text:
# Parity Effect and Tunnel Magnetoresistance of Ferromagnet / Superconductor / Ferromagnet Single-Electron Tunneling Transistors

## Abstract

We theoretically study the tunnel magnetoresistance(TMR) of ferromagnet / superconductor / ferromagnet single-electron tunneling transistors with a special attention to the parity effect. It is shown that in the plateau region, there is no spin accumulation in the island even at finite bias voltage. However, the information of the injected spin is carried by the excess electron and thus the TMR exists. The spin relaxation rate of the excess electron can be estimated from the TMR. We also show that the TMR increases with decreasing the size of the superconducting island.

Single-electron tunneling(SET) transistor is a key device of “single electronics” since the transfer of a single electron can be controlled by gate and bias voltages Grabert and Devoret (1992); Sohn et al. (1996). The important quantity of the SET transistor is the electrostatic energy of excess electrons in the island called “charging energy”, which has a significant effect on charge transport, i. e. , the Coulomb blockade(CB) Grabert and Devoret (1992). In the CB region, sequential tunneling, where tunneling events in each junction occur independently, is blocked at $`T=0`$ due to the increase of the charging energy. Recently much attention has been devoted to the SET transistor with a superconducting island and normal conducting electrodes(N/S/N) Fazio and Schön ; Ralph et al. ; Averin and Nazarov (1992); Tuominen et al. (1992); Eiles et al. (1993); Utsumi et al. (2002). In a superconducting island, where Cooper pairs form the condensate, the addition of one extra electron costs the superconducting gap energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This leads to the parity effect: physical properties of the system depend on the parity of the electron number in the island. In SET transistors consisting of normal conducting islands and electrodes(N/N/N) the current depends $`e`$ periodically on the gate charge. However, the tunneling current of the N/S/N SET transistor is expected to be 2$`e`$ periodic in the gate charge below the crossover temperature due to the parity effectFazio and Schön . The clear signature of 2$`e`$ periodicity for the N/S/N SET transistor was observedTuominen et al. (1992); Eiles et al. (1993).

The research on the N/S/N SET transistor has focused primary on the charge degrees of freedom of electrons, by contrast, its spin degrees of freedom have not yet received much attention. However, an increasing number of researches on spin-electronics show that the spin of electron offers unique possibilities for finding novel mechanisms for future spin-electronic devices Maekawa and Shinjo (2002); Ziese and Thornton (2001). The spin-polarized current injected from a ferromagnetic(F) electrode into the N or S island gives rise to a nonequilibrium spin density in the island. In the F/N/F SET transistor, the tunnel magnetoresistance(TMR) is brought about by spin accumulation in the island Imamura et al. (1999); Brataas et al. (1999); Barnaś and Fert (1998); Korotkov and Safarov (1999). Recently Takahashi et al. have studied the magnetoresistive effects of the F/S/F double tunnel junction caused by competition between superconductivity and spin accumulation Takahashi et al. (1999). They have shown that the F/S/F double tunnel junction is a magnetoresistive device to control superconductivity by applying the bias voltage or current. The suppression of the superconductivity by the spin injection in the double tunnel junction was observed by Dong et al. Dong et al. (1997).

In this article, we theoretically study the spin-dependent transport of the F/S/F SET transistors at zero temperature with a special attention to the parity effect. We assume that the charging energy $`E_C`$ is larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and neglect the two-electron tunneling Hekking et al. (1993) which becomes important in the opposite situation ($`E_C<\mathrm{\Delta }`$). In such a system, we have the special region called “plateau region” where the tunneling current is dominated by the transition rate from the odd-state to the even-state Fazio and Schön . We show that in the plateau region, spin accumulation is forbidden by the superconducting gap even at finite bias voltage. However, the information of the injected spin is carried by the excess electron and the TMR exists. The spin relaxation rate of the excess electron can be estimated from the TMR. We also show that the TMR increases as the size of the island decreases.

We consider the F/S/F SET transistor shown in Fig. 1 (a). For simplicity we assume that the insulating barriers of junctions 1(left) and 2(right) are the same; we subsequently set $`C_1=C_2C`$. We also assume that the left and right electrodes are made of the same material with the spin polarization $`P`$.

The Hamiltonian of the SET transistor is given by

$$H=H_L+H_I+H_R+H_{ch}+H_{TL}+H_{TR},$$
(1)
where $`H_L`$, $`H_I`$, and $`H_R`$ are the Hamiltonians of the left electrode, the central island, and the right electrode, respectively. The Hamiltonian $`H_{ch}`$ represents the charging energy and the tunneling processes are described by

$$H_{TL(R)}=\underset{k,q,\sigma }{}T_{kq}^{L(R)}c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{q\sigma }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(2)
where the subscript $`k`$ indicates the wave vector in the left(right) electrode while $`q`$ represents that in the island and no spin flip is assumed in the tunneling process.

The energy change due to the forward tunneling of an electron with spin $`\sigma `$ through the junctions 1 and 2 are respectively given by

$`E_1^+(n)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+2n)E_c{\displaystyle \frac{C_g}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}eV_g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eV`$ (3)
$`E_2^{}(n)`$ $`=`$ $`(12n)E_c+{\displaystyle \frac{C_g}{C_\mathrm{\Sigma }}}eV_g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}eV,`$ (4)
where $`n`$ is the number of excess electrons of the initial state in the island, $`C_\mathrm{\Sigma }2C+C_g`$, and the superscripts $`\pm `$ implies that the number of excess electrons in the final state is $`n\pm 1`$. The energy changes for the backward tunneling are given by $`E_1^{}(n)=E_2^{}(n)+eV`$ and $`E_2^+(n)=E_1^+(n)+eV`$.

In ordinary tunnel junctions with negligible charging effect, individual electrons are unstable for the forward tunneling across the junction, and lower their energy by the bias potential ($`eV/2<0`$). In SET transistors, however, there are special regions called CB region in the gate and bias voltage diagram, where the charge state of the island with $`n`$ excess electrons is stable with respect to tunneling. For the symmetric SET transistor with a normal conducting island, the CB regions are the rhombuses determined by $`E_1^+(n),E_1^{}(n),E_2^+(n)`$, and $`E_2^{}(n)0`$. The boundaries of CB regions are indicated by thin dashed lines in Fig. 1 (b).

For the superconducting island, however, it is know that these boundaries are modified by superconductivity. In order to obtain the modified CB regions, we evaluate the tunneling rates following Fazio and Schön Fazio and Schön . Since the island is in the superconducting state, it is convenient to rewrite the electron operators in the island in terms of the quasiparticle operators by using the Bogoliubov transformations. Then the transition rates are determined by using the Golden-rule arguments Fazio and Schön . Let us first consider an electron tunnels from the left electrode into the island with $`n=0`$, thereby changing the electron number from $`n=0`$ to $`n=1`$ with the rate

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^+(0)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2R_{1\sigma }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E^{}𝒟(E^{})`$ (5)
$`\times f(E)\left[1f(E^{})\right]\delta (E^{}E+E_1^+(0)),`$
where $`𝒟(E)|E|/\sqrt{E^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}`$ is the normalized BCS density of states and $`f(E)`$ is the Fermi distribution function. The tunnel conductance of the junction is defined as $`R_{1\sigma }^1(4\pi e^2/\mathrm{})N_\sigma ^IN_\sigma ^L|T|^2`$, where the tunnel matrix elements $`T_{kq}^L`$ and $`T_{kq}^R`$ are considered as a constant $`T`$ and $`N_\sigma ^{I(L)}`$ denotes the density of states of the island in the normal conducting state(left electrode). Since we assume the temperature is zero, the Fermi distribution function can be replaced by the step function and we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^+(0)& =\{\begin{array}{cc}0& (E_1^+(0)\mathrm{\Delta })\\ \frac{\sqrt{E_1^+(0)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{e^2R_{1\sigma }}& (E_1^+(0)<\mathrm{\Delta })\end{array}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
Therefore, the boundary of the CB region for $`n=0`$ given by $`E_1^+(0)=0`$ is lifted to the solid line determined by $`E_1^+(0)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as shown in Fig. 1 (b). The other three boundaries also shift outward and the CB region is determined by $`E_1^+(0),E_1^{}(0),E_2^+(0)`$, and $`E_2^{}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Next we consider an electron tunnels from the island with $`n=1`$ to the right electrode, thereby changing the electron number from $`n=1`$ to $`n=0`$ with the rate

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{}(1)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2R_{2\sigma }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑E^{}𝒟(E)`$ (7)
$`\times f(E\delta \mu )\left[1f(E^{})\right]\delta (E^{}E+E_2^{}(1)),`$
where $`R_{2\sigma }^1=(4\pi e^2/\mathrm{})N_\sigma ^IN_\sigma ^R|T|^2`$ and $`\delta \mu `$ is the shift of the chemical potential fixed by the constraint of one excess electron charge in the island Fazio and Schön . The shift of the chemical potential is $`\delta \mu =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\sigma }^{}(1)& =\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{ }(E_2^{}(1)\mathrm{\Delta })\hfill \\ \frac{d}{e^2R_{2\sigma }}\text{ }(|E_2^{}(1)|<\mathrm{\Delta })\hfill \\ \frac{d}{e^2R_{2\sigma }}+\frac{\sqrt{E_2^{}(1)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{e^2R_{2\sigma }}\hfill \\ \text{ }(E_2^{}(1)\mathrm{\Delta })\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array},$$
(8)
where $`d=1/N_\sigma ^I`$ is the average level spacing of the island. Therefore, the boundary of the CB region for $`n=1`$ given by $`E_2^{}(1)=0`$ is also moved to the solid line determined by $`E_2^{}(1)=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as shown in Fig. 1 (b). The other three boundaries also shift inward and the CB region is determined by $`E_1^+(1),E_1^{}(1),E_2^+(1)`$, and $`E_2^{}(1)\mathrm{\Delta }`$. One can easily show that the CB regions for the other even(odd) states are spread(squeezed) like that for $`n=0(1)`$.

Adjacent to the CB region, we have a so-called “plateau region” where the tunneling current is dominated by the tunneling rate through one junction which behaves like a bottleneck of the tunneling current. In the plateau region the tunneling current is carried by the even and the odd states in the following manner. An electron with spin $`\sigma `$ tunnels into the island from the left electrode. While staying in the island, the spin of the electron relaxes due to the spin orbit interaction, surface scattering, and/or the hyperfine contact interaction Yafet (1983). After a certain time period determined by the tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\sigma }^{}(1)`$, the electron tunnels out of the island. Therefore, no spin accumulation occurs even at the finite bias voltage. Outside the plateau region, continuous quasiparticle states contribute to the tunneling current and the spin accumulation can exist.

We consider the tunneling current and TMR in the plateau region, for example, indicated by shade in Fig. 1 (b), which is determined by $`E_1^+(0)<\mathrm{\Delta },E_1^+(1)>\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`|E_2^{}(1)|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In this region, the following three states are available: $`|0`$ three is no excess electron in the island, $`|`$ there is one up-spin excess electron in the island, $`|`$ there is one down-spin excess electron in the island. The transition rate from $`|0`$ to $`|\sigma `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\sigma }^+(0)=\frac{1}{e^2R_{1\sigma }}\sqrt{E_1^+(0)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2},$$
(9)
and the transition rate from $`|\sigma `$ to $`|0`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2\sigma }^{}(1)=\frac{d}{e^2R_{2\sigma }}.$$
(10)
We also introduce the spin relaxation rate $`\eta `$ which corresponds to the transition rate between $`|`$ and $`|`$.

In order to obtain the tunneling current, we construct the master equation for the probabilities of states $`p_0`$, $`p_{}`$, and $`p_{}`$, which is given by

$`\dot{p}_0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}p_{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}p_{}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\right)p_0`$ (11)
$`\dot{p}_\sigma =\eta \left(p_{\overline{\sigma }}p_\sigma \right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}p_\sigma `$ (12)
with the normalization condition $`p_0+p_{}+p_{}=1`$. We calculate the stationary probabilities by requiring $`\dot{p}_0=\dot{p}_{}=\dot{p}_{}=0`$. The solutions are

$`p_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+}{\gamma }}`$ (13)
$`p_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\sigma }}^+\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}}{\gamma }},`$ (14)
where $`\gamma =_{\sigma =}\eta \left(2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}`$ and the subscript $`\overline{\sigma }`$ represents the spin direction opposite to $`\sigma `$. The similar result has been obtained for the single discrete level systemRudziński and Barnaś (2001). Knowing the stationary probabilities we can calculate the tunneling current through the left junction

$$I=ep_0\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^+\right).$$
(15)
The tunneling current of the F/S/F SET transistor given by Eq. (15) depends strongly on whether the magnetizations in ferromagnetic electrodes are parallel or antiparallel. For the ferromagnetic(F)-alignment, where the magnetizations are parallel, the junction resistances can be expressed as $`R_1=R_2=R_M`$ and $`R_1=R_2=R_m`$. Here $`R_M`$ is the junction resistance for electrons in the majority spin band and $`R_m=(1P)/(1+P)R_M`$ is for those in the minority spin band. We write the transition rates by using the subscripts $`M`$ and $`m`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\pm =\mathrm{\Gamma }_m^\pm `$. Introducing $`\alpha R_m/R_M`$, $`\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^+`$,$`\zeta \eta /\mathrm{\Gamma }_M^{}`$, the probability of the state $`|0`$ for the F-alignment is expressed by

$$p_0^F=\frac{\zeta \beta (\alpha +1)+\alpha \beta }{\zeta (\alpha +1)(\beta +2)+\alpha (\beta +2)}=\frac{\beta }{\beta +2}.$$
(16)
The probability $`p_0^F`$ is independent of the spin relaxation rate. For the antiferromagnetic(A)-alignment, where the magnetizations are antiparallel, the probability of the even state is

$$p_0^A=\frac{\zeta \beta (\alpha +1)+\alpha \beta }{\zeta (\alpha +1)(\beta +2)+\alpha ^2+\alpha \beta +1}.$$
(17)
The TMR is calculated by the formula $`TMR=1I_A/I_F`$. From Eqs. (15)- (17), we have

$`TMR={\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha 1)^2}{\zeta (\alpha +1)(\beta +2)+\alpha ^2+\alpha \beta +1}}.`$ (18)
The value $`\beta `$ is much smaller than unity in almost all area of the plateau region since $`dE_C`$. If we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$=0.18 meV (Aluminum), $`E_C`$=8.0meV and $`d=3.0\times 10^5`$ meV Ralph et al. , then we have $`\beta =3.8\times 10^6`$ at the center of the plateau region. In Figure 2, the TMR for $`\beta =3.8\times 10^6`$ is plotted against the normalized spin relaxation rate $`\zeta `$. The TMR is monotonically decreasing function of $`\zeta `$ and the spin relaxation rate of an excess electron $`\eta `$ can be estimated from the TMR by fitting the experimental data. If there is no spin relaxation process in the island, $`\zeta =0`$, the TMR is approximately given by $`TMR2P^2/(1+P^2)`$.

The fact that the TMR depends on the spin relaxation rate $`\eta `$ via its normalized value $`\zeta `$ means that how much the spin information is transmitted is determined by the competition between the spin relaxation rate and the tunneling rate through the right junction. In the plateau region the inverse of the tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{M(m)}^{}`$ describes how long the excess electron with majority(minority) spin stays in the island. Therefore, the normalized spin relaxation rate $`\zeta `$ represents the probability that the electron with the majority spin tunnels out of the island holding its spin direction and the TMR is a function of $`\zeta `$.

In the WKB approximation, the value $`|T|^2`$ is inversely proportional to the length of the island $`L`$ Bardeen (1961); Harrison (1961). If the junction parameters other than $`L`$ are kept fixed, the density of states $`N_\sigma ^I(=1/d)`$ is proportional to $`L`$. In this situation, the tunneling rate through the left junction does not depend on $`L`$ since the size dependences of $`|T|^2`$ and $`N_\sigma ^I`$ in $`R_\sigma ^1`$ cancel out. On the contrary, the tunneling rate through the right junction is inversely proportional to $`L`$. The normalized spin relaxation rate $`\zeta `$ decreases and therefore the TMR increases with decreasing $`L`$. In Fig. 3 the TMR of the F/S/F SET transistor with $`P=0.45`$, which is the typical value for Co Moodera and Mathon (1999), is plotted against the spin relaxation rate $`\eta `$ for various values of $`L`$. We assume that the area of the junction is fixed at 20 nm $`\times `$ 70 nm and $`L`$=2000 nm, 200, and 20 nm corresponding to the Aluminum island with the average level spacing $`d=3.0\times 10^5`$, $`3.0\times 10^4`$, and $`3.0\times 10^3`$ meV, respectively Ralph et al. . For the spin relaxation rate $`\eta =10^7`$ s<sup>-1</sup>, which is of the same order as that caused by the hyperfine contact interaction Yafet (1983), the TMR is 0.26, 2.4, and 15 % for $`L`$ = 2000, 200, and 20 nm, respectively.

Very recently, Chen et al. reported the experimental evidence for suppression of superconductivity by spin imbalance in Co/Al/Co SET transistorsChen et al. (2002). Although they observed the spin imbalance outside the plateau region, their experimental results show that the effect we proposed is relevant to current experiments.

In conclusion, we theoretically study the TMR of F/S/F SET transistors with $`E_C>\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We show that in the plateau region, there is no spin accumulation even at the finite bias voltage. However, the information of the injected spin is carried by the excess electron and the TMR exists. The spin relaxation rate of the excess electron can be estimated from the TMR. We also found that the TMR increases with decreasing the size of the superconducting island.

We would like to thank S. Maekawa and S. Takahashi for valuable discussions. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C), No. 14540321 from MEXT. H.I. was supported by MEXT, Grantin-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists, No. 13740197.


format: text

text:
# Phase Transition in a Random Fragmentation Problem with Applications to Computer Science

## Abstract

We study a fragmentation problem where an initial object of size $`x`$ is broken into $`m`$ random pieces provided $`x>x_0`$ where $`x_0`$ is an atomic cut-off. Subsequently the fragmentation process continues for each of those daughter pieces whose sizes are bigger than $`x_0`$. The process stops when all the fragments have sizes smaller than $`x_0`$. We show that the fluctuation of the total number of splitting events, characterized by the variance, generically undergoes a nontrivial phase transition as one tunes the branching number $`m`$ through a critical value $`m=m_c`$. For $`m<m_c`$, the fluctuations are Gaussian where as for $`m>m_c`$ they are anomalously large and non-Gaussian. We apply this general result to analyze two different search algorithms in computer science.

PACS numbers: 02.50.-r, 05.40.-a, 89.20.-a 22 April 2002

Fragmentation is a widely studied phenomena with applications ranging from conventional fracture of solids and collision induced fragmentation in atomic nuclei/aggregates to seemingly unrelated fields such as disordered systems and geology. In this paper we consider a problem where an object of initial size (or length) $`x`$ is first broken into $`m`$ random pieces of sizes $`x_i=r_ix`$ with $`_{i=1}^mr_i=1`$ provided the initial size $`x>x_0`$ where $`x_0`$ is a fixed ‘atomic’ threshold. At the next stage, each of those $`m`$ pieces with sizes bigger than $`x_0`$ is further broken into $`m`$ random pieces and so on. Clearly the process stops after a finite number of fragmentation or splitting events when the sizes of all the pieces become less than $`x_0`$. This problem and its close cousins have already appeared in numerous contexts including the energy cascades in turbulence, rupture processes in earthquakes, stock market crashes, binary search algorithms, stochastic fragmentation and DNA segmentation algorithms. It therefore comes as somewhat of a surprise that there is a nontrivial phase transition in this problem as one tunes the branching number $`m`$ through a critical value $`m=m_c`$.

In this Letter we study analytically the statistics of the total number of fragmentation events $`n(x)`$ up till the end of the process as a function of the initial size $`x`$. We show that, while the average number of events $`\mu (x)`$ always grows linearly with $`x`$ for large $`x`$, the asymptotic behavior of the variance $`\nu (x)`$, characterizing the fluctuations, undergoes a phase transition at a critical value $`m=m_c`$,

$$\nu (x)\{\begin{array}{cc}x\hfill & m<m_c\text{,}\hfill \\ x^{2\theta }\hfill & mm_c\hfill \end{array}.$$
(1)
The exponent $`\theta `$ is nontrivial and increases monotonically with $`m`$ for $`mm_c`$ starting at $`\theta (m=m_c)=1/2`$ and the amplitude of the leading $`x^{2\theta }`$ term has log-periodic oscillations for $`mm_c`$. This signals unusually large fluctuations in $`n(x)`$ for $`m>m_c`$. The full distribution of $`n(x)`$ also changes from being Gaussian for $`m<m_c`$ to non-Gaussian for $`m>m_c`$. This phase transition is rather generic for any fragmentation problem with an ‘atomic’ threshold. However the critical value $`m_c`$ and the exponent $`\theta `$ are nonuniversal and depend on the distribution function of the random fractions $`r_i`$’s. In this Letter we establish this generic phase transition and then calculate explicitly $`m_c`$ and $`\theta `$ for two special cases with direct applications in computer science.

In this fragmentation problem with a fixed lower cut-off $`x_0`$, one first breaks the initial piece of length $`x`$ provided $`x>x_0`$ into $`m`$ pieces of sizes $`x_i=r_ix`$. The sizes of each of these ‘daughters’ are then examined. Only those pieces whose sizes exceed $`x_0`$ are considered ‘active’ and those with sizes less than $`x_0`$ are considered ‘frozen’. Each of the active pieces is then subsequently broken into $`m`$ pieces and so on. The fractions $`r_i`$’s characterizing a splitting event are considered to be independent from one event to another but are drawn each time from the same joint distribution function $`\eta _m(r_1,r_2,\mathrm{}r_m)`$. As the splitting process conserves the total size, the fractions $`r_i`$’s satisfy the constraint $`_{i=1}^mr_i=1`$. In addition, we consider the splitting process to be isotropic, i.e., all the $`m`$ daughters resulting from a splitting event are statistically equivalent. This indicates that the marginal distribution of any one of the $`r_i`$’s is independent of $`i`$ and is given by,

$$\eta _1(r)=\eta _m(r,r_2,\mathrm{}r_m)\underset{i=2}{\overset{m}{}}dr_i.$$
(2)
We will henceforth denote the average over the whole history of the splitting procedure (till the end of the process) as $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ and the average over the $`r_i`$’s associated with a single splitting event as $``$. The conservation law along with the isotropy implies that $`r=\eta _1(r)r𝑑r=1/m`$.

Clearly the total number of splitting events $`n(x)=0`$ if $`x<x_0`$. On the other hand if $`x>x_0`$ there will be at least one splitting and it is easy to write a recursion relation for $`n(x)`$,

$$n(x)=1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}n(r_ix).$$
(3)
Using the isotropy of the splitting distribution and taking the average over Eq. (3), we find that $`\mu (x)\overline{n(x)}`$ satisfies the recursion for $`x>x_0`$,

$$\mu (x)=1+m\mu (rx)=1+m_{x_0/x}^1𝑑r\eta _1(r)\mu (rx),$$
(4)
where the lower limit in the above integral comes from the condition $`n(x)=0`$ for $`x<x_0`$. Without any loss of generality we set $`x_0=1`$, i.e., we measure all sizes in units of the atomic size. Since $`1x<\mathrm{}`$ in Eq. (4), it is convenient to make a change of variable $`x=e^\alpha `$ so that $`0\alpha <\mathrm{}`$ and write $`\mu (e^\alpha )=F(\alpha )`$. The resulting equation for $`F(\alpha )`$ is solved by taking the Laplace transform of Eq. (4) and one finds that $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha F(\alpha )e^{s\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=\frac{1}{s\left[1mw(s)\right]},$$
(5)
where $`w(s)=r^s=_0^1𝑑r\eta _1(r)r^s`$. Assuming $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)`$ has simple poles at $`s=\lambda _k`$, the Laplace transform in Eq. (5) can be inverted to obtain $`\mu (x)=a_0+_ka_kx^{\lambda _k}`$ with $`a_0=1/(1m)`$ (coming from the pole at $`s=0`$) and $`a_k=1/[m\lambda _kw^{}(\lambda _k)]`$. From the conservation law $`r=1/m`$, one finds that $`s=1`$ is always a pole of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)`$. Besides, since $`0r1`$, the pole at $`s=1`$ is also the one with the largest real part and hence will dominate the large $`x`$ behavior of $`\mu (x)`$. Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ denote the pair of complex conjugate poles with the next largest real part. Then keeping only the leading corrections to the asymptotic behavior one finds

$$\mu (x)a_1x+a_2x^\lambda +a_2^{}x^\lambda ^{},$$
(6)
where $`a_1=1/[mw^{}(1)]=1/[m_0^1𝑑r\eta _1(r)r\mathrm{ln}(r)]`$.

We now turn to the variance $`\nu (x)`$ of the total number of splittings $`n(x)`$:

$$\nu (x)=\overline{\left(n(x)\mu (x)\right)^2}.$$
(7)
By squaring Eq. (3) and after some straightforward algebra we find the recursion relation

$$\nu (x)=f(x)+m_{1/x}^1𝑑r\eta _1(r)\nu (rx),$$
(8)
where $`f(x)=\left(_{i=1}^m\left[\mu (r_ix)\mu (rx)\right]\right)^2`$. Once again the change of variable $`x=e^\alpha `$ followed by a subsequent Laplace transform with respect to $`\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\alpha \nu (e^\alpha )e^{s\alpha }`$ yields,

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }(s)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}(s)}{s\left[1mw(s)\right]}.$$
(9)
Using the asymptotic expression of $`\mu (x)`$ from Eq. (6) in the expression for $`f(x)`$ one finds that the leading term of $`f(x)`$ for large $`x`$ is given by

$$f(x)b_1x^{2\lambda }+b_2x^{2\lambda ^{}}+b_3x^{(\lambda +\lambda ^{})},$$
(10)
where the $`b_j`$’s are constants. These behaviors indicate that $`\stackrel{~}{f}(s)`$ has poles at $`s=2\lambda `$, $`s=2\lambda ^{}`$ and $`s=\lambda +\lambda ^{}`$. Thus when $`Re(\lambda )<1/2`$, these poles occur to the left of $`s=1`$ in the complex $`s`$ plane. From Eq. (9) it follows that the asymptotic large $`x`$ behavior of $`\nu (x)`$ will then be controlled by the $`s=1`$ pole arising from the denominator $`\left[1mw(s)\right]`$ and $`\nu (x)x`$ for large $`x`$. On the other hand when $`Re(\lambda )>1/2`$, the dominant poles governing the large $`x`$ behavior are the three poles of $`\stackrel{~}{f}(s)`$ with real part $`2Re(\lambda )>1`$. Hence in that case, $`\nu (x)x^{2\theta }`$ where $`\theta =Re(\lambda )`$. Note also that for $`Re(\lambda )1/2`$, the amplitude of the leading term $`x^{2\theta }`$ in $`\nu (x)`$ will have log-periodic oscillations due to the nonzero imaginary parts of the poles $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$. This phase transition will always occur whenever one can tune the pole $`\lambda `$ continuously through the critical value $`Re(\lambda )=1/2`$. In the following two examples we show explicitly that this can be achieved, in a natural way, by tuning the branching number $`m`$.

The m-ary search tree: It is well known that one of the most efficient ways to sort the incoming data to a computer is to organize the data on a tree. Consider the sorting of an incoming data string consisting of $`N`$ distinct elements labelled by the sequence $`1,2,\mathrm{}N`$. Consider a particular random sequence of arrival of these $`N`$ elements (see Fig. 1). An m-ary search tree stores this sequence on a growing tree structure where each node of the tree can contain at most $`(m1)`$ data points. A node if filled branches into $`m`$ leaves. The first $`(m1)`$ elements are stored in the root of the tree in an ordered sequence $`w_1<w_2\mathrm{}<w_{m1}`$. Any subsequent element must belong to one of $`m`$ sets of numbers $`A_1=[1,w_1)`$, $`A_i=(w_i,w_{i+1})`$ with $`1im2`$ and $`A_m=(w_{m1},N]`$. Associated with each of these sets or intervals we associate a leaf of the tree leading to a new node. A new data point $`w`$, arriving subsequently, is sent down the leaf corresponding to the set $`A_i`$ if $`wA_i`$ and is stored in a daughter node at the base of that leaf. Once a daughter node is filled with $`m1`$ numbers it in turn gives rise to $`m`$ new leaves and so on. An example for a 3-ary search tree with $`N=10`$ is shown in Fig. (1).

Each sequence of the incoming data will give rise to a different $`m`$-ary tree configuration. If the incoming data is random, all the trees occur with equal probability. It is easy to see that the total number of occupied nodes $`M`$ (each containing at least one element) is a random variable as it varies from one tree configuration to another, except for $`m=2`$ where $`M=N`$. The statistics of $`M`$ was recently studied by computer scientists using rather involved combinatorial analysis and it was found that while $`\overline{M}N`$ for large $`N`$, the variance $`\nu N`$ for $`m<26`$ and as $`N^{2\theta }`$ for $`m>26`$. We show below that this strange result is just a special case of the general phase transition in the fragmentation problem discussed here.

The construction of the $`m`$-ary search tree can be mapped exactly onto the splitting of the interval $`[1,N]`$ . It is easy to see that the incoming elements $`w_1,w_2\mathrm{}w_{m1}`$ split the initial interval into $`m`$ parts $`A_i`$. If all the $`N!`$ possible sequences arrive with equal probability then the points $`w_1,w_2\mathrm{}w_{m1}`$ are distributed uniformly on $`[1,N]`$ (these are the numbers stored in the first node). We split the interval $`[1,N]`$ into $`m`$ subintervals corresponding to the $`A_i`$’s introduced above. If a subinterval $`A_i`$ is empty (i.e. has no $``$ in Fig. (2)) then no data points can go down the corresponding leaf and hence such an interval (of length $`<2`$) will not split any further. If the subset $`A_i`$ contains only one $``$, the arrival of the corresponding single data point still splits the interval into $`m`$ parts (some of the intervals so created may be of length 0). This corresponds to the atomic threshold $`x_0=2`$ in our general problem and $`x=N/2`$ corresponds to the initial size in units of the atomic size.

The crucial point is that the number of occupied nodes $`M`$ in the $`m`$-ary search tree is identical to the number of splittings $`n(x=N/2)`$ in this fragmentation problem. For large $`N`$ one can pass to a continuum limit and use the known marginal probability density function $`\eta _1(r)=(m1)(1r)^{m2}`$ for the continuum interval splitting problem in our general formula. We get $`\overline{M}=\mu (x=N/2)a_1N/2`$ for large $`N`$ where $`a_1=1/[_{k=2}^m1/k]`$. Also $`w(s)=r^s=(m1)B(s+1,m1)`$ where $`B(m,n)`$ is the standard Beta function. Therefore the poles of $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)`$ in Eq. (5) occur at the roots of the equation $`m(m1)B(s+1,m1)=1`$. It is easy to check using Mathematica that one can arrive at the critical condition $`Re(\lambda )=1/2`$ by tuning $`m`$ through the value $`m=m_c26.0461\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, from our general theory, we find that the variance $`\nu N`$ for $`m<m_c`$ and $`\nu N^{2\theta }`$ for $`m>m_c`$. The exponent $`\theta =Re(\lambda )`$ where $`\lambda `$ is the root of $`m(m1)B(s+1,m1)=1`$ that is closest (to the left) to $`s=1`$ when $`m>m_c`$.

Cuboid Splitting: In the previous problem we have considered the sorting of a data string where each element is a scalar. A natural generalization is when each element is a $`D`$-dimensional vector $`𝐰`$ whose $`k`$-th component $`w_k[0,l_k]`$ for $`1kD`$. The first element of the data string is then assigned to the point $`𝐰`$ in the cuboid of edge lengths $`l_k`$. If the first element is random, then its components $`w_k=u_kl_k`$, where the $`u_k`$ are independent random variables uniformly distributed on $`[0,1]`$. Once this first element is stored, it splits the original cuboid into $`2^D`$ sub-cuboids obtained by drawing $`D`$ lines perpendicular to each of the faces of the cuboid (see Fig. 2). When the second vector arrives, one compares its components with that of the first element and places it in one of the $`2^D`$ sub-cuboids (and thereby splits that sub-cuboid) and the process continues. After each splitting event, the dimensions of the $`m=2^D`$ new sub-cuboids can be represented by $`l_k^{}(\sigma )=l_ku_k(1+\sigma _k)/2+l_k(1u_k)(1\sigma _k)/2`$, where the $`\sigma _k`$ are Ising spins. An example with $`D=2`$ is shown in Fig(2).

The volume of any of the sub-cuboids upon splitting the cuboid of volume $`x`$ is $`x^{}=xr(\sigma )`$, where $`r(\sigma )=_{k=1}^D\left(u_k(1+\sigma _k)/2+(1u_k)(1\sigma _k)/2\right)`$. Hence in this problem one has $`m=2^D`$ and the marginal distribution of a given $`r(\sigma )`$ can be shown to be

$$\eta _1(r)=\frac{[\mathrm{ln}(r)]^{D1}}{(D1)!},0r1.$$
(11)
From Eq.(5) with this marginal distribution one finds that

$$\stackrel{~}{F}(s)=\frac{1}{s\left(1\frac{2^D}{(s+1)^D}\right)}.$$
(12)
One then finds $`\mu (x)2x/D`$ for large $`x`$. The function $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s)`$ has a total of $`(D+1)`$ poles: one at $`s=0`$ and the others at $`s=1+2e^{2\pi in/D}`$ with $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}(D1)`$. The poles closest to the left of $`s=1`$ are the complex conjugate pair $`\lambda =1+2e^{2\pi i/D}`$ and $`\lambda ^{}=1+2e^{2\pi i/D}`$. Thus $`Re(\lambda )=1+2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /D)`$. From our general theory, it follows that by tuning $`m`$ or equivalently $`D`$, it is possible to encounter the critical point $`Re(\lambda )=1/2`$ at $`D=D_c=\pi /\mathrm{sin}^1(1/2\sqrt{2})=8.69\mathrm{}`$. Hence the variance $`\nu (x)x`$ for $`D<D_c`$, and for $`DD_c`$, $`\nu (x)x^{2\theta }`$ where $`\theta =Re(\lambda )=2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi /D)1`$.

We have verified the above predictions by numerically carrying out the splitting procedure on a large number of samples with atomic cut-off $`x_0=1`$. The analytical predictions for the mean and the variance are well verified though an accurate measurement of the exponent $`\theta `$ is difficult due to statistical fluctuations and finite size corrections. We have also measured the histogram of the number of splittings. For $`D<D_c`$ this distribution is Gaussian, however for $`D>D_c`$ the distribution becomes skewed towards large values of $`n(x)`$ having an anomalous tail. Shown in Fig. (3) is the distribution measured for $`D=8`$ and $`D=10`$. The difference is clearly visible. The non-Gaussian behavior is also visible for the case $`D=9`$ but less pronounced as $`Re(\lambda )`$ is quite close to $`1/2`$. While we can rigorously prove that the distribution is indeed Gaussian in the sub-critical regime, we have not been able to calculate the full distribution in the supercritical regime. Qualitatively it is clear however that as $`D`$ increases the volume of the cuboid becomes more concentrated about its surface and hence the splitting point $`𝐰`$ for large $`D`$ is generically closer to the surfaces. This means that the splitting procedure will tend to cut the cuboid into more unequal pieces than at lower dimensions, a mixture of blocks of larger volume and slices of smaller volume. It is thus the blocks which are sliced rather than split in their middle which contribute to the long tail in the distribution of $`n(x)`$.

In conclusion we have shown that a fragmentation process with an atomic threshold can undergo a nontrivial phase transition in the fluctuations of the number of splittings at a critical value of the branching number $`m`$. The calculation of the full probability distribution of the number of splittings remains a challenging unsolved problem. We have provided applications of our general results in two computer science problems. The mechanism of this transition is remarkably simple and therefore one expects it to be rather generic with broad applications since many random processes can be mapped to the type of fragmentation model considered here.


text:
# Do Herbig Ae/Be stars have discs?

## 1. Introduction

Herbig Ae/Be stars are intermediate mass (2 – 15 M) Pre-Main Sequence stars. They are the most massive counterparts of the lower mass T Tauri stars that are visible in the optical. Therefore, Herbig stars are ideal objects to determine whether key aspects of the T Tauri phase, such as discs and magnetic fields, are also of physical relevance to higher mass star formation. Yet, even the most basic question of whether Herbig Ae/Be stars are embedded in accretion discs has not been answered. Ideally, one would like to image the environments around Herbig Ae/Be stars directly, but these attempts have so far resulted in contradictory results. For instance, CO observations by Mannings & Sargent (2000) in the sub-millimetre regime show flattened structures on large scales (up to 1000 AU), but Millan-Gabet et al. (2001), who conducted a 2-telescope interferometric study at near-infrared wavelengths, concluded that accretion disc models can be ruled out on scales between 0.5 – 5 AU, with spherical models reproducing the visibility data much better. It is obvious from the above that there is a need for an independent approach to answer this problem, providing a diagnostic that can resolve circumstellar structures in the innermost regions around young stars. Spectropolarimetry across emission lines is just such a tool, as it can probe spatial scales on the order of stellar radii (i.e. 1/100s AUs) rather than AUs.

## 2. The tool of linear spectropolarimetry

The application of linear spectropolarimetry was first established in studies of classical Be stars. The method is based on the expectation that the H$`\alpha `$ photons – formed over a large volume in a circumstellar medium – undergo less electron scatterings off a disc than the stellar continuum photons do. Consequently, the line flux will be much less polarised than the continuum, and a change in the polarisation across the line occurs. We refer to this depolarisation as the classical line-effect because of its first appearance in observations of classical Be stars. The high incidence of these depolarisations among such objects (26 out of 44 in Poeckert & Marlborough 1976) indicated that Be star envelopes are not spherically symmetric. In its time, this evidence was taken as showing that classical Be stars possess discs – a result later confirmed by interferometric imaging. We use the tool of H$`\alpha `$ spectropolarimetry on a large sample of bright Herbig stars. The sample needs to be large to make a proper distinction between intrinsic geometrical effects and our viewing angle. When viewed face-on, one would not expect to detect a line effect, due to the symmetry projected on the sky. When viewed edge-on, the line effect is maximal. Our sample so far consists of 12 Herbig Be stars and 11 Herbig Ae stars (see Vink et al. 2002).

## 3. The Herbig Be stars

A typical observation of the Herbig Be star BD+40 4124 is shown in Fig. 1. Note the presence of the classical line-effect, This directly implies that for this object the electron-scattering region is not spherically symmetric, i.e. it is flattened.

The frequency of depolarisations detected in the HBe star sample (7/12; Oudmaijer & Drew 1999 + Vink et al. 2002) is particularly interesting because it is essentially the same as was found for classical Be stars (Poeckert & Marlborough 1976). Continuing the analogy with classical Be stars, our H$`\alpha `$ spectropolarimetry indicates that the higher mass Herbig Be stars are embedded in flattened structures. Note however, that just the presence of these flattened structures is not evidence for continuing accretion.

## 4. The Herbig Ae stars

At later spectral type we detect spectropolarimetry characteristics differing from the earlier type Herbig Be (HBe) stars. A switch in phenomenology may be expected to occur at some point working down the stellar mass range, as different physical mechanisms might play a more prominent role at different spectral types. For instance, radiation pressure forces are likely to play a role for the higher luminosity stars at the early B types, whereas magnetic fields may become more dynamically prominent at the later A types. The magnetically-channelled accretion model that is commonly applied to the lowest mass Pre-Main Sequence T Tauri stars may also be a suitable model as early as spectral type A. If it does operate, the inner accretion disc around the star is truncated by the magnetic field, and the depolarisation effect may then be absent because the inner hole will necessarily lead to reduced intrinsic continuum polarisation. Alternatively, the channelled accretion may produce a relatively bright and compact source of H$`\alpha `$ emission that may be scattered either within the accretion column itself or within the disrupted disc. This in turn may yield a polarisation signature at H$`\alpha `$ that is more complex than the simple depolarisation effect.

A typical Herbig Ae star (XY Per) is shown in Figure 2. Note first that the polarisation signature is more complicated than in Fig. 1, and that the data are clearly at variance with the depolarisation picture described above. The observed “flip” in the Position Angle can be understood by the presence of a compact H$`\alpha `$ source, located within a rotating distribution of scatterers (see also Pontefract et al. 2000). The data for 9/11 Herbig stars in our sample imply the presence of a compact H$`\alpha `$ source. This could arise from continuous accretion on the stellar surface, perhaps magnetically-controlled, producing hot spots on the stellar surface. Future spectropolarimetric monitoring campaigns in conjunction with radiative transfer modelling (using torus; Harries 2000) should be able to test this.

## 5. Difference between Herbig Be and Ae stars?

The spectropolarimetric differences between the Herbig Be and Ae stars (as seen in Figures 1 and 2) may be the first indication that there is a transition in the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram from magnetic accretion at spectral type A to disc accretion at spectral type B. However, there are other differences between Herbig Ae and Be stars. Most notable, the H$`\alpha `$ emission in Herbig Be stars is much more extended in volume and optical depth. It is therefore possible that the compact spectropolarimetric signature seen in the Ae stars may be produced in the Herbig Be stars also, but is completely masked there by H$`\alpha `$ emission.

To conclude, our data indicate that flattened structures around Herbig Ae/Be stars are common on the smallest scales, suggesting that the higher mass Pre-Main Sequence stars may well be embedded in accretion discs.

## References

Harries, T.J. 2000, MNRAS 315, 722

Mannings, V., Sargent, A.I., 2000, ApJ 529, 391

Millan-Gabet, R., Schloerb, F.P., Traub, W.A., 2001, ApJ 546, 358

Oudmaijer, R.D., Drew, J.E. 1999, MNRAS 305, 166

Poeckert, R., & Marlborough, J.M., 1976, ApJ 206, 182

Pontefract, M., Drew, J.E., Harries, T.J., Oudmaijer, R.D., MNRAS 319, L19

Vink, J.S., Drew, J.E., Harries, T.J., Oudmaijer, R.D., MNRAS


text:
# Nucleosynthesis in limit-from𝛾-ray bursts outflows

## 1 Introduction.

Multi-wavelength observations of $`\gamma `$ray bursts in the past decade have given increasing evidence in favor of the “expanding fireball” model (Paczyński 1986, 1990; Goodman 1986, Shemi & Piran 1990; Piran 2000 and Mészáros 2002 for reviews), in which a photon – pair plasma loaded with a small admixture of baryons expands relativistically and converts the initial energy into baryon kinetic energy. In the internal/external shock scenario (Rees & Mészáros 1992; Rees & Mészáros 1994; Piran 2000 and Mészáros 2002) this kinetic energy is dissipated in shocks, giving rise to the $`\gamma `$ray burst phenomenon. The identity of the inner engine, the source of energy and the mechanism of collimation remain however unknown.

One should not expect that only protons are injected in the accelerating wind. As a matter of fact, all theoretical proposals for the progenitor involve compact objects, e.g. neutron stars/black hole mergers, or imploding massive stars, in which the baryon load must be neutron rich. This has triggered recent interest in the study of phenomenological consequences of neutron loading in $`\gamma `$ray bursts (e.g. Derishev et al. 1999a,b; Bahcall & Mészáros 2000; Fuller et al. 2000; Mészáros & Rees 2000).

One possible consequence is nucleosynthesis of neutrons and protons to heavier nuclei. A recent study argued that nucleosynthesis should not take place as the dynamical timescale (taken to be $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}10^5`$sec) is too short (Derishev et al. 1999). However this particular value rather constitutes a strict lower limit to the dynamical timescale since it implies a source size $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}3`$km. This timescale is nonetheless bounded from above by the shortest variability timescale observed $`10^2`$sec (Piran 1999).

The purpose of this Letter is to show that nucleosynthesis to 4He can occur and is generically efficient, provided the dynamical timescale $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^4`$sec (Section 2). Most available neutrons and protons are then bound into 4He and only the surviving neutrons can decouple kinematically from the charged fluid component (Section 3). Thus this significantly weakens the $`515`$GeV neutrino signal expected from $`np`$ inelastic collisions (Derishev et al. 1999a; Bahcall & Mészáros 2000; Mészáros & Rees 2000). Furthermore, if $`\gamma `$ray bursts accelerate particles to ultra-high energies $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{20}`$eV (Levinson & Eichler 1993; Vietri 1995; Waxman 1995; Waxman 2001 for a review), the ultra-high energy cosmic ray spectrum should comprise a sizeable fraction of 4He nuclei (Section 3).

## 2 Nucleosynthesis.

The fireball wind can be modeled as a pair plasma with luminosity $`L=L_{50}\times 10^{50}`$ergs/s injected into a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi \theta ^2`$, where $`\theta ^2\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{1/2}\right)`$ represents the effect of beaming into two jets of half-opening angle $`\theta _{1/2}`$. Observations suggest a roughly uniform $`L_{50}1`$ among $`\gamma `$ray bursts and a varying $`\theta `$ with mean value $`\theta 0.1`$ (Frail et al. 2001; Panaitescu & Kumar 2001; Piran et al. 2001); for a wind of typical duration $`10`$sec, this yields a total equivalent isotropic output energy $`10^{53}`$ergs. The bulk Lorentz factor is written $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and its saturation value $`\eta L/\dot{M}c^2`$ is the ratio of total luminosity to baryon outflow (Mészáros et al. 1992). Injection takes place at radius $`r_o=r_{o,7}\times 10^7`$cm, with initial temperature $`T_00.93L_{50}^{1/4}\theta _{0.1}^{1/2}r_{o,7}^{1/2}`$MeV$`/k_\mathrm{B}`$, using $`11/2`$ for the number of degrees of freedom (photons + pairs). In the wind frame the ejecta is indeed similar to the early Universe before big-bang nucleosynthesis (Shemi & Piran 1990). However the physical conditions are very different: in a $`\gamma `$ray burst ejecta, the comoving timescale $`10^3`$sec and the photon to baryon ratio $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}4.1\times 10^4L_{50}^{1/4}\theta _{0.1}^{1/2}r_{o,7}^{1/2}\eta _{300}`$, with $`\eta _{300}\eta /300`$, to be compared with $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}100`$sec and $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}10^{10}`$ for the early Universe. A large dynamical timescale favors nucleosynthesis but a high entropy acts against. Big-bang nucleosynthesis is also hampered by a small neutron to proton ratio due to neutron decay and late freeze-out of the weak interactions that interconvert protons and neutrons. Here one expects equal $`n,p`$ mass fractions $`X_\mathrm{n}X_\mathrm{p}`$ if baryons come from photodissociated nuclei, and neutron decay is insignificant on a millisecond timescale. If $`T_0\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}6.5\mathrm{MeV}(t_{\mathrm{dyn}}/10^3\mathrm{sec})^{1/5}`$, the rate of weak interactions becomes larger than the fireball expansion rate and the neutron to proton ratio achieves equilibrium independently of the initial composition, $`X_\mathrm{n}/X_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{exp}[(m_\mathrm{p}m_\mathrm{n})c^2/k_\mathrm{B}T_0]1`$. However this occurs for $`\theta \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}0.02r_{o,6}^1L_{50}^{1/2}(t_{\mathrm{dyn}}/10^3\mathrm{sec})^{2/5}`$, i.e. for the most highly beamed or compact $`\gamma `$ray bursts, or those with the longest dynamical timescales (see also Fuller et al. 2000 for a discussion of the impact of a neutrino flux on the initial chemical composition of the outflow).

Adiabaticity during the acceleration phase implies that the bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the temperature $`T`$ evolve as $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }^1r^1`$, with $`r`$ the radial coordinate in the lab frame. If the flow can be approximated as quasi-one dimensional, the relativistic Bernoulli equation further implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta r`$ (Blandford & Rees 1974). In particular Mészáros et al. (1993) use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta r/r_o`$, which is obviously valid only in the limit $`r\theta ^1r_o`$. The exact numerical prefactor in this relation depends on the details of the injection phase at radius $`rr_o`$. In what follows, the early behavior will be phenomenologically modeled as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1+\theta r/r_o)`$, with $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }^1`$, which approaches the twin exhaust model of Blandford & Rees (1974), in which the flow is collimated by outside pressure forces and accelerates to relativistic velocity through a de Laval nozzle. A more exact solution requires solving the complex problem of injection and collimation in the early phase of the flow. Steps in this direction have been accomplished recently by Levinson & Eichler (2000) who studied the hydrodynamic collimation of a $`\gamma `$ray burst outflow by a wind emanating from a torus. Their solution indeed reproduces a nozzle with nearly constant cross-section at small radii similarly to the Blandford & Rees (1974) model.

The dependence of the bulk Lorentz factor on $`r`$ is important as it gives the dynamical expansion timescale $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}r/\mathrm{\Gamma }c`$. Interestingly in this context the scaling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\theta r`$ suggests that highly beamed outflows have a longer dynamical timescale, hence should not show variations on short timescales due to erasure of inhomogeneities on scales smaller than the sound horizon $`\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}ct_{\mathrm{dyn}}/\sqrt{3}`$. Nevertheless, in order to circumvent uncertainties related to the modeling of the early evolution of the bulk Lorentz factor, all results that follow will be shown as a function of dynamical timescale $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is justified as $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ and the entropy are the two parameters that control the efficiency of nucleosynthesis. Moreover it was checked that a spherically symmetric wind with the simple expansion law $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=r/r_o`$ gives the same result than a jet with respect to nucleosynthesis provided the dynamical timescale and entropy are the same.

In the ultra-relativistic regime $`\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ the temperature decreases exponentially fast with comoving time $`\mathrm{log}(r/r_o)`$. In the outflow thermal equilibrium is ensured between all species all along nucleosynthesis, and neutrons remain coupled to protons through nuclear scattering with velocity averaged cross-section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}v30`$mb c (Derishev et al. 1999b). Decoupling occurs when $`1/n_\mathrm{p}\sigma _{\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}v>t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$, at temperature $`T2L_{50}^{1/12}\theta _{0.1}^{1/6}r_{o,7}^{1/6}\eta _{300}^{1/3}(t_{\mathrm{dyn}}/10^3\mathrm{sec})^{1/3}\mathrm{keV}/k_\mathrm{B}`$, i.e., well after nucleosynthesis has taken place (see below).

In order to estimate the final abundances of nuclei synthesized, use was made of a big-bang nucleosynthesis numerical code whose time and entropy evolutions were modified accordingly. This code accounts successfully for synthesis of elements up to 7Be when compared to other big-bang nucleosynthesis calculations. An example of the outcome of nucleosynthesis is shown in Fig. 1 for a $`\gamma `$ray burst with fiducial parameters $`r_{o,7}=0.3`$, $`\theta =0.1`$, $`L_{50}=1`$, initial composition $`X_\mathrm{n}=0.54`$, $`X_\mathrm{p}=0.46`$ (photodissociated 56Fe nuclei) and dynamical timescale $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}10^3`$sec. The final mass fractions of elements produced are $`X_40.84`$ (for 4He), $`X_\mathrm{n}0.12`$, $`X_\mathrm{p}0.04`$, $`X_\mathrm{D}0.005`$ and other elements are produced only in traces. Although the numerical code used cannot deal with elements beyond mass 9, estimates of the triple $`\alpha `$ reaction and $`\alpha (\alpha n,\gamma )^9`$Be$`(\alpha ,n)^{12}`$C necessary to bridge the mass gaps to 12C and beyond suggest that these three-body reactions do not have sufficient time to produce heavy elements in abundance (see however Section 3).

The bulk of nucleosynthesis occurs at temperature $`T_{\mathrm{nuc}}0.10.2`$MeV$`/k_\mathrm{B}`$, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }10100`$ depending on the parameters, and is over by $`T_{\mathrm{nuc}}0.06`$MeV$`/k_\mathrm{B}`$. Nucleosynthesis is favored by a large $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ and a small $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}`$, and it is thus more efficient as $`\eta `$ decreases (meaning higher baryon density), as $`\theta `$ decreases, or as $`r_o`$ increases if $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}r_o`$ (since a large expansion timescale is more critical to nucleosynthesis than a small entropy). Obviously the efficiency of nucleosynthesis is maximal for $`X_\mathrm{n}/X_\mathrm{p}=1`$ initially, and less efficient as this ratio departs from unity. A contour plot of the final mass fraction of 4He produced is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}`$ and $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}`$. In this figure, it was assumed that initially $`X_\mathrm{n}/X_\mathrm{p}=1`$. It shows that nucleosynthesis is efficient in most of parameter space: most available neutrons and protons are bound into 4He provided the dynamical timescale $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^4`$sec if $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^4`$, or $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^3`$sec if $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^5`$. One can understand analytically these results by comparing the expansion rate $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}^1`$ to the deuterium formation rate at temperature $`T`$ ($`n_\mathrm{b}T^3`$): $`R_{\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )\mathrm{d}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{p}(\mathrm{n},\gamma )\mathrm{d}}vX_\mathrm{n}(1X_\mathrm{n})n_\mathrm{b}3\times 10^4T_{0.1\mathrm{MeV}}^3r_{o,7}^{1/2}\theta _{0.1}^{1/2}L_{50}^{1/4}\eta _{300}^1X_\mathrm{n}(1X_\mathrm{n})\mathrm{sec}^1`$. Indeed deuterium production occurs if $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^4`$sec. The dependence on the entropy comes through the reverse photodisintegration rate which inhibits the production of deuterium hence of heavier elements.

One expects nucleosynthesis to be more efficient than above if, for instance, magnetic energy represents a significant fraction $`x_B`$ of the total energy. The photon number density hence $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}`$ are then smaller by $`(1x_B)^{3/4}`$ while the initial temperature is only reduced by $`(1x_B)^{1/4}`$. The present calculation also assumes a homogeneous steady wind, but inhomogeneities in the wind, e.g. shells or blobs, would increase the efficiency of nucleosynthesis, as $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}E^{1/4}`$ where $`E`$ is the local energy content.

## 3 Discussion.

The feedback of nuclear binding energy release on the fireball evolution has been neglected in the above calculations. This is justified since the ratio of entropy density released to total entropy density (assuming this latter is dominated by the photons) if all neutrons and protons are instantaneously converted to 4He at $`T0.1`$MeV$`/k_\mathrm{B}`$ reads $`\mathrm{d}S/S20(k_\mathrm{B}T/0.1\mathrm{MeV})^1(n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b})^1`$, with $`\mathrm{d}S=n_\mathrm{b}B_4/4k_\mathrm{B}T`$ and $`B_4=28.3`$MeV the 4He binding energy. Note that in some rather extreme parts of parameter space, the prerequisite conditions for successful $`r`$process nucleosynthesis could be satisfied: initial electron fraction $`Y_\mathrm{e}X_\mathrm{p}<0.5`$, $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^3`$sec, $`n_\gamma /n_\mathrm{b}10^2`$ and initial temperature $`T_01`$MeV$`/k_\mathrm{B}`$ (e.g. Hoffman et al. 1997; Meyer & Brown 1997). This presumably requires a highly beamed ejecta $`\theta <0.1`$ from a compact source $`r_o\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^6`$cm, with a significant fraction of magnetic energy, and/or a low limiting Lorentz factor $`\eta `$. This latter condition can be fulfilled in the outer parts of a jet with inhomogeneous baryon load as proposed recently (Zhang & Mészáros 2002). Successful $`r`$process nucleosynthesis might thus be able to operate in $`\gamma `$ray bursts outflows, and further studies using dynamical $`r`$process codes appear mandatory. Other connections between the site $`r`$process site and $`\gamma `$ray bursts have been proposed by Eichler et al. (1989), Levinson & Eichler (1993) and Cameron (2001).

An important consequence of successful nucleosynthesis to 4He is to keep neutrons tied to protons and prevent their kinematical decoupling when nuclear scattering becomes ineffective. As shown by Bahcall & Mészáros (2000) and Mészáros & Rees (2000), such decoupling occurs before the Lorentz factor has saturated to its limiting value $`\eta `$ provided $`\eta \begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}480L_{50}^{1/4}\theta _{0.1}^{1/2}r_{o,7}^{1/4}Y_\mathrm{e}^{1/4}`$ and leads to relative velocities between neutrons and protons $`c`$; in turn this leads to pion production in inelastic collisions and thus to a $`515`$GeV neutrino signal. Mészáros & Rees (2000) have further shown that transverse diffusion of neutrons in inhomogeneously baryon loaded fireballs can lead to an appreciable multi-GeV neutrino signal for lower values of $`\eta `$. However these studies assumed that nucleosynthesis did not occur. In fact, the inelastic collisions occur in these scenarii at large radii well after nucleosynthesis, hence only the surviving free neutrons will be able to decouple.

Consider first an homogeneous fireball. In the absence of nucleosynthesis, the neutrino signal is proportional to $`X_\mathrm{p}X_\mathrm{n}Y_\mathrm{e}\left(1Y_\mathrm{e}\right)`$, and is thus maximal when $`Y_\mathrm{e}0.5`$. The neutron$`^4`$He collision cross-section is higher than the $`np`$ cross-section by the geometrical factor $`4^{2/3}`$ but there are only $`X_4/4`$ 4He nuclei per baryon ($`X_4`$ denotes as before the mass fraction). The neutrino signal produced after nucleosynthesis ($`X_40`$) is then a factor $`r`$ of that produced when $`X_4=0`$ (no nucleosynthesis) with:

$$r\frac{2\left(1Y_\mathrm{e}\right)X_4}{4Y_\mathrm{e}\left(1Y_\mathrm{e}\right)}\left(2Y_\mathrm{e}0.685X_4\right);$$

it was assumed that the outcome of nucleosynthesis is only $`n`$, $`p`$ and 4He. This reduction factor takes the following values: for $`Y_\mathrm{e}0.5`$, $`r0.33`$ for $`X_4=0.5`$, $`r0.09`$ for $`X_4=0.80`$. If $`Y_\mathrm{e}>0.5`$ and nucleosynthesis is maximally efficient, all neutrons are bound into 4He and obviously $`r=0`$. By combining the above relation with Fig. 2 it is possible to obtain estimates of $`r`$ for various $`\gamma `$ray bursts parameters. As an example, $`\eta =500`$ (so that kinematical decoupling of free neutrons occurs before saturation), $`L=10^{50}`$ergs s-1, $`\theta =0.1`$, $`r_o=0.3\times 10^7`$cm and $`t_{\mathrm{dyn}}=10^3`$sec gives $`X_40.70`$ and the neutrino signal is reduced by a factor $`6.4`$. Note that even a small reduction factor is significant as the neutrino signal predicted is of the order a few events per year for a km3 neutrino telescope and does not exceed a dozen events per year.

If the jet is inhomogenous, say made of an inner baryon poor jet surrounded by a baryon rich outer shell (Eichler & Levinson 1999, Mészáros & Rees 2001), the above discussion still applies if the outer baryonic wind originates from the central engine with a temperature $`T𝒪(\mathrm{MeV})`$ similar to that of the central jet. In effect nucleosynthesis is then very efficient in the outer shell since its Lorentz factor and entropy are both lower than in the jet. If the surrounding shell is “cold”, or if it is neutron rich and the inner jet proton rich (or vice-versa) one can circumvent the above argument. However in the case of a jet punching its way through a collapsar progenitor atmosphere Mészáros & Rees (2000) have shown that it leads to a very low neutrino signal.

Finally, if ultra-high energy cosmic rays are accelerated in $`\gamma `$ray bursts (Levinson & Eichler 1993; Vietri 1995; Waxman 1995; Waxman 2001 and references), one expects in the present context a significant fraction of these particles to be 4He nuclei. However nuclei are subject to photodisintegration with cross-section $``$a few mb for photon energies $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}20`$MeV in the nucleus rest frame, and during acceleration in internal shocks and production of the $`\gamma `$ray signal a fraction of them will be disrupted.

The calculation of the fraction of nuclei dissociated as a function of their energy and shock radius is in itself similar to that performed by Waxman & Bahcall (1997), Guetta et al. (2001) for the production of a 100 TeV neutrino signal from pion production of accelerated protons. At the highest energies $`E_{\mathrm{He}}\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{15}`$eV (observer frame), one can thus write the photodisintegration rate $`RA^1\mathrm{d}A/\mathrm{d}tU_\gamma c\eta \sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{He}}/Aϵ_\mathrm{b}`$, where $`U_\gamma L_\gamma /4\pi \theta ^2r^2\eta ^2c`$ is the photon energy density, $`ϵ_\mathrm{b}1`$MeV is the observed break energy in the $`\gamma `$ray spectrum, and $`\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{He}}`$ is the inverse energy weighted photodisintegration cross-section, $`\sigma _{\gamma \mathrm{He}}2.8`$mb accounting for 1 and 2 nucleon loss with respective branching ratios 80%, 20%. The optical depth to photodisintegration thus reads $`\tau Rt_{\mathrm{dyn}}L_{50}\theta _{0.1}^2r_{14}^1\eta _{300}^2(ϵ_\mathrm{b}/1\mathrm{MeV})^1`$, with $`r_{14}r/10^{14}\mathrm{cm}`$ the radius of emission.

Since features of temporal width $`\delta t\delta t_2\times 10^2`$sec are emitted at radius $`r_{14}0.6\delta t_2\eta _{300}^2`$, this optical depth is unity where features of width $`\delta t10^2`$sec are emitted. High energy nuclei accelerated in shocks at smaller radii are photodisintegrated, while those accelerated at larger radii are unharmed. One can also show that low energy nuclei are not photodisintegrated even at small radii. The overall 4He nuclei energy spectrum is thus subject to photodisintegration, acceleration and reacceleration in shocks and adiabatic losses. Acceleration at large radii is in any case crucial to overcome expansion losses (Waxman 2001). It thus seems reasonable to expect that a sizeable fraction of 4He nuclei would be present in the escaping ultra-high energy radiation and the measurement of the chemical composition might provide further information on the nuclear processes at work in the $`\gamma `$ray burst. Detailed signatures of these ultra-high energy 4He nuclei will be presented elsewhere.

Note added: While this paper was being refereed, a similar study by Pruet et al. (2002) appeared, with similar conclusions as to the efficiency of nucleosynthesis.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank R. Mochkovitch, G. Pelletier and E. Waxman for useful comments and suggestions.


text:
# 1 SK energy and zenith-angle spectra (crosses), compared with two representative LMA (blue dotted) and LOW (red dashed) oscillations. LMA is slightly favoured.

## The energy and zenith-angle spectrum

SK and SNO data do not show a statistically significant hint for earth matter effects or for spectral distortions of Boron neutrinos. The overall day/night asymmetries are $`2.1\pm 2.5\%`$ at SK and $`7.0\pm 5.1\%`$ in CC events at SNO. Both LMA and LOW can fit the overall day/night asymmetry, but they predict a different energy and zenith-angle spectrum of matter effects, as illustrated in fig. 1222This figure has been obtained doing appropriate averages of the full SK data; this can be done in a few sligtly different ways (our global fit employes the full data). To optimize the visual appearance of fig 1b, we rescaled the value of the 8B flux for the LMA and LOW predictions. for the points (very close to the LMA and LOW best-fit points) defined in table 1. A look at SK and SNO data does not reveal any clear pattern; nevertheless, the global fit tells us that SK spectra favour the LMA point by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi _{\mathrm{SK}}^23`$.

## The Chlorine rate

Both LMA and LOW solutions predict an increase of the survival probability $`P_{ee}`$ at energies below the SK and SNO thresholds. In the LMA case this happens because neutrinos of lower energy do not experience the matter resonance in the sun, so that $`P_{ee}`$ increases from $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (adiabatic MSW effect) to $`1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ (averaged vacuum oscillations). In the LOW case the increase of $`P_{ee}`$ is due to a large $`\nu _e`$ regeneration induced by earth matter effects. LMA and LOW predict a different increase of $`P_{ee}`$, and this can be tested by experiments sensitive to lower energy neutrinos.

The Cl experiment has some limited sensitivity to low energy neutrinos: roughly $`80\%`$ of the Cl rate is due to the Boron neutrinos, that above $`6\mathrm{MeV}`$ are better studied by SK and SNO (the Cl rate has not yet been calibrated, though theoretical cross sections seem to be sufficiently reliable). After the recent SNO measurement of the Boron flux, we can use the Cl rate to get better information on low energy neutrinos. As exemplified in table 1, the best-fit LOW prediction is larger than the LMA prediction (computed at the central value of the detection cross section, and of solar and earth models), and both are larger than the measured Cl rate. This fact amplifies the impact in the $`\chi ^2`$ beyond the sensitivity of the experiment333This can be illustrated by a simple example. A $`1\sigma `$ difference between two solutions with a $`2.5\sigma `$ pull and a $`1.5\sigma `$ pull gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=2.5^21.5^2=2^2`$, rather than $`1^2`$. This is why, when pulls are ‘too’ large, one can prefer to treat the data in some non-standard more conservative way., that remains anyhow mild.

## The Gallium rate

The Ga rate is dominantly due to low energy neutrinos; the Boron contribution is about $`10\%`$. As exemplified in table 1, the best-fit LOW prediction is somewhat lower than the LMA prediction, that is closer to the measured value. The preference for LMA versus LOW decreases down to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^23`$ if the Ga rate is not taken into account in a global fit.

Table 2 shows the solar neutrino interaction rates measured by SAGE and GALLEX-GNO Gallium experiments since 1991. The most recent values of the solar neutrino interaction rates are lower than the earlier ones, both in SAGE  and in GNO :

$$\text{[Ga }1^{\mathrm{st}}\text{ period]}=76.4\pm 5.4\text{ SNU},\text{[Ga }2^{\mathrm{nd}}\text{ period]}=66.1\pm 5.3\text{ SNU}.$$

Of course, these two values are experimentally and statistically consistent, as the rate measured in the second period (April 1998 – December 2001) is just 1.5 standard deviations below the rate measured in the former period (1991–1997). For the sake of discussion, it has to be recalled that SAGE reported a problem in data acquisition (DAQ) program , that strongly affected the years 1996–1999. To solve the problem, an “a posteriori” correction was applied . On the other side, GNO completely renewed electronic and DAQ , and succeeded to reduce the already low background of about $`30\%`$  in the analysis region—mainly, in the low energy $`L`$ window. Finally both experiments in last period refined the systematics; as a results, the rate has larger statistical but lower systematic error in the second period. To conclude, it is a fact that both Gallium experiments improved with time.

If the difference between the rates measured in the two periods is due to a statistical fluctuation, or if it cannot be proved that other systematic effects are present, the right thing to do is to average the two values as done in all global analyses . The result of such a kind of global fit significantly disfavours the LOW solution, as shown in fig. 2a, though the inclusion of the GNO data reduces slightly the difference: we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^26.9`$.

On the other side, the result of a fit that uses only data from the second period is the one shown in fig. 2b: the LOW solution turns out to be less disfavoured, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^23.9`$.

### Conclusions

We have performed a global fit of solar data, including the recent GNO result. We have shown that the strong preference for LMA rests on three weak hints. Only new data will tell us if the solution is LMA or LOW/(Q)VO; the second eventuality would be not surprising, as it would not contradict any present data.

### Acknowledgements

We thank Carlos Peña-Garay for many useful discussions.


text:
# The Harmonic Oscillator in the Plane and the Jordan - Schwinger Algebras

,

## Abstract

The direct and indirect Lagrangian representations of the planar harmonic oscillator have been discussed. The reduction of these Lagrangians in their basic forms characterising either chiral, or pseudo - chiral oscillators have been given. A Hamiltonian analysis, showing its equivalence with the Lagrangian formalism has also been provided. Finally, we show that the chiral and pseudo - chiral modes act as dynamical structures behind the Jordan - Schwinger realizations of the SU(2) and SU(1,1) algebras. Also, the SU(1,1) construction found here is different from the standard Jordan - Schwinger form.

The inverse problem of variational calculus is to construct the Lagrangian from the equations of motion. Different Lagrangian representations are obtained from the direct and indirect approaches . In the direct representation as many variables are introduced as there are in the equations of motion. The equation of motion corresponding to a coordinate $`q`$ is related with the variational derivative of the action with respect to the same coordinate. Whereas, in the indirect representation, the equation of motion is supplemented by its time - reversed image. The equation of motion with respect to the original variable then corresponds to the variational derivative of the action with respect to the image coordinate and vice versa . The linear harmonic oscillator, whose direct representation is completely familiar, can also be solved in the inverse representation . The importance of the harmonic oscillator problem in physics hardly needs to be emphasised. A thorough analysis of the different Lagrangian representations is thus interesting in its own right. Note that due to the doubling of degrees of freedom associated with the indirect approach, the bidimensional oscillator appear automatically. Thus a comparision of the different approaches can only been done in the context of the two - dimensional (planar) oscillator.

The planar harmonic oscillator model serves as a prototype in the Landau problem of the motion of a charged particle in an external magnetic field and thus is instrumental in the theory of the Quantum Hall Effect . Now the usual Lagrangian of the harmonic oscillator in the plane can be viewed as a combination of the left and right handed chiral oscillators . The later point has been exploited in  to discuss the noncommutativity of the Landau problem. Various facets of the two - dimensional oscillator are then worth exploring from different angles.

A beautiful piece of scenary that may be added here is the Jordan - Schwinger (J - S) construction of the SU(2) algebra from a pair of independent harmonic oscillator algebras . Such constructions can be generalised to groups with polynomial algebras . A physical interpretation of these algebraic constructions in terms of dynamical structures is still lacking.

In the present paper we consider the problem of the harmonic oscillator in the plane from the above mentioned points of views. The organisation of the paper is as follows. In section 1 we review the direct and indirect Lagrangian constructions of the linear harmonic oscillator. Section 2 contains our analysis of the bidimensional oscillator in the Lagrangian formalism. The reduction of the planar oscillator to their basic forms characterising chiral and pseudo - chiral oscillators corresponding to direct and indirect representations is discussed here. This is followed by a Hamiltonian analysis in section 3 where an equivalence with the Lagrangian formalism is also established. The connection of the J - S realizations of SU(2) and SU(1,1) algebras with the elementary modes of the bidimensional oscillator - the chiral and pseudo - chiral oscillators, respectively - is discussed in section 4. Section 5 contains the concluding remarks.

Section 1 : Direct and indirect Lagrangian representations of the harmonic oscillator

The equation of motion satisfied by the harmonic oscillator is

$$\ddot{x}+\omega ^2x=0$$
(1)
To find the Lagrangian in the direct method we write (1) in the self adjoint form

$$\frac{d}{dt}\dot{x}+\omega ^2x=0$$
(2)
The variation of the action $`S`$ must then be

$$\delta S=_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t\left[\frac{d}{dt}\dot{x}+\omega ^2x\right]\delta x$$
(3)
so that the variational derivative of $`S`$ w.r.t. $`x`$ gives the required equation of motion (1). By discarding a surface term we get from (3)

$$\delta S=\delta \left(_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^2\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x^2\right)\right)$$
(4)
From (4) we can easily identify the Lagrangian

$$L_D=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^2\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x^2$$
(5)
of the one dimensional harmonic oscillator.

In the indirect approach we consider (1) along with its time - reversed copy

$$\ddot{y}+\omega ^2y=0$$
(6)
and write the variation of the action as

$$\delta S=_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t\left[\left(\frac{d}{dt}\dot{x}+\omega ^2x\right)\delta y+\left(\frac{d}{dt}\dot{y}+\omega ^2y\right)\delta x\right]$$
(7)
From (7), equation (1) is obtained by varying $`S`$ with $`y`$ whereas (6) follows from varying $`S`$ with $`x`$. Since the equations of motion for $`x`$ and $`y`$ follow as Euler - Lagrange equations for $`y`$ and $`x`$ respectively, the method is called the indirect method. Now, starting from (7) we can deduce

$$\delta S=\delta _{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t\left[\dot{x}\dot{y}\omega ^2xy\right]$$
(8)
It is then possible to identify

$$L_I=\dot{x}\dot{y}\omega ^2xy$$
(9)
as the appropriate Lagrangian in the indirect representation. The Lagrangian (9) can be written in a suggestive form by the substitution of the hyperbolic coordinates $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$  defined by

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(x_1+x_2)`$ (10)
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(x_1x_2)`$ (11)
We find that the Lagrangian $`L_I`$ becomes

$$L_I=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_1^2\frac{\omega ^2}{2}x_1^2\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_2^2+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}x_2^2$$
(12)
The above Lagrangian can be expressed in a notationally elegant form

$$L_I=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_j\frac{\omega ^2}{2}g_{ij}x_ix_j$$
(13)
by introducing the pseudo - Eucledian metric $`g_{ij}`$ given by $`g_{11}=g_{22}=1`$ and $`g_{12}`$ = 0.

Section2 : Elementary modes of the bidimensional oscillator in direct and indirect representations

The Lagrangians given by equation (13) represent the combination of two one dimensional oscillators, the equations of motion of which are given by (1) and (6), in the indirect representation. If we substitute $`g_{ij}`$ in (13) by $`\delta _{ij}`$ then the Lagrangian $`L_I`$ is mapped to

$$L_I\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}_i\dot{x}_i\frac{\omega ^2}{2}x_ix_i$$
(14)
Relabeling $`x=x_1`$ and $`y=x_2`$ and then using (5) we see that (14) is the Lagrangian of the bidimensional oscillator in the direct representation. Thus the mapping

$$g_{ij}\delta _{ij}$$
(15)
allows us to transform the indirect Lagrangian of the two - dimensional oscillator in the hyperbolic coordinates to the direct Lagrangian in the usual coordinates. The converse is also true. This helps us to find the elementary modes in the indirect representation from the known result for the direct Lagrangian (14) .

The elementary modes of the bidimensional oscillator (14) are

$$L_\pm =\pm \omega ϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\omega ^2x_ix_i$$
(16)
This can be demonstrated by the soldering formalism which has found applications in various contexts - duality symmetric electromagnetic actions were constructed ; implications in higher dimensional bosonization were discussed ; the doublet structure in topologically massive gauge theories was revealed ; a host of phenomena in two dimensions were analysed . We start from a simple sum

$$L(y,z)=L_+(y)+L_{}(z)$$
(17)
and consider the gauge transformation

$$\delta y_i=\delta z_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i(t)$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are some arbitrary functions of time. Under these transformations the change in $`L`$ is given by

$`\delta L(y,z)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta L_+(y)+\delta L_{}(z)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\left(J_i^+(y)+J_i^{}(z)\right)`$ (20)
where the currents are,

$$J_i^\pm (x)=2\left(\pm \omega ϵ_{ij}\dot{x}_j\omega ^2x_i\right)$$
(21)
The idea is to iteratively modify $`L(y,z)`$ by suitably introducing auxiliary variables such that the new Lagrangian is invariant under the transformations (18). To this end an auxiliary field $`B_i`$ transforming as (18),

$$\delta B_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }_i$$
(22)
is introduced and a modified Lagrangian is constructed as

$`L(y,z,B)`$ $`=`$ $`L(y,z)B_i(J_i^{(+)}(y)+J_i^{()}(z))`$ (23)
$``$ $`2\omega ^2B_iB_i`$ (24)
This Lagrangian is now invariant under (18) and (22). Since the variable $`B_i`$ has no independent dynamics, it is eliminated by using its equation of motion. The residual Lagrangian no longer depends on $`y`$ or $`z`$ individually but only on the difference $`yz`$. Writing this difference as $`x`$, the residual Lagrangian reproduces (14).

The essence of the soldering procedure can be understood also in the following alternative way. Use $`x_i=y_iz_i`$ in $`L(y,z)`$ to eliminate $`z_i`$ so that

$`L(y,x)=`$ $``$ $`2\omega ϵ_{ij}y_i\dot{x}_j\omega x_i\dot{x_j}`$ (25)
$``$ $`2\omega ^2\left(y_iy_iy_ix_i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x_ix_i\right)`$ (26)
Since there is no kinetic term for $`y_i`$ it is really an auxiliary variable. Eliminating $`y_i`$ from $`L(y,x)`$ by using its equation of motion we directly arrive at (14). Note that the opposite chirality of the elementary Lagrangians are crucial in the cancellation of the time derivative of $`y`$ in (26) which in turn is instrumental in the success of the soldering method.

The bidimensional Lagrangian (14) is invariant under

$$x_ix_i+\theta ϵ_{ij}x_j$$
(27)
which is nothing but an infinitesmal rotation in the $`x_1,x_2`$ plane. The chiral oscillators (16) are also separately invariant under the SU(2) transformation (27). Corresponding to this symmetry the angular momentum

$$𝒥=ϵ_{ij}x_ip_j$$
(28)
is conserved where $`p_i=\omega ϵ_{ij}x_j`$ is the canonical momentum conjugate to $`x_i`$.The spectrum of $`𝒥`$ is given by

$$𝒥_\pm =\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}}{\omega }$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ = $`\omega ^2(x_1^2+x_2^2)`$ is the Hamiltonian following from $`L_\pm `$. The chiral oscillators thus manifest dual aspects of the symmetry of (14). This is why the ’plus’ and ’minus’ type of oscillators given by (16) are interpreted as the left and right handed chiral oscillators.

Now, in view of the mapping (15) existing between (13) and (14) one can construct the elementary modes of (13) as has been done for (14). By exactly a similar approach as detailed above one can show that the elementary modes

$$_\pm =\pm i\omega ϵ_{ij}x_i\dot{x}_j\omega ^2g_{ij}x_ix_j$$
(30)
can be soldered to yield (13). Of course the form (30) is suggested by (16), on account of the mapping (15). Note, however, that there is a factor of $`i`$ in the Lagrangians (30) which makes them complex valued. Such Lagrangians have recently appeared in a new canonical formulation of the damped harmonic oscillator problem .

Note that the composite Lagrangian (13) and also the pieces (30) are invariant under the transformation

$$x_ix_i+\theta \sigma _{ij}x_j$$
(31)
where $`\sigma `$ is the first Pauli matrix. The Noether charges following from (30) are

$$C_\pm =\pm \frac{\stackrel{~}{}}{\omega }$$
(32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ = $`\omega ^2(x_1^2x_2^2)`$ is the Hamiltonian following from $`_\pm `$. The transformations (31) belong to the SU(1,1) group. The doublets (30) have opposite ’charges’ w.r.t. the SU(1,1) transformations in the plane. They may be aptly called as the pseudo - chiral oscillators. The pseudo - chiral oscillators thus manifest dual aspects of the SU(1,1) symmetry of (13).

Section 3 : Hamiltonian analysis

In the previous section we have seen that the Lagrangian of the bidimensional oscillator in the usual coordinates is the synthesis of the chiral oscillators (16) whereas the indirect Lagrangian in the hyperbolic coordinate can be viewed as a coupling of the independent pseudochiral doublet (30). This can also be understood from the Hamiltonian analysis.

From the Lagrangian (14) we can construct the Hamiltonian by a Legendre transformation

$$H_D=\frac{1}{2}p_ip_i+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}x_ix_i$$
(33)
where $`p_i`$ are canonically conjugate to $`x_i`$. $`H_D`$ is manifestly the sum of two one - dimensional Harmonic oscillators,

$$H_D=H_1+H_2$$
(34)
where

$$H_i=\frac{1}{2}p_i^2+\frac{\omega ^2}{2}x_i^2;(i=1,2)$$
(35)
We will show that the individual pieces $`H_i`$ are the Hamiltonians of the left and right chiral oscillators. Consider the Lagrangian $`L_+`$ of the left chiral oscillator (the first one of (16)). This is already in the first order form and we can read off the Hamiltonian directly

$$H_+=\omega ^2\left(x_1^2+x_2^2\right)$$
(36)
with the symplectic algebra

$$\{x_i,x_j\}=\frac{1}{2\omega }ϵ_{ij}$$
(37)
From (37) we find that $`2\omega x_1`$ is canonically conjugate to $`x_2`$. Now by a canonical transformation to the set $`(x,p_x)`$ defined by

$$x_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{p_x}{\omega };x_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}x$$
(38)
the Hamiltonian (36) becomes

$$H_+=\left(\frac{p_x^2}{2}+\frac{\omega x^2}{2}\right)$$
(39)
The above Hamiltonian coincides with $`H_1`$ of (34). Similarly we can prove that the piece $`H_2`$ of (34) follows from $`L_{}`$ of (16). The reduction of the bidimensional oscillator in the direct representation as a doublet of the chiral oscillators is thus also established in the Hamiltonian approach.

We then consider the indirect representation (13). The Hamiltonian obtained from (13) is explicitly

$$H_I=\left(\frac{1}{2}p_1^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_1^2\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}p_2^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_2^2\right)$$
(40)
Note that it is equivalent to the difference of two one - dimensional oscillators. Making a canonical transformation

$`p_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}p_1\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sqrt{2}}}x_2`$ (41)
$`x_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}x_1\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_2}{\omega }}`$ (42)
it is possible to write

$$H_I=_++_{}$$
(43)
where

$$_\pm =\frac{1}{2}p_\pm ^2+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2x_\pm ^2$$
(44)
The price one has to pay is that the canonical variables $`x_\pm `$ and $`p_\pm `$ are no longer real. As a result the Hamiltonians $`_\pm `$ are not hermitian. Note, however, that

$$_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{}=_{}$$
(45)
so that the hermiticity of $`H_I`$ is preserved. One can prove that

$$\eta _\pm \eta ^1=_\pm ^{}$$
(46)
where $`\eta =PT`$. The above condition follows from the observation that under $`PT`$ transformation

$$\eta x_i\eta ^1=g_{ij}x_j,\eta p_i\eta ^1=g_{ij}p_j$$
(47)
Hence

$$\eta x_\pm \eta ^1=x^{}\mathrm{and}\eta p_\pm \eta ^1=p^{}$$
(48)
Basing on (46) it is possible to build a consistent quantum mechanics . Conservation of probability is ensured by the following redefinition of the scalar product

$$<<\psi |\varphi >>=𝑑\tau \stackrel{~}{\psi }\varphi $$
(49)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ is the $`\eta `$ \- transformed wavefunction. Operators satisfying (46) are called generalised hermitian (g - hermitian) operators . One can define the g - hermitian adjoint of an operator O by

$$\stackrel{~}{O}=\eta ^1O^{}\eta $$
(50)
Then the idea of g - hermiticity can easily be seen as a generalisation of the usual idea of hermiticity. Recently this idea has resurfaced again where the term pseudo hermiticity is used to denote g - hermiticity.

We can now show that the Hamiltonians $`_\pm `$ follow from the Lagrangians (30) in the same way as we have shown that the Hamiltonians $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ of equation (34) follow from the Lagrangians of the chiral oscillators (16). Hence we show by hamiltonian analysis that in the indirect representation the bidimensional oscillator is reduced to a combination of two pseudo - chiral oscillators.

Section4 : The chiral and the pseudo - chiral oscillators as the dynamical structures behind the Jordan - Schwinger realizations of SU(2) and SU(1,1) algebras

We begin with the Jordan - Schwinger (J - S) realization of the SU(2) algebra. Define two sets of operators $`(a,a^{})`$ and $`(b,b^{})`$ which satisfy the bosonic algebra

$$[a,a^{}]=[b,b^{}]=1$$
(51)
The algebras are independent;

$$[a,b^{}]=[a,b]=0$$
(52)
Using the a and b set of operators one can construct

$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}ab^{}b\right)`$ (53)
$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`J_x+iJ_y=a^{}b`$ (54)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`J_xiJ_y=ab^{}`$ (55)
The operators defined by (55) satisfy the SU(2) algebra

$$[J_z,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,[J_+,J_{}]=2J_z$$
(56)
These operators constitute the J - S realization of SU(2).

The J - S realization of the SU(2) algebra is constructed from two independent oscillator algebras. It is now pretty suggestive that the chiral oscillators (16) constitute a dynamical model for the construction (55). Indeed, from (29) we observe that corresponding to one quantum of excitation of the left handed chiral oscillator (energy $`\omega `$) the angular momentum projection is $`\frac{1}{2}`$ whereas that for the right handed one it is $`\frac{1}{2}`$. A physical system corresponding to these excitations is also there, namely an electron rotating clockwise or anticlockwise about the direction of the external magnetic field. The operators of (55) can be explicitly constructed by the angular momentum addition rules. Using (29) and the expression of the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian in terms of the creation and annihilation operators we can write

$`J_{az}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^{}a`$ (57)
$`J_{bz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b^{}b`$ (58)
Note that we have deducted the zero - point energy. The $`z`$ component of the total angular momentum is

$$J_z=J_{az}+J_{bz}$$
(59)
which is the $`J_z`$ given by equation (55). Again the total angular momentum operator squared is given by

$`J^2`$ $`=`$ $`j(j+1)`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+b^{}b\right)\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+b^{}b\right)+1\right]`$ (61)
Now using the relation

$`J^2`$ $`=`$ $`J_x^2+J_y^2+J_z^2`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`J_z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(J_+J_{}+J_{}J_+\right)`$ (63)
and the expression for $`J_z`$ we can deduce the expressions of $`J_\pm `$ given in (55). The identification of (16) as the dynamical structures behind the J - S algebraic construction is thus fully established.

The chiral oscillators carry dual aspects of SU(2) and provide dynamical structures for the J - S consruction of SU(2). Clearly, the pseudo chiral oscillators (30) are candidates for SU(1,1) as they also serve as the ’spin’ doublets with respect to SU(1,1) transformations. We introduce

$$a=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}\left(x_++\frac{ip_+}{\omega }\right)$$
(64)
and

$$b=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}\left(x_{}+\frac{ip_{}}{\omega }\right)$$
(65)
The g - hermitian conjugates of $`a`$ and $`b`$ are obtained from the definition (50) as $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ respectively where

$$\stackrel{~}{a}=\eta ^1a^{}\eta $$
(66)
$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\eta ^1b^{}\eta $$
(67)
From (64) and (65) we get using (48)

$$\stackrel{~}{a}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}\left(x_+\frac{ip_+}{\omega }\right)$$
(68)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{b}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{2}}\left(x_{}\frac{ip_{}}{\omega }\right)$$
(69)
It is easy to prove the algebra

$$[a,\stackrel{~}{a}]=[b,\stackrel{~}{b}]=1$$
(70)
and

$$[a,\stackrel{~}{b}]=[a,b]=0$$
(71)
remembering that ($`x_+,p_+`$) and ($`x_{},p_{}`$) are independent canonical pairs. Let us then construct

$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}a\stackrel{~}{b}b\right)`$ (72)
$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}b`$ (73)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}a`$ (74)
where,

$$J_\pm =J_x\pm iJ_y$$
(75)
One can easily verify that these operators satisfy

$$[J_z,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm ,[J_+,J_{}]=2J_z$$
(76)
which is nothing but the SU(1,1) algebra. The construction (74) is then a realization of the SU(1,1) algebra based on the algebra (70) and (71). The operators $`a`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}`$($`b`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$) are respectively the annihilation and creation operators belonging to the plus (minus) type pseudo - chiral oscillators (30). The corresponding Hamiltonians has been shown to be $`_\pm `$ given by (44). These Hamiltonians can be diagonalized in terms of the operators $`a`$ and $`b`$ as

$$_+=\omega \stackrel{~}{a}a$$
(77)
and

$$_{}=\omega \stackrel{~}{b}b$$
(78)
where, again, we have subtracted the zero point energy. Now, in view of the relation (32), the construction (74) can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo - chiral oscillators just as (55) was interpreted in terms of the chiral oscillators. Note, however, a difference of minus sign in the last equation of (74) and (55). This is due to the specific form of the Casimir operator of SU(1,1)

$`J^2`$ $`=`$ $`J_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(J_+J_{}+J_{}J_+)`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}a+\stackrel{~}{b}b\right)\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}a+\stackrel{~}{b}b\right)+1\right]`$ (80)
Comparing the above with the well known form of the Casimir operator of SU(2) ( see equation (63)) , we can understand the difference, mentioned above, between (74) and (55). The structural similarity between the expressions of the Casimir operator in terms of the basic variables in (52) and (80) is remarkable. This reveals again the parallel between our constructions of SU(2) and SU(1,1) algebras based on the dynamical structures of the chiral or pseudo - chiral oscillators. Using (75) we can explicitly determine $`J_x`$, $`J_y`$ and $`J_z`$ from (74) as

$`J_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}b\stackrel{~}{b}a\right)`$ (81)
$`J_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}b+\stackrel{~}{b}a\right)`$ (82)
$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}a\stackrel{~}{b}b\right)`$ (83)
Using the expressions (64), (65),(68) and (69) we find that $`J_x`$ is hermitian whereas $`J_y`$ and $`J_z`$ are anti - hermitian. It is possible to construct a realization of the SU(1,1) algebra consisting of hermitian operators only from (83) by the following mapping

$`J_x`$ $``$ $`J_y`$ (84)
$`J_y`$ $``$ $`iJ_z`$ (85)
$`J_z`$ $``$ $`iJ_x`$ (86)
Explicitly,

$`J_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}a\stackrel{~}{b}b\right)`$ (87)
$`J_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}b\stackrel{~}{b}a\right)`$ (88)
$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{a}b+\stackrel{~}{b}a\right)`$ (89)
That the mapping (86) preserves the SU(1,1) algebra can be seen from (76). Alternatively, one can check it directly from (89).

At this point it is instructive to compare our representation (74) with the usual J - S realization of SU(1,1). The later is given by

$`J_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+bb^{}\right)`$ (90)
$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`J_x+iJ_y=a^{}b^{}`$ (91)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`J_xiJ_y=ab`$ (92)
This representation is based on the algebras given by (51) and (52), which are two independent harmonic oscillator algebras. Note that, in contrast to (74), (92) cannot be interpreted in terms of independent dynamical structures. This can be seen very simply by writing the Casimir operator from (92)

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`J_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(J_+J_{}+J_{}J_+\right)`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(a^{}ab^{}b\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(a^{}a+b^{}b+1\right)`$ (94)
Clearly this cannot be factorised as (52). On the otherhand, the Casimir operator obtained from our realization (74) factorises properly. The realization (74) is therefore fundamentally different from the usual one ( equation (92).

Section 5 : Conclusions

The one dimensional harmonic oscillator is known to provide a fundamental basis for solving a great variety of problems. Here we have analysed the ramifications leading from the oscillator in the plane, arguably whose best known appearence is in the context of the planar motion of an electron moving under the influence of a constant perpendicular magnetic field (Landau problem). The fundamental modes of the 2 - d oscillator were studied, both in the direct and indirect representations. These modes were termed as the chiral and pseudo - chiral oscillators, respectively. An equivalence between the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian formulations was established. Finally it was shown that the basic operators defining the chiral (pseudo - chiral) operators occured in the Jordan - Schwinger construction of SU(2) (SU(1,1)) algebras. This provided a dynamical realization of the algebras.

Acknowledgement

One of the authors (P.M.) would like to thank Prof. S. Dattagupta, Director, S. N. Bose National Center for Basic Sciences for allowing him to work as Visiting Associate (U. G. C.) in the Center. He also wishes to thank the U. G. C. for the award of Visiting Associateship.