text:
# Measurement of the Neutron Lifetime Using a Proton Trap

## Abstract

We report a new measurement of the neutron decay lifetime by the absolute counting of in-beam neutrons and their decay protons. Protons were confined in a quasi-Penning trap and counted with a silicon detector. The neutron beam fluence was measured by capture in a thin 6LiF foil detector with known absolute efficiency. The combination of these simultaneous measurements gives the neutron lifetime: $`\tau _n=(886.8\pm 1.2[\mathrm{stat}]\pm 3.2[\mathrm{sys}])`$ s. The systematic uncertainty is dominated by uncertainties in the mass of the 6LiF deposit and the 6Li$`(n,t)`$ cross section. This is the most precise measurement of the neutron lifetime to date using an in-beam method.

Precision measurements of neutron beta decay address basic questions in particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. As the simplest semi-leptonic decay system, the free neutron plays a crucial role in understanding the physics of the weak interaction and testing the validity of the Standard Model NDmot . The current experimental uncertainty in the neutron lifetime dominates the uncertainty in calculating the primordial helium abundance, as a function of baryon density, using Big-Bang nucleosynthesis BUR99 . Figure 1 shows a summary of recent neutron lifetime measurements. The four most precise MAM89 ; NEZ92 ; MAM93 ; ARZ00  confined ultracold neutrons in a bottle; the decay lifetime is determined by counting the neutrons that remain after some elapsed time, with a correction for competing neutron loss mechanisms. Two others SPI88 ; BYR96  measured the absolute specific activity of a beam of cold neutrons by counting decay protons. Given the very different systematic problems that the two classes of experiments encounter, a more precise measurement of the lifetime using the in-beam technique not only reduces the overall uncertainty of $`\tau _n`$ but also provides a strong check on the robustness of the central value. Note that the in-beam method measures only the neutron decay branch that produces a proton in the final state, while the UCN bottle method measures all decay modes. With future improvements in precision it may become possible to place important limits on exotic, nonbaryonic branches of neutron decay by comparing the lifetimes measured by the in-beam and UCN bottle methods.

Figure 2 shows a sketch of the experimental method. It is based on the method first proposed by Byrne, et al., and is described in greater detail in previous publications PTmeth . A proton trap of length $`L`$ intercepts the entire width of the neutron beam. Neutron decay is observed by trapping and counting decay protons within the trap with an efficiency $`ϵ_p`$. The neutron beam is characterized by a velocity dependent fluence rate $`I(v)`$. The mean number of neutrons inside the trap volume is

$$N_n=L_A𝑑aI(v)\frac{1}{v},$$
(1)
where $`A`$ is the beam cross sectional area, and so the rate $`\dot{N_p}`$ at which decay protons are detected is

$$\dot{N_p}=\frac{ϵ_pL}{\tau _n}_A𝑑aI(v)\frac{1}{v}.$$
(2)
After leaving the trap, the neutron beam passes through a thin foil of 6LiF. The probability for absorbing a neutron in the foil through the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}(n,t)^4`$He reaction is inversely proportional to the neutron velocity $`v`$. The reaction products, alphas or tritons, are counted by a set of four silicon surface barrier detectors in a well-characterized geometry. We define the efficiency for the neutron detector, $`ϵ_o`$, as the ratio of the reaction product rate to the neutron rate incident on the deposit for neutrons with thermal velocity $`v_o=2200`$ m/s. The corresponding efficiency for neutrons of other velocities is $`ϵ_ov_o/v`$. Therefore, the net reaction product count rate $`\dot{N_\alpha }`$ is

$$\dot{N_\alpha }=ϵ_ov_o_A𝑑aI(v)\frac{1}{v}.$$
(3)
The integrals in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) are identical; the velocity dependence of the neutron detector efficiency compensates for the fact that the faster neutrons in the beam spend less time in the decay volume. This cancellation is exact given two assumptions: (1) the neutron absorption efficiency in the 6LiF target is exactly proportional to $`1/v`$ and (2) the neutron beam intensity and its velocity dependence do not change between the trap and the target. The deviation from the $`1/v`$ law in the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}(n,t)^4`$He cross section at thermal and subthermal energies has been shown to be less than 0.01% Berg61 , and changes in the neutron beam due to decay in flight and residual gas interaction are less than 0.001%. Our only non-negligible correction to Eqs. (2) and (3) is for the finite thickness of the 6LiF foil (+5.4 s). Thus we obtain the neutron lifetime $`\tau _n`$ from the experimental quantities $`\dot{N_\alpha }/\dot{N_p}`$, $`ϵ_o`$, $`ϵ_p`$, and $`L`$.

The experiment was performed at the cold neutron beamline NG6 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Center for Neutron Research. Cold neutrons were transported 68 m from the cold source to the experiment by a straight 58Ni-coated neutron guide. Immediately after exiting a local guide shutter, the neutron beam passed through 20 cm to 25 cm of cooled single crystal bismuth to attenuate fast neutrons and gamma rays that contribute to the background signal. The beam was collimated by two 6LiF apertures. The diameter of the first aperture (C1) was varied from 32 mm to 51 mm as a systematic check on the effect the beam diameter on the measured lifetime. The second (C2) had a diameter of 8.4 mm and was not changed. In between these two beam-defining apertures were several 6LiF beam scrapers, which removed scattered and very divergent neutrons. After C2, the beam transited a 1 m section of pre-guide and then entered the vacuum system through a 7.5 mm inner diameter quartz guide tube. After passing through the trap, it traveled 83 cm to the 6LiF deposit. The beam exited the vacuum system through a silicon window and stopped in a thick 6LiF beam dump.

The proton trap was a quasi-Penning trap, composed of sixteen annular electrodes, each 18.6 mm long with an inner diameter of 26.0 mm, cut from fused quartz and coated with a thin layer of gold. Adjacent segments were separated by 3 mm-thick insulating spacers of uncoated fused quartz. The dimensions of each electrode and spacer were measured to a precision of $`\pm 5`$ $`\mu `$m using a coordinate measuring machine at NIST. Changes in the dimension due to thermal contraction are below the 10-4 level for fused quartz. The trap resided in a 4.6 T magnetic field and the vacuum in the trap was maintained below $`10^9`$ mbar.

In trapping mode, the three upstream electrodes (the “door”) were held at +800 V, and a variable number of adjacent electrodes (the “trap”) were held at ground potential. The subsequent three adjacent electrodes (the “mirror”) were held at +800 V. We varied the trap length from 3 to 10 grounded electrodes. When a neutron decayed inside the trap, the decay proton was trapped radially by the magnetic field and axially by the electrostatic potential in the door and mirror. After some trapping period, typically 10 ms, the trapped protons were counted. The door was “opened”, i.e. the door electrodes were lowered to ground potential, and a small ramped potential was applied to the trap electrodes to assist the slower protons out the door. The protons were then guided by a 9.5 bend in the magnetic field to the proton detector held at a high negative potential (-27.5 kV to -32.5 kV). After the door was open for 76 $`\mu `$s, a time sufficient to allow all protons to exit the trap, the mirror was lowered to ground potential. This prevented negatively charged particles, which may contribute to instability, from accumulating in any portion of the trap. That state was maintained for 33 $`\mu `$s, after which the door and mirror electrodes were raised again to +800 V and another trapping cycle began. Since the detector needed to be enabled only during extraction, the counting background was reduced by the ratio of the trapping time to the extraction time (typically a factor of 125). Figure 3 shows a plot of proton detection time for a typical run.

Protons that were born in the trap (grounded electrode region) were trapped with 100% efficiency. However protons that were born near the door and mirror (the “end regions”), where the electrostatic potential is elevated, were not all trapped. A proton born in the end region was trapped if its initial (at birth) sum of electrostatic potential energy and axial kinetic energy was less than the maximum end potential. This complication caused the effective length $`L`$ of the trap to be difficult to determine precisely. It is for this reason that we varied the trap length. The shape of the electrostatic potential near the door and mirror was the same for all traps with 3–10 grounded electrodes, so the effective length of the end regions, while unknown, was in principle constant. The length of the trap can then be written $`L=nl+L_{\mathrm{end}}`$ where $`n`$ is the number of grounded electrodes and $`l`$ is the physical length of one electrode plus an adjacent spacer. $`L_{\mathrm{end}}`$ is an effective length of the two end regions; it is proportional to the physical length of the end regions and the probability that protons born there will be trapped. From Eq. (2) and (3) we see that the ratio of proton counting rate to alpha counting rate is then

$$\frac{\dot{N_p}}{\dot{N}_\alpha }=\tau _n^1\left(\frac{ϵ_p}{ϵ_0v_o}\right)(nl+L_{\mathrm{end}}).$$
(4)
We fit $`\dot{N_p}/\dot{N_\alpha }`$ as a function of $`n`$ to a straight line and determine $`\tau _n`$ from the slope, so there is no need to know the value of $`L_{\mathrm{end}}`$, provided that it was the same for all trap lengths.

Because of the symmetry in the Penning trap’s design, $`L_{\mathrm{end}}`$ was approximately equal for all trap lengths. There were two trap-length-dependent effects that broke the symmetry: the gradient in the axial magnetic field, and the divergence of the neutron beam. Each of these effects caused $`L_{\mathrm{end}}`$ to vary slightly with trap length. A detailed Monte Carlo simulation of the experiment, based on the measured and calculated magnetic and electric field inside the trap, was developed in order to correct for these trap nonlinearities. It gave a trap-length dependent correction that lowered the lifetime by 5.3 s.

Surface barrier (SB) and passivated ion-implanted planar silicon (PIPS) detectors were used at various times for counting the protons. The proton detectors were large enough so that all protons produced by neutron decay in the collimated beam, defined by C1 and C2, would strike the 19.7-mm diameter active region after the trap was opened. The detector was optically aligned to the magnetic field axis, and the alignment was verified by scanning with a low energy electron source at the trap’s center and with actual neutron decay protons. When a proton hit the active region of the detector, the efficiency for proton detection was less than unity because: 1) a proton can lose so much energy in the inactive surface dead layer that it deposits insufficient energy in the active region to be detected; 2) a proton can be stopped within the dead layer and never reach the active region; 3) a proton can backscatter from the dead layer or the active region and deposit insufficient energy. In the first two cases, the proton will definitely not be detected. We denote the fraction of protons lost in this manner by $`f_{\mathrm{Lost}}`$. In the last case, there is some probability that the backscattered proton will be reflected back to the detector by the electric field and subsequently be detected. We denote the fraction of protons that backscatter but still have some chance for detection by $`f_{\mathrm{Bsc}}`$.

To determine the proton detection efficiency, we ran the experiment with a variety of detectors with different dead layer thicknesses and different acceleration potentials. The fraction of protons lost $`f_{\mathrm{Lost}}`$ and the fraction that backscatter $`f_{\mathrm{Bsc}}`$ were calculated using the SRIM 2000 Monte Carlo program ZIE00 . We found that $`f_{\mathrm{Lost}}`$ varied from $`4.0(3)\times 10^5`$ to $`8.0(6)\times 10^3`$, and $`f_{\mathrm{Bsc}}`$ from $`1.83(13)\times 10^3`$ to $`2.37(17)\times 10^2`$, depending on the detector and acceleration potential. The proton counting rate $`\dot{N_p}`$ for each run was multiplied by $`1+f_{\mathrm{Lost}}`$ to correct for lost protons. The correction for backscattered protons was not as simple because of the unknown probability for a backscattered proton to return and be detected, so we made an extrapolation of the measured neutron lifetime to zero backscatter fraction (see Figure 4).

The neutron detector target was a thin (0.34 mm), 50-mm-diameter single crystal wafer of silicon coated with a 38 mm diameter deposit of 6LiF, fabricated at the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM) in Geel, Belgium. The manufacture of deposits and characterization of the 6LiF areal density were exhaustively detailed in measurements performed over several years TAG91 . The average areal density was $`\rho =(39.30\pm 0.10)\mu \mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The $`\alpha `$ particles and tritons produced by the the $`{}_{}{}^{6}\mathrm{Li}(n,t)^4`$He reaction were detected by four surface barrier detectors, each with a well-defined and carefully measured solid angle. The geometry was chosen to make the solid angle subtended by the detectors insensitive to first order in the source position. The parameter $`ϵ_0`$ gives the ratio of detected alphas/tritons to incident thermal neutrons. It was calculated using

$$ϵ_0=\frac{\sigma _0}{4\pi }\mathrm{\Omega }(x,y)\rho (x,y)\theta (x,y)𝑑x𝑑y,$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the cross section at thermal ($`v_0=2200`$ m/s) velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x,y)`$ is the detector solid angle, $`\rho (x,y)`$ is the areal mass density of the deposit, and $`\theta (x,y)`$ is the areal distribution of the neutron intensity on the target. The 6Li thermal cross section is ($`941.0\pm 1.3`$) b CAR93 . It is important to note that we take the Evaluated Nuclear Data Files (ENDF/B-6) $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty from the evaluation, not the expanded uncertainty, to be the most appropriate for use with this precision experiment. The neutron detector solid angle was measured in two independent ways: mechanical contact metrology and calibration with 239Pu alpha source of known absolute activity. These two methods agreed to within 0.1 %.

The neutron beam intensity distribution was measured at both ends of the trap, and at the neutron monitor, using the Dy foil imaging technique CHO00 . This method provides almost 5 decades of dynamic range, making it ideal for sensitive neutron measurements. These quantitative images were used to determine the beam distribution function $`\theta (x,y)`$ in Eq. 5. They were also used to measure the beam “halo”, the scattered neutrons that lie outside the collimated neutron beam. Trapped decay protons that originate from the halo may have trajectories that lie outside the active radius of the proton detector so they are not counted, while these halo neutrons are counted by the neutron counter. We found that 0.1 % of the neutron intensity is in the halo outside the effective radius of the proton detector.

Proton and neutron counting data were collected for 13 run series, each with a different proton detector and acceleration potential. The corrected value of the neutron lifetime for each series was calculated and plotted vs. backscattering fraction, as shown in Figure 4. A linear extrapolation to zero backscattering gave a result of $`\tau _n=(886.8\pm 1.2[\mathrm{stat}]\pm 3.2[\mathrm{sys}])`$ s. A summary of all corrections and uncertainties is given in Table 1. This result would be improved by an independent absolute calibration of the neutron counter, which would significantly reduce the two largest systematic uncertainties, in the 6LiF foil density and 6Li cross section. A cryogenic neutron radiometer that promises to be capable of such a calibration at the 0.1% level has recently been demonstrated Zema , and we are pursuing this method further. With this calibration, we expect that our experiment will ultimately achieve an uncertainty of less than 2 seconds in the neutron lifetime.

We thank R. D. Scott for assistance in the characterization of the 6LiF and 10B targets. We also thank J. Adams, J. Byrne, A. Carlson, Z. Chowdhuri, P. Dawber, C. Evans, G. Lamaze, and P. Robouch for their very helpful contributions, discussions, and continued interest in this experiment. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NIST (U.S. Department of Commerce), the U.S. Department of Energy (interagency agreement No. DE-AI02-93ER40784) and the National Science Foundation (PHY-9602872).


format: text

text:
# On Tits buildings of type 𝐴_𝑛

## 1. Introduction

According to J. Tits , a building is a chamber complex together with a distinguished family of subcomplexes called apartments and satisfying certain collection of axioms. In the present paper we will consider so-called $`A_n`$-buildings (buildings of type $`A_n`$); these buildings are associated with projective spaces. We study mappings of the chamber sets of $`A_n`$-buildings which send apartments to apartments. The main result of the paper (Theorem 3.1) says that these mappings are induced by strong embeddings of the corresponding projective spaces.

### 1.1. Chamber complexes

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a set of proper subsets of $`X`$. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a complex over $`X`$ if the following conditions hold true:

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contains each one-element subset of $`X`$,
2. if $`A\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then any proper subset of $`A`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For this case elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are known as simplexes, one-element simplexes (elements of the set $`X`$) are said to be vertices of the complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Recall that the rank of a complex is the maximum of the cardinal numbers of simplexes belonging to this complex. In this paper we will always require that the rank of a complex is finite.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a complex over a set $`X`$, let also $`X^{}`$ be a subset of $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ be a complex over $`X^{}`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then we say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ is a subcomplex of the complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Two complexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ over sets $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ (respectively) are said to be isomorphic if there exists a bijection $`f:XX^{}`$ such that $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, this bijection is called an isomorphism.

###### Example 1.1 (Flag complex).

Let $`(X,)`$ be a partially ordered set. A set $`FX`$ is said to a flag if for any two elements $`x,yF`$ we have $`xy`$ or $`yx`$. The set of all flags is a complex over $`X`$, it is known as the flag complex of the partially ordered set $`(X,)`$.

Now consider a complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which rank is finite and denoted by $`n`$. Then each simplex is contained in a maximal simplex; maximal simplexes are called chambers. We will also require that our complex satisfies the following condition: any two chambers have the same cardinal number (clearly, this number is equal to $`n`$). Simplexes spanned by $`n1`$ vertices are known as panels. Two chambers are said to be adjacent if their intersection is a panel. We say that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a chamber complex if for any two chambers $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ there is a sequence of chambers

$$C=C_0,C_1,\mathrm{},C_m=C^{}$$

such that $`C_{i1}`$ and $`C_i`$ are adjacent for each number $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

A chamber complex is called thick if each panel is contained in at least three chambers. For the case when any panel is contained in exact two chambers we say that our complex is thin.

###### Example 1.2 ($`A_n`$-complex).

Set $`I_n:=\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$ and consider the set of all proper subsets of $`I_n`$ ordered by the relation $``$. The corresponding flag complex is denoted by $`A_n`$. It is a thin chamber complex containing $`(n+1)!`$ distinct chambers. The rank of this complex is equal to $`n`$.

### 1.2. Buildings

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a complex together with a family of subcomplexes $`\mathrm{}`$ called apartments and satisfying the following axioms:

1. All apartments are isomorphic thin chamber complexes.
2. For any two simplexes there exists an apartment containing them.

Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a chamber complex which rank is equal to the rank of the apartments. The pair $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{})`$ is said to be a building  if the chamber complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is thick and the following axiom holds true:

1. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ be apartments; let also $`S`$ and $`U`$ be simplexes belonging to both $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Then there exists an isomorphism of the complex $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to the complex $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ which leaves fixed all simplexes contained in $`S`$ and $`U`$.

All buildings of finite rank $`3`$ with finite apartments were completely determined by J. Tits . A lot of information related with buildings and their applications can be found in , see also  and .

In this paper we will consider only $`A_n`$-buildings, $`n2`$. By the definition, a building $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{})`$ has type $`A_n`$ if its apartments are isomorphic to the complex $`A_n`$ (Example 1.2). It is well-known that for this case $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the flag complex of certain $`n`$-dimensional projective space .

### 1.3. Main result

Let $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{},\mathrm{}^{})`$ be buildings of type $`A_n`$. Let also $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ be the associated projective spaces (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are the flag complexes of these spaces). Put $`𝔉`$ and $`𝔉^{}`$ for the sets of all chambers of the complexes $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, respectively (it is trivial that $`𝔉`$ and $`𝔉^{}`$ consist of all maximal flags of $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$). We consider mappings of $`𝔉`$ to $`𝔉^{}`$ which send apartments to apartments (a subset of $`𝔉`$ or $`𝔉^{}`$ is said to be an apartment if it consists of all chambers belonging to certain apartment of the corresponding building) and show that these mappings are induced by strong embeddings of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or to the dual projective space $`P^{}`$ (Theorem 3.1).

###### Remark 1.1.

Adjacency preserving bijections of $`𝔉`$ to itself were studied by H. Havlicek, K. List and C. Zanella . The background for the investigation of adjacency preserving mappings can be found in  and .

## 2. Preliminaries: Basic properties of projective spaces

### 2.1. Projective spaces

A projective space is a set of points $`P`$ together with a family of proper subsets called lines and satisfying certain collection of axioms (see, for example, ). One of these axioms says that for any two distinct points $`p,qP`$ there is unique line containing them, we will denote this line by $`pq`$.

A set $`SP`$ is said to be a subspace if for any two distinct points $`p`$ and $`q`$ belonging to $`S`$ the line $`pq`$ is contained in $`S`$. By this definition, the empty set and one-point sets are subspaces (since they do not contain two distinct points). The intersection of any collection of subspaces is a subspace. For any subset $`XP`$ the minimal subspace containing $`X`$ (the intersection of all subspaces containing $`X`$) is called spanned by $`X`$ and denoted by $`\overline{X}`$.

We say that a subspace is $`n`$-dimensional if $`n+1`$ is the smallest number of points spanning this subspace; a subspace is infinity-dimensional if it is not spanned by a finite set of points. The empty set is unique $`(1)`$-dimensional subspace, points and lines are $`0`$-dimensional and $`1`$-dimensional subspaces, respectively. The dimensions of other subspaces are greater than $`1`$. Note also that the dimension of a projective space is not less than $`2`$ (otherwise, there is only one line which coincides with the space).

A set $`XP`$ is said to be independent if the subspace $`\overline{X}`$ is not spanned by a proper subset of $`X`$. An independent set $`B`$ contained in a subspace $`S`$ is called a base for $`S`$ if $`\overline{B}=S`$; for the case when $`S`$ coincides with $`P`$ we will say that $`B`$ is a base for our projective space.

It is well-known that for any subspace $`SP`$ the following statements hold true:

1. If $`S`$ is $`n`$-dimensional then any base for $`S`$ consists of $`n+1`$ points.
2. Each base for $`S`$ can be extended to a base for any subspace containing $`S`$.

By (2), for any two subspaces $`S`$ and $`U`$ the inclusion $`SU`$ implies that the dimension of $`S`$ is not greater than the dimension of $`U`$ and these subspaces have the same dimension only for the case when $`S=U`$.

###### Example 2.1.

Let $`P`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional projective space, $`n3`$ and $``$ be the set of lines of this space. Let also $`pP`$. Denote by $`_p`$ the set of all lines containing the point $`p`$. A subset of $`_p`$ is said to be a line if it consists of all lines $`L_p`$ contained in certain plane ($`2`$-dimensional subspace) of $`P`$. The set $`_p`$ together with the family of lines defined above is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional projective space. A subset of $`_p`$ is a $`k`$-dimensional subspace if and only it consists of all lines $`L_p`$ contained in certain $`(k+1)`$-dimensional subspace of $`P`$.

###### Example 2.2.

Let $`V`$ be a left vector space over a division ring. Denote by $`P(V)`$ the set of all $`1`$-dimensional subspaces of $`V`$. A subset of $`P(V)`$ is a line if it consists of all $`1`$-dimensional subspaces contained in certain $`2`$-dimensional subspace of $`V`$. The set $`P(V)`$ together with the family of lines defined above is a projective space if the dimension of $`V`$ is not less than $`3`$. This projective space is $`n`$-dimensional if the dimension of $`V`$ is equal to $`n+1`$.

Let $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ be projective spaces, let also $``$ and $`^{}`$ be the sets of lines. These spaces are called isomorphic if there exists a bijection $`f:PP^{}`$ such that

$$f()=^{};$$

this bijection is said to be a collineation.

###### Remark 2.1.

Projective spaces isomorphic to the projective spaces associated with vector spaces are known as Desarguesian. Any projective space the dimension of which is not less than $`3`$ is Desarguesian (see  or ). However, non-Desarguesian planes ($`2`$-dimensional projective spaces) exist.

### 2.2. Dual space

Let $`P`$ be a projective space. The dimension of this space is assumed to be finite and denoted by $`n`$. Put $`P^{}`$ for the set of all $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspaces of $`P`$. We say that a subset of $`P^{}`$ is a line if it consists of all $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspaces containing certain $`(n2)`$-dimensional subspace of $`P`$. The set $`P^{}`$ and the family of all lines defined above form an $`n`$-dimensional projective space; it is called dual to the projective space $`P`$. We will exploit the following well-known properties of the dual space:

1. A subset of $`P^{}`$ is a $`k`$-dimensional subspace if and only if it consists of all $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspaces containing certain $`(nk1)`$-dimensional subspace of $`P`$. Hence there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of $`P^{}`$ and the set of all $`(nk1)`$-dimensional subspaces of $`P`$. In particular, the second dual space $`P^{}`$ coincides with $`P`$.
2. Points $`p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_{n+1}^{}P^{}`$ form a base for the dual space if and only if there is a base for $`P`$ such that each $`p_i^{}`$ is spanned by points of this base.

###### Example 2.3.

Let $`n3`$ and $`pP`$. The set $`_p`$ (consisting of all lines of $`P`$ passing through the point $`p`$) has the natural structure of an $`(n1)`$-dimensional projective space (Example 2.1). The dual projective space consists of all $`p^{}P^{}`$ containing $`p`$; it is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspace of $`P^{}`$. We will denote this subspace by $`P_p^{}`$.

###### Example 2.4.

Let $`V`$ be a left vector space over a division ring, the dimension of $`V`$ is assumed to be finite and not less than $`3`$. Then $`P(V)^{}`$ (the projective space dual to $`P(V)`$) is isomorphic to $`P(V^{})`$ ($`V^{}`$ is the vector space dual to $`V`$) .

### 2.3. Embeddings of projective spaces

Let us consider projective spaces $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ and denote by $``$ and $`^{}`$ the sets of lines of these spaces. We say that an injection $`f:PP^{}`$ is an embedding if it is collinearity preserving and maps each triple of non-collinear points to non-collinear points, in other words, if the following two conditions hold true:

1. for any line $`L`$ there exists a line $`L^{}^{}`$ such that $`f(L)L^{}`$,
2. for each line $`L^{}^{}`$ there is at most one line $`L`$ such that $`f(L)L^{}`$.

It is trivial that any bijective embedding is a collineation.

An embedding is said to be strong if it transfers independent subsets to independent subsets.

###### Remark 2.2.

Non-strong embeddings exist (see, for example,  or ).

###### Remark 2.3.

Assume that our projective spaces have the same dimension. Then any strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ sends bases to bases. Inversely, W.-l. Huang and A. Kreuzer  (see also ) have shown that any base preserving surjection of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ is a collineation. It is natural to ask are non-surjective base preserving mappings of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ strong embeddings?

Let $`f:PP^{}`$ be a strong embedding. Then for any subspace $`SP`$ the dimension of the subspace $`\overline{f(S)}`$ is equal to the dimension of $`S`$. Assume also that our projective spaces have the same dimension which is finite. Then the embedding $`f`$ induces the mapping

$$f^{}:P^{}P^{}$$

which transfers $`p^{}P^{}`$ to $`\overline{f(p^{})}P^{}`$. This mapping is a strong embedding of $`P^{}`$ to $`P^{}`$; it is said to be dual to $`f`$. A direct verification shows that the second dual embedding coincides with $`f`$, in other words, $`f^{}=f`$.

###### Example 2.5.

If the dimension of our spaces is not less than $`3`$ then for any point $`pP`$ the embedding $`f`$ defines the strong embedding of $`_p`$ to $`_{f(p)}^{}`$ such that the dual embedding is the restriction of $`f^{}`$ to $`P_p^{}`$.

###### Example 2.6.

Let $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ be left vector spaces over division rings $`R`$ and $`R^{}`$ (respectively), the dimensions of $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are assumed to be not less than $`3`$. Then $`P(V)`$ and $`P(V^{})`$ are projective spaces (Example 2.2). A mapping $`l:VV^{}`$ is called semilinear if

$$l(x+y)=l(x)+l(y)x,yV$$

and there exists a homomorphism $`\sigma :RR^{}`$ such that

$$l(ax)=\sigma (a)l(x)xV,aF;$$

it is easy to see that $`\sigma `$ is a monomorphism if the mapping $`l`$ is non-zero. Any semilinear injection $`l:VV^{}`$ induces the mapping

$$P(l):P(V)P(V^{})$$

which sends each $`1`$-dimensional subspace $`Rx`$, $`xV\{0\}`$ to the subspace $`R^{}l(x)`$. Note that the mapping $`P(l)`$ is non-injective, for example, if $`l`$ is the semilinear injection of $`^{2n}`$ to $`^n`$ defined by the formula

$$l(x_1,y_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_n):=(x_1+iy_1,\mathrm{},x_n+iy_n).$$

However, if $`l`$ preserves the linear independence (maps any set of linearly independent vectors to a set of linearly independent vectors) then $`P(l)`$ is a strong embedding. Inversely, any strong embedding of $`P(V)`$ to $`P(V^{})`$ is induced by a semilinear injection of $`V`$ to $`V^{}`$ preserving the linear independence; it is a simple consequence of Faure-Frölisher-Havlicek’s version of the Fundamental Theorem of Projective Geometry ,  and . The classical version of this theorem (see , ) says that any collineation of $`P(V)`$ to $`P(V^{})`$ is induced by a semilinear isomorphism of $`V`$ to $`V^{}`$; this statement was first proved by O. Veblen  for projective spaces over finite fields (more historical information can be found in ).

## 3. $`A_n`$-buildings and their morphisms

### 3.1. Buildings associated with projective spaces

Let $`P`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional projective space. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the flag complex of $`P`$ (the flag complex of the set of all proper subspaces of $`P`$ ordered by $``$). Let $`B`$ be a base for $`P`$ and $``$ be the set of all subspaces spanned by points of this base. The flag complex of $`(,)`$ is isomorphic to $`A_n`$ and called the apartment associated with the base $`B`$. The complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ together with the family of all apartments defined above is a building of type $`A_n`$.

It was noted above that there are not other non-trivial building of this type: each $`A_n`$-building $`(n2)`$ is associated with certain $`n`$-dimensional projective space .

Denote by $`𝔉`$ the set of all maximal flags (chambers of the complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). Since the dimension of the projective space is equal to $`n`$, any maximal flag consists of $`n`$ proper subspaces; it is a chain of subspaces

$$pS_1\mathrm{}S_{n2}p^{}$$

where $`pP`$, $`p^{}P^{}`$ and each $`S_i`$ is an $`i`$-dimensional subspace. Recall that a subset $`𝔄𝔉`$ is called an apartment in $`𝔉`$ if it is the intersection of $`𝔉`$ with an apartment of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$; in other words, there is a base for our projective space such that $`𝔄`$ consists of all maximal flags which components are spanned by points of this base.

Let $`𝔛𝔉`$. The set consisting of all subspaces contained in flags belonging to $`𝔛`$ will be called the trace of $`𝔛`$ and denoted by $`T(𝔛)`$. If $`B`$ is a base for $`P`$ then the apartment of $`𝔉`$ associated with $`B`$ is the maximal subset of $`𝔉`$ which trace coincides with the set of all subspaces spanned by points of $`B`$.

###### Example 3.1.

For a subspaces $`SP`$ we denote by $`𝔉(S)`$ the set of all maximal flags containing $`S`$. Let $`pP`$. If $`n3`$ then $`𝔉(p)`$ is the set of all maximal flags of the projective space $`_p`$ (Example 2.1); apartments of $`𝔉(p)`$ are the intersections of $`𝔉(p)`$ with apartments $`𝔄𝔉`$ such that $`pT(𝔄)`$.

### 3.2. Morphisms of $`A_n`$-buildings

Now assume that $`P^{}`$ is another $`n`$-dimensional projective space. The set of all maximal flags of this space will be denoted by $`𝔉^{}`$.

Let $`f:PP^{}`$ be a strong embedding. Since for any subspace $`SP`$ the dimension of the subspace $`\overline{f(S)}`$ is equal to the dimension of $`S`$, the embedding $`f`$ induces the mapping of $`𝔉`$ to $`𝔉^{}`$ which sends any maximal flag

$$=(p,S_1,\mathrm{},S_{n2},p^{})$$

to the maximal flag

$$f()=(f(p),\overline{f(S_1)},\mathrm{},\overline{f(S_{n2})},f^{}(p^{}));$$

This mapping is injective and transfers apartments to apartments, besides it is bijective only for the case when $`f`$ is a collineation.

The dual principles of Projective Geometry (Subsection 2.3) show that the building of any finite-dimensional projective space coincides with the building associated with the dual projective space. Therefore, any strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ induces certain injection of $`𝔉`$ to $`𝔉^{}`$ which maps apartments to apartments.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Any mapping of $`𝔉`$ to $`𝔉^{}`$ sending apartments to apartments is the injection induced by a strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$; in particular, any surjection of $`𝔉`$ to $`𝔉^{}`$ transferring apartments to apartments is induced by a collineation of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

It was established by H. Havlicek, K. List and C. Zanella  that if $`n=3`$ and $`f`$ is a bijective transformation of $`𝔉`$ preserving the adjacency relation in both directions then $`f`$ is induced by a collineation of $`P`$ to itself or to the dual projevive space.

###### Remark 3.2.

For each number $`k=1,\mathrm{}n2`$ denote by $`𝒢_k`$ and $`𝒢_k^{}`$ the Grassmann spaces of $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of our projective spaces. If $`B`$ is a base for $`P`$ then the set consisting of all $`k`$-dimensional subspaces spanned by points of $`B`$ is known as the base subset of $`𝒢_k`$ associated with $`B`$. Any strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ induces certain injective mapping of $`𝒢_k`$ to $`𝒢_k^{}`$. Similarly, strong embeddings of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ induce injections of $`𝒢_k`$ to $`𝒢_{nk1}^{}`$; these are injections to $`𝒢_k^{}`$ if $`n=2k+1`$. It is not difficult to see that these mappings send base subsets to base subsets. M. Pankov  (see also  and ) has shown that for the case when $`n3`$ there are not other mappings of $`𝒢_k`$ and $`𝒢_k^{}`$ satisfying this condition; i.e. if $`n3`$ and $`f:𝒢_k𝒢_k^{}`$ maps base subsets to base subsets then $`f`$ is induced by a strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$ (the second possibility can be realized only for the case when $`n=2k+1`$); this embedding is a collineation if $`f`$ is surjective. Geometrical transformations of Grassmann spaces were studied by many authors, see, for example, , , , , , , .

## 4. Proof of Theorem 3.1

Let $`f:𝔉𝔉^{}`$ be a mapping which transfers apartments to apartments. First of all note that $`f`$ is injective (for any two elements of $`𝔉`$ there exists an apartment containing them; by our hypothesis, the restriction of $`f`$ to any apartment is injective). We will show that $`f`$ is induced by a strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$.

### 4.1. Main Lemma

Let $`𝔄`$ be an apartment in $`𝔉`$. Then $`𝔄^{}:=f(𝔄)`$ is an apartment in $`𝔉^{}`$. Let also

$$B=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n+1}\}\text{ and }B^{}=\{p_1^{},\mathrm{},p_{n+1}^{}\}$$

be the bases associated with $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔄^{}`$, respectively. We set

$$p_i^{}:=\overline{B\{p_i\}}\text{ and }p_i^{}:=\overline{B^{}\{p_i^{}\}}$$

for each number $`iI_n`$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1recall that $`I_n=\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$, see Example 1.2 and denote by $`𝔄_i`$ and $`𝔄^i`$ ($`𝔄_i^{}`$ and $`𝔄^i`$) the sets of all flags belonging to $`𝔄`$ ($`𝔄^{}`$) and containing $`p_i`$ or $`p_i^{}`$ ($`p_i^{}`$ or $`p_i^{}`$), respectively. It is easy to see that these sets contain $`n!`$ elements.

Note also that $`𝔄`$ can be presented as the disjoint union of $`𝔄_1,\mathrm{},𝔄_n`$ and the disjoint union of $`𝔄^1,\mathrm{},𝔄^n`$. The intersection of $`𝔄_i`$ and $`𝔄^j`$ will be denoted by $`𝔄_i^j`$. This set is not empty if $`ij`$, for this case it contains $`(n1)!`$ elements. Each $`𝔄_i`$ ($`𝔄^i`$) is the disjoint union of all $`𝔄_i^j`$ ($`𝔄_j^i`$) such that $`ji`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

There exists a permutation $`\sigma _f`$ of the set $`I_n`$ such that one of the following possibilities is realized:

1. $`f(𝔄_i)=𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}`$ and $`f(𝔄^i)=𝔄^{\sigma (i)}`$ for all $`iI_n`$,
2. $`f(𝔄_i)=𝔄^{\sigma (i)}`$ and $`f(𝔄^i)=𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}`$ for all $`iI_n`$.

This statement will be proved in a few steps (Subsection 4.2 – 4.5).

### 4.2. Maximal inexact subsets of apartments

We say that a subset $`𝔛`$ of the apartment $`𝔄`$ is exact if $`𝔄`$ is unique apartment containing $`𝔛`$; otherwise, $`𝔛`$ is said to be inexact. It is easy to see that $`𝔛`$ is exact if and only if for each $`iI_n`$ the intersection of all subspaces $`ST(𝔛)`$ containing $`p_i`$ coincides with $`p_i`$.

Take two distinct numbers $`i,jI_n`$ and denote by $`𝒳_{ij}`$ the set of all subspaces $`ST(𝔄)`$ such that

$$p_ip_jS\text{ or }p_iS.$$

Put $`𝔛_{ij}`$ for the set of all flags spanned by subspaces belonging to $`𝒳_{ij}`$; in other words, $`𝔛_{ij}`$ is the maximal subset of $`𝔉`$ which trace is $`𝒳_{ij}`$. If $`ki`$ then the intersection of all subspaces belonging to $`𝒳_{ij}=T(𝔛_{ij})`$ and containing $`p_k`$ coincides with $`p_k`$. Any flag $`𝔄𝔛_{ij}`$ contains a subspace intersecting the line $`p_ip_j`$ by $`p_i`$. Therefore, $`𝔛_{ij}\{\}`$ is an exact subset of $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔛_{ij}`$ is a maximal inexact subset of $`𝔄`$.

Now we show that there are not other maximal inexact subsets of apartments.

###### Lemma 4.2.

If $`𝔛`$ is a maximal inexact subset of $`𝔄`$ then there exist $`i,jI_n`$ such that $`𝔛_{ij}`$ coincides with $`𝔛`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝔛`$ is inexact, there is a number $`iI_n`$ such that the intersection of all subspaces $`ST(𝔛)`$ containing $`p_i`$ does not coincide with $`p_i`$; we denote this intersection by $`U`$. Then one of the following possibilities is realized:

1. the dimension of $`U`$ is greater than $`0`$,
2. $`U=\mathrm{}`$.

For the case (1) the inclusion $`p_ip_jU`$ holds for certain number $`jI_n\{i\}`$. For the second case we can take any number $`jI_n\{i\}`$. It is trivial that for each of these cases $`T(𝔛)`$ is contained in $`𝒳_{ij}`$. By the definition of the set $`𝔛_{ij}`$, we have $`𝔛𝔛_{ij}`$. These are both maximal inexact subsets and the inverse inclusion holds true. ∎

In particular, Lemma 4.2 implies that all maximal inexact subsets of apartments of $`𝔉`$ and $`𝔉^{}`$ have the same cardinal number.

###### Lemma 4.3.

The mapping $`f`$ transfers inexact subsets of $`𝔄`$ to inexact subsets of $`𝔄^{}`$; moreover, maximal inexact subsets go over to maximal inexact subsets.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔛`$ be an inexact subset of $`𝔄`$. Then $`𝔛`$ is contained in at least two distinct apartments of $`𝔉`$. The $`f`$-images of these apartments are distinct apartments of $`𝔉^{}`$ containing $`f(𝔛)`$ (since $`f`$ is injective). Hence $`f(𝔛)`$ is an inexact subset of $`𝔄^{}`$.

Now assume that the inexact subset $`𝔛`$ is maximal and consider a maximal inexact subset $`𝔜𝔄^{}`$ containing $`f(𝔛)`$. Since $`f`$ is injective, the remark given after Lemma 4.2 shows that $`f(𝔛)`$ and $`𝔜`$ have the same cardinal number. Then $`f(𝔛)`$ coincides with $`𝔜`$. ∎

### 4.3. Complements to maximal inexact subsets

In this subsection we will study the structure of the complement set

$$_{ij}:=𝔄𝔛_{ij}.$$

Any permutation $`\sigma `$ of the set $`I_n`$ defines the flag

$$_\sigma =(p_{\sigma (1)},S_1,\mathrm{},S_{n2},p_{\sigma (n+1)}^{})𝔄$$

where each $`S_j`$ is spanned by the points $`p_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},p_{\sigma (j+1)}`$. The mapping

$$\sigma _\sigma $$

is a bijection of the set of all permutations of $`I_n`$ to $`𝔄`$. For any flag $`𝔄`$ the corresponding permutation of $`I_n`$ will be denoted by $`\sigma _{}`$; if

$$=(p_{i_1},S_1,\mathrm{},S_{n2},p_{i_{n+1}}^{})$$

and each $`S_j`$ is the subspace spanned by $`p_{i_1},\mathrm{},p_{i_{j+1}}`$ then $`\sigma _{}(j)=i_j`$ for all $`j`$, hence $`\sigma _{}^1(j)`$ is the order number of the minimal component of the flag $``$ containing $`p_j`$ and if this point does not belong to any component of $``$ then $`\sigma _{}^1(j)=n+1`$.

Denote by $`_{ij}`$ the set of all flags $`𝔄`$ satisfying the following condition:

$$1<\sigma _{}^1(i)<\sigma _{}^1(j)<n+1.$$

If $`n=2`$ then this set is empty.

###### Lemma 4.4.

The set $`_{ij}`$ is the disjoint union of $`𝔄_i𝔄^j`$ and $`_{ij}`$.

###### Proof.

It is trivial that the sets $`𝔄_i𝔄^j`$ and $`_{ij}`$ are disjoint. Since $`p_i`$ and $`p_j^{}`$ do not belong to $`𝒳_{ij}`$, $`𝔄_i𝔄^j`$ does not intersects $`𝔛_{ij}`$ and we have

$$𝔄_i𝔄^j_{ij}.$$

For any flag

$$=(p_k,S_1,\mathrm{},S_{n2},p_m^{})_{ij}$$

the subspace $`S_{\sigma _{}^1(i)}`$ (the minimal subspace of $``$ containing $`p_i`$) does not contain the point $`p_j`$; thus $`S_{\sigma _{}^1(i)}`$ is not an element of $`𝒳_{ij}`$ and $`𝔛_{ij}`$; this implies that

$$_{ij}_{ij}.$$

Inversely, let us consider a flag $`_{ij}`$ which does not belong to $`𝔄_i𝔄^j`$. Then

$$𝔄_i\sigma _{}(1)i\text{ and }𝔄^j\sigma _{}(n+1)j.$$

If $`\sigma _{}^1(i)>\sigma _{}^1(j)`$ then each component of the flag $``$ belongs to $`𝒳_{ij}`$ and we get $`𝔛_{ij}`$, this contradicts to the condition $`_{ij}`$. Therefore, $`\sigma _{}^1(i)<\sigma _{}^1(j)`$ and $``$ is an element of the set $`_{ij}`$. ∎

For any subspace $`ST(𝔄)`$ there exists unique subspace $`S^cT(𝔄)`$ non-intersecting $`S`$ and such that our projective space is spanned by $`S`$ and $`S^c`$. For any flag

$$=(p_i,S_1,\mathrm{},S_{n2},p_j^{})𝔄$$

the flag

$$^c:=(p_j=(p_j^{})^c,(S_{n2})^c,\mathrm{},(S_1)^c,p_i^{}=(p_i)^c)𝔄$$

is said to be the complement. The transformation of $`𝔄`$ sending each flag to its complement is bijective; moreover,

$$(𝔄_i)^c=𝔄^i,(𝔄^i)^c=𝔄_i,(_{ij})^c=_{ji}$$

and Lemma 4.4 shows that

(4.1)
$$(_{ij})^c=_{ji}.$$

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`n3`$ and $`i,j,k,m`$ be distinct elements of $`I_n`$. Then

$$|𝔄_m^k_{ij}|=\frac{(n1)!}{2}$$

and

$$|𝔄_k_{ij}|=|𝔄^k_{ij}|=\frac{(n2)(n1)!}{2}.$$

###### Proof.

Let us consider the bijective transformation $`d_{ij}`$ of $`𝔄`$ defined by the formula

$$d_{ij}():=_{\sigma _{ij}\sigma _{}}$$

where $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the permutation sending $`i`$ and $`j`$ to $`j`$ and $`i`$ (respectively) and leaving fixed all elements of the set $`I_n\{i,j\}`$. This bijection maps $`𝔄_m^k_{ij}`$ to $`𝔄_m^k_{ij}`$; thus these sets have the same cardinal number. Since

$$𝔄_m^k=(𝔄_m^k_{ij})(𝔄_m^k_{ij})$$

contains $`(n1)!`$ elements, we get the first equality. Then the second equality is a consequence of the following fact: $`𝔄^k_{ij}`$ ($`𝔄_k_{ij}`$) is the disjoint union of all $`𝔄_l^k_{ij}`$ ($`𝔄_k^l_{ij}`$) such that $`lI_n\{i,j,k\}`$. ∎

### 4.4. Dispositions of two complement sets

Let $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{km}`$ be distinct complement sets. Set

$$J:=\{i,j,k,m\}.$$

Then $`2|J|4`$ and there are the following possibilities for the disposition of $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{km}`$:

1. $`i=m`$ and $`j=k`$;
2. $`|J|=3`$ and $`i=k`$;
3. $`|J|=3`$ and $`j=m`$;
4. $`|J|=3`$ and $`i=m`$;
5. $`|J|=3`$ and $`j=k`$;
6. $`|J|=4`$.

For each number $`l\{1,\mathrm{},6\}`$ denote by $`n_l`$ the cardinal number of the intersection of $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{km}`$ for the case $`(l)`$. If $`n=2`$ then the case (6) is not realized and the number $`n_6`$ is not defined.

###### Lemma 4.6.

$`n_1=0`$.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.4,

$$_{ij}=(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ij},$$

$$_{ji}=(𝔄_j𝔄^i)_{ji};$$

we have also

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)(𝔄_j𝔄^i)=\mathrm{},$$

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ji}=(𝔄_j𝔄^i)_{ij}=\mathrm{}.$$

and get the equality

$$_{ij}_{ji}=_{ij}_{ji}.$$

However,

$$_{ij}\sigma _{}^1(i)<\sigma _{}^1(j)$$

contradicts to

$$_{ji}\sigma _{}^1(j)<\sigma _{}^1(i).$$

Therefore, $`_{ij}_{ji}=\mathrm{}`$ and the intersection of our complement sets is empty. ∎

###### Lemma 4.7.

$`n_2=n_3`$ and $`n_4=n_5`$.

###### Proof.

The equality (4.1) shows that the bijection

$$^c$$

transfers pairs of complement sets satisfying the condition (2) or (4) to pairs of complement sets satisfying the condition (3) or (5), respectively. ∎

###### Lemma 4.8.

If $`n4`$ then

$$n_2=n!+(n2)(n1)!+\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{3}.$$

We have also

$$n_2=n!+(n2)(n1)!$$

if $`n=2,3`$.

###### Proof.

Since

$$_{ij}=(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ij},$$

$$_{im}=(𝔄_i𝔄^m)_{im}$$

(Lemma 4.4) and

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)(𝔄_i𝔄^m)=𝔄_i,$$

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{im}=𝔄^j_{im},$$

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^m)_{ij}=𝔄^m_{ij};$$

the intersection of $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{im}`$ is the disjoint union of the following sets:

$$𝔄_i,𝔄^j_{im},𝔄^m_{ij},_{ij}_{im}.$$

If $`n=2`$ then the sets $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{im}`$ are empty and the required equality is trivial. For the case when $`n3`$ we have

$$n_2=|𝔄_i|+|𝔄^j_{im}|+|𝔄^m_{ij}|+|_{ij}_{im}|=n!+(n2)(n1)!+|_{ij}_{im}|$$

(Lemma 4.5). We will find the cardinal number of the set $`_{ij}_{im}`$.

First of all note that this set is empty if $`n=3`$, since for this case for any flag $`𝔄`$ one of the numbers

(4.2)
$$\sigma _{}^1(i),\sigma _{}^1(j),\sigma _{}^1(m)$$

is equal to $`1`$ or $`n+1`$. Let $`n4`$. Then $`I_nJ`$ contains at list two elements and we take distinct numbers $`l`$ and $`s`$ belonging to this set. If $`𝔄_l^s`$ then there are exact $`6`$ possibilities for the disposition of the numbers (4.2) in the set $`\sigma _{}^1(J)`$; only for two of these cases $`\sigma _{}^1(i)`$ is less than both $`\sigma _{}^1(j)`$, $`\sigma _{}^1(m)`$ and the flag $``$ belongs to $`_{ij}_{im}`$. Therefore,

$$|𝔄_l^s_{ij}_{im}|=\frac{2|𝔄_l^s|}{6}=\frac{(n1)!}{3}$$

The set $`_{ij}_{im}`$ is the disjoint union of all $`𝔄_l^s_{ij}_{im}`$ such that $`l`$ and $`s`$ do not belong to $`J`$. It is easy to see that there are $`(n2)(n3)`$ distinct $`𝔄_l^s`$ with $`s,lI_nJ`$. Thus

$$|_{ij}_{im}|=\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{3}.$$

###### Lemma 4.9.

If $`n4`$ then

$$n_4=(n1)!+(n2)(n1)!+\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{6}$$

For the case when $`n=2`$ or $`3`$ we have

$$n_4=(n1)!+(n2)(n1)!.$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.4,

$$_{ij}=(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ij},$$

$$_{ki}=(𝔄_k𝔄^i)_{ki}.$$

A direct verification shows that

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)(𝔄_k𝔄^i)=𝔄_k^j,$$

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ki}=𝔄^j_{ki},$$

$$(𝔄_k𝔄^i)_{ij}=𝔄_k_{ij}.$$

Hence $`_{ij}_{ki}`$ is the disjoint union of the sets

$$𝔄_k^j,𝔄^j_{ki},𝔄_k_{ij},_{ij}_{ki}$$

and for the case when $`n=2`$ the required equality is trivial (since the sets $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{ki}`$ are empty). If $`n3`$ then

$$n_4=|𝔄_k^j|+|𝔄^j_{ki}|+|𝔄_k_{ij}|+|_{ij}_{ki}|=(n1)!+(n2)(n1)!+|_{ij}_{ki}|.$$

The set $`_{ij}_{ki}`$ is empty if $`n3`$; indeed, for any flag $`𝔄`$ one of the numbers

(4.3)
$$\sigma _{}^1(i),\sigma _{}^1(j),\sigma _{}^1(k)$$

is equal to $`1`$ or $`n+1`$. Assume that $`n4`$ (for this case $`I_nJ`$ contains at least two elements) and take two distinct numbers $`l`$ and $`s`$ belonging to $`I_nJ`$. It was noted above (the proof of Lemma 4.8) that for any flag $`𝔄_l^s`$ there are exact $`6`$ possibilities for the disposition of the numbers (4.3) in the set $`\sigma _{}^1(J)`$. The inequality

$$\sigma _{}^1(k)<\sigma _{}^1(i)<\sigma _{}^1(j)$$

holds only for one of these cases. Then we have

$$|𝔄_l^s_{ij}_{ki}|=\frac{|𝔄_l^s|}{6}=\frac{(n1)!}{6}$$

and the arguments used to prove Lemma 4.8 show that

$$|_{ij}_{ki}|=\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{6}.$$

###### Lemma 4.10.

If $`n5`$ then

$$n_6=n!+(n1)(n1)!+\frac{(n3)(n4)(n1)!}{4}.$$

We have also

$$n_6=n!+(n1)(n1)!$$

if $`n=3,4`$.

Recall that for the case when $`n=2`$ the number $`n_6`$ is not defined.

###### Proof.

Lemma 4.4 says that

$$_{ij}=(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{ij},$$

$$_{km}=(𝔄_k𝔄^m)_{km}.$$

Since

$$(𝔄_i𝔄^j)(𝔄_k𝔄^m)=𝔄_i^m𝔄_k^j,$$

$`_{ij}_{km}`$ is the union of the following non-intersecting sets:

$$𝔄_i^m,𝔄_k^j,(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{km},(𝔄_k𝔄^m)_{ij},_{ij}_{km}.$$

The set $`𝔄_i𝔄^j`$ is the disjoint union of all $`𝔄_i^l`$, $`li`$ and all $`𝔄_s^j`$, $`sj`$. Each of these collections contains $`n`$ sets, but the set $`𝔄_i^j`$ belongs to the both collections; note also that $`𝔄_i^m`$ and $`𝔄_k^j`$ do not intersect $`_{km}`$. In other words, $`(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{km}`$ is the disjoint union of $`2n3`$ distinct sets containing $`\frac{(n1)!}{2}`$ elements (Lemma 4.5) and

$$|(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{km}|=\frac{(2n3)(n1)!}{2}.$$

Similarly,

$$|(𝔄_k𝔄^m)_{ij}|=\frac{(2n3)(n1)!}{2}.$$

Therefore,

$$n_6=|𝔄_i^m|+|𝔄_k^j|+|(𝔄_i𝔄^j)_{km}|+|(𝔄_k𝔄^m)_{ij}|+|_{ij}_{km}|=$$

$$2(n1)!+(2n3)(n1)!+|_{ij}_{km}|=n!+(n1)(n1)!+|_{ij}_{km}|.$$

Thus we have to find the cardinal number of the set $`_{ij}_{km}`$.

If $`n4`$ then $`_{ij}_{km}`$ is empty, since for this case for any flag $`𝔄`$ at least one of the numbers

$$\sigma _{}^1(i),\sigma _{}^1(j),\sigma _{}^1(k),\sigma _{}^1(m)$$

is equal to $`1`$ or $`n+1`$. Now assume that $`n5`$. Then $`I_nJ`$ contains at least two elements and we take two distinct numbers $`l`$ and $`s`$ belonging to this set. The bijection $`d_{ij}`$ (see the proof of Lemma 4.5) transfers

$$𝔄_l^s_{km}_{ij}\text{ to }(𝔄_l^s_{km})_{ij}$$

Hence these sets have the same cardinal number. Since

$$𝔄_l^s_{km}=(𝔄_l^s_{km}_{ij})((𝔄_l^s_{km})_{ij})$$

contains $`\frac{(n1)!}{2}`$ elements, we have

$$|𝔄_l^s_{ij}_{km}|=\frac{(n1)!}{4}.$$

The set $`_{ij}_{km}`$ is the disjoint unions of all $`𝔄_l^s_{ij}_{km}`$ such that $`s,lI_nJ`$. There are exactly $`(n3)(n4)`$ distinct sets satisfying this condition and we get the equality

$$|_{ij}_{km}|=\frac{(n3)(n4)(n1)!}{4}.$$

###### Lemma 4.11.

The number $`n_2=n_3`$ is not equal to $`n_1`$, $`n_4=n_5`$ and $`n_6`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`n_2>0=n_1`$. It is easy to see that $`n_2>n_4`$. We need to establish that $`n_2`$ is not equal to $`n_6`$ if $`n3`$.

If $`n=3`$ or $`4`$ then

$$n_6n_2=(n1)!=2$$

or

$$n_6n_2=(n1)!\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{3}=2,$$

respectively. For the case when $`n5`$ we have

$$n_2n_6=\frac{(n2)(n3)(n1)!}{3}(n1)!\frac{(n3)(n4)(n1)!}{4}=$$

$$(n1)!\frac{4(n2)(n3)3(n3)(n4)12}{12}=(n1)!\frac{n^2+n24}{12}>0.$$

We will say that the complement sets $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{km}`$ are adjacent if one of the cases (2) or (3) is realized, i.e. $`i=k`$ or $`j=m`$.

###### Lemma 4.12.

The mapping $`f`$ transfers complement subsets of $`𝔄`$ to complement subsets of $`𝔄^{}`$; moreover, adjacent complement subsets go over to adjacent complement subsets.

###### Proof.

The first statement follows from Lemma 4.3. Since $`f`$ is injective, the $`f`$-images of two adjacent complement subsets of $`𝔄`$ are complement subsets of $`𝔄^{}`$ which intersection contains $`n_2=n_3`$ elements. By Lemma 4.11, these complement subsets are adjacent. ∎

### 4.5. Proof of Lemma 4.1

First of all we give two simple lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.13.

For each number $`iI_n`$ we have

$$\underset{jI_n\{i\}}{}_{ij}=𝔄_i$$

and

$$\underset{jI_n\{i\}}{}_{ji}=𝔄^i.$$

###### Proof.

It is trivial that the intersection of all $`_{ij}`$, $`jI_n\{i\}`$ contains $`𝔄_i`$. If $`𝔄_k`$ and $`ki`$ then $``$ does not belong to $`_{ik}`$. Therefore, our intersection coincides with $`𝔄_i`$ and we get the first equality. The transformation

$$^c$$

sends the first equality to the second equality. ∎

###### Lemma 4.14.

For any collection of $`n`$ mutually adjacent complement subsets of $`𝔄`$ there exists a number $`iI_n`$ such that this collection is consisting of all $`_{ij}`$ or all $`_{ji}`$ with $`jI_n\{i\}`$.

###### Proof.

Easy verification. ∎

Now we can prove Lemma 4.1.

By Lemma 4.13,

$$f(𝔄_i)=\underset{jI_n\{i\}}{}f(_{ij})$$

for any $`iI_n`$. Lemma 4.12 shows that $`\{f(_{ij})\}_{jI_n\{i\}}`$ is a collection of $`n`$ mutually adjacent complement subsets of $`𝔄^{}`$. Then Lemma 4.13 and 4.14 guarantee the existence a number $`\sigma (i)I_n`$ such that $`f(𝔄_i)`$ coincides with $`𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}`$ or $`𝔄^{\sigma (i)}`$.

We want to establish that the set

$$J:=\{iI_n|f(𝔄_i)=𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}\}$$

is empty or coincides with $`I_n`$. In particular, this means that the mapping $`\sigma :I_nI_n`$ is bijective (since the restriction of $`f`$ to $`𝔄`$ is a bijection to $`𝔄^{}`$).

###### Proof.

Assume that $`J`$ is not empty and does not coincide with $`I_n`$. There exist $`kJ`$ and $`mI_nJ`$ such that $`\sigma (k)\sigma (m)`$ (otherwise, the mapping $`\sigma :I_nI_n`$ is constant and $`f(𝔄)`$ is contained in certain $`𝔄_l^{}𝔄^l`$). Then

$$f(𝔄_k𝔄_m)=f(𝔄_k)f(𝔄_m)=𝔄_{\sigma (k)}^{}𝔄^{\sigma (m)}=𝔄_{\sigma (k)}^{\sigma (m)}\mathrm{}$$

contradicts to $`𝔄_k𝔄_m=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

If $`J`$ coincides with $`I_n`$ then $`f(𝔄^i)=𝔄^{\sigma (i)}`$ for each $`iI_n`$.

###### Proof.

The arguments given above imply the existence of a permutation $`\omega `$ of $`I_n`$ such that

$$f(𝔄^i)=𝔄_{\omega (i)}^{}iI_n$$

or

$$f(𝔄^i)=𝔄^{\omega (i)}iI_n.$$

Clearly, for the first case the mapping $`f`$ is not injective. Thus the second equality holds true. Since $`𝔄_i𝔄^i`$ is empty,

$$f(𝔄_i𝔄^i)=f(𝔄_i)f(𝔄^i)=𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}𝔄^{\omega (i)}=\mathrm{};$$

this means that $`\sigma (i)=\omega (i)`$. ∎

If $`J`$ is empty then the similar arguments show that $`f(𝔄^i)=𝔄_{\sigma (i)}^{}`$ for all $`iI_n`$.

### 4.6. The final part of the proof of Theorem 3.1

Recall that (Example 3.1) for any subspaces $`SP`$ and $`S^{}P^{}`$ we denote by $`𝔉(S)`$ and $`𝔉^{}(S^{})`$ the sets of all maximal flags containing these subspaces.

Let $`pP`$. Assume that $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are distinct flags belonging to the set $`𝔉(p)`$. Since apartments containing $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ exist, Lemma 4.1 shows that the flags $`f(_1)`$ and $`f(_2)`$ have the same point or the same $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspace.

Now take $`_0𝔉(p)`$ and denote by $`𝔛`$ (or $`𝔜`$) the set of all flags $`𝔉(p)`$ such that $`f(_0)`$ and $`f()`$ have the same point (or the same $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspace, respectively). Then

(4.4)
$$𝔛𝔜=𝔉(p).$$

We want to show that one of these sets coincides with $`𝔉(p)`$.

###### Proof.

If

(4.5)
$$𝔛𝔉(p)\text{ and }𝔜𝔉(p)$$

then (4.4) implies the existence of

$$_1𝔛𝔜\text{ and }_2𝔜𝔛.$$

The points and the $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspaces contained in the flags $`f(_1)`$ and $`f(_2)`$ are different. Hence one of the conditions (4.5) does not hold. ∎

Thus we have established that for any point $`pP`$ there exists a point $`g(p)`$ belonging to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$ and such that

$$f(𝔉(p))𝔉^{}(g(p)).$$

Since any two points of $`P`$ are contained in some base, Lemma 4.1 guarantees that one of the following two possibilities is realized:

1. $`g(p)P^{}`$ for all $`pP`$,
2. $`g(p)P^{}`$ for all $`pP`$.

Similarly, for any point $`p^{}P^{}`$ there is a point $`h(p^{})`$ of $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$ such that

$$f(𝔉(p^{}))𝔉^{}(h(p^{})).$$

Moreover, it follows from Lemma 4.1 that for the cases (A) and (B) we have

$$h(p^{})P^{}p^{}P^{}\text{ and }h(p^{})P^{}p^{}P^{},$$

respectively.

###### Lemma 4.15.

If $`pP`$ and $`p^{}P^{}`$ contains $`p`$ then $`g(p)`$ and $`h(p^{})`$ are incident subspaces <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2recall that two subspaces are incident if one of them is contained to the other.

###### Proof.

Consider a maximal flag $`𝔉`$ containing $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$. Then $`g(p)`$ and $`h(p^{})`$ are contained in the flag $`f(𝔉)`$. This gives the required. ∎

The mapping $`g`$ is a strong embedding of $`P`$ to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$.

###### Proof.

It is trivial that $`g`$ maps bases to bases. Hence it transfers independent subsets to independent subsets (a subset of a projective space is independent if and only if it is contained in certain base for this space). In particular, this means that $`g`$ is injective. Thus we have to show that $`g`$ is collinearity preserving. We prove this statement for the case (A), the case (B) is similar.

Any two distinct points $`p_1,p_2P`$ are contained in some base $`B=\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{n+1}`$ for $`P`$. The points

$$p_1^{}:=g(p_1),\mathrm{},p_{n+1}^{}:=g(p_{n+1})$$

form a base for $`P^{}`$; in what follows this base will be denoted by $`B^{}`$. For each $`iI_n`$ we set

$$p_i^{}:=\overline{B\{p_i\}},p_i^{}:=\overline{B^{}\{p_i^{}\}}$$

and denote by $`𝔄`$ and $`𝔄^{}`$ the apartments in $`𝔉`$ and $`𝔉^{}`$ associated with the bases $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$, respectively. Then $`f(𝔄)=𝔄^{}`$ and Lemma 4.1 shows that $`h(p_i^{})=p_i^{}`$ for all $`iI_n`$. Since

$$p_1p_2=\underset{i=3}{\overset{n+1}{}}p_i^{},$$

we have

$$g(p_1p_2)\underset{i=3}{\overset{n+1}{}}h(p_i^{})=\underset{i=3}{\overset{n+1}{}}p_i^{}=p_1^{}p_2^{}$$

by Lemma 4.15. ∎

Lemma 4.15 states that the $`g`$-image of any $`p^{}P^{}`$ is contained in $`h(p^{})`$. Since $`g`$ is a strong embedding to $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$, $`\overline{g(p^{})}`$ is an $`(n1)`$-dimensional subspaces of $`P^{}`$ or $`P^{}`$ (respectively). The similar holds for $`h(p^{})`$. Hence the subspaces $`h(p^{})`$ and $`\overline{g(p^{})}`$ are coincident. This means that $`h=g^{}`$ (Subsection 2.3). In particular, Theorem 3.1 is proved for the case when $`n=2`$.

Now assume that $`n3`$ and prove Theorem 3.1 by induction. Take an arbitrary point $`pP`$ and consider the restriction of $`f`$ to $`𝔉(p)`$. It is an injection to $`𝔉^{}(g(p))`$ sending apartments to apartments (Example 3.1). By the inductive hypothesis, this mapping is induced by a strong embedding $`t`$ of $`_p`$ to $`_{g(p)}^{}`$ or $`_{g(p)}^{}`$ (Example 2.5). It is easy to see that the dual embedding $`t^{}`$ coincides with the restriction of $`h`$ to $`P_p^{}`$; denote this restriction by $`h^{}`$. Then $`t=h^{}`$ is defined by $`g`$ (Example 2.5). This implies the required: the mapping $`f`$ is induced by the embedding $`g`$.

Acknowledgment. The author thanks H. Havlicek for his interest and valuable discussions .


text:
# UNEXPECTED GOINGS-ON IN THE STRUCTURE OF A NEUTRON STAR CRUST

## 1 Fermionic Casimir effect and Neutron Star Crust

At a depth of about 500 m or so below the surface of a neutron crust the nuclear matter (which consists mostly of neutrons plus a small percentage of protons and electrons in $`\beta `$-equilibrium) organize themselves in some exotic inhomogeneous solid phase bbp . As a matter of fact, neutron star crusts seem to be just about the only other places in the entire Universe, apart from planets, where one can find condensed matter, in particular a solid phase pwa . Moving from the neutron star surface inward, one finds at first a Coulomb crystal lattice of nuclei immersed in a very low density neutron gas and even lower density electron gas. With increasing depth, the density and pressure increase, the nuclei get closer to each other and start evolving into some unusual elongated nuclei, which eventually become rods. These nuclear rods evolve gradually into plates, their place being taken later by tubes and bubbles (dubbed “inside out” nuclei) just before the average density becomes almost equal to the nuclear saturation density and the entire mixture of neutrons, protons and electrons become an homogeneous phase. The properties of this part of the neutron star have been the subject of a lot of studies, see Refs. bbp ; nvb ; bv ; pra ; dhm ; dha ; mh ; mbh ; bma1 ; bw ; bma3 ; bma4 ; bma5 ; jap1 ; pethick ; jones  and other references therein. Most of these approaches however have missed a rather subtle and apparently important physical phenomenon, the fermionic counterpart of the Casimir interaction in such a medium bma1 ; bw ; bma3 ; bma4 ; bma5 .

In order to quickly explain the main physics ideas behind this new phenomenon, let us consider an over-simplified model of the neutron star crust. One can ask the rather innocuous question: “What is the ground state energy of an infinite homogeneous Fermi sea of noninteracting neutral particles with two hard spheres of radii $`a`$, separated by a distance $`r`$?” The naive and somewhat startling answer that perhaps one can place the two hard spheres almost anywhere with respect to each other and that the energy of the system will not be affected if one were to move the hard spheres around. The “theoretical argument” which can lead to such a conclusion is based on the same type of argumentation, which was used in Refs.bbp ; pra ; dhm ; dha  and allowed these authors to establish that by going deeper and deeper into the interior of the neutron star one finds a well defined sequence of “exotic” nuclear shapes. This traditional argumentation is based essentially on liquid drop model, which includes the volume, surface, Coulomb contributions to the ground state energy only. This is basically “classical thinking.” For a person using “quantum reasoning” instead, the fact that the ground state of such a system in infinitely degenerate (corresponding to an arbitrary relative arrangement of the two hard spheres) will find such an answer most likely wrong. An indeed, a careful analysis of the problem reveals the fact that indeed a system of two hard spheres, immersed in an infinite Fermi see of noninteracting particles at zero temperature has a well defined ground state. The correct answer, namely that the “interaction energy” of the two hard spheres of radius $`R`$, at distance $`r`$ from each other, is somewaht even more surprising. One finds that

$$E_C\frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F^2}{m}\frac{R^2}{2\pi r(r2R)}j_1[2k_F(r2R)],$$

where $`j_1(x)`$ is the spherical Bessel function, $`k_F`$ is the Fermi momentum and $`m`$ is the fermion mass. “Why would this “interaction energy” be a non-monotonic function of the hard sphere separation $`r`$?” and, moreover, “How does interaction really emerges here, where one starts with such a simple system of non-interacting particles?” As one soon “discovers” the “culprit” is the wave character of the Quantum Mechanics really. Fermions even at zero temperature do not stop moving and the space is really “filled” with an infinite number of de Broglie’s waves. These waves reflect from the two hard spheres and as in the case of any wind musical instrument, for some frequencies one would have a favorable wave interference while for other frequencies there will not such a favorable interference. In an infinite Fermi sea there is an infinite number of waves with all frequencies ranging from zero to the Fermi frequency. If one carefully adds up the effects of all these waves one readily arrives at the result above bma1 ; bw . Things get a little bit more complicated when one adds more hard spheres, as then one naturally discovers that besides the “natural” two-body interactions there are genuine three- and four- and many-body interactions among these spheres. Moreover, there is absolutely no reason why not consider other type of objects, which could be immersed in this Fermi sea, like “logs” and “boards” and in principle almost anything else. Surprisingly all these combinations of various objects in various arrangements can be analyzed rather easily. What is surprising however is the fact that the characteristic interaction energy between such objects is of the same order as the energy differences between various phases in a neutron star crust bma1 ; bma3 ; bma4 ; bma5  and when taken into account this fermionic Casimir energy can in “ruin perfect crystalline structures” found in all previous studies. These conclusions have been backed by more sophisticated fully microscopic calculations of the nuclear matter in a neutron star crust mh ; mbh .

Instead of describing in more detail results which have been published already, we shall instead draw the attention of our readers here to another element which was overlooked in studies of the neutron star crust, and which is apparently going to influence a great deal of properties. In order to analyze the thermal and electric conductivities of the crust, which are important for understanding of the thermal evolution of neutron stars one has to go beyond the static approximation. The “nuclei” which are immersed in the neutron fluid, which indeed is a superfluid, can and do move. As with boats on a lake, when they start moving they make waves and one has to include the dynamics of the surrounding superfluid in any analysis. We shall limit ourselves here to quoting a single result, namely the kinetic energy of two penetrable spheres,located at the distance r, immersed in a superfluid at velocities below the critical velocity for the loss of superfluidity. One then finds mb03  that the kinetic energy of two such spheres becomes:

$$T=\frac{1}{2}(M_1^{ren}u_1^2+M_2^{ren}u_2^2)+4\pi m\rho _{out}\left(\frac{1\gamma }{2\gamma +1}\right)^2\left(\frac{R_1R_2}{r}\right)^3\left[\stackrel{}{u}_1\stackrel{}{u}_2\frac{3}{r^2}(\stackrel{}{u}_1\stackrel{}{r})(\stackrel{}{u}_2\stackrel{}{r})\right]$$

where the renormalized masses of nuclei have the form:

$$M_i^{ren}=\frac{4}{3}m\rho _{in}\pi R_i^3\frac{(1\gamma )^2}{2\gamma +1}=M_i\frac{(1\gamma )^2}{2\gamma +1},$$

where $`\stackrel{}{u}_i`$ are the velocities of the two nuclei, $`i=1,2`$ and $`M_i`$ and $`R_i`$ denote the nuclear bare mass and radii of the $`ith`$ nucleus, $`\gamma =\rho _{out}/\rho _{in}`$ and $`\rho _{in,out}`$ are the densities inside and outside the two nuclei. The somewhat unexpected cross term appearing above shows that the existence of mere motion of the two objects in a perfect fluid can lead to a velocity-dependent interaction, which decays with the separation as slows as the static Casimir Fermionic energy, namely as $`1/r^3`$. Further analysis shows that this velocity dependent-interaction is important as well when considering dynamical properties of neutron star crust pm .

## 2 The Spatial Structure of a Vortex in Low-Density Superfluid Neutron Matter

There is a long held belief that vortices in Fermi systems do not show any appreciable normal density variations and that only the anomalous density vanishes along the vortex axis, similarly to the behavior of the density (which is the order parameter) in Bose systems gennes ; aads ; deblasio . Thus it came as somewhat of a surprise the fact that in Fermi systems one can have a spatial structure of a vortex with a significant normal density depletion along the vortex axis vortex ; pierre ; abyy . What happens in low density superfluid neutron matter for example is the following. The magnitude of the pairing gap becomes comparable with the Fermi energy,

The possibility that the value of the superfluid gap can attain large values was raised more than two decades ago in connection with the BCS $``$ BEC crossover leggett ; nozieres . One can imagine that one can increase the strength of the two–particle interaction in such a manner that at some point a real two–bound state forms, and in that case $`a\mathrm{}`$. By continuing to increase the strength of the two–particle interaction, the scattering length becomes positive and starts decreasing. A dilute system of fermions, when $`\rho r_0^31`$ (here $`r_0`$ is the interaction radius), will thus undergo a transition from a weakly coupled BCS system, when $`a<0`$ and $`a=𝒪(r_0)`$, to a BEC system of tightly bound Fermion pairs, when $`a>0`$ and $`a=𝒪(r_0)`$ again. In the weakly coupled BCS limit the size of the Cooper pair is given by the so called coherence length $`\xi \frac{\mathrm{}^2k_F}{m\mathrm{\Delta }},`$ which is much larger than the inter-particle separation $`\lambda _F=2\pi /k_F`$. In the opposite limit, when $`k_Fa1`$ and $`a>0`$, and when tightly bound pairs/dimers of size $`a`$ are formed, the dimers are widely separated from one another. Surprisingly, these dimers also repel each other with an estimated scattering length $`0.6\mathrm{}2a`$ mohit ; pieri  and thus the BEC phase is also (meta)stable. The bulk of the theoretical analysis in the intermediate region where $`k_F|a|>1`$ was based on the BCS formalism mohit ; leggett ; nozieres ; randeria  and thus is highly questionable. Even the simplest polarization corrections have not been included into this type of analysis so far. In particular, it is well known that in the low density region, where $`a<0`$ and $`k_F|a|1`$ the polarization corrections to the BCS equations lead to a noticeable reduction of the gap gorkov . Only a truly ab initio calculation could really describe the structure of a many Fermion system with $`k_F|a|1`$. In the limit $`a=\pm \mathrm{}`$, when the two–body bound state has exactly zero energy, and if $`k_Fr_01`$, one can expect that the energy per particle of the system is proportional to $`\epsilon _F=\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$, as it was recently confirmed by the variational calculations of Refs. carlson1 ; carlson2 . The normal density at the vortex core is lowered, while the pairing field vanishes at the vortex axis as expected. In hindsight this result could have been expected. Large values of the pairing field correspond to the formation of atom pairs/dimers of relatively small sizes. When these dimers are relatively strongly bound and when they are also widely separated from one another, they undergo a Bose–Einstein condensation. For a vortex state in a 100% BEC system the density at the vortex axis vanishes identically. Therefore, by increasing the strength of the two–particle interaction, the Fermion system simply approaches more and more an ideal BEC system, for which a density depletion of the vortex core is expected.

Almost thirty years ago Anderson and Itoh pwa  put forward the idea that vortices should appear in neutron stars and that they can also get pinned to the solid crust. They argued that the ”star–quakes,” observable on Earth as pulsar ”glitches,” apparently are caused by the vortex de–pinning in neutron star crust. This idea and its various implications have been examined by numerous authors, see Refs. aads ; pierre  and further references therein, but a general consensus does not seem to have emerged so far.

The profile of a vortex in neutron matter is typically determined using a Ginzburg–Landau equation, which is expected to give mostly a qualitative picture and its accuracy is difficult to estimate. Surprisingly, prior to Ref. vortex  there exists only one microscopic calculation of a vortex in low density neutron matter deblasio . The existence of a strong density depletion in the vortex core is going to affect appreciably the energetics of a neutron star crust. One can obtain a gross estimate of the pinning energy of a vortex on a nucleus as $`E_{pin}^V=[\epsilon (\rho _{out})\rho _{out}\epsilon (\rho _{in})\rho _{in}]V`$, where $`\epsilon (\rho )`$ is the energy per particle at density $`\rho `$, $`\rho _{in}`$ and $`\rho _{out}`$ are the densities inside and outside the vortex core and $`V`$ is the volume of the nucleus. Naturally, this simple formula does not take into account a number of factors, in particular surface effects and the changes in the velocity profile and the pairing field. These last contributions were accounted for (with some variations) in the past pwa ; aads . However, if the density inside the vortex core and outside differ significantly one expects $`E_{pin}^V`$ to be the dominant contribution. In the low density region, where $`\epsilon (\rho _{out})\rho _{out}/\epsilon (\rho _{in})\rho _{in}`$ is largest, one expects a particularly large anti–pinning effect $`(E_{pin}^V>0)`$. The energy per unit length of a simple vortex is expected to be significantly lowered when compared with previous estimates pwa ; aads  by $`[\epsilon (\rho _{out})\rho _{out}\epsilon (\rho _{in})\rho _{in}]\pi R^2`$, where $`R`$ is an approximate core radius.