text:
# Simulations of Alice Electrodynamics on a Lattice

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we investigate a lattice version of Alice electrodynamics (LAED). Alice electrodynamics (AED) is a gauge theory with gauge group $`U(1)_2O(2)`$, in other words a minimally non-abelian extension of ordinary electrodynamics . The nontrivial $`_2`$ transformation reverses the direction of the electric and magnetic fields and the sign of the charges. This means that in Alice electrodynamics charge conjugation symmetry is gauged. However, as this non-abelian extension is discrete, it only affects electrodynamics through certain global (topological) features, such as the appearance of Alice fluxes (or vortices) and Cheshire charges . The topological structure of $`U(1)_2`$ differs from that of $`U(1)`$ in a few subtle points. Firstly, AED allows topologically stable vortices since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(U(1)_2)=_2`$, these will be referred to as Alice fluxes. Note that in this theory this flux is coëxisting with the unbroken $`U(1)`$ of electromagnetism and therefore it is not an “ordinary” magnetic flux. Secondly, just as the compact $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, AED also contains magnetic monopoles, because $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(U(1)_2)=`$. We note however, that due to the fact that the $`_2`$ and the $`U(1)`$ part of the gauge group do not commute, magnetic charges of opposite sign belong to the same topological class. The aim of this paper is to get an understanding of the phase diagram in a simple lattice version of Alice electrodynamics but which does contain both monopoles and Alice fluxes. We do so by simulations and some analytic approximations.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we specify the lattice model in detail. In section 3 we give the numerical results we obtained for the phase diagrams of the model in dimensions three and four. In section 3 we present some analytic approximations related to the phase diagram and other measurable quantities. In the final section we summarise the results and draw conclusions.

## 2 Lattice Alice Electrodynamics

In this section we introduce a specific LAED model. First we explain the different terms that appear in the action and then we discuss how magnetic monopoles and instantons are realized and can be measured. Finally we say a few things about the computational implementation of the model.

### 2.1 The action

Alice phases can be generated by spontaneously breaking $`SU(2)`$ to $`U(1)_2`$. In this case it is clear that Alice loops, monopoles and Cheshire charges may arise as regular classical finite energy solutions. In the study presented here we restrict ourselves to compact $`U(1)_2`$ gauge theory with an extra bare mass term for the Alice fluxes. Our lattice formulation of the theory allows for the formation of Alice fluxes and magnetic monopoles111It also allows for the formation of Cheshire charges, but their non-locality makes them hard to detect, see section 2.2. The action we will use is given by:

$$I=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{plaquettes}{}\{\mathrm{}(Tr(U_1U_2U_3^{}U_4^{}))+m_fP_f\}.$$
(1)
The first part represents the normal Wilson  plaquette action for the gauge theory. The second term is the extra bare mass term for the $`_2`$ fluxes in the model. $`P_f`$ is a functional of the $`_2`$ degrees of freedom which, when evaluated on a plaquette, equals one if the plaquette is pierced by a $`_2`$ flux, and equals zero if not. The parameter $`m_f`$ is the extra bare mass (in three dimensions) or tension (in four dimensions) for the Alice flux.

In principle one can also add an extra bare monopole mass term to the action. We have refrained from doing so because it is computationally much more involved and because we can realize all four phases in the model without this term (see table 1). To define suitable link variables for LAED we use the fact that compact $`U(1)_2`$ can be conveniently embedded in $`SU(2)`$, leading to:

$$U_\nu (x)=e^{iA_\nu (x)\tau _3}\tau _1^{a_\nu (x)},$$
(2)
with $`a_\nu (x)\{0,1\}`$ and $`A_\nu (x)\pi ,\pi ]`$. Thus $`a_\nu `$ represents the $`_2`$ gauge variable and $`A_\nu `$ the compact $`U(1)`$ gauge variable of the theory. We say that, if $`a_\nu (x)=1`$ a $`_2`$-sheet in 3D, or a $`_2`$-volume in 4D, crosses the link, implying that the $`_2`$-sheets live on the dual lattice. These $`_2`$-sheets can, of course, be moved around by local $`_2`$ gauge transformations. A gauge transformation of the links is given by:

$$U_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x)U_\nu (x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x+\widehat{\nu })^{},$$
(3)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=e^{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu (x)\tau _3}\tau _1^{\sigma _\nu (x)}`$, where $`\sigma _\nu (x)\{0,1\}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\nu (x)\pi ,\pi ]`$.
The boundaries of the $`_2`$-sheets, however, cannot be moved around by local $`_2`$ gauge transformations, this in analogy with the endpoints of Dirac strings (being magnetic monopoles) in the compact $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. This is exactly what one should expect, since the boundaries of the $`_2`$-sheets are closed Alice flux222To avoid confusion we note that in the $`_n`$ literature one typically calls these objects vortices instead of fluxes. loops, which are physical objects carrying energy. Bearing this in mind it is easy to locate the Alice fluxes, namely by just counting the number of $`_2`$-sheets crossing the links of a plaquette. If an even number of $`_2`$-sheets crosses the links of the plaquette, then no Alice flux pierces the plaquette, but if an odd number does, then that means that an Alice flux does pierce the plaquette. This observation allows one to define the $`P_f`$ operator, which applied to a plaquette measures the presence of an Alice flux,

$$P_f=\frac{1}{2}(1(1)^{_{i=1}^4a_i}),$$
(4)
where the four $`a_i`$ summed over belong to links $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$, $`U_3`$ and $`U_4`$, bounding a single plaquette. Equations (1), (2) and (4) define our LAED model.

### 2.2 The problem of locating monopoles (or instantons)

In this model of LAED in four dimensions, there are magnetic monopoles, in three dimensions these appear as instantons. There are a few intricacies in detecting them compared to the usual compact $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory. In this section we will explain under what circumstances and how we can detect a monopole/instanton in LAED. As our model of LAED has a lot of similarities with compact $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory, we try to use these similarities in determining the monopole content of a configuration.

Let us first consider the case that there are no Alice fluxes present. Clearly, this corresponds to the limit of an infinitely large mass, $`m_f`$, for the flux. In this case there may still be closed $`_2`$ surfaces, but these surfaces are not physical and can be moved around by making suitable local $`_2`$ transformations. Suppose we want to determine the monopole content of a specific cube in such a configuration. We would like to see if a Dirac string ends in the cube, just as one does for compact $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory. We distinguish two cases, the first where no $`_2`$-sheet crosses the cube of interest and the second where one or more $`_2`$-sheets do cross the cube.

In the first case we determine the monopole content of the cube just as in compact $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory. In the second case we should find a new or more general definition due to the presence of the $`_2`$-sheets. Bearing in mind that a monopole is a physical object which cannot be moved around by gauge transformations, one may use local $`_2`$ gauge transformations to gauge the $`_2`$-sheets away from the cube of interest. After this procedure we can again determine the monopole content by the methods of compact $`U(1)`$ lattice gauge theory.

$`_2`$-sheets can be gauged out of the cube of interest in several different ways. One would expect this not to make any difference to the outcome of the measurement of the monopole charge of the cube of interest, but it does! As we mentioned in the introduction, monopoles of opposite sign belong to the same topological class. For the measurement of the monopole charge of a single cube this means that one cannot distinguish between positive and negative charges. To see that this is the case, let us consider a cube which is not intersected by a $`_2`$-sheet. If one performs a ’global’ $`_2`$ gauge transformation to all the links of this cube, this has the same effect as pulling a $`_2`$-sheet through the cube; all the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom change sign, since $`\tau _1e^{iA\tau _3}\tau _1=e^{iA\tau _3}`$, see equation (3). Obviously this means that the outcome of the measurement of the magnetic charge of the cube changes sign. Hence only the absolute value of the magnetic charge is a locally gauge invariant quantity, i.e. an observable.

Next we consider the situation where fluxes are present. Now we have two different type of cubes, cubes which are pierced by a flux and cubes which are not. The latter are obviously equivalent to the cubes we just discussed. Thus at this point we may restrict our considerations to cubes which are pierced by fluxes. The statement is, that for a cube which is pierced by a flux, the notion of a gauge invariant magnetic charge breaks down completely. Let us explain why this is the case.

If an Alice flux pierces through a cube, it is obviously not possible to gauge the $`_2`$-sheet out of the cube. In figure 1 we depicted a cube pierced by a flux and the $`_2`$-sheet connected to the flux. If one tries to define Dirac strings through the plaquettes bounding the cube of interest one gets into all sorts of trouble. For the plaquettes where no flux pierces through one can up to a sign determine the (real magnetic flux through the) Dirac string. This sign problem seems to be a minor one, as it appears to be for the monopole charge itself, but that is not true, because there is a separate sign ambiguity for the Dirac strings through each of the plaquettes and not just a single overall sign, as was the case for a cube not pierced by a flux. This means that in such a cube, even the absolute value of the net magnetic charge is not an invariant quantity.

Yet another problem arises if one wants to define the Dirac string through a plaquette which is pierced by a flux, because an odd number of $`_2`$-sheets cross the links bounding the plaquette. The problem basically follows directly from Alice electrodynamics itself, where if one sweeps a $`_2`$-sheet through a $`U(1)`$ link field, this will change sign. So even the sign of the individual $`U(1)`$ link variables is not defined uniquely on a plaquette which is intersected by an odd number of sheets, even if one looks only at that particular plaquette. This obstruction to defining the magnetic flux through such a plaquette, is just a manifestation of what is generally called the obstruction to globally define a $`U(1)`$ charge in the presence of an Alice flux in Alice electrodynamics.

However not all is lost. The previous discussion only shows that it is impossible to determine the magnetic charge of a cube, or more general of a volume, whose bounding surface is pierced by a flux. There is however no problem in determining the magnetic charge of a volume which contains a loop of flux not crossing the boundary.

To see this consider the configuration given in figure 2. A configuration is shown of an Alice loop and a Dirac string piercing the $`_2`$-sheet bounded by the Alice loop. This figure demonstrates, that an Alice loop configuration is capable of carrying a magnetic charge. We note that there is no Dirac string coming from the flux itself (this is actually possible and even necessary for the unit charged Alice loop). Remember that we are, for plaquettes not pierced by a flux, able to determine the Dirac string up to a sign. We also note that any attempt to measure the location of the monopole will fail. It looks like that the cube where the the Dirac string pierces the $`_2`$-sheet does contain a magnetic charge, but as the position of the sheet is gauge dependent this is just a gauge illusion. Yet, drawing a closed 2-surface around the loop there is a gauge invariant quantity of magnetic flux emanating from that surface, i.e. there is magnetic charge inside. This magnetic charge is present, not as a localised or even localiseable quantity, but rather as a global property carried by a closed Alice loop as a whole, in which case one speaks of a magnetic “Cheshire” charge. And indeed, although one can determine the magnetic charge carried by the Alice loop as a whole, one can not assign this magnetic charge to any of the cubes inside the volume containing the loop. These nonlocaliseable charges may in the continuum even be energetically favoured, as we showed in , ’t Hooft Polyakov monopoles may decay in their Cheshire versions.

We conclude, that once we enter a phase where there are very many Alice fluxes around, detecting and localising magnetic charge gets a hairy business. The only useful thing one may still do, is to measure the fraction of monopole carrying cubes of the number of cubes not pierced by an Alice flux. In view of these observations, when in the following we talk about the monopole density, we mean the average absolute charge per unpierced cube and when we talk about flux density we mean the fraction of plaquettes pierced by an Alice flux, i.e. $`P_f`$, unless stated otherwise.

### 2.3 Implementation of the model

Although formula (2) suggests that we should implement LAED using (Pauli) matrices we have not done so. Instead, we exploited the fact that the structure of our $`U(1)_2`$ gauge theory is very close to that of the compact $`U(1)`$. The only effect of the $`_2`$ degrees of freedom is the appearance of Alice fluxes and $`_2`$-sheets. If there are an odd number of $`a`$ variables equal to one in a plaquette, then the plaquette is pierced by a $`_2`$ flux and the first term in the action is always zero irrespective of the values of the $`A`$ fields. This can be understood as a consequence of the fact that the $`U(1)`$ symmetry is globally frustrated in the presence of an Alice flux. If, in the contrary, there are an even or zero number of $`a`$ variables equal to one in a plaquette, the $`a`$ variables can be gauged away, changing only the sign of some of the $`A`$ fields and the action is just the action of compact $`U(1)`$. In view of these observations, we have for our simulations used the following simple action, which is equivalent to the action of formula (1), but does not require any matrix calculations.

$$I=\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{plaquettes}{}\{(1P_f)\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}+m_fP_f\},$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is the $`F`$ of $`U(1)`$ after the $`_2`$ fields have been gauge transformed out of the plaquette, which is always possible if $`P_f=0`$.

We have investigated this model, using a combination of a Monte Carlo method for the $`A_\nu (x)`$ variables, and a heat bath method for the $`a_\nu (x)`$ variables. We examined the model on a periodic hyper cubic lattice of size $`10^d`$, where d is the dimension. Although we will not go into detail on the order of the phase transitions we mention that it has been suggested , that the order, oddly enough, would depend on the imposed boundary conditions.

Our LAED model contains a pure compact $`U(1)`$ and a $`_2`$ gauge theory in different limits of the model. In the limit of $`m_f\mathrm{}`$ the model is equal to pure compact $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. In the limit of $`g^2\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`m_f/g^2`$ finite the model is equal to $`_2`$ gauge theory. Before we proceed we like to mention a few things about the $`_2`$ gauge theory to avoid confusion later on. In $`_2`$ gauge theory there is only one parameter, in the $`_2`$ limit of our model this parameter is $`m_f/g^2`$. Normally, the $`_2`$ gauge theory is only studied for positive values of its parameter. However, in our situation we are also interested in the region where $`m_f/g^2`$ becomes negative. In the pure $`_2`$ gauge theory the region of positive and negative values of the parameter form a mirror image of each other. Note that this mirror map is different from the usual duality that is also present in $`_n`$ type gauge theories. This mirror symmetry holds, at least, for a hyper cubic lattice, where one may map the negative coupling side on the positive side if one replaces “fluxes” by “no-fluxes” in every sense. So “no-fluxes” are the places where “no flux” pierces through a plaquette, i.e. they are the holes in the flux condensate. The model can equally well be described by either of the two objects. This mirror symmetry follows from the fact that for a hyper cubic lattice both objects, fluxes and no-fluxes, form closed loops in three dimensions and closed surfaces in four dimensions. This shows that the regions of positive values and negative values of $`m_f/g^2`$ are can be naively mapped onto each other. As we will show, in LAED the Alice mirror symmetry is broken by the interactions with the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields for finite values of $`g^2`$.

## 3 The phase diagram in three and four dimensions

In this section we present various numerical results for the LAED model. Because we have two types of topological objects in the theory, which may or may not condense, one may in principle expect four phases. It is quite easy to anticipate where in the parameter space the four phases could occur, as we have indicated in table 1.

In figure 3(a) we have plotted the flux density and the monopole density in four dimensions. It is clear that various interesting transitions do occur. Using a hysteresis type of analysis we could determine the order of these transitions, and we found that all but one, are of first order. Only the transition from the phase with only Alice fluxes condensed, to the phase where both Alice fluxes and monopoles are condensed, is different. In fact, it does appear not to be a phase transition at all, but rather a crossover phenomenon, see also section 4.4 and the discussion in section 4.5.

In figure 3(b) we have plotted some contours for the Alice flux and monopole densities. The curves indicate where the first order phase transitions take place, but also show the change of the first order monopole transition if no fluxes are condensed, to the crossover monopole transition if fluxes are condensed.

Note that in figures 3(a) and 3(b) we have only plotted the monopole density up to the ’second’ flux density transition, line A in figure 3(b), where the flux density jumps to about one and only very few cubes (if any) are left where no flux pierces through, making the fluctuations for the monopole measurement very large.

Though in our limited model we find all of the anticipated four phases, each characterised by some condensate, we do not find all possible transitions from one phase to another. There is apparently no transition from the phase with condensed monopoles and no fluxes to the phase with condensed fluxes and no monopoles.

In appropriate limits of the model we recover the results for the lattice gauge theories of compact $`U(1)`$ and $`_2`$ separately, consistent with equation (5). The pure $`U(1)`$ gauge theory arises in the limit of $`m_f\mathrm{}`$, where the Alice fluxes are suppressed and the only feature reminiscent of the $`_2`$ part of the gauge theory are pure $`_2`$ gauge transformations, which of course do not affect any of the physics. In this limit we therefore expect only the transition corresponding to monopole condensation. The pure $`_2`$ gauge theory arises in the limit of $`g^2\mathrm{}`$, while keeping $`m_f/g^2`$ finite, which is usually only studied with $`m_f/g^20`$. We verified that the limiting behaviours of the results of our simulations are in agreement with the known results of the $`_2`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge theories , see also  and references therein.

In figure 4(a) we plotted the results for the instanton and Alice flux density in three dimensions. Also in this case we encounter all four phases of the theory, but the transitions are of different order. The instanton condensation is always a crossover and the flux condensation appears to be of second order, which it certainly should be in the $`_2`$ gauge theory limit . We did not determine the order of the flux condensation for small $`g^2`$.

In figure 4(a) the transition for small values of $`g^2`$ appears to become a first order phase transition, but this is mainly due to the fact that we use $`m_f`$ and $`g^2`$ to parameterise the model, whereas the, in some sense more natural, choice of $`(m_f+1)/g^2`$ and $`1/g^2`$ could give a different picture, which is also true for the four dimensional case. We will come back to this point in section 4.5.

In figure 4(b) we, just as in figure 3(b), plotted specific height lines of the instanton and Alice flux density. These lines show the location of the Alice flux phase transitions and divide the parameter space up in the four different regions linked to the phases. Again in the $`U(1)`$ and $`_2`$ limit we recover the results of these pure gauge theories separately.

In three dimensions the flux density becomes very high before the second phase transition of the fluxes, line A in figure 4(b), occurs and consequently the fluctuations of the instanton density measurements become very large in a larger region.

## 4 Analytic and other approximations

LAED contains both pure compact $`U(1)`$ and $`_2`$ gauge theory. As both of these theories have been studied thoroughly over the years, our aim is not to make estimates for these models, but rather to treat their (numerical) results as known and focus on the interaction of these two models in LAED. To this end we give (analytical) approximations of some characteristic quantities of the model. We subsequently discuss the average action of unpierced plaquettes333The total average action per plaquette is easily determined by this result and the flux density., the flux condensation lines, the contours of constant flux density in the region between the two flux condensation lines $`A`$ and $`B`$ and the monopole/instanton density. We conclude this section with a brief discussion of the approximations we made.

### 4.1 The average action of unpierced plaquettes

To approximate the average action per unpierced plaquette, $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$, we split the parameter space of the model into two regions, a region where the $`_2`$ fluxes do not condense and the region where they do.

In the region where the $`_2`$ fluxes do not condense we approximate the theory by a pure U(1) gauge theory (in the present context considered to be given) and $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is approximated accordingly, i.e. we ignore the effect which the few Alice fluxes have, that may be present. In the region where the fluxes do condense and the flux density is large, we approximate the average action of unpierced plaquettes by the average action of a single plaquette. The $`U(1)`$ link variables are irrelevant to plaquettes pierced by a flux, as follows from formula (5). In the limit of a high flux density the plaquettes which are not pierced by a flux become isolated in the sense that the value of the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom have almost no effect on the surrounding plaquettes. Thus we can approximate $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in the condensed phase by:

$$\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}\frac{_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}e^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}}{g^2}}}{_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{2\pi }e^{\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}}{g^2}}}=\frac{I_1(\frac{1}{g^2})}{I_0(\frac{1}{g^2})},$$
(6)
where the functions $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$ are modified Bessel functions.

The difference between these two limits, the single plaquette and the $`U(1)`$ limit, vanishes for large $`g^2`$. In four dimensions, for small $`g^2`$, the fraction of pierced fluxes typically is very large in the flux condensed phase. Thus we may expect that the two limits describe the model for any value of $`g^2`$. In three dimensions there is no such jump in the flux density and we expect an intermediate region, for small $`g^2`$, to be present.

In figure 5(a) we plotted $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ as a function of $`g^2`$ in four dimensions. We see that the data splits up into two lines. Part of the data points lie on the pure $`U(1)`$ line while the other part lies (almost) on the single plaquette line. This strict separation of the data points in these two sets is due to the strong first order behaviour of the $`_2`$ flux condensation for small $`g^2`$. We see that each point is very well described by either the first or the second approximation indeed.

In figure 5(b) we plotted $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ as a function of $`g^2`$ in three dimensions. The two approximations now generate the boundaries between which the data points lie. The fact that there is no clear division of the data in two sets in three dimensions, is due to the fact that the $`_2`$ phase transition is of second order. The flux density grows gradually across the transition region. That points appear also outside the region bounded by the two approximations is due to very large fluctuations when the flux density is high, i.e. when there are a small number of unpierced plaquettes.

### 4.2 The condensation lines of the Alice fluxes

To approximate the location of the Alice flux condensation lines in the parameter space of the model we make use of an action versus entropy argument. The weight factor of a configuration is determined by $`e^{SI}`$. The important quantity is the relative weight factor, $`e^{\mathrm{\Delta }S\mathrm{\Delta }I}`$, between configurations. Assuming that $`SI`$ of the object that condenses, is additive with respect to the so called background, we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }S\mathrm{\Delta }I=S_{object}I_{object}`$. Now typically the location of the critical point can be approximated by $`I_{object}=S_{object}`$.

As we saw in figures 3(b) and 4(b) there are two flux condensation lines in LAED. In the $`_2`$ gauge theory these are just each other mirror image. For finite $`g^2`$ this symmetry between the two condensation lines is broken due to the interactions with the $`U(1)`$ fields. We may still compare them, in the sense that at the first transition line, B, the fluxes condense, while at the other, A, the “no-fluxes” condense. The coupling between the $`_2`$ and the $`U(1)`$ fields manifests itself as follows: if a flux is created then a piece of the $`U(1)`$ fields is “eaten” away, in the sense that the $`U(1)`$ fields become irrelevant because they are projected out and do not affect the action of the plaquettes involved. This is an effect that we have to take into account, and as we shall see, this can be done very accurately for the no-flux condensation line, but only partially for the flux condensation line.
The four dimensional case:

First we determine the transition line of the “no-flux” condensate with the help of the action versus entropy argument. When a no-loop (i.e. a loop of no-flux) is created, the plaquettes through which it pierces carry a $`U(1)`$ action. We determine the no-flux density and will assume that the contributions of the $`U(1)`$ field of a plaquette are independent of each other. We then approximate the location of the condensation line by assuming that the average over the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom in the relative weight factor for a plaquette is equal to one. This gives us:

$$\mathrm{ln}(_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{2\pi }e^{c_{nl}+\frac{m_f}{g^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}}{g^2}})=0,$$
(7)
where $`c_{nl}`$ denotes the given value of the condensation point of the no-loops in the pure $`_2`$ gauge theory limit and we used $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=\frac{m_f}{g^2}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}}{g^2}`$ per plaquette. We note that the value of $`c_{nl}`$ equals to minus the value for the loops, $`c_l`$, as follows from the mirror symmetry of the $`_2`$ gauge theory, as we discussed at the end of section 2.3. From now on we will adopt the notation $`c_{nl}=c_{4D}(c_l)`$.

Formula (7) leads to the following equation for the transition curve in the $`(m_f,g^2)`$ plane:

$$m_f=g^2c_{4D}g^2\mathrm{ln}I_0(\frac{1}{g^2}).$$
(8)
As can be seen in figure 6(a) the approximation of the no-loop condensation line is very good.

We can try to do the same for the Alice loop condensation line. We use again $`I_{object}=S_{object}`$, but are now not able to include all contributions. The entropy and action contribution of the loop are clear, one thing that changes in equation (8) is the sign in front of the first term on the r.h.s.. The problem is a reliable estimate of the $`U(1)`$ contribution. Obviously we may no longer assume that the $`U(1)`$ contribution of each plaquette is independent. On the other hand it is known that the correlation length decreases exponentially in the confining phase, which implies that we should expect this approximation to still work if $`g^2>g_c^21`$.

We can also approximate the Alice loop condensation line in a slightly different way, where we use the contribution to the action of the $`U(1)`$ fields as given by the pure $`U(1)`$ theory and ignore the change in the entropy due to the $`U(1)`$ fields. For the action we then take:

$$I_{object}=(\frac{m_f}{g^2}+\frac{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}}{g^2}),$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ the average of $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ for given $`g^2`$ and is equal to $`\mathrm{cos}F`$ of pure $`U(1)`$ gauge theory as follows from the previous section (which is evaluated numerically and in the present context considered as given). This leads to the following approximation for the position of the condensation line for the loops:

$$m_f=g^2c_{4D}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}.$$
(10)
We note that in the pure $`_2`$ limit, the second term on the r.h.s. of equations (8) and (10) becomes zero and that $`c_{4D}`$ and its three dimensional analogue $`c_{3D}`$ follow from pure $`_2`$ gauge theory results as mentioned before. In fact, they are even known analytically . In the limit of $`g^20`$ the only state that is allowed, is the global minimum, which means that the condensation lines need to go to $`m_f=1`$ for $`g^20`$. This is true for both approximations.

In figure 6(a) we have plotted the approximations for the condensation lines in four dimensions and some specific height lines, which characterise the position of the phase transitions. We see that the approximation of the condensation of the no-loops is very good. For $`g^2>1`$ the same method works also very well for the loop condensation line. The other approximation for the loop condensation line does not work as well, but we qualitatively understand why.
The three dimensional case:

In three dimensions we follow the same strategy. We repeat the arguments given for the four dimensional case, leading to exactly the same equations (8) and (10), where we only have to replace the four dimensional quantities by their three dimensional counterparts. In particular $`c_{4D}`$ is replaced by $`c_{3D}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}_{4D}`$ is replaced by $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}_{3D}`$.

In figure 6(b) we plotted the resulting condensation lines for the three dimensional theory. The plot shows some specific height lines which characterise the phase transitions as well as the approximations for the lines where the phase transitions should occur. Again we find that the approximation for the no-flux condensation line is very good. The approximation of the analogue of equation (8) is very good for larger values of $`g^2`$, whereas the deviation of the other approximation to the flux condensation line is qualitatively understood.

### 4.3 Contours of constant flux density

In this subsection we will approximate the flux density in the region between the two flux condensation lines, by assuming that in this region the correlation lengths of both fields are zero, so that it suffices to look at the single plaquette.

This means that we get the same answer for the three and four dimensional case. The fraction of plaquettes being pierced by an Alice flux, $`\rho _f`$, can be approximated by:

$$\rho _f\frac{e^{s_fI_f}}{e^{s_fI_f}+e^{s_{nf}}_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{2\pi }e^{I_{\stackrel{~}{F}}}}.$$
(11)
Using $`s_f=s_{nf}`$ and $`I_f=\frac{m_f}{g^2}`$ this gives:

$$m_f=g^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\rho _f}{\rho _f}g^2\mathrm{ln}_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{2\pi }e^{I_{\stackrel{~}{F}}},$$
(12)
which leads to:

$$m_f=g^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\rho _f}{\rho _f}g^2\mathrm{ln}I_0(\frac{1}{g^2}).$$
(13)
Note that in the limit $`g^20`$ we find that all the height lines meet at $`m_f=1`$, just as one should expect, whereas in the $`_2`$ limit one obtains that $`\frac{m_f}{g^2}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\rho _f}{\rho _f}`$.

In four dimensions, within the region of the two condensation lines, which is the region we are probing, our approximation works very well, see figure 7(a). In three dimensions the approximation does not work in the whole region, but works very well between the height lines $`0.7`$ and $`0.3`$, see figure 7(b).

The approximation of the flux density, equation (13), can be split into two parts. The first term on the right hand side is due to the $`_2`$ degrees of freedom. In the $`_2`$ limit this term can be compared with pure $`_2`$ gauge theory, which we did not use as input in this estimate. The second term on the right hand side is due to the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom. Moving away from the $`0.5`$ height line makes the approximation of $`_2`$ term less good while moving from the $`0.9`$ height line to the $`0.1`$ height line makes the $`U(1)`$ term less good. The validity of the $`U(1)`$ term can be seen by fitting the $`_2`$ part of the approximation with results from pure $`_2`$ gauge theory. This gives a perfect fit for all values $`g^2`$ for a high flux density, but as one expects, fails in the region of low flux density and small $`g^2`$.

### 4.4 The monopole/instanton density

In this subsection we will approximate the monopole/instanton density. In the phase where the Alice fluxes do not condense the monopole condensation line and height lines are easily understood. In this phase there are almost no fluxes, and ignoring these the model becomes a pure $`U(1)`$ theory and on expects the monopole density to behave accordingly, allowing us to use the known numerical results.

In the phase where the Alice fluxes do condense we may approximate the monopole density by the monopole density of a single cube. That this can be done follows basically from the results of sections 4.1 and 4.3. The cubes not pierced by any $`_2`$ flux are in the condensed phase isolated in the sense that the $`U(1)`$ degrees of freedom of the links have hardly any effect on the surrounding plaquettes. This makes it safe to use the single cube approximation in the phase where the fluxes have condensed.

We determined the single cube density by using random link values, with which we determined the energy of the cube, the charge inside the cube and the entropy of the configuration. With this information we calculated the monopole density for different values of $`g^2`$ and compared it with the data points we found. This approximation is the same for the three and four dimensional model, though in three dimensions these are of course instantons.

Just as in section 4.1 one expects the two approximations to describe the model very well in four dimensions, but in three dimensions one expects an intermediate region. This is exactly what we find, see figures 8(a) and 8(b). Again we note that the points outside the region bounded by the two approximations are points where the flux density is very high, i.e. the fluctuations become very large.

### 4.5 Discussion

The approximations we made in the last few sections describe the model fairly well. In four dimensions the approximations work extremely well. The phase with condensed fluxes can apparently be understood as a phase where the correlation lengths of the fields are vanishingly small. In three dimensions the division of the phase space is not as clear, but our approximation of the height lines of the flux density does imply a region where the correlation length of both fields is also vanishingly small. If the Alice fluxes do not condense the theory is very well described by a pure compact $`U(1)`$ gauge theory.

As mentioned before, the fact that all the contour lines of the flux density come together at $`m_f=1`$ for $`g^20`$, does not mean that the phase transition becomes or stays first order. It is mainly due to the choice of parameters that all the contour lines of the flux density come together. If one uses the in some sense more natural parameters $`(m_f+1)/g^2`$ and $`1/g^2`$, it is not at all clear that this will happen. This is illustrated in in figure 9, where we have plotted the phase diagram of the model in terms of the conventional parameters. The crossover transitions are not marked, they are associated to regions with different condensates not separated by a phase transition line. Although there is a second flux transition line, the “no-flux” condensation, there is no monopole/instanton transition at this point. We deduce this from the results of section 4.4. The fact that we are not able to determine the monopole/instanton density there is due to the fact the fluctuations are very large in that region of parameter space. However one would expect the single cube approximation of section 4.4 also to be valid in that region of parameter space.

The position of the monopole transition line, see figure 9(a) is also following from the results of section 4.4. We pointed out that the monopole data splits up into two regions, the regions where the fluxes have or have not condensed. This means that the $`U(1)`$ monopole transition line splits up and follows the (first) flux transition line. We have drawn it all the way along this flux condensation line, but it is not yet clear whether there is always a monopole transition. For $`g^20`$ and $`g^2\mathrm{}`$ the difference in the monopole density between the two regions becomes smaller and smaller.

To some extend the same is true for the instanton density, see figure 9(b). Although in that case there is an intermediate region, see section 4.4. In this region the instanton density grows with increasing flux density, and since in this region the flux density has a transition one would expect also the instanton density to show a transition. The data also appears to imply this, but is not shown here. Again it is not clear what happens to this transition in the limits of $`g^20`$ and $`g^2\mathrm{}`$. In these limits the difference of the instanton density between the regions where the fluxes have or have not condensed goes to zero.

## 5 Conclusions and outlook

We have studied Alice electrodynamics on a lattice, with a model that allows the formation of magnetic monopoles and Alice fluxes. It includes the usual Wilson lattice action for the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory and has an extra bare mass term for Alice fluxes. This term suffices to reach all four phases of Alice electrodynamics given in table 1.

We have determined the regions in phase space corresponding to the four different phases of LAED and presented results on some measurable quantities; the monopole density, the flux density and $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$. We then approximated the locations of the flux and the so called no-flux condensation line in the phase diagram of the model, both in three and four dimensions. These approximations worked very well except for the flux condensation line for small values of the gauge coupling. The other approximations we made also all work quite well, with the remark that in three dimensions there is an intermediate region which we have not yet investigated. We successfully compared our numerical results with approximations of the flux density between the flux and the no-flux condensation line, the monopole/instanton density, $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and the position of the monopole condensation line. The monopole condensation becomes a crossover in the region where the Alice fluxes are condensed. In section 4.5 we gave the resulting phase diagrams.

It would be interesting to examine the fate of the phase transitions in the monopole and instanton density induced by (first) condensing Alice fluxes for small and large values of $`g^2`$. For small values of $`g^2`$ it is also not clear if the two flux transitions merge or not in the parameter space with the coordinates $`(m_f+1)/g^2`$ and $`1/g^2`$. In a forthcoming paper we will address interesting questions concerning the screening versus confinement of charges and/or magnetic monopoles in the various phases of the theory.

We thank Jan Smit and Jeroen Vink for valuable advice and support related to lattice gauge theories. This work was partially supported by the ESF COSLAB program.


format: text

text:
# Wolf-Rayets in IC10: Probing the Nearest StarburstObservations reported here were obtained at (1) the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the Smithsonian Institution, and (2) Kitt Peak National Observatory, a division of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

## 1 Introduction

Mayall (1935) first recognized IC10 as an extragalactic object, and, in The Realm of the Nebula, Hubble (1936) proposed that it was likely a member of the Local Group. Its location just 3 degrees out of the Galactic plane has hampered investigations, but Hubble’s description of it as “one of the most curious objects in the sky” has proven prophetic. Today IC10 is understood to be an irregular galaxy undergoing an intense burst of star formation likely triggered by infalling gas from an extended cloud which is counter-rotating with respect to the galaxy proper, as discussed by Wilcots & Miller (1998), who conclude that IC10 is a galaxy that is still forming.

The starburst nature of IC10 was revealed primarily from the high number of Wolf-Rayet stars (WRs) found by Massey, Conti & Armandroff (1992) and Massey & Armandroff (1995). Hodge & Lee (1990) had motivated these studies by their discovery of 144 H II regions, the brightest of which were known to be comparable to the brightest seen in the SMC (Hunter & Gallagher 1985; Kennicutt 1988), a galaxy known to contain a substantial massive star population. Massey et al. (1992) used interference imaging to identify 22 WR candidates, of which 15 were confirmed spectroscopically (Massey & Armandroff 1995). This number was quite unexpectly high. IC 10 is about half the size of the SMC (van den Bergh 2000), which contains 11 WRs (Massey & Duffy 2001); thus the overall surface density of WRs in IC10 is at least 5 times greater than in the SMC. The galaxy-wide surface density of WRs in IC10 is in fact comparable to that of the most active OB associations in M 33 (Massey & Armandroff 1995). The distribution of WRs across IC10 shows that this high star-formation activity is not confined to a few regions (which would simply be the result of statistical fluctuations or “graininess” in the star formation rate), but rather is characteristic of a the galaxy as a whole. This is the classic definition of a starburst galaxy (Hunter 1986; Searle & Sargent 1972).

However, one of the very peculiar results of these WR studies was the abnormally large ratio of WC to WN stars given IC10’s metallicity (log O/H+12=8.25, Skillman, Kennicutt & Hodge 1989; Garnett 1990). Figure 1 shows the relative number of WC and WN stars plotted for different galaxies of the Local Group. The interpretation of the strong trend with metallicity is straightforward: since the stellar winds of massive stars are driven by radiation pressure in highly ionized metal lines, stars of a given luminosity (and mass) will have a lower mass-loss rate in a lower metallicity system, and hence will lose less mass during their lifetime. In the “Conti scenario” (Conti 1976, Maeder & Conti 1994) a massive star peels down like an onion due to mass-loss, revealing first the equilibrium products of the CNO cycle at its surface (WN stars), and then the He-burning products (WC stars). Very massive stars will therefore evolve first to the WN stage and subsequently to the WC stage, while a less massive star might evolve only through WN. At low metallicities the WCs should come only from the very highest mass stars (Massey 2003).

The peculiar WC/WN ratio may be telling us something important about the star formation process in this, the nearest starburst galaxy. If the IMF was top-heavy (or inverted), with an overabundance of the very highest mass stars, this could explain the results. However, Hunter (2001) finds a normal IMF slope for the intermediate mass stars in IC10. It would be very odd for the IMF of the highest mass stars to be decoupled from that of the intermediate-mass stars. Alternatively, if the burst that produced the Wolf-Rayet progenitors had been extremely coeval, then an abnormal WC/WN population could certainly result (Schaerer & Vacca 1998). However, that would require a burst of duration less than 200,000 years over a scale of a kpc. Instead, a third, more prosaic possibility, is that the WC/WN ratio is strongly affected by incompleteness. WN stars are much harder to detect than WC stars as their strongest emission lines are considerably weaker (see Massey & Johnson 1998). Massey & Armandroff (1995) argued against this possibility on the basis that they had detected one WN star with lines as weak as commonly associated with WNs. However, since that time Royer et al. (2001, hereafter RSMV) have reported the discovery of 13 new WR candidates in IC10. (One of these, their number 9, is actually identical to star 6 in Massey et al. 1992.) Taken at face value, the additional stars would actually increase the WC/WN ratio rather than decrease it. Spectroscopy of this sample by Crowther et al. (2002a) confirmed 9, leaving the WC/WN ratio little changed. Nevertheless, the study certainly calls into question the completeness of the original Massey et al. (1992) sample.

The purpose of this Letter is to report on the first results of a new, much deeper search for Wolf-Rayet stars in IC10, along with spectroscopic confirmation of two of these stars. Complete details will be reported when the spectroscopic followup is complete. However, the number of good WR candidates found is striking, and probably resolves the issue of the peculiar WC/WN ratio.

## 2 The New Survey

IC10 was imaged through three interference filters with the 4-m Mayall telescope and Mosaic CCD camera (8k x 8k). The data were obtained on UT 19 and 20 Sept 2001. The filter system is based upon that described by Armandroff & Massey (1985) and Massey & Johnson (1998), but in large, 5.75 in by 5.75 in (146 mm $`\times `$ 146 mm) format. The WC filter is centered at C III $`\lambda 4650`$, the strongest optical line in WC stars. The WN filter is centered on He II $`\lambda 4686`$, the strongest emission line in WN stars (although it is also present in WCs; see Smith 1968). The continuum filter CT is centered at $`\lambda 4750`$. The central wavelengths were designed for use in the fast, f/3 beam of the 4-m prime focus camera, and are roughly 50Å in width. The exposure time was 1.5 hrs in each filter, with the exposures broken into three 1800 sec exposures with the telescope dithered by 150 arcsecs NS and EW between exposures. The scale is 0.27 arcsec pixel-1, and the seeing on the nine images ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 arcsec, with an average of 0.92 arcsec. The transparency was excellent. (For comparison, the Massey et al. 1992 survey for WRs in IC10 used 1 hr exposures through each filter under 2.0-2.6 arcsec seeing with drifting clouds interrupting the exposures.) Exposures of spectrophotometric standards through the CT filter were used to determine the continuum magnitudes mλ4750, and are accurate to 0.1 mag.

The Mosaic camera consists of 8 separate chips, each covering 18.4 arcmin (EW) by 9.2 arcmin (NS), each large compared to the optical extent of IC10 (half-light radius 2 arcmins). IC10 had been centered on one of the chips, and it and a neighboring chip were reduced in the identical manner. The latter was intended to serve as a control. The data were processed through the IRAF Mosaic pipeline with refinements from the Local Group Survey project. Instrumental magnitudes were obtained using the point-spread-function fitting routine “daophot”, as implemented under IRAF. All together, 114,000 stellar images were photometered. On average, 5300 stars were measured on each frame of the control chip, and 7400 stars were measured on each frame of the galaxy chip.

Candidate WRs were selected by comparing the magnitude differences WC-CT and WN-CT to the uncertainty in the magnitudes based upon photon statistics and read-noise, after a zero-point magnitude adjustment was made based upon the full ensemble of stars. Stars with magnitude differences more negative than $`0.10`$ mag and whose significance level was $`>3\sigma `$ were considered valid candidates. The 9 frames were treated as 3 independent sets, grouped by the three dithered telescope positions. Each candidate was examined on an image display by eye and checked for problems. Altogether the search revealed 238 unique candidates on the galaxy field, and 135 unique candidates for the control field; many of the candidates were found multiple times. We expect that none of the “WR candidates” in the control field are real, given their location $`10`$ arcmin from IC10. Such spurious detections are expected given the small magnitude differences we are looking for, and the possible presence of absorption features in the CT filter with non-WRs. It is for this reason that we used a control field.

## 3 Results

The search found all 24 of the spectroscopically confirmed WRs Massey & Armandroff 1995; Crowther et al. 2002a) with significance levels ranging from $`5.6\sigma `$ to $`83\sigma `$. The weakest-lined star had a magnitude difference of $`0.5`$ mag, and the strongest-lined star $`2.9`$ mag between the WR filter (WC or WN) and the continuum filter CT. P. Crowther (private communication) kindly conveyed the specifics of which RSMV stars he had been able to confirm spectroscopically, and their spectral types in advance of publication. We therefore note that our survey successfully distinguishes all of the known WCs from the known WNs if we adopt a dividing line of WC-WN=$`0.1`$. Late-type WNs will have strong N III 4634,42 in the WC filter, while early-type WCs will have very broad C III $`\lambda 4650`$ spilling over into the WN filter, so stars with a small absolute magnitude difference WC-WN are hard to classify just based upon our filter photometry.

The Royer, Vreux, & Manfroid (1998) WR filter system uses five filters to help classify WR candidates to excitation subtype (WN2, WN3 … WN9; WC4, WC5 … WC9). Thus on the basis of their photometry alone, Royer et al. (2001) announced the detection of very late-type WC (WC9) stars in IC10. This result was highly surprising, as WC9 stars have previously been found only in much higher metallicity environments, for reasons thought to be well understood from stellar evolution: late-type WCs are thought to result from more enriched surface material, and the star can only peel down far enough to reveal these layers if the metallicity is high and mass-loss rates during the O-type stages are therefore high (Smith & Maeder 1991). Crowther et al. (2002b) has recently called that into question, suggesting instead that the late-type WCs are the result of stronger stellar winds in the WR phase itself, but in either event WC9s are not expected in low metallicity environments. This too was felt to be part of the puzzle of star formation in IC10 (Royer et al. 2001). However, our survey detected none of these WC9 candidates. An attempt to perform a quantitative spectroscopic analysis of these stars by Crowther et al. (2002a) using GEMINI failed to detect any emission. We can probably conclude that these stars are not real WRs.

Although the detection of all the known IC10 WRs, and the lack of detection of the spectroscopically rejected WR candidates gives us strong confidence in our survey, there is no substitute for spectroscopic confirmation. During a period of poor seeing at the MMT 6.5-m (14 Sept 2002) we took time from our main program and observed two of our new candidates using a single slit setting. We used the 800 line/mm grating on the Blue Channel with a 2 arcsec slit to obtain 3.8Å resolution spectra in the blue; the exposure time was 2700 secs. The spectra are shown in Fig. 2: both are Wolf-Rayet stars of WN type. The coordinates are given in Table 1, along with the equivalent width (ew) and full-width-at-half-maximum (fwhm) of the He II $`\lambda 4686`$ line. The lines are sufficiently broad to rule out the possibility that either star is an Of star, which might also show He II and/or N III emission. IC10-WR24 is by far the brightest WR found in IC10, and is likely a blend of a WR star and another star. A blend would also explain the very weak emission (Table 1) combined with a normal line width.

In Figure 3 we show a comparison of the photometry of WR candidates in the galaxy field with that from the control field. We expect that none of the 135 candidates in the latter are real. Given that both the galaxy field (238 candidates) and control field covered an equal area, we calculate that IC10 may contain $`100`$ Wolf-Rayet stars in total. Although this number seems fantastically large, we note that 26 have now been confirmed spectroscopically: 15 by Massey & Armandroff (1995), 9 by Crowther et al. (2002a), and 2 here111This tally does not include the WN star reported by Richer et al. (2001), as it may be coincident with RSMV 12; without better identification it is impossible to tell. Including it would further lower the WC/WN ratio and strengthen the argument presented here..

What then can we conclude about the statistics of WCs and WNs in IC10? First, for the spectroscopically confirmed WRs the WC/WN ratio is now 1.2 rather than 2.0. If we simply take all of the WR candidates in the IC10 field, and correct by the number of “WC” and “WN” detections in the control field, we would expect to find a ratio of 0.3. This ratio is only slightly higher than that of the outer region of M 33, of similar metallicity (Figure 4). It is true that this result is somewhat dependent upon our choice of the dividing line between “WC” and “WN” in our photometry. While our choice is consistent with our knowledge of the IC10 WR spectral types, spectroscopy of the remaining candidates will be needed to confirm this result.

## 4 Discussion

If our statistical correction of the number of new candidates is correct, then spectroscopy should be able to confirm an aditional $`2`$ WCs and $`66`$ WNs in IC10. Even so, this may not represent the complete number, given the high reddening. Thus the mystery of the high WC/WN ratio in IC10 may be solved.

However, spectroscopic confirmation of such large additional number of WRs in IC10 would certainly make this galaxy even more unique in terms of its massive star population. Two pieces of evidence suggest that this may well be the case. First, of the spectroscopically confirmed WNs, two are of WN7-8 type. At low metallicities the only similar late-type WNs are found in the 30 Dor region of the LMC, where very high mass stars abound. Studies of coeval regions containing these stars in the Milky Way suggest that they come from only the highest mass stars (Massey, DeGioia-Eastwood, & Waterhouse 2001), and we would expect the progenitors to be even more massive in a low metallicity environment (Massey 2003). This is consistent then with IC10 having a normal IMF but an exceptionally large population of massive stars. Secondly, the integrated H$`\alpha `$ emission suggests that IC10 has one of the two highest rates of star formation per unit area known of a representative sample of non-interacting irregular galaxies (Hunter 1997 and private communication).

The “active” area of IC10 is approximately 8 arcmin $`\times `$ 8 arcmin in angular extent; at a distance of 660 kpc (Sakai, Madore, & Freedman 1999), this correspond to an area of 2.2 kpc2. Thus if our estimate is correct, IC10 would contain roughly 45 Wolf-Rayet stars kpc-2. For comparison, the LMC contains $`2`$ WRs kpc-2 (Massey & Johnson 1998). A typical Galactic OB association might contain several WRs, and be 100 pc in diameter, i.e., with a surface density of a couple of hundred WRs kpc-2— only several times larger than what we see globally in IC10. Thus, if confirmed, the high number of WR stars would suggest that IC10 has a population of massive stars similar to that of an OB association but on a kpc scale.

We are thankful to Deidre Hunter for useful discussions, and to Paul Crowther for communicating the results of his spectroscopy. This work has been supported by the NSF through grant AST-0093060.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A lot of scientists in the neutron scattering community is travelling from one neutron source to another. Most of them spent only some days at a certain instrument.

During their work at different experiments at the various neutron sources they have to learn continually the use of the specific software packages for the pre-analysis of the data. To overcome this constant learning process they may use their own software, but they have to write new modules for accessing the data in the experiment specific data format.

For analysis and interpretation they get the experimental data in electronic form (on disc, by email, direct access, etc) mostly in an instrument specific data format, whereas the own software at home uses a significantly different data format.

That means for a large amount of time a scientist is occupied by learning the handling of new software or by writing routines for data conversions. This problems lead to a project in the FRM-II software group to give all users a tool solving this problems:

openDaVE (open Data Visualization Environment).

## 2 Features

The main goal during the development was to achieve flexibility in many fields, which is provided by the following design rules:

* component based architecture
* simple extensibility
* replaceable front-ends
* replaceable data types

The openDaVE framework was written in C++ using the Qt library  under Linux. This decision allows a simple porting to other operating systems such as Windows and the different flavors of UNIX. The current version runs under Linux and Windows.

openDaVE supports a lot of data formats, but one of the most interesting data formats is NeXus . The NeXus support includes:

* reading and writing of NeXus file
* browsing of the NeXus structure in a file
* conversion into NeXus format
* export into non-NeXus formats
* selection of data from a complex NeXus file containing more than one NXdata entry

In contrast to most of the existing software, openDaVE was not designed as a monolithic program. It was built in a modular fashion, consisting of three parts:

* the front-ends
* the modules
* the kernel

This modularity is one most powerful features of openDaVE. It neither restricts the data used inside and outside openDaVE nor restricts anybody in the selection of functionality and user interface.

The different set-up’s of openDaVE are saved in XML files.

## 3 System Design

The collaboration of the three parts of openDaVE is shown in figure 1.

### 3.1 Front-ends

The main aspect of the front-end in view of architecture is its exchangeability. It has access to the application via the module and kernel interface. These two interfaces are designed to implement a wide variety of front-ends.

At this time we have implemented these types of front-ends:

* Qt based front-end (see figure 2) qdave
* Text based front-end tdave
* Python bases front-end (under development)

### 3.2 The Modules

The actual functionality of the framework is incorporated into the modules. That means an extension of the functionality of the whole framework is done by developing a new module.

A module is realised as a shared library being loaded dynamically by the kernel at runtime, on request of the user. This library provides a well defined interface to the kernel (the kernel accesses the module logic through this interface), the module logic (functionality), and one or more interfaces to the user which may be used by the front-ends to control the behaviour of the module logic. So the user may set and get the module parameters.

The creation and deletion of a module instance is done by the kernel. If a module instance is created by the kernel, exactly one user interface is provided although the library may provide more than one.

#### 3.2.1 Module functionality

There exist three types of modules:

* Sources
* Filters
* Sinks

The differences between these types are the following:

* a source has only output data in the meaning of the openDaVE architecture (for example reading the NeXus data file)
* a sink has only input data (e.g. writing the data into a NeXus file, display the data)
* whereas a filter has input as well as output data (for example smoothing a spectrum).

Each module has a certain input and output type which may differ inside one module.

The data in openDaVE may only flow from a source trough one or more filters to a sink. One may consider the data flow as a chain of modules which has to start with a source (or filter) and has to end with a sink (or filter) (see figure 3). The kernel ensures that only modules with the same output and input parameter may be connected.

The functionality of a module is encapsulated in a single function call. This function is always called when the kernel decides that a module has to recalculate its data. It receives the data from all in-links as parameters. The calculated data of the module must be returned at the end of the function call. So the data can be delegated by the kernel to all out-links of the module. The number of in-links can be restricted by the developer of the module.

The data flow may be initialized by a source (a source module creates new output data, which should be processed by the following module chain) via filters to the sink in the so-called real-time mode, or from a sink (the user wants to reprocess the data with changed module parameters) via filters to the source. In any case the data flow from source to sink.

The mode may be set separately for each module, and the modules may be used also in a mixed mode. However, a source initiated data flow breaks at a module which is not set to the real-time mode.

### 3.3 The Kernel

The kernel may be considered as the heart of openDaVE. Its main task is to manage the modules, meaning that it has to create and delete some instances of the modules. Additionally it has to establish and remove the dataflow between the modules. Let’s have a deeper look into the kernel.

Through the front-end instructs the user the kernel to create or to delete a module instance. Let’s consider the creation process. The kernel needs an information about the type of module to be created, the interface the module has to provide, and the name of the module instance. In its table of modules the kernel looks for the type of module which it may create (This table is filled up when the kernel loads the different module libraries). If the type was found the kernel creates a module instance. The module itself tests the existence of the desired interface. If all searching was succesful the module instance is created and may be used trough the interface by the user.

After creating of the module instances they have to connect among themselves. This connection will be established by the kernel on request of the user. It checks whether the connection (link) is going from a source/filter to a filter/sink (see figure 3). Futhermore it checks, whether the output and input data types are the same, and that the maximum number of input links to the ending module is not reached.

The deletion of a module requires some works of the kernel. At first it has to check the input and output links to this module. If there exist any, it has to stop the dataflow between the modules through them. Afterwards it removes these links before it removes the module itself.

## 4 Summary

This paper gives an overview on openDaVE, a modular, open, extensible framework for data analysis and data interpretation. It is shown how the several parts of the framework collaborate.


text:
# Are waves all localized in two dimensional random media?

(October 16, 2002)

## Abstract

It has been the dominant view for over two decades that all waves are localized in two dimensions for any given amount of disorder. Here, questions are raised about this assertion. It is shown that there is a lack of the convincing support of the claim. Rather, the recent evidence tends to indicate that waves are not necessarily always localized in two dimensional random systems.

The concept of localization was originally introduced by AndersonAnderson58  for electrons in a crystal. In the case of a perfectly periodic lattice, except in the gaps all the electronic states are extended and are represented by Bloch states. When a sufficient amount of disorders is added to the lattice, for example in the form of random potentials, the electrons may become spatially localized due to the multiple scattering by the disorders. In such a case, the eigenstates are exponentially confined in the space. By a scaling analysisgang4 , Abraham et al. suggested that there can be no metallic state or metal-insulator transition in two dimensions in zero magnetic field. In other words, all electrons are always localized in two dimensions (2D), as reviewed in Lee ; EA .

The fact that the electronic localization is due to the wave nature of electrons has led to the conjecture that the localization phenomenon also exists for classical waves in random media. And all predictions for the electronic localization are believed to hold for classical waves. Following the scaling analysis of the electronic localization, it was widely accepted that all waves are localized in 2D random media. This has been the prevailing view for the past twenty years (e. g. Ref. Condat ; McCall ; Sigalas ). Hereafter I will refer to this view as ‘2D Conjecture’

In this Letter, I propose that the popular view on 2D localization may not be valid. While the ‘2D Conjecture’ has been challenged and shown to be likely incorrect for electronic systems (Reviewed in EA ), here I will focus on classical waves. For the purpose, I will first review the origin of the ‘2D Conjecture’ and the current theory on 2D wave localization. Then point out the ambiguities in the theory and discuss the evidence that is in conflict with the ‘2D Conjecture’. We take the following steps. (1) Re-inspect the scaling analysis, checking for ambiguities. (2) Examine the predictions from the current theory, checking for its validity. (3) Examine the previous experimental and numerical results that claim to support the ‘2D Conjecture’, checking for their appropriateness. (4) Find the self-conflicting points in the current theory, and discuss an apparent mechanism which is in conflict with the theory. The idea is that if there are conflicts, the 2D conjecture should be at least skeptical. The confidence is: Wave scattering in many 2D systems is exactly calculable following TwerskyVictor ; thus previous predictions can be put under a close scrutiny. We note that the electronic system is more complicated because effects such as the Coulomb interaction makes data interpretation difficult. In this sense, the classical wave systems are advantageous in studying localization effects.

The scaling analysis According to gang4 , an hypercubic geometry is used for the scaling analysis. In the metallic state, the resistance follows the Ohmic behavior

$$RL^{2d},$$
(1)
where $`d`$ is the dimension. For a localized state, i. e. large $`R`$, the resistance grows exponentially

$$Re^{L/L_1},$$
(2)
where $`L_1`$ is the localization length which may differ for different dimensions. A scaling function is defined as $`\beta =\frac{\mathrm{ln}R}{\mathrm{ln}L}.`$ Taking Eqs. (1) and (2) into this, we obtain the asymptotic behavior

$$\beta \{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{ln}R,\hfill & \text{as}R\mathrm{}(\text{Localized})\hfill \\ 2d,\hfill & \text{as}R0(\text{Ohmic})\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
From the asymptotic behavior in Eq. (3), one can sketch the universal curves in $`d=1,2,3`$ dimensions. The central assumptions in gang4  are (1) $`\beta `$ is continuous; (2) $`\beta `$ is a function of $`R`$ and depends on other parameters such as disorders and length scale only through $`R`$; and (3) once wave is localized, the increasing sample size would always mean more localization.

The behavior of $`\beta `$ is plotted in Fig. 1. It is clear that in the 3D case, the curve crosses the horizontal axis, yielding an unstable fixed point ($`B`$). Above this point, the waves become more and more localized as the sample size increases. Below the critical point, the system tends to follow the Ohmic behavior as the sample size is enlarged. This fixed point separates the localized and non-localized states. For the two dimensional case, in the Ohmic regime $`\beta `$ approaches zero as $`\mathrm{ln}(R)0`$. But the perturbation calculation including the wave interference effect shows that $`\beta `$ is always greater than zero. Therefore for both one and two dimensions, the curves do not cross the horizontal axis, and there is thus no fixed point. As the sample size increases, all states move towards the localization regime. This has been the main reason that led previously to the conclusion that all waves are localized in one and two dimensions.

The current localization theory Now I briefly review the existing theory for localization. As wave propagates in random media, it experiences multiple scattering, and as a result, the wave loses its phase, leading to the gradual decreases of the coherence of the wave in the absence of absorption. Meanwhile, diffusive wave is built up as more and more scattering takes place. The procedure to obtain the localization state can be briefly summarized as follows.

The quantity, $`D^{(B)}`$ which is a measure of diffusion of classical waves is called the classical Boltzman diffusion constant and it may be derived under the coherent potential approximation lax , and is given as

$$D^{(B)}\frac{v_tl}{d}$$
(4)
where $`v_t`$ is the transport velocity, $`l`$ is the mean free path and $`d`$ is the dimensionality.

As waves scattered along any two reversed paths in the backward direction interfere constructively, leading to the enhanced backscattering effect, which will add corrections to the diffusion coefficient. In the field theory approach, such an enhanced backscattering effect is represented by a set of maximally crossed ladder diagramsDV . In the two dimension case, the evaluation of these diagrams leads to an integration for which two cut-off limits have to be introduced to avoid the divergence. The correction to the diffusion constant for two dimensional systems is thus found as

$$\delta D\mathrm{ln}(L_M/l_m)$$
(5)
where $`L_M`$ and $`l_m`$ are the two cut-off limits. It is then interpreted in the previous theory that the cut-off limit $`l_m`$ is a measure of the minimum scaling for the waves and is thought to be related to (for example) the mean free path, whereas $`L_M`$ is a measure of the effective size of the sample. It is rather important to note that the correction in Eq. (5) is not only negative but diverges as $`L_M`$ approach infinity. This is obviously unphysical, since the corrected diffusion constant cannot be negative. To avoid the problem, it was suggested that $`L_M`$ is related to the localization range, or simply the localization length, in such way that when $`L_M`$ is equal to the localization length denoted by $`\xi `$ say, the corrected diffusion coefficient becomes zero:

$$D_R(\xi )=D^{(B)}+\delta D(\xi )=0.$$
(6)
The localization length $`\xi `$ is subsequently solved for from this equation. It is obvious that this equation always allows a solution. Therefore a localization length can always be found in two dimensions. Such a backscattering induced absence-of-diffusion mechanism is the core of the current theory of localization in two dimensions, and is considered a strong support of the ‘2D Conjecture’ from the scaling analysisgang4 .

On the scaling analysis While it is simple and straightforward, the above scaling analysis is not without ambiguities in investigating the localization effect. The reasons follow. Whether a system has non-localized or only localized states is an intrinsic property of the system, and should not rely on neither the boundary nor the source. As long as the analysis cannot exclude the possibility that the boundary or the source is playing a role, the consequence from the analysis is deemed to be questionable. In order to isolate the localization or non-localization effect, therefore, a genuine analysis should not be plagued by boundary effects not only in the localization region but also in the non-localization region. Of course, if the system has indeed only localized states, the boundary is not an issue, as the dependence on the boundary is exponentially vanishing. However, the care must be taken for the non-localized regime. It is not difficult to see that the above scaling theory may work for situations when both probing contacts, used to measure the resistance or conductance from which the localization is inferred, are located outside the system. In this case, the Ohmic behavior given by Eq. (1) is valid under the condition that the current flows uniformly in one direction. This is possible only with properly scaled sources and with the presence of confining boundaries, obviously in conflict with the proclamation that whether it is a localization or non-localized state is the intrinsic property of the system and should not rely on a boundary nor a source. Thus the above analysis is more appropriate for studying transport phenomena. It is our opinion that the reduction in the conductance does not necessarily mean that all waves are actually localized. In other words, it is necessary to differentiate the situation that the electrons are prohibited from transmission through a random medium from the situation that the system has only localized states.

Not to be neglected, the recent numerical results on acoustic wavesPRE2002  do support the above comments on the scaling theory. They point out that waves can be blocked from propagation through a medium by disorders, but such an inhibition is not necessarily an indication that waves can be localized in the medium when the transmitting source is put inside the medium. The same conclusion is also obtained from the simulations on propagation of electromagnetic waves (EM) in 2D random dielectric mediaBikash2 . More explicitly, it is shown that waves certainly cannot propagate through a random medium when it has only localized states. But the observation that waves cannot propagate through does not necessarily imply that the system has only localized states.

To this end, it is proper to mention that a recent scaling analysis shows that the difference between 2D and 3D disordered systems is insignificantscaling , i. e. like 3D the localization-delocalization transition is also possible in 2D, which could explain the recently observed ‘unusual’ metallic behavior in 2D electronic systems (See references cited in EA ). This scaling analysis has been pointed out to be absolutely in line with recent findings obtained through direct calculation of the conductance with the use of the Kubo formula (Y. Tarasov, private communication).

On the validity of the current theory Among many, there are two basic ways to check the validity of the aforementioned theory.

First, the key parameter obtained from the current theory is the localization length. This quantity can also be obtained exactly by numerical computation using the scheme detailed inVictor . Then we can make a comparison of the two results. We consider the model of acoustic scattering in water with air-cylinders detailed in Emile . The comparison is shown in Fig. 2. The comparison clearly shows that there is a significant difference between the numerically exact results and the results obtained from the theory. Further comparisons indicate that the difference between the two results is significant not only quantitatively but qualitativelyBikash3 .

Second, one can evaluate the localization length from the theory. Using an exactly solvable model, then inspect the spatial distribution of the wave energy density and check whether localization occurs when the system is larger than the obtained localization length. Again we consider the model of acoustic localization in air-filled cylinders in water. From Fig. 2, the theory predicts that the shortest localization length is around $`ka=0.005`$ which is the nature frequency of an air-cylinder in waterEmile . The numerical results show, however, that no localization occurs around this frequency. Instead, localization appears at somewhat higher frequency ranges with the same system size, referring to Fig. 3 of Emile .

On the previous experimental and numerical evidence It was widely believed that the theory of 2D localization has been tested experimentally to be successful. We find that the claimed success is mainly based on two types of experiments. One is the indirect method which measures the effects of the enhanced backscattering (e. g. Ref. 2Dexp ). In a rigorous simulation, it has been shown that the enhanced backscattering is not related to the localizationaad . Waves are not necessarily localized when a strong enhanced backscattering exits, and sometimes waves can be localized even when the enhanced backscattering is weak. Asides from few exceptionsMcCall , the other type of experiments is based on observations of the exponential decay of waves as they propagate through disordered media, as stated in Ref. Nat . According to the above and following discussions, this type of experiments is not sufficient to discern whether the medium really only has localized states. Unwanted effects of non-localization origin can also contribute to the wanted exponential decay, making data interpretation ambiguous. In fact, the authors in Ref. Sigalas  pointed out that there is no conclusive experimental evidence for localization of EM waves in 2D. We mention that there was a report of the observation of microwave localization in two dimensions when a transmitting source is inside disordered mediaMcCall . However, the diffusion based theory has not been verified against this experimental result.

The same situation can be said about the numerical simulations. Take Ref. Sigalas  as the example. The authors considered the EM propagation in a random array of dielectric cylinders. The localization length is computed from the reduction in the transmission across the random sample. Following their method, we first compute the transmission versus the sample size at various frequencies with the source and the receiver located at the opposite sides of the sample. We do observe exponential decays, and the decay rates depend on the frequency. According to Sigalas , the localization lengths can be estimated from this decay rates. Then as long as the sample size is bigger than this length, we would also expect to observe an exponential decay in the transmission when source is put inside the medium. But we found that the exponential decay disappears for some frequencies. As an example, the results for two frequencies are shown in Fig. 3. In line with Sigalas , the following parameters are used in the computation. The dielectric constants of the cylinders and the medium are 10 and 1 respectively. The fraction of area occupied by the cylinders per unit area, is 0.28. The radius $`a`$ of the cylinders is 0.38 cm. The lattice constant $`d`$ of the corresponding square lattice array is calculated as 1.28 cm. All lengths are scaled by the lattice constant $`d`$. Here we see that the exponential decay at 14.70GHz, shown when the transmission is across the sample, disappears when the source is moved into the medium. The results suggest that waves are not localized at this frequency. One may still argue that the non-localization is due to the fact that the localization length is long compared to the sample size in the ‘Inside’ case. Even if this were the case, the exponential decay shown for the ‘Outside’ case could not be due to the localization effect. Reiterating, it is not sufficient to extract the localization effect by merely computing the transmission reduction across the sample. Therefore the claim about the 2D localization like in Sigalas  is not appropriate. At 11.75GHz, we observe that the exponential decay with nearly the same slop holds for both cases - the slight difference is due to the finite width in the ‘Outside’ casePRE2002 , and reveals the genuine localization behavior.

The physical picture of localization It seems that a general picture of localization may be obtained. For quantum mechanic or acoustic waves (the same argument also holds for EM systamesPRER ), the current can be written as $`\stackrel{}{J}\text{Re}[\psi (i)\psi ],`$ where $`\psi `$ stands for the wave function for quantum mechanical systems and for the pressure in acoustic systems. Writing the field as $`\psi =|\psi |e^{i\theta },`$ the current becomes $`\stackrel{}{J}|\psi |^2\theta .`$ It is clear that when $`\theta `$ is constant at least by domains while $`|\psi |0`$, the flow stops, i. e. $`\stackrel{}{J}=0`$, and the wave or the energy is localized in space, i. e. $`|\psi |^20`$. Obviously the constant phase $`\theta `$ indicates the appearance of a coherence in the system. This coherent-phase picture has been demonstrated successfully not only for two dimensional mediaEmile , but for one and three dimensions as wellLuan ; Hsu .

The current diffusion-based theory does not support the above picture. The physical picture of the theory is: Waves will undergo a diffusion process when the system is smaller than the localization size. As the system increases, the diffusion gradually diminishes and finally comes to a complete stop when the size exceeds the localization length. If this picture were valid, then one would expect a significant change in the spatial distribution of the energy density, from that of diffusion to the exponentially confined envelop. This is not evident in the theory and is not supported by numerical results. In contrast, the numerical results in Fig. 3 show that the exponential decay starts even when the sample size is smaller than the localization length; the distribution of the characters of a diffusion process does not appear.

In summary, concerns have been raised about the previous claim that all waves are localized in 2D. In fact, non-localized states have already been reported by numerical computation in, for instance, Ref. Emile . Even if this could be argued to be due to the finite sample size limited by computing facilities, there are still many other reasons for being doubtful about the ‘2D Conjecture’. Some important reasons are corroborated here.