text:
# Classical and quantum regimes of the superfluid turbulence.

## 1 Introduction

The hydrodynamics of superfluid liquid exhibits new features with respect to conventional classical hydrodynamics, which are important when the turbulence in superfluids is considered .

(i) The superfluid liquid consists of two mutually penetrating components – the frictionless superfluid component and the viscous normal component. That is why different types of turbulent motion are possible depending on whether the normal and superfluid components move together or separately. Here we are interested in the most simple case when the dynamics of the normal component can be neglected. This occurs, for example, in superfluid phases of 3He where the normal component is so viscous that it is practically clamped by the container walls. Its role is to provide the preferred reference frame, where the normal component and thus the heat bath are at rest. The turbulence in the superfluid component with the normal component at rest is referred to as the superfluid turbulence.

(ii) The important feature of the superfluid turbulence is that the vorticity of the superfluid component is quantized in terms of the elementary circulation quantum $`\kappa `$. So the superfluid turbulence is the chaotic motion of well determined and well separated vortex filaments . Using this we can simulate the main ingredient of the classical turbulence – the chaotic dynamics of the vortex degrees of freedom of the liquid.

(iii) The further simplification comes from the fact that the dissipation of the vortex motion is not due to the viscosity term in the Navier-Stokes equation which is proportional to the velocity gradients $`^2𝐯`$ in classical liquid, but due to the friction force acting on the vortex when it moves with respect to the heat bath (the normal component). This force is proportional to velocity of the vortex, and thus the complications resulting from the $`^2𝐯`$ term are avoided.

Here we discuss how these new features could influence the superfluid turbulence.

## 2 Coarse-grained hydrodynamic equation

The coarse-grained hydrodynamic equation for the superfluid vorticity is obtained from the Euler equation for the superfluid velocity $`𝐯𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ after averaging over the vortex lines (see the review paper ). Instead of the Navier-Stokes equation with $`^2𝐯`$ term one has

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐯}{t}}+\mu =𝐯\times \stackrel{}{\omega }`$ (1)
$`\alpha ^{}(𝐯𝐯_\mathrm{n})\times \stackrel{}{\omega }+\alpha \widehat{\omega }\times (\stackrel{}{\omega }\times (𝐯𝐯_\mathrm{n})).`$ (2)
Here $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}`$ is the velocity of the normal component; $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=\times 𝐯`$ is the superfluid vorticity; $`\widehat{\omega }=\stackrel{}{\omega }/\omega `$; and dimensionless parameters $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ come from the reactive and dissipative forces acting on a vortex when it moves with respect to the normal component. These parameters are very similar to the Hall resistivity $`\rho _{xy}`$ and $`\rho _{xx}`$ in the Hall effect. For vortices in fermionic systems (superfluid 3He and superconductors) they were calculated by Kopnin , and measured in 3He-B in the broad temperature range by Bevan et. al.  (see also , where these parameters are discussed in terms of the chiral anomaly).

The terms in Eq.(1) are invariant with respect to the transformation $`𝐯𝐯(𝐫𝐮t)+𝐮`$ as in classical hydrodynamics. However, the terms in Eq.(2) are not invariant under this transformation, since there is the preferred reference frame in which the normal component is at rest. They are invariant under the full Galilean transformation when the normal component is also involved: $`𝐯𝐯(𝐫𝐮t)+𝐮`$ and $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}𝐯_\mathrm{n}+𝐮`$.

Further we shall work in the frame where $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}=0`$, but we must remember that this frame is unique. In this frame the equation for superfluid hydrodynamics is simplified:

$$\frac{𝐯}{t}+\mu =(1\alpha ^{})𝐯\times \stackrel{}{\omega }+\alpha \widehat{\omega }\times (\stackrel{}{\omega }\times 𝐯).$$
(3)
After rescaling the time, $`\stackrel{~}{t}=(1\alpha ^{})t`$, one obtains equation which depends on a single parameter $`q=\alpha /(1\alpha ^{})`$:

$$\frac{𝐯}{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }=𝐯\times \stackrel{}{\omega }+q\widehat{\omega }\times (\stackrel{}{\omega }\times 𝐯).$$
(4)
Now the first three terms together are the same as inertial terms in classical hydrodynamics. They satisfy the modified Galilean invariance (in fact the transformation below changes the chemical potential, but this does not influence the vortex degrees of freedom which are important for the phenomenon of turbulence):

$$𝐯(\stackrel{~}{t},𝐫)𝐯(\stackrel{~}{t},𝐫𝐮\stackrel{~}{t})+𝐮.$$
(5)
On the contrary the dissipative last term with the factor $`q`$ in Eq.(4) is not invariant under this transformation. This is in contrast to the conventional liquid where the whole Navier-Stokes equation which contains viscosity

$$\frac{𝐯}{t}+\mu =𝐯\times \stackrel{}{\omega }+\nu ^2𝐯,$$
(6)
is Galilean invariant, and where there is no preferred reference frame.

Such a difference between the dissipative last terms in Eqs. (6) and (4) is very important:

(1) The role of the Reynolds number, which characterizes the ratio of inertial and dissipative terms in hydrodynamic equations, in the superfluid turbulence is played by the intrinsic parameter $`1/q`$. This parameter does not depend on the characteristic velocity $`U`$ and size $`R`$ of the large-scale flow as distinct from the conventional Reynolds number $`\mathrm{Re}=RU/\nu `$ in classical viscous hydrodynamics. That is why the turbulent regime occurs only at $`1/q>1`$ even if vortices are injected to the superfluid which moves with large velocity $`U`$. This rather unexpected result was obtained in recent experiments with superfluid 3He-B .

(2) In the conventional turbulence the large-scale velocity $`U`$ is always understood as the largest characteristic velocity difference in the inhomogeneous flow of classical liquid . In the two-fluid system the velocity $`U`$ is the large-scale velocity of superfluid component with respect to the normal component, and this velocity (the so-called counterflow velocity) can be completely homogeneous.

(3) As a result, as distinct from the classical hydrodynamics, the energy dissipation which is produced by the last term in Eq.(4) depends explicitly on $`U`$:

$$ϵ=\dot{E}=𝐯\frac{𝐯}{\stackrel{~}{t}}=q𝐯(\widehat{\omega }\times (\stackrel{}{\omega }\times 𝐯))q\omega U^2.$$
(7)
(4) The onset of the superfluid turbulence was studied in Ref. , where the model was developed which demonstrated that the initial avalanche-like multiplication of vortices leading to turbulence occurs when $`q<1`$ in agreement with experiment . The existence of two regimes in the initial development of vorticity is also supported by earlier simulations by Schwarz who noted that when $`\alpha `$ (or $`q`$) is decreased the crossover from a regime of isolated phase slips to a phase-slip cascades and then to the fully developed vortex turbulence occurs . One can expect that the well developed turbulence occurs when $`q1`$, and here we shall discuss this extreme limit. In 3He-B the condition $`q1`$ can be ralized at temperatures well below $`0.6T_c`$ . However, we do not consider a very low $`T`$ where instead of the mutual friction the other mechanisms of dissipation take place such as excitation of Kelvin waves  and vortex reconnection . The latter leads to formation of cusps and kinks on the vortex filaments whose fast dynamics creates the burst of different types of excitations in quantum liquids: phonons, rotons, Kelvin waves and fermionic quasiparticles. The burst of gravitational waves from cusps and kinks of cosmic strings was theoretically investigated by the cosmological community (see e.g. ), and the obtained results are very important for the superfluid turbulence at a very low temperature.

(5) We expect that even at $`q1`$ two different states of turbulence are possible, with the crossover (or transition) between them being determined by $`q`$ and by another dimensionless parameter $`\mathrm{Re}_s=UR/\kappa `$, where $`\kappa `$ is the circulation around the quantum vortex. The coarse-grained hydrodynamic equation (4) is in fact valid only in the limit $`\mathrm{Re}_s1`$, since the latter means that the characteristic circulation of the velocity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=UR`$ of the large-scale flow substantially exceeds the circulation quantum $`\kappa `$, and thus there are many vortices in the turbulent flow. When $`\mathrm{Re}_s`$ decreases the quantum nature of vortices becomes more pronounced, and we proceed from the type of the classical turbulence which is probably described by the Komogorov cascade, to the quantum regime which is probably described by the Vinen equations for the average vortex dynamics .

Let us consider the possibility of the Kolmogorov state of the superfluid turbulence.

## 3 Kolmogorov cascade

In classical turbulence, the large Reynolds number $`Re=UR/\nu 1`$ leads to the well separated length scales or wave numbers. As a result the Kolmogorov-Richardson cascade takes place in which the energy flows from small wave numbers $`k_{min}1/R`$ (large rings of size $`R`$ of the container) to high wave number $`k_0=1/r_0`$ where the dissipation occurs. In the same manner in our case of the superfluid turbulence the necessary condition for the Kolmogorov cascade is the big ratio of the inertial and dissipative terms in Eq.(4), i.e. $`1/q1`$.

In the Kolmogorov-Richardson cascade, at arbitrary length scale $`r`$ the energy transfer rate to the smaller scale, say $`r/2`$, is $`ϵ=E_r/t_r`$, where $`E_r=v_r^2`$ is the kinetic energy at this scale, and $`t_r=r/v_r`$ is the characteristic time. The energy transfer from scale to scale must be the same for all scales, as a result one has

$$ϵ=\frac{E_r}{t_r}=\frac{v_r^3}{r}=\mathrm{constant}=\frac{U^3}{R}.$$
(8)
From this equation it follows that

$$v_r=ϵ^{1/3}r^{1/3}.$$
(9)
This must be valid both in classical and superfluid liquids . What is different is the parameter $`ϵ`$: it is determined by the dissipation mechanism which is different in two liquids.

From Eq.(7) with $`\omega _r=v_r/r`$ it follows that as in the classical turbulence the main dissipation occurs at the smallest possible scales, but the structure of $`ϵ`$ is now different. Instead of $`ϵ=\nu v_{r0}/r_0^2`$ in classical liquids, we have now

$$ϵq\omega _{r0}U^2qU^2\frac{v_{r0}}{r_0}=qU^2ϵ^{1/3}r_0^{2/3}.$$
(10)
Since $`ϵ=U^3/R`$ one obtains from Eq.(10) that the scale $`r_0`$ at which the main dissipation occurs and the characteristic velocity $`v_{r_0}`$ at this scale are

$$r_0q^{3/2}R,v_{r0}q^{1/2}U.$$
(11)
This consideration is valid when $`r_0R`$ and $`v_{r0}U`$, which means that $`1/q1`$ is the condition for the Kolmogorov cascade. In classical liquids the corresponding condition for the well developed turbulence is $`Re1`$. In both cases these conditions ensure that the kinetic terms in the hydrodynamic equations are much larger than the dissipative terms. In the same manner as in classical liquids the condition for the stability of the turbulent flow is $`Re>1`$, one may suggest that the condition for the stability of the discussed turbulent flow is $`1/q>1`$. This is supported by observations in 3He-B where it was demonstrated that at high velocity $`U`$ but at $`q>1`$ the turbulence is not developed even after vortices were introduced into the flow .

As in the Kolmogorov cascade for the classical liquid, in the Kolmogorov cascade of superfluid turbulence the dissipation is concentrated at small scales,

$$ϵqU^2_{r_0}^R\frac{dr}{r}\frac{v_r}{r}qU^2\frac{v_{r0}}{r_0},$$
(12)
while the kinetic energy is concentrated at large scale of container size:

$$E=_{r_0}^R\frac{dr}{r}v_r^2=_{r_0}^R\frac{dr}{r}(ϵr)^{2/3}=(ϵR)^{2/3}=U^2.$$
(13)
The dispersion of the turbulent energy in the momentum space is the same as in classical liquid

$`E={\displaystyle _{r_0}^R}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}(ϵr)^{2/3}={\displaystyle _{k_0}^{1/R}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{2/3}}{k^{2/3}}}={\displaystyle _{k_0}^{1/R}}𝑑kE(k),`$
$`E(k)=ϵ^{2/3}k^{5/3}.`$ (14)
As distinct from the classical liquid where $`k_0`$ is determined by viscosity, in the superfluid turbulence the cut-off $`k_0`$ is determined by mutual friction papameter $`q`$: $`k_0=1/r_0=R^1q^{3/2}`$.

## 4 Crossover to Vinen quantum turbulence

At a very small $`q`$ the quantization of circulation becomes important. The condition of the above consideration is that the relevant circulation can be considered as continuous, i.e. the circulation at the scale $`r_0`$ is larger than the circulation quantum: $`v_{r0}r_0>\kappa `$. This gives

$$v_{r0}r_0=q^2UR=q^2\kappa \mathrm{Re}_s>\kappa ,\mathrm{Re}_s=\frac{UR}{\kappa },$$
(15)
i.e. the constraint for the application of the Kolmogorov cascade is

$$\mathrm{Re}_s>\frac{1}{q^2}1.$$
(16)
Another requirement is that the characteristic scale $`r_0`$ must be much larger that the intervortex distance $`l`$. The latter is obtained from the vortex density in the Kolmogorov state $`n_\mathrm{K}=l^2=\omega _{r0}/\kappa =v_{r0}/(r_0\kappa )`$. The condition $`lr_0`$ leads again to the equation $`v_{r0}r_0>\kappa `$ and thus to the criterion (16).

Note that here for the first time the ‘superfluid Reynolds number’ $`\mathrm{Re}_s`$ appeared, which contains the circulation quantum. Thus the superfluid Reynolds number is responsible for the crossover or transition from the classical superfluid turbulence, where the quantized vortices are locally aligned (polarized), and thus the quantization is not important, to the quantum turbulence developed by Vinen.

We can now consider the approach to the crossover from the quantum regime – the Vinen state which probably occurs when $`\mathrm{Re}_sq^2<1`$. According to Vinen  the characteristic length scale, the distance between the vortices or the size of the characteristic vortex loops, is determined by the circulation quantum and the counterflow velocity, $`l=\lambda \kappa /U`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the dimensionless intrinsic parameter, which probably contains $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$. The vortex density in the Vinen state is

$$n_\mathrm{V}=l^2\lambda ^2\frac{U^2}{\kappa ^2}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{R^2}\mathrm{Re}_s^2,$$
(17)
It differs from the vortex density in the Kolmogorov state

$$n_\mathrm{K}=\frac{v_{r0}}{\kappa r_0}\frac{U}{q\kappa R}=\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{\mathrm{Re}_s}{q},$$
(18)
which depends not only on the counterflow velocity $`U`$, but also on the container size $`R`$.

If the crossover between the classical and quantum regimes of the turbulent states occurs at $`\mathrm{Re}_sq^2=1`$, the two equations (17) and (18) must match each other in the crossover region. But this occurs only if $`\lambda ^2=q`$. If $`\lambda ^2q`$ there is a mismatch, and one may expect that either the two states are separated by the first-order phase transition, or there is an intermediate region where the superfluid turbulence is described by two different microscopic scales such as $`r_0`$ and $`l`$. Based on the above consideration one may suggest the following phase diagram of different regimes of collective vortex dynamics in Fig. 1.

## 5 Discussion

The superfluid turbulence is the collective many-vortex phenomenon which can exist in different states. Each of the vortex states can be characterized by its own correlation functions. For example, the states can be characterized by the loop function

$$g(C)=e^{i(2\pi /\kappa )_C𝐯𝑑𝐫}.$$
(19)
In the limit when the length $`L`$ of the loop $`C`$ is much larger than the intervortex distance $`l`$ one may expect the general behavior $`g(L)\mathrm{exp}((L/l)^\gamma )`$ where the exponent $`\gamma `$ is different for different vortex states.

One can expect the phase transitions between different states of of collective vortex dynamics. One of such transitions which appeared to be rather sharp has been observed between the ‘laminar’ and ‘turbulent’ dynamics of vortices in superfluid 3He-B . It was found that such transition was regulated by intrinsic velocity-independent dimensionless parameter $`q=\alpha /(1\alpha ^{})`$. However, it is not excluded that both dimensionless parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ are important, and also it is possible that only the initial stage of the formation of the turbulent state is governed by these parameters . Another transition (or maybe crossover) is suggested here between the quantum and classical regimes of the developed superfluid turbulence, though there are arguments that the classical regime can never be reached because the vortex stretching is missing in the superfluid turbulence .

In principle the parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ may depend on the type of the dynamical state, since they are obtained by averaging of the forces acting on individual vortices. The renormalization of these parameters $`\alpha (L)`$ and $`\alpha ^{}(L)`$ when the length scale $`L`$ is increasing may also play an important role in the identification of the turbulent states, as in the case of the renormalization-group flow of similar parameters in the quantum Hall effect (see e.g. ).

I thank V.B. Eltsov, D. Kivotides, N.B. Kopnin and M. Krusius for discussions. This work was supported by ESF COSLAB Programme and by the Russian Foundations for Fundamental Research.


format: text

text:
# Susceptibilities and spin gaps of weakly-coupled spin ladders

## Abstract

We calculate the uniform and staggered susceptibilities of two-chain spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg ladders using Monte-Carlo simulations. We show that the gap extracted from the uniform susceptibility and the saturation value of the staggered susceptibility are independent of the sign of the inter-chain coupling $`J_{}`$ in the asymptotic limit $`|J_{}|/J0`$. Furthermore, we examine the existence of logarithmic corrections to the linear scaling of the gap with $`|J_{}|`$.

Spin ladders are arrays of coupled spin chains and exhibit structures that interpolate between a single one-dimensional chain and the two-dimensional square lattice. Their properties are peculiar as the magnetic spectrum is gapless only in the case of non-integer-spin ladders formed of an even number of chains. Dagotto and Rice (1996); White (1996) Spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ladders are thus closely related to spin-S chains for which the excitations are gapped for integer spins and gapless otherwise.Haldane (1983) An important question is the understanding of the transition between the gapless chain and the gapped ladder (the Haldane phase). That issue has been studied both analytically Troyer et al. (1994); Shelton et al. (1996) and numerically. Hida (1995); Greven et al. (1996)

In this paper, we report results of Monte-Carlo simulations on two-chain spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ladders with antiferromagnetic coupling along the chain direction and ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic coupling across the rungs. We calculate the uniform and staggered susceptibilities and show that, in the asymptotically weak rung-coupling regime, these thermodynamic quantities are independent of the sign of the rung coupling. In this regime, our results for the spin gap are consistent with the theoretically-predicted existence of logarithmic corrections to the linear behavior $`\mathrm{\Delta }|J_{}|`$.

The spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ Heisenberg ladder magnet is described by the following Hamiltonian:

$$H=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}𝐒_{i,n}𝐒_{i+1,n}+J_{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐒_{i,1}𝐒_{i,2}$$
(1)
where $`i`$ runs along the chains, $`N`$ is the length of the chains, $`J`$ is the antiferromagnetic coupling along the chain direction and $`J_{}`$ is the coupling between the two chains (the rungs of the ladder). We consider both antiferromagnetic ($`J_{}>0`$) and ferromagnetic ($`J_{}<0`$) rung couplings. The Hamiltonian Eq. (1) is investigated with the loop cluster algorithm with a discrete Euclidean time grid.Wiese and Ying (1994); Greven et al. (1996) Periodic boundary conditions are used along the chain direction as well as in the Euclidean time direction. The chain length is kept larger than six times the spin-spin correlation length csi . The Trotter number, which defines the discretization of the Euclidean time axis, is kept larger or equal to $`20/T`$ where $`T`$ is the temperature. We calculate the uniform and staggered susceptibilities, defined as:

$$\chi _u(T)=\frac{1}{2NT}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}S_{i,n}^z\right)^2$$
(2)
$`\chi _s(T)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2NT}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(sgn(J))^i(sgn(J_{}))^nS_{i,n}^z\right)^2`$ (3)
Studies at intermediate and large couplings show that finite-size effects, both in the Euclidean time direction and in the chain direction, are smaller than the statistical uncertainties for the two observables when the lattice dimensions were kept larger than the previously defined limits. The same relations for the required system size were assumed to apply in the small coupling regime.

Figure 1 shows examples of the uniform susceptibility and staggered susceptibility for ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic $`J_{}`$. For $`|J_{}|=0.01J`$ we find that the susceptibilities become independent of the sign of $`J_{}`$, consistent with theoretical expectations for two weakly-coupled Heisenberg chains.Shelton et al. (1996)

Figure 2 shows the dependence of the extrapolated zero-temperature staggered susceptibility on $`J_{}/J`$. In the weak-rung-coupling regime, $`\chi _s(0)`$ varies linearly with $`|J/J_{}|`$, as can be seen in the bottom panel of Fig. 2. We find that $`|J_{}|\chi _s(0)=11.5(5)`$ for $`|J_{}|/J0`$.

The spin gap is extracted from the uniform susceptibility using the following low temperature form:Troyer et al. (1994)

$$J\chi _u(J_{},T)T^{1/2}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }(J_{})/T}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the gap. This limit is derived from a non-interacting magnon model with a quadratic band dispersion. The fits are performed for $`T\mathrm{\Delta }/3`$, and the results are shown in Fig. 3. The data for antiferromagnetic rung couplings ($`J_{}>0`$) agree well with previously reported results.Greven et al. (1996) In the weak coupling limit, the gap deviates from a linear dependence on $`J_{}`$. For the ferromagnetic rung coupling, values of the gap at intermediate rung couplings ($`0.1|J_{}|/J<1`$) are in agreement with previous reports Watanabe (1994); Narushima et al. (1995); com .

At very large ferromagnetic rung coupling, the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ ladder is equivalent to a spin-1 chain with coupling $`J/2`$. The gap for the spin-1 chain was calculated to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.41050(2)J`$ White and Huse (1993) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.4107(1)J`$ Sørensen and Affleck (1993) by the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) technique. In the present investigation, the spin-1 chain gap was estimated at $`0.406(3)J`$, which agrees reasonably well with the DMRG value. At finite ferromagnetic coupling $`J_{}`$, the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }/J_{}`$ increases with decreasing value of $`J_{}`$. At small rung coupling, the data for the antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic rung coupling exhibit a similar trend. Together with the behavior of the staggered susceptibility, this seems to confirm the assertion Shelton et al. (1996); Hosotani (1997) that the properties of a two-chain spin-1/2 spin ladder are independent of the sign of $`J_{}`$ in the weak coupling limit.

In the weak-coupling regime, the gap has a nearly linear dependence on the rung coupling $`J_{}`$. Logarithmic corrections have been proposed to this linear dependence based on field theoretical considerations. Shelton, Nersesyan and Tsvelik Shelton et al. (1996) concluded that the gap follows the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=A|J_{}|\left(1+BJ_{}ln\left(C\frac{|J_{}|}{J}\right)\right)$$
(5)
where $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are unknown constants. Totsuka and Suzuki Totsuka and Suzuki (1995), on the other hand, suggested that the gap be described by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=D|J_{}|\sqrt{ln\left(\frac{|J_{}|}{J}\right)}$$
(6)
For $`|J_{}|/J0.1`$, Eq. (5) describes the gap well for both antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic rung couplings, while Eq. (6) satisfactorily describes only the ferromagnetic result. A modified form of Eq. (6) is necessary to obtain an acceptable description for antiferromagnetic rung couplings:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.344(4)|J_{}|\left(ln\left({\displaystyle \frac{|J_{}|}{J}}\right)\right)^{0.23(2)}`$ (7)
Although Eq. (5) describes both results well below $`|J_{}|=10^1J`$, it would be necessary to know the gap at rung couplings well below $`|J_{}|=10^2J`$ in order to conclusively establish that this form is asymptotically correct in the limit $`|J_{}|/J0`$.

In conclusion, we have calculated the uniform and staggered susceptibilities for the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ two-chain Heisenberg ladder. We establish that the susceptibilities are independent of the sign of $`J_{}`$ in the weak-coupling regime $`|J_{}|/J1`$. In that regime, the staggered susceptibility is linear in $`J/|J_{}|`$, while the excitation gap is described by a logarithmic correction to the linear dependence on $`|J_{}|`$.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with O.P. Vajk and Y. J. Kim. This work was supported by NSF CAREER Award No. DMR9985067 and by the DOE’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Divisions of Materials Sciences and Chemical Sciences, through the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Time delay between variability pattern in the images of gravitationally lensed quasars has been measured in several cases (e.g., Schechter et al. 1997, Kundić et al. 1997). Determination of time delay has important consequences, as it makes it possible to measure the Hubble constant at long cosmological distances.

The gravitationally lensed quasar HE1104 –1805 with relatively large separation between two images A and B (about 3<sup>′′</sup>) was discovered by Wisotzki et al. (1993). The object has been included to the list of regularly monitored objects by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment (OGLE) at the beginning of the second phase of the project – OGLE-II (Udalski, Kubiak and Szymański 1997) in August 1997. The main goal of this sub-project of the OGLE survey was a determination of the time delay of HE1104 –1805.

The quasar was regularly observed up to the end of the 1999/2000 observing season (August 2000) with frequency of one observation per 5–7 days (except for three month period, August–October, each year when the quasar was not visible from the Earth). In this way a unique dataset on the long term photometric behavior of HE1104 –1805 was collected. Unfortunately, the main goal of the monitoring – determination of the time delay – has not been accomplished (Schechter et al. 2003). It turned out that both images of HE1104 –1805 changed the brightness in a rather uncorrelated way making determination of time delay practically impossible.

On the other hand, the large variability of image A of HE1104 –1805 on a time scale of weeks was most likely caused by microlensing. Variability of a gravitationally lensed quasar is believed to consist of at least two components: intrinsic variability of the lensed quasar and microlensing variability caused by lensing galaxy. Thus, surprisingly, the dataset collected by OGLE-II provided unique observational material for studying microlensing in gravitational lenses and contributed to better understanding of this phenomenon (Schechter et al. 2003).

In November 2000 the OGLE-II phase ended and observations were suspended. After a half year break the OGLE project resumed observations after a significant upgrade of observing capabilities (OGLE-III). HE1104 –1805 was still on the list of targets, and the object was regularly observed up to January 2002. Unfortunately, the OGLE-II data pipeline providing photometry of the quasar in the real time was not adjusted to the OGLE-III phase at that time. Therefore, the collected data were stored and photometry of HE1104 –1805 from 2001–2002 was not available at the time of our first analysis (Schechter et al. 2003).

In the meanwhile Ofek and Maoz (2003) announced a determination of the time delay of HE1104 –1805 of $`161\pm 7`$ days. They used the OGLE-II photometry combined with their own observations in the R-band collected from 1999 to 2002. The data presented by Ofek and Maoz (2003) indicated that at the time when the OGLE-II suspended observations for the hardware transition to the OGLE-III phase, the B component of HE1104 –1805 faded by almost 0.3 mag and the pattern was then followed by the A component providing good opportunity for time delay measurement.

The results of Ofek and Maoz (2003) stimulated us to reduce the data collected during OGLE-III phase (2001–2002) and a few additional observations collected at the end of the OGLE-II phase and not presented in Schechter et al. (2003). We also attempted to independently derive the time delay based solely on the OGLE dataset of 1997–2002 which is more uniform (only V-band measurements) and accurate than that of Ofek and Maoz (2003). We present our results in this paper.

## 2 Observations

Observations of HE1104 –1805 were made between August 1997 and January 2002 as a subproject of the OGLE-II and OGLE-III surveys. All data were collected with the 1.3-m Warsaw telescope at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, operated by the Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Observations collected up to August 2000 were described in Schechter et al. (2003). After the conjunction with the Sun the quasar was observed a couple of times in November 2000. Unfortunately, because of autoguider failure at that time in each case five 2 minutes exposures were obtained instead of the standard 10 minute one. The 2 minute images were then aligned, stacked and added before the photometry was derived. Additional observation of HE1104 –1805 was obtained in February 2001. This time two standard 10 minute exposures were taken. All these observations were made with the OGLE-II setup described in Schechter et al. (2003).

From June 2001 to January 2002, HE1104 –1805 was observed with OGLE-III setup, i.e., with the $`8192\times 8192`$ pixel eight chip mosaic camera (Udalski et al. 2002) The frequency of observations was similar as during the OGLE-II coverage. Each observation consisted of two 10 minute exposures and the field was shifted a few arcsec between them.

The new images of HE1104 –1805 were reduced in the identical manner as the earlier ones (Schechter et al. 2003). Photometry was derived with the DoPhot photometry program (Schechter, Mateo and Saha 1993). The same comparison stars were used for consistency. The finding chart of HE1104 –1805 and positions of comparison stars can be found in Fig. 1 in Schechter et al. (2003).

Our Fig. 1 presents the entire light curve of HE1104 –1805 collected during OGLE observations. Individual measurements are listed in Table 1 and are also available to the astronomical community in digital form from the OGLE archive:

http://ogle.astrouw.edu.pl
ftp://sirius.astrouw.edu.pl/ogle/ogle2/HE1104/

or its US mirror

http://bulge.princeton.edu/~ogle
ftp://bulge.princeton.edu/ogle/ogle2/HE1104/

## 3 Time Delay

Looking at the light curves of both images presented in Fig. 1 one can easily see that the light curve of image A is much more variable than that of image B. It has many features that have no counterparts in the light curve of image B. On the other hand, one can also notice a broad 0.3 mag depression in the light curve which occurred near $`\mathrm{HJD}=2452000`$ and is present in both light curves. This feature occurred first in the light curve of image B and was followed by image A and is the same as that noted by Ofek and Maoz (2003). This strongly suggests variability arising from variability of the lensed quasar. The well defined shape and long duration of this feature should allow determination of time delay.

Unfortunately, as already mentioned, the feature occurred during 2000/2001 season of the quasar visibility period when the OGLE project underwent a major hardware upgrade. Therefore only infrequent observations of HE1104 –1805 were possible during that time. As a result there are relatively few points covering this feature, especially compared to the coverage during the previous observing seasons.

Because the determination of time delay using the entire dataset of images A and B would be dominated mainly by the data taken before the feature occurred such an approach would repeat unsuccessful attempt of Schechter et al. (2003). Therefore, we limited our data sample to 51 points, starting at $`\mathrm{HJD}=2451489.8`$, i.e., spanning more than a half of the time of all collected data.

To find the time delay between images A and B we used standard $`\chi ^2`$ minimalization. The light curve of image A is steeper than that of image B and image A is also brighter than image B. Therefore we followed Ofek and Maoz (2003) approach and $`\chi ^2`$ fit is described with the following formula:

$$\chi ^2=\frac{(m_{A(t)}m_{B(t+\tau )}+\alpha (tt_{\mathrm{mid}})+\mathrm{\Delta }m)^2}{\sigma _{A(t)}^2+\sigma _{B(t+\tau )}^2}$$
$`(1)`$
where $`m_t^A`$ and $`\sigma _{A(t)}`$ are the magnitude of image A and its error, respectively, as a function of time $`t`$; $`m_{t+\tau }^B`$ and $`\sigma _{B(t+\tau )}`$ are the magnitude and error of image B, but at the moment of time shifted by time delay $`\tau `$; $`t_{\mathrm{mid}}`$ equals to 2451525.378 and is defined as HJD midpoint between the first and last observations in the dataset analyzed by Ofek and Maoz (2003). It is defined in this manner so that both results could be directly compared. The remaining parameters are the linear trend of image A, $`\alpha `$, and magnitude shift between both images, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$.

Before the fitting procedure was applied all data points were nightly averaged. We decided to make the interpolation of the light curve of image B. The measurements of image B have larger errors because this component is fainter, but, on the other hand, its light curve is much smoother than the light curve of image A.

We applied similar interpolation method as used in Schechter et al. (2003): if in data taken within 20 days of the desired time we found two points, we fitted a straight line; if there were three or more we fitted a parabola and in other cases we took a simple average.

The fit was performed for all three parameters $`\tau `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ simultaneously and the global minimum was found at the values of $`157`$ days, 0.064 mag/yr and 1.555 mag, respectively. The minimum had $`\chi ^2=95.6`$, what yields $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{𝑑𝑜𝑓}=1.99`$, where dof is a number of degrees of freedom and equals here to 48. Fig. 2 shows the $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{𝑑𝑜𝑓}`$ as a function of $`\tau `$ for $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$ fixed at best fitting values.

Fig. 3 presents the light curve of image A with overplotted light curve of image B, slope corrected and time and magnitude shifted. Only the subset of data that was used for determination of the fit parameters is plotted in Fig. 3.

The upper panel of Fig. 4 presents the composite light curve of both images with the best fit parameters applied for the entire dataset. One can notice that in spite of strong microlensing activity in the light curve of image A the repeatability of smaller long term features in both light curves is rather good what assures that the time delay determination is sound.

The lower panel of Fig. 4 shows the difference between points of the light curve of image A and light curve of image B slope corrected, time and magnitude shifted and interpolated to the same HJD. Except for clear microlensing scatter in the residuals no long term trend can be noticed. The rms of residuals is equal to 0.086 mag.

From $`\chi ^2`$ analysis we estimated the error of the time delay value to be equal to $`\pm 21`$ days. However, this formal error seems to be somewhat overestimated when we perform the “chi-by-eye” fitting approach. We checked possible time delays by overplotting light curves of both images and concluded that the error should not be larger than $`10`$ days. Because this result can be somehow subjective we assume further the formal error value of $`\pm 21`$ days.

## 4 Discussion

The long term monitoring of HE1104 –1805 gravitational lens during the OGLE survey has finally accomplished its original goal. We determined the time delay between the light curve of image A and B to be equal to $`157\pm 21`$ days where the error is the formal error of $`\chi ^2`$ minimalization. In practice it can be somewhat smaller.

Our result is in excellent agreement with that of Ofek and Maoz (2003) who obtained $`\tau =161_{711}^{+7+34}`$ days (68% and 95% confidence level). Their result was based on large part of the OGLE dataset (Schechter et al. 2003) supplemented with R-band observations covering the parts of the light curve crucial for time delay determination (2000–2001 season). One should, however, note that lower accuracy of photometry and necessity of intercalibration of the OGLE V and R-band data might be a source of additional uncertainty of the Ofek and Maoz (2003) analysis.

The entire OGLE dataset provides now homogeneous V-band coverage of the photometric behavior of HE1104 –1805 between August 1997 and January 2002. Thus our time delay determination should be less prone for systematic errors.

Additional photometry of HE1104 –1805 presented in this paper nicely confirms the features in the light curves noted by Ofek and Maoz (2003). Basically identical time delay from our analysis indicates that the time delay of HE1104 –1805 is now determined with good confidence and this gravitational lens increases the still small sample of lenses with well determined time delays. However, one should note slightly different linear trend between the light curves of images A and B. Our value of 0.064 mag/yr is by 0.02 mag larger than that of Ofek and Maoz (2003). It is possible that the discrepancy is caused by less uniform dataset used by Ofek and Maoz (2003) in their analysis.

Acknowledgements. The paper was partly supported by the Polish KBN grants: 2P03D02523 to Ł. Wyrzykowski and 2P03D02124 to A. Udalski and by a US NSF grant AST-0206010 to P. Schechter. Partial support for the OGLE project was provided by the NSF grants AST-0204908 and NASA grant NAG5-12212 to B. Paczyński.

## REFERENCES

* Kundić, T., et al.  1997, Astrophys. J. Letters, 475, L85.
* Ofek, E.O., and Maoz, D. 2003, Astrophys. J., 594, 101.
* Schechter, P.L., Saha, K., and Mateo, M. 1993, P.A.S.P., 105, 1342.
* Schechter, P.L., et al.  1997, Astrophys. J. Letters, 475, L85.
* Schechter, P.L., Udalski, A., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzyński, G., Soszyński, I., Woźniak, P., Żebruń, K., Szewczyk, O., and Wyrzykowski, Ł. 2003, Astrophys. J., 584, 657.
* Udalski, A., Kubiak, M., and Szymański, M. 1997, Acta Astron., 47, 319.
* Udalski, A., Paczyński, B., Żebruń, K., Szymański, M., Kubiak, M., Soszyński, I., Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, Ł., and Pietrzyński, G. 2002, Acta Astron., 52, 1.
* Wisotzki, L., Köhler, T., Kayser, R., and Reimers, D. 1993, Astron. Astrophys., 278, L15.


text:
# (𝑚,𝑛) ZZ branes and the 𝑐=1 matrix model

## 1 Introduction

Recently, a large progress was achieved in understanding of non-perturbative physics in non-critical string theories . This progress was related with the discovery of D-branes in Liouville theory. However, the remarkable work , where the D-branes were first introduced, raised also new questions. In that paper a two-parameter family of consistent boundary conditions describing the D-branes was found, whereas up to now only one of these solutions, the so called basic $`(1,1)`$ brane, played a role in the study of non-perturbative effects.

In fact, the $`(1,1)`$ brane is distinguished among the others which are called $`(m,n)`$ branes. There are several reasons for that. In particular, all branes except the basic one contain negative dimension operators in their spectrum, so that they were thought to be unstable. Therefore, it is not evident that they play any role at all. (See, however,  where the general case of the $`(m,n)`$ branes is discussed.)

In this letter we address the question: do the other $`(m,n)`$ branes contribute to non-perturbative effects? We argue that at least the series of $`(1,n)`$ branes does contribute. We identify their contributions in the matrix model of the $`c=1`$ string theory. Namely, we consider the matrix model of the $`c=1`$ string with a Sine-Liouville perturbation and we compare the first two terms in the $`\lambda `$ expansion of the non-perturbative corrections to the partition function of the perturbed model with the CFT correlators on the disk with the $`(m,n)`$ boundary conditions.

The corrections, which we deal with, appear as $`e^{2\pi Rn\mu }`$ in the formula of Gross and Klebanov for the unperturbed partition function . The first of them with $`n=1`$ was analyzed in  and identified with the contribution of the $`(1,1)`$ brane. Here we show that the flow of other corrections under the Sine–Liouville perturbation is exactly the same as one for the $`(1,n)`$ branes. Given the results of , the calculations are quite simple. Thus, we conjecture that at least in the $`c=1`$ string theory the $`(1,n)`$ branes are associated with the higher non-perturbative corrections to the partition function.

The plan of the paper is the following. In the next section we review the relevant properties of the $`(m,n)`$ ZZ branes. In section 3 we review the results of  on non-perturbative corrections in the perturbed $`c=1`$ theory. Finally, in section 4 we present our evidences in favour of the identification of the $`(1,n)`$ branes with the non-perturbative corrections coming from the higher exponential terms in the formula of Gross and Klebanov. In Appendix A the behaviour of these corrections near the $`c=0`$ critical point is studied.

## 2 D-branes in Liouville theory

Liouville theory appears when one considers (a matter coupled to) two-dimensional gravity in the conformal gauge. It is defined by the following action:

$$S_L=\frac{d^2\sigma }{4\pi }\left((\varphi )^2+Q\widehat{R}\varphi +\mu __Le^{2b\varphi }\right).$$
(1)
The central charge of this CFT is given by

$$c_L=1+6Q^2$$
(2)
and the parameter $`b`$ is related to Q via the relation

$$Q=b+\frac{1}{b}.$$
(3)
In general, $`b`$ and $`Q`$ are determined by the requirement that the total central charge of matter and the Liouville field is equal to $`26`$. In the case when matter is represented by a minimal $`(p,q)`$ model with the central charge $`c_{p,q}=16\frac{(pq)^2}{pq}`$, the relation (2) implies that

$$b=\sqrt{p/q}.$$
(4)
The coupling to the $`c=1`$ matter corresponds to the limit $`b1`$.

An important class of conformal primaries in Liouville theory corresponds to the operators

$$V_\alpha (\varphi )=e^{2\alpha \varphi }$$
(5)
whose scaling dimension is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha =\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha =\alpha (Q\alpha )`$. The Liouville interaction in (1) is $`\delta =\mu __LV_b`$.

It is known that D-branes in Liouville theory should be localized in the strong coupling region $`\varphi \mathrm{}`$. The reason is that in this region the energy of the brane, which is proportional to the inverse string coupling $`1/g_se^{Q\varphi }`$, takes its minimum. Thus, at the classical level a configuration describing an open string attached to such a D-brane should be represented by the Liouville field on a disk, which goes to infinity approaching the boundary of the disk. The classical Liouville action (1) does have such a solution. It describes a surface of constant negative curvature. Realized as the unit disk $`|z|<1`$ on the complex plane, it has the following metric

$$ds^2=e^{\varphi (z)}|dz|^2,e^{\varphi (z)}=\frac{1}{\pi \mu __Lb^2}\frac{1}{(1z\overline{z})^2}.$$
(6)
The quantization of this geometry was constructed in the work . It was shown that there is a two-parameter family of consistent quantizations which are in one-to-one correspondence with the degenerate representations of the Virasoro algebra. Thus, one can talk about $`(m,n)`$ D-branes ($`m,n𝐍`$) of Liouville theory. We list the main properties of these branes which were established in .

Quasiclassical behaviour. Only the set of $`(1,n)`$ branes has a smooth behaviour in the limit $`b0`$ and can be interpreted as quantization of the classical geometry (6).

Perturbative expansion. Only the $`(1,1)`$ solution is consistent with the loop perturbation theory.

Spectrum of boundary operators. Each $`(m,n)`$ boundary condition is associated with a boundary operator represented by the corresponding degenerate field of Liouville theory, so that the spectrum of representations of open strings between two D-branes is defined by the fusion rules of these fields. In particular, the (1,1) boundary condition contains only the identity operator, whereas all other branes include operators of negative dimensions in their spectrum.

One-point correlation functions. The unnormalized one-point correlators of the primary operators $`V_\alpha `$ (5) on the disk with the $`(m,n)`$ boundary conditions are given by the boundary wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)`$ with momentum $`iP=\alpha Q/2`$. The explicit form of these functions will not be important for us. But we need the fact that their dependence of $`m`$ and $`n`$ is contained in the simple factor so that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(P)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(P)\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nbP)}{\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi P/b)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi bP)}.$$
(7)
## 3 Non-perturbative effects in the compactified $`c=1`$ string theory

In this section we review the results of  on the leading non-perturbative effects in two dimensional string theory with a winding perturbation. In the world sheet description, the Lagrangian of this system is

$$=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[(x)^2+(\varphi )^2+2\widehat{}\varphi +\mu __L\varphi e^{2\varphi }+\lambda e^{(2R)\varphi }\mathrm{cos}[R(x_Lx_R)]\right],$$
(8)
where the field $`x`$ is compactified on a circle of radius $`R`$, $`xx+2\pi R`$. The Sine–Liouville interaction described by the last term gives rise to vortices on the string world sheet. The perturbation is relevant for $`R<2`$, and we will restrict to the case $`R(1,2)`$ in the discussion below.

The analysis of  was based on the matrix model of the CFT (8). This model was constructed in  where it was shown that the Legendre transform $``$ of the string partition sum satisfies the Toda differential equation

$$\frac{1}{4}\lambda ^1_\lambda \lambda _\lambda (\mu ,\lambda )+\mathrm{exp}\left[4\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{}{\mu }\right)(\mu ,\lambda )\right]=1$$
(9)
with initial condition provided by the partition function of the unperturbed $`c=1`$ string theory on a circle

$`(\mu ,0)={\displaystyle \frac{R}{4}}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Lambda }^1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\mu s}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{s}{2}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{s}{2R}}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}\mu ^2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\right)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}+R{\displaystyle \underset{h=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mu ^{22h}c_h(R)+O(e^{2\pi \mu })+O(e^{2\pi R\mu }).`$ (10)
Here the genus $`h`$ term $`c_h(R)`$ is a known polynomial in $`1/R`$.

The genus expansion of the function $`(\mu ,\lambda )`$ can be found solving the Toda equation. In the following we will need only the genus-0 solution . To present it, it is convenient to introduce the scaling parameters

$$y=\mu \xi ,\xi =(\lambda \sqrt{R1})^{\frac{2}{2R}}.$$
(11)
In terms of these variables the second derivative of the partition sum on the sphere, $`_0(\mu ,\lambda )`$, reads

$$_\mu ^2_0=R\mathrm{log}\xi +X(y),$$
(12)
where the function $`X(y)`$ is determined by the following algebraic equation

$$y=e^{\frac{1}{R}X}e^{\frac{R1}{R}X}.$$
(13)
At $`\lambda =0`$, the non-perturbative corrections to the perturbative expansion of the partition function follow from the formula (10) of Gross and Klebanov. They are associated with the poles of the integrand in that equation, which occur at $`s=2\pi ik`$ and $`s=2\pi Rik`$, $`k𝐙`$. Correspondingly, there are two series of the non-perturbative corrections, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi k\mu )`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi Rk\mu )`$. The leading ones with $`k=1`$ are indicated on the second line of (10).

The dependence of these non-perturbative corrections on $`\lambda `$ in the presence of the Sine–Liouville interaction was analyzed in . It was shown that the first series of the corrections is not modified by the perturbation and a non-trivial flow is related to the second series.

In  the following problem was solved. Let a non-perturbative correction to the partition function has the following exponential form

$$\epsilon (\mu ,y)e^{\mu f(y)}.$$
(14)
Then from the fact that the full partition function should be still a solution of the Toda equation (9) (in the spherical approximation), the function $`f(y)`$ was found. The solution is written in the following parametric form

$`f(y)=2\varphi (y)+{\displaystyle \frac{2(2R)}{y\sqrt{R1}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}X(y)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi (y),`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi (y)\psi \right)}{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{R1}{R}\varphi (y)+\psi \right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{R1}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2R}{2R}}X(y)\right).`$ (16)
Note that the function $`\varphi (y)`$ is directly related to the derivative of $`f(y)`$:

$$\varphi (y)=\frac{1}{2}_y(yf(y)).$$
(17)
The constant $`\psi `$ is determined by the initial condition. If this condition is fixed by the unperturbed theory, $`\psi `$ should be found from the given asymptotics at $`y\mathrm{}`$.

In  the flow with $`\lambda `$ of the first correction $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi R\mu )`$ was investigated. It corresponds to the initial condition $`\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}f(y)=2\pi R`$ which fixes the constant in (16) as follows

$$\psi =\frac{\pi }{2}.$$
(18)
Thus, the equation (16) takes the form

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi \right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{R1}{R}\varphi \right)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{R1}}e^{\frac{2R}{2R}X(y)}.$$
(19)
Also several first terms of the expansion of $`f(y)`$ for small $`\lambda `$, or large $`y`$, were found

$$f(y)=2\pi R+4\mathrm{sin}(\pi R)\mu ^{\frac{2R}{2}}\lambda +R\mathrm{sin}(2\pi R)\mu ^{(2R)}\lambda ^2+O(\lambda ^3).$$
(20)
## 4 $`(1,n)`$ branes in the matrix model

In  it was demonstrated that the first two terms of the expansion (20) give rise to non-perturbative effects which are reproduced from D-brane calculations in the CFT framework based on the (1,1) ZZ brane. This confirmed the proposal that the basic $`(1,1)`$ brane is responsible for the leading non-perturbative corrections. But the result (10) implies that there is a series of such corrections, whereas only the first one was analyzed. Here we are going to identify the origin of all other corrections.

In terms of the function $`f(y)`$ introduced in the previous section, they are described by the initial conditions

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}f_k(y)=2\pi Rk.$$
(21)
The flow with the Sine–Liouville coupling is determined by equations (15) and (16). It is clear that all initial conditions (21) correspond to the same constant $`\psi `$ given in (18). As a result, all functions $`f_k(y)`$ are defined by the same set of equations (15) and (19).

It is trivial to generalize the expansion (20) to the case of arbitrary parameter $`k`$. The result reads

$$f_k(y)=2\pi Rk+4\mathrm{sin}(\pi Rk)\mu ^{\frac{2R}{2}}\lambda +R\mathrm{sin}(2\pi Rk)\mu ^{(2R)}\lambda ^2+O(\lambda ^3).$$
(22)
Thus, in each order in $`\lambda `$ the $`k`$-dependence of the strength of the non-perturbative corrections is quite simple. In particular, we have

$$\frac{f_k}{f_1}|_{\lambda =0}=k,\frac{_\lambda f_k}{_\lambda f_1}|_{\lambda =0}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi Rk)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi R)}.$$
(23)
On the other hand, these non-perturbative corrections should be related to one-point correlators of the cosmological and Sine–Liouville operators, respectively, on the disk with some boundary conditions. As we mentioned, for $`k=1`$ it was shown that these are the $`(1,1)`$ boundary conditions. Here we argue that for general $`k`$ one should choose the $`(1,k)`$ boundary conditions.

We can give two evidences in favour of this conjecture. Namely, assuming this identification, one can reproduce the two relations (23). Indeed, it implies that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_k}{f_1}}|_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_b_{1,k}}{V_b_{1,1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,k}(i(Q/2b))}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(i(Q/2b))}},`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{_\lambda f_k}{_\lambda f_1}}|_{\lambda =0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_{bR/2}_{1,k}}{V_{bR/2}_{1,1}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,k}(i(Q/2b+R/2))}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(i(Q/2b+R/2))}},`$ (25)
where in the right hand side one should take the limit $`b1`$. Taking into account (7) and (3), it is easy to show that one obtains the matrix model result (23).

It is clear that this result can be reproduced also from $`(k,1)`$ ZZ branes. However, we refer to the absence of a sensible quasiclassical limit for these branes to argue that the $`(1,k)`$ branes are more preferable.

## 5  Discussion

Several remarks concerning our conjecture are in order.

First, if one looks at the degenerate fields of Liouville theory

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{m,n}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\left((1m)/b+(1n)b\right)\varphi \right)$$
(26)
and at their dimensions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{m,n}=Q^2/4(m/b+nb)^2/4,$$
(27)
one observes that in the limit $`b1`$ all degenerate fields with fixed $`m+n`$ are indistinguishable. Therefore, one can wonder how we were able to resolve this indeterminacy for the ZZ branes. It is not completely clear for us why, but the formula (7) shows that even in this limit all $`(m,n)`$ branes are different since we obtain either the product $`\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi mP)\mathrm{sinh}(2\pi nP)`$ or simply $`mn`$ for the case $`P=0`$. The only remaining symmetry is the possibility to exchange $`m`$ and $`n`$. Thus, in the $`c=1`$ theory it is possible that the branes $`(m,n)`$ and $`(n,m)`$ are indeed the same. If, nevertheless, they are different, we can apply the argument given in the end of the previous section to choose between $`(1,n)`$ and $`(n,1)`$ branes.

One can ask also what happens in the $`c<1`$ case. In this case the KP equations of the matrix model should produce the similar series of non-perturbative corrections to the partition function as the one appearing in the equation (10). Namely, they will have the form $`e^{kf_{p,q}}`$, $`k𝐍`$.111In fact, for each minimal $`(p,q)`$ model there is a finite set of such corrections which are in one-to-one correspondence with the Kac table. The reason for the appearance of the additional parameters, let us call them $`(r,s)`$, is that the minimal CFT model possesses exactly the same number of possible Dirichlet boundary conditions . For $`q=p+1`$, all constants $`f_{p,q}(r,s)`$ were found in . However, the factor $`k`$ is not reproduced by any $`(m,n)`$ brane. Indeed, taking into account the relation (4), one obtains that for the $`(p,q)`$ minimal model

$$\frac{V_b_{m,n}}{V_b_{1,1}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{m,n}(i(Q/2b))}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{1,1}(i(Q/2b))}=(1)^{m+n}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi mq/p)\mathrm{sin}(\pi np/q)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi q/p)\mathrm{sin}(\pi p/q)}.$$
(28)
No choice of $`m`$ and $`n`$ makes this expression equal to $`k`$. Thus, the origin of these non-perturbative corrections is not the same as in the $`c=1`$ string theory.

The latter statement is confirmed by the analysis of the non-perturbative corrections in the Sine–Liouville theory near the $`c=0`$ critical point, which is presented in Appendix A. On could expect that the $`k`$th correction in the $`c=1`$ string theory flows to the $`k`$th correction in the $`c=0`$ theory. However, it turns out that only the leading correction possesses the correct $`c=0`$ behaviour and reproduces the leading correction to the pure gravity partition function. In contrast, all corrections with $`k>1`$ die off in this limit.

In fact, the corrections, which are just $`k`$th power of the leading correction, can be interpreted as contributions of $`k`$ instantons described by the $`(1,1)`$ branes.222This fact was pointed out to us by I. Kostov. This interpretation works well both for the $`c<1`$ and the unperturbed $`c=1`$ cases. However, when the Sine–Liouville interaction is taken into account, this picture breaks down. The reason is that it implies the existence of the exponential corrections, which are powers of the leading one, independently of the presence of a perturbation because effects of interaction between instantons can appear only in the next orders in genus expansion. But, as we saw above, this is not true for the $`c=1`$ theory perturbed by windings where the flow with $`\lambda `$ leads to a more complicated $`k`$-dependence (see eq. (23)). Thus, it is not clear whether even for $`c<1`$ the higher corrections can be explained by the many instanton interpretation. Another possibility would be that in the $`c=1`$ theory the $`(1,n)`$ branes are bound states of n $`(1,1)`$ branes which are stabilized by the perturbation.

It would be quite interesting to do additional checks of the conjecture we proposed in this letter. One of them is the comparison of the two-point correlator of the Sine–Liouville operator on the disk with the $`(1,n)`$ boundary conditions to the third term in the $`\lambda `$ expansion in (22). In fact, we need only to know the $`(m,n)`$ dependence of this correlator to check the conjecture.

Acknowledgements: The author is grateful to V. Kazakov, I. Kostov, B. Ponsot and J. Teschner for valuable discussions and especially to D. Kutasov for discussion of the $`c=0`$ critical limit. The author thanks the organizers of the workshop ”Integrable Models and Applications: From Strings to Condensed Matter” in Florence (Euclid Network HPRN-CT-2002-00325) for hospitality during the beginning of this work.

## Appendix A $`c=0`$ critical behaviour

It is well known that decreasing the cosmological coupling $`\mu `$ in the Sine–Liouville theory (8), one approaches a critical point where the system, which had the central charge 1, behaves as pure gravity with the vanishing central charge . In  it was shown that the same is true for the non-perturbative effects. Namely, in the limit

$$yy_c=(2R)(R1)^{\frac{R1}{2R}}$$
(29)
the function $`f_1(y)`$ describing the leading non-perturbative correction to the partition function of the Sine–Liouville theory reproduces the leading non-perturbative correction to the partition function of the pure gravity.

In this appendix we analyze what happens for the higher corrections $`f_k(y)`$. They are defined by the same pair of equations (15) and (19) and differ only by the following condition

$$\underset{y\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi _k(y)=\pi Rk.$$
(30)
However, in the limit (29) one finds a crucial difference between the case $`k=1`$ and all other cases. Indeed, the equation (13) implies that the critical value of the function $`X`$ is given by

$$e^{\frac{2R}{2R}X_c}=\sqrt{R1}.$$
(31)
Thus, the critical values of $`\varphi _k`$ are to be found from the following equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{R1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}=\frac{1}{R1}.$$
(32)
For $`k=1`$ the solution of this equation is evident: $`\varphi _1^{(c)}=0`$. But for all $`k>1`$ (and generic values of $`R`$), the critical value is non-vanishing and belongs to the interval $`(\pi R(k1),\pi R(k+1))`$.

This fact has important consequences. Whereas for $`k=1`$ the expansion near the critical point gives

$$\varphi _1(y)=\sqrt{3}(X_cX)^{1/2}+O\left((X_cX)^{3/2}\right),$$
(33)
for $`k>1`$ one finds333There is no misprint here. The second order term vanishes indeed.

$$\varphi _k(y)=\varphi _k^{(c)}\frac{2R}{2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{R1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}(X_cX)+O\left((X_cX)^3\right).$$
(34)
Substitution of these expansions into the general solution (15) together with the critical behaviour of the free energy

$$X_cX=\frac{\sqrt{2}R}{\sqrt{R1}}\left(\frac{y_cy}{y_c}\right)^{1/2}+O\left(y_cy\right),$$
(35)
gives two different results444In fact, the high order terms are easier calculated taking into account the relation (17).

$`f_1(y)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{3}}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2R^2}{R1}}\right)^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_cy}{y_c}}\right)^{5/4}+\mathrm{},`$ (36)
$`f_k(y)`$ $``$ $`2(\varphi _k^{(c)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _k^{(c)})2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _k^{(c)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_cy}{y_c}}\right)`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}R(2R)}{3\sqrt{R1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{R1}{R}\varphi _k^{(c)}\right)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y_cy}{y_c}}\right)^{3/2}+\mathrm{},k>1.`$
Thus, all higher corrections possess a critical behaviour which is different from the usual $`c=0`$ behaviour given by the first correction. What is the final point of their RG flow? In the critical limit for $`k>1`$ the leading two terms of the non-perturbative corrections are

$$\epsilon _k\mathrm{exp}\left(\mu f_k(y)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2y_c}{\xi }(\varphi _k^{(c)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _k^{(c)})\frac{2\varphi _k^{(c)}}{\xi }(yy_c)\right).$$
(38)
The $`c=0`$ string coupling is related to the critical parameter as follows

$$g_s\frac{\xi }{(y_cy)^{5/4}}.$$
(39)
Thus, to keep it fixed or, moreover, small, one should take also $`\xi 0`$. Then the first term goes to $`+\mathrm{}`$ (since $`y_c<0`$) and the correction apparently diverges. However, this term does not depend on any parameters of the $`c=0`$ model and can be absorbed into the normalization coefficient which is, in any case, arbitrary. The next term does depend on $`g_s`$ and leads to the following behaviour

$$\epsilon _k\mathrm{exp}\left(c_kg_s^{4/5}\right),c_k\frac{\varphi _k^{(c)}}{\xi ^{1/5}}.$$
(40)
As a result, in the limit we are interested in, $`c_k\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, in contrast to the leading correction, which reproduces the non-perturbative correction of the $`c=0`$ theory, all higher corrections disappear near the critical point.


text:
# Confirmation of strong magnetic field amplification and nuclear cosmic ray acceleration in SN 1006

11institutetext: Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy, 31 Lenin Ave., 677891 Yakutsk, Russia22institutetext: Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Chiba 277-8582, Japan33institutetext: Max Planck Institut für Kernphysik, Postfach 103980, D-69029 Heidelberg, Germany
33email: Heinrich.Voelk@mpi-hd.mpg.de  (Received / Accepted )

It is shown that the nonlinear kinetic model of cosmic ray (CR) acceleration in supernova remnants (SNRs) fits the shell-type nonthermal X-ray morphology, obtained in Chandra observations, in a satisfactory way. The set of empirical parameters is the same which reproduces the dynamical properties of the SNR and the spectral characteristics of the emission produced by CRs. The extremely small spatial scales of the observed X-ray distribution are due to the large effective magnetic field $`B_\mathrm{d}100`$ $`\mu `$G in the interior, which is also required to give a good fit for the spatially integrated radio and X-ray synchrotron spectra. The only reasonably thinkable condition for the production of such a large effective field strength is an efficiently accelerated nuclear CR component. Therefore the Chandra data confirm the inference that SN 1006 indeed accelerates nuclear CRs with the high efficiency required for SNRs to be considered as the main Galactic CR sources.

###### Key Words.:

ISM: cosmic rays, supernova remnants; individual: SN 1006   offprints: H. J. Völk

A simple-minded calculation (McKenzie & Völk mckv82 (1982)) of the mean square magnetic field (MF) fluctuation $`(\delta B)^2`$

$$(\delta B/B)^2=M_\mathrm{a}P_\mathrm{c}/(\rho _\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{s}^2)$$
(1)
excited by the cosmic ray (CR) streaming instability in a strong shock with $`M_\mathrm{a}`$ $``$ $`1`$ shows that for efficient acceleration, $`P_\mathrm{c}\rho _\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{s}^2`$, the excitation of resonant Alfvén waves is not only an important ingredient for the diffusive acceleration mechanism as such (Bell bell78 (1978); Blandford & Ostriker bo78 (1978)). The resultant $`(\delta B/B)^21`$ could also imply a considerable obstacle for the theoretical description of the process up to the production of an enhanced effective MF in the acceleration region (Völk voe84 (1984)). In eq.1 $`M_\mathrm{a}=V_\mathrm{s}/c_\mathrm{a}`$ is the Alfvénic Mach number, where $`c_\mathrm{a}`$ denotes the Alfvén speed, $`P_\mathrm{c}`$ is the CR pressure at the shock front, and $`\rho _\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{s}^2`$ is the ram pressure of the incoming plasma flow. The problem of eq.1 was taken up again recently by Bell & Lucek (bluc01 (2001)), referring also to (Lucek & Bell lucb00 (2000)) and attempting a nonlinear description of the MF evolution in a simple model, with the conclusion that a considerable amplification to what we shall call an effective MF should indeed occur. At the same time the selfconsistent treatment of the nonlinear time-dependent acceleration equations, both in theoretical and computational terms (e.g. Berezhko et al. byk96 (1996); Berezhko & Völk bv97 (1997)), had progressed sufficiently to make quantitative modeling of CR acceleration in specific supernova remnants SNRs like the historical object SN 1006 possible (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)), including the so-called injection process (Völk et al. vbk03 (2003) and references therein). This allowed a detailed comparison with radio and X-ray observations which had become available in the nineties (Koyama et al. koyama (1995); Allen et al. apg (2001)), and allowed in particular a theoretical study of the morphology. In fact there are very recent measurements on details of the X-ray morphology of SN 1006 with Chandra (Long et al. long (2003); Bamba et al. bamba (2003)). We shall show in this Letter that they confirm the amplification of the MF and - for lack of any acceptable alternative - its cause, the efficient acceleration of nuclear CRs.

Nonthermal X-ray observations indicate that at least CR electrons are accelerated in SNRs. In SN 1006 there is evidence that electrons reach energies of about 100 TeV (Koyama et al. koyama (1995); Allen et al. apg (2001)). Also TeV $`\gamma `$-ray emission from this source has been reported (Tanimori et al. tan98 (1998)). However, depending on the assumed values for poorly known physical parameters in the theory (mainly the value of the MF and the nucleon injection rate, but also the ambient gas density), the observed high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray emission of SN 1006 could in principle be predominantly either simply the inverse Compton radiation of the synchrotron electrons scattering on the microwave background radiation as assumed by Tanimori et al. (tan98 (1998)), or $`\pi ^0`$ decay emission due to hadronic collisions of CRs with gas nuclei (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). Comparing the synchrotron data with the calculated spectrum of the energetic electrons Berezhko et al. (bkv02 (2002)) have inferred that the existing data require a very efficient acceleration of CR nuclei at the SNR blast wave (which converts about 10 % of the initial SNR energy content into CR energy) as well as a large interior MF strength $`B_\mathrm{d}120\mu `$G. The large value of $`B_\mathrm{d}`$ is expected and possible in this case, using the spatially integrated radio and X-ray synchrotron spectra to empirically determine the MF strength and the injection rate in the theory. MF amplification was also one of the possibilities discussed later by Long et al. (long (2003)). The nonthermal energy is distributed between energetic electrons and protons in the proportion $`1.5\times 10^3`$, similar to that of the Galactic CRs. From the point of view of acceleration theory this is the physically most plausible solution. It can also explain the peculiar dipolar structure of the synchrotron emission, with the dipole axis parallel to the ambient interstellar MF, as an effect of the homogeneity of the large-scale ambient MF (Völk et al. vbk03 (2003)), generally believed to exist in the rather clean interstellar environment of SN 1006 above the Galactic disk (Long et al. long (2003)). This morphology is fairly common among SNRs (Winkler & Long wink (1997)). There is no alternative process without ad hoc-assumptions in the literature, or a new one which we could reasonably imagine, that would amplify the MF in a collisionless shock without particle acceleration. Nevertheless, the previous observations of the large-scale nonthermal emission in the case of SN 1006 did not strongly exclude a scenario which we called the “inefficient model”, with low interior MF $`B_\mathrm{d}10\mu `$G in which nuclear CRs would play no important role and practically all nonthermal emissions would be of leptonic origin (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). As a corollary we shall show here that such a low-field scenario is not compatible with the local X-ray morphology.

For the comparison with the new Chandra data we shall not present the details of our model. They have been already described in the above paper (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). We shall rather use some simple analytical approximations, needed to qualitatively interpret the spatial distribution of the various CR components in SNRs. For the quantitative comparison we shall however use the exact numerical results. With some additions, the distribution of CRs produced by the spherically expanding shock of radius $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ and speed $`V_\mathrm{s}`$ can be roughly described by the steady state 1-dimensional transport equation for the CR distribution function $`f(r,p,t)`$

$$\kappa \frac{^2f}{x^2}u\frac{f}{x}+\frac{p}{3}\frac{du}{dx}\frac{f}{p}L=0,$$
(2)
where $`x=R_\mathrm{s}r`$, and $`u=V_\mathrm{s}w`$ is the speed of the scattering medium relative with respect to the shock front, $`w`$ is the speed in the frame of the progenitor star, $`\kappa (p)`$ is the CR diffusion coefficient, $`p`$ is particle momentum, $`L`$ is a loss term, which we take in the simple form $`L=f/\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is the loss time. Within this approach we neglect any effects of the shock modification due to the CR backreaction. Therefore the velocity profile has the form: $`u(x<0)=u_1=V_\mathrm{s};u(x>0)=u_2=u_1/\sigma `$, where $`\sigma =4`$ is the shock compression ratio. The solution of this transport equation is $`f_i=f_0(p)\mathrm{exp}(|x|/l_i)`$ (Völk et al. vmf81 (1981)), where $`f_0(p)=f(x=0,p)`$ is the CR distribution function at the shock front and the scale

$$l_i=\frac{2\kappa _i}{u_i}\left[1(1)^i\sqrt{1+4\kappa _i/(u_i^2\tau _i)}\right]^1$$
(3)
describes the spatial CR distribution in the upstream ($`i=1`$) and downstream ($`i=2`$) regions, with simple limits for strong ($`\tau _i\kappa _i/u_i^2`$) and weak ($`\tau _i\kappa _i/u_i^2`$) losses. The CR distribution function at the shock front is determined by the expression

$$f_0=Ap^q\mathrm{exp}\left[_{p_{\mathrm{i}nj}}^p𝑑p\varphi (p)/p\right],$$
(4)
where $`q=3u_1/(u_1u_2)`$; $`\varphi =q[\kappa _1/(u_1^2\tau _1)+\kappa _2/(u_1u_2\tau _2)]`$.

The losses produce two effects. First of all, the universal power law spectrum of accelerated CRs $`fp^q`$ has an exponential cutoff, where the maximum CR momentum $`p_\mathrm{m}`$ is determined through the condition $`\varphi (p_\mathrm{m})=1`$. The losses lead also to a reduction of the spatial scales $`l_i`$ that is essential in the cutoff region $`pp_\mathrm{m}`$, cf. eq.4.

In the collisionless cosmic plasma, losses of nuclear CRs due to their interactions with the gas particles or with the ambient fields are negligibly small. The only important effects which restrict the proton acceleration are adiabatic cooling in the downstream region and a geometrical factor, that is the finite shock size. Formally compared with the simplified one-dimensional eq.2, the spherically symmetric transport equation contains the additional term $`(2\kappa _1/r)(f/r)`$ which contains the information about the shock size $`R_\mathrm{s}`$. Approximately we can write $`f/rf/l_1`$. Therefore this additional term in the plane wave approach can be expressed as a loss term $`L`$ with the loss time $`\tau _1=R_\mathrm{s}/(2u_1)`$. In the downstream region inside the SNR there is in addition also the term $`(up/3)(f/p)`$ which describes CR adiabatic cooling. It can be similarly estimated as a loss term with loss time $`\tau _2R_\mathrm{s}/V_\mathrm{s}`$. As a result, the upper proton momentum is determined by the relation $`\kappa _1(p_\mathrm{m})=R_\mathrm{s}V_\mathrm{s}/A`$, where $`A10`$ (Berezhko ber96 (1996)).

In addition to the above mechanical effects CR electrons suffer synchrotron losses with a time scale $`\tau =9m_\mathrm{e}^2c^2/(4r_0^2B^2p)`$, where $`m_\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron mass, $`r_0`$ denotes the classical electron radius, and $`B`$ is the MF strength. This is the dominant loss effect for our discussion. For sufficiently low MF, when the loss time $`\tau `$ exceeds the age $`t`$ of the system, synchrotron losses are not important and the electron and proton spectra have exactly the same shape. In this case the highest energy electrons with $`pp_\mathrm{m}`$ have quite a wide spatial distribution with scales $`l_{1,2}0.1R_\mathrm{s}`$. For high MF values the electron spectrum is restricted to significantly lower momenta, $`p_\mathrm{m}^ep_\mathrm{m}`$, than are protons. In this case accelerated electrons occupy only a very thin region around the shock front since $`l_{1,2}0.1R_\mathrm{s}`$ for all electron energies, for which $`\tau t`$. The radio-electrons in the GeV range have $`\tau t`$ and therefore $`l_20.1R_\mathrm{s}`$, consistent with observation (Long et al. long (2003)). The same is true for $`100`$ TeV electrons which produce X-ray emission in the low-field case.

During the free expansion phase, preceding the early Sedov phase in which SN 1006 is at the present time, a Rayleigh-Taylor instability of the interface between the shocked interstellar gas and the ejected gas can occur (Gull gull73 (1973)). It can make the downstream gas velocity profile $`w(r)`$ narrower than the classical Sedov profile, leading to an increase of the adiabatic expansion compared with the above estimate. As a result the radio emission profile may become somewhat narrower, whereas the X-ray emitting electrons are not affected, being dominated by the strong synchrotron losses around the shock This instability can also locally amplify the MF. However, the unstable region moves to the deep interior ($`r>0.1R_\mathrm{s}`$) as the Sedov phase sets in, and dies out. Therefore we do not consider these processes any further. In particular they have no influence on the CR acceleration which occurs near the shock.

Our nonlinear model (Berezhko et al. byk96 (1996); Berezhko & Völk bv97 (1997)) is based on a fully time-dependent solution of the CR transport equation together with the gas dynamic equations in spherical symmetry. It yields at any given distance $`r`$ the momentum distribution $`f(r,p,t)`$ of CRs produced during the SNR evolution up to time $`t`$. Because of the efficient acceleration of the nuclear CR component (mainly protons), consistent with the expected injection rate of suprathermal particles into the acceleration process (Völk et al. vbk03 (2003)), the CRs significantly modify the shock structure by their nonlinear backreaction and amplify the MF (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). This MF amplification on all scales drives the CR scattering mean free path towards the particle gyroradius $`\rho _\mathrm{B}`$, which means isotropic spatial diffusion. Since the particle distribution is also isotropic this implies the Bohm limit in the effective mean MF (Völk voe84 (1984)): $`\kappa =\rho _\mathrm{B}v/3`$, where $`v`$ denotes the particle velocity. Fig.1 shows the calculated radial dependence of the X-ray synchrotron emissivity $`q_\nu (ϵ_\nu ,r)`$ (e.g. Berezinskii et al. brz90 (1990)) for four X-ray energies $`ϵ_\nu =1`$, 2, 5 and 10 keV. One can see that the emissivity $`q_\nu (r)`$ peaks at the shock position $`r=R_\mathrm{s}`$ because the radiating electrons have a sharp peak at $`r=R_\mathrm{s}`$ due to the synchrotron losses. Since within the upstream and downstream emission regions the respective MF is approximately uniform, the spatial behavior of the emissivity $`q_\nu (r)`$ is determined by the spatial dependence of the CR distributions. According to eq.3, the expected upstream scale for the energy $`ϵ_\nu =5`$ keV is $`l_1=0.01R_\mathrm{s}`$, taking into account that the upstream MF is $`B_1=\sigma _\mathrm{p}B_0`$, the upstream medium speed is $`u_1=V_\mathrm{s}/\sigma _\mathrm{p}`$, $`\sigma _\mathrm{p}2`$ is the precursor compression ratio, $`V_\mathrm{s}=3200`$ km/s, $`R_\mathrm{s}=7.3`$ pc, and $`B_0=20`$ $`\mu `$G is the MF in the shock precursor, i.e. the interstellar MF which is significantly amplified by the (nonlinear) CR streaming instability. This is in good agreement with the numerical results in Fig.1, based on a source distance of 1.8 kpc.

The downstream scale due to the synchrotron losses, expected from relations (3), is $`l_2\sqrt{\kappa _2\tau _2}0.0037R_\mathrm{s}`$, taking into account the values $`u_2=V_\mathrm{s}/\sigma `$, $`B_2=\sigma B_0`$, and $`\sigma =6.3`$ (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)). This agrees with the numerical values quite well. Due to the energy-independence of $`l_2`$, the spectral form of the downstream $`q_\nu (ϵ_\nu ,r)`$ does not depend on $`ϵ_\nu `$ (see Fig.1, in agreement with observations (Bamba et al. bamba (2003)).

The MF $`B_1=B(r=R_\mathrm{s}+0)`$, just ahead of the gas subshock at $`r=R_\mathrm{s}`$, and the postshock MF $`B_2=B(r=R_\mathrm{s}0)`$ are connected by the relation $`B_2=\sigma _\mathrm{s}B_1`$, where $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}=3.6`$ is the subshock compression ratio. Since the upstream MF is significantly smaller than the downstream MF, the synchrotron emissivity undergoes a jump at $`r=R_\mathrm{s}`$, and the emission from the downstream region significantly exceeds the upstream emission.

In projection along the line of sight, the radial emissivity profile determines the remnant’s surface brightness. For the X-ray energy interval $`ϵ_1<ϵ_\nu <ϵ_2`$ it has the form

$$J_\nu (\rho )_{ϵ_1}^{ϵ_2}𝑑ϵ_\nu 𝑑xq_\nu (ϵ_\nu ,r=\sqrt{\rho ^2+x^2})$$
(5)
where $`\rho `$ is the distance between the center of the remnant and the line of sight. It is clear from this expression that, due to the shock curvature, the surface brightness profile $`J_\nu (\rho )`$ differs from the emissivity profile $`q_\nu (r=\rho )`$, except for the simple case of a plane shock which is parallel to the line of sight. In particular, the position $`\rho _\mathrm{m}<R_\mathrm{s}`$ of the peak value $`J_\mathrm{m}=J_\nu (\rho _\mathrm{m})`$ does not coincide with the shock edge $`\rho =R_\mathrm{s}`$, and the scaling values $`L_{1,2}`$ which characterize the spatial brightness behavior in the inner $`(\rho <\rho _\mathrm{m})`$ and the outer $`(\rho >\rho _\mathrm{m})`$ regions are not simply the downstream and upstream emissivity scales $`l_{1,2}`$.

The numerically calculated brightness profile for the X-ray energy interval between $`ϵ_1=2`$ keV and $`ϵ_2=10`$ keV is shown in Fig.2. The brightness profile is characterized by the outer scale $`L_1=0.002R_\mathrm{s}=0.015`$ pc which comes from the emission of the downstream region alone, and from the shock curvature. The inner brightness scale is $`L_27L_1=0.1`$ pc.

The sharpest experimental X-ray brightness profiles obtained by the Chandra observers (Long et al. long (2003); Bamba et al. bamba (2003)) are shown in Fig.2. Since the absolute values of the measurements are not known, all theoretical and experimental profiles are normalized to their peak values. One can see that the experimental values agree very well with our calculations. All other observed brightness profiles are significantly wider: on average $`L_1=0.04`$ pc and $`L_2=0.2`$ pc (Bamba et al. bamba (2003)). There are several reasons for a broadening of the observed profile, compared with the ideal case of a spherical shell. First of all, it is clear from the observations that the actual shock front deviates from a spherical form. The wavy shape of the shock front can be produced as the result of a small scale density inhomogeneity of the ambient interstellar medium. Any small scale distortion of the spherical emission shell leads to a broadening of the observed brightness profile.

It is important to note that there is direct experimental evidence that not only the inner part $`(\rho <\rho _\mathrm{m})`$ of the brightness distribution $`J_\nu (\rho )`$ but also the outer part $`(\rho >\rho _\mathrm{m})`$ is due to emission from the downstream region $`r<R_\mathrm{s}`$, in contrast to the arguments of Bamba et al. (bamba (2003)). At the gas subshock the density increases by a factor $`\sigma _\mathrm{s}=3.6`$ and the gas temperature increases by a factor of 9.3. Due to this fact the thermal emission from the upstream region is small compared to the downstream thermal emission. Therefore, if the observed nonthermal X-ray emission $`J_\nu (\rho )`$ at $`\rho >\rho _\mathrm{m}`$ is due to the upstream electrons, then one should expect that the thermal X-ray radiation has a peak value at a smaller distance than $`\rho _\mathrm{m}`$ and drops to almost zero at $`\rho =\rho _\mathrm{m}`$, if as before $`\rho _\mathrm{m}`$ represents the peak position of the nonthermal X-ray emission (in other words the peak of the thermal X-rays is expected in this case at smaller distances). However, the observed peak positions of the thermal and nonthermal X-ray emissions and their shapes in the outer region $`\rho >\rho _\mathrm{m}`$ are almost identical (Bamba et al. bamba (2003)). This is a strict confirmation that the entire observed X-ray emission comes from the downstream region, exactly as predicted by Berezhko et al. (bkv02 (2002)).

In Figs. 1 and 2 we also present calculations for the so-called inefficient model. Of course, the number of accelerated electrons was chosen to be consistent with the observed synchrotron emission for the assumed downstream MF $`B_\mathrm{d}=16`$ $`\mu `$G (see Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002) for details). Since in this case the MF is much lower, so that synchrotron losses play no role, the upstream (negligible brightness) and downstream electron length scales $`l_{1,2}0.1R_\mathrm{s}`$ are so large (see Fig.1) that the brightness profile is almost two orders of magnitude wider than observed. The clear conclusion is that inefficient scenarios for CR injection/acceleration in SN 1006 should be rejected since they strongly contradict the X-ray measurements.

Note that in order to form such a sharp decrease of their distribution towards the center of the remnant one needs a powerful loss process in the downstream region, independently of what specific acceleration process produces the energetic electrons near the SN shock. Adiabatic cooling, as it was demonstrated, is not strong enough. In the diluted ionized plasma the only known strong electron loss process is synchrotron losses. But this process can influence the 100 TeV electron distribution in a significant form only if the downstream MF is as high as $`B_\mathrm{d}100`$ $`\mu `$G, much larger than the typical interstellar MF. Such a high MF can be created due to CR backreaction upstream of the shock. For such a large downstream MF $`B_\mathrm{d}100`$ $`\mu `$G the number of relativistic electrons consistent with the observed radio flux from SN 1006 is so low (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)) that they are not able to create Alfvén waves with sufficiently high amplitudes $`\delta BB`$. Indeed, taking into account that a typical value of the Alfvén speed is $`c_\mathrm{a}=20`$ km/s and that for $`B_\mathrm{d}100`$ $`\mu `$G the pressure of the CR electron component $`P_{\mathrm{c1}}10^3\rho _\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{s}^2`$ (Berezhko et al. bkv02 (2002)), we have $`(\delta B/B)^20.1`$ from eq.1, which implies an insignificant background MF amplification. The only possibility is efficient proton acceleration. In this case their number, consistent with all existing data, is so high, $`P_\mathrm{c}\rho _\mathrm{g}V_\mathrm{s}^2`$, that they are able to strongly amplify the MF and at the same time to provide efficient CR scattering approaching the Bohm limit (Bell & Lucek bluc01 (2001)). Such a MF amplification is required by the comparison of our selfconsistent model with the synchrotron observations. We note that the uniformity of the downstream MF strength distribution during the Sedov phase, despite the strong expansion of the downstream region, is a direct consequence of the temporal weakening of the random MF generation at the shock $`B_2V_\mathrm{s}^2`$ (Bell & Lucek bluc01 (2001)), if we can approximate the MF as being isotropic according to the relation $`B_\mathrm{d}^2\rho _\mathrm{g}^{4/3}=const`$ (e.g. Chevalier chev74 (1974)).

We conclude that these data confirm the MF amplification and the efficient acceleration of nuclear CRs in SN 1006, predicted by Berezhko et al. (bkv02 (2002)). This efficiency is consistent with the requirements for the Galactic CR energy budget.

This work has been supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant 03-02-16325). EGB and LTK acknowledge the hospitality of the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, where part of this work was carried out. LTK acknowledges the receipt of a JSPS Research Fellowship.