text:
# Untitled Document

UTTG-12-02

Adiabatic Modes in Cosmology

Steven Weinberg111Electronic address: weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

Theory Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas
Austin, TX, 78712

Abstract

We show that the field equations for cosmological perturbations in Newtonian gauge always have an adiabatic solution, for which a quantity $``$ is non-zero and constant in all eras in the limit of large wavelength, so that it can be used to connect observed cosmological fluctuations in this mode with those at very early times. There is also a second adiabatic mode, for which $``$ vanishes for large wavelength, and in general there may be non-adiabatic modes as well. These conclusions apply in all eras and whatever the constituents of the universe, under only a mild technical assumption about the wavelength dependence of the field equations for large wave length. In the absence of anisotropic inertia, the perturbations in the adiabatic modes are given for large wavelength by universal formulas in terms of the Robertson–Walker scale factor. We discuss an apparent discrepancy between these results and what appears to be a conservation law in all modes found for large wavelength in synchronous gauge: it turns out that, although equivalent, synchronous and Newtonian gauges suggest inequivalent assumptions about the behavior of the perturbations for large wavelength.

I. INTRODUCTION

If observations are to be used to tell us something about inflation, then we need some way of connecting the properties of the cosmological fluctuations produced during inflation to the properties of fluctuations much closer to the present. Inconveniently, in inflationary cosmologies the era of inflation was followed by a period when the energy in scalar fields was converted into matter and radiation, and about this process we know essentially nothing. Subsequently there may have been other periods about which we are equally ignorant, such as the often-hypothesized era with temperatures between $`10^{13}`$ GeV and $`10^{11}`$ GeV, when supersymmetry may have become broken by unknown strong forces. These mysterious eras occurred when fluctuations of cosmological interest were far outside the horizon, but this does not rule out some effect on the strength or even the wave-length dependence of these fluctuations.222By a mode being “beyond the horizon” we only mean that the physical wave number is much less than the expansion rate. This does not necessarily have anything to do with causality; indeed, the point of inflation is to make the true particle horizon radius much larger than the inverse expansion rate. Therefore, in relating the cosmological fluctuations produced during inflation with those observed in the cosmic microwave background or in large-scale cosmic structures, it is essential to employ some sort of conservation law that is valid at large wavelengths whatever the details of cosmic evolution.

In much work on fluctuations in cosmology, the conserved quantity is taken to be a quantity $``$ related to the spatial curvature on co-moving spatial surfaces, given in Newtonian gauge by333Here $`H=\dot{a}/a`$ is the expansion rate, with dots denoting ordinary time derivatives. In Newtonian gauge the perturbations to the gravitational field are taken to be $`\delta g_{00}=2\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\delta g_{ij}=2a^2\mathrm{\Psi }\delta _{ij}`$. Also $`\delta \rho `$, $`\delta p`$, and $`\delta u`$ are the perturbations to the total energy density, pressure, and velocity potential in Newtonian gauge, while we use a bar to denote unperturbed quantities like the unperturbed energy density $`\overline{\rho }`$ and pressure $`\overline{p}`$. For simplicity we assume a vanishing unperturbed spatial curvature.

$$=\mathrm{\Psi }+H\delta u.$$
(1)
The rate of change of $``$ is given by a general formula:

$$\dot{}=X+\left(\frac{q^2}{a^2}\right)\left[\left(\frac{\ddot{H}+3H\dot{H}}{3\dot{H}^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\frac{H}{\dot{H}}\right)4\pi G\delta \sigma \right].$$
(2)
Here $`q`$ is the co-moving wave number, $`\delta \sigma `$ is a measure of the anisotropic stress,444The quantity $`\delta \sigma `$ is defined by writing $`T_{ij}`$ for scalar perturbations as $`g_{ij}p+_i_j\delta \sigma `$. In this formalism, $`p`$ includes effects of bulk viscosity, while $`i𝐪\delta u`$ is the velocity of energy transport, and so includes effects of heat conduction. For this formalism, see ref. . and

$$X\frac{\dot{\overline{\rho }}\delta p\dot{\overline{p}}\delta \rho }{3(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p})^2}.$$
(3)
Thus $``$ is conserved in the limit of small wave number if and only if $`X=0`$ in this limit.

The limit of small $`q`$ is of some interest in itself, but its importance lies chiefly in the circumstance that those factors of $`q`$ that arise from the field equations (rather than from the initial conditions) are always accompanied by factors of $`1/a(t)`$, because it is only $`q/a(t)`$ that is independent of the units chosen for the co-moving spatial coordinates $`x^i`$. It is usually a good guess that terms in the perturbations proportional to such factors of $`q`$ will be negligible if $`q/a(t)H(t)1`$. Hence, although here we will study the behavior of the perturbations in the limit of small $`q`$, it is expected that this provides insight to the behavior of perturbations as $`a(t)`$ increases. In particular, we expect that if $`X0`$ for $`q0`$, and if the coefficient of $`q^2`$ in the second term in Eq. (2) remains finite in this limit, then at any given epoch $`\dot{}`$ will be small if $`q/aH`$ is sufficiently small. In any mode for which $``$ is non-zero in this limit, the fractional rate of change of $``$ will then also be small in this limit.

Now, the quantity $`X`$ vanishes in all modes and for all $`q`$ when the perturbed pressure $`\overline{p}+\delta p`$ is a function only of the perturbed energy density $`\overline{\rho }+\delta \rho `$, as is the case in a universe dominated either by pure radiation or by pure cold matter, but not when both radiation and cold matter are important, and also not during inflation or in the curvaton model. The quantity $`X`$ does vanish for all modes in the limit $`q0`$ in the case of inflation with a single scalar field, but this is not true with several scalar fields. Section II of this paper will show that in general, whatever the contents of the universe, with only a mild technical assumption about the dependence on wave number of the field equations for cosmological perturbations in Newtonian gauge, these equations always have a physical solution for which $`X0`$ and $``$ approaches a non-zero constant in the limit $`q0`$, though there may also be other modes for which $``$ is not constant. In fact, there are always at least two solutions with $`X=0`$ and $``$ constant in the limit $`q0`$: one solution for which $`0`$, and another with $`=0`$. These solutions will be illustrated in Section III for the case of inflation with any number of interacting scalar fields. The existence of such solutions is well known in special cases, but I do not know of a previous general proof of their existence.

Solutions of this sort are usually called adiabatic, even in contexts where thermodynamics has no relevance.555Sometimes the non-adiabatic solutions of the field equations are called isocurvature perturbations. This is a misnomer, because even for $`q=0`$ it is only possible for $``$ to have the constant value zero if $`X=0`$. Nevertheless, as we will see in Section IV, in synchronous gauge there is a sense in which the solutions that do not correspond to the adiabatic solutions of Newtonian gauge can indeed be regarded as isocurvature modes. As we will also see in Section II, in theories in which the energy- momentum tensor is the sum of a number of tensors $`T_f^{\mu \nu }`$ for a set of fluids labeled $`f`$, we have the stronger result that for $`q=0`$ in the adiabatic modes, the perturbations in each fluid satisfy

$$\frac{\delta \rho _f}{\dot{\overline{\rho }}_f}=\frac{\delta p_f}{\dot{\overline{p}}_f}=\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\overline{\rho }}}=\frac{\delta p}{\dot{\overline{p}}}.$$
(4)
In the special case where the unperturbed energy-momentum tensors are separately conserved, we also have $`\dot{\overline{\rho }}_f=3H(\overline{\rho }_f+\overline{p}_f)`$, in which case Eq. (4) implies that the ratios $`\delta \rho _f/(\overline{\rho }_f+\overline{p}_f)`$ are equal:

$$\frac{\delta \rho _f}{\overline{\rho }_f+\overline{p}_f}=\frac{\delta \rho }{\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}},$$
(5)
which is often taken to be what is meant by an adiabatic perturbation.

Things appear very different in synchronous gauge. As shown in Section IV, when we take the limit of vanishing wave number in the field equations of synchronous gauge, we find that these equations respect the conservation of a quantity $`A`$ in all modes whatever the contents of the universe, provided only that none of the perturbations in synchronous gauge blow up in the limit $`q0`$. At first sight, this presents an apparent paradox. All gauges are equivalent, so how can there be a quantity that is conserved for zero wave number in all modes during all eras in synchronous gauge and no equally universal conservation law for zero wave number in Newtonian gauge? We will find the answer to be that when we speak of the limit $`q=0`$ we mean different things in different gauges. Though mathematically equivalent, synchronous gauge and Newtonian gauge suggest different hypotheses about how perturbations behave in this limit, leading to different conditions for the validity of the conservation law for $`q=0`$.

In some work on cosmological fluctuations, a quantity $`\zeta `$, related to the spatial curvature on spacelike surfaces of constant energy density, is used in place of $``$. It is defined in Newtonian gauge by

$$\zeta \mathrm{\Psi }H\delta \rho /\dot{\overline{\rho }}=\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \rho /3(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}).$$
(6)
By taking a suitable linear combination of the time-time and time- space components of the Einstein field equation and the part of the space- space component proportional to $`\delta _{ij}`$, one can derive a general constraint,

$$a^3\delta \rho 3Ha^3\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)\delta u+\left(\frac{q^2a}{4\pi G}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(7)
so that

$$\zeta =\left(\frac{q^2}{3a^2\dot{H}}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }$$
(8)
and therefore in all modes $`\zeta `$ in the limit $`q0`$.

II. ADIABATIC MODES IN NEWTONIAN GAUGE

We consider a general cosmological model, based on the Einstein field equations, supplemented with whatever other equations are needed to give the energy density, pressure, and velocity potential perturbations in terms of independent dynamical variables, and the field equations satisfied by those variables. We will demonstrate the general existence of a pair of adiabatic solutions of these field equations in Newtonian gauge: one with $`0`$ and constant in the limit $`q0`$, and the other with $`=0`$ in this limit. In order to draw these conclusions without specifying the formulas for $`\delta \rho `$, $`\delta p`$, and $`\delta u`$, we use a trick, based on the fact that although there is no remaining gauge symmetry in Newtonian gauge for $`q0`$, for $`q=0`$ there is a remnant gauge symmetry of the field equations in Newtonian gauge, which makes it easy to find exact general solutions of the field equations for $`q=0`$. Not all of these solutions are physical. To be physical, such a solution must be the limit as $`q0`$ of a solution of the field equations for $`q0`$ in at least a neighborhood of $`q=0`$. For this to be the case, it is necessary for the $`q=0`$ solution to satisfy certain conditions imposed by the Einstein field equations, which limit the physical solutions to a linear combination of just two independent adiabatic modes. We will then make a mild technical assumption about the dependence of the field equations on $`q`$, which guarantees that these two solutions are the limits as $`q0`$ of physical solutions for $`q0`$.

Whatever the constituents of the universe, for $`q=0`$ the field equations in Newtonian gauge for scalar (i.e., compressional) modes will always be invariant under the gauge transformation induced by a redefinition of the time coordinate

$$tt+ϵ(t),$$
(9)
and a re-scaling of the space coordinate

$$x^ix^i(1\lambda ),$$
(10)
with $`ϵ(t)`$ an arbitrary infinitesimal function of time and $`\lambda `$ an arbitrary infinitesimal constant. For scalar modes, $`\delta g_{i0}`$ is proportional to $`q_i`$, and the part of $`\delta g_{ij}`$ not proportional to $`\delta _{ij}`$ is proportional to $`q_iq_j`$, so both automatically vanish for $`q0`$, and we therefore do not need to impose any conditions on $`ϵ(t)`$ and $`\lambda `$ to remain in Newtonian gauge for $`q=0`$. Eqs. (9) and (10) provide the most general spacetime transformations of purely scalar perturbations that preserve the condition $`q=0`$.

Under this gauge transformation, the $`q=0`$ perturbations undergo the transformation

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }+Hϵ\lambda ,\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\dot{ϵ},$$
(11)
$$\delta \rho \delta \rho \dot{\overline{\rho }}ϵ,\delta p\delta p\dot{\overline{p}}ϵ.$$
(12)
Likewise, in the case of separate fluids with energy density and pressure $`\rho _f`$ and $`p_f`$ or separate scalar fields $`\phi _f`$,

$$\delta \rho _f\delta \rho _f\dot{\overline{\rho }}_fϵ,\delta p_f\delta p_f\dot{\overline{p}}_fϵ,$$
(13)
or

$$\delta \phi _f\delta \phi _f\dot{\overline{\phi }}_fϵ.$$
(14)
It follows that there is always a solution of the Newtonian gauge field equations for $`q=0`$, in which:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=Hϵ\lambda ,\mathrm{\Phi }=\dot{ϵ},$$
(15)
$$\delta \rho =\dot{\overline{\rho }}ϵ,\delta p=\dot{\overline{p}}ϵ,$$
(16)
and for several fluids

$$\delta \rho _f=\dot{\overline{\rho }}_fϵ,\delta p_f=\dot{\overline{p}}_fϵ,$$
(17)
or several scalar fields

$$\delta \phi _f=\dot{\overline{\phi }}_fϵ,$$
(18)
where $`ϵ(t)`$ is an arbitrary function of time and $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary constant. (It is not necessary for this that the energy-momentum tensors of the individual fluids or scalar fields be separately conserved; all we need is that they are tensors.)

Of course, for general $`ϵ(t)`$ and $`\lambda `$ this is just a gauge mode. For it to have any physical significance, it must satisfy certain conditions that allow it to be extended to the case of non-zero wave number. In particular, the part of the space-space component of the Einstein field equations that is not proportional to $`\delta _{ij}`$ takes the form (with $`\delta \sigma `$ the anisotropic stress):

$$q_iq_j(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi })=8\pi Gq_iq_j\delta \sigma ,$$
(19)
so this equation disappears for $`q=0`$. In order for the solution (15)–(18) of the field equations to be extended to $`q0`$, we must have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }8\pi G\delta \sigma ,$$
(20)
and therefore $`ϵ(t)`$ and $`\lambda `$ must satisfy the condition

$$\dot{ϵ}+Hϵ=\lambda 8\pi G\delta \sigma ,$$
(21)
which can always be satisfied by a suitable choice of $`ϵ(t)`$.

There is another equation that disappears for $`q=0`$: for scalar modes the space-time component of the Einstein field equations reads

$$q_i\left(2\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}2H\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=8\pi G\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)q_i\delta u=2\dot{H}q_i\delta u$$
(22)
where $`\delta u`$ is the velocity potential in Newtonian gauge, which does not appear in the equations for $`q=0`$. Hence in order for the solution we have found to be extended to $`q0`$, this solution must also have a velocity potential given by

$$\dot{H}\delta u=\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+H\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(23)
or, using the result (15),

$$\delta u=ϵ.$$
(24)
This agrees with what would be found from the gauge transformation induced by the coordinate transformation (9). Likewise, with several fluids,

$$\delta u_f=ϵ$$
(25)
From Eqs. (16) and (24) it follows that $`\delta \rho =3H\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)\delta u`$, so the constraint equation (7) is automatically satisfied for $`q=0`$ by this solution. By inserting Eqs. (15), (16), and (24) in equations (1) and (6), we now find that for $`q=0`$, this solution has

$$=\zeta =\lambda ,$$
(26)
so $``$ and $`\zeta `$ are indeed constant and equal for this solution in the limit $`q0`$, as was to be shown. They are also non-zero, as long as we take $`\lambda 0`$.

Now we have to ask what additional conditions are needed to ensure that this solution is the limit as $`q0`$ of a solution with $`q0`$. In general, any closed set of linear homogeneous ordinary differential equations for a finite set of dependent variables can be put in the first-order form

$$\dot{y}_n(t)+\underset{m}{}C_{nm}(t)y_m(t)=0.$$
(27)
(If some of the original set of field equations involve derivatives of higher than first order, we can still write the equations in the form (27) by including some derivatives of the field variables among the $`y_m(t)`$.) This has the general solution

$$y_n(t)=\underset{m}{}\left[T\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(_{t_0}^tC(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)\right\}\right]_{nm}y_m(t_0)$$
(28)
with $`t_0`$ arbitrary, and with $`T`$ denoting a time-ordered product defined by a power series expansion of the exponential, which for finite matrices is always convergent. The initial conditions may be subject to constraints like Eq. (7), which can be written

$$\underset{n}{}c_ny_n(t_0)=0.$$
(29)
(Eq. (7) is such a constraint, because the equations of energy and momentum conservation and the gravitational field equation $`\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+H\mathrm{\Phi }=\dot{H}\delta u`$ imply that the left-hand side of Eq. (7) is time-independent.)

Our “mild technical” assumption is that, as long as the Einstein equations (19) and (22) are written instead in the stronger form (20) and (23), the matrix elements $`C_{nm}(t)`$ and the constraint coefficients $`c_n`$ are continuous functions of $`q`$ in at least a neighborhood of $`q=0`$. In this case the $`y_n(t_0)`$ that satisfy Eq. (29) and the matrix in Eq. (28) will also be continuous in $`q`$, so that any solution of Eq. (27) for $`q=0`$ can be extended to a solution for $`q0`$ in a neighborhood of $`q=0`$ by using Eq. (28) and (29) with the values of $`C(t)`$ and $`c`$ for $`q0`$. The next section shows the validity of this assumption in one illustrative example: inflation with several scalar fields and an arbitrary potential. Because $`q`$ generally enters the field equations and constraint equations in such a simple manner, we expect that this assumption will always be satisfied, and in any case it is easy to check for any specific model. For $`q0`$, there is no remaining gauge freedom in Newtonian gauge (as there is for $`q=0`$), so the adiabatic solution found in this way will be the limit as $`q0`$ of a physical solution, not a mere gauge mode.

We expect the anisotropic stress coefficient $`\delta \sigma `$ for a wide class of theories to be some linear combination of $`\delta u`$, $`\delta \rho `$, and $`\delta p`$, so that for the solution (15)–(17), (24)–(25), $`\delta \sigma `$ may be written as $`\delta \sigma =ϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t)`$ depending only on unperturbed quantities. (For instance, a non-zero shear viscosity $`\eta `$ in an imperfect fluid gives $`\delta \sigma =2\eta \delta u`$, so here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\eta `$.) In all such cases, Eq. (21) has the general solution

$$ϵ(t)=\frac{\lambda }{\alpha (t)}^t\alpha (t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(30)
where

$$\alpha (t)a(t)\mathrm{exp}\left(8\pi G^t\mathrm{\Sigma }(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right),$$
(31)
and the lower limit on the integral in Eq. (30) is arbitrary.

There is also a second mode, corresponding to the possibility of shifting the lower limit of the integral in Eq. (30), for which $`ϵ(t)`$ goes as $`ϵ(t)1/\alpha (t)`$. Since shifting the lower bound on the integral in Eq. (30) has no effect on the value (26) of $``$ and $`\zeta `$, this solution has $`=\zeta =0`$.

In the special case of vanishing anisotropic stress we have $`\delta \sigma =0`$, so here $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and $`\alpha (t)`$ is just the Robertson–Walker scale factor $`a(t)`$. The general solution of Eq. (21) is then

$$ϵ(t)=\frac{\lambda }{a(t)}^ta(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(32)
with an arbitrary lower limit. This eventually increases in absolute value as $`t`$ for Robertson–Walker scale factors that grow as any power of $`t`$, while in the other mode $`ϵ(t)1/a(t)`$ decreases with time. Inserting the result (32) in Eqs. (15)–(18) gives explicit results for the perturbations in the gravitational field and various pressures and energy densities as functions of time.

The results presented in this section can be interpreted in terms of what Liddle and Lyth in ref.  call a “separate universe” picture, which in one form or another has been used since the beginning of inflationary theory to deal with cosmological fluctuations in the case of a single scalar field. For instance, Bardeen, Steinhardt, and Turner in ref.  gave what they called a ‘heuristic argument’ that in this case any portion of the universe that is larger than the horizon $`1/H`$ but smaller than the physical perturbation wavelength $`a/q`$ would have to look like a separate unperturbed universe, with $`\phi +\delta \phi `$ following the unique evolutionary path of the scalar field, and with all of these separate universes therefore the same except for a variation in the time at which the scalar field satisfies some specific initial condition a few Hubble times after horizon exit. As pointed out by Bardeen et al., it follows then that $`\delta \rho /\dot{\overline{\rho }}=\delta p/\dot{\overline{p}}`$, and hence $`X=0`$, for $`q/aH`$.

There is a potential problem with this sort of argument, that there are two fields involved, the inflaton and the gravitational field, so that different separate universes might have different ratios of these fields. The argument of Bardeen et al. was formulated in a gauge in which it is unnecessary to consider fluctuations in the gravitational field, but it applies also to Newtonian gauge, because in this gauge the constraint (7) allows the gravitational potential to be expressed in terms of fluctuations in the scalar field. But as we have seen in this section, in Newtonian gauge it is necessary not only to allow shifts in the time at which the scalar field reaches some given value after horizon crossing, but also to re-scale the co-moving coordinates used in each separate universe. In synchronous gauge there is no constraint like Eq. (7) that allows us to express the gravitational field in terms of the scalar field, and so, as we will see in Section IV, the solutions even for inflation with a single scalar field do not satisfy $`X=0`$ in the limit $`q0`$.

There is another potential problem, that the equation of motion of the scalar field is a second-order differential equation, so that there are two independent solutions whose relative coefficients may vary from one separate universe to another. Bardeen et al. and other authors avoid this problem by assuming that the scalar field experiences a period of “slow roll” inflation, in which the differential equation satisfied by the scalar field is of first order, to a good approximation. We have not had to make this assumption, for a reason already pointed out by Guth and Pi: the Wronskian of these two solutions decays rapidly after horizon crossing, so that it is as if there were only one independent solution. (Guth and Pi considered the case of $`H`$ constant, but even with a time-dependent $`H`$ the Wronskian still decays, though not precisely exponentially.)

In any case, it has always been clear that such “separate universe” arguments do not rule out non-adiabatic solutions in the case of several scalar fields, where ratios of the scalar fields may vary from one “separate universe” to another. The results of this section may be interpreted as the statement that in this and all other cases it is always possible to find an adiabatic solution of the field equations in Newtonian gauge in which the separate universes appear the same, except for a shift in the time coordinate and a re-scaling of the co-moving space coordinates.

III. AN EXAMPLE: MULTIFIELD INFLATION

For illustration, and to confirm the reasoning of the theorem of the previous section in a case where $`X`$ does not vanish for all modes, let us consider the case of inflation with an arbitrary number of scalar fields $`\phi _f`$, and with a general potential $`V`$ that may include interactions among the various scalars. The energy-momentum tensor of the scalar fields has the perfect-fluid form, so here $`\sigma =0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The field equations in Newtonian gauge are

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+H\mathrm{\Psi }=4\pi G\underset{f}{}\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f\delta \phi _f,$$
(33)
$$\delta \ddot{\phi }_f+3H\delta \dot{\phi }_f+\underset{f^{}}{}\frac{^2V(\overline{\phi })}{\overline{\phi }_f\overline{\phi }_f^{}}\delta \phi _f^{}+\left(\frac{q^2}{a^2}\right)\delta \phi _f=2\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{V(\overline{\phi })}{\overline{\phi }_f}+4\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f,$$
(34)
and the constraint (7) is here

$$\left(\dot{H}+\frac{q^2}{a^2}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }=4\pi G\underset{f}{}\left(\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f\delta \dot{\phi }_f+\ddot{\overline{\phi }}_f\delta \phi _f\right).$$
(35)
We can write Eqs. (33) and (34) in the form (27) by taking the $`y_n`$ to run over $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and all $`\varphi _f`$ and $`\dot{\varphi }_f`$, in which case the constraint (35) is of the form (29). Here obviously $`C_{nm}(t)`$ and $`c_n`$ are continuous in $`q`$ in a neighborhood of $`q=0`$; in fact, they are just linear functions of $`q^2`$. Hence any solution of Eqs. (33)–(35) that we find for $`q=0`$ can be extended to a solution for $`q0`$.

Let us try for a solution for $`q=0`$ in which all of the individual velocity potentials $`\delta \phi _f/\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f`$ are equal, so that

$$\delta \phi _f=\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f\delta u,$$
(36)
with the common value satisfying

$$\delta \dot{u}=\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(37)
Using the time-derivative of the unperturbed scalar field equation

$$\ddot{\overline{\phi }}_f+3H\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f+\frac{V(\overline{\phi })}{\overline{\phi }_f}=0,$$
(38)
we can put Eq. (34) for $`q=0`$ in the form

$$\dot{H}\delta u+H\delta \dot{u}+\delta \ddot{u}=0.$$
(39)
Also, the gravitational field equation (33) now reads $`\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+H\mathrm{\Psi }=\dot{H}\delta u`$, which Eq. (39) guarantees is automatically satisfied by the $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given by Eq. (37). The general solution is

$$\delta u=\frac{\lambda }{a}a𝑑t,\mathrm{\Psi }=H\delta u\lambda ,$$
(40)
(with $`\lambda `$ an arbitrary constant), just as we found above in Eqs. (15), (24), and (32). The perturbations to the energy density and pressure of the $`f`$th field here are

$$\delta \rho _f=\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2+\dot{\overline{\phi }}\delta \dot{\phi }+\frac{V}{\overline{\phi }_f}\delta \phi _f=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \dot{u}\right)\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f^2\dot{\overline{\rho }}_f\delta u=\dot{\overline{\rho }}_f\delta u,$$
(41)
and

$$\delta p_f=\mathrm{\Psi }\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2+\dot{\overline{\phi }}\delta \dot{\phi }\frac{V}{\overline{\phi }_f}\delta \phi _f=\left(\mathrm{\Psi }+\delta \dot{u}\right)\dot{\overline{\phi }}_f^2\dot{\overline{p}}_f\delta u=\dot{\overline{p}}_f\delta u,$$
(42)
so this mode is adiabatic, in the sense that $`X0`$ for $`q0`$. Inserting Eq. (40) in Eq. (1) gives again $`=\lambda `$.

Once again, because of the freedom to shift the lower limit of the integral in Eq. (40), there are two adiabatic modes here, the second with $`\delta u1/a`$ and $`=0`$.

For a single scalar field, Eqs. (33) and (34) are a third-order set of differential equations, and therefore have a third independent solution. The third solution can also be found explicitly, and turns out to have $`\dot{}1/a^3\dot{H}`$ for $`q=0`$, so this solution is not adiabatic. However, this third solution is eliminated by the constraint Eq. (35), which as we have seen in the previous section is automatically satisfied by any adiabatic solution, but is not satisfied by the non-adiabatic solution of Eqs. (33) and (34). For $`N`$ scalar fields Eqs. (33) and (34) have $`2N+1`$ independent solutions, of which two are adiabatic, and one is eliminated by Eq. (35), leaving $`2N2`$ non-adiabatic solutions.

IV. SYNCHRONOUS GAUGE

We now turn to synchronous gauge. With zero unperturbed spatial curvature, the perturbed metric has components

$$g_{ij}(𝐱,t)=a^2(t)\delta _{ij}+h_{ij}(𝐱,t),g_{00}=1,g_{i0}=0,$$
(43)
with $`h_{ij}`$ a small perturbation. We now assume for simplicity that the perturbed energy-momentum tensor takes the perfect-fluid form

$$T_{\mu \nu }=pg_{\mu \nu }+(p+\rho )u_\mu u_\nu .$$
(44)
The unperturbed quantities $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$ depend only on time, and the unperturbed velocity four-vector has components $`\overline{u}^0=1`$, $`\overline{u}^i=0`$. The normalization condition $`u_\mu u^\mu =1`$ then requires that the velocity perturbation $`\delta u_\mu ^{(S)}`$ is purely spatial. (A superscript $`(S)`$ is used to denote perturbed quantities in synchronous gauge.) We consider only compressional modes, for which $`\delta u_i^{(S)}=\delta u^{(S)}/x^i`$. Then the relevant field equations for a Fourier component with wave number $`q`$ are

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^2\psi \right)=4\pi Ga^2\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+3\delta p^{(S)}\right),$$
(45)
and

$$\delta \dot{\rho }^{(S)}+3H\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+\delta p^{(S)}\right)=\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)\left(\psi a^2q^2\delta u^{(S)}\right).$$
(46)
Here $`\psi `$ is a field employed in recent work using synchronous gauge

$$\psi \frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{h_{ii}}{2a^2}\right).$$
(47)
There is also an Euler equation that will be needed later in this section:

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[a^3\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)\delta u^{(S)}\right]=a^3\delta p^{(S)}.$$
(48)
From equations (45) and (46) together with the relation $`4\pi G\left(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p}\right)=\dot{H}`$ it follows that

$$\dot{A}=q^2H\delta \dot{u}^{(S)}$$
(49)
where

$$Aa^2H\psi 4\pi Ga^2\delta \rho ^{(S)}q^2H\delta u^{(S)}.$$
(50)
Here is the proof: Eq. (46) can be written

$$\delta \dot{\rho }^{(S)}+3H\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+\delta p^{(S)}\right)=\frac{\dot{H}}{4\pi G}\left(\psi a^2q^2\delta u^{(S)}\right),$$

and it follows immediately from Eq. (45) that

$$\frac{d(a^2H\psi )}{dt}=4\pi Ga^2H\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+3\delta p^{(S)}\right)+a^2\dot{H}\psi .$$

Eliminating $`\dot{H}\psi `$ from these two equations gives

$$\frac{d(a^2H\psi )}{dt}=4\pi Ga^2H\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+3\delta p^{(S)}\right)+4\pi Ga^2\left[\delta \dot{\rho }^{(S)}+3H\left(\delta \rho ^{(S)}+\delta p^{(S)}\right)\right]+q^2\dot{H}\delta u^{(S)}$$

or in other words

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left[a^2H\psi 4\pi Ga^2\delta \rho ^{(S)}\right]=q^2\dot{H}\delta u^{(S)}.$$

The quantity in square brackets on the left is not invariant under the gauge transformations that preserve the condition (43) for synchronous gauge, so instead we work with the related gauge-invariant quantity (50), for which Eq. (49) follows immediately.

As long as the velocity potential remains finite in the limit $`q0`$, Eq. (49) yields a conservation law

$$\dot{A}=0\mathrm{for}q=0.$$
(51)
This is true for all modes in all cases, including inflation with several scalar fields and for the transition from radiation to matter dominance. The conservation of $`A`$ in the limit $`q=0`$ can also be derived by simply perturbing $`a(t)`$, $`\rho (t)`$, and the curvature constant $`K`$ in the Friedmann equation, which gives $`\delta K=2A/3`$.

By taking suitable linear combinations of solutions, it is always possible to arrange that for $`q=0`$ just one of a complete set has $`A0`$, while all the other solutions have $`A=0`$. Examples are given in an appendix to this paper. Because of the connection of $`A`$ with the spatial curvature, it is legitimate to call the solutions with $`A=0`$ isocurvature modes. When $`q`$ is small but non-zero the isocurvature solutions usually have both $`A`$ and $`\dot{A}`$ of order $`q^2`$, so that Eq. (49) does not keep $`A`$ for these solutions from undergoing large fractional changes. This does not vitiate the usefulness of the conservation law for initial conditions that give a physical perturbation in which all solutions make contributions with comparable coefficients. In this case, the contribution of the isocurvature modes to $`A`$ may be rapidly varying, but at any given time they will be small as long as $`q`$ is sufficiently small. The physical solution will have a rapid fractional variation in $`A`$ only if the coefficient of the mode with $`A0`$ for $`q=0`$ is suppressed, or if the coefficients of the isocurvature modes are enhanced.

There is a simple relation between the quantity $`A`$ introduced in this section and the more familiar quantity $``$ discussed in Sections I–III. Given perturbations $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\delta \rho `$ and $`\delta u`$ in Newtonian gauge, we can find the perturbations $`\psi `$, $`\delta \rho ^{(S)}`$, and $`\delta u^{(S)}`$ in synchronous gauge from the transformation equations:

$$\psi =3\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}3\frac{d}{dt}\left(Hϵ\right)+\left(q/a\right)^2ϵ,\delta \rho ^{(S)}=\delta \rho ϵ\dot{\overline{\rho }}\delta u^{(S)}=\delta u+ϵ,$$
(52)
where

$$\dot{ϵ}=\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(53)
(The possibility of shifting $`ϵ`$ by a constant term corresponds to the possibility of making gauge transformations that preserve the conditions for synchronous gauge.) By applying these equations to the quantity (50), it is elementary to show that $`A`$ is related to the quantity $``$ defined in Eq. (1) by

$$A=q^2.$$
(54)
Thus for any finite $`q`$ the fractional rate of change in $``$ will be the same as the fractional rate of change in $`𝒜`$. In some treatments of multi-field inflation and in discussions of the curvaton model, it is simply assumed that the mode with $`0`$ and hence $`A0`$ is somehow suppressed, which is enough to explain why these authors find a significant fractional change in $``$. But why more generally does the condition $`X=0`$ play an important role in establishing the conservation of $``$ for $`q0`$ in Newtonian gauge, while there seems to be no similar condition needed for the conservation of $`A`$ in synchronous gauge?

As a first step toward resolving this apparent paradox, we note from Eq. (54) that that the limit as $`q0`$ of the perturbed quantities $`\delta \rho ^{(S)}`$ and $`\psi `$ in synchronous gauge in the mode for which $`A0`$ in this limit is not obtained by applying a gauge transformation to the perturbed quantities in the corresponding mode in Newtonian gauge for $`q=0`$, since that would give $`A=0`$ for $`q=0`$. We can go further, and show in general that for $`q=0`$, the synchronous gauge solution corresponding to any adiabatic solution of the Newtonian gauge field equations (normalized to not diverge as $`q0`$) has vanishing values not only for $`A`$, but also (up to a choice of a particular synchronous gauge) for $`\psi `$ and the total density fluctuation $`\delta \rho ^{(S)}`$ and velocity potential $`\delta u^{(S)}`$.

The reasoning here is essentially the reverse of that used to prove the theorem of Section II. We will use the space-time component of the Einstein field equations in Newtonian gauge

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}+H\mathrm{\Psi }=4\pi G(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p})\delta u=\dot{H}\delta u.$$
(55)
We work in the limit $`q=0`$, assuming that the solution is normalized so that in Newtonian gauge all fluctuations remain finite in this limit. (As we shall see, this assumption is less innocent than it may seem.) Then for modes that for $`q=0`$ are adiabatic in the sense that $`X=0`$, Eqs. (1) and (2) give

$$\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(H\delta u\right)$$
(56)
for $`q=0`$. Combining this with Eq. (55) gives

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\delta \dot{u}.$$
(57)
Thus according to Eq. (53) we can adopt a particular synchronous gauge such that the transformation parameter $`ϵ`$ in Eq. (52) is

$$ϵ=\delta u.$$
(58)
Using Eqs. (56) and (58) in Eq. (52) shows immediately that, for $`q=0`$,

$$\psi =0.$$
(59)
Furthermore, Eq. (55) together with the Newtonian gauge Euler equation supplies a general constraint equivalent to Eq. (7) for $`q=0`$:

$$4\pi G\delta \rho =3H\dot{H}\delta u$$
(60)
Eqs. (52) and (60) give the synchronous gauge density fluctuation

$`4\pi G\delta \rho ^{(S)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\left[\delta \rho ϵ\dot{\overline{\rho }}\right]`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`3H\dot{H}\delta u+[4\pi G]\delta u\left[3H(\overline{\rho }+\overline{p})\right]`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Finally, the velocity potential in this synchronous gauge is

$$\delta u^{(S)}=\delta u+ϵ=0.$$
(62)
Thus no synchronous gauge perturbation with non-vanishing values of $`\psi `$ or $`\delta \rho ^{(S)}`$ or $`\delta u^{(S)}`$ (apart from those that can be eliminated by a transformation to a different synchronous gauge), such as modes 1, 2, and 3 of the radiation plus cold dark matter model of the appendix, can be the gauge transformation of one of the $`q=0`$ adiabatic Newtonian gauge solutions. Rather, the synchronous gauge solutions for $`q=0`$ with $`A`$ a non-zero constant must be the gauge transformations of the terms of order $`q^2`$ in the adiabatic Newtonian gauge solution with $`0`$, re-normalized by dividing by a factor $`q^2`$.666This is why it is possible for the quantity $`X`$ not to vanish in any mode for $`q=0`$ in synchronous gauge, as we find in the appendix in the case of inflation, while there are two modes in Newtonian gauge in which $`X0`$ for $`q0`$, despite the fact that $`X`$ is gauge invariant. It is not that $`X`$ is different in the two gauges, but rather that the limit $`q0`$ means different things in synchronous and Newtonian gauge. With this re-normalization of the synchronous gauge modes, as in the appendix, the conserved quantity $`A`$ is not necessarily of order $`q^2`$, as would be expected from Eq. (54), but can have a finite limit for $`q0`$, as we will find it does in the appendix.

Now at last we come to the point. Working in Newtonian gauge, it is most natural to assume that, with an over-all normalization factor chosen so that $``$ is finite and non-zero in the limit $`q=0`$, all density fluctuations and velocity potentials as well as $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are non-zero in this limit. Under this assumption, if the contribution of non-adiabatic modes is comparable to that of the adiabatic modes, $``$ will undergo significant changes with time. Transforming this sort of solution to synchronous gauge, we have found above that the density fluctuations and the total velocity potential receive contributions of order $`q^2`$ (relative to the Newtonian gauge perturbations) from the adiabatic modes but of order unity from the non-adiabatic modes, so that $`\dot{A}`$ is of order $`q^2`$, while $`A`$ is also of order $`q^2`$, and so $`A`$ does suffer significant changes with time. Or we can re-normalize the synchronous gauge fluctuations by an over-all factor of order $`1/q^2`$, in which case $`A`$ and the density fluctuations and velocity potentials receive contributions of order unity for $`q=0`$ from the adiabatic modes, as in the appendix, while the contribution of the non-adiabatic modes to the total velocity potential if present is enhanced by a peculiar looking factor of $`1/q^2`$, giving both $`A`$ and $`\dot{A}`$ non-zero limits for $`q0`$.

On the other hand, working in synchronous gauge, it is most natural to assume that, with an over-all normalization factor chosen so that $`A`$ is finite and non-zero in the limit $`q=0`$, all density fluctuations and velocity potentials as well as $`\psi `$ are finite in this limit. Under this assumption, it makes no difference whether the contribution of non-adiabatic modes is comparable to that of the adiabatic modes; even if it is, $`A`$ will undergo no significant changes with time. Transforming this sort of solution to Newtonian gauge, one finds that the density fluctuations and the total velocity potential receive contributions of order $`1/q^2`$ from the adiabatic modes and of order unity from the non-adiabatic modes, so $``$ is of order $`1/q^2`$ while its rate of change is only of order unity. Or we can re- normalize the Newtonian gauge fluctuations by an over-all factor of order $`q^2`$, in which case $``$ and the density fluctuations and velocity potentials receive contributions of order unity for $`q=0`$, while the contribution of any non-adiabatic modes is suppressed by a peculiar looking factor of $`q^2`$, giving $``$ a zero rate of change for $`q=0`$.

So which is right? The issue is not the over-all normalization of the total perturbations, but the relative magnitude of its adiabatic and non-adiabatic terms in the limit $`q0`$. There is nothing about either gauge that makes it a more reliable guide to our intuition about this than the other.

It is generally expected that inflation with several scalar fields the general solution does not have $``$ approaching a constant for increasing $`a(t)`$, in agreement with what would be expected from the behavior for $`q0`$ suggested by Newtonian gauge but not synchronous gauge. But there are cases of multi-field inflation in which $`A`$ and hence $``$ do approach constants as $`a(t)`$ increases, as would be expected from the behavior for $`q0`$ suggested by synchronous gauge but not Newtonian gauge. One case is a potential given by a sum of exponentials.

$$V=\underset{n}{}g_n\mathrm{exp}(\lambda _n\phi _n)$$
(63)
Another is a potential of the form

$$V=F\left(\underset{n}{}\phi _n^2\right),$$
(64)
with $`F`$ an arbitrary function. It would be interesting to characterize the general class of potentials for multi-field inflation for which $`A`$ and $``$ approach constants as $`a(t)`$ increases.

APPENDIX: LONG-WAVELENGTH SOLUTIONS IN SYNCHRONOUS GAUGE

In this appendix we will study several examples of calculations for zero wave number in synchronous gauge, to exhibit both solutions with $`A0`$ and those with $`A=0`$. All quantities here will be in synchronous gauge, so we will drop the label $`(S)`$.

As a first example, consider inflation with just a single real scalar field $`\phi =\overline{\phi }(t)+\delta \phi (𝐱,t)`$, and potential $`V(\phi )`$. As is well known, the unperturbed pressure and energy density are

$$\overline{\rho }=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2+V(\overline{\phi }),\overline{p}=\frac{1}{2}\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2V(\overline{\phi }),$$
(65)
from which we find the equation of motion of the unperturbed scalar field

$$\ddot{\overline{\phi }}+3H\dot{\overline{\phi }}+V^{}(\overline{\phi })=0.$$
(66)
The perturbations to the energy density and pressure are

$$\delta \rho =\dot{\overline{\phi }}\delta \dot{\phi }+V^{}(\overline{\phi })\delta \phi ,\delta p=\dot{\overline{\phi }}\delta \dot{\phi }V^{}(\overline{\phi })\delta \phi .$$
(67)
Also, the perturbed velocity potential is

$$\delta u=\delta \phi /\dot{\overline{\phi }}.$$
(68)
The field equations (45) and (46) for the Fourier component of the perturbations with wave number $`q`$ here take the form

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^2\psi \right)=4\pi Ga^2\left(4\dot{\overline{\phi }}\delta \dot{\phi }2V^{}(\overline{\phi })\delta \phi \right),$$
(69)
$$\delta \ddot{\phi }+3H\delta \dot{\phi }+V^{\prime \prime }(\overline{\phi })\delta \phi +a^2q^2\delta \phi =\dot{\overline{\phi }}\psi ,$$
(70)
where

$$H\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\sqrt{\frac{8\pi G}{3}\left(\frac{\dot{\overline{\phi }}^2}{2}+V(\overline{\phi })\right)}.$$
(71)
The Euler equation (48) gives no new information here.

There is a gauge mode, with $`\phi =\tau \dot{\overline{\phi }}`$ and $`\psi =\tau (3\dot{H}q^2/a^2)`$, where $`\tau `$ is an arbitrary time-independent function of $`q`$. Knowing this solution allows us to reduce the degree of equations (67) and (68) from three to two, in agreement with the number of physical solutions found in Newtonian gauge in Section III. We introduce time-dependent functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ by writing

$$\delta \phi =f\dot{\overline{\phi }},\psi =(f+g)\left(3\dot{H}q^2/a^2\right).$$
(72)
Equations (67) and (68) then become a second-order set of equations for the gauge-invariant quantities $`\dot{f}`$ and $`g`$:

$$\ddot{f}+3H\dot{f}+(\ddot{H}/\dot{H})\dot{f}=\left(3\dot{H}q^2/a^2\right)g,$$
(73)
$$\left(3\dot{H}q^2/a^2\right)\dot{g}+\left(6H\dot{H}+3\ddot{H}\right)g=\left(\dot{H}+q^2/a^2\right)\dot{f},$$
(74)
in which the gauge mode appears in the possibility of adding a constant to $`f`$. These equations can be solved exactly for $`q=0`$ and $`H(t)`$ arbitrary. There are two physical solutions:

Mode 1:

$$g^{(1)}(t)=\frac{1}{3a^3(t)\dot{H}(t)}_0^ta(t^{})𝑑t^{},\dot{f}^{(1)}(t)=\frac{1}{a^2(t)\dot{H}(t)}\left[1\frac{H(t)}{a(t)}_0^ta(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right].$$
(75)
Mode 2:

$$g^{(2)}(t)=\frac{1}{3a^3(t)\dot{H}(t)},\dot{f}^{(2)}(t)=\frac{H(t)}{a^3(t)\dot{H}(t)}.$$
(76)
(The lower limit 0 on the integral over $`t^{}`$ is arbitrary; changing it just amounts to adding some of mode 2 to mode 1.)

Equation (50) gives the values of $`A`$ for $`q=0`$ in these two modes as the constants

$$A_1=1,A_2=0,$$
(77)
even though neither of these solutions satisfies the adiabatic condition $`X=0`$. A general mixture of modes with coefficients $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ will have $`A=c_1`$ for $`q=0`$, provided $`c_2`$ does not blow up in this limit. With this proviso, the conservation of $`A`$ allows the value of $`c_1`$ that is calculated for a given inflaton potential to be used to find the strength of the non-isocurvature mode at later times. However, if the value of $`c_2`$ for the physical solution found after horizon crossing went as $`c/q^2`$ for $`q0`$, while $`c_1`$ remained finite, then Eqs. (49), (66), (70), and (74) would give

$$\dot{A}c_2\dot{A}_2\frac{cH^2(t)}{a^3(t)\dot{H}(t)}\mathrm{for}q0,$$

and there would be no useful conservation law even for $`q=0`$. As discussed in Section IV, this is just what we would expect if we assumed that, with an over-all normalization factor chosen so that $``$ is finite and non-zero in the limit $`q=0`$, all density fluctuations and velocity potentials in Newtonian gauge as well as $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are finite and non-zero in this limit.

For another example, we consider a later epoch, when the dominant constituents of the universe were radiation and cold dark matter. (For simplicity, we are neglecting the baryon density compared with the density of cold dark matter, but supposing that there are still enough baryons to keep the radiation in thermal equilibrium, and we are ignoring the effects of free-streaming neutrinos.) We adopt a particular synchronous gauge in which the cold dark matter is at rest. The field equations then are Eqs. (46) and (48) for the radiation energy density perturbation $`\delta \rho _R`$ and velocity potential $`\delta u_R`$; Eq. (46) for the cold dark matter density $`\rho _D`$; and Eq. (45) for $`\psi `$, with the total energy density and pressure appearing on the right hand side:

$$\delta \dot{\rho }_R+4H\delta \rho _R=(4/3)\overline{\rho }_R\left(\psi a^2q^2\delta u_R\right),$$
(78)
$$4\frac{d}{dt}\left[a^3\overline{\rho }_R\delta u_R\right]=a^3\delta \rho _R,$$
(79)
$$\delta \dot{\rho }_D+3H\delta \rho _D=\overline{\rho }_D\psi ,$$
(80)
$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(a^2\psi \right)=4\pi Ga^2\left(2\delta \rho _R+\delta \rho _D\right).$$
(81)
The unperturbed radiation and dark matter densities go as $`a^4`$ and $`a^3`$, respectively. It is convenient here to normalize $`a`$ so that $`a=1`$ when $`\overline{\rho }_R=\overline{\rho }_D`$, so that

$$\overline{\rho }_R=\rho _{EQ}a^4,\overline{\rho }_D=\rho _{EQ}a^3,$$
(82)
where $`\rho _{EQ}`$ is constant.

Equations (78)–(81) are a fourth-order system of differential equations, so there are four modes, all of which are physical because the gauge has been fixed by choosing $`\delta u_D=0`$. For $`q=0`$, they take the form

Mode 1:

$`\delta \rho _R^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi Ga^6}}\left(16+8a2a^2+a^3\right),`$
$`\delta u_R^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4\rho _{EQ}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}{\displaystyle ^a}{\displaystyle \frac{a^4da}{\sqrt{1+a}}}\delta \rho _R^{(1)},`$ (83)
$`\delta \rho _D^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi Ga^5}}\left(16+8a2a^2+a^3\right),`$
$`\psi ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+a}}{a^4}}\left(32+8aa^3\right)`$
Mode 2:

$`\delta \rho _R^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi Ga^6}}\sqrt{1+a},`$
$`\delta u_R^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4\rho _{EQ}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}{\displaystyle ^a}{\displaystyle \frac{a^4da}{\sqrt{1+a}}}\delta \rho _R^{(2)},`$ (84)
$`\delta \rho _D^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi Ga^5}}\sqrt{1+a},`$
$`\psi ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}\left(4+3a\right)`$
Mode 3:

$`\delta \rho _R^{(3)}=\delta \rho _D^{(3)}=\psi ^{(3)}=0,`$
$`\delta u_R^{(3)}a.`$ (85)
Mode 4:

$`\delta \rho _R^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi Ga^6}}\left(8+4aa^28\sqrt{1+a}\right),`$
$`\delta u_R^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4\rho _{EQ}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}{\displaystyle ^a}{\displaystyle \frac{a^4da}{\sqrt{1+a}}}\delta \rho _R^{(3)},`$ (86)
$`\delta \rho _D^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi Ga^5}}\left(8+4a8\sqrt{1+a}\right),`$
$`\psi ^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{a^4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi G\rho _{EQ}}}}\left((4+a)\sqrt{1+a}43a\right)`$
The lower bound on the integrals in the formulas for $`\delta u_R`$ in modes 1, 2, and 4 are arbitrary; changing this lower limit in any of these integrals just amounts to adding some of mode 3 to that mode.

Note that modes 1, 2, and (trivially) 3 are adiabatic, in the sense that

$$\frac{\delta \rho _D}{\overline{\rho }_D}=\frac{\delta \rho _R}{\overline{\rho }_R+\overline{p}_R},$$
(87)
(and so $`X=0`$) while mode 4 is not adiabatic in this sense. The values of $`A`$ for the four modes are

$$A_1=1,A_2=A_3=A_4=0.$$
(88)
Thus modes 2 and 3 are both adiabatic and isocurvature. An arbitrary mixture of modes will have $`A`$ constant unless the coefficients of modes 2, 3, or 4 blow up as $`1/q^2`$ limit $`q0`$, which will be the case if the fluctuations in the non-adiabatic modes in Newtonian gauge have non-zero limits for $`q0`$.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful for helpful correspondence with E. Bertschinger, D. Lyth, S. Mukhanov, and N. Turok. This research was supported in part by the Robert A. Welch Foundation and NSF Grants PHY-0071512 and PHY-9511632.

REFERENCES

1. J. M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D22, 1882 (1980); D. H. Lyth, Phys. Rev. D31, 1792 (1985). For reviews, see J. Bardeen, in Cosmology and Particle Physics, eds. Li-zhi Fang and A. Zee (Gordon & Breach, New York, 1988); A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth, Cosmological Inflation and Large Scale Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000).
2. J. M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D22, 1882 (1980), Eq. (5.21).
3. E. Bertschinger, in Cosmology and Large Scale Structure — Proceedings Session LX of the Les Houches Summer School, ed. R. Schaeffer, J. Silk, M. Spiro, and J. Zinn-Justin (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 1996).
4. S. Mollerach, Phys. Rev. D 42, 313 (1990); A. D. Linde and V. Mukhanov, Phys. Rev. D 56, 535 (1997); D. H. Lyth and D. Wands, Phys. Lett. B 524, 5 (2002); T. Moroi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B 522, 215 (2001); Phys. Rev. D66, 063501 (2002); D. H. Lyth, C. Ungarelli, and D. Wands, astro-ph/0208055; K. Dimpopoulos and D. H. Lyth, astro-ph/0209180.
5. J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D28, 679 (1983). This quantity was re-introduced by D. Wands, K. A. Malik, D. H. Lyth, and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D62, 043527 (2000).
6. See, e. g., C. Gordon, D. Wands, B. A. Bassett, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D63, 023506 (2000), Eq. (14).
7. A. Guth and S-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982).
8. These are taken from Eqs. (15.10.50), (15.10.51), and (15.10.53) of S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology – Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (Wiley, New York, 1972). It should be noted that the velocity vector $`𝐔_1`$ used in this reference has components $`U_1^i=a^2\delta u_i=a^2iq_i\delta u^{(S)}`$.
9. S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D64, 123511 (2001); Phys. Rev. D64, 123512 (2001); Astrophys. J. 581, 810 (2002).
10. See, e.g., V. S. Mukhanov, H. A. Feldman, and R.H. Brandenberger, Physics Reports 215, 203–333 (1992).
11. K. A. Malik and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D59, 123501 (1999).


format: text

text:
# Space charge limited 2-d electron flow between two flat electrodes in a strong magnetic field

## Abstract

An approximate analytic solution is constructed for the 2-d space charge limited emission by a cathode surrounded by non emitting conducting ledges of width $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. An essentially exact solution (via conformal mapping) of the electrostatic problem in vacuum is matched to the solution of a linearized problem in the space charge region whose boundaries are sharp due to the presence of a strong magnetic field. The current density growth in a narrow interval near the edges of the cathode depends strongly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We obtain an empirical formula for the total current as a function of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which extends to more general cathode geometries.

PACS: 52.27.Jt; 52.59.Sa; 52.59.Wd; 85.45.Bz

The study of space charge limited (SCL) current, initiated in the beginning of the last century , continues to be of great current interest \[3-9\]. These works are important for the design of high power diodes, techniques of charged particles beams, physics of non-neutral plasmas including plasma sheath, and other numerous applications. The modelling of SCL ionic flow in cylindrical and spherical geometry  is also necessary for the inertial-electrostatic confinement of fusion plasmas. Unfortunately only the planar 1-d case permits an analytic solution  and as pointed out in a recent review  even “the seeming simple problem of 2-d planar emission remains unresolved”. This motivated the present work which provides a semi-analytical solution for a prototype 2-d model similar to that studied in . We obtain for the first time, we believe, a reasonable analytic approximation for the currents at the edge of the cathode - an important (though usually undesirable) feature of SCL diodes . An extension of our methods should facilitate dealing with this problem to any desirable accuracy thus providing an alternative to PIC simulations.

Model. We consider the current between two conducting flat electrodes where the anode, whose potential is $`V`$, is an infinite plane separated by a distance $`D`$ from the grounded cathode which is an infinitely long strip parallel to the anode. Our assumptions are: 1) The cathode upper surface, of width $`2A`$, has infinite emissivity while the lower face and the ledges of widths $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not emit (see Fig.1). 2) A very strong strong magnetic field perpendicular to the electrodes inhibits the transversal components of electron velocities , but almost does not affect the total current . 3) The emitted electrons leave the cathode with zero velocity .

If the cathode is in the ($`X,Z`$) plane and the magnetic field in the $`Y`$-direction the velocities $`v`$ of electrons are parallel to the $`Y`$-axis with $`mv^2(X,Y)=2eU(X,Y)`$, where $`U(X,Y)`$ represents the potential field while $`m,e`$ are the electron mass and charge. The current density $`J(X)`$, which clearly is $`Y`$-independent, determines together with $`v(X,Y)`$ the density of electrons. Using the dimensionless variables

$$x=\frac{X}{D},y=\frac{Y}{D},a=\frac{A}{D},\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D},$$

$`(1)`$
$$\varphi (x,y)=\frac{U(X,Y)}{V},j(x)=\sqrt{\frac{m}{2e}}\frac{9\pi D^2}{V^{3/2}}J(X),$$

the nonlinear Poisson equation for the potential then takes the form

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{x^2}+\frac{^2\varphi }{y^2}=4\pi \rho (x,y)=\frac{4j(x)}{9\sqrt{\varphi (x,y)}}.$$
$`(2)`$
The electron density $`\rho (x,y)`$ and current $`j(x)`$ are different from zero only in the shaded rectangle Q of Fig.1 which shows a two dimensional cross section of our system.

FIG. 1. Geometry of the system

Eq.(2), subject to the boundary conditions (BC),

$$\varphi (x,0)=0\mathrm{for}|x|<a+\lambda ,\varphi (x,1)=1\mathrm{for}|x|<\mathrm{},$$

$`(3)`$
$$\frac{\varphi }{y}(x,+0)=0\mathrm{for}|x|<a,$$

is to be solved in the half-plane $`y1`$ to produce both functions $`\varphi (x,y)`$ and $`j(x)`$ which are non-negative and symmetric about the $`y`$-axis. To do this we first solve eq.(2) approximately in the current region Q on a rather intuitive level. The problem is nonlinear here and it is not well posed if one disregards the field at $`|x|>a`$. Consequently our solution will have a set of free parameters which specify $`j(x)`$ and $`\varphi (x,y)`$: in particular $`\varphi (a,y)`$ and $`\frac{\varphi }{x}(a^{},y)`$. In the second step the potential $`\varphi (\pm a,y)`$ is used as the BC and we obtain a Dirichlet problem for the Laplace eq.(2) in the outer region of the half-plane where $`j(x)=0`$. We solve this problem using conformal mapping techniques and evaluate $`\frac{\varphi }{x}(a^+,y)`$. If one excludes the points $`x=\pm a,y=0`$ the electron density $`\rho (a^{},y)`$ is finite and $`\rho (a^+,y)=0`$, therefore the second derivative of $`\varphi (x,y)`$ has a finite jump at $`x=a`$, while the first derivative must be continuous, i.e.

$$\frac{\varphi }{x}(a^{},y)=\frac{\varphi }{x}(a^+,y),0<y<1.$$
$`(4)`$
In the last step we satisfy approximately the matching condition (4) by adjusting the free parameters mentioned above using the least squares technique. This will give an approximate explicit form for $`j(x)`$.

The space charge region Q. We want to solve approximately eq.(2) where the function $`j(x)`$ is not known nor are the BC for $`\varphi `$ at $`x=\pm a`$. When $`a=\mathrm{}`$ we have no $`x`$ dependence and (2) becomes an ordinary equation which was solved in  yielding $`\varphi _1(y)=y^{4/3},j_1(x)=1`$. This gives the Child-Langmuir formula , $`J_1=(2e/m)^{1/2}V^{3/2}/9\pi D^2`$. For $`a1`$ it is reasonable to assume that $`j(x)j_1=1`$ when $`a|x|1`$ and use also a stronger assumption that the difference $`\varphi (x,y)/\varphi _1(y)1`$ is small almost everywhere (i.e. it does not exceed $`11.5`$ even near the edges of region). This difference however is not small at the cathode edges, $`x=\pm a`$, where the electric field must match the field outside. The large gradients in the field lead to the acceleration of electrons and thus to a strong rise of the current density $`j(x)`$ near the boundary of the SCL flow.

We represent $`\varphi (x,y)`$ in the form $`y^{4/3}[1+\mu (x,y)]`$ and linearize the square root as $`[1+\mu (x,y)]^{1/2}1\beta \mu (x,y),`$ where the number $`\beta `$ is chosen to minimize the integral of $`[1\beta \mu (1+\mu )^{1/2}]^2`$ on the interval $`0\mu 1`$. This yields $`\beta 0.328`$ with relative average error of approximation around $`2.2\%`$. For $`\mu =0.2,1,1.5`$ the error is $`2.36\%,4.96\%,6.25\%,19.6\%`$ respectively. We shall see later that for all $`\lambda 0.1`$ $`\mu <1.5`$. Substituting in (2) we obtain a linear equation

$$y^2\left(\frac{^2\mu }{x^2}+\frac{^2\mu }{y^2}\right)+\frac{8}{3}y\frac{\mu }{y}+4\frac{1+\beta }{9}\mu =\frac{4}{9}[j(x)1],$$
$`(5)`$
where we dropped a nonlinear term in the right side. The error due to this and to the linearization of the square root is negligible for small $`\mu `$ and decreases the right side by at most a factor $`0.7`$, in all the cases considered (see Table 1) including even $`\mu 2`$.

Using the method of separation of variables we write

$$\mu (x,y)=\underset{l}{}q_lf_l(x)u_l(y),j(x)=1+\frac{9}{4}\underset{l}{}q_lf_l(x),$$
$`(6)`$
with

$$f_l(x)=e^{k_l(ax)}+e^{k_l(a+x)},|x|a.$$
$`(7)`$
Substituting (6) and (7) into (5) and assuming that (5),(3) are satisfied separately for each $`l=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ gives a set of inhomogeneous equations

$$y^2\frac{d^2u_l}{dy^2}+\frac{8}{3}y\frac{du_l}{dy}+\left(k_l^2y^2+4\frac{1+\beta }{9}\right)u_l=1,$$
$`(8)`$
with the common BC $`u_l(1)=0`$. The parameters $`k_l`$ and $`q_l`$ will be determined later. The potential can be written in the form

$$\varphi (x,y)=y^{4/3}+y^{4/3}\underset{l}{}q_lf_l(x)u_l(y),$$
$`(9)`$
where the first term is the Child-Langmuir potential $`\varphi _1`$ and the $`u_l(y)`$ are assumed finite. The relevant particular solutions of (8), which can be expressed in terms of Lommel’s functions $`s_{1/6,\nu }(k_ly),\nu =\sqrt{916\beta }/6`$ , is given by the power series expansion

$$u_l(y)=\frac{9}{4(1+\beta )}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^na_n\left(\frac{k_ly}{2}\right)^{2n},$$

$`(10)`$
$$a_0=1,a_n=\frac{a_{n1}}{n^2+5n/6+(1+\beta )/9}.$$

As all $`u_l(1)=0`$ the parameters $`k_l`$ are the increasing roots of (14): 3.881, 6.675, 10.065, 13.003, 16.316, 19.306, 22.582, 25.600, 28.855, 31.891 for $`1l10`$. They can be easily evaluated due to the rapid convergence of (10), asymptoticaly $`k_ll\pi `$. The free parameters $`q_l`$ will be used to satisfy (4).

The 2-d mean current density over the whole cathode, which in terms of our scheme is given by

$$j_2=\frac{1}{a}_0^aj(x)𝑑x1+\frac{9}{4a}\underset{l}{}\frac{q_l}{k_l}(1e^{2k_la}),$$
$`(11)`$
is usually presented  as the 1-d current density $`j_1=1`$ plus a correction: $`j_2=1+\alpha /2a`$. Thus in the original units the mean current has the form

$$J_2=J_1\left(1+\alpha \frac{D}{W}\right),$$
$`(12)`$
where $`W=2A`$ is the width of the cathode. Using (11) the parameter $`\alpha `$ is defined here by

$$\alpha =9\underset{l}{}\frac{q_l}{2k_l}(1e^{2k_la}).$$
$`(13)`$
Electrostatic region. It seems clear that for $`a1`$ the electric field in the vicinity of the boundary $`xa,0y1`$

is not affected much by the region $`xa,0y1`$, see Fig.1. This

allows us to study a simpler electrostatic problem for a plane which is split according to Fig.2(a). We modified a conformal transform in  to the form

$$z=2\pi ^1[\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{w}+\sqrt{w1})c\sqrt{w^2w}],$$
$`(14)`$
which maps the shaded half-plane $`z=x+iy`$ on Fig.2(a) onto the upper half-plane $`w=u+iv`$ in Fig.2(b).

FIG. 2(a). Plane $`z=x+iy`$ FIG. 2(b). Plane $`w=u+iv`$ Our Dirichlet problem with the BC on the real axis $`\mathrm{}w=0`$ (which come from the previous section),

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{if }\mathrm{}<u0\hfill \\ \varphi (a,y(u)),\hfill & \text{if }0<u<1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }u1\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(15),`$
has the solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)=\frac{v}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(s,0)}{(us)^2+v^2}𝑑s$$
$`(16)`$
in the upper half-plane $`w`$. Here by (14) $`y(u)=2\pi ^1[\mathrm{arccos}\sqrt{u}c\sqrt{u(1u)}].`$ The potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)`$ expressed in variables $`x,y`$ represents $`\varphi (x,y)`$ outside the space charge zone. Our task now is to match the inside electric field $`\frac{\varphi }{x}(a,y(u))`$ in the interval $`0<u<1`$ with the field outside

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x}(u,v=0)=\frac{\pi \sqrt{u(1u)}}{1+c(12u)}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{v}(u,0).$$
$`(17)`$
Continuity of the electric field. The matching condition (4) guarantees continuity of the electric field at the boundary between the space charge region Q with the vacuum. Using (7) and (9) we have at $`x=a`$ inside the space charge region the field intensity,

$$\frac{\varphi }{x}=y^{4/3}\underset{l}{}q_lk_l(1e^{2k_la})u_l(y)$$
$`(18),`$
which should be equal to the vacuum field (17). The exponentially small terms $`e^{2k_la}`$ can be dropped as $`a`$ is assumed large. Both terms $`\frac{\varphi }{x}`$ and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x}`$ depend on all parameters $`q_l`$, but in a different way. One cannot expect an exact equality because of the approximations made. We rewrite the matching condition (4) as

$$G[y^{4/3}]+\underset{l}{}q_l\{G[y^{4/3}u_l(y)]k_ly^{4/3}u_l(y)\}0,$$
$`(19)`$
where the functionals $`G`$ can be written explicitly as integrals with a logarithmic singularity.

We minimize the least square divergence from zero of the expression (19) on the interval $`0.15<y<0.85`$ without approaching the endpoints where our treatment is not entirely adequate. A standard procedure yields a set of linear algebraic equations for $`q_l`$. We did not go further than $`l_{max}=10`$. After the $`q_l`$ are computed one can find the current density (6) and the parameter $`\alpha `$ (13).

The accuracy of this method can be evaluated to some degree by determining the relative average discrepancy $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of electric fields at the boundary of the space charge region Q on the chosen interval of $`y`$. The results of our computations are shown in the Table 1, where for different values of the ledge $`\lambda `$ one can see also $`\alpha (\lambda )`$, parameters $`q_l`$, $`\mu _{max}`$ (near $`y=0`$ and $`x=\pm a`$), and the relative height (see Fig. 3) of the current wings $`j_{max}`$ at $`x=\pm a`$. When we extend the interval of matching the electric fields up to $`(0.01,0.99)`$ the quantities in the table stay approximately the same, only $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases. This confirms the general validity of our method and simultaneously

shows that the computation of electric fields near the corners of the rectangle Q is not very good. In particular, in the worst case (the most severe cathode regime, see also ) when $`\lambda =0`$, the electric field is singular at the cathode edges. The computation becomes unstable, we cannot therefore the data of Table 1 to be accurate there when the linearization fails too.

$$\left|\begin{array}{ccccccc}\lambda & 0& 0.1& 0.3& 0.5& 1& \mathrm{}\\ \alpha & .6487& .5311& .3463& .2665& .2067& .1905\\ \mu _{max}& 1.955& 1.432& 0.804& 0.605& 0.497& 0.461\\ j_{max}& 3.597& 2.902& 2.068& 1.804& 1.661& 1.612\\ \mathrm{\Delta }& .0121& .0055& .0037& .0028& .0059& .0044\\ q_1& .2448& .2339& .1891& .1530& .1140& .1032\\ q_2& .2225& .1743& .0926& .0616& .0465& .0443\\ q_3& .1867& .1411& .0720& .0528& .0448& .0433\\ q_4& .1525& .0969& .0389& .0280& .0260& .0246\\ q_5& .1184& .0760& .0327& .0253& .0232& .0222\\ q_6& .0914& .0500& .0192& .0143& .0148& .0134\\ q_7& .0595& .0342& .0142& .0110& .0109& .0100\\ q_8& .0439& .0216& .0087& .0061& .0072& .0061\\ q_9& .0203& .0108& .0046& .0033& .0037& .0032\\ q_{10}& .0142& .0064& .0028& .0017& .0025& .0019\end{array}\right|$$

TABLE 1

When $`l`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`10`$ the values of $`q_l`$ decrease approximately by a factor 20-50. Therefore $`\alpha `$ is evaluated very well by (13) where the $`k_l`$ increase from $`4`$ to $`32`$. The accuracy of $`j(x)`$ and $`\mu (x)`$ might be improved if one truncates (9) at a larger $`l_{max}`$ though we would not expect dramatic changes. The cases $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ (when the mapping is exact) and $`\lambda =1`$ are very close which means that the parameter $`\alpha (a,\lambda )`$ as well as $`q_l`$ are approximately independent of $`a`$ when $`a>1`$. Keeping the exponential terms in $`\mu (x,y)`$ in the matching conditions (20) does not complicate the calculation and it will give

only insignificant corrections. The current density $`j(x)`$ at $`x=0`$ increases in this case by about $`2q_1e^{3.9a}`$. If $`a`$ is smaller, but $`2\lambda +2a>1`$, the scheme of computation is the same though the $`q_l`$ become functions of $`a`$ and one cannot decrease $`a`$ too much because the first term in (9) needs corrections.

An important part of our analysis is the form (11) of $`f_l(x)`$ which implies that the current density (10) in a narrow region of width $`1`$ ($`D`$ in the original units) at the cathode edges has a sharp peak which decays faster than $`\mathrm{exp}[3.88(a|x|)]`$. Everywhere else $`j(x)`$ is close to the 1-d current $`j_1(x)=1`$ with the exponentially small corrections. For illustration plots of the current density distribution (6) are shown in Fig.3 for different widths of the cathode.

FIG. 3. The current densities when $`\lambda =0.1`$, $`c1c1,c2c2,c3c3`$ and $`c4`$ correspond to $`2a=8,4,2,1`$ respectively.

We can compare our curve $`c3`$ for $`a=1`$ with PIC simulations presented in . There for zero cathode recess ($`dx=0`$), $`A=50`$ mm, and unfortunately unspecified width of the shroud a reasonable fit would be $`j_{max}=3.9`$ in our Table for $`\lambda =0.1`$ versus $`3.2`$ in . We get the half-width of the current density peak $`1.2`$ mm while in  it was $`1`$ mm. Our magnetic field is stronger and we think also that PIC simulations with finer grids are closer to our computation, but diverge from experimental results because the real cathodes with their finite thickness and roundness do not have the very strong electric field intensities present however in the models.

Generalization. We expect that this pattern of narrow wings of the current density holds also for finite flat cathodes with perimeter $`P`$ where the boundary region will have an area $`PD`$ if we assume reasonable restrictions on the curvature and return back to the original units. In the general case of a cathode with area $`SPD`$ the total current can be written as the sum $`I=SJ_1+PD\stackrel{~}{J}`$. The ”edge” current $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$, which is assumed here to be independent of geometry, can be viewed as distributed over the edges of the cathode of width equal to the distance between the electrodes. The ratio $`\stackrel{~}{J}/J_1`$ can be evaluated in terms of the parameter $`\alpha `$ defined in (13). Comparing $`\overline{J}=I/S=J_1(1+\stackrel{~}{J}PD/J_1S)`$ with eq.(12) for our geometry, where $`\overline{J}=J_2,S=2AL`$ and $`P=2L`$ (the length $`L`$ of the cathode segment is arbitrary), we have $`\stackrel{~}{J}=J_1\alpha /2`$ and finally

$$\overline{J}=J_1\left(1+\alpha \frac{PD}{2S}\right),$$
$`(20)`$
which should be applicable in general situations. In particular the factor $`PD/2S`$ in (20) becomes $`D/R`$ for a circular cathode of the radius $`R`$ and $`2DE(\sqrt{1C^2/B^2})/\pi C`$ for an elliptical cathode with the half-axes $`B>C`$, where $`E(k)`$ is the complete elliptical integral. For a rectangular cathode with the sides $`L`$ and $`H`$ it is equal to $`D(L^1+H^1)`$.

Conclusions. 1) The current wings, Fig.3, resemble simulated ones . They are high when the width of ledges $`\lambda `$ is small and the vacuum electric field near the cathode edges is strong. Their form becomes practicaly constant when the ledges are wider than the distance D between electrodes. 2) The shape of the current wings, which is determined by eigenvalues $`k_l`$ of (8), is roughly exponential and the 1-d current is restored up to a few percents at the distance D from the edges. 3) The parameter $`\alpha `$, which defines the net current density, depends on the width of ledges. An approximate empirical formula

$$\alpha (\lambda )0.19+0.48e^{3.7\lambda },$$
$`(21)`$
agrees with the data in Table 1 within $`3.3\%`$. (For a different model with the constant current density $`\alpha `$ was estimated in  as close to $`0.31`$.) 4) Our techniques of matching the electric fields at the boundary of the space charge region and using rather modest variations of the potential in the $`x`$ direction is effective for approximate modelling the 2-d and 3-d flows of charged particles.

Acknoledgements. We thank R.Barker, R.J.Umstattd, and O.Costin for inspiration and useful comments. Research supported by AFOSR Grant # F49620-01-0154.


text:
# Untitled Document

Spin-dependent charge of quasiparticle clusters in quantum Hall effect:Interpretation of unsolved data of Pan, Stormer, Tsui, Pfeiffer, Baldwin and West. Keshav N. Shrivastava School of Physics, University of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad 500046, India

A state with 2 electons has a charge of 1/2. The states of 3 electrons have quasiparticle charge of 4/11 and 5/13; the one with 5 electrons have quasiparticle charges 4/13 and 6/17. The state with 7 electrons exhibits quasiparticle charges of 5/17 and 12/17. When spin is reversed, the charge of three particle state changes from 4/11 to 7/11. These predicted results agree with the recent experimental measurements of Pan, Stormer, Tsui et al. In addition, we predict a state of charge 3/11, not given in the data.

Corresponding author: keshav@mailaps.org
Fax: +91-40-2301 0145.Phone: 2301 0811.

1. Introduction

Recently, Pan et al  have obtained the effective fractional charges of $`\nu `$= 4/11, 5/13, 6/17, 4/13, 5/17 and 7/11, the origin of which is unsolved. Last year, we have written a book which explains the quantum Hall effect . All of the predicted fractions are the same as those found in the experimental measurements of Stormer . Therefore, we tried to understand these fractional charges which are given above. Earlier, the effort was limited to spin 1/2 only. We now find that if we take clusters of quasiparticles, we can generate more values of the fractional charge. When 3, 6 or 8 quasiparticles are taken all of the fractional charges are predicted correctly.

In this paper, we describe the relationship between spin and charge and calculate the quasiparticle charge. When spin is reversed, the charge 4/11 changes to 7/11. The 4/11 and the 7/11 are thus Kramers time reversed states.

2. Fractional charge

We have found that the quasiparticle charge depends on spin, s, as,

$$e_{eff}/e=\frac{l+\frac{1}{2}\pm s}{2l+1}$$
(1)
which has the odd denominator. If a half fraction comes from the numerator, the denominator will cease to be odd. When $`l`$=0, $`s`$=1/2, the above gives the effective charge of,

$$e_{eff}=0or\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(2)
Therefore, for l=0, the quasiparticles can be electrically neutral or they have the charge equal to that of the electron. When clusters of electrons are formed, the quasiparticle spin need not be 1/2. Hence, additional values of spin have to be taken into account which give a variety of charges.

Let us consider $`s`$=1/2 but two particles. When the pair is a singlet, $`S`$=0 means that one particle has spin +1/2 and the other spin -1/2, so that the formula (1) for $`l`$=0, $`s`$=0 gives,

$$e_{eff}/e=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(3)
This is strange that $`l`$=0, $`s`$=0 state has a quasiparticle of charge 1/2. In fact, this value of 1/2 although obtained here from nonrelativistic theory, agrees with Jackiw and Rebbi  who obtained 1/2 of a fermion in the $`1+1`$ dimensions in a relativistic theory. In the experimental data on quantum Hall effect, 1/2 an effective charge is quite often observed. The state $`l`$=0 and $`s`$=0, should be superconducting but in the present case, as the magnetic field is varied, the state is destroyed. For $`s`$=1, we have spin triplets. When we substitute $`l`$=1, 2 or 3 with $`s`$ =1, we obtain the fractional charge $`\nu _+`$ with spin +1 and $`\nu _{}`$ with $`s`$=-1 as given below.

| l | $`s`$ | $`\nu _+`$ | $`\nu _{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 1 | 5/6 | 1/6 |
| 2 | 1 | 7/10 | 3/10 |
| 3 | 1 | 9/14 | 5/14 |

which have even denominators. For $`s`$=3/2, we get,

| l | $`s`$ | $`\nu _+`$ | $`\nu _{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 3/2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 3/2 | 4/5 | 1/5 |
| 3 | 3/2 | 5/7 | 2/7 |

which has a normal solution with effective charge 1 and a charge-density wave type solution with charge $`0`$ and one other solution, such as 1/5. Here, it will be sufficient, if we can follow those fractions which have been left unsolved by Pan et al. Therefore, we tabulate $`l`$, $`s`$ and $`\nu _+`$ and $`\nu _{}`$ for three, five and seven electrons. The spin is written according to Dirac’s result so that the electrons have parallel spin due to Coulomb interaction. For 3 electrons the spin is 3/2, for five electrons it is 5/2 and for 7 electrons it is 7/2. We take $`l`$=5, 6 and 8. For positive sign the value of (1) is called $`\nu _+`$ and for negative sign in (1) we have $`\nu _{}`$. Therefore the values are as follows:

| l | $`s`$ | $`\nu _+`$ | $`\nu _{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5 | 3/2 | 7/11 | 4/11 |
| 5 | 5/2 | 8/11 | 3/11 |
| 6 | 3/2 | 8/13 | 5/13 |
| 6 | 5/2 | 9/13 | 4/13 |
| 8 | 5/2 | 11/17 | 6/17 |
| 8 | 7/2 | 12/17 | 5/17 |

The $`\nu _{}`$ have negative sign in eq.(1) and $`\nu _+`$ have positive sign. Thus the values of 4/11, 5/13, 4/13, 6/17 and 5/17 belong to clusters of quasiparticles, all of which have negative sign and hence spin polarized. The fraction 7/11 has positive sign and hence its polarization is opposite to that of 4/11. Indeed, as the magnetic field is rotated, 7/11 becomes dim or vanishes. This means that the spins tilt when field is rotated. We find that the value $`l`$=7 is missing in the above table. That is because $`l`$=7 gives 9/15 and 6/15 which are the same as 3/5 and 2/5 already known for $`l`$=2. What has happened is that the denominator 2$`l`$+1 becomes factorizable and the effect of spin is to cancell part of the value arising from 2$`l`$+1. For three quasiparticles $`s`$=3/2 and $`l`$=7, the same charge is found as for $`s`$=1/2, $`l`$=2. Thus the effect of the spin is to reduce the orbital value. Pan et al find that these sequences do not fit into the standard series. On the other hand, it is clear that our formula (1) works better than that of Pan et al and obviously agrees with the experimental data. In the table above, we have included $`l`$=5 and $`s`$=5/2. Therefore, we predict 3/11 for the negative sign and 8/11 for the positive sign. The 3/11 not yet found in the figure of Pan et al is predicted before observation. It requires slightly higher field than is plotted.

3. Discussions.

We have previously predicted all of the Stormer’s fractional charges correctly by using $`s`$=$`\pm `$ 1/2. In the present note we realize that clusters of quasiparticles are formed so that the spin can be 1, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, etc. When these values of spin are used the fractional charges of 4/11, 5/13, 4/13, 6/17 and 5/17 are predicted in agreement with the experimental data of Pan et al. We also predict 3/11 which is not found in the experimental data.

4. Conclusions.

In conclusion, we find that there are clusters of the same spin as predicted by Dirac’s results of particles in a Coulomb potential. There are effective charges due to a new spin-charge relationship.

5. References

1. W. Pan, H. L. Stormer, D. C. Tsui, L. N. Pfeiffer, K. W. Baldwin and K. W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 016801 (2003).
2. K. N. Shrivastava, Introduction to quantum Hall effect, Nova Science, New York, N. Y. (2002).
3. H. L. Stormer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 , 875 (1999).
4. R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. D 13 , 3398 (1976)

Note: Ref.2 is available from: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600, Hauppauge, N. Y.. 11788-3619, Tel.(631)-231-7269, Fax: (631)-231-8175, ISBN 1-59033-419-1 US$`\$69`$. E-mail: novascience@Earthlink.net


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

There has been interest for some time in the question of whether non-perturbative processes can lead to a difference between the strange and the anti-strange quark distribution functions of the proton. This possibility was first pointed out by Signal and Thomas , and has been subsequently investigated by other authors . Recently there has been fresh interest in this topic prompted by the measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ by the NuTeV collaboration . The large difference between the NuTeV result $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W|_{\mathrm{NuTeV}}=0.2277\pm 0.0013(stat)\pm 0.0009(syst)`$ and the accepted value $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2228\pm 0.0004`$  of around three standard deviations could arise, or be partly explained by, a positive value of the second moment of the strange - anti-strange distributions $`x(s\overline{s})=_0^1𝑑xx[s(x)\overline{s}(x)]`$, as has been pointed out by Davidson and co-workers .

As yet there is no direct experimental evidence for any asymmetry in the strange sea, however Barone, Pascaud and Zomer  found that in performing a global fit of unpolarized parton distributions allowing $`\overline{s}(x)s(x)`$ gave a small improvement to the fit. Their best fit result gave the second moment of the asymmetry as $`x(s\overline{s})=0.002\pm 0.0028`$ at $`Q^2=20`$ GeV2. NuTeV have also looked for an asymmetry, and found a small negative value for the second moment with a large uncertainty . However the functional form of the distributions used for this fit was not constrained to give the first moment to be zero (i.e. zero net strangeness).

The mechanism for breaking the quark - anti-quark symmetry of the strange sea comes from the kaon cloud that accompanies the proton. As shown by Sullivan  in the case of the pion cloud, there is a contribution to the parton distributions of the proton from amplitudes where the virtual photon is scattered from the meson. In this case the scaling contribution to the parton distribution of the proton can be written as a convolution of the parton distribution of the meson with a fluctuation function that describes the momentum probability distribution of the meson. In a similar vein there is a contribution to the parton distribution from amplitudes where the virtual photon scatters from the recoil baryon, and the meson is a spectator. Contributions to the strange sea can come from fluctuations such as $`p(uud)\mathrm{\Lambda }(uds)+K^+(u\overline{s})`$. In this case we see that the contribution to the anti-strange distribution, which we denote $`\delta \overline{s}`$, comes from the anti-strange quark in the kaon, whereas the contribution to the strange distribution $`\delta s`$ comes from the strange quark in the Lambda baryon. While the valence parton distributions of the kaon and Lambda have not been determined by experiment, they can be expected to differ from one another considerably, as the $`\overline{s}`$ in the kaon carries a larger fraction of the 4-momentum of its parent hadron than that which is carried by the $`s`$ quark in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is certainly the case in comparing the parton distributions of the pion with those of the proton, where the pion valence distributions are harder than the proton valence distributions . While the convolution of the meson or baryon valence distribution with the appropriate fluctuation function can be expected to decrease the difference between them, this difference will lead to a difference between the quark and anti-quark distributions in the strange sea of the proton.

In this letter we re-examine the asymmetry between the strange and anti-strange distributions. We work within the context of the meson cloud model (MCM) , which describes proton $``$ meson + baryon fluctuations using an effective Lagrangian, with amplitudes calculated using time-ordered perturbation theory. We consider fluctuations to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}`$ in addition to the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K`$ fluctuations of the proton. In the non-strange sector, fluctuations involving pseudovector mesons have been seen to have significant effects on sea distributions , so we include these fluctuations here to observe whether they make any contribution to the asymmetry of the strange sea.

## II Strangeness in the meson cloud model

In the meson cloud model (MCM) the nucleon can be viewed as a bare nucleon plus some meson-baryon Fock states which result from the fluctuation $`NBM`$. The wavefunction of the nucleon can be written as ,

$`|N_{\mathrm{physical}}=Z|N_{\mathrm{bare}}+{\displaystyle \underset{BM}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑yd^2𝐤_{}\varphi _{BM}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)|B^\lambda (y,𝐤_{});M^\lambda ^{}(1y,𝐤_{})}`$ (1)
where $`Z`$ is the wave function renormalization constant, $`\varphi _{BM}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)`$ is the wave function of the Fock state containing a baryon ($`B`$) with longitudinal momentum fraction $`y`$, transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$, and helicity $`\lambda `$, and a meson ($`M`$) with momentum fraction $`1y`$, transverse momentum $`𝐤_{}`$, and helicity $`\lambda ^{}`$. The model assumes that the lifetime of a virtual baryon-meson Fock state is much longer than the interaction time in the deep inelastic process, thus the quark and anti-quark in the virtual meson-baryon Fock states can contribute to the parton distributions of the nucleon.

For spin independent parton distributions these non-perturbative contributions can be expressed as a convolution of fluctuation functions with the valence parton distributions in the meson and/or baryon. For the strange and anti-strange distributions we have

$`x\delta s(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑yf_{BM/N}(y){\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}s_B({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}),`$ (2)
$`x\delta \overline{s}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^1}𝑑yf_{MB/N}(y){\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}\overline{s}_M({\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}})`$ (3)
where

$`f_{BM/N}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \lambda ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_{}^2\varphi _{BM}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2)\varphi _{BM}^{\lambda \lambda ^{}}(y,k_{}^2),`$ (4)
$`f_{MB/N}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{BM/N}(1y)`$ (5)
are the fluctuation functions. These are the probabilities to find the baryon or meson respectively with fraction $`y`$ of the longitudinal momentum. We note that the relation (5) ensures that while the shapes of $`\delta s(x)`$ and $`\delta \overline{s}(x)`$ are different, their integrals are equal, ensuring that the strangeness of the dressed nucleon is not changed from that of the bare nucleon.

The fluctuation functions are derived from effective meson-nucleon Lagrangians

$`_{NHK}`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{NHK}\overline{N}\gamma _5\pi H`$ (6)
$`_{NHV}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{NHV}\overline{N}\gamma _\mu \theta ^\mu H+f_{NHV}\overline{N}\sigma _{\mu \nu }H(^\mu \theta ^\nu ^\nu \theta ^\mu )`$ (7)
where $`N`$ and $`H`$ are spin-1/2 fields, $`\pi `$ a pseudoscalar field, and $`\theta `$ a vector field. The fluctuations that we consider are $`p\mathrm{\Lambda }K,\mathrm{\Sigma }K,\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}\text{and}\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}`$. The coupling constants that we use are ,

$`g_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }K}`$ $`=`$ $`13.98,`$ (8)
$`g_{N\mathrm{\Sigma }K}`$ $`=`$ $`2.69,`$ (9)
$`g_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}=5.63,`$ $`f_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}}=4.89\mathrm{GeV}^1,`$ (10)
$`g_{N\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}}=3.25,`$ $`f_{N\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}}=2.09\mathrm{GeV}^1.`$ (11)
The meson-baryon vertices require form factors, which reflect the fact that the hadrons have finite size, and act to suppress large momenta. We use exponential form factors

$`G_{MB}(y,k_{}^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_N^2m_{BM}(y,k_{}^2)}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2}}\right],`$ (12)
though monopole or dipole form factors could also be used with no significant difference to our results. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is a cut-off parameter, which appears to be the same for fluctuations involving octet baryons and has a value of 1.08 GeV, consistent with data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ production in semi-inclusive $`p`$-$`p`$ scattering . Also $`m_{BM}^2`$ is the invariant mass squared of the $`BM`$ Fock state,

$`m_{BM}^2(y,k_{}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{m_B^2+k_{}^2}{y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_M^2+k_{}^2}{1y}}.`$ (13)
In figure 1 we show the four fluctuation functions of interest $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K/N}(y)`$, $`f_{\mathrm{\Sigma }K/N}(y)`$, $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}/N}(y)`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}/N}(y)`$ where $`y`$ is the longitudinal momentum fraction of the baryon. We note that the kaon fluctuation functions peak around $`y=0.6`$, whereas the $`K^{}`$ fluctuation functions peak around $`y=0.5`$ and are fairly symmetrical about the peak, indicating that the meson and baryon share the proton momentum equally. We also note that the $`K^{}`$ fluctuation functions are of similar size to the kaon fluctuation functions. Thus the higher mass of the $`K^{}`$ does not lead to a suppression of these fluctuations, as might be expected on kinematic grounds, but to a smaller average meson momentum. In fact the least probable fluctuation is $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }K`$, which is suppressed mainly due to the smaller coupling constant. We can conclude that any analysis of strange quark or anti-quarks in the meson cloud model needs to include the fluctuations involving the $`K^{}`$ meson.

The fluctuation functions depend upon the hardness of the form factor that is used. Using a softer form factor (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=0.8`$ GeV as suggested by reference ) does not change the position of the peaks of the fluctuation functions, but does decreases their size. The higher mass fluctuations involving $`K^{}`$ mesons are more sensitive to the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, and decrease in size faster as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ decreases. The first moment of a fluctuation function gives the probability of that particular fluctuation occuring. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1.08`$ GeV we find the total probabilities of finding a kaon or $`K^{}`$ to be $`P(K)=1.6\%`$, $`P(K^{})=2.7\%`$, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=0.80`$ GeV these probabilities reduce to $`P(K)=0.2\%`$, $`P(K^{})=0.09\%`$.

In order to calculate the MCM contributions $`\delta s(x)`$ and $`\delta \overline{s}(x)`$ in eqn. (3) we need to know the parton distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryons and the $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons. Previous studies  in the MCM have used $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry to relate these parton distributions to those of the proton and pion. However $`SU(3)`$ flavour symmetry is known to be broken in the sea distributions of the proton, so it may not be a good approximation to assume that it holds for the valence distributions of octet baryons or the pseudoscalar or pseudovector nonet mesons. A phenomenological parameterization of the kaon distributions, based on those of the pion, is available , but there is nothing similar for the baryons. An alternative is to use some model of the required distributions. One possibility would be to use a gaussian light-cone wavefunction to calculate the parton distributions, which is an approach used by Brodsky and Ma . Another approach is to generalise the calculations of the parton distribution functions of the nucleon in the MIT bag model by the Adelaide group . This has been done in the case of baryon distributions by Boros and Thomas , and also in the case of the $`\rho `$ meson by ourselves .

Adapting the argument of the Adelaide group, we have the expressions for the strange quark distribution of a baryon and the anti-strange quark distribution of a meson:

$`s_B(x)={\displaystyle \frac{m_B}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩_n\frac{|\varphi _2(𝐩_n)|^2}{|\varphi _3(\mathrm{𝟎})|^2}\delta (m_B(1x)p_n^+)|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{+,s}(𝐩_n)|^2},`$ (14)
$`\overline{s}_M(x)={\displaystyle \frac{m_M}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐩_n\frac{|\varphi _1(𝐩_n)|^2}{|\varphi _2(\mathrm{𝟎})|^2}\delta (m_M(1x)p_n^+)|\stackrel{~}{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}}_{+,s}(𝐩_n)|^2}.`$ (15)
Here we have defined $`+`$ components of momenta by $`p^+=p^0+p^3`$, $`𝐩_𝐧`$ is the 3-momentum of the 2(1)-quark intermediate state, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\stackrel{~}{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}})`$ is the Fourier transform of the MIT bag wavefunction for the $`s`$ quark (anti-quark) in the ground state, and $`\varphi _m(𝐩)`$ is the Fourier transform of the Hill-Wheeler overlap function between $`m`$-quark bag states

$`|\varphi _m(𝐩)|^2={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐑e^{i𝐩𝐑}\left[𝑑𝐫\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐫𝐑)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)\right]^m}.`$ (16)
The input parameters for the bag model calculations of the parton distributions are the bag radius $`R`$, the mass of the intermediate state $`m_n`$, the mass of the strange quark (anti-quark) $`m_s`$ and the bag scale $`\mu ^2`$ \- at this scale the model is taken as a good approximation to ther valence structure of the hadron. For the baryons ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) we use the same parameter set as Boros and Thomas  ($`R=0.8`$ fm, $`m_n=800`$ MeV before hyperfine splitting of scalar (for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and vector (for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) states, $`m_s=150`$ MeV, $`\mu ^2=0.23`$ GeV2). For the mesons ($`K`$, $`K^{}`$) we use a parameter set based on the baryon set and our earlier $`\rho `$ meson calculation  ($`R=0.7`$ fm, $`m_n=425`$ MeV, $`m_s=150`$ MeV, $`\mu ^2=0.23`$ GeV2).

The valence distributions calculated using eqn. (15) do not satisfy the straightforward normalisation condition as they ignore intermediate states with more quarks and anti-quarks than the initial state, ie. 3 quarks plus one anti-quark for the baryon distribution, or 2 quarks plus one anti-quark for the meson distribution. We can parameterise the effects of such states by adding to the distributions a piece proportional to $`(1x)^7`$ for the baryon distributions or $`(1x)^5`$ for the meson distributions, consistent with the Drell-Yan-West relation, such that the normalisation condition is satisfied. While this ansatz for the shape is somewhat arbitrary, it has little effect at medium and large $`x`$, especially after the distributions are evolved up to experimental scales. From the calculated fluctuation functions, we can see that the convolution (equation (3)) is most sensitive to parton distributions in the medium and large $`x`$ regions, which are little affected by our ansatz for the contributions from intermediate states with larger mass than the parent hadron. In figure 2 we show the calculated parton distributions after NLO evolution to $`Q^2=16`$ GeV2, which is the region of the NuTeV data. We can see that the valance distributions of the $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons are harder than that of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryons, as expected.

Having calculated both the MCM fluctuation functions and the strange valence parton distributions of the constituents of the cloud we can now calculate the MCM contribution to the proton $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ distributions using the convolution in equation (3). In figure 3 we show our calculated difference between strange and anti-strange parton distributions using $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1.08`$ GeV. We show the difference calculated with and without including the contributions from Fock states involving $`K^{}`$ mesons. We can see that the contributions from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}`$ are of similar magnitude to those from the lower mass Fock states. As has been noted before , the MCM gives a small ($`s\overline{s}`$) difference because the harder of the parton distributions ($`\overline{s}^K(x)`$) is convoluted with the softer of the fluctuation functions ($`f_{KB/N}`$), whereas the the softer parton distribution ($`s^B(x)`$) is convoluted with the harder fluctuation function ($`f_{BK/N}`$). This leads to similar results for $`\delta \overline{s}`$ and $`\delta s`$, the non-perturbative contributions to the parton distributions. When $`K^{}`$ states are considered, we see from figure 1 that $`f_{K^{}B/N}(y)f_{BK^{}/N}(y)`$, so each fluctuation function gives equal emphasis to the medium - large $`x`$ region of the hadron parton distributions when they are convoluted together. Thus the relative hardness of $`\overline{s}^K^{}(x)`$ to $`s^B(x)`$ is manifested in the large $`x`$ region as $`\overline{s}(x)>s(x)`$ in the calculation. We calculate the second moment of the strange - anti-strange asymmetry both with and without $`K^{}`$ contributions. We find that

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xx(s(x)\overline{s}(x))=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.43\times 10^4& \text{without }K^{}\text{ states}\\ 1.35\times 10^4& \text{including }K^{}\text{ states}.\end{array}`$ (19)
We observe that omitting fluctuations involving $`K^{}`$ mesons changes the sign of the second moment of the asymmetry, so it is important that these fluctuations are included in any discussion of the asymmetry of the strange sea.

Because the calculated asymmetry depends on the difference between MCM contrributions to parton distributions, it is relatively insensitive to changes in the form factor used to calculate the MCM fluctuation functions. If we had used the form factor parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=0.80`$ GeV instead of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1.08`$ GeV, we would have obtained values of $`4.1\times 10^5`$ ($`3.4\times 10^5`$) for the second moments of the asymmetry without (with) $`K^{}`$ fluctuations.

The non-zero value of the strange sea asymmetry affects the experimentally determined value of the Paschos - Wolfenstein ratio

$`R_{PW}={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{NC}^\nu \sigma _{NC}^{\overline{\nu }}}{\sigma _{CC}^\nu \sigma _{CC}^{\overline{\nu }}}}=g_L^2g_R^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W.`$ (20)
The effect of the strange sea asymmetry is to shift $`R_{PW}`$ by an amount

$`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{PW}={\displaystyle \frac{3b_1+b_2}{x(u_V+d_V)/2}}x(s\overline{s})`$ (21)
where

$`b_1=\mathrm{\Delta }_u^2=g_{L_u}^2g_{R_u}^2;b_2=\mathrm{\Delta }_d^2=g_{L_d}^2g_{R_d}^2.`$ (22)
At the NuTeV scale ($`Q^2=16`$ GeV2) the coefficient in front of the second moment of the stange sea asymmetry in equation (21) is about 1.3, which means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }R_{PW}`$ is of the order $`12\times 10^4`$. This is an order of magnitude too small to have any significant effect on the NuTeV result for the weak mixing angle.

## III Summary

Any asymmetry between strange quarks and anti-quarks in the nucleon sea must arise from non-perturbative effects. This would make any experimental observation of a strange sea asymmetry a crucial test for models of nucleon structure. We have re-examined this asymmetry within the context of the meson cloud model, which gives an asymmetry from strange hadrons in the meson cloud of the proton. A novel aspect of our calculation is that we have included the effects of components of the meson cloud involving the $`K^{}`$ vector meson, and we have seen that the contributions to the strange sea from these components are of similar magnitude to those involving the pseudoscalar kaon. Hence any qualitative discussion of the strange sea in the MCM requires that both sets of contributions are considered. Overall we have found that the strange sea asymmetry in the MCM is fairly small, and does not have significant effect on the NuTeV extraction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$. However we have also seen that the sign of the second moment of the asymmetry depends on which contributions are considered.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Tony Thomas for a number of useful discussions. This work was partially supported by the Science and Technology Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Foundation for Research Science and Technology, and the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1. The fluctuation functions contributing to the strange sea. The thick and thin solid curves are $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K/N}(y)`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{\Sigma }K/N}(y)`$ respectively. The thick and thin dashed curves are $`f_{\mathrm{\Lambda }K^{}/N}(y)`$ and $`f_{\mathrm{\Sigma }K^{}/N}(y)`$.

Fig. 2. The valence $`\overline{s}(x)`$ distributions of the $`K`$ and $`K^{}`$ mesons (solid curve), and the valence $`s(x)`$ distributions of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (dashed curve) and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (dotted curve) hyperons. All distributons are evolved to $`Q^2=16`$ GeV2.

Fig. 3. The strange sea asymmetry $`x[s(x)\overline{s}(x)]`$ calculated in the meson cloud model. The solid and dashed curves are the results without and with $`K^{}`$ contributions respectively.