text:
# Implicit Simulations using Messaging Protocols

## 1 Introduction

Most readers will be familiar with the concept of Moore’s law as applied to the computer industry, namely, the density of transistors on a chip and with it the speed of the processors doubles roughly every 18 months. It has held true for more than three decades now and shows all signs of holding at least through the end of this decade. However, most readers will be less familiar with similar growth laws in other areas of computer technology, e.g., disk capacity has been doubling roughly every 12 months and network bandwidth has been doubling roughly every 9 months. A mere 15 years ago the Internet backbone ran at 64 Kbits/s, this year it is being upgraded to 40 Gbits/s, an increase of nearly six orders of magnitude. The latter point is of particular interest for computational science, because faster networks enable wide area distributed computing on a scale which was not feasible in the past. However, it also implies that the same questions of efficiency now afflicting the processors in modern PCs will soon become apparent in the communications networks themselves.

As has been often mentioned, most processors are idle or running below their maximum capability most of the time, with enormous wastes of cpu cycles. Projects like SETI@HOME and Condor attempt to harness this excess computing power for performing useful work. SETI@HOME’s approach is to hide their calculations behind screen savers which are activated whenever the processor is idle. Condor, on the other hand attempts to make all the PCs and workstations in an organization available for running parallel applications, whereby the load on each PC from a Condor job is adjusted to suit the needs of anyone accessing the PC interactively.

In the same vane, the rapidly increasing bandwidth implies that most of a network’s capacity will soon go underutilized most of the time. Hence, the question to be addressed here, is whether or not the idle bandwidth can be tapped for performing useful calculations.

Recently, Barabási et al. examined this problem by utilizing the Hyper Text Transmission Protocol (HTTP) to perform calculations aimed at solving a 2-SAT problem during the act of communicating with web servers. Although their algorithm worked as expected, it has several drawbacks. 1) The HTTP protocol uses connected sockets, which require three messages to be exchanged in order to initiate the connection before any data can be sent. Once connected, their algorithm requires two further message exchange wherein the actual computation is performed. Afterwards another message has to be exchanged to properly disconnect the sockets. In total, six messages are exchanged for each computation step. 2) The HTTP protocol is layered on top of the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) which is in turn layered upon the Internet Protocol (IP). Since each layer introduces its own overhead, it would be more efficient to use a protocol which is closer to the IP level. 3) The number of HTTP servers is actually quite small compared to the total number of devices connected to the Internet, therefore limiting the application to HTTP servers greatly reduces the pool of devices available for performing useful work.

In this paper we describe a different approach based upon the Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP), which is layered directly on top of IP. ICMP is a connectionless protocol, meaning only the messages containing the data need to be exchanged. No control messages are required for establishing and ending the connection. Furthermore, ICMP is required to be implemented by every Internet capable device, hence there are many more devices which can respond to ICMP messages than can respond to HTTP requests. The next section describes the general approach in more detail. Section three then discusses a version of the algorithm for stochastic neural network models and section four describes an implementation for a deterministic cellular automaton. We conclude with a discussion on the utility of these approaches and their future viability.

## 2 Computing with ICMP

To understand how messages can be used to perform useful calculations one has to understand how message exchange on the Internet works. The Internet is a so-called packet-switching network, meaning that all messages are broken down into one or more packets called datagrams, whereby the order and meaning of the bytes within the datagram are governed by the various transmission protocols which the applications sending the messages are using. Since the communication channels used to transmit the packets are inherently noisy and unreliable, each networking protocol adds some means, however rudimentary, of checking for corrupted data. In the case of IP or ICMP, this takes the form of the so-called Internet check-sum ($`I_s`$). If $`I_s`$ is inserted by the sender into the original packet and then recalculated by the receiver, it is possible to determine whether or not an error has occurred during transmission. The basic idea behind the current proposal is to exploit the calculation of $`I_s`$ to perform useful work in addition to its primary function of checking whether or not the packet is corrupted.

Since the Internet Control Message Protocol is layered on top of IP, an IP/ICMP datagram consists of an IP header with 20-60 bytes of control and routing information, plus the ICMP message itself. Most ICMP message types place severe restrictions on the type of data which can be sent as part of the message, however, the Echo Request and Echo Reply messages do not place any restrictions. Normally, this flexibility is used for example by the ping command to measure bandwidth by measuring the time needed for a datagram of a given size to complete a round-trip between two hosts, or to check for size dependent transmission problems on a network connection.

For our purposes, the bytes of an ICMP Echo Request can be thought of as an array of $`N`$ 16-bit words as depicted in Fig. 1. Whereby, the first byte of the first word indicates the ICMP message type (8 for Echo Request and 0 for Echo Reply) and the second byte of first word provides room for any special codes associated with the message type (always 0 for Echo Request and Echo Reply). The second word contains the Internet check-sum, $`I_s^s`$ for the ICMP part of the datagram, while the third and fourth words contain information to help identify the datagram. The remaining $`N4`$ words comprise the data associated with the Echo Request and Echo Reply.

When computing the check-sum the 16-bit words are assumed to represent integers in the one’s-complement representation. In a one’s-complement representation negative integers are represented by inverting each bit in the representation of their magnitude. Curiously, this leads to two representations for $`0`$, namely, $`0\mathrm{}0`$ and $`1\mathrm{}1`$, which are designated $`+0`$ and $`0`$ respectively. (Contrast this with a two’s complement representation used on most computers where there is only one representation for $`0`$ and negative numbers are represented by subtracting one from the magnitude before inverting all the bits.)

One’s-complement addition, $``$, is defined as adding two numbers and carrying any overflow bit around to the lowest order bit where it is added to the previous sum. This guarantees that $`1(0)1`$ and not $`+0`$. Furthermore, the addition is circular, i.e., if $`M`$ is the largest maximum integer, then $`M1=M`$. With this definition of addition, the Internet check-sum, $`I_s`$, is defined by the equation:

$$I_s=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i,$$
(1)
whereby, the sender sets $`w_2=0`$, for the purpose of calculating the initial checksum. To determine whether or not the packet has been corrupted in transit, the receiver computes the function:

$$F(I_s)=\delta _k(I_s,0)$$
(2)
where $`\delta _k(x,y)=\{1\mathrm{if}x=y,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathrm{otherwise}\}`$ is the Kronecker delta function. If $`F(I_s)=1`$, the datagram is considered to be uncorrupted. (To understand why $`I_s=0`$ and not $`I_s=+0`$ indicates an uncorrupted packet, note that $`1(1)=0`$.)

For checksum purposes a one’s complement arithmetic is preferable to a two’s compliment because its sensitivity to errors is independent of the bit position. In a two’s compliment representation, flipping the most significant bit in an even number of words would yield the same checksum.

Obviously, this algorithm is not completely failsafe, since the probability that any two random configurations will yield the same value of $`I_s`$ is $`2^{16}`$. However, it does guard against single bit transmission errors and as these occur on average once in every $`2^{10}`$ packets, it is sufficient for most applications. Applications requiring a lower error rate need to use a higher level transmission protocol which more error checking.

When the receiver detects a corrupted packet it should simply discard it without emitting an error message to the sender. If the packet is not corrupt, then the receiver should respond to an Echo Request with an Echo Reply. When constructing the Echo Reply message, the receiver takes the original message, replaces the Type byte with $`0`$ for Echo Reply, recomputes the checksum as if it were the sender and sends the entire message back to the original sender, i.e., only $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ of the original message are changed. Essentially, then the Echo Request allows us to compute eq. 2 on the remote computer.

Normally, for higher level protocols like FTP, HTTP, etc., the job of calculating the checksum is done automatically by the software which implements the protocol so the user never has to worry about it. However, for low level protocols like ICMP, users are expected to construct the datagram, including $`I_s`$, themselves, which leads us to the possibility of constructing $`I_s`$ in such a way that evaluating eq. 2 has a purpose other than that originally intended one of error checking.

In the definition of the ICMP there are a few small loopholes, e.g., the standards document does not explicitly state that the checksum must be evaluated before answering an Echo Request. In fact, some implementations, which we term non-validating, respond to an Echo Request without bothering to validate the checksum first. In the same vane, the original sender is not explicitly required to validate the Echo Reply response, thus we are at liberty to skip this time consuming step. (Strictly speaking both of these actions are incorrect, for if the checksum is wrong, the receiver cannot be certain that the sender really meant to issue an Echo Request, or Echo Reply and not some other ICMP message type. Nevertheless, these “features” will become very useful in what follows.)

## 3 Simulating Stochastic Neural Networks

Unlike HTTP, ICMP is not a reliable protocol, meaning there is no guarantee that a datagram will arrive, or that a reply will be sent, or that replies will be sent in the same order as the requests, or that multiple replies will not be sent for each request or that the requests will even be sent out in the first place. It is the job of a higher level protocol to make these types of guarantees. However, neural networks possess a built-in robustness to noise, which renders these problems practically mute.

For the purposes of demonstrating the algorithm, we use a Hopfield model with limited precision weights. (This is not a very serious restriction because more complicated models can be incorporated using complex neurons with a Hopfield type internal structure.)

Very briefly, the model consists of $`N`$ neurons denoted by $`S_i\{1,1\}`$ and $`N^2`$ couplings denoted by $`J_{ij}[L,L]`$, where $`L`$ is the maximum allowed value for each coupling. Typically, $`L`$ only needs to be a few bits wide (4-5) for obtaining good results. Finally, the model is endowed with a discrete, time dependent dynamics given by:

$$S_i(t+1)=\mathrm{sign}\left(\underset{ji}{\overset{N}{}}J_{ij}S_j(t)\right).$$
(3)
The couplings, $`J_{ij}`$, are created using the clipped Hebb rule:

$$J_{ij}=B(L,\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{P}{}}\xi _i^\mu \xi _j^\mu ,L)$$
(4)
where the $`\{\xi ^\mu \}`$, with are the patterns the network should learn and $`B(a,x,b)=\{a\mathrm{if}x<a,b\mathrm{if}x>b,x\mathrm{otherwise}\}`$

From eq. 3 it is evident that the computationally intensive part of this simulation is the calculation of the sums. By sending an ICMP message to a non-validating IP device, we can induce it to compute this sum for us.

First note that if we set the Identifier and Sequence Number to zero (refer to fig. 1) and recall that in an Echo Reply message both Type and Code are zero, then we see that the value of $`I_s`$ returned by the Echo Reply will be simply the sum of the data elements.

For the Echo Request message we can set $`I_s`$ to any arbitrary value since the non-validating IP implementation will just ignore it. The data elements are then set to $`J_{ij}`$ or $`J_{ij}`$ (in one’s compliment representation) depending upon the value of $`S_j(t)`$.

Typically, a neural network is updated either sequentially or in parallel, although, Hopfield in his original work used an asynchronous updating algorithm. In this paper we also use an asynchronous updating algorithm since it is a natural fit to the unreliability of IP/ICMP messages mentioned above. After a message is sent a new message is constructed without waiting for a reply from the first message. Once a reply has been received, the corresponding value of $`S_i`$ is immediately updated.

We have tested this algorithm on our laboratory’s intranet. As a first step, we selected a subset of devices which are non-validating. None of the workstations or PCs were in this subset, rather it consisted of printers, routers and switches – devices one would not normally think of using for performing numerical simulations. The computer chosen for controlling the simulations was an SGI O2 with a 180 MHz MIPS 5000 processor, while our laboratory’s intranet has a peak bandwidth of 100 Mbits/s.

A comparison of the present algorithm versus a standard parallel updating algorithm for the same system size is shown in fig. 2. In these experiments, we intentionally start with an initial configuration at a Hamming distance of 0.25 from a learned pattern and observe how the standard algorithm and the present network algorithm converge towards a stable state. (For the purposes of comparison, one time step in the asynchronous updating algorithm corresponds to $`N`$ neural updates, while one time step in the parallel updating consists of updating all $`N`$ neurons.) Evidently, the quality of recall is not adversely affected by the asynchronous updating algorithm nor by the unreliability of the ICMP protocol.

We then tested the same algorithm on a set of randomly chosen devices residing on the world-wide Internet. Our results were similar to those in fig. 2, although the simulation ran much slower because our connection to the Internet has a bandwidth of only 1 Mbit/s. (We will delay a more detailed discussion of the relative performance until section 5.)

These simple proof-of-concept experiments demonstrate that stochastic models can be simulated quite well using only the computational capabilities of the messaging protocols themselves. In the next section we discuss the algorithmic changes need to ensure that deterministic models can also be accurately simulated.

## 4 Simulating Deterministic Cellular Automata

For stochastic models, the unreliability of ICMP mentioned above can be simply ignored, however, for deterministic systems, ICMP has to be made reliable in much the same way higher level protocols like TCP make IP reliable.

The model we chose for demonstration purposes is the simple cellular automaton known as Life, which was invented by J.H. Conway. This widely studied automaton is an interesting testing ground because of its myriad properties, including the capability of performing universal computations. In this model, the cells, $`C_{ij}`$, of a two dimensional square lattice are initially assigned values $`C_{ij}\{0,1\}`$. The cells then change their values in parallel by summing over the states of their nearest neighbors:

$$C_{ij}(t+1)=H(\underset{m=i1}{\overset{i+1}{}}\underset{n=j1}{\overset{j+1}{}}C_{mn}(t),C_{ij}(t)).$$
(5)
where,

$$H(x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }xy=3\text{,}\hfill \\ y\hfill & \text{if }xy=2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
For this experiment we want to make use of a large number of devices, hence, we need an algorithm that works for validating devices as the number of non-validating devices is much too small. As eq. 6 suggest, the simplest approach is to send out two Echo Request for each cell, asking if $`xy=2`$ or $`xy=3`$. To do this we copy the value $`w_1`$ into the first data element of the ICMP message (to counter the type value in the first word), then the nearest neighbor cell values are copied into the next 8 data elements of the ICMP message, followed by a $`2`$ ($`3`$) to have the validating device determine if $`xy`$ is 2 (3). If $`H(x,y)`$ does not evaluate to $`1`$ then the checksum will be invalid and no response will come from the device.

To handle the unreliability of ICMP, we adopt the following procedure. First, out-of-order replies can be readily dealt with, if the time value, $`t`$, is placed in the Identifier word, $`w_2`$. ($`t`$ is then placed in the Sequence Number, $`w_3`$, word to balance the checksum.) Second, to guard against valid packets being dropped because the datagram was corrupted during transit, the Echo Request packets are first sent out for all cells in the automaton, then the replies are examined. If a given cell has not replied, a second Echo Request is sent. If again it does not reply, then we conclude that the answer is indeed $`H(x,y)=0`$. (One, could ask a third time, however, we find that two requests are generally sufficient for accurate results.)

One might worry, that by using the checksum to evaluate eq. 6 we are robbing the checksum of its primary function, namely, detecting errors in transmitted packets. Could for example, a single bit error lead to a false positive? There are 3 factors to be considered: 1) The probability of a single bit error occurring anywhere in a datagram is less than $`2^{20}`$. 2) Since we are only asking if the checksum evaluates to 2 or 3, only errors in the 2 least significant bits are important. 3) Of the $`2^8`$ possible configurations of the neighboring cells, only half of them would yield a different value of $`H(x,y)`$ if a single cell value were changed. Hence, a false positive should occur less than 1 in $`2^{24}`$ cell updates - which is much more than we can achieve with this algorithm using current networks.

As a first experiment involving the network automaton we created a small $`4\times 4`$ automaton and initialized it with a so-called glider \- a repeating configuration of cells which move about in the space of the automaton. Then a control automaton, implemented in the conventional fashion on a single processor was given the exact same initial state and the two automata were left to evolve, with a cell-by-cell comparison being made after each automata update. During the simulation time of $`2^{17}`$ site updates, no deviation from the control automaton was detected. In other words, the simple control procedures explained above were enough to enable our deterministic automaton to run using unreliable ICMP messages.

For our final experiment, we attempted to simulate an automaton with $`200\times 500`$ cells using $`10^5`$ Internet devices. Although we expected this experiment to be difficult given that our laboratories has only a 1 Mbit/s connection to the Internet, an unexpected problem we encountered here was the widely varying response times of the different devices. Fig. 3 depicts the average response times for more than $`10^5`$ Internet devices. As can be seen, the response time varies from a few milliseconds to several tens of seconds. In order to use as many of these devices as possible, we first discard all of those with an average response time of more than 10 seconds. Then we order the remainder from slowest to fastest and assign them sequentially to the cells beginning with $`(1,1)`$. If we then send the requests sequentially to the Internet devices, and delay examining the responses until all the requests have been sent, we can mask the response time of the slowest devices. In this manner we were able to successfully update this very large system for a few time steps. Unfortunately, the Internet is currently not stable enough for simulations of this size and durations, therefore the experiments usually ended after two time steps because the Internet automata developed large deviations from the control automata.

## 5 Discussion

The experiments described above have proven that the concept of computing using communication is realizable, in other words, it is possible to perform some types of simulations using Internet messaging protocols. Beyond the proof-of-principle demonstrations are questions of performance and efficiency. As was stated in the introduction, communication performance is increasing more rapidly than computational performance. Currently, however, most networks are operating far below state-of-the-art capabilities.

In the example of Conway’s Life, we expected that the extra care needed for making the communications reliable would reduce the efficiency of the algorithm. This was compounded by the firewalls set-up to protect our laboratories computers from hackers that reduced our effective bandwidth to the Internet from 100 Mbit/s to less than 1 Mbit/s. Given that a complete IP/ICMP datagram including the IP header information for our automaton consists of 48 bytes, we would expect to be able to send out a maximum of $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}600}`$ messages per second. In reality, we were barely able to sustain a speed of 200 messages per second, meaning it took nearly $`\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ seconds to complete one update of our largest system. By contrast, it took our conventional program less than half of one second to update the same system. On our laboratories intranet, it was possible to sustain a speed of approximately $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}200}`$ cell updates per second, which is still about 4 orders of magnitude slower than what can be achieved on a single processor.

For the stochastic neural network models, the performance was far better. Given a network of 512 neurons, each datagram, including the IP header, contains about $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}056}`$ bytes or $`\mathrm{8\hspace{0.17em}448}`$ bits, therefore, a theoretical maximum of $`\mathrm{11\hspace{0.17em}837}`$ datagrams could be sent per second across a 100 Mbit/s network. Again, in practice, we find it difficult to sustain a rate of more than $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}500}`$ datagrams per second – less than 14 percent of the maximum.

Normally, the performance of a neural network model can be measured in terms of the number of coupling updates per seconds (cups). For the conventional parallel updating algorithm we were able to achieve on the SGI O2 workstation used to control our messaging algorithm a speed of $`5.510^6`$ cups, while the ICMP messaging algorithm itself reaches $`0.7610^6`$ cups. In other words, the messaging algorithm is only approximately 7 times slower than a conventional algorithm running on a single processor. Hence, even though this algorithm is not quite as efficient as an equivalent program running on a single processor, its far more efficient than the deterministic algorithms examined here or by Barabási, et al.

It should be noted, that neither the computer used for these experiments nor the laboratory network represent state-of-the art resources. It is possible to obtain single processor computers an order of magnitude faster than the one used in this study, and networks about two orders of magnitude faster. It would be interesting then to repeat these experiments, especially for the stochastic neural network model, on a state-of-the-art network to determine whether or not the performance gap decreases.

Recall, that in the introduction, we talked about developing algorithms to take advantage of idle resources and with respect to this goal, the neural network algorithm is successful. Unlike the network, the host computer can easily sustain an output of much more than $`\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}500}`$ datagrams per second. In order to slow it down to this this speed, the program pauses execution after each packet is sent. During this pause, a timesharing operating system can switch to another processes and perform some useful work before returning to the neural network program.

In conclusion, the approach described herein represents an intriguing alternative for performing parallel, distributed processing and we expect this approach to become more attractive with increasing network bandwidth. Especially in the area of stochastic algorithms, the results generated to date are promising enough to justify continued investigation.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank J. Klaas and F. Zimmermann for many useful discussions related to this work.


format: text

text:
# Multiple black holes in galactic bulges

## 1 Introduction

According to the standard paradigm of structure formation in the Universe, galaxies merge frequently as their dark matter halos assemble. Frequent galaxy mergers will inevitably lead to the the formation of supermassive binary black holes (e.g. Miloslajevic & Merritt 2001). It is not clear if these supermassive binaries will be able to merge on a Hubble time (Begelman, Blandford & Rees 1980; Milosavljevic & Merritt 2001; Yu 2002). If merging timescales are long, the binary is likely to interact with new infalling black holes through gravitational slingshot interactions (Saslaw, Valtonen & Aarseth 1974). There is some circumstantial observational evidence that binary black holes do merge (e.g. Meritt & Ekers 2002) , but very little is known about the rate at which these mergers occur.

A number of authors have presented models for the growth of supermassive black holes in merging galaxies in a cold dark matter (CDM) Universe (Cattaneo, Haehnelt& Rees 1999; Kauffmann & Haehnelt 2000 (KH2000); Monaco, Salucci & Danese 2000; Menou, Haiman & Narayanan 2001; Heinämäki 2001; Volonteri, Haardt & Madau 2002, Cattaneo 2002). Here, we extend the models of KH2000, which explicitly followed the star formation histories and dynamical evolution of bulges. In a subsequent paper, Haehnelt & Kauffmann (2000) demonstrated that the same model could also reproduce the observed $`M_{}`$$`\sigma _{}`$ relation (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese & Merrit 2000). KH2000 made the extreme assumption that black holes merge instantaneously when a bulge forms through a merger of two galaxies of roughly equal mass. In this Letter we relax this assumption and we discuss some of the issues which will influence our predictions of the multiplicity of black holes in galactic bulges. We also explore the possibility that the merging of supermassive binary black holes in bright ellipticals is responsible for the observed cusp/core dichotomy of elliptical galaxies (Gebhardt et al. 1996; Merritt 2001).

## 2 The build-up of supermassive black holes in KH2000

In the model of KH2000, spheroids form when two galaxies of comparable mass merge. The central black holes of the progenitor galaxies are assumed to coalesce instantaneously and a fraction of the available cold gas is accreted. The amount of cold gas in galaxies is determined by the balance of cooling, star formation and “feedback” by supernovae. The fraction of the available cold gas accreted by the black hole is assumed to scale with the circular velocity $`v_{\mathrm{circ}}`$ of the surrounding dark matter halo. Note that in the models, the mass accretion rate often exceeds the Eddington rate at high redshifts.

Figure 1 shows a typical accretion and merging history of the central supermassive black hole of a bright elliptical galaxy (present-day luminosity $`M_V=22.9`$). In the KH2000 models, the black holes typically “form” at $`5<z_{\mathrm{form}}<10`$ in potential wells of $`v_\mathrm{c}100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ by direct collapse of the available cold gas to the centre of the two merging galaxies. In the case of the galaxy in Fig. 1 a black hole of $`3\times 10^6M_{}`$ forms at $`z=8`$ in this way. Initially the black hole mass grows during a few events in which the accreted gas mass exceeds the total mass of the two black holes in the progenitor galaxies. At low redshifts, bright ellipticals contain little gas and the black hole mass grows more slowly by merging of additional black holes and not by the infall of large quantities of new cold gas. Note that in the model of KH2000, the amount of cold gas available for fueling black holes decreases rapidly with decreasing circular velocity below $`v_\mathrm{c}200\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$, because of the increasing impact of supernovae feedback in shallow potential wells. As a result, few black holes with masses smaller than a few times $`10^5M_{}`$ form. In the example presented here, a total of about 30 black holes have fallen into the galaxy by the present day.

## 3 Multiple black holes

### 3.1 Formation and merging of binary black holes

When two galaxies merge, the smaller galaxy will sink to the centre of the merger remnant because of dynamical friction. The outer regions of the infalling galaxy will be gradually tidally stripped in the process. If two galaxies with roughly equal mass merge, a binary black hole will form within a few dynamical times (Miloslajevic & Merrit 2001). If the mass ratio between the two galaxies is large, the time it takes for the infalling galaxy to reach the center of the remnant also becomes large and may exceed the Hubble time. In practice, the timescale for the formation of the binary will depend not only on the mass ratio of the galaxies, but also on the density profiles of the merging galaxies and the orbital parameters of the infalling galaxy.

The subsequent evolution of the supermassive binary has been discussed by Begelman, Blandford & Rees (1980). For an initially circular orbit coalescence within time T occurs when the velocity of the orbit $`v_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ reaches

$`v_{\mathrm{orb}}v_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ $``$ $`2600\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{prim}}+m_{\mathrm{sec}}}{10^8M_{}}}\right)^{1/8}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\mathrm{sec}}}{m_{\mathrm{prim}}}}\right)^{1/8}`$ (1)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^{10}\mathrm{yr}}}\right)^{1/8}\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1,`$
where $`m_{\mathrm{prim}}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{sec}}`$ are the mass of the primary and secondary black holes (Peters 1964, Gould & Rix 2000). It is uncertain whether stellar-dynamical processes will be able to reduce the separation of the binary so that coalescence by emission of gravitational waves will occur in less than a Hubble time.

The binary is expected to harden either by gravitational sling-shot ejection of stars (Quinlan 1996, Milosvlajevic & Meritt 2001) or by the accretion of gas onto the binary system (Armitage & Natarajan 2002). The timescale for the ejection of stars to cause the binary to harden will exceed the Hubble time in bright galaxies unless stars are scattered into low-angular momentum orbits more efficiently than by star-star relaxation (see Zhao, Haehnelt & Rees 2002 for some suggestions how that may be achieved) or the central regions of galaxies are sufficientlty triaxial (Begelman, Blandford, & Rees 1980, Yu 2002).

The accretion of gas can in principle reduce the binary separation on a much shorter timescale if the accreted gas mass exceeds that of the binary but it is uncertain how efficiently this process operates.

### 3.2 Mergers of equal mass black holes and the expected binary fraction

After a hard binary has formed with a circular velocity larger than the stellar velocity dispersion of the galaxy, the infall of a third black hole will normally lead to gravitational slingshot ejection of the lightest black hole with a velocity of around one third of the relative orbital velocity of the binary black hole (Saslaw et al. 1974, Hut and Rees 1992). The binary will also get a kick velocity that is smaller than the velocity of the ejected black hole by a factor $`m_{\mathrm{ej}}/m_{\mathrm{bin}}`$. The time evolution of the hardening is uncertain and it is difficult to predict what the orbital velocity of the supermassive binary is likely to be for a typical slingshot ejection. Initially, when low angular momentum stellar orbits are still populated, the binary will harden quickly. If all three black holes have similar masses, the kick velocity will be sufficient to kick the binary into the outer parts of the galaxy or even to eject it entirely (see Hut & Rees 1992 for a discussion).

The dashed line in Figure 2 shows the distribution of the number of black hole mergers in elliptical galaxies with mass ratios $`m_{\mathrm{sec}}/m_{\mathrm{prim}}>0.3`$. Results are shown for a range of bulge luminosities. The median number of mergers increases from one in faint bulges to three in bright bulges. Figure 2 demonstrates that if the merging timescale of supermassive binary black holes is longer than the Hubble time, a binary should be ejected in up to 40 percent of bright elliptical galaxies. This would appear to conflict with the fact that black holes are observed in all nearby bright elliptical galaxies and with the tightness of the observed $`M_{}`$$`\sigma _{}`$ relation. This strongly supports the hypothesis that the merging timescale of supermassive binaries is shorter than the Hubble time (Zhao et al. 2002, Merritt & Ekers 2002).

The solid line in Figure 2 shows the distribution of the number of mergers after the last accretion event in which the mass of accreted gas exceeded the sum of the masses of the two black holes in the binary system. The median number of mergers since this event ranges from zero in faint galaxies to one in bright galaxies. If the supermassive black holes do indeed merge during gas-rich accretion events, the fraction of elliptical galaxies containing large mass ratio binary black holes will not be larger than 10% in faint ellipticals and 40% in brighter objects. The fraction of galaxies with a third massive “intruder” ranges from 0 to 20 percent. Binary black hole ejections will then only occur in a small fraction of only the brightest galaxies.

### 3.3 Unequal mass mergers and the core/cusp dichotomy of elliptical galaxies

Observed bulges show a clear dichotomy in their central density profiles. Faint galaxies have steep inner density profile which are close to isothermal ($`\rho r^\gamma `$, $`\gamma =2`$) while bright galaxies have significantly shallower core profiles ($`\gamma 1`$). There is a transition from cusp to core profiles at a V-band luminosity of around -20 (Gebhardt et al. 1996). Some bright galaxies even show indications of a decreasing stellar density at their centres (Lauer et al. 2002).

It has been argued that the growth of supermassive black holes may affect the central stellar density profile of galactic bulges beyond the radius where the black hole dominates the gravitational potential. Even the sign of the effect remains controversial, however. Adiabatic growth of a single black hole would lead to a steepening of the density profile (van der Marel 1999), while binary hardening due to stellar dynamical interactions will deplete the central regions and lead to a flattening of the density profile (e.g. Merritt 2001, Miloslavjevic & Meritt 2001). Quinlan (1996) studied the hardening of supermassive binary black holes and found that small mass ratio binaries eject stars nearly as efficiently as large mass ratio binaries. This suggests that the total number of mergers may determine the ejected mass. Ravindranath et al (2002) and Milosavljevic et al. (2002) assumed that the density profiles of elliptical galaxies are always initially steep and calculated the mass in stars that would have to be ejected from the centre in order to explain the observed profiles of bright ellipticals. They found a strong non-linear correlation between the observed black hole mass and the ejected mass. The ejected mass is larger than the black hole mass by a factor of a few.

It is not understood, however, why there is a dichotomy in profile shape between bright and faint galaxies. It is also not clear whether black holes merge frequently enough to eject a few times the mass of the binary. In Figure 3 we show the number of black hole mergers with mass ratios $`m_{\mathrm{sec}}/m_{\mathrm{prim}}>0.01`$ that occur after the last major gas accretion event. Van den Bosch et al. (1999) studied the sinking of DM satellites within DM haloes and found that for orbits with moderate ellipticities (0.3-0.5) the timescale to reach the centre approaches the Hubble time for mass ratios smaller than $`0.01`$. The situation may not be exactly analogous for mergers of galaxies rather than dark matter halos, because the density profiles of galaxies are different and they also contain gas. Nevertheless, in order to exclude black holes that may take more than a Hubble time to reach the centre of the parent galaxy, we only count mergers with $`m_{\mathrm{sat}}/m_{\mathrm{prim}}>0.01`$. The median number of such minor mergers increases from 0 for faint ellipticals to 10 for the brightest systems. More than 50 % of galaxies fainter than $`M_V=20`$ do not experience any black hole mergers, while the mean/median number of mergers rises strongly for galaxies brighter than $`M_V=20`$ (Fig.4).

The relation between the total number of mergers and the actual ejected mass is uncertain. In order to predict the ejected mass, we would need to know the relaxation time scale on which low angular momentum orbits are repopulated and the detailed orbital structure of the central part of elliptical galaxies. Nevertheless our results show that there is a strong dependence of the total number of mergers on galaxy luminosity and this may well explain the core/cusp dichotomy of elliptical galaxies. The large ejected masses in bright galaxies would require efficient hardening in 5 to 10 merging events.

## 4 Conclusions

According to hierarchical merger models, the formation of supermassive binary black holes will be common. Unless the majority of these binaries merge faster than a Hubble time, further infall of new black holes will lead to an ejection rate of these binary systems that is too large to be consistent with the small scatter in the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma _{}`$ relation. There is also no observational evidence for the existence of a significant fraction of galaxies with off-centre galactic nuclei. The accretion of gas and binary hardening by stars are the two main candidates for driving the merger of these binaries. We have assumed that the former is efficient if the accreted gas mass exceeds the total mass of the supermassive binary. This reduces the fraction of faint ellipticals with binary black holes to less than 10% and the fraction of bright galaxies that harbour binaries to less than 40%. Up to 20% of the brightest ellipticals have recently ejected a binary from their centres. We thus predict that a small fraction of bright ellipticals do not contain a central black hole with a mass that fits onto the $`M_{}`$$`\sigma _{}`$ relation. We note, however, that the fraction of binaries that are truly ejected from the galaxy depends sensitively on the time evolution of the hardening and on the detailed orbital structure at the centre of galactic bulges. Gas accretion in cooling flows may also prevent efficient binary ejection.

Finally, we have demonstrated that the total number of expected low mass ratio black hole mergers is a strong function of bulge luminosity. A strong transition from no mergers to many mergers occurs at the same characteristic luminosity ($`M_V=20`$) where ellipticals transition from cuspy to core-dominated central profiles. This supports the hypothesis that the ejection of stars by central supermassive binary black holes is indeed responsible for the shallow central density profiles observed in luminous elliptical galaxies.


text:
# No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data

## 1 Introduction

Claims of periodicities or regularities in redshift distributions of various astronomical objects have been made for many years (e.g. Burbidge & Burbidge 1967; Broadhurst et al., 1990; Karlsson, 1990; Burbidge & Napier, 2001). This effect, if real, has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of redshift as a cosmological phenomenon, and, indeed, for the nature of objects like quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) that appear to display the periodicities.

One particularly intriguing effect has been explored by Arp et al. (1990) and Karlsson (1990) and extended to a larger sample by Burbidge & Napier (2001). It involves the apparent strong periodicity in $`\mathrm{log}(1+z_{\mathrm{qso}})`$ for a sample of QSO redshifts, $`z_{\mathrm{qso}}`$, where the QSO appears projected close to a “foreground” galaxy at lower redshift. If confirmed, such an effect would be impossible to explain in conventional cosmological terms: it would either require that the QSOs be physically associated with the galaxies in an as-yet unexplained fashion, or that the QSO light passing the galaxy is somehow influenced to quantize its redshift.

The criticism usually levelled at this kind of study is that the samples of redshifts have tended to be rather small and selected in a heterogeneous manner, which makes it hard to assess their significance. The more cynical critics also point out that the results tend to come from a relatively small group of astronomers who have a strong prejudice in favour of detecting such unconventional phenomena. This small group of astronomers, not unreasonably, responds by pointing out that adherents to the conventional cosmological paradigm have at least as strong a prejudice towards denying such results.

In an attempt to circumvent these problems, Bill Napier contacted the authors of this paper. The availability of the data from the 2dF Galaxy redshift Survey (2dFGRS) and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (2QZ) means that for the first time there exists a large homogeneous sample of data to carry out this kind of study. Furthermore, Napier recognized the importance of the study being carried out independent from any of the researchers with vested interests one way or the other. He therefore gave clear instructions as to what analysis should be performed and what periodic effect should be seen if the phenomenon is real, but chose to take no part in the subsequent analysis. We have attempted to carry out this analysis without prejudice. Indeed, we would have been happy with either outcome: if the periodicity were detected, then there would be some fascinating new astrophysics for us to explore; if it were not detected, then we would have the reassurance that our existing work on redshift surveys, etc, has not been based on false premises.

The remainder of this paper is laid out as follows. Section 2 presents Napier’s prediction as to what signal we should expect to see if the data are analysed appropriately. Section 3 describes the data set, and Section 4 presents the manner in which it has been analysed. The results are described in Section 5.

## 2 Napier’s Prediction

In briefing us, Bill Napier stated that a strong periodicity had been found in the redshifts of QSOs projected within $`30\mathrm{armin}`$ of the centres of nearby galaxies (either in the Virgo Cluster or bright galaxies in the Shapley Ames Catalog), corresponding to a physical scale of $`200\mathrm{kpc}`$ at these galaxies’ distances. He therefore suggested that we look at all galaxies in the 2dFGRS, use their redshifts to estimate their distance (adopting a Hubble constant of $`60\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$), and find all QSOs from the 2QZ survey projected within a circle whose radius corresponds to $`200\mathrm{kpc}`$ at the galaxy’s distance. Then, after transforming the QSOs’ redshift to the reference frame of the galaxies that they lie behind, we should expect to find a strong periodic signal in $`\mathrm{log}(1+z)`$ at a period $`P0.09`$.

## 3 The 2dF Data

### 3.1 The parent catalogues

For this study, we use the large databases provided by two surveys carried out using the 2dF multi-object spectrograph on the Anglo-Australian Telescope (Lewis et al. 2002). For the galaxies, we use the publicly available 100k data release from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (Colless et al. 2001) and for the QSOs we take the publicly available data from the 10k 2dF QSO Redshift Survey (Croom et al. 2001). These two surveys used shared observations to measure the redshifts of well-defined samples of galaxies and QSOs in a common region of the sky, making them ideally suited to this analysis.

To ensure the reliability of our sample we only use galaxies from the 2dFGRS with the two highest quality flags, $`Q4`$, in order to have confidence in the derived redshifts, and consider only those galaxies in the range $`0.01<z<0.3`$. For the 2QZ sample we only use QSOs with the highest quality flag in the database, which implies a clear spectral identification of the object as a QSO. This quality control leaves a total of 67291 galaxies and 10410 QSOs in the samples.

The survey strategies and the limitations of the 2dF instrument mean that the selection of objects in the galaxy and QSO surveys are not entirely independent. For example, the diameters of the individual fibers mean that very close pairs of objects are sometimes missed. However, none of these geometric selection criteria depend on the redshifts of the galaxies or QSOs, so although the sample may be somewhat incomplete, its redshift distribution will not be biased in any way by the selection process.

### 3.2 Pair selection

As instructed, we have inter-compared these datasets to find all QSO–galaxy pairs with an angular separation corresponding to less than 200 kpc at the distance of the galaxy. For this calculation, we adopt the fashionable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, with parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`H_0=60\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. However, the relatively low redshifts of the foreground galaxies means that the choice of cosmology makes essentially no difference to the sample selection. In a number of cases there is more than one galaxy within the 200 kpc projected distance limit of the QSO; for these objects we take the closest galaxy in projected distance to make up the pair. In a few cases, the same galaxy may be used for more than one QSO. This procedure yields a total of 1647 QSO–galaxy pairs.

The predicted periodicity lies in $`\mathrm{log}(1+z_{\mathrm{eff}})`$, where $`z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the redshift of the QSO measured relative to the nearby galaxy, so we define

$$1+z_{\mathrm{eff}}=(1+z_{\mathrm{qso}})/(1+z_{\mathrm{gal}}),$$
(1)
where $`z_{\mathrm{qso}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{gal}}`$ are the corresponding heliocentric measurements for the QSO and galaxy. Figure 1 shows the distribution of $`z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`z_{\mathrm{qso}}`$ for the 1647 pairs, with the locations of the predicted periodic peaks indicated. No periodicity leaps off the page, but since the effect is likely to be quite subtle, one would not necessarily expect to be able to pick it out from the raw data, so it is important to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis.

## 4 Analysis

### 4.1 The Power Spectrum

We wish to measure the power spectrum for a set of $`N`$ measurements of some quantity $`x_i`$ \[in the current case, the value of $`\mathrm{log}(1+z_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ for different QSO–galaxy pairs\]. Following the conventions of Burbidge & Napier (2001), we define the power $`I`$ at period $`P`$ via the formulae

$$I(P)=2R^2/\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i^2$$
(2)
where

$$R^2=S^2+C^2$$
(3)
with

$$S=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i\mathrm{sin}(2\pi x_i/P),C=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}w_i\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x_i/P).$$
(4)
The quantity $`w_i`$ is a weighting function to apodize any ill effects from the window function (see below); in the Burbidge & Napier (2001) analysis, $`w_i1`$. With this definition of the power spectrum, an infinite uniform random distribution of values $`x_i`$ would yield $`I2`$.

Error bars on $`I(P)`$ can be estimated using the “jackknife” technique (Efron 1979) of drawing all possible samples of $`N1`$ values from the $`N`$ data points (without replacement), repeating the power spectral analysis on these resamplings, and calculating the standard deviation in the derived values of $`I`$ at different periods $`P`$, $`\sigma _J(P)`$. The best estimator for the standard error in the value of $`I`$ is then just $`\sqrt{N1}\sigma _J`$.

### 4.2 The Window Function

The above analysis works perfectly for detecting periodic signals in data sets of infinite extent. However, in practice, such analyses are based on data sets that are finite in extent. In particular, the redshift distribution of QSOs has a cut-off at low redshifts due to the small volume sampled, and one at high redshift due to the colour selection by which QSOs are found. In addition, there may well be variations in average numbers due to evolution in the quasar population with redshift. Thus, the idealized infinite data series is truncated to a finite series by a “window function”, which varies from a value of unity where no data are missed to zero outside the range sampled.

This truncation can introduce strong spurious features into the power spectrum. Its impact depends quite sensitively on how sharply the cut-off occurs. As an extreme example, the upper panel of Fig. 2 shows a simulation of a uniform random distribution truncated sharply at $`0`$ and $`0.7`$, corresponding crudely to the distribution in $`\mathrm{log}(1+z)`$ of the data presented in Burbidge & Napier (2001). As can be seen from this figure, the window function introduces many seemingly-periodic features, so that the resultant spectrum differs greatly from the $`I2`$ that one would expect for an infinite uniform distribution. This figure also shows that the jackknife error analysis does a good job in determining the true root-mean-square uncertainty in the power spectrum.

In practice, the window function is unlikely to cut off this sharply, so the effects will be rather smaller than this extreme case. Nonetheless, particularly for relatively small periodic signals, it is vital that the effects of the window be taken into account \[a point, indeed, noted by Burbidge & Napier (2001) in their analysis of Karlsson’s (1990) data, where one peak is disregarded as just such an artifact\]. However, with relatively small samples taken from heterogeneous data sets, it is very difficult to formally quantify the selection function that specifies the shape of the window, so a rigorous analysis is difficult to implement.

Fortunately, without knowing the exact nature of the window function of the sample, one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as “carpentry.” This process involves reducing the weighting of data close to the ends of the range observed, thereby smoothing off the sharp edges of the window, or “apodizing” the function. We achieve this apodization by using the Hann function as a weighting,

$$w_i=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi x_i}{L}\right)\right]$$
(5)
in equation 4. Here, $`L`$ is chosen to cover the range over which the data are selected, so that the weighting goes smoothly from unity in the middle of the range to zero at $`x_i=0`$ and $`x_i=L`$. As the lower panel of Figure 2 shows, even for the most extreme possibility of an intrinsically instantaneous cut-off in the window function, this procedure effectively restores the power spectrum to close to the expected value of $`I(P)2`$, without compromising the errors derived using the jackknife analysis.

One concern with such a process is that it could erase real periodic signals as well as the spurious artifacts. To address this issue, we repeated the above simulation with a small periodic addition to the uniform distribution. As Figure 3 shows, the apodization of the data does not erase the periodic signal, and, once again, the jackknife errors provide a good estimate for the true uncertainty.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 The Karlsson data set

As an initial test of the code developed for this study, we have reanalysed the 116 QSO redshifts from Karlsson (1990) to make sure that we can reproduce the results derived in Burbidge & Napier (2001). As Figure 4 shows, the unweighted spectral analysis reveals the peak in the spectrum at $`P0.09`$ that Burbidge & Napier (2001) detected, as well as the peak at $`P0.07`$ that they attributed to the window function. As expected for this latter artifact, when the data are apodized, its strength is reduced to an insignificant $`1.5\sigma `$ above the noise value of $`I=2`$. However, the stronger “real” signal is even more dramatically reduced to a significance of only $`1\sigma `$. This analysis would indicate that the peak at $`P0.09`$ may well be compromised by the window function in this data set.

### 5.2 The 2dF data set

Figure 5 shows the same analysis applied to the sample of 1647 QSO–galaxy pairs drawn from the 2dF surveys, as described in Section 3. Here, the raw and apodized power spectra are quite similar – the apodization’s lack of major impact presumably reflects the overall smooth distribution in Fig. 1, which is already quite close to optimal in shape. In any case, it is apparent that there is no significant periodicity in the data at $`P0.09`$, or, indeed, at any other frequency. An analysis of the QSOs’ heliocentric redshifts revealed a similar absence of significant periodicities. Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function.

## Acknowledgements

We are most grateful to Bill Napier for suggesting that we undertake this study, and for setting up such a fair test of this hypothesis.

## References

Arp, H., Bi, H. G., Chu, Y., Zhu, X., 1990, A&A 239, 33

Broadhurst, T. J., Ellis, R. S., Koo, D. C., Szalay, A. S., 1990, Nature 343, 726

Burbidge, E. M. & Burbidge, G. R., 1967, ApJ 148, L107

Burbidge, G. & Napier, W. M., 2001, AJ 121, 21

Colless, M. et al., 2001, MNRAS 328, 1039

Croom, S. M. et al., 2001, MNRAS 322, L29

Efron, B., 1979, Ann. Stat. 7, 1

Karlsson, K. G., 1990, A&A 239, 50

Lewis, I.J, et al., 2002, MNRAS 333, 279


text:
# “Madelung model” prediction for dependence of lattice parameter on nanocrystal size.

## Abstract

The competition between the long range Coulomb attractive and the short range repulsive interaction in ionic nanocrystals creates an effective negative pressure, which causes the lattice parameter $`a`$ to increase with decreasing nanoparticle size $`d`$. A simple “Madelung model” is used to predict the dependence of the lattice parameter for CeO2 and BaTiO3 on $`d`$, $`\delta a/a=\alpha /d`$, for $`\alpha =`$0.22 Å and 0.18 Å respectively. The model predictions are compared with experimental results.

url\]http://cmth.phy.bnl.gov/$``$perebein

and

How properties of ionic crystals change when their surface to volume ratio becomes large is an active area of research . The ceria nanoparticles CeO2 have been studied experimentally using Raman, X-ray diffraction, photoabsorption, high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) , and transmission electron microscopy . The fascinating property of ionic nanoparticles is the lattice parameter increase with nanoparticle decreasing size . Intuitively one would expect the lattice parameter to decrease as a result of surface stress as was observed in gold nanoparticles .

Nanocrystal properties are significantly different from their bulk counterparts. Previous theoretical treatments  used realistic potentials for small CenO2n cluster calculations. It was shown that flourite structure for ceria was not achieved for $`n`$ smaller than $`50`$. In the present work we investigate lattice parameter dependence on a cluster size for $`d=420`$ nm or $`n=10^310^5`$. Charge neutral octahedra nanocrystals are surface terminated with oxygen anion layers along the eight $`\{111\}`$ faces. The balance between the long range Coulomb and the short range atomic interactions leads to the optimal lattice parameter $`a_0`$ dependent on the size of the cluster. The volume energy per formula unit in the bulk material is usually modeled as

$`\epsilon _\mathrm{v}={\displaystyle \frac{BV_0}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{V}{V_0}}1\right)^2,`$ (1)
where $`B`$ is the bulk modulus and $`E_\mathrm{v}=N\epsilon _\mathrm{v}`$ is the volume energy of $`N`$ formula units of CeO2, each filling volume space $`V_0=a_0^3/4`$. In the infinite crystal Eq. (1) is the total free energy which is minimum at the bulk lattice parameter $`a_0`$. In the nanocrystal the balance between the Coulomb and short range forces is altered due to the surface. The surface Coulomb energy creates a negative pressure which leads to the lattice parameter expansion in the nanocrystal in accord with observation .

To calculate the Coulomb energy in ionic nanoparticles we use the same procedure as Madelung energy calculation in bulk material . In the fluorite (CaF2) structure the Ce4+ ions occupy a fcc sublattice and O2- ions occupy the tetrahedral interstitial sites forming a simple cubic sublattice of length $`a_0/2`$. This gives a Madelung energy per formula unit $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{Mad}}=\beta _{\mathrm{bulk}}e^2/a`$, where $`\beta _{\mathrm{bulk}}=46.55`$. The value of $`\beta =Mz_iz_j/r_0`$ is related to the Madelung constant $`M=2.52`$ for the CaF2 crystal structure , where ionic charges are $`z_i=2`$, $`z_j=4`$ and the nearest neighbor distance is $`r_0=\sqrt{3}/4`$ in units of $`a`$. To calculate the surface Madelung energy we use a finite size cluster of Ce4+ and O2- ions terminated by the oxygen layers along the eight $`(111)`$ planes. The surface energy is proportional to the area of nanoparticle $`N^{2/3}`$. The diameter $`d=(3N/2\pi )^{1/3}a_0`$ is related to the number of Ce atoms $`N`$ such that the sphere of equal diameter contains an equal volume $`NV_0`$. The Madelung energy of a cluster (with a uniform lattice parameter) can be calculated for different diameters. The results are shown on Fig. 1(a), which are well fitted by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{Mad}}}{N}}=\left(\beta _{\mathrm{bulk}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{sur}}}{d}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{a}},`$ (2)
with two parameters $`\beta _{\mathrm{bulk}}=46.55`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{sur}}=4.13`$ nm.

The uniform lattice parameter expansion reduces the surface Madelung energy creating the stress in the nanocrystal estimated with Eq. (1). The total energy per Ce atom on the nanoparticle is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{E}_{\mathrm{tot}}}{N}}={\displaystyle \frac{BV_0}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a^3}{a_0^3}}1\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{sur}}}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{a}}.`$ (3)
Here the first term is the volume contribution, which includes the Madelung energy of the infinite crystal, and the second term is the surface Coulomb energy from Eq. 2. Minimization of the total energy with respect to the lattice parameter for fixed $`N`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta a}{a_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9BV_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{a_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{sur}}}{d}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{d}}.`$ (4)
The bulk modulus $`B=230\pm 10`$ GPA has been measured by high-pressure x-ray diffraction . Taking $`a_0=5.409`$ Å we obtain the relation $`\delta a/a_0=0.22`$ Å$`/d`$ for the lattice parameter expansion shown on Fig. 2. The experimental lattice parameter (also shown on Fig. 2) expands with a larger slope $`\alpha =0.37`$ Å. Our model predicts 60% of the measured value of $`\alpha `$. The missing 40% of the lattice parameter expansion might be assigned to the formation of point defects. These defects are oxygen vacancies and simultaneous reduction of two ions of Ce4+ to Ce3+ for each oxygen vacancy formed, maintaining charge neutrality. Electron spectroscopy  and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy  show the presence of a Ce3+ component in nanocrystals. Since Ce3+ has a larger radius compared to Ce4+ there may be a lattice expansion accompanying the replacement of (Ce4+)2O2- by Ce$`{}_{}{}^{3+}V`$ where $`V`$ is a neutral oxygen vacancy. An upper limit in the Ce3+ contribution to expansion was estimated  by interpolation of published results of the variation in ceria lattice parameter with RE3+ radii from doping with different rare earth oxides (RE2O3) . Recent neutron diffraction measurements on nano-scale powder of CeO2  suggest associated oxygen defect formation (involving oxygen vacancies and self-interstitials) in the fluorite structure. Such defects are not included in our model and may alter the surface Madelung energy estimation.

The Madelung model is valid for any ionic nanocrystal. We apply it for the BaTiO3 nanoparticles to calculate the competition between the long range Coulomb and the short range atomic interactions. The results are shown on Fig.1(b). Ionic charges Ba2+, Ti4+ and O2- were used to calculate the surface energy of the nanoparticle. To preserve charge neutrality the cubic nanocrystal with size $`d`$ was terminated by the three BaO and three TiO2 $`\{100\}`$ planes. The calculated value of $`\beta _{\mathrm{sur}}=3.6`$ nm along with the experimental lattice parameter $`a_0=3.996`$ Å and bulk modulus $`B=196`$ GPa  predicts $`\delta a/a_0=0.18`$ Å$`/d`$. Existing data  on BaTiO3 nanoparticles are not sufficient to verify the relationship Eq. (4) and further experiments are needed.

In conclusion we propose a mechanism for lattice parameter expansion of ionic nanocrystals due to the effective negative Madelung pressure. Using the experimental bulk modulus we quantitatively explain a lattice parameter expansion in ionic materials. A discrepancy between the model prediction and observed effect in CeO2 can be attributed to the Ce3+ component  and other defects not included in our model. The Ce3+ concentration deduced from magnetic measurements  suggests a much smaller value than expected from lattice expansion measurements in accord with our theory. A non-uniform lattice parameter expansion and structural defect formation  would change the quantitative answer, but not the conclusion that an effective negative Madelung pressure is significant in ionic nanocrystals.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Philip B. Allen for critical reading of the manuscript, Michael Weinert for valuable discussions, and Stephen O’Brien for taking our attention on BaTiO3 nanocrystals. This work was supported in part by DOE Grant No. DE-AC-02-98CH10886. S.-W.C. and F.Z. acknowledge support by the MRSEC program of the National Science Foundation under DMR-9809687.


text:
# A new proof of a theorem of Ivanov and Schupp

## Abstract

The object of this note is to give a very short proof of the following theorem of Ivanov and Schupp. Let $`H`$ be a finitely generated subgroup of a free group $`F`$ and the index $`[F:H]`$ infinite. Then there exists a nontrivial normal subgroup $`N`$ of $`F`$ such that $`NH=\{1\}`$.

As noted in the abstract above the object of this note is to give a new proof of the following theorem of S.V.Ivanov and P.E.Schupp

###### Theorem 0.1.

Let $`H`$ be a finitely generated subgroup of a free group $`F`$ and the index $`[F:H]`$ infinite. Then there exists a nontrivial normal subgroup $`N`$ of $`F`$ such that $`NH=\{1\}`$.

Our proof depends on two facts. The first is a theorem of M. Hall  which states that a finitely generated subgroup of a finitely generated free group is a free factor of a subgroup of finite index. The second key fact, is the following simple lemma.

###### Lemma 0.2.

Let $`I`$ be a normal subgroup of finite index of a group $`F`$, and let $`L`$ be a normal subgroup of $`I`$. Furthermore let $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_m`$ be a complete set of representatives of the right cosets $`Ig`$ of $`I`$ in $`F`$. Then

$$N=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Lb_i\mathrm{}F$$

###### Proof.

Notice that conjugation induces an automorphism of $`I`$ and hence $`L^f\mathrm{}I`$ for every $`fF`$. Hence each $`b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Lb_i\mathrm{}I`$ and therefore $`N\mathrm{}I`$. In fact $`N\mathrm{}F`$. To see this, let $`fF`$. Then $`f`$ can be written in the form

$$f=xb\text{ }(xI,b\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_m\})$$

Consequently

1. $`f^1Nf=b^1x^1Nxb=b^1Nb=b^1(_{i=1}^mb_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Lb_i)b=_{i=1}^m(b_ib)^1L(b_ib)`$

Notice that if $`b_i^{}`$ is the representative of the coset $`Ib_ib`$ then the map $`ii^{}`$ is a permutation of $`\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$. Hence we now write

$$b_ib=a_ib_i^{}\text{ }(i=1,\mathrm{},m,\text{ }a_iI)$$

Then it follows from (1) that:

$$f^1Nf=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{i^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}La_ib_i^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{i^{}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Lb_i^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}b_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}Lb_i=N$$

###### Proof.

of the theorem. If $`F`$ is not finitely generated or $`H`$ is trivial, then the theorem is trivial. So we assume that $`F`$ is finitely generated and that $`H`$ is not trivial. By the theorem of M.Hall cited above, there exists a subgroup $`KF`$ of finite index in $`F`$ and such that $`K`$ is the free product of $`H`$ a second subgroup $`Q`$:

$$K=HQ$$

Since $`K`$ is of finite index in $`F`$, the number of conjugates of $`K`$ in $`F`$ is finite and their intersection $`I`$ is a normal subgroup of $`F`$ of finite index (see e.g. A.G. Kurosh vol. 1, p. 83) This can be proved in the same manner that we proved the lemma above. It follows directly from the proof of the subgroup theorem for free products due to A.G.Kurosh(, vol. 2, p. 17) that $`IH`$ is a free factor of $`I`$:

$$I=(IH)J$$

Now the normal closure of $`J`$ in $`I`$, $`L=gp_I(J)\mathrm{}I`$. Observe that by $`L(IH)=\{1\}`$, therefore

$$LH=\{1\}$$

Now by the lemma $`N=_{j=1}^mL^{b_j}\mathrm{}F`$. Note that $`N`$ is a nontrivial normal subgroup of $`F`$, since it contains $`[L^{b_1},L^{b_2},\mathrm{},L^{b_m}]`$, the subgroup generated by all $`m`$-fold commutators with arguments coming out of $`L^{b_1},\mathrm{},L^{b_m}`$. Then $`N`$ is the desired normal subgroup, since $`NH=\{1\}`$, using the fact that $`NL`$. ∎


text:
# An example of a uniformly accelerated particle detector with non-Unruh response

## 1 Introduction

It was claimed in  that a detector uniformly accelerated in the empty Minkowski spacetime111In this paper we consider a particular case of $`1+1`$ dimensional spacetime. would respond as if it had been placed in a thermal bath of Fulling-Unruh quanta  with the temperature $`T_{DU}=a/(2\pi )`$, where $`a`$ is the proper acceleration of the detector222We use natural units $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ throughout the paper.. The temperature $`T`$ is now called the Davies-Unruh temperature, while the effect of ”thermalization” of the Minkowski vacuum in accelerated reference frames is usually referred to as the Unruh effect (more detailed list of publications concerning this issue can be found in ). Let us stress that the most striking feature of this prediction is universality of the response of uniformly accelerating detectors. The latter would mean that this response were thermal independently of the structure of the given detector and of the nature of the accelerating force. Such universality, if existed, would manifest that interaction of accelerated detectors with the vacuum of a quantum field depended exclusively on general quantum properties of the vacuum viewed from a uniformly accelerated reference frame. Moreover, if the effect existed the uniformly accelerated reference frames would be physically preferable among all other reference frames in general relativity.

There exist two different aspects of the Unruh problem . The first one is of purely field theoretical nature and has been formulated in the original Unruh work . In the framework of this approach one develops a quantization scheme for the field restricted to a part of Minkowski spacetime, say Fulling quantization in the Rindler wedge , and then attempts to interpret the Minkowski vacuum state in terms of particle states arising in the process of this quantization, say Fulling-Unruh particles . Another variant of the field theoretical approach, though physically very close to the Unruh one, is based on the Bisognano-Wichmann theorem . It is important that the notion of detector in fact is not exploited by both variants of the quantum field theoretical approach to the Unruh problem, and thus this approach (if it was consistent) could give grounds for the aforementioned universality of the response of a uniformly accelerated detector. Indeed, the term ”Rindler observer” is used in the context of the Unruh problem exclusively for the sake of convenience and only because the totality of the world lines of all such ”observers”, which however cannot be realized as trajectories of any physical objects in Minkowski spacetime, completely covers the interior of the Rindler wedge . However, we have shown in Refs.  that both variants of quantum field theoretical approach  are physically incorrect, because they imply that the quantum field satisfies some special requirement at the boundary of the Rindler manifold which is incompatible with existence of the Minkowski vacuum state in the theory. Nevertheless, this conclusion is based on analysis of two specific sets of arguments  and, strictly speaking, it does not exclude the possibility of existence of some more profound evidence in favor of the Unruh effect.

Another aspect of the problem is behavior of physical detectors of the given structure uniformly accelerating under action of the given external force. Certainly, this approach is not so general as the first one and there is no hope to prove universality of the Unruh effect in its framework. Therefore this issue is usually discussed in literature with the purpose of illustration of the results obtained by means of quantum field theory, see, e.g., the reviews . However, since there is still no compelling evidence for the universal behavior attributed to all uniformly accelerated detectors, the investigation of the response of particular detectors is of great physical interest. Besides discussion of possible experimental observations of the effects of interaction of different quantum systems with external fields, non-universality of thermal response could be proven within such approach just by demonstration of at least a single example of a uniformly accelerated detector which does not reveal the Unruh behavior.

Consideration of behavior of a uniformly accelerating physical detector is a rather difficult problem and its treatment in literature is contradictory. The major difficulty is that a uniformly accelerating detector (i.e., an elementary particle or a microscopic bound system) must be considered as a quantum object moving along a definite classical trajectory. Strictly speaking, such an assumption is in contradiction with the uncertainty principle, its range of applicability is very limited and therefore it must be used with proper care. Since a systematic relativistic theory of bound states is still absent, different authors are compelled to use some simplifying assumptions, which are hard to control. Therefore we will consider below the case of an elementary particle detector, which, in our opinion, admits the most consistent analysis at the present moment.

An example of an elementary particle detector accelerated by a homogeneous electric field in $`1+1`$-dimensional spacetime was considered in Refs. . The considered detector is described by two equally charged bosons with masses $`m`$ and $`M>m`$ interacting with a neutral boson of mass $`\mu `$. In the absence of the external electric field there obviously exists transition $`Mm+\mu `$, if $`M^2>m^2+\mu ^2`$. In the presence of the electric field spontaneous excitation of a $`m`$-boson into a $`M`$-particle accompanied by the emission of $`\mu `$-particle is also possible. It was shown in Refs. , that for the special case of equal accelerations of the charged bosons $`(Mm)/m1`$, the ratio of the transition rates of the two processes $`mM+\mu `$ and $`Mm+\mu `$ has the Boltzmann form, with temperature parameter coinciding with the Davies-Unruh temperature. Though the latter result holds only for $`D=1+1`$ spacetime, see Ref. , the authors of Refs.  interpret their treatment as purely quantum mechanical derivation of the Unruh effect since recoil effects have been taken into account. However the presence of the electric field violates stability of detector vacuum. Hence the detector is moving not in empty Minkowski space but in a bath of pairs of $`(m,\overline{m})`$ and $`(M,\overline{M})`$ charged bosons. Moreover, the authors emphasize the fact that the processes of detector transitions and the Schwinger process of creation of boson pairs are in exact equilibrium. Thus relevance of the suggested detector model to the Unruh effect which implies thermal equilibrium between detector and vacuum of $`\mu `$-boson field remains unclear.

In this paper we consider another mechanism of acceleration of an elementary particle detector, namely acceleration by a stationary scalar background. The most important point of our model is absence of the process of pair creation by the external scalar field. The detector is described by a fermion $`F`$ of mass $`m`$ and a boson $`B`$ of mass $`M>m`$ interacting with a free massless fermion $`\nu `$ (which we will call ”neutrino”). We consider the $`F`$-particle as a ground state, and the $`B`$-particle as an excited state of the detector. Just as in Refs.  we restrict our consideration to the $`1+1`$-dimensional case.

## 2 Uniform acceleration by an external scalar field

Let us consider a classical particle in $`D=1+1`$ spacetime coupled to an external stationary scalar field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$. The Lagrange function for this particle can be written in the form $`L(z,v)=me^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}\sqrt{1v^2}`$, where $`v=dz/dt`$ denotes velocity of the particle. The conserved canonical Hamilton function reads

$$H=v\frac{L}{v}L=\frac{me^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}}{\sqrt{1v^2}}=ϵ=\mathrm{const},$$
(1)
and thus for any given value $`ϵ`$ of energy the velocity $`v(t)`$ can be represented as a function of its coordinate $`z`$, $`v=v(z)`$. The proper acceleration of the particle can be represented as

$$a=\frac{(dv/dt)}{(1v^2)^{3/2}}=\frac{ϵ}{m}\frac{d(e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)})}{dz}.$$
(2)
Hence the only form of the scalar background $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ which can provide a uniform acceleration of the particle, is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\mathrm{ln}[|zz_s|/R]`$, where $`R`$ is a characteristic length parameter of the background. The integration constant $`z_s`$ may be arbitrary due to translation invariance. It fixes the position of singularity of the external field, which is unavoidable in the case of a uniformly accelerating motion.

We choose below $`z_s=0`$ and consider the particle motion in the right half of the space with respect to the singularity, $`z>0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)=\mathrm{ln}(z/R)`$. With such $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ one easily obtains from Eq.(1) for particle trajectories the equation: $`z(t)=\sqrt{t^2+a^2},`$ where proper acceleration is equal to $`a=ϵ/(mR)`$ and the integration constant is chosen so that the time coordinate of the turning point of the trajectory is $`t_0=0.`$ It is worth noting that the totality of obtained trajectories with $`0<ϵ<\mathrm{}`$ completely fill the interior of the right (Rindler) wedge of Minkowski spacetime. Therefore acceleration by the scalar background is more appropriate for studying the Unruh problem than acceleration by a homogeneous electric field. In the latter case acceleration of a particle is determined solely by the field strength and is independent of initial conditions. The totality of such trajectories can cover the whole Minkowski spacetime but of course cannot be restricted to any separate wedge of it.

## 3 Elementary particle detector in scalar background

We will discuss now behavior of a quantum detector accelerated by the scalar background introduced in the preceding section. As a rule, a kind of ”two-level” system is used as a detector while discussing the Unruh effect . Such a detector is accelerated by an external force which does not affect however the field responsible for transitions of the ”two-level” system and hence the detector can be considered moving in undisturbed vacuum of the latter field. Since the scalar background $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)`$ accelerates any massive particle, the field responsible for transitions of our detector should be massless. However it is well known, see, e.g., Ref. , that in $`D=1+1`$ theories a massless scalar particle does not exist even as a mathematical object. Therefore we have to consider a ”two-level” system interacting with a massless fermion (”neutrino-antineutrino”) field as a model of the detector and hence one of the particles constituting our detector must also be a fermion. We start with discussion of solutions of Klein-Fock-Gordon (KFG) and Dirac equations in the presence of the scalar background $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(z).`$

The squared Hamilton function (1) for a boson of mass $`M`$ can be written in the form $`H^2=\mathrm{\Pi }^2+M^2e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Pi }=L/v`$ is momentum of the particle. The KFG equation is obtained from this relation by the standard substitutions $`Hi/t`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }i/z`$:

$$\left\{\frac{^2}{t^2}\frac{^2}{z^2}+M^2e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }_B(t,z)=0.$$
(3)
Positive frequency ($`ϵ>0`$) solutions of Eq.(3) has the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }_B(t,z)=\psi _{Bϵ}(z)e^{iϵt}`$ where the functions $`\psi _{Bϵ}(z)`$ satisfy the stationary Schrödinger equation

$$\psi _{Bϵ}^{\prime \prime }(z)+\left(ϵ^2\frac{M^2R^2}{z^2}\right)\psi _{Bϵ}(z)=0.$$
(4)
The penetrability coefficient for the barrier $`M^2R^2/z^2`$, which controls the possibility of quantum tunnelling through the singularity of the background, can be estimated quasiclassically (see, e.g., Ref. ),

$$D\mathrm{exp}\left\{2\underset{0}{\overset{1/a}{}}𝑑z\sqrt{\frac{M^2R^2}{z^2}ϵ^2}\right\}=0,$$
(5)
and is equal to zero since the integral in the argument of the exponential in (5) is logarithmically divergent on its lower limit. It means that the potential barrier which surrounds the singularity $`z=0`$ is impenetrable even on the quantum level. As a consequence, the boundary condition $`\psi _{Bϵ}(0)=0`$ should be imposed at the singularity. The field modes satisfying this boundary condition read

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bϵ}(t,z)=\psi _{Bϵ}(z)e^{iϵt}=\sqrt{\frac{z}{2}}J_{\sqrt{M^2R^2+1/4}}(ϵz)e^{iϵt},$$
(6)
where $`J_\kappa (ϵz)`$ is the Bessel function, and the normalization constant is defined by the condition

$$i\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bϵ}^{}(t,z)\frac{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}{t}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bϵ^{}}(t,z)=\delta (ϵϵ^{}).$$
(7)
The Dirac equation in the accelerating scalar background reads

$$\left[i\left(\gamma _0\frac{}{t}\gamma _1\frac{}{z}\right)me^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(z)}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_F(t,z)=0,$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$ is a two-component function. We adopt the following representation for the Dirac $`\gamma `$-matrices, $`\gamma _0=\sigma _3`$, $`\gamma _1=i\sigma _1`$, where $`\sigma _i`$ are the standard Pauli matrices. Due to the impenetrability of the potential barrier at the point $`z=0`$ (see the Eq.(5)), one should impose at this point the boundary condition of vanishing of the local scalar current $`s=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$, $`s(t,0)=0`$. The positive- (negative-) frequency modes, which obey such a boundary condition and are normalized by the relations

$$\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ}^{(\pm )}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ^{}}^{(\pm )}=\delta (ϵϵ^{}),\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ}^{(\pm )}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ^{}}^{()}=0,$$
(9)
read

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ}^{(\pm )}(t,z)=\psi _{Fϵ}(z)e^{iϵt}=\frac{\sqrt{ϵz}}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}J_{mR1/2}(ϵz)\pm J_{mR+1/2}(ϵz)\\ J_{mR1/2}(ϵz)J_{mR+1/2}(ϵz)\end{array}\right)e^{iϵt}.$$
(10)
Finally, we write down the positive- (negative-) frequency solutions for the free massless Dirac equation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu p}^{(\pm )}(t,z)=\psi _{\nu p}(z)e^{i|p|t}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \pm i\mathrm{sign}(p)\end{array}\right)e^{i(pz|p|t)},$$
(11)
$`\mathrm{}<p<+\mathrm{}`$. Since massless particles do not interact with the scalar background the functions (11) do not obey any boundary condition at the point $`z=0`$. We use the sets of modes (6),(10),(11) for quantization of respectively the massive boson $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$, fermion $`\mathrm{\Phi }_F`$ and neutrino $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ fields.

Let the Lagrangian of interaction between the three fields be of the form $`_{\mathrm{int}}=\lambda (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_F\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu +\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_F)\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$. We will consider, first, the decay of the massive fermion $`F_ϵB_ϵ^{}+\nu _p`$ which does not occur in the absence of the scalar background. Let the initial state of the fermion be a wave packet $`|F=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑EC_i(E)f_E^{}|\mathrm{vac}`$ with the spectral weight function $`C_i(E)`$ normalized by the condition $`_0^{\mathrm{}}|C_i(E)|^2𝑑E=1`$ and $`f_E^{}`$ is fermion creation operator. Then the matrix element of the decay in the first order of perturbation theory is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}B_ϵ^{},\nu _p|F=\hfill \\ \\ =i\lambda \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑EC_i(E)\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bϵ^{}}^{}(t,z)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\nu p}^{(+)}(t,z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{FE}^{(+)}(t,z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Substituting Eqs.(6),(10),(11) into (12) we obtain

$$B_ϵ^{},\nu _p|F=i\lambda C_i(ϵ^{}+|p|)I(ϵ^{},p),$$
(13)
where

$$I(ϵ^{},p)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\psi _{Bϵ^{}}^{}(z)\overline{\psi }_{\nu p}^{(+)}(z)\psi _{F,ϵ^{}+|p|}^{(+)}(z).$$
(14)
In the case of narrow spectral weight function of the initial packet, i.e. when all probable values of the energy of the $`F`$-particle are very close to $`ϵ`$, we can substitute $`|C_i(E)|^2\delta (Eϵ)`$. Then we get for the differential probability of the decay

$$\begin{array}{c}dW_{FB}(ϵ^{},p|ϵ)=\left|B_ϵ^{},\nu _p|F\right|^2dϵ^{}dp=\hfill \\ \\ =\lambda ^2\delta (ϵϵ^{}|p|)\left|I(ϵ^{},p)\right|^2dϵ^{}dp.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
It is easy to see that the integral (14) is divergent at $`p0.`$ Indeed, the asymptotic behavior of the modes (6),(10) is given by the following expressions

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Psi }_{Bϵ}(t,z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi ϵ}}\mathrm{cos}(ϵz\alpha )e^{iϵt},\alpha =\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\sqrt{M^2R^2+\frac{1}{4}}+\frac{1}{2}\right),\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Psi }_{Fϵ}^{(+)}(t,z)\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}(ϵz\beta )\\ \mathrm{sin}(ϵz\beta )\end{array}\right)e^{iϵt},\beta =\frac{\pi }{2}\left(mR+\frac{1}{2}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Note that the asymptotic expressions (16) in fact coincide with $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$functions of free massless particles. This is because the mass defect at long distance from the singularity equals to the mass of the particle and the latter moves almost with the speed of light. Substituting expressions (16) into the integral (14) at $`p=0`$, we arrive to a linear divergency of the integral (14) at $`z\mathrm{}`$. It means that $`I(ϵ^{},p)1/p,p0,`$ and we get for the probability (15)

$$dW_{FB}(ϵ^{},p|ϵ)\frac{\lambda ^2}{ϵ}\delta (ϵϵ^{}|p|)dϵ^{}\frac{dp}{p^2},p0.$$
(17)
From this expression it is evident that the total probability of the decay is divergent. This fact has a simple physical explanation. Indeed, suppose the decay occurs after reflection from the singularity, when the wave packet $`|F`$ is moving to the right. Due to special properties of the fermion current $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_F\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$ in $`D=1+1`$ dimensions (see, e.g., Ref. ), the neutrino with energy $`|p|`$ is emitted strictly to the left. Thus, due to the energy conservation law, the boson $`B`$ with the energy $`ϵ^{}=ϵ|p|`$ can be emitted either to the right (in such a case the momentum transferred to the external field is $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=2|p|`$) or to the left ($`\mathrm{\Delta }P=2ϵ`$). It is easy to see that the second process can occur only at distances $`zϵ^1`$ from the singularity. Hence only the first process contribute to the total probability at long times since $`p`$ can be arbitrary small. If the time of observation $`\tau `$ is finite, then the neutrinos with the energies $`|p|\tau `$ can not be emitted. Thus for the total probability at long time we obtain

$$W_{FB}(ϵ)\frac{\lambda ^2}{ϵ}\underset{1/\tau }{}\frac{dp}{p^2}=\frac{\lambda ^2}{ϵ}\tau ,\tau \mathrm{}.$$
(18)
It means that there exists the decay rate $`_{FB}\lambda ^2/ϵ`$ (more rigorous derivation of this result will be given in a forthcoming publication).

The lowest-order amplitude of the process $`B_ϵ^{}F_ϵ+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_p`$ reads

$$\begin{array}{c}F_ϵ,\stackrel{~}{\nu }_p|B=\hfill \\ \\ =i\lambda \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑EC_i(E)\mathrm{\Psi }_{BE}(t,z)\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{Fϵ}^{(+)}(t,z)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\nu p}^{()}(t,z).\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
It is easy to see that the decay rate for this process can be calculated by exactly the same method which have been used for calculation of $`_{FB}`$ and give the result $`_{BF}\lambda ^2/ϵ^{}`$.

## 4 Long-time behavior of the accelerated detector

It was shown in the preceding section that at long times $`\tau `$ ($`1/ϵ\tau ϵ/\lambda ^2`$) the processes of neutrino, antineutrino emission are characterized by decay rates. It means that master equations can be used to study the long-time behavior of the detector. One can easily obtain from Eq.(17) that the average neutrino energy emitted for time $`\tau `$ is of the order $`|p|\lambda ^2/ϵ\mathrm{ln}ϵ\tau `$. Hence, with regard for the upper limit for $`\tau `$ admitted in the framework of perturbation theory, we have $`|p|ϵ`$. This result means that neutrinos are effectively emitted in zero mode at long times and thus the master equations for the problem constitute a set of differential equations rather than of integro-differential ones.

Denote by $`n_F`$, $`n_B`$ the average numbers of fermions and bosons with the energy $`ϵ`$ and by $`n_\nu `$, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ the average numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos in the zero mode. Let $`_{FB}=_{BF}.`$ Then the corresponding master equations, which take into account effects of quantum statistics, read

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{}\frac{dn_F}{dt}=n_B(1n_F)(1n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }})n_F(1+n_B)(1n_\nu ),\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{}\frac{dn_\nu }{dt}=n_F(1+n_B)(1n_\nu ),n_F+n_\nu n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}=1,n_F+n_B=1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
The results of numerical solution for the system (20) are presented in Fig. 1. The initial conditions adopted for the presented solution are $`n_F(0)=1`$ and $`n_B(0)=n_\nu (0)=n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(0)=0`$.

It is seen from Fig. 1 that, while $`t^1`$, the initial fermion decays into boson and neutrino. For $`t^1`$ the number of neutrinos in the zero mode tends to unity exponentially fast, $`1n_\nu (t)\sqrt{t}e^t`$. However, when $`n_\nu `$ comes to unity, this channel owing to the Pauli principle becomes closed. The number of antineutrinos is initially growing much more slowly, since the antineutrinos are created by boson decay, and no bosons are initially present. After $`n_\nu `$ comes to unity, the created boson decays into fermion and antineutrino. Finally, the number of antineutrinos also comes to unity, and this channel also becomes closed. Asymptotically the resulting state contains a fermion and a $`\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }`$-pair in the zero mode. However, this state is achieved very slowly, $`1n_F(t)1n_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(t)n_B(t)(2t)^{1/2}`$ as $`t+\mathrm{}`$.

Thus the long time behavior of the detector accelerated by scalar background crucially differs from the behavior one could predict on the basis of the Unruh conjecture. Indeed, instead of arriving to some ”thermal equilibrium” state, the detector creates a $`\nu \stackrel{~}{\nu }`$\- pair and returns to its initial state. Note that, if we change the initial conditions for the detector $`n_F=1,n_B=0n_F=0,n_B=1`$, we will have boson in the final state instead of the fermion. It means that the detector remembers its initial state and hence one by no means can talk about equilibrium in the final state of this particular case of detector. From this we conclude that the thermal Unruh response is not a universal property of all uniformly accelerated detectors but can be revealed by detectors of some special nature, see Refs. .

This work was supported by the Russian Fund for Basic Research under the projects 00–02–16354 and 01–02–16850, and by the grunt 1501 of the Ministry of Education of Russian Federation.