text:
# Atomic Spectral Features During Thermonuclear Flashes on Neutron Stars

## 1 Introduction

The dominant thermal flux during type I bursts and superbursts offer an ideal opportunity for studying neutron star (NS) properties through spectral measurements of their photospheres (e.g. London, Taam & Howard 1984, 1986; Foster, Ross & Fabian 1987). Though never confirmed, the reports by Waki et al. (1984), Turner & Breedon (1984), Nakamura, Inoue & Tanaka (1988) and Magnier et al. (1989) of 4 keV absorption lines during type I bursts motivated theoretical work on the formation of the Fe Ly$`\alpha `$ line and edge (e.g. Foster et al. 1987; Day, Fabian & Ross 1992). Cottam, Paerels & Mendez (2002; hereafter CPM) observed the accreting NS EXO 0748-676 using the Reflection Grating Spectrometer (RGS) aboard the XMM-Newton satellite and claimed detection of hydrogen-like and helium-like Fe absorption features from the $`n=23`$ H$`\alpha `$ transitions during type I bursts. This Letter is an initial study on the implications of the hydrogen-like feature and predictions for heavy element abundances near the photosphere. The helium-like feature will be left for future work.

XMM/Newton observed EXO 0748-676 for 335 ks during which 28 type I X-ray bursts were seen. CPM combined the burst spectra and split them into a high luminosity ($`L`$) part (from the initial rise and fall) and a low $`L`$ part, which covers the fading to the baseline $`L`$. In the high $`L`$ part, the detected absorption line was identified as the H$`\alpha `$ transition of hydrogenic Fe. In the low $`L`$ spectrum, a line identified as the He-like H$`\alpha `$ transition was seen. For these identifications, CPM measured the NS’s gravitational redshift at $`1+z=1.35`$, giving $`R=4.4GM/c^2`$ from the line centroid (neglecting the rotational corrections of Fujimoto 1985; Özel & Psaltis 2003). These spectra have photospheric temperatures $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}1.6\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`kT_{\mathrm{eff},\mathrm{}}<1.4\mathrm{keV}`$, using the measured color temperatures ($`kT_C=1.8\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`kT_C<1.5\mathrm{keV}`$; CPM) and correcting for the redshift and spectral hardening from Comptonization (London et al. 1986; Madej 1997).

In § 2, we calculate the Fe abundance when accretion is active, showing that proton spallation of Fe (Bildsten, Salpeter & Wasserman 1992; hereafter BSW) naturally yields $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}=3.4\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for accretion of solar metallicity material. The spallation also produces large columns of elements with $`Z<26`$, which could be observable via their photoionization edges during the cooling phase of the burst or a radius expansion burst. In § 3, we show that Stark broadening (Paerels 1997) dominates the H$`\alpha `$ line equivalent width and that the measured equivalent width (properly redshifted to the NS surface) of $`W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=10`$ eV implies an Fe column of $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}720\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ depending on line depth. However, these abundance calculations are highly uncertain due to non-LTE (NLTE) effects and resonant line transport which we believe play an important role in the line formation. We summarize in §4 and note that the radiative flux during the burst can levitate hydrogenic Fe.

## 2 Heavy Element Abundances from Accretion

The continuum photosphere for the 1.276 keV photons of the Fe H$`\alpha `$ transition is at an electron column density of $`N_\mathrm{e}\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}}^1`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}}`$ is the Thomson cross section. If $`\mathrm{Fe}`$is uniformly abundant at the solar value ($`f_i3\times 10^5`$ by number; Grevesse & Sauval 1999) above the continuum photosphere at 1 keV then $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}f_i/\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}}5\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Joss (1977) showed that convection during the burst cannot bring burning fluid elements to the photosphere as the entropy there exceeds that in the burning layers by large factors. Hence, we look to Fe in the accreted material as the likely source of the photospheric elements. BSW studied the deposition and separation of accreting elements, and we use their results here.

Imagine first that accretion halts during the burst. In a pure H atmosphere, the upward pointing atmospheric electric field is $`m_pg/2`$, so that the force on Fe is $`F=43m_pg`$. The counter-balancing drag force on the drifting Fe nucleus is $`F_{dr}=Z^2r_{ep}(m_p/m_e)^{1/2}\rho v/m_p`$, where $`r_{ep}`$ is the electron-proton coupling from BSW. The downward drift speed is $`v1\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1T_7^{3/2}/\rho `$ so that it takes $`t_\mathrm{s}1\mathrm{s}(y/1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2)/T_7^{3/2}`$ for Fe to fall to a column depth $`y`$. Hence, if accretion halts, Fe would sink beneath the photosphere in much less than the burst duration.

Given the sub-Eddington peak luminosity, accretion likely remains active during the bursts. Kuulkers et al. (2002) have shown this to be the case for GX 17+2. The persistent flux from EXO 0748-676 when type I bursts occur implies $`\dot{M}>2\times 10^{10}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Gottwald et al. 1986; CPM). In order to obtain a lower limit on the accretion rate per unit area we assume that the accretion covers the whole NS, so that $`\dot{m}>10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. The measured redshift implies $`R=4.4GM/c^2`$ (CPM), so that the NS’s surface is inside the last stable orbit regardless of its rotation rate (Kluzniak & Wagoner 1985; Kluzniak, Michelson & Wagoner 1990). The resulting accretion gap allows for the accreting beam to strike the atmosphere with a velocity comparable to free-fall (Kluzniak & Wilson 1991), realizing the Coulomb stopping scenario of Zel’dovich and Shakura (1969). The integration of a free trajectory from the last stable orbit to the surface yields an impact angle $`\mathrm{sin}\theta 0.1`$ and kinetic energy of $`200300`$ MeV/nucleon.

Since some angular momentum and energy can be lost in the accretion gap, we presume that $`\mathrm{sin}\theta >0.1`$ and fix the incident energy at $`200`$ MeV/nucleon, resulting in stopping a particle of charge $`Ze`$ and mass $`Am_p`$ after traversing a vertical column $`y_\mathrm{s}5.4\mathrm{sin}\theta (m_p/\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}})A/Z^2`$. BSW showed the repercussions of the $`A/Z^2`$ scaling: (i) the incident electrons stop first, (ii) hydrogen and helium penetrate furthest to $`y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}}`$, and (iii) all heavier elements stop prior to the H/He beam. For example, Fe stops at $`y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{Fe}}=0.08y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}}`$ and is spalled by the energetic protons (of current $`J_p\dot{m}/m_p`$) until it has sunk to safety (i.e. $`y>y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}}`$). This is the mechanism shown by BSW to destroy accreted heavy elements. Grazing incidence reduces the distance that must be fallen to reach safety and increases the surviving fraction of the incident CNO elements relative to that in BSW.

The infalling Fe could have bound electrons as it spirals into the NS surface. However, the combination of varying Doppler shifts and the short flight time compared to the residence time in the atmosphere (derived below) means that the inflow is an unlikely environment for narrow line formation. We thus focus our discussion on the thermalized Fe in the atmosphere. At 200 MeV per nucleon, $`30`$% of the incident Fe suffer a charge changing nuclear reaction before traversing $`1\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ and thermalizing. Accretion is thus depositing thermal Fe into the NS atmosphere at $`y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{Fe}}=1.0\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ at a rate $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{Fe}}2f_iJ_p/3`$. For the spallation cross section (i.e. that cross section for $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Fe}`$ to be chipped to lower Z) $`\sigma _D600\mathrm{mb}`$ (Silberberg et al. 1998) the Fe lifetime to spallation from the proton beam is $`t_\mathrm{d}=(\sigma _DJ_p)^12.8\mathrm{ms}(10^3\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1/\dot{m})`$. The Fe must sink to a depth of $`y_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{p}}=14\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ for safety, so that when $`\dot{m}>2\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1(0.1/\mathrm{sin}\theta )T_7^{3/2}`$ (or $`\dot{M}>4\times 10^{13}M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1T_7^{3/2}`$), destruction dominates settling (i.e. $`t_\mathrm{s}>t_\mathrm{d}`$).

Hence, as long as $`\dot{M}`$ during the burst exceeds 1% of that occurring prior to the burst, the destruction by the proton beam completely determines the Fe residence time in the upper atmosphere. This seems a condition easily satisfied for many bursters and greatly simplifies the calculation of $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ as well as the Stark broadening discussed in § 3, since, in this limit, the Fe is present only near the stopping point. Because of the complicated interplay of the currents and forces in the upper atmosphere (see BSW), the local abundance near the stopping point ranges from $`140`$ times the incident abundance. The proton spallation reduces the Fe abundance as it sinks, imprinting an abundance profile $`\mathrm{exp}(t_\mathrm{s}/t_\mathrm{d})`$, which is an exponential decay with depth. The Fe rich region above the Fe poor layer puts a small inverted gradient in the mean molecular weight ($`\mu `$) that would trigger a rapid overturn in an isothermal layer if $`|d\mathrm{ln}\mu /d\mathrm{ln}P|>2/5`$. Gradients this large will not be reached as long as the accreting material has an abundance less than ten times solar. Doubly diffusive instabilites might still occur, but those timescales are likely no shorter than $`t_\mathrm{s}`$.

Hence, for finding $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$, we only need to balance the Fe destruction rate (neglecting the $`\alpha `$ beam is less than a 20% effect, as those cross sections are rarely larger than twice those induced by protons; Ferrando et al. 1988) $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{Fe}}=N_{\mathrm{Fe}}\sigma _DJ_p`$, with the Fe deposition rate $`\dot{N}_{\mathrm{Fe}}=2f_iJ_p/3`$, giving

$$N_{\mathrm{Fe}}=\frac{2f_i}{3\sigma _D}3.4\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2\left(\frac{f_i}{3\times 10^5}\right)\left(\frac{600\mathrm{mb}}{\sigma _D}\right).$$
(1)
Due to neutron knockout reactions, about 10% of those Fe nuclei are $`{}_{}{}^{55}\mathrm{Fe}`$ and 5% are $`{}_{}{}^{54}\mathrm{Fe}`$. The Fe column is comparable to the uniform solar abundance calculation because $`\sigma _D\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}}`$.

Since many spallation reactions occur as the nuclei sink, we also found the abundances of all lower $`Z`$ and $`A`$ nuclei. We calculated this nuclear cascade by following the evolution of each isotope under the constraint that production equals destruction. The cross-sections from Silberberg et al. (1998) were used. We found that the sum of all nuclei with $`20<Z<26`$ outnumber Fe by a factor of 2.5-3.0 (see Table 1). In the absence of the BSW spallation scenario, these nuclei would not be present. The single most abundant heavy nucleus is $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Fe}`$.

The immediate question that comes to mind is whether these spallation products can be detected. They may be detected via their H$`\alpha `$ lines, but the calculation of their predicted EW is left to future work. In Table 1, we find the $`kT_{1/2}`$ at which $`1/2`$ of these nuclei would be in the hydrogenic state (for $`y=0.5\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ in Table 1), allowing for a possible photoionization edge detection once $`kT<kT_{1/2}`$ (presuming LTE). To fit all $`Z`$, we used the explicit cross-section from Rybicki & Lightman (1979) and set the bound-free Gaunt factor to $`g=0.8`$, giving $`\sigma _{\mathrm{bf}}(E)=6.32\times 10^{18}\mathrm{cm}^2(E_\mathrm{e}/E)^3Z^2`$ where $`E_\mathrm{e}`$ is the edge energy (shown in Table 1, value in parentheses is the redshifted edge energy) from Bethe & Salpeter (1957; hereafter BS). This $`\sigma _{\mathrm{bf}}`$ agreed to within (3-5)% to Verner et al.’s (1996) analytic fits for Ar, Ca and Fe. For now, we estimate the impact of such an edge on the spectrum by considering the integral over the optical depth above the photoionization edge, $`\tau _\mathrm{e}=N\sigma _{\mathrm{bf}}`$, assuming an effectively cold atmosphere (i.e. no reemission above the edge) $`EW_\mathrm{e}=(1\mathrm{exp}(N\sigma _{\mathrm{bf}}(E)))𝑑E`$. For $`\tau _\mathrm{e}1`$, the $`EW_\mathrm{e}`$ integral is simply expanded to obtain $`EW_\mathrm{e}=175\mathrm{eV}(N/10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2)`$ integrated from $`E=E_\mathrm{e}`$ to $`1.3E_\mathrm{e}`$ which is independent of $`Z`$.

Table 1 shows $`EW_\mathrm{e}`$ assuming the element is present at the level implied by the spallation scenario and finding the amount of it in the Hydrogenic ground state from Saha equilibrium for $`kT=1.2\mathrm{keV}`$. As the burst cools or during a radius expansion burst, these edges could become prominent, and the entry of $`\tau _{\mathrm{e},\mathrm{max}}`$ in Table 1 presumes all of the spallation created elements have at least one bound electron. It is intriguing to note that these edge energies and $`EW_\mathrm{e}`$ are close to those previously reported by Waki et. al. (1984), Turner & Breedon (1984), Nakamura et al. (1988), Magnier et al. (1989) and Kuulkers et al. (2002).

## 3 Estimated Iron Abundances from Observed Equivalent Widths

We now estimate the Fe column needed to give the H$`\alpha `$ line observed by CPM. Motivated by our accretion scenario, we initially presume that this line forms in a thin isothermal layer of Fe in LTE at temperature $`T`$ above the hotter continuum photosphere. The observed redshift implies a surface gravity of $`g3\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2(1.4M_{}/M)`$. Though rapid rotation ($`100\mathrm{Hz}`$) might explain the observed line width ($`40\mathrm{eV}`$), the line’s equivalent width depends most strongly on the intrinsic broadening mechanisms. The scale for thermal Doppler broadening is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_D/E_0=\sqrt{kT/Am_pc^2}1.5\times 10^4(kT/1\mathrm{keV})^{1/2}`$. The natural line width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }5\times 10^{13}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (BS), is given by the spontaneous decay rate for the $`31,2`$ transitions, which in units of the thermal Doppler shift is $`a=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\mathrm{\Delta }E_D0.3`$.

We now show that Stark broadening is larger by an order of magnitude than either of these effects for the H$`\alpha `$ transition. Stark broadening results from the shift of line energies due to the electric field from neighboring ions, $`e/r_0^2`$, where $`r_0=(4\pi n_e/3)^{1/3}`$ is the mean ion spacing (Mihalas 1978). The energy perturbation from the linear Stark effect is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{S}=e^2\mathrm{\Delta }x/r_0^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is the size of the orbital. Using the linear Stark effect is justified since its energy shift at the densities and temperatures considered exceeds that of the degeneracy breaking Lamb shift for the relativistic H-like ion (BS). For the $`n=3`$ state of Fe at a Thomson depth unity, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{S}/E_0=1.5\times 10^3`$, an order of magnitude larger than thermal Doppler.

Since the majority of the intrinsic line width is attributed to Stark broadening, $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ must be found from the measured EW given by the curve of growth (Mihalas 1978),

$$W=2A_0\mathrm{\Delta }E_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\eta (\alpha )}{1+\eta (\alpha )}𝑑\alpha ,$$
(2)
where $`W`$ is the EW in energy units, $`A_0`$ is the normalized line depth at line center, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is the intrinsic energy width (in our case the Stark shift), $`\eta `$ is the ratio of the line opacity to the continuum opacity and $`\alpha =E/\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. We use the electric field distribution for a uniform ion sea (e.g. the Holtsmark distribution, $`W_H`$; Mihalas 1978), giving $`\eta (\alpha )=\eta _0W_H(\alpha )`$ where $`\eta _0=N_{\mathrm{Fe},\mathrm{n}=2}\sigma _{\mathrm{line}}/N_e\sigma _{\mathrm{Th}}`$ is the ratio of line optical depth to continuum optical depth at line center. Depending on density either thermal Doppler or Stark broadening dominates, so we convolve the Holtsmark distribution with the Voigt profile to cover the complete range of densities. We also ignore Debye screening effects on the electric field distribution since the deviation from the Holtsmark distribution is small for the typical $`T`$ and $`\rho `$.

Because rotational broadening acts to lower the apparent line depth and is likely to be important, the observed value of $`A_00.3`$ is a lower limit. Indeed, the true line depth could be significantly larger than 0.3. However, such a large value of $`A_0`$ is difficult to understand for realistic temperature gradients and presuming LTE. For a gray atmosphere (a reasonable approximation for the temperature profile of a type I burst atmosphere) $`A_0`$ attains a maximal value of 0.2 when the Fe resides at very low column depths. The resolution of this dilemma may be the role of NLTE effects and resonant line transport in the H$`\alpha `$ line. Resonant line transport could generate such an absorption feature with a large line depth without invoking large temperature contrasts as in LTE (Jefferies 1968). NLTE effects clearly play a role in determining abundances from the EW measurements. For instance, an immediate measure of the role of NLTE effects is that the radiative ionization rate for the Fe ground state exceeds the collisional ionization rate (London et al. 1986), complicating the ionization balance for Fe.

To resolve the role of NLTE effects, the radiative transfer equation must be solved self-consistently for both the resonant transport of the H$`\alpha `$ and Ly$`\alpha `$ lines with detailed balanced of the Fe ionization and excitation in the strong radiation field of a Type I burst. For now, we simply present results for $`A_00.3`$, which is set by observations and $`A_0=0.2`$, which is characteristic of a gray atmosphere.

We calculate the $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ required to reach $`W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }=10\mathrm{eV}`$ presuming all Fe resides at the column depth, $`y=P/g`$. We assume LTE and that the dominant states for Fe are either fully ionized, or in the hydrogenic ground state or helium-like ground state to approximate the partition function. For radial infall, with the Fe layer between $`kT=1.21.4\mathrm{keV}`$ and $`A_0=0.3(0.2)`$, $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}=7(20)\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. This temperature range is consistent with the absence of helium-like Fe in the high $`L`$ phase of the burst (CPM). Since the occupation of the $`n=1`$ state exceeds that in $`n=2`$ by $`10^{23}`$, we also calculate $`W_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }`$ for the implied $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}`$ values. For this line, thermal Doppler and natural line broadening dominate Stark broadening (Madej 1989). When $`kT=1.21.4\mathrm{keV}`$ and the Fe resides at the pressure implied by radial accretion, $`W_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }<30\mathrm{eV}`$. Foster et al. (1987) also calculated $`W_{\mathrm{Ly}\alpha }`$ for a uniformly distributed Fe abundance at the solar value and found that it would not exceed $`30\mathrm{eV}`$. It would require an $`A_01`$ to give an Fe column consistent with that calculated from spallation. However, such large temperature contrasts (and hence such large values of $`A_0`$) are not possible in these atmospheres and we need to understand the NLTE line transport problem before we can address this apparent inconsistency.

Day, Fabian & Ross (1992) pointed out that a uniform presence of Fe at the solar value would create an observable photo-ionization edge. The Fe column require to produce the observed H$`\alpha `$ line would yield enormous edges. However, NLTE effects would weaken the strength of these photoionization features significantly (London et al. 1986). The reported broad spectral features in the 6-9 keV range (van Paradijs et al. 1990, Strohmayer & Brown 2002) during type I bursts and superbursts need to be re-analysed as possible Fe photo-ionization edges.

## 4 Summary and Conclusions

Active accretion in the context of a beam hitting the atmosphere naturally gives $`N_{\mathrm{Fe}}3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ which only depends on the physics of proton spallation of Fe. In this scenario, heavy elements with $`Z<26`$ are produced in quantities comparable to Fe and may be observed via their photoionization edges or atomic lines (see Table 1) during the cooling phase of type I bursts or superbursts. Our initial LTE calculations have found that an Fe column of $`720\times 10^{20}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ is needed to produce the measured $`W_{\mathrm{H}\alpha }`$ of CPM. However, until a more complete calculation of the resonant line transport for the H$`\alpha `$ and Ly$`\alpha `$ line has been undertaken in this strong radiation environment, we cannot say whether this factor of twenty discrepency is certain.

Throughout this paper, we have presumed that Fe is present because of active accretion during the burst. However, the radiative force on hydrogenic Fe in the ground state is $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}=\sigma _EF_E/c𝑑E,`$ where $`F_E`$ is the flux per photon energy at the Ly$`\alpha `$ transition ($`E=6.9\mathrm{keV}`$). Since $`F_E`$ is nearly constant across the line, $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}=\pi he^2f_{12}F_E/m_ec^2`$ in the optically thin limit (Michaud 1970), where $`f_{12}=0.42`$ is the oscillator strength from BS. If $`F_E`$ is given by a black-body, then at $`kT_{\mathrm{eff}}=1\mathrm{keV}`$, the radiative acceleration on Fe is $`a_{\mathrm{rad}}10^{15}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2`$, a factor of three larger than $`g`$. The radiative force will be even larger for realistic type I burst spectra, which are harder than a blackbody at the observed $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (London et al. 1986; Pavlov, et al. 1991). The Fe diffusion time is less than the burst duration, so there is adequate time for the accelerated Fe to reach a new diffusive equilibrium. The calculation of the resulting Fe column, which could well saturate the line and lower the radiative force, is beyond the scope of this Letter, as it requires a simultaneous solution of the radiative transfer and the Fe diffusion equations, like that done for hot white dwarfs (e.g. Chayer, Fontaine & Wesemael 1995).

We thank A. Piro for calculating the infall energy and incident angles and N. Barghouty for providing the spallation cross-section code of Silberberg et al. (1998). We thank the referee, Marten van Kerkwijk, for critical comments and Ira Wasserman for many insightful conversation and for pointing out the critical role NLTE effects can play in line formation. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants PHY99-07949 and AST02-05956 and NASA through grant NAG 5-8658. L. B. is a Cottrell Scholar of the Research Corporation.


format: text

text:
# Comment on ”Proximity effect in ultrafin Pb/Ag multilayers within the Cooper limit”

The paper 1  is concered with experimental data on ”proximity effect in ultrafin Pb/Ag multilayers within the Cooper limit”. While the authors do present some new experimental data, their presentation, to my point of view, is seriuosly deficient in i) adequate analysis of those data, and ii) in proper account of the results obtained previously within the same field of research.

Concering item i), I have two different points to mention: a) While McMillan’s formula for $`T_c`$ of strong-coupled superconductor (Eq.(2) of 1 ) is well-known, as well as the Cooper-limit formula for $`T_c`$ of S-N bilayer (Eq.(3) of 1 ), there is no any reason to believe that combination of both forumulae makes any physical sense. Indeed, what are the reasons to use in the McMillan’s formula some average electron-phonon coupling $`\lambda _{SN}`$ while keeping the same constant Coulomb repulsion constant $`\mu ^{}`$ known for Pb ? The Eq.(3) was derived within the BCS weak-coupling model of superconductivity, and its extension to strong-coupling case needs some additional work at least. The authors argue that ”electrons probe the entire sample” - why then the authors assume they can neglect Coulomb replusion in the Ag layers ? Without clear answers to these questions the ”fit” used to describe the obtained experimental results will stay extremely speculative. b) The author’s idea that bilayers studied can be described as being within ”Cooper limit” is based implicitely upon the assumption that resistance of the S-N interface is sufficiently low (it’s trivial to see that in the case of low-conductive interface the ”Cooper limit” formula is not valid). Theory of $`T_c(\rho )`$ dependence for thin S-N bilayer upon S-N interface resistance $`\rho `$ was presented in e.g. papers bergman ; hus ; fom . While it is possible that samples studied in 1  do indeed belong to the Cooper limit, this is to be checked carefully.

Now I proceed to the item ii). The authors claim they have shown in this paper and in their previous paper2  that they called ”inverse proximity effect” - i.e. increase of $`T_c`$ of ultrafin S-N bilayers with increase of normal metal thickness $`d_N`$. In fact, this effect was for the first time experimentally observed more that 10 years before, in paper LSD1 , and then studied in more details in LSD2 . The authors of 2  exactly reproduce the idea and experimental approach of LSD1 ; LSD2  for the study of $`T_c`$ of ultrathin bilayers (just with another choice for normal and superconductive metals), without any reference to those papers. Detailed studies of $`T_c`$ behavior in multilayers and bilayers can be found, e.g. even in earlier papers beasley ; bergman2 .

On theoretical side, the authors ignore the existence of broadly accepted detailed microscopic theory of that the authors called ”inverse proximity effect”, cf. Fin1 ; Fin2 ; Fin3  \- not to mention previous papers on the same issue fuku ; kuroda . In particular, in the review paper Fin3  a detailed analysis of the experiments LSD1 ; LSD2  is presented. None of these papers is even mentioned in 1 ; 2 .

There exists however somethat new (at least, in comparison with LSD1 ; LSD2 ) element in the experiments reported in 1 ; 2 : apart from determination of $`T_c`$ via in-plane resistive measurements, the authors studied tunnelling conductance into the bilayer, thus determining energy gap dependence upon thicknesses of S and N layers. Theoretical results for the energy gap in S-N bilayers are published in e.g. fom  within BCS mean-field model; modification of tunnelling conductance in dirty S-N films due to enchanced Coulomb interaction was discussed in oreg97 . None of those papers is refered to in 1 ; 2 .


text:
# Coleman’s theorem on physical assumptions for no Goldstone bosons in two dimensions

## Introduction.

Coleman’s theorem claims that the vacuum expectation value of a charged field must vanish in a two-dimensional relativistic quantum field theory with a continuous symmetry . This is a remarkable nature of relativistic field theories, while in some non-relativistic systems in one space dimension a continuous symmetry is broken spontaneously at zero temperature. This theorem is quite useful so that his renowned paper has been cited many times for thirty years. In a few articles , however, one finds criticism to Coleman’s theorem based on some counter examples. Always, the assumption for no Goldstone bosons comes into question, in addition to an incorrect representation of Coleman’s lemma. Here, I discuss a physical problem in the assumption of the theorem. Coleman assumed that a field theory with an infrared divergence in Wightman functions is ill-defined and therefore no massless scalar fields exist in two dimensions. Without this assumption one cannot show the theorem. The title of his paper “There are no Goldstone bosons in two dimensions” is not the result, but an assumption in the theorem. Generally in physics, however, infrared divergence is important phenomenon. Therefore, the existence of infrared divergence should not be a criterion to exclude ill-defined theories. For example, the ferromagnetic quantum Heisenberg model in one space dimension has a divergent magnetic susceptibility at zero temperature and the SU(2) symmetry is broken spontaneously. In this case, the infrared divergence helps the ferromagnetic order to compete with the quantum fluctuation. Generally for a locally interacting lattice system with spontaneously broken continuous symmetry in one space dimension, Momoi proved that the corresponding susceptibility should diverge at zero temperature . The infrared divergence plays a physically important role in this case. On the other hand, an infrared divergence is not so serious in some other cases. For example, one can use a massless scalar field in two dimensions to bosonize a fermion field or some others with different scaling dimensions. In this case, the infrared divergence can be easily removed from the physically important correlation functions. Therefore, the massless scalar field is not ill-defined even in two dimensions. The mathematical assumption to exclude massless scalar fields because of no infrared divergence in Coleman’s argument is not understandable physically.

In this paper, I show impossibility of non-zero vacuum expectation value only for a local scalar field with a cluster property. This property is necessary for a local field above a healthy vacuum and sufficient for the theorem in any subtle case. Although the cluster property of a local field is proved in a primary representation of a $`C^{}`$-algebra , it is a physical requirement for local fields from the viewpoint of physicists. The theorem proved on this assumption is indeed sufficiently useful for physical systems. It is neither surprising nor problematic to obtain a non-zero vacuum expectation value of a scalar field with no cluster property in two dimensions. All examples  with a non-zero vacuum expectation value of scalar fields are not true counter examples to the theorem from this viewpoint. In the following, I present my results along Coleman’s style.

## Assumptions.

A current $`j_\mu (x)`$ satisfies $`^\mu j_\mu (x)=0`$ for a continuous symmetry. A real scalar field $`\varphi _i(y)(i=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ is transformed by the current through an equal-time commutation relation

$$[j_0(x),\varphi _i(y)]|_{x_0=y_0}=\underset{k}{}C_{ik}\varphi _k(x)\delta (x_1y_1).$$
(1)
The charge $`Q𝑑x_1j_0(x_0,x_1)`$ is a generator of the global symmetry. The present argument can be apply to a charge in a set of several charges $`Q_i(i=1,2,\mathrm{})`$. I assume also the relativistic covariance of the theory. I will show that the vacuum expectation value of the charged local field must vanish if the correlation functions of this field satisfy the cluster property. The cluster property of the two-point function requires

$$0|\delta \varphi _i(x)\delta \varphi _i(y)|00,$$
(2)
as a space-like separation $`(xy)^2\mathrm{}`$, where the deviation is defined by $`\delta \varphi _i(x)\varphi _i(x)0|\varphi _i(x)|0`$. For example in a free field representation in unperturbed or perturbed conformal field theories, a compact boson $`\phi (x)`$ itself does not have the cluster property. On the other hand, a physical field operator with a positive conformal dimension, say $`e^{2\pi i\phi /R}`$ with a compact boson radius $`R`$ or a current $`_\mu \phi (x)`$, has the cluster property. The infrared divergence can be easily removed from correlation functions of the physical operators by some suitable rescaling. Hereafter, we assume that the physically meaningless divergence is removed. The Fourier transformed two point functions are represented in

$`{\displaystyle d^2xe^{ikx}0|\delta \varphi _i(x)\delta \varphi _i(0)|0}=\rho _{ii}(k^2)\theta (k_0),`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle d^2xe^{ikx}0|\delta j_\mu (x)\delta \varphi _i(0)|0}=(\sigma _ik_\mu \delta (k^2)+ϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu ϵ(k^1)\rho _i(k^2))\theta (k_0),`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle d^2xe^{ikx}0|\delta j_\mu (x)\delta j_\nu (0)|0}=(k_\mu k_\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }k^2)\rho (k^2)\theta (k_0).`$ (5)
by using the relativistic covariance, the positivity of energy, the permutation symmetry and the current conservation. Note that the sign function $`ϵ(k^1)`$ in Eq.(4) Coleman overlooked is necessary for the covariance under the parity transformation. I assume the spectral condition $`\rho _{ii}(k^2)=\rho _i(k^2)=\rho (k^2)=0`$ for $`k^2<0`$, and the positive semi-definiteness

$$\rho _{ii}(k^2)0,\rho (k^2)0,$$
(6)
and also I assume their integrability over $`0<k^2<\mathrm{}`$. The following expression of a commutator is convenient for later discussions

$`{\displaystyle d^2xe^{ikx}0|[\delta j_\mu (x),\delta \varphi _i(0)]|0}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma _{i1}k_\mu +i\sigma _{i2}k_\mu ϵ(k_0)+i\sigma _i^{}ϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu ϵ(k^1))\delta (k^2)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu ϵ(k^1)ϵ(k_0)\rho _{i1}(k^2),`$
where $`\sigma _i=\sigma _{i1}+i\sigma _{i2}`$ and $`\rho _i(k^2)=\rho _{i1}(k^2)+i\rho _{i2}(k^2)`$. The function $`\rho _{i2}(k^2)`$ has been replaced by $`\sigma ^{}\delta (k^2)`$ because of the commutation relation Eq.(1). Then the vacuum expectation value is written in

$$\underset{k}{}C_{ik}0|\varphi _k(0)|0=0|𝑑x_1[j_0(x_0,x_1),\varphi _i(0)]|0=\frac{i}{2\pi }(\sigma _{i2}+\sigma _i^{}).$$
(8)
Note this pure imaginary valued equation different from the complex $`\sigma _i`$ in the Wightman function (4). Because of this difference, one cannot employ Coleman’s inequality for the Wightman functions to prove the theorem.

## Lemma.

Let $`H(\kappa ^2)`$ be a positive semi-definite function of a single variable $`\kappa ^20`$ with a bound $`H(\kappa ^2)CG(\kappa ^2)`$ by some constant $`C>0`$ and a function

$$G(\kappa ^2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p\frac{\mathrm{cos}p}{\sqrt{p^2+\kappa ^2}}.$$
(9)
For the distribution function $`\rho _{ii}(k^2)`$ in Eq.(3) of a field $`\varphi (x)`$ with the cluster property (2), the following limit vanishes

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\rho _{ii}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\right)H(\kappa ^2)=0.$$
(10)
## Proof of Lemma.

A spectral representation of the Fourier transformed two-point function is obtained by changing the integration variable from $`k_0`$ to $`m^2=k_0^2k_1^2`$. In this representation, the cluster property (2) gives

$$\underset{|x_1|\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^2\rho _{ii}(m^2)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_1\frac{\mathrm{cos}k_1x_1}{\sqrt{k_1^2+m^2}}=0.$$
(11)
By rescaling the integration variables, this condition is rewritten into

$$\underset{|x_1|\mathrm{}}{lim}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\kappa ^2}{|x_1|^2}\rho _{ii}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{|x_1|^2}\right)G(\kappa ^2)=0,$$
(12)
By the bound of $`G(\kappa ^2)`$ and the positive semi-definiteness of each function, the right hand side of Eq.(10) is bounded by

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\rho _{ii}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\right)H(\kappa ^2)C_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\rho _{ii}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }\right)G(\kappa ^2).$$
(13)
The right hand side vanishes in the limit with the correspondence $`\lambda =|x_1|^2`$ in Eq.(12). Thus the lemma has been proved.

## Theorem.

The vacuum expectation value of a charged scalar field with the cluster property vanishes in a two-dimensional relativistic quantum field theory with a conserved charge with respect to the continuous symmetry.

## Proof of Theorem.

I evaluate terms in an uncertainty relation in the vacuum, instead of Coleman’s correlation inequality

$$0|\delta A(\lambda )^2|00|\delta B(\lambda )^2|0\left|\frac{1}{2}0|[A(\lambda ),B(\lambda )]|0\right|^2,$$
(14)
for operators

$$A(\lambda )=d^2xh_\lambda (x)\varphi _i(x),B(\lambda )=d^2xh_\lambda (x)j_0(x).$$

Here, I choose a test function

$$h_\lambda (x)=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{ikx}\stackrel{~}{h}_\lambda (k),\stackrel{~}{h}_\lambda (k)f(\lambda k^2)g(k_1^2),$$

by bounded positive semi-definite functions $`f(\kappa ^2)`$ and $`g(\kappa ^2)`$ with a compact support. The support of $`f(\kappa ^2)`$ includes the origin and that of $`g(\kappa ^2)`$ does not. For example, one of the simplest choice is $`f(\kappa ^2)=\theta (a^2\kappa ^2)`$ and $`g(k_1^2)=\theta (k_1^2b^2)\theta (c^2k_1^2)`$ with positive numbers $`a<b<c`$. This test function differs from the original one, but has the same important property. The support of $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\lambda (k)`$ lies on the light cone in the large $`\lambda `$ limit. Now, I evaluate the first term in the inequality (14)

$`0|\delta A(\lambda )^2|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑m^2\rho _{ii}(m^2)|f(\lambda m^2)|^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_1{\displaystyle \frac{|g(k_1^2)|^2}{2\sqrt{k_1^2+m^2}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa ^2}{\lambda }}\rho _{ii}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{\lambda }}\right)|f(\kappa ^2)|^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k_1{\displaystyle \frac{|g(k_1^2)|^2}{2|k_1|}}.`$
Since the support of the function $`g(k_1^2)`$ does not include the origin, the factor $`𝑑k_1|g(k_1^2)|^2/|k_1|`$ is finite. The bounded positive semi-definite function $`|f(\kappa ^2)|^2`$ with a compact support is bounded by $`CG(\kappa ^2)`$ with some positive constant $`C`$, then the first term in the inequality (14) vanishes in the limit by the lemma

$$\underset{\lambda \mathrm{}}{lim}0|\delta A(\lambda )^2|0=0.$$
(15)
Next, I evaluate the second term in the left hand side of (14)

$$0|\delta B(\lambda )^2|0=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑m^2\rho (m^2)|f(\lambda m^2)|^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_1\frac{k_1^2|g(k_1^2)|^2}{2\sqrt{k_1^2+m^2}}$$
(16)
which is also bounded from above because of the boundedness of the integrand and the integrability of $`\rho (m^2)`$. Finally, I show that the right hand side of (14) is proportional to the square of the vacuum expectation value with a non-zero coefficient. The $`\delta `$-functional singularity in Eq.(7) gives

$$0|[A(\lambda ),B(\lambda )]|0=i(\sigma _{i2}+\sigma _i^{})f(0)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k_1|g(k_1^2)|^2.$$
(17)
Therefore, the uncertainty relation (14) in the large $`\lambda `$ limit prohibits the non-zero vacuum expectation value (8) of the charged local field with the cluster property. The theorem has been demonstrated in more physical situation.

## Note.

In this paper, the theorem is shown by a test function with a compact support including the light cone in a momentum space as in Coleman’s proof. This corresponds to setting a test state extended over the whole space-time. To prove the theorem with a test state on a space-like surface as in the famous Mermin-Wagner theorem , Bogoliubov’s inequality is no use at zero temperature. One can use more complicated Shastry’s inequality, which was employed to prove no antiferromagnetic order in the antiferromagnetic quantum Heisenberg chain . This inequality works with a test function $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\lambda (k)=g(\lambda k_1^2)`$, where the $`k_0`$-independence implies no support compactness and a test state on a space-like surface. In this case, one needs the lemma under a relaxed condition on $`H(\kappa ^2)`$ when the bound by $`G(\kappa ^2)`$ is available only in some neighborhood of the origin. This version of lemma allows one to prove the theorem with the test state on a space-like surface.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank T. Nihei and M. Yamanaka for reading the manuscript and helpful comments. He is grateful to M. Homma for helpful discussions. He would like to thank M. Faber and A. N. Ivanov for their point out errors in the manuscript.


text:
# 1 Predicted value of 𝑚₁ in the unit of 𝑚₃ as a function of |𝑈_{𝑒3}| in the case of KamLAND-A. The outer contour shows an allowed region before the KamLAND data are available.

Predictions from the Fritzsch-Type Lepton Mass Matrices

M. Fukugita1, M. Tanimoto2 and T. Yanagida3

1 Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa 277 8582, Japan

2 Department of Physics, Niigata University, Niigata 950 2181, Japan

3 Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113 0033, Japan

Abstract

We revisit the Fritzsch-type lepton mass matrix models confronted with new experiments for neutrino mixings. It is shown that the model is viable and leads to a rather narrow range of free parameters. Using empirical mixing information between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, and between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, it is predicted that the mixing angle between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is in the range $`0.04<|U_{13}|<0.20`$, consistent with the CHOOZ experiment and the lightest neutrino mass is $`0.0004<m_1<0.0030`$ eV. The range of the effective mass measured in double beta decay is $`0.002<m_{ee}<0.007`$ eV.

During the last five years we have experienced dramatic advancement in empirical understanding of the mass and mixing of neutrinos. Most recently, the KamLAND experiment selected the neutrino mixing solution that is responsible for the solar neutrino problem nearly uniquely : we are left with only so-called ‘large-mixing angle solution’ (LMA). We have now good understanding concerning the neutrino mass difference squared and mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ , and between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ . An interesting constraint has also been placed on mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ from the reactor experiment .

Anticipating that neutrinos are all massive from an early indication of the Kamiokande experiment , we proposed  that neutrino mass and mixing may be described by mass matrices similar to those proposed by Fritzsch for quarks . After the secure confirmation of neutrino oscillation at SuperKamiokande , a large number of mass matrix models are proposed , but many of them among interesting models lead to bimaximal mixing. We now know that mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ is large but not maximal , whereas mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ may be maximal . This mixing pattern, together with small mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, is a characteristic embedded in the Fritzsch type matrices we proposed.

So, we revisit the Fritzsch-type mass matrix model to examine whether it is still consistent with all experiments. We find that it is, but the model leads, in particular after the KamLAND experiment, to a narrow allowed parameter range that can be tested in neutrino experiments we expect in the future.

A similar analysis was recently done by Xing . The author, however, fixed the phases that appear in matrices to some arbitrary values. So his result is only a limited representation of the model. In this paper we have exhaustively studied for the allowed parameter space of the model.

The model we proposed in  consists of the mass matrices of the charged leptons and the Dirac neutrinos of the form

$`m_E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_{\mathrm{}}& 0\\ A_{\mathrm{}}& 0& B_{\mathrm{}}\\ 0& B_{\mathrm{}}& C_{\mathrm{}}\end{array}\right),m_{\nu D}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_\nu & 0\\ A_\nu & 0& B_\nu \\ 0& B_\nu & C_\nu \end{array}\right),`$ (1)
where each entry is complex, and the right-handed Majorana mass matrix

$`M_R=M_0𝐈,`$ (2)
where $`M_0`$ is a very large mass. We assume that neutrinos are of the Majorana type. We obtain small neutrino masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ through the seesaw mechanism, as

$$m_i=m_{\nu D}^TM_R^1m_{\nu D}.$$
(3)
The lepton mixing matrix is given by111Note that in  the mixing matrix is defined by $`U=U_\nu ^{}QU_{\mathrm{}}`$ in analogy to that in the quark sector. So $`U_{ij}`$ is replaced with $`U_{ji}^{}`$, when the present paper is compared with .

$`U=U_{\mathrm{}}^{}QU_\nu `$ (4)
where

$`U_{\mathrm{}}(1,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2e}m_{3e}(m_{3e}m_{2e})}{(m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(1,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1e}m_{3e}(m_{3e}+m_{1e})}{(m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}+m_{2e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(1,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1e}m_{2e}(m_{2e}m_{1e})}{(m_{3e}m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}+m_{2e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(2,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1e}(m_{3e}m_{2e})}{(m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(2,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2e}(m_{3e}+m_{1e})}{(m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}+m_{2e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(2,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3e}(m_{2e}m_{1e})}{(m_{3e}+m_{2e})(m_{3e}m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(3,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1e}(m_{2e}m_{1e})(m_{3e}+m_{1e})}{(m_{3e}m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{2e}+m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(3,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2e}(m_{2e}m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e})}{(m_{3e}+m_{2e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{2e}+m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_{\mathrm{}}(3,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3e}(m_{3e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{2e})}{(m_{3e}+m_{2e})(m_{3e}m_{2e}+m_{1e})(m_{3e}m_{1e})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (1,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2D}m_{3D}(m_{3D}m_{2D})}{(m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{1D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (1,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1D}m_{3D}(m_{3D}+m_{1D})}{(m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}+m_{2D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (1,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1D}m_{2D}(m_{2D}m_{1D})}{(m_{3D}m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}+m_{2D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (2,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1D}(m_{3D}m_{2D})}{(m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{1D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (2,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2D}(m_{3D}+m_{1D})}{(m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}+m_{2D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (2,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3D}(m_{2D}m_{1D})}{(m_{3D}+m_{2D})(m_{3D}m_{1D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (3,1)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{1D}(m_{2D}m_{1D})(m_{3D}+m_{1D})}{(m_{3D}m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{2D}+m_{1D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (3,2)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2D}(m_{2D}m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D})}{(m_{3D}+m_{2D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{2D}+m_{1D})}}}`$
$`U_\nu (3,3)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_{3D}(m_{3D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{2D})}{(m_{3D}+m_{2D})(m_{3D}m_{2D}+m_{1D})(m_{3D}m_{1D})}}}`$
where 1-3 refers to generation; $`Q`$ is a phase matrix written as

$`Q=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& e^{i\sigma }& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\tau }\end{array}\right),`$ (7)
which is a reflection of phases contained in the charged lepton mass matrix and the Dirac mass matrix of neutrinos. The phases are neglected in the right-handed neutrinos mass matrix. In the presence of mass hierarchy of the left-handed neutrinos, the effect of phases in the right-handed mass matrix is small, and the inclusion of phases changes the anlysis only little. Since the charged lepton masses are well-known, the number of parameters contained in our model is six: $`m_{1D},m_{2D},m_{3D}`$, $`\sigma `$, $`\tau `$ and $`M_0`$. These parameters are to be determined by empirical neutrino mass and mixing.

We calculate lepton mixing matrix elements using the exact expressions, but they are written approximately

$`U_{12}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}\right)^{1/4}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}\right)^{1/2}e^{i\sigma }`$ (8)
$`U_{21}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}\right)^{1/4}e^{i\sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}\right)^{1/2}`$ (9)
$`U_{23}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right)^{1/4}e^{i\sigma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\right)^{1/2}e^{i\tau }`$ (10)
$`U_{32}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right)^{1/4}e^{i\tau }+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_\tau }}\right)^{1/2}e^{i\sigma }`$ (11)
$`U_{13}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}\right)^{1/2}U_{23}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}\right)^{1/4}`$ (12)
$`U_{31}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_2}}\right)^{1/4}U_{32}`$ (13)
where $`(m_e/m_\tau )^{1/2}`$ is neglected. Rough characteristics of mixing angles are understood from these expressions.

For our anlysis we take as inputs

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=(1.53.9)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.92`$ (14)
for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing from Super-Kamiokande experiment , and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=(68.5)\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.250.4`$ (15)
for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mixing from KamLAND , both at a 90% confidence level.

The KamLAND experiment gives another, but less favoured solution within LMA, i.e., the solution allowed only at a 95% confidence level,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=(1.41.8)\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.270.34`$ (16)
which we call KamLAND-B (we call the best favoured solution (15) KamLAND-A). For this case we take a region allowed at a 95% confidence for the Super-Kamiokande data for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing for consistency.

We discuss how the allowed parameter region shrinked after the KamLAND data which determined the mass difference squared to a high accuracy. For a purpose of comparison, we also take the LMA for the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mixing before the KamLAND data :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=(320)\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.230.41`$ (17)
at a 90% confidence level.

We assume that $`m_{3\nu }m_{i\nu }`$ for $`i=1,2`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2m_3^2`$. We do not assume mass hierarchy between $`m_{\nu 1}`$ and $`m_{\nu 2}`$. We do not include the empirical constraint from the CHOOZ experiment for mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ in our analysis. We leave this as a free parameter and examine the result against experiment.

We have exhaustively searched for allowed parameter regions that satisfy empirical mass difference squared and mixing in six dimensional space without any prior conditions.

The result is restrictive. We plot in Figure 1 $`m_1/m_3`$ as a function of $`|U_{e3}|`$ for KamLAND-A. The outer contour shows an allowed region before the KamLAND data are available. The model predicts $`0.04<|U_{e3}|<0.18`$. It is interesting to note that the model upper limit agrees with the empirical constraint from the CHOOZ experiment $`|U_{e3}|<0.16`$ and that there is a definite lower limit on $`|U_{e3}|`$. The lightest neutrino mass $`m_1`$ cannot be too small. When $`m_2`$ is used as a unit, $`m_1/m_2=0.050.29`$ is the allowed range, or $`m_1=0.00040.0030`$ eV. Of course, $`m_1<m_2`$ is always satisfied because $`\theta _{\mathrm{solar}}`$ does not reach 45.

A similar figure is presented for KamLAND-B solution at a 95% confidence level (Figure 2).

The allowed range of the lepton flavour mixing matrix (for KamLAND-A) is given as

$$|U|=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0.760.86& 0.500.63& 0.040.19\\ 0.270.48& 0.630.72& 0.600.71\\ 0.340.49& 0.420.58& 0.710.80\end{array}\right].$$
(18)
This matrix may be compared with a model-independent analysis of neutrino mixing , which is modified very little even after the KamLAND experiment. We see general agreement between the two matrices, while the allowed ranges of each matrix element in the present model is quite narrow.

In Figure 3 (Figure 4 for KamLAND-B) we show the rephasing invariant CP violation measure $`J_{CP}`$ , which is defined by

$$J_{CP}=\mathrm{Im}[U_{\mu 3}U_{\tau 3}^{}U_{\mu 2}^{}U_{\tau 2}].$$
(19)
as a function of $`|U_{e3}|`$.

Figures 5 and 6 present experimentally more relevant quantities, the CP violating part of neutrino oscillation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ $``$ $`P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e)P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)=P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )P(\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau )`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\tau )P(\nu _e\nu _\tau ),`$
and effective mass measured in double beta decay experiment $`m_{ee}`$

$$m_{ee}=m_1U_{e1}^2+m_2U_{e1}^2+m_3U_{e3}^2$$
(21)
for KamLAND-A case. Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P=4J_{CP}f_{CP}$$
(22)
where

$$f_{CP}4\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{4E}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L}{4E}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{4E},$$
(23)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}=m_i^2m_j^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P`$ is evaluated for $`E_\nu =1.3\mathrm{GeV}`$ and $`L=295\mathrm{K}\mathrm{m}`$, which are parameters for a planned long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment between the Japanese Hadron Facility (JHF) in Tokai Village (Ibaraki) to the Super-Kamiokande.

Note that the figure of $`m_{ee}`$ doe not include the error of $`m_3`$, but fixed at $`0.053`$ eV. The result should be scaled if actual $`m_3`$ is higher or lower. The effective mass measured in the double beta decay ranges from $`27`$ meV for $`m_3=0.053`$ (eV). The lower limit is raised by a factor of 4 after the KamLAND experiment.

Predictions are summarized in Table 1. We emphasize that interesting features of this model are mixing between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ that is not maximal, unlike in the model proposed in  based on the democratic principle or that in the Zee model , whereas $`|U_{13}|`$ is automatically predicetd to be small (but non-zero) . Basic features found in experiment seem to be built-in in this model. Without any knowledge for the right-handed neutrino sector, we assumed that the right-handed neutrino mass is proportional to a unit matrix. Modifications for the prediction on the mixing angles are relatively minor even if we somewhat relax this assumption, in so far as the mass hierarchy in the Dirac mass is not disturbed. In conclusion, a simple Fritzsch-type model we proposed in  is consistent with all existing neutrino experiments, but the model parameters are now restricted to a narrow range that endows the model with a predicive power.

Table 1 : Summary of predictions

Acknowledgements

References

 KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi et al., hep-ex/0212021.

 SNO Collaboration: Q. R. Ahmad et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 071301;
nucl-ex/0204008, 0204009.

 Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562; J. Kameda, in Proceedings of International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, 2001, edited by K. H. Kampert, G. Heinzelmann and C. Spiering (Copernicus Gesellschaft, Katlenburg-Lindau, 2001), Vol. 3, p.1057.

 CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. 466B (1999) 415.

 Kamiokande Collaboration, K.S. Hirata et al., Phys. Lett. 280B (1992) 146.

 M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto, and T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 89 (1993) 263.

 H. Fritzsch, Phys. Lett. B73 (1978) 317; Nucl. Phys. B115 (1979) 189.

 For a review, see G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0206077.

 Z.-z. Xing, Phys. Lett. 550B (2002) 178.

 M. Fukugita and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. 515B (2001) 30.

 C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 1039.

 M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4429; Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 113016.

 A. Zee, Phys. Lett. 93B (1980) 389; B161 (1985) 141;
L. Wolfenstein, Nucl. Phys. B175 (1980) 92.

 S. T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B115 (1982) 401;
C. Jarlskog, M. Matsuda, S. Skadhauge and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B449 (1999) 240;
P.H. Frampton and S. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B461 (1999) 95.


text:
# A property of alternating groups

(Date: today)

## Abstract.

We describe an efficient algorithm to write any element of the alternating group $`A_n`$ as a product of two $`n`$-cycles (in particular, we give a simple proof that any element of $`A_n`$ can be so written). An easy corollary is that every element of $`A_n`$ is a commutator in $`S_n`$

Consider the alternating group $`A_n.`$ We will show the following

###### Theorem 1.

There is an $`O(n)`$ algorithm to write any element $`\sigma A_n`$ as a product of two $`n`$-cycles.

That any element of $`A_n`$ can be so written is a result of E. A. Bertram \[Bertram72\], but his argument is less direct and hence does not seem to lead to an optimal algorithm. On the other hand, Bertram’s result is more general.

A corollary (Corr. 7), it is seen that every element of $`A_n`$ is a commutator in $`S_n`$ – the well-known fact that $`A_n`$ is the commutator subgroup of $`S_n`$ gives a much weaker statement. As an immediate corollary of the (one line) proof of Corr. 7 we obtain an $`O(n)`$ algorithm to represent any element of $`A_n`$ as a commutator.

In the sequel we use exclusively the cycle notation for permutations. Both the existence and the algorithmic aspects of the cycle decomposition are discussed in \[Knuth68, Section 1.3.3\].

In order to prove Theorem 1 we will need a few lemmas:

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`\sigma _1=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s),`$ and $`\sigma _2=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_t).`$ Furthermore suppose that $`\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_s\}\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_t\}=\mathrm{}.`$ Let $`\rho =(a_s,b_t).`$ Then $`\tau _1=\sigma _1\sigma _2\rho `$ is an $`s+t`$-cycle, as is $`\tau _2=\rho \sigma _1\sigma _2.`$

###### Proof.

Since $`\tau _2=\rho \tau _1\rho ^1,`$ it is enough to show that $`\tau _1`$ is an $`s+t`$-cycle. Since the cycle decomposition is conjugacy invariant, we can assume without loss of generality that

$$\sigma _1=(1,2,\mathrm{},s),$$

$$\sigma _2=(s+1,\mathrm{},s+t),$$

$$\rho =(s,s+t).$$

Then

$$\tau _1(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x+1,x<s1,\hfill & \\ s+t,x=s1,\hfill & \\ s+1,x=s+t,\hfill & \\ x+1,s<x<s+t1,\hfill & \\ s,,x=s+t1,\hfill & \\ .x,x>s+t\hfill & \end{array}$$

The assertion of the lemma follows by inspection. ∎

###### Lemma 3.

Suppose $`\sigma S_n,`$ where $`n=t+s,`$ can be written as $`\sigma _1\sigma _2,`$ where $`\sigma _1`$ only acts non-trivially on $`\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ only acts non-triviall on $`\{t+1,\mathrm{},t+s\}.`$ Suppose further that $`\sigma _1`$ is a product of two $`t`$-cycles and $`\sigma _2`$ is a product of two $`s`$-cycles. Then $`\sigma `$ is a product of two $`n`$-cycles.

###### Proof.

Let $`\tau =(t,t+s).`$ Let $`\sigma _1=\rho _{11}\rho _{12},`$ while $`\sigma _2=\rho _{21}\rho _{22},`$ where the $`\rho _{ij}`$ are the $`t`$\- and $`s`$-cycles as per hypothesis of the Lemma. Then:

$$\sigma _1\sigma _2=\rho _{11}\rho _{12}\rho _{21}\rho _{22}=\rho _{11}\rho _{21}\rho _{12}\rho _{22}=(\rho _{11}\rho _{21}\tau )(\tau \rho _{12}\rho _{22}).$$

By Lemma 2 both the parenthesized terms are $`n`$-cycles, and the result follows. ∎

###### Lemma 4.

Let $`n`$ be odd. Then any $`n`$-cycle $`\rho `$ is a product of two $`n`$-cycles.

###### Proof.

The cyclic subgroup $`C_\rho `$ generated by $`\rho `$ is of order $`n,`$ $`m=\frac{n+1}{2}`$ is an integer, and clearly $`\left(\rho ^m\right)^2=\rho .`$ Since $`n+1`$ is relatively prime to $`n,`$ $`\rho ^m`$ is a generator of $`C_\rho ,`$ hence an $`n`$-cycle. ∎

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`n=4m,`$ and let $`\sigma S_n`$ be the product of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2,`$ where $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are $`2m`$-cycles, and $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ are disjoint. Then $`\sigma `$ is a product of two $`n`$-cycles.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, we can assume that

$$\rho _1=(1,3,\mathrm{},4m1),$$

$$\rho _2=(2,4,\mathrm{},4m).$$

It is easy to see that $`\sigma =\rho ^2,`$ where

$$\rho =(1,2,\mathrm{},4m)$$

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`n=2s+2t,`$ where $`s<t.`$ Let $`\sigma S_n`$ be the product of $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2,`$ where $`\rho _1`$ is a $`2s`$-cycle and $`\rho _2`$ is a $`2t`$-cycle, and $`\rho _1`$ is disjoint from $`\rho _2.`$ Then $`\sigma `$ is a product of two $`n`$-cycles.

###### Proof.

First, without loss of generality, assume that

$$\rho _1=(1,3,\mathrm{},4s1),$$

$$\rho _2=(2,4,6,\mathrm{},2s+2t,4s+1,4s+3,\mathrm{},2s+2t1).$$

Now, define $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2S_n`$ as follows:

$$\lambda _1(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}4s+1x=1,\hfill & \\ 1x=4s,\hfill & \\ 2x=2s+2t,\hfill & \\ x+1\text{otherwise}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

In other words, $`\lambda _1`$ is the $`n`$-cycle

$$(1,4s+1,4s+2,\mathrm{},2s+2t,2,3,\mathrm{},4s).$$

$$\lambda _2(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1x=n,\hfill & \\ x+1\text{otherwise}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

In other words, $`\lambda _2`$ is the $`n`$-cycle

$$(1,2,3,\mathrm{},n).$$

Now, let us compute $`\lambda _1\lambda _2:`$

$$\lambda _1\lambda _2(n)=\lambda _1(1)=4s+1.$$

If $`xn,`$

$$\lambda _1\lambda _2(x)=\lambda _1(x+1)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1x=4s1,\hfill & \\ 2=n1,\hfill & \\ x+2\text{otherwise}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

It follows immediately that

$$\lambda _1\lambda _2=\rho _1\rho _2.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

The proof will proceed by induction on $`n.`$ If $`n=1,`$ the result is obvious. Now, consider $`\sigma A_n.`$ If $`\sigma =\sigma _1\sigma _2,`$ where $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ are even and disjoint, the assertion of Theorem 1 will follow from the induction hypothesis and Lemma 3.

Consider now the cycle decomposition of $`\sigma `$ – when we count the cycles below, we *do* count trivial (one-element) cycles.

* The cycle decomposition of $`\sigma `$ has exactly one cycle. In this case, the statement of the Theorem follows from Lemma 4.
* The cycle decomposition of $`\sigma `$ has exactly two cycles. The statement of the Theorem follows from Lemmas 5 and 6.
* The cycle decomposition of $`\sigma `$ has more than two cycles. If one of the cycles is of odd length, then it is an even permutation, and the result follows from the discussion at the beginning of the proof. If no cycle is of odd length, then, since $`\sigma `$ is an even permutation, there is an even number of cycles in the cycle decomposition of $`\sigma ,`$ so

$$\sigma =\rho _1\rho _2\mathrm{}\rho _{2k}=(\rho _1\rho _2)(\rho _3\mathrm{}\rho _{2k}).$$

Each of the parenthesized terms is an even permutation, and so $`\sigma `$ is a product of two $`n`$-cycles by the discussion at the beginning of this proof.

###### Corollary 7.

Every element of $`A_n`$ is a commutator of a pair of elements in $`S_n.`$

###### Proof.

All $`n`$-cycles are conjugate, and if $`\rho `$ is an $`n`$-cycle, so is $`\rho ^1.`$ Now let $`\sigma A_n.`$ By Theorem 1, $`\sigma =\rho _1\rho _2,`$ where $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ are $`n`$-cycles. Since $`\rho _2=\tau \rho _2^1\tau ^1,`$ we see that $`\sigma =[\rho _1,\tau ].`$


text:
# Dynamical analysis of the nonlinear growth of the 𝑚=𝑛=1 resistive internal mode

Present address: \]LPGP, Bât. 210, UPS, F-91405 Orsay

## Abstract

A dynamical analysis is presented that self-consistently takes into account the motion of the critical layer, in which the magnetic field reconnects, to describe how the $`m=n=1`$ resistive internal kink mode develops in the nonlinear regime. The amplitude threshold marking the onset of strong nonlinearities due to a balance between convective and mode coupling terms is identified. We predict quantitatively the early nonlinear growth rate of the $`m=n=1`$ mode below this threshold.

The large scale dynamics and confinement properties of tokamak plasmas depend intimately on the behavior of $`m=n=1`$ magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) internal kink modes. This has motivated an intense, long-lasting, experimental and theoretical research, notably devoted to study their implication in magnetic reconnection or as triggers of the sawtooth oscillations and crashes. These phenomena typically proceed beyond the linear regime, that is now rather well understood but assumes very small amplitudes of the modes. To offer a quantitative, predictive description of their nonlinear manifestations remains a difficult objective of both academic interest and very practical importance. This is especially relevant for the design of fusion burn experiments in which the fulfilment of linear stability constraints is challenged by the search for ignition. Such devices are thus expected to operate at best close to marginal stability for the $`m=n=1`$ ideal mode so that nonlinear effects come into play for fairly small values of the mode amplitude Coppi02 ; Odblom02 .

In this Letter, we focus on the $`m=n=1`$ resistive mode Coppi76  in which a finite resistivity $`\eta `$ destabilizes the otherwise marginally stable ideal MHD internal kink mode. Since Kadomtsev’s scenario Kadomtsev  predicting the complete reconnection of the helical flux within the $`q=1`$ surface on a timescale of order $`\eta ^{1/2}`$, that later appeared too large to account for observations, the nonlinear behavior of the $`m=n=1`$ mode has become a somewhat controversial issue. Some numerical simulations suggested that the mode still grows exponentially into the nonlinear regime waddell  which was supported by a theoretical model Hazeltine86 . Later some analytic studies Waelbroeck89 , supported by numerical simulations Biskamp91 , rather predicted a transition to an algebraic growth early in the nonlinear stage. This result was challenged by Aydemir’s recent simulations using a dynamical mesh Aydemir97 . These did show the linear exponential stage evolving towards an algebraic stage, yet this was brutally interrupted by a second nonlinear exponential growth. A modified Sweet-Parker model was able to fit continuously both stages of evolution Aydemir97  and the transition related to a change in the geometry of the current sheet Wang99 . However, some fundamental questions remain unanswered or unclear. Among them, how to relate the transition threshold with $`\eta `$ ? or what is the role of the $`q`$-profile ? The aim of this Letter is to describe analytically how the $`m=n=1`$ resistive mode develops in the nonlinear regime, by focusing on the equations controlling plasma dynamics.

We consider the low-$`\beta `$ reduced MHD equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`[\varphi ,U]+[J,\psi ]`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`[\varphi ,\psi ]+\eta (JJ_0)`$ (2)
assuming helical symmetry FirpoMIT . Only a single angular variable is then involved in the problem, namely the helical angle $`\alpha \phi \theta `$, with $`\phi `$ the toroidal and $`\theta `$ the poloidal angles. $`U=_{}^2\varphi `$ is the vorticity and $`J=_{}^2\psi `$ the helical current density, with $`_{}^2r^1_rr_r+r^2_\alpha ^2`$. Time is normalized by the poloidal Alfvén time ($`tt/\tau _{Hp}`$), the radial variable by the minor radius ($`rr/a`$) and $`\eta `$ is the dimensionless resistivity, inverse of the magnetic Reynolds number $`S`$ ($`\eta S^1=\tau _{Hp}/\tau _R`$) with the poloidal Alfvén time $`\tau _{Hp}=\left(\mu _0\rho _0\right)^{1/2}R/B_{0\phi }`$ and resistive time $`\tau _R=\mu _0a^2/\eta _0`$. The Poisson brackets are defined by $`[\varphi ,U]=\widehat{\phi }\left(_{}\varphi \times _{}U\right)=r^1\left(_r\varphi _\alpha U_rU_\alpha \varphi \right)`$. $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are the plasma velocity and helical magnetic field potentials expressed in cylindrical coordinates, so that the velocity is $`𝐯=\widehat{\phi }\times _{}\varphi `$ and the magnetic field is $`𝐁=B_{0\phi }\widehat{\phi }+\widehat{\phi }\times _{}\left(\psi r^2/2\right)`$.

We consider MHD equilibria given by $`\varphi _0=0`$ and by an helical magnetic flux $`\psi _0\left(r\right)`$, related to the safety profile $`q(r)`$ through $`d_r\psi _0=r\left[11/q(r)\right]`$, such that $`q=1`$ for an internal radius $`r=r_{s0}`$. Thus $`d_r\psi _0\left(r_{s0}\right)=0`$. This means that the low-frequency ideal linear equations associated to (1)-(2) are singular at $`r=r_{s0}`$, with a formally diverging current density. This marks the presence of a critical layer in which the dynamics differs considerably from the outer one and where resistivity enters to cure the singularity.

We wish to analyse perturbatively the time evolution of the $`m=1`$ mode. For this, we assume that only the $`m=1`$ mode is destabilized initially with an amplitude $`A_0`$, neglect all ideal MHD transients and restrict to the linear resistive timescale $`\tau \eta ^{1/3}t`$. We do not consider the somehow ill-posed, singular limit $`\eta 0`$, but instead realize that two small parameters are indeed competing in this problem, namely the small given resistivity $`\eta `$ and the time-dependent amplitude $`A(\tau )`$ of the linear $`m=1`$ mode. This introduces some subtleties in the amplitude expansion. The order one solution is given by linear theory using an asymptotic analysis Coppi76  to match inner and outer solutions. Excitation of the $`m=1`$ mode leads to a self-consistent correction to the location of the critical layer. One estimates the amplitude threshold, scaling with $`\eta `$, at which next order solution is required and the procedure iterated. Separability in time and space propagates at each order resulting in an amplitude expansion in $`A`$. As in any perturbative approach, the solution is formally known when the order one solution is. This is given by the linear theory reviewed now.

Let $`f_n^{(m)}`$ be the projection on $`\mathrm{exp}(im\alpha )`$ of any function $`f`$ at order $`n`$. In the inner resistive layer, Eqs. (1)-(2) read

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\varphi _1^{(1)}+i\kappa _0x{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi _1^{(1)}\right]w^1`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}\psi _1^{(1)}+i\kappa _0x\varphi _1^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}\psi _1^{(1)}\right]w`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
where we define $`\kappa _0\psi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(r_{s0}\right)/r_{s0}`$. In these equations, $`x`$ is the stretched coordinate $`x=\left(rr_{s0}\right)/w`$ and $`w\eta ^{1/3}`$ the magnitude of the width of the critical layer giving the maximal resistive ordering Coppi76  in (3)-(4). In the layer, radial derivatives are large, since $`_r=w^1_x`$ and (3)-(4) are the dominant equations for $`w1`$. There is one unstable solution, the $`m=1`$ resistive mode, with growth rate $`\widehat{\gamma }_L=\kappa _0^{2/3}=q^{}(r_{s0})^{2/3}`$. Real space potentials read

$`\psi _1(x,\alpha ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`A_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{\gamma }_L\tau \right)g_L\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0^{1/3}x}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ (5)
$`\varphi _1(x,\alpha ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_0}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\widehat{\gamma }_L\tau \right)g_L^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _0^{1/3}x}{\sqrt{2}}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ (6)
where $`g_L`$ is the function

$$g_L\left(s\right)=\frac{s}{2}erfc\left(s\right)\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(s^2).$$
(7)
This solution was chosen to satisfy the matching asymptotic conditions $`g_L^{}\left(\mathrm{}\right)=1`$ and $`g_L^{}\left(+\mathrm{}\right)=0`$. This analysis has to be complemented with the derivation of the outer solution. On the resistive timescale, this amounts to solve, at leading (zero) order in $`w`$, a linear system of ideal MHD equilibria, singular at $`r=r_{s0}`$ FirpoMIT . This illustrates the passive character of the outer domain. We only retain here that, given the asymptotic and boundary conditions imposing $`\psi _1^{(1)}(r_{s0}^+)=0`$ and $`\psi _1^{(1)}(1)=0`$, the outer linear $`m=1`$ solution $`\psi _1^{(1)}(r)`$ is identically vanishing for $`r_{s0}<r1`$.

Linear theory breaks down when, in the resistive critical layer, nonlinear terms due to mode couplings, e.g. in Eq. (1) $`[\varphi _1,U_1]w^3A^2`$, balance linear ones, i.e. $`\kappa _0xw_\alpha J_1A/w`$ in Eq. (3). Thus $`A(\tau )=𝒪(\eta ^{2/3})`$ marks the onset of second order terms. Before pursuing the analysis on the critical layer, we need to track it and self-consistently estimate its location. The total magnetic flux in the critical layer is now $`\psi (x,\alpha ,\tau )=\eta ^{2/3}\psi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(r_{s0}\right)x^2/2+\psi _1(x,\alpha ,\tau )`$. To follow continuously the linear stage, we define the ’backbone’ $`r_s(\alpha ,\tau )`$ of the critical layer as the ’neutral’ field line with $`_r\psi \left(r_s\right)0`$. Writing $`r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )=r_s(\alpha ,\tau )r_{s0}=wx_1(\alpha ,\tau )`$ with $`_x\psi (x_1)=0`$, this gives

$$r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )\frac{A\left(\tau \right)}{\eta ^{1/3}}\frac{\kappa _0^{1/3}g_L^{}\left(0\right)}{\sqrt{2}\psi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(r_{s0}\right)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha $$
(8)
which relates to the shift of the core plasma inside the $`q=1`$ surface due to the kink instability. Then the x-point shift $`r_{s1}\left(\alpha =\pi ,\tau \right)`$ goes like $`A(\tau )/\eta ^{1/3}`$, consistently with Aydemir’s numerical results Aydemir97 . Thus the critical radius starts to leave the linear critical layer band, centered on $`r_{s0}`$, when $`r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )`$ becomes of the order $`\eta ^{1/3}`$ for some $`\alpha `$, that is when $`A\left(\tau \right)\eta ^{2/3}`$. This is again the threshold marking the end of the linear stage. We need now to define a generalized stretched coordinate in the critical layer as $`x=\left(rr_s(\alpha ,\tau )\right)/w`$. The replacements $`_\tau _\tau w^1\left(r_s/\tau \right)_x`$ and $`_\alpha _\alpha w^1\left(r_s/\alpha \right)_x`$ are then required note1 .

The second order critical layer equations involve an inhomogeneous part composed of quadratic terms in the order one solutions (5), (6) and (8). This acts to force the growth of the $`m=0`$ and $`m=2`$ perturbations but brings no contribution to the $`m=1`$ dynamics. Therefore the $`m=1`$ equations (3)-(4) are unchanged, except that, due to the motion of the critical layer (8), one needs to replace $`\kappa _0`$ in (3)-(4) by the time-dependent average

$$\kappa ^{(0)}(\tau )\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\frac{_r^2\psi \left[r_s(\alpha ,\tau )\right]}{r_s(\alpha ,\tau )}𝑑\alpha .$$
(9)
This introduces a generalized linear system of equations. Neglecting the initially zero amplitudes of the $`m=0`$ and $`m=2`$ perturbations in front of $`A(\tau )`$, the second order correction to the location of the critical layer is given by $`r_{s2}(\alpha ,\tau )\left(2\psi _0^{\prime \prime }\left(r_{s0}\right)\right)^1\psi _0^{\prime \prime \prime }\left(r_{s0}\right)r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )^2`$. The validity threshold of the second order solution is reached when the instantaneous critical line moves out of the critical layer of width $`w`$ centered on $`r_{s0}+r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )`$ for some $`\alpha `$. This corresponds to $`r_{s2}(\alpha ,\tau )w`$, that is to $`r_{s1}(\alpha ,\tau )^2\eta ^{1/3}`$, which gives $`A(\tau )=𝒪\left(\eta ^{1/2}\right)`$. This threshold in the amplitude of the linear $`m=1`$ mode marks the onset of third order terms, that will contribute again to the $`m=1`$ dynamics. Its brutal manifestation is visible on Aydemir’s plots Aydemir97 . They clearly report a transition in the $`m=1`$ kinetic energy when this becomes of order $`\eta /2`$ note2 , namely around $`5\times 10^8`$ for $`\eta =10^7`$ and around $`5\times 10^6`$ for $`\eta =10^5`$.

At third order, cubic terms in the order one solutions or quadratic terms coupling the $`m=0`$ and $`m=2`$ second order terms to the $`m=1`$ first order ones appear in the inhomogeneous part of the critical layer equations and modify the $`m=1`$ dynamics. These terms involve some radial derivatives, e.g. $`_r\varphi _1^{(1)}`$, that are $`𝒪(w^1)`$-large only within the linear layer. Locality enters here the analysis since the dominant contribution of these mode coupling terms comes from the localized zone in $`(r,\alpha )`$ where the instantaneous and linear critical layers overlap. This is depicted by the grey shaded region in Fig. 1. The novelty is that, in this region, mode couplings are now able to balance convective derivatives, both being dominant with respect to linear terms. More explicitly, while, e.g. in the Eq. (1) written in the region where the instantaneous and linear critical layers overlap, the magnitude of linear terms is $`_\tau _r^2\varphi ^{(1)}w^2A(\tau )`$, convective terms are of the order of $`_\tau r_{s2}^{(0)}_r^3\varphi _1^{(1)}w^5A^3`$. Thus linear terms become negligible for $`A(\tau )\eta ^{1/2}`$, which marks the onset of the fully nonlinear regime for the $`m=1`$ mode. Moreover, convective terms, e.g. $`_\tau r_{s2}^{(0)}_r^3\varphi _1^{(1)}w^5A^2_\tau A`$, equilibrate mode coupling terms, such as $`r_{s0}^1_r\varphi _1^{(1)}_\alpha r_{s1}^{(1)}_rU_1^{(1)}w^5A^3`$ coming from $`[\varphi ,U]`$ in the shear-Alfvén law (1). The nonlinear growth rate derives from this balance. As $`\kappa ^{(0)}(\tau )`$ is no longer involved in those convective and mode coupling terms, there is no extra time-dependence in the dominant equations, so that the nonlinear growth rate is just equal, by continuity, to the growth rate of the $`m=1`$ mode when $`A(\tau )`$ becomes of order $`\eta ^{1/2}`$. Its value depends notably on the equilibrium $`q`$-profile as we shall see below. After some spatial averaging, a rough summary of the time evolution of the $`m=1`$ mode amplitude may be then finally written as

$$\frac{dA}{dt}\gamma \left(t\right)A+\frac{c}{\eta }A^2\left(\frac{dA}{dt}\gamma \left(t_{NL}\right)A\right)=0,$$
(10)
where the initial value of the growth rate $`\gamma \left(0\right)`$ is $`\gamma _L`$ and where the early time dependence of $`\gamma `$ comes from the motion of the critical layer and is computed quantitatively below. In Eq. (10), $`c`$ is a constant of order one and $`t_{NL}`$ denotes the (magnitude of the) time at which $`A`$ becomes of order $`\eta ^{1/2}`$. Eq. (10) describes effectively the transition between two (almost) exponential stages. Because $`\varphi _3^{(1)}`$and $`\psi _3^{(1)}`$ are zero at the onset of the third order regime, Eq. (10) remains valid during some stage even if the structure and scaling of the critical layer should substantially change as the generalized linear stage is left.

For the convective exponential stage to be fully valid, the overlap between the linear and instantaneous critical layers should be large enough. One expects then a qualitatively different late behavior of the $`m=1`$ dynamics if the x-point region is far away from the linear layer when $`A(\tau )=𝒪\left(\eta ^{1/2}\right)`$, that is, due to (8), if $`\eta ^{1/6}1`$. This regime is extremely challenging to reach numerically but may be satisfied in tokamak plasmas.

We finally examine the early nonlinear effects on the growth rate of the $`m=1`$ mode due to the motion of the critical layer. This amounts to solve the system of differential equations (3)-(4) for $`\kappa _0`$ replaced with $`\kappa ^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)`$, defined in (9). It can be checked that, as long as the order of magnitude of $`A\left(\tau \right)`$ is lower than $`\eta ^{1/2}`$, $`\kappa ^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)`$ may be approximated by $`\left(2\pi \right)^1_0^{2\pi }r_s(\alpha ,\tau )^1\psi _0^{\prime \prime }\left[r_s(\alpha ,\tau )\right]𝑑\alpha `$ at leading order. This expression will be retained in the numerical computations. The time-dependent growth rate is defined as $`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\tau \right)d_\tau A/A.`$ In this generalized linear system, there is one condition shared with the linear derivation: for a solution in separate variables $`\tau `$ and $`x`$, it is that $`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\tau \right)/\kappa \left(\tau \right)`$ be constant. This constant is then fixed by continuity with the linear solution at time zero giving

$$\frac{\widehat{\gamma }\left(\tau \right)}{\kappa ^{(0)}\left(\tau \right)}=\frac{\widehat{\gamma }_L}{\kappa _0}=\kappa _0^{1/3}.$$
(11)
Here one implicitly assumes that the spatial part of the linear eigenfunctions remains valid note3 . The instantaneous critical radius is $`r_s(\alpha ,\tau )=r_{s0}+\eta ^{1/3}x_s(\alpha ,\tau )`$ where $`x_s(\alpha ,\tau )`$ is given by the approximate expression

$$x_s(\alpha ,\tau )=H^1\left(\frac{A(\tau )\kappa _0^{1/3}\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\eta ^{2/3}\sqrt{2}\psi _0^{\prime \prime }(r_{s0})}\right).$$
(12)
$`H^1`$ denotes the inverse of the monotonously growing function defined by $`H(x)x/g_L^{}\left(\kappa _0^{1/3}x/\sqrt{2}\right)`$. Due to the asymmetric nature of the $`m=1`$ resistive eigenfunctions (7), $`H^1(x)`$ is very asymmetric, grossly equal to $`x`$ below $`x=0`$ and exponentially small above. This confers a much more important weight on negative arguments of $`H^1`$ than on positive ones in the averaging (9). The magnetic island has thus a higher effective contribution to the early nonlinear correction of the growth rate than the region of x-point. A rough estimate of the angular average of $`x_s`$ is given by $`x_s^{(0)}(\tau )\left(2\pi \right)^1A\left(\tau \right)\kappa _0^{1/3}/\left(\eta ^{2/3}\sqrt{2}\psi _0^{\prime \prime }(r_{s0})\right)_{\pi /2}^{\pi /2}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. Eq. (11) defines a first order differential equation in $`A(\tau )`$ that admits then the approximate form $`\widehat{\gamma }\left(\tau \right)\widehat{\gamma }_L+\eta ^{1/3}d_r\left[r^1\psi _0^{\prime \prime }(r)\right]\left(r_{s0}\right)x_s^{(0)}(\tau )`$. Going back to time $`t`$ and to $`\gamma _L\eta ^{1/3}\widehat{\gamma }_L`$, this gives

$$\frac{dA}{dt}\gamma _LA(t)C_0A(t)^2$$
(13)
where $`C_0=`$ $`\left(q_0^{}+r_{s0}q_0^{\prime \prime }2r_{s0}q_0^2\right)/\left(\pi \sqrt{2}r_{s0}^2q_0^{2/3}\right)`$ and the index $`0`$ denotes an evaluation at $`r_{s0}`$. Eq. (13) shows the first nonlinear contribution to the $`m=1`$ evolution. The early behavior of the $`m=1`$ growth rate is thus $`\gamma (t)\gamma _LC_0A_0\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _Lt\right)`$. In order to check numerically these analytic predictions for the generalized linear stage, that brings the first nonlinear contributions to the growth rate, we used Aydemir’s initial conditions Aydemir97 . The safety profile is $`q(r)=q_m\left\{1+r^4\left[\left(q_a/q_m\right)^21\right]\right\}^{1/2}`$ with $`q_m=0.9`$, $`q_a=3`$, giving $`C_0>0`$. The differential equation (11) was integrated numerically for $`A_0=\sqrt{2}\times 10^{5.5}`$ corresponding to an initial kinetic energy in the $`m=1`$ mode of the order $`10^{11}`$.

The nonlinear growth rate $`\gamma \left(t\right)\eta ^{1/3}\widehat{\gamma }(\tau )`$ is plotted on Fig. 2 for $`S=10^7`$. This curve appears to be in fine agreement with the Figure 1 of Ref. Aydemir97  for times $`t`$ roughly below 1000 Alfvèn times.

Fig. 3 illustrates the influence of the $`q`$-profile around $`r_{s0}`$ on the time evolution of $`\gamma `$ due to (9). A sudden bump in the nonlinear growth could thus even be observed, before the onset of convective effects, for the special shape of $`q`$ chosen in Fig. 3. Moreover, some $`q`$-profile may induce a saturation of $`A`$ below the convective threshold and lead to partial reconnection. Most importantly, the approach described here may be transposed to model the early nonlinear behavior of a variety of internal kinks such as two-fluid Aydemir92 ; Rogers96 ; Biskamp97  and/or collisionless Cafaro98  models.

Discussions with L. Sugiyama are gratefully acknowledged. MCF thanks A. Aydemir for several communications on his simulations. This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy.