text:
# On the association of G343.1-2.3 and PSR 1706-44

## 1. Introduction

The pulsar PSR B1706-44 is one of only 7 that are known to emit gamma-rays in the GeV energy range and one of only 3 that have been detected in the TeV range. There is thus considerable interest in the circumstances of the origin and evolution of such high energy pulsars.

The radio pulsar was discovered by Johnston et al (92). McAdam et al (93) published a map made by the MOST telescope at 843MHz of the area around the source. It showed a semicircular arc of emission, which has subsequently been denoted as the supernova remnant (SNR) G343.1-2.3, with the pulsar seemingly embedded in a small feature at its south eastern extremity. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }D`$ distance is 3 kpc for the remnant. The pulsar distance indicated by the Taylor and Coordes model was only 1.8 kpc. Frail et al (94) and Nicastro et. al. (96) both argued against the associations.

## 2. The Importance of Associations

Incorrect, or chance, associations can bias statistical results, especially when the number of objects is small. Pulsar and supernova remnant associations have been examined critically by Kaspi (96).

This pulsar, has a characteristic age of about 17.5 kyears (Johnston et al 92), a HI absorption distance of 2.4-3.2 kpc (Korbalski 95) and a scintillation velocity of $`<=`$ 100 kms-1 (Dodson 97). The SNR G323.1-2.3 has an age of between 8 and 17 kyears, and a distance of 3-3.6 kpc (Dodson 97). The pulsar sits about $`2/3^{rds}`$ from the geometric centre requiring a velocity of 750 kms-1.

The Taylor and Coordes model, 1.8 kpc, is clearly in error. The values for the scintillation bandwidth to velocity have been recalculated to reflect the improved models (Dodson 97). The shortfall in the scintillation velocity is not of great concern as it is within the 2 $`\sigma `$ limit of the distribution of measured velocity to scintillation velocity, furthermore the geometric centre is rarely the true SN site.

Altering Kaspi’s scoring method (96) slightly, (justified in detail in Dodson 97), these change the previous score of -3 to one of +2. These are summarised in table 1.

## 3. Observations of G323.1-2.3

The Mauritius Radio Telescope (MRT) (Golap et al 98) has observed this supernova remnant at 151.5 MHz, and a resolution of $`4^{}\times 4^{}.2`$. I present preliminary results, with a resolution of $`4^{}\times 15^{}`$. The MRT is particularly suited for non-thermal (as it is low frequency) and broadscale sources (as it is a filled uv instrument).

Follow-up observations were done with the Australian Telescope Compact Array (ATCA), and the Mount Pleasant 26m single dish instrument. These were combined to produce the the final maps.

These show that the observations with MOST, the ATCA and VLA are under estimating both the received flux and source extent.

## 4. The spectral index

The spectral index of this source is the clearest evidence of the problem with the other observations. The single dish observations show a monotonic spectral index of 0.5 However the MOST, VLA and ATCA–only observations find a significant short fall in flux and (more importantly) extent. It is only when the single dish information is included in the interferometer images that sensible results can be obtained.

## 5. Techniques for image recovery

There is no replacement for making the observation. The total power is the most important measurement if one is not to under estimate the flux from and the extent of the source. This is best done with a single dish observation. For the ATCA, the dishes are 22m in diameter and and a closest approach of 30m. Therefore the Parkes 64m dish is an ideal uv filler. However it is also 10 times over subscribed, so Mount Pleasant, with a diameter of 26m, is quite adequate.

It is gratifying to note that MRT, an interferometer, also includes the shortest possible spacing and thus recovers the broadscale structure naturally.

## 6. The ROSAT X-ray observations

As one can see, the data is being pushed hard; the background subtraction is distorted by the LMXB 1705-44 and the poor PSF of ROSAT. Full details of how the background subtraction and model fitting were done can be found in Dodson (97). Fortuitously, the distance, but not the age, (Figure 2) is robust for the range of possible model fits to be 3–3.6 kpc. The age can only be estimated as between 8–17 kyears.

## 7. conclusions

The association has been shown to be highly likely, with good alignment in both time and space. The uncertainties in the X-ray model will be tackled with the new generation of X-ray observatories. The question of the pulsar proper motion will be measured as soon as we have a phase reference.

## References

R. Dodson. PhD thesis, Durham University, 1997.
http://kerr.phys.utas.edu.au/~rdodson/thesis.

D.A. Frail, W.M. Goss, and J.B.Z Whiteoak. Astrophys. J., 437(2):781–793, 1994.

Golap, K. and Issur, NH. and Somanah, R. and Dodson, R. and Modgekar, M. and Sachdev, S. and Shankar, N.U. and Sastry, C.V. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 19:35-55, 1998.

S Johnston, et al. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 255:401–411, 1992.

V. Kaspi. In Pulsars: Problems and Progress,IAU Colloquium 160, page 375. Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 1996.

B. Koribalski, S. Johnston, J.M. Weisberg, and W. Wilson. Astrophys. J., 441(2):756–764, 1995.

W.M. McAdam, J.L. Osborne, and M.L. Parkinson. Nature, 361:516–518, 1993.

L. Nicastro, S. Johnston, and B. Koribalski. Astron. Astrophys. Letters, 306:L49–L51, 1996.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Nowadays the very peculiar rôle of symmetries is clearly recognised in all the areas of Mathematical Physics also thanks to the recent developments of Quantum Physics. In fact, it was in the context of Classical Physics that Liuoville defined as integrable a system having a number of local integrals of motion in involution (LIMI’s) equal to the degrees of freedom and proposed a theorem (Liouville-Arnold theorem ) to solve the motion up to quadratures – in the case of finite number of degrees of freedom. Nevertheless, there is no equivalent theorem when the degrees of freedom become infinite as well as the number of abelian symmetries: the classical field theories represent an important example which attracted more and more interest. The situation is even more complicated when the system is a quantum field theory: in this case we may be interested, for instance, in the energy spectrum  or in the spectrum of fields or in the correlation functions of those fields , as the usual meaning of motion is definitely lost. In fact, in systems with infinite degrees of freedom non-abelian symmetries revealed to be more useful: let us think of Classical Inverse Scattering Method  and Bethe Ansatz  as two illustrative examples among the others. Moreover, the Virasoro algebra in two Dimensional Conformal Field Theories (CFT’s) represents perhaps the most successful example of how a non-abelian symmetry can solve a quantum field theory and in this case a theory realising a physical system at the very important critical point .

Unfortunately, this Virasoro algebra do not exist any longer if the system is pushed out of the critical point, still preserving Liouville integrability . For instance, the Sine-Gordon (SG) theory is one of the simplest massive Integrable Field Theories (IFT’s), although it is the first theory in a series of structure richer theories, the Affine Toda Field Theories (ATFT’s)  and possesses all the features peculiar to the more general IFT’s . Actually, non-abelian infinite-dimensional symmetries were found in all Toda theories and they are called dressing symmetries at classical level  and become (level $`0`$) affine quantum algebras after quantisation . Nevetheless, because of their affine and highly non-local characters those symmetries are not of large use.

In this talk I present the appearance of infinitesimal symmetry transformations (vector fields) acting on the boson field of the classical Sine-Gordon theory. These vector fields turn out to close a Witt (centerless Virasoro) algebra. Since the only ingredient of the recipe is the Lax pair formulation of SG equation, it is clear how to generalise the construction to more general field theories like, for instance, ATFT’s. Nevertheless, I rather would like to focus my attention on the origin and form of the infinitesimal transformations in the particular case of SG theory. Specifically, I will show how to introduce the SG theory starting from the simpler Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) theory and how to frame this symmetry inside the KdV theory. Actually, I will not give a complete proof of all the statements I will formulate, leaving this part to a more systematic publication . On the contrary, the restriction of these vector fields on the variables of the $`N`$-soliton solutions was described and analysed in : in this talk I sketch only how to derive this action on a more intuitive ground. In the soliton phase space the infinitesimal transformations are realised in a much simpler form and in particular they become local contrary to the field theory case (in which these are quasi-local). At the end, I will deliver few comments about how much easier a quantisation of the soliton phase space might reveal.

## 2 The action of the Witt symmetry on fields

Let me recall the construction of the Witt symmetry in the context of (m)KdV theory . It was shown in , following the so-called matrix approach, that it appears as a generalisation of the ordinary dressing transformations of integrable models. As integrable system the mKdV equation enjoys a zero-curvature representation

$$[_tA_t,_xA_x]=0,$$
(2.1)
where the Lax connections $`A_x`$ , $`A_t`$ belong to a finite dimensional representation of some loop algebra and contain the fields and their derivatives. In this particular case the first Lax operator $``$ is given by

$$A_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^{}& \lambda \\ \lambda & \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.2)
where I have denoted with $`\varphi ^{}`$ the mKdV field (prime means derivative with respect to the space variable $`x`$), with $`\lambda `$ the $`A_1^{(1)}`$ loop algebra parameter (spectral parameter) and $`A_t`$ can be found using the dressing procedure I am going to describe . The KdV variable $`u(x)`$ is connected to the mKdV field $`\varphi ^{}`$ by the Miura transformation:

$$u=(\varphi ^{})^2\varphi ^{\prime \prime }.$$
(2.3)
Key objects in the following construction are solutions $`T(x,\lambda )`$ of the so-called associated linear problem

$$(_xA_x(x,\lambda ))T(x,\lambda )=0,$$
(2.4)
which may be called monodromy matrices. A formal (suitably normalised) solution of (2.4) can be formally expressed by

$$T_{reg}(x,\lambda )=e^{H\varphi (x)}𝒫\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda _0^x𝑑y(e^{2\varphi (y)}E+e^{2\varphi (y)}F)\right).$$
(2.5)
Of course, this solution is just an infinite series in positive powers of $`\lambda C`$ with an infinite radius of convergence. I shall often refer to (2.5) as regular expansion. It is also clear from (2.5) that any solution $`T(x,\lambda )`$ possesses an essential singularity at $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ where it is governed by the corresponding asymptotic expansion. In consequence, an asymptotic expansion has been derived in detail in

$$T_{asy}(x,\lambda )=KG(x,\lambda )e^{_0^x𝑑yD(y)},$$
(2.6)
where $`K`$ and $`G`$ and $`D`$ are written explicitly in . In particular the matrix

$$D(x,\lambda )=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^id_i(x)H^i,H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(2.7)
contains the local conserved densities $`d_{2n+2}(x)`$.

Obviously, a gauge transformation for $`A_x`$

$$\delta A_x(x,\lambda )=[\theta (x,\lambda ),]$$
(2.8)
preserve the zero-curvature form (2.1) if an analogous one applies to $`A_t`$: the vector field $`\delta `$ defines a symmetry of the equation of motion (2.1) in the usual sense, mapping a solution into another solution. Moreover, to build up a consistent gauge connection $`\theta (x,\lambda )`$ for the previous infinitesimal transformation, I must pay attention to the fact that the r.h.s. needs to be independent of $`\lambda `$ since the l.h.s is, as consequence of (2.2). Hence, a suitable choice for the gauge connection goes through the construction of the following object

$$Z^X(x,\lambda )=T(x,\lambda )XT(x,\lambda )^1,$$
(2.9)
where $`X`$ is such that

$$[_x,X]=0.$$
(2.10)
Indeed, it is obvious from the previous definition that it satisfies the resolvent condition

$$[,Z^X(x,\lambda )]=0,$$
(2.11)
for the first Lax operator $`=_xA_x(x,\lambda )`$. Now, this property implies

$$[,(Z^X(x,\lambda ))_{}]=[,(Z^X(x,\lambda ))_+],$$
(2.12)
where the subscript $``$ ($`+`$) means that I restrict the series only to negative (non-negative) powers of $`\lambda `$, and hence yields the construction of a consistent gauge connection defined as

$$\theta ^X(x,\lambda )=(Z^X(x,\lambda ))_{}or\theta ^X(x,\lambda )=(Z^X(x,\lambda ))_+.$$
(2.13)
Further, I have to impose one more consistency condition implied by the explicit form of $`A_x`$ (2.2), namely $`\delta A_x`$ must be diagonal

$$\delta ^XA_x=H\delta ^X\varphi ^{}.$$
(2.14)
This implies restrictions about the indices of the transformations . After posing $`T=T_{reg}`$ I obtain the so-called dressing symmetries  and the indices are even for $`X=H`$ and odd for $`X=E,F`$. Instead, after posing $`T=T_{asy}`$ I get for $`X=H`$ the commuting (m)KdV flows (or the (m)KdV hierarchy), which define the different time $`t_{2k+1},k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ evolutions and in particular (2.1) with $`t=t_3`$ .

At this point I want to make an important observation. Let me consider the KdV variable $`x`$ as a space direction $`x_{}`$ of some more general system (and $`_{}=_x`$ as a space derivative). Let me introduce the time variable $`x_+`$ through the corresponding evolution flow

$$_+=(\delta _1^E+\delta _1^F),$$
(2.15)
defined by a zero curvature condition of the form (2.8)

$$_+A_x_{}(x_{},x_+;\lambda )=[\theta _+(x_{},x_+;\lambda ),].$$
(2.16)
This specific $`\theta _+(x_{},x_+;\lambda )`$ is derived using (2.13) with the regular expansion. Then, it can be proved  that the equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ becomes:

$$_+_{}\varphi =2\mathrm{sinh}(2\varphi ),orif\varphi i\varphi ,_+_{}\varphi =2sin(2\varphi )$$
(2.17)
i.e. the Sine-Gordon equation. As we will see later, this observation will reveal very fruitful for my purpose since it provides an introduction of Sine-Gordon dynamics as a vector field in the powerful algebraic framework of the KdV hierarchy and its symmetries. For instance, I obtain as simple by-product the fact that mKdV hierarchy is a symmetry for SG equation. Of course, the Hamiltonians – given by the part of the dressing charges corresponding to the (2.16) and the higher flows $`_{2k+1}=\delta _{2k1}^E+\delta _{2k1}^F`$  – coincide with the well-known ones .

Now, let me explain how the Witt symmetry appears in the KdV system . The main idea is that one may dress not only the generators of the underlying $`A_1^{(1)}`$ algebra but also an arbitrary differential operator in the spectral parameter. I take for example $`\lambda ^{m+1}_\lambda `$ which are the well known vector fields of the diffeomorphisms of the unit circumference and close a Witt algebra. Then I proceed in the same way as above defining the resolvent associated to the circumference diffeomorphisms

$$Z^V(x,\lambda )=T(x,\lambda )_\lambda T(x,\lambda )^1.$$
(2.18)
When I consider the asymptotic case, i.e. I take $`T=T_{asy}`$ in (2.18), I obtain the non-negative Witt flows. In general they are written in terms of recursive quasi-local expressions $`\alpha _{2m}^V(x),m0`$ as

$$\delta _{2m}^V\varphi (x)=\alpha _{2m}^V(x),$$
(2.19)
where

$$\alpha _0^V(x)=x\varphi ^{}(x),\alpha _{2m+2}^V(x)=[\varphi ^{}_x^1\varphi ^{}_x+\frac{1}{4}_x^2]\alpha _{2m}^V(x).$$
(2.20)
Let me highlight the appearance of the pseudodifferential operator $`_x^1`$, acting on a function $`f(x)`$ as

$$_x^1f(x)=^x𝑑yf(y),$$
(2.21)
which is responsible (together with the form of the initial condition (2.20)) for the non complete locality. From these vector fields I can deduce the action on $`u(x)`$ using (2.3)

$$\delta _{2m}^Vu(x)=2_x\beta _{2m+1}^V(x)$$
(2.22)
again in terms of recursive quasi-local expressions $`\beta _{2m1}^V(x)`$

$$\beta _1^V=x,\beta _{2m+1}^V(x)=[\frac{1}{2}(u+_x^1u_x+\frac{1}{2}_x^2)]\beta _{2m1}^V(x).$$
(2.23)
For instance, the first two of (2.19) can be written as

$`\delta _0^V\varphi =x\varphi ^{},\delta _2^V\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{}(_x^1\varphi ^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime \prime }(\varphi ^{})^3].`$ (2.24)
The negative Witt transformations can also be built up by taking $`T=T_{reg}`$ in (2.18) in such a way to complete the algebra . Unfortunately, those vector fields do not act as gauge transformations on the SG equation of motion (2.16), actually they are not true symmetry transformations .

Nevertheless, thanks to the way (2.16) I have introduced SG theory through, I am in the position to extend the (half) Witt symmetry algebra jumping from (m)KdV to the SG theory. For obvious reasons I will rename in the following the KdV variable $`u`$ with

$$u^{}(x_{},x_+)=(_{}\varphi (x_{},x_+))^2_{}^2\varphi (x_{},x_+).$$
(2.25)
Hence, after looking at the symmetric rôle that the derivatives $`_{}`$ and $`_+`$ play in the Sine-Gordon equation, I can obtain the negative (m)KdV hierarchy, acting on the fields $`\varphi (x_{},x_+)`$ and

$$u^+(x_{},x_+)=(_+\varphi (x_{},x_+))^2_+^2\varphi (x_{},x_+),$$
(2.26)
in the same way as above but with the change of rôles $`x_{}x_+`$ (and consequently $`_{}_+`$). Similarly, I obtain the other half of a Witt algebra by using the same construction already showed, but with $`x_{}`$ substituted by $`x_+`$.

Of course, it is not obvious at all that the two different halves will recombine into a unique Witt algebra. Actually, even the first Witt vector field in the original construction (2.24) needs a symmetrising improvement to leave exactly invariant the zero curvature form of SG equation (2.16):

$$\delta _0^V\varphi =x_{}_{}\varphi x_+_+\varphi .$$
(2.27)
Nevertheless, I have checked this statement brute force in the case

$$[\delta _2^V,\delta _2^V]\varphi =4\delta _0^V\varphi ,$$
(2.28)
and it works in a peculiar manner, simply using the transformation definitions (2.27) and the second of (2.24). I would like to leave for future publication the detailed explanation of how a complete proof of this proposition may be elaborated along smart lines .

In conclusion, I have found an entire Witt algebra of transformations acting as gauge symmetries on SG equation (2.16). Moreover, I sketch now how the restriction of the action on soliton solution phase space yields the result argued in  following a slightly different procedure.

## 3 The Witt Symmetry acting on the soliton solution variables

I start with a brief description of the well known soliton solutions of SG equation and (m)KdV hierarchy in the infinite times formalism. To see how a $`N`$-soliton solution can be parametrised, I need to go through the expression of the so-called tau-function. This can be written as a determinant

$$\tau (X_1,\mathrm{},X_N|B_1,\mathrm{},B_N)=det(1+V)$$
(3.29)
where $`V`$ is a $`N`$x$`N`$ matrix

$$V_{ij}=2\frac{B_iX_i}{B_i+B_j},i,j=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(3.30)
and $`X_i(\{t_{2k+1}\}|x_i,B_i)`$ are exponential functions of of all the times $`\{t_{2k+1}\},kZ`$ (e.g. in the previous notation $`t_1=x_+,t_1=x_{},t_3=t`$)

$$X_i(\{t_{2k+1}\}|x_i,B_i)=x_i\mathrm{exp}(2\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}B_i^{2k+1}t_{2k+1}).$$
(3.31)
The constant parameters $`B_i`$ and $`x_i`$ describe the soliton rapidities and positions respectively. Now the SG or the mKdV field solution is expressed in a beautiful unitary way as

$$e^\varphi =\frac{\tau _{}}{\tau _+},$$
(3.32)
where simply

$$\tau _\pm =\tau (\{\pm X_i\}|\{B_i\}),$$
(3.33)
in the sense that after putting all the negative (positive) times to zero, I end up with the $`N`$-soliton solution of the mKdV hierarchy (the negative mKdV hierarchy), whereas after the position to zero of all the times but $`t_1=x_+,t_1=x_{}`$, I end up with the $`N`$-soliton solution of the SG equation.

The main goal of this Section is to find the action of the Witt symmetry on the $`N`$-soliton solution and this is more conveniently achieved introducing other variables $`\{A_i,B_i\}`$, expressed implicitly by the old variables $`\{X_i,B_i\}`$ through the implicit formulæ

$$X_j\underset{kj}{}\frac{B_jB_k}{B_j+B_k}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{B_jA_k}{B_j+A_k},j=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(3.34)
In fact, the $`\{A_i,B_i\}`$ are the soliton limit of certain variables describing the more general quasi-periodic finite-zone solutions of (m)KdV , being the $`B_i`$ the limit of the branch points of the hyperelliptic curve describing a particular solution and the $`A_i`$ the limit of the zeroes of the so-called Baker-Akhiezer function defined on the curve. Actually, even for the description of the quantum physics of Form Factors these variables are apparently more natural and suitable . Although, in terms of these variables the tau functions have still a combersome form

$`\tau _+=2^N{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_j\{{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i<j}{}(A_i+A_j)\underset{i<j}{}(B_i+B_j)}{_{i,j}(B_i+A_j)}}\},`$
$`\tau _{}=2^N{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_j\{{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{i<j}{}(A_i+A_j)\underset{i<j}{}(B_i+B_j)}{_{i,j}(B_i+A_j)}}\},`$ (3.35)
the SG (mKdV) field (3.32) enjoys a simple expression

$$e^\varphi =\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{A_j}{B_j}.$$
(3.36)
In consequence, the two components of the stress-energy tensor (2.25) and (2.26) take a wieldy form as well

$$u^{}=2(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_j^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}B_j^2),u^+=2(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}A_j^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}B_j^2).$$
(3.37)
Now I am in the position to restrict the Witt symmetry of SG equation developed in the previous Section to the case of soliton solutions. Although these transformations have been derived in , here I will follow a more intuitive path, which underlines the geometrical meaning of this symmetry. In other words our starting point consists in the transformations of the rapidities under the Witt symmetry: I do expect that they change the conformal structure of the Riemann surface describing the finite-zone solutions. Actually, in the (m)KdV theory the soliton limit of the Witt action on the Riemann surface reads simply

$$\delta _{2n}B_i=B_i^{2n+1},n0,$$
(3.38)
where I have forgotten the superscript $`V`$ for indicating the action on soliton variables. Further, the action of negative transformations should not be different

$$\delta _{2n}B_i=B_i^{2n+1},n>0,$$
(3.39)
save an additional $``$ sign in the r.h.s.  which takes into account the Witt algebra commutation relations. I have to show now the transformations of the $`A_i`$ variables as consequences of (3.38) and (3.39) once applied to the implicit map (3.34) by using the expression (3.31) of $`X_i`$ in terms of $`B_i`$. The problem is simplified by the fact that I know from the field theory that the symmetry algebra is a Witt algebra, and hence I need to compute only the transformations $`\delta _0`$, $`\delta _{\pm 2}`$ and $`\delta _{\pm 4}`$, for the higher vector fields are then furnished by commuting. In this way it is evident why the Witt transformations become local when restricted on the soliton solutions, though the transformations of $`\varphi `$ and $`u^\pm `$ in the SG theory are quasi-local. Actually, I think more natural and more compact to express the Witt action on $`A_i`$ by using the equations of motion of $`A_i`$ derived from (3.31) and (3.34), like for instance

$`\delta _1A_i=_+A_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(A_i^2B_j^2)}{B_j^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_j^2}{(A_i^2A_j^2)}},\delta _1A_i=_{}A_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(A_i^2B_j^2){\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(A_i^2A_j^2)}},`$
$`\delta _3A_i=3({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_j^2{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}A_k^2)_{}A_i,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\delta _5A_i=({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_j^4{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}A_k^4)_{}A_i{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}(A_i^2A_j^2)_{}A_i_{}A_j.`$ (3.40)
In conclusion, the direct calculation is quite tiresome and I present here only few results:

$`\delta _2A_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x_+\delta _3A_iA_i^1_+A_i{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_j^1x_{}_+A_i,`$
$`\delta _4A_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}x_+\delta _5A_iA_i^3\{{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_i}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_i^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_j^2}})+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_j}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_k^2}}\}_+A_ix_{}\delta _3A_i`$ (3.41)
and for non-negative vector fields

$`\delta _0A_i=(x_{}_{}x_+_++1)A_i,\delta _2A_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x_{}\delta _3A_i+A_i^3({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_j)_{}A_ix_+_{}A_i,`$
$`\delta _4A_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}x_{}\delta _5A_i+A_i^5\{{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}A_i(A_i^2A_j^2)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}A_j{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_k^2\}_{}A_ix_+\delta _3A_i.`$ (3.42)
At this point, I need to carry out two important checks. First, I have to calculate the commutators of the $`\delta _{2m}`$ (with $`mZ`$) with the light-come SG flow $`_\pm `$, acting on $`A_i`$. These are always zero and represent an equivalent way to express the symmetry action. Second, I have to verify the algebra of the $`\delta _{2m}`$ (with $`mZ`$) on $`A_i`$ and this is a very non trivial check for I have derived all the transformations (3.41) and (3.42) from the Witt algebra on $`B_i`$, written in (3.38) and (3.39), and from the implicit map (3.34). Nevertheless the action on $`A_i`$ is again a representation of the Witt algebra:

$$[\delta _{2n},\delta _{2m}]A_i=(2n2m)\delta _{2n+2m}A_i,n,mZ.$$
(3.43)
## 4 Comments about quantisation

Of course, I might be interested in the quantum Sine-Gordon theory. In the case of solitons there is a standard procedure: the canonical quantisation of the $`N`$-soliton solutions. Indeed, let me introduce the variables canonically conjugated to the $`A_i`$:

$$P_j=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{B_kA_j}{B_k+A_j},j=1\mathrm{},N.$$
(4.44)
In these variables one can perform the canonical quantisation of the $`N`$-soliton system introducing the deformed commutation relations between the operators $`\widehat{A}_i`$ and $`\widehat{P}_i`$ :

$`\widehat{P}_j\widehat{A}_j`$ $`=`$ $`q\widehat{A}_j\widehat{P}_j,`$
$`\widehat{P}_k\widehat{A}_j`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{A}_j\widehat{P}_kforkj,`$ (4.45)
where $`q=\mathrm{exp}(i\xi )`$, $`\xi =\frac{\pi \gamma }{\pi \gamma }`$ and $`\gamma `$ is the coupling constant of the SG theory. Understanding how the Witt symmetry is deformed after quantisation is a very seductive problem.

Acknowledgements– It is a pleasure for me to thank E. Corrigan and particularly M. Stanishkov for interesting discussions and the Organisers of the Workshop for invitation and very cordial hospitality. Further, I thank EPSRC for the fellowship GR/M66370. This work has been partially realised through financial support of TMR Contract ERBFMRXCT960012.


text:
# Physics development of web-based tools for use in hardware clusters doing lattice physics

## 1 THE META-FACILITY CONCEPT

The next generation of computers for lattice calculations and other grand challenge type numerical simulation problems will be constructed with multi-teraflops computing capabilities. Such machines dedicated to a particular grand challenge problem may not be geographically located at a single site. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility and the MIT Laboratory for Nuclear Science have undertaken a joint project to develop a meta-facility for lattice physics calculations at a geographically dispersed facility.

A “meta-facility” for lattice physics will consist of a set of tools and utilities that allow for the efficient distribution of of data and computing tasks among multiple lattice gauge facilities. The goals of the meta-facility will provide a central location for users to submit and monitor these jobs, collect and distribute data generated from these computing activities, and status of the overall status of the hardware interconnected to the meta-facility.

The full implementation of the meta-facility will have the capability of providing a primary routing mechanism to provide users with the ability to run jobs at one of several sites according to the resources currently available at any given time. At each site, there will be a batch system that accepts jobs from the central routing queue. A distributed batch system at each site will queue the job(s) sent to each site and control the execution of the jobs on the machines at that site. The distributed batch system at each site will also communicate with the central routing queue providing job status and control information to the routing queue.

## 2 THE PRESENT JLAB-MIT FACILITY

At the present time, JLab and MIT have developed an initial set of web-based tools and utilities that have been installed at both sites. This initial software deployment will become part of the design toward an eventual full implementation of a meta-facility at both sites.

These web based tools have installed to monitor the clusters of machines at both JLab and MIT. These machines currently have a mix of different capabilities and configurations.

Jefferson Lab presently has two clusters operational. The first cluster consists of 16 XP1000 nodes from Compaq. The XP1000 is a 64 bit Alphaa 21264 processor (500 MHz)with a 4 MB L2 cache and 64 KB on chip cache, a 100 MHz SDRAM subsystem and integrated 4 GB Wide-Ultra SCSI (10000rpm) disk subsystem with dual independent 32/64 bit PCI buses. Eight of the XP1000 nodes are have Myrinet cards installed, THe nodes are connected to a Myrinet switch. The second cluster consists of 12 dual processor UP2000 from API Labs. The UP-2000 systems have dual 667 MHz 21264 processors with 4 MB caches, 512 MB memory, and an 18 GBIDE disk (7200 rpm)

At MIT, the are twelve Compaq ES40 machines. Each ES40 machine has four EV-67 667 Mhz alpha processors and 1 Gbyte of memory in an SMP configuration within each box. The twelve ES40s are connected by both Myrinet hardware and fast ethernet. There are also additional Intel based PCs that serve as backup, file and batch servers at this site. This entire set of machines is positioned behind an Intel based front-end machine. This front end machine serves the functionality of a firewall and as a repository for the web-based tools and utilities

The current capabilities of the present system allow users at either the JLab or MIT sites to launch and monitor batch jobs and examine batch queue parameters and machine status. The JLab site also has the capability to allow users to browse the tape file catalog and initiate file transfers from to and from the JLab tape storage facilities. At the present time there is a certificate server operational at JLab with the capability of issuing a personal web certificate for enhanced security for users submitting jobs to that site.

## 3 FUTURE PLANS AND ENHANCEMENTS

The present configuration that is operational at JLab and MIT has demonstrated a proof of concept. The batch system execution queues at both the JLab and MIT sites operate properly and a Web based link has been established between both sites that provides information on the status and batch jobs running on all clusters. The project will be moving forward with two major upgrade tasks scheduled over the next several months.

\- At the present time, batch job submission via the Web is limited to the JLab site. Web services for batch submission of jobs at the MIT site will be installed in the Fall of 2001.

\- Tape transfers at both JLab and MIT involve a two-stage process because of the front-end machines acting as firewalls at both sites. Work is ongoing to develop full tape file transfer capability at both sites

After these immediate tasks have been completed and are operational, there are several longer term activities planned for development and implementation of a fully functional meta-facility.

At both the MIT and JLab sites, only the execution queues have been configured in the batch queuing system at each site. The ultimate goal is to develop and install a separate node in the meta-facility that will be dedicated to the functionality of a routing queue. The routing queue would not be attached to any of the individual clusters in the meta-facility but would rather view all of the execution queues on every cluster at all sites throughout the meta-facility. The routing node will act as a separate communications and traffic manager.

Users would only submit jobs to the node that was running the routing queue system software. The routing queue would have the configuration parameters of each execution queue and communicate with all of the various execution queues located throughout the entire system. Based on the job requirements, the routing queue would examine systems loads and available resources throughout the entire meta-facility and direct the job to the execution queue on the cluster with the most available resources. At this point additional sites beyond the Jefferson Lab and MIT locations would be added.

Finally, the routing queue will be integrated with future data grid software currently being developed using Java and XML-based web services . The final system will be a web-based distributed data grid that is site independent. It will include a distributed batch system augmented with various monitoring tools and management options to deliver a full production level meta-facility for lattice physics.


text:
# Unified description of dark matter at the center and in the halo of the Galaxy

## Abstract

We consider a self-gravitating ideal fermion gas at nonzero temperature as a model for the Galactic halo. The Galactic halo of mass $`2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$ enclosed within a radius of $`200`$ kpc is consistent with the existence of a supermassive compact dark object at the Galactic center that is in hydrostatic and quasi-thermal equilibrium with the halo. The central object has a maximal mass of $`2.3\times 10^6M_{}`$ within a minimal radius of $`18`$ mpc for fermion masses $`15`$ keV.

In the past, self-gravitating neutrino matter was suggested as a model for quasars, with neutrino masses in the range $`0.2\mathrm{keV}\text{ }<\text{ }m\text{ }<\text{ }0.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ . More recently, supermassive compact objects consisting of nearly non-interacting degenerate fermionic matter, with fermion masses in the range $`10\text{ }<\text{ }m/\mathrm{keV}`$ $`\text{ }<\text{ }20`$, have been proposed  as an alternative to the supermassive black holes that are believed to reside at the centers of many galaxies.

So far the masses of $`20`$ supermassive compact dark objects at the galactic centers have been measured . The most massive compact dark object ever observed is located at the center of M87 in the Virgo cluster, and it has a mass of $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$ . If we identify this object of maximal mass with a degenerate fermion star at the Oppenheimer-Volkoff (OV) limit , i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{OV}}=0.54M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^3m^2g^{1/2}3\times 10^9M_{}`$ , where $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}`$, this allows us to fix the fermion mass to $`m15`$ keV for a spin and particle-antiparticle degeneracy factor $`g=2`$. Such a relativistic object would have a radius $`R_{\mathrm{OV}}=4.45R_\mathrm{S}`$ 1.5 light-days, where $`R_\mathrm{S}`$ is the Schwarzschild radius of the mass $`M_{\mathrm{OV}}`$. It would thus be virtually indistinguishable from a black hole of the same mass, as the closest stable orbit around a black hole has a radius of 3 $`R_\mathrm{S}`$ anyway.

Near the lower end of the observed mass range is the compact dark object located at the Galactic center  with a mass $`M_\mathrm{c}2.6\times 10^6M_{}`$. Interpreting this object as a degenerate fermion star consisting of $`m15`$ keV and $`g=2`$ fermions, the radius is $`R_\mathrm{c}21`$ light-days $`7\times 10^4R_\mathrm{S}`$ , $`R_\mathrm{S}`$ being the Schwarzschild radius of the mass $`M_\mathrm{c}`$. Such a nonrelativistic object is far from being a black hole. The observed motion of stars within a projected distance of $``$ 6 to $``$ 50 light-days from Sgr A  yields, apart from the mass, an upper limit for the radius of the fermion star $`R_\mathrm{c}\text{ }<\text{ }22`$ light-days.

The required nearly non-interacting fermion of $``$ 15 keV mass cannot be an active neutrino, as it would overclose the Universe by orders of magnitude . However, the $`15`$ keV fermion could very well be a sterile neutrino mixed to active neutrinos with a mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^{11}`$. Indeed, as has been shown for an initial lepton asymmetry of $`10^2`$, a sterile neutrino of mass $``$ 10 keV may be resonantly or non-resonantly produced in the early Universe with near closure density, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}`$ 0.3 . As an alternative possibility, the required $``$ 15 keV fermion could be the axino  or the gravitino  in soft supersymmetry breaking scenarios.

In the recent past, galactic halos were successfully modeled as a self-gravitating isothermal gas of particles of arbitrary mass, the density of which scales asymptotically as $`r^2`$, yielding flat rotation curves . As the supermassive compact dark objects at the galactic centers are well described by a gas of fermions of mass $`m15`$ keV at $`T=0`$, it is tempting to explore the possibility that one could describe both the supermassive compact dark objects and their galactic halos in a unified way in terms of a fermion gas at finite temperature. We show in this letter that this is indeed the case, and that the observed dark matter distribution in the Galactic halo is consistent with the existence of a supermassive compact dark object at the center of the Galaxy which has about the right mass and size.

Degenerate fermion stars are well understood in terms of the Thomas-Fermi theory applied to self-gravitating fermionic matter at $`T=0`$ . Extending this theory to nonzero temperature , it has been shown that at some critical temperature $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$, a self-gravitating ideal fermion gas, having a mass below the OV limit enclosed in a sphere of radius $`R`$, may undergo a first-order gravitational phase transition from a diffuse state to a condensed state. However, this first-order phase transition can take place only if the Fermi gas is able to get rid of the large latent heat. As short-range interactions of the fermions are negligible, the gas cannot release its latent heat; it will thus be trapped for temperatures $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$ in a thermodynamic quasistable supercooled state close to the point of gravothermal collapse.

The formation of a supercooled state close to the point of gravothermal collapse may be due to violent relaxation . Through the gravitational collapse of an overdense fluctuation, $``$ 1 Gyr after the Big Bang, part of gravitational energy transforms into the kinetic energy of random motion of small-scale density fluctuations. The resulting virialized cloud will thus be well approximated by a gravitationally stable quasi-thermalized halo. In order to estimate the particle mass-temperature ratio, we assume that a cold overdense cloud of the mass of the Galaxy $`M`$, stops expanding at the time $`t_\mathrm{m}`$, reaching its maximal radius $`R_\mathrm{m}`$ and minimal average density $`\rho _\mathrm{m}=3M/(4\pi R_\mathrm{m}^3)`$. The total energy per particle is just the gravitational energy

$$E=\frac{3}{5}\frac{GM}{R_\mathrm{m}}.$$
(1)
Assuming spherical collapse , one arrives at

$$\rho _\mathrm{m}=\frac{9\pi ^2}{16}\overline{\rho }(t_\mathrm{m})=\frac{9\pi ^2}{16}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}\rho _0(1+z_\mathrm{m})^3,$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\rho }(t_\mathrm{m})`$ is the background density at the time $`t_\mathrm{m}`$ or the cosmological redshift $`z_\mathrm{m}`$, and $`\rho _03H_0^2/(8\pi G)`$ is the present critical density. We now approximate the virialized cloud by a singular isothermal sphere  of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$, characterized by a constant circular velocity $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(2T/m)^{1/2}`$ and the density profile $`\rho (r)=\mathrm{\Theta }^2/4\pi Gr^2.`$ Its total energy per particle is the sum of gravitational and thermal energies, i.e.,

$$E=\frac{1}{4}\frac{GM}{R}=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Theta }^2.$$
(3)
Combining Eqs. (1), (2), and (3), we find

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^2=\frac{6\pi }{5}G(6\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}\rho _0M^2)^{1/3}(1+z_\mathrm{m}).$$
(4)
Taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{d}=0.3`$, $`M=2\times 10^{12}M_{}`$, $`z_\mathrm{m}=4`$, and $`H_0=65\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Theta }220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which corresponds to the mass-temperature ratio $`m/T4\times 10^6`$.

We now briefly discuss the Thomas-Fermi theory  for a self-gravitating gas of $`N`$ fermions with mass $`m`$ at the temperature $`T`$ enclosed in a sphere of radius $`R`$. We restrict our attention to the Newtonian theory since the general relativistic effects are not relevant to the physics we discuss in this paper. The general relativistic treatment will be reported elsewhere. For large $`N`$, we can assume that fermions move in a spherically symmetric mean-field potential $`\phi (r)`$ which satisfies Poisson’s equation

$$\frac{d\phi }{dr}=G\frac{}{r^2};\frac{d}{dr}=4\pi r^2mn,$$
(5)
$``$ being the enclosed mass. The number density of fermions (including antifermions) $`n`$ can be expressed in terms of the Fermi-Dirac distribution (in units $`\mathrm{}=c=k=1`$)

$$n=\frac{\rho }{m}=g\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}\left(1+\mathrm{exp}(\frac{q^2}{2mT}+\frac{m}{T}\phi \frac{\mu }{T})\right)^1.$$
(6)
Here $`g`$ denotes the combined spin-degeneracy factor of the neutral fermions and antifermions, i.e., $`g`$ is 2 or 4 for Majorana or Dirac fermions, respectively. For each solution $`\phi (r)`$ of (5), the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is adjusted so that the constraint

$$_0^R𝑑r\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\pi r^2n(r)=N,$$
(7)
is satisfied. Equations (5) with (6) should be integrated using the boundary conditions at the origin, i.e.,

$$\phi (0)=\phi _0;(0)=0.$$
(8)
It is useful to introduce the degeneracy parameter

$$\eta =\frac{\mu }{T}\frac{m}{T}\phi .$$
(9)
As $`\phi `$ is monotonously increasing with increasing $`r`$, the strongest degeneracy is obtained at the center with $`\eta _0=(\mu m\phi _0)/T`$. The parameter $`\eta _0`$, uniquely related to the central density, will eventually be fixed by the constraint (7) or equivalently by the condition $`(R)=mN`$ at the outer boundary. In this way, the explicit dependence on the chemical potential $`\mu `$ is absorbed in the degeneracy parameter $`\eta _0`$. For $`rR`$, the function $`\phi `$ yields the usual empty-space Newtonian potential

$$\phi (r)=\frac{mN}{r}.$$
(10)
The set of self-consistency equations (5)-(7), with the boundary conditions (8), defines the gravitational Thomas-Fermi equation.

The numerical procedure is now straightforward. For a fixed, arbitrarily chosen ratio $`m/T`$, we first integrate Eqs. (5) numerically on the interval $`[0,R]`$ to find the solutions for various central values $`\eta _0`$. This yields $`(R)`$ as a function of $`\eta _0`$. We then select the value of $`\eta _0`$ for which $`(R)=mN`$.

The quantities $`N`$, $`T`$,and $`R`$ are free parameters in our model and their values are dictated by physics. In the following, $`N`$ is required to be of the order $`2\times 10^{12}M_{}/m`$, so that for any $`m`$, the total mass is close to the estimated mass of the halo . As we have demonstrated, the expected temperature of the halo is given by $`m/T=4\times 10^6`$. Our choice $`R=200`$ kpc is based on the estimated size of the Galactic halo. The only remaining free parameter is the fermion mass, which we fix at $`m=15`$ keV, and justify its choice a posteriori.

For fixed $`N`$, there is a range of $`T`$ where the Thomas-Fermi equation has multiple solutions. For example, for $`N=2\times 10^{12}`$ and $`m/T=4\times 10^6`$, we find six solutions, which we denote by (a), (b), (c), (c’), (b’), and (a’) corresponding to the values $`\eta _0=`$ -30.53, -25.35, -22.39, 29.28, 33.38, and 40.48, respectively. In Fig. 1 we plot the mass density profiles of the halo. For the negative central value $`\eta _0`$, for which the degeneracy parameter is negative everywhere, the system behaves basically as a Maxwell-Boltzmann isothermal sphere. Positive values of the central degeneracy parameter $`\eta _0`$ are characterized by a pronounced central core of mass of about $`2.5\times 10^6M_{}`$ within a radius of about 20 mpc. The presence of the core is obviously due to the degeneracy pressure. The core represents material which, having been cooled by expansion, experiences little entropy increase during the ensuing collapse. Thus the dynamics of its formation should be well approximated by a dynamical Thomas-Fermi theory based on the equation of state of a degenerate Fermi gas . Conversely, the halo is formed from phase-mixed matter and estimates similar to those leading to (4) give an average entropy per particle increasing from few $`\times `$ 100 to few $`\times `$ 101.

A similar structure was obtained in collisionless stellar systems modeled as a nonrelativistic Fermi gas . Note that while violent relaxation leads to a Fermi-Dirac distribution in either case, for stars the onset of degeneracy signals the breakdown of the assumption that collisions are unimportant, resulting in a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution . No such breakdown occurs for elementary fermions .

Fig. 1 shows two important features. First, a galactic halo at a given temperature may or may not have a central core depending on whether the central degeneracy parameter $`\eta _0`$ is positive or negative. Second, the closer to zero $`\eta _0`$ is, the smaller the radius at which the $`r^2`$ asymptotic behavior of density begins. The flattening of the Galactic rotation curve begins in the range $`1\text{ }<\text{ }r/\mathrm{kpc}\text{ }<\text{ }10`$, hence the solution (c’) most likely describes the Galactic halo. This may be verified by calculating the rotation curves in our model. We know already from our estimate (4) that our model yields the correct asymptotic circular velocity of 220 km/s. In order to make a more realistic comparison with the observed Galactic rotation curve, we must include two additional matter components: the bulge and the disk. The bulge is modeled as a spherically symmetric matter distribution of the form

$$\rho _\mathrm{b}(s)=\frac{e^{hs}}{2s^3}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\frac{e^{hsu}}{[(u+1)^81]^{1/2}},$$
(11)
where $`s=(r/r_0)^{1/4}`$, $`r_0`$ is the effective radius of the bulge and $`h`$ is a parameter. We adopt $`r_0=2.67`$ kpc and $`h`$ yielding a bulge mass $`M_\mathrm{b}=1.5\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ .

In Fig. 2 the mass of the halo and bulge enclosed within a given radius is plotted for various $`\eta _0`$. The data points, indicated by squares, are the mass $`M_\mathrm{c}=2.6\times 10^6M_{}`$ within 18 mpc, estimated from the motion of the stars near Sgr A , and the mass $`M_{50}=5.4_{3.6}^{+0.2}\times 10^{11}`$ within 50 kpc, estimated from the motion of satellite galaxies and globular clusters . Variation of the central degeneracy parameter $`\eta _0`$ between 24 and 32 does not change the essential halo features.

In Fig. 3 we plot the circular velocity components: the halo, the bulge, and the disk. The contribution of the disk is modeled as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{d}(r)^2=\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{d}(r_\mathrm{o})^2\frac{1.97(r/r_\mathrm{o})^{1.22}}{[(r/r_\mathrm{o})^2+0.78^2]^{1.43}},$$
(12)
where we take $`r_\mathrm{o}=13.5`$ kpc and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{d}=100`$ km/s. Here we have assumed for simplicity that the disc does not influence the mass distribution of the bulge and the halo. Choosing the central degeneracy $`\eta _0=28`$ for the halo, the data by Merrifield and Olling  are reasonably well fitted.

We now turn to the discussion of our choice of the fermion mass $`m=15`$ keV for the degeneracy factor $`g=2`$. To that end, we investigate how the mass of the central object, i.e., the mass $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ within 18 mpc, depends on $`m`$ in the interval 5 to 25 keV, for various $`\eta _0`$. We find that $`m15`$ keV always gives the maximal value of $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ ranging between 1.7 and 2.3 $`\times 10^6M_{}`$ for $`\eta _0`$ between 20 and 28. Hence, with $`m15`$ keV we get the value closest to the mass of the central object $`M_\mathrm{c}`$ estimated from the motion of the stars lear Sgr A .

The radius of our central object of about 18 mpc is much larger than the size of the radio source Sgr A. In fact, very large array interferometric observations of Sgr A at millimeter wavelength show that the radiowave emitting region is $``$ 1-3 AU . However, it has not yet been shown conclusively that Sgr A is indeed the object that has a mass $``$ 3 $`\times `$ 106 M. There are arguments, based on the nonmotion of Sgr A and equipartition of energy in the central star cluster, indicating that Sgr A could have a mass $``$ 103 M . This argument is only conclusive if equipartition of energy actually takes place in a reasonable time frame. It is, therefore, still possible that the compact radiosource Sgr A, with a radius of a few AU, and the moderately compact supermassive dark object that has been detected gravitationally, and possibly also in X-rays in the quiescent state, with a radius of $``$ 20 mpc , could be two distinct objects.

In summary, using the Thomas-Fermi theory, we have shown that a weakly interacting self-gravitating fermionic gas at finite temperature yields a mass distribution that successfully describes both the center and the halo of the Galaxy. For a fermion mass $`m15`$ keV, a reasonable fit to the rotation curve is achieved with the temperature $`T=3.75`$ meV and the degeneracy parameter at the center $`\eta _0=28`$. With the same parameters, the masses enclosed within 50 and 200 kpc are $`M_{50}=5.04\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ and $`M_{200}=2.04\times 10^{12}M_{}`$, respectively. These values agree quite well with the mass estimates based on the motion of satellite galaxies and globular clusters . Moreover, the mass $`M_\mathrm{c}2.27\times 10^6M_{}`$, enclosed within 18 mpc, agrees reasonably well with the observations of the compact dark object at the center of the Galaxy. We thus conclude that both the Galactic halo and the center could be made of the same fermions.

This research is in part supported by the Foundation of Fundamental Research (FFR) grant number PHY99-01241 and the Research Committee of the University of Cape Town. The work of N.B. is supported in part by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.


text:
# Incoherent charge transport through molecular wires: interplay of Coulomb interaction and wire population

## 1 Introduction

In the last few years, considerable progress towards an electronics based on single molecules has been made . Nanotubes , fullerenes , and organic molecules  have been contacted and current-voltage characteristics were measured. These experimental successes are accompanied by a vast body of theoretical studies  which mostly concentrate on coherent transport through the molecules. However, relaxation processes on the molecule may lead to *incoherent* transport  and some of the experimental data may be interpreted in this sense .

Recently, Petrov et al.  have applied a nonlinear quantum kinetic statistical many-body approach in mean-field approximation to incoherent transport through short molecular wires in the limit of infinitely strong Coulomb interaction. Stimulated by this work, we discuss the charge transport through a single wire in the incoherent regime. Assuming that relaxation processes on the wire units are much faster than the time scale for tunneling between different units, a description in terms of rate equations for the electronic state of the wire is then adequate.

The main focus of this paper will be on the influence of Coulomb interaction on the electronic transport. After introducing in Section 2 a generic model for the molecular wire and discussing the voltage profile across the wire, the limit of strong Coulomb repulsion will be considered in Section 3. This allows us to restrict the calculation to the lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO) and to neglect excitations to higher levels. In particular, this implies that temperature is sufficiently low so that the Coulomb interaction exceeds the thermal energy. In Section 4 we will include the spin degree of freedom for the electrons which had been neglected in Section 3. In this context the blocking of spin channels due to Coulomb interaction will be discussed in detail. Finally, in Section 5 we relax the requirement of strong Coulomb interaction and study the different regimes arising from the interplay between Coulomb repulsion and thermal fluctuations.

## 2 Model for a molecular wire

In this paper, we will focus on generic properties of incoherent charge transport through a molecular wire. The model for the wire will consequently be kept as simple as possible: a linear array of $`N`$ identical wire units numbered consecutively from left to right is joined by $`N1`$ identical molecular bridges denoted by “M”. In order to apply a voltage and to pass a current through the wire, the setup shown in Fig. 1 is used where two contacts “C” connect the wire to the electrodes marked by “L” and “R”.

Except for Section 5, we will confine the discussion to the case of strong Coulomb interaction. This prevents the wire from being charged with more than one electron. Neglecting spin for the moment, the wire will then always be found in one of $`N+1`$ states: either the wire is in its ground state and all wire units are neutral, or exactly one of the units is charged by an additional electron. We will denote these states by “0” for a neutral wire or the number of the unit $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ which carries an extra charge.

Since we are interested in the current across the molecule beyond linear response, we also need to specify the voltage drop along the wire. In principle, this requires the solution of the coupled Schrödinger and Poisson equations of the electrode-molecule-electrode system , which in itself presents a formidable task that we will not try to tackle. Instead, we will use the simple model proposed in Refs. , which views the two electrodes as parallel plates forming a capacitor with the molecule in between acting like a dielectric.

Within this picture one obtains a potential profile where the applied voltage $`V`$ drops partially by $`\eta _\mathrm{L}V`$ and $`\eta _\mathrm{R}V`$ at the left and right contact, respectively, and decreases linearly by $`\eta _\mathrm{M}V`$ along the wire. The condition $`\eta _\mathrm{L}+\eta _\mathrm{M}+\eta _\mathrm{R}=1`$ ensures that we have accounted for the full voltage drop. This situation is shown in Fig. 2 where we have fixed the electrochemical potential in the left electrode at zero energy. The dashed lines at energy $``$ indicate the position of the LUMOs in the absence of an applied voltage. The actual levels represented by the full lines at energies

$$E_i=\eta _\mathrm{L}eV\eta _\mathrm{M}\frac{i1}{N1}eV$$
(1)
are shifted according to the local voltage, thereby displaying the voltage profile.

The current through the wire is governed by the energy differences between neighboring sites

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{M}=E_iE_{i+1}=\eta _\mathrm{M}\frac{eV}{N1}$$
(2)
and between the electrochemical potentials in the electrodes and the adjacent wire units

$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=E_1=\eta _\mathrm{L}eV`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{R}`$ $`=E_N+eV=\eta _\mathrm{R}eV+.`$ (4)
Particularly at very low temperatures the current depends strongly on the energy differences (2)–(4). If one of these energy differences is negative, the absence of thermally activated processes will lead to a suppression of the current. This situation is depicted in Fig. 2 where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}<0`$. If, on the other hand, the energy levels of the molecular sites lie between the electrochemical potentials in the two electrodes, a current may flow even at zero temperature. Apart from Section 5, we will always have the latter situation in mind when discussing zero temperature results.

In the following, the electrochemical potential $`eV`$ in the right electrode is assumed to lie lower in energy, thereby favoring transport from left to right, which we will denote as forward direction. Furthermore, we specialize the voltage profile to the two limiting cases depicted in Fig. 3. Within model A the voltage is constant along the molecule and drops by equal amounts at the two contacts ($`\eta _\mathrm{L}=\eta _\mathrm{R}=1/2`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{M}=0`$). In contrast, in model B the entire voltage drops linearly along the molecule ($`\eta _\mathrm{L}=\eta _\mathrm{R}=0`$, $`\eta _\mathrm{M}=1`$).

## 3 Current for spinless electrons in the presence of strong Coulomb interaction

### 3.1 Master equation and tunneling rates

The incoherent electron transport through an individual wire shall be described as sequential tunneling events of an electron between the electrodes and the end units of the wire or between adjacent wire units. The dynamics is then modeled in terms of a Markovian master equation. Fig. 4 shows the possible transitions between the $`N+1`$ different wire states. The arrows over the corresponding tunneling rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ indicate the direction of transport for a geometry depicted in Fig. 1, while the subscripts $`L`$, $`M`$, and $`R`$ correspond to the left contact, a molecular bridge, and the right contact, respectively.

In order to determine the average current through the wire, we will need the probabilities $`p_i(t)`$ to find the system in one of the states $`i=0,\mathrm{},N`$. Since these constitute the only possible states, the probabilities should satisfy the normalization condition

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}p_i(t)=1.$$
(5)
The dynamical evolution of the probabilities due to the incoherent transitions depicted in Fig. 4 is determined by the master equation

$`\dot{p}_0(t)`$ $`=(\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}+\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }})p_0(t)+\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_1(t)+\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_N(t)`$ (6)
$`\dot{p}_1(t)`$ $`=(\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}+\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }})p_1(t)+\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_0(t)+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_2(t)`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\dot{p}_i(t)`$ $`=(\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }})p_i(t)+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_{i1}(t)+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_{i+1}(t)(i=2,\mathrm{},N1)`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`\dot{p}_N(t)`$ $`=(\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }})p_N(t)+\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_0(t)+\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_{N1}(t).`$ (9)
From a solution of these equations, the average currents through the left and right contacts

$$I_\mathrm{L}(t)=e(\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_0\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_1),I_\mathrm{R}(t)=e(\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_N\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_0),$$
(10)
and through the molecular bridge between units $`i`$ and $`i+1`$

$$I_{\mathrm{M},i}(t)=e(\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_i\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_{i+1})$$
(11)
can be obtained. We will be particularly interested in the stationary case where the probabilities $`p_i`$ become time-independent. Then, all currents (10) and (11) will be equal, *i.e.*

$$I=I_\mathrm{L}=I_\mathrm{R}=I_{\mathrm{M},i},$$
(12)
thereby ensuring current conservation.

As can be seen from Eqs. (6)–(9), the stationary probabilities $`p_i`$ depend only on ratios of transition rates. We therefore introduce the “backward-forward” ratios

$$\gamma _\mathrm{M}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}},\gamma _\mathrm{L}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}},\gamma _\mathrm{R}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}},$$
(13)
and the “branching” ratios

$$\zeta _\mathrm{L}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}},\zeta _\mathrm{R}=\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}.$$
(14)
The latter two relate molecular properties to contact properties and therefore depend on the microscopic details. The ratios (13), on the other hand, combine backward and forward rates at the same contact or bridge. In order to ensure thermodynamic equilibrium they are given by Boltzmann factors at inverse temperature $`\beta =1/k_\mathrm{B}T`$

$$\gamma _\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{}^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{M}},\gamma _\mathrm{L}=\mathrm{}^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}},\gamma _\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{}^{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{R}},$$
(15)
where the energy differences have been introduced in Eqs. (2)–(4). Since all energy differences have to sum up to the difference in electrochemical potential between left and right electrode, *i.e.*

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}+(N1)\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{M}+\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{R}=eV,$$
(16)
the “backward-forward” ratios obey the relation

$$\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}\gamma _\mathrm{R}=\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}.$$
(17)
### 3.2 Stationary solution

In the following, we will restrict ourselves to the stationary case. Together with the ratios (13) and (14), the master equation (6)–(9) then turns into

$`(\zeta _\mathrm{R}+\gamma _\mathrm{R}\zeta _\mathrm{L})p_0+\gamma _\mathrm{L}\zeta _\mathrm{R}p_1+\zeta _\mathrm{L}p_N`$ $`=0`$ (18)
$`(\zeta _\mathrm{L}+\gamma _\mathrm{L})p_1+p_0+\gamma _\mathrm{M}\zeta _\mathrm{L}p_2`$ $`=0`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`(1+\gamma _\mathrm{M})p_i+p_{i1}+\gamma _\mathrm{M}p_{i+1}`$ $`=0(i=2,\mathrm{},N1)`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`(1+\gamma _\mathrm{M}\zeta _\mathrm{R})p_N+\gamma _\mathrm{R}p_0+\zeta _\mathrm{R}p_{N1}`$ $`=0.`$ (21)
Out of these $`N+1`$ equations only $`N`$ are linearly independent, so that the normalization condition (5) is needed to determine the $`N+1`$ stationary probabilities $`p_i`$.

It is convenient to start with the “molecular” part (20), which takes on the form of a two-step recursion relation and can thus readily be solved in terms of the two probabilities $`p_1`$ and $`p_N`$ leading to

$$p_i=\frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{Ni}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}}p_1\frac{\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{Ni}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}}p_N(i=1,\mathrm{},N).$$
(22)
Inserting this result into Eqs. (19) and (21) and making use of the normalization (5), one finds for the probability for a neutral wire

$$p_0=\left[1+\frac{(\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N1)(\zeta _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R}+\zeta _\mathrm{R})+N(\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}1)+\frac{\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N1}{\gamma _\mathrm{M}1}(1\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R})}{\gamma _\mathrm{L}(\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}1)+(\gamma _\mathrm{M}1)(\zeta _\mathrm{L}+\zeta _\mathrm{R}\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1})}\right]^1$$
(23)
while the probability for an electron on site $`i`$ may be expressed in terms of $`p_0`$ as

$$p_i=\frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}1+\left[(\gamma _\mathrm{M}1)(\zeta _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R}+\zeta _\mathrm{R})+1\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R}\right]\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{Ni}}{\gamma _\mathrm{L}(\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}1)+(\gamma _\mathrm{M}1)(\zeta _\mathrm{L}+\zeta _\mathrm{R}\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1})}p_0.$$
(24)
### 3.3 Stationary current

The stationary solution (23) and (24) allows to calculate from any of the expressions (10) and (11) the average current (12). The resulting expression can be cast into the form

$$I=e\frac{1\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\frac{c_\mathrm{L}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}}+\frac{c_\mathrm{M}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}+\frac{c_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}},$$
(25)
where we have introduced the abbreviations

$`c_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\gamma _\mathrm{L}}}{\displaystyle \frac{11/\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{11/\gamma _\mathrm{M}}},`$ (26)
$`c_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=\gamma _\mathrm{L}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}}+(\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R}1){\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{(1\gamma _\mathrm{M})^2}}+N{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}},`$ (27)
$`c_\mathrm{R}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\gamma _\mathrm{R}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}}.`$ (28)
The current changes its sign when the applied voltage is reversed and at the same time forward and backward rates as well as left and right contacts are interchanged. This can be verified by noting that under these changes the coefficients (26)–(28) are transformed according to $`c_\mathrm{L}/\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}c_\mathrm{R}/\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, $`c_\mathrm{R}/\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}c_\mathrm{L}/\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, and $`c_\mathrm{M}/\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}c_\mathrm{M}/\underset{\mathrm{M}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$.

Further insight into the result (25)–(28) can be gained by discussing several special cases. An important limit, which will be particularly relevant in the discussion of the following sections, is a wire consisting only of one unit and no bridges. Then, the current simplifies to

$$I=e\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}$$
(29)
containing forward and backward contributions. For positive energy differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{R}`$, the backward rates vanish at zero temperature and one is left with the familiar result

$$I=e\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}$$
(30)
for an sequential incoherent process with rates $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$.

For more than one wire unit it is instructive to compare the two models for the voltage profile introduced in Section 2. We start by considering model A where the voltage drops only across the contacts. As a consequence, the forward and backward rates on the molecule are equal and we have $`\gamma _\mathrm{M}=1`$. In this case, the coefficients (26)–(28) become

$`c_\mathrm{L}`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta eV}}{\gamma _\mathrm{L}}}N,`$ (31)
$`c_\mathrm{M}`$ $`=\gamma _\mathrm{L}(N1)+(1+\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}){\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)}{2}},`$ (32)
$`c_\mathrm{R}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\gamma _\mathrm{R}}}+N`$ (33)
which is consistent with Eqs. (29) and (30) for $`N=1`$. For long wires, the current scales like $`1/N^2`$ with the number of wire units. Since forward and backward tunneling rates on the wire are equal, the electron has equal probability for tunneling in forward and backward direction. The length dependence of the current can therefore be understood in terms of a random walk where the average time to diffuse across a wire of length $`N`$ is proportional to $`N^2`$.

For model B, where the voltage drops entirely along the wire, the same argument holds provided the thermal energy is much larger than the energy difference between adjacent sites, $`k_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{M}`$. At low temperatures, however, the situation differs qualitatively since the backward rates are negligibly small. In order to obtain a finite current even in the limit of zero temperature, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{L},\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{R}>0`$. At zero temperature, Eqs. 25)–(28) then yield

$$I=e\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}}+\frac{N1}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}}$$
(34)
which reduces to (30) for $`N=1`$. For a long wire, the current now decreases linearly with the number of units or, equivalently, with the length of the wire. In this sense, for model B the wire resembles an ohmic resistor.

The comparison of models A and B demonstrates that the dependence of the current on the wire length at low temperatures may provide qualitative information about the voltage drop across the molecule. In any case, however, incoherent transport leads to an algebraic length dependence of the current in clear contrast to the exponential dependence characteristic for coherent transport .

## 4 Blocking of spin channels by strong Coulomb interaction

So far, we have ignored the spin degree of freedom of the electrons. In this section, we will take the spin into account but, due to the strong Coulomb interaction, there will be not more than one electron present on the wire. Furthermore, we will assume that the two spin directions are equivalent and that no spin flips occur.

Inclusion of the electron spin increases the number of possible wire states to $`2N+1`$. The wire can now either be neutral (with probability $`p_0(t)`$) or there can be an extra electron with spin up or down at site $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ (with probability $`p_{\mathrm{},i}(t)`$ and $`p_{\mathrm{},i}(t)`$, respectively). The possible transitions between the different states are depicted in Fig. 5. We emphasize that, like in Section 3, all rates are to be understood as rates per spin direction. In the presence of a magnetic field, the two spin directions would no longer be equivalent and the rates would have to be distinguished by a spin index.

A comparison of Figs. 4 and 5 shows that the two molecular parts are independent of the spin direction and correspond to the molecular part in the spinless case. The only difference lies in the coupling to the neutral state “0”. This motivates to introduce the total probability $`p_i(t)=p_{\mathrm{},i}(t)+p_{\mathrm{},i}(t)`$ for an electron on site $`i`$ irrespective of its spin. The resulting master equation including the normalization condition is of the same form as Eqs. (5) and (6)–(9) in the spinless case. The only difference consists in a factor of 2 by which the rates $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ describing the charging of the wire have to be multiplied. For these rates, the spin degree of freedom leads to an additional process allowing to occupy the wire. This is not the case for an electron leaving the wire. In this case, the spin is fixed and the corresponding rates $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ are not doubled.

The appearance of a factor of 2 may also be understood in terms of the density of states in the electrodes which enters the tunneling rates. For tunneling of electrons onto the wire the number of initial states is increased by the spin degree of freedom thereby leading to an effective doubling of the density of states. On the other hand, for tunneling into the electrodes the density of final states is not increased since the spin is determined by the electron leaving the wire.

Taking into account the factor of 2 in the tunneling rates that populate the wire, one finds for the average current

$$I=e(2\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_0\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}p_1).$$
(35)
Here, the probability $`p_1`$ implicitly contains a factor of 2 since the electron contributing to the backward current may carry either spin up or down. Making the required modifications of the rates $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ and $`\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, the current (25)–(28) turns into

$$I=e\frac{1\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\frac{c_\mathrm{L}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}}+\frac{c_\mathrm{M}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{M}}+\frac{c_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}}$$
(36)
where the coefficients now are given by

$`c_\mathrm{L}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{\gamma _\mathrm{L}}}{\displaystyle \frac{11/\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{11/\gamma _\mathrm{M}}},`$ (37)
$`c_\mathrm{M}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _\mathrm{L}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^{N1}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}}+(\gamma _\mathrm{L}\gamma _\mathrm{R}1){\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{(1\gamma _\mathrm{M})^2}}+N{\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}},`$ (38)
$`c_\mathrm{R}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\beta eV}}{2\gamma _\mathrm{R}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}^N}{1\gamma _\mathrm{M}}}.`$ (39)
We remark, that due to the mutual blocking of the electrons one does not obtain an overall factor of 2 in the current relative to the spinless case (25)–(28). Instead, the current shows a more intricate influence of the spin degree of freedom.

The mechanism of blocking is particularly transparent if the wire consists of only one site, *i.e.* $`N=1`$. We restrict ourselves to the case of zero temperature where, as in the derivation of Eq. (30), all backward rates vanish. Then the current (36) simplifies to read

$$I=2e\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{2\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}.$$
(40)
This result has to be compared with the case where the two spin directions lead to independent transport channels so that the expression (30) is multiplied by a factor of 2 yielding the current

$$I_0=2e\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}+\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}.$$
(41)
The effect of blocking due to the Coulomb interaction is quantified by the ratio of the current (40) in the presence of Coulomb repulsion and the current (41) in the absence of interaction, *i.e.*

$$\frac{I}{I_0}=\frac{1+\eta }{1+2\eta }.$$
(42)
The blocking is completely determined by the ratio

$$\eta =\frac{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{L}}{\stackrel{}{\Gamma }_\mathrm{R}}$$
(43)
of the rates through the left and right contacts and varies between 1 for $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ and 1/2 for $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ as shown in Fig. 6.

This dependence on $`\eta `$ can be understood in terms of the average population of the wire which here is given by $`p_1`$. From the stationary solution of the master equation for the case with spin and $`N=1`$ one obtains

$$p_1=\frac{2\eta }{1+2\eta }.$$
(44)
The blocking effect on the current (42) may therefore be directly related to the average population of the wire by

$$\frac{I}{I_0}=1\frac{p_1}{2}.$$
(45)
For small $`\eta `$, or equivalently $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, the wire is depleted almost immediately after it has been populated. The average population of the wire therefore is very small and the passage of another electron is almost never blocked. In the opposite case of large $`\eta `$, or $`\underset{\mathrm{L}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, the right contact represents a bottleneck which leads to a sizable average population of the wire and therefore to the blocking of transport.

This result clearly shows, that inclusion of the spin degree of freedom does not necessarily lead to a doubling of the current as would be the case in the absence of Coulomb interaction on the wire. Apart from the interaction strength, the average population of the wire plays a decisive role and blocking is strongest when the right contact increases the population by acting as a bottleneck.

## 5 Temperature dependence of blocking

The calculation of the current-voltage characteristics presented so far was based on the assumption that at any given time there is at most one extra electron on the wire. Although it is straightforward to generalize the rate equations (6)–(9) to more than one electron by extending the state space, in general one has to solve the rate equations numerically.

Some insight into the validity of the limit of strong Coulomb interaction can be gained by allowing a second electron on the wire. Then, an analytical treatment is still possible if we restrict the length of the wire to one site, *i.e.* $`N=1`$. We will assume that this very site may be occupied by at most two electrons of opposite spin. Then, there exist four different wire states, $`|0`$, $`|\mathrm{}`$, $`|\mathrm{}`$, and $`|\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, which correspond to no electron, one electron with spin up or down, and two electrons, respectively. The energies of these four states are schematically shown in Fig. 7 where we allow for an interaction energy $`U`$ if two electrons are present on the wire. By changing both, the temperature as well as the one-electron energy $``$ relative to the left electrochemical potential, we may choose the levels which are relevant for the transport through the wire.

The discussion in the last section has shown that the effect of blocking is most pronounced when the tunneling rates through the right contact are much smaller than through the left one. We therefore shall concentrate on this limit. Then, the master equation for the probabilities $`p_n`$ of being in a state with $`n=0,1,`$ or $`2`$ electrons depends only on the rates through the left contact. These tunneling rates may be identified by the change of the number of electrons. For example, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}`$ refers to the backward rate through the left contact with initially two electrons on the molecule. With this notation the master equation reads

$`\dot{p_0}(t)`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}p_0(t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}p_1(t)`$ (46)
$`\dot{p_1}(t)`$ $`=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12})p_1(t)+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}p_0(t)+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}p_2(t)`$ (47)
$`\dot{p_2}(t)`$ $`=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}p_2(t)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}p_1(t)`$ (48)
with the normalization condition

$$p_0(t)+p_1(t)+p_2(t)=1.$$
(49)
The rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}`$ are each multiplied by a factor of 2, thereby accounting for the two spin directions possible in these processes. The probability $`p_1`$ of finding one electron of arbitrary spin on the wire implicitly contains a factor of 2 in the same sense as was discussed after Eq. (35).

If the probabilities are calculated from the master equation (46)–(48), thereby neglecting tunneling through the right contact, the current has to be evaluated at that contact. We will assume that the electrochemical potential in the right electrode is so low that the forward rates $`\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$ through the right contact are approximately independent of the occupation of the molecular site and that backward rates may be neglected. Then, the stationary current is obtained as

$$I=e\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}(p_1+2p_2),$$
(50)
where the factor of 2 accounts for the two spin directions available when one of two electrons is leaving the molecule.

Solving the master equation (46)–(48) in the stationary limit, we obtain from (50) for the current

$$I=e\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}}}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}}}}.$$
(51)
In order to study the effect of blocking, we have to compare this current with the current $`I_0`$ in the absence of Coulomb interaction. In this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}`$ and we find

$$I_0=e\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}\frac{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}}}}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}}}}.$$
(52)
This result still depends on temperature and on the energy $``$ of the one-electron level relative to the left electrochemical potential.

The ratio $`I/I_0`$ depends only on rate ratios which, as in Section 3.1, may be expressed in terms of Boltzmann factors. For single occupation of the molecule, we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}}=\mathrm{e}^\beta .$$
(53)
Double occupancy costs the additional interaction energy $`U`$, so that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}}=\mathrm{e}^{\beta (+U)}.$$
(54)
The blocking due to Coulomb interaction is then described by

$$\frac{I}{I_0}=1\frac{1\mathrm{e}^{\beta U}}{\mathrm{e}^\beta +2+\mathrm{e}^{\beta (+U)}}.$$
(55)
Figure 8 depicts this result as a function of $`k_\mathrm{B}T/||`$ for $`U/||=2`$ and 2000. The full lines correspond to the case, where the one-electron energy lies below the left electrochemical potential, *i.e.* $`<0`$. The dashed line refers to the opposite case with $`>0`$. As a function of temperature, we can distinguish three different regimes.

In the limit of zero temperature, one finds for $`<0`$, and $`U>`$ an interaction induced reduction of the current by a factor 1/2. This is the blocking discussed already in Section 4. For $`+U<0`$, double occupancy is possible even in the zero temperature limit and no blocking occurs. As can be seen from the dashed lines in Fig. 8, blocking is also absent for $`>0`$. In this case, the current as well as the occupation of the molecule approach zero exponentially for low temperatures. In analogy to the reasoning presented in Section 4, blocking thus becomes ineffective.

For $`U||`$, a second regime appears at intermediate temperatures $`||k_\mathrm{B}TU`$. For $`U/||=2000`$, Fig. 8 indeed shows a clear plateau at a blocking factor of 2/3. This can be attributed to the fact that for $`k_{}T||`$ the backward rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{10}`$ is of the order of the forward rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01}`$. This reduces the population of the molecule and therefore blocking is less effective than at lower temperatures.

The reduction by a factor 2/3 can be understood even without recourse to Eq. (55). For equal forward and backward rates, the probabilities for an empty wire or a wire occupied with one electron of given spin are equal, leading to probabilities $`p_0=1/3`$, $`p_1=2/3`$ and $`p_2=0`$. From Eq. (50) one therefore finds $`I=(2/3)e\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$. In the absence of Coulomb interaction, double occupancy is allowed and one finds all four possible states with equal probability leading to $`p_0=1/4`$, $`p_1=1/2`$ and $`p_2=1/4`$. This yields the current $`I_0=e\underset{\mathrm{R}}{\overset{}{\Gamma }}`$, and thus the blocking factor reads $`I/I_0=2/3`$.

Finally, in the high-temperature regime, where $`k_\mathrm{B}T||,U`$, the thermal energy is much bigger than the interaction energy $`U`$ so that the latter becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the Coulomb interaction can no longer lead to blocking of the electronic transport.

## 6 Conclusions

The influence of Coulomb interaction on incoherent electronic transport through a molecular wire has been found to be multifaceted. In the regime of strong Coulomb interaction, the current of spinless electrons shows an algebraic dependence on the wire length characteristic for incoherent transport. It was found, however, that this length dependence varies as a function of the voltage profile across the system. At low temperatures a $`1/N^2`$ behavior indicates the absence of a voltage drop along the molecule while in the presence of a voltage drop a $`1/N`$ behavior is expected.

Inclusion of the spin degree of freedom in the absence of Coulomb interaction leads to an increase of the current by a factor of 2. Coulomb interaction, on the other hand, should lead to a reduction of the current. It was found that this blocking effect not only depends on the interaction strength but also on the average population of the wire and thus on the tunneling rates (cf. Fig. 6).

For finite Coulomb interaction, the amount of blocking also depends on temperature. Between the limits of suppression of the current by a factor of 2 at zero temperature and the absence of blocking at high temperatures an intermediate regime may exist. There, Coulomb interaction prohibits double occupancy. Nevertheless the current is only reduced by a factor of 2/3 (cf. Fig. 8). This is a consequence of the competition between backward and forward rates, which equally populates the two one-electron levels.

As a final remark, we mention that even though we have restricted ourselves to electronic transport, the approach presented here is also applicable to hole transport. Depending on the situation, holes may be the dominant charge carriers; the results presented above may easily be adapted to this case. On the other hand, if both, holes and electrons, contribute to the transport, an extension similar to the one presented in Section 4, where spin is included, becomes necessary.

The authors would like to acknowledge useful discussions with I. Goychuk. This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Sonderforschungsbereich 486, project A10.