text:
# PDF’s: What Do We Need To Know?

## I Introduction

In the past few years there has been considerable progress towards understanding some of the uncertainties in the individual measurements that contribute to our knowledge of parton distributions (PDFs).Lai:2000wy ; Giele:2001mr  While high energy collider experiments can cover a large kinematic region in $`\{x,Q^2\}`$-space, there are still a number of questions that can be best answered by a high-precision low-energy fixed-target experiment.

## II Nuclear Effects

To decipher the flavor content of the proton, it is essential to use both charged and neutral current processes. For the charged current process, neutrino DIS plays an important role as the basic process $`\nu N\mathrm{}^\pm X`$ contains an easily detected charged lepton ($`\mathrm{}^\pm `$) in the final state. Unfortunately, as the neutrino cross section is relatively small, we are forced to use massive targets with high-Z nucleons in order to obtain reasonable statistics. For example, in the case of NuTeV, an iron (Fe) target was used. Scaling the $`\nu `$-Fe cross section to a $`\nu `$-isoscalar cross section poses a significant challenge as this involves complex nuclear effects for which we do not have a comprehensive theory.

When we attempt to extract PDF’s from $`\nu `$-DIS on heavy nucleons our task is compounded by the difficulty that we must simultaneously deal with these nuclear effects and the separation of the PDF flavors.Brock:1995sz  Clearly, this is an area where a future high luminosity neutrino factory could considerably improve our understanding of the $`\nu `$-DIS process.Albright:2000xi ; Mangano:2001mj ; Bigi:2001xb  Such a facility would allow us to perform high statistics measurements on light targets (hydrogen, deuterium, …) thereby enabling us to separate the nuclear effects from the nucleon structure.Bock:1997wi

Specifically, one can envision a comprehensive two-step program. 1) Use light targets to accurately determine the flavor structure of the proton by combining this data with neutral current data also taken on light targets. 2) Compare the light target data (both charged and neutral current processes) with data from heavy targets to extract the nuclear effects. Such a program would represent a tremendous advance in the understanding of both the proton structure and the corrections due to high-$`Z`$ nuclei.

## III PDFs at Large-$`x`$

While nuclear binding effects are clearly seen in heavier nuclei, the size of these effects for Deuterium is under debate. Specifically, the ratio of the density of down quarks to that of up quarks in the proton in the region $`x1`$ can provide valuable information on both higher twist corrections and nuclear binding effects. This issue is complicated as: 1) it depends critically on a nuclear physics model with many parameters fit to the data, and 2) the deuteron is a very special nucleus with binding energies much smaller than the rest, so that a large extrapolation from the heavier nuclei is needed.

While future high luminosity HERA measurements of positron-induced charged current interactions will address this issue, preliminary calculations indicate a very large luminosity is required to impose strong constraints on possible nuclear corrections. Conversely, one possible way to constrain the $`d`$ quark is from measurements of $`\pi ^+/\pi ^{}`$ production in DIS interactions.Kuhlmann:2000sf  A careful design of the beam and detector would allow for precision measurements in the large-$`x`$ region that are competitive with collider facilities.

## IV Extraction of $`s(x,Q^2)`$ from neutrino DIS

For extracting the strange quark PDF, the dimuon production data in $`\nu `$-Fe DIS provide the most direct determination. The basic channel is the weak charged current process $`\nu s\mu ^{}cX`$ with a subsequent charm decay $`c\mu ^+X^{}`$. These events provide a direct probe of the $`sW`$-vertex, and hence the strange quark PDF. In contrast, single muon production only provides indirect information about $`s(x,Q^2)`$ which must then be extracted from a linear combination of structure functions in the context of the QCD parton model. For this reason, fixed-target neutrino dimuon production will provide a unique perspective on the strange quark distribution of the nucleon in the foreseeable future.

The analysis of the recent NuTeV data is in progress. This uses both the differential NLO calculation of the neutrino-induced DIS charm production process and the Monte Carlo experimental detector simulation program. This project will extract the strange quark PDF from the dimuon data at NLO with unprecedented accuracy.

In the long run, a high luminosity neutrino factory could, of course, considerably raise the accuracy of present day information from $`\nu `$-DIS, and allow us to investigate additional distributions. For example, with high statistics $`\nu `$-DIS data one can investigate the character of Sudakov logarithms arising from multiple gluon emission. The resummation of such soft gluons in the case of heavy quark production is a program that is currently under development. High statistics $`\nu `$-DIS data would allow us to not only study the integrated distributions, but also study more differential distributions which are sensitive to the details of the resummation procedure.

## V $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$

There are a number of outstanding puzzles where theoretical expectations don’t match experimental measurements, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ is a recent example. $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ is obtained by taking the difference of $`F_3`$ neutrino and anti-neutrino structure function; in the simple LO parton model, this quantity is proportional to the difference between the strange and charm quark PDF. Specifically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3xF_3^{\nu N}xF_3^{\overline{\nu }N}4x\{sc\}`$, where $`N`$ represent an isoscalar nucleon.

Theoretical predictions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ systematically undershoot fixed target data at the $`1\sigma `$-level at low $`x`$ and $`Q`$. The neutrino structure function $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3`$ is obviously sensitive to the strange sea of the nucleon and the details of deep inelastic charm production. A closer inspection reveals, however, considerable dependence upon factors such as the charm mass, factorization scale, higher twists, contributions from longitudinal $`W^\pm `$ polarization states, nuclear shadowing, charge symmetry violation, and the PDF’s. This makes $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3(x,Q^2)`$ an excellent tool to probe both perturbative and non-perturbative QCD.

As the situation stands now, this $`\mathrm{\Delta }xF_3(x,Q^2)`$ puzzle poses an important challenge to our understanding of QCD and the related nuclear processes in an important kinematic region. The resolution of this puzzle is important for future data analysis, and the solution is sure to be enlightening, and allow us to expand the applicable regime of the QCD theory.Kretzer:2001mb

## VI Heavy Quark Production

The production of heavy quarks, both hadroproduction and leptoproduction, has become an important theoretical and phenomenological issue.Frixione:1998ma  In part, heavy quark production has attracted much attention because in many instances the theoretical expectations differ significantly from experimental measurements. While the hadroproduction mode has a higher mass reach (e.g., the top-quark), the simpler leptoproduction process can provide important insights into the fundamental production mechanisms.

An important theoretical consideration which enters the calculations of heavy quark production is the existence of multiple mass scales. For example, in a DIS experiment the important scales are the virtuality of the exchanged boson $`Q`$, and the mass of the heavy quark $`M_Q`$. This represents a significant theoretical challenge because extending theorems of factorization and resummation to the case involving multiple scales is nontrivial.

Ideally we would like to explore the full kinematic range from $`QM_Q`$ as in heavy quark photoproduction, to the transition region $`QM_Q`$, and finally to $`QM_Q`$ where the mass effects become negligible. Setting the very massive top-quark aside, in the case of charm and bottom with masses in the few GeV range, fixed-target experiments are best suited to cover the kinematic range where $`QM_Q`$ and $`QM_Q`$; additionally they can also cover a portion of the $`QM_Q`$ region. Therefore, a complete program to investigate heavy quarks must consider information from a variety of sources including charm and bottom production at both fixed-target and collider lepton and hadron facilities.Gerber:1999xg

One degree of freedom that has not been fully studied or exploited in this area is the issue of an “intrinsic” heavy quark component. While the question of intrinsic heavy quarks has been discussed in the literature for many years, it still remains unresolved. This is a controversial theoretical issue; hence a definitive experiment is called for. A particularly incisive test of this theory would be to make precise measurements of heavy quark production in the threshold region. In this kinematic regime, the usual “perturbative” heavy quark component arising from gluon splitting ($`gQ\overline{Q}`$) is comparatively small; therefore a measurement in this region has more discriminating power to distinguish the “intrinsic” heavy quark component. Such an experiment could put the theoretical debate on “intrinsic” heavy quarks to rest once-and-for-all. Furthermore, such an experiment will answer important questions regarding heavy quark production and our ability to make accurate calculation in the presence of disparate mass scales.

## VII Higher Twist

Higher twist (or power suppressed) corrections represent a long-standing hurdle to making accurate theoretical predictions for structure function data over the full kinematic range. Higher twist corrections should not simply be avoided; accurate characterization of higher twist corrections provides new information on parton-parton correlations within the nuclei.Kuhlmann:2000sf

The kinematic limits where considerations of higher twist contributions become important are 1) at high-$`x`$, and 2) at low $`Q^2`$ where terms of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/Q^2`$ become significant. In the high-$`x`$ region, the limiting factor is primarily statistics. In the low $`Q^2`$ region the statistics are generally adequate, but if the data is taken on heavy targets the higher twist effects are entangled with nuclear effects.

Consequently, the ideal testing ground would be to have high statistics measurements on a light nuclear target. This would allow systematic separation of the higher twist effects from the nuclear effects, and better allow us to learn about both in the process.

## VIII Conclusions

In recent years, new information has become available concerning parton distributions and their uncertainties. The issues have become more important with the realization that these uncertainties could be hampering searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. The different topics reviewed in this report have clarified some of the issues, but have also raised new questions to be addressed. We have outlined a program of measurements, as well as important theoretical work, that is needed to improve the uncertainties in parton distributions. Therefore, a complete program to investigate the nucleon structure must consider information from a variety of sources including both fixed-target and collider lepton and hadron facilities.

## IX Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank B. Fleming, D. Mason, W. Melnitchouk, J. Morfin, S. Kretzer, S. Kuhlmann, P. Reimer, R. Thorne, W.-K. Tung, and U.-K. Yang, for helpful discussions. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, and by the Lightner-Sams Foundation.


format: text

text:
# MAGNETIC FIELDS OF ISOLATED NEUTRON STARS: EVIDENCE FOR DECAY

ABSTRACT. We show, that different types of isolated neutron stars (INSs) show evidence in favor of magnetic field decay in these objects and discuss how observations of INSs can help to constrain models of field decay.
Key words: Stars: neutron, magnetic fields.

1. Introduction

Evolution of isolated stars of any type is much more simple in comparison with the case when the object is a member of a close binary system, where mass transfer takes place. That is why looking for some undetected process it is much better to search for it in a more simple isolated case.

In this short note we will speak about magnetic field decay (MFD) in neutron stars (NSs) (see the paper by Konenkov and Geppert (2001) for recent calculations of MFD). Of course it is much more convenient to discuss this process in INSs, where there is no influence of strong accretion from the second companion.

In some details we will discuss anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs), soft gamma repeaters (SGR) and ROSAT INSs (RINSs). See for recent reviews on SGRs (Hurley 2000), AXPs — (Mereghetti 1999), RINSs — (Treves et al. 2000, Popov 2001). In the final section we briefly review indications of MFD in other types of INSs.

2. Soft gamma repeaters and anomalous X-ray pulsars: period clustering for magnetars

Most probably AXP and SGR are ultramagnetized INSs, so called magnetars (Duncan, Thompson 1992). The alternative hypothesis that these objects are young INSs accreting from a remnant (fall-back) disk meets difficulties (see Kaplan et al. 2001 and Duncan 2001 for a recent discussion on difficulties of both models).

The main feature of SGR and AXP which we are going to discuss here is period clustering: periods of all this objects are situated in a very narrow range 5–12 s (see the table). This phenomenon can be easily explained by MFD. We follow here Colpi et al. (2000).

The authors discuss three main mechanisms of the MFD in magnetars (in normal NSs mechanisms can be different): ambipolar diffusion in the irrotaional and solenoidal modes and the Hall cascade. For all three cases Colpi et al. calculate $`p`$$`\dot{p}`$ diagrams.

They obtain that if the Hall cascade is the main working mechanism and if typical decaying time scale is $`10^4`$ years, then it is possible to explain the observed data. For these parameters INSs reach asymptotic periods, i.e. their spin rate is not changing significantly during their subsequent evolution. The period ”remembers” the value it had before the magnetic field significantly decrease as far as spin-down rate is strongly dependent on the value of the magnetic field.

Note, that as far as during MFD the NS’s crust is heated, this phenomenon is necessary to explain relatively strong thermal radiation of these sources.

3. Seven ROSAT INSs: old accretors or/and young coolers

Now we know seven RINSs (Treves et al. 2000, Zampieri et al. 2001). Their nature is not clear. They can be young cooling or old accreting INSs. For three of them spin periods are determined (see the table). In this section we will try to show, that in both alternative hypothesis it is necessary to introduce MFD.

3.1. Old accretors

Old low velocity INSs can reach accretion stage (see a recent review in Treves et al. 2000). In (Popov et al. 2000a,b) we calculated evolution of populations of INSs in order to explore relative numbers of INSs at different stages. One of the result is that without MFD it is impossible to explain the observed population of RINSs by old accretors.

Fitting parameters of decay it is possible to obtain necessary number of accretors. It is unexplored yet if it is possible to explain the observed log N – log S distribution.

After the first period determination for RINS was announced (Haberl et al. 1996) two papers appeared, in which authors explained this period as a result of MFD in old accreting INS, (Wang 1997, Konenkov, Popov 1997).

The idea is the following. For such short periods and typical parameters of INSs and interstellar medium accretion is not aloud. The only possibility is that the magnetic field is very low, $`10^8`$ G. If the NS was born with such field and typical period of a young NS (about 20 ms), then it is impossible to decrease spin period up to 8.4 s even in $`10^{10}`$ years! So, the INS should be born with ”normal” pulsar parameters, and then magnetic field decays and the period again ”remembers” the value, when the field was strong.

3.1.1 Constraints on magnetic field decay

If we assume, that accreting INS are really observed, then we can put limitations onto the models of MFD.

MFD can both increase and decrease number of accretors (Colpi et al. 1998, Livio et al. 1998, Popov et al. 2000a). In (Popov, Prokhorov 2000) we tried to estimate these limitations for exponential decay, $`\mu =\mu _o\mathrm{exp}t/t_d,\mu >\mu _b`$. In this case we can discuss two parameters: time scale, $`t_d`$, and bottom magnetic moment, $`\mu _b`$. The later is the value, when decay stops.

For typical ”pulsar” parameters of NSs we find out that intermediate values of the bottom magnetic moment, $`10^{28}\mathrm{Gcm}^3<\mu _b<10^{29.5}\mathrm{Gcm}^3`$, and time scale, $`10^7\mathrm{yrs}<t_d<10^8\mathrm{yrs}`$, are forbidden.

3.2. Young coolers

If we try to explain all observed RINSs as young cooling NSs, then we come to a conclusion, that log N — log S distribution can not be explained without an assumption that the total number of INSs is higher than the one derived from radiopulsar statistics at least locally in time ($`<10^7`$ years) and space ($`<300`$ pc around the Sun) or that the time, when an INS is still hot, is longer than it is assumed in standard models of NS cooling (Neuhäuser, Trümper 1999, Popov et al. 2000b).

Such high rate of recent supernova explosions in the solar vicinity is in wonderful correspondence with recent results of computer simulations of the Local Bubble formation (Smith, Cox 2000, Maíz-Apellániz 2001). These authors argue, that it is necessary to have at least 3-6 recent ($`<10^7`$ yrs) bursts in the region close to the Sun and the youngest explosion should appeared less than $`<10^6`$ years ago. Other data (even geophysical!) also supports recent and close supernova explosions.

As far as it is necessary to introduce magnetars in order to explain periods of RINSs, we can also ask why relative fraction of ultramagnetized NS is so high among RINSs. The answer can be the following: due to MFD the crust of the INS is heated, and it can stay hot for a longer time. This effect is especially important for magnetars, that is why their fraction is so high.

3.3. ROSAT INSs: mixed population?

As the nature of RINSs in unclear they can be not a one-type population, but a mixture of coolers and accretors.

It is very difficult to distinguish between cooling and accreting INSs. The only case, about which most of scientists are sure that it is a cooler, is RX J185635-3754. For this object parallax, proper motion and many other characteristics are known (see Pons et al. 2001 for the latest information about this object).

Log N – Log S calculations (Popov et al. 2000b) show, that it is nearly impossible to explain significant part of RINSs by accretors with constant field. Nobody made careful population synthesis for isolated accretors with MFD. Most probably it is possible to find parameters for which we can explain log N – log S distribution with accretors with decayed magnetic field, but the exact answer should come from observations. Future observations of $`\dot{p}`$ of RX J0720.4-3125, RBS1223 (1RXS J130848.6+212708) and RX J0420.0-5022 can provide direct evidence for field decay in INSs and help to distinguish between two interpretations.

4. Discussion

Here we briefly discuss types of objects which are not described in details in previous sections.

Pfahl and Rappaport (2001) suggested, that some of dim X-ray sources in globular clusters can be old accreting INSs. In our paper (Popov, Prokhorov 2001a) we checked this possibility with a simple population synthesis model, and found, that results of calculations were not in contradiction with observations.

As far as no spin periods are observed for these objects one can suggest two hypothesis: very long spin periods (see for example Popov, Prokhorov 2001b for discussion about spin periods of old accreting INSs) or accretion onto significant part of the NS’s surface due to small magnetic field (Popov, Prokhorov 2001a). Relatively low temperatures of dim X-ray sources suggest, that accretion proceeds not onto small polar caps, corresponding to fields $`<10^9`$ G (such values of magnetic field can be reached in these extremely old objects due to MFD). It can be an indication, that between two hypothesis the second one is closer to reality.

It was suggested (Popov 1998), that a compact X-ray source inside the supernova remnant RCW 103 can be a relatively old accreting INS, and the remnant itself was produced by an explosion of the secondary component of a binary system. The object does not show any modulation of radiation on short time scales (which can correspond to spin period), but demonstrates flux variability on long time scale (years). It can be an indication of accretion onto very large polar caps, corresponding to low magnetic field ($`<10^9`$ G). As far as such values are not typical for most part of known young NSs (i.e. radiopulsars), one can suggest, that magnetic field significantly decayed during the lifetime of the NS.

We conclude that different types of INSs show evidence for magnetic field decay.

Acknowledgments. We thank Monica Colpi, Roberto Turolla Aldo Treves and Denis Konenkov for discussions and Universities of Como, Padova and Milan for hospitality.

SP thanks University of Como for financial support.

MP also thanks the organizing committee for support of his participation in the conference.

This work was supported by grants of the RFBR 01-02-06265 and 01-15(02)-99310.

References
Colpi M., Geppert U., Page D.: 2000, Ap.J., 529, L29.
Colpi M., Turolla R., Zane S., Treves A.: 1998, Ap.J., 501, 252.
Colpi M., Possenti A., Popov S.B., Pizzolato F.: 2001, in “Physics of Neutron Star Interiors”, Eds. D. Blaschke, N.K. Glendenning, & A. Sedrakian (Springer–Verlag, Berlin), (astro-ph/0012394).
Duncan R.C.: 2001, astro-ph/0106041.
Duncan R.C., Thompson C.: 1992, Ap.J., 392, L9 Haberl F., Pietsch W., Motch C., Buckley D.A.H.: 1996, Circ. IAU, no. 6445.
Hurley K.: 2000, in ”Gamma-ray Bursts”, 5th Huntsville Symposium, Eds. R. M. Kippen, R. S. Mallozzi, G. J. Fishman, published by American Institute of Physics, Melville, New York, p.763, astro-ph/9912061.
Kaplan D. L., Kulkarni S. R., van Kerkwijk M. H., Rothschild R. E., Lingenfelter R. L.; Marsden D., Danner R., Murakami T.: 2001, Ap. J., 556, 399.
Konenkov D.Yu., Popov S.B.: 1997, Pisma Astron. Zh., 23, 569.
Konenkov D.Yu., Geppert U.: 2001, MNRAS, 325, 426.
Livio M., Xu C., Frank J.: 1998, Ap.J., 492, 298.
Maíz-Apellániz J.: 2001, astro-ph/0108472.
Mereghetti S.: 1999, astro-ph/9911252.
Neuhäuser R., Trümper J.E.: 1999, As. Ap, 343, 151.
Pfahl E., Rappaport S.: 2000, Ap.J., 550, 172, astro-ph/0009212.
Pons J.A., Walter F.M., Lattimer J.M., Prakash M., Neuhaeuser R., Penghui An: 2001, astro-ph/0107404.
Popov S.B.: 1998, Astron. Astroph. Trans., 17, 35, astro-ph/9708044.
Popov S.B., Colpi M., Treves A., Turolla R., Lipunov V.M., Prokhorov M.E.: 2000a, Ap.J., 530, 896.
Popov S.B., Colpi M., Prokhorov M.E., Treves A., Turolla R.: 2000b, Ap.J., 544, L53.
Popov S.B., Prokhorov M.E.: 2000, As. Ap., 357, 164.
Popov S.B., Prokhorov M.E.: 2001a, Astron. Astroph. Trans. (accepted), astro-ph/0102201.
Prokhorov M.E., Popov S.B., Khoperskov A.V.: 2001b, astro-ph/0108503.
Popov S.B.: 2001, astro-ph/0101031.
Smith R.K., Cox D.: 2000, Ap. J. Supp., 134, 283.
Treves A., Turolla R., Zane S., Colpi M.: 2000, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 112, 297.
Wang J.C.L.: 1997, Ap.J. 486, L119.
Zampieri, L., Campana S., Turolla R., Chieregato M., Falomo R., Fugazza D., Moretti A., Treves A.: 2000, As.Ap. (accepted), astro-ph/0108456.


text:
# Coherent motion in the interaction model of cold glasses

## I Introduction

At low temperatures glasses exhibit surprising phenomena, which are interesting both from a theoretical as well as from an experimental point of view. These properties have been attributed to the low-lying excitations which appear in almost all amorphous and disordered solids. The most simple and successful model to explain many properties of glasses is the tunneling model (TM). In this model the excitations are described phenomenologically as a tunneling system. One may consider a double-well potential to be a tunneling system where an entity (an atom, group of atoms, …) tunnels between the wells. At low temperatures only the lowest lying state of each well is relevant, so the model is effectively described by a two-dimensional Hilbert space where the basis kets represent the ground states of each of the well. Using the Pauli matrices, the Hamiltonian of an isolated two-level system (TLS) is given by

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ^z+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\sigma ^x).$$
(1)
The eigenstates $`|+`$, $`|`$ of $`\sigma ^z`$ refer to the particle being in the right (R) and left (L) well, respectively (see Fig. (1)). $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the asymmetry energy and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the tunneling matrix element. The analogy of $`H_0`$ with a spin-1/2 particle in a magnetic field can be used to explain the dynamics of TLS’s in glasses. The interactions with acoustic and electric fields are usually treated as weak perturbations which enables the TLS model to explain successfully many of the anomalous thermal, acoustic and dielectirc properties of glasses.

Although the isolated TLS model works very well in many cases, there are some phenomena which can not be described only by isolated TLS’s. In these cases it is expected that the interactions between the TLS’s will resolve the problem. As an example, one may consider the effects of interactions in the two-level tunneling defect crystals, KCL:Li. In this system the density of defect ions (Li<sup>+</sup>) is a tunable parameter. At low density, the distance of tunneling centers is fairly large, so the interaction does not affect the behavior of the isolated TLS’s. Upon increasing the density, dipole-dipole interactions between the TLS’s become important, and drive the system into a glassy state.

Recently experiments on multicomponent glasses show novel phenomena at ultralow temperatures. By decreasing the temperature down to 5 mK the dielectric constant $`ϵ`$ responds linearly to a small magnetic field of the order of 10 $`\mu `$T. In general, glasses are properly assumed to be linear dielectrics, so that $`ϵ`$ depends quadratically on the electromagnetic field. Although the dependence on the magnetic field may come from nonlinear effects, the observed magnetic field dependence of $`ϵ`$ in multicomponent glasses at very low temperatures is completely different in nature from the magnetoeffect in nonlinear dielectrics, and can not be derived from thermodynamics by assuming glasses as simple magnetizable dielectrics.

The first theoretical approach addressing this behaviour considered the Aharanov-Bohm effect upon a charged particle in a three dimensional double-well potential. In this approach, as explained briefly in the next section, the effect of magnetic field enters in the form of a flux-dependent hopping parameter in the standard TLS. Then the isolated TLS of Eq.(1) is studied with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\varphi )`$. To fit the experimental electric permittivity data (Fig. 3 in Ref.) the charge entity in the TLS should be Q$`10^5|e|`$, where $`|e|`$ is the magnitude of the electron charge. The large value of Q is explained by assuming coherent motion of the charged particles in all of the TLS’s on a mesoscopic scale. The coherent motion takes place when the interactions between the TLS’s become important at ultralow temperatures. In this phase one may treat the motion of all of the TLS’s in terms of a single TLS with a charge Q which is equal to the sum of all of the charges. Although this model effectively describes the magnetic field dependence of the electric permittivity, the type of interaction which may lead to coherent motion over the mesoscopic size of TLS remained open.

Our goal in this paper is to explain in a more quantitative way the collective effect of TLS’s in the presence of a magnetic field by taking into account the interactions of the TLS’s. In this approach we introduce the magnetic field in the flux dependent hopping elements, while the interaction term traces the path of the tunneling process. The coherent motion of the particles is simulated by probing the relative motion of each coupled TLS. We suppose that our model is the original interacting model of the effective TLS containing the renormalized parameters introduced in Ref. . We will study the effects of long-range (l.r.) interactions and also of random couplings using our model in order to justify our contention that it represents the collective phenomenon of cold glasses properly.

The outline of this paper is as follows : In the next section we will briefly explain the effective model of TLS’s in which the magnetic field is included as a flux-dependent tunneling matrix element. In Sec. III the double and triple well model are studied in the presence of an Ising-like interaction. We introduce the XY-like interaction in Sec. IV. In this model, it is possible to trace the tunneling path in each TLS and hence to simulate the coherent motion. We will study the effect of long-range interactions and random couplings on the behavior of our model in different subsections. In these studies we have used an exact diagonalization method to obtain the physical quantities from our model restricted to one or two dimensional lattices. We finally present our conclusions in Sec. V.

## II  Effective model of TLS

We start first by explaining the effective model of an isolated TLS. The basic idea in this approach is to consider the Aharanov-Bohm effect upon a charged particle in a two-dimensional double well potential. The real space representation of the potential might look similar to a Mexician hat, as shown in Fig. 1. In this figure the solid lines defines a potential with two minima separated by a finite barrier. The two minima are labeled L and R. A particle with charge $`Q`$ bounded in this potential may tunnel from one well (L) to the other one (R) along the different paths labeled 1 and 2, corresponding to clockwise and anti-clockwise rotations respectively. Without loss of generality we assume that each path covers half a circle ($`\pi `$ radians). Now we introduce a magnetic field B parallel to the z-axis to our model. Within the two level approximation, Eq. (1), the magnetic field affects the parameters of our model. If tunneling occures through path 1 (L to R) the wave function of the particle is influenced by the factor $`e^{i\pi \varphi /\varphi _0}`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the total flux passing through a closed tunneling path, $`\varphi _0`$ is the flux quantum defined by $`\varphi _0=h/|Q|`$, and $`h`$ is Planck’s constant. On the other hand, tunneling through path number 2 (L to R) adds the factor $`e^{i\pi \varphi /\varphi _0}`$ to the wave function. Since the tunneling through both paths occurs with equal probability, the tunneling matrix element $`t`$ between L and R is equal to the sum of the hopping through path 1 and 2 which is

$$t(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(e^{i\pi \varphi /\varphi _0}+e^{i\pi \varphi /\varphi _0})/2=\mathrm{\Delta }_0cos(\pi \varphi /\varphi _0).$$
(2)
The factor $`1/2`$ arises from the equal probability of the paths in which the total path probability is conserved to be unity. Then, replacing the tunneling matrix element $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in Eq. (1) by $`t(\varphi )`$, the Hamiltonian of an isolated TLS in the presence of a magnetic field becomes

$$H_0(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }& t(\varphi )\\ t(\varphi )& \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right).$$
(3)
The next steps to calculate the physical quantities are similar to those for the standard isolated TLS’s.  To do so, one simply replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ by $`t(\varphi )`$ in all of the equations.

According to Ref. (), the electric permittivity $`ϵ`$ depends on temperature as well as magnetic flux through the minimal tunneling splitting, $`t_{min}(\varphi )`$. The maximum value of the resonant part of $`ϵ`$, $`ϵ_{res}`$, is obtained when the lower cutoff of the excitation $`t_{min}(\varphi )`$ vanishes. This is important when the temperature is lowered since the relaxational part of $`ϵ`$ becomes negligible. Thus the maximum value of $`ϵ`$ occurs at $`t_{min}(\varphi )=0`$, or equivalently at $`\varphi =\varphi _0/2`$. By introducing the experimental values of B=$`0.1`$ T (see Fig. 3 in Ref. ) and the typical radius $`r2\times 10^{10}`$m of a tunneling center one can obtain agreement with the experimental data, if one further assumes $`\varphi _010^5\times h/|e|`$. In other words, using the definition $`\varphi _0=h/Q`$, we arrive at $`Q10^5|e|`$. The charge $`Q`$ is suggested to be the effective charge of $`N10^5`$ electrons in TLS’s which tunnel coherently. The coherent tunneling could arise from the interactions between the TLS’s which are important in the low temperature regime.

If we consider coherent motion with the above mentioned characteristics, we expect to observe an oscillation with a frequency proportional to $`N`$ in the ground state energy and in some other physical quantity of the interacting model. This is simply understood by considering $`\varphi _0=h/(N|e|)`$ and substituting it in the energy eigenvalues of Eq. (3), leading to $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\mathrm{cos}^2(N\pi \varphi /\stackrel{~}{\varphi _0})}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _0}=h/|e|`$. We will show in the next sections that a special form of the interactions can produce such evidence for coherent motion with the specified property.

## III Interaction models

In this section we consider an ensemble of TLS’s. Each tunneling center is placed onto a lattice site. The on-site Hamiltonian is the same as Eq. (3), where $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy difference between the well bottoms. The tunneling centers (sites) interact through $`H_{int}`$. The Hamiltonian of the lattice is then of the following form,

$$H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_0^i(\varphi )+H_{int}.$$
(4)
The coupling between sites ($`H_{int}`$) arises from electric dipole-dipole interactions. The magnetic dipole-dipole interactions, which are set up by the persistent currents of the tunneling centers are negligible. Typically the magnetic interaction is of order $`10^{12}`$ smaller than the electric dipole-dipole interaction for a tunneling system, assuming the average distance between tunneling centers is $`10^8`$m.

We first consider the following form for the electric dipole-dipole interaction,

$$H_{int}=\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}\sigma _i^z\sigma _j^z,$$
(5)
where $`J_{i,j}1/|r_ir_j|^3`$ is the coupling of dipole moments. We have considered Eq. (5) as the interaction term in Eq. (4), and searched for oscillations proportional to $`N`$ in the ground state energy or in some other quantity arising from $`N`$ coupled sites. We have considered a one-dimensional array of sites and diagonalized the Hamiltonian exactly to find its low energy spectrum. First we considered a model in which all couplings are fixed to a specified value. We did not observe any level crossing between the ground and first excited states.

In the next step, the coupling constants were chosen random from a distribution function. The distribution function $`f`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the same as in the standard model of TLS’s, where $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })=f_0`$ and $`f(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)1/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Since we consider a one-dimensional array with equal spacing, $`f(r)=1/N`$, the coupling of dipole moments will have the following distribution,

$`f(J)=`$ $`J_0`$ $`J^{4/3},J_1<J<J_2`$ (6)
$`f(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}},\{\begin{array}{c}0<\mathrm{\Delta }<\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{0min}<\mathrm{\Delta }_0<\mathrm{\Delta }_{0max},\end{array}`$ (9)
where $`f_0`$ and $`J_0`$ are normalization factors. A system of N=4 sites is studied with random couplings which are chosen from Eq. (9). Typical values for the parameters are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{max}=0.5`$K , $`0.001`$K$`<\mathrm{\Delta }_0<1`$K, and $`0.01`$K$`<J<1`$K. We have computed the energy levels and the dipole moment of the model for 10000 samples. Data are plotted in Fig. 2. We have only computed the data for $`0<\varphi /\varphi _0<0.5`$, since the data are symmetric around $`\varphi /\varphi _0=0.5`$, similar to an even function.

We consider an external electric field E in the z-direction. Then the electric field interacts with the dipole moment of the TLS’s via $`H_E=\stackrel{}{P}_{tot}\stackrel{}{E}=EP^z`$, which is added to the Hamiltonian. The dipole moment of the system can be obtained from $`P_{tot}=0|H/E|0=0|_i\sigma _i^z|0`$, where $`|0`$ is the ground state. The dipole moments vary by a few percent upon changing the flux ratio (magnetic field), Fig. 2-a, and does not show any oscillations. In Fig. 2-b, the ground and first excited state energies do not cross each other when the flux ratio is changed, moreover they do not show any oscillations. We have also considered another domain of the parameters, long-range interactions resembling a three-dimensional system, and a distribution of dipole couplings which allows both positive and negative values. In all cases, similar results were obtained, which we are not presented. We conclude that the TLS’s with Ising-like interactions of form of Eq. 5 do not show any coherent motion.

It has been argued that it is not possible to observe coherent motion in a double-well potential, since a particle tunneling through either paths 1 or 2 from one well arises at a unique point which is the other well.  The tunneling entity may tunnel either coherently or randomly to reach the final configuration. Then the same configuration of some interacting TLS’s is obtained regardless of the relative motion in the TLS’s. One way to overcome this problem is to introduce a 3-well potential (3WP).  If we label the 3 wells as w1, w2 and w3, then clockwise or anti-clockwise tunneling from w1 leads to w2 or w3, respectively. Then we expect to observe coherent motion in such a 3WP model.

To study such a model we consider a potential similar to Fig. 1 extended to include 3 wells. The wells are located in a circular path with equal angle $`2\pi /3`$. The height of w1 is $`+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and of w3 is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, each measured from that of w2. The tunneling matrix element between the wells is taken to be equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for simplicity. By applying a magnetic field to the system the tunneling matrix element is modified by the factor $`e^{i2\pi \varphi /3\varphi _0}`$. We define the hopping parameter $`t_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_0e^{i2\pi \varphi /3\varphi _0}`$ and $`t_3^{}`$ to be the tunneling matrix elements between two neighbouring wells in the clockwise and counter-clockweise directions, respectively. We then write the Hamiltonian of a single well as

$$H_{3,0}(\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }& t_3(\varphi )& t_3^{}(\varphi )\\ t_3^{}(\varphi )& 0& t_3(\varphi )\\ t_3(\varphi )& t_3^{}(\varphi )& \mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
The wells are coupled to each other via an electric dipole-dipole interaction similar to Eq. (5),

$$H_{3,int}=\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}m_i^zm_j^z$$
(11)
where $`m_i^z`$ is the z-component of the dipole moment at site $`i`$. In the matrix representation, it is a $`3\times 3`$ diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are 1, 0 and -1 respectively.

We have performed similar computations using this interacting 3WP model. First, we studied the model using constant parameters, and then we extended the model to allow the coupling constants to be random, with distributions according to Eq. (9). In the deterministic case, fixed value of parameters, we did not observe any level crossing between the ground and first excited states, moreover, the dipole moment does not show any oscillations which might indicate collective phenomena.

In Fig. 3 we plotted the dipole moment per site and the first two low energy levels of N=4 interacting 3WP’s. The data have been computed with the same parameters used in Fig. 2. The dipole moment versus magnetic flux ratio in Fig. 3-a does not show any oscillations and we do not observe any level crossing in the first two energy levels, Fig. 3-b. The same conclusion is then obtained that the 3WP model with the interactions presented in Eq. (11) does not show evidence for coherent motion.

We thus conclude that other interaction forms must be present in the model in order to lead to coherent motion. Actually, in both Eqs. (5) and (11), these types of interaction do not depend upon the relative motion of the particles in different tunneling centers because there is no information regarding the tunneling path present in the Hamiltonian. These interactions only depend upon the final configuration of the system and are not able to trace the relative motion of different entities. To overcome this difficulty, we will introduce an interaction in the next section which depends upon $`|\theta _i\theta _j|`$, where $`\theta _i`$ is the angle defined in Fig. 1. In this case, the interaction contains information regarding the paths of motion, and more precisely regarding the relative motion of different tunneling entities. We will show that a phase with coherent motion appears for $`N`$ coupled TLS’s. Surprisingly, this occurs over a range of parameters, in agreement with the observed experimental data.

## IV The Modified interaction Hamiltonian

### A One dimensional model

In the last section we studied various forms of the interaction that might enable us to represent the coherent motion as a collective phenomena. The coherent motion in the context of a tunneling model is a phase in which all of the particles in each potential contribute to the overall tunneling process coherently. The classical picture of such a phase is the simultaneous motion of all of the particles in the same direction, i.e., clockwise or anti-clockwise on a circular path. To identify such a motion for a particle in the potential of Fig. 1, we define an angle $`\theta `$ which is measured from the x-axis by the projection of the dipole moment onto the xy-plane. When a particle tunnels from one well to the other one, the projected vector traces a semi-circular path. In this picture the important quantity is the relative angle $`|\theta _i\theta _j|`$ between pairs of particles in different tunneling centers. Since the magnitude of this difference is meaningful modulo $`2\pi `$, we may define $`\mathrm{cos}(|\theta _i\theta _j|)`$ as being proportional to the interaction term. Then in the classical picture the interaction Hamiltonian would be

$$H_{int}^c=\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}\mathrm{cos}(|\theta _i\theta _j|),$$
(12)
where $`J_{i,j}`$ defines the strength of the interaction. To arrive at the quantum picture, which is important at low temperatures, we consider the dipole moment of the particle as an operator acting on the $`i`$th site. If we define the projection of the dipole moment onto the xy-plane as $`\stackrel{}{p}_{,i}=\sigma _i^x\widehat{x}+\sigma _i^y\widehat{y}`$, then the $`\mathrm{cos}`$-term is proportional to the inner product of the projected vectors, $`\mathrm{cos}(|\theta _i\theta _j|)\stackrel{}{p}_{,i}\stackrel{}{p}_{,j}`$. We use the Pauli matrices, since the on-site Hamiltonian, Eq. (3) has also been written using this notation. Thus, the quantum version of Eq. (12) is written in the following form,

$$H_{int}^q=\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}(\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^x+\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^y).$$
(13)
Then, the total Hamiltonian of interacting system is

$$H_t=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_0^i(\varphi )+\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}(\sigma _i^x\sigma _j^x+\sigma _i^y\sigma _j^y).$$
(14)
Before starting to study the properties of $`H_t`$, we would like to mention the most important difference between Eqs. (5) and (13). The Hamiltonian of Eq. (5) has the discrete $`Z2`$ symmetry whereas Eq. (13) has the continous $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Moreover, we are now able to trace the tunneling path using the continuous symmetry, and to define the phase of coherent motion.

We will first study the properties of $`H_t`$ using constant parameters, and then we shall consider the effects of random couplings subject to a parameter distribution function.

Let us consider a one-dimensional array of tunneling centers with the total Hamiltonian defined by $`H_t`$. We shall examine two quantities, the dipole moment, induced dipole moment, as we have defined it earlier, and the two lowest-lying energy levels. In Fig. 4 we have plotted the dipole moment per site and the first two energy levels of $`N=10`$ interacting TLS’s. The following couplings have been used to observe the present behavior, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=3`$, and $`J_{i,j}=J=1`$. The dipole moment is induced by the external electric field when this effect is allowed due to the asymmetry in the height of the wells, $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Thus the amplitude of the dipole moment is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is small. Moreover we observed $`N`$ oscillations in the dipole moment, which is the signature of coherent motion. Exactly at the position of a sharp change in the dipole moment, a level crossing between the first two low-lying states occurs, as has been plotted in Fig. 4-b.

To show the level crossings more clearly, we have shown the difference between the first excited state energy $`E_1`$ and the ground state energy $`E_0`$ in the inset of Fig. 4-b. These observations confirm that the model introduced in Ref.  can be the effective model for the interacting system defined in Eq. (14). In this sense, the oscillations in the dipole moment or the number of level crossings between the first two low-lying states, represent the number of tunneling entities which move coherently. Therefore, the Hamiltonian of Eq. (14) describes a system of $`N`$ interacting TLS’s in the coherent motion phase. In the following, we will discuss the range of parameters over which this phase is observed. The specified couplings are in accordance with the low temperature regime, where the collective phenomena of cold glasses has been observed. By changing the parameters, the phase may appear at higher or lower temperatures.

To see the dependence of the dipole moment on the number of tunneling centers, we have plotted this quantity for $`N=16,18,20`$ in Fig. 5. In this figure, we have fixed the couplings to $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=3`$, and $`J_{i,j}=J=1`$. In Fig.(5), we magnified the plot tenfold to more clearly observe the oscillations. We still observe N oscillations in $`P_{tot}/N`$ versus magnetic flux ratio but the height of the discontinuities has been reduced. Moreover the spacing between these points is smaller for larger N. This is due to the size dependence of the extensive physical quantities. When N is increased, the difference between the energy levels and the distance between two level crossing points are both reduced. Then, the level crossing occurs for two states which are nearly degenerate. In this case, the states are similar to each other, and their dipole moments differ only slightly, so we do not observe a pronounced discontinuity. In the thermodynamic limit, these two states become degenerate. Thus we would like to stress that the phenomena we have predicted are mesoscopic effects which occurs for finite N and not in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. This is surprisingly in agreement with the effective theory of TLS’s,  in which the number of interacting TLS’s is assumed to be $`10^5`$.

The other feature which supports that the notion that the observed phenomena are mesoscopic, is the even and odd dependence of the dipole moments. We have so far presented the quantities for only even values of N. The results for odd values of N are plotted in Fig. 6. The common feature is the number of oscillations in the dipole moment, which is exactly equal to N. We have shown this fact for $`N=11,13,15`$, with the same couplings used in Fig. 4. The main difference between even and odd N appears in the form of the oscillations in the dipole moment. For the even N case, at the locations of each level crossing, the ground state changes from one state to another, leading to a discontinuity in the dipole moment. The case of odd N values is different. Hence the oscillations arise from a smooth change in $`P_{tot}/N`$. In particular, the oscillations arise from the beat frequencies of the nearly degenerate ground and first excited states, without any level crossing. By changing the magnetic flux ratio the ground and first excited states switch positions, due to the alternation in their relative energy differences. Each time the ground state comes close to first excited state, a peak in the dipole moment occurs.

The origin of this different behavior for even and odd N is related to the difference in the degeneracies of the ground state at the magnetic flux ratio, the level crossing points for even N, and the level beatings for odd N, respectively. The degeneracy is two fold, and can be labeled by the eigenvalues of a parity. Suppose in $`H_t`$ we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the symmetric TLS or in the absence of external electric field. Then the Hamiltonian $`H_t(\mathrm{\Delta }=0)`$ is invariant under the parity operation $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\widehat{z})=\widehat{z}`$, which defines the $`Z2`$ symmetry. Then each eigenstate of the Hamiltonian will be an eigenstate of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2=`$, the identity operation, the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are $`+1`$ or $`1`$. When the electric field is turned on, $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ the $`Z2`$ symmetry is broken and we expect it to remove the degeneracy at the level crossing points. Actually, this is true for odd N, for which the degeneracy is removed by an electric field as in the linear stark effect, there is no level crossing, and the dipole moment changes continuously. This means the first two low-lying eigenstates of the Hamiltonian with odd N have different $`Z2`$ parity eigenvalues, whereas they have the same parity for even N. The degeneracy still remains at a level crossing for even N, and leads to discontinuous changes in the dipole moment. Thus we should search for another symmetry which might be responsible for the degeneracy present for even N. We define the mirror image of a one-dimensional array to its center by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(i)=Ni+1`$ where $`i`$ is the site label, and $`N`$ is the length of array. Again $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=`$, which defines the eigenvalues $`\omega _{1(2)}=+1(1)`$ respectively. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ commutes with $`H_t`$, all eigenstates of the Hamiltonian are also eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus, we conclude that the first two low-lying eigenstates of the even N Hamiltonian have different $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ parity.

Now we discuss on the range of parameters which gives the phase with coherent motion. The main coupling constants in our model are $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`J`$. Since the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to the asymmetry of the wells, it is considered to be much smaller than the other parameters. At large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ value, the energy difference of the two wells is too high to allow tunneling, so some of the particles will be frozen in the lowest well of their own tunneling center, and do not contribute to the coherent motion. Then the probability of having all particles moving coherently will be reduced. This can be shown by computing the dipole moment for different values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig. 7, we plotted the dipole moment of a one-dimensional array of $`N=16`$ TLS’s with different asymmetries, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.05`$ in part (a) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ in part (b). We observe 16 peaks in Fig. 7-a, but this number is reduced to 15 in Fig. 7-b, which shows that only 15 of the tunneling centers are effectively moving coherently. With increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, this number decreases.

So by considering a small value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }1/N`$ for a mesoscopic size (N) system, the ratio of the other two parameters ($`\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }_0/J`$) controls the behavior of the system. If we fix $`J=1`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the tunable parameter. We have found two different phases in our model. When $`\lambda <\lambda _1`$ the number of level crossings is less than N. In this phase, just some of the tunneling centers contribute to the coherent motion, and for very small values of $`\lambda `$ the tunneling probability is negligible, and consequently, there is no coherent motion. This occurs when the interaction coupling ($`J`$) is very strong and causes the system to be frozen into a ground state which is only defined by the interaction term. In the other phase, when $`\lambda >\lambda _1`$, the model shows N level crossings between the first two low-lying levels and consequently the dipole moment oscillates with a frequency proportional to N. This phase corresponds to coherent motion. By increasing $`\lambda `$, the model behaves similar to that for independent TLS’s, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the strongest parameter in the Hamiltonian, and hence the interaction term becomes negligible. Practically the coherent motion phase becomes observable in the range of parameters $`\lambda _1<\lambda <\lambda _2`$. We have found that for one-dimensional model, $`\lambda _1(1D)=3`$ and for a two-dimensional lattice, it is $`\lambda _1(2D)6`$. So we assume $`\lambda _1(3D)10`$ for a three-dimensional model. If we choose a typical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=1`$K, then the strength of the dipole-dipole interaction ($`J`$) would have to be $`J=100`$mK in order to observe a collective phenomenon. This estimated value of $`J`$ obtained from our model is surprisingly in agreement with the expected value of the dipole-dipole interaction, assuming the average distance between two tunneling centers is $`R=10^8`$m and the average dipole moment of each TLS is $`P=2|e|\times 10^{10}`$m.

### B Two dimensional model

In this subsection we present the results of our calculations for the dipole moment of the Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (14) on a two dimensional square lattice. We only considered the nearest neighbour (n.n) interaction. The coupling constants are fixed to the values $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=6`$, and $`J_{i,j}=J=1`$. The dipole moment per site on the finite 2D model is plotted in Fig.8 for lattice sizes of $`N=3\times 3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\times 3,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}\times 4`$ and $`4\times 5`$. The expected oscillations in the dipole moment are observed in all cases. The oscillations are more apparent for the smaller $`N`$ (=9, 12) cases. As we discussed previously, by increasing $`N`$ the difference between the energy levels is decreased, and consequently the magnitude of the oscillations in the dipole moment is reduced. Moreover, we still distinguish the different types of oscillations for odd and even system sizes, which is clear by comparing Figs. 8-a and 8-b for $`N=9`$ and $`12`$, respectively. In the case of odd $`N`$, the oscillations do not lead to a discontinuity in the dipole moment, whereas it is discontinuous for even $`N`$. Our data for the two-dimensional system confirms that the proposed model is able to obtain a coherent motion in higher dimensions. This will be justified by considering long-range interactions in the next subsection.

### C Long range interactions

We now consider the effect of including long-range (l.r.) interactions in our model. Since we are attempting to describe a glassy system, the positions of the TLS’s are not limited to the sites on a regular lattice. Hence, each tunneling center may have many neighbors. In this respect, we have studied long-range interactions in both one- and two-dimensional models. We have calculated the dipole moment and the low-energy spectrum in order to compare them with the results for nearest-neighbor (n.n.) interactions studied in the last two subsections.

In a one-dimensional array of long-range interacting TLS’s, the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ run over all lattice points. Since the interactions originate from dipole-dipole couplings, the strength of the interaction between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ should be equal to $`J_{i,j}=J/(r_{i,j}^3)`$. We have plotted the resulting dipole moment per site for an array of size $`N=11`$ in Fig. 9-a. In this plot, we have presented data both for n.n. and l.r. interactions. The nearest-neighbor coupling strength is taken to be $`J=1`$ in both cases. There is no qualitative change in the behavior of the dipole moment versus the magnetic flux ratio. This is due to the ordering in the coherent motion phase. Suppose that (i, j) and (j, k) are two n.n. sites. If the system is in the coherent motion phase, the relative angles between n.n. sites is constant, $`|\theta _i\theta _j|=c_{ij},|\theta _j\theta _k|=c_{jk}`$. By turning on the l.r. interaction between (i, k), the constraint $`|\theta _i\theta _k|=c_{ik}`$ is imposed on the system, consistent with the previous system configuration, as seen by noting that $`c_{ik}c_{ij}+c_{jk}`$. Thus, adding l.r. interactions does not destroy the coherent motion. Moreover, the oscillations are more pronounced in the case of l.r. interactions, and also the distance between two peaks becomes approximately equally spaced. Then we observe more clearly the oscillations in the dipole moment with a frequency proportional to the lattice size. When we consider l.r. interactions to all neighbor in the lattice, the system resembles a three dimensional one, since each site has many neighbors. This adds for the support to the notion that this model may describe three-dimensional coherent motion.

In Fig.8-b we present our results for a similar situation for a two-dimensional lattice. The lattice size is $`N=4\times 3=12`$, where a TLS exists at each lattice point. For simplicity we have only considered the next nearest-neighbor (n.n.n.) interactions, using it to represent a long-range interaction, since it does not change the generality. In this case, the n.n. coupling is $`J_1=1`$ and the n.n.n. coupling is $`J_2=0.125`$, which are supposed to behave as $`1/r^3`$. As discussed for the 1D case, there are no qualitative changes in the results. In comparison with the n.n. results, the oscillations in the dipole moment are observed to be clearer and more equally spaced.

### D Random couplings

So far, we have studied the Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (14) for one- and two-dimensional lattices with n.n. and l.r. interactions. In all of these cases we have considered a deterministic model, in which all of the couplings were constant and homogeneous for all lattice points. Since we are attempting to describe a phenomena in a glassy media, we expect to have a distribution of coupling constants.

The first model is to take the same distribution that has been used to treat non-interacting TLS’s. The distribution function is written in Eq. (9) as $`f(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$, and for a one-dimensional regular lattice, the distribution of the dipole-dipole interactions is $`f(J)`$ in the same equation. The distribution for a three dimensional lattice is calculated to be $`f(J_{i,j})J_{i,j}^2`$ by assuming $`J_{i,j}1/r_{i,j}^3`$. Now let us limit our study to the case defined in Eq. (9) for a one-dimensional array of TLS’s. We have calculated the dipole moment and the first two low-lying energy levels of a system with $`N=4`$ interacting TLS’s where the ranges of parameters are $`0<\mathrm{\Delta }<0.2`$, $`0.05<\mathrm{\Delta }_0<3`$, and $`0.05<J<1`$. We have calculated the average values for $`10000`$ samples and plotted them in Fig.10. Since the data are symmetric around $`\varphi /\varphi _0=0.5`$, we presented them only for $`[0,0.5]`$. As shown in Fig.10-a, the dipole moment does not demonstrate any oscillations, but instead shows monotonic behavior over the domain model. Moreover the first two energy levels exhibit neither a level crossing nor a level frequency beating. This calculation verifies that the model with this type of distribution function does not describe coherent motion. Although we presented the data only for a special range of parameters, we did not observe any qualitative changes in the results by altering the range of parameters. We note that the type of distribution function $`f(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ defined in Eq. (9) follows from the assumption that the TLS’s in glasses are considered to be isolated. Thus we argue that for interacting TLS’s the distribution function should be modified!

Hence, we choose a Gaussian distribution for the parameters in our model,

$$g(x)=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{\frac{(x\overline{x})^2}{2\stackrel{~}{a}^2}}$$
(15)
where $`\overline{x}x`$ is the average value of the variable $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}\sqrt{x^2x^2}`$ its width. Now we consider a Gaussian distribution for all of the parameters in our model. In Fig.11-a, the dipole moment of a one-dimensional array of TLS’s with $`N=4`$ is plotted versus the magnetic flux ratio for four different values of the parameter $`\gamma `$. This parameter defines the variance of the distribution by $`\stackrel{~}{a}=\gamma \overline{x}`$. The average values of parameters are $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0.2`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}=3`$, and $`\overline{J}=1`$. We have computed the average values of the physical quantities over $`10000`$ samples. In this notation, $`\gamma =0`$ is the deterministic case in which there is no random variable, leading to very sharp oscillations in the dipole moment. As discussed in the last sections, the dipole moment behaves discontinuously at the level crossing points when $`N`$ is even. The total number of oscillations is four, with two in the region $`\varphi /\varphi _0[0,0.5]`$ (Fig.11-a), and two in the $`\varphi /\varphi _0[0.5,1]`$ region, which are not presented to save computation time. For $`\gamma =0.1`$, the variance is equal to 10 percent of the average value and still the oscillations in the dipole moment are clear, confirming coherent motion. For $`\gamma =0.1`$ we have also presented the two lowest energy levels in Fig.11-b, in which the effect of level frequency beating instead of level crossing can be seen. Since we included random variables in the model, we do not expect sharp level crossing. But the oscillations with frequency proportional to $`N`$ in the energy levels show the dependence of the energy on the number of interacting TLS’s, suggesting collective behavior. If variance is less than or equal to 10 percent of the average value, we still will observe evidence for coherent motion. By increasing $`\gamma `$, the amplitude of the oscillations is reduced, and for $`\gamma =0.5`$, there are almost no oscillations. In other words, a wide distribution of randomness destroys the collective behavior. Hence, we have shown that the proposed model exhibits coherent motion provided that the distribution of the coupling constants is sufficiently narrow.

## V Conclusion

We have attempted to find an appropriate interaction between TLS’s in order to explain the experimental evidence for collective phenomenon in multi-component glasses at ultra low temperatures. Our first attempt was to distinguish the features of double well and triple well potentials in the presence of Ising-like interactions. The Ising interactions are intended to simulate the z-component of the dipole-dipole interactions between two wells when one uses a distribution of exchange couplings to simulate different dipole moment orientations. Our calculations confirm that none of the two- and three-well models with Ising-type interactions can provide evidence for a coherent motion phase. This is true for both fixed and random couplings. The crucial point arises from the symmetry of the interaction. The Ising interaction has a discrete symmetry, whereas a continuous symmetry is required in order to trace the path of the tunneling process for the simulation of coherent motion.

Second, we considered an XY interaction proportional to the $`\mathrm{cos}(|\theta _i\theta _j|)`$, where $`\theta _i`$ is the angle of the dipole moment projected onto the xy-plane (see Fig.1). Thus the interaction is sensitive to the relative angle of the dipole moments in two coupled TLS’s. In the coherent motion phase, the relative angle of each coupled TLS’s is constant, so the ensemble of TLS’s demonstrates a collective phenomenon in which all of the particles tunnel in the same direction (clock- or anti-clockwise). One may treat at this phenomenon effectively by a single TLS with a charge equal to the sum of the charges of all of the correlated TLS’s. The XY interaction has a continuous $`U(1)`$ symmetry which properly traces out the path of tunneling and simulates the coherent motion. We have studied this model on one- and two-dimensional lattices in which the tunneling centers are restricted to the lattice points. We have predicted the coherent motion phase in a range of coupling constants by calculating the dipole moments and the low-energy levels of the coupled TLS’s.

The effects of long-range interactions were studied in a model exhibiting the expected clearly and equally spaced oscillations in the dipole moment. By definition, in the coherent motion phase the relative angle between coupled TLS’s is constant. Adding l.r. interactions imposes constraints between non-nearest neighbors which are effectively satisfied by imposing a n.n. constraint. Thus l.r. interactions do not destroy the coherent motion phase. Moreover, results obtained with l.r. interactions resemble those obtained in higher spatial dimensions, which suggests that our model may be relevant for the 3D case as well. The glassy properties of our model were examined by introducing random couplings. We have found that the form of the random distribution depends upon the interacting or non-interacting model. If we assume the distribution of isolated TLS (Eq. (9)), for the interacting model, we will not observe any evidence for the coherent motion phase. Thus we have considered a Gaussian distribution for all of the parameters in our model. When the width of the Gaussian distribution is narrow, we still observe the oscillations in the dipole moment representing collective behaviour. For a wide distribution of parameters the coherent motion phase is destroyed.

Finally we conclude that the XY-like interactions between TLS’s, combined with the Aharanov-Bohm effect of the single particle Hamiltonian, allows us to construct a successful model exhibiting the important features suggestive of the collective phenomenon of coherent motion in low temperature glasses. There are still many aspects of the model such as the density of states as well as finite temperatures which should be investigated in future studies.

## VI Acknowledgement

I would like to express my deep gratitude to P. Fulde who introduced to me this topic and for valuable comments, discussions and a careful study of the manuscript. I would also like to thank K.-H. Ahn, A. Bernert, S. Kettemann, I. Peschel and S. Pleutin for fruitful discussions. Many thanks to R. Klemm for his comments on the manuscript. I would like also to thank A. A. Ovchinnikov for making his calculation available before publication.


text:
# The interplay of soft and hard contributions in the electromagnetic pion form factor1

## Abstract

We consider various relativistic models for the valence Fock-state wave function of the pion. These models are obtained from simple instant-form wave functions by applying a Melosh rotation to the spin part and by imposing physical constraints on the parameters. We discuss how the soft and the hard (perturbative) parts of the electromagnetic form factor are affected by the choice of the model and by the Melosh rotation.

The knowledge of wave functions of the hadronic constituents allows to link hadronic phenomena in different kinematical regions. For several reasons it is advantageous to consider the composition of hadrons out of its constituents at fixed light-front time $`\tau =t+z`$ rather than at ordinary time $`t`$. The “time” evolution in $`\tau `$ is then determined by front-form dynamics. One of the attractive features of such an approach is that the corresponding wave functions are direct generalizations of non-relativistic wave functions in the sense that they can be interpreted as probability amplitudes for finding a particular Fock state in the hadron under consideration with the constituents carrying certain momenta, spins, etc. Like in the non-relativistic case light-front wave functions can be expressed in terms of purely internal variables (momentum fractions $`x`$ and transverse momenta $`k_{}`$). 11footnotetext: Talk given at the “International Light-Cone Workshop”, Trento, Italy, September 2001

For a hadron form factor the, in principle, exact expression is just a sum (over all Fock states) of overlap integrals of incoming and outgoing light-front wave functions . A widely used approximation is then to assume that the dominant contribution comes from the valence Fock state. For large momentum transfers $`Q\mathrm{}`$ the analysis of the corresponding overlap integral reveals that the one-gluon-exchange tail of the wave function can be factored out, so that one ends up with a perturbative representation of the form factor in terms of a convolution integral . The distribution amplitude $`\varphi (x,\stackrel{~}{Q})`$ entering this convolution integral is again related to the valence-quark light-front wave function of the hadron. Its dependence on the factorization scale $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ (which in turn depends on $`Q`$) is given by an evolution equation which is driven by one-gluon-exchange. Practically, this means that the knowledge of the soft part of the wave function suffices, since the high-momentum tail of the wave function is determined by perturbative evolution. What we therefore want to model is only the soft part of the pion wave function.

A commonly used ansatz for the quark-antiquark light-front wave function of the pion is of harmonic-oscillator type

$$\psi (x,k_{})=A_\pi \chi (x,k_{})J(x,k_{})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{M_0^2}{8\beta ^2}\right)$$
(1)
with $`M_0^2`$ denoting the front-form expression for the free two-particle mass

$$M_0^2=\frac{k_{}^2+m_\mathrm{q}^2}{x(1x)}.$$
(2)
$`A_\pi `$ is a normalization constant, $`\chi (x,k_{})`$ the (light-front) spin wave function of the q-$`\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ pair, and $`J(x,k_{})`$ the square root of a Jacobian. Such a model for the pion wave function has, e.g., been proposed by Brodsky, Huang and Lepage (BHL) . They took $`J=1`$ and the usual (instant-form) expression for the spin-wave function $`\chi `$. Terent’ev and Karmanov (TK) , on the other hand, chose $`J(x)=\sqrt{1/2x(1x)}`$, i.e. the square root of the Jacobian relating the relativistic integration measures $`(\mathrm{d}^3k/k^0)`$ and $`(\mathrm{d}^2k_{}\mathrm{d}x)`$. The $`J(x,k_{})`$ adopted by Chung, Coester and Polyzou (CCP)  was of the form $`J(x,k_{})=\sqrt{M_0/4m_\mathrm{q}x(1x)}`$, i.e. the square root of the Jacobian relating the non-relativistic integration measure $`(\mathrm{d}^3k/m_\mathrm{q})`$ to $`(\mathrm{d}^2k_{}\mathrm{d}x)`$. In addition to these different choices of the $`J`$s we will use another simple ansatz for the s-state orbital function of the pion, which has a power-law form

$$\psi _{\mathrm{PL}}(x,k_{})=A_\pi \chi (x,k_{})J(x,k_{})\left(\frac{\beta ^2}{M_0^2+\beta ^2}\right)^\alpha .$$

A few words about the spin wave function $`\chi (x,k_{})`$ are also in order. It is a well known disadvantage of the light-front formalism that the usual addition of angular momenta (e.g. for 2 particles $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}^{(1)}+\stackrel{}{S}^{(2)}`$) holds only for the third component, whereas the addition law for the other two components is, in general, much more complicated. It is, however, possible to go over to a unitarily transformed spin operator which satisfies the usual spin-addition laws . This unitary transformation is known as the “Melosh rotation” (MR). The light-front spin wave function $`\chi (x,k_{})`$ results thus from an inverse Melosh rotation of an ordinary spin wave function. A convenient expression for $`\chi (x,k_{})`$ can, e.g., be found in Ref. . Remarkably, the light-front spin wave function of an s-wave pion contains also helicity $`\pm 1`$ components.

The idea behind the construction of such wave-function models is always that the valence-Fock-state wave function within QCD has something to do with the wave function of constituent quarks (which can be obtained from much simpler dynamics). Therefore the mass $`m_\mathrm{q}`$ occurring in the wave functions has to be interpreted as constituent-quark mass. We took $`m_\mathrm{q}=330`$ MeV. According to the finding in Ref.  we have also fixed the parameter $`\alpha `$ in $`\psi _{\mathrm{PL}}`$ to be $`\alpha =3.5`$. The normalization $`A_\pi `$ has then been adjusted such that the weak decay constant $`f_\pi =2\sqrt{3}dx\mathrm{d}^2k_{}\psi =93`$ MeV is reproduced. Finally, the parameter $`\beta `$ has been determined (for the full Melosh rotated wave functions) by means of the valence-quark dominance assumption $`P_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}=dx\mathrm{d}^2k_{}\psi ^{}\psi =1`$. This also lead to reasonable values for the mean intrinsic transverse momenta $`\sqrt{k_{}^2}`$ of a quark (or an antiquark) inside the pion (cf. Table 1 where the model parameters are also summarized).

The dependence of the soft (overlap) contribution to $`F_\pi `$ on the choice of the quark-antiquark wave function is displayed in Fig. 1. At very small $`Q^2`$ (small figure) the curves nearly coincide. Figure 2, on the other hand, shows the interplay of soft and hard (perturbative) contributions to $`F_\pi `$ and the influence of the MR factor. Results are only considered for $`\psi _{\mathrm{BHL}}`$, since the hard contribution to the form factor is nearly independent of the choice of the wave function. It does not even depend on whether the MR factor is fully taken into account or neglected at all. Marked differences are only observed if the MR factor is approximated like in Ref. . Shortly summarized, the following conclusions can be drawn from the figures (and from Table 1):

The use of different wave functions does not have a significant effect on the electromagnetic pion form factor as long as these wave functions provide comparable results for $`f_\pi `$ and $`k_{}^2`$. This holds in both, the soft and the hard regimes.

Normalizing the wave functions in such a way that $`f_\pi `$ remains unaltered, the soft part of $`F_\pi `$ (and also $`P_{\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}}`$) becomes considerably smaller if the MR factor is neglected. Minor changes due to the omission of the MR factor can be observed in the perturbative part of $`F_\pi `$. The approximations for the MR factor adopted in Ref. , on the other hand, entail also sizable changes in the hard part of $`F_\pi `$.

Comparing the soft with the perturbative contribution to $`F_\pi `$ one observes that the latter starts to dominate at $`Q^25`$GeV2.

The effect of the MR factor on the pion distribution amplitude is just a slight broadening as compared to the asymptotic distribution amplitude (cf. Fig. 2). The broadening becomes much stronger if the approximations of Ref.  are applied to the MR factor. A recent QCD sum-rule analysis of the pion distribution amplitude by Bakulev et al.  provides a double-humped distribution amplitude (cf. Fig. 2), but with less pronounced structure than originally proposed by Chernyak and Zhitnitsky.


text:
# A generalization of Filliman duality

## I Introduction

If $`P^d`$ is a polytopal region, let $`[P]`$ denote the restriction of Lebesgue measure to $`P`$. The measure $`[P]`$ can also be called the characteristic measure, by analogy with the characteristic function. We consider measures rather than functions so that if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are two regions with disjoint interiors, then

$$[PQ]=[P]+[Q]$$

even if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are not disjoint at the boundary. If $`P`$ is convex and the origin lies in its interior, then $`P`$ admits a polar body $`P^{}`$. Say that a polytope $`P`$, convex or not, is *codegenerate* if one of its facets is coplanar with the origin. Every non-codegenerate simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ admits a polar simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. Let $`𝒯`$ be a triangulation of $`P^{}`$ by non-codegenerate simplices. In this circumstance Filliman Filliman:duals  showed that

$$[P]=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯}{}(1)^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}],$$

where $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a certain sign function. This formula is called *Filliman duality*. Figure 1 shows an example: a triangulation of a pentagon $`P`$ and the dual realization of $`P^{}`$ as a triangle with two smaller triangles subtracted.

Two special cases of Filliman duality are notable. First, if each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯`$ shares vertices with $`P^{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ shares supporting hyperplanes with $`P`$. If $`P`$ has few vertices and many sides, then it is reasonable to compute its volume as the sum of the volumes of the simplices in a triangulation. But if $`P`$ has many vertices and few sides, it is more efficient to use a triangulation of $`P^{}`$ via Filliman duality. Second, if $`𝒯`$ is the cone of a triangulation of $`P^{}`$, then as the apex of the cone converges to the origin, each dual simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯`$ converges to an affine orthant emanating from a vertex of $`P`$. Thus we can express $`[P]`$ as an alternating sum of such orthants. This limiting case of Filliman duality is called Lawrence’s algorithm Lawrence:computation . It is useful not only for finding the volume of $`P`$, but also for computing the Fourier transform of $`[P]`$.

In this note we extend Filliman duality to an involution on non-codegenerate, integral, polytope measures on $`^d`$. More precisely, let $`𝒜`$ be the abelian group of signed measures $`\mu `$ on $`^d`$ of the form

$$\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _i[P_i],$$

where each $`P_i`$ is a non-codegenerate polytope and $`\alpha _i`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a non-codegenerate simplex, let $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be the number of supporting hyperplanes of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ that separate it from the origin. Let $`𝒟𝒜`$ consist of measures of the form $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$.

###### Theorem 1.

The involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒟𝒟`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }([\mathrm{\Delta }])=(1)^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })}[\mathrm{\Delta }^{}]$$

extends uniquely to an automorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒜𝒜`$.

The following corollary captures the original Filliman duality as part of the involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$:

###### Corollary 2.

If $`P`$ is a convex polytope containing the origin in its interior and

$$[P]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _i[\mathrm{\Delta }_i]$$

for simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$, then

$$[P^{}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })}\alpha _i[\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}].$$

Note that our involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not the same as the Euler involution on the polytope algebra defined by McMullen McMullen:polytope . Nonetheless, as the group $`𝒜`$ and the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on it are ultimately a disguised specialization of a known involution in valuation theory, the polarity map on cones (see Section IV). Thus the real significance of Theorem 1 and its proof is not that it describes an essentially new involution, as the author once thought, but rather that it relates three distinct constructions in combinatorial geometry: Filliman duality, valuation theory, and the stellar subdivision theorem.

## II Proof of Theorem 1

In this section we assume that all simplices and other polytopes are non-codegenerate except where noted.

We will consider signed polytopes in order to absorb the sign that appears in duality for simplices. A signed polytope $`P`$ is a polytope together with a formal sign, either $`+`$ or $``$. Characteristic measures on signed polytopes are defined by the rule $`[P]=[P]`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }^d`$ is a simplex with positive sign, we define

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(1)^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta })}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}).$$

Also we recall the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has vertices $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_d`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is bounded by the hyperplanes $`H_{v_0},\mathrm{},H_{v_d}`$, where for any vector $`v`$, $`H_v`$ is defined as

$$H_v=\left\{w\right|w,v=1\}.$$

Let $``$ be the abelian group freely generated by simplex measures $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$. By summing the terms of each element in $``$, we obtain a homomorphism $`\pi :𝒜`$. It is surjective because every polytopal region can be tiled by simplices. The involution $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ extends tautologically to $``$. Theorem 1 then asserts that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$. In order to prove this we first give a characterization of the kernel. The characterization depends on a refinement of the stellar subdivision due to M. H. A. Newman Lickorish:complexes ; Newman:theorem .

###### Theorem 3 (Newman).

Any two triangulations of a polytope $`P^d`$ are equivalent under stellar moves applied on edges.

###### Corollary 4.

The kernel $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ is generated by the relators

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }][\mathrm{\Delta }_1][\mathrm{\Delta }_2],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a simplex tiled by two simplices $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $``$ be the subgroup of $``$ generated by the relators. Clearly $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$; we wish to show that $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$. Assume a general linear dependence of simplices

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _i[\mathrm{\Delta }_i]=0$$
(1)
in $`𝒜`$. Equivalently, in $``$,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _i[\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\mathrm{ker}\pi .$$

The union of the simplices,

$$P=_{i=1}^n\mathrm{\Delta }_i,$$

is a compact polytopal region in $`^d`$. It admits a triangulation $`𝒯`$ that refines each simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Let $`𝒯_i`$ be the restriction of $`𝒯`$ to the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. By Theorem 3, the triangulation $`𝒯_i`$ can be obtained from the tautological triangulation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ by itself by stellar moves applied to edges. A stellar move on some edges $`e`$ can be effected by dividing each simplex containing $`e`$ into two simplices, the geometric move captured by the relator. Therefore

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_i}{}[\mathrm{\Delta }]$$

in $``$. At the same time, equation (1) implies that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _i\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯_i}{}[\mathrm{\Delta }]=0$$

in $``$, since each simplex in $`𝒯`$ must be covered a total of 0 times. Therefore $`\mathrm{ker}\pi `$, as desired. ∎

###### Remark.

Call the move of dividing a simplex into two an *elementary dissection*. An interesting fact closely related to Corollary 4 is that any two simplicial dissections of a polytopal region are connected by elementary dissections.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

In light of Corollary 4, we only need to check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves an elementary dissection of a simplex. If $`v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_d`$ are the vertices of a simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we let the word $`v_0v_1\mathrm{}v_d`$ denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if

$$v_1v_0,v_2v_0,\mathrm{},v_dv_0$$

is a positive basis of $`^d`$, and otherwise we let it denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`w_i`$ is the vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ opposite to the hyperplane $`H_{v_i}`$, it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=(1)^dw_0w_1\mathrm{}w_d.$$

Suppose that $`x_1`$,$`x_2`$, and $`x_3`$ are 3 collinear points in $`V`$, and suppose that $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_{d2}`$ are $`d1`$ other points affinely independent from any two of $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, and $`x_2`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}[v_0\mathrm{}v_{d2}x_1x_2]+[v_0\mathrm{}v_{d2}x_2x_3]\hfill \\ \hfill +[v_0\mathrm{}v_{d2}x_3x_1]=0\end{array}$$
(2)
expresses an elementary dissection. Applying $`(1)^d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to both sides produces

$$\begin{array}{c}[w_0w_1\mathrm{}w_{d2}y_2y_1]+[w_0w_1\mathrm{}w_{d2}y_3y_2]\hfill \\ \hfill +[w_0w_1\mathrm{}w_{d2}y_1y_3]=0.\end{array}$$
(3)
Here each point $`w_i`$ lies in the hyperplanes $`H_{v_j}`$ for $`ij`$ and in the hyperplanes $`H_{x_j}`$ for all $`j`$. Each point $`y_i`$ lies in the hyperplane $`H_{v_j}`$ for all $`j`$ and in the hyperplane $`H_{x_i}`$. Evidently equation (3) is the same equation up to sign as equation (2). Figure 2 shows an example. ∎

## III Proof of Corollary 2 and examples

Corollary 2 follows immediately from Theorem 1 and the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.

If $`P^d`$ is a convex polytope that strictly contains the origin, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }([P])=[P^{}]`$, the polar body of $`P`$.

###### Proof.

We first assume that any $`d`$ vertices of $`P`$ are linearly independent, or equivalently affinely independent from the origin. Let $`𝒯`$ be a triangulation of $`P`$ with no vertices in the interior of $`P`$. We claim, first, that any point $`w`$ in the interior of $`P^{}`$ is covered by the dual of exactly one simplex. A unique simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0𝒯`$ contains the origin. The inclusions $`0\mathrm{\Delta }_0P`$ imply that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}P^{}`$, so $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ covers $`w`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯`$ is another simplex, then there exists a vertex $`v`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which is separated from the origin by the opposite face of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is separated from the origin by the hyperplane $`H_v`$. Since $`v`$ is also a vertex of $`P`$, $`H_v`$ is a supporting hyperplane of $`P^{}`$. Therefore $`H_v`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ from $`P^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ does not contain $`w`$. This establishes the first claim.

We claim, second, that if $`w`$ is in the exterior of $`P^{}`$, there exists a triangulation $`T`$ of $`P`$ such that $`w`$ is not covered by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. There exists a vertex $`v`$ of $`P`$ such that the hyperplane $`H_v`$ separates $`w`$ from $`P^{}`$. Let $`𝒯`$ be a fan triangulation all of whose simplices contain $`v`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒯`$, then $`H_v`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from $`w`$, as desired. The two claims together with Theorem 1 establish the proposition under the independence assumption on $`P`$.

Finally we assume that $`P`$ is arbitrary. The argument so far establishes the proposition for the polytope $`Pv`$ for a dense set of vectors $`v`$ in the interior of $`P`$. Namely $`v`$ can be any point that does not lie on a hyperplane affinely spanned by vertices of $`P`$. But if $`v`$ is in the interior of $`P`$, then $`Pv`$ has a non-codegenerate triangulation whether or not $`v`$ lies on such a hyperplane. It follows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }([Pv])`$ varies continuously in a neighborhood of $`v`$. Thus the truth of the proposition for a dense set of $`v`$ implies its truth for all $`v`$ in the interior of $`P`$. In particular the proposition holds for $`v=0`$. ∎

We conclude with two examples of polygonal regions in the plane and their images under $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Figure 3 shows the dual of a square with corners $`(1,1)`$, $`(3,1)`$, $`(1,1)`$, and $`(3,1)`$. The dual is a negative measure in the interior of a kite shape. Finally Figure 4 shows the dual of a square with corners $`(1,1)`$, $`(1,2)`$, $`(2,1)`$, and $`(2,2)`$. The dual is the difference (in the sense of signed measures) between two triangles with disjoint interiors.

## IV Involutions on cones

In response to the first version of this article, Alexander Barvinok suggested that Theorem 1 is related to the fact that the polarity involution $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ on spherical convex polytopes extends to a valuation. In this section we show, in outline, that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ becomes a restriction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ after suitably mapping measures on $`^d`$ to functions on the sphere $`S^d`$.

Let $`𝒞`$ be the abelian group of integer-valued functions on $`S^d`$ spanned by the characteristic functions of closed (or equivalently open) spherical polytopes of any dimension $`d`$. If $`PS^d`$ is closed and convex, then it admits a polar dual

$$P^{}=\{x|yP,x,y0\},$$

where the inner product uses the defining embedding $`S^d^{d+1}`$. Also, if $`PS^d`$, let $`\chi _P`$ be the characteristic function of $`P`$. The following result in combinatorial geometry is known but unattributed (see Barvinok Barvinok:gsm  and Lawrence Lawrence:polarity ):

###### Theorem 6.

The polarity map

$$\chi _P\chi _P^{}$$

extends to an involution $`\mathrm{\Pi }:𝒞𝒞`$.

Now identify $`^d`$ with the open upper hemisphere in $`S^d`$ by stereographic projection. Let $`𝒟𝒞`$ be the set of those functions $`f`$ such that:

1. $`f`$ is supported on $`^d`$,
2. $`f\sigma `$ is defined using non-codegenerate polytopes, and
3. $`f\sigma `$ is radially left-continuous as a function on $`^d`$, meaning that for all $`v^d`$,

$$\underset{t1_{}}{lim}(f\sigma )(tv)=(f\sigma )(v).$$

It is not hard to show that the class $`𝒟`$ is spanned by (the characteristic functions of) closed convex polytopes with the origin in their interiors. Thus $`𝒟`$ is invariant under the polarity involution $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$.

It is also not hard to show that every measure $`\mu 𝒜`$, if interpreted as an element of $`L^1(^d)`$, is represented by a unique radially left-continuous function $`f𝒟`$. This identifies $`𝒜`$ with $`𝒟`$. Again, because $`𝒟`$ is spanned by closed convex polytopes with the origin in their interiors. Because both maps $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ are the polarity transformation on this class, the two maps are identified as well.

Note that the class $`𝒟`$ extends to a slightly larger class $`\overline{𝒟}`$ spanned by all convex polytopes $`P`$ in the closed upper hemisphere in $`S^d`$ which contain the origin (not necessarily in the interior). The class $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is also invariant under the polarity involution $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Indeed $`\overline{𝒟}`$ is the closure of $`𝒟`$ with respect to a natural topology on $`𝒞`$, namely the one induced by the Hausdorff topology on closed subsets of $`S^d`$. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is continuous with respect to this topology. Thus the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ to $`\overline{𝒟}`$ expresses all codegenerate limiting cases of Filliman duality, such as Lawrence’s algorithm.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Alexander Barvinok, Jesus De Loera, Yael Karshon, Colin Rourke, and Günter Ziegler for useful discussions.