text:
# Theorem 1

Local Equivalence of Sacksteder and Bourgain Hypersurfaces

Maks A. Akivis and Vladislav V. Goldberg

$`2000`$ Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 53A20, Secondary 14M99.
Keywords and phrases. Gauss mapping, varieties with degenerate Gauss mappings, hypercubic, Sacksteder, Bourgain.

Abstract. Finding examples of tangentially degenerate submanifolds (submanifolds with degenerate Gauss mappings) in an Euclidean space $`R^4`$ that are noncylindrical and without singularities is an important problem of differential geometry. The first example of such a hypersurface was constructed by Sacksteder in 1960. In 1995 Wu published an example of a noncylindrical tangentially degenerate algebraic hypersurface in $`R^4`$ whose Gauss mapping is of rank 2 and which is also without singularities. This example was constructed (but not published) by Bourgain.

In this paper, the authors analyze Bourgain’s example, prove that, as was the case for the Sacksteder hypersurface, singular points of the Bourgain hypersurface are located in the hyperplane at infinity of the space $`R^4`$, and these two hypersurfaces are locally equivalent.

1. It is important to find examples of tangentially degenerate submanifolds in order to understand the theory of such manifolds. These examples prove the existence of tangentially degenerate submanifolds and help to illustrate the theory. The first known example of a tangentially degenerate hypersurface of rank 2 without singularities in $`R^4`$ was constructed by Sacksteder \[S 60\]. This example was examined from the differential geometry point of view by Akivis in \[A 87\]. In particular, Akivis proved that the Sacksteder hypersurface has no singularities since they “went to infinity”. In the same paper, Akivis presented a series of examples generalizing Sacksteder’s example in $`R^4`$, constructed a new series of examples of three-dimensional hypersurfaces $`V^3P^n()`$ of rank 2 whose focal surfaces are imaginary, and proved existence of hypersurfaces of this kind. Note that more examples of tangentially degenerate submanifolds without singularities can be found in \[I 98, 99a, 99b\]. The examples are essentially based on classical Cartan’s hypersurfaces (see \[Ca 39\]).

Mori \[M 94\] claims that he constructed “a one-parameter family of complete nonruled deformable hypersurfaces in $`R^4`$ with rank $`r=2`$ almost everywhere”. However, it follows immediately from his formulas that the hypersurfaces of his family are not only ruled hypersurfaces—they are cylinders.

Also much progress on the study of tangentially degenerate submanifolds over the complex numbers has been made in \[GH 79\], \[L 99\], and \[AGL 00\]. In these papers and in the papers \[FW 95\], \[W 95\], and \[WZ 99\] one can find more examples of tangentially degenerate submanifolds over the complex numbers.

Recently Wu \[W 95\] published an example of a noncylindrical tangentially degenerate algebraic hypersurface in an Euclidean space $`R^4`$ which has a degenerate Gauss mapping but does not have singularities. This example was constructed (but not published) by Bourgain (see also \[I 98, 99a, 99b\]). In the present paper, we investigate Bourgain’s example from the point of view of the paper \[A 87\] (see also Section 4.7 of our book \[AG 93\]). In particular, we prove that, as was the case for the Sacksteder hypersurface, the Bourgain hypersurface has no singularities since they “went to infinity”. Namely this analysis suggested an idea that Bourgain’s and Sacksteder’s examples must be equivalent. Moreover, this analysis showed that a hypersurface constructed in these examples is torsal, i.e., it is stratified into a one-parameter family of plane pencils of straight lines.

In addition, at the end of our paper we prove that the examples of Bourgain and Sacksteder are locally equivalent.

2. In Cartesian coordinates $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$ of the Euclidean space $`R^4`$, the equation of the Bourgain hypersurface $`B`$ is

$$x_1x_4^2+x_2(x_41)+x_3(x_42)=0$$
(1)
(see \[W 95\] or \[I 98, 99a, 99b\]). Equation (1) can be written in the form

$$x_1x_4^2+(x_2+x_3)x_4(x_2+2x_3)=0.$$
(2)
Make in (2) the following admissible change of Cartesian coordinates:

$$x_2+x_3x_2,x_2+2x_3x_3.$$

Then equation (2) becomes

$$x_1x_4^2+x_2x_4x_3=0.$$
(3)
Introduce homogeneous coordinates in $`R^4`$ by setting $`x_i={\displaystyle \frac{z_i}{z_0}},i=1,2,3,4`$. Then equation (3) takes the form

$$f=z_1z_4^2+z_0z_2z_4z_0^2z_3=0.$$
(4)
Equation (4) defines a cubic hypersurface $`F`$ in the space $`\overline{R}^4=R^4P_{\mathrm{}}^3`$ which is an enlarged space $`R^4`$, i.e., it is the space $`R^4`$ enlarged by the hyperplane at infinity $`P_{\mathrm{}}^3`$ (whose equation is $`z_0=0`$).

Denote by $`A_\alpha ,\alpha =0,1,2,3,4,`$ fixed basis points of the space $`\overline{R}^4`$. Suppose that these points have constant normalizations, i.e., that $`dA_\alpha =0`$. An arbitrary point $`z\overline{R}^4`$ can be written in the form $`z=_\alpha z_\alpha A_\alpha `$. We will take a proper point of the space $`\overline{R}^4`$ as the point $`A_0`$, and take points at infinity as the points $`A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4`$.

Equation (4) shows that the proper straight line $`A_0A_4`$ defined by the equations $`z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$ and the plane at infinity defined by the equations $`z_0=z_4=0`$ belong to the hypersurface $`F`$ defined by equation (4).

We write the equations of the hypersurface $`F`$ in a parametric form. To this end, we set

$$z_0=1,z_4=p,z_1=u,z_3=pv.$$

Then it follows from (4) that

$$z_2=vpu.$$

This implies that an arbitrary point $`zF`$ can be written as

$$z=A_0+uA_1+vA_2+p(A_4uA_2+vA_3).$$
(5)
The parameters $`p,u,v`$ are independent nonhomogeneous parameters on the hypersurface $`F`$.

3. Let us find singular points of the hypersurface $`F`$. Such points are defined by the equations $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{z_\alpha }}=0`$. It follows from (4) that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{f}{z_0}=z_2z_42z_0z_3,\hfill & \\ \frac{f}{z_1}=z_4^2,\frac{f}{z_2}=z_0z_4,\frac{f}{z_3}=z_0^2,\hfill & \\ \frac{f}{z_4}=2z_1z_4+z_0z_2.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6)
All these derivatives vanish simultaneously if and only if $`z_0=z_4=0`$. Thus the 2-plane at infinity $`\sigma =A_1A_2A_3`$ is the locus of singular points of the hypersurface $`F`$.

Consider a point $`B_0=A_0+pA_4`$ on the straight line $`A_0A_4`$. By (4), to the point $`B_0`$ there corresponds the straight line $`a(p)`$ in the 2-plane at infinity $`\sigma `$, and the equation of this straight line is

$$p^2z_1+pz_2z_3=0.$$
(7)
The family of straight lines $`a(p)`$ depends of the parameter $`p`$, and its envelope is the conic $`C`$ defined by the equation

$$z_2^2+4z_1z_3=0.$$
(8)
The straight line $`a(p)`$ is tangent to the conic $`C`$ at the point

$$B_1(p)=A_12pA_2p^2A_3.$$
(9)
Equation (9) is a parametric equation of the conic $`C`$. The point

$$\frac{dB_1}{dp}=2(A_2+pA_3)$$
(10)
belongs to the tangent line to the conic $`C`$ at the point $`B_1(p)`$.

Consider the 2-planes $`\tau =B_0B_1{\displaystyle \frac{dB_1}{dp}}`$. Such 2-planes are completely determined by the location of the point $`B_0`$ on the straight line $`A_0A_4`$, and they form a one-parameter family. All these 2-planes belong to the hypersurface $`F`$. In fact, represent an arbitrary point $`z`$ of the 2-plane $`\tau `$ in the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}z\hfill & =\alpha B_0+\beta B_1\frac{1}{2}\gamma \frac{dB_1}{dp}\hfill \\ & =\alpha A_0+\beta A_1+(2p\beta +\gamma )A_2+(p^2\beta +p\gamma )A_3+p\alpha A_4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The coordinates of the point $`z`$ are

$$z_0=\alpha ,z_1=\beta ,z_2=\gamma 2p\beta ,z_3=p(\gamma p\beta ),z_4=p\alpha .$$
(12)
Substituting these values of the coordinates into equation (4), one can see that equation (4) is identically satisfied. Thus the hypersurface $`F`$ is foliated into a one-parameter family of 2-planes $`\tau (p)=B_0B_1{\displaystyle \frac{dB_1}{dp}}`$.

In a 2-plane $`\tau (p)`$ consider a pencil of straight lines with center $`B_1`$. The straight lines of this pencil are defined by the point $`B_1`$ and the point $`B_2=A_2+pA_3+q(A_0+pA_4)`$. The straight lines $`B_1B_2`$ depend on two parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$. These lines belong to the 2-plane $`\tau (p)`$, and along with this 2-plane they belong to the hypersurface $`F`$. Thus they form a foliation on the hypersurface $`F`$.

We prove that this foliation is a Monge-Ampère foliation. In the space $`\overline{R}^4`$, we introduce the moving frame formed by the points

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}B_0=A_0+pA_4,\hfill & \\ B_1=A_12pA_2p^2A_3,\hfill & \\ B_2=A_2+pA_3+qA_0+pqA_4,\hfill & \\ B_3=A_3,\hfill & \\ B_4=A_4.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(13)
It is easy to prove that these points are linearly independent, and the points $`A_\alpha `$ can be expressed in terms of the points $`B_\alpha `$ as follows

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}A_0=B_0pB_4,\hfill & \\ A_1=B_1+2pB_2p^2B_32pqB_0,\hfill & \\ A_2=B_2pB_3qB_0,\hfill & \\ A_3=B_3,\hfill & \\ A_4=B_4.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(14)
Consider a displacement of the straight lines $`B_1B_2`$ along the hypersurface $`F`$. Suppose that $`Z`$ is an arbitrary point of this straight line,

$$Z=B_1+\lambda B_2.$$
(15)
Differentiating (15) and taking into account (14) and $`dA_\alpha =0`$, we find that

$$dZ(2qdp+\lambda dq)B_0+\lambda dp(B_3+qB_4)(modB_1,B_2).$$
(16)
It follows from relation (16) that

1. A tangent hyperplane to the hypersurface $`F`$ is spanned by the points $`B_1,B_2,B_0`$ and $`B_3+qB_4`$. This hyperplane is fixed when the point $`Z`$ moves along the straight line $`B_1B_2`$. Thus the hypersurface $`F`$ is tangentially degenerate of rank 2, and the straight lines $`B_1B_2`$ form a Monge-Ampère foliation on $`F`$.
2. The system of equations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}2qdp+\lambda dq\hfill & =0,\hfill \\ \lambda dp\hfill & =0\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
defines singular points on the straight line $`B_1B_2`$, and on the hypersurface $`F`$ it defines torses. The system of equations (17) has a nontrivial solution with respect to $`dp`$ and $`dq`$ if and only if its determinant vanishes: $`\lambda ^2=0`$. Hence by (15), a singular point on the straight line $`B_1B_2`$ coincides with the point $`B_1`$. For $`\lambda =0`$, system (17) implies that $`dp=0`$, i.e., $`p=\text{const}`$. Thus it follows from (9) that the point $`B_1C`$ is fixed, and as a result, the torse corresponding to this constant parameter $`p`$ is a pencil of straight lines with the center $`B_1`$ located in the 2-plane $`\tau (p)=B_0B_1B_2`$.
3. All singular points of the hypersurface $`F`$ belong to the conic $`CP^{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by equation (8). Thus if we consider the hypersurface $`F`$ in an Euclidean space $`R^4`$, then on $`F`$ there are no singular points in a proper part of this space.
4. The hypersurface $`F`$ considered in the proper part of an Euclidean space is not a cylinder since its rectilinear generators do not belong to a bundle of parallel straight lines. A two-parameter family of rectilinear generators of $`F`$ decomposes into a one-parameter family of plane pencils of parallel lines.

4. No one of properties 1–4 characterizes Bourgain’s hypersurfaces completely: they are necessary but not sufficient for these hypersurfaces. The following theorem gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a hypersurface to be of Bourgain’s type.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`l`$ be a proper straight line of an Euclidean space $`R^4`$ enlarged by the plane at infinity $`P_{\mathrm{}}^3`$, and let $`C`$ be a conic in the $`2`$-plane $`\sigma `$. Suppose that the straight line $`l`$ and the conic $`C`$ are in a projective correspondence. Let $`B_0(p)`$ and $`B_1(p)`$ be two corresponding points of $`l`$ and $`C`$, and let $`\tau `$ be the $`2`$-plane passing through the point $`B_0`$ and tangent to the conic $`C`$ at the point $`B_1`$. Then

* when the point $`B_0`$ is moving along the straight line $`l`$, the plane $`\tau `$ describes a Bourgain hypersurface, and
* any Bourgain hypersurface satisfies the above construction.

Proof. The necessity (b) of the theorem hypotheses follows from our previous considerations. We prove the sufficiency (a) of these hypotheses. Take a fixed frame $`\{A_u\},u=0,1,2,3,4,`$ in the space $`R^4`$ enlarged by the plane at infinity $`P_{\mathrm{}}^3`$ as follows: its point $`A_0`$ belongs to $`l`$, the point $`A_4`$ is the point at infinity of $`l`$, and the points $`A_1,A_2`$, and $`A_3`$ are located at the $`2`$-plane at infinity $`\sigma `$ in such a way that a parametric equation of the straight line $`l`$ is $`B_0=A_0+pA_4`$, and the equation of $`C`$ has the form (9). The plane $`\tau `$ is defined by the points $`B_0,B_1`$, and $`\frac{dB_1}{dp}`$. The parametric equations of this plane have the form (12). Excluding the parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$, and $`p`$ from these equations, we will return to the cubic equation (4) defining the Bourgain hypersurface $`B`$ in homogeneous coordinates.

The method of construction of the Bourgain hypersurface used in the proof of Theorem 1 goes back to the classical methods of projective geometry developed by Steiner \[St 32\] and Reye \[R 66\].

5. In conclusion we prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2

The Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$ and the Bourgain hypersurface $`B`$ are locally equivalent, and the former is the standard covering of the latter.

Proof. In an Euclidean space $`R^4`$, in Cartesian coordinates $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4`$, the equation of the Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$ (see \[S 60\]) has the form

$$x_4=x_1\mathrm{cos}x_3+x_2\mathrm{sin}x_3.$$
(18)
The right-hand side of this equation is a function on the manifold $`M^3=^2\times S^1`$ since the variable $`x_3`$ is cyclic. Equation (18) defines a hypersurface on the manifold $`M^3\times S^1`$. The circumference $`S^1=/2\pi `$ has a natural projective structure of $`P^1`$. In the homogeneous coordinates $`x_3=\frac{u}{v}`$, the mapping $`S^1P^1`$, can be written as $`x^3(u,v)`$. By removing the point $`\{v=0\}`$ from $`S^1`$, we obtain a 1-to-1 correspondence

$$S^1\{v=0\}^1.$$
(19)
Now we can consider the Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$ in $`R^4`$ or, if we enlarge $`R^4`$ by the plane at infinity $`P_{\mathrm{}}^3`$, in the space $`P^4`$.

Next we show how by applying the mapping $`S^1P^1`$, we can transform equation (18) of the Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$ into equation(4) of the Bourgain hypersurface $`B`$. We write this mapping in the form

$$x_3=2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{u}{v},\frac{u}{v}R,|x_3|<\pi .$$
(20)
It follows from (20) that

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{u}{v}=\mathrm{tan}\frac{x_3}{2},\hfill & \\ \mathrm{cos}x_3=\frac{1\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2}}}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2}}}=\frac{v^2u^2}{v^2+u^2},\hfill & \\ \mathrm{sin}x_3=\frac{2\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2}}}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{2}}}=\frac{2uv}{v^2+u^2}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(21)
Substituting these expressions into equation (18), we find that

$$x_4(u^2+v^2)=x_1(v^2u^2)+2x_2uv,$$

i.e.,

$$(x_4+x_1)u^2+(x_4x_1)v^22x_2uv=0.$$
(22)
Make a change of variables

$$z_1=x_4x_1,z_2=2x_2,z_3=x_1+x_4,z_0=u,z_4=v.$$

As a result, we reduce equation (22) to equation (4). It follows that the Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$ defined by equation (18) is locally equivalent to the Bourgain hypersurface defined by equation (4).

Note also that if the cyclic parameter $`x_3`$ changes on the entire real axis $`R`$, then we obtain the standard covering of the Bourgain hypersurface $`B`$ by means of the Sacksteder hypersurface $`S`$.

Authors’ addresses:

| M. A. Akivis | V. V. Goldberg |
| --- | --- |
| Department of Mathematics | Department of Mathematical Sciences |
| Jerusalem College of Technology—Mahon Lev | New Jersey Institute of Technology |
| Havaad Haleumi St., P. O. B. 16031 | University Heights |
| Jerusalem 91160, Israel | Newark, N.J. 07102, U.S.A. |
| E-mail address: akivis@avoda.jct.ac.il | E-mail address: vlgold@m.njit.edu |


format: text

text:
# Measurement of the vector analyzing power in elastic electron-proton scattering as a probe of double photon exchange amplitudes

## Abstract

We report the first measurement of the vector analyzing power in inclusive transversely polarized elastic electron-proton scattering at $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2 and large scattering angles. This quantity should vanish in the single virtual photon exchange, plane wave impulse approximation for this reaction, and can therefore provide information on double photon exchange amplitudes for electromagnetic interactions with hadronic systems. We find a non-zero value of $`A`$=-15.4$`\pm `$5.4 ppm. No calculations of this observable for nuclei other than spin 0 have been carried out in these kinematics, and the calculation using the spin orbit interaction from a charged point nucleus of spin 0 cannot describe these data.

(SAMPLE Collaboration)

The recent development and refinement of experimental methods for measurements of small (few parts per million, or ppm) parity violating effects in polarized electron scattering  provides a new technique for further studies of the electromagnetic structure of hadrons and nuclei. We have exploited these methods for the first time to measure the small vector analyzing power in elastic electron-proton scattering at large scattering angles ($`130^{}\theta _{lab}^e170^{}`$), corresponding to $`Q^2=0.1`$ (GeV/c)2. This parity conserving quantity is associated with transverse electron polarization, in contrast to the parity violating longitudinal (i.e. helicity dependent) asymmetry. It has been previously noted  that transverse polarization effects will be suppressed by the relativistic boost factor 1/$`\gamma `$. Nevertheless, as demonstrated in this Letter, the development of the technology to measure small parity violating asymmetries, along with the ability to produce transversely polarized electron beams at high energies, now renders these transverse polarization effects amenable to measurement.

The vector analyzing power is a time reversal odd observable which must vanish in first order perturbation theory, and can only arise in leading order from the interference of double photon exchange (second order) and single photon exchange amplitudes. Our observation of this quantity therefore demonstrates the viability of a new technique to access physics associated with the absorption of two virtual photons by a hadronic system. Thus, the study of vector analyzing powers provides another method to study double photon exchange processes that is complementary to virtual compton scattering (VCS). VCS involves the coupling of one virtual and one real photon to a hadronic system, but in practice includes problematic Bethe-Heitler amplitudes associated with radiation of a real photon from the electron. Nonetheless, there is presently a great deal of interest in the exploitation of VCS  to further probe the electromagnetic structure of hadrons and nuclei, and the vector analyzing power described here potentially offers an attractive alternative to access double photon exchange amplitudes.

Using the apparatus for the SAMPLE experiment , a high statistics measurement of the parity violating asymmetry in inclusive elastic $`p(\stackrel{}{e},e^{})`$ scattering at the MIT/Bates Linear Accelerator Center, we have made measurements of the asymmetry in the elastic scattering of 200 MeV transversely polarized electrons from the proton at backward scattering angles. This represents the first measurement of a vector analyzing power in polarized electron scattering from the proton at this high a momentum transfer.

The vector analyzing power in electron-nucleus scattering results in a spin-dependent asymmetry, which can, for example, be generated by the interaction of the electron spin with the magnetic field seen by the electron in its rest frame . This spin-dependence in the scattering cross section $`\sigma (\theta )`$, can be written as

$$\sigma (\theta )=\sigma _0(\theta )[1+A(\theta )𝐏\widehat{𝐧}],$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _0(\theta )`$ is the spin-averaged scattering cross section, $`A(\theta )`$ is the vector analyzing power for the reaction, and $`𝐏`$ is the incident electron polarization vector (which is proportional to the spin vector operator $`𝐒`$). The unit vector $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is normal to the scattering plane, and is defined through $`\widehat{𝐧}(𝐤\times 𝐤^{})`$/$`|𝐤\times 𝐤^{}|`$, where $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ are wave vectors for the incident and scattered electrons, respectively. The scattering angle $`\theta `$ is found through $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =(𝐤𝐤^{})`$/$`|𝐤||𝐤^{}|`$, and, in the Madison convention, is positive for the electron scattering toward the same direction as the transverse component of $`𝐤^{}`$. The beam polarization $`𝐏`$ can be expressed in terms of the number of beam electrons with spins parallel ($`m_s`$=+1/2) and antiparallel ($`m_s`$=-1/2) to $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, so that the measured asymmetry at a given scattering angle $`ϵ(\theta )`$, is defined through

$$ϵ(\theta )=\frac{\sigma _{}(\theta )\sigma _{}(\theta )}{\sigma _{}(\theta )+\sigma _{}(\theta )}=A(\theta )P,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma _,(\theta )`$ is the differential cross section for $`m_s`$ = +1/2 and -1/2, respectively. Thus, with knowledge of the magnitude of the incident beam polarization $`P`$, measurement of $`ϵ(\theta )`$ can yield a determination of the vector analyzing power $`A(\theta )`$, which contains the underlying physics of the electron-nucleus interaction.

The formalism and conventions reviewed here have been well established, and used extensively for “Mott” polarimeters which measure electron beam polarizations at low incident beam energies ($``$ 100 keV) , where it is valid to assume the nucleus is simply a point charge. The “Mott” asymmetry for transversely polarized electrons scattering from a point nucleus of charge $`Ze`$ and spin 0 is calculated as ,

$$A_{Mott}=\frac{4Z\alpha \beta }{\gamma }(\frac{\mathrm{csc}\theta \mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{csc}\frac{\theta }{2})}{\mathrm{csc}^4\frac{\theta }{2}\beta ^2\mathrm{csc}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}),$$
(3)
where $`\alpha `$ is the electromagnetic fine structure constant, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the usual relativistic kinematic quantities, and $`\theta `$ is the laboratory scattering angle defined above. The analyzing powers calculated via Eq. (3) for low energies using very high $`Z`$ targets are much larger than the vector analyzing power for electron proton scattering reported here, and this is commonly exploited as a means to measure the polarization of low energy electron beams. Such measurements, however, are not sensitive to the internal structure or spin of the hadronic system. More recently, some level of nuclear structure has been taken into account in calculations of analyzing powers for high energy elastic scattering of transversely polarized electrons from heavy spin 0 nuclei at forward electron scattering angles, performed in the eikonal expansion and using finite charge densities for the nuclei . In these calculations, the non-zero analyzing powers were generated through the distortion of the electron waves in the Coulomb potential of the nuclear targets, providing the needed extension beyond single photon exchange to the distorted wave impulse approximation. To date, however, no such calculation exists for the scattering of transversely polarized electrons from nuclear targets of any spin other than 0 at any energy. In the SAMPLE kinematics, the electron energy of 200 MeV is much larger than the energies used for Mott polarimetry, the proton target has the smallest possible $`Z`$ so that Coulomb effects are at a minimum, and the electrons are scattered at large angles where magnetic effects are important. These facts, along with the spin 1/2 nature of the proton, imply that our measurement of the vector analyzing power will be sensitive to non-trivial electromagnetic structure of the proton not taken into account in previous theoretical treatments.

The data we report are the result of an experiment performed at the MIT/Bates Linear Accelerator Center with a 200 MeV polarized electron beam of average current 40 $`\mu `$A incident on a 40 cm liquid hydrogen target . The scattered electrons were detected in a large solid angle ($``$ 1.5 sr), axially symmetric air Čerenkov detector consisting of 10 mirrors, each shaped to focus the Čerenkov light onto one of ten shielded photomultiplier tubes. This combination of large solid angle and high luminosity allow measurements of small asymmetries in a relatively short period of time. The data presented here were acquired in just two days of running under these conditions. Properties of the detector signals and beam have been described in detail in Ref.’s  and , along with the method of asymmetry extraction and correction. Thus, here we report only the differences between the experimental running conditions for longitudinally polarized beams as used for parity violation measurements, and the transversely polarized beam used for the vector analyzing power measurements. The systematic errors associated with the asymmetries from each of the individual mirrors are the same for these measurements as for those in Ref.’s  and , totaling 0.7 ppm, and are negligible compared with the overall statistical error of 5.4 ppm obtained for these measurements.

The polarized laser light used on the bulk GaAs source crystal produces electron beams with longitudinal polarization, consequently significant spin manipulation was required to orient the beam polarization transversely. This was achieved with a Wien filter, which contains electric and magnetic fields oriented perpendicular to each other and to the beam direction, and a set of beam solenoids. The Wien filter was positioned immediately downstream of the source anode, and was used to precess the electron spin away from the beam direction ($``$ 90 for these measurements). The beam solenoids were positioned near the first accelerating cavity in the beam line, and precessed the resulting transverse components of the beam polarization. The combination of these beam line elements allowed the polarization direction to be chosen arbitrarily, and each element was calibrated such that the polarization direction is determined to $`\pm `$ 2 .

For the measurements reported here, two orthogonal transverse beam polarizations were used during two running periods: one with the polarization directed to beam right (which we denote $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=0), and one with the polarization pointing up ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=90). The magnitude of the beam polarization was measured with a Moller apparatus positioned on the beam line, and averaged 36.3$`\pm `$1.8% during these measurements. Finally, to minimize false asymmetries and test for systematic errors, the electron beam polarization was manually reversed relative to all electronic signals, for both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=0 and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=90 running, with the insertion of a $`\lambda `$/2 plate in the laser beam. Thus, four separate sets of measurements were made: $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=0, $`\lambda `$/2 IN and OUT, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$=90, $`\lambda `$/2 IN and OUT.

The elastic scattering transverse asymmetry was determined for each of the 10 individual mirrors in each running configuration after correction for all effects, including beam polarization, background dilution, and radiative effects, as described in Ref.’s  and . Although the geometry of this detector allowed for combining the asymmetries from individual mirrors positioned on opposite sides of the incident beam (via Eq. (2) and imposing the rotational invariance criterion $`A(\theta )=A(\theta )`$ ), we chose an alternative form of analysis wherein the full statistical information contained in the data set could be used to extract the vector analyzing power. Because the individual mirrors were positioned at varying azimuthal angles $`\varphi `$ relative to the polarization direction, the asymmetries measured in the mirrors should follow a sinusoidal dependence in this angle. The sinusoidal dependence in the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ is seen by rewriting Eq. (2) as

$$ϵ(\theta ,\varphi )=A(\theta )P\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\delta ),$$
(4)
where $`\varphi `$ measures the angle of the polarization vector in the plane transverse to the beam direction, and the phase $`\delta `$ takes into account the direction of $`𝐏`$ relative to $`\widehat{𝐧}`$. Table 1 summarizes the polar ($`\theta `$) and azimuthal ($`\varphi `$) angles at the center of each individual mirror within the SAMPLE detector. As seen in Table 1, mirrors 4 and 5 have the same azimuthal angle relative to the polarization direction, but different polar angles relative to the incident beam direction. A separate analysis, however, indicated that the polar angle dependence to the asymmetry was negligible, allowing us to combine the asymmetries from these two mirrors (similarly for mirrors 6 and 7) into one asymmetry at the same azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$.

The data set for each $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\lambda `$/2 running configuration therefore consists of eight data points at varying $`\varphi `$ values, to which we perform a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization to a two parameter function via

$$\chi _{d.o.f.}^2=\frac{1}{6}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}[A_i^{meas}(a\mathrm{sin}\varphi _i+b\mathrm{cos}\varphi _i)]^2/[\delta A_i^{meas}]^2,$$
(5)
which is linear in the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$. Here $`A_i^{meas}`$ is the measured asymmetry at each azimuthal angle $`\varphi _i`$, corrected for all effects  including beam polarization normalization (as suggested in Eq. (4)). The coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ can then be converted into an amplitude and phase, i.e.,

$$A_{fit}=A\mathrm{sin}(\varphi +\delta )$$
(6)
as in Eq. (4), where the amplitude $`A`$ gives the magnitude of the vector analyzing power, and the phase $`\delta `$ verifies the direction of the beam polarization and determines the overall sign of the analyzing power.

The sinusoidal dependence just discussed is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the combined data for $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=90`$ are shown as a function of azimuthal angle, along with the best fit to the data according to the procedure outlined above. Here we have defined $`\varphi =0`$ to be at beam left, and have taken into account the 90 phase difference between the $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=90`$ polarization directions. For these combined data, the overall $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom for the best fit was found to be 0.9, providing a 50% confidence level that the data follow this dependence . This should be compared, however, with the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 2.1 for a fit to $`A=0`$, which has a corresponding confidence level of 4% that the data are consistent with $`A=0`$. Even if we allow an overall offset to a constant dependence, we find an average of $`A=3.5\pm 3.7`$ ppm, with a $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom of 1.9, and a corresponding confidence level of 7%.

In Table 2 we summarize our results using this analysis procedure for the four independent running conditions. Note that the deduced magnitudes are all consistent within experimental errors, and the deduced phase changes by 180 upon the insertion or removal of the $`\lambda `$/2 plate as expected, and by 90 from one $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ running configuration to the other. Combining these four independent measurements, we quote our final result: a vector analyzing power for elastic electron-proton scattering of -15.4$`\pm `$5.4 ppm at the average electron laboratory scattering angle of 146.1, corresponding to $`Q^2`$ = 0.1 (GeV/c)2. To demonstrate the precision to which this quantity has been determined relative to the original derivation of Mott , we plot this data point in Fig. 2 along with the prediction of Eq. (3) for a point nucleus of charge $`Z=1`$ and spin 0 as a function of electron laboratory scattering angle, covering the angular range accepted by the SAMPLE detector.

The data reported here represent the first measurement of a vector analyzing power in polarized electron scattering at this high a momentum transfer. Our observation of this quantity demonstrates the viability of a new technique to access physics associated with double photon exchange, which may address some of the same physics issues as virtual compton scattering measurements. We have also made measurements of the vector analyzing power in inclusive quasielastic electron-deuteron scattering, the results of which will be reported in a future letter. Further parity violation measurements at higher $`Q^2`$ values are planned  from both hydrogen and deuterium targets, where high statistics transverse asymmetry data will also be taken. Thus, we hope that the results reported in this Letter will motivate theoretical calculations of vector analyzing powers in polarized electron scattering for hadronic systems with $`S0`$ and non-trivial electromagnetic structure, which will be necessary to interpret such measurements.

The efforts of the staff at MIT/Bates to provide high quality beam required for these measurements, and useful conversations with T.W. Donnelly, are gratefully acknowledged.

This work was supported by NSF grants PHY-9870278 (Louisiana Tech), PHY-9420470 (Caltech), PHY-9420787 (Illinois), PHY-9457906/PHY-9229690 (Maryland), PHY-9733773 (VPI) and DOE cooperative agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818 (MIT/Bates) and contract W-31-109-ENG-38 (ANL).


text:
# Mining for Metals in the Ly𝛼 Forest

## 1. Introduction

Our understanding of the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest and its connection with the Intergalactic Medium (IGM) have undergone radical revision in recent years. The paradigm in which the IGM consists of discrete, isolated clouds has been revolutionised by a generation of hydrodynamical simulations (e.g. Hernquist et al 1996). These simulations show that the ‘bottom-up’ hierarchy of structure formation knits a complex but smoothly fluctuating cosmic web, consisting of filaments, knots and extensive ‘voids’. Originally thought to be chemically pristine, it is now well-established that a large fraction of the strongest Ly$`\alpha `$ absorbers exhibit some metal enrichment, most notably C IV (e.g. Cowie et al 1995). Here, we address two specific questions. Firstly, are the C IV absorbers that have thus far been detected just the tip of the iceberg and can more sensitive spectra mine ever weaker systems? Secondly, to what H I column densities does the enrichment extend? This latter point has particularly poignant implications for the origin and transport mechanism of these metals. In-situ formation in a nearby galaxy could be responsible for the enrichment of its local IGM, explaining the presence of C IV in the relatively high column density Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds. However, low column density Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds (log$`N`$(H I) $`<`$ 14.0), which are associated with physically less dense regions, are found further from the sites of star formation. The presence of C IV in these clouds could be indicative of widespread metal enrichment, possibly by an early epoch of Population III star formation. This is an overview of work described in more detail in Ellison et al (2000).

## 2. C IV in High Column Density Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds

With a S/N ratio in excess of 200 redward of Ly$`\alpha `$, our Keck/HIRES spectrum of Q1422+231 is one of the most sensitive currently available to search for C IV associated with the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest. Although this target has been extensively studied in the past, our data reveal several C IV systems that had not been previously detected in spectra of lower S/N. We undertake the standard procedure of fitting Voigt profiles to determine column densities, $`b`$-values and redshifts of the 34 detected C IV systems associated mainly with Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds with log $`N`$(H I) $`>`$ 14.5. Previous studies of C IV absorbers have established a power law column density distribution of the form $`f(N)dN=BN^\alpha dN`$ and determined $`\alpha 1.5`$, complete down to log $`N`$(C IV) $``$ 12.75 for $`z>3`$ (Songaila 1997). Below this limit, there is an apparent departure from the power law which could be due to either incompleteness or a real turnover in the number density of C IV systems. We perform a maximum likelihood fit to our data points and determine a power law index $`\alpha =1.44\pm 0.05`$, in good agreement with previous estimates (see Figure 1). The column density limits at which previous studies have exhibited a departure from the power law are sketched and clearly our data establish that this was due to incompleteness. The C IV systems from this single high quality spectrum are sufficient to show that the power law continues down to at least log $`N`$(C IV) $``$ 12.3, below which the data points start to turn-over. Again, this could be due to the incompleteness caused, for example, by a bias against weak C IV lines with large $`b`$-values, or evidence of a real turn-over in column density distribution. By simulating C IV lines for the two lowest column density intervals in Figure 1 with $`b`$-values drawn at random from the observed distribution, we can estimate the incompleteness correction factor by determining the frequency with which these lines are recovered. Once this has been taken into account, there is no shortfall compared with the power law, showing that it continues at least down to log $`N`$(C IV) = 11.7, a factor of ten more sensitive than previous analyses.

## 3. Probing the Low Column Density Ly$`\alpha `$ Forest

Direct detection of the C IV systems associated with low column density Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds (log $`N`$(H I) $`<`$ 14.0) is observationally very challenging due to the extreme weakness of the absorption. In the past, efforts have been made to overcome this problem by stacking together the regions where C IV absorption is expected in order to produce a high S/N composite spectrum (e.g Lu et al 1998). In Ellison et al (1999), we showed how a random redshift offset between the Ly$`\alpha `$ line and its associated C IV feature could ‘smear’ out the stacked feature and consequently underestimate the amount of metals present. Instead, we favour the optical depth method developed by Cowie & Songaila (1998) which we have found is more robust against redshift offset (see Ellison et al 2000 for a detailed discussion of this point). Briefly, the optical depth method consists of stepping through the spectrum and measuring the optical depth ($`\tau `$) of each Ly$`\alpha `$ pixel and its corresponding C IV. The results of this analysis are shown by the solid line in Figure 2 and are consistent with a constant level of C IV/H I (as shown by the dashed line) for optical depths down from $`\tau `$(Ly$`\alpha `$) $`100`$ over two orders of magnitude, below which $`\tau `$(C IV) flattens off to an approximately constant value. In order to interpret these results, simulated spectra were reproduced using the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest taken directly from the data, adding C IV with a given enrichment recipe and then analysing the synthetic spectrum with the optical depth technique. A total of 3 simulated spectra were created, all of which include a random redshift offset of 17 kms<sup>-1</sup> between Ly$`\alpha `$ and C IV and assume $`b`$(C IV) = 1/2 $`b`$(Ly$`\alpha `$). Spectrum ‘A’ includes only the directly detected C IV with no additional enrichment and the optical depth analysis reveals that it is clearly C IV deficient in comparison with the data at almost all optical depths. Clearly, there is more C IV in the data than is accounted for in the 34 directly identifiable systems. Adding C IV to the log $`N`$(C IV) $`>`$ 14.5 Ly$`\alpha `$ clouds at the detection limit of the spectrum (log $`N`$(C IV) = 12.0) can reproduce the results obtained for the data for $`\tau `$(Ly$`\alpha `$) $`>`$3 but not at lower optical depths (spectrum ‘B’). The data are more consistent with spectrum ‘C’ in which a constant C IV/H I ratio of $`2.6`$ was also included in log $`N`$(H I) $`<`$ 14.5.

We investigated the possible limitations of our analysis due to such effects as contamination by other metal lines, errors in the continuum fit and scatter in the C IV/H I ratio. We conclude that overall this is a robust technique and that the limiting factor is likely to be the accuracy of the continuum fit in the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest regions which could mimic the flattening of $`\tau `$(C IV) that we observe in the data at low H I optical depths. Nevertheless, we find that even in the high optical depth H I pixels (that will not be seriously affected by small continuum errors) the identified C IV systems are insufficient to account for the all the measured absorption and that there are clearly more metals in the IGM than we can currently detect.

### Acknowledgments.

SLE is very grateful to the LOC for their generous financial assistance towards attending this conference.

## References

Cowie, L. L. & Songaila, A. 1998, Nature, 394, 44

Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Kim, T. -S. & Hu, E. M. 1995 AJ, 109, 1522

Ellison, S. L., G. F., Pettini, M., Chaffee, F. H. & Irwin, M. J. 1999, ApJ, 520, 456

Ellison, S. L., Songaila, A., Schaye, J. & Pettini, M. 2000, AJ, submitted

Hernquist, L., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H. & Miralda-Escudé, J. 1996, ApJ, 457, L51

Lu, L., Sargent, W. L. W., Barlow, T. A. & Rauch, M. 1998, preprint, astro–ph/9802189

Petitjean, P. & Bergeron, J. 1994, A&A, 283, 759

Songaila, A. 1997, ApJ, 490, L1


text:
# The effect of strain on the adsorption of CO on Pd(100)

## I Introduction

A number of recent experiments and calculations have shown that chemisorption causes surface strain and that straining a surface modifies the properties of adsorbed molecules. Webb, Lagally and their students  demonstrated that the structure of a silicon surface can be changed by bending it. They worked with a (100) face of a thin silicon slab. This surface has steps separated by two kinds of terraces: on one, the dimer rows are parallel to the steps; on the other, they are perpendicular to the steps. These terraces give different low electron diffraction (LEED) patterns. When the slab is bent, the relative LEED intensities change, because the size of these terraces is modified by strain. Ibach and his coworkers have demonstrated a “reciprocal” phenomenon: chemisorption on the surface of a very thin slab will cause it to bend. If adsorption causes strain, then it should be possible to affect adsorption by straining the surface. Mentzel’s group implanted noble gas ions under a metal surface, causing local strain. They then showed that the strained surface has different adsorption properties. Other groups have strained a surface by growing a very thin metal film on a substrate of a different metal. If the two lattices are mismatched, but the growth is in registry, the atoms in the film are either stretched or compressed. This affects the chemisorption properties of the film. In this kind of experiment the chemisorption properties are modified by the strain and also by electronic effects caused by binding to a substrate made of a different metal. The two effects cannot be separated experimentally.

Density functional calculations have been used to explore the effect of surface strain on the properties of the adsorbates. Ratsch, Seisonen and Scheffler have shown that the activation energy for diffusion of a Ag atom on a Ag surface is affected by strain. Mattsson and Metiu have used this effect to show that periodic strain on a surface can order nanostructures nucleated on it and increase their size uniformity. Finally, Mavrikakis, Hammer and Nørskov calculated the change in the binding energy of O and CO and in the dissociation energy of CO when the Ru(0001) surface on which they are adsorbed is under strain.

Ibach has published a thorough review of the effects of strain in epitaxy and surface reconstruction. Norskov discusses the effect of strain in an excellent review of density functional studies of chemisorption systems relevant to catalysis.

It is not surprising that straining a surface affects the chemistry taking place on it. Strain changes the distance between the surface atoms and this must change the properties of the adsorbates. The only question is whether this change can be, at least in some cases, sufficiently large to matter. If this is so, one can envision the development of “elastochemistry” as a new subfield of physical chemistry.

In this paper we study how the binding energy, the vibrational frequencies and the adsorption isotherm of CO on Pd(100) change with surface strain and coverage. We use generalized gradient, density functional theory for energy calculations and Monte-Carlo simulations and an analytical model for calculating the adsorption isotherm. The change in these quantities, caused by straining the surface, is sufficiently large to be measurable. In the case of the adsorption isotherm the coverage at a given gas pressure changes by almost two orders of magnitude. This happens because relatively small changes in adsorption energy have large effects on the isotherm.

To model the adsorption isotherm we need to know how the properties of the adsorbed molecules change with coverage. Ideally, we should calculate how these properties change when we change the clustering of CO on the surface. One would need then the energy of all possible clusters. This is beyond the current capability of the density functional method, which uses a periodic system with a unit cell of limited size. For this reason we have adopted the following strategy. We calculate the properties of adsorbed CO for 1/8, 1/2 and 1 monolayer. The one-monolayer calculation is used to determine the adsorption energy of a molecule that does not interact with its neighbors. The half-monolayer results provide the interaction energy between the next-nearest-neighbors. The full monolayer one is used to extract the interaction energy between nearest-neighbors. A Hamiltonian based on these energies is then used in a grand-canonical Monte Carlo simulation to determine the adsorption isotherm. We have also tested the quasi-chemical approximation and found it to be inaccurate.

## II Methodology

The density functional calculations reported here were performed with the Vienna program VASP. This uses periodic boundary conditions, a plane-wave basis set and fully nonlocal Vanderbilt-type  ultra soft psudopotentials. The generalized gradient exchange-correlation energy is that of Wang and Perdew.

The metal is represented by a four-layer slab bounded by an empty region whose thickness equals that of six Pd layers. When the coverage $`\rho `$ is high ($`\rho =1`$ and 1/2), we use the small supercell shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 1; the thick lines show the supercell for the lowest coverage ($`\rho =1/8`$).

The CO molecules are placed on the top layer of the slab. The positions of the atoms in the bottom layer was fixed to coincide with those of the bulk Pd, calculated with the same program. The distance between the bottom layer and the layer next to it is also fixed to the bulk value. The calculated equilibrium lattice constant of bulk Pd is $`a=3.961`$ Å. The atoms in the other layers are allowed to relax and take the values that give a minimum total energy.

Brillouin-zone integrations have been performed on a grid of $`9\times 9\times 1`$ $`𝐤`$ points for the high-coverage case and on a grid of $`4\times 4\times 1`$ $`𝐤`$ points for the low-coverage case. The Methfessel-Paxton smearing is $`\sigma =0.3`$ eV. For high coverage we have tested convergence by performing calculations with thicker slab and a denser $`𝐤`$ mesh. For low coverage, a $`4\times 4\times 1`$ $`𝐤`$-point mesh is the densest we can afford on a workstation with 1GB memory. The cut-off energy is 495 eV, which is a high value.

## III The properties of adsorbed CO, as a function of coverage and strain

### A Bulk Pd

To determine the lattice constant of bulk Pd we used the supercells described in Fig. 1 and a slab having ten Pd layers. It is not necessary to use such a thick slab, but we had the results from calculations for another project. If the sample is unstrained, we allow the atoms to relax in all directions and obtain a lattice constant of 3.961 Å. This corresponds to a distance of 1.9805 Å between the (100) layers. We have also calculated the bulk structure of two samples, subject to an uniform strain of $`\pm 2\%`$ in a plane (the xy plane) perpendicular to the (100) direction. In these calculations the $`x`$ and $`y`$ coordinates of the atoms are fixed, but the space between the layers is allowed to relax. In the sample with $`2\%`$ strain the distance (in the z direction) between the layers is 1.9250 Å; if the strain is $`2`$%, this distance is 2.0457 Å. Increasing the distance between atoms in the $`xy`$ plane decreases the distance between the layers in the $`z`$ direction.

### B Strain and coverage dependence of adsorption energy

All calculations involving adsorbed molecules are performed on a slab having $`4`$ Pd layers, surrounded by a vacuum whose dimension in the z-direction is equal to that occupied by $`6`$ Pd layers. The distance between the lowest two layers is fixed at the bulk value mentioned above (this distance depends on the state of strain of the surface). The top two layers are allowed to relax. We calculate the energy $`E_s`$ of the slabs constrained in this way for 0 and $`\pm 2`$% strain.

The properties of the chemisorbed CO molecules are calculated by placing 1 ML, 1/2 ML and 1/8 ML CO on top of the Pd slab. Since these calculations are extremely time consuming, we have investigated only the bridge binding sites, which have the lowest binding energy when the surface is not under strain. It is possible that other sites are occupied with a finite probability, when the system is in thermal equilibrium. Also, the CO molecules may prefer a different binding site, when the surface is under strain. These possibilities have not been considered in our calculations. We also ignore the fact that at high coverage the CO molecules might change their binding site.

The energy of the CO covered slab is denoted by $`E_{tot}`$, and depends on CO coverage and on surface strain. The adsorption energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_{ad}`$ is then given by:

$`\overline{\epsilon }_a=(E_{tot}E_snE_{CO})/n.`$$`E_{CO}=14.73`$ meV is the total energy of a free CO molecule, $`n`$ is the number of CO molecules in a supercell and $`E_s`$ is the energy of the Pd slab, without CO on it. For the supercells used in our calculations, $`n=2`$ for 1 ML of CO and $`n=1`$ for 1/2 ML or 1/8 ML (see Fig. 1). The adsorption energies calculated with this equation, for different CO coverages and strains, are given in Table I. For 1/2 ML and no strain, the adsorption energy of $`1.918`$ eV is consistent with that reported in Ref. , which is $`1.92`$ eV.

The adsorption energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_a`$ defined above includes the lateral interactions between the molecules. Such a definition is often used when the dependence of desorption rate on coverage is modelled. As we shall see later, this definition does not work well; we prefer the one given when we define Model II (see Section D).

### C The dependence of the vibrational frequencies of CO on coverage and strain

The dependence of the vibrational frequencies of chemisorbed CO on strain is of interest for two reasons. They are measurable and therefore the predictions made here can be tested by experiment. Furthermore, the change of these frequencies with strain will affect the chemical potential of the chemisorbed molecules and therefore will influence the adsorption isotherm. A thorough study of these effects would have to perform a complete phonon analysis of the system. Such calculations are possible, in principle, but they require too much computer power, especially for the case of low coverage, to be attempted here. Since the adsorption isotherm is dominated by the chemisorption energy and by the lateral interactions, small errors in evaluating the vibrational energies are not likely to affect our conclusions.

Because of these considerations, we calculate the vibrational frequencies by giving small displacements to the O and C atoms, away from their equilibrium positions, while keeping the metal atoms fixed. The displacements along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions are $`\pm 0.05`$Å and $`\pm 0.1`$Å, and those along the $`z`$ direction are $`\pm 0.01`$Å and $`\pm 0.02`$Å. We calculate the forces exerted on the C and O atoms, for all combinations of shifted coordinates, and fit it to a linear form in the displacements. This allows us to calculate the force constants and then the vibrational frequencies. The results are given in Table II, for different coverages and strains. In Fig. $`4`$ we show the amplitudes of four vibrations in the $`xy`$ plane, as seen by looking down towards the surface. The highest frequency, $`\omega _6`$, is the CO stretch. In the absence of strain, at a coverage of 1/2 ML, our result (1878 cm-1) is close to that calculated by Eichler and Hafner (1887 cm-1). They also report a frequency of 417 cm-1 for the carbon-metal stretch; our calculations give 341 cm-1. This discrepancy is not sufficiently large to affect the chemisorption isotherm. We suspect that this is due to the fact that we use more k points in our calculation.

The frequency $`\omega _6`$ is easiest to measure. Our calculations predict that either a compressive or a tensile strain, which changes the lattice constant by two percent, will increase $`\omega _6`$ by an amount measurable by infrared spectroscopy. The largest change, of 29 cm-1, is at the lowest coverage (1/8 ML).

### D The interaction between the adsorbed CO molecules

To calculate the adsorption isotherm we need to know the energy of the interaction between molecules. A very precise treatment of this problem would have to determine the energy of dimers, trimers,…. This would require an enormous amount of computer power and would be an overkill at this stage in our research. For this reason we have studied two approximate models.

In Model I we assume that the effect of the interaction between the adsorbates is to make the adsorption energy depend on coverage. This is obviously a mean field model; in reality the desorption energy is different, for different local configurations. For each strain, the adsorption energy at the three coverages used here is given in Table I. For other coverages we interpolate between these values.

In Model II we partition the total energy into an adsorption energy and the energy of interaction between the adsorbed molecules. First we assume that at a coverage of 1/8 ML there are no interactions between the CO molecules. Therefore,

$`\epsilon _a={\displaystyle \frac{E_t(1/8)E_sn(1/8)E_{CO}}{n(1/8)}}`$gives the adsorption energy of a CO molecule. Here $`E_t(1/8)`$ is the total energy of the slab with 1/8 ML CO on it, $`E_s`$ is the total energy of the slab without CO, $`E_{CO}`$ is the energy of the gaseous CO and $`n(1/8)`$ is the number of CO molecules in the supercell when the CO coverage is 1/8 ML.

Next, we assume that the adsorption energy of one molecule is independent of coverage. This means that we attribute the change in adsorption energy at higher coverages to the interaction between molecules. When the coverage is 1/2 ML we assume that the total energy is the slab energy, plus the adsorption energy of the molecules in the supercell, plus the interaction between all the next-nearest-neighbors (nnn) in the supercell. Thus, we can calculate the interaction $`\epsilon _{nnn}`$ between the nnn-pairs from the equation

$`\epsilon _{nnn}={\displaystyle \frac{E_t(1/2)E_s(1/2)n(1/2)E_{CO}n_a(1/2)\epsilon _a}{n_{nnn}(1/2)}}.`$

Here $`n_a`$ is the number of adsorbed CO molecules in the unit cell. The total energy of a CO monolayer can then be used to calculate the interaction energy between the nearest neighbors (nn). We assume that the total energy of the CO-covered surface is the energy of the slab, plus the adsorption energy of the CO molecules, plus the interaction energy of all the nn and nnn pairs in the supercell. As a consequence, the interaction energy $`\epsilon _{nn}`$ between the nearest neighbors is given by

$`\epsilon _{nn}={\displaystyle \frac{E_tE_sn_{nn}(1)E_{CO}n_{nnn}(1)\epsilon _{nnn}n_a(1)\epsilon _a}{n_{nn}(1)}}`$

The values of $`\epsilon _{nn}`$ and $`\epsilon _{nnn}`$ calculated from these equations, for the strained and the unstrained surfaces, are given in Table III.

We have now all the elements needed for writing an effective Hamiltonian to be used in the statistical mechanical theory of the adsorption isotherm: the vibrational frequencies of the molecule, the adsorption energy, the energy of interaction between nearest neighbors and that between next-nearest neighbors.

## IV The calculation of the adsorption isotherm

We are now ready to calculate the coverage of the adsorbed layer in equilibrium with a gas of CO molecules. This calculation is performed in two ways. The first method uses the equilibrium condition: the chemical potential of a CO molecule in gas is equal to the chemical potential of an adsorbed CO molecule. To calculate the latter we use the quasichemical approximation. The second method, uses Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations with the chemical potential of the gas calculated from the equations provided by Statistical Mechanics for ideal gases.

### A The quasichemical approximation

The quasichemical approximation gives for the chemical potential of CO on Pd

$`\mu _a`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _a+2\epsilon _{nn}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _i}{2}}+k_BT\mathrm{ln}(1e^{\omega _i/k_BT})]`$ (2)
$`+k_BT\mathrm{ln}[({\displaystyle \frac{1\rho }{\rho }})^3({\displaystyle \frac{\rho a}{1\rho a}})^2],`$
where $`\rho `$ is the coverage of CO (number of molecules divided by the number of lattice sites). The symbol $`a`$ stands for

$`a=2\rho (1\rho )/(\beta +1)`$with

$`\beta =\sqrt{14\rho (1\rho )(1e^{\epsilon _{nn}/k_BT})}.`$

Since the pressure is low, we can use the ideal gas expression for the chemical potential of the gas:

$$\mu _g=k_BT\mathrm{ln}[Pf(T)]+\frac{\omega _0}{2}+k_BT\mathrm{ln}(1e^{\omega _0/k_BT}),$$
(3)
with

$$f(T)=\frac{1}{k_BT}(\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{mk_BT})^{3/2}\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Ik_BT}.$$
(4)
In these equations, $`P`$ is the pressure, $`m`$ is the mass of CO-molecule, $`I`$ is the moment of inertia of CO and $`\omega _0`$ is the vibration frequency of free CO, 2114 cm-1.

In equilibrium calculations we must ensure that the two chemical potentials use the same reference energy. For us, this is the electronic energy of the slab plus the electronic energy of a CO molecule in gas phase. The zero point vibrational energy of the molecule in the gas and on the surface is included in the chemical potential.

By making the chemical potential for the adsorbed CO, \[Eq. (2)\], equal to the chemical potential of the gas \[Eq. (3)\], we obtain a relationship between surface coverage $`\rho `$ and gas pressure $`P`$ (the adsorption isotherm). Since we know the dependence of the parameters on strain, we can calculate the adsorption isotherm for a strain of $`\pm 2`$%, at $`300`$ K.

We first consider Model I, which assumes that $`\epsilon _{nn}=\epsilon _{nnn}=0`$ and includes the effect of the interactions between the molecules in the adsorption energy $`\overline{\epsilon }_a`$. The magnitude of $`\overline{\epsilon }_a`$ is given in Table I, for different coverages and strains. The values at other coverages are obtained by interpolation. For the vibrational frequencies we use the mean of the values given in Table II.

The adsorption isotherm for Model I is calculated by setting $`\mu _g`$ given by Eq. (3) equal to $`\mu _a`$ given by Eq. (2), with $`ϵ_{nn}=0`$ and $`ϵ_a`$ replaced with $`\overline{ϵ}_a`$. This gives us an equation connecting the gas pressure to the coverage (the adsorption isotherm). The dependence of coverage on the gas pressure obtained with this method is plotted in Fig. 3(a), for 0 and $`\pm 2`$ % strains, at $`T=300`$ K.

In the next calculation we use Model II, which assumes that the adsorption energy $`ϵ_a`$ is independent of coverage, that the nearest-neighbors interact with the energy $`ϵ_{nn}`$, and that $`ϵ_{nnn}=0`$. The isotherm is obtained by making $`\mu _a=\mu _g`$. The resulting adsorption isotherm is plotted in Fig. 3(b).

It is clear that in both models the strain has a very large effect on chemisorption. For example, the Fig. 3(b) shows that at $`10^6`$ Torr the CO coverage on the unstrained surface is $`0.64`$ ML. Stretching the metal to increase the lattice constant by $`2`$% changes the coverage to $`0.92`$ ML. Another way to look at this is to note that a coverage of 0.7 is achieved at roughly $`1.2\times 10^8`$ Torr if the lattice constant is increased by $`2`$%, at $`1.2\times 10^6`$ Torr if the surface is not strained, and at $`10^3`$ Torr if the lattice constant is decreased by $`2`$%. These effects are large enough to be easily detected experimentally, if one could find a convenient way to strain the surface in ultra-high vacuum.

### B Monte Carlo simulation

We use grand-canonical Monte Carlo (MC) calculations to determine the coverage of CO on the Pd(100) surface, at given gas pressure and temperature. The methodology is presented well in an excellent book by Frenkel and Smit so there is no need to discuss it here. The Hamiltonian consists of the adsorption energy $`\epsilon _a`$ multiplied by the number of adsorbed molecules, plus the pairwise interaction energy $`\epsilon _{nn}`$ multiplied by the number distinct nearest-neigbor pairs, plus the energy $`\epsilon _{nnn}`$ multiplied by the number of distinct next-nearest-neighbor pairs, plus the adsorption energy, plus the vibrational energies of the adsorbate. The chemical potential of the gas is calculated from Eq. (3). We use $`1000\times 1000`$ lattice sites.

The results of the simulations are plotted in Fig. 4 for $`T=300`$ K. As in the calculations performed in the previous section, we find that strain substantially affects the surface coverage. For example, at a pressure of $`10^4`$ Torr and a temperature of 300 K, the coverage is $`0.70`$ for $`2\%`$ strain, $`0.66`$ in the absence of strain, and $`0.57`$ for $`2\%`$ strain. The effect is much stronger if the quasi-chemical approximation is used (see Fig. 3 (b)), but we attribute this to inaccuracies in Model II. The discrepancy between this model and the Monte Carlo simulation is so great that we have to discount Model II as insufficiently accurate. We suspect that this is due to the neglect of the repulsive, next-nearest-neighbor interactions, which makes the coverage given by Model II larger than in reality (here the Monte Carlo simulation is the “reality”). Model I is so far off from both the quasichemical approximation and the Monte Carlo simulation that it should be completely discarded. This is a pity since, had it been correct, this model would have allowed a very simple interpretation of the experiments.

## V Summary

We have studied how uniform strain in the plane parallel to the (100) surface of palladium affects the properties of chemisorbed CO. The effect on the vibrational frequencies is small: it is comparable to or less than that observed for the molecule located in different binding sites. The shift in the stretch frequency of CO is sufficiently large to be detected by infrared spectroscopy. The effect on the binding energy at low coverage is larger. We found the weakest binding when the surface is compressed (i.e. for $`2`$ % strain). Releasing the compressive strain raises the binding energy by 0.025 eV. Going to a tensile strain of $`2\%`$ increases the binding energy by another 0.027 eV. From the equilibrium condition ( $`\mu _g`$ given by Eq.(3) is equal to $`\mu _{ad}`$ given by Eq.(2) ) we see that the logarithm of the equilibrium pressure is proportional to the adsorption energy. This means that small changes in the adsorption energy lead to large changes in the equilibrium pressure. While the quasi-chemical approximation is not quantitatively accurate, this particular prediction is reliable. It is indeed confirmed by the Monte Carlo simulations.

It is interesting to speculate on the broader consequences of these findings. Ibach’s experiments showed that chemisorption induces surface strain, which results in the bending of the thin slab on which the adsorption was performed. This means that in all equilibrium studies we ought to take strain as an additional thermodynamic variable and stress as its conjugate variable. It follows that all equilibria will depend on the strain state of the surface. Moreover, the outcome of transformations performed at constant strain will be different from that of transformations taking place at constant stress, just as transformations at constant volume differ from those at constant pressure. This will affect the adsorption isotherm and chemical equilibrium at the surface. Since strain affects equilibrium, detailed balance tells us that it must also affect kinetics. The only question is whether the modifications caused by strain are large enough to make it necessary to include them in a thermodynamic analysis of surface phenomena. The present work suggests that they are, and therefore they deserve further study.

Besides using simple mechanical means, one could induce strain by passing sound through the solid. In particular, the excitation of the Rayleigh mode would seem most effective, since it affects the surface more than other modes. Based on our calculations one would expect desorption to occur from the regions compressed by the sound wave. Moreover, chemical equilibrium on the surface is likely to be affected. Indeed, Krishner and Lichtman have shown that passing sound through a surface causes desorption of the molecules adsorbed on it. Inoue et al.  have demonstrated that sound affects the yield of catalytic reactions. Prompted by these experiments King et al. have performed careful ultra-high vacuum experiments in which the interplay between sound and chemisorbed molecules can be studied in a clean and controlled environment. They found that exposing a Pt surface to sound can change the rate of CO oxidation. By using photo-electron microscopy, Kelling, Cerasari, Rotermundt, Ertl and King  have shown that the reaction is affected mostly by controlling CO adsorption at given CO pressure.

In most “sonochemistry”, sound acts by heating and compressing the system. This is not the case in the surface science experiments mentioned above, which have ruled out heating effects. The effect of sound on chemical reaction is very hard to explain by conventional arguments: sound frequency is very low and excites phonons of long wavelength with very low energy. It is unlikely that these can affect the rate of chemical processes. For this reason we speculate that perhaps it is the strain induced by the sound wave that plays a role in the process. The fact that the presence of sound does not affect the activation energy of the oxidation reaction but influences the CO coverage supports t his view.

We expect that strain effects also play a role in supported catalysts, especially those using small clusters. When such a cluster is deposited on a support it suffers two modifications: a charge rearrangement and a distortion of its geometry (strain). It is therefore possible that a part of the change in the catalytic activity cause by depositing clusters on a inert support comes from the strain.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Nick Blake, Ross Larsen and Professor Jurgen Hafner for help with the computations. We are grateful to Jens Norskov for many useful discussions in the early stages of this work. This work has been supported by AFOSR F49620-98-1-0366, by NSF (through CDA96-01954), and by Silicon Graphics Inc.


text:
# Mirror Neutrinos and the Early Universe

## 1 Lorentz Group: Full and Exact

The Exact Parity Model (EPM) sees the ordinary particle sector reflected, darkly, in a mirror sector.1,2,3 It is a phenomenologically acceptable extension of the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics which displays invariance under Improper Lorentz Transformations (Parity and Time-Reversal invariance). Remarkably, the invariance or otherwise of microphysical laws and the physical vacuum under the full Lorentz Group is still an open question, despite the $`VA`$ character of weak interactions.

Almost as a byproduct, the EPM furnishes a unified solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems; it can also easily accomodate the LSND result.3 In this talk I will review the resolution of the neutrino anomalies within the EPM. I will also discuss how the oscillation driven relic neutrino asymmetry amplification mechanism4 ensures consistency with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN).5

Consider your favourite parity-violating Lagrangian $`(\psi )`$ which is invariant under gauge group $`G`$. Here I take $``$ to be the Lagrangian of the minimal SM augmented by right-handed neutrinos and nonzero neutrino masses. I also go to the region of parameter space where the see-saw mechanism operates, so the ordinary left-handed neutrinos are naturally very light Majorana particles. For every ordinary field $`\psi `$, introduce a mirror or parity partner $`\psi ^{}`$. All ordinary fields are parity-doubled, including gauge and Higgs bosons. The new Lagrangian

$$(\psi ,\psi ^{})=(\psi )+(\psi ^{})$$
(1)
is a parity-invariant extension of $``$ with gauge group $`GG`$. The ordinary and mirror sectors couple by gravitation only at this stage. It is clear, therefore, that the parity-invariant theory has the same particle phenomenology as the original. It is also immediately obvious that the mirror sector is astrophysically and cosmologically dark. At least part of the “missing mass” in the universe may be in the form of mirror gas, mirror stars and the like. It is important to realise that the physical equivalence of the ordinary and mirror sectors at the microscopic level does not inevitably imply equivalent macrophysics. Some of the dark matter can be mirror matter without requiring the universe to at all stages consist of an equal mixture of ordinary and mirror particles. For specific mechanisms see Ref.6.

In general, the ordinary and mirror sectors will also interact non-gravitationally. The interaction Lagrangian $`_{\mathrm{int}}(\psi ,\psi ^{})`$ is the sum of all renormalisable, gauge and parity-invariant terms which couple the $`\psi `$ to the $`\psi ^{}`$. In the EPM based on the SM, these terms are proportional to3

$$F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{},\varphi ^{}\varphi \varphi ^{}\varphi ^{},\overline{\mathrm{}}_L\varphi (\nu _L^{})^c+\overline{\mathrm{}}_R^{}\varphi ^{}(\nu _R)^c,\overline{\nu }_R\nu _L^{}+\overline{\nu }_L^{}\nu _R,$$
(2)
where $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength tensor of the weak hypercharge gauge field, $`\varphi `$ is the Higgs doublet, $`\mathrm{}_L`$ is a left-handed lepton doublet while $`\nu _R`$ is a right-handed neutrino. The primed fields are mirror partners. Thus $`\nu _L^{}`$ is the mirror partner of $`\nu _R`$, and they are both gauge singlets. The leptonic terms have suppressed family indices. Each term in Eq.(2) is multiplied by an a priori arbitrary parameter. The full Lagrangian of the EPM is

$$(\psi ,\psi ^{})=(\psi )+(\psi ^{})+_{\mathrm{int}}(\psi ,\psi ^{}).$$
(3)
The parameters controlling the strength of the first two terms in Eq.(2), which induce photon–mirror-photon and Higgs–mirror-Higgs mixing respectively, are constrained to be small by BBN.

The construction above ensures invariance under the non-standard parity transformation $`\psi \stackrel{P^{}}{}\psi ^{}`$. By decomposing the standard $`CPT`$ operator via $`CPTP^{}T^{}`$, we see that non-standard time reversal under $`T^{}`$ also follows. The full Lorentz Group is a symmetry of Eq.(3). It is straightforward to check that a large region of Higgs potential parameter space admits a $`P^{}`$ symmetric vacuum.2 For your amusement, observe that the Exact Parity construction is quite similar to supersymmetry in that both involve extensions of the Proper Lorentz Group and both require particle doubling. These “orthogonal” possibilities are summarised in Fig.1.

## 2 Mirror Neutrino Solution to the Solar and Atmospheric Neutrino Problems

The last two terms in Eq.(2) cause ordinary and mirror neutrinos to mix. For full details about the mass matrix, its diagonalisation and the see-saw mechanism see Ref.3. It will suffice here to present a fairly model-independent discussion. Suppose some mechanism, for instance the see-saw as considered above, produces three light ordinary neutrinos and three light mirror neutrinos. Mixing will also be present. In the region of parameter space where interfamily mixing is small, three pairs of parity-eigenstate and therefore maximally-mixed ordinary and mirror neutrinos are produced. The pairwise maximal mixing is enforced by the unbroken parity symmetry. The mass eigenstate neutrinos of family $`\alpha `$, where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$, are given by

$$|\nu _{\alpha \pm }=\frac{|\nu _\alpha \pm |\nu _\alpha ^{}}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
(4)
This mass eigenstate pattern is identical to the pseudo-Dirac case as far as terrestrial experiments are concerned, because the mirror neutrinos are effectively sterile. The EPM is in part an explicit theory of light sterile neutrinos, with the important additional feature of pairwise maximal mixing with the corresponding ordinary neutrino. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values are in general arbitrary parameters.

The atmospheric neutrino data can be explained by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ oscillation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu \mu ^{}}^2=10^310^2`$ eV2. The observed $`\pi /4`$ mixing angle is a successful prediction of the EPM. Most of the solar neutrino data can be analogously explained by maximal $`\nu _e\nu _e^{}`$ oscillations, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ee^{}}^2=4\times 10^{10}10^3`$ eV2 (the Homestake data point is lower than the EPM expectation). Neutral current measurements will further test these hypotheses or rule them out. The LSND results can be accomodated by switching on the appropriate amount of small interfamily mixing.3

## 3 Early Universe Cosmology

Theories with light sterile or mirror neutrinos give rise to interesting early universe cosmology. It has been shown that ordinary-sterile (or ordinary-mirror) neutrino oscillations can dynamically amplify the CP asymmetry of the primordial plasma through the production of large relic neutrino-antineutrino asymmetries or chemical potentials.4,5 The $`\alpha `$-like asymmetry $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ is defined by

$$L_{\nu _\alpha }=\frac{n_{\nu _\alpha }n_{\overline{\nu }_\alpha }}{n_\gamma },$$
(5)
where $`n_f`$ is the number density of species $`f`$. The oscillation-driven amplification mechanism can generate asymmetries as high as about $`3/8`$. This should be compared to the known baryon asymmetry which is at the $`10^{10}`$ level.

A $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ ordinary-mirror mode will generate a large asymmetry prior to the BBN epoch provided the oscillation parameters satisfy5

$`10^{10}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\alpha \beta ^{}}\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{few}\times 10^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{eV}^2}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2|}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2<0,|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2|\stackrel{>}{}10^4\mathrm{eV}^2.`$ (6)
The small vacuum mixing angle required means that only interfamily $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ $`(\alpha \beta )`$ modes can drive this phenomenon.

Large neutrino asymmetries have two important consequences. First, they suppress ordinary-mirror oscillations and hence mirror neutrino production in the early universe. Such a suppression mechanism is very welcome, because successful BBN will not be achieved if the mirror sector is in thermal equilibrium with the ordinary sector during the BBN epoch. The doubling in the expansion rate of the universe that would result is not compatible with light element abundance observations. Second, a $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ asymmetry of the correct magnitude will appreciably affect the neutron-proton interconversion rates and hence also the primoridal Helium abundance. This can be conveniently quantified by quoting an effective number of relativistic neutrino flavours $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ during BBN. Depending on the sign, an $`e`$-like asymmetry can increase or decrease $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ from its canonical value of 3.

A full analysis within the EPM of neutrino asymmetry generation and implications for BBN can be found in Ref.5. I can provide only a very brief summary here.

The mirror neutrino suppression mechanism relies on the effective potential for the $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ in primordial plasma. For temperatures between the muon annihilation epoch and BBN it is given by

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{2}G_Fn_\gamma \left[L^{(\alpha )}L^{(\beta )}A_\alpha \frac{T^2}{M_W^2}\frac{p}{p}\right],$$
(7)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant, $`M_W`$ is the $`W`$-boson mass and $`A_\alpha `$ is a numerical factor, $`p`$ is the neutrino momentum or energy with $`p3.15T`$ being its thermal average. The effective asymmetry $`L^{(\alpha )}`$ is given by

$$L^{(\alpha )}=L_{\nu _\alpha }+L_{\nu _e}+L_{\nu _\mu }+L_{\nu _\tau }+\eta $$
(8)
where $`\eta `$ is a small term due to the baryon and electron asymmetries. If the effective asymmetry is large, then the large matter potential will suppress the associated oscillation mode. Under the conditions discussed above, a small angle $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ^{}`$ $`(\alpha \beta )`$ mode will generate a brief period of exponential growth of $`L_{\nu _\alpha }`$ at a critical temperature $`T_c`$ given approximately by $`T_c16[(|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\alpha \beta ^{}}^2|/\mathrm{eV}^2)\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{\alpha \beta ^{}}]^{1/6}`$ MeV.

Consider the parameter space region

$$m_{\nu _{\tau \pm }}m_{\nu _{\mu \pm }}m_{\nu _{e\pm }}$$
(9)
with the $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ splittings relatively small. Let the interfamily mixing angles be small. Focus on the $`\tau \mu `$ subsystem, set $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu \mu ^{}}^2`$ to the atmospheric anomaly range, and set $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\tau \tau ^{}}^2=0`$ for simplicity. The $`\nu _\tau \nu _\mu ^{}`$ mode satisfies the conditions for generating a large $`L_{\nu _\tau }`$. Considered by itself, this generates a large $`\mu \mu ^{}`$-like effective asymmetry $`L^{(\mu )}L^{(\mu )}`$ and so suppresses the maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ mode. This prevents the $`\nu _\mu ^{}`$ from thermally equilibrating. However, it turns out that the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ tries to destroy its effective $`\mu \mu ^{}`$-like asymmetry. For a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu \mu ^{}}^2`$, there is a region of $`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\tau \mu ^{}}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\tau \mu ^{}})`$ parameter space in which $`L^{(\mu )}L^{(\mu )}`$ is not efficiently destroyed, and another region in which it is. To analyse this complicated dynamics, one must solve a set of coupled Quantum Kinetic Equations. The outcome is displayed in Fig.2. The three solid lines correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mu \mu ^{}}^2=10^3,10^{2.5},10^2`$ eV2 from bottom to top. Above the solid line, $`\nu _\mu ^{}`$ production via $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu ^{}`$ is negligible. Below the line, the $`\nu _\mu ^{}`$ is brought into thermal equilibrium. The dot-dashed line refers $`\nu _\mu ^{}`$ production by the asymmetry-creating mode $`\nu _\tau \nu _\mu ^{}`$. To the left of the line, $`N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}<3.6`$. The BBN “bound” of $`3.6`$ was chosen for illustrative purposes only. It is interesting that the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\tau \mu ^{}}^2`$ values required for consistency with BBN are compatible with a $`\nu _\tau `$ mass in the hot dark matter range (shaded band).

A lengthy analysis allows one to also estimate the $`e`$-like asymmetry that gets generated if the $`e`$ family couples non-negligibly with the more massive families.5 It turns out that the mass-squared difference between the first and second families, denoted $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{small}}^2`$ in Ref.5, plays an important role. The results for $`\delta N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}3`$ depend on the sign of the asymmetry generated, which unfortunately cannot be predicted at present because it depends on the unknown initial values of the asymmetries.4 The point is simply that an unknown mechanism, not associated with light neutrino oscillations, may generate nonzero asymmetries at some much earlier epoch. While the final magnitudes of the asymmetries around the time of BBN are insensitive to the initial values provided the latter are small, the same is not true for the overall signs of the asymmetries. The signs could also be affected by spatial inhomogeneities in the baryon asymmetry.7 The convenient quantity $`\delta N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ will be greater or less than zero depending on the sign of $`L_{\nu _e}`$. The results show that $`\delta N_{\nu ,\mathrm{eff}}`$ gets to the $`\pm 1`$ regime for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{small}}^2`$ values in the eV2 to few eV2 range. Interestingly, this puts the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mass-squared difference in the LSND regime. Improved primordial abundance measurements are needed before definite conclusions can be drawn about the cosmologically favoured first-second family mass splitting in the EPM.

At this meeting, A. Dolgov8 argued that the oscillation-driven neutrino asymmetry amplification mechanism cannot generate asymmetries as high as claimed in Refs.4,5. I do not agree. Space limitations prevent discussion of these issues here. See Ref.9 for comments on the criticisms of Dolgov et al.

## 4 Conclusions

The Mirror or Exact Parity Model solves the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems in a cosmologically consistent way. It is also compatible with the LSND result. The role of neutrino oscillations prior and during BBN is quite remarkable because of the relic neutrino asymmetry amplification phenomenon. If they exist, light mirror neutrinos will make life and the universe even more interesting!

## Acknowledgments

Warmest thanks to Rachel Jeannerot, Goran Senjanovic and Alexei Smirnov for organising this interesting meeting. I acknowledge lively discussions during the meeting with Z. Berezhiani, A. Dolgov, K. Enqvist, K. Kainulainen, S. Pastor and A. Sorri on topics relevant to this paper. I would like to thank Nicole Bell, Roland Crocker, Pasquale Di Bari, Robert Foot, Keith Lee, Paolo Lipari, Maurizio Lusignoli and Yvonne Wong for their collegiality and their insights. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council.

## References

Unfortunately, space does not permit full referencing here. The numbers appearing after references below correspond to the appropriate citations contained in Ref.5.  1.  3.  4.  24; 25; 26; 28; 29; P. Di Bari, P. Lipari and M. Lusignoli, hep-ph/9907548, Int. J. Mod. Phys. (in press); P. Di Bari, these proceedings.  R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, hep-ph/9904336, Phys. Rev. D (in press).  E. W. Kolb, D. Seckel and M. S. Turner, Nature 514, 415 (1985); H. M. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D 47, 456 (1993); V. Berezinsky and A. Vilenkin, hep-ph/9908257; Z. Berezhiani, these proceedings.  P. Di Bari, hep-ph/9911214.  A. Dolgov, these proceedings.  P. Di Bari and R. Foot, hep-ph/9912215; A. Sorri, hep-ph/9911366.


text:
# On embeddings into toric prevarieties

## Introduction

This note is concerned with embeddability and non-embeddability into toric prevarieties. Włodarczyk  has shown that a normal variety $`Y`$ admits a closed embedding into a toric variety $`X`$ if and only if every pair $`y_1,y_2Y`$ is contained in a common affine open neighbourhood. If one drops the latter condition there still exists a closed embedding into some toric prevariety $`X`$. This means that $`X`$ may be non-separated.

The above embedding result has the following refinement: Supposing that $`Y`$ is $``$-factorial one can choose $`X`$ to be simplicial and of affine intersection. In other words, $`X`$ is $``$-factorial and the intersection of any two affine open subsets of $`X`$ is again affine (see  and ). Embeddings into toric prevarieties of affine intersection can for example be used to obtain global resolutions of coherent sheaves on $`Y`$ (see ).

The purpose of this note is to find out whether or not every normal variety $`Y`$ can be embedded into a toric prevariety $`X`$ which is simplicial or of affine intersection. Unfortunately, the answer is negative: We provide examples of normal surfaces that admit neither embeddings into toric prevarieties of affine intersection nor into simplicial ones.

Together with Włodarczyk’s embedding result, these counterexamples imply that there are toric prevarieties of affine intersection that cannot be embedded into simplicial toric prevarieties of affine intersection. An analogous statement is easily seen to hold in the category of toric varieties, since there are complete toric varieties with trivial Picard group (see for example ).

## 1. Non-projective complete surfaces

Here we briefly discuss some properties of complete normal surfaces which are non-projective. First, we have to fix notation. Throughout, we will work over an uncountable algebraically closed ground field $`k`$. The word prevariety refers to an integral $`k`$-scheme of finite type. A variety is a separated prevariety, and a surface is a 2-dimensional variety. By a toric prevariety we mean a prevariety $`X`$ arising from a system of fans in some lattice $`N`$ in the sense of . For $`k=`$ this notion precisely yields the normal prevarieties $`X`$ endowed with an effective regular action of a torus $`T`$ with an open orbit.

The following facts are well known (compare , theorem 4.2, and ):

###### Proposition 1.1.

Let $`S`$ be a normal surface and denote by $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_nS`$ its non-$``$-factorial singularities.

1. The surface $`S`$ is quasi-projective if and only if the points $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_n`$ have a common affine neighbourhood.
2. The surface $`S`$ admits a closed embedding into a toric variety if and only if every pair $`s_i,s_j`$ lies in a common affine neighbourhood.

In view of these statements, the simplest possible candidate for a normal variety without closed embeddings into toric prevarieties of affine intersection is a normal surface having precisely two non-$``$-factorial singularities $`s_1,s_2S`$. In fact we will work with surfaces of this type.

Let $`S`$ be a complete normal surface. There is a projective reduction $`r:SS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ of $`S`$, which means that the morphism $`r`$ is universal with respect to morphisms to projective schemes (see ). Since $`𝒪_{S^{\mathrm{prj}}}r_{}(𝒪_S)`$ is necessarily bijective, the projective scheme $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ is normal and the fibres of $`r`$ are connected.

If $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ is a curve, any Weil divisor $`E`$ on $`S`$ has a decomposition

$$E=E^{\mathrm{vert}}+E^{\mathrm{hor}}$$

into the part $`E^{\mathrm{vert}}`$ consisting of those prime cycles of $`E`$ that are contained in the fibres of $`r`$ and the part $`E^{\mathrm{hor}}`$ which consists of the remaining prime cycles. A Weil divisor $`E`$ on $`S`$ is called vertical if $`E=E^{\mathrm{vert}}`$, and it is called horizontal if $`E=E^{\mathrm{hor}}`$.

For a Weil divisor $`D`$ on a variety $`Y`$ and $`yY`$, we denote by $`D_y`$ the Weil divisor obtained from $`D`$ by omitting all prime cycles not containing the point $`y`$. The following statement will be crucial for non-embeddability:

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`S`$ be a complete normal surface with precisely two non-$``$-factorial singularities $`s_1`$, $`s_2S`$. Assume that $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ is a curve and that every vertical Weil divisor on $`S`$ is $``$-Cartier. If $`E`$ is a $``$-Cartier divisor on $`S`$ with $`E_{s_2}0`$ and $`E^{\mathrm{hor}}0`$, then $`E_{s_1}^{\mathrm{hor}}`$ is not effective.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`E_{s_1}^{\mathrm{hor}}0`$ holds. Since $`E`$ and $`E^{\mathrm{vert}}`$ are $``$-Cartier, so is their difference $`E^{\mathrm{hor}}`$. Consider the decomposition

$$E^{\mathrm{hor}}=E_+^{\mathrm{hor}}+E_{}^{\mathrm{hor}}$$

into positive and negative parts. Since $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ are not contained in $`E_{}^{\mathrm{hor}}`$, the surface $`S`$ is $``$-factorial near $`E_{}^{\mathrm{hor}}`$. So $`E_{}^{\mathrm{hor}}`$ is $``$-Cartier. Hence $`E_+^{\mathrm{hor}}`$ is also $``$-Cartier . As $`E^{\mathrm{hor}}0`$, there must be at least one horizontal Cartier divisor $`CS`$.

Consider the invertible sheaf $`=𝒪_S(C)`$. Obviously, $``$ is $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$-generated on $`SC`$. Since $`CS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ is finite, we can apply , Theorem 1.1 (over affine open subsets $`\mathrm{Spec}(\mathrm{R})\mathrm{S}^{\mathrm{prj}}`$), and deduce that $`^n`$ is $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$-generated for some $`n>0`$. Consequently, the homogeneous spectrum

$$S^{}=\mathrm{Proj}(f_{}\mathrm{Sym}())$$

is a projective $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$-scheme, hence projective. But $``$ is ample on the generic fibre of $`r:SS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$, contradicting the universal property of the projective reduction. ∎

###### Remark 1.3.

Surfaces as above really exist, compare , 2.5. Here the assumption that the ground field $`k`$ is uncountable comes in.

We will also make use of the following elementary fact:

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`f:YX`$ be a morphism of integral normal prevarieties. Given a Cartier divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$ such that the preimage $`E:=f^{}(D)`$ exists as Cartier divisor. Decompose $`D=_i\lambda _iD_i`$ and $`E=_j\mu _jE_j`$ into prime cycles. If there is a component $`E_j`$ with $`\mu _j<0`$, then there is a component $`D_i`$ with $`\lambda _i<0`$ and $`f(E_j)D_i`$.

###### Proof.

Assume there is no such $`D_i`$. Decompose $`D=D_+D_{}`$ into positive and negative parts. Then we have $`E_jf^1(D_{})`$. Hence the restriction of $`E`$ to $`Yf^1(D_{})`$ is not effective. On the other hand, the restriction of $`D`$ to $`XD_{}`$ is effective, contradiction. ∎

## 2. Non-embeddability

Recall that a scheme $`X`$ is separated if the diagonal morphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }:XX\times X`$ is a closed embedding. A weaker condition is that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is affine. In this situation we call $`X`$ to be of affine intersection. To check this property it suffices to find an open affine covering $`X=_iX_i`$ such that each intersection $`X_iX_j`$ is affine. Clearly, if $`X`$ is of affine intersection, every subscheme is so.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`S`$ be a complete normal surface with precisely two non-$``$-factorial singularities $`s_1,s_2S`$. Assume that the projective reduction $`S^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ is a curve and that all irreducible components of the fibres of $`r:SS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$ are $``$-Cartier. Let $`f:SX`$ be a morphism to a toric prevariety $`X`$. If $`X`$ is simplicial or of affine intersection, then there is a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}:S^{\mathrm{prj}}X`$ with $`f=\stackrel{~}{f}r`$.

Let us record the following evident

###### Corollary 2.2.

The surface $`S`$ is neither embeddable into a toric prevariety of affine intersection nor into a simplicial toric prevariety.

Proof of theorem 2.1. First we treat the case that $`X`$ is of affine intersection. Let $`T`$ denote the acting torus of $`X`$. There is a unique $`T`$-orbit $`BX`$ such that $`f(S)\overline{B}`$ holds. Note that $`\overline{B}`$ is again a toric prevariety of affine intersection. Replacing $`X`$ by $`\overline{B}`$ we may assume that $`f(S)`$ hits the open $`T`$-orbit.

Set $`x_1:=f(s_1)`$ and $`x_2:=f(s_2)`$. For $`i=1,2`$ let $`X_iX`$ be the affine $`T`$-stable neighborhoods containing $`Tx_i`$ as closed orbits, respectively. Set $`N:=Hom(k^{},T)`$ and let $`M:=Hom(N,)`$. Then we have

$$X_i=X_{\sigma _i}=\mathrm{Spec}(k[\sigma _i^{}M])$$

for certain cones $`\sigma _i`$ in the lattice $`N`$. Since $`X`$ is of affine intersection, the set $`X_{12}:=X_1X_2`$ is of the form $`X_{12}=X_{\sigma _{12}}`$ for some common face $`\sigma _{12}`$ of $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. Hence there is a linear form $`uM`$ with

$$u\sigma _1^{}\mathrm{and}\sigma _{12}=\sigma _1u^{}.$$

Since $`f(S)`$ hits the open $`T`$-orbit, all characters $`\chi ^m`$, $`mM`$, admit pullbacks $`f^{}(\chi ^m)`$ as rational functions. In particular $`\chi ^u`$ has a pullback $`\psi `$ with respect to $`f`$, and the principal divisor $`\mathrm{div}(\chi ^u)`$ has the principal divisor $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )`$ as pullback. Since $`\chi ^u`$ is defined on $`X_1`$, we have

$$\mathrm{div}(\psi )_{s_1}0.$$

We claim that no component of $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )_{s_1}`$ contains the point $`s_2S`$. Otherwise, let $`ES`$ be such a component. Then there exists a $`T`$-stable component $`D_1X_1`$ of $`\mathrm{div}(\chi ^u)X_1`$ containing $`f(E)X_1`$. This component corresponds to an edge $`\varrho _1\sigma _1`$. Note that by , p. 61 we have $`\varrho _1u^{}`$. Take the closure $`D:=\overline{D_1}`$ in $`X`$, set $`D_2:=DX_2`$, and let $`\varrho _2\sigma _2`$ be the edge corresponding to $`D_2X_2`$. Then $`s_2E`$ implies

$$x_2=f(s_2)f(E)X_2D_2.$$

Thus $`DX_2`$ is non-empty, hence $`D_{12}:=DX_{12}`$ is a $`T`$-stable Weil divisor in $`X_{12}=X_{\sigma _{12}}`$. Let $`\varrho _{12}\sigma _{12}`$ be the edge corresponding to $`D_{12}X_{12}`$. Since $`D_{12}`$ is induced by $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ as well, we conclude $`\varrho _1=\varrho _{12}=\varrho _2`$. Thus we have $`\varrho _1\sigma _{12}u^{}`$, contradicting $`\varrho _1u^{}`$. As a consequence of our claim, $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )_{s_1}`$ is an effective $``$-Cartier divisor. According to lemma 1.2, the divisor $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )_{s_1}`$ is vertical.

Next, we show that for every principal divisor $`D=\mathrm{div}(\chi ^m)`$, $`mM`$ its pullback to $`S`$ is vertical. It suffices to check this for a set of generators of $`M`$, for example $`M\sigma _2^{}`$. Assume that there is some $`mM\sigma _2^{}`$ such that $`E:=f^{}(D)`$ is not vertical. Decompose $`D=_i\lambda _iD_i`$ and $`E=_j\mu _jE_j`$ into prime cycles. Since $`D_{x_2}0`$, we also have $`E_{s_2}0`$. By lemma 1.2 there must be some horizontal component $`E_j`$ containing $`s_1`$ with $`\mu _j<0`$. Lemma 1.4 tells us that there is some component $`D_i`$ with $`\lambda _i<0`$ and $`f(E_j)D_i`$. In particular we have $`x_1D_i`$. Let $`\varrho _i\sigma _1`$ be the edge corresponding to the $`T`$-invariant Weil divisor $`D_iX_1`$. Since $`x_2D_i`$ we have $`\varrho _i\sigma _{12}`$. Hence $`\varrho _i\sigma _1u^{}`$, and $`D_i`$ occurs with positive multiplicity in $`\mathrm{div}(\chi ^u)_{x_1}`$. On the other hand, we already have seen that $`\mathrm{div}(\psi )_{s_1}`$ is vertical. Consequently, $`E_jf^1(D_i)`$ is also vertical, contradiction. We have shown that $`\mathrm{div}(f^{}(\chi ^m))`$ is vertical for all $`mM`$.

As a consequence, the induced morphism $`f^1(T)T`$ is constant along the generic fibre of $`r:SS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$. By the rigidity lemma (see for example , 1.5), all fibres of $`r`$ are mapped to points under $`f:SX`$. Now , 8.11.1 gives a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{f}:S^{\mathrm{prj}}X`$ with $`f=\stackrel{~}{f}r`$. This proves the theorem for toric prevarieties of affine intersection.

It remains to treat the case that $`X`$ is simplicial. According to , Section 1, there is a toric prevariety $`X^{}`$ of affine intersection and a local isomorphism $`g:XX^{}`$. As we have seen, $`gf`$ is constant along the fibres of $`r:SS^{\mathrm{prj}}`$. Since the fibres of $`r`$ are connected, this implies that $`f`$ is constant along the fibres of $`r`$, and we obtain the desired factorization as above.