text:
# The problem of Coulomb interactions in the theory of the quantum Hall effect.

## I Introduction.

In these notes we discuss some of the recent advancements in the theory of the quantum Hall effect. In particular, we address some of the main steps in the development of a theory that combines the instanton vacuum approach for spin polarized, free electrons with the Finkelstein treatment of the Coulomb interactions in the disorderd systems.

The electron gas with an infinitely ranged interaction potential is, in many ways, very different from what we know about the theory of free electrons. This class of problems belongs to a different universality class of quantum transport phenomena and it is characterized by a typical interaction symmetry which we name $``$ invariance. $``$ invariance is intimidly related to the electrodynamic $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance and it has major consequences for the renormalization of the theory.

The main physical objective of our theory is to unify the different aspects of (abelian) quantum Hall states that have originated from different sources and that have been studied over the years independently. They include the quantum critical behavior of the quantum Hall plateau transitions, composite fermion theory or the Chern Simons mapping between integral and fractional quantum Hall states, the Luttinger liquid theory of quantum Hall edge excitations, as well as the stability or robustness of the quantization phenomenon due to the disorder . For a detailed exposure we refer the reader to the literature and here, we only present a brief introduction to the subject.

## II Matrices in frequency and replica space

Diffusive modes are encoded in the unitary matrix field variables $`Q_{nm}^{\beta \gamma }`$ . Here, the superscripts represent the replica indices ($`\beta `$,$`\gamma =1,2,\mathrm{}N_r`$ where $`N_r0`$ at the end of all calculations) and the subscripts denote the Matsubara frequency indices ($`n,m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\pm N_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ where the cut-off $`N_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ is sent to infinity in the end). The matrices $`Q`$ generally obey the constraints

$`Q^{}=Q,Q^2=1,\mathrm{tr}Q=0`$

and they can be represented by $`Q=T^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }T`$ where $`T`$ is unitary and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a diagonal matrix

$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)_{nm}^{\beta \gamma }=\delta ^{\beta \gamma }\delta _{nm}\mathrm{sign}(m).`$

In order to fascilitate a discussion of the electrodynamic $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance of the theory, we generally follow a very specific cut-off procedure in frequency space and a very specific set of algebraic rules for matrix manipulation which we term $``$ algebra. For example, if we write the matrix $`Q`$ in the form $`Q=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\delta Q`$ then the $`\delta Q`$ matrix is generally taken as a small matrix in frequency space, i.e. its matrix elements are non zero only for $`n,m=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\pm N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{max}}N_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$. In different words, the unitary rotation $`T`$ mixes amongst (positive and negative) frequencies with a small cut-off ($`N_{max}`$) whereas the $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations generally involve large matrices with a large cut-off ($`N_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$) in frequency space.

By employing distinctly different cut-offs $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ in Matsubara frequency space, both of which are sent to infinity in the end, the problem of electrodynamic gauge invariance simplifies dramatically. Physically, the cut off procedure is motivated by the vastly different energy scales that generally characterize the elastic scatering processes ($`1/\tau _{el}`$) on the one hand, and the bandwidth of the electron gas on the other. However, the rules of $``$ algebra can be shown to have a quite universal significance for disordered electron systems. For example, it successfully descibes the dynamics of chiral edge excitations in quantum Hall systems. It has been used as a microscopic basis for deriving, from first principles, the complete Luttinger liquid theory of edge excitations for abelian quantum Hall states.

We generally need the introduction of two more (large) matrices . First, the diagonal matrix $`\eta `$

$`\left(\eta \right)_{nm}^{\beta \gamma }=\delta ^{\beta \gamma }m\delta _{nm}`$

which is the matrix representation of (imaginary) time derivative. Secondly, there are the off diagonal matrices $`I_n^\alpha `$

$`\left(\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha \right)_{kl}^{\beta \gamma }=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{n,kl}`$

which are the generators of the $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations. For more details on the rules of $``$ algebra and various algebraic identities, we refer the reader to the original papers .

## III The $`\sigma `$ model action

The action consists of three terms

$$S[Q]=S_\sigma [Q]+S_\mathrm{F}[Q]+S_\mathrm{C}[Q].$$
(1)
Here, the first term

$$S_\sigma [Q]=\frac{\sigma _{xx}^0}{8}\mathrm{Tr}\left(_\mu Q\right)^2\frac{\sigma _{xy}^0}{8}\epsilon _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}Q_\mu Q_\nu Q$$
(2)
represents the standard non linear $`\sigma `$ model for spinless, free electrons in two dimensions and in the presence of a static perpendicular magnetic field. The Tr symbol stands for both the spatial integration and the trace tr over all matrix indices (Matsubara as well as replica).

The second term $`S_F`$ is the singlet interaction term first introduced by Finkelstein. It can be written in three equivalent ways

$`S_\mathrm{F}[Q]`$ $`=`$ $`\pi z_0T{\displaystyle d^2x\left[\underset{\alpha ,n_i}{}Q_{n_1n_2}^{\alpha \alpha }Q_{n_3n_4}^{\alpha \alpha }\delta _{n_1+n_3,n_2+n_4}+4\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\eta Q\right]}+\mathrm{const}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\pi z_0T{\displaystyle d^2x\left[\underset{\alpha ,n}{}\mathrm{trI}_n^\alpha Q\mathrm{trI}_n^\alpha Q+4\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\eta Q\right]}+\mathrm{const}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}z_0T\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha ,Q][\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha ,Q].`$ (5)
Here, the quantity $`z_0`$ represents the singlet interaction amplitude and $`T`$ is the temperature. The compact notation of the last line indicates that the expression is invariant under $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations ($``$ invariance, see Section 4). This expression generally acts as a single operator under renormalization group transformations.

The non linear $`\sigma `$ model part and $`S_F`$ represent, together, the effective action for a system with infinitly ranged electron-electon interactions. The Coulomb potential appears explicitly only in higher dimensional (irrelevant) terms ($`S_C`$) which are usually discarded. However, these higher dimensional operators turn out to be dangerously  irrelevant and it is generally important to also take the term $`S_C`$ (the socalled Coulomb term) into account. This part of the action can be written as

$$S_\mathrm{C}[Q]=\pi Td^2xd^2x^{}\underset{\alpha ,n}{}\mathrm{trI}_n^\alpha Q(𝐱)U^1(𝐱𝐱^{})\mathrm{trI}_n^\alpha Q(𝐱^{}),$$
(6)
where

$`U^1(𝐩)={\displaystyle d^2xU^1(𝐱)e^{i\mathrm{𝐩𝐱}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\rho U_0(𝐩)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }|𝐩|`$

In this expression $`\rho =dn/d\mu `$ represents the thermodynamic density of states and $`U_0(𝐩)=2\pi e^2/|𝐩|`$ is the bare Coulomb interaction in two dimensions.

### A Renormalization

The theory, as it stands, contains only four quantities for which one needs to compute the quantum corrections, i.e. $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$, $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$, $`z_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As is well known, the quantity $`\sigma _{xy}^0`$, multiplying the topological charge $`q`$

$$q(Q)=\frac{1}{16\pi i}Trϵ_{\mu \nu }Q_\mu Q_\nu Q=\frac{1}{4\pi i}𝑑xtrT_xT^{}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
(7)
is not affected by the perturbative quantum theory and will be dealt with at a later stage. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the other hand, remains strictly unrenormalized and this statement, as it has turned out from the microscopic derivation of the action, should be imposed as a general constraint on the quantum theory (see also Section 7).

This leaves us with two non trivial renormalizations in perturbation theory, i.e. the inverse coupling constant $`\sigma _{xx}^0`$ and the interaction amplitude $`z_0`$. The complete list of renormalization group $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ functions in $`2+2ϵ`$ dimension is given by

$`\beta _t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\mathrm{ln}L}}=2\epsilon t+2t^2+O(t^3),`$
$`\beta _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{xy}}{d\mathrm{ln}L}}=0,`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}z}{d\mathrm{ln}L}}=tt^2(3+\pi ^2/6)+O(t^3),`$
$`\gamma _C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{ln}L}}=1.`$
Here, we have written $`t=\frac{1}{\pi \sigma _{xx}}`$ and $`L`$ denotes the linear dimension of the system. These results are quite similar to those of the classical Heisenberg ferromagnet and the physics of the electron gas in $`2+2ϵ`$ dimension can be obtained following the (in many ways) unique field theoretic methodology of dealing with Goldstone modes.

### B Fermi liquids versus Non-Fermi liquids

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the physics of interacting systems is very different from that of free electron localization. Free electron formalisms, unlike the Finkelstein formalism, has $`Q`$ martrix field variables which usually have two frequencies only, i.e. the advanced and retarded ones. A formal but general way of describing the crossover between the single particle and many body formalisms is obtained by varying the frequency cut-off $`N_{max}`$ in the $`Q`$ matrix fields, from unity to infinity. By varying the value of $`N_{max}`$, the theory changes fundamentally. The most dramatic effect of putting $`N_{max}\mathrm{}`$ is that the ultraviolet singularity structure of theory (i.e. the $`\beta `$ function) completely changes. The presence of the singlet interaction term $`S_F`$ now implies that the problem generally belongs to a different universality class of quantum transport phenomena. Since there is no Fermi liquid principle for the disordered electron system with an infinite range interaction potential, it is necessary to reconsider the topological concept of a $`\theta `$ or instanton vacuum which previously was introduced and investigated for the free electron theory alone.

Along with the renormalization behavior, also the structure of the operators of the theory change as the cut off $`N_{max}`$ is being sent to infinity. A new, previously unrecognized notion of interaction symmetries now becomes an integral part of the problem. These symmetries ($``$ invariance, Section 4) are intimidly related to the electrodynamic $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance and much is yet to be learned about the behavior of the theory in the strong coupling regime.

Before elaborating on symmetries and gauge invariance, however, we wish to first address some of the general ideas that are associated with the perturbative renormalization group results of the previous Section.

Notice that on the basis of the $`\beta `$ function or asymptotic freedom alone, one generally expects that the interacting electron gas, in two spatial dimensions, behaves quasi metallic at short distances but it eventually enters a strong coupling phase with a massgap (an insulating phase), as the lengthscale is increased.

The renormalization of the interaction terms $`S_F`$ and $`S_C`$, i.e. the $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _c`$ functions, generally determine the dynamical scaling in the problem, i.e. the temperature and frequency dependence of physical obsevables, and this includes the non-Fermi liquid behavior of quantities like the specific heat.

The result of the $`\gamma `$ indicates that the singlet interaction term $`S_F`$ plays formally the role of an order parameter (i.e. the spontaneous magnetization) in the context of conventional critical phenomena phenomenology. Physically it means that the theory generates a (Coulomb) gap in the density of states that enters in the expression for the specific heat. This result is quite different from what one is used to in the theory free electron localization, or in the theory with a finite value of $`N_{max}`$. For example, such free particle concepts like anomalous or multi fractal fluctuations in the local density of states are no longer valid in the theory with Coulomb interactions. The physics of the $`\gamma `$ functions is generally very different.

In Fig. 1 we have plotted the results for the anomalous dimensions $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma _c`$ versus $`t`$. We see that in the weak coupling or small $`t`$ regime, the $`\gamma (t)`$ dominates the $`\gamma _c(t)`$ indicating that the Coulomb term $`S_C`$ is irrelevant. However, with the $`\gamma _c(t)`$ function remaining fixed at the value $`1`$, as mentioned before, there is likely to be a point on the $`t`$ axis beyond which the $`\gamma _c(t)`$ dominates the $`\gamma (t)`$ function. This means that upon entering the strong coupling regime, the roles of $`S_F`$ and $`S_C`$ get interchanged and the dynamics of the insulating phase is now entirely determined by the Coulomb term $`S_C`$.

This dangerously irrelevant behavior of $`S_C`$ has not been recognized previously but obviously plays a fundamental role in the theory of metals and insulators. This notion can not be obtained in any heuristic or phenomenological fashion, but it clearly affects the way in which we are going to look upon the complications of the theory in dealing with the quantum Hall effect. For example, if the quantum critical singularities of the quantum Hall plateau transitions are appropriately described by the non-perturbative behavior of the $`\beta _{xy}`$ and $`\gamma `$ functions of the Finkelstein theory, then this critical behavior is certainly very different from the main expectations of the free particle approximation. Unlike the free particle problem which effectively lives in two spatial dimensions alone, the Finkelstein theory contains the time variable as an extra non-trivial dimension. This not only destroys any hope of finding an exact (conformal) scheme of critical indices, but also invalides any explicit or implicit attempt of employing Fermi liquid ideas for quantum Hall systems in the presence of the Coulomb interactions.

## IV $``$ invariance

$``$ invariance  is one of the most important interaction symmetries of disordered systems. It means that the action for systems with an infinite range interaction potential (like the Coulomb potential) is invariant under spatially independent $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations. Such gauge transformations can be represented by a (large) unitary matrix $`W`$

$`W=\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,n}{}}\varphi _n^\alpha \mathrm{I}_n^\alpha )`$

where the $`\varphi _n^\alpha `$ are the frequency components of the imaginary time quantity $`\varphi (\tau )`$. The statement of $``$ invariance can now be written as

$`S[Q]=S[W^1QW].`$

$``$ invariance is generally violated by systems with a finite range interaction potential, or free electron systems. One can show that these systems map, under the action of the renormalization group, back onto the free electron theory and, therefore, Fermi liquid ideas can be applied in this case.

The concept of $``$ invariance implies that only the quantities and correlations that are $``$ invariant have a simple infrared behavior that generally can be handled with the methodology of the renormalization group. It also implies that the dynamical scaling of physical observables like the conductances can only be extracted from the theory if $``$ invariance is respected by the renormalization scheme that one chooses. For example, the momentum shell or background field methodology generally violate $``$ invariance and this complicates the computation of e.g. the AC conductances.

On the other hand, the partition function itself, or the response to electromagetic fields, generally respects statement of $``$ invariance. It is therefore important to study $``$ invariant quantities in general and see $``$ algebra at work.

## V External EM fields

If, for the sake of simplicity, we first consider the theory for weak static magnetic fields, then the various pieces of the action, in the presence of scalar and vector potentials, can be written in a transparant fashion as follows

$`S_\sigma [Q,A]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}}{8}}\mathrm{Tr}[D_\mu ,Q]^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xy}^{(0)}}{8}}\epsilon _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}Q[D_\mu ,Q][D_\nu ,Q],`$
$`S_\mathrm{F}[Q,A]`$ $`=`$ $`S_\mathrm{F}[Q],`$
$`S_\mathrm{C}[Q,A]`$ $`=`$ $`\pi T{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\underset{\alpha ,n}{}\left[\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha Q)\frac{1}{\pi T}\left(A_0\right)_n^\alpha \right]U^1(𝐩)\left[\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha Q)\frac{1}{\pi T}\left(A_0\right)_n^\alpha \right]}.`$
Here, $`D_\mu =_\mu iA_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative in matrix form with $`A_\mu =_{\alpha ,n}(A_\mu )_n^\alpha \mathrm{I}_n^\alpha `$. By the rules of $``$ algebra, the $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance can now be formulated by saying that the following set of transformations $`QW^1QW`$, $`(A_\mu )_n^\alpha (A_\mu )_n^\alpha +i_\mu \varphi _n^\alpha `$, and $`(A_0)_n^\alpha (A_0)_n^\alpha +i\omega _n\varphi _n^\alpha `$ leaves the action invariant.

The theory for strong static magnetic fields $`B`$ is slightly more complex and has additional terms ($`\sigma _{xy}^{II}`$, Section 7) reflecting the $`B`$ dependence of the electron density.

## VI Response at a tree level

As a simple check of the above formulae, we compute the gauge invariant electromagnetic response at a tree level, for the case $`\sigma _{xy}=0`$. We obtain

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{tree}[A]=\frac{1}{T}\underset{\alpha ,n}{}\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}}{8}\left[\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2+4\omega _nU^1(p)/\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}}\right]\frac{(E_\mu )_n^\alpha \overline{(E_\nu )_n^\alpha }}{\omega _n}.$$
(8)
where $`(E_\mu )_n^\alpha `$ is the electric field. The charge density can be defined as $`n_n^\alpha (p)=T\delta S_{\mathrm{eff}}[A]\delta \left(A_0\right)_n^\alpha `$, then from $`S_{\mathrm{eff}}^{tree}[A]`$ one obtains the continuity equation that in ordinary space time notation can be written as

$$_tn+(𝐣_\mathrm{C}+𝐣_{\mathrm{diff}})=0,$$
(9)
where $`𝐣_{\mathrm{diff}}=D_{xx}^{(0)}n`$ with $`D_{xx}^{(0)}=\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}/2\pi \rho `$ is just diffusive current component and $`𝐣_\mathrm{C}=\frac{\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}}{2\pi }𝐄_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ with $`𝐄_{\mathrm{tot}}=𝐄_{\mathrm{ext}}d^2x^{}U_0(𝐱𝐱^{})n(𝐱^{})`$ is the electric current density due to the external and internally generated electric fields. The tree level response therefore reproduces the well known results of the theory of metals.

## VII Response with quantum corrections

We have computed the complete response to extenal electromagnetic fields with quantum corrections and checked the gauge invariance at a one loop level. The analysis is rather lengthy and the details will be reported elsewhere. We present, instead, the final result for the continuity equation which can be written in frequency and momentum notation as follows

$$\omega _\eta (n_\eta \frac{\sigma _{xy}^{(0)}}{2\pi }B^\eta )=ip_\mu \left\{\frac{\sigma _{xx}^\mathrm{l}}{2\pi }\left(E_\mu ^\eta ip_\mu U_0n_\eta \right)D_{xx}iq_\mu \left(n_\eta +i\frac{\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{II}}}{2\pi }B^\eta \right)\right\}.$$
(10)
Here, $`\sigma _{xx}^\mathrm{l}`$ is the renormalized longitudinal conductivity which is expressed as $`\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}`$ plus quantum corrections. Furthermore, $`D_{xx}=\sigma _{xx}^\mathrm{l}/2\pi \rho `$ the renormalized diffusive coefficient and $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{II}}/2\pi =dn/dB`$.

It is important to remark that the static ($`\omega _\eta =0`$) limit of this expression has an important general significance for the renormalization of the theory. Notice that by putting $`\omega _\eta =0`$, the expression only contains the thermodynamic quantities such as $`\rho `$, the thermodynamic density of states, $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{II}}=n/B`$, which is the derivative of the electron density with respect to the static external $`B`$, as well as the bare Coulomb interaction $`U_0`$. This form of the static response can be shown to be quite generally valid, independently of the effective action of the $`Q`$ field variables. This means that the thermodynamic quantities $`\rho `$, $`\sigma _{xy}^{\mathrm{II}}`$ as well as $`U_0`$ generally do not acquire any quantum corrections and this statement can be imposed as an important general constraint on the quantum theory.

Notice that this constraint does not involve the quantities $`\sigma _{xx}`$, $`\sigma _{xy}`$ and the interaction amplitude $`z`$ which do not appear in the expression for static response. These quantities are therefore the only ones for which quantum corrections are possible (and do occur) in general.

## VIII Physical observables

The results of the previous Section imply that a general quantum theory of physical observables can be formulated and expressed in terms of $``$ invariant correlations of the $`Q`$ field variables. For example, the linear response to an external electric field can be generally expressed in terms of a quantity $`\sigma _{xx}^{}`$ (Kubo formula) as follows

$`\sigma _{xx}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}}{4\eta }}\mathrm{tr}\left\{[\mathrm{I}_\eta ^\alpha ,Q][\mathrm{I}_\eta ^\alpha ,Q]\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{xx}^{(0)2}}{16\eta D}}{\displaystyle _x^{}}\mathrm{tr}\left\{[\mathrm{I}_\eta ^\alpha ,Q]_\mu Q\right\}\mathrm{tr}\left\{[\mathrm{I}_\eta ^\alpha ,Q]_\mu Q\right\}`$
This result, when evaluated perturbatively , is of the general form $`\sigma _{xx}^{(0)}+\mathrm{quantum}\mathrm{corrections}`$. A similar expression exist for the Hall conductance $`\sigma _{xy}^{}`$. These general results retain their significance also beyond the theory of perturbative quantum corrections. For example, they can be used for non-perturbative (instanton) calculus  as well and this has led to the previously unrecognized concept of $`\theta `$ renormalization, or renormalization of the Hall conductance $`\sigma _{xy}`$ .

For completeness, we mention that the list of effective parameters $`\sigma _{xx}^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}^{}`$ can also be extended to include an effective quantity $`z^{}`$ which is associated with the interaction amplitude $`z_0`$. The result can be expressed as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\omega _nz^{}(\omega _n)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}z_0T{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha ,Q][\mathrm{I}_n^\alpha ,Q]`$

## IX Instantons

The non-perturbative contributions from a topologically nontrivial sectors of the theory (instantons) have formally the same structure as those obtained in the theory of free electrons . Since the analysis is rather involved , we simply present the most important results as illustrated by the renormalization group flow lines in the $`\sigma _{xx}`$ and $`\sigma _{xy}`$ conductance plane in Fig. 2.

The general consequences of the Coulomb interactions for the quantum critical behavior of the plateau transitions will be reported elsewhere. On the other hand, there is the problem of robust quantization of the Hall conductance which is represented in Fig. 2 by the strong coupling fixed points at integer values of $`\sigma _{xy}`$. This aspect of the theory can obviously not be obtained from any analysis in the weak coupling regime, either perturbative or non-perturbative, and it generally requires a more explicit knowledge of physics of incompressible the quantum Hall states.

Recently, a new and general ingredient of the instanton vacuum has been discovered from which the phenomenon of robust quantization can be derived. It has turned out that the edge of the instanton vacuum is generally massless and the theory can be mapped directly onto the more familiar theory of chiral edge bosons in quantum Hall systems . The effective action for massless edge excitations, along with a mass gap for the excitations in the bulk, is dynamically generated by the Finkelstein theory and quantized Hall conductance now appears as the renormalized quantity $`\sigma _{xy}^{}`$ in the effective action for the edge.

It is important to remark that by extending the instanton vacuum approach to include the effective action for edge excitations in the quantum Hall state , the significance of $``$ invariance has now also been demonstrated in the otherwise forbidden strong coupling regime of the Finkelstein theory.

## X Chern Simons statistical gauge fields

The theory of composite fermions  is obtained by adding the Chern Simons statistical gauge fields to the theory. The idea has been discussed at great length and in extensive detail at different places elsewhere. Here, we just mention how the flux attachement transformation by the Chern Simons gauge fields generates a scaling diagram that includes both the abelian quantum Hall states and the half integer effect (Fig. 3). The theory also includes the Luttinger liquid theory for edge excitations . This, then, leads to a unified theory of both the compressible and incompressible states in the quantum Hall regime.

## XI Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by INTAS (Grant No. 99-1070) and by the Dutch Science Foundation FOM.


format: text

text:
# Nuclear-spin qubits interaction in mesoscopic wires and rings

## Introduction

The possibility that a computer could be built employing the laws of quantum mechanics has stimulated huge interest in searching for useful algoritms and realizable physical implementations . There are currently many promising approaches to quantum computation , the most promising solid state approaches are based on the superconductivity , conduction electron spins  and nuclear spins  as qubits. The attraction of the approach of using nuclear spin in quantum computation lies in the idea of incorporating nuclear spins into a semiconductor device . Using of the nuclear spins incorporated in a heterostructure in the highly nondissipative quantum Hall effect regime, as qubits , are promising because they are extremely well isolated from their environment and have a long decoherence time . The energy gap in the spectrum of two - dimensional electrons in a strong magnetic field imposes severe restriction on the flip-flop processes, since the electron Zeeman energy is orders of magnitude larger than the nuclear one . It follows that the nuclear spin imbedded in 2DES under the QHE conditions is practically decoupled from the conduction electron spins. As a result the nuclear spin relaxation time has an activation behavior, i.e. is exponential in the electron energy gap and inverse temperature  and can be manipulated by external magnetic field and sample parameters over several orders of magnitude time interval.

A set of five essential criteria for the physical realization of a quantum computer was formulated by DiVincenzo and coworkers . They are:

1. A scalable physical system with well characterized qubits. The system should consist of a collection of independent subsystems each with a two-dimensional Hilbert space, so-called quantum bits, or qubits. Its physical parameters should be accurately known, including the internal Hamiltonian of the qubit, the presence of and couplings to other states of the qubit, the interactions with other qubits, and the couplings to external fields that might be used to manipulate the state of the qubit.

2. The ability to initialize the state of the qubits to an initial state. This arises from computing requirement that registers should be initialized to a known value before the start of computation. Moreover, the initialization of qubits is used in quantum error correction algorithms.

3. Long relevant decoherence times, much longer than the gate operation time. It was shown that for fault-tolerant quantum computation the magnitude of decoherence time scales should be $`10^410^5`$ times the ”clock time” of the quantum computer, that is, the time for the execution of an individual quantum gate.

4. A ’universal’ set of quantum gates. a) It should be possible to perform precise unitary operations on the individual qubits. b) Furthermore, the inter-qubit interaction should be controlled with almost atomic precision.

5. A qubit-specific measurements capability. Any quantum computer would deliver its output as results of measurements performed on it.

In what follows we concentrate on nuclear spin based solid state models . All the existing models satisfy the criteria 1,2 and 4a. In some models the criteria 3 is almost satisfied. At least, the ratio of gate to decoherence time allows to create a few qubit quantum computer. No existing model addresses the problem of controlling the inter-qubit interaction with atomic precision. In this paper we propose a new system in which criteria 1-4 are completely fulfilled. Our investigation is mainly focused on the criterion 4b.

The proposed system consists of nuclear spins (qubits) embedded into a zero nuclear spin mesoscopic ring or a finite length quantum wire (Fig. 1a and Fig. 2a). The hyperfine interaction of the electrons in the system with nuclear spins leads to an effective indirect nuclear spin interaction. In what follows we calculate the effective nuclear spin interaction energy. The effective nuclear spin interaction energy can be chosen to have the following form:

$$E=\left(I_{1,x}I_{2,x}+I_{1,y}I_{2,y}\right)A+I_{1,z}I_{2,z}B,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{I_i}`$ is magnetic moment of a nucleus, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are functions of the system parameters as described below. We obtain that the effective nuclear spins interaction exhibits sharp maxima as function of the magnetic field and nuclear spin positions which opens the way to manipulate qubits with almost atomic precision. The selective nuclear spin interaction can be obtained by changing external parameters of the system.

The first calculation of the indirect, via electron spins, hyperfine coupling between nuclear spins, was performed by Ruderman and Kittel  for the case of 3D metal in the absence of magnetic field (see ). Influence of mesoscopic effects on the RKKY interaction was studied by Spivak and Zyuzin . They pointed out that the only difference between pure and impure metals is an additional random phase which depends on impurity distribution. A mechanism of the indirect, via the exchange of  virtual electron-hole pairs (spin excitons), nuclear spin interaction in the quantum Hall effect systems was suggested in  and further elaborated in . Quantum computation and communication devices, based on this mechanism are proposed in

## Theoretical framework and results

Let us consider a system consisting of electrons confined by a potential $`V\left(𝐫\right)`$ and interacting with two nuclear spins. We assume that the nuclear spins are located far enough from each other, so that the direct (dipole-dipole) nuclear spin interaction is negligibly small as is in isotopically engineered Si/Ge heterojunctions . The contact hyperfine interaction between electrons and nuclear spins leads to an indirect nuclear spin interaction.

The wave function of the electron $`\varphi (𝐫)`$ can be written as a product of an envelope function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$ by the rapidly varying periodic function $`u_0^{}(𝐫)`$

$$\varphi (𝐫)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)u_0^{}(𝐫)=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)u_0(𝐫)\left(V/\mathrm{\Omega }\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(2)
where $`u_0(𝐫)`$ is the $`𝐤=0`$ Bloch state, $`V`$ is the volume of the sample, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the unit cell. The function $`u_0^{}(𝐫)`$ is conveniently normalized in the cell volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}\left|u_0^{}(𝐫)\right|^2𝑑𝐫=1`$. The localization of electrons is described by the envelope part of the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)`$. The norm of the envelope function is $`\underset{V}{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right|^2𝑑𝐫=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ .

In what follows we will consider the system in the envelope function approximation, the rapidly varying function $`u_0^{}(𝐫)`$ appears only in the expression for hyperfine interaction. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by $`H=H_0+H_1^{(1)}+H_1^{(2)}`$ with

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left(𝐩+\frac{e}{c}𝐀\right)^2+V\left(𝐫\right)g\mu _B\sigma 𝐇$$
(3)
and

$$H_1^{(i)}=\frac{8\pi }{3}\mu _B\mathrm{}\gamma _n\left|u_0^{}(𝐫_i)\right|^2\sigma 𝐈_i\delta \left(𝐫𝐫_i\right)$$
(4)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian of the electron in the mesoscopic structure in the magnetic field, $`H_1^{(1)}+H_1^{(2)}`$ is the perturbation due to the contact hyperfine interaction, $`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass, $`𝐀`$ is the vector-potential, $`g`$ is the electron $`g`$-factor, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`𝐇`$ is the magnetic field, $`\gamma _n`$ is the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio, $`𝐈_i`$ and $`\sigma `$ are nuclear and electron spins, $`𝐫_i`$ is radius vector of $`i`$ nucleus, $`i=1,2`$. Because the electron wave function is strongly peaked on the nuclei, the contact hyperfine interaction energy greatly exceeds dipolar spin interactions.

The effective nuclear spin interaction energy calculated in a second-order perturbation method is given by the expression :

$$E=\underset{E_i,E_f}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_i\left|H_1^{(1)}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_f\mathrm{\Psi }_f\left|H_1^{(2)}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_i}{E_fE_i}f_i\left(1f_f\right)+c.c.$$
(5)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ and $`E_i`$ are eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of $`H_0`$ and $`f_i`$ is the electron distribution function. In this Letter we restrict ourselves to the single electron approximation, which proved to be sufficient for clean low density quantum wires and rings, see  and references therein. Presence of impurities violates the Kohn theorem  and the electron interactions may play an important role. In strongly correlated dense 1D electron systems the Fermi liquid approach should be replaced by the Tomonaga-Luttinger theory, see  and references therein. The influence of the electron correlations on the results obtained here will be the subject of a more detailed publication.

### Nuclear-spin interaction in mesoscopic rings

Consider a torus-shaped quantum ring of inner radius $`a`$, thickness $`da`$ and negligible height $`h`$  in a uniform parallel to the axis of the ring magnetic field $`𝐇`$ in $`z`$ direction with two nuclear spins located at $`𝐫(\rho ,\phi ,z)=𝐫_1(a+d/2,\phi _1,h/2)`$ and $`𝐫=𝐫_2(a+d/2,\phi _2,h/2)`$ (Fig.1a). In this subsection we use the polar coordinates. The electron confining potential $`V(\rho ,z)`$ is

$$V(\rho ,z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }a\rho a+d\text{ and }0zh\text{ ,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
Firstly, let us find eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the Shrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian (3). Due to the axial symmetry of the ring, the wave function can be written as follows

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n,s=\pm }=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi }}(\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right))e^{im\phi }R_{m,n}\left(\rho \right)Z_1(z)$$
(7)
We assume that in $`z`$ direction the electron is always on the ground level of the one-dimensional quantum well of thickness $`h`$, thus $`Z_1(z)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{h}}sin\left(\frac{\pi z}{h}\right)`$. Over the region $`a\rho a+d`$ the radial part of the wave function $`R_{m,n}\left(\rho \right)`$ satisfies the equation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{}{\rho }\rho \frac{}{\rho }R_{m,n}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_e\rho ^2}\left(m+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^2R_{m,n}=E_{m,n}R_{m,n},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the magnetic flux quantum and the radial number $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ . The boundary conditions imposed by the potential $`V(\rho ,z)`$ (6) are: $`R_{m,n}\left(a\right)=0`$ and $`R_{m,n}\left(a+d\right)=0`$.

We will look for the solution of Eq.(8) assuming that at $`da`$ the vector-potential varies slow in the ring, so we can put $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )\mathrm{\Phi }(a+d/2)`$. In this case the solution of Eq.(8) is written in terms of Bessel functions:

$$R_{m,n}\left(\rho \right)=C_1J_A\left(\rho \alpha _{m,n}\right)+C_2Y_A\left(\rho \alpha _{m,n}\right)$$
(9)
where $`A=\left|m+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(a+d/2)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right|`$ and $`\alpha _{m,n}=\sqrt{\frac{2m_eE_{m,n}}{\mathrm{}^2}}`$, the constants $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, energy levels $`E_{m,n}`$ are defined by boundary conditions and the normalization condition $`\underset{a}{\overset{a+d}{}}\rho R_{m,n}^{}\left(\rho \right)R_{m,n}\left(\rho \right)𝑑\rho =1`$. Unfortunately, the wave function of the form (9) allows to calculate the effective nuclear spin interaction only numerically.

To obtain an analytical result, consider the effective interaction energy constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ for the case of infinitely narrow ring. To do this, let us set $`\rho =a`$ in (8). It is readily seen that in this case the radial part of wave function decouples from the orbital part, $`R_n(\rho )=\sqrt{\frac{2}{d}}sin\left(\frac{(ra)\pi n}{d}\right)`$ and

$$E_{n,m,s=\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}}\left(\frac{\pi n}{d}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m^{}a^2}\left(m+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(a+d/2)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}\right)^2g\mu _BH/2.$$
(10)
For the infinitely narrow ring it’s reasonable to consider the states only with $`n=1`$. With Eq.(5), the effective nuclear spin interaction constants are:

$$A=K_r\underset{m,n}{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\left(nm\right)\left(\phi _1\phi _2\right)\right)}{E_{1,n,+}E_{1,m,}}f(E_{1,m,})(1f(E_{1,n,+})),$$
(11)
$$B=K_r\underset{mn}{}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\left(nm\right)\left(\phi _1\phi _2\right)\right)}{E_{1,n,+}E_{1,m,+}}f(E_{1,m,+})(1f(E_{1,n,+}))$$
(12)
where $`K_r=2\left(\frac{16}{3adh}\mathrm{\Omega }\mu _B\mathrm{}\gamma _n\left|u_0^{}(0)\right|^2\right)^2`$.

Using the wave function in the form Eq.(7), we numerically calculate the magnetic field dependencies of the nuclear spin interaction constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ using the following set of parameters: $`\phi _1=0`$, $`\phi _2=\pi `$, $`a=100nm`$, $`h=1nm`$, $`d=1nm`$ and $`0.5nm`$, one electron in the ring, $`T=0`$ . The results of our calculations are shown on Fig.1b. The magnetic field dependence of the effective nuclear spin interaction constants are defined by the energy level statistics. The nuclear spin interaction constant $`A`$ describes nuclear spin flip-flop processes which are performed through flips of electron spin, and, therefore, the main contribution to this process is due to the energy levels with the same orbital quantum numbers and different spin directions, what gives $`1/H`$ dependence of the interaction amplitude. The nuclear spin coupling constant $`B`$ is connected with electron transitions between energy levels with different orbital quantum numbers, but the same electron spin direction. Their periodicity with the magnetic field results in the periodicity of the constant $`B`$. It is seen that at the values of the magnetic field, when there are two ground states, function $`B`$ has discontinuities. In this case the perturbation theory is not applicable. The obtained result is in a good agreement with the result obtained for the case of infinitely narrow ring potential Eqs.(11,12).

### Nuclear-spin interaction in mesoscopic wires

The next system under consideration is a finite length quantum wire of the length $`l`$ in $`x`$-direction, of the thickness $`d`$ and of the height $`h`$ with two nuclear spins located at $`𝐫(x,y,z)=𝐫_1(l_1,d/2,h/2)`$ and $`𝐫=𝐫_2(l_2,d/2,h/2)`$ in a magnetic field $`𝐇`$ in $`z`$ direction (Fig. 2a). We suppose that the transversal sizes of quantum wire are much smaller than the length of the quantum wire and the cyclotron orbit of electron. We consider a model, when the confining potential is

$$V(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }0xl\text{}0yd\text{}0zh\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
The eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian (3) with potenital (13) are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m,k,\pm }=\sqrt{\frac{8}{ldh}}(\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right))\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{n\pi x}{l}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{m\pi y}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{k\pi z}{h}\right),$$
(14)
$$E_{n,m,k,\pm }=\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2m^{}l^2}n^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2m^{}d^2}m^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2\pi ^2}{2m^{}h^2}k^2g\mu _BH/2,$$
(15)
As in the case of the nuclear spin interaction in mesoscopic wires, we assume that $`d,hl`$, so we consider only the electrons on the ground levels of potential wells in $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions, i.e. $`m=k=1`$. Substitution of Eqs. (14) and (15) into (5) gives us the effective nuclear spin interaction constants.

We have calculated analytically and numerically the effective interaction constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ as a functions of nuclear spin positions for odd and even number of electrons $`N`$ in the wire. The results of calculation for the odd number of electrons ($`N=9`$) at $`T=0`$ are presented at Figures 2b-2d. In low magnetic field region, when Zeeman splitting energy is much less than the energy gap between levels with different $`n`$ (Eq.(15)) and at $`T=0`$ limit the expression for $`A`$ takes a simple fortm:

$$A=K\frac{\left(\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{(N+1)\pi l_1}{2l}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{(N+1)\pi l_2}{2l}\right)\right)^2}{g\mu _BH}.$$
(16)
where $`K_w=2\left(\frac{64\pi \mathrm{\Omega }\mu _B\mathrm{}\gamma _n\left|u_0^{}(0)\right|^2}{3ldh}\right)^2`$. In this limit the interaction constant $`A`$ has a set of $`\frac{(N+1)^2}{4}`$ maximums (Fig. 2b) and $`BA`$. Fig. 2c shows an increasing of interaction constant $`A`$ if nuclear spins are located not far from each other (in the vicinity of the line $`l_1=l_2`$) and a decreasing of interaction constant $`A`$ for the other nuclear spin positions with increasing of the magnetic field. The interaction constant $`B`$ has a non-trivial dependence on the nuclear spin positions (Fig. 2d).

## Conclusions and discussion

To conclude, we proposed a new possible implementation of a basic unit for quantum computer based on the nuclear-spin qubits embedded into the zero nuclear spin mesoscopic ring or finite length quantum wire. Particular emphasis has been placed on the investigation of nuclear spin interaction via the electrons confined in such systems. It was found that the indirect nuclear-spin qubit interaction is very sensitive to the system parameters: nuclear spin location, number of electrons, magnetic field and geometry of the system. It dependence on the system parameters is completely different from indirect nuclear spin interaction in 2D and 3D metals. Preliminary finite temperature calculation indicates that the values of the effective nuclear spin interaction constants are decreasing with temperature, but the main features of the obtained results remain qualitatively unchanged.

Now let us consider how our model of quantum computer is matched by the set of DiVincenzo criteria listed in the Introduction.

1. It’s well known that nuclear spins are appropriate candidates to be qubits . Nuclei with spin $`1/2`$ are two-level systems with well defined states $`|0>`$ and $`|1>`$. Needless to say that such a system is scalable and, basically, there is no principal limitation on the reasonable number of nuclear-spin qubits which can be integrated into a quantum circuit. The ring architecture of the quantum computer is of considerable promise. Let us imagine a mesoscopic ring with nuclear-spin qubits located in the immediate vicinity of it. A local change of the electrostatic potential near a qubit by a gate electrode changes the value of the envelope wave function on the qubit and, correspondingly, allows to switch on the interaction between any two qubits, whereas almost at all quantum computer proposal only adjacent qubits can directly interact. Nuclear-spin qubit interaction through electrons confined on a sphere opens a further way to improve the quantum computer architecture.

2. We propose to initialize the nuclear-spin qubits using spin-polarized electrons. There is a general agreement that it is the only feasible method since the nuclear spins are highly isolated from the environment. Possibility of nuclear spin polarization by spin-polarized transport was demonstrated almost ten years ago . Possible methods to introduce nonequilibrium polarizations of the electrons include injections of spins from ferromagnetic contacts , optical pumping  and spin refrigeration (see  and references therein).

3. The decoherence time of the nuclear spins in mesoscopic systems is expected to be long enough to perform the quantum computation, since the discrete electron spectrum in mesoscopic systems imposes restriction on the flip-flop processes and the nuclear spin relaxation time at law temperatures is expected to have an activation behavior . Up to the present, a calculation of nuclear spin decoherence time in mesoscopic structures is not made, however as a rough estimation we can take the decoherence time of the nuclear-spin qubit embedded into 2DEG, $`T_2=10`$ sec . The characteristic time of qubit interaction is $`T_{int}h/A`$, where for the nuclear-spin qubits in finite length quantum wire $`A`$ is given by Eq. (16). Using available experimental data for $`GaAs`$, $`\left|u_0^{}(0)\right|_{{}_{}{}^{75}As}^2=9.810^{25}cm^3`$  and following set of parameters: $`a=200nm`$, $`d=h=5nm`$, $`H=0.01T`$ we obtain $`T_{int}=210^5sec`$ and $`T_2/T_{int}=510^5`$. Our estimate indicates that the present system is suitable for fault-tolerant quantum computation.

4. a) The one-qubit operations using the NMR could be similar to the existing experimental suggestions . b) Interaction between any two qubits, which is necessary for two-qubit operations, is performed by the confined electrons. By varying the external parameters (magnetic field, number of electrons, gate potentials) we can control with almost atomic precision the nuclear spin interaction strength by creating maxima of the amplitude of electron wave function on some qubits and zero on the other. As an example, consider how it is possible to control nuclear-spin qubit interaction in the finite length wire by changing the number of electrons. Let us place the qubits at some predefined positions with coordinates $`x_i=\frac{\alpha _i}{\beta _i}`$, where $`\beta _i`$ are different prime numbers and $`\alpha _i`$ are integers ($`\alpha _i<\beta _i`$). The orbital part of the last electron level wave function (from Eq.(14)) for

$$N_{jk}=2\frac{\underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\beta _i}{\beta _j\beta _k}1,$$
(17)
electrons in the system is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m,k,\pm }=\sqrt{\frac{8}{ldh}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}\beta _i}{l\beta _j\beta _k}x\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{m\pi y}{d}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{k\pi z}{h}\right).$$
(18)
It is readily seen that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n,m,k,\pm }(x_i)=0`$ for $`ij,k`$. This means, that all qubits except $`j`$ and $`k`$ are at the nodes of the wave function and only $`j`$ and $`k`$ qubits interact. Fig. 3 illustrates this idea. It follows that the accuracy of nuclear spin positioning should be few atomic units.

5. In mesoscopic systems the single nuclear-spin measurement is still an open problem. One of the possibilities is to use Hyperfine Aharonov-Bohm effect (HABE) , following from the coupling of the nuclear spin polarization to the phase of the conduction electron wave function. This was outlined in  and will be considered in details elsewhere. Another possibility is to use spin-dependent magneto-transport tunneling through a system, which energy levels are spin-split by an external magnetic field . The tunneling current develops a distinctive peak at the frequency of Zeeman splitting, which can be sufficiently narrow to measure a state of the nuclear spin. Moreover, it’s possible to use spin to charge conversion as it was discussed in .

## Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Yu. A. Bychkov, A.Dyugaev, T. Maniv, D. Mozyrsky, V. Privman, S. Safarov and I. Shlimak. This research was supported in part by the 5th European Program, IST 2000 29686 NSP-SI, by the Israel Science Foundation, by the National Science Foundation, grants DMR-0121146 and ECS-0102500, and by the National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research Office contracts DAAD-19-99-1-0342 and DAAD 19-02-1-0035.

## References


text:
# Globular Clusters as Probes of the Virgo gE NGC 4472

## 1. Observations

GC spectra were obtained in two observing runs, one in 1994 with WHT/LDSS-2 (Sharples et al. 1998), and the second in 1998 with CFHT/MOS (Beasley et al. 2000; Zepf et al. 2000). GC candidates for both runs were chosen from Washington photometry (Geisler et al. 1996), with colour ($`0.5<CT_1<2.2`$) and magnitude ($`19.5<V<22.5`$) selection. Spectra were obtained over the wavelength range 3600$``$6000 Å, with a resolution of 3$``$6 Å, and a velocity precision of 50$``$100 km/sec. Exposure times were 3$``$3.5 hours per mask. We have a total sample of 144 confirmed GCs in NGC 4472, out to $``$ 7 radius ($``$ 30 kpc, 6 Reff). See Sharples et al., and Beasley et al. for more details.

## 2. GC Kinematics and Dark Matter in NGC 4472 (Zepf. et al. 2000)

Figure 1 shows smoothed velocity and velocity dispersion profiles for the full GC sample, and for the metal-rich and metal-poor populations separately. We confirm our earlier result (Sharples et al. 1998) that the metal-poor GCs have a significantly higher velocity dispersion than the metal-rich GCs. There is little or no rotation in the metal-rich GCs, and modest rotation of $``$ 100 km/sec in the metal-poor GCs. For the metal-rich GCs, V/$`\sigma `$ $`<`$ 0.34 at 99% confidence. This absence of rotation in the more centrally-concentrated metal-rich GCs seems to require significant outward angular momentum transport (from a merger?).

We have used the deprojected GC velocity dispersion and density profiles together with the Jeans equation to derive the mass distribution of NGC 4472, with the assumption of isotropic GC orbits. Figure 2 shows the resulting mass profile for NGC 4472, compared with that obtained from X-ray data (Irwin & Sarazin 1996). There is reasonable agreement between the two profiles, and we confirm the existence of a substantial dark matter halo in NGC 4472, with a M/L ratio $`>50`$ at 30 kpc radius.

## 3. GC Ages and Abundances (Beasley et al. 2000)

To improve the S/N ratio for age and abundance analysis, we have co-added our GC spectra by colour into four bins with 30$``$35 GCs each. For each bin, we have measured age (H$`\beta `$, H$`\delta `$, H$`\gamma `$) and metallicity (Mg2, Fe5270/5335) sensitive indices, on the Lick system. Figure 3 shows the predictions of Worthey (1994) models for the NGC 4472 GCs in the Mg2, H$`\beta `$ plane. Based on a Galactic GC calibration, the NGC 4472 GCs span a metallicity range $`1.6[Fe/H]0`$ dex.

It is notoriously difficult to determine absolute GC ages, but within the errors all four bins are coeval; we can further say that all GCs are older than 6 Gyr at 95% confidence. Interestingly, the metal-rich GCs are 0.7 $`\pm `$ 7 Gyr younger than the metal-poor GCs. Table 1 summarizes the ages and metallicities for our binned NGC 4472 data.

References

Beasley, M., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1249

Geisler, D., Lee, M.G., & Kim, E. 1996, AJ, 111, 1529

Irwin, J.A., & Sarazin, C.L. 1996, ApJ, 471, 683

Sharples, R.M., et al. 1998, AJ, 115, 2337

Worthey, G. 1994, ApJS, 95, 107

Zepf, S.E., et al. 2000, AJ, in press (astroph/0009130)


text:
# Calculating Gravitational Radiation from Collisions

## 1. Introduction

Binaries containing black holes (BHs) or neutron stars (NSs) are among the most important and interesting sources for the gravitational wave detectors expected to start operation in the early part of the $`21^{\mathrm{st}}`$ century. These binaries spiral together due to the emission of gravitational radiation, leading to the final collision and coalescence of their components. The NS/NS, NS/BH, and stellar BH/BH binaries are target sources for ground-based interferometers such as LIGO, VIRGO, GEO600, and TAMA, while the space-based LISA is expected to be most sensitive to massive BH binaries (see the articles by Weiss and Kalogera in these Proceedings). Astrophysically, the data from these detectors can provide important insights into NS properties; the equation of state of matter at nuclear densities; models of gamma-ray bursts; active galactic nuclei and quasars; and the strong-field regime of gravity, including unambiguous detection of BH formation (Schutz 1997; Thorne 1998).

Calculations of the gravitational waves from such binaries focus on three physical regimes. During the inspiral phase, the components are widely separated and can be treated as point particles, allowing analytic calculations using post-Newtonian (PN) expansions. Templates constructed from the resulting waveforms are expected to form a key component of data analysis and source identification (Flanagan & Hughes 1998). The coalescence phase begins when the compact objects are close enough to suffer tidal deformation, and continues as a combination of relativistic and hydrodynamic effects drives the stars together on more rapid timescales. Calculation of the waveforms produced during this stage requires 3-D numerical simulations that solve the full Einstein equations and, for a NS, general relativistic hydrodynamics; in some cases, the formation of a BH must also be modeled. Finally, the ringdown phase encompasses the late-time behavior of the merger product or remnant, radiating in its normal modes (Thorne 1998).

Numerical simulation of the coalescence phase using full general relativity is one of the most challenging problems in astrophysics today. This article surveys the current status of efforts to calculate coalescence waveforms for NS/NS, NS/BH, and BH/BH binaries.

## 2. Requirements and Challenges for Successful Simulations

The difficulties in the 3-D numerical simulation of binary coalescence begin in specifying the initial state of the system, which must correspond to a physically realistic binary evolving through the PN inspiral phase (Brady, Creighton, and Thorne 1998). Specifically, there should be no incoming gravitational radiation in the system, and both the outgoing gravitational waves and the orbital parameters should correspond to those produced during the PN inspiral stage. These conditions must all be met within the constraints of the initial value Einstein equations, which are typically a set of coupled nonlinear equations. Although relativistic simulations to date have used highly simplified initial conditions that do not fulfill these requirments, progress is being made towards developing more plausible initial conditions (Alvi 2000; Buonanno & Damour 2000; Damour, Jaranowski, & Schäfer 2000; Marronetti & Matzner 2000).

Once the initial data has been specified, the remaining Einstein equations are solved to evolve the system in time. This evolution must be stable over timescales corresponding to at least a few binary orbits. Various formulations of the Einstein equations, notably the hyperbolic (Reula 1998; Alcubierre, et al. 1999) and conformal ADM (Shibata & Nakamura 1995; Baumgarte & Shapiro 1998) approaches, have been introduced in recent years to improve the stability of the evolution111These formalisms assume that the initial data is given on a 3-D spacelike Cauchy surface. Methods employing characteristic or null slicings of spacetime are also under development (Bishop, et al. 1999).. Additional equations enter to specify the time-slicing of the spacetime and the evolution of the spatial coordinates. This latter gauge condition is likely to be quite important in keeping the binary in a co-rotating frame of reference; see below. In the case of a NS or WD, the equations of general relativistic hydrodynamics must also be solved, with high-resolution shock-capturing techniques playing an increasingly important role (Font, et al. 2000). If the binary contains a BH, additional challenges arise in moving the BH across the grid. While current efforts focus on excising the interior of the BH, which avoids the central singularity, the long-term stability of the inner boundary at the apparent horizon remains a challenge (Alcubierre & Bruegmann 2000). And, the code must be capable of handling the formation of a BH from the merger, an event that is generally detected numerically by finding an apparent horizon around the remnant (Alcubierre, et al. 2000; Huq, Choptuik, & Matzner 2000). The code should continue to evolve stably as the system enters the ringdown phase.

The gravitational radiation emitted during the coalescence produces its own set of challenges. Typically, the radiation will have wavelengths $`\lambda _{\mathrm{GW}}10100L`$, where $`L`$ is the scale of the source. The computational domain must be large enough to allow the signals produced near the source to propagate outward and develop into gravitational waves in the radiation zone, and at the same time provide adequate resolution for the source dynamics. Such widely varying length and time scales point to the use of adaptive mesh refinement (AMR) as a critical component of success (Papadopoulos, Seidel, & Wild 1998; New, et al. 2000).

Gravitational wave detectors are located asymptotically far from the astrophysical sources. For a meaningful comparison with the observations, the radiation generated in the simulations must also be measured “at infinity.” One promising means of achieving this is to extract the waves on a spacelike slice at some distance $`L`$, and then propagate them along the characteristics to infinity using a different code (Bishop, et al. 1998). Of course, there will be some scattering of these waves back towards the source and thereby back into the original code. Currently, efforts are aimed at achieving this matching in a stable manner, and thereby producing good, physical outer boundary conditions for the source evolution codes.

Finally, numerical relativists generally use high performance computers and sophisticated visualization techniques to perform their simulations and extract the physics from the results. Further progress depends on continued access to advanced computing resources (Suen 1999).

## 3. Simulations of NS/NS Coalescence

Binaries containing 2 NSs have long been considered among the most promising sources for the first generation of ground-based interferometers. Such instruments could observe the inspiral phase of these systems during the last few minutes of their evolution, as the gravitational waves sweep upward in frequency from $`10`$ Hz to $`1000`$ Hz, yielding several thousand cycles of the signal across the broadband range of the detectors (Cutler, et al. 1993). The coalescence phase is expected to occur at rather high frequencies, typically $`>1`$kHz. Observations of coalescence are of considerable interest, as the waveforms are expected to contain information about NS structure and the nuclear equation of state at high densities (Zhuge, Centrella, & McMillan 1994, 1996), as well as general relativistic effects. Coalescing NS binaries are also astrophysically important as models for $`\gamma `$ray bursts (Ruffert, Janka, & Schäfer 1996) and in the production of r-process nuclei (Rosswog et al. 1998).

Today, there are a variety of NS/NS coalescence simulations, ranging from those using the Newtonian limit to models with full general relativity. Simulations have been carried out using both synchronized (co-rotational) and non-synchronized (irrotational) binaries. The latter are considered more realistic, since NS viscosities are expected to be too small to cause synchronization before the stars coalesce (Kochanek 1992; Bildsten & Cutler 1992). In this article we will give a brief survey of coalescing NS simulations, highlighting important lessons that have been learned. For a more complete list, see the recent review by Rasio & Shapiro (1999).

Newtonian Models

In models with purely Newtonian gravitational fields, the gravitational waves are calculated using the quadrupole approximation (Misner, Thorne, & Wheeler 1973) with no gravitational back-reaction. Researchers in this area have used either grid-based Eulerian hydrodynamics or Lagrangian smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH); see Faber, Rasio, & Manor (2000) for references. Such models are strictly valid only in the limit $`GM/Rc^21`$, for an object of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$. Since $`GM/Rc^20.2`$ for a typical NS, Newtonian simulations can only provide a rough guide to the physics expected in fully relativistic models of NS/NS coalescence. Nevertheless, Newtonian simulations remain an important tool for exploring gravitational wave phenomena and provide a simplified arena in which numerical techniques can be tested.

Coalescence in the Newtonian limit is driven by global hydrodynamic instabilities (Lai, Rasio, & Shapiro 1994; Rasio & Shapio 1992) that cause the stars to plunge towards each other once they are close enough for tidal effects between them to become sufficiently strong. SPH simulations by Zhuge, Centrella, & McMillan (1994, 1996) in which the NSs are modeled as polytropes show that the gravitational wave energy spectrum $`dE/df`$ has a steep drop at a cutoff frequency, typically $`f_{\mathrm{cut}}2`$kHz. The exact location of $`f_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ depends on the NS radius $`R`$, the stiffness of the equation of state, the NS spin, and the mass ratio of the components. Ringing oscillations of the merged remnant can produce additional structure at even higher frequencies. New & Tohline (1997) carried out Eulerian simulations of synchronized binaries in both rotating and inertial (non-rotating) reference frames. They showed that the numerical viscosity caused by fluid flowing through the grid can produce spurious instability leading to coalescence. Thus a binary that is stable when evolved in the rotating frame, becomes unstable to merger when computed in the inertial frame. A recent study by Swesty, Wang, & Calder (1999) further underscores the importance of using a rotating frame, and also explores the effects of solving for the gravitational field with the density at the previous time step (time-lagged), the new time step (time-advanced), or an average of the old and new values (time-centered). With gridless SPH models, Rosswog, et al.(2000) have shown the effects of various prescriptions for artificial viscosity in causing coalescence of NS/NS binaries.

Post-Newtonian Models

The next level of sophistication incorporates the lowest order post-Newtonian corrections to Newtonian gravity (1PN) and gravitational radiation reaction (2.5PN). Early calculations were carried out by Oohara & Nakamura (1992) using Eulerian techniques. The most recent PN simulations have been done by Faber, et al. (2000; see also Faber & Rasio 2000) using SPH, who find that the addition of 1PN corrections can lower the maximum gravitational wave luminosity and produce differences in the shape of the signal compared to Newtonian models.

The use of PN corrections in NS/NS simulations poses certain problems. For consistency, all 1PN quantities must be small, requiring $`GM/Rc^21`$. To this end, Shibata, Oohara, & Nakamura (1997) and Ayal, et al. (1999) carried out 1PN mergers using $`GM/Rc^20.03`$. However, a realistic NS typically has $`GM/Rc^20.2`$. Also, since the 2.5PN radiation reaction terms scale as $`(GM/Rc^2)^{2.5}`$, imposing $`GM/Rc^21`$ results in very weak radiation reaction effects. Faber, et al. (2000) employ a hybrid scheme in which realistic NS parameters are used for the 2.5 PN radiation reaction terms, and the 1PN terms are scaled down artificially to keep them small.

Additionally, the effects of PN corrections on the separation at which the NSs leave their quasi-circular inspiral orbits and begin to plunge toward the center are not yet clear. Faber & Rasio (2000) find that the PN corrections cause the plunge to begin at larger separations than in the Newtonian limit. However, Shibata, Taniguchi, & Nakamura (1998) have analyzed equilibrium sequences of binary stars, and find that the orbits generally become unstable at smaller separations as PN corrections are increased. This is an important issue to resolve, since a plunge beginning at larger separation will shift the coalescence waveform to lower frequencies. Newtonian simulations show the coalescence occurring at relatively high frequencies that are outside the broad-band sensitivity of first-generation interferometers such as LIGO-1 (Zhuge, et al. 1994, 1996). New experimental techniques may improve the sensitivity of advanced interferometers at high frequencies (Meers 1988, Strain & Meers 1991; see also http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/$``$ligo2/).

General Relativistic Models

The earliest simulations of binary NS coalescence in full general relativity were carried out by Nakamura, Oohara, & Kojima (1987) using Eulerian techniques. Although there are currently a number of efforts worldwide aimed at developing relativistic coalescence models (e.g. Font, et al. 2000; Landry & Teukolsky 1999; Baumgarte, et al. 1999) this subject is still in its infancy. All fully relativistic codes to date are Eulerian.

The most advanced relativistic coalescence simulations have been carried out by Shibata & Uryū (2000). They solve the full Einstein equations using a conformal ADM formalism; these are coupled to the hydrodynamic equations that govern the sources, and the matter is taken to be a perfect fluid (Shibata 1999). Their initial data consists of 2 identical NSs, modeled as polytropes with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, in a quasi-equilibrium orbit. Both irrotational and corotational models are considered. The orbit is then destabilized by reducing the angular momentum from its quasi-equilibrium value, and merger ensues. They find that a BH is formed on a dynamical timescale if the initial NSs are sufficiently compact. For corotational binaries, the remaining disk of matter around the BH can have a mass $`5\%10\%`$ of the total system rest mass. The merger of irrotational NSs to form a BH produces a disk with a much smaller mass, $`<1\%`$ of the total system mass. For less compact initial NSs, the result of the coalescence is a differentially rotating massive NS.

## 4. Simulations of NS/BH Coalescence

Coalescence of a binary containing a NS and a stellar BH is another important source for ground-based gravitational wave detectors. Recent work suggests that observations of tidal disruption of a NS by a BH may provide measurements of the NS radius and equation of state (Vallisneri 2000). NS/BH systems are also astrophysically interesting as engines for $`\gamma `$ray bursts (Janka, et al. 1999) and in the production of r-process nuclei (Lee 2000).

Simulations of NS/BH coalescence have been carried out in the Newtonian limit by Lee & Kluźniak (1995; 1999a,b; Kluźniak 1998) using SPH and by Janka, et al. (1999) using Eulerian techniques. In these efforts, the BH is taken to be a Newtonian point mass surrounded by an absorbing boundary at the Schwarzschild radius. These Newtonian codes are also extended to include gravitational wave emission and backreaction using various techniques. Lee & Kluźniak modeled the NS as a polytrope, whereas Janka, et al. used a more physical description of NS matter.

The most recent NS/BH coalescence models have been calculated by Lee (2000) using SPH with irrotational initial conditions. He finds that the fate of the system depends strongly on the stiffness of the equation of state. After an initial period of mass transfer, the NS is completely disrupted by the BH during its second periastron passage for polytropic index $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2.5`$. However, for a stiffer model with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=3`$, the NS is not completely disrupted; instead, a remnant is left in a higher orbit about the BH. The resulting gravitational wave signals clearly reflect the different outcomes.

Of course, relativistic effects are expected to be very important in NS/BH systems. For this reason, simulations incorporating full general relativity may introduce qualitatively new features in the waveforms and are eagerly awaited.

## 5. Simulations of BH/BH Coalescence

The merger of BH/BH binaries is, in many ways, the quintessential general relativistic source of gravitational radiation. Binaries containing BHs with masses $`10M_{}`$ are an important target for ground-based interferometers, while the coalescence of binaries containing massive BHs $`10^510^6M_{}`$ is a prime candidate for observation by LISA. Since the dynamics of BH/BH binaries scales with the total system mass $`M`$, observations in each of these mass ranges are pertinent to the same basic BH physics (Thorne 1998). In particular, the gravitational waves produced during these mergers are expected to have large amplitudes and highly nonlinear characters, and to provide important tools for understanding dynamical spacetime curvature. Astrophysically, the detection of BH/BH coalescences can yield important information on BH binary formation in dense stellar systems such as galactic nuclei and globular clusters (Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2000), as well as on active galactic nuclei and binary quasars (Mortlock, Webster, & Francis 1999).

Numerical simulations of BH/BH coalescence are, by nature, fully general relativistic. The early work of Hahn & Lindquist (1964) was followed by a major effort by Smarr and Eppley (Smarr 1978; Eppley 1977) that produced the first simulations of gravitational radiation from axisymmetric, head-on collisions of equal mass BHs in 2-D. Smarr and Eppley pioneered the use of singularity-avoiding spacetime slicing in numerical relativity, which was used throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The most recent work using this approach is the simulation of non-head-on collisions of spinning BHs in 3-D by Bruegmann (1999).

However, singularity-avoiding slicings typically give rise to problems, such as grid stretching, that cause the simulations to fail after a relatively short time. This technique is thus unsuitable for modeling BH/BH binaries for long durations, such as the time from the late inspiral phase (when the point-mass approximation breaks down) through coalescence and ringdown. A more promising approach is to use techniques in which the interior of the BH is excised from the computational domain (Seidel & Suen 1992). Current efforts are focused on developing appropriate “inner boundary conditions” at the excision surface that will allow long-term, stable evolutions (Alcubierre & Bruegmann 2000; Lehner, et al. 2000).

The first simulations of non-head-on BH collisions using singularity excision were recently carried out by Brandt, et al. (2000), with both spinning and non-spinning BHs. They used apparent horizon conditions to mark the excised regions, and were able to follow the BHs through merger, signalled by the formation of a single apparent horizon around the system. Preliminary estimates of the area of this horizon indicate that $`2.6\%`$ of the total mass is radiated away as gravitational waves. After a moderate time, however, instabilities caused these models to fail. Efforts are underway to determine the source of these instabilities, and to develop techniques to eliminate them.

## 6. Outlook

Gravitational wave astronomy offers many exciting opportunities to explore the physical universe. Significant challenges remain, however, in the experimental, theoretical, and computational arenas. In particular, fully general relativistic simulations are currently in their infancy; while important pieces of the puzzle are starting to take shape, considerable effort will be required to produce robust, reliable models. Ultimately, success in gravitational wave astronomy can be expected to involve partnerships and collaborations among experimentalists, relativity theorists, computational modelers, astronomers, and astrophysicists. The resulting synergy and creativity promise a bright and exciting future.

### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank Kimberly New and Richard Matzner for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by NSF grant PHY-9722109.

## References

Alcubierre, M., Brandt, S., Bruefmann, B., Gundlach, C., Masso, J., Seidel, E., Walker, P. 2000, Class.Quant.Grav., 17, 2159

Alcubierre, M. & Bruegmann, B. 2000, gr-qc/0008067

Alcubierre, M., Bruegmann, B., Miller, M., & Suen, W. 1999, Phys.Rev.D, 60, 064017

Alvi, K. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, 61, 124013

Ayal, S., Piran, R., Oechslin, R., Davies, M., & Rosswog, S. 1999, astro-ph/9910154

Baumgarte, T., Hughes, S., Rezzolla, L., Shapiro, S., & Shibata, M. 1999, gr-qc/9907098

Baumgarte, T. & Shapiro, S. 1998, Phys.Rev.D, 59, 024007

Bildsten, L. & Cutler, C. 1992, ApJ, 400, 175

Bishop, N., Gómez, R., Isaacson, R., Lehner, L., Szilagyi, B., & Winicour, J. 1998, in Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation, and the Universe, ed. B. Iyer & B. Bhawal (Dordrecht: Kluwer)

Bishop, N., Gómez, R., Lehner, L., Maharaj, M., & Lehner, L. 1999, Phys.Rev.D, 60 024005

Brady, P., Creighton, J., & Thorne, K. 1998, Phys.Rev.D, 58, 061501

Brandt, S., Correll, R., Gomez, R., Huq, M., Laguna, P., Lehner, L., Marronetti, P., Matzner, R., Neilsen, D., Pullin J., Schnetter, E., Shoemaker, D., & Wincour, J. 2000, gr-qc/0009047

Bruegmann, B. 1999, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D, 8, 85

Buonanno, A. & Damour, T. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, 62, 064015

Cutler, C., et al. 1993, Phys.Rev.Lett, 70, 2984

Damour, T., Jaranowski, P., & Schäfer, G. 2000, gr-qc/0005034

Eppley, K. 1977, Phys.Rev.D, 16, 1609

Faber, J. & Rasio, F. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, in press (gr-qc/9912097)

Faber, J., Rasio, F., & Manor, J. 2000, gr-qc/0006078

Flanagan, E. & Hughes, S. 1990, Phys.Rev.D, 57, 4535

Font, J. A., Miller, M., Suen, W., & Tobias, M. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, 61, 044011

Hahn, S. & Lindquist, R. 1964, Annals of Physics (NY), 29, 304

Huq, M., Choptuik, M., & Matzner, R. 2000, gr-qc/0002076

Janka, H.-T., Eberl, T., Ruffert, M., & Fryer, C. 1999, ApJ, 527, L39

Kochanek, C. 1992, ApJ, 398, 234

Kluźniak, W. & Lee, W. 1998, ApJ, 454, L53

Lai, D., Rasio, F., & Shapiro, S. 1994, ApJ, 420, 811

Landry, W. & Teukolsky, S. 1999, gr-qc/9912004

Lee, W. 2000, MNRAS, in press (astro-ph/9804332)

Lee, W. & Kluźniak, W. 1995, Acta. Astron., 45, 705

Lee, W. & Kluźniak, W. 1999a, ApJ, 526, 178

Lee, W. & Kluźniak, W. 1999b, MNRAS, 308, 780

Lehner, L., Huq, M., Anderson, M., Bonning, E., Schaefer, D., & Matzner, R. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, 62, 044037

Marronetti, P. & Matzner, R. 2000, gr-qc/0009044

Meers, B. J. 1988, Phys.Rev.D, 38, 2317

Misner, C., Thorne, K., & Wheeler, J. 1973, Gravitation (New York: Freeman)

Mortlock, D., Webster, R., & Francis, P. 1999, MNRAS, 309, 836

Nakamura, T., Oohara, K., & Kojima, Y. 1987, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 90, 76

New, K., Choi, D., Centrella, J., MacNeice, P., Huq, M., & Olson, K. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, in press (gr-qc/0007045)

New, K. & Tohline, J. 1997, ApJ, 490, 311

Oohara, K. & Nakamura, T. 1992, Prog. Theor. Phys., 88, 307

Papadopoulos, P., Seidel, E., & Wild, L. 1998, Phys.Rev.D, 58, 084002

Portegies Zwart, S. & McMillan, S. 2000, ApJ, 528, L17

Rasio, F. & Shapiro, 1992, ApJ401, 226

Rasio, F. & Shapiro, S. 1999, Class. Quant. Grav., 16, 1

Reula, O. 1998, Living Reviews in Relativity, http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/ Volume1/1998-3reula

Rosswog, S., Davies, M., Thielemann, F.-K., and Piran, T. 2000, A&A, in press (astro-ph/0005550)

Rosswog, S., Thielemann, F.-K., Davies, M., Benz, W., & Piran, T. 1998, in Proceedings of Ringberg98, in press (astro-ph/9804332)

Ruffert, M., Janka, H.-T., & Schäfer, G. 1996, A&A, 311, 532

Schutz, B. 1997, in Proceedings of the Alpbach Summer School, ed. A. Wilson (ESA)

Seidel, E. & Suen, W. 1992, Phys.Rev.Lett, 69, 1845

Shibata, M. 1999, Phys.Rev.D, 60, 104052

Shibata, M. & Nakamura, T. 1995, Phys.Rev.D, 52, 5428

Shibata, M., Oohara, K., & Nakamura, T. 1997, Prog. Theor. Phys., 98, 1081

Shibata, M., Taniguchi, K., & Nakamura, T. 1998, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 128, 295

Shibata, M. & Uryū, K. 2000, Phys.Rev.D, 61, 064001

Smarr, L. 1978, in Sources of Gravitational Radiation, ed. L. Smarr (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Strain, K. A. & Meers, B. J. 1991, Phys.Rev.Lett, 66, 1391

Suen, W. M. 1999, gr-qc/9904043

Swesty, F. D., Wang, E., and Calder, A. 1999, astro-ph/9911192

Thorne, K. 1998, in Black Holes and Relativistic Stars, ed. R. Wald (Chicago: Chicago University Press)

Vallisneri, M. 2000, Phys.Rev.Lett, 84, 3519

Zhuge, X., Centrella, J., & McMillan, S. 1994, Phys.Rev.D, 50, 6247

Zhuge, X., Centrella, J., & McMillan, S. 1996, Phys.Rev.D, 54, 7261