text:
# Flashes of noncommutativity

## Flash one.

Time ago, newborn Classical Mechanics simply described how the inertial law was disturbed by the action of a force. One can consider two inertial trajectories from $`x`$ to $`y`$ and then from $`y`$ to $`z`$, where a change is applied in a point $`y`$.

If we ask for equal-time segments, then areas $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are equal too. In modern language, we are showing that dynamics of a physical system is given by the rule

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\times \mathrm{\Delta }p=\mathrm{\Delta }x_f\times \mathrm{\Delta }p$$

By applying this principle to central forces Newton was able to introduce time in geometry, mimicking Kepler second law. This is proposition 1 of Book I in the Principia. Historians tell us that this proposition was rebuilt at least three times while doing the built, and it was already present in the previous paper De Motu.

It is very troublesome to define evolution, or consistence within a trajectory, by claiming the equality of two areas, and then asking both areas to go to zero. Paraphrasing my colleague E. Forgy (from a different context), I believe the old fathers could be asking themselves: Is mechanics just a series of $`0=0`$ statements?

Two close remarks:

\- It is known that path integral measure is concentrated in continuous everywhere, differentiable nowhere, trajectories. This shows how troublesome is to try to approach the classical path. By the way, Feynman path integral is about the limit of an equal-time discretization of trajectory, just as Newton Proposition 1.

\- Itô’s stochastic calculus includes a factor $`\sqrt{t}`$. It should be interesting, from the point of view of didactics, to look for the geometrical origin of this root.

## Flash two.

Consider the natural ”elementary school” groupoid over configuration space:

$$(xyu)(yzv)=(xzu+v)$$

Its algebra of functions has the product

$$(AB)(x,z,t)=A(x,y,r)B(y,z,tr)𝑑y𝑑r$$

Fourier transforming the $`t`$ component we see this product is equivalent to:

$$(\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{B})(x,y,\widehat{t})=\stackrel{~}{A}(x,y,\widehat{t})\stackrel{~}{B}(y,z,\widehat{t})𝑑y$$

which in turn, by changing $`ϵ1/\widehat{t}`$, corresponds to the product defined in the $`ϵ0`$ part of Connes’s Tangent Groupoid. Thus the algebra of functions in the latter is a subalgebra of the one of the ”elementary school” groupoid.

The $`ϵ=0`$ part of the Tangent Groupoid is defined using the product $`(x,X)(x,Y)=(x,X+Y)`$ of elements of the Tangent Bundle. It is well known that continuity of functions in all the groupoid is just a (de)quantization condition, as $`ϵ>0`$ defines a product of operators in Hilbert Space.

By Fourier transform we can see that Groupoid algebra in Tangent Space is pointwise product of functions in Cotangent space. And if we choose a concrete limiting procedure then we can associate a deformed, star product to the functions of the Cotangent Space. Whose star-exponential, Fourier transformed again, can be proved to be Feynman path integral.

## Flash three.

While the law of areas can be used to prove angular momentum preservation, its origin is deeper, and simpler, than our modern Noether’s theorem. It comes from the combination of the law of addition of vectors and the first law of Newton, and in this way it simply expresses the equality of the projection of velocities in the plane orthogonal to the variation of momentum. Thus, force -or variation of momentum-, which describes a plane, is compulsed to be a covector. And then we can look for the potential functions whose gradient is the force.

The visualization of the plane associated to the force covector let us to extend the equal-time area law to more arbitrary time steps: now we just ask for inertia law in \[the projection on\] this plane. Noncommutativity is still there, hidden in the definition of variation of momentum just as something with happens ”between” velocity steps (whose size does not matter anymore). Lets say, when position changes there is not such thing as a change of momentum, and when momentum changes there is not such thing as a change of position.

It could be interesting to review the introduction of a gauge field. Then it is known that the new momentum (as defined from the Lagrangian) is not anymore the canonical conjugate of position. But the point is that the new field, at least in the simplest U(1) case, generates a force orthogonal to the velocity. In some sense it is exploiting a hole in the ”projected inertia law” of the previous paragraph. One could relate this exploit to the proof of Maxwell’s \[homogeneous\] laws from that famous -and slippery- report of Feynman to Dyson. Remember that noncommutativity is needed for the proof.

## Remark.

If we were used to the derivation of the Lagrangian (and the Euler-Lagrange equations) in a deductive way from Newton dynamics, as historically was done, then neither the groupoid formalism nor Feynman path-integral approach should surprise us. It is very easy to attach a Lagrangian action to an element of groupoid and then to formulate the variation mechanism. And the extremal condition can be shown to be the one of the path integral. More on this below in the bibliography.

The real quest is the use of these formalisms for fields beyond 0+1.

## Flash four.

During a quantization process it always happens that we choose an ordering of operators. Above it was the limiting procedure. It is equivalent to select one concrete star product. Also, it is known that it corresponds in the path integral formalism to a choosing of what discretization method do we apply to the Lagrangian.

The classical limit of course, does not see the discretization nor the ordering.

Now, A huge -for the standards of the family- group of theorists like to study the noncommutative differential calculus coming from the rule

$$f(x).dx=dx.f(x\lambda ),$$

that approaches the usual calculus when $`\lambda 0`$.

The previous formula is a bit formal, and it is usually supplemented by choosing whether the associated difference equations are to be considered with $`x`$ or with $`x`$. In any case, there is still the same question that in the physical methods: While keeping with the noncommutativity rule, it could be possible to do various combinations of forward and backward derivations or to choose different values of a displacement parameter such that $`\lambda f^{}(x)=f(\lambda +x+\mu )f(x+\mu )`$ with $`\mu 0`$ when $`\lambda 0`$.

As other possibility, a doubly twisted differential calculus can be defined via

$$D_{qr}f(x)=\frac{f(qx)f(rx)}{(qr)x}$$

and the standard technologies

$$D_{qr}x^n=<n>x^{n1},<n>=\frac{q^nr^n}{qr}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}q^{ni}r^i,\text{etc.}$$

It is interesting because from the physics side no results are published, as far as I known, beyond $`0+1`$, so the q-geometry approach could contain some surprises. It should be good to be aware that quantum mechanics does not need renormalization, and renormalization is about scale-keeping in a limit process.

And even in the trivial case it can be studied an ”angle” $`q/m`$ depending of the position $`x`$ but disappearing in the commutative limit.

## Flashback.

It was not the first time Newton ran into troubles with the infinitesimal limit. Back in 1666 he noticed how his binomial was the key for an algebraic approach to the method of calculation of tangents. The combination with Barrow theorem, giving the inverse operation, was to be enough to dominate analysis during three centuries. Probably Barrow got enthusiastic by the discovery, because Newton was asked to write a small document, which was showed to Collins.

It seems that objections were raised about the method, and Newton was convinced to bury it in the coffin of unspeakable resources. At that time Barrow influence was high. He had narrowly escaped death two times while adventuring in foreign lands, trying to rebuild the methods of Archimedes, and then returning Cambridge to be awarded the (first) Lucasian chair. And Collins was also remarkable, he was the key editor in the age, even if his own math was not so impressive. So it is not surprising that Newton was refrained of speaking calculus, at least until Leibnitz happened to claim the same results.

With time -and this is a sad history- Barrow’s star should decline, retired to monastic studies far from math. He evolved to write Collins that their superiors -in his Order- had completely ”forbidden” him to do study in any mathematical research, and it is rumored he eventually overdoped opium until death. He was not there, then, to discuss with Newton about the Principia.

The limit of Newton’s Proposition 1 was ultimately justified in empirical grounds: it fitted the known dynamics of physical bodies. It should take centuries to verify that the fit was wrong.


format: text

text:
# The Supranova Model and Its Implications

## 1. Introduction

There is mounting evidence that the progenitors of long-duration ($`>2\mathrm{s}`$) gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are massive stars that collapse to form stellar-mass black holes or strongly magnetized and rapidly rotating neutron stars. Up until recently, the prevalent scenario has been the “collapsar” model, in which the GRB event directly follows the stellar collapse (e.g., Woosley, these Proceedings). This picture is consistent with the identification in a few GRBs of a possible signature of a nearly simultaneous supernova Ib/Ic explosion. In one commonly discussed realization of this scenario, the duration of the burst is determined by the accretion time of the unexpelled stellar material through the debris disk that forms around the newly created central black hole (BH).

Vietri & Stella (1998) proposed an alternative to the collapsar picture, dubbed the “supranova” model, in which the supernova (SN) explosion initially results in the formation of a comparatively massive, magnetized neutron star (NS) endowed with rapid rotation. This “supramassive” NS (SMNS) is envisioned to gradually lose rotational support through a pulsar-type wind111It is assumed in what follows that angular momentum loss by gravitational waves remains relatively unimportant. until it eventually becomes unstable to gravitational collapse (leading to the formation of a BH and the triggering of a GRB). The original motivation for the supranova model was the desire to identify a comparatively “baryon clean” environment in which the high ($`>100`$) Lorentz factors inferred in the prompt high-energy emission region could be attained. (In the proposed picture, the gas around the GRB progenitor is swept out by the expanding SN ejecta over the spindown time of the SMNS.) As discussed below, subsequent considerations of this scenario have revealed that it also has the potential of providing a natural interpretation of several key observational features of GRB afterglows.

## 2. The Supranova Scenario

### 2.1. SMNS Evolution

An SMNS is a general-relativistic equilibrium configuration of a uniformly rotating NS whose mass exceeds (by up to $`20\%`$, for realistic equations of state) the maximum mass of a nonrotating NS (e.g., Cook et al. 1994; Salgado et al. 1994).222Differential rotation may support a significantly larger mass against gravitational collapse, allowing the formation of a hypermassive NS (e.g., Baumgarte et al. 2000). However, a differentially rotating NS is estimated to evolve to a uniform rotation profile (through magnetic field amplification and viscosity) on a timescale much shorter than the spindown time of a uniformly rotating star (e.g., Shapiro 2000). Therefore, in contrast with supramassive configurations, hypermassive neutron stars above the supramassive mass limit are not expected to exhibit significant delays between NS formation and collapse to a BH. An SMNS that loses angular momentum and energy adiabatically while conserving its total baryon mass follows an evolutionary sequence that brings it to a point where it becomes unstable to axisymmetric (and possibly first to nonaxisymmetric) perturbations, which result in collapse to a BH.

For an SMNS of mass $`M_{}`$, radius $`R_{}`$, angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$, disposable (before the SMNS collapses) rotational energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{rot}}=\alpha GM_{}^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{}/2c10^{53}\mathrm{ergs}`$, and surface magnetic field $`B_{}`$, the spindown time due to a pulsar-type wind is

$$t_{\mathrm{sd}}=4\left(\frac{\alpha }{0.5}\right)\left(\frac{M_{}}{2M_{}}\right)^2\left(\frac{R_{}}{15\mathrm{km}}\right)^6\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{10^4\mathrm{s}^1}\right)^3\left(\frac{B_{}}{10^{12}\mathrm{G}}\right)^2\mathrm{yr},$$

which can range from several weeks to several years for plausible values of $`M_{}`$, $`R_{}`$, and $`B_{}`$ ($`10^{12}10^{13}\mathrm{G}`$).

One possible scenario of how the formation of a BH could trigger the GRB outburst is that a transient debris disk comprising the outer layers of the SMNS is left behind when the bulk of the SMNS collapses, and that the stellar magnetic field threading this material is amplified by differential rotation to $`>10^{14}\mathrm{G}`$ and drives a Poynting flux-dominated outflow from the disk surfaces (e.g., Mészáros & Rees 1997; Vlahakis & Königl, these Proceedings).

### 2.2. Theoretical Foundations of the Model

Only a small fraction of newly formed neutron stars could belong to the supramassive class: this is consistent with the fact that GRBs are rare events, but so far our knowledge of how a rotating star collapses is not sufficient to make an a priori determination of this fraction. However, the results already available suggest that this fraction may well be nonnegligible. For example, numerical simulations of nonrotating stars have been used to infer that the distribution of NS masses produced through core collapse may be flat beyond the $`1.21.6M_{}`$ range where it peaks (Fryer & Kalogera 2001). Not unexpectedly, when rotation is included, the simulations yield more massive remnants (Fryer & Heger 2000). The NS angular velocity distribution derived from stellar-evolution calculations is sensitive to the adopted assumptions. These studies indicate that, in the absence of magnetic angular-momentum transport, newly formed neutron stars will likely rotate near breakup (Heger et al. 2000). Recently proposed prescriptions for the inclusion of magnetic effects (e.g., Spruit 2002) imply strong angular-momentum transport and comparatively low initial values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ (Heger & Woosley 2002), but their validity remains uncertain. In fact, scaling arguments from white-dwarf systems suggest that core-to-envelope angular momentum transport in pulsar progenitors may be rather inefficient (Livio & Pringle 1998).

Another relevant question is whether a debris disk — perhaps the most likely origin of a GRB outflow – is left behind when the SMNS eventually collapses to a BH. Although a collapsing supramassive compact object with a soft equation of state could leave behind up to $`10\%`$ of its mass in the form of a rotationally supported disk (e.g., Shapiro & Shibata 2002), realistic SMNS equations of state might be too stiff in this regard, with the implication that the entire SMNS would collapse (e.g., Shibata et al. 2000). However, comparatively stiff SMNS configurations could reach the mass-shedding limit before they become dynamically unstable (e.g., Cook et al. 1994), so in principle such stars might also give rise to a BH surrounded by a highly magnetized debris disk.333Although additional material (e.g., some of the fallback from the original SN explosion) could surround the newly formed BH, this gas would not be as highly magnetized as the SMNS matter and therefore might not contribute significantly to the GRB outflow.

## 3. GRB Afterglows in Pulsar-Wind Bubbles

The supranova scenario also has important implications to GRB afterglows. In particular, the bubble created by the SMNS pulsar-type wind provides an environment that can account for both the high fraction ($`ϵ_e`$) of the internal energy residing in relativistic electrons and positrons and the high magnetic-to-internal energy ratio ($`ϵ_B`$) that have been inferred in the afterglow emission regions of a number of sources through spectral modeling. The deduced values of $`ϵ_e`$ ($`>0.1`$; e.g., Panaitescu & Kumar 2002) are hard to explain in a standard \[interstellar-medium (ISM) or stellar-wind\] environment, especially for long-lasting afterglows. The values of $`ϵ_B`$ are typically inferred to be not much smaller than $`ϵ_e`$ (for example, spectral fits to the GRB 970508 afterglow have yielded $`ϵ_B`$ estimates in the range $`0.011`$). These estimates are again problematic for GRB outflows that propagate into a standard ambient medium, since $`ϵ_B`$ will only be $`10^{10}`$ for a Milky Way-like ISM and at most $`10^4`$ for a magnetized stellar-wind environment.

The comparatively high values of $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ can, however, arise naturally in a pulsar-wind bubble (PWB), since the composition of relativistic pulsar winds is likely dominated by an $`e^+e^{}`$ component, and since such winds are often characterized by a high magnetization parameter $`\sigma _w=B_w^2/4\pi \rho _wc^2`$ (the Poynting-to-particle energy flux ratio, where $`B_w`$ is the magnetic field amplitude and $`\rho _w`$ is the rest-mass density, both measured in the wind frame). This has been explicitly demonstrated by Königl & Granot (2002; hereafter KG02).

KG02 constructed a PWB model based on a number of simplifications — including spherical symmetry, negligible ambient mass, a steady state, pure $`e^+e^{}`$ composition, a monoenergetic pair distribution at each radius, and a dominant azimuthal magnetic-field component. In their representation, the SMNS-driven pulsar-type wind shocks at a radius $`R_s`$ and fills the volume between $`R_s`$ and the radius $`R_b`$ of the swept-up SN-ejecta shell with a relativistic fluid consisting of “hot” $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs and electromagnetic fields. The ejecta shell (of mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}10M_{}`$) is accelerated by the bubble (becoming compressed and fragmented in the process) and expands at a speed $`v_b(\mathrm{\Delta }E_{\mathrm{rot}}/M_{\mathrm{ej}})^{1/2}0.1c`$. The afterglow emission is attributed to the bow shock of a GRB jet that propagates between $`R_s`$ and $`R_b`$. KG02’s choice of wind parameters was guided by recent observations of the Crab and Vela SN remnants (SNRs), and their model incorporates synchrotron-radiation cooling (parameterized by $`a_1`$ synchrotron cooling time in units of $`R_b/c`$)444As was pointed out by Guetta & Granot (2003; hereafter GG03), the effect of cooling on the PWB structure is less important if ions dominate the wind particle energy flux. and a possible departure from ideal MHD (associated with an “equipartition” upper bound on the electromagnetic-to-thermal pressure ratio) in the shocked-wind zone.

KG02 showed that their model can account for the inferred values of $`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ as well as for the deduced range of ambient densities in GRB afterglows (e.g., Panaitescu & Kumar 2002). In this interpretation, the ambient density is not dominated by the baryon rest mass as in the standard picture, but rather by the relativistic inertia of the shocked wind and compressed electromagnetic fields, so the effective preshock hydrogen number density is given by

$$n_{\mathrm{H},\mathrm{equiv}}=\frac{4p+(B+E)^2/4\pi }{m_\mathrm{p}c^2},$$

where $`p`$, $`B`$, and $`E`$ are, respectively, the particle pressure and the magnetic and electric field amplitudes in the PWB (all measured in the fluid rest frame). By using the parameterization $`n_{\mathrm{H},\mathrm{equiv}}(r)r^k`$, it was found that $`k`$ takes on a range of values (determined by $`\sigma _w`$, $`a_1`$, and the location within the bubble) that encompass both a uniform-ISM and a stellar-wind radial density profiles. The derived solutions have demonstrated that in the context of this scenario it is possible to explain how a GRB with a massive stellar progenitor can produce an afterglow that shows no evidence of either a stellar wind or a high-density environment, which has been hard to understand in the standard picture. Additional observational implications of the PWB interpretation are discussed by Guetta & Granot in these Proceedings.

## 4. Interpretation of X-ray Features

As reviewed in one of this Workshop’s sessions, several afterglow sources have shown evidence for X-ray emission (and absorption) features, which have been identified as either Fe or primarily “light”-element (Mg, Si, S, Ar, Ca) transitions. Although it has been recognized early on that these features are consistent with an origin in a large-scale SNR shell and could thus lend support to the supranova model, alternative explanations that might be compatible with the collapsar model have also been proposed (e.g., Kallman et al. 2001). In the following paragraphs I first summarize the interpretation of the reported emission features that was outlined in KG02, and then I discuss its implications to the supranova scenario.

In the supranova picture, the emission is induced by continuum irradiation from the central region around the time of the burst. Light-travel effects limit the solid angle from within which emission is received at time $`t`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }(t)/4\pi =[1\mathrm{cos}\theta (t)]/2=ct/2(1+z)R_b`$, where $`z`$ is the source redshift. For example, in the case of GRB 991216 (observed between 37 and $`40.4\mathrm{hr}`$; Piro et al. 2000), the model implies that the detected emission originated at polar angles $`\theta 27^{}28^{}`$ with respect to the jet axis. The emission feature is interpreted as Fe XXV He$`\alpha `$ from a photoionized gas of ionization parameter $`\xi L_i/nR_b^210^3`$, where $`L_i`$ is the ionizing continuum luminosity. For $`L_i=4\pi D^2F_x=6.1\times 10^{45}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`M_{\mathrm{Fe}}0.1M_{}`$, and $`T10^6\mathrm{K}`$, one infers $`R_b2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{cm}`$. Since the expansion time to $`R_b10^{16}\mathrm{cm}`$ at a speed $`v_b0.1c`$ is $`10^2`$ days, this estimate is consistent with the bulk of the SN-ejected radioactive 56Ni decaying into 56Fe. The estimated density is $`n2\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, which likely corresponds to clumps in the Rayleigh-Taylor unstable SNR shell. If the clumps have a covering factor $`1`$ and an iron abundance a few times solar, then the implied Thomson optical depth $`\tau _T`$ is $`<1`$ and the Fe photoionization optical depth is a few, which are optimal for producing high–equivalent-width iron lines through reflection.555Reflection from a medium with $`\tau _T1`$ is, however, also a possibility; e.g., Ballantyne et al. (2002).

The identification of X-ray features in a source like GRB 011211 with “light” elements (Reeves et al. 2002) can be interpreted in this picture in terms of a bubble characterized by $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}\mathrm{weeks}`$ (rather than months), in which iron has not yet formed in the shell (Granot & Guetta 2002).

The value of $`R_b`$ inferred from modeling the X-ray emission feature in GRB 991216 is smaller (by about an order of magnitude) than the distance deduced from spectral fits to the continuum afterglow emission. As was pointed out by KG02, a plausible resolution of this apparent discrepancy is that, rather than being spherical, the PWB is, in fact, elongated along the SMNS rotation axis. (Further discussion of this possibility, as well as additional arguments against a simple spherical model, are given in GG03.) Such a morphology is a likely outcome of the PWB structure and of its origin. In particular,

$``$ The supernova explosion of a rapidly rotating progenitor star is likely to be nonspherical, and so is also the pulsar wind;

$``$ Both the SN ejecta and the environment into which the SNR expands (which was possibly shaped by earlier episodes of stellar mass loss during the red-supergiant and blue-supergiant evolutionary phases of the progenitor star) could have a highly anisotropic mass distribution;

$``$ Magnetic hoop stresses may act to strongly collimate the PWB (and possibly also the preceding stellar outflows), an effect enhanced by cooling (e.g., Chevalier & Luo 1994; Gardiner & Frank 2001).

In this interpretation, a narrow GRB jet moves within the PWB along the rotation axis, and the afterglow shock reaches much larger distances from the center than the spherical portion of the SNR shell from which the X-ray emission features originate. This picture could potentially be corroborated by observations.666Given, however, that a variety of factors could in principle prevent the effects discussed here from being observed, a failure to detect them in any given source would not necessarily constitute evidence against this interpretation. For example, it implies (on account of light-travel effects) a minimum onset time for the detectability of X-ray emission features. There have already been several reported null detections of such features in sensitive X-ray observations of GRB sources: the above picture suggests that continuing the search in sources like these at later times might be worth while. Another implication of the above interpretation is that the polar region of the bubble expands faster (by a factor of up to $`10`$) than the lower-latitude SNR shell where the emission features are produced. If a dense SN-ejecta clump located near the major axis of the PWB was carried out by the expanding bubble and happened to intercept our line of sight, then an absorption feature with an implied blueshift significantly larger than that of the emission feature might be detected.777A preliminary report on a tentative detection of such an absorption feature in GRB 011211 was given in F. Frontera’s presentation in this Workshop.

## 5. Assessment of the Model

Several recent papers that scrutinized the supranova scenario have drawn attention to a number of potential weaknesses of this model. I now briefly summarize, and comment on, some of the issues that have been raised.

$``$ Occurrence of long bursts. It has been argued (e.g., Böttcher & Fryer 2001) that the supranova scenario is most likely to produce short bursts, rather than the long bursts to which this model has been applied. There are, however, potential alternatives to ongoing mass feeding (as in the collapsar model) for producing long disk lifetimes. They include a low disk viscosity (e.g., Popham et al. 1999; Ruffert & Janka 1999) and a magnetically mediated spin-up torque exerted by the BH (van Putten & Ostriker 2001).

$``$ Apparent evidence (from the detection of a reddened bump in the GRB lightcurve in a few sources) for a SN/GRB coincidence. If this interpretation is correct, it argues against a time delay between the SN explosion and the GRB event. However, alternative interpretations of these bumps have been proposed, including illumination of ambient dust by the GRB source (e.g., Esin & Blandford 2000; Waxman & Draine 2000) and (in the context of the supranova scenario) thermal emission from a PWB-heated SNR shell (Dermer 2002). Furthermore, as discussed by GG03, the SN/GRB time delay may span a range of values, with a near coincidence (as in the collapsar model) possibly characterizing a subset of sources.

$``$ Disruption of SNR shell. In contrast to the PWB model described in §3, Inoue et al. (2003) explored a scenario wherein the pulsar wind disrupts and penetrates through the SN-ejecta shell, producing a bubble whose size is about an order of magnitude larger than the SNR radius. One can argue, however, that since $`v_b`$ as calculated in the KG02 picture is much less than the wind speed ($`c`$), it is likely that the wind will shock and remain confined within the SNR shell. Existing numerical simulations of “plerionic” SNRs (e.g., Jun 1998) seem to be consistent with this conclusion, but additional studies that explicitly consider the case where the total wind energy greatly exceeds that of the SN and that explore strong departures from spherical symmetry would be useful.

$``$ Apparent need for fine-tuning. McLaughlin et al. (2002) observed that the typical shell size ($`10^{16}\mathrm{cm}`$) inferred in the supranova interpretation of the detected X-ray emission features translates into a characteristic value of the SN/GRB time delay: they questioned why this value would be constant from source to source and wondered whether it would be long enough to account for the decay of nickel in the SN ejecta into iron. However, as was noted in §4, there is now evidence for X-ray features arising in “light” elements rather than iron, which can be naturally interpreted in the supranova picture in terms of lower values of $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}`$. As was also noted in §4, the time delays required for iron to become dominant are consistent (in view of the $`0.1c`$ shell expansion speed estimated in the spherical model) with $`R_s`$ being $`>10^{16}\mathrm{cm}`$. Furthermore, as was pointed out by KG02, shells with sizes much larger than $`10^{16}\mathrm{cm}`$ would have densities that are too low to give rise to observable features. These considerations can explain why the inferred radii of iron-emitting shells are roughly the same. Another fine-tuning issue was raised by Woosley et al (2002), who called attention to the fact that SMNS configurations correspond to a limited NS mass range, especially in comparison with hypermassive neutron stars (in which significant SN/GRB time delays are not expected; see footnote 2). Although this statement is factually correct, it seems to be more of a description of a constraint that the model needs to satisfy (which may be part of the reason why GRBs are rare events) than of a serious flaw.

In summary, even though the ultimate verdict on this model will be provided by additional observations and theoretical calculations, it appears that none of the objections raised against it so far is compelling.

## 6. Conclusions

The supranova model shows great promise in that it naturally addresses several key modeling issues of GRBs and their afterglows:

$``$ a relatively baryon-free near-source environment (the pulsar-wind cavity) in which a high-Lorentz-factor outflow can be accelerated;

$``$ a pair-rich and potentially strongly magnetized environment further out (the pulsar-wind bubble) in which a high-$`ϵ_e`$ and $`ϵ_B`$ afterglow emission can arise;

$``$ a heavy element-enriched, extended dense medium (the clumpy SNR shell) in which the X-ray spectral features can be produced.

The model can readily account for a variety of observed behaviors in GRB afterglows, which may be classified according to the magnitude of the SMNS spin-down time $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ (expected to vary in the range of weeks to years). For example, X-ray features associated with “light” elements might arise when $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}\mathrm{weeks}`$, whereas Fe features could be found when $`t_{\mathrm{sd}}\mathrm{months}`$.

Simple preliminary estimates concerning the physical viability of this picture are encouraging, but more detailed studies of the formation and evolution of supramassive neutron stars and of the pulsar-wind bubbles that they drive are needed. Several unique observational predictions could serve to discriminate between this model and alternative scenarios.

## References

Ballantyne, D.R., et al.: 2002, A&A, 389, L74

Baumgarte, T.W., Shapiro, S.L.,& Shibata, M.: 2000, ApJ, 528, L29

Böttcher, M., & Fryer, C.L.: 2001, ApJ, 547, 338

Chevalier, R.A., & Luo, D.: 1994, ApJ, 421, 225

Cook, G., Shapiro, S.L., & Teukolsky, S. A.: 1994, ApJ, 424, 823

Dermer, C.D.: 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0211300)

Esin, A.A., & Blandford, R.: 2000, ApJ, 534, L151

Fryer, C.L., & Heger, A.: 2000, ApJ, 541, 1033

Fryer, C.L., & Kalogera, V.: 2001, ApJ, 554, 548

Gardiner, T.A., & Frank, A.: 2001, ApJ, 557, 250

Granot, J., & Guetta, D.: 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0211136)

Guetta, D., & Granot, J.: 2003, MNRAS, in press (GG03)

Heger, A., Langer, N., & Woosley, S.E.: 2000, 528, 368

Heger, A., & Woosley, S.E.: 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0206005)

Inoue, S., Guetta, D., & Pacini, F. 2003, ApJ, 583, 379

Jun, B.-I.: 1998, ApJ, 499, 282

Kallman, T.R., Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J.: 2001, preprint (astro-ph/0110654)

Königl, A., & Granot, J.: 2002, ApJ, 574, 134 (KG02)

Livio, M., & Pringle, J.E.: 1998, ApJ, 505, 339

McLaughlin, G.C., Wijers, R.A.M., & Brown, G.E.: 2002, ApJ, 567, 454

Mészáros, P., & Rees, M.J.: 1997, ApJ, 482, L29

Panaitescu, A., & Kumar, P.: 2002, ApJ, 571, 779

Piro, L., et al.: 2000, Science, 290, 955

Popham, R., Woosley, S.E., & Fryer, C.: 1999, ApJ, 518, 356

Reeves, J.N., et al.: 2002, Nature, 416, 512

Ruffert, M., & Janka, H.-Th.: 1999, A&A, 344, 573

Salgado, M., et al.: 1994, A&A, 291, 155

Shapiro, S.L.: 2000, ApJ, 544, 397

Shapiro, S.L., & Shibata, M.: 2002, ApJ, 577, 904

Shibata, M., Baumgarte, T.W., & Shapiro, S.L.: 2000, PhRvD, 61, 044012

Spruit, H.C.: 2002, A&A, 381, 923

van Putten, M.H.P.M., & Ostriker, E.C.: 2001, ApJ, 552, L21

Vietri, M., & Stella, L.: 1998, ApJ, 507, L45

Waxman, E., & Draine, B.: 2000, ApJ, 537, 796

Woosley, S.E., Zhang, W., & Heger, A.: 2002, preprint (astro-ph/0211063)


text:
# Surface scaling analysis of hydrogels: From multiaffine to self-affine scaling

## 1 Introduction

In a recent study  we proposed a frustrated spring-network model to simulate the surface structures of crosslinked polymer gels into which voids are introduced through templating by surfactant micelles. Experimentally, templated polyacrylamide gels are created by mixing acrylamide with a crosslinker in the presence of a surfactant . The resultant gels have a wide range of pore sizes, making them ideal materials for macromolecular separation . The crosslinking process introduces inhomogeneities in the spatial density of the gel that affect its surface configuration. Our results show that the surfaces generated by the spring-network model have a nontrivial, multiaffine scaling behavior at small length scales, with a crossover to scale-independent behavior on large scales.

At small length scales we found that the $`q`$th order increment correlation function has a power-law behavior, with $`q`$-dependent exponents that change with the vacancy concentration. However, experimental surfaces of surfactant-templated hydrogels studied by atomic force microscopy (AFM)  show $`q`$-independent self-affine scaling at length scales below the crossover length. In Ref.  we discussed the possibility that the multiaffine behavior was due to a finite density of vertical discontinuities due to overhangs in the simulated surfaces. Later work showed analytically and numerically that when vertical discontinuities are introduced into a self-affine surface, it becomes multiaffine . Here we extend this study to hydrogel surfaces, and we show that smoothing the simulated surfaces by convoluting them with a Gaussian changes the scaling behavior from multiaffine to self-affine, in agreement with the experimental AFM results. The smoothing process mimics the effect of the measurement process of an AFM tip interacting with the soft substrate.

## 2 The frustrated spring-network model

The model, described in detail in Ref. , consists of a two-dimensional triangular network of nodes interconnected by massless harmonic springs. The nodes represent the crosslinkers, and the springs correspond to the polymer chains. We impose periodic boundary conditions in the horizontal direction, while the top nodes are free to move in two dimensions. The bottom nodes are fixed, corresponding to bonding to a rigid substrate.

We assume that each spring corresponds to a collapsed polymer chain with equilibrium end-to-end length $`l_{0i}`$, which is randomly chosen with probability density

$$P(l_{0i})=2\gamma l_{0i}\mathrm{exp}(\gamma l_{0i}^2)$$
(1)
Thus, $`l_{0i}`$ is proportional to the square root of an exponentially distributed number of monomers between crosslinkers . The constant $`\gamma `$ is proportional to the inverse of the average number of monomers between crosslinkers. Consistent with the picture of a random-coil collapsed polymer chain, we require that the elastic constant of each spring, $`k_i`$, be proportional to its equilibrium length, $`k_i=1/l_{0i}`$ in dimensionless units .

For each statistical realization of the system, the equilibrium spring lengths are chosen independently according to Eq. (1). In the initial network configuration, all springs are placed on the bonds of a regular triangular lattice of unit lattice constant, such that all springs are stretched or compressed to unit length, $`l_i=1`$. This initial configuration is highly stressed. However, by choosing the value of $`\gamma `$ such that the average force exerted by each spring is zero, we ensure that the initial configuration is not globally stressed. From the initial configuration, the system is relaxed to one of its many local energy minima by a limited-memory Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (L-BFGS) quasi-Newton minimization algorithm , and by repeating the calculations for several different realizations of the equilibrium spring lengths we verified that the statistical properties of the different relaxed configurations are essentially the same.

Spring networks of $`L_x\times L_y=1024\times 768`$ nodes were generated, and voids were introduced by randomly removing nodes and the springs connected to them. The Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm  was applied to eliminate clusters that were not connected to the fixed substrate, thus mimicking the removal of non-bonded material which is washed away during the experimental preparation.

## 3 Calculations

The one-dimensional surfaces are defined as the set of surface heights, $`h(x_i)`$, at equally spaced discrete horizontal points, $`x_i`$. The surface height at $`x_i`$, $`h(x_i)`$, is taken as the largest vertical distance, measured from the bottom, of the intersections of the springs with a vertical line at $`x_i`$, where each spring is represented by a straight line segment between the connected nodes. This definition of the surface is described in more detail in Ref. .

The $`q`$th order generalized increment correlation function is defined as

$$C_q(r)=|h(x_0+r)h(x_0)|^q$$
(2)
For many surfaces, $`C_q`$ displays a power-law behavior, such that

$$C_q(r)r^{qH_q}$$
(3)
where $`H_q`$ is the generalized Hurst exponent . For self-affine surfaces, the scaling behavior is independent of $`q`$, $`H_q=H`$, but for multiaffine surfaces, there is an infinite hierarchy of scaling exponents, such that $`H_q`$ depends continuously on $`q`$, at least for some range of $`q`$ values and length scales .

Very often surfaces present a mixed behavior. For length scales smaller than some crossover, $`r<l_\times `$, $`C_q`$ displays a non-trivial scaling behavior, while at length scales larger than this crossover, $`r>l_\times `$, $`C_q`$ is constant, $`C_q(x)C_q^{\mathrm{sat}}`$. In our previous work  it was shown that the simulated gel surfaces are multiaffine, and the scaling exponents, crossover length scales, and saturation values of the increment correlation function are strongly dependent on the void concentration. Despite the fact that the experimental surfaces seem to have a similar dependence on the void concentration, one major difference between the simulated and experimental surfaces remains: The experimentally measured surfaces are clearly self-affine on short length scales , while the simulated surfaces are clearly multiaffine .

Recent work  indicates that vertical discontinuities are one important source of multiaffinity, and the surfaces generated by our model certainly have many vertical discontinuities caused by overhangs. Even with a weakly interacting AFM tip, experimental measurement of a soft surface, such as the polyacrylamide gels studied in , should have the effect of smoothing out any vertical discontinuities and overhangs, thus showing a self-affine surface, even if the real surface is multiaffine. To mimic the effect of passing a weakly interacting AFM tip over the spring-network surfaces, we have smoothed the simulated surfaces by convolution with a Gaussian of $`\sigma =0.1`$ in the dimensionless spatial units of the problem. This process eliminates the overhangs without changing the overall structural properties of the surfaces.

Figure 1 shows a detail of the generated surface and the smoothed surface. Figure 2 shows the $`q`$th root of the generalized increment correlation function $`C_q^{1/q}(r)`$ for systems with $`0\%,40\%`$, and $`49.5\%`$ vacancies, for both the original and smoothed surfaces. It is evident that when the discontinuities are eliminated by smoothing, the $`H_q`$ values become independent of $`q`$, thus indicating that the surfaces are no longer multiaffine but have become self-affine after smoothing. The $`H_q`$ exponents are plotted in Fig. 3 versus the void concentration for the original spring-network surfaces. For the smoothed surfaces, $`H_q=1.0`$ for all void concentrations, as expected for a smooth surface. The multiaffine scaling observed is consistent with that caused by vertical discontinuities .

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have shown that surfaces generated by a frustrated spring-network model can reproduce several aspects of the scaling behavior of surfaces of surfactant-templated polyacrylamide gels, as observed in recent AFM experiments . Both real and simulated surfaces show a nontrivial scaling behavior characterized by a power-law form of the increment correlation function at small and intermediate length scales. At larger length scales the increment correlation function reaches a saturation value. This large-scale behavior reflects the average network structure, while the small-scale behavior is due to microscopic density fluctuations. Below some crossover length, the experimental surfaces are self-affine while the original simulated surfaces are multiaffine. We show that after smoothing by convolution with a narrow Gaussian, which eliminates vertical discontinuities, the simulated surfaces become self-affine. Such smoothing mimics the effect of passing a weakly interacting AFM tip over the soft hydrogel surfaces. The large-scale behavior is not affected by the smoothing process.


text:
# On skew loops, skew branes and quadratic hypersurfaces

## 1 Introduction and formulation of results

In a lecture, given in 1966, H. Steinhaus asked the question: Do there exist smooth closed space curves without a pair of parallel tangents? Call such a curve a skew loop. Steinhaus conjectured that skew loops did not exist. The problem was solved by B. Segre in . Segre constructed examples of skew loops in 3-space but proved that no skew loops lie on an ellipsoid or an elliptic paraboloid. Thus skew loops have an aversion to quadrics.

These results were recently extended and refined by M. Ghomi and B. Solomon . On the one hand, the following theorem holds: Nonnegatively curved quadrics admit no skew loops. In particular, no skew loops lie on one sheet of a 2-sheeted hyperboloid. On the other hand, the converse is true: Any non-quadratic surface with a point of positive curvature admits a skew loop.

Another recent result on this subject : Every knot type can be realized by a skew loop.

A multi-dimensional version of the problem reads as follows. Let $`f:M^nV^{n+2}`$ be an immersion of a manifold to an affine space. One asks whether there are pairs of points $`x,yM`$ such that the tangent spaces $`df(T_xM)`$ and $`df(T_yM)`$ are parallel in $`V`$. Such pairs correspond to self-intersections of the image of the tangent Gauss map $`MG_n(V)`$ in the Grassman manifold $`G_n(V)`$ of $`n`$-dimensional non-oriented subspaces in $`V`$. Since dim $`G_n(V)=2n`$, these self-intersections generically occur in isolated points. An immersed closed connected codimension 2 manifold is called a skew brane if it is free from pairs of parallel tangents.

J. White  considered the case of $`M^n`$ immersed into the unit sphere $`S^{n+1}`$ in Euclidean space $`V^{n+2}`$. The main observation in this case is as follows: if $`xy`$ is a double normal of $`M`$, that is, the segment $`xy`$ is perpendicular to $`M`$ at both end points, and the points $`x`$ and $`y`$ are not antipodal then the tangent spaces $`T_xM`$ and $`T_yM`$ are parallel in $`V`$. This made it possible to estimate below the number of parallel tangents of $`M`$ by Morse theory of the distance squared function on $`M\times M`$, studied in a related paper . See  for recent results on double normals of immersed submanifolds in Euclidean space.

The goal of this note is to extend the above mentioned results on non-existence of skew loops and skew branes from convex quadratic surfaces to quadratic hypersurfaces of all signatures. Here is our main result.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`Q^{n+1}`$ be a non-degenerate quadratic hypersurface in a vector space $`V^{n+2}`$ and $`f:M^nQ`$ be a generic smooth immersion of a closed manifold. Then there exist distinct points $`x,yM`$ such that the tangent spaces $`df(T_xM)`$ and $`df(T_yM)`$ are parallel in $`V`$.

In particular, there are no generic skew loops on one-sheeted hyperboloids and hyperbolic paraboloids, a new result compared to . The meaning of the general position assumption is explained in section 2.

We give applications to two types of quadratic surfaces in 3-space: to one sheet of the 2-sheeted hyperboloid $`z^2x^2y^2=1,z>0`$ and to 1-sheeted hyperboloid $`x^2+y^2z^2=1`$.

###### Theorem 2

(i) Let $`\gamma `$ be a generic smooth closed immersed curve on one sheet of the 2-sheeted hyperboloid, and let $`a`$ be the number of its double points. Then $`\gamma `$ has at least $`a+2`$ pairs of tangent lines, parallel in the ambient space. (ii) Let $`\gamma `$ be a generic smooth closed immersed curve on the 1-sheeted hyperboloid, and assume that $`\gamma `$ is space-like: the quadratic form $`x^2+y^2z^2`$, evaluated on its tangent vector, is everywhere positive. Let $`a`$ be the number of double points of $`\gamma `$ and $`b`$ the number of intersections with its antipodal image. Then $`\gamma `$ has at least $`a+b`$ pairs of tangent lines, parallel in the ambient space. If $`a=b=0`$ then there are at least 2 pairs of parallel tangents.

Statement (i) of Theorem 2 holds for spherical curves that do not intersect their antipodal images – see .

Another result concerns non-existence of skew loops on developable surfaces in 3-dimensional Euclidean space. Let $`D^2`$ be a disc, embedded in the Euclidean space $`V^3`$ as a smooth ruled developable surface, and let $`\gamma `$ be a generic smooth closed immersed curve in $`D`$.

###### Theorem 3

There exists a pair of points on $`\gamma `$ with tangent lines, parallel in the ambient space.

Since cylinders are ruled developable surfaces, this theorem is in sharp contrast with a result from : the cylinder over any non centrally symmetric, strictly convex plane oval contains a skew loop. This skew loop goes around the cylinder and is not contained in a simply connected domain. Moreover, it was pointed out by D. Burago that Theorem 3 fails if the the developable surface contains flat pieces; in this case it may not be ruled.

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the interest and help of D. Burago, S. Duzhin, M. Ghomi, J. Landsberg, A. Malyutin, R. Matveyev, P. Pushkar’ and especially B. Solomon who introduced me to the subject. Part of work was done while I was visiting Max-Planck-Institut fur Mathematik in Bonn; I am grateful to the Institute for its invariable hospitality.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1

Assume that

$$Q^{n+1}=\{xV^{n+2}|xx=1\}$$

where dot denotes a (pseudo)Euclidean structure of signature $`(p+1,q),p+q=n+1,p,q0`$. The quadratic hypersurface $`Q`$ is the unit (pseudo)sphere. Let $`(x_1,\xi _1)`$ and $`(x_2,\xi _2)`$ be two contact elements of $`Q`$; here $`x_iQ`$ is the foot point and $`\xi _iT_{x_i}Q`$ is a hyperplane in the tangent space to $`Q`$. Assume that $`x_2\pm x_1`$, and let $`U`$ be the 2-dimensional subspace spanned by $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

The spaces $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are parallel in $`V`$ if and only if they are both perpendicular to $`U`$.

Proof. Two $`n`$-dimensional spaces with the same orthogonal complement are parallel. Conversely, let $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ be parallel. Then their orthogonal complements in $`V`$ coincide. Note that the position vector $`x_i`$ is orthogonal to the (pseudo)sphere $`Q`$ and, therefore, to $`\xi _i`$. Hence the orthogonal complement of $`\xi _i`$ contains $`x_i`$, and the common orthogonal complement of $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ is $`U`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.2

One can reformulate Lemma 2.1 as follows. Consider the 2-parameter family of parallel codimension 2 affine subspaces in $`V`$, orthogonal to a given 2-dimensional vector space $`U`$. Then the locus of tangency of these affine subspaces with $`Q`$ is the intersection curve $`UQ`$. This curve is a geodesic on $`Q`$ for the (pseudo)metric, induced from $`V`$.

The next lemma extends a result of White  from spheres to all non-degenerate quadratic hypersurfaces. Let $`f:M^nQ`$ be an immersion. Consider the function on $`M\times M`$ given by the formula:

$`\varphi (x,y)=f(x)f(y).`$ (1)
###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`f(y)\pm f(x)`$. The spaces $`df(T_xM)`$ and $`df(T_yM)`$ are parallel in $`V`$ if and only if $`(x,y)`$ is a critical point of the function $`\varphi `$.

Proof. Let $`U`$ be the the 2-dimensional space spanned by $`f(x)`$ and $`f(y)`$. A point $`(x,y)`$ is critical for the function $`\varphi `$ if and only if $`f(x)`$ is orthogonal to $`df(T_yM)`$ and $`f(y)`$ is orthogonal to $`df(T_xM)`$. Also $`f(x)`$ is orthogonal to $`T_{f(x)}Q`$ and hence to $`df(T_xM)`$, and likewise, $`f(y)`$ is orthogonal to $`df(T_yM)`$. Thus $`(x,y)`$ is critical for $`\varphi `$ if and only if $`U`$ is orthogonal to the spaces $`df(T_xM)`$ and $`df(T_yM)`$. By Lemma 2.1, this holds if and only if these two spaces are parallel. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.4

A special degenerate case of a quadratic hypersurface is the graph of a quadratic form. Let $`V=W𝐑`$ where space $`W`$ has a non-degenerate quadratic form $`\tau `$, and let

$$Q=\{(x,z)V|z=\tau (x)\}.$$

Denote by $`\pi `$ the projection of $`V`$ to $`W`$. Let $`f:M^nQ`$ be an immersion and let $`g=\pi f`$. Consider the function on $`M\times M`$ given by the formula:

$$\psi (x,y)=\tau (g(x)g(y)).$$

Then an analog of Lemma 2.3 reads as follows: for $`g(y)g(x)`$, the spaces $`df(T_xM)`$ and $`df(T_yM)`$ are parallel in $`V`$ if and only if $`(x,y)`$ is a critical point of the function $`\psi `$.

The proof of Theorem 1 proceeds as follows. Let $`f:M^nQ^{n+1}`$ be an immersed skew brane such that the self-intersection of $`M`$ and its intersection with the antipodal image are transversal. This is the desired general position property. Consider the double and the antipodal double loci in $`M\times M`$:

$$A=\{(x,y)M\times M|yx,f(y)=f(x)\},$$

and

$$B=\{(x,y)M\times M|f(y)=f(x)\},$$

and let $`DM\times M`$ be the diagonal. Then $`A`$ and $`B`$ are closed submanifolds of dimensions $`n1`$ (cf. ). Furthermore we require that $`\varphi `$ in (1) is a Morse function on $`M\times MABD`$; this is also provided by the genericity of the immersion.

By Lemma 2.3, the function $`\varphi `$ has no critical points on $`M\times M`$ off the sets $`A,B`$ and $`D`$. We will show that this cannot be the case, and this contradiction will prove Theorem 1.

Recall that if a smooth function has a non-degenerate critical manifold then the tangent space to the critical manifold is the kernel of its Hessian. By Morse index one means the index of the Hessian in the normal bundle to the critical manifold – see, e.g., .

###### Lemma 2.5

The manifolds $`D,A`$ and $`B`$ are critical manifolds of the function $`\varphi `$ with the critical values $`1,1`$ and $`1`$, respectively. The manifolds $`A`$ and $`B`$ are non-degenerate, and the respective Morse indices equal $`p`$ and $`q`$. Let $`(x,x)`$ be a point of the diagonal $`D`$, and assume that the (pseudo)Euclidean structure on $`T_xM`$, induced by $`f`$ from $`V`$, is non-degenerate and has index $`r`$ (which can be equal to either $`q`$ or $`q1`$). Then the Morse index of $`D`$ at point $`(x,x)`$ equals $`nr`$.

Proof. Consider a point $`(x_1,x_2)M\times M`$, and let $`(u_1,u_2)`$ be a tangent vector to $`M\times M`$ at this point. Let $`(\gamma _1(t),\gamma _2(t))`$ be a curve on $`M\times M`$ such that $`\gamma _i(0)=x_i`$ and $`\gamma _i^{}(0)=u_i;i=1,2`$. Set: $`q_i(t)=f(\gamma _i(t))`$, and introduce the following notation: $`q_i(0)=y_i,q_i^{}(0)=v_i`$ and $`q_i^{\prime \prime }(0)=\eta _i`$. In particular, $`f(x_i)=y_i`$ and $`df(u_i)=v_i`$.

To compute the Hessian, we make calculations modulo $`t^3`$. One has:

$$q_i(t)=y_i+tv_i+\frac{1}{2}t^2\eta _i,$$

and therefore

$$\varphi (\gamma _1(t),\gamma _2(t))=y_1y_2+t(v_1y_2+y_1v_2)+\frac{t^2}{2}(\eta _1y_2+2v_1v_2+y_1\eta _2).$$

If $`(x_1,x_2)DAB`$ then $`y_2=\pm y_1`$ (plus for $`DA`$ and minus for $`B`$), and the linear terms vanish:

$$v_1y_2=y_1v_2=0.$$

Hence $`D,A`$ and $`B`$ are critical manifolds. Since $`q_i(t)q_i(t)=1`$ one has:

$$y_i\eta _i+v_iv_i=0.$$

Therefore

$`\varphi (\gamma _1(t),\gamma _2(t))=1{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}(v_1v_2)(v_1v_2)`$ (2)
for $`(x_1,x_2)DA`$ and

$`\varphi (\gamma _1(t),\gamma _2(t))=1+{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{2}}(v_1+v_2)(v_1+v_2)`$ (3)
for $`(x_1,x_2)B`$.

Assume that $`(x_1,x_2)A`$. According to (2), the Hessian of $`\varphi `$ is the quadratic form on $`T_{x_1}MT_{x_2}M`$ which is the composition

$$T_{x_1}MT_{x_2}MT_{y_1}Q𝐑,$$

where the first map is a linear epimorphism given by the formula

$`(u_1,u_2)df(u_1)df(u_2),`$ (4)
and the second map is negative the quadratic form on $`Q`$ given by the restriction of the (pseudo)Euclidean structure in $`V`$. The kernel of (4) is the tangent space to $`A`$ at point $`(x_1,x_2)`$, and the Morse index is equal to the index of the restriction of the (pseudo)Euclidean structure to $`Q`$. This structure in $`V`$ has signature $`(p+1,q)`$, and $`Q`$ is given by the equation $`xx=1`$. Therefore the restriction of the (pseudo)Euclidean structure to $`Q`$ has signature $`(p,q)`$, and the Morse index is equal to $`p`$.

A similar argument, with (3) replacing (2), shows that the Morse index of the critical manifold $`B`$ equals $`q`$.

An analogous argument works for the diagonal as well: by (2), the Hessian of $`\varphi `$ is the composition

$$T_xMT_xMT_{f(x)}Q𝐑,$$

where the first arrow (4) is a linear map onto $`df(T_xM)T_{f(x)}Q`$. The restriction of the quadratic form from $`Q`$ to $`df(T_xM)`$ has signature either $`(p1,q)`$ or $`(p,q1)`$, depending on the direction (“space-like” or “time-like”) of $`M`$ at point $`f(x)`$. Thus $`r`$ is either $`q`$ or $`q1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are ready to complete the proof of Theorem 1. Recall that we work toward a contradiction under the assumption that the function $`\varphi `$ has no critical points outside the manifolds $`A,B`$ and $`D`$. Consider two cases.

Case 1: $`q>0`$. Our assumption implies that $`\varphi `$ attains minimum $`1`$ on $`B`$. On the other hand, by Lemma 2.5, the Morse index of $`B`$ equals $`q`$, a positive number, hence $`B`$ is not a minimal critical manifold.

Case 2: $`q=0,p=n+1`$. Then the quadratic hypersurface $`Q`$ is the unit sphere, the cases studied in . Note that, by Lemma 2.5, the diagonal $`D`$ is a non-degenerate critical manifold with the Morse index $`n`$.

Recall the Morse inequalities for Morse-Bott functions, that is, functions with non-degenerate critical manifolds . Let $`g`$ be such a function on a closed manifold $`L`$ with critical submanifolds $`N_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, whose Morse indices are equal to $`\mu _i`$. Let $`P_t`$ denote the Poincaré polynomial in variable $`t`$ of a manifold with coefficients in a fixed field. Then the Morse inequalities can be written as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}t^{\mu _i}P_t(N_i)=P_t(L)+(1+t)Q_t`$ (5)
where $`Q_t`$ is a polynomial with non-negative coefficients.

Apply (5) in our situation. Let

$$P_t(A)=a_0+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_{n1}t^{n1},P_t(B)=b_0+b_1t+\mathrm{}+b_{n1}t^{n1}$$

and

$$P_t(D)=P_t(M)=1+d_1t+\mathrm{}+t^n.$$

Then the Morse inequalities read:

$$t^n(1+d_1t+\mathrm{}+t^n)+t^{n+1}(a_0+a_1t+\mathrm{}+a_{n1})+(b_0+b_1t+\mathrm{}+b_{n1}t^{n1})=$$

$$(1+d_1t+\mathrm{}+t^n)^2+(1+t)Q_t.$$

The coefficient of $`t^n`$ on the left hand side is 1, while on the right hand side it is not less than 2. This is a desired contradiction proving Theorem 1.

## 3 Loops on surfaces. Open questions

Let us prove Theorem 2. In the case of the hyperboloid $`z^2x^2y^2=1`$, one has: $`p=0,q=2`$. The set $`A`$ consists of $`2a`$ isolated points (a self-intersection counts twice: as $`(x,y)`$ and as $`(y,x)`$), each with the Morse index 0, and the set $`B`$ is empty. The Morse index of the diagonal $`D`$ equals 0. Let $`2d_0,2d_1`$ and $`2d_2`$ be the number of critical points of the function $`\varphi `$ outside $`DA`$; these numbers are even since $`\varphi `$ is invariant under the involution $`(x,y)(y,x)`$. The Morse inequalities read:

$$(1+t)+2a+(2d_0+2d_1t+2d_2t^2)=(1+t)^2+(1+t)(q_0+q_1t)$$

where $`q_0,q_10`$. It follows that

$$q_0=2a+2d_02a,2d_1=1+q_0+q_11+2a,2d_21.$$

Hence $`d_11+a,d_21`$, and $`d_1+d_22+a`$, as claimed.

Consider the hyperboloid $`x^2+y^2z^2=1`$. In this case $`p=q=1`$. The sets $`A`$ and $`B`$ consist of $`2a`$ and $`2b`$ isolated points, respectively, each with the Morse index 1. If $`\gamma `$ is space-like then the Morse index of the diagonal $`D`$ equals 0. The Morse inequalities read:

$$(1+t)+(2a+2b)t+(2d_0+2d_1t+2d_2t^2)=(1+t)^2+(1+t)(q_0+q_1t)$$

where $`q_0,q_10`$. It follows that

$$2d_0=q_0,2a+2b+2d_1=1+q_0+q_1,2d_2=1+q_1.$$

If $`a=b=0`$ then $`d_11,d_21`$, and $`d_1+d_22`$. Also $`2d_0+2d_2=1+q_0+q_12a+2b`$, and thus $`d_0+d_2a+b`$.

Now we proceed to the proof of Theorem 3. Recall the classification of ruled developable surfaces (see, e.g., ). Such a surface is either a cylinder or a cone or consists of tangent lines to a space curve (called the edge of regression). In either case, the tangent space to the surface remains the same along each ruling.

Let $`D`$ be a ruled embedded developable disc and $`\gamma `$ a closed immersed curve in it. Then $`D`$ is foliated by straight lines, the ruling of the developable surface. Unfold $`D`$ to the plane to obtain a plane domain $`\overline{D}`$ foliated by straight lines and an immersed curve $`\overline{\gamma }`$ in it. Assume that, for two distinct intersection points $`x,y`$ of $`\overline{\gamma }`$ with a leaf $`\overline{l}`$ of the foliation, the tangents $`T_x\overline{\gamma }`$ and $`T_y\overline{\gamma }`$ are parallel. Then the respective tangent lines to $`\gamma `$ lie in the plane, tangent to $`D`$ along the corresponding ruling $`l`$, and are parallel in this plane. Hence they are parallel in the ambient space. Thus Theorem 3 follows from the next lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`\overline{\gamma }`$ be a generic closed immersed curve in a simply connected plane domain, foliated by straight lines. Then there exist two distinct points $`x,y\overline{\gamma }`$ on the same leaf of the foliation, such that the tangents $`T_x\overline{\gamma }`$ and $`T_y\overline{\gamma }`$ are parallel.

Proof. This proof was proposed by A. Malyutin; another proof was given by R. Matveyev.

Let $`\overline{l}_t,t[0,1]`$, be the family of lines foliating the domain; we think of these lines as oriented from left to right. Assume that $`\overline{\gamma }`$ lies between $`\overline{l}_0`$ and $`\overline{l}_1`$, and that these lines touch the curve – see Figure 1. Let $`C_+(t)`$ and $`C_{}(t)`$ be the rightmost and the leftmost points of $`\overline{\gamma }\overline{l}_t`$. The curves $`C_\pm (t)`$ are piecewise smooth. Let $`\alpha _\pm (t)[0,\pi ]`$ be the angle between $`C_\pm (t)`$ and $`\overline{l}_t`$.

The functions $`\alpha _\pm (t)`$ are not continuous but their discontinuities are easily described. The three types of discontinuities of $`\alpha _{}(t)`$ are shown in Figure 2: in each case the graph of $`\alpha _{}(t)`$ has a descending vertical segment. Likewise, there are three types of discontinuities of $`\alpha _+(t)`$, and in each case the graph has an ascending vertical segment.

Note that, for $`t`$ close to 0, $`\alpha _{}(t)`$ is close to 0, while $`\alpha _+(t)`$ is close to $`\pi `$. Similarly, for $`t`$ close to 1, $`\alpha _{}(t)`$ is close to $`\pi `$ and $`\alpha _+(t)`$ is close to 0.

We claim that that the graphs of $`\alpha _{}(t)`$ and $`\alpha _+(t)`$ have a common point not on a vertical segment of either graph. Approximate both functions by smooth ones so that the vertical segments of the graphs become very steep: $`\alpha _{}^{}(t)0`$ and $`\alpha _+^{}(t)0`$ on the corresponding small intervals. Consider the function $`\beta (t)=\alpha _+(t)\alpha _{}(t)`$. For $`t`$ near 0, $`\beta (t)>0`$, and for $`t`$ near 1, $`\beta (t)<0`$. Let $`t_0`$ be the smallest zero of $`\beta (t)`$. Since $`\beta `$ changes sign from positive to negative, $`\beta ^{}(t_0)0`$. Therefore $`t_0`$ is not on the segments where $`\alpha _{}^{}(t)0`$ or $`\alpha _+^{}(t)0`$. Thus $`t_0`$ is a desired common value of the two angles. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.2

If the foliation consists of parallel lines, that is, the developable surface is (part of) a cylinder one can prove Lemma 3.1 as follows. Let $`xy`$ be the longest segment of a leaf bounded by its intersection with the curve $`\overline{\gamma }`$. Then the tangents $`T_x\overline{\gamma }`$ and $`T_y\overline{\gamma }`$ are parallel.

Likewise, assume that the foliation consists of the lines passing through a point $`0`$, that is, the developable surface is (part of) a cone. Let $`xy`$ be the segment of a leaf, $`x,y\overline{\gamma }`$, such that the ratio $`|Ox|/|Oy|`$ is greatest possible. Then the tangents $`T_x\overline{\gamma }`$ and $`T_y\overline{\gamma }`$ are parallel.

###### Remark 3.3

Let us describe an example of a simple skew loop on a developable disc, suggested by D. Burago. This developable surface contains flat regions and does not admit a continuous foliation by straight segments.

Take an equilateral triangle in the plane; its interior will be folded to make the desired embedding. Draw three lines near each corner, cutting across and not parallel to opposite sides. Fold smoothly along these lines so that the obtained surface consists of a flat hexagon with 3 triangular flaps (fins?) going more-or-less vertically. The curve $`\gamma `$ is a simple smooth convex curve that goes along the perimeter of the original triangle. After the flaps are folded, the curve doesn’t have parallel tangents in the ambient space.

We now pose some problems on skew loops and skew branes.

Problem 1. Give lower bounds on the number of pairs of parallel tangent spaces of $`M`$ in Theorem 1 in terms of the topology of $`M`$. Such lower bounds on the number of double normals of a generic immersed submanifold in Euclidean space are found in  (the estimates by Pushkar’ are sharp in some cases).

Problem 2. Extend Theorem 1 and lower bounds of Problem 2 to the case when $`M`$ is a wave front, Legendrian isotopic to a smooth manifold. We refer to  for such results on double normals.

Problem 3. Our proof of Theorem 1 is based on Morse theory of the distance function $`\varphi :M\times M𝐑`$. The proofs in  make use of the function $`\psi :M\times M\times S^N𝐑`$ given by $`\psi (x,y,v)=(xy)v`$; here $`M`$ is immersed in Euclidean space $`𝐑^{N+1}`$. Critical points of $`\psi `$ are double normals, and $`\psi `$ is invariant under the free action of $`𝐙_2`$ on the manifold $`M\times M\times S^N`$ sending $`(x,y,v)`$ to $`(y,x,v)`$. Can one apply this approach in the set-up of Theorem 1?

Problem 4. An immersion $`f:MQ`$ determines an immersion of $`M`$ to the space of geodesics $`G`$ of the pseudo-metric on $`Q`$: one assigns to a point of $`M`$ its normal line. One is looking for self-intersections of the image of $`M`$ in $`G`$. If the pseudo-metric on $`Q`$ is a metric (then $`Q`$ is either the sphere or the hyperbolic space) then the space of oriented geodesics $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ has a symplectic structure, and $`M`$ is immersed to $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ as a Lagrangian submanifold. What can be said in the pseudo-metric case?

Problem 5. Construct examples of skew branes. For instance, let $`N^nW^{n+1}`$ be a strictly convex non centrally symmetric closed hypersurface in vector space, and let $`n`$ be odd. Can one construct a smooth function $`g:N𝐑`$ such that its graph in $`V=W\times 𝐑`$ is a skew brane? For $`n=1`$ this is the Cylinder Lemma of .

Problem 6. Do Theorems 1 and 3 hold without the general position assumption (conjecturally, they do)? The property of being a skew loop or a skew brane is not open: a small perturbation of a skew loop may create parallel tangents at a pair of close points $`(x,y)M\times M`$ near the diagonal $`DM\times M`$. Thus one cannot simply argue by deforming a skew loop or a skew brane to a generic one.


text:
# Klein Paradox in Bosons

## 1 Introduction

In discussing problems and interactions in which the electron (or any fermion) is ”spread out” over distances large compared to its Compton wavelength, we may simply ignore the existence of the uninterpreted negative-energy solutions of the one-particle relativistic Dirac Equation  and hope of obtaining physically sensible and accurate results. This will not work, however, in situations which find electrons (or fermions) localized to distances comparable with $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{mc}`$. The negative frequency amplitudes will then be appreciable, Zitterbewegung  terms in the current important and indeed we shall find ourselves beset by paradoxes and dilemmas which defy interpretation within the framework of the one particle Dirac equation. A celebrated example of these difficulties is the Klein Paradox  for electrons, and in general for fermions. It is discussed in detail in numerous texts , and resolved using the hole-theory which provides the treatment of the negative energy states. The actual paradox is that in the situations under question, the coefficient of reflection for an electron beam or any current from a barrier is more than one. It is to be noted that all the energies under consideration are below the threshold of pair creation.

In this Letter we address the same problem for bosons. We explicitly show that the reflection coefficient is less than one and hence the scope of any paradox is nonexistant.

The plan of the Letter is as follows. In Section 2 we explain the formalism in some detail for the massive and massless bosons. Section 3 contains our results about the absence of Klein Paradix like phenomenon in the case of massive bosons. The corresponding result for massless bosons is presented in Section 4. We make some concluding remarks in Section 5.

## 2 Formalism

In order to address the problem of Klein Paradox, a single-particle relativistic quantum mechanics is necessary. For fermions, such a framework is provided by the Dirac Equation, though it eventually turns out to be a multiparticle equation. Such a consistent relativistic quantum mechanics for spin 0 and spin 1 bosons was provided by one of us . It has been shown in Ref  that a conserved four-current with a positive definite time component does exist for relativistic bosons, and is associated not with charge current but the flow of energy.

### 2.1 The Kemmer Formalism for massive bosons

The Kemmer equations for a massive spin 0 or spin 1 boson are

$`(i\beta ^\mu _\mu +m)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (1)
$`i^\mu \overline{\psi }\beta _\mu m\overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2)
where the Kemmer-Duffin-Petiau matrices satisfy the algebra

$$\beta _\mu \beta _\nu \beta _\lambda +\beta _\lambda \beta _\nu \beta _\mu =\beta _\mu g_{\nu \lambda }+\beta _\lambda g_{\nu \mu }$$
(3)
and $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}\eta _0`$ with $`\eta _0=2\beta _0^21`$. As a consequence of Eqn (3) one has

$$\eta _0\beta _0=\beta _0\eta _0=\beta _0,\eta _0^2=1$$
(4)
$$\eta _0\beta _i+\beta _i\eta _0=0,i=1,2,3.$$
(5)
We choose a representation in which $`\beta _i^{}=\beta _i(i=1,2,3)`$. The $`\beta _i`$ in Ref  correspond to what we call $`i\beta _i`$ and $`\beta _0^{}=\beta _0`$. There are two nontrivial representations of these $`\beta `$’s: one is $`5\times 5`$, which describe spin 0 bosons, the other is $`10\times 10`$, which describe spin 1 bosons. For their explicit forms the reader is referred to .

Multiplying (1) by $`^\rho \beta _\rho \beta _\nu `$, one can deduce,

$$_\nu \psi =^\rho \beta _\rho \beta _\nu \psi $$
(6)
and similarly

$$_\nu \overline{\psi }=^\rho \overline{\psi }\beta _\nu \beta _\rho $$
(7)
The second order wave equation

$`(\mathrm{}+m^2)\psi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8)
$`(\mathrm{}+m^2)\overline{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (9)
follow from (1) and (6) and (2) and (7) resepectively. A further cosequence of (1) and (2) is the conservation equation

$`_\mu j^\mu =0`$ (10)
$`j^\mu =\overline{\psi }\beta ^\mu \psi `$ (11)
Unfortunately, although $`j_\mu `$ is a conserved 4-vector, $`j_0`$ is not positive definite and cannot be interpreted as probability density, a feature common with the Klein- Gordon and Proca equations.

### 2.2 Massless Bosons

Harish Chandra  showed how the Kemmer formalism could be applied for the case of massless bosons without taking the limit $`m0`$. We restrict considerations to neutral particles only. Instead of (1), one writes

$$i\beta _\mu ^\mu \psi +m\gamma \psi =0$$
(12)
where $`\gamma `$ is a matrix satisfying

$`\gamma ^2=\gamma `$ (13)
$`\gamma \beta _\mu +\beta _\mu \gamma =\beta _\mu `$ (14)
Multiplying (12) by $`(1\gamma )`$ on the left, one obtains

$$i\beta _\mu ^\mu (\gamma \psi )=0$$
(15)
Multiplying (12) by $`_\lambda \beta ^\lambda \beta ^\nu `$ on the left, one also gets

$$^\lambda \beta _\lambda \beta _\nu (\gamma \psi )=_\nu (\gamma \psi )$$
(16)
The second order wave equation

$$\mathrm{}(\gamma \psi )=0$$
(17)
follows from (15) and (16) which show that $`\gamma \psi `$ is a massless boson.

### 2.3 Probability Interpretation

Although $`j_0`$ is not positive definite, the fact that a conserved four- vector current with a positive definite time component can be defined using this formalism as follows. Multiplying (1) by $`\beta _0`$, one obtains the Schrödinger form of the equation,

$$i\frac{\psi }{t}=[i\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i_im\beta _0]\psi $$
(18)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i=\beta _0\beta _i\beta _i\beta _0`$. Multiplying (1) by $`(1\beta _0^2)`$ one obtains

$$i\beta _i\beta _0^2_i\psi =m(1\beta _0^2)\psi .$$
(19)
If one multiplies Eqn (18) by $`\psi ^{}`$ from the left, its Hermitian conjugate by $`\psi `$ from the right and adds the equations, one obtains the continuity equation

$$\frac{\psi ^{}\psi }{t}+_i\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi =0$$
(20)
whence $`S_i=\psi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\psi `$ is the conserved four-vector current density in the direction $`i`$ with $`S_0=\psi ^{}\psi >0`$. For details the reader is referred to Ref , Sec 1.

## 3 Massive Bosons

In this section we present our results. We always consider a potential step at $`x=0`$ with the incident wave travelling along the positive $`x`$ axis.

### 3.1 Spin 1 Bosons

The Kemmer-Duffin-HarishChandra wave function in this case is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{A}{\sqrt{m}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi _1& \\ \psi _2& \\ \mathrm{}& \\ \psi _9& \\ \psi _{10}& \end{array}\right)$$
(21)
We consider the situation of a wave propagating along the positive x-axis with a potential step at x=0,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\sqrt{m}}}(0,0,E_0,0,E_0,0,0,0,0,0)^Te^{i(kx\omega t)}`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\sqrt{m}}}(0,0,E_0,0,E_0,0,0,0,0,0)^Te^{i(kx+\omega t)}`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{trans}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\sqrt{m}}}(0,0,E_0,0,\sqrt{ϵ}E_0,0,0,0,0,0)^Te^{i(k^{}x\omega t)}.`$ (24)
where $`ϵ`$ contains the information about the height of the barrier. The exact relation is not essential to the context of the problem.

Then $`\frac{S_{inc}}{S_{ref}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{inc}^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_{inc}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_i\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}}`$ for $`i=1,2,3.`$ In particular case that we treat we have $`i=1`$. Then some algebra gives $`\frac{S_{inc}}{S_{ref}}=\frac{|B|^2}{|A|^2}.`$

Matching $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{inc}+\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}=\mathrm{\Psi }_{trans}`$ at $`x=0,t=0`$, readily gives

$`A+B`$ $`=`$ $`C`$ (25)
$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{ϵ}C`$ (26)
whence $`\frac{|B|^2}{|A|^2}=\left(\frac{1\sqrt{ϵ}}{1+\sqrt{ϵ}}\right)^2`$. Thus the ratio $`\frac{S_{ref}}{S_{inc}}<1`$ which means that no effect analogous to Klein paradox occurs in the case of Spin 1 massive bosons.

### 3.2 Spin 0 Bosons

For a wave propagating along $`i=1`$, with $`x_0=t`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{inc}`$ $`=`$ $`A(k,0,0,ik_0,1)e^{i(k_0x_0kx)}`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ref}`$ $`=`$ $`B(k,0,0,ik_0,1)e^{i(k_0x_0+kx)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{trans}`$ $`=`$ $`C(k^{},0,0,ik_0^{},1)e^{i(k_0^{}x_0k^{}x)}`$
which are special cases of

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _1& \\ \varphi _2& \\ \varphi _3& \\ \varphi _0& \\ \varphi & \end{array}\right)$$
(28)
where $`\varphi _i=_i\varphi `$ and $`\varphi =e^{ik_\mu x_\mu }=e^{i(k_0x_0kx)}.`$ The barrier is as usual at $`x=0`$ and the information about $`x>0`$ is incorporated in $`k^{}`$ and $`k_0^{}`$. Since $`S_i=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\beta _i\mathrm{\Psi }`$ for all $`i`$ and

$$\beta _1=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 0& 0& i& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ i& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \end{array}\right)$$
(29)
$`\frac{S_{ref}}{S_{inc}}=\frac{|B|^2}{|A|^2}=\left|\frac{B}{A}\right|^2.`$

The set of Eqns (27) evaluated at $`x=0,x_0=0`$ give

$`AB`$ $`=`$ $`C(k^{}/k)`$ (30)
$`A+B`$ $`=`$ $`C(k_0^{}/k_0)`$
$`A+B`$ $`=`$ $`C`$
Now $`E^2=\mathrm{}^2c^2(k_0^2k^2)+m_0^2c^4`$ for $`x<0`$ and $`E^2=\mathrm{}^2c^2(k_0^2k^2)+m_0^2c^4`$ for $`x>0`$. If the frequency of the wave does not change on moving into the potential i.e.,changing the media, which is indeed the case, then $`k_0^{}=k_0`$ and consequently $`k^2>k^2.`$

Finally, Eqn (30) gives $`|\frac{B}{A}|=\left(\frac{1k^{}/k}{1+k^{}/k}\right)^2.`$

Hence there is no evidence of Klein Paradox in the system under question as the reflection coefficient is less than 1.

## 4 Massless Bosons

In this case we will only be considering neutral bosons of spin 1, i.e, photons. Using the Harish Chandra formalism , we have for a beam of photons propagating along the positive $`x`$ axis,

$$\gamma \mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ 0& \\ E_z& \\ 0& \\ H_y& \\ 0& \\ 0& \\ 0& \\ 0& \\ 0& \end{array}\right)$$
(31)
The barrier is again placed at $`x=0`$. Let

$`E_z^i`$ $`=`$ $`E_0e^{i(kx\omega t\varphi )}`$ (32)
$`E_z^r`$ $`=`$ $`E_0\sqrt{R}e^{i(kx\omega t+\varphi )}`$
$`E_z^t`$ $`=`$ $`E_0\sqrt{T}e^{i(k^{}x\omega t+\chi )}.`$
Maxwell’s Equations then at once give (using $`_xE_z=_tH_y`$)

$`H_y^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\omega }}E_0e^{i(kx\omega t\varphi )}`$ (33)
$`H_y^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\omega }}E_0\sqrt{R}e^{i(kx+\omega t+\varphi )}`$
$`H_y^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\omega }}E_0\sqrt{T}e^{i(k^{}x\omega t\chi )}.`$
Now, $`S_i=[E\times H]_i`$ is the (Poynting vector) current density as given by . Thus from Eqns (32) and (33)

$$\frac{S_x^{ref}}{S_x^{inc}}=R.$$
(34)
Matching $`E_z^iE_z^r=E_z^t`$ at $`x=0,t=0`$ gives at once

$$R=\frac{S_x^{ref}}{S_x^{inc}}=\left(\frac{k^{}/k1}{k^{}/k+1}\right)^2<1.$$
(35)
Thus there is no signature of Klein Paradox in the case of photons.

## 5 Conclusion

The Klein Paradox was a generic problem for the Dirac equation that was resolved very soon after its inception. The Klein- Gordon equation also shows the paradox  where it is an artefact of its not being a proper quantum mechanical equation with a positive definite probability density. However, to the best of our knowledge the question has never been asked, lest answered for bosons. This Letter asks that natural question and conclusively answers it by proving that the Klein paradox does not exist in the case of bosons. The paradox for fermions was resolved using the Hole theory by Dirac. Here too, the relativistic equations for spin 0 and spin 1 bosons are used. As has been shown in Section 2, the Klein-Gordon equation which is generally used to describe spin 0 particles can be deduced from the basic equation of Kemmer. For a similar deduction of Maxwell’s equations the reader is referred to Ref , Sec 5. Our results, based on sound mathematical footing answer a basic question. However, there have been recent results based on Bohmian trajectories  showing the absence of Klein paradox in the case of outgoing scattering asymptotics.

## Acknowledgements

P. G. acknowledges financial support from DST, Government of India. A. D. thanks the S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences for hospitality that enabled this work to be undertaken.

The authors also thank the reviewers whose comments helped improve the clarity of presentation.


text:
# Feedback Loops Between Fields and Underlying Space Curvature: an Augmented Lagrangian Approach

## Abstract

We demonstrate a systematic implementation of coupling between a scalar field and the geometry of the space (curve, surface, etc.) which carries the field. This naturally gives rise to a feedback mechanism between the field and the geometry. We develop a systematic model for the feedback in a general form, inspired by a specific implementation in the context of molecular dynamics (the so-called Rahman-Parrinello molecular dynamics, or RP-MD). We use a generalized Lagrangian that allows for the coupling of the space’s metric tensor (the first fundamental form) to the scalar field, and add terms motivated by RP-MD. We present two implementations of the scheme: one in which the metric is only time-dependent \[which gives rise to ordinary differential equation (ODE) for its temporal evolution\], and one with spatio-temporal dependence \[wherein the metric’s evolution is governed by a partial differential equation (PDE)\]. Numerical results are reported for the (1+1)-dimensional model with a nonlinearity of the sine-Gordon type.

Recently, much attention has been focused on soft-condensed-matter objects, such as vesicles, microtubules, and membranes . Many nanoscale physical systems, including nanotubes and electronic and photonic waveguide structures , have nontrivial geometry and are influenced by substrate effects. These classes of systems, many of which are inherently nonlinear, raise the question of the interplay between nonlinearity and a substrate with variable curvature. Of particular interest is a possibility of developing curvature in the substrate due to forces generated by the nonlinear field. The resulting curvature can in turn affect the field.

There is an increasing body of literature dealing with the interplay of nonlinearity and a curved substrate. Usually, however, the substrate geometry is assumed to be fixed, see, e.g., . Nevertheless, for many applications, ranging from condensed matter to optics to biophysics, it is relevant to introduce models that admit a flexible substrate, which is affected by the field(s) that it carries, as well as feeding back into the field dynamics. In this situation, equations for the fields in a nonlinear system abutting on the flexible substrate should include both the field dynamics proper and the feedback coupling to the substrate. Equations for the evolution of the substrate should in turn be affected by the evolution of the field. A prototypical physical example of this type is Euler buckling , where the evolution of a thermal profile causes the underlying surface to buckle (and hence locally modify its curvature).

In a discrete setting, a model of this type has recently been presented in . However, it was limited to a system of masses coupled by nonlinear springs. Some studies have also been performed in a special case of the continuum limit of classical spin systems (such as the Heisenberg chain) coupled to the curvature; geometric frustration was found to arise in such settings .

About twenty years ago, a problem similar to the theme of our study was examined in the context of molecular dynamics studies of structural transitions in crystals. In particular, in a series of papers , Rahman and Parrinello introduced a new idea for studying such transitions by means of an augmented Lagrangian that would account for the degrees of freedom of the “box” (the cell) in which the MD particles lie. In studying the time evolution of the box dynamics (naturally obtained through the Euler-Lagrange equations of the augmented Lagrangian for the box degrees of freedom), they were able to identify structural transitions (under external shear) from square to hexagonal patterns, fcc to bcc etc. We will hereafter refer to this technology as the RP-MD method. The relevant Lagrangian for the particles and the box in this case reads:

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}m_i\dot{𝐬}_iG\dot{𝐬}_i\underset{i,j>i}{}V(r_{ij})+\frac{1}{2}W\mathrm{Tr}(\dot{f}^\mathrm{T}\dot{f}),$$
(1)
where $`m_i`$ is the mass of the $`i`$-th particle, $`\dot{𝐬}_i`$ is its vectorial velocity, the spatial part $`G`$ of the spatiotemporal metric tensor may be represented in terms of another matrix $`f`$ as $`G=f^\mathrm{T}f`$ ($`G`$ is positive definite). T and $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ denote the transposition and trace respectively, $`r_{ij}`$ and $`V`$ are distances between the particles and the potential of interaction between them, and $`W`$ is an effective mass of the box.

Our purpose in this work is to extend the RP-MD methodology to the case of a continuum scalar field, coupled to either a spatially averaged geometric characteristic (“average curvature”), which will give rise to an ODE, or to a spatiotemporal curvature field, that will generate a PDE. The continuum field may represent, e.g., a chemical concentration propagating over a membrane, or a salt solution, causing the swelling of a polymer gel , or an envelope wave of the electric field in nanosystems. The spatiotemporal metric is assumed to have the simple form,

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& G\end{array}\right).$$
(2)
We will first consider the general case, where $`G`$ is a $`d\times d`$ matrix, $`d`$ being the space dimension.

One can define a field-type generalization of the RP-MD model, with a scalar field $`\varphi `$, as follows:

$$L=d^dx\left[g^{ij}\frac{\varphi }{x^i}\frac{\varphi }{x^j}V(\varphi )\right]+\frac{1}{2}W\mathrm{Tr}(\dot{f}^\mathrm{T}\dot{f}),$$
(3)
where $`V(\varphi )`$ is a potential governing the nonlinear evolution of the field $`\varphi `$ and $`f=f(t)`$ (only). If $`f`$ (and hence $`G`$) is a function of both spatial coordinates and time, an elastic-energy term  should be added to the Lagrangian (3), so that it becomes

$`L={\displaystyle d^dx\left[g^{ij}\frac{\varphi }{x^i}\frac{\varphi }{x^j}V(\varphi )\right]}+`$

$$d^dx\left\{\frac{1}{2}W\left[\mathrm{Tr}(\dot{f}^\mathrm{T}\dot{f})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\frac{f^\mathrm{T}}{x_i}\frac{f}{x^i})\right]\right\}.$$
(4)
An objective of this brief report is to propose two models that include the feedback to the curvature, and, simultaneously, admit as particular solutions the (unperturbed) solutions for the flat (original) metric. In particular, we choose $`G=1+f^2`$ (so that the metric is positive definite and for $`f=0`$ has as a special case the original Minkowskian metric). Notice a slight deviation in our choice from the RP case of $`G=f^2`$ . Although the formulation of Eqs. (3)-(4) is very general, we hereafter focus on the $`d=1`$ case that we will examine in more detail.

Assuming initially that $`f=f(t)`$ only (e.g., including only an effect of the “mean curvature” on the scalar-field dynamics), the Lagrangian (3) becomes

$$L=\frac{1}{2}W\dot{f}^2+𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{t}\right)^2\frac{1+f^2}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^2V(\varphi )\right].$$
(5)
Then, the resulting equations of motion (to which we will hereafter refer as model A) are

$`\varphi _{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+f^2)\varphi _{xx}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi }}`$ (6)
$`Wf_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`f{\displaystyle \varphi _x^2𝑑x},`$ (7)
where the subscripts stand for the corresponding partial derivatives.

Notice that the function $`f`$ is directly related to the scalar curvature of the 1-d space. In particular, the Ricci scalar, which is $`R=2R_{1212}/det(g)`$  in the general case, in the 1-d case is $`R=2\stackrel{~}{f}_{tt}/\stackrel{~}{f}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\sqrt{1+f^2}`$.

On the other hand, for a metric with both spatial and temporal dependence (e.g., for $`f=f(x,t)`$), one arrives at the following Lagrangian:

$`L={\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{t}\right)^2\frac{1+f^2}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^2V(\varphi )\right]}+`$

$$𝑑x\left[\frac{W}{2}\left(\frac{f}{t}\right)^2\frac{W}{2}\left(\frac{f}{x}\right)^2\right].$$
(8)
The ensuing coupled equations for the scalar field and the curvature (to which we will refer as model B) are

$`\varphi _{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\left((1+f^2)\varphi _x\right)_x{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\varphi }}`$ (9)
$`Wf_{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`Wf_{xx}f\varphi _x^2.`$ (10)
As a particular application of models A and B, we examine the physically ubiquitous sine-Gordon (sG) potential, $`V(\varphi )=1\mathrm{cos}(\varphi )`$ . It is clear that Eqs. (6)-(7) and (9)-(10) have particular solutions with $`f=0`$, for which the latter equation of each pair is satisfied trivially, while the former reduces exactly to the sG equation. Basic solitary-wave solutions of the sG equation are the topological soliton (kink),

$$\varphi _\mathrm{k}(x,t)=4\mathrm{tan}^1\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma (xx_0vt)\right)\right],$$
(11)
where $`v`$ is its velocity, $`\gamma =(1v^2)^{1/2}`$ is the Lorentz factor, and $`x_0`$ is the initial position of the kink’s center, and the breather, $`\varphi _{\mathrm{br}}(x,t)=4\mathrm{tan}^1\{\sqrt{(1\omega ^2)/\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}\left[\omega \gamma (tv(xx_0))\right]\times \mathrm{sech}\left[\gamma \sqrt{1\omega ^2}(xx_0vt)\right]\}`$, where $`\omega `$ is the frequency of its internal oscillations ($`0<\omega <1`$).

The results of the interaction of the kink with the curvature in model A are shown in Fig. 1 . The curvature variable $`f`$, initialized with a small random value, performs smooth oscillations with a frequency of $`\omega 2.866`$. Notice that this is natural in this case, since the kink has an approximately fixed “mass”, $`M_k=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}u_x^2𝑑x`$, which can be found to be $`M_k=8.247`$ for the velocity $`v0.25`$). Then, Eq. (7) predicts the frequency of these oscillations $`\omega \sqrt{M_k}=2.871`$, which is very close to the above-mentioned numerically exact value. Fast small-amplitude oscillations of the kink’s velocity, observed in Fig. 1 both with and without the curvature, are due to “hopping” over sites of a lattice (with spacing $`h=0.1`$) employed in the numerical scheme which solves Eq. (7). Notice, however, that in the top panel the mean velocity is $`0.2503`$, while in the bottom panel it is $`0.2499`$, hence the curvature oscillations increase the kink’s velocity. This may be anticipated due to the presence of the positive definite factor $`1+f^2`$ in front of $`\varphi _{xx}`$ in Eq. (6), which is expected to renormalize $`v^2`$.

The curvature-breather interaction in model A is shown in Fig. 2. The frequency of the breather does not change significantly (it fluctuates between $`0.87`$ and $`0.93`$), but its amplitude decreases substantially (by more than $`50\%`$), resulting in its becoming much more mobile (the velocity increases to $`0.425`$ from the initial value $`0.25`$).

In model B, we examine collision of a kink with a localized pulse of the substrate field $`f`$. For the breather, we have obtained results which are qualitatively similar to those presented below for the kink. We create the curvature pulse to the left or to the right of the kink. As $`\varphi _x`$ vanishes far from the kink, the equation (10) for $`f`$ becomes a linear wave equation. Hence, we observe splitting of the pulse into left- and one right-traveling ones. In the case where the kink is initially to the left of the pulse, it collides with the left-propagating fragment of the (split) pulse. In the opposite case, the kink is eventually caught by the co-propagating right fragment of the (split) pulse. Numerical simulations shown in Fig. 3 demonstrate that the collision with the counter-propagating pulse reduces the kink’s velocity, while the interaction with the co-propagating pulse gives rise to an increase of the velocity. In particular, in the former case, the mean speed of the kink after the collision is $`0.2476`$, while in the latter one, it increases to $`0.2527`$. Notice that in both cases a small fragment of the pulse that collides with the kink passes through it, while a larger fraction of the pulse is reflected by it. The latter feature may be explained by a momentum-balance analysis.

In conclusion, we have extended field theory in the spirit of the Rahman-Parrinello Molecular Dynamics technique. The resulting equations couple the spatio-temporal evolution of the field to that of the underlying curvature of the space which carries the field. Coupled equations for the temporal or spatiotemporal evolution of the metric are obtained in a general setting, and, as an example, are solved together with the sine-Gordon field equation. The purely temporal evolution of the metric has been found to increase the velocity of the field solitons, while the model allowing spatio-temporal evolution of the metric can induce both increase and decrease of the velocity.

It would be particularly interesting to extend the models A and B to higher dimensions. It is also worth studying how the local evolution of the curvature affects kinematics and dynamics of the solitons, and to correlate such observations with the behavior of reactant chemical concentrations in chemical or biological environments with non-trivial geometry .

Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge D. Maroudas for stimulating discussions. The support of NSF and AFOSR (IGK) and NSF (DMS-0204585), UMass and the Clay Institute (PGK) is gratefully acknowledged. Work at Los Alamos is supported by the US DoE.