text:
# How Recent is Cosmic Acceleration?

## I The Hubble plot of standard cosmology

A variety of recent observational measurements  have sharply constrained the space available to the standard model cosmological parameters. Specifically, phenomenological data fitting using the standard Einstein-Friedmann cosmological evolution equation

$$\dot{R}^2(t)+kc^2=\dot{R}^2(t)(\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t)+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t))$$
(1)
(where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t)=8\pi G\rho _M(t)/3c^2H^2(t)`$ is due to ordinary $`\rho _M(t)1/R^n(t)`$ matter and where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=8\pi G\mathrm{\Lambda }/3cH^2(t)`$ is due to a cosmological constant $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is found to favor current era values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)0.7`$, with the current era deceleration parameter $`q_0=q(t_0)=(n/21)\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ then having to be of order $`1/2`$. While these values are very supportive of the flat $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t)=kc^2/\dot{R}^2(t)=1\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t)\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=0`$ inflationary universe paradigm , they are nonetheless extremely troubling. Specifically, solving Eq. (1) for $`\rho _M(t)=B/R^3(t)`$ and $`k=0`$ yields $`R(t)=(B/c\mathrm{\Lambda })^{1/3}sinh^{2/3}(3D^{1/2}t/2)`$ where $`D=8\pi G\mathrm{\Lambda }/3c`$, so that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=D/H^2(t)=1\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t)=tanh^2(3D^{1/2}t/2).$$
(2)
The identification $`c|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=\sigma T_V^4`$ of the cosmological constant with a typical particle physics temperature scale $`T_V`$ of order $`10^{16}`$ degrees (viz. $`D=4.7\times 10^{22}`$ sec-2) would then yield (for $`H_0=H(t_0)=65`$ km/sec/Mpc) a value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ of order $`10^{59}`$, a value not only overwhelmingly larger than its obtained fitted value, but one not at all compatible with the bounded $`tanh^2(3D^{1/2}t_0/2)`$ required by Eq. (2). Or, alternatively, if an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)`$ of order one is taken as a given, an associated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ of order $`10^{60}`$ could then only be reconciled with Eq. (1) in the event that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t_0)`$ was of order $`10^{60}`$ and thus nowhere near flat.

To get round this problem the standard paradigm then proposes that instead of using such a particle physics based $`D`$ one should instead, and despite the absence of any currently known justification, fine-tune $`D`$ down by about 60 orders of magnitude and replace it by the phenomenological $`D=3.1\times 10^{36}`$ sec-2 with the values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)=0.7`$ then ensuing. However, in its turn, such a proposal then engenders a further fine-tuning problem for the standard model since for such a value of $`D`$ the early universe associated with Eq. (1) would need to be one in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t=t_{PL})`$ would have had to be have been incredibly close to one at the Planck time $`t=t_{PL}`$, while $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t=t_{PL})`$ would have had to have been as small as $`O(10^{120})`$. In fact, given such initial conditions, the universe would then be such that it would decelerate ($`q(t)>0`$) continually in all epochs until the cosmological constant finally manages to catch up with the red-shifting matter density, something which for the phenomenologically chosen value for $`D`$ would occur at the incredibly late $`z=0.67`$ when $`q(t)`$ would at long last finally change sign. While it is very peculiar that such a turn around is to occur just in our particular epoch, nonetheless, independent of one’s views regarding the merits or otherwise of such a proposal, the proposal itself is actually readily amenable to testing, with a modest increase in the range of $`z`$ (say to $`z=2`$) in the $`(d_L,z)`$ Hubble plot being able to reveal the presence of any possible such turn around. Moreover, such a study would be completely independent of any dynamical assumptions (such as those required for the (complementary) extraction of cosmological parameters from the structure of the cosmic microwave background) and would thus be completely clear cut. Thus in and of itself it would be extremely informative to extend the range of the Hubble plot. However, as we now show, it would be of additional interest since it would allow for a rather unequivocal comparison between standard cosmology and the recently proposed alternate conformal cosmology, a theory where cosmic acceleration is not at all of recent vintage.

## II The Hubble plot of conformal cosmology

Given the fine-tuning needs of the standard cosmology, it is of value to explore candidate alternate cosmologies both in and of themselves and also as a (potentially instructive) foil to the standard theory itself. Of such possible alternate theories conformal gravity (viz. gravity based on the fully covariant, locally conformal invariant Weyl action $`I_W=\alpha _gd^4x(g)^{1/2}C_{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }C^{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }`$ where $`C^{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }`$ is the conformal Weyl tensor and where $`\alpha _g`$ is a purely dimensionless gravitational coupling constant) is immediately suggested since it possesses an explicit symmetry (conformal invariance) which when unbroken would require the cosmological constant to vanish. The cosmology associated with the conformal gravity theory was first presented in  where it was shown to possess no flatness problem, to thus release conformal cosmology from the need for the copious amounts of cosmological dark matter required of the standard theory. Subsequently , the cosmology was shown to also possess no horizon problem, no universe age problem, and, through negative spatial curvature, to naturally lead to cosmic repulsion.$`^{\text{[9]}}`$ Finally, it was shown  that even after the conformal symmetry is spontaneously broken by a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ inducing cosmological phase transition, the cosmology is still able to control the contribution of the induced cosmological constant to cosmic evolution even in the event that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in fact as big as particle physics suggests, to thereby provide a completely natural solution to the cosmological constant problem. In the present paper we show that this control actually enables us to provide for a complete and explicit accounting of the recent high $`z`$ supernovae Hubble plot data without the need for any fine tuning at all.

To explicitly analyze conformal cosmology it is convenient to consider the generic conformal matter action

$$I_M=\mathrm{}d^4x(g)^{1/2}[S^\mu S_\mu /2S^2R_\mu ^\mu /12+\lambda S^4+i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu (x)(_\mu +\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (x))\psi gS\overline{\psi }\psi ]$$
(3)
for massless fermions and a conformally coupled order parameter scalar field. For such an action, when the scalar field acquires a non-zero expectation value $`S_0`$, the entire energy-momentum tensor of the theory is found (for a perfect matter fluid $`T_{kin}^{\mu \nu }`$ of fermions) to take the form

$$T^{\mu \nu }=T_{kin}^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}S_0^2(R^{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }R_\alpha ^\alpha /2)/6g^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}\lambda S_0^4,$$
(4)
with the complete solution to the scalar, fermionic and gravitational field equations of motion in a background Robertson-Walker geometry (viz. a geometry in which $`C^{\lambda \mu \nu \kappa }=0`$) then reducing to just one relevant equation, viz. $`T^{\mu \nu }=0`$, a remarkably simple condition which immediately fixes the zero of energy. We thus see that the evolution equation of conformal cosmology looks identical to that of standard gravity save only that the quantity $`\mathrm{}S_0^2/12`$ has replaced the familiar $`c^3/16\pi G`$, so that instead of being attractive the effective cosmological $`G_{eff}=3c^3/4\pi \mathrm{}S_0^2`$ is actually negative to thus naturally lead to cosmic repulsion, and instead of being fixed as the standard low energy $`G`$, the cosmological $`G_{eff}`$ is instead fixed by the altogether different scale $`S_0`$ to thus enable it to be altogether smaller than $`G`$.$`^{\text{[12]}}`$ As we shall see below, it is precisely the replacing of the cosmological $`G`$ by an altogether smaller $`G_{eff}`$ that enables conformal gravity to naturally solve the cosmological constant problem.

Given the equation of motion $`T^{\mu \nu }=0`$, the ensuing conformal cosmology evolution equation is then found (on setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}\lambda S_0^4`$) to take a form quite similar to Eq. (1), viz.

$`\dot{R}^2(t)+kc^2=\dot{R}^2(t)(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t)+\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t))`$ (5)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t)=8\pi G_{eff}\rho _M(t)/3c^2H^2(t)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=8\pi G_{eff}\mathrm{\Lambda }/3cH^2(t)`$. Further, unlike the situation in the standard theory where preferred values for the relevant evolution parameters (such as the magnitude and even the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) are only determined by the data fitting itself, in conformal gravity essentially everything is already a priori known. With conformal gravity not needing dark matter to account for non-relativistic issues such as galactic rotation curve systematics , $`\rho _M(t_0)`$ can be determined directly from luminous matter alone, with galaxy luminosity counts giving a value for it of order $`0.01\times 3c^2H_0^2/8\pi G`$ or so. Further, with $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being generated by particle physics vacuum breaking in an otherwise scaleless theory, since such breaking lowers the energy density, $`c\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must unambiguously be negative, with it thus being typically given by $`\sigma T_V^4`$ where $`T_V`$ is a necessarily particle physics sized scale. Then with $`G_{eff}`$ also being negative, the quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$ must thus be positive, just as needed to give cosmic acceleration ($`q(t)=(n/21)\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t)\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)`$). Similarly, the sign of the spatial 3-curvature $`k`$ is known from theory  to be negative, something which has been independently confirmed from a phenomenological study of galactic rotation curves . Moreover, since $`G_{eff}`$ is negative, the cosmology is singularity free and thus expands from a (negative curvature supported) finite maximum temperature $`T_{max}`$, a temperature which is necessarily greater  (and potentially even much greater ) than $`T_V`$. And finally, with $`G_{eff}`$ being negative, the quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t)`$ must be negative for ordinary $`\rho _M(t)>0`$ matter, with $`q(t)`$ thus being negative in all epochs.$`^{\text{[15]}}`$ Consequently in the conformal theory we never need to fine tune in order to make any particular epoch such as our own be an accelerating one, and as we shall show below, the conformal theory not only gives some current era acceleration but in fact gives just the amount needed to account for the currently available Hubble plot data.

Given only that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`k`$ and $`G_{eff}`$ are in fact all negative in the conformal theory, the evolution of the theory is then completely determined, with the expansion rate being found  to be given by

$$R^2=k(\beta 1)/2\alpha k\beta sinh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct)/\alpha ,T_{max}^2/T^2=1+2\beta sinh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct)/(\beta 1),$$
(6)
where $`\alpha c^2=2\lambda S_0^2=8\pi G_{eff}\mathrm{\Lambda }/3c`$, $`\beta =(116A\lambda /k^2\mathrm{}c)^{1/2}=(1+T_V^4/T_{max}^4)/(1T_V^4/T_{max}^4)`$. In terms of the parameters $`T_{max}`$ and $`T_V`$ we thus obtain

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=(1T^2/T_{max}^2)^1(1+T^2T_{max}^2/T_V^4)^1,\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t)=(T^4/T_V^4)\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)$$
(7)
at any $`T(t)`$ without any approximation at all. From Eq. (7) we thus immediately see that simply because $`T_{max}`$ is overwhelmingly larger than the current temperature $`T(t_0)`$, i.e. simply because the universe is as old as it is, it automatically follows, without any fine-tuning at all, that the current era $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ has to lie somewhere between zero and one today no matter how big (or small) $`T_V`$ might actually be, with conformal gravity thus having total control over the contribution of the cosmological constant to cosmic evolution. Conformal gravity thus solves the cosmological constant problem by quenching $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ rather than by quenching $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ itself (essentially by having a $`G_{eff}`$ which is altogether smaller than the standard $`G`$), and with it being the quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ which is the one which is actually measured in cosmology, it is only its quenching which is actually needed. With conformal gravity thus being able to naturally accommodate a large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we are now actually free to allow $`T_V`$ to be as large as particle physics suggests. Then, for such a large $`T_V/T(t_0)`$ we see that the quantity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_M(t_0)`$ has to be completely negligible today$`^{\text{[16]}}`$ so that $`q_0`$ must thus, without any fine-tuning at all, necessarily lie between zero and minus one today notwithstanding that $`T_V`$ is huge. Moreover, noting that

$$tanh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct)=(1T^2/T_{max}^2)/(T_{max}^2T^2/T_V^4+1),$$
(8)
we immediately see that the current era $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)`$ is given by the completely bounded $`tanh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0)`$ (so that the current era curvature contribution to cosmic expansion is then given as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(t_0)=sech^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0)`$), with the current deceleration parameter being given by the nicely bounded $`q_0=tanh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0)`$. The essence of the conformal gravity approach then is not to change the matter and energy content of the universe but rather only their effect on cosmic evolution, with the cosmological constant itself no longer needing to be quenched.

While completely foreign to standard gravity, a universe in which $`\rho _M(t)`$ makes a completely negligible contribution to current era cosmic evolution is, as we now show, nonetheless fully compatible with the currently available $`z<1`$ Hubble plot data. Specifically, through use of type Ia supernovae the authors of  were able to measure the dependence of luminosity distance $`d_L`$ on redshift out to $`z=1`$. To fit their data we thus need to determine the dependence of $`d_L`$ on $`z`$ in the conformal theory, something we can readily do now that we have obtained the expansion factor $`R(t)`$. Thus, in the conformal theory we find first that the Hubble parameter is given as

$$H(t)=\alpha ^{1/2}c(1T^2(t)/T_{max}^2)/tanh(\alpha ^{1/2}ct)$$
(9)
with its current ($`T_{max}T(t_0)`$) value being found to obey $`q_0=tanh^2(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0)=\alpha c^2/H_0^2`$, with the current age of the universe then being given by $`t_0=arctanh[(q_0)^{1/2}]/(q_0)^{1/2}H_0`$, viz. by $`t_01/H_0`$. For temperatures well below $`T_{max}`$ and for the naturally achievable  $`T_VT_{max}`$ case of most practical interest to conformal gravity (viz. a case where $`T_{max}^2T^2(t_0)/T_V^4`$ can be of order one) we may set $`R(t)=(k/\alpha )^{1/2}sinh(\alpha ^{1/2}ct)`$, so that for geodesics $`_{t_1}^{t_0}c𝑑t/R(t)=_0^{r_1}𝑑r/[1kr^2]^{1/2}`$ we obtain

$$(k)^{1/2}r_1=coth(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0)/sinh(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_1)coth(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_1)/sinh(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_0).$$
(10)
Then, with $`sinh(\alpha ^{1/2}ct_1)=(q_0)^{1/2}/(1+q_0)^{1/2}(1+z)`$ where $`z=R(t_0)/R(t_1)1`$, we find that we can express the general luminosity distance $`d_L=r_1R(t_0)(1+z)`$ entirely in terms of the current era $`H_0`$ and $`q_0`$ according to the very compact relation

$$H_0d_L/c=(1+z)^2\left\{1[1+q_0q_0/(1+z)^2]^{1/2}\right\}/q_0$$
(11)
Conformal gravity fits to the luminosity distance can thus be parametrized via the one parameter $`q_0`$, a parameter which must lie somewhere between zero and minus one, with $`d_L`$ thus having to lie somewhere between $`d_L(q_0=0)=cH_0^1(z+z^2/2)`$ and $`d_L(q_0=1)=cH_0^1(z+z^2)`$ at temperatures well below $`T_{max}`$. Given Eq. (11) we turn now to a data analysis.

## III Fits to the Hubble plot

For the fitting we shall follow  and fit 38 of their 42 data points together with 16 of the 18 earlier lower $`z`$ points of , for a total of 54 data points with reported effective blue apparent magnitude $`m_i`$ and uncertainty $`\sigma _i`$. (While we thus leave out 6 questionable data points for the fitting, nonetheless, for completeness we still include them in the figures.) For the fitting we calculate the apparent magnitude $`m`$ of each supernova at redshift $`z`$ via $`m=25+M+5log_{10}d_L`$ ($`d_L`$ in Mpc) where $`M`$ is their assumed common absolute magnitude, and minimize $`\chi ^2(q_0,M)=(mm_i)^2/\sigma _i^2`$ as a function of the two parameters $`q_0`$ and $`M`$. In all of our fits $`M`$ (as determined using $`H_0=65`$ km/sec/Mpc) is found to be in agreement with the analyses of , with our best fit $`\chi ^2=58.62`$ being obtained for $`q_0=0.37`$, $`M=19.37`$. We display this fit as the upper curve in Fig. (1) where we also present as the lower curve the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)=0.7`$ standard model fit, a fit which gives $`\chi ^2=57.74`$ (and $`M=19.37`$) for the same 54 points. As we thus see, in the detected region the best fits of the two models are completely indistinguishable, only in fact departing from each other at the highest available redshifts. Moreover, the conformal cosmology fits turn out to be extremely insensitive to the actual value of $`q_0`$, with other typical $`q_0,M`$ fits being $`\chi ^2(0,19.29)=61.49`$, $`\chi ^2(0.25,19.34)=58.96`$, $`\chi ^2(0.5,19.40)=59.11`$, $`\chi ^2(0.75,19.46)=63.59`$, and $`\chi ^2(1.00,19.54)=75.79`$.$`^{\text{[18]}}`$ The data will thus support conformal cosmologies with a fairly broad range of negative values of $`q_0`$ beginning at $`q_0=0`$. In fact such high quality $`q_0=0`$ fits (viz. fits with $`R(t)=(k)^{1/2}ct`$) have already been reported earlier,$`^{\text{[19]}}`$ with the authors of  having noted in passing that such fits were actually as good as their best standard model fits, and with the authors of  having presented such $`q_0=0`$ fits in an exploration of generic power law expansion rate cosmologies. What is new here is that we derive such $`q_0=0`$ fits within the framework of a well-defined cosmological model while also extending them to non-zero $`q_0`$ (i.e. to non-zero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

As we just noted, current Hubble plot data do not allow us to resolve between standard and alternate gravity theories. However, since the standard theory is a decelerating one above $`z=1`$ while the conformal theory continues to accelerate, continuation of the Hubble plot beyond $`z=1`$ will actually enable us to discriminate between the various options. Thus in Fig. (2) we plot the higher $`z`$ expectations. The highest curve in the figure is the conformal gravity fit for $`q_0=0.37`$, the middle curve in the figure is the conformal gravity fit for $`q_0=0`$, and the lowest curve in the figure is the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)=0.7`$ standard model expectation. As we see, the curves start to depart from each other fairly rapidly once we go above $`z=1`$, with the three cases respectively yielding $`m=27.17`$, $`m=27.04`$ and $`m=26.75`$ at $`z=2`$, a difference of at least $`0.3`$ magnitudes between standard gravity and the conformal alternative. (At $`z=5`$ the respective magnitudes are $`m=30.40`$, $`m=30.25`$ and $`m=29.14`$.) Since conformal gravity handles the cosmological constant problem, the primary problem troubling the standard theory, so readily (its other successes and its own difficulties are discussed in ) it would thus appear to merit further consideration, with only a modest extension of the Hubble plot readily enabling us to discriminate between standard gravity and its conformal alternative while potentially even being definitive for both.$`^{\text{[21]}}`$ The author is indebted to Drs. G. V. Dunne, K. Horne, D. Lohiya, R. Plaga and B. E. Schaefer for helpful comments. This work has been supported in part by the Department of Energy under grant No. DE-FG02-92ER40716.00.

## IV Added Note

Since this paper was first released it was announced  that new analysis of SN 1997ff now puts this supernova at $`z=1.7_{0.15}^{+0.1}`$ and establishes a lower bound on its luminosity large enough to definitively exclude the two most commonly considered non-cosmological explanations (dust extinction and intrinsic luminosity evolution) of the supernovae Hubble plot data. Interestingly, this lower bound turns out to be very close not only to the values ($`m=26.52`$, $`m=26.64`$) expected of $`q_0=0`$ and $`q_0=0.37`$ conformal gravity at $`z=1.7`$ but also to the nearby $`m=26.32`$ expectation of an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M(t_0)=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)=0.7`$ standard model at that $`z`$, thus making further exploration of the $`z>1`$ region potentially very significant. In their analysis the authors of  present their SN 1997ff data in the form of confidence contours in distance modulus ($`mM`$) versus redshift space. To illustrate their data we have augmented Fig. (2) by adding in the 68% and 95% confidence region values for the apparent magnitude $`m`$ (as obtained from the quoted $`mM`$ by adding $`M=19.37`$) at redshifts $`z=1.65`$, $`z=1.7`$ and $`z=1.75`$, and have presented an enlarged view of the relevant region in Fig. (3). (In these figures the two inner horizontal bars on the vertical data points represent the extent of the 68% confidence region at each of the chosen redshifts while the two outer bars represent the 95% confidence one.) To estimate the effect of SN 1997ff on the $`\widehat{\chi }^2(q_0,M)`$ that we obtained for our fits to the $`z<1`$ data we have calculated the change in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(q_0,M)`$ generated by an effective additional data point with the 68% confidence region value of $`m=25.83\pm 0.5`$ at redshift $`z=1.7_{0.15}^{+0.1}`$, to find typical values $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(0,19.28)=1.60`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(0.33,19.35)=2.08`$ to be compared with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(19.36)=0.83`$ for the standard model.

While the conformal gravity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2`$ values are actually less than those generated by some of the outlier points in the $`z<1`$ data,$`^{\text{[23]}}`$ it is important to note that as well as possessing statistical errors the SN 1997ff data happen to also possess an explicitly identified systematic error. Specifically SN 1997ff just happens to be lensed by two foreground galaxies at $`z=0.56`$ both of which lie very close to the line of sight, with the authors of  estimating that this would cause SN 1997ff to appear 0.2 magnitudes or so brighter than it actually is. Dimming the quoted distance modulus data by this amount would serve to move conformal gravity into the 68% confidence region with the modified $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(q_0,M)`$ then becoming $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(0,19.28)=0.82`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(0.33,19.35)=1.16`$ to be compared with a modified $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\chi }^2(19.36)=0.29`$ for the standard model. Thus we see that at present it is not yet possible to discriminate between standard gravity and the conformal alternative, with both of the theories being compatible with the SN 1997ff data. In fact, given that there is a systematic lensing effect (and as yet only one $`z>1`$ data point of course), we see that since the dimmed data straddle the coasting ($`q(t)=0`$ at all times) universe (equivalent to $`q_0=0`$ conformal gravity), at the present time one is not in fact able to determine whether the universe is actually accelerating or decelerating above $`z=1`$,$`^{\text{[24]}}`$ with further data (such as those anticipated in the upcoming SNAP satellite mission) thus being needed to resolve the issue and identify any specific trend in the $`z>1`$ region that might exist.


format: text

text:
# Efficient index handling of multidimensional periodic boundary conditions

## Abstract

An efficient method is described to handle mesh indexes in multidimensional problems like numerical integration of partial differential equations, lattice model simulations, and determination of atomic neighbor lists. By creating an extended mesh, beyond the periodic unit cell, the stride in memory between equivalent pairs of mesh points is independent of their position within the cell. This allows to contract the mesh indexes of all dimensions into a single index, avoiding modulo and other implicit index operations.

Periodic boundary conditions are essential in all sorts of problems in solid state physics, condensed matter simulations, and many other fields. The solution of partial differential equations by real-space discretization , the calculation of the interaction energy in lattice models , and the determination of neighbor lists in molecular dynamics simulations , are only a few of these problems. For illustration, let us consider the calculation of the laplacian of a function $`f(𝐫)`$ using finite differences. In three dimensions, one generally discretizes space in all three periodic directions, using an index for each direction. For simplicity, let us consider an orthorhombic unit cell, with mesh steps $`\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }y,\mathrm{\Delta }z`$. Then the simplest formula for the laplacian is

$`^2f_{i_x,i_y,i_z}`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{i_x+1,i_y,i_z}2f_{i_x,i_y,i_z}+f_{i_x1,i_y,i_z})/\mathrm{\Delta }x^2`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`(f_{i_x,i_y+1,i_z}2f_{i_x,i_y,i_z}+f_{i_x,i_y1,i_z})/\mathrm{\Delta }y^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`(f_{i_x,i_y,i_z+1}2f_{i_x,i_y,i_z}+f_{i_x,i_y,i_z1})/\mathrm{\Delta }z^2`$ (3)
A direct translation of this expression into Fortran90 code might read

```
   Lf(ix,iy,iz) = - f(ix,iy,iz) * (2/dx2+2/dy2+2/dz2)                 &
      + ( f(modulo(ix+1,nx),iy,iz) + f(modulo(ix-1,nx),iy,iz) ) / dx2 &
      + ( f(ix,modulo(iy+1,ny),iz) + f(ix,modulo(iy-1,ny),iz) ) / dy2 &
      + ( f(ix,iy,modulo(iz+1,nz)) + f(ix,iy,modulo(iz-1,nz)) ) / dz2

```

where the indexes $`i_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =\{x,y,z\}`$) of the arrays f and Lf run from 0 to $`n_\alpha 1`$, as in C. There are two problems with this construction. First, the modulo operations are required to bring the indexes back to the allowed range $`[0,n_\alpha 1]`$. And second, the use of three indexes to refer to a mesh point implies implicit arithmetic operations, generated by the compiler, to translate them into a single index giving its position in memory.

A straightforward solution to these inefficiencies would be to create a neighbor-point list `j_neighb(i,neighb)`, of the size of the number of mesh points times the number of neighbor points. However, although the latter are only six in our simple example, they may frequently be as many as several hundred, what generally makes this approach unfeasible. A partial solution, addressing only the first problem, is to create six (or more for longer ranges) one-dimensional tables $`j_\alpha ^{\pm 1}(i_\alpha )=\text{mod}(i_\alpha \pm 1,n_\alpha )`$ to avoid the modulo computations . Here, I describe a multidimensional generalization of this method, which solves both problems at the expense of a very reasonable amount of extra storage.

The method is based on an extended mesh, which extends beyond the periodic unit cell, by as much as required to cover all the space that can be reached from the unit cell by the range of the interactions or the finite-difference operator. The extended mesh range is $`i_\alpha ^{min}=\mathrm{\Delta }n_\alpha `$ and $`i_\alpha ^{max}=n_\alpha 1+\mathrm{\Delta }n_\alpha `$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_\alpha =1`$ in our particular example, in which the laplacian formula extends just to first-neighbor mesh points. In principle, in cases with a small unit cell and a long range, the mesh extension may be larger than the unit cell itself, extending over several neighbor cells. However, in the more relevant case of a large system, we may expect the extension region to be small compared to the unit cell. We then consider two combined indexes, one associated to the normal unit-cell mesh, and another one associated to the extended mesh

$$i=i_x+n_xi_y+n_xn_yi_z,$$

$$i_{ext}=(i_xi_x^{min})+n_x^{ext}(i_yi_y^{min})+n_x^{ext}n_y^{ext}(i_zi_z^{min}),$$

where $`n_\alpha ^{ext}=i_\alpha ^{max}i_\alpha ^{min}+1=n_\alpha +2\mathrm{\Delta }n_\alpha `$. The key observation is that, if $`i_{ext}`$ is a mesh point within the unit cell ($`0i_\alpha n_\alpha 1`$), and if $`j_{ext}`$ is a neighbor mesh point (within its interaction range, i.e. $`|j_\alpha i_\alpha |\mathrm{\Delta }n_\alpha `$), then the arithmetic difference $`j_{ext}i_{ext}`$ depends only on the relative positions of $`i_{ext}`$ and $`j_{ext}`$ (i.e. on $`j_\alpha i_\alpha `$), but not on the position of $`i_{ext}`$ within the unit cell. We can then create a list of neighbor strides $`\mathrm{\Delta }ij_{ext}`$, and two arrays to translate back and forth between $`i`$ and $`i_{ext}`$. One of the arrays maps the unit cell points to the central region of the extended mesh, while the other one folds back the extended mesh points to their periodically equivalent points within the unit cell. Then, to access the neighbors of a point $`i`$, we $`a`$) translate $`ii_{ext}`$; $`b`$) find $`j_{ext}=i_{ext}+\mathrm{\Delta }ij_{ext}`$; and $`c`$) translate $`j_{ext}j`$. Notice that several points of the extended mesh will map to the same point within the unit cell and that, in principle, a unit cell point $`j`$ may be neighbor of $`i`$ through different values of $`j_{ext}`$. In our example, the innermost loop would then read

```
   Lf(i) = 0
   do neighb = 1,n_neighb
      j_ext = i_extended(i) + ij_delta(neighb)
      j = i_cell(j_ext)
      Lf(i) = Lf(i) + L(neighb) * f(j)
   end do

```

where the number of neighbor points would be `n_neighb=7`, including the central point itself, and

```
   ij_delta(1) =  1             ; L(1) = 1/dx2
   ij_delta(2) = -1             ; L(1) = 1/dx2
   ij_delta(3) =  nx_ext        ; L(3) = 1/dy2
   ij_delta(4) = -nx_ext        ; L(4) = 1/dy2
   ij_delta(5) =  nx_ext*ny_ext ; L(5) = 1/dz2
   ij_delta(6) = -nx_ext*ny_ext ; L(6) = 1/dz2
   ij_delta(7) =  0             ; L(7) =-2/dx2-2/dy2-2/dz2

```

Notice, however, that the above loop is completely general, for any linear operator, using an arbitrary number of neighbor points for its finite difference representation. In fact, it is even independent of the space dimensionality. Furthermore, the index operations required are just one addition and three memory calls to arrays of range one . This inner loop simplicity comes at the expense of the two extra arrays `i_extended` and `i_cell` (of the size of the normal and extended meshes, respectively) which are generally an acceptable memory overhead. Notice, however, that the the neighbor-point list `ij_delta` is independent of the mesh index $`i`$, what makes this array quite small in most problems of interest.

Although particularly convenient for periodic boundary conditions, the present method may also be useful with fixed boundary conditions by, for example, mapping the outside points of the extended mesh to a single memory address with a fixed boundary value. In conclusion, I have presented an efficient method to handle index references in many typical problems involving periodic boundary conditions in more than one dimension.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Fundación Ramón Areces and by MCT/DGI grant PB00-1312.


text:
# Normal state resistivity, upper critical field and Hall effect of superconducting perovskite 𝑀𝑔𝐶𝑁𝑖₃

## introduction

The recent discovery of superconductivity in the simple intermetallic compound $`MgB_2`$ has attracted great attention because of its relatively high transition temperature ($`T_c`$ = 39 K) and the highly promising potential application. It suggests that intermetallic compounds with simple structure types are worth serious reconsideration as sources of new superconducting materials. More recently, the observation of superconductivity at 8 K in the perovskite structure intermetallic compound $`MgCNi_3`$ indicates that $`MgB_2`$ will not be the only one of its kind within the chemical paradigm for new superconducting materials.

The variable stoichiometry compound $`MgC_xNi_3`$, for $`0.5<x<1.25`$, has been reported and assigned to the perovskite structure type by analogy in 1950’s, but neither its crystal structure nor its physical properties had been determined. By using powder neutron diffraction, He et al. has found that the superconducting phase in nominal composition $`MgC_{1.25}Ni_3`$ is $`MgC_{0.96}Ni_3`$ with the classical cubic perovskite structure, space group $`Pm3m`$. They also determined the electron-phonon coupling constant $`\lambda _{ph}0.77`$ by specific heat measurements. Although this value of $`\lambda _{ph}`$ is in the range of conventional phonon, more properties of both normal state and superconducting state need to be clarified to determine the microscopic mechanism of superconductivity in this compound. A complete structural and electronic equivalence of the superconducting oxide perovskites like $`(Ba,K)BiO_3`$ (BKBO) and intermetallic perovskite superconductor $`MgCNi_3`$ has been considered. For the oxide perovskites, an important characteristic of the superconductivity is that the electronic states at the Fermi energy involve holes in the oxygen electronic orbitals. Preliminary band structure calculations have shown that the electron states at the Fermi surface of $`MgCNi_3`$ are dominated by the $`3d`$ orbitals of Ni, so the conduction may also involve holes in Ni $`d`$-states. Although it is expected that the carriers should be holes as monovalent potassium replaces divalent barium in BKBO, the Hall coefficient measurement on BKBO thin films indicates that the charge carriers are electrons. Therefore the measurement of the Hall effect in $`MgCNi_3`$ should be very interesting.

In this paper, we report the study of the normal state resistivity and the first measurements of the upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$ and Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ for superconducting perovskite $`MgCNi_3`$. It is found that at high temperature (above 70 K) $`\rho (T)`$ can be fitted well by Bloch-Grüneisen theory. $`H_{c2}T`$ phase diagram was obtained. The sign and temperature dependence of $`R_H`$ were determined by Hall effect measurement, which definitely indicates that the carrier in $`MgCNi_3`$ is electron-type.

## experiment

To obtain perfectly stoichiometric composition $`MgCNi_3`$ with highest $`T_c`$, excess carbon is required. Due to the volatility of Mg during the synthesis of this compound, excess Mg is needed. In this study, sample with nominal formula $`Mg_{1.2}C_{1.4}Ni_3`$ was prepared. Starting materials were bright Mg flakes, fine powders of Ni, and the powders of amorphous carbon with high purity. Starting materials were mixed, ground for a few minutes, and pressed into pellet. The pellet was loaded in a Ta foil, which was in turn sealed in a stainless steel reactor. The above operations were carried out in a glove box with an Ar environment, in which the content of oxygen and water is less than a few ppm. The reactor was fired in a tube furnace under high-pure Ar atmosphere for half an hour at 600oC, followed by an hour at 900oC. After cooling, the sample was reground, pressed into pellet, and sintered for another one hour at 900oC under the same environment. The resulting sample was dense with a length of 7 mm and a width of 2 mm. The structure was characterized by powder x-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis using Rigaku D/max-$`\gamma `$A x-ray diffractometer (XRD) with graphite monochromatized Cu K$`\alpha `$ radiation ($`\lambda `$ = 1.5406 Å). The data were collected over 2$`\theta `$ range from 15o to 75o with a 0.02o step.

In order to obtain a good Hall voltage signal, the sample was mechanically polished until it was very thin (360 $`\mu `$m). The longitudinal and Hall voltages were measured by using the standard dc 6-probe method. The magnetic field was applied perpendicular to the sample surface by using a superconducting magnet system (Oxford Instruments) and the applied current is 15 mA. The Hall voltage was extracted from the antisymmetric parts of the transverse voltages measured under opposite directions to remove the longitudinal component due to the misalignment of the Hall voltage pads. The Hall voltage was found to be linear in the magnetic field.

## results and discussion

Fig. 1 shows temperature dependence of resistivity under zero field and the XRD pattern (inset) for the sample with nominal composition $`Mg_{1.2}C_{1.4}Ni_3`$. XRD pattern indicates that the sample is nearly single phase. By the least-square fitting to the positions of 7 Bragg reflection peaks between 2$`\theta `$ values of 15o and 75o, the cubic cell parameter $`a`$ = 3.81154(5) Å is obtained, being consistent with previous report. The resistive superconducting transition is very sharp. The midpoint of the resistive transition is 8.0 K, the 90-10% transition width is less than 0.3 K, and the resistive onset temperature is 8.2 K. $`T_c`$ of the sample is nearly the same as that reported in Ref. 2. The resistivity ratio $`\rho _{300K}/\rho _{9K}`$ is 2.5 which is larger than that in Ref. 2. Also the normal state resistivity is about 3 times larger than that in Ref. 2. It is important to note that the shape of $`\rho (T)`$ curve is almost identical to that reported by He et al.. One can observe an upward curvature of $`\rho (T)`$ curve at low temperature followed by a downward one for higher temperature. It looks like that of conventional metals and different from the simply linear-T dependence observed in copper oxide superconductors. The similar shape of $`\rho (T)`$ curve has been observed in BKBO thin film and single crystal in which $`\rho (T)`$ fits well curve predicted by Bloch-Grüneisen theory consistently with electron-phonon scattering.

In order to investigate to what extent the resistive behavior is consistent with electron-phonon scattering mechanism, we fit the resistivity data with an explicit form of the Bloch-Grüneisen expression which is valid in the case of an Einstein phonon distribution $`ϵ=k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_E`$ as in Ref. 9:

$$\rho ^1=\rho _p^1+(\rho _0+\rho _{ph})^1$$
(1)
$$\rho _{ph}=\rho _lcoth(\mathrm{\Theta }_E/2T)[1+(2/3)sinh^2(\mathrm{\Theta }_E/2T)]^1$$
(2)
$`\rho _0`$ and $`\rho _p`$ are respectively a residual and a parallel resistivity, respectively. $`\rho _l`$ is a constant. It is found that between 70 K and 300 K $`\rho (T)`$ fits well curve by the Bloch-Grüneisen expression. The solid line in Fig.2 represents the result of the best fit to the experimental data. The best fit result gives $`\mathrm{\Theta }_E`$ = 206(1) K, $`\rho _0`$ = 202(1) $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, $`\rho _p`$ = 574(1) $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, and $`\rho _l`$ = 177(1) $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm. The Einstein temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }_E`$ is comparable with that of BKBO. Below 70 K, the fitting is not well and gives very low $`\mathrm{\Theta }_E`$. We speculate it that the Einstein phonon distribution is not proper and continuous phonon spectra, such as Debye spectrum, should be adopted at low temperature. We simply fit the low temperature resistivity data using a power law, $`\rho =\rho _0+aT^n`$. The fit result gives $`\rho _0`$ = 120.7(1) $`\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm, n = 1.46(1). The fit curve is also shown as an unbroken line in Fig.2.

Fig. 3 shows the $`\rho (T)`$ curves under magnetic fields up to 14 T. The resistive superconducting transition shifts to low temperature with increase of the magnetic field. The onset temperature decreases and the broadening of the superconducting transition is almost absent with the increasing magnetic field. This result is in contrast to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprate superconductors and similar to A15 intermetallic compounds such as $`Nb_3Sn`$. Fig. 4 shows the $`H_{c2}T`$ phase diagram obtained from the $`\rho `$ vs. $`T`$ curves at different fields. Here $`T_c`$ is defined as the intersection of the linear extrapolation of the most rapidly changing part of $`\rho (T)`$ and that of the normal state resistivity, as shown in the upper inset of Fig. 4. The lower inset of Fig. 4 is the magnetic field dependence of the resistance of the sample at 2.3 K. Defining $`H_{c2}`$ as the intersection of the linear extrapolation of the most rapidly changing part of $`\rho (H)`$ and that of the normal state resistivity, one can get $`H_{c2}(2.3K)`$ = 12.5 T, which is in good agreement with the result from temperature dependence $`\rho (T)`$. Within the weak-coupling BCS theory, $`H_{c2}(T=0)`$ can be estimated using the Werthamer-Halfand-Hohenberg(WHH) formula,

$$\mu _0H_{c2}=0.693(dH_{c2}/dT)_{T=T_c}T_c$$
(3)
which leads to a $`\mu _0H_{c2}`$ value of 15.0 T. Meanwhile the Pauli-limiting field

$$\mu _0H^{Pauli}=1.24K_BT_c/\mu _B$$
(4)
expected within the same weak-coupling BCS theory is also 15.0 Tesla for $`T_c`$ = 8.12 K, inferred from Fig. 4. One can see that $`\mu _0H^{WHH}`$ and $`\mu _0H^{Pauli}`$ agree perfectly with each other. The superconducting coherence $`\xi (0)`$ is estimated to be approximately 47 Å, using the Ginzburg-Landau formula for an isotropic three-dimensional superconductor, $`\mu _0H_{c2}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2\pi \xi ^2(0)`$.

Fig. 5 shows the Hall coefficient $`R_H`$ from room temperature down to $`T_c`$ under 10 T. The two curves in the inset represent the Hall voltage measured at 100 K for opposite magnetic fields up to 10 T. Clearly, the field dependent Hall voltage is symmetric and linear. The $`R_H`$ is negative for the whole temperature range. We found that $`R_H`$ is essentially temperature independent between $`T_c`$ and $``$ 140 K, at least within our experimental accuracy. Above $``$ 140 K, the magnitude of $`R_H`$ decreases as temperature increases. It is found that $`R_H(140K)/R_H(295K)`$ is about 1.3. At T = 100 K, $`R_H`$ = $`6.1\times 10^{10}m^3/C`$, and the calculated carrier density is $`1.0\times 10^{22}/cm^3`$. The main feature of the Hall effect is the negative $`R_H`$. It definitely indicates that the carrier in $`MgCNi_3`$ is electron-type, which is strongly supported by the negative thermoelectrical power observed from room temperature to 10 K. The carrier density is comparable with that of BKBO, and less than that of metallic binary $`MgB_2`$ and larger than that in copper oxide superconductors. Another feature of the Hall coefficient is the fact that it depends on temperature. For conventional isotropic metal with ordinary electron-phonon scattering mechanism, the Hall coefficient is expected to be temperature-independent. We note that $`R_H`$ temperature behavior of $`MgCNi_3`$ is very similar to that of $`Ba_{1x}K_xBiO_3`$ single crystal. A good example of temperature dependent $`R_H`$ is copper based superconducting oxides, in which $`R_H(T)`$ is explained by exotic magnetic excitation. Preliminary band structure calculations have shown that the electron states at the Fermi surface of $`MgCNi_3`$ are dominated by the $`3d`$ orbitals of Ni. The itinerant electrons arise from the partial filling of the nickel $`d`$-states, which generally leads to ferromagnetism as is the case in metallic. The temperature dependence of $`R_H`$ may also be ascribed to magnetic excitations as copper based superconducting oxides. However, $`Ba_{1x}K_xBiO_3`$ has no magnetic ion and manifests similar temperature dependence of $`R_H`$ as $`MgCNi_3`$, so the temperature behavior of $`R_H`$ remains an open question.

## conclusion

In summary, we have measured the temperature dependence of resistivity, upper critical field and Hall effect for superconducting perovskite $`MgCNi_3`$. Above 70 K, the normal state $`\rho (T)`$ behavior follows Bloch-Grüneisen theory consistently with electron-phonon scattering, being similar to that of the three-dimensional BKBO with the same structure. From $`H_{c2}T`$ phase diagram, $`H_{c2}(0)`$ was estimated about 15.0 Telsa within the weak-coupling BCS theory, the superconducting coherence length $`\xi (0)`$ was found to be approximately 47 Å. Negative $`R_H`$ definetly suggests that the carrier is electron character, is the same as that in BKBO and different from that in $`MgB_2`$. At T = 100 K, $`R_H`$ = $`6.1\times 10^{10}m^3/C`$, and the calculated carrier density is $`1.0\times 10^{22}/cm^3`$, which is comparable with that in BKBO, and less than that of $`MgB_2`$ and larger than that in copper oxide superconductors. $`R_H`$ is temperature independent between $`T_c`$ and $``$ 140 K. Above $``$ 140 K, the magnitude of $`R_H`$ decreases as temperature increases. The temperature behavior of $`R_H`$ remains an open question.

## acknowledgement

This work is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China and by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (NKBRSF-G19990646).

$``$ To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: chenxh@ustc.edu.cn

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIG 1:

The temperature dependence of resistivity for $`MgCNi_3`$ sample. Inset: the XRD pattern.

FIG 2:

The temperature dependence of normal state resistivity for $`MgCNi_3`$ sample. The solid lines are fit of $`\rho (T)`$ to Bloch-Grüneisen expression and power law, respectively.

FIG 3:

The $`\rho (T)`$ curves under magnetic fields up to 14 Tesla for $`MgCNi_3`$.

FIG 4:

Upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$ as a function of temperature for $`MgCNi_3`$. The up per inset shows the temperature dependence of sample resistivity under zero magnetic field. The lower inset shows the magnetic field dependence of resistance at T = 2.3 K.

FIG 5:

Temperature dependence of Hall coefficient measured under 10 Tesla for $`MgCNi_3`$. The two lines in the inset represent the Hall voltage measured at 100 K for opposite two directions of the applied field up to 10 T.


text:
# Connecting the vulcanization transition to percolation

## I Introduction and overview

The vulcanization transition (henceforth denoted VT) is the generic equilibrium phase transition from a parent liquid state of matter to an amorphous solid state, driven by the imposition of a sufficient density of permanent random constraints between the constituents of the liquid. In the most common setting of the VT, the constituents of the liquid are macromolecules, the locations of which provide the annealed random (i.e. thermally equilibrating) variables. The constraints are commonly provided by covalent chemical bonds (i.e. cross-links), and impart quenched randomness upon the system. Over the past few years, a rather detailed description of the VT has been developed, ranging from a mean-field theory of the emergent amorphous solid state (including its structural  and elastic properties , and its stability ; for reviews, see Refs. ) to the critical properties of the VT itself .

The present Paper aims to extend the description of the critical properties of the VT by exploring its relationship with the percolation transition (henceforth denoted PT; for a review, see Ref. ). This relationship, which has long been anticipated on physical grounds , has recently found support both at the mean-field level , and beyond, via a renormalization-group approach . Specifically, it was recently shown that the order-parameter correlator near the VT (which probes for relative localization of particles) and its physical analog in PT (viz., the connectedness function) are governed by the same critical exponents, at least to first order in an expansion about the upper critical dimension six .

The central result of the present Paper is the explicit reduction of certain basic critical properties of the VT to equivalent basic critical properties of the PT . As we shall see, this reduction can be accomplished via an exact diagrammatic analysis of the complete perturbative expansion of the appropriate vertex functions of the VT. These are shown to furnish, in the replica limit, precisely the field-theoretic formulation of the PT due to Houghton, Reeve and Wallace  (which henceforth we shall refer to as HRW). Hence, we establish that the critical properties of the VT and the PT are identical, not just to first order but to all orders in the departure of the spatial dimension $`d`$ from the upper critical dimension.

It is worth observing that the VT and the PT do, nevertheless, represent distinct physical phenomena. This is exemplified, e.g., by the amorphous solid state that emerges at the VT, which does not have an evident counterpart in PT. Another point of distinction is revealed by the role of fluctuations in low-dimensional systems, which are expected to have qualitatively different impacts on the states emerging at the VT and the PT . Yet another point of distinction concerns the nature of the degrees of freedom involved in the description of the VT and the PT. The former arises in systems having both quenched and equilibrating randomness, whereas the latter takes place in systems involving just one type of randomness (typically taken to be the quenched randomness); see Ref. .

After completion of the present work we learned of the elegant work of Janssen and Stenull , conducted independently of and simultaneously with the present work, which builds on earlier work on random resistor networks and percolation to arrive at, inter alia, essentially the same results as those contained in the present paper via a related approach.

## II Minimal model of the vulcanization transition

Our analysis is based upon a minimal model of the VT that accounts for thermal fluctuations in the positions of the constituents of the parent liquid, short-range repulsions between these constituents, and permanent random constraints (e.g. resulting from cross-linking) which explicitly reduce the collection of configurations accessible to the constituents. This minimal model yields a rich mean-field picture of the structure and elastic response of the amorphous solid state, the former aspect having been verified by the computer simulations of Barsky and Plischke .

The minimal model for the VT can be built (in the spirit of the Landau-Wilson scheme for continuous phase transitions) on the general basis of symmetry considerations and a gradient expansion . The appropriate order parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, whose expectation value detects the emergence of the amorphous solid state, has been discussed elsewhere . The quenched random constraints are accounted for via the replica technique, which incorporates the Deam-Edwards model  for their statistics (viz. the statistics of the random constraints are determined by the instantaneous correlations of the unconstrained system). The additional replica associated with the Deam-Edwards model leads to a situation in which one considers the $`n0`$ limit of a system of not of $`n`$ but of $`n+1`$ replicas.

The resulting Landau-Wilson effective Hamiltonian takes the form of a cubic field theory involving the field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the argument of this field lying in $`(n+1)`$-fold replicated $`d`$-dimensional space:

$$𝒮\left(\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=\frac{1}{V^{n+1}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{\widehat{k}\mathrm{HRS}}{}\left(r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k}\right)\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{k})\right|^2+\frac{1}{V^{2(n+1)}}\frac{g}{3!}\underset{\widehat{k}_1,\widehat{k}_2,\widehat{k}_3\mathrm{HRS}}{}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{k}_1)\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{k}_2)\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{k}_3)\delta _{\widehat{k}_1+\widehat{k}_2+\widehat{k}_3,\widehat{0}}.$$
(1)
The free-energy density $`f`$ is (up to uninteresting factors that we shall ignore) related to this Hamiltonian via $`flim_{n0}n^1\mathrm{ln}\{𝒟\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{exp}(𝒮)\}`$; the functional integral is taken over the independent components of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that feature in $`𝒮`$. In $`𝒮`$, the quantity $`r_0`$ is the VT control parameter which, near the VT, is linearly related to the density of random constraints. (To ease comparison with the HRW field theory of the PT, the coefficients and fields featuring in $`𝒮`$ are not defined exactly as they have been in our earlier works .) The symbol $`\widehat{k}`$ denotes the replicated wave vector $`\{𝐤^0,𝐤^1,\mathrm{},𝐤^n\}`$; the extended scalar product $`\widehat{k}\widehat{c}`$ is denoted $`𝐤^0𝐜^0+𝐤^1𝐜^1+\mathrm{}+𝐤^n𝐜^n`$. The specification HRS arises from the following considerations. Consider the space of replicated wave vectors $`\widehat{k}`$. We decompose this space into three disjoint sets: (i) the higher replica sector HRS, which consists of those $`\widehat{k}`$ containing at least two nonzero component-vectors $`𝐤^\alpha `$; (ii) the one replica sector 1RS, which consists of those $`\widehat{k}`$ containing exactly one nonzero component-vector $`𝐤^\alpha `$; and (iii) the zero replica sector 0RS, which consists of the vector $`\widehat{k}=\widehat{0}`$. This decomposition is illustrated schematically in Fig. 1 for the case of two replicas. It is especially straightforward to visualize this decomposition if the volume of the system is kept finite (and periodic boundary conditions are imposed) so that replicated plane waves with discrete, equally spaced, replicated wave vectors provide the natural complete set of functions.

The symbol $`_{\widehat{k}\mathrm{HRS}}`$ indicates a summation over the replicated wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$, subject to the restriction that $`\widehat{k}`$ lies in HRS. This condition on the summation over $`\widehat{k}`$ is essential. Physically, it reflects the fact that no macroscopically inhomogeneous modes (such as crystalline modes) order or fluctuate critically in the vicinity of the VT, such modes being stabilized by the excluded-volume interactions. Mathematically, this condition reduces the symmetry of the theory from one that contains the rotation group in replicated $`(n+1)d`$-dimensional space to one that contains only rotations within each individual replica, along with the permutation of the replicas.

## III Demonstrating the equivalence of the critical properties of the vulcanization and percolation transitions

### A Overall strategy

We now explain the strategy that we shall use to relate the VT and the PT. We shall focus on the replica limit of the long-wave-length behavior of the two- and three-point vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(3)}(\widehat{k}_1,\widehat{k}_2)`$ in the VT field theory. The physical significance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})`$ as a probe of connectedness has been elucidated in Ref. . Now, the symmetry of the VT field theory dictates that the only suitably invariant term quadratic in the wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$ is $`\widehat{k}\widehat{k}`$. Thus, in a long-wave-length expansion for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{0})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n+1)d}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐤^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐤^\alpha }}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})|_{\widehat{k}=\widehat{0}}\widehat{k}\widehat{k}+\mathrm{}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`A_n+B_n\widehat{k}\widehat{k}+\mathrm{}.`$ (4)
As the upper critical dimension for the VT is six, and this is the dimension about which one may imagine expanding, general renormalizability considerations demand that just these two vertex functions ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(3)}`$) contain the primitive divergences, and do so via the constants $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$ and $`C_n\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(3)}(\widehat{0},\widehat{0})`$ (see Ref. ).

Having identified the quantities central to a renormalization-group analysis of the VT, we shall establish that these quantities are identical, in the replica limit, to the corresponding quantities in percolation theory. To do this we shall make use of a convenient representation of the critical properties of percolation theory, viz., the HRW field theory representation . So that we know what we need to make contact with, we pause to give a brief account of this HRW representation, the Landau-Wilson Hamiltonian for which is given by

$$=d^dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}(\psi )^2+\frac{1}{2}r_0(\varphi ^2\psi ^2)+\frac{g}{3!}(\varphi +\psi )^3\right\},$$
(5)
where $`\varphi `$ is an ordinary field but $`\psi `$ is a ghost field. As HRW have shown, provided one enforces the rule that only graphs that are connected by $`\varphi `$-lines are included, the two- and three-point $`\varphi `$ vertex functions are identical (order by order in perturbation theory in the coupling constant $`g`$) to those of the one-state (i.e. percolation) limit of the Potts model. We mention, in passing, that this HRW representation consists of fields residing on $`d`$-dimensional space, and does not necessitate the taking of a replica (or Potts) limit. However, it does require the additional rule by which certain diagrams are excluded by hand.

Our strategy is as follows. Consider the standard Feynman diagram expansion for the two- and three-point vertex functions of the VT field theory in powers of the coupling constant $`g`$ in the Hamiltonian (1). (i) To deal with the constraint that the internal wave vectors in the resulting diagrams reside in the HRS, we relax this constraint on summations over internal wave vectors but compensate for this by making appropriate subtractions of terms. (ii) Next, we observe that all diagrams for the two- and three-point vertex functions can be organized into two categories: those in which there is at least one route between every pair of external points via propagators having unconstrained wave vectors (which we call freely-connected diagrams); and the remaining diagrams, in which there is at least one pair of external points between which no paths exist consisting solely of propagators having unconstrained wave vectors (which we call freely-unconnected diagrams). Having made this categorization, we show that the appropriate version of wave-vector conservation renders the freely-unconnected diagrams negligible in the thermodynamic limit, leaving us with a representation that is already reminiscent on the HRW approach. (iii) At this stage we have reduced the construction of the two- and three-point vertex functions to the computation of freely-connected diagrams only. Next, via a straightforward combinatorial analysis, we show that, in the replica limit, only a small class of diagrams survive. (iv) Finally, we explain how, again in the replica limit, the values of the remaining diagrams are precisely those occurring in the HRW prescription for percolation. We now set about implementing this strategy.

### B Relaxing the constraint to higher replica sector wave vectors

In the VT field theory the internal wave vectors occurring in the Feynman diagrams are constrained to lie in the HRS. In order to perform summations over these wave vectors, it is convenient to work with the continuum of wave vectors (i.e. to take the thermodynamic limit) rather than the discrete lattice of them. In order to be able to take this limit, we re-express summations over HRS wave vectors in terms of unconstrained summations over $`(n+1)d`$-dimensional wave vectors, together with further unconstrained summations over $`d`$-dimensional wave vectors (and certain trivial additional terms). To do this, we note that for a generic function $`F(\widehat{k})`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{k}\mathrm{HRS}}{}}F(\widehat{k})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{k}}{}}\left(1\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\alpha ,𝐪}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta (\alpha )}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\beta ,\mathrm{𝟎}}\right)\delta _{\widehat{k},\widehat{0}}\right)F(\widehat{k})`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{k}}{}}\left(1\left({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\alpha ,𝐪}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta (\alpha )}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\beta ,\mathrm{𝟎}}\right)n\delta _{\widehat{k},\widehat{0}}\right)F(\widehat{k})`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\widehat{k}}{}}F(\widehat{k}){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪^\alpha }{}}F(\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎},𝐪^\alpha ,\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{})nF(\widehat{0}),`$ (9)
which effects the re-expression of the summations just described. Note that, as it always comes with the factor $`n`$, the $`\delta _{\widehat{k},\widehat{0}}`$ term will vanish in the replica limit, and can therefore be safely ignored. We shall refer to the wave vectors included in the term $`_\alpha _𝐪`$ as lower replica sector (LRS) wave vectors. Via these steps one can relax a constrained summation over HRS wave vectors, instead freely summing over all replicated wave vectors, provided one compensates by augmenting the summand with the factor

$$1\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{𝐪}{}\delta _{𝐤^\alpha ,𝐪}\underset{\beta (\alpha )}{}\delta _{𝐤^\beta ,\mathrm{𝟎}}.$$
(10)
How does this constraint relaxation manifest itself in the setting of Feynman diagram computations? One simply augments every internal propagator $`V^{n+1}G_0(\widehat{k})`$ with a factor (10):

$`G_0(\widehat{k}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1_\alpha _𝐪\delta _{𝐤^\alpha ,𝐪}_{\beta (\alpha )}\delta _{𝐤^\beta ,\mathrm{𝟎}}}{r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k}}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\alpha ,𝐪}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta (\alpha )}{}}\delta _{𝐤^\beta ,\mathrm{𝟎}}.`$ (13)
How this decomposition is expressed diagrammatically is shown in Fig. 2.

In this manner, each HRS internal line in a Feynman diagram can be decomposed into an unconstrained internal line, less an LRS internal line. Thus, the various vertex functions can be expressed in terms of Feynman diagrams composed of unconstrained lines together with as LRS internal lines. Note, for future reference, that physically meaningful vertex functions have external wave vectors in the HRS.

We illustrate this decomposition for the case of a simple diagram in Fig. 3. More generally, we arrive at the following modified Feynman rules for the VT field theory: (i) Write down all diagrams arising from the original theory. In these diagrams all wave vectors are constrained to the HRS. (ii) Replace each diagram with the collection of diagrams obtained by allowing each internal line to carry either an unconstrained replicated wave vector or a LRS wave vector. (Thus, a diagram with $`L`$ internal lines spawns a total of $`2^L`$ diagrams.) Identically-valued diagrams can be represented by a single diagram, together with a suitable combinatorial factor (see, e.g., the factor of 2 in Fig 3). (iii) Provide a factor of $`1`$ for each LRS internal line. At this stage we observe that the combinatorics of our diagrammatic expansion coincides with those of the HRW expansion, provided one identifies the internal unconstrained and LRS lines of the VT theory with, respectively, the corresponding internal $`\varphi `$\- and $`\psi `$-lines of the HRW representation.

We have, however, yet to show that the diagrams removed by hand in HRW can be safely omitted from the VT theory, and that the numerical values of the (replica limits of) the VT diagrams are identical to those of the HRW diagrams. We shall establish these facts in the following subsections.

### C Elimination of freely-unconnected diagrams

We remind the reader that in the HRW theory for the two- and three-point $`\varphi `$-field (i.e. the physical) vertex functions, one is instructed to remove, by hand, those diagrams in which there is at least one pair of external points between which no paths exist consisting solely of $`\varphi `$-field propagators. The corresponding diagrams in the VT theory are those in which there is at least one pair of external points between which no paths exist consisting solely of propagators having unconstrained wave vectors, i.e., freely-unconnected diagrams. We now show that these freely-unconnected diagrams of the VT theory automatically vanish in the thermodynamic limit.

To do this, consider a generic VT theory diagram for the two- or three-point vertex functions. Observe that freely-unconnected diagrams have the following property: as there exists a pair of external points not connected by a path of unconstrained internal lines, there must exist at least one scheme of cutting solely LRS internal lines that causes the diagram to separate into disconnected pieces with the external points shared amongst the pieces. As we are considering only two- and three-point vertex functions, at least one of these pieces involves only a single HRS external point, along with a number of cut LRS lines. A schematic illustration of such a piece is shown in Fig. 4.

Let us examine the consequences of applying wave-vector conservation to this piece, noting that the wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$ flowing in through the external point must lie in the HRS, whereas the wave vectors flowing out through the remaining (i.e. cut) lines lie in the LRS. Now, according to the VT field theory, wave-vector conservation requires that the incoming HRS wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$ be equal, replica by replica, to the sum of the outgoing ($`m=2,3,\mathrm{}`$) LRS wave vectors flowing in a given replica, i.e., that

$$𝐤^\alpha =\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\delta ^{\alpha ,\alpha _j}𝐩_j(\mathrm{for}\alpha =0,1,2,\mathrm{},n)$$
(14)
where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{}`$ indicate the replicas through which wave vectors $`𝐩_1,𝐩_2,\mathrm{}`$ flow. As a consequence, because the incoming wave vector lies in the HRS, the outgoing LRS wave vectors must flow out through more than one replica. This is the key observation, as the following example, depicted in Fig. 4 reveals. Here, there are six outgoing LRS lines, two with wave vectors flowing in replica 0, one with wave vector flowing in replica 1, and three with wave vectors flowing in replica 2. For replica 0, wave-vector conservation reads $`𝐤^0=𝐩_1+𝐩_2`$, so that, e.g., $`𝐩_1`$ determines $`𝐩_2`$. Similarly, for replica 1, wave-vector conservation reads $`𝐤^1=𝐩_3`$, so that $`𝐩_3`$ is determined. More generally, as this special case exemplifies, the number of independent outgoing LRS wave vectors is reduced by at least two (rather than one that total wave-vector conservation demands) simply because of the fact that the outgoing LRS wave vectors must flow out through more than one replica. This, in turn, means that in the uncut diagram there are fewer independent wave vectors to be summed over than the number of loop wave vectors suggested by simple topological counting. As a result, additional denominators of $`V^{n+1}`$ remain, even after the summation over independent wave vectors in the uncut diagram are replaced by their thermodynamic-limit integrals, which renders the corresponding freely-unconnected diagram negligible.

As a concrete example of the foregoing argument, we compute the third diagram on the right-hand side of the equation depicted in Fig. 3. In this diagram, both of the internal lines lie in the LRS, the diagram does not (by simple wave-vector conservation) contribute unless the external wave vector $`\widehat{k}`$ has nonzero $`d`$-vector components in precisely in two replicas (e.g. replicas one and two). In this case, the diagram makes the contribution

$$2V^{n+1}G_0(𝐤^1)V^{n+1}G_0(𝐤^2)\left(gV^{2(n+1)}\right)^2=2g^2V^{2(n+1)}G_0(𝐤^1)G_0(𝐤^2).$$
(15)
On the right-hand side, one denominator of $`V^{n+1}`$ will combine with the Kronecker $`\delta `$-function to maintain overall wave-vector conservation (via a Dirac $`\delta `$-function in the thermodynamic limit); the other $`V^{n+1}`$ denominator (which, in usual cases, would combine with the summation over a loop wave vector to produce an integral) makes this diagram vanish. This special case exemplifies the general emergence, in the VT setting, of the central aspect of the HRW formulation, viz., the removal of the $`\varphi `$-unconnected diagrams.

### D Replica sums and their decomposition in the replica limit

Now that we have demonstrated that only the freely-connected VT field theory diagrams contribute, we make a closer examination of these diagrams for the relevant cases of the two- and three-point vertex functions. We begin by noting that each diagram exhibits the full symmetry of the VT field theory, viz., invariance under separate $`d`$-dimensional rotations in each replica and permutations of the replicas. Therefore, the small-wave-vector expansion of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n^{(2)}(\widehat{k})`$ given in Eq. (4) remains valid, diagram by diagram.

Now, the computation of any contributing diagram involves summations over a number of independent LRS (but otherwise unconstrained) wave vectors as well as summations over the replicas through which these wave vectors flow. These latter summations over replicas can be decomposed as follows:

$$\underset{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}{}F_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}=\left(\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}{\mathrm{all}\mathrm{equal}}}{}+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{distinct}}}{}+\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}{\mathrm{three}\mathrm{distinct}}}{}+\mathrm{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}{\mathrm{all}\mathrm{distinct}}}{}\right)F_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l},$$
(16)
where $`F_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}`$ is a generic function of the $`l`$ replica indices. Said equivalently, the summation can be decomposed into: terms in which all wave vectors flow through a common replica; those in which the wave vectors flow through two distinct replicas; etc.

Now let us make use of this decomposition. For $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$ in Eq. (4) the external wave vector is zero , and therefore the summand $`F_{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _l}`$ is invariant under permutations of the replicas . Thus, in the first term of the decomposition, $`F`$ is constant \[i.e. independent of the (common) value of the replica arguments\], and hence this term contributes $`(n+1)F_{0,0,\mathrm{},0}`$. In the replica limit, this becomes $`F_{0,0,\mathrm{},0}`$. As for the second term, let us further decompose it into partitionings of the set of replica indices into two subsets, the replica indices in each subset having a common value. In each such partitioning $`F`$ is constant, and thus each partitioning contributes $`(n+1)nF`$, which vanishes in the replica limit. By continuing with this decomposition tactic via tri-partitioning, tetra-partitioning, etc., we establish that all of the terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (16) except the first vanish in the replica limit.

We next consider the coefficient $`B_n`$. As mentioned above, symmetry considerations dictate that each diagram contributing to the two-point vertex function has the small-wave-vector expansion

$$A_n^{(\mathrm{dia})}+B_n^{(\mathrm{dia})}\widehat{k}\widehat{k}+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`A_n^{(\mathrm{dia})}`$ and $`B_n^{(\mathrm{dia})}`$ are the contributions to $`A_n`$ and $`B_n`$ from the diagram in question. We exploit the (larger than mandated) $`(n+1)d`$-dimensional rotational invariance of the terms retained in this small-wave-vector expansion by choosing $`\widehat{k}`$ to be rotated into a single replica: $`\{𝐤,\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}\}`$. (Although it has, until this stage, been vital to ensure that $`\widehat{k}`$ lies in the HRS, e.g., in order to eliminate the freely-unconnected diagrams, one is now at liberty to ignore this requirement.) Repeating the tactic just used for the analysis of $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$, with the slight elaboration needed to accommodate the fact that the (suitably rotated) external wave vector $`\{𝐤,\mathrm{𝟎},\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝟎}\}`$ breaks the permutation symmetry group from $`𝒫_{n+1}`$ down to $`𝒫_n`$. In this way, we see that the only contributions that survive the replica limit are from the all-equal partition and, furthermore, from the case in which all of the independent LRS wave vectors lie in replica zero.

### E Feynman integrals and their reduction to HRW integrals in the replica limit

Having shown that the topology and combinatorics of the VT field theory diagrams for $`A_n`$, $`B_n`$ and $`C_n`$ coincide with those of the HRW field theory diagrams, the task that remains is to show that, for every diagram contributing to these coefficients, the actual value of the corresponding Feynman integral reduces, in the replica limit, to the appropriate HRW value. That this is so can most straightforwardly be seen by employing the Schwinger representation  of the powers of the propagator, viz.,

$$\frac{(s1)!}{(r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k})^s}=_\sigma \sigma ^{s1}\mathrm{e}^{\sigma (r_0+\widehat{k}\widehat{k})}=_\sigma \sigma ^{s1}\mathrm{e}^{\sigma r_0}\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\sigma 𝐤^\alpha 𝐤^\alpha }(\mathrm{for}s=1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(18)
where the Schwinger parameter $`\sigma `$ ranges between $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Observe that Eq. (18) presents the propagator in a form that is very conveniently factorized on the replica index.

Let us begin with a concrete example. In the thermodynamic limit, the diagram depicted in Fig. 5 contributes to $`A_n`$ a term proportional to

$`g^4{\displaystyle d^{(n+1)d}kd^dpG_0(\widehat{k})^2G_0(𝐩)^2G_0(\widehat{k}+𝐩)^2}`$ (19)
$`=g^4{\displaystyle d^dk^0d^dp_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3}\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3)r_0}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _3)𝐤^0𝐤^0}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _2+\sigma _3)𝐩𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma _3𝐤^0𝐩}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}d^dk^\alpha \mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _3)𝐤^\alpha 𝐤^\alpha }}`$ (20)
$`=g^4{\displaystyle d^dk^0d^dp_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3}\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3)r_0}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _3)𝐤^0𝐤^0}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _2+\sigma _3)𝐩𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma _3𝐤^0𝐩}\left(d^dk\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _3)𝐤𝐤}\right)^n}`$ (21)
$`\stackrel{n0}{}g^4{\displaystyle d^dkd^dp_{\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3}\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _3\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _2+\sigma _3)r_0}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _1+\sigma _3)𝐤𝐤}\mathrm{e}^{(\sigma _2+\sigma _3)𝐩𝐩}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma _3𝐤𝐩}}`$ (22)
$`=g^4{\displaystyle d^dkd^dpG_0(𝐤)^2G_0(𝐩)^2G_0(𝐤+𝐩)^2}.`$ (23)
This limiting value is precisely that occurring for the corresponding diagram in the HRW field theory for the PT.

The tactic that we have just employed, viz., the use of the Schwinger representation to decouple the replicas from one another, provides easy and explicit access to the replica limit and, hence, to the precise correspondence with the HRW prescription. It can straightforwardly be invoked not only for all diagrams that contribute to the coefficients $`A_n`$ and (by the same procedure) $`C_n`$, but also for the coefficient $`B_n`$.

When considering diagrams contributing to $`A_n`$ and $`C_n`$, we saw that what survived were terms in which all internal LRS wave vectors flowed in a common (but otherwise arbitrary) replica. Now, as we consider $`B_n`$, there is a slight complication arising from the presence of an external wave vector, which spoils the full $`𝒫_{n+1}`$ permutation symmetry. However, this external wave vector has been chosen to lie in replica zero and, as we have shown above, the only surviving contribution is the one in which all internal LRS wave vectors also flow in replica zero. Then, via the Schwinger representation of the propagators, and via factorization on the replica indices, we see that the Feynman integral, in the replica limit, is identical to that in the HRW approach. Hence, the VT presents not only the the same coefficients $`A_0`$ and $`C_0`$ of the two- and three-point vertex functions as does the HRW representation, but also the same coefficient $`B_0`$.

## IV Concluding remarks

Let us summarize what is presented in this Paper. We have addressed the vulcanization transition via a minimal field-theoretic model. This model is built from an order parameter whose argument is the $`(n+1)`$-fold replication of ordinary $`d`$-dimensional space. \[The structure of this theory should be contrasted with that of more familiar replica field theories, in which it is the (internal) components of the field that are replicated rather than the (external) argument\] We have considered appropriate long-wave-length aspects of the two- and three-point vertex functions for this model, to all orders in perturbation theory in the cubic nonlinearity. Via a detailed analysis of the diagrammatic expansion for these quantities, we have found that, in the replica limit, these vulcanization-theory vertex functions precisely coincide with the corresponding vertex functions of a certain field-theoretic representation (due to Houghton, Reeve and Wallace) of the percolation transition. Hence, percolation theory correctly captures the critical phenomenology the liquid and critical states of vulcanized matter.

## Acknowledgments

We thank John Cardy, Horacio Castillo and Michael Stone for informative discussions. This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation through grant DMR99-75187.