text:
# 1 A comparison of density profiles calculated from the LDA (lines) and from molecular dynamics simulation (symbols). The dashed line and squares designate species 1, and the solid line and circles designate species 2; 𝑚₂/𝑚₁=2; 𝐷₂/𝐷₁=1; 𝜇₁≈𝜇₂≈8.

Variational Approach to Hard Sphere

Segregation Under Gravity

Joseph A. Both and Daniel C. Hong

Physics, Lewis Laboratory, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015

## Abstract

It is demonstrated that the minimization of the free energy functional for hard spheres and hard disks yields the result that excited granular materials under gravity segregate not only in the widely known “Brazil nut” fashion, i.e. with the larger particles rising to the top, but also in reverse “Brazil nut” fashion. Specifically, the local density approximation is used to investigate the crossover between the two types of segregation occurring in the liquid state, and the results are found to agree qualitatively with previously published results of simulation and of a simple model based on condensation.

Segregation of hard sphere mixtures has a long history, starting perhaps from the classic papers by Wood and Jacobson , followed by Lebowitz, Rowlinson, and Widom , extending to the most recent works by various groups . It is still controversial whether or not hard sphere mixtures do phase segregate in the absence of gravity . However, in the presence of gravity, the situation is rather clear cut. Rosato et al.  advanced an explanation of the segregation in vertically shaken mixtures of granular materials by appealing to geometrical reorganization: during shaking, voids opening beneath larger particles are filled more readily by smaller particles. This may be contrasted with the apparent “buoyancy” of larger particles , or convection driven segregation . But recent molecular dynamics simulations of weakly dissipative hard sphere and hard disk granular systems under gravity that are in global thermal equilibrium with a heat reservoir have shown that a reverse segregation phenomenon occurs as well . These results were interpreted in light of a recent proposal that the hard spheres undergo condensation transition under gravity , which was subsequently tested by Molecular Dynamics simulations .

The density profile in the condensed regime is fairly uniform at the level of Enskog approximation , or displays oscillatory structure in the weighted density functional approximation , which is consistent with the experimental observation of the formation of crystalline structure with fairly uniform density near the bottom of the shaken granular materials . It was argued that the type of segregation (Brazil nut \[BN\] or reverse Brazil nut \[RBN\]) results from a competition between the system’s tendency to reorganize geometrically in the ways described by Rosato et al.  and the tendency of hard spheres under gravity to condense at low enough kinetic temperature \[8-10\]. It was suggested as a qualitative model  that in a binary hard sphere mixture, the particles belonging to the different species would be characterized by different condensation temperatures, so that during quenching from high to low temperature, the species with highest would tend to condense at the bottom of the sample first, leading ultimately to vertical segregation if this tendency were realized. This condensation driven tendency toward segregation, however, would be either augmented or opposed by the essentially geometric mechanisms identified by Rosato et al., which favor BN segregation only, depending respectively upon whether the smaller particle has higher or lower condensation temperature than the larger particle. The purpose of this Letter is to present for the first time a theory based on the variational principle and directly derive the phase boundary of the binary mixtures.

Theory : We calculate in the local density approximation (LDA). Specifically, with $`\psi _{id}`$ being the Helmholtz free energy per particle for the ideal gas in the absence of gravity, and $`\psi _{exc}`$ being that of the excess component due to particle interactions, the binary mixture free energy per area functional is given as a function of the densities $`\rho _i(𝐫)`$:

$`\overline{F}[\rho _1(z),\rho _2(z)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\rho (z)\psi _{id}(\rho _1,\rho _2)+`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\rho (z)\psi _{exc}(\rho _1,\rho _2)+`$
$`m_1g{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\rho _1z+m_2g{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z\rho _2z,`$
where 1 and 2 are particle indexes, and the total density, $`\rho `$, is the sum of the two: $`\rho =\rho _1+\rho _2`$. This gives the free energy of a columnar sample of the system whose transverse cross section has one unit of area. The plane $`z=0`$ is the bottom of the container, and for the problem to be strictly one dimensional, the size of the container in the transverse direction must be infinite. Minimizing $`\overline{F}`$ under the global constraints that the number of particles of each species is conserved:

$$N_i=_V𝑑𝐫\rho _i(𝐫),i=1,2$$
(2)
yields the desired density profiles.

The forms of $`\psi _{id}`$ are given in  and it is standard  that if $`Z\frac{P}{\rho T}`$, then

$$\frac{\psi _{exc}}{T}=_0^\rho \left(Z(\rho ^{})1\right)\frac{d\rho ^{}}{\rho ^{}}.$$
(3)
For the form of $`Z`$, we use a generalized Carnahan-Starling equation of state, the so called Mansoori, Carnahan, Starling, Leland approximation for a finite number of hard sphere species . Defining $`\xi _\alpha =\frac{\pi }{6}_{i=1}^n\rho _iD_i^\alpha (\alpha =0,\mathrm{},3)`$, with $`\rho _i=N_i/V`$, and $`n`$ being the number of species in the mixture, $`Z`$ is then given by

$$Z=\frac{6}{\pi \rho }\left[\frac{\xi _0}{1\xi _3}+\frac{3\xi _1\xi _2}{(1\xi _3)^2}+\frac{3\xi _2^3}{(1\xi _3)^2}\frac{\xi _3\xi _2^3}{(1\xi _3)^3}\right],$$
(4)
where $`\rho =_{i=1}^n\rho _i`$. To perform the integration specified in Eq. (3) for $`n=2`$, we recognize that this is an expression for the excess free energy for a homogeneous mixture in which $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are fixed fractions of $`\rho `$, i.e. $`\rho _1/\rho `$ and $`\rho _2/\rho `$ are both constants. Then one readily sees then that the quantities $`\xi _i`$ may be written as constant multiples of $`\rho `$ only, viz. $`\xi _\alpha =C_\alpha \rho ,`$ which defines the constant $`C_\alpha `$ in terms of $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ and $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$.

Performing the integration specified in Eq. (3) with the substitution of these relations, we find the desired form for $`\psi _{exc}`$:

$$\frac{\psi _{exc}}{T}=\left(\frac{\xi _2^3}{\xi _0\xi _3^2}1\right)\mathrm{ln}(1\xi _3)+\frac{3\xi _1\xi _2}{\xi _0(1\xi _3)}+\frac{\xi _2^3}{\xi _0\xi _3(1\xi _3)^2},$$
(5)
(see refs.  and ). This done, the functional $`\overline{F}[\rho _1(z),\rho _2(z)]`$ defined in Eq. (1) is then fully specified. Its minimization is accomplished by solving for $`\rho _1(z)`$ and $`\rho _2(z)`$ the two equations ($`i=1,2`$):

$$\frac{\delta \overline{F}}{\delta \rho _i}=\frac{d\left[\rho \psi _{id}\right]}{d\rho _i}+\psi _{exc}+\rho \frac{d\psi _{exc}}{d\rho _i}+m_igz=\lambda _i,$$
(6)
where the Lagrange multipliers $`\lambda _i`$ are introduced to constrain the minimization according to Eq. (2). These equations, though only algebraic, are non-linear and highly nontrivial and must therefore be solved numerically via an iterative scheme for $`\rho _i(z)`$ at several points $`z`$. The two dimensional problem is solved analogously. We use the equation of state of hard disks used by Jenkins and Mancini

$$Z=1+\frac{K_{11}}{\sigma _1^2}+8\frac{K_{11}}{\sigma _{12}^2}+\frac{K_{22}}{\sigma _2^2},$$
(7)
where $`\sigma _i=D_i/2`$ and $`\sigma _{ij}=\sigma _i+\sigma _j`$, and where

$$K_{ij}=\frac{\pi }{8}\rho _i\rho _j\sigma _{ij}^4g_{ij}.$$
(8)
The functions $`g_{ij}`$ are the pair correlations at contact. Following Jenkins and Mancini , we use

$`g_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1+\eta _2R}{(1\eta )^2}}`$
$`g_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1+\eta _2R}{R(1\eta )^2}}`$ (9)
$`g_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\eta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _1+\eta _2R}{(1+R)(1\eta )^2}}`$
where $`\eta _i=\frac{\pi }{4}D_i^2\rho _i`$, the area fraction of species $`i`$, $`\eta =\eta _1+\eta _2`$, and $`R=D_1/D_2`$. Eq. (3) is integrated, again using the fact that the fractions $`\rho _i/\rho `$ are constant and then equations analogous to Eq. (6) are then solved iteratively for $`\rho _i(z)`$, where the derivatives of $`\psi _{exc}`$ are evaluated numerically.

Results and Discussion: The control parameters that directly enter this formulation of the problem are $`g`$, $`T`$, $`m_i`$, $`D_i`$, and $`\lambda _i`$. In practice, for any choice of $`g`$, $`T`$, $`m_i`$, $`D_i`$, and $`\mu _i`$, the last of which control the average particle density, the parameters $`\lambda _i`$ are tuned so that the integrated density profiles yield desired layer numbers $`\mu _i`$ according to $`\mu _i=D_i^{d1}𝑑z\rho _i`$, where $`d`$ is the dimensionality of the system. To show that the LDA is capable of generating reliable results, we present Fig. 1, which shows volume fraction profiles $`\eta _i(z)=\frac{\pi }{6}D^3\rho _i(z)`$ for $`d=3`$, $`D_1=D_2=0.001`$ m, $`m_1=1.047\times 10^6`$ kg, $`m_2=2m_1`$, $`g=9.8`$ m/s2 generated by the LDA (lines) and generated by MD simulation (symbols) used in ref. . The layer numbers $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are both nominally $`8`$, but the integrals of the LDA curves disagree slightly with those of the MD curves as a result of a systematic binning error in the MD results. The temperatures of the two systems differ; $`T_{LDA}/m_2gD_2\mu _2=0.0731`$ and $`T_{MD}/m_2gD_2\mu _2=0.1401`$. The LDA system is not at all dissipative, so it is reasonable that the different systems give similar profiles only at different temperatures, $`T_{MD}`$ being necessarily the higher one. We are, however, not able to exactly pin point the factor two difference in temperatures. The temperature difference notwithstanding, the resulting profiles are very similar, and indeed exhibit non-BN segregation. Note that in this case, the segregation mechanism cannot be geometric, because the particles are of equal size but with different mass.

In all subsequent work reported here, we choose $`g=10`$ m/s2, $`D_1=0.001`$ m, $`m_1=10^6`$ kg, and $`\mu _i=10`$ to within less than one tenth percent. To investigate the dependence of segregation on mass and diameter ratios, we vary $`D_2`$ and $`m_2`$ such that $`D_2D_1`$ and $`m_2m_1`$, find $`\eta _i(z)`$ at low temperature, and quantify the segregation as a function of $`D_2/D_1`$, $`m_2/m_1`$, and $`T`$. Our choice to quantify the segregation is simply the ratio of the centers of mass of the two species: $`z_1/z_2`$. Specifically, $`z_1/z_2<1`$ indicates BN segregation, $`z_1/z_2=1`$ indicates crossover, and $`z_1/z_2>1`$ indicates RBN segregation. To reduce the number of control parameters and to try to make some comparison with the condensation theory  which originally motivated this work, we choose to explore the lower temperature regimes at a fixed reduced temperature. Because the LDA cannot generate information about the solid phase, we are careful to choose temperatures at which total volume fractions, $`\eta (z)=\eta _1(z)+\eta _2(z)`$ have their maximum somewhere on the range $`0.50`$ to $`0.65`$ when $`d=3`$, that is, near the density of the simple cubic packed single species solid ($`\eta 0.52`$), but not as dense as the hexagonally packed single species solid ($`\eta 0.74`$). When $`d=2`$, the maximum of $`\eta (z)`$ is kept on the range $`0.80`$ to $`0.85`$ (also between the square and triangular packing single species area fractions, approximately $`0.79`$ and $`0.91`$). Thus, our method explores fluid systems of moderate to high densities near the bottom of the sample. We have found that choosing a reduced temperature $`\stackrel{~}{T}T/(m_2gD_2\mu _2)=0.0375`$ ($`d=3`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{T}T/(m_2gD_2\mu _2)=0.0300`$ ($`d=2`$) keeps the maximum of $`\eta (z)`$ on the prescribed ranges over the spectrum of diameter and mass ratios we have used.

Fig. 2 summarizes the results of our calculations for diameter ratios

$`D_2/D_1=1.2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2.0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4.0}`$, and a range of mass ratios for both $`d=2`$ and $`3`$. If from these data we interpolate to find those values of $`m_2/m_1`$ at which crossover occurs ($`z_1/z_2=1`$) for given values of $`D_2/D_1`$, we generate the data shown in Fig. 3. Each graph displays three curves. The dashed curves with symbols are the crossover curves calculated with the LDA at the low temperatures cited above and also at $`\stackrel{~}{T}=0.1500`$ for both $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$, so that the temperature dependence may be illustrated. To the left of a crossover curve, the segregation is of the BN variety; to the right, it is RBN. Thus, the LDA reveals that as reduced temperature increases, an increasingly larger region of parameter space gives rise to RBN segregation. Indeed, if we assume that in the high temperature limit the density of each species is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(m_igz/T)`$, then for $`\mu _1`$ = $`\mu _2`$, one may calculate for $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ that the ratio of centers of mass is given by

$$\frac{z_1}{z_2}=\frac{m_2}{m_1},$$
(10)
which indicates the crossover curve is the vertical line $`\frac{m_2}{m_1}=1`$, a result consistent with the trend in the LDA results presented in Fig. 3.

Also appearing on the both graphs in Fig. 3 as solid lines are crossover curves predicted from the simple condensation argument. Briefly, these are obtained by assuming the ratio of condensation temperatures in the single species theory

$$T_{c2}/T_{c1}=m_2gD_2\mu _2/m_1gD_1\mu _1$$

measures the tendency of species 2 to segregate to the bottom at $`T<T_{c2}`$ due to the condensation mechanism .

If we choose to equate this with Rosato et al.’s  control parameter for the reorganization, $`(D_2/D_1)^d`$, we can obtain the crossover curve (The solid lines in Fig. 3). We see fair agreement with our theoretical prediction at low reduced temperature for $`d=3`$, but significant disagreement appears at $`m_2/m_17`$; the crossover curve seems practically linear, in disagreement with the scaling suggested by the condensation argument. For $`d=2`$, the low temperature LDA boundary is linear, in agreement with the scaling suggested by the condensation argument, but that argument of course cannot predict the slope. Moreover, the LDA computed boundaries are necessarily temperature dependent, but the condensation theory  does not predict a temperature dependence. Thus, although the condensation theory has been useful in directing us to look for certain dependencies and, indeed, for the phenomenon of RBN segregation itself, its utility, except as a heuristic, is somewhat circumscribed. However, the equilibrium approach of minimizing Helmholtz free energy seems a promising theoretical alternative, as it is capable of generating solutions in good agreement with those obtained from MD simulation, as in Fig. 1.

References

 W.W. Wood and J. D. Jacobson, J. Chem. Phys. 27, 1207 (1957).

 J. Lebowitz and J.S Rowlinson, J. Chem. Phys. 41, 133 (1964).

 B. Widom and J. S. Rowlinson, J. Chem. Phys. 52, 1670 (1970).

 M. Dijikstra, R. von Roji, and R. Evans. Phys. Rev. E. 51, 5744 (1999).

 A. Rosato, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1038 (1987).

 T. Shinbrot and F. Muzzio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4365 (1998).

 D. C. Hong, P. V. Quinn and S. Luding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3423 (2001).

 D. C. Hong, Physica A 271, 192 (1999).

 J. A. Both and D. C. Hong, Phys. Rev. E 64, 061105 (2001).

 P. V. Quinn and D. C. Hong, Phys. Rev. E 62, 8295 (2000).

 P. Tarazona, Mol. Phys 52, 81 (1984).

 P. M. Morse, Thermal Physics, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Redwood City, CA, 1969.

 J. P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, Theory of Simple Liquids, Academic Press, New York, 1976.

 G. A. Mansoori, et al., J. Chem. Phys. 54, 1523 (1971).

 J. J. Salacuse, G. Stell, J. Chem. Phys 77, 3714 (1982).

 A. Meroni, A. Pimpinelli, L. Reatto, J. Chem. Phys 87, 3644 (1987).

 J. T. Jenkins and F. Mancini, J. Appl. Mech. 54, 29, (1987).

 T. Biben, R. Ohnesorge and H. Lowen, Europhys. Lett. 71, 615 (1993).


format: text

text:
# Irreducibility of 𝑛-ary quantum information

## Abstract

Quantum information is radically different from classical information in that the quantum formalism (Hilbert space) makes necessary the introduction of irreducible “nits,” $`n`$ being an arbitrary natural number (bigger than one); not just bits.

As pointed out many times by Landauer and others (e.g., ) the formal concept of information is tied to physics, at least as far as applicability is a concern. Thus it should come as no surprise that quantum mechanics requires fundamentally new concepts of information as compared to the ones appropriate for classical physics. And indeed, research into quantum information and computation theory has exploded in the last decade, bringing about a wealth of new ideas and formalisms.

There seems to be one issue, which, despite notable exceptions (e.g., \[3, Footnote 6\]), has not yet been acknowledged widely: the principal irreducibility of $`n`$-ary quantum information associated with the $`n`$-dimensionality of Hilbert space. A physical configuration allowing for $`n`$ possible outcomes has to be encoded quantum mechanically by an $`n`$-dimensional Hilbert space. Any single one of the $`n`$ basis vector corresponds to a onedimensional subspace spanned by that basis vector which in turn corresponds to the following physical proposition: “the physical system is in a pure state corresponding to the basis vector.” In more operational terms, a particle can be prepared in a single one of $`n`$ possible states. This particle then carries the information to “be in a single one from $`n`$ different states.” Subsequent measurements may confirm this statement. Thus the most natural code basis for this configutaion is an $`n`$-ary code, and not a binary one.

Classically, there is no preferred code basis whatsoever. Because every classical state is postulated to be determined by a point in phase space. Formally, this amounts to an infinite amount information in whatever base, since with probability one, all points are random; i.e., algorithmically incompressible. Operationally, only a finite amount of classical information is accessible. Yet, in what base this finite amount of classical information is coded is purely conventional and depends on the particular choice of the experimental setup.

Note that by a well known theorem for unitary operators , any quantum measurement of an $`n`$-ary system can be decomposed into binary measurements. Also, it is possible to group the $`n`$ possible outcomes into binary filters of ever finer resultion; calling the successive outcomes of these filter process the “binary code.” Yet, all these attempts result in codes with undesirable features. Unitary decompositions in general yield non-comeasurable observables and thus to non-operationalizability. Filters are inefficient, and so may be binary codes .

So far, the main emphasis in the area of quantum computation has been in the area of binary decision problems. It is suggested that these investigations should be extended to $`n`$-ary decision problems (e.g., \[6, pp. 332-340\]), for which quantum information theory seems to be extraordinarily well equipped.


text:
# Annual Modulation in the Variability Properties of the IDV-Source 0917+624 ?

## 1 Introduction

The quasar 0917+624 was one of the sources in the original IDV-sample in 1985, which showed variability on time scales shorter than one day (Intraday Variability, IDV, Heeschen et al. 1987). Since then, the source was regularly monitored over the last 15 years and generally was found to be strongly variable with amplitude variations on a $`1015\%`$ level and on time scales in the range of 0.8-1.6 days. Furthermore, faster variability is detected in the polarized flux and the polarization angle. In polarization, larger amplitude variations (up to a factor of 2) are common and once a $`180^{}`$-swing in the polarization angle could be observed (Quirrenbach et al. 1989). In September 1998, however, Kraus et al. (1999) detected a remarkable change in the variability properties: the rapid variability stopped and only a slow increase of $`7\%`$ in flux over the 5 day observing session has been observed (Fig. 1). Observations in February 1999 then showed 0917+624 to be variable again on a timescale of 1.3 days. Kraus et al. (1999) interpreted the slow-down in September as probably due to the ejection of a new jet component. This temporarily leads to a source size larger than the scattering size (set by the ISM) and a reduction of the observed refractive interstellar scintillation (quenched RISS) (Rickett et al. 1995). An alternative possibility to explain the behavior of 0917+624 within an ISS-model was given by Rickett et al. 2001 (see also Jauncey and Macquart 2001). They suggested that the observed change in the variability time scale depends on the time of the year and thus reflects the orbital motion of the earth relative to the ISM. Hence, using an ISS-model for 0917+624 as suggested by Rickett et al. (1995) and taking the earth orbital motion around the sun with respect to the scattering medium into account leads to a predicted slow-down in September and could explain the prolongation in September 1998. Since we have only one data point during this highly interesting time period, we performed a dedicated flux density monitoring program for 0917+624 over the course of 1 year, in order to test the annual modulation of IDV in this source (and two others).

## 2 Annual Modulations in IDV

Recent evidence for a seasonal dependence of the variability timescale comes from the highly variable quasar J1819+3845 (Dennett-Thorpe and de Bruyn 2000). Westerbork observations during a period of 12 month indicate a variation of the IDV time scale by a factor of $`10`$ and a clear ’slow-down-peak’ near day 280. In the following year the prolongation could nicely be reproduced (de Bruyn, priv. com.). However, in addition to the earth motion with respect to the Local Standard of Rest (LSR), a medium velocity of $`25kms^1`$ is required.
In the standard ISS-model, the observer moves through a spatial scintillation pattern caused by a screen of scattering material at a distance D. The variability time scale is then determined by two quantities: the spatial scale of the pattern and the observers motion projected onto the scintillation pattern. In order to explain the annual variation of the IDV time scale in terms of ISS, the relative motion of the Earth with respect to the scattering medium is an important parameter and has to be taken into account. This relative motion is composed of three different velocities: i) the Earth orbital motion around the Sun; ii) the Sun’s motion towards the solar apex; iii) the velocity of the medium with respect to the LSR. In Fig. 2 the velocity of the Earth relative to the LSR projected perpendicular to the direction of 0917+624 is displayed versus day of the year. Near day number 285 the velocity of the Earth’s orbital motion nearly cancels versus the projected velocity of the sun relative to the LSR. This effect leads to a seasonal dependence in the variability time scale: while the predicted time scale should remain nearly constant over a large fraction of the year, a substantial prolongation in September and October (days 250-330) should occur. In Fig. 2 we overplot the predicted and observed time scales and we find a general agreement between the observations and the predictions. The data point in September from Kraus et al. (1999) lies in the period of the predicted increase. The other data points come from our observations performed during 1989 - 2000.

## 3 Observations and data reduction

In order to investigate the predictions of the above model for 0917+624 in more detail, we started a monitoring program at 6cm wavelength over the last year. The observations were performed from September 2000 to May 2001 at the 100m telescope of the MPIfR in Effelsberg. During this time 22 single observing sessions with a duration of a few hours up to 3 days were performed. In this experiment 0917+624 was one source within a small sample of IDV-sources and has been observed with a dense duty cycle of about 2 measurements every 1.5 hrs. In addition, two non-IDV sources, 0951+699 and 0836+73, were included as secondary calibrators. We observed standard flux density calibrators like 3C286, 3C295, 3C48 and NGC7027 frequently. Since all measured sources are point-like and sufficiently strong at 6cm ($`0.5`$ Jy) we were able to measure the flux densities with cross-scans in azimuth and elevation (eg. Quirrenbach et al. 1992, Kraus 1997). We used the standard IDV data reduction procedure of the Effelsberg telescope (for details see Quirrenbach et al. 1992 and Kraus 1997). Our secondary calibrators were observed with similar duty cycles as the program sources to allow for a systematic elevation- and time-dependent correction of the measured flux densities. The resulting flux density errors are composed of the statistical errors from the reduction process (Gaussian fits of averaged sub-scans) and a contribution from the systematics as seen in our secondary calibrators (weather). Our final errors lie in the range of $`0.51\%`$.
Since a polarimeter is integrated in the 6cm receiver, we also obtained full polarization information. The reduction and analysis of the polarization data is still in progress and will be discussed elsewhere (Fuhrmann et al. in prep.).

## 4 Results

In Fig. 3 we summarize our results. Since September 2000, all 22 individual light curves show a very inactive source with only few percent amplitude variations. At the top of Fig. 3 the longterm light curve of 0917+624 over the full monitoring period of 9 month is displayed. During this time interval, we detected a longterm trend with a monotonic, $`10\%`$-decrease in total flux since October 2000. In addition, Fig. 3 shows 3 individual light curves measured in September 2000, December 2000 and March 2001. For comparison, the March 2000 light curve of one of our secondary calibrators (0951+699) is displayed. All curves of 0917+699 show only very low amplitude variations of about 2-3% (”ripples”) on very short time scales of $`0.30.4`$ days. Since September, no significant IDV is seen in 0917+624 and the strong, pronounced IDV seen at earlier times is completely missing.

## 5 Discussion

It can be seen from Fig. 3, that 0917+624 passed through a dramatic change of its variability properties when compared to the past. The change can clearly be seen by plotting a light curve of our new campaign on the same scale with data from earlier observations. This is realized in Fig. 4: while in June 1993 0917+624 showed its normal, strong variability pattern with $`15\%`$-amplitude variations on a time scale of $`0.5`$ days, the variations in March 2001 appear dramatically low. In order to compare the strength of the variability, we determined the modulation index $`m=100\times \sigma _S/<S>`$ where $`\sigma _S`$ is the rms flux density variation. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that during our recent monitoring m has been always low: $`m0.9`$. In the most extreme case, this is a factor $`7`$ lower than the variations observed in the past. In order to explain the behavior of 0917+624 in the context of RISS and the annual modulation effect, however, we see three main problems: i) Other IDV sources in the same region of the sky (eg. 0716+71, 0954+65) do not show the expected seasonal dependence of the variability time scale. ii) The orbital motion of the earth should affect the time scale, but not the modulation index m (Rickett et al. 2001), which also appears to be variable (Fig. 5). iii) Our monitoring program presented here has not yet revealed a restart of the strong and pronounced variability in 0917+624 since September 2000. This contradicts the model predictions of Rickett et al. (2001), which claimed recovery to the ”normal” variability already at the end of last year (see Fig. 2).
We suggest two possible scenarios in order to explain the present anomalous behavior of 0917+624: Firstly, the interstellar medium is far more complex than presently thought and a change in the scattering properties of the screen might explain the change of the variability mode in 0917+624. If the spatial scale of the scintillation pattern decreased, then the source size could quench the ISS. For weak ISS or RISS this would imply either a decrease in the strength of turbulence in small, localized regions of the ISM or an increase of the distance to such a region. In turn this would require a very inhomogeneous ISM, with moving ‘clouds’ or ‘layers’ at different distances. The inhomogeneities then have to occur on angular scales of less than the angular separation from 0917+62 to other sources ($`510^{}`$), the latter still showing pronounced IDV. In this context, the present situation of nearly no variations in 0917+624 could be explained by either a “hole” in the screen or a moving foreground layer, which was present during the last 15 years and has suddenly disappeared within the last year.
Secondly, an alternative interpretation could be based on intrinsic variations in the VLBI structure of the source between 1998 and 2000. The dominant components, which in the past were responsible for RISS, either disappeared or increased their intrinsic size, hence producing quenched scattering. Recent evidence for such effect is coming from VLBI observations at 15 GHz (see T.P. Krichbaum, this conference). Multi-epoch observations during 1999 and 2000 reveal structural expansion in the central region with 5-6c. Extrapolating the motion of one jet component backwards in time leads to a time of ejection shortly before the date, when 0917+624 ceased varying for the first time (September 1998, Kraus et al. 1999). It is therefore very tempting to assume that the present quiescence in the variability of 0917+624 once more is caused by blending effects of the inner, scintillating region by a another new component. This component probably was ejected during the first half of the year 2000 and should become visible in future VLBI observations.
We conclude, that the annual modulation effect in 0917+624 may at present not be visible due to structural changes in the central region and hence, only strongly quenched

scattering could be observed during the last 9 months. In order to detect a seasonal dependence of the variability time scale, less complex and more point-like sources (eg. J1819+3845) would provide a better opportunity to investigate the annual modulation model.

## References

Dennett-Thorpe, J. & de Bruyne, A.G., 2000, ApJ, 529, L65

Heeschen, D.S., et al. 1987, AJ, 94, 1493

Jauncey, D.L. & Macquart, J.-P., AA, 370, L9

Kraus, A., et al. 1999, AA, 352, L107

Kraus, A., 1997, Ph.D. thesis, University of Bonn, Germany

Quirrenbach, A., et al. 1989, AA, 226, L1

Quirrenbach, A., et al. 1992, AA, 258, 279

Rickett, B.J., et al., 2001, ApJ, 550, L11

Rickett, B.J., et al., 1995, AA, 293, L479


text:
# A short simplicial ℎ-vector and the Upper Bound Theorem

## 1. Introduction

The goal of this note is to prove an extension of the Upper Bound Theorem for (simplicial) polytopes. The main tool in the proof is a certain new invariant of simplicial complexes, which is a simplicial analog of a short cubical $`h`$-vector introduced by Adin .

We start by recalling several definitions. A (finite) simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is pure if each maximal face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has the same dimension. A pure simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is Eulerian if for every face $`F`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (including the empty face) the Euler characteristic of its link is equal to the Euler characteristic of the sphere of the same dimension, that is,

$$\chi (\text{lk}F)=1+(1)^{dim(\text{lk}F)}.$$

In particular, by Poincaré duality, every odd-dimensional homology manifold is Eulerian. (Recall that a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a homology manifold if its geometric realization $`X`$ possesses the following property: for every $`pX`$ and every $`i<dimX`$, $`H_i(X,Xp)=0`$, while $`H_{dimX}(X,Xp)`$. Here $`H_i(X,Xp)`$ denotes the $`i`$-th relative singular homology with coefficients $``$.)

The Upper Bound Conjecture (abbreviated UBC) proposed by Motzkin in 1957 (see ) asserts that among all $`d`$-dimensional (simplicial) polytopes with $`n`$ vertices, the number of $`i`$-dimensional faces (for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},d1`$) is maximized by the cyclic polytope $`C_d(n)`$. Over the last 40 years this conjecture has been treated extensively by many mathematicians: in 1970, McMullen  proved the UBC for polytopes; McMullen’s result was preceded in 1964 by a surprising work of Klee, where he verified that the UBC holds for all Eulerian complexes with a sufficiently large number of vertices, and conjectured that it holds for all Eulerian complexes ; in 1975 Stanley proved the UBC for arbitrary triangulations of spheres ,, and in 1998 Novik verified the UBC for triangulations of odd-dimensional manifolds and several classes of even-dimensional manifolds .

In this note we will prove the UBC for a class of odd-dimensional simplicial complexes that in particular includes all odd-dimensional Eulerian complexes whose geometric realization has isolated singularities. More precisely, we obtain the following theorem in which $`f_i(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ denotes the number of $`i`$-dimensional faces of a complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the values $`\beta _i(\mathrm{\Delta })=dim(\stackrel{~}{H}_i(\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ denote the reduced Betti numbers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ over a field of characteristic 0, and $`C_d(n)`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional cyclic polytope on $`n`$ vertices.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pure $`(2k+1)`$-dimensional simplicial complex on $`n`$ vertices, such that for every vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the link of $`v`$ is either a homology manifold whose Euler characteristic is 2, or an oriented homology manifold satisfying the following condition

$$\beta _k(\text{lk}v)2\beta _{k1}(\text{lk}v)+2\underset{i=0}{\overset{k3}{}}\beta _i(\text{lk}v).$$

Then $`f_i(\mathrm{\Delta })f_i(C_{2k+2}(n))`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},2k+1`$.

The main ingredient in the proofs is a new invariant of simplicial complexes, $`\stackrel{~}{h}(\mathrm{\Delta })=(\stackrel{~}{h}_0,\stackrel{~}{h}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{h}_{dim(\mathrm{\Delta })})`$, which is a simplicial analog of the short cubical $`h`$-vector introduced by Adin (see ). We give its definition and list some of its properties in the next section. Section 3 is devoted to a proof of Theorem 1. Section 4 contains several remarks and additional results on the UBC and the $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-vector.

## 2. $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-vector

In this section we introduce the notion of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-vector for pure simplicial complexes and list some of its properties. Let us begin by recalling definitions of $`f`$-vectors and $`h`$-vectors. For a $`(d1)`$-dimensional simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, its $`f`$-vector, denoted $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is a vector $`(f_1,f_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{d1})`$ where $`f_i`$ counts the number of $`i`$-dimensional faces. In particular, $`f_1=1`$, $`f_0`$ is the number of vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`f_1`$ is the number of edges. The $`h`$-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, denoted $`h(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, is a vector $`(h_0,h_1,\mathrm{},h_d)`$ where

(1)
$$h_i(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}(1)^{ij}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dj}{di}\right)f_{j1}(\mathrm{\Delta }),i=0,1,\mathrm{},d.$$

Equivalently,

(2)
$$f_{j1}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{di}{dj}\right)h_i(\mathrm{\Delta }),j=0,1,\mathrm{},d.$$

Ron Adin \[1, eq. (1), (11)\] defined for any cubical complex $`C`$ its short cubical h-vector, denoted $`h^{(sc)}(C)=(h_0^{(sc)},h_1^{(sc)},\mathrm{},h_{dim(C)}^{(sc)}).`$ It was later observed by G. Hetyei that if $`C`$ is pure, then $`h^{(sc)}(C)=_{vV}h(\text{lk}v)`$, where $`V`$ is the set of vertices of $`C`$. (Note that the links of the vertices in a cubical complex are simplicial complexes, and hence the $`h`$-vector $`h(\text{lk}v)`$ is well-defined.)

Similarly to the short cubical $`h`$-vector, we define a short simplicial $`h`$-vector, denoted $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, as follows.

###### Definition 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pure $`(d1)`$-dimensional simplicial complex on the vertex set $`V`$. Define

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(\mathrm{\Delta })=(\stackrel{~}{h}_0,\stackrel{~}{h}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{h}_{d1}):=\underset{vV}{}h(\text{lk}v),$$

so in particular $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta }):=_{vV}h_i(\text{lk}v)`$.

The next lemma gives several properties of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$.

###### Lemma 1.

* Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a pure $`(d1)`$-dimensional simplicial complex. Then

$`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}(1)^{ij}(j+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1j}{d1i}}\right)f_j(\mathrm{\Delta })(0id1)\text{ and}`$
$`f_j(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`(j+1)^1{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1i}{d1j}}\right)\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })(0jd1).`$
In particular, the $`f`$-numbers of a simplicial complex are non-negative linear combinations of its $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers.
* If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a pure $`(2k+1)`$-dimensional simplicial complex such that the link of every vertex is a homology manifold, then the $`f`$-numbers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are non-negative linear combinations of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_0,\stackrel{~}{h}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{h}_{k+1}`$. In other words,

$$f_j(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{i=0}{\overset{k+1}{}}b_i^j\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })0j2k+1,$$

where the coefficients $`b_i^j`$ are independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and are non-negative.

Proof: Since every $`j`$-dimensional simplex has $`j+1`$ vertices, it follows that

(3)
$$\underset{vV}{}f_{j1}(\text{lk}v)=(j+1)f_j(\mathrm{\Delta }),$$

where $`V`$ is the set of verticies of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This equation together with relations (1) and (2), (applied to the links of vertices) implies part (i).

Part (ii) is a consequence of equation (3) and \[7, Lemma 6.1\], which asserts that the $`f`$-numbers of a $`2k`$-dimensional homology manifold are non-negative linear combinations of its $`h`$-numbers $`h_0,h_1,\mathrm{},h_{k+1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3. The proof of the Upper Bound Theorem

In this section we prove Theorem 1. This will require the following facts and definitions.

###### Definition 2.

A simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is $`l`$-neighborly if each set of $`l`$ of its vertices forms a face in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

It is well-known that all $`d`$-dimensional cyclic polytopes are $`d/2`$-neighborly, and that all $`d/2`$-neighborly $`d`$-dimensional polytopes with $`r`$ vertices have the same $`h`$-vector:

$$h_i=h_{di}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{rd+i1}{i}\right)\text{for }0id/2.$$

In the proof of Theorem 1 we will also use the following version of the Upper Bound Theorem for even-dimensional homology manifolds.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`K`$ be a $`2k`$-dimensional homology manifold on $`r`$ vertices. Furthermore, let us assume that either $`\chi (K)=2`$, or $`K`$ is an oriented homology manifold such that

(4)
$$\beta _k(K)2\beta _{k1}(K)+2\underset{i=0}{\overset{k3}{}}\beta _i(K).$$

Then

$$h_i(K)h_i(C_{2k+1}(r))\text{ for }0ik+1.$$

Proof: In the case of $`\chi (K)=2`$, the lemma follows from \[7, Theorem 6.6\] and the Dehn-Sommerville relations for Eulerian complexes . In the second case, the result is a part of the proof of \[7, Theorem 6.7\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to verify Theorem 1. The argument is very similar to the proof of a special case of the cubical upper bound conjecture (see \[2, Theorem 4.3\]). The only difference is that we use the $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-vector instead of the short cubical $`h`$-vector.

Proof of Theorem 1:  Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a simplicial complex satisfying the conditions of the theorem. By Lemma 1(ii), it suffices to check that $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })\stackrel{~}{h}_i(C_{2k+2}(n))`$ for $`0ik+1`$. To this end, note that for every vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\text{lk}v`$ is a simplicial complex on at most $`n1`$ vertices that is either a homology manifold with Euler characteristic 2, or an oriented homology manifold satisfying condition (4). Thus, by Lemma 2,

$$h_i(\text{lk}v)h_i(C_{2k+1}(n1))\text{ for }0ik+1.$$

Since $`C_{2k+2}(n)`$ is a $`(k+1)`$-neighborly polytope, it follows that the link of every vertex of $`C_{2k+2}(n)`$ is a $`k`$-neighborly $`(2k+1)`$-dimensional polytope on $`n1`$ vertices. Hence,

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{v}{}h_i(\text{lk}v)\underset{v}{}h_i(C_{2k+1}(n1))=\stackrel{~}{h}_i(C_{2k+2}(n))\text{ for }0ik+1,$$

implying the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a $`(2k+1)`$-dimensional oriented pseudomanifold on $`n`$ vertices such that the link of every vertex is either a $`2k`$-dimensional homology manifold with vanishing middle homology, or it is a $`2k`$-dimensional homology manifold whose Euler characteristic $`\chi `$ satisfies $`(1)^k(\chi 2)0`$. Then

$$f_i(\mathrm{\Delta })f_i(C_{2k+2}(n))\text{for }1i2k+1.$$

Proof: Any such complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Additional remarks and results

### 1.

Theorem 1 proves a special case of Gil Kalai’s conjecture \[7, Section 7\] that the UBC holds for all simplicial complexes having the property that every link (of a face) of dimension $`2k`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$) satisfies condition (4).

### 2.

In his proof of the UBC for spheres , , R. Stanley showed that if $`K`$ is a $`(d1)`$-dimensional homology sphere on $`n`$ vertices then

(5)
$$h_i(K)h_i(C_d(n))\text{for }0id1.$$

Since the $`f`$-numbers of any simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are non-negative combinations of its $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers (by Lemma 1(i)), arguing exactly as in the proof of Theorem 1, but using (5) instead of Lemma 2, we obtain a new proof of the UBC for odd-dimensional homology manifolds. This proof is shorter and more elementary than the one presented in \[7, Theorem 1.4\]. (It does not use any facts about Buchsbaum complexes!)

### 3.

It would be interesting to clarify whether for a $`(2k+1)`$-dimensional complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 1, the inequality $`h_i(\mathrm{\Delta })h_i(C_{2k+2}(n))`$ ($`0ik+1`$) necessarily holds. We have the expression

$`h_r(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{r}{}}}(1)^{rj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k+2j}{2k+2r}}\right)f_{j1}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^r\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k+2}{r}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{h_i}(\mathrm{\Delta })\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k+1i}{2k+2r}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{r}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{j}}(1)^{rj}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ri1}{rj}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^r\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k+2}{r}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{h_i}(\mathrm{\Delta })\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2k+1i}{2k+2r}}\right){\displaystyle _0^1}x^i(x1)^{ri1}𝑑x.`$
Hence the coefficients of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers in the expression for $`h_r`$ alternate in sign so that short simplicial $`h`$-vectors are not sufficient to resolve this question.

### 4.

Lower bounds. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a simplicial complex, let $`\text{Skel}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ denote its $`i`$-dimensional skeleton, and let $`\chi _i(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\chi (\text{Skel}_i(\mathrm{\Delta }))=_{j=0}^i(1)^jf_j(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ denote the Euler characteristic of $`\text{Skel}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. It was shown in  that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a $`(2k1)`$-dimensonal manifold, then $`(1)^i\chi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })0`$ for $`0i2k1`$. The proof relied on several facts about Buchsbaum complexes. Using $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers we provide a short proof of the following related result.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a $`(d1)`$-dimensional Buchsbaum simplicial complex (i.e. a pure simplicial complex such that for every vertex $`v\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the link of $`v`$ is Cohen-Macaulay). Then $`(1)^i\chi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })0`$ for $`0i(d1)/2`$.

Proof: Since for every vertex $`v\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\text{lk}v`$ is Cohen-Macaulay, it follows that $`h_i(\text{lk}v)0`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},d1`$, and hence, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(\mathrm{\Delta })0`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},d1`$. Expressing the $`f`$-numbers of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in terms of its $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers (Lemma 1(i)), we obtain

(6)
$$(1)^i\chi _i(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}(1)^{ij}f_j=\underset{l=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\underset{j=l}{\overset{i}{}}(1)^{ij}\frac{1}{j+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1l}{d1j}\right)\right)\stackrel{~}{h}_l.$$

It is straightforward to show that if $`0i(d1)/2`$ and $`0li`$, then

$$\frac{1}{i+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1l}{d1i}\right)\frac{1}{i}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1l}{di}\right)\mathrm{}\frac{1}{l+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1l}{d1l}\right).$$

Hence for any $`0i(d1)/2`$, all coefficients of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$-numbers in equation (6) are non-negative, implying the proposition. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 5.

Semi-Eulerian complexes. One may also use short simplicial $`h`$-vectors and the Dehn-Sommerville relations to give a new proof of the fact that all odd-dimensional semi-Eulerian simplicial (or regular cell) complexes are Eulerian. This result was proven more generally for posets in \[10, Exercise 3.69(c)\] by a very different approach.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Victor Klee and Richard Stanley for their comments on the preliminary version of this paper. We are also grateful to Richard Stanley for directing us to the topic of cubical complexes.


text:
# Balanced 𝑑-lattices are complementedThis paper is also available from www.arxiv.org and from authors’ homepages

Keywords: balanced congruence, balanced lattice, prime ideal, maximal ideal

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 06B10, 08A30

According to Chajda and Eigenthaler (), a $`d`$-lattice is a bounded lattice $`L`$ satisfying for all $`a,cL`$ the implications

$`(a,1)\theta (0,c)ac=1`$;

$`(a,0)\theta (1,c)ac=0`$;

where $`\theta (x,y)`$ denotes the least congruence on $`L`$ containing the pair $`(x,y)`$. Every bounded distributive lattice is a $`d`$-lattice. The 5-element nonmodular lattice $`N_5`$ is a $`d`$-lattice.

###### Theorem 1

A bounded lattice is a $`d`$-lattice if and only if all maximal ideals and maximal filters are prime.

P r o o f. Let $`I`$ be a maximal ideal in a $`d`$-lattice $`L`$. Let $`x,yLI`$. We need to show that $`xyLI`$. Since $`I`$ is maximal, there are $`c_1,c_2I`$ such that $`c_1x=c_2y=1`$. For $`c=c_1c_2I`$ we have $`cx=cy=1`$. Then $`(x,1)=(0x,cx)\theta (0,c)`$ and similarly $`(y,1)\theta (0,c)`$, hence $`(xy,1)\theta (0,c)`$. By (i) we have $`(xy)c=1`$, hence $`xyI`$. The primality of maximal filters can be proved similarly.

Conversely, assume that all maximal ideals and filters in $`L`$ are prime. To show (i), assume that $`a,cL`$, $`ac1`$. By the Zorn lemma, there exists a maximal ideal $`I`$ containing $`ac`$. By our assumption, $`I`$ is prime. Then $`\alpha =I^2(LI)^2`$ is a congruence on $`L`$. Since $`cI`$, we have $`(0,c)\alpha `$, which implies that $`\theta (0,c)\alpha `$. Since $`aI`$, we have $`(a,1)\alpha `$, hence $`(a,1)\theta (0,c)`$. This shows (i). The proof of (ii) is similar.

By , a bounded lattice is called “balanced”, if the $`0`$-class of any congruence determines the 1-class, and conversely. They showed that complemented lattices are balanced, and they asked:

* Is there a $`d`$-lattice which is balanced but not complemented?

We use the above characterization of $`d`$-lattices to answer this question.

If $`A`$ is a subset of an algebra, write $`\theta _A`$ for the smallest congruence that identifies all elements of $`A`$; if $`\varphi `$ is a congruence, $`x`$ an element, write $`x/\varphi `$ for the $`\varphi `$-congruence class of $`x`$.

Further, a congruence $`\varphi `$ (on an algebra with constants $`0`$ and $`1`$) is called balanced if $`0/\varphi =0/\theta _{(1/\varphi )}`$ and $`1/\varphi =1/\theta _{(0/\varphi )}`$; an algebra is called balanced iff all its congruence relations are balanced, or equivalently if: for any congruence relations $`\varphi `$, $`\varphi ^{}`$ we have:

> $`0/\varphi =0/\varphi ^{}`$ iff $`1/\varphi =1/\varphi ^{}`$.

Fix a $`d`$-lattice $`(L,,,0,1)`$. For $`aL`$ we denote $`F_a:=\{x:xa=1\}`$, and $`I_a:=\{x:xa=0\}`$.

###### Fact 2

$`F_a`$ is a filter, $`I_a`$ is an ideal.

P r o o f. Let $`x,yF_a`$. Similarly as in the proof of Theorem 1, $`(x,1)\theta (0,a)`$, $`(y,1)\theta (0,a)`$, hence $`(xy,1)\theta (0,a)`$, which by the definition of a $`d`$-lattice implies $`xyF_a`$. The proof for $`I_a`$ is similar.

###### Fact 3

If $`I`$ is an ideal disjoint to $`F_a`$, and $`aI`$, then also the ideal generated by $`I\{a\}`$ is disjoint to $`F_a`$.

P r o o f. If $`xia`$ for some $`iI`$, and $`xF_a`$, then also $`iaF_a`$, hence $`ia=(ia)a=1`$. Thus, $`iF_a`$, so $`F_aI\mathrm{}`$.

###### Fact 4

If $`f:L_1L_2`$ is a homomorphism from $`L_1`$ onto $`L_2`$, and $`L_1`$ is balanced, then $`L_2`$ is balanced.

P r o o f. In fact, this holds “level-by-level”: If $`\varphi `$ is an unbalanced congruence on $`L_2`$, then the preimage of $`\varphi `$ is unbalanced on $`L_1`$.

###### Theorem 5

The following are equivalent (for a $`d`$-lattice $`L`$):

1. There is a maximal (hence prime) filter whose complement is not a maximal ideal.
2. There is a maximal (hence prime) ideal whose complement is not a maximal filter.
3. There are two prime ideals in $`L`$, one properly containing the other.
4. There are two prime filters in $`L`$, one properly containing the other.
5. There is a homomorphism from $`L`$ onto the 3-element lattice $`\{0,d,1\}`$.
6. $`L`$ is not balanced.
7. $`L`$ is not complemented.

In particular a $`d`$-lattice is balanced iff it is complemented.

P r o o f.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}& & (1)& & (3)& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ (7)& & & & & & (5)& & (6)& & (7)\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ & & (2)& & (4)& & & & & & \end{array}$$

(1) $``$ (3): By 1, the complement of a maximal filter is a (necessarily prime) ideal. If this ideal is not maximal, it can be properly extended to a maximal (hence prime) ideal. The proof of (2) $``$ (4) is similar (dual).

(3) $``$ (5): Let $`I_1I_2L`$ be prime ideals. Map $`I_1`$ to $`0`$, $`I_2I_1`$ to $`d`$, and $`LI_2`$ to $`1`$. Check that this is a lattice homomorphism. The proof of (4) $``$ (5) is dual.

(5) $``$ (6) follows from fact 4, since the three-element lattice is not balanced.

(6) $``$ (7) is from .

Now we show (7) $``$ (1). (Again, (7) $``$ (2) is dual.) Assume that $`L`$ is not complemented, so there is some $`a`$ such that $`F_aI_a=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`F_1`$ be the filter generated by $`F_a\{a\}`$. We have $`F_1I_a=\mathrm{}`$ by the dual of Fact 3, so $`F_1`$ is proper. By the Zorn lemma, $`F_1`$ can be extended to a maximal filter $`F`$. Let $`I_1=LF`$. It is enough to see that $`I_1`$ is not maximal. Let $`I`$ be the ideal generated by $`I_1\{a\}`$. By Fact 3, $`IF_a=\mathrm{}`$, so $`I`$ is a proper ideal properly extending $`I_1`$.


text:
# Statistical 𝐽/𝜓 production and open charm enhancement in Pb+Pb collisions at CERN SPS

## References


text:
# Surface charge of a flat superconducting slab in the Meissner state

## I Introduction

A diamagnetic current in a superconductor creates an electrostatic potential known as the Bernoulli potential . Early studies based either on the electrodynamics of the ideal charged fluid , on the London approximation  or on the local approximation of the BCS theory  provide the electrostatic potential as a function of the condensate velocity. This approach is not applicable to strongly inhomogoneous systems like Abrikosov vortices or surfaces where non-local quantum corrections are inevitable.

A simple non-local theory of the electrostatic potential in stationary superconductors has been introduced in . It is based on the Ginzburg-Landau (GL) theory and neglects the so called quasiparticle screening of van Vijfeijken and Staas  and the thermodynamic correction predicted by Adkins and Waldram  and evaluated by Rickayzen .

A theory of Ginzburg-Landau type which covers the quasiparticle screening and the thermodynamic corrections, has been introduced in . Its implementation to the Abrikosov vortex lattice is in preparation. In this paper we employ a non-local approach to discuss the formation of the surface charge. We study the simple system of a superconducting flat slab in a parallel magnetic field below $`B_{c1}`$.

The formation of a surface charge induced by the Bernoulli potential has been already studied by Jakeman and Pike . Starting from the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau theory, they have derived a Poisson equation for the electrostatic potential with screening over the Thomas-Fermi length and with a source term that includes the quasiparticle screening of van Vijfeijken and Staas . Except for the Thomas-Fermi screening their approach is local, what implies that a surface charge is formed on the scale of the Thomas-Fermi screening length. Here we show that the non-local corrections to the electrostatic potential are dominant over the Thomas-Fermi screening so that the surface charge forms on the scale of the GL coherence length.

## II Extended Ginzburg-Landau theory

Our treatment of the electrostatic potential starts from the free energy

$$=𝑑𝐫\left(f_{\mathrm{con}}+f_{\mathrm{kin}}+f_{\mathrm{mag}}\right)+_{\mathrm{Coul}}.$$
(1)
The kinetic energy of the condensate is of the GL form

$$f_{\mathrm{kin}}=\frac{1}{2m^{}}\left|(i\mathrm{}e^{}𝐀)\psi \right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`\psi `$ is the GL wave function, $`m^{}=2m`$ and $`e^{}=2e`$ are mass and charge of a cooperon. The condensation energy follows the two-fluid model of Gorter and Casimir ,

$$f_{\mathrm{con}}=U\epsilon _{\mathrm{con}}\frac{2}{n}\left|\psi \right|^2\frac{1}{2}\gamma T^2\sqrt{1\frac{2}{n}\left|\psi \right|^2}$$
(3)
with the condensation energy per volume given by Sommerfeld’s $`\gamma `$ as $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{con}}=\frac{1}{4}\gamma T_c^2`$. The total density is the sum of the condensate and normal electrons, $`n=2|\psi |^2+n_n`$. The internal energy, $`U`$, the linear coefficient of the specific heat per volume, $`\gamma `$, and the critical temperature, $`T_c`$, are functions of the density $`n`$.

The magnetic free energy,

$$f_{\mathrm{mag}}=\frac{1}{2\mu _0}\left(𝐁𝐁_a\right)^2,$$
(4)
depends on the applied magnetic field $`\mathrm{B}_a`$ and the internal field $`𝐁=\times 𝐀`$. The Coulomb energy is treated in the non-relativistic approximation,

$$_{\mathrm{Coul}}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}\frac{e^2}{4\pi ϵ}\frac{1}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\rho (𝐫)\rho (𝐫^{}),$$
(5)
where $`\rho =e^{}|\psi |^2+en_n+\rho _{\mathrm{latt}}`$ is the charge deviation from neutrality. We do not assume any external electric field.

Except for the Coulomb potential, this free energy has been introduced by Bardeen  soon after the paper of Ginzburg and Landau  as its simple extension to low temperatures.

In the stationary state the free energy has a minimum which can be found by the variation principle . Variations with respect to $`\overline{\psi }`$, $`𝐀`$ and $`n_n`$ lead to a set of extended Ginzburg-Landau equations:
the Schrödinger equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}\left(i\mathrm{}e^{}𝐀\right)^2\psi `$ (7)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}ϵ_{\mathrm{con}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma T^2}{2n}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{2}{n}|\psi |^2}}}\right)\psi =0,`$
the Maxwell equation,

$`\times \times 𝐀=\mu _0{\displaystyle \frac{e^{}}{m^{}}}\mathrm{Re}\overline{\psi }\left(i\mathrm{}e^{}𝐀\right)\psi .`$ (8)
and the screened Poisson equation,

$`e\phi `$ $``$ $`\lambda _{TF}^2^2e\phi `$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_{\mathrm{con}}}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\left|\psi \right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{n}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\left|\psi \right|^2}`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2nm^{}}}\overline{\psi }\left(i\mathrm{}e^{}𝐀\right)^2\psi .`$
We note that variations result directly in a condition for the charge density. The electrostatic potential $`\phi `$ has been introduced to simplify expressions. It links to the charge density via the plain Poisson equation

$`\epsilon ^2\phi =e^{}|\psi |^2+en_n+\rho _{\mathrm{latt}}.`$ (12)
The last term on the right hand side of (9) is the non-local Bernoulli potential . It is proportional to $`|\psi |^2/n`$ in the spirit of the quasiparticle screening . The two other terms combine into the thermodynamic correction introduced by Rickayzen . Note that the second term is the thermoelectric field of the normal metal reduced by a factor $`\sqrt{12|\psi |^2/n}`$. The screening on the Thomas-Fermi length is covered by the differential term in the left hand side of (9).

The usual GL theory has two independent variables, $`𝐀,\psi `$ and consequently only two differential equations have to be solved. Including the electrostatic potential we have four indeterminates $`𝐀,\psi ,\phi ,n_n`$ so that the set of four coupled equations (7 \- 12) should be solved. In reality the problem is not so complicated. The second GL equation (8) is independent of $`n_n`$ and $`\phi `$. The first GL equation (7) is independent of $`\phi `$ while it depends on $`n_n`$ exclusively via $`n=n_n+2|\psi |^2`$. Since $`n`$ is very large in metals and charge perturbations are rather small, one can neglect deviations from the charge neutrality in the first GL equation. In this approximation, equations (7,8) are solved separately. Once $`𝐀`$ and $`\psi `$ are known, equation (9) provides us with the electrostatic potential and the charge is found from the Poisson equation (12).

## III Flat slab in magnetic field

Let us demonstrate the behavior of the electrostatic potential in a superconducting slab in parallel magnetic field. We assume a superconductor of type II in a magnetic field below $`B_{c1}`$, i.e., in the Meissner state with the magnetic field penetrating from the surface.

We take the direction $`x`$ perpendicular to the slab limited to the interval $`(d,d)`$. The magnetic field we choose in the direction $`z`$, $`𝐁(0,0,B)`$, and the vector potential points in the direction $`y`$, $`𝐀=(0,A,0)`$. All functions depend exclusively on the coordinate $`x`$ and the wave function is real.

We rescale all functions into their dimensionless counterparts, $`x=\stackrel{~}{x}\lambda _0`$, $`A=\stackrel{~}{A}\mathrm{\Phi }_0/(2\pi \lambda _0)`$, $`\psi =\stackrel{~}{\psi }\sqrt{n/2}`$, $`e\phi =\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{}^2/(4m\lambda _0^2)`$, where the London penetration depth at zero temperature is given by $`\lambda _0^2=m/(e^2n\mu _0)`$. Note that our scale does not change with the temperature. In the expressions below we skip tildes denoting new functions. Equations (7,8) now read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2A}{x^2}}A\psi ^2=0,`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\psi }{x^2}}A^2\psi +S\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\sqrt{1\psi ^2}}}\right)\psi =0,`$ (14)
with $`S=\kappa ^2(1t^2)^2(1+t^2)`$. As usual in the GL theory, the only material parameter relevant after rescaling is the GL parameter $`\kappa `$ defined at $`T_c`$. In the Bardeen extension the rescaled equations also depend on the reduced temperature $`t=T/T_c`$.

As the boundary condition we use that the vector potential is anti-symmetric, $`A(x)=A(x)`$, with the value of the derivative at the surface given by the applied magnetic field $`B_a`$. The wave function has a zero derivative at the surface.

The third GL equation (9) in the dimensionless units,

$`\phi \tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\phi }{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_1\psi ^2+2C_2t^2\sqrt{1\psi ^2}`$ (16)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\sqrt{1\psi ^2}}}\right)\psi ^2,`$
depends on two material parameters,

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\epsilon _{\mathrm{con}}}{\mathrm{ln}n}},`$ (17)
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}n}}.`$ (18)
For Niobium these parameters can be derived from the McMillan formula  and chemical trends  giving values $`C_1=1.9`$ and $`C_2=0.42`$.

The reduced Thomas-Fermi screening length,

$$\tau =\frac{\lambda _{TF}}{\lambda _0},$$
(19)
is very small. For Niobium $`\lambda _{TF}=0.7`$ Å and $`\lambda _0=390`$ Å. The Thomas-Fermi screening thus enter equation (16) with factor $`\tau ^2=310^6`$. With accuracy of the order of $`10^5`$, the solution of (16) is $`\phi =\phi _{\mathrm{in}}+\phi _{\mathrm{free}}`$, with the induced term,

$`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ $`=`$ $`C_1\psi ^2+2C_2t^2\sqrt{1\psi ^2}`$ (21)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\sqrt{1\psi ^2}}}\right)\psi ^2,`$
and the free solution

$$\phi _{\mathrm{free}}=\phi _0\mathrm{cosh}(x/\tau ).$$
(22)
The free solution decreases near the surface on the scale of the Thomas-Fermi screening length $`\tau =1.810^3`$.

The amplitude of the free solution has to be selected so that the slab remains charge neutral. In other words, the free solution supplies the surface charge which is localized on the Thomas-Fermi screening length. The neutrality of the slab is equivalent to the condition that the electric field vanishes at the surface. The amplitude of the free solution is thus given by the condition $`\phi /x=0`$ on the surface.

Following  it is possible to show that the free solution is zero. The induced potential $`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ has zero derivative on the surface as it follows from (21) and the GL boundary condition, $`\psi /x=0`$. Accordingly, in the non-local approach one has $`\phi _0=0`$.

## IV Local versus non-local picture

The local approximation corresponds to a neglect of the gradients in the GL equation (14). The density of the condensate, $`\psi ^2`$, is thus found from a simple local condition,

$$1\frac{t^2}{\sqrt{1\psi ^2}}=\frac{A^2}{S},$$
(23)
From (23) one obtains $`\psi ^2`$ as a function of the vector potential $`A`$. This function is first used in (13) to solve for $`A`$ and finally substituted into (16) to find the electrostatic potential $`\phi `$.

The wave function $`\psi `$ found within the local approximation (23) does not satisfy the GL boundary condition $`\psi /x=0`$. Accordingly, the derivative of the induced potential is non-zero, $`\phi _{\mathrm{in}}0`$, so that the free solution has to be supplemented to maintain the charge neutrality.

Now we compare the full solution of (13 \- 16) with the local approximation. In our treatment we assume Niobium with Oxygen impurities of concentration giving $`\kappa =1.5`$. The width of the slab we take $`6\lambda _0`$ so that the magnetic field is screened from the bulk at low temperatures but penetrates the whole slab close to $`T_c`$.

At low temperatures one finds that the magnetic field suppresses the condensate only in a negligible fraction. Since the condensate density is nearly constant, it follows from (13) that the magnetic field differs only negligibly from the London approximation, $`B=B_0\mathrm{cosh}(x/\lambda )`$, with $`B_0=B_a/\mathrm{cosh}(d/\lambda )`$ and $`\lambda 1`$. Of course, since corrections beyond the London approximation are negligible, the local and non-local approaches yield very similar magnetic fields.

In figure 1 we show the electrostatic potential. The local approximation agrees with the non-local approach very well except for the close vicinity of the surface. This region is affected by the GL boundary condition. The presented result is for a magnetic field close to $`B_{c1}`$.

The formation of the surface charge is shown in Fig. 2. The depleted charge appears in the surface layer of characteristic width which is small compared to the London penetration depth or the GL coherence length, however still very large on the scale of the Thomas-Fermi screening.

For temperatures close to $`T_c`$ the local approximation becomes unreliable if one looks for the electrostatic potential or the related charge distribution. This contrasts with the magnetic properties. For temperature $`t=0.9`$ numerical results confirm that for a weak applied field, $`B=0.1B_{c1}`$, the magnetic field is quite well described by the London approximation, $`B=B_0\mathrm{cosh}(x/\lambda )`$, with $`B_0=B_a/\mathrm{cosh}(d/\lambda )`$ and $`\lambda =1.7`$. It again follows from a small effect of the magnetic field on the wave function which is nearly constant across the slab and reduced by 5% compared to the bulk value $`\psi _0=\sqrt{1t^4}=0.6`$, see Fig. 3. One can see that the local approximation for the deviation of the wave function is rather bad in this case. Indeed, the coherence length is comparable to the width of the slab so that the GL boundary condition is essential in the whole volume.

The local and non-local values of the electrostatic potential shown in Fig. 4 differ appreciably. First, the non-local potential is shifted down compared to the local approximation. We note that in both approximations the initial is identified with the bulk of a thick sample. The constant shift, however, is not important for the distribution of the charge shown in Fig. 5. One can see that in the local approximation the charge is positive everywhere. The charge neutrality is maintained by an invisibly thin depleted layer on the scale $`\tau 10^3`$. In the non-local approach, the layer of the depleted charge extends over the region comparable with the GL coherence length.

In conclusion, the formation of the surface charge due to the electrostatic potential caused by diamagnetic currents has been treated within the local and non-local approaches. While the local approach requires to include the surface on the scale of the Thomas-Fermi screening length, the non-local approach predicts that the surface charge extends over a layer of width comparable with the coherence length.

This work was supported by GAČR 202000643, GAAV A1010806 and A1010919 grants. The European ESF program VORTEX is also gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# A model for predation pressure in colonial birds

## Introduction

Colonial breeding behavior in birds has been extensively studiedL68 ; SK90 ; Retal98 . Different hypotheses have been put forward in order to explain this behavior, like minimizing the distance required for foragingH68 , observation of conspecific foraging groupsT56 , information transfer at the colonyWZ73 , shortage of nestsS76 ; SC87 , or predation pressureL68 .

One of the difficulties in verifying the previous hypotheses is that present day conditions need not coincide with those which lead to colonial behavior in the first place. Thus, modelling of bird populations using reasonable assumptions for bird behavior can be useful in the elucidation of possible scenarios favorable towards the evolution of coloniality.

Some theoretical studies give support to the hypothesis that information transfer at the colony increases the tendency towards colony formationBL88 ; BS95 ; B97 .

Predation can induce colonial habits in many ways. The simplest passive mechanism is the dilution effect provided by a colony of sufficiently large sizeV77 ; B81 ; T96 . In addition, the detection and defense capabilities are enhanced in coloniesK64 ; HS76 ; V77 ; A95 ; T96 . On the other hand, the lack of significant predation pressure on some colonial species has been used as evidence against the predation hypothesisB81 ; F89 , although a phylogenetic analysis of coloniality across bird species shows a strong correlation with exposure to predationRetal98 .

The present work analyzes the role of predation on the formation of colonial habits by means of a mathematical model which incoporates some of the known facts about the response of birds to attacks by predators, and makes simple assumptions about the memory and learning processes at play.

## The Model.

We assume that the available choices to birds is limited to two possibilities each breeding season: they can either form an individual nest, or join an existing colony. This binary restriction allows us to make use of the extensive literature on competition and collective behavior of agents with bounded rationality A94 ; Z98 .

Successful breeding individualstend to be faithful to their previous nesting site. Birds choose a colony or an isolated nest depending on their previous experience. This experience is modelled in a similar way to that used in the so called “minority game” Z98 ; Cetal99 . Each bird has, as already mentioned, two strategies. Each of these strategies has a score, which reflects the degree of reproductive success that the bird would have had if it had followed it. In this sense, the model departs from the minority game usually analyzed in the literature, where the score of strategies is the same for all agents. The present version reflects the diversity of birds, due to genetic differences and other sources, and resembles the “individual” version of the minority game Cetal00 .

A bird who made a succesful choice assigns the achieved score to its available strategies whose outcome is the same choice that it has taken. On the other hand, a bird whose nest is predated increases the score of those strategies whose outcome is the opposite.

Individual strategies, when succesful, obtain a larger score than colonial strategies (2 vs. 1), reflecting the ancestral tendency of birds to solitary breedingin the absence of predation. The number of sites is much larger than the number of birds. Unless otherwise stated, the predation probability, $`p_{pr}`$ fluctuates between 0 and a given value, $`p_{max}`$. In this way, we model the natural variability of the abundance of predators.

At each time step, which corresponds to one breeding season, there is a finite probability that a nest will be predated. Predation of nests in a colony of size $`N`$ is reduced by a factor proportional to $`N`$. We do not follow the detailed evolution of individual colonies in the habitat. Instead, we assume that there is a fixed distribution of colony sizes, such that the probability of finding a colony of a given size is inversely proportional to its size. This is the expected behavior if the relative fluctuation of colony sizes is random. The distribution is normalized to the total number of birds that have colonial behavior.

We model the birds’ finite lifespan by setting the score of the strategies of a given bird to zero with some finite probability, $`p=\frac{1}{v}`$, at each time step. This implies that a bird has been replaced by a new one with no previous experience. The total population is kept constant.

## Results.

We show, in fig. (1), the number of colonial birds, as function of time, for different values of $`p_{max}`$, and two lifespans (3 and 10 years).The number of birds is 10000.In the absence of predation, individual strategies acquired two points per season, while colonial behavior was awarded one point, reflecting the genetic tendency towards individual nests.

Finally, we have considered two possible behaviors: a) each individual may check the scores of all its strategies, and uses the one with the highest score every breeding season. Thus, birds would rely its decisions on their long-term previous experience (long-term experience). b) If the nest of a given individual was not predateds during the previous season, it repeats the last choice. If the nest was predated, the individual acts as in behavior (a).

All birds were located in individual nests at $`t=0`$, and we have followed the evolution of the population during 104 time steps.

## Conclusions.

Our results suggest that colonial behavior can arise as a natural response to predation pressure. Note that we made a number of conservative assumptions, in order to avoid any bias towards colonial behavior: i) The birds have an innate tendency towards preferring individual nests, ii) The only protection provided by the colony is the dilution effect, iii) The distribution of colonies is such that small colonies are more abundant, and iv) predation pressure fluctuates strongly from year to year, allowing for the existence of periods of low predation.

The number of colonial birds increases with increasing lifespan, as birds accumulate experience for a longer period. This evidence is in agreement with the observation that birds make use of their long term breeding experiencesSetal85 ; BG89 ; TH89 ; Oetal99 .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The existence of a third class of compact objects (apart from white dwarfs and neutron stars) has been debated for some time now (e.g. ). Attention may be drawn, particularly, to suggestions of “bare” strange stars as the candidates . Although an important question in this regard would be the formation mechanisms for such objects, an issue of equal import is that of observationally distinguishing these objects from neutron stars and black holes. In this work, we juxtapose the parameters of structure of compact stars (“bare” strange stars and neutron stars) in an attempt to glean the salient differences between these two classes of compact object - a first step in proving (or disproving) the existence of strange stars.

The discussion presented here is, therefore, expected to have relevance when modelling future sensitive observational data from low mass X–ray binaries (LMXBs). LMXBs are compact objects in binary orbit with an evolved low mass or dwarf companion star. The closeness of the orbit permits the compact object to peel off the outer layer of the companion star. Owing to it possessing substantial angular momentum, the matter so accreted (or peeled off), forms an accretion disk around the compact star.

Astrophysical models of LMXBs (in particular, the X–ray burst sources) play an important role in the constraining the equation of state of high density matter of the central object. It is, therefore, imperative that the models so constructed be realistic. Including general relativisitic effects is inescapable. General relativity not only decides the internal structure of compact stars, but also their external spacetime.

General relativity implies the existence of an innermost marginally stable orbit around compact objects with a radius $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$. For non–rotating (Schwarzschild) compact objects, $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=3GM/c^2`$. For rotating compact objects, the $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ decreases (for a given rest mass) with increasing angular momentum. Accretion disks around compact objects will have an inner–edge located at $`r=r_{\mathrm{in}}`$. Neutron stars as well as strange stars may have radii $`R>r_{\mathrm{orb}}`$.

The matter spiralling in from the inner–edge of the accretion disk, transfers angular momentum to the compact star, spinning it up to high rotation rates ($``$ millisecond periods) over dynamical timescales. Realistic astrophysical models must incorporate the effects of rotation of the accreting compact object.

In this work, we point out some of the salient differences between rotating neutron and strange stars. We refer the reader to , , , for details on the results presented here.

## 2 Rotating compact stars

The first calculation of the structure of non–rotating bare strange stars , established the mass-radius relationship to be the chief difference between the structure of non–rotating strange stars and neutron stars (Fig. 1). In the calculations reported here, we make use of 4 equations of state (EOS) models for strange stars (in what follows $`B`$, $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}`$, $`m_\mathrm{s}`$, $`m_\mathrm{u}`$, $`m_\mathrm{d}`$ refer to the Bag constant, QCD structure constant, and masses of strange, up and down quarks respectively): EOS A: , and MIT Bag model  with EOS B: $`B=90`$ MeV/fm3, EOS C: $`B=60`$ MeV/fm3, $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}=0`$, $`m_\mathrm{s}=200`$ MeV and $`m_\mathrm{u}=m_\mathrm{d}=0`$, EOS D: $`B=60`$ MeV/fm3, $`\alpha _\mathrm{c}=0`$ and 3 EOS models for neutron stars: BPAL12 ; WFFII ; SBD . NSEOS model SBD is a very stiff EOS, while WFFII is moderate in stiffness and BPAL12 is very soft. In addition to these EOS models, we also use (for displaying the effect of EOS on Kepler frequencies) a strange star EOS model due to .

To construct rapidly rotating strange stars, we perform numerical computations based on the formalism by . We construct sequences all the way from the static limit to mass–shed limit where centrifugal forces balance the inward gravitational pull. We also construct constant gravitational mass ($`M`$) and constant baryonic mass ($`M_\mathrm{B}`$) sequences. The results of our calculations, for one SSEOS: … is shown in Fig. 2: the thick solid curve is the non–rotating limit, the dotted curve is the mass shed limit and the horizontally directed curved lines are constant baryonic mass sequences.

The constant gravitational mass sequences help studying the effect of spin on the strange stars. From Fig. 3, we notice that there exists a maximum rotation rate for the strange stars, with a value that is higher than the rotation rate at mass shed (an effect that is absent in neutron stars: ). This maximum occurs at $`T/W0.2`$, indicating that such angular velocities are perhaps not attainable in strange stars due to triaxial instabilies .

Fig. 4 showing $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ v/s $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for constant gravitational mass sequences imply that $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ decreases with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ for low values of the rotation rate (similar to Kerr black holes and rotating neutron stars), but reaches a minimum and increases for higher rotation rates. The increase in $`r_{\mathrm{in}}`$ with rotation is purely an effect of the large quadrupole moment of the strange star .

We also compute the Kepler frequencies of test particles around rotating strange stars (Fig. 5). On comparing these with the Kepler frequencies expected for neutron stars (see ), we see that frequencies in the range (1.9 - 3.1) kHz if observed in future in X–ray burst sources, can be understood in terms of strange stars rather than neutron stars.

Acknowledgements: The results presented in this paper was obtained at Inter–University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics (IUCAA), Pune, India.

Discussion