text:
# Can Thin Disks Produce Anomalous X-Ray Pulsars?

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Anomalous X-Ray Pulsars (AXPs) (Mereghetti et al., 2002) are distinct from accretion powered X-ray pulsars in several aspects: (1) No binary companion or orbital Doppler modulations have been observed. (2) AXP rotation periods are clustered between 5-12 s while the periods of conventional X-ray pulsars span a much wider range ($`P0.06910^4`$ s). (3) They have large spin-down rates (Mereghetti & Stella, 1995) with a time-scale of $`\tau =P/2\dot{P}10^310^5`$ years, (4) Three of them have been associated with supernova remnants (SNRs) indicating that they are young ($`t_{SNR}5\times 10^4`$ yrs.) (Gaensler et al., 2001; Tagieva & Ankay, 2003), (5) Luminosities of $`L_x10^{35}10^{36}`$ ergs s-1 are well in excess of the spin-down power, (6) AXP spectra are soft compared to typical X-ray pulsars, with power law indices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }2`$. AXPs share all these features with Soft Gamma Ray Repeaters (SGRs) (Hurley, 1999; Kouveliotou, 1998, 1999). The observation of bursts from AXPs (Gavriil, Kaspi & Woods, 2002; Kaspi & Gavriil, 2002), suggests a strong connection between AXPs and SGRs.

In magnetar models (Duncan & Thompson, 1992; Thompson & Duncan, 1995, 1996) bursts are triggered and powered by enormous magnetic fields, $`B10^{15}`$ Gauss, and the energy source of the X-Ray emission is the decay of this magnetic field (Thompson & Duncan, 1995; Colpi, Geppert & Page, 2001). The star spins down by magnetic dipole radiation. While the magnetar model is quite successful in modelling the SGR and AXP bursts, and spin-down rates, it can not explain the period clustering (Psaltis & Miller, 2002) except in one set of field decay models under special conditions (Colpi, Geppert & Page, 2001).

Accretion models for AXPs started with the work of van Paradijs, Taam & van den Heuvel (1995). The current models invoke neutron stars with $`B10^{12}`$ G and explain the period clustering in terms of asymptotic evolution of the neutron star rotation rate towards equilibrium with a fall-back disk (Chatterjee, Hernquist & Narayan 2000, hereafter CHN; Alpar 2001; Marsden, Lingenfelter & Rothschild 2001). These models require no binary companion. AXP ages are indicated by the ages of the supernova remnants associated with some AXPs. The possibility that some material in a supernova explosion might fall back and accrete onto the new-born neutron star has been explored by several authors (Colgate, 1971; Scargle & Pacini, 1971; Roberts & Sturrock, 1973). Fall-back accretion disks have been invoked to address a diversity of astrophysical problems (Michel & Dessler, 1981, 1983; Michel, 1988; Lin, Woosley & Bodenheimer, 1991). Mineshige et al. (1997) have shown, by using smoothed particle hydrodynamics (Monaghan, 1992), that an accretion disk is formed around a new-born compact object if the progenitor had been rotating before the explosion. The total mass of the fall-back gas has been estimated to be $`0.05M_{\mathrm{}}`$ by Hashimoto, Nomoto & Shigeyama (1989), $`0.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ by Brown & Bethe (1994) and $`0.15M_{\mathrm{}}`$ by Chevalier (1989) (see also Lin, Woosley & Bodenheimer (1991)).

The angular momentum carried by the neutron star and by the ambient material must play an important role in determining the subsequent evolution. Motivated by the recognition of angular momentum as an important initial parameter, Alpar (2001) proposed a classification of young neutron stars in terms of the absence or presence and properties of a fall-back disk. According to this model AXPs, SGRs and Dim Thermal Neutron Stars (DTNs) have similar periods because they are in an asymptotic spin-down phase in interaction with a fall-back disk. The different classes represent alternative pathways of neutron stars. Radio pulsars have no disks or encounter very low mass inflow rates while Radio Quiet Neutron Stars (RQNS) have such high mass inflow rates that their pulse periods are obscured by the dense medium around. AXPs and SGRs evolve through a propeller stage (Shvartsman, 1970; Pringle & Rees, 1972; Illarionov & Sunyaev, 1975; Fabian, 1975; Ikhsanov, 2001) in which the rapid rotation of the neutron star prevents the inflowing matter from accreting onto the surface of the star and the star is spun-down until its rotation is slow enough that accretion can commence.

CHN pioneered a specific evolutionary model to produce AXPs with a fall-back disk. They employed the available time-dependent viscous thin disk models. There are upper limits and observations in the infrared and optical that have been evaluated within the CHN thin disk model to constrain and argue against the fall-back disk models in general. Two points should be underlined here. First, the recent detections in the infrared (and optical) supports the existence of a disk (Israel et al., 2003). The magnetar models do not have a prediction for magnetospheric production of infrared photons, and the detections in IR are well in excess of the extrapolation of a neutron star surface black-body fit to the X-ray band. The second point is that if a disk is present, it is unlikely that it will be a thin disk in a stable state, as the sources are expected to spend significant parts of their evolution in a propeller phase in which mass that can not be accreted to the neutron star will remain bound around the star and disk. In addition, there will be irradiation effects on the disk. The thin disk models are probably not the realistic models to compare with the data. Nevertheless, as the only available working models, they warrant a careful study to decide whether interaction with a fall-back disk can lead to AXP periods and luminosities at the ages indicated by SNR-AXP associations. On the other hand optical pulsations with a large pulse fraction observed from 4U 0142+614 (catalog ) (Kern & Martin, 2002) can not be explained by emission or reprocessing from a disk. This observation, in addition to its successful application to model SGR and AXP bursts, clearly favors magnetar models, while the period clustering has a natural explanation in disk models. It may be the case that the AXPs (which show bursts like SGRs) do have surface magnetic fields in the higher multipoles and a dipole field in the $`10^{12}`$ G range interacting with a fall-back disk to provide the rotational equilibrium that leads to period clustering. Such a hybrid model in which AXPs and SGRs would be the rare objects that correspond to the high magnetic field *and* high angular momentum (fall-back disk) corner of the parameter space of initial conditions, makes the actual possibilities of disk models worth exploring.

An investigation of the CHN model was carried out by Francischelli & Wijers (2002) who argued that with the bound-free opacities that are relevant, the evolution would not lead to AXPs. This work was carried out with a disk solution with inner boundary condition relevant for a disk losing mass by accretion whereas the system throughout its evolution is in the propeller regime.

We employ different thin-disk solutions for propeller and for accretor phases of the evolution, use electron scattering and bound-free (mostly the latter) opacities as appropriate and include a range of initial disk masses. In the next section we present the model equations, the special analytical solutions, and their relation to the numerical calculations for a finite disk. Results are presented in section 3, and discussed in the final section.

## 2 THIN DISK MODELS

The evolution of a viscous thin disk is governed by a non-linear diffusion equation (Pringle, 1981) which accepts three self-similar solutions (Pringle, 1974) extending down to $`r=0`$, if the disk opacity has a power-law dependence on density and temperature. One of these solutions is a simple power-law both in spatial and temporal variables and is irrelevant for fall-back disks which have freely expanding outer boundaries. The other two solutions can be associated with accretion and propeller regimes. In the solution which we associate with the accretion regime (Cannizzo, Lee & Goodman, 1990) the total angular momentum of the disk is constant ($`\dot{J}_d=0`$) and mass of the disk decreases in time such that $`\dot{M}_dt^\alpha `$. This is the solution employed by CHN for all phases of AXP evolution. In the other solution which we associate with the propeller regime, the mass of the disk is constant ($`\dot{M}_d=0`$) and angular momentum of the disk increases in time by the viscous torque at the inner radius such that $`\dot{J}_dt^\beta `$. Pringle (1981) mentioned that “such a solution might represent a disc around a magnetized star which is rotating sufficiently rapidly that its angular velocity exceeds the Keplerian velocity at the magnetosphere” - i.e. a propeller. A real disk starts at an inner radius $`R_m`$ determined by the magnetic moment $`\mu `$ and rotation rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ of the neutron star, and mass flow rate $`\dot{M}(r)`$. For both types of analytical solutions extending to $`r=0`$, the application to a real disk with finite inner radius $`R_m`$ requires a numerical treatment, which shows that the accretor solution (Cannizzo, Lee & Goodman, 1990) and the propeller solution (Pringle, 1991) are good representations of the numerical solutions, the initial conditions being ‘forgotten’ after a brief transition period. One dimensional thin disk solutions necessarily suppress the two dimensional mass flow in the $`rz`$ plane of a realistic disk model. In the case of accretor type analytical solutions, the mass flow $`\dot{M}(r)`$ is inward in the inner disk. In the propeller type analytical solutions $`\dot{M}(r)`$ is outward, with the mass loss rate of the disk $`\dot{M}_d\dot{M}(r=0)=0`$. (Pringle (1991) numerically shows that there are also propeller type solutions —with non-vanishing torque at the inner boundary— in which mass flow is inwards in the inner parts of the disk.) In the real propeller, constant disk mass would be sustained with mass inflow and outflow; and small fractions of the mass flow can accrete to the neutron star or escape the system. For opacities of the form $`\kappa =\kappa _0\rho ^aT^b`$, thin disk equations (Frank, King & Raine, 1992) can be solved to yield the power law indices of the time dependence in the two analytical solutions:

$$\dot{M}_dt^\alpha ,\alpha =\frac{18a4b+38}{17a2b+32}$$
(1)
for the accretor type solution (Cannizzo, Lee & Goodman, 1990; Francischelli & Wijers, 2002); and

$$\dot{J}_dt^\beta ,\beta =\frac{14a+22}{15a2b+28}.$$
(2)
for the solution we associate with propeller regime (Pringle, 1991). For electron scattering dominated disks ($`a=b=0`$) $`\alpha =19/16`$ and $`\beta =11/14`$, and for bound-free opacity dominated disks ($`a=1`$, $`b=7/2`$) $`\alpha =5/4`$ and $`\beta =18/25`$. CHN used $`\alpha =7/6`$ for analytical convenience.

The total torque is the sum of accretion torque $`\dot{J}_a=r^2\mathrm{\Omega }\dot{M}`$ and the viscous torque $`\dot{J}_\nu =2\pi r^2W`$ where $`W`$ is the vertically averaged viscous stress. The accretor solution is not precisely the time-dependent version of the Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) solutions with the same inner boundary condition. The latter solutions assume vanishing *viscous torque* whereas the time-dependent solution implies vanishing *total torque* at the inner boundary.

The inner boundary of the disk, $`R_m`$, is where the ram pressure $`P_{ram}=\rho v^2`$ of the disk is balanced by the magnetic pressure $`P_{mag}=B^2/8\pi `$. Assuming a dipole field for the neutron star, the magnetic pressure can be written as (Lipunov, 1992):

$$P_{mag}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mu ^2}{8\pi r^6}\hfill & \text{if }rR_L\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{\mu ^2}{8\pi R_L^4r^2}\hfill & \text{if }r>R_L\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where $`R_L=c/\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ is the light cylinder radius and $`\mu `$ is the dipole magnetic moment. We write the ram pressure as

$$P_{ram}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi r^2}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_Kr\hfill & \text{if }rR_{co}\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{\dot{M}}{4\pi r^2}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}r\hfill & \text{if }r>R_{co}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
(see Romanova et al. (2003)) where $`R_{co}=\left(GM/\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2\right)^{1/3}`$ is the corotation radius and $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass flow rate. Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }_K`$ denotes the Keplerian rotation rate at the inner edge of the disk. The two expressions we adopt for $`P_{ram}`$ are asymptotic forms for $`\omega _{}1`$ and $`\omega _{}1`$ where $`\omega _{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/\mathrm{\Omega }_K(R_m)`$ is the fastness parameter.

When the flow rate at $`R_m`$ is greater than the critical rate $`\dot{M}_{Edd}=4\pi m_pcR_m/\sigma _T`$, we follow Shakura & Sunyaev (1973) and assume that the disk inside the “spherization” radius $`R_s=\sigma _T\dot{M}/4\pi m_pc`$ regulates itself as

$$\dot{M}\left(r\right)=\frac{r}{R_s}\dot{M}_{Edd}\text{if }rR_s\text{;}$$
(5)
with the result that the total luminosity of the disk does not exceed the Eddington limit considerably (Lipunov, 1992; Lipunova, 1999). These considerations are relevant for the earliest stages of the mass flow typically extending over $`20`$ years in our calculations and do not effect the later period evolution of the star significantly. However, without such an incorporation of radiation pressure, the initial inner radius of the disk is obtained to be smaller than the radius of the neutron star, which is unphysical, and the system passes through an accretor stage. With the implementation of radiation pressure effects, the initial inner radius of the disk is greater than the corotation radius and the system is in a supercritical propeller stage. In the numerical calculations, the inner radius $`R_m=R_m(\dot{M},\mathrm{\Omega }_{})`$ is determined self-consistently at each time step using equations (3), (4) and (5).

The accretor solution with the boundary condition $`\dot{J}_d=0`$ had been applied for fall-back disks by Mineshige, Nomoto & Shigeyama (1993); Menou, Perna & Hernquist (2001); Perna, Hernquist & Narayan (2000), and CHN. Starting from the early phases, throughout most or all of its evolution into the asymptotic “tracking” AXP phase, the disk is in the propeller regime. We employ the relevant propeller type disk solution. This follows the power-law solution for $`\dot{J}_d`$ given in Eq. (2). In these propeller solutions at the inner boundary $`\dot{M}(R_m)=0`$ while in the accretion regime $`\dot{M}(R_m)=\dot{M}_d`$. We shall define a representative value $`\dot{M}`$ of the mass flow rate in the inner disk from the propeller torque $`\dot{J}_d`$ translating the torque $`\dot{J}_dt^\beta `$ to a flow rate such that

$$\dot{J}_d\sqrt{GMR_m}\dot{M}.$$
(6)
This yields a representative mass flow rate $`\dot{M}t^{\alpha _P}`$, defining the effective index $`\alpha _P`$. We emphasize that this definition is an estimate of the mass flow rates within the disk while the disk mass remains constant, with no mass loss from boundary. By employing the solution with a constant disk mass, we implicitly assume that the inflowing matter flung away by the magnetosphere of the neutron star returns back to the disk somewhere away from the inner boundary of the disk.

The critical fastness parameter for transition from propeller to accretor regime is assumed to be $`\omega _{cr}1`$ and we take it to be 1 in all numerical experiments. The fastness parameter at which the torque vanishes is the equilibrium fastness parameter $`\omega _{eq}`$ and is inferred to be somewhat smaller than $`\omega _{cr}`$ as there are systems, like AXPs in our model, which are spinning down while accreting. We have observed numerically that the results do not depend sensitively on the value of $`\omega _{eq}`$ and we take it to be $`0.7`$. The range $`\omega _{eq}<\omega _{}<\omega _{cr}`$ is not well interpreted with either the propeller or the accretor type of disk solutions, so when the fastness parameter $`\omega _{}`$ has decayed to $`\omega _{cr}`$, we try two alternatives: (i) switching to the accretor solution (arguing $`\dot{M}0`$), (ii) continuing with the propeller solution (arguing $`\dot{J}0`$). In both cases we assume that a small fraction $`\eta =\dot{M}_{accreted}/\dot{M}`$ of the mass flow at the magnetic radius can reach the surface of the neutron star in order that $`L=GM\eta \dot{M}/R_{}`$ gives the AXP luminosities.

Francischelli & Wijers (2002) showed that the disk is electron scattering dominated only in the initial stages when $`\dot{M}_{17}(t)>50[(1+X)/Z]^{7/10}B_{12}^{3/5}`$, while later on, at lower mass flow rates, bound-free opacity dominates. Here $`\dot{M}_{17}=\dot{M}/10^{17}`$g s-1, $`B_{12}=B/10^{12}`$ Gauss, $`X`$ is the hydrogen mass fraction and $`Z`$ is the heavy element mass fraction. Assuming the disk to be rich in heavy elements, we choose $`X=0.1`$ and $`Z=0.9`$. The flow rate in the propeller solution declines with a softer power-law index than it does in the accretion solution because in the former case matter cannot accrete and the decrease in the flow rate is only by the viscous spreading of the disk.

We incorporate the torque model used by Alpar (2001) in the form

$$\dot{J}_{}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{GMR_m}\dot{M}\left(1\omega _{}/\omega _{eq}\right)\hfill & \text{ for }\omega _{}<\omega _{cr}\text{;}\hfill \\ \dot{J}_d\left(1\omega _{}/\omega _{eq}\right)\hfill & \text{ for }\omega _{}>\omega _{cr}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
As noted by Francischelli & Wijers (2002) and Li (2002), this is a very efficient propeller torque model compared to some other available propeller torques obtained through simple energy or angular momentum arguments. This form of the torque is supported by the detailed numerical simulations of the magnetic boundary layers investigated by Daumerie (1996). Recently Ikhsanov (2001) revived the propeller model of Davies & Pringle (1981) which incorporates a still more efficient torque $`\dot{J}\omega _{}^2`$ for the sub-sonic propeller, and a torque $`\dot{J}\omega _{}`$, which agrees with our model in the large $`\omega _{}`$ limit, for the super-sonic propeller regime. These models do not entail asymptotic approach to rotational equilibrium, and are therefore not relevant for addressing the period clustering of AXPs. The recent numerical work of Romanova et al. (2003) also indicate an efficient propeller torque ($`\dot{J}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{4/3}`$). For $`\omega _{}1`$ matter can be flung away with the tangential velocity of the field lines at $`R_m`$ which is greater than the escape velocity so that some mass loss will take place in disagreement with the propeller type solution we employ. This means that the remaining mass of the disk, when the system reaches $`\omega _{}=\omega _{cr}`$ and accretion onto the neutron star is allowed, is actually lower than what we find by assuming the mass of the disk is conserved. In this case the factor $`\eta =\dot{M}_{accreted}/\dot{M}`$ need not be very low but can attain a reasonable value.

The initial mass of the disk can be found by integrating the mass flow rate after accretion starts. This yields $`M_d=t_{tr}\dot{M}_{tr}/(\alpha 1)`$ where $`t_{tr}`$ is the transition time from propeller to the accretor regime and $`\dot{M}_{tr}`$ is the inflow rate at $`t=t_{tr}`$, and $`\alpha =5/4`$. By fitting to the numerical solutions we have determined, for an initial mass flow rate of $`5\times 10^{27}`$ g s-1, that $`\dot{M}_{tr}=2\times 10^{16}\times \mu _{30}^{1.96}`$ g s-1 and $`t_{tr}=10^5\times \mu _{30}^2`$ years which means that $`M_d1.2\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$. This nominal value of the initial disk mass is 50 times smaller than the nominal value incorporated in the CHN model. From our fits we find that the initial inflow rate and the initial mass of the disk are related through $`M_d/(10^4M_{\mathrm{}})=0.2074\dot{M}_0/(10^{27}\text{g s}\text{-1})+0.1812`$ for our parameter range.

## 3 RESULTS

We have followed the evolution of the star-disk system for $`10^5`$ years, solving the torque equation (7) numerically with the adaptive step-size Runge-Kutta method (Press et al., 1992). We assumed the radius and mass of the neutron star to be $`R_{}=10^6`$ cm and $`M_{}=1.4M_{\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. In all numerical experiments we have fixed the initial period $`P_0=15`$ ms, and considered dipole magnetic moments in the range $`\mu _{30}=110`$. Electron scattering opacity prevails in the disk at the high initial flow rates. The system is initially in the super-critical propeller stage (i.e. radiation pressure is dominant). To follow one example, for an initial mass flow rate $`5\times 10^{27}`$ g s-1 which corresponds to an initial disk mass of $`1.210^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the inner radius is at $`R_m=31R_{}\mu _{30}^{1/3}\left(P_0/15ms\right)^{1/6}`$. The dynamical time-scale $`T_d\mathrm{\Omega }_K^1`$ at this radius is $`1.23\times 10^2\mu _{30}^{1/6}(P_0/15ms)^{1/12}`$ s. For $`\mu _{30}=5`$ the supercritical propeller stage lasts for $`15`$ years. In this stage the effective power law index, $`\alpha _p`$ is equal to $`\beta =11/14`$, because the disk inner radius does not depend on $`\dot{M}_0`$ in the super-critical regime, so that $`\dot{M}=10^{27}(t/T_d)^{11/14}`$ (see Eq. (6)). After $`15`$ years radiation pressure ceases to be important. Electron scattering continues as the dominant opacity until $`t75`$ years; in this stage the effective power law index is $`55/63`$. After $`t75`$ years, the propeller regime continues with bound-free opacity dominating in the disk; the effective power law index is now $`\alpha _p=4/5`$ and remains so as long as the propeller regime continues. At around $`10^4`$ years the fastness parameter drops below $`\omega _{cr}`$ and the system enters the “tracking phase” CHN. It is during this period that we observe the system as an AXP.

In Figure 1 we give the period evolution of a neutron star for these parameters. These are the typical values leading to AXPs and SGRs. Panel (a) corresponds to the case in which we switched to the accretor type of solution when the fastness parameter decayed below $`\omega _{cr}`$ and panel (b) correspond to the case in which we continued with the propeller solution. We see that the latter case yields a somewhat more gradual period evolution because the equilibrium period increases less rapidly in this case. Figure 2 shows the evolutionary tracks in the $`P\dot{P}`$ diagram. Again the two panels (a) and (b) correspond to the two cases as described for Figure 1. We see that the fall-back disk model can account for the position of AXPs and SGRs in the $`P\dot{P}`$ diagram. In both cases the observed AXP luminosities require that the mass accretion rate onto the neutron star, $`\dot{M}_{}`$, is only a fraction $`\eta =\dot{M}_{}/\dot{M}_d10^2`$ of the mass accretion rate in the disk. Whether the accreted fraction can be this low when the system is asymptotically close to equilibrium is an open question. The Soft X-Ray Transient Aql X-1 may have exhibited a comparably small accreted fraction of its mass transfer rate when it went through a reduction in luminosity by $`10^210^3`$, interpreted as a transition to the propeller state (Campana et al., 1998; Zhang, Yu & Zhang, 1998; Cui et al., 1998). Alternatively, the small value of $`\eta `$ implied by the present model calculations may reflect our assumption that the mass flow of the disk remains constant throughout the propeller phase: In reality some matter should have been expelled from the system which would lead to lower mass flow rates in the present day disk and hence the actual accreted fraction $`\eta `$, to meet the observed luminosities, could be higher. In any case models for an estimation of $`\eta `$ on the basis of accretion or propeller dynamics are not available at present (see Romanova et al. (2003) for a numerical approach). The result $`\eta 10^2`$ is an empirical constraint on fall-back disk models if they are to explain the observed luminosities of AXPs. Any independent evidence on the value of $`\eta `$ in these or similar sources will provide a test of the presently employed fall-back disk model.

Our results do not change qualitatively for initial disk masses $`0.82.25\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The transition to the accretion stage becomes earlier for greater initial disk masses. For $`2.25\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\mu _{30}=4`$, the transition to the accretion regime occurs at 3000 years and for higher initial disk masses we obtain mass inflow rates as high as $`10^{19}`$ g s-1 which give $`\eta 10^3`$ to obtain present day luminosities of AXPs. For $`M_d<0.8\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ the magnetic radius exceeds the light cylinder radius $`R_L`$ at an early stage and the source becomes a radio pulsar. The fact that the model gives radio pulsars at initial disk masses just below the range leading to AXPs and SGRs supports a continuity between AXPs, SGRs and radio pulsars, and suggests that radio pulsars might also have disks around them. We shall explore in a separate paper the possibilities of this continuity in initial conditions for different classes of neutron stars, in particular evolutionary tracks leading to AXPs, SGRs *and* radio pulsars in the same region of the $`P\dot{P}`$ diagram as the AXPs (McLaughlin et al., 2003).

Thin disk models yield AXPs only if an efficient torque model is used as noted by Francischelli & Wijers (2002) and Li (2002). Our simulations with other torque models (Fabian, 1975; Ghosh & Lamb, 1978) show that these do not produce AXPs, verifying the results of Francischelli & Wijers (2002) and Li (2002). However, as noted in the previous section, recent analytical (Ikhsanov, 2001) and numerical (Daumerie, 1996; Romanova et al., 2003) studies lend support to an efficient torque model.

The question naturally arises as to why the disk evolution does not continue, to give sources with $`P_{}>12`$ s; what is the justification for assuming that disk evolution stops at a finite age ($`10^5`$ yrs in the present work)? The formal power-law solutions predict disk masses/torques decaying to infinitely small values as $`t\mathrm{}`$. In reality at low density and temperature the disk undergoes a transition to a neutral state, stopping its viscous evolution. Instabilities are likely to clump and destroy the disk eventually. As estimated by Menou, Perna & Hernquist (2001) fall-back disks become neutralized at around $`10^4`$ years. In our models, the slower decrease in disk density and temperature leads to neutrality at around $`10^5`$ years. CHN gave an explanation for the upper cutoff of the spin period in terms of the transition from a thin disk to an advection dominated accretion flow with mass loss.

## 4 DISCUSSION

Our results show that for thin disks with bound-free opacities prevailing most of the time and with a range of initial disk masses ($`M_d10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$) and neutron star *dipole* magnetic moments ($`\mu _{30}=110`$) neutron stars do end up in the period range $`P=515`$ s at ages $`10^410^5`$ years. The model we introduced yields present day disks that are consistent with the infrared observations for AXPs and SGRs (see, eg. Israel et al. (2003); Eikenberry et al. (2001) and references therein), as we shall detail in a subsequent paper. The observed luminosities require that only a fraction of the mass flow rate is accreted onto the neutron star in the current asymptotic phase.

The radial (Sunyaev & Shakura, 1977) and temporal (Pringle, 1991) properties of propeller disks are different from the properties of disks in the mass-loss “accretion” regime. The flow rate in the accretor solutions for the disk decreases steeply both by losing mass due to accretion and by the viscous spreading of the disk, whereas in the propeller solutions it is only the “thinning” of the disk by viscous spread that decreases the flow rate, while the disk mass remains constant. It is possible that a fall-back disk loses mass also in the propeller regime because of the propeller effect itself, depending on the fastness parameter. The simple power-law models for the flow rate are working models which do not take into account the coupling of the star to the structure of the disk. As shown by Francischelli & Wijers (2002) whether one obtains an AXP or not depends sensitively on the power-law index $`\alpha `$. Extending the analysis to disk evolution in the propeller regime provides favorable effective power-law indices $`\alpha _p<1`$.

We conclude that fall-back disks may well lead to the present day properties of AXPs and SGRs, even in the available thin disk models within the options of simple power law solutions. A more realistic treatment would include effects of the magnetic field on disk evolution, realistic opacities, including the iron line opacity (Fryer, Colgate & Pinto, 1999) for the fall-back disk which is rich in heavy elements, and the dependence of the accretion rate itself on the conditions at the inner boundary of the disk, including the effects of the motion of the inner radius (Spruit & Taam, 1993). All of these effects would result in time evolution of the disk that cannot be described by simple power laws. Taking account of the complexities of the real problem is not likely to produce qualitative disagreement with the evolutionary timescales and tracks in the $`P\dot{P}`$ diagram, as long as the torque is efficient.

The fall-back disk models do not provide an explanation for the AXP and SGR bursts or for the optical pulsations observed in 4U 0142+614 (catalog ) (Kern & Martin, 2002). These phenomena are likely to originate with processes in the crust or magnetosphere of a neutron star with a strong magnetic field. We have shown that a fall-back disk around a neutron star provides a viable mechanism to get the observed period range at the AXP ages, provided that a fraction $`\eta 10^2`$ of the mass flow is accreted. Applying this model in conjunction with magnetar models for the bursts and optical pulsations requires that the magnetar fields on the surface of the neutron star are in higher multipoles. As we have shown, the observed spindown rates and history of the AXPs (or SGRs) are determined by disk torques rather than magnetic dipole models. Such a hybrid model assumes that magnetospheric generation of optical pulsations around a neutron star with a surface dipole field of $`10^{12}`$ G and higher multipoles of $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G is possible in the presence of the fall-back disk. A demonstration of such a magnetospheric model is beyond the scope of the present paper, and is to be attempted in future work. We finally note that the extended quiet (low-noise) spindown episodes of AXPs is compatible with the behavior of accreting sources, in that the same AXPs have had high-level noise characteristic of accreting sources; and there are well known accreting sources like 4U 1907+09 (catalog ) which exhibit similar extended quiet spindown (Baykal et al., 2001).

We thank M.Hakan Erkut, Ünal Ertan, Ersin Göğüş and R.A.M.J. Wijers for useful discussions, the referee for helpful comments and E.N. Ercan for her support and encouragement. This work was supported by Boğaziçi University Research Foundation under code 01B304 for KYE, by the Sabancı University Astrophysics and Space Forum, by the High Energy Astrophysics Working Group of TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey) and by the Turkish Academy of Sciences for MAA.


format: text

text:
# Predictions of the residue cross-sections for the elements Z=113 and Z=114

## I Introduction

The production and the identification of new elements have been made since the discovery of the periodic table of the elements by Mendelejeff in 1869 Men . Nowdays we are still looking for the heaviest elements, so called super-heavy elements(SHE). The properties and the conditions of the existence of the SHE have been foreseen since the establishment of the nuclear shell model May . The studies of shell structure predict an island of stability for those elements around the double closed shell next to $`{}_{}{}^{208}Pb`$. Several values of the magic number for Z have been predicted between 114 and 126, depending on the model used in the calculations, while that for N is 184 Smo ; Sobi ; Mol ; Rei ; Ben . However, the major difficulty in the production of the SHE lies in the lack of knowledge about the reaction mechanism, especially about fusion mechanism of the massive systems. In the region of the heavy nuclei, the so-called fusion-hindrance is known to exist experimentallyQui ; Sch ; Res . But no complete theoretical description of the mechanism is yet given. As a consequence, it has been difficult to predict reliably which combination of target, projectile and bombarding energy is optimum to produce new elements.

Let’s assume the compound nucleus theoryBoh , though it might not be fully justified for such unstable systems. We can express the residue cross-section as

$$\sigma _{res}=\pi \overline{\lambda }^2(2J+1)P_{fusion}^J(E_{c.m.}).P_{surv}^J(E^{}),$$
(1)
where $`J`$ denotes a total spin of the system and $`E_{c.m.}`$ the energy in the center of mass. $`E^{}`$ is equal to $`E_{c.m.}+Q`$ with the fusion Q-value. As usual $`P_{fusion}^J`$ and $`P_{surv}^J`$ are the fusion and the survival probabilities for the spin $`J`$, respectively. The latter is obtained by the use of the statistical disintegration code, which is newly developed by solving the time-dependent Bateman equation Bou . The former is the most unknown part. But recently, one of the present authors et al. have proposed the two-step model, where the fusion process is divided into two phases: the approaching phase and the formation phase. They correspond respectively to the passing over the Coulomb barrier and to the shape evolution toward the spherical compound nucleus, starting from the pear-shaped sticking configuration of the incident system. Thus,

$$P_{fusion}^J=P_{sticking}^J.P_{formation}^J$$
(2)
The calculation of the probabilities can be done by solving dynamics of the process in each step. The amalgamated system is supposed to be exited, which mean the incident kinetic energy has been converted into the thermal energy. This conversion of kinetic energy would be done suddenly at the contact point or would start before the top of the Coulomb barrier. We will assume the latter hypothesis, as it is well known that the dissipation observed in the deep inelastic collision (DIC) is understood by the viewpoint Gro . With this assumption we calculate the sticking probability with a Langevin equation including a frictional force and associated fluctuation with a time dependent temperature Fro . The formation probability is calculated by a multi-dimensional Langevin equation for the shape evolution with a constant temperature. The full description of this model has been given in the references She ; Abe2 .

We will first make a brief theoretical description of the two-step model. Then, we will check the ability of the model to reproduce known experimental data. Finally we will present predictions for the residue cross-sections for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{70}Zn+^{209}Bi^{278}113+1n`$, $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga+^{208}Pb^{278}113+1n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge+^{208}Pb^{283}114+1n`$ that have not yet been measured but should be in a near future.

## II Reminder of the Two-step model for fusion

We briefly recapitulate here the theoretical framework of the two-step model used to calculate the fusion probability.

### II.1 Approaching phase

To describe the approaching phase, a classical description of the relative motion between colliding nuclei is used with a frictional force and an associate fluctuation force. In the original treatment Gro ; Ban  the random force was not implemented, but is properly taken into account in the present model.

$`\{\begin{array}{cccc}\mu \frac{d^2r}{dt^2}& =& \frac{V}{r}\frac{}{r}\frac{\mathrm{}^2L^2}{2\mu r^2}C_r(r)\frac{dr}{dt}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_r(t)& \\ \frac{dL}{dt}& =& \frac{C_T(r)}{\mu }[L\frac{5}{7}L_0]+\mathrm{\Gamma }_T(t)& \end{array}`$ (5)
$`<\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(t)\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(t)>=2T(t).C_i(r(t)).\delta _{ij}.\delta (tt^{}),`$ (6)
where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass and $`V`$ is the sum of Coulomb and nuclear attractive potential. $`C_i(r)`$ is the radial and the tangential friction, respectively. We will notice that here the rolling friction is neglected. $`L_0`$ is the incident angular momentum and $`\frac{5}{7}L_0`$ so-called sliding limit. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(t)`$ denotes a Gaussian random force with zero mean value. The equation 6 is the dissipation-fluctuation theorem. In the case $`i=j=\varphi `$, $`r^2`$ factor is necessary for $`C_\varphi (r)`$ in Eq. 6. In this modelisation the temperature increases as the energy is dissipated by the friction force.

This modelisation is the one given by the surface fiction model (SFM)Gro , which has been used successfully to reproduce the main features of the deep inelastic collisions, expect the spin of the outgoing fragments which appear to require an inclusion of the rolling friction. Moreover the very different strengths between the radial and tangential frictional forces may not be physical, but may be a certain effective description. And of course, its applicability is limited to the energy region above the Coulomb barrier, due to its classical nature. Nevertheless, it is simple and has no free parameters, so we employ it for a description of the approaching phase for the realisation of the two-step model Kos .

One of the characteristic results of the model is the Gaussian distribution of the radial momentum at the touching point. The origin of this distribution comes from the Gaussian random force associated to the friction force. The width of this distribution is consistent with the temperature determined by the internal energy transferred from the incident kinetic energy. This distribution is used as an initial condition for the subsequent dynamics of the shape evolution from a pear shape toward the spherical shape.

### II.2 Shape evolution

The pear-shaped system formed by the contact of the nuclei involved in the collision is located outside of the conditional saddle point Swi ; Abe6 . As a consequence, we have to solve the shape evolution toward the spherical shape under a friction force associated with a random force. The dynamics of this process is again treated by the general multidimensional Langevin equation Abe3 ; Abe4 ; Wad ; Abe5 .

$`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{dq_i}{dt}\hfill & =\hfill & (m^1)_{ij}.p_j\hfill \\ \frac{dp_i}{dt}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{V^J}{q_i}\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{q_i}(m^1)_{jk}.p_j.p_k\hfill \\ & & \gamma _{ij}.(m^1)_{jk}.p_k+g_{ij}.\mathrm{\Gamma }_j(t)\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
$`<g_{ik}g_{jk}>=\gamma _{ij}.T^J,`$ (11)
where $`V^J`$ denotes the liquid drop model (LDM) potential energy surface plus the rotational energy for spin $`J`$ Iwa ; Sat . The equation 11 is again the dissipation-fluctuation theorem with temperature $`T^J`$ being assumed constant for the simplicity. The friction tensor is calculated by using the so-called one-body model (OBM) Blo , that is, a one-body wall-and-window formula with the two-center parametrisation of nuclear shape.

The ratio between the number of trajectories reaching the spherical configuration and the total number of trajectories gives the formation probability. Mostly, the trajectories do not go over the ridge line but go back to re-separation. We calculate this probability for various initial momenta at a given touching point. Then, the total formation probability is obtain by the convolution of those probabilities with the initial distribution of momenta obtained in the analyses of the approaching phase.

## III Comparison with experiment

As the fusion probability is calculated as above, we will now calculate residue cross-sections according to Eq. 1. In the scope of this paper we will only consider the $`1n`$ reactions. The decay calculations are done for each partial cross-section for a given $`J`$ by the code KEWPIE Bou  which has only one free intrinsic parameter that is the reduced friction coefficient ($`\beta `$) used for the Kramers factor Kra . This value is set to $`\beta =5.10^{21}s`$ for all the results presented in this publication in consistence with OBM. Here, the essential ambiguities are the masses and shell correction energies employed for SHE. To know their influence we have made the calculations employing three different tables of mass : Moller & Nix, Koura, Myers & Swiatecki Mol ; Kou ; Ms1 .

First, we will take $`{}_{}{}^{64}Ni+^{208}Pb^{271}110+1n`$ system as an example for which more precise excitation function is recently measured at RIKEN, in addition to the previous GSI data. Calculations are made with the fusion probabilities obtained above and the survival probabilities with KEWPIE code. The calculated peak positions in $`E_{c.m.}`$ are not far from the data, though there are small difference among the mass tables. This is mainly due to the slight difference in the macroscopic part of the masses among the tables, which is consistent with the qualitative explanation by Swiatecki et al. Swi2 . Absolute values of the peaks of $`1n`$ cross-sections are larger than the experiment by a few to several orders of magnitude depending on the mass tables. Nevertheless, it would be remarkable that the calculation of the present model result in rather good reproductions of the experiments without using any free parameter adjusted. For more precise reproduction and thus accurate predictions, however, we have to refine the model, in the calculation of $`P_{sticking}`$ and/or $`P_{form}`$, or to find accurate values of the masses etc. But it would be practical to introduce a phenomenological reduction factor, for example, a constant renormalization of the cross-sections. In view of a variety of predictions of the shell correction energy, we insteads introduce a phenomenological factor for the shell correction energy which is to be used all through each mass table employed, keeping its own characteristic tendency predicted over the elements and the isotopes under investigation. An extreme sensitivity of the calculated peak height to the shell correction is another reason for the factor effective in the systematic analyses.

In order to reproduce the peak heights of the experimental measurements for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{64}Ni+^{208}Pb^{271}110+1n`$, the factor is 0.4 , 0.36 and 0.4 for the shell correction energy of Moller & Nix, Koura, Myers & Swiatecki, respectively.

In the Fig. 1 is shown the comparison between the calculations and the experiments Hofm ; Mori . The energy of the experimental data plotted in this figure corresponds to the energy in the center of mass minus the energy loss at the middle of the target. The associated error bars in energy correspond to the energy losses in the target.

In the upper left panels of the Fig. 1 we notice that the position of the peak in $`E_{c.m.}`$ is well reproduced, especially for the tables of Moller & Nix and Myers & Swiatecki. For a justification of the modification factor for of the shell correction we have made calculations for the systems $`{}_{}{}^{64}Ni+^{209}Bi^{272}111+1n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{70}Zn+^{208}Pb^{277}112+1n`$, keeping the same value of the multiplication factor for the shell correction energy. The lower panels of the figure 1 show an overall (calculated curve within the experimental error bar) good agreement between the experimental measurements and the theory. Moreover, the global phenomenological decreasing trend of the peak heights of the cross-sections is well reproduced, assuming the Moller & Nix and Myers & Swiatecki. For those two mass tables we can even say that a remarkably good agreement between the experiment and theory is obtained. We should remind that the same model has been already applied to the hot fusion path ($`{}_{}{}^{48}Ca`$ \+ actinide reaction) and resulted in a fairly good reproduction of the data She ; Abe2 .

## IV Predictions of the residue cross section for elements Z=113 and Z=114

As we are able to reproduce very well the residue cross-section for the above known systems we can extend this recipe to the systems where measurements are not yet made. We will focus on the yet undiscovered element Z=113 and a new isotope of the Z = 114 produced by the cold fusion path. In order to calculate residue cross-sections we will just extend the calculations with the same factor for the shell correction energy as that we have set for the $`{}_{}{}^{64}Ni+^{208}Pb^{271}110+1n`$ reaction.

For the production of the Z=113 the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{70}Zn+^{209}Bi^{278}113+1n`$ or the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga+^{208}Pb^{278}113+1n`$ is under consideration. As we see on the upper panels of Fig. 2, both reactions are predicted to lead to roughly the same residue cross-sections for all the mass predictions employed. This similarity come from the fact that on one hand the fusion barrier is unfavourable for the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga+^{208}Pb^{271}113+1n`$ but on the other hand the high Q-value of this reaction leads to lower excitation energy that is favourable for the emission of neutron in the competition between fission and evaporation.

Moreover, the results are in agreement with the global phenomenological trend of a decreasing of the $`1n`$ residue cross-sections by roughly a factor $`3`$ for each increasing of one charge unit in the SHE.

The production of the element Z=114 is the other case that we will predict. This element has been already produced by the hot fusion path Oga  but the experiment with the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge+^{208}Pb^{283}114+1n`$ will be the first measurement of the production of $`Z=114`$ by the way of a $`1n`$ reaction (cold fusion path). The results of the calculation are shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2. The predicted value is around a few tenth of pico-barn. To measure the residue with a so low cross-section is a challenge in experiment.

## V Conclusion

As we are able to reproduce rather well both the positions and the absolute values of the peaks of measured $`1n`$ residue cross-sections by introducing only one free parameter, one reduction factor for the predicted shell correction energies, the two step model appears to be quite promising. Based on the success we have made the prediction on the $`1n`$ cross-sections in $`{}_{}{}^{70}Zn+^{209}Bi^{278}113+1n`$, $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga+^{208}Pb^{278}113+1n`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{76}Ge+^{208}Pb^{283}114+1n`$ without adjusting anything more. This is the first predictions of the excitation function of residue cross section for Z=113 and 114 by the calculation with the dynamical model of reactions. Of course, the ultimate test of the model is the future experiment performed on the above systems. The model is expected to provide a reliable guideline for future experiments for productions of super-heavy elements. Hopefully the present model permits have an overview of the most suitable experiments and win a lot of experimental time.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank W.J.Swiatecki for fruitful discussions and K.Morita for the access to the data before publication. One of us (B.B) thanks the Yukawa Institute for its warm hospitality. The authors acknowledge JSPS for supports (contracts P-01741, 1340278).


text:
# Noncommutative Geometry, Quantum Hall Effect and Berry Phase

## I Introduction

It is well known that the first quantized system of particles in a strong magnetic field naturally realizes a noncommutative space. We also know that a system of electrons moving in a strong magnetic field exhibits certain interesting properties. When the electron density lies at certain rational fractions of the density corresponding to the fully filled Landau level, the electrons condense into an incompressible fluid-like states whose excitations are characterized by fractional charges and are described by Laughlin wave functions. When we fill as many electrons as possible in a two dimensional phase space, each electron occupy an area $`\mathrm{}p.\mathrm{}q=2\pi \mathrm{}`$ which is responsible for the maximum electron density $`n_e=\frac{eB}{2\pi \mathrm{}}`$ in each Landau level. In the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ with $`N>2`$ and odd, the symplectic area is deformed pb . In this case, $`\mathrm{}p.\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ with m an odd integer and the Laughlin states are achieved with $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}`$ sakita1 ; bb ; pb3 . This deformation of symplectic structure leads to the Berry phase as it corresponds to the association of magnetic flux with an electron.

On the other side, Susskind sus  conjectured that the second quantized noncommutative field theory can describe the Laughlin states when we take into account the noncommutative version of the $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory. This also reveals the connection between D brane physics with quantum Hall effect. The space noncommutative condition requires infinite dimensional matrices which was modified by Polychronakos poly  to realize appropriate finite matrix model. However, in this framework involving noncommutative field theory the system is characterized by area preserving diffeomorphism.

In this note, we shall show that taking resort to spherical geometry the star product deformation of gauge fields effectively leads to the change in chiral anomaly and hence induces the Berry phase compatible with the fractional filling factor. This suggests that the deformation of the symplectic structure of the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ with $`N>2`$ and odd represents an equivalent description of the noncommutative version of the $`U(1)`$ Chern-Simons theory which is characterized by area preserving diffeomorphism. Thus we realize a dual relationship between noncommutative manifold and noncommutative field theory.

## II Noncommutative Manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$, Deformation of Symplectic Structure and Berry phase

Noncommutative geometry is characterized by the fact that space-time structure acquires some fuzziness i.e points are ill defined. The fuzziness of phase space variables may be viewed such that the mean position of a particle at $`q_\mu `$ in the external observable space has a stochastic extension given by a stochastic variable $`\widehat{Q}_\mu `$. The position and momentum of a relativistic quantum particle in complexified space-time is then given by

$`Q_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`q_\mu +i\widehat{Q}_\mu `$
$`P_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`p_\mu +i\widehat{P}_\mu `$ (1)
Introducing the dimensionless variable $`\omega =\frac{\mathrm{}}{lmc}`$ it is shown that bpru  these relativistic canonical commutation relations admit the following representations of $`\frac{Q_\mu }{\omega }`$ and $`\frac{P_\mu }{\omega }`$ where the latter are considered as acting on functions defined in phase space

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mu }{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\mu }}+\varphi _\mu )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mu }{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{}{q_\mu }}+\psi _\mu )`$ (2)
where $`\varphi _\mu (\psi _\mu )`$ are some matrix valued functions in the noncommutative case.

In a recent paper pg  it has been pointed out that noncommutative geometry having the space-time manifold $`M_4\times Z_2`$ leads to the quantization of a fermion when the discrete space-time is incorporated as an internal variable. Indeed, this leads to the introduction of an anisotropic feature in the internal space so that we can consider the space-time coordinate in complex space-time as $`z_\mu =x_\mu +i\xi _\mu `$ where $`\xi _\mu `$ represents a direction vector attached to the space-time point $`x_\mu `$. The two orientations of the direction vector give rise to two internal helicities corresponding to fermion and antifermion. The complex space-time exhibiting the internal helicity states can be written in terms of a two-component spinorial variable $`\theta (\overline{\theta })`$ when the direction vector $`\xi _\mu `$ is associated with $`\theta `$ through the relation $`\xi _\mu =\frac{1}{2}\lambda _{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\theta _\alpha `$ $`(\alpha =1,2)`$. This helps us to write the relevant metric as $`g_{\mu \nu }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$. This metric gives rise to the $`SL(2,C)`$ gauge theory ppa  where the gauge fields $`𝒜_\mu `$ are matrix valued having the $`SL(2,C)`$ group structure and the curvature $`_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu +[𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\nu ]$$
(3)
The phase space variables may be written in terms of a gauge theoretical extension of a relativistic quantum particle. Indeed, from the relation (II) we can now identify $`\varphi _\mu (\psi _\mu )`$ with gauge field $`𝒜_\mu (_\mu )`$. That is, we can conceive of the position and momentum operators given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_\mu }{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{}{p_\mu }}+𝒜_\mu )`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{P_\mu }{\omega }}`$ $`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{}{q_\mu }}+_\mu )`$ (4)
It is now noted that the curvature $`_{\mu \nu }`$ will deform the symplectic structure. Indeed, it will change the symplectic form of the phase space as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}dp_idq_j$$
(5)
with

$$g^{ij}=J^{ij}+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{ij}$$
(6)
where

$$J^{ij}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& I\\ I& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(7)
is associated with the usual symplectic structure and $`\mathrm{}^{ij}`$ is the curvature tensor coming from the induced vector potential $`𝒜_\mu `$.

The Poisson bracket is modified as

$`\{f,g\}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f}{q_i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{g}{p_j}}\right)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\{f,g\}+\{f,g\}^{}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`f,g`$ are arbitrary functions on the phase space, $`g_{ij}`$ is the inverse of $`g^{ij}`$. The Poisson bracket will help to define the quantum field theory in the modified form if we replace this by the commutator.

It is noted that in the manifold $`M_4\times Z_2`$ when the discrete space is considered as an internal extension, the $`direction`$ $`vector`$ $`\xi _\mu `$ attached to the space-time point $`x_\mu M_4`$, effectively corresponds to a vortex line. Again, a vortex line is topologically equivalent to a magnetic flux. Thus in this picture, a fermion can be viewed as a boson attached with a magnetic flux associated with the gauge field. In the manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ with $`N>2`$ and odd, we note that the gauge field theoretical extension will induce a density of vortices in the Bose field which corresponds to $`\frac{1}{N}`$ of a vortex per boson. As an example, for $`N`$=3, we can view the system such that each boson carries $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of magnetic flux quantum. That is, three bosons will share one magnetic flux quantum and the system will represent a three Bose particle composite having one magnetic flux. It may be remarked here that under duality relationship fish , we can consider these vortices as Bose particles and each hard core boson as a flux tube carrying one Dirac flux quantum. This suggests that the ratio between the number of new vortices and the number of new bosons now becomes 3 to 1 and each new boson swallows three vortices.

When a $`direction`$ $`vector`$ $`\xi _\mu `$ is attached to a space-time point $`x_\mu `$, the wave function of the particle concerned will be characterized by three Euler angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$. The angle $`\chi `$ corresponds to the rotational orientation around the direction vector. The angular momentum relation is now given by

$$𝐉=𝐫\times 𝐩\mu \widehat{𝐫}$$
(9)
Here $`\mu `$ corresponds to eigenvalue of the operator $`i\frac{}{\chi }`$ having values $`0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm 1,\pm \frac{3}{2}`$….. . In the ground state we have $`J=|\mu |`$ and the wave functions become

$$\psi _{}^{J}{}_{m}{}^{}=D_{}^{J}{}_{m,\mu }{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )$$
(10)
with $`J=|\mu |`$ and $`m=J,J+1,\mathrm{}+J`$. Indeed for $`J=m=|\mu |=\frac{1}{2}`$, we can construct the following spinorial functions

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`cos{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\varphi +i\chi }{2}}\right)=D_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}{}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )`$
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`sin{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}exp\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\varphi +i\chi }{2}}\right)=D_{}^{\frac{1}{2}}{}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi ,\chi )`$ (11)
If we consider the geodesic projection coordinate

$$\zeta =\frac{v}{u}=tan\frac{\theta }{2}exp(i\varphi ),$$

for the Hopf fibration $`S^2=SU(2)/U(1)`$, the base space turns to be Kàhler manifold and the symplectic structure is given by hou

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle \frac{d\zeta d\overline{\zeta }}{(1+|\zeta |^2)^2}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle \frac{^2K}{\zeta \overline{\zeta }}}d\zeta d\overline{\zeta }`$
where $`K=ln(1+|\zeta |^2)`$ is the Kàhler potential. The Hilbert space $`_𝒩`$ on this Hopf fibration $`S^2`$ is composed by the $`N=2S+1`$ one particle wave functions $`\psi _{}^{J}{}_{m}{}^{}`$ around the Dirac monopole $`\mu (J=|\mu |)`$. Evidently, for the three particle system, we have $`|\mu |=\frac{3}{2}`$ and the geodesic projection coordinate is given by $`\zeta ^{}=\left(\frac{v}{u}\right)^3`$. So from the relation (12) we find that the symplectic structure $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ in this case is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=3\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus the symplectic structure for the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_3`$ corresponds to the relation $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ with $`m=3`$. This can be generalized for the manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ with $`N>2`$ and odd when we have $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ with $`m=N`$.

It is noted that in angular momentum relation (9), for $`\mu `$ an integer we can have

$$𝐉=𝐫\times 𝐩\mu \widehat{𝐫}=𝐫^{}\times 𝐩^{}$$
(13)
indicating the vanishing of magnetic field. This is the case for the manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ with $`N>4`$ and even. In this case, the change in the symplectic structure will not be manifested unless the state is split into a pair.

It is to be noted that the vector potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ responsible for the deformation of the symplectic structure effectively gives rise to the geometrical phase of Berry. Indeed, when a system $`\widehat{H}_0`$ interacts with certain internal Hamiltonian $`\widehat{h}_{int}`$ to have $`\widehat{H}_{eff}`$=$`\widehat{H}_0`$+$`\widehat{h}_{int}`$, the response of the internal system corresponding to the change of the external canonical system becomes a part of the action as to associate the change of field as kura

$$S_{eff}=S_0+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)$$
(14)
The physical importance of this geometrical phase $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)`$ is that it becomes a magnetic flux associated with the induced vector potential $`𝒜_\mu `$. This implies that the factor $`m`$ occurring in the deformed symplectic structure $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ is associated with the Berry phase of the system.

In the study of quantum Hall effect, we may visualize that the external magnetic field realizes the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ when we consider the electrons lie on the surface of a 3 dimensional sphere with a monopole at the center. In this geometry, the deformation of the symplectic structure $`\mathrm{}p\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ leads to the fractional quantum Hall effect when the filling factor is given by $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}=\frac{1}{2\mu }`$ where $`\mu `$ is the monopole strength bb ; pb3 . It may be remarked here that the deformation causes to increase the occupied area of an electron and hence changes the electron density to lie at certain fractions of the density corresponding to the density of the completely filled Landau level. When these electrons condense into an incompressible fluid we realize fractional quantum Hall effect.

## III Noncommutative Field Theory, Chiral Anomaly and Berry Phase

The noncommutative generalization for the free Maxwell Lagrangian density involves the star product of the noncommutative field strength $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ constructed from the potential $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ and can be written as

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu ig(\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu )$$
(15)
and

$$\widehat{L}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }$$
(16)
In terms of the conventional Maxwell tensor

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu $$

it turns out that we can express $`\widehat{A_\mu }`$ and $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ as follows jackiw

$$\widehat{A}_\mu =A_\mu \frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha (_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu })$$
(17)
$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha _\beta F_{\mu \nu }$$
(18)
where $`g`$ is absorbed in $`\theta `$. The tensor $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is associated with the star product which is defined as

$$(fg)(x)=e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}_\alpha _\beta f(x)g(x^{})|_{x=x^{}}$$
(19)
Apart from the total derivative term, the Lagrangian $`\widehat{L}`$ is given by

$$\widehat{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{8}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }F^{\mu \nu }+O(\theta ^2)$$
(20)
It is now well known that the star product effectively involves a background magnetic field and so the second and third terms in eqns. (18) and (20) correspond the interaction of this background field with the Maxwell field.

We may recall here that when a fermionic chiral current interacts with a gauge field it gives rise to chiral anomaly which is given by

$$_\mu J_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{5}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}F^{\mu \nu }$$
(21)
where $`J_{}^{5}{}_{\mu }{}^{}`$ is the axial vector current $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi `$ and

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }$$

is the Hodge dual. The chiral anomaly is related to the Berry phase and we have dbpb

$$q=2\mu =\frac{1}{2}(_\mu J_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{5})d^4x=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu \nu }d^4x$$
(22)
Here, $`q`$ is the Pontryagin index and $`\mu `$ corresponds to the monopole strength.

When we consider the interaction of the chiral current with the noncommutative gauge field having the gauge field strength

$`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }+\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }A_\alpha _\beta F_{\mu \nu }`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$
we note that the chiral anomaly will be modified as

$$\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left[{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\right]$$

It is noted that we will have a change in the factor $`\mu `$ which will induce a change in the Berry phase. The modified value $`\mu _{eff}`$ will be given by

$$\mu _{eff}=\mu +\mu ^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu +\overline{\mu }$$
(24)
when we identify

$$\mu =\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu \nu }d^4x,$$
(25)
$$\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }d^4x,$$
(26)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}Tr{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }d^4x,$$
(27)
This implies that the induced background magnetic field associated with the star product effectively changes the number of magnetic flux quanta in a specified area through its interaction with the external gauge field strength which subsequently changes the chiral anomaly and hence the Berry phase.

## IV Noncommutative Geometry and Quantum Hall Effect

Susskindsus  has conjectured that quantum Hall effect can be well described by the Chern-Simons action involving the noncommutative version of the $`U(1)`$ gauge theory on a two dimensional space. The action is given by

$$S=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^3xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }(\widehat{A}_\mu _\nu \widehat{A}_\lambda +\frac{2}{3}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\lambda )$$
(28)
with $`k=\frac{1}{\nu }`$.

The theory is invariant under the noncommutative gauge transformation

$$\widehat{A}_\mu U^1\widehat{A}_\mu U+iU^1_\mu U$$
(29)
when $`k`$ is an integer.

The theory may be written in an equivalent form by choosing gauge $`\widehat{A}_0=0`$ in which case the action becomes

$$S=\frac{k}{4\pi }d^3xϵ^{ij}\widehat{A}_i_t\widehat{A}_j$$
(30)
while the equation of motion for $`\widehat{A}_0`$ must be imposed as a constraint

$$F_{ij}=_i\widehat{A}_j_j\widehat{A}_ii(\widehat{A}_i\widehat{A}_j\widehat{A}_j\widehat{A}_i)=0$$
(31)
It turns out that this action and constraint also arise from a matrix model given by

$$S=\frac{k}{\theta }𝑑tTr\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ij}DX^iX^j\right)+k𝑑tTr(A)$$
(32)
Where $`X`$ and $`A`$ are Hermitian matrices. The action is invariant under gauge transformation

$`X^i`$ $``$ $`U^1X^iU`$ (33)
$`A`$ $``$ $`U^1AU+iU^1_tU`$ (34)
as long as $`U`$ is taken to be trivial at $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ is an integer. In the gauge $`A=0`$, the action becomes

$$S=\frac{k}{\theta }𝑑tTr\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ij}X^iX^j\right)$$
(35)
while the equation of motion for $`A`$ is

$$[X^1,X^2]=i\theta $$
(36)
which must be taken as a constraint. It is to be noted the commutator here is just the matrix commutator. This has no solution for finite dimensional matrices. A particular solution is $`X^i=y^i`$ and $`y^1`$ and $`y^2/\theta `$ are the usual matrices representing $`x`$ and $`p`$ in the harmonic oscillator basis. Expanding the action and the constraint about the classical solution $`X^i=y^i+\theta ϵ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j`$ where $`\widehat{A}_j`$ are functions of the noncommutative coordinates $`y^i`$, gives precisely the Lagrangian(30) with the constraint(31).

Polychronakos poly  has modified this formalism such that the matrices $`X^1`$ and $`X^2`$ become finite dimensional. The quantization of the inverse filling fraction and of the quasiparticle number is shown to arise quantum mechanically and to agree with the Laughlin theory.

In spherical geometry, where electrons lie on the surface of a three dimensional sphere with a monopole at the centre, we can consider the relation

$$_{M_4}FF=_{M_3}(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA)$$
(37)
This suggest that in $`3+1`$ dimension we can replace the noncommutative Chern-Simons term with the term $`{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$. In fact, the corresponding quantum Hall effect action in $`3+1`$ dimension is given by

$$S=\frac{\theta }{4}^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }d^4x$$
(38)
where $`\theta `$ is a coupling constant. So from the expression for $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ as given by (23), we can write

$${}_{}{}^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }={}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}F_{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }$$
(39)
So the chiral anomaly is now changed and we have the associated Berry phase factor as given by eqn.(24). Indeed the expression for the Berry phase factor

$$\mu _{eff}=\mu +\mu ^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu +\overline{\mu }$$
(40)
implies that the term $`\overline{\mu }`$ is associated with the modification caused by the background magnetic field inherent in the star product formalism.

In an earlier paper bb1 , we have shown that in the lowest landau level, we can have the filling factor $`\nu `$ in terms of the Berry phase factor $`\mu `$ such that $`\nu =\frac{1}{2\mu }`$. In view of this, we can now write

$$\nu _{eff}=\frac{1}{2\mu _{eff}}$$
(41)
where $`\mu _{eff}`$ is given by (40).

This result can be compared with that of Dayi and Jellal DaJ . They have shown that if there is noncommutativity of coordinates in two dimensional space given by

$$[X,Y]=i\theta $$
(42)
then there is a change in external magnetic field caused by the inherent field in geometry and the effective field is given by

$$B_{eff}=\frac{B}{1\frac{e\theta B}{4\mathrm{}c}}$$
(43)
This causes the change in the filling factor

$$\nu _{eff}=\frac{\varphi _0\rho }{B}\left(1\frac{e\theta B}{4\mathrm{}c}\right)$$
(44)
where $`\varphi _0=hc/e`$ and $`\rho `$ denotes electron density.

In sec.2 we have argued that in the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$, the symplectic structure is modified such that $`\mathrm{}p.\mathrm{}q=2\pi m\mathrm{}`$ with $`m`$ an odd integer given by $`m=2\mu `$. In relation to quantum Hall fluid, this implies that we have now the filling factor given by $`\nu =\frac{1}{m}=\frac{1}{2\mu _{eff}}`$. So from the relation (41) we note that we arrive at the equivalent result in terms of the noncommutative field theory. However, in the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$, the Berry phase is associated with the deformation of symplectic structure where in the framework of noncommutative field theory the system is characterized by area preserving diffeomorphism. Thus we have a duality relation between these two formalisms.

## V Discussion

It has been pointed out here that the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ induces deformation of symplectic structure which leads to the fractional statistics for $`N>2`$ and odd. In fact, this deformation is related to the Berry phase factor which is responsible for the fractional filling factor of the incompressible Hall fluid. On the other hand, in spherical geometry where electrons reside on the surface of a sphere with a monopole at the center, the noncommutative field theory induces change in chiral anomaly leading to the Berry phase responsible for the fractional quantum Hall effect. However, the latter is characterized by area preserving diffeomorphism. Thus we can arrive at a dual relation between noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ (with $`N>2`$ and odd) and noncommutative field theory.

It may be recalled that there exists a correspondence between noncommutative geometry and quantum space which is characterized by certain quantum group symmetry and both represent a lattice structure. Kogan kogun  has demonstrated the connection between quantum symmetry, magnetic translation and area preserving diffeomorphism in Landau problem and discussed the relevance of $`U_q(SL(2))`$ in quantum Hall system. In a recent paper pb3  a possible link between the Berry phase factor $`\mu `$ with the deformation parameter $`q`$ of the deformed algebra $`U_q(SL(2))`$ has been suggested. Indeed, Kogan’s analysis suggests that in a quantum Hall system the deformation parameter $`q`$ of the symmetry $`U_q(SL(2))`$ is related to the filling factor $`\nu `$ of the form $`1/m`$, $`m`$ being an odd integer, through the relation $`q=exp(i2\pi \nu )`$ which implies that $`q`$ is related to the Berry phase factor $`\mu `$ through the relation $`q=exp(i\frac{2\pi }{2\mu _{eff}})`$. It may be observed that the association of fractional quantum Hall states with the $`Z_p`$ spin system spin  directly links up the quantum space and noncommutative geometry with the lattice structure. In fact for $`q=exp(\frac{2\pi i}{3})`$, $`q=exp(\frac{2\pi i}{5})`$,…… we have the corresponding $`Z_3,Z_5`$…. spin system representing fermion number $`\frac{1}{3},\frac{1}{5}`$ which corresponds to the Berry phase factor $`\mu _{eff}=\frac{3}{2},\frac{5}{2}`$ and so on. This evidently relates the deformation parameter of the quantum group $`U_q(SL(2))`$ when $`q`$ is a root of unity with noncommutative geometry which realizes these Berry phase factors either through the deformation of the symplectic structure in the noncommutative manifold $`M_4\times Z_N`$ or through the change in chiral anomaly in the noncommutative field theory.


text:
# Self-Similarity in Random Collision Processes

## Abstract

Kinetics of collision processes with linear mixing rules are investigated analytically. The velocity distribution becomes self-similar in the long time limit and the similarity functions have algebraic or stretched exponential tails. The characteristic exponents are roots of transcendental equations and vary continuously with the mixing parameters. In the presence of conservation laws, the velocity distributions become universal.

Collision processes underlie fundamental phenomena such as heat transport in gases rd  and mixing in fluid flows omtfjk . In closed systems, conservation of mass and momentum implies Maxwellian velocity statistics jcm . However, there are physical systems such as granular media pl  and atomic collisions prb  where energy or even momentum rbl  are not conserved. The reason may be that only a subset of the system is considered, that not all degrees of freedom are measured (2D imaging of 3D systems), or that acoustic or other excitations are ignored. Non-Maxwellian velocity statistics are found in granular gases rm , colloids wclsa , turbulent flows lvcab , and laser cooling bbac .

Random collision processes are a framework for studying the role of conservation laws, and demonstrate how anomalous velocity statistics emerge when conservation laws are relaxed bmp ; kb ; eb ; bc . Motivated by this, we consider binary collision processes with arbitrary linear collision rules. While in the long-time limit velocity distributions are generically self-similar, there is a wide spectrum of possible behaviors. The velocity distributions are characterized by algebraic or stretched exponential tails and the corresponding exponents depend sensitively on the collision parameters. Interestingly, when there is energy or momentum conservation, the behavior is universal.

Let us consider the most general linear collision law: when a particle of velocity $`u_1`$ collides with a particle of velocity $`u_2`$, its post-collision velocity $`v_1`$ is given by

$$v_1=pu_1+qu_2,$$
(1)
with $`p`$ and $`q`$ the mixing parameters. Special cases include elastic collisions ($`p=0`$, $`q=1`$), inelastic collisions ($`p+q=1`$), the granules model ($`p+q<1`$) rbl , the Kac Model ($`p^2+q^2=1`$) mk , inelastic Lorenz gas ($`p=0`$, $`q<1`$) mp , and addition ($`p=q=1`$) tk .

Further, we consider perfectly random dynamics: two randomly chosen particles collide according to (1). The normalized velocity distribution $`P(v,t)`$ obeys

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}P(v,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑u_1𝑑u_2P(u_1,t)P(u_2,t)}`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[\delta (vpu_1qu_2)\delta (vu_1)\right].`$
This Boltzmann equation is termed the Maxwell model in kinetic theory (the constant collision rate is set to unity) mhe . The quadratic integrand in Eq. (Self-Similarity in Random Collision Processes) reflects the binary nature of the collision process and the gain term reflects the collision rule (1). The number density is conserved by Eq. (Self-Similarity in Random Collision Processes), $`𝑑vP(v,t)=1`$.

The convolution structure of the evolution equation suggests the Fourier transform $`F(k,t)=𝑑ve^{ikv}P(v,t)`$. This quantity obeys the nonlinear and nonlocal equation

$$\frac{}{t}F(k,t)+F(k,t)=F(pk,t)F(qk,t).$$
(3)
This closed equation is amenable to analytical treatment. Moments of the velocity distribution, $`M_n(t)=𝑑vv^nP(v,t)`$, obey a closed hierarchy of equations bk

$$\frac{d}{dt}M_n+\lambda _nM_n=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{m}\right)p^mq^{nm}M_mM_{nm}$$
(4)
with the shorthand notation $`\lambda _n=1p^nq^n`$. These equations are solved recursively with $`M_0(t)=1`$.

We are interested in the long time limit and we seek similarity solutions of the form

$$P(v,t)e^{\alpha t}\mathrm{\Phi }(ve^{\alpha t}),\text{as }t\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
Equivalently, the Fourier transform has the similarity form $`F(k,t)f(ke^{\alpha t})`$. This function satisfies

$$\alpha zf^{}(z)+f(z)=f(pz)f(qz).$$
(6)
The similarity function may include both a regular and a singular component $`f(z)=f_{\mathrm{reg}}(z)+f_{\mathrm{sing}}(z)`$ with $`f_{\mathrm{reg}}(z)=_n\frac{(iz)^n}{n!}f_n`$. Normalization sets $`f_0=1`$. The leading small-$`z`$ behavior of the singular component, $`f_{\mathrm{sing}}(z)z^\nu `$, reflects an algebraic tail of the velocity distribution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(w)w^{\nu 1},$$
(7)
as $`w\mathrm{}`$. Substituting the leading singular behavior $`f(z)1z^\nu `$ into the governing equation (6) yields a relation between the scaling parameter $`\alpha `$ and the mixing parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$

$$\alpha =\nu ^1\lambda _\nu .$$
(8)
There are two types of scaling solutions, depending on the average initial velocity $`M_1(0)`$: type-I scaling ($`M_1(0)0`$) and type-II scaling ($`M_1(0)=0`$).

Type-I Scaling. The first moment varies exponentially with time, $`M_1=e^{\lambda _1t}`$, according to the rate equation $`\frac{d}{dt}M_1+\lambda _1M_1=0`$ (its initial value can be set to unity). The small wave-number behavior of the regular component of the Fourier transform is therefore $`F(k,t)1+ike^{\lambda _1t}`$. When $`\nu >1`$, this component dominates over the singular component. Therefore, $`f(z)1+iz`$ and the scaling parameter is $`\alpha =\lambda _1`$. When $`\nu <1`$, the singular component dominates over the regular one, so the parameter $`\alpha `$ is not obvious. There is a spectrum of possible $`\alpha `$’s depending on $`\nu `$ according to the “dispersion” curve (8). This curve has a maximum $`\alpha =\frac{d}{d\nu }\lambda _\nu `$ at $`\nu `$ given by $`\nu \frac{d}{d\nu }\lambda _\nu =\lambda _\nu `$. We argue that this maximum is actually realized by the dynamics. Intuitively, the selection of the extremum point maximizes the typical wave number $`e^{\alpha t}`$. The scaling parameter is therefore

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}p^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{p}+q^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{q}\hfill & \nu 1\text{;}\hfill \\ 1pq\hfill & \nu 1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
The exponent $`\nu `$ characterizing the algebraic tails is the root of the transcendental equation (8) with $`\alpha `$ given by (9). Explicitly, the equations are $`p^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{p^\nu }+q^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{q^\nu }=1`$ and $`1p^\nu q^\nu =\nu (1pq)`$ for $`\nu 1`$ and $`\nu 1`$, respectively (Fig. 1).

Algebraic tails exist as long as the exponent $`\nu `$ is finite. The exponent diverges, $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, in the limiting cases $`p+q=1`$, $`p=1`$, and $`q=1`$, defining the triangular region $`S`$ (Fig. 1). In this domain, the singular component disappears and the scaling function $`f(z)`$ is analytic. Moreover, the velocity distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)`$ has sharp tails and all of its moments are finite. Outside the region $`S`$, the exponent $`\nu `$ is always finite. It varies continuously as a function of the mixing parameters and it vanishes, $`\nu 0`$, when $`p0`$ or $`q0`$.

The curve $`p\mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{p}+q\mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{q}=1`$, marking the case $`\nu =1`$, separates two kinds of behavior. When $`\nu >1`$ the first moment characterizes the velocity distribution. In the complementary case, the typical velocity does not follow from the (integer) moment behavior. This dichotomy is reminiscent of similarity solutions of the first and second kind gib . Interestingly, extremum selection determines the typical velocity and thereby the velocity distribution when $`\nu <1`$. Extremum selection similarly governs the speed and the shape of nonlinear waves in reaction-diffusion problems jdm . Indeed, in terms of the variable $`\mathrm{ln}v`$, the similarity solution (5) is nothing but a travelling wave $`\stackrel{~}{P}(\mathrm{ln}v,t)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\mathrm{ln}v+\alpha t)`$.

Type-II scaling. When the average initial velocity vanishes, the initial variance can be set to unity. From the moment equations (4), the variance varies exponentially with time, $`M_2(t)=e^{\lambda _2t}`$. The small-wave number behavior $`F(k,t)1\frac{1}{2}k^2e^{\lambda _2t}`$ dominates when $`\nu >2`$ and consequently, the second moment characterizes the velocity distribution, $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\lambda _2`$. Otherwise, the singular component governs the behavior as above and the scaling parameter is

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}p^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{p}+q^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{q}\hfill & \nu 2\text{;}\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}(1p^2q^2)\hfill & \nu 2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
The exponent $`\nu `$ characterizing the algebraic tails is the root of the transcendental equation $`p^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{p^\nu }+q^\nu \mathrm{ln}\frac{e}{q^\nu }=1`$ for $`\nu 2`$ and $`1p^\nu q^\nu =\frac{\nu }{2}(1p^2q^2)`$ for $`\nu 2`$ (Fig. 2). It diverges in the vicinity of the curves $`p=1`$, $`q=1`$, and $`p^2+q^2=1`$. Inside this region $`S`$, the similarity solution $`f(z)`$ is regular and the velocity distribution $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)`$ has sharp tails. Generally, similarity solutions are symmetric, as $`f(z)=f(z)`$.

The diverging exponent $`\nu `$ indicates that the large velocity tail is a stretched exponential, rather than algebraic, in the region $`S`$. Indeed, the Fourier transform $`f(z)\mathrm{exp}(z^\mu )`$ for large $`z`$ is compatible with the governing equation (6) when

$$\lambda _\mu =0.$$
(11)
This in turn suggests a stretched exponential behavior

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(w)\mathrm{exp}\left(w^\gamma \right)$$
(12)
with $`\gamma =\frac{\mu }{\mu 1}`$ for $`w\mathrm{}`$. As was the case for the exponent $`\nu `$, $`\mu `$ is a root of a transcendental equation and consequently, the exponent $`\gamma 1`$ varies continuously with the mixing parameters. Its minimal value $`\gamma =1`$ is attained along the region boundaries $`p=1`$ and $`q=1`$. The tail is Gaussian, $`\gamma =2`$, along the type-II boundary $`\lambda _2=0`$ and the exponent diverges, $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, along the type-I boundary $`\lambda _1=0`$.

Self-similarity holds whether the typical velocity shrinks or grows with time, i.e., regardless whether $`\alpha `$ is positive or negative. For type-I scaling the velocities shrink (grow) with time when $`\lambda _1>0`$ ($`\lambda _1<0`$) and similarly for type-II scaling.

Asymptotically, sufficiently small moments of the velocity distribution are governed by the typical velocity. Otherwise, the moment behavior follows from the hierarchy of evolution equations (4)

$$M_n\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(n\alpha t),\hfill & n<\nu \text{;}\hfill \\ \mathrm{exp}(\lambda _nt),\hfill & n>\nu \text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Sufficiently small moments of the velocity distribution exhibit ordinary scaling behavior while sufficiently large moments exhibit multiscaling asymptotic behavior odd . By multiscaling, we refer to moment ratios such as $`M_n/M_2^{n/2}`$ that diverge asymptotically.

Numerical simulations confirm the theoretical findings. In the simulations, randomly chosen pairs of particles undergo the collision process (1). The number of particles was $`10^7`$ and the velocity distributions were obtained from an average over $`10`$ independent realizations. Simulation results corresponding to flat initial distributions with support in $`[0:1]`$ and $`[1:1]`$ are shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.

There are a number of special cases worth highlighting.

1. Addition ($`p=q=1`$): This integrable case nicely demonstrates how similarity solutions emerge. The transformation $`G(k,t)=1/F(k,t)`$ reduces the (local) Ricatti Eq. (3) into $`\frac{}{t}G(k,t)+G(k,t)=1`$. The Fourier transform reads $`F(k,t)=\{1+[F_0^1(k)1]e^t\}^1`$ with $`F_0(k)F(k,t=0)`$. Indeed, the small wave number behavior of the initial distribution $`F_0(k)`$ dictates the asymptotic behavior. When $`M_1(0)=1`$, type-I scaling occurs, with the similarity solution $`f(z)=[1iz]^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=e^w`$ for $`w>0`$. When $`M_1(0)=0`$, type-II scaling occurs, with the similarity solution $`f(z)=[1+\frac{1}{2}z^2]^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}|w|)`$. One can verify that these similarity solutions satisfy (6) with $`\alpha =1`$ and $`1/2`$ for type-I and type-II, respectively.

2. Kac Model ($`p^2+q^2=1`$): For type-II scaling, energy is conserved since $`\lambda _2=0`$. In this case, the velocity distribution approaches a steady state, $`\alpha =0`$. The equation (3) has the solution $`f(z)=\mathrm{exp}(z^2/2)`$ and the velocity distribution is Maxwellian $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=(2\pi )^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(w^2/2)`$. For type-I scaling, energy is not conserved and the velocity distribution is no longer universal. However, it still exhibits a Gaussian tail.

3. Inelastic Maxwell Model ($`p+q=1`$): For inelastic collisions, the total momentum is conserved, $`\lambda _1=0`$. Using the Galilean transformation $`vvM_1(0)`$, the initial momentum can be set to zero and so the behavior is always of type-II. The exponent $`\nu =3`$ is the root of the equation $`\lambda _\nu =\frac{\nu }{2}\lambda _2`$. In this particular case, an explicit solution can be found $`f(z)=(1+|z|)e^{|z|}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w)=\frac{2}{\pi }(1+w^2)^2`$ bmp . Interestingly, when there is a conservation law (either momentum or energy), the similarity solution is independent of the mixing parameters.

4. Lorentz gas ($`p=0`$): This case corresponds to inelastic collisions with massive scatterers. The evolution equation is linear, $`\frac{}{t}P(v,t)+P(v,t)=q^1P(vq^1,t)`$. It is useful to consider the stochastic process the velocity undergoes $`vvqvq^2\mathrm{}`$. The number of collisions is distributed according to a Poisson distribution with mean equal to time $`t`$. Therefore, the velocity distribution is bk1

$$P(v,t)=e^t\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{t^n}{n!}\frac{1}{q^n}P_0\left(\frac{v}{q^n}\right).$$
(14)
In other words, the variable $`\mathrm{ln}v`$ is Poisson distributed with mean equal to $`t\mathrm{ln}q`$, so a finite number of standard deviations away from the mean $`\mathrm{ln}v`$ is Gaussian distributed. Thus, the tail of the distribution is log-normal, $`P(v)\mathrm{exp}[(\mathrm{ln}v)^2/(2t\mathrm{ln}q)]`$. In the limit $`\nu 0`$, no similarity solutions emerge and all moments of the velocity distribution exhibit multiscaling, $`M_n(t)=M_n(0)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _nt)`$. We conclude that the linear collision process (1) is an effective mixing mechanism. No matter how small either of the mixing parameter is, eventually, the binary collision process alters the nature of the velocity distribution. In other words, nonlinearity provides the mechanism for the self-similar behavior.

The usual physical particle collision region is associated with $`0p+q1`$ rbl  and restitution coefficient $`0qp1`$. Other applications may involve values of $`p`$ and $`q`$ outside of this region. We implicitly assumed that the mixing parameters are positive ($`p,q0`$) but the behavior easily extends to the other three quadrants in the $`pq`$ plane. Consider the first two moments $`M_1(t)=M_1(0)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _1t)`$ and $`M_2(t)=[M_2(0)cM_1^2(0)]e^{\lambda _2t}+cM_1^2(0)e^{2\lambda _1t}`$ with $`c=(2pq)/(\lambda _22\lambda _1)`$. The first moment governs the second moment ($`M_2M_1^2`$) when $`\lambda _2>2\lambda _1`$, i.e., in the circular domain $`(p1)^2+(q1)^2<1`$, that is entirely contained in the first quadrant. Thus, type-I scaling occurs only in the first quadrant. Type-II scaling occurs in the other three quadrants, regardless of $`M_1(0)`$.

We tacitly assumed that all moments are finite initially. Consider initial distributions with a leading small-$`k`$ behavior of the type $`1F_0(k)k^{\nu _0}`$, competing with $`f_{\mathrm{sing}}(z)z^\nu `$. The initial conditions govern the asymptotic behavior when $`\nu _0<\nu `$ and thus, $`\alpha =\nu _0^1\lambda _{\nu _0}`$. This generalization of the previous results applies for both type-I scaling ($`\nu _0=1`$) and type-II scaling ($`\nu _0=2`$).

In closing, random and linear mixing results in self-similar velocity distributions. Nonlinearity is responsible for this scaling and extremum selection may govern the behavior. The velocity distributions have either algebraic or exponential tails, with nontrivial characteristic exponents. Every possible algebraic tail and every faster than exponential decay constitutes the spectrum of behaviors. Conservation laws play a crucial role, as the velocity distribution becomes universal when physical quantities (either energy or momentum) are conserved.

We thank Paul Krapivsky for useful discussions. This research was supported by DOE contracts W-7405-ENG-36 (EBN) and DE-FG03-86ER13606 (KL), and by NSF contract PHY-0140094 (DbA).