text:
# New Results for the Nonlocal Kardar-Parisi-Zhang Equation

## I Introduction

The field of disorderly surface growth has received much attention during the last two decades. A multitude of different phenomena such as fluid flow in porous media, propagation of flame fronts, flux lines in superconductors not to mention deposition processes, bacterial growth and ”DNA walk” barabasi95  are all said to be related to the famous Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation kpz86 . Therefore, further understanding of the behavior of the KPZ equation has a broad interest in the fields of nonequilibrium dynamics and in disordered systems.

The KPZ equation for a growing surface is

$$\frac{h(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}=\nu ^2h+\frac{\lambda }{2}\left(h\right)^2+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(1)
This equation describes the height fluctuations of a d-dimensional interface, where $`h(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is the height at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ measured relative to its spatial average, $`\nu `$ is the diffusion constant and $`\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is the fluctuation of the rate of deposition. The noise $`\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ has a zero mean $`\left(\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)=0\right)`$ and it satisfies

$$\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\eta (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t^{})=2D_0\delta ^d\left(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right)\delta \left(tt^{}\right),$$
(2)
(white noise) where $`d`$ is the substrate dimension and $`D_0`$ specifies the noise amplitude.

Together with the great success of the KPZ equation to describe many growth models and phenomena, there has been a growing pool of data that is not well described by KPZ, and triggered further research. One of the first classes that belongs to this non KPZ behavior is the well known Molecular-Beam-Epitaxy (MBE) class (sometimes also called the conserved KPZ equation) wolf90 -sun93 . This class is distinct from KPZ in having surface diffusion as the basic relaxation mechanism. However, the modified behavior introduced by the MBE equation is not at all sufficient to account for all the rich non KPZ experimental data in the field.

A different line of research suggested that the basic growth equation should not be changed. Instead, the white noise that appears in the original KPZ equation should be correlated - either temporally or spatially medina89 -katzav99 . This approach was indeed quite successful. However, it still failed to give a good account for all the measured scaling exponents.

Recently, some researchers suggested that incorporating the long-range nature of interactions in the growing surface is necessary for a proper description of many systems such as colloid systems Lei96 , paper-burning experiments Zhang92  or protein deposition kinetics Ramsden93 . Following this basic intuition Mukherji and Bhattacharjee Mukh97  developed a Langevin-type equation with a nonlocal non-linearity, thus going beyond the KPZ local description of interactions. They studied originally the white noise case that was later generalized to spatially correlated noise by A. Kr. Chattapohadhyay chat99 . To be more specific, the equation they studied was

$$\frac{h(\stackrel{}{r},t)}{t}=\nu ^2h(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\frac{1}{2}𝑑r^{}g\left(\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right)h(\stackrel{}{r}+\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)h(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)+\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t),$$
(3)
where the kernel $`g\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ represents the long-range interactions. They take $`g\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ with a short-range part $`\lambda _0\delta ^d\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ and a long-range part $`\lambda _\rho r^{\rho d}`$, or more precisely in Fourier space, $`\widehat{g}\left(q\right)=\lambda _0+\lambda _\rho q^\rho `$. The noise has again a zero mean, but it is allowed to have spatially long range correlations, characterized by its second moment

$$\eta (\stackrel{}{r},t)\eta (\stackrel{}{r}^{},t)=2D_0\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}^{}\right|^{2\sigma d}\delta \left(tt^{}\right),$$
(4)
where the case of white noise is restored in the limit $`\sigma =0`$ Mukh97 .

In the next section I will present current theoretical predictions for the scaling exponents of the NKPZ model. It will become evident that all the previous results are inconsistent with an exact one-dimensional result obtained in the past. Then, in section III the Self-Consistent Expansion (SCE) approach will be applied to this model. Interestingly, this method yields results that are consistent with the exact one-dimensional result. Then, results for higher dimensions as well as for general $`\rho `$’s are presented. Eventually, a discussion of the reasons for the failure of the various theoretical methods is given in section IV, and conclusions are drawn in section V.

## II Previous Results

Both papers Mukh97 -chat99  investigated this problem using Dynamic Renormalization Group (DRG) analysis, and derived a very complex zoo of universality classes (ref. chat99  also applied a mode-coupling approach confirming some of the results of DRG). Let us not get into all those details, but rather focus on the strong coupling solution (in the KPZ sense barabasi95 ) suggested by both papers, namely

$$z_{DRG}=2+\frac{\left(d22\rho \right)\left(d23\rho \right)}{\left(3+2^\rho \right)d69\rho },$$
(5)
where $`z`$ is the dynamic exponent. To complete the picture, the roughness exponent, $`\alpha `$, can be calculated using the modified scaling relation $`\alpha +z=2\rho `$ (which actually comes from the famous Galilean invariance). Notice that this result does not depend explicitly on $`\sigma `$ as long as $`\sigma >0`$.

On the basis of the DRG result (eq. 5) Mukherji and Bhattacharjee tried to explain some non KPZ experimental results in one dimension, namely a roughness exponent of $`\alpha =0.71`$ given in refs. Lei96 -Zhang92  that implies, according to their DRG calculation, $`\rho =0.12`$, and requires $`\lambda _0=0`$. As already appreciated by the authors, this result raises some doubts on physical grounds, whether a true $`\lambda _0=0`$ is seen in experiment, and where should a negative $`\rho `$, which implies anticorrelations Villain  rather than correlations that cause the interaction, come from.

This finding is obviously disturbing because if DRG yields accurate results then the NKPZ equation cannot be relevant to the physical processes discussed above. As will be shown later, the DRG result is far from being accurate, so that the above argument against the relevance of the NKPZ equation is not valid. The relevance of the NKPZ equation has been doubted, however, for other reasons too, but this will not be discussed here.

The equation is interesting by itself and generalizes the traditional KPZ prototype of nonlinear stochastic field equations that are so abundant in the description of natural phenomena. Therefore, reliable methods of solution are of great importance. DRG is such a general method, but unfortunately the DRG results look suspicious for three reasons:

First, the expression for the dynamic exponent (eq. (5)) reduces to the well-known result of Medina et. al. medina89  $`z=2+\frac{\left(d2\right)^2}{4d6}`$ in the limit of $`\rho =0`$ (i.e. the limit of local KPZ) - a result that by itself is meaningful only for the case of $`d=1`$. It is a well-known fact that DRG cannot give the strong coupling solution of the local KPZ equation for $`d>1`$ Wiese98 . This may suggest that the DRG result is not correct also for the nonlocal case, especially for $`d>1`$. Furthermore, the mode coupling approach that is known to be more appropriate than DRG when dealing with the standard KPZ problem chat98 ; BC93  yielded a strong coupling result that is different from eq. (5) chat99 . Yet, it should be mentioned that the mode coupling approach chat99  (at least using the simplest ansatz) was not able to produce a non power counting solution, as obtained in the local KPZ case BC93 .

Second, it is easily seen that the explicit expression for the dynamical exponent (given in eq. (5) above) has a singularity for $`\rho `$’s that satisfy $`\left(3+2^{\rho _s}\right)d69\rho _s=0`$ (for example in one dimension$`\rho _s=0.205`$). It is not clear why should such a singularity appear at all and if it appears, then why should it take this specific value.

Third, from general considerations one should expect the following scenario: as $`\rho `$ becomes more and more negative, the interaction that couples the gradients is enormously reduced with distance (remember that the long-range part of the kernel scales as $`g\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\lambda _\rho r^{\rho d}`$). Therefore, one should expect that in this region, the nonlinear term becomes irrelevant, and the scaling exponents of the linear theory (also known as the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) theory EW ) should be recovered. On the other side, as $`\rho `$ becomes larger and larger, the interaction becomes more and more relevant, and one might expect that as a consequence faster relaxations should appear in the system (faster relaxations imply smaller values of the dynamical exponent $`z`$). Therefore, it is reasonable that a non-increasing behavior of the dynamical exponent ($`z`$) as a function of $`\rho `$ will be seen. It is not difficult to see that the expression for the dynamical exponent (given by eq. (5)) does not follow this reasoning.

Lately, an exact result for the NKPZ model was found NKPZ02 . It turns out that the Fokker-Planck equation associated with the Langevin-form of the NKPZ model (i.e eq. (3) above) can be solved exactly for a specific sub-family of models in one dimension. More specifically, a Gaussian steady-state solution was found for the case $`\lambda _0=0`$, $`\rho =2\sigma `$ when $`d=1`$. This exact solution yields the following dynamic exponent

$$z_{exact}=\frac{33\rho }{2}.$$
(6)
It is easy to see that this result reduces to the well know local-KPZ (that corresponds to $`\rho =0`$ ) result, $`z=3\mathrm{/}2`$, in one dimension.

This exact result is not compatible with the DRG result - either quantitatively nor qualitatively. As mentioned above, DRG is usually considered relatively reliable in one dimension. However, this exact result indicates DRG’s shortcoming already in one dimension. The inevitable conclusion is that in order to gain insight into the behavior of the NKPZ model in any dimension, and for any value of $`\rho `$ (the nonlocal parameter) and $`\sigma `$ (the long-range noise parameter) it is necessary to employ more reliable methods.

Actually, two methods that proved useful in the context of the local-KPZ problem were applied recently to the NKPZ problem as well. The first method, is a Flory-type scaling approach that was originally proposed by Hentschel and Family Hen91  and generalized lately by Tang and Ma Tang01  to the nonlocal case. The strong-coupling dynamical exponent obtained by using this Scaling Approach (SA) is

$$z_{SA}=\frac{\left(2\rho \right)\left(2+d2\sigma \right)}{3+d2\sigma }.$$
(7)
The second method applied to the NKPZ equation is an improved version of the mode-coupling approach. More precisely, it is a solution of the mode-coupling equations using an improved ansatz that describes correctly the asymptotic behavior of the solution. This approach was first proposed by Colaiori and Moore Moore01 , and applied by Hu and Tang Hu02  to the nonlocal case. The strong-coupling exponents using this method are obtained by a numerical solution of the following set of transcendental equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{PAS_d^{}}{B}}={\displaystyle \frac{d\left(2z\right)}{\pi z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{2\rho }}{BI(B,z,\rho )}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{PAS_d^{}}{B^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \left(\beta z\right)}{\pi z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\left(2z\beta \right)\mathrm{/}\beta +2\rho }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{2z\beta }{\beta }\right)\mathrm{/}\beta }}`$ (8)
where $`S_d^{}=_0^\pi \mathrm{sin}^{d2}\theta d\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(u\right)`$ is Euler’s gamma function, $`\beta =d+42z2\rho `$, $`B=\frac{1}{2\left(2z\right)}`$ and $`I(B,z,\rho )=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\rho 2s^2\right)s^{2z3}\mathrm{exp}\left(B^{\beta \mathrm{/}z}s^\beta s^2\right)𝑑s`$. Such a numerical solution for $`z`$ as a function of $`\rho `$ for $`d=1,2,3`$ is presented in FIG 1 of ref. Hu02 .

While these two results look reasonable, in the sense that both do not develop any singularity as a function of $`\rho `$, and at least the first one (given by eq. (7)) describes a non-increasing dynamical exponent, it turns out that both results are still incompatible with the exact result of $`z=(33\rho )\mathrm{/}2`$ (given by eq. (6)). In addition, the mode-coupling solution has a peak for $`d>1`$ meaning that the dynamic exponent $`z`$ is not monotonous as a function of $`\rho `$ that is expected from general considerations. Therefore, there is still a need for a reliable method to tackle this problem. The reasons given above motivated the analysis presented in this paper.

## III The Self Consistent Expansion

In this paper I apply a method developed by Schwartz and Edwards SE92 ; SE98 ; katzav99  (also known as the Self-Consistent-Expansion (SCE) approach). This method has been previously applied successfully to the KPZ equation. The method gained much credit by being able to give a sensible prediction for the KPZ critical exponents in the strong coupling phase for $`d>1`$, where, as previously mentioned, many Renormalization-Group (RG) approaches failed (as well as DRG of course). It also produces the exact one-dimensional result. I will show that in contrast to DRG, the experimental result $`\alpha =0.71`$ is accounted for, when using the SCE, by a positive $`\rho `$. Furthermore, I will show that the SCE method yields the exact result, for the specific sub-family of models that can be solved exactly in one dimension - where other methods fail. In addition, solutions for any $`d,\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ are obtained. These solutions are consistent with the expected qualitative scenario presented above.

As will be seen immediately, another remarkable advantage of the SCE method is the minor changes needed in order to generalize the result of local KPZ with uncorrelated noise to include nonlocal interactions as well as spatially correlations in the noise. The above implies a second important motivation for this paper, namely a demonstration of the robustness of the SCE method as well as its mathematical coherence and consistency.

The SCE method is based on going over from the Fourier transform of the equation in Langevin form to a Fokker-Planck form and constructing a self-consistent expansion of the distribution of the field concerned.

The expansion is formulated in terms of $`\varphi _q`$ and $`\omega _q`$, where $`\varphi _q`$ is the two-point function in momentum space, defined by $`\varphi _q=h_qh_q_S`$, (the subscript S denotes steady state averaging), and $`\omega _q`$ is the characteristic frequency associated with each mode.

It is generally expected that for small enough $`q`$, $`\varphi _q`$ and $`\omega _q`$ are power laws in $`q`$,

$$\varphi _q=Aq^\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(9)
and

$$\omega _q=Bq^z,$$
(10)
where $`z`$ is just the dynamic exponent, and the exponent $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is related to the roughness exponent $`\alpha `$ by

$$\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }d}{2}.$$
(11)
The method produces, to second order in this expansion, two nonlinear coupled integral equations in $`\varphi _q`$ and $`\omega _q`$, that can be solved exactly in the asymptotic limit to yield the required scaling exponents governing the steady state behavior and the time evolution.

In the following I will find the critical exponents of the NKPZ equation with spatially correlated noise. I consider the NKPZ equation (eq. (3)) in Fourier components

$$\frac{h_q}{t}=\nu _qh_q\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}M_{q\mathrm{}m}h_{\mathrm{}}h_m+\eta _q,$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the volume of the system, to be taken eventually to infinity and $`\eta _q`$ is the noise term that satisfies:

$$\eta _q\left(t\right)=0,$$
(13)
$$\eta _q\left(t\right)\eta _q^{}\left(t^{}\right)=2D_q\delta ^d\left(\stackrel{}{q}+\stackrel{}{q}^{}\right)\delta \left(tt^{}\right),$$
(14)
and $`M_{q\mathrm{}m}`$, $`\nu _q`$ and $`D_q`$ are defined by

$`M_{q\mathrm{}m}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\rho }{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}q^\rho \left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{}{m}\right)\delta _{q,\mathrm{}+m}`$
$`\nu _q`$ $`=`$ $`\nu q^2`$
$`D_q`$ $`=`$ $`D_0q^{2\sigma }.`$ (15)
Thus, the NKPZ equation is of the general form discussed in refs. SE92 ; SE98 , where the SCE is derived. Working to second order in the expansion, this yields the two coupled non-linear equations

$$D_q\nu _q\varphi _q+2\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}\frac{M_{q\mathrm{}m}M_{q\mathrm{}m}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _m}{\omega _q+\omega _{\mathrm{}}+\omega _m}2\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}\frac{M_{q\mathrm{}m}M_{\mathrm{}mq}\varphi _m\varphi _q}{\omega _q+\omega _{\mathrm{}}+\omega _m}2\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}\frac{M_{q\mathrm{}m}M_{m\mathrm{}q}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _q}{\omega _q+\omega _{\mathrm{}}+\omega _m}=0,$$
(16)
and

$$\nu _q\omega _q2\underset{\mathrm{},m}{}M_{q\mathrm{}m}\frac{M_{\mathrm{}mq}\varphi _m+M_{m\mathrm{}q}\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\omega _{\mathrm{}}+\omega _m}=0,$$
(17)
where in deriving the last equation I have used the Herring consistency equation Herring . In fact Herring’s definition of $`\omega _q`$ is one of many possibilities, each leading to a different consistency equation. But it can be shown, as previously done in SE98 , that this does not affect the exponents (universality).

A detailed solution of equations (16) and (17) in the limit of small $`q^{}s`$ (i.e. large scales) is performed (as in refs. katzav99 ; SE98 ), and yields a very rich family of solutions for any $`d,\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. These solutions are given in Table 1. However, before getting into all the details let me focus on the strong coupling non-power counting solution obtained by SCE. The reason for focusing on this solution is that it is interesting to compare it with the solutions obtained by other methods, and with the experimental results. This solution is determined from the combination of the scaling relation $`z=\frac{d+4\mathrm{\Gamma }2\rho }{2}`$, obtained from eq. (17), and the transcendental equation$`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,\rho )=0`$, where F is given by

$`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,\rho )=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle d^dt\frac{\stackrel{}{t}\left(\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right)}{t^z+\left|\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right|^z+1}\left[\left(\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right)\left|\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right|^\rho t^\mathrm{\Gamma }+\widehat{e}\left(\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right)t^\rho \left|\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right|^\mathrm{\Gamma }\right]}+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dt\frac{\left[\stackrel{}{t}\left(\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right)\right]^2}{t^z+\left|\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right|^z+1}t^\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|\widehat{e}\stackrel{}{t}\right|^\mathrm{\Gamma }},`$ (18)
and $`\widehat{e}`$ is a unit vector in an arbitrary direction.

This solution is valid as long as it satisfies the following conditions: $`d<3\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )4+\mathrm{min}\{2\rho 4\sigma ,2\rho \}`$ and $`d<\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )2\left|\rho \right|`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )`$ is the numerical solution of the equation $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z,\rho )=0`$ \- when such a solution exists (how to obtain the conditions above see ref. SE98 ).

It turns out that for $`d=1`$ the equation $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right),\rho )=0`$ is exactly solvable for any $`\rho `$, and yields $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2+\rho `$ and $`z=\frac{33\rho }{2}`$ (it can be checked immediately by direct substitution). In this case the three validity conditions read $`1\mathrm{/}3<\rho <1`$ and $`\rho >\frac{4\sigma 1}{5}`$. By using eq. (11) I translate the results into $`\alpha =\frac{\rho +1}{2}`$ and $`z=\frac{33\rho }{2}`$. It is straightforward to check that this solution reduces to the exact KPZ results of $`\alpha =1\mathrm{/}2`$ and $`z=3\mathrm{/}2`$ in the limit of $`\rho =0`$. Moreover, this solution recovers the exact solution obtained in ref. NKPZ02 , and by doing that clearly does better than all the other results presented above (eqs. (5),(7) and (8)).

It should also be mentioned that for $`d2`$ such an exact solution for $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right),\rho )=0`$ as a closed analytical expression cannot be found, and one has to solve numerically the equation in order to find $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )`$ (such results are presented below).

As can be appreciated, the full description of the results given in TABLE 1 is quite rich and may look confusing. In order to gain more insight into this seemingly long list of possible phases I concentrate on the case of white noise $`\left(\sigma =0\right)`$, and I describe all the possible phases (as a function of $`\rho `$) for $`d=1,2,3`$.

In one dimension, the following scaling exponents are obtained:

$$z=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho <\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ \frac{52\rho }{3}\frac{1}{2}<\rho <\frac{1}{5}\hfill \\ \frac{33\rho }{2}\frac{1}{5}<\rho <1\hfill \\ 22\rho \rho >1\hfill \end{array}and\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho <\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ \frac{52\rho }{3}\frac{1}{2}<\rho <\frac{1}{5}\hfill \\ 2+\rho \frac{1}{5}<\rho <1\hfill \\ 2\rho >1\hfill \end{array}.$$
(19)
It can be seen that the dynamic exponent obtained using SCE is continuous, has no singularities and is non-increasing as a function of $`\rho `$. In addition, the intuition that the scaling exponents of the linear theory should appear in the limit of very small $`\rho ^{}s`$ is verified and specified, namely for $`\rho \frac{1}{2}`$ the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) exponents of $`z=2`$ and $`\alpha =1\mathrm{/}2`$ are obtained.

An important observation regarding the one-dimensional results is that for every region of $`\rho ^{}s`$, well defined values of $`z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are obtained, so that only one phase is possible when $`\rho `$ is specified, and no phase transition as a function of the dimensionless coupling constant (that is defined by $`g^2=\frac{\lambda ^2D}{\nu ^3}`$) exists.

In two dimensions, the following scaling exponents are obtained:

$$z=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho <0\hfill \\ 22\rho \rho >0\hfill \\ \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2,\rho )}{2}+2\rho \rho _2^{\mathrm{}}<\rho <\rho _2^u\hfill \end{array}and\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho <0\hfill \\ 2\rho >0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2,\rho )\rho _2^{\mathrm{}}<\rho <\rho _2^u\hfill \end{array},$$
(20)
where $`\rho _2^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\rho _2^u`$ are the lower and upper bounds on $`\rho `$ (respectively) for which a solution for the transcendental equation $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right),\rho )=0`$ yields a dynamic exponent that does not exceed $`z=2`$ and $`z=22\rho `$. To be more specific, $`\rho _2^{\mathrm{}}=0.395`$ and $`\rho _2^u=0.305`$ (the dynamic exponent is also presented in FIG. 1 (b)).

An important observation regarding the two-dimensional result is that for values of $`\rho `$ within the region $`\rho _2^{\mathrm{}}<\rho <\rho _2^u`$ there are two possible solutions (except for $`\rho =0`$). This can be easily seen in FIG. 1 (b) - where two branches appear in that region. This means that a phase transition is possible, as a function of the strength of the dimensionless coupling constant in the theory, between a weak coupling solution (the upper branch in the figure) and a strong coupling solution (the lower branch in the figure).

This phenomenon is surprising in view of the known fact that $`d=2`$ is the lower critical dimension of the local KPZ theory. This means that for dimensions higher than $`2`$ a phase transition becomes possible in the local problem, but in 2D is only the strong coupling phase. This fact is indeed respected by the results presented above, because for $`\rho =0`$ (that corresponds to the local theory) such a phase transition is not possible. However, surprisingly if one takes either positive or negative $`\rho `$’s (even slightly higher or lower than zero) such a phase transition becomes possible. This finding is explained by the fact that the lower critical dimension is lowered in the presence of long-range interactions. The key point is that for positive $`\rho `$’s ($`\rho >0`$) the relevant ”weak coupling” phase is a phase with a dynamic exponent of $`z=22\rho `$, and this phase becomes possible for $`d>2\rho `$. In addition, for negative $`\rho `$’s ($`\rho <0`$), a different ”weak coupling” solution is possible - this one with a dynamic exponent of $`z=2`$, and this phase becomes possible for $`d>2+2\rho =22|\rho |`$. Therefore, once we encounter a non-zero $`\rho `$ the lower critical dimension is reduced (for two different reasons), and one of the weak coupling solutions becomes possible. In that case, a phase transition can also take place.

In more than two dimensions, the scaling exponents follow the scheme:

$$z=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho 0\hfill \\ 22\rho \rho >0\hfill \\ \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )}{2}+2\rho \rho _d^{\mathrm{}}<\rho <\rho _d^u\hfill \end{array}and\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\begin{array}{c}2\rho 0\hfill \\ 2\rho >0\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_0(d,\rho )\rho _d^{\mathrm{}}<\rho <\rho _d^u\hfill \end{array},$$
(21)
whenever a solution for $`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },z\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\right),\rho )=0`$ exists. Notice a difference from the two-dimensional case in that the weak-coupling exponents are also possible when $`\rho =0`$. I have performed the detailed calculation for $`d=3`$, and it is shown in FIG. 1 (c) (where $`\rho _3^{\mathrm{}}=0.016`$ and $`\rho _3^u=0.246`$). It can be seen that no big quantitative difference from the two-dimensional case is present.

## IV Discussion

The results I obtained using the self-consistent expansion (SCE) are obviously different from those obtained by all the other methods. First, the SCE is able to reproduce the exact one-dimensional result, where all the other methods fail. Second, the SCE results are compatible with the expected behavior of the dynamic exponent for $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ (i.e. recovery of the EW exponents) as well as with the expected non-increasing behavior of the dynamic exponent as a function of $`\rho `$. None of the other results mentioned before recover the EW behavior for large negative $`\rho ^{}s`$, and only one such result shows a non-increasing behavior of the dynamic exponent as a function of $`\rho `$ \- namely the result presented in ref. Tang01 .

At this point, it might be interesting to return to the experimental result of refs. Lei96 -Zhang92  that were discussed previously, and to discuss them in view of the new results derived here. It turns out that the SCE method yields $`\rho =0.42`$ $`\left(\rho =2\alpha 1\right)`$ for the case of $`\alpha =0.71`$ (at least if the noise is white, or more precisely if the exponent that describes the decay of spatial correlations $`\sigma `$ is not large). This result is physically more reasonable than the result $`\rho =0.12`$ suggested in ref. Mukh97 . In addition, since $`\rho >0`$, it does not require to impose the strict requirement $`\lambda _0=0`$, that is also problematic physically.

It remains a mystery why all the methods that were mentioned at the beginning of the paper failed to reproduce the exact one-dimensional result, while they all yield the exact result for the local KPZ case ($`\rho =0`$). The answer to this puzzle lies, in my opinion, in the fact that all those methods fail to notice that the nonlocal nonlinearity generates a nonlocal relaxation term under renormalization. This means that once a nonlocal nonlinearity is introduced into the equation, effectively a certain fractional Laplacian is present as well. This fact can be observed when applying the SCE method, in the ”one-step renormalization stage” that is part of the solution (see for example eqs. (6.8)-(6.10) in ref. SE98 ). Then, in addition to the $`q^2`$-relaxation term a $`q^{22\rho }`$-relaxation term appears, and it obviously dominates the dynamics in the large-scale limit (i.e. $`q0`$ limit) when $`\rho >0`$. I think that the failure to realize this fact prevented the other methods from recovering the exact one-dimensional result.

The last statement can be checked for the methods mentioned above. My prediction is that if one adds by hand the correct relaxational term, namely $`q^{22\rho }`$, then at least in one dimension the right answer will be obtained for the nonlocal model as well. This idea suggests another important advantage of SCE, since a straightforward application of SCE yields the extra fractional Laplacian, and it does not have to be thought of and added beforehand.

## V Conclusions

In this paper several results for the nonlocal Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation have been discussed. It has been shown that those theoretical predictions for the scaling exponents of the NKPZ equation are inconsistent with a recent one-dimensional exact result NKPZ02  that is possible for that model. I also claimed that these predictions are not compatible with the expected behavior for the dynamic exponent $`z`$ as a function of the nonlocal parameter $`\rho `$ from general considerations presented above.

Then, in order to derive reliable results that are consistent with the exact one-dimensional result an alternative method, namely the self-consistent expansion (SCE), has been used. The results obtained using SCE were also consistent with the expected $`\rho `$-dependence of the dynamic exponent. In addition, the SCE is able to give sensible predictions for higher dimensions, as well as for any value of $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$. All the possible phases found using SCE are summarized in Table I.

I then discuss the implication of this calculation to certain experimental results Lei96 -Zhang92  that might be well described by a NKPZ model. At the end I also discuss possible reasons for the failure of all the other methods to recover the exact one-dimensional result, and to yield sensible predictions, namely the generation of a fraction Laplacian term in the equation under renormalization. This observation may trigger future work on the ”fixed” NKPZ model that includes such a term from the beginning, using methods such as mode-coupling. It would then be very interesting to compare between the various results in higher dimensions.

This situation, along with previous results obtained in SE92 ; SE98 ; katzav99 , suggest that the SCE method is generally a successful method when dealing with such non-linear Langevin equations.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Moshe Schwartz for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Globular Clusters around Galaxies in Groups

## 1. Introduction

The properties of extragalactic globular cluster systems (GCS) – specific frequency, color distribution and radial profile shape – may be expected to vary as a function of the environment of the host galaxy.

The main goal of this work is to determine the properties of the globular cluster systems of two galaxies in small groups: the central elliptical galaxy in HCG 22 (NGC 1199) and the suspected merger in the center of the Telescopium group (NGC 6868) (Hansen, Jørgensen & Nørgaard-Nielsen, 1991).

We assume distance moduli of $`(mM)_V=32.6`$ and $`32.1`$ for NGC 1199 and NGC 6868 respectively as determined from surface-brightness fluctuations Tonry et al. (2001).

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

The images of HCG 22 were obtained with the Keck II telescope, using LRIS, in $`B`$ and $`R`$ with total exposure times of 720 and 630 seconds and average seeing of 0.77 and 0.74 arcsec respectively. The NGC 6868 images were obtained with the VLT/ESO, using FORS1, in $`B`$ and $`R`$ with total exposure times of 900 and 810 seconds and average seeing of 0.76 and 0.73 arcsec respectively. Images in $`B`$ and $`R`$ of similar depth were obtained centered on a position 10 from the galaxy center to be used as control field for background subtraction.

The light profile of the bright galaxies was modeled with ELLIPSE/STSDAS and we used for SExtractor (Bertin & Arnouts, 1996) for detection and photometry of the faint objects.

## 3. Specific Frequency and Radial Profile Modeling

In order to calculate the specific frequency, the observed number counts were corrected by the lost area due to masks and unobserved regions. We fit a Gaussian ($`M_V=7.6`$ and $`\sigma =1.18`$, Drenkhahn & Richtler, 1999), to the bright, measured GCLF and extrapolate the number of GC’s over all magnitudes in our systems. Those counts were used as boundary conditions to integrate the radial profile models and we obtained the total number of objects in the GCS’s.

We tried two kinds of radial profiles, a “core model” profile ($`\rho =\rho _0(r_c^\alpha +r^\alpha )^1`$) with the core radius proposed by Forbes et al. (1996) ($`r_c(kpc)=(0.62\pm 0.1)M_V11.0`$) and a power–law profile ($`\rho r^\alpha `$).

For NGC 1199 the slope of the power–law profile is –2.4. This slope is very steep, leading to unrealistic values. Using this slope for the outer region of the “core model” we estimated a $`S_N=1.7\pm 0.6`$, which is smaller than the mean value found for a typical small group elliptical (Harris, 1991, gives $`2.6\pm 0.5`$), but still in agreement within the errorbars. For NGC 6868 the slope of the power–law is –1.4. We estimated $`S_N=1.4\pm 0.6`$ with this profile. The “core model”, with the same slope, gives us $`S_N=1.3\pm 0.6`$. Those estimates are a factor of two smaller than typical indicating a poor system around this galaxy. The radial profiles for both galaxies and the best–fit power–law and “core model” are shown in figure 1.

## 4. Color Distribution

The KMM test (Ashman, Bird & Zepf, 1994) was used to estimate the parameters of the color distributions. We have detected bimodal populations for both galaxies with 100% confidence level. The peaks are located at $`(BR)_0=1.13\pm 0.10`$ and $`1.42\pm 0.10`$ for NGC 1199 and $`(BR)_0=1.12\pm 0.10`$ and $`1.42\pm 0.10`$ for NGC 6868. Using Reed, Harris & Harris (1994) color–metallicity relation, we have $`[Fe/H]=1.45\pm 0.23dex`$ and $`0.55\pm 0.23dex`$ for the blue and red peaks of NGC 1199, respectively and $`[Fe/H]=1.48\pm 0.23dex`$ and $`0.55\pm 0.23dex`$ for the blue and red peaks of NGC 6868, respectively.

### Acknowledgments.

This work is supported by FAPESP PhD. grant No. 96/08986–5 and Pronex NExGAL.

## References

Ashman, K. M., Bird, C. M. & Zepf, S. E. 1994, AJ, 108, 2348

Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&A, 117, 393

Drenkhahn, G. & Richtler, T. 1999, A&A, 349, 877

Forbes, D. A., Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D. & Carollo, C. M. 1996, ApJ, 467, 126

Hansen, L., Jørgensen, H. E. & Nørgaard-Nielsen, H. U. 1991, A&A, 243, 49

Harris, W. E. 1991, ARA&A, 29, 543

Reed, L. G., Harris, G. L. H. & Harris, W. E. 1994, AJ, 107, 555

Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J. P., Ajhar, E. A., Fletcher, A. B., Luppino, G. A., Metzger, M. R. & Moore, C. B. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681


text:
# Observation of Quantum Shock Waves Created with Ultra Compressed Slow Light Pulses in a Bose-Einstein Condensate

## References

1. R.J. Donnelly, Quantized vortices in Helium II (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1991).
2. R.M. Bowley, J. Low Temp. Phys. 87, 137 (1992).
3. L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon Press, New York, 1959).
4. A.L. Fetter, in Bose-Einstein Condensation in Atomic Gases, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, Course CXL, M. Inguscio, S. Stringari, C. Wieman, Eds. (International Organisations Services B.V., Amsterdam, 1999).
5. For a review, see F. Dalfovo, S. Giorgini, L.P. Pitaevskii, S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 463 (1999).
6. M.R. Matthews et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2498 (1999).
7. S. Burger, K. Bongs, S. Dettmer, W. Ertmer, K. Sengstock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5198 (1999).
8. J. Denschlag et al., Science 287, 97 (2000).
9. B.P. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2926 (2001).
10. K.W. Madison, F. Chevy, W. Wohlleben, J.Dalibard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 806 (2000).
11. J.R. Abo-Shaeer, C. Raman, J.M. Vogels, W. Ketterle, Science 292, 476 (2001).
12. C. Raman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2502 (1999).
13. B. Jackson, J.F. McCann, C.S. Adams, Phys. Rev. A 61, 051603(R) (2000).
14. L.V. Hau, S.E. Harris, Z. Dutton, C.H. Behroozi, Nature 397, 594 (1999).
15. S.E. Harris, Physics Today 50, 36 (1997).
16. M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).
17. S.E. Harris and L.V. Hau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4611 (1999).
18. S.A. Morgan, R.J. Ballagh, K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. A 55, 4338 (1997).
19. W.P. Reinhardt and C.W. Clark, J. Phys. B 30, L785 (1997).
20. Th. Busch and J.R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2298 (2000).
21. B.B. Kadomtsev and V.I. Petviashvili, Sov. Phys. Dokl. 15, 539 (1970).
22. C.A. Jones, S.J. Putterman, P.H. Roberts, J. Phys. A 19, 2991 (1986).
23. C. Josserand and Y. Pomeau, Europhys. Lett. 30, 43 (1995).
24. D.L. Feder, M.S. Pindzola, L.A. Collins, B.I. Schneider, C.W. Clark, Phys. Rev. A 62, 053606 (2000).
25. A.V. Mamaev, M. Saffman, A.A. Zozulya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2262 (1996).
26. L.V. Hau et al., Phys. Rev. A 58, R54 (1998).
27. We use the definition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=𝐄_{p0}𝐝_{13},\mathrm{\Omega }_c=𝐄_{c0}𝐝_{23}`$, where $`𝐄_{p0},𝐄_{c0}`$ are the slowly varying electric field amplitudes, and $`𝐝_{13},𝐝_{23}`$ are the electric dipole matrix elements of the transitions.
28. S.E. Harris, J.E. Field, A. Kasapi, Phys. Rev. A 46, R29 (1992).
29. C. Liu, Z. Dutton, C.H. Behroozi, L.V. Hau, Nature 409, 490 (2001).
30. J.P. Burke, C.H. Greene, J.L Bohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3355 (1998). A Mathematica notebook is available at http://fermion.colorado.edu/$``$chg/Collisions/.
31. J. Javanainen and J. Ruostekoski, Phys. Rev. A 52 3033 (1995).
32. Y.B. Band, M.Tribbenbach, J.P. Burke, P.S. Julienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5462 (2000).
33. W. H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, B.P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C, Second Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
34. S.E. Koonin and D.C. Merideth, Computational Physics, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1990).
35. For propagation of the GP equation in 1D, we typically used a spatial grid with 4000 points and $`dz=0.040\mu `$m. In 2D simulations, we typically used a $`750\times 750`$ grid with $`dz=0.21\mu `$m and $`dx=0.057\mu `$m. To solve the equations self-consistently, we kept track of the wave functions at previous time points and projected forward to second order. Smaller time steps and grid spacing were also used to assure convergence of the results. To mimic the nonlinear interaction strength at the center of a three dimensional cloud we put in an effective condensate radius (calculated with the Thomas-Fermi approximation (39)) in the dimensions which were not treated dynamically. In all calculations, the initial condition was the ground state condensate wave function with all atoms in $`|1`$, obtained by propagating a Thomas-Fermi wave function in imaginary time.
36. M.R. Andrews, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 553 (1997).
37. M.R. Andrews et al., Science 275, 637 (1997).
38. F. Dalfavo and M. Modugno, Phys. Rev. A 61, 023605 (2000).
39. G. Baym and C. Pethick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 6 (1996).
40. Supplementary material is available at Science Online at www.sciencemag.org.
41. This work was supported by the Rowland Institute for Science, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the U.S. Airforce Office of Scientific Research, the U.S. Army Research Office OSD Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative Program, the Harvard Materials Research Science and Engineering Center sponsored by the National Science Foundation, and by the Carlsberg Foundation, Denmark. C.S. is supported by a National Defense Science and Engineering Grant sponsored by the Department of Defense.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1. (A) Compression of a probe pulse at the light ’roadblock’, according to 2D numerical simulations of Eqs. 3 and 4. The solid curves indicate probe intensity profiles along $`z`$ (at $`x=0`$), normalized to the peak input intensity. The snapshots are taken at a sequence of times, indicated in the figure, where $`t=0`$ is defined as the time when the center of the probe pulse enters the BEC from the left. For reference, the atomic density profile of the original condensate is plotted (in arbitrary units) as a dashed curve. The gray shading indicates the relative coupling input intensity as a function of $`z`$, with white corresponding to full intensity, and the darkest shade of gray corresponding to zero. The spatial turn off of the coupling field is centered at $`z=0`$ and occurs over $`12\mu `$m, as in the experiment. The number of condensate atoms is $`1.2\times 10^6`$ atoms, the peak density is $`6.9\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, and the coupling Rabi frequency is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=(2\pi )8.0`$ MHz. The probe pulse has a peak Rabi frequency of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=(2\pi )2.5`$ MHz and a $`1/e`$ half-width of $`\tau =1.3\mu `$s. (B) Creation of a narrow density defect in a BEC. Density profiles of the two condensate components, $`N_c|\psi _1|^2`$ (dashed) and $`N_c|\psi _2|^2`$ (solid), along $`z`$ at $`x=0`$ for a sequence of times. Note that the $`z`$ range of the plot is restricted to a narrow region around the roadblock at the cloud center. The densities are normalized relative to the peak density of the original condensate indicated by the red dashed curve. The other curves correspond to times $`1\mu `$s (green), $`4\mu `$s (blue), and $`14\mu `$s (black). The width of the probe pulse is $`\tau =4\mu `$s and the other parameters are the same as in (A). An animated version is provided in the supplemental material (40) as Animation 1.
Fig. 2. (A) Experimental in-trap OD image of a typical BEC before illumination by the probe pulse and coupling field. The condensate contains $`1.5\times 10^6`$ atoms. The imaging beam was -30 MHz detuned from the $`|1|3P_{1/2},F=2,M_F=1`$ transition. (B) Top view of the beam configuration used to create and study localized defects in a BEC as discussed in the text. (C) Build up of state $`|2`$ atoms at the road block. In-trap OD images (left) show the transfer of atoms from $`|1`$ to $`|2`$ as the probe pulse propagates through the condensate and runs into the roadblock. The atoms in $`|2`$ were imaged with a laser beam -13 MHz detuned from the $`|2|3P_{3/2},F=3,M_F=2`$ transition. To allow imaging, the probe pulse propagation was stopped at various times, indicated in the figure, by switching the coupling beam off (29). The figures on the right show the corresponding line cuts along the probe propagation direction through the center of the BEC. The probe pulse had a Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=(2\pi )2.4`$ MHz and the coupling Rabi frequency was $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=(2\pi )14.6`$ MHz.
Fig. 3. (A) Formation of solitons from a density defect. The plots show results of a 1D numerical simulation of Eqs. 3 and 4. The light roadblock forms a defect and the subsequent formation of solitons is seen. The defect is set up with the same parameters for the light fields as in Fig. 1B. The number of condensate atoms is $`N_c=1.2\times 10^6`$ and the peak density is $`7.5\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. The times in the plots indicate the evolution time relative to the time when the probe pulse stops at the roadblock and the coupling beam is switched off (at $`t=8\mu \mathrm{s}`$ with $`t=0`$ as defined in Fig. 1A). The solid and dashed curves show the densities of $`|1`$ atoms ($`N_c|\psi _1|^2`$) and $`|2`$ atoms ($`N_c|\psi _2|^2`$). The phase of $`\psi _1`$ is shown in each case with a dotted curve (with an arbitrary constant added for graphical clarity). In the first two frames, the $`|2`$ atoms quickly leave due to the momentum recoil, leaving a large-amplitude, narrow defect in $`\psi _1`$ (Because this is a 1D simulation, the momentum kick in the $`x`$ direction is ignored). (B) The snake instability and the nucleation of vortices. The plots show the density $`N_c|\psi _1|^2`$ from a numerical simulation in 2D, with white corresponding to zero density and black to the peak density ($`6.9\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^3`$). The parameters are the same as in Fig. 1B and the times indicated are relative to the coupling beam turn-off at $`t=21\mu \mathrm{s}`$. The solitons curl about their deepest point, eventually breaking and forming vortex pairs of opposite circulation (seen first at 3.5 ms). Several vortices are formed and the last frame shows the vortices slowly moving towards the edge of the condensate. At later times, they interact with sound waves which have reflected off the condensate boundaries. Animated versions (Animations 2 and 3) are provided in the supplemental material (40).
Fig. 4. Experimental OD images and line cuts (at $`x=0`$) of a localized defect (top) and the resulting formation of solitons (bottom) in a condensate of $`|1`$ atoms. The imaging beam was detuned $`30`$ MHz and $`20`$ MHz, respectively, from the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}S_{1/2},F=2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}P_{3/2},F=3`$ transition. Prior to imaging, the atoms were optically pumped to $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}S_{1/2},F=2`$ for $`10\mu \mathrm{s}`$. The probe pulse had a peak Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=(2\pi )2.4`$ MHz. The coupling laser had a Rabi frequency of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=(2\pi )14.9`$ MHz, was turned on $`6\mu \mathrm{s}`$ before the probe pulse maximum, and had a duration of $`18\mu \mathrm{s}`$.
Fig. 5. Experimental OD images of a $`|1`$ condensate, showing development of the snake instability and the nucleation of vortices. In each case, the BEC was allowed to evolve in the trap for a variable amount of time after defect creation. (A) The deepest soliton (nearest the condensate center) is observed to curl due to the snake instability and eventually break, nucleating vortices at 1.2 ms. Defects were produced in BECs with $`1.9\times 10^6`$ atoms by probe pulses with a peak $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=(2\pi )2.4`$ MHz, and a coupling laser with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=(2\pi )14.6`$ MHz. The imaging beam was $`5`$ MHz detuned from the $`|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}S_{1/2},F=2|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}P_{3/2},F=3`$ transition. (B) The snake instability and behavior of vortices at later times. The parameters in this series are the same as in (A), except that the peak $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p=(2\pi )2.0`$ MHz, the number of atoms in the BECs was $`1.4\times 10^6,`$ and the pictures were taken with the imaging beam on resonance.

## Animation Captions

Animation 1. An animation, based on 2D numerical calculations, showing creation of a narrow density defect in a BEC by the light roadblock. The parameters and conventions are the same as in Fig. 1B. Successive frames are spaced by $`1\mu `$s. The solid curve shows the build-up of $`|2`$ atoms as the probe pulse runs into the roadblock, and the dashed curve shows the corresponding depletion of the density of the condensate of $`|1`$ atoms.

Animation 2. Animation of 40 ms of BEC dynamics based on 1D numerical simulations. Parameters and conventions are the same as in Fig. 3A, but the phase is not plotted here. Successive frames are spaced by 0.25 ms. The animation shows a narrow density defect in the $`|1`$ condensate decaying into four solitons due to the steepening of the back edge of the sound waves. The high frequency ripples are due to the nonlinear part of the Bogoliubov dispersion curve. When the solitons reach a point where their amplitude, $`\beta `$, equals unity they turn around. Upon reaching the center of the condensate, they pass through each other unaffected.

Animation 3. Animation showing 30 ms of dynamics of the state $`|1`$ condensate, based on 2D numerical simulations. Parameters and conventions are the same as in Fig. 3B. (The plot range of each frame is $`96.8\mu `$m$`\times 31.2\mu `$m). Successive frames are spaced by 0.4 ms. The narrow density defect in the condensate decays into several solitons and the deepest solitons decay, via the snake instability, into vortices and release their remaining energy as sound waves. The vortices drift slowly, while some of the sound waves reflect off the condensate boundaries and subsequently interact with the vortices.


text:
# Theory of GRB Afterglow

## 1 Introduction

Our understanding of GRBs has been revolutionized by the BeppoSAX discovery of GRB afterglow. While GRBs last seconds or minutes the afterglow lasts days, weeks months or even years. This makes afterglow observations much richer. These observations provide us with multi-wavelength and multi-timescales data. At the same time the afterglow, which is a blast wave propagating into the surrounding matter is a much simpler phenomena than the GRB and it is possible to construct a simple theory that can be compared directly with the observations.

In this short review we describe the theory of GRB afterglow. We begin with the simplest idealized model and continue with various levels of complications. The final level is full numerical simulations. We present preliminary results of such simulations and compare them with analytic models. At present there is no simple analytic explanation for the features seen in the numerical results.

## 2 Spherical Hydrodynamics

The theory of relativistic blast waves has been worked out in a classical paper by Blandford & McKee (BM) already in 1976 BM76 . The BM model is a self-similar spherical solution describing an adiabatic ultra relativistic blast wave in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. The basic solution is a blast wave propagating into a constant density medium. However, Blandford and McKee also describe in the same paper a generalization for varying ambient mass density, $`\rho =AR^k`$, $`R`$ being the distance from the center. The latter case would be particularly relevant for $`k=2`$, as expected in the case of wind from a progenitor, prior to the GRB explosion.

The BM solution describes a narrow shell of width $`R/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, in which the shocked material is concentrated, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the typical Lorentz factor. The conditions in this shell can be approximated if we assume that the shell is homogeneous. Then the adiabatic energy conservation yields:

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{3k}AR^{3k}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c^2,$$
(1)
where $`E`$ is the energy of the blast wave and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle of the afterglow. For a full sphere $`\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi `$, but it can be smaller if the expansion is conical with an opening angle $`\theta `$: $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2\pi \theta ^2`$ (assuming a double sided jet).

A natural length scale, $`l=\left[(3k)E/\mathrm{\Omega }Ac^2\right]^{1/(3k)}`$, appears in equation 1. For a spherical blast wave $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not change with time, and when the blast wave reaches $`R=l`$ it collects ambient rest mass that equals its initial energy, the Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ drops to 1 and the blast wave becomes Newtonian. The BM solution is self-similar and assumes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$. Obviously, it breaks down when $`Rl`$. We therefore expect that a Relativistic-Newtonian transition should take place around $`t_{\mathrm{NR}}=l/c1.2\mathrm{yr}(E_{\mathrm{iso},52}/n_1)^{1/3}`$, where the scaling is for $`k=0`$, $`E_{52}`$ is the isotropic equivalent energy, $`E_{\mathrm{iso}}=4\pi E/\mathrm{\Omega }`$, in units of $`10^{52}\mathrm{ergs}`$ and $`n_1`$ is the external density in $`\mathrm{cm}^3`$. After this transition the solution will turn into the Newtonian Sedov-Tailor solution. Clearly this produces an achromatic break in the light curve.

The adiabatic approximation is valid for most of the duration of the fireball. However, during the first hour or so (or even for the first day, for $`k=2`$), the system could be radiative (provided that $`ϵ_e1`$). During a radiative phase the evolution can be approximated as:

$$E=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{3k}AR^{3k}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_0c^2,$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ is the initial Lorentz factor. Cohen, Piran & Sari CPS98  derived an analytic self-similar solution describing this phase. Cohen & Piran CP99  describe a solution for the case when energy is continuously added to the blast wave by the central engine, even during the afterglow phase. A self-similar solution arises if the additional energy deposition behaves like a power law. This would arise naturally in some models, e.g. in the pulsar like model Usov94 .

## 3 Spherical Afterglow Models

A good model for the observed emission from spherical blast waves can be obtained by adding synchrotron radiation to these hydrodynamic models. Sari, Piran & Narayan SPN98  used the simple adiabatic scaling (1) together with synchrotron radiation model and the relation between the observer time $`t`$, and $`R`$:

$$t=R/C_1c\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,$$
(3)
where $`C_1`$ is a constant that may vary from $`2`$ to $`16`$ Sari97 .

Assuming a powerlaw energy distribution of the shocked relativistic electrons: $`N(E_e)E_e^p`$, and that the electrons and the magnetic field energy densities are $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ times the total energy density, Sari, Piran & Narayan SPN98  estimate the observed emission as a series of power law segments (PLSs), where

$$F_\nu t^\alpha \nu ^\beta ,$$
(4)
that are separated by break frequencies, across which the exponents of these power laws change: the cooling frequency, $`\nu _c`$, the typical synchrotron frequency $`\nu _m`$ and the self absorption frequency $`\nu _{sa}`$. The analytic calculations were done for a homogeneous shell and for emission from a single representative point. At a specific frequency one will observe a break in the light curve when one of these break frequencies passes the observed frequency. An intriguing feature of this model is that for a given PLS, say for emission above the cooling frequency, there is a unique relation between $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`p`$. The power law index $`p`$ is expected to be a universal quantity as it depends on the, presumably common, acceleration processes and it is expected to be between 2 and 2.5 SP97 . The consistency of those observed parameters could be a simple check of the theory.

The simple solution, that is based on a homogeneous shell approximation, can modified by using the full BM solution and integrating over the entire volume of shocked fluid GPS99 . Such an integration can be done only numerically. It yields a smoother spectrum and light curve near the break frequencies, but the asymptotic slopes, away from the break frequencies and the transition times, remain the same as in the simpler theory.

Chevalier & Lee CheLi99  estimated the emission from a blast wave propagating into a wind profile $`n(R)R^2`$. They use equation (1) and calculate the synchrotron emission from a single representative point. This leads to different temporal scalings $`\alpha `$ of the PLSs, while the spectral indices $`\beta `$ remain the same, since they are independent of the hydrodynamic solution. This results in different relations between $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`p`$, providing in principle a way to distinguish between different neighborhoods of GRBs and between different progenitor models.

Another modification to the ”standard” model arises from a variation of the emission process. Sari & Esin SariEsin01  considered the influence of Inverse Compton on the observed spectrum. They find that in some cases the additional cooling channel might have a significant effect on the observed spectrum and light curves.

## 4 Jets

The afterglow theory becomes much more complicated if the relativistic ejecta is not spherical. To model jetted afterglows we consider relativistic matter ejected into a cone of opening angle $`\theta `$. Initially, as long as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta ^1`$ Pi94  the motion would be almost conical. There isn’t enough time, in the blast wave’s rest frame, for the matter to be affected by the non spherical geometry, and the blast wave will behave as if it was a part of a sphere. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=C_2\theta ^1`$, namely at111The exact values of the uncertain constants $`C_2`$ and $`C_1`$ are extremely important as they determine the jet opening angle (and hence the total energy of the GRB) from the observed breaks, interpreted as $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, in the afterglow light curves.:

$$t_{\mathrm{jet}}=\frac{1}{C_1}\left(\frac{l}{c}\right)\left(\frac{\theta }{C_2}\right)^{\frac{2(4k)}{(3k)}}=\frac{1\mathrm{day}}{C_1C_2^{8/3}}\left(\frac{E_{\mathrm{iso},52}}{n_1}\right)^{1/3}\left(\frac{\theta }{0.1}\right)^{8/3},$$
(5)
rapid sideway propagation begins. The last equality holds, of course for $`k=0`$.

The sideways expansion continues with $`\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$. Plugging this relations in equation (1) we find that $`R\mathrm{const}.`$ This is obviously impossible. A more detailed analysis Rhoads99 ; Pi00 ; KP00  reveals that according to the simple one dimensional analytic models $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ decreases exponentially with $`R`$ on a very short length scale.222Note that the exponential behavior is obtained after converting equation 1 to a differential equation and integrating over it. Different approximations used in deriving the differential equation lead to slightly different exponential behavior, see Pi00 .

The sideways expansion causes a change in the hydrodynamic behavior and hence a break in the light curve. Additionally, when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta ^1`$ relativistic beaming of light will become less effective. This would cause an extra spreading of the emission (that was previously focused into a narrow angle $`\theta `$ and is now focused into a larger cone of opening angle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$). If the sideways expansion is at the speed of light than both transitions would take place at the same time SPH99 . If the sideways expansion is at the sound speed then the beaming transition would take place first and only later the hydrodynamic transition would occur PM99 . This would cause a slower and wider transition with two distinct breaks, the first and steeper break when the edge of the jet becomes visible and later a shallower break when sideways expansion becomes important.

The analytic or semi-analytic calculations of synchrotron radiation from jetted afterglows Rhoads99 ; SPH99 ; PM99 ; MSB00 ; KP00  have led to different estimates of the jet break time $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and of the duration of the transition. Rhoads Rhoads99  calculated the light curves assuming emission from one representative point, and obtained a smooth ’jet break’, extending $`34`$ decades in time, after which $`F_{\nu >\nu _m}t^p`$. Sari Piran & Halpern SPH99  assume that the sideway expansion is at the speed of light, and not at the speed of sound ($`c/\sqrt{3}`$) as others assume, and find a smaller value for $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$. Panaitescu and Mészáros PM99  included the effects of geometrical curvature and finite width of the emitting shell, along with electron cooling, and obtained a relatively sharp break, extending $`12`$ decades in time, in the optical light curve. Moderski, Sikora and Bulik MSB00  used a slightly different dynamical model, and a different formalism for the evolution of the electron distribution, and obtained that the change in the temporal index $`\alpha `$ ($`F_\nu t^\alpha `$) across the break is smaller than in analytic estimates ($`\alpha =2`$ after the break for $`\nu >\nu _m`$, $`p=2.4`$), while the break extends over two decades in time. Kumar and Panaitescu KP00  find that for a homogeneous (or stellar wind) environment there is a steepening of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha 0.7`$ ($`0.4`$) when the edge of the jet becomes visible, while the steepening due to sideways expansion extends over 2 (4) decades in time. They conclude that a jet running into a stellar wind will not leave a prominent detectable signature in the light curve.

The different analytic or semi-analytic models have different predictions for the sharpness of the ’jet break’, the change in the temporal decay index $`\alpha `$ across the break and its asymptotic value after the break, or even the very existence a ’jet break’ HDL00 . All these models rely on some common basic assumptions, which have a significant effect on the dynamics of the jet: (i) the shocked matter is homogeneous (ii) the shock front is spherical (within a finite opening angle) even at $`t>t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ (iii) the velocity vector is almost radial even after the jet break.

However, recent 2D hydrodynamic simulations Granot01  show that these assumptions are not a good approximation of a realistic jet. Figure 1 shows the jet at the last time step of the simulation. The matter at the sides of the jet is propagating sideways (rather than in the radial direction) and is slower and much less luminous compared to the front of the jet. The shock front is egg-shaped, and quite far from being spherical. Figure 2 shows the radius $`R`$, Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and opening angle $`\theta `$ of the jet, as a function of the lab frame time. The rate of increase of $`\theta `$ with $`Rct_{\mathrm{lab}}`$, is much lower than the exponential behavior predicted by simple models Rhoads99 . The value of $`\theta `$ averaged over the emissivity is practically constant, and most of the radiation is emitted within the initial opening angle of the jet. The radius $`R`$ weighed over the emissivity is very close to the maximal value of $`R`$ within the jet, indicating that most of the emission originates at the front of the jet333This implies that the expected rate of orphan optical afterglows should be smaller than estimated assuming significant sideways expansion!, where the radius is largest, while $`R`$ averaged over the density is significantly lower, indicating that a large fraction of the shocked matter resides at the sides of the jet, where the radius is smaller. The Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ averaged over the emissivity is close to its maximal value, (again since most of the emission occurs near the jet axis where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the largest) while $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ averaged over the density is significantly lower, since the matter at the sides of the jet has a much lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ than at the front of the jet. The large differences between the assumptions of simple dynamical models of a jet and the results of 2D simulations, suggest that great care should be taken when using these models for predicting the light curves of jetted afterglows. Since the light curves depend strongly on the hydrodynamics of the jet, it is very important to use a realistic hydrodynamic model when calculating the light curves.

Granot et al. Granot01  used 2D numerical simulations of a jet running into a constant density medium to calculate the resulting light curves, taking into account the emission from the volume of the shocked fluid with the appropriate time delay in the arrival of photons to different observers. They obtained an achromatic jet break for $`\nu >\nu _m(t_{\mathrm{jet}})`$ (which typically includes the optical and near IR), while at lower frequencies (which typically include the radio) there is a more moderate and gradual increase in the temporal index $`\alpha `$ at $`t_{\mathrm{jet}}`$, and a much more prominent steepening in the light curve at a latter time when $`\nu _m`$ sweeps past the observed frequency. The jet break appears sharper and occurs at a slightly earlier time for an observer along the jet axis, compared to an observer off the jet axis (but within the initial opening angle of the jet). The value of $`\alpha `$ after the jet break, for $`\nu >\nu _m`$, is found to be slightly larger than $`p`$ ($`\alpha =2.85`$ for $`p=2.5`$).

Somewhat surprisingly we find that in spite of the different hydrodynamic behavior the numerical simulations show a jet break at roughly the same time as the analytic estimates. This encourages us to trust the current estimates of the jet opening angles. However, we should search for an intuitive explanation for the nature of the hydrodynamic behavior and for a simple analytic model that would predict it.


text:
# Implications of reflectance measurements on the mechanism for superconductivity in MgB2

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Jorge Hirsch for bringing these experimental results to my attention, and for subsequent discussions. This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.


text:
# POWER SPECTRA FOR GALAXY SHAPE CORRELATIONS

## 1 Introduction

The study of galaxy alignments has a rich history, as documented by Djorgovski , although with mixed results (e.g. Cabanela & Aldering ). Recently, Lee & Pen  investigated a relationship between galaxy spins and the underlying gravitational potential field with a view to reconstructing this potential. It was quickly realised that spatial correlations in the gravitational potential could induce correlations in the spins of nearby galaxies. This is interesting in its own right, but is also a potential contaminant of field-surveys for weak gravitational lensing by large scale structure.

Weak lensing shear, the coherent distortion of galaxy images on the sky induced by density perturbations along the line of sight  has now been detected by several different groups . Following standard practice, all of these authors assume that all of their observed correlation in the ellipticities of galaxies comes from weak lensing. Intrinsic shape correlations, if present, should be considered when interpreting results from these field-lensing surveys.

Several authors have investigated these intrinsic galaxy shape correlations recently: with analytic arguments , using numerical simulations , and with observations . The calculation and results presented below can be found in more detail in Mackey, White & Kamionkowski . Our calculation builds on ideas contained in Catelan, Kamionkowski & Blandford , and uses some similar physical assumptions to Crittenden et al. .

## 2 Ellipticity Model and Power Spectra Calculation

Here I briefly discuss the model and calculation. Using the same formalism as in weak lensing analyses, I describe the intrinsic ellipticity of galaxies in terms of the spin-2 (complex) ellipticity: $`ϵ=|ϵ|e^{2i\varphi }=\gamma _1+i\gamma _2.`$ I assume the components $`\gamma _i`$ of the ellipticity are determined by a galaxy’s angular momentum. This makes sense in that a rotating system will become flattened perpendicular to the angular momentum vector, and will be more flattened for systems with higher angular momentum. In this case, as argued by Catelan et al. , the intrinsic ellipticity is given by

$$\gamma _1=f(L,L_z)(L_x^2L_y^2)\mathrm{and}\gamma _2=2f(L,L_z)L_xL_y,$$
(1)
where the sky is the x-y plane, and where $`f(L,L_z)`$ is an unknown function which determines how ellipticity scales with $`L`$. I take $`f(L,L_z)`$ to be a constant, $`C`$, whose value must be fitted empirically to the observed rms ellipticity of galaxies. This means that $`|ϵ|L^2`$.

Galaxies acquire angular momentum during formation by tidal torques. It can be shown  that the angular momentum acquired to first order in the gravitational potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱)`$, is $`L_iϵ_{ijk}I_{kl}_l_j\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱),`$ where $`I_{ij}`$ is the protogalaxy’s inertia tensor.

The ellipticity components $`\gamma _i`$ can thus be calculated in terms of the gravitational potential. I then decompose the spin-2 ellipticity field into scalar (electric-type $`E`$-mode) and pseudo-scalar (magnetic-type $`B`$-mode) fields in Fourier space. This enables the construction of 3D power spectra for the ellipticities, which are convolutions over the density power spectrum. Finally, the Limber approximation is used to obtain the predicted angular power spectrum for different source galaxy distributions.

## 3 Results and Discussion

To demonstrate the results I use a low and a high redshift source distribution (with mean source redshifts $`z_{\mathrm{src}}=0.1`$ and 1.0). The ellipticity-ellipticity angular power spectra obtained are shown in Fig. 1, along with the corresponding weak lensing prediction.

The most obvious feature in Fig. 1 is that for a low redshift survey, intrinsic correlations are expected to dominate over weak lensing signal, while with $`z_{\mathrm{src}}=1.0`$, they are a very small contaminant to weak lensing measurements. The reasons for this result are twofold: the lensing signal is proportional to the projected density which increases with survey depth, while the intrinsic signal is increasingly washed out by projection effects for deeper surveys. The predicted amplitudes are in good agreement with the calculations of Crittenden et al , and comparable to the observational results of Brown et al  over angular scales from $`10^{}100^{}`$. They are also comparable to findings from numerical simulations .

The shape of the angular power spectrum reflects the shape of the underlying density power spectrum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_m^2(k)`$, going roughly flat on small scales. On large scales the log-slope is $`2`$, consistent with shot noise. The shapes of the intrinsic and lensing power spectra are quite similar, making it difficult to use this to separate the two components.

A potentially better discriminant is given by the relative levels of $`E`$\- and $`B`$-mode power (this was also investigated by Crittenden et al.  in their model). Weak lensing shear has no handedness and can therefore produce only $`E`$-modes. Fig. 1 shows that the intrinsic power spectra have equal $`E`$\- and $`B`$-mode power on large scales, but $`C_{\mathrm{}}^{ϵϵ}/C_{\mathrm{}}^{\beta \beta }3.5`$ on small scales. This has two important implications for weak lensing. First, a detection of $`B`$-mode power would indicate that intrinsic correlations are present. Second, intrinsic correlations can still hide in a low signal-to-noise measurement of $`E`$-mode only power (but only up to a factor of $`3.5`$), because of this $`E`$-mode enhancement on small scales. Thus, some caution should be used in estimating noise and contamination of weak lensing measurements solely from the level of $`B`$-mode power.

The $`E`$-mode enhancement can be understood intuitively by noting that isolated point masses can generate only $`E`$-modes. On smaller scales the density field can be increasingly described in terms of distinct objects, giving a mostly $`E`$-mode signal. $`B`$-modes arise because the ellipticities $`\gamma _i`$ are convolutions over the Fourier modes of the potential. It was found that large scale perturbations on the small scale potential field produce the $`B`$-modes.

The small scale $`E`$-mode enhancement is a distinctive feature of this model, and could be tested with current observational data. It is qualitatively different from that of Crittenden et al, who found that $`E`$\- and $`B`$-modes are the same on small scales and different on large scales. The halo shapes ellipticity model of Catelan et al is also different in that it produces only $`E`$-modes. Thus, the $`E`$-$`B`$ decomposition is potentially a very good way to observationally distinguish between the different models of intrinsic correlations. Determining the correct model may give us new insight into galaxy formation and evolution processes, so it is important to do so.

## Acknowledgments

I thank Martin White and Marc Kamionkowski for collaboration and advice on this work. Thanks especially to MW for many hours of discussion and lots of good ideas and guidance.

## References