text:
# Radar equations in the problem of radio wave backscattering during bistatic soundings

## 1 Introduction

The method of radio wave backscattering due to dielectric permitivity fluctuations of the medium provides the basis for a wide variety of techniques for probing the ionosphere (the radio waves incoherent scattering method \[Kofman,1997\], scattering from artificial irregularities\[Belikovich et al.,1986\]), the atmosphere (mesospheric- stratospheric-tropospheric sounding \[Woodman,1989\]), and other media. Central to these techniques is the radar equation that relates the mean spectral power of the scattered signal to the statistical characteristic of the meduium dielectric permitivity fluctuations, their spectral density \[Tatarsky,1967\], \[Woodman,1989\], \[Ishimaru,1981\]. A standard method for constructing the statistical radar equation involves constructing the spectral power (or an received signal autocorrelation function) using two approximations. One of them, viz. the single-scattering approximation, is applicable when the dielectric permitivity fluctuations are weak and the scattered field is significantly weaker than the incident field. The other approximation is the approximation of the irregularities spatial correlation radius smallness in comparison with the Fresnel radius.

The single scattering problem of the electromagnetic wave has been reasonably well-studied in situations were the receiver and the transmitter are in the far-field region of the scatterer. In this case it is possible to obtain a simple linear relation between the scattered signal and the spatial Fourier-spectrum of irregularities without recourse to a statistical averaging \[Newton,1969\], \[Ishimaru,1981\]. However, in remote diagnostics of media, the scattering volume size is determined by the antenna patterns crossing. Hence it is impossible to use a classical approximation of the sounding volume smallness\[Ishimaru,1981\] to obtain the radar equation relating the scattered signal to the Fourier-spectrum of dielectric permitivity fluctuations. Therefore, when obtaining the statistical radar equation, one has to average the received signal power and to use the approximation of the spatial correlation radius smallness, which makes it possible to generalize results derived from solving a classical problem of wave scattering from a single small irregularity to the problem of scattering from a set of uncorrelated small irregularities \[Tatarsky,1967\],\[Ishimaru,1981\].

Here we have obtained the radar equation relating the scattered signal spectrum to the spatial spectrum of dielectric permitivity fluctuations for bistatic sounding. This expression was obtained without a traditional limitation on the smallness of the scattering volume size and describes essentially the scattering from an extended scatterer. An analysis of the expression revealed a selectivity of the scattering similar to the widely-known Wolf-Bragg condition.

We obtained the statistical radar equation for bistatic sounding which relates the scattered signal mean power to the dielectric permitivity fluctuations spectral density without a classical approximation of the spatial correlation radius smallness. This equation has a more extensive validity range when compared to the well-known equation \[Tatarsky,1967\],\[Ishimaru,1981\], obtained by assuming the smallness of the irregularities spatial correlation radii.

There were pointed out earlier \[Doviak and Zrnic’,1984\] there is difficulties in obtaining the equation for correlation radii or scattering volume bigger than Fresnel radius without exact antenna patterns, irregularities and sounder signals. The suggested method do not contain those limitations.

## 2 Starting equation

Consider a bistatic sounding within the single-scattering approximation. We use, as the starting equation, the well-known expression for a complex envelope of the received signal \[Tatarsky,1967\]\[Ishimaru,1981\] (accurate to terms unimportant for the subsequent discussion):

$$u(t)=H(t,\stackrel{}{r})g(\stackrel{}{r})\frac{ϵ(tR_s/c,\stackrel{}{r})}{R_sR_i}exp(ik_0(R_s+R_i))𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$
(1)
where

$$H(t,\stackrel{}{r})=o(t)a(t(R_i+R_s)/c)$$
(2)
$`\stackrel{}{R_{i,s}}=\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r_{i,s}}`$ \- is the position of the point under investigation relative to $`\stackrel{}{r_{i,s}}`$ (the locations of the transmitter and the receiver); $`o(t)`$ and $`a(t)`$ are, respectively, the time window of reception, and the emitted signal complex envelope, with the window and the signal being narrow-band and have the bands $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_o,\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_a<<\omega _0`$ , $`\omega _0`$ is the carrier frequency,$`k_0=\omega _0/c`$; $`\widehat{R}=\stackrel{}{R}/R`$ is a unit vector in a given direction; $`g(\stackrel{}{r})=f_i(\widehat{R_i})f_s(\widehat{R_s})\stackrel{}{l_s}[\widehat{R_s}\times [\widehat{R_s}\times \stackrel{}{l_i}]]`$ is the beam factor, where $`f_i(\widehat{r})`$ and $`f_s(\widehat{r})`$ are the patterns of the transmit and receive antennas, $`\stackrel{}{l_i}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{l_s}`$ are their polarization factors; and $`ϵ(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$ represents dielectric permitivity fluctuations. The expression (1) is obtained on the assumption that the scattering volume is in the far-field range of the receive and transmit antennas $`R>>D^2/\lambda _0`$, where $`D`$ is a typical antenna size, and $`\lambda _0`$ is the wavelength of the emitted signal.

Equation (1) defines the relation between the received signal and medium fluctuations and is essentially (in the sounding problem) the radar equation for signals unlike the classical one for power characteristics. The kernel $`H`$ and the beam factor $`g`$ are determined by transmitting and receiving system parameters. Specifically, the kernel $`H`$ determines the region of fluctuations $`ϵ`$ over time and space which contributes to the scattered signal. The beam factor $`g`$ determines the region of space which contributes to the scattered signal.

## 3 Relation of the scattered signal to the spatial Fourier-spectrum of irregularities.

### 3.1 Derivation of radar equations.

This section discusses the method of obtaining the relation between the scattere signal spectrum and the spatial spectrum of the medium dielectric permitivity fluctuations. The problem of obtaining a relation for the case of small scatterers was considered in \[Newton,1969\]; in this paper we have obtained a relation without a limitation on the size of the object being probed. The main idea of this method is the transition from the problem of scattering on spatial irregularities to the scattering on separate spatial Fourier-harmonics of these irregularities. Their respective contributions are calculated by the stationary-phase method and are summarized.

Let us analyze the expression (1), without performing a standard \[Tatarsky,1967\] \[Ishimaru,1981\] transition to quadratic (in field) characteristics. Within Born’s approximation, the main physical mechanism for signal shaping is the scattering on certain Fourier-harmonics $`ϵ`$. It is therefore convenient first to highlight the relation between the scattered signal spectrum and spectral characteristics of the medium.

By going to the spectral representations for $`u`$ and $`ϵ`$ in (1) we obtain following expression for received signal spectrum, fully equaivalent to the initial (1):

$$u(\omega )=I(\omega ,\nu ,k_0,\stackrel{}{k})ϵ(\nu ,\stackrel{}{k})𝑑\nu 𝑑\stackrel{}{k}$$
(3)
where the integral $`I`$ is determined by

$$I(\omega ,\nu ,k_0,\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r})g(\stackrel{}{r})exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{r},k_0,\stackrel{}{k}))}{R_sR_i}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}$$
(4)
$$\phi (\stackrel{}{r},k_0,\stackrel{}{k})=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}+(k_0+\nu /c)R_s+k_0R_i$$
(5)
The integral in (4) is proportional to the amplitude of the signal scattered on a separate spatial harmonic and contains a rapidly oscillating function.

The virtue of (3) is that one can interpret received signal without averaging, when we have the model of $`ϵ(\nu ,\stackrel{}{k})`$, because usually we have only spectral form. The drawbacks of such representation (neglecting rapidly oscillating function under integral (4)) are that it is selective Bragg scattering character, which is well known for the small scatterers(4). That is why we will transform this representation (3) to the form with this drawback removed.

According to \[Newton,1969\] \[Tatarsky,1967\], let us assume that the main mechanism is the Bragg scattering and that the largest contribution to the scattered signal is made by medium spatial harmonics, the wave number of which has the order of twice the incident wave number and so will be large. The distances range from which the signal arrives (determined by the crossing of the beam factor $`g`$ and the weighting function $`H`$), is in the antennas far-field range and also will be large. Therefore,the phase in (5), the product of the wave number by the distance, is a large parameter $`kr>>(D/\lambda _0)^2>>1`$ wich makes it possible to evaluate this integral by the stationary-phase method(SPM) \[Fedoryuk,1987\], whose applicability conditions will be discussed below.

The expression under the integral sign in (4) has a stationary point $`\stackrel{}{r_0}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ which makes the main contribution to the integral. Its location is defined by the equation

$$\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r_0})=((k_0+\nu /c)\widehat{R_s}(\stackrel{}{r_0})k_0\widehat{R_i}(\stackrel{}{r_0})),$$
(6)
which is a modified Wolf-Bragg condition for the scattering from nonstationary spatial arrays.

As a first approximation, the integral in (4) is therefore equal to the contribution from the stationary point:

$$I(\omega ,\nu ,k_0,\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0})g(\stackrel{}{r_0})}{R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0})}V(\stackrel{}{r_0})(2\pi )^{3/2}exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{r_0},k_0,\stackrel{}{k})+i\pi /4)$$
(7)
where

$$V(\stackrel{}{r})=\left[det\left(\frac{d^2\phi (\stackrel{}{r})}{dr_idr_j}\right)\right]^{1/2}=\frac{R_s^2R_i^2}{k_0^{3/2}(1+\xi )|\stackrel{}{R_s}\times \stackrel{}{R_i}|(R_s(1+\xi )+R_i)^{1/2}}$$
(8)
where $`\xi =\nu /(ck_0)`$ is usually small because of the narrow-bandedness of the received signal.

The quantity $`V`$ has the meaning of a ’cophasal’ region spatial volume that makes the main contribution to the amplitude of scattering on the spatial harmonic in (4). Thus the main contribution to the integral in (4) comes from ’cophasal’ regions of spatial harmonic arrays having a nearly ellipsoidal shape. The direction toward these regions is determined by a modified Wolf-Bragg condition (6), and their volume is defined by (8). It is evident that the linear dimension of the ’cophasal’ region has the Fresnel radius order $`R_F=(\lambda r)^{1/2}`$.

The scattered signal is the superposition of contributions from separate spatial harmonics. Therefore, by substituting (7) into (3), we obtain the radar equation relating the received signal spectrum to the medium irregularity spectrum:

$$u(\omega )=(2\pi )^{3/2}e^{i\pi /4}ϵ(\nu ,\stackrel{}{k})\frac{H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0})g(\stackrel{}{r_0})V(\stackrel{}{r_0})(2\pi )^{3/2}}{R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0})}exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{r_0},k_0,\stackrel{}{k}))𝑑\stackrel{}{k}𝑑\nu $$
(9)
If, instead of the coordinate system tied to wave vectors $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, we use a system of spatial coordinates $`\stackrel{}{r_0}`$, this would amount to calculating the transition Jacobian which turns out to be

$$J=V^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})$$
(10)
Thus, in a spatial coordinate system, the radar equation (9) may be written as

$$u(\omega )=(2\pi )^{3/2}e^{i\pi /4}ϵ(\nu ,\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r}))\frac{H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r})g(\stackrel{}{r})}{R_s(\stackrel{}{r})R_i(\stackrel{}{r})V(\stackrel{}{r})}exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{r},k_0,\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r})))𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\nu $$
(11)
The two expressions for the received signal, (9) and (11), are different representations for the scattered signal written in terms of integrals over space and over the wave vectors space, and they relate the received signal spectrum to spectral characteristics of irregularities.

In radar equations obtained (9),(11) unlike the initial equations (1),(3) the Bragg character of scattering is emphasized (6), that is why they looks more useful for analysis than initial ones (1),(3).

### 3.2 The validity range of the expressions obtained.

The validity range of the resulting expressions for the scattered signal (9),(11) is determined by the region where we can use the first approximation of initial integral by expanding it in asymptotic seria by the SPM technique and not taking into account next members of seria. In accordance with SPM theory one can take into account next members, but equations obtained is too difficult. That is why we use pretty simple criterium \[Fedoryuk,1987\] for estimation of first order equations validity. According to it, next members of seria can be neglected, if the next condition is satisfied:

$$\alpha =\begin{array}{c}3\\ \\ l=1\end{array}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }R_l^2}\frac{^2}{x_l^2}\frac{H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r})g(\stackrel{}{r})}{R_s(\stackrel{}{r})R_i(\stackrel{}{r})}|_{\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{r}_0}<<1$$
(12)
here $`l`$ \- cartesian coordinate $`x_l`$ number, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_l^2`$ \- the square of linear size in $`l`$-th coordinate direction of the ’cophasal’ region (or effective scattering volume, as we call it (8)), which makes the main contribution into the signal scattered from exact spatial harmonic of $`ϵ`$.

Let us consider the limitations in the case of sounding with the infinite signal when $`H(\omega \nu ,\stackrel{}{r})`$ do not depend on $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. We will consider the cartesian coordinates system linked with effective scattering volume, two basis orthes of which lies on the plane determined by the vectors $`R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0}),R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0})`$, one orth is parallel to the the direction transmitter-receiver. In this coordinate system the vector $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_l^2`$ will have the next scales:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }R_l^2\lambda R_{i,s}(\frac{cos^2(\phi /2)}{sin^2\phi },\frac{1}{cos^2(\phi /2)},1),$$

and the second derivative in (12) determined by the derivatives of spatial factor $`g(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and geometrical factor $`1/(R_s(\stackrel{}{r})R_i(\stackrel{}{r}))`$ has components of the following order:

$$\frac{^2}{x_l^2}\frac{g}{R_sR_i}\frac{1}{R_{i,s}^2}(\left(cos^2(\phi /2)+\frac{sin\phi }{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2,\left(1+\frac{cos(\phi /2)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2,\left(1+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }}\right)^2),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }=\lambda /D`$ \- antenna pattern angle width, and $`\phi =\pi \beta `$, where $`\beta =\pi \mathrm{arccos}(\widehat{R_i}\widehat{R_s})`$ \- scattering angle.

Taking into account that for distances $`r`$ from center of transmitted and received antennas system to the scattered volume small in comparison with $`a`$ (the distance between the receiver and the transmitter $`a=|\stackrel{}{R_s}\stackrel{}{R_i}|`$) $`sin\phi r/a,cos(\phi /2)r/(2a),R_{i,s}a`$, and for large distances $`r`$ \- $`sin\phi a/r,cos(\phi /2)1,R_{i,s}r`$, from the condition (12) we have the following validity range for equations obtained (9),(11):

$$R_{i,s}>>\frac{D^2}{\lambda }\frac{a^2}{\lambda }>>r>>\sqrt{a\lambda }$$
(13)
The first condition is coincident with validity limitations of initial equations (1),(3) - the scattering volume must be in the far-field range of receved and transmitted antennas, and that is why the first condition do not make any additional limitations in comparison with the initial ones (1),(3). The second condition requires to exclude from analysis both forward scattering (the condition is not sutisfied for forward scattering when $`r0`$) and backscattering case (for monostatic experiment when $`aD`$ the condition $`a^2/\lambda >>r`$ is not sutisfied and effective scattering volume (8) degenerates into infinity and the formulas needs appropriative modification \[Berngardt and Potekhin, 2000\]). Usualy in the bistatic case those conditions are sutisfied.

For the length of the sounding signal and the receiving window which determine the form of the kernel $`H(\omega ,\stackrel{}{r})`$, the requirement (12) implies that the signal and the receiving window change little within distances of the Fresnel radius order:

$`dH(\omega ,\stackrel{}{r})/d\stackrel{}{r}H(\omega ,\stackrel{}{r})\omega /c<<H(\omega ,\stackrel{}{r})/(\lambda r)^{1/2}`$

This corresponds to using narrow-band signals and windows:

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_o+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_a)/c<<1/(\lambda r)^{1/2}$$
(14)
Thus the conditions (13),(14) determines the validity range of equations obtained (9),(11).

### 3.3 Selective properties of the radar equations obtained.

Let us consider in greater detail the properties of the resulting radar equations (9),(11). The expressions obtained above establish a linear relation between the scattered signal spectrum and the spatial spectrum of dielectric density fluctuations. They clearly show selective properties of the scattering determining the region of Fourier-harmonics which make the main contribution to the scattering.

The expression (7) is useful for determining the signal scattered on some spatial harmonic. In real situations, however, the medium involves different harmonics. Furthermore, as has been shown above, for each spatial harmonic the greatest contribution to the scattering will be made by the region of effective scattering (RES) whose location is determined by the Wolf-Bragg condition (6). Also, the contribution to the scattering from those spatial harmonics whose RES lies outside the region of beam crossing, is small. If the beams are considered to be cones (with the angles $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_s`$ for the transmitter and the receiver, respectively), then it is possible to obtain an upper estimate (assuming that the sounding signal and the receiving window are long enough) of the selectivity using wave vectors from geometrical considerations.

The spread of wave vectors involved in the scattering along directions in the plane passing through the receiver and the transmitter is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_s$$
(15)
The spread of wave vectors in absolute value is determined by the expression:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }k=k_{mid}(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_i+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_s),$$
(16)
where $`k_{mid}=2k_0\mathrm{cos}(\beta _0/2)`$ is the wave vector corresponding to the scattering from the the weight volume center. The wave vectors spread along directions in the plane normal to the receiver-transmitter axis is estimated by the formulae

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =min(\frac{R_i}{H}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_i,\frac{R_s}{H}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Theta }_s)$$
(17)
where $`H`$ is the height at which the scattering volume is located above the ground.

The wave vectors that make the main contribution to the scattering lie within a region near the middle wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k_{mid}}`$, corresponding to the Bragg scattering from the center of the volume covered by the beam (6).

A selectivity of the scattering process for the scattering by a small scatterer was shown in \[Newton,1969\]; in a statistical setting of the problem, it was estimated in \[Tatarsky,1967\],\[Ishimaru,1981\], but in a linear setting of the scattering by an arbitrary extended scatterer this scattering process selectivity has not yet been established to date. Thus the resulting radar equations (9),(11) make it possible to establish selective properties of the scattering, and to determine the region of wave vectors involved in the scattering, both in direction and in absolute value. They can be used in the analysis of scattered signals, rather than their statistical characteristics only.

## 4 The statistical radar equations.

In this section, the radar equation is obtained for arbitrary spatial correlation radii of irregularities, and limitations on its applicability and its limiting cases are considered.

Using the starting equation (1), let us develop the expression for the scattered signal mean statistical spectral power (up to constant factors and with the transition to a spectral representation from difference arguments):

$$\overline{|u(\omega )|^2}=g(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{k},k_0+K,\nu ,\stackrel{}{r}))\frac{I(\stackrel{}{k},k_0,K,\nu )}{R_sR_i}𝑑\stackrel{}{r}𝑑\stackrel{}{k}\frac{dKd\nu }{(2\pi )^4}$$
(18)
where

$$I(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},K,\nu )=exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{k},k_0+K,\nu ,\stackrel{}{R}))g^{}(\stackrel{}{R})\frac{W(\omega \nu ,R_s(\stackrel{}{R})+R_i(\stackrel{}{R}),K)}{R_s(\stackrel{}{R})R_i(\stackrel{}{R})}𝑑\stackrel{}{R}$$
(19)
$$\phi (\stackrel{}{k},k_1,\nu ,\stackrel{}{r})=\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{r}+k_1R_i(\stackrel{}{r})+(k_1+\nu /c)R_s(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(20)
$`W(\tau ,S,\mathrm{\Delta }S)=o(t)a(tS/c)o^{}(t\tau )a^{}(t\tau (S\mathrm{\Delta }S)/c)𝑑t`$ is a weighting function dependent on the signal waveform and on the receiving window only; and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{\rho })=\overline{ϵ(t,\stackrel{}{r})ϵ^{}(t\tau ,\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\rho })}`$ is a stationary correlation function of dielectric permitivity fluctuations. Its arguments are the mean statistical distance $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, the correlation radius $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ , and the correlation time $`\tau `$ \[Rytov et al., 1978\]. It is apparent that the integrals appearing in (18),(19) are analogous to the integral in (4) considered above and contain a rapidly oscillating function under the integral. We now apply the procedure described in the preceding section to the expressions (18),(19). It is seen that the integral in over $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ (19) can be evaluated by a three-dimensional SPM, as done in the preceding section. The integral over $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ can be evaluated using this method on the assumption that the dielectric permitivity fluctuations spectral density $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})`$ (the spatio-temporal spectrum of their correlation function) changes slowly with $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. Criteria for weak variability will be presented below. Thus, by integrating (18),(19) over $`\stackrel{}{R}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, respectively, by the stationary-phase method, we get:

$$\overline{|u(\omega )|^2}=g(\stackrel{}{r_0})\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0},\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\phi (\stackrel{}{k},k_0+K,\nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0})}\frac{I(\stackrel{}{k},k_0,K,\nu )}{R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0})}V(\stackrel{}{r_0})(2\pi )^{3/2}e^{i\pi /4}𝑑\stackrel{}{k}\frac{dKd\nu }{(2\pi )^4}$$
(21)
$$\begin{array}{c}I(k_0,\stackrel{}{k},K,\nu )=exp(i\phi (\stackrel{}{k},k_0+K,\nu ,\stackrel{}{R_0}))\frac{W(\omega \nu ,R_s(\stackrel{}{R_0})+R_i(\stackrel{}{R_0}),K)}{R_s(\stackrel{}{R_0})R_i(\stackrel{}{R_0})}\\ g^{}(\stackrel{}{R_0})V(\stackrel{}{R_0})(2\pi )^{3/2}e^{i\pi /4}\end{array}$$
(22)
Furthermore, the stationary points $`\stackrel{}{r_0}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{R_0}`$ depend on the wave vector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, the wave number $`K`$, and on the frequency $`\nu `$, and are defined by equations similar to the modified Wolf-Bragg condition (6):

$$\stackrel{}{k}=((k_0+K+\nu /c)\widehat{R_s}(\stackrel{}{r_0})(k_0+K)\widehat{R_i}(\stackrel{}{r_0})),$$
(23)
whence it follows that the stationary points in (21) and (22) are coincident:

$$\stackrel{}{r_0}=\stackrel{}{R_0}$$
(24)
In view of (21),(22),(6) and (24), we obtain a radar equation for root-mean-square quantities in the form:

$$\overline{|u(\omega )|^2}=\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0},\stackrel{}{k})\frac{W(\omega \nu ,R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})+R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0}),K)|g(\stackrel{}{r_0})|^2}{R_s^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})}V^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})𝑑\stackrel{}{k}𝑑K\frac{d\nu }{2\pi }$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{}{r_0}`$ is defined by (23).

The radar equation obtained here relates the spectral power of the scattered signal to the fluctuations spectral density in the form of an integral over the space of wave vectors. In a manner like obtaining (11) from (9), one can obtain the radar equation relating these two functions in terms of an integral over space, for which purpose it suffices merely to take into account the transition Jacobian from the coordinate system $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ to the coordinate system $`\stackrel{}{r_0}`$ (10):

$$\overline{|u(\omega )|^2}=\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu ,\stackrel{}{r_0},\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r_0}))\frac{W(\omega \nu ,R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})+R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0}),K)|g(\stackrel{}{r_0})|^2}{R_s^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})}𝑑\stackrel{}{r_0}𝑑K\frac{d\nu }{2\pi }$$
(26)
Here $`\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r_0})`$ is determined by the modified Wolf-Bragg condition (23). The validity range of the resulting expressions (25),(26) is constrained, in addition to the limitations pointed out in the preceding section, by media, for which the fluctuations spectral density changes little with a change of the direction in the parameter $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ by the angle $`(\lambda /r)^{1/2}`$. This implies that mean statistical properties of the medium change little in $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ within distances of the Fresnel radius order.

Selective properties of the scattering are also pronounced in the resulting radar equation. The beam factor $`g(\stackrel{}{r})`$ determines selection both from wave vectors which make the main contribution to the scattering, and from spatial regions, with the wave vector and the spatial location of the diagnosed region being related by the condition (23). This corresponds to the local fulfillment of the Wolf-Bragg conditions at each point of the diagnosed medium. The effective weight volume $`W(\omega ,S,k)`$ that is determined solely by the sounding signal and receiving window forms, determines also the selective properties of the scattering for wave numbers, distances, and frequencies. Its width in the spatial variable $`S`$ determines the region of transmitter-irregularity-receiver optical paths for irregularities contributing to the scattering, while the width in the wave variable extends further the region of fluctuations spectral density wave numbers participating in the scattering. The width of the wave numbers region in absolute values and distances was considered earlier, having the order of (15)-(17), and their values are concentrated near the wave vector corresponding to the fulfillment of the Wolf-Bragg condition for the center of the diagnosed volume. In the frequency variable, the effective volume is convoluted with the spectral density. For that reason, the scattered signal spectrum is mostly broader than the frequency spectrum of the spectral density of fluctuations, and this broadening is determined by the properties of the effective weight volume.

### 4.1 Limiting cases of the radar equations obtained.

Let us illustrate the implications of the resulting radar equation for two limiting cases of scattering media. In the case of a time-independent isotropic medium with a small spatial correlation radius, the irregularities spatial spectrum is sufficiently broad in all directions $`\stackrel{}{k}`$, is uniform in $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, and has the form of a $`\delta `$-function in frequency $`\nu `$. For such a model of the medium, an integration can be performed in (26) over these parameters to give a standard radar equation for the power of the scattered signal for small spatial correlation radii \[Tatarsky,1967\],\[Ishimaru,1981\]:

$$\overline{P}=\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r_0},\stackrel{}{k}(\stackrel{}{r_0}))\frac{W_1(R_s(\stackrel{}{r_0})+R_i(\stackrel{}{r_0}))|g(\stackrel{}{r_0})|^2}{R_s^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})}𝑑\stackrel{}{r_0},$$
(27)
where $`W_1(S)=W(\nu ,S,K)𝑑K\frac{d\nu }{2\pi }`$.

As a further example, we consider another limiting case which corresponds to the case of large spatial correlation radii. Let the sounding be performed with an infinitely long impulse with reception by an infinitely long window, which corresponds to $`W(\nu ,S,K)=\delta (\nu )\delta (K)`$. Let there exists dielectric permittivity irregularities in the medium which have the form of nonstationary spatial statistically isostropic harmionic array with broad frequency spectrum. Then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ,\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{k})=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k_1})`$, and the radar equation (25) becomes:

$$\overline{|u(\omega )|^2}=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\frac{|g(\stackrel{}{r_0})|^2}{R_s^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})R_i^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})}V^2(\stackrel{}{r_0})$$
(28)
It is evident that the spectral power of the scattered signal at each frequency will be determined by a small region whose location is determined by the fulfillment of an analogue for the Wolf-Bragg condition:

$`\stackrel{}{k_1}=((k_0+\omega /c)\widehat{R_s}(\stackrel{}{r_0})k_0\widehat{R_i}(\stackrel{}{r_0}))`$

and by dimensions the Fresnel radius (the size of the ’cophasal’ region $`V(\stackrel{}{r})`$) order. Thus each spectral component of the received signal will arrive from its own point of space and with the amplitude determined by the other terms involved in (25). Thus, by virtue of the radar equation proporties, the spectrum of the received signal will differ from the spectral density frequency spectrum, and will be determined solely by the beam. This distortion of the received signal spectrum when compared with the medium frequency spectrum in the case of the scattering from a separate harmonic array is not described by a standard radar equation \[Tatarsky,1967\],\[Ishimaru,1981\], and one have to consider consequent models for exact experiment conditions for explanation of the phenomena observed experimentaly (for example, for radioacoustic sounding this leads to the signifficant difference between expected doppler shift and observed frequency shift of received signal \[Kon and Tatarski,1980\]).

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper we have outlined the method for obtaining the relation between scattered signal and spectral characteristics of the medium, which implies essentially the transition to a consideration of the scattering on medium spatial harmonics and to the the stationary-phase method implementation for calculating the contributions from separate harmonics.

By using the proposed method we have obtained two equivalent radar equations relating the Fourier-spectrum of the scattered signal to the spatial Fourier-spectrum of dielectric permitivity fluctuations (9),(11) for the case where the receiver and the transmitter are not in the far-field range of the scattering volume. These equations show explicitly the selective character of the scattering process: the main contribution to the scattering is made by spatial harmonics of the medium, for which conditions similar to the Wolf-Bragg conditions are satisfied (6). The validity range of the expression obtained in this study is virtually coincident with that of the starting expression in a spatio-temporal representation (1) provided that sufficiently narrow-band sounding signals are used (14) and the cases of exactly backward (considered in \[Berngardt and Potekhin, 2000\]) and exactly forward soundings are excluded (13). Thus the resulting expressions (9),(11) are an analogue for (1) in a spectral region in most bistatic experiments on remote probing of media. The radar equation obtained in this study is a generalization of formulas for small scatterers \[Newton,1969\] to scatteres of an arbitrary size. In problems of media diagnostics, equations (9),(11) can be used to analyze scattering signals as such, rather than their statistical characteristics alone.

The proposed method has been used to obtain two equivalent, statistical radar equations for arbitrary radii of spatial correlation (25),(26) which hold true for media whose mean statistical parameters change little within distances of the Fresnel radius order. This limitation usually true for measurements of real media, because mean statistical parameters of the medium (scattering section, drift velocity, etc.) usually vary smoothly throughout the diagnosed volume.

It has been shown that these radar equations (25),(26) can be useful for obtaining both a standard radar equation for small spatial correlation radii of irregularities (27) and radar equations for other models of scattering media.

The statistical radar equations obtained (25),(26) one should use instead of standart in the cases where spatial correlation radii are compared to or greater than Fresnel radius in some direction. The situations can arise, for example, in case of scattering from ionospheric irregularities elongated with Earths magnetic field and in case of scattering from anisotropic air turbulence and do arise in case of atmosphere radioacoustic sounding. The non-statistical radar equations obtained (9),(11) may be useful for analysis of scattered signal without averaging.


format: text

text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We study a one dimensional model of gravitational instability in an Einstein-de Sitter universe. Scaling in both space and time results in an autonomous set of coupled Poisson-Vlasov equations for the field and phase space density, and the $`N`$-body problem. Using dynamical simulation, we find direct evidence of hierarchical clustering. A multi-fractal analysis reveals a bifractal geometry similar to that observed in the distribution of galaxies. To demonstrate the role of scaling, we compare the system to other one dimensional models recently employed to study structure formation. Finally we show that the model yields an estimate of the time of galaxy formation of the correct order.

The discovery nearly twenty five years ago of large scale structures in the universe  stimulated several new approaches to cosmology. In order to explain, or at least model, the hierarchical distribution of galaxies in clusters, and clusters of clusters, surrounding immense pancake shaped voids, it was proposed that matter in the universe occupys a fractal set, with a definite fractal geometry and dimension . It is currently believed that the process for creating this singular distribution of mass follows from the hydrodynamic flow of dark matter, either hot or cold . In the former case structure evolves in the top down mode, while the latter is bottom up. Both of these themes introduce their own peculiar set of difficulties : the fractal assumption plays havoc with the homogeneity at large scales required by the standard model  while the bottom up scenario may be problematic because it predicts galaxy formation at a time when the background density is small .

Before (and after) the discovery of large scales, useful information was obtained by assembling statistical information concerning the distribution of galaxies in the sky. The primary tool for organizing this information is the construction of correlation functions representing the distribution of pairs of galaxies, triples, etc…While complete functions at all orders are unobtainable, specific symmetries and scaling laws have emerged from the data. First the validity of a power law was established for the dependence on inter-galactic separation of the pair correlation function, with exponent $`\gamma =1.8`$ . Second, it was found that the data on higher order distributions supported the assumption that the Nth order correlations are homogenious functions of order $`(N1)\gamma `$ .

In pioneering work, Bailin and Schaeffer  employed these properties to reconcile the assumption of homogeneity on large scales with fractality on intermediate and small scales. They demonstrated that the distribution of galaxies was not consistent with a normal fractal, but rather with a geometry which is characterized by two length scales, $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$, where $`l_o>>l_1>>l_v`$, and $`l_v>>l_2>>l_c`$. Here the transition to homogeneity occurs at $`l_o`$, the maximum size of voids is $`l_v`$, and the typical size of clusters is $`l_c`$. They named this object “bifractal”. More recently the approach has been successfully applied to the distribution of mass in halos .

In addition to the Hausdorff dimension, the existence of a hierarchy of generalized dimensions, $`D_q`$, which are closely related to the properties of correlation functions at small scales for $`q2`$, is now well established . In particular, $`D_0`$ is simply the box counting dimension, $`D_1`$ is the information dimension, and $`D_2`$ is the correlation dimension. For a normal fractal with self-similar geometry at all scales, $`D_{q+1}D_q`$ . An unusual feature of bifractal geometry is the violation of this inequality, which can be taken as its signature .

A central question for astrophysics is whether it is possible to construct a single, consistent, dynamical model which (1) obeys physical law, (2) is homogenious on large scales, (3) exhibits hierarchical clustering or agregation, and (4) is characterized by bifractal geometry. As early as the 1930’s, dynamical models of cosmic evolution were introduced which joined the hubble flow with the gravitational field . They were later rejected as possible sources of structure formation because, in the linear approximation, density fluctuations about a homogenious background did not grow sufficiently rapidly to produce galaxies during the lifetime of the universe . Here we revisit a version of one of these models with the goal of following the evolution of small initial fluctuations over the full nonlinear regime.

In the following we introduce a version of a de Sitter universe obeying classical dynamics appropriate to the post-recombination epoch. As in the relativistic Tolman-Bondi models , we simplify the geometry by assuming spherical symmetry about an observer. In addition, we examine a region sufficiently distant from the observer that the effects of curvature can be ignored. In contrast with the earlier treatments , we rescale both space and time to obtain a completely autonomous dynamical system. The model was first introduced by Rouet and Feix , who showed that agregation was stimulated by excitations at the Jeans length, and computed a box counting dimension less than unity, suggesting fractal behavior. Here we use Vlasov-Poisson theory to characterize the central properties of the dynamics. We then use dynamical simulation to examine the consequences of a variety of initial conditions. We carry out a complete dimensional analysis of the phase plane and density distribution as time evolves, and show that the system exhibits bifractal geometry in all cases where the Jeans length is initially available to the fluctuations. We demonstrate that the earliest time for agregation is nearly independent of initial conditions or population. We use the value of this scaled time to estimate the earliest epoch for the appearance of galaxies in the universe, with surprising results.

Consider a spherically symmetric, homogenous, expanding universe with density $`\rho (t)`$ under conditions where Newtonian mechanics applies. Let $`C(t/t_0)`$ be the scale factor, so that the distance $`l(t)`$ between two objects at the time $`t`$ is related to that at the earlier time $`t_0`$ by $`l(t)=C(t/t_0)l(t_0)`$. Here $`t_0`$ does not signify the big bang, but rather an arbitrary, later, time where only gravitational phenomena play an important role in the cosmic evolution. To this expansion we must add a residual motion which is a small perturbation of the Hubble flow, but leads the system to a nonlinear regime.

From spherical symmetry, we only need to track a single coordinate, the radius. Thus our system elements are represented by concentric mass shells. The description can be further simplified by assuming that we are far from the center of symmetry and that the length of the system is small compared to the radius of the spheres, so that we may replace the shells with planar sheets. Then the equation of motion of a sheet with coordinate x is simply

$$m\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=E(x,t)$$
(1)
where $`E`$ is the gravitational field.

For the special case of an Einstein-de Sitter universe, there is a unique rescaling of space and time to a new frame in which the dynamical evolution is autonomous. Introduce new coordinates $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{t}`$

$$x=C(t)\widehat{x},dt=A(t)^2d\widehat{t}$$
(2)
and scale the field to keep the form of Poisson’s equation invariant. To insure that the transformed version of eq(1) is autonomous, we must choose $`C=(t/t_0)^{2/3}`$ and $`A(t)=(t/t_0)^{1/2}`$. The complete three dimensional expansion is taken into account with this choice of $`C(t)`$. In the transformed frame, the density $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is constant. Following standard practice, we choose the inverse Jeans frequency, defined by $`\widehat{\omega }_j^2=4\pi G\widehat{\rho }`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }`$ is the density, as our unit of time (See  for a more complete discussion). The equation of motion in the new frame then takes the form

$$\frac{d^2\widehat{x}}{d\widehat{t}^2}+\gamma \frac{d\widehat{x}}{d\widehat{t}}\widehat{x}=\widehat{E}.$$
(3)
where the choice of a neutralizing background requires $`\gamma =1/\sqrt{2}`$. Equation (3) describes the motion of a collisionless system of particles moving under their mutual gravitational field. From Gauss’ law applied to uniform mass sheets, the field experienced by a particle on the line is simply proportional to the net difference in mass of the particles to its right and left. The transformations have induced both a linear friction and a constant, “negative mass”, background density $`\rho _b`$. Thus the system is equivalent to a single component plasma with a drag force in which opposite charges repel and like charges attract. In the following we will drop the decorations on x and t, with the understanding that we are in the rescaled frame.

In the Vlasov limit, the system is amenable to a continuum description. Usefull information can be had from the time dependant Vlasov equation, fixing the evolution of the density in the $`xv`$ phase plane. For example, we easily find that the system energy decreases at a rate proportional to the kinetic energy, while the entropy decreases at the constant rate $`2\gamma `$, and the Tsallis entropy decreases exponentially for $`q>1`$. This tells us that the mass is being concentrated in regions of decreasing area of the phase plane, suggesting the development of structure. By asserting a Euclidean metric in the phase plane, we can also investigate local properties such as the directions of maximum stretching and compression, as well as the local vorticity. We find that the rate of separation between two nearby points is a maximum in the direction given by

$$\mathrm{tan}(2\theta )=(1+\rho +\rho _b)/\gamma ,$$
(4)
where $`\theta `$ defined a slope in phase space. Thus, in regions of low density, we expect to see lines of mass being stretched with constant positive slope in the phase plane.

For a descrete population, the dynamics can be viewed as a sequence of particle crossings. Between an adjacent pair of crossings, Eq (3) can be integrated analytically to yield an explicit solution for the position and velocity of each particle. Following the selection of an initial condition, an event driven algorithm was employed to compute the crossing sequence. The details of the algorithm are described elsewhere . The evolution was followed until boundary effects became noticeable, typically in 15-20 dimensionless time units. In a few instances (see below) much longer simulations were carried out. The evolution of the system was investigated with dynamical simulation for system populations of 10,000 and 50,000 particles (or sheets).

Depending on which cosmology we select, the linear regime is characterized as Gaussian, $`1/f`$ noise, or a Brownian motion of the normal or fractional variety . In order to judge the robustness of the dynamics, the response of the system to several initial conditions was investigated. Here we discuss the two extremes: an initial Gausssian distribution in velocity, and a Brownian motion in position. In all cases, the particle positions were initally located equidistantly along the coordinate line. For the Gaussian (or isothermal) case, the velocity of each particle was independently selected from a normal distribution of mean zero and variance $`\sigma _0^2`$. The initial temperature was chosen such that the length of the system was about 2,000 times the Jean’s length, $`\lambda _j=\sigma _0\omega _j`$. In contrast, for the Brownian motion, the increment in velocity from one particle to another along the line is normally distributed. Thus, in contrast to the isothermal distribution, the initial velocities of neighboring particles are strongly correlated.

As time evolved, inspection of the distribution of the cloud of points in the phase plane, and their positions on the line, were similar for each initial condition, and we display the Gaussian (see Fig 1). For short times, before crossings can occur, the field experienced by each particle is very weak, and we observe the exponential decrease in speed induced by the friction. However, as the number of crossings increases, the effects of instability become apparent. Typically, in about four dimensionless time units, two types of structure become obvious - lines and clumps. In the low density regions, particles are distributed along a line of constant slope in the phase plane, as suggested by the stretching analysis discussed above, while in the high density regions they form clumps of roughly equal size. As the simulation goes forward in time, the process is repeated in hierarchical fashion, i.e. the clumps merge into bigger clumps. To test the role of Jean’s length, we also prepared a much hotter system, where the Jean’s length exceeded the system size. In that case, after the system cooled, a single clump formed near one boundary. However, even this distribution evidenced hierarchical layering around its center in the phase plane.

It is natural to assume that the apparently self similar structure which develops in the phase plane as time evolves has fractal geometry, but we will see that things aren’t so simple. An earlier study found a box counting dimension of about 0.6 for an initial waterbag distribution (uniform on a rectangle in the phase plane) . Since the structures which evolve are strongly inhomogenious, to gain further insight we decided to carry out a multi-fractal analysis  in both the phase plane and the position coordinate. To accomplish this we partitioned each space into cells of length $`l`$. At each time of observation in the simulation, a measure $`\mu _i=N_i(t)/N`$ was assigned to cell $`i`$, where $`N_i(t)`$ is the population of cell $`i`$ at time $`t`$ and $`N`$ is the total number of particles in the simulation. The generalized dimension of order $`q`$ is defined by

$$D_q=\frac{1}{q1}\underset{l0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}C_q}{\mathrm{ln}l},C_q=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu _i.$$
(5)
where $`D_0`$ is the box counting dimension, $`D_1`$, obtained by taking the limit $`q1`$, is the information dimension, and $`D_2`$ is the correlation dimension . As $`q`$ increases above $`0`$, the $`D_q`$ provide information on the geometry of cells with higher population. If it exists, the scaling range of $`l`$ is defined as the interval on which plots of $`\mathrm{ln}C_q`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}l`$ are linear. Of course, for the special case of $`q=1`$, we plot $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu _i\mathrm{ln}\mu _i`$ vs. $`\mathrm{ln}l`$. If a scaling range can be found, $`D_q`$ is obtained by taking the apropriate derivative. It is well established by proof and example that, for a normal, homogenious, fractal, all of the generalized dimensions are equal, while for an inhomogenious fractal, e.g. the Henon attractor, $`D_{q+1}D_q`$ .

As expected, initially, and for a short time afterwards, all simulations showed a box counting dimension of two in the phase plane, and one along the coordinate axis. As time progressed, however, for each of the two initial conditions discussed above, at least one clear scaling range developed early in the simulation. For both the Gaussian and the Brownian Motion, $`D_0`$ quickly converged on about 0.6 and remained there for most of the simulation. The size of the scaling range depended on both the ellapsed time into the simulation and the value of $`q`$. We started our investigation by computing the first three dimensions. We were surprised to observe that, in fact, $`D_2>D_0`$ in all cases ! Moreover, for $`q1`$, a secondary, weaker, scaling range was also detected. In Fig. 3 we plot $`C_1`$ versus $`\mathrm{ln}l`$ at the time $`T=10`$ for the isothermal initial condition. We clearly see one dominant scaling range for small $`l`$, a second scaling range for intermediate $`l`$, and the possibility of a third range for larger $`l`$. It is suggestive that the transition between the first two scaling regimes occurs roughly at the Jeans length of the initial distribution. Since the size of the first clusters are approximately equal to the Jeans length, the suggestion is that the fractal geometry within the clusters differs from that of the less populous “voids”. In Fig.4 we plot $`D_q`$ versus q for the same conditions and time as Fig. 3. We see that Most of the change in dimension occurrs when $`0<q<1`$ . Although there is little change in $`D_q`$ for $`2<q`$, the dominant scaling range grows progressively smaller with increasing $`q`$. This type of behavior was first inferred in a study of the observed correlations of galaxy positions by Bailin and Schaeffer  who named the geometry bifractal.

In the last few years, the dynamics of a group of autonomous one dimensional models has been studied for the purpose of gaining new insight concerning the development of hierarchical structures. These include the adhesion model , Burgers Equation , and different versions of the system studied here, either with no scaling  (neither background nor friction), incomplete scaling (background but no friction), or with fractal initial conditions . In the adhesion model, particles move on the line according to their mutual gravitational attraction. However, when they cross, they stick. In this system agregation into a single large cluster occurs quickly, but a finite fraction of the system remains associated with smaller clumps for a long time. Burgers equation has been carefully studied for a range of initial conditions which vary according to the correlation of initial velocities on the line . For some initial states, shocks develop, yielding velocity portraits $`v(x)`$ similar to what we see in Fig. 11.

Very recently, structure formation was observed in the conservative one dimensional gravitational system, both with and without background . To get a better sense of how scaling influences the development of structure, we also performed simulations of these systems and examined their multifractal properties. The results were interesting: Similar, hierarchical, structures developed in each system. However, the generalized dimensions were larger in each case, about 0.8 for $`D_0`$ , and bifractal behavior was much weaker than in the dissipative version studied here. In fact, with no background, we did not observe a bifractal structure and, with the background present, although we found $`D_2>D_0`$, the difference was small. In each of these systems, the dimensions were less stable and varied with time. In the case without background, the fractal appearance washed out with the subsequent virialization. With the background present, the structure endured for a longer time. For contrast, we carried out a long simulation of the fully scaled system. We found that fractal structure and scaling endured long after the system retreated to a single cluster confined to a small region of the phase plane near the right hand boundary.

We observed earlier that, so long as the Jeans length was initially accessible to the system, the formation of structure occurred rapidly and robustly at about 4 dimensionless time units for all attempted initial conditions. Of course, this was in scaled time. Converting back to cosmic time, we simply find $`t=t_o\mathrm{exp}(3/2)(\widehat{t}\widehat{t_0})`$. If we take $`t_o`$ as the time of recombination in a de Sitter universe, approximately $`10^510^6`$ years , and scaled time $`\widehat{t}\widehat{t_0}=4.0`$, we obtain a time in the range 0.5- 5 billion years for the appearance of the first galaxies. It may seem pretentious to use such a simple model to identify the time when galaxies first appear. However, we should not be surprised that what we find is of the correct order since the model consistently couples gravity with expansion, and dynamical simulation shows that the results are similar under a large variety of inital conditions. More complete theories will manifest more accurate details, but the overiding source of structure is nonlinearity, and this wont change.

An interesting, and potentially useful, feature of the model is that it unambiguously exhibits what has been coined bifractal geometry. While this type of structure has been inferred from correlation functions for the distribution of galaxies, being able to construct the geometry with an autonomous gravitational system could yield real benefits in the future. In a larger work we will elucidate the multifractal features in more detail and study their connection with correlations in position and in the phase plane. It is anticipated that the success of this approach will stimulate the study of the nonlinear evolution of more realistic cosmological models in higher dimension.


text:
# Apparent magnitudes in an inhomogeneous universe: the global viewpoint

## 1 Introduction

Implicit in many modern cosmological experiments, such as the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter et al., 1998) and the High-z Supernova Search (Schmidt et al., 1998), is the assumption that the relationship between the apparent magnitude of a distant object and the redshift of that object is unaffected by gravitational lensing.

Weinberg (1976) presents an argument that gravitational lensing does not, on average, affect the apparent magnitude – radial Robertson Walker coordinate relationship. His argument was based on photon number conservation and has been widely accepted, although recently it has come under closer scrutiny. Ellis et al. (1998) have reanalysed Weinberg’s argument and concluded that it is not valid if caustics are present, which only occurs with strong fields. Claudel (2000) considers Newtonian perturbations in the weak field limit and finds that, to first order in $`\kappa =8\pi G/c^2`$, there is no deviation from the Friedmann Robertson Walker (FRW) result.

Weinberg’s original argument is presented in Section 2. In Section 3 I demonstrate using metric perturbations that the presence of inhomogeneities in the universe do, on average, affect the apparent magnitude – redshift relationship.

## 2 Photon number count versus coordinate distance

Consider an exactly FRW universe containing a source at (comoving coordinate) $`r=0`$ that emits $`N`$ photons (due to, say, a cataclysmic event). Drawing a sphere around the source at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ (with surface area $`4\pi a_{\mathrm{obs}}^2r_{\mathrm{obs}}^2`$ where $`a(t)`$ is the cosmological scale factor), an astronomer at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ with a telescope of area $`A`$ will observe $`n`$ photons satisfying

$$\frac{4\pi a_{\mathrm{obs}}^2r_{\mathrm{obs}}^2}{A}=\frac{N}{n}.$$
(1)
Now consider the above situation with the matter inside the sphere distributed unevenly, thus lensing the photons. The number of photons observed by the astronomer may be different when compared to the previous situation. However, the total number of photons passing through the sphere is unchanged. If the area of the sphere at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ has not changed then any increase or decrease in photons seen by the astronomer must be compensated by a decrease or increase respectively in the number of photons observed by other astronomers. Furthermore, if there are a large number of astronomers at different points on the sphere at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ then the average number of photons they observe must be distributed about $`n`$ with a standard deviation that approaches $`0`$ as their combined telescopes cover the sphere.

Weinberg’s argument is based on the assumption that the area of the sphere centred on $`r=0`$ and with radius $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ is not affected by the mass distribution. The area of the sphere depends not only on $`r`$ but also on $`a(t)`$. If inhomogeneities affect the time photons take to travel from $`r=0`$ to $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ then inhomogeneities must also affect the area of the sphere. If this is the case then photon conservation does not imply that the observed apparent magnitude relationship is identical to the FRW apparent magnitude relationship. In Section 3 this is shown to be the case.

## 3 Apparent magnitude versus redshift

Consider a perturbed FRW dust universe with line element

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=c^2\mathrm{d}t^2a(t)^2(1h(r,t))^2(\frac{\mathrm{d}r^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\mathrm{d}\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta )\mathrm{d}\varphi ^2)$$
(2)
and an energy momentum tensor

$$T=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\rho _b(1+\delta (r,t))& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(3)
where $`\rho _b`$ is the matter density in the FRW universe and $`\delta (r,t)`$ describes the departure from homogeneity. The coordinates are comoving and peculiar motions are neglected so $`T`$ contains no terms dependent on the velocity of matter.

The metric has determinant

$$\sqrt{g}=a^3(1h)^3.$$
(4)
Spherical symmetry has been retained so that any astronomer at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ makes the same observations of a source at $`r=0`$ (as in Section 2) as any other astronomer at $`r=r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$. Spherical symmetry is an unnatural condition to impose upon inhomogeneities. However, no use is made here of the matter distribution except in that no observer is in a special location. In particular no dynamics are considered so spherical symmetry is a reasonable condition to impose.

Conditions are imposed upon the perturbed universe to ensure that it does not depart too far from FRW. Specifically, the total mass content is the same as in a FRW universe, which means that the function $`a(t)`$ is the same in both cases; and the inhomogeneities are small in both amplitude ($`|\delta |1`$) and length. In every region small enough that the scale factor, $`a(t)`$, changes little in the time taken for the photon to travel through it, $`\delta `$ averages to $`0`$. Thus we impose the condition

$$_\lambda \frac{\delta (r(\lambda ),t(\lambda ))}{a(t(\lambda ))}d\lambda =0$$
(5)
where $`\lambda `$ is any parameterization along the geodesic. Finally, $`h(r,t)=0`$ at both the source and the observer’s locations since the only effect under consideration here is due to matter inhomogeneities between the source and the observer.

Following Peebles (1993, page 276) (but note the different definition of $`h`$ which allows the calculation to be carried out to all orders), the stress energy conservation law leads to

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}T_0^\mu )=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu ,0}T^{\mu \nu }=0$$
(6)
or

$$\frac{\dot{\rho }_b}{\rho _b}+\frac{\dot{\delta }}{1+\delta }=\frac{3\dot{a}}{a}+\frac{3\dot{h}}{1h}.$$
(7)
Since $`\dot{\rho }_b/\rho _b=3\dot{a}/a`$ in the unperturbed universe,

$$\frac{\dot{\delta }}{1+\delta }=\frac{3\dot{h}}{1h}$$
(8)
which has solution

$$1h=(1+\delta )^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(9)
The integration constant has been determined by requiring that when $`\delta =0`$, $`h=0`$.

By integrating along a radial null geodesic from emission at $`(t,r)=(t_{\mathrm{em}},0)`$ to observation at $`(t,r)=(t_{\mathrm{obs}},r)`$, the radial coordinate where a photon arrives at the observer in the perturbed universe can be determined and compared to the radial coordinate of the observer in the FRW universe.

In the perturbed FRW universe

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=0c\mathrm{d}t=a(t)(1h(r,t))\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}.$$
(10)
Equation (10) gives a differential equation which may be solved for $`r(t)`$. The position of the photon is completely described by the function $`r(t)`$. $`h(t)`$ is now defined along the geodesic as $`h(t)h(r(t),t)`$. Similarly, $`\delta (t)\delta (r(t),t)`$. Rearranging equation (10) and integrating, one obtains

$$_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)(1h(t))}=_0^{r_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\sqrt{1kr^2}},$$
(11)
Similarly, in the FRW universe

$$_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)}=_0^{r_{\mathrm{FRW}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}.$$
(12)
Substituting for $`1h`$ from equation (9) and making the second order approximation $`(1+\delta )^{1/3}1+\delta /3\delta ^2/9`$, equation (11) becomes

$$_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)}+\frac{1}{3}_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\delta (t)\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)}\frac{1}{9}_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\delta (t)^2\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)}=_0^{r_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}.$$
(13)
Equations (12) and (13) are both written using comoving coordinates and proper time and so may be compared directly. The first term in equation (13) may be replaced using equation (12) and the second term is $`0`$ due to equation (5) leaving

$$\frac{1}{9}_{t_{\mathrm{em}}}^{t_{\mathrm{obs}}}\frac{c\delta (t)^2\mathrm{d}t}{a(t)}=_{r_{\mathrm{obs}}}^{r_{\mathrm{FRW}}}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{\sqrt{1kr^2}}.$$
(14)
Since $`\delta ^20`$ and $`a>0`$ then $`r_{\mathrm{FRW}}r_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{obs}}=r_{\mathrm{FRW}}`$ only if $`\delta =0`$ at all points along the lightcone. We may use this to compare the observed number of photons in the perturbed universe and the FRW universe. From equation (1),

$$\frac{n_{\mathrm{obs}}}{n_{\mathrm{FRW}}}=\frac{NA}{4\pi r_{\mathrm{obs}}^2a(t_{\mathrm{obs}})^2}\frac{4\pi r_{\mathrm{FRW}}^2a(t_{\mathrm{obs}})^2}{NA}$$
(15)
$$=\frac{r_{\mathrm{FRW}}^2}{r_{\mathrm{obs}}^2}1.$$
(16)
Telescopes in a perturbed FRW universe receive on average more photons from a source at a given redshift than telescopes with the same area in a FRW universe and therefore have a higher apparent magnitude. This is the main result of this paper.

## 4 Discussion

The focusing theorem (Schneider et al., 1992, page 132) shows that a light beam is magnified if it is affected by gravitational lensing but does not go through a caustic. In light of the focusing theorem, the result in Section 3 is not surprising. The conclusion of Section 3 is significant because it shows that gravitational lensing can cause magnification for all observers without violating conservation of photon number.

The calculation in Section 3 is very general in that it does not depend up the distribution of matter, only that there are matter perturbations. It does assume that the global structure of the universe is FRW and that the departure from FRW is slight. It seems plausible that any greater departure from FRW will not remove the effect. Furthermore, the argument is based on the non-linearity of the relationship between matter and the metric, so it is easy to see how it may applied in models other than FRW.

I am grateful to L. Ryder, J. Adams, W. Joyce, S.Seunarine and S. Besier for discussions and careful reading of drafts.


text:
# ‘Circular type’ quantum key distribution

## Abstract

‘Circular type’ interferometric system for quantum key distribution is proposed. The system has naturally self-alignment and compensation of birefringence and also has enough efficiency against polarisation dependence. Moreover it is easily applicable to multi-party. Key creation with 0.1 photon per pulse at a rate of 1.2KHz with a 5.4% QBER over a 200m fiber was realized.

Quantum key distribution is expected as one of the most important technology on information security in the near future and provides two remote parties, Alice and Bob, with a common key in private manner. Many groups have reported its realization on optical fibers or others-. Almost all reports based on interferometric system have a problem on alignment and compensation of birefringence. Geneva group has solved this problem using Faraday mirror excellently. Their solution is self-alignment and compensation, that is, the two optical paths constituting its interferometric system are the same physical path and therefore the difference between the two paths is compensated automatically.

But the solution has a flaw that it is sensitive to the polarisation dependent loss because the first and second paths are discriminated each other by polarisation states with the polarisation beam splitter. Our proposal depicted in Fig.1 adopts circular-type optics instead of a Faraday mirror and a polarisation beam splitter.

But the optics maintains self-alignment and compensation of birefringence because the light pulses circulate the same physical path each counterclockwise and clockwise. The optics, then, minimizes polarisation dependent loss because the two paths are naturally discriminated. Our system is, in addition, simpler than the Geneva group’s system and therefore has excellent performance on transfer efficiency. Though the system requires two fibers as communication channel, the installation of two fibers is not critical because multi-core-fiber cables are currently used in the real world.

In Fig.1, Bob, as well as the Geneva’s system, has a photon source and sends a photon pulse through a circulator into the system. The pulse splits at a coupler. The first half circulates the whole optics counterclockwise, where the pulse is named CCW pulse, and the second half circulates clockwise, where the pulse is named CW pulse. The CCW pulse propagates to Alice through a optical fiber (the upper fiber) and goes back to Bob through another optical fiber (the lower fiber). After passing a delay line fiber, the CCW pulse is applied a phase shift $`\varphi _B`$ with a phase modulator in Bob (PMB) and returns the coupler. Polarisation controllers, PCA in Alice, PCB in Bob, PCC at the coupler tune the pulse to a phase modulator in Alice (PMA), PMB, and the coupler respectively. The CW pulse passes the PCC, PMB, PCB, and the delay line in the order and propagates to Alice through the lower fiber. Alice does not have the two pulses simultaneously because the delay line staggers their transit timings. Alice, then, applies to the CW pulse only a phase shift $`\varphi _A`$ with PMA. After passing PMA, the shifted CW pulse is attenuated to the average photon number $`\mu =0.1`$ per pulse with the variable attenuator A and goes back to Bob through the upper fiber. The returned CW pulse reaches the coupler at the same time as the arrival of the CCW pulse because they travel the same optical path reversely and the two pluses give rise to interference. As the results of interference, the photon is detected at either avalanche photo diodes APD1 or APD2 according to its phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (=\varphi _A\varphi _B)`$.

In practice, we have implemented the BB84 protocol using a SCIENTEX OPG-2000B-830 LASER with wavelength $`\lambda =830nm`$ and the repetition rate $`100KHz`$. The photon source is composed of the LASER, a polarisation controller (PCL) and an isolator. We used EG&G SPCM-AQR-14-FCs, which are Peltier cooled Si-APD, as APD1 and APD2. The transmission distance between Alice and Bob was set 200m and 800m fiber was used as the delay line. We, then, obtained the high performance of 1.2Kbps as the raw creation rate and 5.4% as the quantum bit error rate (QBER).

Although almost all reports of quantum key distribution have targeted point to point link architecture, our system can, further, target one to many link architecture. The system can naturally extend to multi-party quantum key distribution on looped networks in Fig.2, where key distribution between Bob and anyone of Alice, David, Fox, George, and so on is feasible.

For example, Bob selects one entity from the four entities. The selected entity and Bob, then, perform the BB84 protocol and the other entities allow light pulses through their modules without disturbance. If they disturb the pulses, Bob and his partner notice the disturbance as eavesdropping. The proposed system requires only one quantum key distribution system though Bob can commute many entities.

In conclusion, we have presented a new simple and efficient interferometric system for quantum key distribution. Our one-to-one system was tested with a raw creation key rate 1.2KHz over a distance 200m. Our looped network system for more than two parties would be tested soon.


text:
# Detailed Balance and Sea-Quark Flavor Asymmetry of Proton

## Abstract

In this study, the proton is taken as an ensemble of quark-gluon Fock states. Using the principle of detailed balance, the probabilities of finding every Fock states of the proton are obtained without any parameter. A new origin of the light flavor sea quark asymmetry, i.e., $`\overline{u}\overline{d}`$, is given as a pure statistical effect. It is found that $`\overline{d}\overline{u}0.124`$, which is in surprisingly agreement with the experimental observation.

preprint: hep-ph/0106074

The composition of hadrons in terms of the fundamental quark and gluon degrees of freedom is a central focus of hadronic physics. In the light-cone Fock state description of bound states , each physical hadron state is expended by a complete set of quark-gluon Fock states as

$$|h=\underset{i,j,k}{}c_{i,j,k}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\},\{l\},$$
(1)
where $`\{q\}`$ represents the valence quarks of the hadron, $`i`$ is the number of quark-antiquark $`u\overline{u}`$ pairs, $`j`$ is the number of quark-antiquark $`d\overline{d}`$ pairs, $`k`$ is the number of gluons, and $`\{l\}`$ represents the heavy flavor ($`s`$, $`c`$, $`b`$, and $`t`$) $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs which will be neglected at first in this study. There have been many progress in understanding the hadron structure in terms of the underlying quark and gluon degrees of freedom. For example, we can obtain the lowest valence Fock state $`|\{q\}`$ by the quark model . We can also model the next higher $`|\{q\},\{q\overline{q}\}`$ Fock states by the energetically-favored baryon-meson fluctuations . The Fock states with gluons, $`|\{q\},\{g\}`$, have been also studied . However, we are still lacking a comprehensive understanding concerning the completed set of Fock states for hadrons, even for the proton.

In this work, we will provide a complete set of Fock states for the proton from a simple statistical consideration. By (1), it means that we take the proton as an ensemble of quark-gluon Fock states. The probability to find the proton in the $`|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}`$ Fock state is

$$\rho _{i,j,k}=\left|c_{i,j,k}\right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ satisfies the normalization condition,

$$\underset{i,j,k}{}\rho _{i,j,k}=1.$$
(3)
Therefore the parton numbers of quarks and gluons in the proton are

$$\begin{array}{cc}u=u_v+_{i,j,k}i\rho _{i,j,k},\hfill & \\ d=d_v+_{i,j,k}j\rho _{i,j,k},\hfill & \\ \overline{u}=_{i,j,k}i\rho _{i,j,k},\hfill & \\ \overline{d}=_{i,j,k}j\rho _{i,j,k},\hfill & \\ g=_{i,j,k}k\rho _{i,j,k},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`u_v=2`$ and $`d_v=1`$ are the valence quark numbers of the proton. These parton numbers can be measured by deep inelastic scattering of leptons on the proton target. The quarks and gluons in the Fock states are the “intrinsic” partons of the proton, since they are multi-connected non-perturbatively to the valence quarks . Such partons are different from the “extrinsic” partons generated from the QCD hard bremsstrahlung and gluon-splitting as part of the lepton scattering interaction.

Using statistical property of the ensemble, the probability $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be calculated without any parameter in the following way. Let us trace one system (a proton) in the big ensemble (a set of quark-gluon Fock states). At the time $`t=0`$, the system is in one state of a subensemble ($`A=|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}`$). After a while, at the time $`t=\delta t`$, the state of this system has three probabilities: (1) does not change; (2) changes to another state that belongs to the same subensemble ($`A`$); (3) changes to a state that belongs to a different subensemble ($`B=|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\}`$). In the last case, the density of subensemble ($`A`$) decreases ($`\rho _A`$). On the other hand, some states in subensemble ($`B`$) will be changed to subensemble ($`A`$) during the same period, and increases the density of subensemble ($`A`$) ($`\rho _A`$). These two processes, which are in opposite direction for each other, just compensate for each other, so $`\rho _A`$ keeps unchanged. This is the so called detailed balance, which demands every two subensembles to balance with each other. So we have

$$\rho _{i,j,k}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}\stackrel{\mathrm{balance}}{}\rho _{i^{},j^{},k^{}}|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\},$$
(5)
$$\rho _{i,j,k}N\left\{|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\}\right\}\rho _{i^{},j^{},k^{}}N\left\{|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}\right\},$$
(6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,k}}{\rho _{i^{},j^{},k^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{N\left\{|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}\right\}}{N\left\{|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}|\{q\},\{i^{},j^{},k^{}\}\right\}}},`$ (7)
where $`N\{AB\}`$ implies the number of processes that transfer $`A`$ into $`B`$, i.e., the transfer rate of $`AB`$.

In order to know $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$, the probability of finding the proton in the Fock state $`A`$, all what we need to know is the ratio between the transfer rate of $`AB`$ and the transfer rate of $`BA`$. In the realistic situation, the transfer rate is very complicated and it involves many factors, such as: the proton size, the quark mass, the parton numbers, the quantum numbers (color,spin,flavor), cross sections of sub-processes, exchange symmetry (Pauli blocking), the velocity and even the details of the quantum wave functions of partons. Here, among all these factors, we only take into account the number of partons from a pure statistical consideration. We also neglect the interaction involving $`ggg`$ at first. We will find, surprisingly, that our simplified calculation gives the correct light flavor sea-quark asymmetry, i.e., $`\overline{u}\overline{d}`$, which has been observed in experiments . This implies that the number of valence quarks controls the statistical property of the proton.

The transfer between two subensembles has two ways: splitting and recombination. Splitting rate is proportional to the number of partons that may split. Recombination rate is proportional to both the number of those two kinds of partons that may recombine. So we have the following two kinds of relations:

(1) Detailed balance involving $`qqg`$ gives the relation

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \\ 1\times 3\end{array}|uudg,`$ (11)
$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}3\\ \\ 2\times 3\end{array}|uudgg,`$ (15)
$`|uudgg\begin{array}{c}3\\ \\ 3\times 3\end{array}|uudggg,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (20)
$`|uud\overline{u}u\begin{array}{c}5\\ \\ 1\times 5\end{array}|uud\overline{u}ug,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (25)
$`|\{q\},\{i,j,k1\}\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j\\ \\ (3+2i+2j)k\end{array}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\}.`$ (29)
then a general formula can be derived using formula (7),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,k}}{\rho _{i,j,k1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}},`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,k}}{\rho _{i,j,0}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!}}.`$ (31)
(2) Detailed balance involving $`g\overline{q}q`$ gives the relation

$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 1\times 3\end{array}|uud\overline{u}u,`$ (35)
$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 1\times 2\end{array}|uud\overline{d}d,`$ (39)
$`|uud\overline{u}ug\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 2\times 4\end{array}|uud\overline{u}u\overline{u}u,`$ (43)
$`|uud\overline{u}ug\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ 1\times 2\end{array}|uud\overline{u}u\overline{d}d,`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (48)
$`|\{q\},\{i1,j,1\}\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ i(i+2)\end{array}|\{q\},\{i,j,0\},`$ (52)
$`|\{q\},\{i,j1,1\}\begin{array}{c}1\\ \\ j(j+1)\end{array}|\{q\},\{i,j,0\}.`$ (56)
Then a general formula can be derived using formula (7),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,0}}{\rho _{i1,j,1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{i(i+2)}},`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,0}}{\rho _{i,j1,1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{j(j+1)}}.`$ (58)
Using relation $`\rho _{i,j,1}=\rho _{i,j,0}`$ gotten from formula (31) to these two new formulae, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,0}}{\rho _{0,j,0}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{i!(i+2)!}},`$ (59)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,0}}{\rho _{i,0,0}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{j!(j+1)!}},`$ (60)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{i,j,0}}{\rho _{0,0,0}}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{i!(i+2)!j!(j+1)!}}.`$ (61)
Combing formulae (31) and (61), we obtain the general formula

$$\frac{\rho _{i,j,k}}{\rho _{0,0,0}}=\frac{2}{i!(i+2)!j!(j+1)!k!}.$$
(62)
Then from the normalization condition (3) and formula (62), all $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be calculated as shown in TABLE I.

From TABLE I, we get the numbers of intrinsic gluons and sea quarks of the proton,

$`\overline{u}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}i\rho _{i,j,k}=0.308,`$ (63)
$`\overline{d}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}j\rho _{i,j,k}=0.432,`$ (64)
$`g={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}k\rho _{i,j,k}=0.997,`$ (65)
$`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.124.`$ (66)
These parton numbers should be considered to work at a scale for the “intrinsic” partons, and the details need further studies. It is very interesting that only from the pure statistical consideration, we get an asymmetry between the light flavor $`u`$ and $`d`$ sea quarks, i.e., $`\overline{u}\overline{d}`$, which has been observed in deep inelastic scattering and Drell-Yan experiments . Moreover, the flavor sea-quark asymmetry $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ can be checked by experiments directly because its $`Q^2`$ dependence is small. It is a surprise that our result is in excellent agreement with the recent experimental result  $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.118\pm 0.012`$. This good agreement indicates that the principle of detailed balance plays an essential role in the structure of proton.

We now check whether the inclusion of the process $`ggg`$ can change the above conclusion. We make the similar analysis on the two kinds of relations:

(1) Detailed balance involving $`qqg`$ and $`ggg`$ gives the relation

$`|uud\begin{array}{c}3\\ \\ 1\times 3\end{array}|uudg,`$ (70)
$`|uudg\begin{array}{c}3+1\\ \\ 2\times 3+1\end{array}|uudgg,`$ (74)
$`|uudgg\begin{array}{c}3+2\\ \\ 3\times 3+3\end{array}|uudggg,`$ (78)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (79)
$`|uud\overline{u}u\begin{array}{c}5\\ \\ 1\times 5\end{array}|uud\overline{u}ug,`$ (83)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (84)
$`|\{q\},\{i,j,k1\}\begin{array}{c}3+2i+2j+k1\\ \\ (3+2i+2j)k+C_k^2\end{array}|\{q\},\{i,j,k\},`$ (88)
where $`C_k^2=\frac{k(k1)}{2}`$. Then a general formula can be derived using formula (7),

$$\frac{\rho _{i,j,k}}{\rho _{i,j,k1}}=\frac{3+2i+2j+k1}{(3+2i+2j)k+\frac{k(k1)}{2}}.$$
(89)
(2) Detailed balance involving $`g\overline{q}q`$ has no effect by the process $`ggg`$ so the Eq.(61) remains unchanged.

Combining (89), (61), and the normalization condition (3), all $`\rho _{i,j,k}`$ can be calculated as shown in TABLE II. From TABLE II, we get the numbers of intrinsic gluons and sea quarks of the proton,

$`\overline{u}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}i\rho _{i,j,k}=0.304,`$ (90)
$`\overline{d}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}j\rho _{i,j,k}=0.426,`$ (91)
$`g={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}k\rho _{i,j,k}=1.109,`$ (92)
$`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.123,`$ (93)
which are very close to the situation without considering $`ggg`$, except for the gluon number with a bigger difference of 10%. Here the flavor sea-quark asymmetry $`\overline{d}\overline{u}`$ is also in good agreement with the recent experimental result $`\overline{d}\overline{u}=0.118\pm 0.012`$.

We point out here that the heavy quark-antiquark pairs are not considered in this paper. Taking them into account is not so simple and may introduce some parameters, and this is beyond the simple spirt of this paper. So we neglect them in this study, though there have been suggestions of “intrinsic” strange  and charm  of the proton. We also need to check the applicability for the statistical method to model the structure of the nucleon. The total number of intrinsic partons inside the proton is around

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`u_{\mathrm{val}}+d_{\mathrm{val}}+u_{\mathrm{sea}}+\overline{u}+d_{\mathrm{sea}}+\overline{d}+g`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`2+1+2\overline{u}+2\overline{d}+g=5.5,`$ (95)
which is a small number of particles for the feasibility of the statistical method. The success of this study suggests us to apply the statistical method to the hadronic structure studies, though its range of applicability should be very limited. It is necessary to apply the statistical method from more sophisticated consideration. Similar application can be also extended to other baryons.

In summary, we studied the proton structure as an ensemble of quark-gluon Fock states. Using the principle of detailed balance, the probabilities of finding the proton in every Fock states are obtained without any parameter. A new origin of the light flavor sea quark asymmetry, i.e., $`\overline{u}\overline{d}`$, is given as a pure statistical effect. It is found that $`\overline{d}\overline{u}0.124`$, which is in surprisingly agreement with the experimental observation.

We are very grateful to Prof. Li-Ming Yang for his supervision and encouragement, and to Dr. Wei-Zhen Deng for helpful discussion. This work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# Formation of Globular Clusters in Turbulent Molecular Clouds

## 1. Introduction

The formation of globular clusters is still an unsolved puzzle. Massive bound stellar systems can only form by a time coherent collapse of large regions of molecular clouds.

Using smoothed particle hydrodynamical simulations (SPH) we investigate the formation of stellar clusters in self–gravitating collapsing turbulent molecular clouds. We mimick star formation by creating N–body particles from gas–particles in regions where the the gas density exceeds the Jeans criterion and where the gas flow is convergent.

Shortly after the formation of the first stars, the remaining gas will be expelled by energy feedback of the massive stars, like ionizing radiation, stellar winds or supernova explosions. As a result of this gas expulsion phase some or all stars in the cluster will also become unbound. The fraction of finally bound stars is mainly determined by the efficiency of star formation and the timescale of the gas expulsion.

## 2. Setup, Star Formation & Feedback

We initially start with a homogeneous gas sphere with a superimposed turbulent velocity field, created as a Gaussian random field with power spectrum $`P(k)k^2`$, where $`k`$ is the wave number. The turbulence decays and high density regions build up due to self–gravitation and fragmentation. The initial parameters are given in table 1. We use an isothermal equation of state. The model can be scaled to various initial conditions.

To follow the formation process of a star cluster from scales as large as a molecular cloud down to the stars itself we need a recipe to mimick star formation. Different approaches concerning the inclusion of star formation in SPH simulations are discussed e.g. by Katz (1992), Bate (1995), Klessen (2000) and Nakasato, Mori & Nomoto (2000). In our simulations, whenever the density of a gas particle exceeds the Jeans limit and the flow of the nearest neighbours is convergent, a collisionless N–body particle is created with a mass according to a given intrinsic star formation efficiency. The masses of the gas particle and of its neighbours are reduced accordingly.

After a massive star has formed, it will feed back energy into the interstellar medium by ionizing radiation, stellar winds or supernova explosions. A survey of different methods implementing feedback in SPH is given by Thacker & Couchman (2000). In our simulations each N–body particle contributes energy to its surrounding by increasing the thermal energy of the neighbouring gas particles at a constant rate.

## 3. Dynamical Evolution

Fig. 1 shows a time sequence of one simulation. The turbulence decays and the cloud starts collapsing. At $`t=1.36`$ the first stars form in high density regions. Their energy feedback expells the surrounding gas and causes star formation in the compressed medium in front of outwards propagating gas shells. The newly born stars gain high velocities and are not bound in the system of stars and gas.

Fig. 2 compares the star formation efficiency with and without energy feedback. In accordance with observations, our model including energy feedback shows only low star formation efficiencies. Thus, the star cluster that has formed is not likely to survive (Lada, Margulis & Dearborn 1984, Geyer & Burkert 2001). This result is independent of the detailed assumption of feedback or the initial condition. It demonstrates that the formation of massive bound clusters requires conditions that are not typically found in molecular clouds. In future simulations we will investigate the requirements necessary for forming massive bound clusters.

## References

Bate, M.R. 1995, PhD Thesis, Clare College, Cambridge.

Geyer, M.P. & Burkert, A. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 988

Katz, N. 1992, MNRAS, 391, 502

Klessen, R.S. & Burkert, A. 2000, ApJS, 128, 287

Lada, C. J., Margulis, M., Dearborn, D. 1984, ApJ, 285, 141

Nakasato, N., Mori, M. & Nomoto, K. 2000, ApJ, 535, 776

Thacker, R.J., Couchman, H.M.P. 2000, ApJ, 545, 728