text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The gravity theory of Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati (DGP) is a braneworld theory with a metastable four-dimensional graviton . The graviton is pinned to a four-dimensional braneworld by intrinsic curvature terms induced by quantum matter fluctuations; but as it propagates over large distances, the graviton eventually evaporates off the brane into an infinite volume, five-dimensional Minkowski bulk. There exists a single free parameter in DGP braneworld gravity, the crossover scale, $`r_0`$. This scale dictates that distance below which gravity is controlled by brane effects, but larger than which gravity assumes a five-dimensional behavior. As a result, the DGP braneworld theory is a model in a class of theories in which gravity deviates from conventional Einstein gravity not at short distances (as in more familiar braneworld theories), but rather at long distances. Such a model has both intriguing phenomenological  as well as cosmological consequences . A braneworld model of the sort where gravity is modified at extremely large scales is motivated by the desire to ascertain how our understanding of cosmology may be refined by the presence of extra dimensions. Indeed, there exist novel cosmologies in this theory that provide an alternative explanation of the cosmic dark energy .

Recovery of Einstein gravity at short distance scales in DGP , especially for static sources , is a subtle effect. Even though gravity is four-dimensional at distances less than $`r_0`$, it is not always Einstein gravity. For a point source whose Schwarzschild radius is $`r_g`$, general relativity is only recovered for distances shorter than

$$r_{}=\left(r_0^2r_g\right)^{1/3}.$$
(1)
For distances larger than $`r_{}`$, gravity is four-dimensional linearized Brans–Dicke, with parameter $`\omega =0`$. Thus, a marked departure from conventional physics continues down to distances much smaller than $`r_0`$, the distance at which the extra dimension is naively hidden. That departure is well-characterized and provides a possible signature for the existence of extra dimensions.

There is, however, a catch. The cosmological solutions that drive interest in DGP gravity indicate that $`r_0`$ should be close to today’s Hubble radius. Localized matter sources are embedded in a cosmological spacetime. Far enough away from a given source, the motion of observers and test particles is dominated by the cosmology, rather than the gravity of the matter source. However, if $`r_0`$ is today’s Hubble radius, then the distance away from a source at which cosmology dominates the metric is also $`r_{}`$. So, the DGP departure from Einstein gravity that was calculated in a static Minkowski background is only significant on length scales where the background cannot actually be approximated as Minkowski. The calculations needs to be refined if we are to have the correct new physics signature.

The subject of this paper is to look at corrections to Einstein gravity for the DGP braneworld theory in a cosmological background. The work in this paper, as well as that in Refs. , addresses issues similar to those studied in Refs. . Our results differ from those in the latter work because we are only concerned with solutions that asymptotically approach well-behaved, familiar solutions (e.g., Minkowski space or deSitter expansion) far away from the matter source, including far away from the source in the direction into the bulk. We begin by laying out the necessary details of the model as well as the particular background of interest. We then solve for the metric of a spherically symmetric, static matter source in that background. We indeed find that the corrections to Einstein are sensitive to the background cosmology, even in the region inside $`r_{}`$ where the cosmological flow is ostensibly irrelevant. We discuss possible tests for the detection of new physics at astronomical scales and suggest that it is possible for such tests of local gravity to reveal information about global features of the full five-dimensional cosmology, and ultimately shed light on the nature of dark energy and today’s cosmic expansion.

## II Preliminaries

### A The Model

Consider a braneworld theory of gravity with an infinite-volume bulk and a metastable brane graviton . We take a four-dimensional braneworld embedded in a five-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. The bulk is empty; all energy-momentum is isolated on the brane. The action is

$$S_{(5)}=\frac{1}{16\pi }M^3d^5x\sqrt{g}R+d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}_m+S_{GH}.$$
(2)
The quantity $`M`$ is the fundamental five-dimensional Planck scale. The first term in Eq. (2) corresponds to the Einstein-Hilbert action in five dimensions for a five-dimensional metric $`g_{AB}`$ (bulk metric) with Ricci scalar $`R`$. The term $`S_{GH}`$ is the Gibbons–Hawking action. In addition, we consider an intrinsic curvature term which is generally induced by radiative corrections by the matter density on the brane :

$$\frac{1}{16\pi }M_P^2d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}R^{(4)}.$$
(3)
Here, $`M_P`$ is the observed four-dimensional Planck scale (see  for details). Similarly, Eq. (3) is the Einstein-Hilbert action for the induced metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}`$ on the brane, $`R^{(4)}`$ being its scalar curvature. The induced metric is§§§ Throughout this paper, we use $`A,B,\mathrm{}=\{0,1,2,3,5\}`$ as bulk indices, $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}=\{0,1,2,3\}`$ as brane spacetime indices, and $`i,j,\mathrm{}=\{1,2,3\}`$ as brane spatial indices.

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}=_\mu X^A_\nu X^Bg_{AB},$$
(4)
where $`X^A(x^\mu )`$ represents the coordinates of an event on the brane labeled by $`x^\mu `$. The action given by Eqs. (2) and (3) leads to the following equations of motion

$$\frac{1}{2r_0}G_{AB}+\delta (\mathrm{brane})G_{AB}^{(4)}=\frac{8\pi }{M_P^2}T_{AB}|_{\mathrm{brane}},$$
(5)
where $`G_{AB}`$ is the bulk Einstein tensor, $`G_{AB}^{(4)}`$ is the intrinsic brane Einstein tensor, and $`T_{AB}|_{\mathrm{brane}}`$ is the matter energy-momentum tensor on the brane, and we have defined a crossover scale

$$r_0=\frac{M_P^2}{2M^3}.$$
(6)
This scale characterizes that distance over which metric fluctuations propagating on the brane dissipate into the bulk .

### B Field Equations

We are interested in finding the metric for static, compact, spherical sources. We are interested in looking at these solutions in a cosmological background rather than a Minkowski background  to ascertain what affects cosmology might have on the observability of corrections to Einstein gravity. We restrict ourselves to a background deSitter cosmology. Not only is such a background the simplest and most convenient, but observations suggest that we are currently undergoing deSitter-like cosmic acceleration. If the Hubble scale of such an acceleration is varying slowly, the results obtained here would apply. They will also shed light on the technical VDVZ problem and how one recovers Einstein gravity in a deSitter background.

Under this circumstance of a static spherical source in a deSitter background, one can choose a coordinate system in which the cosmological metric is static (i.e., has a timelike Killing vector) while still respecting the spherical symmetry of the matter source. Let the line element be

$$ds^2=N^2(r,z)dt^2A^2(r,z)dr^2B^2(r,z)[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2]dz^2.$$
(7)
This is the most general static metric with spherical symmetry on the brane. The bulk Einstein tensor for this metric is:

$`G_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}2{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{B^2}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{B}}{B}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}^2}{B^2}}\right]`$ (8)
$`G_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{B^2}}\right]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{B}}{B}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}^2}{B^2}}\right]`$ (9)
$`G_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`G_\varphi ^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^{\prime \prime }}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right]`$ (11)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}\right]`$
$`G_z^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^{\prime \prime }}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}2{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{B^2}}\right]`$ (13)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}^2}{B^2}}\right]`$
$`G_{zr}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}^{}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{B}^{}}{B}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2B^{}}{B}}\right).`$ (14)
The prime denotes partial differentiation with respect to $`r`$, whereas the dot represents partial differentiation with respect to $`z`$.

We wish to solve the five-dimensional field equations, Eq. (5). This implies that all components of the Einstein tensor, Eqs. (11), vanish in the bulk but satisfy the following modified boundary relationships on the brane. Fixing the residual gauge $`B|_{z=0}=r`$, when $`z=0`$ and imposing $`𝒵_2`$–symmetry across the brane

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{B}}{B}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(1A^2)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi r_0}{M_P^2}}\rho (r)`$ (15)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\dot{B}}{B}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}(1A^2)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi r_0}{M_P^2}}p(r)`$ (16)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^{\prime \prime }}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi r_0}{M_P^2}}p(r),`$ (17)
from $`G_{tt}`$, $`G_{rr}`$, and $`G_{\theta \theta }`$, respectively.

### C Background Cosmology

The deSitter solution with Hubble scale, $`H`$, has the following metric components: The upper and lower signs in Eqs. (1820) correspond to the two distinct cosmological phases that may exist for this theory . The upper sign corresponds to the choice of Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) cosmological phase, where a bulk observer views the braneworld as a relativistically expanding bubble from the interior; the lower sign corresponds to the self-accelerating cosmological phase, where the bulk observer views the braneworld as a relativistically expanding bubble from the exterior . These phases are vastly different geometrically and may have drastically different cosmological histories. We use this sign convention throughout the paper.

$`N(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1H|z|)\left(1H^2r^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (18)
$`A(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1H|z|)\left(1H^2r^2\right)^{1/2}`$ (19)
$`B(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1H|z|)r.`$ (20)
The brane energy-momentum tensor required for a given Hubble parameter is

$$T_B^A|_{\mathrm{brane}}=\delta (z)\mathrm{diag}(\rho _H,p_H,p_H,p_H,0),$$
(21)
with

$$\rho _H=p_H=\frac{3M_P^2H}{8\pi r_0}\left(r_0H\pm 1\right).$$
(22)
For physical reasons, we restrict ourselves to both non-negative $`\rho _H`$ as well as non-negative $`H`$. Under these circumstances, one can see that $`Hr_0^1`$ in the self-accelerating phase. One can show that the solution Eqs. (1822) corresponds to a coordinate transformation of the deSitter solution in homogeneous cosmological coordinates found in Ref. .

## III Spacetime Geometry

We have chosen a coordinate system, Eq. (7), in which a compact spherical matter source may have a static metric, yet still exist within a background cosmology that is nontrivial (i.e., deSitter expansion). Let us treat the matter distribution to be that required for the background cosmology, Eq. (2122), and add to that a compact spherically symmetric matter source, located on the brane around the origin ($`r=0,z=0`$)

$$T_B^A|_{\mathrm{brane}}=\delta (z)\mathrm{diag}(\rho _g(r)+\rho _H,p_g(r)+\rho _H,p_g(r)+\rho _H,p_g(r)+\rho _H,0),$$
(23)
where $`\rho _g(r)`$ is some given function of interest and $`p_g(r)`$ is chosen to ensure the matter distribution and metric are static.

We are interested only in weak matter sources, $`\rho _g(r)`$. Moreover, we are most interested in those parts of spacetime where deviations of the metric from Minkowski are small. Then, it is convenient to define the functions $`\{n(r,z),a(r,z),b(r,z)\}`$ such that

$`N(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`1+n(r,z)`$ (24)
$`A(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`1+a(r,z)`$ (25)
$`B(r,z)`$ $`=`$ $`r[1+b(r,z)].`$ (26)
We may rewrite Eqs. (11) and (16) using the functions $`\{n(r,z),a(r,z),b(r,z)\}`$.

In order to determine the metric on the brane, we will implement the approximation

$$\dot{n}|_{z=0}=H,$$
(27)
even in the presence of a compact matter source. Equation (27) presumes that the contribution to $`\dot{n}|_{z=0}`$ from the matter source is negligible compared to other terms in the brane boundary conditions, Eqs. (16). With this one specification, a complete set of equations, represented by the brane boundary conditions Eqs. (16) and $`G_z^z=0`$, exists on the brane so that the metric functions may be solved on that surface without reference to the bulk. We justify this assumption by examining the full bulk metric in detail in the Appendix.

The brane boundary conditions Eqs. (16) now take the form

$`(\dot{a}+2\dot{b})`$ $`=`$ $`r_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2a^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{r^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r^2}}R_g^{}(r)+3H(r_0H\pm 1)`$ (28)
$`2\dot{b}`$ $`=`$ $`r_0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2n^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{r^2}}\right]+H(3r_0H\pm 2)`$ (29)
$`(\dot{a}+\dot{b})`$ $`=`$ $`r_0\left[n^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{n^{}}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^{}}{r}}\right]+H(3r_0H\pm 2),`$ (30)
where we have defined an effective Schwarzschild radius $`R_g(r)`$ for the matter source inside a given distance, $`r`$,

$$R_g=\frac{8\pi }{M_P^2}_0^r𝑑rr^2\rho _g(r),$$
(31)
and where we have neglected second-order contributions (including those from the pressure necessary to keep the source static). Covariant conservation of the source on the brane allows one to ascertain the source pressure, $`p(r)`$, given the source density $`\rho (r)`$:

$$p_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=n^{}\rho _g.$$
(32)
One can show that the $`G_{zr}`$–component of the bulk is identically zero on the brane when covariant conservation of the matter source and the brane boundary conditions Eqs. (16) are satisfied. This observation is a restatement of one of the Bianchi identities.

From the brane boundary conditions Eqs. (29), one may eliminate $`\dot{a}`$ and $`\dot{b}`$, and arrive at an equation which may be integrated imediately with respect to the $`r`$–coordinate. The result yields

$$r^2n^{}+ra+\frac{1}{2}r^3H^2=R_g,$$
(33)
where we have imposed a boundary condition requiring that the metric not be singular at the origin. Applying Eqs. (33) and (29) to the $`G_{zz}`$–component of the bulk metric, one can again arrive at an equation that is dependent only on variables on the brane itself which is integrable with respect to the $`r`$–coordinate. Defining the quantity

$$f(r)=rn^{}\frac{R_g^{}}{2r}+\frac{r^2H}{2r_0}(2r_0H\pm 1),$$
(34)
the integral of the equations $`G_{zz}=0`$ on the brane yields

$$\frac{4r_0^2}{r}f^2+rf(3\pm 2r_0H)\left[\frac{1}{2}R_g+r^3\left(2H^2\pm \frac{3H}{2r_0}\right)\right]=0,$$
(35)
where we have applied a second spatial boundary condition requiring that the metric not have spurious cusps at the origin. Equation (35) has two solutions for $`f(r)`$. We select the solution that matches onto the proper background deSitter behavior for large–$`r`$. Then,

$$f(r)=\frac{r^2}{8r_0^2}\left[(3\pm 2r_0H)+3(1\pm 2r_0H)\sqrt{1+\frac{8r_0^2R_g(r)}{9r^3}\frac{1}{(1\pm 2r_0H)^2}}\right].$$
(36)
Substituting this back into Eq. (34) and Eq. (33), we may articulate expressions for $`n(r)`$ and $`a(r)`$.

$`rn^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\left[1+\delta (r)\right]H^2r^2`$ (37)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\left[1\delta (r)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^2r^2,`$ (38)
where we have defined the quantity $`\delta (r)`$ such that

$$\delta (r)=\frac{3r^3}{4r_0^2R_g}(1\pm 2r_0H)\left[\sqrt{1+\frac{8r_0^2R_g}{9r^3}\frac{1}{(1\pm 2r_0H)^2}}1\right].$$
(39)
These expressions are valid on the brane when $`rr_0,H^1`$. In both expressions, the first term represent the usual Schwarzschild contribution with a correction governed by $`\delta (r)`$ resulting from brane dynamics, whereas the second term represents the leading cosmological contribution. Let us try to understand the character of the corrections.

## IV Gravitational Regimes

There are important asymptotic limits of physical relevance for the metric on the brane Eqs. (3738). We have two system parameters, the crossover scale, $`r_0`$, and the cosmological horizon radius, $`H^1`$, and we wish to understand how spacetime geometry differs when each is much larger than the other, as well as when they are the same order of magnitude.

When $`r_0H1`$, we recover familiar results for a compact source in a Minkowski background . The deSitter background becomes irrelevant at scales $`rr_0`$. A characteristic distance $`(r_0^2R_g)^{1/3}`$ demarks an Einstein phase close to the source from a Brans–Dicke ($`\omega =0`$) phase farther away.

### A Einstein Phase

Cosmological effects become important to the metric Eqs. (3738) when $`r_0H1`$ or $`r_0H1`$. Typically, we are concerned with the details of the metric when the influence of a given compact matter source dominates the local geometry. The competition between the leading Schwarzschild term, $`R_g/r`$, versus the leading cosmological contribution, $`H^2r^2`$, implies that when

$$r\left(\frac{R_g}{H^2}\right)^{1/3},$$
(40)
the local source dominates the metric over the contributions from the cosmological flow. In this region, Eqs. (3738) reduce to

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R_gr}{2r_0^2}}}`$ (41)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{R_gr}{8r_0^2}}}.`$ (42)
Notice that, indeed, there is no explicit dependence on the parameter governing cosmological expansion, $`H`$. However, the sign of the correction to the Schwarzschild solution is dependent on the global properties of the cosmological phase. The FLRW phase has a potential steeper than Einstein gravity, whereas the self-accelerating phase has a potential shallower than Einstein gravity. Thus, we may ascertain information about bulk, five-dimensional cosmological behavior from testing details of the metric where naively one would not expect cosmological contributions to be important. Indeed, for example, one can use local gravity tests to distinguish whether some local brane vacuum energy or self-acceleration is the cause of today’s cosmic accelerated expansion.

### B Weak Brane Phase

Even when the cosmological flow dominates the metric, one can still examine the perturbed effect a matter source has in this region. When, $`r(R_gH^2)^{1/3}`$, while still in a region well within the cosmological horizon ($`rH^1`$),

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\pm 2r_0H)}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^2r^2`$ (43)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3(1\pm 2r_0H)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H^2r^2.`$ (44)
This is the direct analog of the weak-brane phase one finds for compact sources in Minkowski space. The residual effect of the matter source is a linearized scalar-tensor gravity with Brans–Dicke parameter

$$\omega =\pm 3r_0H.$$
(45)
Notice that as $`r_0H\mathrm{}`$, we recover the Einstein solution, corroborating results found for linearized cosmological perturbations . Moreover, note that in the self-accelerating cosmological phase, the scalar component couples repulsively, though recall from Eq. (22) that $`Hr_0^1`$ in this phase.

### C The Picture

One can consolidate these results and show from Eqs. (3739), that there exists a scale,

$$r_{}=\left[\frac{r_0^2R_g}{(1\pm 2r_0H)^2}\right]^{1/3},$$
(46)
inside of which the metric is dominated by Einstein but has corrections which depend on the global cosmological phase, i.e., Eqs. (4142). Outside this radius (but at distances much smaller than both the crossover scale, $`r_0`$, and the cosmological horizon, $`H^1`$) the metric is weak-brane and resembles a scalar-tensor gravity in the background of a deSitter expansion, i.e., Eqs. (4344).

The picture one develops is that the metric is scalar-tensor, but with a radially dependent coupling of the scalar to matter. As one gets closer to a source (as gravity gets stronger), the scalar coupling gets suppressed. There are two basic tests that we can pose. First, small corrections to the Newtonian potential using Eq. (41) and second, comparison of the ratio of the gravitomagnetic to gravitoelectric (Newtonian) forces. This latter may be encoded by the effective Brans–Dicke parameter, Eq. (45).

## V Physical Considerations

### A Constraints on $`r_0`$

It is useful to review the constraints on the crossover scale, $`r_0`$. The constraint may be written as a constraint on the fundamental Planck scale:

$$10^3\mathrm{eV}M1\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(47)
If $`M`$ is too small, quantum gravity effects become important at short distances. The lower bound is provided by constraints from millimeter tests of Newtonian gravity and other constraints coming from loss of energy into the extra dimension . Cosmology provides the upper bound for $`M`$. If $`M`$ is too large, the crossover scale becomes too small to account for the relationship between the observed Hubble scale and the independently measured matter density . These bounds on the fundamental Planck scale correspond to

$$1\mathrm{Gpc}r_010^{34}\mathrm{Gpc}.$$
(48)
An even more stringent case applies to the self-accelerating cosmological phase. In this phase, the Hubble scale is bounded from below $`H(t)>r_0^1`$, where at late times, the universe is deSitter and $`Hr_0^1`$. If one goes further and postulates that the current cosmic acceleration is caused entirely by this late-time self-acceleration, then, using constraints from Type 1A supernovae , the best fit for $`r_0`$ is

$$r_0=1.21_{0.09}^{+0.09}H_0^1,$$
(49)
where $`H_0`$ is today’s Hubble scale. Taking $`H_070\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$,

$$r_05\mathrm{Gpc}.$$
(50)
We are particularly interested this possibility and, in this Section, take $`r_0`$ to have this value.

### B Gravitational Lensing

The lensing of light by a compact matter source with metric Eq. (3738) may be computed in the usual way. The angle of deflection of a massless test particle is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =𝑑r\frac{J}{r^2}\frac{A}{\sqrt{\frac{E^2}{N^2}\frac{J^2}{r^2}}},$$
(51)
where $`E=N^2dt/d\lambda `$ and $`J=r^2d\varphi /d\lambda `$ are constants of motion resulting from the isometries, and $`d\lambda `$ is the differential affine parameter. Then for any metric respecting the condition Eq. (33), the angle of deflection is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi +2b_b^{r_{\mathrm{max}}}𝑑r\frac{R_g(r)H^2r^3/2}{r^2\sqrt{r^2b^2}},$$
(52)
where $`b`$ is the impact parameter. This result is equivalent to Einstein, so we see that light deflection is unaffected by DGP corrections. This is consistent with the idea the DGP corrections correspond to an anomalous spatially-dependent scalar coupling. Since scalars do not couple to light, the trajectory of light in a gravitational field should remain unaffected. Then, lensing measurements probe the true mass of a given matter distribution. One can then compare that mass to the mass taken from assuming the gravitational force is Newtonian.

The mass discrepancy between the lensing mass (the actual mass) and that determined from the Newtonian force may be read directly from Eqs. (37) and (39),

$$\delta M=\frac{M_{\mathrm{lens}}}{M_{\mathrm{Newt}}}1=\frac{1}{1+\delta (r)}1.$$
(53)
This ratio is depicted in Fig. 1 for both cosmological phases. When the mass is measured deep within the Einstein regime, the mass discrepancy simplifies to

$$\delta M=\left(\frac{r^3}{2r_0^2R_g}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(54)
Solar system measurements are too coarse to be able to resolve the DGP discrepancy between lensing mass of the sun and its Newtonian mass. The discrepancy $`\delta M`$ for the sun at $`𝒪(\mathrm{AU})`$ scale distances is approximately $`10^{11}`$. Limits on this discrepancy for the solar system as characterized by the post-Newtonian parameter, $`\gamma 1`$, are only constrained to be $`<3\times 10^4`$.

A possibly more promising regime may be found in galaxy clusters. For $`10^{14}10^{15}M_{}`$ clusters, the scale $`(r_0^2R_g)^{1/3}`$ has the range $`614\mathrm{Mpc}`$. For masses measured at the cluster virial radii of roughly $`13\mathrm{Mpc}`$, this implies mass discrepancies of and taking their virial radii to be roughly $`58\%`$. X-ray or Sunyaev–Zeldovich (SZ) measurements are poised to map the Newtonian potential of the galaxy clusters, whereas weak lensing measurements can directly measure the cluster mass profile. Unfortunately, these measurements are far from achieving the desired precisions. If one can extend mass measurements to distances on the order of $`r_0`$, Fig. 1 suggests discrepancies can be as large as $`10\%`$ for the FLRW phase or even $`50\%`$ for the self-accelerating phase.

### C Orbit Precession

Imagine a body orbiting a mass source where $`R_g(r)=r_g=\mathrm{constant}`$. The perihelion precession per orbit may be determined in the usual way

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =𝑑r\frac{J}{r^2}\frac{AN}{\sqrt{E^2N^2\left(1+\frac{J^2}{r^2}\right)}},$$
(55)
where $`E=N^2dt/ds`$ and $`J=r^2d\varphi /ds`$ are again constants of motion resulting from the isometries, and now $`ds`$ is the differential proper time of the orbiting body. Assuming a nearly circular orbit and that we are deep within the Einstein regime (so that we may use Eqs. (4142)), then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi +\frac{3\pi r_g}{r}\frac{3\pi }{2}\left(\frac{r^3}{2r_0^2r_g}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(56)
The second term is the usual Einstein precession. The last term is the new anomalous precession due to DGP brane effects. Note that this correction is the same as one would get if one assumed a purely Newtonian potential Eq. (41) without spatial metric effects. The correction to the precession rate one expects from DGP gravity is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{DGP}}=\frac{3}{8r_0}=5\mu \mathrm{as}/\mathrm{year}.$$
(57)
Note that this result is independent of the source mass, implying that this precession rate is a universal quantity dependent only on the graviton’s effective linewidth ($`r_0^1`$) and the overall cosmological phase. Compare Eq. (57) to the classic Einstein precession correction for nearly circular orbits:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{\mathrm{Einstein}}=\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{r_g^3}{2r^5}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(58)
For increasing $`r`$, the distance from the sun at which the DGP correction begins to overtake the first Einstein correction is $`37\mathrm{AU}`$.

Nordtvedt  quotes precision for perihelion precession at $`430\mu \mathrm{as}/\mathrm{year}`$ for Mercury and $`10\mu \mathrm{as}/\mathrm{year}`$ for Mars. Improvements in lunar ranging measurements  suggest that the Moon will be sensitive to the DGP correction Eq. (57) in the near future. Also, BepiColombo, an ESA satellite being sent to Mercury at the end of the decade, will also be sensitive to this correction . Incidentally, it is interesting to contrast these numbers with a precision of $`4\times 10^4\mu \mathrm{as}/\mathrm{year}`$ for the rate of periastron advance in Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16 . The solar system seems to provide the most promising means to constrain this anomalous precession from DGP gravity.

## VI Concluding Remarks

The braneworld theory of Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati (DGP) is an intriguing extension of Einstein gravity that exploits the possible existence of infinite-volume, extra dimensions. It is a theory where the four-dimensional graviton is effectively metastable, and provides a novel alternative to conventional explanations of the dark energy that is responsible for today’s cosmic acceleration.

In this paper, we detailed the solution of static, spherical matter sources in the background of deSitter cosmology for DGP gravity. The gravitational field of a matter source exhibits important dependences on cosmology. Residual dependences on the full five-dimensional cosmological phase also exist in the regime deep in the gravity well of the matter source where the effects of cosmology are ostensibly irrelevant. These residual dependences allow one to use local (e.g., solar system) measurements of the gravitational field to ascertain details of the global cosmology.

In DGP gravity, we find that massless test particles can probe the true mass of a matter source, whereas tests of the source’s Newtonian force leads to discrepancies with general relativity. These discrepancies translate into a universal anomalous precession, as large as $`\pm 5\mu \mathrm{as}/\mathrm{year}`$, suffered by all orbiting bodies. The numerical value of this anomalous precession is dependent only on the graviton’s effective linewidth and the global geometry of the five-dimensional cosmology. Current constraints on Mars’ orbit are on the threshold of being sensitive to this anomaly . Future improvements in lunar ranging  as well as data from satellite missions at the end of the decade  should be sensitive to possible corrections due to DGP and gravitational leakage into extra dimensions.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank A. Gruzinov for crucial insights into the Minkowski background case, particularly those not found in Ref. . We are also grateful to L. Krauss for key suggestions and conversations. The authors would also like to thank A. Babul, C. Deffayet, G. Dvali, P. Gondolo, and G. Kofinas for helpful discussions. This work is sponsored by DOE Grant DEFG0295ER40898 and the CWRU Office of the Provost.

##

In order to see why Eq. (27) is a reasonable approximation, we need to explore the full solution to the bulk Einstein equations,

$$G_{AB}(r,z)=0,$$
(59)
satisfying the brane boundary conditions, Eqs. (16), as well as specifying that the metric approach the deSitter solution Eqs. (1820) for large values of $`r`$ and $`z`$, i.e., far away from the compact matter source.

First, it is convenient to consider not only the components of the Einstein tensor Eqs. (11), but also the following components of the bulk Ricci tensor (which also vanishes in the bulk):

$`R_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N^{\prime \prime }}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}}{A}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{N^{}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right]+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{A}}{A}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{N}}{N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{B}}{B}}\right]`$ (60)
$`R_z^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{N}}{N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{A}}{A}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\ddot{B}}{B}}.`$ (61)
We wish to take $`G_{zr}=0`$, $`G_z^z=0`$, and $`R_z^z=0`$ and derive expressions for $`A(r,z)`$ and $`B(r,z)`$ in terms of $`N(r,z)`$. Only two of these three equations are independent, but it is useful to use all three to ascertain the desired expressions.

Since we are only interested in metric when $`r,zr_0,H^1`$ for a weak matter source, we may rewrite the necessary field equations using the expressions Eqs. (25). Since the functions, $`\{n(r,z),a(r,z),b(r,z)\}`$ are small, we need only keep nonlinear terms that include $`z`$–derivatives. The brane boundary conditions, Eqs. (16), suggest that $`\dot{a}`$ and $`\dot{b}`$ terms may be sufficiently large to warrant inclusion of their subleading contributions. It is these $`z`$–derivative nonlinear terms that are crucial to the recover of Einstein gravity near the matter source. If one neglected these bilinear terms as well, one would revert to the linearized, weak-brane solution (cf. Ref. ).

Integrating Eq. (61) twice with respect to the $`z`$–coordinate, we get

$$n+a+2b=zg_1(r)+g_2(r),$$
(62)
where $`g_1(r)`$ and $`g_2(r)`$ are to be specified by the brane boundary conditions, Eqs. (16), and the residual gauge freedom $`\delta b(r)|_{z=0}=0`$, respectively. Integrating the $`G_{zr}`$–component of the bulk Einstein tensor Eqs. (11) with respect to the $`z`$–coordinate yields

$$r\left(n+2b\right)^{}2\left(ab\right)=g_3(r).$$
(63)
The functions $`g_1(r)`$, $`g_2(r)`$, and $`g_3(r)`$ are not all independent, and one can ascertain their relationship with one another by substituting Eqs. (62) and (63) into the $`G_z^z`$ bulk equation. If one can approximate $`\dot{n}=H`$ for all $`z`$, then one can see that $`G_{zr}=0`$, $`G_z^z=0`$, and $`R_z^z=0`$ are all consistently satisfied by Eqs. (62) and (63), where the functions $`g_1(r)`$, $`g_2(r)`$, and $`g_3(r)`$ are determined at the brane using Eqs. (37) and (38) and the residual gauge freedom $`b(r)|_{z=0}=0`$:

$`g_1(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4H{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{r^2}}\left(R_g\delta \right)^{}`$ (64)
$`g_2(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}(1\delta )+{\displaystyle _0^r}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{r^2}}(1+\delta )`$ (65)
$`g_3(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R_g}{2r}}(13\delta )2H^2r^2,`$ (66)
where we have used the function $`\delta (r)`$, defined in Eq. (39). Using Eqs. (6266), we now have expressions for $`a(r,z)`$ and $`b(r,z)`$ completely in terms of $`n(r,z)`$ for all $`(r,z)`$.

Now we wish to find $`n(r,z)`$ and to confirm that $`\dot{n}=H`$ is a good approximation everywhere of interest. Equation (60) becomes

$$n^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2n^{}}{r}+\ddot{n}=\pm H[g_1(r)\pm H],$$
(67)
where again we have neglected contributions if we are only concerned with $`r,zr_0,H^1`$. Using the expression Eq. (64), we find

$$n^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2n^{}}{r}+\ddot{n}=3H^2\frac{r_0H}{r^2}\left[R_g\delta (r)\right]^{}.$$
(68)
Then, if we let

$$n=1Hz\frac{1}{2}H^2r^2r_0H_0^r𝑑r\frac{1}{r^2}R_g(r)\delta (r)+\delta n(r,z),$$
(69)
where $`\delta n(r,z)`$ satisfies the equation

$$\delta n^{\prime \prime }+\frac{2\delta n^{}}{r}+\ddot{\delta n}=0,$$
(70)
we can solve Eq. (70) by requiring that $`\delta n`$ vanish as $`r,z\mathrm{}`$ and applying the condition

$$r\delta n^{}|_{z=0}=\frac{R_g}{2r}\left[1+(1\pm 2r_0H)\delta (r)\right],$$
(71)
on the brane as an alternative to the appropriate brane boundary condition for $`\delta n(r,z)`$ coming from a linear combination of Eqs. (16). We can write the solution explicitly:

$$\delta n(r,z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kc(k)e^{kz}\mathrm{sin}kr,$$
(72)
where

$$c(k)=\frac{2}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr\mathrm{sin}kr\delta n|_{z=0}(r).$$
(73)
We can then compute $`\dot{\delta n}|_{z=0}`$, arriving at the bound

$$\dot{\delta n}|_{z=0}\frac{1}{r}_0^r𝑑r\frac{R_g(r)}{r^2},$$
(74)
for all $`rr_0,H^1`$. Then,

$$\dot{n}|_{z=0}=H+\dot{\delta n}|_{z=0}.$$
(75)
When the first term in Eq. (75) is much larger than the second, Eq. (27) is a good approximation. When the two terms in Eq. (75) are comparable or when the second term is much larger than the first, neither term is important in the determination of Eqs. (37) and (38). Thus, Eq. (27) is still a safe approximation.

One can confirm that all the components of the five-dimensional Einstein tensor, Eqs. (11), vanish in the bulk using field variables satisfying the relationships Eqs. (62), (63), and (69). The field variables $`a(r,z)`$ and $`b(r,z)`$ both have terms that grow with $`z`$, stemming from the presence of the matter source. However, one can see that with the following redefinition of coordinates:

$`R`$ $`=`$ $`rzr_0{\displaystyle \frac{R_g\delta }{r^2}}`$ (76)
$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`z+{\displaystyle _0^r}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{R_g\delta }{r^2}},`$ (77)
that to leading order as $`zH^1`$, the desired $`Z`$–dependence is recovered for $`a(R,Z)`$ and $`b(R,Z)`$ (i.e., $`HZ`$), and the Newtonian potential takes the form

$$n(R,Z)=HZ\frac{1}{2}H^2R^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(78)
Thus, we recover the desired asymptotic form for the metric of a static, compact matter source in the background of a deSitter expansion.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “Atomic jumps in quasiperiodic Al72.6Ni10.5Co16.9 and related crystalline material”

## Abstract

We disagree with a number of statements by Dolinšek et al. about the specificity of phason dynamics in quasicrystals (QCs).

We are surprised by the lack of foundation and clarity of some formulations in a recent paper by Dolinšek et al. about phason dynamics in QC. It must be clear that there is no ground for an allegation that the dynamical signal observed in references would be due to vacancy diffusion rather than phason hopping. In fact, the $`Q`$-dependence of the neutron-scattering signal indicates that the atomic motion remains confined in space, while its temperature dependence is unusual and not typical of vacancy diffusion. Furthermore, the diffusion constants that one experimentally observes are much lower than the ones one should reasonably expect on the basis of the observed hopping rates if this hopping were due to vacancy diffusion. Indeed, the hopping is exceptionally fast, while the observed diffusion constants just take values that could be qualified as standard for metallic compounds. The authors are stating this themselves, such that they do not seem to question all these matters. It is therefore puzzling what the statement about a remarkable similarity between the activation energy of the hopping process and the enthalpy for the formation of a vacancy in pure Al is supposed to imply. What is the aim of this statement about what probably is merely a numerical coincidence? We must mention that the numbers quoted from our work are not the activation energies of the hopping process, but assistance energies. Moreover, the value of 0.6 eV quoted for AlCuFe is related with Cu rather than with Al hopping, and the assistance energies we reported for AlPdMn are not remarkably close to 0.6 eV. On the same footing it is not clear what the statement that high temperature phason hopping would “interfere” with other processes is supposed to imply.

The authors claim that it has been shown that d-AlCoNi contains a large amount of “vacant sites”. The“vacant sites” in question are just phason sites, such that this claim contradicts the earlier introductory statement of the authors that no empty lattice site is involved in the concept of a phason flip. That we are dealing here with phason sites rather than with vacancies is not an issue and leaves no space for any confusion of the kind that would seem to emanate from the presentation of the authors. The confusion is produced by the undifferentiated terminology “vacant site” which the authors use for both phason sites and vacancies.

Other poorly justified statements have been made by these authors to promote the idea that QCs would contain a large amount of vacancies. This shows that

this statement has not been deduced by unbiased logical deduction from scientific observation, but that it is a preconceived postulate the authors try to validate. This postulate has a pivotal function in the argument of the authors. It must serve to lend credibility to an analogy they want to impose between B2-based crystals (which might contain up to 12 percent structural vacancies) and QCs (where nothing of that order of magnitude has ever been established). This then should permit to incorporate phason dynamics into a much broader class of trite hopping phenomena.

The authors argue that in contrast with high-temperature data, the low-temperature data would not be subject to “interference”. This cannot conceal the lack of conclusive prove for the attribution of the low-temperature NMR signal to phason dynamics, as reflected in the caution of the statement that the data are compatible with phason dynamics. NMR data do not provide much information about characteristic distances as they do not yield Q-dependent information. The time scales accessed are quite remote from the time scales that can be accessed by other techniques such that cross-checking or use of complementary information to validate the claims is not possible. This is unfortunate as the existence of such slow low-temperature dynamics is certainly intriguing. The only thing we really know with certainty is that there is some slow (local) relaxation with a low activation energy. E.g. the idea of a small local shift of the Al atom in response to a slowly fluctuating or diffusing strain field that includes its environment is equally compatible with their data. One can think of other phenomena that could be compatible with the data. Without wanting to reinterpret the NMR data accordingly, we may mention that one type or another of slow dynamics remaining unfrozen at low temperatures is observed in many systems, including QCs, e.g. in the form of tunneling states. Above a few degrees K the coherent tunelling may cross over to a thermally activated process. The low temperature region is thus not as exempt of the possibility of “interfering” dynamics as the authors suggest. It has still not been proved experimentally that tunneling states in QCs are not phasons. This illustrates the difficulty of making assignments. In glasses tunneling states are conceived as small simultaneous shifts in the positions of groups of atoms bringing about a transition between slightly degenerate configurations. The precise detailed geometrical picture of the motions involved in such processes remains unknown. This kind of lack of information is a recurrent theme in slow dynamics and due to the physical limitations of the available experimental techniques. From all this we may retain a neglected possibility of explanations in terms of small, non-phasonic atomic shifts, whose amplitudes explore a continuum rather than a discrete set.

The suggested uniqueness of interpretation of the NMR data is also contradicted by other NMR data of the authors. In fact, in reference  they observed a temperature behaviour of an NMR signal that was not compatible with their interpretation of it in terms of phason dynamics. The AlPdMn phase can be magnetic, a fact that offers seeds for an alternative explanation. In a subsequent paper they stated that this scenario could not be proved, and concluded that the origin of the signal was not understood, but probably due to unusual magnetic properties of Mn atoms. They also stated that the data from AlPdRe are of a different origin than those from AlPdMn, despite possible similarities in the time scales. This illustrates that other phenomena that are not frozen can exist at low temperatures and wrongfoot the interpretation of the data. It is not because two signals look similar that they cover similar physics: What is more similar to a relaxation time with an activation energy than another relaxation time with an activation energy? But in many experimental techniques, relaxation times and activation energies are all the hard data resume to. Now the authors have established the existence of similar signals in B2-based AlNiCu, which despite all possible claims definitely does not support phason dynamics. If following them we discard interference from vacancy motion, we are faced with the problem of elucidating the origin of an NMR signal in the B2-based phase that is not due to phasons nor to vacancy hopping. The fact that such unclearly identified atomic dynamics can give rise to a signal that is similar to the one observed in QCs is (in view of the unappropriateness of the comparison) not a proof that the assignment of the authors is wrong, but does reveal that its uniqueness is not sufficiently substantiated. We may note that the theory of Jarić and Nelson for diffuse scattering is based on the ansatz that phason dynamics is frozen. Hence the assignment of the authors also summons for a rethinking of matters that have been directly linked to the validity of the random tiling model.

In summary, the main conclusion of the authors that phason dynamics is not QC-specific cannot be reached on the basis of the data presented. But even if such a conclusion could be reached, nobody would understand QC-specifity in the singular, restrictive sense the authors want to give to it. Their concern of uniqueness is much less in order than the one about the assignment of the NMR signal. In fact, phasons correspond to atomic jumps in double-well potentials, whose minima are separated by a distance shorter than the interatomic distances. Nobody claims that such double-well potentials giving rise to atomic jumps would be a rarity in solid state physics. The example of the hydrogen bond has been well known for a long time. One of the original features of QCs is that the presence of these short-distance double wells is an integrated part of the quasilattice. Conceptually, a simple B2-based lattice with vacancies does not imply the existence of short-distance double wells. It would thus appear that examples of signals from B2-based phases do not capture the essence of the non-uniqueness of the dynamics of such double-well potentials. As already stated, there is more to the similarity of the physics than a similarity of relaxation times.


text:
# Fluid adsorption near an apex: Covariance between complete and critical wetting

On leave from \]Departamento de Física Atómica, Molecular y Nuclear, Area de Física Teórica, Universidad de Sevilla, Apartado de Correos 1065, 41080 Sevilla, Spain

## Abstract

Critical wetting is an elusive phenomenon for solid-fluid interfaces. Using interfacial models we show that the diverging length scales, which characterize complete wetting at an apex, precisely mimic critical wetting with the apex angle behaving as the contact angle. Transfer matrix, renormalization group (RG) and mean field analysis (MF) shows this covariance is obeyed in 2D, 3D and for long and short ranged forces. This connection should be experimentally accesible and provides a means of checking theoretical predictions for critical wetting.

Advances in the controlled fabrication of micropatterned substrates have stimulated the experimental and theoretical study of fluid adsorption at tailored surfaces 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 ; 5 . For example, Mistura and co-workers 5  have recently investigated complete wetting of Ar on several parallel arrays of wedges *and apexes*. They show convincingly that the adsorption within the (independent) wedge regions is geometry dominated and distinct from the planar complete wetting case. As well as having implications for microfluidics such studies have also revealed a number of unexpected results relating interfacial fluctuation effects and substrate geometry which have wide application to other phase transitions (see later). Here we use effective Hamiltonian theory to show that *complete* wetting on *apex* shaped substrates reveals a hidden connection (covariance) with *critical* (continuous) wetting transition occurring on planar surfaces 6 ; 7 . The covariance emerges when one considers how, at bulk coexistence, the mean height $`l_A(\alpha )`$ of the unbinding interface above the apex tip depends on the apex angle $`\alpha `$. For shallow apexes we show that $`l_A(\alpha )`$ is identical to the mean interfacial thickness occurring at a particular class of critical wetting transition with the apex angle playing the role of an effective contact angle. The covariance is valid for 2D and 3D apexes, for arbitrary intermolecular forces and is, we believe, a general feature which should also be present in more microscopic models.

The central result of our article is the following covariance relation for the interfacial height probability distribution function (PDF) which precisely quantifies the influence of the apex geometry on the complete wetting film. We emphasize that the PDF contains a great deal of information determining the (local) interfacial height, roughness and the scaling properties of the density profile. Let $`P_A^U(l,\alpha )`$ denote the PDF for the interface height above the apex where the superscript refers to the repulsive binding potential $`U(l)Bl^p`$ for a complete wetting film (see below). Let $`P_\pi ^V(l;\theta )`$ denote the PDF for a planar critical wetting transition written in terms of the contact angle $`\theta `$. Here $`V(l)`$ is the binding potential for a critical wetting transition which, of necessity, contains attractive and repulsive terms. The covariance relation, valid for small $`\alpha `$ and at bulk coexistence, reads

$$P_A^U(l,\alpha )=P_\pi ^V(l;\alpha )$$
(1)
where the covariant binding potential

$$V(l)=Al^{\chi /2}+U(l)$$
(2)
with $`\chi =\mathrm{min}(p,\tau )`$ and $`A`$ determining the effective contact angle (related to $`\alpha `$). Here $`\tau =2(1\zeta )/\zeta `$ and $`\zeta `$ are the entropic repulsion and interfacial wandering exponents respectively 8 . Thus the apex locally binds the complete wetting film and induces an effective attractive term in the binding potential, twice the range of the dominant intermolecular or entropic repulsive term. A similar rule applies in 3D for exponentially decaying potentials. Recall that in contrast to abundant experimental studies of complete wetting (including recent work on systems with short ranged forces 9 ) critical wetting transitions are rather rare 6 ; 7  for which no examples are known currently for solid-fluid interfaces. The covariance discussed here provides a means of effectively inducing critical wetting behaviour using complete wetting films.

Consider the interface between an infinite apex and a bulk vapor at temperature $`T`$ and chemical potential $`\mu \mu _{sat}(T)`$ (see Fig. 1). We suppose that the flat wall ($`\alpha =0`$) is completely wet by the liquid phase at coexistence $`\delta \mu \mu _{sat}\mu (T)=0^+`$ corresponding to zero contact angle. The wall shape is described by a height function $`z_A=\mathrm{tan}\alpha |x|`$ in the $`(x,z)`$ plane although we shall only be interested in the case of shallow apexes for which we may approximate $`\mathrm{tan}\alpha \alpha `$. Macroscopically far from the apex tip the height of the interface above the wall is the same as that occurring for a flat wall. Since the liquid-vapor interface is required to round the apex, surface tension restrictions imply that the local height $`l_A`$ above the apex tip is smaller and remains finite even in the limit of bulk coexistence. We wish to evaluate the mean interfacial height $`l_A(\alpha )`$ and interfacial roughness (r.m.s. interfacial width) $`\xi _A(\alpha )`$ at bulk coexistence and the critical exponents

$$l_A(\alpha )\alpha ^{\beta _A},\xi _A(\alpha )\alpha ^{\nu _A}$$
(3)
For the 3D apex we also wish to determine the transverse correlation length $`\xi _y(\alpha )\alpha ^{\nu _y}`$ pertinent to correlations along the apex. Correlations in the $`x`$ direction are not described by a finite correlation length and fluctuations are not localised to a region near the apex.

We begin with the 2D apex. The starting point for our calculations is the interfacial Hamiltonian model

$$\beta H_A[l]=𝑑x\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\left(\frac{dl}{dx}\right)^2+U(l+\alpha |x|)\right\}$$
(4)
where $`l(x)`$ is the local height of the interface above the $`z=0`$ reference line, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the (reduced) stiffness coefficient (surface tension) of the liquid-vapor interface and $`U(l)`$ denotes the binding potential modelling the complete wetting behavior pertinent to the planar system $`\alpha =0`$. For shallow apexes, it is permissable to assume the interface interaction with the wall occurs via the relative vertical height $`\stackrel{~}{l}l+\alpha |x|`$. The binding potential $`U(l)`$ has an infinite hard wall repulsion and decays as

$$U(l)=(\rho _l\rho _g)\beta \delta \mu l+Bl^p$$
(5)
where, for the moment we have allowed for a finite bulk-order field $`\delta \mu >0`$. Here $`B`$ is a positive Hamaker constant whilst $`p`$ accounts for the range of the intermolecular forces. Exponentially decaying binding potentials will also be considered in our discussion of the 3D apex. For dimensions in which the free liquid-vapor interface is rough, critical effects at planar complete wetting transitions fall into two classes 8 ; 10 : a MF regime for $`p<\tau `$ and a fluctuation-dominated regime for $`p>\tau `$. Heuristically this arises from the interplay between the direct intemolecular repulsion $`l^p`$ and the effective entropic replusion $`U_{fl}(l)l^\tau `$. In the present paper we restrict our attention to pure systems for which the interface is rough for $`d3`$ and $`\zeta =(3d)/2`$. For fixed $`p`$ the upper critical dimension for complete wetting is $`d_{co}=34/(p+2)`$ 10 .

The model can be studied using transfer matrix methods previously developed for the wedge geometry 11 . Care must be taken in defining an infinite apex geometry and it is convenient to first consider a finite apex extending over the range $`[L/2,L/2]`$ and impose periodic boundary conditions at the edges. After taking the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ at finite $`\delta \mu >0`$ it is straightforward to derive an expression for the interfacial height probability distribution function at arbitrary position $`x`$ along the wall. At the apex mid-point symmetry considerations simplify this expression considerably

$$P_A^U(l;\alpha )|\psi _0(l)|^2e^{2\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha l}$$
(6)
where $`\psi _0(l)`$ denotes the ground-state wave function solving the Schrödinger equation

$$\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}\psi _0(l)^{\prime \prime }+U(l)\psi _0(l)=E_0\psi _0(l)$$
(7)
with boundary conditions $`\psi (0)=\psi (\mathrm{})=0`$. We now focus on the complete wetting limit $`\delta \mu 0`$. Macroscopically far from the apex the interface unbinds from the wall. Close to the apex however the interface remains bound due to the pinning exponential term in (6). As $`\alpha 0`$, three different critical behaviors are found: (I) A MF regime for $`p<2`$, characterized by Gaussian fluctuations with $`l_A(\alpha )\xi _A(\alpha )`$; (II) a marginal case for $`p=2`$; and (III) a fluctuation dominated regime for $`p>2`$ with universal critical behavior and large scale fluctuations $`l_A(\alpha )\xi _A(\alpha )\alpha ^1`$. The explicit expressions for the large distance/scaling behavior of $`P_A^U(l;\alpha )`$, determining the critical singularities, are given by:

$$P_A^U(l;\alpha )\{\begin{array}{cc}l^{\frac{p}{2}}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha l+\frac{4\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Sigma }B}}{2p}l^{1p/2})\hfill & p<2\hfill \\ & \\ l^{1+\sqrt{1+8\mathrm{\Sigma }B}}\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha l)\hfill & p=2\hfill \\ & \\ l^2\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha l)\hfill & p>2\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
In the MF regime, a saddle point evaluation reveals that:

$$l_A(\alpha )\left(\frac{2B}{\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha ^2}\right)^{1/p};$$
(9)
and $`\nu _A=1/p+1/2`$. The critical exponents are continuous at $`p=2`$. These results completely classify the asymptotic critical behavior for complete wetting at a 2D apex in pure systems. At this point we make two remarks:

A: The values of the critical exponents follow from a simple mean-field/entropic repulsion argument. Ignoring fluctuations the equilibrium interfacial profile is obtained from minimization of the effective Hamiltonian. A first integral of the Euler-Lagrange equation determines the mid-point height at bulk coexistence according to

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha ^2}{2}=U(l_A)$$
(10)
and leads directly to the result (9) valid in the MF regime ($`p<\tau `$). For $`p>\tau `$ interfacial wandering leads to an entropic repulsion $`U_{fl}l^\tau `$. Thus we should expect two regimes with $`\beta _A=\mathrm{max}(2/p,\zeta /(1\zeta ))`$ in agreement with the explicit calculation for $`\zeta =1/2`$. For later purposes observe that the MF equation (10) is also appropriate for higher dimensional apexes.

B: The PDF’s and associated critical exponents are identical to those occurring at a certain class of 2D critical wetting transition. At a critical wetting transition the mean height of the interface $`l_\pi `$, roughness $`\xi _{}`$ and parallel correlation length $`\xi _{}`$ for a planar substrate diverge as the temperature (say) is increased towards a wetting temperature $`T_w`$ ($`\mu =\mu _{sat}`$). This is equivalent to the contact angle $`\theta `$ of a sessile drop vanishing as $`TT_w^{}`$. The standard interfacial model for this is

$$\beta H_\pi [l]=𝑑x\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\left(\frac{dl}{dx}\right)^2+V(l)\right\}$$
(11)
where $`V(l)`$ denotes an appropriate binding potential. The associated PDF $`P_\pi ^V(l;\theta )`$ can be calculated using standard methods which map the problem onto one dimensional quantum mechanics 10 . In particular consider 2D critical wetting transitions occurring for the class of potentials (2) with $`\chi =\mathrm{min}(p,2)`$. For such potentials calculations show that $`A\theta `$. A straightforward calculation of the PDF’s $`P_\pi ^V(l;\theta )`$ for $`p<2`$, $`p=2`$ and $`p>2`$ yields results that, in the critical limit (small $`\theta `$) are *identical* to (8) provided we set $`\theta =\alpha `$ note . Apex complete wetting precisely mimics the properties of a critical wetting transition. From the covariance of the PDF’s it follows that the mean-interfacial heights satisfy

$$l_A(\alpha )=l_\pi ^V(\alpha )$$
(12)
where the RHS is understood to represent the mean height at a planar critical wetting transition with the covariant potential (2). It is notable that apex covariance is obeyed at MF level and beyond, and therefore not necessarily related to fluctuation induced effects such as hyperscaling. In particular the relation (12) follows directly from comparing the solution of the MF equation (10) with the position of the minimum of the critical wetting potential (2) (with $`\chi =p`$). The covariance relations for apex complete wetting are similar, but not identical, to those which exists for 2D wedge filling transitions. For both pure and impure systems 2D filling transitions mimic the properties of planar critical wetting transitions with short-ranged forces in contrast to the present apex problem where the equivalent critical wetting transition has long(er)-ranged forces. Wedge covariance and filling are closely related to the Indekeu-Robledo conjecture for the line tension 12 , and the unzipping transition for stranded polymer chains 13 . It is likely that similar connections may also apply for the apex geometry.

Having discussed the 2D apex in detail it is straightforward to generalise the results to 3D systems based on the interfacial model

$$\beta H_A[l]=𝑑𝐱\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\left(l\right)^2+U(l+\alpha |x|)\right\}$$
(13)
where for purposes of generality we have written $`𝐱=(x,𝐱_{})`$ where $`𝐱_{}`$ denotes the $`d2`$ dimensional vector along the apex axis. In 3D $`𝐱=(x,y)`$ but it is instructive to also consider the generalized apex for $`2d<3`$ since this gives clear indication that the covariance relations extend to higher dimensions. First rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of the relative height $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$. The critical behavior follows from elementary RG considerations. Under rescaling $`𝐱𝐱^{}=𝐱/b`$, $`ll^{}=lb^\zeta `$ the the renormalised tilt angle and Hamaker constant are $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha b^{1\zeta }`$ and $`B^{}=Bb^{2\zeta p2\zeta }`$ respectively. Thus $`\alpha `$ is always a relevant scaling field whilst the intermolecular forces are only relevant for $`p<\tau `$. The criticality falls into two scaling regimes consistent with the explicit 2D results:

(I) A MF regime for $`p<\tau `$ with $`\beta _A=2/p`$, $`\nu _y=2/p+1`$ and $`\nu _A=\zeta \nu _y`$ for which (10) is valid.

(II) A fluctuation-regime for $`p>\tau `$ describing the universality class of systems with short-ranged forces with $`\beta _A=\zeta /(1\zeta )`$, $`\nu _y=1/(1\zeta )`$ and $`\nu _A=\zeta \nu _y`$.

Note that for fixed $`p`$ the upper critical dimension $`d_A=34/(p+2)`$ and is unchanged from the planar complete wetting result $`d_{co}`$. Remarks A and B made earlier about the 2D results also apply in higher dimensions, where the planar covariant effective Hamiltonian is:

$$\beta H_\pi [l]=𝑑𝐱\left\{\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{2}\left(l\right)^2+V(l)\right\}$$
(14)
For the physically relevant case $`d=3`$, MF theory is valid for all long-ranged intermolecular forces (finite $`p`$). Thus for non-retarded van der Waals forces we predict $`l_A(\alpha )\sqrt{2B/\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha ^2}`$ and observe that this is identical (covariant) with the growth of the interfacial thickness at a critical wetting transition with binding potential $`V=A/l+B/l^2`$. Similar remarks apply for the interfacial roughnesses at the respective transitions ($`\xi _A(\alpha )\xi _{}\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }`$). Our final task is to address the issue of covariance for the marginal case of 3D systems with short-ranged forces. For this we use the interfacial model (13) with binding potential $`U=B\mathrm{exp}(\kappa l)`$ and $`\kappa `$ the inverse bulk correlation length. At MF level we find $`\kappa l_A(\alpha )2\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ whilst solution of the Ornstein-Zernike equation for the height-height correlation function along the apex tip yields $`\xi _y\alpha ^1`$ note2 . Thus the MF exponents for short-range forces are $`\beta _A=0(\mathrm{ln})`$, $`\nu _y=1`$ and are consistent with the $`\zeta 0`$ limit of the short-ranged exponents detailed in (II). Beyond MF we anticipate that $`\nu _y`$ is unchanged but that the logarithmic divergence of $`l_A`$ is altered. To study this we employ the same approximate linear functional RG approach used for the 3D planar wetting transition but with an appropriately modified matching condition for the new geometry 14 . Under the rescaling of $`l`$ and $`𝐱`$ described earlier (with $`\zeta =0`$) the binding potential maps as $`U(l)R^{(b)}[U]`$ which effectively coarse-grains the potential over the interfacial roughness. Since the angle and correlation length rescale as $`\alpha ^{}=b\alpha `$ and $`\xi _y^{}=\xi _y/b`$ one can curtail the renormalization at $`b\alpha ^1`$ at which scale both the renormalized angle and transverse correlation length are of order unity and fluctuation effects are negligible. Matching with MF theory implies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }/2=R^{(1/\alpha )}[U(l_A)]`$ and a simple calculation yields

$$\kappa l_A(\alpha )(2+\omega )\mathrm{ln}\alpha $$
(15)
where $`\omega =\kappa ^2/(4\pi \mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the usual wetting parameter and we have assumed $`\omega <2`$ as pertinent to the bulk Ising universality class. This critical behavior is again consistent with covariance as can be seen by comparison with the 3D short-ranged critical wetting transition described by the model (14) with potential

$$V(l)=Ae^{\frac{\kappa l}{2}}+Be^{\kappa l};l>0$$
(16)
where, guided by our earlier findings, we have included an attractive term which is twice the range of the direct repulsion. This is the same binding potential appearing in the standard theory of short-ranged critical wetting except for a trivial factor of two in the definition of the inverse bulk correlation length. Accordingly, rescaling $`\kappa `$ and $`\omega `$ in the known RG results for critical wetting 14

$$\kappa l_\pi ^V(\theta )(2+\omega )\mathrm{ln}\theta $$
(17)
where the (rescaled) wetting parameter $`\omega <2`$. Note also that the divergence of $`\xi _y\alpha ^1`$ is similar to the behaviour of the critical wetting transverse correlation length *written in terms of the contact angle* $`\xi _{}(\theta )\theta ^1`$. Interestingly one still finds the critical behavior (15) if one improves the apex calculation to account for a position-dependent stiffness coefficient 15 . That is, even if planar short-ranged wetting transitions are driven first-order by a stiffness instability mechanism, the apex still mimics the properties of critical wetting.

We finish with comments relevant to experimental studies on periodic systems. Close to bulk coexistence the interfacial height above a single, infinite apex shows scaling behavior $`l_A\alpha ^{\beta _A}W_{(1)}(\delta \mu \alpha ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_A})`$ with gap exponent $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A=2+\beta _A`$. On a periodic array (with wavelength $`L`$) finite size effects modifies this to $`l_A\alpha ^{\beta _A}W_{(2)}(\delta \mu \alpha ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_A},L/\xi _{}^{co})`$, where $`\xi _{}^{co}\delta \mu ^{\nu _{}^{co}}`$ is the transverse correlation length for planar complete wetting. Thus the adsorption above the apex tip only behaves like a single apex for sufficiently large $`L\xi _{}^{co}`$. This is equivalent to the requirement that the vertical distance between the apex tip and the wedge trough, $`\alpha L/2`$, is much larger that the local height of the interface above the wedge bottom $`l_w\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha ^2/2\beta \delta \mu (\rho _l\rho _g)`$.

In this paper we have shown that complete wetting at an apex mimics precisely planar critical wetting. Taken together with similar covariance relations for wedge filling, there is clear evidence of a fundamental connection between contact and geometric angles. Further work is required to understand such covariances at a deeper level.

J.M.R.-E. and M.J.G. acknowledge financial support from Secretaría de Estado de Educación y Universidades (Spain), co-financed by the European Social Fund, and EPSRC (UK), respectively.


text:
# Host galaxies of z∼4.7 QSOs 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina)

## 1 Introduction and observations

The host galaxies of high redshift QSOs are of interest as they are considered to be massive galaxies with high abundances and massive central black holes in the early universe. It has been found that at redshift 2 and higher, QSO host galaxies are large, luminous, and the sites of star-formation and galaxy merging. There have been several investigations of QSO host galaxies in the redshift range 2 to 2.5 (e.g. Ridgway et al 2001, Kukula et al 2001, Hutchings et al 2002). There have been studies of radio galaxies, which are easier to resolve, to redshifts 4 and higher (e.g. van Breugel et al 1998, Inskip et al 2001, Jarvis et al 2001, De Breuck et al 2002). Compared with radio galaxies, QSO hosts are more difficult to study because of the bright nuclear light source, but recent surveys, in particular the SDSS, have greatly increased the number of QSOs as known high redshift objects. This paper describes observations intended to detect and characterize some QSO hosts at redshifts near 4.7.

Most of the work on higher redshift QSOs has been done with HST or ground-based AO systems, to reduce the light scattered by the QSO nucleus. While these studies have found that there are compact spheroidal stellar populations around the nuclei (see above references), there are also indications that the host galaxies have faint light extended over several arcsec (e.g. Hutchings 1995). Assuming that the hosts are still large and luminous at redshifts 4.7, the main requirement was of large light-gathering power, since redshift dimming will be large. Subarcsecond image quality is still very desirable, to avoid too much contamination by the bright unresolved nucleus. Finally, in order to learn about both stars and gas in the galaxies, the observations were made in broad-band and narrow-band at the redshifted wavelength of the \[O II\] emission line, characteristic of star-formation. Thus, the rest wavelengths are near 3700Å, and the observations made near 2 microns. Similar narrow-band imaging of the redshifted \[O III\] lines is described by Hutchings, Morris, and Crampton (2001).

The QSOs were selected from a high redshift list of Djorgovski (http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$``$george/z4.qsos) based mainly on the SDSS (e.g. Anderson et al 2001, Zheng et al 2000). The sample selected has redshifts that place the \[O II\] line inside the bandpass of a NIRI narrow-band filter. Objects were selected from this short list by the Gemini service observers, to fit their schedules and weather conditions. Thus, the sample is essentially random in all properties other than redshift being close to 4.7, and the magnitude limits of the SDSS.

The observations were carried out on the Gemini N telescope during the first half of 2002, with total exposures of 40 minutes in both broad- and narrow-band filters. The details are given in Table 1, along with properties of the QSOs, including the R/r magnitude and QSO names from Djorgovski’s list, and some measured quantities. As the observations were carried out by service observing over a number of nights, the conditions varied somewhat between them. The FWHM and limiting surface brightness are shown for all objects, and lie in reasonably compact ranges of values. We refer below to the narrow- and broad-band observations as NB and BB respectively.

The analysed images were derived from dithered exposures, processed using standard techniques. Details of this process for other ground-based observations are given in Hutchings et al (1999), and Steinbring, Crampton, and Hutchings (2002). The field size is approximately 2 arcmin, which included suitable PSF stars in all cases, and enabled some analysis of the faint galaxy counts in the QSO neighbourhood.

## 2 Data and measurements

The QSOs were identified by their position and catalogued magnitude using finding charts from the Digitised Sky Survey. With one exception noted below, this process was simple and unambiguous.

For each QSO, we derived a PSF from a nearby bright and single star. In general there was only one suitable PSF star (one field had only a star with a fainter companion that had to be edited out), so that combining stars to improve the PSF was not possible. However, a few other fainter stars were plotted to be sure that the principal one is unresolved and unblended.

Azimuthally averaged luminosity plots were made (using IRAF task ellipse ) for the PSF star, the QSO, and in some cases, the nearest resolved faint galaxy which might be a companion. These plots are shown in Figure 1, and demonstrate clearly where QSO images are resolved. Similar plots were made for a few other stars or compact galaxies in the images that have similar signal and lack of nearby companions, to the QSOs. These plots lie close to the PSF, and thus suggest that the resolved light around the QSOs is associated (i.e. ‘host’ galaxy), rather than due to faint background objects that do not show up in the PSFs, which are derived from bright stars.

The resolved flux was calculated from the plots in Figure 1, and also with a range of PSF scaling factors that leave a difference profile that extends approximately linearly to zero radius. This does not include the possibility of an unresolved compact core of the host galaxy.

In addition, the PSF star image was scaled, shifted, and subtracted from the QSO image, so as to leave the weakest residual image that has a smoothly rising flux to the centre. These PSF-subtracted images were also measured as the resolved host galaxies.

Finally, the broad-band image was scaled and subtracted from the narrow-band, to isolate resolved line emission. In some cases the image FWHM differs between the broad and narrow band images, so that the residuals are affected by this. We discuss the QSOs individually below, and the errors are discussed in the final section. In these measurements and plots, we removed objects that appear to be non-associated galaxies in the line of sight, so that they do not lead to overestimation of the host galaxy flux. In no case do such objects amount to an appreciable fraction of what was measured and shown in Table 1.

Other galaxy fluxes in the fields were measured in both broad and narrow- band images. These were measured with the IRAF task imexam set with a radius of 1.2 arcsec. Thus, larger galaxies and images with larger FWHM give incomplete flux values, but the intention was to compare the ratio of narrow to broad band flux for the compact objects, consistently across the fields for each object. Objects with line emission in the narrow-band image will have a higher ratio of narrow to broad band flux. In all cases we find this is true of the QSO, and there are other faint emission line candiates that may be companions, as we note in the sections on individual QSOs.

The calibration data were used to obtain approximate magnitudes for all measurements, where the uncertainty lies in some observing conditions being somewhat non-photometric. The limiting magnitude is fairly consistent among the images, and we have measured broad-band galaxy images down to about K=22. We have counted faint galaxies to this limit in all fields, centred on the QSO, and in one corner of the image as a comparison subfield. These are shown in Table 2. Galaxies brighter than the QSO are not counted as they must be foreground objects. However, their numbers are shown as general information about the field.

### 2.1 SDSS1321+0038

The positional ID is slightly doubtful. The QSO is assumed to be the relatively unresolved object of the expected magnitude, although a nearby brighter resolved galaxy is at the nominal position. There is a bright PSF star very nearby too. The field is uncrowded and there is no obvious population or grouping of faint galaxies. The flux measures for all three objects indicate no significant additional NB emission from the QSO, within the 10% scatter of the measures. The companion galaxy is actually fainter by about 8% in the NB image.

The luminosity profiles show marginally resolved flux in the BB images but indicate clearly resolved flux in the NB outside of 1.5 arcsec radius. The brighter companion galaxy is well resolved at all radii. The companion lies only 5 arcsec from the QSO, and its light effects are measurable as close as 3.5 arcsec. Figure 2 shows both images. The companion slightly affects measures of the NB image, which shows a curved filament in this direction, and the resolved NB flux is lower than indicated by the ellipse-fit profile in Figure 1. Allowing for this, its BB magnitude is 20.7.

The immediate environment ($`\pm `$15”) of the QSO is low in faint galaxy counts, compared with the whole field. Twelve galaxies are 2.5 - 3.5 magnitudes fainter than the QSO (40%), and three of these have the lowest NB/BB ratios (2.0 - 2.3), compared with 3.5 for the QSO and a mean of 4.2 for the other faint galaxies. Thus, they are candidates for companions to the QSO, with strong \[O II\] emission.

### 2.2 PC1415+3408

The NB star images are quite elliptical and the BB slightly elliptical. For both, the mean FWHM are the worst of the dataset. There is only one good PSF star, and it has a nearby companion that has to be edited out. The result of all this is that the QSO is unresolved out to about 2 arcsec radius. Beyond this, there is some faint resolved structure in both NB and BB. There is a faint companion at this distance and is likely what we see. The NB image has some jet-like extension/blob closer in (0.9 arcsec) along the short axis of the guiding ellipse, which does not show up in the luminosity plot. The NB image has 2 bright pixels near the nucleus that do not fit the profile. The BB image has similar effect but may be due to a mismatch of the edited PSF in the subtraction. The NB image has 0.1mag more flux than the continuum image, assuming all images are photometric.

The galaxy count close to the QSO is slightly lower than the frame average, and the galaxy count is the lowest of the 5 fields. There are 11 galaxies (52%) more than ten times fainter than the QSO, and two have unusually high NB/BB ratio (1.6 and 2.2 compared with 3.2 for the QSO and a mean of 4.5 for the other faint galaxies).

### 2.3 GB1428+4217

The QSO has 15% extra signal in the NB image, and the magnitude is 0.1 brighter. It lies in a field of crowded small faint galaxies (about 60 in the image to K=19.5, and many times that down to K=21.0).

The radial plots were done after editing out the nearest companion, about 3.1 arcsec away. The BB image is marginally resolved beyond 1.8 arcsec, and clearly resolved beyond 2.4 arcsec. The NB image shows resolved light beyond 1.5 arcsec.

The broad-band image shows a very unsmooth structure of the light resolved around the QSO. While the innermost arcsec is unresolved, there is no symmetrical connection to the outer structures, in the total image or after PSF-subtraction. The QSO thus appears to be located in a central unresolved blob surrounded by several radial wisps whose total flux is given in Table 1. A few other wisps lie within 8 arcsec, unconnected to the QSO, and which are not measured. A compact resolved brighter blob lies 3.5 arcsec away, unconnected to the wisps.

The narrow-band images show an extension that is directed some 45o away from the line to the nearby companion. It extends to 2.4”. There is also extended light close to the nucleus orthogonal to this. The PSF-subtracted NB image suggests some structure along a different axis within the innermost arcsec, curving on one side into the outer extension, and a linear inner feature that corresponds to the inner extended light. The N-B subtracted image shows similar morphology in all these respects. The good image quality, and similar FWHM in BB and NB images allow us to have confidence in these morphological details. Figure 3 shows some images of the QSO.

The extended resolved NB light corresponds to mag 21.3, although the NB/BB ratio suggests an equal additional amount of NB luminosity from the unresolved central region.

There are many faint galaxies in the field, with two empty patches away from the QSO. The galaxy density near the QSO is typical of the field, and over this field has nearly twice the number of galaxies as the other QSOs. The QSO is the brightest object, and most of the galaxies are faint enough to be potential companions. Nine galaxies have N/B flux ratios that are low enough to suggest \[O II\] emission at the QSO redshift (1.6 - 2.2, compared with 3.2 for the QSO, and a mean of 4.5 for the other faint galaxies. Four of these candidates are in the 9 galaxies closest to the QSO, and 3 of those 9 are too faint to measure NB flux. This seems a good candidate for a cluster associated with the QSO.

### 2.4 SDSS1451-0104

This QSO is discussed by Zheng et al (2000), along with a spectrum. There is a broad absorption trough shortward of C IV, but separate from the emission, so it may be a BAL. The Oxygen lines in the rest-frame UV are strong, so we may expect \[O II\] to be strong.

This object has a significant mismatch in resolution of the NB and BB images, but the NB images are very good. The NB image has 16% more signal than the scaled BB image, using the average of a star and nearby faint galaxy for comparison. There are few faint galaxies in the image, so no grouping around the QSO is indicated.

The radial plots show the BB images is marginally resolved from a radius of 0.9 arcsec, but with flux that falls almost as rapidly as the PSF. Beyond 2.1”, the BB image scale length is larger. The NB profile shows clear resolved flux beyond 1.3 arcsec, with a relatively large scale length. The images show some compact extended flux in the BB image that looks like a broad tail on one side. The NB image shows some extension in this direction, more extended, but also a brighter linear feature at 120o to this, with some sharp curvature near the end. Figure 4 shows some images of the QSO.

The QSO lies in a region less crowded with galaxies than the frame average. There are 18 galaxies more than 10 times fainter than the QSO, almost all of which lie in a group away from the QSO. None are bright enough to measure the NB/BB flux ratio.

### 2.5 SDSS1532-0039

This was observed several times, with different image quality. The QSO lies centrally in a grouping of faint galaxies within the whole field imaged. The worst BB image was not used, and the others used both separately and combined. The NB images were better resolved. Both sets of NB and BB images gave different signal levels, so it was assumed that the lower signal ones non-photometric. The QSO has a nearby star and companion galaxy, both of comparable brightness that were used for the PSF and photometric comparison. The NB QSO images were 23% brighter in the NB than the scaling for the star and companion, indicating this level of line emission in the NB bandpass. This has an uncertainty of about 3% from the star to companion ratio spread.

In the radial luminosity plots, the BB image shows no resolved structure within 2.3 arcsec. Beyond that, faint flux is resolved to the limit of the image. There is a companion galaxy some 3.5 arcsec away that was edited out of the images for radial plots. This editing may affect the luminosity plot to a small extent in the 2-4 arcsec radius range. Plots were done for the companion by editing out the QSO, so similar considerations apply. The companion is clearly resolved in all images down to radii of 0.35 arcsec.

The QSO NB images, on the other hand, show resolved structure clearly beyond 0.8 arcsec to the limiting signal at radius at 4.1 arcsec. Both NB images show extended structure as a jet-like feature, out to radius about 4 arcsec. The jet seems detached from the main image and not quite radial, and details differ between the two NB images, which indicates the level of noise. Figure 2 shows broad- and narrow-band images. The magnitude of the resolved NB structure, in BB equivalent is 20.5, or some 5% of the QSO flux.

The BB images show linear radial structure similar in size and direction to the NB, but fainter and hard to measure. They also show a faint companion centred at 3.5 arcsec in this direction (just outside the region shown in Figure 2), with magnitude 22.5.

The QSO lies in a group of galaxies with sky density above the frame average. Apart from the 6 very bright galaxies, all galaxies are faint enough to be possible QSO companions. None of them has an unusual NB/BB flux ratio, however.

## 3 Discussion

While the broad-band images all have luminosity profiles that are broader than the PSF at ‘large’ radii (2 arcsec or more), the images do not indicate a smooth centrally concentrated host galaxy. It appears more that the QSO is located in one centrally located unresolved body within a network of knots and filaments that extend to several arcsec. This distribution is not found in randomly located faint objects in the field, and in any case is derived from images cleaned of knots that may be unassociated neighbours. Average and median images from all the QSOs have profiles that show the same resolved light, again suggesting that this is not random faint background objects. Thus, we may be seeing host galaxies that are in early stages of assembly.

We have several ways to estimate the host galaxy flux. We can integrate the resolved light under the PSF from the profile plots. We can extrapolate this light to zero radius (but have no particular model to assume). Finally, we can measure the flux remaining after our ‘best’ PSF-subtraction (as described above). The range of these estimates is less than one magnitude in all cases. We have adopted a ‘best estimate’ shown in the table, based on all considerations, taking into account the image quality for each object. The differences between the resolved flux and the host estimates give a good idea of the error bars to apply to the latter. The host values from Table 1 are the values plotted in Figure 5. We note that the values fall among the high redshift galaxies from de Breuck et al (2002), or form a reasonable extrapolation of them. Thus, perhaps not surprisingly, we find that luminous QSOs at redshift 4.7 are found inside the most luminous galaxies, and that the stellar populations will evolve along the K-z relationship.

The \[O II\] line emission is resolved all five QSOs. In the luminosity plots, this occurs at smaller radii than in the continuum images, and shows up as small bright (some jet-like) structures in the NB-BB or even the raw NB images. The overall NB/BB flux ratios indicate unresolved \[O II\] flux as well, in all cases. The morphology of the \[O II\] corresponds to regions of continuum flux, but the line emission occurs in smaller bright spots, as one would expect for regions with active star-formation. The similar distribution of \[O II\] and continuum light further confirms the picture of host galaxies in assembly. The total \[O II\] flux amounts to a rest-frame equivalent width of 5 to 10Å, which is typical of star-forming galaxies, and also typical of QSO nuclear (or NLR) spectra. However, we can see that the line emission is localised to small regions within the host galaxy, where star-formation must be very active.

The fact that the QSOs are bright presumably indicates that massive black holes have evolved at this redshift. Whether the black holes are related to the central compact stellar population rather than the larger assembling galaxy is an interesting issue in understanding the tight BH-bulge relation seen at lower redshifts. However, as these are very bright QSOs we must also question whether they are selected as those beamed at us, so that their total luminosity is lower than it appears to us.

Finally, two of the QSOs live in more than usually crowded regions of faint galaxies, and in three cases there are a few faint companions that may be in active star-formation if their NB/BB flux ratios do indicate \[O II\] emission at the QSO redshift. The flux ratios are consistent with this. In this connection we note the group of emission-line objects found by Venemans et al (2002) around a z=4.1 radio galaxy, and the high star-formation rates discussed for z$``$3 Lyman break galaxies by Shapley et al (2001).

I thank Wil van Breugel and Carlos De Breuck for providing their list of values for the K-z plot.

References

Anderson S.F., et al, AJ, 2001 (astro-ph/0103228)

De Breuck C., van Breugel W., Stanford S.A., Rottgering H., Miley G., Stern D., 2002, AJ, 123, 637

Hutchings J.B., 1995, AJ, 110, 994

Hutchings J.B., Morris S.L., Crampton D., 2001, AJ, 121, 80

Hutchings J.B., Crampton D., Morris S.L., Durand D., Steinbring E., 1999, AJ, 117, 1109

Hutchings J.B., Frenette D., Hanisch R.J., Mo J., Dumont P.J., Redding D.C., Neff S.G., 2002, AJ, 123, 2936

Inskip K.J., Best P.N., Longair M.S., MacKay D.J.C., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 277 (astro-ph/0110054)

Kukula M.J., Dunlop J.S., McLure R.J., Miller L., Percival W.J., Baum S.A., O’Dea C.P., 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1533 (astro-ph/0010007)

Jarvis M.J. et al, 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1585

Ridgway S.E., Heckman T.M., Calzetti D., Lehnert M., 2001, ApJ, 550, 122 (astro-ph/0011330)

Shapley A.E., Steidel C.C., Adelberger K.L., Dickinson M., Giavalisco M., Pettini M., 2001, ApJ, 562, 95

Steinbring E., Crampton D., Hutchings J.B., 2002, ApJ, 569, 611

van Breugel W., Stanford S.A., Spinrad H., Graham J.H., 1998, ApJ, 502, 614

Venemans B.P., et al, 2002, ApJ, 569, L11

Zheng W., et al, AJ, 2000 (astro-ph/0005247)

Captions to figures

1. Luminosity plots of semi-major axes of best-fitting ellipses, for QSO and PSF images. Each QSO has a pair of plots, for narrow-band and broad-band images. In some cases the profiles of nearby compact companions are shown as dotted lines, shifted to compare their outer isophote plots. The unshifted central values of these are shown as open circles. The lower right panel shows the profile derived from the mean of all 5 QSO images, scaled to the same signal levels, and the mean of their PSFs. Table 1 gives the surface brightnesses of the faintest QSO values plotted in each panel.

2. Grey-scale images, 7 arcsec on a side. Top images are 1532-0039 and lower images are 1321+0038; left side are broad-band and right side are narrow-band. The 1532-0039 images also show the nearby resolved companion, which is the right-hand object. 1321+0038 has a bright star just off the frame to the left.

3. Grey-scale images of 1428+4217. Top left: NB-PSF image; top right: NB-BB difference image; lower left NB image; lower right: BB image. Each panel is 14” on a side. The images have been smoothed with a 0.14” gaussian. Note the extended line emission in the upper panels, and the positional correspondence between NB and BB faint outer knots in the lower panels.

4. Grey-scale images of 1451-0104. Left panels are broad-band and right panels are narrow-band images. The upper panels are 7” on a side and the lower are 14”. The upper panels show the inner QSO structure and the lower panels show faint outer structures and knots. The images have been smoothed with a 0.14” gaussian.

5. K-z plot for radio galaxies (see references), with the best estimate values for the QSO hosts from this paper. The lines sketch in passive evolution models for 1.0 and 0.1 Gyr starbursts at z=20.