text:
# The fate of star clusters near the Galactic center I: Analytic considerations

## 1 Introduction

The innermost $`100`$ pc of the Milky Way Galaxy contains a number of intriguing objects. These include the central $`23\times 10^6`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ black hole (Genzel et al. 2000; Ghez et al. 2000), a cluster containing at least 15 massive young stars (Tabmley & Rieke 1993; Krabbe et al. 1995), a much larger population of older stars (Alexander 1999), and at least two young dense star clusters—the Arches and the Quintuplet systems (Nagata et al. 1995; Nagata et al. 1990; Okuda et al. 1990).

Krabbe et al. (1995) found $`15`$ bright He I emission line stars in the Galactic center. They are part of the co-moving 7–8 Myr old $`\stackrel{>}{}10^4`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ association known as IRS 16 (Tamblyn & Rieke 1993; Krabbe 1995), and are accompanied by many less luminous stars of spectral types O and B (Genzel et al. 2000). Detailed spectroscopic analysis of the Galactic center region (Najarro et al. 1994) indicate that these emission-line stars are evolved, with a high surface ratio of helium to hydrogen $`n_{\mathrm{He}}/n_\mathrm{H}=1`$ to 1.67. Allen et al. (1990) classify them as Ofpe/WN9 stars, while Najarro et al. (1997) identify them as 60–100 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ Luminous Blue Variables (LBVs), the late evolutionary stages of very massive stars (Langer et al. 1994). Depending on the interpretation of the data, the age of IRS 16 therefore lies in the range 3–7 Myr, the lower figure corresponding to the LBV identification.

One possible explanation for these stars is a recent $`10^4\mathrm{M}_{}`$ starburst (Krabbe et al. 1995). However, this model is problematic, as the formation of stars within a parsec of the Galactic center is difficult; the Galactic tidal field is sufficient to unbind gas clouds with densities $`\stackrel{<}{}10^7`$ cm<sup>-3</sup> (Güsten & Downes 1980). Gerhard (2001) has proposed that a million-solar-mass star cluster formed at a distance of $`\stackrel{<}{}30`$ pc from the Galactic center could have reached the Galactic center via dynamical friction before being disrupted by the Galactic tidal field or by internal dynamical evolution. This qualitative argument solves the problem of the presence of young, very massive stars in the Galactic center. Gerhard’s dynamical friction time scale assumed that the stellar density in the vicinity of the Galactic center is described by an isothermal sphere; in addition, he ignored stellar mass loss and the internal dynamical evolution of the cluster. In this paper we present a more quantitative approach to the problem.

This is the first in a series of papers in which we consider the time scale on which a star cluster sinks to the Galactic center and is disrupted by the Galactic tidal field. In the semi-analytic calculations presented here, we study the inspiral of three quite different cluster models. We begin with the simplifying approximation that the inspiraling object has constant mass. Later, we relax that assumption and allow the cluster to lose mass, first by tidal stripping, then also by stellar evolution and relaxation. For definiteness, and for purposes of illustration, we adopt a simple analytic prescription for mass loss from the evolving cluster, and investigate its consequences. In a future paper we will incorporate more realistic treatments of cluster dynamics.

The organization of this paper is as follows. In §2 we first consider the orbital decay of a unevolving point mass. In §3 we expand our study to include clusters of nonzero radii, allowing their masses to evolve in time as material is stripped by the Galactic tidal field. The introduction of physical parameters into our models then allows us to incorporate simple treatments stellar mass loss and evaporation within our simple model. In §4 we apply the model to star clusters near the Galactic center, to determine the region of parameter space in which clusters can transport a considerable fraction of their initial mass to within a few parsecs of the Galactic center before disruption. We discuss our results and conclude in §5.

## 2 Inspiral with constant mass

We begin our study with the simplifying assumption that the mass of the inspiraling object is constant. This idealization may be appropriate for a single massive black hole or a very compact star cluster which is much smaller than its Jacobi radius, the limiting radius of a cluster in the tidal field of the Galaxy. In the latter case, however, for the constant-mass approximation to hold, internal dynamical evolution of the cluster should also be negligible on the time scale on which the cluster sinks to the Galactic center. In practice, especially for small clusters, this will not be the case, as we discuss in §5.

### 2.1 Dynamical friction

We characterize the mass $`M`$ within a sphere with radius $`R`$ centered on the Galactic center as a power law:

$$M(R)=AR^\alpha ,$$
(1)
where $`A`$ and $`\alpha `$ are constants, with $`1<\alpha <2`$ of interest here. The density at distance $`R`$ then is

$$\rho (R)=\frac{A\alpha }{4\pi }R^{\alpha 3},$$
(2)
and we can write down expressions for the orbital acceleration at distance $`R`$ from the Galactic center

$$a(R)=GAR^{\alpha 2},$$
(3)
the potential

$$\varphi (R)=\frac{GA}{\alpha 1}R^{\alpha 1},$$
(4)
the circular velocity

$$v_\mathrm{c}^2(R)=GAR^{\alpha 1},$$
(5)
and the total energy of a circular orbit

$$E_c(R)=\frac{1}{2}GAR^{\alpha 1}\left(\frac{\alpha +1}{\alpha 1}\right).$$
(6)
The object’s acceleration due to dynamical friction is (Binney & Tremaine 1987, p. 425)

$$𝐚_f=4\pi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }G^2\rho m\frac{𝐯_c}{v_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}}\chi .$$
(7)
Here, $`m`$ is the mass of the object, $`𝐯_c`$ is its velocity vector (in a circular orbit around the Galactic center), $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{ln}r/R5`$ is the Coulomb logarithm (where $`r`$ is the object’s characteristic radius—roughly the half-mass radius in the case of a cluster), $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, and

$$\chi \mathrm{erf}(X)\frac{2X}{\sqrt{\pi }}e^{X^2},$$
(8)
where $`X=v_\mathrm{c}/\sqrt{2}\sigma `$ and $`\sigma ^2(R)`$ is the local one-dimensional velocity dispersion, assumed isotropic.

Substitution of Eqs. (1), (2) and (5) into Eq. (7) results in

$$a_f|𝐚_f|=\alpha \chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{Gm}{R^2},$$
(9)
from which we note that

$$\frac{a_f}{a(R)}=\alpha \chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{m}{M}.$$
(10)
For $`\alpha =1.2`$, we obtain $`X0.89`$ (see Appendix A), and hence $`\chi 0.34`$. With $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=5`$ we find $`a_f/a(R)2m/M`$.

### 2.2 Orbital decay

We can now derive the inspiral time scale for a star cluster with constant mass $`m`$ in a power-law density profile given by Eq. (1). The time derivative of Eq. (6) is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_c}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(\alpha +1)GAR^{\alpha 2}{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dt}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }G^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho m}{v_\mathrm{c}}},`$
where the second equation expresses the work done by dynamical friction (Eq. 9). Hereafter, $`R`$ should be interpreted as $`R(t)`$, the distance from the cluster in question to the Galactic center. Substitution of Eqs. (2) and (5) leads to

$$\frac{dE_c}{dt}=\alpha \chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }G^{3/2}A^{1/2}mR^{(\alpha 5)/2},$$
(12)
whence

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\gamma R^{(\alpha +1)/2},$$
(13)
where

$$\gamma =2m\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\alpha \chi }{\alpha +1}\left(\frac{G}{A}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
Solving Eq. (13) with $`R(t)=R_0`$ at time $`t=0`$ results in

$$R(t)=R_0\left[1\frac{(\alpha +3)\gamma }{2R_0^{(\alpha +3)/2}}t\right]^{2/(\alpha +3)}.$$
(15)
Setting $`R=0`$ at $`t=t_{\mathrm{df}}`$ and substituting Eq. (1) yields

$`t_{\mathrm{df}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +1}{\alpha (\alpha +3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_0}{G}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{R_0^{3/2}}{m}},`$ (16)
where $`M_0=M(R_0)`$. In terms of the orbital period of a circular orbit around the Galactic center at distance $`R_0`$, $`T_0=2\pi \left(GM_0/R_0^3\right)^{1/2}`$, Eq. (16) becomes

$$\frac{t_{\mathrm{df}}}{T_0}=\frac{\alpha +1}{2\pi \alpha (\alpha +3)}\frac{1}{\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{M_0}{m}.$$
(17)
For $`\alpha =1.2`$, $`M_0/m=10^3`$, and $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=5`$, we find $`t_{\mathrm{df}}40T_0`$.

## 3 Clusters with variable mass

We now consider the possibility that the mass of the cluster varies with time: $`m=m(t)`$. Most mass loss from the cluster is the result of tidal stripping as the cluster sinks toward the Galactic center. We begin by determining the Jacobi (tidal) radius $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ of the cluster in the tidal field of the Galaxy.

### 3.1 Mass of a tidally limited cluster

The differential acceleration at distance $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ from the center of the cluster is obtained from Eq. (3):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }a_{\mathrm{tide}}(\alpha 2)GAR^{\alpha 3}r_\mathrm{J},$$
(18)
or, relative to the internal cluster acceleration at $`r_\mathrm{J}`$,

$$\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }a_{\mathrm{tide}}|}{a_\mathrm{J}}=(\alpha 2)\left(\frac{M}{m_\mathrm{J}}\right)\left(\frac{r_\mathrm{J}}{R}\right)^3.$$
(19)
Here $`a_\mathrm{J}=Gm_\mathrm{J}/r_{\mathrm{J}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{J}`$, the cluster mass within radius $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ (still to be determined), will henceforth be identified as the cluster mass. Setting $`|\mathrm{\Delta }a_{\mathrm{tide}}|=a_\mathrm{J}`$, we find

$$\left(\frac{M}{m_\mathrm{J}}\right)\left(\frac{r_\mathrm{J}}{R}\right)^3=\frac{1}{2\alpha }.$$
(20)
This may be conveniently (and conventionally) expressed in terms of average densities $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{J}=3m_\mathrm{J}/4\pi r_{\mathrm{J}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ and $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{G}=3M/4\pi R^3`$, as

$$\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{J}=(2\alpha )\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{G}.$$
(21)
To proceed further, we must make a connection between $`m_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{J}`$. Two particularly simple cluster density profiles lend themselves easily to analytic development:

1. A homogeneous sphere of mass $`m_0`$, radius $`b`$, and uniform density

$$\rho _0=\frac{3m_0}{4\pi b^3}.$$
(22)
2. A Plummer (1911) model of mass $`m_0`$ and scale radius $`b`$, with

$$\rho (r)=\rho _0\left(1+r^2/b^2\right)^{5/2},$$
(23)
where $`\rho _0`$ is again given by Eq. (22).

Note that, in each case we assume fixed parameters $`m_0`$ and $`b`$—that is, we neglect structural changes in the cluster due to dynamical evolution or stellar mass loss. This assumption greatly simplifies the calculation, but clearly is of questionable validity when the internal dynamical time scales are comparable to the inspiral time (see §5). In the next subsection we expand our model to allow for the effects of mass loss due to stellar evolution and escaping stars. A more complete treatment of the cluster’s structural evolution will be the subject of a future paper.

For the homogeneous sphere (case 1), the desired relation between $`m_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ is simple:

$$m_\mathrm{J}=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_0\left(r_\mathrm{J}/b\right)^3\hfill & (r_\mathrm{J}<b),\hfill \\ m_0\hfill & (r_\mathrm{J}b).\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
No solution to Eq. (21) exists for $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{G}>\rho _0/(2\alpha )`$, and the cluster is destroyed at Galactocentric radius

$$R_{\mathrm{min}}=\left[\frac{m_0}{(2\alpha )Ab^3}\right]^{1/(\alpha 3)}.$$
(25)
Outside $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`r_\mathrm{J}>b`$ and $`m=m_0`$. Inside, $`r_\mathrm{J}=m=m_\mathrm{J}=0`$.

For the Plummer model (case 2),

$$\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{J}=\rho _0\left(1+r_\mathrm{J}^2/b^2\right)^{3/2}$$
(26)
and again, no solution exists for $`R<R_{\mathrm{min}}`$. Outside $`R_{\mathrm{min}}`$, $`r_\mathrm{J}(R)`$ satisfies

$`1+r_{\mathrm{J}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/b^2`$ $`=`$ $`(2\alpha )^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{M_0}}\right)^{2/3}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{b}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_0}}\right)^{22\alpha /3}.`$ (27)
The mass of the cluster is then given by Eq. (21):

$`m_\mathrm{J}(R)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\alpha )M_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{J}}{R_0}}\right)^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{R}{R_0}}\right)^{\alpha 3}.`$ (28)
We use this model as the basis for our discussion in the remainder of the paper.

### 3.2 Mass loss from stellar evolution

Many clusters dissolve so quickly that stellar evolution barely affects their mass. However, if the cluster survives for more than a few million years, mass loss from the most massive stars may become important (see McMillan 2003 for a recent review). Recent detailed N-body simulations by Portegies Zwart et al. (2001) have quantified the expansion of a tidally-limited cluster as its mass decreases. The expansion drives more rapid disruption, while the mass loss slows the inspiral.

We include stellar mass loss in our model as follows. First we rewrite Eq. (28) as $`m_\mathrm{J}(R)=mn_\mathrm{J}(R)`$, where $`n_\mathrm{J}`$(R) is the number of stars within the Jacobi radius and $`m`$ is the mean stellar mass, which is now a function of time due to stellar evolution. We assume that the mass functions of the cluster and of the escaping stars are identical. (Again, this is equivalent to the neglect of internal dynamical evolution.) We parametrize the cluster’s expansion in response to stellar mass loss by

$$b=b_0m_0/m,$$
(29)
which is equivalent to the assumption that the cluster loses mass adiabatically, as found by Portegies Zwart et al. (2001).

The mean mass in the cluster can be computed from the initial mass function. For clarity we assume that all the mass in stars having masses above the cluster’s turn-off mass is simply lost from the cluster. So long as the turn-off mass exceeds $`8`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ this assumption is justified by the high-velocity kick imparted to compact objects by the supernovae in which they form, allowing them to escape from the cluster. For older clusters this assumption breaks down as lower-mass stars turn into white dwarfs, which do not receive high velocities at formation, although such clusters are not of direct interest in the present paper. Integrating the initial mass function, we find

$$m=\left(\frac{1x}{2x}\right)\frac{m_{\mathrm{to}}^{2x}m_{\mathrm{min}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2x}}{m_{\mathrm{to}}^{1x}m_{\mathrm{min}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1x}}.$$
(30)
Here $`x`$ is the exponent for the (assumed) power-law mass function (Salpeter: $`x=2.35`$), $`m_{\mathrm{to}}`$ is the cluster turn-off mass, and $`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the lower mass limit. We determine the turn-off mass using fits to the stellar evolution models of Eggleton, Fitchet & Tout (1998).

### 3.3 Mass loss due to relaxation

A tidally limited star cluster in the tidal field of the Galaxy will also lose mass due to internal relaxation as occasional interactions between cluster members result in velocities high enough for stars to escape the cluster potential. Portegies Zwart & McMillan (2002) have simulated star clusters near the Galactic center; they derive the following approximate expression for relaxation-driven cluster mass loss:

$$m(t)=m_0\left(1\frac{t}{0.29t_{\mathrm{rt}}}\right).$$
(31)
Here $`t_{\mathrm{rt}}`$ is the relaxation time at the cluster tidal radius,

$$t_{\mathrm{rt}}=2.05\mathrm{Myr}\left(\frac{r_\mathrm{J}}{1\mathrm{pc}}\right)^{3/2}\left(\frac{m_\mathrm{J}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{n_\mathrm{J}}{\mathrm{log}(0.4n_\mathrm{J})},$$
(32)
where $`n_J`$ is the number of stars contained within the Jacobi radius.

The clusters in the study of Portegies Zwart & McMillan (2002) did not spiral in to the Galactic center, so the relaxation time at the tidal radius remained constant over the lifetime of the cluster. In our case, where clusters sink toward the Galactic center, the relaxation time at the tidal radius changes with time. We therefore recast Eq. (31), as follows. Differentiating Eq. (31) with respect to time, identifying $`m(t)`$ with $`m_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{rt}}`$ with the instantaneous relaxation time at $`r_\mathrm{J}`$, and including the radial dependence of the relaxation time, assuming a tidally limited cluster, we obtain

$$\frac{dm}{dt}=\frac{m_0}{0.29t_{\mathrm{rt},0}}\left(\frac{R}{R_0}\right)^{(\alpha 3)/2}.$$
(33)
For the purposes of this paper, we draw a distinction between the processes of tidal stripping, in which stars outside the Jacobi radius are removed by the Galactic tidal field as the cluster sinks toward the Galactic center and the Jacobi radius shrinks, and evaporation, in which stars are driven across the instantaneous Jacobi radius by internal two-body relaxation. All models discussed in the following section include tidal stripping; models discussed in §4.2 and subsequently also include both evaporation-driven and stellar-evolution mass loss.

## 4 Results

From §2.2, the distance from the cluster to the Galactic center satisfies

$$\frac{dR}{dt}=\gamma (R)R^{(\alpha +1)/2}$$
(34)
(Eqs. 13 and 14), with $`R=R_0`$ at $`t=0`$. Transforming to dimensionless variables $`\xi =R/R_0`$ and $`\tau =t/T_0`$, and substituting Eq. (14), we rewrite this equation in the form

$$\frac{d\xi }{d\tau }=\frac{4\pi \alpha }{\alpha +1}\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{m_\mathrm{J}}{M_0}\xi ^{(\alpha +1)/2}.$$
(35)
For a Plummer model, the cluster mass $`m_\mathrm{J}`$ varies as a function of $`R`$ and therefore $`\xi `$ via Eq. (28). We solve Eq. (35) numerically, as it admits no simple analytic solution. For all models we adopt $`A=4.25\times 10^6`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and $`\alpha =1.2`$ (Sanders & Lowinger 1972, Mezger et al. 1999).

For simplicity we assume that $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ for the remainder of this section, unless indicated otherwise. A value of $`\chi \mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.2`$ or 1.3 is probably more appropriate (Binney & Tremaine 1987; Spinnato, Fellhauer & Portegies Zwart 2003). The dynamical friction time scale is inversely proportional to $`\chi \mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see Eq. 16), so the effects of different choices can be easily estimated.

### 4.1 Solutions without stellar evolution

For systems without significant stellar mass loss or evaporation, the evolution may be conveniently parametrized by the dimensionless quantities

$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`b_0/R_0,`$
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`m_0/M_0.`$ (36)
The contours and gray shades in Fig. 1 present the dissolution time ($`\tau `$) of the cluster as a function of $`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$.

Fig. 1 shows that compact, massive clusters have the shortest lifetimes, that the lifetime decreases with increasing mass at fixed initial cluster radius ($`b_0`$), increases with increasing radius at fixed mass, and is largely independent of the radius for small radii. This last point simply means that clusters initially well inside their Jacobi radii ($`b_00.9r_\mathrm{J}`$) experience significant stripping only near the end of the inspiral process. There is no initial solution when $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{G}>\rho _0/(2\alpha )`$, i.e. when $`b_0>r_\mathrm{J}`$.

Since the stellar density diverges toward the Galactic center, no extended cluster can actually reach $`R=0`$ (although a black hole can). Fig. 2 shows the cluster’s distance to the Galactic center as a function of time (again in units of the initial orbital period of the cluster around the Galactic center) for several selected values of $`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$. Not surprisingly, more massive clusters (larger values of $`\mu `$) spiral in more quickly, and physically larger clusters (larger $`\beta `$) dissolve at larger distances from the Galactic center.

The long lifetimes of clusters with $`b_0\stackrel{>}{}0.9r_\mathrm{J}`$ (see Fig. 1) and small values of $`\mu `$ are due to the weak effect of dynamical friction in those cases. Since we ignore stellar mass loss and internal dynamical evolution (specifically, evaporation) in this simple model, such clusters survive for unrealistically long times. In practice, these systems will be strongly affected by stellar evolution and evaporation, as we now demonstrate.

### 4.2 Evolution with stellar mass loss and relaxation

By selecting the Galactic center as representative nucleus we can attach physical units to the selected values of $`\mu `$ and $`\beta `$. The advantage of introducing physical parameters is that the numbers become more intuitive, but of course we lose the scale-free solution from previous section. Another advantage of fixing the scaling is that we can take stellar evolution and internal relaxation into account. Stellar mass loss (via Eq. 30) and evaporation (via Eq. 33) are included by solving Eq. (35). For most calculations we adopted a Salpeter initial mass function between 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 100 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. The effect of relaxing this assumption is illustrated in Fig. 5 below.

Fig. 3 shows distances to the Galactic center as functions of time of model clusters having initial masses of 64,000 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (a) and 256,000 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (b). For each selected initial distance ($`R_0=2`$ pc, 4 pc, 8 pc and 16 pc) we choose a range of initial values for the cluster scale $`b_0=0.2`$ pc, 0.4, and 0.8 pc. The choice of $`m_0=64,000\mathrm{M}_{}`$, $`R_0=8`$ pc, and $`b_0=0.2`$ pc corresponds to the “standard” model indicated in Fig. 2. These models were computed taking both stellar mass loss and evaporation into account. Models with $`b_0=0`$ (point mass case, without stellar mass loss or evaporation) are also included for comparison; they are identical to the calculations presented in Fig. 2.

Due to the extra mass-loss channels (stellar evolution and evaporation) and the resultant reduction in the inspiral (and hence tidal stripping) rate, the lifetimes of the clusters shown in Fig. 3 may be either longer or shorter than those of clusters in which stellar evolution is neglected (as in Fig. 2). This is illustrated in Fig. 4 for models having $`\mu =0.00012`$ and $`\beta =0.05`$, 0.025 (the “standard” model) and 0.0125. Dimensionless times are converted to megayears using an orbital period of 0.30 Myr, appropriate to a cluster at an initial distance of 8 pc from the Galactic center. The dotted curves show the evolution of the dimensionless models in which only tidal stripping is included. The solid, dashed and dash-3-dotted curves present the same models with stellar evolution and evaporation taken into account. At a distance of 8 pc from the Galactic center, the values of $`\beta =0.05`$, 0.025, and 0.0125 correspond to $`b_0=0.4`$ pc, 0.2 and $`b_0=0.1`$ pc, respectively.

Compact clusters ($`b_0\stackrel{<}{}0.4`$ pc) are relatively unaffected by tidal stripping. As a result, the primary effect of stellar mass loss is simply to decrease the inspiral rate, increasing the cluster lifetime. However, in larger clusters ($`b_0\stackrel{>}{}0.4`$ pc) the expansion caused by stellar mass loss greatly increases the stripping rate, significantly decreasing the lifetime despite the slower inspiral. For very low-mass, or very large, clusters relaxation and evaporation may dominate. However for the cases studied here the effect is almost negligible. This is illustrated by the first few million years of evolution of clusters with large $`b_0`$, such as the dash-3-dotted curve in Fig. 4. The small deviation of the $`b_0=0.8`$ pc curve from the $`\beta =0.050`$ dotted curve during the first $`5`$ Myr is the result of relaxation.

Fig. 5 illustrates how varying the cluster initial mass function alters the time evolution of its Galactocentric radius and mass. The dotted curve (Fig. 5a only) shows the constant point-mass case for $`\mu =0.0012`$. The solid curve shows the evolution of the standard model with $`\beta =0.025`$, scaling times to megayears assuming an initial Galactocentric distance of 8 pc. The dashed curves give the results when stellar mass loss and evaporation are taken into account, assuming lower mass limits for the initial mass function of 0.1 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, 0.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, 0.4 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ and 0.8 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$.

Increasing the low-mass cutoff in the mass function increases the effective stellar evolution mass-loss rate, and reduces the cluster lifetime. A similar effect can be achieved by increasing the power-law slope $`x`$ of the mass function. The models are therefore degenerate in the $`x`$$`m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ plane. For example, a model with a Salpeter initial mass function ($`x=2.35`$) and a low-mass cutoff at 0.2 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ evolves almost identically to a model with $`x=2.13`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=0.1`$ or with $`x=2.90`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=0.4`$.

### 4.3 Comparison with Kim et al. (2000)

Kim (2000) used GADGET, the tree code developed by Springel, Yoshida & White (2000), to compute the dynamical friction of dense star clusters near the Galactic center. In these calculations, the inner part of the Galaxy was represented by 2 million point particles distributed as a truncated softened power-law similar to our Eq. (2), except that the overall density was 2.5 times smaller than ours. The black hole in the Galactic center was represented as a single particle. The star cluster was modeled as a Plummer sphere with $`b_0=0.85`$ pc, using $`10^5`$ point particles having a total mass of $`m_0=10^6`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$. Initially, the cluster was placed in a circular orbit at a distance of $`R_0=30`$ pc from the Galactic center. The simulations ignored mass loss by stellar evolution and evaporation.

The time-dependence of the cluster’s Galactocentric distance, as determined by Kim (2000), is shown in Fig. 6. His cluster orbits become slightly eccentric during the evolution, but this seems to have little effect on the dynamical friction timescale. For clarity we do not show the actual results reported by Kim, but instead match his initial conditions, which are plotted in Fig. 6 as the rightmost dashed curve. This model is computed without stellar evolution or evaporation, as in Kim’s simulations. Our model closely reproduces Kim’s results when we adopt $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=3.7`$, which is close to the value used by Kim. For reference, we also plot the evolution of a constant point-mass model (dotted curve), and a model in which stellar evolution and evaporation are taken into account (solid curve). To guide the eye we also plot the same series of runs with $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }=10`$.

## 5 Discussion

In this section we discuss some consequences of our semi-analytical calculations. In particular, we consider Gerhard’s (2002) conjecture, discussed in §1, that IRS 16 and the associated young stars observed in the Galactic center may have been deposited there by the inspiral and disruption of a much more massive system. We take the two known Galactic center clusters—the Arches and Quintuplet—as templates.

Table. 1 presents the observed parameters for the Arches and Quintuplet systems. The final columns give the clusters’ half-mass relaxation time and the time required to reach the Galactic center, according to Eq. (32). (The half mass relaxation time is computed by substituting $`r_{\mathrm{hm}}`$ for $`r_\mathrm{J}`$ in that equation.) It is clear that neither cluster will reach the Galactic center within the next few megayears, and that both were probably born at roughly their present distance from the Galactic center. For these calculations we have again adopted $`\chi \mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$.

Fig. 7 presents, as a function of initial cluster mass and galactocentric radius, the time taken for a star cluster with $`b_0=0.2`$ pc to reach the Galactic center (a), and the distance from the Galactic center at which the cluster dissolves (b). Contours and greyscale represent inspiral time in (a) and dissolution distance in (b). The cluster is deemed to have dissolved when it comes within 1 pc of the Galactic center, or when it has lost 99% of its initial mass. The dotted lines have the same meanings is in Fig. 1.

The rightmost dashed line in Fig. 7 marks initial conditions for which the inspiral time scale equals the initial relaxation time. To the right of this curve, the cluster will experience significant internal dynamical evolution before disrupting. Our simple description of the cluster’s internal structure is therefore unreliable to the right of this curve, but our expression for the evaporation rate is still valid. The left dashed curve corresponds to an inspiral time scale of 0.2 $`t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$, where $`t_{\mathrm{rh}}`$ is the initial relaxation time at the half-mass radius. This is roughly the core-collapse time for a system with a realistic initial mass function in which stellar evolution is relatively unimportant (see Portegies Zwart & McMillan 2002). Clusters with initial conditions to the left of the left dashed curve are thus expected to dissolve in the Galactic tidal field before experiencing core collapse.

During and after core collapse (to the right of the left dashed curve in Fig. 7a) the structure of the cluster changes considerably, and our simple prescription for cluster disruption is unlikely to hold. We expect that the structural changes in these clusters will cause their dense cores to survive for longer, and that they will sink slightly closer to the Galactic center than indicated in Fig. 7(b) (see Gerhard 2002 and Portegies Zwart et al 2003 for further discussion). The change in disruption radius is not expected to be great, however, as the residual core masses are small and their inspiral correspondingly slow at late times.

Fig. 7 clearly indicates that the two known nuclear star clusters, the Arches and Quintuplet, will not reach the Galactic center. Their survival times are determined by internal relaxation rather than by dynamical friction (see also Tab. 1). The inspiral time scale for these clusters is of the order of 1 Gyr, compared to their predicted lifetime of 100 Myr, based on N-body simulations (Portegies Zwart et al., 2001). Fig. 7(b) indicates that clusters with $`M\stackrel{<}{}20,000`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ barely evolve in Galactocentric radius on this time scale, but instead dissolve in situ, due to the combined effects of evaporation and stellar mass loss.

Fig. 8 gives the time taken for a star cluster with $`m_0=64,000`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ to reach the Galactic center and the Galactocentric distance at which the cluster dissolves. In Fig. 7 the initial cluster mass $`m_0`$ was varied at constant $`b_0`$. Now we vary $`b_0`$ keeping $`m_0`$ constant, thereby providing a second slice through the same parameter space as in Fig. 7. As in Fig. 7, the approximate locations of the Arches and Quintuplet clusters are indicated. It is clear that small shifts in either figure will not alter the basic conclusion that both clusters will dissolve at large distances from the Galactic center.

From Figs. 7 and 8 it is clear that only massive ($`\stackrel{>}{}10^5`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$) star clusters can transport a significant fraction of their mass to the vicinity of the Galactic center within a few megayears. Also, even a million solar mass star cluster will require several tens of megayears to reach the Galactic center from an initial distance of $`\stackrel{>}{}30`$ pc. The most promising candidates to reach the central parsec of the Galaxy within 10 Myr, but after significant mass segregation has occurred, are star clusters with masses $`\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$, born within about 20 pc of the Galactic center, with half mass radii of $`0.2`$–0.4 pc. Less massive clusters, clusters farther from the Galactic center, or smaller (larger) clusters have greater difficulty reaching the Galactic center before disruption (core collapse).

We therefore conclude that, if they originated in a massive star cluster, the stars in IRS 16 were born in a $`\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ cluster at a Galactocentric distance of $`\stackrel{<}{}20`$ pc. The cluster deposited about $`10^3`$$`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ of material within $`3`$ pc of the Galactic center. Since such a cluster would have experienced core collapse on about the same time scale, the most massive stars had already segregated to the cluster core. The deposited (core) material was therefore rich in massive stars. These findings are contrary to the results reported by Kim et al. (2002).

More detailed studies are underway to qualify and quantify these statements (Portegies Zwart, McMillan & Gerhard 2003). Preliminary results indicate that the inspiral times derived here are in good agreement with N-body calculations using the GRAPE-6 special-purpose computer (Makino et al 2002), with the same description of dynamical friction as presented here. More sophisticated calibration of the dynamical friction parameters themselves, obtained by modeling the Galactic background as individual stars, will be the subject of a future paper.

We are grateful to Jun Makino and Piet Hut for helpful discussions, and thank the Institute for Advanced Study and Tokyo University for their hospitality and the use of their GRAPE-4 and GRAPE-6 hardware. This work was supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01112.01-98A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute and by NASA ATP grants NAG5-6964 and NAG5-9264, by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences (KNAW) and the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy (NOVA).

## Appendix A

The argument $`X=v_\mathrm{c}/\sqrt{2}\sigma `$ in the dynamical friction relation (Eq. 7) of Sec. 2.1 may be evaluated as follows for inspiral through a sequence of nearly circular orbits.

Following Binney & Tremaine (1987, Eq. 4-30), we write the equation of dynamical equilibrium (the radial Jeans equation) for stars near the Galactic center as

$$\frac{d}{dR}(\rho \sigma ^2)=\rho \frac{d\varphi }{dR}=\rho \frac{v_{\mathrm{c}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{R},$$
(37)
where we assume an isotropic velocity distribution. In the power-law region, $`MR^\alpha `$ (Eq. 1), we further assume that $`\sigma ^2v_\mathrm{c}^2`$. It then follows that $`\sigma ^2\rho R^{2\alpha 4}`$, so

$$R\frac{d}{dR}(\sigma ^2\rho )=(2\alpha 4)\sigma ^2\rho .$$
(38)
Substitution in Eq. (37) then yields $`X=\sqrt{2\alpha }`$. We note that, as $`\alpha 1`$, this reduces to the correct expression for an isothermal sphere (see Binney & Tremaine, p. 230).


format: text

text:
# Order parameter phase locking as a cause of a zero bias peak in the differential tunneling conductance of bilayers with electron-hole pairing

## Abstract

In $`np`$ bilayer systems an exotic phase-coherent state emerges due to Coulomb pairing of $`n`$-layer electrons with $`p`$-layer holes. Unlike Josephson junctions, the order parameter phase may be locked by matrix elements of interlayer tunneling in $`np`$ bilayers. Here we show how the phase locking phenomenon specifies the response of the electron-hole condensate to interlayer voltages. In the absence of an applied magnetic field, the phase is steady-state (locked) at low interlayer voltages, $`V<V_c`$, however the phase increases monotonically with time (is unlocked) at $`V>V_c`$. The change in the system dynamics at $`V=V_c`$ gives rise to a peak in the differential tunneling conductance. The peak width $`V_c`$ is proportional to the absolute value of the tunneling matrix element $`|T_{12}|`$, but its height does not depend on $`|T_{12}|`$; thus the peak is sharp for small $`|T_{12}|`$. A sufficiently strong in-plane magnetic field reduces considerably the peak height. The present results are in qualitative agreement with the zero bias peak behavior that has recently been observed in bilayer quantum Hall ferromagnets with spontaneous interlayer phase coherence.

The idea that in bilayer $`np`$ structures consisting of an electron- conductivity layer ($`n`$-layer) and a hole-conductivity layer ($`p`$-layer) the Coulomb attraction of electrons and holes may lead a formation of electron-hole pairs with spatially separated components was put forward rather long ago . As a result of Bose-Einstein condensation of these pairs, there arises a peculiar superfluid (phase-coherent) state, in which a dissipationless motion of pairs gives rise to equal-in-magnitude and oppositely directed supercurrents in $`n`$\- and $`p`$-layers. At present, two variants of the systems have been realized experimentally, where an excitonic condensate with spatially separated components is formed. In both cases, these are closely lying GaAs/AlGaAs double quantum wells, where either interwell excitons are excited by a laser pulse , or two-dimensional electron layers are formed due to doping. In the last case, the electron layers must be placed in a strong magnetic field, normal to the layers, such that the total filling factor should be $`\nu _T=\nu _1+\nu _2=1`$ . Since all these systems have one and the same exciton mechanism for the interlayer phase coherence , the physical properties of these systems in the coherent state must be qualitatively similar.

The present paper has mainly been stimulated by recent impressing experiments of Spielman et al.  who have found that if a bilayer electron system transits into a phase-coherent state (in which the quantum Hall effect is observed at $`\nu _T=1`$), then this transition is accompanied by a sharp rise in the differential tunneling conductance $`G_T`$ at low interlayer voltages $`V`$. As the temperature is lowered, this peak of tunneling conductance remains of a finite height and width in contrast to the tunneling conductance peak of the Josephson junction. In the parallel to the layers magnetic field $`H`$ the peak height decreases the more drastically, the higher is the field, and at $`H>0.6`$ T the peak becomes practically indistinguishable.

A number of papers have been devoted to theoretical interpretation of the experimental results obtained by Spielman et al. For example, Fogler and Wilczek  have treated the tunneling conductance peak as a consequence of the Josephson effect in a long inhomogeneous junction. In refs. , the interpretation of the peak has been based on the notion of the finite time of phase coherence. Joglekar and MacDonald  have performed both phenomenological and microscopic calculations of tunneling conductance $`G_T`$ value at $`V=0`$. In ref. , $`G_T(V,H)`$ was calculated using the phenomenological equation similar to the Landau-Lifshitz equation for the magnetic moment. Such a diversity of theoretical approaches in the interpretation of experiment  gives impetus to a consistent microscopic consideration of the dynamics of phase-coherent bilayer systems, this being just the subject of the present paper. Though we consider the $`np`$ system in the absence of a perpendicular magnetic field, the exciton nature of the collective state in all the above-mentioned systems encourages us to believe that the present results provide a qualitative description of experiments by Spielman et al. .

An important but still not completely resolved problem for the systems with electron-hole pairing is the problem of phase locking by interband transitions , which coincide with interlayer tunneling transitions in the systems under consideration . The tunneling transitions lift the degeneracy in the phase of the order parameter, thereby locking the phase and making it equal to the phase of tunneling matrix elements. The last statement is valid in the absence of a parallel to the layers magnetic field. Kulik and one of the present authors  have shown that in the magnetic field parallel to the layers the phase is locked only in the fields $`H<H_{c1}`$. (The critical field $`H_{c1}|T_{12}|^{1/2}`$, where $`T_{12}(=|T_{12}|e^{i\chi })`$ is the matrix element of interlayer tunneling). At $`H>H_{c1}`$ the phase locking is lifted and the phase monotonically changes in the direction normal to the field, this giving rise to spatial oscillations of tunneling current (vortex state). The phase locking phenomenon appears to exert an essential effect not only on the thermodynamic properties of $`np`$ systems, but also on their kinetics.

Relying on the microscopic approach, the present paper deals with the response of phase-coherent $`np`$ system to the interlayer voltage $`V`$. We demonstrate that similarly to the existence of the critical field $`H_{c1}`$, in the case under consideration there exists the threshold voltage $`V_c(|T_{12}|)`$ that quantitatively characterizes the degree of phase locking in the $`np`$ system. At low voltages, $`V<V_c`$, the order parameter phase is locked (steady-state), and the direct tunneling current is proportional to $`V`$. The Ohmic character of a spatially uniform tunneling current at $`V<V_c`$ means that in the phase-coherent $`np`$ system there is no dc Josephson effect . (The absence of the dc Josephson effect in the two- layer electron system has been established by Joglekar and MacDonald ). At voltages $`V>V_c`$, the phase monotonically changes with time, and this results in the tunneling current oscillations with frequency $`\omega =e\sqrt{V^2V_c^2}`$ (here $`e`$ is the elementary charge, $`\mathrm{}=1`$) So, at $`V>V_c`$ the $`np`$ system retains the essential feature of the ac Josephson effect in superconductors, namely, the tunneling current oscillations at a constant applied voltage. At the same time, the dissipative character of the oscillating tunneling current (see below), the nonuniversality of the voltage dependence of $`\omega `$, and the presence of threshold voltage $`V_c`$ are specific to phase-coherent bilayer $`np`$ systems.

Further on, we show that the above-described ”liberation” of the order parameter phase at $`V=V_c`$ results in a sharp peak of $`G_T(V)`$, the height of which is independent of $`|T_{12}|`$, and its width is equal to $`2V_c`$, i.e., for small $`|T_{12}|`$ the peak will be high and sharp. Thus, in our opinion, the nature of the tunneling conductance peak observed in the experiments of Spielman et al. is closely connected with the phenomenon of order parameter phase locking by tunneling transitions. The experimentally observed suppression of $`G_T(V)`$ peak with an increasing parallel magnetic field  also lends support in favor of this interpretation, because, as indicated above, a sufficiently strong in-plane magnetic field eliminates the phase locking.

We are now coming to the analysis of the dynamics of a phase-coherent $`np`$ system in the limit of a high pair density, when the average distance between the electron-hole pairs is small as compared to the characteristic pair size. The advantage of the high-density limit lies in the possibility of considering the phase-coherent system dynamics in the gapless state, when the gap in the excitation spectrum becomes zero under the action of strong depairing, and the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is reduced but remains non-zero . For the $`np`$ bilayer the order parameter is proportional to the average $`\psi _1(𝐫,t)\psi _2^+(𝐫,t)`$, where $`\psi _i^+(𝐫,t)`$ is the electron creation operator in the layer $`i`$. An essential simplification consists in the fact that the absence of the gap makes it possible to describe the dynamics of the phase-coherent system only in terms of the complex order parameter $`(\mathrm{\Delta }=|\mathrm{\Delta }|e^{i\theta })`$ without involving the dynamics of the quasiparticle distribution function.

The dynamic equation for the order parameter of the $`np`$ system was derived by the Green function technique in our paper  and has the following form:

$$(\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}ieV\mathrm{\Delta })+\{AB|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+D[\frac{}{𝐫}+\frac{ie}{c}(𝐀_1𝐀_2)]^2\}\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{T_{12}}{\zeta \tau }=0.$$
(1)
The equation obtained is in a perfect agreement with the general theory of a relaxation of an order parameter near a point of a phase transition of the second kind (see, for instance ). In accordance with this theory a state of a physical system under a phase transition of the second kind can be described by an order parameter, that is nonzero below the transition point and equal to zero above this point. An equilibrium value of the order parameter can be found from the condition that a variation of a corresponding thermodynamic potential is equal to zero. In the absence of the interband hybridization the thermodynamic potential for the condensate of electron-hole pairs with spatially separated components can be presented in the form

$$F=\left\{D|[i\frac{}{𝐫}\frac{e}{c}(𝐀_1𝐀_2)]\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+A|\mathrm{\Delta }|^2+\frac{1}{2}B|\mathrm{\Delta }|^4\right\}𝑑𝐫$$
(2)
Expression (2) is similar to the thermodynamic potential for Cooper pairs in the Ginzburg-Landau theory, but here the term $`2e𝐀`$ is replaced by the term $`e(𝐀_1𝐀_2)`$. Such a modification is quite natural. Indeed, for the case of electron-hole pairs with spatially separated components an electron in the layer 1 ”sees” the vector potential $`𝐀_1`$, while a hole in the layer 2 ”sees” the vector potential $`𝐀_2`$. Since the signs of the electron and hole charges are different the vector potentials $`𝐀_1`$ and $`𝐀_2`$ are subtracted from each other in eq. (2). In the equilibrium the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ is found from the condition $`\delta F/\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)=0`$. At small deviation from the equilibrium, when the derivative $`\delta F/\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)`$ is nonzero but a small one, the order parameter relaxation rate (the derivative $`\mathrm{\Delta }/t`$) is also small. In the mean field approximation these two derivatives should be proportional to each other. But it is necessary to take into account that due to the gauge invariance of the theory the derivative $`/t`$ can enter into the equation in a combination with the term $`ie(V_1V_2)`$, where $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are the electrostatic potentials in the layer 1 and 2, correspondingly. As a result in the absence of the interband hybridization one arrives to the equation (1), where $`T_{12}=0`$. In the presence of the interband hybridization the Hamiltonian of the system contains the terms linear in the order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and in the matrix elements $`T_{12}`$ and the corresponding conjugate terms (and it means that the thermodynamic potential contains the same terms). These terms play the role of a source of electron-hole pairs. They are analogous to the terms that appear in the Hamiltonian of a ferromagnet in an external magnetic field. For the case of a magnet it results in an appearance of a term linear in the magnetic field in the equation for the order parameter. Since for the system considered the matrix element $`T_{12}`$ is analogous to the magnetic field, a term linear in $`T_{12}`$ should appear in the equation for the order parameter in the presence of the interband hybridization. We see that eq. (1) contains this term, indeed. The microscopic analysis shows that in spite of the phenomenological arguments presented look quite general, in reality, eq. (1) is valid only in a rather narrow interval of the impurity concentration in similarity with the Gor’kov-Eliashberg equation for the superconductors with paramagnetic impurities .

In the gapless situation under consideration, the coefficients of the dynamic Ginzburg-Landau equation (1) have the forms $`A(T)=(2\pi ^2/3)\tau (T_c^2T^2)`$, $`B=4m\tau /3M`$, $`D=p_0^2\tau /M^2`$ . Here $`\tau `$ is the electron elastic scattering time ( for simplicity, it is considered equal to the hole elastic scattering time), $`T`$ is the temperature ($`k_B=1`$), $`T_c`$ is the critical temperature, $`M=m_1+m_2`$ is the pair mass, $`m=m_1m_2/M`$ is the reduced mass of pair, $`p_0`$ is the Fermi momentum of electrons and holes, $`\zeta `$ is the dimensionless constant of the Coulomb interaction . It should be noted that eq. (1) is derivated by expanding of the anomalous Green function as a power series in $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/T_c)`$ . Since a term linear in the matrix element $`T_{12}`$ appears in the expression for the order parameter, it is necessary that $`|T_{12}|T_c`$ for the validity of eq. (1).

At low fields and currents, the modulus of the order parameter varies only slightly in space and time. Assuming $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ to be constant equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, the imaginary part of eq. (1) can be written as follows

$$\dot{\varphi }D\frac{}{𝐫}(\frac{\varphi }{𝐫}\frac{2\pi d}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}[\mathrm{𝐇𝐧}])eV+eV_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi =0.$$
(3)
Here, the gradient-invariant phase $`\varphi =\theta \chi (2\pi d/\mathrm{\Phi }_0)A_z`$ is introduced, $`d`$ is the interlayer distance, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$ is the magnetic flux. The unit vector $`𝐧=(0,0,1)`$ is normal to the layers and is directed from layer 1 (electron layer) to layer 2 (hole layer). The threshold voltage $`V_c=|T_{12}|/(e\zeta \tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$.

It is readily seen that in the uniform case eq. (3) for the phase $`\varphi `$ is different from the equation $`\dot{\varphi }=eV`$ that appears in a number of papers and is treated as the Josephson relation for phase-coherent bilayer systems. The occurrence of the term proportional to $`|T_{12}|`$ in the dynamic equation for the phase radically changes the solutions of this equation. Thus, in the absence of external fields the stable steady-state and uniform solution of eq. (3) is $`\varphi =0`$, i.e., $`\theta =\chi `$, and this means that the interlayer tunneling transitions hold the order parameter phase locked. Below, we consider in detail how the phase locking phenomenon influences the dynamic properties of $`np`$ systems.

We start from the analysis of dynamics of the $`np`$ system in the phase-coherent state for the spatially uniform case in the absence of the magnetic field. Let the $`np`$ tunneling junction is incorporated into the electrical circuit having the resistance $`R`$ and the voltage source $``$. The resulting voltage $`V`$ across the $`np`$ tunneling junction determines the difference of electrochemical potentials of the layers and thereby dictates the carrier density in $`n`$ and $`p`$layers. If $`\delta n`$ is the deviation of the electron density from the equilibrium one, then the equality $`eV=\delta n/N_{}(0)`$ is valid, where the renormalized density of states on the Fermi surface is $`N_{}(0)=N(0)(1+\frac{e^2m}{\pi C})^1`$ ($`C`$ is the capacity of the bilayer system related to the unit area; $`N(0)=m/\pi `$).

In the approximation linear in $`T_{12}`$ the density of tunneling current from layer 1 to layer 2 is equal to $`J=J_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, where $`J_c=4eN(0)|T_{12}|\mathrm{\Delta }_0/\zeta `$ . The charge balance equation can be written as

$$eS\delta \dot{n}+\frac{V}{R}I_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi =0,$$
(4)
where $`S`$ is the area of the $`np`$ junction, and $`I_c=SJ_c`$. Though below we assume $`=\mathrm{const}`$, it should be noted that eq. (4) also holds for the time-dependent voltage source.

Making use of the relationship between $`\delta n`$ and $`V`$, from eqs. (3) and (4) one can derive the second-order equation for the phase $`\varphi `$. In terms of dimensionless variables, this equation takes on the following form, well known in the theory of Josephson junctions

$$\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }}(1+ϵ\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\dot{\varphi }+\mathrm{sin}\varphi =\rho .$$
(5)
Here, the following dimensionless parameters are introduced: $`\beta =e_ct_0`$, $`ϵ=eV_ct_0`$, $`\rho =/_c`$, where $`_c=V_c+I_cR`$, and $`t_0=e^2N_{}(0)RS`$. The time is measured in the $`1/\omega _0`$ units, where $`\omega _0=(e_c/t_0)^{1/2}`$.

Despite the coincidence of eq.(5) with the dynamic equation for the phase difference across the Josephson junction, the different meaning of the parameter $`\rho `$ entering into these equations leads (as it will be seen from what follows) to a substantially different behavior of $`np`$ systems and Josephson junctions.

A detailed analysis of dynamic states of the system described by eq. (5) was performed by Belykh et al.  Not going into details of that analysis, we shall mention its main results. For each value of the parameter $`ϵ`$ one can find the corresponding number $`\beta _1`$. At $`\beta >\beta _1`$ (large resistances $`R`$), the range of $`\rho `$ values is split into three adjacent intervals: $`0<\rho <\rho _c`$, $`\rho _c<\rho <1`$ , $`\rho >1`$ ($`\rho _c(\beta ,ϵ)`$ is the bifurcation value of the parameter $`\rho `$ ). In the first interval, there is only one stable solution $`\varphi =\mathrm{arcsin}\rho `$; in the third interval the only stable state is the limiting cycle embracing the phase cylinder. In the intermediate (second) interval the both solutions, $`\varphi =\mathrm{arcsin}\rho `$ and the limiting cycle, are stable. This non-uniqueness of the solution of eq. (5) results in the hysteresis of current-voltage characteristic (CVC) at $`\beta >\beta _1`$. For $`\beta <\beta _1`$ (low resistances $`R`$) the stable solutions will be $`\varphi =\mathrm{arcsin}\rho `$ at $`0<\rho <1`$ and the limiting cycle at $`\rho >1`$, while the interval $`\rho `$ with two stable states drops out. Correspondingly, at $`\beta <\beta _1`$ the CVCs have no hysteresis.

Further on, we find the CVC and the differential tunneling conductance of the $`np`$ system in a simple, but physically rather demonstrative, case $`R=0`$. In this limit, no distinction may be made between $`V`$ and $``$, $`V_c`$ and $`_c`$, and the dynamics of the system may be analyzed relying on eq. (3) (without spatial derivatives). Since in the case considered we have $`\beta <\beta _1`$, then the hysteresis of the CVC is absent.

If the system is spatially uniform and the voltage $`V`$ does not depend on the time the equation (3) can be integrated. One can see that for $`V<V_c`$ the equation (3) has the time independent solution $`\varphi _0=\mathrm{arcsin}V/V_c`$. In such a case the tunnel current, that does not depend on time as well, is equal to $`I_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0=I_cV/V_cV/R_c`$. This current is proportional to the voltage $`V`$ applied and it is a usual dissipative current.

The corresponding tunneling conductance is given by

$$G_T=\frac{dI}{dV}=R_c^1=4e^2N(0)\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0^2S.$$
(6)
Note that at $`V<V_c`$ the tunneling conductance is constant and is independent of the tunneling matrix element $`|T_{12}|`$ value. This independence of tunneling conductance from $`|T_{12}|`$, and also its proportionality to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2(T)`$ are in agreement with the result of Joglekar and MacDonald  for $`G_T`$ at $`V=0`$.

In case of $`V>V_c`$ the integration yields the tunnel current equals to

$$I(t)=2I_c\frac{\mathrm{tan}\frac{\varphi (t)}{2}}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\varphi (t)}{2}}$$
(7)
where

$$\mathrm{tan}\frac{\varphi (t)}{2}=V_c/V+\sqrt{1(V_c/V)^2}\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{e}{2}(V^2V_c^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}(tt_0)\right]$$
(8)
One can see that the interlayer current oscillates with the frequency $`\omega =e(V^2V_c^2)^{1/2}`$ and this current is not a sinusoidal one. Due to non-sinusoidal character of the oscillations the average value of the tunnel current is nonzero. The average current is the function on the voltage $`V`$.

$$I=(I_c/V_c)(V\sqrt{V^2V_c^2}).$$
(9)
The behavior of the system considered is similar to the behavior of a Josephson junction between two superconductors in a circuit, where the junction is connected in series with a resistor and a voltage generator. But in the case considered the essential difference is that the resistor (with $`R_c=V_c/I_c`$) is embedded in the junction and it cannot be deleted from the circuit. There is not any transverse superconductivity in the systems considered.

Since according to eq. (9) the tunneling current decreases with an increasing voltage, the differential tunneling conductance at $`V>V_c`$ is negative:

$$G_T(V)=(I_c/V_c)[V(V^2V_c^2)^{1/2}1].$$
(10)
The conductance $`G_T(V)`$ has its maximum (constant) value at $`|V|<V_c`$ and the discontinuity points at $`V=\pm V_c`$. At $`|V|>V_c`$, as $`|V|`$ increases, the tunneling conductance monotonically tends to zero, remaining negative. If we take into account the fluctuation smoothing of the CVC, then the dependence of $`G_T`$ on $`V`$ will look like a smooth curve with the maximum at $`V=0`$ (approximately $`2V_c`$ in width) and two minima at $`V\pm V_c`$. It is just this behavior of the $`G_T(V)`$ curve that was observed in experiment  in the absence of the magnetic field parallel to the layers.

It should be noted that both at $`V>V_c`$ and $`V<V_c`$ the spatially uniform tunneling current is dissipative. The reason for the dissipation lies in the fact that the uniform interlayer current causes the order parameter phase to deviate from its equilibrium value and a continuous input of energy is required to maintain this nonequilibrium state.

Let now the bilayer $`np`$ structure be placed in a magnetic field $`𝐇`$ parallel to the layers and directed along the $`x`$-axis. If $`H>H_{c1}=(2\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\pi ^2d)(J_cM/en_s)^{1/2}`$ (the two-dimensional density of the pairs $`n_s=4p_0^2N(0)(\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0)^2/M`$), then the magnetic field between the layers has a nonuniform (vortex) component. We shall show that the CVCs of the $`np`$ system in the magnetic field strongly differ from the CVCs in the zero field and are substantially different at both low and high resistances $`R`$. In the limiting case $`R=0`$ (and $`HH_{c1}`$), the solution of eq. (3) can be derived using the perturbation theory. Putting $`\varphi =\varphi _0+\varphi _1`$, where $`\varphi _0=ky+\omega t`$ ( $`k=2\pi dH/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\omega =eV`$) and taking into account the correction term $`\varphi _1`$ (proportional to a small $`T_{12}`$ value) as a perturbation, we obtain the following expression for the average tunneling current density:

$$J=J_c\frac{eV_c}{2}\frac{\omega }{(Dk^2)^2+\omega ^2}.$$
(11)
So, for $`R=0`$ the CVC has a wide diffusion maximum at $`\omega =Dk^2`$.

At high $`R`$ values, the charge transport from one layer to the other over the electrical circuit is insignificant, and the electron density dynamics in layer 1 is determined by the continuity equation

$$e\delta \dot{n}=\mathrm{div}_2𝐣+J_c\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{div}_2𝐣`$ denotes the two-dimensional divergence of the intralayer current $`𝐣=\frac{en_s}{M}(\frac{\varphi }{𝐫}\frac{2\pi d}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}[\mathrm{𝐇𝐧}]).`$ In the assumption that $`eV\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_0^2`$, the above-described perturbation-theory procedure yields the following equation for $`\varphi _1`$:

$$\ddot{\varphi }_1D\frac{^2\dot{\varphi }_1}{^2𝐫}u_0^2\frac{^2\varphi _1}{^2𝐫}=\frac{J_c}{eN_{}(0)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _0,$$
(13)
where $`u_0=(n_s/MN_{}(0))^{1/2}`$. Unlike the $`R=0`$ case, the left-hand part of eq. (13) has a wave character rather than a diffusion character. Correspondingly, the expression for the average tunneling current density

$$J=J_c\frac{1}{2\lambda _J^2}\frac{\omega \alpha k^2}{(\omega ^2/u_0^2k^2)^2+(\omega \alpha k^2)^2}$$
(14)
has the resonance at $`\omega =u_0k`$, the width of which is determined by the attenuation $`\alpha =D/u_0^2`$. This resonance results from the coincidence between the plasmon velocity $`u_0`$ in the bilayer structure and the velocity of the magnetic-field vortices. The parameter $`\lambda _J`$ equals $`(en_s/MJ_c)^{1/2}`$.

From relations (11) and (14) it follows that at $`HH_{c1}`$ the $`G_T(0)`$ value is proportional to a small $`|T_{12}|^2`$ value, i.e., the differential tunneling conductance peak (occurring at $`H=0`$) is strongly suppressed. The reason for this suppression lies in the fact that at $`H>H_{c1}`$ the phase $`\varphi `$ monotonically varies with the coordinate, and in this case eq. (3) has no stationary solution at finite voltage, i.e., no phase locking arises.

Thus, the present work has demonstrated in the frame of the consistent microscopic approach that in phase-coherent bilayer $`np`$ systems the known phenomenon of order parameter phase locking by matrix elements of tunneling $`T_{12}`$ leads to a sharp peak in differential tunneling conductance $`G_T(V)`$ at $`V=0`$. The peak height is independent of $`|T_{12}|`$ and its width is proportional $`|T_{12}|`$, i.e., at weak tunneling the peak is high and sharp. These results are in qualitative agreement with the peculiarities of $`G_T(V)`$ observed in electron bilayer systems in the regime of an integral quantum Hall effect at the total filling factor $`\nu _T=1`$. We stress once again that though the theory developed here describes the $`np`$ system without a transverse magnetic field, the present results are in qualitative agreement with the data from experiments on electron bilayer systems in a strong transverse magnetic field. This agreement does not seem to be accidental. The reason is that most likely the strong magnetic field does not affect the structure of the equation that defines the dynamics of the order parameter, but only changes the values of coefficients entering into this equation.

This work was supported by the INTAS program, grant No 01-2344.

References

1. Yu.E. Lozovik and V.I. Yudson, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 71, 738 (1976) \[ Sov. Phys. JETP 44, 389 (1976)\].

2. S.I. Shevchenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp.2, 505 (1976) \[Sov. J Low Temp. Phys. 2, 251 (1976)\].

3. L.V. Butov, C.W. Lai, A.L. Ivanov, A.C. Gossard, and D.S. Chemia, Nature, 417, 47 (2002); L.V. Butov, A.C. Gossard, and D.S. Chemia, Nature, 418, 751 (2002).

4. A.V. Larionov, V.B. Timofeyev, J. Hvam, K. Soerensen, Pis’ma v ZhETF 75, 233 (2002) \[JETP Letters 75, 200 (2002)\]; A.A. Dremin, V.B. Timofeyev, A.V. Larionov, J. Hvam, K. Soerensen, Pis’ma v ZhETF, 76, 526 (2002) \[JETP Letters 76, 450 (2002)\].

5. E.g., see J.P. Eisenstein in Perspectives in Quantum Hall Effects edited by S. Das Sarma and A. Pinczuk (Wiley, New York, 1997).

6. A.H. MacDonald and E.H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B 42, 3224 (1990).

7. I.B. Spielman, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5808 (2000).

8. I.B. Spielman, J.P. Eisenstein, L.N. Pfeiffer, and K.W. West, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 036803 (2001).

9. M.M. Fogler and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1833 (2001).

10. L. Balents and L. Radzikhovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1825 (2001).

11. A. Stern, S.M. Girvin, A.H. MacDonald, and N. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1829 (2001).

12. G.N. Joglekar and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 196802 (2001).

13. M. Abolfath, R. Khomeriki, and K. Mullen, cond-mat/0208236.

14. R.R. Gusejnov and L.V. Keldysh have first demonstrated that the interband transitions lift the phase degeneracy of the wave function of the electron- hole condensate in the exciton dielectric: R.R. Gusejnov and L.V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 63, 2255 (1972) \[Sov. Phys. JETP 36, 1193 (1972)\].

15. I.O. Kulik and S.I. Shevchenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 2, 1406 (1976) \[Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 2,687 (1976)\].

16. S.I. Shevchenko, ”Theory of low dimensional superfluidity in Bose- and Fermi-systems”, thesis, Kharkov, 1992 (unpublished).

17. Similarly to magnetic impurities in superconductors, the usual (nonmagnetic) impurities and crystal lattice distortions in the n-p system suppress the order parameter and lead to the transition of the system to the gapless state in the narrow range of defect concentrations in the vicinity of the critical concentration. E.g., see A.I. Bezuglyj and S.I. Shevchenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 3, 428 (1977) \[Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 3, 204 (1977)\].

18. A.I. Bezuglyj and S.I. Shevchenko, Fiz. Nizk. Temp. 4, 454 (1978) \[Sov. J Low Temp. Phys. 4, 222 (1978)\].

19. L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Physical Kinetics, Course in Theoretical Physics Vol. 10 (Nauka, Moscow, 1979).

20. L.P. Gor’kov, G.M. Eliashberg, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 54, 612 (1968).

21. V.N. Belykh, N.F. Pedersen, and O.H. Soerensen, Phys. Rev. B16, 4853 (1977).


text:
# On Knebusch’s Norm Principle for quadratic forms over semi-local rings

## 1 Introduction

Let $`L/F`$ be a finite field extension and $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`F`$. The well-known Norm Principle for quadratic forms due to M. Knebusch says that $`N(qL)qF`$, where $`N`$ is the norm map and $`qL`$ is the group of values of quadratic form $`q`$ over $`L`$.

In the present paper we prove the version of Knebusch’s Norm Principle for simple extensions of (semi-)local rings (the extension $`S/R`$ is called simple, where $`R`$ is local, if $`S=R[t]/(p(t))`$ is the quotient of the polynomial ring $`R[t]`$ by some monic polynomial $`p`$). A finite etale extension (or separable in the case of fields) gives an example of a simple extension. This result is the key step in the proof of Grothendieck-Serre’s conjecture on principal homogeneous space for the case of of the spinor group (Theorem 5.2): the conjecture says that the canonical map $`H_{et}^1(R,Spin_q)H_{et}^1(K,Spin_q)`$ has the trivial kernel, where $`R`$ is a local regular ring and $`K`$ is it’s quotient field.

The main result is Theorem 4.2 which says the Norm Principle holds if $`R`$ is a local domain with the residue field of characteristic 0. Briefly speaking, we use the fact that any square is represented by the product of the values of quadratic form $`q`$. Hence, we may consider the original arguments (see ) “modulo squares”. This together with some general position arguments (see 3.11) allows us to control the leading coefficient of the polynomial $`h`$ (see the equation (\**)) in order to make it invertible (which is the key point in applying the induction hypotheses).

The author is grateful to Max-Planck-Institute für Mathematik and European Post-Doctoral Institute for hospitality and financial support.

## 2 Simple extensions of local rings

###### 2.1.

All rings are assumed to be commutative with units. By $`R`$ we denote a local domain with the residue field $`k`$. By “bar” we mean the reduction modulo the maximal ideal, i.e., $`k=\overline{R}`$. By a ring extension $`S/R`$ we mean a ring $`S`$ together with a ring monomorphism $`RS`$. By $`S^{}`$ we denote the group of invertible elements of $`S`$.

Let $`S/R`$ be a ring extension such that $`S`$ is free as the $`R`$-module. Then there is the norm map denoted by $`N_R^S`$ that is given as follows. For any $`cS`$ let $`l_c:SS`$ be the endomorphism of the free $`R`$-module $`S`$ given by the left multiplication by $`c`$. Then we set $`N_R^S(c)=det(l_c)`$, where $`l_c`$ is the respective matrix.

###### 2.2.

We say a ring extension $`S/R`$ is a simple extension of degree $`n`$ if there exists an element $`cS^{}`$ such that $`S`$ is free as the $`R`$-module with the basis $`\{1,c,\mathrm{},c^{n1}\}`$ denoted by $`(c)`$. The element $`c`$ is called a primitive element. Let $`c^n=a_0+a_1c+\mathrm{}+a_{n1}c^{n1}`$ be the unique presentation of the element $`c^n`$ in the basis $`(c)`$. The polynomial $`p_c(t)=t^na_{n1}t^{n1}\mathrm{}a_0`$ is called a minimal polynomial for the primitive element $`c`$. It has the property $`p_c(c)=0`$. Observe that $`S`$ can be identified with the quotient $`R[t]/p_c(t)`$ of the polynomial ring $`R[t]`$ modulo the principal ideal generated by $`p_c(t)`$. Since $`c`$ is invertible, it’s norm $`N_R^S(c)=(1)^{n1}p_c(0)=(1)^na_0`$ is invertible as well.

To the opposite direction, for a given monic polynomial $`p(t)R[t]`$ such that $`p(0)R^{}`$ the ring extension $`S=R[t]/p(t)`$ over $`R`$ is a simple extension of degree $`n=\mathrm{deg}p`$. The image of $`t`$ by means of the canonical map $`R[t]R[t]/p(t)`$ gives the respective primitive element of the extension $`S/R`$.

###### 2.3.

Clearly, if $`cS^{}`$ is a primitive element of a simple extension $`S/R`$, then it’s inverse $`c^1`$ is primitive and $`r_1c+r_0`$ is primitive for any $`r_1R^{}`$ and $`r_0R`$ such that $`p_c(r_0/r_1)R^{}`$.

###### 2.4.

Let $`S/R`$ be a simple extension with the primitive element $`c`$, then $`\overline{S}/\overline{R}`$ is a simple extension of the same degree with the primitive element $`\overline{c}`$. Moreover, if $`b`$ is a primitive element of $`\overline{S}`$, then by Nakayama’s lemma the preimage $`c\rho ^1(b)`$ is primitive as well, where $`\rho :S\overline{S}`$ is the reduction map. In other words, if $`S_{prim}^{}`$ denotes the subset of primitive elements of $`S`$ and $`\overline{S}_{prim}^{}`$ denotes the subset of primitive elements of $`\overline{S}`$, then we have $`S_{prim}^{}=\rho ^1(\overline{S}_{prim}^{})`$.

###### 2.5 Remark.

Let $`S/R`$ be a simple extension. In the case $`R=k`$ is a field the algebra $`S`$ can be viewed as the product of local Artinian algebras over $`k`$. For instance, if $`k`$ is algebraically closed, the algebra $`S`$ is isomorphic to the product of algebras of the kind $`k[t]/t^m`$, $`m1`$.

In the case $`S`$ is a field we get a simple field extension $`S/k`$. Recall (by the Primitive Element Theorem) that any finite separable field extension is simple but not in the other direction. There are examples of finite field extensions which are not simple.

## 3 Some general position arguments

In the present section $`S`$ will be a simple extension of an infinite field $`k`$.

###### 3.1.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension of $`k`$ of degree $`n`$. The $`k`$-algebra $`S`$ can be viewed as the $`k`$-vector space of dimension $`n`$ and, thus, can be identified with the set of rational points of the affine space $`𝔸^n`$ over $`k`$. From this point on we assume $`S=𝔸^n(k)`$ is the topological space by means of Zariski topology structure.

For example, any map $`SS`$ given by $`bf(b)`$ is continuous, where $`f(t)S[t]`$ is a polynomial with coefficients in $`S`$. And the set $`S^{}`$ of invertible elements is open in $`S`$, since it is given by the equation $`N_k^S(x)0`$, where $`N_k^S`$ is the norm map.

In the case of an infinite field $`k`$ this topology has the important property – the intersection of any two open subsets is non-empty.

###### 3.2 Lemma.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension of a field $`k`$. Then the subset of primitive elements $`S_{prim}^{}`$ is non-empty and open in $`S^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We fix some primitive element $`c`$ of $`S`$. An element $`bS^{}`$ is primitive iff the matrix $`(b_{i,j})_{i,j=0}^{n1}`$ has non-zero determinant, where $`b_{i,j}`$ is the $`i`$-th coefficient in the presentation of the $`j`$-th power $`b^j`$ of the element $`b`$ in the basis $`(c)`$. Observe that $`b_{i,1}=b_i`$ are the coefficients of the presentation of the element $`b`$ in the basis $`(c)`$, i.e, $`b=b_0+b_1c+\mathrm{}+b_{n1}c^{n1}`$. Clearly, the determinant $`det(b_{i,j})`$ can be viewed as the polynomial in $`n`$ variables $`b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ and, thus, the subset

$$S_{prim}^{}=\{b=(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})S^{}|det(b_{i,j})0\}$$

is open in $`S^{}`$. ∎

###### 3.3 Lemma.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension of an infinite field $`k`$ of characteristic different from 2 and let $`cS^{}`$ be an invertible element. Then the subset $`V_c=\{bS^{}|cb^2\text{is primitive}\}`$ is non-empty and open in $`S^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Since the map $`S^{}S^{}`$ given by $`bcb^2`$ is continuous, it is enough to show that the image of the map $`f:S^{}S^{}`$ given by $`bb^2`$ is dense. (observe that the multiplication by $`c`$ is the homeomorphism). The algebra $`S`$ splits as the product of local Artinian algebras and the image of $`f`$ is dense if the image of the restriction of $`f`$ to the each component of this product is dense. Thus, we may assume $`S`$ is a local Artinian algebra over $`k`$ and, hence, it is irreducible.

Assume the image of $`f`$ is not dense. Then the closure of the image of $`f`$ in $`S`$ must have the dimension strictly less than the dimension of $`S`$ (considered as the affine space over $`k`$). It means that $`f`$ induces the regular map between two affine spaces such that the dimension of the target space is strictly less than the dimension of the origin space $`S`$. In particular, there exists an element $`uS^{}`$ such that the equation $`b^2=u`$ has infinite number of solutions (the dimension of the fiber of $`f`$ over $`u`$ is $`1`$ and $`k`$ is infinite). Hence, we get contradiction by Lemma 3.4. ∎

###### 3.4 Lemma.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension over an infinite field $`k`$ of characteristic different from 2. Let $`u`$ be an invertible element of $`S`$. Then the number of solution of the equation $`b^2=u`$ is finite (or empty).

###### Proof.

Let $`k^{}`$ be the algebraic closure of the field $`k`$. Let $`S^{}=S_kk^{}`$ be the base change of $`S`$. Clearly, $`S^{}`$ is the simple extension of $`k^{}`$ of the same degree. The number of solutions of $`b^2=u`$ over $`S`$ is finite if it is finite over $`S^{}`$.

Since the algebra $`S^{}`$ splits as the finite product of algebras of the kind $`A_m=k^{}[t]/t^m`$, $`m1`$, it is enough to show that the number of solutions of $`b^2=u`$ is finite in $`A_m`$ for any $`m`$.

The case $`m=1`$ is trivial, since $`A_1=k^{}`$ is a field. Let $`m>1`$. In the basis $`(t)`$ of $`A_m`$ our equation can be written as:

$$(b_0+b_1t+\mathrm{}+b_{m1}t^{m1})^2=u_0+u_1t+\mathrm{}+u_{m1}t^{m1}.$$

Hence, we get the system of $`m`$ quadratic equations over $`k^{}`$

$$b_0^2=u_0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}b_0b_1=u_1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(b_0b_2+b_1^2)=u_2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}(b_3b_0+b_2b_1)=u_3,\mathrm{}$$
(\*)
which has the property that any element $`b_j`$ is the solution of the quadratic or linear equation over $`k^{}`$ (precisely the $`j+1`$-th equation) with coefficients $`b_i`$, $`i<j`$, and $`u_i`$, $`ij`$. Then it follows immediately that the number of solutions of (\*) is finite. ∎

###### 3.5 Remark.

The assumption that the characteristic of $`k`$ is different from 2 is essential. Take $`k`$ to be the algebraic closure of the finite field $`𝔽_2`$ then the algebra $`S=k[t]/t^2`$ is the simple extension of $`k`$. But it easy to see that the image of the map $`bb^2`$ coincides with the subspace $`k1`$ in $`S=k1kt`$ which consists of all non-primitive elements of $`S`$.

###### 3.6.

Let $`cS^{}`$ be a primitive element of a simple extension $`S/k`$ of degree $`n`$. Let $`x`$ be an element of $`S`$. By the symbol $`\{x,c\}`$ we denote the $`n`$-th coefficient of the presentation of $`x`$ in the basis $`(c)`$, i.e., $`\{x,c\}=x_{n1}`$, where $`_{i=0}^{n1}x_ic^i=x`$.

###### 3.7 Lemma.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension of degree $`n`$ of a field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. Let $`cS_{prim}^{}`$ be a primitive element and let $`x`$ be a non-zero element of $`S`$. Then the subset $`W_{c,x}=\{bV_c|\{xb^1,cb^2\}0\}`$ is non-empty and open in $`S^{}`$, where $`V_c`$ is the non-empty open subset from Lemma 3.3.

###### 3.8 Remark.

The assumption that $`k`$ has characteristic 0 is essential. Take $`k`$ to be the algebraic closure of the finite field $`𝔽_3`$. Consider the algebra $`S=k[t]/t^31`$. Take $`x=c=t`$. It is easy to see that $`\{xb^1,cb^2\}=0`$ for all $`bS^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`xb^1=v_0+v_1(cb^2)+\mathrm{}+v_{n1}(cb^2)^{n1}`$ be the presentation of the element $`xb^1`$ in the basis $`(cb^2)`$. Our goal is to show that the subset of the elements $`bV_c`$ with $`v_{n1}0`$ is non-empty and open in $`S^{}`$.

Multiplying the presentation of $`xb^1`$ by $`b`$ we get the following equation:

$$x=v_0b+v_1(cb^3)+\mathrm{}+v_{n1}c^{n1}b^{2n1}.$$
(\*)
Now consider the primitive element $`c`$ of $`S`$. Let $`x=x_0+x_1c+\mathrm{}+x_{n1}c^{n1}`$ and $`b=b_0+b_1c+\mathrm{}+b_{n1}c^{n1}`$ be the presentations of the elements $`x`$ and $`b`$ in the basis $`(c)`$. Consider the equation (\*) in terms of the basis $`(c)`$. We get the system of $`n`$ linear equations in $`n`$ variables $`v_0,\mathrm{},v_{n1}`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x_0\\ x_1\\ \mathrm{}\\ x_{n1}\end{array}\right)=v_0\left(\begin{array}{c}h_{0,0}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\\ h_{1,0}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\\ \mathrm{}\\ h_{n1,0}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{}v_{n1}\left(\begin{array}{c}h_{0,n1}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\\ h_{1,n1}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\\ \mathrm{}\\ h_{n1,n1}(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})\end{array}\right),$$

where $`h_{i,j}`$ are polynomials in $`n`$ variables $`b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$ with coefficients from $`k`$. In particular, we have $`h_{i,0}=b_i`$ for all $`i=0\mathrm{}n1`$. Solving this linear system we get

$$v_{n1}=det(A_{(n1)})/det(A),$$

where $`A`$ is the matrix of the system and the matrix $`A_{(n1)}`$ is got by replacing the last column of $`A`$ by the vector $`x`$ (of free terms). Observe that both $`det(A_{(n1)})`$ and $`det(A)`$ are homogeneous polynomials (in $`n`$ variables $`b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$) of degrees $`1+3+\mathrm{}+(2n3)=(n1)^2`$ and $`1+3+\mathrm{}+(2n1)=n^2`$ respectively. Hence, the map $`V_ck`$ given by $`b=(b_0,\mathrm{},b_{n1})v_{n1}`$ is the regular map (observe that the determinant $`det(A)`$ is non-zero for all $`bV_c`$, since $`cb^2`$ is primitive). Thus, the subset $`W_c`$ is open in $`S^{}`$. The fact that $`W_c`$ is non-empty follows from Sublemma 3.9 below. ∎

###### 3.9 Sublemma.

If $`x0`$, then the polynomial $`det(A_{n1})`$ is non-trivial.

###### Proof.

We have the presentation of the determinant

$$det(A_{(n1)})=\mathrm{\Delta }_0x_{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_1x_{n2}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}x_0,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, is the $`(n1i,n1)`$-minor of $`A_{(n1)}`$. For each monomial $`b_0^{m_0}b_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}b_{n1}^{m_{n1}}`$ we define the weight to be the sum $`_{i=0}^{n1}im_i`$. Observe that each minor $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ consists of monomials of weight $`i`$.

Now each minor can be viewed as the sum $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=h_i+h_{>i}`$ of two homogeneous polynomials (in $`n`$-variables $`b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_{n1}`$) of degree $`(n1)^2`$, where $`h_i`$ is the sum of monomials of weight $`i`$ and $`h_{>i}`$ is the sum of monomials of weight strictly bigger than $`i`$. The point is that the coefficients of the polynomial $`h_i`$ don’t depend on the coefficients of the minimal polynomial $`p_c`$ for $`c`$.

We claim that $`h_i0`$. Indeed, for $`i=0`$ we have $`h_0=b_0^{(n1)^2}`$, i.e., $`h_00`$. For $`i=1`$ we have $`h_1=C_{2n3}^1b_0^{n(n2)}b_1=(2n3)b_0^{n(n2)}b_1`$ which is non-zero if the characteristic of $`k`$ doesn’t divide $`2n3`$. For $`i>1`$ the polynomial $`h_i`$ contains the unique monomial (the monomial with the maximal power of $`b_0`$) $`(1)^i(2(ni)1)b_0^{n(n2)}b_i`$ which is non-zero if the characteristic of $`k`$ doesn’t divide $`2(ni)1`$.

Now it follows immediately that the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n1`$, are linearly independent. And we are done. ∎

We will need one more fact concerning the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$:

###### 3.10 Sublemma.

For any integers $`0i,jn1`$ The polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$, where $`ij`$, are linearly independent.

###### Proof.

The product $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ is the homogeneous polynomial of degree $`2(n1)^2`$ and can be represented as follows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j=h_ih_j+g_{>i+j}`$, where $`h_ih_j`$ is the sum of monomials of weight $`i+j`$ and $`g_{>i+j}`$ consists of monomials of weight strictly bigger than $`i+j`$. Observe now that $`h_ih_j`$ contains the unique monomial (the monomial with the maximal power of $`b_0`$) $`(1)^{i+j}(2(ni)1)(2(nj)1)b_0^{2n(n2)}b_ib_j`$ (see the proof of the previous Sublemma). ∎

Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section:

###### 3.11 Theorem.

Let $`S`$ be a simple extension of degree $`n`$ of a field $`k`$ of characteristic $`0`$. Let $`c`$ be a primitive element of $`S/k`$. Let $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`k`$ of rank $`m`$. and $`x=(x^{(1)},\mathrm{},x^{(m)})`$ be a vector in $`S^m`$ such that $`q(x)0`$. By $`\{x,c\}=(x_{n1}^{(1)},\mathrm{},x_{n1}^{(m)})`$ we denote the vector of the $`(n1)`$-th coordinates of $`x`$ in the basis $`(c)`$, i.e., $`\{x,c\}_j=\{x^{(j)},c\}`$. Then the subset

$$U_{c,x,q}=\{bV_c|q(\{xb^1,cb^2\})0\}$$

is non-empty and open in $`S^{}`$.

###### 3.12 Remark.

According to 3.8 the Theorem is not true if the characteristic of the residue field $`k`$ is non-zero. Take $`k=\overline{𝔽}_3`$, $`S=k[t]/(t^31)`$, $`q(x)=x^2`$ and $`c=x=t`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is a little modification of the proof of 3.7. We use the notation introduced in the proof of Lemma 3.7.

Clearly, $`U_{c,x,q}`$ is open (by the same arguments as in 3.7). The main problem is to show that $`U_{c,x,q}`$ is non-empty. Hence, we have to prove that the polynomial $`q(det(A_{(n1)}^{(1)}),\mathrm{},det(A_{(n1)}^{(m)}))`$ is non-trivial, where $`A_{(n1)}^{(j)}`$ denotes the matrix corresponding to the element $`x^{(j)}`$. Let

$$det(A_{(n1)}^{(j)})=\mathrm{\Delta }_0x_{n1}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Delta }_1x_{n2}^{(j)}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}x_0^{(j)}$$

be the representation as in the proof of 3.9, where $`x^{(j)}=_{i=0}^{n1}x_i^{(j)}c^i`$ is the presentation of $`x^{(j)}`$ in the basis $`(c)`$. Let $`q(x)=_ja_j(x^{(j)})^2`$ be our quadratic form.

Then, we have

$$(detA)^2q(\{xb^1,cb^2\})=\underset{j}{}a_j(detA_{(n1)}^{(j)})^2=$$

$$=\underset{j}{}a_j(\underset{i}{}(1)^ix_{n1i}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2$$

Now if we replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ by $`(1)^it^{n1i}`$ we get precisely

$$\underset{j}{}a_j(\underset{i}{}(1)^ix_{n1i}^{(j)}\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^2=q(x^{(1)}(t),\mathrm{},x^{(m)}(t))$$
(\*)
as the polynomial in $`R[t]`$, where $`x^{(j)}(t)=_ix_i^{(j)}t^i`$.

Assume that the polynomial $`q(\{xb^1,cb^2\})`$ is trivial. Since the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ are linearly independent (by Sublemma 3.10), this implies that the polynomials $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$ in the sum (\*) have zero coefficients. In particular, the $`t^i`$ have trivial coefficients as well, i.e., the polynomial $`q(x^{(1)}(t),\mathrm{},x^{(m)}(t))`$ is trivial. This contradicts with the hypothesis of the Theorem that the image of $`q(x^{(1)}(t),\mathrm{},x^{(m)}(t))`$ by means of the canonical map $`R[t]R[t]/p_c(t)=S`$, i.e., precisely $`q(x)`$, is non-trivial. ∎

## 4 The Knebusch’s Norm Principle

###### 4.1.

Let $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`R`$ of rank $`m`$. We denote by $`q_S=q_RS`$ the base change form of $`q`$. Thus, $`q_S`$ is the quadratic form over $`S`$ whose coefficients come from the base ring $`R`$. Let $`D(q_S)`$ be the subgroup of $`S^{}`$ generated by all invertible elements of $`S`$ that are represented by the quadratic form $`q_S`$, i.e., $`D(q_S)=\{bS^{}|b=q_S(x),xS^m\}`$. By $`D(q)`$ we denote the respective subgroup of values of the form $`q`$ over $`R`$.

The goal is to prove the following theorem

###### 4.2 Theorem.

Let $`R`$ be a local domain with the residue field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. Let $`S/R`$ be a simple extension of degree $`n`$. Let $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`R`$ of rank $`m`$. Then we have the following inclusion between the subgroups of $`S^{}`$:

$$N_R^S(D(q_S))D(q),$$

where $`N_R^S`$ is the norm map for the extension $`S/R`$ and $`D(q_S)`$ is the group generated by values of the form $`q`$ over $`S`$.

###### 4.3 Lemma.

In the hypothesis of Theorem 4.2 we have $`(S^{})^2D(q_S)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`rR^{}`$ be a value of the quadratic form $`q`$, i.e., $`r=q(y)`$ for some $`yR^m`$. Then for any $`bS^{}`$ we have $`b^2=q(yb)q(y/r)D(q_S)`$. ∎

###### The Proof of Theorem 4.2.

We prove by induction on the degree $`n`$ of the simple extension $`S/R`$. The case $`n=1`$ is trivial. Assume $`n>1`$.

Let $`c=q_S(x)`$ for some $`xS^m`$. We want to show $`N_R^S(c)D(q)`$. By 2.4 and Lemma 3.3 the element $`c`$ can be written as the product $`c=cb^2(1/b)^2`$, where $`cb^2=q_S(xb)D(q_S)`$ is primitive. Hence, by multiplicativity of the norm map and Lemma 4.3 we may assume $`c`$ (replaced by $`cb^2`$) is primitive.

Now we mimic the step 3 of the proof of \[2, VII, 5.1\]. Replace $`c`$ by it’s inverse $`c^1`$. We get the equation $`1=cq_S(x)`$, where $`c`$ is primitive. More precisely, we have

$$1=cq_S(x^{(1)}(c),\mathrm{},x^{(m)}(c)),$$
(\*)
where $`x^{(j)}(c)S`$ is the $`j`$-th coordinate of the vector $`x`$ written in the basis $`(c)`$. According to Theorem 3.11 we may assume that the value of the quadratic form $`q_S`$ on the last coefficients of the vectors $`x^{(j)}`$, i.e., $`q(x_{n1}^{(1)},\mathrm{},x_{n1}^{(m)})`$, is invertible in $`R`$. In fact, it is enough to consider the quotient modulo the maximal ideal of $`R`$ (see 2.4), i.e., the simple extension $`\overline{S}/k`$. The open subset $`U_{c,x,q}`$ from 3.11 is non-empty and open. Take any element $`b`$ from $`U_{c,x,q}`$ and replace $`c`$ by $`cb^2`$ and $`x`$ by $`x/b`$.

Consider the pull-back of the equation (\*) by means of the canonical map $`R[t]R[t]/p_c(t)=S`$. Since $`tq(x(t))1`$ lies in the principal ideal $`(p_c(t))`$ of the polynomial ring $`R[t]`$ there is a polynomial $`h(t)`$ such that

$$1+p(t)h(t)=tq_S(x^{(1)}(t),\mathrm{},x^{(m)}(t)).$$
(\**)
Since $`R`$ is a domain the leading coefficient of the left hand side of (\**) coincides with the leading coefficient of $`h`$, denoted by $`r`$, and coincides with the leading coefficient of the right hand side that is $`r=q(x_{n1}^{(1)},\mathrm{},x_{n1}^{(m)})`$, where $`r`$ is invertible in $`R`$. Clearly, we have $`n+\mathrm{deg}h=2(n1)+1`$. So that $`\mathrm{deg}h=n1`$.

As in  we have $`N_R^S(c)=(1)^{n1}p_c(0)=(1)^n/r(h(0)/r)^1`$, where $`rD(q)`$ and $`h(0)/r`$ is the norm (up to sign) of the respective primitive element $`u=t`$ of the simple extension $`T=R[t]/g(t)`$, where $`g(t)=h(t)/r`$ is the monic polynomial of degree $`\mathrm{deg}h=n1`$. Observe that taking (\**) modulo the principal ideal (g(t)) we get similar to (\*)

$$1=uq_T(x(u)modg(u)),\text{i.e.,}uD(q_T).$$

Hence, we may apply the induction hypothesis and conclude that $`g(0)=h(0)/rD(q)`$. Then we immediately get $`N_R^S(c)D(q)`$. ∎

## 5 Grothendieck-Serre’s conjecture for the case of spinor group

###### 5.1.

Let $`R`$ be a local domain with the residue field $`k`$ of characteristic different form 2 and $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`R`$. Following  we define the spinor group (scheme) $`Spin_q`$ to be $`Spin_q(R)=\{xS\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(R)|x\sigma (x)=1\}`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the canonical involution. Recall that $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }_q(R)=\{cC_0(V,q)^{}|cVc^1V\}`$, where $`C_0(V,q)`$ is the even part of the Clifford algebra of the respective quadratic space $`(V,q)`$ over $`R`$.

The goal of the present section is to show:

###### 5.2 Theorem.

Let $`R`$ be a local regular ring of geometric type over the base field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. Let $`K`$ be it’s quotient field. Let $`q`$ be a regular quadratic form over $`R`$. Then the induced map on the sets of principal homogeneous spaces

$$H_{et}^1(R,Spin_q)H_{et}^1(K,Spin_q)$$

has trivial kernel, where $`Spin_q`$ is the spinor group for the quadratic form $`q`$.

###### 5.3 Remark.

Observe that Theorem is the particular case $`G=Spin_q`$ of Grothendieck-Serre’s conjecture on principal homogeneous spaces , which states for a flat reductive group scheme $`G`$ over $`R`$ the induced map $`H_{et}^1(R,G)H_{et}^1(K,G)`$ has trivial kernel.

###### Proof.

Let $`R`$ be a local regular ring and $`K`$ be it’s quotient field. We have the following commutative digram (see ):

where $`SN:SO_q(R)H_{et}^1(R,\mu _2)=R^{}/(R^{})^2`$ is the spinor norm. The main result of paper  says that the vertical arrow on the right hand side has trivial kernel (see also \[5, 3.4\]). Thus, in order to show that the middle one has trivial kernel it is enough to check that the induced map on the cokernels $`coker(SN)(R)coker(SN)(K)`$ is injective.

Consider the group scheme $`F:Scoker(SN)(S)`$. According to \[5, s.2\] to prove the mentioned injectivity we have to show that the functor $`F`$ satisfies all the axioms of \[5, s.1, 2\]. In fact, all the axioms, excluding the existence of transfer map, holds by the same arguments as in \[5, s.3\]. So that the only thing we have to check is that for any finite surjective extension $`S/R`$ of semi-local rings the norm map $`N_R^S`$ commutes with the spinor norm. In fact, it turns out that we can consider only finite etale extensions $`S/R`$ of semi-local rings – just replace the geometric presentation lemma used in  by it’s stronger version from \[6, Theorem 6.1\] (the proof will be the same).

Observe that by definition of the spinor norm  it is the same as to show that the norm map commutes with the functor $`D:Sq(S)`$ (that sends any $`R`$-algebra $`S`$ to the group of values of the quadratic form $`q`$ on $`S`$), i.e., $`N_R^S(D(S))D(R)`$. Hence, we have to prove the analog of Knebusch’s Norm Principle for quadratic forms in the case of finite etale extensions of semi-local rings. But this is done in Theorem 4.2. ∎