text:
# Analytic Inversion of Emission Lines of Arbitrary Optical Depth for the Structure of Supernova Ejecta

## 1 INTRODUCTION

For many years analysis of the spectra of various types of supernovae has been a highly active area of research, with relevance to studies of nucleosynthesis and galactic chemical evolution, stellar winds and the interstellar medium, and the extragalactic distance scale (c.f., Chevalier 1990; Eastman, Schmidt, & Kirshner 1996; Fillipenko 1997; Branch 1998). Fast numerical codes (c.f., Fisher 1999) now exist to “forward” model synthetic spectra – which can then be matched to observed spectra – from a parametrized treatment of the temperature, velocity, density and composition structure of supernova ejecta (c.f., Millard et al. 1999). On the other hand, there has been comparatively little study of the inverse approach, to infer the radial dependence of intrinsic physical characteristics of the ejecta directly from spectral line profiles. Fransson & Chevalier (1989) and Fransson (1994) investigate the use of optically thin line profile shapes as a diagnostic of the emissivity with radius for supernova ejecta in homologous expansion (i.e., $`v(r)r`$). However, we realized that an analytic inversion for emission lines of arbitrary optical depth could be derived.

As described in this paper, our inversion relies on the fact that the emission from a geometrically thin shell with an expansion speed that is linear in radius will produce a rectangular or “flat-topped” emission profile (such a profile shape is more commonly associated with optically thin lines formed in constant expansion shells). After undertaking this study, we discovered a comment by Kuhi (1973) who discussed flat-topped emission lines observed in the spectra of Wolf-Rayet stars. Appearing in a “Note added in proof”, Kuhi credits C. Magnan for pointing out that an optically thick spherical shell with $`vr`$ can also produce a flat-topped profile. Unfortunately, no reference to the remark is given, nor have we been able to locate any similar conclusions in other published works.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a derivation of the inversion technique, beginning first with a discussion of Sobolev theory in Section 2.1, then a derivation of the basic inversion in 2.2, followed by a discussion of occultation effects in 2.3, and ending with an illustrative application to a pure resonance scattering line in 2.4. A discussion of the method and caveats to practical applications are given in Section 3.

## 2 THE LINE INVERSION

We consider ejecta from a supernova as existing in a spherical shell in homologous expansion with inner radius $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and outer radius $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. There may or may not be a pseudo-photosphere existing in this shell (a pseudo-photosphere will exist at early times following the supernova, but fade toward late times). Allowing for a pseudo-photosphere, we define $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ as its radius. Given these assumptions, we show how to derive information about the radial structure of the ejecta, in terms of density, ionization structure, heating input, and so on, or some combination thereof from the inversion of an observed emission line profile. This inversion is applicable to lines of arbitrary optical depth. The formalism follows arguments developed by Brown et al. (1997) and Ignace et al. (1998) for the inversion of optically thin emission lines formed in stellar winds. Whereas those authors were seeking to derive the wind speed distribution for a known stellar mass loss rate, here we can assume a speed distribution $`v(r)r`$ and thus solve for other properties in the ejecta shell.

### 2.1 Sobolev Theory

We employ standard Sobolev theory (Sobolev 1960; Mihalas 1978; Lamers & Cassinelli 1999). A small parcel of gas at radius $`r`$ from the center of the supernova (taken to be the origin) and expanding radially with $`v(r)`$ will produce line emission with a Doppler shift given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _0\frac{v(r)}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the spherical polar angle between the sightline (taken to be the $`z`$axis) and the line from the origin to the gas parcel. For convenience, we use $`\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ hereafter and also introduce the line-of-sight velocity shift $`v_\mathrm{z}=v(r)\mu `$.

Sobolev theory provides the following expressions for the radiative transfer in a spherical expanding envelope. The flux is given by

$$F_\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=\frac{1}{D^2}_{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi I_\lambda p𝑑p,$$
(1)
where $`p`$ is the impact parameter orthogonal to the $`z`$axis, $`D`$ the distance, $`I_\lambda `$ the monochromatic line intensity, and the integration proceeds over the isovelocity zone specified by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ a constant. We assume a velocity law of the form $`v(r)=v_{\mathrm{max}}(r/r_{\mathrm{max}})`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the maximum speed obtained by the shell located at largest radius $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The locus of points of constant Doppler shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _0v_\mathrm{z}/c`$ is given by $`v_\mathrm{z}=v_{\mathrm{max}}\mu (r/r_{\mathrm{max}})=v_{\mathrm{max}}(z/r_{\mathrm{max}})`$. This means that isovelocity zones are planes oriented orthogonally to the observer’s line-of-sight. Because the ejecta resides in a shell of finite extent, these zones are disks or annuli that cut through the shell. (Annuli occur when the disk cuts through the shell for $`z<r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ or $`z<r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, thereby intersecting either the inner evacuated region of the shell or the pseudo-photosphere.)

The intensity from Sobolev theory is $`I_\lambda =S_\lambda \left(1e^{\tau _\lambda }\right)`$, where the source function $`S_\lambda `$ and the Sobolev optical depth $`\tau _\lambda `$ are evaluated at the point of consideration. The optical depth is given by

$$\tau _\lambda (p)=\frac{\kappa _\lambda (r)\rho (r)\nu _0}{|dv_\mathrm{z}/dz|},$$
(2)
where $`\kappa _\lambda (r)`$ is the line opacity, $`\rho (r)`$ the mass density in the shell, and $`dv_\mathrm{z}/dz`$ is the line-of-sight velocity gradient. For a spherical flow, this velocity gradient is

$$\frac{dv_\mathrm{z}}{dz}=\mu ^2\frac{dv}{dr}+(1\mu ^2)\frac{v}{r}.$$
(3)
Using the preceding expressions from Sobolev theory, we next formulate the line inversion technique.

### 2.2 The Basic Inversion Result

It is important to recall the well-known result that a constant expansion shell producing optically thin line emission will have a flat-topped profile shape. Such a line will have emission spread between velocity shifts $`v_\mathrm{z}=+v(r)`$ and $`v_\mathrm{z}=v(r)`$. For an optically thin line formed in a shell with a range of radial speeds, one can construct the line profile as a superposition of flat-tops, each arising from a sub-shell expanding at constant speed. The different flat-top emission contributions have width in wavelength as determined by the speed of the sub-shell and emission height determined by its volume and emissivity. The inversion methods derived by Brown et al. (1997) and Ignace et al. (1998) are based on this kind of construction. Differentiating the emission profile, their technique is to use the observed Doppler shift to trace out the physical velocity in the flow, so that the profile slope essentially yields information on the run of density (or more generally the emissivity) with radius. They show that for a given emissivity, one can invert the emission profile to yield $`v(r)`$.

For arbitrary optical depths, the contribution from each shell is not generally flat-topped, thus one cannot usually employ this inversion. However, the case of linear or homologous expansion is a special case, with each shell producing a flat-topped emission contribution for arbitrary optical depth (as we next show), and hence an inversion is still possible. Consider equation (3) for the velocity gradient. In the case of linear expansion, the gradient reduces to $`dv_\mathrm{z}/dz=\mu ^2(v_{\mathrm{max}}/r_{\mathrm{max}})+(1\mu ^2)(v_{\mathrm{max}}/r_{\mathrm{max}})=v_{\mathrm{max}}/r_{\mathrm{max}}`$. This is constant, meaning that the Sobolev optical depth $`\tau _\lambda =\tau _\lambda (r)`$ is a function of radius only. Scattering or production of photons in a flow with a velocity gradient will normally be anisotropic, but the case of homologous expansion is special, yielding an optical depth that is isotropic. In the language of Sobolev theory, this means that the escape probability is likewise isotropic. Since the source function is a function of radius, the intensity is consequently a function of radius too, with $`I_\lambda (r)=S_\lambda (r)[1e^{\tau _\lambda (r)}]`$.

Now consider a geometrically thin spherical shell undergoing homologous expansion. The flux of line emission will be $`F_\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=(2\pi /D^2)I_\lambda (r)pdp`$. The isovelocity zones are rings oriented with constant $`z`$. However, we also have the geometric relation that $`r^2=p^2+z^2`$, and since $`z=\mathrm{constant}`$ at fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$, we find that $`rdr=pdp`$. Thus the flux becomes $`F_\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=(2\pi /D^2)I_\lambda (r)rdr`$. The result is that the flux appearing at any $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is a function of radius only, hence the flux at all $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ in the line profile is the same – a flat-topped emission profile, even though we have nowhere required the line to be optically thin.

Extending this to a shell of arbitrary extent with a linear velocity law as specified, we have the total flux at Doppler shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ being

$$F_\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=\frac{2\pi }{D^2}_{r(v)}^{r_{\mathrm{max}}}I_\lambda (r)r𝑑r.$$
(4)
Making a change of coordinate from $`r`$ to $`v`$, with $`dr=dv/(dv/dr)`$, we obtain

$$F_\lambda (\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=\frac{2\pi }{D^2}_v^{v_{\mathrm{max}}}I_\lambda (r(v))r(v)\frac{dv}{dv/dr}.$$
(5)
Differentiating with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ and noting that $`d\lambda =d(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )`$ and $`dv/dr=v_{\mathrm{max}}/r_{\mathrm{max}}t_0^1`$, we find that

$$\left(\frac{dF_\lambda }{d\lambda }\right)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }=\frac{2\pi t_0}{D^2}rI_\lambda (r)\left(\frac{dv}{d\lambda }\right)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }=\frac{2\pi ct_0}{\lambda _0D^2}rI_\lambda (r),$$
(6)
where $`t_0`$ is the age of the supernova ejecta shell at the time of the line measurement, and the derivatives are evaluated at the point in the line profile where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _0v(r)/c`$. The minus sign signifies that the profile gradient $`dF_\lambda /d\lambda <0`$ (i.e., emission increases from the wings toward line center). The lefthand side is the data, and so we can directly solve for the intensity on the righthand side.

### 2.3 Occultation Effects

We have so far ignored the pseudo-photosphere, which can influence our results by way of line absorption and geometric occultation. As is standard for P Cygni profiles, the column of material intervening between the photosphere and the observer will scatter or absorb photospheric light. Since this column of gas is moving toward the observer, the absorption will appear as blueshifted from line center. As a consequence, the blueshifted part of the profile consists of the emission part superposed on the absorption trough. The net result is a distorted profile shape, which may be in absorption or emission. The resolution to this difficulty is simply to apply our inversion to the redshifted part of the profile only.

However, geometric occultation modifies the shape of the redshifted profile by virtue of blocking out line emission from the receding column of gas on the far side of the photosphere. If we can approximate the photosphere as a spherical ball of infinite optical depth, we can correct for the occultation as follows (e.g., see Ignace et al. 1998). Even with occultation, the emission from a shell still produces a flat-top profile, except that the emission at greatest redshift is no longer observed. The maximum redshift for emission from a shell of radius $`r`$ no longer extends to $`v(r)`$ but rather $`\stackrel{~}{v}(r)=v(r)\sqrt{1r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2/r^2}`$, purely from considerations of geometry. So $`\stackrel{~}{v}(r)`$ is the redshift of gas where the shell of radius $`r`$ intersects the occultation tube that extends behind the pseudo-photosphere. As expected, a shell very near the photosphere will be almost entirely occulted, for which $`\stackrel{~}{v}0`$, whereas a shell of radius $`rr_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ will suffer little occultation and thus $`\stackrel{~}{v}v`$.

Substituting $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ for $`v`$ and applying the inversion to equation (4) for the flux of line emission in the redshifted profile, we obtain

$$\left(\frac{dF_\lambda }{d\lambda }\right)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _0\stackrel{~}{v}/c}=\frac{2\pi ct_0}{\lambda _0D^2}rI_\lambda (r)\sqrt{1\frac{r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}{r^2}},$$
(7)
where we have substituted for $`d\stackrel{~}{v}/dr=(\stackrel{~}{v}/r)(1r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2/r^2)^1`$. To simplify the expression, we define a normalized emission profile gradient as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )=(\lambda _0/F_{\lambda ,c})(dF_\lambda /d\lambda )`$, where the continuum flux is $`F_{\lambda ,c}=\pi I_{\mathrm{ph}}r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2/D^2`$. Solving for the intensity, we get

$$\frac{I_\lambda (r)}{I_{\mathrm{ph}}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda )r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}{2ct_0r}\left(1\frac{r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}{r^2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(8)
where the line profile gradient is evaluated at $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =\lambda _0\stackrel{~}{v}(r)/c`$.

### 2.4 Application to a Pure Resonance Scattering Line

As an example, we consider homologous expansion and a pure resonance scattering line. A major simplification occurring in this case is that the source function reduces to the form $`S(r)=W(r)I_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, for the dilution factor $`W(r)=0.5\left(1\sqrt{1r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2/r^2}\right)`$ (e.g., Mihalas 1978). In this case the intensity becomes $`I_\lambda (r)=W(r)I_{\mathrm{ph}}(1e^{\tau _\lambda })`$, and our inversion equation (8) can be used to obtain the line optical depth, viz

$$\tau _\lambda (r)=\mathrm{ln}\left\{1\frac{r_{\mathrm{ph}}^2}{2ct_0r}\frac{[\mathrm{\Phi }(r)]}{[12W(r)]W(r)}\right\}.$$
(9)
This technique is an extremely powerful diagnostic, if both spherical symmetry and homologous expansion may be assumed. For example, the optical depth depends on opacity and density associated with the ion and transition being considered. Depending on what is known or can be assumed, the inversion of the line profile can provide constraints for the mass spectrum of the ejecta, ionization and/or excitation of the ion, heating from radioactive decay, or some combination of these properties (e.g., see Fransson & Chevalier 1989 for similar considerations in the context of their analysis for optically thin lines). It is important to stress that the inversion is model independent (proviso the assumptions) and so can be used to test current models for supernova explosions. The applicability of the inversion requires monotonicity in the velocity field, but the derived optical depth structure itself need not be monotonic. Any such non-monotonicity might for example be a signature of changes in the ionization of the ion producing the line emission, or perhaps non-monotonicity in the mass spectrum.

## 3 DISCUSSION

We have shown that emission line profiles of arbitrary optical depth formed in supernova ejecta shells can be analytically inverted to yield information about the shell structure. The method even allows for geometric occultation by a pseudo-photosphere. However, there are a few important checks and caveats that should be noted.

* It is key that the method be applied only to emission lines that are “pristine” (i.e., not blended with other lines), otherwise the profile shape will be affected, perhaps severely, and the inversion will yield a result, but it won’t be physically meaningful.
* We argued that one should apply the inversion to the redshifted profile only, because absorption on the blueshifted half of the line would render the inversion technique invalid. However, having obtained, for example, the optical depth structure from the redshifted profile, one could use that information to forward model the blueshifted profile. This would provide a check for self-consistency. Failure to recover the observed blueshifted profile would imply that either the shell is not spherically symmetric or the expansion is not homologous.
* The emission profile should show a flat-top at line core. This flat-top would correspond to the emission from the inner most observable shell, either at the radius $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ with radial speed $`v_{\mathrm{min}}`$, or effectively just outside the pseudo-photosphere $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ with radial speed $`v_{\mathrm{ph}}`$. However, it may be that the central flat-top could be narrow and difficult to resolve spectroscopically, or even perhaps that thermal or turbulent broadening causes the it to be somewhat more “rounded” than flat. In this case the inversion will artificially tend to yield a result for radii interior to either $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ or $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, as the case may be. A resolution of this problem is to make use of the total line emission of the redshifted wing. One would take the results from the inversion, integrate in radius, and compare with the observed line emission. The radius at which the integration matches the total observed line emission should be $`r_{\mathrm{min}}`$ or $`r_{\mathrm{ph}}`$, as appropriate, and thus where the results from the inversion should be truncated.
* Finally, we wish to point out that at certain times, especially early times, electron scattering might significantly alter the line profile shape (e.g., Fransson & Chevalier 1989). Electron scattering will lead to a broadening of the emission line, but in such a way as to conserve total line flux. This will alter the profile shape, and hence bias application of our inversion. Essentially, the expectation is for the profile to be broadened and the slope to be diminished. The recovered intensity will then be reduced relative to what it would be in the absence of electron scattering.

In conclusion, our inversion technique is a fairly general method for obtaining structure information about supernova ejecta shells; however, care must be exercised in the line selection and consideration given to the time $`t_0`$ since the explosion, since this latter quantity is relevant for the prominence of a pseudo-photosphere and the significance of electron scattering broadening. Under favorable conditions, our method should provide important constraints for hydrodynamic and radiative transfer models of supernova explosions, and possibly in novae if the required conditions are met.

The authors gratefully acknowledge helpful discussions with Profs. John Brown, Joe Cassinelli, Jay Gallagher, Ken Gayley, and Bob Mutel. We also thank an anonymous referee. MAH acknowledges support for this research from a PPARC grant. RI acknowledges funding support from an NSF grant (AST-9986915).


format: text

text:
# Volume form as volume of infinitesimal simplices

## Introduction

In the context of Synthetic Differential Geometry (SDG), it is possible to express some of the “infinitesimal geometric” notions for a manifold $`M`$ directly in terms of the points of the manifold, rather than in terms of the tangent bundle $`TM`$; this was demonstrated for the case of connections, differential forms, and Riemannian metric, in a series of papers, , , , , , and the present note belongs to the same series: here, we want to pass directly from the metric to the measure of volume.

The crux is that in SDG, one has the notion of when points $`x,y`$ in a manifold are first, resp. second, …) order neighbours, (written $`x_1y`$, resp. $`x_2y`$, …).

Recall  that an infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex is a $`k+1`$ tuple $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ of mutual first order neighbours. In this note, we shall consider also $`k+1`$ tuples $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ of mutual second order neighbours, so we shall need a more elaborate terminology: call the former first-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplices, the latter second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplices.

Recall also  that a Riemannian metric synthetically may be expressed in terms of a function $`g(x_0,x_1)`$, applicable to any second-infinitesimal 1-simplex $`(x_0,x_1)`$, and to be thought of as the square length (square of the length) of the simplex. In particular, $`g`$ should be symmetric in its two arguments, and vanish on any first-infinitesimal 1-simplex. Actually, the second condition follows from the first (provided $`g(x,x)=0`$), see Proposition 1 below.

We shall in the present note construct, for any second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex in a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$, its square volume, and prove, Proposition 3, that the square-volume is a symmetric function in the $`k+1`$ vertices; also, the square volume will vanish if two of the vertices are first order neighbours. For the case where $`k=n`$, the dimension $`n`$ of the manifold, it is possible in a certain sense to extract square roots and derive a characterization of the volume form (volume of first-infinitesimal $`n`$-simplices) of a Riemannian manifold; see Theorem 1.

## 1 Square volume: Heron’s and Gram’s constructions

The set of first-infinitesimal 1-simplices in a manifold $`M`$ equals what in other contexts is called the first neighbourhood of the diagonal, $`M_{(1)}`$, and similarly the set of second-infinitesimal simplices is the second neighbourhood of the diagonal, $`M_{(2)}`$. As observed in  Proposition 4.1, a function $`f(x,y)`$, vanishing on the diagonal, $`f(x,x)=0`$, is alternating on the first neighbourhood, $`f(x,y)=f(y,x)`$. For reference, we state this fact again, together with a slight extension of it:

###### Proposition 1

If a function in two variables vanishes on the diagonal, then it is alternating ($`f(x,y)=f(y,x)`$) on $`M_{(1)}`$. If a function is symmetric ($`f(x,y)=f(y,x)`$) on $`M_{(2)}`$, and vansihes on the diagonal, then it vanishes on $`M_{(1)}`$.

For, on $`M_{(1)}`$, $`f`$ is alternating as well as symmetric.

For a Riemannian manifold, i.e. a manifold $`M`$ equipped with a Riemannian metric $`g`$, we shall construct “square $`k`$-volumes” for any second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex (where $`kn`$, $`n`$ the dimension of the manifold $`M`$ under consideration).

The basic idea for the construction of a square $`k`$-volume function goes, for the case $`k=2`$, back to Heron of Alexandria (perhaps even to Archimedes); they knew how to express the square of the area of a triangle $`S`$ in terms of an expression involving only the lengths $`a,b,c`$ of the three sides:

$$area^2(S)=t(ta)(tb)(tc)$$

where $`t=\frac{1}{2}(a+b+c)`$. Substituting for $`t`$, and multiplying out, one discovers (cf.  §18.4) that all terms involving an odd number of any of the variables $`a,b,c`$ cancel, and we are left with

$$area^2(S)=\frac{1}{16}(a^4b^4c^4+2a^2b^2+2a^2c^2+2b^2c^2),$$
(1)
an expression that only involves the squares $`a^2`$, $`b^2`$ and $`c^2`$ of the lengths of the sides.

For the case where the triangle is a second-infinitesimal 2-simplex, the three first terms in the above parenthesis vanish, and we are left with

$$area^2(S)=\frac{1}{8}(a^2b^2+a^2c^2+b^2c^2),$$

or expressed in terms of $`g`$ and the vertices $`x_0,x_1,x_2`$ of the simplex

$$area^2(x_0,x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{8}(g(x_0,x_1)g(x_0,x_2)+g(x_1,x_0)g(x_1,x_2)+g(x_2,x_0)g(x_2,x_1)).$$
(2)
Since $`g`$ is symmetric in its two arguments, the expression here is symmetric in the three arguments. Also, if two vertices, say $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ are equal, the two first terms in (2) vanish, but the third one does too, being $`g(x_2,x_0)^2`$. (Note that the values of $`g`$ are always numbers with square zero.) From Proposition 1 then follows that (2) vanishes if $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$ are 1-neighbours; similarly, by symmetry, for $`x_0,x_2`$ or $`x_1,x_2`$.

Since the formula (2) only involves $`g`$, we do have a “square-area” construction for second-infinitesimal 2-simplices, satisfying the conditions mentioned in the introduction: symmetry, and vanishing if two vertices are 1-neighbours.

The expression in (2) has a rather evident generalization to higher $`k`$, but we shall prefer to generalize a different (less symmetric) expression for square-area. This formulation involves the “Gram determinant”. It is well known from linear algebra books that the square of the volume of the box spanned by $`k`$ vectors $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ in $`𝐑^n`$ is the Gram-determinant of the $`n\times k`$ matrix $`X`$ with the $`x_i`$’s as columns, where the Gram determinant of such matrix $`X`$ is the determinant of the $`k\times k`$ matrix $`X^TX`$; or, equivalently, the matrix whose $`ij`$’th entry is $`x_ix_j`$, where $``$ denotes the standard inner product in $`𝐑^n`$. Recall also that this inner product may be written in terms of square-norm, by the polarization formula

$$xy=\frac{1}{2}(x+y^2x^2y^2).$$

Thus the volume of the $`k`$-box spanned by the vectors $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ can be expressed in terms of square-norm. The volume of the $`k`$-simplex spanned by some vectors (and 0) differs from the volume of the box spanned by the vectors by a factor $`1/k!`$. This motivates the following construction of a square-$`k`$-volume of a second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex in a Riemannian manifold $`M,g`$:

$$vol^2(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)=\frac{1}{(k!)^2}\text{det}((x_ix_0)(x_jx_0)),$$
(3)
where in turn

$$(x_ix_0)(x_jx_0)=\frac{1}{2}(g(x_i,x_j)+g(x_i,x_0)+g(x_j,x_0)),$$
(4)
Note that the minus signs used on the left hand side are purely symbolical, and also a question whether $``$ is bilinear makes no sense.

We shall want to make sense to the expression (4) without assuming $`x_i_2x_j`$, but assuming, as before, $`x_i_2x_0`$ and $`x_j_2x_0`$, whence at least $`x_i_4x_j`$. This depends on choosing an extension $`\overline{g}`$ of $`g`$ to the fourth neighbourhood of the diagonal $`M_{(4)}`$, so that the first term on the right hand side of (4) makes sense. The value of the $``$ expression will in general depend on the choice of $`\overline{g}`$, but the dependence will be “controlled”, in a sense that is best made precise by working in a coordinate neighbourhood around $`x_0`$:

The Riemannian metric $`g`$ on a neigbourhood of $`0`$ in $`R^n`$ takes the form of a matrix product

$$g(x,y)=(yx)^TG(x)(yx)$$
(5)
where $`G(x)`$ for each $`x`$ is a symmetric $`n\times n`$ matrix with positive determinant.

Let $`x_20`$ and $`y_20`$. The value of $`x0y0`$, as given by (4) with $`x_0=0,x_i=x`$, and $`x_j=y`$ will depend on the extension $`\overline{g}`$ chosen; however, since a different choice will mean a difference for $`\overline{g}(x,y)`$ which is of order $`3`$ in $`yx`$, and since $`x`$ and $`y`$ are assumed to be $`_20`$, this difference will be of total order $`3`$ in $`x,y`$, and so may be subsumed in the “error term” $`ϵ`$ in the conclusion in the following Lemma. So in the proof of the Lemma, we may as well assume that the expression for $`\overline{g}`$ is the expression (5) for all $`x`$ ,$`y`$.

###### Lemma 1

Assume $`x_20`$ and $`y_20`$ (hence $`x_4y`$). Then

$$xy=xG(0)y+ϵ(x,y),$$

where $`ϵ(x,y)`$ is of total degree $`3`$ in $`x`$ and $`y`$. In particular, $`xx=x^TG(0)x`$.

Proof. Let us calculate $`2xy`$, i.e. $`\overline{g}(x,y)+g(0,x)+g(0,y)`$. We get

$$(yx)^TG(x)(yx)+x^TG(0)x+y^TG(0)y;$$

we Taylor expand $`G(x)`$ and thus rewrite the first term as $`(yx)^TG(0)(yx)`$ plus a term $`ϵ`$ which is of degree $`1`$ in $`x`$, and well as quadratic in $`yx`$, and hence of total degree $`3`$ in $`x,y`$. The three terms involving $`G(0)`$ now are, by the standard polarization formula, 2 times $`x^TG(0)y`$. This proves the first assertion.

The assertion about $`xx`$ is then clear.

We consider now the determinant on the right hand side of (3) in the coordinatized situation, i.e. with the metric given in coordinates by (5).

###### Proposition 2

Consider a second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_k`$. Then the determinant $`det((x_ix_0)(x_jx_0))`$ equals the determinant of the $`k\times k`$ matrix $`X^TG(x_0)X`$, where $`X`$ denotes the $`n\times k`$ matrix with the $`x_ix_0`$ as columns.

Proof. The $`ij`$’th entry $`(x_ix_0)(x_jx_0)`$ may by Lemma 1 be written

$$(x_ix_0)^TG(x_0)(x_jx_0)+ϵ_{i,j},$$

where $`ϵ_{i,j}`$ is of total degree $`3`$ in $`(x_ix_0),(x_jx_0)`$. We claim that all the “error terms” $`ϵ_{i,j}`$ get killed when expanding the determinant as a sum of products of the entries. Note that the error terms only occur in off-diagonal entries, $`ij`$. We may write $`ϵ_{i,j}`$ as $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}+ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$, where $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$ is of degree $`2`$ in $`x_ix_0`$ and $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$ is of degree $`2`$ in $`x_jx_0`$ (bidegrees $`(3,0)`$ or $`(0,3)`$ do not occur, since $`x_i_2x_0`$ for all $`i`$). Now $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$, living in the $`j`$’th column, gets, in each of the terms of the deteminant expansion, multiplied by something from the $`i`$’th column. But each entry in the $`i`$’th column, say

$$(x_lx_0)G(x_0)(x_ix_0)+ϵ_{l,i}$$

is of degree $`1`$ in $`x_ix_0`$ and therefore kills $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$. Similarly, $`ϵ_{i,j}^{}`$ gets killed by being multiplied by anything in the $`j`$’th row.

So the only factors left in the determinant expansion are the $`(x_ix_0)^TG(x_0)(x_jx_0)`$, i.e. those of the matrix $`X^TG(x_0)X`$, as claimed.

Whereas the “Heron” formulas (1) and (2) for square area are evidently symmetric in the three vertices $`x_0,x_1,x_2`$, the Gram determinant formula (3) gives a preferential status to the vertex $`x_0`$. Nevertheless,

###### Proposition 3

The expression (3) for square volume of a second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplex is symmetric in the $`k+1`$ arguments $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_k`$. Also, the expression vanishes if two of the vertices $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ are 1-neighbours.

Proof. Symmetry in the arguments $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ is clear. So it suffices to prove that

$$vol^2(x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=vol^2(x_1,x_0,\mathrm{},x_k).$$
(6)
By Proposition 2, it suffices to prove that

$$det(X^TG(x_0)X)=det(Y^TG(x_1)Y)$$
(7)
where $`X`$ (as above) is the $`n\times k`$ matrix with columns $`x_ix_0`$ ($`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$) and $`Y`$ similarly is the $`n\times k`$ matrix with columns $`x_ix_1`$, ($`i=0,2,\mathrm{},k`$). Now each of the $`k!`$ terms in the determinant $`det(X^TG(x_0)X)`$ is of degree $`2`$ in $`x_1x_0`$. For, the entries of the first row of the matrix $`X^TG(x_0)X`$ are linear in $`(x_1x_0)`$, and likewise: each entry in the first column is linear in $`(x_1x_0)`$; and finally the entry in position $`(1,1)`$ is quadratic in $`(x_1x_0)`$. Any of the $`k!`$ terms of the determinant expansion contains as well a factor from the first row, as one from the first column, and thus is of degree $`2`$ in $`x_1x_0`$.

Now since each term in the determinant expansion of $`X^TG(x_0)X`$ is of degree $`2`$ in $`x_1x_0`$, we may replace the $`G(x_0)`$ by $`G(x_1)`$; for Taylor expanding $`G(x_1)`$ from $`x_0`$ gives $`G(x_0)`$ plus terms of degree $`1`$ in $`x_1x_0`$, but these terms get killed because our expressions are already of degree $`2`$ in $`x_1x_0`$.

Thus it suffices to prove that the $`k\times k`$ matrices $`X^TGX`$ and $`Y^TGY`$ have the same determinant, where $`G`$ denotes $`G(x_1)`$. This is a matter of elementary linear algebra. It is easy to see that one can obtain the matrix $`Y`$ from the matrix $`X`$ by elementary column operations: changing sign on a column, and adding a multiple of one column to another one. This can be expressed matrix theoretically by saying $`Y=XZ`$ where $`Z`$ is a $`k\times k`$ matrix of determinant $`\pm 1`$. Hence we have

$$det(Y^TGY)=det((XZ)^TG(XZ))$$

$$=det(Z^T(X^TGX)Z)=det(X^TGX),$$

since $`det(Z)=det(Z^T)=\pm 1`$, proving (7), and hence the symmetry assertion of the Proposition.

To see that the expression (3) vanishes if two vertices are 1-neighbours, it suffices, by the symmetry already proved, and by Proposition 1, to prove that we get value zero if two vertices are equal. This is clear from Proposition 2 , since a determinant of form $`X^TGX`$ is zero if two columns of $`X`$ are equal.

Remark. The above exposition does not, even in dimension 2, prove or argue that the Heron expression and the Gram expression agree; I suppose this is rather elaborate, or requires some more penetrating concepts.

## 2 Volume form

We are now going to compare square volumes with differential forms in the top dimension. Differential forms are defined on first-infinitesimal simplices, and any square-volume function applied to such simplex yields value 0. So no immediate comparison can be made. The comparison therefore proceeds via a somewhat ad hoc notion of extended $`k`$-simplex and extended $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Definition 1

An extended $`k`$-simplex at $`x_0`$ is a $`k+1`$-tuple $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ of points with $`x_i_2x_0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

In particular, any second-infinitesimal simplex qualifies as an extended simplex.

Note that we do not assume $`x_i_2x_j`$ unless $`i`$ or $`j`$ is 0, and so the notion of extended simplex is asymmetric. (There are not $`(k+1)!`$ symmetries of an extended $`k`$-simplex, but only $`k!`$.)

It is possible to define “square volume” not just for second-infinitesimal $`k`$-simplices, but also for extended $`k`$-simplices. To define $`vol^2(X)`$ of an extended $`k`$-simplex $`X`$, we first choose an extension of $`g`$ to $`\overline{g}`$, as above, so (4) and hence (3) make sense, and serve as the definition of $`vol^2(X)`$; we have to argue that the value does not depend on the choice of $`\overline{g}`$. This follows because a different choice will, when working in coordinates, give a difference in the $`ϵ`$ part of the $`(x_ix_0)(x_jx_0)`$ only. The same argument as used in the proof of Propsition 2 then shows that all these $`ϵ`$ differences vanish when expanding the determinant.

###### Definition 2

An extended $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a law which to any extended $`k`$-simplex assigns a number; $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should be alternating (change sign when swapping two entries $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ with $`i`$ and $`j`$ different, and $`1`$) and give value 0 if $`x_i=x_j`$ for some $`ij`$.

It makes sense to say that the extended $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an extension of the $`k`$-form $`\omega `$. — The notion of extended form will only be used for the case $`k=n`$. — We have, for general $`k`$,

###### Lemma 2

Assume that the extended $`k`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ extends the non-degenerate $`k`$-form $`\omega `$, and similarly $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ extends $`\omega ^{}`$. If

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(X)^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)^2$$

for every extended $`k`$-simplex $`X`$, then locally $`\omega =\omega ^{}`$ or $`\omega =\omega ^{}`$.

.

Proof. We intend to prove $`\omega (x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)=\omega ^{}(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ for any $`k`$-simplex $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_k)`$. We introduce coordinates, and assume $`x_0=0R^n`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a function of the remaining $`k`$ variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ may be seen as a function $`D_2(n)\times \mathrm{}\times D_2(n)R`$ ($`k`$ copies of $`D_2(n)`$). The ring $`B`$ of such functions is a tensor product of $`k`$ copies of the ring $`A`$ of functions on $`D_2(n)`$; this latter ring is graded,

$$A=A_0A_1A_2.$$

So $`B`$ is multi-graded; for simplicity of notation, let us do the case where $`k=2`$, so $`B`$ is bigraded,

$$B=\underset{i,j}{}A_iA_j.$$

The assumption that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ vanishes if one of the $`x_i`$’s is 0 now implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ belongs to the summand $`_{i>0,j>0}A_iA_j`$, and so may be written

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega +H$$

where $`\omega A_1A_1`$ and $`HA_1A_2A_2A_1A_2A_2`$. Then for (bi-)degree reasons ($`A_3=0`$), it follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\omega ^2`$ in the bigraded ring $`B`$. The bilinear function which $`\omega `$ defines may be identified with the given form $`\omega `$, and since this form is non-degenerate, we may from $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\omega ^2`$ conclude that $`\omega =\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}`$, so $`\omega `$ can, modulo sign, be reconstructed from $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. This gives the desired uniqueness assertion.

A similar argument gives that if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are two extended $`k`$-forms extending $`\omega `$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(X)^2=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(X)^2`$, for any extended $`k`$-simplex $`X`$.

Let $`Vol^2`$ (with capital $`V`$) denote the square-volume construction in the top dimension $`n`$, given by the formula (3); as noted above, $`vol^2(X)`$ makes invariantly sense even for an extended $`k`$-simplex $`X`$.

We shall prove

###### Theorem 1

Let $`M,g`$ be a Riemannian manifold of dimension $`n`$. Then there exists locally, and uniquely up to sign, an $`n`$-form $`\omega `$, such that for some, or equivalently for any, extended $`n`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ extending $`\omega `$,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x_0,\mathrm{},x_n)^2=Vol^2(x_0,\mathrm{},x_n).$$

The $`n`$-form (unique up to sign) thus characterized, deserves the name volume form for the Riemannian manifold $`M,g`$.

Proof. From the Lemma follows the local uniqueness of volume forms, modulo sign. (So, if $`M`$ is connected, there are at most two volume forms $`\omega `$ and $`\omega `$.) The existence of a volume form will proceed in coordinates, and will ultimately not be very different from the standard description in terms of square root of the determinant of the symmetric matrix representing $`g`$ in coordinates (as in the proof of Proposition 3). The $`n`$ form $`\omega `$ we construct as a candidate for a volume form is then defined by

$$\omega (x_0,\mathrm{},x_n)=\frac{1}{n!}\sqrt{detG(x_0)}det(x_1x_0,\mathrm{},x_nx_0);$$
(8)
the same expression then defines a value for any $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_n`$, so in particular defines an extended $`n`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then by linear algebra,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x_1x_0,\mathrm{},x_nx_0)^2=\frac{1}{(n!)^2}det(X^TG(x_0)X),$$
(9)
where $`X`$ denotes the $`n\times n`$ matrix with columns the $`x_ix_0`$.

We now observe that

$$det(X^TG(x_0)X)=det((x_ix_0)(x_jx_0)),$$
(10)
which will then prove the existence of the volume form. This is essentially immediate from Proposition 2, because the proof about the cancellation of error terms depended on $`x_i_2x_0`$, but not on $`x_i_2x_j`$.


text:
# Note on the magnetotransport in the normal state of high-𝑇_c cuprates

## I Introduction

Anomalous temperature dependence of the magnetotransport coefficients in the normal state of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors has been discussed intensively as the evidence for the breakdown of the Fermi-liquid theory. Experimental data are roughly summarized as $`\sigma _{xx}T^1`$, $`\sigma _{xy}HT^3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{xx}H^2T^5`$ where $`T`$ is the temperature and $`H`$ is the external magnetic field. Thus Kohler’s rule, expected from the ordinary transport theory based on the quasiparticle of the Fermi liquid, is strongly violated in a wide temperature range.

On the other hand, it has been claimed that such a violation of Kohler’s rule can be derived from the quasiparticle transport within the framework of the Fermi-liquid theory if the momentum-dependence of the scattering due to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation is fully taken into account.

In this paper we show that the quasiparticle-transport theory is inadequate to explain the anomaly in section II and that the collective-transport theory beyond the quasiparticle is necessary in section III.

## II Quasiparticle Transport

The quasiparticle contribution to the magnetotransport coefficients within the relaxation-time approximation in two dimensions is expressed in terms of the mean free path $`l(s)`$:

$`\sigma _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2{\displaystyle dsl(s)[\mathrm{cos}\theta (s)]^2},`$ (1)
$`\sigma _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle dsl(s)\mathrm{cos}\theta (s)\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}[l(s)\mathrm{sin}\theta (s)]},`$ (2)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}^2{\displaystyle dsl(s)\left\{\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}s}[l(s)\mathrm{cos}\theta (s)]\right\}^2},`$ (3)
where $`\mathrm{d}s`$ is the line element along the Fermi surface, $`\theta (s)`$ is the angle specifying the position on the Fermi surface and $`\omega _\mathrm{c}`$ is the cyclotron frequency. Here the mean free path is proportional to the transport life-time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(s)`$. The effect of the vertex correction beyond the relaxation-time approximation is discussed in Appendix A.

In order to obtain analytic results we use a model for the mean free path

$$l(s)=l(\theta )=l_{\mathrm{hot}}\frac{1+a}{1+a\mathrm{cos}4\theta },$$
(4)
employed in the previous studies Here $`l_{\mathrm{hot}}l(\theta =0)`$ and $`a=(1r)/(1+r)`$ with $`r=l_{\mathrm{hot}}/l_{\mathrm{cold}}`$ and $`l_{\mathrm{cold}}l(\theta =\pi /4)`$. From this model we can know qualitative features of the quasiparticle transport, though it is insufficient for quantitative discussions.

For this model replacing $`\mathrm{d}s`$ by $`\mathrm{d}\theta `$ we obtain

$`\sigma _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi e^2l_{\mathrm{hot}}r^{1/2},`$ (5)
$`\sigma _{xy}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}l_{\mathrm{hot}}^2(r+1)r^{3/2},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{xx}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8}}e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}^2l_{\mathrm{hot}}^3(5r^4+52r^3+34r^2+52r5)r^{7/2}.`$ (7)
While eqs. (2.5) and (2.6) agree with the previous result, eq. (2.7) corrects the previous result as discussed in Appendix B.

If $`r`$ does not depend on the temperature, eqs.(2.5)-(2.7) satisfy Kohler’s rule. Although some violation of the rule can be derived from the temperature-dependence of $`r`$, it is impossible to explain the experimentally observed violation in a wide temperature range. Namely it is impossible to obtain $`(r+1)r^{1/2}T^1`$ and $`(5r^4+52r^3+34r^2+52r5)r^2T^2`$, from the scattering due to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation, in a wide temperature range consistent with the experiments. Such a criticism has also been made by other authors in another context.

Another criticism should be made for the case where the mean free path $`l(s)`$ is calculated from the phenomenological spin susceptibility. In those studies the self-consistency between the susceptibility and the self-energy for electrons has been neglected. The requirement of the self-consistency weaken the temperature dependence of the Hall constant expected from the phenomenology as has been shown by the numerical study based on the fluctuation-exchange approximation. Consequently the temperature dependence of the Hall constant within the relaxation-time approximation is far weaker than that observed by the experiments.

In conclusion, only weak violation of Kohler’s rule can be derived from the momentum-dependence of the transport life-time within the quasiparticle transport described by the Boltzmann equation.

## III Collective Transport

By the discussions in §2 it has become clear that the anomalous temperature dependence observed in the normal state of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors cannot be explained within the quasiparticle transport. However, it does not directly lead to the breakdown of the Fermi-liquid theory. There exists the collective contribution beyond the quasiparticle within the linear response theory based on the Fermi liquid: for example, the contributions C and D to the Hall conductivity discussed in ref. 18 correspond to the collective ones, while the contributions A and B constitute the quasiparticle transport theory consistent with the Boltzmann equation. The collective contributions arise in the presence of the magnetic field so that Kohler’s rule is strongly violated in a wide temperature range.

The collective transport theory is well established in the case of superconducting fluctuation. In the case of antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation relevant to the cuprate superconductors, the collective transport theory has been developed by the present authors in parallel with the case of superconducting fluctuation. (See Appendix C.)

The collective transport is necessary in the case of cuprates, since the anomalous phase with broken Kohler’s rule is proximity to the antiferromagnetic insulator where the low-energy excitation is the spin wave and there is no quasiparticle at low energies. It should be noted that the collective contributions are minor ones unless the spin fluctuation has the nesting character. The heart of the collective transport for the nested spin fluctuation is that the anomaly is regarded as $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ singularity of the charge fluctuation triggered by two modes of the spin fluctuation with $`2k_\mathrm{F}`$ singularity. The $`4k_\mathrm{F}`$ singularity is observed by the diffusive X-ray scattering experiment.

In conclusion, the strong violation of Kohler’s rule should be ascribed to the collective contribution beyond the quasiparticle contribution described by the Boltzmann equation.

## IV Summary

We have shown that the anomalous temperature dependence of the magnetotransport coefficients in the normal state of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors is derived, within the framework of the Fermi-liquid theory, from the collective contribution of the nested spin fluctuation beyond the quasiparticle contribution described by the Boltzmann equation.

In addition, other transport coefficients should have the collective contribution from the nested spin fluctuation. For example, the thermo-electric power has such a contribution in parallel with the case of the superconducting fluctuation.

## Acknowledgements

The author has benefitted much from discussions with K. Miyake, C. M. Varma, K. Yamada, H. Fukuyama and H. Kohno in the last decade.

## A Vertex Correction

In this Appendix we discuss the effect of the vertex correction. In the case, where the Fermi-liquid theory is applicable, the current vertex, the three-point vertex appearing in Fig. 1, is determined by three contributions, Figs. 1(a)-1(c). This vertex correction leads to the collision term $`I(n_k)`$ in the Boltzmann equation with obvious notations:

$`I(n_k)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k^{},q}{}}W(k,k^{};kq,k^{}+q)\delta (\epsilon _k+\epsilon _k^{}\epsilon _{kq}\epsilon _{k^{}+q})`$ (A1)
$`\times `$ $`[n_kn_k^{}(1n_{kq})(1n_{k^{}+q})(1n_k)(1n_k^{})n_{kq}n_{k^{}+q}].`$ (A2)
This collision term is rewritten as

$$I(n_k)=\underset{k^{}}{}Q(k,k^{})[n_k^{}n_k],$$
(A3)
with obvious notations. The relation of the detailed balance, $`Q(k,k^{})=Q(k^{},k)`$, is satisfied if the collision term has the form given by eq. (A.1).

In the absence of the magnetic field the Boltzmann equation leads to

$$\stackrel{}{v}_k=\underset{k^{}}{}Q(k,k^{})[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k^{}],$$
(A4)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}_k`$ is the velocity and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k`$ has the meaning of the mean free path. Equation (A.3) is equivalent to eq. (6.17) in ref. 29. It is widely recognized that $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_k`$ is not proportional to $`\stackrel{}{v}_k`$ in general, while it is stressed in ref. 14.

In the relaxation-time approximation, the right hand side of eq. (A.2) is replaced by $`[n_kn_k^0]/\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(k)`$ introducing the transport life-time $`\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}(k)`$ where $`n_k^0`$ is the equilibrium value. In this approximation the effect of the vertex correction is partly taken into account. However, it is shown that the full account of the vertex correction does not alter the temperature dependence of the resistivity obtained in the relaxation-time approximation.

In the presence of the magnetic field, the linearized Boltzmann equation for $`g_kn_kn_k^0`$ is given by

$$e\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{v}_k\frac{n_k^0}{\epsilon _k}+\frac{e}{c}(\stackrel{}{v}_k\times \stackrel{}{B})\frac{g_k}{\stackrel{}{k}}=\underset{k^{}}{}Q(k,k^{})[g_k^{}g_k].$$
(A5)
This equation is rewritten in the matrix form:

$$\underset{k^{}}{}A_{kk^{}}g_k^{}=e\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{v}_k\frac{n_k^0}{\epsilon _k},$$
(A6)
where

$$A_{kk^{}}(\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^1)_{kk^{}}\frac{e}{c}(\stackrel{}{v}_k\times \frac{}{\stackrel{}{k}})\stackrel{}{B}\delta _{k,k^{}},$$
(A7)
with

$$(\tau _{\mathrm{tr}}^1)_{kk^{}}\frac{1}{\tau _k}\delta _{k,k^{}}Q(k,k^{}),$$
(A8)
and

$$\frac{1}{\tau _k}\underset{k^{}}{}Q(k,k^{}).$$
(A9)
Since $`g_k^{}`$ is obtained by the matrix inversion:

$$g_k^{}=\underset{k}{}(A^1)_{k^{}k}e\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{v}_k\frac{n_k^0}{\epsilon _k},$$
(A10)
and the current $`\stackrel{}{j}`$ is obtained by

$$\stackrel{}{j}=e\underset{k^{}}{}\stackrel{}{v}_k^{}g_k^{},$$
(A11)
the transport coefficient $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ is given as

$$\sigma _{\mu \nu }=e^2\underset{kk^{}}{}v_k^\mu (A^1)_{k^{}k}v_k^{}^\nu \frac{n_k^0}{\epsilon _k},$$
(A12)
and this result fully contains the effect of the vertex correction. Our previous result is consistent with eq. (A.11) but the momentum-derivative of the transport life-time has been omitted in eq. (3.38) of ref. 18 and thus in eq. (21) of ref. 14.

Using the fluctuation-exchange (FLEX) approximation, the authors of ref. 14 claim that the vertex correction in the presence of strong antiferromagnetic spin fluctuation leads to strong temperature dependence of the transport coefficients unexpected from the relaxation-time approximation. While their study is in the framework of the Fermi-liquid theory, such a claim contradicts with the previous studies based on the Fermi-liquid theory. In the following we show that the FLEX approximation does not give the correct vertex correction discussed above.

In order to obtain the correct vertex correction, eq. (A.1), consistent with the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions, at least following two conditions should be satisfied.

First, the four-point vertex appearing in Fig. 1 should satisfy the so-called crossing or exchange symmetry. In the previous studies based on the Fermi-liquid theory this symmetry is assumed. For example, the four-point vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ in the particle-hole channel shown in Fig. 2(a) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{pp}}`$ in the particle-particle channel shown in Fig. 2(b) are assumed to be identical. On the other hand, in the FLEX approximation such a symmetry is broken. For example, the ladder process typical in the FLEX approximation shown in Fig. 3 cannot be identical in the sense discussed above.

Second, only low-energy states described by the singular part of the electron Green function should appear connecting each vertices in the vertex correction of the Fermi-liquid shown in Fig. 1. This limitation ensures that the resistivity is proportional to $`T^2`$ in the ordinary Fermi-liquid theory. On the other hand, in the FLEX approximation this limitation is violated in the so-called Maki-Thompson process which has no counterpart in the Fermi-liquid theory. Namely, the Maki-Thompson process contains unphysical high-energy states in comparison with the process of Fig. 1(a). While the Maki-Thompson process is treated on equal footing with the so-called Aslamazov-Larkin processes corresponding to Figs. 1(b) and 1(c) in the Fermi-liquid theory and such a treatment guarantees the vanishing resistivity in the absence of Umklapp scattering as stressed in ref. 29, the Maki-Thompson process is overestimated in the FLEX approximation. It is natural to expect that the fact, that the Aslamazov-Larkin processes have little effect on the transport coefficients, found in the FLEX approximation supports the validity of the relaxation-time approximation.

The reason, why the vertex correction in Fig. 1 plays little role besides the introduction of the transport life-time, is obvious from the previous study: the contribution from the two four-point vertices and two Green functions connecting them, and the one from the two Green functions connecting the four-point vertex and the three-point vertex, both of which are related to the imaginary part of the electron selfenergy, cancel out and the remaining effect is mostly taken into account by introducing the transport life-time.

The theoretical results by the FLEX approximation cannot be compatible with the experiments at least by two reasons. First, the magnetotransport anomaly in the normal state of high-$`T_\mathrm{c}`$ cuprate superconductors should be understood in a single framework which can explain the so-called pseudogap phenomena, while the FLEX approximation at present cannot explain the pseudogap. Second, anomalous temperature dependences observed in several experiments cannot be ascribed to the vertex correction.

## B Magnetoconductivity

The magnetoconductivity in the model used in §2 is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{xx}=16e^2\omega _\mathrm{c}^2l_{\mathrm{hot}}^3(1+a)^3_0^\pi d\theta \left\{\frac{1}{(1+a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^3}+\frac{a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{(1+a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^5}\right\}.$$
(B1)
These two integrals can be evaluated by use of the parameter-derivative of the formulae

$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }dx{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+q\mathrm{cos}x}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi (p^2q^2)^{1/2},`$ (B2)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }dx{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2x}{p+q\mathrm{cos}x}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi [p(p^2q^2)^{1/2}]q^2,`$ (B3)
for $`p>|q|`$ and the result is given in §2. In the previous study the second integral in eq. (B.1) has been omitted.

## C Sign of Hall Conductivity

The collective contribution of the Aslamazov-Larkin process of the superconducting fluctuation to the Hall conductivity is proportional to $`N_\mathrm{F}^{}`$ where $`N_\mathrm{F}^{}`$ is the energy derivative of the density of states at the Fermi energy. (The definition of $`\alpha `$ in the right hand side of eq. (2.27) in ref. 20 should be multiplied by minus sign.) On the other hand, the one of the nested spin fluctuation is proportional to $`N_\mathrm{F}^{}`$. The difference of the sign can be understood as follows. In the case of the superconducting fluctuation the diagram for the Hall conductivity of the Aslamazov-Larkin process is derived from Fig. 4(a) by attaching three current vertices to it. In this process the electron with the momentum $`p`$ and the fermionic frequency $`\epsilon _n`$ interacts with the hole with $`p`$ and $`\epsilon _n`$ and feels a reduced magnetic field by the motion of the hole. If we consider free electrons, $`N_\mathrm{F}^{}`$ is positive and so that the Hall conductivity due to the superconductive fluctuation is positive, while the Hall conductivity due to the quasiparticle is negative. In the case of nested spin fluctuation the Aslamazov-Larkin process is derived from Fig. 4(b) where the electron with $`p`$ and $`\epsilon _n`$ interacts with the electron with $`p+Q`$ and $`\epsilon _n`$. Since $`p+Qp`$ with the nesting vector $`Q`$, each electron moving in the opposite direction feels an induced magnetic field. It should be noted that we need the vertex correction in order to obtain non-vanishing collective contribution in the case of the spin fluctuation.


text: # 2 Fraction of Stable Orbits as a Function of Eccentricity


text:
# Tunable Imaging Filters

## Tunable Imaging Filters

While tunable filters are a recent development in night time astronomy, they have long been used in other physical sciences, e.g. solar physics, remote sensing and underwater communications. With their ability to tune precisely to a given wavelength using a bandpass optimized for the experiment, tunable filters are already producing some of the deepest narrowband images to date of astrophysical sources. Furthermore, some classes of tunable filters can be used in fast telescope beams and therefore allow for narrowband imaging over angular fields of more than a degree over the sky.

## The physics of tunable imaging

A rich variety of physical phenomena can isolate a finite spectral band: absorption, scattering, diffraction, evanescence, birefringence, acousto-optics, single layer and multi-layer interference, multi-path interferometry, polarizability, and so on. Most of the available optical filter technologies are listed below:

linear / circular variable filter

multi-layer dielectric filter

Fabry-Perot interferometer

Michelson interferometer

acousto-optic filter

solid etalon filter

solid Michelson filter

generalized resonant grating filter

sub-lambda evanescent grating filter

volume phase holographic grating filter

Lyot-Öhman filter

generalized Lyot filter

generalized S̆olc filter

liquid crystal filter

There is a bewildering array of future possibilities, including tunable crystal lattice structures, and many possible variants on the above technologies. Here, we focus on a few key technologies.

## The ideal device

The ideal filter is an imaging device which can isolate an arbitrary spectral band $`\delta \lambda `$ at an arbitrary wavelength $`\lambda `$ over a broad, continuous spectral range, preferably with a response function which is identical in form at all wavelengths.

The tilting interference filter is much the worst form of tunable filter. The spectral range covered is almost negligible, and the filter profile varies with tilt angle. Some devices (e.g. Lyot, linear variable filter) work only at a fixed resolving power but have the ability to tune over a wide spectral window. Better devices allow for a wide selection of resolving powers over a wide range of wavelengths.

The different techniques rely ultimately on the interference of beams that traverse different optical paths to form a signal. The technologies which come closest to the ideal tunable filter are the air-gap Fabry-Perot and Michelson (Fourier Transform) interferometers. To understand why, we highlight the Taurus Tunable Filter (TTF) which was the first general purpose device for night-time astronomy (see http://www.aao.gov.au/local/www/jbh/ttf). This is a Fabry-Perot filter where interference is formed between two highly reflective, moving plates. To be a useful filter, not only must the plates move through a large physical range, but they must start at separations of only a few wavelengths, as we show.

The condition for photons with wavelength $`\lambda `$ to pass through the filter is (see Fig. 1)

$$m\lambda =2\mu \mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\theta $$
(1)
from which it follows that

$$\frac{d}{}=\frac{dm}{m}=\frac{d\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}.$$
(2)
For an order of interference $`m`$, the resolving power is $`R=m𝒩`$ where $`𝒩`$ is the instrumental finesse. The finesse is determined by the coating reflectivity and is essentially the number of recombining beams. For the TTF, the plates can be scanned over the range $`\mathrm{}=1.515\mu `$m, and the orders of interference span the range $`m=440`$, such that the available resolving powers are $`R=1001000`$.

The sharp core of almost all tunable-filter transmission profiles is not ideal. Even a small amount of flatness at peak transmission can ensure that we avoid narrowly missing most of the spectral line signal from a source. In theory, all band-limited functions can be squared off, but in practice this is difficult for all but two devices. Since the Michelson interferometer (filter) obtains its data in the frequency domain, the profile can be partially squared off at the data reduction stage through a suitable choice of convolving function. For the S̆olc filter, the instrumental profile can be modified through the use of partial polarizers and birefringent retarder elements.

## Summary of filter technologies

Here, we provide a brief outline of some of the key technologies.

### Monolithic filters

Interference filter: The principle relies on a dielectric spacer sandwiched between two transmitting layers (single cavity). The substrates are commonly fused silica in the ultraviolet, glass or quartz in the optical, and water-free silica in the infrared. Between the spacer and the glass, surface coatings are deposited by evaporation which partly transmit and reflect an incident ray. Each internally reflected ray shares a fixed phase relationship to all the other internally reflected rays. For constructive interference, for a wavelength $`\lambda `$ to be transmitted, it must satisfy eqn. 1 where $`\theta =\theta _R`$ is the refracted angle within the optical spacer, and the optical gap is the product of the thickness $`\mathrm{}`$ and refractive index $`\mu `$ of the spacer. The construction of these filters has undergone a revolution through the use of dielectric, multi-layer thin film coatings, and a proper description is more involved. All such filters can be tuned through a small wavelength interval ($`\delta \lambda /\lambda =\theta _R^2/2\mu ^2`$), which amounts to no more than $`2\%\lambda `$ in practice. Suffice it to say, interference filters make for poor tunable devices.

### Gap-scanning filters

Fabry-Perot filter: The air-gap etalon, or Fabry-Perot filter, was introduced in the previous section. The etalon comprises two plates of glass kept parallel over a small separation where the inner surfaces are mirrors coated with high reflectivity $`\mathrm{}`$. The transmission of the etalon to a monochromatic source $`\lambda `$ is given by the Airy function

$$𝒜=\left(1+\frac{4\mathrm{}}{(1\mathrm{})^2}\mathrm{sin}^2(2\pi \mu \mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}\theta /\lambda )\right)^1$$
(3)
where $`\theta `$ is the off-axis angle of the incoming ray and $`\mu l`$ is the optical gap. The condition for peaks in transmission is given in eqn. 1. Note that $`\lambda `$ can be scanned physically in a given order by changing $`\theta `$ (tilt scanning), $`\mu `$ (pressure scanning), or $`l`$ (gap scanning). Both tilt and pressure scanning suffer from serious drawbacks which limit their dynamic range. With the advent of servo-controlled, capacitance micrometry, the performance of gap scanning etalons surpasses other techniques. These employ piezo-electric transducers that undergo dimensional changes in an applied electric field, or develop an electric field when strained mechanically. Queensgate Instruments, Ltd. have shown that it is possible to maintain plate parallelism to an accuracy of $`\lambda /200`$ while continuously scanning over several adjacent orders.

Fabry-Perot filters have been made with 15 cm apertures and physical scan ranges up to 3 cm. The etalon is ultimately limited by the finite coating thickness between the mirrors, so it really only achieves the lowest interference orders ($`m<5`$) at infrared wavelengths.

Solid etalon filter: These are single cavity Fabry-Perot devices with a transparent piezo-electric spacer, e.g. lithium niobate. The thickness and, to a lesser extent, refractive index can be modified by a voltage applied to both faces. For low voltage systems, tilt and temperature can be used to fine-tune the bandpass. High quality spacers with thicknesses less than a few hundred microns are difficult to manufacture, so that etalon filters are normally operated at high orders of interference. The largest devices we have seen are 5 cm in clear aperture.

Michelson filter: In the Fourier Transform or Michelson filter, the collimated beam is split into two paths at the front surface of the beam-splitter. The separate beams then undergo different path lengths by reflections off separate mirrors before being imaged by the camera lens at the detector. The device shown in Fig. 2 uses only 50% of the available light. As Maillard has demonstrated at the Canada France Hawaii Telescope, it is possible to recover this light but the layout is more involved.

The output signal is a function of path difference between the mirrors. At zero path difference (or arm displacement), the waves for all frequencies interact coherently. As the movable mirror is scanned, each input wavelength generates a series of transmission maxima. Commercially available devices usually allow the mirror to be scanned continuously at constant speed, or to be stepped at equal increments. At a sufficiently large arm displacement, the beams lose their mutual coherence.

The filter is scanned from zero path length ($`x=y=0`$) to a maximum path length $`y=L`$ set by twice the maximum mirror spacing ($`x=L/2`$). The superposition of two coherent beams with amplitude $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ in complex notation is $`b_1+b_2e^{i2\pi \nu y}`$ where $`y`$ is the total path difference and $`\nu `$ is the wavenumber. If the light rays have the same intensity, the combined intensity is $`4b^2\mathrm{cos}^2\pi \nu y`$, where $`b=b_1=b_2`$. The combined beams generate a series of intensity fringes at the detector. If it was possible to scan over an infinite mirror spacing at infinitesimally small spacings of the mirror, the superposition would be represented by an ideal Fourier Transform pair, such that

$`b(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}B(\nu )(1+\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu y)𝑑\nu `$ (4)
$`B(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}b(y)(1+\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu y)𝑑y`$ (5)
where $`b(y)`$ is the output signal as a function of pathlength $`y`$ and $`B(\nu )`$ is the spectrum we wish to determine. $`B(\nu )`$ and $`b(y)`$ are both undefined for $`\nu <0`$ and $`y<0`$: we include the negative limits for convenience. Note that

$`b(y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}B(\nu )\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu yd\nu `$ (6)
$`B(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}[b(y){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b(0)]\mathrm{cos}2\pi \nu ydy`$ (7)
The quantity $`b(y)\frac{1}{2}b(0)`$ is usually referred to as the interferogram although this term is sometimes used for $`b(y)`$. The spectrum $`B(\nu )`$ is normally computed using widely available Fast Fourier Transform methods. The construction of a Michelson filter is a major optomechanical challenge. The ideal Fourier Transform pair is never realized in practice. However, the Michelson filter probably comes closest to achieving the goal of an ideal tunable filter.

The Michelson does not suffer the coating thickness problems of the Fabry-Perot filter, and therefore reaches the lowest orders even at optical wavelengths.

### Grating filters

Resonant grating filter: These novel filters are inspired by the diffractive colours in many insects, and constitute dielectric gratings with three-dimensional, sub-micron microstructure. The zeroth order reflection exhibits a broad to intermediate bandwidth ($`20`$), is highly polarized and maintains useful efficiency over a $`\pm 30`$ tilt (or rotation) range. Gale (1998) presents one grating design that produces a roughly self-similar bandpass from 450 to 850 nm over this tilt range. Grating filters, and their close relatives, evanescent gratings, show great promise but most have yet to leave the drawing board. However, since much of the research is driven by bank note security, we anticipate rapid progress. Volume phase holographic gratings $``$ in reflection $``$ can produce a highly efficient grating filter through Bragg diffraction.

Acousto-optic filter (AOTF): These are electronically tunable filters that make use of acousto-optic (either collinear, or more usefully, non-collinear) diffraction in an optically anisotropic medium. AOTFs are formed by bonding piezo-electric transducers such as lithium niobate to an anisotropic birefringent medium. The medium has traditionally been a crystal, but polymers have been developed recently with variable and controllable birefringence. When the transducers are excited to 10-250 MHz (radio) frequencies, the ultrasonic waves vibrate the crystal lattice to form a moving phase pattern that acts as a diffraction grating. The diffraction angle (and therefore wavelength) can be tuned by changing the radio frequency. These devices are often water cooled to assist the thermal dissipation, although this is less important in the UV where AOTFs are particularly useful. The largest devices are 2.5 cm in diameter since it proves to be difficult to maintain a uniform acoustic standing wave over larger areas. An additional problem is the 15$`\mu `$m structure in the LiNO2 crystal which is not always optimal for good image quality. But the acceptance angle of the AOTF is generally larger than the Fabry-Perot.

### Birefringent Filters

The underlying principle of the birefringent filter is that light originating in a single polarization state can be made to interfere with itself. An optically anisotropic, birefringent medium can be used to produce a relative delay between ordinary and extraordinary rays aligned along the fast and slow axes of the crystal. (A birefringent medium has two different refractive indices, depending on the plane of light propagation through the medium.) Title and collaborators have discussed at length the relative merits of different types of birefringent filters. The filters are characterised by a series of perfect polarizers (Lyot filter), partial polarizers, or only an entrance and an exit polarizer (S̆olc filter). The highly anisotropic off-axis behaviour of uniaxial crystals give birefringent filters a major advantage. Their solid acceptance angle is one to two orders of magnitude larger than is possible with interference filters although this is partly offset by half the light being lost at the entrance polarizer.

Lyot filter: This is conceptually the easiest to understand and forms the basis for many variants. The entrance polarizer is oriented 45 to the fast and slow axes so that the linearly polarized, ordinary and extraordinary rays have equal intensity. The time delay through a crystal of thickness $`d`$ of one ray with respect to the other is simply $`d\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /c`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is the difference in refractive index between the fast and slow axes. The combined beam emerging from the exit polarizer shows intensity variations described by $`I^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi d\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /\lambda )`$ where $`I`$ is the wave amplitude. As originally illustrated by Lyot (see Fig. 3), we can isolate an arbitrarily narrow spectral band-pass by placing a number of birefringent crystals in sequence where each element is half the thickness of the preceding crystal. This also requires the use of a polarizer between each crystal so that the exit polarizer for any element serves as the entrance polarizer for the next. The resolution of the instrument is dictated by the thickness of the thinnest element. With quarter-wave plates placed between each of the retarder elements, $`\lambda `$ can be tuned over a wide spectral range by rotating the crystal elements. But to retain the transmissions in phase requires that each crystal element be rotated about the optical axis by half the angle of the preceding thicker crystal.

Woodgate (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) has made a Lyot filter utilising eight quartz retarders with a 10 cm entrance window. The retarders, each of which are sandwiched with half-wave and quarter-wave plates in addition to the polarizers, are rotated independently with stepping motors under computer control. They achieve a bandpass of 0.4$``$0.8 nm tuneable over half the optical wavelength range (350$``$700 nm).

S̆olc111The proper Czech pronunciation is ‘Sholtz’. filter: These highly non-intuitive filters use only two polarizers and a chain of identical retarders with varying position angles (Evans 1958). There are folded (zigzag) and fanned designs with the former having the better performance. Title has made a tunable S̆olc filter with 7 cm clear aperture. It has the extraordinary capability of tuning the spectral profile: an $`n`$-element S̆olc filter can have a profile that is determined by $`n`$ Fourier coefficients. The same can be achieved with polarizing filters by proper choice of crystal lengths.

Liquid crystal filter (LCTF): These are rapid switching, electronically tuned devices which employ either ferroelectric or nematic liquid crystals (LC). The more commonly used nematic LCTF (Morris, Hoyt & Treado 1994) comprises a series of liquid crystal elements whose thicknesses are cascaded in the same way as the Lyot filter. However, the tuning is achieved by electronically rotating the crystal axes of the LC waveplate. When no voltage is applied, the retardance is at a maximum; at large applied voltages, the retardance reaches a minimum. The retardance can be tuned continuously to allow the wavelength to be tuned.

Liquid crystal filters are now commercially available from Cambridge Research & Instrumentation, Inc. The biggest device we have seen has a clear aperture of 4 cm, requires about 5 V to scan a single order of interference, and appears to have good image quality. The tunable band for a single stage device is about $`5`$ but can be tuned over the optical window. The peak transmissions are 30% or less.

## Differential imaging

There are many important reasons for pursuing tunable filter imaging, as demonstrated by the TTF since the mid 1990s at the Anglo-Australian 3.9m and William Herschel 4.2m telescopes. Conventional imaging has a major limitation in that images are taken sequentially which is not ideal at even the best sites. Even small detector, instrument or atmospheric variations lead to systematic error between images. A better approach is a multi-band camera so that different bands are observed in parallel. However, even this is not ideal in that the optical path is different for each filter. A tunable filter provides a powerful alternative since band switching can be linked to charge shuffling with the CCD. This is a truly differential technique which leads to much smaller systematic errors than is possible with conventional imaging.

## Wide-field imaging

Few telescopes offer more than a wide-field imager at prime focus simply because it is very difficult to exploit the fast beam spectroscopically. Spectral passbands are degraded in converging beams which is unfortunate as the widest fields are achieved at the fastest f/ratios. The wide-field expanded Lyot filter is (almost) the last word in exploiting the widest possible field with a given telescope. Remarkably, beams as fast as f/2 can be compensated with crossed birefringent elements, in concert with half-wave plates, such that even a constant sub-Angstrom bandpass is possible over a degree-sized field. This opens up many new astronomical programs, e.g. Lyot filters can be vastly more efficient for redshift-targetted surveys of galaxies (e.g. high redshift clusters) compared with existing multi-aperture spectrographs. To our knowledge, a wide-angle S̆olc filter using half-wave plates has not been attempted although it is entirely feasible.

## Bibliography & Further Reading

Bell R J 1972 Introductory Fourier Transform Spectroscopy (San Diego: Academic Press)

Evans J W 1958 The S̆olc birefringent filter J. Opt. Soc. Amer. 48 142

Gale M T 1998 In Optical document security, R L van Renesse ed. (Artech House) ch 12

Morris H R, Hoyt C C and Treado P J 1994 Imaging spectrometers for fluorescent and Raman microscopy: acousto-optic and liquid crystal tunable filters Applied Spectroscopy 48 857–866

Title A M and Rosenberg W J 1981 Tunable birefringent filters Opt. Eng. 20 815–823

Vaughan J M 1989 The Fabry-Perot interferometer: history, theory, practice and applications (Bristol: Adam Hilger)

## Figure captions

Fig. 1. (i) Interference filter: the internal structure is not shown. (ii) Fabry-Perot etalon. (iii) Wedged Fabry-Perot etalon which avoids the problem of the plates behaving like interference filters.

Fig. 2. Schematic of a two-beam Michelson (Fourier Transform) interferometer.

Fig. 3. The transmission profile of a simple Lyot cascade with (top to bottom) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 stages. The thinnest element has retardance R and the following elements have thicknesses which are multiples of this element. The polaroids P are aligned with each other and oriented at 45 to the retarders.


text:
# Error-free optical quantum communication

## acknowledgement

I am very grateful to John Rarity, Sandu Popescu, Andrew Steane, Antia Lamas Linares, Christian Mikkelsen and Michael Seevinck for stimulating discussions and useful suggestions. This work was supported by the EPSRC GR/M88976 and the European QuComm (ISI-1999-10033) projects.


text:
# Free-volume kinetic models of granular matter

\[

## Abstract

We show that the main dynamical features of granular media can be understood by means of simple models of fragile-glass forming liquid (Kob and Andersen, Phys. Rev. E 48 4364, 1993) provided that gravity alone is taken into account. In such lattice-gas models of cohesionless and frictionless particles, the compaction and segregation phenomena appear as purely non-equilibrium effects unrelated to the Boltzmann-Gibbs measure which in this case is trivial. They provide a natural framework in which slow relaxation phenomena in granular and glassy systems can be explained in terms of a common microscopic mechanism given by a free-volume kinetic constraint.

\]

Vibrated powders are one of the most interesting examples of non-equilibrium systems where excluded-volume interactions are known to play a crucial role. Based on the free-volume notion the analogy with glassy dynamics (and its limit) was early recognized . Indeed, the static and dynamic properties of powders seem to be even more intriguing than those appearing in amorphous systems . A natural question that arises is to what extent a powder can be considered as a glass .

In this Letter we show that compaction and segregation phenomena can be reproduced within a simple microscopic model of fragile-glass forming liquid , provided that gravity alone is taken into account. The key ingredient of the model is a free-volume kinetic constraint involving only a selection of the possible configuration changes compatible with detailed balance and the Boltzmann-Gibbs distribution. Such kinetic constraints are so effective in describing slow relaxation phenomena that there is no need to invoke either a specific energetic interaction or a particular geometry of particles. Consequently, the ground state structure and the thermodynamics of the model turn out to be trivial. This is the most peculiar feature of this lattice-gas model as compared to the previously proposed ones (see, for example ). It follows that compaction and segregation phenomena are, at least in this case, purely dynamical effects unrelated to the Boltzmann-Gibbs measure. In particular, we find that the subtle interplay of kinetic constraints and the gravity driving force can account for several experimental findings such as logarithmic compaction, vibration dependence of the asymptotic packing density and segregation phenomena . Such effect appear below a well defined vibration amplitude corresponding to the dynamical jamming transition of the model. Of course, the dynamics we consider is not intended to represent in a realistic way the microscopic granular dynamics but rather to provide an effective stochastic description, typically at mesoscopic level.

The model we consider was introduced by Kob and Andersen as a lattice-gas model of fragile-glass and used to test the predictions of the mode-coupling theory . In its original version the system consists of $`N`$ particles on a simple cubic lattice where there can be at most one particle per site. There is no cohesion energy among particles: the Hamiltonian is zero, $`=0`$. At each time step a particle and one of its neighbouring sites are chosen at random; the particle can move to the new site if it is empty and if the particle has less than $`\nu `$ nearest neighbours before and after it has moved. This kinetic rule is time-reversible and therefore the detailed balance is satisfied. At high density the dynamics slows down because the reduced free-volume makes harder for a particle to meet the constraints. Above a certain threshold density the particles are so interlocked that macroscopic structural rearrangements are no longer possible and the mobility steeply falls to zero. Such a mechanism is enough to provide the basic glassy phenomenology .

In the following we consider the Kob-Andersen model in presence of gravity. The system is described now by the Hamiltonian

$``$ $`=`$ $`mg{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}h_in_i`$ (1)
where $`g`$ is the gravity constant, $`n_i=0,1`$ are the occupation variables of the particles and $`h_i`$ is their height. We set throughout the mass of particles to one, $`m=1`$. Particles are confined in a box closed at both ends and with periodic boundary condition in the horizontal direction. We then assume that the random diffusive motion of “grains” produced by the mechanical vibrations on the box can be modeled by a thermal bath at temperature $`T`$: particles satisfying the kinetic constraints can move according to the Metropolis rule with probability min$`[1,x^{\mathrm{\Delta }h}]`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }h=\pm 1`$ is the vertical displacement in the attempted elementary move and $`x=\mathrm{exp}(g/T)`$ represents the “vibration”. We set the constraint threshold at $`\nu =5`$. The system underlying geometry is that of a body centered cubic lattice. It gives the advantage of using a single parameter to describe the combined effect of vibration and gravity. In this case the Markov process generated by the kinetic rules is irreducible on the full configurations space provided that the box height is large enough: indeed it is always possible to find a path connecting any two configurations by letting, e.g., particles expand in the whole box. Therefore the static properties of the model are those of a non-interacting lattice-gas in a gravity field and they can be easily computed. We have investigated by extensive Montecarlo (MC) simulation the dynamical behavior of this model for a system of height $`16L`$ and transverse surface $`L^2/2`$ with $`L=20`$, for a number of particles $`N=16000`$. The runs are carried out over $`10^6`$ MC time sweeps (MCs) and the observables averaged typically over 20 realizations of dynamical evolution for each vibration amplitude $`x`$. The packing density is computed in the lower $`25\%`$ of the system.

When particles are subject to gravity and no vibrations, $`x=0`$, the model has a single ground state with equilibrium packing density $`\rho =1`$. It could be attained, e.g., by letting the particles fall from the top of the box one at a time . Therefore we prepare the system in a fluffy initial state by placing the particles at random in the upper half of the box and letting them fall randomly, $`x=0`$, until they are not able to move anymore. We can assume that the mechanically stable state produced by this extensive statistical handling of particles represents a random loose packed state. In this state the average packing density turns out to be $`\rho _{\mathrm{rlp}}0.707`$. Once the system is prepared in a fluffy configuration the vibration with amplitude $`x`$ is turned on. We used a continuous shaking procedure which is computationally more convenient and gives results qualitatively similar to the discontinuous tapping. In fig. 1a we plot the packing density, $`\rho (t)`$, as a function of time for several values of $`x`$ in the full range of weak and strong tapping. In spite of the relatively high value of $`\rho _{\mathrm{rlp}}`$ and the fact that kinetic constraints can be thought to mimic an effective short-range repulsion, the packing density slowly increases as time goes on and its asymptotic value is an increasing function of the vibration amplitude, even for quite high value of $`x`$, as in typical compaction experiments . The slow increase of $`\rho (t)`$ is consistent, in the full range of weak and strong tapping, with a function of the form :

$$\rho (t)=\rho _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{}}}{1+B\mathrm{ln}\left(1+t/\tau \right)},$$
(2)
(see fig. 1b). This inverse logarithmic law was first discovered in the experiments of Chicago group , and is well supported by numerical simulations , and analytical approaches  essentially based on free-volume models. However, we find that in an intermediate range of vibration a power-law fit also gives good results, while for stronger vibration, $`x>0.3`$, a modified logarithmic law works much better; a detailed discussion of these results will be presented elsewhere. We find that the fit parameters, $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$, $`B`$ and $`\tau `$ all depend on $`x`$. In particular, the asymptotic packing density, $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(x)`$, is always smaller than one and it depends smoothly on $`x`$ in agreement with the experimental results . There is an optimal vibration amplitude, $`x_{\mathrm{max}}0.9`$, at which $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}`$ reaches a maximum; above $`x_{\mathrm{max}}`$ the asymptotic density become closer and closer to the equilibrium value (see fig. 1c). The knowledge of thermodynamic properties allow us to find the point $`x_\mathrm{g}`$ above which the dynamical results coincide with the equilibrium ones. We find $`x_\mathrm{g}0.96`$ (see fig. 1c). This critical vibration amplitude defines the jamming transition of the model which is the direct analogue of the glass transition. Below $`x_\mathrm{g}`$ the system is no longer able to equilibrate on the experimentally accessible time-scales. This is essentially due to a kinetic bottleneck: at high packing density the number of paths leading to the equilibrium configurations is much smaller than the one leading elsewhere. Therefore, even if the dynamics is in principle always able to reach equilibrium configurations, actually for $`x<x_\mathrm{g}`$ such configurations are not effectively accessible. We have checked that the usual MC procedure, obtained by removing the kinetic constraints, leads to the correct equilibrium configuration for any $`x`$. In this case the equilibrium state is easily reached and the corresponding packing density $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(x)`$ is a decreasing functions of $`x`$. Paradoxically, $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(x)`$ exhibit opposite monotony properties as long as $`x<x_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

We now turn to the behavior of the global density profile. In fig. 2 we can observe that near the bottom wall the strong packing effects give rise to highly structured density profiles, with exponentially damped oscillations over a length scale which decreases with the vibration strength. This effect is interestingly similar to the layering phenomena appearing in simple fluids in confined geometry which are usually interpreted in terms of the “missing neighbours” interaction of the particles near the wall . In our case the particle-wall interaction is purely kinetic: the “particles” building up the wall can affect or not the number of nearest neighbours particles in the kinetic rule. We checked that in both cases the effect persists and results in a more or less dense bottom layer according to the “attractive” or “repulsive” nature of the kinetic particle-wall interaction. An experimental investigation of this point would be welcome. The exponential damping of these oscillations could explain why this fluid-like behavior is hardly observed in the experiments. A similar effect takes place near the top of the granular packing. However, due to the roughness of the free surface the effect is less pronounced.

We finally consider the behavior of a mixture with different kinetic constraints. Indeed, size and mass segregation phenomena are another puzzling behavior exhibited by powders and several distinct mechanisms have been proposed . Our main concern here is to show that, in their simplest form, segregation phenomena also appear in the present model. To keep things as simple as possible we consider only the case of a binary mixture with particles of identical mass. The only difference between the two components is purely kinetic: one type of particle is constrained while the other one is not; the latter particles can however block the former ones. The Hamiltonian of the system is given by (1), and the microscopic reversibility is still satisfied. In fig. 3 we plot the time evolution of the density profile of a binary mixture starting from a random homogeneous distribution of particles. Although the packing fraction of both components increase, the system undergoes, at the same time, a spontaneous unmixing with the constrained particles segregating at the top of the mixture (see fig. 3). This turns out to be the case even when the mass of constrained particles is bigger than the unconstrained ones, at least in a certain range of the mass ratio of the two components. Such effect can be simply explained in terms of the different mobilities: during the shaking process the unconstrained “small” particles easily fill the gap beneath the constrained “large” particles whenever they open up; this decreases the probability of the slower constrained particles to fall down. A similar percolation or sifting mechanism was found in ref. . In our case it is clearly not related to an equilibrium phase transition, since the Hamiltonian is “blind” to the constraints.

To summarize, we have investigated some aspects of granular dynamics in a three dimensional gravity-driven lattice-gas model. The key ingredient of the model is a free-volume constraint implemented in a purely kinetic way . Below a critical value of vibration the system undergoes a purely dynamical jamming transition. For weak vibrations the packing density logarithmically increases towards an asymptotic value which depends on the vibration amplitude, in agreement with experiments . Near the bottom wall and the free surface of the granular cluster the strong packing effects induce highly structured density profiles; this phenomenon could be closely related to the one appearing in confined liquids. When a mixture of particles with different constraints is considered a vibration-induced phase-separation appear in the system. We emphasize that the results mentioned above are obtained in a model with trivial thermodynamics without introducing any form of quenched randomness neither in the energetic interaction nor in the shape of particles. Therefore all interesting effects have a purely dynamical nature and manifest themselves as a departure from the Boltzmann-Gibbs equilibrium measure. It would be interesting to derive these non-equilibrium features in terms of the Edwards’ measure .

MS is supported by a Marie Curie fellowship of the European Commission (contract ERBFMBICT983561). JJA is partially supported by the brazilian agency CNPq.