text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can, in principle, enter the gravitational equations determining the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. It has been introduced by Einstein to save the universe from expanding, and rejected by him after expansion had been discovered by Hubble. Historically, the next stage of development regarding this constant can be characterized as the search for a mechanism which would allow to put the effective cosmological constant, being the sum of contributions from vacuum fluctuations and a constant from gravity, to zero  (for other reviews see  and ). Such an explanation is desirable to avoid fine-tuning problems. No generally accepted mechanism has been found. However, something unexpected emerged from the recent measurement of cosmological parameters whose values seem to favour an open accelerating universe . One of the theoretical models, in agreement with such a scenario, is Einstein’s gravity with a positive cosmological constant . The theoretical efforts shifted then to finding an explanation for the actual value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. One approach invokes the anthropic principle  i.e. by considering an ensemble of possible universes (be it by inflation  or quantum cosmology ) with different cosmological constants; the latter characterized by probability distributions .

Since for a long time the bias has been towards $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and, if at all, the applications of models containing a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ were thought to be important only at cosmological scales, not much attention was paid to the Newtonian limit in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We will show, however, that some new results of the Newtonian limit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being non-zero can be derived, and that given the presently favoured value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the vacuum force induced by it is non-negligible at astrophysical scale of one Mpc and bigger. Hence astrophysical applications of such a vacuum force are not excluded (indeed we will show examples where it can be quite important). A careful re-examination of the Newtonian limit, especially when it reveals some new insights, is therefore welcome.

The Newtonian limit of Einsteins’s gravity and its generalizations is given in the form of Poisson equation for the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ connected with the metric by the equation

$$g_{00}(1+2\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(1.1)
which follows from the equation of geodesics for a weak static field produced by non-relativistic mass distribution. Needless to say, the Poisson equation has to be supplemented by some boundary condition which in the simplest case, general relativity with zero cosmological constant, is more or less obvious. This is partly so, because we know of course what to expect from a Newtonian theory, it being chronologically before Einsteins’s gravity. In general, however, we have to make a decision about the kind of boundary condition (i.e. Dirichlet, von Neumann or mixed), where in space we want to put our boundary condition and what value the boundary condition is supposed to assume. Obviously with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ we have Dirichlet boundary conditions which we implement as $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_R=const`$ with $`R\mathrm{}`$. Note that we can choose safely the point $`R\mathrm{}`$ as it is indeed mathematically consistent (i.e. there is no other information following from the Newtonian limit which would contradict such a choice) as long as we keep in mind that from the physics point of view we should not extend the validity of the Newtonian limit to a scale of the size of the whole universe . Another point worth stressing is that general relativity offers yet another information on the Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is the Schwarzschild solution from which we know, via equation (1.1), the potential already for a point-like and/or spherically symmetric object. This is a valuable information since we then also know, without actually solving the Poisson equation, what the potential of any object will look like from far enough distances. We can use this as the value of the boundary condition at, say, the point $`R`$ with $`R\mathrm{}`$ in case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ as we said before, but not so in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ as we will show below.

All these simple and rather obvious considerations might change in more sophisticated cases. It is a curious fact that this already happens when a positive cosmological constant is switched on. What remains is the need for a suitable boundary condition which, one might be inclined to think, could be chosen also at $`R\mathrm{}`$ regardless of the fact that the potential assumes an infinite value there (we can treat this infinity as a constant and subtract it). But, as we will demonstrate in this work, the very same condition for the Newtonian approximation to hold, namely $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$ implies now also a restriction on the range of the distance $`r`$. In other words, there exist now a $`_{max}`$ and $`_{min}`$ dependent on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that

$$_{min}(\mathrm{\Lambda })r_{max}(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(1.2)
Therefore, it would be mathematically inconsistent to put our boundary condition at infinity. Similarly, the same requirement ($`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$) leads also to the existence of a maximum mass $`_{max}`$. Any mass $`M`$ considered in the Newtonian limit with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ has to satisfy

$$M_{max}(\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(1.3)
Both inequalities, (1.2) and (1.3), follow strictly from $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$.

## 2 The Newtonian limit of Einstein’s equations with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$

The weak field expansion in gravity starts by expressing the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ through the Minkowski metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and spin-2 field $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ (up to a multiplicative constant).

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\alpha \beta }+h_{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.1)
For a weak field we have

$$|h_{\alpha \beta }|1$$
(2.2)
This condition translates via (1.1) into

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }|1$$
(2.3)
In this limit Einstein’s equation with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ (we are using the conventions of )

$$_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=8\pi G_NT_{\mu \nu }$$
(2.4)
reduces, in the first approximation, to the Poisson equation of the form

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=(4\pi G_N)\rho \mathrm{\Lambda }$$
(2.5)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density function.

We mentioned already in the introduction that there is yet another information on $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is contained explicitly in the Schwarzschild solution, now with a non-zero cosmological constant. Hence for point-like and/or spherically symmetric objects we deduce using (1.1) that (see e.g. )

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r)=\frac{G_NM}{r}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2$$
(2.6)
which is valid outside the mass distribution. To examine the consequences of (2.3), it suffices for the moment to use $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as given in the last equation. We then have

$$G_NMd(r)r\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3$$
(2.7)
Several important conclusions can be drawn from (2.7). The very first one follows from the fact that we are only interested in values of $`r`$ bigger than or equal to zero and that the function $`d(r)`$ has a local maximum at

$$r_+=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}$$
(2.8)
Hence a necessary condition to satisfy (2.7) is

$$_{max}(\mathrm{\Lambda })\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\frac{1}{G_N\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}M$$
(2.9)
which is the explicit version of (1.3) announced in the Introduction. It follows that there exists a restriction on the absolute value of a mass which can be used in the Newtonian limit.

Further insight, now into the restrictions on the distance $`r`$ entering the Newtonian limit, can be obtained by considering the equation $`G_NM=d(r)`$ whose explicit form reads

$$r^3\left(\frac{6}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)r+6\frac{G_NM}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=0$$
(2.10)
On account of (2.9) there will be three real solutions of this equation, one negative and the other two positive. Consequently the discriminant $`D`$ of the cubic equation (2.10) is negative:

$$D=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left[9(G_NM)^2\frac{8}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right]<0$$
(2.11)
which, of course, is nothing else but equation (2.9) in a weaker form, $`M<_{max}`$. The fact that $`D<0`$ allows us now to find the three solutions using an auxiliary angle $`\sigma `$ or $`\sigma __0`$ given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\sigma =\mathrm{cos}\left(\sigma __0+\frac{\pi }{2}\right)=\frac{M}{_{max}}$$
(2.12)
In view of (2.9) we can actually write

$$\sigma __0\frac{M}{_{max}}$$
(2.13)
We then obtain for the three solutions the following parameterized expressions

$`R_0`$ $`=`$ $`2r_+\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __0}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}\right)`$
$`R_1`$ $`=`$ $`2r_+\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __0}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5\pi }{6}}\right)`$
$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`2r_+\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __0}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}\right)`$ (2.14)
where $`r_+`$ is given in (2.8). One can easily check that $`R_0<0`$ and $`R_{1,2}>0`$ as well as $`R_1>R_2`$. Obviously we can now identify $`R_1`$ with $`_{max}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and $`R_2`$ with $`_{min}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ in equation (1.2). More explicitly we obtain

$$_{max}\sqrt{\frac{6}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left[1\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}\frac{M}{_{max}}\right]r_{min}G_NM\left[1\frac{1}{54}\left(\frac{M}{_{max}}\right)^2\right]$$
(2.15)
where in the expansion for $`_{max,min}`$ we kept only the first corrections to the leading terms. Of course, the right-hand side of this inequality is well known. We keep it here only for completeness and to display corrections due to non-zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

To compare the curious fact given by (2.15) which puts an upper and lower bound on possible distances used in the Newtonian limit, let us briefly repeat the steps for the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. Since in this case we pick up a relative minus between the two terms in (2.6), we have to introduce a third scale defined by

$$\overline{}\left(\frac{6G_NM}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}\right)^{1/3}$$
(2.16)
Then in analogy to (2.7), we have,

$`G_NM\stackrel{~}{d}(r)`$ $``$ $`r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}|\mathrm{\Lambda }|r^3\mathrm{if}\overline{}>r`$
$`G_NMd(r)`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}|\mathrm{\Lambda }|r^3\mathrm{if}\overline{}<r`$ (2.17)
Let us first concentrate on the first case i.e. we assume that we are with our $`r`$ below the value $`\overline{}`$. The function $`\stackrel{~}{d}(r)`$ does not have a local maximum as it was the case with $`d(r)`$ in (2.7). No restriction on the value of the mass follows (the use of $`_{max}(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)`$ below is only for algebraic convenience). The solutions of the corresponding cubic equation give us only one real solution which can be identified with $`\stackrel{~}{}_{min}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The discriminant is now positive and correspondingly our parameterized solution is

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{min}(\mathrm{\Lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|}}}\mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }}{3}}`$
$`\mathrm{sinh}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{M}{_{max}}}`$ (2.18)
where in the last equation we assumed, strictly speaking, that $`M/_{max}1`$ as this does not follow stringently anymore. This assumption we will keep in the following for simplicity. It implies in particular that

$`\overline{}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_{min}`$ $`_{min}(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)`$
$`_{max}(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)`$ $`\overline{}`$ (2.19)
Our restriction on the distance $`r`$ reads in the case $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ as

$$r\stackrel{~}{}_{min}G_NM\left[1+\frac{M}{2_{max}(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)}\right]$$
(2.20)
which up to small corrections is the same as in the case with zero cosmological constant, provided that we are with our $`r`$ below $`\overline{}`$. A priori, however, there could exist universes with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ for which the crucial mass ratio $`M/_{max}`$ need not be small. Then we would have to work with the full solution in (2) without using the expansion of $`\mathrm{sinh}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. The coincidence which we had before with the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ case would vanish.

On the other hand choosing to go beyond $`\overline{}`$ implies that a consistent Newtonian limit is only possible for

$$r_{max}(|\mathrm{\Lambda }|)$$
(2.21)
Coming back to the situation where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ some comments on the actual present values of $`_{max}`$ and $`_{min,max}`$ are in order. It is convenient to express the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through a constant density called vacuum density $`\rho _{vac}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=8\pi G_N\rho _{vac}$$
(2.22)
Such a vacuum density is then best compared to the critical density of the universe

$$\rho _{crit}=3H_0^2/8\pi G_N$$
(2.23)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant given by $`H_0=100h_0\mathrm{kms}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. We can then write

$`_{max}`$ $`=`$ $`3.41\times 10^{22}h_0^1M_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{crit}}{\rho _{vac}}}\right)^{1/2}`$
$`_{max}`$ $`=`$ $`4.24\times 10^3\mathrm{Mpc}\left[h_0^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{crit}}{\rho _{vac}}}\right)^{1/2}5.64\times 10^{24}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_{}}}\right)\right]`$
$`_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`1.48\mathrm{km}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M}{M_{}}}\right)`$ (2.24)
where we have neglected corrections of the order $`(M/_{max})^2`$. With the recent measurements of crucial cosmological parameters , one of the favoured models in agreement with these measurements is an open universe with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$. The actual preferred value is $`\rho _{vac}(0.70.8)\rho _{crit}`$ . Then equation (2.15) together with (2) can be interpreted in two ways: (i) Even in a universe void of matter, but with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, the validity of the Newtonian limit for a test mass $`M`$ would be restricted by $`_{max}`$ and $`_{max,min}`$. As it happens $`_{max}`$ is close to the size of the universe at present and $`_{max}`$ to its mass. (ii) We could then equally well say, that the restrictions on the Newtonian limit in form of equations (2.15) and (2) taken with $`\rho _{vac}\rho _{crit}`$ simply tell us that we should not apply the Newtonian limit to the whole universe. This actually does not follow from $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$ when we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ as noted already in . Nevertheless the last two points remain curious facts concerning, say, any astrophysical applications at present in the universe we are living in. We emphasize that this is so, because of the small value of $`\rho _{vac}`$. This need not be so in other realistic investigations: (iii) We mention here the possibility of a time dependent $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which could have been larger in the past . (iv) An anthropic principle, modeling other possible universes (“real” or hypothetical) would necessarily have to rely on (2.15) when examining via the Newtonian limit structure formation in universes with a sizeable positive cosmological constant. (v) Extrapolating the fate of an open universe  with $`\rho _{vac}\rho _{crit}`$ (as our own universe seems to be) into a far future with $`_{univ.}_{max}`$ the restricting equations (2.15) and (2) have e.g. the virtue to tell us that even for a diluted conglomeration of clusters of the size $`_{max}`$ the Newtonian limit is not applicable. It is then legitimate to ask whether the fact that at present $`_{univ.}_{max}`$ is merely a coincidence.

## 3 Boundary condition and the solution of the Poisson equation

We choose Dirichlet boundary conditions setting the potential to a constant value at a distance $`R`$. This is almost as in the standard case with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ save for the fact that in view of (2.15) we cannot let the distance $`R`$ to go to infinity. Hence some finite effects of this finite value of $`R`$ are to be expected in the solution for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This is unlike the case with zero cosmological constant where the boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)|_R\mathrm{}=\mathrm{const}`$ does not leave any $`𝒙`$ dependent terms in the solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)`$.

The general solution in the case under consideration in a space region $`V`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}𝑑𝒙^{\mathbf{}}G(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})\left[G_N\rho (𝒙^{\mathbf{}}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{4\pi }}\right]`$ (3.1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _V}𝑑S^{}\mathrm{\Phi }|_V\widehat{𝒏}\mathbf{}_𝒙^{\mathbf{}}G(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})|_V`$
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_V`$ is the Dirichlet boundary condition chosen at the surface $`V`$ of the volume $`V`$. To be more specific we opt in this case for

$$\mathrm{\Phi }|_V=\mathrm{\Phi }|_R=\frac{G_NM}{R}\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2$$
(3.2)
i.e. the potential of a point mass as seen from the large distance $`R`$. $`G(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})`$ in (3.1) is the Green’s function which we give here in terms of spherical harmonics.

$`G(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi {\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Y_{lm}^{}(\theta ^{},\phi ^{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )}{2l+1}}`$ (3.3)
$`\times `$ $`r_<^l\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_>^{l+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_>^l}{R^{2l+1}}}\right]`$
with

$`r_<`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}(|𝒙|,|𝒙^{\mathbf{}}|)`$
$`r_>`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(|𝒙|,|𝒙^{\mathbf{}}|)`$ (3.4)
Solving the surface integral in (3.1) and using the identity

$$\frac{1}{|𝒙𝒙^{\mathbf{}}|}=4\pi \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{1}{2l+1}\frac{r_<^l}{r_>^{l+1}}Y_{lm}^{}(\theta ^{},\phi ^{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )$$
(3.5)
the solution can be conveniently rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)=`$ $``$ $`G_N{\displaystyle _V^{}}𝑑𝒙^{\mathbf{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (𝒙^{\mathbf{}})}{|𝒙𝒙^{\mathbf{}}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }|𝒙|^2`$ (3.6)
$`+`$ $`G_N{\displaystyle _V^{}}𝑑𝒙^{\mathbf{}}G^{}(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})\rho (𝒙^{\mathbf{}})`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{G_NM}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{\Lambda }R^2\right)`$
where $`V^{}V`$ is the space region in which $`\rho (𝒙^{\mathbf{}})0`$ and

$$G^{}(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})4\pi \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}\frac{Y_{lm}^{}(\theta ^{},\phi ^{})Y_{lm}(\theta ,\phi )}{2l+1}\frac{r_<^lr_>^l}{R^{2l+1}}$$
(3.7)
The last two equations are what we would like to call the ‘exact’ Newtonian limit of Einstein’s gravity with a positive cosmological constant. The first two terms in (3.6) are what we would naively expect were we allowed to put the boundary condition at $`R\mathrm{}`$. The third term represents exactly the effect of the boundary condition taken at finite distance $`R`$. The name ‘exact’ Newtonian limit simply refers to the fact that in view of (2.15) mathematical consistency forces us to put the boundary condition at a finite range which in turn implies (3.6). The last term in (3.6) is a constant and as such of no further importance.

It might appear that we have neglected at the boundary (i.e. postulating our boundary condition) terms of the order $`1/R^n`$ and at the same time retain terms of the same order in the third term in (3.6). This is not a contradiction, however. Despite the physical appeal of the argument that far away of the matter distribution the potential has point-like structure, our choice of the boundary condition (3.2) has been quite arbitrary. Indeed, we could have opted for any other constant value for $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_R`$ without changing the solution (3.6), up to an unessential constant. This shows that actually there is no such contradiction.

Evidently we are now confronted with the question which value of $`R`$ we should be using in the general solution (3.6). This is not as unique as one might wish, but for any practical purposes we will offer a solution to this problem. First, with a given mass distribution $`\rho `$ and our solution in form of equation (3.6), we could copy some of the steps in the last section which led us to the existence of $`_{max,min}`$ and $`_{max}`$ and the restricting equations (2.15) and (2.9). This is, however, in general not necessary. Note that the third ‘new’ term in (3.6) becomes a constant for a spherically symmetric body. This is as it should be since in the Newtonian limit gravity with a cosmological constant shares with Newtonian gravity ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) the virtue that in both cases a spherically symmetric object has the same potential as the point-mass (see e.g. ). Our solution, of course, reduces up to a constant to (2.6) for spherical objects. For bodies which are not spherically symmetric, new parameters of the dimension of length describing the off-sphericity of the object will appear. These parameters will be much smaller than $`_{max}`$ in (2.15), independent of the numerical value of the latter. Then the equations (2.9) and (2.15) restricting the mass and the distance used in the Newtonian limit hold also for the general solution (3.6). If so, the only possible large distance is some $`R`$ which is one or two orders of magnitude smaller than $`_{max}`$. Note that (2.3) does not allow us to identify $`R=_{max}`$. It is also worth pointing out that, since we correlate $`R`$ with $`_{max}`$ (i.e. $`R`$ is a fraction of $`_{max}`$), to recover the standard Newtonian result from (3.6) it suffices to take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ as $`_{max}1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ which then implies $`R\mathrm{}`$. This seems a reasonable solution so far. Whether it is stringent remains to be investigated in more detail as right now a certain amount of ambiguity stays with us. We think, however, for reasons outlined above that (2.15) and (2.9) are valid for any mass distribution and its gravitational potential.

In any case, it is clear that the third term in (3.6) will be suppressed by powers of $`1/R`$ and therefore normally small. Whether to retain it in an actual calculation depends, of course, on the requirements of accuracy of our calculation. The most promising case we can imagine is a galaxy at the outskirts of some supercluster where we could hope to see some effects of the boundary condition. Be it as it may, we think that it is of some importance to point out the mathematically consistent Newtonian limit of Einstein gravity with positive cosmological constant.

The discussion of a rather subtle point we have left till the end of this section. It is about the choice of the origin of the sphere with the radius $`R`$ at whose boundary we have put our boundary conditions. First note that the origin of our coordinate system coincides with the origin of this sphere. This has been done on purpose to simplify the formulae and is not unlike the coordinate system used in (2.6). The choice to put the origin of the coordinate system into the origin of the $`R`$-sphere is also the reason why terms of the form $`|𝒙𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}|^2`$, where $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ would be a vector between the two origins, do not appear in (3.6). Equipped with these remarks we can now make the following statements a.) the choice of the origin of the $`R`$-sphere in space (now together with the coordinate system) is arbitrary as no distinguished point exists and b.) the repulsion of the test particle due to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term will be always away from the center of this sphere. Taking these two statements together we conclude that any imaginary point in space will experience a repulsion from any other point due to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ term. We can interpret this as a kinematical effect of the expansion of the universe (due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) which will now remain even in the Newtonian limit. This has been noticed actually long ago in a different context in  which we will briefly touch now. The arbitrariness of the origin of the spheres requires that there exist a transformation law between two possible choices. This transformation is not the Galilean one. The reason is that the Minkowski metric is not a solution of the Einstein’s equations in the presence of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The symmetry group of the tangent space-time is rather the de Sitter group (anti de Sitter if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ negative). By a non-relativistic group contraction ($`c\mathrm{}`$) of the Poincare group we obtain the Galilean transformation. Similarly now making the same group contraction in the de Sitter group we arrive at what is called the Newton group . The corresponding space-time has been coined Newton-Hooke space-time to distinguish it from the normal euclidean space with Galilean transformations . The transformations of the Newton-Hooke space-time read now

$`𝒙^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰𝒙+𝒗\tau \mathrm{sinh}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }}+𝒂\mathrm{cosh}{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\tau }}`$
$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`t+b`$ (3.8)
where $`b`$ is time translation, $`𝒂`$ space translation, $`𝒗`$ a constant velocity and $`𝒰`$ a rotation matrix. The parameter $`\tau `$ is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. One can see from these equations that starting with a displacement $`𝒂`$, one ends up with a growing distance between the two vectors $`𝒙`$ and $`𝒙^{\mathbf{}}`$ which from the point of view of non-relativistic physics is a kinematical effect due to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We can therefore state that the interpretation of the two Newtonian limits, one of the Einsteins’s equations and the second one of the symmetry group via group contraction, agree as it should be since the latter is the symmetry of the former (dynamics).

## 4 Astrophysical applications

With the presently favoured value of $`\rho _{vac}\rho _{crit}`$ one might be inclined to think that the presence of a positive cosmological constant is only of relevance for cosmology where we are not allowed to use the Newtonian limit, but the full set of Einstein’s equations. However, by examining some simple examples below we can convince ourselves of just the opposite; the cosmological constant can be of relevance in astrophysical applications where the Newtonian limit plays a roles. We will discuss three examples, one of field galaxies and the other two for larger structures like galaxy clusters and superclusters.

(a) Two field galaxies at a far away distance from any cluster could, in principle, display effects of ‘anti-gravity’ due to the cosmological constant. Consider the ratio

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{field}\mathrm{galaxies}}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }r/3)}{(G_NM/r^2)}=2.32\times 10^{12}h_0^2\left(\frac{r}{\mathrm{Mpc}}\right)^3\left(\frac{M_{}}{M}\right)\left(\frac{\rho _{vac}}{\rho _{crit}}\right)$$
(4.1)
where $`𝑭_{vac}`$ is the force induced by the cosmological constant and $`𝑭_{Newton}`$ the standard $`1/r^2`$ Newtonian force. To pick up a specific example let us fix $`M_{}/M10^{11}`$ and $`r1`$ Mpc with $`\rho _{vac}0.8\rho _{crit}`$. The ratio in (4.1) becomes

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{field}\mathrm{galaxies}}18.6h_0^24.6$$
(4.2)
the last estimate with $`h_00.5`$. Field galaxies less massive and at a larger distance (than in our example above) would certainly “repel” each other (the repulsion is, of course, not due to the galaxies since any two space points will experience repulsion). A thorough survey of such field galaxies and their possible peculiar velocities would be a worthwhile task.

The example we have been considering is not unlike the system of our own galaxy and Andromeda. However, with the difference that the latter are embedded in the Local Group. For clusters or even bigger objects a comparison of densities is then more suitable. (b) Hence, considering now such clusters , and assuming them to be roughly spherical we can write for the ratio

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{cluster}}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3/3)}{(G_N\rho _{cl}V(r))}=2\left(\frac{\rho _{crit}}{\rho _{cl}}\right)\left(\frac{\rho _{vac}}{\rho _{crit}}\right)$$
(4.3)
where $`V`$ is the volume of the cluster and $`\rho _{cl}`$ its mass density. For a galaxy in the cluster of a typical density $`\rho _{cl}3\times 10^{28}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ the ratio becomes

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{cluster}}0.13h_0^2\left(\frac{\rho _{vac}}{\rho _{crit}}\right)0.025$$
(4.4)
with the assumption of $`\rho _{vac}=0.8\rho _{crit}`$. This is actually not too small especially if ‘diluted’ clusters with density less than $`3\times 10^{28}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ exist. It might be again worthwhile to hunt for such diluted objects. In  very low density clusters of $`M=10^{12.5}M_{}`$ and radius $`R=1.5`$ Mpc are mentioned. This would correspond to a density of $`1.5\times 10^{29}\mathrm{gcm}^3`$ and our ratio becomes now

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{cluster}}0.5$$
(4.5)
Certainly, for rich clusters the cosmological constant does not play any role.

(c) It is well known that the densities of superclusters are of the order of $`\rho _{crit}`$ or even less . This, in our case, is a very important observation. In this case the ‘vacuum force’ $`𝑭_{vac}`$ could become important or even dominant for a galaxy (or cluster) at the edge of such a conglomeration. To be specific we quote the case for the Local Supercluster below. Using the values of the mass M $`=5\times 10^{48}\mathrm{g}`$ and radius R $`=3.16\times 10^{25}\mathrm{cm}`$ as given in ref.  for the Local Supercluster, we get,

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{Local}}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Lambda }r^3/3)}{(G_N\rho _{supercl}V(r))}=\frac{8\pi }{3}r^3\frac{\rho _{vac}}{M_{supercl}(r)}=0.2$$
(4.6)
The density of the above supercluster is 4 $`\times 10^{29}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. For the numerical estimate we consider a test body again at the edge of such a supercluster and use the same value for $`\rho _{vac}`$ as in (4.4). We can see that the importance of the vacuum force already increased a lot for the supercluster over typical clusters (see eq. 4.4) with a density which is an order of magnitude smaller than that of the cluster in eq. (4.4). For superclusters with even smaller densities like those quoted by the Lick Observatory survey , namely, $`\rho _{supcl}=2.5\times 10^{30}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ and $`\rho _{supcl}=3.16\times 10^{31}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$ in ref. , the effect of the vacuum force would be much larger, of the order

$$\left(\frac{|𝑭_{vac}|}{|𝑭_{Newton}|}\right)_{\mathrm{supercluster}}220$$
(4.7)
We have seen that in the Newtonian limit there are realistic chances that the force induced by a positive cosmological constant plays a non-negligible role in astrophysics. A detailed survey of pairs of field galaxies, non-rich (diluted) clusters and superclusters would indeed help us to shed some light on the cosmological constant. Questions concerning the applicability of the virial theorem to such objects are indeed valid questions. It is not at all clear, e.g., whether superclusters represent gravitationally bound systems. We hope to come to such questions in a more systematic way in a future publication.

## 5 Conclusions

The Newtonian limit of Einstein’s equations requires that the gravitational potential should satisfy the strong inequality $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|1`$. We have shown that in the case of a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ this inequality leads to the existence of an upper bound on the mass ($`_{max}`$) and the distance ($`_{max}`$) to be used in the Newtonian limit. Consequently, we cannot put the boundary condition for the potential at infinity (which we do if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and can do if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$). In the solution of the Poisson equation there will appear then a term reflecting this boundary condition at a finite distance. We found these facts curious enough to merit a note.

With the presently favoured value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`_{max}`$ and $`_{max}`$ come very close to the values possessed at present by our universe. Both maximum values are independent of epoch. We find it then a strange coincidence that $`_{max}_{univ}`$ and $`_{max}_{univ}`$. After all, we could have been living in a universe whose mass and radius are larger or smaller than the maximum values coming from the analysis of the Newtonian limit with positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The last statement could equally well be posed as a question. A closer inspection seems worthwhile.

We have also pointed out some possible astrophysical application of the vacuum force induced by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Possible candidates being inflicted by the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-force, range from field galaxies at a distance of more than one Mpc to clusters and superclusters. Especially for the latter it is certainly interesting to revise the virial theorem.

Acknowledgments. Discussions with N. G. Kelkar, M. Drees, J. V. Narlikar, E. Gorbar, Y. Shtanov, R. Rosenfeld, G. Matsas and J. C. Sanabria are gratefully acknowledged. This work has been partly done at Universidad Estadual Paulista supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) and Programa de Apoio a Núcleos de Excelência (PRONEX).


format: text

text:
# Reionization of the Universe by Starlight and the Photoevaporation of Cosmological Minihalos

## 1. Ionization Fronts in the IGM

The neutral, opaque IGM out of which the first bound objects condensed was dramatically reheated and reionized at some time between a redshift $`z50`$ and $`z5`$ by the radiation released by some of these objects. When the first sources turned on, they ionized their surroundings by propagating weak, R-type ionization fronts which moved outward supersonically with respect to both the neutral gas ahead of and the ionized gas behind the front, racing ahead of the hydrodynamical response of the IGM, as first described by Shapiro (1986) and Shapiro & Giroux (1987). These authors solved the problem of the time-varying radius of a spherical I-front which surrounds isolated sources in a cosmologically-expanding IGM analytically, taking proper account of the I-front jump condition generalized to cosmological conditions. They applied these solutions to determine when the I-fronts surrounding isolated sources would grow to overlap and, thereby, complete the reionization of the universe (Donahue & Shull 1987 and Meiksen & Madau 1993 subsequently adopted a similar approach to answer that question). The effect of density inhomogeneity on the rate of I-front propagation was described by a mean “clumping factor” $`c_l>1`$, which slowed the I-fronts by increasing the average recombination rate per H atom inside clumps. This suffices to describe the rate of I-front propagation as long as the clumps are either not self-shielding or, if so, only absorb a fraction of the ionizing photons emitted by the central source. Numerical radiative transfer methods are currently under development to solve this problem in 3D for the inhomogeneous density distribution which arises as cosmic structure forms, so far limited to a fixed density field without gas dynamics (e.g. Abel, Norman, & Madau 1999; Razoumov & Scott 1999). The question of what dynamical effect the I-front had on the density inhomogeneity it encountered, however, requires further analysis.

## 2. The Photoevaporation of Dwarf Galaxy Minihalos Overtaken by a Cosmological Ionization Front

Shapiro and Raga (2000) describe radiation-hydrodynamical simulations of the photoevaporation of a cosmological minihalo overrun by a weak, R-type I-front in the surrounding IGM, created by a quasar with emission spectrum $`F_\nu \nu ^{1.8}`$ ($`\nu >\nu _H`$) and a flux at the location of the minihalo which, if unattenuated, would correspond to $`N_{\mathrm{ph},56}/r_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2=1`$, where $`r_{\mathrm{Mpc}}`$ is the distance (in Mpc) between source and minihalo and $`N_{\mathrm{ph},56}`$ is the H-ionizing photon luminosity (in units of $`10^{56}s^1`$). For further discussion and references to previous work, the reader is referred to this companion paper by Shapiro and Raga. Our simulations in 2D, axisymmetry used an Eulerian hydro code with Adaptive Mesh Refinement and the Van Leer flux-splitting algorithm, which solved nonequilibrium ionization rate equations (for H, He, C, N, O, Ne, and S) and included an explicit treatment of radiative transfer by taking into account the bound-free opacity of H and He. The heavy element abundance was $`10^3`$ times solar.

Here we present new results of identical simulations, except with a stellar source instead of a quasar-like source, with a 50,000 K blackbody spectrum and with luminosity and distance adjusted to keep the ionizing photon flux the same (i.e. $`N_{\mathrm{ph},56}/r_{\mathrm{Mpc}}^2=1`$). Our initial condition before ionization, shown in Figure 1(a), is that of a $`10^7M_{}`$ minihalo in an Einstein-de Sitter universe ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{CDM}}=1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{bary}}`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{bary}}h^2=0.02`$; $`h=0.7`$) which collapses out and virializes at $`z_{\mathrm{coll}}=9`$, yielding a truncated, nonsingular isothermal sphere of radius $`R_c=0.5\mathrm{kpc}`$ in hydrostatic equilibrium with virial temperature $`T_{\mathrm{vir}}=5900\mathrm{K}`$ and dark matter velocity dispersion $`\sigma =6.3\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, according to the solution of Shapiro, Iliev, & Raga (1999), for which the finite central density inside a radius about 1/30 of the total size of the sphere is 514 times the surface density. This hydrostatic core of radius $`R_c`$ is embedded in a self-similar, spherical, cosmological infall according to Bertschinger (1985).

The results of our simulation on an $`(r,x)`$-grid with $`256\times 512`$ cells (fully refined) are summarized in Figures 1–5. The background IGM and infalling gas outside the minihalo \[centered at $`(r,x)=(0,7.125\times 10^{21}\mathrm{cm})`$\] are quickly ionized, and the resulting pressure gradient in the infall region converts the infall into an outflow. As expected, the hydrostatic core of the minihalo shields itself against ionizing photons, trapping the I-front which enters the halo, causing it to decelerate inside the halo to the sound speed of the ionized gas before it can exit the other side, thereby transforming itself into a weak, D-type front preceded by a shock. The side facing the source expels a supersonic wind backwards towards the source, which shocks the IGM outside the minihalo, while the remaining neutral halo material is accelerated away from the source by the so-called “rocket effect” as the halo photoevaporates (cf. Spitzer 1978). Since this is a case of gas bound to a dark halo with $`\sigma <10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, this photoevaporation proceeds unimpeded by gravity. Figure 1(b) shows the position of the I-front inside the minihalo as it slows from weak, R-type to weak D-type led by a shock as it advances across the original hydrostatic core. Figure 1(b) also shows the mass of the neutral zone within the original hydrostatic core shrinking as the minihalo photoevaporates within about 100 Myrs. This photoevaporation time is 50 % larger than that found previously for the quasar case. Figures 2 and 3 show the structure of the photoevaporative flow 50 Myrs after the global I-front first overtakes the minihalo, with key features of the flow indicated by the labels on the temperature plot in Figure 3. A strong shock labelled “4S” clearly leads the D-type I-front (labelled “4I”) as it advances through the minihalo core, by contrast with the quasar case in which hard photons penetrated deeper into the neutral gas and preheated it, thereby weakening the shock which leads the I-front. The softer stellar spectrum also explains why helium on the ionized side of the I-front is mostly He II, rather than He III as in the quasar case, while the neutral side is completely He I, rather than a mix of He I and II as in that case. Figure 4 shows the spatial variation of the relative ionic abundances of C, N, O ions along the symmetry axis after 50 Myrs. While the quasar case showed the presence at 50 Myrs of low as well as high ionization stages for the metals, the softer spectrum of the stellar case yields less highly ionized gas on the ionized side of the I-front (e.g. mostly C III, N III, O III) and the neutral side as well (e.g. C II, N I, O I and II). The column densities of H I, He I and II, and C IV for minihalo gas of different velocities as seen along the symmetry axis at different times are shown in Figure 5. At early times, the minihalo gas resembles a weak Damped Lyman $`\alpha `$ (“DLA”) absorber with small velocity width ($`>10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) and $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}>10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, with a Lyman-$`\alpha `$-Forest(“LF”)-like red wing ($`\text{velocity width}>10\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$) with $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}>10^{16}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ on the side moving toward the source, with a He I profile which mimics that of H I but with $`N_{\mathrm{He}\mathrm{I}}/N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}[\mathrm{He}]/[\mathrm{H}]`$, and with a weak C IV feature with $`N_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV}}10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ displaced in this same asymmetric way from the velocity of peak H I column density. After 160 Myr, however, only a narrow H I feature with LF-like column density $`N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ remains, with $`N_{\mathrm{He}\mathrm{I}}/N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}1/4`$, $`N_{\mathrm{He}\mathrm{II}}/N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}10^3`$, and $`N_{\mathrm{C}\mathrm{IV}}/N_{\mathrm{H}\mathrm{I}}3[\mathrm{C}]/[\mathrm{C}]_{}`$. Future work will extend this study to minihalos of higher virial temperatures, for which gravity competes more effectively with photoevaporation.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported by grants NASA NAG5-2785, NAG5-7363, and NAG5-7821, NSF ASC-9504046, and Texas ARP No. 3658-0624-1999, a UT Dean’s Fellowship and a National Chair of Excellence, UNAM, México awarded by CONACyT in 1997 to Shapiro.

## References

Abel, T., Norman, M. L., & Madau, P. 1999, ApJ, 523, 66

Bertschinger, E. 1985, ApJS, 58, 39

Donahue, M., & Shull, J. M. 1987, ApJ, 323, L13

Meiksen, A., & Madau, P. 1993, ApJ, 412, 34

Razoumov, A., & Scott, D. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 287

Shapiro, P. R. 1986, PASP, 98, 1014

Shapiro, P. R., & Giroux, M. L. 1987, ApJ, 321, L107

Shapiro, P. R., Iliev, I. T., & Raga, A. C. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 203

Shapiro, P. R.,& Raga, A. C. 2000, in Astrophysical Plasmas: Codes, Models and Observations, eds. S.J. Arthur, N. Brickhouse, & J.J. Franco, RevMexAA (SC), 9, 292 (astro-ph/0002100)

Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (NY: Wiley)


text:
# In search for the vortex charge and the Cooper pair mass

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The sign change of the Hall effect observed in the superconducting state of many high-$`T_c`$ superconductors is one of the most puzzling problems in the electrodynamics of these materials . One may ask then what is the doping dependence of this Hall anomaly and how the vortex-lattice melting  affects the Hall behavior? Alas, due to the complexity of the vortex matter many related problems are still not answered satisfactory if at all. It is quite possible that the sign reversal of the temperature dependence of the Hall effect could be closely related to charging of the vortices . There is no doubt  that the experimental solution of this enigma would provide the key towards understanding the various electromagnetic phenomena. On the other hand, the currently existing theoretical models often lead to conflicting results thus making it difficult to discriminate between all those competing explanations. In such a situation we feel it appealing to accelerate the selection by looking for simplicity in experiments with artificial structures where many of the complications typical for the real systems are avoided.

The aim of the present paper is to propose an experiment for determination of the vortex charge employing transport measurement in a layered metal-insulator-superconductor (MIS) system. We shall require that the quality of the insulator-superconductor interface be extremely high and the insulator layer be very thin. Such a layered MIS structure incorporating a high-$`T_c`$ film can be manufactured by the contemporary technology of atomic-level engineering of superconducting oxide multilayers and superlattices . In fact, structures of the kind are now being in use for purposes of the fundamental research in the physics of high-$`T_c`$ superconductors, therefore the vortex charge problem can find its solution thanks to the technological progress. The simplest possible idea behind the search for the vortex charge is to study the electrostatic effect related to charged vortices , which is analogous to electrostatic effects originating, in turn, in the Bernoulli effect  due to circulating currents in a thin superconducting film in a vortex-free state; the numerical value of the angular momentum $`\left(m^{}𝐯+e^{}𝐀\right)d𝐫`$ is irrelevant for the current-induced contact-potential difference. The paper is organized as follow: in Sec. 2 we derive the formula for the vortex charge $`q_v`$ expressed via the effective mass of Cooper pairs $`m^{}`$ as well as the expression for the interface Hall conductivity $`\sigma _{xy}.`$ In Sec. 3 we will analyze our proposed experimental set-up for determination of the vortex charge by measuring the Hall resistance of the vortex charge currents. An overview is made in Sec. 4 of different experimental methods for determination of the Cooper pair mass: the surface Hall current , subsection 4.1; the Bernoulli effect , subsection 4.2, and the electrostatic charge modulation, subsection 4.3. It is finally concluded in Sec. 5 that the vortex charge $`q_v`$ and the effective mass $`m^{}`$ of fluctuation Cooper pairs fall into the class of the last unresolved problems in the physics of superconductivity. These important parameters enter the theories of a number of phenomena related to electrodynamics of superconductors and can be simultaneously determined by standard electronic measurements. Contemporary layer-by-layer growth of layered oxide structures gives the unique chance for finding $`q_v`$ and $`m^{}`$ for high-$`T_c`$ materials but some of the proposed experiments can be realized also in MIS structures with conventional superconductors.

## 2 MODEL

### 2.1 Type-II superconductors

This section gives an account of the vortex charging due to the Bernoulli effect within the framework of London electrodynamics. For a superconductor in thermodynamic equilibrium the electrochemical potential $`\zeta `$ is constant and the space distribution of the electric potential $`\phi (𝐫)`$ is determined by the Bernoulli-Torricelli theorem

$$\frac{1}{2}m^{}v^2(𝐫)n(T)+\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\phi (𝐫)=\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\zeta .$$
(1)
Formally, this equation can be derived within the framework of the BCS theory using the statistical mechanics methods, but its physical meaning is very simple—it is a consequence of the energy conservation. We shall further stick to the standard notations for the effective mass of Cooper pairs in the $`ab`$-plane $`m^{},`$ the superfluid velocity $`𝐯`$ related to the current density $`𝐣=e^{}n(T)𝐯,`$ the mass density of the superfluid $`m^{}n(T),`$ and the total charge of the conduction band $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}=e^{}n(T=0);`$ at zero temperature all charge carriers are superfluid and according to the BCS theory $`|e^{}|=2|e|.`$ The temperature dependence of $`n(T)`$ can be extracted from that of the London penetration depth for screening currents flowing in the CuO2 plane,

$$\frac{1}{\lambda ^2(T)}=\frac{\mu _0n(T)e^2}{m^{}},$$
(2)
where the use of SI units is implied, $`\mu _0=4\pi \times 10^7.`$ Although the temperature dependence of the superfluid ratio

$$\frac{n(T)}{n(0)}=\frac{\lambda ^2(0)}{\lambda ^2(T)}$$
(3)
is related to the gap anisotropy, the hydrodynamic relation Eq. (1) remains invariant.

Consider now a thin cuprate film thread by a perpendicular magnetic field $`𝐁=B_z\widehat{𝐳}.`$ As a first step we determine the distribution of the electric potential as a function of the distance to the vortex line $`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}.`$ For $`r`$ larger than the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) coherence length in the $`ab`$-plane but smaller than the penetration depth, $`\xi _{ab}(T)r\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ one can use the Bohr-Zommerfeld relation

$$rm^{}v=\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
Substituting $`v(r)=\mathrm{}/m^{}r`$ from the above equation into the Bernoulli theorem Eq. (1) we derive the current-induced change of the electric potential

$$\phi (r)=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2e^{}m^{}}\frac{n(T)}{n(0)}\frac{1}{r^2}.$$
(5)
This equation is applicable not only to the volume of the superconductor $`z<0`$ but even to the superconducting surface $`z=0`$ which is supposed to be clean enough as well as to expose the properties of the bulk material. The superconductor is capped by a thin insulating layer of thickness much smaller than the penetration depth, $`d_{\mathrm{ins}}\lambda _{ab}(0).`$ On top of the latter a thin-normal-metal layer is evaporated, hence a plane capacitor configuration is achieved, being in fact realized as a metal-insulator-superconductor (MIS) layered structure. For definiteness the electric potential of the normal plate is set to zero. Far from the vortex core, for $`r>d_{\mathrm{ins}},`$ the electric field $`E_z`$ of such a plane capacitor can be considered as being homogeneous,

$$E_z=\frac{\phi }{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}=\frac{q^{(2D)}}{ϵ_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}},$$
(6)
which is employed to express the induced on the normal plate surface charge density $`q^{(2\mathrm{D})}(r)`$ via the Bernoulli potential $`\phi (r),`$

$$q^{(2\mathrm{D})}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2e^{}m^{}}\frac{ϵ_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}}{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}\frac{n(T)}{n(0)}\frac{1}{r^2},$$
(7)
where $`ϵ_0=1/\mu _0c^2,`$ $`c`$ being the speed of light, and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}`$ is the relative dielectric constant of the insulator. We notice that $`q^{(2\mathrm{D})}(r)`$ has the same sign as the charge of the Cooper pairs in the superconductor. On the other hand, the Bernoulli potential keeps the Cooper pairs on a circular orbits inside the vortex. The radial electric force is then equal to the centrifugal force

$$e^{}\frac{\phi }{r}=m^{}\frac{v^2}{r}.$$
(8)
The electric potential attracts the Cooper pairs and the charges with the same sign on the normal plate of the plane capacitor. In order to derive the total charge related to the vortex we have to integrate the charge density up to some maximum radius,

$$r_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{min}(\lambda (T),\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{B}}),$$
(9)
corresponding to the screening length $`\lambda (T)`$ or the typical intervortex distance in case of high area density of vortex lines $`n_v=B/\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\pi \mathrm{}/|e^{}|=2.07`$ fTm2 is the flux quantum. Supposing that the insulator layer is thin enough, $`d_{\mathrm{ins}}r_{\mathrm{max}},`$ the integration of the surface density gives for the total vortex charge

$$q_v=_{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}^{r_{\mathrm{max}}}q^{(2\mathrm{D})}(r)\mathrm{d}(\pi r^2)\frac{\pi \mathrm{}^2}{e^{}m^{}}\frac{ϵ_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}}{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}\frac{n(T)}{n(0)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{r_{\mathrm{max}}}{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}=\frac{\mathrm{sign}(e^{})|e|}{8}\frac{a_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}}{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}\frac{m_0}{m^{}}\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}\mathrm{ln}\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(10)
where $`a_0=4\pi ϵ_0\mathrm{}^2/e^2m_0=53\mathrm{pm}`$ is the Bohr radius, $`m_0=9.11\times 10^{31}`$ kg is the mass of a free electron, and $`\kappa _{\mathrm{eff}}=r_{\mathrm{max}}/d_{\mathrm{ins}}`$ is a quantity analogous to the Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa =\lambda _{ab}(0)/\xi _{ab}(0).`$ According to our model the charge related to vortices is localized not in the vortex core but in the adjacent conducting layers: superconducting CuO2 planes in a real high-$`T_c`$ crystal or the normal layer in the model MIS system. With this we close the electrostatic consideration of the vortex charge, but rhe reader is reffered to a number of ingenious experiments related to electrostatics of vortices which are suggested in Ref. . We believe, however, that the standard transport measurement have some advantage even if they are related to observations of pA-range and below.

The next important step is to address the vortex flow regime of the superconducting film when a strong enough dc current density $`j_y`$ is applied through the superconducting film. This condition will create small dissipation and give rise to an electric field $`E_y`$ parallel to the current density. The electric field, in turn, creates a drift of the vortices with mean drift velocity in $`x`$-direction $`v_v=E_y/B_z.`$ In a coordinate system moving with the vortex drift velocity $`𝐯_v`$ the electric field is zero. We suppose that $`v_v`$ is much smaller than the critical depairing velocity $`v_c=\mathrm{}/m^{}\xi _{ab}(T)`$ and the Bernoulli potential is nearly the same as in the dissipation-free static regime. Along this line let us recall the fact that airplanes fly thanks to the Bernoulli theorem that holds true for a unviscous dissipationless fluid, but the significant part of the ticket price covers the dissipated energy. By the same token, for $`v_vv_c`$ the vortex-induced charge has nearly the static value $`q_v.`$ Since the charge images will follow the vortices as shadows, the vortex flow will create a two dimensional (2D) current density on the surface of the normal metal

$$j_x^{(2\mathrm{D})}=q_vn_vv_v=\frac{q_v}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}E_y=\sigma _{xy}E_y.$$
(11)
The electric field $`E_y`$ resides the superconducting layer, whereas the current $`j_x^{(2\mathrm{D})}`$ exists in the normal slab. The 2D Hall conductivity directly gives the vortex charge

$$\sigma _{xy}=\frac{q_v}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}=\frac{q_v|e^{}|}{2\pi \mathrm{}}.$$
(12)
For $`L_x\times L_y`$ rectangular shape of the MIS structure the voltage drop in the superconducting layer is $`V_y=E_yL_y,`$ the total current in the normal layer is $`I_x=L_xj_x^{(2\mathrm{D})},`$ and the interface Hall resistivity is size-independent,

$$R_{xy}\frac{V_y}{I_x}=\frac{1}{\sigma _{xy}}=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{q_v|e^{}|}=\frac{e^2}{q_v|e^{}|}R_{\mathrm{QHE}}=\frac{1}{2}R_{\mathrm{QHE}}\frac{|e|}{q_v},$$
(13)
where $`R_{\mathrm{QHE}}=2\pi \mathrm{}/e^2=25.813\mathrm{k}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the fundamental resistance determined by the quantum Hall effect (QHE). Since the vortex charge $`q_v|e|,`$ the experiment would face the problem of measuring huge Hall resistances. This sets the first technological requirement regarding to the quality of the insulating layer—in order to avoid the leakage currents the resistance $`R_{\mathrm{MS}}`$ of the plane capacitor should satisfy the relation $`R_{\mathrm{MS}}=\rho _{\mathrm{ins}}d_{\mathrm{ins}}/(L_xL_y)R_{xy}.`$ In the present model we used the hydrodynamic approach applicable for extreme type-II superconductors and completely neglected the influence of the geometrically small vortex core. However the states in vortex core can have some influence in the total charge of vortex core. In order qualitatively to ”interpolate” a real situation with moderate Ginzburg-Landau parameter $`\kappa `$ let us analyze the interface Hall current for a type I superconductor. In this case the normal ”cores” are domains of normal metal surrounded by circulating superconducting currents. This problem, certainly, is only of an academic interest and is irrelevant for the oxide superconductors.

### 2.2 Interface Hall current for type-I MIS structure

If the superconducting layer of a MIS structure is of type-I superconductor, in a perpendicular magnetic field $`B_z`$ the magnetic field in the normal domains is equal to the thermodynamic one $`B_c(T)`$ and is zero in the superconducting domains. The relative area of the normal regions is $`c_N=B_z/B_c(T)`$, correspondingly the part of the superconducting area is $`c_S=1B_z/B_c(T),`$ thus $`c_N+c_S=1`$ and the external field is equal to the mean field $`B_z=c_NB_c(T)+c_S\times 0.`$ The contact potential difference between the normal and the superconducting phase (see Eq. (38) bellow) is

$$\phi _N\phi _S=\frac{1}{e^{}n(0)}\frac{B_c^2(T)}{2\mu _0}.$$
(14)
This contact potential difference creates, in turn, a difference in the charge density at the surface of the normal layer in front of the normal domain

$$q^{(2\mathrm{D})}=\frac{ϵ_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}c_N}{d_{\mathrm{ins}}}\left(\phi _S\phi _N\right)=\frac{ϵ_0ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}B_c(T)}{2\mu _0d_{\mathrm{ins}}e^{}n(0)}B_z,$$
(15)
where a plane capacitor configuration is implied.

When an electric field $`E_y`$ is applied in the superconducting layer the normal domains acquire a drift velocity in $`x`$-direction $`v_v=E_y/B_z.`$ Again, in the mobile coordinate system the domain structure is static and the mean electric field is zero. The extra charges induced in the normal layer follow the moving normal domains and for the 2D current $`j_x^{(2\mathrm{D})}=q^{(2\mathrm{D})}v_v=\sigma _{xy}E_y`$ at the surface of the normal plate we obtain

$$\sigma _{xy}=\frac{ϵ_0}{2\mu _0}\frac{B_c(T)ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}}{e^{}n(0)d_{\mathrm{ins}}}=\frac{1}{R_{xy}}.$$
(16)
This very small interface Hall conductivity vanishes at $`T_c`$ and its detection requires fA sensitivity. For comparison with Eq. (10) here we also give the expression for the induced charges per flux quantum

$$q_{v,I}\frac{q^{(2\mathrm{D})}}{n_v}=\frac{ϵ_0\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{2\mu _0}\frac{B_c(T)ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}}{e^{}n(0)d_{\mathrm{ins}}}.$$
(17)
Of course, around every normal domain in a type-I superconductor $`|e^{}𝐀d𝐫/\mathrm{}|1.`$

Having derived the formulae, Eq. (12) and Eq. (16), concerning the new predicted effect we proceed with more detailed discussion and description of the proposed new experiment in the next section.

## 3 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP FOR MEASURING THE VORTEX CHARGE

To begin with, we have sketched a ”gedanken” experimental set-up in Fig. 1.

The contemporary technology of layer-by-layer growth of oxide superconductors opens the possibility for realization of such a layered structure—a superconducting film protected by an insulating plate. Moreover, we consider that a MIS plane capacitor is one of the simplest possible systems employed in the fundamental research towards further technical applications. Therefore we believe that the suggested experiment could become a standard tool in studying the quality of the insulator-superconductor interface. In order to check whether this idea is another case of a science fiction or, vice versa, is a smoking gun we provide below a numerical example involving an acceptable set of parameters which have been collected from various references: $`m^{}=11m_0`$ (Ref.), $`\xi _{ab}(0)=1.1`$ nm, $`d_{\mathrm{ins}}=15`$nm, $`d_{\mathrm{ins}}/ϵ_{\mathrm{ins}}=1`$ nm (Ref.), $`\lambda _{ab}(0)=150`$ nm (Ref.). For an illustration we take as well: $`B_z=100`$ mT, $`E_y=1`$ V/cm, and $`L_x=L_y=1`$ mm.

The value of $`B_z`$ we chose imply for the following parameters: $`n_v=B_z/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=4.83\times 10^{13}\mathrm{m}^2,`$ $`L_xL_yn_v=48\times 10^6,`$ and $`1/\sqrt{n_v}=144\text{ nm }\lambda _{ab}(0).`$ For a model estimate we also take $`r_{\mathrm{min}}150`$ nm. It is now straightforward to work out the vortex charge at liquid-helium temperature, i.e. in the temperature range far below $`T_c.`$ In this case the substitution of the above mentioned set of parameters in Eq. (10) gives

$$\frac{q_v}{|e|}=\frac{1}{8}\frac{53}{1000}\frac{1}{11}\mathrm{ln}(10)=1.386\times 10^3\frac{1}{1000}.$$
(18)
The so estimated $`q_v10^3|e|`$ is in agreement with another model evaluation due to Khomskii and Freimuth. Further, Eq. (13) gives $`R_{xy}=9.35`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the electric field chosen gives for the voltage $`V_y=100`$ mV, therefore for the Hall current we have $`I_x=R_{xy}V_y=11`$ pA. Lastly, the vortex drift velocity $`v_v=E_y/B_z=1`$ km/s, which is one order of magnitude smaller than the depairing velocity at $`T=0,`$ $`v_c=\mathrm{}/m^{}\xi _{ab}(0)=9.6`$ km/s. We note that the resistance of the capacitor should be thus at least $`R_{\mathrm{MS}}=100`$ M$`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$

For conventional superconductors similar evaluations show that effect is less but still observable. One can consider, for example, a thin Nb metal film grown by molecular beam epitaxy, and an Al layer after oxidation in natural condition could give a good insulator layer. All technologies for planar Josephson junctions provide as a rule metal-insulator interface of sufficient quality. Only the insulator layer should be thick enough to prevent leakage tunneling.

The example analyzed above shows that the proposed experiment is in principle possible to be carried out but we find it difficult to anticipate all problems that could arise in the course of it. For instance, due to a good capacitance cross-talk the noise created by the vortex motion in the superconducting layer will be transmitted to the normal layer thus disturbing the detection of the small Hall current. We believe, however, that similar problems could be surmounted, given the challenge of the novel physics underlying the vortex charge. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the charge, concentrated in the vortex core, is comparable to the charge outside, so only a detailed analysis within the microscopic theory can shine a light on the latter point. In order to verify whether a hydrodynamic approach based upon the Bernoulli effect suffices to quantitatively describe the predicted vortex-charge interface current one needs independent methods to determine the effective mass of the Cooper pairs. In the next section we will analyze similar experiments employing artificial MIS structures.

## 4 HOW TO MEASURE THE COOPER PAIR MASS

Before addressing the problem of measuring the Cooper pair effective mass $`m^{}`$ let us analyze a parallel between the latter issue and the civil engineering, where in a static approximation only the weight $`W=mg`$ is essential for a construction. In this approximation the masses could reach colossal values if we renormalize the earth acceleration $`g0`$. The uncertainty, however, immediately disappears during the first earthquake when a dynamical problem should be solved. Just the same is the situation with the superconducting order parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$—in the static GL theory the superfluid density $`n=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ and the effective mass $`m^{}`$ are inaccessible separately. They are contained in the experimental parameters, such as the penetration depth Eq. (2), only via the ratio $`n/m^{}.`$ In order to determine the effective mass one has to investigate some dynamic phenomenon, which is time-dependent. Due to phase invariance, however, the time $`t`$ could participate only in the gauge invariant derivative $`\left(i\mathrm{}/te^{}\phi \right)\mathrm{\Psi },`$ that is why electric field effects in superconductors are to be studied. The subtle point is that the latter are already dynamic effects even if the electric fields are static. One therefore needs to perturb the thermodynamic equilibrium of the superconductor as slightly as possible and all methods for determination of the effective mass $`m^{}`$ of Cooper pairs thus become effectively ac methods, based on the electrostatic effects in superconductors. The set-up proposed to determine the vortex charge, Fig. 1, is a MIS device having four terminals. Probably the most simple method to accomplish the task would be to use the same MIS structure without making any contacts on the superconducting layer and to investigate the surface Hall current as described in the next subsection.

### 4.1 Surface Hall current

This physical effect reffers to the 2D surface currents $`𝐣^{(2\mathrm{D})}`$ at the surfaces of a thin ($`d_{\mathrm{film}}\lambda _{ab}(0)`$) superconducting film induced by a normal-to-the-layer electric induction $`𝐃_n`$ and parallel-to-the-layer magnetic field $`𝐁_t`$

$$𝐣^{(2\mathrm{D})}=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}d_{\mathrm{film}}\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}𝐃_n\times 𝐁_t,$$
(19)
where the Cooper pair mass $`m^{}`$ is the material constant of the effect. This is an electrostatic effect and the superconducting film is in vortex-free state. The dissipation is zero and the superconductor is in thermodynamic equilibrium. A symmetric layered structure is grown by capping of the superconducting film with an insulator layer. Two normal metal layers are evaporated on the protecting insulator layer and on the back side of the substrate thus achieving a plane capacitor configuration. The normal-metal electrodes are circles with radius $`R`$ and a cartoon of the experimental set-up in Corbino geometry is shown in Fig. 2.

Exploiting the axial symmetry of the geometry Eq. (19) reads as $`j_\phi ^{(2\mathrm{D})}D_zB_r`$ and for the total magnetic moment of the circulating currents we have

$$M(t)=_0^R(\pi r^2)j_\phi ^{(2\mathrm{D})}(r)dr=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}d_{\mathrm{film}}\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}D_z(t)_0^R(\pi r^2)B_r(r)dr$$
(20)
This small magnetic moment could be difficult to detect against the large background due to the dc magnets creating $`B_r.`$ We derive a static magnetic moment and the next natural step is to consider in a quasistatic approximation the electric induction $`D_z`$ as being time-dependent, $`D_z=D_z(t)`$ . The ac magnetic moment can be detected by the electromotive voltage

$$(t)=\mu _0\nu \frac{\mathrm{d}M(t)}{\mathrm{d}t},$$
(21)
induced in the solenoid having $`\nu `$ turns per unite length. The total charge of the capacitor is $`(\pi R^2)D_z`$ and the time derivative of the electric induction,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}D_z(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=\frac{I(t)}{\pi R^2}$$
(22)
can be expressed by the current $`I(t)`$ charging the capacitor. For the electromotive voltage we finally obtain the equation

$$(t)=R_{\mathrm{eff}}I(t)M_{12}\frac{\mathrm{d}I(t)}{\mathrm{d}t},$$
(23)
where

$$R_{\mathrm{eff}}=\mu _0\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\frac{\nu d_{\mathrm{film}}}{\pi R^2}\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}_0^R(\pi r^2)B_r(r)dr$$
(24)
is the effective resistance describing this new electrodynamic effect created by the effective mass $`m^{}.`$ The experimental difficulties might be related with the careful compensation of the mutual inductance $`M_{12}`$ between the solenoid and the ac generator charging the MIS plane capacitor. The rigorous analysis of the experiment requires the knowledge of the break-through voltages of the MIS structure and the noise induced in the detecting coil, but in any case this auxiliary experiment would be easier to perform than the detection of vortex charge currents.

In the following we will also provide an elementary derivation of the formula for the surface Hall current Eq. (19) using the London electrodynamics. Let us trace the trajectory of a London superconducting electron (i.e. a Cooper pair) crossing the circular superconducting film during the charging of the MIS plane capacitor, Fig. 2. The superconducting electron leaves the inital surface of the film with zero velocity $`v_\phi (t_i)=0`$, experiences the Lorentz force while traveling across the film

$$m^{}\frac{\mathrm{d}v_\phi (t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=e_z^{}B_r,$$
(25)
and arrives at the opposite surface of the film at the $`t_f,`$ i.e.

$$_{t_i}^{t_f}v_z(t)dt=d_{\mathrm{film}}$$
(26)
with an additional azimuthal velocity component

$$v_\phi =\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}d_{\mathrm{film}}B_r.$$
(27)
For $`T=0`$ all charges are superfluid and the electric induction determines the surface (or 2D) excess charge density $`D_z=e^{}n^{(2\mathrm{D})}.`$ For the surface current density of these polarization charges we therefore have

$$j_\phi ^{(2\mathrm{D})}=e^{}n^{(2\mathrm{D})}v_\phi =D_zv_\phi =\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}d_{\mathrm{film}}D_zB_r.$$
(28)
For non-zero temperatures one has to take into account the thermal dissociation of the superconducting electrons, $`e^{}e+e,`$ and the appearance of a normal fluid. Thus, taking into account the superfluid part,

$$j_\phi ^{(2\mathrm{D})}(T>0)=\frac{n(T)}{n(T=0)}j_\phi ^{(2\mathrm{D})}(T=0)$$
(29)
we recover the basic equation Eq. (19). The BCS treatment certainly gives the same result because the London electrodynamics is not a mere, naive phenomenological alternative to the microscopic BCS theory, instead it should be viewed as an efficient tool to apply the BCS theory to low frequencies $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}`$ and small wave-vectors $`k\xi _{ab}(0).`$

Analogous experiment could be performed with a bulk crystal or thick film $`d_{\mathrm{film}}\lambda _{ab}(0).`$ In this case in the initial Eq. (19) and the final result, Eq. (24), the thickness of the film $`d_{\mathrm{film}}`$ should be replaced with the penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ and the formula for the surface current then reads as

$$𝐣^{(2\mathrm{D})}=\frac{e^{}}{m^{}}\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}(T)}𝐃_n\times 𝐁_t.$$
(30)
The investigation of the temperature dependence of this effect can give a new method for determination of the temperature dependence of the penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}(T).`$ A SrTiO3 layer should be grown on the fresh cleaved surface of Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8 crystal and a circular Au electrode needs to be overgrown on the protecting layer. One plate of the capacitor is the bulk high-$`T_c`$ crystal and the other one is the Au layer. In order to avoid frozen vortices the constant magnetic field of the dc drive coil must be applied after cooling down to low temperatures. An ac voltage should be applied to the plane capacitor, a lock-in ammeter will measure the polarization current, and the induced due to the effect ac magnetic moment can be detected by a lock-in voltmeter connected to the detector coil. For derivation of the above formula Eq. (30) we have to use: (i) the distribution of the vector-potential at depth $`|z|`$ in the superconductor and some fixed radius $`r,`$

$$A_\phi (z)=B_r\lambda _{ab}(T)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|z|}{\lambda _{ab}(T)}\right),$$
(31)
where $`B_r(r)`$ is the tangential magnetic field at the superconducting surface; (ii) the London-BCS formula for the current response of the superconductor (the polarization operator),

$$j_\phi =\frac{A_\phi }{\mu _0\lambda _{ab}^2(T)},$$
(32)
and (iii) the formula for the bulk (3D) density of the superfluid polarization charges

$$e^{}n(z)=D_z\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}\delta (z),$$
(33)
where $`\delta `$ stands for the Dirac $`\delta `$-function. The effective mass $`m^{}`$ can be determined not only by the surface Hall effect but also from the Bernoulli effect for which the BCS theory was developed by Omel’yanchuk and Beloborod’ko  as well as from all other predictions of the London theory. The existence of Bernoulli effect for conventional superconductors is experimentally confirmed; some references can be found, for example, in Ref. . In the next subsection we give a brief account of the suggested here Cooper pair mass spectroscopy.

### 4.2 Bernoulli effect in thin superconducting film

The experimental set-up for a current-induced Cooper pair mass spectroscopy is presented in Fig. 3.

The Bernoulli effect is related to a current-induced contact-potential difference that can be measured by the electrostatic polarization of a normal metal electrode which covers the surface of the superconductor, forming a plane capacitor. For the averaged change of the electric potential beneath the electrode the Bernoulli theorem Eq. (1) gives

$$e^{}\phi =\frac{n(T)}{n(T=0)}\frac{1}{2}m^{}v^2,$$
(34)
i.e. the Bernoulli potential is proportional to the averaged kinetic energy of Cooper pairs beneath the electrode. For thin films, $`d_{\mathrm{film}}<\lambda _{ab}(0),`$ the current across the layer is more or less homogeneous $`j^{(2\mathrm{D})}=d_{\mathrm{film}}j`$ and we have to substitute in this equation $`vj^{(2\mathrm{D})}/(d_{\mathrm{film}}e^{}n(T)).`$ Then the formula for the Bernoulli potential takes the form

$$\phi =\frac{m^{}(j^{(2\mathrm{D})})^2}{2e^3d_{\mathrm{film}}^2n(0)n(T)}=\frac{e^{}\mu _0^2\lambda _{ab}^2(0)\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}{2m^{}d_{\mathrm{film}}^2}(j^{(2\mathrm{D})})^2=\frac{L_{\mathrm{}}(T)}{2e^{}n(0)d_{\mathrm{film}}}(j^{(2\mathrm{D})})^2,$$
(35)
where

$$L_{\mathrm{}}(T)\frac{m^{}}{e^2n(T)^{(2\mathrm{D})}}=\mu _0\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}{d_{\mathrm{film}}}$$
(36)
is the kinetic inductance which can be measured directly by means of the mutual inductance method , $`n^{(2\mathrm{D})}(T)=n(T)d_{\mathrm{film}}`$ is the area density of Cooper pairs and $`(j^{(2\mathrm{D})})^2`$ is the averaged square of the 2D supercurrent beneath the electrode whose distribution has to be found by solving a magnetostatic problem. If two electrodes were grown on the superconductor surface, the Bernoulli voltage

$$V_{\mathrm{Bernoulli}}=\phi _2\phi _1$$
(37)
can be considered as a voltage generator sequentially connected to two capacitors $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ as depicted in Fig. 3 (c). The currents induced in the superconductor film are proportional to the current through the drive coil $`L_d,`$ $`j^{(2\mathrm{D})}I_{\mathrm{drive}},`$ Fig. 3 (b,c). The coefficient $`A_a`$ of this proportion $`\left(j^{(2\mathrm{D})}\right)=I_{\mathrm{drive}}^2/A_a`$ has dimension of area . According to Eq. (35) an ac current $`I_d\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)`$ will create an ac Bernoulli voltage of doubled frequency $`V_{\mathrm{Bernoulli}}\mathrm{cos}(2\omega t).`$ Initially, in the switched-off regime, when the detector contour resonates at frequency $`\omega =1/(L_1C)^{1/2},`$ where $`C=C_1C_2/(C_1+C_2)`$ the parasite mutual inductance between the drive coil contour and the detector contour must be carefully annulled by a small tunable mutual inductance $`M_{12}.`$ After that taking $`L_2L_1/3`$ in switched-on regime the detecting contour will resonate at doubled frequency $`2\omega =1/(LC)^{1/2},`$ $`L=L_1L_2/(L_1+L_2).`$ In resonance conditions the Bernoulli voltage can be directly detected by a lock-in voltmeter with a low noise preamplifier. If we know the penetration depth $`\lambda _{ab}(T)`$ the measured Bernoulli voltage, according to the Eq. (35), gives the effective mass of Cooper pairs $`m^{}.`$

If thick films, $`d_{\mathrm{film}}\lambda _{ab}(0),`$ or bulk single crystals are to be used for such experiment we have to substitute in Eq. (34) the London formula for the velocity $`m^{}𝐯=e^{}𝐀,`$ which is a trivial consequence of the Newton equation $`m^{}\mathrm{d}𝐯/\mathrm{d}t=e^{}𝐄`$ for a nearly homogeneous electric field $`𝐄(t)=𝐀/t.`$ Combining with Eq. (31) we obtain

$$\phi =R_{\mathrm{LH}}p_B,p_B=\frac{B_r^2}{2\mu _0},R_{\mathrm{LH}}\frac{1}{e^{}n(T=0)},$$
(38)
where $`p_B`$ is the pressure of the tangential to the superconducting surface magnetic field, and the $`R_{\mathrm{LH}}`$ is the temperature independent London-Hall constant expressed via the total volume density of conduction band $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}=e^{}n(0)=1/R_{\mathrm{LH}}.`$ We consider the Greiter, Wilczek and Witten’s  prediction for a temperature dependence of the London-Hall constant as being erroneous and the problem still waits for its experimental solution. For type-I superconductors the Eq. (38) can be applied up to $`B_c(T)`$ obtaining in this way the contact potential difference Eq. (14). It is still questionable whether the thermal-induced contact-potential difference

$$\phi (T_2)\phi (T_1)=\frac{1}{e^{}n(0)}\frac{B_c^2(T_2)B_c^2(T_1)}{2\mu _0}$$
(39)
may be measured, but if the answer is positive this effect can be used to determine the thermodynamic critical field $`B_c(T)`$ even for type-II superconductors. In any case the fluctuation of the temperature should be taken into account in the experiments aiming to observe the Bernoulli effect.

The realistic experiment proposed in Ref.  can be substantially simplified (cf. Ref. ): the ring electrode capacitor can be substituted by a short circuit, and the central one could cover the whole facet. We stress that at least one capacitive connection is indispensable. The voltmeters do not measure any voltage difference but just the difference in the electrochemical potential (even nowadays almost 99% of the experimentalists are unaware of what a voltmeter really measures)! An error of the kind has prevented Lewis  during his pioneer investigations in the period 1953–1955 from observing the Bernoulli effect in superconductors soon after it has been predicted by London. Lewis did not use the capacitive connection but he introduced all other necessary ingredients: lock-in voltmeter with nV sensitivity, ac magnetic field and doubling of the frequency. Now it is worthwhile measuring both the Bernoulli effect and the surface Hall effect in the same sample. At known total charge density $`\rho _{\mathrm{tot}},`$ Eq. (38), and penetration dept $`\lambda _{ab}(0),`$ Eq. (30), the Cooper pair mass can be determined as $`m^{}=\mu _0e^{}\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}\lambda _{ab}^2(0).`$ Despite the $`40\times 10^3`$ papers published on high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity, without the Cooper pair mass the physics of superconductivity remains Hamlet without the Prince, with only the role of Ophelia performed by onnagata111female impersonator in kabuki theater. In the next subsection we briefly describe the only, to the best of our knowledge, reliable experiment for determination of effective mass $`m^{}.`$

### 4.3 Electric charge modulation of the kinetic inductance

When an electric voltage is applied to a MIS plane capacitor the charging of the superconducting surface will create a change of the 2D superfluid charge density

$$e^{}n^{(2\mathrm{D})}=e^{}d_{\mathrm{film}}n(T)+D_z\frac{n(T)}{n(0)}=\left(d_{\mathrm{film}}\rho _{\mathrm{tot}}+D_z\right)\frac{\lambda _{ab}^2(0)}{\lambda _{ab}^2(T)}.$$
(40)
It is then easily worked out from Eq. (36) that this creates a modulation of the kinetic inductance and the derivative determines  the effective mass

$$m^{}=e^{}L_{\mathrm{}}(0)L_{\mathrm{}}(T)\frac{\delta D_z}{\delta L_{\mathrm{}}(T)}.$$
(41)
This simple picture gets complicated due to $`T_c`$-changing upon electrostatic doping of the material, but below the critical region this experiment confirms  a temperature independent effective mass $`m^{}`$. When $`m^{}`$ and all other parameters of the superconductor are already determined we can turn to the vortex charge problem.

## 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceding analysis demonstrates that the proposed electronic measurements are feasible and the suggested experimental programme could be soon realized. The appearance of the first good samples would immediately lead to the solution of the problem concerning the vortex charge and Cooper pair mass. These two parameters, $`q_v`$ and $`m^{},`$ might fall in the lime-light of the physics of superconductivity in the nearest future. As a by-product the Cooper pair mass spectroscopy could become a standard tool for testing the quality of the superconducting films for future superconductor electronics. Even in the present paper we suggested two or three new effects thus there is no doubt that new physics will emerge from the development of the layer-by-layer oxide technology. Let us also list some of the main results of this study: the formulae for vortex charge Eqs. (10) and (18), vortex conductivity Eqs. (12) and (13), surface Hall current for bulk crystals Eq. (30), interface Hall conductivity for type-I superconductors Eq. (16), thermal-induced contact-potential difference Eq. (39), etc..

Finding a solution to the vortex charge problem by employing a model system, where the superconducting and the polarized layers are separated, will immediately trigger the answer to the question about what is the charge induced in the adjacent CuO2 layers by a pancake vortex. One may further ask about the fate of the charge cloud when the pancake vortices ”polymerize” in a vortex line, and what is the influence of the vortex charge in the vortex-vortex interaction and correlation. According to our analysis of the Bernoulli effect the charge will concentrate at the end of vortex lines, at kinks and sharp turns of stacks of pancake vortices. Needless to say, the clear solution of some model problems is always useful in the search for solution to the complex problems in material science.

The problem of determining the vortex charge by a transport measurement brings us back to one of the first ideas of the electron physics. Only two months after the discovery of the electron  Francis Mott made the first attempt to observe the influence of the electric fields and surface charges on the conductivity of Pt. Likewise, the vortex charge current has led us to another immortal idea of the XIX century—the Kelvin vortex model of the ”atom”. Starting from a hydrodynamic approach, we were able to realize that the hydrodynamic excitations can propagate as particles and that the charge related to vortex ”atoms” gives a measurable electric current.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is thankful to Prof. Y. Bruynseraede and Prof. J. Indekeu for the hospitality and the interest in this investigation. The author is very much indebted to I. Bozovic, J. Clayhold, V. Geshkenbein, D. I. Khomskii, A. I. Larkin, Y. Matsuda, M. Simkin, K. Temst and A. Volodin for the correspondence, papers provided, comments and the clarifying discussions. It is a pleasure to thank E. Penev for critically reading the manuscript, providing the electronic versions of the figures and a many suggested improvements. The author appreciates the collaboration with M. Mishonov in deriving the results in subsection 2.2 and the indispensable help of V. Mishonova. This paper was supported by the Belgian DWTC, the Flemish Government Programme VIS/97/01, the IUAP and the GOA.


text:
# Excess sub-millimetre emission from GRS 1915+105

## 1 Introduction

Since its discovery in 1992, simultaneously with the SIGMA instrument on the Granat satellite and the BATSE instrument on the CGRO satellite (Castro-Tirado, Brandt, Lund, 1992; Harmon, Paciesas, Fishman, 1992), GRS 1915+105 has been one of the most extensively studied sources of recent times. The popularity of this source is due to its highly complex and variable nature at all wavelengths from gamma rays to radio. The many unusual features include relativistic jets (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1994; Fender et al. 1999), X-ray Quasi-periodic Oscillations (QPOs) (Morgan & Remillard 1996) and accretion instabilities resulting in jet formation (Pooley & Fender 1997; Eikenberry et al. 1998; Mirabel et al. 1998).

The system exhibits a wide variety of radio behaviour on timescales from minutes to weeks (Foster et al. 1996; Pooley & Fender 1997). High time resolution observations using the Ryle Telescope (RT) and more continuous coverage on hourly time-scales, revealed new aspects of the radio emission (Pooley & Fender 1997 hereafter PF97). Both 20–40 min period QPOs associated with soft X-ray variations (first reported in the radio by Pooley (1995,1996)) and a change of QPO period, were clearly visible during some individual observations.

The infrared variability from this source is similar. Following observed 1 and 2 mag variations in the J, H and K-band fluxes (Castro-Tirado et al. 1993; Mirabel et al. 1994; Chaty et al. 1996), Fender et al. (1997) reported rapid infrared flares which had amplitudes, rise, decay and recurrence time-scales strikingly similar to those of the radio flares observed with the RT 8 hours later, suggesting infrared synchrotron emission. Further RT observations taken simultaneously with the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) showed 26-min oscillations in both the radio and infrared emission (Fender & Pooley 1998). From these observations, the authors showed that the radio variations were delayed by 33 (or perhaps 59) minutes relative to the infrared.

Is there a correlation between the radio or infrared emission and the X-rays? There is clearly some correlation between X-ray states and radio emission (CGRO Burst And Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) correlation reported by Foster et al. 1996, Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer Proportional Counter Array (RXTE PCA) correlation reported by PF97), and PF97 were also the first to observe frequency-dependent delays in the radio emission. Quasi-periodic flaring in the infrared, reported by Fender & Pooley (1998), was also observed by Eikenberry et al. (1998), who had simultaneous observations with RXTE PCA. The source of these flares is consistent with infrared emitting plasmons from ejected disc material, following rapid X-ray variability and an X-ray dip. The confirmation of such a hypothesis was presented by Mirabel et al. (1998) with simultaneous RXTE PCA, United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) and Very Large Array (VLA) data. Several X-ray dips and subsequent infrared and radio flares were observed.

## 2 Photometry

We obtained sub-mm data over two days on MJD 51026 and 51027, when GRS 1915+105 was moderately active, with periods of quiescence interspersed. Co-ordinated with this were quasi-simultaneous observations at radio wavelengths. The radio data were taken using the Green Bank Interferometer (GBI) at 2.25 and 8.3 GHz, and the RT at 15 GHz. Sub-mm data at 350 GHz was taken using the James Clark Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) using the SCUBA array, and X-ray data were obtained at 2–12 keV from the RXTE ASM instrument.

The GBI monitored GRS 1915+105 simultaneously at 2.25 and 8.3 GHz with integrations 10–15 minutes in length several times daily. The calibration procedure is reported in detail in Waltman et al. (1994). The RT is an 8-element east–west array operating at 15-GHz; details of the operation can be found in PF97. The JCMT Sub-mm Common User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) observed GRS 1915+105 over two nights on MJD 51026 and 51027 (1998 Aug 01 and 02) in photometric mode at 450 and 850 m wavelengths – for a description of the instrument see Holland et al. (1999). Regular skydips were taken throughout the observations, and after focusing, aligning and pointing the array, flux calibration was performed using either Uranus or G45.1 ($`\mathrm{RA}(1950)=19^\mathrm{h}11^\mathrm{m}`$, $`\mathrm{Dec}.(1950)=10^{}45^{}`$). A total of 15 observations of GRS 1915+105 were made over the two nights, each observation included 50 integrations of 10 s (except for the observation at 51026.574 which included 26 integrations).

Fig. 1 shows photometry over two nights: MJD 51026 and 51027. In the figure, the top panel shows the X-ray flux from the RXTE ASM instrument, whereas the bottom panel shows the radio and sub-mm flux. Table 1 presents the flux range during observations, a typical observation error for each photometric point, a weighted mean, a projected flux (detailed below), and errors on these fluxes.

## 3 Interpretation

In all radio, sub-mm and X-ray bands our data show GRS 1915+105 to be variable. At all wavelengths, there is a general trend to lower fluxes and smaller variability over the timescale of our observations. Fig. 2 shows the photometry from the GBI at 8 GHz and the RT at 15 GHz for 7 d around the time of our SCUBA observations. The flux is in general decaying, with some fluctuations around days 51023 and 51025. The decay becomes steadier around the time of the sub-mm observations on days 51026 and 51027.

We have modelled the decay of the last three days shown in Fig. 2 at all three radio wavelengths with a linear fit. This provides a plausible estimate to the cm-wave fluxes when interpolated to the times when the sub-mm data were taken, providing there were no rare sharp outbursts. Averaged projected fluxes using this method are given in Table 1.

### 3.1 Evidence for a high frequency excess

The main difficulty in interpretation of these data is the validity of extrapolating a variable source using a simple constant decay. If data at all radio frequencies follows the simple decay law, and no additional flares were produced at the time of the SCUBA observations, then the spectra over the two epochs in Fig. 3 shows a clear sub-mm excess. While these last two assumptions may be over simplifying the reality of GRS 1915+105 (e.g. fig. 4 in PF97 shows a large short-lived flare), previous observations have shown a high-frequency excess at infrared compared with radio observations (Fender & Pooley 1998; Mirabel et al. 1998). Photometric observations by these authors have shown that over a large range in radio flux (10–100 mJy), and with multiple oscillations, the radio spectrum at a time when the flux is low ($`20`$ mJy) is very similar to that in this paper (e.g. fig. 1 in Mirabel et al. 1998), and during times when the radio flux at 8 GHz is around 15 mJy, the 2.2 m flux is 35-40 mJy.

### 3.2 Origin of the sub-mm excess

The flat spectrum ($``$ high-frequency excess) presented here is seen in other X-ray binaries where there exists significant emission at the mm and sub-mm regimes. Both Cyg X-1 (Fender et al. 2000) and Cyg X-3 (Fender et al. 1995; Ogley et al. 1998) have spectra with indices $`\alpha 0`$, deviating from the expected optically thin, $`1\alpha 0.5`$, steep spectrum observed during an outburst (where spectral index $`\alpha `$ as $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$).

As discussed by other authors, a sub-mm excess and approximately flat synchrotron spectrum are likely to originate in a partially self-absorbed jet (Blandford & Königl 1979; Hjellming & Johnston 1988; Fender et al. 2000). In such a scenario higher frequencies probe smaller emitting regions close to the base of the outflow. Indeed, for an ideal Blandford & Konigl conical jet characteristic size $`\nu ^1`$, and so the regions responsible for the emission observed at 350 GHz may be only 5% as far downstream as those observed at 15 GHz. Dhawan, Mirabel & Rodríguez (1998) present a VLBI image of the core of the system in which the 15 GHz emission arises on an angular scale of a few milliarcsec. At 350 GHz, the emission may therefore be coming from angular scales as small as 200 microarcsec – at 11 kpc (Fender et al. 1999) this corresponds to a physical scale of about an astronomical unit. For a velocity of $`0.9c`$ (Mirabel & Rodríguez 1984; Fender et al. 1999) this distance would be traversed within a few tens of seconds. Pooley & Fender (1997), Mirabel et al. (1998) and Fender & Pooley (1998) report frequency-dependent delays in the synchrotron emission, in the sense that higher frequecies rise and peak earlier. Mirabel et al. (1998) fit the delays to the form $`\mathrm{\Delta }tv^{2/3}`$, although in the self-similar regime of an ideal Blandford and Konigl jet this should be $`\mathrm{\Delta }tv^1`$. Either way, the for an observed delay of tens of minutes at 15 GHz, we would also expect from this scaling that the sub-mm emission arises less than a minute downstream in the flow from the base of the jet. So scaling with respect to both direct imaging and frequency-dependent delays show that sub-mm observations are ideal for studying emission near the base of the jet (and do not suffer the instellar extinction which can be so dramatic for $`\lambda 5\mu `$m).

Fig. 3 shows the radio–(sub)mm spectrum observed from GRS 1915+105 on the two consecutive days of observation. The similar fractional decrease in all bands strongly supports our interpretation of the sub-mm emission as being a high-frequency extension of the synchrotron spectrum observed at cm wavelengths. As noted above, the flow time of electrons from the disc/black hole to the sub-mm-emitting region is likely to be much shorter than the interval between the observations, and so we are likely to be observing two different populations of electrons on the two days of observations. The similarity of the spectra is therefore an indication of the steadiness of the disc:jet coupling and of the outflow itself. The decrease in mean flux density between the two days may reflect a small decrease in accretion rate. If there had not been a renewal of the electron population over the 24 hr between the observation, this would require the magnetic field at the site of the 350 GHz emission to be $`10`$ G in order that synchrotron losses had not become significant.

We do not have a good explanation at present for the apparent minimum in the spectrum between 15 – 350 GHz, but given the non-simultaneity of the data and notoriously unpredictable nature of the source, we will not discuss it further here. In addition we note that radio–mm observations of GRS 1915+105 presented in Fender & Pooley (2000) constitute evidence that the radio–infrared spectrum can steepen from $`\alpha 0`$ to more positive values.

## 4 Conclusions

We have obtained the first sub-mm photometry of GRS 1915+105 at 350 GHz (850-m), together with radio data on two separate epochs during a time when the source was mildly active. At all frequencies a significant amount of variability was observed, with a roughly flat spectral index, supporting the hypothesis that emission from radio to infrared wavelengths is dominated by synchrotron emission. Scaling with respect to both direct VLBI imaging and radio–mm–infrared time delays indicate that future sub-mm observations have the potential to probe very close to the base of the jet.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful for the ‘wizardry’ of scheduling by Graeme Watt at the JCMT, and for assistance by Richard Prestage, Rob J. Ivison, Wayne Holland and Tim Jenness in co-ordinating and reducing the data.

The Green Bank Interferometer is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated by the NRAO in support of NASA High Energy Astrophysics programmes. Radio astronomy at the Naval Research Laboratory is supported by the Office of Naval Research. The Ryle Telescope is supported by PPARC. The James Clerk Maxwell Telescope is operated by The Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research and the National Research Council of Canada.