text:
# Tight and loose shapes in flat entangled dense polymers

## I Introduction

Knots, and topological constraints in general, play an important role in macromolecular systems. In gels and rubbers, permanent entanglements strongly influence the equilibrium and relaxation properties degennes ; DE86 ; ferry ; treloar . Even single molecules with identical chemical structure but different topology may exhibit different physical properties sauvage . Knots are also present in biological molecules: For example, some proteins exhibit knotted configurations creighton , and the active modification of DNA knots through energy-consuming enzymes (topoisomerases) poses interesting challenges to the issue of the knot detection alberts ; knotdetect . Experimentally, the observation of individual molecules by single molecule force spectroscopy has come of age force ; opt ; these methods can be used to probe the mechanical behaviour of knotted biopolymers directly.

Given a knot in a closed ring, an obvious question is whether, on average, the knot segregates into a small region in which all topological details are confined, and a large, simply connected segment; or whether it is loosely spread over the entire chain. In the dilute phase, it has been found by numerical evidence that flattened (hence two-dimensional 2D ) knots are localised, i.e. tight knots2d . In a previous study slili2d , we developed an analytical approach, based on scaling results for polymer networks duplantier ; networks , which explains and quantifies the tightness of any prime knot in flat (2D) dilute polymer loops. Some aspects of our results have been verified experimentally by means of a vibrated granular chain HDBE02 . It should be mentioned that DNA chains have experimentally been flattened by adsorption on an adhesive membrane raedler . In 3D, the global topological constraints of a knot are hard to implement by analytical methods GK94 . (A simpler topological invariant, the linking number of closed DNA rings, can be incorporated in the mapping to a field theory degennes  by means of suitable gauge fields MK97 .) Consequently, the tightness or localisation of 3D knots has not been conclusively characterised. A number of phenomenological models and numerical studies support the localisation of simple knots knots3d . Tightness has also been found in 3D slip-linked polymer chains in the dilute phase paraknot . Conversely, delocalisation has been predicted for more complicated knots feigel .

In many situations, however, polymer chains are not dilute. Polymer melts, gels, or rubbers exhibit fairly high densities of chains, and the behaviour of an individual chain in such systems is significantly different compared to the dilute phase degennes ; DE86 . Similar considerations apply to biomolecules: In bacteria, the gyration radius of the almost freely floating ring DNA is often larger than the cell radius itself. Moreover, under certain conditions, there is a non-negligible osmotic pressure due to vicinal layers of protein molecules, which tends to confine the DNA walter . In protein folding studies, globular proteins in their native state are often modelled as compact polymers on a lattice (see Garel03  for a recent review).

Given this motivation, in this work we consider self-avoiding dense polymers with permanent entanglements, complementing our previous studies for the dilute phase slili2d ; paraknot . A polymer is considered dense if, on a lattice, the fraction $`f`$ of occupied sites has a finite value $`f>0`$. This can be realised by a single polymer of total length $`L`$ inside a box of volume $`V`$ and taking the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, $`V\mathrm{}`$ in such a way that $`f=L/V`$ stays finite Dup86\_a ; DS\_a . Alternatively, dense polymers can be obtained in an infinite volume through the action of an attractive force between monomers. Then, for temperatures $`T`$ below the transition (Theta) temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, the polymers collapse to a dense phase, with a density $`f>0`$, which is a function of $`T`$ DS\_a ; OPB93 . For a dense polymer in $`d`$ dimensions, the exponent $`\nu `$, defined by the radius of gyration $`R_gL^\nu `$, is simply $`\nu =1/d`$. In 2D, the dense polymer phase for $`0<f<1`$ is related to a conformal field theory, and the resulting scaling behaviour is known exactly Dup86\_a ; DS\_a ; JRS03 . The limit $`f=1`$ is realised in Hamiltonian paths, where a random walk visits every site of a given lattice exactly once. For some cases, their scaling behaviour is known exactly as well DD ; kondev . Another way to make polymers collapse in 2D is to exert a pressure on self-avoiding loops (2D vesicles), conjugate to their area, which results in double-walled, branched structures F89 ; OS . Recently, the corresponding crossover scaling function from linear to branched polymers (lattice animals) has been obtained exactly Car01 . It is believed that the branched and dense polymer phases are different.

Here, we extend our previous scaling analysis of knots in dilute polymers slili2d  to the dense phase, and at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point. The general conclusion is that the entropic mechanism for tightening of entanglements is considerably weaker in the denser regimes. While the simple figure-eight structure is still tight in these phases, the trefoil becomes loose, with the trends more pronounced in the dense phase. Note that at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point in 2D, the swelling exponent is $`\nu =4/7`$, implying a fractal dimension $`1/\nu `$ smaller than $`d=2`$, and an asymptotic density of $`f=0`$. In a recent numerical study, Orlandini, Stella, and Vanderzande OSV2002  (hereafter referred to as OSV) investigate the tightness of the 2D projection of the trefoil knot, and find delocalisation, in contrast to the strong localisation obtained in the dilute case slili2d .

The main focus of this work is thus the localisation of flat entangled polymers in the dense phase and at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point by means of scaling arguments, in analogy to the dilute case slili2d . When possible, we compare these results with our own numerical simulations, as well as those by OSV. In section II we first review the differentiation between tight (localised) and loose (delocalised) segments in entangled polymers. In section III we then consider the 2D figure-eight structure (F8) and compare our scaling results with Monte Carlo simulations. In section IV we derive the scaling results for the 2D projection of the trefoil, and compare them with the simulations by OSV. Section V contains our conclusions. In appendix A we compile some scaling results for general polymer networks. Finally, at the end of appendix A, we consider briefly a newly discovered phase of 2D dense polymers where the strict non-crossing condition is relaxed JRS03 .

## II Tight and loose segments

Consider an entangled polymer chain in 2D of length $`L`$, such as a simple flat, once-twisted ring with one crossing (called “figure-eight” (F8), see position III in figure 1 top row) or the 2D projection of the trefoil pressed flat against a surface by an external force (figure 1) 2D . The orientations of the crossings are irrelevant, and can thus be considered as vertices with 4 outgoing legs. Thus, each structure is mapped on a 2D polymer network with a number of vertices which are joined by $`𝒩`$ segments of variable lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ under the constraint $`_{i=1}^𝒩s_i=L`$. In the following we shall use the convention $`s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_𝒩`$.

Since we are interested in the tightness of such a network, we define the size of the entangled region as $`\mathrm{}=_{i=1}^{𝒩1}s_i`$ so that the remaining (largest) segment is $`s_𝒩=L\mathrm{}`$. Clearly, for the F8, $`𝒩=2`$ and $`\mathrm{}=s_1`$, while for the trefoil $`𝒩=6`$ and $`\mathrm{}=_{i=1}^5s_i`$. Note that the above definition does not necessarily imply that $`\mathrm{}`$ is small; however, if $`\mathrm{}L`$, the structure assumes the form of a possibly multiply connected knot region of size $`\mathrm{}`$ and a large simple loop of size $`L\mathrm{}`$. For a knot represented by the network $`𝒢`$, an important quantity is its number of configurations $`\omega _𝒢(\mathrm{},L)`$ for fixed $`\mathrm{}`$. In general, in the tight limit $`\mathrm{}L`$, the configuration number scales as a power law

$$\omega _𝒢(\mathrm{},L)\mathrm{}^{c_𝒢}(\mathrm{}L),$$
(1)
where the exponent $`c_𝒢`$ depends on the topology of the network $`𝒢`$ 111In the remainder of this section, we drop the index $`𝒢`$ for ease of notation..

For given $`\omega (\mathrm{},L)`$, various quantities of interest can be calculated. For example, the mean size of the knot region is given by 222The upper integration limit can be chosen as any finite fraction of $`L`$ in principle; the choice of $`L/2`$ imposes no restriction on generality.

$$\mathrm{}=_a^{L/2}𝑑\mathrm{}\mathrm{}p(\mathrm{},L),$$
(2)
with the (normalised) probability density function (PDF)

$$p(\mathrm{},L)=\omega (\mathrm{},L)/_a^{L/2}𝑑\mathrm{}\omega (\mathrm{},L).$$
(3)
We have introduced a short-distance cutoff $`a`$, set by the lattice constant, to control the non-integrable singularity at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ which occurs in equation (2) for $`c>2`$, and in the denominator of equation (3) for $`c>1`$.

Thus, depending on the value of $`c`$, three cases can be distinguished:

(i) $`c<1`$: Both integrals are well-defined for $`a=0`$, and one immediately obtains $`\mathrm{}L`$ due to dimensional considerations. The knot region grows linearly with $`L`$ and is thus delocalised, i.e. spanning the whole polymer.

(ii) $`1<c<2`$: To leading order in $`a`$, one finds $`\mathrm{}a^{c1}L^{2c}`$. The size of the knot region scales with $`L`$, but with an exponent $`2c<1`$, and is thus weakly localised, i.e., $`\mathrm{}/L0`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$.

(iii) $`c>2`$: To leading order in $`a`$, one finds $`\mathrm{}a`$, i.e., the size of the knot region is independent of $`L`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$, and is thus strongly localised.

In a more complicated network, such as for the trefoil in figure 1, several segments can be simultaneously tight. We shall refer to the emerging structures as possible shapes (or contractions) of the original network. Each shape corresponds again to a network $`𝒢`$. The parameter $`c`$ not only determines the tightness of the knot region for given shape $`𝒢`$, but also controls the overall likelihood $`P_𝒢`$, of different possible shapes. The latter is obtained (up to normalisation) by integrating $`\omega _𝒢(\mathrm{},L)`$ over all possible values of $`\mathrm{}`$, as in the denominator of equation (3). Depending on the values of $`c`$, different cases can be distinguished:

(i) $`c<1`$: The integral is convergent for small $`\mathrm{}`$ with a finite limit for $`a0`$, and scales as $`(a/L)^{c1}`$. If there is a variety of shapes with $`c<1`$, the one with the lowest value $`c_m`$ is the most likely, $`P_𝒢`$ for the others scaling with a factor of $`(a/L)^{cc_m}`$. This is expected, since networks with $`c<1`$ are delocalised over the whole chain of length $`L`$.

(ii) $`c>1`$: The integral is divergent for small $`\mathrm{}`$, and is thus dominated by the lower cutoff. To make sure that the knot region is large enough to consider different vertices (crossings) as separated on a scale much larger than $`a`$, one should use a lower cutoff $`𝒜`$ of intermediate length $`a𝒜L`$ 333In a MC simulation, a larger $`𝒜`$ gives worse statistics since configurations with $`\mathrm{}>𝒜`$ become less frequent. In our case, we considered two vertices as separated if the segment between them was larger than 5 monomers. For the original trefoil this gives $`𝒜25`$ monomer lengths (5 monomers $`\times `$ 5 segments).. The relative probabilities for different shapes with $`c>1`$ now scale with a factor of $`(a/𝒜)^c`$. Different shapes with $`c>1`$ scale differently with the lower cutoff $`𝒜`$, but not differently with $`L`$. This reflects the fact that for $`c>1`$ the probability $`P_𝒢`$ is dominated by the small $`\mathrm{}`$ behaviour of $`\omega _𝒢(\mathrm{},L)`$.

In both cases $`P_𝒢`$ scales with a factor of $`a^c`$. This is the scaling order of such a shape $`𝒢`$, as the likelihood of possible shapes with distinct values of $`c`$ can be ordered according to powers of $`a^c`$ with more dominant networks for smaller values of $`c`$ slili2d .

## III The 2D figure-eight: Scaling analysis & Simulations

The most elementary entangled object in 2D is the F8, which consists of two loops of variable lengths $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`L\mathrm{}`$ (position III in figure 1 top row). The crossing point can be considered as a vertex with 4 outgoing legs, and the F8 corresponds to a network with $`𝒩=2`$ segments of lengths $`s_1=\mathrm{}`$ and $`s_2=L\mathrm{}`$ 2D . The number of configurations $`\omega _8(\mathrm{},L)`$ for the F8 can be deduced from results for general polymer networks, obtained by Duplantier and coworkers Dup86\_a ; DS\_a ; DD ; DS87 , which are compiled in appendix A. In 2D it has the scaling form

$$\omega _8(\mathrm{},L)\omega _0(L)(L\mathrm{})^{\gamma _8}𝒳\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{L\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(4)
As discussed in the previous section, the localisation of F8 is controlled by the limit of $`\omega _8(\mathrm{},L)`$ for $`\mathrm{}0`$, i.e., the behaviour of the scaling function $`𝒳(x)`$ for $`x=\mathrm{}/(L\mathrm{})0`$. The latter can be determined by the following argument (see text below equation (59) in reference DS\_a ): Clearly, for $`\mathrm{}L`$, the big loop of length $`L\mathrm{}`$ will behave like a simple ring, so that $`\omega _8(\mathrm{},L)`$ should reduce to $`\omega _0(L)`$. This implies $`𝒳(x)x^{\gamma _8}`$ as $`x0`$ and thus

$$\omega _8(\mathrm{},L)\omega _0(L)\mathrm{}^c(\mathrm{}L).$$
(5)
The value of the exponent $`c`$ for the 2D dense F8 (see appendix A) is

$$c=\gamma _8=11/8=1.375,$$
(6)
implying that the smaller loop is weakly localised. This means that the probability for the size of each loop is peaked at $`\mathrm{}=0`$ and, by symmetry, at $`\mathrm{}=L`$. An analogous reasoning for the 2D F8 at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point gives

$$c=11/7=1.571,$$
(7)
i.e., in this case the smaller loop is also weakly localised.

Figure 2 shows the symmetric initial and a typical equilibrium configuration for periodic boundary conditions obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, see below for details. In figure 2, the lines represent the bonds (tethers) between the monomers (beads, not shown here). The three black dots mark the locations of the tethered beads forming the slip-link in 2D, by which we model the crossing slili2d ; paraknot . The initial symmetric configuration soon gives way to a configuration with $`\mathrm{}L`$ on approaching equilibrium. Figure 3 shows the development of this symmetry breaking as a function of the number of MC steps. We note, however, that the fluctuations of the loop sizes in the “stationary” regime appear to be larger in comparison to the dilute case studied in reference paraknot . We checked that for densities (area coverage) above 40% the scaling behaviour becomes independent of the density. The above simulation results correspond to a density of 55%, which is roughly half of the maximal possible density of 90% (closed packed area coverage).

The size distribution data is well fitted to a power law (for over 1.5 decades with 1024 monomers), and the corresponding exponent with 512 and 1024 monomers in figure 4 is in good agreement with the predicted value.

For our MC analysis, we used a hard core bead-and-tether chain, in which self-crossings were prevented by keeping a maximum bead-to-bead distance of 1.9 times the bead diameter, and a maximum step length of 0.27 times the bead diameter (cf. also 2D ). The slip-link was represented by three tethered beads enforcing the sliding pair contact such that the loops cannot fully retract, see figure 2. To create the dense F8 initial condition, a free F8 is squeezed into a quadratic box with hard walls. This is achieved by starting off from the free F8, surrounding it by a box, and turning on a force directed towards one of the edges. Then, the opposite edge is moved towards the centre of the box, and so on. During these steps, the slip-link is locked, i.e., the chain cannot slide through it, and the two loops are of equal length during the entire preparation. Finally, when the envisaged density is reached, the hard walls are replaced by periodic boundary conditions, and the slip-link is unlocked. For all densities studied we observe that one of the loops becomes much smaller than the other one. We consider the chain as relaxed when the structure has changed from symmetric ($`s_1=s_2=N/2`$) to asymmetric ($`s_11`$, $`s_2N`$), then to symmetric and back again to asymmetric. After this we start to sample the probability distribution for the loop lengths. The probability distribution with chain length $`N=1024`$ and density $`\rho =55\%`$ required about $`3\times 10^9`$ Monte Carlo steps ($`3\times 10^{12}`$ attempted moves). We note that an explicit simulation to obtain the PDF $`p(\mathrm{})`$ for more complicated structures than the F8 was not possible within reasonable computation time with the MC algorithm we used.

## IV The 2D trefoil: Scaling analysis & Simulations

We now turn to the 2D projection of the trefoil (denoted “3”, cf. left part and position I in figure 1 top row). Each of the three crossings is replaced with a vertex of order four, resulting in a network with $`𝒩=6`$ segments of lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ and total length $`L=_{i=1}^6s_i`$ 2D . The size of the knot region is $`\mathrm{}=_{i=1}^5s_i`$ and $`s_6=L\mathrm{}`$. According to section II, we need to know the behaviour of the configuration number $`\omega _3(\mathrm{},L)`$ for $`\mathrm{}L`$ in order to decide how $`\mathrm{}`$ scales with $`L`$. For fixed segment lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ with $`\mathrm{}L`$, the configuration number of the network can be derived by using equation (13) in appendix A and an analogous reasoning invoked to obtain equation (5), resulting in

$$\omega _3^{}\omega _0(L)\mathrm{}^{\gamma _3}𝒲(\frac{s_1}{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{},\frac{s_4}{\mathrm{}}),\mathrm{}L.$$
(8)
The prime on $`\omega _3^{}`$ indicates that the segment lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ are fixed. However, since in our case the individual segments of the knot region may exchange length with each other and only the total length $`\mathrm{}`$ of the knot region is fixed, we integrate $`\omega _3^{}`$ over all distributions of lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ under the constraint $`\mathrm{}=_{i=1}^5s_i`$ slili2d . This yields the desired number of configurations of the 2D trefoil with fixed $`\mathrm{}L`$ as

$$\omega _3(\mathrm{},L)\omega _0(L)\mathrm{}^c$$
(9)
with $`c=\gamma _3m`$, where $`\gamma _3=33/8`$ from equation (12) in appendix A ($`=4`$, $`n_4=3`$) and $`m=4`$ is the number of independent integrations over chain segments. Thus, $`c=1/8<1`$ which implies that the dense 2D trefoil is delocalised.

The above analysis corresponds to the case for which all segments $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ are large compared with the short-distance cutoff $`a`$. Conversely, if some of the segments $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ are of the order of $`a`$, the vertices they join can no longer be resolved on macroscopic length scales, but constitute a new, single vertex, possibly with more than four outgoing legs. The corresponding contractions of the original 2D trefoil thus represent different networks, each one with its own topological exponent $`\gamma `$ and localisation exponent $`c=\gamma m`$ (where $`m`$ is the number of independent integrations, see above). These contractions correspond to different shapes, which can be ordered according to their scaling order in $`a`$, i.e., according to increasing powers of $`c`$ (cf. section II).

For dilute polymers, we have shown in this way that the leading scaling order is the F8 with $`c=43/16`$, and that the original (uncontracted) trefoil shape is only found at the third position slili2d . For dense polymers, however, the present scaling results show that both the original trefoil shape ($`c=1/8<1`$, see above) and position II ($`c=3/4<1`$) are in fact delocalised (top row in figure 1). The F8 is only found at the third position and is weakly localised ($`c=11/8>1`$, cf. section III). Thus, in a MC simulation of the dense 2D trefoil, we predict that one mainly observes delocalised shapes corresponding to the original trefoil, and less frequently the other shapes of the hierarchy (top row) in figure 1.

These predictions are consistent with the numerical simulations of Orlandini et al. OSV2002  (OSV), who observe that the mean value of the second largest segment of the simulated 2D dense trefoil configurations grows linearly with $`L`$, and conjecture the same behaviour also for the other segments, corresponding to the delocalisation of the trefoil obtained above. However, we note that the configuration shown in figure 1 of OSV corresponds in our modelling to the shape at position II in figure 1, where we consider the two crossings to the right in figure 1 of OSV as one “molten” vertex.

The same reasoning can be applied to the 2D trefoil in the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ phase. In this case we find that the leading shape is again the original (uncontracted) trefoil, with $`c=5/7<1`$. This implies that the 2D trefoil is delocalised also at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point. All other shapes are at least weakly localised, and subdominant to the leading scaling order represented by the original trefoil. The resulting hierarchy of shapes is shown in figure 1 (middle row).

This finding is at variance with the simulation results of OSV at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point, who observe a behaviour of the simulated trefoil configurations similar to the F8, which is weakly localised with $`c=11/7>1`$, and is found only at the third position in the hierarchy of figure 1.

## V Conclusions

We presented a scaling analysis for the 2D figure-eight structure (F8) and the 2D projection of the trefoil knot at equilibrium, both in the dense phase and at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point 2D . Figure 1 shows the hierarchy of contractions of the original trefoil, arranged according to scaling order. The F8 structure represents the leading order of the hierarchy in the dilute phase slili2d , but does not play a special role in the other states. Thus we conclude that the 2D trefoil is delocalised both in the dense phase and at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point, in contrast to its localisation in the dilute case slili2d . The delocalisation of the flat trefoil in the dense phase has been observed in the simulations by Orlandini et al. OSV2002  (OSV). However, their observation of behaviour corresponding to a weakly localised F8 at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ transition contradicts our results.

If the chain’s topology is that of a F8, then one of the loops is predicted to be tight in all cases, although the localisation exponent depends on the polymer phase. We explicitly verified the localisation exponent of $`c=11/8`$ by a MC study of a F8 in the dense phase. (We employed periodic boundary conditions for this simulations to avoid any potential problems associated with surface effects.)

In 2D, the scaling analysis can be readily extended to general prime knots. Indeed, the minimal 2D projection of any prime knot can be mapped on a network $`𝒢`$, for which one can calculate the corresponding exponent $`c`$ in a similar way as before. Using the Euler relations $`2𝒩=_{N1}Nn_N`$ and $`=_{N1}\frac{1}{2}(N2)n_N+1`$, we find

$$c_𝒢=2+\underset{N4}{}n_N\left[\frac{N}{2}(d\nu 1)+(|\sigma _N|d\nu )\right].$$
(10)
Both for dense polymers and polymers at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point in 2D one has $`d\nu 1`$ and $`|\sigma _N|`$ increases with $`N`$, so that the term in the square brackets in the above expression increases with $`N`$ as well. For a fixed number $`𝒱=_{N4}n_N`$ of vertices this implies that $`c_𝒢`$ is minimal if only vertices with four outgoing legs are present. Using this and the fact that for $`N=4`$ the term in the square brackets is negative 444Conversely, for dilute polymers this bracket is positive. This is the reason why the order of the first 3 contractions in each row of figure 1 (which have only vertices with four outgoing legs) for dilute polymers is reverse compared to dense and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ polymers., we conclude that $`c_𝒢`$ is minimal if the number of such 4-vertices is maximal. This implies that the leading scaling order of the 2D projection of any prime knot is the original (uncontracted) configuration, for which the above vertices represent the crossings, and this configuration will be delocalised (since the 2D trefoil configuration is already delocalised).

We thank J. Cardy and U. Seifert for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (DMR-01-18213) and the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) grant No. 1999-007. RM acknowledges partial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

## Appendix A Scaling in general polymer networks

In this appendix we review the scaling results for polymer networks in the dense phase in 2D Dup86\_a ; DS\_a ; OPB93 ; DD  and at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ transition DS87 .

A general polymer network $`𝒢`$, like the one depicted in Fig. 5, consists of a number of vertices which are joined by $`𝒩`$ chain segments of total length $`L`$. First, consider the dense phase in 2D. If all segments have equal length $`s`$ and $`L=𝒩s`$, the configuration number $`\omega _𝒢`$ of such a network scales as Dup86\_a ; DS\_a  555Note that due to the factor $`\omega _0(L)`$ the exponent of $`s`$ is $`\gamma _𝒢`$, and not $`\gamma _𝒢1`$ like in the expressions used in the dilute and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ phases, for which $`\omega _0(L)L^{d\nu }`$. However, for 2D dense polymers one has $`d\nu =1`$, so that both definitions of $`\gamma _𝒢`$ are equivalent, cf. section 3 in reference DS\_a .

$$\omega _𝒢(s)\omega _0(L)s^{\gamma _𝒢},$$
(11)
where $`\omega _0(L)`$ is the configuration number of a simple ring of length $`L`$. For dense polymers, and in contrast to the dilute and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ phases, $`\omega _0(L)`$ (and thus $`\omega _𝒢`$) depends on the boundary conditions and even on the shape of the system DS\_a ; OPB93 . For example, for periodic boundary conditions (which we focus on in this study) corresponding to a 2D torus, one finds $`\omega _0(L)\mu ^LL^{\mathrm{\Psi }1}`$ with a connectivity constant $`\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=1`$ DS\_a . However, the network exponent

$$\gamma _𝒢=1+\underset{N1}{}n_N\sigma _N$$
(12)
is universal and depends only on the topology of the network by the number $``$ of independent loops, and by the number $`n_N`$ of vertices of order $`N`$ with vertex exponents $`\sigma _N=(4N^2)/32`$ Dup86\_a ; DS\_a . For a linear chain, the corresponding exponent $`\gamma _{\mathrm{lin}}=19/16`$ has been verified by numerical simulations DS\_a ; GH95 . For a network made up of different segment lengths $`\left\{s_i\right\}`$ of total length $`L=_{i=1}^𝒩s_i`$, equation (11) generalises to (cf. section 4 in reference DS\_a )

$$\omega _𝒢(s_1,\mathrm{},s_𝒩)\omega _0(L)s_𝒩^{\gamma _𝒢}𝒴_𝒢(\frac{s_1}{s_𝒩},\mathrm{},\frac{s_{𝒩1}}{s_𝒩}),$$
(13)
which involves the scaling function $`𝒴_𝒢`$.

For polymers in an infinite volume and endowed with an attractive interaction between neighbouring monomers, a different scaling behaviour emerges if the system is not below but right at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point DS87 . In this case the number of configurations of a general network $`𝒢`$ is given by

$$\overline{\omega }_𝒢(s_1,\mathrm{},s_𝒩)\mu ^Ls_𝒩^{\overline{\gamma }_𝒢1}\overline{𝒴}_𝒢(\frac{s_1}{s_𝒩},\mathrm{},\frac{s_{𝒩1}}{s_𝒩}),$$
(14)
with the network exponent

$$\overline{\gamma }_𝒢=1d\nu +\underset{N1}{}n_N\overline{\sigma }_N.$$
(15)
Overlined symbols refer to polymers at the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ point. In $`d=2`$, $`\nu =4/7`$ and $`\overline{\sigma }_N=(2N)(2N+1)/42`$ DS87 .

Finally, we note that equation (12) with $`\sigma _N=(4N^2)/32`$ holds for a 2D dense polymer network which never intersects (apart from the vertices). However, it has been shown recently that a different, so–called ‘Goldstone phase’ emerges if the strict non-crossing condition is relaxed; i.e., if crossings are allowed albeit, disfavoured JRS03 . It is argued in reference JRS03  that in this case the scaling dimensions $`X_k`$ of the so-called $`k`$-leg operators all vanish. This implies $`\sigma _N=0`$ in equation (12) (see equation (13) in Dup86\_a  and the Euler relations near equation (10) above), i.e., the asymptotic behavior is similar to a network of chains without self-avoiding constraints (ideal polymers). The localisation exponent $`c`$ is then simply given by $`c=\gamma _𝒢m=m1`$, resulting in $`c`$ values of -1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1 for the 7 contractions shown in figure 1, top row from left to right. As argued before, all contractions with $`c<1`$ are delocalised; in particular the original (uncontracted) trefoil shape, is the dominant form with the smallest $`c`$. Our finding for the 2D dense phase in section IV is thus also applicable in the Goldstone phase. However, in a MC simulation of the Goldstone phase it will be hard to identify the knot, as additional crossings are allowed and will occur.


format: text

text:
# Electromagnetic waves around dilatonic stars and naked singularities

## I Introduction

The occurrence of violations of the Equivalence Principle is a subject of continuing investigation in the community of general relativists, both theoretically and experimentally 111A complete list of references for this issue would go beyond our scope and necessity, and we just refer the reader to will  and References therein.. A possible source for such effects would be the existence of a scalar component of gravity, which naturally emerges in string theories and is usually referred to as the dilaton. Solar system tests rule out such a possibility to a very high precision in the weak field regime will . However, it cannot be excluded that the picture is different in regions of strong gravitational fields, such as those that can be found around very dense compact sources. It is therefore interesting to study solutions of the Einstein field equations with a scalar field.

In this paper, we study the propagation of electro-magnetic (EM) waves on the background of the Janis-Newman-Winicour (JNW) solution jnw . The corresponding metric is spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat, but the static dilaton field is not trivial. Although the JNW space-time is known to contain a naked singularity, it is possible to make it physically useful by suitably cutting the space outside the singular point and then sewing a (spherically symmetric) regular inner patch to complete the space-time manifold. Provided this procedure is carried out consistently, one can then describe compact astrophysical sources such as stars with a dilaton field. In this context, the JNW metric has recently attracted some interest in relation to (strong) gravitational lensing effects bozza .

When the source of EM radiation is placed at the center and is also spherically symmetric, a convenient way of deriving the relevant wave equations is to make use of the Newman-Penrose (NP) formalism chandra . The exact equations thus obtained would however be exceedingly complicated in the full-fledged JNW metric. Therefore, in order to make some progress, we shall introduce a parameter which is related to the asymptotic strength of the dilaton field and can be smoothly perturbed away from the Schwarzschild limit. One then finds that the corresponding wave equations can be solved analytically when the dilaton is sufficiently weak far away from the source and expressions for the ingoing and outgoing modes will be obtained in this approximation. As a straightforward application of this analysis, we shall consider the relative darkening of radiation emitted by a star placed at the center of the system with respect to the vacuum Schwarzschild case. The main result is that such an effect turns out to be inversely proportional to the star radius and to depend on the emitted energy (but not on the wave frequency, contrary to what was found for a rotating black hole knd0  in Ref. knd2 ).

A more complicated problem is to obtain the spectrum of the radiation emitted by a freely falling, electrically charged, point-like source in the JNW background. The wave equations now contain the energy-momentum density of the falling particle and must be solved numerically for various values of the perturbing parameter in order to compare the emitted power to the analogous case in Schwarzschild. A preliminary analytical analysis will show that some effect is already expected at large distance from the center, however most radiation would be emitted near the singularity where tidal forces on the EM field of the falling particle become stronger. Since naked singularities seem to be possible intermediate stages in the gravitational collapse of regular matter (see, e.g. NSreview  and References therein), one can view the falling source as a component of the forming collapsed object. Our results may then contribute to the understanding of the (in)stability of naked singularities. The intensity of the radiation shows an interference-like effect which would provide observers with a distinctive signature for the presence of a dilatonic component in strong gravitational fields.

In the following Section, we shall review the JNW solution and express it in terms of the parameter which allows the Schwarzschild limit to be approached in a smooth manner. This property will be used later to define a quasi-Schwarzschild regime, particularly suited for analyzing (asymptotically) small deviations away from Schwarzschild. We then show in Section III how to study electromagnetic waves on such a background using the NP formalism chandra . In Section IV we solve the Maxwell equations using Green function techniques. We finally summarize and comment our results in Section V.

We use units with $`G=c=1`$ and follow the conventions of Ref. chandra .

## II JNW solution and Schwarzschild limit

The JNW metric is a static, spherically symmetric and electrically neutral solution of the field equations obtained by varying the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2\right]}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}e^{q\mathrm{\Phi }}F^2},`$
in which $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, whose determinant is denoted by $`g`$, $`F`$ is the EM field strength and note that the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is included inside the gravitational Lagrangian. Further, the coupling constant $`q>0`$ between the EM field and the dilaton has also been exponentiated.

For the purpose of studying linear perturbations in the NP formalism chandra , it is convenient to write the JNW metric jnw  as

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\rho ^2}}dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}dr^2\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$ (2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$,

$`\begin{array}{c}\rho ^2=\left(rr_{}\right)^{1a}\left(rr_+\right)^{1+a}\hfill \\ \\ \mathrm{\Delta }=\left(rr_{}\right)\left(rr_+\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
and the dilaton field is then

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{1a^2}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_{}}{rr_+}}\right).`$ (7)
Note that, with respect to the original Ref. jnw , $`a=1/\mu `$ and we have introduced new parameters

$`\begin{array}{c}r_{}=+{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1a}{a}}\hfill \\ \\ r_+={\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+a}{a}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
Although the JNW metric contains only two independent parameters jnw , the Schwarzschild limit is more conveniently obtained by treating $`a`$, $`r_{}`$ and $`r_+`$ as independent (we just assume $`r_{}<r_+`$) and separately taking the limits

$`r_{}0\mathrm{and}a1.`$ (12)
The Schwarzschild horizon is then given by $`r_h2M=r_+`$ 222One can equivalently assume $`r_+<r_{}`$ and then take $`r_+0`$ and $`a+1`$, in which case $`r_h=r_{}`$. Note that such limits could not be taken in the original parameters $`r_0`$ and $`\mu =1/a`$ of Ref. jnw , since $`r_0=(r_++r_{})>0`$ and $`0<a=(r_++r_{})/(r_+r_{})<1`$ are not compatible with Eq. (12), or the alternate limits in this footnote. .

The relevant dilatonic quantity is the spatial derivative

$`_r\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1a^2}(r_{}r_+)}{(rr_{})(rr_+)}},`$ (13)
which determines the energy-momentum tensor

$`T_{\mu \nu }=\delta _\mu ^r\delta _\nu ^r\left(_r\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }g^{rr}\left(_r\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^2.`$ (14)
In particular, the non-vanishing components diverge at $`r=r_+`$,

$`T_t^tT_r^rT_\theta ^\theta T_\varphi ^\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1a^2}{(rr_+)^{2+a}}}.`$ (15)
and $`r_+`$ is therefore a naked real singularity. Further, since $`\rho (r_+)=0`$, such a singularity is point-like and values of $`r<r_+`$ can be considered as unphysical 333The components of the energy-momentum tensor in Eq. (14) also diverge at $`r=r_{}`$. However, since we have assumed $`r_{}<r_+`$, there is no physical point identified by $`r=r_{}`$ in the space-time of interest to us (i.e., $`r>r_+`$).. Let us finally note that the energy-momentum tensor properly vanishes in the limit $`a\pm 1`$ (corresponding to the Schwarzschild vacuum).

The convenient feature of the limit in Eq. (12) is that it is smooth in $`r_{}`$ and $`a`$. This allows us to introduce a quasi-Schwarzschild regime \[corresponding to a “small” deviation away from the limit (12)\] for the region outside the “horizon” ($`0<r_h<r`$). It is defined by

$`r_{}=0\mathrm{and}a=1+2x^2,`$ (16)
with $`0x1`$. In particular, for small $`x`$, one finds that the metric (2) reduces to Schwarzschild plus corrections of order $`x^2`$,

$`ds^2`$ $``$ $`\left[1(12x^2){\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}x^2{\displaystyle \frac{r_h^2}{r^2}}\right]dt^2`$ (17)
$`+\left[1+(12x^2){\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right]dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,`$
where $`r_hr_+`$. The ADM mass for the above metric is given by the usual Schwarzschild relation

$`M={\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{2}},`$ (18)
and the relevant PPN parameters will  by 444For a general post-Newtonian analysis of the JNW metric, see Ref. finelli .

$`\begin{array}{c}\alpha =\gamma =12x^2\hfill \\ \\ \beta =16x^2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
In the same approximation, the derivative of the dilaton becomes

$`_r\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{2x}{rr_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}2x{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r^2}},`$ (23)
from which one can see that $`x`$ is a measure of the dilaton strength for large $`r`$ (note that $`_r\mathrm{\Phi }`$ diverges for $`rr_h`$ for all values of $`x>0`$).

The Eqs. (22) yield a quantitative way of estimating how small the deviations from the Schwarzschild solution are in the weak field zone ($`rr_h`$). From solar test measurements one can therefore read off the bound $`x^210^5`$ will , which can then be substituted into Eq. (23) to obtain the upper limit of the admissible dilaton strength. Since no direct measurement in the strong field regime is available, the strength of the dilaton field cannot be bounded for $`rr_h`$.

## III Dilatonic stars

As we mentioned in the Introduction, the first case we consider is that of a spherically symmetric source for the EM waves placed at the center, so that it can also be identified with the source of the JNW gravitational and dilaton fields. In order to study Maxwell’s equations in this context, we shall take advantage of the spherical symmetry by employing the NP formalism chandra .

### III.1 Maxwell waves in NP formalism

We first choose the following contravariant components of the NP tetrad,

$`l^i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }},& 1,& 0,& 0\end{array}\right]`$ (25)
$`n^i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{1}{2},& \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\rho ^2},& 0,& 0\end{array}\right]`$ (27)
$`m^i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0,& 0,& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\rho ^2}},& \frac{i\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )}{\sqrt{2\rho ^2}}\end{array}\right].`$ (29)
The Maxwell field is now completely described by the three complex scalars

$`\varphi _0`$ $``$ $`F_{ij}l^im^j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^3}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[E^\theta +B^\phi +i\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\left(E^\phi B^\theta \right)\right]`$
$`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{ij}\left(l^in^j+m^im^j\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^4E^r}{2\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4\rho ^4}}\right)`$
$`\varphi _2`$ $``$ $`F_{ij}m^in^j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2\sqrt{2}}}\left[E^\theta B^\phi +i\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\left(E^\phi +B^\theta \right)\right],`$
where $`E^i`$ and $`B^i`$ are the usual electric and magnetic components. The $`\varphi _i`$ must satisfy the equations knd

$`(\widehat{D}2\stackrel{~}{\rho })\varphi _1(\widehat{\delta }^{}+\stackrel{~}{\pi }2\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\varphi _0+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\varphi _2=J_1`$ (31a)
$`(\widehat{\delta }2\stackrel{~}{\tau })\varphi _1(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\stackrel{~}{\mu }2\stackrel{~}{\gamma })\varphi _0+\stackrel{~}{\sigma }\varphi _2=J_3`$ (31b)
$`(\widehat{D}\stackrel{~}{\rho }+2\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\varphi _2(\widehat{\delta }^{}+2\stackrel{~}{\pi })\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\varphi _0=J_4`$ (31c)
$`(\widehat{\delta }\stackrel{~}{\tau }+2\stackrel{~}{\beta })\varphi _2(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}+2\stackrel{~}{\mu })\varphi _1+\stackrel{~}{\nu }\varphi _0=J_2,`$ (31d)
with the dilatonic currents

$`J_1={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{})\widehat{D}\varphi _0\widehat{\delta }^{}\varphi _0^{}\widehat{\delta }\right]\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (32a)
$`J_2={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi _2\widehat{\delta }\varphi _2^{}\widehat{\delta }^{}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (32b)
$`J_3={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[(\varphi _1\varphi _1^{})\widehat{\delta }\varphi _0\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}+\varphi _2^{}\widehat{D}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (32c)
$`J_4={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[(\varphi _1\varphi _1^{})\widehat{\delta }^{}+\varphi _0^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi _2\widehat{D}\right]\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (32d)
In the above, tilded quantities are spin coefficients, and hatted quantities represent differential operators. In particular, the non-vanishing spin coefficients for the JNW metric (2) and tetrad (27) are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r+r_+(a1)r_{}(a+1)}{2(rr_{})(rr_+)}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r+r_+(a1)r_{}(a+1)}{4(rr_{})^{1a}(rr_+)^{1+a}}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cotan}(\theta )}{4(rr_{})^{\frac{1a}{2}}(rr_+)^{\frac{1+a}{2}}}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a(r_{}r_+)}{4(rr_{})^{1a}(rr_+)^{1+a}}}.`$
Further, the time dependence of the EM waves is taken to be $`\varphi _i\mathrm{exp}\left(+i\omega t\right)`$, so that the differential operators appearing in the Maxwell equations become

$`\begin{array}{c}\widehat{D}=_r+i{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\omega \hfill \\ \\ \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\rho ^2}}\left(_ri{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\omega \right)\hfill \\ \\ \widehat{\delta }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\rho ^2}}}\left[_\theta m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\right]\hfill \\ \\ \widehat{\delta }^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\rho ^2}}}\left[_\theta +m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\right].\hfill \end{array}`$ (41)
Upon substituting the above expressions into Eqs. (31a)-(31d), one obtains the following four equations 555Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ does not depend on the angular variables, so that $`\widehat{\delta }\mathrm{\Phi }=\widehat{\delta }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$.

$`\left[_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2r+r_+(a1)r_{}(a+1)}{(rr_{})(rr_+)}}+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a\omega \right]\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta +\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\left[m+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right]}{\sqrt{2}(rr_{})^{\frac{1a}{2}}(rr_+)^{\frac{1+a}{2}}}}\varphi _0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\right)_r\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (42a)
$`\left[_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2rr_+(a+1)+r_{}(a1)}{2(rr_{})(rr_+)}}i\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a\omega \right]\varphi _0+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )}{(rr_{})^{\frac{1+a}{2}}(rr_+)^{\frac{1a}{2}}}}\varphi _1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[\varphi _0+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a\varphi _2^{}\right]_r\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (42b)
$`\left[_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2r+r_+(a1)r_{}(a+1)}{2(rr_{})(rr_+)}}+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a\omega \right]\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta +m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )}{\sqrt{2}(rr_{})^{\frac{1a}{2}}(rr_+)^{\frac{1+a}{2}}}}\varphi _1`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0^{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a+\varphi _2\right]_r\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (42c)
$`\left[_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2r+r_+(a1)r_{}(a+1)}{(rr_{})(rr_+)}}i\left({\displaystyle \frac{rr_+}{rr_{}}}\right)^a\omega \right]\varphi _1+\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta \mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\left[m\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right]}{(rr_{})^{\frac{1+a}{2}}(rr_+)^{\frac{1a}{2}}}}\varphi _2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\right)_r\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (42d)
which we now proceed to study in a suitable limit.

### III.2 Quasi-Schwarzschild solutions

We are interested in deviations from Schwarzschild induced by a background dilaton (7) which is experimentally unobservable in the weak field regime. We will therefore look for solutions to Eqs. (42a)-(42d) in the quasi-Schwarzschild regime defined by Eq. (16), bearing in mind that the parameter $`x`$ is constrained by solar system tests via Eqs. (22) as we mentioned previously.

Upon expanding in $`x`$, Eq. (42a) becomes

$`\left[_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x^2r_h}{rr_h}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\left(1+2x^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{rr_h}{r}}\right)\right]\varphi _1\left(1x^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{rr_h}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{_\theta +\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\left[m+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right]}{\sqrt{2}r}}\varphi _0`$
$`qx{\displaystyle \frac{r_h\sqrt{1x^2}}{r(rr_h)}}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\right),`$ (43)
and analogous expressions are obtained for Eqs. (42b)-(42d). Note that the currents on the right hand sides contain terms proportional to $`x`$ which are not on the left hand sides. One can then discard all terms of order $`x^2`$ (and higher) and finally obtains

$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta +\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\left[m+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right]}{\sqrt{2}r}}\varphi _0=qx{\displaystyle \frac{r_h\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\right)}{r(rr_h)}}`$ (44a)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)\varphi _0+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{_\theta m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )}{rr_h}}\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{qxr_h}{rr_h}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\varphi _2^{}}{rr_h}}\right)`$ (44b)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{_\theta +m\mathrm{cosec}(\theta )}{\sqrt{2}r}}\varphi _1=qx{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _0^{}}{2r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2}{rr_h}}\right)`$ (44c)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)\varphi _1+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{_\theta \mathrm{cosec}(\theta )\left[m\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\right]}{rr_h}}\varphi _2=qx{\displaystyle \frac{r_h\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _1^{}\right)}{r(rr_h)}},`$ (44d)
where the left hand sides equated to zero are just the wave equations for the EM waves in Schwarzschild.

It is now possible to expand the $`\varphi _i`$’s in powers of $`x`$,

$`\varphi _i=\varphi _i^{(0)}+x\varphi _i^{(1)},`$ (45)
where the $`\varphi _i^{(0)}`$’s solve the above Eqs. (44a)-(44d) with vanishing right hand sides. Hence the $`\varphi _i^{(1)}`$’s must solve Eqs. (44a)-(44d) with $`x=1`$.

In the phantom gauge ($`\varphi _0=\varphi _2=0`$ chandra ), $`\varphi _1^{(1)}`$ should simultaneously satisfy the four equations

$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)\varphi _1^{(1)}=q{\displaystyle \frac{r_h\left(\varphi _1^{(1)}+\varphi _1^{(1)}\right)}{r(rr_h)}}`$ (46a)
$`\left[_\theta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}}\right]\varphi _1^{(1)}=0.`$ (46b)
Eqs. (46b) imply that $`\varphi _1^{(1)}=\varphi _1^{(1)}(r)`$. Further, Eqs. (46a) can be written as
$`\begin{array}{c}\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\right)\varphi _1^{(1)}=0\hfill \\ \\ i\omega \varphi _1^{(1)}=2q{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\mathrm{Re}\left(\varphi _1^{(1)}\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (46f)
and the second condition leads to $`\varphi _1^{(1)}=0`$. Since the phantom gauge usually holds for the background solution, this is in agreement with the fact that there is no background EM field in the JNW solution.

For EM waves it is possible to set $`\varphi _1^{(1)}=0`$ 666From Eq. (30), one finds that $`\varphi _1=0`$ implies $`E^r=0`$ and there is no radial oscillation in the EM field (as is expected for spherically symmetric waves). and define

$`\begin{array}{c}W_0\varphi _0^{(1)}\hfill \\ \\ W_22\varphi _2^{(1)},\hfill \end{array}`$ (50)
which must then solve the equations 777Eq. (51c) follows from the complex conjugate of Eq. (44c).

$`\left[_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{m+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}}\right]W_0=0`$ (51a)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)W_0={\displaystyle \frac{qr_h}{rr_h}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_2}{rr_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_0}{r}}\right)`$ (51b)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega r}{rr_h}}\right)W_2={\displaystyle \frac{qr_h}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{W_2}{rr_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_0}{r}}\right)`$ (51c)
$`\left[_\theta {\displaystyle \frac{m\mathrm{cos}(\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta )}}\right]W_2^{}=0.`$ (51d)
Note that the angular parts of $`W_0S_0(\theta ,\phi )R_0(r)`$ and $`W_2S_2(\theta ,\phi )R_2(r)`$ satisfy the independent Eqs. (51a) and (51d). They are thus spherical harmonics with $`S_0=S_2=Y_l^m(\theta ,\phi )`$, the same as for $`q=0`$. Consequently, the remaining Eqs. (51b) and (51c) become purely radial equations for the $`R_i(r)`$’s,

$`\begin{array}{c}R_0(r)=e^{i\sigma (r)}X(r)\hfill \\ \\ R_2(r)=e^{i\sigma (r)}Y(r).\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
The real phase $`\sigma `$ is the same for both fields and satisfies the purely Schwarzschild equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{\omega r\sigma }{rr_h}}.`$ (56)
Hence, $`\varphi _0R_0`$ represents the ingoing modes while $`\varphi _2R_2^{}`$ stands for the outgoing modes. The presence of terms (proportional to $`q`$) which mix ingoing with outgoing modes immediately implies that outgoing radiation emitted by the central source would partly back-scatter into ingoing waves. Thus the expected dilaton effect is to make the source less bright (see the next Subsection for more quantitative estimates).

The general solutions to the homogeneous equations are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0^{(0)}=A{\displaystyle \frac{e^{+i\sigma (r)}}{rr_h}}Y_l^m(\theta ,\phi )\hfill \\ \\ \varphi _2^{(0)}=B{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\sigma (r)}}{r}}Y_l^m(\theta ,\phi ),\hfill \end{array}`$ (60)
where $`\sigma `$ solves Eq. (56) and the constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ must be determined from the initial conditions.

The functions $`X`$ and $`Y`$ must solve

$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{rr_h}}\right)X={\displaystyle \frac{qr_h}{rr_h}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{rr_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{X}{r}}\right)`$ (61a)
$`\left(_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right)Y={\displaystyle \frac{qr_h}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{rr_h}}{\displaystyle \frac{X}{r}}\right).`$ (61b)
Since $`E^2B^21/r^2`$ for large $`r`$, admissible solutions to Eqs. (61a) and (61b) should be of order $`1/r`$ or higher at large $`r`$, as occurs to the $`\varphi _i^{(0)}`$’s. In fact, the particular solutions are given by

$`\begin{array}{c}X={\displaystyle \frac{C}{rr_h}}\left[q\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right)1\right]\hfill \\ \\ Y=q{\displaystyle \frac{C}{r}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right),\hfill \end{array}`$ (65)
where $`C`$ is a constant. Note also that the limit $`q0`$ yields a solution of the homogeneous (purely Schwarzschild) equations ($`\varphi _0^{(1)}=\varphi _0^{(0)}`$ and $`\varphi _2^{(1)}=0`$).

The exchange of energy between ingoing and outgoing waves becomes more apparent by adding the homogeneous parts (60) and reshuffling the constants $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$ so as to write the general solution as

$`\begin{array}{c}\varphi _0=A{\displaystyle \frac{e^{+i\sigma }}{rr_h}}\left[1+\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle \frac{BA}{A}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right)\right]Y_l^m\hfill \\ \\ \varphi _2=B{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\sigma }}{r}}\left[1+\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle \frac{BA}{B}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right)\right]Y_l^m,\hfill \end{array}`$ (69)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}qx>0`$ is an effective coupling constant between the EM field and the dilaton, and the constants $`A=A_{lm}(\omega )`$ and $`B=B_{lm}(\omega )`$ must be determined from the initial conditions. There is obviously no initial condition (choice of $`A`$ and $`B`$) which can produce just ingoing ($`\varphi _0`$) or just outgoing ($`\varphi _2`$) waves.

### III.3 Darkened stars

Let us denote by $`r_e>r_h`$ the outer radius of the central star and consider the case $`A=0`$, corresponding to a purely outgoing mode $`\varphi _2`$ in Schwarschild ($`\stackrel{~}{x}=0`$). The ratio between the energy of such an EM wave ($`\varphi _2^2`$) at the point of emission $`r=r_e`$ and at the point of observation $`r=r_o`$ would be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Schw}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2^{(0)}(r_e)}{\varphi _2^{(0)}(r_o)}}\right]^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_o}{r_e}}\right)^2.`$ (70)
The same quantity in JNW (evaluated to leading order in $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$) is obtained from the solution in Eq. (69),

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{JNW}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_e}{r_o}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\stackrel{~}{x}(11/B)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{r_h}{r_e}\right)}{1+2\stackrel{~}{x}(11/B)\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{r_h}{r_o}\right)}},`$ (71)
where $`B`$ can be determined, e.g. from the energy $`E_o`$ at the point of observation,

$`B^2r_o^2E_o.`$ (72)
On assuming that $`r_hr_er_o`$ (a safe assumption to protect the star from the central singularity), one finds

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{JNW}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{Schw}}\left[12\stackrel{~}{x}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_o\sqrt{E_o}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r_e}}\right],`$ (73)
which shows a peculiar dependence on the energy of the wave. This dependence is not seen in the Schwarzschild case. In particular, since $`\stackrel{~}{x}>0`$ and the term in round brackets is positive for realistic cases, the flux is weaker than in the Schwarzschild vacuum.

With respect to what was found for the Kerr-Newman-dilaton black hole knd2 , let us note that the final result does not show a frequency dependence. This can be understood since the static case we are now considering has no typical frequency, whereas the rotating case has intrinsic angular velocity.

## IV Freely falling source

A possible source of electromagnetic radiation from a dilatonic black hole is the radiation emitted by a charged particle falling freely into the black hole. In fact, the curved background distorts the EM field of the falling charge and causes the latter to release energy as though it were being accelerated in a Lorentz frame.

For practical purposes, it is more convenient to regard the falling charge $`Q`$ as distorting the background EM field $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ of the black hole, and expand the exact $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ to linear order in $`Q`$ as

$`F_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+QF_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}.`$ (74)
Since in our case $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=0`$, the perturbed EM tensor elements $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ are determined by the Maxwell-dilaton equation

$`_\nu \left(\sqrt{g}e^{q\mathrm{\Phi }}F^{(1)\mu \nu }\right)=4\pi \sqrt{g}j^\mu ,`$ (75)
where $`Qj^\mu `$ is the current associated with the falling charge. The metric tensor elements are given in Eq. (2) and, in order to solve the set of Eqs. (75), the (antisymmetric) perturbations $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ are conveniently expanded in tensor harmonics zerilli

$`F_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& f_{01}Y_l^m& f_{02}_\theta Y_l^m& f_{02}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )_\varphi Y_l^m\\ & 0& f_{12}_\theta Y_l^m& f_{12}_\varphi Y_l^m\\ & & 0& 0\\ & & 0& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (80)
where the $`f_{ij}`$’s depend only on $`r`$ and $`t`$ (and carry integer indices $`l`$ and $`m`$ which we omit), the $`Y_l^m`$’s are again the normalized spherical harmonics, and the asterisks ($``$) denote the negative of the corresponding transposed tensor element. The field tensor given in Eq. (80) is for electric multipoles. Further, using the field equations all of the tensor elements $`F_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ can be put in terms of a single element, say $`f_{12}`$.

The function $`f_{12}`$ is assumed to be of the form

$`f_{12}(r,t)=\widehat{f}_{12}(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t).`$ (81)
Upon substitution of this expression into the equation for $`f_{12}`$ and expanding to first order in $`\stackrel{~}{x}qx`$, the function $`\widehat{f}_{12}`$ satisfies the equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{f}_{12}}{dr^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r_h(3+2\stackrel{~}{x})}{r(rr_h)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{f}_{12}}{dr}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2r^2}{(rr_h)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r_h(2r3r_h)}{r^2(rr_h)^2}}(1+2\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r(rr_h)}}\right]\widehat{f}_{12}=S(r),`$ (82a)
where the source term is given by
$`S(r)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\omega T(r)}}{(rr_h)^2}}\left[12\stackrel{~}{x}\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right)\right],`$ (82b)
and
$`T(r)=r_h\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{r^{1/2}}{r_h^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2r^{3/2}}{3r_h^{3/2}}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{(r/r_h)^{1/2}1}{(r/r_h)^{1/2}+1}}\right]`$ (82c)
is the time (to order $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2`$) for the particle to fall from $`\mathrm{}`$ to the point $`r`$.

### IV.1 Green’s function method

Eq. (82a) is a typical Sturm-Liouville problem which can be solved with the aid of the Green’s function $`G(r,r^{})`$. The latter is defined, for $`rr^{}`$, as a solution of the homogenous equation obtained from Eq. (82a) by setting $`S(r)=0`$ and, for $`r=r^{}`$, by the boundary condition $`G(r,r)=1`$. In terms of $`G`$ the solution of Eq. (82a) is then given by

$`\widehat{f}_{12}(r)={\displaystyle G(r,r^{})S(r^{})𝑑r^{}},`$ (83)
where $`S(r)`$ is the source term (82b)

The homogenous equation which determines $`G`$ is of the form

$`A_2G^{\prime \prime }+A_1G^{}+A_0G=0,`$ (84)
where the coefficients $`A_i`$ are determined by comparison with Eq. (82a) and a prime denotes the partial derivative with respect to the first argument of $`G=G(r,r^{})`$.

Before attempting to solve Eq. (84) numerically, it is interesting to estimate analytically the effect of the dilaton at large distance from the singularity. We fist expand the coefficients $`A_i`$’s in powers of $`1/r`$ and keep only next-to-leading terms. Then we expand the Green’s function in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and write $`G=G_0+\stackrel{~}{x}G_1`$. To order $`\stackrel{~}{x}^0`$, Eq. (84) then yields

$`\widehat{L}G_0`$ $``$ $`\left(1+3{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r}}\right)G_0^{\prime \prime }3{\displaystyle \frac{r_h}{r^2}}G_0^{}+\omega ^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{5r_h}{3r}}\right)G_0`$ (85a)
$`=`$ $`0`$
and, to order $`\stackrel{~}{x}^1`$,
$`\widehat{L}G_1=\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{5r_h}{3r}}G_0S_G.`$ (85b)
One thus finds that $`G_1`$ satisfies the same equation as $`G_0`$ plus a source term determined by $`G_0`$ which does not vanish too rapidly at large $`r`$. One can therefore expect significant corrections with respect to the Schwarzschild case ($`\stackrel{~}{x}=0`$) at relatively large distances from the central singularity.

It is not necessary to solve Eq. (85b) explicitly. One can instead include the right hand side of Eq. (85b) in the source $`S`$ and write the solution to Eq. (82a) simply in terms of $`G_0`$ as

$`\widehat{f}_{12}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle G_0(r,r^{})S_0(r^{})𝑑r^{}}+\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle G_0(r,r^{})S_1(r^{})𝑑r^{}}`$ (86)
$`+\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle G_1(r,r^{})\left[S_0(r^{})+S_G(r^{})\right]𝑑r^{}}`$
$`=`$ $`(1+\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle G_0(r,r^{})S_0(r^{})𝑑r^{}}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{x}{\displaystyle G_0(r,r^{})\left[S_1(r^{})+S_G(r^{})\right]𝑑r^{}},`$
in which we also expanded $`S=S_0+\stackrel{~}{x}S_1`$ and retained terms to order $`\stackrel{~}{x}^1`$.

Unfortunately Eq. (85a) is already rather complicated, and the terms of higher order in $`1/r`$ which we dropped make the problem intractable analytically. Hence, we proceed now to solve Eq. (82a) numerically and discuss the energy distribution.

### IV.2 Numerical results

Once the function $`\widehat{f}_{12}`$ has been determined, the energy distribution corresponding to the angular mode $`l`$ and averaged over the complete solid angle is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d\omega }}={\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{2\pi }}\widehat{f}_{12}^{}\widehat{f}_{12}^{}.`$ (87)
The energy distribution (87) is plotted as a solid line in Fig. 1 for unit charge $`Q`$ and black hole mass $`M`$ ($`=r_h/2`$) and with the angular mode $`l=1`$. The energy of the radiation is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }EC_{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{M}},`$ (88)
where $`C_{(4)}`$ is the area under the curve. The secondary peak at higher frequencies in this distribution distinguishes the dilatonic black hole from the Schwarzschild black hole, which has only one peak (see the $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ Reference of zerilli ). This suggests an interference between the dilatonic and tensor contributions to the electromagnetic field components. The secondary peak has an amplitude which is an appreciable fraction of the higher peak at $`\omega 2.7`$. Such a peak should be relatively easy to detect. The observation of such an interference term would be evidence for the existence of a scalar component of gravity.

## V Conclusions

We have analyzed the propagation of EM waves in the background of the Janis-Newman-Winicour (JNW) solution. To obtain manageable expressions describing the relevant physical quantities, e.g. the energy of the emitted waves and the intensity as a function of frequency, we have had to expand the metric tensor elements in terms of a small parameter $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ which measures the deviation of the JNW solution from the Schwarzschild solution at large distance from the singularity. This is a reasonable thing to do because the effect of a scalar component of gravity on the aforementioned quantities is most likely small. We have applied the resulting expansions to two cases of physical interest.

The first case is that of a star with a dilatonic field. We have obtained approximate analytic expressions for the ingoing and outgoing wave functions in terms of the small expansion parameter, $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$. From these expressions we can calculate the luminosity of the object emitting the radiation and we find that its luminosity is reduced by the dilaton background. Such a reduction would affect the luminosity-to-distance relations that are used to determine the distance of astrophysical objects.

In the second case we have described the emission from a point-like charged particle freely falling in the chosen background. In this case the JNW metric is expanded in terms of the small parameter $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in order to obtain a simple form for the second order differential equation whose solution is (the Fourier transform of) the wave amplitude. We have checked that setting the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ to zero gives the same differential equation as was obtained in zerilli  for the Schwarzschild case. For nonzero $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ the frequency distribution curve $`dE/d\omega `$ differs significantly from that obtained for the Schwarzschild metric. Models of the radiation from compact astrophysical sources incorporating this effect would provide a test of the existence of a scalar component of gravity.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported in part by DOE Grant No. DE-FG02-96ER40967.


text:
# The spectrum of 𝐷_𝑠 mesons from lattice QCD

## I Introduction

The recent discovery by the BABAR collaboration of a new resonance, with a mass around $`2.32`$ GeV and a narrow width, in the $`D_s^+\pi ^0`$ final state BABAR collaboration, B. Aubert et al.  has provoked a great deal of interest from experimenters and theorists alike. The CLEO collaboration CLEO collaboration, D. Besson et al.  has confirmed this resonance. Both experiments interpret this as the lowest lying of the four $`P`$-wave states, the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{0}^{}`$ with $`J^P=0^+`$. A variety of theory papers have been published R.N. Cahn and J.D. Jackson ; T. Barnes, F.E. Close and H.J. Lipkin ; E. van Bereven and G. Rupp ; H.Y. Cheng and W.S. Hou ; W.A.Bardeen, E.J. Eichten, and C.T. Hill ; A.P. Szcsepaniak ; P. Colangelo and F. de Fazio ; G. Bali ; K. Terasaki ; Y.B. Dai, C.S. Huang, C. Liu and S.L. Zhu  either supporting this interpretation or presenting alternative hypotheses of “exotic” states. These alternatives are motivated by potential model results S. Godfrey and N. Isgur (1985); S. Godfrey and R. Kokoski (1991), which suggest that the $`c\overline{s}`$ scalar meson mass is around $`2.48`$ GeV and hence above the $`DK`$ threshold. One could argue the merits of a particular model, but this becomes irrelevant if the spectrum can directly determined from QCD. A mass below the $`DK`$ threshold would also explain the narrowness of the state.

There have been a number of previous lattice QCD calculations of the $`L=1`$ states in the $`D_s`$ meson spectrum. Hein et al. Hein et al. (2000) obtained 500(80) MeV for the $`D_{s0}^{}D_s`$ mass splitting (from their figure 27) using NRQCD at a fixed lattice spacing of 0.18 fm. Lewis and Woloshyn Lewis and Woloshyn (2000) obtained 530(15)(5) MeV at a fixed lattice spacing of 0.11 fm also using NRQCD. With quenched relativistic heavy quarks, Boyle Boyle (1997) obtained a mass splitting of 544(20) MeV at a fixed lattice spacing of 0.07 fm. Although the calculation used the same ensemble of gauge configurations as this work, the propagators were computed using a slightly different action and different definition of the lattice quark mass. Recently Bali G. Bali  presented results in the static limit for the heavy quark and obtained a value of $`468(43)(24)`$ MeV for the scalar-pseudoscalar mass splitting in this limit.

All the previous lattice QCD calculations of the $`D_s`$ spectrum were done at fixed lattice spacing in quenched QCD. In this calculation we take the continuum limit in quenched QCD, so that lattice artifacts are under control. The lattice volumes are large enough (greater than $`1.5^3\mathrm{fm}^3`$) that finite size effects should be small. We also report results from the first unquenched calculation at fixed lattice spacing. The remaining systematic uncertainty is due to dynamical $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks having unphysically large masses.

In the heavy quark limit, the spin of the heavy quark decouples from the rest of the system. The observable states can be labelled by the total angular momentum of the light quark $`j`$ J. Bartelt and S. Shukla (1995). The $`P`$-wave states have $`L=1`$ and thus $`j=\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}\}`$. This combined with the spin of the heavy quark produces two doublets. The $`j=\frac{3}{2}`$ doublet contains a $`J=2`$ and a $`J=1`$ state, the $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$ doublet contains a $`J=1`$ and $`J=0`$ state. The two $`J=1`$ states do not have definite charge conjugation and so can mix. On the lattice only the lightest state in this channel can be determined easily.

In the double limit of heavy quark and chiral symmetry, the two heavy light multiplets, $`\{0^{},1^{}\}`$ and $`\{0^+,1^+\}`$, are degenerate. The effect of spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking is to split these parity partners, such that the mass splittings $`1^+1^{}`$ and $`0^+0^{}`$ are equal W.A.Bardeen, E.J. Eichten, and C.T. Hill . This is confirmed by the CLEO Collaboration CLEO collaboration, D. Besson et al.  who obtain splittings of $`351(2)`$ and $`350(1)`$ MeV respectively. It is interesting to explore the extent to which QCD reproduces this remarkable agreement.

## II Lattice details

The spectrum of $`c\overline{s}`$ mesons has been determined on four ensembles of gauge configurations. Three have different lattice spacings ($`a`$) and were generated in the quenched approximation, which enables the continuum limit to be taken. The fourth ensemble was generated with two degenerate flavours of dynamical quarks, and the lattice spacing matched to that of the coarsest quenched ensemble. For all the ensembles, the Wilson gauge action and the non-perturbatively $`𝒪(a)`$ improved Wilson fermion action were used. The lattice parameters are detailed in Table 1. The procedures for generating the dynamical ensemble and matching to the coarsest quenched ensemble are described in UKQCD Collaboration, C.R. Allton et al. (2002).

Meson correlation functions were computed with several different heavy quark masses which span the charm quark mass, and several light quark masses around the strange quark mass. For the dynamical ensemble only one sea quark mass is used, for which the ratio $`m_{PS}/m_V=0.70(1)`$ when $`m_{\mathrm{sea}}=m_{\mathrm{valence}}`$. This corresponds to QCD with two dynamical flavours of mass slightly above the strange quark mass. The details of extracting the spectrum from lattice correlation functions, and the results for the $`S`$-wave $`D`$ meson spectrum for the finer two lattice spacings can be found in UKQCD Collaboration, K.C. Bowler et al. (2001). To measure the mass splittings, the ratio of correlation functions at large times is fitted. We have checked that the results from computing the $`1^+0^+`$ mass splitting directly is the same, with the same statistical errors as obtained by combining the results obtained for the $`1^+1^{}`$, $`0^+0^{}`$ and $`1^{}0^{}`$ splittings.

In quenched QCD, or in simulations with unphysical heavy sea quarks, there is an ambiguity in the determination of the lattice spacing in physical units. For typical simulation parameters used today this is estimated to be of the order of $`10\%`$. The scale is set throughout this calculation from the static quark potential using $`r_0`$ Sommer (1994); M. Guagnelli, R. Sommer and H. Wittig (1998). The value of $`r_0/a`$ is unambiguous for each ensemble, and so is a good choice for comparing results from different ensembles. However, there is no agreed experimental value for $`r_0`$. Sommer originally advocated $`r_0=0.5`$ fm. The lattice spacing obtained from the $`K^{}/K`$ mass ratio (method of planes) Allton et al. (1997) corresponds to $`r_00.55`$ fm on the ensembles used in this work. Determinations of the lattice spacing from the kaon decay constant, the nucleon mass or the rho mass correspond to $`r_0`$ values ranging from approximately $`0.5`$ to $`0.55`$ fm Garden et al. (2000); Aoki et al. (2002); UKQCD Collaboration, C.R. Allton et al. (2002); Becirevic et al. (1999); UKQCD Collaboration, K.C. Bowler et al. (2001). For these reasons we take the value of $`r_0`$ to be 0.55 fm. The analysis has been repeated using $`r_0=0.5`$ fm throughout, and the difference is taken as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty in the scale.

The strange quark mass is set by from the light-light pseudoscalar mass with the experimental kaon mass as input Hepburn (2002). Similarly the charm quark mass is set from the heavy-light pseudoscalar mass with the experimental $`D_s`$ meson mass as input.

## III Results

For each of the four ensembles, the mass splittings $`1^+1^{}`$ and $`0^+0^{}`$ are equal within statistical errors. These results and the continuum extrapolation which is linear in $`a^2`$ are shown in figure 1. Furthermore, these splittings are also equal in the continuum limit, in agreement with heavy hadron chiral effective theory and experiment. At the coarsest lattice spacing the effect of introducing sea quarks with a mass close to the strange is to slightly lower the $`1^+1^{}`$ and the $`0^+0^{}`$ mass splittings, but this is not statistically significant.

Shown in figure 2 and Table 2 is the comparison of the lattice results along with the experimentally measured spectrum. The dynamical results appear to have smaller error bars and to be systematically higher than the quenched result. These effects are due to extrapolating the quenched results and are absent at fixed lattice spacing. The computed $`1^{}0^{}`$ splitting is too small, a well known failing of the quenched approximation Mackenzie et al. (1998); McNeile (2002). Evidently the dynamical sea quark mass is too large to change this, as has been observed before in the light hadron spectrum on the same ensemble UKQCD Collaboration, C.R. Allton et al. (2002). The lattice results for the $`c\overline{s}`$ $`0^+`$ and the lightest $`1^+`$ mesons are consistent, albeit within large statistical and systematic uncertainties, with the masses of the states discovered recently by BABAR and CLEO. Although $`u`$ and $`d`$ sea-quark effects are not yet properly included, these lattice results provide the most reliable computation of the $`c\overline{s}`$ spectrum to date. Our errors are too large to exclude exotic states based on potential models. However, there is no evidence from our lattice QCD calculations that exotics are required to explain the BABAR and CLEO discoveries.

###### Acknowledgements.

The lattice data was generated on the Cray T3D and T3E systems at EPCC supported by, EPSRC grant GR/K41663, PPARC grants GR/L22744 and PPA/G/S/1998/00777. We are grateful to the ULgrid project of the University of Liverpool for computer time. The authors acknowledge support from EU grant HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/LatticeQCD, and PPARC grants PPA/G/O/2000/00456, PPA/P/S/1998/00255(CMM), PPA/N/S/2000/00217(RDK).


text:
# Hidden Scaling in the Quantum Hall Metal-Insulator Transition

## Abstract

Scaling properties of the quantum Hall metal-insulator transition are severely affected by finite size effects in small systems. Surprisingly, despite the narrow spatial range where probability structure functions exhibit multifractal scaling, we clearly verify the existence of extended self-similarity – a hidden infrared scaling phenomenon related to the peculiar form of the crossover at the onset of nonmultifractal behavior. As finite size effects get stronger for structure functions with negative orders, the parabolic approximation for the multifractal spectrum loses accuracy. However, by means of an extended self-similarity analysis, an improved evaluation of the multifractal exponents is attained for negative orders too, rendering them consistent with previous results, which rely on computations performed for considerably larger systems.

The quantum Hall metal-insulator transition has been the focus of great interest, proving to be an ideal stage for the interplay of several approaches in the physics of condensed matter localization. girvin (1987); jansen (1994) In fact, while a number of field theory descriptions have been proposed, levine (1984); zirnb (1999); bhaseen (2000) numerical simulations and experiments are relatively precise, huck (1995) and reduced lattice models chalker1 (1988); kondev (1997) amenable to theoretical treatment, have an interesting connection with the classification problem of disordered systems. zirnb2 (1999) Even though the basic physical picture of the quantum Hall metal-insulator transition was put forward around two decades ago, klitz (2001) a lot of work has been devoted to the subject along the last years. In particular, the complete theoretical characterization of the multifractal behavior at the transition, lud (1994) and an exact solution, likely in terms of some conformal field theory, zirnb (1999) are so far open problems.

Our aim in this work is to call attention to a hidden scaling property of the non-interacting quantum Hall metal-insulator transition, named extended self-similarity (ESS). This kind of scaling phenomenon was found for the first time in the context of fully developed turbulence, benzi1 (1993); benzi2 (1995) where it has been a fundamental tool to extract information on the turbulent regime out of moderate Reynolds number data. After the pioneering works of Benzi et al., ESS has been verified in other classical multifractal dynamical systems, as chaotic advection, segel (1996), kinetic roughening, kundag (1998) turbulent magnetohydrodynamics, basu (2003) and strange attractors. mori (2003) Regarding the quantum domain, a clear numerical evidence of ESS in the two-dimensional metal-insulator transition has been recently reported, mori (2003) for a model of random Dirac fermions, which is a close variant of the quantum Hall problem. lud (1994); chalker2 (1996)

In short words, the ESS phenomenon corresponds to a specific form of crossover for the scaling functions, that occur between small and large length scales. More concretely, let $`L`$ be the linear system size, $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x})`$ be the wavefunction for some fixed energy level and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a square with size $`r\times r`$. We define the probability structure function of order $`q`$ as

$$S_q(r)=[_\mathrm{\Omega }d^2\stackrel{}{x}|\psi (\stackrel{}{x})|^2]^q,$$
(1)
where the average is taken over disorder realizations. The multifractal scaling law $`S_q(r)r^{\zeta (q)}`$ supposedly holds at the metal-insulator transition. However, if finite size effects are taken into account or if the disordered potential has a finite correlation length, the scaling law is valid only through a certain range of scales. Either towards the smaller or larger length scales (the “ultraviolet” and “infrared regimes”, respectively), wavefunctions will become effectively smooth, mori (2003) leading to the trivial scaling $`\zeta (q)=2q`$. As $`r`$ moves out from the scaling region, towards the infrared, the general meaning of ESS is just a peculiar profile of scaling, in the form comment

$$S_q(r)=c_q[f_1(r)]^{\zeta (q)}[f_2(r)]^{2q}.$$
(2)
The crossover functions introduced above behave as $`f_1(r)=r/L`$ and $`f_2(r)=1`$ in the scaling region and as $`f_1(r)=1`$ and $`f_2(r)=r/L`$ in the infrared regime, where finite size effects become relevant.

In the particular problem of localization, it follows from translation invariance and from definition (1) that $`S_1(r)=(r/L)^2`$ is an exact relation. Taking this result into account together with Eq. (2), we find that

$$S_q(r)(\frac{r}{L})^{2q}=c_q[f_1(r)]^{\zeta (q)2q}.$$
(3)
Therefore, even if a plot of $`\mathrm{ln}[S_q(r)]`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}(r)`$ does not exhibit scaling when larger length scales are included, a plot of $`\mathrm{ln}[S_p(r)r^{2p}]`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}[S_q(r)r^{2q}]`$ will do: numerical data collapses on a straight line, with slope

$$\eta (p,q)\frac{\zeta (p)2p}{\zeta (q)2q}.$$
(4)
As a consequence, experimental or numerical evaluations of $`\eta (p,q)`$ would be subject to smaller errors than the scaling exponents of probability structure functions.

In order to investigate the issue of ESS, we model the quantum Hall metal-insulator transition in a square lattice through the nearest-neighbor hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{i}{}\epsilon _ic_i^{}c_i+\underset{i,j}{}V(e^{i\varphi _{ij}}c_i^{}c_j+e^{i\varphi _{ij}}c_j^{}c_i).$$
(5)
Defining the lattice parameter as the unit length, the Landau gauge gives $`\varphi _{ij}=0`$ along the $`\widehat{x}`$ direction and $`\varphi _{ij}=\pm 2\pi x\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ along the $`\widehat{y}`$ direction, where the magnetic flux ratio is $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=Be/h`$. On-site disorder is provided by the random energies $`\epsilon _i`$, correlated within a length scale of order $`\lambda `$. In practice, they may be defined as $`\epsilon _i=1/\pi \lambda ^2_ja_j\mathrm{exp}(|\stackrel{}{x}_i\stackrel{}{x}_j|^2/\lambda ^2)`$, in terms of uncorrelated random variables $`a_i`$, with $`|a_i|W/2`$.

The simulations were taken for a $`60\times 60`$ lattice, with periodic boundary conditions and $`\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=1/20`$. For this choice of parameters, the linear dimension of the system is $`L34\mathrm{}`$, where $`\mathrm{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/eB}`$ is the magnetic length. Furthermore, we set $`\lambda =2`$, the hopping parameter $`V=0.14`$, and $`W/V=1.6`$.

According to the generally accepted picture, the large quantum degeneracy of Landau levels is broken due to disorder, and delocalized states are found only around a critical energy close to each band center. A careful determination of the critical energy, which takes into account the levitation of extended states, ana-peter (2002) is based on the computation of the averaged participation ratio thouless (1974); wegner (2001) (PR), written in terms of the wavefunction amplitude $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ as $`PR=[N_{i=1}^N|\mathrm{\Psi }_i|^4]^1`$.

In our computations of the participation ratio, which are restricted to the first Landau level and shown in Fig.1, the total number of sites is $`N=60\times 60`$, and the above average is taken over a set of 45 disorder realizations. For each one of them, the hamiltonian (5) was exactly diagonalized, producing 180 ($`=60\times 60\times 1/20`$) states per Landau level. The more localized is a state the lesser is its participation ratio.

Thus, to study the statistical properties of the delocalized wavefunctions, it is necessary to perform a selection of states around the participation ratio peak. We focused on the energy range $`3.703E/V3.695`$, which contains 8 states. We picked up, out of these states, the one with the maximum PR for each disorder realization. Had we chosen all of them for each realization, the statistical analysis would be spoiled by the several localized states that eventually appear, as a consequence of the strong fluctuations inherent to small systems. In fact, their presence can be inferred from a comparison of different selections. The selected PR’s fall in the interval $`0.34\pm 0.04`$. An alternative (but useless) selection which takes the minimum PR for each realization gives PR’s in the interval $`0.09\pm 0.06`$. On the other hand, taking all of the 8 states we get $`0.23\pm 0.1`$. Of course, these three types of selection will lead to converging results in the large box limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. We assume here that our prescription is the one which yields the fastest convergence – an hypothesis we verified a posteriori, through the computation of the multifractal exponents $`\zeta (q)`$.

It is interesting to observe that the energy position of the participation ratio peak reaches in a fast way its asymptotic value, ana-peter (2002) showing little additional levitation when the system’s size becomes larger than $`40\times 40`$, while the width and height of the PR curve are still sensitive to finite size effects.

We were able to find the scaling region of probability structure functions through an analysis of $`S_q(r)r^{2q}`$, as shown in Fig.2. In the ultraviolet and in the infrared scales, as already discussed, this function becomes flatter. The scaling region, therefore, appears as an inflection between these two regimes. This fact is shown in the inset of Fig.2 for the structure function of order $`q=10`$. In general, for positive orders, scaling takes place for $`6r14`$ ($`r`$ is measured in lattice units). A crossover to the infrared regime is observed for $`14r31`$. In Fig.2, we establish fittings with slopes -8.77 (scaling region) and -5.72 (larger length scales). These numbers have a relative variation of $`53\%`$. Similar large variations were found for other positive orders, in the interval $`0<q14`$.

The existence of ESS is strikingly indicated in Fig.3, the central result of our work, where we compare structure functions with orders $`p=10`$ and $`q=3`$, to obtain $`\eta (10,3)`$. The straight line corresponds to the fitting for $`6r14`$, which has slope 8.37. The fitting at larger length scales, for $`14r31`$, has slope 8.50. Here, the slopes have a relative $`1.5\%`$ variation, which should be compared to the $`53\%`$ variation obtained in Fig.2. Such higher precision evaluation is the hallmark of ESS, which was also verified for other pairs of orders $`(p,q)`$. A relevant question is how small or how disordered can be the system so that ESS is still meaningful. While we do not have yet a conclusive answer to this point, we have inspected simulations on a $`40\times 40`$ lattice, getting results which are essentially equivalent to the ones described here.

We have checked that ESS keeps holding for negative orders, where however the parabolic approximation for the multifractal spectrum becomes inaccurate (as opposed to positive orders). The parabolic approximation simply consists of assigning a log-normal probability distribution function $`\rho _r(\alpha )r^{2f(\alpha )}`$, with $`f(\alpha )2(\alpha \alpha _0)^2/4(\alpha _02)`$, to have a box probability $`_\mathrm{\Omega }d^2\stackrel{}{x}|\psi (\stackrel{}{x})|^2`$ that scales as $`r^\alpha `$, for a given $`\alpha `$ parameter. jansen (1994) The function $`f(\alpha )`$ is the so-called multifractal spectrum, and can be interpreted as the fractal dimension of an “iso-$`\alpha `$ set”. In this framework, the multifractal exponents of probability structure functions will depend solely on a single parameter $`\alpha _0`$. They are given by

$$\zeta (q)=2q+q(\alpha _02)(1q).$$
(6)
This quadratic expression is assumed to hold as long as the multifractal spectrum is positive at the saddle-point of $`r^{q\alpha }\rho _r(\alpha )`$, i.e., we need to have $`f(\overline{\alpha })>0`$, with $`\overline{\alpha }=\alpha _02q(\alpha _02)`$. Numerical simulations, involving different types of disorder in systems with linear sizes $`L200\mathrm{}`$, yield $`\alpha _0=2.25\pm 0.05`$ for the first Landau level. jansen (1994); huck (1995) More recent numerical work, performed in the Chalker-Coddington model for lattices with sizes up to $`1280\times 1280`$, have advanced the conjecture that the parabolic approximation is in fact exact, with $`\alpha _0=2.261\pm 0.003`$. evers (1988)

As it can be easily checked, it is worth noting that in the parabolic approximation, we have

$$\eta (p,q)=\frac{p(p1)}{q(q1)},$$
(7)
which is remarkably independent on $`\alpha _0`$. Computations of $`\eta (p,q)`$ could be used as a rigorous test of the parabolic approximation. However, it is important to point out that small errors in the multifractal exponents may lead to relatively larger errors for $`\eta (p,q)`$.

We show in Fig.4 the multifractal exponents $`\zeta (q)`$ for $`2.5q2.5`$, used to analyze the parabolic approximation for the multifractal spectrum. Circles represent the direct numerical evaluations. The spatial range where ESS is now verified, viz $`6r16`$, is smaller compared to the one related to positive orders. The exponents plotted in Fig.4 (circles) correspond to linear fittings in the interval $`6r10`$. If the positive orders are neglected, the best fit produced from Eq. (6) would give $`\alpha _0=2.85`$, which lacks satisfactory precision. On the other hand, if the negative orders are neglected, the best fit is found for $`\alpha _0=2.2`$, now a tolerable value. We conclude in this way that stronger finite size effects occur for the case $`q<0`$.

There is in fact a simple phenomenological interpretation of the above result, along the lines of the cascade picture of localization addressed in Ref. . There, a random $`\beta `$-model approach has been implemented, allowing us to write the multifractal scaling exponents as $`\zeta (q)=2q\mathrm{log}_a\beta ^q`$. The random parameter $`0<\beta <\mathrm{}`$ is used to model regions of expanding/collapsing evolution of the wavefunction support, in a discrete iteration defined by the scale compression parameter $`a>1`$ (i.e., sub-regions with linear sizes $`L_0`$, $`L_0/a`$, $`L_0/a^2`$, … are successively generated). Essentially, the iteration of a given “coherent” region which belongs to the wavefunction support is identified to a mapping with local jacobian $`\beta `$. Therefore, taking $`q<0`$ in the latter expression for $`\zeta (q)`$, it is clear that $`\beta >1`$ becomes relevant – and so do expanding fluctuations of the wavefunction – which we expect will lead to stronger finite size effects.

Even though the values of $`\zeta (q)`$ for $`q<0`$ strongly deviate from the parabolic approximation predictions, we have verified that the ESS slopes are close to the exact values: taking, for instance, $`p=2.5`$ and $`q=1.5`$, we get $`\eta (2.5,1.5)=2.25`$, just $`4\%`$ off the exact value, obtained from (7), which is $`7/32.33`$. This suggests that the numerical results for $`\zeta (q)2q`$ are proportional to the exact ones. Taking this hypothesis into account, we have devised an optimization procedure whereby the solid line (obtained from the parabolic approximation) and the squares (a recovery of more precise multifractal exponents) are found simultaneously in Fig.4. We replace the multifractal exponents for $`q<0`$ from their measured values $`\zeta (q)`$ to $`c(\zeta (q)2q)+2q`$. The parameters $`c`$ and $`\alpha _0`$ are chosen to be the ones that yield the minimum deviation from the solid line. We find in this way $`c=0.23`$ and $`\alpha _0=2.2`$. If a more restrict range of $`q`$’s is considered, say $`1.5q1.5`$, we find $`c=0.36`$ and $`\alpha _0=2.27`$. Thus, we estimate $`\alpha _0=2.24\pm 0.04`$ which is in excellent agreement with previous known results. Observe that the only bias in the method is the fact that the multifractal exponents for positive orders were preserved.

In summary, we have numerically established the existence of ESS in the quantum Hall metal-insulator transition for a small system ($`L34\mathrm{}`$), where strong finite size effects cannot be avoided. We observed that the scaling behavior of structure functions with negative orders is not derived from the parabolic approximation. However, an optimization scheme based on ESS considerations was introduced, which led to a more precise determination of the scaling exponents for negative orders. We found an agreement with known standard results, obtained on their turn from the analysis of much larger systems. We hypothesize that the ESS phenomenon could be used as a valuable tool in order to improve the scaling exponents presently reported in the literature for the quantum Hall effect. A theoretical foundation of ESS is highly desirable, likely through field theory methods, which could allow to check if the hidden scaling behavior found in this work is indeed a general property of metal-insulator transitions.

This work has been partially supported by CAPES, FAPERJ and FAPESP.