text:
# Scattering of vortex pairs in 2D easy-plane ferromagnets

## I  Introduction

The statics and dynamics of magnetic vortices is already an old subject . An increasing interest in the problem has arisen again  which is connected with the synthesis and experimental study of new low-dimensional magnetic compounds such as two-dimensional magnetic lipid layers, organic intercalated quasi-2D layered magnets and HTSC-materials in the antiferromagnetic state.

Magnetic vortices play an important role in easy-plane magnets. They are the main ingredients in the Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition. At a finite temperature the density of vortices is large and they should give a considerable contribution to the dynamic correlations.

We already have a detailed picture of the dynamics in a system with a small number of vortices. An isolated vortex in an infinite system can only move together with the background flux . Two vortices interact and undergo Kelvin motion if they have opposite topological charges while they move one around the other when they have the same charge. We shall call the pair of two vortices with opposite topological charge a vortex-antivortex pair (V-A pair). Such pairs can have the characteristics of a soliton in the sense that they move coherently with some constant velocity. Solitons of this kind have been numerically investigated in some magnetic systems . Analogous V-A pairs have been studied in superfluids , nonlinear optics  and hydrodynamics .

In a system with a lot of vortices the picture becomes accordingly more complicated. If we suppose a dilute vortex gas, the average velocity is $`\overline{V}\sqrt{\rho }1/L`$, where $`\rho `$ is the density of vortices and $`L`$ the average distance between them. The interaction energy is proportional to the logarithm of the average distance. This picture should be realistic above the Kosterlitz-Thouless temperature. At low temperatures vortex-antivortex pairs are expected to form. The energy of a pair is finite and it is proportional to the logarithm of its size. The interaction potential between them is inversely proportional to the second power of their size. One may be tempted to treat the vortex pairs as elementary weakly interacting particles. However, their dynamics is not Newtonian and most importantly they have an internal structure which may change during interaction.

In a dense enough gas of vortices, interactions among traveling V-A pairs are unavoidable. In particular, any change in the number of vortices present in the system, or the number of vortices in equilibrium, should be a direct or indirect result of the scattering among V-A pairs. Our article is devoted to head-on and head-tail collisions between V-A pairs in easy-axis ferromagnets, i.e. to the case of zero total angular momentum of the system. Our study is both numerical and analytical. A collective coordinate theory is found to be particularly successful and provides the basis for a clear picture of the dynamics.

Our results should also be relevant for a variety of other systems where V-A pairs have been found. Furthermore comparisons can be made to the well-studied soliton interactions in one space dimension.

The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we give a short description of the system and an account of the dynamics of vortices and vortex-antivortex pairs. In Sec. III we present numerical simulations for collisions between V-A pairs. Sec. IV presents a theory which explains the features of the dynamical behavior of vortex pairs. Our concluding remarks are contained in the last Sec. V.

## II  Vortices and vortex-antivortex pairs

We consider the classical two-dimensional Heisenberg ferromagnet with a uniaxial anisotropy of the easy-plane type. The corresponding Hamiltonian has the form

$$=J\underset{(n,m)}{}\left(𝐒_n𝐒_m\right)+\frac{\beta }{2}\underset{n}{}(S_n^z)^2,$$
(1)
where $`𝐒_n`$ denotes the spin variable at site $`n`$, $`S_n^z`$ is the third component of $`𝐒_n`$. The first summation runs over the nearest-neighbor pairs. The exchange constant $`J`$ and the single-ion anisotropy constant $`\beta `$ are positive. We treat the spin $`𝐒`$ as a classical vector of constant length. Usually the magnetic anisotropy is small: $`\beta /J10^2`$ or $`10^3`$. In this case we can use a continuum approximation of the Hamiltonian. We define two fields $`m=S^z`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{arctan}(S^y/S^x)`$, where $`S^x,S^y,S^z`$ are the cartesian components of the spin. In terms of these variables the continuum version of the Hamiltonian reads

$$=\frac{\beta }{2}𝑑x𝑑y\left[\frac{(m)^2}{1m^2}+(1m^2)(\mathrm{\Phi })^2+m^2\right].$$
(2)
The coordinates $`x,y`$ are measured in units of the “magnetic length” $`l_0=\sqrt{J/\beta }`$. $`m,\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are canonically conjugate fields and the equations of motion have the Hamiltonian form

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}=\frac{\delta }{\delta m},\frac{m}{t}=\frac{\delta }{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }},$$
(3)
explicitely

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`m{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{1m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m(m)^2}{(1m^2)^2}}m(\mathrm{\Phi })^2,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }2mm\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (5)
Our numerical algorithm uses the formulation through the stereographic variable

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\frac{1m}{1+m}}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi }).$$
(6)
This satisfies the equation

$$i\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{t}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }+\frac{2\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{1+\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{1+\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(7)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ denotes the complex conjugate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This variable was used in the solution of the Landau-Lifshitz equation in one dimension since, in terms of it, the soliton solutions attain their simplest form .

In studying statics and dynamics for the above model, the topological density

$$\gamma =\frac{m}{x}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}\frac{m}{y}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x}$$
(8)
is a most useful quantity. It has been called the ”local vorticity” since it plays here a role analogous to the ordinary vorticity in fluid dynamics . The integrated topological density

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\gamma 𝑑x𝑑y$$
(9)
is an invariant and takes values which are integral multiples of $`2\pi `$ for the vortex solutions that we shall discuss here.

The vorticity density enters the definitions of the linear and angular momentum of the theory which read

$$P_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \nu }x_\nu \gamma 𝑑x𝑑y,\mu ,\nu =1,2,$$
(10)
$$\mathrm{}=(x^2+y^2)\gamma 𝑑x𝑑y.$$
(11)
The role of the total vorticity in the dynamics can be also appreciated through the definition of the so-called ”gyrocoupling vector”

$$𝐆=\widehat{\text{z}}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(12)
where $`\widehat{\text{z}}`$ is the unit vector in the third direction. The gyrocoupling vector enters the equations which describe the dynamics of vortices in a collective coordinate theory.

We now turn our attention to the discussion of topological excitations. We take as a boundary condition that the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is proportional to the polar angle $`\varphi `$ at spatial infinity. We then obtain vortex solutions which have the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa \mathrm{arctan}\frac{yY}{xX},$$
(13)
$$m=f(|𝐫𝐑|),$$
(14)
where $`\kappa =\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$ will be called the vortex number and $`(X,Y)`$ is the position of the vortex center. In the following we call the vortices with $`\kappa <0`$ antivortices. The magnetization field $`m`$ for a vortex can be found numerically and has the following asymptotic behavior :

$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda [1ar^2],r0,`$ (15)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda b\mathrm{exp}(r)/\sqrt{r},r1,`$ (16)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the vortex center, $`a,b`$ are constants and $`\lambda =m(r=0)=\pm 1`$ we call the ”polarity” of the vortex. The radius of the vortex is unity in our units. We use in our numerical simulations only vortices and antivortices with $`\kappa =\pm 1`$ and polarity $`\lambda =1`$.

The total vorticity of the vortices (13,14) is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \kappa \lambda `$. The structure of the magnetic vortices (13,14) is similar to that of the vortices in a non-ideal Bose gas  where the quantity $`(1m)`$ is the density of the Bose particles. However, the ferromagnetic vortices differ in that they come with two possible values of the polarity $`\lambda `$.

The most impressive characteristic of the dynamics of an isolated vortex is that it is spontaneously pinned in an infinite medium. One can trace the reasons of this dynamical behavior to their topological complexity which is reflected in the nonzero value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ . On the other hand, a vortex-antivortex pair undergoes Kelvin motion. This motion was studied in  (see also ) for a large vortex separation. In general, Kelvin motion sets in when the two vortices have opposite total vorticities: $`\kappa _1\lambda _1=\kappa _2\lambda _2`$.

One can argue that the simplest topologically nontrivial objects which can be found in free translational motion should have the form of a vortex-antivortex pair with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$. A conclusive numerical and analytical study in an easy-plane ferromagnet was given in  where the profiles of coherently moving structures were numerically calculated. There is a branch of solitons with velocities varying from zero to unity, which is the velocity of spin waves in the medium in our units. For small velocities the solitons have indeed the form of a V-A pair with a large separation $`L`$ between the vortex and the antivortex. Their velocity is inversely proportional to the distance between them

$$v=\frac{1}{L},L1.$$
(17)
When the velocity approaches that of spin waves in the medium the vortex-antivortex character of the soliton is lost. The transition occurs at $`v0.78`$ in the sense that above this velocity the spin does not reach the north pole at any point.

Similar ideas have a long history in hydrodynamics where V-A pairs have been studied theoretically and experimentally in 2D flows. It is known that a V-A pair undergoes Kelvin motion in a direction perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the vortex and the antivortex and the velocity is inversely proportional to the distance between them . However, all the studies were made in the limit of point vortices, that is all moving objects had a clear vortex-antivortex character. We shall go beyond this situation in the present paper.

## III Collisions of Vortex-Antivortex pairs: Numerical simulations

The investigation of the interactions among the traveling V-A pairs comes as a natural next step after the well established theories of the previous section. In the following, we approach the subject through numerical simulations. We simulate collisions of pairs which are initially moving along the same line, say the horizontal $`x`$-axis. We are interested both in head-on collisions, where the pairs move initially in opposite directions and in head-tail collisions, that is when they move in the same direction.

In the first set of our simulations, we confine ourselves to V-A pairs with small velocities so that the topological characteristics remain distinct and the vortices in the pair retain their identity. In particular, the distance between the vortex and antivortex centers is larger than the size of a single vortex ($`L>1`$ in our conventions). When the sizes of the simulated pairs are large, that is the distance between the vortex and the antivortex is large ($`L1`$), we use as an initial condition the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_i,\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\sqrt{\frac{1f_i}{1+f_i}}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_i},$$
(18)
where $`f_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ are the functions in Eqs. (13,14). They represent vortices which are centered at $`𝐑_𝐢=(X_i,Y_i)`$ and have vortex numbers $`\kappa _i`$. In particular we choose $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2,X_1=X_2x_1,Y_1=Y_2y_1`$ for the first pair which has a size $`L_1=2y_1`$. We take accordingly $`\kappa _3=\kappa _4,`$ and $`X_3=X_4x_2,Y_3=Y_4y_2`$ for the second pair which has a size $`L_2=2y_2`$ (we suppose $`y_1,y_2>0`$). The above ansatz represents two V-A pairs which are moving on the $`x`$-axis and are set in a collision course, as long as the size of each pair is smaller than the distance between them: $`L_1,L_2\delta |x_1x_2|`$. As an alternative to the ansatz (18) we also use the product ansatz of two V-A pair solitons of ref. . This ansatz resembles in its gross features the ansatz (18).

We perform the numerical simulations on a $`500\times 500`$ mesh with a uniform lattice spacing, typically $`h=0.2`$. The time integration is performed by a fourth order Runge-Kutta routine.

In  one of the present authors has investigated the interaction process of two identical V-A pairs which collide head-on. It was found that during the collision the vortices exchange their partners and two new pairs are formed which are scattered at right angles. The trajectories of the magnetic vortices are similar to those in collisions of V-A pairs in hydrodynamics  and they conform to a good accuracy to the formula $`1/X_i^2+1/Y_i^2=\text{const.}`$ obtained in the 19th century .

Here, we consider collisions of two V-A pairs with different velocities and consequently with different sizes. The results of our numerical simulations are summarized in Figs. 1,3,2 and 4. Fig. 1 presents head-on collisions and Fig. 3 head-tail collisions through contour plots of the field $`m(x,y)`$ at six snapshots during the collision process. Figs. 2 and 4 present the corresponding orbits of the individual vortices during the interaction process. We have traced the center of every vortex which was considered to be at the point where the field $`m=1`$. The result of each process depends essentially on the difference between the sizes of the two V-A pairs. For head-on collisions we use $`\kappa _1=\kappa _4=1,\kappa _2=\kappa _3=1`$ and for head-tail collisions we use $`\kappa _1=\kappa _3=1,\kappa _2=\kappa _4=1`$.

Fig. 1a presents the head-on collision of two pairs with a small difference between their sizes. We use here the V-A pair solitons which have been numerically calculated in . The initial ansatz in our simulation is the product ansatz of two such pairs. We have taken the size of the left pair $`L_14`$ which corresponds to a velocity $`v_1=0.27`$ and the size of the pair on the right $`L_26.3`$ which corresponds to $`v_2=0.15`$. The initial separation measured on the $`x`$-axis is $`\delta =25`$. In the scattering process the vortices exchange their partners and two new identical pairs are formed which are scattered at an angle. Varying the sizes $`L_1,L_2`$ we observe that the angle tends to $`90^o`$ as the difference in the velocities (and momentums) of the two pairs is getting smaller. This process generalizes the $`90^o`$ scattering of two identical solitons .

According to (10), the larger soliton (pair on the right) has also a larger linear momentum. Conservation of the total momentum implies that each of the resulting identical pairs has a non-zero $`x`$-component of the momentum and a velocity to the left. Fig. 2a shows the trajectories followed by each vortex and antivortex. Open circles denote the centers of the antivortices and filled circles those of the vortices.

We defer for later the case of an intermediate difference between the sizes of the two pairs and discuss first the case of a large difference (Fig. 1c and 2c). In the latter case one expects that the vortices which belong to different pairs will interact loosely with the vortices of the other pair. As a result, the two pairs are expected to travel almost undistracted. We use the ansatz (18) with the parameters $`L_1=4,L_2=7L_1=28`$. The initial separation of the pairs is $`\delta =30`$. The result is close to expectations, that is the small pair passes through the large one. The distortion in the trajectories should become smaller as the size of the large pair becomes larger. This case is thus analogous to soliton interaction in one-dimensional integrable systems, as has been noted by Aref .

In order to explore further this analogy we have plotted in Fig. 5a the $`x`$-coordinate of the two pairs as a function of time. (The data of Fig. 2c correspond to the data of Fig. 5a only until time=345). We observe that the fast pair experiences a delay during the interaction with the slow one, which results in a negative shift (in comparison to the free motion) in its $`x`$-position after the collision. On the other hand, the slow pair is accelerated during the interaction and thus gains a positive shift in its $`x`$-position. The present observation should be contrasted to the situation in one-dimensional soliton collisions where a positive shift for both solitons is observed in all models.

An intermediate situation between those in Figs. 1a and 1c is presented in Fig. 1b. The parameters in the initial ansatz are $`L_1=4,L_2=6L_1=24,\delta =34`$. The pairs initially exchange partners during the scattering process and form new V-A pairs just as in the simulation in Fig. 1a. However, after some excursion the new pairs approach each other again, exchange partners once more and the initial pairs re-emerge traveling along their initial direction of motion. The trajectories followed by the vortices are depicted in Fig. 2b. A similar scenario for point vortices in hydrodynamics has been discussed in .

In the next set of simulations we explore the situation of a head-tail collision. That is, both the slow and the fast pair move to the same direction (to the right in Figs. 3a, 4a). The parameters here are $`L_1=8,L_2=20,\delta =25`$. The two pairs pass through each other, but some differences to the case of Fig. 1c should be pointed out. In Fig. 5b we give the $`x`$-component of the trajectories of the pairs. We find that the fast pair is accelerated during the interaction (positive shift) while the slow pair is decelerated (negative shift). (See, however, the relevant remarks in the next section.)

The last simulation, presented in Figs. 3b and 4b, includes two identical V-A pairs traveling along the same direction. It can be considered as a limiting case to that of Fig. 3a when the sizes of the pairs are equal. The parameter values are $`L_1=8,L_2=8,\delta =6`$. The system can be also viewed as a vortex-vortex pair and an antivortex-antivortex pair. Both pairs rotate while at the same time the magnetic quadrupole which is formed is propagating along the $`x`$-axis. A similar ”leap-frogging” motion was studied in hydrodynamics by Love  and has also been observed with two vortex rings . Since the magnetic quadrupole is characterized by two parameters (the velocity and the internal frequency) it can be considered as an analog of a breather . We can make an estimate of the mean velocity of propagation of the quadrupole. Suppose that $`L`$ is the mean distance of the pair of vortices from the pair of antivortices. If this is large compared to the distance between vortices of the same kind we may consider the quadrupole as two dipoles on top of each other. Then, a straightforward generalization of the results of  gives

$$v\frac{2}{L},L1.$$
(19)
The rough estimate says that the quadrupole propagates with twice the velocity of a single V-A pair. In the present case, we have $`L=8`$ which implies a velocity $`v0.25`$. Indeed, our simulations show that the quadrupole in Figs. 3b, 4b, propagates with a mean velocity $`v_q0.24`$ while a single V-A pair with a size $`L=L_1=8`$ has a mean velocity $`v_d0.125`$.

The simulations of this section give an overview The richness of the above results shows that exploring numerically the different scenarios that occur during the interaction of two V-A pairs is a rather cumbersome task. We note that in the processes that we have been studying all the vortices retain their identity during collision. This implies that an analytical calculation based on collective coordinates should be successful in reproducing the numerical results and should also provide an overview of the observed phenomena. This task will be taken up in the next section.

In the remainder of the present section we continue with simulations of collisions of solitons which do not have a distinct vortex-antivortex pair character. We use here again the semitopological solitons found in . An example is given in Fig. 6. In the initial state, in the first entry of the figure, the V-A pair on the right has a velocity $`v_2=0.1`$ while the other soliton on the left has a large velocity, specifically here $`v_1=0.9`$, and has no vortex-antivortex character. The clear numerical result, shown in the remaining five entries of the figure, is that the fast soliton is split at collision time in a vortex and an antivortex. The outcome is two identical V-A pairs which are scattered at an angle.

We perform a series of simulations of collisions between solitons, where one of them has a definite velocity – we chose $`v_2=0.1`$ – while the velocity of the other varies in the range $`0.1v_1<1`$. The results are summarized in Fig. 7 which gives the cosine of the scattering angle $`\theta `$ as a function of the velocity $`v_1`$ of the fast soliton (filled circles connected with a solid line in the figure).

The scattering angle is measured (in Fig. 6) from the negative horizontal axis. We have $`\theta =\pi /2`$ when the velocities of the two solitons are equal, that is when $`v_1=v_2=0.1`$. It is then monotonically decreasing as $`v_1`$ increases until the value $`v_10.9`$.

When the velocity of the second soliton becomes greater than the value $`v_10.91`$ we face a new scenario. The soliton is initially split into a V-A pair, then follows a loop and finally it re-joins its initial partner. We eventually obtain the picture of two solitons which have passed through each other. The scenario resembles that of Fig. 1b. The difference here is that, well after the collision time, the fast soliton is destabilized. When the velocity of the fast soliton is increased, the loop that the vortices follow during collision becomes smaller. For $`v_1\stackrel{>}{}0.97`$ we have no loop any more, and the fast soliton passes through the slow pair.

The value $`v_2=0.1`$ used in the simulations in Fig. 7 is not special. We can obtain results similar to those in Fig. 7 using a different $`v_2`$, e.g. $`v_2=0.2`$ or $`0.3`$.

The value of $`v_1`$ until which scattering at an angle occurs, seems to be close to the value $`v_1=0.9`$ in these cases, too. For increasing $`v_2`$ the minimum scattering angle, that we can obtain by simulations, increases.

The simulations of this section give an overview of the possible scattering scenarios. However, the picture will not be complete until we obtain an analytical understanding. The theory which we present in the next section accounts for the simulations presented in Figs. 1,3 and provides a reasonably satisfactory understanding. A step towards the understanding of the results of Figs. 6,7 will also be taken.

## IV Collision of Vortex-Antivortex pairs: Analytical description

A full analytical investigation of interactions between vortex pairs appears to be quite complicated. Suffice it to say that no analytical formula is known for a single vortex pair soliton. However, one can employ a rigid shape approximation and suppose that each vortex is a coherently traveling structure and is also well separated from all the others. Then the dynamics of the system of vortices reduces to that of their centers $`𝐑_i`$. The latter obey the equations

$$\frac{d𝐑_i}{dt}\times 𝐆_i=𝐅_i,$$
(20)
where $`𝐆_i`$ is the gyrocoupling vector (12) for vortex $`i`$ and $`𝐅_iE/𝐑_i`$. The quantity $`E`$ is the interaction energy between the vortices, therefore we call $`𝐅_i`$ the force on vortex $`i`$ exerted by the other vortices in the system.

To make further progress we need the form of $`E`$, that is we need to know the field of the vortices. Under the assumption that the vortices are ”quasi-static” the field of a single vortex is approximately given by Eq. (13,14). One should note that the energy is finite only when

$$\underset{i}{}\kappa _i=0,$$
(21)
where $`\kappa _i`$ is the vortex number of a single vortex. We shall study only this situation here. Then the energy $`E`$ of vortex interaction has the form

$$E2\pi \underset{i<j}{}\kappa _i\kappa _j\mathrm{ln}(|𝐑_i𝐑_j|),$$
(22)
where a constant has been omitted.

We put $`𝐑_i=(X_i,Y_i)`$ in Eq. (20) and obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dX_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\kappa _j{\displaystyle \frac{(Y_iY_j)}{(𝐑_i𝐑_j)^2}},`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dY_i}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\kappa _j{\displaystyle \frac{(X_iX_j)}{(𝐑_i𝐑_j)^2}}.`$ (24)
These are the same as the equations of motion of point vortices in hydrodynamics  when the hydrodynamic ”vortex strengths”, which correspond to $`\kappa _i`$ in the present system, are $`\pm 1`$.

One can now see that

$`P_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i^x={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \kappa _iY_i,`$ (25)
$`P_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i^y={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \kappa _iX_i,`$ (26)
as well as

$$\mathrm{}=\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi \kappa _i(X_i^2+Y_i^2)$$
(27)
are conserved quantities. Eqs. (25) give the two components of the total momentum and Eq. (27) gives the total angular momentum of the system. They can be derived from the formulas (10,11) when the rigid-shape approximation is used. We further note that Eqs. (20) can be derived as the Hamilton equations associated with the Hamiltonian (22) with the conjugate variables $`X_i`$ and $`P_i^x=2\pi \kappa _iY_i`$.

In general, system (23) is integrable only for a system of three point vortices. However, for a system of two V-A pairs, for which condition (21) is satisfied, Eqs. (23) can be integrated, when the pairs are initially moving along the same line . This is a fortunate situation since we shall be exclusively concerned with such systems in the present paper.

The approximations employed so far seem to be quite crude. For instance we expect the rigid-shape approximation to be valid when the distances between the vortices are much larger than the size of the out-of-plane structure of each vortex (unity in our units). This could severely restrict the applicability of Eqs. (23). However, the numerical simulations, of the previous section, indicate that the results of the present approximate theory could be qualitative correct even for situations beyond the applicability limits of the theory.

In the following we give the equations of motion of two V-A pairs. The vortex and antivortex of the first pair are placed at positions $`(x_1,\pm y_1)`$ and have $`\kappa =\pm 1`$ . We denote this pair schematically as $`(1\overline{2})`$. The second pair is at $`(x_2,\pm y_2)`$, has $`\kappa =1`$, and is denoted $`(\overline{3}4)`$. (cf. top entries of Fig. 1.) We choose the polarity $`\lambda =1`$ for all vortices. The system represents two V-A pairs in a head-on collision course. From Eqs. (23) we derive the four equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_1y_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1+y_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_1}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx_2}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2y_2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{y_1y_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{y_1+y_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dy_2}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}`$ (35)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}}.`$
The system (29-35) is completely integrable since there are four independent conserved quantities. We shall use the energy and the x-component of the linear momentum:

$$y_1y_2\frac{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}=y_1^{(0)}y_2^{(0)},$$
(36)
$$y_1y_2=y_1^{(0)}y_2^{(0)}.$$
(37)
We suppose that the pairs are initially on the $`x`$-axis and at an infinite distance from each other. Then, $`y_1^{(0)},y_2^{(0)}`$ denote the $`y`$-coordinates of the vortices at time $`t=\mathrm{}`$.

We define $`L_12y_1^{(0)}`$ and $`L_22y_2^{(0)}`$ as the sizes of the pairs. We take $`L_2L_1`$ while $`L_1,L_21`$. Therefore we have for the velocities:

$$v_1=\frac{1}{L_1},v_2=\frac{1}{L_2},$$
(38)
that is, $`(1\overline{2})`$ is the ”small” and fast pair and $`(\overline{3}4)`$ is the ”large” and slower pair. Eqs. (29-35) were studied within the framework of hydrodynamics in . It was shown that the behavior of the pairs during scattering depends on the ratio $`\alpha =L_2/L_1=v_1/v_2`$. There are the following three cases:

* when $`1\alpha <\alpha _1=3+2\sqrt{2}5.83`$, the pairs change partners during the process and scatter at an angle (Fig. 1a).
* In the intermediate case, when $`\alpha _1<\alpha <\alpha _2=(\sqrt{2}+\sqrt{\sqrt{5}1})/(\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\sqrt{5}1})8.35`$, the vortices change partners during scattering but later they rejoin their initial partners and travel along the initial direction of motion (Fig. 1b).
* When $`\alpha >\alpha _2`$ the fast pair passes through the slow one (Fig. 1c).

In Fig. 8 we give a schematic representation of the different regions in the $`(v_1,v_2)`$ plane where the three scattering processes occur.

In case (a) the scattering process can be described by $`(1\overline{2})+(\overline{3}4)(1\overline{3})+(\overline{2}4)`$ which is a schematic representation of the change of partners during collision. In the limit of two identical pairs one can use Love’s  equation (36) to obtain the following well-known result

$$\frac{1}{x_1^2}+\frac{1}{y_1^2}=\frac{1}{(y_1^{(0)})^2},$$
(39)
which is in good agreement with the data of the numerical simulation of the Landau-Lifshitz equation . In the general case of two different ingoing pairs, the outgoing pairs will actually be identical. Eqs. (36,37) give for the size of the two identical outgoing pairs

$$L_{\text{out}}=\sqrt{L_1L_2}.$$
(40)
This formula is known for point-like vortices in 2D hydrodynamics of incompressible fluids .

The angle of scattering can be found if we use the laws of conservation of energy and linear momentum:

$$E=\frac{E_1+E_2}{2},P\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{P_2P_1}{2},$$
(41)
where $`E`$ is the energy and $`P`$ the absolute value of the linear momentum on the $`x`$-axis of each of the final pairs. The angle $`\theta `$ is measured from the direction of motion of the slow pair. We obtain

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{P_2P_1}{2P}.$$
(42)
The calculation of $`P`$ requires the use of the energy conservation law and the energy-momentum dispersion relation which is known numerically .

Fig. 7 shows the numerical results (filled circles connected by lines) for the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ as a function of $`v_1`$, keeping a constant $`v_2=0.1`$. We have $`v_1>v_2`$. The dashed line results from Eq. (42) and it is a very good approximation of the simulation results until $`v_20.78`$. At this value the dashed line has a maximum. Until this critical value of $`v_2`$ the collision is elastic in the sense that almost no energy is dissipated in radiation. We also have to mention that the approximation shown by the dashed line is getting worse as the velocity $`v_1`$ is increasing.

In the approximation of Eqs. (29-35) and (38) we have for the scattering angle:

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\alpha 1}{2\sqrt{\alpha }}.$$
(43)
The limiting cases are $`\theta =\pi /2`$ for $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ when $`\alpha =\alpha _1`$. Some care is needed in interpreting the angle $`\theta =\pi `$ in the last limiting case. In this case the new pairs which emerge follow the parabolic orbit

$$x_1=\frac{2y_1^2}{L_2L_1}=\frac{y_1^2}{2(1+\sqrt{2})y_1^{(0)}}.$$
(44)
The above results, should be a good approximation in the limit of large $`L_1,L_2`$.

There is a simple way to apply Eq.( 43) when the two colliding V-A pairs are slow and the vortex and antivortex in a pair are well separated. The size of each pair can be taken to be the distance between the two points where the spin variable reaches the north pole and its velocity is the inverse of it. This method gives fairly good results for simulations with pairs of the size used in Fig. 1.

A comparison of Eq. (43) with numerical results is given in Fig. 7. The cosine of the angle $`\theta `$ for $`1\alpha \alpha _1`$, is plotted by a dotted line. Fig. 7 shows $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ as a function of $`v_1`$, for $`v_2=0.1`$. (not as a function of $`\alpha `$). We have $`v_1>v_2`$ and we consider $`\alpha =v_1/v_2`$. The dotted line is a poor approximation to the simulation results for $`\alpha >4(v_2>0.4)`$. The deviation from the numerical points is even qualitatively wrong already for $`v_2\stackrel{>}{}0.583`$.

We recall at this point that in our simulations of the previous section we obtained results which could be understood as interaction processes between two dipoles even in the cases where the V-A pairs have no apparent dipole character. Exploiting this remark we assume that the V-A pair solitons (even those with large velocities and no apparent vortex-antivortex character) are dipoles with a length $`L`$ and a charge $`q`$. To be sure, in the limit that the velocity goes to zero, $`L`$ should go to the simple definition of length described in the previous paragraphs and $`q`$ should go to the vortex number $`\kappa =\pm 1`$. In general, however, we use a generalization of Eqs. (25) and (17) and write for the momentum and velocity of such a dipole:

$$P=2\pi qL,v=\frac{q}{L}.$$
(45)
The length and charge of the dipole are then given by

$$L=\sqrt{\frac{P}{2\pi v}},q=\sqrt{\frac{Pv}{2\pi }},$$
(46)
where the values for $`P,v`$ can now be taken from the Table of ref. . In the limit $`v0`$ we use the relation $`Pv=2\pi `$ to find that $`L=1/v\mathrm{}`$ and $`q=\pm 1`$, which is the expected limit. In the opposite limit $`v1`$, an asymptotic analysis  gives that $`P1/\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{}`$, that is an infinite length of the dipole and also $`q1/\sqrt{1v^2}\mathrm{}`$. For intermediate velocities the length $`L`$ is finite and it reaches a minimum for $`v0.87`$. The values for the charge $`q`$ are relatively close to unity for $`v<0.5`$ and they increase rapidly for $`v>0.9`$.

The interesting result is presented in Fig. 7 by the dot-dashed line. It is obtained by applying Eq. (43), where for $`\alpha `$ we substitute the ratio of lengths of the two V-A pairs given from Eq. (46). The curve is compared quite good with the results of the simulations even for large velocities. However, after $`v_2=0.9`$ the present approach fails completely. Indeed, we have no reason to believe that an approximation based on dipoles would be correct in the limit $`v1`$.

We now turn to case (c) where the initial pairs survive throughout the process. For $`\alpha `$ large enough an expansion gives, with an error $`𝒪(1/\alpha ^4)`$, the trajectories

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`v_1t{\displaystyle \frac{4}{v_1}}\mathrm{arctan}\left(2v_1v_2t\right),`$ (47)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`v_2t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2v_1v_2t)}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{v_2}}\mathrm{arctan}(2v_1v_2t)+\mathrm{}`$
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`y_1^{(0)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}\right),`$ (50)
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`y_2^{(0)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}\right),`$ (51)
where $`v_1,v_2`$ are given in Eq. (38) and the dots in the second equation stand for a lengthy term of order $`1/\alpha ^3`$ which we shall not need in our analysis. It follows that, in this approximation, the fast pair $`(1\overline{2})`$ deviates strongly from the rectilinear motion. The shifts in the positions of the vortex pairs as time varies from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, are $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1=4\pi /v_1`$ for the fast pair and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_2=4\pi /v_2\alpha ^3`$ for the slow one. (The terms in the dots do not give any shift in the pair position when times goes from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$.) The shifts are measured relative to the direction of motion of each pair. The results of the simulations for the vortex system show that the fast pair is decelerated during the collision as if it is repelled by the slow one, in agreement with Eq. (47). The simulations further show that the slow pair is accelerated during the collision as if it is attracted by the fast one. The final result is a positive and negative shift in the positions of the fast and slow pair, respectively, a phenomenon which has not been observed in head-on soliton collisions in one dimension. The obtained trajectories are similar to those for the 2D Euler equation .

In case (b), $`\alpha _1<\alpha <\alpha _2`$, the scattering process is represented by the scheme $`(1\overline{2})+(\overline{3}4)(1\overline{3})+(\overline{2}4)(1\overline{2})+(\overline{3}4)`$. This means that the vortices exchange partners at a first stage of the scattering, then the new pairs follow a looping orbit and at the final stage the initial partners rejoin and travel along the initial direction of motion (cf. Figs. 1c, 2c). The loop becomes the parabola (44) in the limit $`\alpha =\alpha _1`$ and it is a cusp when $`\alpha =\alpha _2`$.

We now turn to the head-tail collision. It corresponds to the area denoted (d) in Fig. 8 and the relevant numerical simulations have been given in Figs. 3 and 4. The case has been studied within a hydrodynamical context in . As Love showed, only a slip-through motion (Fig. 3a) and a leap-frogging motion (Fig. 3b) can occur.

Suppose that vortices 1 and 3 have $`\kappa =1`$ while $`\overline{2}`$ and $`\overline{4}`$ are antivortices and have $`\kappa =1`$ (cf. Fig. 3a). The equations of motion are modified as follows: the left hand side of (29, 31) and the first term on the right hand side of (33) change their signs. The conserved quantities (36,37) now read

$`y_1y_2{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1+y_2)^2}{(x_1x_2)^2+(y_1y_2)^2}}=`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`y_1^{(0)}y_2^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1^{(0)}x_2^{(0)})^2+(y_1^{(0)}+y_2^{(0)})^2}{(x_1^{(0)}x_2^{(0)})^2+(y_1^{(0)}y_2^{(0)})^2}},`$ (53)
$$y_1+y_2=y_1^{(0)}+y_2^{(0)}.$$
(54)
The pairs are initially at $`(x_1^{(0)},\pm y_1^{(0)})`$ and $`(x_2^{(0)},\pm y_2^{(0)})`$. Using the above one can find that two pairs which start infinitely far apart will pass through each other for any value of $`y_1^{(0)}<y_2^{(0)}`$.

For a large difference in the size of the pairs $`(\alpha 1)`$ we find, by an expansion, the solution of the equations of motion (with an error $`𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\alpha ^4}\right)`$):

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`v_1t+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{v_1}}\mathrm{arctan}(2v_1v_2t),`$ (55)
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`v_2t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{v_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2v_1v_2t)}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}`$ (57)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{v_2}}\mathrm{arctan}(2v_1v_2t)+\mathrm{},`$
$`y_1`$ $`=`$ $`y_1^{(0)}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}\right),`$ (58)
$`y_2`$ $`=`$ $`y_2^{(0)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+(2v_1v_2t)^2}}\right).`$ (59)
The dots stand for terms of order $`𝒪\left(\frac{1}{\alpha ^3}\right)`$ which do not contribute to the shift in the position of the pair when times varies from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. In the present case, the shift of the fast pair is to the direction of its motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_14\pi /v_1`$. The shift of the slow pair is also positive but small $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_24\pi /(v_2\alpha ^3)`$. However, the numerical simulations of the previous section (Fig. 5b) have given a small shift for the slow pair opposite to its direction of motion. We believe that this should be a consequence of the second term in the second of Eqs. (55) which is dominant because of our small space and short integration time. We note here again a difference of the present system with the situation in 1D. For instance, in KdV the fast soliton acquires a positive shift and the slow one a negative shift due to a head-tail collision.

A difference between the head-on and head-tail collision for the case of large $`\alpha `$, is that during the collision the size of the small pair increases in the head-on collision case (Eq. (47) and Fig. 1c) but it decreases in the head-tail collision case (Eq. (55) and Fig. 3a).

In the limit of a small difference of the sizes of the pairs ($`\alpha 1`$) the relative shift of the pairs grows and tends to infinity for identical pairs like $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1\mathrm{\Delta }x_24/(v_1v_2)`$. In the limit of two identical pairs the asymptotes of the solution after the scattering have the form $`x_2=Vt\sqrt{t},x_1=Vt+\sqrt{t}`$ and, at large distances, the distance between pairs goes as $`x_1x_2=2\sqrt{t}`$. It is interesting to compare this shift with that for solitons in 1D systems where the shift is proportional to the logarithm of the difference of the velocities of the two solitons ($`\mathrm{\Delta }x_1\mathrm{ln}(v_1v_2)`$) and the distance between two identical solitons after collision goes like $`x_1x_2\mathrm{ln}t`$.

Two V-A pairs which have a finite distance between them, will pass through each other when the following relation holds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(y_2^{(0)}+y_1^{(0)})^2[(y_2^{(0)}+y_1^{(0)})^22(y_2^{(0)}y_1^{(0)})^2]}{(y_2^{(0)}y_1^{(0)})^2}}`$ (60)
$`\text{ }>(x_2^{(0)}x_1^{(0)})^2.`$ (61)
In the opposite case, the pairs form a translating bound quadrupole state. The translation is accompanied by a rotation of the two vortices and the two antivortices around each other. This leap-frogging motion was first analyzed in . An example is given in Figs. 3b and 4b. The quadrupole state has lately acquired special interest due to its relation to breather modes .

We shall analyze some characteristics of the leap-frogging motion in the case that the two rotating vortices are well separated from the two rotating antivortices. We call $`L`$ the distance between the two pairs. The two vortices rotate clock-wise and the two antivortices counter clock-wise. The translational motion of the quadrupole has the velocity given in Eq. (19). With the further assumption that the distance $`\delta `$ between the vortices of the same pair is large compared to the size of a single vortex (but still small compared to the size of the quadrupole: $`L,\delta 1,L\delta `$), we find from Eqs. (47) the frequency of rotation

$$\omega \frac{2}{\delta ^2}\frac{2}{L^2}.$$
(62)
## V  Conclusions

We have presented a detailed study for the head-on and head-tail collisions between vortex-antivortex pairs in 2D easy-plane ferromagnets. The V-A pairs are the simplest units which can be found in free translational motion in our model. However, they have a nontrivial internal structure which is responsible for their unusual behavior during interaction. Our study combines numerical simulations, which yield a variety of interesting scattering scenarios, with a collective variable theory, which leads to an understanding of the main features of the scattering scenarios. The change of partners between V-A pairs during interaction is the most remarkable effect in our case. It is due to the internal structure of the V-A pairs which has been fully taken into account.

In a study of a system of a lot of vortices the mechanisms which have been described here should play a dominant role in the way to the final steady state. The relaxation process should include a multitude of collisions of vortices and the formation of steady structures.

From the point of view of soliton theory in two dimensions, our results are novel and can be compared with a variety of studies in the field. Some comparison is also done with soliton theory in one space dimension.

The scattering of coherently traveling objects in two dimensions appears to be of interest in a variety of physical systems. Objects similar to the V-A pairs studied here exist in systems in different fields of physics . Even in nonequilibrium systems  studies similar to the present one have been performed and some similar results have been derived.

## Acknowledgments

We thank H. Büttner for giving the initial stimulus for this work and for interesting conversations. We also thank the authors of  for kindly providing us the numerical code for the calculation of the V-A pair solitons. A.S.K. thanks the University of Bayreuth for its hospitality. A.S.K. and S.K. acknowledge financial support from the Graduiertenkolleg ”Nichtlineare Spektroskopie und Dynamik”.


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

\[

\] Comment on “Off-stoichiometry mechanism of the isotope effect in manganites”
In a recent paper, Nagaev  cited the unpublished paper by Franck et al. to support his theoretical model for the mechanism of the giant isotope effect observed in La1-xCaxMnO3+y ($`x`$ = 0.20, $`y`$ $`>`$ 0) . His model suggests that the off-stoichiometric oxygen content depends strongly on the oxygen isotope mass, which leads to a giant oxygen-isotope effect. Here I show that his theoretical model is not consistent with any experimental results (even the results recently published by Franck et al. ), and his estimate of polaronic bandwidth is wrong due to his misuse of polaronic theories.

Nagaev cited the unpublished data by Franck et al. to support his claim. As a matter of fact, Franck et al. have discarded the data Nagaev cited, and only published the reliable data which clearly show that the oxygen contents of both isotope samples are the same even if the samples are off-stoichiometric and have a giant oxygen-isotope shift . Actually the giant oxygen-isotope effect for the off-stoichiometric samples ($`x`$ = 0.20, $`y`$ $`>`$ 0) is due to the fact that the samples are metallic and close to the boundary of the metal-insulator transition. The reduced isotope effect in the stoichiometric samples ($`x`$ = 0.20, $`y`$ = 0)  may be tied with the fact that the samples are ferromagnetic insulators at low temperatures . The reduced pressure and isotope effects observed in the insulating ferromagnetic phase  should be associated with the reduction of the ferromagnetic coupling contributed from charge carriers.

There are other experimental facts which can further argue against the model by Nagaev . According to his argument , the isotope effect in more nonstoichoimetric samples should be larger. This is in contradiction with experiment. The stoichoimetric (La0.25Pr0.75)0.7Ca0.3MnO3 shows a very large isotope effect , while the very nonstoichoimetric (LaMn)0.945O3 has a rather small isotope effect .

If one carefully examines the theoretical calculation in Ref., one will find that the excess oxygen content for the 16O sample should be lower than for the 18O sample by about 4$`\%`$ at temperatures $`T>\omega `$, where $`\omega `$ is the highest phonon frequency, which is 950 K in LaMnO3 . Because the oxygen-isotope exchange was carried out at $`T>`$ 1200 K ($`>`$ $`\omega `$), and because the oxygen content in La0.8Ca0.2MnO3+y remains unchanged below 1000 K ($`>`$ $`\omega `$) according to our thermogravimetric analysis, the calculation of Ref.  actually suggests that the excess oxygen content $`y`$ for the 16O sample should be lower than for the 18O sample by about 4$`\%`$. With $`y`$ = 0.02 (Ref. ), one finds that the oxygen content for the 16O sample is lower than for the 18O sample by 0.0008. Thus, the predicted isotope effect is negligibly small and has an opposite sign as what observed.

His argument against strong electron-phonon coupling in manganites is lack of scientific grounds. Millis et al.  clearly showed that the double-exchange alone cannot explain the resistivity peak at $`T_C`$ and thus proposed that strong electron-phonon coupling should be involved to describe the basic physics of the material. The experimental evidence for the strong electron-phonon coupling in manganites is overwelming .

The estimate of the polaronic bandwidth in Ref.  is incorrect. Nagaev misuses the small polaron theory, applying the Holstein $`nonadiabatic`$ expression for the polaron bandwidth to the $`adiabatic`$ region of the parameters: the bare bandwidth $`W_0`$= 1eV and the characteristic phonon frequency $`\omega =0.01`$ eV. It is well known  that the nonadibatic expression overestimates the actual bandwidth by many orders of magnitude, if it is applied to a wrong region of parameters. Actually the $`\omega =0.01`$eV used by Nagaev in his estimate of the polaron bandwidth is inconsistent with the frequency ($`\omega 0.1`$ eV) used to justify his theory of the isotope effect in the same paper . With $`\omega 0.1`$ eV, and the polaron binding energy $`E_p=0.5`$ eV, the polaron bandwidth is not reduced so dramatically, as Nagaev suggests, but only about one order of magnitude, when the right expression is applied .

Finally, Nagaev’s claim that small polarons are inevitably localized in the random potential is false. All states of the polaronic band might be localized if the fluctuation energy, $`F`$ is about 5 times larger than the polaron half-bandwidth, $`D`$ . Even with the impurity density as high as $`n_{im}=0.3`$ per cell, one obtains $`F/D0.5`$ using the polaron mass, $`m^{}=10m_e`$. Hence, $`F/D`$ is about one order of magnitude below the critical ratio for localization of all polaronic states.
Guo-meng Zhao
Department of Physics and Texas Center for Superconductivity, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The cosmological constant problem is the most severe hierarchy problem or fine-tuning problem known to particle physicists since 1975.

Another well-known hierarchy problem is the gauge hierarchy problem encountered in GUT. In GUT’s there appear two scales which differ by a factor of $`10^{28}`$. At the classical Lagrangian level, there appear parameters of the GUT scale which is of order $`10^{32}`$ GeV2. But the loop corrections and GUT symmetry breaking must be considered. The known hierarchy requires the difference must be of order $``$TeV2 after including all these effects, i.e. $`M_1^2+M_2^2=O(10^{28})`$ GeV2. To achieve this small number, we have to fine-tune the parameters $`M_1^2`$ and $`M_2^2`$ both of which appear in the Lagrangian. Supersymmetry has been employed to understand this gauge hierarchy problem.

Gravity is described by the metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. The Rieman tensor $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ is the other second rank tensor. The Einstein equation is obtained by the variation of the action proportional to $`d^4x\sqrt{g}R`$, where $`g`$ is the determinant of the metric and $`R=g^{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }`$. But a general form of the action invariant under the general coordinate transformation can be written as

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{M^2}{2}RV_0+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(1)
where $`M^2`$ is proportional to the inverse Newton constant $`G`$ ($`M^2=8\pi /G`$), $`V_0`$ is a pure constant and the ellipses denote the other pieces in the Lagrangian whose vacuum expectation value(VEV) vanishes. The variation of the above action leads to the gravity equation

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }8\pi GV_0g_{\mu \nu }=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
where the energy momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is obtained from the ellipses. The term $`8\pi GV_0`$ is the so-called cosmological constant(c.c.) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Historically, Einstein introduced the cosmological constant in 1917 to make the universe static, which was the belief at that time. But the observation of the Hubble expansion twelve years later invalidated Einstein’s need for the c.c. As we have seen in Eq. (1), it is quite natural to introduce a constant in the action. Therefore, the c.c. problem could have been formulated in 1910’s, 60 years earlier. The constant is of order the mass scale in question. The parameter $`M`$ appearing in Eq. (1) is the Planck mass $`M=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV which is astronomically larger than the electroweak scale. Since gravity introduces a large mass $`M`$, any other parameter in gravity is expected to be of that order, which is a natural expectation. Namely, $`V_0`$ appearing in (1) is expected to be of order $`M`$. However, the bound on the vacuum energy was known to be $`<(0.01\mathrm{eV})^4`$, which implied a fine-tuning of order $`10^{120}`$. Thus, c.c. problem has been known to be the most serious hierarchy problem.

Usually, a hierarchy problem is understood if there exists a symmetry related to it. The difficulty with the c.c. problem is that there is no such symmetry working. An obvious symmetry one can imagine is the scale invariance. However it must be badly broken by the mass terms at the electroweak scale. If the scale invariance is assumed to be broken at the electroweak scale, we still have a hierarchy problem of order $`10^{56}`$.

This c.c. problem surfaced as a very serious one when one considered the spontaneous symmetry breaking in particle physics . As shown in Fig. 1, one does not know whehere to put the minimum point. Except gravity, the position does not matter. But in gravity its position determines the c.c. There have been several attempts toward the solution, by Hawking, Witten, Weinberg, Coleman, etc, under the name of probabilistic interpretation in Euclidian gravity, boundary of different phases, anthropic solution, wormhole solution, etc. We will comment more on Hawking’s solution later. The anthropic solution relies on the requirement that life evolution is not very much affected by the existence of c.c. However, if c.c. is too large, galaxy formations may be hindered. Weinberg observed that the requirement for the condensation of matter needs $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }<550\rho _c`$. Thus, we may need a fine-tuning but only one part in a thousand.

## 2 Self-tuning solutions

### 2.1 Old version

If there exists a solution for the flat space, it is called a self-tuning solution, or a solution with the undetermined integration constant(UIC). In 4D, it is impossible. For a nonzero $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in 4D, a flat space ansatz $`ds^2=d𝐱^2dt^2`$ does not allow a solution. The de Sitter space(dS, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$) or anti de Sitter space(AdS, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$) solution is possible. To reach a nearly flat space solution, one needs an extreme fine tuning, which is the c.c. problem.

But suppose that there exists an UIC. Witten used the four index field strength $`H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ to obtain an UIC. The equation of motion of $`H`$ leads to an UIC, say $`c`$. Thus, the vacuum energy contains a piece $`c^2`$. This UIC $`c`$ can be adjusted so that the final c.c. is zero. Once $`c`$ is determined, there is no more UIC because $`H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ is not a dynamical field in 4D. When vacuum energy is added later, there is no handle to adjust further. In a sense, it was another way of fine-tuning. However, if there exists a dynamical field allowing an UIC, it is a desired old style self-tuning solution. This old version did not care whether there also exist de Sitter or anti de Sitter solutions. Selection of the flat space out of these solutions is from a principle such as Hawking’s probabilistic choice.

### 2.2 New version

In recent years, a more ambitious attempt was proposed, where only the flat space ansatz has the solution. This idea attracted a great deal of attention in the Randall-Sundrum II type models. The RS type models were constructed in 5D anti de Sitter space, i.e. the 5D bulk cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$, with brane(s) located at fixed point(s). The RS II model uses only one brane. At this brane one can introduce a brane tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$. Thus, the gravity Lagrangian contains two free parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$.

In Fig. 2, we show this situation schematically, where the extra dimension is the $`y`$-direction. The 4D is denoted as $`x^\mu `$. The 4D flat space ansatz allows a solution for a specific choice of $`k_1`$(basically $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, $`k_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/6M^3`$) and $`k`$(basically $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$, $`k=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b/6M^3}`$): $`k_1=k`$. Therefore, it requires a fine-tuning between parameters as in the 4D case. However, it seems to be an improvement since we reach at the 4D flat space from nonzero cosmological constants and the RS II type models seems to be a good play ground to obtain UIC solutions.

The RS II model is an interesting extension of the space-time without compactification. With the bulk AdS, the uncompactified fifth dimension can be acceptable due to the localized gravity. For the brane located at $`y=0`$, the action is

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{M^3}{2}(R\mathrm{\Lambda }_b)+(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+_{matter})\delta (y)\right\}$$
(3)
where $`M`$ is the 5D fundamental scale and $`_{matter}`$ is the matter Lagrangian, assuming the matter is located at the brane only. The flat space ansatz,

$$ds^2=\beta (y)^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2$$
(4)
allows the solution if $`k=k_1`$. Even though the 4D is flat, it is curved in the direction of the fifth dimension, denoted by the warp factor $`\beta (y)=\beta _0\mathrm{exp}(k|y|)`$. Namely, the gravity is exponentially unimportant if one is far away from the brane. \[If there were more branes, there are more conditions to satisfy toward a flat space solution since one can introduce a brane tension at each brane. Thus, the RS II type models are the simplest ones.\]

The try to obtain a new type of self-tuning solution was initiated by Arkani-Hamed et. al. and Kachru et. al.. For example the 5D Lagrangian with the introduction of a massless bulk scalar field $`\varphi `$, coupling to the brane tension,

$$=R\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }\frac{4}{3}(\varphi )^2Ve^{b\varphi }\delta (y)$$
(5)
where we set $`M^3/2=1`$. We may ask, $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}`$Why this Lagrangian?”, which involves more difficult related questions. Accepting this, we must satisfy the following Einstein and field equations, with the flat ansatz (4),

$`(\mathrm{dilaton})`$ $`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}A^{}\varphi ^{}a\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }bV\delta (y)e^{b\varphi }=0`$
$`(55)`$ $`:`$ $`6(A^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\varphi ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{a\varphi }=0`$
$`(55),(\mu \nu )`$ $`:`$ $`3A^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(\varphi ^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{b\varphi }V\delta (y)=0`$ (6)
where $`2A(y)=\mathrm{ln}\beta (y)`$, and prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`y`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, there exists a bulk solution satisfying $`A^{}=\alpha \varphi ^{}`$,

$$\varphi =\pm \frac{3}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{4}{3}y+c\right|+d,\alpha =\pm \frac{1}{3}$$
(7)
where $`c`$ and $`d`$ are determined without fine-tuning of the parameters. The solution has a singularity at $`y_c(3/4)c`$ or diverges logarithmically at large $`|y|`$. The logarithmically diverging solution does not realize the localization of gravity. If we restrict the space up to the singular point $`y_c`$, then at every $`y`$ inside the space it is flat. However, the effective 4D theory is the one after integrating out the allowed $`y`$ space. Since $`y_c`$ is the naked singularity, we do not know how to cut the $`y`$ integration near $`y_c`$, implying a possibility that the flat space ansatz does not lead to a solution. Depending on how to cut the integral, one may introduce a nonzero c.c. F$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$rste et. al. tried to understand this problem by curing the singularity by putting a brane at $`y_c`$. Then, a flat 4D space solution is possible but one needs a fine-tuning. It is easy to understand. If one more brane is introduced, then there is one more tension parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, i.e. in the Lagrangian one adds $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\delta (yy_c)`$. If the space is flat for one specific value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, then it must be curved for the other values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$, since the $`y`$ integration gives a c.c. contribution directly from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$.

This example teaches us that the self-tuning solution better should not have a singular point in the whole $`y`$ space.

## 3 The self-tuning solution with $`1/H^2`$

As we have seen in the RS II model, the Einstein-Hilbert action alone does not produce a self-tuning solution. Inclusion of higher order gravity does not improve this situation. We need matter field(s) in the bulk. The first try is a massless spin-0 field in the bulk as Ref. () tried so that it affects the whole region of the bulk. However, it may be better if there appears a symmetry in the spin-0 sector. These are achieved by a three index antisymmetric tensor field $`A_{MNP}`$. In 5D the dual of its field strength is interpreted as a scalar. The field strength $`H_{MNPQ}`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation $`A_{MNP}A_{MNP}+[M\lambda _{NP}]`$, thus masslessness arises from the symmetry. There will be one $`U(1)`$ gauge symmetry remaining with one massless pseudoscalar field which is $`a`$, $`_Ma\sqrt{g}ϵ_{MNPQR}H^{NPQR}`$. But the interactions are important for the solution, as Ref. () find a bulk solution for the specific form of the interaction.

The first guess is the bulk term $`(M/48)H^2`$ where $`H^2H_{MNPQ}H^{MNPQ}`$. The brane with tension $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ is located at $`y=0`$, and the bulk c.c. is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$. The ansatze for the solution are

$$\mathrm{Ansatz}1:ds^2=\beta (y)^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,\mathrm{Ansatz}2:H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{\sqrt{g}}{n(y)}$$
(8)
where $`\mu ,\mathrm{}`$ are the 4D indices, and $`n(y)`$ is a function of $`y`$ to be determined. It is sufficient to consider (55) and ($`\mu \nu `$) components Einstein equations and the $`H`$ field equation. By setting $`M=1`$, we obtain the bulk solution

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$ $`:`$ $`\beta (|y|)=({\displaystyle \frac{a}{k}})^{1/4}[\pm \mathrm{sinh}(4k|y|+c)]^{1/4}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0`$ $`:`$ $`\beta (|y|)=({\displaystyle \frac{a}{k}})^{1/4}[\mathrm{sin}(4k|y|+c^{})]^{1/4}`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b=0`$ $`:`$ $`\beta (|y|)=|4a|y|+c^{\prime \prime }|^{1/4}.`$ (9)
For a localizable (near $`y=0`$) metric, there exists a singularity at $`y=c/4k`$, etc., except for some cases with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b>0`$. Thus, for these singular cases another brane is necessary to cure the singularity, and we need a fine-tuning as in the case of Kachru et. al.. The bulk de Sitter space without a singularity is worth commenting. Such a solution is periodic and depicted in Fig. 3. We can consider only $`|y|y_c`$, then $`\beta ^{}=0`$ at $`y=\pm y_c`$. The boundary condition at $`y=0`$ determines $`c^{}=\mathrm{cot}^1(k_1/k)`$ and the boundary condition at $`y_c`$ determines $`y_c`$ such that $`c^{}=4ky_c\mathrm{cot}^1(k_2/k)`$, so it looks like an UIC. But for $`y_c`$ to behave like an undetermined integration constant, it should not appear in the equations of motion. Note, however, that $`y_c`$ is the VEV of the radion $`g_{55}`$, and hence it cannot be a strictly massless Goldstone boson. If it were massless, it will serve to the long range gravitational interaction and hence give different results from the general relativity predictions in the light bending experiments. Therefore, it should obtain a mass and hence $`y_c`$ is not a free parameter but fixed. So the boundary condition at $`y_c`$ is a fine-tuning condition.

In the remainder of this talk, I present a working self-tuning model. Let us consider the $`1/H^2`$ term,

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2}R+\frac{24!}{H^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)\right).$$
(10)
### 3.1 Flat space solution

For the flat space ansatze, we use

$$ds^2=\beta (y)^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{\sqrt{g}}{n(y)},H_{5\mu \nu \rho }=0.$$
(11)
The $`H`$ field equation is $`_M[\sqrt{g}H^{MNPQ}/H^4]=_\mu [\sqrt{g}H^{\mu NPQ}/H^4]=0`$, and hence fixes $`n`$ as a function of $`y`$ only. The two relevant Einstein equations are

$`(55)`$ $`:`$ $`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}`$
$`(\mu \nu )`$ $`:`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}\right)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}\right)`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b<0`$ and $`2n^2=\beta ^8/A`$ with $`A>0`$. We require the $`Z_2`$ symmetry, and the bulk equation is easily solved. The boundary condition at $`y=0`$ is $`\beta ^{}/\beta |_{0^+}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/6`$. Then, we find a solution

$$\beta (|y|)=\frac{(k/a)^{1/4}}{\left[\mathrm{cosh}(4k|y|+c)\right]^{1/4}}$$
(13)
where

$$k=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}{6}},a=\sqrt{\frac{1}{6A}},k_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{6}.$$
(14)
The flat solution is shown in Fig. 4.

This solution has the integration constants $`a`$ and $`c`$. $`a`$ is basically the charge of the universe and determines the 4D Planck mass. $`c`$ is the UIC which is fixed by the boundary condition at $`y=0`$,

$$\mathrm{tanh}(c)=\frac{k_1}{k}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}{\sqrt{6\mathrm{\Lambda }_b}}.$$
(15)
This solution shows that, for any value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ in the finite region allowing $`\mathrm{tanh}`$, it is possible to have a flat space solution. Even if the observable sector adds some constant to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$, still it is possible to have the flat space solution, just by changing the shape little bit via $`c`$. The change is acceptable since $`H`$ is a dynamical field. Note that $`\beta (y)`$ is a decreasing function of $`|y|`$ in the large $`|y|`$ region and it goes to zero exponentially as $`|y|\mathrm{}`$. This property is needed for a self-tuning solution.

The key points found in our solution are
(i) $`\beta `$ has no singularity: Our solution extends to infinity without singularity, and $`\beta ^{}0`$ as $`y\mathrm{}`$.
(ii) 4D Planck mass is finite: Even if the extra dimension is not compact, this theory can describe an effective 4D theory since gravity is localized. Integrating with respect to $`y`$, we obtain an effective 4D Planck mass which is finite

$$M_{4DPlanck}^2=_{infty}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\beta ^2=2M^3\sqrt{\frac{k}{a}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{[\mathrm{cosh}(4ky+c)]^{1/2}}𝑑y$$
(16)
and is expected to be of order the fundamental parameters.
(iii) Self-tuning: We obtained a self-tuning solution. To check that the 4D c.c. is zero we integrate out the solution. For that we have to include the surface term also

$$S_{surface}=d^4x𝑑y44!_M[\sqrt{g}\frac{H^{MNPQ}A_{NPQ}}{H^4}].$$
(17)
Then the action is

$$S=d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{\eta }\beta ^4\left[\frac{1}{2\beta ^2}R_44\frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }6\left(\frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }\right)^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_b+\frac{24!}{H^2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)\right]+S_{surface}.$$
(18)
Then, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4D}`$ is the $`y`$ integral except the $`R_4`$ term. One can show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4D}=0`$ and it is consistent with the original ansatz of the flat space.

### 3.2 De Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions

For the de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions, the metric is assumed as

$`ds^2=\beta (y)^2g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }=diag.(1,e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }t},e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }t},e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }t}),(dS_4\mathrm{background}\mathrm{with}\lambda >0)`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }=diag.(e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }x_3},e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }x_3},e^{2\sqrt{\lambda }x_3},1),(AdS_4\mathrm{background}\mathrm{with}\lambda <0).`$ (19)
Note that $`k=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }_b/6},k_1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1/6`$, and the 4D Riemann tensor is $`R_{\mu \nu }=3\lambda g_{\mu \nu }`$. The (55) and (00) components equations are

$`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^26\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}`$
$`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{}}{\beta }}\right)^2+3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{\prime \prime }}{\beta }}3\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\delta (y)3{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^8}{A}}.`$ (20)
The 4D c.c. obtained from the above ansatze is $`\lambda `$. Since we cannot obtain the solution in closed forms, we cannot show this by integration. However, we have checked this kind of behavior in the RS II model, using the Karch-Randall form. Here, we show just that the de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions exist, and show the warp factor numerically. In our model, the $`y`$ derivative of the metric is

$$\beta ^{}=\pm (k_\lambda ^2+k^2\beta ^2a^2\beta ^{10})^{1/2},k_\lambda =(\lambda )^{1/2}$$
(21)
At $`y=y_h`$ where $`\beta (y_h)=0`$, $`\beta ^{}(y_h)`$ needs not be zero due to the presence of the nonvanishing $`k_\lambda `$. Therefore, there exists a point $`y_h`$ where $`\beta ^{}`$ is finite. It is the de Sitter space horizon. It takes an infinite amount of time to reach $`y_h`$. Also, we can see that it is possible $`\beta `$ can be nonzero where $`\beta ^{}`$ is zero. It is the anti de Sitter space solution. These Anti de Sitter space and de Sitter space solutions are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. For the de Sitter space, we can integrate from $`y_h`$ to $`+y_h`$. As in the Karch-Randall example, it should give the 4D c.c. $`\lambda `$. The AdS solution does not give a localized gravity.

In the presence of de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions, the c.c. problem relies on the old self-tuning solution. Namely, the c.c. is probably zero, following Hawking. Hawking showed that in 4D, with the Euclidian space action

$$S_E=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\sqrt{+g}[(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda })+(1/48)H_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }H^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }]$$
(22)
where we use the unit $`8\pi G=1`$. The Einstein equation and field equations are

$`R_{\mu \nu }(1/2)g_{\mu \nu }R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }T_{\mu \nu }`$
$`_\mu [\sqrt{g}H^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }]=0.`$
From the field equation, one has $`H^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=(1/\sqrt{g})ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }c`$ or $`H^2=4!c^2`$. Thus, he obtained $`T^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_Hg^{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Lambda }_H=c^2/2,R=4\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff},\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_H`$. Thus,

$$S_E=(1/2)d^4x\sqrt{g}(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff})=\mathrm{Volume}(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_H)=\frac{3M^4}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}}$$
(23)
which is maximum at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{eff}=0^+`$ which is shown in Fig. 5.

Note that Hawking used equations of motion. Duff, on the other hand, used the action itself to calculate the Euclidian action, and obtained $`S_E=3M^4(\mathrm{\Lambda }(3/2)c^2)/(\mathrm{\Lambda }(1/2)c^2)^2`$ which is minimum at $`0^+`$. But the consideration of the surface term in the action would give additional contribution and should give Hawking’s result. The surface term is essential as we have shown in our self-tuning solution.

Thus, the maximum probability occurs when the c.c. is zero. Our self-tuning solution relies on this probabilistic choice of the flat one from the flat, de Sitter and anti de Sitter space solutions.

## 4 Goldstone boson scenario?

One point to consider is whether the peculiar kinetic energy term can be made sensible. Actually we can construct an example which has reasonable terms. Let us introduce a $`U(1)`$ gauge field strength $`F_{MN}`$ and its coupling to $`H_{MNPQ}`$ as

$$\frac{1}{8}H^2(F^2)^2\frac{1}{4}F^2.$$
(24)
The Gaussian integral of $`A_M`$ would choose $`F^2=1/H^2`$, and we would obtain the desired $`1/H^2`$ term. Therefore, consideration of $`1/H^2`$ can be meaningful. But the question is why there is no term with $`H^2`$ in the first place.

Since $`H`$ is a massless boson, it can be considered as a Goldstone boson. Thus, one may try to construct a theory where a pseudoscalar Goldstone boson is a kind of cosmion, self-tuning the c.c. at zero. The question is how one obtains the term $`1/H^2`$ instead of $`H^2`$.


text:
# X-ray Detection of PSR B1757-24 and its Nebular Tail

## 1. Introduction

PSR B1757$``$24 is a 124-ms radio pulsar near the supernova remnant (SNR) G5.4$``$1.2. Radio timing observations show that the pulsar has characteristic age 16 kyr and spin-down luminosity $`\dot{E}=2.6\times 10^{36}`$ erg s-1 (Manchester et al. 1991). The pulsar is at the tip of a flat-spectrum radio protuberance just outside the west side of the SNR shell. The protuberance consists of a small, roughly spherical nebula, G5.27$``$0.90, that has a highly collimated finger of emission on its western side. The pulsar is at the westernmost tip of the finger, whose morphology and spectrum suggest a ram-pressure confined pulsar wind nebula (PWN) (Frail & Kulkarni 1991). Assuming the pulsar was born at the center of G5.4$``$1.2 and that the characteristic pulsar age is a good estimate for the age of a system, the pulsar appears to have overtaken the expanding shell, implying a transverse space velocity of $`v_t`$1800 km s-1 for a distance of 5 kpc (Frail, Kassim, & Weiler 1994). However, recent interferometric observations failed to detect the implied proper motion (Gaensler & Frail 2000). They set a 5$`\sigma `$ upper limit of $`v_t<590`$ km s-1. This suggests that the pulsar is older than its characteristic age, or that the assumed pulsar birth place is incorrect.

A ram-pressure confined wind should radiate X-rays as part of the broad-band synchrotron spectrum that results from the shock-acceleration and subsequent gyration of relativistic wind electron/positron pairs in the ambient magnetic field. This is in contrast to static PWNe in which a high external pressure, usually supplied by the hot gas interior of a SNR, does the confining. The PSR B1757$``$24 PWN is of interest as it exhibits the cleanest and most extreme bow-shock plus tail morphology of any such system, suggesting that it may exemplify the class of ram-pressure confined PWN most ideally. We summarize here the first X-ray detection of PSR B1757$``$24. Details of this result can be found in Kaspi et al. (2001).

## 2. Observations

The PSR B1757$``$24 field was observed on 2000 April 12 for 19.6 ks using the S3 back-illuminated chip on the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) instrument aboard the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The ACIS image (Fig. 1, left) reveals a faint point source near the radio pulsar position, and a fainter tail of emission on the eastern side, similar to the radio emission. Figure 1 (right) shows the distribution of counts as a function of distance from the point source. With respect to the mean and the western side, the eastern side clearly has an overdensity of counts extending nearly 20′′ from the point source. Careful astrometry confirms the coincidence between the X-ray point source and the radio pulsar.

The spectrum of the point source is well characterized with both an absorbed power-law model, as well as an absorbed thermal bremsstrahlung model. The spectrum of the fainter tail emission is not well determined, however it is suggested of relatively hard emission, having power-law index of $``$1.

## 3. Results and Discussion

The X-ray point source is likely to be non-thermal pulse-phase-averaged magnetospheric emission from the radio pulsar itself. The observed 2–10 keV unabsorbed luminosity, for a distance $`d=5`$ kpc is $`2\times 10^{33}`$ erg s-1, assuming beaming angle $`\varphi =\pi `$ sr (see Kaspi et al. 2001). This implies an efficiency of conversion of spin-down luminosity into magnetospheric emission of $`0.00020(\varphi /\pi \mathrm{sr})(d/5\mathrm{kpc})^2`$. This efficiency, as well as the measured power-law photon index, are consistent with those observed for the magnetospheric components of other radio pulsars (Becker & Trümper 1997).

The tail X-ray emission is likely to be synchrotron radiation from the shocked pulsar wind. The observed X-ray tail extends nearly 20′′, or 0.48 pc for a distance of 5 kpc, to the east of the pulsar, nearly as long as the detected radio tail. The upper limit on the transverse velocity of $`v_t<590`$ km s-1 implies the time since the pulsar was at the eastern-most tip of the observed X-ray emission must be $`>800`$ yr. The synchrotron lifetime of a photon of energy $`E`$ (in keV) in a magnetic field $`B_4`$ (in units of $`10^4`$ G) is $`t_s40E^{1/2}B_4^{3/2}`$ $`\mathrm{yr}`$. Thus, for $`t_s>800`$ yr and $`E19`$ keV, $`B<0.814\mu `$G. This is much less than the equipartition magnetic field $`B_{\mathrm{eq}}\sqrt{\dot{E}/r_s^2c}70\mu `$G expected in the vicinity of the pulsar. Here, $`r_s`$ is the distance from the pulsar to the bow shock head. Hence, the X-ray tail behind PSR B1757$``$24 cannot be synchrotron emission from pulsar wind particles just left behind after the passage of the pulsar. Rather, freshly shocked wind particles must be continuously fed eastward with a velocity much larger than the pulsar space velocity, $`v_fv_t`$. We can constrain the flow velocity $`v_f`$ of the wind particles in the tail by noting that it must be high enough to continuously supply particles given their cooling times. Thus, the flow time $`t_f\stackrel{<}{_{}}t_s`$. Assuming that the magnetic field reaches its equipartition value near the bow-shock head and that this value holds for the approximately one-dimensional tail region too, we find $`t_s\stackrel{>}{_{}}70(E/1\mathrm{keV})^{1/2}(B_{\mathrm{eq}}/70\mu \mathrm{G})^{3/2}`$ yr. As the tail extends to 0.48 pc for $`d=5`$ kpc, this implies $`v_f\stackrel{>}{_{}}6700(d/5\mathrm{kpc})(E/1\mathrm{keV})^{1/2}(B_{\mathrm{eq}}/70\mu \mathrm{G})^{3/2}`$ km s-1.

The tail emission has low flux. The tail surface brightness in the 2–8 keV band is $`4.5\times 10^{16}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 arcsec-2, with uncertainty of $``$30%. The total unabsorbed flux in the 2–8 keV band in our extraction region is $`9.8\times 10^{14}`$ erg s-1 cm-2, with similar uncertainty. The efficiency with which the pulsar’s $`\dot{E}`$ is converted into tail X-rays in the 2–8 keV band is only 0.00011$`(d/5\mathrm{kpc})^2`$, roughly half of the point-source efficiency. This is in contrast to other rotation-powered pulsars, like the Crab, whose X-ray nebular emission is much brighter than the point-source output. Without timing information, we cannot rule out an ultra-compact nebula as the source of the point-source emission. Several effects may reduce the X-ray efficiency of ram pressure confined PWNs. First, the efficiency of conversion of $`\dot{E}`$ into X-ray emitting particles may be lower since the reverse shock in the ram-pressure-confined PWNs is strong only in the forward part of the head, subtending a much smaller solid angle than in a static PWN. Second, a low X-ray efficiency is expected if the flow time of the relativistic plasma through the tail is shorter than the synchrotron life time. A similar argument was put forth (Chevalier 2000) to explain the low efficiencies of the Vela and CTB 80 pulsars. Finally, low surface brightness emission from beyond the eastern tip of the observable X-ray tail, or even from G5.27$``$0.90, have gone undetected in our observation. Emission from the direction of that nebula, having X-ray surface brightness half of the ACIS-S3 background, would contribute roughly two orders of magnitude more flux.

No emission is detected from the shell supernova remnant G5.4$``$1.2. The upper limits on remnant emission are unconstraining.

### Acknowledgments.

We thank M. Roberts for discussions. V.M.K. is a Sloan Fellow and CRC Chair. This work is supported by SAO grant GO0-1133A, and by NASA LTSA grant NAG5-8063 and NSERC grant Rgpin 228738-00 to V.M.K. E.V.G is supported by the NASA LTSA grant NAG5-22250. B.M.G. acknowledges a Hubble Fellowship awarded by STScI.

## References

Becker, W. & Trümper, J. 1997, A&A, 326, 682

Chevalier, R. A. 2000, ApJ, 539, L45

Frail, D. A., Kassim, N. E., & Weiler, K. W. 1994, AJ, 107, 1120

Frail, D. A. & Kulkarni, S. R. 1991, Nature, 352, 785

Gaensler, B. M. & Frail, D. A. 2000, Nature, 406, 158

Kaspi, V. M., Gotthelf, E. V., Gaensler, B. M., Lyutikov, M. 2001, ApJ, 562, L163

Kennel, C. F., & Coroniti, F. V. 1984, ApJ, 283, 694

Lyne, A. G. & Lorimer, D. R. 1994, Nature, 369, 137

Manchester, R. N., Kaspi, V. M., Johnston, S., Lyne, A. G., & D’Amico, N. 1991, MNRAS, 253, 7P