text:
# Scaling behavior in a stochastic self-gravitating system

## Abstract

A system of stochastic differential equations for the velocity and density of a classical self-gravitating matter is investigated by means of the field theoretic renormalization group. The existence of two types of large-scale scaling behavior, associated to physically admissible fixed points of the renormalization-group equations, is established. Their regions of stability are identified and the corresponding scaling dimensions are calculated in the one-loop approximation (first order of the $`\epsilon `$ expansion). The velocity and density fields have independent scaling dimensions. Our analysis supports the importance of the rotational (nonpotential) components of the velocity field in the formation of those scaling laws. PACS numbers: 05.45.-a; 05.10.Cc; 04.40.-b.

Key words: Self-gravitating matter, Renormalization group, Scaling behavior.

Abstract

SICS Technical Report T2003:09

ISSN 1100-3154

ISRN: SICS-T-2003/09-SE

Date: 11 August 2003

The present Universe at short and moderate distances is inhomogeneous, being filled by numerous structures of many scales, from galaxies to galaxy clusters and superclusters. On the contrary, at larger scales or earlier stages the Universe is generally taken nearly homogeneous and isotropic. It is believed that gravity reinforces small asymmetries in the velocity and density fields, and the structures observed today are due to instabilities in an initially uniform self-gravitating medium. The first structures to form are “pancakes,” thin in one dimension and of large extent in the two others. Further evolution and interaction of the pancakes develops patterns with complex (fractal or honeycomb) geometry in the distribution of matter. Excellent reviews of classical cosmology are given in Refs. .

The full relativistic treatment of the large-scale structure formation, especially of its nonlinear stage, is an extremely difficult task. Therefore, the development of instabilities is usually studied within the framework of simplified dynamical models of a classical self-gravitating fluid (or system of particles): Vlasov–Poisson model, adhesion model and its modifications with different types of nonlinearity, pressure and viscous terms and random forces, Boltzmann equation (or $`N`$-body simulations of dark matter) and so on; see e.g. Refs.  for reviews and discussion.

The link between the complex geometrical structures and the coarse-grained (hydrodynamic) description is provided by nontrivial scaling behavior exhibited by correlation functions of the density or velocity fields, such as the galaxy–galaxy correlation function $`\xi (r)`$; see e.g. . At large scales it reveals a power-law behavior $`\xi (r)r^\gamma `$, where $`\gamma `$ is determined from catalogs to be between 1.3 and 2.1 for $`r`$ of order of the Megaparsec; see e.g.  and references therein. The most recent studies give the values between 1.6 and 1.9, in particular, $`\gamma =1.75\pm 0.03`$ according to .

The scope of theory is to derive such behavior on the basis of an appropriate dynamical model, to investigate the universality of the exponent $`\gamma `$, that is, its (in)dependence on the model parameters, and to calculate $`\gamma `$ within a consistent approximation or systematic perturbation scheme.

Scaling laws are typical of equilibrium phase transitions, and the most adequate tool to study them is the renormalization group (RG). It is also applicable to nonequilibrium dynamical phenomena as disparate as surface growth, random walks, nonlinear diffusion and turbulence; see e.g.  for a review. For a given model, the RG allows one to prove the existence of scaling regime(s), to determine the range of its stability in the space of model parameters, and to calculate the scaling dimensions in the form of regular perturbation series ($`\epsilon `$ expansions).

The RG approach to the problem of self-gravitating medium was pioneered in . In these studies, the full set of equations (hydrodynamic equation for the Newtonian fluid, continuity equation and the Poisson equation for the gravitation force, the system known as the Vlasov–Poisson equations) was reduced to a single equation for a purely potential velocity field. The resulting equation (similar to the well-known stochastic Burgers equation but with a time-dependent “mass” term) was augmented by a Gaussian random force (noise) that represents the influence of fluctuations and dissipative processes on the evolution of fluid, arising from viscosity, turbulence, explosions, gravitational waves and so on. The dynamical RG approach of  was then adopted to derive the scaling regimes and exponents. With an appropriate choice of the parameters, the model reveals scaling behavior with a nonuniversal exponent $`\gamma `$; its value depends on the characteristics of the forcing and can be adjusted to the value $`\gamma 1.7`$  in agreement with the observations.

In spite of this obvious success, the analysis of Refs.  raises serious questions about its internal consistency and interpretation of the results. It is well known that the stochastic Burgers (or Kardar–Parisi–Zhang) equation has no infrared-attractive fixed point in the physical range of parameters within the $`\epsilon `$ expansion. This fact immediately follows from the first-order expressions of Refs. . It was confirmed by the two-loop calculation  and then proved to all orders of the perturbation theory . The existence of a strong-coupling fixed point, although supported by numerical simulations, remains an unproved hypothesis.

The authors of  studied an extended (“massive”) version of the KPZ model, and the only attractive fixed point revealed in their analysis corresponds to nonzero value of the “mass.” In fact, its value is comparable with the largest, ultraviolet, momentum scale of the problem, so that the mass term at the fixed point is by no means small. Therefore, in the spirit of the Landau theory, the viscous and nonlinear terms in the equation should be discarded as infrared-irrelevant. This leads to a simple Gaussian model whose critical exponents are easily found exactly. They agree with the answers obtained in  for the full (interacting) model, but the situation on the whole is not quite satisfactory. It looks rather strange that the nonlinearity does not play any role in shaping the large-scale asymptotic form of the correlation functions, and that the latter are so directly determined by the choice of the random forcing. The absence of the appropriate fixed point for the massless (critical) model suggests that such results can be very sensitive to the approximations made in the derivation of the model. The most important of them is the assumption of parallelism, which reduces the system of equations for the density and velocity fields to an equation for a single, purely potential, velocity field. More extensive analysis of the full problem would therefore be desirable.

The original (deterministic) set of Vlasov–Poisson equations for the velocity $`u_i(t,𝐱)`$, density $`\rho (t,𝐱)`$ and the gravitational potential $`\psi (t,𝐱)`$ in the comoving frame of reference reads (see e.g. ):

$`a_tu_i+\dot{a}u_i+(u_j_j)u_i_i\psi =0,`$ (1)
$`a_t\rho +_i(\rho u_i)=0,^2\psi =4\pi Ga^2(\rho \rho _0),`$ (2)
where $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, the cosmic scale factor $`a(t)`$ is a prescribed function of the proper time, $`\rho _0`$ is the mean density and $`^2_i_i`$ is the Laplace operator.

We change to the new variables $`\varphi _iu_i/a`$, $`\theta c^2(\rho \rho _0)/\rho _0`$ and $`c^24\pi Ga^2\rho _0`$ and rewrite the system (2) in the form:

$$\left(_t+\varphi _j_j\right)\varphi _i=H\varphi _i+\nu _0\left(\delta _{ij}^2_i_j\right)\varphi _j+u_0\nu _0_i_j\varphi _jc_i^2\theta +f_i,_t\theta =v_0\nu _0^2\theta _i(\varphi _i\theta )c(_i\varphi _i).$$
(3)
Here, $`H\dot{a}/a`$ is the Hubble function and $`^2`$ is the Green function of the Laplace operator. We have eliminated the potential $`\psi `$ using the last equation in (2), assumed that $`\dot{a}/a_tu/u`$, and added viscous terms and the random force $`f_i(t,𝐱)`$. We stress that the velocity field $`\varphi _iu_i`$ is not purely potential, so that two independent viscosity coefficients $`\nu _0`$ and $`u_0\nu _0`$ have been introduced in the equation for $`\varphi _i`$. The viscous term $`v_0\nu _0^2\theta `$ is usually not included in the continuity equation, but it is not forbidden by dimensional reasons or symmetry and thus is needed to ensure the renormalizability of the model. Then the RG equations should be solved with the physical initial condition $`v_0=0`$, but if the IR attractive fixed point is unique, the large-scale behavior will be the same as for nonzero $`v_0`$; cf. the discussion in . Dimensional analysis shows that the pressure term is infrared-irrelevant (in the sense of Wilson) in comparison to the gravitational force and thus it was dropped in (3).

The hydrodynamic description of the properly smoothed (coarse-grained) fields and, in particular, inclusion of the viscous terms and random forcing, can be justified by various arguments . For simplicity, we shall neglect the time dependence of the viscosity coefficients, suggested by those studies, treating it as a kind of second-order effect: the viscosity coefficients are “small” and their time dependence is “slow.” In contrast to equilibrium systems, there is no universal relation between the viscosity coefficients and the correlation functions of the random force. We shall take it Gaussian, white in time (this is necessary to ensure the Galilean symmetry of the stochastic problem (3)), with zero mean and a given correlator

$$f_i(t,𝐤)f_j(t^{},𝐤)=\delta (tt^{})D(k)\left\{P_{ij}+\alpha Q_{ij}\right\}.$$
(4)
Here $`P_{ij}=\delta _{ij}k_ik_j/k^2`$ and $`Q_{ij}=k_ik_j/k^2`$ are the transverse and the longitudinal projectors, $`\alpha >0`$ is an arbitrary parameter and $`D(k)`$ is a function of the modulus of the wave vector $`k|𝐤|`$. The simplest possible choice is $`D(k)=D_0`$=const (spatially decorrelated forcing). Another possibility, widely used in models of nonequilibrium critical phenomena, is a power-law correlation function: $`D(k)=D_0^{}k^{4d2\eta }`$; see e.g. . Here $`d`$ is the (arbitrary) dimensionality of space and $`\eta `$ an arbitrary exponent; the notation is explained by convenience reasons. In what follows, we shall refer to these two cases as the local and nonlocal ones. They are closely related for $`d4`$ (see below), but it is instructive to discuss them separately in the beginning.

The RG analysis of a stochastic problem like (3), (4) includes four important steps: field theoretic formulation; analysis of its renormalizability; derivation of the corresponding RG equations; analysis of the fixed points of these equations. This analysis for our problem is technically involved (already in the simplest one-loop approximation) and will be presented elsewhere, along with the details of the practical calculation. In many respects, it is close to the field theoretic RG analysis of the stochastic Navier-Stokes equation  and especially to the case of a strongly compressible fluid studied in . Below we only give the main points and conclusions.

According to a general theorem (see e.g. ), the stochastic problem (3) is equivalent to the field theoretic model of a doubled set of fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\varphi ^{},\theta ^{},\varphi ,\theta \}`$ with action functional:

$`S(\mathrm{\Phi })=(1/2)\varphi ^{}D_f\varphi ^{}`$ $`+`$ $`\varphi _i^{}\left\{\left(_t+\varphi _j_j+H\right)\varphi _i+\nu _0\left(\delta _{ij}^2_i_j\right)\varphi _j+u_0\nu _0_i_j\varphi _jc_i^2\theta \right\}`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{}\left\{_t\theta +v_0\nu _0^2\theta _i(\varphi _i\theta )c(_i\varphi _i)\right\},`$ (6)
where $`D_f`$ is the correlator (4) and the needed integrations over $`t,𝐱`$ and summations over the vector indices are implied.

The field theoretic formulation means that the correlation functions of the stochastic problem (3), (4) can be represented as functional averages with the weight $`\mathrm{exp}S(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ with action (6). This allows one to use a well-developed formalism (power counting plus symmetries of the model) to analyze the relation between the IR and UV problems and the UV renormalizability of the model. For the local case, it shows that the upper critical dimension for the model is $`d=4`$: the nonlinearity in (3) is IR irrelevant for $`d>4`$ (perturbation theory is applicable, no scaling and universality are expected). For $`d4`$, the terms of the ordinary perturbation theory suffer from IR singularities and cannot be used to describe the large-scale behavior of the problem. For small $`\epsilon d4`$, the problem of the IR singularities is closely related to that of the UV divergences (poles in $`\epsilon `$). The latter is solved by the standard UV renormalization procedure: it shows that the model (6) is multiplicatively renormalizable, that is, all the poles in $`\epsilon `$ in its correlation functions are removed by the rescaling of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the parameters $`D_0,\nu _0,u_0,v_0,\alpha `$ (the proof of this statement is the most nontrivial stage of the analysis). The arbitrariness in the renormalization procedure leads to the RG equations: first-order differential equations for the correlation functions with coefficients calculated within the ordinary perturbation theory. In order to draw any definite conclusions from the RG equations, one has to calculate their coefficients at least in the simplest (one-loop) approximation. We performed the calculation and found out that, in contrast to the Burgers or KPZ models, the RG equations of the extended model (6) have the only IR attractive fixed point in the physical range of parameters (the ratios of the viscosity coefficients and the amplitude factors in pair correlation functions are positive).

This means, in particular, that in the IR range (the scales large in comparison to the typical UV length scale, built of $`D_0`$ and $`\nu _0`$, and times large in comparison to the corresponding time scale), the correlation functions of the velocity $`\varphi `$ and the density (more precisely, of the field $`\theta c^2(\rho \rho _0)/\rho _0`$ have a scaling (self-similar) form:

$`\varphi (t,𝐱)\varphi (t+\tau ,𝐱+𝐫)r^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi }F_\varphi (\mathrm{}),`$ (7)
$`\theta (t,𝐱)\theta (t+\tau ,𝐱+𝐫)r^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }F_\theta (\mathrm{}),`$ (8)
where $`r|𝐫|`$ and the scaling functions $`F_{v,\theta }`$ depend on (critically) dimensionless variables $`\tau r^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau }`$, $`Hr^{\mathrm{\Delta }_H}`$, $`cr^{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ (for the equal-time correlation functions, the first variable is absent). The dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are universal in the sense that they are independent of the values of the parameters $`u_0,v_0,\alpha `$ and can be calculated as series in $`\epsilon `$. The first-order (one-loop) calculation gives:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`1\epsilon /2,\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }_c=2\epsilon /2,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`2+\epsilon /2,\mathrm{\Delta }_H=2+\epsilon /2,`$ (10)
with corrections of order $`\epsilon ^2`$ and higher. From representations (8) it follows that under the rescaling

$`rr/\mathrm{\Lambda },\tau \tau \mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau },HH\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Delta }_H},cc\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}`$ (11)
with arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, the correlation functions behave as

$`vv\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_v}vv,\theta \theta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta }\theta \theta .`$ (12)
The formulation (11), (12) is in fact more general because it remains true if the parameters $`H,c`$ depend on $`t,𝐱`$ (in the original problem they indeed depend on $`t`$), while the more explicit formulae (8) imply that they are treated as constants.

The RG representations (8) are the result of certain infinite resummation of the primitive perturbation theory, that is, of the expansion in the nonlinearity in Eqs. (3) around the zero-order (Gaussian) approximation. In our case, however, the latter is unstable with respect to any small perturbation, as is easily seen from the fact that, for $`c^2>0`$, the retarded zero-order response function grows in time and, as a result, perturbative diagrams contain infrared divergences. However, it can be argued that this instability does not hinder the use of the RG in studying the self-similar behavior. The parameters $`H`$ and $`c`$ in (6) have integer positive dimensions and, in this respect, they are analogous to masses (in the language of the quantum field theory) or to the deviation of the temperature of its critical value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }TTT_c`$ (in models of critical behavior). From the general theory of UV renormalization, it is well known that the UV divergent parts of the diagrams are polynomials in such “IR relevant parameters.” Therefore, they can be calculated for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T0`$ (or $`c^20`$ in our case), where the terms of the perturbation theory are finite, and then extrapolated to the region $`\mathrm{\Delta }T<0`$ (or $`c^2>0`$). There, the ordinary perturbation expansion ceases to make sense due to IR divergences and one should either change to an improved perturbation theory (for critical behavior) or to consider a nonstationary problem (for a self-gravitating system). It is important here that this rearrangement does not affect the UV divergent parts of the correlation functions (and hence the counterterms). These arguments show that the critical exponents (calculated from the UV counterterms) are the same below and above $`T_c`$, and, in our case, they support the scaling relations (8) and (11), (12) with the dimensions (10) for the “unstable” case $`c^2>0`$.

For the nonlocal case, that is, $`D(k)k^{4d2\eta }`$ in (4), analysis shows that the model (6) appears multiplicatively renormalizable if $`d>4`$, and the corresponding RG equations also have an IR attractive fixed point in the physical range of the parameters. This establishes the scaling relations (8), (11), (12) with the new set of dimensions:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`12\eta /3(\mathrm{exact}),\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }_c=22\eta /3,`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau `$ $`=`$ $`2+2\eta /3,\mathrm{\Delta }_H=2+2\eta /3(\mathrm{exact}).`$ (14)
The dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ,H}`$ are found exactly (there are no corrections of order $`\eta ^2`$ and higher) due to the Galilean invariance of the problem. In principle, the other dimensions are less universal than their analogues for the local case: besides the exponent $`\eta `$, they can depend on $`d`$ and $`\alpha `$ from (4). Our calculation has shown, however, that this dependence can occur only in the order $`O(\eta ^2)`$.

For $`d4`$, the model (6) with the nonlocal noise correlator ceases to be renormalizable: a new counterterm $`(\varphi ^{})^2`$ is generated. A similar problem is well known in the RG approach to the stochastic Navier–Stokes equation for purely incompressible fluid, where it occurs at $`d=2`$; see e.g. Sec. 3.10 of Ref. . In order to apply the RG to this case, one has to extend the model by adding such term to the action from the very beginning, that is, one has to study the model with the mixed correlator

$`D(k)=D_0+D_0^{}k^{4d2\eta }`$ (15)
(similar to that discussed in ). The extended model appears renormalizable, and its fixed points can be studied within the double expansion in two parameters, $`\eta `$ and $`\epsilon =4d`$.

The calculation in the first-order of such expansion shows that the extended model has two nontrivial fixed points. The first of them is IR attractive for $`\epsilon >0`$, $`\eta <3\epsilon /4`$ and corresponds to the “local” regime with the dimensions (10), while the second is IR attractive for $`\eta >0`$, $`\eta >3\epsilon /4`$ and corresponds to the dimensions (14). For $`\eta <0`$, $`\epsilon <0`$ the only IR attractive point is trivial; it corresponds to a free (non-interacting) field theory. The regions of stability of the fixed points of the extended model in the $`\epsilon `$$`\eta `$ plane are shown in Fig. 1.

The main conclusions of our analysis are as follows. We have investigated a system of stochastic differential equations for the velocity and density of a self-gravitating matter, established two types of large-scale scaling behavior (local and nonlocal ones), identified their regions of stability and calculated the scaling dimensions in the one-loop approximation (i.e., to first order of the corresponding $`\epsilon `$ expansions).

From the qualitative point of view, our analysis shows that nonequilibrium stochastic systems of the type (3) can have IR attractive fixed points in the physical range of parameters, and the corresponding scaling regimes can be treated systematically, within appropriate $`\epsilon `$ expansions. What is more, such models can have several fixed points with different sets of dimensions, and the system undergoes the crossover in its large-scale behavior when its parameters (exponents in the forcing) change.

It is worth noting that in model (3), the density and velocity fields have independent scaling dimensions, a feature which is lost if the full set of equations is reduced to a single equation for only one independent field. Our results also suggest that rotational (non-potential) components of the velocity field do not decouple in those regimes and should be taken into account in the analysis of the large-scale behavior.

Admittedly, the one-loop answers for the exponents are markedly larger than the latest experimental estimates for the exponent $`\gamma `$ (identified with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_\theta `$). In particular, for the local regime and $`d=3`$ one obtains $`\gamma 3`$. For the nonlocal regime and arbitrary spatial dimension, $`\gamma `$ varies from 4 to 2 when the exponent $`\eta `$ varies within its natural range $`0<\eta <3/2`$ (for $`\eta >3/2`$, the dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\varphi ,\tau }`$ become negative). This can be a hint that the simplified model (3) does not include all physical interactions relevant for the large-scale behavior (it is worth mentioning here that the model (2) concerns directly dark matter, while the galaxy-galaxy correlation functions concern visible matter).

One can also expect that the simplest one-loop approximations (10), (14) overestimate the value of the scaling dimensions, and the second-order and higher corrections will improve the agreement, as indeed happens in the RG theory of fully developed turbulence; see . Finally, it is possible that the scaling functions $`F`$ in representations (8) are very singular in their arguments, which can lead to imaginary shift of the genuine exponent or to deviation from a plain power-law behavior, in agreement with some recent data .

In order to investigate these issues, one should go beyond the simplest one-loop approximations and augment the plain RG equations by more advanced tools (renormalization of composite operators, operator-product expansion and so on), in analogy with the RG theory of fully developed turbulence; see e.g. . This work is left for the future.

I thank Erik Aurell and Paolo Muratore Ginanneschi for numerous discussions and valuable suggestions. This work was performed within the framework of the Visby Program offered by the Swedish Institute. It was also supported in part by the Nordic Grant for Network Cooperation with the Baltic Countries and Northwest Russia Nos. FIN-6/2002 and FIN-20/2003, the Academy of Finland (Grant No. 203122) and the program “Universities of Russia.” I thank the Swedish Institute of Computer Science in Kista for their kind hospitality.

FIG. 1. Phase diagram of the model (6), (15), in the $`\epsilon `$$`\eta `$ plane: the local regime is realized for $`\epsilon >0`$, $`\eta <3\epsilon /4`$, the nonlocal one for $`\eta >0`$, $`\eta >3\epsilon /4`$ and the trivial one for $`\eta `$, $`\epsilon <0`$.


format: text

text:
# On the impossibility of advection dominated accretion

## 1 Introduction

The supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies are usually much less luminous than simple accretion theory would predict: the black hole is surrounded by thermal plasma whose properties may be known from X-ray observations, and the black hole should accrete this plasma at roughly the Bondi-Hoyle rate. When this accretion rate is combined with the radiative efficiency $`0.1`$ that follows from comparison of the integrated luminosity of quasars with the observed space density of supermassive black holes (Yu & Tremaine, 2002), a luminosity is derived that generally exceeds that observed by 3–5 orders of magnitude (Loewenstein et al. 2001; Di Matteo et al 2001, 2003; Pellegrini et al 2003).

The low measured luminosities of nuclear black holes led to the development of the advection-dominated accretion flow – hereafter ADAF model – in which the energy released as plasma falls towards the black hole is retained as internal energy within the plasma and ultimately carried over the black hole’s event horizon rather than escaping to infinity (Ichimaru 1977; Rees et al. 1982; Narayan & Yi, 1994, 1995; Igumenshchev, Chen & Abramowicz, 1996; see also the lucid review in Chapter 11 of Frank, King & Raine, 2002). These ideas were subsequently applied to accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars. The flows around these objects would be similar down to radii comparable to the surface of the neutron star. At this radius the advected energy would be radiated in the neutron star case, while in the case of a black hole the energy would be carried on through the event horizon. Hence the existence of an event horizon around a black hole would cause accreting stellar-mass black holes to be much less luminous than comparable neutron stars. Garcia et al. (2001) claim to observe this effect.

Since material reaching the event horizon has lost gravitational potential energy that is a substantial fraction of $`c^2`$ per unit mass, the ADAF model requires that the innermost plasma achieves temperatures of order $`m_pc^21`$GeV. At such temperatures the electrons are highly relativistic ($`\gamma 1000`$), the radiative efficiency of the plasma would be expected to be high because the electrons’ radiative losses increase with temperature faster than $`T_\mathrm{e}^7`$ (Rees et al. 1982). In order to limit the radiative efficiency of the plasma, the ADAF model conjectures that the electrons decouple thermodynamically from the ions, which are the component of the plasma that receives the lion’s share of the released gravitational energy. Hence the thermal motions of the ions become mildly relativistic as the event horizon is approached, while the electrons, which dominate radiative processes, remain at temperatures that are orders of magnitude lower.

Proponents of the ADAF model motivate the decoupling of the electrons from the ions by pointing out that in a highly viscous low, the residence time of any given electron or ion in the flow is small, so the plasma density required to achieve a given accretion rate is low. At low densities and high temperatures, the time required for coulomb scattering to establish equipartition of energy between ions and electrons becomes long, and can easily exceed the residence time (Rees et al. 1982). In this paper I give a simple argument of considerable generality, which implies that the time $`t_{\mathrm{equi}}`$ required to establish equipartition between ions and electrons is always shorter than the residence time $`t_{\mathrm{res}}`$. Consequently, one may safely assume that the electrons are at the same temperature as the ions. This result invalidates most applications of the ADAF model, and effectively rules out all models in which significant thermal energy is carried across the event horizon.

## 2 The equipartition time

The plasma comprises particles that interact electro-magnetically with each other and with a given gravitational field. I shall assume that the dynamics can be treated in a non-relativistic approximation – the generalization of the analysis to the relativistic case is not hard, but there is a loss of clarity and simplicity.

The Hamiltonian for motion of a particle of mass $`m`$ and charge $`q`$ in an electromagnetic field that is characterized by the potentials $`\psi `$ and $`𝐀`$ is

$$H=\frac{(𝐩q𝐀)^2}{2m}+q\psi +m\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the gravitational potential. From standard Hamiltonian theory we know that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{t}}=q{\displaystyle \frac{𝐩q𝐀}{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀}{t}}+q{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`q𝐯{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀}{t}}+q{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}},`$
where we have assumed that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is time-independent and have identified the particle velocity $`𝐯=(𝐩q𝐀)/m`$. Since the right side of this equation is proportional to the charge $`q`$, if at some location energy is lost by one species, it is gained by the oppositely charged species. Thus this equation describes the mechanism by which equipartition is established between ions and electrons; the net direction of the energy flow is mandated by the general principles of statistical physics, and the rate of flow may be estimated from equation (2).

The two terms on the right of equation (2) have different physical origins: the first describes work done by the inductive e.m.f.s associated with time-dependent magnetic fields, while the second describes work done by the electrostatic potential, during two-body scattering and in anchoring the fast electrons to the gravitationally confined protons. In view of this distinction, the two terms will not cancel with any exactitude, and we may obtain a lower limit on the rate of energy transfer between species by considering only one term. For reasons that should become clear later, we focus on the inductive term and obtain the following upper limit on the equipartition time

$$t_{\mathrm{equi}}\frac{H}{|\mathrm{d}H/\mathrm{d}t|}<\frac{H}{|q𝐯𝐀/t|}.$$
(3)
Inward drift through an accretion disk is controlled by loss of angular momentum $`L_z`$ . Again using standard Hamiltonian theory together with the result that $`L_z=p_\varphi `$ is the momentum conjugate to the azimuthal angular coordinate $`\varphi `$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}L_z}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`[p_\varphi ,H]={\displaystyle \frac{H}{\varphi }}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`q𝐯{\displaystyle \frac{𝐀}{\varphi }}q{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{\varphi }},`$
where the square bracket is a Poisson bracket.

The expressions above give the rates of energy and angular momentum change for a single particle. To obtain the corresponding rates for the plasma as a whole we have to sum over the particles in some volume.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}L_z^{\mathrm{tot}}}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}L_z^+}{\mathrm{d}t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}L_z^{}}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle |q|\left((𝐯^+𝐯^{})\frac{𝐀}{\varphi }\frac{\psi }{t}\right)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \mathrm{d}^3𝐱\left(𝐣\frac{𝐀}{\varphi }\rho \frac{\psi }{\varphi }\right)},`$
where $`𝐣`$ is the current density and $`\rho `$ is the charge density.

If we again neglect the term containing $`\psi `$, we find that the residence time within the flow is

$$t_{\mathrm{res}}\frac{L_z^{\mathrm{tot}}}{|\mathrm{d}L_z^{\mathrm{tot}}/\mathrm{d}t|}\frac{L_z^{\mathrm{tot}}}{|\mathrm{d}^3𝐱𝐣𝐀/\varphi |}.$$
(6)
We now return to our upper limit (3) on the equipartition time. We average top and bottom over all particles in a given small region. This operation is bound to increase the ratio significantly since the Hamiltonian values on the top are all positive, while those on the bottom, being proportional to $`q`$, have a tendency to cancel between species. Consequently, our upper limit remains an upper limit, and we may write

$$t_{\mathrm{equi}}<\frac{H^{\mathrm{tot}}}{|\mathrm{d}^3𝐱𝐣𝐀/t|}.$$
(7)
Dividing by equation (6) we obtain

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{equi}}}{t_{\mathrm{res}}}<\frac{H^{\mathrm{tot}}}{L_z^{\mathrm{tot}}}\frac{|\mathrm{d}^3𝐱𝐣𝐀/\varphi |}{|\mathrm{d}^3𝐱𝐣𝐀/t|}.$$
(8)
Standard Hamiltonian theory tells us that for any particle the azimuthal frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi =H/L_zH/L_z`$, so the first ratio on the right side of (8) can be approximated by the local circular frequency. The ratio of integrals we approximate by the ratio of the corresponding derivatives of $`𝐀`$, so

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{equi}}}{t_{\mathrm{res}}}<\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi \frac{|𝐀/\varphi |}{|𝐀/t|}.$$
(9)
To get an idea of the relative sizes of the derivatives of $`𝐀`$, consider the case in which $`𝐀(t,\varphi )`$ can be approximated by a pattern that propagates at some phase frequency $`\omega `$. Then $`A`$ is a function of the single variable $`\omega t\varphi `$ and the ratio of derivatives becomes $`1/\omega `$. The important case is that in which the pattern propagates with some particles (the particles that are Landau-damping it). In this case $`\omega `$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi `$ and the right side of (9) evaluates to unity. In principle the ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi /\omega `$ could be equal to some small integer because the Landau-damping resonance could be associated with a harmonic of $`\omega `$. However, in view of the large amount by which the right side of (7) exceeds that of (3) we may state with confidence that

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{equi}}}{t_{\mathrm{res}}}<1.$$
(10)
## 3 Discussion

In view of this simple and very general demonstration that the time to establish equipartition between electrons and ions is not greater (and realistically much smaller) than the time it takes plasma to move through the accretion disk, why has so much attention has been paid to the proposal that the electron and ion temperatures differ significantly? The answer lies in uncertainty as to what mechanism actually drives accretion through a disk. It was very early on realised that the viscosity provided by standard kinetic theory falls short of that required by many orders of magnitude (e.g., Frank et al. 2002). In default of a proper physical theory, the field progressed by using the $`\alpha `$ parameter of Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) to connect viscosity to the pressure in a dimensional sense. The ADAF model assumed that a large value of $`\alpha `$ was appropriate, and thus that the viscosity was very much larger than kinetic theory would predict. Inconsistently, it assumed that the equipartition time was still correctly estimated by kinetic theory. All the derivation above does is to insist that whatever viscosity the disk experiences is mediated by electromagnetic fields, and to show that these fields inevitably establish equipartition on a timescale that is shorter than the accretion timescale.

Since the seminal paper of Balbus & Hawley (1991) it has become widely agreed that the magnetic-rotational instability (MRI) is the detailed mechanism that provides the high values of viscosity that observations imply. In this picture the electromagnetic field in the disk is dominated by time-varying magnetic fields with scale lengths comparable to the disk thickness. The derivation above implicitly focuses on this case in as much as it neglects the terms in (2) and (2) that contain the electrostatic potential $`\psi `$. If one were concerned about kinetic-theory viscosity, one would need to include these terms. It is easy to see that in the limit in which these terms dominate the terms in $`𝐀`$, one would again arrive at our fundamental result (10).

## 4 summary

A time-dependent electromagnetic field transfers energy between oppositely charged particles very efficiently. Consequently, when one compares the rate of such energy transfer with the rate at which the field mediates the exchanges of angular momentum that drive accretion, one concludes that equipartition of energy between electrons and ions can be achieved well within the time it takes plasma to drift inwards. Hence we may state with confidence that $`T_{\mathrm{ion}}=T_{\mathrm{electron}}`$. Fits of the observed spectra of sources such as Sgr A to the ADAF model (Narayan & Yi, 1995) assume that $`T_{\mathrm{ion}}T_{\mathrm{electron}}`$. Such fits are unphysical.

In an $`\alpha `$ disk the density scales with the mass-flow rate as $`\dot{m}^{11/20}`$, while the residence time $`t_{\mathrm{res}}`$ scales as $`\dot{m}^{3/10}`$ (Frank et al. 2002). Since the time $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ required to radiate a given energy per particle scales inversely with density, the ratio $`t_{\mathrm{rad}}/t_{\mathrm{res}}`$ scales as $`\dot{m}^{1/4}`$, and we conclude that at sufficiently small values of $`\dot{m}`$, even thermalized electrons will be unable to radiate the internal energy of a plasma that is at the virial temperature before the event horizon is reached. Hence the ADAF model is not completely excluded. However, for an ADAF to be possible, the ions must become relativistic, and, in view of the efficiency of equipartition, the electrons must become ultrarelativistic. Such electrons radiate extremely efficiently through a combination of bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radiation and the Compton scattering of photons. Consequently, the values of $`\dot{m}`$ at which radiative cooling of the electrons is unimportant are too low to be of astrophysical interest (Rees et al. 1982).

The nature of accretion onto black holes remains a puzzle. There is considerable observational evidence that energy released by accretion onto a black hole can be channelled into a bipolar outflow with remarkably little waste heat being radiated (e.g., Churazov et al. 2003). The ADAF problem was developed to explain this fact, and if the ADAF model must be rejected, another explanation must be sought.

The evidence for highly efficient generation of outflows is clearest when jets with bulk Lorentz factors of a few are observed. It seems likely that these jets emerge from the stressed vacuum around the black hole (Blandford & Znajek 1977) and do not address the issue of how accretion flows work. It is widely believed that outflows, presumably at the local Kepler speed, are an integral part of accretion-flow dynamics as in the ADIOS model of Blandford & Begelman (1999). However, it remains very unclear how these outflows avoid an unacceptable level of radiative dissipation from the underlying accretion flow.

## acknowledgements

I am grateful to Andrew King for commenting on the first draft of this paper.


text:
# The Iron Abundance and Density Structure of the Inner Ring around SN 1987A

## 1 Motivation

X-ray observations  indicate an iron abundance of 0.1 $`\times `$ solar for the circumstellar medium (CSM) of SN 1987A. This is surprisingly low compared to the iron abundances, ranging between $``$0.25 and $``$0.50 $`\times `$ solar, e.g. , generally observed in the LMC. Such a large under-abundance of iron could result from the depletion of iron on dust grains in the red supergiant wind of the progenitor star before the supernova (SN) exploded.

## 2 The Observed Line Light curves for the Inner Ring

### 2.1 AAT Observations of SN 1987A Inner Ring

Optical spectroscopic observations of SN 1987A were carried out using the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) Spectrograph on the AAT between 1991 and 1998. Data were obtained at four different epochs: 1416, 1680, 1991, and 4309 days post-explosion. At each epoch, the observations comprised a brief, wide slit integration (5-15 min; 5.3”-10.0”), and a longer duration, narrow slit integration (1-3 hours; 1.5”-2.0”). The SN observations spanned air masses $``$1.5 to $``$3.0 (i.e. zenith distances of 50 to 70 degrees), making accurate flux calibration quite challenging. We therefore carried out the observations with the slit position angle (PA) set to be roughly the same as the line joining Stars 2 and 3. This meant that Star 2 lay well within the broad slit and so could be used to correct for the variable transmission of the atmosphere (for details see ). However, an additional problem was that, since the slit PA was generally not at the parallactic angle, when the narrow slit was used, atmospheric refraction could introduce wavelength-dependent vignetting of the ring spectra. Moreover, the magnitude of this effect differed from that experienced by Star 2 since the latter lay nearer the edge of the slit. Consequently, the fluxing uncertainty introduced could be as large as $`\pm `$40$`\%`$.

### 2.2 Star 3 Contamination Removal Using HST Archival Data

The AAT observations suffered from seeing ranging between $``$1” and $``$3” and so the inner ring spectra were always significantly contaminated by light from the two nearby stars. In general, the CSM emission lines could be easily distinguished from the continuum originating from the SN and the two stars. However, Star 3 is a Be star showing strong H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ emission together with optical variability of $``$0.5 magnitudes . Consequently, it could affect significantly the observed line fluxes from the inner ring, especially at the later epochs when the ring was fainter. To assess and correct for possible Star 3 contamination, we searched the HST archive for suitable optical spectroscopic (STIS) and photometric (WFPC2) observations.

STIS spectra with a large enough slit aperture (52”x2”) and suitable centering and orientation to include Star 3 were selected from the HST archive. These spectra confirm the findings of Wang et al.  that there are indeed no forbidden lines present in the Star 3 spectrum (see ). The vignetted narrow slit spectra were therefore scaled in flux to match those of the unvignetted broad slit spectra using the brightest forbidden lines present in both the spectra. Deriving line fluxes for the whole inner ring this way assumes homogeneous ring geometry. WFPC2 F502N and F656N images which were contemporary with our AAT spectra were then selected from the HST archive. Average H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ fluxes of 44 and 13 $`\times `$ 10-15 erg s-1 cm-2, respectively, were found for Star 3, with a maximum variability of $``$20$`\%`$ over a 6 year time span. These fluxes were used to correct for Star 3 contamination of the hydrogen line fluxes in the broad slit AAT observations. In addition, the accuracy of the absolute fluxing of our AAT observations was checked using the HST inner ring data. This indicates that our ground-based fluxes are consistent with the HST measurements to within the estimated errors of $`\pm `$20-40$`\%`$.

### 2.3 The Line Light Curves

From the AAT spectra, we measured optical line fluxes at 1416, 1680, 2864 and 4309 days for H, He, N, O, Ne, S, Ar, Ca and Fe (e.g. Fig.1). We also assembled from the literature all available optical/near-IR line fluxes of the inner ring. This includes data from the following sources:  (307 days),  (511, 552, 586, 678, and 735 days),  (574, 668, 695, 734, 840, 958, and 1114 days),  (1050 days),  (1280 days),  (1344 days),  (1348, 1469, 1734, 1822, and 2122 days). The resulting dataset (see ) spans $`3004300`$ days post-explosion, i.e., from the time when the ring first became visible to the time when the first signs of ejecta/ring collision were seen at these wavelengths.

### 2.4 Modelling the Line Light Curves of the Inner Ring

The latest version of the photoionisation code described in  was used to model the emission line light curves of the inner ring. In the model the ring is initially ionised by the soft X-ray and UV photons emitted in the SN shock break-out. The SN flash with the temporal and spectral characteristics of the 500full1 model  sets up the initial ionisation structure of the ring, and the gas then recombines and cools. To model the emission line fluxes of iron, we collected from the literature the latest atomic data for the most abundant ions of iron in the ring (see ). Thanks to the Iron Project  these atomic data have improved significantly during the last few years and now make such abundance determinations more reliable.

### 2.5 The Density Structure

The mass and density structure of the ionised gas in the inner ring was determined by searching for satisfactory model fits for (1) the absolute line fluxes of H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ (Fig.1A-B), and (2) the observed time evolution of the line fluxes of all the other elements (e.g., Fig.1C-D). We found that five density components were needed: 103, 2 $`\times `$ 103, 3 $`\times `$ 103, 2 $`\times `$ 104, and 4 $`\times `$ 104 atoms cm-3 with masses of ionised gas of 0.4, 1.1, 1.0, 0.8, and 0.5 $`\times `$ 10-2 M, respectively. The low-density components dominate the line light curves at the later times. High resolution (HST) images indicate that this low-density gas is situated, on average, further away from the SN than the gas with a higher density . In reality there is also probably a continuous range of densities within the ring rather than a few discrete density components.

### 2.6 The Iron Abundance

The elemental abundances yielding the observed absolute line fluxes were then determined (Fig.1E-J). This was done by altering the total number of emitting ions relative to hydrogen. However, we have not yet included the effects of these modified abundances on the temperature and ionisation structure of the ring. Therefore, the abundances derived for the more abundant elements, e.g. He, N, O, should be considered as only preliminary results (e.g. Fig.1C-D). However, the effect of the modified iron abundance on the temperature and ionisation structure is not significant, thus allowing its robust determination.

Our estimate of the iron abundance is based on five \[Fe II\] and one \[Fe III\] lines (Fig.1E-J). This indicates an average abundance of 0.20 times solar with a dispersion of 35$`\%`$. In addition, we estimated the effects of the assumed He, N, and O abundances and the overall metallicity on the determined iron abundance. We found that the iron model fluxes are rather insensitive to the He/H and N/O ratios. However, the overall metallicity has a much larger effect on the cooling, and thus on the iron model line light curves (Fig.1K-L). We estimate that this introduces an uncertainty of 15$`\%`$ in the average iron abundance. Therefore, from this study, we deduce an iron abundance of (0.20 $`\pm `$ 0.08) times solar (see ). This abundance is larger by a factor of two relative to that found by Borkowski, Blondin $`\&`$ McCray  from X-ray observations. However, it is at the lower end of the iron abundance range (0.25-0.50 times solar) found for different locations within the LMC. We note that also an inner ring silicon abundance of a factor of $``$2 lower than normal for the LMC was found recently by Lundqvist $`\&`$ Sonneborn . These low abundances are probably due to depletion onto dust grains. The existence of dust in the ring material has been demonstrated by mid-IR observations .

We thank L. Smith, R. Terlevich, and R. Cumming for helpful discussions.

## Index


text:
# Colored Hofstadter butterflies

## 1  Overview

My aim is to explain what is known about the thermodynamic significance of the two colored butterflies shown in figures 1 and 4 and what remains open. Both diagrams were made by my student, D. Osadchy , as part of his M.Sc. thesis. I shall explain their interpretation as the $`T=0`$ phase diagrams of a two dimensional gas of charged, though non-interacting, fermions. Fig. 1 is associated with weak magnetic fields (and strong periodic potentials) while Fig. 4 with strong magnetic fields (and weak periodic potentials). The two cases are related by duality. The duality, which is further discussed below, is manifest if colors are disregarded.

The horizontal coordinate in both figures is the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and the vertical coordinate is proportional to the magnetic induction $`B`$ in fig. 1 and $`1/B`$ in fig. 4. The colors represent the quantized values of the Hall conductance, i.e. represent integers 111 The quantum unit of conductance, $`e^2/h`$, is $`1/2\pi `$, in natural units where $`e=\mathrm{}=1`$.. Warm colors represent positive multiples and cold colors represent negative ones: Orange represents 2, red 1, white 0, blue $`1`$ etc.

Remark:It is problematic to represent integers by colors with good contrast between nearby integers. This is related to the fact that colors are not ordered on the line but rather are represented by the simplex $`(r,g,b)`$ with $`r+g+b=1`$. (Pure colors are located on the boundary of the simplex). The assignment in the figures becomes problematic for large, positive or negative, integers: Large positive integers are not represented anymore by warm colors but rather by yellow and green.

I shall also present an open problem. Namely, how do these diagrams change if one replaces the magnetic induction $`B`$ by the magnetic field $`H`$ as the thermodynamic coordinate.

## 2 Some history

That the Hall conductance took different signs in different metals was an embarrassment to Sommerfeld theory. Since charge is carried by the electrons one sign was predicted. The wrong sign was called the anomalous Hall effect and was explained by R. Peierls  who showed that the periodicity of the electron dispersion $`ϵ(k)`$ plus the Pauli principle allow for either sign, depending on $`\mu `$. This subsequently lead to the important concept of holes as charge carriers—a term not used by Peierls in his original work.

The electron-hole anti-symmetry of the Hall conductance is seen in Fig. 1 where cold and warm colors are interchanged upon reflection about the vertical axis. However, the figure is much more complicated than what Peierls had in mind.

Mark Azbel  realized that the Schrödinger equation in a periodic potential and magnetic field had tantalizing spectral properties. But it was the graphic rendering of the spectrum by D. Hofstadter , shown in Fig. 2, (and his scaling rules,) that brought the problem into limelights. The richness of spectral properties is a result of competing area scales: One dictated by the unit cell of the underlying periodic potential and the other by the area that carries one unit of magnetic flux. When $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is rational the two areas are commensurate, when it is irrational, they are not. At $`T=0`$ the electrons gas is coherent on large distance scales and commensuration lead to interference phenomena that affect spectral properties at very small energy scales. The delicate spectral properties attracted considerable attention of a community of spectral analysts. Reference  is a pointer to a rich and wonderful literature on the subject.

In a seminal work, TKNN  realized that the Hall conductance of the Hofstadter model admits a topological characterization in terms of Chern numbers. This discovery has an an interesting piece of lost history. In fact S. Novikov was apparently the first to realized the topological significance of the spectral gaps for Bloch electrons in magnetic fields . However, he missed their significance as Hall conductance. TKNN  were not aware of the work of Novikov. Instead, they were motivated by a puzzle that follow from applying the Laughlin argument for the quantization of the Hall conductance to the Hofstadter model. By essentially reinventing the proof of integrality of Chern numbers in a special case, they showed that whenever the Fermi energy is in a gap the Hall conductance is quantized.

In the two diagrams, figs. 1,4, the Hall conductance is quantized almost everywhere. The set of points where the Hall conductance is not quantized is a set of zero measure and so invisible. This is related to the fact that the spectrum is a set of measure zero (see e.g.  and references therein).

## 3 Thermodynamics considerations

It is interesting to consider the colored butterflies from the perspective of thermodynamics.

### 3.1 Gibbs phase rule

The first and second laws of thermodynamics constrain the shape of phase diagrams. The phase rules depend on the choice of the independent thermodynamic coordinates $`X`$ be they extensive, such as $`X=(E,V,N)`$, or intensive, such as $`(P,T)`$.

Let $`X=(E,V,N)`$ be the extensive coordinates of a simple thermodynamic system. $`X`$ and $`\lambda X`$ with $`\lambda >0`$ are thermodynamically equivalent systems, while $`X`$ and $`Y\lambda X`$ are not. Mixing $`X`$ and $`Y`$, in any proportion, is, in general, an irreversible process. The second law then says that the entropy of the mixed system is not smaller than the sum of the entropies of its constituents. Namely, for $`0\lambda 1`$

$$S(\lambda X+\lambda ^{}Y)S(\lambda X)+S(\lambda ^{}Y)=\lambda S(X)+\lambda ^{}S(Y),\lambda ^{}=1\lambda $$
(1)
The first law, conservation of energy, (plus conservation of number of particles and additivity of volumes), was used in the first step and the extensivity of the entropy, $`S(\lambda X)=\lambda S(X)`$, in the second. Eq. (1) says that the entropy $`S(X)`$ is a concave function of its arguments. This embodies the basic laws of thermodynamics.

Equality in Eq. (1) holds if mixing is reversible which is, of course, the case if a phase is mixed with itself. It is also the case if coexisting phases are mixed: Clearly one can separate ice from water by mechanical means alone. The geometric expression of equality in Eq. (1) is that $`S`$ contains linear segment: For a pure phase this is the half line $`S(\lambda X)=\lambda S(X)`$. When $`X\lambda Y`$, are in coexistence $`S`$ contains a two dimensional cone: $`S(\lambda _1X+\lambda _2Y)=\lambda _1S(X)+\lambda _2S(Y),\lambda _{12}>0`$. (This notion extends to multiple phase coexistence.)

Positivity of the temperature implies that $`S`$ is an increasing function of $`E`$. Consequently, $`S(E,V,N)`$ can be inverted to give the internal energy $`E(S,V,N)`$. Since $`S`$ is a concave function of its arguments $`E(S,V,N)`$ is a convex function of its arguments (which are the extensive state variables). Its Legendre transform with respect to all its arguments, gives a function of the intensive variables $`T,P`$ and $`\mu `$ alone which, by scaling, must be identically zero. This is the Gibbs-Duhamel relation. It determines the pressure $`P`$ as a convex function of the remaining intensive coordinates, $`(T,\mu )`$:

$$PV=\mu N+TSE$$
(2)
The pressure is a convenient object to consider because all the terms on the rhs of Eq. (2) admit a simple representation in statistical mechanics. $`P`$ is sometimes called the grand potential, e.g. . Since the pressure is the Legendre transform of the internal energy with respect to $`S`$ and $`N`$. The convexity of $`E`$ then implies the convexity of the pressure with respect to $`T`$ and $`\mu `$.

Now, it is a consequence of the duality of the Legendre transform that if $`E`$ has a linear segment of length $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ then its Legendre transform $`P`$ has a corresponding jump in gradient with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(P)=\mathrm{\Delta }X`$. It follows that pure phases correspond to points where $`P(T,\mu )`$ has a unique tangent, while two phase coexist at those points $`(T,\mu )`$ where $`P`$ has two (linearly independent) tangents planes. (Triple points are similarly define.)

It is now a fact about convex functions that almost all points have a unique tangent while the set with multiple tangents has codimension $`1`$ (in the sense of comparing Hausdorff dimensions). A geometric proof of this fact can be found in . This gives a weak version of the Gibbs phase rule: If one considers the pressure $`P`$ as function of $`(T,\mu )`$, (or alternatively, chemical potential $`\mu `$ as function of $`(P,t)`$,) then pure phases are the typical sets while phases coexist on exceptional, (i.e. small), sets.

### 3.2 Magnetic systems

At $`T=0`$ the entropy term in Eq. (2) drops. For a system of non-interacting Fermions all single particle states below $`\mu `$ are occupied, while those above are empty. This says that for the single particle Hamiltonian $`H`$ and area $`A`$ the pressure is

$$P=\underset{A\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{A}Tr\left(\left(\mu H\right)_+\chi (A)\right)$$
(3)
$`\chi `$ is the characteristic function of the area and $`x_+=x\theta (x)`$ with $`\theta `$ a unit step function.

Let $`B`$ denote the magnetic induction (i.e. the macroscopic average of the local magnetic field ). The Hamiltonian is a function of $`B`$ and so is the pressure. The density $`\rho `$ and the (specific) magnetization $`M`$ are then given by

$$\rho =\frac{P}{\mu },M=\frac{P}{B}.$$
(4)
The Hall conductance is thermodynamically defined by

$$\sigma _H=\frac{\rho }{B}=\frac{M}{\mu }.$$
(5)
It follows that, in the the wings of the butterflies where the Hall conductance is quantized $`P`$ is given by:

$$P(\mu ,B)=\sigma _gB(\mu \mu _g),$$
(6)
where $`g`$ is a discrete wing label. The wings represent pure phases since $`P`$ has a unique tangent in the gaps.

### 3.3 The order of the transitions

$`P`$, $`\rho `$ and $`M`$ are bi-linear in $`\mu `$ and $`B`$ in the gaps. $`P`$ and $`\rho `$ are actually also continuous functions of $`\mu `$ on the spectrum. For rational flux this is a consequence of Floquet theory. For irrational flux this can be seen by a limiting argument.

At the same time, the Hall conductance, being integer valued on a set of full measure, can not be extended to a continuous function 222 The magnetization does not extend to a continuous function on the spectrum for rational fluxes .. (If fact, it is not even bounded.) The continuity of the first derivative and the discontinuity of the second derivatives, makes the phase transitions in $`\mu `$ second order according to the Ehrenfest classification .

### 3.4 Phases and their boundaries

In the colored Hofstadter butterflies pure phases are open sets. The boundary of a given phase, say the red wing, is a curve; It is not a smooth curve as at rational values of $`B`$ is has distinct tangents, but it is still a curve of Hausdorf dimensions one . This is reminiscent of the Gibbs phase rule. Note, however, that the notion of the boundary of a pure phase, and the notion of phase coexistence, are distinct. The phase with Hall conductance 1 meets the phase 0 at a single point, at the tip of the butterfly, not on a line, as one might expect by the Gibbs phase rule. This holds in general: The boundary of the phases $`i`$ intersects the boundary of the phase $`j`$ on a set of codimension 2, not 1 . Moreover, any small disc that contains two distinct phases of the butterfly contain infinitely many other phases.

### 3.5 Magnetic domains and phase coexistence

Is the fractal phase diagram of the butterfly in conflict with basic thermodynamic principles?

The Gibbs phase rule one finds in classical thermodynamics  says that two phases meet on a smooth curve which is clearly not the case for the butterfly. However, this strong version of Gibbs rule involves assumptions of smoothness of free energies that may or may not hold. Convexity alone gives a weaker version of the Gibbs phase rule, which we briefly discussed in section 3.1, which allows for all kind of wild behaviors, and does not rule out fractal phase diagrams like the butterfly. 333Instructive examples are given in p.8 of . I thank Aernout van Enter for pointing out this example to me and for a clarifying discussion on the Gibbs phase rule..

More worrisome is the lack of convexity of the pressure, $`P(\mu ,B)`$ which is manifest in the periodicity of Fig. 1 in $`B`$. This raises the question if this reflects a problem with the Hofstadter model. It does not. A little reflection shows that rather, it a consequence of choosing $`B`$, the magnetic induction, as the thermodynamic coordinate. In the remaining part of this section I shall explain why it is actually more natural to choose for the independent thermodynamic variable the magnetic field $`H`$ and the difficulties in drawing the butterflies in the $`\mu H`$ plane.

Imagine a two dimensional system with finite width which is broken to domains. Assume that the magnetic field in each of the domains is perpendicular to the plane and is constant through the given domain. Since $`\times H=0`$, the magnetic field $`H`$ must be the same in adjacent domains. Hence the notion of constant magnetic field is constant $`H`$, while $`B`$ will not be constant if the system breaks into domain. The problem with $`H`$ constant is more difficult because it is $`B`$, not $`H`$, that enters in the Hamiltonian .

Given the colored butterfly as function of $`B`$ what can one say about the colored butterfly as a function of $`H`$? Recall that $`B`$, $`H`$ and the magnetization $`M`$ are related by

$$B=H+4\pi M$$
(7)
Since $`M`$ is a function of $`B`$ so is $`H`$. However, $`B`$ may fail to be a (univalued) function of $`H`$. This is the case if $`4\pi _BM1`$; If the magnetic susceptibility is sufficiently negative. When this happens, the relation $`H(B)`$ can not be inverted to a function $`B(H)`$. Domains with different values of $`M`$ and $`B`$ may then form and coexist .

The condition for coexistence is a stability condition: The system will pick a value of $`B`$, consistent with $`H`$, that will minimize the entropy. However, at $`T=0`$ the entropy of a gas of Fermions vanishes, so the different solutions $`B_j(H,\mu )`$ all give the same entropy, zero. This suggests that all the $`B_j`$ represent phases at coexistence.

There is no reason why this degeneracy will hold if $`T`$ is not strictly 0. Then, for most values of $`H`$ a distinguished solution of $`B_0(H,\mu )`$ will be picked. The simple scenario is that that $`B_0(H,\mu )`$ will depend, for most $`H`$, continuously on $`H`$. In these intervals, the phases of the colored butterfly in $`(\mu ,H)`$ will be a deformed version of the phases in $`(\mu ,B)`$. However, since a values of $`B_0(H,\mu )`$ is picked by a minimization procedure, there is no guarantee for continuity and $`B_0(H,\mu )`$ will be, in general, a discontinuous function of its arguments. At the discontinuities, major qualitative changes in the diagram will take place and it is interesting to investigate the colored butterfly in the $`\mu H`$ plane.

Another open problem in this context is to analyze the domain structure for coexisting phases. The quasi-periodic character of the electronic problem for irrational fluxes suggest that the domain structure could be rich and interesting as well, (e.g. a quasi-periodic domain structure for irrational fluxes).

## 4 Duality

We now turn to the duality relating the two diagrams.

### 4.1 Weak magnetic fields

Consider the “Bloch band” dispersion relation

$$ϵ(k)=\mathrm{cos}(ka)+\mathrm{cos}(kb)$$
(8)
on the two dimensional Brillouin zone. $`a,b`$ are the unit lattice vectors. The Hamiltonian describing a weak external magnetic field is obtained by imposing the canonical commutation relation

$$[ka,kb]=ia\times bB=i\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(9)
This procedure is known as the Peierls substitution . The model is known as the Harper model, after a student of Peierls. The spectrum, plotted in fig. 2, is a set of measure zero and so invisible in fig. 1. Figs. 1,2 describe disjoint and complementary sets, whose union is the plane.

Although there is considerable interest in Hofstadter model for its own sake (see e.g.  and references therein) its physical significance to the two dimensional electron gas is limited. One reason is that the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, even for the strongest available magnetic fields, is tiny and only a horizontal sliver of the diagram in Fig. 1 near zero flux can be realized. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of order one is presumably outside the region of weak field for which the model approximates the Schrödinger equation.

By gauge invariance, time-reversal and electron-hole symmetry, the pressure satisfies

$$P(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })=P(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })=P(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }+1)=\mu +P(\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(10)
This give Fig. 1 its symmetry.

### 4.2 Strong magnetic fields

A classical charged particle in homogeneous magnetic field moves or a circle. The center of the circle is, classically,

$$c=x+\frac{v\times B}{B^2}$$
(11)
$`c`$ commutes with $`v`$, but the components of the center do not commute, rather they satisfy the canonical commutation relations

$$[ca^{},cb^{}]=i\frac{Ba^{}\times b^{}}{B^2}=i\frac{(2\pi )^2}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(12)
$`(a^{},b^{})`$ are dual vectors to $`(a,b)`$.

If the wave function $`\psi `$ belongs to a given Landau level then the shifts $`e^{ic\alpha }\psi `$, for $`\alpha R^2`$, span the spectral subspace of that level. This means that the Hamiltonian

$$\mathrm{cos}(ca^{})+\mathrm{cos}(cb^{}),$$
(13)
acts within Landau levels. For large $`B`$ it approximates the periodic potential $`\mathrm{cos}(xa^{})+\mathrm{cos}(xb^{})`$, which couples different Landau levels. This is seen from the fact that in a given Landau level $`v=O(\sqrt{B})`$ hence , by Eq. (11), $`cx`$ for large $`B`$. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (12) is the same as that of Eq. (8), except that in the commutator $`\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi `$ of Eq. (9) is replaced by $`2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of Eq. (12).

Although the spectral problem of the two models is essentially the same the phase diagrams are different. This is explained in the next subsection.

Unlike the tight-binding model which is mostly of academic interest, the model of a split Landau level can be realized in artificial superlattices that accommodate a unit of quantum flux at attainable fields.

### 4.3 Thermodynamic duality

The pressure of a split Landau level, $`P_l`$, and split Bloch band $`P_b`$, for any temperature $`T`$, are related by

$$P_l(T,\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\pi }P_b(T,\mu ,2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(14)
This is a duality transformation: It is symmetric under the interchange $`bl`$. It implies that the thermodynamics of the split Bloch band determine the thermodynamics of a split Landau level and vice versa. The factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on the right is the reason that $`P_l`$ is not periodic, although $`P_b`$ is.

A check on the factor $`\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi `$ comes by considering large $`\mu `$. Then, the tight binding model has all sites occupied and the electron density is $`\rho _b1`$. This implies $`P_b\mu `$. In contrast, a full Landau level, has electron density that is proportional to the flux through unit area: $`\rho _l\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi `$ so $`P_l\mathrm{\Phi }\mu /2\pi `$.

The magnetization and the Hall conductances of the two models are therefore related by:

$`m_l(\mu ,T,2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}P_b(\mu ,T,\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\pi }}m_b(\mu ,T,\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi );`$
$`\sigma _l(\mu ,T,2\pi /\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\rho _b(\mu ,T,\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{2\pi }}\sigma _b(\mu ,T,\mathrm{\Phi }/2\pi )`$ (15)
When $`\mu `$ is large, $`\sigma _b=0`$, since a full band is an insulator. At the same time, a full Landau level has a unit of quantum conductance, $`\sigma _l=1/2\pi `$, in agreement with the Eq. (4.3).

Acknowledgment:  I thank A. van Enter and O. Gat for useful discussions and criticism. This work is supported by the Technion fund for promotion of research and EU grant HPRN-CT-2002-00277.

## 5 Appendix: Diophantine equation

Let me finally describe the algorithm of  for coloring the gaps in the butterfly fig. 1. Suppose that the magnetic flux through a unit cell is $`\frac{p}{q}`$. For $`p`$ and $`q`$ relatively prime, define the conjugate pair $`(m,n)`$ as the solutions of

$$pmqn=1$$
(16)
$`m`$ is determined by this equation modulo $`q`$ and $`n`$ modulo $`p`$. The algorithm for solving Eq. (16) is the division algorithm of Euclid. (Standard computer packages for finding the greatest common divisor of $`p`$ and $`q`$, yield also $`m`$ and $`n`$ such that $`pm+qn=\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)`$.) The Hall conductance $`k_j`$, associated with the j-th gap, in the tight binding case, is given by

$$k_j=jmmodq,|k_j|q/2$$
(17)
In the case of split Landau band, Eq. (17) again determines $`k_j`$ provided $`p`$ and $`q`$ are interchanged.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are several reasons why we are unhappy with the Standard Model (SM). We observed phenomena which are not part of the SM, such as finite neutrino masses, dark energy $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DE}75\%`$, gravity and the matter anti-matter asymmetry $`(n\overline{n})/s10^{10}`$. We do have questions which cannot be answered within the SM. For example, about unification and the origin of flavor and breaking of CP symmetry because in the SM the CKM matrix elements and fermion masses (also in the lepton sector) are just parameters. Moreover, the SM has consistency problems. There is the strong CP problem, i.e. why is the CKM phase order one whereas the strong phase is small $`\overline{\theta }10^{10}`$ and the gauge hierarchy problem. In the SM, scalar masses receive quadratic radiative corrections $`\delta m^2\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/16\pi ^2`$. For a high cut-off such as the Planck scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Pl}`$ a huge amount of fine-tuning is required to render the renormalized scalar, i.e. Higgs mass of the order of the electroweak scale. In other words, the SM is only natural up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$ TeV. Excitingly, we probe even higher energies in the near future at the Tevatron and the LHC.

Models of electroweak symmetry breaking where the Higgs masses are protected can be build by using supersymmetry (SUSY), extra dimensions, strong dynamics (technicolor,little Higgs theories) plus hybrids. In all of these extensions of the SM we expect to see new physics (NP) at the TeV scale. The reach in indirect signals below 5 GeV such as in rare $`b,c,K,\tau `$ decays, meson mixing and electric dipole moments depends sensitively on how much beyond the SM flavor and/or CP violation is in the model. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the prospects for NP in $`b`$-data are shown as a function of a particular realization of a model type, for details see .

It is customary to classify NP models into those which are minimal flavor violating (MFV) and those who are not. A model is MFV if it does not contain more flavor and CP violation than the SM, i.e. what is contained in the Yukawas (CKM). We come back to a formal definition in Section 3. As an example, the two Higgs doublet models (2HDM) I and II are MFV. The same is true for the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with flavor blind SUSY breaking and no further CP violation such as gauge mediated SUSY breaking with $`A`$-terms being proportional to the corresponding Yukawas and squark masses proportional to the unit matrix. (We neglect small effects from renormalization group running.) Non-MFV models are the 2HDM III with tree level flavor changing neutral currents (FCNC), models with fourth generation quarks, vector like down quarks with tree level FCNC to the $`Z`$ and the generic MSSM with/or without R-parity conservation. Hence, MFV theories require very different model building from those which are not.

Experimental signals for non-MFV include i non-standard CP violation, e.g. $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta (\varphi K_S)\mathrm{sin}2\beta (J/\mathrm{\Psi }K_S)`$, ii right-handed currents, which are generically suppressed in $`bs`$ transitions in MFV models $`m_s/m_b`$,

iii certain shapes of the Forward-Backward asymmetry $`A_{FB}`$ for inclusive and exclusive $`B(X_s,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays, see Fig. 2, where currently allowed possibilities are shown. Note that the displayed curves exhibit discrete differences rather than being gradually distinct, hence, can be cleanly investigated with the exclusive decay . Furthermore, iv beyond MFV there is no “CKM-link” among $`bs,bd`$ and $`sd`$ transitions.

There is an existent $`2.7\sigma `$ hint for NP which is non-MFV, namely beyond the SM CP violation in $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay, see Table 1 222During the completion of this write-up both BaBar and Belle issued improved measurements of $`S_{\varphi K_S}^{BaBar}=+0.45\pm 0.43\pm 0.07`$, $`C_{\varphi K_S}^{BaBar}=0.38\pm 0.37\pm 0.12`$ and $`S_{\varphi K_S}^{Belle}=0.96\pm 0.50_{0.11}^{+0.09}`$, $`C_{\varphi K_S}^{Belle}=+0.15\pm 0.29\pm 0.07`$ based on larger data samples . The new error weighted averages are $`S_{\varphi K_S}^{ave}=0.15\pm 0.33`$, still 2.7 $`\sigma `$ away from the SM and $`C_{\varphi K_S}^{ave}=0.05\pm 0.24`$, i.e. consistent with small direct CP violation. We note, however, that there is no good agreement between the two experiments in $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$. Note also the new Belle result $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}^{Belle}=+0.43\pm 0.27\pm 0.05`$ updating $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}^{Belle2002}=+0.71\pm 0.37_{0.06}^{+0.05}`$, which with $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}^{BaBar}=+0.02\pm 0.34\pm 0.03`$ leads to $`S_{\eta ^{}K_S}^{ave}=+0.27\pm 0.21`$ .. Data yield $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{ave}=+0.736\pm 0.049`$ , in agreement with the fit to the unitarity triangle $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta _{UTfit}=+0.74\pm 0.10`$ @95%C.L.  and $`\lambda 0.22`$.

The $`𝒪(\lambda ^2)`$ correction from the $`u\overline{u}`$ loop maybe dynamically enhanced , e.g. by large rescattering. This SM background can be constrained using SU(3) flavor analysis. Currently, we have the not very stringent bound $`|\xi _{\varphi K^0}|0.25`$, where $`|\mathrm{sin}2\beta (\varphi K_S)\mathrm{sin}2\beta |2\mathrm{cos}2\beta |\xi _{\varphi K^0}|`$ . It is derived from upper bounds on $`(B^+\varphi \pi ^+)`$, $`(B^+\overline{K}^0K^+)`$ and can be experimentally improved soon. It assumes that no large amplitudes in the charged $`B`$-decay cancel, i.e. $`|\xi _{\varphi K^0}||\xi _{\varphi K^+}|`$. The bound can be made independent of this assumption by improved data on 11 further branching ratios, see . This will be important if experimental errors on $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ shrink and the central value moves closer to the SM expectation. Note that one obtains $`|\xi _{\eta ^{}K^0}|0.36`$ or $`|\xi _{\eta ^{}K^0}|`$ $``$ $`|\xi _{\eta ^{}K^+}|0.09`$, if $`N_c`$ counting works for the tree level contributions to $`B^{0/\pm }\eta ^{}K^{0/\pm }`$ .

## 2 Models with non-MFV

In order to obtain the current central value of $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ an $`O(1)`$ NP contribution with an $`O(1)`$ CP phase is required on the decay amplitude . This NP can be in the coefficients of QCD $`C_{3,\mathrm{}6}^{()}`$, electroweak penguins $`C_{7,\mathrm{}10}^{()}`$ and/or the chromomagnetic dipole $`C_{8g}^{()}`$ . (The operators are e.g. given in .) We discuss two possible explanations and show how to distinguish them.

Non-SM $`sZb`$-couplings arise generically in many models such as vector like down quarks, 4th generation, non-MFV SUSY, anomalous couplings, $`Z^{}`$ models. They can be written as

$`_Z={\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}}(\overline{b}_L\gamma _\mu s_LZ_{sb}+\overline{b}_R\gamma _\mu s_RZ_{sb}^{})Z^\mu +h.c.`$ (1)
They modify the coefficients of the 4-Fermi operators $`O_{3,7,9}^{()}`$ which contribute to $`bs\overline{s}s`$ decays . The $`sZb`$-couplings are experimentally constrained as

$`\sqrt{|Z_{sb}+Z_{sb}^{SM}|^2+|Z_{sb}^{}|^2}0.08Z_{sb}^{SM}=V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_WC_{10\mathrm{}}^{SM}0.04`$ (2)
The bound in Eq. (2) is based on inclusive $`BX_se^+e^{}`$ decays at NNLO  and corresponds to an enhancement of 2 to 3 over the SM value. $`Z_{sb}^{()}`$ large and complex can explain the anomaly in $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay . The implications of anomalous $`sZb`$-couplings include distortion of dilepton sprectra and the $`A_{FB}`$ shape in $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays and the $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ branching ratio. They further induce a non-zero Forward-Backward-CP asymmetry $`A_{FB}^{CP}\frac{A_{FB}+\overline{A}_{FB}}{A_{FB}\overline{A}_{FB}}\frac{Im(C_{10\mathrm{}})}{Re(C_{10\mathrm{}})}`$ which probes the phase of the $`sZb`$ vertex. The SM background is tiny $`A_{FB}^{CP}<10^3`$ . There is experimental support for the possibility of large electroweak penguins in $`BK\pi `$ decays , which, for example, could be induced by non-standard $`Z`$-penguins.

The MSSM with large and complex mixing between right-handed $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, denoted here as $`(\delta _{23}^D)_{RR}`$ (which is inspired from large $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing in $`SO(10)`$ GUTs) can accommodate large departures in $`S_{\varphi K_S}`$ from the SM , for other recent studies of gluino mediated effects in $`B\varphi K_S`$ decay see . The model gives contributions to the flipped 4-Fermi $`O_{3\mathrm{}6}^{}`$ and dipole operators $`O_{7\gamma }^{}`$, $`O_{8g}^{}`$. An enhancement of $`(bs\gamma )`$ can be avoided by having the gluino mass sufficiently lighter than the squark masses. The $`B_s`$-$`\overline{B}_s`$ mixing can be huge $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s100ps^1`$. The presence of large right handed currents imply flipped helicity contributions to $`bs\gamma `$, see Section 3. Direct CP violation in $`bs\gamma `$ is SM like, since only flipped coefficients have a NP phase and different helicities do not interfere.

Predictions of both non-MFV models are compared in Table 2. Further means to distinguish them is to study CP asymmetries of the “golden” modes $`B(c\overline{c})K`$ . Order one NP in $`bs\overline{s}s`$ decays implies $`𝒪(10\%)`$ effects in $`bc\overline{c}s`$, which is within the errors of the UT fit. Since the NP effect is split among final states with the same flavor content but different CP quantum numbers we compare vector $`V=J/\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and axial vector $`A=\chi _1,\eta _c`$ coupling charmonia. Current data $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta (AK_S)\mathrm{sin}2\beta (VK_S)=0.05\pm 0.26`$  are not significant yet. The correlation with $`\varphi K_S`$ is shown in Fig. 3 for both models. Since $`C_{8g}^{()}`$ is color octet suppressed in $`bc\overline{c}s`$ decays this distinguishes NP in the chromomagnetic dipole from NP in the 4-Fermi operators.

Note that this SM test is independent of improvement of the UT fit.

## 3 Model independent analysis

The search for NP in $`bs`$ transitions can systematically be performed in terms of an effective low energy theory $`_{eff}=4G_F/\sqrt{2}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{}_i(C_i𝒪_i+C_i^{}𝒪_i^{})`$. Important operators are given in Table 3. The primed (flipped) operators are obtained from interchanging $`LR`$. The coefficients of the SM operator basis $`C_{7\gamma },C_{8g},C_9\mathrm{},C_{10\mathrm{}}`$ have been studied recently . From the $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio bounds in the $`C_{7\gamma }`$-$`C_{8g}`$ plane have been obtained, allowing for two different solutions with different sign of $`C_{7\gamma }`$ each of which can be accessed in the MFV MSSM. There is a bound $`|C_{8g}(m_W)/C_{8gSM}(m_W)|10`$ from charmless $`B`$-decay and theory input . Constraints on the dilepton couplings $`C_9\mathrm{}`$-$`C_{10\mathrm{}}`$ for each branch have been worked out from $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays. Currently, the inclusive $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ (with $`\sqrt{q^2}>0.2`$ GeV) and exclusive $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays with electron and muon modes combined ($`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$) have been observed 333New numbers were presented at LP03 , i.e. $`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_{BaBar}=(0.69_{0.13}^{+0.15}\pm 0.06)10^6`$, $`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_{Belle}=(0.48_{0.09}^{+0.10}\pm 0.03\pm 0.01)10^6`$ and Belle‘s observation of the $`K^{}`$ mode $`(BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_{Belle}=(1.15_{0.24}^{+0.26}\pm 0.07\pm 0.04)10^6`$.

$`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(6.1\pm 1.4_{1.1}^{+1.4})10^6(Belle\text{[20]})`$ (3)
$`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(6.3\pm 1.6_{1.5}^{+1.8})10^6(BaBar\text{[21]})`$ (4)
$`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.78_{0.200.18}^{+0.24+0.11})10^6(BaBar\text{[22]})`$ (5)
$`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.58_{0.15}^{+0.17}\pm 0.06)10^6(Belle\text{[23]})`$ (6)
They are in agreement with the SM $`(BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_{SM}=4.2\pm 0.710^6`$ and $`(BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})_{SM}=0.35\pm 0.1210^6`$ for the same cuts . While the use of $`(bs\gamma )`$ here is without further progress currently exhausted by theory errors, semileptonic rare decays will yield much information in the near future beyond branching ratios, in particular from $`A_{FB}`$. Note that curve 2 in Fig. 2 corresponds to the non-SM sign solution to $`C_{7\gamma }`$. The $`A_{FB}`$ has a zero in the SM, see Fig. 2, which position is known to high accuracy for inclusive $`\widehat{s}_{SM}^{NNLL}=0.162\pm 0.002(8)`$  and exclusive $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays  $`q_{0SM}^{2NNLL}=4.2\pm 0.6\text{GeV}^2`$ .

In the SM the scalar/pseudoscalar couplings $`C_{S,P}^{SM}m_{\mathrm{}}m_b/m_W^2`$ are very small even for $`\mathrm{}=\tau `$, but they can be important in the MFV MSSM at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Constraints on $`C_{S,P}`$ from $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ decay have been worked out . This decay is helicity suppressed in the SM with $`(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{SM}=3.2\pm 1.5\times 10^9`$ like the corresponding $`B_d`$-decay $`(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})_{SM}=𝒪(10^{10})`$ . Substantially smaller errors can be obtained using the correlation (even in some models beyond the SM) with the measured values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{d,s}`$ thus getting rid of the decay constant and CKM dependence of the $`B_{d,s}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ branching ratio . Current upper 90 % C.L. bounds are $`(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})<1.610^7`$ (Belle) and $`(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})<9.510^7`$ (CDF Run II) . The MFV MSSM predicts interesting correlations, namely barring large cancellations that $`(B_{d,s}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ cannot be both enhanced w.r.t. their SM values  and that the ratio $`(B_d\mu ^+\mu ^{})/(B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2`$ holds. The latter can be broken by $`O(1)`$ beyond minimal models . Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_d/\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ does not follow this pattern of CKM hierarchy in the MFV MSSM .

So far only a small fraction of Table 3 has been experimentally accessed. This program can be extended by allowing for CP phases , taking more than the SM operators into account , search for right handed currents, e.g. with polarization studies in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ , radiative $`B`$  and $`B(K^{}K\pi )\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ decays . Hadronic $`b`$-decays are sensitive to NP in Four-quark operators and $`𝒪_{8g}^{()}`$, however, their interpretation in terms of the $`C_i^{()}`$ suffers from hadronic uncertainties. In some cases it is possible to identify classes of operators, e.g. .

The term MFV can be defined within an effective field theory picture. Let the SM be valid up to a cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the scale of NP $`=_{SM}+_i𝒪_i^{(n)}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ . The gauge sector of the SM, i.e. $`_{SM}`$ with all the Yukawas switched off $`Y_u=Y_d=Y_{\mathrm{}}=0`$ possesses a $`G_F=U(3)^5`$ flavor symmetry. Postulate now that $`G_F`$ is exact but only broken by the Yukawas which are interpreted as fields which get a vev $`Y<\varphi >`$. Then the effective theory is called MFV if all operators $`𝒪_i^{(n)}`$ constructed from the SM and the “$`Y`$” fields are invariant under $`G_F`$. Phenomenological bounds from meson mixing and rare decays give (with 1 Higgs doublet) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{>}{_{}}\text{few}`$ TeV, similar to the ones from electroweak precision data . If nature turns out to be of the MFV kind, this might be an appropriate model independent frame work also with strong couplings at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 4 Summary

With NP @ TeV the impact on low energy observables depends on the amount of flavor/CP violation, the presence of large parameters (e.g. $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in models with two Higgs doublets), the actual new particle spectrum and errors. Order one signals are possible in $`bs`$ processes beyond MFV, e.g. in $`A_{FB}(B(X_s,K^{})\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{})`$. This is very complementary to direct collider searches which probe the flavor diagonal sector of the theory. “SM-zero” observables might return surprises, such as searches for non-SM helicity operators or differences in CP asymmetries $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta (c\overline{c}_AK)\mathrm{sin}2\beta (c\overline{c}_VK)`$. While non-MFV models do have a richer phenomenology in rare processes, there can be sizeable effects in MFV ones as well. For example, large MFV contributions to the helicity flip operators $`\overline{q}_L^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }b_R`$ in the MSSM at large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ lead to an enhanced $`(B_{d,s}\mu ^+\mu ^{})`$ which at the same time strongly favors $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_s`$ to be below its SM value. A precision long term study in semileptonic FCNC‘s $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},s\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`sd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},d\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays is promising to test the SM within a potential MFV paradigm. Currently the most salient indication for non-MFV physics beyond the SM is in $`B\varphi K_S`$ decays. Further experimental study of rare processes will decide whether MFV is realized or not hopefully soon.