text:
# Matter and Radiation in Superstrong Magnetic Fields and Thermal Emission from Neutron Stars

## 1. Introduction

Neutron stars (NSs) are born in the core collapse and subsequent supernova explosion of massive stars and begin their lives at high temperatures, $`T>10^{11}`$ K. As they cool over the next $`10^5`$$`10^6`$ years, they act as sources of soft X-rays with surface temperatures $`>10^5`$ K. The cooling history of the NS depends to a large extent on poorly constrained interior physics such as the nuclear equation of state, superfluidity, and magnetic field (see, e.g. Prakash et al. 2001; Yakovlev et a. 2001 for review). Already in the 1960s, it was recognized that one way to study NSs is through observing their surface emissions in X-rays. This of course is very difficult because of the small NS size. Thus detecting NSs’ surface radiation has been a long-term goal of high energy astrophysics for more than 30 years. Thanks to the advance in X-ray telescopes (starting from Einstein, but most notably ROSAT and the more recent ASCA, Chandra and XMM-Newton), such detection has become a reality. By now there are secured detections of surface emissions from more than a dozen isolated NSs, including radio pulsars (e.g., PSR B1055-52, B0656+14, Geminga, Vela), radio-quiet NSs (e.g., RX J1856.5-3754, RX J0720.4-3125), and magnetars (AXPs and SGRs) (see Becker & Pavlov 2002 for a review). These detections are important because they probe the near vicinity and interior of NSs: From the spectrum we can measure the surface temperature, and thus constrain the NS radius and cooling history, which in turn depend on the interior physics; we can also potentially measure the surface composition and magnetic fields of NSs111For example, the absorption features (around 0.7 keV and 1.4 keV) detected in the radio-quiet NS 1E 1207-5209 by Chandra and XMM-Newton (Sanwal et al. 2002; Mereghetti et al. 2002; Hailey & Mori 2002) have been interpreted as due to atomic level transitions of heavy elements in a $`10^{11}`$$`10^{12}`$ G field, or due to He+ transitions in a $`10^{14}`$ G field. However, the true nature of these lines is currently unclear, largely due to lack of theoretical modeling effort.. The thermal emission is mediated by the outmost layer of the NS. In order to properly interpret the current and future observations, it is crucial to have a detailed understanding of the physical properties of the matter and radiation in strong magnetic fields ($`B10^{11}`$$`10^{16}`$ G) and to calculate the emergent thermal radiation spectra from the NSs.

Some basics about NS atmospheres are in order. Because of the strong gravity, the NS atmosphere is highly compressed, with scale height $`0.1`$$`10`$ cm and density $`0.1`$$`10^3`$ g/cm3. Thus we are dealing with a highly nonideal gas and effects like pressure ionization are important. The physical properties of the atmosphere, such as the chemical composition, equation of state, and especially the radiative opacities, directly determine the characteristics of the thermal emission. While the surface composition of the NS is unknown, a great simplification arises due to the efficient gravitational separation of light and heavy elements. A pure H atmosphere is expected even if a small amount of fallback/accretion occurs after NS formation. A He atmosphere results if H is completely burnt up, and a heavy-element (e.g., C, O, or Fe) atmosphere may be possible if no fallback/accretion occurs. The strong magnetic field makes the atmospheric plasma anisotropic and birefringent. If the surface temperature is not too high, atoms and molecules may form in the atmosphere. Moreover, if the magnetic field is sufficiently strong, the NS envelope may transform into a condensed phase with very little gas above it. A superstrong magnetic field will also make some QED effects (e.g., vacuum polarization) important in calculating the surface radiation spectrum.

## 2. Matter in Strong Magnetic Fields: Brief Overview

We now briefly review the basic properties of matter in strong magnetic fields (see Lai 2001 and references therein).

An electron in a uniform magnetic field $`B`$ gyrates around the field line at the frequency $`\omega _{ce}=eB/(m_ec)`$. In quantum mechanics, this transverse motion is quantized into Landau levels, with the cyclotron energy (the Landau level spacing) given by $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ce}=11.58B_{12}`$ keV, and the cyclotron radius (the characteristic size of the wave packet) becomes $`\widehat{R}=\left(\mathrm{}c/eB\right)^{1/2}=2.57\times 10^{10}B_{12}^{1/2}`$ cm, where $`B_{12}=B/(10^{12}\mathrm{G})`$. When studying matter in magnetic fields, the natural (atomic) unit for the field strength, $`B_0`$, is set by $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ce}=e^2/a_0`$, where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius. Thus it is convenient to define a dimensionless magnetic field strength $`b`$ via

$$bB/B_0;B_0=m_e^2e^3c/\mathrm{}^3=2.3505\times 10^9\mathrm{G}.$$
(1)
For $`b1`$, the electron cyclotron energy $`\mathrm{}\omega _{ce}`$ is much larger than the typical Coulomb energy, so that the properties of atoms, molecules and condensed matter are qualitatively changed by the magnetic field. In such a strong field regime, the usual perturbative treatment of the magnetic effects (e.g., Zeeman splitting of atomic energy levels) does not apply. Instead, the Coulomb forces act as a perturbation to the magnetic forces, and the electrons in an atom/molecule settle into the ground Landau level. Because of the extreme confinement ($`\widehat{R}a_0`$) of the electrons in the transverse direction (perpendicular to the field), the Coulomb force becomes much more effective in binding the electrons along the magnetic field direction. The atom attains a cylindrical structure. Moreover, it is possible for these elongated atoms to form molecular chains by covalent bonding along the field direction. Interactions between the linear chains can then lead to the formation of three-dimensional condensates.

We now discuss some basic properties of different bound states in strong magnetic fields, using H as an example.

(i) Atom: For $`b1`$, the H atom is elongated and squeezed, with the transverse size (perpendicular to $`𝐁`$) $`\widehat{R}=a_0/b^{1/2}a_0`$ and the longitudinal size $`a_0/(\mathrm{ln}b)`$. Thus the ground-state binding energy $`|E|0.16(\mathrm{ln}b)^2`$(au) (where 1 au = 27.2 eV; the factor $`0.16`$ is an approximate number). Thus $`|E|=160,540`$ eV at $`B=10^{12},10^{14}`$G respectively. In the ground state, the guiding center of the electron’s gyro-motion coincides with the proton. The excited states of the atom can be obtained by displacing the guiding center away from the proton; this corresponds to $`\widehat{R}R_s=(2s+1)^{1/2}\widehat{R}`$ (where $`s=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$). Thus $`E_s0.16\left\{\mathrm{ln}[b/(2s+1)]\right\}^2`$(au).

This simple picture of the H energy levels is modified when we consider the effect of finite proton mass: Even for a “stationary” H atom, the energy $`E_s`$ is changed to $`E_s+s\mathrm{}\omega _{cp}`$, where $`\mathrm{}\omega _{cp}=6.3B_{12}`$ eV is the proton cyclotron energy. Thus the extra energy $`s\mathrm{}\omega _{cp}`$ (which can be thought of as a “recoil” term) becomes increasingly important with increasing $`B`$. Moreover, the effect of center-of-mass motion is nontrivial: When the atom moves perpendicular to the magnetic field, a strong electric field is induced in its rest frame and can significantly change the atomic structure (the “motional Stark effect”); indeed, the mobility of the neutral atom across the magnetic field is limited. As a result, the dependence of the atomic energy on the transverse momentum is complicated. This effect leads to a large shift and broadening of the energy levels and significant modification to the ionization equilibrium.

(ii) Molecules and Chains: In a strong magnetic field, the mechanism of forming molecules is quite different from the zero-field case. The spins of the electrons in the atoms are aligned anti-parallel to the magnetic field, and thus two atoms in their ground states do not bind together according to the exclusion principle. Instead, one H atom has to be excited to the $`s=1`$ state before combining (by covalent bond) with another atom in the $`s=0`$ state. Since the “activation energy” for exciting an electron in the H atom from $`s`$ to $`(s+1)`$ is small, the resulting H2 molecule is stable. Moreover, in strong magnetic fields, stable H3, H4 etc. can be formed in the similar manner. The dissociation energy of the molecule is much greater than the $`B=0`$ value: e.g., for H2, it is 40,350 eV at $`10^{12},10^{14}`$ G respectively.

(iii) Condensed Matter: As more atoms are added to a molecule, the energy per atom in a Hn molecule saturates, becoming independent of $`n`$; this occurs at $`n>\left[b/(\mathrm{ln}b)^2\right]^{1/5}`$ ($`35`$ for field strengths of interest). We then have a 1D metal. To obtain the basic scaling relation, we can consider a uniform cylinder model in which a 1D ion lattice is embedded in an electron Fermi sea. The radius of the cylinder and the ion spacing are of order $`aZ^{1/5}b^{2/5}`$ and the energy per “atom” is $`EZ^{9/5}b^{2/5}`$ (where we have restored the ion charge number $`Z`$). By placing parallel chains together (with spacing $`a`$) we form a 3D condensed matter (e.g., in a body-centered tetragonal lattice). The energy per unit cell is again of order $`EZ^{9/5}b^{2/5}`$. The radius of the cell is $`RZ^{1/5}b^{2/5}`$, corresponding to the zero-pressure density $`10^3AZ^{3/5}B_{12}^{6/5}`$ g cm-3 (where $`A`$ is the mass number of the ion).

(iv) Phase Diagram: Having understood the different bound states of H, the next question is: What is the physical condition of the H surface layer of a NS as a function of $`B`$ and $`T`$? What is the phase diagram? Clearly, we are dealing with a highly magnetized, dense (0.1–$`10^3`$ g cm-3) and partially ionized plasma; further complications arise from the strong coupling between the center-of-mass motion and the internal structure of atoms/molecules. Calculations indicate that there are two possible regimes: (1) Under “normal” conditions ($`B<10^{14}`$ G and $`T>10^6`$ K), the surface layer (photosphere) is gaseous and nondegenerate, with a mixture of p, e, H atoms, and H2, etc. (depending on $`B,T,\rho `$; (2) Under more “extreme” conditions ($`T10^{14}`$ G and/or $`T10^6`$ K), there is a phase transition from the gaseous phase to the condensed metallic phase; as $`B`$ increases, the vapor density (above the metal) decreases, and we then have a situation in which the surface consists of condensed metallic H from which radiation directly comes out. The precise boundary between the two regimes (or the precise critical temperature) is currently uncertain (Lai & Salpeter 1997).

## 3. Neutron Star Atmosphere Modeling: Current Status

Current zero-field NS atmospheres are based on the opacity and equation of state data from the OPAL project for pure H, He and Fe compositions (Rajagopal & Romani 1996; Zavlin et al. 1996; Gänsicke et al. 2002). These works showed that the radiation spectra from light-element (H or He), low-field ($`B<10^8`$ G) atmospheres deviate significantly from blackbody. So far most studies of magnetic NS atmospheres have focused on H and moderate field strengths of $`B10^{12}`$$`10^{13}`$ G (see Zavlin & Pavlov 2002 for a review). These models take into account the transport of different photon modes through a mostly ionized medium. The opacities adopted in the models include free-free transitions and electron scattering, while bound-free opacities are either neglected or treated in a very approximate manner and bound-bound transitions are ignored. Thus these magnetic atmosphere models are expected to be valid only for relatively high temperatures ($`T>\mathrm{a}\mathrm{few}\times 10^6`$ K) where hydrogen is almost completely ionized. As the magnetic field increases, we expect these models to break down at even higher temperatures as bound atoms, molecules and condensate become increasingly important. Models of magnetic iron atmospheres (with $`B10^{12}`$ G) were studied by Rajagopal et al. (1997). Because of the complexity in the atomic physics and radiative transport, these Fe models are necessarily crude. Despite some shortcomings, the H and Fe atmosphere models have played a valuable role in assessing the observed thermal spectra of NSs (see Pavlov et al. 2002 for a review).

Much work remains to incorporate bound species in magnetic NS atmosphere models. Although the atomic structure and radiative transitions of a atom in strong magnetic fields are well understood (e.g. Ruder et al. 1994; Miller & Neuhauser 1991; Mori & Hailey 2002), the complication arises from the effect of center-of-mass motion discussed in §2. Thermodynamically consistent equation of state and opacities for a magnetized H plasma have been calculated by Potekhin & Chabrier (2003). Atmosphere models based on this equation of state shows that the most important transitions are from $`s=0`$ to $`s=1`$ and photoionization; both features are significantly broadened by the center-of-mass motion effect (see Ho et al. 2003).

The other area of recent development concerns NS atmospheres in the superstrong field regime ($`B>10^{14}`$ G) (Ho & Lai 2001, 2003, Lai & Ho 2002, 2003, hereafter HL01,HL03,LH02, LH03; Özel 2001, Zane et al. 2001), which we discuss in §4.

## 4. Radiative Transfer in Superstrong Magnetic Fields: Effect of Vacuum Polarization

Polarization of the vacuum due to virtual $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs becomes important when

$$B>B_Q=m_e^2c^3/e\mathrm{}=4.414\times 10^{13}\mathrm{G};$$
(2)
this is a genuine quantum electrodynamics effect (e.g., Adler 1971; Heyl & Hernquist 1997). Vacuum polarization modifies the dielectric property of the medium and the polarization of photon modes, thereby altering the radiative opacities (e.g., Gnedin et al. 1978; Meszaros & Ventura 1979; Pavlov & Gnedin 1984; Bulik & Miller 1997; see Meszaros 1992 for a review). Of particular importance is the “vacuum resonance” phenomenon, which occurs when the effects of vacuum and plasma on the polarization of the modes “compensate” each other. For a photon of energy $`E`$, the vacuum resonance occurs at the density

$$\rho _V0.964Y_e^1B_{14}^2E_1^2f^2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3,$$
(3)
where $`Y_e`$ is the electron fraction, $`E_1=E/(1\mathrm{keV})`$, $`B=10^{14}B_{14}`$ G is the magnetic field strength, and $`f=f(B)`$ is a slowly varying function of $`B`$ and is of order unity (LH02 and HL03). For $`\rho >\rho _V`$ (where the plasma effect dominates the dielectric tensor) and $`\rho <\rho _V`$ (where vacuum polarization dominates), the photon modes (for $`E`$ much smaller than the electron cyclotron energy $`E_{Be}`$) are almost linearly polarized (see Fig. 1): the extraordinary mode (X-mode) has its electric field vector $`𝐄`$ perpendicular to the $`\widehat{𝐤}`$-$`\widehat{𝐁}`$ plane, while the ordinary mode (O-mode) is polarized along the $`\widehat{𝐤}`$-$`\widehat{𝐁}`$ plane (where $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ specifies the direction of photon propagation, $`\widehat{𝐁}`$ is the unit vector along the magnetic field). Near $`\rho =\rho _V`$, however, the normal modes become circularly polarized as a result of the “cancellation” of the plasma and vacuum effects — both effects tend to make the mode linearly polarized, but in mutually orthogonal directions. When a photon propagates in an inhomogeneous medium, its polarization state will evolve adiabatically if the density variation is sufficiently gentle. Thus, a X-mode (O-mode) photon will be converted into a O-mode (X-mode) as it traverses the vacuum resonance (see Fig. 2). This resonant mode conversion is analogous to the MSW effect of neutrino oscillation (e.g., Haxton 1995). For this conversion to be effective, the adiabatic condition must be satisfied:

$$E>E_{\mathrm{ad}}(B,\theta _B,H_\rho )=1.49\left(f\mathrm{tan}\theta _B|1u_i|\right)^{2/3}\left(5\mathrm{cm}/H_\rho \right)^{1/3}\mathrm{keV},$$
(4)
where $`\theta _B`$ is the angle between $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐁}`$, $`u_i=(E_{Bi}/E)^2`$, $`E_{Bi}`$ is the ion cyclotron energy, and $`H_\rho =|dz/d\mathrm{ln}\rho |`$ is the density scale height (evaluated at $`\rho =\rho _V`$) along the ray. For an ionized Hydrogen atmosphere, $`H_\rho 2kT/(m_pg\mathrm{cos}\theta )=1.65T_6/(g_{14}\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ cm, where $`T=10^6T_6`$ K is the temperature, $`g=10^{14}g_{14}`$ cm s-2 is the gravitational acceleration, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the ray and the surface normal. We note that here we refer to the O-mode as the mode with $`|K|=|E_x/E_y|1`$ and the X-mode as the mode with $`|K|1`$ (here the $`z`$-axis is along $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ and the $`y`$-axis is in the direction of $`\widehat{𝐁}\times \widehat{𝐤}`$), thus the name “mode conversion”. Alternatively, one can define modes with definite helicity (the sign of $`K=iE_x/E_y`$) such that $`K`$ changes continuously as $`\rho `$ changes; we call these the plus-mode and minus-mode. Thus we may also say that in the adiabatic limit, the photon will remain in the same plus or minus branch, but the character of the mode is changed across the vacuum resonance. Indeed, in the literature on radio wave propagation in plasmas, the nonadiabatic case, in which the photon state jumps across the continuous curves, is referred to as “linear mode coupling”. It is important to note that the “mode conversion” effect discussed here is not a matter of semantics. The key point is that in the adiabatic limit, the photon polarization ellipse changes its orientation across the vacuum resonance, and therefore the photon opacity changes significantly 222The O-mode has a significant component of its $`𝐄`$ field along $`\widehat{𝐁}`$ (for most directions of propagation except when $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ is nearly parallel to $`\widehat{𝐁}`$), and therefore the O-mode opacity is close to the $`B=0`$ value, while the X-mode opacity is much smaller..

Because the two photon modes have vastly different opacities (see footnote 2), the vacuum polarization-induced mode conversion can significantly affect radiative transfer in magnetar atmospheres. The main effect of vacuum polarization on the atmosphere spectrum can be understood as follows. When the vacuum polarization effect is neglected, the decoupling densities of the O-mode and X-mode photons (i.e., the densities of their respective photospheres) are approximately given by (for a H plasma) $`\rho _O0.42T_6^{1/4}E_1^{3/2}G^{1/2}`$ g cm-3 and $`\rho _X486T_6^{1/4}E_1^{1/2}B_{14}G^{1/2}`$ g cm-3 (see LH02), where $`G=1e^{E/kT}`$. The vacuum resonance lies between these two photospheres when $`\rho _O<\rho _V<\rho _X`$, i.e.

$$0.66fT_6^{1/8}E_1^{1/4}G^{1/4}<B_{14}<510f^2T_6^{1/4}E_1^{3/2}G^{1/2}.$$
(5)
When this condition is satisfied, the effective decoupling depths of the photons are changed333For larger $`B`$ the vacuum resonance lies deeper than the photospheres of both modes, while for smaller $`B`$ the resonance lies outside both photospheres. In both cases, the effect of vacuum polarization on the radiative spectrum is expected to be small, although in the latter case (smaller $`B`$) the polarization of the emitted photons will be modified by the vacuum resonance.. Indeed, we see from Fig. 2 (right panel) that mode conversion makes the effective decoupling density of X-mode photons (which carry the bulk of the thermal energy) smaller, thereby depleting the high-energy tail of the spectrum and making the spectrum closer to black-body (although the spectrum is still harder than black-body because of nongrey opacities) 444Even when mode conversion is neglected, the X-mode decoupling depth can still be affected by vacuum polarization. This is because the X-mode opacity exhibits a spike feature near the resonance, and the optical depth across the resonance region can be significant; see LH02.. This expectation is borne out in self-consistent atmosphere modeling presented in HL03 (see Fig. 3). Another important effect of vacuum polarization on the spectrum, first noted in HL03, is the suppression of proton cyclotron lines (and maybe other spectral lines; see Ho et al. 2003). The physical origin for such line suppression is related to the depletion of continuum flux, which makes the decoupling depths inside and outside the line similar. HL03 suggests that the absence of lines in the observed spectra of several AXPs (e.g., Juett et al. 2002; Tiengo et al. 2002) may be an indication of the vacuum polarization effect at work in these systems.

Our previous study (LH02) of the vacuum-induced mode conversion did not explicitly take into account of the effect of dissipation on the mode structure. Although this dissipative effect is small under many situations, near the vacuum resonance and for some directions of propagation, the two photon modes can “collapse”, i.e., they become identical and hence nonorthogonal (Soffel et al. 1983). The analysis of LH02 breaks down near these “mode collapse” points. Also, all previous studies of NS atmospheres with strong magnetic fields rely on the modal description of the radiative transport. This is valid only in the limit of large Faraday depolarization (Gnedin & Pavlov 1974), which is not always satisfied near the vacuum resonance, especially for superstrong field strengths (Lai & Ho 2003). More importantly, the transfer equations based on normal modes cannot handle the cases in which partial mode coupling (conversion) occurs across the vacuum resonance (i.e., when the adiabatic condition is neither strongly satisfied or violated). Clearly, to properly account for the effects of mode collapse, breakdown of Faraday depolarization, and mode conversion associated with vacuum polarization, one must go beyond the modal description of the radiation field by formulating and solving the transfer equation in terms of the photon intensity matrix (or Stokes parameters) and including the birefringence of the plasma-vacuum medium (see Lai & Ho 2003).

### Acknowledgments.

This work is supported in part by NASA grants NAG 5-8484 and NAG 5-12034, and NSF grant AST 9986740.


format: text

text:
# Classical and Quantum Strings in plane waves, shock waves and space-time singularities : synthesis and new results

## 1 Introduction

Classical and quantum strings propagating in gravitational plane waves, shock waves and space-time singularities and its classification, were investigated 10 years ago by de Vega and Sanchez refs. \-  and by de Vega, Ramon Medrano and Sanchez refs. \- , including the exact computation of the string mass spectrum, number operators, scattering amplitudes, string energy-momentum tensor, string vacuum polarization and string/wave polarization effects.
These results are relevant to answer questions as “Singularities in String Theory”, and the boson-fermion and fermion-boson transmutations induced by superstring backgrounds.
The subject has subtle points and subtle physical interpretation which were overlocked in refs., .
A lot attention has been payed recently to the subject , .
In this paper we provide a synthetic understanding to the problem and throw light on the issue of string singularities and its classification.

## 2 Understanding and Results

We consider  strings propagating in gravitational plane-wave spacetimes described by the metric

$$dS^2=F(U,X,Y)dU^2dUdV+dX^jdX^j,$$
(1)
where

$$F(U,X,Y)=W(U)(X^2Y^2)and2jD3.$$
(2)
$`W(U)`$ is an arbitrary function; $`U`$ and $`V`$ are light-cone variables. (These are sourceless solutions of the Einstein equations, i.e., vacuum spacetime). The only nonvanishing components of the Riemann tensor are

$$R_{UiVj}=\frac{1}{2}_i_jF(U,X,Y)$$

i.e.

$$R_{UXVX}=R_{UYVY}=W(U)$$

Thus, there will be spacetime singularities if $`W(U)`$ is singular.
We are interested in functions $`W(U)`$ nonzero in a bounded interval $`T<U<T`$ and which have a singular behavior for $`U0`$, such as

$$W(U)\frac{\alpha }{|U|^\beta }\mathrm{for}U0,$$
(3)
$`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ being positive contants. (A change of sign in $`\alpha `$ is just equivalent to exchanging $`X`$ with $`Y`$.)
The essential features in this problem depend on the function W(U) (and not on the (X,Y) dependence). Moreover, our results hold for any function F(U,X,Y) = W(U) F(X,Y) (see below). The form of F(X,Y) determines whether or not the problem is exactly solvable but it is enough to fix the asymptotic behaviour of F(X,Y) to solve (asymptotically) the dynamics, to determine the behaviour near the space time singularities, and to determine whether $`M^2`$ and $`N`$ will be (or will be not) finite.
The string equations in the class of backgrounds eqs (1), (2) are linear and exactly solvable. In the light-cone gauge $`U=\alpha ^{}p\tau `$ and after Fourier expansion in the world-sheet coordinate $`\sigma `$, the Fourier components $`X_n(\tau )`$ and $`Y_n(\tau )`$ satisfy a one-dimensional Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger-type equation but with $`\tau `$ playing the role of the spatial coordinate and $`p^2W(\alpha ^{}p\tau )`$ as the potential . (Here $`p`$ stands for the $`U`$ component of the string momentum).
The propagation of the string when it approaches the singularity at $`U=0`$ depends on the singularity exponent $`\beta `$ . We find different behaviors depending on whether $`\beta <2`$ or $`\beta 2`$ :
(i) For $`\beta <2`$, the string coordinates $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are regular everywhere; that is, the string propagates smoothly through the gravitational singularity $`U=0`$.
(ii) For a strong enough singularity ($`\beta 2`$), the string goes off to $`X=\mathrm{}`$ grazing the singularity plane $`U=0`$. This means that the string does not go across the gravitational wave; that is, the string cannot reach the $`U>0`$ region. For particular initial configurations, the string remains trapped at the point $`X=Y=0`$ in the gravitational-wave singularity $`U=0`$.
(iii) The case in which $`\beta =2`$ and then $`W(U)=\alpha /U^2`$ for all $`|U|<T`$ is explicitly solved in terms of Bessel functions.
The string propagation in these singular spacetimes has common features with the fall of a point particle into a singular attractive potential $`\alpha /x^\beta `$. In both cases, the falling takes place when $`\beta 2`$.
The behavior in $`\tau `$ of the string coordinates $`X^A(\sigma ,\tau )`$ is analogous to the behavior of the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ of a point particle. However, the physical content is different.
The string coordinates $`X^A(\sigma ,\tau )`$ are dynamical variables and not wave functions. Moreover, our analysis also holds for the quantum propagation of the string : the behavior in $`\tau `$ is the same as in the classical evolution with the coefficients being quantum operators. At the classical as well as at the quantum level, the string propagates or does not propagate through the gravitational wave depending on whether $`\beta <2`$ or $`\beta 2`$, respectively. In other words, the tunnel effect does not take place in this string problem.
It must be noticed that for $`\tau 0^{}`$, i.e., $`U0^{}`$, the behavior of the string solutions is non oscillatory in $`\tau `$, whereas for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, the string oscillates. This new type of behavior in $`\tau `$ is analogous to that found for strings in cosmological inflationary backgrounds.
For $`\beta =2`$, we express the coefficients ($`B_n^A`$) characterizing the solution for $`\tau 0`$ in terms of the oscillator operators for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. We label with the indices $`<`$ and $`>`$ the operators in the region $`U<T`$ and $`U>T`$, respectively (i.e., before and after the collision with the singularity plane $`U=0`$).
For $`\beta <2`$ we compute the total mass squared $`M_>^2`$ and the total number of modes $`N_>`$ after the string propagates through the singularity plane $`U=0`$ and reaches the flat space-time region $`U>T`$. This has a meaning only for $`\beta <2`$.
For $`\beta 2`$, the string does not reach the $`U>0`$ region and hence there are no outgoing operators ($`>`$). In particular no mass squared $`M_>^2`$ and total number $`N_>`$ operator can be defined for $`\beta 2`$.
For $`\beta <2`$, $`M_>^2`$ and $`N_>`$ are given by .

$$M_>^2=m_0^2+\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n(\left|B_n^x\right|^2+\left|B_n^y\right|^2),$$
(4)
$$N_>=2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\left|B_n^x\right|^2+\left|B_n^y\right|^2),$$
(5)
where

$$B_n^x=B_n^y\left[\frac{2n}{\alpha ^{}p}\right]^{\beta 2}\mathrm{for}n\mathrm{}$$
(6)
($`|0_<`$ stands for the ingoing ground state, so that $`\alpha _{n<}|0_<=0`$ for all $`n`$).
Therefore, $`M_>^2`$ is finite for $`\beta <1`$ but diverges for $`1\beta <2`$. $`N_>`$ is finite for $`\beta <\frac{3}{2}`$ and diverges for $`\frac{3}{2}\beta <2`$.
We analyze below the origin and physical meaning of these infinities.
Notice that the exponent $`\beta `$ in Eq.(6) is just minus the scaling dimension of $`W(U)`$ for small $`U`$.

## 3 Sourceless shock waves

The sourceless shock-wave case

$$W(U)=\alpha \delta (U),$$

is particularly useful in order to understand the physical origin of the divergences in $`M_>^2`$ when $`1\beta <2`$ (and in $`N_>`$ when $`\frac{3}{2}\beta <2`$).
For a sourceless skock wave with a metric function

$$F(X,Y)=\alpha \delta (U)(X^2Y^2)$$
(7)
In this $`\delta `$-function case, the $`B_n`$ coefficients are easy to compute exactly with the result

$$B_n^x=B_n^y=\frac{\alpha p\alpha ^{}}{2in}$$

Comparing the $`B_n`$ cofficients Eqs.(6), (8), we see that the large-$`n`$ behavior of $`B_n`$ for $`W(U)=\alpha \delta (U)`$, is the same as that for $`W(U)=\alpha |U|^\beta `$ with $`\beta =1`$. This is related to the fact that both functions $`W(U)`$ have the same scaling dimension.
In this case the string propagation is formally like a Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation with a Dirac $`\delta `$ potential : the string passes across the singularity at $`U=0`$ and tunnel effect is present.
This is a weak singularity, the behaviour of the string is oscillatory in time, and in, out scattering states can be defined.
The string scattering in this sourceless shock wave is very similar to the string scattering by a shock wave with a nonzero source density \[2, 3, 6 \].
We also compute $`M_>^2`$ and $`N_>`$ for a metric function

$$F(U,X,Y)=\alpha \delta (U)(X^2Y^2)\theta (\rho _0^2X^2+Y^2),$$
(8)
where $`\theta `$ is the step function and $`\rho _0`$ gives the transverse size of the shock wave front. This $`F`$ belongs to the shock-wave class with a density source we have treated in refs..
We find that $`M_>^2`$ is finite as long as $`\rho _0`$ is finite. This divergence in $`M_>^2`$ is due to the infinite transverse extent of the wave front and not to the short-distance singularity $`\delta (U)`$ at $`U=0`$.
The gravitational forces in the transverse directions $`X,Y`$ transfer to the string a finite amount of energy when the transverse size of the shock wave ($`\rho _0`$) is finite. When $`\rho _0=\mathrm{}`$, the energy transferred by the shock wave to the string produce large elongation amplitudes in the $`X`$ and $`Y`$ directions which are responsible for the divergence of $`M_>^2`$.
More generally, for a string propagating in a shock-wave spacetime with the generic profile

$$F(U,X,Y)=\delta (U)f(X,Y)$$
(9)
we have found the exact expression of $`M_>^2`$ and $`N_>`$ . If $`f(X,Y)`$ is nonzero at $`X=Y=\mathrm{}`$, then $`M_>^2=\mathrm{}`$.The divergence of ($`M_>^2`$) is due to the nonvanishing of $`f(X,Y)`$ at large distances and not to the singularity at U = 0 of the gravitational wave. When $`f(X,Y)`$ has an infinite range, the gravitational forces in the $`X,Y`$ directions have the possibility to transfer an infinite amount of energy to the string modes.

## 4 String Energy Momentum Tensor

We also compute the string energy-momentum tensor $`𝒯^{AB}`$. It is convenient to define it in the present context as an integral over a spatial volume completely enclosing the string at a time $`X^0`$, as we have proposed in Ref. 6.
For $`all\beta >0`$, we find that the $`𝒯^{AB}`$ components can be grouped according to their $`\tau 0`$ behavior into four sets :
(i) $`𝒯^{VV}`$ diverges for $`\beta >0`$.
(ii) $`𝒯^{VX},𝒯^{VY}`$ diverge for $`\beta >1`$ and tend to a finite constant for $`\beta <1`$.
(iii) $`𝒯^{UV}𝒯^Vj(3jD1)`$ and $`𝒯^{XX}`$ are finite and nonzero. $`𝒯^{XX}`$ vanishes for $`\beta <2`$.
(iv) The other components vanish.
The explicit expressions were obtained in ref. . The energy density $`𝒯^{00}`$, the energy flux in the propagation direction of the gravitational wave $`𝒯^{01}`$, as well as the stress in this direction ($`𝒯^{11}`$), strongly diverge for $`\tau 0`$.
For $`\beta 2`$, they diverge as a negative power of $`\tau `$. For $`\beta >2`$, the divergence is exponential.
We compute the ground-state expectation values in the illustrative case $`\beta =2`$. The expectation values of all the (operator) coefficients of the powers of $`\tau `$ turn out to be finite.
It can be noticed that the spatial proper length of the string grows indefinitely for $`\tau 0`$ when the string approaches the singularity plane. This phenomenon is analogous to that found for strings in cosmological inflationary backgrounds.
In conclusion, for $`\beta 2`$ and $`\beta <1`$ the propagation of classical and quantum strings through the singular spacetimes Eqs. (1)-(3) is physically meaningful and has the physical features described above.
For $`1\beta <2`$, we find that the expectation value $`M_>^2`$ diverges. However, this divergence is due to the infinite transverse extent of the wave front and not to the short-distance singularity of $`W(U)`$ at $`U=0`$. In support of this analysis, we found that the large-n behavior of the transmission coefficients (determining whether $`M_>^2`$ is finite or infinite), is the same for $`W(U)=\alpha /U`$ as for $`W(U)=\alpha \delta (U)`$.
Therefore, the divergences of $`M_>^2`$ in shock-wave spacetimes and in singular plane waves, have the same origin : the infinite transverse extension of the wave front.

## 5 String Mass and Mode Number in Singular Plane-Wave Backgrounds

As we have shown in ref., the string performs strong oscillations in $`X`$ and $`Y`$ when it enters into the gravitational wave. These oscillations are stronger as the singularity at $`\tau =0`$ is stronger.
For $`\beta 2`$, the string does not cross the $`U=0`$ singularity and it escapes to $`X=\mathrm{}`$ grazing the singularity plane $`U=0`$.
For $`\beta <2`$, the string crosses the gravitational wave and reaches the flat space-time region $`U>T`$.
The expectation value of the string mass-square operator after the propagation through the gravitational wave has been computed in ref..
The convergence of the series depends on the behaviour of Bogoliubov coefficients Bn for large n. In this regime they can be computed in the Born approximation, with the result

$$\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{n}2i\alpha \left(\frac{2n}{\alpha ^{}p}\right)^{\beta 2}C_\beta \mathrm{for}n\mathrm{}0<\beta <1$$
(10)
Therefore

$$n|B_n|^2n^{2\beta 3}$$

Hence,

$$M_>^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill finitefor\beta <1& \\ \hfill divergentfor1\beta <2& \end{array}$$
(11)
Recall that, when $`\beta 2`$, the string does not reach the region $`U>0`$ and hence, there are no $`>`$ operators in the $`\beta 2`$ case.
For the expectation value of the number operator $`N_>`$ we have

$$N_>=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill finitefor\beta <\frac{3}{2},& \\ \hfill divergentfor\frac{3}{2}\beta <2.& \end{array}$$
(12)
The divergence appearing in $`M_>^2`$ for $`1\beta <2`$ is due to the infinite transverse extent of the wave front and not to the short-distance singularity of $`W(U)`$ at $`U=0`$.
The gravitational forces in the transverse directions ($`X,Y`$) transfer to the string a finite amount of energy when the size of the shock-wave front ($`p_0`$) is finite. The strong gravitational forces impart in the transverse directions ($`X,Y`$) large elongation amplitudes which are responsible for the divergent $`M_>^2`$ when the size of the wave front is infinite.
The divergent $`M_>^2`$ for $`W(U)=\alpha |U|^\beta `$ when $`1\beta <2`$ have the same explanation. (And similarly, those of $`N_>`$ when $`\frac{3}{2}\beta <2`$).
More generally, for a string propagating in a wave type spacetime with generic profile

$$F(U,X,Y)=W(U)f(X,Y),$$

if $`f(X,Y)`$ does not vanish at $`X=Y=\mathrm{}`$, then $`M_>^2=\mathrm{}`$.

## 6 Polarized plane waves and String Polarization

The above properties can be generalized to singular gravitationaal waves with two arbitrary singular profile functions $`W_1(U)=\alpha _1/|U|^{\beta _1}`$, $`W_2(U)=\alpha _2/|U|^{\beta _2}`$.
The dynamics is exactly and explicitely solvable . The string time evolution is fully determined by the background geometry, whereas the overall $`\sigma `$-dependence is fixed by the initial string state.
The proper length stretches infinitely at the singularities when $`\beta _12`$ and / or $`\beta _22`$ (strong singularities)
When $`\beta _12`$ and / or $`\beta _22`$, the string does not cross the singularity (U = 0) but goes off to infinity in a given direction $`\alpha `$ which depends on the polarization of the gravitational wave. The string escape situation is the following :
(i) for $`\beta _1>\beta _2`$ (and $`\beta _12`$), then the angle $`\alpha =0`$ and the string goes off to infinity in the X-direction. In this case, the singularity of $`W_1`$ dominates over that of $`W_2`$ and we recover the previous situation of ref. .
(ii) for $`\beta _2>\beta _1`$ (and $`\beta _22`$), then

$$\alpha =(\pi /4)\mathrm{sgn}\alpha _2,$$
(13)
and
(iii) for $`\beta _1=\beta _22`$, then

$$\mathrm{tan}\alpha =\frac{\alpha _2}{\alpha _1+\sqrt{\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}}$$

that is

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\alpha _2/\alpha _1.$$

If $`\alpha _1>0(\alpha _1<0)`$, the string escape directions are within the cone $`|\alpha |<\pi /4(|\alpha \pi /2|<\pi /4)`$.
In addition to escaping to infinity, the string oscillates in the (X, Y) plane, perpendicularly to the escape direction, and with vanishing amplitude for $`U0`$.
The string behaviour near the singularity expresses naturally in terms of the null variable $`\widehat{U}`$.

$$\widehat{U}(\sigma ,\tau )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ln}(U)\beta =2& \\ \hfill \frac{(U)^{1(\beta /2)}}{1(\beta /2)}\beta >2& \end{array}$$

For instance, the oscillatory modes in the (X, Y) plane are not harmonic in $`U`$ but in $`\widehat{U}`$. The variable $`\widehat{U}`$ is like the cosmic time of strings in cosmological backgrounds (in terms of which the string oscillates), whereas $`U`$ is like the conformal time. Here, for simplicity, $`\beta _1=\beta _2=\beta `$ but this case is actually generic.
For $`\beta _1<2`$ and $`\beta _2<2`$ (weak singularities), the string passes smoothly through the space-time singularity and reaches the outgoing region, and, the string behaviour is oscillatory in time. In this case, outgoing operators make sense and can be explicitely related to the in-operators.
For the particles described by the quantum string states, this implies two types of effects :
(i) rotation of spin polarization in the (X, Y) plane, and
(ii) transmutation between different particles.
The expectation values of the outgoing mass ($`M_>^2`$) operator and of the mode-number operator $`N_>`$, in the ingoing ground state $`|O_<`$ are different from the ingoing expectation values $`M_<^2`$ and $`N_<`$. This difference is due to the excitation of the string modes after crossing the spacetime singularity. In other words, the string state is not an eigenstate of $`M_>^2`$, but an infinity superposition of one-particle states with different masses. This is a consequence of the particle transmutation which allows particle masses different from the initial one ($`m_0^2`$).

## 7 Generic features. Common features with strings in inflationary backgrounds

The string evolution near the spacetime singularity is a collective motion governed by the nature of the gravitational field. The state of the string fixes the overall $`\sigma `$-dependent coefficients whereas the $`\tau `$-dependence is fully determined by the spacetime geometry. In other words, the $`\tau `$-dependence is the same for all modes $`n`$.
In some directions, the string collective propagation turns to be an infinite motion (the escape direction), whereas in other directions, the motion is oscillatory, but with a fixed ($`n`$-independent) frequency. In fact, these features are not restricted to singular gravitational waves, but are generic to strings in strong gravitational fields .
Moreover, it is interesting to compare the string behaviour for $`\tau 0`$ in the inflationary backgrounds for which we have ref.

$$ds^2=(dX^0)^2R^2(X^0)(dX^i)^2$$

with $`R(\tau )=(H\tau )^{\beta /2}`$

$$X^0(\sigma ,\tau )_{\tau 0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{const}\beta <2(\mathrm{superinflationary})\hfill & \\ H^1\mathrm{ln}[H\tau L(\sigma )]\beta =2(\mathrm{de}\mathrm{Sitter},\mathrm{inflationary})\hfill & \\ \frac{(\tau L(\sigma ))^{1(\beta /2)}}{1(\beta /2)}\beta >2(\mathrm{power}\mathrm{type},\mathrm{inflationary})\hfill & \end{array}$$

.

$$X^i(\sigma ,\tau )_{\tau 0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}A^i(\sigma )+D^i(\sigma )\frac{\tau ^2}{2}+\tau ^{1+\beta }F_{(\sigma )}^i\beta 2\hfill & \\ A^i(\sigma )+\stackrel{~}{D}^i(\sigma )\frac{\tau ^2}{2}+\frac{\tau ^2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\tau \stackrel{~}{F}_{(\sigma )}^i\beta =2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The $`A^i(\sigma )`$ are arbitrary functions of $`\sigma ,`$ $`D^i(\sigma ),`$ $`\stackrel{~}{D}^i(\sigma ),`$ $`F^i(\sigma ),`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}^i(\sigma )`$ are fixed by the constraints. Here $`X^0`$ is the cosmic time, while $`\eta \tau `$ is the conformal time.
For the singular plane waves we have

$$\widehat{U}(\sigma ,\tau )_{\tau 0}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{const}\beta <2\hfill & \\ \mathrm{ln}(U)\beta =2\hfill & \\ \frac{(U)^{1(\beta /2)}}{1(\beta /2)}\beta >2.\hfill & \end{array}$$

The behaviour of the string time coordinates are regular and non-oscillating for $`\tau 0`$ (’frozen’), while for singular plane waves, in addition, one of the transverse coordinates is non-oscillating and singular for $`\tau 0`$.
The above behaviours for $`X^0`$ and $`U`$ are characteristic of strings in strong gravitational fields. Notice that the inflationary backgrounds are non- singular, whereas the plane waves (equations (1)-(2)) are singular spacetimes. This is connected to the fact the string coordinates $`X`$, $`Y`$ exhibit divergences in these plane-wave spacetimes.

## 8 Generic wave profiles. The non-linear in-out unitary transformation

In the case of plane or shock waves with profile functions ($`X^2\pm Y^2`$), the string equations became exactly linear, and the transformation between ingoing ($``$) and outgoing operators ($``$) is linear, ie a Bogoliubov transformation.
For generalized profile functions of plane waves and shock waves, the string equations are non linear and the ingoing-outgoing unitary transformation describing the scattering/excitation of the string is non-linear. The linear (Bogoliubov) approximation holds only for large impact parameters. One must use the exact in-out transformation to include all impact parameters. In ref  we succeeded in computing the exact transformation. This throws light on both computations and interpretation, and in particular on the rôle played by the spacetime background. We do all the treatement for any function $`f(X^i)`$, i.e. for any wave profile. We express the nonlinear transformation between ingoing and outgoing zero modes and oscillators in terms of a hermitean operator

$$G=\frac{p_U}{8\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑𝐩^{D2}:e^{\mathrm{𝐢𝐩}𝐱(\sigma ,\tau =0)}:\phi (𝐩),$$

where : : stands for normal ordering with respect to the ingoing state $`|0_<`$ and $`\phi `$(p) is the Fourier transform of the wave profile.
This operator acts on the Fock space operators and Fock space states and it is suitable to express the relevant expectation values after the collision of the string with the wave background.
The ingoing-outgoing ground-state transition amplitude $`0_<|0_>`$ expresses as

$$\underset{n}{}\frac{i^n}{n!}0_<|G^n|0_<.$$

We interpret these terms as a $`n`$-leg scalar amplitude with vertex operators inserted at $`\tau `$ = 0 (a line of pinchs at the intersection of the world sheet with the wave), and find an integral representation for these quantities.
The integrands possess equally spaced real pole singularities typical of string models in flat space-time. The presence and structure of these poles is not at all related to the structure of the space-time geometry (which may or may not be singular). We give a sense to these integrals by taking the principal value prescription, yielding for $`0_<|G^n|0_<`$ a well defined finite and real result.
The exact expressions for the total outgoing mode operator $`N_>`$ and mass square $`M_>^2`$ operator in the ingoing ground state $`|0_<`$ can be thus computed. We find that the contribution from each $`n`$-level, that is $`M_n^2`$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$, decreases like

$$\alpha ^{}\stackrel{~}{p}^2n^1(2\alpha ^{}/\pi \mathrm{log}n)^{1D/2}$$
(14)
The large $`n`$ behaviour of $`M_n^2`$ depends on the density matter $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ only through its total energy $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=d^{D2}𝐗\stackrel{~}{\rho }(𝐗)`$.
All the shock wave geometries exhibit the same large $`n`$ behaviour of $`M_n^2`$, irrespective of the structure of the localized source.
The sum over $`n`$ in both $`N_>`$, and $`M_>^2=(D2)/(12\alpha ^{})+_{n1}^{\mathrm{}}M_N^2`$ converges and the total values are exactly computed.
The contribution of the excited states is suppressed by a factor $`0_<|0_<=(L/2\pi )^{D2}`$ with respect to the direct (initial state) contribution $`\mu ^2=(D2)/(12\alpha ^{})`$, $`L`$ being a typical large box size.
We find for $`N_>`$ and $`M_>^2`$ integral representations which exhibit a similar structure to $`G^2`$, that is, the integrands factorizes into two pieces : $`|\varphi (𝐩)|^2`$ which characterizes the wave geometry and the function

$$\mathrm{tg}(\alpha ^{}\pi 𝐩^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ^{}𝐩^2)/\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\alpha ^{}𝐩^2\right),$$

which depends only on the string. These integrands possess real singularities (poles) like the tree level string spectrum. This is exactly what happens in the tree amplitudes of string models. Like the tree level string spectrum, these poles correspond to equally spaced real resonances in the mass spectrum. As is usually expected, loop corrections provide a width to these resonances and will therefore shift the poles away from the integration path, leading to finite results. The physical interpretation of such poles is that they correspond to all higher string states which become excited after the collision through the wave singularities.
In conclusion, singularities in string theory are fully, mathematically and physically consistent.

## 9 Clarification

Some aspects of strings in these gravitational-wave backgrounds have been studied by the authors of refs., . However, this problem has subtle points which were overlooked in refs. , .
The analysis done in refs. ,  by analogy with the Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger equation is not careful enough. The mass and number operators are expressed in terms of the transmission coefficient $`B_n`$. The cases in refs. ,  in which $`B_n=\mathrm{}`$ mean that there is no transmission to the region $`U>0`$, and therefore that there is no outgoing mass nor outgoing number operator (since there is no string) in that region. This is the situation of string falling to $`U=0`$ for $`\beta 2`$, the string does not cross the singularity, the string scapes to infinity grazing the singularity plane U = 0.
Therefore,the outgoing ($`>`$) operators as $`M_>^2`$ and $`N_>`$ make sense only for $`\beta <2`$ and any statement about $`M_>^2`$ and $`N_>`$ for $`\beta 2`$ is meaningless, (since there is no string in the $`>`$ region for $`\beta 2`$).
In the cases in which $`M_>^2`$ is divergent, such infinity is not related at all to the spacetime singularity at $`U=0`$. This happens for $`\beta <2`$ when the transverse size (i.e., perpendicular to the propagation direction) of the gravitational wave front is infinity. Then, the gravitational wave carries an infinite energy which transfers to the string according to the behavior of $`W(U)`$. This may lead to a finite or infinite value for $`M_>^2`$ as we have seen above.
In conclusion, the propagation of classical and quantum strings through the singular space-times is physically meaningful and follows the evolution, properties and classification summarized here.

## 10 Conclusions and Classification

(i) As is known, in the context of point particle QFT, vacuum polarization effects do not arise in plane wave and shock wave backgrounds since ingoing $`<`$ and outgoing $`>`$ operators do not get mixed in this context. Therefore no particle creation effects takes place for point particle field theories in these geometries. On the contrary, particle transmutations as well as vacuum polarization effects on the energy- momentum tensor do appear for strings in these wave space-times. These effects can be traced back to the mixing of creation and annihilation $`<`$ and $`>`$ string oscillators.
(ii) Pole-type curvature singularities with $`\beta <2`$, $`\delta (U)`$ singularities conical and orbifold singularities are weak singularities : the string motion is oscillatory in time, string crosses smoothly the singularities, ingoing and outgoing states can be defined and so all the scattering sector. Mass, number and energy-momentum of the string are well defined and finite. The string oscillators get excited in the scattering and crossing the singularities. The string proper length is finite. The detailed classical and quantum string dynamics in conical space times with general deficit angles

$$\delta \varphi =2\pi (1\alpha )=8\pi G\mu $$

$$0\varphi <2\pi \alpha ,$$

was treated in refs , . In the simpler case of orbifolds, which is a particular case of the above for deficit angles $`2\pi (11/N)`$, the scattering is trivial.
(iii) Pole-type singularities with $`\beta 2`$ and black holes (r = 0) are strong singularities; string does not pass across the singularity (eventually it can gets trapped); outgoing operators can not be defined. Ingoing mass, number and energy momentum tensor of the string are well defined and finite.
The proper string length stretches indefinitely.
(iv) The features of the strong singularity case are generic to strings in strong gravitational fields : the string evolution near the strong spacetime singularity is a collective motion governed by the nature of the gravitational field. The state of the string fixes the overall $`\sigma `$-dependence. The time dependence is fully determined by the spacetime geometry, that is, the same for all modes $`n`$. In some directions, the string collective propagation is an infinite motion (the escape direction); in other directions, the motion is oscillatory, but with a fixed ($`n`$)- independent frequency.
This happens too for strings in inflationary backgrounds (which are not singular). In the inflationary cases, all transverse spatial coordinates are non oscillating in time, but they are regular (“frozen”) for $`\tau 0`$, while for strong singular plane waves some of the transverse coordinates are singular.
For the string time coordinate the plane wave case $`\beta <2`$ is like super inflation, the case $`\beta =2`$ is like de Sitter inflation, and the case $`\beta >2`$ is like power type inflation.
(v) Tests strings do propagate consistently in singular space-times : Klein-Gordon equation (for a point particle) is ill defined, whereas the string equations are well behaved. This includes strings in plane wave backgrounds, shock wave backgrounds (sourceless shock waves and of Aichelburg-Sexl type, and with generic profiles), as well as in the black hole geometries, where the string behaviour is regular at the horizon and near the r = 0 sigularity refs., , . That is, strings feel the space time singularities much less than point particles.
Furthermore, we would not be surprised by the presence of space-time singularities in string theory as long as one sticks to a geometry description using a metric tensor $`G_{AB}(X)`$ in spite of the fact it fulfills the exact or corrected string equations. We do not expect that a space-time description in terms of a Riemannian manifold with local coordinates $`X^A`$ will be meaningful at the Planck scale.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The aim of this paper is to argue against the common practice1-4 to restrict the definition of quasicrystals by requiring that they possess an axis of symmetry that is incompatible with periodicity. According to this restriction there are no quasicrystals in 1-dimension, and a quasicrystal in 2- or 3-dimensions must have an axis of $`N`$-fold symmetry, with $`N=5`$, or $`N>6`$. I propose here to accept the original definition of Levine and Steinhardt5 whereby the term quasicrystal is simply an abbreviation for quasiperiodic crystal, possibly with the proviso that the term quasicrystal be used for crystals that are strictly aperiodic (as the mathematical definition of quasiperiodicity includes periodicity as a special case).

I shall start by reviewing some basic definitions in section 2. I shall then proceed in section 3 to discuss the problematic distinction between the different families of quasiperiodic crystals, namely, incommensurately modulated crystals, incommensurate composite crystals, and those crystals that are typically referred to as quasicrystals. Finally, in section 4, I shall support my call to relax the definition of quasicrystals by referring to theoretical models, as well as experimental observations, of structures which should be considered as quasicrystals even though they possess no forbidden symmetries.

## 2 Definitions

### 2.1 What is a crystal?

Before Shechtman’s 1982 discovery of the first quasicrystal6 it was universally accepted, though never proven, that the internal order of crystals was achieved through a periodic filling of space. Crystallography treated order and periodicity synonymously, both serving equally to define the notion of a crystal. With that came the so-called “crystallographic restriction,” stating that crystals cannot have certain forbidden symmetries, such as 5-fold rotations. The periodic nature of crystals was “confirmed” with the discovery of x-ray crystallography and numerous other experimental techniques throughout the 20th century. Periodicity became the underlying paradigm, not only for crystallography itself, but also for other disciplines such as materials science and condensed matter physics, whose most basic tools, like the Brillouin zone, rely on its existence.

Two decades later, it is now clear that periodicity and order are not synonymous, and that a decision has to be made as to which should define the term crystal. The International Union of Crystallography through its Commission on Aperiodic Crystals7 decided on the latter, but was not ready to give precise microscopic descriptions of all the ways in which order can be achieved. Clearly, periodicity is one way of achieving order, quasiperiodicity as in Penrose-like tilings is another, but can we be certain that there are no other ways that have not yet been discovered? The Commission opted to shift the definition from a microscopic description of the crystal to a property of the data collected in a diffraction experiment. It decided on a temporary working-definition whereby a crystal is “any solid having an essentially discrete diffraction diagram.” Crystals that are periodic are explicitly called periodic crystals, all others are called aperiodic crystals. The new definition is consistent with the notion of long-range order, used in condensed matter physics, where the transition from a disordered liquid to an ordered solid is indicated by the appearance of an order parameter in the form of Bragg peaks in the diffraction diagram at non-zero wave vectors. It is sufficiently vague so as not to impose unnecessary constraints until a better understanding of crystallinity emerges. We need not worry about this vagueness here, because we shall only be concerned with quasiperiodic crystals, which are a well defined subcategory of structures, satisfying the new definition.

### 2.2 What is a quasiperiodic crystal?

Solids whose density functions $`\rho (𝐫)`$ may be expanded as a superposition of a countable number of plane waves

$$\rho (𝐫)=\underset{𝐤L}{}\rho (𝐤)e^{i𝐤𝐫},$$
(1)
are called almost periodic crystals. In particular, if taking integral linear combinations of a finite number $`D`$ of wave vectors in this expansion can span all the rest, then the crystal is quasiperiodic. The diffraction pattern of a quasiperiodic crystal, therefore, contains Bragg peaks each of which can be indexed by $`D`$ integers. If $`D`$ is the smallest number of wave vectors that can span the whole set $`L`$ using integral linear combinations then $`D`$ is called the rank, or the indexing dimension of the crystals. Periodic crystals form a special subset of all quasiperiodic crystals whose rank $`D`$ is equal to the actual physical dimension $`d`$. For periodic crystals the set of Bragg peaks is truly discrete because the set of wave vectors $`𝐤`$ in their Fourier expansion (1) is discrete. For quasiperiodic crystals whose rank $`D`$ is greater than the physical dimension $`d`$, the set $`L`$ of wave vectors in the expansion (1) is dense—there are $`𝐤`$’s in $`L`$ that cannot be surrounded by a finite $`d`$-dimensional ball that contains no other $`𝐤`$’s. Nevertheless, in actual experiments, where the total integrated diffraction intensity is finite, Bragg peaks are not observed at wave vectors $`𝐤`$ for which the intensity $`|\rho (𝐤)|^2`$ is below a certain threshold. The observed diffraction pattern is therefore essentially discrete even though the set $`L`$ is not. It should be noted that all experimentally observed crystals to date are quasiperiodic.

## 3 The quasicrystallographic restriction

Certain classes of quasiperiodic crystals were known long before Shechtman’s discovery. These are the so-called incommensurately-modulated crystals and incommensurate composite crystals, (or intergrowth compounds). The former consist of a basic (or average) ordered structure that is perturbed periodically (modulated) in space, and the period of the modulation is incommensurate with the underlying spatial periodicities of the basic structure.***We know today of cases where the basic structure itself is already aperiodic.8,9 The latter are composed of two or more interpenetrating subsystems with mutually incommensurate spatial periodicities. Each subsystem, when viewed independently, is itself a crystal which is incommensurately-modulated due to its interaction with the other subsystems. The diffraction diagrams of these special types of quasiperiodic crystals are characterized by having one or more subsets of main reflections—Bragg peaks that are significantly brighter than the others—describing the basic structures, and weaker peaks, called satellites, arising from the modulations. For more detail see, for example, references 2 and 10.

Incommensurately-modulated and incommensurate composite crystals did not pose any serious challenge to the periodicity paradigm because they could all be viewed as periodic structures that had been slightly modified. Order was still obtained through periodicity—the paradigm remained intact. Shechtman’s discovery implied that there exist quasiperiodic crystals for which a description in terms of a modulation of a basic periodic structure or a composition of two or more substructures is either inappropriate or impossible. Due to its forbidden 5-fold symmetry, Shechtman’s quasicrystal was clearly not a quasiperiodic modification of a periodic crystal, but rather a crystal which was somehow intrinsically quasiperiodic—a crystal in which order was not achieved by means of periodicity. Shechtman’s discovery was able to shatter the old paradigm because it was a clear violation of the crystallographic restriction. The observation of a forbidden symmetry was so pivotal in the discovery of quasicrystals that it became their defining property. The crystallographic restriction was replaced by what may be viewed as a “quasicrystallographic restriction.”

It is common practice to reserve the term “quasicrystal” exclusively for those crystals, like Shechtman’s, that are intrinsically quasiperiodic, setting them apart from modulated and composite crystals as a third subcategory of quasiperiodic structures. This common point of viewSee, for example, references 2, 10, 11, and 12. is appealing for many reasons, particularly, because there are systems whose physical behavior is indeed governed by the fact that the crystal is modulated or composed of substructures. Not viewing these systems as such, and not utilizing the many theoretical and experimental tools developed specifically for treating modulated and composite crystals, would be foolish.

The problem with the desire to distinguish between intrinsically-quasiperiodic crystals and crystals in which quasiperiodicity is obtained via modulation or composition is the lack of a quantitative criterion for making this distinction. The easiest way to see the difficulty is by considering the diffraction patterns. The diffraction pattern of a modulated crystal, for example, must exhibit a subset of strong main reflections accompanied by weak satellites. This begs to ask how weak must the satellites be to be considered as such? If one could hypothetically gradually increase the intensity of the satellites and their harmonics, at what point would the structure cease to be a modulated crystal? The same difficulty can also be seen in direct space, by starting with a periodic crystal which is modulated by a smooth incommensurate sine function, and gradually increasing the amplitude of this modulation while adding higher harmonic contributions. If consequently the modulation takes the shape of an unsmooth sawtooth function would it not be more appropriate to view it as a set of separate “atomic surfaces” like one does in a quasicrystal?

It turns out that this gradual transformation of a modulated crystal into a “quasicrystal” is not at all hypothetical. There are examples of systems,13 in which this transformation happens as a function of composition. The transformed structures are described as modulated crystals, with complicated modulation functions, called “Crenel functions”,14 when in fact they can be described very simply as “quasicrystals” with simple atomic surfaces, as explained in Ref. 13.This may remind the reader of the famous experiment in which a group of people is shown a sequence of pictures, beginning with a cat which gradually changes into a dog. The viewers insist that they are still seeing a cat almost to the end, when in fact they looking at a picture of a dog. Although, one of the best suggestions12 for the distinction between quasicrystals and modulated crystals is based on the shape of the modulation function, it seems quite impractical as a quantitative experimental criterion.

So, even though there are clearly structures that are formed by modulating or composing simpler structures, and there are clearly other structures that are not, there is simply no quantitative criterion to distinguish between these categories of quasiperiodic structures. Unless of course, as a last resort, one adopts the quasicrystallographic restriction. The criterion is then very simple: If a quasiperiodic crystal possesses forbidden symmetries then it is a quasicrystal, otherwise it is a modulated or a composite crystal. This is probably the most appealing reason to adopt the quasicrystallographic restriction. The problem is that it leaves no room for the possible existence of crystals that are intrinsically quasiperiodic—not formed by modulation or composition—yet possess no forbidden symmetries. If such crystals cannot exist then there is no problem with adopting the quasicrystallographic restriction. If such crystals do exist then adopting the restriction would be inappropriate. So we must ask: Are there are any examples of such crystals?

## 4 Many examples

Theoretical models of such crystals, that are intrinsically quasiperiodic yet possess no forbidden symmetries, are very easy to construct. In fact, from a theoretical standpoint it should be obvious that there is nothing special about point groups that are incompatible with periodicity. In principle, any method that is used to generate a quasiperiodic tiling with, say, 10-fold symmetry can be used to generate quasiperiodic tilings with, say, 4-fold symmetry. Indeed, there are many examples in the literature of tiling models of quasicrystals, with 2-, 4-, and 6-fold symmetry, generated by all the standard methods: matching rules,15 substitution rules,15,16 the cut-and-project method17,18 and the dual-grid method.19

I have recently described the two-dimensional square Fibonacci tiling and its natural generalization into three (or even higher) dimensions.20 It is a quasiperiodic tiling with many of the features normally associated with standard tiling models of quasicrystals like the Penrose tiling. It has a finite number of tiles with definite tile frequencies and a finite number of vertex configurations; it can be generated by most of the standard methods for generating quasiperiodic tilings; its diffraction diagram contains Bragg peaks with no clear subset of main-reflections; and most notably, it has $`\tau `$-inflation symmetry, where $`\tau =(1+\sqrt{5})/2`$ is the golden ratio. Like the proverbial bird that looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is therefore a duck—the square Fibonacci tiling is a model quasicrystal even though it has no forbidden symmetries.

To the best of my knowledge, no alloys or real quasicrystals exist with the precise structure of the square or cubic Fibonacci tilings. Yet, this does not imply that structures like the square Fibonacci tiling are experimentally irrelevant. In recent years we have come to know a number of experimental applications where one creates artificial quasicrystals. One example is in the field of photonic crystals,21 with the aim of producing novel photonic band-gap materials. Another example is in field of non-linear optics,22 with the aim of achieving third- and fourth-harmonic generation in a single crystal. In both of these examples it may be beneficial to make artificial quasicrystals with structures, similar to that of the square Fibonacci tiling.

The existence of theoretical models and the possibility to fabricate artificial structures might be dismissed as trivial, yet the existence of actual experimental observations is a different matter. It turns out that there have been experimental reports of quasiperiodic crystals with cubic symmetry23,24 as well as tetrahedral,25,26 tetragonal,17 and possibly also hexagonal27 symmetry, that are neither modulated crystals nor composite crystals. Their diffraction diagrams show no clear subset(s) of main reflections, yet they do not possess any forbidden symmetry. One of the cubic quasicrystals,24 a Mg-Al alloy, is even reported to have inflation symmetry involving irrational factors related to $`\sqrt{3}`$. These crystals are clearly quasiperiodic yet they are not formed by modifying an underlying periodic structure. They are as intrinsically quasiperiodic as the quasicrystals that have forbidden symmetries, and should therefore all be considered quasicrystals.

## 5 So, what is a quasicrystal?

I suggest that the quasicrystallographic restriction, requiring quasicrystals to possess forbidden symmetries, be officially abandoned. I would like the scientific community to accept the original definition of Levine and Steinhardt5 whereby the term quasicrystal is simply an abbreviation for quasiperiodic crystal, possibly with the proviso that the term quasicrystal be used only for crystals that are strictly aperiodic (since, as mentioned above, the mathematical definition of quasiperiodicity includes periodicity as a special case).

This paper is part of an ongoing debate on the meaning of crystallinity and the concept of a quasicrystal. Some crystallographers might still be under the impression that if a quasiperiodic crystal does not possess any forbidden symmetry it must be either an incommensurately modulated crystal or an incommensurate composite crystal, and that no other possibility exists. Many crystallographers still impose the “quasicrystallographic restriction” when defining quasicrystals in their publications. It is my firm opinion that these practices and misconceptions should be stopped, not only as a matter of academic preciseness, but more importantly, to make sure that crystallographers who discover new quasicrystals without forbidden symmetries will not hesitate to publish their findings. As we celebrate in these Journal issues the many contributions of David Mermin to science, its teaching,28 and its communication to others,29 a more appropriate title for this article (in the spirit of David Mermin’s “Reference Frame” columns in Physics Today) might have been “What’s wrong with these quasicrystals?” The answer in this case is that nothing is wrong with these quasicrystals—the problem lies with the definition.

This paper is dedicated to David Mermin on the occasion of his first steps towards retirement. I would like to take this opportunity to thank David once again for being such a great teacher and a wonderful collaborator.

This research is supported by the Israel Science Foundation through Grant No. 278/00.

## References

* P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), p. 680.
* S. Van Smaalen, “Incommensurate crystal structures,” Cryst. Rev. 4, 79 (1995).
* M. Senechal, Quasicrystals and Geometry (Cambridge University press, Cambridge, 1996), p. 31 (but see the comment on p. 33).
* D. Gratias, “A brief survey of quasicrystallography,” Ferroelectrics 250 1 (2001).
* D. Levine and P. J. Steinhardt, “Quasicrystals I: Definition and structure,” Phys. Rev. B34, 596 (1986).
* D. Shechtman, I. Blech, D. Gratias, and J. W. Cahn, “Metallic phase with long-ranged orientational order and no translational symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 1951 (1984).
* International Union of Crystallography, Acta Cryst. A48, 922 (1992).
* F. Denoyer, P. Launois, T. Motsch, and M. Lambert, “On the phase transition mechanism in Al-Cu-Fe: structural analysis of the modulated quasicrystalline and of the microcrystalline states,” J. Non-Cryst. Solids 153 & 154, 595 (1993).
* N. Menguy, M. de Boissieu, P. Guyot, M. Audier, E. Elkaim, and J. P. Lauriat, “Modulated icosahedral Al-Fe-Cu phase: a single crystal X-ray diffraction study,” Ibid. p. 620.
* R. Lifshitz, “The symmetry of quasiperiodic crystals,” Physica A232, 633 (1996).
* T. Janssen, “Crystallography of quasicrystals,” Acta Cryst. A42, 261 (1986).
* A. Katz and D. Gratias, in Lectures on Quasicrystals, ed. F. Hippert and D. Gratias (Les Editions de Physique, Les Ulis, 1994), see p. 247.
* L. Elcoro, J. M. Perez-Mato, and R. Withers, “Intergrowth polytypoids as modulated structures: The example of the cation deficient oxides LaTi1-xO3,” Zeit. Krist. 215, 727 (2000).
* V. Petříček, A. van der Lee and M. Evain, “On the use of Crenel functions for occupationally modulated structures,” Acta Cryst. A51, 529 (1995).
* B. Grünbaum and G. C. Shephard, Tilings and Patterns (Freeman, New York, 1987), section 10.4.
* R. Paredes, J. L. Aragón, and R. A. Barrio, “Nonperiodic hexagonal square-triangle tilings,” Phys. Rev. B58, 11990 (1998).
* Z. H. Mai, L. Xu, N. Wang, K. H. Kuo, Z. C. Jin, and G. Cheng, “Effect of phason strain on the transition of an octagonal quasicrystal to a $`\beta `$-Mn-type structure,” Phys. Rev. B40, 12183 (1989).
* M. Baake, D. Joseph, P. Kramer, “The Schur rotation as a simple approach to the transition between quasiperiodic and periodic phases,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 24, L961 (1991).
* S. Baranidharan and E. S. R. Gopal, “Quasiperiodic tilings with fourfold symmetry,” Acta Cryst. A48, 782 (1992).
* R. Lifshitz, “The square Fibonacci tiling,” J. Alloys Comp. 342, 186 (2002).
* M. Hase, M. Egashira, N. Shinya, H. Miyazaki, K.M. Kojima, S. Uchida, “Optical transmission spectra of two-dimensional quasiperiodic photonic crystals based on Penrose-tiling and octagonal-tiling systems,” J. Alloys Comp. 342, 455 (2002).
* K. Fradkin-Kashi, A. Arie, “Multiple-wavelength quasi-phase-matched nonlinear interactions,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 35, 1649 (1999); K. Fradkin-Kashi, A. Arie, P. Urenski, G. Rosenman, “Multiple nonlinear optical interactions with arbitrary wave vector differences,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 023903 (2002).
* Y. C. Feng, G. Lu, H. Q. Ye, K. H. Kuo, R. L. Withers, and G. Van Tendeloo, “Experimental evidence for and a projection model of a cubic quasicrystal,” J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2, 9749 (1990).
* P. Donnadieu, H. L. Su, A. Proult, M. Harmelin, G. Effenberg, and F. Aldinger, “From modulated phases to a quasiperiodic structure with a cubic point group and inflation symmetry,” J. Phys. I France 6, 1153 (1996).
* P. Donnadieu, “The deviation of the Al6Li3Cu quasicrystal from icosahedral symmetry - A reminisence of a cubic crystal,” J. Phys. I France 4, 791 (1994).
* J. Dräger, R. Lifshitz, and N. D. Mermin, “Tetrahedral quasicrystals,” in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Quasicrystals, ed. C. Janot and R. Mosseri (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996) 72.
* H. Selke, U. Vogg, and P. L. Ryder, “New quasiperiodic phase in Al85Cr15,” Phys. Stat. Sol. A141, 31 (1994).
* N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid state physics (Saunders College, Philadelphia, 1976).
* N. D. Mermin, Boojums all the way through (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990).