text:
# Restrictions on a geometrical language in gravity

## 1 Introduction

An alternative explanation of cosmological redshift  gives us a possibility to explain observed dimming of supernovae Ia  and the Pioneer 10 anomaly  as additional manifestations of the graviton background which is considered in a flat space-time. It leads to a new cosmological model based on this approach . It was also shown that pressure of correlated gravitonic pairs, which are destructed by collision with a body, may create Newtonian attraction .

In this paper, some important features of this approach are described which give the restrictions on a geometrical language in gravity. Gravity in this model may not be geometry at short distances $`10^{11}m.`$ At such the distances quantum gravity cannot be described alone but only in some unified manner. The geometrical description of gravity should be a good idealization at big distances only by the condition of ”atomic structure” of matter. This condition cannot be accepted for black holes which must interact with gravitons as aggregated objects. The equivalence principle is roughly broken for black holes, if this quantum mechanism of classical gravity is realized in the nature.

## 2 Effects due to the graviton background

In was shown in author’s papers  that a quantum interaction of photons with the graviton background would lead to redshifts of remote objects; the Hubble constant $`H`$ should be equal in this model to:

$$H=\frac{1}{2\pi }D\overline{ϵ}(\sigma T^4),$$
(1)
where $`\overline{ϵ}`$ is an average graviton energy, $`\sigma `$ is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, $`T`$ is an effective temperature of the graviton background assumed to be Planckian, and $`D`$ is some new dimensional constant. To cause the whole redshift magnitude, the interaction should be super-strong - it is necessary to have $`D10^{27}m^2/eV^2.`$ In the model, a photon energy $`E`$ should depend on a distance from a source $`r`$ as

$$E(r)=E_0\mathrm{exp}(ar),$$
(2)
where $`E_0`$ is an initial value of energy. It must be $`a=H/c,`$ where $`c`$ is the light velocity, to have the Hubble law for small distances.

Additional photon flux’s average energy losses on a way $`dr`$ due to rejection of a part of photons from a source-observer direction should be proportional to $`badr,`$ where the factor $`b`$ is equal to: $`b=3/2+2/\pi =2,137.`$

Such the relaxation together with the redshift will give, in a case of flat no-expanding universe, the luminosity distance $`D_L`$ , which is equal in our model to:

$$D_L=a^1\mathrm{ln}(1+z)(1+z)^{(1+b)/2}a^1f_1(z;b).$$
(3)
Comparison of the redshift model with supernova cosmology data  gives us a possibility to evaluate $`H`$ in our model (see Fig. 1). Instead of prompt fitting to data, we can compare $`f_1(z;b)`$ with one of the best fit of them. The function $`D_L(z;H_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })a^1f_2(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ from  (see Eq.2 in ) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$ which is unphysical in the original work, gives such the fit. One can see plots of the functions $`f_1(z;b),`$ $`f_1(z;b)/1.09`$ and $`f_2(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ on Fig. 1. The ratio $`H/H_0=1.09`$ corresponds to the function $`f_1(z;b)/1.09`$ which approximates $`f_2(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ well enough .

But the very different functions $`f_1(z;b)`$ and $`f_2(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ may not be proportional to each other on a big interval of redshifts. As one can see on Fig. 2, on the interval $`z(1,2)`$ their plots are intersecting; after it, the function $`f_2,`$ values of which are connected only with known supernova cosmology data for $`z<1,`$ becomes much bigger than $`f_1.`$

It might mean, if one assumes that the present model is true, that further investigations of supernovae Ia for bigger $`z`$ will lead to some difficulties in interpretation of data in a frame of cosmological models with expansion of the universe.

The known conclusion about an accelerating expansion of the universe  is model-dependent. As one can see here, an alternative explanation of dimming of supernovae Ia exists. This explanation does not require an existence of any dark energy or other exotic.

Any massive objects, moving relative to the background, should loss their energy too due to such a quantum interaction with gravitons. It turns out  that massive bodies must feel a constant deceleration of the same order of magnitude as a small additional acceleration of NASA cosmic probes . We get for the body acceleration $`wdv/dt`$ by a non-zero velocity:

$$w=ac^2(1v^2/c^2).$$
(4)
It is for small velocities: $`wHc.`$

To ensure an attractive force bigger than a repulsive one due to a presence of the graviton background, we need of graviton pairing . In such the case, we get Newton’s law in which Newton’s constant $`G`$ is equal to:

$$G=\frac{2}{3}\frac{D^2c(kT)^6}{\pi ^3\mathrm{}^3}I_2$$
(5)
where $`I_2=2.318410^6.`$

We can establish in a frame of this model a connection between the two fundamental constants $`G`$ and $`H:`$

$$H=(G\frac{45}{32\pi ^5}\frac{\sigma T^4I_4^2}{c^3I_2})^{1/2},$$
(6)
where $`I_4=24.866.`$ This connection gives us the following estimate of Hubble’s constant: $`H=3.02610^{18}s^1,`$ or in the units which are more familiar for many of us: $`H=94.576kms^1Mpc^1`$ (I would like to remember that there is not any age of the universe in this model). This value of $`H`$ is significantly larger than we see in the majority of present astrophysical estimations , but it is well consistent with some of them  and with the observed value of anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10  $`w=(8.4\pm 1.33)10^{10}m/s^2.`$

## 3 Why and when gravity is geometry

The described quantum mechanism of classical gravity  gives Newton’s law with expression (5) for the constant $`G`$ and the connection (6) for the constants $`G`$ and $`H`$ if the condition of big distances is fulfilled:

$$\sigma (E,<ϵ>)4\pi r^2,$$
(7)
where $`\sigma (E,<ϵ>)=DE<ϵ>`$ is a cross-section of interaction of a graviton with an average energy $`<ϵ>`$ with a body having an energy $`E`$ (there are two different average energies in this model; for more details, see ).

Newton’s law is a very good approximation for big bodies of the solar system. But assuming $`r=1AU`$ and $`E=m_{}c^2,`$ we obtain:

$$\frac{\sigma (E_2,<ϵ>)}{4\pi r^2}410^{12}.$$

It means that in the case of interaction of gravitons or graviton pairs with the Sun in the aggregate, the considered quantum mechanism of classical gravity could not lead to Newton’s law as a good approximation. One must assume that gravitons interact with ”small particles” of matter - for example, with atoms. If the Sun contains of $`N`$ atoms, then $`\sigma (E,<ϵ>)=N\sigma (E_a,<ϵ>),`$ where $`E_a`$ is an average energy of one atom. For rough estimation we assume here that $`E_a=E_p,`$ where $`E_p`$ is a proton rest energy; then it is $`N10^{57},`$ i.e. $`\sigma (E_a,<ϵ>)/4\pi r^210^{45}1.`$

This necessity of ”atomic structure” of matter for working the described quantum mechanism is natural relative to usual bodies. But would one expect that black holes have a similar structure? If any radiation cannot be emitted with a black hole, a black hole should interact with gravitons as an aggregated object. For bodies without an atomic structure, the allowances, which are proportional to $`D^3/r^4`$ and are caused by decreasing a gravitonic flux due to the screening effect, will have a factor $`m_1^2m_2`$ or $`m_1m_2^2.`$ These allowances break the equivalence principle for such the bodies.

For bodies with an atomic structure, a force of interaction is added up from small forces of interaction of their ”atoms”:

$$FN_1N_2m_a^2/r^2=m_1m_2/r^2,$$

where $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are numbers of atoms for bodies $`1`$ and $`2`$. The allowances to full forces due to the screening effect will be proportional to the quantity: $`N_1N_2m_a^3/r^4,`$ which can be expressed via the full masses of bodies as $`m_1^2m_2/r^4N_1`$ or $`m_1m_2^2/r^4N_2.`$ By big numbers $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ the allowances will be small. Let us denote as $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ an allowance to the force $`F.`$ Then we get by $`E=E_{},r=1AU`$ that the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F}{F}10^{46}.`$

One can replace $`E_p`$ with a rest energy of very big atom - the geometrical approach will left a very good language to describe the solar system. We see that for bodies with an atomic structure the considered mechanism leads to very small deviations from the equivalence principle, if the condition (7) is fulfilled for microparticles, which prompt interact with gravitons.

For small distances we shall have:

$$\sigma (E,<ϵ>)4\pi r^2.$$
(8)
It takes place by $`E_a=E_p,<ϵ>10^3eV`$ for $`r10^{11}m.`$ This quantity is many order larger than the Planck length. The equivalence principle should be broken at such distances.

Under the condition (8), big digressions from Newton’s law will be caused with two factors: 1) a screening portion of a running flux of gravitons is not small and it should be taken into account by computation of the repulsive force; 2) a value of this portion cannot be defined by the expression $`\sigma (E,<ϵ>)/4\pi r^2.`$

One might expect that a screening portion may tend to a fixing value at super-short distances. But, of course, at such distances the interaction will be super-strong and our naive approach would be not valid.

## 4 Conclusion

Observations of last years give us strong evidences for supermassive black holes in galactic nuclei. Of course, a central dark mass in galactic nucleus may not be a black hole; it is most likely to the one by its properties from all known objects. We must remember that we know only that these objects are supermassive and compact - and we, further, suggest that they are black holes. It was supposed by the author  that such black holes may be collectors of virtual massive gravitons and ”germs” of galaxies in a frame of this approach. But the analysis of  shows that black holes should interact with gravitons as aggregated objects and, therefore, their existence must break the equivalence principle. We have a dilemma here: to accept their existence and breaking the equivalence principle or to find other candidates on a role of observable supermassive and compact objects in the approach. For example, virtual massive gravitons might be collected in some kind of Bose condensate.

A main conclusion of my mentioned works is that, if a redshift has the non-Dopplerian nature, an interaction of a graviton with any particle should be super-strong. This circumstance would lead to a new manner to construct a quantum description of gravity and to unify known interactions.


format: text

text:
# Influences of neutron star parameters on evolutions of different types of pulsar; evolutions of anomalous X-ray pulsars, soft gamma repeaters and dim isolated thermal neutron stars on the P-Ṗ diagram

## 1 Introduction

Soft gamma repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) have been observed in the last about 35 years, but their important role in astrophysics has been understood only about 10 years ago and intensive observations and theoretical research have since been done on these exotic objects. Later, some other types of neutron star have been identified. These are dim radio quiet neutron stars (DRQNSs), which are connected to supernova remnants (SNRs), and the single neutron stars with very long spin periods which are named as dim isolated thermal neutron stars (DITNSs). It is possible to find many data on these sources given in Mereghetti & Stella (1995), Mereghetti et al. (2002), Becker & Aschenbach (2002), and Guseinov et al. (2003a, 2003b).

The existence of single neutron stars with large values of P$`>`$5 s and Ṗ$`>`$5$`\times `$10-13 s/s was not expected in pulsar astronomy. In addition to this, the inverse value of the ratio of the X-ray luminosity (Lx) to the rate of rotational energy loss (Lx$`>`$10) for AXPs and SGRs and the $`\gamma `$-ray bursts observed from SGRs were unexpected phenomena (Thompson & Duncan 1995; Mereghetti 2001). Today, it is natural to put AXPs and SGRs together as one type of young neutron star as done in the magnetar model.

It is easy and a usually chosen way to explain $`\gamma `$-ray bursts by recombination of the magnetic field and this is indeed a more reliable way. On the other hand, the initial magnetic field B$``$1014-1015 G may easily explain the ages of AXPs and SGRs and also the burst energy and the time characteristics of the bursts together with the temperatures and luminosities of these objects (Thompson & Duncan 1995; Mereghetti et al. 2002). This approach was also important to expand the limit of the physical idea and the application used in astrophysics.

The processes of steady accretion onto neutron stars have begun to be examined since $``$40 years ago and the idea of accretion was successfully used to predict binary X-ray sources together with their main properties (Zeldovich & Guseinov 1966; Shklovskii 1967; Guseinov 1970; Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Komberg 1974; Lipunov 1992). Naturally, the theory of accretion from fall-back matter (Chatterjee et al. 2000) was used together with neutron star activity to explain the nature of AXPs/SGRs (Rothschild et al. 2002a, 2002b, but see also Tagieva et al. 2003).

In this work, we analyse possible evolutions of different types of single pulsar on the P-Ṗ diagram in detail taking into consideration the possibility of the absence of stability for different masses of neutron stars. We consider AXPs/SGRs and DITNSs to be neutron stars with initial magnetic field $``$1013 G.

## 2 Influences of the value of neutron star mass on electrodynamical parameters of pulsars

There are relations between mass and radius of neutron star which are constructed using models with different equations of state. Maximum mass values of the theoretical mass-radius relations lie in the interval 1.5-2.2 M for which the radius value changes in the interval 10-12 km (Bejger & Haensel 2003).

Moment of inertia (I) of a star is equal to $`\alpha `$MR2, where $`\alpha `$ is a coefficient which depends on the mass density (the total energy density) with respect to radius, M the mass and R the radius of the star. From the relations given in Bejger & Haensel (2003) and Ravenhall & Pethick (1994) it is seen that the coefficient changes monotonically with respect to mass and adopting a radius of 11 km it takes values of 0.37 and 0.44 (corresponding to 1.5 M and 2.2 M respectively) for neutron stars. As seen, the value of $`\alpha `$ weakly depends on the equation of state and on the mass of the compact star. The value of $`\alpha `$ slowly decreases with the diminishing of the compactness. Using these values we have estimated: I$``$1.3$`\times `$1045 gr cm2 for $`\alpha `$=0.37 and M=1.5 M.

The neutron star mass values which are estimated from binary systems have a sharp peak at 1.4 M (see e.g. Tagieva et al. 2000; Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998; Charles & Coe 2003). It is not possible to measure the mass of single neutron stars, but one may assume that single pulsars also have masses about 1.4 M. Please note that, on the period versus period derivative (P-Ṗ) diagram of pulsars, the lines of constant effective magnetic field (B) and constant characteristic time ($`\tau `$), which are found using P and Ṗ values, are shown assuming R=10 km and I=1045 gr cm2 (see e.g. Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998) for the case of pulsars in vacuum which have pure magnetic dipole radiation (n=3, where n is the braking index). The lines of constant rate of rotational energy loss (Ė) are also shown on the P-Ṗ diagram (Figure 1). Even if there exist considerable differences in the masses of neutron stars, the influences of these differences on B, $`\tau `$ and Ė are neglected. Actually, in some cases the real B value must be less than the effective B value found by assuming the case of pure magnetic dipole radiation. Likewise, the characteristic time must be different than the real age in some cases and moreover the values of $`\tau `$ may be different for two pulsars with the same values of P and Ṗ. On the other hand, in contrast to the cases of B and $`\tau `$, the Ė values found from P and Ṗ values are always the actual values of pulsars if we neglect the small differences in the values of I for different pulsars. This is true also because of the very fast change in Ė along the evolutionary tracks of pulsars.

The maximum values of the binding energy (defect mass) correspond to the maxima of the mass versus central density relations. In these relations, the part on the right of the maximum (i.e. large central density part) corresponds to the unstable states of neutron star, whereas, the part on the left of the maximum corresponds to the stable states of neutron star and the most stable neutron star states are at and just on the left side of the maximum (Zeldovich & Novikov 1971). The value of 1.4 M found from observations is close to the lowest value (1.5 M) of the interval of the maximum mass given above. So, the neutron star models with maximum mass values $``$1.5-1.6 M are reliable, whereas, the probability of the existence of neutron stars with masses $``$2-2.2 M is very low. In this case, the I value corresponding to the maximum mass value must be adopted as $``$(1.3-1.4)$`\times `$1045 gr cm2 and this is very close to the commonly adopted value of 1045 gr cm2. It is necessary to note that even rapidly rotating neutron stars with various different equations of state based on general theory of relativity may have additional masses only up to about 10%. Influence on the radius and especially on the equatorial region is slightly larger in such cases (Gurovich & Guseinov 1965).

Let us consider a 0.7-0.8 M neutron star and a 1.5 M neutron star both of which have the same value of the component of dipole magnetic field B perpendicular to the rotation axis and both of which are located in vacuum. Magnetic dipole radiation of neutron star (Lipunov 1992)

$$L=\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mu ^2\omega ^4}{c^3}Sin^2\beta =\frac{1}{3}\frac{B^2R^6\omega ^4}{c^3}Sin^2\beta $$
(1)
(where $`\mu `$ is the magnetic moment, $`\omega `$ the angular velocity, c the speed of light, and $`\beta `$ the angle between the rotation axis and the axis of the magnetic field) leads to braking of the pulsar spin. If we equate the magnetic dipole luminosity (Eqn.1) to the rate of rotational energy loss of neutron stars which have rigid body rotation given as

$$\dot{E}=\frac{4\pi ^2I\dot{P}}{P^3}$$
(2)
then we get

$$\dot{P}\frac{B^2R^4}{MP}.$$
(3)
As seen from the equation, for the same values of B and P, the Ṗ value of a 0.7-0.8 M neutron star is about 3-4 times larger than the Ṗ value of a 1.5 M neutron star considering also the possible increase in the radius value up to a factor of $``$1.2 when we reduce the mass value. So, the Ė value of a 1.5 M neutron star must roughly be a factor of $``$2.5 less than the Ė value of a 0.7-0.8 M neutron star for a given period value.

If we use the observational values of P and Ṗ, the component of the effective magnetic field perpendicular to the spin-axis is determined as

$$B=\sqrt{\frac{3c^3IP\dot{P}}{8\pi ^2R^6}}.$$
(4)
This value of B is equal to the real value if all the other mechanisms for the rotational energy loss are negligible compared to the magnetic dipole radiation.

The characteristic time of a neutron star which is defined as

$$\tau =\frac{P}{(n1)\dot{P}}$$
(5)
(where n is the braking index) does not depend on the parameters of neutron star, which may change in time, nor on any conditions in the environment if n is assumed to be constant. In the case of pulsars which rotate as rigid body and which are in hydrodynamical equilibrium in vacuum with pure magnetic dipole radiation (n=3), if the initial spin period (P0) is negligible compared to P, then $`\tau `$ is equal to the real age of the pulsar. If n=constant along all the evolutionary tracks, then the age of the pulsar is

$$t=\frac{P}{(n1)\dot{P}}(1(\frac{P_0}{P})^{n1}).$$
(6)
In principle, the value of n may change continuously along the evolutionary track. As $`\tau `$ shows the character of the period change at every point along the trajectory, it is a local characteristic and expression (5) always gives the real value of $`\tau `$ if we use the real value of n at each point of the evolutionary track for each pulsar.

There will be a difference of a factor of about 3-4 between the $`\tau `$ values of a 1.5 M neutron star and a 0.7-0.8 M neutron star because of the larger value of Ṗ for smaller value of mass for the neutron star if both of the neutron stars have the same magnetic field.

Let us consider two neutron stars which have the same dipole magnetic field but different masses under the following assumption. Both of these rigidly rotating neutron stars have the same rotational period, but the less massive one with mass M2 has 10 times larger Ṗ compared to the other. In such a case, $`\tau `$2=0.1$`\tau `$1 from expression (5). If we estimate value of the ratio E2/E1 from Figure 1, we find that E2=10E1. Actually, if Ṗ2=10Ṗ1 then E2$`>`$E1 but not 10 times, because the ratio E2/E1 depends on the equation of state which is used in the constructed model of neutron star. If the neutron star does not rotate as rigid body, then the dependence on the total value of rotational moment becomes stronger.

In Figure 1, the locations of $`\tau `$=constant lines do not change if n=constant as seen from equation (5), but the locations of and the distances between the lines of B=constant and Ė=constant must change as seen from the dependences (2) and (4). The change in mass values and the relation between the mass and the radius lead to a change in the value of I and a change in the relation between $`\tau `$ and the real age. It is well known that for the neutron stars which are in hydrodynamical equilibrium, both the coefficient in the expression I=$`\alpha `$MR2 and the value of R depend very weakly on the equation of state. But these quantities may considerably be different when the neutron star is far from equilibrium, has a large rotational moment and magnetic field strength, and/or does not rotate as rigid body.

Electric field intensity which is generated under the rotation of a neutron star which has pure magnetic dipole radiation and around which no plasma exists may roughly be given as (Lipunov 1992)

$$E_{el}\frac{BR}{P}.$$
(7)
Therefore, for equal values of P and B, the star with a larger radius (smaller mass) must have a larger value of Eel. The exact expression for Eel may be found only in simple model approximations. But it is enough to know the simple relation (7) for our purposes.

Using equation (4) we get

$$E_{el}\frac{I^{\frac{1}{2}}}{R^2}(\frac{\dot{P}}{P})^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(8)
Therefore, the Eel value of a 1.5 M neutron star must be a factor of about 1.1-1.2 less than the Eel value of a 0.7-0.8 M neutron star. It must be noted that, in actuality, there can be some plasma around the neutron star. There may be jets also. These can distort the magnetic field so that the expression for Eel can be different.

From equations (5) and (8) we get

$$E_{el}I^{\frac{1}{2}}R^2\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(9)
so that, using logarithmic scale, the average constant Eel lines will be parallel to constant $`\tau `$ lines on the P-Ṗ diagram for fixed values of I and R.

## 3 Which changes may take place on the P-Ṗ diagram under the change of neutron star parameters?

The lines of constant B, $`\tau `$ and Ė pass through with given parameters as displayed in Figure 1 and with fixed intervals next to each other in the ideal case. The ’ideal case’ means that the neutron stars are assumed to have $``$1 M (under the chosen equation of state), having pure dipole magnetic field with constant values, rotating as rigid body, and being in hydrodynamical equilibrium. Actually, we can not expect that all neutron stars have the same mass and radius, have similar configurations for the magnetic field, locate in similar environments nor they are in hydrodynamical equilibrium. Some of them can reach the hydrodynamical equilibrium state in short time and some in relatively long time. The conditions mentioned above can be different especially for young neutron stars and in this case we can expect them to have very different evolutionary tracks on the P-Ṗ diagram.

We can estimate only a value of Ė close to the exact value from the position of the pulsar on the P-Ṗ diagram. Two pulsars which are located very close to each other on the P-Ṗ diagram may have different values of $`\tau `$, B, Eel and age as seen from expressions (5), (4), (8) and (6).

In general, the neutron star model with R=10 km and I=1045 gr cm2 is used and therefore the lines of B=constant and Ė=constant on the P-Ṗ diagram are constructed by using equations

$$B=(\frac{3c^3I}{8\pi ^2R^6})^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\dot{P})^{\frac{1}{2}}=3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{\frac{1}{2}}G$$
(10)
and

$$\dot{E}=4\pi ^2I\frac{\dot{P}}{P^3}=3.94\times 10^{46}\frac{\dot{P}}{P^3}erg/s$$
(11)
(Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998). For neutron stars with masses about 0.7 M, it is possible to use more reliable values of R=12 km and I=7.2$`\times `$1044 gr cm2 instead of the very simple values of R and I, though in principle there will be no significant change. In this case, instead of the expressions (10) and (11), we have

$$B=1.58\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{\frac{1}{2}}G$$
(12)
and

$$\dot{E}=2.84\times 10^{46}\frac{\dot{P}}{P^3}erg/s$$
(13)
similar to the expressions (10) and (11) which are always used for the very compact and stable neutron stars. The relations (10) and (11) are also applicable for dominant number of neutron stars which have masses 1-1.5 M. If we use the expressions (12) and (13) for the P-Ṗ diagram, the locations of $`\tau `$=constant lines do not change, the lines of Ė=constant practically do not change either, but the lines of B=constant shift down by a factor of 2. Therefore, a more accurate definition of the places of these lines on the P-Ṗ diagram does not have an essential role and can not help us in solving the important problems about the origins and evolutions of different types of neutron star.

As seen from Figure 1, bulk of the neutron stars are born with magnetic field similar to the effective field of Crab and Vela pulsars (1012-1013 G). We can assume that about 20% of neutron stars are born with masses about half of the 1.4 M which is the maximum value in the number-mass distribution of neutron stars in binary systems (Lyne & Graham-Smith 1998; Tagieva et al. 2000; Charles & Coe 2003). These neutron stars may have R=13 km as found from the soft equations of state of rotating neutron stars (see Bejger & Haensel 2003). In this case, Ṗ value of such a pulsar must be about 5-6 times larger than the Ṗ of a normal radio pulsar (similar to Crab) if the dipole magnetic field and the P values of these pulsars are the same (see equation (3)). The small mass neutron stars with such values of Ṗ must also have about 5-6 times smaller value of $`\tau `$ compared to the bulk group of pulsars with the same value of P. As seen from Figure 1, there will be no problem in explaining the position of DITNS RXJ0720.4-3125 on the P-Ṗ diagram by using such an approach (i.e. considering such objects as neutron stars with smaller masses). This approach can be useful in explaining most of the DITNSs. Most of these sources may have values of P$`<`$10 s and Ṗ$`<`$10-12 s/s.

## 4 Some problems about AXPs/SGRs and DITNSs

Both the magnetar model and the accretion from fall-back matter model have some considerable successes in explaining some properties of AXPs/SGRs as mentioned briefly in the Introduction. We suggest to bring the successful parts of both approaches together and in addition to this we propose a way to explain the properties of these objects based on the intrinsic parameters (different mass, different structure, absence of hydrodynamical equilibrium etc.). Guseinov et al. (2003a, 2003b) analyse the data of AXPs/SGRs and suggest the initial magnetic field to be 3$`\times `$1013-1014 G by examining also the activity of young neutron stars. From the analysis of the X-ray properties and the birth rates of different types of neutron star (Guseinov et al. 2003c), a possibility arises to step back from the idea of very high magnetic field.

In Figure 1, all the 9 radio pulsars with distances up to 3.5 kpc from the Sun which are connected to SNRs and have values of $`\tau `$$``$5$`\times `$104 yr are represented. Among these 9 pulsars, SNR shell and pulsar wind nebula (PWN) have not been observed for 4 and 3 of them, respectively (Green 2001; Guseinov et al. 2003d). The ages of SNRs in many cases are in agreement with the $`\tau `$ values of the pulsars connected to them in the error limits and their ages in some cases may practically be as large as 3$`\times `$104 yr with the exception of the pair pulsar J0205+6449 – SNR G130.7+3.1. The $`\tau `$ value of this pulsar is 5.4$`\times `$103 yr, but the SNR connected to this pulsar may be a historical remnant with an age of $``$800 yr (Lorimer et al. 1998). Since P=0.066 s for this pulsar and as the remnant is F-type (i.e. a reliable age estimation can not be made for the SNR), the existing discrepancy can be removed. Therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the differences between the values of $`\tau `$ and the real ages for this group of pulsars when discussing the average characteristics. However, more reliable larger values of age can be adopted based on the data of the SNRs which are connected to this group of radio pulsars: t$``$3$`\times `$104 yr (see Guseinov et al. 2003e and the references therein). SNR G8.7-0.1 has such a large age of about 3$`\times `$104 yr (Finley & Ogelman 1994) and this SNR is connected to pulsar J1803-2137 (Frail et al. 1994). In general, the positions of these 9 radio pulsars on the P-Ṗ diagram do not raise any questions. All of them are located in the belt B=(2.5-10)$`\times `$1012 G.

There are 7 SNRs with ages up to 2$`\times `$104 yr which contain DRQNSs in the same region of 3.5 kpc from the Sun (Guseinov et al. 2003c, 2003d). The locations of 2 of them, 1E1207.4-5209 and RXJ0002+6246, on the P-Ṗ diagram are known with small errors (see Figure 1). For all the others, even the value of P is not known that we can not find the positions of them on the P-Ṗ diagram. On the other hand, we know that PWN exists only around the pulsars which have Ė$`>`$3$`\times `$1035 erg/s and L2-10keV$`>`$1033 erg/s (Guseinov et al. 2003d). Since DRQNSs do not have such large values of L2-10keV and no PWN has been found around them, they must be located on the right hand side of Ė=3$`\times `$1035 erg/s line in Figure 1. Therefore, the values of $`\tau `$ for DRQNSs, on average, can be about one order (maybe more) of magnitude larger than their real ages. It follows from the numbers and ages of the SNRs which are connected to radio pulsars and DRQNSs that the birth rates of these objects are approximately the same. According to Guseinov et al. (2003c), the birth rate of DRQNSs near the Sun is about half of the birth rate of all pulsars. These DRQNSs may directly be born at their present locations on the P-Ṗ diagram or they may come to these positions in very short time after the birth. There is no data directly showing if pulsars can be born with initial periods greater than 0.1 s or not.

On the P-Ṗ diagram (Figure 1) in the region B=(4-11)$`\times `$1011 G and $`\tau `$=(1-6)$`\times `$105 yr, there are also 5 radio pulsars from which cooling X-ray radiation have been detected. The birth rate of these pulsars is 0.06 of the birth rate of all radio pulsars. This is about 0.04 of the combined birth rate of all the radio pulsars and the DRQNSs together (Guseinov et al. 2003c). Two of these sources, J1952+3252 and J0538+2817, are connected to S-type SNRs. We must add to this group also the radio pulsar J0659+1414 which is connected to a SNR and maybe the Geminga pulsar (see their positions on the P-Ṗ diagram). In this case, the birth rate of pulsars with $`\tau `$$`>`$105 yr and P$`<`$0.4 s from which cooling X-ray radiation have been observed will be 0.084 of the birth rate of all pulsars. As seen, this value is very small. On the other hand, these pulsars avoid the belt B=1012-1013 G. These data also show that it is necessary to give up the commonly used simple approach in order to be able to explain the pulsar evolution on the P-Ṗ diagram. Naturally, future observations must lead to an increase in the number density of cooling pulsars. Note that, the ages are assumed to be equal to the values of $`\tau `$ for these 5 pulsars in the cooling theories (Kaminker et al. 2002; Yakovlev et al. 2002).

Other than these sources, there exist many single neutron stars which radiate in soft X-ray band with spectra closer to the blackbody compared to cooling pulsars. Yet, luminosities of these sources are smaller (total Lx$``$1029-1032 erg/s), but their number density is very large. In spite of the large distances adopted by Guseinov et al. (2003c), their birth rate is not smaller than the birth rate of all pulsars and about half of the supernova explosion rate.

For 2 of these sources, RXJ0720.4-3125 and J1308.8+2127, the P values have been measured and unconfirmed P values are known for 2 other such sources. Note that values of Ṗ were given for the first 2 sources (Zane et al. 2002; Hambaryan et al. 2002) but these values are uncertain. Since the P values of these 2 sources are reliable and their ages are not more than 106 yr, it is easy to understand their locations on the P-Ṗ diagram for Ṗ$`>`$10-14 s/s. But one faces with big difficulties against the high birth rate of such objects. We think that dominant number of DITNSs must have P$`<`$4-5 s. Understanding the existence of a relation between some of the DITNSs and AXPs/SGRs would be easy if the birth rate of DITNSs with large periods were in accordance with the birth rate of AXPs/SGRs, in error limits, which is about 60 times smaller than the supernova rate (Guseinov et al. 2003c). Since the birth rate of DITNSs is about 30 times larger than the birth rate of AXPs/SGRs, only a very small part of DITNSs, which have P$`>`$6-8 s, may be related to AXPs/SGRs.

The known values of temperature and luminosity of DITNSs naturally limit the ages of these objects. As the cooling theories which we have used in the birth rate estimations do not have large uncertainties for neutron stars with masses very close to 1.4 M, the ages of most of the DITNSs may be close to 106 yr if their masses are close to 1.4 M. Taking this fact into account, we can begin to construct possible evolutionary tracks of DITNSs and AXPs/SGRs.

The data of the DITNSs may be not so reliable, but even in such a case we can not neglect the existence of some neutron stars, for example, with P$`>`$5 s and Ṗ$`>`$4$`\times `$10-14 s/s for which the birth rate may be about 0.1 of the supernova rate. In this case, instead of accepting a bimodal number-magnetic field distribution for pulsars, we can say that neutron stars with $`\tau `$$`<`$104 yr and B$``$1013 G may transfer to the region of P$`>`$5 s and Ṗ$`>`$4$`\times `$10-14 s/s mentioned above.

## 5 Discussion and Conclusions

In sections 2 and 3, we have discussed how the lines with constant values of $`\tau `$, B and Ė change on the P-Ṗ diagram under the change of radius, moment of inertia and the component of the magnetic field perpendicular to the rotation axis of pulsar. If pulsars have considerably different, but constant, values of R, I and real magnetic field component, then their evolution must be similar to what is known. But if these parameters change in time, then the values of the braking index at each point on the P-Ṗ diagram can change and in such a case the evolutionary tracks must be very different and complicated. This gives us the possibility to use different parameters of neutron star (mass, magnetic field, structure, rotation, propeller mechanism, absence of the hydrodynamical equilibrium etc.) to understand the evolution on the P-Ṗ diagram and the properties of different types of pulsar.

Today, we face with very different types of neutron star which are located on different parts of the P-Ṗ diagram (Figure 1). They may have different origins, structures and evolutionary tracks. There are not large differences between the locations of radio pulsars and DRQNSs on the P-Ṗ diagram and they do not create any significant problem in understanding the neutron star characteristics. But in the last about ten years AXPs/SGRs and comparably in small degree DITNSs created very difficult problems in astrophysics.

The locations of AXPs/SGRs on the P-Ṗ diagram rise a large astonishment, but it is very good that their number density in the Galaxy is very small and connected to this their birth rate is also very small. This makes it difficult to have necessary amount of observational data but also makes it easy to search ways to understand them. On the other hand, the $`\gamma `$-ray burst characteristic makes the problem more difficult. In the case of DITNSs, the large difficulties are related to the high birth rate of these objects. In this work, we do not discuss the difficulties of the magnetar and the accretion from fall back matter theories, which are known well. In the magnetar model, the existence of the bimodality in the number of pulsars versus the magnetic field distribution and the absence of a correlation between the increase in Ṗ and the $`\gamma `$-ray burst activity are significant problems. In the accretion from fall back matter theory, the idea of accretion onto young neutron stars which may be very active does not seem to be realistic and it can not solve any principal problem about AXPs/SGRS without taking into account different possible activity of neutron stars as mentioned above. Therefore, by rejecting the idea of large magnetic field suggested in the magnetar model which is 1014-1015 G, we exclude the bimodality and we accept that different types of neutron star have different values of parameter (e.g. different value of mass) as represented in the previous sections.

As known for single radio pulsars, the ratio of the X-ray radiation to the rate of rotational energy loss lies in the interval 3$`\times `$10-2-10-5 (Becker & Trumper 1997; Possenti et al. 2002; Becker & Aschenbach 2002). The name ’anomalous’ comes from the inverse value of Lx/Ė and DITNS RX J0720.4-3125 is similar to AXPs from this point of view (Kaplan et al. 2003; Zane et al. 2002). If we consider only Lx/Ė values, most of the DRQNSs and DITNSs must belong to inter-class objects between radio pulsars and AXPs/SGRs. Today, one can begin to investigate the differences and common properties of single neutron stars in detail. The data show the existence of differences not only in the values of the real magnetic field of neutron stars but also in the masses and the internal structures. Neutron stars not only have different evolutionary tracks, but they may be born with very different values of P and Ṗ also.

There exist models of stable neutron star with masses from 0.1 M up to 2 M (Bejger & Haensel 2003), but most of the neutron stars have masses of about 1.4 M (Charles & Coe 2003). Actually, this mass interval must be narrower; if the mass is 2 M the rest energy is $``$4$`\times `$1054 ergs and the binding energy including both the energy carried by neutrinos and the explosion energy is $``$10% of the rest energy (Zeldovich & Novikov 1971). Naturally, the energy carried by the neutrino pairs is lower for the collapsed matter with smaller mass, but the total energy loss must always be large enough (Guseinov 1966) that such energy can not be produced to form a 0.1 M neutron star for which the binding energy is comparably very small. We must also take into account the oscillations which must take place under the formation of neutron stars and the masses (the pressure) which continue to fall onto their surfaces during the collapse. Under the collapse of progenitor stars, black holes may also be born that the newborn neutron stars must have the supply for stability against the overcompression. Neutron stars which have masses very close to the maximum mass can not resist against the matter falling on themselves. Therefore, the maximum masses of the existing neutron stars must be a little smaller than the maximum mass values found from the models and the minimum mass must be about 0.5 M which is the value we have adopted for AXP 1E1841-045 and AXP 1E2259+586 which are connected to SNRs. Fastly rotating neutron stars with such small masses may have about 1.3 times larger radius compared to the neutron stars with masses close to 1.4 M.

The pulsars with 0.5 M, which have the same real magnetic field as the massive pulsars with the same spin period, must have about 8 times larger value of Ṗ and smaller value of $`\tau `$ according to the expressions (3) and (5). They must also have a bit larger value of Eel (see expression (7)). As seen from Figure 1, even a magnetic field of $``$3$`\times `$1013 G is small for such an explanation of the positions of all AXPs/SGRs on the P-Ṗ diagram for which the ages are not more than $``$3$`\times `$104 yr. But the small mass model gives us several additional possibilities. If the magnetic field axis makes an angle close to 90o with the rotational axis, then the atmosphere of the neutron star must be stretched in the direction of the magnetic field axis. The extended atmosphere and the high voltage make the gas easily flow along the magnetic field lines and the propeller mechanism effectively works. From such an approach, it is easy for small mass neutron stars with magnetic fields $``$1013 G to come to the positions of AXPs/SGRs on the P-Ṗ diagram in short time. The extended low density atmosphere, which is not in stable state, may give many possibilities for different activity and also for recombination of the magnetic field. It is easier for the particles to be ejected from the extended hot atmosphere. In addition to the magnetic field energy, there exist rotational and gravitational energies which support the activity of AXPs/SGRs. The small mass pulsars must have considerably long cooling time and short characteristic time for the rotational energy loss. Therefore, the ratio $`\frac{L_x}{\dot{E}}`$$`>`$1 can easily be explained by this way.

In the given approach, it is not difficult to understand DITNSs, because they have very simple properties compared to AXPs/SGRs. The increase of the rotational period must accelerate the processes of contraction and coming to stability. These processes can lead to a considerable increase in the braking index. Therefore, many of the DITNSs must have n$`>`$3. In most part of the lifetimes of these sources and AXPs/SGRs, they must evolve in the direction of decreasing Ṗ. From this approach, it follows that DITNSs must be found in some nearby SNRs. Existence of ionized gaseous wind must promote to suppression of the radio pulsar phenomenon when their periods are still small. Particularly, large noise in the period and possibly the glitch phenomenon must also exist for the neutron stars with P$`>`$6-8 s and Ṗ$`>`$10-13 s/s.

Figure Caption
Figure 1: Period versus period derivative diagram for different types of pulsar. The ’+’ signs denote the radio pulsars with d$``$3.5 kpc which are connected to SNRs. The ’X’ signs show the positions of the radio pulsars with d$``$3.5 kpc and 105$`<`$$`\tau `$$`<`$2$`\times `$107 yr which have been detected in X-rays. The locations of 3 radio pulsars which have d$``$3.5 kpc and $`\tau `$$`<`$105 yr are shown with ’circles’ to make a comparison between the birth rates (see text). DITNSs are represented with ’stars’ and DRQNSs are displayed with ’empty squares’. The ’filled squares’ show the positions of all AXPs/SGR in the Galaxy. Names of DITNSs, DRQNSs, 2 of the AXPs, and some of the radio pulsars are written. Constant lines of B = 1011-15 G, $`\tau `$ = 103-9 yr, and Ė = 1029, 1032, 1035, 3$`\times `$1035 and 1038 erg/s are shown. P=10 s line is also included (see text). This figure is taken from Guseinov et al. (2003c).


text:
# The CMB Quadrupole in a Polarized Light

## 1. Introduction

The low quadrupole (and first few multipoles) of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), measured by COBE (Bennett et al. , 1996) and confirmed by WMAP (Bennett et al. , 2003), has generated much discussion recently, with several papers offering various possible causes for suppressed power on very large scales (e.g., Bond 1995, Efstathiou 2003a, Bridle et al. 2003, Contaldi et al. 2003, Tegmark et al. 2003, Cline et al. 2003, Feng & Zhang 2003, among others). Often in the case of measurements suggestive of new physics, the obvious way to advance is to perform a better experiment. However, the current measurements of the temperature anisotropy power spectrum of the CMB on large angular scales are already limited only by how well the Galaxy can be removed (Bennett et al. , 2003), and so the prospects for improved measurements are poor. In this work we point out that polarization measurements on large angular scales can test whether the temperature anisotropy on these scales is indeed generated within the standard cosmological framework.

The correlation between temperature and polarization anisotropies is well-known (Zaldarriaga & Seljak, 1997). It has been detected by Leitch et al. (2002) on intermediate angular scales and measured by the WMAP experiment on the scales of interest here (Kogut et al. , 2003). This correlation has been used to predict the polarization pattern on the sky from the observed temperature pattern (Jaffe, 2003). The correlation between temperature and polarization arises because the source of the polarization is Thomson scattering of the quadrupole anisotropy in the temperature of the radiation field. Spatial fluctuations in the monopole and dipole of the temperature field at the time of recombination seed higher multipole anisotropies by free-streaming (for a recent review see Hu & Dodelson 2002). Most of the large scale polarized signal we consider here originated from Thomson scattering of the CMB quadrupole at the relatively recent epoch following the reionization of the Universe (Zaldarriaga, 1997). The quadrupole temperature anisotropy seen by free electrons at this epoch receives a significant contribution to its $`k`$-space kernel from density fluctuation modes on scales $`k^1`$ that also contribute to the present-day quadrupole (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga, 2002).

For a given realization of the CMB sky, the measured temperature anisotropy power at a given multipole, $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ will have some amount of intrinsic scatter, as will the polarization anisotropy power, $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ and the cross power spectrum, $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ . Importantly, these measures of the power are correlated. If $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is measured to be low, then one would expect a low measure of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and also a low value of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ . Therefore, if measures of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ at low multipoles (large angular scales) are not “anomalously” low, then this would exacerbate the current tension with theoretical models (Spergel et al. , 2003).

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM is currently the standard cosmological model, and so we choose to assume the best-fit WMAP cosmological parameters and study how likely it is, from a frequentist perspective, that the observed data are simply realizations of this model. If the assumed model is in fact correct, then the correlations between observables provide statistical consistency checks. For example, flukes of cosmic variance should be partly correlated between temperature and polarization observables, so it might be expected that large outliers in the temperature data will have counterparts in the polarization data. Here, we present results of consistency tests using current data, and estimate the range of possible future data that could be comfortably accommodated within the currently accepted cosmological models.

## 2. TT–TE correlations

The correlations between the temperature and polarization power spectra can be used as a powerful consistency test. For example, it is possible to use the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ to construct a probability distribution for $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ and compare this to measured values of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ . Alternatively, the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ can be used to estimate the most likely values of measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ or to forecast future $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ or $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ measurements. We present examples of both these calculations below.

Explicit expressions for the covariance between power spectra, assuming Gaussian uncorrelated noise and Gaussian beams, are given by Zaldarriaga, Spergel, & Seljak (1997) and are useful for understanding the nature of the covariances. In all that follows we neglect beam effects since we are interested in very large scales, where $`\mathrm{}`$ is much smaller than the inverse of the beam size (in radians). All $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^X`$ (where $`X`$ corresponds to $`TT`$,$`TE`$, or $`EE`$) are in units of $`\mu \mathrm{K}^2`$.

## 3. Monte Carlo Methodology

We generate $`10^5`$ realizations of the WMAP-only best-fit cosmological model $`a_\mathrm{}m`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2=0.13`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.023`$, $`h=0.68`$, $`n_s=0.97`$, $`A=0.8`$ and $`\tau =0.10`$ as in table 1 of Spergel et al.  (2003)) and for $`\mathrm{}<40`$ we construct theoretical joint distributions of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ , $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ for this model. The scatter in these quantities around the input model is both due to cosmic variance and noise, and the scatter between different power spectra is somewhat correlated. We use the 1 year WMAP data for $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ from the corresponding publicly–available ASCII files 111http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov.

We use a simple noise model which is as close as possible to that reported by the WMAP experiment after one year of operation. Specifically we assume that the white noise level corresponds to the use of 16 W-Band, 8 V-band and 8 Q-band channels (see table 1 in Bennett et al.  (2003)) with an effective sky fraction of $`0.86/1.14`$ (Verde et al. , 2003), so that we get $`w_T^{1/2}=1.07\times 10^1\mu `$K per (0.21)2 sq. deg. pixel with a corresponding $`w_E=w_T/2`$. We add this white noise directly to the generated $`a_\mathrm{}m`$. This simple simulation scheme neglects the weak extra power at low $`\mathrm{}`$ originating from the residual $`1/f`$ noise (Hinshaw et al. , 2003). We neglect any non-gaussian systematic uncertainty that may be caused by improper subtraction of the galactic component (Bennett et al. , 2003; Efstathiou, 2003b). However, to assess the significance of our assumed level of noise, we also consider simulations where the noise amplitude, $`w_T^{1/2}`$, was arbitrarily scaled up by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$, so that the noise contribution to the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^X`$ errors is doubled. This excess noise could be either some unknown component of low frequency noise or residual galactic contamination (although the latter should probably not be modeled as a white noise).

Furthermore, to reduce the effects of covariance due to the real cut sky we consider bins of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=2`$$`4`$, where $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^X`$s are assumed constant. With such binned power spectrum estimates, the covariance between neighboring bins should be very small and our Monte Carlo results should approximate reasonably well the actual covariance of the properly measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^X`$ (we estimate that the correlation between our lower bins is less than 10%). It is important to note that our procedure is only approximate and it is therefore not strictly appropriate to compare our results directly to WMAP data; however we do not expect that more accurate simulations would alter significantly our conclusions.

## 4. Monte Carlo Results

The result of these realizations is an ensemble of points in ( $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ , $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ , $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ ) space, shown in Figure 1. Slices through this volume then provide a frequentist estimate of the expected joint distribution of spectra for this particular model. In particular, slices passing through observed points allow investigation of the conditional likelihoods in the other directions. For example, the vertical line shows the observed WMAP data and a histogram of points along this line would give the conditional probability of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ given the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ .

In Figure 2 we show the distribution of expected $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ that would be observed, including our approximate WMAP noise model. Current data already provide a consistency check, even with the relatively large noise contribution to $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ . On the largest angular scales the measurements are approaching the cosmic-variance limit for bins of size $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}=3`$, even with only one year of WMAP data. However, on slightly smaller angular scales the data contain a significant noise component, as can be seen in Figure 8 of Kogut et al.  (2003). This noise will be uncorrelated between the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ power spectra and leads to the bins with $`\mathrm{}8`$ showing little correlation in Figure 2.

In Figure 2 we also show the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ \- $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ correlation for perfect measurements (no noise). The current low-$`\mathrm{}`$ $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ data are significantly discrepant with the best-fit model, but equally remarkable is that the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ measurements on the largest scales are not particularly low. The measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ on these scales is close to the middle of the expected range if one ignores the correlation with the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ data on these scales. However, the probability of the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ given the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is extremely low if this is indeed a realization of the best fit model. The observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ is in fact anomalous by not being low. This can be seen comparing the bottom right and top right panels of Figure 3. In the bottom right panel it can be seen that the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ on this scale is just in the range predicted by the best-fit model (26% of the models lie above the observed value). In the top right panel we see that this agreement disappears when we apply the condition that the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is low (0.17% of the models lie above the observed value (or 0.85% when the $`C_{\mathrm{}}^X`$ noise is scaled up arbitrarily by a factor of 2). In realizations of the best-fit model it is rare that $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is as low as the value measured by WMAP, but in the few realizations where $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ was low it was usually the case that the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ was also low. Correspondingly, middle-of-the-road $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ values are unlikely to appear with low $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ , as shown in the lower left panel. Specifically, 99.9% of the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ values are greater than the measured one given the measured value of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ , while when the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ is not included the fraction drops to 99.0% (with the corresponding numbers being 99.8% and 99.1% when the $`C_{\mathrm{}}^X`$ noise is arbitrarily doubled). These results are dictated by the profile of the joint ( $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ , $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ ) distribution in the top left panel of Figure 3.

Upcoming measurements of the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ power spectrum on large scales could shed some light on this problem. At the noise levels expected in the near future there is little correlation between the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ power spectra, as shown in Figure 4, where the histograms in the right top and bottom panels are nearly unaffected when the temperature information is included. The 3D plot in Figure 1 again shows that the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ \- $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ large angle pair (shown as a vertical line) is exceedingly unlikely, but also shows that there is a fairly tight correlation between $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ on these scales. This provides an important consistency check on our understanding of the CMB. The observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ \- $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ pair on these scales reduces significantly the expected range of $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{EE}`$ (assuming the best fit model).

## 5. Cosmological Implications

The correlations between power spectra have several cosmological implications.

So far we assumed the best-fit WMAP value for the optical depth to electron scattering after cosmological recombination, $`\tau =0.10`$ (Spergel et al. , 2003; Kogut et al. , 2003) and a power-law primordial power spectrum.

Adopting a different optical depth $`\tau `$ has a significant but still limited effect on our results. We repeated the analysis by considering various optical depth values and the results are shown in Figure 5. The solid line shows the probability for 2$`\mathrm{}`$4 of having $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ larger than the observed value given the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ value, $`𝒫(𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}>𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TE}|𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TT})`$, and the dashed line shows the same without the condition on the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ value, $`𝒫(𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}>𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TE})`$. All cosmological parameters were held fixed except for $`\tau `$ and $`n_s`$ which were varied in the ranges 0.05–0.29 and 0.95–1.05 respectively, along the $`n_s\tau `$ degeneracy line favored by WMAP \[see Figure 5 of Spergel et al. (2003)\]. The power spectrum amplitude $`A_s`$ was marginalized over. Other parameters will have little impact on the large-angle polarization, as shown in Kaplinghat et al.  (2003). A complete frequentist treatment, allowing all parameters to vary from their best fit, is unlikely to lead to qualitatively different results.

Increasing $`\tau `$ makes the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ more likely, but is not sufficient to alleviate the tension between the low $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ and the average $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ : note that $`𝒫(𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}>𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TE}|𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TT})`$ does not exceed 5%. Note that this tension is not included in current estimates of the optical depth. In previous analyses of WMAP data, the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ likelihood is multiplied by the bottom right panels rather than the top right panels of Figure 3. For all but the largest angular scales (the first few multipoles) this effect is negligible, but it is clear from Figure 5 that the direction of the bias is such that the current estimates of $`\tau `$ are likely to be low.

Additional suppression of the matter power spectrum on large scales tends to reduce the discrepancy of the current $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ data, but not by a large amount. The mapping from matter power spectrum to temperature anisotropies is fairly broad in Fourier space (Tegmark & Zaldarriaga, 2002), so that suppression of power on the largest scales in the matter power spectrum does not lead to a sharp suppression only on the largest angular scales in the CMB, which is what the data seems to suggest. At the same time, the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ multipoles at $`\mathrm{}5`$ will be suppressed as well (Bridle et al. , 2003; Cline, Crotty, & Lesgourgues, 2003), making it even more difficult to match the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ \- $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ pair as illustrated in Figure 6. Whereas now only 3.2% of the models lie above the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ value for our lowest $`\mathrm{}`$ bin (as compared to the previous 26%), less than 0.02% (as compared to 0.17%) lie there if we include the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ .

## 6. Conclusions

The correlations between the temperature and polarization power spectra provide a powerful consistency check on CMB anisotropy measurements. Cosmic variance fluctuations should be correlated between power spectra. By assuming the best-fit cosmological model we have shown that the observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ \- $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ data at $`2\mathrm{}4`$ are alarmingly large outliers. Much has been made recently of the degree to which the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ data on these scales is anomalously low, but it is almost equally alarming that the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is low and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ is apparently typical. In most realizations of the WMAP best-fit model with low $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ on large scales, $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ is also low. It is extremely unlikely to see $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ as high as the measured value, given the low observed $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ . This correlation is not currently included in likelihood analyses of CMB data, but should be relatively easy to incorporate in future work. Current estimates of the optical depth are likely biased low. Prescriptions for reducing the primordial quadrupole may have problems producing $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ amplitudes as high as those that are observed on the largest angular scales, given the correlation between $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ .

Most of the other multipole bins up to $`\mathrm{}<20`$ in Figure 2 appear reasonably consistent with the best fit cosmological model. The $`\mathrm{}=2023`$ bin is discrepant at nearly the same level in the $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ power spectrum, but at current noise levels the degree of correlation between the measured $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}`$ and $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TT}`$ is negligible. The full four-year data of WMAP will help to improve these constraints. More accurate treatments of the errors and residual correlation due to the cut-sky will be possible. Furthermore, it would be particularly interesting to study the value of the probability $`𝒫(𝒞_{\mathrm{}}^{TE}|𝒞_\mathrm{}0^{TE})`$ for various galactic cuts as a probe of the galactic contribution (D. Spergel, private communication). In the more distant future, data of the quality forecasted for the Planck satellite222http://www.astro.esa.int/SA-general/Projects/Planck/ will provide even more powerful consistency checks on the best-fit cosmological model. More accurate modeling of the galactic emission will also certainly help to address those issues.

What would it mean if the observed statistics of the CMB do not appear to be consistent with the best fit cosmological model? The simplest explanation would be that at least one of the measured components is not purely cosmological in origin, possibly due to Galactic contamination. For example, removing the Galactic foreground appears to enhance the inferred quadrupole (de Oliveira-Costa et al. , 2004). The absence of foreground contamination would be an exciting indication of new physics.

This work was supported by NASA ATP grants NAG5-7154, NAG5-13292, NSF grant AST-0204514, and the W.M. Keck Foundation. We have benefited greatly from discussions with Carlo Contaldi, Eiichiro Komatsu, Lloyd Knox, Hiranya Peiris, David Spergel, Licia Verde and Matias Zaldarriaga. A.L. gratefully acknowledges sabbatical support from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellowship and the Institute for Advanced Study.


text:
# Dense Edge-Magic Graphs and Thin Additive Bases

## 1 Introduction

Let $`[k]`$ stand for $`\{1,\mathrm{},k\}`$. Let $`G`$ be a graph with $`n`$ vertices and $`m`$ edges. An edge-magic labelling with the magic sum $`s`$ is a bijection $`l:V(G)E(G)[m+n]`$ such that $`l(a)+l(b)+l(ab)=s`$ for any edge $`ab`$ of $`G`$. (We always assume that $`V(G)E(G)=\mathrm{}`$.) This definition appeared first in Kotzig and Rosa  (but under the name magic valuation). The graph $`G`$ is edge-magic if it admits an edge-magic labelling (for some $`s`$). We refer the reader to Gallian  and Wood  for plentiful references on edge-magic graphs.

Not all graphs are edge-magic nor is this property in any way monotone with respect to the subgraph relation. In 1996 Erdős asked (see ) for $`(n)`$, the maximum number of edges that an edge-magic graph of order $`n`$ can have.

This function has been computed exactly for $`n6`$ but for large $`n`$ the best known bounds were $`n^2/4(n)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)1`$, see Craft and Tesar .

Here we improve both these bounds if $`n`$ is large.

###### Theorem 1

$$\frac{2}{7}n^2+O(n)(n)\left(0.489\mathrm{}+o(1)\right)n^2.$$
(1)
It turns out that edge-magic labellings have strong relations to some problems from additive number theory, especially to additive bases.

Section 2 can serve as a warm-up where we improve the bounds of Wood  on so-called edge-magic injections. Our proof uses some classical results about Sidon sets, that is, sets $`A`$ such that all sums $`a+b`$, with $`a,bA`$ and $`ab`$, are distinct.

For a set $`A`$ of integers define its sum-set by $`A+A:=\{a+ba,bA\}`$; $`A`$ is called an additive basis for $`X`$ if $`A+AX`$. In Section 3, we prove the lower bound in (1) by using known (explicit) constructions of a thin additive basis for some suitable interval of integers.

But the most interesting connections were found during our quest for an upper bound on $`(n)`$. This research led us to the following problem. What is

$$s(k,n):=\mathrm{max}\left\{|A+A|A\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[n]}{k}\right)\right\},$$

that is, the maximum size of the sum-set of a $`k`$-subset of $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$?

The trivial upper bound is

$$s(k,n)\mathrm{min}\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)+k,2n1\}.$$
(2)
We have $`s(k,n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)+k`$ if and only if there exists a Sidon $`k`$-set $`A[n]`$; the classical results of Singer  and Erdős and Turán  (see \[10, Chapter II\]) state that for a given $`n`$ the largest such $`k`$ is $`(1+o(1))n^{1/2}`$. The open question whether the maximum size of a Sidon subset of $`[n]`$ is $`n^{1/2}+O(1)`$ has the $500-dollar reward of Erdős  attached.

We have $`s(k,n)=2n1`$ if and only if there is an additive $`k`$-basis $`A[n]`$ for $`[2,2n]`$. How small can $`k`$ be then? A simple construction of Rohrbach \[19, Satz 2\] gives $`(2\sqrt{2}+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ for $`k`$ (see Section 7). The trivial lower bound is $`k(2+o(1))n^{1/2}`$; the current best known bound $`k(2.17\mathrm{}+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ of Moser, Pounder and Riddell  is only slightly bigger.

As we see, already the question when we have equality in (2) leads to very difficult open problems. The computation of $`s(k,n)`$ for other values is likely to be even harder. We present the following upper bound which improves on (2) for a range of $`k`$ around $`2n^{1/2}`$.

###### Theorem 2

$$s(k,n)n+k^2\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{(\pi +2)^2}+o(1)\right).$$
(3)
Here is an application of Theorem 2. Erdős and Freud  call a set $`A\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[n]}{k}\right)`$ with $`|A+A|=(1+o(1))\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)`$ quasi-Sidon and ask how large $`k`$ can be. (It is obvious what is meant here so we do not bother writing out any formal definitions.) They constructed quasi-Sidon subsets of $`[n]`$ with

$$k=(2/\sqrt{3}+o(1))n^{1/2}=(1.154\mathrm{}+o(1))n^{1/2}.$$
(4)
As $`A+A[2n]`$, a trivial upper bound is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)(2+o(1))n`$, that is, $`k(2+o(1))n^{1/2}`$. Erdős and Freud \[5, p. 204\] promised to publish the proof of $`k(1.98+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ in a follow-up paper. Unfortunately, it has not been published, but their bound is superseded by the following easy corollary of Theorem 2 anyway.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`A[n]`$ be quasi-Sidon. Then

$$|A|\left(\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{(\pi +2)^2}\right)^{1/2}+o(1)\right)n^{1/2}=(1.863\mathrm{}+o(1))n^{1/2}.\text{ }\text{ }$$

As another application of Theorem 2 let us show that $`(n)(1ϵ)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$. Indeed, if $`G`$ is an edge-magic graph of order $`n`$ and size $`(\frac{1}{2}+o(1))n^2`$, then its vertex labels form a quasi-Sidon set, which contradicts Theorem 3. This way we do not obtain any explicit value for $`ϵ`$ but one can get one by using Theorem 2 with a little bit of work. A slightly better bound, the one in (1), is deduced in Section 5 from a generalisation of Theorem 2.

Given these applications of $`s(k,n)`$, we present some lower bounds on $`s(k,n)`$ in Section 7. It is interesting to compare them with the upper bounds, see Figure 1.

Our auxiliary Lemma 10 states that any asymptotically maximum Sidon subset of $`[n]`$ is uniformly distributed in subintervals and in residue classes simultaneously. This places the corresponding results of Erdős and Freud  and Lindström  under a common roof.

Besides being a natural and interesting question on its own, the $`s(k,n)`$-problem demonstrates new connections between Sidon sets and additive bases. This helped the author to realise that the technique of Moser  which was used in the context of additive bases can be applied to $`s(k,n)`$ (and to quasi-Sidon sets). In fact, our proof of Theorem 2 goes by modifying Moser’s  method. Although the determination of $`s(k,n)`$ is apparently very hard, it seems a promising direction of research.

In Section 8 we study the analogous problem for differences.

## 2 Edge-Magic Injections

Wood  defines an edge-magic injection of a graph $`G`$ as an injection $`l:V(G)E(G)_{>0}`$ (into positive integers) such that for any edge $`abE(G)`$ the sum $`l(a)+l(b)+l(ab)=s`$ is constant. Note that the labels need not sweep a contiguous interval of integers (but must be pairwise distinct). It is easy to show that any graph $`G`$ admits an edge-magic injection.

The general question is how economical such a labelling can be. One possible way to state it formally is to ask about $`(G)`$, the smallest value of the magic sum $`s`$ over all edge-magic injections of $`G`$. If $`v(G)=n`$, then clearly $`(G)(K_n)`$, so here we investigate $`(K_n)`$. Wood \[21, Theorem 1\] showed that $`(K_n)(3+o(1))n^2`$. Here we improve on it.

###### Theorem 4

$$(K_n)\left(\frac{288}{121}+o(1)\right)n^2=(2.380\mathrm{}+o(1))n^2.$$
(5)
Proof. Choose $`m=(\frac{12}{11}+\delta )n`$ for some small constant $`\delta >0`$. Take a Sidon set

$`A=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_m\}`$ with $`1a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_m(1+o(1))m^2`$, (6)
that is, asymptotically maximum. Explicit such sets were constructed by Singer  and by Bose and Chowla  (Theorems 1 and 3 of Chapter II in ).

The case $`m=1`$ of our Lemma 10 (or Lemma 1 in Erdős and Freud ) shows that $`A`$ is almost uniformly distributed in $`[a_m]`$. This implies that if define $`T`$ to consist of all triple sums $`a_f+a_g+a_h`$, $`1fghm`$, counted with their multiplicities, then we know the asymptotic distribution of $`T`$. We are interested in the interval $`[2m^2,3m^2]`$, where the ‘density’ of $`T`$ at $`xm^2`$, $`2x3`$, is

$$_{x2}^1dy_{xy1}^1dz+o(1)=\frac{(3x)^2}{2}+o(1).$$

For example, the number of elements of $`T`$ lying between $`2m^2`$ and $`3m^2`$ is

$$(1+o(1))\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{3}\right)_2^3\frac{(3x)^2}{2}dx=\left(\frac{1}{36}+o(1)\right)m^3.$$

The interval $`I:=[2a_m,(2+\delta )m^2]`$ has about $`\frac{\delta }{2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{3}\right)`$ elements of $`T`$, so some $`sI`$ has multiplicity $`k(\frac{1}{12}+o(1))m`$. For each of the $`k`$ representations $`s=a_f+a_g+a_h`$ remove one of the summands from $`A`$. Let $`BA`$ be the remaining set. By removing further elements we can assume that $`|B|=n`$.

Label vertices of $`K_n`$ by the elements of $`B`$. We want $`s`$ to be the magic sum. This determines uniquely the edge labels which are positive (because $`s2a_m`$) and pairwise distinct (because $`BA`$ is a Sidon set). Also, as $`sB+B+B`$, no edge label equals a vertex label. As $`\delta `$ can be chosen arbitrarily small, we obtain $`s=(2+o(1))m^2=(\frac{288}{121}+o(1))n^2`$, proving the theorem.

## 3 Lower Bound on $`(n)`$

For $`A`$ let $`AA:=\{a+ba,bA,ab\}`$. We have $`AAA+A`$.

###### Lemma 5

Suppose that there is a set $`A:=\{a_1=1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_n\}`$ of integers such that $`AA`$ contains an interval of length $`m`$ (that is, $`AA[k,k+m1]`$ for some $`k`$). If $`a_nm`$, then $`(n)mn`$.

Proof. We will construct an edge-magic graph $`G`$ on $`[n]`$ with $`mn`$ edges. Label $`i[n]`$ by $`l(i):=a_i`$. The magic sum will be $`s:=k+m`$. For every $`aAA`$ with $`sa[m]A`$ choose a representation $`l(i)+l(j)=a`$, $`1i<jn`$, and add the pair $`\{i,j\}`$ (with label $`sa`$) to $`E(G)`$.

Clearly, no two labels are the same. We have

$$\{saaAA\}[m]A$$

So the label set is $`[m]`$ and we do have an edge-magic graph. The number of edges is $`|[m]A|=mn`$, as required.

Mrose  constructed a set $`A[0,10t^2+8t]`$ of size $`7t+3`$ such that $`A+AL:=[0,14t^2+10t1]`$. In fact, $`A=_{i=1}^5A_i`$ is the union of five disjoint arithmetic progressions. Namely, let

$$[a,(d),b]:=\{a+idi=0,1,\mathrm{},(ba)/d\};$$

then

$`A_1`$ $`:=`$ $`[0,(1),t],`$
$`A_2`$ $`:=`$ $`[2t,(t),3t^2+t],`$
$`A_3`$ $`:=`$ $`[3t^2+2t,(t+1),4t^2+2t1],`$
$`A_4`$ $`:=`$ $`[6t^2+4t,(1),6t^2+5t],`$
$`A_5`$ $`:=`$ $`[10t^2+7t,(1),10t^2+8t],`$
Fried  independently discovered a similar construction, giving almost the same bounds.

For any arithmetic progression $`B`$ we have $`|(B+B)(BB)|2`$ (because $`2b_i=b_{i1}+b_{i+1}`$). Hence, $`AA`$ contains all but at most $`10`$ elements from $`I:=[0,14t^2+10t1]`$. Inspecting each of the ten suspicious elements, we see that $`I(AA)=\{0,8t^2+4t2\}`$. Applying Lemma 5 to, for example, the set $`\{a+1aA\}\{8t^2+4t3\}`$ with $`n=7t+4`$, $`k=3`$, $`m=14t^2+10t1`$, we obtain that $`(7t+4)14t^2+3t5`$ for any $`t1`$. Now, the lower bound in (1) follows from the following lemma.

###### Lemma 6

For any $`n`$ we have $`(n)(n+1)`$.

Proof. Let $`G`$ be a maximum edge-magic graph of order $`n`$ with a labelling $`l`$. The graph $`G^{}`$ obtained by adding an extra isolated vertex $`x`$ to $`G`$ is edge-magic: extend $`l`$ to $`G^{}`$ by defining $`l(x)=v(G)+e(G)+1`$.

###### Problem 7

Does the ratio $`(n)/n^2`$ tend to a limit as $`n\mathrm{}`$?

## 4 The Number of Pairwise Sums

The following result is proved via the modification of the argument in Moser, Pounder and Riddell \[17, Lemma 1\] which in turn is built upon the generating function method of Moser . We also refer the reader to a few related papers: Klotz , Green , Cilleruelo, Ruzsa and Trujillo , Martin and O’Bryant .

###### Theorem 8

Let $`\lambda =\frac{1}{4}(2\sqrt{2}4+\pi (4\sqrt{2}))=0.323\mathrm{}`$ . Let $`n`$ be large, $`A`$, $`m:=|A[n]|`$, and $`k:=|A[n]|`$. If $`k\lambda m`$, then

$$|(A+A)[2n]|n+\frac{|A|^2}{4}\frac{(|A|\pi m)^2}{(\pi +2)^2}+o(n),$$
(7)
where the $`o(n)`$ term depends on $`n`$ only.

Proof. Assume that $`|A|=O(n^{1/2})`$ for otherwise we are done. Let $`A=\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{k+m}\}`$ with $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k[n]`$. Correspond to $`A`$ its generating function

$$f(x):=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k+m}{}}x^{a_j}.$$

Let $`g(x)=(f^2(x)+f(x^2))/2`$. Clearly, the coefficient at $`x^j`$ in $`g(x)`$ is the number of representations of $`j`$ of the form $`a_s+a_t`$ with $`1stk+m`$.

Let $`h(x):=_{j=1}^{2n}x^j`$. Define $`\delta _j`$, $`j`$, by the formal identity

$$\underset{j}{}\delta _jx^j:=g(x)h(x).$$

We have $`_{j=0}^{2n}\delta _j=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+m+1}{2}\right)2n`$.

Let $`t[2n1]`$. Then $`h(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n})=0`$, where $`i`$ is a square root of $`1`$. Hence,

$$\underset{j}{}\delta _j\mathrm{e}^{\pi itj/n}=g(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n}).$$

Also observe that each $`\delta _j`$ is non-negative with the exception of $`j`$ lying in $`L:=[2n](A+A)`$ when $`\delta _j=1`$. Let $`l:=|L|`$.

Putting all together we obtain, for $`t[2n1]`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(|f^2(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n})||f(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi it/n})|\right)|g(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n})|\left|{\displaystyle \underset{jL}{}}\delta _j\right|+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{jL}{}}\mathrm{e}^{\pi itj/n}\right|`$ (8)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta _j+2l+o(n)=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+m+1}{2}}\right)2n+2l+o(n).`$
Let $`z`$ denote the right-hand side of (8), including the $`o(p)`$-term.

Let $`b_t:=\frac{2}{t^21}`$ for even $`t>0`$ and $`b_t:=0`$ otherwise. Clearly, $`|f(\mathrm{e}^{2\pi it/n})|k+m`$ while

$$|f^2(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n})|=|f(\mathrm{e}^{\pi it/n})|^2=\left(\underset{jA}{}\mathrm{sin}(\pi ta_j/n)\right)^2+\left(\underset{jA}{}\mathrm{cos}(\pi ta_j/n)\right)^2.$$
(9)
Hence, from (8) and (9) we deduce that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(2z)^{1/2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi a_j/n),`$ (10)
$`b_t(2z)^{1/2}`$ $``$ $`b_t{\displaystyle \underset{jA}{}}\mathrm{cos}(\pi ta_j/n),t[2,2n1].`$ (11)
Note that $`_{t=2}^{2n1}b_t=1\frac{1}{2n1}<1`$. By adding (10) and (11) we obtain

$$\left(\frac{\pi }{2}+1\right)(2z)^{1/2}\underset{jA}{}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{sin}(\pi a_j/n)+\underset{t=2}{\overset{2n1}{}}b_t\mathrm{cos}(\pi ta_j/n)\right)$$
(12)
It is routine to see that the series $`S(x):=\frac{\pi }{2}\mathrm{sin}(x)+_{t=2}^{\mathrm{}}b_t\mathrm{cos}(tx)`$ is the Fourier series of the function

$$r(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & 0x\pi ,\hfill \\ 1+\pi \mathrm{sin}(x),\hfill & \pi x2\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

(This series appears in \[17, p. 400\].) As the sum $`_{t=2}^{\mathrm{}}|b_t|`$ converges and $`r(x):/2\pi `$ is a continuous function, it follows from Körner \[12, Theorem 9.1\] that $`S(x)`$ converges uniformly to $`r(x)`$. Noting that $`0\pi a_j/n\pi `$ for any $`j[k]`$, we conclude that

$$\left(\frac{\pi }{2}+1\right)(2z)^{1/2}k+(1\pi )m+o(m+k).$$
(13)
Assume that $`(\pi 1)m>k`$ for otherwise we obtain the required by squaring (13).

Now, (13) is vacuous but we can use the obvious upper bounds on $`|(A+A)[2n]|`$ such as $`2n`$ and $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+m+1}{2}\right)\frac{m^2}{4}`$. (The latter follows from the fact that the pairwise sums in $`\{xA:x>n\}`$ and in $`\{xAx<1\}`$ lie outside $`[2n]`$.) If neither of these bounds implies (7), then

$$\frac{(k+m)^2}{4}\frac{(k+m(1\pi ))^2}{(\pi +2)^2}<n<\frac{(k+m)^2}{4}\frac{m^2}{4}+\frac{(k+m(1\pi ))^2}{(\pi +2)^2}.$$

Solving the obtained quadratic inequality in $`k`$ (and using $`k<m(\pi 1)`$), we obtain $`k<\lambda m`$, as required.

Note that Theorem 2 easily follows from (7).

## 5 Upper Bound on $`(n)`$

To prove an upper bound on $`(n)`$ we study the following function first. Let $`b(k)`$ be the largest $`n`$ such that for some $`k`$-set $`A`$ we have

$$|(A+A)[n]|=(1o(1))n.$$
(14)
It is not hard to see that $`b(k)`$ has order $`\mathrm{\Theta }(k^2)`$. To state it formally, we consider the following constant:

$$b_{sup}:=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ϵ0}{k\mathrm{}}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{max}\{nA\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{k}\right),|(A+A)[n]|(1ϵ)n\}}{k^2}.$$
(15)
This definition is related to the question of Rohrbach  which (when correspondingly reformulated) asks about $`b^{}(k)`$, the largest $`n`$ such that $`[0,n]A+A`$ for some $`k`$-set $`A_0`$. (Note that here $`A`$ must consist of *non-negative* integers.) The currently best known upper bound

$$b^{}(k)(0.480\mathrm{}+o(1))k^2,$$

is due to Klotz . In fact, Klotz’s argument gives the same bound if we weaken the assumption $`[0,n]A+A`$ to (14). The two-side restricted function $`b^{\prime \prime }(k)`$ (when we require that $`A[0,(\frac{1}{2}+o(1))n]`$) has also been studied with the present record

$$b^{\prime \prime }(k)(0.424\mathrm{}+o(1))k^2,$$

belonging to Moser, Pounder and Riddell  (valid with the weaker assumption (14) as well).

However, it seems that nobody has considered $`b(k)`$. Here we fill this gap as this is the function needed for our application.

###### Theorem 9

$$b_{sup}\frac{1}{2}\frac{2}{(2+(1+2\sqrt{2})\pi )^2}=0.489\mathrm{}.$$

Proof. Let $`A`$ have size $`k`$ and satisfy (14). We can assume that $`n`$ is even. Let $`m:=|A[n/2]|`$. As at least $`2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m/2}{2}\right)=(\frac{1}{4}+o(1))m^2`$ sums in $`A+A`$ fall outside $`[n]`$, we have

$$n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{2}\right)\frac{m^2}{4}+o(k^2)$$
(16)
If $`mk/\pi `$, then we have

$$n\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}+o(1)\right)k^2=(0.474\mathrm{}+o(1))k^2,$$
(17)
and we are done. Otherwise, by (7) we obtain

$$n\frac{n}{2}+\frac{k^2}{4}\frac{(k\pi m)^2}{(\pi +2)^2}+o(k^2).$$
(18)
We conclude that

$$b_{sup}\underset{m[0,k]}{\mathrm{min}}(\frac{1}{2}\frac{(m/k)^2}{4},\frac{1}{2}\frac{2(1\pi m/k)^2}{(\pi +2)^2}),$$

and the claim routinely follows.

Let us return to the original problem. Let $`l`$ be an edge-magic labelling with the magic sum $`s`$ of a graph $`G`$ of order $`n`$ and size $`m`$. Let $`A:=l(V(G))`$. We have

$$(A+A)[smn,s1]\{sl(\{x,y\})xyE(G)\},$$
(19)
that is, $`A+A`$ contains almost whole interval of length $`m+n`$ (assuming, obviously, $`n=o(m)`$). We conclude that $`m(b_{sup}+o(1))n^2`$, which establishes the upper bound in (1).

## 6 Asymptotically Maximum Sidon Sequences

As we have already mentioned the maximum size of a Sidon subset of $`[n]`$ is $`(1+o(1))n^{1/2}`$. Erdős and Freud \[5, Lemma 1\] showed that a set achieving this bound is almost uniformly distributed among subintervals of $`[n]`$. Lindström \[14, Theorem 1\] proved the analogue of this result with respect to residue classes.

Here we prove a common generalisation of these results which we will need in Section 7. Our proof is based on the method of Erdős and Freud \[5, Lemma 1\].

###### Lemma 10

Let $`n`$ be large. Let $`A`$ be an asymptotically maximum Sidon subset of $`[n]`$ (that is, having size $`(1+o(1))n^{1/2}`$). Then for any subinterval $`I[n]`$ and for any integers $`m`$ and $`j`$, we have

$$|AIM_j|=\frac{|I|}{mn^{1/2}}+o(n^{1/2}).$$
(20)
where $`M_j:=\{xxj(modm)\}`$.

Proof. It is enough to prove the lemma for $`I=[k]`$, an initial interval, as any other interval is the set-theoretic difference of two such intervals. Assume that $`k=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ and $`m=O(1)`$ for otherwise (20) trivially holds.

Choose an integer $`t=\mathrm{\Theta }(n^{3/4})`$. Let $`J=\{jmj[t]\}`$. For $`i[mt+1,n1]`$ let $`A_i:=A(I+i)`$ and $`a_i:=|A_i|`$. By the Sidon property of $`A`$, the difference set $`(A_iA_i)_{>0}J`$ has $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i}{2}\right)`$ elements; also, a difference $`jmJ`$ is counted $`tj`$ times. Hence, we conclude that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{t}{}}(tj)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{2}\right)\underset{i=mt+1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=mt+1}{\overset{n1}{}}a_i^2\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=mt+1}{\overset{n1}{}}a_i$$
(21)
The left-hand size of (21) has magnitude $`t^2=\mathrm{\Theta }(n^{3/2})`$. All $`o(n^{3/2})`$-expressions will be dumped into the error term. In particular, $`_ia_i=t|A|`$ goes there.

To estimate $`_ia_i^2`$ we split the summation interval into smaller parts

$`R_j:=[mt+1,k]M_j`$ and $`S_j:=[k+1,n1]M_j`$, $`j[m]`$.
Now we apply the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=mt+1}{\overset{n1}{}}}a_i^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j[m]}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\left(_{iR_j}a_i\right)^2}{|R_j|}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(_{iS_j}a_i\right)^2}{|S_j|}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`mt^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{j[m]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|AIM_j|^2}{k}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j[m]}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|(AI)M_j|^2}{nk}}\right)+o(n^{3/2}).`$
(Note that $`|R_j|=\frac{k}{m}+O(t)`$, $`|S_j|=\frac{nk}{m}+O(1)`$, and $`a_i=O(t^{1/2})`$.)

We can estimate the first summand as follows, by using the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.

$$\frac{mt^2}{k}\underset{j[m]}{}|AIM_j|^2\frac{t^2}{k}\left(\underset{j[m]}{}|AIM_j|\right)^2=\frac{t^2}{k}|AI|^2.$$

We obtain the analogous bounds for $`AI`$. Let $`|AI|=\alpha n^{1/2}`$. Then $`|AI|=(1\alpha +o(1))n^{1/2}`$. In summary, starting with (21), we obtain

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t}{2}\right)\frac{t^2}{2}\left(\frac{|AI|^2}{k}+\frac{|AI|^2}{nk}\right)+o(n^{3/2})=t^2\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{(\alpha nk)^2}{k(nk)}\right)+o(n^{3/2}).$$

Thus, up to an error term of $`o(n^{3/2})`$, we must have equality throughout. We conclude that $`\alpha =k/n+o(1)`$ and $`a_i=(\alpha /m+o(1))n^{1/2}`$, which gives the required.

## 7 Lower Bounds on $`s(k,n)`$

We know that the range of interest is $`k=\mathrm{\Theta }(n^{1/2})`$. We will be proving lower bounds on the following ‘scaled’ one-parameter version of $`s(k,n)`$:

$$s(c):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{s(cn^{1/2},n)}{n}.$$
(22)
Note that in (22) we could have replaced $`cn^{1/2}`$ by anything of the form $`(c+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ without affecting the value of $`s(c)`$. However, we have to write $`lim\; inf`$ as the following question is open.

###### Problem 11

Let $`c`$ be a fixed positive real. Suppose that $`n`$ tends to the infinity and $`k=(c+o(1))n^{1/2}`$. Does the ratio $`s(k,n)/n`$ tend to a limit?

Our lower bound on $`s(c)`$, provided by the following lemmata, will be given by different formulae for different ranges of $`c`$.

The bound (4) of Erdős and Freud  implies that

$$s(c)=\frac{c^2}{2},c2/\sqrt{3}.$$
(23)
Their construction can be generalised to give lower bounds on $`s(c)`$ for larger $`c`$.

###### Lemma 12

$$s(c)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{5c^2}{8}+\frac{9}{2}\frac{6}{c^2}+\frac{8}{3c^4},\hfill & 2/\sqrt{3}c\sqrt{2},\hfill \\ \frac{3c^2}{8}\frac{3}{2}+\frac{6}{c^2}\frac{16}{3c^4},\hfill & \sqrt{2}c2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Proof. Let $`\alpha =c^2/4`$. Choose an integer $`m=(\alpha +o(1))n`$. Let $`A[m]`$ be a Sidon set with $`(1+o(1))m^{1/2}`$ elements. The main idea (which we borrow from Erdős and Freud ) is to consider the set $`X:=A(nA)`$, where $`nA:=\{naaA\}`$. It is easy to see that, as $`A`$ is a Sidon set, all pairwise sums in $`A+(nA)`$ are distinct.

However, the set $`A+(nA)`$ might intersect $`A+A`$. In order to control the intersection size we introduce some randomness into the definition of $`X`$. In what follows, $`ϵ>0`$ is a sufficiently small constant. Let $`s,t`$ be two integers chosen uniformly and independently from between $`1`$ and $`ϵ^2n`$. We define

$$X:=BC,\text{where }B:=s+A\text{ and }C:=ntA\text{.}$$

Let us compute the densities in $`X+X`$ which are well defined because of Lemma 10. For example, if we denote

$$\delta _{B+B}(x):=\frac{|(B+B)I|}{|I|},$$

where $`I`$ is an interval of integers of length $`(ϵ+o(1))n`$ around $`xn`$, then

$$\delta _{B+B}(x)=(\text{error term})+\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{x}{2\alpha },\hfill & 0x\alpha ,\hfill \\ \frac{x}{2\alpha }+1,\hfill & \alpha x2\alpha ,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise,}\hfill \end{array}$$

where the error term tends to zero if $`ϵ>0`$ is sufficiently small and $`nn_0(ϵ)`$. Similarly,

$$\delta _{B+C}(x)=(\text{error term})+\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & 0x1\alpha ,\hfill \\ \frac{x}{\alpha }\frac{1}{\alpha }+1,\hfill & 1\alpha x1.\hfill \end{array}$$

As the picture is symmetric with respect $`x=1`$ (given our scaling), we do not bother about $`x1`$ (or about $`C+C`$).

Thus when one takes some $`v[n]`$ then the probability that $`vB+B`$ is approximately $`\delta _{B+B}(v/n)`$. Indeed, this is equivalent to $`v2sA+A`$. The case $`m=2`$ of Lemma 10 implies that the number of odd and even elements of $`A+A`$ in the vicinity of $`v`$ is about the same, so their relative density is $`\delta _{A+A}(v)+o(1)`$. The analogous claim about the probability of $`vB+C`$ is also true. Moreover,

$$\mathrm{Pr}\{v(B+B)(B+C)\}=\delta _{B+B}(v/n)\times \delta _{B+C}(v/n)+o(1),$$

because the event is equivalent to $`v2sA+A`$ and then, conditioned on this, to $`(vsn)+tAA`$, which has probability $`\delta _{AA}(\frac{vsn}{n})+o(1)=\delta _{B+C}(\frac{v}{n})+o(1)`$.

Hence, by simple inclusion-exclusion, the expectation of $`|X+X|`$ is at least

$$(2+o(1))n_0^1(\delta _{B+B}(x)+\delta _{B+C}(x)\delta _{B+B}(x)\delta _{B+C}(x))dx.$$
(25)
(Recall that we use the symmetry around $`x=1`$.) The points $`\alpha `$, $`1\alpha `$, and $`2\alpha `$ partition the $`x`$-range into intervals on each of which the function in the integral (25) is given by an explicit polynomial in $`x`$. We have to be careful with the relative positions of the dividing points: for $`\alpha =1/2`$ (that is, for $`c=\sqrt{2}`$), the points $`\alpha `$ and $`1\alpha `$ swap places while $`2\alpha `$ disappears from the interval. This is why we have two cases in the bound (24) which is obtained by straightforward although somewhat lengthy calculations (omitted).

Finally observe that there exist $`s`$ and $`t`$ such that $`|X+X|`$ is at least its expectation, proving the lemma.

A construction of Rohrbach \[19, Satz 2\] shows that

$$s(x)=2,\text{ if }x2\sqrt{2}.$$
(26)
We can extend it for smaller $`x`$ in the following way.

###### Lemma 13

Let $`c_0:=7/(2\sqrt{3})=2.02\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_1:=2\sqrt{2}=2.82\mathrm{}`$ Then

$$s(c)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{9c^2}{28},\hfill & cc_0\hfill \\ c^2+7\alpha c+\frac{c}{\alpha }11\alpha ^22\frac{1}{4\alpha ^2},\hfill & c_0cc_1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`\alpha =\alpha (c)`$ is the linear function with $`\alpha (c_0)=\sqrt{3}/4`$ and $`\alpha (c_1)=1/\sqrt{2}`$.

Proof. Let $`k=(c+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ and let $`l:=(3c/14+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ for $`cc_0`$ and $`l:=(\alpha +o(1))n^{1/2}`$ otherwise.

Let $`A:=[l]`$, $`B:=[nl+1,n]`$. Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be two arithmetic progressions each of length $`\frac{k}{2}l`$ starting at $`(1/2+o(1))n`$ but with differences $`l`$ and $`l+1`$ respectively. Let $`X:=ABCD`$.

All pairwise sums in $`A+(CD)`$ are distinct, lying within an interval $`[a_0,a_1]`$, where $`a_0=\frac{n}{2}m+o(n)`$ and $`a_1=\frac{n}{2}+m+o(n)`$, where $`m:=(\frac{k}{2}l)l`$.

Now let us consider $`C+D`$. Suppose that $`c^{}+d^{}=c^{\prime \prime }+d^{\prime \prime }`$ for some $`c^{}<c^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`C`$ and $`d^{}>d^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`D`$. Now, the difference $`c^{\prime \prime }c^{}=d^{}d^{\prime \prime }`$ is divisible by both $`l`$ and $`l+1`$, hence, it is at least $`l(l+1)`$. It is routine to check that $`2l^2>m+o(1)l^2`$ for $`0<cc_1`$. This implies that $`o(n)`$ elements of $`C+D`$ have multiplicity at least $`3`$ and $`(\frac{k}{2}2l)^2+o(1)`$ elements have multiplicity $`2`$ (and all others have multiplicity $`1`$).

Observe also that $`C+D[b_0,b_1]`$, where $`b_0=nm+o(n)`$ and $`b_1=n+m+o(n)`$.

Let $`cc_0`$. Then $`b_0a_1+o(n)`$, that is, $`A+(CD)`$ and $`C+D`$ have $`o(n)`$ elements in common. Therefore, by a sort of symmetry around $`n`$, we obtain

$$|X+X|=4(k/2l)l+(k/2l)^2(k/22l)^2,$$
(28)
giving the claimed bound.

However, for $`c_0cc_1`$, we have $`b_0a_1+o(n)`$. Hence, we have to subtract from the bound (28) twice (by the symmetry) the number of elements of $`C+D`$ lying in $`[b_0,a_1]`$. This correction term is

$$2\times n_{b_0/n}^{a_1/n}\left(\frac{x}{\alpha ^2}+\frac{c}{2\alpha }1\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\right)dx+o(n)$$

Computing the value of the integral and plugging it into (28), the reader should be able to derive the stated bound.

Remark. The choice of $`l`$ for $`c_0cc_1`$ in Lemma 13 is not best possible. It seems that there is no closed expression for the optimal choice. So we took a linear interpolation, given the optimal values for $`c=c_0`$ and $`c=c_1`$.

Figure 1 (drawn in Mathematica) contains the graphical summary of our findings.

## 8 Differences

Similar questions can be asked about differences. For example, let us define

$$d(k,n):=\mathrm{max}\left\{|AA|A\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{[n]}{k}\right)\right\}.$$

The obvious upper bounds are $`2n1`$ and $`k(k1)+1`$ (where the last summand $`1`$ counts $`0A+A`$). These bounds can be improved when $`\sqrt{n}(1+o(1))k\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{n}`$ as the following theorem demonstrates.

###### Theorem 14

Let $`n`$ be large and $`k\sqrt{n}`$. Then

$$d(k,n)2k\sqrt{n}n+o(n).$$
(29)
Proof. Let $`c:=k/\sqrt{n}>1`$. Assume that $`c1=\mathrm{\Theta }(1)`$ for otherwise we are trivially done. Define $`t:=(c1)n`$,

$$A_i:=A[i,i+t1],\text{ and }a_i:=|A_i|,i[2t,n].$$

Let $`𝒳`$ consist of all quadruples $`(a,b,i,x)`$ such that $`x=ab>0`$ and $`a,bA_i`$. Using the identity $`_{i=2t}^na_i=kt`$ and the quadratic-arithmetic mean inequality, we obtain

$$|𝒳|=\underset{i=2t}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a_i}{2}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=2t}{\overset{n}{}}a_i^2\frac{kt}{2}(1+o(1))\frac{(kt)^2}{2(n+t)}.$$
(30)
For $`x`$, let $`g_x`$ be the number of representations $`x=ab`$ with $`a,bA`$. Then, each $`x[t1]`$ is included in $`g_x(tx)`$ quadruples. Hence,

$$|𝒳|\underset{x=0}{\overset{t1}{}}(tx)g_x.$$
(31)
The above sum can be bounded by $`_{i=0}^{ti}(ti)=(\frac{1}{2}+o(1))t^2`$ plus $`\frac{1}{2}t(k^2|AA|)`$. Putting all together we obtain:

$$\frac{(kt)^2}{2(n+t)}\frac{t^2}{2}+\frac{t(k^2|AA|)}{2}+o(n^2).$$

Routine simplifications yield the claim.

Let us briefly discuss the lower bounds on

$$d(c):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{d(cn^{1/2},n)}{n}.$$

Sidon sets show that $`d(c)=c^2`$ for $`0c1`$.

###### Lemma 15

For $`1c\sqrt{2}`$,

$$d(c)\frac{c^4}{3}+2c^22+\frac{4}{3c^2}.$$

Proof. Let $`\beta =1/c^2`$ and $`b=\beta n`$. Let $`B[b]`$ be a maximal Sidon set. Let $`C=[n](B+b)`$ and $`A=B(C+t)`$, where $`t`$ is a small random integer. As $`B`$ is uniformly distributed in $`[b]`$, it is easy to see that $`|A|=(c+o(1))\sqrt{n}`$ is as required.

All differences in $`CB`$ are pairwise distinct. So, the densities of $`BB`$ and $`CB`$ at $`xn`$, $`0x1`$, are respectively $`f(x)=1x/\beta `$ if $`0x\beta `$ (while $`f(x)=0`$ for $`x\beta `$) and

$$g(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x/\beta ,\hfill & 0x1\beta ,\hfill \\ (1\beta )/\beta ,\hfill & 1\beta x\beta ,\hfill \\ (1x)/\beta ,\hfill & \beta x1,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

(Note that $`CCBB`$, so there is no point to consider $`CC`$.)

Now, similarly to our analysis in Lemma 12, the expected size of $`AA`$ is

$$(2+o(1))n_0^1(f(x)+g(x)f(x)g(x))dx=n\left(\frac{4\beta }{3}2+\frac{2}{\beta }\frac{1}{3\beta ^2}+o(1)\right).$$

By taking $`t`$ so that $`|AA|`$ is at least its expectation, we complete the proof.

The following construction provides best known lower bounds for the remaining values of $`c`$.

Choose some $`\beta c`$ (to be specified later). Let $`b=\beta \sqrt{n}`$. Define $`B=[b]`$. Let $`C`$ and $`D`$ be arithmetic progressions of length $`\frac{c\beta }{2}\sqrt{n}`$ starting at $`(1\frac{\beta (c\beta )}{2}+o(1))n`$ but the differences $`b`$ and $`b1`$ respectively. (Thus, for example, $`D`$ ends around $`n`$.) Let $`A=BCD`$. Clearly, $`(CD)B`$ covers an interval $`[(1\beta (c\beta )+o(1))n,n1]`$. Also, the distribution of $`DC`$ can be explicitely written, which allows us to compute $`|AA|`$ asymptotically.

For $`c2`$, we can ensure that $`AA=[n+1,n1]`$; thus $`d(c)=2`$ then. For $`\sqrt{2}c3/2`$, the optimal choice is $`\beta =c/3`$, giving

$$d(c)2c^2/3,\sqrt{2}c3/2.$$

Unfortunately, it seems that there is no closed formula the optimal $`\beta =\beta (c)`$ for other values of $`c`$. (And, in fact, $`\beta (c)`$ is not a continuous function.) But, as an illustration, we choose $`\beta (c)=c1`$, the linear interpolation given the optimal choices $`\beta (3/2)=1/2`$ and $`\beta (2)=1`$. Routine calculations give us the following lower bounds.

$$d(c)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{4c^319c^2+34c21}{2(c1)^2},\hfill & \frac{3}{2}c\frac{5}{3},\hfill \\ \frac{2c^35c^2+2c+2}{(c1)^2},\hfill & \frac{5}{3}c2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Figure 2 contains the graphs of our bounds.

###### Problem 16

Compute $`d(n)`$, the smallest size of $`A[n]`$ such that $`AA[n+1,n1]`$. The same question about $`d^{}(n)`$ when we require that $`|AA|=(2+o(1))n`$ only. Is $`d(n)=(1+o(1))d^{}(n)`$?

At the moment we know only that $`d^{}(n)d(n)`$ lie between $`\frac{3}{2}n`$ and $`2n`$.

###### Problem 17

Does the ratio $`d(k,n)/n`$ tend to a limit as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`k=(c+o(1))n^{1/2}`$ where $`c`$ is fixed?