text:
# On the jet speeds of classical double radio sources

## 1 Introduction

There is observational evidence that the jets of double FRI and II radio sources are initially relativistic. On parsec scales this idea is supported by the observation of superluminal and relativistic motions, rapid variability and high brightness temperatures. On kiloparsec-scales the correspondence of jet-sidedness with depolarization asymmetry of both FRI (Morganti et al. 1997) and FRII radio sources (Laing 1988, Garrington et al. 1988) is interpreted as the brighter jet approaching the observer, thus supporting the idea of relativistic beaming of the radiation of the jet. In all double radio sources in which one-sided parsec and kiloparesc-scale jets are observed, the parsec-scale jet points in the direction of a kiloparsec-scale jet, implying that relativistic speeds persist on kiloparsec scales (Pearson & Readhead 1988, Wardle and Aarons 1997).

Other observational data are consistent with this picture. Laing et al. (1999) analysed the asymmetries in the jet flux densities of 38 FRI radio sources selected from the B2 sample of Parma et al. (1987) and concluded that jets are intrinsically symmetric and initially relativistic with $`\beta 0.9c`$. Analysing a large sample of FRII radio galaxies with $`z<0.3`$ Hardcastle et al. (1999, hereafter H99) found that relativistic beaming is needed to explain the relationship between core and jet prominences, with speeds between $`(0.50.6)c`$ on kiloparsec scales. Wardle & Aaron (1997, hereafter W97) analysed the jet-counterjet flux ratios of 13 3CR FRII quasars imaged by Bridle et al. (1994). They showed that only modest intrinsic jet asymmetries are allowed and that the large jet-counterjet brightness ratios can be attributed almost entirely to the Doppler effect. The idea that jets are intrinsically symmetrical is supported by other observational evidence, for example, the detection of two parsec-scale jets in the giant double radio source DA240 with a flux density ratio of unity (Saripalli et al. 1997) and the existence of the Compact Symmetric Objects which are thought to be formed by symmetric jets. Readhead et al. (1996) and Owsianik & Conway (1998) argued that Compact Symmetric Objects represent a very early phase of classical double radio sources.

These analyses have assumed that the jet speeds associated with relativistic beaming can be adequately described by a single jet speed for a given source. This seems to be a reasonable approximation in view of the remarkable symmetry of the hot spots observed in the extended lobes of FRII sources, which need to be constantly supplied with energy by such jets over the lifetime of the source. There is however an issue whether or not the observed emission from the most compact jets is associated with a single jet speed. The polarisation structures of the compact jets observed in FRI sources by Laing (1993), Hardcastle et al (1996) and Laing and Bridle (2002) suggest that these jets can be modelled by a spine-shear layer structure, in which entrained material in the shear layer would result in a dispersion in the speeds of the radio emitting material. These structures are assumed to be fast decelerating jets which do not persist much beyond their observed locations in the radio galaxies. These effects become important beyond what they term the flaring point of the jets. Most of the emission from the compact jet originates, however, from the jet spine which is assumed to have a constant speed. Thus, even in the case of the FRI jets, it would be an adequate assumption that the bulk of the emission is associated with the jet spine, certainly at distances less than the flaring point . It will be assumed that jet speeds within a given FRII source can be adequately modelled by a single jet speed in the analysis which follows.

To date, estimates of the jet speeds have been found from Monte-Carlo simulations in which the jet properties are determined by relativistic beaming and consistency sought between the data and the model. In this paper, the reconstruction of the distribution function of jet speeds is found using an inverse-problem approach, in which the mean jet speed and its standard deviation are found directly from the observed jet–counterjet brightness distribution of FRI (Laing et al. 1999, hereafter L99) and FRII radio sources (Bridle et al. 1994, Hardcastle et al. 1998, hereafter B94 and H98). In Section 2, the inverse problem is formulated and the distribution function of jet speeds and analytical equations for estimating the mean jet speed and its variance are derived. These results are examined in the context of orientation-based unified schemes in Section 3, and a new method of estimating the critical angle which separates radio galaxies and radio quasars is derived. In Section 4 and 5 the reduced equations are applied to the data available for FRI and FRII radio sources, and the discussion and conclusions are presented in Section 6. In our computations, Hubble’s constant is taken to be $`H_0=50`$ km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ $`\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and the world model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

## 2 The inverse problem approach

### 2.1 The model

Although superluminal motions have been interpreted as “pattern speeds” rather than the bulk motions of the jets themselves, we adopt the latter picture in the present analysis as the most natural interpretation of the observed asymmetries of the jets since it is entirely consistent with other constraints on viable models for the physics of FRII sources. The specific assumptions made in the model are as follows. First, it is assumed that, intrinsically, the jets are symmetric and that the asymmetric observed brightness distribution is entirely attributable to relativistic beaming. Second, it is assumed that jets are oriented randomly with respect to the line of sight. The primary selection criterion for the radio sources is that they are chosen from complete flux-density limited samples of extended radio sources at a low radio frequency of 178 MHz. Since the flux densities of the sources are wholly determined at this frequency by the total flux density of the unbeamed extended emission with no contribution from Doppler-boosted emission, there is no bias in the selection of the radio jets. Third, we can adopt the procedures we have already discussed to understand the asymmetries of distributions of hot-spots to analyse the statistical properties of the flux density ratios of the radio jets (Arshakian and Longair 2000).

### 2.2 The distribution function of jet speeds

Assuming that the jets are intrinsically symmetric and that the observed jet flux asymmetries are entirely due to Doppler beaming, the ratio of the jet and counterjet flux densities, $`J=S_\mathrm{j}/S_{\mathrm{cj}}`$, can be written

$$J=\left(\frac{1+\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^\delta ,$$
(1)
where is $`\beta _\mathrm{j}c`$ is the speed of the jet, which is inclined at an angle $`\theta [0,\pi /2]`$ to the line of sight to the observer, and $`\delta =m+\alpha `$; the constant $`m=2`$ for a continuous jet (Scheuer & Readhead 1979). $`\alpha `$ is the spectral index, defined by $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$ and taken to be 0.6.

Let us invert equation (1) to express $`\omega =\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in terms of $`J`$,

$$\omega \frac{J^{1/\delta }1}{J^{1/\delta }+1}=\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2)
Suppose the probability distribution of jet flux asymmetries, as parameterised by $`\omega `$, is given by the distribution function $`g(\omega )`$ and is known from observation. Our task is to determine the distribution function of jet speeds $`G(\beta _\mathrm{j})`$ given $`g(\omega )`$.

According to the model, $`\beta _\mathrm{j}`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ are independent random variables since there is no bias in the selection of the sources and we assume that the jet can be characterised by a single jet speed. Therefore, the cumulative distribution function $`D(\omega )=_1^\omega g(x)dx`$ for $`\omega `$ is,

$$D(\omega )=\underset{\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{}\underset{\omega }{}G(\beta _\mathrm{j})K(\theta )d\beta _\mathrm{j}d\theta .$$
(3)
Assuming the radio axes are distributed isotropically over the sky, $`K(\theta )=\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Opening the limits of integration,

$$g(\omega )=_\omega ^1\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},$$
(4)
and differentiating with respect to $`\omega `$,

$$G(\omega )=\omega g^{}(\omega ).$$
(5)
This procedure for relating $`G(\omega )`$ and the derivative of $`g(\omega )`$ is similar to the reduction carried out by Arshakian and Longair (2000).

### 2.3 The mean jet speed and variance

Multiplying equation (4) by $`\omega ^k\mathrm{d}\omega `$ and integrating from zero to 1, we obtain the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ moment of the distribution $`g(\omega )`$,

$`\nu _k={\displaystyle \frac{\nu _{0k}}{k+1}},`$ (6)
where $`\nu _{0k}`$ is the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ moment of the distribution function of true velocities,

$$\nu _{0k}=_0^1\beta _\mathrm{j}^kG(\beta _\mathrm{j})d\beta _\mathrm{j}.$$
(7)
The first and second moments of the distribution function for the jet speeds are equal to the mean speed and the mean square speed of the jet, $`\nu _{01}=\overline{v_0}`$ and $`\nu _{02}=\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2}`$, while the same moments for the function $`g(\omega )`$ are $`\nu _1=\overline{\omega }`$ and $`\nu _2=\overline{\omega ^2}`$. Hence, from equation (6), the mean jet speed is given by

$$\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j}=2\overline{\omega },$$
(8)
while the mean squared jet speed is $`\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2}=3\overline{\omega ^2}`$. The dispersion of jet speeds is given by,

$$\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{j}}^2=\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2}\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j}^2=3\overline{\omega ^2}4\overline{\omega }^2.$$
(9)
## 3 Unified schemes

Scheuer (1987) suggested that powerful radio galaxies and radio quasars are drawn from the same distribution of sources, but are viewed at different angles, the quasars having smaller angles to the line of sight than the radio galaxies. There is considerable evidence supporting this idea from analyses of the average sizes, structural asymmetries, misalignment angles and the jet-sidedness of radio quasars and radio galaxies (Barthel 1989, Scheuer 1995, Best et al. 1995, Arshakian & Longair 2000). Let us derive the distribution function of jet speeds and the relations between the moments of the distribution functions of jet speeds and $`g(\omega )`$ within the context of this orientation-based unified scheme.

### 3.1 General case

Suppose the radio axes of certain FRII sources are observed in the range of angles $`\theta (\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ and that the distribution of angles is random in this interval. Then, $`K(\theta )d\theta =C\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta `$, where $`C=1/(\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2)`$. Then equation (4) becomes

$$g(\omega )=C\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\omega /\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}{\overset{\omega /\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{}}\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},& \text{for }\omega <\mathrm{cos}\theta _2;\\ \underset{\omega /\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},& \text{for }\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta _2,\end{array}$$
(10)
under the corresponding conditions that $`\beta _\mathrm{j}[0,1]`$, $`\mathrm{cos}\theta [\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\mathrm{cos}\theta _2]`$ and $`\omega [0,\mathrm{cos}\theta _1]`$.

This system of equations was obtained independently by Baryshev and Teerikorpi (1995) in their study of the distribution function of hotspot velocities for FRII radio sources.

### 3.2 The mean jet speed and variance

In the orientation-based unification scheme, the radio galaxies and radio quasars are observed at different angles to the line of sight and are separated by a critical angle $`\theta _\mathrm{c}45^{}`$ (Barthel 1989). For quasars $`\theta _1=0`$ and $`\theta _2=\theta _\mathrm{c}`$, and so equations (10) become,

$$g(\omega )=C_\mathrm{Q}\{\begin{array}{cc}\underset{\omega }{\overset{\omega /\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}}{}}\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},& \text{for }\omega <\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c};\\ \underset{\omega }{\overset{1}{}}\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},& \text{for }\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c},\end{array}$$
(11)
where $`C_\mathrm{Q}=1/(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})`$. For the radio galaxies $`\theta _1=\theta _\mathrm{c}`$, $`\theta _2=\pi /2`$ and so,

$$g(\omega )=C_\mathrm{G}\underset{\omega /\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{G(\beta _\mathrm{j})}{\beta _\mathrm{j}}d\beta _\mathrm{j},\text{ for }\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c},$$
(12)
where $`C_\mathrm{G}=1/\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}`$. For quasars, an analytical solution for the moments can be obtained from the first integral in equations (11),

$$\nu _{0n}=\frac{(n+1)(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})}{1\mathrm{cos}^{(n+1)}\theta _\mathrm{c}}\nu _n.$$
(13)
Hence the mean speed, mean squared speed and the dispersion are,

$$\nu _{01}(\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j})_\mathrm{Q}=\frac{2(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})}{1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{c}}(\overline{\omega })_\mathrm{Q},$$
(14)
$$\nu _{02}(\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2})_\mathrm{Q}=\frac{3(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c})}{1\mathrm{cos}^3\theta _\mathrm{c}}(\overline{\omega ^2})_\mathrm{Q},$$
(15)
and,

$$(\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{j}}^2)_\mathrm{Q}=(\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2})_\mathrm{Q}(\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j}^2)_\mathrm{Q},$$
(16)
respectively. From equation (12), the corresponding moments for radio galaxies are

$$\nu _{0n}=\frac{n+1}{\mathrm{cos}^n\theta _\mathrm{c}}\nu _n,$$
(17)
and so,

$$(\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j})_\mathrm{G}=\frac{2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}}(\overline{\omega })_\mathrm{G},$$
(18)
$$(\overline{\beta _\mathrm{j}^2})_\mathrm{G}=\frac{3}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{c}}(\overline{\omega ^2})_\mathrm{G},$$
(19)
and,

$$(\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{j}}^2)_\mathrm{G}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\mathrm{c}}\left[3(\overline{\omega ^2})_\mathrm{G}4(\overline{\omega }^2)_\mathrm{G}\right].$$
(20)
If radio galaxies and radio quasars are intrinsically the same objects, the mean jet speed of radio galaxies and quasars drawn from the same sample should be equal: $`(\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j})_{\mathrm{Q}+\mathrm{G}}=(\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j})_\mathrm{G}`$. From equations (8) and (18),

$$\theta _\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{arccos}\left[\frac{(\overline{\omega })_\mathrm{G}}{(\overline{\omega })_{\mathrm{Q}+\mathrm{G}}}\right].$$
(21)
### 3.3 Test of analytical equations

In order to test the formalism involving equations (8,9), (14,16), (18,20) and (21), we have modelled the distribution function $`g(\omega )`$ of jet flux asymmetries from equation (2) by generating 5,000 random values of $`\beta _\mathrm{j}`$ and $`\theta `$ under the assumptions that (i) the distribution function of jet speeds is Gaussian with mean $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{m}`$ and standard deviation $`\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{m}}`$ and (ii) $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ is uniformly distributed in the ranges $`[0,1]`$ for equations (8,9), in the range $`[0,\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c}]`$ for equations (14,16) and in the range $`[\mathrm{cos}\theta _\mathrm{c},\pi /2]`$ for equations (18,20). For various combinations of the free parameters of a model, $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{m}`$, $`\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{m}}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$, the distribution function of $`\omega `$ has been modelled for (i) a joint sample of radio galaxies and quasars, (ii) radio galaxies and (iii) quasars. The mean and mean square values of $`g(\omega )`$ for these samples are used to calculate the mean jet speed, standard deviation and critical angle using the above analytic equations. We find very good agreement between the different combinations of free parameters and the calculated mean jet speed, standard deviation and critical angle.

## 4 Jet speeds in FRII sources

In order to apply the results of Sect. 3, high-resolution, high-sensitivity maps of complete samples of sources are needed. The samples of sources used to study the FRII radio sources are listed in Table 1, which provides statistical data on the total numbers of sources and the numbers of different types of source within the samples. The two samples consist of a sample of high-redshift 3CR FRII quasars studied by B94 and a sample of low-redshift radio galaxies with $`z<0.3`$ studied by H98. These studies adopted the same definition of what is meant by a jet and the same method of determining the jet flux densities which are used in the following analysis.

The problem in analysing these data is that the detection of jets is limited by the sensitivity and resolution of the observations. In only a few cases are measured values of $`J`$ available. The following criteria have been adopted. We consider only sources with definite (D), definite/definite (DD), definite/probable (DP) and probable/probable (PP) jets defined for the whole jet length, following the terminology of H98. The sources for which there are only upper limits to the straight jet and counterjet fluxes are classified as ‘indeterminate’ and those in which the straight jet flux density of the brighter jet is less than the straight counterjet flux density were ‘excluded’. We take the brighter jet to be that approaching the observer and use flux densities from the *straight part of the jet* for estimating the $`J`$ and hence $`\omega `$. The statistics of the jets in the sample are given in Table 1.

### 4.1 FRII radio galaxies

We analyse the jet velocities of the 32 high-excitation and 12 low-excitation radio galaxies separately, because it has been shown that the FRII low-excitation radio galaxies form a separate group of radio galaxies which are not unified with high-excitation sources (Laing et al. 1994, Arshakian & Longair 2000).

H98 state that their low-redshift sample of 44 radio galaxies is free from orientation bias, as the 3CR sample was selected on the basis of a low-frequency (178MHz) survey in which the jets contribute a negligible fraction of the total flux density. The low redshift limit ($`z<0.3`$) means that there are no quasars in the complete sample and so the effects of orientation are associated with a sample of radio galaxies alone. Of the 32 high-excitation sources, estimates of $`J`$ could be made for 17 sources – fluxes were measured from both jets for 5 sources, and only these have accurate values of $`\omega `$, while for the remaining 12 only lower limits are available. Throughout the paper we treat the lower limits as representing the true values and so this will lead to an underestimate of the mean velocity. Most of the 15 indeterminate sources are assumed to be inclined at a relatively small angle to the plane of the sky, and are not observable because their flux densities are not Doppler-boosted. There is therefore a lack of sources at large angles to the line of sight among the 17 for which $`J`$ values can be estimated. If we ignore this bias and assume that the 17 radio galaxies have an isotropic distribution, then an upper limit to the mean jet speed can be estimated from equation (8), since values of $`J`$ close to one are under-represented. The mean value of $`\omega `$ for the 17 sources is $`\overline{\omega }_\mathrm{G}=0.24`$ and the mean jet speed is $`0.49c`$.

Let us estimate the lower limit to the mean jet speed by considering only those 16 sources of the 32 with one definite jet or definite/probable jets defined by the whole jet length. We have argued that these 16 sources are inclined preferentially towards the line of sight to the observer and so we assume that they are viewed within a maximum viewing angle $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ to the line of sight, while the remaining 16 radio galaxies have orientations between $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\pi /2`$. An estimate of the critical angle then allows the mean jet speed and the standard deviation to be calculated from equations (14, 16). On the assumption that the sources with definite and definite/probable jets are oriented isotropically between $`0^{}`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{c}`$, we find,

$$\theta _\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{arccos}\left[1\frac{N_\mathrm{D}+N_{\mathrm{DP}}}{N_{\mathrm{all}}}\right]60^{},$$
(22)
where $`N_\mathrm{D}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{DP}}`$ are the number of sources with definite or definite/probable jets respectively.

For the 16 high-excitation radio galaxies with D/DP jets, the value of $`J`$ can be estimated only for 11 sources for which the mean value of $`\omega `$ is $`\overline{\omega }_\mathrm{G}=0.29`$, and so the mean jet speed on kiloparsec scales is $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{G}0.4\pm 0.06`$ from equations (14) and (16) if $`\theta _\mathrm{c}=60^{}`$. The mean jet speed lies in the range $`(0.350.43)c\pm (0.06)c`$ if $`\theta _\mathrm{c}[50^{},70^{}]`$. From this analysis it may be concluded that the mean jet speed of low-redshift FRII radio galaxies is about $`0.4c`$ with an upper limit of $`0.5c`$. This range of speeds is slightly lower than those obtained from the analysis of jet prominences by H99, who found $`v(0.50.7)c`$. Despite the number of upper limits in their analysis, they believe that these values are not far from the true ones.

A similar analysis can be carried out for the sample of 8 definite and 5 possible jets in low-excitation radio galaxies to estimate mean and upper limits to the mean jet speed. The source 3C15 has an excessively large value of $`\omega =0.67`$, which is not typical of two-sided jets. Excluding it from the final sample and using equations (8) and (14), the 7 sources result in a probable mean jet speed, $`v0.26c`$, and an upper limit, $`v0.41c`$, if $`\theta _\mathrm{c}55^{}`$ for these D/DP jets, assuming that low-excitation radio galaxies form an independent group of sources with a uniform distribution of orientation of the radio axes on the sky. This result suggests that on the average the jet speeds of low-excitation galaxies are slightly smaller than those of high-excitation galaxies, but since it is based on small number statistics, it is only a provisional conclusion.

Arshakian & Longair (2000) have shown that the lobes of low-excitation radio galaxies have non-relativistic expansion speeds, which are less than the speeds of narrow-/broad-line radio galaxies at the same redshifts. This result is consistent with the lower jet speeds of low-excitation radio galaxies and/or the tendency for them to belong to denser environments (Hardcastle & Worral 1999) which may be the reason for lower expansion speeds of radio lobes.

### 4.2 FRII radio quasars

The case of the quasars is more complicated. Quasars with extended radio structures were selected by B94 for VLA observations at 5 GHz and so their radio axes must lie at some angle greater than $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to the line of sight. This inevitably leads to the selection of quasars oriented at angles to the line of sight closer to the upper limit at which they would still be classified as radio quasars, as compared with an unbiased sample – the sources lie in the range $`\theta [\theta _{\mathrm{min}},\theta _\mathrm{c}]`$. For a critical angle in the range $`45^{}`$ to $`60^{}`$, W97 estimate the most probable range of jet speeds to be $`(0.60.7)c`$ for 13 quasars observed by B94 by considering the lower limits to the jet-counterjet brightness ratios to represent their true values. For the same sample, we calculate from equations (14) and (16) the range of mean jet speeds to be $`(0.50.56)c`$ and $`\sigma _{\beta _\mathrm{Q}}0.22`$, if $`45^{}<\theta _\mathrm{c}<60^{}`$. This result supports the estimates of W97, confirming the presence of highly relativistic speeds in the jets of FRII quasars.

Among the sources in this sample of quasars, analysis of the jet-counterjet flux asymmetries and the luminosity of FRII quasars shows that, for at least two quasars (3C68.1 and 3C208), the jet flux asymmetry cannot be entirely attributed to Doppler beaming and contains a significant fraction of confusing emission from the straight part of the jets (see Appendix). This leads to smaller values of $`\omega `$, which results in an underestimate of jet speeds. Excluding these quasars from the final sample results in a total of 11 FRII quasars. The lower and upper limits to the mean jet speeds can be estimated assuming that the quasars are inclined preferentially, (i) at small angles $`(0\theta _\mathrm{c})`$ and (ii) at large $`(\theta _{\mathrm{min}}90^{})`$ angles, using equations (14) and (18) respectively. Taking $`\overline{\omega }0.47`$ for all 11 FRII quasars, we find the upper limit to be $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{Q}1`$ for $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}>20^{}`$ from equation (18), showing directly that the radio quasars cannot be oriented at large angles to the line of sight – if the quasars were oriented at large angles to the line of sight, there should be many more quasars with double-sided jets with small values of $`\omega `$.

Several analyses have shown that $`\theta _\mathrm{c}45^{}`$ for FRII radio sources in the redshift range from $`0.51`$. 8 of the 11 quasars in our sample lie in the redshift range $`0.41.1`$, and so we can adopt the critical angle ($`45^{}`$) as an upper limit to their inclination angles. From equations (14) and (16), the mean value of $`\omega 0.47`$ results in a mean jet speed of between $`(0.55c0.63)\pm 0.05c`$, if $`\theta _\mathrm{c}=(45^{}60^{})`$, which is in fact a lower limit to the mean jet speed. This result demonstrates that the jet speeds on kiloparsec-scales increase from low-redshift FRII radio galaxies, $`v0.5c`$, to intermediate-redshift FRII quasars, $`v0.6c`$.

The speed $`v0.8c`$ is obtained by considering the jet flux asymmetries of 5 low-luminosity quasars, 3C 215, 249.1, 334, 336, 351 which all possess two-sided jets and $`P<10^{28.8}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$. These quasars are probably oriented close to a critical angle, $`45^{}`$, or else two sided jets would scarcely be detectable. Then, $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{Q}=0.56/\mathrm{cos}45^{}0.8`$.

## 5 Jet speeds in FRI radio galaxies

L99 conducted a detailed investigation of 38 weak FRI radio galaxies selected from the B2 sample of Parma et al. (1987). They defined a sample free from orientation bias by restricting attention to those sources with total flux densities, excluding the radio core, exceeding the survey limit at 408 MHz. All these sources were known to have well-defined straight jets satisfying the criteria of Bridle & Perley (1984).

Assuming that jets are intrinsically symmetric, they analysed the jet-counterjet brightness ratios at the flaring point of the main jet to estimate the range of jet velocities. The lower limits of the brightness ratio for 10/38 FRI sources were treated as measured values. They analysed the distribution of the logarithm of jet-counterjet flux ratios by fitting it to models using a maximum likelihood approach. Single-velocity models were found to be unsatisfactory, but a best-fitting velocity was found to be $`\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}=0.72`$. For their spine/shear-layer model, the common features are a maximum velocity $`0.9c`$ and a large dispersion $`0.6c`$. They found that the range of velocities at the flaring point is $`0.56\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}0.8`$.

For the same sample, we have calculated the jet properties using equations (8) and (9) assuming that the jets are uniform at the flaring point, that is, our analysis is independent of the jet model. We use the jet flux asymmetry parameter $`\omega `$ defined by (2) with $`\delta =2.6`$. The mean jet speed at the flaring point was found to be $`c\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{fl}}=(0.54\pm 0.03)c`$ and the standard deviation of jet speeds $`\sigma _{\beta }^{}{}_{\mathrm{fl}}{}^{}=0.18c`$. The higher moments of the distribution determine the skewness and kurtosis of the distribution function of jet speeds, which are $`\mathrm{Skewness}\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}^3}/(\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}^2})^{3/2}=4\overline{\omega ^3}/(3\overline{\omega ^2})^{3/2}=0.64`$ and $`\mathrm{Kurtosis}\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}^4}/(\overline{\beta _{\mathrm{fl}}^2})^23=5\overline{\omega ^4}/(3\overline{\omega ^2})^23=1.7`$. The negative kurtosis indicates that the distribution function of jet speeds is flat-topped, while the positive skewness implies that the distribution is asymmetric with the maximum shifted to slightly smaller velocities. The maximum speed, $`v0.72c`$, is found for the source 1652+39. Despite the fact that the mean jet speed is within $`3\sigma `$ of the high range of speeds $`0.56c0.8c`$ obtained by L99, we conclude that most FRI radio sources have jet speeds less than $`0.54c`$, with a large spread from subrelativistic to high relativistic speeds.

L99 also point out a selection effect leading to a lack of face-on sources because their jets may be too faint to detect or to measure accurately. Inclusion of these sources would decrease the mean jet speed even more, $`\overline{\beta }_{\mathrm{fl}}<0.54`$.

## 6 Conclusions and discussions

Subject to the simplifying assumptions of the model, which are described in the first paragraph of Section 2.1, the principal results of this analysis are:

1. On the basis of an intrinsically-symmetric relativistic jet model, the distribution function of jet speeds is derived, and analytic expressions for the mean jet speed and its standard deviation are obtained. The equations for estimating the same quantities and the critical angle are also derived in the context of orientation-based unification schemes.
2. Applying this analysis to the jet flux asymmetries of double radio sources, we find that:

1. the mean jet speed of low-redshift FRII radio galaxies lies in the range $`(0.4c0.5c)\pm 0.05c`$ and the standard deviation $`0.15c`$; these speeds are in agreement with the range of speeds obtained from the analysis of jet prominences, $`0.5c0.7c`$ (H99);
    2. a lower limit to the mean jet speed of intermediate-redshift FRII quasars is $`v0.6c`$, which supports the presence of highly relativistic jets in quasars (B94, W97), showing that the typical jet speed increases with redshift and/or radio luminosity;
    3. the mean jet speed of FRI radio galaxies at the flaring point is about $`0.54c`$ with standard deviation $`0.18c`$; the peak of the distribution function of jet speeds is shifted to lower speeds.

When the lower limits to $`\omega `$ are taken as exact values, the analytic methods of the estimation of the mean jet speeds of FRI/FRII sources give values slightly lower than those based on testing (W97, H99) or fitting (L99) models to the data. In the case of low-redshift radio galaxies, this difference can be attributed to the different asymmetry parameters used – these are the jet/counterjet flux asymmetry and the jet/lobe emission contrast (H99). Despite this, the calculated mean jet speeds are in agreement within the limits of errors. Jet flux asymmetries have been used in analysing the jet speeds in FRII quasars and FRI radio galaxies. Our estimates of $`\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{j}`$ are consistent with the values of W97 and only slightly different from the values of L99.

An important issue is the following: what are the real values of the jet flux asymmetries as parameterised by $`\omega `$? FRI and FRII low-redshift radio galaxies are seen at angles between $`0^{}90^{}`$, while most FRII quasars are inclined at angles less than $`45^{}`$. Relativistic boosting of the jet emission is more important for quasars (B94) than for radio galaxies (H98), and hence a difference between the lower limits to the jet flux asymmetry and the real values should on average be higher for quasars than for radio galaxies. Simulating the effects of deeper observations, we multiply the lower limits to the jet-counterjet flux ratios of FRI and FRII radio galaxies by 1.5 and estimate the mean speed in the range $`(0.6\pm 0.03)c`$ and $`(0.5c0.6c)\pm 0.05c`$. For FRII quasars, when the limits on the flux ratios are doubled, a mean speed between $`0.7c`$ and $`0.8c`$ is more acceptable.

### Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Martin Hardcastle for careful reading of the manuscript and valuable comments, to Julia Riley, Robert Laing and Philip Best for useful discussions and comments, and to Margo Aller for her critical reading of drafts of this paper. TGA gratefully acknowledge an ex-quota award from the Royal Society, and the support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation for the award of a Humboldt fellowship. He also thanks his host Anton Zensus for hospitality at the Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Bonn, where the finishing touches to this paper were applied.

### APPENDIX: EVIDENCE FOR CONFUSING EMISSION IN THE COUNTERJET BRIGHTNESSES OF QUASARS

There is a negative correlation between the straight jet flux and luminosity, $`S_\mathrm{j}P^{0.54\pm 0.18}`$ (Fig. 1a). One should expect that on the average the counterjet flux densities also should correlate negatively with luminosity with some spread depending on the jet speed and jet orientation,

$$S_{\mathrm{cj}}=S_\mathrm{j}\left(\frac{1+\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\beta _\mathrm{j}\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)^\delta P^{0.54}.$$
(23)
In fact no correlation is observed as can be seen in Fig. 1b. A plausible explanation is that some of upper limits to counterjet fluxes densities are overestimated. The expected correlation is shown in Fig. 1b by the dashed line, which has the slope -0.54 and passes through the point with coordinates $`\mathrm{log}S_{\mathrm{cj}}=0.42`$ and $`\mathrm{log}P=28.08`$, the mean values calculated for four low-luminosity quasars ($`P<10^{28.3}\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$) with two-sided jets (Fig 1b). It can be seen that the upper limits to the counterjet brightnesses are overestimated for two quasars, 3C68.1 and 3C208. A plausible interpretation is the presence of confusing emission (B94) in the counterjet lobe, which leads to an overestimation of the counterjet flux density and which in turn seriously underestimates the jet flux asymmetry for these quasars.


format: text

text:
# Some Effects of Galaxy Collisions in a Cluster ICM

## References

Clemens. M., Alexander, P., & Green, D. A. 2000, MNRAS, 312, 236

Couchman, H. M. P., Thomas, P. A., & Pearce, F. R. 1995, ApJ, 452, 797

Fried, J. W. 1988, A&A, 189, 42,

Kenney, J. P. D., Rubin, V. C., Planesas, P., & Young, J. S. 1995, ApJ, 438, 135

Kenney, J. P. D., & Yale, E. E. 2002, ApJ, 567, 865

Moore, B., et al. 1996, Nature, 379, 613

Rubin, V. C., Waterman, A. H., & Kenney, J. P. D. 1999, AJ, 118, 236

Schulz, S., & Struck, C. 2001, MNRAS, 328, 185

Yoshida, M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 567, 118


text:
# UTHEP-481, UT-CCP-P-145, KEK-CP-147 Lattice QCD on Earth Simulator presented at Lat’03 by T. Yoshié

## 1 Introduction

The joint CP-PACS/JLQCD Collaborations have been carrying out  three-flavor full QCD simulations with the Iwasaki RG gauge action and the non-perturbatively $`O(a)`$ improved Wilson quark action using the polynomial Hybrid Monte Carlo (PHMC) method  on a variety of computers. One of the computers is the Earth Simulator(ES) at the ES Center . It was made available under the project “Study of the Standard Model of Elementary Particles on the Lattice with the Earth Simulator” which was approved as one of the “Epoch Making Simulation Projects” of the ES Center . Here we report on the performance of our PHMC program on ES.

## 2 Coding on ES

The ES consists of 640 processing nodes (PN) connected by a one-dimensional crossbar switch with 12.3 GB/s bi-directional bandwidth. Each PN is an SMP with 8 vector-type arithmetic processors (AP), each with a peak speed of 8GFlops. Among several programming models, we employ micro-tasking by hand parallelization for 8 AP’s of a single PN and MPI for communications between PN’s.

Our PHMC code was originally developed at KEK for Hitachi SR8000 and sustains as much as 40% of peak speed as a whole. On the ES, however, the performance turned out to be of order 10%. To explore an effective coding style, we take the basic MULT subroutine for Wilson-Dirac matrix-vector multiplication, and measure the performance for seven types of coding on a single AP. Results range from 10 to 73% for a $`6\times 6\times 48\times 48`$ lattice.

The highest performance is achieved by a code written originally for a vector-parallel machine, Fujitsu VPP500. In this code, sites are one-dimensionalized on the $`zt`$ plane and divided by four to realize a large vector length without list vectors. Other codes with smaller vector lengths (e.g. that for Hitachi SR8000 in which only $`t`$ direction is vectorized) show low performance of at most 30%. Hence we rewrite the entire code with the coding style used for VPP500.

We subdivide the whole lattice on the $`xy`$ plane and assign each region to a PN and parallelize with MPI. In one PN, loop indices in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions and an even/odd flag for four vector loops mentioned above are one-dimensionalized and divided by eight. This enables the compiler to do an automatic parallelization (micro-tasking) of all appropriate do-loops.

## 3 Performance of MULT

Since performance depends on the lattice size and the number of PN, we examine three cases, a) $`20^3\times N_t`$ on $`5\times 2`$ PN ($`4\times 10\times 20\times N_t`$ per PN), b) $`24^3\times N_t`$ on $`3\times 4`$ PN ($`8\times 6\times 24\times N_t`$ per PN), and c) $`32^3\times N_t`$ on $`4\times 4`$ PN ($`8\times 8\times 32\times N_t`$ per PN).

### 3.1 Vector Processing on single AP

The vector processing performance on a single AP is an important fundamental. Our program includes redundant arithmetic calculations at edges in the $`z`$ direction to realize a long vector length. Therefore we distinguish the performance reported by the system analyzer “‘ftrace” and that calculated theoretically for an effective part excluding the redundant operations. For the latter, total flops equals 1296flops$`\times `$#sites. The redundant part costs $`24`$% of peak performance.

Figure 1 shows the single AP performance of MULT for case b) plotted versus $`N_t`$. We test two codes. In the original one, contributions from 8 directions are calculated in one large do-loop and are summed up later. In the revised code, which intends to overlay arithmetic operations and communications in future, the large loop is divided into two loops for $`z,t`$ and $`x,y`$ directions. The array structure is also different. The revised code runs about 15% slower. We suppose that this is partly caused by a slow startup of do-loops.

In general, the vector performance of the revised MULT code reaches 55-65% for all three cases. However, it drops by about 10% when the vector length just exceeds a multiple of the size of vector registers, 256.

### 3.2 Micro-Tasking Parallelization

The cost of automatic parallelization is another important point, because SMP of vector processors is a distinctive feature of PN. Figure 2 shows the efficiency against #AP for $`8\times 8\times 32\times 62`$ and $`8\times 6\times 24\times 48`$ lattices. The micro-tasking parallelization costs 3 to 4% which is not so high, while memory copy to implement boundary conditions is relatively heavy, being 4% for 1 AP and 7% for 8 AP’s.

### 3.3 MPI Communications

In our code one PN issues an MPI\_irsend for a gathered data and an adjacent PN issues an MPI\_irecv and then scatters the received data. This enables us to construct long messages. The message size ranges from 0.34MB to 1.64MB, and the throughput ranges from 1.62GB/sec to 5.56GB/sec. These numbers are consistent with a MPI performance report from the ES Center.

Communication performance drops by 20% due to buffer copy for gather/scatter, e.g.,  the throughput for the longest message drops to 4.35GB/sec.

### 3.4 Breakdown of Overheads

In order to show how various overheads affect the overall efficiency, we show in Fig. 3 the MULT performance starting from 1 AP up to 72 AP’s (9 PN’s). The lattice volume per AP is fixed to $`4\times 2\times 32\times 62`$, which corresponds to a $`32\times 32\times 32\times 62`$ lattice on a $`4\times 4`$ PN array. The performance of 61.6% for 1 AP finally drops to 35.4% for 72 AP’s. The main cause of the drop is a slow speed of MPI communications which are not overlaid with arithmetic operations, and secondly the cost of memory copy in one PN, which together costs 40% relative to the total execution time. The fraction becomes higher when volume/node becomes smaller; for a $`20^3\times 40`$ lattice on a $`5\times 2`$ PN array, 60% of execution time is spent for communications and memory copy.

Figure 4 shows the sustained speed in GFlops versus #AP for a $`24^3\times 48`$ lattice. In this case, lattice size is fixed for all measurements. For 1 AP, 4.12GFlops (52% efficiency) is achived, and 164.83GFlops for 72 AP’s is about 40 times that for 1 AP. In other words, the parallelization efficiency is 40/72 $``$ 56%.

## 4 Performance of the PHMC Program

Table 1 shows the profile of the entire PHMC program as provided by the ES profiler. The arithmetic calculations and boundary copy/communications in MULT are the two heaviest routines. The multiplication of the inverse clover term (MLCI) and BiCGStab (BiCG) are the third and fourth heaviest, which are relatively light. Therefore, for the next round of simulations on a $`32^3\times N_t`$ lattice, we plan to overlay arithmetic operations and communications in the MULT routine.

As Table 1 shows the PHMC program runs on the ES with an efficiency of 25–40% for our four target lattice sizes. Currently we are executing on a $`20^3\times 40`$ lattice at $`m_\pi /m_\rho 0.6`$. The efficiency of 31% on the ES is comparable to that on other machines, 35% on SR8000/F1 at KEK with 32 nodes, 44% on VPP5000 at Tsukuba with 8 nodes, and 20% on CP-PACS with 500 nodes.

We would like to thank the ES Center for the approval of our project, K. Itakura for continuous technical support, and RCNP, Osaka university for some CPU time of SX5 at early stage of this project. This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education No.15204015.


text:
# 0 Introduction

## 0 Introduction

A smooth $`n`$-dimensional variety $`X`$ of a projective space $`P^N`$ is called tangentially degenerate or a variety with a degenerate Gauss map if the rank of its Gauss mapping $`\gamma :XG(n,N)`$ is less than $`n,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}r=\text{rank}\gamma <n`$. Here $`xX,\gamma (x)=T_x(X)`$, and $`T_x(X)`$ is the tangent subspace to $`X`$ at $`x`$ considered as an $`n`$-dimensional projective space $`P^n`$. The number $`r`$ is also called the rank of $`X,r=\text{rank}X`$. The case $`r=0`$ is trivial one: it gives just an $`n`$-plane.

Let $`XP^N`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional smooth variety with a degenerate Gauss map. Suppose that $`0<\text{rank}\gamma =r<n`$. Denote by $`L`$ a leaf of this map, $`L=\gamma ^1(T_x)X;dimL=nr=l`$. The number $`l`$ is called the Gauss defect of the variety $`X`$ (see \[FP 01\], p. 89, or \[L 99\], p. 52) or the index of relative nullity of $`X`$ (see \[CK 52\]).

A variety with a degenerate Gauss map of rank $`r`$ foliates into their leaves $`L`$ of dimension $`l`$, along which the tangent subspace $`T_x(X)`$ is fixed. The foliation on $`X`$ with leaves $`L`$ is called the Monge–Ampère foliation (see, for example, \[D 89\] or \[I 98, 99b\]).

However, unlike a traditional definition of the foliation, the leaves of the Monge–Ampère foliation have singularities. This is a reason that in general its leaves are not diffeomorphic to a standard leaf. We assume that singular points belong to the leaf $`L`$, and hence the leaf is an $`l`$-dimensional subspace of the space $`P^N`$.

The tangent subspace $`T_x(X)`$ is fixed when a point $`x`$ moves along regular points of $`L`$. This is the reason that we denote it by $`T_L,LT_L`$. A pair $`(L,T_L)`$ on $`X`$ depends on $`r`$ parameters.

The varieties of rank $`r<n`$ are multidimensional analogues of developable surfaces of a three-dimensional Euclidean space. They were first considered by É. Cartan \[C 16\] in connection with his study of metric deformations of hypersurfaces, and in \[C 19\] in connection with his study of manifolds of constant curvature. Recently varieties with degenerate Gauss maps of rank $`r<n`$ are intensively studied both from the projective point of view and the Euclidean point of view.

The main results on the geometry of varieties with degenerate Gauss maps and further references can be found in Chapter 4 of the book \[AG 93\] and in the recently published paper \[AG 01b\].

Griffiths and Harris \[GH 79\] (Section 2, pp. 383–393) considered varieties with degenerate Gauss maps from the point of view of algebraic geometry. Following \[GH 79\], Landsberg published notes \[L 99\] which are in some sense an update to the paper \[GH 79\]. Section 5 (pp. 47–50) of these notes is devoted to varieties with degenerate Gauss maps.

In particular, in \[GH 79\] Griffiths and Harris presented a structure theorem for varieties with degenerate Gauss maps. They asserted that such varieties are “built up from cones and developable varieties” (see \[GH 79\], p. 392). They gave a proof of this assertion in the case $`n=2`$. Their result appears to be complete for varieties whose Gauss maps have one-dimensional fibers. However, their result is incomplete for tangentially degenerate hypersurfaces whose Gauss maps have fibers of dimension greater than one. In the recently paper \[AG 01b\], Akivis and Goldberg showed that there exist hypersurfaces which cannot be built out of cones and osculating varieties.

In the current paper we define and study new types of varieties with degenerate Gauss maps: varieties with multiple foci and their particular case, the so-called twisted cones.

## 1 Basic equations of a hypersurface of rank $`𝒓`$ with $`𝒓`$-multiple focus hyperplanes

In our recently published paper \[AG 02\] in a projective space $`P^N`$, we considered varieties $`X`$ with degenerate Gauss maps of dimension $`n`$ and rank $`r`$ with the following two properties:

Their focus hypersurfaces $`F_L`$ degenerate into $`r`$-fold hyperplanes.

Their system of second fundamental forms possesses at least two forms, whose $`\lambda `$-equation has $`r`$ distinct roots.

We have proved that such varieties $`X`$ are cones in the space $`P^N`$ with a vertex of dimension $`l1`$, where $`l=nr`$.

In this paper we also consider varieties $`X`$ with degenerate Gauss maps of dimension $`n`$ and rank $`r`$ with $`r`$-fold focus hyperplanes but we assume that all their second fundamental forms are proportional, i.e., for each pair of second fundamental forms of $`X`$, their $`\lambda `$-equation has $`r`$-multiple eigenvalues.

Since we assume $`r2`$, Segre’s theorem (see \[AG 93\], Theorem 2.2, p. 55) implies that such varieties are hypersurfaces in a subspace $`P^{n+1}`$. We shall prove that such hypersurfaces can differ from cones.

Consider a hypersurface $`X`$ with a degenerate Gauss map of dimension $`n`$ and rank $`r`$ whose focus hypersurfaces $`F_L`$ are $`r`$-fold hyperplanes of dimension $`l1`$, where $`l=nr`$ is the dimension of the Monge–Ampère foliation on $`X`$. We associate a family of moving frames $`\{A_u\},u=0,1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, with $`X`$ in such a way that the point $`A_0`$ is a regular point of a generator $`L`$, the points $`A_a,a=1,\mathrm{},l`$, belong to the $`r`$-fold focus hyperplane $`F_L`$, the points $`A_p,p=l+1,\mathrm{},n`$, lie in the tangent hyperplane $`T_L(X)`$, and the point $`A_{n+1}`$ is situated outside of this hyperplane.

The equations of infinitesimal displacement of the moving frame $`\{A_u\}`$ are

$$dA_u=\omega _u^vA_v,u,v=0,1,\mathrm{},n+1,$$
(1)
where $`\omega _u^v`$ are 1-forms satisfying the structure equations of the projective space $`P^N`$:

$$d\omega _u^v=\omega _u^w\omega _w^v,u,v,w=0,1,\mathrm{},n+1.$$
(2)
As a result of the specialization of the moving frame mentioned above, we obtain the following basic equations of the variety $`X`$:

$$\omega _0^{n+1}=0,\omega _a^{n+1}=0,a=1,\mathrm{},l,$$
(3)
$$\omega _p^{n+1}=b_{pq}\omega ^q,\omega _a^p=c_{aq}^p\omega ^q,$$
(4)
and

$$b_{sq}c_{ap}^s=b_{sp}c_{aq}^s;$$
(5)
here $`\omega ^q:=\omega _0^q`$ are the basis forms of the variety $`X`$, and $`B=(b_{pq})`$ is a nondegenerate symmetric $`(r\times r)`$ matrix (see \[AG 93\], Section 4.1).

Denote by $`C_a`$ the $`(r\times r)`$-matrix occurring in equations (4):

$$C_a=(c_{aq}^p).$$

If we use the identity matrix $`C_0=(\delta _q^p)`$ and the index $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},l`$ (i.e., $`\{i\}=\{0,a\}`$), then equations $`b_{pq}=b_{qp}`$ and (5) can be combined and written as follows:

$$(BC_i)^T=(BC_i),$$
(6)
i.e., the matrices

$$H_i=BC_i=(b_{qs}c_{ip}^s)$$

are symmetric.

Since the points $`A_a,a=1,\mathrm{},l`$, belong to the $`r`$-fold focus $`(l1)`$-plane $`F_L`$, equation of $`F_L`$ is

$$(x^0)^r=0.$$

But in the general case the focus hypersurface $`F_L`$ of the generator $`L`$ is determined by the equation

$$det(\delta _q^px^0+c_{aq}^px^a)=0$$

(see equation (4.19) on p. 117 of the book \[AG 93\]). Thus, we have

$$det(\delta _q^px^0+c_{aq}^px^a)=(x^0)^r$$

It follows that each of the matrices $`C_a`$ has an $`r`$-multiple eigenvalue $`0`$, and as a result, each of these matrices is nilpotent. We assume that each of the matrices $`C_a`$ has the form

$$C_a=(c_{aq}^p),\text{where}c_{aq}^p=0\text{for}pq.$$
(7)
Thus, $`\text{rank}C_ar1`$. It follows that all matrices $`C_a`$ are nilpotent. Denote by $`r_1`$ the maximal rank of matrices from the bundle $`C=x^aC_a,r_1r1`$.

It is obvious that this form is sufficient for all $`F_L`$ to be $`r`$-fold hyperplanes. Wu and Zheng \[WZ 02\] (see also Piontkowski \[P 01, 02\]) proved this for the ranks $`r=2,3,4`$ and different values of the maximum rank $`r_1`$ of matrices of the bundle $`x^aC_a`$. However, Wu and Zheng in \[WZ 02\] gave also a counterexample which proves that the form (7) is not necessary for all $`F_L`$ to be $`r`$-fold hyperplanes.

A single second fundamental form of $`X`$ at its regular point $`x=A_0`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=b_{pq}\omega ^p\omega ^q.$$

This form is of rank $`r`$. At the singular points $`A_a`$ belonging to an $`r`$-multiple focus hyperplane $`F_L`$, the second fundamental form of the hypersurface $`X`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_a=b_{ps}c_{aq}^s\omega ^p\omega ^q,$$
(8)
where $`(b_{ps}c_{aq}^s)`$ is a symmetric matrix. The maximal rank of matrices from the bundle $`\mathrm{\Phi }=x^a\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ is also equal to $`r_1<r1`$.

## 2 Hypersurfaces with degenerate Gauss maps of rank $`𝒓`$ with a one-dimensional Monge–Ampère foliation and $`𝒓`$-multiple foci

Let $`A_0A_1`$ be a leaf of the Monge–Ampére foliation, let $`A_0`$ be a regular point of this foliation, and let $`A_1`$ be its $`r`$-multiple focus. Then in equations (6), we have $`a,b=1;p,q=2,\mathrm{},n`$, and these equations become

$$\omega _p^{n+1}=b_{pq}\omega ^q,\omega _1^p=c_q^p\omega ^q.$$
(9)
By our assumption (7), the matrix $`C=(c_q^p)`$ has the form

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& c_3^2& \mathrm{}& c_n^2\\ \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}& & & \\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& c_n^{n1}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where the coefficients $`c_{p+1}^p0`$. As to the matrix $`B=(b_{pq})`$, by the relation

$$BC=CB$$
(11)
(cf. (6)), this matrix has the form

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}& 0& b_{2,n}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& b_{3,n1}& b_{3,n}\\ \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}& & & \\ b_{n,2}& \mathrm{}& b_{n,n1}& b_{nn}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
and $`\text{rank}C=n2,\text{rank}B=n1`$. In addition, by (11), the entries of the matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ are connected by certain bilinear relations implied by (11).

By (9), (10), and (12), on the hypersurface $`X`$, we have the equation

$$\omega _1^n=0.$$
(13)
Since on the hypersurface $`X`$ also the equations (3) hold, the differentials of the points $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ take the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}dA_0=\omega _0^0A_0+\omega _0^1A_1+\omega _0^2A_2+\mathrm{}+\omega _0^{n1}A_{n1}+\omega _0^nA_n,\hfill & \\ dA_1=\omega _1^0A_0+\omega _1^1A_1+\omega _1^2A_2+\mathrm{}+\omega _1^{n1}A_{n1}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(14)
In equations (14), the forms $`\omega _1^2,\omega _1^3,\mathrm{},\omega _1^{n1}`$ are linearly independent, and by (9) and (10), they are expressed in terms of the basis forms $`\omega ^3,\mathrm{},\omega ^n`$ only. The following cases can occur:

The 1-form $`\omega _1^0`$ is independent of the forms $`\omega ^3,\mathrm{},\omega ^n`$, and hence also of the forms $`\omega _1^2,\mathrm{},\omega _1^{n1}`$. In this case, the $`r`$-multiple focus $`A_1`$ of the rectilinear generator $`L`$ describes a focus variety $`G`$ of dimension $`r=n1`$. The variety $`G`$ is of codimension two in the space $`P^{n+1}`$ in which the hypersurface $`X`$ is embedded. The tangent subspace $`T_{A_1}(G)`$ is defined by the points $`A_1,A_0,A_2,\mathrm{},A_{n1}`$. At the point $`A_1`$, the variety $`G`$ has two independent second fundamental forms. We can determine these two forms by finding the second differential of the point $`A_1`$:

$$d^2A_1\omega _1^p\omega _p^nA_n+\omega _1^p\omega _p^{n+1}A_{n+1}(modT_{A_1}(G)).$$

Thus, we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^n=\omega _1^p\omega _p^n,\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{n+1}=\omega _1^p\omega _p^{n+1}.$$

The second of these forms coincides with the second fundamental form $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ of the hypersurface $`X`$ at the point $`A_1`$. By (10), if $`\omega ^3=\mathrm{}=\omega ^n=0`$, the 1-forms $`\omega _1^p=0`$. Hence the quadratic forms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{n+1}`$ vanish on the focal variety $`G`$. Thus the direction $`A_1A_0`$ is an asymptotic direction on $`G`$.

The 1-form $`\omega _1^0`$ is a linear combination of the forms $`\omega _1^2,\mathrm{},\omega _1^{n1}`$, and hence also of the forms $`\omega ^3,\mathrm{},\omega ^n`$. In this case, the focus $`A_1`$ of the rectilinear generator $`L`$ describes a focus variety $`G`$ of dimension $`n2`$, and its tangent subspace $`T_{A_1}(G)`$ is a hyperplane in the space $`A_0A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_{n1}`$. For $`\omega _1^2=\mathrm{}=\omega _1^{n1}=0`$, the point $`A_1`$ is fixed, and the straight line $`L=A_1A_0`$ describes a two-dimensional cone with vertex $`A_1`$. This cone is called the *fiber cone*. The hypersurface $`X`$ foliates into an $`(n2)`$-parameter family of such fiber cones. It is called a *twisted cone with rectilinear generators*.

Later on, in Section 3, for $`n=3`$ we will prove that a fiber cone is a pencil of straight lines. Most likely this is true for any $`n`$.

Suppose that an $`(n2)`$-dimensional focus variety $`G`$ of the hypersurface $`X`$ belongs to a hyperplane $`P^n`$ of the space $`P^{n+1}`$. We can take this hyperplane as the hyperplane at infinity $`P_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ of the space $`P^{n+1}`$. As a result, the space $`P^{n+1}`$ becomes an affine space $`A^{n+1}`$. In this case, the hypersurface $`X`$ becomes also a *twisted cylinder* in $`A^{n+1}`$, which foliates into an $`(n2)`$-parameter family of two-dimensional cylinders with rectilinear generators. The hypersurface $`X`$ with a degenerate Gauss map is not a cylinder in $`A^{n+1}`$ and does not have singularities in this space. Thus, this hypersurface is an affinely complete hypersurface in $`A^{n+1}`$, which is not a cylinder. An example of such a hypersurface in the space $`A^{n+1}`$ was considered by Sacksteder and Bourgain (see \[S 60\], \[W 95\], \[I 98, 99a, b\], and \[AG 01a\]).

Note also that hypersurfaces with degenerate Gauss maps in the space $`P^{n+1}`$ considered in this section are *lightlike hypersurfaces* which were studied in detail in the papers \[AG 98a, b; 99a, b\] by Akivis and Goldberg.

## 3 Hypersurfaces with Degenerate Gauss Maps with Double Foci on Their Rectilinear <br>Generators in the Space $`𝑷^\mathrm{𝟒}`$

As an example, we consider hypersurfaces $`X`$ with degenerate Gauss maps of rank $`r=2`$ in the space $`P^4`$ that have a double focus $`F`$ on each rectilinear generator $`L`$. On a rectilinear generator $`L=A_0A_1`$ of $`X`$, there is a single (double) focus $`F_L`$. With respect to a first-order frame, the basic equations of $`X`$ are

$$\omega _0^4=0,\omega _1^4=0.$$
(15)
The basis forms of $`X`$ are $`\omega _0^2`$ and $`\omega _0^3`$. By (4) and (12), with respect to a second-order frame, we have the following equations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\omega _2^4=\hfill & b_{23}\omega _0^3,\hfill & \omega _1^2=c_3^2\omega _0^3,\hfill \\ \omega _3^4=b_{32}\omega _0^2+\hfill & b_{33}\omega _0^3,\hfill & \omega _1^3=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`b_{23}=b_{32}0`$ and $`c_3^20`$. As a result, the matrices $`B`$ and $`C`$ take the form

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& b_{23}\\ b_{23}& b_{33}\end{array}\right),C=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& c_3^2\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The differentials of the points $`A_0`$ and $`A_1`$ are

$$\begin{array}{cc}dA_0=\omega _0^0A_0+\omega _0^1A_1+\omega _0^2A_2+\omega _0^3A_3,\hfill & \\ dA_1=\omega _1^0A_0+\omega _1^1A_1+\omega _1^2A_2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

(cf. (14)). The point $`A_1=F_L`$ is a single focus of a rectilinear generator $`L`$.

Exterior differentiation of equations (16) gives the following exterior quadratic equations:

$$2b_{23}\omega _2^3\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23}\omega _0^3=0,$$
(17)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23}\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }b_{33}\omega _0^3=0,$$
(18)
$$(\omega _1^0+c_3^2\omega _2^3)\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2\omega _0^3=0,$$
(19)
$$(\omega _1^0c_3^2\omega _2^3)\omega _0^3=0,$$
(20)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23}=db_{23}+b_{23}(\omega _0^0\omega _2^2\omega _3^3+\omega _4^4)b_{33}\omega _2^3,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }b_{33}=db_{33}+b_{33}(\omega _0^02\omega _3^3+\omega _4^4)+b_{32}c_3^2\omega _0^1b_{32}\omega _3^2,\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2=dc_3^2+c_3^2(\omega _0^0\omega _1^1+\omega _2^2\omega _3^3).\hfill & \end{array}$$

From equations (17) and (20), it follows that the forms $`\omega _2^3`$ and $`\omega _1^0`$ are linear combinations of the basis forms $`\omega _0^2`$ and $`\omega _0^3`$. Three cases are possible:

$`\omega _1^0\omega _0^30`$. Since by (16), this implies that $`\omega _1^0\omega _1^20`$, it follows that the focus $`A_1`$ describes a two-dimensional focal surface $`G^2`$. The tangent plane to $`G^2`$ at the point $`A_1`$ is $`T_{A_1}(G)=A_1A_0A_2`$, and the straight line $`L=A_0A_1`$ is tangent to $`G^2`$ at $`A_1`$.

$$\omega _1^0\omega _0^3=0.$$
(21)
In this case, the point $`A_1`$ describes a focal line $`G^1`$, and the straight line $`L=A_0A_1`$ intersects this line $`G^1`$ at the point $`A_1`$. The hypersurface $`X`$ foliates into a one-parameter family of two-dimensional cones and is a twisted cone.

The osculating hyperplane of the curve $`G^1`$ described in 2) is fixed.

We consider these three cases in detail.

We prove an existence theorem for this case applying the Cartan test (see, for example, \[BCGGG 91\]).

###### Theorem 1.

Hypersurfaces $`X`$ of rank two in the space $`P^4`$, for which the single focus of a rectilinear generator $`L`$ describes a two-dimensional surface, exist, and the general solution of the system defining such hypersurfaces depends on one function of two variables. The direction $`A_1A_0`$ is an asymptotic direction on the surfaces $`G^2`$, and the hypersurface $`X`$ is formed by the asymptotic tangents to the surfaces $`G^2`$.

###### Proof.

On a hypersurface in question, the inequality $`\omega _0^1\omega _0^30`$ holds as well as the exterior quadratic equations (17)–(20). The latter equations contain five forms $`\omega _2^3,\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23},\mathrm{\Delta }b_{33},\omega _1^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2`$ that are different from the basis forms $`\omega _0^2`$ and $`\omega _0^3`$. So, we have $`q=5`$.

The character $`s_1`$ of the system under investigation is equal to the number of independent exterior quadratic equations (17)–(20). Thus, we have $`s_1=4`$. As a result, the second character of the system is $`s_2=qs_1=1`$. Therefore, the Cartan number $`Q=s_1+2s_2=6`$.

We calculate now the number $`S`$ of parameters on which the most general integral element of the system under investigation depends (i.e., the dimension $`S`$ of the space of integral elements over a point). Applying Cartan’s lemma to equations (17) and (18), we find that

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 2b_{23}\omega _2^3& =b_{222}\omega ^2+b_{223}\omega ^3,\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }b_{23}& =b_{232}\omega ^2+b_{233}\omega ^3,\hfill & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }b_{33}& =b_{332}\omega ^2+b_{333}\omega _0^3.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(22)
Since the coefficients of the basis forms in the right-hand sides of (22) are symmetric with respect to the lower indices, the number of independent among these coefficients is $`S_1=4`$.

Equation (20) implies that

$$\omega _1^0=c_3^2\omega _2^3+\lambda \omega _0^3.$$
(23)
We substitute this expression into equation (19). As a result, we obtain

$$2(c_3^2\omega _2^3+\lambda \omega _0^3)\omega _0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2\omega _0^3=0.$$
(24)
It follows from (24) that the 1-form $`\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2`$ is a linear combination of the basis forms. We write this expression in the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2=\mu \omega _0^2+\nu \omega _0^3.$$
(25)
We can find the form $`\omega _2^3`$ from the first equation of (22). Substituting this expression and (25) into equation (24), we find that

$$\left(\frac{c_3^2b_{223}}{b_{23}}\lambda \right)\omega _0^3\omega _0^2+\mu \omega _0^2\omega _0^3=0.$$

This implies that

$$\mu =\frac{c_3^2b_{223}}{b_{23}}\lambda .$$

Thus, there are only two independent coefficients in decompositions (23) and (25), $`S_2=2`$. As a result, we have $`S=S_1+S_2=6`$, and $`S=Q`$. Thus, by Cartan’s test, the system under investigation is in involution, and its general solution depends on one function of two variables.

Next, we find the second fundamental forms of the two-dimensional focal surface $`G^2`$ of the hypersurface $`X`$ with a degenerate Gauss map. To this end, we compute

$$d^2A_1(\omega _1^0\omega _0^3+\omega _1^2\omega _2^3)A_3+\omega _1^2\omega _2^4A_4(modT_{A_1}(G^2)).$$

Thus, the second fundamental forms of $`G^2`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^3=\omega _1^0\omega _0^3+\omega _1^2\omega _2^3,\mathrm{\Phi }_1^4=\omega _1^2\omega _2^4.$$

The direction $`A_1A_0`$ is defined on $`G_2`$ by the equation $`\omega _1^2=0`$. By (16), this equation is equivalent to the equation $`\omega _0^3=0`$. Thus, in this direction the second fundamental forms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1^4`$ vanish:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1^30(mod\omega _0^3),\mathrm{\Phi }_1^40(mod\omega _0^3),$$

and the direction $`A_1A_0`$ is an asymptotic direction on the focal surface $`G^2`$. ∎

We prove the following existence theorem for the twisted cones.

###### Theorem 2.

If condition $`(21)`$ is satisfied, then the double focus $`A_1`$ of the generator $`A_0A_1`$ of the variety $`X`$ describe the focal curve, and $`X`$ is a twistor cone. In the space $`P^4`$, the twisted cones exist, and the general solution of the system defining such cones depends on five functions of one variable.

###### Proof.

In this case, the point $`A_1`$ describes the focal line $`G^1`$. Thus we must enlarge the system of equations (16) by the equation

$$\omega _1^0=a\omega _0^3.$$
(26)
Equation (26) is equivalent to equation (21). The 1-form $`\omega _0^3`$ is a basis form on the focal line $`G^1`$. By (26), equation (20) takes the form

$$\omega _2^3\omega _0^3=0.$$

It follows that

$$\omega _2^3=b\omega _0^3.$$
(27)
Now equations (27) and (19) become

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23}+2b_{23}b\omega _0^2)\omega _0^3=0,$$
(28)
$$(\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2+(a+bc_3^2)\omega ^2)\omega _0^3=0.$$
(29)
Equation (28) remains the same.

Taking exterior derivatives of equations (26) and (28), we obtain the exterior quadratic equations

$$(da+a(2\omega _0^0\omega _1^1\omega _3^3)+c_3^2\omega _2^0+ab\omega _0^2)\omega _0^3=0,$$
(30)
$$(db+b(\omega _0^0\omega _2^2)+b_{23}\omega _4^3+b\omega _0^2)\omega _0^3=0.$$
(31)
Now the system of exterior quadratic equations consists of equations (18), (28)–(31). Thus, we have $`s_1=5`$. In addition to the basis forms $`\omega _0^2`$ and $`\omega _0^3`$, these exterior equations contain the forms $`\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23},\mathrm{\Delta }b_{33},\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2,\mathrm{\Delta }a`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }b`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a=da+a(2\omega _0^0\omega _1^1\omega _3^3)+c_3^2\omega _2^0$$
(32)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }b=db+b(\omega _0^0\omega _2^2)+b_{23}\omega _4^3.$$

The number of these forms is $`q=5`$. Thus, $`s_2=qs_1=0`$, and the Cartan number $`Q=s_1=5`$. If we find the forms $`\mathrm{\Delta }b_{23},\mathrm{\Delta }b_{33},\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2,\mathrm{\Delta }a`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ from the system of equations (18), (28)–(31), we see that the most general integral element of the system under investigation (i.e., the dimension $`S`$ of the space of integral elements over a point) depends on $`S=5`$ parameters. Thus, $`S=Q`$, the system under investigation is in involution, and its general solution depends on five functions of one variable. ∎

Consider the focal curve $`G^1`$ of the twisted cone $`X^3P^4`$ described by the point $`A_1`$. We have

$$dA_1=\omega _1^1A_1+(c_3^2A_2+aA_0)\omega _0^3.$$

The point $`\stackrel{~}{A}_2=c_3^2A_2+aA_0`$ along with the point $`A_1`$ define a tangent line to $`G^1`$. We can specialize our moving frame by locating its vertex $`A_2`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{A}_2`$ and by normalizing the frame by means of the condition $`c_3^2=1`$. Then we obtain

$$dA_1=\omega _1^1A_1+\omega _0^3A_2.$$

In addition, the conditions

$$a=0,c_3^2=1$$

are satisfied. These conditions and equations (16), (26), (29), and (32) imply that

$$\omega _1^2=\omega _0^3,\omega _1^0=0,$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }c_3^2=\omega _0^0\omega _1^1+\omega _2^2\omega _3^3,$$
(34)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }a=\omega _2^0.$$
(35)
After this specialization, the straight line $`A_1A_2`$ becomes the tangent to the focal line $`G^1`$.

Now equations (29) and (30) take the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\omega _0^0\omega _1^1+\omega _2^2\omega _3^3+b\omega _0^2)\omega _0^3=0,\hfill & \\ \omega _2^0\omega _0^3=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

It follows from the last equation that

$$\omega _2^0=c\omega _0^3.$$
(36)
Note also that equation (31) shows that since $`b_{23}0`$, the quantity $`b`$ can be reduced to 0 by means of the form $`\omega _4^3`$. As a result, equation (27) takes the form

$$\omega _2^3=0,$$
(37)
and equation (31) becomes

$$\omega _4^3\omega _0^3=0.$$
(38)
It follows from (38) that

$$\omega _4^3=f\omega _0^3.$$
(39)
Differentiating the point $`A_2`$ and applying (16), (36), and (37), we obtain

$$dA_2=\omega _2^2A_2+\omega _2^1A_1+(cA_0+b_{23}A_4)\omega _0^3.$$

The 2-plane $`\alpha =A_1A_2(cA_0+b_{23}A_4)`$ is the *osculating plane* of the line $`G^1`$ at the point $`A_1`$.

We place the point $`A_4`$ of our moving frame into the plane $`\alpha `$ and make a normalization $`b_{23}=1`$. As a result, we have $`c=0`$ and

$$\omega _2^0=0,\omega _2^4=\omega _0^3.$$
(40)
Now, the plane $`\alpha `$ is defined as $`\alpha =A_1A_2A_4`$, and the differential of $`A_2`$ becomes

$$dA_2=\omega _2^2A_2+\omega _2^1A_1+\omega _0^3A_4.$$

Taking the exterior derivative of the first equation of (40), we obtain

$$\omega _4^0\omega _0^3=0,$$

and this implies that

$$\omega _4^0=g\omega _0^3.$$
(41)
By means of equations (37) and (41), we find that

$$dA_4=\omega _4^4A_4+\omega _4^1A_1+\omega _4^2A_2+(fA_3+gA_0)\omega _0^3.$$
(42)
Equation (42) means that the 3-plane

$$\beta =A_1A_2A_4(fA_3+gA_0)$$

is the *osculating hyperplane* of the focal line $`G^1`$.

Taking exterior derivatives of equations (39) and (41), we find the following exterior quadratic equations:

$$(df+f(\omega _0^0\omega _4^4))\omega _0^3=0,$$
(43)
and

$$(dg+g(2\omega _0^0\omega _3^3\omega _4^4)f\omega _3^0)\omega _0^3=0.$$
(44)
As we did earlier, we can prove that by means of the secondary forms $`\omega _0^0\omega _4^4`$ and $`\omega _3^0`$, we can specialize our moving frames in such a way, that

$$f=1,g=0.$$

As a result, equations (39) and (41) become

$$\omega _4^3=\omega _0^3,\omega _4^0=0,$$
(45)
and the osculating hyperplane $`\beta `$ of $`G^1`$ becomes

$$\beta =A_1A_2A_4A_3.$$

Substituting the values $`f=1`$ and $`g=0`$ into equations (43) and (44), we obtain

$$(\omega _0^0\omega _4^4)\omega _0^3=0,$$
(46)
and

$$\omega _3^0\omega _0^3=0.$$
(47)
Note that equations (46) and (47) could be also obtained by exterior differentiation of equations (45).

After the above specialization, we obtain the following system of equations defining the twisted cones $`X`$ in the space $`P^4`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _2^4=\omega _0^3,\hfill & \omega _3^4=\omega ^2,\hfill \\ \omega _1^2=\omega _0^3,\hfill & \omega _1^3=0,\hfill \\ \omega _1^0=0,\hfill & \omega _2^3=0,\hfill \\ \omega _2^0=0,\hfill & \omega _2^4=\omega ^3,\hfill \\ \omega _4^3=\omega _0^3,\hfill & \omega _4^0=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
Note that in addition to all specializations made earlier, in equations (48), we also made a specialization $`b_{33}=0`$ which can be achieved by means of the secondary form $`\omega _0^1\omega _3^2`$ (see the third equation in (22)).

Taking exterior derivatives of equations (48), we find the following exterior quadratic equations:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}(\omega _0^0\omega _2^2\omega _3^3+\omega _4^4)\omega _0^3=0,\hfill & \\ (\omega _0^0\omega _2^2\omega _3^3+\omega _4^4)\omega _0^2+(\omega _0^1\omega _3^2)\omega _0^3=0,\hfill & \\ (\omega _0^0\omega _1^1+\omega _2^2\omega _3^3)\omega _0^3=0,\hfill & \\ (\omega _0^0\omega _4^4)\omega _0^3=0,\hfill & \\ \omega _3^0\omega _0^3=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(49)
The exterior differentiation of the remaining five equations of system (48) leads to identities.

The system of equations (49) is equivalent to the system of equations (18), (28)–(31) from which it is obtained as a result of specializations. For the system of equations (49), as well as for the original system of equations (18), (28)–(31), we have $`q=5,s_1=5,s_2=0,Q=N=5`$. *The system is in involution, and its general solution exists and depends on five functions of one variable.*

Further we investigate the structure of the fiber cones of a twisted cone $`XP^4`$. The fiber cones on $`X`$ are defined by the system

$$\omega _0^3=0.$$
(50)
By (50) and (48), we have

$$dA_0=\omega _0^0A_0+\omega _0^1A_1+\omega _0^2A_2.$$
(51)
It follows that the plane $`A_0A_1A_2`$ is tangent to the fiber cone $`C`$ along its generator $`L=A_0A_1`$. By (50) and (48), the differential of the point $`A_2`$ is

$$dA_2=\omega _2^1A_1+\omega _2^2A_2,$$
(52)
and by (50), we also have

$$dA_1=\omega _1^1A_1.$$
(53)
Equations (51), (52), and (53) prove that the tangent plane $`\gamma =A_0A_1A_2`$ to the fiber cone $`C`$ is fixed when the generator $`L=A_0A_1`$ moves along $`C`$. It follows that a fiber cone $`C`$ is simply a pencil of straight lines with center at $`A_1`$ located at the plane $`\gamma `$.

Thus, we have proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.

A twisted cone $`X`$ in the space $`P^4`$ foliates into a one-parameter family of pencils of straight lines whose centers are located on its focal line $`G^1`$ and whose planes are tangent to $`G^1`$.

Namely such a picture can be seen in the example of Sacksteder–Bourgain (see \[AG 01a\]). However, here we proved this theorem for the general case.

Now we prove the converse statement: A general smooth one-parameter family of two-dimensional planes $`\gamma (t)`$ in the space $`P^4`$ forms a three-dimensional twisted cone $`X`$. In fact, such a family envelopes a curve $`G^1`$, whose point $`A`$ is the common point of the planes $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`\gamma (t+dt)`$, i.e., $`A(t)=\gamma (t)\gamma (t+dt)`$. The point $`A(t)`$ and the plane $`\gamma (t)`$ define a pencil $`(A,\gamma )(t)`$ of straight lines with center $`A(t)`$ and plane $`\gamma (t)`$. The set of these pencils forms a three-dimensional ruled surface $`X`$ with rectilinear generators $`L`$ belonging to the pencils $`(A,\gamma )(t)`$. Moreover, the tangent space $`T(X)`$ is constant along a rectilinear generator $`L`$. Hence the rank of the variety $`X`$ equals two.

Since the dimension of the Grassmannian $`G(2,4)`$ of two-dimensional planes in the space $`P^4`$ is equal to six (see \[AG 93\], Section 1.4, p. 297), one-parameter family of such planes depends on five functions of one variable. This number coincides with the arbitrariness of existence of twisted cones in $`P^4`$ that we computed earlier by investigating a system defining a twisted cone (see Theorem 2).

Next we find under what condition a twisted cone becomes a twisted cylinder. This condition is equivalent to a condition under which the osculating hyperplane $`\beta `$ of the focal curve $`G^1`$ is fixed, when the point $`A_1`$ moves along $`G^1`$. Since $`\beta =A_1A_2A_3A_4`$ and

$$dA_3=\omega _3^0A_0+\omega _3^1A_1+\omega _3^2A_2+\omega _3^3A_3+\omega _3^4A_4,$$

the condition in question has the form

$$\omega _3^0=0.$$
(54)
If we take the fixed osculating hyperplane $`\beta `$ of $`G^1`$ as the hyperplane at infinity $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the space $`P^4`$, then $`P^4`$ becomes an affine space $`A^4`$. Then the hypersurface $`X`$ becomes a twisted cylinder $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, which by Theorem 3, *foliates into a one-parameter family of planar pencils of parallel straight lines.* The hypersurface $`X`$ does not have singularities in the space $`A^4`$ and is a *complete smooth noncylindrical hypersurface.*

It is easy to prove the existence of twisted cylinders in the space $`A^4`$.

###### Theorem 4.

Twisted cylinders in the space $`A^4`$ exist, and the general solution of the system defining such cylinders depends on four functions of one variable.

###### Proof.

In fact, a twisted cylinder in $`A^4`$ is defined by the system of equations (48) and (54). By (54), the last equation of (49) becomes an identity. Exterior differentiation of (54) leads to an identity too. Thus, in the system of exterior quadratic equations (51), only four equations are independent. Thus, $`s_1=4`$, and equations (49) contain only four 1-forms that are different from the basis forms. Hence $`q=4`$. Therefore, $`s_2=qs_1=0,Q=s_1+2s_2=4`$. Equations (49) imply also that $`S=4`$. Since $`Q=S`$, the system is in involution, and its general solution depends on four functions of one variable. ∎

In conclusion, we indicate a construction defining the general twisted cylinders in the space $`A^4`$. Let $`P^3`$ be an arbitrary hyperplane in the projective space $`P^4`$, and let $`G^1`$ be an arbitrary curve in $`P^3`$. Consider a family of planes $`\gamma (t)`$, that are tangent to the curve $`G^1`$ but do not belong to $`P^3`$, such that two infinitesimally close planes $`\gamma (t)`$ and $`\gamma (t+dt)`$ of this family do not belong to a three-dimensional subspace of the space $`P^4`$. Then these two planes have only one common point $`A(t)=\gamma (t)\gamma (t+dt)`$ belonging to $`G^1`$, and the planes $`\gamma (t)`$ form a twisted cone in the space $`P^4`$. If we take the hyperplane $`P^3`$ as the hyperplane at infinity of $`P^4`$, then the space $`P^4`$ becomes an affine space $`A^4`$, and a twisted cone formed by the planes $`\gamma (t)`$ becomes a twisted cylinder in $`A^4`$. Such a construction was considered by Akivis in his paper \[A 87\].

Authors’ addresses:

| M. A. Akivis | V. V. Goldberg |
| --- | --- |
| Department of Mathematics | Department of Mathematical Sciences |
| Jerusalem College of Technology—Mahon Lev | New Jersey Institute of Technology |
| Havaad Haleumi St., P. O. B. 16031 | University Heights |
| Jerusalem 91160, Israel | Newark, N.J. 07102, U.S.A. |
| E-mail address: akivis@mail.jct.ac.il | E-mail address: vlgold@m.njit.edu |


text:
# Propagating spinors on a tetrahedral spacetime lattice

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to E. Hawkins for mathematical aid. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grants PHY-9800967 and PHY-0300710 at the University of Maryland.

*

## Appendix A

In this appendix we prove that the norm of the matrix $`A`$ defined in Eq. (28) is less than unity unless at least three of the $`\theta _i`$ coincide, in which case the norm is unity. The proof is due to Eli Hawkins.

Let $`|\nu `$ be any unit spinor. The squared norm of $`A|\nu `$ is $`A|\nu ^2=\nu |A^{}A|\nu `$, whose maximum is the larger eigenvalue of $`A^{}A`$. This value defines the squared norm $`A^2`$.

Using the definition of the spin projection operators (6) and the inner products of the unit vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$ ($`1`$ if $`i=j`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$ if $`ij`$) we find

$$\mathrm{tr}(A^{}A)=1+\frac{1}{6}\underset{(ij)}{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\theta _j)$$
(36)
where the sum is over the 6 choices of $`\{i,j\}\{1,2,3,4\}`$. This trace is at most $`2`$, and therefore the smaller eigenvalue of $`A^{}A`$ is less than $`1`$ unless $`A^{}A=1`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=det\left(A^{}A1\right)$$
(37)
has the same sign as $`1A`$.

The matrix $`A^{}A`$ is linear in terms of $`e^{i(\theta _i\theta _j)}`$, therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is quadratic. Because $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is invariant under all permutations of the $`\theta `$’s, it can be written as a quadratic function of the cosines $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _i\theta _j)`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ vanishes when the $`\theta `$’s are all equal, it is convenient to write it in terms of the cosines minus 1. It thus takes the form,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`a{\displaystyle \underset{(ij)}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _i\theta _j]\right)+b{\displaystyle \underset{(ij)}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _i\theta _j]\right)^2`$ (38)
$`+c{\displaystyle \underset{(ij)(kl)}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _i\theta _j]\right)\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _k\theta _l]\right).`$
The last sum is over the 3 partitions of $`\{1,2,3,4\}`$ into pairs. By setting $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta _3`$ in this expression, we see that $`a=b=0`$. To determine the value of $`c`$, consider the case that $`\theta _1=\theta _2=0`$ and $`\theta _3=\theta _4=\pi `$. Then $`A`$ is the hermitian matrix $`\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{n}_1+\widehat{n}_2)\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, which has eigenvalues $`\pm 1/\sqrt{3}`$, hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }=4/9`$. The last sum in (38) is $`8`$, so $`c=1/18`$.

The determinant $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is thus given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{18}\underset{(ij)(kl)}{}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _i\theta _j]\right)\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta _k\theta _l]\right).$$
(39)
This satisfies $`\mathrm{\Phi }0`$, therefore $`A1`$. Each term is non-negative, therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ only if every term vanishes. This occurs only if at least three of the $`\theta `$’s are equal.


text:
# Electric-field induced capillary interaction of charged particles at a polar interface

## Abstract

We study the electric-field induced capillary interaction of charged particles at a polar interface. The algebraic tails of the electrostatic pressure of each charge results in a deformation of the interface $`u\rho ^4`$. The resulting capillary interaction is repulsive and varies as $`\rho ^6`$ with the particle distance. As a consequence, electric-field induced capillary forces cannot be at the origin of the secondary minimum observed recently for charged PMMA particles at on oil-water interface.

Electrostatic forces operating on charged particles determine to a large extent the properties of emulsions and foams, and stabilize colloidal aggregates Tak99 ; Ave93 . Charged particles at interfaces or in thin films form 2D hexagonal crystals Pie80 ; Pie83 ; Ave00 ; Ave02 ; Nik02 , while for bulk colloidal suspensions several 3D crystal phases have been reported Yet03 . At a typical lattice spacing of a few microns, the interparticle forces are of the order of picoNewton.

A charge at a polar interface and its counterion cloud carry a finite dipole moment perpendicular to the interface (Cf. Fig. 1.) The resulting electrostatic force acting on two neighboring particles is repulsive and varies with the inverse fourth power of their distance Pie80 ; Sti61 ; Hur85 ; Net99 ; For03 . This law has been confirmed experimentally for charged polystyrene particles Ave02 .

The pair potential of PMMA particles at an oil-water interface has been measured by recording the trajectories and evaluating distance correlations. Besides the dipolar repulsion at short distances, an attractive force has been found at larger distances, and a minimum in the potential energy has been shown to occur at about 5.7 $`\mu `$m Nik02 . As a possible explanation, these authors propose that the deformation of the interface by the particles gives rise to a capillary interaction that varies logarithmically with their distance Nik02 .

Quite generally, a capillary or elastic interaction is obtained when equilibrating an external force acting on the particles with the surface tension or the bending rigidity. A variety of such models have been studied, both for spherical and anisotropic defects Par96 ; Bou98 ; Tur99 ; Sch00 ; Dan01 ; Mar02 ; Sta00 ; these works deal with forces that act on the particle only, such as gravity. A somewhat different pattern arises for forces that operate both on the particle and on the surrounding interface. For example, a polymer grafted on a membrane exerts a force at the point of attachment and an opposite entropic pressure on the interface Bic00 .

In this Letter we study the deformation of a polar interface due to a charged colloidal particle, and we derive the resulting capillary interaction. The present work is confined to the case most relevant for micron size colloidal particles, where the distance is much larger than the Debye length. After a reminder of the free energy of a deformation field, we calculate the electrostatic pressure profile exerted by a charge and the associated counterions (as shown schematically in Fig. 1.) The electric-field induced capillary interaction is compared to experimental findings and to the case of $`\delta `$-force that was proposed in Nik02 .

We consider particles of charge $`Q`$ trapped at an electrolyte-insulator interface. In the absence of forces, the interface $`S`$ is flat and its energy reads $`\gamma S`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the surface tension. The charged particles and their counterions exert on the interface a pressure that is given by the normal component of the stress tensor and comprises entropic and electrostrictive contributions,

$$\pi (𝐫)=k_BT(n_++n_{})+𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{i}ns}𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{e}l}.$$
(1)
The first term is the entropic pressure of the excess density of positive and negative ions, $`n_\pm =n_s\left(e^{e\varphi (r)/k_BT}1\right)`$, induced by $`N`$ surface charges. Electroneutrality requires $`e𝑑V(n_+n_{})=NQ`$. The remaining terms involve the Maxwell tensor

$$𝒯_{ij}=\epsilon \left(E_iE_j\frac{1}{2}𝐄^2\delta _{ij}\right),$$
(2)
evaluated at the electrolyte and insulating side of the interface. Note that both the dielectric constant $`\epsilon `$ and the normal component $`E_z`$ of the electric field vector are discontinuous across the interface. The corresponding jump of the normal component of the Mawell tensor describes an electrostrictive force that arises from the difference in the electric field density in the two media.

As a consequence of the inhomogeneous pressure, the interface is no longer flat; the deformation $`u(𝐫)`$ increases the total surface and thus the surface energy by the amount

$$\gamma 𝑑S\left(\sqrt{1+\left(u\right)^2}1\right),$$

where $``$ is the 2D gradient in the interface plane. In the following, $`𝐫`$ denotes the in-plane coordinates, and $`z`$ that normal to the interface. In the case of weak deformations, $`|u|1`$, we may expand the square root and retain the leading term only. Then the free energy functional reads

$$f[u(𝐫)]=\frac{\gamma }{2}𝑑S\left(u\right)^2𝑑S\pi (𝐫)u(𝐫).$$
(3)
The actual deformation is determined by minimizing this functional. Linearizing the deformation about the equilibrium value $`u(𝐫)`$ and integrating the first term by parts, one finds that the mimimum free energy $`f`$ occurs for the deformation satisfying the Young-Laplace equation,

$$\gamma ^2u(𝐫)+\pi (𝐫)=0,$$
(4)
and reads

$$f=\frac{\gamma }{2}𝑑S\left(u\right)^2.$$
(5)
As the most severe approximation of the present paper, we assume that the total pressure $`\pi (𝐫)`$ is the linear superposition

$$\pi (𝐫)=\underset{\alpha }{}\widehat{\pi }(𝐫r_\alpha ),$$
(6)
where $`\widehat{\pi }(𝐫)`$ is the pressure profile of a single charge at the origin. In Debye-Hückel approximation, the electrostatic potential is a linear superposition of single-particle terms $`\varphi =_\alpha \phi _\alpha `$, and the total pressure is quadratic in the potential and its derivatives, $`\pi (r)\varphi ^2`$. Besides the diagonal terms $`\widehat{\pi }_\alpha \phi _\alpha ^2`$, it comprises cross-terms $`\phi _\alpha \phi _\beta `$ that are significantly smaller and thus have been neglected in (6).

Because of the linearity of (4), a similar relation holds true for the deformation

$$u(𝐫)=\underset{\alpha }{}\widehat{u}(𝐫r_\alpha ).$$

It is then sufficient to consider two particles at positions $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\rho `$. Discarding terms that do not depend on their distance $`\rho `$, one finds immediatly the pair potential

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )=\gamma d^2r\widehat{u}\left(𝐫+\frac{1}{2}\rho \right)\widehat{u}\left(𝐫\frac{1}{2}\rho \right).$$
(7)
The single-charge pressure $`\widehat{\pi }(𝐫)`$ comprises the entropic pressure of the excess soluted ion density and the electric field energy. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that the force on the charge is directed towards the electrolyte, whereas the electrostrictive force on the surrounding interface is in the opposite direction. It is essential to note that the total force vanishes, i.e.,

$$𝑑S\widehat{\pi }\left(r\right)=0.$$
(8)
In view of (5) we need to calculate the gradient of the deformation field. This is achieved most easily by applying Gauss’ theorem on (4),

$$\gamma _D𝑑s𝐧\widehat{u}=_D𝑑S\widehat{\pi }\left(r\right),$$

that relates the pressure integrated over the area $`D`$ to the “flux” of the gradient field through the boundary $`D`$. For a disk centered at the origin and polar coordinates $`r`$ and $`\theta `$, we have $`ds=rd\theta `$ and $`𝐧=r/r`$. Using the condition (8) and the fact that $`\widehat{u}`$ is isotropic, the integral over the disk is replaced by that over the infinite space outside,

$$\widehat{u}(r)=\frac{1}{\gamma }\frac{𝐫}{r^2}_r^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r^{}r^{}\widehat{\pi }(r^{}).$$
(9)
Thus we have expressed the interaction free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )`$ by integrals over the single-charge electrostatic pressure $`\widehat{\pi }(r)`$ that remains to be determined.

Starting from the screened potential $`\phi (r,z)`$ of a single interfacial charge at the origin, we evaluate the pressure profile according to Eqs. (1) and (2). Expanding the ion densities to quadratic order, $`n_++n_{}=n_s\left(e\phi /k_BT\right)^2`$, and noting $`\kappa ^2=(2n_se^2/\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}k_BT),`$ we find the entropic pressure

$$k_BT(n_++n_{})=\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}}{2}\kappa ^2\phi (r,z)^2.$$

The relevant component $`𝒯_{zz}=\frac{\epsilon }{2}(E_z^2E_r^2)`$ of the Maxwell tensor depends on both normal and in-plane derivatives of the potential. The latter one, $`E_r=_r\phi `$, being continuous at the interface, the electrostrictive force simplifies to

$$𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{i}ns}𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{e}l}=\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}{2}E_r^2\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}}{2}E_z^2|_{\mathrm{e}l}+\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}{2}E_z^2|_{\mathrm{i}ns}$$

In Debye-Hückel approximation (DHA), the 2D Fourier transform of $`\phi `$ is known, and explicit forms of the potential at the interface can be given in the domains separated by the Bjerrum length $`\mathrm{}_B`$ and the Debye screening length $`\kappa ^1`$. Here we confine ourselves to the case of large distances well beyond $`\kappa ^1`$ and the particle size $`a`$, where the potential in the electrolyte reads Sti61 ; Hur85 ; Net99 ; For03

$$\phi _{\mathrm{e}l}(r,z)=(Q\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}/2\pi \kappa ^2\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2)e^{\kappa z}r^3(r\kappa ^1).$$

(High charge densities may result in a renormalized value for $`Q`$.) The in-plane electric field $`E_rr^4`$ is negligible at large $`r`$; for the normal component one finds $`E_z|_{\mathrm{e}l}=_z\phi _{\mathrm{e}l}=\kappa \phi _{\mathrm{e}l}`$. Its value at the insulating side of the interface is obtained from the continuity condition $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}E_z|_{\mathrm{i}ns}=\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}E_z|_{\mathrm{e}l}`$. Thus the first term in $`𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{i}ns}𝒯_{zz}^{\mathrm{e}l}`$ cancels the entropic pressure, the second one is negligible, and the third one gives

$$\widehat{\pi }(r)=\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}{2}\left(\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}}{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}\kappa \phi _{\mathrm{e}l}(r,0)\right)^2.$$
(10)
Now it is straightforward to calculate the gradient of the interface deformation,

$$\widehat{u}(r)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}Q^2}{\gamma \epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2\kappa ^2}\frac{𝐫}{r^6},$$
(11)
This remarkable result, $`\widehat{u}r^5`$, relies only on the asymptotic form of the potential $`\phi _{\mathrm{e}l}r^3`$ and the fact that the net force (8) on the interface vanishes. As a consequence, the deformation field is negative and varies as $`\widehat{u}(1/r^4)`$.

Now we discuss the behavior of $`\widehat{\pi }(r)`$ and $`\widehat{u}(r)`$ at small distances. The singularities for $`r0`$ are clearly unphysical and would cause the deformation free energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ to diverge. The above screened potential $`\phi _{\mathrm{e}l}`$ and electrostatic pressure $`\widehat{\pi }`$ are valid at large distances $`r\kappa ^1,a`$. At intermediate distances $`a<r<\kappa ^1`$ screening is irrelevant; evaluating the stress tensor with the bare electrostatic potential $`\phi _{\mathrm{e}l}r^1`$, one finds a modified power law $`\widehat{\pi }(r)r^4`$ For032 . For micrometer size charged colloids, however, the particle radius $`a`$ provides the most relevant physical cutoff. For this reason, it will be referred to in the remainder of this paper, although one should keep in mind that the actual situation may be more complex, especially for small molecules.

Thus the power laws of both $`\widehat{\pi }(r)`$ and $`\widehat{u}(r)`$ cease to be valid at distances smaller than $`a`$. Moreover, Eq. (8) requires a strong negative force operating on the particle at $`r=0`$. An important conclusion can be drawn directly from the relation (8): $`\widehat{u}`$ is positive everywhere and tends towards zero at $`r=0`$.

In order to regularize the surface integral in Eq. (7), we explicitly introduce a cut-off $`a`$ and replace (11) with

$$\widehat{u}(r)=\frac{1}{32\pi ^2}\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}Q^2}{\gamma \epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2\kappa ^2}\frac{𝐫}{(r^2+a^2)^3}.$$
(12)
Although the precise form of this cut-off function is somewhat arbitrary, it satisfies the limit $`\widehat{u}=0`$ for $`r0`$ as imposed by Eq. (9). For $`ra`$, it shows the long-range behavior that has been obtained rigorously from (8) and (10).

Inserting $`\widehat{u}(𝐫\pm \frac{1}{2}\rho )`$ in (7), one finds that the capillary interaction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )=(\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}Q^2/32\pi ^2\gamma \epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2\kappa ^2)^2I$$

depends on particle distance and size through the integral

$$I=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑rr_0^{2\pi }𝑑\theta \frac{r^2\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2}{\left(\left(r^2+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2+a^2\right)^2r^2\rho ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)^3}.$$

This definite integral can be performed analytically. Since in all applications, the particle distance $`\rho `$ exceeds significantly the size $`a`$, we retain only the leading term in powers of $`(a/\rho )`$ and thus have

$$I=\frac{2\pi }{a^2\rho ^6}\left(1+𝒪\left(a^2/\rho ^2\right)\right).$$

The variation with the particle radius $`a^2`$ does not depend on the precise form of the cut-off function chosen above. Thus we obtain the capillary interaction

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )=\frac{1}{2^9\pi ^3}\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}^2Q^4}{\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^4\kappa ^4}\frac{1}{\gamma a^2\rho ^6}$$
(13)
that is repulsive and varies with the inverse sixth power of the distance. Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$ depends on the particle charge, its size, and the Debye length.

We compare our result for the capillary interaction with experimental findings and previous work. In Ref. Nik02 , a minimum in the interaction potential of PMMA particles was reported to occur at a distance of 5.7 microns. As a possible explanation, these authors considered the competing electrostatic and capillary interactions. Interfacial charges are subject to the well-known repulsive potential

$$V=\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}{2\pi \epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2}\frac{p^2}{\rho ^3},$$

where $`p`$ is dipole moment formed by the charge and its screening cloud Hur85 . On the other hand, assuming an electric-field induced $`\delta `$-force $`\widehat{\pi }(𝐫)=\pi _0\delta (𝐫)`$, one obtains an attractive capillary interaction $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\delta (\rho )=(\pi _0^2/2\pi )\mathrm{ln}\rho `$. The sum of $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\delta `$ shows a minimum at finite distance that has been considered in Ref. Nik02 . Note, however, that this force does not satisfy the condition (8).

As shown schematically in Fig. 1 and discussed below (11), the electrostatic pressure profile induced by a screened surface charge comprises a long-range contribution and a $`\delta `$-force,

$$\widehat{\pi }(𝐫)=g(r)r^6\pi _0\delta (𝐫),$$

with a cut-off function $`g`$ that is constant for $`ra`$, vanishes at the origin, and satisfies Eq. (8). By now it should be clear that the long-range contribution to the pressure completely changes the capillary forces: While that of a pure $`\delta `$-force is attractive and depends logarithmically on distance, the capillary interaction of interfacial charges is repulsive and varies as $`\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )\rho ^6`$. We conclude that the mimimum in the interaction potential reported in Nik02  cannot arise from $`V+\mathrm{\Delta }f`$.

Finally we compare the relative magnitude of the forces arising from $`V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f`$. If the particle’s charge $`Q`$ is located at the interface, the dipole moment reads $`p=Q/\kappa `$, and the capillary interaction can be expressed in terms of the dipolar interaction $`V`$ and the surface energy $`\gamma a^2`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(\rho )=\frac{V^2}{2^7\pi \gamma a^2}.$$
(14)
The total force $`_\rho (V+\mathrm{\Delta }f)`$ is always repulsive. A change in the exponent occurs where $`_\rho V=_\rho \mathrm{\Delta }f`$, defining the cross-over distance

$$\rho ^{}=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{i}ns}}{\pi ^2\epsilon _{\mathrm{e}l}^2}\frac{p^2}{\gamma a^2}\right)^{1/3},$$

for $`\rho <\rho ^{}`$, the capillary repulsion $`_\rho \mathrm{\Delta }f\rho ^7`$ dominates, whereas at larger distances the dipolar force $`_\rho V\rho ^4`$ takes over. For micron size particles at an oil-water interface with typical parameters, one finds that the cross-over distance hardly attains the micrometer range and thus is of little relevance. Quite a different situation arises if a significant fraction of the charge is located at the side of the particle immersed in the insulator. For micron size particles, the electrostatic potential $`\phi `$ is enhanced by a factor of the order $`(\kappa a)^2`$ Ave02 , and the capillary interaction increases by a factor $`(\kappa a)^4`$. The modified dipole moment reads $`pQa`$ instead of $`Q/\kappa `$, resulting in a larger cross-over distance $`\rho ^{}`$. Note, however, that at distances much shorter than $`\rho ^{}`$, the gradient of the deformation $`|\widehat{u}|`$ is no longer small, requiring to go beyond the quadratic approximation for the surface energy in (3).

In summary, we have studied the capillary interaction induced by the electric field of charged particles at an electrolyte-insulator interface. The electrostatic pressure of a single charge consists of a force acting on the particle and the opposite electrostrictive force on the interface that varies as $`\rho ^6`$ with the lateral distance. The resulting deformation, $`u\rho ^4`$, induces a capillary interaction that is repulsive and obeys a power law $`\mathrm{\Delta }f\rho ^6`$. As a consequence, this capillary force cannot be at the origin of the secondary minimum observed recently for charged PMMA particles at an oil-water interface Nik02 .

$`Noteadded`$. After submission of this Letter, a comment by Megens and Aizenberg on the paper by Nikolaides et al. Nik02  appeared in Nature Meg03 . In agreement with our discussion and our Eq. (8), Megens and Aizenberg point out that there is no net force on the interface and thus invalidate the attractive logarithmic potential proposed in Ref. Nik02 .