text:
# PHYSICAL PAPER Version of Pole solutions in the case of problems of flame front propagation and Saffman-Teylor ”finger” formation without surface tension: open problems and possible ways of their solutions.

## Abstract

Some physical problems as flame front propagation or Laplacian growth without surface tension have nice analytical solutions which replace its complex integro-differential motion equations by simple differential equations of poles motion in a complex plane. Investigation of these equation was the main topic of Kupervasser Oleg Ph.D. Thesis. Some very interesting open problems were hanged up there.Here we give these open problems and possible ways of their solutions.

In the beginning let us to consider the case of Saffman-Teylor ”finger” formation.

1) The case of Laplacian growth in the channel without surface tension was in details considered by Mark Mineev-Weinstein and Dawson . In this case the problem has the beautiful analytical solution. Moreover they assumed that all major effects in the case with vanishingly small surface tension may be received also without surface tension. It would allow applying to vanishingly small surface tension case the powerful analytical methods developed for the no surface tension case. However without additional assumptions this hypothesis may not be accepted.

The first objection is related to finite time singularities for some initial conditions. Actually, for overcoming this difficulty the regular item with surface tension was introduced. This surface tension item is resulting in loss of the analytical decision. However regularization may be carried out much more simply - simply by rejecting the initial conditions which result to these singularities.

The second objection is given in work Siegel and Tanveer . There it is shown, that in numerical simulations in a case with any (even vanishingly small) surface tension any initial thickness ”finger” extends up to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ thickness width of the channel. The analytical solution in a case without a surface tension results in constant thickness of the ”finger” equal to its initial size that may be arbitrary. Siegel and Tanveer however did not take into account the simple fact, that numerical noise introduces small perturbation or to the initial condition, or even during ”finger” growth, which is equivalent to the remote poles, and with respect to this perturbation the analytical solution with constant ”finger” thickness is unstable. By Mark Mineev-Weinstein  it was shown, that similar pole perturbations can give, at the some initial conditions, extending up to the Siegel and Tanveer solutions. This positive aspect of the paper  was mentioned by Sarkissian and Levine in them comment . Summing up, it is possible to tell, that for identity of the results with and without surface tension it is necessary to introduce a permanent source of the new remote poles: it may be either external noise or infinite number of poles in an initial condition. What from these methods is preferred it is a open question yet. In the case of flame front propagation it was shown , that external noise is necessary for an explanation of flame front velocity increase with the sizes of system: the infinite number of poles in an initial condition can not give this result. It is interesting to know, what is situation in the channel Laplacian growth.

One of main results of Laplacian growth in the channel with a small surface tension is Saffman-Teylor ”finger” formation with the thickness equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ thickness of the channel. And to use the analytical result received for zero surface tension, it is necessary to prove, that formation of the ”finger” with thickness equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ thickness of the channel takes place without surface tension also. In our teamwork with Mark Mineev-Weinstein  it was shown, that for finite number of poles at almost all allowed (in the sense of not approaching to finite time singularities) initial conditions, except for small number of some degenerated initial conditions, they have asymptotic as some ”finger” with any possible thickness. It should be mentioned, that the solutions and asymptotic found in  for finite number of poles are though also idealization, but quite have real sense for any finite intervals of time between appearance of the new poles introduced into system by external noise or connected to an entrance to the system of remote poles of an initial condition, including infinite number of such poles. The theorem proved in  and may be again applied for this final set of new and old poles is again received asymptotic, being again ”finger”, but already with possible new, distinct from former, thickness. Thus, introduction of a source of new poles results only in possible drift of thickness of the final ”finger”, but not changing of type of this solution. It should be mentioned, that instead of periodical boundary conditions, much more realistic physical boundary conditions may be introduced , forbidding a stream through a wall which insert additional, probably useful, restrictions on a positions, number and parameters of new and old poles (explaining, for example, why the sum of all complex parameters $`\alpha _i`$ for poles give the real value $`\alpha `$ for the pole solution (5) in ), not influencing, however, as shown in , on correctness and applicability proved in  results and methods of their including. Given in  by Mark Mineev-Weinstein ”proof”, that steady asymptotic for Laplacian growth in a channel with zero surface tension is single ”finger” with thickness equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ thickness of the channel, is unequivocally erroneous: completely the same method which was used in  to prove and demonstrate instability of ”finger” with thickness distinct from $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with respect to introducing the new remote poles, instability of ”finger” with thickness equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$ may be proved and demonstrated! This objection was repeatedly stated to Mark Mark Mineev-Weinstein before the publication of his paper , however has not found any answer there. Moreover, in our teamwork  was is shown, that for finite number of poles any thickness ”finger” is possible as asymptotic. It does not mean, nevertheless, that privileged role of ”finger” with thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$ cannot be proved in the case of surface tension absence, but means only that such the proof are not given in . Let us try to give these correct arguments here. The general pole solution (5) in work  is characterized by the real parameter $`\alpha `$ being the sum of the complex parameters $`\alpha _i`$ for poles. Thickness of the asymptotic finger is simple function of $`\alpha `$: ($`Thickness=1\frac{\alpha }{2}`$). The value ($`\alpha =1`$) corresponds to thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$. As far as possible thickness of the ”finger” is between 0 and 1, possible $`\alpha `$ value is in an interval between 0 and 2: ($`0<\alpha <2`$). The value $`\alpha =1`$ corresponding to thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is exactly in the middle of this interval. What occurs to quite possible initial pole conditions with $`\alpha `$ outside of limits from 0 up to 2? They are ”not allowed” because of already known to us finite time singularities . Also a part of solutions inside of interval $`0<\alpha <2`$ results to the similar finite time singularities. Exact necessary conditions, whether defining the initial pole condition as ”allowed”, i.e. singular, is still a open problem. How number of these ”allowed” initial pole conditions (to be exact speaking, their percent from the full number of the possible initial pole conditions corresponding to the given real value $`\alpha `$) is distributed inside of this interval? From the reasons of a continuity and symmetry with respect to $`\alpha =1`$ it is possible to conclude, that this distribution has a minimum in point $`\alpha =1`$ (thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$!), the value which is the most remote from both borders of interval $`0<\alpha <2`$, being increased to borders $`\alpha =2`$ or 0, and reaching 100 from all pole solutions outside of these borders. I.e. thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is the most probable because for this thickness value the minimal percent of potentially capable to give such thickness value initial conditions is ”not allowed”, i.e. results to singularities. Source of new poles results to the drift of finger thickness, but this thickness drift is closed to the most probable and average size equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$! The similar result is obtained in the case of Saffman-Teylor ”finger” with vanishingly small surface tension and with some external noise. As it was desirable to be proved. Similar idea, that the initial conditions resulting to singularities, can provide the selected and special role of thickness $`\frac{1}{2}`$ solution stated by Procaccia  also. These given arguments are not, certainly, the strict proof, but only specifies a way to it. The inquisitive reader is invited to make and publish it.

Let us pass to a problem of flame front propagation.

2) For a cylindrical case of the flame front propagation problem at absence of noise (only numerical noise) (look  and the bibliography there) by Sivashinsky with help of numerical methods it was shown, that the flame front is continuously accelerated. During all this account time it is not visible any attributes of saturation. To increase time of the account is a difficult task. Hence, absence or presence of velocity saturation in a cylindrical case, as consequence of the flame front motion equation it is still a open problem yet.

For the best understanding of dependence of flame front velocity as functions of its radius in a cylindrical case similar dependence of flame front velocity on width of the channel (in a flat case) also was analyzed by numerical methods. Growth of velocity is also observed and at absence of noise (only numerical noise!) also any saturation of the velocity it is not observed. Introduction obvious Gaussian noise results to appearance of a point of saturation and its removal from the origin of coordinates with decreasing of noise amplitude, allowing extrapolating results on small numerical noise. ( Fig. 2.6 in )

Hence, introducing of Gaussian noise in numerical calculation also for a cylindrical case can again results to appearance of a saturation point and will allow to investigate its behavior as function of noise amplitude by extrapolating results on small numerical noise. The Inquisitive Reader loved by me is invited again to make it and to publish the received interesting results.


format: text

text:
# Two-Mirror Apodization for High-Contrast Imaging

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper, Goncharov et al. (2002) propose using two mirrors to convert a uniform-intensity beam to one of nonuniform intensity—that is, an apodized exit beam. The motivation for their work was to “mask” the secondary mirror in designs of large two-mirror telescopes with fast spherical primaries. As an application of the idea, they point to radio and submillimeter-wave telescopes since for these it is important to suppress sidelobes and reduce background noise. However, its applicability to high-contrast imaging in the context of the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) project immediately caught our attention and the result is the work described in this paper.

Independently of Goncharov et. al., Guyon (2003) studied the same two-mirror apodization idea and analyzed its applicability to extra-solar planet finding. His work was motivated by Labeyrie’s paper on pupil densification (Labeyrie (1996)). The idea behind pupil densification is to reduce the intensity of the diffraction side lobes by remapping the sparse input pupil of an interferometer to a more compact exit pupil. Pupil densification provides the advantage of a better-concentrated image at the cost of field of view, since it violates the ”golden rule” of combining beams (Traub (1986)); this rule states that, to provide a large field of view, the exit pupil of an optical system must be a scaled version of the input pupil. Since pupil densification is a special case of pupil remapping, both will suffer field of view loss if the scaling factor is not constant.

Nevertheless, the potential gains from pupil mapping are so significant that it is worthwhile exploring this technique for the purpose of extrasolar planet searching, and this is the goal of the present paper.

In his paper, Guyon argues that the two-mirror approach provides a system with (i) a smaller inner working angle ($`1\lambda /D`$ vs. $`4\lambda /D`$) and consequently a smaller overall aperture and (ii) a higher throughput with a corresponding reduction in exposure time. Here, and throughout the paper, $`\lambda `$ is wavelength and $`D`$ is the diameter of the primary mirror. Guyon also addresses, at least qualitatively, the issue of off-axis performance of the system.

In this paper, we give a careful mathematical analysis of the on-axis and off-axis performance of this two-mirror system. We deal exclusively with one-dimensional mirrors in two-dimensional space. While the on-axis analysis is easily extended to real two-dimensional mirrors in three space dimensions, the off-axis analysis, which is the crux of this paper, is much more difficult in this higher dimension. Hence, we leave such analysis to future work.

The first and most obvious advantage of the two-mirror system is that throughput is increased since no light is lost. Furthermore, an interesting and unexpected advantage of this system is that there is an inherent magnification introduced by a nonuniform apodization. For example, a planet at $`5\lambda /D`$ in the sky actually appears at about $`12\lambda /D`$ in the image plane. This improves the effective inner working angle by a factor of $`2.4`$ and explains, we believe, Guyon’s claims about improved inner working angle. Consequently, such a system for planet finding could be implemented with a smaller mirror than would otherwise be required or, equivalently, could detect planets less than half as far from their parent star with the same aperture.

There is, however, a downside. We show that the inner working angle of an ideal system (with an on-axis source) is still $`4\lambda /D`$ and furthermore that even tiny off-axis light sources, such as arising from the nonzero size of the stellar disk, increase the inner working angle to at least $`6\lambda /D`$. So, a star at $`2.5\lambda /D`$ in the sky will appear at $`6\lambda /D`$ in the image plane and hence lie on the edge of detectability. This still represents a significant improvement over the $`4\lambda /D`$, which is the best one can do with standard apodization or with pupil masks.

In the next section, we derive the basic equations relating the shapes of two one-dimensional mirrors to the apodization they produce. Then, in Section 3, we give a careful analysis of the off-axis performance of this two-mirror system. Section 4 then goes through some specific examples, including the case of two parabolas, where everything can be computed explicitly. Finally, in Section 5, we show the results of numerical computations using the known optimal apodizer.

We end the present section with a word about our notation. Given any function of a single real variable, we use a prime to denote the derivative of this function with respect to its variable. So, for example, $`h^{}(x)=dh(x)/dx`$.

## 2 Mirror-Based Apodization

Figure 1 illustrates the use of two mirrors to produce an apodization. Parallel light rays come down from above, reflect off the bottom mirror (on the left), bounce up to the top mirror (on the right), and then exit downward as a parallel bundle with a concentration of rays in the center of the bundle and thinning out toward the edges—that is, the exit bundle is apodized. A focusing element on the $`x`$-axis then creates an image.

Let $`h(x)`$, $`axb`$, denote the height-function defining the lower mirror and let $`g(\stackrel{~}{x})`$, $`\frac{d}{2}\stackrel{~}{x}\frac{d}{2}`$, denote the height-function defining the upper mirror. We suppose there is a one-to-one correspondence between $`x`$’s in the interval $`[a,b]`$ and the interval $`[\frac{d}{2},\frac{d}{2}]`$ that is determined by the desired apodization. Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}(x)`$ denote the value in $`[\frac{d}{2},\frac{d}{2}]`$ associated with $`x`$ in $`[a,b]`$. We assume that the function $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, which we call the transfer function, is strictly monotone (either increasing or decreasing). It then has a functional inverse. Let $`x(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ denote this inverse function. The apodization $`A()`$ associated with this correspondence is given by

$$\frac{dx}{d\stackrel{~}{x}}(\stackrel{~}{x})=A(\stackrel{~}{x}).$$
(1)
Adding a boundary condition, such as $`x(\frac{d}{2})=a`$, makes it possible to derive the correspondence from the apodization.

The shapes of the two mirrors are determined by enforcing equality between angle-of-incidence and angle-of-reflection (i.e., Snell’s law) at the two mirror surfaces. The tangent vector to the first mirror is $`(1,h^{}(x))`$. The unit incidence vector is $`(0,1)`$ and the unit reflection vector is $`(\stackrel{~}{x}x,g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})`$, where

$$S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})=\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{x}x)^2+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))^2}$$
(2)
denotes the distance between the point $`(x,h(x))`$ on the first mirror and $`(\stackrel{~}{x},g(\stackrel{~}{x}))`$ on the second mirror. The scalar product between the tangent vector and the unit incidence vector must be equal to the negative of the scalar product between the tangent vector and the unit reflection vector. Equating these inner products, we get the following differential equation for $`h`$:

$$h^{}(x)=\frac{x\stackrel{~}{x}}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})h(x)+g(\stackrel{~}{x})}.$$
(3)
Applying the same technique to the surface of the second mirror at $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, we get the same expression for $`g^{}`$ and so

$$g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=h^{}(x).$$
(4)
Equation (4) says that, for a given ray, the slopes of the mirrors are locally the same, which is to be expected since the input ray is parallel to the output ray. From equations (3) and (4), it appears that the differential equations for $`h`$ and $`g`$ are a coupled system of ordinary differential equations. Our first task is to show how to decouple them.

Let

$$P_0(x,\stackrel{~}{x})=S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x),$$
(5)
denote the denominator in (3). It is the total optical path length from a point on any given horizontal line drawn above the first mirror (and below the second) vertically down to the first mirror diagonally up to the second mirror and finally vertically back down to the same horizontal line below the second mirror.

###### Theorem 1

The optical path length $`P_0`$ is a conserved quantity for on-axis rays.

Proof. If we regard $`x`$ as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and differentiate with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$, we get

$$\frac{d}{d\stackrel{~}{x}}\left(S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x)\right)=G(\stackrel{~}{x})H(\stackrel{~}{x})\frac{dx}{d\stackrel{~}{x}},$$
(6)
where

$`G(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{x}x+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}}+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ (7)
$`H(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{x}x+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))h^{}(x)}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}}+h^{}(x).`$ (8)
From (4), we see that $`G(\stackrel{~}{x})=H(\stackrel{~}{x})`$. Using (3) to eliminate $`h^{}(x)`$ from (8), we get after some straightforward algebraic manipulation that $`H(\stackrel{~}{x})=0`$ and therefore $`P_0`$ is a constant. $`\mathrm{}`$

Henceforth, we write $`P_0`$ for this optical-path-length invariant.

###### Corollary 1

The differential equations for $`h`$ and $`g`$ are decoupled:

$$h^{}(x)=g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=\frac{x\stackrel{~}{x}}{P_0}.$$
(9)
Isolating $`S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})`$ on one side of the equation in (5) and squaring, we can solve for the difference between $`g(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ and $`h(x)`$:

$$g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x)=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{x}x)^2}{2P_0}+\frac{P_0}{2}.$$
(10)
Hence, it is only necessary to solve one of the differential equations. The other mirror surface can then be computed from this difference.

## 3 Off-Axis Performance

Suppose now that coherent light enters at angle $`\theta `$ from on-axis as shown in Figure 2. The light that strikes at position $`(x,h(x))`$ on the first mirror reflects off at a different angle and strikes the second mirror at a new position shifted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ from the on-axis strike point: $`(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x},g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}))`$. Light then reflects off the second mirror at angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and intersects the $`x`$-axis at position $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$. We need to compute how $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ depend on $`\theta `$ with the ultimate goal of using these expansions to compute the image-plane point-spread function as a function of $`\theta `$.

###### Lemma 1

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}=S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\theta +o(\theta )`$.

Proof. The unit incidence vector is $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ and the unit reflection vector is $`(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}x,g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})`$. As before, Snell’s law can be expressed by equating the inner product between the unit incidence vector and the mirror’s tangent vector with the negative of the corresponding inner product for the unit reflection vector. We get that

$$\mathrm{sin}\theta +h^{}(x)\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}x+h^{}(x)(g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))\right)}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})}.$$
(11)
Linearizing the left-hand side in $`\theta `$ and the right-hand side in $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and noting that the constant terms in the two linearizations match, since they give the on-axis equation satisfied by $`h^{}(x)`$, we get

$$\theta \left(\frac{1+h^{}(x)g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}x+h^{}(x)(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})^3}\left(\stackrel{~}{x}x+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))\right)\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}.$$
(12)
Using Corollary 1, the first term on the right simplifies to $`(1+h^{}(x)^2)/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})`$ and the second term simplifies to $`h^{}(x)^2/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})`$. Hence, we get that to first order $`\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})`$ from which the lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{A(\stackrel{~}{x})}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}+o(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})=A(\stackrel{~}{x})\theta +o(\theta ).`$

Proof. The proof is similar to that of the previous lemma. The unit reflection vector is $`(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta },\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$ and the unit incidence vector is just the negative of what it was before: $`(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}x,g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))/S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})`$. The mirror’s tangent vector at $`\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ is $`(1,g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}))`$. As before, Snell’s law can be expressed by equating the inner product between the unit incidence vector and the mirror’s tangent vector with the negative of the corresponding inner product for the unit reflection vector. We get that

$$\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\frac{\left(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}x+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})(g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))\right)}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})}.$$
(13)
Linearizing both sides in $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and noting that the constant terms in the two linearizations match, since they give the on-axis equation satisfied by $`g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$, we now get after employing Corollary 1 that

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }g^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}\left(\frac{1+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})^2+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))g^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{x})}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}\frac{g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})^2}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}.$$
(14)
Moving $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ terms to the right-hand side and simplifying, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+g^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{x})\left(S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x)\right)}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+g^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{x})P_0}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$
Differentiating the expression for $`g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ given in Corollary 1, we get that

$$g^{\prime \prime }(\stackrel{~}{x})=\frac{dx/d\stackrel{~}{x}1}{P_0}=\frac{A(\stackrel{~}{x})1}{P_0}.$$
(16)
Substituting (16) into (15), we get the claimed first-order relationship between $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}`$. The relationship between $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`\theta `$ then follows from Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

From these expansions, we can compute the phase of the wavefront at the exit pupil or, equivalently, the path length from an isophase line at the entrance pupil through the system to the exit pupil. To this end, note that, for any $`y_0`$, the line $`y=y_0+x\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, $`x[b,c]`$, is an iso-phase line for the entering wave. Fix such a $`y_0`$. Let $`e(x,\theta )`$ denote the length of the light ray from this line to the first mirror surface. The interval $`[\frac{d}{2},\frac{d}{2}]`$ of the $`x`$-axis can be regarded as an exit pupil. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ denote the position along this pupil where the off-axis light beam exits the system. Let $`f(x,\theta )`$ denote the length of the light ray from $`(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x},g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}))`$ to this point on the pupil. The path length from the iso-phase line to the exit pupil is

$$P(x)=e(x,\theta )+S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})+f(x,\theta ).$$
(17)
###### Theorem 2

$`P(x)=P_0+y_0+x\theta +o(\theta ).`$

Proof. Simple geometry reveals that

$$e(x,\theta )=y_0h(x)\mathrm{cos}\theta +x\mathrm{sin}\theta =y_0h(x)+x\theta +o(\theta )$$
(18)
and that

$`f(x,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})}{\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }}}=g(\stackrel{~}{x})+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}+o(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`g(\stackrel{~}{x})+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\theta +o(\theta ).`$
We need a first-order expansion of $`S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})`$:

$$S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})=S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}x+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})}{S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}+o(\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}).$$
(20)
From Corollary 1 and equation (5), we get that

$$\stackrel{~}{x}x+(g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x))g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=\left(P_0+g(\stackrel{~}{x})h(x)\right)g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})=S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x}).$$
(21)
Substituting this into (20) and using Theorem 1, we get

$$S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})=S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\theta +o(\theta ).$$
(22)
Adding terms and using (5), we get the claimed result. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}=\stackrel{~}{x}+\left(S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})A(\stackrel{~}{x})\right)\theta +o(\theta )`$.

Proof. Simple geometry followed by application of previously derived first-order expansions reveal that

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}+g(\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}+\left(g(\stackrel{~}{x})+g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}\right)\stackrel{~}{\theta }+o(\stackrel{~}{\theta })`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}+\left(S(x,\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})A(\stackrel{~}{x})\right)\theta +o(\theta ).`$
This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now consider a focusing element placed over the interval $`[\frac{d}{2},\frac{d}{2}]`$ of the positive $`x`$-axis of focal length $`f`$ as shown in Figure 1. The electric field at the image plane is

$$E(\xi )=_a^be^{ik\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}}{f}\xi P(x)+P_0+y_0\right)}𝑑x.$$
(24)
where $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wave number. Substituting the first order expansions for $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ and $`P(x)`$, we get

$`E(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _a^b}e^{ik\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}(x)+\left(S(x,\stackrel{~}{x}(x))+g(\stackrel{~}{x}(x))A(\stackrel{~}{x}(x))\right)\theta }{f}\xi x\theta \right)}𝑑x`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d}{2}}}}e^{ik\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}+\left(S(x(\stackrel{~}{x}),\stackrel{~}{x})+g(\stackrel{~}{x})A(\stackrel{~}{x})\right)\theta }{f}\xi x(\stackrel{~}{x})\theta \right)}A\left(\stackrel{~}{x}\right)𝑑\stackrel{~}{x}.`$
The second integral follows from the substitution $`x=x(\stackrel{~}{x})`$.

### 3.1 Recasting in Unitless Terms

To write the electric field using unitless quantities, we introduce $`𝜽`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}`$, $`𝝃`$, and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}`$ defined as follows:

$$\theta =𝜽\frac{\lambda }{D},\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}\frac{\lambda }{d},\xi =𝝃\frac{f\lambda }{d},\stackrel{~}{x}=\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d$$
(26)
where $`D=ba`$ denotes the aperture of the primary mirror. Each of these quantities is unitless. Associated with these changes of units, we introduce the following normalized versions of the apodization function, the transfer function, etc.:

$`𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ $`=`$ $`A(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)d/D`$ (27)
$`𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ $`=`$ $`x(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)/D`$ (28)
$`𝑺(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ $`=`$ $`S(x(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d),\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)/D`$ (29)
$`𝒈(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ $`=`$ $`g(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)/d.`$ (30)
Making these substitutions, we get

$$E(𝝃)=D_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}e^{2\pi i\left(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}𝝃+\left(𝑺(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})+𝒈(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})\right)\frac{\lambda }{d}𝜽𝝃𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝜽\right)}𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}$$
(31)
The term in the exponential with the $`\lambda /d`$ factor is orders of magnitude smaller than the other terms, hence we drop it. The result is an explicit expression for the electric field in the image plane as a function of incidence angle $`𝜽`$, which is valid for small $`𝜽`$:

###### Theorem 3

To first order in $`𝛉`$, $`E(𝛏)=D{\displaystyle _{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}}e^{2\pi i\left(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐱}𝛏𝐱(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐱})𝛉\right)}𝐀(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐱})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝐱}.`$

It is easy to check that the normalized apodization function is related to the normalized transfer function in the same way as before normalization:

$$\frac{d𝒙}{d\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}}(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}).$$
(32)
Also, the domain of the $`𝑨()`$ is $`[\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}]`$ and it integrates to one.

The magnitude of the complex electric field is easy to compute if we assume that $`𝑨()`$ is an even function. With this assumption, it follows that

$$𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝒙(0)=_0^{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}}𝑨(u)𝑑u$$
(33)
is an odd function. Hence,

$$E(𝝃)=De^{2\pi i𝒙(0)𝜽}_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \left(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}𝝃(𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝒙(0))𝜽\right)\right)𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}.$$
(34)
The point-spread function (psf), which is the square of the magnitude of the electric field, is then given to first order by

$$\text{Psf}(𝝃)=D^2\left(_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \left(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}𝝃(𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝒙(0))𝜽\right)\right)𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\right)^2.$$
(35)
### 3.2 Nonlinear Effects

If the expression $`𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝒙(0)`$ is linear, then the off-axis psf is just a shift of the on-axis psf. Deviation from linearity, on the other hand, produces image degradation. One measure of such deviation is the rms phase error relative to $`𝑨(0)`$:

$$\text{Phase-Error}=\left(_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\left(𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝒙(0)𝑨(0)\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\right)^2𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(36)
It is easy to check that the unitless first-order relationship between input angle $`𝜽`$ and output angle $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}`$ is

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}=𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝜽.$$
(37)
For a uniform apodization, $`𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=1`$ (see next section) and hence the unitless input and output angles match. However, for a nonuniform apodization, the unitless output angle depends on position across the pupil. On average, it equals the unitless input angle. But, the physical reality dictates using an amplitude weighted average rather than a simple average. In this case, the average unitless output angle is larger than the input angle:

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}=_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}𝑑x=_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜽}𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}=𝜽_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})^2𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}𝜽$$
(38)
(this last inequality follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $`𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ integrates to one). For the types of apodizations arising in high-contrast imaging, the average unitless output angle can be more than twice as large as the input angle (see the numerical example in Section 5). This extra magnification is one of the attractive features of this approach to apodization.

## 4 Simple Examples

In this section, we consider a few simple examples.

### 4.1 Uniform Apodization

If the apodization function $`A()`$ is a constant, call it $`A`$, then $`x(\stackrel{~}{x})=x_0+A\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and its inverse is $`\stackrel{~}{x}(x)=(xx_0)/A`$. Plugging these into (9), we get that

$`h^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1\frac{1}{A})x+\frac{1}{A}x_0}{P_0}}`$ (39)
$`g^{}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x_0}{P_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A1}{P_0}}\stackrel{~}{x}`$ (40)
and hence that each mirror is parabolic. In the special case where $`A=1`$, the two mirrors are actually planar and the system is a simple periscope. For $`A1`$, the differential equations integrate as follows:

$`h(x)`$ $`=`$ $`c+{\displaystyle \frac{(x\xi )^2}{4H}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_0}{2}}`$ (41)
$`g(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ $`=`$ $`c+{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{x}\xi )^2}{4G}}`$ (42)
where $`c`$ is an arbitrary constant of integration, $`\xi =x(0)/(A1)`$ is the $`x`$-coordinate of the centerline of the system, $`H=AP_0/(2(A1))`$ is the focal length of the “$`h`$” mirror, and $`G=P_0/(2(A1))`$ is the focal length of the “$`g`$” mirror. Note that $`H=AG`$ and hence that the magnification of the system is $`A`$. Using the fact that $`A=D/d`$, the normalized apodization function is

$$𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=A(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)\frac{d}{D}=Ad/D=1$$
(43)
and the normalized transfer function is

$$𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=\frac{x(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}d)}{D}=\frac{x_0}{D}+\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}.$$
(44)
Since $`𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})`$ depends linearly on $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}`$, it follows that the off-axis point-spread function is just a shift of the on-axis psf:

$$\text{Psf}(𝝃)=D^2\left(_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\left(𝝃𝜽\right)\right)𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\right)^2.$$
(45)
Of course, in practice such a pair of parabolic mirrors will exhibit off-axis errors beyond just a shift of the psf but these errors can only be captured by a second-order (or higher) analysis.

### 4.2 A Cosine Apodization

A simple explicit apodization function that approximates the sort of smoothly tapering apodizations needed for high-contrast imaging is given by the cosine function:

$$A(\stackrel{~}{x})=a\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{x}}{d}\right).$$
(46)
For this case, the transfer function $`x(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ is given by

$$x(\stackrel{~}{x})=x(0)+a\stackrel{~}{x}+a\frac{d}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{x}}{d}$$
(47)
and the “$`g`$” mirror’s surface is given by

$$g(\stackrel{~}{x})=c+\frac{x(0)\stackrel{~}{x}+\frac{a1}{2}\stackrel{~}{x}^2a\frac{d^2}{4\pi ^2}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \stackrel{~}{x})}{P_0}.$$
(48)
The expression for the “$`h`$” mirror’s surface can be given explicitly using (10) and the inverse of $`x(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ but it is messy so we don’t record it here. The amplitude parameter $`a`$ determines the relationship between $`d`$ and $`D`$:

$$\frac{D}{2}=x(\frac{d}{2})x(0)=a\frac{d}{2}D=ad.$$
(49)
The normalized apodization is

$$𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})$$
(50)
and the normalized transfer function is

$$𝒙(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})=\frac{x_0}{D}+\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}).$$
(51)
The nonlinearity of the transfer function implies a nontrivial transformation in addition to the usual shift of the off-axis psf:

$$\text{Psf}(𝝃)=D^2\left(_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\left(𝝃𝜽\right)𝜽\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})\right)𝑨(\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙})𝑑\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒙}\right)^2.$$
(52)
In the next section, we consider a similar smooth apodization and plot some of the off-axis psf’s to see explicitly the impact of this nonlinear effect.

## 5 A Numerical Example

The apodization function shown in Figure 3 has unit area and provides $`10^{10}`$ contrast from $`4\lambda /D`$ to $`60\lambda /D`$. It was computed using the methods given in Vanderbei et al. (2003). The on-axis point spread function, computed by setting $`𝜽=0`$ in (35) is shown in Figure 4.

In a solar-like system, a star’s diameter is about 0.01au. Hence, if a $`1`$au Earth-like planet appears from Earth at $`5\lambda /D`$, then the angular extent of the star would be from $`0.025\lambda /D`$ to $`0.025\lambda /D`$. Therefore, starlight will enter the system from angle $`𝜽=0.02\lambda /D`$. The psf associated with this slightly off-axis starlight is shown in Figure 5. Although it is not possible to see it from the figure, the threshold for high contrast, i.e. $`10^{10}`$, is pushed to $`6.0\lambda /D`$. Thresholds for high-contrast associated with other values of $`𝜽`$ are shown in Table 1. It is clear from this table that non-zero stellar size and pointing error increase the inner working angle to at least $`6\lambda /D`$.

The psf’s associated with a planet at $`5`$ and $`10`$ $`\lambda /D`$ are shown in Figures 6 and 7. Note that the magnification due to nonlinearity, described at the end of Section 3, is clearly evident. For example, in Figure 6, the input angle is $`5\lambda /D`$ but the peak of the psf occurs at about $`12\lambda /D`$. Hence, there is a magnification by more than a factor of two.

On the other hand, the unsharpening of the psf’s and the corresponding reduction in peak value suggest that a contrast level of $`10^{10}`$ for the on-axis case might not be sufficient for planet detection using only the two-mirror system discussed here. Guyon (2003) suggests that an additional set of two mirrors can be used to restore the off-axis (planet) images with good fidelity. The detailed investigation of this addition to the optics will be investigated in a future paper.

Acknowledgements. We would like to express our gratitude to N.J. Kasdin, D.N. Spergel, and E. Turner for the many enjoyable and stimulating discussions in regard to this work. In particular, N.J. Kasdin read several drafts carefully and provided helpful advice as we struggled with various parts of this paper. This research was partially performed for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as part of the TPF architecture studies and also under contract number 1240729. The second author received support from the NSF (CCR-0098040) and the ONR (N00014-98-1-0036).


text:
# Recent progress in wormhole dynamics

## 1 Introduction

Space-time wormholes were first described as such by Wheeler , who envisaged the still-popular space-time foam: the smooth space-time of General Relativity suffering quantum-gravitational fluctuations in topology at the Planck scale, becoming a continual foam of transient interconnections. Curiously, all the standard black-hole solutions have a wormhole spatial topology, with a minimal surface connecting two asymptotically flat regions, our universe and a mirrored universe. For the simplest Schwarzschild black hole, this Einstein-Rosen bridge was properly understood only much later, also by Wheeler, as a non-traversible wormhole: the two universes are not in causal contact, with any attempted crossing leading only into the black hole. (See last year’s proceedings  for space-time diagrams and explanations mostly not repeated here). Later still, Morris & Thorne  proposed traversible wormholes, which have similar spatial geometry, with a minimal surface connecting two asymptotically flat regions, but such that the minimal surface (the wormhole throat) is preserved in time. Thus a traveller can cross between the two universes at will. Such wormholes became popular both in science fiction and as a research topic , apparently also allowing time-machine construction. However, most research has concerned static or cut-and-paste wormholes, or lacked an independently defined exotic matter model. In contrast, the dynamical behaviour of wormholes has received little attention until recently, and it is only in the last year or two that exact solutions describing wormhole construction and enlargement have been found.

## 2 Static and dynamic wormholes

Morris & Thorne’s unusually accessible article gave a list of criteria for traversible wormholes which is still worth consulting. Paraphrasing briefly, the basic wormhole criteria were: (1) a static, spherically symmetric space-time; (2) the Einstein equation; (3) a throat (minimal surface) connecting two asymptotically flat regions; and (4) no (Killing) horizon, so that the wormhole allows two-way travel. The usability criteria were (5) small tidal gravitational forces and (6) small proper time for crossing, by human scales. Finally, the criteria which were mentioned but largely left open were: (7) physically reasonable matter; (8) perturbative stability, e.g. due to a spaceship; and (9) that it should be possible to assemble the wormhole. These are, of course, the more interesting issues.

Recent work can be summarized by a corresponding list. (1) One needs to generalize to any space-time, without symmetry, in particular to non-static space-times. (2) Although Einstein gravity will be assumed in this article, many alternative gravitational theories allow traversible wormhole solutions, including scalar-tensor theories and brane-world models. The most fundamental point is that one needs to (3) generalize and localize the definition of the throat and (4) impose local two-way traversibility. Such a definition was given by the author  in terms of trapping horizons, which are hypersurfaces foliated by marginal surfaces, which are extremal surfaces in a null (light-like) hypersurface . They can be locally classified as future or past and outer or inner. Examples include the outer and possible inner horizons of black and white holes. For a Morris-Thorne wormhole, the throat is a double outer trapping horizon; double since the minimal surfaces are extremal in both null directions, and outer since the extremal surface should be minimal rather then maximal, encoding the so-called flare-out condition. The doubled nature of the throat indicates that a non-static wormhole will generally have two mouths, defined by outer trapping horizons, connected by a tunnel of trapped surfaces. In the static case, the tunnel shrinks away and the mouths coincide as the throat. A similar understanding was reached contemporaneously by Hochberg & Visser , though their flare-out condition can generically select maximal rather than minimal surfaces in a time-symmetric hypersurface.

The author proposed that a black hole can be locally characterized by an achronal (spatial or null) future outer trapping horizon, and a traversible wormhole by two temporal (time-like) outer trapping horizons in mutual causal contact . Note that the main difference is the causal nature of the horizon, which is respectively one-way or two-way traversible, as expected in each case. The Einstein equation then shows that they occur respectively under positive and negative energy density, specifically referring to the null energy condition . This means that they are supported respectively by normal matter or vacuum, and what was dubbed exotic matter . This explains why black holes are common astrophysically, while wormholes have not been observed. However, the recently discovered acceleration of the universe implies that cosmic evolution is dominated by unknown dark energy, which violates at least the strong energy condition. Also, it is well known that negative energy densities are endemic in quantum field theory. Whatever the identity of the exotic matter, there is a unified framework for traversible wormholes, black holes and white holes . Since the causal nature of the horizons depends on the sign of the energy density, which may change with time, black holes and wormholes should theoretically be interconvertible. A famous example is a Schwarzschild black hole evaporating by Hawking radiation, which semi-classically is a traversible wormhole by any reasonable definition .

Returning to the Morris-Thorne criteria, the usability criteria (5)–(6) are already sufficiently general. However, any concrete study of wormhole dynamics requires (7) a specific exotic matter model, so that there are field equations to determine the evolution. Most early studies ignored the identity of the exotic matter , but authors increasingly address this issue. Much work has concentrated on alternative gravitational theories such as scalar-tensor theories, where static wormhole solutions are found to be common. Other work draws the exotic matter from quantum field theory in a semi-classical approximation. The author has proposed using simple exotic matter models, in order to study issues of principle which were hardly understood. This has led to concrete examples which show conclusively that (8) wormhole stability depends on the exotic matter model. Although there have been various studies of linearization stability, dynamic stability has been investigated in only two cases: the HKL wormhole was found analytically to be dynamically stable , while the first Morris-Thorne wormhole was found numerically to be dynamically unstable . Finally, concerning (9) how to assemble or construct a wormhole: irradiating a CGHS black hole with negative energy converts it to an HKL wormhole , and similarly a wormhole discovered recently by the author  can be constructed from a Schwarzschild black hole . The main results of these recent studies are summarized in the following.

## 3 Analytical results

The first concrete results were found using an exactly soluble model, CGHS two-dimensional dilaton gravity, generalized to include a massless ghost (negative-energy) Klein-Gordon field, which supports the existence of static wormhole solutions . One can then set initial data corresponding to dynamical perturbations of a CGHS black hole or an HKL wormhole, then analytically find the evolved space-time. As described in last year’s proceedings , solutions were found describing wormhole collapse to a black hole, wormhole construction from a black hole, wormhole operation for transport, including the back-reaction of the transported matter on the wormhole, and wormhole maintenance, i.e. maintaining a static state under transportation .

In order to study similar dynamic processes in full Einstein gravity, the author proposed a simple exotic matter model, pure ghost radiation, i.e. pure radiation with negative energy density . Wormhole solutions of the Morris-Thorne type were found , supported by equal left-moving and right-moving radiation. Since the radiation propagates without interaction or backscattering, it is easy to see what happens if it is suddenly switched off from both sides of the wormhole: the wormhole collapses to a black hole, as in Fig.1(i). The radiation escapes in Vaidya regions, leaving a vacuum Schwarzschild region, with continuity determining that the wormhole throat bifurcates to form the black-hole horizons.

For other dynamic processes, a useful idealization is impulsive radiation, where the radiation is concentrated so as to deliver finite energy and momentum in an instant. In the two-dimensional model, further examples were given of wormhole construction and operation, plus how to stably enlarge a wormhole . Corresponding versions of some of these processes can be found analytically in full Einstein gravity by matching Schwarzschild, Vaidya and static-wormhole regions . In particular, irradiating a Schwarzschild black hole with impulsive then constant ghost radiation can convert it to a wormhole of the above type, as in Fig.1(ii). Also, the wormhole can be enlarged by adding additional impulsive ghost radiation followed by balancing normal impulsive radiation, as in Fig.1(iii). The ghost radiation is switched off between the impulses, so that the middle region is found analytically as part of a Schwarzschild white hole, therefore expanding and increasing the wormhole size. The opposite ordering of the impulses would reduce the wormhole size. These will be the first analytic solutions describing wormhole construction or enlargement in full Einstein gravity.

## 4 Numerical results

The first numerical study of wormhole dynamics was also performed recently . The starting point was a static wormhole which is best known as Morris & Thorne’s opening example, though it is actually a solution for a massless ghost Klein-Gordon field, as was shown earlier by various authors. The idea was to study dynamical perturbations of this static wormhole, using the spherically symmetric Einstein system with the above exotic matter model, and also a normal massless Klein-Gordon field, to see the effect on the wormhole of normal matter, like an astronaut or spaceship traversing the wormhole.

A numerical code was developed based on a dual-null coordinate system, in order to follow the horizon dynamics and radiation propagation accurately. After testing the code by evolving the static wormhole, the numerical experiments added or subtracted Gaussian pulses in the ghost field or the normal field, parametrized by amplitude, width and position. The space-time evolution was followed by tracking the trapping horizons and quantities such as area and energy. The local gravitational energy  is a key indicator; for the static wormhole it is positive, maximal at the throat and tends to zero at infinity, so that the total (Bondi or ADM) mass of the static wormhole vanishes. For dynamic perturbations, the sign and size of the initial Bondi energy $`E_0`$ was found to be the main factor affecting the outcome.

Fig.2(i) shows what happens for a positive-energy pulse, $`E_0>0`$: when the pulse hits the wormhole throat, the double trapping horizon bifurcates to form a tunnel of future trapped surfaces, with the two mouths accelerating away from each other and approaching the speed of light, forming the horizons of a black hole. The final mass $`M`$ of the black hole can be easily extracted due to rapid convergence in the dual-null system. In summary, the wormhole has collapsed to a black hole.

Fig.2(ii) shows what happens for a negative-energy pulse, $`E_0<0`$: when the pulse hits the wormhole throat, the double trapping horizon bifurcates to form a tunnel of past trapped surfaces, with the two mouths accelerating away from each other and approaching the speed of light, forming the cosmological horizons of an inflationary universe. The Hubble constant $`H`$ can be found by fitting the exponential curve of area against proper time, Fig.2(iii). In summary, the wormhole has exploded into an inflationary universe. This provides the first concrete mechanism for inflating wormholes from space-time foam to macroscopic size.

For Gaussian pulses in the normal field, the results are similar, except that the total energy $`E_0`$ is necessarily positive and so the wormhole always collapses to a black hole. Thus a traveller successfully crossing the wormhole would nevertheless look back to discover that the passage has caused the wormhole to collapse, thereby ironically sealing off the causal connection to the home universe.

By varying mainly the amplitude of the pulse, perturbations as small as $`E_0\pm 10^4a/2`$ can be reliably evolved, where $`a`$ is the initial throat radius. In all cases, positive or negative initial energy respectively causes collapse or explosion. Clearly the wormhole is dynamically unstable, though it had been previously found to be linearization stable, indicating a non-linear instability. For smaller perturbations, the collapse or explosion occurs more slowly and the final mass or Hubble constant is smaller. Unexpected critical behaviour was also discovered: the initial energy determines the collapse time $`xx_0=0.60\mathrm{ln}E_0`$ and there appears to be a minimal black-hole mass $`M=0.30a`$ or Hubble constant $`H=1.1/a`$ as perturbations tend to zero, for both exotic and normal field perturbations. All this is unexplained.

## 5 Conclusions

The largely new area of wormhole dynamics has been substantially developed recently, based on a local, dynamical theory of traversible wormholes , with mouths defined by temporal outer trapping horizons, unified with a local, dynamical theory of black holes . Concrete examples  have supported the following conclusions.

$``$ Traversible wormholes can be constructed from black holes by absorbing exotic matter.

$``$ Traversible wormholes can collapse to black holes, by losing exotic matter or gaining normal matter, such as a traveller or spaceship.

$``$ Traversible wormholes can explode to inflationary universes, by gaining exotic matter. This provides a mechanism for inflating wormholes from space-time foam to usable size.

$``$ An exotic matter model must be specified for a given problem. Apart from semi-classical quantum field theory, dark energy models and alternative gravitational theories, simple models have theoretical merit in understanding basic principles.

$``$ Traversible wormholes can be dynamically stable or unstable, depending on the exotic matter model. Linearization stability is not conclusive.

$``$ Stable wormholes can be operated and maintained by balance of positive and negative energy, and enlarged or reduced by ordering of positive and negative energy.

$``$ Numerically discovered critical behaviour suggests critical black-hole and inflationary-universe solutions.

$``$ Wormhole dynamics with a specific exotic matter model need not be plagued by naked singularities or causal loops. Time-machine construction , often described as ridiculously easy from (cut-and-paste) wormholes, is still an open question if given field equations are to be satisfied everywhere. Cosmic Censorship and Chronology Protection may yet survive physically reasonable exotic matter.

Research partially supported by Korea Research Foundation grant KRF-2001-015-DP0095. Thanks to the conference organizers for support and Hiroko Koyama and Hisa-aki Shinkai for supplying figures.


text:
# Decoupling, Trans-Planckia and Inflation11footnote 1Invited talk given by C.B. at the Davis Meeting on Cosmic Inflation, March 2003.

## 1 Introduction and Discussion

The brave new world of precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)  has motivated many studies of what the theoretical implications of these measurements might be. In particular, the observations agree very well — apart from the controversial evidence for a measurement of nonzero $`\mathrm{d}n/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{ln}k`$ in the WMAP results  — with the predictions of generic inflationary models, and their precision is beginning to differentiate amongst the various models which have been proposed . This may well be our first direct observation of the physics of energies which are extremely high compared to those to which we have experimental access elsewhere.

Any meaningful quantitative comparison between models and observations requires a clear understanding of the theoretical uncertainties which are involved, and in this context a recent controversy has emerged about whether the successful inflationary predictions are subject to uncontrollable theoretical errors. The controversy was initiated by various calculations  claiming that observable effects are possible for the CMB spectrum from physics at extremely high (possibly trans-Planckian) energies. Although the discussion is usually not cast in terms of theoretical uncertainties, it is clear that any intrusion of unknown extremely-high-energy physics into predictions at an observable level represents an irreducible obstacle to making meaningful predictions purely using models of lower-energy physics. Clearly all the marbles are at stake here. If we must understand trans-Planckian physics to predict what inflation implies for CMB fluctuations, then the very predictability of inflationary models is lost.

These same issues have previously arisen in a much broader context, since one can ask why high-energy physics doesn’t similarly pollute other predictions in physics, and so bring theoretical physics more generally to a halt. How this works is well understood outside of the inflationary context, where it is a well-established property of quantum field theories that high-energy modes generically decouple from lower-energy phenomena. This is not to say that they are completely irrelevant at lower-energies, just that their low-energy influence is channelled through a very few parameters. (For example, atomic physics does depend on nuclear physics, but typically only through a few properties like the mass and charge of the nucleus.)

Although trans-Planckian physics may not be described by a quantum field theory, it is very likely to decouple in the above sense inasmuch as our ignorance of its nature has not yet proven to be an obstacle to understanding lower-energy phenomena. Much of the exploration of string theory in particular presupposes this decoupling by expressing low-energy string effects in terms of effective low-energy quantum field theories. The burden is on any theory of trans-Planckia which does not decouple to explain why low-energy predictability is possible at all.

On the other hand, for inflation ref.  argues that such general decoupling arguments require the influence of physics at scale $`MH`$ to contribute at most of order $`H^2/M^2`$ to observable effects in the CMB, where $`H`$ is the Hubble scale at horizon exit. If true, this would pretty much preclude the intrusion of all higher-energy physics into CMB fluctuations and any deviations from the predictions of low-energy models would necessarily imply the existence of new light degrees of freedom directly at the epoch of horizon exit. We argue here that although this conclusion is correct for most effective interactions, there are loopholes about whose existence one should be aware.

What is it about the models of refs.  which allows them to produce observable effects, and so apparently to fly in the face of decoupling arguments? For some of the models , the observable effects are tied up with the use of the $`\alpha `$-vacua of de Sitter space, the validity of which is still subject to some controversy . For the others, however, the $`\alpha `$-vacua are not necessary, with the models often simply consisting of free particles — albeit with unconventional, nonrelativistic dispersion relations — which generically should decouple.

Here we summarize the results of refs. , which identify the loopholes of the general decoupling arguments on which the models rely. This is done by studying the implications of decoupling for inflation using garden-variety hybrid-inflation models containing high-energy (but sub-Planckian) physics, whose low-energy effects may be described using standard methods. The purpose of using such conservative models is to cleanly identify what it takes for high-energy effects to appear in the CMB, and in particular to divorce these inflationary effects from the more exotic properties of the previously-proposed models (such as the failure of Lorentz invariance), which are irrelevant and are likely to be constrained by other, non-inflationary, measurements.

This study identifies three ways in which such models can alter inflationary predictions for the CMB, and we believe all of the non-$`\alpha `$-vacuum models proposed employ one of these ways. The three ways apply more generally than just within an inflationary context, and are:

1. The model could introduce new degrees of freedom which are actually not heavy compared with $`H`$ at the epoch of horizon exit. This is not really a loophole to decoupling arguments because the new physics is not heavy and so need not decouple. We include it in this list for completeness since it is the standard way to alter the CMB in inflation, and is the way in which most inflationary models differ from one another. It is also the mechanism used in some models of , wherein particles exist having dispersion relations which predict states having very small energies at large momenta.
2. The model may have rapid time dependence, in the sense that the states of the low-energy theory do not evolve adiabatically. There are two common ways for adiabatic evolution to fail. First, it might happen that the time-dependence of background fields causes an initially large energy gap between high- and low-energy states to become small, and so no longer to suppress the amplitude for exciting the (no-longer-so) ‘heavy’ states. If so the model becomes an example of the previous case, option 1 above. Alternatively, the background time-dependence can be rapid enough to induce direct transitions between what were nominally low- and high-energy states. In this second case heavy states having energies which differ from light states by the frequency of the driving fields typically don’t decouple since they may be directly produced from initial states which only involve the light particles.
3. Finally, even if the only new physics is heavy and all time evolution is adiabatic, the low-energy theory can involve relevant or marginal effective interactions which are sensitive to some of the details of the high-energy world. Although the implications of high-energy physics at scale $`M`$ are generically smaller than $`O(H^2/M^2)`$, they need not always be this small. We identify effective interactions which depend logarithmically on $`M`$, and some which contribute to observables at order $`m^2/M^2`$, with $`mH`$. The inflaton potential is often a good place to look for such interactions, since they need only compete there with the very small low-energy inflaton interactions which are consistent with the very shallow potential which inflation requires.

Although the thrust of these examples is that high-energy physics can in some circumstances intrude into CMB fluctuations, decoupling implies that it does not do so in an uncontrolled way, and so it does not introduce uncontrollable theoretical errors into the predictions of low-energy inflationary models. In this sense our results represent in some ways the best of all possible worlds, inasmuch as the broad implications of inflation are not undermined, but it is also not crazy to look for deviations from low-energy models in observations.

In what follows we do not further explore option 1, but instead summarize the examples of options 2 and 3 which are respectively described in refs.  and .

## 2 Non-Adiabatic Physics

We first describe a simple hybrid-inflation model  for which fluctuations in the CMB bears the imprint of a period of non-adiabatic oscillations of heavy scalar fields prior to the epoch of horizon exit. The upshot in this model is that the CMB can be sensitive to such a non-adiabatic period, but only if they occur up to 10 $`e`$-foldings before horizon exit. (Related models can be constructed for which the CMB can see the implications of adiabatic physics for up to 30 $`e`$-foldings before horizon exit ).

We find these kinds of non-adiabatic oscillations generically have two kinds of implications for the CMB spectrum:

* They can suppress power in the lowest few multipoles (similar to what is also seen if a pre-inflationary phase were to end just before horizon exit), and
* They can introduce features in the spectrum at specific wave-numbers which are related to the oscillation frequency of the non-adiabatically oscillating fields.

It is intriguing that there is (currently quite weak) evidence for both of these predictions in the observed CMB fluctuations, and the suppression of power on large scales in particular typically makes the predictions of the models we discuss slightly better fits to the CMB spectrum as measured by the WMAP collaboration  than is the standard concordance cosmology, although only at roughly the 1.5 sigma level (similar to the predictions of a pre-inflationary phase ).

### 2.1 The Model

The lagrangian density we study for these purposes is

$``$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}_\mu \chi ^\mu \chi +V(\varphi ,\chi )\right],`$ (1)
$`\text{with}V(\varphi ,\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\lambda (\chi ^2v^2)^2+\frac{1}{2}g\chi ^2\varphi ^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi ^4.`$
The potential has absolute minima at $`\chi =\pm v`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, but also has a long trough at $`\chi =0`$ provided $`g\varphi ^2>\lambda v^2`$. Inflation occurs in the model if the inflaton, $`\varphi `$, starts at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ deep along the bottom of the trough, with $`g\varphi _0^2\lambda v^2`$, and then rolls to smaller $`\varphi `$ until either the slow-roll parameters become large, or $`g\varphi ^2\lambda v^2`$, where the $`\chi =0`$ minimum is destabilized. The roll of $`\varphi `$ along the trough bottom can be sufficiently slow to give inflation provided the various parameters of the scalar potential are assumed to take appropriate values.

Under these conditions the field $`\chi `$ is a heavy degree of freedom throughout all but the very end of the inflationary epoch, since its mass is

$$M^2=\lambda v^2+g\varphi ^2g\varphi ^2,$$
(2)
which typically satisfies $`mHM`$ during inflation due to the assumptions which the inflaton potential must satisfy in order to produce inflation. We assume $`\varphi _0`$ to be small enough to ensure $`MM_p`$ throughout inflation, as is required for us to maintain theoretical control over all calculations.

### 2.2 $`\chi `$ Oscillations

The picture so far is standard. Our only modification is to choose $`\chi `$ initially not to lie precisely along the bottom of the trough. Instead we choose the initial values $`\chi _00`$ and $`\dot{\chi }_0=0`$. For simplicity we consider only the evolution of the homogeneous $`\chi `$ mode, since this already suffices to show that nontrivial implications for the CMB are possible. With $`\chi _0`$ chosen close enough to the trough’s bottom we may neglect the effect of the $`\chi ^4`$ terms in the potential, leading to

$$\ddot{\chi }+3H\dot{\chi }+M^2(\varphi )\chi 0.$$
(3)
The general solution to this equation is known if the initial condition satisfies $`\dot{\chi }_0/\chi _0\text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }O(H)`$, regardless of the time-dependence of $`H`$, so long as we may also neglect $`\dot{\varphi }/\varphi `$ and $`H`$ in comparison with $`M`$. It is

$$\chi (t)A(t)\mathrm{cos}\left[M(\varphi )(tt_0)\right],$$
(4)
where the slowly-varying envelope is given by $`A(t)=\chi _0[a(t_0)/a(t)]^{3/2}`$, and $`M^2(\varphi )g\varphi ^2`$. By virtue of the condition $`MH`$ discussed above, this evolution describes a fast oscillation rather than a slow roll relative to the timescale set by the expansion of the universe.

The energy density associated with these oscillations is

$$\rho _\chi (t)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\dot{\chi }^2+M^2\chi ^2\right)=\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi _0^2\left(\frac{a(t_0)}{a(t)}\right)^3,$$
(5)
which scales with $`a(t)`$ as does non-relativistic matter. The amplitude of the $`\chi `$ oscillations is damped by the Hubble expansion, and so long as the $`\varphi `$ roll remains slow an inflationary phase eventually begins. Whether inflation occurs depends on how far the inflaton has rolled down its trough in the time taken for the $`\chi `$ oscillations to be damped away. We assume the initial conditions $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\chi _0`$ to be chosen to ensure that sufficient inflation does occur after the $`\chi `$ oscillations become negligible.

It is convenient to choose our initial time, $`t_0`$, as the time when the energy of the $`\chi `$ oscillations first becomes small enough to allow inflation to begin. In this case the amplitude $`\chi _0`$ may be found by equating the $`\chi `$-oscillation energy, $`\frac{1}{2}M^2\chi _0^2`$ to the inflationary vacuum energy, $`\frac{1}{4}\lambda v^4=3H^2M_p^2`$, implying

$$\chi _0^2=\frac{6H^2M_p^2}{M^2}.$$
(6)
Because the $`\chi `$ oscillations are damped during inflation proportional to $`[a_0/a(t)]^3=\mathrm{exp}[3H(tt_0)]`$, we see that the number of $`e`$-foldings between the beginning of inflation and horizon exit is related to the oscillation amplitude, $`\chi _{he}`$, at horizon exit by

$$H\tau \frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\chi _0^2}{\chi _{he}^2}\right)\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{6M_p^2/M^2}{\chi _{he}^2/H^2}\right),$$
(7)
where $`\tau =|t_{he}t_0|`$. Clearly — for fixed fluctuation size, $`\chi _{he}/H`$ — the later horizon exit occurs after the onset of inflation, the lower $`M`$ must be, and hence the smaller $`m`$, $`v`$ and $`H`$ must also be in order to have sufficient inflation after horizon exit. This last formula is useful because it is convenient to use $`\chi _{he}`$ to parameterize the amplitude of oscillations, since this parameter directly controls the size of the oscillation effects seen in the CMB.

### 2.3 Modifications to Inflaton Fluctuations

We now ask how the $`\chi `$ oscillations change the power spectrum of inflaton fluctuations which get imprinted onto the CMB. To this end consider the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton, $`\phi =\varphi \varphi `$, having wave number $`k`$. (Notice $`\varphi _k=0`$ for $`k0`$ by virtue of our assumption that $`\chi `$ experiences a homogeneous, $`k`$-independent roll.) To linearized order in the fluctuations this satisfies the equation of motion

$$\ddot{\phi }_k+3H\dot{\phi }_k+\left[k^2e^{2Ht}+V^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )g\chi ^2(t)\right]\phi _k=0.$$
(8)
The $`\chi `$ oscillations affect the mode functions $`\phi _k`$ largely by introducing a time dependence to the ‘mass’ term, $`V^{\prime \prime }g\chi ^2`$, both through its explicit $`\chi `$-dependence and through the change the $`\chi `$ oscillations induce in the evolution of the background field, $`\phi (t)`$. Numerically computing the evolution of the background fields, and using these to solve eq. (8) for the mode which agrees at $`t=t_0`$ with the usual positive-frequency (Bunch-Davies) mode, $`\phi _k^+`$, leads to a solution $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+=\phi _k^++\delta \phi _k^+`$ whose features are shown in fig. 1. Notice that the deviation of $`|\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+(\mathrm{})|`$ from the value $`|\phi _k^+(\mathrm{})|=H`$ it would have had in the absence of $`\chi `$ oscillations can be large, even if $`\chi _{he}`$ is small.

The fractional deviation in the power spectrum is then computed using $`\delta P_k/P_k=|\stackrel{~}{\phi }_k^+/\phi _k^+|^21`$, with the right-hand-side evaluated as $`t\mathrm{}`$. In figure (2) we plot the log of the absolute value of the percentage deviation ($`\mathrm{log}_{10}(|\delta P|/P\times 100)`$) as a function of $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(k/H)`$, for a range of values of $`M`$, and for two different values of $`t_0`$.

These figures show three main features, each of which has a simple physical explanation .

1. The fluctuation spectrum oscillates rapidly, due to the rapid driving by the fast $`\chi `$ oscillations.
2. The envelope of the oscillating inflaton fluctuations is strongly suppressed for the lowest $`k`$ values. This is because at early times the average value of $`g\chi ^2`$ is potentially large, since $`\mathrm{cos}^2(Mt)=\frac{1}{2}`$, and so the oscillating $`\chi `$ field behaves like an inflaton mass, and like a mass it suppresses fluctuations for small $`k`$. (It is because the CMB observations also appear to point to a similar suppression for small $`k`$, that these models provide a slight improvement in goodness-of-fit over fits to the standard concordance cosmology. The comparison of these models with the WMAP data is very similar to that given in ref. .)
3. The fluctuation spectrum rises to a peak, whose position is easily understood in terms of the driving frequency of the $`\chi `$ oscillations. These oscillations resonantly excite $`\phi `$ modes having the same frequency, but the wavelength of these modes redshift as the universe expands. The peak occurs for wave-numbers corresponding to those modes which were driven at the earliest times, $`t=t_0`$, since this was the point when the driving $`\chi `$ field had the largest amplitude.

Detailed comparisons with the spectrum of CMB fluctuations show that an amplitude at horizon exit, $`g\chi _{he}^2=10^5H^2`$ corresponds to a roughly 5% change in the CMB spectral parameters, making this a rough benchmark for how large an oscillation must be in order to have detectable effects. Given this benchmark, eq. (7) tells us how long before horizon exit inflation can have lasted without being overwhelmed by the energy in the damped $`\chi `$ oscillations. Pushing all parameters to make this time as long as possible leads in this model to $`H\tau \text{ }\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }10`$ $`e`$-foldings. A similar limit for $`\tau `$ is also obtained if one asks that the $`\chi `$ oscillations not lose all of their energy through decays into inflaton quanta. In other, less well motivated, models Ref.  a similar analysis shows heavy-field oscillations can have observable consequences for up to 30 $`e`$-foldings before horizon exit.

In summary, this model produces observable implications for the CMB because the fast motion of the background $`\chi `$-field makes the inflaton evolution non-adiabatic, and therefore causes positive- and negative-frequency modes to mix. Even outside of an inflationary context, nobody would expect to be able to describe the low-energy inflaton physics in the presence of these $`\chi `$ oscillations using an effective theory within which the $`\chi `$ field had been integrated out.

## 3 Adiabatic Physics

In this section we consider a model similar to the one examined above, but in which we make the more standard assumption that the background heavy fields do not oscillate. As a result the time evolution of the inflaton field is adiabatic, and the influence of the heavy fields is well described by a low-energy effective theory involving only the light degrees of freedom. For technical reasons we couch this section’s discussion in terms of a supersymmetric extension of the model just discussed. We use a supersymmetric model so that the heavy-field effective contributions to the inflaton potential do not destroy its flatness.

As is often the case with supersymmetric theories, in the model we consider the tree-level inflaton potential is exactly flat, but this flat direction is lifted by virtual loops of heavy particles. We show that the potential depends logarithmically on the heavy mass, leading to slow-roll parameters which are suppressed by factors of order $`M_0^2/M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the heavy mass but $`M_0`$ can be much larger than $`H`$. The model shows that heavy physics can decouple and yet still alter inflationary predictions for the CMB, since the figure of merit for deciding the observability of the heavy-physics effects can be larger than $`H^2/M^2`$.

### 3.1 The Model

Consider a globally-supersymmetric model containing the chiral multiplets, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\varphi ,\psi \}`$ and $`H_\pm =\{h_\pm ,\chi _\pm \}`$, coupled to a $`U(1)`$ gauge multiplet, $`V=\{A_\mu ,\lambda \}`$. $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ carry opposite $`U(1)`$ charges $`\pm e`$, and the multiplet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is neutral. The model’s superpotential and Kähler potential are

$$K=H_+^{}H_++H_{}^{}H_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{and}W=g\mathrm{\Phi }(H_+H_{}v^2),$$
(9)
where $`g`$ and $`v`$ are real constants. The associated scalar potential for this theory is $`V=V_F+V_D`$ where

$`V_F`$ $`=`$ $`g^2\left(\left|h_+h_{}v^2\right|^2+\left|\varphi h_{}\right|^2+\left|\varphi h_+\right|^2\right),`$
$`V_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2}}\left(|h_+|^2|h_{}|^2+\xi \right)^2,`$ (10)
and $`\xi >0`$ is the Fayet-Iliopoulos term. The global minimum is supersymmetric with

$$\varphi =0,|h_\pm |^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\xi +\sqrt{\xi ^2+4v^4}\right),$$
(11)
at which point $`V=0`$. There is a trough at $`h_\pm =0`$, for large $`|\varphi |`$, along which $`V_{\mathrm{trough}}(\varphi )=V(h_\pm =0,\varphi )=g^2v^4+\frac{1}{2}e^2\xi ^2`$ is independent of $`\varphi `$. The potential’s curvature in the $`h_\pm `$ directions is

$$M_\pm ^2(\varphi )=g^2|\varphi |^2\pm \mathrm{\Delta },$$
(12)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{g^4v^4+e^4\xi ^2}`$, showing that the $`h_\pm `$ masses are positive for all $`|\varphi |^2>\mathrm{\Delta }/g^2`$, with masses which get bigger the larger $`|\varphi |`$ is.

Along the trough’s bottom the gauge bosons are massless since the $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance is unbroken. The fermions $`\lambda `$ and $`\psi `$ are massless at tree level, while the fermions $`\chi _\pm `$ have masses

$$m_\pm ^2(\varphi )=m^2(\varphi )=g^2|\varphi |^2.$$
(13)
We therefore find a low-energy sector of strictly massless particles, $`\{A_\mu ,\lambda ,\varphi ,\psi \}`$, which do not classically directly couple among themselves but which do couple to a massive sector, $`\{h_+,\chi _+,h_{},\chi _{}\}`$. Our interest is in the effective interactions which are generated amongst the light fields once these heavy modes are integrated out.

Integrating out the heavy fields leads to the following one-loop contribution to the low-energy scalar potential,

$`V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi ),`$ (14)
$`\text{with}\mathrm{\Delta }V(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\delta \rho +{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{64\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=\pm }{}}\left[M_i^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2(\varphi )}{\mu ^2}}\right)m_i^4(\varphi )\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_i^2(\varphi )}{\mu ^2}}\right)\right],`$
where $`\rho =g^2v^4+\frac{1}{2}e^2\xi ^2`$ is the renormalized (constant) classical potential along the trough, and $`\delta \rho `$ is the corresponding counter-term. (The overall factor of $`N`$ arises if we extend the model to include $`N`$ heavy multiplets, all sharing the same tree-level couplings to the light fields.) For $`m^2(\varphi )\mathrm{\Delta }`$ this becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi )\frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{16\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{m^2(\varphi )}{m_{}^2}\right)+𝒪\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m^4}\right)\right],$$
(15)
where we adopt the renormalization condition that $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ must vanish when $`\varphi =\varphi _{}`$, defined as the field’s value at horizon exit. If $`N_e`$ $`e`$-foldings of inflation occur between horizon exit and the end of inflation, we have

$$m_{}^2=m^2(\varphi _{})m_{\mathrm{end}}^2+\frac{g^2NN_e\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{12\pi ^2H^2}m_{\mathrm{end}}^2+\frac{g^4NN_eM_p^2}{4\pi ^2},$$
(16)
where $`m_{\mathrm{end}}^2`$ is either $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`g^4NM_p^2/(8\pi ^2)`$, whichever is larger. These estimates use the natural choice $`eg`$ and $`\xi v^2`$, for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }g^2v^2`$ and $`\rho g^2v^4`$.

At horizon exit the inflationary parameters  which are predicted by this potential are

$`H^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V}{3M_p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{3M_p^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2v^4}{3M_p^2}},`$
$`ϵ_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_p}{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\phi }}\right)\right]_\phi _{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{M_pN\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\pi ^2\rho \phi _{}}}\right]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{32\pi ^2N_e}}\right),`$
$`\eta _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2}{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2V_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\phi ^2}}\right)_\phi _{}{\displaystyle \frac{M_p^2N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\pi ^2\rho \phi _{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_e}},`$ (17)
where $`\phi =|\varphi |`$ is the inflaton. These equations shows that the roll is sufficiently slow if $`\phi /M_p\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }g/4\pi `$. Notice that if $`\phi `$ should be as large as $`O(M_p)`$ consistency would require us to embed this model into supergravity, a situation we can avoid if $`g1`$. For $`N=1`$ all of the requirements for inflation with $`N_e\text{ }\stackrel{>}{}\text{ }60`$ are satisfied — including fluctuation amplitudes which agree with CMB observations — if $`v/M_pg10^3`$.

For the purposes of comparing to decoupling arguments notice that the slow-roll parameters may be written

$$(2ϵ_{})^{1/2}\frac{g^2N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\pi ^2\rho }\left(\frac{\phi _{}M_p}{m_{}^2}\right)\text{and}\eta _{}\frac{g^2N\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{8\pi ^2\rho }\left(\frac{M_p^2}{m_{}^2}\right),$$
(18)
which implies the heavy physics decouples, inasmuch as both $`\eta `$ and $`ϵ`$ are suppressed by inverse powers of the heavy mass, $`m(\varphi )`$. But the scale against which $`m^2(\varphi )`$ is compared is not $`H^2`$, but is instead either $`(g^4N/8\pi ^2)M_p\phi `$ or $`(g^4N/8\pi ^2)M_p^2`$. (The condition $`m(\varphi )M_p`$ clearly again implies the coupling $`g`$ must be small.) If parameters are adjusted so that the heavy physics scale, $`m_{}`$, is dialed to become larger and larger with $`H`$ fixed, then the slow roll parameters decrease, becoming closer and closer to the scale-invariant prediction $`ϵ_{}=\eta _{}=0`$. This expresses the consequences of decoupling, since the entire inflaton potential is generated by virtual effects of the heavy physics. But because the benchmark for observability in this case is not $`H^2/m_{}^2`$, the difference in their predictions can be kept observable even if $`H^2/m_{}^2`$ is much smaller than a few percent.

In particular, imagine now comparing the effects for the CMB of two theories which differ only in that one has $`N=1`$ and the other has $`N=2`$ heavy sectors. If we suppose both models to undergo the same number of $`e`$-foldings of inflation, then they must also agree on their predictions for $`\eta `$. They can also predict identical fluctuation amplitudes so long as $`v_1^4=v_2^4/2`$, since $`\delta \rho /\rho H^2/(M_p^2ϵ_{})(v/M_p)^4(N_e/N)`$. If they share the same couplings, $`eg`$, then the models will predict $`ϵ_2=2ϵ_1`$, and so can have detectable differences in their predictions for CMB observables.

###### Acknowledgments.

C.B. would like to thank the organizers for their invitation to speak. We thank Robert Brandenberger, Brian Greene, Nemanja Kaloper, Anupam Mazumdar and Steve Shenker for helpful discussions. R. H. was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG03-91-ER40682, while the research of C.B., J.C. and F.L. is partially supported by grants from McGill University, N.S.E.R.C. (Canada) and F.C.A.R. (Québec).


text:
# Methane Hydrate under High Pressure: Searching for Centering of Hydrogen Bonds

## Abstract

The structural, electronic, and spectroscopic properties of a high-pressure phase of methane hydrate (MH-III) are studied by first principles electronic structure calculations. A detailed analysis of the atomic positions suggests that ionization of hydrogen-bonded water molecules occurs around 40GPa and centering or symmetrization of hydrogen-bonds occurs around 70 GPa. These pressures are much lower compared with ioninzation around 55 GPa and centering around 100 GPa in pure ice. The transition may be observed with low-temperature IR/Raman spectroscopy of OH stretching modes or neutron diffraction.

Methane hydrate (MH), known as Burning Ice, is a special class of ice that contains methane molecules in cages or networks of hydrogen bonded water molecules. Low pressure phase of methane hydrate (MH-I) forms sI structure of cagesSloan (1998). MH-I, abundant in the deep ocean, has been attracting attention of the industry as a key material of new energy resource, whose amount is estimated twice as much as the total fossil fuel reserveSloan (1998).

MH is also known as an important material for understanding the mystery of the atmosphere of Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn. The conventional theory Lunine and Stevenson (1985) could not explain abundant methane gas in Titan’s atmosphere because MH-I inside Titan was assumed to decompose into ice and methane around 1 or 2 GPa, and escape to the atmosphere to be photodecomposed in early stage of Titan’s history. To understand this mystery is one of the goals of the Cassini-Huygens spacecraft, which started its journey in 1997 and will arrive at Saturn system in 2004 Jet Propulsion Laboratory .

On the earth, in 2001, Loveday et al. Loveday et al. (2001a, b) discovered new phases of MH by X-ray and neutron diffraction experiments under high pressure: MH-I transforms to MH-II ( sH cage structure) at 1 GPa, and then to MH-III phase (orthorhombic filled ice structure) at 2 GPa, which survives at least up to 10 GPa. Other researchers reported similar high pressure phasesHirai et al. (2001); Chou et al. (2001). Recently Hirai et al. Hirai et al.  reported that MH-III survives up to 42 GPa at room temperature. Shimizu et al. Shimizu et al. (2002) have measured the site- and pressure-dependence of CH- and OH-vibration frequencies in these phases up to 5.2 GPa. Discovery of these high pressure phases allows us a new explanation of abundant methane gas in Titan’s atmosphere: methane gas may be reserved in thick layers of MH-III under Titan’s surface and gradually emit to the atmosphere from the reservoirLoveday et al. (2001a).

In this article, we focus on the features of MH-III as a promising material for investigateing centering or symmetrization of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Advantage of using MH-III for studying the centering is that it is expected to occur at much lower pressure than that of pure ice (ice VII-ice X transition)Petrenko and Whitworth (1999); Jeffrey (1997); Benoit et al. (2002); Loubeyre et al. (1999); Goncharov et al. (1999); Struzhkin et al. (1997); Aoki et al. (1996); Hirsh and Holzapfel (1986); Benoit et al. (1998); Bernasconi et al. (1998); Putrino and Parrinello (2002), which may make the difficult high-pressure experiments easier. In the following, we calculate the crystal structure and vibrational spectra of MH-III by using the density functional theory, so that we can predict and analyze experimental results.

We modeled the crystal structure of MH-III at 3 GPa by using the $`Pmcn`$ symmetry, the lattice parameters and the position of atoms determined by the diffraction experiment Loveday et al. (2001b). We chose the orientation of methane molecules carefully so that the molecules become close packed. The model consists of four methane and eight water molecules in the unit cell, of which one methane and two water molecules are symmetrically inequivalent. This structure was found stable after full geometrical optimization, in which the enthalpy $`H=E+PV`$ was minimized by varying the lattice vectors and the positions of atoms without any constraints such as crystal symmetry. The structures at higher pressures ( Figs. 1 ) were calculated in a similar manner.

The details of the electronic structure calculation Payne et al. (1992) are as follows: the valence wave functions are expanded in a plane wave basis set truncated at a kinetic energy of 1520 eV. The electron-ion interactions are described by the Vanderbilt-type ultrasoft pseudopotentials Vanderbilt (1990). The effects of exchange-correlation interaction are treated within the generalized gradient approximation of Perdew et al. (GGA-PBE) Perdew et al. (1996). The Brillouin zones are sampled with $`4\times 2\times 2`$ Monkhorst-Pack k-points Monkhorst and Pack (1976) by using time-reversal symmetry only. In the geometrical optimization, the total stress tensor is reduced to the order of 0.01 GPa by using the finite basis-set corrections Francis and Payne (1990).

Figure 2 shows the pressure dependence of the calculated lattice parameters at the zero temperature. It agrees well with the experimental data at room temperature by Hirai et al. Hirai et al. . The cell is the most soft along the c-axis. This feature is also evident from the Figures 1. The compression of the cell along the c-axis is mainly caused by the flattening of the two graphite-like wrinkled sheets normal to c-axis. As a result, the hydrogen bond network at very high pressures becomes $`sp_2`$-like structure in contrast to $`sp_3`$ structure of ice Ih.

In pure ice, centering of the hydrogen bond $`OH\mathrm{}O`$ occurs as the oxygen-oxygen distance $`d(OO)`$ decreases with pressure increase Petrenko and Whitworth (1999); Jeffrey (1997). At large $`d(OO)`$ the proton occupies one of two potential minima along the $`OH\mathrm{}O`$ bond. As $`d(OO)`$ becomes smaller the barrier between the two minima becomes lower. When $`d(OO)`$ becomes smaller than some critical distance, the proton occupies the single minimum at the midpoint between the two oxygen atoms (centering). In the following, we neglect the effect of finite temperature and quantum nature of hydrogen atom unless otherwise stated. Figure 3 shows $`d(OO)`$ as a function of pressure. There are three curves corresponding to the three symmetrically inequivalent $`OH\mathrm{}O`$ bonds. Around 70 GPa $`d(OO)`$’s become sufficiently short for the hydrogen bond centering in pure ice Benoit et al. (2002). Indeed Figures 1 show that the centering occurs around this pressure. Figure 4 shows the ratio $`d(OH)/d(OO)`$ as a function of pressure. The ratio starts from 0.35 (water molecule) at 3 GPa and reaches to 0.5 (centering) around 70 GPa.

Now, let us look into the thermal effects. Benoit et al. Benoit et al. (2002) recently proposed three-stage scenario for explaining the hydrogen bond centering Loubeyre et al. (1999) of pure ice with increase of pressure at room temperature: ice stays in molecular state under low pressures where $`H_2O`$ remain water molecule, then hydrogen atoms start to jump between two potential minima in ionized state under midium pressures, finally hydrogen atoms sit at the midpoint between the oxygen atoms in centering state under high pressures. The $`d(OO)`$ at which ionization and centering occur in pure ice are indicated dashed and solid horizontal lines in Fig. 3. From this figure we can read that the ionization and cengering in MH-III are expected around 40 GPa and 70 GPa, respectively. The probability distributions of $`d(OH)/d(OO)`$ for a hydrogen bond of MH-III at room temperature and with pressure 3 GPa, 40 GPa, and 80 GPa are calculated with Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics Marx and Hutter (2000) (Fig. 5), which clearly shows that three stage senario is also valid in MH-III but with much lower pressure than pure ice.

Figure 6 shows the pressure dependence of normal mode frequencies of MH-III calculated with the density functional linear response theory Gonze (1997). The modes between 3000 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ and 3500 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ are the CH vibrations, whose frequencies monotonically increase with pressure. The modes between 2000 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ and 3000 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ are OH-stretching modes. Their frequencies decrease monotonically up to 70 GPa, where centering occurs, and then start to increase. This tendency is qualitatively in accordance with that of pure ice Goncharov et al. (1999).

In Figure 7(a), vibrational spectra of MH-III at 3 GPa are calculated as a Fourier transform of velocity-velocity correlation function obtained from Car-Parrinello molecular dynamics Marx and Hutter (2000) and compared with the normal mode frequencies calculated with the density functional linear response theoryGonze (1997).. The peak around 3100 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ characteristic to OH-stretching vibration of hydrogen bonded water molecules is prominent at 30 K but disappears at 300K. This fact is consistent with the experimental observation that the Raman peak around 3100 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ disappeared in MH-III at room temperature Shimizu et al. (2002), and can be interpreted as the result of strongly anharmonic potential. In Figure 7(b) shows vibrational spectra of MH-III at 80 GPa. The OH-stretching modes of centered hydrogen bonds are located between 2000 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$ and 3000 $`\mathrm{cm}^1`$. At low temperature the peaks agrees well with the normal modes, while the peaks are blue-shifted at room temperature probably due to weak anharmonicity. The dissapearance of the peak of the OH-stretching mode in molecular and ionized states at room temperature and the survival of the peak due to OH-stretching mode in centered hydrogen bond in MH-III are analogous to those in ice VII and ice X Aoki et al. (1996).

Figure 8 shows the phonon dispersion of MH-III at 80 GPa calculated with the density functional linear response theory Gonze (1997). All frequencies at all wave numbers have positive frequencies indicating the mechanical stability of this structure at zero temperature. However, further experimental and theoretical studies are necessary to prove the thermal stability at room temperature.

In summary, we studied the structural and spectral properties of high pressure phase of methane hydrate (MH-III) with the density functional theory, and showed that ionization and centering of hydrogen bonds in MH-III may be observed around 40 GPa and 70 GPa, respectively, which are much lower pressure than those of pure water ice. Therefore MH-III may provide precious information about ionization and centering of hydrogen bonds between water molecules as the second example after pure ice. From the view point of planetary science, studying physical and chemical properties of clathrate hydrate such as MH will become more and more important to interpret and to understand the information of the outer solar systems sent from space-missions such as Cassini-Huygens spacecraft arriving at Saturn system in 2004.

###### Acknowledgements.

One of the authors (TI) would like to thank Dr. Hiroyasu Shimizu, Dr. Shigeo Sasaki, Dr. John S. Tse, Dr. Hisako Hirai, Dr. Takashi Ikeda, and Dr. Akira Hori for invaluable discussions. The results presented here were computed by using supercomputers at RIKEN and NIG.