text:
# Gravity of superheavy higher-dimensional global defects

## I Introduction

According to the “brane-world” picture, our universe is a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional brane floating in a higher-dimensional bulk spacetime . The branes can be thought of as fundamental $`D`$-branes, or they can arise as topological defects in a higher-dimensional field theory. It may well be that $`D`$-branes could also eventually find some dual field-theory description. In the simplest, codimension-one models, the brane can be pictured as a domain wall propagating in a 5D spacetime . Higher codimensions with both gauge and global defects have also been considered. In particular, models have been discussed where the field configuration in the directions orthogonal to the brane is that of a cosmic string , a monopole , or a texture . In these models, the bulk curvature produced by the defects plays a major role in localizing gravity on the brane and in solving the mass-hierarchy problem.

The solutions of Einstein’s equation describing higher dimensional defects with a global charge found in Ref.  are very simple. In the absence of a bulk cosmological constant, and for codimension $`n>2`$, the spacetime is flat along the brane worldsheet and is characterized by a constant solid angle deficit in the transverse directions. The angle deficit grows as the symmetry breaking scale $`\eta `$ of the defect is increased, and eventually consumes the entire solid angle at some critical value $`\eta _c`$, which is comparable to the higher-dimensional Planck scale. For $`\eta =\eta _c`$, the transverse metric becomes that of a cylinder.

The solution of Ref.  were obtained in the asymptotic region outside the defect core. In the core region, analytic solutions cannot be found, and one of the purposes of the present paper is to check numerically that the asymptotic solutions of Ref.  can be matched to appropriate core solutions.

Another important question is what happens if $`\eta `$ is greater than $`\eta _c`$. One of the motivations for looking into this regime is the interesting work by Dvali, Gabadadze, and Shifman , suggesting that brane-world models of codimension $`n>2`$, with a very low value of the bulk Planck scale, can provide a solution to the cosmological constant problem. It was conjectured in Ref.  that defect solutions in such models may exhibit de Sitter inflation of the worldsheet, with the expansion rate inversely proportional to the brane tension. The very low-accelerated expansion rate observed today could then be obtained with a very large-brane tension.

The main purpose of the present paper is to solve Einstein’s and scalar-field equations for super-critical global defects. Specifically, we consider a codimension-3 global monopole. In the following Section, we introduce the model and review the asymptotic solutions of Ref. . The numerical solutions assuming a static (noninflating) worldsheet are presented in Sec. III, for both sub- and super-critical regimes. We find that super-critical solutions have a curvature singularity at a finite distance from the monopole core. Inflating defect solutions are discussed in Sec. IV, where we show that the expansion rate $`H`$ can be adjusted so that the singularity is removed. We interpret the resulting nonsingular geometries as the physical defect solutions. Our conclusions are summarized in Sec. V.

## II Field equations and asymptotic solutions

The action for our model is

$$𝒮=d^7x\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{}{2\kappa ^2}\frac{1}{2}_A\varphi ^a^A\varphi ^a\frac{\lambda }{4}(\varphi ^a\varphi ^a\eta ^2)^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`\kappa ^2=1/M^{2+n}`$, $`M`$ is the 7D Planck mass, and $`\eta `$ is the symmetry-breaking scale. The scalar-triplet field $`\varphi ^a`$ is assumed to be in a global monopole “hedgehog” configuration in $`n=3`$ extra transverse dimensions, $`\varphi ^a=\varphi (r)\widehat{x}^a`$.

The general static form of the seven dimensional metric with spherical symmetry in the extra three dimensions is

$$ds^2=B^2(r)d\overline{s}_4^2+dr^2+C^2(r)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(2)
where $`d\overline{s}_4^2`$ represents the 4D world-volume metric. The corresponding Einstein equations are

$`G_\mu ^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`3{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}3\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^26{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{Br}}6{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}C^{}}{BC}}2{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{C}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{C}}\right)^26{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{Cr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{R}^{(4)}}{B^2}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{C^2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi ^2\eta ^2)^2\right],`$ (4)
$`G_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`6\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^28{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{Br}}8{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}C^{}}{BC}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{C}}\right)^22{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{Cr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C^2r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{R}^{(4)}}{B^2}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{C^2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi ^2\eta ^2)^2\right],`$ (6)
$`G_{\theta _i}^{\theta _i}`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{B^{\prime \prime }}{B}}6\left({\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{B}}\right)^24{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{Br}}4{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}C^{}}{BC}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\prime \prime }}{C}}2{\displaystyle \frac{C^{}}{Cr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{R}^{(4)}}{B^2}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\kappa ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\varphi ^2\eta ^2)^2\right],`$ (8)
where $`\overline{R}^{(4)}`$ is the Ricci scalar of the 4D world volume.

The field equation for the scalar field is

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+2\left(2\frac{B^{}}{B}+\frac{C^{}}{C}+\frac{1}{r}\right)\varphi ^{}2\frac{\varphi }{C^2r^2}\lambda \varphi (\varphi ^2\eta ^2)=0.$$
(9)
The solution obtained in Ref. , assuming a flat 4D world-volume, $`\overline{R}^{(4)}=0`$, and $`\varphi =\eta `$ in the asymptotic region, is of the form

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+(1\kappa ^2\eta ^2)r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(10)
The solid angle deficit is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }=4\pi \kappa ^2\eta ^2`$, and the critical symmetry-breaking scale is

$$\eta _c=1/\kappa .$$
(11)
It was shown in Ref.  that for this value of $`\eta `$, the Einstein equations have a cylindrical solution

$$ds^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dr^2+C_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(12)
where $`C_0`$ is an arbitrary constant. The expectation was that this constant radius of the cylinder can be determined by matching to an appropriate-core solution, so that the full 3D geometry will be that of a “cigar”. In the next section, we shall see that (i) this expectation for the critical solution is not supported by the numerical analysis, but (ii) cigar-type geometries do nonetheless make their appearance in super-critical monopole solutions.

## III Static solutions

We numerically solved the Einstein and scalar-field equations (4)-(9) with boundary conditions $`B(0)=C(0)=1`$, $`B^{}(0)=C^{}(0)=0`$, $`\varphi (0)=0`$, and $`\varphi =\eta `$ at large $`r`$. For static solutions, we assumed a flat worldsheet, $`d\overline{s}_4^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$, and $`\overline{R}^{(4)}=0`$.

The solutions for the scalar field $`\varphi `$ and the metric of a sub-critical monopole ($`\kappa \eta =0.2`$) are shown in Fig. 1. As expected, $`\varphi `$ rapidly approaches $`\eta `$, and the metric coefficients $`B`$ and $`C`$ approach constants at large $`r`$. The asymptotic value of the angle-deficit coefficient $`C`$ is in agreement with Eq. (10). As $`\eta `$ gets closer to $`\kappa ^1`$, the approach to this asymptotic value becomes increasingly slow.

In the critical case, $`\kappa \eta =1`$, $`C0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. However, the radius of the extra dimensions $`Cr`$ is a growing function of $`r`$ (see Fig. 2). Thus, the asymptotic behavior of the critical-monopole solution is not described by the cylindrical metric (12). With $`\varphi \eta `$, we were able to find a power-law analytic solution of Einstein equations,

$`B`$ $``$ $`r^{(2\sqrt{10})/12}r^{0.097},`$ (13)
$`C`$ $``$ $`r^{(5+\sqrt{10})/6}r^{0.306},`$ (14)
which gives a good fit to our numerical solution at large $`r`$.

In the super-critical case, $`\kappa \eta >1`$, we find that static solutions develop a curvature singularity at a finite distance from the defect core. When $`\eta `$ is only slightly above the critical value, this distance can be very large. The solution initially behaves as the “cigar” solution (12), but eventually the radius of extra dimensions blows up, $`C\mathrm{}`$, and the metric coefficient $`B`$ plummets to zero at the same finite value of $`r=r_s`$. This behavior is illustrated in Fig. 3 for $`\kappa \eta =1.06723`$. The nature of this singularity is similar to that of a static 4D global string .

As the symmetry-breaking scale $`\eta `$ is increased, the singularity gets closer to the core of the monopole. We performed numerical calculations for a number of values of $`\eta `$; the resulting dependence $`r_s(\eta )`$ is plotted in Fig. 4. For $`\eta 1.2`$, the singularity gets too close to the center, so that the scalar field does not fully relax to its asymptotic value, $`\varphi =\eta `$, before the singularity forms.

## IV Inflating solutions

It is well known that the singularity of some static-defect solutions can be removed by relaxing the requirement of staticity and allowing the defect worldsheet to inflate. Examples are domain walls  and global strings  in $`(3+1)`$ dimensions. It is, therefore, reasonable to check if the same strategy works in higher dimensions.

The 4D metric of an inflating defect worldsheet is the de Sitter metric,

$$d\overline{s}_4^2=dt^2+e^{2Ht}d\text{x}^2,$$
(15)
and the 4D curvature scalar is $`\overline{R}^{(4)}=12H^2`$. We solved the equations numerically for different values of $`H`$, and indeed, for values of $`\eta `$ above, but not too far above the critical, we were able to adjust $`H`$ so that the singularity is removed. Two super-critical, nonsingular solutions are shown in Fig. 5.

We see that the extra dimensions in these solutions have a “cigar” geometry, with $`Crconst`$ at large $`r`$, and that the scalar field quickly approaches a constant value, which, however, is somewhat below $`\eta `$. The latter fact can be easily understood from the field equation (9) for $`\varphi `$. With $`\varphi ^{}=0`$ and $`\sqrt{\lambda }\eta CrC_0=\mathrm{const}`$, it gives

$$\frac{\varphi ^2}{\eta ^2}=1\frac{2}{C_0^2}.$$
(16)
We were able to find an exact analytic solution of our system of equations, which describes the asymptotic behavior of these nonsingular solutions:

$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _0={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{5\kappa ^2\eta ^2}}{2\kappa }},`$ (17)
$`\sqrt{\lambda }\eta B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H}{k}}\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{\lambda }\eta kr),`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{\lambda }\eta Cr`$ $`=`$ $`C_0=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \eta }{\sqrt{\kappa ^2\eta ^21}}},`$ (19)
where $`k=\sqrt{5/128}(\kappa ^2\eta ^21)/\kappa \eta `$.

In order to solve the equations numerically, we had to impose the boundary condition $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$ at large $`r`$. The actual sequence of steps that led to the solution was that, after experimenting with numerical solutions for different values of $`H`$ with our old boundary condition, $`\varphi (r\mathrm{})=\eta `$, we guessed that the nonsingular solution should have a cigar geometry. We then found the analytic solutions (17)-(19) and used (17) to set the boundary condition.

In the asymptotic solution (18), the expansion rate $`H`$ can be absorbed by rescaling the time coordinate $`t`$ in Eq. (15); then the solution takes the form

$$(\lambda \eta ^2)ds^2=k^2(\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\overline{s}_+^2+d\chi ^2)+C_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(20)
where $`\chi =\sqrt{\lambda }\eta kr`$ and $`d\overline{s}_+^2`$ is the 4D de Sitter metric with $`H=1`$. The above metric is essentially the same as the one found in Ref.  as a solution for $`\varphi =\eta `$ and a positive bulk cosmological constant. In our model, the role of the cosmological constant is played by the scalar-field potential, $`V(\varphi _0)>0`$.

The solution (20) has an apparent singularity at $`\chi =\pi `$, but as it was noted in Ref. , the first two terms in Eq. (20) describe a 5D de Sitter space. The 5D inflation rate is $`H_5=\sqrt{\lambda }\eta k`$, and the surface $`\chi =\pi `$ corresponds to the de Sitter horizon. This shows that the space outside the monopole core inflates not only along the 4D worldsheet, but also in one of the transverse directions, while two of the extra dimensions remain compactified in a sphere. This behavior is reminiscent of the topological-inflation scenario , where inflation occurs in the cores of topological defects in 4D. There are, however, important differences. First, the defect core has a fixed radius and is not expanding in the radial direction, and second, two of the extra dimensions remain compactified, also at a fixed radius.

Although the 4D expansion rate $`H`$ drops out of the asymptotic solution, it is a meaningful parameter for the full spacetime. With our boundary conditions at $`r=0`$, it gives the inflation rate in the core of the monopole. As we saw in the preceding section, the static $`H=0`$ solutions with $`\kappa \eta >1`$ are singular. As $`H`$ is increased, the singularity gets milder, and at a certain value of $`H`$ it disappears completely, resulting in a cigar geometry. We interpret the corresponding solution as the physical solution describing the spacetime of a superheavy defect.

Our conjecture is that for each $`\eta `$, only one particular value of $`H`$ gives a nonsingular solution. Of course, it is impossible to find this precise value numerically, and therefore, all super-critical numerical solutions that we considered eventually developed a singularity. The nature of the singularity is similar to that of a static solution in Fig. 3, with $`B0`$ and $`C\mathrm{}`$. By adjusting the value of $`H`$, we were able to shift the onset of the singularity to larger and larger radii, so that the solution got closer and closer to the asymptotic solutions (17)-(19). In the end, however, $`C(r)`$ invariably started to diverge, at some point very close to the would-be de Sitter horizon, $`r\pi /\sqrt{\lambda }\eta k`$. We believe that our results are very suggestive, but they do not, of course, constitute a proof that all values of $`H`$ except one yield singular solutions. It may be possible to provide a proof using the dynamical-systems method employed in Ref. .

Our numerical results indicate that, for the nonsingular solution, $`H`$ grows as we increase $`\eta `$, and the growth is nearly linear, at least, for $`\eta `$ sufficiently close to $`\eta _c`$ (see Fig. 6). Above some value, $`\kappa \eta >1.1`$, it is difficult to get a cigar solution numerically. As $`\eta `$ ($`H`$) increases, $`Cr`$ becomes more wiggly in the asymptotic region unless $`\eta `$ and $`H`$ are tuned very delicately to get a cigar solution. This causes numerical difficulties in getting a cigar solution for large $`\eta `$.

From Eq. (17) we see that the asymptotic solution exists only for $`1<\kappa \eta <\sqrt{5}`$. At the end of this interval, $`\kappa \eta =\sqrt{5}`$, the scalar field is in the unbroken-symmetry state, $`\varphi =0`$. Then the source term in the Einstein’s equation is pure vacuum, $`T_\mu ^\nu =V(0)\delta _\mu ^\nu `$, and the solution (20) takes the form

$$(\lambda \eta ^2)ds^2=8(\mathrm{sin}^2\chi d\overline{s}_+^2+d\chi ^2)+2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(21)
The de Sitter horizon radius of the inflating five dimensions in this solution is twice the radius of the remaining compactified two dimensions. Since the field $`\varphi `$ in this solution has the same value, $`\varphi =0`$, as in the monopole core, the metric (21) describes the entire spacetime for $`\kappa \eta =\sqrt{5}`$. For higher values of $`\eta `$, we expect that $`\varphi `$ remains equal to zero, and the metric is still given by (21).

## V Conclusions

In this paper, we continued the investigation of the gravitational field of higher-dimensional global defects that was started in Ref. . We have obtained numerical solutions of Einstein’s and scalar-field equations for a defect with a $`(3+1)`$-dimensional core, which has a global-monopole-like field configuration in the extra three dimensions. We have verified that, for symmetry-breaking scales below the higher-dimensional Planck scale, $`\eta <1/\kappa `$, the spacetime of the defect worldsheet is flat, and the geometry of extra dimensions is that of a generalized cone, in agreement with the asymptotic solution obtained in Ref. . The solid angle deficit grows with $`\eta `$ and consumes the entire solid angle at the critical value $`\eta _c=1/\kappa `$.

Our main goal in this paper has been to investigate supercritical defects with $`\eta >\eta _c`$. First, we have found that static supercritical solutions have a curvature singularity. It has been known for some time that singularities of static-defect solutions in 4D can be removed by relaxing the staticity requirement and allowing the defect cores to inflate. We have shown that the same is true for our 7D global monopoles. We found numerical solutions in which the defect core has the geometry of de Sitter space inflating at some rate $`H`$. As $`H`$ is increased, for each $`\eta >\eta _c`$, there is a value of $`H`$ for which the spacetime becomes nonsingular. The extra dimensions of these nonsingular solutions have a “cigar” geometry.

At large distances from the core, the nonsingular solutions have a very simple form, and we have found an exact analytic solution of the field equations describing this asymptotic behavior. In this solution, the five dimensional subspace, formed by the four dimensions tangent to the defect worldsheet and the radial dimension in the extra space, has the geometry of a 5D de Sitter space. Thus, inflation occurs not only along the defect, but also in one extra dimension. (Note, however, that the radius of the defect core is smaller than the horizon and remains fixed during the course of inflation.) The remaining two extra dimensions are compactified as a sphere of a fixed radius. Far away from the core, the scalar field approaches a constant value $`\varphi _0`$, which, however, is somewhat smaller than the flat-space expectation value $`\eta `$.

As the symmetry-breaking scale $`\eta `$ is increased, the inflation rate $`H`$ grows and the asymptotic scalar-field value $`\varphi _0`$ decreases. For $`\eta \sqrt{5}\kappa ^1`$, the scalar field vanishes in the entire spacetime, and the defect solution turns into a vacuum solution of Einstein equations with a cosmological term. We interpret this as indicating that, for higher values of $`\eta `$, defect solutions with a core of a fixed transverse size do not exist.

We focused in this paper on a global-monopole-type defect in a 7D spacetime, but since the gravitational properties of all global defects of codimension $`n>2`$ are rather universal, we expect our conclusions to apply to all such defects, with only minor modifications. In particular, the analogues of the $`n=3`$ asymptotic solutions (17)-(19) can be easily found for $`n>3`$.

As already noted, the inflation rate $`H`$ grows as $`\eta `$ is increased. This behavior is opposite to what is needed for solving the cosmological constant problem. This indicates that global defects cannot be used to implement the Dvali-Gabadadze-Shifman idea . We shall discuss the gravity of higher-dimensional gauge defects in a forthcoming paper.

When this work was in progress, we learned that Ruth Gregory has independently studied inflating black-brane solutions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Gia Dvali and Gregory Gabadadze for useful discussions. The work of A.V. was supported in part by the National Science Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Inflation rule for Gummelt coverings with decorated decagons and its implication to quasi-unit-cell models

## I Introduction

Quasicrystals are solids exhibiting long-range translational order with a rotational symmetry that is forbidden in a periodic system Levine84 . They have a quasiperiodic translational order and their lattice structures are called quasicrystalline lattices or quasilattices. There were several different ways of obtaining a quasilattice. Projection, dual grid, inflation, Penrose matching-rule and Gummelt overlapping-rule methods are some of known examples of obtaining a quasilattice Janot92B ; Gummelt96 .

The well-known two-dimensional (2D) Penrose lattice can be obtained by each of above methods. All of them make the equivalent Penrose lattice structure but the basic building blocks they use to produce the structure are not the same. For example, the 5D hypercube, the two types of rhombic tiles and the decagon are the basic building blocks in the projection, arrow matching-rule and Gummelt overlapping-rule methods respectively. Therefore, the different ways of obtaining (the same) quasilattice structures may produce different sets of atomic models, which are obtained by decorating each of basic building blocks identically and applying the operations to get the quasilattice structure. Therefore, equivalence in concept between two different approaches for quasicrystals should be investigated on two different levels, on the level of the lattice structures and on the level of atomic models.

Recently, we considered the relationship between rhombus-Penrose-tile (RPT) models, which are based on the arrow matching-rule method, and decagonal quasi-unit-cell (dQUC) models, which are based on the Gummelt overlapping-rule method Jeong02JAP . An RPT model corresponds to decorating each fat rhombus identically and each skinny rhombus identically, and joining them to form a Penrose tiling. Similarly, a dQUC model corresponds to decorating decagons identically and then covering the plane according to the Gummelt overlapping rule. The decagon is called a quasi-unit cell (QUC) since its role corresponds to the role of unit cell in a periodic crystal. It is similar to the unit cell in the sense that the QUC is a single repeating unit whose decoration determines the entire atomic structure of the solid. However, unlike the unit-cells, it overlaps its neighbors. Because of the overlaps, Gummelt arrangement of identically decorated decagons can produce the context-dependent decoration of decagons in the covering. Therefore, the equivalence between Penrose tiling and Gummelt Covering on the level of lattice Gummelt96 ; Steinhardt96 ; Jeong97  may not guarantee the equivalence between RPT-models and dQUC models.

The lattice structure for real quasicrystals are often obtained by the 3D generalization of the planar Penrose lattice. For example, the structure of decagonal quasicrystals can be considered as a periodic stack of decagonal quasicrystalline planes. Therefore, the basic building blocks for real materials should be 3D also. For decagonal quasicrystals, they are two types of rhombic prisms for an RPT model Jeong93  and the decagonal prisms for a dQUC model Steinhardt98Nat . Recently, we have constructed a dQUC model with the decagonal prism as the basic building block for $`\text{Al}_{72}\text{Ni}_{20}\text{Co}_8`$, one of the best-characterized quasicrystals Steinhardt98Nat ; Abe00 . With the dQUC model, we could successfully reproduce the observed HRTEM images of $`\text{Al}_{72}\text{Ni}_{20}\text{Co}_8`$, as well as its measured stoichiometry, density and symmetry. Very recent experiments on the surface images of the above decagonal quasicrystals McGrath02JAP  are also explained more naturally with dQUC approaches than with conventional RPT models. Furthermore, dQUC models provide simpler theoretical explanations for the existence of quasicrystals Steinhardt96 . For RPT models, two or more clusters analogous to Penrose tiles are needed and the complex atomic interactions are required to mimic the arrow matching rules while the dQUC models use only a single type of basic building blocks as for crystals. Therefore, dQUC models seem to provide physically more natural explanation for the quasicrystal formation and structures.

The mathematical questions on the relationship between the set of dQUC models and the set of conventional atomic models, such as RPT models or hyper-cubic decoration models, are not fully investigated yet. In our recent paper, we showed that an RPT model is a dQUC model with the same edge size but the converse is not true Jeong02JAP . Some dQUC models cannot be interpreted as RPT models with the same edge length. However, we conjectured that a dQUC model can be an RPT model with different edge size. Here, we provide a mathematical proof for this claim. We first present the inflation rule for a dQUC model and show that a dQUC model is an RPT model with the super-tiles whose edge is $`\tau ^4`$ times longer than the edge of the quasi-unit decagon, where $`\tau =\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}`$.

## II Inflation rule for decorated decagons

Real quasicrystals are 3D and therefore the basic building block for a dQUC model for real materials should be a decagonal prism. However, here we mod out the periodic direction and take a 2D regular decagon as the basic building block. The 2D Gummelt covering then represents the lattice structure of each quasicrystalline plane and the atomic decoration of the basic decagon is obtained by the projection of atoms in the basic decagonal prism of the model for a real quasicrystal. For a classification of full 3D patterns from Gummelt prism decoration, see, Lord and Ranganathan Lord01 .

In 1996, Gummelt showed that a 2D quasicrystalline structure with the decagonal symmetry can be obtained when the decagons, shown in Fig. 1(a), are arranged with a specific overlapping rule Gummelt96 . The overlapping rule demands that two decagons may overlap only if the shaded regions overlap. An infinite arrangement of decagons according to the Gummelt overlapping rule is called a Gummelt covering. If we replace every decagon in the covering by a Jack Gardner77  as described in Fig. 1(b), we obtain a Penrose tiling with rhombi whose edge length is the same as that of the decagon as shown in solid lines in Fig. 1(c). Due to the self-similar properties of the Gummelt covering, we can obtain a Penrose tiling with other scale from the same covering. For example, if we place a skinny tile on every pair of decagons and replace each decagon by a fat tile as shown in Fig. 1(d), we get another Penrose tiling with “deflated”(bigger) tiles as shown in thick dashed lines in Fig. 1(c).

The mathematical equivalence between the lattice structures of the Penrose tiling and the Gummelt covering can be shown by considering the nearest-neighbor configurations of decagons allowed by the overlapping rules Jeong97 . There are 20 different ways of surrounding a decagon with neighboring decagons, where surrounding a decagon means the edges of the decagon is covered by the interior of neighboring decagons. These 20 configurations are equivalent to the configurations of “surrounding” a fat rhombus with arrow edged rhombus tiles Jeong97 . Among these 20 configurations of surrounding decagons, only 9 configurations, shown in Fig. 1(e), appear in a Gummelt covering. The centered decagon in the $`k`$-th surrounding configurations of Fig. 1(e) is called a type-$`k`$ decagon where $`k=1,\mathrm{},9`$.

Recall that a dQUC model is defined by an atomic arrangement resulted from the covering of identically decorated decagons which are arranged according to the Gummelt overlapping rule. Although we arrange the identically decorated decagons, differently-typed (or different context) decagons can be decorated differently in the covering since they have different overlaps with the neighboring decagons.

A Gummelt covering is self-similar as a Penrose tiling is and therefore allows an inflation operation. The “inflation of a decagon” is a transformation in which a decagon is replaced by 5 decagons as shown in Fig. 2(a). The edges of inflated decagons are $`1/\tau `$ times smaller than those of the original decagon. The letters A,$`\mathrm{}`$,E represent the positions of the inflated decagons. An infinite number of iterations of inflations (together with rescaling in the length by $`\tau `$) produce a Gummelt covering. Inflation of a decagon covering means that the inflation of every decagon in the entire covering. Inflation of a Gummelt covering produces another Gummelt covering.

The types of inflated decagons are determined by the type of the original decagon. The inflated decagon at the position A is always type-1 by the definition of the inflation. The types of the inflated decagons at the other 4 positions depend on the type of original decagon. Unless the original decagon is type-1, they are uniquely determined for a given type of the original decagon. Note that a typed decagon implies a finite number of decagons at fixed neighboring positions. At least, the $`k`$-th surrounding configuration (Fig. 1(e)) is always implied to the type-$`k`$ decagon as the “nearest neighbors”. In addition to this surrounding decagons, “accompanied decagons” as the “next nearest neighbors” are also implied for most cases (except type-1). “Accompanied decagons” of the configuration-$`k`$ are the decagons which are forced to be there in a Gummelt covering for the given configuration-$`k`$. Figure 2(b) shows the case of the type-9 decagon. Six decagons drawn with thin solid lines are the surrounding decagons of the type-9 decagon. Two decagons (dotted-line) at the left of the figure are some of accompanied decagons. The inflated decagons of the type-9 decagon (thick solid line decagons at the right figure of Fig. 2(b)) are fully surrounded by the inflated decagons of the surrounding (thin solid lines) and accompanied (dotted line) decagons of the original type-9 decagon. Inflations of surrounding 6 decagons force the inflated decagons at the positions B and C to be type-1. The inflated decagons at the positions D and E are not fully surrounded by the inflated decagons (solid lines) of the original surrounding decagons. However, inflations of the accompanied decagons of the configuration-9 decagon give rise to the inflated decagon (dotted-line) at the left and the D and E inflated decagons become type-3 and 5 respectively. Similar mechanisms determine the types of inflated decagons uniquely for the type-2,$`\mathrm{}`$,type-9 decagons and their types are given at table 1. (Subtypes of the type-1 decagons ($`1_{\text{fss}}`$,$`\mathrm{}`$,$`1_{\text{fff}}`$) in the table are explained later.)

| Table I. Types of Inflated decagons | | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Decagon | | Inflated decagons | | | | |
| Type | | A | B | C | D | E |
|  | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | 3 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
|  | $`1_{\text{fss}}`$ | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | 3 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
| 1 | $`1_{\text{fsf}}`$ | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | 4 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
|  | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | 3 | 6 | 9 | 9 |
|  | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ | 4 | 6 | 9 | 9 |
| 2 | | $`1_{\text{fss}}`$ | 2 | 2 | 9 | 9 |
| 3 | | $`1_{\text{fsf}}`$ | 2 | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | 4 | 8 |
| 4 | | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | 2 | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | 4 | 8 |
| 5 | | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fsf}}`$ | 2 | 7 | 6 |
| 6 | | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | 2 | 7 | 6 |
| 7 | | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{ffs}}`$ | 3 | 5 |
| 8 | | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fsf}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | 3 | 5 |
| 9 | | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | $`1_{\text{fff}}`$ | 3 | 5 |

This is not the case for the type-1 decagon. Unlike the other types, there are no accompanied decagons at the next nearest neighbors for the type-1 decagon. As shown in Fig. 2(c), there are 4 surrounding decagons in this case and their inflations are not enough for the unique determination of the inflated decagon types. Note that the configuration-1 in Fig. 1(e) corresponds to a Jack configuration with deflated tiles if a deflated fat rhombus is inscribed in each decagon as in Fig. 3(a) Jeong97 . In a Penrose tiling, a Jack configuration is always a part of the C-decagon foot1 ; Jeong97  consists of a Jack and three hexagons as shown in Fig. 3(b). There are two possible configurations for filling each hexagon, $`s`$ and $`f`$ orientation. Each hexagon consists of three tiles, one skinny tile and two fat tiles and the skinny tile in an $`s`$\[$`f`$\]-oriented hexagon is at the side near \[far from\] the center of the C-decagon. This gives rise to 8 subtypes for the type-1 decagon; from $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ to $`1_{\text{fff}}`$. The first, second, and third subscripts represent the orientations of the front, bottom, and top hexagons respectively. Fig. 3(c) and (d) shows examples of subtyped decagons, $`1_{\text{sss}}`$ (c) and $`1_{\text{fsf}}`$ (d). All eight configurations satisfy the Gummelt overlapping rule locally but the subtype $`1_{\text{sfs}}`$, $`1_{\text{ssf}}`$, and $`1_{\text{sff}}`$ decagons never appear in a Gummelt covering since adding decagons to these configurations forces a violation of the overlapping rule somewhere. The subtypes of the type-1 decagon fix the positions of the 6 next-nearest-neighboring decagons (in the three hexagons) in addition to the 4 surrounding decagons and their inflations determine the types of the inflated decagons uniquely.

Table 1 shows the types of the inflated decagons for each type of the original decagon. The letters A,$`\mathrm{}`$,E denote the inflated decagons at the different positions denoted by Fig. 2(a).

## III Relationship between dQUC models and RPT models

In this section, we compare the set of RPT models with the set of dQUC models and show that two sets are the same. It is quite easy to show that the set of dQUC models includes the set of RPT models. We can easily construct an equivalent dQUC model for a given RPT model. Recall that a Gummelt covering is obtained when we replace each Jack in a Penrose tiling by a decagon as illustrated in Fig. 1(c). For a given RPT model, by inscribing the “Jack decoration” (obtained by a Jack configuration of the decorated tiles of the RPT model) to the decagon, an equivalent dQUC model is obtained Jeong02JAP  as illustrated in Fig. 4(a) and (b). The atomic arrangement resulted from the Penrose arrangement of the decorated tiles in (a) is identical to that results from the covering of the decorated decagons in (b).

However, it is not obvious if there is always an RPT model which is equivalent to a given dQUC model. Here, we show that it is the case by explicitly constructing such an RPT model using the inflation rule for decorated decagons.

Before we discuss the relationship between the set of all RPT models and that of all dQUC models, let us first consider restricted sets of models whose basic building blocks (tiles or decagon) have the same edge length. As mentioned before, the length of the decagon edges of the dQUC model, obtained by the “Jack decoration” of an RPT model, is the same as the length of the tile edges. That is, for any RPT model, there is an equivalent dQUC model with the decagons whose edge length is the same as the tile edge length. However, the converse is not true. Figure 4(c) shows a counter example in which a decagon is decorated with an atom at the center. When the decagons in the coverings are resolved into a Jack, some fat rhombi have atoms whereas some others do not. Yet, it is an RPT model with the (singly) deflated Penrose tiles as illustrated in Fig. 4(d). Each deflated fat rhombus is decorated identically (with an atom) and so is each deflated skinny rhombus (with no atom). However, this is rather accidental case for the decagon decoration of Fig. 4(c). For the example of Fig. 4(e), the singly deflated fat rhombi (thin lines) are decorated with zero, one or two atoms depending on the context. Neither doubly (thick lines in Fig. 4(e)) nor triply (thin lines in Fig. 4(f)) deflated rhombus tiles are decorated identically illustrated. For example, a doubly deflated fat tile has 1 or 2 atoms and a triply deflated fat tile has 5 or 6 atoms depending on the context. Therefore, in general, a dQUC model is not an RPT model with tiles up to triply deflated tiles. However, the dQUC model of Fig. 4(e) is an RPT model with fourfold deflated rhombus tiles as shown in the thick lines in Fig. 4(f). The (fourfold-deflated) super-tiles of the same shapes are decorated identically. (for clarity, only few super-tiles are shown here but we could not find any super-tiles decorated differently even in much larger sample). Now, the question is whether this is also accidental result for the example of (e) or true for a general atomic decorations.

Below, we show that a dQUC model is an RPT model with the (fourfold-deflated) super-tiles in general. Note that the decagons with the same type are decorated identically even in the covering since their surrounding decagon arrangements are the same. Therefore, deflated tiles are decorated identically if the types of the decagons at the same positions in all deflated tiles are the same. Therefore, we now consider the possible decagon types in the deflated tiles and see if they are unique. Let us begin with singly deflated tiles. We know that a Penrose tiling with deflated tiles is obtained if we place deflated fat and skinny tiles in decagons as shown in Fig. 1(d). However, a general dQUC model cannot be an RPT model with (singly) deflated tiles since they are not decorated identically. We already presented such an example in Fig. 4(e). In general, singly deflated fat tile are decorated differently since the types of the decagons which cover the deflated tiles are not uniquely determined as illustrated in Fig. 5(b). A singly deflated fat tile (in the deflated tiling) is always covered by a decagon as shown in Fig. 5(b) but the decagon types can be any of nine types. Since the differently typed decagons are decorated differently for a general dQUC model, deflated fat tiles are decorated differently. Due to similar reasons, deflated skinny tiles are decorated differently in general. A singly deflated skinny tile is always covered by a pair of decagons by the way shown in Fig. 5(b) but their types can be any of nine.

To investigate the relationship between multi-time deflated tiles and the typed decagons, we consider deflations of decagons. Deflation of decagons is the inverse process of inflation defined by Fig. 2(a). A Gummelt covering is deflated if we substitute each configuration-1 in the covering by a deflated decagon whose edge length is $`\tau `$ times larger than that of the original decagons. If each deflated decagon in the deflated covering is replaced by a Jack then a Penrose tiling with deflated tiles is obtained. If deflated decagons are replaced by doubly deflated tiles as shown in Fig. 1(d) and overlayed with the original decagons, the relationship between doubly deflated tiles and typed decagons are obtained.

Conversely, if we draw a Jack to the original decagon and inflate a decagon, relationship between the tiles (of the original size) and the inflated decagons are obtained. This relationship should be the same as the relationship between deflated tiles and decagons (of the original size) due to the self-similarity of the covering. All possible decagon types in a deflated tile is then obtained by considering all thirteen different cases in the table. The relationship between multi-time deflated tiles and the typed decagons can be obtained by inflating decagons multi times. Figures 5(c)–(e) show the relationship between (multi-time) deflated tiles and the typed decagons obtained this way. Decagon positions in the tiles of the same shape are always identical but their types are not uniquely determined for doubly ((c)) and triply ((d)) deflated tiles. For example, doubly inflated fat tiles are covered by three decagons, decagons at the positions A, D, E of Fig. 2(a). The decagon at the position D can be one of the type-3,4,7,8,-9 and the decagon at the position E can be one of the type-5,6,7,8,-9 foot2 . However, For the four-fold deflated tiles, the types of decagons are uniquely determined for both fat and skinny shapes as shown in Fig. 5(e). Therefore, any dQUC model can be interpreted as an RPT model with quadratically inflated tiles.

## IV Concluding Remarks

We have shown that a dQUC model is an RPT model with the quadratically inflated tiles. Since an RPT model is a dQUC model, we can conclude that the set of all dQUC models is the same as the set of all RPT models. However, mathematical equivalence between two sets does not imply that they are physically equivalent in constructing atomic models for quasicrystals. Constructing dQUC models is much easier than constructing RPT models for real quasicrystals. The atomic clusters used as building blocks in dQUC models are only one kind and much smaller than the building blocks of RPT models as shown here.

Although the main contents of the paper are mathematical in nature, they can be applied in calculating some important physical quantities of dQUC models. For example, computing the density and stoichiometry of a dQUC model is complicated due to overlaps if we directly calculate them. Since an explicit way to convert a dQUC model to an RPT model is provided here, such quantities can be easily calculated using the equivalent RPT model which has no overlaps between basic building blocks.

This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2001-041-D00062).


text:
# Contact Binaries

## 1. Introduction

In close binary systems, the most extreme examples of tidal distortion are found observationally among contact binary stars, the most common variety being the W Ursae Majoris (W UMa) variables. The apparent brightnesses of these systems are continuously variable, even out of eclipse, a property which signals the breakdown of symmetry of the component stars about their respective rotational axes. As illustrated in Figure 1 by the eponymous variable W UMa itself, W UMa variables are characterized as well by having primary and secondary eclipses of nearly equal depths. In addition, they show very little color variation through eclipse. Since the ratio of eclipse depths is dictated by the ratio of surface brightnesses of the component stars, the near equality of eclipse depths and absence of pronounced color variation in either eclipse demand that the component stars are nearly identical in effective temperature, $`T_1T_2`$. Detailed light curve synthesis models, employing Roche potentials for the equilibrium surfaces of the two stars, show that the component stars in W UMa binaries exist in a state of physical contact.

In orbital period, the W UMa binaries are overwhelmingly concentrated at short orbital period, down to $`P=5.^\mathrm{h}3`$ (CC Com), with few systems at periods $`P>16^\mathrm{h}`$. Because both stars fill their Roche lobes, the orbital periods of W UMa systems are closely coupled to the stellar mean densities, with $`P8^\mathrm{h}(\overline{\rho }/\overline{\rho }_{})^{1/2}`$. The orbital period range occupied by W UMa systems then immediately tells us that they reside on or near the main sequence, with primary masses roughly in the range 0.6 to 2 M. That inference is reinforced by a strong correlation between orbital period and dereddened color (Eggen 1967). These are therefore systems in which the primary components are still in core hydrogen burning. The fact that W UMa systems are found in clusters along their main sequences, often below the cluster turn-off (*e.g.*, Rucinski 1998), confirms this conclusion, and implies that the secondary components as well are in core hydrogen burning.

Spectroscopic studies of W UMa systems reveal that, despite the facts that these binaries reside along the main sequence and that their component effective temperatures a nearly equal, they invariably have unequal masses, in some cases spectacularly so. The Roche geometry requires that the ratio of radii of contact components vary as $`R_2/R_1(M_2/M_1)^{0.46}`$ (Kuiper 1941), whereas the ratio of radii of single low-mass zero-age main sequence stars depends more strongly on mass, $`R_2/R_1M_2/M_1`$. The near-equality of effective temperatures in W UMa binaries therefore demands that the ratio of radiated luminosities vary as $`L_2/L_1(M_2/M_1)^{0.92}`$, whereas the ratio of nuclear luminosities for two zero-age main sequence stars of the same respective masses varies roughly as $`(L_2/L_1)_{\mathrm{nuc}}(M_2/M_1)^{4.5}`$ at the low masses appropriate to these binaries. Among well-studied W UMa systems, one finds within observational uncertainties that $`(L_1+L_2)(L_{1,\mathrm{nuc}}+L_{2,\mathrm{nuc}})`$ (*e.g.*, Mochnacki 1981), so it is evident that the secondary (less massive) component is drawing much of its radiant luminosity from the core of the primary (more massive) component. This energy transfer amounts to a relatively modest reduction in the luminosity of the primary, but clearly initiates a major restructuring of the secondary, which becomes oversized and overluminous for its mass. Delineating the mechanism which effects energy transfer, and accounting for its stability (or lack thereof), are the core problems in understanding the structure and evolution of W UMa systems.

W UMa binaries come in two flavors, A-type and W-type. Observationally, they are distinguished by whether the primary (deeper) eclipse corresponds to transit of the (less massive) secondary across the face of the primary (A-type), or to occultation of the secondary by the primary (W-type). There is a fairly clean separation of the subtypes by spectral type: A-type W UMa systems have A-F spectra, and W-type systems have G-K spectra. The difference between primary and secondary eclipse depths is quite small (amounting to no more than a few hundredths of a magnitude), but reflects a small difference in the eclipsed surface brightnesses of the two components. In the A-type systems, this difference can be laid to the effects of gravity-darkening in an otherwise homogeneous common envelope (the transiting secondary having a slightly lower mean gravity, and hence lower surface brightness). In the W-type systems, a small but real difference in mean surface brightnesses between components is indicated, with the secondary’s surface actually slightly brighter than the primary’s. Formally, this difference reflects a difference in effective temperatures (in the sense that effective temperature is defined in terms of bolometric surface brightness), but that interpretation is somewhat misleading, in that eclipse depths in the W-type systems remain nearly constant with wavelength through the near ultraviolet (*e.g.*, Eaton, Wu and Rucinski 1980), implying that the *color* temperatures of the two stars are nearly identical. Preferential starspot formation on the primary components of W-type systems (Figure 2) may provide an explanation for the lack of wavelength dependence in relative eclipse depths (Rucinski 1985, 1993), if not the underlying difference in effective temperatures.

Since the first serious attempt to estimate the space density of W UMa binaries (Shapley 1948), it has been evident that these are extremely common objects. In gravitational microlensing surveys of the galactic bulge, foreground W UMa variables are easily the most common periodic variables detected. (They are too faint, intrinsically, to be picked up in great numbers in the Magellanic Clouds.) Rucinski (1998) estimated from the OGLE I results that they account for roughly 1/130 of solar-type stars in the foreground disk projected against the galactic bulge.111In a recent analysis of the local density of W UMa systems, based on *Hipparcos* photometry, Rucinski (2002) finds a significantly lower relative frequency of occurrence — roughly 1/500 solar-type stars. The difference in these estimates is not yet satisfactorily understood. If we take this relative frequency at face value, it implies that the lifetime of the W UMa state must exceed $`10^8`$ yr. Indeed, the paucity of near-contact *detached* low-mass binaries to replenish the W UMa population implies that this is a very weak lower limit to their lifetimes. We shall have more to say on the significance of semi-detached and detached analogues of W UMa systems below. For the present, we note that the high abundance of W UMa systems requires that they survive for many times the thermal time scales of their primary components.

## 2. Thermal Equilibrium Models

In a uniformly-rotating binary star, the acceleration of a test particle can be derived from an effective potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (the Roche potential in the limit that each binary component can be approximated by a point mass at its center). The condition of complete hydrostatic equilibrium then requires that

$$P=\rho \mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(1)
Since the gradient in pressure $`P`$ coincides in direction with the gradient in potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, it follows that pressure must be a function of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ alone, $`P=P(\mathrm{\Psi })`$. Similarly, the density $`\rho `$ must also be a function of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ alone:

$$\rho =\frac{\mathrm{d}P(\mathrm{\Psi })}{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Psi }}=\rho (\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(2)
Assuming a homogeneous composition on equipotential surfaces, it then follows that *all* state variables are constant on equipotential surfaces, *i.e.*, functions of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ alone (von Zeipel 1924). The near-uniformity of local effective temperature over the surface of a W UMa binary can then be understood as a consequence of hydrostatic equilibrium obtaining throughout its common envelope (Osaki 1965; Lucy 1968). Energy exchange between contact components is thus implicitly demanded by hydrostatic equilibrium.

The question remains whether a contact state of hydrostatic equilibrium can be achieved in a state of thermal equilibrium as well. The observational fact that W UMa binaries inhabit later spectral types implies that they have convective envelopes. Efforts to build structural models have therefore generally assumed that the respective component envelopes can be characterized by a common specific entropy deep into their envelopes. These models take advantage of the fact that stellar convection in low-mass main sequence stars is so efficient that removing half the luminosity carried by convection (or increasing it ten-fold) makes scarcely any difference to the run of temperature with pressure through the envelope, unless transfer occurs in the superadiabatic part of the convection zone. In his pioneering study, Lucy (1968) first applied this assumption to build models of contact binaries in thermal equilibrium.

Lucy’s solution technique is illustrated graphically in Figure 3. He constructed model stellar sequences in which a common adiabatic constant ($`KP/T^{5/2}`$) characterizing the surface convection zone in both stars, $`K_1=K_2`$, and total blackbody luminosity, $`L=4\pi (R_1^2+R_2^2)\sigma T^4`$, were substituted as surface boundary conditions for application of the blackbody law separately to each component. Thermal equilibrium contact solutions occur where, for contact components sharing a common value of $`K`$, the ratio of stellar radii satisfies the contact condition, and the total radiated luminosity equals the sum of the respective nuclear luminosities. For a given primary mass, solutions of this type are possible only if one treats the mass of the secondary (or, equivalently, the total orbital angular momentum) as an eigenvalue of the problem. Lucy succeeded in finding thermal equilibrium solutions for zero-age contact binaries with unequal components, but only in circumstances where the primary component was massive enough to burn hydrogen in the CN-cycle, while the less massive secondary subsisted on the $`pp`$-chain. That transition between hydrogen-burning networks coincides with the change in slope of $`R(M)`$ at fixed $`K`$ seen in Figure 3.

In reality, most W UMa systems are cool and dense enough that both components must burn hydrogen on the $`pp`$-chain. Lucy’s thermal equilibrium models were therefore able to account only for systems of the highest mass, with the bluest colors, and could not be pushed to lower masses and later spectral types without appealing to unphysically high CN-cycle reaction rates or extremely metal-rich compositions (Moss & Whelan 1970). Allowance for evolved primary components permits a modest expansion in the span of solutions (Hazlehurst 1970), but it cannot account for the numerous relatively red systems found well below turnoff in old clusters ($`cf.`$ Rucinski 1998). Relaxing the equal-entropy condition for the component envelopes permits one to build thermal equilibrium models throughout the observed period-color plane (Biermann & Thomas 1972, 1973), but these models no longer satisfy the conditions for hydrostatic equilibrium in the common envelope, and predict effective temperature differences between components far exceeding those allowed by the observed small differences between primary and secondary eclipse depths.

As discussed by many authors (see the review by Smith 1984 for a particularly lucid account), the problem of building thermal equilibrium models of W UMa binaries is over-constrained. In a detached binary, one can choose the masses and compositions of the stars independently; interaction terms are small, and the structure solutions differ little from those of isolated stars. In a contact binary, however, hydrostatic equilibrium imposes two additional constraints: the radii of the two stars must conform to a common equipotential, and furthermore (appealing to the more tractable convective envelope case) their envelope entropies must be equal. For a given total mass and total angular momentum, the binary mass ratio and the depth of contact must be eigenvalues of the problem, and solutions are possible only for a very small range of parameters222In a controversial series of papers, Shu, Lubow, & Anderson (1976, 1979; Lubow & Shu 1977, 1979) proposed that a discontinuity in temperature exists at the base of the common envelope, where it encompasses the less massive component (or more massive component when the common envelope is radiative). This contact discontinuity (DSC) hypothesis makes it formally possible to construct contact binaries in hydrostatic and thermal equilibrium (except for a singular flux divergence at the contact discontinuity!) for any combination of masses and any depth of contact permitted by the Roche potentials, but has been widely criticized as unphysical (Hazlehurst & Refsdal 1978; Lucy & Wilson 1979; Papaloizou & Pringle 1979; Smith, Robertson, & Smith 1980; Eggleton 1981; see also the reply by Shu, Lubow, & Anderson 1980). The introduction of a temperature jump at the contact discontinuity without an additional constraint removes a boundary condition where the stellar interior is fit to the common envelope, leaving the model underconstrained. As first noted by Lucy & Wilson, the evolution of such a model is then indeterminate..

## 3. Thermal Relaxation Oscillations

If conditions for thermal equilibrium and hydrostatic equilibrium cannot be satisfied simultaneously, then given the enormous difference in their characteristic global time scales (roughly a factor of $`10^{11}`$ in W UMa binaries), it is logical to abandon the requirement for thermal equilibrium. Lucy (1976) and Flannery (1976) showed that models of late-type contact binaries with isentropic common envelopes could then be constructed, but that such systems suffer cyclic thermal relaxation oscillations (TRO’s — see also Kähler, Matraka, & Weigert 1986$`a,b`$, 1987). In this cycle, the system oscillates between contact and semi-detached states. In the contact state, energy transfer from primary to secondary inflates the secondary (driving mass transfer from secondary to primary). In the semi-detached state, the primary continues to fill its Roche lobe, but the secondary initially relaxes from its energy-transfer-inflated state toward thermal equilibrium, only to be driven by continuing mass transfer back into a contact state. As illustrated in Figure 4, this cycle is driven by the fact that the contact condition demands of the secondary a radius intermediate between two thermal equilibrium states: one contact (with an isentropic common envelope) and one detached (with no mass or energy input from the primary).

In the contact phase, TRO models successfully reproduce late-type W UMa-like systems even with unevolved components (where thermal equilibrium models fail). However, in the semi-detached phase (which spans a duration and color range comparable with the contact phase, with the same range of orbital periods), the primary and secondary develop very different effective temperatures. The TRO model therefore predicts a population of eclipsing binaries with decidedly unequal minima ($`\beta `$ Lyrae-, or EB-type binaries) overlapping in period and color, and similar in number, with the W UMa systems. Examples exist of such short-period EB systems (Lucy & Wilson 1979), but they appear to be relatively rare, a conclusion emphatically supported by the fact Rucinski (1998) found only $`2\%`$ (by space density) of erstwhile contact binaries with $`P<1^\mathrm{d}`$ in the OGLE survey of Baade’s Window displayed poor thermal contact. Other investigations of TRO models (Robertson & Eggleton 1977; Rahunen 1981, 1982, 1983) find that the amplitude of relaxation oscillations can be damped by systemic angular momentum losses, but the discrepancy in component temperatures remains a problem during the semi-detached phase of the oscillations. Oscillations might in principle be suppressed completely for sufficiently rapid systemic angular momentum loss, but the lifetimes of W UMa binaries then become so short as to make it impossible to account for their relatively high space density.

## 4. Circulation Models

The difficulties which structural models of W UMa binaries encounter clearly require a physical model of mass and energy exchange — one which can be implemented in an evolutionary code — if they are to be resolved. Over the years, there have been a number of attempts to build such a model from hydrodynamical considerations (Hazlehurst & Meyer-Hofmeister 1973; Moses 1976; Nariai 1976; Webbink 1977; Robertson 1980; Smith & Smith 1981; Hazlehurst 1985; Kähler 1989; Tassoul 1992; Martin & Davey 1995; Hazlehurst 1999). Motivated by the success which Lucy’s original hypothesis (a homogeneous, hydrostatic envelope filling a common equipotential surface) enjoyed in reproducing the light curves of W UMa variables, these interaction models have, with a few exceptions, appealed to a large-scale circulation between components, driven by small departures from a completely static, barotropic common envelope. Since mean vertical temperature gradients — those perpendicular to equipotential surfaces — vastly exceed mean horizontal temperature gradients, it is clear that advection, not radiative transport, must be the agent of energy exchange. In strict hydrostatic equilibrium, no lateral energy transfer occurs at all.

While it is commonly assumed that the advective flows are only mildly dynamical, this is by no means assured. Most light curve solutions for W UMa systems yield a very shallow degree of contact, typically of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R0.02`$, with the A-type systems tending toward slightly deeper geometric contact than the W-type systems (*e.g.*, Mochnacki 1981). Webbink (1977) found, from a comparison with envelope models for mail sequence stars in the same mass range, that the observed depths of contact only slightly exceed the minimum needed to carry the exchange luminosity at sonic velocity in a closed circulation through the “neck” in the Roche potentials connecting the two stars at the inner Lagrangian ($`L_1`$) point (see his Fig. 6). This estimate is based on the assumption that radiative and/or convective relaxation across the flow near $`L_1`$ is efficient, and that energy exchange is effected by the vertical ascent or descent of the closed circulation through the vertical entropy gradient in the common envelope. Comparison of (i) binary orbital period, (ii) sound travel time between components at the base of the common envelope, and (iii) local convective turnover time scale or radiative relaxation time scale (as appropriate) shows that all three of these time scales are comparable in both W-type and A-type W UMa binaries (see Figs. 2 and 3 in Webbink 1977). Coriolis effects and energy transport perpendicular to the flow further complicate efforts to build a conceptual model of energy exchange.

## 5. The ‘Other’ Contact Binaries

The efforts described above to model contact binary stars have concentrated almost exclusively on the observationally abundant classical W UMa-type binaries. However, binary evolutionary calculations (Benson 1970; Yungel’son 1973; Webbink 1976$`b`$; Flannery & Ulrich 1977; Kippenhahn & Meyer-Hofmeister 1977 — see especially Nelson & Eggleton 2001) show unambiguously that the contact state arises in a far wider range of circumstances than W UMa systems reflect, and under conditions (namely, contact between two stars with radiative envelopes) which cannot be modeled by the usual expedient of removing luminosity from the primary’s surface convection zone and injecting it into the secondary’s. Massive contact binaries are by no means unknown (see, *e.g.*, Hilditch & Bell 1987), but they present a significantly greater observational challenge than late-type systems in the quest for reliable spectroscopic orbits and light curve solutions, and so have not received the same level of attention as W UMa systems. Nevertheless, Eggleton (1996) has suggested that they may in fact be even more common than W UMa binaries, in terms of frequency relative to all stars of the same spectral class.

Structurally, contact binaries with radiative envelopes must still abide by the precepts laid out above in §2 if they are to achieve complete hydrostatic equilibrium. However, the large vertical entropy gradient in a radiatively stable envelope, large luminosity to be transferred between components to equilibrate the common envelope, and relatively small heat capacity of the common envelope (relative to transferred luminosities) all augur for more vigorously dynamical interaction between components than typifies their convective counterparts. Among the W UMa binaries, the difficulty or impossibility of achieving thermal equilibrium limits them to small depths of contact, as argued above; over nuclear time scales, the evolutionary expansion of the more massive component can then only be accommodated by expansion of the binary. That expansion requires mass transfer from less-massive to more-massive component. The limited angular momentum available is gradually subsumed in rotation of the primary star, and the binary coalesces (Webbink 1976$`a`$; Rasio 1995). In massive contact binaries, the much greater inefficiency of energy exchange between components opens the possibility that they might, for example, succeed in passing through deep contact and reverse their initial mass ratios, as do classical Algol binaries, or otherwise suffer some very different fate from their low-mass cousins. The lack of physically plausible models for energy and mass exchange in radiative contact binaries is a major obstacle in understanding massive binary evolution.

## 6. Conclusions

The essential difficulty in modeling energy exchange in contact binaries is that some departure from strict hydrostatic equilibrium is necessary to effect energy transfer. But the nature of said departure, and the advective flows resulting from it, depend sensitively on the thermal state of the respective stellar envelopes. In turn, the thermal state of those envelopes is profoundly affected by energy transfer. These are not separable issues, and one needs to be able to model mean dynamical flows, interacting with the ambient radiation field, as they evolve on the much longer global thermal time scales of the stellar components.

### Acknowledgments.

Friends and colleagues too numerous to name have helped shape the opinions expressed here, but I wish to thank in particular Peter Eggleton and the late John Whelan for many insightful discussions of contact binary structure, and Paul Hendry and Stefan Mochnacki for permission to reprint one of their stunning doppler images of VW Cep (Figure 2). This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-11016.

## References

Benson, R.S. 1970, Ph.D. thesis, U. of California, Berkeley

Biermann, P., & Thomas, H.-C. 1972, A&A, 16, 60

Biermann, P., & Thomas, H.-C. 1973, A&A, 23, 55

Copeland, H., Jensen, J.O., & Jørgensen, H.E. 1970, A&A, 5, 12

Eaton, J.A., Wu, C.-C., & Rucinski, S.M. 1980, ApJ, 239, 919

Eggen, O.C. 1967, MmRAS, 70, 111

Eggleton, P.P. 1981, in Second Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun, ed. M.S. Giampapa & L. Golub (Cambridge, Ma.: SAO Special Report 392), vol. 2, p. 153

Eggleton, P.P. 1996, in The Origins, Evolutions, and Densities of Binary Stars in Clusters, ed. E.F. Millon & J.-C. Mermilliod (San Francisco: ASP Conference Ser., Vol. 90), p. 257

Flannery, B.P. 1976, ApJ, 205, 217

Flannery, B.P., and Ulrich, R.K. 1977, ApJ, 212, 533

Hazlehurst, J. 1970, MNRAS, 149, 129

Hazlehurst, J. 1985, A&A, 145, 25

Hazlehurst, J. 1999, A&A, 341, 567

Hazlehurst, J., & Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1973, A&A, 24, 379

Hazlehurst, J., & Refsdal, S. 1978, A&A, 62, L9

Hilditch, R.W., & Bell, S.A. 1987, MNRAS, 229, 529

Kähler, H. 1989, A&A, 209, 67

Kähler, H., Matraka, B., & Weigert, A. 1986$`a`$, A&A, 159, 317

Kähler, H., Matraka, B., & Weigert, A. 1986$`b`$, A&A, 161, 296

Kähler, H., Matraka, B., & Weigert, A. 1987, A&A, 172, 179

Kippenhahn, R., and Meyer-Hofmeister, E. 1977, A&A, 54, 539

Kuiper, G.P. 1941, ApJ, 93, 133

Lubow, S.H., & Shu, F.H. 1977, ApJ, 216, 517

Lubow, S.H., & Shu, F.H. 1979, ApJ, 229, 657

Lucy, L.B. 1968, ApJ, 151, 1123

Lucy, L.B. 1976, ApJ, 205, 208

Lucy, L.B., & Wilson, R.E. 1979, ApJ, 231, 502

Martin, T.J., & Davey, S.C. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 31

Mochnacki, S.W. 1981, ApJ, 245, 650

Moses, A.P. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 161

Moss, D.L., & Whelan, J.A.J. 1970, MNRAS, 149, 147

Nariai, K. 1976, PASJ, 28, 587

Nelson, C.A., Eggleton, P.P. 2001, ApJ, 552, 664

Osaki, Y. 1965, PASJ, 17, 970

Papaloizou, J., & Pringle, J.E. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 5P

Rahunen, T. 1981, A&A, 102, 81

Rahunen, T. 1982, A&A, 109, 66

Rahunen, T. 1983, A&A, 117, 235

Rasio, F. 1995, ApJ, 444, L41

Robertson, J.A. 1980, MNRAS, 192, 263

Robertson, J.A., & Eggleton, P.P. 1977, MNRAS, 179, 359

Rucinski, S.M. 1985, in Interacting Binary Stars, ed. J.E. Pringle & R.A. Wade (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), p. 85

Rucinski, S.M. 1993, in The Realm of Interacting Binary Stars, ed. J. Sahade, G.E. McCluskey, Jr., & Kondo, Y. (Dordrecht: Kluwer), p. 111

Rucinski, S.M. 1998, AJ, 116, 2998

Shapley, H. 1948, in Centennial Symposia, Harvard Obs. Monograph No. 7 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Observatory), p. 249

Shu, F.H., Lubow, S.H., & Anderson, L. 1976, ApJ, 209, 536

Shu, F.H., Lubow, S.H., & Anderson, L. 1979, ApJ, 229, 223

Shu, F.H., Lubow, S.H., & Anderson, L. 1980, ApJ, 239, 937

Smith, D.H., Robertson, J.A., & Smith, R.C. 1980, MNRAS, 190, 177

Smith, R.C. 1984, QJRAS, 25, 405

Smith, R.C., & Smith, D.H. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 583

Tassoul, J.-L. 1992, ApJ, 389, 375

Webbink, R.F. 1976$`a`$, ApJ, 209, 829

Webbink, R.F. 1976$`b`$, ApJS, 32, 583

Webbink, R.F. 1977, ApJ, 215, 851

von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665

Yungel’son, L.R. 1973, Nauchn. Inf. Akad. Nauk S.S.S.R., 27, 93


text:
# Superconducting nanobridges under magnetic fields

## I Introduction

Twenty years after the invention by G. Binnig and H. Rohrer of the Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM)Binnig , the scientific community has found a large diversity of interesting applications to this instrument. In addition to its capability of obtaining topographical information about conducting surfaces, the STM can also be used to make local vacuum tunneling spectroscopy measurements. It is frequent to find the acronym STM/S which indicates an experimental set-up that is optimized to accomplish both, microscopic and spectroscopic functionsReviewSTM .

One of the most remarkable applications is the manipulation of atoms. The capability to have a finger in the atomic realm has permitted to a selected group of skilled scientists to build atom by atom well defined structures on well characterized conducting surfacesEigler . A fascinating world of new physical phenomena and technological developments is born, as envisioned by the gifted mind of R.P. Feynman already in 1959Feynman .

The unprecedented control on the approach between macroscopic size objects that the STM has introduced, has made possible experiments going from the jump to the one atom contact, towards the evolution of connective necks of very small sizes Gimzewski ; Agrait93 ; Agrait93b . The observed conductance steps and its relationship to the quantization of the conductance has triggered a considerable number of experimental and theoretical works. In some superconducting elements, as Pb, Nb or Al, measured at liquid helium temperatures, it has been possible, using the highly non linear form of the subgap conductance due to Andreev reflection processes, to relate the electronic conduction through a one atom contact to the number of transmitting channelsScheer98 . This number turns out to be characteristic of the electronic structure of the connecting atom, in agreement with previous experiments and calculations for several normal metals Sirvent96 .

A breakthrough in the world of nano-engineering has been the construction of chains of atoms of gold and the characterization of its mechanical and electrical propertiesYanson98 ; Rubio01 . The forces involved in the process of formation and the dissipation mechanisms have been investigated in detail in this unique one-dimensional system. Recently, atomic chains of gold atoms connecting superconducting electrodes were also created an studiedRubio02 . In this case, the electrodes were superconducting lead, on top of which a thin film (of thickness 20nm) of gold was evaporated, where superconductivity was induced by the proximity effect.

In this paper we are going to focus on a superconducting nanostructure that has been experimentally studied in our group for the first time, and which consists of a superconducting nanobridge connected to two normal bulky electrodesJGR94a ; Untiedt97 ; Poza98 ; Suderow00 ; Suderow00b ; Suderow02 . As we will show later on, the work of Prof. J.T. Devreese, to which this volume is devoted, and his group in Antwerp have contributed significantly to the understanding of its physical behavior.

## II Superconducting lead nanobridges

### II.1 Fabrication and general behavior under magnetic fields

Approaching carefully the tip and sample of an STM by measuring the tunneling current for an applied bias voltage, it is possible to observe a clear jump in the conductance when the mechanical contact between tip and sample is attained. Pushing further on the tip into the sample, a neck of variable cross-section is formed. The area of the minimal cross-section can be estimated if the electronic mean free path is larger than the typical dimensions of the contact. In this case, transport is ballistic and Sharvin’s formula applies. The neck can subsequently be elongated using the displacement capabilities of the piezo element connected to the tip, creating a nanobridge (NB) between both electrodes.

We have shown in previous papers that it is possible to induce order in the bridge by means of a mechanical annealing procedureAgrait93b ; Untiedt97 . A sequence of pushing and pulling processes of small amplitude are superposed to a large, continuous pulling that defines the length of the nanobridge.

During the formation of the NB bias voltage is kept constant, and the current follows a staircase pattern that can be measured neatly during the small amplitude pushing and pulling cycles. Often, very reproducible patterns are measured, indicating that the neck evolves through very similar atomic configurations. Simultaneous measurements of the conductance and the force have shown that this staircase behavior of the conductance is due to a sequence of plastic and elastic deformations occurring within the neckAgraitPRL95 .

Simple models have been proposed to obtain good information about the shape of the NBUntiedt97 ; chinos . As it is known, lead is a very ductile material which permits to obtain easily nanobridges as long as several hundreds nanometers. The nanostructure resulting from the fabrication process, which can be followed until the rupture of the neck, consists of two similar opposed cone-like sides. The NB can separated into two parts, and we obtain two tips of nanoscopic dimensions with an apex of atomic size. Due to the reduced atomic mobility at very low temperatures the nanostructures do not change its form with time. Figure 1 shows schematically the above mentioned stuctures, as well as a typical conductance curve obtained in tunnelling regime at 1.5 K and zero magnetic field.

We are going to address now our attention to the study of these structures when an external magnetic field is applied. It is well established on thermodynamical grounds that to destroy superconductivity with a magnetic field, the provided magnetic energy must equal at least the condensation energy, which is given by $`\frac{1}{2}\mu _0H_c^2`$, with $`H_c`$ the thermodynamic critical field. Bulk lead is a type I superconductor whose critical field is (at 0K) of about 800G. The characteristic superconducting coherence and penetration lengths are $`\xi _0=51`$ nm and $`\lambda =32`$ nm (also at 0K and H=0). Typical lead NB’s have lengths several times larger than $`\xi _0`$, but its lateral dimensions are well below $`\lambda `$. In that case, there is no significant Meissner screening, and therefore the magnetic field needed to destroy superconductivity has to be much higher than the bulk critical field, $`H_{c1}`$, in order to provide the required magnetic energy. In this way, a superconducting nanobridge (SNB) connected in a unique and perfect way to normal electrodes of the same material is obtained, when the applied magnetic field exceeds $`H_{c1}`$. The transport properties of these type of SNB have been studied in detail, changing the diameter of the minimal cross section, the temperature and the magnetic field.

Here we present recent results in SNB’s created under high magnetic fields. The process of formation and elongation of the nanobridge is continuously controlled by a monitorization of the I-V curves at each elongation cycle. When superconductivity nucleates in the nanobridge, characteristic superconducting features appear in the I-V curves, determining the actual creation of a SNB. We have measured the tunnelling density of states, after completely breaking a SNB created under a magnetic field of 2T, and we compare the results with some theoretical models. We also discuss two interesting experiments, where we focus on the very different superconducting behaviors found in asymmetric NB’s due to the heating induced by the circulating current, and we demonstrate how thermal fluctuations influence superconductivity at nanoscopic dimensions.

### II.2 Superconducting lead nanotips (SNT) at 2T: experiments and model calculations

As a result of the rupture of a nanobridge, two, in principle equal, nanotips were formed. The one corresponding to the STM tip is moved to another position on the surface of the sample. The tunneling characteristics of this N-S junction give us directly the superconducting density of states of the nanotip, convoluted with the voltage derivative of the Fermi function. In Fig.2(a) we represent the evolution (at 2 Tesla) of the conductance curves of such a junction as a function of the temperature. Superconducting features disappear near 4.5K, indicating that the tip becomes normal.

These results can be understood quantitatively in the framework of the Ginzburg Landau calculations of Misko, Fomin and DevreesseMisko01 . These authors obtained in detail the spatial changes of the square of the order parameter when a magnetic field higher than Hc1 is applied, using a realistic geometry. In this way, they were able to map the amount of superconducting phase along the SNB. Their calculations have made clear how strong gradients of the superfluid concentration can be established at magnetic fields much higher than the bulk critical field. In this way, these authors significantly improved our first approach to the problem in which the nanobridge was modelled by a wire of a few nanometers in diameterPoza98 .

Following the characterization in the tunneling regime, the SNT was brought into contact, with the same applied magnetic field (2 Tesla), without changing its geometry. This contact has a resistance of 400 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and assuming that the conduction is in the ballistic limit and using Sharvin’s formula, its can be estimated to correspond to a diameter of 0.8 nm . Transport in this ballistic contact reflects the contribution of Andreev reflection processes, as it can be seen in Fig.2b, where we plot the conductance curves obtained at several temperatures between 0.8 and 4 K

We have analyzed these experiments following the model of Suderow00 . The magnetic field enters as an effective, position dependent pair breaking rate. The equations are solved self-consistently, allowing to obtain a complete description of the superconducting behaviour of the SNT in terms of energy and distance to the tip apex. An important result of this theoretical approach is that, in agreement with experiments, a gapless regime is attained in the apex region already at a modest magnetic field. The proximity effect from the neighboring normal regions plays a crucial role to produce this singular situation, as it induces a finite density of states at the Fermi level at the tip apex. The SNT is represented as a conelike structure (inset of Fig.4) and the fitting parameters used in the calculation were $`L_{cone}`$=200 nm, $`\xi `$=25 nm, H=2 T, opening angle =15. The results of the calculation are represented in Fig.3a. We want to remark that once the parameters are chosen in order to fit the curve at the lowest temperature, they are kept constant along the subsequent temperature variations. The qualitative agreement is excellent. It is noteworthy to remark that our experiment can be also modelled using a BCS density of states with a pair breaking parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ as introduced in Ref.Dynes . Fitting the curve at the lowest temperature we get $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.5`$meV. This value is kept fixed in the whole temperature range (as $`H`$ is also kept constant), so we can infer the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In Fig.3b we plot the conductance vs bias curves calculated within this analysis, and in Fig.4 we plot the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from both models. Note that the result in Fig.4 is basically the same within both approaches. However, there are tiny but relevant differences in the calculation of the conductance. The model of Ref.Suderow00  gives much better account of the V-shaped characteristics observed in the experiments at low temperatures.

Note that the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can also be obtained using the curves in the contact regime shown in Fig.3b. However, heating effects, which we treat below in more detail make a precise interpretation difficult.

### II.3 Asymmetric superconducting bridges under magnetic fields

As a result of the process of creation a of a SNB, we can find also situations in which each half of the SNB presents a different geometry. The asymmetry produces specific features in the I-V curves measured in contact regime under magnetic field. An ideal curve in this case, without heating effects, would present Josephson current at zero bias, the associated subharmonic gap structure (related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$), and finally a constant excess current equal to $`\frac{8}{3eR_N}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{2}`$. A real curve, corresponding to an actual asymmetric SNB, will present complex features due to the heating effects resulting of a different power dissipation rate in each half. Thus, the expected loss of the excess current will take place in a two step process. One part of the SNB will become normal before the other as voltage and current (and therefore, power) are increased along the acquisition of the I-V curve. It is, therefore, the presence of heating the only way to unambiguously determine the existence of an asymmetric SNB.

The actually measured I-V curve at a high external magnetic field is somewhat more complex because it is the result of a competition between the two consequences of having a SNB structure. Sharpening the SNB produces an enhancement of superconductivity, but it also leads to an increase of the heating effects on the I-V curve due to a worse heat dissipationcalent . In fig.5 we present curves corresponding to two different SNB geometries obtained in a field of 0.6 Tesla, with the same normal state resistance. These results illustrate the above mentioned situation. In fig. 5a, curve A presents the highest value of Josephson current, thus it corresponds to the largest value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in both sides of the neck, and therefore to the neck with the sharpest geometry. This SNB presents the largest heating effects, as observed in the two-step loss of the excess current which disappears completely at 4.8 mV (fig. 5b). Curve B, with a lower Josephson current, corresponds to a less sharp SNB, with a better heat dissipation rate. Correspondingly, the observed loss of the excess current occurs at a higher voltage (7.3 mV, see fig. 5b) than in curve A. The magnetic field behavior of these asymmetric bridges is shown in Fig.6. While the position of the feature corresponding to the first loss of the excess current (one of the sides of the SNB becoming normal) remains almost constant, we observe that the voltage at which the second loss takes place varies strongly with the applied field.

Note that this behavior is only observed under magnetic fields, where the different geometry of the two parts of the nanobridge gives two different spatial evolutions of the superconducting order parameter. Obviously the situation is more complicated, because the effective superconducting part of the nanostructure is also changing when the current increases during the heating process.

Clearly, it is possible to obtain relevant information about this nanostructure by a careful analysis of the observed characteristic curves. The capability of changing in-situ magnetic field, cross-section, temperature and bias voltage gives the possibility to study interesting non-equilibrium effects first reported in Suderow00b .

### II.4 Josephson coupling and thermal fluctuations in superconducting nanobridges under magnetic fields

We discuss now another aspect of our measurements, related to the Josephson effect in these nanobriges at $`H>H_{c1}`$. A zero field study of these structures was previously reported in ref.JJH0 . In superconducting bridges of resistances below a thousand $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the Josephson coupling energy is much higher than the thermal energy in the relevant temperature range, and the Josephson feature at zero bias is very clearly measured. When the temperature is increased up to Tc thermal fluctuations appear in a very narrow temperature interval close to Tc. This leads to the appearance of a finite conductance at zero bias when we approache Tc. In Fig.7 we show the zero bias conductance as a function of the reduced temperature for different magnetic fields. At each magnetic field, we have identified the corresponding Tc as the temperature where we loose superconducting features in the I-V curves. At low magnetic fields, the conductance rapidly increases when we cool below Tc. But at higher magnetic fields (see Fig.7), when superconductivity becomes confined to a very small region around the neck, we can observe a finite zero bias conductance in a very large temperature range. This indicates that the magnetic field dramatically increases thermal fluctuations within the bridge. The change of size of the superconducting region, which has shrunk from the bulk value to a nanometric size superconducting bubble located at the center of the nanobridge, must be on the origin of this effect. More detailed experiments will be done changing the minimal cross section, the magnetic field, temperature and smallest cross section in well characterized bridges.

## III Summary and conclusions

In this paper, we have shown a characterization of several lead nanostructures fabricated with the STM under magnetic fields. Experimental results and model calculations of the density of states of superconducting nanotips in the tunnel and point contact regimes have been presented. We have also discussed a series of features associated to asymmetric superconducting nanobridges under magnetic field. New and interesting effects associated to a non uniform heat dissipation in these structures have been observed. The Josephson effect in nanometric size weak links under magnetic fields and the role of thermal fluctuations was studied by measuring one of these structures as a function of temperature. The relevance of thermal fluctuations increases under magnetic fields.

In conclusion, we remark the good agreement between experiments and model calculations in these nanostructures. We also stress the relevance of this type of nanostructures for the future development of a new technology using elements of nanoscopic dimensions.

It is a great pleasure for the authors to contribute to this volume in homage to Prof. J.T. Devreesse. The discussions with Prof. J.T. Devreesse and coworkers have revealed to us many important aspects of superconducting nanostructures, a field where his contribution is of great relevance.

## IV Acknowledgements

We also acknowledge discussions and helpful support from E. Bascones, W. Belzig and F. Guinea. Financial support from the ESF programme VORTEX and from the MCyT (Spain; grant MAT-2001-1281-C02-0) is also acknowledged. The Laboratorio de Bajas Temperaturas is associated to the ICMM of the CSIC.


text:
# Quantum lower bound for the collision problem

## 1 Introduction

How many quantum queries does it take to find a collision? Many cryptographic systems depend on the difficulty of finding collisions, so it is important to understand how difficult this problem may prove for a quantum computer.

Obviously, it may be easier to find collisions in some functions then others. We are interested in a black-box argument: our only access to the function is as a quantum oracle. We are promised that the function is $`r`$-to-one. (We require that $`r`$ be a divisor of $`n`$, the size of the input space.) Brassard, Høyer, and Tapp  gave a quantum algorithm which requires $`O((n/r)^{1/3})`$ quantum queries, an improvement over the $`\mathrm{\Theta }((n/r)^{1/2})`$ classical queries needed. In this note, we are concerned with the matching lower bound.

For a lower bound, it is easier to consider a decision problem: the input function is guaranteed to be either one-to-one or $`r`$-to-one, and our task is to determine which case holds. Aaronson  proved the first significant lower bound: $`\mathrm{\Omega }((n/r)^{1/5})`$ queries.

More recently, Shi  proved a lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Omega }((n/r)^{1/3})`$, given the additional condition that the size of the range of the function is at least $`3n/2`$. (In the case where the range is only $`n`$, Shi provides a lower bound of $`\mathrm{\Omega }((n/r)^{1/4})`$). Shi’s proof is a novel application of the methods of Nisan and Szegedy  to the case where one cannot fully symmetrize the multivariate polynomials.

Our main result is a new version of Shi’s theorem, but without the additional constraint on the size of the range:

###### Theorem 1

Let $`n>0`$ and $`r2`$ be integers with $`rn`$, and let a function from $`[n]`$ to $`[n]`$ be given as an oracle with the promise that it is either one-to-one or $`r`$-to-one. Then any quantum algorithm for distinguishing these two cases must evaluate the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }\left((n/r)^{1/3}\right)`$ times.

The argument is very similar to that of Shi. As stated above, we remove the requirement that the range be at least $`3n/2`$. Our proof is conceptually simpler for other reasons:

1. The natural automorphism group on the set of functions from $`[n]`$ to $`[N]`$ is $`S_n\times S_N`$. Our argument symmetrizes with respect to the entire group.
2. We avoid the explicit introduction of the problem Half-$`r`$-to-one.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 Functions as quantum oracles.

Let $`n,N>0`$ be integers. Let $`(n,N)`$ be the set of functions from $`[n]`$ to $`[N]`$.

Our functions are given to us as a quantum oracle. We can perform a transformation $`O_f`$, which applies $`f`$ to the contents of some of the quantum state:

$$O_f|i,j,z=|i,f(i)+j(modN),z.$$

Here $`z`$ is a placeholder for the unaffected portion of the quantum state.

The query complexity of a quantum algorithm is the number of times it calls $`O_f`$. We think of our algorithm as alternating between $`T+1`$ unitary operators and $`T`$ applications of $`O_f`$.

Let $`\delta _{i,j}(f)`$ be $`1`$ when $`f(i)=j`$. Then, after $`T`$ queries, the amplitude of each quantum base state is a degree-$`T`$ polynomial in these $`\delta _{i,j}(f)`$. Hence, the acceptance probability $`P(f)`$ is a polynomial over $`\delta _{i,j}`$ of degree at most $`2T`$. This connection between quantum complexity and polynomial degree is due to Beals, et al. .

Note that this polynomial $`P(f)`$ is constrained to be in the interval $`[0,1]`$ whenever the $`\delta _{i,j}`$ correspond to a valid input; i.e.,

$`i,j,`$ $`\delta _{i,j}\{0,1\}`$
$`i,`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\delta _{i,j}=1`$ (1)
The connection between polynomial degree and query complexity was first made by Nisan and Szegedy . In their applications, they symmetrized over all permutations of the variables, reducing the multivariate polynomial to a univariate polynomial. They then apply results from approximation theory to prove a lower bound on the degree of the polynomial. Beals, et al.  followed the same approach.

A nice, general version of the approximation theory results was shown by Paturi . Following Shi , we use a slight modification of Paturi’s theorem:

###### Theorem 2 (Paturi)

Let $`q(\alpha )[\alpha ]`$ be a polynomial of degree $`d`$. Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ be integers, $`a<b`$, and let $`\xi [a,b]`$ be a real number. If

1. $`|q(i)|c_1`$ for all integers $`i[a,b]`$, and
2. $`|q(\xi )q(\xi )|c_2`$ for some constant $`c>0`$,

then

$$d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{(\xi a+1)(b\xi +1)}),$$

where the hidden constant depends on $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$.

Note that, if the conditions of the theorem are met for any $`\xi `$, we have $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{ba})`$. If they are met for some $`\xi (a+b)/2`$, then $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(ba)`$.

In our setting, the automorphism group for the variables $`\delta _{i,j}`$ is $`S_n\times S_N`$. If we symmetrize with respect to this group, we do not immediately obtain a univariate polynomial. Hence, we will have to work harder to apply Theorem 2.

For $`\sigma S_n`$, $`\tau S_N`$, we define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma :(n,N)(n,N)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma (f)=\tau f\sigma .$$

Let $`P(f)`$ be an acceptance polynomial as above. We can write $`P`$ as a sum $`_SC_SI_S(f)`$, where $`S`$ ranges over subsets of $`[n]\times [N]`$, and

$$I_S=\underset{(i,j)I_S}{}\delta _{i,j}.$$

By (1), we may assume that each pair $`(i,j)S`$ has a distinct value of $`i`$; we thus write

$$I_S=\underset{k=1}{\overset{t}{}}\underset{iS_k}{}\delta _{i,j_k},$$
(2)
where the sets $`S_k`$ are disjoint, and $`_k|S_k|`$ is the degree of the monomial.

### 2.2 Some special functions

We now define a collection of functions which are $`a`$-to-one on part of the domain, and $`b`$-to-one on the rest of the domain. (These will enable us to interpolate between one-to-one and $`r`$-to-one functions.)

Fix $`Nn>0`$. We say that a triple $`(m,a,b)`$ of integers is valid if $`0mn`$, $`am`$, and $`b(nm)`$. For any such valid triple, we have a function $`f_{m,a,b}(n,N)`$, given by

$$f_{m,a,b}=\{\begin{array}{cc}i/a\hfill & 1im,\hfill \\ N(ni)/b\hfill & m<in.\hfill \end{array}$$

So $`f_{m,a,b}`$ is $`a`$-to-one on $`m`$ points, and $`b`$-to-one on the remaining $`nm`$ points. (Since $`Nn`$, the two parts of the range do not overlap.)

Note that our $`f_{m,a,b}`$ plays the same role as Shi’s $`f_{m,g}`$, with $`a=g`$ and $`b=2`$.

We now examine the behavior of $`f_{m,a,b}`$ after we symmetrize by all of $`S_n\times S_N`$.

###### Lemma 3

Let $`P(f)`$ be a degree-$`d`$ polynomial in $`\delta _{i,j}`$. For a valid triple $`(m,a,b)`$, define $`Q(m,a,b)`$ by

$$Q(m,a,b)=𝐄_{\sigma ,\tau }\left[P\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma (f_{m,a,b})\right)\right].$$

Then $`Q`$ is a degree-$`d`$ polynomial in $`m,a,b`$.

###### Definition 4

For integers $`k,\mathrm{}`$, let $`\mathrm{}^{\overline{k}}`$ denote the falling power $`\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}k+1)`$.

Proof of Lemma 3: It suffices to prove the lemma in the case where $`P`$ is a monomial $`I_S`$. We write $`I_S`$ in the form (2); then $`d=|S|`$. We write $`s_k=|S_k|`$.

For each subset $`U[t]`$, let $`A_U`$ be the following event: for each $`kU`$, $`\sigma ^1(j_k)m/a`$; for each $`kU`$, $`\sigma ^1(j_k)N(nm)/b+1`$.

Clearly the events $`A_U`$ are disjoint. If $`I_S\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma (f_{m,a,b})\right)`$ is nonzero, then every $`\sigma ^1(j_k)`$ must lie in the range of $`f_{m,a,b}`$, so some event $`A_U`$ must occur. Hence, we write

$`Q(m,a,b)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{U[t]}{}}\mathrm{Pr}(A_U)Q_U(m,a,b),`$
where
$`Q_U(m,a,b)`$ $`=𝐄_{\sigma ,\tau }\left[I_S\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma (f_{m,a,b})\right)A_U\right].`$
Choose some $`U`$, and let $`u=|U|`$. Then $`\mathrm{Pr}(A_U)`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{Pr}(A_U)=\frac{\left(\frac{m}{a}\right)^{\overline{u}}\left(\frac{nm}{b}\right)^{\overline{tu}}}{N^{\overline{t}}},$$

which is a rational function in $`m,a,b`$. The numerator has degree $`t`$, and the denominator is $`a^ub^{tu}`$.

Also,

$$Q_U(m,a,b)=\frac{1}{n^{\overline{s}}}\underset{kU}{}a^{\overline{s_k}}\underset{kU}{}b^{\overline{s_k}}.$$

This is a polynomial in $`a,b`$ of degree $`d`$; furthermore $`Q_U`$ is divisible by $`a^ub^{tu}`$.

Hence, for each $`U`$, $`\mathrm{Pr}(A_U)Q_U`$ is a degree-$`d`$ polynomial in $`m,a,b`$. Therefore $`Q(m,a,b)`$ is itself a degree-$`d`$ polynomial. This concludes the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Main Proof

We are now ready to prove Theorem 1.

Proof of Theorem 1: Let $`𝒜`$ be an algorithm which distinguishes one-to-one from $`r`$-to-one in $`T`$ queries, and let $`P(f)`$ be the corresponding acceptance probability. $`P(f)`$ is a polynomial in $`\delta _{i,j}`$ of degree at most $`2T`$. Let $`Q(m,a,b)`$ be formed from $`P`$ as in Lemma 3, and let $`d=\mathrm{deg}Q`$; we have $`d2T`$.

For any $`\sigma ,\tau `$, we know that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\tau ^\sigma (f_{m,a,b})`$ is a valid function. If $`a=b`$, this function is $`a`$-to-one. We conclude the following:

1. $`0Q(m,a,b)1`$ whenever $`(m,a,b)`$ is a valid triple.
2. $`0Q(m,1,1)1/3`$ for any $`m`$.
3. $`2/3Q(m,r,r)1`$ for any $`m`$ where $`rm`$.

The remainder of the proof consists of proving that $`\mathrm{deg}Q=\mathrm{\Omega }(n/r)^{1/3}`$. For simplicity of exposition, we begin with the case $`r=2`$.

Let $`M=2n/4`$. We ask: is $`Q(M,1,2)1/2`$? In other words: does our algorithm accept (at least half the time) an input which is one-to-one on half the domain, and two-to-one on the other half?

Case I: $`Q(M,1,2)1/2`$. Let $`c`$ be the least integer for which $`|Q(M,1,c)|2`$. Then we have $`Q(M,1,x)`$ between $`2`$ and $`2`$ for all positive integers $`x<c`$, and $`|Q(M,1,1)Q(M,1,2)|1/6`$. By Theorem 2, we have $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{c})`$.

Now, we consider the polynomial $`h(i)=Q(ci,1,c)`$. For any integer $`i`$ in the range $`0in/c`$, we have $`0h(i)1`$. But $`|h(M/c)|2`$. We conclude, by Theorem 2, that $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(n/c)`$.

Case II: $`Q(M,1,2)<1/2`$. Now, let $`c`$ be the least even integer for which $`|Q(M,c,2)|2`$. As in Case I, we first get $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{c})`$. Then, by considering $`h(i)=Q(ci,c,2)`$, we obtain $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(n/c)`$.

In either case, by combining $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{c})`$ and $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(n/c)`$, we get $`d^3=\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$, or $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(n^{1/3})`$.

For general $`r`$, the setup is almost identical: we now split into cases based on whether $`Q(m,1,r)1/2`$? (Note that, in Case II, we let $`c`$ be the least multiple of $`r`$ for which $`Q(M,c,r)2`$.) We first get $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(\sqrt{c/r})`$, and then $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }(n/c)`$, yielding $`d=\mathrm{\Omega }((n/r)^{1/3})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$