text:
# On the influence of Stark broadening on Si i lines in stellar atmospheres

## 1 Introduction

The Stark broadening is the most significant pressure broadening mechanism for A and B stars and one has to take into account this effect in investigation, analysis and modeling of their atmospheres. In one of our previous works (Popović et al. 2001) we have shown that the Stark effect may change the equivalent width of spectral lines by 10-45%, hence neglecting this mechanism, we may introduce a significant errors in abundance determinations. On the other hand, high resolution spectra allow us to study different broadening effects using line profiles. In the course of the abundance analyses of peculiar (Ap) stars we noticed that some of the Si i lines are shifted relative to the laboratory wavelength. Moreover, few strong lines mainly from the multiplets $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3D`$ and $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3G`$ have asymmetrical line profiles, in particular the Si i 6155.13 Å line. We found that this line is slightly shifted and asymmetrical even in the solar spectrum, while in the hotter, e.g. Ap stars, the shift and asymmetry are more pronounced.

The aim of this paper is to explain the asymmetry of Si i lines within the framework of the Stark broadening effect. First we calculated the Stark broadening parameters for these lines, after that we calculated synthetic spectra and compared them with the observations, and finally, we discuss the effects causing shift and asymmetry in the line profile of the Si 6155.13 and 6142.48 Å lines.

## 2 Observations

For our analysis we used observations of one normal star HD 32115, two Ap stars HD 122970 and 10 Aql and Solar Flux Atlas by Kurucz et al. (1984). High resolution CCD spectra of 10 Aql and HD 122970 are described by Ryabchikova et al. (2000). High resolution CCD spectra (R$``$45000) of HD 32115 in the wavelength region 4000–9500 Å were obtained with the coude-echell spectrometer mounted on the 2m ’Zeiss’ telescope at Peak Terskol Observatory, Russia (see Bikmaev et al. 2002 for more details).

More Ap stars show peculiar line profiles of Si i lines but most stars have rather strong magnetic fields which distort line profiles through Zeeman splitting. Rather weak magnetic fields in Ap stars HD 122970 and 10 Aql allow us to ignore magnetic effects on line shape.

## 3 The Stark broadening parameter calculation

Calculations have been performed within the semiclassical perturbation formalism, developed and discussed in detail in Sahal-Bréchot (1969ab). This formalism, as well as the corresponding computer code, have been optimized and updated several times (see e.g. Sahal-Bréchot, 1974; Dimitrijević and Sahal- Bréchot, 1984a, Dimitrijević, 1996).

Within this formalism, the full width of a neutral emitter isolated spectral line broadened by electron impacts can be expressed in terms of cross sections for elastic and inelastic processes as

$$W_{if}=\frac{2\lambda _{if}^2}{2\pi c}n_evf(v)𝑑v(\underset{i^{}i}{}\sigma _{ii^{}}(v)+\underset{f^{}f}{}\sigma _{ff^{}}(v)+\sigma _{el})$$
(1)
and the corresponding line shift as

$$d_{if}=\frac{\lambda _{if}^2}{2\pi c}n_evf(v)𝑑v_{R_3}^{R_D}2\pi \rho 𝑑\rho \mathrm{sin}2\varphi _p$$
(2)
Here, $`\lambda _{if}`$ is the wavelength of the line originating from the transition with the initial atomic energy level $`i`$ and the final level $`f`$, $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`n_e`$ is the electron density, $`f(v)`$ is the Maxwellian velocity distribution function for electrons, $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`k`$ is the Boltzman constant, $`T`$ is the temperature, and $`\rho `$ denotes the impact parameter of the incoming electron. The inelastic cross section $`\sigma _{jj^{}}(v)`$ is determined according to Chapter 3 in Sahal-Bréchot (1969b), and elastic cross section $`\sigma _{el}`$ according to Sahal-Bréchot (1969a). The cut-offs, included in order to maintain for the unitarity of the $`S`$-matrix, are described in Section 1 of Chapter 3 in Sahal-Bréchot (1969a).

The formulae for the ion-impact broadening parameters are analogous to the formulae for electron-impact broadening. We note that the fact that the colliding ions would impact in the far wings should be checked, even for stellar densities.

## 4 Line profile calculations

Model atmosphere calculations as well as calculations of the absorption coefficients were made with the local thermodynamical equilibrium (LTE) approximation. Model calculations were performed with the ATLAS9 code written by R.L. Kurucz (1993). The next step is the calculation of the outward flux at corresponding wavelengths points using the given model. For this we used the STARSP program written by V.V. Tsymbal (1996). In its current state this code includes the possibility of calculating a synthetic spectrum for an atmosphere with a vertical stratification of chemical elements.

The computational scheme is as follows. For each line we find the central opacity as

$$\alpha _\nu =\frac{\pi e^2}{mc}gf_{if}e^{\frac{\chi }{kT}}\frac{n}{\rho }(1e^{\frac{h\nu }{kT}}),$$
(3)
where $`\alpha _\nu `$ is the mass absorption coefficient at frequency $`\nu `$, $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`g`$ is the statistical weight, $`f_{if}`$ is the oscillator strength for a given transition, $`\chi `$ is the excitation energy, $`n`$ is the number density of a corresponding element in a given ionization stage multiplied by partition function, $`\rho `$ is the density and $`h`$ is the Planck constant. The last factor describes stimulated emission.

The Doppler width is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D=\frac{\nu }{c}\sqrt{\frac{2kT}{m_A}+\xi _t^2}.$$
(4)
In this expression $`m_A`$ is the mass of the absorber and $`\xi _t`$ is the microturbulent velocity.

Next, we compute the total damping parameter

$$\gamma =\gamma _{rad}+\gamma _{Stark}+\gamma _{neutral}.$$
(5)
Here $`\gamma _{rad}`$, $`\gamma _{Stark}`$ and $`\gamma _{neutral}`$ are the radiative, Stark and damping parameters due to neutral atom collisions respectively. The values of $`\gamma _{rad}`$, $`\gamma _{neutral}`$, excitation energy $`\chi `$ and oscillator strength $`gf`$ were taken from the Vienna Atomic Line Database (VALD) (Kupka et al. 1999). In the case of neutral atom broadening we assumed that perturbing particles are atoms of neutral hydrogen and helium only. This assumption is applicable to almost all types of stars due to high hydrogen and helium cosmic abundances. Usually this damping process is called Van der Waals broadening. The best theory for atomic hydrogen collisions which includes not only the Van der Waals potential is given in the papers by Anstee & O’Mara (1991) and Barklem & O’Mara (1998). Barklem, Piskunov & O’Mara (2000) provided $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{neutral}`$ calculations for about 5000 lines of the neutral atoms and the first ions of many chemical elements. These damping parameters are included in VALD database per one perturbing particle and for a temperature of 10000 K. Unfortunately, no calculations exist for Si i lines. We shall discuss the competition between the broadenings caused by the Stark effect and neutral hydrogen collisions in the atmospheres of our stars in Section 5.2.

In order to include Stark broadening effects we added the approximate formulas (see Eqs. (14) and (15) in Sec. 5.1) in the code. The Stark width and shift are

$$\gamma _{Stark}=\gamma _{Stark}^{(e)}n_e+\gamma _{Stark}^{(p)}n_p+\gamma _{Stark}^{(HeII)}n_{HeII},$$
(6)
$$d_{Stark}=d_{Stark}^{(e)}n_e+d_{Stark}^{(p)}n_p+d_{Stark}^{(HeII)}n_{HeII},$$
(7)
where $`n_e`$, $`n_p`$ and $`n_{HeII}`$ are the corresponding densities of electrons, protons and He ii ions respectively. The resulting opacity profile is given by the Voigt function (Doppler + pressure broadening).

Thus, at each point of a given spectral region (with resolution $`0.01`$ Å for both lines) we computed line absorption coefficient $`\mathrm{}_\nu `$ as follows

$$\mathrm{}_\nu =\alpha _\nu V(u,a),$$
(8)
where $`\alpha _\nu `$ is given by Eq. (4) and $`V(u,a)`$ is a Voigt function with parameters

$$u=\frac{\nu \nu _0+d_{Stark}}{\mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D},$$
(9)
$$a=\frac{\gamma }{4\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _D}.$$
(10)
The Stark shift $`d_{Stark}`$ and the damping parameter $`\gamma `$ have been found from (2) and (11), respectively.

The flux is given by the expression

$$H_\nu (\tau _\nu )=\frac{1}{2}_0^{\tau _\nu }S_\nu E_2(\tau _\nu t)𝑑t+\frac{1}{2}_{\tau _\nu }^{\mathrm{}}S_\nu E_2(t\tau _\nu )𝑑t,$$
(11)
where $`\tau _\nu `$ is the optical depth, $`S_\nu `$ is the source function and $`E_n(x)`$ is the exponential integral of the order $`n`$ and argument $`x`$. The flux integral has been evaluated using matrix operators.

## 5 Results

### 5.1 Stark broadening data

The atomic energy levels needed for Stark broadening calculations were taken from Martin and Zalubas (1983) and Moore (1971), but LS determination of $`5f^3D`$, $`5f^3G`$, $`6s^1P^o`$ and 7s1Po terms have been adopted according to Moore (1971) and therfore, in order to obtain a consistent set of data, energy levels from Moore (1971) have been used as the principal source. Oscillator strengths have been calculated by using the method of Bates and Damgaard (1949) and tables of Oertel and Shomo (1968). For higher levels, the method described in van Regemorter, Binh Dy and Prud’homme (1979) has been applied.

The spectrum of neutral silicon is complex and not known well enough for a good calculation of the considered lines. First of all upper and lower energy levels for 6142.48 Å and 6155.13 Å lines are not known reliably. According to Striganov & Sventickij (1966) they belong to the $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3D`$ and $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3G`$ multiplets respectively, while Moore et al. (1966) stated that the lower level of the corresponding transitions is $`3d^3D^o`$. It is also worth noting that in NIST (2002) the lower and upper levels of the corresponding transitions are not specified. Consequently, we adopted the identification of Striganov & Sventitskij (1966) as the only one enabling the corresponding calculations. Moreover, the $`3s3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{3}^{o}`$ level is in fact a mixture of 39% of $`3pnd^3D^o`$ and 56% of $`3s3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{3}^{o}`$ states, and 5% is unknown. Also the $`3pnd^3D^o`$ state is a mixture of states with 3 $`n`$ 12. In calculations, we assumed that we have 30% of $`3p3d^3D^o`$ state, and our checks show that the difference in final results is negligible if we assume that this state is involved up to 20% only. An additional complication was that $`g`$ levels, which might be very important for the perturbation of the considered 5$`f`$ levels, are unknown. In accordance with the decrease of distance between $`5s,5p,5d`$ and $`5f`$ levels, we estimated that the distance from 5$`f^3D`$ or 5$`f^3G`$ term to the 5$`g`$ levels should lie between 500 and 1500 cm-1. We checked results without 5$`g`$ levels and with a fictive 5$`g`$ level at 500, 1000 and 1500 cm-1 from the corresponding 5$`f`$ terms. In all cases, line widths differed by less than 1%, while the shift varies within the limits of 3.5%. If the distance is 500 cm-1, the shift value e.g. at 10000 K for 6142.48 Å line differs by about 20%. If we include a fictive 6$`g`$ level 500 cm-1 distant from 5$`g`$ levels, the difference is negligible. Hence, in order to obtain the needed set of atomic energy levels, we adopted a fictive 5$`g`$ level 1000 cm-1 distant from the 5$`f`$ levels and a fictive 6$`g`$ level 500 cm-1 distant from the 5$`g`$ level. Since the average estimated error of the semiclassical method is $`\pm `$30%, due to additional approximations and uncertainties, we estimate the error bars of our results to be $`\pm `$50%.

Our results for electron-, proton-, and ionized helium-impact line widths and shifts for the three considered Si i spectral lines for a perturber density of 1014 cm-3 and temperatures T $`=`$ 2,500 $``$ 50,000 K, are shown in Table 1. For perturber densities lower than those tabulated here, Stark broadening parameters vary linearly with perturber density. The nonlinear behaviour of Stark broadening parameters at higher densities is the consequence of the influence of Debye shielding and has been analyzed in detail in Dimitrijević and Sahal-Bréchot (1984b).

In Table 1 the Stark widths and shifts for elect-ron-, proton- and He ii ion-impact broadening are presented as a function of temperature for a density of 1014 cm-3. After testing the density dependence of Stark parameters, we have found that the width and shift are linear functions of density for perturber densities smaller than 10$`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{cm}_{}^{3}`$ and can be scaled by the simple formula:

$$(W,d)_N=(W,d)_0(\frac{N}{10^{14}}),$$
(12)
where $`(W,d)_N`$ are the width and shift at a perturber density $`N`$ ($`\mathrm{cm}^3`$), and $`(W,d)_0`$ are width and shift given in Table 1, respectively.

In order to simplify the use of Stark broadening data in the codes for stellar spectral synthesis, we have found an analytical expression for Stark widths and shifts

$$\frac{W}{n_e}[\mathrm{\AA }]=c_1(A+T^B),$$
(13)
$$\frac{d}{n_e}[\mathrm{\AA }]=c_2(A+CT^B).$$
(14)
The constants $`c_1,c_2,A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ are given in Table 2. We take $`T`$ as $`T/(10000K)`$. The fits of our calculated data to the analytical functions given above are satisfactory (Fig. 1) and the differences are smaller than the expected error of our calculations ($`\pm `$50%)

### 5.2 The Stark broadening effect on the shape of Si i lines

The asymmetry and shift of Si i 6142.48 Å and (in particular) 6155.13 Å lines were observed, and it was obvious that the asymmetry is higher for the hotter stars. The most asymmetrical are $`\lambda `$ 6142.48 Å and 6155.13 Å, the strongest lines of $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3D`$ and $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3G`$ multiplets, respectively. This line is slightly shifted and shows an asymmetry in the red wing even in a rather cool star like the Sun. It is not surprising if the Stark effect is responsible for the observed shifts and asymmetries. From Table 1 one can see that neither widths nor shifts have a strong temperature dependence, but they depend linearly on the perturber density. If a line is strong enough so that line core and line wings are formed at different atmospheric layers where electron density, differs significantly, then we should observe line asymmetry due to differnt shifts at different atmospheric layers even with a homogeneous vertical distribution of the absorbing element in stellar atmosphere (the case of the observed asymmetries in normal stars). Vertical abundance stratification makes this effect more pronounced, and it is observed in cool Ap stars, where an element stratification takes place (Savanov et al. 2001, Ryabchikova et al. 2002, Wade et al. 2001).

Table 3 summarizes the model atmosphere parameters and rotational velocities for the stars of our sample. These data are taken from Ryabchikova et al. (2000) and Bikmaev et al. (2002). For the Sun corresponding parameters were taken from Valenti & Piskunov (1996) except $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Si abundances used in the present calculations are given in the last column.

In the Sun the most important broadening is due to collisions with neutral hydrogen and helium. In the hotter stars the importance of the Stark broadening increases. P. Barklem (private communication) has provided us with the value of the broadening parameter due to collisions with atomic hydrogen for the Si i lines of our interest. This value per perturbing particle for a temperature 10000 K, $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{neutral}`$ =-6.63, is by 0.4 dex higher than the corresponding value obtained from the Unsöld (1955) approximation. According to P. Barklem his value may be overestimated by 0.1 dex which is proved by a comparison between the calculated and the observed blue wing of the solar Si i lines. The final value used in our calculations is $`\mathrm{log}\gamma _{neutral}`$ =-6.75. As for the shift due to collisions with the atomic hydrogen, a corresponding theory is not well developped, and the value of the shift is rather uncertain (P. Barklem, private communication). The core and the wings of the strongest Si i $`\lambda `$ 6155 line are formed in the layers with the temperatures 5000 and 5800 K respectively. In these layers the corresponding values for electron-, proton- and atomic hydrogen densities are 4.2 1012 cm-3, 1.5 1011 cm-3, 3.9 1016 cm-3 – line core, and 2.5 1013 cm-3, 9.3 1012 cm-3, 1.0 1017 cm-3 – line wings. The Stark width is 20 times smaller than $`\gamma _{neutral}`$ at the depth of line core formation and 10 times smaller than $`\gamma _{neutral}`$ at the depth of line wing formation. In the solar atmosphere, the Stark shift is 3 mÅ at the line core and about 20 mÅ for the line wings, which is not negligible. In the atmosphere of the hottest star of our sample, 10 Aql, the Stark width is of the order of $`\gamma _{neutral}`$ at the depth of line core formation and exceeds $`\gamma _{neutral}`$ by 5 times at the depth of line wing formation. Stark shifts are 10 and 100 mÅ, respectively. In 10 Aql the line core is formed at the layers with $`T`$=6500 K, $`N_\mathrm{e}`$=1.4 1013 cm-3, $`N_\mathrm{p}`$=1.3 1013 cm-3, $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$=5.9 1015 cm-3 while line wings are formed at the layers with $`T`$=7500 K, $`N_\mathrm{e}`$=1.2 1014 cm-3, $`N_\mathrm{p}`$=1.2 1013 cm-3, $`N_{\mathrm{HI}}`$=1.1 1016 cm-3.

### 5.3 The Sun

We first calculated Si i lines in the solar spectrum to check the Stark parameters. It was mentioned by Ryabchikova et al. (2002) that available theoretical oscillator strengths for the multiplets $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3D`$ and $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3G`$ are overestimated by about 0.5 dex compared to the multiplet $`4s^1P^05p^1D`$ ($`\lambda `$ 5948.55 Å). The authors fitted the lines of $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3D`$ and $`3p^3{}_{}{}^{3}D_{}^{0}5f^3G`$ multiplets using the solar spectrum. Corrected oscillator strengths – $`\mathrm{log}gf`$=-1.42 ($`\lambda `$ 6142.48Å) and $`\mathrm{log}gf`$=-0.77 ($`\lambda `$ 6155.13Å) were published in Bikmaev et al. (2002). The latter value was reduced to $`\mathrm{log}gf`$=-0.82 to get a better fit for the solar Si i 6155 line. We also reduced the oscillator strength ($`\mathrm{log}gf`$=-2.25) of very weak Si line of the same multiplet, $`\lambda `$ 6155.69Å. We need to decrease both Stark widths and shifts for Si i 6142 and 6155 Å lines by 40% to get a reasonable fit of the synthetic line profiles to the solar ones. Due to relative weakness of the Si i 6142 Å line Stark effect is negligible but it is noticeable for the stronger line Si i 6155 Å. Fig. 2 shows a comparison between the observed profile of the Si i 6155 Å line in the solar spectrum and synthetic profiles calculated with (solid line ) and without (dashed line) taking into account the Stark width and in particular, shift. The strongest Si i 5948.55 Å line in our study is fully symmetric as expected taking into account an order of magnitude smaller values for both the Stark width and shift (see Table 1).

With corrected Stark parameters we calculated Si i line profiles in spectra of other stars.

### 5.4 HD 32115

Spectra of this normal late A-type star have the smallest spectral resolution of our sample. As it may be seen from Fig. 3 the fit of the synthetic line profile of $`\lambda `$ 6155.13 Å line to the observed one is much better when it was calculated with both Stark width and shift. As in the solar case, the Stark effect is negligible for the weaker Si i 6142.48 Å line. To get a better fit of the line profiles we decrease the Si abundance by 0.13 dex compared to the results published by Bikmaev et al. (2002) which were based mainly on the equivalent width measurements.

### 5.5 HD 122970

This is one of the coolest Ap stars and is expected to have a chemically stratified atmosphere. Results of the abundance determinations show that except for the rare-earth elements (REE) abundance stratification is marginal if it exists at all (Ryabchikova et al. 2000). Spectral synthesis of Si i lines seems to support this conclusion. We could reproduce the asymmetric and shifted line profile of Si i 6155.13 Å reasonably well, using the uniform distribution of Si and Stark broadening parameters presented here. Fig. 4 shows a comparison between the observed and computed line profiles for two cases similar to Fig. 3. The best fit of Si i line profiles was obtained with the same Si abundance as was derived by Ryabchikova et al. (2000).

### 5.6 10 Aql

10 Aql= HD 176232 is the hottest star in our sample. It has the most asymmetrical Si i 6155.13 Å line profile, which could not be reproduced by any combination of Stark parameters in a homogeneous atmosphere (Fig. 5). The even weaker line, Si i 6142.48 Å shows a noticeable line shift (Fig. 6). Ryabchikova et al. (2000) mentioned a possibility of Fe and the REE stratification in 10 Aql. Therefore we tried to find a simple distribution of Si in the atmosphere of 10 Aql by trial-and-error which would fit both Si i 6142.48 Å and 6155.13 Å lines. The simplest distribution shown in Fig. 7 gives a reasonable fit to the observed profiles of both Si i lines (Figs. 5 and 6). Moreover, the same Si distribution seems to fit much better the profiles of the strong Si ii 6347, 6371 Å spectral lines compared to the calculations with the homogeneous Si abundance (-4.19) obtained by Ryabchikova et al. (2000). It is beyond the scope of the present paper to derive an exact Si abundance profile in the atmosphere of 10 Aql. We would like to stress here that with the present Stark parameters a sensitivity of 6155.13 Å line asymmetry to Si abundance changes in the stellar atmosphere can be successfully used in empirical studies of abundance stratification in the atmospheres of cool Ap stars.

## 6 Conclusions

In order to discuss the contribution of the Stark broadening effect to the asymmetry and the shift of Si i 6142.48 Å and 6155.13 Å lines we have calculated Stark broadening parameters for these lines by using the semiclasical perturbation method. The obtained results are the first calculated data for the considered lines. In order to include Stark broadening data we have changed the STARSP code and we have synthesized the considered lines. From our analyzis we can conclude that:

1) The Stark broadening effect is very important for these two lines. The contribution of electron impact is dominant but, impacts with protons and He ii ions should be taken into accout as well.

2) The asymmetry as well as the shift of the Si i 6142.48 Å and 6155.13 Å lines in many stars including the Sun can be explained by the Stark broadening effect.

3) In hotter Ap stars, besides the Stark broadening effect, the stratification plays a very important role in producing line asymmetry. The sensitivity of the line asymmetry to changes in the number of Si atoms through the stellar atmosphere can be used in abundance distribution studies.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are very grateful to Paul Barklem who provided us with the unpublished calculations of damping constants for Si i lines due to collisions with the atomic hydrogen. This work is a part of the projects “Influence of collisional processes on astrophysical plasma lineshapes” and “Astrophysical Spectroscopy of Extragalactic Objects” supported by the Ministry of Science, Technologies and Development of Serbia. The research was supported also by the Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung P14984 and Os̈terreichische Nationalbank (Jubilaäumsfonds Nr. 7650). TR also thanks Russian Federal program “Astronomy” and the RFBR (grant 00-15-96722) for partial funding.


format: text

text:
# Some Remarks about Variable Mass Systems

## Abstract

We comment about the general argument given to obtain the rocket equation as it is exposed in standard textbooks. In our opinion, it can induce students to a wrong answer when solving variable mass problems.

Education,General physics,Newtonian mechanics

It is frequently found in standard textbooks Sommerfeld ; Serway ; Allonso ; Nussenzveig  a not enough careful demonstration of the rocket equation. The argument usually presented is misleading (although the final result is fortunately correct) and the consequences of the application of this argument to other situations, like the problem of a tank firing a projectile, can induce a wrong answer. One exception to this general presentation is found in French , which carefully call attention to the approximate character of the demonstration.

The correct argument to deduce the rocket equation (established by Ivan Vsevolodovich Meshchersky in 1897) should be: consider a rocket with mass m and velocity v relative to an inertial frame at instant of time t (usually is the Earth). At time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, a quantity of matter of mass $`\delta \mu `$ (burnt fuel) have been ejected with velocity $`𝐯_e`$ relative to the rocket (the velocity of the ejected fuel is usually assumed constant), while the remaining mass of the rocket ($`m\delta \mu `$) has its velocity increased by $`𝐯+\delta 𝐯`$. But, at instant of time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ (and in contradistinction to the general reasoning) the mass $`\delta \mu `$ has then a velocity $`𝐯+\delta 𝐯𝐯_e`$ relatively to the ground. That is, the momentum before and after firing is

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐩(t)=m𝐯\\ 𝐩(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=(m\delta \mu )(𝐯+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯)+\delta \mu (𝐯+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐯𝐯_e).\end{array}$$
(1)
The change of the linear momentum in the interval of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is due to the action of an external force $`𝐅^{ext}`$ \- supposed to be only the gravitational force. When obtaining $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩`$ all the terms are cancelled out - and there is no need to justify the neglect of the higher order term $`\delta \mu \mathrm{\Delta }𝐯`$. The fundamental equation of dynamics gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐩=𝐩(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)𝐩(t)=_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }t}𝐅^{ext}𝑑t=m𝐠\mathrm{\Delta }t.$$
(2)
In the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ and projecting the vectorial equation in a vertical axis oriented along $`𝐯`$, we obtain

$$mg=v_e\frac{d\mu }{dt}+m\frac{dv}{dt}.$$
(3)
As the total mass (rocket + combustible) is constant, $`M=m+\mu `$, then $`dM=0=dm+d\mu `$ and the known form of the equation is retrieved

$$mg=m\frac{dv}{dt}+v_e\frac{dm}{dt}.$$
(4)
The pedagogical error introduced in the general argument displayed in standard textbooks will induce a serious error when students are reasoning about variable mass systems, like the tank firing a projectile. To illustrate this point better, let’s consider a canon installed on a tank moving without friction over an horizontal track. The canon and tank with total mass M are both moving initially with velocity u when an projectile with mass m (not included in M) is fired with velocity $`v`$ relative to the tank. Consider the axis of the canon and the track axis are both on the same vertical plan and the canon do an angle $`\alpha `$ with the horizontal plan, with $`\alpha `$ being an acute angle relatively to the direction of displacement of the tank. Considering that the net force along the horizontal axis is zero, there is conservation of momentum along this direction.

There is a general believe that there is an ambiguity in the statement of the problem, because some people argue that $`𝐯`$ should be relative to the velocity of the tank before ejection and other people argue that $`𝐯`$ should be the velocity v relative to the tank after ejection. Of course, there is no ambiguity at all: the velocity v of the projectile relative to the tank before ejection is null $`!`$. When stating the conservation of momentum, there is only one possible equation:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐩(t)=(M+m)u\\ 𝐩(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=M(u+\delta u)+m(v\mathrm{cos}\alpha +u+\delta u).\end{array}$$
(5)
The recoil speed should be

$$\delta v=\frac{mv\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{M+m}.$$
(6)
and not, $`\delta u=\frac{mv\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{M}`$. Consequently, the range of the projectile in the Earth frame should be

$$x_A=\frac{2v\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{g}\left(u+\frac{Mv\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{M+m}\right).$$
(7)
and no other solution is correct. The problem is clear. Of course, if $`mM`$ the error is negligible, but otherwise it is not. This kind of generally accepted reasoning should be corrected because it could lead students (and possibly military engineers…) to the wrong answer.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Pure two-dimensional Yang-Mills theories (YM2) have certain properties, such as invariance under area-preserving diffeomorphisms and lack of any propagating degrees of freedom. There are, however, ways to generalize these theories without losing these properties. One way is the so-called generalized Yang-Mills theories (gYM2’s). In a YM2, one starts from a $`B`$-$`F`$ theory in which a Lagrangian of the form $`i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+\mathrm{tr}(B^2)`$ is used. Here $`F`$ is the field-strength corresponding to the gauge-field, and $`B`$ is an auxiliary field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. Carrying a path integral over this field, leaves an effective Lagrangian for the gauge field of the form $`\mathrm{tr}(F^2)`$ . In a gYM2, on the other hand, one uses an arbitrary class function of the auxiliary field $`B`$, instead of $`\mathrm{tr}(B^2)`$ . In  the partition function and the expectation values of the Wilson loops for gYM2’s were calculated. It is worthy of mention that for gYM2’s, one can not eliminate the auxiliary field and obtain a Lagrangian for the gauge field. One can, however, use standard path-integration and calculate the observables of the theory. This was done in .

To study the behaviour of these theories for large groups is also of interest. This was studied in  and  for ordinary YM2 theories and then in  for YM2 and in  and  for gYM2 theories. It was shown that YM2’s and some classes of gYM2’s have a third-order phase transition in a certain critical area.

In  another generalization of YM2’s was introduced, and that was to use a non-local action for the auxiliary field. There, the classical behavior, the quantum behavior, and the large-group baehavior of the system on a sphere, were studied.

The large-group behavior of the model on a cylinder or a disk was investigated in  for YM2 and in  for gYM2. Here we want to study the large-group behavior of a nonlocal YM2 (or gYM2) on a cylinder.

The scheme of the present paper is the following. In section 2, it is shown that the dominant representation for large-group models on a cylinder is obtained from a generalized Hopf equation, the same Hopf equation used for the corresponding local theory. The only difference is that the area of the cylinder is replaced by an effective area involving the dominant representation itself.

In section 3, the critical behavior of the model is investigated, and for some special boundary conditions, an equation governing the critical area corresponding to a nonlocal Yang Mills theory is obtained.

## 2 The dominant representation for a large-$`N`$ non-local generalized Yang-Mills theory on a cylinder

In , a non-local Yang-Mills theory was defined through

$$e^S:=\mathrm{D}B\mathrm{exp}\left\{d\mu i\mathrm{tr}(BF)+w\left[d\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }(B)\right]\right\},$$
(1)
where $`F`$ is the field-strength, $`B`$ is an auxiliary field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a similarity-invariant function. It was further shown that the wave function for this theory on a cylinder is

$$Z(U_1,U_2)=\underset{R}{}\chi _R(U_1^1)\chi _R(U_2^1)\mathrm{exp}\{w[C_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)A]\},$$
(2)
where the summation runs over irreducible representations of the gauge group, $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$ are the path-ordered exponentials of the gauge field on the boundaries, $`\chi `$ is the character of the group element, and $`A`$ is the area of the surface. $`C_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is some function related to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Taking $`C_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a linear function of the rescaled Casimirs of the gauge group U($`N`$),

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_l(R):=\frac{1}{N^{l+1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(n_i+Ni)^l,$$
(3)
where $`n_i`$’s are nonincreasing functions of $`i`$ characterizing the representation (the Yang-tableau), one defines a function $`W`$ as

$$N^2W\left[A\underset{l}{}a_l\stackrel{~}{C}_l(R)\right]:=w[AC_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)].$$
(4)
In the large-$`N`$ limit, the exponential in (2) becomes

$$\mathrm{exp}\{w[C_\mathrm{\Lambda }(R)A]\}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{N^2W\left[A_0^1dxG(\varphi )\right]\right\},$$
(5)
where

$$G(\varphi ):=\underset{l}{}(1)^la_l\varphi ^l.$$
(6)
Also, following ,

$$\varphi :=\frac{in_iN}{N},$$
(7)
and

$$x:=\frac{i}{N}.$$
(8)
Following , one can write the characters in (2) as a function of $`\varphi (x)`$, and the eigenvalue densities $`\sigma _1(\theta )`$ and $`\sigma _2(\theta )`$ of the boundary matrices $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$. Then, for Large $`N`$, (2) is written as

$$Z=\mathrm{D}\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left\{N^2W\left[A_0^1dxG(\varphi )\right]+N^2\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2]\right\}.$$
(9)
Note that the exponent in (9) consisits of two parts. The first part depends on both $`W`$ and $`G`$. The second part, coming from the characters, depends on neither $`W`$ nor $`G`$. For $`N\mathrm{}`$, the wave function (9) is determind by the representation maximizing the exponent. This representation satisfies

$$AW^{}\left[A_0^1dxG(\varphi )\right]G^{}[\varphi (x)]+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi (x)}=0.$$
(10)
Defining

$$\stackrel{~}{A}:=AW^{}\left[A_0^1dxG(\varphi )\right],$$
(11)
it is obvious that this equation is equivalent to the equation determining the dominant representation in

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}=\mathrm{D}\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left\{N^2\stackrel{~}{A}_0^1dxG(\varphi )+N^2\mathrm{\Gamma }[\varphi ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2]\right\}.$$
(12)
But the dominant representation of this has been found in . Defining the Yang-tableau density

$$\rho (\varphi ):=\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\varphi },$$
(13)
it has been shown in  that in order to obtain the Yang-tableau density corresponding to the dominant representation, one should solve the generalized Hopf equation

$$\frac{}{t}(v\pm i\pi \sigma )+\frac{}{\theta }G[i(v\pm i\pi \sigma )]=0,$$
(14)
with the boundary conditions

$`\sigma (t=0,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _1(\theta )`$ (15)
$`\sigma (t=\stackrel{~}{A},\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _2(\theta ).`$ (16)
Then, if there exists some $`t_0`$ for which

$$v(t_0,\sigma )=0,$$
(17)
one denotes the value of $`\sigma `$ for $`t=t_0`$ by $`\sigma _0`$:

$$\sigma _0(\theta ):=\sigma (t_0,\theta ),$$
(18)
and the desired density satisfies

$$\pi \rho [\pi \sigma _0(\theta )]=\theta $$
(19)
What is shown is that from this point of view, the non-local theory behaves like a local theory but with a surface area $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ instead of $`A`$. Note, however, that $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ itself depends on the Yang-tableau density of the dominant representation, through (11) or equivalently

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=AW^{}\left[Adz\rho (z)G(z)\right].$$
(20)
A special case of this result was obtained in , where non-local generalized Yang-Mills theories on the sphere were studied. It was shown there that in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, the theory is like a local generalized Yang-Mills theory with the surface area $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ instead of $`A`$. The dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ on $`A`$ and $`\rho `$ was the same as (20).

## 3 The critical behavior of the non-local Yang-Mills theory

A non-local Yang-Mills theory is defined by

$$G(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2.$$
(21)
In , the critical area for a Yang-Mills theory on a disk, $`\sigma _1(\theta )=\delta (\theta )`$, has been found as:

$$A_{\mathrm{cr}}^1=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta ^{}\sigma _2(\theta ^{})}{\pi \theta ^{}}.$$
(22)
For a sphere, $`\sigma _2(\theta )=\delta (\theta )`$, and one arrives at the familiar result

$$A_{\mathrm{cr}}=\pi ^2.$$
(23)
These results can be used to obtain the critical area for a non-local Yang-Mills theory on a disk. One can obtain $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}^1=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\theta ^{}\sigma _2(\theta ^{})}{\pi \theta ^{}}.$$
(24)
There remains, however, one problem. To obtain $`A_{\mathrm{cr}}`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, using (20), one needs the critical density $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}`$. Even for the disk, it is not easy to find a closed form for $`\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}`$ for arbitrary $`\sigma _2`$. On the sphere, the situation is better. In  it has been shown that the solution to the Hopf equation for $`\sigma _1(\theta )=\sigma _2(\theta )=\delta (\theta )`$ is

$$\pi \sigma (t,\theta )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2t(\stackrel{~}{A}t)}\sqrt{\frac{4t(\stackrel{~}{A}t)}{\stackrel{~}{A}}\theta ^2},$$
(25)
and

$$v(t,\theta )=\frac{(2t\stackrel{~}{A})\theta }{2t(t\stackrel{~}{A})}.$$
(26)
From this, one finds

$$t_0=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2}.$$
(27)
Inserting this in (25), one arrives at

$$\pi \sigma _0(\theta )=\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{A}}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{A}\theta ^2}.$$
(28)
So, using (19),

$$\rho (z)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{4}{\stackrel{~}{A}}z^2}.$$
(29)
At the critical area, the maximum of $`\rho `$ becomes $`1`$. This shows that

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}=\pi ^2,$$
(30)
as expected. But now, one can insert the critical density in (19) to obtain

$$\pi ^2=A_{\mathrm{cr}}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(31)
This is in accordance with what found in .

One can go further. Consider a disk with the boundary condition

$$\sigma _2(\theta )=\frac{2}{\pi s^2}\sqrt{s^2\theta ^2}.$$
(32)
The solution to the Hopf equation with this boundary condition is easily obtained using the solution to the Hopf equation for the boundary conditions corresponding to the sphere. One finds

$$\pi \sigma (t,\theta )=\frac{A_0}{2t(A_0t)}\sqrt{\frac{4t(A_0t)}{A_0}\theta ^2},$$
(33)
and

$$v(t,\theta )=\frac{(2tA_0)\theta }{2t(tA_0)},$$
(34)
where $`A_0`$ is defind through

$$\frac{4\stackrel{~}{A}(A_0\stackrel{~}{A})}{A_0}:=s^2,$$
(35)
or

$$A_0:=\frac{4\stackrel{~}{A}^2}{4\stackrel{~}{A}s^2}.$$
(36)
Again, one sets $`v=0`$ to obtain $`\sigma _0`$:

$$\pi \sigma _0(\theta )=\frac{2}{A_0}\sqrt{A_0^2\theta ^2}.$$
(37)
From this,

$$\rho (z)=\frac{A_0}{2\pi }\sqrt{\frac{4}{A_0}z^2}.$$
(38)
Not that for the specific boundary condition (31), the shape of the Yang-tableau density $`\rho `$ is always the semi-ellipse function obtained for the sphere. At the critical point,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{cr}}(z)=\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\frac{4}{\pi ^2}z^2}.$$
(39)
Again, this is universal, as long as the boundary condition is like (31). Putting this in (19), one obtaines

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}=A_{\mathrm{cr}}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(40)
To find $`A_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, one needs $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, which is obtained from (35), and using $`A_{0,\mathrm{cr}}=\pi ^2`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}=\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\right)(1+\sqrt{1s^2/\pi ^2}).$$
(41)
Combining this with (40), one arrives at

$$\frac{1+\sqrt{1s^2/\pi ^2}}{2}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(42)
What is achieved till now, is to obtain the critical density for the sphere and for a disk with certain boundary conditions making the disk a part of a sphere. The critical area can also be found for a cylinder which is a part of a sphere. Consider the boundary conditions

$`\sigma _1(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi s_1^2}}\sqrt{s_1^2\theta ^2}`$ (43)
$`\sigma _2(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi s_2^2}}\sqrt{s_2^2\theta ^2}.`$ (44)
One can use (33) and (34) as the solutions to the Hopf equation, but with (35) replaced by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4t_1(A_0t_1)}{A_0}}`$ $`:=`$ $`s_1^2,`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4t_2(A_0t_2)}{A_0}}`$ $`:=`$ $`s_2^2,`$ (46)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=t_2t_1.$$
(47)
Following the same arguements used for the disk, one obtains

$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\right)\left(1\sqrt{1s_1^2/\pi ^2}\right),`$ (48)
$`t_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}\right)\left(1+\sqrt{1s_2^2/\pi ^2}\right),`$ (49)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{cr}}=\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\right)\left(\sqrt{1s_2^2/\pi ^2}+\sqrt{1s_1^2/\pi ^2}\right).$$
(50)
Using this, the critical area is found to satisfy

$$\frac{\sqrt{1s_2^2/\pi ^2}+\sqrt{1s_1^2/\pi ^2}}{2}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(51)
The last thing to be considered is the the case of a disk which is almost a sphere, that is a disk with the boundary condition $`\sigma _2(\theta )\delta (\theta )`$. By this approximation, it is meant that $`\sigma _2`$ is an even function and one takes into account only the second moment of $`\theta `$:

$$r:=d\theta \sigma _2(\theta )\theta ^2.$$
(52)
It is assumed that $`\sigma _2`$ is narrowly localized around $`\theta =0`$, so that one ac neglect the effect of the higher moments of $`\theta `$. As only the second moment of $`\theta `$ is important, one can approximate $`\sigma _2`$ with (32), for a small value of $`s`$. This value of $`s`$ is related to $`r`$ through

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _s^s}d\theta \theta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi s^2}}\sqrt{s^2\theta ^2}\right)`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{4}}.`$ (54)
One can substitute this value of $`s`$ in (42) to obtain

$$1\frac{r}{\pi ^2}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right).$$
(55)
An exactly similar argument can be used for a cylinder with the boundary conditions near a delta function. The result would be

$$1\frac{r_1+r_2}{\pi ^2}=\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}W^{}\left(\frac{A_{\mathrm{cr}}}{\pi ^2}\right),$$
(56)
where

$$r_i:=d\theta \sigma _i(\theta )\theta ^2.$$
(57)
Similar arguements may work for special boundary conditions and nonlocal generalized Yang-Mills theories, provided the dominant representation of the system is known for a sphere.


text:
# Motion Statistics in the CJ Survey – The Status in October 2002

## 1. Introduction

Superluminal motion is one of the many astronomical research topics in which Ken Kellermann has been deeply involved ever since it arose. Ken was of course already playing a central role in the exploration of variability in extragalactic radio sources (e.g., Pauliny-Toth & Kellermann 1966; Kellermann 1966). Then, with the development of VLBI (one of the earlier papers on the subject being Kellermann et al. 1968), came the gradual establishment of the fact that, as predicted by Rees (1967), evolving, relativistically moving components not only cause rapid flux density variability, but indeed also display superluminal velocities, due to geometrical effects when the motion is directed close to our line of sight. It is historically interesting to see the development of this interpretation in papers (co)authored by Ken through the late 1960s, the 1970s, and even the early 1980s, for example Cohen et al. (1971), Shaffer et al. (1972), Kellermann et al. (1973), Kellermann et al. (1974), and Cohen et al. (1977); perhaps this can be said to have culminated in Ken’s 1985 review (Kellermann 1985).

In the early days, there was a focus on some very interesting individual cases of rapidly varying and very bright sources, including quasars such as 3C 273 and 3C 279, as well as galaxies such as 3C 84 and 3C 120. But, clearly, the statistics of a significantly sized sample are needed in order to obtain a more systematic overview of jet properties, such as the range of Lorentz gamma factors, and, for example, to probe the occurrence of pattern motions distinct from the bulk flow (e.g., Vermeulen & Cohen 1994). A more statistical approach is also needed to study how the properties of relativistic jets are related to the other physical parameters of the radio sources and their hosts, and also to test unification models, which explain apparent differences between object classes as being due to viewing them at different angles to the line of sight. Ken himself long ago recognised the need for large surveys, and, when the VLBA, of which he has of course been a long-term advocate, started operations in the 1990s, he initiated the 2 cm VLBA survey (Kellermann et al. 1998), as described elsewhere in these proceedings.

Meanwhile, the 6 cm Pearson-Readhead (PR) survey (Pearson & Readhead 1981), which had already been started on the Global VLBI Network in the late 1970s, had been extended into the first and second Caltech-Jodrell Bank surveys (CJ1: Polatidis et al. 1995, CJ2: Taylor et al. 1994). In order to allow unified use of these samples, we defined the Caltech-Jodrell Flat-spectrum (CJF) sample of 293 sources (Taylor et al. 1996). The present paper is a brief status update on the effort to measure the motions in the jets of all of the CJF sources.

## 2. CJF

CJF is a complete flux-limited sample of 293 flat-spectrum radio sources, drawn from the 6 cm and 20 cm Green Bank Surveys. The CJF sample is now 97% optically identified, and spectroscopic redshifts are available for 92% of the sources. Most of them are quasars, at redshifts ranging from $`z=0.263`$ to $`z=3.886`$. There are also a significant number of low redshift objects, but in addition there are some 25 galaxies and 20 BL Lac objects at $`z>`$0.6; enough to allow a meaningful comparison of their motion statistics with that of quasars of the same redshift and luminosity. Between March 1990 and November 2000 there were numerous multi-antenna global VLBI and VLBA snapshot runs at 6 cm. For every source, including those in the PR subsample, this has resulted in 3–5 “modern” VLBI datasets, spanning 4–8 years.

## 3. Measuring jet component motions

All observing epochs for all sources are being analysed in the same standardised way (e.g., Britzen et al. 1999, 2001). We show in Figure 1 all of the currently available motions for all of the source components, using $`H_{}=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_{}=0.5`$. The source structures can usually be described fairly well by using a limited number of Gaussian image components, fitted to the $`(u,v)`$-data using difmap. However, it is not trivial to derive meaningful, consistent motions from the positions of these Gaussians.

The flux density and indeed the morphology of a feature clearly recognisable at one epoch may have changed considerably in the next epoch. This can lead to difficulties in “connecting” features between epochs. Expansion or brightness profile changes in resolved knots can also affect the centroid positions obtained. Furthermore, while in numerous cases the “core” is an unmistakable and presumably fixed reference point for the positions of the other features, there are also sources in which new jet features were emerging from the core (often accompanied by radio flaring), and these events can lead to a temporary shift in the “core” centroid. In some sources there is no component which, by its compactness and/or spectral index, is clearly the non-moving core; evidently, sometimes there is either little radio emission produced in the immediate vicinity of the central engine, or, more likely, the core emission is faint at 5 GHz due to either synchrotron self-absorption or free-free absorption.

We think that most and quite possibly all of the negative motions (i.e., inward towards the core) in Figure 1 are due to component misidentifications or to brightness changes which do not necessarily correspond to motion of a well-defined component. It would obviously be of great interest to find and then study a case of significant inward motion, but so far none of the candidates has survived close scrutiny.

Some of the components also clearly accelerate, decelerate, or follow a curved trajectory; these are not well characterised by a single separation velocity from the core. We plan to make a proper statistical description of the non-linear jet motions encountered, which we hope will prove to be very valuable in confronting the various models for jet acceleration, collimation, and propagation, and (shock) models for the generation of radio emitting particles inside those jets.

We have found that many of the ambiguities are substantially ameliorated for those sources where 4 or 5 rather than 3 epochs are available. However, there are no indications of any systematic velocity differences relating to the number of epochs, the time intervals between the epochs, or the total time spanned between the first and the last epoch. The measurements shown in Figure 1 also do not show selection effects, due to either resolution limitations (against low velocities at high redshifts), or to time sampling limitations (against high velocities at low redshifts).

## 4. Results

We are still in the process of defining an adequately homogeneous sub-sample of the highest quality motion measurements in which the impact of the effects described above is minimised. But a number of interesting conclusions can already be drawn from the current motion dataset. This includes 262 sources (the other 41 CJF sources have either no redshift or no jet components that could be monitored), with a total of 597 components.

The quasars have a mean apparent velocity of $`2.9c`$. This is also close to the peak in the distribution, with lower apparent velocities being somewhat less common, as are higher values; most of the quasar apparent velocities are below $`8c`$, but the tail of the distribution extends up to $`16c`$. These statistics confirm the finding of Vermeulen & Cohen (1994) that many of the superluminal velocities reported in the first studies of the 1970s and 1980s have turned out to be amongst the fastest ones in the larger population now available. Apart from the selection effect that faster motions may have been more amenable to study early on, many of the very brightest sources are also amongst the most luminous ones, and we also confirm the strong correlation between apparent velocity and 5 GHz luminosity (see below) already noted in Vermeulen (1995).

There is a pronounced difference between the apparent velocity distributions of the quasars on the one hand, and the galaxies and BL Lac objects on the other hand. Whereas the mean apparent velocity in the quasar jets is $`2.9c`$, the galaxies have a mean apparent velocity of $`0.9c`$, and in fact here the distribution peaks at the lowest values, $`1c`$, with most of the apparent velocities below $`2c`$, although there is a tail in the distribution which goes all the way up to $`10c`$. The BL Lacs may be slightly faster than the galaxies on average, with a mean apparent velocity of $`1.4c`$, but again the distribution peaks at the lowest values, $`1c`$. Most of the BL Lacs have apparent velocities below $`4c`$, and the distribution then cuts off steeply, with no values larger than $`6c`$. In general, such results are in line with previous work (e.g., Vermeulen & Cohen 1994), and with the predictions of beaming and unification models. But we have a much more extensive sample than hitherto available, with different source types at comparable redshifts and luminosities. Before coming to final conclusions, we are carefully re-examining the optical identifications. For example, using very deep optical images some objects may have been labelled as galaxies on the basis of faint extended emission which would not have been visible in less sensitive images. We also have the impression that it is important for the final statistics to differentiate not only between broad-lined (quasar-like) and narrow-lined (galaxy-like) objects, but also between between strong-lined and weak-lined (FR-I BL Lac ?) objects.

Doppler favouritism in simple beaming models combines with the solid angle available to predict a sample in which the apparent velocity distribution is sharply peaked at the maximum possible value ($`\beta \gamma `$); such models would predict that the measurements shown in Figure 1 would crowd against an upper velocity envelope (e.g., Vermeulen & Cohen (1994). This is obviously not the case, and the actual apparent velocity distribution may instead be dominated by a distribution of Lorentz $`\gamma `$ factors which spans a very broad range over the sample of radio sources (see also Vermeulen & Cohen 1994). There is evidence for this in the very strong correlation with luminosity of the mean apparent velocity, which was already found in a subset of the CJF dataset (Vermeulen 1995), in the sense that no high velocities exist at low luminosity. The correlation can be attributed to a form of Malmquist bias in a sample selected on beamed radio emission (e.g., Lister & Marscher 1997).

Perhaps it will prove to be possible to turn this relationship around, and to deduce, from the observed distributions of apparent velocity, luminosity, and redshift, the luminosity distribution of the parent population from which the CJF sample arose through beaming. But, we first have to study carefully whether the Lorentz factors responsible for the selection of the sources, through relativistic boosting of the radio cores, are indeed tightly related to the Lorentz factors corresponding to the motions of the components. The latter could reflect patterns or shocks moving through the fluid of the jets. And even if the components move at the bulk flow velocity, bending of the jets will give different apparent speeds.

By compiling the statistics of the apparent velocities as a function of distance from the core, we also plan to investigate whether there is evidence for jet acceleration or deceleration between the core and the moving components. Perhaps related to this, very interesting hints have emerged at this Green Bank workshop that the average apparent velocity observed might decrease when going to lower observing frequency. The apparent velocities for CJF at 5 GHz, reported above, seem to be about a factor of two slower than those reported in these proceedings for the 15 GHz VLBA Survey (Zensus et al., these proceedings, page 27), and those in turn might be another factor of two lower than the 43 GHz velocities reported at this workshop by Marscher (these proceedings, page 133). Most of these measurements are as yet preliminary, and the differences between the selections of the various samples will also have to be carefully understood, before it will be warranted to incorporate correlations between observing frequency and apparent velocity firmly into the models. But several options do spring to mind immediately. Jet bending, or deceleration along the jets might be involved. Alternatively, each jet might incorporate a range of flow velocities, possibly in a “spine-sheath” or “onion-skin” geometry (perhaps akin to some models for FR-I sources, for instance in Laing et al. 1999). A decrease in average apparent velocity with decreasing frequency might then result from an increase of the average size and/or distance from the core of the components observed when going to lower frequency. In turn this could plausibly be connected to changing turnover frequencies for features with synchrotron self-absorbed spectra.

And so we have again found at this workshop that Ken Kellermann plays a central role in superluminal motion studies, in which a novel feature now is that we will be able to compare two large surveys: the 6 cm CJF and the 2 cm VLBA Survey, which Ken initiated, and in which he provides important momentum and inspiration.

### References

Britzen, S., et al. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 159, BL Lac Phenomenon, ed. L. O. Takalo, A. Sillanpää, (San Francisco: ASP), 431

Britzen, S., et al. 2001, in IAU Symp. 205, Galaxies and Their Constituents at the Highest Angular Resolutions, ed. R. T. Schilizzi, S. Vogel, F. Paresce, & M. Elvis (San Francisco: ASP), 106

Cohen, M. H., et al. 1971, ApJ, 170, 207

Cohen, M. H., et al. 1977, Nature, 268, 405

Kellermann, K. I. 1966, ApJ, 146, 621

Kellermann, K. I. et al. 1968, ApJ, 153, L209

Kellermann, K. I., et al. 1973, ApJ, 183, L51

Kellermann, K. I., et al. 1974, ApJ, 189, L19

Kellermann, K. I. 1985, Com. Ap., 11, 69

Kellermann, K. I., Vermeulen, R. C., Zensus, J. A., & Cohen, M. H. 1998, AJ, 115, 1295

Laing, R. A., Parma, P., de Ruiter, H. R., & Fanti, R. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 513–530.

Lister, M. L., & Marscher, A. P. 1997, ApJ, 476, 572

Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Kellermann, K. I. 1966, ApJ, 146, 634

Polatidis, A. G., et al. 1995, ApJS, 98, 1

Rees, M. J. 1967, MNRAS, 135, 345

Shaffer, D. B., Cohen, M. H., Jauncey, D. L., & Kellermann, K. I. 1972, ApJ, 173, L147

Taylor, G. B., et al. 1994, ApJS, 95, 345

Vermeulen, R. C. 1995, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 92, 11385 (correction in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 6846)

Vermeulen, R. C., & Cohen, M. H. 1994, ApJ, 430, 467

## Index

* 3C 120 §1.
* 3C 273 §1.
* 3C 279 §1.
* 3C 84 §1.


text:
# How to measure the spreading width for decay of superdeformed nuclei

(April 2, 2003)

## Abstract

A new expression for the branching ratio for the decay via the $`E1`$ process in the normal-deformed band of superdeformed nuclei is given within a simple two-level model. Using this expression, the spreading or tunneling width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ for superdeformed decay can be expressed entirely in terms of experimentally known quantities. We show how to determine the tunneling matrix element $`V`$ from the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and a statistical model of the energy levels. The accuracy of the two-level approximation is verified by considering the effects of the other normal-deformed states.

Since the first discovery of superdeformation in 152Dy Twin86 , one of the principal challenges has been to develop a consistent theory regarding the decay-out mechanism of the superdeformed (SD) rotational band into the normal-deformed (ND) band. Although much experimental progress has been made since this first discovery, e.g., Lauritsen et al. Dy02  and references therein, no consistent theory has been achieved for this decay-out process, and, in fact, considerable confusion still exists regarding the application of the current theoretical interpretations. The purpose of this Letter is to report on new theoretical developments, which permit a direct determination of the spreading (or tunneling) width for decay out of the SD band in nuclei in terms of experimental quantities and, thereby, to obtain the magnitude of the tunneling matrix element.

In an earlier publication SB99 , two of us presented a simple two-level model to explain the decay out of the SD band in nuclei. Employing a retarded Green’s function approach, we obtained an exact solution for the branching ratio, $`F_N`$, for decay via the $`E1`$ process in the ND band, in terms of the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ in the SD and ND potential wells, respectively; $`V`$, the tunneling matrix element connecting the SD state with the ND state, i.e., the state with which it mixes most strongly; and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\epsilon _N\epsilon _S`$, the difference between the unperturbed energies of these two states (see Fig. 1 for a graphical representation of these quantities). Our result yielded

$$F_N=\frac{(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_N/\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)V^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2(1+4V^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)},$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+\mathrm{\Gamma }_N)/2`$ and $`V`$ is taken to be positive definite without loss of generality.

We have recently observed that Eq. (1) can also be rewritten in the form

$$F_N=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S+\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})},$$
(2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\frac{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}V^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2+\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2}$$
(3)
is the correct expression from Fermi’s golden rule for the spreading (or tunneling) width SB99 . Eq. (2) clearly shows that decay into the ND band is a two-step process, and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a real, physical rate, not a mere theoretical construct. Note that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}2\pi V^2/D_N,$$
(4)
as was employed by Vigezzi et al. vigezzi . In Eq. (4), $`V^2`$ is the mean square of the coupling matrix elements connecting the SD and ND states and $`D_N`$ is the average spacing of the ND states. In fact, Eq. (4) gives the average spreading width over a flat distribution in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ SB99 , which can deviate drastically from the exact value given by Eq. (3).

Importantly, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, as given by Eq. (3), is a measureable quantity, which can be determined from Eq. (2):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\frac{F_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_NF_N(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S)}.$$
(5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is not a free parameter as was stated in Ref. Dy02, .

We have used Eq. (5) to determine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ from the values of $`F_N`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ given in Table I of Ref. Dy02, , and obtain values differing radically from those listed in Ref. Dy02, , by three to five orders of magnitude (see our Table 1). This is a direct contradiction of the statement in Ref. Dy02,  that “For cases encountered in experiments, their results (*i.e.*, the results of our Ref. SB99, ) agree with those obtained with the model of Vigezzi et al.,” i.e., the model that was employed in Ref. Dy02, .

It should be noted that we obtain a negative value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ in 152Dy with $`I=26`$. This is, of course, physically impossible: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is a positive definite quantity. Eq. (5) therefore requires

$$F_N<\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}.$$
(6)
Experimental results in which the inequality (6) is violated may indicate that the experimentally measured value of $`F_N`$ is too large or that the SD state is mixing with a second ND level, since our result is obtained for mixing with only one ND state. At the present time, however, uncertainties in the known values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, which are of the order of 100% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and of the order of 10% for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, or more, mean that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ cannot be meaningfully determined in cases such as 152Dy(I=26).

In order to determine the tunneling matrix element $`V`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ via Eq. (3), we must know $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which generally is not experimentally known. We therefore compute the expected value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ based on the assumption that the states to which the SD state decays in the ND well are distributed according to a Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE). In the GOE, the probable spacing between levels is given by the distribution mehta

$$P(s)=\frac{\pi }{2}se^{\pi s^2/4},$$
(7)
where $`s`$ is the spacing in units of $`D_N`$.

In the absence of tunneling ($`V=0`$), the energy spectra of the ND and SD wells are uncorrelated. Given a spacing $`sD_N`$ between the nearest ND levels above and below the decaying SD level, then, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by the rectangular probability distribution

$$𝒫_s(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{sD_N}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{s}{2}\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}{D_N}\right).$$
(8)
Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside step function, which simply ensures that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the nearest neighbor. The probability distribution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is then

$$𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta })=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝒫_s\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)P(s)𝑑s=\frac{\pi }{2D_N}\mathrm{erfc}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}{D_N}\right).$$
(9)
Figure 2 shows $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta })D_N`$ plotted as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/D_N`$. From Eq. (9), it is easy to compute the average detuning $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=D_N/4`$.

Our ultimate goal is to find the probability distribution $`𝒫(V)`$ for given values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and $`D_N`$, which in general is given by $`𝒫(V)=2𝒫\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\left|\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{dV}\right|`$. From Eq. (3) we can obtain $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ as a function of $`V`$,

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|=\sqrt{\frac{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}\left(V^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{2}\right)}.$$
(10)
$`V`$ obviously has a lower bound of $`V_{min}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$ due to the requirement that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ be real.

Computing $`𝒫(V)`$ for the allowed region, we find

$$𝒫(VV_{min})=\frac{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}V\pi }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}|\mathrm{\Delta }|D_N}\mathrm{erfc}\left(\sqrt{\pi }\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}{D_N}\right),$$
(11)
where $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ is given by Eq. (10). The average value of $`V`$ is

$$V=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}\left[\frac{D_N}{4}+𝒪\left(\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2}{D_N}\right)\right].$$
(12)
Earlier attempts to consider a statistical theory of SD decay-out vigezzi ; WvBB98  have been handicapped by their focus on average values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`F_N`$. As was shown in Ref. SB99, , the statistical fluctuations of these quantities are much greater than their averages, making such computations almost meaningless. This is not the case with the distribution of $`V`$ given by Eq. (11), however, for which the fluctuations are of order $`V`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and $`F_N`$ are experimentally fixed, whereas the uncertainty in $`V`$ is due to lack of knowledge of the unperturbed energies of the ND and SD states. Eq. (11) therefore represents a central result, since it is the maximal information we can have about $`V`$ without prior knowledge of the shape of the potential.

Thus far we have treated only a two-level model of the superdeformed decay-out process. It is reasonable to ask what effect the inclusion of more ND states could have. As a first step, we include the next-nearest neighbor state in the ND well.

We can again turn to the assumption of the GOE in order to find typical values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, the energies of the nearest and next-nearest neighbor states, respectively. $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta }_1)`$ is simply the $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ given by Eq. (9). The calculation of $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)`$ is similar to that for $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta }_1)`$, but we must now concern ourselves with the question of whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ have the same or opposite signs.

In all cases of physical interest, we find that for a given spacing $`s`$, the correction to the two-state result necessitated by the inclusion of a third level is larger when the two ND levels bracket the SD level. This is quite natural, since Eq. (7) requires that the next-nearest ND level in this configuration lie on average 40% closer to the decaying SD state than it would if the nearest two ND levels lay on the same side of the SD level. Consideration of the case in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ have the same sign, then, only decreases the necessary correction. Since our goal is to set a reasonable upper bound on this quantity, we assume the ND levels lie on opposite sides of the SD level. Decays for which this is not true will in general conform to the two-state approximation with even greater accuracy.

Based on this assumption, we can construct a density function for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ similar to Eq. (8),

$$𝒫_s(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)=\frac{1}{sD_N}\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|}{D_N}\frac{s}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(s\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|}{D_N}\right).$$
(13)
Together with Eq. (7), this yields a distribution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$

$$𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)=\frac{\pi }{2D_N}\left[\mathrm{erf}(\sqrt{\pi }|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|)\mathrm{erf}(\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|)\right].$$
(14)
This expression for $`𝒫(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)`$ is illustrated by Fig. 2. Its average detuning is $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_2|=3D_N/4`$.

Having computed the average values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, and $`V`$, we are now in a position to begin to see the effect of a second ND level. In general, Eq. (1) would suggest that the contribution to the total branching ratio of a second level is substantially less than that of the nearest neighbor. Since Eq. (1) was derived in the context of only one ND level, however, we ought to seek a more rigorous theory for the three-state branching ratio. In particular, we should expect that effects such as competition and interference will play a role in the exact result.

The Hamiltonian for the three-state system can be taken to be the sum of two parts, $`H_0`$, which represents the independant SD and ND wells, and $`\widehat{V}`$, which mixes the states of the two wells. $`H_0`$ can be written

$$H_0=\underset{i}{}\epsilon _ic_i^{}c_i+H_{EM},$$
(15)
where the sum on $`i`$ runs over S, N1, and N2, $`c_i`$ is the anihilation operator for state $`i`$, and $`H_{EM}`$ contains the coupling to the electromagnetic field which gives the states their nonzero widths. Since they occur by the same decay process, we assume the widths of the ND states are equal, *i.e.* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N1}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$.

Taking $`\widehat{V}`$ as a perturbation, it is a trivial exercise to use Dyson’s Equation to construct the retarded Green’s function of the system. The result, exact to all orders in $`\widehat{V}`$, is given in the $`|S`$, $`|N1`$, $`|N2`$ basis by

$$G^1(E)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}{2}& V_1& V_2\\ V_1& E\mathrm{\Delta }_1+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}{2}& 0\\ V_2& 0& E\mathrm{\Delta }_2+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ may be chosen positive without loss of generality. In the following, we assume further that $`V_1=V_2`$.

The branching ratios of the full three-state system can now be computed from Parseval’s theorem

$$F_i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_i_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dE}{2\pi }|S|G(E)|i|^2,$$
(17)
where $`i=S,N1,N2`$. These integrals can be done analytically by Cauchy integration, but the results are algebraically complicated. It is sufficient for our purposes to compute them numerically.

With $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ determined by their probability distributions, the only remaining parameters in the three-state problem are $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$, $`V`$, and $`D_N`$. In all cases of physical interest, however, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S,\mathrm{\Gamma }_NV,D_N`$, so we can restrict the relevant parameter space by varying only the combinations of parameters $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and $`V/D_N`$ separately. The corrections to the branching ratios required by such a restriction are of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N/V`$.

Furthermore, the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ is determined by the mass region of the nucleus (see Table 1). In the results that follow, variation of this parameter over reasonable values does not significantly impact the necessary correction to the two-state result.

Figures 3 and 4 show comparisons of the two- and three-state branching ratios for the $`A190`$ and $`A150`$ mass regions, respectively. These figures demonstrate that in cases of physical interest, the correction to the two-state system due to the presence of a third level is relatively small. In the $`A190`$ region, in particular, we find that $`.9F_N^{(2)}/F_N^{(3)}1`$, where the superscripts on the branching ratios indicate the number of states included in their calculation. In the $`A150`$ region, we find that $`0.7<F_N^{(2)}/F_N^{(3)}<1`$. The increased importance of additional levels in the $`A150`$ region arises because the typical tunneling matrix elements at decay out are significantly larger, which follows from Eq. (1) and the relative sizes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ in the two mass regions. Constructive interference between the two ND levels, plainly visible in Fig. 4 where $`F_N^{(3)}`$ exhibits a distinct maximum for $`VD_N/2`$, can also enhance the importance of additional ND levels.

In the $`190`$ mass region, however, quantum interference effects are seen to be negligable, and this approach can be extended to set an approximate upper bound on the total error incurred by ignoring *all* of the ND states except the nearest neighbor. It is clear from Eq. (1) that, neglecting quantum interference effects, a level’s branching ratio is approximately proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Assuming that each level in the infinite ND band lies at its average detuning, we can write the total $`n`$-level branching ratio as

$$F_N^{(n)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{F_N^{(2)}(D_N/4)^2}{(\mathrm{\Delta }_k)^2}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{F_N^{(2)}(D_N/4)^2}{\left[(2k1)\frac{D_N}{4}\right]^2}.$$
(18)
We thus have the result

$$F_N^{(\mathrm{})}\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{F_N^{(2)}}{(2k1)^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{8}F_N^{(2)}.$$
(19)
In the 190 mass region, then, the expected correction is no more than about 23% of $`F_N^{(2)}`$.

The three-state results, together with the arguments of Eqs. (18) and (19), demonstrate that the two-state model is sufficient to describe the dominant decay-out process of SD nuclei. Within the two-state model, we have shown that the decay out of an SD level via $`E1`$ processes in the ND band is a two-step process, whose branching ratio (2) is expressed in terms of three measureable rates, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. We have also shown how to determine the tunneling matrix element $`V`$ \[Eqs. (11) and (12)\] from the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ and a statistical model of the ND band. It is hoped that these results will help clarify the nature of the decay-out process in SD nuclei.

We thank T. L. Khoo and S. Åberg for helpful discussions and acknowledge support from NSF grant PHY-0210750. B. R. B. acknowledges partial support from NSF grant No. PHY-0070858. We also thank the Institute of Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for partial support during the formulation and development of this work.


text:
# On kink-dynamics of Stacked-Josephson Junctions

## 1 Introduction

The stacked-Josephson junctions we consider here consist of three slabs of superconducting material which have an insulating barrier between two superconductors. An important application of these long Josephson junctions (LJJ) is the magnetic flux quanta (fluxons). The fluxon, which is a circulating current, can move along the junctions if there is a biased current applied.

The one dimensional stacked-LJJ can be modelled by a perturbed sine-Gordon equation which, in normalized form, may be written as :

$$\begin{array}{cc}\varphi _{xx}^1\varphi _{tt}^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^1S\varphi _{xx}^2=\alpha \varphi _t^1\gamma ,\hfill & \\ \varphi _{xx}^2\varphi _{tt}^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^2/JS\varphi _{xx}^1=\alpha \varphi _t^2\gamma .\hfill & \end{array}$$
(1)
Here $`\varphi ^i`$ is the superconducting phase difference across the junction $`i`$ . The term $`\alpha \varphi _t`$ models the damping due to quasi particle tunnelling, $`\alpha >0`$. The driving force, corresponding to the normalized bias current $`\gamma `$, typically lies in the interval $`0\gamma 1`$. $`S[1,0]`$ is the coupling parameter of the two junctions and $`J`$ is the ratio of the critical current of of the two junctions.

One of the solutions of the unperturbed-sine-Gordon equation ($`\varphi _{xx}\varphi _{tt}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$) is the soliton

$$\varphi _0=4\mathrm{arctan}[\mathrm{exp}(\frac{xct\xi _0}{\sqrt{1c^2}})],$$
(2)
which is moving with velocity $`c`$, $`|c|<1`$. In the unperturbed equation this parameter is not determined. The wave speed will become a function of $`\gamma `$ when $`\alpha `$ and $`S`$ do not vanish and the damping is balanced by the driving force. Therefore, $`c`$ is a function of $`\gamma `$ for given $`\alpha `$ and $`S`$. The free parameter $`\xi _0`$ determines the initial position of the fluxon. In physics, this soliton solution is related with units of the flux quantum or fluxon. The system (1) has, when $`S=\alpha =\gamma =0`$, the solution $`(\varphi _0,0)`$ in the primary state $`[1|0]`$.

In this paper, we investigate the relation of $`c`$ and $`\gamma `$ for spesific values of $`\alpha `$ and $`S`$ in the primary state $`[1|0]`$. To represent the configuration, the notation $`[n|m]`$ is used to denote the state where $`n`$ solitons are located in the first junction and $`m`$ solitons in the other. Negative numbers are used for antisolitons. In Sec. 2 we consider the case of identical junctions. Unequal junctions are considered in Secs. 3 and 4. The junctions considered in these sections differ only on the critical currents. In Sec. 5 we draw conclusions.

## 2 Identical Junctions

We look at travelling wave solutions to the equation (1). So we assume that the solution only depends on $`\xi =xct`$. The partial differential equation is thus reduced to a system of ordinary differential equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1c^2)\varphi _{\xi \xi }^1\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^1S\varphi _{\xi \xi }^2=c\alpha \varphi _\xi ^1\gamma ,\hfill & \\ (1c^2)\varphi _{\xi \xi }^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^2/JS\varphi _{\xi \xi }^1=c\alpha \varphi _\xi ^2\gamma .\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3)
Considering (3) in $`(\varphi ^1,\varphi _\xi ^1,\varphi ^2,\varphi _\xi ^2)^T`$ phase space, the problem of computing solitary wave profiles and speeds for (1) with $`[1|0]`$ state is equivalent to finding heteroclinic orbits connecting two fixed points:

$$(\varphi ^1,\varphi ^2)=(\mathrm{arcsin}\gamma ,0)$$
(4)
and

$$(\varphi ^1,\varphi ^2)=(\mathrm{arcsin}\gamma +2\pi ,0).$$
(5)
We can calculate the parameter combinations for which there exist such a heteroclinic solution numerically, using the program AUTO . First, we consider the case when $`J=1`$. In this case, the system of equations (3) can be rewritten to

$$\left[(1c^2)\frac{S}{1c^2}\right]\varphi _{\xi \xi }^{1,2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{1,2}\frac{S}{1c^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{2,1}=\frac{S}{1c^2}(\alpha c\varphi _\xi ^{2,1}\gamma )+\alpha c\varphi _\xi ^{1,2}\gamma $$
(6)
from which we see a singularity at $`1c^2=\pm S`$ or $`|c_\pm |=\sqrt{1\pm S}`$. These values of $`c`$ are called the Swihart velocity. Note that $`|c_+|<|c_{}|`$ because $`S`$ is negative.

In Fig. 1, the numerically obtained $`(c,\gamma )`$ picture (in the future we call these kind of pictures IV-characteristics) is shown. The numerical values used in all calculations are $`S=0.25`$ and $`\alpha =0.17`$.

Somehow, near the edge of the IV-characteristic, we have a spiral shaped curve. Previously, this kind of spiral in the IV-characteristic has been observed in a single long Josephson junction by Brown et al. . Later on, it is shown in  that such a spiral exists in the single Josephson junction if the dissipation due to surface resistance, i.e. adding a term $`\beta \varphi _{xxt}^{1,2}`$ in Eq. (1), is taken into account.

However, there is a difference between the spiral we have in this case and spiral in a single long Josephson junction. The spiral in the single long Josephson junction has its center located at $`|c|=1`$ which is the maksimum velocity possibly achieved by a fluxon. In our case here, the center is below the lowest Swihart velocity $`|c_+|=\sqrt{1+S}`$ . The first four turning points are given in Table 1. The plot of the solitons related to those turning points is given in Figure 2.

Goldobin et al.  give a ’proof’ which shows that the fluxon in the state $`[1|0]`$ with $`J=1`$ cannot pass the lowest Swihart velocity $`|c_+|`$. The result says that if $`|c_+|`$ is reached, there is at least a fluxon in the second junction which then gives the $`[1|1]`$ state.

## 3 Unequal Junctions: $`J>1`$

An interesting situation occurs if the two junctions forming the stack are not identical. We assume that only the critical currents of the two are unequal, which translates to the condition that $`J`$ in Eq. (3) is not equal to $`1`$.

Goldobin et al.  mention for the first time that there is a ’back-bending’ phenomenon in the IV-characteristic. With AUTO we can continue the backbending such that we get the full-branch of the IV-characteristic. The result is shown in Fig. 3.

Goldobin et al.  also show that the velocity $`|c_+|`$ cannot be reached at this case.

In Fig. 4, two solutions for the same value of $`\gamma `$ are plotted. In the first junction there is hardly any change, but in the second junction there is a big difference. On the left branch there is only a small ’image’ in the second junction, which then if we follow the IV-characteristic, this image has grown to a large hump.

The stability of solutions on the right branch has been tested numerically in . By taking the solution as calculated with AUTO and using this as initial solution to the PDE-solver , we conclude that all solutions on the right branch are unstable. All solutions at the left branch up to the point where $`d\gamma /dc=0`$ are stable. Solutions on the right branch are in the domain of attraction of the solution for the same value of $`\gamma `$ on the left branch.

The instability of the solution can be seen clearer when we follow the right branch in the direction of decreasing $`\gamma `$. In the limit $`\gamma `$ tends to $`0`$, there is a fluxon-antifluxon pair in junction $`2`$ or the stack is in $`[1|1,1]`$ . Because the fluxon and antifluxon are attracting each other, if we apply a bias current, they will collide and a new different state is formed. This is the physical argument to show that this state is unstable.

## 4 Unequal Junctions: $`J<1`$

A somewhat different behavior happens when we look at case the $`J<1`$. While in the case $`J1`$, the velocity is bounded by $`c_+`$, $`|c||c_+|`$, in the case $`J<1`$ we have that $`|c|`$ can exceed the value $`|c_+|`$. When fluxons move with velocities above the lowest Swihart velocity, Cherenkov radiation takes place.

Cherenkov radiation is the emission of waves behind the moving fluxon. Behind the fluxon we will find an oscillating tail which is the emitted waves. E. Goldobin et al.  observe Cherenkov radiation happening in the $`[1|0]`$ state numerically and experimentally.

The IV-characteristic of the state is given in Fig. 5(a). Unfortunately, the IV-characteristic stops at $`c_+`$ because our equation becomes singular at that value and AUTO cannot continue the calculation through the singularity. Therefore, all solutions that lie in this IV-characteristic do not have such emitted wave behind the fluxon.

If we keep increasing the applied bias current, the velocity of the fluxon increases up to the maximum velocity $`|u_{max}^{[1|0]}|`$. This maximum velocity is a function of $`J,S,\alpha `$ . By now, the analytic form of the maximum velocity for this state is still unknown.

Another branch is found when we use one solution on the right branch of the IV-characteristic for $`J>1`$ as the initial solution of AUTO. Using this initial condition, then we decrease the parameter $`J`$ up to $`J=0.5`$. In fact, we get a backbending curve for the IV-characteristic of the case $`J<1`$. The curve is given in Fig. 5(b). If for $`J>1`$, we see hardly any changes when comparing solutions in the first junction, while something different happens in the second junction (Fig. 4), for the case we have the opposite result. In junction 2 we almost have seen nothing, while there is a difference in the solutions in the first junction. In Fig. 6 we compare two solutions on the left and right branch for the same value of $`\gamma `$.

A further analysis is needed to see the stability of solutions lying on this branch. We conjecture that all the solutions are unstable. The same argument might be used as in the case $`J>1`$ before. Numerical simulation confirms as well that the solutions go to the corresponding solutions at the other branch. We have done that also using PDE-solver where we use a solution resulted by AUTO as the initial solution of the PDE-solver.

## 5 Conclusion

We have given several calculations showing that stacked-Josephson junctions have very rich behavior. Just with $`[1|0]`$ state and changing $`J`$, we already have qualitatively different IV-characteristics, while there are many more states that can exist in the junctions.

How the IV-characteristics corresponding to the state $`[n|m]`$ change when $`J`$ passes through $`1`$ needs to be investigated further. Also the stability of the various patterns needs to be determined.

Goldobin et al.  state that for the $`[1|0]`$ state not only the condition $`J<1`$ leads to $`|c|>|c_+|`$, but also the asymmetry of the applied bias current of the two-fold stack, i.e. when we have $`\gamma ^1>\gamma ^2`$. Therefore, it might be interesting to consider also in the near future the possibility of having branches of the system under condition $`\gamma ^1\gamma ^2`$.


text:
# Comment on: ”Current-voltage characteristics and zero-resistance state in 2DEG”

## Abstract

We demonstrate that N(S)-shape current-voltage characteristics proposed to explain zero-resistance state in Corbino(Hall bar) geometry 2DEG (cond-mat//0302063, 0303530) cannot account essential features of radiation-induced magnetoresistance oscillations experiments.

Recently, a great deal of interest has been focussed on the anomalous transport behavior of 2DEG subjected to microwave and weak magnetic fields Zudov ; Mani . Possible scenarios for this phenomenon were discussed in Phillips -Mikhailov . As it was shown in Durst ; Aleiner ; Shi , at certain magnetic field and irradiation strength the longitudinal conductivity may become negative argued to result in zero resistance(conductance) states ZRS(ZCS)observed in experiments. In Ref.Volkov  current-voltage characteristic (CVC) of irradiated 2D system in classically strong magnetic field suggested to exhibit N(S)-shaped behavior(Fig.1) in Corbino(Hall bar) geometry respectively.

We now discuss the relevance of the ZRS modelVolkov  regarding to experiments Mani ; Yang . According to Aleiner ; Volkov , in ZRS the Hall bar sample exhibits the current domain structure(bold line in Fig.1,bottom panel), when $`\left|j\right|<j_0`$. Upon current enhancement $`\left|j\right|>j_0`$ the steady current state eventually sets on. ZRS disappears. In contrast to the above scenario, the experimentsMani  demonstrate insensitive nature of the radiation-induced resistance oscillations within 30-times change in current magnitude.

Another problem in question is whether ZRS model presents a transparent physics with respect to Corbino and Hall bar simultaneous measurementsYang . For Corbino geometry sample CVC arguedVolkov  to be N-shaped(Fig.1, top panel). At fixed voltage between the inner and outer contacts Corbino sample represents the electric field domain structure(ZCS) when $`\left|E\right|<E_0`$. Let us assume now ZCS at fixed applied electric field $`E=E_0`$ and certain value of the magnetic field. Since $`\rho _{xx}\sigma _{xx}/\sigma _{yx}^2=0`$, the system remains ZRS as well. We argue that the experimental dataYang  provide the strong evidence that the radiation-induced conductivity oscillations in Corbino samples are identical to those deduced from Hall bar measurements data. Invoking now the formalismVolkov , we conclude that at certain magnetic field and $`E=E_0`$ the ZCS(Corbino) corresponds to ZRS(Hall bar) at $`j=j_0`$, where $`j_0=\sigma _{yx}E_0`$ according to Ref.Volkov . Obviously, in real experimentsYang  the above relationship is violated since the applied constant current(Hall bar setup) and constant electric field(Corbino setup) are presumably independent.

Finally, it turns out that ZRS model is unable to explain some essential experimental findingsMani ; Yang .

This work was supported by RFBR(grant 03-02-17588), and LSF(HPRI-CT-2001-00114, Weizmann Institute)