text:
# Relativistic Hubble’s law

\]http://phya.yonsei.ac.kr/ yongkyu

## Abstract

Considering the hyperbolic nature of the universe, the Hubble’s law and the inverse square laws such as, the Coulomb’s law and Newton’s gravitational law, should be modified in accordance with the special theory of relativity. Consequently there is no the Hubble’s length, which might be the observable boundary of our universe, does not appear in point of view of the special theory of relativity, and the Newton’s third law still hold in the special theory of relativity. Recent astronomical observations of type Ia supernovae support the modified Hubble’s law which also leads a view that the cosmic microwave might come from extra-universes.

Recent astronomical observations of type Ia supernovae out to a redshift of $`z1`$ Riess ; Garnavich ; Perlmutter ; Perlmutter2 ; Perlmutter3  show that the receding velocities of the supernovae are observed to be not linear to their distances. Since the supernovae are observed to be fainter than the luminosities at the expected distances by the linear Hubble’s law, they are assumed to be farther than the distances. It is interpreted that the universe is accelerating or inflating under the assumption of the flat universe Riess ; Perlmutter ; Perlmutter2 . The observational results may well be interpreted as the inflation, but there is a serious doubt: Stars in the universe are neither rockets nor missiles, then what is the repulsive force between stars? The cosmological parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ once used by Einstein for the static universe is insisted to play the role of the force as the vacuum energy density, the zero point fluctuations of quantum fields, the potential energy density of dynamic fields, or a network of cosmic strings Starkman . According to the theory, our universe is still on the way of the Big Bang and not expanding after the Big Bang.

If our universe is not flat, the story becomes a completely different story. The observations of type Ia supernovae may play a key role in determining the geometry of the universe. Since type Ia supernovae are used as the standard candles in astronomy, they are good distance indicators in the universe by measuring the luminosity of them Sandage . Furthermore special relativity tells us the geometry of the universe which was early recognized by H. Minkowski and others Einstein1905 ; Sexl . However the series of the follower’s works on the hyperbolic geometry are not paid attention to by many physicists Walter . The recent work of the author shows that the geometry of the universe is hyperbolic quite simply by investigating the geometric aspect of the Lorentz transformation. A Lorentz transformation in momentum space can be obtained from hyperbolic trigonometric relations by simply multiplying a mass to the relations Ko . These trigonometric relations are for the triangle made by an observed moving particle and the two observing inertial frames which are moving relative to each other. This triangle is a hyperbolic triangle so that the sum of its interior angles is less than $`\pi `$. It should be noted that the interior angles are not measured in one inertial frame, but done in the each inertial frame at the three vertices of the triangle. Since the constantly moving particle can be thought to be in its inertial frame, the hyperbolic triangle means that the universe to which the three inertial frames belong can be regarded as a hyperbolic space in the limit of no gravitation.

The hyperbolic nature of the universe is also shown toward the limit of no matter density in the Freidmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology which comes from the general theory of relativity. Since the gravitational force is attractive, it is expected that the rate of velocity to distance of nearby stars should be less than that of distant stars. On the contrary to the expectation, the observations show that the rate of velocity to distance of nearby stars larger than that of distant stars Riess . It can be thought that the gravitation between stars nearly play any role in the expansion of the universe. Therefore the geometry caused by the matter of the universe can be ignored to a first approximation. The recent observations of type Ia supernovae are explained well in view of hyperbolic space time.

Since a hyperbolic space is the space observed simultaneously in the invariant time, which might be similar to the conformal time Bucher , by using the Lorentz transformation, a hyperbolic space can be depicted schematically on a hemisphere as shown in Fig. 1 at a certain instant. The space time diagram, of course, does not exactly reflect reality, because there is no way to draw a diagram exactly in hyperbolic space even in the Poincaré model and the Klein model. Only part of the complete hyperbolic nature can be drawn. The diagram only tells us that the space time is intrinsically curved, the two inertial frames have the same invariant time and so on, but does not say the complete nature of hyperbolic space. The Lorentz transformation should be written in terms of correct vectors in each inertial frame Ko  by

$`t^{}=t\mathrm{cosh}\vartheta +\widehat{n}𝒓\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta ,`$
$`\widehat{n}^{}𝒓^{}=t\mathrm{sinh}\vartheta +\widehat{n}𝒓\mathrm{cosh}\vartheta ,`$
$`\widehat{n}^{}\times (\widehat{n}^{}\times 𝒓^{})=\widehat{n}\times (\widehat{n}\times 𝒓),`$ (1)
where $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{n}^{}`$ are the directions of the relative velocities observed in the two inertial frames for the origin of each other frame, respectively.

The magnitudes of the relative velocities are the same as $`v=\mathrm{tanh}\theta `$ in both inertial frames.

From this Lorentz transformation, the sphere in Fig. 1 satisfies the following relation:

$$t^2(\widehat{n}^{}𝒓^{})^2\{\widehat{n}^{}\times (\widehat{n}^{}\times 𝒓^{})\}^2=t^2(\widehat{n}𝒓)^2\{\widehat{n}\times (\widehat{n}\times 𝒓)\}^2=\tau ^2,$$
(2)
which can be simplified as

$$t^2r^2=t^2r^2=\tau ^2,$$
(3)
where $`\tau `$ means the invariant time which have elapsed since the instant coincided by the two frames. If the direction of the relative velocity is taken to be $`x`$axis, the above equation is more familiar form as follows

$$t^2x^2=t^2x^2=\tau ^2.$$
(4)
If the space axis is considered to be imaginary axis, then the above equation is nothing but an equation of a circle or a sphere. Here the metric plays the role of an imaginary axis like $`\widehat{n}\widehat{n}`$. After the time $`\tau `$ have elapsed, two inertial frames can be described on the hyperbolic sphere as the coordinate systems depicted in Fig. 1.

Now what is the distance between the origins of the two frames? $`x=vt`$, $`x^{}=vt^{}`$ or something else. According to the time dilation or the length contraction, the first two distances are not equal to each other. The observed distances can be different from the real distance in a curved space, because only the origin of the coordinate is coincided with the real space. The definition for a distance between two points which are in motion relatively should be independent of coordinate systems. The lack of uniqueness for the definition of the distance between the two points may have a serious problem. As an example an electron, which is coming to the earth very fast in the sun, sees a proton in the rest frame where we live, but does not interact with it, even though the distance in the moving frame of the electron is approximately zero due to the length contraction and vice versa. Alternatively it can be thought that the electron interacts with the proton very slowly due to the time dilation. A result of length contraction can attribute to a result of time dilation. However the problem is not solved but handed over the problem of time. If then, as another example, the age of the universe needs not to be found out, because it, a priori, varies from inertial frame to inertial frame, namely, form zero to infinity.

There exists a distance to be able to be reconciled between the two frames in the text of hyperbolic geometryHenle ; Coxeter . A distance between two points in the hyperbolic plane of an unit circle in an inertial frame is defined as

$$d=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{|1z_1z_2|+|z_1z_2|}{|1z_1z_2||z_1z_2|},$$
(5)
where $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ is in the complex plane which is mapped from the real hyperbolic plane. Therefore in the above situation, if $`z_1=0`$, $`z_2=x/t=v`$, and $`d=R/\tau `$ are inserted into Eq. (5), then the relation $`R/\tau =1/2\mathrm{ln}(1+v)/(1v)=\mathrm{tanh}^1v`$ can be obtained. The inverse to this relation is $`v=\mathrm{tanh}(R/\tau )`$. The distance between the two frames is defined as $`R`$ and satisfies the following equation:

$$v=\frac{x}{t}=\frac{x^{}}{t^{}}=\mathrm{tanh}\frac{R}{\tau }=\mathrm{tanh}\theta ,$$
(6)
and the real distance is defined to be identical in the two frames whether we think it in the rest or moving frames. Therefore the fast moving electron in the sun need not dance with the fluctuating proton in the earth and vice versa, if the Coulomb’s law together with the Newton’s gravitational law is understood as the inverse square law of the real distance. Since the distance between the origins of two frame is the same, the Newton’s third law still holds in relativistic kinematics.

This phenomenon might be examined in the accelerators such as SLAC European . The accelerator is a linear type so that the frame of an accelerated particle is a good moving frame and a target is in a good rest frame. Electrons in the accelerator can obtain 50 GeV energies. Hence the velocities of the electrons are accelerated up to 0.99999999995 times light velocity. The length contraction in the moving frame is 0.00001 times the length observed in the rest frame. However it sounds strange that there is a report that the accelerated particles are scattered off before arriving at the target due to the length contraction.

The Hubble’s law tells us that stars in the universe are observed to be moving away from the observing position, whose velocity is proportional to their distance Freedman . The data of Ref. Freedman  shows that the velocity is fitted to be proportional to the distance up to 450 Mpc. This is a record that our universe have been expanding with a constant rate of velocity to distance since the Big Bang. This Hubble’s law can be regarded as a non-relativistic one, because a star can move away with the more rapid speed than the speed of light over a certain distance. The limit to be able to observe the universe is known as the Hubble length $`L_0=c/H_0`$ Harrison  or the minimal antitrapped surface(MAS) Starkman . Recent observations do not show the linearity but show the curve of Eq. (6), because the motion of the stars in the region of a redshift $`0.1<z<1`$ is sufficiently relativistic.

In another aspect the linear Hubble’s law is not universal all over the universe, but provides us with different values for the Hubble’s constant according to inertial frames. Using the velocity addition rule this fact can be understood with ease. If we observed a star $`s_1`$ with a velocity $`v`$ and a distance $`d`$, an observer in the star $`s_1`$ would be expected to observe another star $`s_2`$ with the same velocity and distance from the same Hubble’s law. So this star $`s_2`$ is observed that the velocity is $`2v/(1+v^2)`$ and the distance is $`d+d/\sqrt{1v^2}`$ in our inertial frame. However, according to the linear Hubble’s law, the distance of the star $`s_2`$ is calculated as $`2d/(1+v^2)`$ for the velocity $`2v/(1+v^2)`$. This is quite different from the relativistic result. If we observe the n-th star like the above way, what is the velocity and distance of the star? It is an interesting finite series as follows

$`v_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{n1}+v}{1+v_{n1}v_1}}=\mathrm{tanh}n\theta ,`$
$`d_n`$ $`=`$ $`d(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1v_1^2}}}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1v_{n1}^2}}})={\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{n\theta }e^{(1n)\theta }+e^\theta 1}{e^\theta 1}},`$ (7)
where the calculations can be done by taking the initial velocity as $`v=v_1=\mathrm{tanh}\theta `$. If the initial velocity and distance are sufficiently small, then we can calculate approximately the ratio $`v/d\theta /d=H_0`$ and the relation of the n-th star as $`v_n=\mathrm{tanh}H_0d_n`$. Therefore the linear Hubble’s law can not be compatible with the special theory of relativity.

If the velocities of stars have not been changed since the Big Bang, then the ratio $`R/\tau `$’s of the stars are constant and the same with $`dR/d\tau `$’s, respectively. Naturally the Hubble’s law should be modified as

$$v=\mathrm{tanh}\theta =\mathrm{tanh}\frac{R}{\tau }=\mathrm{tanh}H_0R,$$
(8)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hubble constant and $`R`$ is the distance of a star from the observing position as shown in Fig. 1. This modified Hubble’s law gives a constant curvature $`c\tau =c/H_0`$ in any spatial direction to the universe. This modified law do not have the observable boundary of the universe, that is, the universe is infinite. Therefore several cosmological phenomena could be interpreted in a little different way, for examples, darkness at night, cosmic microwave background and so on.

If the universe is infinite, infinite numbers of stars would be shining the earth like day. Therefore night is not dark as it is. There is a proof done by Einstein in the footnote of the sentence: The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space Einstein . In the proof the inverse square law of the luminosity only holds in flat universe. The law should be modified in hyperbolic space as

$$=\frac{}{4\pi \tau ^2\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{R}{\tau }}=\frac{}{4\pi \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2H_0R}{H_0^2}}.$$
(9)
where $``$ is the luminosity of the standard candle and $``$ is the observed flux of the source. The luminosity of the stars at a distance is fainter than in the case of the inverse square law. However this can not be the reason of the darkness at night, because the gauss law in hyperbolic space also gives constant outgoing flux with respect to distance. The suitable reason might be the redshift of receding stars. The looking back time Harrison  is not suitable reason for darkness at night, because the universe is infinite and because there was other universes before the Big Bang. If the light of such stars are extremely redshifted in accordance with the Hubble’s law, then the light would be observed as extremely longer electromagnetic waves. The extreme case can be regarded as an alternative interpretation of the source of the cosmic microwave background. The highly redshifted light of usual stars could be the source of the cosmic microwave background.

The redshift is told as $`z=1100`$ Bond2 . According to the linear Hubble’s law, the distance of the source of cosmic microwave background would be around 4996.54 Mpc from the earth for a Hubble constant $`H_0=60`$ km/sMpc. If the stars in the universe is distributed uniformly, it is questionable that the source of cosmic microwave is enough to fill the universe with cosmic microwave in the shell of around the radius of $`4996.54`$ Mpc. The modified Hubble’s law gives even more thick shell of the source of cosmic microwave for the same redshift range, because the distance of the same redshift amounts to 34995.8 Mpc, if the Hubble constant is the same over all universes. Since the distance is even farther than the $`c/H_0=4996.54`$ Mpc, the cosmic microwave might come from the source in extra-universes and be the signal occurred 114 billion years ago before the Big Bang, because $`\tau =1/H_0=16.3`$ billion years is the time when our universe is in a point according to the Big Bang theory. The COBE maps Bennett  and the map of the angular correlation patterns on CMB anisotropy Bond ; Bond2  give this interpretation an interesting thought that the shape might be the images of the extra-universes, instead of the question Cornish : Can COBE see the shape of the universe? If there were a birth of another universe through a Big Bang, the signal might be the longer wavelength than CMB.

The luminosity-distance law can be also confirmed from the observation of the number of stars or galaxies within some solid angle of a telescope with respect to the distance. If the universe is homogeneous and isotropic so that the number of stars are uniformly distributed, then the number of stars within a distance $`R`$ would be proportional to $`H_0^3\mathrm{sinh}^3H_0R`$.

Besides the relativistic Hubble’s law and the luminosity-distance law, there are some possible corrections due to the relativistic motions of supernovae. Among them, it is difficult to ignore the correction due to the time dilation which, is shown in the light curve fit for a $`1+z`$ time dilation Riess , causes the luminosity of supernovae fainter. Since the luminosity is a radiating power of a supernova, the radiation energy is independent of the receding velocity of a supernova. If a supernova with a redshift $`z`$ is observed, the luminosity is related with the luminosity of a supernova at rest as follows

$$dE=_0dT_0=dT,$$
(10)
where $`E`$ is the radiation energy and $`T_0`$ and $`T`$ means the time of the rest frame and the moving frame, respectively. Hence the luminosity of a moving supernova would be observed as follows

$$=\sqrt{1v^2}_0=\frac{2(z+1)}{(z+1)^2+1}_0.$$
(11)
This correction gives 80 % observed luminosity for a supernova of a redshift $`z=1`$. There are also many astronomical corrections for the moving supernova which is called K-correction. The K-correction has a dependence with a redshift of a supernova due to the fact that the relative photon fluxes of high-redshift supernovae are $`1+z`$ “brighter” than energy fluxes Nugent  and the K-correction is a purely technical effect Oke . Since the redshift dependence of Eq. (11) in the luminosity is different from that of the K-correction, the above correction must be certainly not included in the K-correction.

Another important correction is due to the redshift of the spectral distribution for a supernova. If we know the spectral distribution of type Ia supernovae or at lest their temperature, we can correct the luminosity by using the spectral distribution of supernova or the Plank distribution, respectively. As an example an observed spectrum of wavelength $`40007000`$ Å for a redshift $`z=1`$ comes from the lights of wavelength $`20003500`$ Å in the spectrum of the supernova which is quite different from the visible light in magnitude in the spectral distribution of the supernova. The type Ia supernovae can not be standard candles without the knowledge of the spectral distribution of the supernovae, because the luminosity-distance law is reliable to the same luminosity of a observed wavelength width. If we observed a spectrum of a wavelength $`\lambda `$ through a filter from a supernova which has a redshift $`z`$, then the luminosity of the supernova should be corrected with the ratio:

$$R(z)=u(\lambda /(1+z))/u(\lambda ),$$
(12)
where $`u(\lambda )`$ is the Plank distribution function. Actually all the light curves of high-redshift type Ia supernovae Riess  show that the light curve of V photometry is brighter than that of B photometry. This means that the observed spectrum comes from the shorter wavelength side than the wavelength of its maximum in the spectral distribution.

Fig. 2, where the distances are calculated from the distance moduli “$`\mu _0`$” of Ref. Riess  and applied to the above corrections, shows that the above interpretation explains the recent observations of type Ia supernovae Riess  well. It would be more reliable, if the real spectral distribution of supernovae is used. There are still many reasons coursing distant stars fainter than the expected brightness in the universe. The opacity of the vacuum of the universe, which is not considered here, might be another reason of the faintness of stars. The data in the figure do not still shows clear distinction between the linear and the hyperbolic curves, but future searches for more redshifted supernovae can confirm the modified Hubble’s law. Those work also can search the evidence of deceleration of the universe due to the gravitational effect. The general theory of relativity or the Freidmann-Robertson-Walker cosmology can play an important role in the problem of expanding universe after such works.

The establishment of the Hubble’s law is a first step in astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology for giving reasonable physical view to our understanding on the universe. If the law is confirmed certainly, the redshift would be a good distance indicator. Moreover this law may change our current view on the universe. Since the motion of supernovae in the region of redshift $`0.1<z<1`$ is relativistic, it is necessary to correct the Hubble diagram with the relativistic effects as shown above. Among these corrections the Hubble diagram is very sensitive to the correction using a spectral distribution function. Therefore it is inevitable to know the exact spectral distributions of nearby type Ia supernovae and necessary to make a template for this correction like the template of light curve Riess .

The interpretation that our universe is accelerating is very premature. The data show that the Hubble diagrams can be fitted to be linear for a redshift $`z<0.1`$ and for a redshift $`0.1<z<1`$, respectively, without the above corrections and has different Hubble constants(see Fig. 2 in Ref. Perlmutter2 ), if the diagrams are drawn separately in the two regions. This means that our universe was accelerated around 1.6 billion years ago at the time when the stars of a redshift $`z=0.1`$ sent their lights to us. It is necessary to explain the reason why the universe should be accelerated especially at that time in such an interpretation or to show the relic that the vacuum energy density was inflated or accelerated at the special time.


format: text

text:
# Feshbach resonances and collapsing Bose-Einstein condensates

## 1 Introduction

The ability to dynamically modify the nature of the microscopic interactions in a Bose-Einstein condensate—an ability virtually unique to the field of dilute gases—opens the way to the exploration of a range of fundamental phenomena. A striking example of this is the Bosenova experiment carried out in the Wieman group at JILA  which explored the mechanical collapse instability arising from an attractive interaction. This collapse resulted in an unanticipated burst of atoms, the nature of which is a subject of current debate. In this article we suggest a possible mechanism for the formation of these bursts by application of an effective quantum field theory which includes explicitly the resonance scattering physics.

The Bosenova experiment conducted by the JILA group consisted of the following elements. A conventional stable Bose-Einstein condensate was created in equilibrium. The group then utilized a Feshbach resonance to abruptly switch the interactions to be attractive inducing an implosion. One might have predicted that the rapid increase in density would simply lead to a rapid loss of atoms, primarily through inelastic three-body collisions. In contrast, what was observed was the formation of an energetic burst of atoms emerging from the implosion. Although the energy of these atoms was much larger than that of the condensate, the energy was insignificant when compared to the molecular binding energy which characterizes the energy released in a three-body collision. In the end, what remained was a remnant condensate which appeared distorted and was believed to be in a highly excited collective state.

One theoretical method which has been extensively explored to explain this behavior has been the inclusion of a decay term into the Gross-Pitaevskii equation as a way to account for the atom loss . Aside from its physical application to the Bosenova problem, the inclusion of three-body loss as a phenomenological mechanism represents an important mathematical problem, since the nonlinear Schrödinger equation allows for a class of self-similar solutions in the unstable regime. The local collapses predicted in this framework can generate an outflow even within this zero temperature theory. However, there are a number of aspects which one should consider when applying the extended Gross-Pitaevskii equation to account for the observations made in the JILA experiment.

The first problematic issue is the potential breakdown of the principle of attenuation of correlations. This principle is essential in any quantum or classical kinetic theory as it allows multiparticle correlations to be factorized. This assumption is especially evident in the derivation of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation where all explicit multiparticle correlations are dropped. However, as shown in Figure 1, even a simple classical model may exhibit clustering when mechanically unstable which appears to invalidate the assumption of an attenuation of correlations. Furthermore, there is also considerable evidence for this instability toward pair formation in the mechanically unstable quantum theory .

A second difficulty with motivating the Gross-Pitaevskii approach is that by this method one describes the interactions as energy independent through a single parameter, the scattering length, which is determined from the $`s`$-wave scattering phase shift at zero scattering energy. Near a Feshbach resonance, the proximity of a bound state in a closed potential to the zero of the scattering continuum can lead to a strong energy dependence of the scattering. Exactly on resonance, the $`s`$-wave scattering length passes through infinity and, in this situation, the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is undefined.

These two fundamental difficulties with the Gross-Pitaevskii approach led us to reconsider this problem. We were motivated by the fact that the same experimental group at JILA recently performed a complementary experiment  which provided key insights into the Bosenova system. What was remarkable in these new experiments was that, even with a large positive scattering length in which the interactions were repulsive, a burst of atoms and a remnant condensate were observed. Furthermore, in the large positive scattering length case, simple effective field theories which included an explicit description of the Feshbach resonance physics were able to provide an accurate quantitative comparison with the data . The theory showed the burst to arise from the complex dynamics of the atom condensate coupled to a coherent field of exotic molecular dimers of a remarkable physical size and near the threshold binding energy.

In this paper, we draw the connections between the two JILA experiments. We pose and resolve the question as to whether the burst of atoms in the Bosenova collapse could arise in a similar way as in the Ramsey fringe experiment—from the formation of a coherent molecular superfluid. This hypothesis is tested by applying an effective field theory for resonance superfluidity to the collapse. For fermions, the case of resonance superfluidity in an inhomogeneous system has been treated in the local density approximation, using essentially the uniform solution at each point in space . For the collapse of a Bose-Einstein condensate, as we wish to treat here, the local density approximation is not valid, and the calculation must be performed on a truly inhomogeneous system. This represents the first time that the resonance superfluidity theory has been applied to a system of this type.

## 2 Effective Field Theory

In the Feshbach resonance illustrated in Figure 2, the properties of the collision of two ground state atoms is controlled through their resonant coupling to a bound state in a closed channel Born-Oppenheimer potential. By adjusting an external magnetic field, the scattering length can be tuned to have any value. This field dependence of the scattering length is characterized by the detuning $`\nu _0`$ and obeys a dispersive profile given by $`a(\nu _0)=a_{\mathrm{bg}}(1\kappa /(2\nu _0))`$, with $`\kappa `$ the resonance width and $`a_{\mathrm{bg}}`$ the background scattering length. In fact, all the scattering properties of a Feshbach resonance system are completely characterized by just three parameters $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{\mathrm{bg}}/m`$, $`g_0=\sqrt{\kappa U_0}`$, and $`\nu _0`$. Physically, $`U_0`$ represents the energy shift per unit density on the single particle eigenvalues due to the background scattering processes, while $`g_0`$, which has dimensions of energy per square-root density, represents the coupling of the Feshbach resonance between the open and closed channel potentials.

We now proceed to construct a low order many-body theory which includes this resonance physics. The Hamiltonian for a dilute gas of scalar bosons with binary interactions is given in complete generality by

$$H=d^3x\psi _a^{}(𝒙)H_a(𝒙)\psi _a(𝒙)+d^3xd^3x^{}\psi _a^{}(𝒙)\psi _a^{}(𝒙^{\mathbf{}})V(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})\psi _a(𝒙^{\mathbf{}})\psi _a(𝒙)$$
(1)
where $`H_a(𝒙)`$ is the single particle Hamiltonian, $`V(𝒙,𝒙^{\mathbf{}})`$ is the binary interaction potential, and $`\psi _a(𝒙)`$ is a bosonic scalar field operator. In cold quantum gases, where the atoms collide at very low energy, we are only interested in the behavior of the scattering about a small energy range above zero. There exist many potentials which replicate the low energy scattering behavior of the true potential; therefore, it is convenient to carry out the calculation with the simplest one, the most convenient choice being to take the interaction potential as a delta-function pseudopotential when possible.

For a Feshbach resonance this choice of pseudopotential is generally not available since the energy dependence of the scattering implies that a minimal treatment must at least contain a spread of wave-numbers which is equivalent to the requirement of a nonlocal potential. Since the solution of a nonlocal field theory is inconvenient, we take an alternative but equivalent approach. We include into the theory an auxiliary molecular field operator $`\psi _m(𝒙)`$ which obeys Bose statistics and describes the collision between atoms in terms of two elementary components: the background collisions between atoms in the absence of the resonance interactions and the conversion of atom pairs into molecular states. This allows us to construct a local field theory with the property that when the auxiliary field is integrated out, an effective Hamiltonian of the form given in Eq. (1) is recovered with a potential $`V(𝒙,𝒙^{})=V(|𝒙𝒙^{}|)`$ which generates the form of the two-body $`T`$-matrix predicted by Feshbach resonance theory . The local Hamiltonian which generates this scattering behavior:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _a^{}(𝒙)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}_x^2+V_a(𝒙)\mu _a\right)\psi _a(𝒙)}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _m^{}(𝒙)\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}_x^2+V_m(𝒙)\mu _m\right)\psi _m(𝒙)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{U}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _a^{}(𝒙)\psi _a^{}(𝒙)\psi _a(𝒙)\psi _a(𝒙)}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3x\psi _m^{}(𝒙)\psi _a(𝒙)\psi _a(𝒙)}`$
has the intuitive structure of resonant atom-molecule coupling. Here $`V_{a,m}`$ are the external potentials and $`\mu _{a,m}`$ are the chemical potentials. The subscripts $`a,m`$ represent the atomic and molecular contributions, respectively. The Feshbach resonance is controlled by the magnetic field which is incorporated into the theory by the detuning $`\nu =\mu _m2\mu _a`$ between the atomic and molecular fields. The Hamiltonian in equation (2) contains the three parameters $`U`$, $`g`$, and $`\nu `$ which account for the complete scattering properties of the Feshbach resonance. It is important to keep in mind that they are distinct from the bare parameters $`U_0`$, $`g_0`$, and $`\nu _0`$ introduced above. In order for the local Hamiltonian given in equation (2) to be applicable, one must introduce into the field theory a renormalized set of parameters each containing a momentum cutoff associated with a maximum wavenumber $`K`$. This need not be physical in origin but should exceed the momentum range of occupied quantum states. The relationships between the renormalized and bare parameters are given by: $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }U_0`$, $`g=\mathrm{\Gamma }g_0`$, and $`\nu =\nu _0+\alpha gg_0/2`$, where $`\alpha =mK/(2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(1\alpha U_0)^1`$ . All the results presented here have been shown to be independent of the momentum cutoff in the theory.

We define the condensates in terms of the mean-fields of the operators $`\varphi _a(𝒙)=<\psi _a(𝒙)>`$ and $`\varphi _m(𝒙)=<\psi _m(𝒙)>`$ along with the fluctuations about the atomic field $`\chi _a(𝒙)=\psi _a(𝒙)\varphi _a(𝒙)`$. Note that, in principle, there is also a term which involves the fluctuations about $`\varphi _m(𝒙)`$. Assuming the occupation of $`\varphi _m(𝒙)`$ to be small (less than 2% in the simulations we present), we drop higher order terms arising from fluctuations about this mean-field which do not give a significant correction to our results. As discussed in reference , we derive four equations: two corresponding to a Schrödinger evolution of the mean fields

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _a(𝒙)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_x^2+V_a(𝒙)\mu _a+U\left[|\varphi _a(𝒙)|^2+2G_N(𝒙,𝒙)\right]\right)\varphi _a(𝒙)`$
$`+\left[UG_A(𝒙,𝒙)+g\varphi _m(𝒙)\right]\varphi _a^{}(𝒙)`$
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _m(𝒙)}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{4m}}_x^2+V_m(𝒙)\mu _m\right)\varphi _m(𝒙)+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left[\varphi _a^2(𝒙)+G_A(𝒙,𝒙)\right]`$ (3)
and two corresponding to the Louiville space evolution of the normal density $`G_N(𝒙,𝒙^{})=<\chi _a^{}(𝒙^{})\chi _a(𝒙)>`$ and of the anomalous density $`G_A(𝒙,𝒙^{})=<\chi _a(𝒙^{})\chi _a(𝒙)>`$

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{𝒢}{dt}=\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒢𝒢\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}.$$
(4)
The density matrix and self-energy matrix are defined respectively as

$`𝒢(𝒙,𝒙^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}<\chi _a^{}(𝒙^{})\chi _a(𝒙)>& <\chi _a(𝒙^{})\chi _a(𝒙)>\\ <\chi _a^{}(𝒙^{})\chi _a^{}(𝒙)>& <\chi _a(𝒙^{})\chi _a^{}(𝒙)>\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝒙,𝒙^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}H(𝒙,𝒙^{})& \mathrm{\Delta }(𝒙,𝒙^{})\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝒙,𝒙^{})& H^{}(𝒙,𝒙^{})\end{array}\right).`$ (10)
The convenience of choosing a microscopic model in which the potential couplings are of contact form is now evident since the elements of the self-energy matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are diagonal in $`𝒙`$ and $`𝒙^{}`$ with non-zero elements

$`H(𝒙,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}_x^2+V_a(𝒙)\mu _a+2U\left[|\varphi _a(𝒙)|^2+G_N(𝒙,𝒙)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒙,𝒙)`$ $`=`$ $`U\left[\varphi _a^2(𝒙)+G_A(𝒙,𝒙)\right]+g\varphi _m(𝒙).`$ (11)
Since the normal density and anomalous pairing field are both six-dimensional objects, it is very difficult to solve these equations in an arbitrary geometry. For this reason we consider the case of greatest symmetry consisting of a spherical trap. Here we can reduce the problem to one of only three dimensions, which is still nontrivial to treat, according to the following procedure. To begin with, it is convenient to write the elements of the single particle density matrix in center of mass $`𝑹=(𝒙+𝒙^{})/2`$ and relative $`𝒓=𝒙𝒙^{}`$ coordinates. The normal density then takes on a familiar structure corresponding to the Wigner distribution

$`G_N(𝑹,𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r<\chi _a^{}(𝑹𝒓/2)\chi _a(𝑹+𝒓/2)>e^{i𝒌𝒓}}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3rG_N(𝑹,𝒓)e^{i𝒌𝒓}}`$
which in the high-temperature limit will map on to the particle distribution function $`f(𝑹,𝒌)`$ for a classical gas. Correspondingly, the anomalous density can also be written in Fourier space as

$`G_A(𝑹,𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3r<\chi _a(𝑹𝒓/2)\chi _a(𝑹+𝒓/2)>e^{i𝒌𝒓}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3rG_A(𝑹,𝒓)e^{i𝒌𝒓}}.`$
In this geometry, the angular dependence of $`𝑹`$ is irrelevant, and the cylindrical symmetry about $`𝑹`$ allows the wavevector $`𝒌`$ to be represented by its length and the one remaining angle as illustrated in Figure 3.

This allows us to represent the density distributions in three-dimensions as

$$G(𝑹,𝒌)=G(R,k,\theta )$$
(14)
where $`G`$ corresponds to either the normal ($`G_N`$) or anomalous ($`G_A`$) density. It is now straightforward to rewrite equations (3) and (4) in this coordinate system. It is worth pointing out the simple structure of the kinetic energy contributions to equation (4) which for the $`G_N`$ and $`G_A`$ components take the corresponding forms respectively:

$`\left(_x^2_x^{}^2\right)G_N(𝒙,𝒙^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(_R_r\right)G_N(𝑹,𝒓)`$ (15)
$`\left(_x^2+_x^{}^2\right)G_A(𝒙,𝒙^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_R^2+2_r^2\right)G_A(𝑹,𝒓).`$ (16)
One may now take the Fourier transform with respect to $`𝒓`$ as indicated by equations 12 and 13, replacing $`_ri𝒌`$. The gradient operator $`_R`$ can be expressed in any representation, but it is most convenient to use spherical polar coordinates aligned with the $`𝒌`$ direction vector

$$_R=\widehat{R}\frac{}{R}+\widehat{\theta }\frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\theta }+\widehat{\phi }\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\phi }$$
(17)
where $`\phi `$ is the azimuthal angle about $`𝒌`$ (which will eventually drop out in our chosen symmetry), and $`\widehat{R}`$, $`\widehat{\theta }`$, and $`\widehat{\phi }`$ are the spherical unit vectors in the $`R`$, $`\theta `$, and $`\phi `$ directions, respectively. Noting that $`\widehat{R}𝒌=k\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, $`\widehat{\theta }𝒌=k\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, and $`\widehat{\phi }𝒌=0`$, we arrive at the following expression for the differential operator in equation 15

$$_R𝒌=k\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{}{R}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{R}\frac{}{\theta }\right).$$
(18)
Furthermore, the spherical Laplacian for a system with no azimuthal dependence, as required in equation 16, is given by

$$_R^2=\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{}{R}\left(R^2\frac{}{R}\right)+\frac{1}{R^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{}{\theta }\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{}{\theta }\right).$$
(19)
In practice, we expand the $`\theta `$ dependence of $`G_N`$ and $`G_A`$ in terms of the orthogonal Legendre polynomials, and the angular derivatives are then easily implemented via the usual recursion relations.

## 3 Results and Analysis

As an initial test, we expect the resonance theory to give a similar prediction to the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in the initial phase of the collapse when the quantum depletion is small. Figure 4 shows a direct comparison between the Gross-Pitaevskii approach and the resonance theory. The same initial conditions were used for all our simulations; 1000 rubidium-85 atoms in the ground state of a 10 Hz harmonic trap. For all the images we present, the results of the three-dimensional calculation, in our spherical geometry, are illustrated as a two-dimensional slice through the trap center. In the Gross-Pitaevskii solution we used a scattering length of $`200a_0`$ where $`a_0`$ is the Bohr radius. For comparison, the Feshbach resonance theory uses a positive background scattering length of $`50a_0`$ and a resonance width and detuning respectively of 15 kHz and 2.8 kHz. These parameters give the same effective scattering length as the one used in the Gross-Pitaevskii evolution, but nowhere in the resonance theory does the effective scattering length appear explicitly. As is evident, there is no noticeable discrepancy between the two approaches over this short timescale. Eventually we expect these theories to diverge significantly as the density increases and the coupling between the atomic and molecular degrees of freedom becomes stronger. However, at this stage the agreement is a demonstration that our renormalized theory correctly allows us to tune the interactions in an inhomogeneous situation.

We now proceed to a more complex situation in which the timescales for the atom-molecule coupling and the collapse dynamics are more compatible. From a numerical point of view, it becomes convenient to increase the resonance width to 1.5 MHz and the detuning to 14 kHz so that the effect of the atom-molecule coupling will appear in the first stage of the collapse. This allows us to form a complete picture of the dynamics involving the atomic collapse and the simultaneous coupling to a coherent molecular field. The numerical calculation is shown as a movie in Fig. 5 for both the condensed and noncondensed components. One sees the formation of a significant fraction of noncondensed atoms–a feature not described within the Gross-Pitaevskii framework. During a time evolution of 0.8 ms the condensate fraction falls to approximately 80% of its initial value, while the noncondensate fraction reaches a peak at around 20%. The amplitude of the scalar field $`\varphi _m`$ remains below the 2% level at all times.

To better illustrate the behavior of the atoms during the collapse we present the flow of the different distributions involved. The condensate velocity field is shown in Figure 6. It exhibits similar characteristics to those predicted by the Gross-Pitaevskii theory, which without loss, predicts that the condensed atoms will always accelerate toward the trap center. In contrast, the velocity field of the atoms outside of the condensate is radially outward. The production of this component is quite interesting because it is this same component which in the theory of the Ramsey fringe experiment was quantitatively determined to give rise to the burst.

Obviously an important quantity to calculate for these expanding noncondensed atoms is the effective temperature, or energy per particle, since this quantity is observed experimentally. This is illustrated in Figure 7 where superimposed on an illustration of the density is a colormap of the temperature. The hottest atoms generated in the center of the cloud are of comparable energy scale to that seen in the experiment, being on the order of 100 nK.

## 4 Conclusion

We emphasize that the work presented here is a model calculation to illustrate the feasibility for the burst to be generated through atom-molecule coupling. However, there are a number of important distinctions with the experimental situation which would have to be accounted for before making a direct comparison. These simulations contain no inelastic three-body loss and particle number is absolutely conserved. In reality three-body loss may be important to the experiment, but we suggest with this work that three-body loss is not the only mechanism for producing a noncondensed burst during the collapse.

It should be emphasized that if our hypothesis for the burst generation is correct, the noncondensate atoms that are produced by this mechanism are not simply generated in a thermal component, but are instead generated in a fundamentally intriguing quantum state. The process of dissociation of molecules into atom pairs produces macroscopic correlations reminiscent of a squeezed vacuum state in quantum optics. This means that every atom in the burst with momentum $`𝒌`$ would have an associated partner with momentum $`𝒌`$. In principle, the correlations could be directly observed in experiments through coincidence measurements providing clear evidence as to whether this is the dominant mechanism for the burst generation in the Bosenova.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Servaas Kokkelmans and Lincoln Carr for discussions. M.H. and J.M. were supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences via the Chemical Sciences, Geosciences and Biosciences Division, and C.M. by the National Science Foundation and by the Divisione Cooperazione e Mobilità Internazionale of the University of Trento.

## References


text:
# Multiplier Ideals of Sufficiently General Polynomials

## 1. Introduction

The multiplier ideal of a divisor $`D`$ or ideal sheaf $`𝔞`$ tells us a great deal about the singularities of $`D`$, or of a general section of $`𝔞`$. It is also a main ingredient of the Nadel vanishing theorem, which of course has found numerous important applications. The multiplier ideal is a powerful tool because it provides “invariants with vanishing.” In this paper we will compute the multiplier ideals of a large class of divisors in $`𝔸^n`$, those defined by “nondegenerate” polynomials. 111see \[Arnol’d et al., 1985\] for earlier uses of nondegeneracy This nondegeneracy condition is fairly weak: It is satisfied, for example, by functions of the form $`c_1x_1^{a_1}+c_2x_2^{a_2}+\mathrm{}+c_nx_n^{a_n}`$.

###### Notation 1.

We write $`𝒥(r𝔞)`$ for the multiplier ideal of an ideal $`𝔞`$, with constant $`r`$. We write $`𝒥(rD)`$ for the multiplier ideal of a divisor $`D`$. For $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, we abbreviate $`𝒥(rDiv(f))`$ by “$`𝒥(rf)`$,” although “$`𝒥(f^r)`$” would be more suggestive.

We will not develop the basic properties of multiplier ideals. We refer the reader instead to \[Lazarsfeld, 2001\] for a comprehensive algebraic development.

The algebraic definition of the multiplier ideal refers to an embedded resolution of $`D`$ or $`𝔞`$, making it difficult to calculate directly in specific examples. In a previous paper \[Howald, 2001b\], we calculated the multiplier ideal of an arbitrary monomial ideal $`𝔞`$ in a polynomial ring $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. It happens that if $`𝔞[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is an ideal and $`f𝔞`$ is a generic section222meaning a generic $``$-linear combination of generators $`\{g_1,\mathrm{},g_k\}`$ of $`𝔞`$. of $`𝔞`$, then the multiplier ideals of $`Div(f)`$ and $`𝔞`$ are essentially the same:

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`𝔞[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a monomial ideal, and let $`f𝔞`$ be a generic section. If $`r<1`$ then

$$𝒥(r(f))=𝒥(r𝔞).$$

See \[Lazarsfeld, 2001, Proposition 9.2.29\] for a proof. If $`r1`$, the relationship is only slightly more complicated.

This begs the question: When is a given function a “generic enough” element of some related monomial ideal? We give a sufficient condition which guarantees that a polynomial $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is a sufficiently generic element of the (monomial) ideal $`\tau (f)`$ generated by its terms. This allows us to calculate the multiplier ideal of $`f`$.

Roughly, this condition requires that for every face of the Newton polyhedron of $`f`$, the function obtained by summing just those terms of $`f`$ which lie on that face should have nonvanishing derivative on the torus $`T^n𝔸^n`$. (For each face $`\sigma `$ of the Newton polyhedron, we call this “$`\sigma `$-nondegeneracy.”) We prove that this guarantees equality of $`𝒥(rf)`$ and $`𝒥(r\tau (f))`$ in four steps:

1. There is a toric log resolution $`\mu :X^{}X`$, which principalizes $`\tau (f)`$.
2. By toric geometry, $`X^{}`$ is locally isomorphic to $`𝔸^n`$, so we may regard $`\mu ^{}(f)=f^{}`$ as a polynomial. We prove that it inherits nondegeneracy from $`f`$.
3. Since $`f^{}`$ is nondegenerate and $`\tau (f^{})`$ is principal, $`Div(f^{})`$ is a normal crossing divisor, and $`\mu `$ is a simultaneous toric log resolution for both $`\tau (f)`$ and $`Div(f)`$.
4. Direct comparison of the terms $`r\mu ^{}(Div(f))`$ and $`r\mu ^1(\tau (f))`$ appearing in the definition of the multiplier ideal shows them to be the same.

## 2. Main Theorem and Examples

The nondegeneracy condition which we will use describes the relationship of a polynomial $`f`$ with the faces of its Newton polyhedron. We must first introduce some definitions and notation for dealing with such structures.

###### Definition 3.

Let $`X=^n`$. In questions of membership in monomial ideals, the coefficient of a monomial $`m[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is irrelevant. Discarding this information, we will refer to the lattice $`L_X^n`$ of rational monomials on $`X`$, whose nonnegative orthant contains the monomials. Let $`𝔞𝒪_X`$ be a monomial ideal. We may identify $`𝔞`$ with a subset of $`L_X`$. The Newton polyhedron $`P(𝔞)`$ of $`𝔞`$ is the convex hull of this set, an unbounded closed subset of $`L_X`$. By a face $`\sigma `$ of the Newton polyhedron, we mean a face of arbitrary codimension (even the codimension-$`0`$ face) . Because the polyhedron is unbounded, faces need not be compact.

###### Definition 4.

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial. The term ideal $`\tau (f)`$ of $`f`$ is the monomial ideal generated by the terms of $`f`$. We write $`P(f)`$ for $`P(\tau (f))`$, though this is not the usual definition of the Newton polyhedron of a polynomial.

We can now introduce the main nondegeneracy condition which will guarantee that $`f`$ and $`\tau (f)`$ have similar multiplier ideals.

###### Definition 5.

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and let $`\sigma `$ be a face of $`P(f)`$. We write $`f_\sigma `$ for the polynomial composed of the terms of $`f`$ which lie in $`\sigma `$. Note that $`f_\sigma `$ remembers the coefficient of each term. If the $`1`$-form $`df_\sigma `$ is nonvanishing on the torus $`T_n=(0)^n`$, then we say that $`f`$ is nondegenerate for $`\sigma `$. If $`f`$ is nondegenerate for every face of its Newton polyhedron, then we call $`f`$ simply nondegenerate. If $`f`$ is nondegenerate for just its compact faces, then we say $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part.

This last condition follows \[Arnol’d et al., 1985, 6.2.2\], in which it is used (from the analytical point of view) in the calculation of the log canonical threshold of $`f`$. Notice that if $`\sigma `$ is the origin in $`L_X`$, then $`f_\sigma `$ is a nonzero constant. In this special case, we call $`f`$ nondegenerate for $`\sigma `$ despite the vanishing of $`df_\sigma `$. At the other extreme, $`\sigma `$ may be the entire Newton polyhedron, in which case nondegeneracy for $`\sigma `$ implies that $`Div(f|_{T^n})`$ is nonsingular. (If this condition seems too strong, remember that we will allow ourselves only toric resolutions, and these are isomorphisms on $`T^n`$.)

We will soon see that nondegeneracy of $`f`$ implies convenient global properties for $`Div(f)`$, whereas nondegeneracy of the principal part tells us that $`Div(f)`$ is “nice” only near the origin.

###### Definition 6.

Let $`X=^n`$, and let $`𝔞`$ be an ideal sheaf on $`X`$. By a toric log resolution of $`𝔞`$, we mean a log resolution $`\mu :X^{}X`$ which is obtained by a sequence of blowings-up along orbits of the torus action. Equivalently, it is a log resolution for which $`X^{}`$ and $`\mu `$ belong to the toric category. We define a toric log resolution of a divisor similarly.

Locally on $`X^{}`$, such a map is determined by a monomial ring map $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n][y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$. A toric log resolution of $`𝔞`$ can also be described in terms of refinements of the dual polyhedron of $`P(𝔞)`$. See \[Howald, 2001b\] for more on this perspective.

###### Proposition 7.

Every monomial ideal has a toric log resolution.

See \[Howald, 2001a\] for a sketch of the proof, or \[Fulton, 1993\] for the basic theory of toric varieties.

###### Example 8.

The functions $`f=y^2y(x1)^2`$, $`g=(xy1)^9`$, and $`h=(x+y)^2(xy)^5`$ on $`^2`$ are all degenerate. Although $`df`$ is nonzero on the torus, there is a proper face $`\sigma P(f)`$ for which $`f_\sigma =y(x1)^2`$. Clearly $`df_\sigma =0`$ at the point $`(1,0)`$. $`Div(f)`$ has a singularity at $`(1,0)`$, but toric resolutions up can only blow up the origin so the singularity cannot be corrected by such maps. Nevertheless, $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part.

For every proper face $`\sigma `$ of $`P(g)`$, $`g_\sigma `$ is nondegenerate. But $`dg`$ itself vanishes at points in the torus, so $`g`$ is degenerate. Although $`Div(g)`$ has a toric log resolution, the high multiplicity of $`g`$ along the proper transform of $`Div(g)`$ complicates the calculation of the multiplier ideal.

For properly chosen $`\sigma `$, $`h_\sigma `$ is a perfect square $`(x+y)^2`$, and is clearly degenerate. Despite being singular only at the origin, $`h`$ has no toric log resolution. The multiplier ideal of $`Div(h)`$ is not monomial, even for some $`r<1`$. This function has degenerate principal part.

###### Example 9.

Let $`f=c_1x_1^{a_1}+\mathrm{}+c_nx_n^{a_n}`$, with $`c_i0`$ and $`a_i>0`$. Then $`f`$ is nondegenerate, as the reader may check. Furthermore, if the simplex spanned by $`\{a_ie_i\}_{i\{1\mathrm{}n\}}`$ (the unique maximal compact face of $`P(f)`$) contains no lattice points other than its vertices, then any polynomial with the same Newton polyhedron as $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part.

###### Notation 10.

We write $`𝒥(r𝔞)`$ or $`𝒥(rD)`$ for the multiplier ideal of an ideal or divisor, with rational coefficient $`r`$. We also write $`r`$ and $`\{r\}`$ for the round-down and fractional part of a rational number $`r`$. We will write $`D`$ for the round-down of a $``$-divisor $`D`$, and $`D`$ for its round-up.

The multiplier ideal of a monomial ideal can be calculated combinatorially:

###### Theorem 11.

Let $`𝔞𝒪_{𝔸^n}`$ be a monomial ideal. Then $`𝒥(r𝔞)`$ is a monomial ideal, and contains exactly the following monomials:

$$\{m:mx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_nInterior(rP(𝔞))\}.$$

###### Proof.

See \[Howald, 2001a\] or \[Howald, 2001b\]. ∎

For small values of $`r`$, we can hope for the equality $`𝒥(rDiv(f))=𝒥(r\tau (f))`$, provided that $`f`$ is a sufficiently generic element of $`\tau (f)`$. This requires a Bertini argument which shows that a toric log resolution $`\mu `$ of $`\tau (f)`$ is in fact a log resolution of a general section of $`\tau (f)`$. The divisors $`\mu ^{}(Div(f))`$ and $`\mu ^1(𝔞)`$ differ only by the proper transform of $`Div(f)`$, which disappears on rounding if $`r<1`$.

So a claim that $`f`$ is sufficiently general primarily means that any toric log resolution of $`\tau (f)`$ also resolves $`Div(f)`$. Our result is in essence an effective substitute for the use of Bertini’s theorem to guarantee this. Basic facts about multiplier ideals will take care of the rest of the calculation. Here then is our main theorem.

###### Theorem 12 (Main Theorem).

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let $`\mu :X^{}^n`$ be a toric log resolution of $`\tau (f)`$. If $`f`$ is nondegenerate, then $`\mu `$ also log-resolves $`Div(f)`$. If $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part, then there is a Zariski neighborhood $`U`$ of the origin over which $`\mu `$ is a log resolution of $`f|_U`$.

We will prove this theorem in the next section.

###### Corollary 13.

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be nondegenerate, and let $`r<1`$. Then

$$𝒥(rDiv(f))=𝒥(r\tau (f)).$$

###### Proof (12 $``$ 13).

Since we have a toric log resolution $`\mu :X^{}X=^n`$ of both $`f`$ and $`\tau (f)`$, we may use it to calculate each of these multiplier ideals. Let $`K_{X^{}/X}`$ be the relative canonical bundle, and consider the divisors

$$F_1=K_{X^{}/X}r\mu ^{}Div(f)\text{ and }F_2=K_{X^{}/X}r\mu ^1(\tau (f)),$$

which when pushed forward via $`\mu _{}`$ calculate the two multiplier ideals. We claim that these divisors are equal. Because the resolution is toric, each exceptional divisor $`E`$ of $`\mu `$ corresponds to a weighted blowup. The order along $`E`$ of $`\mu ^{}Div(f)`$ is the minimal weight of the terms of $`f`$, and the order along $`E`$ of $`\mu ^1(\tau (f))`$ is the minimal weight of monomials in $`\tau (f)`$. These are obviously the same, so $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ have the same order along each exceptional divisor. Clearly they also agree on the proper transforms of the coordinate axes.

We have tested equality on all divisors not intersecting the torus $`T_n`$. No other divisors can appear in the support of $`F_2`$ because $`\tau (f)`$ is monomial. We must similarly rule out components of $`F_1`$ which intersect the torus. Suppose $`D^{}`$ were one such. Since $`\mu `$ is an isomorphism on the torus, $`\mu (D^{})`$ would be a divisor $`D`$ and $`ord_D^{}(\mu ^{}(f))=ord_D(f)=1`$ because $`df|_{T_n}`$ does not vanish. To calculate $`ord_D^{}F_1`$, we would multiply this number by $`r`$ and round down, giving $`0`$ because $`r<1`$. ∎

###### Corollary 14.

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be nondegenerate. Then

$$𝒥(rDiv(f))=(f^r)𝒥(\{r\}\tau (f)).$$

###### Proof.

The integer divisor $`rDiv(f)`$ pulls outside the multiplier ideal (see \[Howald, 2001a\]), so we have

$$𝒥(rDiv(f))=(f^r)𝒥(\{r\}Div(f)).$$

Corollary 13 finishes the proof. ∎

###### Example 15.

As in Example 9, let $`f=c_1x_1^{a_1}+\mathrm{}+c_nx_n^{a_n}`$, with $`c_i0`$ and $`a_i>0`$. Let $`v=(\frac{1}{a_1},\mathrm{},\frac{1}{a_n})`$, so that $`mP(f)`$ if and only if $`vm1`$. (Here we regard $`m`$ as a vector in $`L_X`$ and take its dot product with $`v`$.) Theorem 11 tells us that $`𝒥(r\tau (f))`$ is generated by $`\{m:v(mx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n)>r\}`$. By Corollary 14,

$$𝒥(rDiv(f))\text{ is generated by }\{f^rm:v(mx_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n)>\{r\}\}$$

## 3. Proof of Main Theorem

We will require a few more definitions and notations before we can comfortably prove the main theorem. Let $`X=^n`$.

###### Definition 16.

Let $`𝔞[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a monomial ideal, and let $`\sigma P(𝔞)`$ be a face of its Newton polyhedron. Let $`v_\sigma `$ be any linear functional on $`L_X`$ which cuts out $`\sigma `$ in the sense that $`v_\sigma (P(𝔞))=[b,\mathrm{})`$ and $`v_\sigma ^1(b)P(𝔞)=\sigma `$. We may regard $`v`$ as a hyperplane distinguishing $`\sigma P(𝔞)`$. Let $`(\sigma )`$ be the ring generated by all monomials $`m`$ with $`v_\sigma (m)=0`$. Because $`v_\sigma `$ is a nonnegative vector (when written in the standard dual basis), $`(\sigma )`$ is of the form $`[S]`$ for some $`S\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. Let $`(\sigma )=Spec((\sigma ))^n`$. Notice that $`(\sigma )`$ is just a coordinate linear subspace of $`^n`$. By the relative interior of $`(\sigma )`$, we will mean the points of $`(\sigma )`$ not contained in some smaller coordinate linear subspace.

The reader may check that although $`v_\sigma `$ is not completely determined by $`\sigma `$, $`(\sigma )`$ and $`(\sigma )`$ are. Readers familiar with valuations will notice that $`v_\sigma `$ is a valuation on the ring $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and $`(\sigma )`$ is its center.

###### Example 17.

Let $`𝔞=(x^3,y^3,z^3)[x,y,z]`$. The triangular face $`\sigma `$ of $`P(𝔞)`$ is determined by $`v_\sigma =(1/3,1/3,1/3)`$. For this face and in fact for all of its subfaces, $`v_\sigma `$ is strictly positive, so $`(\sigma )=`$ and $`(\sigma )`$ is the origin. On the other hand, if we take $`\sigma `$ to be the intersection of $`P(𝔞)`$ with the $`x`$-axis in the lattice of monomials, then $`(\sigma )=[x]`$, and $`(\sigma )`$ is the $`x`$-axis in $`^3`$.

###### Proposition 18.

If, as in Example 17, $`(\sigma )`$ is the origin, then $`\sigma `$ is compact.

###### Proof.

If $`(\sigma )`$ is the origin, then $`(\sigma )=`$, so $`v_\sigma `$ is a strictly positive dual vector. From the above definition, $`v_\sigma ^1(b)P(𝔞)=\sigma `$. Since $`v_\sigma ^1(b)`$ has compact intersection with the nonnegative orthant in $`L_X`$, and since $`P(𝔞)`$ is closed, $`\sigma `$ itself must be compact. ∎

###### Definition 19.

Let $`X=Spec[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, let $`X^{}=Spec[y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$, and let $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be a monomial map. If $`𝔞𝒪_X`$ is a monomial ideal, then so is $`𝔞^{}=_{def}\mu ^1𝔞`$. Let $`\sigma ^{}`$ be a face of $`P(𝔞^{})`$. We write $`\mu (\sigma ^{})`$ for $`\{mL_X:\mu ^{}(m)\sigma ^{}\}`$. It is the preimage of $`\sigma ^{}`$ under $`\mu ^{}`$.

###### Proposition 20.

For any face $`\sigma ^{}`$ of $`P(𝔞^{})`$, $`\mu (\sigma ^{})`$ is a face of $`P(𝔞)`$.

###### Proof.

Whereas $`\sigma ^{}`$ is the intersection of $`P(𝔞^{})`$ with the level set of some linear functional $`v_\sigma ^{}`$, $`\sigma =_{def}\mu (\sigma ^{})`$ is the intersection of $`P(𝔞)`$ with the level set of $`v=_{def}v_\sigma ^{}\mu ^{}`$. This $`v`$ is a linear functional because $`\mu ^{}`$ acts linearly on the lattice of monomials. The reader may verify that $`v(\sigma )`$ is the smallest value of $`v`$ on $`P(𝔞)`$. This proves that $`\sigma `$ is a face. ∎

###### Proposition 21.

Let $`X`$, $`X^{}`$, $`𝔞`$, $`𝔞^{}`$, and $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be as in Definition 19. For any face $`\sigma ^{}`$ of $`𝔞^{}`$, $`\mu ((\sigma ^{}))=(\mu (\sigma ^{}))`$.

###### Proof.

Since everything is invariant under the torus action, each set is at least torus invariant, and so is defined by a monomial ideal in $`[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Choose $`v^{}=v_\sigma ^{}`$ cutting out $`\sigma ^{}`$. As in Proposition 20, $`\sigma `$ is cut out by $`v=v^{}\mu ^{}`$. Unraveling the definitions involved, we find that the ideal of the left hand side is generated by $`\{mL_X:v^{}(\mu ^{}(m))>0\}`$. The ideal of the right hand side is generated by $`\{mL_X:(v^{}\mu ^{})(m)>0\}`$. These are obviously the same set. ∎

We now have the tools in hand to prove the main theorem, which we restate here:

###### Theorem 22 (Main Theorem).

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let $`\mu :X^{}^n`$ be a toric log resolution of $`\tau (f)`$. If $`f`$ is nondegenerate, then $`\mu `$ also log-resolves $`Div(f)`$. If $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part, then there is a Zariski neighborhood $`U`$ of the origin over which $`\mu `$ is a log resolution of $`f|_U`$.

We begin with a special case:

###### Lemma 23.

Let $`f[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and assume that $`\tau (f)`$ is principal. Let $`\sigma `$ be a face of $`P(f)`$. If $`f`$ is nondegenerate for $`\sigma `$, then $`Div(f)`$ is a normal crossing divisor at points $`p`$ in the relative interior of $`(\sigma )`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`m`$ be the (unique) monomial generator of $`\tau (f)`$. By reordering the coordinates, we may assume $`\sigma =\{mx_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}x_k^{a_k}:a_i0\}`$ for some $`k`$, so $`(\sigma )=Spec([x_1,\mathrm{},x_k])=𝕍(x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_n)`$. We may write $`g=f/m`$, where $`m`$ is a monomial and $`g`$ has nonzero constant term. Let us also write $`g_\sigma =f_\sigma /m`$. Notice that $`g=g_\sigma `$ on $`(\sigma )`$, and $`g_\sigma [x_1,\mathrm{},x_k]`$. (See the figure below.)

Let $`p`$ be in the relative interior of $`(\sigma )`$. If $`g(p)0`$, the normal crossing conclusion is trivial, so we assume $`g(p)=0`$. We must show that the relevant $`1`$-forms $`\{dx_{k+1},\mathrm{},dx_n,dg\}`$ corresponding to the components of $`Div(f)`$ which meet at $`p`$ are independent at $`p`$. For this, it suffices to show that $`d(g|_{(\sigma )})`$ is nonzero at $`p`$. Let $`q=p+(0,\mathrm{},0,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ (k zeroes, n-k ones). Notice that $`g_\sigma (q)=g_\sigma (p)=g(p)=0`$. Since $`q`$ is in the torus, we have at $`q`$,

$$0df_\sigma =d(mg_\sigma )=mdg_\sigma +g_\sigma dm=mdg_\sigma .$$

So $`0dg_\sigma `$ at $`q`$. Since $`g_\sigma [x_1,\mathrm{},x_k]`$,

$$0dg_\sigma |_q=dg_\sigma |_p=d(g_\sigma |_{(\sigma )})|_p=d(g|_{(\sigma )})|_p,$$

as desired. ∎

###### Remark 24.

Notice that every point $`p^n`$ is in the relative interior of some coordinate linear space $`L`$, and such a space can always be written $`L=(\sigma )`$ for some $`\sigma `$.

###### Proof of Theorem 12.

Let $`f^{}=\mu ^{}(f)`$. We must show that $`Div(f^{})`$ has normal crossing support. Since this property is local on $`X^{}`$, and since $`\mu `$ is a toric log resolution of $`\tau (f)`$, we may take $`X^{}=Spec[y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]`$, with $`\mu :X^{}X`$ a monomial map. Note that $`\tau (f^{})`$ is principal, because $`\mu `$ resolves $`\tau (f)`$.

First we discuss the sense in which $`f^{}`$ inherits nondegeneracy from $`f`$. Let $`\sigma ^{}`$ be a face of $`P(f^{})`$, and let $`\sigma =\mu (\sigma ^{})`$ be the associated face of $`P(f)`$. Clearly $`\mu ^{}f_\sigma =f_\sigma ^{}^{}`$. Because $`\mu `$ is an isomorphism on the torus, $`df_\sigma ^{}^{}|_T=df_\sigma |_T`$. This shows that $`f^{}`$ is $`\sigma ^{}`$-nondegenerate as long as $`f`$ is $`\sigma `$-nondegenerate, where $`\sigma =\mu (\sigma ^{})`$.

If we assume that $`f`$ is nondegenerate for every face then we can conclude the same for $`f^{}`$, so $`Div(f^{})`$ is a normal crossing divisor (by Lemma 23) and we are done.

If however we assume only that $`f`$ is nondegenerate for its compact faces, then we know only that $`f^{}`$ is nondegenerate for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ with $`\mu (\sigma ^{})`$ compact. In particular (by Proposition 18), $`f^{}`$ is nondegenerate for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ with $`(\mu (\sigma ^{}))`$ equal to the origin. Equivalently, (by Proposition 21), for each $`\sigma ^{}`$ with $`\mu ((\sigma ^{}))`$ the origin. We may conclude (again by Lemma 23) that $`f^{}`$ has normal crossing support near points $`p^{}X^{}`$ which map to the origin. Since the locus of point $`p^{}`$ which fail the normal crossing condition is a closed subset of $`X^{}`$, and since $`\mu `$ is proper, there is a neighborhood of the origin above which $`\mu `$ is a log resolution of $`Div(f)`$. Therefore if $`f`$ has nondegenerate principal part, then $`\mu `$ is indeed a log resolution of $`f`$, over a neighborhood of the origin. ∎