text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The occurances of gusts represent a great problem affecting a wide field of technical applications as for instance the construction of Wind Energy Converters  as well as the construction of high buildings in general . But also regarding the landing- and take-off-operations at airports the importance of the statistics of gusts becomes evident . Nevertheless gusts are not uniquely defined. In  or  gusts are taken as an additional structure besides the permanent, fluctuating turbulence $`u(t)`$ around the mean wind $`\overline{u}(t)`$ of the wind velocity field. More often wind gusts are characterized by extrem velocity differences during short time intervals ranging typically between some seconds up to a minute. But these characterisations are still vague.
In order to examine wind gusts in a statistical way we use a data set of a turbulent wind velocity field recorded near the coastline of the Northsea at the FH Ostfriesland in Emden (Germany). The velocity was measured by means of an ultrasonic anemometer at $`20m`$ height. The sampling frequency was $`4Hz`$. The measuring period took about one year (1997-1998). After careful investigation of the quality of the data we examine a representative 275-hour-excerpt of October 1997 and focus on the velocity component in direction of the mean wind (See also for a first brief report on the analysis of these data ).
Our main interest is to explore how atmospheric turbulence is related to the well known local isotropic and stationary laboratory one. Therefore we use a simple measure for gusts and compare both velocity fields by means of their probabilistic features. The laboratory data we use here was recorded in a wind tunnel behind a cylinder with a Reynoldsnumber of $`Re30000`$ (see ). In a second step we examine the waiting time distributions of successive wind gusts to resolve also their time structure.

## 2 Probabilistic description of wind gusts

The wind field is known to exhibit a high degree of turbulence with Reynoldsnumbers $`Re`$ of about $`10^7`$. The wind velocity $`U(t)`$ is commonly (see ) expressed as the sum of the mean velocity $`\overline{u}(t)`$ and fluctuations $`u(t)`$ around it. For the mean velocity $`\overline{u}(t)`$ a ten minute average is used:

$$U=\overline{u}+u.$$
(1)
Here we concentrate on the velocity components in the mean velocity direction. The greater the fluctuation values $`u`$ the more turbulent the wind field becomes. In windenergy research this is often expressed by the turbulence degree $`t_i`$ which is defined as the standard deviation $`\sigma `$ in relation to the mean velocity $`\overline{u}`$:

$$t_i=\frac{\sigma }{\overline{u}}.$$
(2)
Nevertheless the value of $`t_i`$ does not contain any dynamical or time-resolved information about the fluctuation field itself.

To achieve a deeper understanding of wind gusts – as a result of the fluctuating wind field – we investigate in how far wind gusts are related to the well known features of small scale turbulence. To this end we will perform an analogous analysis for our wind data and data from a turbulent wake flow behind a cylinder in a wind tunnel. As a natural and simple measure of wind gusts we use the statistics of velocity increments $`\delta u_\tau `$ of the fluctuations:

$$\delta u_\tau :=u(t+\tau )u(t).$$
(3)
The increments directly measure the velocity difference after a characteristic time $`\tau `$ (illustrated in Fig.1). So a high increment exceeding a certain threshold $`S`$ ($`\delta u_\tau >S`$) can be defined as a gust.
For a statistical analysis we are interested in how frequent a certain increment value occurs and whether this frequency depends on $`\tau `$. Therefore we calculate the probability density functions (pdfs) $`P(\delta u_\tau )`$ of the increments. In Fig. 2 the pdfs for 5 different values of $`\tau `$ are shown. These distributions are all characterized by marked fat tails and a peak around the mean value. Such pdfs are called intermittent and differ extremely from a Gaussian distribution that is commonly considered to be the suitable distribution for continuous random processes.

A normal distribution is uniquely defined by its mean value $`\mu `$ and its standard deviation $`\sigma `$. Thus every distribution can be compared to a normal distribution in a quantitative way. In Fig. 3 we compare one of the measured pdfs ($`\tau =4s`$) with a Gaussian distribution with the same $`\sigma `$. In this presentation the different behaviour of the tails of both distributions becomes evident. Note that the high increments of the wind pdfs – located in the tails – correspond to strong gusts. For instance the value of $`\delta u_\tau =7\sigma `$ corresponds to a velocity ascending of $`5.6m/s`$ during $`4s`$). As shown in Fig. 3 the measured probability of our wind data is about $`10^6`$ times higher than for a Gaussian distribution with the same standard deviation! This case is represented by the arrow in Fig. 3. The value $`10^6`$ – for instance – means that a certain gust which is observed about five times a day should be observed just once in 500 years if the distribution were a Gaussian instead of the observed intermittent one.
But intermittent distributions seem to appear quite often in natural or economical systems like in earthquake-(), foreign exchange market- () or even in some traffic-statistics ().

What kind of statistics do we get in the case of local isotropic and stationary laboratory experiments? The typical probability density functions in laboratory turbulence – as shown in Fig. 4 – change from intermittent ones for small values of $`\tau `$ to rather Gaussian shaped distributions with increasing $`\tau `$. When $`\tau T`$ with $`T`$ being the correlation time (integral time) the approach to a normal distribution is marked:

$$T=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}R(\tau )𝑑\tau .$$
(4)
$`R(\tau )`$ is the correlation function of the fluctuations. In our case the correlation time of the atmospheric flow is $`34s`$ and $`6ms`$ for the laboratory data .
Note that for the pdfs of the atmospheric velocity field this characteristic change of shape, even for $`\tau `$-values higher than $`T`$ (as shown in Fig. 2) is not observed.

As already mentioned a fundamental difference between atmospheric and laboratory turbulence is that the latter is stationary. In laboratory experiments one usually deals with a fixed value and direction of the mean wind speed $`\overline{u}`$, which is obviously never the case for atmospheric wind fields. Therefore in a second step we calculate the pdfs of the atmospheric increments only for certain mean velocity intervals. That means that only those increments are taken into account with $`\overline{u}`$ ranging in a narrow velocity interval with a width of typically $`1m/s`$. These conditioned pdfs $`P(\delta u_\tau |\overline{u})`$ show a similar qualitative change of shape like those of the laboratory experiment111Only for very small values of $`\overline{u}`$ ($`u<1m/s`$) this change of shape is not observed. which is illustrated in Fig. 4 b).
To quantify this similarity we use a well established fit by an empirical explicite function for the pdf. This formula was derived in  on the basis of Kolmogorov’s understanding of a turbulent cascade:

$`P(\delta u_\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \lambda _\tau }}{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}exp({\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_\tau ^2}{2s^2}})exp({\displaystyle \frac{ln^2(s/s_0)}{2\lambda _\tau ^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{d(lns)}{s}}.`$ (5)
In Fig. 2 and 4 these fitfunctions are represented by the solid lines. $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ is the fundamental parameter (formparameter) in equation (5) and determines the shape of the probability distribution. As it can easily be seen equation (5) reduces to a Gaussian distribution if $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ is zero:

$$\underset{\lambda _\tau ^2o}{lim}P(\delta u_\tau )=\frac{1}{s_0\sqrt{2\pi }}exp(\frac{\delta u_\tau ^2}{2s_0^2}).$$
(6)
On the other hand the more $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ increases the more intermittent the distributions become. In this way the parameter $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ may serve to compare the pdfs with each other in a more quantitative way. In Fig. 5 the evolution of the formparameter as a function of the increment distance $`\tau `$ is shown.
Other laboratory measurements (see ) of $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ have shown evidence that it saturates approximately at $`0.2`$. As shown in Fig. 5 the formparameter of the conditioned wind increments as well as of the laboratory ones is approximately $`0.2`$ for small $`\tau `$values. Furthermore it tends to zero with increasing $`\tau `$. None of these two features is observed in the case of the unconditioned increments, $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ is rather independent from $`\tau `$ with a value of about $`0.7`$. A constant behaviour of $`\lambda _\tau ^2`$ means that the form of the pdfs remain unchanged, while its variance may change. Together with the power law scaling of $`<\delta u_\tau ^2r^{2/3}>`$ we get the unusual result, that for pdfs with constant intermittent shapes the scaling of the n-th moments $`<\delta u_\tau ^nr^{\xi _n}>`$ follow the proposed law of Kolmogorov 41, $`\xi _n=n/3`$, i.e. without intermittency corrections for the exponents.
Thus we have shown that the anomalous statistics of wind fluctuations on discrete time intervals – which are obviously related to wind gusts – can be reduced to the well known intermittent (anomalous) statistics of local isotropic turbulence. This result deviates from results of wind data reported in , where it is claimed that their unconditioned wind pdfs behave like stationary ones from laboratory measurements. Thus on the basis of our stochastic analysis we claim that wind gusts are no independent structures but are a part of small scale turbulence.

## 3 Waiting time distribution

So far we have shown how the atmospheric turbulence is related to the laboratory one in a statistical way. This probabalistic ansatz describes the frequency with which certain gusts occur but it is not clear how they are distributed in time. In this sense we now examine the inter-event-times between successive wind gusts.
The marked fat tail behaviour of the unconditioned pdfs – as illustrated in Fig. 2 a) – points at an interesting effect. In  the equivalence between the divergence of the moments $`<x^q>`$ and the hyperbolic (intermittent) form of pdfs which leads to a power law behaviour of the probability distribution is emphasized:

$$p(xS)S^q,S>>1.$$
(7)
A famous example of such a natural power law behaviour is the Gutenberg-Richter-law  that describes the frequency N of earthquakes with a magnitude being greater than a certain threshold M (magnitude):

$`log(N(E))`$ $`=`$ $`abM`$
$`N(E)`$ $``$ $`E^b.`$ (8)
$`N(E)`$ describes the number of occurances of those earthquakes with an energy output higher than a threshold $`E_0`$. The magnitude M is proportional to the logarithm of $`E`$. The same result is found for the energy flux distribution of a wind field . But also the waiting time distribution of fore- and after shocks obey a power-law, what is known as the Omori-law .
In this sense we now examine the waiting time distribution of wind gusts. Therefore we refer to the idealized gust represented in Fig. 1 choosing different thresholds $`A`$ and different increment distances $`\tau `$ (see eq. 3). Always when the condition $`\delta u_\tau >A`$ is fulfilled a gust event is registered. To avoid that one event is counted several times we use the condition that the distance between two successive events $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ is at least $`\tau `$. Due to the cumulation of occurances for small time distances we choose a logarithmic time.
The distributions for $`A=4.0m/s`$ and $`\tau =0.3T`$ (about ten seconds) and for $`A=1.5m/s`$ and $`\tau =2.0T`$ are shown in Fig. 6 a) respectively 6 b). It can easily be seen that the exponential fit in Fig. 6 corresponds to a power law concerning the waiting times $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. Only the exponent seems to depend on $`A`$ and $`\tau `$.
Considering

$$x=ln(\mathrm{\Delta }T)$$
(9)
and the normalisation

$$1=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(x)𝑑x=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(x(\mathrm{\Delta }t))\frac{dx}{d(\mathrm{\Delta }T)}d(\mathrm{\Delta }T),$$
(10)
the used fitfunction

$$P(x)e^{cx}$$
(11)
can also be written as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ which leads to a power-law:

$`P(\mathrm{\Delta }T)`$ $``$ $`ke^{(ln(\mathrm{\Delta }T))^c}\mathrm{\Delta }T^1`$ (12)
$``$ $`k(\mathrm{\Delta }T)^{c1}.`$
This power law behaviour of the waiting time distributions is only observed for the atmospheric wind data and not for the stationary laboratory one.

## 4 Summary

On the basis of well defined velocity increments an analogous analysis of measured wind data and measured data from a turbulent wake was performed. The statistics of velocity increments, as a related statistics to the occurance frequency of wind gusts, showed that they are highly intermittent. These anomalous (not Gaussian distributed) statistics explain an increased high probability of finding strong gusts. This could be set in analogy with turbulence measurements of an idealized, local isotropic laboratory flow if a proper condition on a mean wind speed was performed. So far the statistics of wind gusts can be interpreted as a superposition of idealized packets of turbulence at different Reynoldsnumbers.
As a further statistical feature of wind gusts we have investigated the waiting times between successive gusts exceeding a certain strength. Here we find power-law-statistics (fractal statistics) – similar to earthquake statistics – that can not be reproduced in laboratory measurements.
To conclude we have shown two important aspects of wind gusts. The overall occurance statistics could be set into analogy to the anomalous statistics of velocity increments in local isotropic turbulence. The time structure of successive gust events displays fractal behaviour.


format: text

text:
# The Legendrian Satellite Construction

## 1. Introduction

The spaces $`^3`$ and $`S^1\times ^2`$ both have a standard contact structure given by the kernel of the $`1`$-form $`dzydx`$, where we view the solid torus $`S^1\times ^2`$ as $`^3`$ modulo the relation $`(x,y,z)(x+1,y,z)`$. We will assume that the reader is familiar with some basic concepts in Legendrian knot theory, such as front projections, the Thurston-Bennequin number, and the rotation number; see, e.g., , which we will use extensively.

The problem of classifying Legendrian knots in standard contact $`^3`$ up to Legendrian isotopy has attracted much recent attention. In this note, we study one particular construction on Legendrian knots, the Legendrian satellite construction, which relates knots in $`^3`$ and in $`S^1\times ^2`$. This is the Legendrian analogue of the satellite construction in the smooth category, which glues a link in the solid torus $`S^1\times ^2`$ into a tubular neighborhood of a knot in $`^3`$ to produce a link in $`^3`$. We examine some consequences of Legendrian satellites for the Legendrian knot classification problem in both $`^3`$ and $`S^1\times ^2`$; in particular, we recover previously-known results for knots in both spaces, and prove a new result in $`S^1\times ^2`$ (Proposition 2.11).

The motivation for this work is that Legendrian satellites may provide nontrivial, nonclassical invariants of stabilized Legendrian knots in $`^3`$. Here we recall that there are two stabilization operators $`S_\pm `$ on Legendrian knots, decreasing $`tb`$ by $`1`$ and changing $`r`$ by $`\pm 1`$, which replace a segment of the knot’s front projection by a zigzag, as shown in Figure 1. Understanding stabilized knots is an important open problem in Legendrian knot theory; it also has repercussions for the classification of transverse knots.

It seems possible that satellites of stabilized knots may contain interesting information through the Chekanov-Eliashberg differential graded algebra invariant , which is derived from contact homology . We will show that, unfortunately, the DGAs of the simplest Legendrian satellites of stabilized knots do not encode any useful information. The computation used in the proof may be of interest as the first involved computation manipulating the DGA invariant directly, rather than using easier invariants such as Poincaré polynomials  or the characteristic algebra . In any case, more complicated satellites may well give nonclassical invariants of stabilized knots, as has been suggested by Michatchev .

We define the construction in Section 2, and show how it immediately implies facts about solid-torus links, including some that could not be shown using any previously known techniques. In Section 3, we show the result mentioned above about DGAs of satellites of stabilized knots; the key step is Lemma 3.4, which is proven in Section 4.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Yasha Eliashberg, John Etnyre, Kirill Michatchev, Tom Mrowka, Josh Sabloff, and Lisa Traynor for helpful discussions, and the American Institute of Mathematics for sponsoring the fall 2000 Low-Dimensional Contact Geometry program, during which most of these discussions took place. This note was originally part of my MIT Ph.D. thesis, which was written with the support of research assistantships from grants from the National Science Foundation and Department of Defense.

## 2. Construction

As in $`^3`$, Legendrian links in the solid torus $`S^1\times ^2`$ may be represented by their front projections to the $`xz`$ plane, with the understanding that the $`x`$ direction is now periodic. If we view $`S^1\times ^2`$ as $`[0,1]\times ^2`$ with $`\{0\}\times ^2`$ identified with $`\{1\}\times ^2`$, then we can draw the front projection of a solid-torus Legendrian link as a front in $`[0,1]\times `$ with the two boundary components identified. We depict the boundary components by dashed lines; see Figure 2 for an illustration. For a Legendrian link $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ in the solid torus, let the endpoints of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ be $`\stackrel{~}{L}(\{0\}\times ^2)`$, that is, the points where the front for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ intersects the dashed lines.

###### Remark 2.1.

Invariants of solid-torus links. There are three classical invariants of links on the solid torus: the Thurston-Bennequin number $`tb`$ and rotation number $`r`$ can be calculated from the front of a solid-torus link exactly as in $`^3`$; and the winding number $`w`$ is the number of times the link winds around the $`S^1`$ direction of $`S^1\times ^2`$. Clearly the $`tb`$, $`r`$, and $`w`$ associated to any subset of the components of a solid-torus link also give invariants of the link.

In , L. Traynor and the author show that the Chekanov-Eliashberg DGA can be defined for links on the solid torus, thus yielding a nonclassical invariant. For certain links with two components,  defines another nonclassical invariant based on generating functions. We will give examples in this section of solid-torus knots which are not Legendrian isotopic, but which cannot be distinguished using any of these invariants.

We now introduce the Legendrian satellite construction. Let $`L`$ be an oriented Legendrian link in $`^3`$ with one distinguished component $`L_1`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ be an oriented Legendrian link in $`S^1\times ^2`$. We give two definitions of the Legendrian satellite $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})^3`$, one abstract, one concrete.

A tubular neighborhood of $`L_1`$ is a solid torus; the characteristic foliation on the boundary of this torus wraps around the torus $`tb(L_1)`$ times. By cutting the tubular neighborhood at a cross-sectional disk, untwisting it $`tb(L_1)`$ times, and regluing, we obtain a solid torus contactomorphic to $`S^1\times ^2`$ with the standard contact structure. Thus we can embed $`\stackrel{~}{L}S^1\times ^2`$ as a Legendrian link in a tubular neighborhood of $`L_1`$. Replacing the component $`L_1`$ in $`L`$ by this new link gives $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$.

We can redefine $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ in terms of the fronts for $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. First, we recall the definition of an $`n`$-copy from .

###### Definition 2.2.

Given a Legendrian knot $`K`$, its $`n`$-copy is the link consisting of $`n`$ copies of $`K`$ which differ from each other through small perturbations in the transversal direction. In the front projection, the $`n`$-copy consists of $`n`$ copies of $`K`$, differing from each other by small shifts in the $`z`$ direction. The $`2`$-copy is also known as the double.

Now suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ has $`n`$ endpoints. By cutting along the dotted lines (i.e., the endpoints of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$), we can embed $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ as a Legendrian tangle in $`^3`$ with $`2n`$ ends. Replace the front of the first component $`L_1`$ of $`L`$ by the $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$. Then choose a small segment of $`L_1`$ which is oriented from left to right; excise the corresponding $`n`$ pieces of the $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$, and replace them by the front for $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, cut along its endpoints. See Figure 2 for an illustration.

###### Definition 2.3.

The resulting link $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})^3`$ is the Legendrian satellite of $`L^3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}S^1\times ^2`$. We give $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ the orientation derived from the orientations on $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ (for the glued $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$) and on $`L`$ (for the components of $`L`$ besides $`L_1`$).

The Legendrian satellite construction is motivated by the special case of Whitehead doubles (see Section 3), which were introduced by Eliashberg and subsequently used by Fuchs .

###### Remark 2.4.

Classical invariants of Legendrian satellites. Before we show that $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ is well-defined up to Legendrian isotopy, we note that the classical invariants of $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ are easily computable from those of $`L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. Indeed, a straightforward computation with front diagrams yields

$$tb(S(L,\stackrel{~}{L}))=(w(\stackrel{~}{L}))^2tb(L)+tb(\stackrel{~}{L})$$

$$r(S(L,\stackrel{~}{L}))=w(\stackrel{~}{L})r(L)+r(\stackrel{~}{L})$$

when $`L`$ is a knot, with a similar but slightly more complicated formula when $`L`$ is a multi-component link.

###### Lemma 2.5.

$`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ is well-defined up to Legendrian isotopy.

###### Proof.

We need to show that, up to Legendrian isotopy, $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ is independent of the piece of the $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$ which we excise and replace by $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$, as long as this piece is oriented left to right. The singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ consist of crossings, left cusps, and right cusps; we imagine pushing these singularities one by one from one section of the $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$ to another.

We can clearly push these singularities through any piece of $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ which crosses a neighborhood of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ transversely; see the top diagram in Figure 3. Figure 4 shows that we can also push singularities through a right cusp in $`L_1`$, and clearly this argument extends to left cusps as well. We conclude that we can push all of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ through a cusp, resulting in the left-to-right mirror reflection of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$; see the bottom diagrams in Figure 3. The lemma follows. ∎

###### Proposition 2.6.

$`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ is a well-defined operation on Legendrian isotopy classes; that is, if we change $`L,\stackrel{~}{L}`$ by Legendrian isotopies, then $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ changes by a Legendrian isotopy as well.

###### Proof.

We first consider Legendrian-isotopy changes of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. These fall into two categories: isotopies where the endpoints of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ remain fixed, and horizontal translations of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ (i.e., moving the dashed lines). The first category clearly preserves the Legendrian isotopy class of $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$. The second category consists of pushing singularities in $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ through the dashed lines. But Figure 4 shows that we can push individual singularities from one side of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ to the other, by moving the singularity all the way around the $`n`$-copy of $`L_1`$. Hence Legendrian-isotopy changes of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ do not change $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$.

Next consider Legendrian-isotopy changes of $`L`$. It suffices to show that $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ does not change under Legendrian Reidemeister moves on $`L`$. Consider such a move, and push $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ away from a neighborhood of the move. Then the fact that the Legendrian-isotopy class of $`S(L,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ does not change follows from Figure 5. ∎

###### Remark 2.7.

Both Proposition 2.6 and Corollary 2.8 below have been known for some time. It is easy, and probably more natural, to establish Proposition 2.6 using the global, non-front definition of Legendrian satellites; we chose to present the front proof because of its concreteness.

###### Corollary 2.8.

Legendrian-isotopic knots in $`^3`$ have Legendrian-isotopic $`n`$-copies.

###### Proof.

The $`n`$-copy of a knot $`K`$ is simply $`S(K,\stackrel{~}{L}^{(n)})`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{(n)}`$ is the union of $`n`$ unlinked loops which wind once around $`S^1\times ^2`$; see Figure 6 for an illustration of $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{(2)}`$. The result follows from Proposition 2.6. ∎

###### Corollary 2.9 ().

Suppose that $`K`$ is a stabilization of a Legendrian knot. The $`n`$-copy of $`K`$ is Legendrian isotopic to the $`n`$-copy with components cyclically permuted. More precisely, if $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_n`$ are the components of the $`n`$-copy of $`K`$, with $`L_i`$ slightly higher than $`L_{i+1}`$ in $`z`$ coordinate, then $`(L_1,L_2,\mathrm{},L_n)`$ is Legendrian isotopic to $`(L_{1+k},L_{2+k},\mathrm{},L_{n+k})`$ for any $`k`$, where indices are taken modulo $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose, without loss of generality, that $`K=S_+(K^{})`$ for a Legendrian knot $`K^{}`$. Then the $`n`$-copy of $`K`$ is the Legendrian satellite $`S(K^{},S_n)`$, where $`S_n`$ is the solid-torus “$`n`$-copy stabilization link” depicted in Figure 6. It is easy to see that $`S_n`$ is Legendrian isotopic to itself with components cyclically permuted; now apply Proposition 2.6. ∎

We now present some applications of Proposition 2.6 to knots and links on the solid torus. Consider the link $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{(2)}`$ shown in Figure 6. The following result, established in  using generating functions, is also proven in  using the DGA for solid-torus links. The proof we give is yet another one.

###### Proposition 2.10.

Write $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{(2)}=(\stackrel{~}{L}_1,\stackrel{~}{L}_2)`$. Then $`(\stackrel{~}{L}_1,\stackrel{~}{L}_2)`$ is not Legendrian isotopic to $`(\stackrel{~}{L}_2,\stackrel{~}{L}_1)`$.

###### Proof.

In \[8, Proposition 4.11\], the author proves that the double of the figure eight knot is not Legendrian isotopic to the double with components swapped. The result now follows from Proposition 2.6. ∎

Now consider the Whitehead knots $`W_{2k}`$ shown in Figure 6. Each $`W_{2k}`$ has $`r=w=0`$ and is thus topologically isotopic to its inverse (the same knot with the opposite orientation). By contrast, we can now show the following result.

###### Proposition 2.11.

$`W_{2k}`$ is not Legendrian isotopic to its inverse.

###### Proof.

As usual, write $`W_{2k}`$ for the inverse of $`W_{2k}`$, and let $`L`$ be the double of the usual “flying-saucer” unknot in $`^3`$. For $`k=1`$, it is easy to check that $`S(L,W_2)`$ is precisely the oriented Whitehead link from \[8, §4.5\], and that $`S(L,W_2)`$ is the same link with one component reversed. Proposition 2.6 and \[8, Proposition 4.12\] then imply that $`W_2`$ and $`W_2`$ are not Legendrian isotopic.

A calculation similar to the one in the proof of \[8, Proposition 4.12\], omitted here, shows that $`S(L,W_{2k})`$ and $`S(L,W_{2k})`$ are not Legendrian isotopic for arbitrary $`k0`$. The result follows. ∎

The solid-torus DGA from  fails to distinguish between $`W_{2k}`$ and its inverse. Proposition 2.11 is thus a result about solid-torus knots whose only presently known proof uses the Legendrian satellite construction.

## 3. Doubles

The Chekanov-Eliashberg DGA invariant vanishes for links which are stabilizations. The Legendrian satellite construction, however, seems to yield nontrivial nonclassical invariants of all Legendrian links; see Remark 3.7 below. On the other hand, the main result of this section shows that some of the simplest Legendrian satellites of stabilizations do not contain any new information.

###### Definition 3.1.

The Legendrian Whitehead double of a Legendrian knot $`K`$ in $`^3`$ is $`S(K,W_0)`$, where $`W_0`$ is the knot shown in Figure 6. More generally, if $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ has two endpoints, then we call $`S(K,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ a satellite double of $`K`$.

As mentioned in Section 2, the Legendrian Whitehead double was originally defined by Eliashberg, with further study by Fuchs , who uses the notation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{dbl}}(0,0)`$ for our $`S(K,W_0)`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Legendrian satellites and maximal $`tb`$. By Remark 2.4, the Legendrian Whitehead double of any Legendrian knot has Thurston-Bennequin number 1. As noted by J. Sabloff and the author, it is easy to show that the Legendrian Whitehead double maximizes $`tb`$ in its topological class. This follows from the fact that $`g(S(K,W_0))=1`$, along with Bennequin’s inequality $`tb(K)2g(K)1`$ , where $`g(K)`$ is the (three-ball) genus of $`K`$. A similar argument shows that the usual double of any Legendrian knot maximizes $`tb`$.

It is not true, however, that all satellite doubles maximize $`tb`$, even when $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ maximizes $`tb`$. In particular, if $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ has a half-twist next to its endpoints, and $`K`$ is a stabilization, then $`S(K,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ will also be a stabilization.

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are stabilized Legendrian knots in the same topological class with the same $`tb`$ and $`r`$, then the DGAs of the Legendrian Whitehead doubles of $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are equivalent.

The key to proving Proposition 3.3 is the following result, whose proof we delay until Section 4.

###### Lemma 3.4.

For any Legendrian knot $`K`$ which is a stabilization, the DGAs of $`S(K,W_0)`$ and of $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$ are equivalent.

###### Proof of Proposition 3.3.

By a result of , any two Legendrian knots which are topologically identical and have the same $`tb`$ and $`r`$ are Legendrian isotopic after some number of applications of the double stabilization operator $`S_+S_{}`$. That is, there exists an $`n0`$ such that $`(S_+S_{})^nK_1`$ and $`(S_+S_{})^nK_2`$ are Legendrian isotopic. The proposition now follows directly from Lemma 3.4. ∎

###### Remark 3.5.

It can in fact be shown that the DGA of the Legendrian Whitehead double of a stabilized knot depends only on the $`tb`$ and $`r`$ of the knot, and not on its topological class. In particular, we can recover the result of  that the DGA of a Legendrian Whitehead double always possesses an augmentation.

A slightly modified version of the proof of Lemma 3.4, omitted here for simplicity, establishes the following more general result.

###### Proposition 3.6.

If $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are stabilized Legendrian knots in the same topological class with the same $`tb`$ and $`r`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is any Legendrian link in $`S^1\times ^2`$ with two endpoints and winding number zero, then the DGAs of $`S(K_1,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ and $`S(K_2,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ are equivalent.

We believe that Proposition 3.6 actually holds for any satellite doubles of stabilized knots $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ with the same $`tb`$ and $`r`$, regardless of the winding number of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$. However, the analogue of Lemma 3.4 is false if $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ has winding number $`\pm 2`$, since $`S(K,\stackrel{~}{L})`$ and $`S(S_+S_{}(K),\stackrel{~}{L})`$ have different $`tb`$; see Remark 2.4. Nevertheless, the argument of the proof of Lemma 3.4 shows that the characteristic algebra, at least, can never distinguish between satellite doubles of stabilized knots.

###### Remark 3.7.

Invariants of stabilized Legendrian knots. As mentioned in the Introduction, it remains a very interesting open problem to find nonclassical invariants of stabilized Legendrian knots. There are currently no methods to prove that two stabilized knots with the same topological type, $`tb`$, and $`r`$ are not Legendrian isotopic.

We are hopeful that satellites more complicated than doubles will encode interesting information for stabilized knots. In particular, it seems that the $`n`$-copy of any Legendrian link maximizes Thurston-Bennequin number when $`n2`$, and thus probably has a nontrivial DGA. By Corollary 2.8, the DGAs of Legendrian satellites of a Legendrian link, including the $`n`$-copy, are Legendrian-isotopy invariants, which likely contain interesting nonclassical information in general. The problem we face when dealing with complicated satellites, however, is extracting useful information from the Poincaré polynomials or the characteristic algebra. See .

There is another approach to finding invariants of stabilized knots, which is probably more natural than investigating satellites. Eliashberg, Givental, and Hofer  have recently developed symplectic field theory, which generalizes contact homology; \[4, §2.8\] describes how this method yields invariants of Legendrian links, which would likely not vanish for stabilized knots. Unfortunately, no explicit combinatorial description, à la Chekanov, is presently known for the symplectic field theory associated to Legendrian links.

## 4. Proof of Lemma 3.4

We assume familiarity with the definition of the DGA invariant, as formulated in . We may suppose, without loss of generality, that $`K=S_+(K^{})`$ for some Legendrian $`K^{}`$. By using, if necessary, Legendrian Reidemeister moves (more precisely, IIb and the mirror of I from \[8, Figure 1\]), we may further assume that the rightmost cusp in $`K^{}`$ is oriented downwards. If we shift the zigzag in $`K=S_+(K^{})`$ next to the rightmost cusp in $`K^{}`$, then $`K`$ and $`S(K,W_0)`$ look like the diagrams in Figure 7 near the rightmost cusp.

The corresponding parts of $`S_+S_{}(K)`$ and $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$ are also shown in Figure 7, and $`S(K,W_0)`$ and $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$ are identical outside the regions depicted. It is easy to check that the degrees of all vertices not depicted are equal for the two Legendrian Whitehead doubles, and that the degrees of the vertices depicted are $`1`$ for $`a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_8,a_9,a_{10},a_{11}`$ and $`0`$ for $`a_5,a_6,a_7,a_{12},a_{13},a_{14},a_{15}`$, in either diagram. Since the regions drawn are the rightmost parts of each double, the DGA for $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$ is simply obtained from the DGA for $`S(K,W_0)`$ by making the following replacements:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}a_2=1ta_5a_6\\ a_3=t^1a_6a_7\\ a_5=a_6=a_7=0\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{c}a_2=1ta_5a_6\\ a_3=t^1a_6a_{12}\\ a_8=1ta_{12}a_{13}\\ a_9=t^1a_{14}a_{13}\\ a_{10}=1ta_{15}a_{14}\\ a_{11}=t^1a_{15}a_7\\ a_5=a_6=a_7=0\\ a_{12}=a_{13}=a_{14}=a_{15}=0\end{array}\right\}.$$

We further note that none of the vertices depicted in Figure 7, besides $`a_1,a_4,a_5,a_7`$, appears anywhere in the DGAs except in the equations above; $`a_5,a_7`$ appear additionally in $`a_1,a_4`$, respectively.

Our goal is to apply elementary automorphisms and algebraic stabilizations (see ) to the DGA for $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$, until we obtain the DGA for $`S(K,W_0)`$. Start with the DGA for $`S(S_+S_{}(K),W_0)`$; we begin by rewriting $`a_3,a_8,a_9,a_{10},a_{11}`$ in a more manageable form.

We first wish to rewrite $`a_3`$ as $`a_3=t^1a_6a_7`$. (Intuitively, this follows from the fact that $`a_5=a_7`$ in the characteristic algebra or in the homology of the DGA.) We define the words $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$ in the DGA as follows, and then compute $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _1& =ta_{15}a_9a_{10}a_{13}\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _2& =ta_{11}\alpha _1a_7\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _3& =a_8a_7a_{12}\alpha _2\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha _1& =a_{15}a_{13}\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _2& =1ta_{13}a_7\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha _3& =a_7a_{12}.\hfill \end{array}$$

If we apply the elementary automorphism $`a_3a_3+a_6\alpha _3`$, then we obtain $`a_3=t^1a_6a_7`$.

In a similar fashion, we can successively replace $`a_{11},a_{10},a_9,a_8`$ as follows: $`a_{11}=t^1a_{15}a_5`$; $`a_{10}=1ta_6a_{14}`$; $`a_9=t^1a_5a_{13}`$; $`a_8=1ta_{12}a_6`$.

For convenience, we now define

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_2=(1ta_6a_5)a_3+a_6a_2a_7\stackrel{~}{a}_2=t^1a_6a_5.$$

By applying the elementary automorphisms $`a_{11}a_{11}+\stackrel{~}{a}_2`$ and $`a_{15}a_{15}+a_6`$, we obtain $`a_{11}=a_{15}a_5`$. Similarly, we may write $`a_{10}=ta_6a_{14}`$, $`a_9=a_5a_{13}`$, $`a_8=ta_{12}a_6`$.

At this point, the DGA has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill a_2& =& 1ta_5a_6\hfill & & \hfill a_9& =& a_5a_{13}\hfill \\ \hfill a_3& =& t^1a_6a_7\hfill & & \hfill a_{10}& =& ta_6a_{14}\hfill \\ \hfill a_8& =& ta_{12}a_6\hfill & & \hfill a_{11}& =& a_{15}a_5\hfill \\ \multicolumn{7}{c}{a_5=a_6=a_7=a_{12}=a_{13}=a_{14}=a_{15}=0.}\end{array}$$

We next eliminate $`a_8,a_{11},a_{12},a_{15}`$ through algebraic stabilization and destabilization. Introduce $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ of degree $`0`$ and $`1`$, respectively, with $`e_1=e_2`$ (and $`e_2=0`$). Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ be the composition of the following elementary automorphisms in succession:

$$a_{12}a_{12}e_1a_5;a_8a_8e_1a_2;e_1e_1+ta_{12}a_6e_2a_2.$$

Under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, the DGA changes as follows:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_8& =ta_{12}a_6\hfill \\ \hfill e_1& =e_2\hfill \\ \hfill a_{12}& =0\hfill \\ \hfill e_2& =0\hfill \end{array}\right\}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_8& =e_1\hfill \\ \hfill e_1& =0\hfill \\ \hfill a_{12}& =e_2a_5\hfill \\ \hfill e_2& =0\hfill \end{array}\right\}.$$

We may then drop $`a_8`$ and $`e_1`$; these simply correspond to an algebraic stabilization.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ be the composition of the following maps:

$$a_{15}a_{15}ta_{12}a_6;a_{11}a_{11}ta_{12}\stackrel{~}{a}_2;a_{12}a_{12}+a_{15}a_5te_2a_5\stackrel{~}{a}_2;a_{15}a_{15}+e_2a_2.$$

Under $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$, the DGA now changes as follows:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{11}& =a_{15}a_5\hfill \\ \hfill a_{12}& =e_2a_5\hfill \\ \hfill a_{15}& =0\hfill \\ \hfill e_2& =0\hfill \end{array}\right\}\stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}{}\left\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{11}& =a_{12}\hfill \\ \hfill a_{12}& =0\hfill \\ \hfill a_{15}& =e_2\hfill \\ \hfill e_2& =0\hfill \end{array}\right\}.$$

We can now drop $`a_{11},a_{12},a_{15},e_2`$; these correspond to two algebraic stabilizations.

Hence, up to algebraic stabilizations, we have eliminated $`a_8,a_{11},a_{12},a_{15}`$. An entirely similar process allows us to eliminate $`a_9,a_{10},a_{13},a_{14}`$. The resulting DGA is precisely the DGA of $`S(K,W_0)`$, as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 4.1.

The only part of this proof which uses the structure of $`W_0`$ is the calculation of the degrees of the vertices in Figure 7. To prove the more general case given in Proposition 3.6, we have to take more care vis-à-vis degrees, but the idea is the same. The proof also extends to knots which are not satellite doubles, but whose rightmost parts look like the bottom diagrams in Figure 7.

###### Remark 4.2.

The method of the proof can also be used to show that the invariant $`HC_{132}`$ introduced by Michatchev  does not encode any nonclassical information for stabilized knots. The computation for this case involves more generators, but less algebra, than the computation performed in this section.


text:
# RANDOMNESS and COLLECTIVITY in NUCLEAR STRUCTURE: Three theoretical puzzles

## 1 Introduction

As we discussed  at the previous conference (S. Agata sui due Golfi, 1998), the ideas of quantum chaos significantly advance our understanding of many-body quantum systems. The new stage of this development is related to the role of incoherent interactions between the constituents. Apart from great theoretical interest, which extends to similar problems in other finite many-body systems as atomic clusters, quantum dots and atomic gases in traps, the progress in this direction would have practical implications for the development of new approaches to the solution of the quantum many-body problem.

Instead of making an attempt to cover recent ideas in a systematic way, we show three examples - puzzles which emerge from numerical modeling of the nuclear many-body problem in restricted Hilbert space. In all three cases, the effect is very clear but its full understanding requires significant theoretical efforts and is not completed until now although below we give plausible explanations.

## 2 Applying exponential convergence

The dimensions of shell model spaces increase dramatically with the number of single-particle orbitals included. This precludes the full shell model diagonalization in practically interesting regions of the nuclear chart. Even in the $`fp`$-shell one still awaits for the full calculation for all nuclei. On the other hand, such a full solution would provide too much unphysical information which is not observable and, moreover, unstable with respect to small variations of the interaction hamiltonian that is never known with high accuracy. In reality we are interested in the properties of relatively few individual states being satisfied with a statistical description for the rest of the spectrum. The average properties of excited states were studied in the shell model framework with the methods of statistical spectroscopy  and, with direct diagonalization, in relation to quantum chaos for atoms  and nuclei . One can expect that a reasonable truncation of the shell model space could be possible when the influence of the remaining part of the basis is accounted for in some average sense.

Let us consider a behavior of the energy eigenvalue for the ground, or one of low-lying, states, as a function of the matrix dimension used for the exact diagonalization in the process of the progressive truncation of the original huge shell model hamiltonian matrix. The generic picture is shown in Fig. 1, taken from . After the initial steep decline, the ground state energy of 49Cr monotonously descends to the exact value; the convergence is almost precisely exponential. This is just one of many available examples, both for the realistic shell model and for random Gaussian matrices. The property of exponential convergence seems to be universal . The full analysis of validity can be performed for tridiagonal matrices with a smooth change of matrix elements along the diagonal.

The underlying physics is based on the saturation property of the energy dispersion of simple, but spin-isospin ($`JT`$) projected, basis states . The centroid $`\overline{E}_k`$ and the width $`\sigma _k`$ of the basis state $`|k`$ can be found prior to the diagonalization in terms of the matrix elements of the shell model hamiltonian:

$$\overline{E}_k=H_{kk},\sigma _k^2=\underset{kl}{}H_{kl}^2.$$
(1)
The widths $`\sigma _k`$ are nearly constant for all states of a given $`JT`$-class, essentially because of the geometric chaoticity of angular momenta coupling of individual particles. This justifies the recipe of statistical spectroscopy  dealing with the centroid $`\overline{E}`$ and average width $`\overline{\sigma }`$ of each shell model partition. Expanding states $`|k`$ in the eigenbasis $`|\alpha `$ of the hamiltonian, $`|k=_\alpha C_k^\alpha |\alpha `$, one can find the strength function $`F_k(E)=_\alpha |C_k^\alpha |^2\delta (EE_\alpha )`$ which also reveals  the saturation property as a function of $`\overline{E}_k`$. The generic shape of the strength function evolves, with the interaction strength increasing, from the standard Breit-Wigner to the Gaussian one  . Among various consequences of this evolution, one can mention  the narrowing of the widths of multiple giant resonances, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\sqrt{n}\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$. In the strong coupling limit, the spreading width stabilizes on the level of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2\overline{\sigma }`$. The strength fragmented to the states at an energy distance $`>\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should become less and less important. Earlier we have suggested  the truncation scheme based on this idea. Now we can complement this with the exponential extrapolation to the exact shell model result.

The detailed shell model analysis  has established that the tails of the strength function fall off almost pure exponentially as a function of the energy distance from the centroid. This phenomenon, which reminds the exponential localization  of electronic coordinate wave functions in disordered solids, is also related to the nonexponential decay of nonstationary states at the early time stage. Based on this result, we can assume that, in the inverted problem of the composition of the eigenstate $`|\alpha `$, the remote basis states $`|k`$ give exponentially small contributions. This is indeed seen in numerous examples.

A practical application of the exponential convergence was recently developed for the calculation of ground state energies of nuclei in the $`fp`$-shell . One starts with the usual partition of the shell model space and calculates the average quantities (1). The configurations are ordered according to their energy centroids $`\overline{E}`$ (this order might be very different from that in the particle-hole scheme). After that the diagonalization is performed with progressive inclusion of new partitions in their “natural” order. At an energy distance of $`(34)\overline{\sigma }`$ from the original centroid, the exponential regime sets in  for low-lying states, see Fig. 1, so that extrapolating the energy dependence on the truncated dimension $`n`$ as $`E(n)=C+B\mathrm{exp}(\gamma n)`$, we can go to the limit of $`n=N`$, the full space dimension.

Using the FPD6 interaction , we calculated in this way ground state energies, spins and isospins for all the lowest $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(NZ)|`$ nuclides from 42Ca to 56Ni. Spins and isospins are reproduced correctly, except for the case of 45Ti where the three levels with $`J=3/2,5/2`$ and 7/2 are within 100 keV both in the experiment and in our calculation. As usual for such calculations, the shell model energies (relative to the 40Ca) require Coulomb corrections  and additional monopole corrections  taking into account the smooth evolution of the mean field with the valence particle number. These corrections lead to the energy shift without changing the wave functions. The resulting mean square deviation of ground state energies from the data is 0.27 MeV. One can conclude that the exponential convergence method is a powerful tool to be used in the shell model framework for the cases when the full calculation is not feasible. The next step in this direction should extend the method to the calculation of observables and transition probabilities.

## 3 Apparently ordered spectra from random interactions

The second puzzle was formulated in the paper  that triggered an extensive theoretical discussion . Consider a finite shell-model space with a rotationally (or/and isospin) invariant two-body interaction. The interaction is fully characterized by a set of parameters $`V_{LI}(j_1j_2;j_3j_4)`$ corresponding to the scattering $`(j_3,j_4)(j_1,j_2)`$ of the fermion pair in the channel with total spin $`L`$ and isospin $`I`$ conserved in the process. Let us randomly select these entries from a matrix ensemble which is more or less arbitrary but hermitian, real and symmetric with respect to the sign of the matrix elements $`V_{LI}`$. If, for simplicity, the single-particle energies are kept degenerate, what will be the distribution function of the quantum numbers of total spin $`J`$ and isospin $`T`$ of the many-body ground state generated by this ensemble?

(i) The first idea coming to our mind is that any $`JT`$-set has a chance to have the lowest energy so that the resulting probability is merely determined by the number of available levels with given $`J`$ and $`T`$ in the Hilbert space. For example, for one kind of particles, according to a traditional consideration of the Fermi-gas level density, the total number $`𝒩(J)`$ of levels with given $`J`$ can be estimated as $`𝒩_{\mathrm{stat}}(J)(2J+1)\mathrm{exp}[J(J+1)/\mathrm{\Theta }]`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is related to the statistical moment inertia determined by the average value of $`m^2`$, the squared single-particle angular momentum projection, in the available space. The maximum of the statistical distribution corresponds to $`2J+1=(2\mathrm{\Theta })^{1/2}`$.

However, this idea turns out to be wrong. As shown in Ref.  and confirmed by many authors, the ground state spin is predominantly (typically with probability exceeding 50%) $`J_0=0`$, although the fraction of states of spin $`J=0`$ is usually quite low. The existence of the effect is very robust and insensitive to the peculiarities of the ensemble. Its magnitude depends on the choice of the ensemble and can exceed 90%. The preponderance of $`J_0=0`$ was found also in interacting boson models . In many cases the fraction of the ground states with maximum possible spin, $`J_0=J_m`$, is also enhanced (the statistical fraction of such states is very low; in a single-$`j`$ model, Fig. 2, the state with $`J=J_m`$ is unique). We know that all even-even nuclei have $`J_0=0`$. Is this fact originated from pairing forces as suggested by the classics of the field , or will the same pattern appear with nearly any physically allowed interaction?

(ii) Statistical spectroscopy  teaches us to characterize the general features of the spectra by the lowest moments of the hamiltonian (centroid, width and so on). Comparing the statistical widths $`\sigma (J)`$ of the subclasses with various values of spin $`J`$, we may expect that if a class of states with given $`J`$ reveals the largest width (even if the deep reason of that is still unclear) the states of this class will be most probably the ground states of the system. However, for a majority of ensembles, this conjecture fails. Fig. 3 shows the widths $`\sigma _J`$ in the single $`j`$-level space for the ensemble of matrix elements $`V_L,L=0,2,\mathrm{},2j1`$, uniformly distributed between $`1`$ and +1 (a system of 6 identical particles). Although the ensemble leads to the dominance of $`J_0=0`$, the statistical width $`\sigma _{J=0}`$ is not maximum ; in some cases even $`\sigma _2>\sigma _0`$. Moreover, to get a significant excess of the ground state probability, the corresponding width should be considerably greater than others which almost never happens.

If the level density at energy $`E`$ for spin $`J`$ is $`\rho _J(E)`$, the probability of finding a state of spin $`J`$ as a ground state can be formally defined as

$$f_J=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\left[\frac{d}{dE}\chi _J(E)\right]\underset{J^{}J}{}\chi _J^{}(E),$$
(2)
where, in terms of the level densities normalized to 1, $`g_J(E)=\rho _J(E)/𝒩_J`$,

$$\chi _J(E)=\left(_E^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}g_J(E^{})\right)^{𝒩_J}.$$
(3)
For uncorrelated densities $`\rho _J`$, eq. (3) indeed prefers the class of states with the greatest width. However, this conclusion is not valid since the densities are strongly correlated being determined by the same interaction matrix elements. The task of calculating the many-point correlation function of level densities is very hard.

(iii) Another alluring idea is that the dominance of $`J_0=0`$ is related to the time-reversal invariant character of the random hamiltonian. If so, the output could be different for a rotationally invariant, hermitian but complex hamiltonian. Physically this can be associated with the fact that the presence of $`J_z0`$ acts as if time-reversal symmetry were broken by selecting a sense of rotation; the corresponding quasi-Goldstone mode would be rotation restoring symmetry by the transformation to another projection $`J_z`$. This idea in the simplest form (introducing an imaginary part of the random matrix element $`V_L`$) does not work  because the ensemble average eliminates all imaginary terms along with the odd powers of $`V_L`$. Still, the idea is promising if associated with the spontaneous symmetry breaking which can be accomplished by the consideration of the body-fixed frame, see below.

(iv) In the first paper  on the subject, see also , it was suggested that usual pairing correlations and the phonon collectivity emerge somehow from the random forces. This statement is correct in a limited sense. Indeed, each realization of the two-body hamiltonian in a many-level shell model space generates its own mean field. Then it is possible to construct the superposition of the particle-hole operators of a given multipolarity (a generalized phonon) which would maximize the coherence and give an enhanced transition probability. In a similar way one can look for the specially selected generalized seniority operator  to enhance the pair transfer processes. Those operators are different in different copies of the ensemble. A comparison with a standard paired state shows that its overlap with the ground states of random interactions is quite small, both in a single $`j`$-case  and in a realistic shell model . The phonon collectivity with a fixed multipole operator is also absent.

(v) Currently the only plausible explanation of the preference of $`J_0=0`$ ground states in randomly interacting systems is based  on the idea of geometric chaoticity. With a random interaction we do not expect any specific shape of the mean field to be singled out. The wave functions are very complicated combinations of shell model basis states. Therefore a statistical approach seems to be suitable which looks for the single-particle density matrix with maximum entropy under constraints of fixed particle number $`N`$ and total spin (isospin). In a single $`j`$-model, the density matrix is diagonal for the aligned state with the total projection $`M=J`$ (analog of the body-fixed frame). Its eigenvalues give the single-particle occupation numbers $`n_m=[\mathrm{exp}(\gamma m\mu )+1]^1`$, where the Lagrange multipliers of chemical potential $`\mu `$ and cranking frequency $`\gamma `$ fix the average values of $`N`$ and $`M`$. The expectation value of the total hamiltonian calculated with such occupation numbers gives the simple approximation for the average yrast line. Depending on the sign of the effective moment of inertia for the given set of $`V_L`$, this leads to $`J_0=0`$ or $`J_0=J_m`$, a normal or inverted band, respectively. Thus we come to a trivial geometric mechanism of the preference for the edge values of the ground state spin. With some improvements, one can reproduce average empirical results.

The energy values estimated with this statistical approach correlate well with the exact numerical values although there is a small systematic discrepancy  in the probability $`f_J`$ for small $`J`$ (the agreement is almost perfect for high $`J`$ including $`J_m`$). One source of the deviation is in the approximation of the expectation value $`\widehat{n}_m\widehat{n}_m^{}`$ by the product of two statistical average values $`n_mn_m^{}`$. In a given wave function the presence of the mean field makes the occupancies slightly dynamically correlated. Apart from that, there is indeed some coherence generated apparently by the off-diagonal matrix elements of the interaction in higher (even) orders. This brings in a small excess of the overlap of the “random” ground state with the paired one compared to a pure statistical (in the sense of the random matrix theory) estimate . By the same reason, the percentage $`f_0`$ of the ground states with $`J_0=0`$ increases when going from the single-$`j`$ case to a more realistic shell model scheme, especially to the set of many spin 1/2 levels, when the role of the off-diagonal pair transfer elements is the most important. This can be seen also in the fact of the overwhelming percentage of the lowest isospin in the ground states. Another example is given  by the specific ensemble which includes only random pairing matrix elements; the sign-independent effect of the off-diagonal pair transfers leads to the percentage $`f_0>90\%`$.

Such dynamical effects are still not fully understood albeit they may be the most interesting and essential for many-body physics in finite quantum systems. The ideas of solving exactly the coherent parts of the interaction (for example, pairing ) and accounting in a statistical spirit for incoherent collision-like processes are in the air promising a new interesting development in the near future.

## 4 Approaching the continuum

The third puzzle comes from an attempt to generalize the shell-model approach for loosely bound or unbound nuclei where the entire dynamics take place on the edge of or already within the continuum. A progress in this direction is essential both for nuclear physics far from stability and for astrophysics. Since the various versions of the shell model with the discrete spectrum work exceedingly well for stable nuclei, it is tempting to consider a realistic mean field where some single-particle orbitals are resonances in the continuum  and include the residual interaction in order to obtain the observable positions and widths of the many-body states.

One example of what happens in such a problem is given by Fig. 4. We assume that the single-particle levels $`ϵ_\nu `$ have some decay width; for simplicity we attribute here a significant width to one upper level shifting its energy to the complex plane, $`ϵϵ(i/2)\gamma `$. Let us switch on a two-body interaction with real random matrix elements $`V`$ (here we do not observe any conservation laws so that all pairs of orbitals are mutually coupled) and find the eigenvalues of the many-body system. Fig. 4 corresponds to the case of 3 particles on 8 equidistant orbitals; the trajectories of the complex energies $`=E_{}(i/2)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are shown as functions of increasing instability $`\gamma `$ of the upper orbital. Instead of complete chaos, we see a more and more regular pattern as $`\gamma `$ increases. Interestingly enough, 21 energies move almost parallel to each other into the complex plane whereas 35 states have a very small width.

It is easy to understand this dynamics of complex energies (or poles of the scattering matrix). The total number of many-body states in this truncated space is $`8!/(3!4!)=56`$. In the limit of large $`\gamma `$, any state which has the upper orbital filled, even with a low probability, will decay very fast. The number of such states corresponds to a number of combinations of the remaining particles within the rest of space, $`7!/(2!5!)=21`$. The increasing original decay width is distributed over the many-body states, since the imaginary part of the trace of the hamiltonian is preserved. As $`\gamma `$ grows, the “self-organization” occurs: fast and slow decaying states are separated in time. In a reaction populating the system, one would see two distinct time scales, corresponding to direct and compound processes. Thus, coupling to the continuum can bring order in a system governed by a random hamiltonian.

The physics we are looking at here was extensively discussed earlier from a different viewpoint . In that approach one starts with the set of many-body states $`|\alpha `$ formed by a normal hermitian interaction hamiltonian $`H`$. The coupling to the continuum is given by the antihermitian part of the effective energy-dependent hamiltonian,

$$W_{\alpha \beta }=\underset{c}{}A_\alpha ^cA_\beta ^c.$$
(4)
Here the sum runs over all decay channels $`c`$ that are open at a given energy, and $`A_\alpha ^c`$ is the decay vertex of an intrinsic state $`|\alpha `$ into a channel $`c`$. The factorizable form of eq. (4) comes from the on-shell contribution of the effective propagator for intrinsic states coupled through the continuum  and unitarity requirements. The complex eigenvalues of the total effective hamiltonian $`=H(i/2)W`$ give the resonance energies. In the weak continuum coupling regime, $`W`$ is a perturbation providing narrow resonance widths. As this coupling becomes strong, a phase transition occurs to the overlap regime with Ericson fluctuations of cross sections and separation of the time scales. A number of states (equal to the number of open channels) gives rise to broad short-lived resonances absorbing the lion’s share of the total width while the remaining compound states become long-lived and reveal internal thermalization and equilibration. This phenomenon, being an analog of the Dicke superadiance in optics , has interesting applications to physics of giant resonances .

In the example above, strictly speaking, all many-body states are nonstationary. In reality there exists a set of threshold energies $`E^{(c)}`$ determined by the $`Q`$-values of a reaction in channel $`c`$. The amplitudes $`A_\alpha ^c`$ depend on running energy $`E`$ and have a branching point at threshold , for example in the case of decay into an $`s`$-wave in the continuum, $`A_\alpha ^c(EE^{(c)})^{1/2}`$. Therefore, in principle, the hybrid approach combining the shell model with the effective nonhermitian hamiltonian allows for a self-consistent calculation of discrete levels, resonances and reaction cross sections. Being technically very difficult, this problem is of vital importance for physics of weakly bound nuclei. Far away of thresholds, the method of a nonhermitian hamiltonian was used  for the microscopic derivation and analysis of the kinetics of resonance population and decay. Two phenomena, the loss of the collective strength , and the restoration of isospin purity at high excitation energy  naturally follow from this consideration.

## 5 Conclusion

Three “puzzles” briefly discussed above show significant gaps in current theory of nuclear structure and reactions. The blunt diagonalization of huge shell-model matrices cannot be an optimal way of solving the nuclear many-body problem. Even randomly taken but geometrically correct interactions generate some features of observed regular spectra. The presence of continuum aligns the intrinsic states along the new “axis” related to their ability to decay. Those are just particular examples of new avenues which should be actively studied.

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from the NSF grants 96-05207 and 0070911.

## References