric.
This follows from the fact that $\rho^{(2)}_c(X)$ and $P_{12}$
commute.
Hence
\begin{eqnarray}
& & (V_j\otimes V_j)_+=\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l \le j}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)}\\
\nonumber
& & (V_j\otimes V_j)_-=
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le j-\frac 12}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)-1}.
\label{pmdecom}
\end{eqnarray}
{}From eq.'s (\ref{vtwist}), (\ref{pmdecom}) we finally find
\begin{eqnarray}
& & (V_j\otimes V_j)^{F_{12}}_+:= F_{12}(V_j\otimes V_j)_+=
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l \le
j}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)}^q\\ \nonumber
& & (V_j\otimes V_j)^{F_{12}}_-:= F_{12}(V_j\otimes V_j)_-=
\bigoplus\limits_{0\le l\le
j-\frac 12}\mbox{$\cal V$}_{2(j-l)-1}^q.
\label{pmqdecom}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation says that the subspaces
$\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J\subset V_j\otimes V_j$ have
well-defined ``twisted symmetry''. We can use it to
build $(V_j\otimes V_j)^{F_{12}}_{\pm}$ recalling how the
representations
$\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ are obtained.
For this scope, we just have to recall the explicit algebra
relations and coproduct of the generators $h,X^{\pm}$
of $U_q(su(2))$:
\begin{eqnarray}
[h,X^{\pm}]& = & \pm 2 X^{\pm} \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
[X^+,X^-] = \frac{q^{h}-q^{-h}}{q- q^{-1}} \nonumber\\
\Delta(h) & = & {\bf 1}\otimes h + h\otimes {\bf 1} \qquad \qquad
\Delta(X^{\pm}) = X^{\pm}\otimes q^{-\frac{h}2} + q^{\frac{h}2}
\otimes X^{\pm}.
\label{uqsu2comrel}
\end{eqnarray}
Let $\{|j,m\rangle\}_{m=-j,1-j,...j}$ be an orthonormal basis of $V_j$
consisting of
eigenvectors of $\rho(\frac h2)$ with eigenvalues $m$. The
generators $X^{\pm}$ can be represented in terms of this basis
in the following way
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(X^+)|j,m\rangle&=&\sqrt{[j+m+1]_q[j-m]_q}|j,m+1\rangle,\\
\rho(X^-)|j,m\rangle&=&\sqrt{[j-m+1]_q[j+m]_q}|j,m-1\rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where $[x]_q:=\frac{q^x-q^{-x}}{q-q^{-1}}$.
As well known, the
highest weight vector $\Vert J,J\rangle\in \mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$---from
which the whole representation $\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ can be generated
by repeated
applications of $\rho^{(2)}(X^-)$---is
obtained by solving the equation
$\rho^{(2)}(X^+)\Vert J,J\rangle=0$ for the
coefficients $a_h$ of the general ansatz
\begin{equation}
\Vert J,J\rangle=\sum\limits_{h=\mbox{\scriptsize
max}\{-j,J-j\}}^{\mbox{\scriptsize min}\{j,J+j\}}
a_h |j,h\rangle\otimes |j,J-h\rangle.
\end{equation}
Now we are ready to understand the difference between
$(H\otimes H)_+^{F_{12}}$ and
its sub-algebra
$\rho^{(2)}(H)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho^{(2)}(H)&\ni& a:\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J\rightarrow \mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J,\\
(H\otimes H)_+^{F_{12}}&\ni&
b:(V_j\otimes V_j)^{F_{12}}_{\pm}
\rightarrow (V_j\otimes V_j)^{F_{12}}_{\pm}.
\end{eqnarray}
The elements of
$[\rho(H)\otimes \rho(H)]_+ \setminus \rho^{(2)}(H)$ will in general
map $\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ out of itself, into some $\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_{J'}$ with $J'\neq J$.
If ${\cal H}$ carries a reducible $*$-representation of $H$, it will be
possible to
decompose it into irreducible representations $V_j$,
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}=\bigoplus\limits_{j\in {\cal J}}V_j \qquad\qquad {\cal J}\subset
{\bf N}_0/2:=\{0,\frac 12,1\ldots\};
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}\otimes {\cal H}=\bigoplus\limits_{j_1,j_2\in {\cal J}}V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j _2},
\label{decom}
\end{equation}
and each $V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j _2}$ itself will be a representation.
If $j_1=j_2$, the
considerations above apply. If $j_1\neq j_2$, the irreducible
components
$\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ ($J=|j_1-j_2|,|j_1-j_2|+1,\dots, j_1+j_2$) contained in
$V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j _2}$
of course {\it will not} have well-defined symmetry (neither
classical nor
twisted) under permutations. However, the
irreducible components $\tilde{\mbox{$\cal V$}}^q_J$ contained in
$V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j _1}$
will be characterized by the same set of highest weights $J$.
One can split
$\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J\oplus \tilde{\mbox{$\cal V$}}^q_J$, and therefore
$V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j_2}\oplus V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j_1}$,
into the direct sum of one (twisted) symmetric and one (twisted)
antisymmetric components
\begin{equation}
\left[V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j_2}\oplus V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j_1}\right]^
{F_{12}}_{\pm}=
F_{12}\frac 12[{\bf 1} \pm P_{12}]\left[V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j_2}\oplus
V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j_1}\right]_{\pm}
\end{equation}
(the symbol $F_{12}$ has to be dropped in the untwisted case).
Let $\{\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{12}\}_{M=-J,...,J}$ be an orthonormal
basis
of $\mbox{$\cal V$}^q_J$ consisting of eigenvectors of
$\rho^{(2)}(h)$ and of $\rho^{(2)}(C_q)$ ($C_q$ denotes the
casimir),
and let
\begin{equation}
\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{12}:=\sum\limits_{m_1,m_2}{\cal C}^{j_1,j_2}_
{m_1,m_2}
(J,M,q)|j_1,m_1\rangle|j_2,m_2\rangle
\end{equation}
be the explicit decomposition of $\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{12}$ in the
tensor
product basis of $V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j _2}$. Then the set
$\{\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{21}\}_{M=-J,...,J}$ with
\begin{equation}
\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{21}:=\sum\limits_{m_1,m_2}{\cal C}^{j_2,j_1}_
{m_2,m_1}
(J,M,q)|j_2,m_2\rangle|j_1,m_1\rangle,
\label{basis}
\end{equation}
will be an orthonormal basis of $\tilde{\mbox{$\cal V$}}^q_J$ consisting of
eigenvectors of
$\rho^{(2)}(h)$ and of the casimir $\rho^{(2)}(C_q)$ with the same
eigenvalues.
Defining
\begin{equation}
\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{\pm}:=N\left( \Vert J,M\rangle^q_{12}\pm
\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{21}\right),
\qquad\qquad\qquad N^{-1}:=\sqrt{2}
\end{equation}
we can easily realize that $\{\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{\pm}\}_{J,M}$ is an
orthonormal basis of
$(V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j_2}\oplus V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j_1})^{F_{12}}_{\pm}$.
Note that, if $j_1=j_2\equiv j$ and we set $N^{-1}=2$ in formula
(\ref{basis}),
then the vectors $\Vert J,M\rangle^q_+$ will make up
the sam
orthonormal basis of $V_j\otimes V_j$
as befor
(they will have twisted symmetry $(-1)^{J-2j}$, see the previous
case)
whereas the vectors $\Vert J,M\rangle^q_-$ will vanish.
We are now ready to find, as announced in sections \ref{twistmult},
\ref{qsym}, the ``universal twisted
permutator'' $P_{12}^{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12}}$ of $U_q(su(2))$, defined
throug
the property that the twisted permutation operator
$P_{12}^{F_{12}}$
on any tensor product $V\otimes V$ [$V$ being the carrier space of
a representation $\rho$ whatever of $U_q(su(2))$] can be obtained
by $P_{12}^{F_{12}}=\rho^{\otimes 2} (P_{12}^{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12}})$.
We decompose $V\otimes V$ as in formula (\ref{decom}). The casimir of
$U_q(su(2))$
\begin{equation}
C_q=X^-X^++ \left(\frac{q^{\frac{h+1}2}-q^{\frac{-h-1}2}}
{q-q^{-1}}\right)^{2}
\end{equation}
has eigenvalues $([j+\frac 12]_q)^2$; in the limit
$q\rightarrow 1$:
$C_q\rightarrow C_c+\frac14$, where $C_c$ is
the usual casimir
of $U(su(2))$ with eigenvalues $j(j+1)$. Defining $f(z)$ by
\begin{equation}
\log_q[f(z)]:=\left\{\frac 1{\ln(q)}\sinh^{-1}\left[\frac{(q-q^{-1})
\sqrt{z}}2\right]\right\}^2-\frac 14,
\end{equation}
it is easy to verify that $f(C_q)$ has eigenvalues $q^{j(j+1)}$.
Let $\hat R:=P_{12}[\rho^{\otimes 2} (\mbox{$\cal R$})]$. Recalling the formula
$\mbox{$\cal R$}={\cal F}_{21}q^{\frac t2}{\cal F}_{12}^{-1}$, we realize that
the vectors
$\Vert J,M\rangle^q_{\pm}\in (V_{j_1}\otimes V_{j_2}\oplus
V_{j_2}\otimes V_{j_1})^{F_{12}}_{\pm}$ ($j_1\neq j_2$) are
eigenvectors of
$\rho^{\otimes 2}\left[f({\bf 1}\otimes C_q)f(C_q\otimes {\bf 1})\left[
f(\Delta(C_q))\right]^{-1}\right]\hat R$ and
$P_{12}^{F_{12}}$ with the same eigenvalue $\pm 1$. If
$j_1=j_2=j$, the same holds for the vectors $\Vert J,M\rangle^q_+$
(which form a basis of $V_j\otimes V_j$). Since this holds for all
$j_1,j_2$ appearing in the decomposition (\ref{decom}), and
if we let $j_1,j_2$ range on ${\cal J}$ the above vectors
make up a basis of $V\otimes V$, then
\begin{equation}
P_{12}^{F_{12}}=f({\bf 1}\otimes\rho(C_q))f(\rho(C_q)\otimes {\bf 1})
\left[f\left(\rho^{(2)}(C_q)\right)\right]^{-1}\hat R
\end{equation}
on $V\otimes V$. We prefer to rewrite $\hat R$ as
$\hat R=[\rho^{\otimes 2} (\mbox{$\cal R$}_{21})]P_{12}$, where $\mbox{$\cal R$}_{21}=\tau(\mbox{$\cal R$})$
and $\tau$ is the abstract permutator.
Since this equation holds for an arbitrary representation $\rho$,
we
can drop the latter symbol and obtain the
\paragraph{Universal expression for the twisted
permutation operator of $U_q(su(2))$:}
\begin{equation}
P_{12}^{\scriptscriptstyle {\cal F}_{12}}=f({\bf 1}\otimes C_q)f(C_q\otimes {\bf 1})\left[f(
\Delta(C_q))\right]^{-1}\mbox{$\cal R$}_{21}\circ \tau
\end{equation}
We omit here the well-known expression for the universal $\mbox{$\cal R$}$
\cite{dr}.
\subsection{$n\ge 3$ particles}
When $n\ge 3$, for any given space $V$ the decomposition of
$\bigotimes^n V$ into irreducible representations of
the permutation group contains components with partial/mixed
symmetry,
beside the completely symmetric and the completely
antisymmetric ones.
\footnote{The Young tableaus provide the rules for finding the
complete
decomposition for any $n$.}
If $n=3$, for instance, some components can be diagonalized
{\it either}
w.r.t. to $P_{12}$ {\it or} w.r.t. $P_{23}$ (but not w.r.t. both of them
simultaneously).
If $n=4$, all components can be diagonalized simultaneously w.r.t.
$P_{12}$ and $P_{34}$, and some will have mixed symmetry (e.g.
will be
symmetric in the first pair and antisymmetric in the second, or
vice versa).
We recall that the explicit knowledge of components with
mixed/partial
symmetry is required to build $({\cal H}^{\otimes n})_{\pm}$
if the Hilbert space ${\cal H}$ of one particle is the tensor product of
different
spaces, ${\cal H}=V\otimes V'$, as in example~2 in subsection~\ref{transta}.
It is easy to
realize that similar statements hold in the case of the twisted
symmetry.
Let us consider again the case $V_j$, and let $n=3$ for the sake of
simplicity. We show how to construct two different orthonormal
bases of
$V_j\otimes V_j\otimes V_j$ with (partial) symmetry, and a continuous
family
of $F_{123}$ on $V_j\otimes V_j\otimes V_j$.
There is evidently only one irreducible representation
with highest weight $J=3j$, the highest weight vector being
$|j,j\rangle|j,j\rangle|j,j\rangle$. But there are two independent irreducible
representations
with highest weight $J=3j-1$, e.g. those having highest weight
vectors
$\frac1{\sqrt{2}}\left(|j,j-1\rangle|j,j\rangle\pm|j,j\rangle |j,j-1\rangle\right)|j,j\rangle$.
The latter are symmetric and antisymmetric respectively w.r.t.
$P_{12}$,
but are mixed into each other by the action of $P_{23}$;
alternatively,
one can combine these two representations into two new ones,
having highest weight vectors
$\frac1{\sqrt{2}}|j,j\rangle\left(|j,j-1\rangle|j,j\rangle\pm|j,j\rangle |j,j-1\rangle\right)$,
which are symmetric and antisymmetric respectively w.r.t.
$P_{23}$,
but are mixed into each other by the action of $P_{12}$. One can
easily
verify that the first two representations are eigenspaces of
$\rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)\otimes id$ with eigenvalues $(2j\pm \frac 12)^2$,
the latter
two are eigenspaces of $id \otimes \rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)$ with the same
eigenvalues.
The operators $\rho^{(3)}_c(C_c),\rho^{(3)}_c(h)$ and either
$\rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)\otimes id$ or $id \otimes \rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)$ make up a
complete set of commuting observables over $V_j\otimes V_j\otimes V_j$.
Let
\begin{equation}
\{\Vert J,M,r\rangle_{12}\}_{J,M,r}, \qquad [\mbox{respectively:}\quad
\{\Vert J,M,s\rangle_{23}\}_{J,M,s}],
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
j\le J\le 3j, \hspace*{9mm} -J\le M\le J,\hspace*{9mm}
\mbox{max}\{0,j\!-\!J\}\le r,s\le \mbox{min}\{2j,j\!+\!J\}
\label{prima}
\end{equation}
denote an orthonormal basis of eigenvectors of
$\rho^{(3)}_c(C_c)$, $\rho^{(3)}(h)$ and
$\rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)\otimes id$ [respectively:\hspace{3mm} $id \otimes \rho^{(2)}_c(C_c)$] with
eigenvalues
$J(J+1),M$ and $r(r+1)$ [respectively:\hspace{3mm} $s(s+1)$].
In particular,
\begin{eqnarray}
\Vert 3j-1,3j-1,2j-\frac 12 \pm\frac 12 \rangle_{12} =
\frac1{\sqrt{2}}\left(|j,j-1\rangle|j,j\rangle\pm|j,j\rangle |j,j-1\rangle\right)
|j,j\rangle\nonumber\\
\Vert 3j-1,3j-1,2j-\frac 12 \pm\frac 12 \rangle_{23} =
\frac1{\sqrt{2}}|j,j\rangle\left(|j,j-1\rangle|j,j\rangle\pm|j,j\rangle |j,j-1\rangle\right)
\end{eqnarray}
It is easy to verify that in general the subspace of
$V_j\otimes V_j\otimes V_j$ which is anti-symmetric/symmetric w.r.t.\ $P_{12}$
is spanned by the vectors $\Vert J,M,r\rangle_{12}$
with $r-\mbox{min}\{2j,j\!+\!J\}$ odd/even,
and similarly for $P_{23}$.
For fixed $J,M$, there exists a unitary matrix $U(J)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\Vert J,M,s\rangle_{23}=U(J)_{sr}\Vert J,M,r\rangle_{12}
\label{ultima}
\end{equation}
Formulae formally identical to eqs. (\ref{prima}), (\ref{ultima})
hold when
$q\neq 1$; we will introduce an additional index $q$ in all objects
to denote this dependence.
The elements of $\rho^{(3)}(U_q(su(2)))$ in these two bases read
\begin{equation}
\rho^{(3)}(X)=\cases{\sum\limits_J\sum\limits_r\sum\limits_{M,M'}
X_{M,M'}(J) \Vert J,M,r,q\rangle_{12}~ _{12}\langle J,M,r,q\Vert\cr
\sum\limits_J\sum\limits_s\sum\limits_{M,M'}
X_{M,M'}(J) \Vert J,M,s,q\rangle_{23} ~_{23}\langle J,M,s,q\Vert, \cr}
\end{equation}
and the matrix elements $X_{M,M'}(J)$ do not depend on $r,s$.
Now it is easy to check that we can find
many-parameter continuous families of matrices $F_{123}$
satisfying eq. (\ref{condition}), in the form
\begin{equation}
F_{123}=\cases{\sum\limits_J\sum\limits_M\sum\limits_r
A_{r,r'}(J) \Vert J,M,r,q\rangle_{12}~_{12}\langle J,M,r',1\rangle\Vert \cr
\sum\limits_J\sum\limits_M\sum\limits_s
B_{s,s'}(J) \Vert J,M,s,q\rangle_{23} ~_{23}\langle J,M,s',1\Vert, \cr}
\label{family}
\end{equation}
where $A(J)$'s are arbitrary unitary matrices and
$B(J)=[U(J,q)]^*A(J) [U(J,q=1)]^T$. The key
point is that the matrix elements
$A_{r,r'}$ do not depend on $M$, whereas the matrix elements
$X_{M,M'}$ do not depend on $r$.
It is easy to realize that
the family (\ref{family}) interpolates between the two $F$ matrix
given
in subsection \ref{transta}, $F_{123}'$ (if we set
$A_{r,r'}=\delta_{r,r'}$)
and $F_{123}''$ (if we set $B_{r,r'}=\delta_{r,r'}$).
Considerations analogous to those of subsection \ref{example1}
can be
done for $n\ge 3$ when $V$ is a reducible representation of
$U_q(su(2))$.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We would like to thank R.\ Engeldinger
for sharing his interpretation of Drinfel'd
twists which helped us in a change of viewpoint on the problem and
we are grateful to S.\ L.\ Woronowicz and W.\ Pusz for pointing
out Ref. \cite{wopu}.
One of us (G.F.) thanks A.~v.~Humboldt foundation for financial support.
Last but not least we thank J.~Wess for discussion and
warm hospitality at his institute.
|
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{page}{2}
The Casimir effect \cite{casimir48} is a beautiful and simple manifestation
of the influence that boundaries or non-trivial spacetime topologies have
on quantum field theories (see for example
\cite{plunienmullergreiner86,ambjornwolfram83,eorbz,moste}). The modern
approach for the calculation of the Casimir energy is the zeta function
regularization scheme put forward in \cite{blauvisserwipf88}. The idea is
the following. In order to have a well-defined notion
of energy, let us work in a $d$-dimensional ultrastatic spacetime
\cite{dewitt75}. Thus the metric in some coordinate system is of the form
$g=-(dx^0)^2 +g_S$ with the spatial part $g_S$ of the metric (see
Eq.~(\ref{eq:2.1})).
The differential operator $D$ describing the field
equation may be decomposed as $D=-\partial _0^2 +D_S$. Introducing
$E_n^2=\lambda_n$ as the eigenfrequencies of $D_S$, the zero-point energy
is formally given by
\begin{equation}
E_{Casimir} =\frac 1 2 \sum_n E_n. \label{eq:1.1}
\end{equation}
It may be regularized by defining
\begin{equation}
E_{reg}(\epsilon ) =\frac 1 2 \mu^{2\epsilon}
\zeta _S (-1/2 +\epsilon ) , \label{eq:1.2}
\end{equation}
with $\zeta _S (s)$ being the zeta function associated with the
($d-1$)-dimensional operator $D_S$. The scale $\mu$ with dimension
(length)$^{-1}$ has to be introduced in order to keep the zeta function
dimensionless for all $s$.
General zeta function theory \cite{voros87} tells us, that $E_{reg}
(\epsilon ) $ is a meromorphic function with a pole at $\epsilon =0$,
its residue being $-(1/2) C_{d/2} (D_S)/(4\pi )^{d/2}$. The coefficient
$C_{d/2}
(D_S)$ is the Seeley-De Witt coefficient appearing in the asymptotic
expansion for small $t$ of the heat-kernel associated with $D_S$,
\begin{eqnarray}
K(t) &=& \sum_n e^{-\lambda_n t}\nonumber\\
&\sim & \left(\frac 1 {4\pi t}\right)^{(d-1)/2} \sum_{l=0,1/2,1,...}
^{\infty}C_l(D_S) t^l .\label{eq:1.3}
\end{eqnarray}
The pole appearing in Eq. (\ref{eq:1.2}) has to be absorbed into the bare
action which thus must contain a term proportional to $C_{d/2} (D_S)$.
It is clear then, that the Casimir energy has an ambiguity proportional to
$C_{d/2} (D_S)$ (we will come back to this point later).
Adopting the minimal subtraction scheme, one defines
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{Casimir} &=& \frac 1 2 \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}
\frac 1 2 \mu^{2\epsilon}\left[\zeta_S (-1/2 +\epsilon )
+\zeta_S (-1/2-\epsilon )\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \frac 1 2 \left[ PP\,\, \zeta_S (-1/2)-\frac{C_{d/2}(D_S)
}{(4\pi)^{d/2}}\ln\mu^2\right] , \label{eq:1.4}
\end{eqnarray}
where the symbol $PP$ stands for taking the principal part. Based on this
definition, during the last years the Casimir energy has been calculated for
a variety of examples
\cite{eorbz,dolannash92,carusonetosvaitersvaiter91}.
The definition (\ref{eq:1.4}) of the Casimir energy is completely
equivalent to the one steming naturally from
the definition of functional determinant by the zeta function
prescription (for very recent
considerations on this issue see \cite{zds}).
This may be done by considering the theory at finite temperature and by
defining the Casimir energy as its energy in the limit $T\to 0$,
this idea going back to Gibbons \cite{gibbons77}
who considered the single quantum mechanical oscillator. In the more general
context of quantum field theory under some external conditions like boundaries
or gravitational fields this definition has been employed for example in
\cite{dowkerkennedy78,ambjornwolfram83,dowker84,cognolavanzozerbini92,trento}).
The
ambiguity in the coefficient $C_{d/2}$ may be understood to be a result of the
necessary renormalization of the free energy of the system.
Having summarized the main arguments in favor of the definition of the Casimir
energy as given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:1.4}), in section 3 we will present the
calculation of the Casimir energy
for a massive scalar field in a general $(1+2)$-dimensional
toroidal spacetime with flat spatial geometry. The general flat geometry will
be
parametrized by the corresponding two Teichm\"uller parameters and the complete
dependence of the Casimir energy on these parameters
and on the mass of the field will be obtained under the form of an analytic
function, by using the extended
Chowla-Selberg zeta function formula derived
by one of us in Refs.~\cite{eecs1,eecs2}.
For the massless case we obtain complete agreement with previous results by
Dowker \cite{dowker89a}.
\section{Zeta function definition of the Casimir energy}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us first briefly
summarize the motivation for the definition (\ref{eq:1.4}) of
the Casimir energy.
For definiteness, let us consider the quantum field theory of a free
scalar field in curved spacetime, the Dirac field may be treated analogously.
As mentioned before, in order to have
a well defined notion of energy
we shall restrict our considerations
to a $d$-dimensional ultrastatic spacetime ${\cal M}$, possibly with a
boundary,
and with the metric
\begin{eqnarray}
ds^2=-dx_0^2+g_{ab}(\vec x )dx^adx^b,\label{eq:2.1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
$\vec x =(x_1,...,x_{d-1})$. The action of the field theory we consider is
\cite{dewitt75}, \cite{critchleydowkerkennedy80},
\begin{eqnarray}
S=-\frac 1 2 \int\limits_{{\cal M}} d^d x |g|^{\frac 1 2}\phi^{\dagger}(x)
\left(\Box -\xi R-m^2\right)\phi (x),\label{22}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\Box$ being the Laplace-Beltrami
operator of the ultrastatic spacetime. Variation of equation
(\ref{22}) subject to the constraints
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \phi (x')&=&0,\nonumber\\ n^{\mu '}\nabla _{\mu '}\delta \phi
(x')&=&0,\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where the prime refers to quantities
defined on the boundary $\partial {\cal M}$, yields the equation of
motion
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(\Box -\xi R-m^2\right) \phi
(x)=0,\label{25}
\end{eqnarray}
which is the generalized Klein-Gordon equation.
The following discussion will be quite
general, so the boundary condition need not to be specified at this
point. A unique boundary value problem is posed, for example, by
assuming Dirichlet- or Robin-boundary conditions on the field.
In an ultrastatic spacetime the quantum field theory
at finite temperature
may be developed in
complete analogy with the Minkowski-space theory and that
is why we will skip the
details of the calculation.
In the Euclidean formulation of the finite temperature theory, the partition
sum
${\cal Z}$
may be written under the form of a functional integral of the kind
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z} [\beta ] =\int [d\varphi]\exp\left\{-\frac 1 2 (\varphi ,D\varphi
)\right\},
\end{equation}
where we have used
the scalar product
\begin{equation}
(f,h) =\int\limits_0^{\tau} d\tau \int\limits_{\Sigma}d\Sigma\,\, |g|^{1/2} f^* h\nonumber
\end{equation}
for the two vectors $f$ and $h$, and being $\Sigma$ the spatial section of the
manifold
${\cal M}$.
Here the integration extends over all fields periodic in the imaginary
time $\tau$ with periodicity $\beta =1/T$ and fulfilling the boundary
conditions at the spatial boundary. The operator $D$ is given by
\begin{equation}
D =-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau^2} -\Delta +\xi R +m^2.
\end{equation}
Then, one formally obtains
\begin{equation}
{\cal Z} [\beta , \mu
] =(\det \lambda ^{-2} D)^{-\frac 1 2},
\end{equation}
the scale $\lambda$ \cite{hawking77} being necessary in order to keep
everything
dimensionless. The functional determinant of the operator
$\lambda^{-2} D$ needs, of course, regularization.
We will use the zeta-function regularization scheme introduced
by Dowker, Critchley \cite{critchleydowker76} and Hawking
\cite{hawking77}.
In this scheme, the free energy is defined as
\begin{equation}
F[\beta ]=-\frac 1 {2\beta} \left[\zeta_d (0,\beta )\ln \lambda^2
+\zeta_d ' (0,\beta )\right].\label{free}
\end{equation}
The function $\zeta_d(s,\beta)$ is the zeta-function
associated with the operator
$D$. Using the ansatz
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{l,k}=\frac 1 {\beta} \exp\left(\frac{2\pi
il}{\beta}\right)g_k(\vec x)\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
the eigenvalues are seen to have the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu_{l,k}^{\pm}=\left(\frac{2\pi
l}{\beta}\right)^2+E_k^2,\,\, \ \ l\in{\mbox{${\rm Z\!\!Z }$}},\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with the energy eigenvalues being defined through
\begin{equation}
(-\Delta +\xi R +m^2) \psi_k (\vec x )=E_k^2 \psi_k (\vec x).
\end{equation}
Making use of a Mellin-transformation and a theta-function identity
\cite{hille62}, the free energy may be written in the form
\begin{eqnarray}
F[\beta]&=&\frac 1 2 PP\zeta_S\left(-\frac
1 2\right)+\frac 1 {2(4\pi)^{\frac d 2}}C_{\frac d 2}[\ln
\lambda^2-1+2\ln 2]\label{endre}\\ &+&\frac 1 {\beta}
\sum_j\ln\left(1-e^{-\beta E_j}\right)\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
The energy of the system is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
E=\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta}\beta F[\beta ].
\label{energie} \end{eqnarray}
Finally, defining the Casimir-energy as the limit of
(\ref{energie}) for $T\to 0$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
E_{Cas}[\partial{\cal M}]=\lim_{T\to 0}E=\frac 1 2
PP\zeta_S\left(-\frac 1
2\right)+\frac 1 {2(4\pi)^{\frac d 2}}C_{\frac d 2}\ln
\tilde{\lambda}^2,\label{casimir}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\tilde{\lambda}=\frac{2\lambda}{\sqrt{e}}$. We thus arrive to
the definition
of Refs.~\cite{dowker84,blauvisserwipf88}.
In the last reference a detailed
discussion
of the meaning of this definition and of
the problem of renormalization has
been
carried out.
From the above derivation of the definition of the Casimir energy
it is completely clear that the ambiguity of the Casimir energy is
simply a result of the (in general) necessary renormalization
of the free
energy. In the case when the coefficient $C_{d/2}$ vanishes,
the definition (\ref{casimir}) gives a well defined, finite value.
\section{Casimir energy in a (1+2)-dimensional toroidal spacetime}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us consider, as an example, a (1+2)-dimensional spacetime with the
topology $\mbox{${\rm I\!\!R }$} \times
T^2$ \cite{seriu}. We will concentrate on the case when the geometry of
the space
$\Sigma\simeq T^2$ is locally flat. One can construct such geometry, as is
usual, by taking $\Sigma =[0,1]\times [0,1]/\sim $, where the equivalence
relation is defined by $(\xi_1 ,0) \sim (\xi_1 ,1)$ and $ (0,\xi _2 )\sim
(1,\xi_2)$. A flat $2$-geometry is endowed on $\Sigma$ by giving it a metric
\begin{equation}
ds^2 =h_{ab} d\xi^a d\xi^b,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
h_{ab}=\frac 1 {\tau_2}\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & \tau_1\\
\tau_1 & |\tau|^2
\end{array}\right) .
\end{equation}
The
$(\tau_1, \tau_2)$ are the Teichm\"uller parameters, independent of the spatial
coordinates
$(\xi_1,\xi_2)$,
and $\tau =\tau_1+i\tau_2$, $\tau_2>0$ \cite{hatfield92,luesttheisen89}.
The Laplace-Beltrami operator of this metric is given by
\begin{equation}
\Delta =-\frac 1 {\tau_2} (|\tau|^2 \partial_1^2 -2\tau_1\partial_1\partial_2
+\partial_2^2 ),
\end{equation}
being its eigenvalues
\begin{equation}
\lambda_{n_1,n_2} =\frac{4\pi^2}{\tau_2} (|\tau|^2n_1^2 -2\tau_1n_1n_2
+n_2^2 ).
\end{equation}
In the massive case, $m \neq 0$ the spectrum runs over $n_1,n_2 \in \mbox{${\rm Z\!\!Z }$}$.
In the massless case the zero-mode of $\Delta$, $n_1=n_2=0$,
has to be
excluded.
An exact analysis of the Casimir energy for this spacetime is possible since it
reduces to
a case of the Chowla-Selberg zeta function (when $m=0$) or to one of the
extended formula
that has been obtained recently (case $m\neq 0$).
In fact, in the case when $m \neq 0$, the relevant formula is a particular
application of the following. Let us consider the double series
\begin{equation}
E(s;a,b,c;q) \equiv
{\sum_{m,n \in \mbox{\bf Z}}}' (am^2+bmn+cn^2+q)^{-s}, \label{1}
\end{equation}
with $q\neq 0$ (in general),
the parenthesis in (\ref{1}) is the
inhomogeneous quadratic form
\begin{equation}
Q(x,y)+q, \ \ \ \ Q(x,y) \equiv ax^2+bxy+cy^2,
\end{equation}
restricted to the integers. In the general theory that deals
with the homogeneous case, one assumes that $a,c >0$ and that
the discriminant
\begin{equation}
\Delta =4ac-b^2 >0
\end{equation}
(see \cite{cs}).
Here we will impose the additional condition that $q$ be such that
$Q(m,n)+q \neq 0$, for all $ m,n \in
$ {\bf Z}. In the usual applications of the theory, those
conditions are indeed satisfied.
For the analytical continuation of (\ref{1}),
the following expression has been obtained in Refs. \cite{eecs1,eecs2}
\begin{equation}
E(s;a,b,c;q) =
2\zeta_{EH} (s,q/a)\, a^{-s} + \frac{2^{2s}
\sqrt{\pi}\, a^{s-1}}{\Gamma (s) \Delta^{s-1/2}} \, \Gamma (s -
1/2) \zeta_{EH} (s-1/2,4aq/\Delta)
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{gcs} \end{equation}
\[ +
\frac{2^{s+5/2} \pi^s }{\Gamma (s) \sqrt{a}}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty
n^{s-1/2} \cos (n \pi b/a) \sum_{d|n} d^{1-2s}
\left( \Delta + \frac{4aq}{d^2} \right)^{-s/2+1/4}
K_{s - 1/2}\left( \frac{\pi n}{a}
\sqrt{ \Delta + \frac{4aq}{d^2}} \right),
\]
$\sum_{d|n}d^s$
denoting the sum over the divisors of $n$ and
where the function $\zeta_{EH} (s,p) $ (the one dimensional
Epstein-Hurwitz or inhomogeneous Epstein series) is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta_{EH}(s;p) &=& \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left( n^2 + p
\right)^{-s} = \frac{1}{2} {\sum_{n \in \mbox{\bf Z}}}' \,
\left( n^2 + p
\right)^{-s} \label{zeh1} \\
& =& -\frac{p^{-s}}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{\pi} \, \Gamma (s-
1/2)}{2\, \Gamma (s)}
p^{-s+1/2} + \frac{2\pi^s p^{-s/2 +1/4}}{\Gamma (s)}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{s -1/2} K_{s -1/2} (2\pi n\sqrt{p}).
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Eq. (\ref{gcs}) provides the analytical continuation of the
inhomogenous Epstein series, in the variable $s$, as a meromorphic
function in the complex plane. Its pole structure is explicitly given
in terms of the well-known pole structure of $\zeta_{EH} (s,p)$.
Eq. (\ref{gcs}) has been found by one of us and called the {\it extended
Chowla-Selberg} formula, since it contains the Chowla-Selberg formula
as the particular case $q=0$,
i.e.,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& E(s;a,b,c;0) = 2\zeta (2s)\, a^{-s} + \frac{2^{2s}
\sqrt{\pi}\, a^{s-1}}{\Gamma (s) \Delta^{s-1/2}} \,\Gamma (s
-1/2) \zeta (2s-1) + \frac{2^{s+5/2} \pi^s }{\Gamma (s)
\Delta^{s/2-1/4}\sqrt{a}}
\nonumber \\ && \hspace{1cm} \times \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{s-1/2} \, \sigma_{1-2s} (n)
\,
\cos (n \pi b/a) \, K_{s - 1/2}\left( \frac{\pi n \sqrt{\Delta}}{a} \right).
\label{cs1}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\sigma_s(n) \equiv \sum_{d|n} d^s.
\end{equation}
Formula (\ref{gcs}) has been obtained for the first time in \cite{eecs1}, and a
misprint has been corrected in \cite{eecs2}.
The good convergence properties of expression (\ref{cs1}),
that were so much
prised by Chowla and Selberg, are shared by its
non-trivial extension (\ref{gcs}). This renders the use of the
formula quite
simple. In fact, the two first terms are just nice
---under the form (\ref{zeh1})--- while
the last one (impressive in appearence) is even more quickly
convergent than in the case of Eq. (\ref{cs1}),
and thus absolutely harmless in practice. Only a few
first terms of the three series of Bessel functions in (\ref{gcs}),
(\ref{zeh1}) need to be
calculated, even if one demands good accuracy. We
should also notice that the only pole of (\ref{cs1})
at $s=1$ appears through
$\zeta (2s-1)$ in the second term, while for $s=1/2$, the
apparent singularities of the first and second terms cancel each
other and no pole is formed. Analogously, the pole at $s=1/2$ in
(\ref{gcs}) comes only from the first term.
Eq. (\ref{gcs}) also has these good
properties, {\it for any non-negative value of} $q$.
In fact, for
large $q$ the convergence properties of the series of Bessel functions
are clearly enhanced, while for $q$ small we get back to the case of
Chowla and Selberg. Notice, however, that this is not obtained through
the high-$q$ expansion (e.g., just putting $q=0$ in (\ref{gcs})), but
using a low-$q$, binomial expansion of the kind
\begin{equation}
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left[ a(n+c)^2+q\right]^{-s}= a^{-s}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^m \Gamma(m+s)}{\Gamma (s) \, m!}
\left( \frac{q}{a} \right)^m \zeta_H (2s+2m,c),
\end{equation}
which is convergent for $q/a \leq 1$. For $q \rightarrow 0$ it
reduces to $a^{-s} \zeta_H (2s,c)$.
Actually, formula (\ref{gcs})
is still valid in a domain of
negative $q$'s, namely for $q > -\min (a,c,a-b+c)$.
Turning now to the particular application of the formula in our specific
situation,
we see that the zeta function corresponding to the Laplace-Beltrami operator in
the
massive (resp. massless) case is simply given by:
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{\Delta + m^2} (s) = m^{-2s} + \left( \frac{4\pi^2}{\tau_2} \right)^{-s}
E\left(s; |\tau|^2, -2\tau_1,1; \frac{\tau_2m^2}{4\pi^2} \right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{\Delta} (s) = \left( \frac{4\pi^2}{\tau_2} \right)^{-s}
E\left(s; |\tau|^2, -2\tau_1,1; 0 \right),
\end{equation}
respectively.
The values at $s=-1/2$ are finite and define the corresponding Casimir
energy.
After
performing the necessary calculations, and according to the prescription
that has
been derived in the first part of this paper, we obtain as result the
quite simple
expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \zeta_{\Delta + m^2} (-1/2) = -\frac{m^3}{6\pi} - \frac{2m}{\pi}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-1} K_1 (nmx_2) - \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{m
x_2}{\pi}\right)^{3/2}
\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-3/2} K_{3/2} (nm/x_2) \nonumber \\
&& -8 x_2\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-1} \cos (2\pi n x_1^2)
\sum_{d|n} d^{2}
\sqrt{ 1 + \frac{m^2}{(2\pi x_2 d)^2}} \ K_1 \left( 2\pi n x_2^2
\sqrt{ 1 + \frac{m^2}{(2\pi x_2 d)^2}} \right), \label{d12m}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{\Delta } (-1/2) = -\frac{\pi}{3x_2} + 4\pi \zeta'(-2) x_2^3
-8 x_2\sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-1} \cos (2\pi n x_1^2) \sigma_2(n) \,
K_1 \left( 2\pi n x_2^2 \right), \label{d12}
\end{equation}
in terms of the variables
\begin{equation}
x_1 = \sqrt{\frac{\tau_1}{\tau_1^2 + \tau_2^2}}, \qquad
x_2 = \sqrt{\frac{\tau_2}{\tau_1^2 + \tau_2^2}}. \label{vch}
\end{equation}
The extrema of the corresponding Casimir energy for the case $m^2=100$,
in terms of the original
Teichm\"uller coefficients $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$, are to be read from Figs.
1-3.
In the three-dimensional plot over the plane
$\tau_1, \tau_2$ (Fig. 1), the maximal Casimir energy is seen to be localized
on the section
$\tau_2=1$. In order to show this fact more clearly, in Fig. 2 we have
represented the section
$\tau_1=0$, but the situation is common to any section
$\tau_1=$ const. On the section $\tau_2=1$ a periodic structure appears
asociated with the value of
$\tau_1$ along this section (Fig. 3). This behavior is easy to recognize from
the form of
the function
$\zeta_\Delta (-1/2)$, (\ref{d12}), and is common to {\it any} section
$\tau_2=$ const.
All the figures depicted here have been
obtained taking the first 20 terms from the sum over $n$ in (\ref{d12}).
\vspace{5mm}
\noindent{\large \bf Acknowledgments}
We thank all the members of the Department of Theoretical Physics of the
University of Trento for
warm hospitality, specially Sergio Zerbini, Luciano Vanzo, Guido Cognola,
Ruggero Ferrari
and Marco Toller.
Thanks are given to the referee of a previos version of this paper
for very precise comments that led to its improvement.
This work was
finished while EE was visiting the Institute of Theoretical Physics,
Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden), and has been
supported by DGICYT and Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(Spain), by CIRIT (Generalitat de Catalunya) and by INFN
(Italy).
\newpage
|
\section{\bf Introduction}
\hspace{0.5cm} A heavy fermion superconducting $U\!Pt_{3}$ compound is an
example of the unconventional superconductivity, in which both the gauge and
the point group symmetries are broken in the ordered phase. At the temperature
$T_{N}\simeq 5K$ it undergoes the antiferromagnetic transition with the
magnetic moments confined to the $D_{6h}$ basal plane, however the long range
antiferromagnetic correlations have not yet been seen \cite{1,2}. Far below
the N\'eel temperature, at $T_{c_{+}}\simeq 0.51K$ (p=0 bar) $U\!Pt_{3}$
becomes superconducting \cite{3,4}. There is another superconducting
transition at $T_{c_{-}}\simeq 0.46K$ (p=0 bar) \cite{3,4}. This feature and
a rich phase diagram in the magnetic field and temperature plane \cite{5} are
accepted as the evidence of a multicomponent superconducting order parameter.
There are also the pressure experiments which indicate strongly
the coupling between superconductivity and magnetism in $U\!Pt_{3}$
\cite{2,7,8}. Namely the specific heat measurements under pressure show that
the two critical temperatures $T_{c_{+}}$ and $T_{c_{-}}$ converge into one
critical temperature $T_{c}$ above $p_{c}\simeq 4$ kbar pressure value Fig.1
\cite{2,7,8}, which is the pressure that destroyes antiferromagnetism in the
system. This experiment supports the theory of a two component order parameter
$\bar{\psi}=(\psi_{x},\psi_{y})$ in a basal plane of the crystal, belonging
to a two-dimensional irreducible representation of the hexagonal point
group $D_{6h}$. In this approach a complex vector $\bar{\psi}$ couples to
the magnetic moment $\bar{M}$ and the split transition is due to that
interaction. The role of magnetism as a symmetry breaking field coupling
to superconductivity is revealed in the neutron scattering measurements
\cite{1,10}. In these experiments Aeppli et al. established that below the
temperature of the order of a superconducting transition temperature the
neutron scattering intensity of the $(1,\frac{1}{2},0)$ reflection suddenly
saturates and is almost constant unless the superconductivity occurs.
There is a remarkable change in the temperature dependence for a
superconducting system. At a temperature of the order of $T_{c}$ the slope
of the neutron scattering intensity changes sign and the intensity becomes
an increasing function of temperature see Fig.2 \cite{1,10}. This is another
strong evidence of the coupling between magnetism and superconductivity
in $U\!Pt_{3}$.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} Recently Joynt \cite{11} discussed within a two component order
parameter approach the phase diagram of $U\!Pt_{3}$ in three-dimensional
magnetic field-pressure-temperature space. It agrees qualitatively with
measurements \cite{2,5,7,8,12}. However the temperature dependence of the
magnetic moment observed by Aeppli et al. \cite{1,10} was not taken into
account. The contradiction here arises as follows. The magnetic Bragg peak
observed in neutron scattering \cite{1,10} reproduced in Fig.2
shows that the superconductivity is acting to suppress the magnetism.
By thermodynamic reasoning we know that if the onset of superconductivity
reduces the magnetism then the onset of magnetism must reduce the tendency
to superconductivity. The magnetism may be removed by pressure \cite{2,7,8}.
We observe that as the pressure is reduced below $p_{c}$ where the magnetism
reappears the slope of transition temperature is increased see Fig.1.
In other words the critical temperatures $T_{c_{+}}$ and $T_{c_{-}}$ are not
suppressed equally by the pressure, what can be expressed quantitatively by
an inequality which follows :
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e0}
\frac{T_{c_{+}}\left(p=0\right)-T_{c}\left(p=0\right)}
{T_{c}\left(p=0\right)-T_{c_{-}}\left(p=0\right)} & > & 1\;,
\end{eqnarray}
see Fig.1.\\
We show that this competition between superconductivity and antiferromagnetism
cannot be understood within the simple model of magnetism considered so far.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we study
mentioned already pressure and magnetic experiments in a frame of
\mbox{two-dimensional} superconducting order parameter scenario. To avoid
the inconsistencies following from this approach we introduce a two magnetic
moment model in section 3. Within this scenario we analyse the experimental
data and obtain several constraints on the \mbox{Ginzburg-Landau} free energy
coefficients in sections 3 and 4. Finally we summarize the results in section
5.
\section{\bf Two component superconductivity coupled to magnetism}
\hspace{0.5cm} In this section we review the experimental evidence which
supports this model and then construct the free energy. The free energy
is used to obtain the coupled order parameters of magnetism and
superconductivity. This analysis follows \cite{9,16,17}. We reproduce it here
because it is important to consider both the temperature and pressure
experiments using a unified notation. In this approach we start with a free
energy density :
\begin{equation}
\label{e1}
F=F_{M}+F_{S}+F_{SM},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e2}
F_{M}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
\alpha_{M}(T^{\ast}-T_{N})M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}, & for & T
\leq T^{\ast}\\
\alpha_{M}(T-T_{N})M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}, & for & T > T^{\ast}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e3}
F_{S}=\alpha_{S}(T-T_{c})|\bar{\psi}|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{1}|\bar{\psi}|^{4}+
\frac{1}{2}\beta_{2}|\bar{\psi}^{2}|^{2},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e4}
F_{SM}=\gamma|\bar{M}\bar{\psi}|^{2}+\alpha M^{2}|\bar{\psi}|^{2}.
\end{equation}
All the Ginzburg-Landau coefficients are very weakly temperature and pressure
dependent, what can be shown in a weak-coupling microscopic theory \cite{14},
hence we choose them to be constant. The magnetic free energy given by
equation $\mbox{(\ref{e2})}$ has been chosen to include the phenomenological
saturation of $M$ below $T^{\ast}$ \cite{1,10}.
The coefficients in $F_{M}\;
\mbox{(\ref{e2})}$ and $F_{S}\;\mbox{(\ref{e3})}$ are positive whereas the
$\gamma$ coefficient in $F_{SM}\;\mbox{(\ref{e4})}$
may be chosen to be negative and $\bar{M}$ is then parallel to $\hat{x}$.
The superconducting order parameter $\bar{\psi}=(\psi_{x},\psi_{y})$ is
complex and its composits $\psi_{x}$ and $\psi_{y}$ are written as
\mbox{$\psi_{x}=|\psi_{x}|{\mit e}^{{\mit i}\varphi_{x}}$} and
\mbox{$\psi_{y}=|\psi_{y}|{\mit e}^{{\mit i}\varphi_{y}}$.}\\
\hspace*{0.5cm}Minimisation of the free energy leads to the following
equations for the order parameters :
\begin{equation}
\label{e01}
0=\alpha_{M}(T_{M}-T_{N})+\beta_{M}M^{2}+\gamma|\psi_{x}|^{2}+
\alpha|\bar{\psi}|^{2}\;\;\;{\rm or}\;\;\;M=0\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{displaymath}
T_{M}=\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
T\;, & for & T>T^{\ast}\\
T^{\ast}\;, & for & T\leq T^{\ast}\;,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{displaymath}
\begin{equation}
\label{e02}
0=\alpha_{S}(T-T_{c})+\beta_{1}|\bar{\psi}|^{2}+\beta_{2}(|\psi_{x}|^{2}+
|\psi_{y}|^{2}\cos 2(\varphi_{x}-\varphi_{y}))+\gamma M^{2} +
\alpha M^{2}
\end{equation}
\hspace*{0.3cm} or $\;\;\;|\psi_{x}|=0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{e03}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
0=\alpha_{S}(T-T_{c})+\beta_{1}|\bar{\psi}|^{2}+\beta_{2}(|\psi_{y}|^{2}+
|\psi_{x}|^{2}\cos 2(\varphi_{x}-\varphi_{y}))+\alpha M^{2}\\
{\rm and}\;\;\varphi_{x}-\varphi_{y}=\frac{\pi}{2}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\hspace*{0.5cm} or $\;\;\;|\psi_{y}|=0$.\\
\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} From these expressions we find the following conditions for
$M$, $\psi_{x}$ and $\psi_{y}$ :
\begin{equation}
\label{e04}
M=|\psi_{x}|=|\psi_{y}|=0\;\;\;\;for\;\;\;\;T>T_{N}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e05}
M^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T),\;\;\;\;|\psi_{x}|=|\psi_{y}|=0
\;\;\;\;for\;\;\;\;T^{\ast}<T \leq T_{N}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e06}
M^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T^{\ast}),\;\;\;\;|\psi_{x}|=
|\psi_{y}|=0\;\;\;\;for\;\;\;\;T_{c_{+}}<T\leq T^{\ast}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e07}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
M^{2}=\frac{1}{\beta_{M}}\left[\alpha_{M}(T_{N}-T^{\ast})-(\gamma+\alpha)
|\psi_{x}|^{2}\right]\\[0.2cm]
|\psi_{x}|^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}(T_{c_{+}}-T)\\[0.2cm]
|\psi_{y}|=0
\end{array}
\right.\;\;for\;\;T_{c_{-}}<T\leq T_{c_{+}}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e08}
\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
M^{2}=\frac{1}{\beta_{M}}\left[\alpha_{M}(T_{N}-T^{\ast})-(\gamma+\alpha)
|\psi_{x}|^{2}-\alpha|\psi_{y}|^{2}\right]\\
|\psi_{x}|^{2}=\frac{1}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}\left[\alpha_{S}(T_{c_{+}}-T)
-(\beta_{1}-\beta_{2})|\psi_{y}|^{2}\right]\\
|\psi_{y}|^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}(T_{c_{-}}-T)
\end{array}
\right.\;\;for\;\;T\leq T_{c_{-}}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e09}
T_{c_{+}}=T_{c}-\frac{\gamma+\alpha}{\alpha_{S}}M^{2}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e00}
T_{c_{-}}=T_{c}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{S}}\left[\alpha M^{2}+(\beta_{1}-\beta_{2})
|\psi_{x}|^{2}\right]\;.
\end{equation}
$T_{c}$ is the superconducting transition temperature in a system without the
magnetism. The complete solution to \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e04})-(\ref{e08})$} that
is the explicit formulae for $T_{c_{-}}$ and $T_{c_{+}}$ are given in
Appendix A \mbox{$(\ref{a01})-(\ref{a02})$}. The magnetic moment changes as
\mbox{$M^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T)$} for temperatures higher
than temperature $T^{\ast}$, then suddenly saturates at \mbox{$T^{\ast}\;\;
(T^{\ast} \sim T_{c})$} and becomes constant below this temperature :
\mbox{$M^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T^{\ast})$} in a normal
(not superconducting) state.
This temperature dependence of the magnetic moment is consistent with the
measurements by Aeppli et al \cite{1,10}. They observed a kink at
\mbox{$T^{\ast} \sim T_{c}$} and almost constant value of the magnetic
Bragg intensity below \mbox{$T^{\ast}$} for magnetic field
\mbox{$H>H_{c_{2}}$} that is when the system was not superconducting.
The \mbox{$T^{\ast}$} temperature is introduced in our free energy
\mbox{$(\ref{e2})$} rather artificially in order to fit the existing
experimental data \cite{1,10}. We shall comment more on this issue further
in the text.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} From the free energy density $F_{S}\;\;(\ref{e3})$ we get the
linear pressure dependence of the superconducting transition temperature:
\begin{equation}
\label{e5}
T_{c}=T_{c}^{0}-a_{0}p\;,
\end{equation}
where $a_{0}$ is a constant coefficient and $T_{c}^{0}$ - a critical
temperature $T_{c}$ at zero pressure $(p=0)$. We also assume the squared
magnetic moment to be a linear pressure function:
\begin{equation}
\label{e6}
M^{2}=M_{0}^{2}\frac{p_{N}-p}{p_{N}}\;,
\end{equation}
where $M_{0}$ is a magnetic moment at $p=0$, \mbox{$M_{0}=M(T,p=0)$}
and $p_{N}$ $(\mbox{$p_{N}$}=\mbox{$p_{c}\simeq 4 kbar$})$ is a pressure at
which the antiferromagnetism vanishes. In the superconducting system described
by the free energy density $(\ref{e1})$ the magnetic and the superconducting
terms compete in the coupling term $(\ref{e4})$. This interaction leads to the
split of critical temperature \mbox{$T_{c}$} into \mbox{$T_{c_{-}}$} and
\mbox{$T_{c_{+}}$} \cite{9} :
\begin{equation}
\label{e7}
T_{c_{+}}-T_{c_{-}}=\frac{|\gamma|}{\alpha_{S}}\frac{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}
{2\beta_{2}}M^{2}\;.
\end{equation}
\hspace{0.5cm} One can establish the pressure dependence of \mbox{$T_{c_{+}}$}
and \mbox{$T_{c_{-}}$} from Eqs.$(\ref{e5})$ and $(\ref{e6})$ :
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e8}
T_{c_{+}} & = & T_{c_{+}}^{0}-a_{+}p\;,\\
\label{e9}
T_{c_{-}} & = & T_{c_{-}}^{0}-a_{-}p\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e10}
T_{c_{+}}^{0} & = & T_{c}^{0}+\frac{|\gamma|-\alpha}{\alpha_{S}}M_{0}^{2}\;,\\
\label{e11}
T_{c_{-}}^{0} & = & T_{c}^{0}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{S}}\left(\alpha+
\frac{\beta_{1}-\beta_{2}}{2\beta_{2}}|\gamma|\right)M_{0}^{2}\;,\\
\label{e12}
a_{+} & = & a_{0}+\left(\frac{|\gamma|-\alpha}{\alpha_{S}}\right)
\frac{M_{0}^{2}}{p_{N}}\;,\\
\label{e13}
a_{-} & = & a_{0}-\frac{1}{\alpha_{S}}\left(\alpha+\frac{\beta_{1}
-\beta_{2}}{2\beta_{2}}|\gamma|\right)\frac{M_{0}^{2}}{p_{N}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace{0.5cm} To obtain a proper pressure behavior (Fig.1) the following
constraints must be fulfilled :
\begin{equation}
\label{e14}
a_{+}>a_{0} \;\;\;\;\;{\rm and}\;\;\;\;\;a_{-}<a_{0}\;.
\end{equation}
Together with a condition $(\ref{e0})$ they give the relations between \\
the \mbox{Ginzburg-Landau} coefficients :
\begin{equation}
\label{e15}
\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{\beta_{1}}{\beta_{2}}\right)|\gamma|<\alpha<
\frac{1}{4}\left(3-\frac{\beta_{1}}{\beta_{2}}\right)|\gamma|\;.
\end{equation}
\hspace{0.5cm} Now we turn to the magnetic Bragg scattering measurements
\cite{1,10} (Fig. 2a). Since the neutron scattering intensity is
proportional to
$M^{2}$ we look at the magnetic moment and analyse it as a function of
temperature. Taking into
account that the coupling coefficients $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ $(\ref{e4})$
are expected to be much smaller than the other G-L coefficients \cite{14}
and therefore neglecting higher than the linear in $\alpha$ and $\gamma$
terms from \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e1})-(\ref{e4})$} we obtain~:
\begin{equation}
\label{e16}
M^{2}=M_{c}^{2}+a_{M}T\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e17}
M_{c}^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T^{\ast})-a_{M}T_{c}\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e18}
a_{M}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{M}}\frac{\gamma+\alpha}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}} &
for & T_{c_{-}}<T\leq T_{c_{+}}\;,\\
\label{e19}
a_{M}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{M}}\frac{2\alpha+\gamma}{2\beta_{1}} & for &
T \leq T_{c_{-}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
In $M^{2}$ given by \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e16})-(\ref{e19})$} a discontinuity
arises at \mbox{$T=T_{c_{-}}$} with a jump of the second order of magnitude
in $\alpha$ and $\gamma$. Therefore it is negligible in the linear
approximation.
We present the full formula for $M^{2}$
in Appendix A
\mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{a03})-(\ref{a07})$}. It can be shown that even within this
general description the results of this section still hold.\\
There are two characteristic temperatures - $T_{c_{+}}$ and $T_{c_{-}}$
distinguished by the superconducting phase transitions, hence the change
in the temperature dependence of the magnetic moment due to superconductivity
can take place at one of these temperatures. For $M^{2}$ increasing with
the temperature up to $T_{c_{+}}$ and decreasing then, that is for a kink at
$T=T_{c_{+}}$ the condition :
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e20}
a_{M}>0 & for & T<T_{c_{+}}
\end{eqnarray}
is required, while for a kink at $T=T_{c_{-}}$ the following constraints are
to be fulfilled:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e21}
a_{M}<0 & for & T_{c_{-}}<T<T_{c_{+}}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e22}
a_{M}>0 & for & T<T_{c_{-}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
The condition $(\ref{e20})$ leads to the inequality:
\begin{equation}
\label{e23}
\alpha>|\gamma|\;,
\end{equation}
whereas from $(\ref{e21})\;{\rm and}\;(\ref{e22})$ follows that:
\begin{equation}
\label{e24}
\frac{1}{2}|\gamma|<\alpha<|\gamma|\;.
\end{equation}
It is evident that the condition $(\ref{e23})$ is inconsistent with the
pressure relation $(\ref{e15})$, while the conditions $(\ref{e15})$ and
$(\ref{e24})$ yield the relation \mbox{$\frac{\beta_{1}}{\beta_{2}}<1$}
which is in contradiction with the specific heat measurements data
\cite{15}. Put into words thermodynamics requires that if the magnetic moment
is reduced when the sample becomes superconducting then the tendency to become
superconducting will be increased if the magnetism is removed. This implies
that the continuation of the phase line between normal and superconducting
phases for $p>p_{c}$ should lie above $T_{c_{+}}$ if it is extrapolated
back to low pressure in clear contrast to the data shown in Fig.1 and also
more recent data of Boukhny et al. \cite{20}.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} Therefore we conclude that it is {\bf not possible to explain
the pressure and neutron scattering data in a frame of the free energy density
${\bf (\ref{e1})-(\ref{e4})}$} and the decrease in the magnetic Bragg intensity
cannot be attributed to the decrease in $M$ only if it is assumed that
$T_{c_{+}}-T_{c_{-}}$ is due to the coupling with magnetism. This paper does
not address the alternative possibility that the splitting of $T_{c}$ is due
instead to the coupling of the superconductivity to the charge density wave
\cite{19,21} except to note that even if the effect of magnetism is only to
reduce both $T_{c_{+}}$ and $T_{c_{-}}$ due to a pair breaking mechanism
\cite{21} then there should still be a break in slope in $T_{c_{+}}$ at the
pressure where magnetism is suppressed.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} In the next paragraph we analyse the possibility of a rotation
and decrease of the magnetic moment suggested by Blount et al. \cite{16}
and Joynt \cite{17}. The rotation of magnetic moment can be equivalently
described by an additional linearly independent magnetic moment
$\bar{m}\;\;(\bar{m}\bot\bar{M})$ included.
\section{\bf Two magnetic moment model}
\hspace{0.5cm} In this section we consider the possibility that the
magnetic moment rotates at the temperature of the order of $T_{c}$
in such a way that the observed Bragg scattering intensity is reduced.
This requires two components of magnetisation. Therefore we propose
a revised G-L free energy density:
\begin{equation}
\label{e25}
F=F_{S}+F_{M}+F_{m}+F_{SM}+F_{sm}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e026}
F_{M}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l}
\alpha_{M}\left(T^{\ast}-T_{N}\right)M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}\;\;
for\;\;T\leq T_{m}\\
\alpha_{M}\left(T-T_{N}\right)M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}\;\;
for\;\;T>T_{m}\;,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e26}
F_{m}=\alpha_{m}(T-T_{m})m^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{m}m^{4}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e27}
F_{sm}=\gamma'|\bar{m}\bar{\psi}|^{2}+\alpha'm^{2}|\bar{\psi}|^{2}\;,
\end{equation}
and $F_{S},\;F_{M},\;F_{SM}$ are given by Eqs.$(\ref{e2})-(\ref{e4})$.
$T_{m}$ is the N\'eel temperature of the magnetic moment $\bar{m}$ and
$T_{m}\sim T_{c}$. The new coefficients $\alpha_{m}$ and $\beta_{m}$ in
\mbox{$(\ref{e26})$} are positive. This free energy is correct to the fourth
order in the space of $\bar{M},\;\bar{m}\;{\rm and}\;\bar{\psi}$. For the
sake of simplicity we have neglected the coupling term between the two
magnetic moments and the superconducting order parameter
\mbox{$(\;mM(\psi_{x}\psi_{y}^{\ast}+\psi_{x}^{\ast}\psi_{y})\;)$}
here, assuming it to have a little effect on the results. Another free
energy term involving $\bar{M}$ and $\bar{m}$
\mbox{$(\;\sim m^{2}M^{2}\;)$} is included implicitly in $T_{m}$ and
$T^{\ast}$ by a proper diagonalization of the magnetic part of the free
energy \mbox{( Appendix B ).} As it is seen from $(\ref{e25})$, a magnetic
moment $M$ is constant in the absence of superconductivity and equals:
\begin{equation}
\label{e28}
M^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\beta_{M}}(T_{N}-T^{\ast})\;.
\end{equation}
This approximation is correct for temperatures lower than a certain
temperature of the order of $T_{c}$. We believe that this assumed
temperature dependence of $M^{2}$ is due to a change in a Fermi surface
and it is exclusively of the microscopic origin. However in the
\mbox{Appendix B} we present a phenomenological explanation of this fact,
when relation $(\ref{a4})$ is fulfilled. In this interpretation $M^{2}$
becomes constant below the temperature $T_{m}\;\;(\ref{e26},\ref{a7})$,
that is the temperature at which the magnetic moment $\bar{m}$ appears.
Although \mbox{$T_{m}\sim T_{c}$}, this reasoning is valid only if
\mbox{$T_{m}>T_{c_{+}}$} which seems to be in agreement with the
experimental data \cite{1,10}.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} Proceeding in the same way as in section 2., from the
pressure requirements \mbox{$(\ref{e0},\;\ref{e14})$} and the free energy
density $(\ref{e25})$, we obtain the following conditions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e29}
(|\gamma|-\alpha)M_{0}^{2} & > & \alpha'm_{0}^{2}\;,\\
\label{e30}
\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(3-\frac{\beta_{1}}{\beta_{2}}\right)|\gamma|
-\alpha\right]M_{0}^{2} & > & \left[\alpha'+\frac{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}
{4\beta_{2}}\gamma'\right]m_{0}^{2}\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where we have assumed, that $\bar{m}$ disappears at the same critical
pressure $p_{N}$ as $\bar{M}$ does $(\ref{e6})$:
\begin{equation}
\label{e31}
m^{2}=m_{0}^{2}\frac{p_{N}-p}{p_{N}}
\end{equation}
otherwise a kink in the pressure dependence of $T_{c_{-}}$ and $T_{c_{+}}$
should be observed, which is not the case (see Fig.1) \cite{2,7,8}.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} Since there is no coupling terms between $\bar{m}$ and
$\bar{M}$ in the free energy density $(\ref{e25})$, it yields the same
temperature dependence of $M^{2}$ as in \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e16})-(\ref{e19})$.}
Therefore in order to obtain an appropriate temperature behavior of $M^{2}$
\cite{1,10} (Fig. 2a) either $(\ref{e23})$ or $(\ref{e24})$ must be
satisfied.\\
\hspace*{0.5cm} Now we are able to give the final conditions for the
\mbox{G-L coefficients} in the free energy density which agrees with the
experiments \cite{1,2,7,8,10} discussed in this paper. For $M^{2}$ increasing
with the temperature up to $T=T_{c_{-}}$ and decreasing above this temperature
the conditions $(\ref{e24})$ and \mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} are to be
held. They lead to a simple constraint on $\alpha'$, which is necessary but
not sufficient:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e32}
|\gamma|M_{0}^{2} & > & 2\alpha' m_{0}^{2}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
When $M^{2}$ as a function of temperature has a kink at \mbox{$T=T_{c_{+}}$},
that is increases below this temperature and decreases above it, the
conditions $(\ref{e23})$ and \mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} must be
fulfilled and they yield the negative value of $\alpha'$ :
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e33}
\alpha' & < & 0 \;.
\end{eqnarray}
\section{\bf ${\bf \left(\frac{1}{2},0,1\right)}$ neutron scattering intensity}
\hspace{0.5cm} We are going to consider both the magnetic moments $\bar{M}$
and $\bar{m}$ more thoroughly now. Here again we restrict the calculations
to the linear in $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\alpha'$ and $\gamma'$ coupling
coefficients terms, what yields a negligible in this approximation
$M^{2}$ and $m^{2}$ discontinuity at $T_{c_{-}}$. A minimisation of the free
energy \mbox{$(\ref{e25})$} as a magnetic moment $\bar{m}$ function leads
to the temperature dependence of $m^{2}$ :
\begin{equation}
\label{e34}
m^{2}=m_{c}^{2}+(a_{m}-\frac{\alpha_{m}}{\beta_{m}})T\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e35}
m_{c}^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{m}}{\beta_{m}}T_{m}-a_{m}T_{c}\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e36}
a_{m}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{m}}\frac{\alpha'}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}} & for &
T_{c_{-}}<T\leq T_{c_{+}}\;,\\
\label{e37}
a_{m}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{m}}\frac{2\alpha'+\gamma'}{2\beta_{1}} & for &
T\leq T_{c_{-}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
We assume throughout this paper that the magnetic moments lie in the basal
plane
since the easy magnetic directions are confined to this plane. In the previous
chapters we were considering the neutron reflections at the
\mbox{reciprocal-lattice} point \mbox{$\bar{q_{1}}=(1,\frac{1}{2},0)$}
\cite{1,10} (Fig. 2a). The magnetic Bragg scattering measurements
revealed a different
temperature dependence of the neutron scattering intensity at
\mbox{$\bar{q_{2}}=(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$} \cite{18} (Fig. 2b).
Below the temperature of the
order of $T_{c}$ the \mbox{$(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$} intensity ceases to evolve
and becomes constant. Actually, Aeppli et al. \cite{18} did not go with
temperature low enough to be definitely positive about the $T$ independence of
the measured intensity in the whole temperature range below $T_{c}$.
Nevertheless, we assume here a constant value of \mbox{$(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$}
neutron scattering intensity below $T_{c_{+}}$, that is we suggest this
effect to be due to superconductivity. The neutron scattering intensity at the
\mbox{reciprocal-lattice} point $\bar{q}$ reflects the magnetic vectors
perpendicular to the $\bar{q}$ vector. For the sake of simplicity we choose
a magnetic moment
\begin{equation}
\label{e40}
\bar{M_{1}}=\bar{M}+\bar{m}\;
\end{equation}
perpendicular to \mbox{$\bar{q_{2}}=(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$} which means that
$M_{1}^{2}$ is detected in \mbox{$(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$} measurements.
On this particular magnetic orientation we want to check, without going
into the detailed calculation of a general case, whether the two magnetic
moment model can interpret both neutron scattering experiments.
It will yield some additional constraints on the \mbox{G-L} free energy
coefficients \mbox{$(\ref{e25})-(\ref{e27})$}.
One of the possible considered configurations of the magnetic and
reciprocal-lattice vectors, where instead of
\mbox{$\bar{q_{1}}=(1,\frac{1}{2},0)$} and
\mbox{$\bar{q_{2}}=(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$} their projections on the XY plane -
\mbox{$(1,\frac{1}{2})$} and \mbox{$(\frac{1}{2},0)$} were plotted,
is presented in Fig.3.
$\bar{M}$ is the magnetic moment seen in $(1,\frac{1}{2},0)$ neutron
scattering, while $\bar{M_{1}}$ is detected in $(\frac{1}{2},0,1)$
measurements. The temperature dependence of $M^{2}$ has been considered in the
previous paragraphs of this paper \mbox{$(\ref{e16}-\ref{e19},\ref{e28})$}.
According to \cite{18} $M_{1}^{2}$ is temperature independent for
\mbox{$T\leq T_{c} \sim T_{c_{+}}$}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e38}
M_{1}^{2}=const & for & T<T_{c_{+}}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
Assuming the
temperature dependent corrections to $M$ $\mbox{$(\ref{e16})$}-
\mbox{$(\ref{e19})$}$ and
$m$ $\mbox{$(\ref{e34})$}-\mbox{$(\ref{e37})$}$ to be small,
experimentally estimated as
about 5\% of the total magnetic moments values \cite{1,10}, we linearize
$M$ and $m$ in $T$ and insert them into \mbox{Eq.$(\ref{e40})$}. Then the
condition $(\ref{e38})$ leads to the following constraints on the \mbox{G-L}
coefficients
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{e46}
f(\frac{\gamma+\alpha}{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}},\frac{\alpha'}
{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}})=0\;,\\
\label{e47}
f(\frac{\gamma+2\alpha}{2\beta_{1}},\frac{\gamma'+2\alpha'}
{2\beta_{1}})=0\;,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{e48}
f(x,y)=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\beta_{M}}x+\frac{1}{\beta_{m}}
(\alpha_{S}y-\alpha_{m})\;.
\end{equation}
We solve the Eqs.$(\ref{e46})$ and $(\ref{e47})$ and \mbox{obtain :}
\begin{equation}
\label{e49}
\beta_{1}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{2\alpha_{m}}\left[\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}
(\gamma+2\alpha)+\gamma'+2\alpha'\right]\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{e50}
\beta_{2}=\frac{\alpha_{S}}{2\alpha_{m}}\left[\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}
\gamma-\gamma'\right]\;.
\end{equation}
According to experiments \cite{15}, $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ coefficients
should obey a following relation :
\begin{equation}
\label{e51}
\beta_{1}>\beta_{2}>0\;.
\end{equation}
{}From \mbox{$(\ref{e49})-(\ref{e51})$} we have then :
\begin{equation}
\label{e52}
\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}\gamma-\gamma'>0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e53}
\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}\alpha+\gamma'+\alpha'>0\;.
\end{equation}
Since $\gamma\;(\ref{e4})$ is negative, inequality $(\ref{e52})$ leads to a
negative $\gamma'$ value and finally relation $(\ref{e52})$ is equivalent to :
\begin{equation}
\label{e54}
\gamma'=-|\gamma'|\;,\;\;\;\;|\gamma'|>\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}|\gamma|\;.
\end{equation}
Therefore we have obtained conditions \mbox{$(\ref{e49})-(\ref{e50})$} and
\mbox{$(\ref{e53})-(\ref{e54})$} which are to be fulfilled by \mbox{G-L}
free energy coefficients. However we cannot forget about the constraints
which follow from the $M^{2}$ temperature evolution requirements
\mbox{$(\ref{e23})-(\ref{e24})$} and these which are necessary to fit the
pressure data \mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$}. One can check easily that
the conditions $(\ref{e23})$ ( kink in $M^{2}$ at $T=T_{c_{+}}$ ) and
\mbox{$(\ref{e53})-(\ref{e54})$} lead to a negative value of $\alpha'$,
while the constraint $(\ref{e24})$ ( kink in $M^{2}$ at \mbox{$T=T_{c_{-}}$ )}
along with \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e53})-(\ref{e54})$} yield a positive $\alpha'$
value. From \mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} we get more information
about the magnetic moments values at pressure $p=0$, that is $M_{0}\;
(\ref{e6})$ and $m_{0}\;(\ref{e31})$. It is more convenient for this purpose
to use the experimentally established $\frac{\beta_{2}}{\beta_{1}}$ ratio :
\mbox{$\frac{\beta_{2}}{\beta_{1}}\simeq 0.4$} \cite{15}, just to get rid
of $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ coefficients in $(\ref{e30})$. The relation
\mbox{$\frac{\beta_{2}}{\beta_{1}}=0.4$} along with \mbox{$\beta_{1}\;
(\ref{e49})$} and \mbox{$\beta_{2}\;(\ref{e50})$} formulae allow the
reduction of one of the coupling coefficients through the equation :
\begin{equation}
\label{e55}
\alpha'=\frac{7}{4}(|\gamma'|-\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}|\gamma|)
+\frac{\beta_{m}}{\beta_{M}}(|\gamma|-\alpha)\;,
\end{equation}
so we can consider $\gamma',\;\gamma$ and $\alpha$ parameters as the only
independent in all the conditions. It is straightforward to show that
$\alpha'$ given by \mbox{Eq.$(\ref{e55})$} obeys the
\mbox{Eqs.$(\ref{e23})-(\ref{e24})$} and \mbox{$(\ref{e53})-(\ref{e54})$}.
Returning to $M_{0}$ and $m_{0}$ magnitudes, for \mbox{$\alpha>|\gamma|\;
(\ref{e23})$}, we obtain from \mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$}, that
\begin{equation}
\label{e56}
m_{0}^{2}>g_{0}M_{0}^{2}\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{displaymath}
g_{0}=max\left\{\frac{\alpha-|\gamma|}{|\alpha'|},
\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{8}|\gamma|}{|\alpha'|+\frac{7}{8}|\gamma'|}\right\}\;.
\end{displaymath}
The condition above should be fulfilled when a kink in
\mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{2},0\right)$} neutron scattering intensity appeares at
$T_{c_{+}}\;(\ref{e23})$. In order to have $m_{0},M_{0}$ solutions of
\mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} when condition $(\ref{e24})$ is held, that
is in a case of the \mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{2},0\right)$} neutron scattering
peak at $T_{c_{-}}$, another constraint is to be fulfilled :
\begin{equation}
\label{e57}
\alpha'<\frac{7}{8}|\gamma'|\;.
\end{equation}
Inequality $(\ref{e57})$ is a necessary condition to make sense to
the relations $(\ref{e29})$ and $(\ref{e30})$.\\
Finally, we obtain from \mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} the constraint on the
relative $m_{0}$ and $M_{0}$ values :
\begin{equation}
\label{e58}
\frac{\alpha-\frac{1}{8}|\gamma|}{\frac{7}{8}|\gamma'|-\alpha'}<
\frac{m_{0}^{2}}{M_{0}^{2}}<\frac{|\gamma|-\alpha}{\alpha'}\;,
\end{equation}
and another condition which follows straightly from $(\ref{e58})$ :
\begin{equation}
\label{e59}
|\gamma\gamma'|-|\gamma|\alpha'-|\gamma'|\alpha>0\;.
\end{equation}
We have been looking here at the additional constraints on the fourth order
coefficients in the \mbox{Ginzburg-Landau} free energy, that follow from the
requirement of a constant magnetic moment detected in
\mbox{$\left(\frac{1}{2},0,1\right)$} neutron scattering measurements
\cite{18} (Fig. 2b). We have assumed $T_{c_{+}}$ as a characteristic
temperature at
which the magnetic moment $M_{1}\;(\ref{e38})$ becomes constant. Nevertheless
it is straightforward to show that $M_{1}$ cannot be constant above
$T_{c_{+}}$. Let us look at the temperatures \mbox{$T>T_{m}$} first. Since
$T_{m}$ is the N\'eel temperature for $\bar{m}\;(\ref{a6})$, there is only one
magnetic moment $\bar{M}$ left at $T>T_{m}$. $M_{1}$ is simply $M$'s
projection on a particular direction ( Fig.3 ) and shows the same temperature
dependence as $M$ does $(\ref{a9})$. Therefore $M_{1}$ is a decreasing
function of temperature for \mbox{$T>T_{m}$} as $M$ is $(\ref{a9})$. In the
temperature range \mbox{$T_{c_{+}}<T<T_{m}$}, on the other hand, we obtain
from the free energy $(\ref{a8})$ a constant $M^{2}$ value $(\ref{e28})$ and
\mbox{$m^{2}=\frac{\alpha_{m}}{\beta_{m}}\left(T_{m}-T\right)$}. Therefore
$(\ref{e40})$ cannot lead to a constant $M_{1}$ value,
otherwise $\alpha_{m}=0$ and $\bar{m}$ vanishes, what makes no sense for this
approach.
\section{\bf Conclusions}
\hspace{0.5cm} We have considered superconducting \mbox{$U\!Pt_{3}$}
in zero magnetic field. Our interest has been focused on the hydrodynamic
pressure \cite{2,7,8} and neutron scattering experiments \cite{1,10,18}.
We have shown that the pressure dependence of the transition temperatures
and the abrupt change in the \mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{2},0\right)$} neutron
scattering intensity
at \mbox{$T\sim T_{c}$} \cite{1,10} cannot be explained
quantitatively within a simple two component superconducting order
parameter which couples to one component antiferromagnetism. As one
way of reconciling this problem we have suggested the existence of another
magnetic moment which emerges at \mbox{$T\sim T_{c}$}. This generalized
approach of the two independent magnetic moments coupling to the
superconductivity allowed us to obtain a concise picture of discussed
phenomena and yields several stringent constraints on the fourth order
coefficients in the \mbox{Ginzburg-Landau} free energy density $(\ref{e25})$.
We have concluded that the kink in a \mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{2},0\right)$}
neutron scattering intensity may exist at $T_{c_{+}}$ when $(\ref{e23})$ and
\mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$} relations between the \mbox{G-L} coefficients
are obeyed or at $T_{c_{-}}$ under the condition of $(\ref{e24})$ and
\mbox{$(\ref{e29})-(\ref{e30})$}. If we interpret the results of
\mbox{$\left(\frac{1}{2},0,1\right)$} Bragg magnetic scattering experiments
\cite{18} as characteristic feature for all temperatures below $T_{c}$
and assume the magnetic moments orientation as in Fig. 3, we can express
$\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ \mbox{G-L} coefficients in terms of the coupling
constants \mbox{$(\ref{e49})-(\ref{e50})$}. The requirement
\mbox{$\beta_{1}>\beta_{2}>0$} leads to a negative value of a coupling
constant $\gamma'\;(\ref{e27},\ref{e54})$ and negative $\alpha'\;
(\ref{e27})$ coefficient value when a peak in
\mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{2},0\right)$} neutron scattering intensity is at
$T_{c_{+}}$ or positive $\alpha'$ value for a peak at $T_{c_{-}}$. These
considerations yield also some constraints on the zero pressure magnetic
moments values \mbox{$(\ref{e56},\ref{e58})$} and coupling coefficients
\mbox{$(\ref{e57},\ref{e59})$}. We have evaluated
\mbox{$(\ref{e56})-(\ref{e59})$} constraints for the experimentally
established ratio \mbox{$\frac{\beta_{2}}{\beta_{1}}\simeq 0.4$} \cite{15}.
This given value of $\frac{\beta_{2}}{\beta_{1}}$ allows us to express one
of the G~-~L coupling coefficients in terms of the others $(\ref{e55})$.\\
We have considered two magnetic moments in a crystal basal plane only.
However, we cannot exclude any of them out of this plane. There is always
a possibility of a magnetic structure following a recently discovered
structural modulation in a crystal \cite{19}. Unfortunately the resolution
of a neutron scattering measurements may be to small to be decisive.
For the completness of the picture it should be added that despite a large
number of experimental evidence the main facts seems to be unsettled.
It concernes the phase diagram in the p-T plane measured by Boukhny et al.
\cite{20} where the slope of $T_{c_{-}}$ curve is positive and the condition
$(\ref{e0})$ does not hold. Moreover the recent x-ray resonant magnetic and
neutron magnetic scattering measurements \cite{21} show no correlation between
the split superconducting transition and the weak antiferromagnetic order in
$U\!Pt_{3}$ and as they also find no evidence of magnetic moment rotation
their results together with the conclusions of the paper
suggest other possible issues like symmetry-breaking fields
of structural origin \cite{19} or the existence of two one dimensional
superconducting states.
\section*{\bf Acknowledgements}
We would like to thank G. Aeppli for fruitful comments and providing us with
his recent experimental results as well as R. Joynt and L. Taillefer for
helpful letters.\\
This work was supported by the European Community's Action for Cooperation
in Sciences and Technology with Central and Eastern European Countries
Fellowship \mbox{ contract $n^{\circ}:\;ERB-CIPA-92-2218$.}
\section*{\bf Appendix A}
\begin{equation}
\label{a01}
T_{c_{+}}=T_{c}-\frac{\alpha+\gamma}{\alpha_{S}}\frac{\alpha_{M}}
{\beta_{M}}\left(T_{N}-T^{\ast}\right)\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a02}
T_{c_{-}}=T_{c}+\frac{\alpha_{M}}{\alpha_{S}}
\frac{\gamma\left(\beta_{1}-\beta_{2}\right)-2\beta_{2}\alpha}
{2\beta_{2}\beta_{M}-\gamma\left(\alpha+\gamma\right)}\left(T_{N}-T^{\ast}
\right)\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a03}
M^{2}=M_{c}^{2}+a_{M}T\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a04}
M_{c}^{2}=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}{\lambda_{+}}
\left[\alpha_{M}\left(T_{N}-T^{\ast}\right)-\frac{\alpha_{S}}
{\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}}\left(\alpha+\gamma\right)T_{c}\right] & for &
T_{c_{-}}<T\leq T_{c_{+}}\\
\frac{2\beta_{2}}{\lambda_{-}}\left[2\alpha_{M}\beta_{1}
\left(T_{N}-T^{\ast}\right)-\alpha_{S}\left(2\alpha+\gamma\right)T_{c}\right]
& for & T\leq T_{c_{-}}\;,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a05}
a_{M}=\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\frac{\alpha_{S}}{\lambda_{+}}\left(\alpha+\gamma\right) & for &
T_{c_{-}}<T\leq T_{c_{+}}\\
\frac{2\alpha_{S}}{\lambda_{-}}\beta_{2}\left(2\alpha+\gamma\right) & for &
T\leq T_{c_{-}}\;,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a06}
\lambda_{+}=\beta_{M}\left(\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}\right)-
\left(\alpha+\gamma\right)^{2}\;,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{a07}
\lambda_{-}=4\beta_{1}\beta_{2}\beta_{M}-4\beta_{2}\alpha
\left(\alpha+\gamma\right)-\gamma^{2}\left(\beta_{1}+\beta_{2}\right)\;.
\end{equation}
\section*{\bf Appendix B}
\hspace{0.5cm}The complete magnetic free energy for the magnetic moments
$\bar{M}$ and $\bar{m}$ \mbox{$(\bar{m}\perp\bar{M})$} at the temperatures
\mbox{$T<T^{\ast}$} is :
\begin{equation}
\label{a1}
F_{magn}=A_{M}\left(T-T_{N}\right)M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B_{M}M^{4}+
A_{m}\left(T-T^{\ast}\right)m^{2}+\frac{1}{2}B_{m}m^{4}+Cm^{2}M^{2}\;,
\end{equation}
where $T_{N}$ and $T^{\ast}$ are the N\'eel temperatures for $\bar{M}$ and
$\bar{m}$ magnetic moments appropriately.\\
We assume $T_{N}>T^{\ast}$. From the minimisation of $F_{magn}$ one gets :
\begin{equation}
\label{a2}
M^{2}=\frac{B_{M}B_{m}}{B_{M}B_{m}-C^{2}}\left[\frac{A_{M}}{B_{M}}T_{N}
-\frac{A_{m}}{B_{m}}\frac{C}{B_{M}}T^{\ast}-\left(\frac{A_{M}}{B_{M}}-
\frac{A_{m}}{B_{m}}\frac{C}{B_{M}}\right)T\right]\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{a3}
m^{2}=\frac{1}{B_{M}B_{m}-C^{2}}\left(A_{m}B_{M}T^{\ast}-A_{M}CT_{N}\right)
-\frac{A_{m}}{B_{m}}T\;.
\end{equation}
For a particular choice of the coupling coefficient
\begin{equation}
\label{a4}
C=\frac{A_{M}}{A_{m}}B_{m}\;,
\end{equation}
$M^{2}$ attains a constant value :
\begin{equation}
\label{a5}
M^{2}=\frac{A_{M}A_{m}^{2}}{A_{m}^{2}B_{M}-A_{M}^{2}B_{m}}\left(T_{N}-T^{\ast}
\right)\;,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{a6}
m^{2}=\frac{A_{m}}{B_{m}}\left(T_{m}-T\right)\;,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{a7}
T_{m}=\frac{A_{m}^{2}B_{M}-A_{M}^{2}B_{m}\frac{T_{N}}{T^{\ast}}}
{A_{m}^{2}B_{M}-A_{M}^{2}B_{m}}T^{\ast}\;.
\end{equation}
The temperature $T^{\ast}$ should be of the order of $T_{N}$ to give a
positive value of $T_{m}$. From $(\ref{a5})$ and $(\ref{a6})$ we can see
that the magnetic free energy can be written as :
\begin{equation}
\label{a8}
F_{magn}=\alpha_{M}\left(T^{\ast}-T_{N}\right)M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}
+\alpha_{m}\left(T-T_{m}\right)m^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{m}m^{4}\;,
\end{equation}
for $T<T_{m}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{a9}
F_{magn}=\alpha_{M}\left(T-T_{N}\right)M^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\beta_{M}M^{4}\;,
\end{equation}
for $T>T_{m}$.\\
This is the free energy of two magnetic moments $(\ref{e026})-(\ref{e26})$
we use in this paper. The new G-L coefficients are given by the old
\mbox{ones :}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{a10}
\alpha_{M}=A_{M}A_{m}^{2}\;,\\
\label{a11}
\beta_{M}=A_{m}^{2}B_{M}-A_{M}^{2}B_{m}\;,\\
\label{a12}
\alpha_{m}=A_{m}\;,\\
\label{a13}
\beta_{m}=B_{m}\;.
\end{eqnarray}
These considerations are relevant only when
$(\ref{a4})$ condition is fulfilled.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.