text:
# The Phenomena of High Energy Astrophysics

## 1. Two Decades of High Energy Astrophysics

There has been a wonderful decade of discovery in high energy astrophysics. Accretion disks surrounding massive black holes in active galactic nuclei (AGN) have been traced into relativistic regimes using ASCA, Chandra and XMM-Newton (e.g. Fabian 2002, Wilms et al. 2001). Other disks around similar sources create ultrarelativistic outflows, or jets, that have been directly imaged on scales from pc to Mpc using HALCA and the VLBA (e.g. Junor, Biretta & Livio 1999), and Chandra (e.g. Wilson, Young & Shopbell 2001) and, indirectly, probed on sub–pc scales using EGRET (e.g. Hartman et al. 1992) and atmospheric Cerenkov telescopes (e.g. Quinn et al. 1998). Similar jets and disks have been associated with Galactic X-ray binaries (XRB) and shown to exhibit Quasi-Periodic Oscillations (QPOs) using, especially, RXTE (e.g. van der Klis 1998). Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) were placed at cosmological distances following observations by BATSE (Meegan et al. 1992) which was confirmed by ground-based spectroscopy of X-ray afterglows discovered by Beppo-SAX (Costa et al. 1997, Metzger et al. 1997). These bursts also appear to comprise collimated, ultrarelativistic outflows which eventually form the afterglows discovered by Beppo-SAX and which, in turn, presumably evolve to form a small fraction of the supernova remnants (SNR) whose dynamics and composition have been mapped at X-ray energies (e.g. Canizares 2002). The X-ray background was effectively associated with individual faint sources by ROSAT (as confirmed by Chandra and XMM-Newton, e.g. Hasinger 2002, Brandt et al. 2002). Evidence of the hot intergalactic medium (IGM) has been found by FUSE (eg Tripp, Savage & Jenkins 2000) and, more recently,reported with Chandra (e.g. Fang et al. 2002) and we are now studying this same gas in rich clusters of galaxies in fine spectroscopic detail (e.g. Mushotzky 2002)

These (electromagnetic) discoveries have been matched by great discoveries in cosmic ray physics. The atomic and isotopic composition of cosmic rays has been measured in exquisite detail by ACE and the spectrum has been extended to ultra high energy (UHE) by the AGASA and HiRes arrays. In addition, neutrino mass has been detected by painstaking work at Homestake, Kamionkande, SNO and KamLAND (e.g. Eguchi et al. 2003).

These examples, which could surely be matched by a quite separate list involving different sources and observatories, are, arguably, as far-reaching and of equal popular interest to the great discoveries that have been made over a similar period in cosmology and extra-solar planets.

The coming decade should be no less exciting. Integral has just been launched. Auger and Hess, which will detect UHE cosmic rays at ZeV energy and VHE $`\gamma `$-rays at TeV energy with unprecedented sensitivity, are just coming on line. Swift will study GRBs and produce a long overdue hard X-ray survey. Astro-E2, has a planned 2005 launch and will perform high dispersion spectrosocopy of accretion disks etc. This will be followed quickly by GLAST which should be roughly 50 times a powerful as EGRET. There are ambitious plans to open up high energy neutrino astronomy by augmenting AMANDA and constructing IceCube. LIGO is already operational and it is hoped that it will start gravitational radiation astronomy. There is also optimism that the space missions, Constellation-X/XEUS, LISA and EXIST will be started by the end of the decade.

hat this impressive list of operating and planned missions also brings out is that high energy astrophysics is an integrating discipline. Sources are observable over $`70`$ octaves of the electromagnetic spectrum (including the single octave claimed by optical astronomers!) from $`<100`$ MHz to $`>10`$ TeV. If we look forward to gravitational and cosmic ray astronomy, the spctrum expands to fill the interval from $`<100\mu `$Hz gravitons to $`>1`$ ZeV protons and the number of octaves doubles. High energy sources are invariably nonthermal which implies that they must be observed “holistically”. Panchromatic campaigns to study AGN have been common for more than twenty years and, more recently, multi-wavelength observations have been the key to the study of GRB afterglows.

There is a second, integrating feature of high energy astrophysics and this has been less appreciated and, so far, less exploited. This is that much of what we can observe depends upon a fairly small number of physical processes that we do not understand very well. However, these processes should be source-independent. Examples include the behavior of ultrarelativistic shock fronts, the rates of thermalization and the thermal conductivity of hot magnetized plasma and the viscosity of shear flows. Ultrarelativistic flows, in general, are seen in AGN jets, pulsar wind nebulae (PWN) and GRBs and there is every reason to undertake comparative studies to understand their general, global, behavior. The rate of particle acceleration and magnetic field generation at a relativistic shock front ought to depend solely on the Mach number (or, equivalently, the Lorentz factor). Hot plasmas are observed in the laboratory, in the solar corona, in the inter-planetary, -stellar and -galactic media. Most of the important transport processes should scale simply with density and in an unknown, though universal manner with temperature. The effective angular momentum, mass and energy transport in strongly, shearing media, likewise probably depends on a set of elementary principles. Here, numerical simulations are starting to be especially instructive. I expect that exploiting the wide variety of physical conditions in cosmic sources to divine fundamental scaling relations will be a major feature of high energy astrophysics research over the next decade.

## 2. The Cosmological Context

The recent maturation of observational cosmology has special implications for high energy astrophysics. There now exists a cosmological framework in which to interpret the observations. Although we do not understand much at all about why this is the case, we do appear to inhabit a universe with Hubble constant $`65\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ age, $`14`$ Gyr, a flat spatial geometry, and a current composition of roughly 70 percent dark energy, 25 percent dark matter and 5 per cent baryonic matter. This knowledge, allows us to be much more quantitative when analyzing individual sources, especially when estimating pressures, densities, speeds etc.

High energy observations have contributed significantly to the development of this framework. The most important example is the measurement of the matter density by observing the X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies. This has consistently given a value of roughly $`\mathrm{\Omega }0.3`$ for a decade (predicated on the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis) and it is now claimed that the measurement error is better than ten percent (Allen, Schmidt & Fabian 2002. This same analysis led to an equally important value for the density fluctuation normalization, $`\sigma _8=0.7`$.

One example of the importance of being quantitative is in understanding the growth of massive black holes in AGN. The most recent determinations of the black hole mass density in contemporary galactic nuclei concludes that holes have to be assembled quite efficiently (with efficiencies $`ϵ0.2`$, Yu & Tremaine 2002) and therefore radiatively. Furthermore, the discovery of powerful quasars at redshift $`z6.5`$ (Fan et al. 2001) implies that the first black holes probably grew at a rate faster than the Salpeter rate, simultaneous with the growth of the host galaxy. This, in turn has implications for the contribution of quasar ultraviolet radiation (probably small) to the intergalactic, photoionizing radiation field. There is a good possibility that GRBs will be seen to even greater redshifts than quasars and provide different probes of intervening material.

Another connection between high energy astrophysics and cosmology involves VHE $`\gamma `$-rays which constrain the mid-far infrared background. A complementary constraint is provided by the highest energy cosmic rays whose range is similarly limited by photopion production on the microwave background. Here we know the opacity very well and it it is the sources whose location is unknown, but must lie within $`30`$ Mpc at the highest energies detected.

## 3. Hot Gas

The two best laboratories for studying transport processes at high temperature are rich galaxy clusters and supernova remnants. Recent X-ray observations of both of these have been impressively detailed and are still far from digested.

### 3.1. Clusters of Galaxies and the Intergalactic Medium

Clusters are important cosmologically because as we have just seen, they are thought to be large enough to provide a fair sample of the baryons and because they are very convenient tracers of the growth of large scale structure that can be identified at large redshift through X-ray surveys, Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect studies and weak lensing investigations. They are also important because they harbor the oldest galaxies at a given cosmic time and provide the best fossil record of the formation of the first galaxies.

Clusters have become important physically because they can teach us about the microphysical behavior of hot plasma. This has been become central to attempts to resolve the “cooling flow paradox”. It has been known for a long while that the radiative cooling times of the gas at the centers of rich clusters is often shorter than the cluster ages. It was then supposed that the gas would flow into the central cD galaxies at rates as high as $`1000\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$. What appears to be happening is that the gas starts to cool more or less as anticipated, but then it almost vanishes only to reappear at much lower temperature radiating optical and ultraviolet emission lines copiously from gas with $`T2\times 10^4`$ K and density $`n100`$ cm-3 (e.g. Peterson et al. 2003).

There are some important clues as to what is going on. The gas that is observed at high temperature appears to be in thermal equilibrium and the isotherms are nested quasi-spherical surfaces. Another important clue has emerged from studies of clusters like the Perseus and Virgo clusters that contain double radio sources. The X-ray emission from the areas of the sky occupied by these radio sources is reduced, suggesting that the the strongly magnetized, relativistic plasma responsible for the radio emission does not, in practice, mix well with the cooler (i.e. with temperature $`10^8`$ K!) plasma into which it is expanding. This inference has been reinforced by the discovery of fossil radio sources, presumably associated with earlier phases of nuclear activity, that are rising under buoyancy in the cluster gravitational field (e.g. Fabian et al. 2002). Some additional deductions have been made, rather more controversially. The gas immediately surrounding these bubbles is actually cooler than most of the cluster gas. The existence of these large temperature gradients in rich clusters argues that the effective mean free paths of hot electrons are smaller than given by Coulomb scattering in unmagnetized plasma. Most attempts to account for the thermal structure of clusters have posited some form of heating to prevent the gas from cooling. This seems rather unpromising. Piling gas up at a temperature where it can radiate relatively efficiently does not seem a good way to make it disappear! Also the radio sources, the most promising sources of distributed heating, do not appear to perform this function.

I would like to propose a rather different explanation for these observations. The gas that accumulates in rich clusters has a very high entropy relative to the $`10^4`$ K gas that was ionized when the universe was $`0.5`$ Gyr old. The most likely source of this entropy is passage through a strong shock front formed as galaxy-sized perturbations become nonlinear and drive gas with sound speed $`10`$ km s-1 together with speeds $`300`$ km s-1 (e.g. Miniati et al. 2000). (Supernova explosions and expanding, double radio sources can also create strong shock fronts.) The post-shock gas will have a density $`10^3`$ cm-3, a temperature $`10^6`$ K and a pressure $`10^{12}`$ dyne cm-2. Now a gravitationally-induced shock in the IGM should behave just like one of similar Mach number ($`M30`$) in the ISM (see below). This implies that there should be a large, post-shock, cosmic ray partial pressure, roughly $`0.3`$ times the total pressure (e.g. Miniati et al. 2000). As the gas expands, following the passage of the shock, and as a consequence of the general expansion of the universe, the cosmic ray pressure will become slightly more important and may even dominate. However, if and when this gas collects into a deep potential well formed by a rich cluster of galaxies, the gas will be compressed and the cosmic ray pressure will decrease relative to that of the gas. The gas that is observed to be cooling in centers of rich clusters has a pressure similar to that in post shock gas and the $``$ GeV cosmic ray pressure is still likely to contribute about $`30`$ percent of the total. These cosmic rays should make clusters into $``$ GeV $`\gamma `$-ray sources, detectable by GLAST. Nonthermal emission from the electrons may have also been seen in the extreme ultraviolet (e.g. Durret et al. 2002). Finally, careful modeling of relaxed clusters using X-ray, lensing and microwave background observations may lead to detection of a pressure deficit in the thermal gas.

When the cluster gas starts to cool, as it must eventually, it will compress by a factor of a few until the cosmic pressure dominates and resists further compression. The gas will then cool roughly isochorically and the inflow will be halted or at least seriously inhibited. It is then possible for the cool gas to permeate the warm ($`T10^7`$ K) gas and radiate away the internal energy contained in the warm gas. In principle, this can be very efficient. Suppose that the cool gas has a temperature $`10^5`$ K, where its emissivity is maximized (cf. Krolik 1999), and a pressure of $`10^{10}`$ dyne cm-2, typical of the center of a rich cluster. $`3\times 10^7`$ M of cool gas occupying a fraction $`10^5`$ of the volume suffices to radiate the missing soft X-ray power in the ultraviolet.

The problem is one of getting the energy from the hot gas to the cold gas fast enough. The traditional approach is to suppose that the interface is a static, conductive atmosphere. If the conductivity is dictated by Coulomb scattering then it scales $`T^{5/2}`$ and the thermal contact is poor unless the cool gas is seriously overpressured with respect to the warm gas. However, this may not be the right description of the gas. The situation is likely to be quite complex for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the dynamical situation, may become unstable to Rayleigh-Taylor instablity. In addition, the galaxies that move almost sonically through the cluster, will be followed by large turbulent wakes containing streaks of cool gas that has been stripped from galaxies.. Finally, the ongoing aggregation of large groups of galaxies will drive large oscillations in the cluster gas. The gas is likely to end up quite well-stired so that the warm gas flows past the cool gas on a timescale short compared with the conductive time so that the electrons may not be in local thermodynamic equilibrium. To give a quantitative example, the electrons in the warm phase have speeds $`10,000`$ km s-1 and a Coulomb mean free path $`30`$ pc in the warm medium. It is therefore possible that the warm electrons may be brought closer to the cool gas by turbulent mixing than a mean free path and they are thereby able to come into direct contact with it. With this arithmetic,the Coulomb heating rate can now just balance the cooling rate of the cool gas.

A small quantity of cool gas, co-existing with the hot gas may then act as an effective heat sink, removing heat non-radiatively from the hot gas and radiating it away at a lower temperature. Understanding the heat transfer is central to understanding the mass flow. In the simple theory of evaporation, an inward conduction of heat is balance by an outward energy flux, $`5Pv/2`$. and the cloud evaporates. However what is envisaged here is that that there is a volumetric heating which is roughly balanced by radiative cooling. If the cooling exceeds the heating, there will be a steady condensation of hot gas onto the cool cloud; if the heating dominates, there will be evaporation. This may be self-regulating. Clearly a much more careful investigation is called for to see if the above sketch has any validity.

There has also been progress in studying the hot intergalactic medium outside clusters that recapitulates the progress that was made in understanding the interstellar medium following the launch of the Copernicus satellite. FUSE has observed local IGM in emission at a temperature $`10^5`$ K. and both Chandra and XMM-Newton have reported detections of hotter gas in both the local and the distant universe with temperature that may be as high as $`5\times 10^6`$ K, although the interpretation of these observations is not yet consistent. The state of the IGM is a good monitor of the development of both large scale structure and stellar activity in the expanding universe. This is because the IGM is probably only heated to a temperature $`12\times 10^4`$ K after reionization (which probably occurs when the universe is $`0.5`$ Gyr old following the formation of the first massive stars, Bromm, Coppi & Larsen 1999).

### 3.2. Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium

If we had never seen supernovae or their remnants but had access to ultraviolet observations of hot stars, we would ask similar questions of the interstellar medium. However, we now know that it is the explosions of massive stars and not gravitational action that keeps most of the volume of the Galaxy at a temperature of nearly a million degrees. However, the details of how this happens are controversial. Most importantly, we do not understand how the bounding shock waves behave. We are not sure how the post-shock electron and ion temperature depend upon the Mach number and how quickly these two components equilibrate. The indications are that the most of the energy flux is carried by the ions and that the electrons are heated at rates that reflect Coulomb scattering, but we need to be more quantitative.

The acceleration of Galactic cosmic rays has long been associated with supernova remnants. Most of the cosmic ray energy density is in the form of $`1`$ GeV particles and models of the particle acceleration suggest that typical high Mach number shocks transmit a cosmic ray partial pressure that is $`0.10.5`$ times the total momentum flux. However, the observational evidence is confusing. On the one hand, ASCA observations of SN1006 first showed the presence of a nonthermal component in the X-ray spectrum which was taken as prima facie evidence that relativistic electrons were accelerated by some shock waves. However, there are other remants where the TeV $`\gamma `$-rays might have been expected and these are not seen, suggesting that the maximum energy to which the particles are accelerated is well below $`1`$ TeV. Ion acceleration, can be detected though $`\pi ^0`$ $`\gamma `$-rays. which may be seen by Hess, VERITAS and GLAST and has been reported by Enomoto et al. (2002), (but see Reimer & Pohl 2002).

It is also of quite general importance to understand how magnetic field behaves at shock fronts. The nonthermal emission that is measured may only require a simple compression of the pre-shock magnetic field so that its energy density is ignorable. A much greater stretching of the field is likely to occur in the vicinity of the contact discontinuity where the ejecta from the stellar envelope interacts with the circumstellar medium. A combination of radio polarization, optical and X-ray observations should again furnish some quantitative answers.

As a further illustration of how important it is to mobilise all the high energy observations to try to figure out the principles which govern the behavior of high temperature plasma, let me introduce a second “cosmic ray” paradox relating to the acceleration and propagation of Galactic cosmic rays. It is known that the observed cosmic ray spectrum has an energy-dependence $`N(E)E^{2.6}`$ and that the energy dependence of the observed spectra of secondary elements like Li, Be, B is steeper than that of the primary particles, $`N(E)E^3`$. This implies that the grammage traversed by cosmic rays before they escape varies with energy as $`\lambda E^{0.4}`$ and, consequently, that the sourced spectrum of the primary particle satisfies $`S(E)E^{2.2}`$, approximately. This is just what is expected in simple views of shock accleration theory and was one of the strongest arguments for taking it seriously. However, the observed primary spectrum extends all the way up to the famous “knee” in the spectrum around 1 PeV. This is inconsistent with the observation mentioned above that some supernova remnants only accelerate particles to much lower energy. It may also be incompatible with the measured cosmic ray anisotropy. This can be estimated by the ratio of the column density of the local interstellar medium $`12`$ mg cm-2 to the grammage $`\lambda (E)`$ traversed. The observed anisotropy at high energy may also be too small to be compatible with the standard power law model.

A possible resolution of this paradox is that individual SNR accelerate cosmic rays with power law spectra up to energies in the interval $`0.1`$ TeV to $`1`$ PeV so that their collective effect is to produce a quite convex source spectrum $`S(E)`$. If this is now combined with a propagation model in which $`\lambda (E)`$ has a compensatory concave shape. In other words, the grammage does not continue to decrease as a power law with increasing energy, but saturates. The quotient of the source spectrum and the grammage then, coincidentally, leads to a single power law spectrum. This leads to a prediction that the light element spectra should be concave. Whatever the true explanation, if we can understand on the basis of empirical arguments like this how cosmic ray protons and electrons are accelerated by shock waves and how they propagate, then we can export this understanding to the IGM.

## 4. Supernovae

The spectacular imaging spectroscopy of supernova remnants of many different types by Chandra is starting to address many of these questions and should supply plenty of forensic evidence to enable us to reconstruct many of the details of the initial explosion, through studies of the distributions of the different elements (Canizares 2002).

SN 1987a was a touchstone for our understanding of core collapse supernovae (e.g. Michael et al. 2002). It produced the first detected supernova neutrinos and a pleasing affirmation of the most fundamental principles of advanced stellar evolution. However, it also provided some surprises. The absence of hydrogen from its intial spectrum led to its intial identification with a Type Ia supernova. However it clearly is a variant on the Type II supernova known as Type Ib and is characterized by the absence of a hydrogen envelope on the presupernova star.

There were other surprises. The $`\gamma `$-rays were observed far earlier than expected suggesting that the ejecta become highly inhomogeneous very quickly. SN1987a is coming back into prominence as its blast wave is just now encountering the equatorial ring of matter left behind by outflow associated with the pre-supernova star.

Now GRB are currently most fashionably associated with Type Ic supernova in which the helium envelope has also been stripped away. There are many puzzles raised by this model, foremost among them is the nature of the medium into which the relativistic blast wave, that forms the afterglow, expands. Consideration of what is observed in SN1987a could be quite instructive for models of GRBs. In particular we do not understand when neutron stars are left behind and when black holes form. More fundamentally, we do not have a widely accepted, working model of how any core collapse supernova model works. It is possible that some of the features of GRB models could, contrariwise, provide the missing ingredient for the Type II case.

## 5. Neutron Stars

Most neutron stars are observed long after formation. They are seen as XRB and they appear to be over-represented in globular clusters and this is attributed to three body dynamical stellar exchanges and recycling. The relative formation rates of neutron stars and black holes is also attracting some attention as three microlenses have been discovered where the lens is argued to be an unseen star with mass well in excess of the upper limit for a neutron star. This suggest that single black holes might be quite common in the halo of our Galaxy. These holes will be rather hard to detect by other means unless they have mass-losing companions — the accretion rate from the interstellar medium is probably too small to be of interest.

Neutron stars have long been regarded as cosmic laboratories where Nature allows us to witness experiments performed upon cold nuclear matter, that complement the experiments performed on hot nuclear matter at heavy ion colliders, exploring physical conditions that are otherwise inaccessible. There have been several, recent reports, some of them quite controversial, of new observations of extreme physical conditions associated with neutron stars.

Several soft gamma repeaters, exemplified by SGR 1806-20, have been identified with magnetars, slowly rotating strongly magnetized neutrons stars. In the case of SGR 1806-20, the surface field strength is measured as $`80`$ GT while the rotation period is $`8`$ s, ensuring that the observed emission cannot be rotation-powered. This contrasts with the X-ray pulsar SAX J1808.4 3658 which has a measured period of $`2.5`$ ms approaching that of the fastest radio pulsar.

Observations of the surface temperature are also important. In the case of RXJ1856.5 -3574, a temperature of $`0.7`$ MK has been measured and a very small radius $`R7`$ km inferred, provoking the suggestion that this could be a quark star (Drake et al. 2002). However, the case is quite unconvincing as it depends upon an uncertain distance measurement and a particular spectral decomposition (Braje & Romani 2002). For the central pulsar in the 821 year old supernova remnant 3C58, the temperature is below 1 MK (Slane, Helfand & Murray 2002). This is cooler than is computed on the basis of standard, modified URCA cooling calulations. This could be an indication that there is a pion or a kaon condensate in the core of the star. Alternatively, the proton fraction might be large enough to allow direct URCA cooling to take place (e.g. Yakovlev et al. 2002).

Finally, the X-ray source 1E1207.4 -5209 (Sanwal et al. 2002) exhibits two helium absorption lines which may allow the neutron star surface potential to be measured. As most neutron star masses have a pretty standard value $`1.41.5`$ M, this allows the radius to be guessed and the equation of state above nuclear density to be constrained.

## 6. Black Holes

There has been equally exciting activity in the study of black holes. Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPO) have been measured in several XRB, mostly associated with the accretion disk. It is clear that there is a very rich phenomenology to be understood, that encodes the mass and spin of the hole and which should allow general relativity to be tested. Unfortunately, there is still no widely accepted theory of QPOs that allows these identifications to be made. Normal modes of oscillation of specialized disk models have been computed. However, there is not an easy way to see how they can be excited and sustained at observable amplitudes and numerical simulations do not exhibit discrete modes like these. In addition, it is highly unlikely that the oscillatory X-ray emission arises from the photosphere of the disk. Their spectra are far too hard for this. Instead, it seems more likely that they are produced in an active corona. This requires there to be a strong coupling, presumably magnetic, to exist between the disk and the corona. If this is correct, then it certainly complicates the interpretation of QPOs.

There has also been a lot of attention paid to the Fe K$`\alpha `$ lines, originally reported by ASCA in Seyfert galaxies. These are now seen in XRB. Occasionally these lines are quite broad, which has been widely attributed to a combination of Doppler shift and gravitational redshift. There are some puzzles. Most lines are seen as narrow and it is not known why and when they turn out broad.

The most extreme example is MCG 60-30-15, where the line can extend from 2-6.5 keV. This has been interpreted in terms of a model where spin angular momentum from the spinning black hole is extracted by the disks, with magnetic torques.(The energy released by steady, viscous disk accretion alone cannot account for the line profiles.) If this interpretation carries the day, then it supports the idea that relativistic jets are powered by black hole spin.

If additional evidence can be mustered for massive black holes spinning rapidly, then this has some interesting implications for their genesis. The point is that if black holes are built up by merging, as has often been proposed, then a retrograde capture of a small hole by a large hole will involve a larger transfer of angular momentum than a prograde capture (e.g. Hughes & Blandford 2003). Therefore, black holes that grow by merging will generally spin down rather than up and rapidly spinning holes are unlikely to be assembled in this way. This is all consistent with the most recent comparisons of the density of local black holes needed to account for the $`z2`$ quasar light and the local hole mass density computed using the hole mass — bulge velocity dispersion.correlation.

### 6.1. Adiabatic Accretion

Much attention has recently been devoted to what happens when gas is supplied to a hole at a rate much less than the Eddington rate. It has long been known that if the viscosity is relatively large and the electron heating not much faster than Coulombic, then the radiative efficiency is low and the gas will continue to heat up on an accretion timescale and will form a thick accretion disk or torus. In fact, a similar outcome is possible when the gas supply rate greatly exceedcs the Eddington rate. In this case, the radiative efficiency will be high but the radiation will be trapped by the accreting gas and the radiation pressure will support the thick disk. Either case can be described as “adiabatic accretion”, by analogy with the nomenclature used to describe supernova remnants.

There have been three models proposed to describe adiabatic accretion. Advection-Dominated Accretion Flows (Narayan & Yi 1994) are steady flows in which all the mass that is supplied crosses the event horizon. Convection-Dominated Accretion Flows (Quataert & Gruzinov 2000), are non-stationary and the mass supply backs up. In ADiabatic Inflow–Outflow Solutions (Blandford & Begelman 1999), most of the energy that is released close to the hole is carried off in an outflow, usually, though not necessarily, involving a mass losing wind. In this case, the mass accretion rate will be much less that than the mass supply rate.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to these models is presented by our Galactic center (Baganoff et al. 2001). Here we know the black hole mass ($`2.6\times 10^6\mathrm{M}_{}`$) and can make an estimate of the mass accretion rate ($`10^{21}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{s}^{=1}`$). The bolometric luminosity is $`10^{36}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and so the radiative efficiency relative to the mass supply is only $`10^6c^2`$. Most of the power emerges in the sub mm part of the spectrum. The X-ray emission appears to be rapidly variable with large flares developing on timescales less than an hour. The X-ray spectrum is steep and presumably nonthermal implying an upper limit on the density of gas close to the hole. The large linear polarization at wavelengths $`<1`$ mm are similarly indicative that the density is low. These observations are strongly suggestive that the rate of mass accretion onto the hole is much less than the rate of supply, implying that most of the supplied mass is driven off in a wind, powered by the small fraction that accretes onto the hole.This is entirely natural as the torque that transports angular momentum outward in an accreting flow also transports energy so as to unbind an adiabatic flow. Provided that there is a either a means of creating entropy at the disk surface, as happens in the solar wind, or large scale magnetic fields are present (as is also true of the solar wind), then outflows are to be expected.

Similar outflows are to be expected in the high mass accretion rate case and these are presumably responsible for the observed broad absorption lines that are observed from many quasars. These principles should also apply to accretion onto Galactic black holes, for example GRS 1915+115 (e.g. Mirabel & Rodriguez 2002).

## 7. Ultrarelativistic Outflows

The most dramatic phenomena that are observed in high energy astrophysics are associated with the highest energy particles and the most nonthermal spectra. These, in turn, have been associated with ultrarelativistic outflows. I would now like to be provocative and suggest that we may have been seriously misinterpreting most of these flows at least in recent years and that much older interpretations may have been much closer to the truth (cf. Blandford 2002).

### 7.1. Pulsar Wind Nebulae

Let me start with pulsar wind nebulae, like the Crab Nebula. These are powered by central, spinning, magnetized neutron stars and there is no dispute that the mechanical spin energy of the star is steadily converted into an electromagnetic Poynting flux that carries energy into the magnetosphere. To order of magnitude we can associate a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }10^{14}`$ Wb with the open field lines of a typical pulsar and if the angular frequency is $`\mathrm{\Omega }100`$ rad s-1, the induced EMF is $`V\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Phi }10^{16}`$ V. We can think of this driving a current flow through the magnetosphere. Under electromagnetic conditions, the “load” in the circuit will be $`Z100`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and therefore the current will be $`IV/Z10^{14}`$ A. The power dissipated in the load — essentially the pulsar luminosity — is $`LVI1^{30}`$ W.

Where is this load located? The conventional view is that this electromagnetic energy flux is somehow converted into a particle energy flux, perhaps in the vicinity of the light cylinder and probably comprising electron-positron pairs. This is the location of the load. The Lorentz factor of the wind speed has been estimated to be as high as $`10^6`$. This fluid outflow is then supposed to pass through a strong shock where its momentum flux matches the ambient nebular pressure and where relativistic particles are re-accelerated.and, perhaps, magnetic field is regenerated.

However, what is seen in the recent X-ray observations of pulsar wind nebulae is very surprising. Polar jets are quite common (e.g. Helfand 2001) and the ring-like structures that are observed appear to be confined to the equatorial plane. (It is tempting to associate the moving, ring-like features, especially in the Vela supernova remnant, with large glitch activity as occurs roughly once per two years.) This tells us that accretion disks are not necessary to create a jet morphology. It also tells us that if there really are fluid outflows that energize the ray emission, then these are concentrated at the poles and in the equatorial plane.

What I think these observations are, instead, telling us is that the current does not dissipate near the light cylinder but flows out into the nebula. There are relatively strong arguments that suggest that large amplitude waves with periods equal to the rotation period will become nonlinear and unstable and therefore it is simplest to assume that the currents well beyond the light cylinder are primarily conduction currents. However, this is not required.

We then have a picture of a pulsar wind nebula as a giant electrical circuit with current flowing out (in) along the poles and in (out) in the equator. The current completes at the slowly expanding surface of the nebula where there is a contact discontinuity against the shocked interstellar medium. Associated with these currents is a magnetic field that is ’ largely toroidal that can be thought of as spun off by the central star. The energy flow in the nebula is given by the Poynting flux, $`\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$. The electric field distribution is basically poloidal and derives from space charge distributed along with the currents. If the pressure and the inertia of the plasma in the nebula can be ignored, and this is the appropriate approximation to make under electromagnetic conditions,then the electromagnetic field will be force-free i.e. $`\rho \stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{j}\times \stackrel{}{B}=0`$. The electromagnetic setup can be much more complex than this simple model. There will probably be currents and space charge flowing throughout the nebula and the pressure and inertia of the plasma in the nebula may well be important, but the simple model is sufficient to fix ideas.can be ignored.

Such a configuration is generically unstable (just like fluid jets). Typically, pinches, kinks and, especially, helices develop around line currents in plasmas. Likewise, sheet currents, like those in the equatorial plane, are subject to tearing mode instability. Usually, this is regarded as a fatal defect for a model. However, I would argue that it is an attractive feature of the present proposal. This is because it is possible that the nonlinear development of these instablities is responsible for the electrical resistance in the circuit and for the X-ray emission that is observed along the poles and in the equatorial plane. (Note that the source of the power that is dissipated in this manner is the magnetic energy stored in the nebula; it does not flow along the jet, but as Poynting flux from the body of the nebula to where the current flows.) One possible way that this can happen is that the macroscopic instability drives a wave turbulence cascade that ultimately is dissipated at some inner scale through the acceleration of relativistic electrons.

There are a variety of predictions associated with this model. The two most direct are that the if the electrons are accelerated close to the currents, then there should be spectral evidenced for aging as the particles diffuse away from the putative acceleration sites.Secondly the linear polarization ought to reflect the underlying magnetic field geometry.

### 7.2. AGN Jets

The X-ray images of extragalactic (and also Galactic) jets are no less striking.and present a similar choice. It now seems to be generally accepted that jet power derives from electro-/hydromagnetic stress applied on the black hole spacetime and the gas that orbits it. The details are just as contentious as with pulsars. In round numbers, a powerful radio source, like Cygnus A, will generate an EMF $`V300`$ EV, a current $`I3`$ EA and a power $`L10^{39}`$ W. Again, it is commonly presumed that the circuit closes to the black hole and a fluid jet is collimated and launched. (Observations of M87 suggest that the collimation happens within $`100m`$, Junor, Biretta & Livio 1999.) The various features that are seen using VLBI in the compact, relativistic jets are usually identified with internal shocks — the nonlinear development of velocity gradients associated with either the source or instabilities (e.g. Blandford & Königl 1979). Their measured, outward, superluminal motion is then that of a shock front and the Doppler beaming is that of the downstream flow, which moves more slowly than the shock front.

The jets themselves are impressively well-collimated. Even more remarkable is the discovery that they are X-ray bright along their length. In the case of sources like M87, it is argued that X-rays are due to synchrotron radiation. This imples that the particle acceleration must be occuring all the way along the jet’s length because the cooling times of the $`>10`$ TeV electrons are very short. This, in turn, implies that the acceleration cannot occur at internal shocks because strong shocks must be separated by much more than the synchrotron cooling lengths.

By contrast, if we adopt the electromagnetic model, the “jets” delineate the current which flows all the way along the jet to the hot spots and then back to the central black hole mostly along the periphery of the source. The extended radio lobes contain a reservoir of magnetic energy that can supply the emitting regions with energy in addition to the Poynting flux of energy flowing along the jet. (It is helpful to think of magnetic energy as moving with a speed equal to $`\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B}/B^2`$ which can be arbitrarily close to $`c`$. Disturbances can therefore be observed moving with apparent superluminal speed just like the disturbances in fluid jets.) Continuous X-ray emission along the jet causes no problem because the current is continuous and ohmic dissipation / particle acceleration can occur all the way along it.

### 7.3. Gamma Ray Bursters

Finally, consider, Gamma Ray Bursters (GRBs) (e.g. Mészáros 2002). These come in two basic types with short and long duration. Only the latter class has been well-studied. Several “long” bursts have been associated with afterglows that have been observed from radio frequencies to X-ray energies. Many of the models of gamma ray bursts basically involve some form of electromagnetic induction. A field of $`100`$ GT associated with a rapidly spinning stellar mass black hole or neutron star can induce an EMF $`V30`$ ZV and a power $`10^{43}`$ W. The source is typically active for $`100`$ s so the total energy of the burst is $`10^{45}`$ J. Observations of achromatic breaks in the afterglow light curves have been used to argue that the explosion is not isotropic but instead beamed within a solid angle, typically $`0.1`$ sterad. In other words, GRBs are relativistic jets too.

The conventional view of GRBs is, once again, that the Poynting flux is quickly and continuously transformed into a radiation-dominated fluid with a high entropy per baryon, typically $`10^6k`$. This “fireball” (Cavallo & Rees 1078) is collimated into a pair of anti-parallel jets, perhaps within a collapsing massive star. As the flow accelerates along these jets, the internal energy contained in the radiation and pairs is transformed into the kinetic energy of the protons and by the time the photons can escape, the ions are moving with Lorentz factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }300`$. Small velocity gradients, induced at the source, steepen into internal shocks at a radius $`10^{11}`$ m and $`\gamma `$-rays are emitted as synchrotron radiation. Most of the afterglow emission is formed at radii $`10^{1516}`$ m at the external shock that precedes the spreading, decelerating jet.

However, if the energy is released electromagnetically, it is quite hard to understand how entropy can be created so quickly. The potential differences are so large that the vacuum is, in effect, a perfect conductor so that the invariant $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}=0`$. If the other invariant $`c^2B^2E^2`$ is negative, then it will be possible to transform into a frame where there is a pure electric field which will instantly discharge; if it is positive, there will exist frames with a pure magnetostatic field, where nothing will happen. The problem is essentially the same as that of the pulsar wind and I argue that it is quite reasonable that the escaping power be predominately electromagnetic.

There is a second, serious concern with the fireball model. High Lorentz factors are necessary in the jet in order to avoid pair production by the escaping $`\gamma `$-rays. However, these high Lorentz factors are equivalent to high Mach numbers ($`M>300`$) and it is very hard to see how these can be formed naturally and be sustained while, at the same time, dissipating much of their kinetic energy through internal shocks.

The electromagnetic model of GRBs posits that the energy remain in low entropy, electromagnetic form all the way out to the $`\gamma `$-ray emission region which can be located around $`10^{14}`$ m. The flow is no more than mildly supersonic, depending upon the plasma loading. By the time this radius is reached, the electromagnetic field will be confined to a thin, relativistically expanding shell, pushing a blast wave out into the surrounding medium. Instabiliites in this shell will ultimately be responsible for the particle acceleration and the GRB.

Whatever one’s view of the relative merits of fluid and electromagnetic models of ultrarelativistic outflows, and perhaps the truth lies between the two extremes described above, it is clear that there is a convergence in the study of pulsar wind nebulae, AGN/XRB jets and GRBs.

## 8. Physics at the Frontier

High energy astrophysics is a young and relatively immature field. It owns much of the remaining unexplored “discovery space” in contemporary astronomy. Two examples of this discovery space are the extremes of observation of the electromagnetic spectrum. At the high end, there are already about ten TeV sources, while at the low end of $`<50`$ MHz radio astronomy there are essentially no sources. Neutrino astronomy claims only two cosmic sources so far, the sun and SN1987a. Even the venerable field of cosmic ray physics may be on the threshold of becoming cosmic ray astronomy. Finally, as many of the most interesting high energy sources are ultimately black holes and neutron stars, the exciting field of gravitational wave astronomy — perhaps a decade away from birth — is inextricably linked to high energy astrophysics. These are the frontiers and I consider them in turn.

Atmospheric Cerenkov techniques are being used to detect $`\gamma `$-rays in the GeV–TeV range. These are important as both sources and as probes. Persistent sources have been identified with pulsars, blazars and supernova remnants and in each case are likely to provide the best approach we have to understanding the fundamental nature of these sources. The big issue in pulsars is to locate the source of the emission. Is it close to the stellar surface or at an outer gap, much closer to the light cylinder? As the pulses are phase-resolved, we can also relate the $`\gamma `$-ray emission site to that of the radio, optical and the X-ray emission which is also not yet certain. Blazars are identified with ultrarelativistic jets emanating from massive black holes in the nuclei of elliptical galaxies. Here the big question is to understand whether the jets comprise ultrarelativistic protons, that interact with either the radiation field or the background plasma, or if they are electron-positron pairs/electromagnetic. TeV sources should be far more plentiful in the latter case. The combination of GLAST and telesopes like Hess and VERITAS ought to be able to sort this out, as they should also be able to sort out the details of cosmic ray acceleration in supernova remnants, as discussed above.

At the other end of the spectrum lies the domain of low frequency radio astronomy (Kassim & Weiler 1990). The ionosphere precludes regular observing much below $`30`$ MHz and it is necessary to fly large antennae in space to explore this part of the spectrum. We can be confident that the sources exist. They are necessarily nonthermal. The ultimate limit in frequency is the plasma frequency of the solar wind, around $`30`$ kHz, giving us another ten octaves to explore. There will of course be limitations. Interstellar propagation will lead to irreversible smearing of any pulsar pulses, for example.

The great advantage of neutrino astronomy is that allows one to see into the densest regions, even through nuclear density. The recent successes in the SNO and Kamionkande and KamLAND experiments have verified that the three types of neutrino have mass and can mix into each other. This vindicates the standard solar model although the low energy neutrino spectrum remains to be measured.

The next step in neutrino astronomy is to detect sources at much higher energy. This is the province of projects like AMANDA, IceCube and ANTARES. The prime candidate sources of ultra high energy neutrinos are blazars and GRBs. In many respects, these searches are complementary to the UHE $`\gamma `$-ray searches. Success in the former will suggest that ultrarelativistic outflows comprise mainly protons. Failure, and there is no guarantee that there will be any detectable UHE neutrino sources, will favor electromagnetic/pair models UHE. neutrino astronomy has the advantage that we can see the universe up to $``$ EeV energies. By contrast, the universe becomes opaque to $`\gamma `$-rays above $``$ TeV energies through absorption by the infrared background.

The cosmic ray frontier is undoubtedly at the very highest energy. The situation is now quite confused. The EeV cosmic ray spectrum can be measured through detecting the atmospheric nitrogen fluorescence that they create and by recording the muon showers on the ground. Unfortunately different spectra are being reported — probably a consequence of calibration errors. What is at stake is the source redshift. If the cosmic rays derive from cosmological distances, then they should cut off above $`100`$ EeV due to photopion production by the cosmic microwave background. If this “GZK” cutoff is not seen then their sources probably lie within $`30`$ Mpc and their overall mean luminosity density approaches that of $``$ GeV cosmic rays. Even more tantalizing are studies of the angular distribution of these particles. There are a few close groupings of particles — five doubles and one triple — on the sky. The statistical significance is low, but if these are substantiated as permanent sources, then almost all proposed models of UHE cosmic ray origin will be ruled out, with the conspicuous exception of the front runner, radio sources associated with dormant massive black holes in AGN. Both of these questions should be answered by Auger.

Finally the last and most challenging frontier is that of gravitational radiation. Studies of binary pulsars have confirmed that the weak field calculations of wave emission are correct to an accuracy $`0.002`$. This is the most impressive confirmation of the general theory of relativity to date. This allows us to compute waveforms etc from strong field sources, according to the rules of general relativity with confidence, although not facility. However, it does not rule out the possibility that additional fields are attached to singularities, for example, or that the relationship between curvature and stress-energy is more subtle. Furthermore, it is at least logically possible that in a universe where this relationship appears to fail on the comsological scale, there could be some side effects affecting the propagation of metric perturbations. In short there are pretty good reasons in physics to test the theory of gravitational radiation although the most likely outcome will be to vindicate, once again, the genius of Albert Einstein.

Gravitational radiation astronomy is largely unkown territory. There are however assured sources - Galactic binary dwarfs and extragalactic neutron star coalescences. Of more interest, though, are coalescing black holes in cosmologically distant galactic nuclei, though here the source rates are very difficult to estimate with confidence and measuring them would tell us much of interest about galaxy evolution. There are two classes of detectors. Ground-based facilities, like LIGO, TAMA and VIRGO, will seek stellar sources like supernova and compact object mergers. mHZ, space-based facilities, such as LISA, will target massive black hole signals from behind a binary white dwarf-generated foreground. The technical challenge of achieving the sensitivities necessary to measure waves from assured sources should not be understated. It may well take more than another decade to reach them. However, there have been few regions of the electromagnetic spectrum where the sources have turned out to be as we imagined. So, it would be remarkable if gravitational wave astronomy, or any of the other four frontiers turned out to be as I have just described.

As I hope that this brief introductory essay makes clear, the past decade has been a remarkable one in the observation of high energy astrophysics. The present one promises even more. Let me conclude by re-emphasizing the two important principles with which I began this article. Firstly, in order to exploit high energy observations to the full it is necessary to adopt a source-based, rather than observatory-based approach to the study of cosmic sources. Almost by definition, high energy sources are nonthermal and emit throughout the electromagnetic and other spectra and spectrally chauvinist interpretations of their behavior are incomplete. Secondly, much of the physics of these sources is unknowable working from first principles. While we should be confident in our application of fundamental principles, such as the conservation laws of mass momentum and energy and the whole edifice of general relativity, and in our understanding of elementary processes such as those described by atomic and nuclear astrophysics and quantum electrodynamics, much of what we see depends upon the collective behavior of plasmas and the mysteries of MHD. As such, it is encumbent upon us to develop theories of these subjects by studying all sources from the solar corona to GRBs so as to derive empirical laws which we can then try to relate to numerical simulation. The physics should be common and knowable.

I am confident that subsequent contributions to this meeting will report great advances that can be interpreted in terms of both of these principles.

## Acknowledgements

I thank the organisers of this conference for their extremely gracious hospitality and many participants for constructive criticism of some of the ideas discussed above. I am also indebted to my collaborators, especially Mitch Begelman, Max Lyutikov, Andrew MacFadyen and Peng Oh. Support under NASA grant 5-7007 is gratefully acknowledged.

## References

Allen, S. Schmidt, R. & Fabian, A. C. 2002 MNRAS334 L11

Baganoff, F. et al. 2001 Nature 413 45

Blandford, R. 2002 Lighthouses of the Universe ed. M. Gilfanov, R. Sunyaev & E. Churazov (Berlin:Springer) 381

Blandford, R. & Begelman, M. 1999 MNRAS303 L1

Blandford, R. & Königl, A. 1979 ApJ232 34

Braje, T. & Romani, R. ApJ580 1043

Brandt, W. et al. 2002 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A360 2057

Bromm, V., Coppi, P. & Larsen, R. 1999 ApJ527 L5

Canizares, C. 2002 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A360 1903

Costa et al. 1997 Nature 387 783

Drake, J. et al. 2002 ApJ572 996

Durret,F. et al. 2002 å390 397

Eguchi, K. et al. 2003 Phys.Rev.Lettin press

Enomoto, R. et al. 2002 Nature 416 823

Fabian, A. 2002 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A360 2035

Fabian, A. et al. 2002 MNRAS331 369

Fan, X. et al. 2001 AJ122 2833

Fang, T et al. 2002 ApJ572 L127

Hartman, R. C. et al. 1992 ApJ385 L1

Hasinger, G. 2002 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A360 2077

Helfand, D., Gotthelf, E.& Halpern, J 2001 ApJ556 380

Hughes, S. & Blandford, R. 2003 ApJ in press

Junor, W., Biretta, J. & Livio, M. 1999 Nature 401 891

Kassim, N, & Weiler, K.1990 Low Frequency Astrophysics from Space Berlin:Springer

Krolik, J. H. 1999 Active Galactic Nuclei Princeton:Princeton University Press

Mészáros, P. 2002 ARA&A40 137

Metzger, M. et al. 1997 Nature 387 868

Michael, E. et al. 2002 574 166

Miniati et al. F. 2000 ApJ542 608

Mirabel, F. & Rodriguez, L.2002 Sky & Telescope 103 32

Mushotzky, R. 2002 Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. A360 2012

Narayan, R. & Yi, I.1994 ApJ428 L13

Quataert, E. & Gruzinov, A. 2000 ApJ539 809

Quinn, J. et al. 1998 ApJ518 693

Peterson, J. et al. 2003 ApJin press

Reimer, O. & Pohl, M. 2002 Astron. Astrophys. 390 L43

Sanwal, D. et al. 2002 ApJin press

Slane, P., Helfand, D. & Murray 2002 ApJ571 L45

Small, T. A. & Blandford, R. D. 1992 ApJ259 725

Tripp, T., Savage, B. & Jenkins, E. ApJ2000 534 L1

Wilms, J. et al. 2001 MNRAS328 L27

Wilson, A., Young, A. & Shopbell, P. 2001 ApJ546

van der Klis, M. 1998 Adv. Sp. Res. 22 925

Yakovlev, D. G. et al. 2002 Astron. Astrophys. 389 1024

Yu, Q. & Tremaine, S. 2002 MNRAS335 965


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, following a suggestion of Amelino-Camelia , large interest has been devoted to modifications of special relativity admitting two observer-independent fundamental scales, the speed of light and the Planck energy. These models aim to describe the dynamics of particles up to the Planck region, where the structure of spacetime may change due to quantum gravity effects.

The existence of two observer-independent scales is implemented in the theory through a nonlinear action of the Lorentz group on momentum space, whose main consequence is a deformation of the dispersion relations of special relativity, which are recovered only in the low-energy limit. Of course, it is possible to construct several different models obeying these postulates. Historically, the first example was given by the quantum Poincaré algebra of Lukierski, Nowicki and Ruegg (LNR) . More recently, an algebraically simpler model has been introduced by Magueijo and Smolin (MS) .

The identification of physical quantities in these models may lead to problems, since the full range of validity of the theory is not accessible to experiments, and different definitions may lead to the same low-energy limit. In absence of experimental tests, one has to resort to requirements of consistency.

A debated problem is for example the correct definition of the velocity of a particle. Several different proposal have been advanced in the literature \[1-7\]. Apparently, the most natural proposal is to define the velocity like in Hamiltonian mechanics as $`v_H\frac{E}{p}`$ . However, this proposal gives rise to complicated addition laws for velocity and, as we shall see, does not seem to be fully consistent. Other proposal have been advanced \[4-6\], which instead predict the classical addition law of special relativity.

In this note, we suggest that a good definition of velocity should be such that any particles having the same velocity in a reference frame must have the same velocity in any other frame. In particular, the Lorentz transformation between the rest frame of a particle and a frame where it moves with velocity $`v`$, should depend only on $`v`$ and not on the mass of the particle. This request singles out the definitions of refs. \[4-6\]. In particular, the hamiltonian definition $`v=v_H`$ is ruled out. Similar conclusions have been reached in ref.  starting from a totally different point of view.

In the following, we consider for simplicity of notation a two-dimensional spacetime (generalization to four dimensions is trivial). We use $`(+,)`$ signature and denote with $`(E,p)`$ the components of the 2-momentum $`p_a`$, $`a=0,1`$.

## 2 The MS model

We start the discussion from the MS model . In this case, a boost of rapidity parameter $`\xi `$ is assumed to transform the 2-momentum $`(E_0,p_0)`$ into $`(E,p)`$, where

$$E=\frac{E_0\mathrm{cosh}\xi p_0\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{\mathrm{\Delta }},p=\frac{p_0\mathrm{cosh}\xi +E_0\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(1)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1+(E_0(\mathrm{cosh}\xi 1)p_0\mathrm{sinh}\xi )/\kappa `$.

The Casimir mass $`m`$, defined as

$$m^2=\frac{E^2p^2}{\left(1\frac{E}{\kappa }\right)^2},$$
(2)
is invariant under the transformations (1), and is related to the rest energy $`m_0`$ of the particle by

$$m_0=\frac{m}{1+\frac{m}{\kappa }}.$$
(3)
Consider now a particle of Casimir mass $`m`$ at rest in an inertial frame. Its 2-momentum is given by $`(m_0,0)`$. From (1), we can derive the energy $`E`$ and the momentum $`p`$ of the particle in a frame related to the first by a boost of parameter $`\xi `$:

$$E=\frac{m\mathrm{cosh}\xi }{1+\frac{m}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\xi },p=\frac{m\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{1+\frac{m}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\xi }.$$
(4)
One can then express $`\mathrm{cosh}\xi `$ in terms of $`E`$ and $`m`$ :

$$\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{E}{m\left(1\frac{E}{\kappa }\right)},$$
(5)
to be compared with the classical result, $`\mathrm{cosh}\xi =E/m`$.

However, we are interested in the relation between the rapidity $`\xi `$ and the velocity $`v`$ of the particle in the moving frame. If the velocity of the particle is defined by the relation $`v_H=\frac{E}{p}`$, one can derive its expression differentiating the mass-shell constraint (2), $`p^2=E^2m^2\left(1\frac{E}{\kappa }\right)^2`$. One has

$$v_H=\frac{p}{E+\frac{m^2}{\kappa }\left(1\frac{E}{\kappa }\right)},$$
(6)
and hence, from (4),

$$v_H=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{\mathrm{cosh}\xi +\frac{m}{\kappa }}.$$
(7)
Inverting (7) one obtains the rapidity parameter in terms of the velocity:

$$\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{\frac{m}{\kappa }v_H^2+\sqrt{1\left(1\frac{m^2}{\kappa ^2}\right)v_H^2}}{1v_H^2}.$$
(8)
Hence, the rapidity parameter of the boost that relates the rest frame to the frame where the particle has velocity $`v_H`$ depends on the mass of the particle and particles of different masses at rest in one frame would have different velocities in another frame. Moreover, there is no definite relation between $`\xi `$ and the velocity of the moving frame.

This problem is not present if one defines the velocity as in  (but this definition was already implicit in ),

$$v_G=\frac{p}{E}.$$
(9)
In fact, in view of eq. (4),

$$v_G=\mathrm{tanh}\xi ,$$
(10)
from which follows the classical relation of special relativity,

$$\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v_G^2}},$$
(11)
which is of course independent from the particle mass.

## 3 The LNR model

We pass now to consider the LNR model. In this case, the transformation laws of the 2-momentum are

$$\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E_0}{\kappa }},p=\frac{p_0\mathrm{cosh}\xi +\kappa \left(1\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(12)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}+\left(1\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\right)\mathrm{cosh}\xi +\frac{p}{\kappa }\mathrm{sinh}\xi ,$$
(13)
and $`m_0`$ is the rest energy of the particle, which in terms of the invariant Casimir mass $`m`$, defined as

$$m^2=\kappa ^2\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}2+\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\right)p^2\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }},$$
(14)
is given by

$$\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }=1+\frac{m^2}{2\kappa ^2}.$$
(15)
Consider now a particle at rest in an inertial frame, and derive from (12) its energy $`E`$ and momentum $`p`$ in a frame related to the first by a boost of rapidity parameter $`\xi `$:

$`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}=\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }+\mathrm{sinh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\xi ,`$ (16)
$`p={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{sinh}\xi }{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }+\mathrm{sinh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\xi }}.`$ (17)
From (16), one can express $`\mathrm{cosh}\xi `$ in terms of $`E`$ and $`m_0`$ :

$$\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }}.$$
(18)
One can derive now the relation between the rapidity parameter $`\xi `$ and the velocity $`v`$ of the particle. If the velocity is defined by the relation $`v_H=\frac{E}{p}`$, one can obtain its expression differentiating the mass-shell constraint (14), $`p^2=\kappa ^2\left(1\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\right)^2m^2\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}`$. One has

$$v_H=\frac{p\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}}{\kappa \left(\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\right)},$$
(19)
and hence, from (16) and (17)

$$v_H=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m_0}{\kappa }}+\mathrm{sinh}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{m_0}{\kappa }}\mathrm{cosh}\xi }{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }+\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\mathrm{cosh}\xi }\mathrm{sinh}\xi .$$
(20)
Of course, inverting (20) one obtains that the rapidity parameter depends both on the velocity and the mass of the particle, leading to the same problems as with the MS model.

Also in this case these problems can be avoided adopting a different definition for the velocity of a particle. Namely, one can adopt the right velocity introduced in ,

$$v_R\frac{v_H}{1+\frac{pv_H}{\kappa }}=\frac{p\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}}{\kappa \left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{E}{\kappa }}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{m_0}{\kappa }\right)}.$$
(21)
After substituting (16) and (17), in fact, one obtains

$$v_R=\mathrm{tanh}\xi ,\mathrm{cosh}\xi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1v_R^2}},$$
(22)
which are again the classical relations, independent from the particle mass..

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that in order to obtain a definite relation between the relative velocity of two reference frames and the rapidity of a boost relating them, one cannot define the velocity of a particle of energy $`E`$ and momentum $`p`$ as $`v=\frac{E}{p}`$. A suitable definition seems to be model-dependent (see however ), but in the known cases always satisfies the special relativistic relations, and in particular the addition law of velocity . Although this is of course a sufficient condition for avoiding the problems discussed in this paper, it does not appear to be also necessary in principle.

It is also interesting to notice that the correct definition of velocity implies that the velocity of a massless particle is always equal to $`c`$. In our opinion, this is a very basic prediction and we see no reason for introducing a variable speed of light. First of all, this would be at odds with the spirit of the model, which is based on the existence of two invariant fundamental scales. A more serious problem is that a variable speed of light would destroy the causal structure of special relativity, leading to great difficulties with the physical interpretation.

Of course, it would be useful to build a suitable hamiltonian formalism that predicts the correct velocities. This seems to be possible only if one uses deformed Poisson brackets and noncommuting spacetime coordinates .


text:
# On the Use of Finite-Size Scaling to Measure Spin-Glass Exponents

## Abstract

Finite-size scaling (FSS) is a standard technique for measuring scaling exponents in spin glasses. Here we present a critique of this approach, emphasizing the need for all length scales to be large compared to microscopic scales. In particular we show that the replacement, in FSS analyses, of the correlation length by its asymptotic scaling form can lead to apparently good scaling collapses with the wrong values of the scaling exponents.

This paper is a critique of finite-size scaling (FSS) methods as applied to spin glasses. We focus primarily on one- and two-dimensional Ising spin glasses, which order only at temperature $`T=0`$, though the underlying ideas are quite general. The model is defined by the Hamiltonian $`H=_{<i,j>}J_{ij}S_iS_jh_iS_i`$, where $`h`$ is an external field which will be zero unless stated otherwise.

In dimension $`d=2`$, a range of different methods for measuring exponents has led to widely differing quoted values, sometimes by as much as a factor two, for the same exponent BM84 ; McMillan84 ; HM85 ; BhattY88 ; Kawashima92 ; Rieger96 ; HuseKo97 ; Ritort . Despite years of numerical study, these discrepancies have never been satisfactorily resolved. Here we present analytical and numerical results in dimension $`d=1`$, for which exact analytical values for the scaling exponents are known. By applying standard FSS methods to the data, we find large discrepancies between the numerically determined exponents and the exact ones. We show that these discrepancies disappear if the data are plotted in a different way, using the exact correlation length in the FSS analysis instead of its leading scaling form. We conclude that the main cause of the discrepancies is large corrections to scaling in the expression for the correlation length, rather than corrections to FSS itself.

For the critical behavior as $`T0`$, there is only one independent exponent Binder , except perhaps when the ground state has a non-trivial degeneracy. The exponent on which we focus our attention is the ‘stiffness exponent’ $`\theta `$, which describes the dependence on length scale, $`l`$, of the energy, $`E`$, of an excitation from the ground state: $`El^\theta `$ BM84 ; McMillan84 ; Heidelberg ; FH86 . For $`d2`$, $`\theta `$ is negative and large excitations are easily created by thermal fluctuations, destroying the ground-state order. Setting $`ET`$ gives a characteristic length scale $`\xi T^\nu `$, with $`\nu =1/\theta `$, above which the ground state is unstable against thermal fluctuations, i.e. $`\xi `$ can be identified with the correlation length BM84 ; Heidelberg .

The exponent $`\theta `$ describes the dependence on $`l`$ of the energy of a ‘droplet’ of reversed spins, of linear size $`l`$. The energy is associated with the boundary of the droplet. A measurement of $`\theta `$ can be made through the numerical study of domain wall energies, in which a wall, or ‘interface’, is imposed on a finite-size system by choice of boundary conditions BM84 . One finds $`\theta 0.28`$ in $`d=2`$. It was recently shown that this result can be obtained in a way which is explictly independent of the particular boundary conditions used to impose the interface CartEtAl02 . The scaling result $`\nu =1/\theta `$ then predicts $`\nu 3.6`$ for the correlation length exponent.

There has been some debate as to whether the exponent $`\theta `$ (sometimes called $`\theta _{DW}`$) extracted from domain wall energies is identical to the exponent obtained by studying directly the size dependence of droplet energies. Droplet excitations can be created from the ground state by reversing a central spin holding the boundary spins fixed, where the scale $`l`$ is the linear size of the system Kawashima99 . This approach gives $`\theta 0.42`$, though the analysis has been criticised by Middleton who argues that only droplets whose area exceeds some fraction of $`l^2`$ should be included Middleton . Hartmann and Moore HartMoore  have shown how the apparent difference between the two values of $`\theta `$ can be explained by invoking a correction to scaling (a subdominant term of order $`l^\omega `$, with $`\omega >\theta `$, in the expression for the droplet energy), and that the corresponding value of $`\theta `$ is consistent with that obtained from domain wall studies. Such corrections to scaling may also account for the value $`\theta 0.46`$ obtained by Picco et al. in their recent study of droplet energies Ritort .

A ‘direct’ measurement of the exponent $`\nu `$, that describes the divergence of the correlation length, can be made by studying, for example, the spin-glass susceptibility

$$\chi _{SG}=L^d\underset{i,j}{}\overline{S_iS_j^2},$$
(1)
where the angular brackets represent a thermal average, the overbar is a disorder average, and $`L`$ is the linear size of the system. At $`T=0`$ every term in the sum is unity and $`\chi _{SG}=L^d`$. For $`T>0`$, $`\overline{S_iS_j^2}=f(r/\xi )`$, where $`f(x)`$ is a scaling function with $`f(0)=1`$, $`f(x)\mathrm{exp}(x)`$ for large $`x`$, giving Binder  $`\chi _{SG}\xi ^dT^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma =d\nu `$. FSS predicts $`\chi _{SG}=L^dF(L/\xi )`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$, $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ with $`L/\xi `$ fixed but arbitrary. Using $`\xi T^\nu =T^{1/\theta }`$, one can determine $`\theta `$ by plotting $`L^d\chi _{SG}`$ against $`TL^\theta `$, and choosing $`\theta `$ to give the best data collapse. Using this method, Kawashima et al. Kawashima92  find $`\nu 2.0`$, i.e. $`\theta 0.5`$, which differs significantly from the value $`0.28`$ inferred from the domain-wall studies.

A second method that has been used to extract $`\theta `$ numerically is to measure the magnetization per spin, $`m(h)=L^d_i\overline{S_i}`$, induced by a small magnetic field $`h`$ at $`T=0`$ Rieger96 ; Baharona94 ; McMillan84a ; Reger84 ; Kawashima92a . Since in zero field we have $`m(0)L^{d/2}`$, a simple scaling argument for small $`h`$ gives $`m(h)=L^{d/2}g[h(L)/J(L)]`$, where $`h(L)hL^{d/2}`$ is the effective field at scale $`L`$ and $`J(L)L^\theta `$ is the effective coupling at this scale. Hence $`m(h)=L^{d/2}M(L^{d/2\theta }h)`$. In the thermodynamic limit $`m`$ should be become independent of $`L`$, which implies $`mh^{1/\delta }`$ with $`\delta =12\theta /d1.28`$ for $`d=2`$. An alternative way of writing the FSS form is

$$m_L(h)=L^{d/2}G(L^{d/2}h^{1/\delta }),$$
(2)
with $`G(0+)=\mathrm{const}`$ and $`G(x)x`$ for $`x\mathrm{}`$. With this method, Rieger et al. Rieger96  obtained $`\delta 1.48`$, which differs significantly from the scaling prediction $`1.28`$ and, naively, predicts that $`\theta 0.48`$ instead of the value $`0.28`$ obtained from domain-wall studies.

To summarise, different ways of measuring $`\theta `$ give different, and seemingly incompatible, results. The value $`\nu 2`$ obtained in Kawashima92  is equivalent to $`\theta 0.5`$, which is similar to the value $`\theta 0.48`$ inferred from the $`m(h)`$ data of Rieger96 , and to the values $`0.42`$ and $`0.46`$ obtained from studying droplet excitation in Kawashima99  and Ritort  respectively, all of which differ from the value $`0.28`$ obtained from domain-wall studies BM84 ; McMillan84 ; CartEtAl02 .

In an attempt to understand these differences, we have carried out analytical and numerical studies in space dimension $`d=1`$, for which the corresponding exponent values are known exactly. We mimic the two-dimensional studies of Kawashima et al Kawashima92  and Rieger at al Rieger96 , and look at the $`T`$-dependence of $`\chi _{SG}`$ at $`h=0`$ and the $`h`$-dependence of $`m`$ at $`T=0`$ respectively. We conclude that these that these quantities are affected by corrections to scaling so large that it is essentially impossible to extract the correct exponent values from system sizes that are accessible in $`d=2`$.

In the remainder of the paper, therefore, we consider the $`d=1`$ Ising spin glass in two situations: (i) $`T>0`$ and $`h=0`$. We calculate $`\chi _{SG}`$ and use the FSS form $`\chi _{SG}=Lf(TL^\theta )`$ to determine $`\theta `$. We show that the exact value of $`\theta `$ gives a very poor data collapse for the system sizes studied, and that a reasonable data collapse is obtained with a significantly different value of $`\theta `$; (ii) $`T=0`$, $`h>0`$. We calculate $`m_L(h)`$ and use the FSS form $`m_L(h)=L^{1/2}g(L^{1/2}h^{1/\delta })`$ to determine $`\delta `$. Again, the exact $`\delta `$ gives a poor collapse, and the best collapse is obtained with a very different $`\delta `$. To facilitate comparison with the $`d=2`$ data of Kawashima et al and of Rieger et al. we choose, for the $`h=0`$ results, a bond distribution $`P(J)`$ engineered to give $`\theta =0.282`$, i.e. a value equal to that of the $`d=2`$ system, while for the $`h>0`$ data we choose the distribution such that $`\delta =1.282`$ is equal to the value predicted in $`d=2`$ for $`\theta =0.282`$. These choices are are imposed by using a bond distribution of the form

$$P_\alpha (J)|J|^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(J^2/2).$$
(3)
For any distribution satisfying $`P(J)|J|^\alpha `$ for $`J0`$ it may be shown Heidelberg  that $`\theta =1/(1+\alpha )`$ for $`d=1`$, so the choice $`\alpha =2.546`$ gives $`\theta =0.282`$, while $`\alpha =6.042`$ gives $`\delta =1.282`$.

(i) $`T>0`$, $`h=0`$
The Ising Hamiltonian for $`d=1`$ can be written $`H=_iJ_iS_iS_{i+1}`$, and we use free boundary conditions. It is straightforward to show that (for $`ji`$) $`S_iS_j=_{r=i}^{j1}\mathrm{tanh}(\beta J_i)`$ and

$$\overline{S_iS_j^2}=a^{|ji|},$$
(4)
where $`a=\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta J_r)}`$ is independent of $`r`$. Finally

$$\chi _{SG}=\frac{1}{L}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{L}{}}\overline{S_iS_j^2}=\frac{1+a}{1a}\frac{2a(1a^L)}{L(1a)^2}.$$
(5)
The quantity $`a=𝑑JP_\alpha (J)\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta J)`$ may be evaluated numerically for any temperature $`T`$. The resulting $`\chi _{SG}`$ is plotted in Fig. 1, in the scaling form $`\chi _{SG}/L`$ against $`TL^\theta `$, for lattice sizes up to $`L=320`$. In the upper figure, we use the exact value, $`\theta =0.282`$, while in the lower we use $`\theta =0.36`$, which is our ‘best fit by eye’. Comparing these two plots one observes that (i) The exact value of $`\theta `$ gives a good collapse only at small values of the scaling variable, where $`\chi _{SG}/L`$ is close to its $`T=0`$ value of unity; (ii) The ‘best fit by eye’ is a much better fit over a large part of the plot, especially for the larger systems. Small but systematic departures from perfect scaling are evident in the low $`T`$ region, but these are only observable because we have perfect data (no statistical errors). In real (i.e. noisy) data such small effects could easily be obscured by the noise, and might lead one to suppose that the correct value of $`\theta `$ were close to $`0.36`$.

This tell us that the relation $`\xi T^\nu `$, where $`\nu =1/\theta `$, is only valid for rather small $`T`$. Corrections to this form are important over most of the regime presented in Figure 1. A striking confirmation of this is provided by Figure 2, where the same data are plotted against $`L/\xi _{exact}`$, where $`\xi _{exact}`$ is the exact correlation length for each temperature. From Eq. (2) we can identify this length scale as $`\xi _{exact}=1/\mathrm{ln}a`$. The data in Fig. 2 collapse almost perfectly for all sizes $`L40`$.

The lesson here is that it is not FSS itself which is breaking down, but the use of the relation $`\xi T^\nu `$ over the whole temperature range explored. We suspect that similar problems affect the interpretation of the data of Kawashima et al. Kawashima92 .

(ii) $`T=0`$, $`h>0`$ For non-zero magnetic field, the 1-d problem cannot be solved analytically in closed form for general system size, $`L`$. One can, however, determine the relevant correlation length, $`\xi `$, numerically. Here $`\xi `$ is to be interpreted as the length scale over which the ground state for $`h>0`$ locally resembles the $`h=0`$ ground state. We define it as the average ‘domain length’, where a domain is a cluster of spins completely aligned with one of the two $`h=0`$ ground states. This definition corresponds to the scaling argument $`L^{d/2}h^{1/\delta }`$ in Eq. (2), i.e. this argument $`(L/\xi )^{d/2}`$ with $`\xi h^{2/d\delta }`$.

Data for system sizes up to $`L=680`$ are displayed in Fig. 3, where each data point represents an average of $`\mathrm{50\hspace{0.17em}000}`$ samples. As explained above, we choose $`\alpha =6.042`$ in (3), corresponding to the value $`\delta =1.282`$ predicted by the scaling theory in $`d=2`$ for $`\theta =0.282`$. The plots are double-logarithmic plots based on the asymptotic scaling form (2) with $`d=1`$. It is found, however, that if (2) is used as it stands, i.e. $`L^{1/2}m_L(h)`$ is plotted against $`L^{1/2}h^{1/\delta }`$, it is difficult to get a perfect data collapse at small $`h`$, for any value of $`\delta `$. This is because the magnetisation per spin in zero field has a binomial distribution, and its average over samples, $`m_L(0)`$, is not exactly proportional to $`L^{1/2}`$ for small $`L`$ (for $`L\mathrm{}`$, the binomial distribution approaches the normal distribution and the $`L^{1/2}`$ dependence becomes asymptotically exact). An alternative FSS form can, however, be obtained by simply replacing the factors $`L^{1/2}`$ in (2) by $`1/m_L(0)`$. This has been done in Fig. 3. In this way, the ordinate is identically zero at $`h=0`$ and data collapse at small $`h`$ is greatly improved.

In the upper plot in Fig. 3, the exact value $`\delta =1.282`$ is used, while the lower plot shows the ‘best fit by eye’ obtained with $`\delta 1.37`$. The curves saturate at large $`h`$, when all spins are aligned with the field. The scaling region extends to, and somewhat beyond, the visible ‘elbow’ in the data. It is a remarkable that a very good fit by eye (lower plot) is obtained for the wrong value, $`\delta =1.37`$, of the scaling exponent, while the exact value, $`\delta =1.282`$, is visibly worse (upper plot).

This paradox, that the best collapse appears to be obtained with the wrong exponent value, is resolved in a similar manner to the $`h=0`$ case. In Fig. 4 we show the same data replotted against $`\mathrm{ln}[(L/\xi )^{1/2}]`$, where $`\xi `$ is the average domain length for a given $`h`$, as defined above. It is calculated numerically using transfer matrix methods and taking systems long enough that the mean domain length converges (which requires longer systems at smaller $`h`$).

The collapse is very good, up to and a little beyond the elbow, as expected. The disappearance, in the new scaling variable, of the plateau from Fig. 3 is a consequence of the saturation of $`\xi `$, at the value 2, in this regime, i.e. the plateau gets compressed to a single point in these variables. As in the zero field case, the failure of the data to collapse with the correct scaling exponent, when naive FSS is employed, indicates an inappropriate choice of scaling variable rather than a failure of FSS itself, i.e. the scaling variable $`L^{1/2}h^{1/\delta }`$ is only useful at very small values of $`h`$.

Finally we have studied the ‘domain wall’ and ‘droplet’ energies directly for the model with bond distribution (3), choosing $`\alpha =2.546`$, corresponding to $`\theta =0.282`$. The system has $`L`$ bonds and free boundaries. The domain wall energy, $`E`$, is given by the magnitude of the weakest bond in the system. Averaging over $`10^5`$ samples, with $`10L320`$, and plotting $`\mathrm{ln}E`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ gives the exponent $`\theta =0.297(2)`$, which is again different from the exact value for this model, $`\theta =0.282`$, but the difference is much smaller than in the studies described earlier in this paper. There is also a small curvature in the data: Extracting the exponent from the last two data points, $`L=160`$ and 320, gives $`\theta =0.288`$, even closer to the exact value.

One can create a droplet excitation by fixing the boundary spins in the ground-state configuration and reversing the central spin. The droplet that forms around the reversed spin is bounded by the weakest bonds to its left and right. Computing the droplet energy numerically, averaging over $`10^5`$ samples for $`10L320`$, and plotting $`\mathrm{ln}E_{\mathrm{droplet}}`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ as before gives $`\theta =0.303(3)`$. Using only the last two data points gives $`\theta =0.290`$. The discrepancy between the values of $`\theta `$ obtained from domain-wall and droplet energies is not statistically significant, in contrast to what is observed in $`d=2`$ Ritort . In the latter case, the boundary of a droplet forms a closed loop, which may tend to raise its energy due to an effective repulsion between different parts of the interface, leading to large corrections to scaling HartMoore . In $`d=1`$ the ‘interface’ consists of two isolated points and this effect is absent.

In summary, we have demonstrated by exact calculations in $`d=1`$ that a naive use of FSS, in which the asymptotic form of the scaling variable is employed, can lead to erroneous estimates of the scaling exponents, while FSS itself works rather well. The ‘rogue’ values of $`\theta `$ and $`\delta `$ extracted form these studies differ from the true values in the same sense as the corresponding exponents in $`d=2`$ differ from those obtained using domain-wall estimates for $`\theta `$. We conclude that domain-wall studies provide the most reliable determination of the exponent $`\theta `$ in spin glasses.