text:
# References

Angular momentum $`I`$ ground state probabilities of boson systems interacting by random interactions

Y. M. Zhaoa,b, A. Arimac, and N. Yoshinagaa,

a Department of Physics, Saitama University, Saitama-shi, Saitama 338 Japan

b Department of Physics, Southeast University, Nanjing 210018 China

c The House of Councilors, 2-1-1 Nagatacho, Chiyodaku, Tokyo 100-8962, Japan

In this paper we report our systematic calculations of angular momentum $`I`$ ground state probabilities ($`P(I)`$) of boson systems with spin $`l`$ in the presence of random two-body interactions. It is found that the $`P(0)`$ dominance is usually not true for a system with an odd number of bosons, while it is valid for an even number of bosons, which indicates that the $`P(0)`$ dominance is partly connected to the even number of identical particles. It is also noticed that the $`P(I_{max})`$’s of bosons with spin $`l`$ do not follow the $`1/N`$ ($`N=l+1`$, referring to the number of independent two-body matrix elements) relation. The properties of the $`P(I)`$’s obtained in boson systems with spin $`l`$ are discussed.

PACS number: 21.60.Ev, 21.60.Fw, 05.30.Jp, 24.60.Lz

It was discovered a few years ago  that the dominance of the $`0^+`$ ground state (0 g.s.) of even fermion systems is obtained by diagonalizing a scalar two-body Hamiltonian which is randomly determined. Many works have been done in the context of this discovery \[2-16\]. For example, many efforts were made concerning the origin of this observation and generic properties of many-body systems in the presence of random interactions.

In the case of $`d`$-boson systems the 0 g.s. probability (denoted as $`P(0)`$) was found to be close to $`0\%`$ periodically when the number of $`d`$ bosons $`n=6k\pm 1`$, where $`k`$ is a positive integer . This finding of systematic counter examples of 0 g.s. dominance in $`d`$-boson systems suggests that the breaking of the 0 g.s. dominance might be related to certain features associated with bosonic degrees of freedom and thus could be easily seen also for bosons with other $`l`$. To see whether this is true or not we report in this paper systematic calculations of boson systems with spin $`l`$ in the presence of random interactions.

The Hamiltonian that we take is as follows:

$$H_d=\underset{l}{}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{2l+1}G_L\left(\left(b_l^{}\times b_l^{}\right)^{(L)}\times \left(\stackrel{~}{b}_l\times \stackrel{~}{b}_l\right)^{(L)}\right)^{(0)}$$
(1)
where $`b_l^{}`$ is the creation operator of a boson with spin $`l`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_l`$ is the time-reversal of the annihilation operator $`b_l`$. The $`G_L`$’s are two-body interactions between the bosons, and are assumed to follow a two-body random ensemble (TBRE), i.e., the $`G_L`$’s are a set of random numbers with a distribution function

$$\rho (G_L)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(G_L^2/2),L=0,2,\mathrm{},2l.$$
(2)
All the results in this paper are obtained by using 1000 sets of the above two-body random interactions.

We first look at the case of four bosons with spin $`l`$. These systems are interesting and worthwhile to study separately, because their fermionic counterparts, namely, four fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell, were studied extensively  since these systems are the simplest and non-trivial ones to investigate the 0 g.s. dominance of fermions. Fig. 1 shows a few important angular momentum $`I`$ ground state probabilities versus $`l`$ for systems with boson number $`n`$=4. One sees that the pattern of $`I`$ g.s. probabilities ($`P(I)`$’s) of four bosons with spin $`l`$ is very similar to that of four fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell. For instance, $`P(0)`$’s vs. $`l`$ stagger with an interval of $`\delta _l=3`$; $`P(0)`$’s are dominant over other $`P(I)`$’s except for only two cases: $`l=2`$ and 8; $`P(I_{max})`$’s decrease with $`l`$. A new feature is that the $`P(l)`$’s are considerably large (small) when $`l`$ is even (odd), i.e., the $`P(l)`$’s exhibit an even-odd staggering behavior. We should be aware that $`I=l`$ is possible in the four boson case, while in the case of four fermions there are no $`I`$=$`j`$ states.

The 0 g.s. dominance in the case of four bosons with spin $`l`$ can be understood based on the following observation: there is only one non-zero eigenvalue (denoted as $`E_0^{L(l)}`$) among all eigenvalues of $`I=0`$ states if only one of $`G_L=1`$ and others are zero. This observation was proved recently by constructing the $`I=0`$ states using a pair basis . This means that there is a very large probability for $`I=0`$ states to give the lowest eigenvalue, compared to other $`I`$ states for which there are many non-zero eigenvalues. According to our empirical rule , $`P(I)=𝒩_I/N`$, where $`𝒩_I`$ is the number of times that the ground state has angular momentum $`I`$ when one of the two-body matrix elements is $`1`$ and others are zero, and $`N`$ is the number of two-body matrix elements. The $`P(0)`$’s are therefore expected to be larger than all the other $`P(I)`$’s (with only two exceptions of $`l=2`$ and 8).

In Fig. 1 one sees that the increase of $`P(0)`$’s “coincides” with that of $`D_0^{(l)}`$, the number of $`I=0`$ states of four bosons with spin $`l`$. $`D_0^{(l)}`$ is 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`l`$=0, 1, 2, 3, $`\mathrm{}`$, etc. Although we still can not prove this correlation, below we give an argument based on our empirical rule . From the sum rule of diagonal matrix elements , one obtains that $`_LE_0^{L(l)}=\frac{1}{2}n(n1)D_0^{(l)}=6D_0^{(l)}`$, where $`n`$ is the number of bosons in the system and $`n=4`$ here. This relation means that the sum of $`E_0^{L(l)}\times (1)`$ increases with $`D_0^{(l)}`$, suggesting that $`𝒩_0`$ increases with $`D_0^{(l)}`$ simultaneously. Because $`P(0)=𝒩_0/N`$, a regular increase of $`D_0^{(l)}`$ of four bosons with spin $`l`$  produces a regular staggering of the $`P(0)`$’s. It is noted that a similar “coincidence” of the $`P(0)`$’s staggering with increasing number of $`I`$=0 states was firstly observed in  for four fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell, but without an explanation or argument.

We next go to systems with arbitrary particle number $`n`$, in order to investigate general features of the $`P(I)`$’s of boson systems with spin $`l`$ in the presence of random interactions. Here a particularly interesting question should be asked concerning the $`P(I)`$’s for an odd number of particles: which angular momentum $`I`$ g.s. dominance will appear, $`I=0`$ or $`I=l`$? In systems with an odd number of fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell, there is no $`I`$=0 state. One expects $`I=j`$ g.s. probabilities to be large, because one easily relates large $`j`$ g.s. probabilities to large 0 g.s. probabilities for the neighboring even $`n`$, and the calculations using different types of random interactions showed  that this is indeed the case. For systems with odd $`n`$, however, one may have $`I`$=0 states and thus it is unknown a priori whether the $`I=0`$ or $`I=l`$ g.s. dominance occurs in these systems.

Fig. 2 shows the $`P(l)`$’s and $`P(0)`$’s in boson systems with $`l=`$4 and 6, and $`n`$ running as large as possible. For odd $`n`$ and $`l=1`$ or $`n=3`$ and any odd $`l`$, there is no $`I=0`$ state; for odd $`n`$ and $`l=3`$, 5, 7 and 9, the $`I=0`$ states do not exist unless $`n15`$, 9, 7, and 5, respectively. For fifteen bosons with $`l=3`$, nine bosons with $`l=5`$, seven bosons with $`l=7`$ and five bosons with $`l=9`$ or 11, $`P(0)0\%`$ always according to our calculations using 1000 sets of a TBRE Hamiltonian. From Fig. 2 and these odd-$`l`$ cases we conclude that the $`P(0)`$’s are in general much less than the corresponding $`P(l)`$’s when $`n`$ is odd. On the other hand, the $`P(0)`$’s are mostly larger than the $`P(l)`$’s when $`n`$ is even. This result indicates that the 0 g.s. dominance is robust for systems with even $`n`$, but not true generally if $`n`$ is odd. In the latter case, we observe that the 0 g.s. dominance is easily lost, with a few exceptions. We therefore expect that the 0 g.s. dominance is partly connected to the even number of particles.

It was shown in previous calculations that the 0 g.s. dominance may appear in boson systems with odd $`n`$, such as $`sp`$ , $`sd`$ , and $`sdg`$  boson systems. However, to a large extent, the very large $`P(0)`$ therein are associated with the $`s`$ boson condensation, which contributes around $`40\%`$ of $`P(0)`$ . In other words, $`sp`$ and $`sd`$ systems are very special systems in which the $`s`$ boson condensation produces 0 g.s. dominance when $`n`$ is odd. Without $`s`$ bosons, the $`P(0)`$’s of those systems with odd $`n`$ would be drastically smaller than those with $`s`$ bosons, and g.s. probabilities for other $`I`$’s, such as $`I=l`$ or $`I=I_{max}`$, would be much larger. It would be very interesting to carry out systematic calculations of $`P(I)`$’s for both even and odd numbers of bosons with many $`l`$’s.

Now we come to the $`I_{max}`$ g.s. probabilities of bosons with spin $`l`$ interacting by a TBRE Hamiltonian. It was shown in  that the $`P(I_{max})`$’s are associated with the number of independent two-body matrix elements, and not sensitive to the particle numbers of the system. For fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell, $`P(I_{max})1/N`$, where $`N=j+\frac{1}{2}`$. This relation is also applicable to $`sd`$ and $`sdg`$ boson systems. Thus it is interesting to check whether the $`P(I_{max})`$’s of more general boson systems vs. $`l`$ show a similar pattern or not.

Fig. 3 shows the $`P(I_{max})`$’s vs. $`l`$ with $`n`$ ranging from three to six. One sees large deviations of the $`P(I_{max})`$’s calculated by diagonalizing a TBRE Hamiltonian from those predicted by the $`1/N=1/(l+1)`$ relation. The $`P(I_{max})`$’s are systematically larger than $`1/N`$ (when spin $`l`$ is small the agreement is rather good, however), and increase with $`n`$.

An argument why the behavior of the $`P(I_{max})`$’s is different for bosons and fermions is as follows. It is known from previous studies  that the large $`P(I_{max})`$ comes from a gap produced by the pairing interaction $`G_{L_{max}}`$ for bosons with spin $`l`$, and the pairing interaction $`G_{J_{max}}`$ for fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell, where $`L_{max}=2l`$ and $`J_{max}=2j1`$, respectively. For both cases one may evaluate the gap associated with $`G_{J_{max}}`$ or $`G_{L_{max}}`$ using analytical formulas of $`(E_{I_{max}2}E_{I_{max}})`$, because here the state with $`I_{max}`$ ($`I_{max}2`$) is found to be the ground (first excited) state if $`G_{J_{max}}`$ or $`G_{L_{max}}`$ is $`1`$. We obtain $`(E_{I_{max}2}E_{I_{max}})`$ as follows:

$`\mathrm{boson}\mathrm{systems}:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ln1}{4l1}};`$
$`\mathrm{fermion}\mathrm{systems},n=4:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{105}{108(4j7)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{135}{64(4j5)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{63}{128(4j3)}};`$
$`\mathrm{fermion}\mathrm{systems},n=5:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{35}{128}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2205}{2048(4j9)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5145}{2048(4j7)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1785}{2048(4j5)}}{\displaystyle \frac{189}{2048(4j3)}};`$
$`\mathrm{fermion}\mathrm{systems},n=6:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27}{128}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10395}{8192(4j11)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2835}{1024(4j9)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4725}{4096(4j7)}}{\displaystyle \frac{45}{256(4j5)}}{\displaystyle \frac{297}{8192(4j3)}}.`$
One easily sees that the gap for bosons with spin $`l`$ increases regularly with $`n`$ at an interval$`1/2`$ if $`l`$ is large, while that for fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell is much smaller (almost one order) in magnitude and comparable for different $`n`$ and $`j`$. For instance, the gap is 0.47, 0.39, 0.35 for $`n=`$4, 5 and 6 fermions in a $`j=15/2`$ shell, respectively, while the gap is 2.03, 2.56, 3.07 for $`n=4`$, 5, 6 bosons with spin $`l=7`$, respectively. According to the empirical rule , a relatively larger gap makes the corresponding $`P(I)`$ larger: the larger the gap is, the larger the corresponding $`P(I)`$ is. Therefore, the $`P(I_{max})`$’s of bosons with spin $`l`$ can be expected to be larger than $`1/N=1/(l+1)`$, which works well for fermions and some boson systems with small $`l`$’s studied in , such as $`d`$, $`sd`$ and $`sdg`$ bosons.

To summarize, in this paper we reported systematic calculations of angular momentum $`I`$ ground state probabilities for systems of bosons with spin $`l`$ in the presence of random interactions. First, we found that the 0 g.s. probabilities $`P(0)`$’s of four bosons with spin $`l`$ exhibit a pattern similar to that of four fermions in a single-$`j`$ shell. We explained the 0 g.s. dominance and the staggering of the $`P(0)`$’s based on a special property of $`I=0`$ states when only one of the $`G_L`$’s are $`1`$ and the other two-body matrix elements are zero.

Second, we found that the 0 g.s. dominance is usually not true for systems with an odd number of bosons with spin $`l`$ (though the $`I=0`$ states may exist), which indicates that the 0 g.s. dominance is partly connected to the even number of particles.

Third, we found that the $`I_{max}`$ g.s. probabilities of bosons with spin $`l`$ are systematically larger than those predicted by the $`1/N`$ relation ($`N=l+1`$ for bosons with spin $`l`$), and that $`P(I_{max})`$ increases with boson number $`n`$. We presented an argument for this difference between bosons and fermions in terms of a large gap for bosons systems with $`G_{2l}`$ being $`1`$ and others zero.

One of the authors (ZHAO) would like to thank the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (ID: P01021) for supporting the present work.

————————

Fig. 1 The $`I`$ g.s. probabilities vs. $`l`$ of four bosons with spin $`l`$. The results are obtained by 1000 runs of a TBRE Hamiltonian, except that we present the $`P(0)`$’s (open squares) predicted by a prescription given in Ref. , showing that the approach of Ref. is reasonably applicable to bosons with spin $`l`$.

Fig. 2 The $`I=0`$ and $`I=l`$ g.s. probabilities versus $`n`$ of $`l=4`$ and 6. One sees that $`P(0)`$ is in general smaller than the corresponding $`P(l)`$ when $`n`$ is an odd number, indicating that the 0 g.s. dominance is partly associated with the even number of particles.

Fig. 3. The $`P(I_{max})`$’s vs. $`l`$ with $`n`$ ranging from three to six. It is seen that the $`P(I_{max})`$’s are systematically larger than $`1/(l+1)`$, and increase with $`n`$ but seem to saturate around $`n=6`$.


format: text

text:
# A Molecular Einstein Ring: Imaging a Starburst Disk Surrounding a Quasi-Stellar Object

slugcomment: resubmitted to Science, March 12, 2003
Images of the CO 2–1 line emission, and the radio continuum emission, from the redshift 4.12 gravitationally lensed quasi-stellar object (QSO) PSS J2322+1944 reveal an Einstein ring with a diameter of 1.5′′. These observations are modeled as a star forming disk surrounding the QSO nucleus with a radius of 2 kpc. The implied massive star formation rate is 900 M year-1. At this rate a substantial fraction of the stars in a large elliptical galaxy could form on a dynamical time scale of 108 years. The observation of active star formation in the host galaxy of a high-redshift QSO supports the hypothesis of coeval formation of supermassive black holes and stars in spheroidal galaxies.

Establishing a link between galaxy formation and massive black hole formation has become paramount for observational astronomy since the discovery of the correlation between black hole mass and stellar bulge mass in nearby ($`z<0.1`$) galaxies (1). This correlation suggests a ‘causal connection between the formation and evolution of the black hole and the bulge’ (2), and has led to the hypothesis of co-eval formation at high redshift ($`z>2`$) of massive black holes and spheroidal galaxies (3,4,5). Supermassive black holes ($`10^9`$ M) at high redshift manifest themselves as optically luminous quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) powered by mass accretion onto the hole.

Observations of high redshift QSOs have shown that 30$`\%`$ are luminous infrared sources, with far infrared (FIR) luminosities $`10^{13}`$ L, corresponding to thermal emission from warm dust (6-9). The key question for these FIR luminous QSOs is: what is the dominant dust heating mechanism, star formation or the active galactic nucleus (AGN)? If the dust is heated by star formation, the star formation rates must be of order 103 M year-1, supporting the idea of co-eval formation of the stars and black holes in these systems. Molecular (CO) line emission has been detected from a number of these FIR-luminous high redshift QSOs, implying large reservoirs of molecular gas ($`>10^{10}`$ M), suggesting that star formation may be inevitable (9). However, in most cases the FIR luminosity corresponds to only 10$`\%`$ of the bolometric luminosity of the system, and hence the case for co-eval star formation and mass accretion onto a supermassive black hole at high redshift remains circumstantial.

The QSO PSS 2322+1944 at $`z=4.12`$ is among the most IR-luminous high redshift QSOs, with an apparent FIR luminosity of $`3\times 10^{13}`$ L (11). Optical imaging and spectroscopy shows that 2322+1944 is a double source, with two essentially identical spectrum components separated by about 1.5′′ (10), indicating strong gravitational lensing by an intervening galaxy. PSS 2322+1944 is also the brightest known CO line emitting source at $`z>4`$, with an implied molecular gas mass of $`2\times 10^{11}`$ M (11) (not corrected for lens magnification). Non-thermal (synchrotron) radio continuum emission from 2322+1944 was detected at 1.4 GHz, and the rest frame radio-through-IR spectral energy distribution of 2322+1944 matches closely that of the prototype nuclear starburst galaxy M82 (7,11). Overall, the properties of PSS2322+1944 make it the best candidate for very active star formation in the host galaxy of a high redshift QSO. In this paper we present high resolution imaging of the CO and radio continuum emission from PSS 2322+1944 which address this interesting possibility.

We have observed the CO 2–1 emission from the PSS 2322+1944 at a resolution of 0.6′′ using the Very Large Array (VLA). The velocity-integrated CO emission from PSS 2322+1944 (Fig. 1) forms a complete ring with a diameter of about 1.5′′. We interpret this structure as an ’Einstein ring’ resulting from strong gravitational lensing. The individual velocity channel images (Fig. 2) show that the CO emission shifts position with velocity, with the peak surface brightness moving by about 1′′ from the southeast at low velocity, to the north at high velocities. We have also reanalyzed the 1.4 GHz VLA radio continuum observations of PSS 2322+1944 of (7) by using different weighting of the visibility data in order to optimize spatial resolution, as opposed to the previous analysis which optimized sensitivity at the expense of resolution (Fig. 3). At this improved resolution (1.1′′), it is clear that the 1.4 GHz emission forms a structure similar in size and shape to that seen in the CO emission.

The unknown characteristics of the lensing galaxy toward 2322+1944 do not warrant a detailed gravitational lensing inversion. Einstein rings, however, are generic features of gravitational lens models (12, 13) and hence we adopt a typical gravitational lens model in our analysis. In particular, we adopt a lens potential of the form found for the strongly lensed radio galaxy MG 1131+0456 by (14), including a mass distribution with an ellipticity of 0.15 at an angle of 36o, and a central velocity dispersion of 230 km s-1. By examining various source configurations, and by considering the individual channel maps, the observed ring structure is reconstructed (Fig. 4).

In this model the optical QSO is located between the inner and outer caustics for the lens (Figure 4) and is imaged into two point sources with a total magnification of $`3.5`$. The observed CO Einstein ring can be reproduced by a molecular gas distribution corresponding to an inclined disk surrounding the optical QSO. Such disks are characteristic of the molecular gas and dust distribution in IR-luminous galaxies seen at low redshift (15). To form the observed Einstein ring structure, the CO emission must extend south of the QSO by at least $`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ in the source plane, corresponding to $`2.2`$kpc assuming a concordance cosmology ($`H_o`$ = 65 km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$), crossing a significant fraction of the inner caustic (16). The scale of the caustic structure relative to the critical lines is typical of lens models and hence the lensing mass distribution would have to be pathologically different to other lens systems to significantly modify this conclusion. The total magnification factor for the CO emission is $`2.5`$, but this number is dependent upon the thickness of the CO disk (or inclination angle), as thinner disks will be more strongly magnified. The CO component on the northern side of the QSO (away from the inner caustic) crosses the outer caustic. This outer component forms two features in the image plane. The magnification for this northern component is less than that for the southern component by a factor of 2.5 in this model. This model reproduces the basic features of the observed structures, including the relative locations and separations of the double optical QSO and the CO Einstein ring, and the positions and relative strengths of the three peaks in the CO distribution (Fig. 1).

The CO emission presents different structure at different velocities (Fig. 2) consistent with the source straddling the central diamond caustic. We have considered the source plane distribution of CO as a function of velocity using the lens model above, and find that the results are consistent with a disk with a velocity gradient of 115 km s-1 kpc-1, implying a mass enclosed within 2.2 kpc of $`3\times 10^{10}\times \mathrm{sin}^2`$$`i`$ $`M_{}`$, where $`i`$ is the disk inclination angle with respect to the plane of the sky. The center of the lensing galaxy should lie close to that of the CO ring, roughly 0.5 arcseconds north of the southern QSO image. Assuming a (likely) lens redshift of $`z1`$, its inferred velocity dispersion is $`230`$km s-1, suggesting gravitational lensing by a single galaxy. Hence PSS 2322+1944 represents a prime candidate for a ’Golden Lens’ (17) from which Hubble’s constant can be determined via the measurement of the time delay between the quasar images.

An additional critical constraint on the physical interpretation of this system is that the observed radio continuum morphology is similar to that of the CO emission, implying similar source plane distributions. While the CO and radio continuum emission form similar rings in the image plane, the radio continuum peak surface brightness is shifted by $`0.37^{\prime \prime }\pm 0.3^{\prime \prime }`$ from the CO peak, where the positional error is based on the signal-to-noise ratio of the peak in the 1.4 GHz image. Hence the position offset could be due to noise, or it could reflect real source-plane differences on sub-kpc scales between the radio continuum and CO emission.

The ability of this simplistic modeling approach to recreate the observed CO configuration highlights the generic nature of Einstein rings in elliptical gravitational lenses. Most importantly, our physical interpretation of this system below relies on the two most robust aspects of these observations and modeling: (i) the relative extent of the CO source with respect to the optical QSO in the source plane, and (ii) the rough co-spatiality of the CO and radio continuum emission.

The telescopic effect of strong lensing provides the unique opportunity to study the sub-kpc scale structure in the parent galaxy of this system, and these results have direct relevance to the critical question of whether the dust in high redshift, FIR-luminous QSOs is heated directly by the AGN or by star formation. For PSS 2322+1944 the relative image plane distribution of the optical and CO emission implies that the strongly magnified CO emitting regions must be spatially separated from the QSO by about 2 kpc. The data are consistent with a model in which the molecular gas is in an inclined disk surrounding the QSO. Although high resolution imaging of the thermal dust continuum emission from PSS 2322+1944 has not been performed, it is reasonable to assume that the molecular gas and dust are roughly co-spatial (18).

Dust heating on kpc-scales has long been consider a problem for point-source (ie. AGN) heating models, especially for disk-like dust distributions (15). The primary difficulty is self-shielding and the (lack of) illumination of an extended disk by an obscured central source. Possible solutions to this problem include warped disks (19), and heating by dust-penetrating soft Xrays (20).

For PSS 2322+1944 we have also found that the radio continuum emission is roughly co-spatial with the molecular gas, and not with the optical QSO. This morphology is not what is expected for radio emission from the AGN itself. Non-thermal radio emission directly associated with supermassive black holes invariable takes the form of a core-jet radio source, with the dominant radio emission coming from high energy electrons accelerated in strong shocks in highly collimated relativistic outflows from the supermassive black hole (21). In this case the observed radio morphology would more closely resemble that of the optical QSO, ie. a double radio source coincident with the optical QSOs, and perhaps with extensions corresponding to a jet.

The fact that the radio continuum emitting material is co-spatial with the molecular gas, and presumably the dust, in PSS 2322+1944 is exactly what is expected for a star forming galaxy. The molecular gas, dust, and radio continuum emission are always well correlated on kpc scales in star forming galaxies (18), originating in regions of active star formation. Given the requisite large gas mass to fuel star formation, and the similarity of the radio-to-IR SED of PSS 2322+1944 to that of a star forming galaxy, we conclude that the QSO in PSS 2322+1944 is surrounded by a starburst disk on a scale of 2 kpc. These observations provide the most direct evidence to date of active star formation in the host galaxy of a luminous, high redshift QSO. The implied massive star formation rate is $`900`$ M year-1 based on the thermal IR luminosity. At this rate a substantial fraction of the stars in a large elliptical galaxy could form on a dynamical timescale of $`10^8`$ years.

Figure Captions

FIG. 1.— The contour image of the total CO 2–1 emission (rest frame frequency = 230.538 GHz) from PSS 2322+1944 made from observations with the Very Large Array (VLA). Observations were made in October and November, 2002 in the C configuration (max. baseline = 3 km), giving a resolution of 0.6′′ at the central observing frequency of 45.035 GHz. The total observing time was 18 hours. Fast switching phase calibration was employed (150 sec total calibration cycle time), and phase coherence was monitored using test cycles on nearby calibrators. At all times the coherence was found to be better than 85$`\%`$. The root-mean-square (rms) noise on this image is 0.09 mJy beam-1. The contour levels are a geometric progression in square root two starting at 0.12 mJy beam-1. The Gaussian restoring CLEAN beam has FWHM = $`0.63^{\prime \prime }\times 0.55^{\prime \prime }`$ with a major axis position angle of -30. The crosses show the positions of the optical QSOs, and the cross sizes represent the relative astrometric error (10).

FIG. 2. — The spectral channel images of the CO 2–1 emission from PSS 2322+1944. Seven spectral channels were used with a channel width of 6.25 MHz (42 km/s), and the center of channel 4 was at 45.035 GHz (z = 4.1191 for CO 2–1). Low spatial resolution imaging of CO 1-0 emission from PSS 2322+1944 constrains the line center to be at $`z=4.1192\pm 0.0004`$, and the line FWHM = 280 km s-1 (8). Image cubes were synthesized using natural weighting of the visibilities, and the final image cube was Hanning smoothed such that adjacent channels are not independent. The rms noise per Hanning smoothed channel was 0.13 mJy beam-1. Channel 7 was found to have higher noise than the other channels, and was removed from the image cube before Hanning smoothing. The contour scheme is the same as Figure 1, starting at 0.25 mJy beam-1. The peak surface brightness in the cube is 0.87 mJy, corresponding to an observed brightness temperature of 1.4 K.

FIG. 3. — The radio continuum image of PSS 2322+1944 at 1.4 GHz. The rms in this image is 15$`\mu `$Jy beam-1 and the Gaussian restoring beam is circular with FWHM = 1.1′′. The contour scheme is the same as Figure 1, starting at 0.02 mJy beam-1. The total flux density is 0.12 mJy and the peak surface brightness is $`56`$ $`\mu `$Jy beam-1.

FIG. 4. — A gravitational lens model for the CO emission in PSS 2322+1944. The model is based on the elliptical lens toward MG 1131+0456 (14). The left hand panel presents the source plane distribution, corresponding to the true (ie. undistorted by lensing) morphology of the system. The image plane distribution is presented in the right hand panel, corresponding to the observed morphology after being distorted by the gravitational lens. The point-like QSO is represented by a five-point star in both panels. The solid lines are the caustics and critical lines in the source and image planes, respectively (16). The CO emission is modeled as an inclined disk ($`i60^o`$) around the QSO, with the north and south parts of the disk being color-coded red and blue, respectively, corresponding to different velocity regions on opposite sides of the QSO.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

This talk is based on the results of the paper , that goes in the direction of achieving a deeper understanding of the so-called gauge/gravity correspondence, originating from the complementarity between two different but equivalent descriptions of the low-energy properties of D-branes. Indeed, on the one hand a D-brane can be described in terms of the gauge theory living on its world-volume; on the other hand it is a classical solution of the ten-dimensional supergravity (low-energy string effective theory). Hence one can exploit the classical geometrical properties of $`D`$-branes to get insight in the dual gauge theory and viceversa. This correspondence has led Maldacena to his famous conjecture , that provides an exact duality between a conformal and highly supersymmetric gauge theory and a (super)gravity theory. It is interesting to apply the gauge/gravity correspondence to less supersymmetric and non-conformal gauge theories by using fractional branes  which live in an orbifold space, stuck at the orbifold fixed point. We consider a bound state of $`N`$ coincident fractional D3-branes and $`2M`$ fractional D7-branes on the orbifold $`R^{1,3}\times C^3/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ yielding $`𝒩=1`$ Super QCD with $`M`$ fundamental hypermultiplet . The beta function and the chiral anomaly of this theory are reproduced by analyzing the asymptotic behaviour of the classical supergravity solution . This is valid in the region far from the brane, where the ultraviolet properties of the gauge theory are reproduced.

## 2 Fractional D$`p`$-branes on the orbifold $`R^{1,3}\times C^3/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$

We consider fractional D3 and D7 branes on the orbifold $`C^3/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ in order to study the properties of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. The orbifold group acts on the directions $`x^4,\mathrm{},x^9`$ transverse to the world-volume of the stack of the $`N`$ D3-branes. The $`Z_2`$ group is characterized by two elements $`\{1,h\}`$, with $`h^2=1`$, hence the four elements of the tensor product $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ are easily obtained. The non-trivial elements act on the complex vector $`\stackrel{}{z}=(z^1=x^4+ix^5,z^2=x^6+ix^7,z^3=x^8+ix^9)`$ of $`C^3`$ as: $`h_1=h\times 1z_1z_1,z_2z_2,z_3z_3`$; $`h_2=1\times hz_1z_1,z_2z_2,z_3z_3`$; $`h_3=h\times hz_1z_1,z_2z_2,z_3z_3`$. This orbifold is non-compact with the fixed point $`z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$, corresponding to the three $`C^2`$ points $`z_1,z_2=0`$, $`z_1,z_3=0`$ and $`z_2,z_3=0`$ each of them associated to a vanishing two-cycle $`𝒞_2^{(i)}`$ with $`i=1,2,3`$. The low energy Type IIB superstring theory spectrum consists of an untwisted and three twisted sectors generated by its $`p`$-form fields dimensionally reduced on the three vanishing two-cycles $`𝒞_2^{(i)}`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). A fractional D$`p`$-brane can be regarded as a D$`(p+2)`$-brane wrapped on the vanishing two-cycles and, being stuck at the orbifold fixed point, it couples to all twisted states. The Chan-Paton factor accompanying any state of the open string string stretched between two fractional branes transforms according to an irreducible (one-dimensional) representation of the orbifold group. This means that we have four different kinds of fractional D$`p`$-branes on this orbifold. We can get a pure $`𝒩=1`$ $`D=4`$ SYM with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ by means of a stack of $`N`$ fractional D3-branes of the same kind. In order to get matter in the fundamental representation we consider a bound state of $`N`$ fractional D3-branes and $`2M`$ fractional D7-branes of two different kinds, in equal number. Chiral matter is then provided by the open strings having one end attached to the D3-brane and the other one to the D7-brane. Physical states associated to these strings transform under the fundamental representation of the gauge group, while the number of D7-branes can be regarded as a flavor index. We have considered configurations in which the D7-branes extend in the directions $`x^0,\mathrm{},x^3,x^6,\mathrm{},x^9,`$ i.e. partially along the orbifold, while the D3-branes are in the directions $`x^0,\mathrm{}x^3`$, completely localized in the D7-brane world-volume. In this way we are able to study $`𝒩=1`$ super QCD with $`M`$ hypermultiplets. We have shown in  that choosing $`2M`$ D7-branes yields a consistent gauge theory free from gauge anomalies.

## 3 Supergravity analysis of the dual gauge theory

The two complementary ways of describing a D$`p`$-brane can be related by studying its low-energy effective world-volume action in the supergravity background. If a fractional D$`p`$-brane is thought as a D$`(p+2)`$-brane wrapped on the orbifold vanishing two-cycles, its world volume action reads:

$`S_{D(p)}`$ $`=\tau _{p+2}{\displaystyle d^{p+3}\xi e^{\frac{p1}{4}\varphi }\sqrt{\text{det}\left[G_{\alpha \beta }+e^{\frac{\varphi }{2}}\left(B_{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}_{\alpha \beta }\right)\right]}}`$ (1)
$`+\tau _{p+2}{\displaystyle \left(Ce^{B+2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)_{p+3}}`$
where $`\tau _p=\frac{(g_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^p}`$. Specializing this action for $`p=3`$ and expanding it up to quadratic terms in $``$ one has:

$$S_{D3}=\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}d^4x\frac{1}{4}_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }+\frac{\theta _{YM}}{32\pi ^2}d^4x_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{}^{\alpha \beta },$$

where

$$\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}\frac{1}{16\pi ^3g_s\alpha ^{^{}}}_{𝒞_2^{(i)}}e^\varphi B_2;\theta _{YM}\tau _54\pi ^4\alpha _{}^{^{}}{}_{}{}^{2}_{𝒞_2^{(i)}}(C_2+C_0B_2).$$
(2)
These equations show the fundamental role played by the the twisted fields $`B_2=_{i=1}^3b^i\omega _2^{(i)}`$ and $`C_2=_{i=1}^3c^i\omega _2^{(i)}`$, being $`\omega _2^{(i)}`$ the volume form dual to the vanishing two-cycle $`𝒞_2^{(i)}`$. The next step is to plug into eqs. (2) the supergravity background generated by the D3/D7 system. We have determined only the asymptotic behaviour for large distances of the classical solution  and this has been revealed sufficient for computing the gauge coupling constant and the $`\theta `$ angle of $`𝒩=1`$ super QCD $`(z_i=\rho _ie^{i\theta _i})`$:

$$\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}=\frac{1}{16\pi g_s}+\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\left(N\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\text{log}\frac{\rho _i}{ϵ}M\text{log}\frac{\rho _1}{ϵ}\right),\theta _{YM}=N\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\theta _i+M\theta _1.$$

The coordinates $`z_i=\rho _ie^{i\theta _i}`$ are holographically identified with the scalar components $`\varphi _i`$ of the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ appearing in the cubic superpotential $`W=\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_1[\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3]\right)`$ . The scale transformation $`\varphi _i\mu \varphi _i`$ and the $`U(1)_R`$ one $`\varphi _ie^{i\frac{2}{3}\alpha }\varphi _i`$ induce on $`z_i`$ the transformation $`z_i\mu e^{i2\alpha /3}z_i`$, i.e. $`\rho _i\mu \rho _i`$ and $`\theta _i\theta _i+2/3\alpha `$. These latter act on the gauge parameters as follows:

$$\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}\frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}+\frac{3NM}{8\pi ^2}\text{log}\mu ,\theta _{YM}\theta _{YM}2\alpha \left(N\frac{M}{3}\right).$$
(3)
The first equation generates the one-loop $`\beta `$-function of $`𝒩=1`$ Super QCD with $`M`$ hypermultiplets:

$$\beta (g_{YM})=\frac{3NM}{8\pi ^2}g_{YM}^3,$$

while the second one reproduces the chiral $`U(1)`$ anomaly.

Acknowledgemnts. I would like to thank P. Di Vecchia, A. Liccardo, R. Marotta, F. Nicodemi, R. Pettorino and F. Sannino for useful discussions.


text:
# Comment on “Critique of 𝑞-entropy for thermal statistics” by M. Nauenberg

Pacs Numbers: 05.70.-a, 05.20.-y, 05.90.+m

It was recently published  a quite long list of objections about the physical validity for thermal statistics of the theory sometimes referred to in the literature as nonextensive statistical mechanics. This generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) statistical mechanics is based on the following expression for the entropy:

$$S_q=k\frac{1_{i=1}^Wp_i^q}{q1}(q;S_1=S_{BG}k\underset{i=1}{\overset{W}{}}p_i\mathrm{ln}p_i).$$
(1)
The author of  already presented orally the essence of his arguments in 1993 during a scientific meeting . I am replying now simultaneously to the just cited paper, as well as to the 1993 objections (essentially, the violation of “fundamental thermodynamic concepts”, as stated in the Abstract of ). The list of objections and critical statements being extremely long, it is perhaps not really necessary at the present stage to reply to all the points. For time and space economy, I will therefore address here only a few selected points, hopefully the most relevant ones, physically and/or logically speaking.

About the nonextensivity of the entropy $`S_q`$:

The entropy $`S_q`$ is nonextensive for independent systems (see Eq. (6) of ), which by no means implies that it cannot be extensive in the presence of correlations at all scales. Nowhere in  is there clear evidence of taking this fact into account in what concerns the validity of the $`q`$-thermostatistics. It is nevertheless of crucial importance, as we illustrate now for the simple case of equiprobability (i.e., $`p_i=1/W,i`$). In such simple situation, Eq. (1) becomes

$$S_q=k\mathrm{ln}_qW(\mathrm{ln}_qx(x^{1q}1)/(1q);\mathrm{ln}_1x=\mathrm{ln}x).$$
(2)
If a system constituted by $`N`$ elements is such that it can be divided into two or more essentially independent subsystems (e.g., independent coins or dices, or spins interacting through short-range coupling), we generically have $`W\mu ^N`$ ($`\mu >1`$). Consequently, $`S_q/k\mathrm{ln}_q\mu ^N`$. There is an unique value of $`q`$, namely $`q=1`$, for which we obtain the usual result $`S_qN`$. But if the system is such that we have $`WN^\rho `$ ($`\rho >0`$), then $`S_q/k\mathrm{ln}_qN^\rho `$. Once again, there is a unique value of $`q`$, namely $`q=11/\rho `$ for which, $`S_qN`$. This fact is well known to many scientists working on nonextensive statistical mechanics, and has been published in the special volume dedicated to the subject indicated in Refs.  of paper . The same property holds in fact for $`S_{\sigma (q)}`$, $`\sigma (q)`$ being any smooth function of $`q`$ such that $`\sigma (1)=1`$ (e.g., $`\sigma =1/q`$, or $`\sigma =2q`$). For the correlated case, we have $`S_{\sigma (q)}N`$ only for $`q`$ satisfying $`(1\sigma (q))\rho =1`$. The relevance of this property ($`SN`$) for thermodynamics needs, we believe, no further comments.

About the concept of “weak coupling” in :

Much of the criticism in  involves the concept of “weak coupling”. To make this point clear through an illustration, let us think of the ground state of a Hamiltonian many-body classical system whose elements are localized on a $`d`$-dimensional lattice and have two-body interactions among them. Let us further assume that the (attractive) coupling constant is given by $`C_{ij}=c/r_{ij}^\alpha `$ ($`c>0`$, $`\alpha 0`$, and $`r_{ij}=1,\mathrm{}`$). The potential energy $`U(N)`$ per particle generically satisfies $`U(N)/Nc_{ij}1/r_{ij}^\alpha c_1^{N^{1/d}}𝑑rr^{d1}r^\alpha c\frac{N^{1\alpha /d}1}{1\alpha /d}`$ . Therefore, for $`\alpha /d>1`$ (short-range interactions in the present context), we have that $`lim_N\mathrm{}U(N)/N`$ is finite, and BG statistical mechanics certainly provides the appropriate answer for the stationary state (thermal equilibrium) of the system. In this case, all the usual prescriptions of thermodynamics are satisfied, as well known . If the interactions are, however, long-range (i.e., $`0\alpha /d1`$), then $`lim_N\mathrm{}U(N)/N`$ diverges, and the case needs further discussion. It might well happen that, dynamically speaking, the $`N\mathrm{}`$ and the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limits do not commute. If so, only the $`lim_N\mathrm{}lim_t\mathrm{}`$ ordering corresponds to the BG stationary state, whereas the opposite ordering, $`lim_t\mathrm{}lim_N\mathrm{}`$, might be a complex one, different from the BG state, and in some occasions possibly related to the one obtained within the $`q`$-formalism. It is clear then that, if we have long-range interactions and $`N>>1`$ (say of the order of the Avogadro number), it might very well happen that the BG equilibrium is physically inaccessible, and the only physically relevant stationary or quasi-stationary (metastable) state is a non-Gibbsian one. Such situation is indeed found in , as discussed below.

We can now address the manner used in  to refer to “weak coupling”. It applies essentially in the simple manner stated in  only for $`\alpha /d>1`$, being conceptually much more subtle for $`0\alpha /d1`$. For example, if $`0\alpha /d<1`$, $`U(N)/N`$ diverges as $`N^{1\alpha /d}`$ ($`N\mathrm{}`$) for any nonvanishing value of $`c`$, even for $`c`$ corresponding to … $`10^{10}eV`$! Consistently, the generic use, without further considerations (such as the $`(N,t)(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ limits, and the range of $`\alpha /d`$), of relations such as Eqs. (5) and (7) of  seems irreducibly unjustified; as they stand, they trivially yield to no other possibility than $`q=1`$. In fact, this point has already been transparently addressed by Fermi in 1936 .

About the determination of the value of $`q`$ for a given system:

The entropic parameter $`q`$ is referred in  as an “undetermined parameter”. Moreover, the author claims having proved that “$`q`$ must be a universal constant, just like the Boltzmann constant $`k`$…”. I have difficulty in unambiguously finding in the paper whether this kind of statement would only apply to Hamiltonian systems, or perhaps also to dissipative ones; to systems whose phase space is high-dimensional, or perhaps also to the low-dimensional ones. By “undetermined”, it remains not totally clear whether the expression is used in the sense that $`q`$ is “undeterminable”, or in the sense of “not yet determined”. However, if we put all this together, one might suspect that what is claimed in  is that it can be determined from first principles, and that the author has determined it to necessarily be $`q=1`$.

To make this point transparent, we may illustrate the factual nonuniversality of $`q`$ by addressing the logistic-like family of maps $`x_{t+1}=1a|x_t|^z`$, whose usefulness in physics can hardly be contested (at least for $`z=2`$). As conjectured since 1997 , numerically exhibited in many occasions (e.g., in ), and analytically proved recently  on renormalization group grounds, $`q`$ does depend on $`z`$, and is therefore not universal, in neat contrast with what is claimed in . Its value for $`z=2`$ (i.e., the standard logistic map), as given by the sensitivity to the initial conditions, is $`q=0.244487\mathrm{}`$ at the edge of chaos (e.g., $`a=1.401155\mathrm{}`$), whereas it is $`q=1`$ for all values of $`a`$ for which the Lyapunov exponent is positive (e.g., for $`a=2`$). We have illustrated the nonuniversality of $`q`$ for nonlinear dynamical systems with its value at the edge of chaos of the logistic map. It is perhaps worthy to notice that, since it has been proved to be analytically related to the Feigenbaum universal constant $`\alpha _F`$ \[$`1/(1q)=\mathrm{ln}\alpha _F/\mathrm{ln}2`$\], and since this constant is already known with not less than 1018 digits, we actually know this particular value of $`q`$ with the same number of digits. Such a precision is self-explanatory with regard to the fact that $`q`$ can be determined from first principles and that it can be different from unity (see also ).

A second illustration of the nonuniversality of $`q`$ can be found in the three-component Lotka-Volterra model in a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice . This illustration is quite interesting because this model is a many-body problem. The corresponding growth of droplets has been shown to yield, through imposition of the finiteness of the entropy production per unit time, $`q=11/d`$ for $`d=1,2`$ . This law has also been checked for $`d=3,4`$ . It is of a rather simple nature, essentially related to the fact that the growth of the bulk regions of this specific model is characterized by the droplet linear size linearly increasing with time . A similar law is obtained for a quite different model, namely a Boltzmann $`d`$-dimensional lattice model for the incompressible fluid Navier-Stokes equations. Indeed, an unique entropy, namely $`S_q`$, with an unique value of $`q`$, is mandated by the imposition of the most basic Galilean invariance of the equations. For the single-speed single-mass model it is $`q=12/d`$ . For more sophisticated models $`q`$ is determined by a transcendental equation . These examples show how the entropy $`S_q`$ enables to put on equal grounds situations that are physically quite disparate.

Given the preceding illustrations of dissipative systems, and many others existing in the literature, it could hardly be a big surprise if, also for many-body Hamiltonian systems, $`q`$ turned out to be a nonuniversal index essentially characterizing what we may consider as nonextensivity universality classes (in total analogy with the universality classes that emerge in the theory of critical phenomena). More precisely, one expects $`q=1`$ for short-range interactions ($`\alpha /d>1`$ in the example we used earlier), and $`q`$ depending on $`(d,\alpha )`$ (perhaps only on $`\alpha /d`$) for long-range interactions (i.e., $`0\alpha /d<1`$), in the physically most important ordering $`lim_t\mathrm{}lim_N\mathrm{}`$. Although expected, the uncontestable evidence has not yet been provided. It is not hard for the reader to imagine the analytic and computational difficulties that are involved. However, suggestive results are accumulating which point towards the applicability of nonextensive statistical mechanics for such long-range Hamiltonian systems. Although we shall later come back onto this problem, let us already mention the following points.

(i) The one-body marginal distribution of velocities during the well known longstanding quasi-stationary (metastable) state of the isolated classical inertial $`XY`$ ferromagnetically coupled rotators localized on a $`d`$-dimensional lattice can be anomalous (i.e., non-Maxwellian). Indeed, it approaches, for a non-zero-measure class of initial conditions of the $`\alpha =0(d)`$ model and not too high velocities, a $`q`$-exponential distribution (we remind that $`e_q^x[1+(1q)x]^{1/(1q)}`$, hence $`e_1^x=e^x`$) with $`q>1`$ . If the energy distribution followed BG statistics, the one-body marginal distribution of velocities ought to be quasi-Maxwellian (strictly Maxwellian in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit since then the microcanonical-ensemble necessary cutoff in velocities diverges), but it is not . As specifically discussed in , the numerical results are incompatible with BG statistics. However, they do not yet prove that the one-body distribution of velocities precisely is, for the canonical ensemble, the one predicted by nonextensive statistics. Indeed, considering the appropriate limit $`(N,M,N/M)(\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ ($`N`$ being the number of rotators of the isolated system, and $`M`$ being that of a relatively small subsystem of it) is crucial. Work along this line is in progress.

(ii) In the same model, at high total energy, the largest Lyapunov exponent vanishes like $`1/N^\kappa `$ where $`\kappa `$ depends on $`\alpha /d`$ . Also during the lonstanding state, the largest Lyapunov exponent vanishes, this time like $`1/N^{\kappa /3}`$ . It is clear that, with a vanishing Lyapunov spectrum, the system will be seriously prevented from satisfying Boltzmann’s “molecular chaos hypothesis”, hence the “equal probability” occupation of phase space.

(iii) In the longstanding regime of the $`\alpha =0(d)`$ model, there is aging , something which is totally incompatible with the usual notion of thermal equilibrium. The correlation functions depend on the “waiting time”, and are in all cases given by $`q`$-exponential functions. Even at high total energy, where the one-body distribution of velocities is Maxwellian, and where there is no aging, the time correlation functions are still given by $`q`$-exponentials with $`q>1`$, instead of exponentials, which is the standard expectation in BG statistics.

(iv) The temperature ($``$ mean kinetic energy per particle) relaxes, after the quasistationary state observed in the one-dimensional $`0\alpha <1`$ model, towards the BG temperature through a $`q`$-exponential function with $`q>1`$ .

(v) In Lennard-Jones clusters of up to $`N=14`$ atoms, the distribution of the number of links per site has been numerically computed , where two local minima of the many-body potential energy are “linked” if and only if they are separated by no more than one saddle-point. This distribution is a $`q`$-exponential with $`q2`$, as can be checked through direct fitting. The possible connection with our present discussion comes from the fact that the average diameter of the cluster is (in units of atomic size) of the order of $`14^{1/3}2.4`$. Consequently, although the Lennard-Jones interaction is not a long-range one thermodynamically speaking (indeed, $`\alpha /d=6/3=2>1`$), it can effectively be considered as such for small clusters, since all the atoms substantially interact with all the others.

(vi) The distribution of the number of links per node for the Albert-Barabasi growth model  yielding scale-free networks is analytically established to be, in the stationary state, a $`q`$-exponential with $`q=[2m(2r)+1pr]/[m(32r)+1pr]1`$, where $`(m,p,r)`$ are microscopic parameters of the model. If we associate to this network an $`\alpha =0`$ interaction per link, the just mentioned distribution also represents the distribution of energies per node. Although this is not the same distribution as that of the energy of microscopic states associated with a Hamiltonian, it is neither very far from it.

(vii) Although not being many-body problems, let us mention at this point some results that have been obtained with the $`d=2`$ standard map and with a $`d=4`$ set of two coupled standard maps. Both systems are conservative and simplectic, having therefore the dynamical setup of a standard Hamiltonian. The $`d=4`$ system has Arnold diffusion as soon as the nonlinear coupling constant $`a`$ is different from zero; this guarantees a chaotic sea which is singly connected in phase space (we may say that $`a_c=0`$). The structure is more complex for the $`d=2`$ case because no such diffusion is present; consistently, unless $`a`$ is sufficiently large, disconnected chaotic “lakes” are present in the phase space; below $`a_c=0.97\mathrm{}`$, closed KAM regions emerge in the problem. The remark that we wish to do here is that, in strong analogy with the many-body long-range Hamiltonian cases we have been discussing, both the $`d=2`$ and the $`d=4`$ maps present a longstanding quasistationary states before crossing over to the stationary ones. The crossover time $`t_{crossover}`$ diverges when $`a`$ approaches $`a_c`$ from above. This is very similar to what happens with the above $`(d,\alpha )`$ Hamiltonian, for which strong numerical evidence exists  suggesting that $`t_{crossover}`$ diverges as $`(N^{1\alpha /d}1)/(1\alpha /d)`$ when $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Although none of the (seven) factual arguments that we have just presented constitutes a proof, the set of them does provide, in our undestanding, a quite strong suggestion that the longstanding quasistationary states existing in long-range many-body Hamiltonians might be intimately connected to the nonextensive statistics, with $`q`$ depending on basic model parameters such as $`d`$ and $`\alpha `$. The entropic index $`q`$ would then characterize universality classes of nonextensivity, the most famous of them being naturally the $`q=1`$, extensive, universality class. Such viewpoint is also consistent with the discussion about non-Gibbsian statistics presented in . Last but by no means least, it is consistent with Einstein’s 1910 criticism  of the Boltzmann principle $`S=k\mathrm{ln}W`$ (lengthily commented in Ref.  of ).

About thermal contact between systems with different values of $`q`$ and the $`0^{th}`$ principle of thermodynamics:

We focus now on a strong and crucial statement in , namely ”… a Boltzmann-Gibbs thermometer would not be able to measure the temperature of a $`q`$-entropic system, and the laws of thermodynamics would therefore fail to have general validity.” . We shall present here the results  of molecular-dynamical simulations (using only $`F=ma`$ as microscopic dynamics) which will precisely exhibit what is claimed in  to be impossible. We shall illustrate this with the isolated $`\alpha =0`$ model of planar rotators, and proceed through two steps.

We first show (Fig. 1) how the “temperature” (defined as twice the instantaneous kinetic energy per particle) of a relatively small part of a large system relaxes onto the “temperature” of the large system while this is in the quasistationary regime (where the system has been definitely shown to be non-Boltzmannian, and where it might well be described by the $`q`$-statistics). We verify that the rest of the system acts for a generic small part of itself as a “thermostat”, in total analogy with what happens in BG thermal equilibrium. This is quite remarkable if we think that the system is in a state so different from thermal equilibrium that it even has aging!

We then show (Fig. 2) how a BG thermometer (its internal degrees of freedom are those of first-neighbor-coupled inertial rotators, hence definitively a $`q=1`$ system) does measure the “temperature” of the infinitely-range-coupled inertial rotators during their quasistationary state, hence where the statistics is definitely non-Boltzmannian. At the light of this evidence, it appears that the $`0^{th}`$ principle of thermodynamics is even more general than the already important role that BG statistical mechanics reserves for it. Naturally, the fluctuations that we observe in both figures are expected to disappear in the $`(N,M,N/M)(\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ limit.

The facts that we have mentioned up to this point heavily disqualify the essence of the critique presented in . I believe, nevertheless, that it is instructive to further analyze it.

About the existing mathematical foundations of nonextensive statistical mechanics:

It is essentially claimed in  that it can be proved, from the very foundations of statistical mechanics, that the only physically admissible one is that of BG. It is however intriguing how such a strong statement may be done without clearly pointing the mathematical errors that should then exist in the available proofs of the $`q`$-exponential distribution. Such proofs have been provided by Abe and Rajagopal ; they are multiple, mutually consistent, and generalize the well known proofs done, for BG statistics, by Darwin-Fowler (in 1922), Khinchin (in 1949) and Balian-Balazs (in 1987), respectively using the steepest-descent method , the laws of large numbers , and the counting for the microcanonical ensemble . All these proofs are ignored in . The critique therein developed outcomes severely diminished.

Similarly, no mention at all is made in  of the $`q`$-generalizations of Shannon 1948 theorem, and of Khinchin 1953 theorem, which are universally considered as part of the foundations of BG statistical mechanics since they prove under what conditions $`S_{BG}`$ is unique. These two $`q`$-generalizations  analogously exhibit the necessary and sufficient conditions associated with the uniqueness of $`S_q`$.

Finally, no mention at all is made of the fact that $`S_q`$ ($`q>0`$) shares with $`S_{BG}`$ three remarkable mathematical properties that are quite hard to satisfy, especially simultaneously. These three properties are concavity (Ref.  of ), stability , and finiteness of entropy production per unit time (see , among others). The difficulty of having such agreable mathematical features can be measured by the fact that Renyi entropy (Eq. (19) of ), for instance, satisfies none of them for abitrary $`q>0`$.

It is perhaps for not paying due attention to all these theorems that the cyclic argument involving Eqs. (22-26) of  has been included in the critique. Indeed, that argument uses Eq. (22) to “prove” Eq. (26). Such a consistency can hardly be considered as surprising since the distribution in Eq. (22) is currently established precisely using the BG entropy, i.e., the form of Eq. (26). By the way, immediately after Eq. (26) we read “provided $`f(1)=f(0)=0`$, which corresponds to the requirement that the entropy vanishes at $`T=0`$”. It is in fact only $`f(1)=0`$ which is related to the vanishing entropy at $`T=0`$. The property $`f(0)=0`$ has in general nothing to do with it; it is instead related to the expansibility of the entropy, i.e., the fact that $`S(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_W,0)=S(p_1,p_2,\mathrm{},p_W)`$.

About existing exact solutions of anomalous Fokker-Planck and Langevin equations:

The standard $`d=1`$ Langevin equation (with a drift coefficient $`\gamma `$ and an additive noise), and the standard $`d=1`$ Fokker-Planck equation admit as exact solutions the Gaussian distribution, and are usually considered as paradigmatic mesoscopic descriptions associated with BG statistical mechanics. They can be naturally generalized by also including a multiplicative noise (with amplitude $`M`$) in the Langevin equation, and by considering the so called “porous medium equation”, i.e., a nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation where the Laplacian operator applies to the power $`\nu `$ of the distribution. The exact solutions of these two nontrivial (nonlinear) equations are $`q`$-Gaussians, with $`q=(3M+\gamma )/(M+\gamma )1`$ for the former , and $`q=2\nu <3`$ for the latter . These suggestive mathematical facts are ignored in .

Miscellanous

The precise formulation of nonextensive statistical mechanics has, since 1988, evolved along time in what concerns the way of imposing the auxiliary constraints under which $`S_q`$ is optimized (see Refs. \[1-3\] of ). The paradigmatic case occurs for the canonical ensemble, where one must decide how to generalize the traditional energy constraint. The correct manner is nowadays accepted to be that indicated in Ref.  of , i.e., Eq. (3) of , namely

$$\frac{_{i=1}^Wp_i^qϵ_i}{_{j=1}^Wp_j^q}=U_q$$
(3)
This particular writing of the energy constraint has various interesting features. Let us mention here three of them (further convenient features can be found in Ref.  of ).

(i) It is precisely this form which emerges naturally within the steepest-descent proof  of the $`q`$-statistics. It is a trivial consequence of the fact that $`de_q^x/dx=(e_q^x)^q`$.

(ii) This particular form makes the theory to be, in what concerns the energy distribution, valid up to a single value of $`q`$, namely precisely that determined by the trivial constraint $`_{i=1}^Wp_i=1`$. Let us illustrate this in the continuum limit, for a typical example where the density of states $`g(ϵ)ϵ^\gamma `$ for $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$ ($`\gamma `$). Since we wish $`p(ϵ)`$ to be normalizable, we must impose that $`_{constant}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵg(ϵ)p(ϵ)`$. Since $`p(ϵ)ϵ^{1/(1q)}`$ for $`ϵ\mathrm{}`$, it must be $`\gamma +1/(1q)>1`$, hence

$$q<(2+\gamma )/(1+\gamma ),$$
(4)
($`q<2`$ for the simple case of an asymptotically constant density of states, i.e., $`\gamma =0`$). The finiteness of constraint (3) imposes $`_{constant}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵg(ϵ)ϵ[p(ϵ)]^q`$ to be finite, which, interestingly enough, yields the same upper bound as before, namely Eq. (4). In other words, this makes the theory to have both constraints (norm and energy) mathematically well defined (i.e., given by finite numbers) all the way up to a single upper bound for $`q`$.

(iii) This structure (based on escort distributions ) for the energy constraint allows the construction of a quite general entropic form  which is extremized by the Beck-Cohen superstatistics , and which, quite remarkably, is stable  (like $`S_q`$, and in variance with Renyi entropy).

Since 1988, many applications have been proposed for the nonextensive statistics. Some of these have been elaborated within the 1988 way of writing the energy constraint (Ref.  of ), others have been elaborated within the 1991 way of writing this constraint (Ref.  of ), and finally others with the 1998 way (Ref.  of ). It is unfortunate that the 1998 way was not found from the very beginning in 1988, but this is the way it did happen (for a variety of reasons that are essentially commented in Ref.  of ). Consistently, it seems fair to nowadays restrict possible criticism to applications indeed using the 1998 version. Unfortunately, all types of applications are criticized in  independently from what particular manner have the author(s) adopted for the energy constraint. An intriguing example of such procedure is the criticism of some 1995-1996 papers (Refs. \[19-21\] of ) on the possible $`q`$-generalization of the black-body radiation law. They indeed satisfy, as they should and as claimed in , the $`T^4`$ Stefan-Boltzmann law (explicitly written in Eq. (18) of Ref.  of ). Nevertheless, they do not escape the criticism! It is argued in  that errors have been done in these three papers, and that, if these errors had not been done, the papers would have violated the $`T^4`$ law, and therefore they also deserve criticism. In addition to this somewhat courageous comment, no remarks are done about the fact that all three were published up to three years before the need for re-writing the energy constraint became clear. More significantly, this specific criticism is indeed intriguing since it can be trivially shown that the $`T^4`$ proportionality law remains the same for all energy statistical distributions (hence not only the BG one) as long as the microscopic energy scales linearly with the temperature (i.e., for photons, as long as the distribution depends on the light frequency $`\nu `$ and the appropriate temperature $`T`$, only through $`\nu /T`$). Only the proportionality coefficient of the $`T^4`$ law depends on the specific statistics.

The author of  claims to have delivered the epistemological coup de grâce to nonextensive statistical mechanics. Indeed, expressions like “unphysical”, “manifestly incorrect”, “devoid of any physical meaning”, “do not have any physical meaning”, “disregarding such basic considerations”, “nonsensical”, “failure of this formalism”, “inconsistencies”, “inconsistent with the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics”, “absolutely no physical justification has been given”, and analogous ones, have been profusely used in . We have essentially argued here that what we are facing is rather the opposite, in the sense that it is precisely the basis of the critique in  which appears to be deeply inconsistent with very many, and by now well established, physical and mathematical facts. We have only addressed the main mispaths and inadvertences in . There are several more, but the full consideration of them all would demand an appreciable effort which, at the present moment, does not seem worthy. Our overall conclusion is that, although several important and/or interesting points related to nonextensive statistical mechanics still need further clarification, this theory undoubtedly exhibits nowadays a sensible number of physically and mathematically consistent results. Of course, as it has always been, only time will establish its degree of scientific utility in theoretical physics and elsewhere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

M. Nauenberg communicated to me an early version of his arguments prior to publication, and asked for comments. Although he adopted basically none of those which I made on physical grounds, his gentle communication certainly was a polite attitude which I gladly acknowledge here.


text:
# Comment on “Superfluidity in the interior-gap states”

## Both number densities fixed.

The normal state can give way to a superfluid state, through a pairing instability. We showed in Liu and Wilczek (2003) that once the coupling stength is greater than a critical value (which approaches zero in the limit $`m_Hm_L`$) pairing is favored. When both denisities are conserved, however, the density difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=n_Hn_L`$ cannot be affected by pairing. Therefore the chemical potentials must be adjusted to accommodate the change of band structure due to pairing, holding particle densities fixed. For example, if $`p_F^H>p_F^L`$ the new $`p_F^H`$ must be enlarged to accommodate the particles promoted from the interior. Formally, one finds that a branch of the Bogoliubov excitation spectrum must crosses zero energy, and these zero-crossings determine the effective “Fermi” surfaces. Whether the system chooses the BCS or interior gap state is really determined by the initial values of particle densities.

In Ref. Wu- , Wu and Yip assumed that the Fermi momenta $`p_{F\alpha }`$ for both heavy and light fermions are unchanged across the phase transition from the normal state to the superfluid state (being either BCS or interior gap) or in the presence of a superflow current. This is an inappropriate assumption for ultracold atoms confined in a trap with negligible particle loss. For example, if they had been fixing both heavy and light particle densities, or the overall particle density (see next paragraph), their expression for the paramagnetic current in linear response (c.f. eq. (12) of Ref. Wu- ) would employ modified chemical potentials in the presence of superflow current,

$$\frac{1}{m_\alpha }\underset{𝐩}{}𝐩\left[\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_\alpha ^2f(\eta _\alpha \stackrel{~}{E}_h+𝐩𝐰)\varphi _\alpha ^2f(\eta _\alpha E_h)\right],$$
(2)
with the tilde ‘$``$’ indicating the adjusted $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{F\alpha }`$’s. The $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{F\alpha }`$’s receive corrections in linear order $`|𝐰|`$ Gubankova et al. , and so does the paramagnetic current. This is of the same order as, and counters, the linear term arising directly from $`𝐩𝐰`$.

## Overall density fixed.

If we add a term proportional to

$$a_{𝐩H}^{}a_{𝐩L}+h.c.,$$
(3)
as for instance to describe Rabi oscillations between different hyperfine spin states of an alkali atom, then the symmetry of the Hamiltonian (1) is reduced to a single U(1), conjugate to the total density $`n_t`$. The relative density $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=n_Ln_H`$ is no longer conserved. Again, the interior gap phase can be favorable in weak coupling. A specific proposal is spelled out in LWZ .

When pairing occurs, the chemical potential $`\overline{\mu }=(\mu _L+\mu _H)/2`$ must adjust to accommodate the total number density. In a practical experimental arrangement, the relative chemical potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu \mu _L\mu _H`$ can be held fixed LWZ . Then the thermodynamic variables are $`(n_t,\mathrm{\Delta }\mu )`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }p_F`$, defined as Fermi momentum difference, changes its value in response to pairing when $`m_Lm_H`$, even if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ is held fixed.

## Chemical potentials fixed.

If the model system (1) is connected to reservoirs of both light and heavy particles, then the particle numbers of both species are not conserved within the subsystem. We have realized for some time that the interior gap state is very unlikely to occur in the weak coupling regime for this case. A detailed discussion is contained in Ref. Gubankova et al. .

In Ref. Liu and Wilczek (2003) our discussion was mainly directed toward cold atom systems with different kinds of atoms, which fall under the first case mentioned above. We also briefly mentioned the possibility of interior gap state connecting two bands in an electronic solid material. That falls under the second case, since at some level only overall electron number is strictly conserved. The third case, of which Wu and Yip analyzed a special example, did not arise.

We are grateful for discussions with J. Bowers, E. Gubankova, K. Rajagopal, and P. Zoller. This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818.


text:
# I Surface torodial wave functions and eigenvalues for 𝑅=1,𝑎=1/2. Coefficients not listed are at least an order of magnitude smaller than those given.

Bohmian trajectories on a toroidal surface

Mario Encinosa 111 corresponding author and Fernando Sales-Mayor

Department of Physics

Florida A & M University

Tallahassee, Florida 32307

encinosa@cennas.nhmfl.gov, fsm@lanczos.cm.utexas.edu

## Abstract

Bohmian trajectories on the toroidal surface $`T^2`$ are determined from eigenfunctions of the Schrodinger equation. An expression for the monodromy matrix $`M(t)`$ on a curved surface is developed and eigenvalues of $`M(t)`$ on $`T^2`$ calculated. Lyapunov exponents for trajectories on $`T^2`$ are found for some trajectories to be of order unity. PACS No: 03.65.Ge, 05.45.Ac

Keywords: Bohmian, monodromy, chaos

The equation of motion for calculating Bohmian trajectories follows from inserting $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫,t)=R(𝐫,t)e^{iS(𝐫,t)}`$ into the Schrodinger equation and separating the ensuing expression into real and imaginary parts . The result is ($`m=\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$\frac{d𝐯}{dt}=(V+Q)$$
$`(1)`$
with $`𝐯=S`$ and $`Q`$ the quantum potential

$$Q=\frac{1}{2}\frac{^2R}{R}.$$
$`(2)`$
Given a distribution of initial positions as determined from $`\psi ^{}\psi `$ the standard results of quantum mechanics are recovered.

This letter concerns the influence of curvature on Bohmian trajectories. Wu and Sprung  have pointed to the importance of a trajectory’s initial position as critical to its evolution in time. If the trajectory lies on a curved surface, local curvature near the trajectory’s initial position may be expected to play a role in its character. Here wave functions on a curved surface are employed to generate trajectories from $`S`$ .

$`T^2`$ was chosen as the surface with which to investigate curvature effects on Bohmian trajectories for several reasons: First, the torus has non-trivial mean and Gaussian curvatures. Second, good approximate wave functions for a particle on $`T^2`$ are available . Finally, the rectangular strip $`R^1\mathrm{x}R^1`$ with periodic boundary conditions can be used as a flat torus analog for comparison between trajectories on it and those on $`T^2`$. For convenience the strip will be referred to as $`F^2`$.

A toroidal surface with major radius $`R`$ and minor radius $`a`$ may be characterized by the Monge form

$$𝐫(\theta ,\varphi )=(R+a\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝐞_\rho +a\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝐞_z$$
$`(3)`$
for which

$$ds^2=a^2d\theta ^2+(R+a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2d\varphi ^2.$$
$`(4)`$
The Hamiltonian is taken as $`H=\frac{1}{2}^2`$. Defining $`\alpha =\frac{a}{R},`$ $`\beta =2Ea^2`$, and making the standard $`\chi (\varphi )=e^{im\varphi }`$ ansatz for the azimuthal eigenfunction gives the Schrodinger equation

$$\frac{^2\psi }{\theta ^2}\frac{\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta }{[1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ]}\frac{\psi }{\theta }\frac{m^2\alpha ^2}{[1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta ]^2}\psi +\beta \psi =0.$$
$`(5)`$
Eq. (5) was solved in  by a Fourier method. The explicit forms of the surface toroidal wave functions (STWs) used here are given in table I for $`R=1,a=1/2`$. The eigenfunctions on $`F^2`$ analogous to those in table I are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{cos}n\theta }{\mathrm{sin}n\theta }\right)e^{im\varphi }`$.

As evidenced in table I, six STW states were chosen to comprise three positive parity states and three negative parity states. The $`[nm]`$ values selected for the negative parity states are the same as those selected for the positive parity states. This $`[nm]`$ matching was motivated by a desire to construct (as closely as possible) functions for comparison to $`e^{in\theta }`$ functions on $`F^2`$. Additionally, without superpositions of the form $`\psi _{nm}^+\pm i\psi _{nm}^{}`$ some interesting motion about the minor radius of $`T^2`$ would not be manifest.

The phase $`S`$ for $`T^2`$ and $`F^2`$ is generated with a six state superposition

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\underset{nm}{}c_{nm}\mathrm{\Psi }_{nm}(\theta ,\varphi )e^{iE_{mn}t}.$$
$`(6)`$
Trajectories were determined from

$$S=tan^1\left[\frac{Im\mathrm{\Psi }}{Re\mathrm{\Psi }}\right]$$
$`(7)`$
and

$$\frac{d𝐫}{dt}=S.$$
$`(8)`$
Eqs. (7) and (8) yield many classes of surface trajectories. Figures 1 and 2 give two state results for $`T^2`$ to the left of each figure and for $`F^2`$ to the right. Figure 3 shows a quantized trajectory structure that emerges from a combination of negative parity states on $`T^2`$. Figure 4 is a $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plot for a path on $`T^2`$ showing rapid variation in phase space. Figure 5 is an example of a $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plot for a superposition with a dominant mode and small admixtures of two other states. A small change on the order of a few parts in $`10^3`$ in $`\theta _0`$ causes ample modification to the path. $`F^2`$ phase space plots have not been shown because they demonstrate (at least for the cases above) very little structure.

A measure of the divergence of two initially nearby trajectories is associated with the eigenvalues of the monodromy matrix $`M(t)`$ , used to good effect by Frisk  for the study of Bohmian paths on a two-dimensional rectangular geometry. $`M(t)`$ gives the time evolution of the separation vector $`\delta 𝐱`$ via

$$\delta 𝐱(t)=M(t)\delta 𝐱(0).$$
$`(9)`$
Since

$$\frac{d}{dt}[\delta 𝐱(t)]=[\delta S],$$
$`(10)`$
the monodromy matrix can be shown to obey the differential equation

$$\frac{dM}{dt}=JM.$$
$`(11)`$
For $`R^1\mathrm{x}R^1`$ with or without periodic boundary conditions the $`J`$ matrix is

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S_{xx}& S_{xy}\\ S_{yx}& S_{yy}\end{array}\right).$$
$`(12)`$
On a two dimensional surface characterized by a locally orthogonal metric

$$ds^2=g_{uu}du^2+g_{vv}dv^2$$

Eq. (12) must be extended to (written in a cumbersome but illustrative form)

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{g}^{uu}S_{uu}\sqrt{g}^{uu}& \sqrt{g}^{uu}S_{uv}\sqrt{g}^{vv}\\ \sqrt{g}^{vv}S_{vu}\sqrt{g}^{uu}& \sqrt{g}^{vv}S_{vv}\sqrt{g}^{vv}\end{array}\right).$$
$`(13)`$
On $`T^2`$ Eq. (13) yields

$$J=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{S_{\theta \theta }}{\alpha ^2}\hfill & \frac{S_{\theta \varphi }}{\alpha G}\hfill \\ \frac{S_{\varphi \theta }}{\alpha G}\hfill & \frac{S_{\varphi \varphi }}{G^2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
$`(14)`$
with $`G1+\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta `$.

It is worth noting that for curved surfaces $`\delta `$ and $``$ do not commute. The ordering chosen in Eq. (10) insures all quantities lie on the local tangent space .

The differential equations implicit in Eq. (11) were found to be time consuming and slow to converge to suitable accuracy with standard methods on $`T^2`$. Further, it was not clear that the results were accurate to any order. However, the foremost goal here was obtaining comparisons between the eigenvalues of $`M(t)`$ on $`T^2`$ versus those on $`F^2`$ for several values of $`\theta _0`$. With this is mind, a Mathematica code was set to solve the differential equations to a lower accuracy for the relatively short time $`t=10`$. The advantages of adopting this procedure were a) confidence that our numbers were accurate to at least four significant digits and b) each point took only at most two minutes to acquire on an 800 MHz rated home PC .

Rather than work directly with the eigenvalues $`\beta _i`$ of $`M(t)`$, a Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda _i`$ is defined through the relation

$$\lambda _i(t)=\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{ln}\beta _i(t).$$
$`(15)`$
A more convenient definition which serves to dispense of an unknown overall norm is one employed in quantum Monte Carlo calculations  and adopted here,

$$\lambda _i=\frac{1}{(t_2t_1)}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\beta _i(t_2)}{\beta _i(t_1)}.$$
$`(16)`$
The larger of the two values of $`\lambda _i\lambda `$ was taken.

Tables II and III give values of $`\lambda `$ as a function of $`\theta _0`$ for two sets of $`c_{nm}`$ values. For both sets $`\lambda `$ is generally an order of magnitude larger on $`T^2`$ than on $`F^2`$ (save for one anomalous point). The $`F^2`$ values show a symmetry about $`\theta =\pi `$ while the $`T^2`$ values do not. The $`T^2`$ results certainly show dependence on $`\theta _0`$ but do not show any simple relation to the Gaussian or mean curvatures $`K`$ and $`H`$ on $`T^2`$. This is not unexpected. The Hamiltonian of Eq.(5) does not incorporate $`H`$ and $`K`$ explicitly but rather factors related to them in a complicated manner. A trajectory on $`T^2`$ generated from a representative point in table II is given in figure 6, and one from table III is shown in figure 7. Again, the corresponding $`F^2`$ plots do not possess enough structure to warrant their inclusion.

In this letter linear combinations of wave functions were employed to generate surface and phase space plots of Bohmian trajectories on $`T^2`$ and $`F^2`$. The plots and tables illustrate that curvature can alter trajectory structure. This is a direct manifestation of the form of the wave functions on a curved surface. Each exponential function in a superposition of states on $`F^2`$ possesses its own time dependent energy phase while each STW is a superposition of several functions attached to one phase.

$`c_{nm}`$ combinations making Lyapunov exponents on $`T^2`$ appreciably smaller than those on $`F^2`$ over many values of $`\theta _0`$ have not been found. Positive $`\lambda `$ of order unity is usually taken to indicate chaotic behavior, but while some trajectories are certainly complex, and $`\lambda `$ an adequate measure of the distortion of local tangents, we consider it premature to state the trajectories are chaotic . Nevertheless, it has been shown that a few low-lying states can yield complex phase space behavior on the the torus. Because the torus is a simple compact surface, its curvature likely causes less modification to trajectory structure than surfaces with rapidly varying regions of $`H`$ and $`K`$. Those surfaces are certain to induce greater complexity in the trajectories.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Todd Timberlake for useful discussions. M.E. was partially supported by the NASA grant NAG2-1439 and F.S-M. by the Army High Performance Computing Research Center grant, cooperative agreement number DAAD 19-01-2-0014.

References

1. P. R. Holland, $`\mathrm{𝑇ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑚}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦}\mathrm{𝑜𝑓}\mathrm{𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛}`$ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993). 2. J. Wu and D.W.L. Sprung, Phys. Lett. A $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔𝟏}`$, 150 (1999). 3. H. Frisk, Phys. Lett. A $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟐𝟕}`$, 139 (1997). 4. R.H. Parmenter and R.W. Valentine, Phys. Lett. A $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟏}`$, 1 (1995). 5. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html 6. M. Encinosa and B. Etemadi, quant-ph 0200501 and submitted to Found. Phys. Lett. 7. F.H.M. Faisal and U. Schwengelbeck, Phys. Lett. A $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟕}`$, 31 (1995). 8. U. Schwengelbeck and F.H.M. Faisal, Phys. Lett. A $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟗}`$, 281 (1995). 9. R.W.R. Darling, $`\mathrm{𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑠}\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑛𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠}`$ (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994). 10. Reversing the order of $``$ and $`\delta `$ and projecting onto the tangent plane does not lead to a linear relation between $`\delta x(t)`$ and $`\delta x(0)`$. 11. The authors will supply the Mathematica source code upon request. 12. D. Ceperley and M.H. Kalos, $`\mathrm{𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒}\mathrm{𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑜}\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑠}\mathrm{𝑖𝑛}\mathrm{𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙}\mathrm{𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑠}`$, K. Binder, Ed. (Springer Verlag Berlin, 1979). 13. D. Dürr, S. Goldstein and N. Zanghi, J. Stat. Phys. $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}`$, 259 (1992). 14. M.C. Gutzwiller, $`\mathrm{𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑜𝑠}\mathrm{𝑖𝑛}\mathrm{𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙}\mathrm{𝑎𝑛𝑑}\mathrm{𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑢𝑚}\mathrm{𝑚𝑒𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑠}`$ (Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990).

Figure captions

Fig. 1. Trajectories for the superposition $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^++i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^{}`$ with $`t=30`$ and $`\theta _0=0`$. The $`T^2`$ trajectory appears to the left of the figure. The $`F^2`$ trajectory projected onto the torus is to the right.

Fig. 2. Trajectories for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^{}+i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^+`$ with $`t=24`$ and $`\theta _0=1.05\pi `$.

Fig. 3. Trajectories for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{5.2}{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^++(\sqrt{\frac{1.4}{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^{}i\sqrt{\frac{5.2}{12}})\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^{}`$ with $`t=50`$ and $`\theta _0=0`$.

Fig. 4. $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plot for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^++i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^+i\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^{}`$ with $`t=30`$ and $`\theta _0=1.25\pi `$.

Fig. 5. $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plots for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{0.02}{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}^{}+\sqrt{\frac{11.96}{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{21}^{}+\sqrt{\frac{.02}{12}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^{}`$ with $`t=30`$ and $`\theta _0=1.424\pi `$ shown on the left and for $`\theta _0=1.429\pi `$ shown on the right.

Fig. 6. $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plot for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^++\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{32}^{}`$ with $`t=36`$ and $`\theta _0=0`$.

Fig. 7. $`(\theta ,\dot{\theta })`$ plot for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta ,\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}^++i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}^{}`$ with $`t=36`$ and $`\theta _0=0`$.


text:
# Distribution of the Galactic Bulge emission at |𝑏|>2^∘ according to the RXTE Galactic Center scans

## 1 Introduction

Galactic ridge emission was detected by the rocket experiment in 1972 ( Bleach et al. (1972)). It was noted that there exists an excess in X-ray emission ($`>`$1.5 keV) around the Galactic plane with an extent about 2-4. Since then, various satellites were used to study this emission, HEAO1 (Worrall et al. (1982)), EXOSAT (Warwick et al. (1985)), Tenma (Koyama et al. 1986a ), GINGA (Yamasaki et al. (1997)), ASCA (Kaneda et al. (1997)), RXTE (Valinia & Marshall (1998)) and Chandra (Ebisawa et al. (2001)).

The observation of the ASCA and Chandra observatories seem to rule out the hypothesis of dominant dim point source contributions to the observed ridge emission (see Ebisawa et al. (2001)). Therefore it is believed that it has a diffuse origin.

The discovery by the Tenma satellite of strong 6.7 keV line emission in the spectrum of the Galactic plane made it possible to suggest that the bulk of this Galactic ridge emission in the energy range 1–10 keV is due to an optically thin plasma of temperature of a few keV. Accurate measurements of the ridge spectrum made by ASCA also revealed lines from some other elements, Mg, Si, S, Ar, which also supports the thermal origin of the emission. However, this hypothesis also encounters serious problems. One of the most general problems is connected with the fact that the deduced parameters of the optically thin plasma implies that it is impossible to bound such plasma within Galactic plane (see e.g. Townes (1989)) and also it is very hard to provide enough energy for such plasma. There are also serious problems with the approximation of the energy spectra of the ridge emission within the framework of its thermal origin (Tanaka (2000)). These complications together with the detection of the presumably non-thermal tail in the spectrum of the Galactic ridge emission (see e.g. Yamasaki et al. (1997), Skibo et al. (1997), Valinia & Marshall (1998)) gives rise to the additional interpretation, in which the X-ray line emission was considered to originate through charge-exchange interactions of low-energy cosmic ray heavy ions (e.g. Tanaka et al. (1999), Tanaka (2000)), while the hard power-law tail appears as a result of nonthermal bremsstrahlung emission of cosmic ray electrons and protons (e.g. Dogiel et al. (2002)).

For the understanding of the origin of the Galactic ridge emission it is important to know the distribution of its flux and parameters over the Galaxy. Such a study has been previously carried out using different satellites (e.g. HEAO1, Worrall et al. (1982); Iwan et al. (1982), GINGA; Yamasaki et al. (1997), RXTE Valinia & Marshall (1998)), but now we could for the first time use relatively uniform coverage of the central 10 degrees. This became possible because of the large campaign of RXTE Galactic Center scans, organized by the RXTE team. In this paper we analyze public data of RXTE Galactic center scans from March 1999 till July 2001.

## 2 Analysis

For our analysis we used approximately 150 sequences of $``$3200 Galactic Center observations (each set of Galactic center scan sequences usually consists of 22 individual observations) performed from March 1999 till July 2002. The total exposure of all these observations is approximately 700 ksec. We divided these data into two parts, depending on high voltage epoch of PCA, which determines the energy response of the instrument: Apr.1999– May 13. 2000 (Epoch4) and May 14, 2000-July 2001 (Epoch 5).

For the data analysis we used a set of standard procedures of the LHEASOFT 5.2 package. In order to increase our sensitivity for photons with energy $`>`$10 keV we used all three layers of the PCA. As we are interested in the measurement of low fluxes we used the “L7\_240” model for the PCA background estimation. This model includes an instrumental background as well as the Cosmic X-ray background (CXB) term. The influence of interstellar absorption in the direction of Galactic Center could be important at low $`b`$. However, in the subsequent analysis we will restrict ourself to $`|b|>2^{}`$ where the interstellar absorption is negligible in our bandpass ($`320`$ keV). Under these condition, extinction of CXB in the interstellar medium is estimated to be at most 10 1990), thus can be ignored.

According to the latest calibration information the systematic uncertainty of the flux obtained with the help of the background model used is considered to be within $``$1–1.5% (see RXTE GOF web page. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/xhp\_proc\_analysis.html). Therefore in our analysis we included 1.5% (of the background count rate in the considered energy range) uncertainty in the measurements.

The map of the Galactic center region, reconstructed from scans performed during epoch 4 (March 1999 - May 2000) is presented in Fig. 1. The map represents the flux measured by PCA in the direction to which the center of the PCA field of view was pointed. Any point source on the map contributes to a sky region around it in accordance with the response of the RXTE/PCA collimator. Combining information from available X-ray catalogs of bright sources (Wood et al. (1984), Liu et al. (2000), Liu et al. (2001), Voges et al. (1999), Sugizaki et al. (2001)) with the analysis of the obtained map, we have selected a set of sources that can significantly contribute to the observed flux in the region of the scans. A list of the selected sources is presented in Table 1. Note that in our analysis the identification of sources in crowded regions, like in the immediate vicinity of the Galactic Center, is quite complicated and therefore might not be exact.

In order to separate the contribution of bright point sources from the Galactic ridge emission we excluded areas with a radius of 1.35 around them – such a radius ensures that even the brightest sources (such as GX5-1) do not contribute to the surrounding points more than a few cnts/s/PCU to the surrounding points.

Upper limits on the unaccounted sources within the field of the scans could be estimated as $``$1–2 cnts/s/PCU ($``$0.5–1 mCrab) at Galactic latitudes $`|b|12^{}`$. Assuming a Crab-like spectrum of sources this upper limit corresponds to a flux $`10^{11}`$ erg/s/cm2.

The effective field of view of the RXTE/PCA spectrometer is about $`1`$ deg2. According to the luminosity function of the Galactic X-ray sources, measured e.g. by ASCA (Ueda et al. (1999), Sugizaki et al. (2001)), RXTE/ASM (Grimm et al. (2002)), CHANDRA (Ebisawa et al. (2001)) at Galactic Latitudes $`|b|<0.5`$ the density of sources with a flux higher than $`10^{11}`$ erg/s/cm2 (i.e. compatible with our rejection limit) is of the order of 0.1 deg-1 and this value drops with increasing $`|b|`$ (e.g. Grimm et al. (2002)). The contribution of weaker point sources to the ridge emission does not exceed approximately $`10\%`$ (e.g. Ebisawa et al. (2001)). Therefore, due to our limited sensitivity to weak point sources the obtained brightness profiles and spectra could slightly suffer from their influence and an additional ’noise’ of $``$10% could appear.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Brightness distribution of the ridge emission

After the rejection of regions affected by point sources we have hardly any data within $`|b|2^{}`$. Besides, a large number of weak point sources (see e.g. Sugizaki et al. (2001)) in this region could strongly contaminate the ridge emission observed by the RXTE/PCA. Therefore we will not try to study the ridge emission at these latitudes in detail.

During Epoch4 and Epoch5 the PCA detectors had significantly different response functions, therefore we will analyze data obtained during these periods separately.

Measured profiles at latitudes higher than 2 show a quite weak dependence on longitude, see Fig. 3.

We constructed profiles of the brightness of the Galactic ridge emission, averaged over all longitudes ($`l`$) in our scan field. The intensity profiles in three energy bands are presented in Fig. 4.

The latitude distribution of the Galactic ridge emission at $`|b|>2^{}`$ can be well described by an exponential model of the form $`I=\mathrm{Norm}\mathrm{exp}(|b|/b_0)`$. The PCA collimator collects X-rays from approximately 1 sq.deg, and therefore the measured profile of the ridge emission is in reality a convolution of the sky distribution with the response of the PCA collimator. Therefore in our approximation of the observed profiles we folded the model profile with the response of the PCA collimator.

The measured profiles of the X-ray intensity of the ridge emission and the best fit exponential models (folded with the collimator response) are presented in Fig. 4. Note that there are indications that an additional narrow component is present at low latitudes, $`b<`$1–2. A similar narrow component was also found by Valinia & Marshall (1998). But in our case strong contamination by point sources in the Galactic plane does not allow us to study this component in detail. Our obtained profiles at $`|b|<4^{}`$ are consistent with the results of Valinia & Marshall (1998), but their model of the spatial variation of the intensity of the ridge emission (a Gaussian with FWHM long Galactic latitude $`4.8^{}`$) can no longer describe the profile of the diffuse emission at higher latitudes. One should use the exponential model instead.

The parameters of the approximations of the observed profiles at $`|b|>2^{}`$ in the two energy bands 3–20 keV and 10–20 keV are presented in Table 2. The presence of the Galactic ridge emission in 20–30 keV energy band of PCA is not statistically significant in the analyzed data.

### 3.2 Approximation of the spectrum of the ridge emission

The spectrum of the Galactic ridge emission is known to be quite rich, full of different lines of different elements (see e.g. Kaneda et al. (1997)). Unfortunately most of these lines lie in energy bands lower than 3-3.5 keV, i.e. below our bandpass. In our energy range we can see only the blend of Fe lines at energies around 6-7 keV.

As was shown before (e.g. Yamasaki et al. (1997), Valinia & Marshall (1998)), the 3–20 keV spectrum of the Galactic ridge emission could be relatively well described by a single power law with a gaussian line at energy $``$6.7 keV. the quite large exposure time of the collected data (approximately 200 ksec for each epoch after subtraction of contaminated regions) allows us to make a spectral approximation of the observed ridge emission at different latitudes. Below we will use a power law with a gaussian line model for the approximation of the the ridge emission collected over the whole scan field with $`|b|>2^{}`$, as well as for emission collected over individual 1-width strips along the Galactic plane.

Best fit parameters of the approximation of the Galactic ridge spectrum averaged over the whole scan field with $`|b|>2^{}`$ are presented in Table 3. Dependences of best fit parameters on Galactic latitude are presented in Fig. 6

## 4 Summary

We analyzed the data of RXTE scans over Galactic center regions performed in 1999-2001. After subtraction of regions contaminated by bright pointed sources we constructed the intensity profile of the Galactic ridge emission and its spectral parameters across the galactic plane within $`|b|10^{}`$. We show that the intensity profile at $`|b|>2^{}`$ could be well described by an exponential model ($`\mathrm{exp}(|b|/b_0)`$) with e-folding size $`b_o3.3^{}`$. A spectral approximation of data collected over 1-deg strips along the galactic plane does not show statistically significant changes of best fit parameters both of the continuum and of the Fe line. The averaged spectrum of the ridge emission observed by the PCA could be approximated by a power law with a slope $`\alpha 2.15`$ and a gaussian line at energy $`6.7`$ keV with equivalent width $`850`$eV. These results are compatible with previously published results of GINGA (Yamasaki et al. (1997)) and RXTE (Valinia & Marshall (1998)).

The origin of the Galactic ridge emission is still not known. Recent results of ASCA and especially Chandra allowed us to exclude the possibility that the observed ridge emission is due to the integrated flux of faint point sources (Ebisawa et al. (2001)) and we can conclude that it should have a truly diffuse origin. Different scenarios of the Galactic ridge emission production (e.g. magnetic reconnection, Tanuma et al. (1999); supernova explosions, Koyama et al. 1986b ; cosmic rays Tanaka et al. (1999), Dogiel et al. (2002) and so on) could in principle be distinguished by comparing different brightness profiles predicted by models.

Following Markevitch et al. (1993) and Yamauchi& Koyama (1993) it is interesting to compare the observed profile of the ridge emission with the distribution of the CO line flux (e.g. Dame et al. (1987)) as a tracer of molecular gas in the Galaxy and also with the density of SNR (Green (2001)) as a tracer of supernova explosions. The constructed distributions within the field of scans of RXTE/PCA are presented in Fig.7. It is clearly seen that CO line intensity drops much more abruptly than the intensity of the ridge emission, while the distribution of SNR more closely resembles the profile of the ridge X-ray emission. Unfortunately, poor statistics of SNR at high latitudes does not allow us to make any solid conclusions.

###### Acknowledgements.

Author is grateful to Rashid Sunyaev, Marat Gilfanov and Eugene Churazov for valuable discussions. This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.