text:
# Untitled Document

Electronic and magnetic properties of GaMnAs: Annealing effects

W. Limmer1∗, A. Koeder1, S. Frank1, M. Glunk1, W. Schoch1, V. Avrutin1, K. Zuern2,

R. Sauer1, and A. Waag1

1Abteilung Halbleiterphysik, Universität Ulm, D-89069 Ulm, Germany

2Abteilung Festkörperphysik, Universität Ulm, D-89069 Ulm, Germany

Corresponding author: Phone:+49-731-50-26130 Fax:+49-731-50-26108 Email:wolfgang.limmer@physik.uni-ulm.de

Abstract: The effect of short-time and long-time annealing at 250C on the conductivity, hole density, and Curie temperature of GaMnAs single layers and GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostructures is studied by in-situ conductivity measurements as well as Raman and SQUID measurements before and after annealing. Whereas the conductivity monotonously increases with increasing annealing time, the hole density and the Curie temperature show a saturation after annealing for 30 minutes. The incorporation of thin InGaMnAs layers drastically enhances the Curie temperature of the GaMnAs layers.

PACS: 75.50.Pp, 72.80.-r, 78.30.Fs

Keywords: GaMnAs, annealing, conductivity, Curie temperature, carrier density

1. Introduction

The III-V semimagnetic semiconductor GaMnAs is currently under intense investigation in the field of spin electronics. Its magnetic properties arise from the magnetic moments of the Mn atoms which act as acceptors on the Ga lattice site. The ferromagnetism is mediated by delocalized or weakly localized holes and the Curie temperature $`T_C`$ is suggested to depend on both, the Mn content $`x`$ and the hole concentration $`p`$ according to :

$$T_Cx\times p^{1/3}.$$
(1)
It has been shown that post-growth annealing of GaMnAs at sufficiently low temperatures leads to an increase of $`T_C`$, depending on the annealing temperature and on the annealing time \[2-5\]. Values of $`T_C`$ as high as 150 K have been reported so far , and the enhancement of $`T_C`$ has been usually traced back to a removal of compensating defects, and thus, to an increase of the hole concentration following the relation given in Eq. (1). Potashnik et al. have shown that annealing at 250C for less than 2 h significantly enhances the conductivity and $`T_C`$, but continuing the annealing for longer times suppresses both . Edmonds et al. have annealed GaMnAs thin films at 175C for more than 100 hours, monitoring the resistivity during the annealing, and found a monotonous increase of the conductivity with increasing annealing time as well as a linear relation between $`T_C`$ and the room-temperature (RT) electrical conductivity . These results suggest the presence of at least two competing thermally activated processes, leading, respectively, to an increase and a decrease of the conductivity and $`T_C`$. Moreover, the RT conductivity seems to guide the way to an optimization of $`T_C`$.

In this work, we investigate the effect of short-time and long-time annealing at 250C on the electronic and magnetic properties of GaMnAs by in-situ measurements of the electrical conductivity, by micro-Raman spectroscopy, and by superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetization measurements. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the incorporation of thin InGaMnAs films into the GaMnAs material leads to a drastic enhancement of the Curie temperature.

2. Experimental details

GaMnAs epilayers and GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostructures were grown by low-temperature molecular-beam epitaxy (MBE) on semi-insulating GaAs(001) substrates at 230C using solid metal sources and a III/V beam equivalent pressure ratio of 1/10. For the heterostructures, sequences of sixteen 20-nm-thick GaMnAs barrier layers separated by 6-nm-thick InGaMnAs quantum films were grown on high-temperature GaAs buffer layers. The Mn content in the GaMnAs single layers and in the GaMnAs barriers was determined from high-resolution x-ray diffraction (HRXRD) and amounted to 5.8 $`\%`$. The In content in the InGaMnAs films was varied from sample to sample between 15 and 40 $`\%`$. The HRXRD measurements revealed sharp GaMnAs/InGaMnAs interfaces. For the electrical measurements, Hall bars with conventional AuGe contacts were prepared on several pieces of the cleaved samples. The contacts were checked to be ohmic with negligibly low resistance. The samples were annealed in air using a LINKAM THMS 600 heating chamber equipped with an electrical feed through, which enabled us to perform in-situ measurements of the conductivity. The samples were mounted on a silver block which could be heated electrically or cooled by liquid nitrogen over the temperature range from -200C to 300C within 2 minutes. Micro-Raman measurements were performed at RT using the 514-nm line of an Ar+ laser as an excitation source. The corresponding light-penetration depth can be estimated by $`1/\alpha 100`$ nm, where $`\alpha `$ denotes the optical absorption coefficient. The laser beam was focused onto the sample surface by a microscope lens system yielding a spot diameter of 0.7 $`\mu `$m. The Raman signals were detected in the backscattering configuration $`\overline{z}(x,y)z`$ using a DILOR XY 800 mm triple-grating spectrometer with a confocal entrance optics and a LN2-cooled charge-coupled device detector. The magnetization measurements were carried out in a QUANTUM DESIGN MPMS 5 SQUID magnetometer applying an in-plane magnetic field of 5 mT.

3. Results and discussion

Most of the experimental data presented in this work were recorded from a 1-$`\mu `$m-thick GaMnAs epilayer. Qualitatively similar results were obtained for a 300-nm-thick GaMnAs epilayer, grown at 200C, and for the GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostrucures.

In order to study the effect of short-time annealing on the electrical conductivity, we have annealed a 1-$`\mu `$m-thick GaMnAs epilayer at successively elevated temperatures. The annealing temperature was raised from 50C to 300C in steps of 25C, maintaining an annealing time of 5 minutes for each temperature. The conductivity at RT was probed by rapidly lowering the temperature to 25C between successive annealing steps. Figure 1 depicts the in-situ monitored conductivity as a function of time.

Fig. 1: In-situ monitoring of the conductivity during short-time annealing at successively elevated annealing temperatures.

No significant change in the RT conductivity is observed for annealing temperatures below 200C. It should be mentioned that this does not hold for annealing times much longer than that used in our experiment . Annealing at 200C or at higher temperatures results in a pronounced increase of the RT conductivity, indicating a rise in the hole concentration or mobility or both.

The effect of long-time annealing at 250C on the conductivity is shown in Fig. 2, where the evolution of the conductivity is monitored by an in-situ measurement for 400 minutes. The conductivity monotonously rises with a rate that gradually decreases with increasing annealing time. After total annealing times of 30, 60, 180, and 370 minutes, the annealing process was interrupted for 10 minutes and the temperature was rapidly lowered to 25C in order to probe the RT conductivity (dashed line). Its dependence on annealing time is similar to that of the conductivity at 250C.

Fig. 2: In-situ monitoring of the conductivity during long-time annealing at 250C.

During the first 30 minutes the RT conductivity increases from 66 to 74 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1. After annealing for 370 minutes the RT conductivity has almost saturated at a value of 84 $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$cm-1. In contrast to Ref. , no decrease of the conductivity for annealing times longer than 2 h is observed. If we assume the RT hole mobility to remain constant throughout the annealing process, an increase of the hole concentration by a factor of 1.12 during the first 30 minutes, and by a factor of 1.27 during the whole process is deduced.

Fig. 3: Temperature-dependent conductivity of a GaMnAs layer before and after annealing.

The conductivity as a function of temperature is shown in Fig. 3 for the as-grown and for the 370-min-annealed sample in the temperature range from -200C to 150C and from -200C to 300C, respectively. Below 200C the conductivity shows the typical behavior for metallic GaMnAs, namely a monotonous increase with rising temperature. However, above 200C the onset of an unexpected exponential increase is observed. Recently, a similar effect has been reported in Ref. , but at present the origin of this drastic increase is not yet clear. An annealing effect by raising the temperature of the annealed sample to 300C for only 3 minutes can be excluded since the RT value of the conductivity has remained unchanged.

Hole concentrations in GaMnAs can be estimated from Raman scattering by coupled plasmon-LO-phonon modes . In Fig. 4 Raman spectra, recorded from the sample examined above, are shown before and after annealing at 250C for 30 and 370 minutes. As discussed in detail in Ref. , the high hole concentration in GaMnAs leads to the formation of a phonon-like coupled mode of the longitudinal optical (LO) phonon and the overdamped hole plasmon. With increasing hole concentration this mode shifts from the frequency of the LO phonon to that of the transverse optical (TO) phonon. Thus, from a comparison of the Raman spectra shown in Fig. 4, a significant increase of the hole concentration after annealing can be deduced.

Fig. 4: Raman spectra recorded from a GaMnAs layer before and after annealing at 250C. The solid lines are calculated line shapes.

The Raman spectrum recorded from the 370-min-annealed sample does not significantly differ from that of the 30-min-annealed sample. Therefore, according to the Raman spectra, no further increase of the hole concentration occurs for annealing times longer than 30 minutes, in contrast to our conductivity measurements, but in aggreement with the results reported in Ref. . The solid lines, offset for clarity, represent model calculations of the Raman line shapes yielding the hole concentrations $`3.5\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3 and $`11.0\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3 for the as-grown and the annealed samples, respectively . Quantitatively, the increase of the hole concentration within the first 30 minutes of annealing by a factor of 3.14 disagrees with the increase of the RT conductivity, where a factor of 1.12 has been determined by the electrical measurements. We explain the discrepancy between the results obtained from the Raman spectra and the conductivity measurements by vertical gradients of the hole concentration and the hole mobility in the GaMnAs layer. Electrochemical capacitance-voltage measurements have shown that near the surface the hole concentration is much higher than in the bulk . Therefore, the Raman signal which primarily stems from the surface region yields a higher hole density than electrical measurements which probe the whole GaMnAs layer. Moreover, we suggest the hole densities and hole mobilities near the surface and in the bulk to be affected by the annealing process in a different way.

According to Eq. (1), an increase of the hole concentration should result in an increase of the Curie temperature. Figure 5 depicts SQUID magnetization measurements recorded from the as-grown and from two annealed GaMnAs layers.

Fig. 5: Magnetization of a GaMnAs layer as a function of temperature before and after annealing.

A Curie temperature $`T_C`$ of 60 K is deduced for the as-grown sample and a constant value of 100 K is obtained for the two samples annealed at 250C for 30 and 60 minutes, respectively. This result is in good agreement with that obtained from the Raman measurements. No further enhancement of the hole concentration or Curie temperature for annealing longer than 30 minutes is observed by both methods. Moreover, according to Eq. (1) an increase of the hole concentration by a factor of 3.14, as deduced from the Raman spectra, should result in an enhancement of $`T_C`$ by a factor of 1.46. Actually, a factor of 1.67 is determined from the SQUID measurements. The small discrepancy between the two values may be explained by a reduction of the number of antiferromagnetically ordered Mn atoms during annealing . We suggest that the small slopes of the magnetization curves below $`T_C`$ in Fig. 5 result from the vertical gradient of the hole density in the GaMnAs layer. Therefore, the Curie temperatures indicated in Fig. 5 have to be attributed to the near-surface region, in accordance with the hole densities obtained from the Raman measurements.

The incorporation of thin InGaMnAs films into the GaMnAs layer leads to a pronounced increase of the Curie temperature. This is demonstrated in Fig. 6, where the magnetization curves of a GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostructure with 40 $`\%`$ In are shown before and after annealing at 250C for 30 minutes. The curve of the as-grown GaMnAs single layer is drawn by a dashed line for comparison.

Fig. 6: Magnetization of a GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostructure as a function of temperature before and after annealing.

Curie temperatures of 90 K and 130 K are determined from the SQUID measurements, respectively. Thus, an enhancement of 30 K has been achieved in comparison to the GaMnAs single layer. Similar to the case of the GaMnAs layer, electrical in-situ measurements during annealing show a monotonous increase of the conductivity with increasing annealing time, whereas the Raman spectra and the SQUID measurements reveal that no further increase of the hole density and the Curie temperature, respectively, is achieved by annealing for more than 30 minutes. The enhancement of the Curie temperature strongly correlates with the In concentration. More details will be discussed elsewhere.

4. Conclusions

We have shown that annealing of GaMnAs single layers with thicknesses larger than 300 nm and GaMnAs/InGaMnAs heterostructures at 250C for more than 6 h leads to a monotonous increase of the conductivity with increasing annealing time. Consequently, Raman and SQUID measurements reveal an enhancement of the hole density and $`T_C`$, respectively. However, this enhancement drastically exceeds that expected from the conductivity data. Furthermore, a saturation of the hole density and $`T_C`$ is observed after annealing for 30 minutes. The discrepancies in the results, obtained from the conductivity measurements on the one hand and those obtained from the Raman and SQUID measurements on the other hand, are attributed to a vertical gradient of the hole density and the mobility within the GaMnAs layers. The incorporation of thin InGaMnAs films results in a drastic increase of the Curie temperature of the GaMnAs layers.

References

 T. Dietl, H. Ohno, and F. Matsukura, Phys. Rev. B 63 (2001) 195205.
 K.C. Ku, S.J. Potashnik, R.F. Wang, S.H.Chun, P. Schiffer, N. Samarth, M.J. Seong, A. Mascarenhas, E. Johnston-Halperin, R.C. Myers, A.C. Gossard, and D.D. Awschalom, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 (2003) 2302.
 S.J. Potashnik, K.C. Ku, S.H.Chun, J.J. Berry, N. Samarth, and P. Schiffer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79 (2001) 1495.
 K.W. Edmonds, K.Y. Wang, R.P. Campion, A.C. Neumann, N.R.S. Farley, B.L. Gallagher, and C.T. Foxon, Appl. Phys. Lett. 81 (2002) 4991.
 B.S. Sørensen, P.E. Lindelof, J. Sadowski, R. Mathieu, and P. Svedlindh, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 (2003) 2287.
 D. Ruzmetov, J. Scherschligt, D.V. Baxter, T. Wojtowicz, X. Liu, Y. Sasaki, J.K. Furdyna, K.M. Yu, and W. Walukiewicz, cond-mat/0302013.
 W. Limmer, M. Glunk, S. Mascheck, A. Koeder, D. Klarer, W. Schoch, K. Thonke, R. Sauer, and A. Waag, Phys. Rev. B 66 (2002) 205209.
 A. Koeder, S. Frank, W. Schoch, V. Avrutin, W. Limmer, K. Thonke, R. Sauer, A. Waag, M. Krieger, K. Zuern, P. Ziemann, S. Brotzmann, and H. Bracht, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82 (2003) 3278.
 J. Blinowski and P. Kacman, Phys. Rev. B 67 (2003) 121204.


format: text

text:
# Optical Pulse-Phased Photopolarimetry of PSR B0656+14

## 1 Introduction

Radio pulsars, as their name implies, are well studied at radio wavelengths. High time-resolution pulse profiles and polarization profiles have allowed determinations of the relative orientations of the rotation axis, magnetic axis, and observer line-of-sight (LOS), based on variations of the Rotating Vector Model (RVM), originally proposed for the Vela pulsar by Radhakrishnan & Cooke (1969). It is commonly believed that the radio emission is generated near the surface of the neutron star (Kijak & Gil, 1997), which simplifies the interpretation of the radio data. Studies by Lyne & Manchester (1988), Rankin (1990), and Everett & Weisberg (2001) use different methods and assumptions to determine these angles, with a rough agreement established between the methods.

High-energy (infrared to gamma-ray) magnetospheric emission from isolated, rotation-powered radio pulsars presents a complex theoretical picture. Two categories of theories have dominated the explanation of the location of the emission region for high-energy photons. Polar cap models (Daugherty & Harding, 1994, 1996) claim that the emission region is close to the neutron star surface, near the emission region for the observed radio waves. Outer gap models (Romani & Yadigaroglu, 1995; Romani, 1996) place the high-energy emission regions farther out in the magnetosphere, at significant fractions of the light-cylinder radius. Part of the problem in distinguishing between these two models lies in the small number of pulsars observed at high energies. Pulsed gamma rays have been observed in seven radio pulsars (counting Geminga as a radio pulsar for this argument), with possible detections in another three (Thompson, 2001). Many more pulsars have been observed in X-rays (Becker & Trümper, 1997), with inconclusive impact on the question of emission model, possibly because of a cyclotron resonance “blanket” confining the X-rays (Wang et al., 1998). Optical pulsations have been convincingly observed in only three radio pulsars, namely the Crab (Cocke et al., 1969), Vela (Wallace et al., 1977), and PSR B0540-69 (Middleditch & Pennypacker, 1985), with marginal detections in PSR B0656+14 (Shearer et al., 1997) and Geminga (Shearer et al., 1998). Optical photopolarimetric measurements hold the best promise to constrain the models for high-energy emission regions, until such time that X-ray and gamma-ray polarimetry is available.

PSR B0656+14 is a middle-aged pulsar, with period 0.385 s and characteristic age 1.1$`\times 10^5`$ years, considered a “cooling neutron star” because its soft X-ray emission is believed to come from the neutron star surface (Becker & Trümper, 1997). There is a tentative detection of a gamma-ray pulse (Ramanamurthy et al., 1996), as well as a claim of optical pulsations (Shearer et al., 1997). Optically, PSR B0656+14 is the second-brightest radio pulsar in the Northern sky ($`V`$ = 25), after the Crab puslar.

## 2 Observations

We observed PSR B0656+14 on 2000 December 20–21 at the Palomar 5 m telescope, with a Phase-Binning CCD Camera. Over the two nights, we obtained 38,000 s of integration time, with an average FWHM of 1.3 arcsec under non-photometric conditions. The phase-binning CCD used is a 512$`\times `$512-pixel back-illuminated CCD, masked by a 100$`\times `$26-pixel (50$`\times `$13 arcsec) slit. Intensity is binned on-chip into 10 phase intervals using a periodic frame transfer of the CCD. Between the slit and the CCD, an achromatic half-wave plate and two broadband polarizing beamsplitters form an imaging two-channel polarimeter, measuring two orthogonal linear polarizations simultaneously. The two polarized images are arranged side-by-side on the CCD in two columns. The half-wave plate is rotated between exposures to obtain measurements of the linear Stokes parameters (we do not measure $`V`$, the circular polarization). All observations were through a Schott BG38 colored-glass filter, which together with the quantum efficiency of our CCD, defines a bandpass of approximately 400–600 nm.

Every 1/10 of the period of PSR B0656+14 (known a priori), the accumulated images (both polarizations) are transferred away from the slit onto a region of the CCD used for storage, but no pixels are read out of the CCD. At the end of 10 transfers (i.e., 1 period of PSR B0656+14), which alternate between shifting the accumulated charge both up and down on the CCD, the images accumulated during the first phase interval are shifted back into the CCD region illuminated by the slit, and the images are re-illuminated. At any time, there are 20 accumulated images residing on the CCD (2 columns of linearly polarized images, 10 rows of phase-binned images), two of which are being illuminated.

This illumination pattern is repeated for 120 s (311 cycles of PSR B0656+14), at which point the shutter is closed and the entire array is read out. Timing of the exposures is coordinated using a GPS receiver and time-code generator, which delivers start and stop signals accurate to 1 $`\mu \mathrm{s}`$. An ephemeris for PSR B0656+14 from A. Lyne (2000, private communication) was used, with barycentric $`f=2.5980738005954\mathrm{s}^1`$, $`\dot{f}=3.71214\times 10^{13}\mathrm{s}^2`$, and $`\ddot{f}=8.33\times 10^{25}\mathrm{s}^3`$ at 2451687.5 JD TDB, and a radio pulse geocentric time-of-arrival 2451687.500000997 JD UTC. The JPL DE200 solar system ephemeris was used to compute the barycenter-geocenter and geocenter-topocenter corrections. On each night, we observed the Crab Pulsar to verify our timing and polarization optics.

## 3 Data Analysis

The integrated image, formed by adding all of the individual images to eliminate phase and polarization information, is shown in Figure 1. The total intensity images, formed by combining sets of polarized images but retaining the 10 phase bins, are shown in Figure 2.

A 3$`\times `$3-pixel (1.5$`\times `$1.5 arcsec) aperture was used to extract the flux of PSR B0656+14 in each phase bin. While absolute photometric measurements using a small (and square) photometric aperture are difficult to calibrate, the choice of aperture does not affect the time-differential photometry, to first order. The short pulse period (0.385 s) ensures that the point spread function and image centroids are the same in all phase bins, to first order. The total intensity of a bright nearby star, measured using the same analysis routines and photometric aperture used to analyze PSR B0656+14, is measured to be constant to a signal-to-noise ratio exceeding 800. Assuming the fractional photometric errors are constant, they contribute no more than a $``$ 0.125% error in the PSR B0656+14 measurements. The individual polarized flux measurements from the nearby bright star are constant to a similar level ($``$ 0.1%). Flat-fielding and bias subtraction are performed as described in detail in Kern (2002).

### 3.1 Background Subtracted Pulse Profile

A nearby extended object, which is visible in Hubble Space Telescope WF/PC2 and NICMOS images of the field around PSR B0656+14 (Koptsevich et al., 2001), when observed from the ground contributes some light to the photometric aperture used for PSR B0656+14. This object is labeled o2 by Koptsevich et al. (2001). The HST WF/PC2 images were observed in the F555W filter, a similar bandpass to that of our ground-based images. We convolve the WF/PC2 images with a gaussian PSF whose FWHM equals our average ground-based seeing FWHM (1.3 arcsec). We find that in our 1.5 arcsec square photometric aperture, the extended object contributes 39% $`\pm `$ 7% of the pulse-averaged light in our (ground-based) photometric aperture.

We define $`I_i`$ as the background-subtracted intensity of PSR B0656+14 in phase bin $`i`$, which is plotted in Figure 3, normalized by the pulse-averaged flux, $`\overline{I}`$. The uncertainties plotted in Figure 3 are determined from the variations in the measured intensities in each phase bin, and are only 5% larger than the expected Poissonian errors due to the background flux surrounding PSR B0656+14. The phases of our observations are referenced to the peak of the radio pulse, which arrives at phase 0.0. The possible gamma-ray pulse (Ramanamurthy et al., 1996) peaks at phase 0.2. The soft X-ray pulse broadly peaks near phase 0.85, with a minimum near phase 0.3 (Marshall & Schulz, 2002).

The minimum of the normalized background-subtracted pulse profile, $`I_{\mathrm{min}}/\overline{I}`$, is -0.05. While a negative intensity is clearly unphysical, the measurement error in each bin ($`\sigma _I/\overline{I}=0.24`$) can account for this discrepancy. Using all of the bins in a joint probability measurement, we find a 1-$`\sigma `$ upper limit (two-tailed) to the true unpulsed flux to be $`I_{\mathrm{unpulsed}}/\overline{I}<0.16`$, accounting for both measurement error in each bin and the uncertainty in the background level. The limited temporal resolution of these measurements causes $`I_{\mathrm{unpulsed}}`$ to be overestimated, so this number is an upper limit.

The pulse profile we measure for PSR B0656+14 differs from that measured by Shearer et al. (1997). Due to an ephemeris folding error (A. Shearer 2002, private communication), the Shearer et al. published results must be shifted in phase so that the peak arrives at phase 0.8 (relative to the radio peak at 0.0). Shearer et al. measure a pulse with a broad single peak, similar to the soft X-ray pulse profile (Marshall & Schulz, 2002), reaching a maximum at phase 0.8, coincident with our Peak 2, but they find a minimum near phase 0.2, coincident with our Peak 1. Considering the errors in the flux levels ($``$ 80% of the mean flux) and the sky background level ($``$ 40%) published by Shearer et al., along with our errors (24% flux, 7% background), the two curves (independently normalized to the measured mean fluxes) disagree at the 97.5% (two-tailed) level. Some difference may be expected because the Shearer et al. results were obtained through a $`B`$ filter, while ours were obtained through a wider passband (400–600 nm). The measured disagreement could be due to the pulse morphology changing over the 5 years between the Shearer et al. observations and ours, or simply due to measurements that sample the tail of the error distribution. The level of disagreement does not warrant serious discussion of variability in the pulse morphology.

### 3.2 Linearly Polarized Flux

We compute the linearly polarized flux, $`L_i`$, and the polarization position angle, $`\theta _i`$, from the measured Stokes parameters $`Q_i`$ and $`U_i`$,

$`L_i`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{Q_i^2+U_i^2},`$ (1a)
$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{tan}^1(U_i/Q_i)/2.`$ (1b)
Following the prescriptions in Simmons & Stewart (1985), we construct a Wardle-Kronberg (Wardle & Kronberg, 1974) estimator for $`L_i`$, which we denote $`L_i^{\mathrm{WK}}`$, to reduce bias in points with low signal-to-noise ratios. A plot of the linearly polarized flux (using the Wardle-Kronberg estimator), normalized to the pulse-averaged flux, is shown in Figure 4. In phases 0.4 – 0.7, the $`L_i^{\mathrm{WK}}`$ values differ from zero at the 2–3-$`\sigma `$ level.

We test the significance of the polarized flux measurements in two ways. In each test we use the simple estimator in Eqn. 1a for $`L_i`$, rather than $`L_i^{\mathrm{WK}}`$. If the uncertainties in $`Q_i`$ and $`U_i`$ are distributed as independent gaussian variables with variance $`\sigma ^2`$, under the null hypothesis that there is no polarized flux, $`\chi ^2=_{i=0}^9L_i^2/\sigma ^2`$ should be distributed as $`\chi ^2`$ with 20 degrees of freedom. This first test gives $`\chi ^2=50`$, which has a cumulative probability of 94.5%.

The polarized flux measurements form a time series, in which the ordering of the measurements is significant. We test the randomness of the time series (i.e., , the ordering) with the Wald-Wolfowitz test of serial correlation (Wald & Wolfowitz, 1943). The ordering of the polarization values measured violates the null hypothesis, that the numbers are randomly chosen, at the 97% level.

The combination of these two tests, which are independent of one another (the size of the measurements is independent of the ordering of the measurements), lends some credibility to the measured polarization flux values. We combine the cumulative probabilities of the two tests (94.5% and 97%) to derive a significance of 0.998 for the detection of pulsed polarized flux (a 3-$`\sigma `$ result).

If the position angle changes by 90° on timescales comparable to the bin width, the measured linear polarization will be reduced. Therefore, the measured linear polarization must be considered a lower limit. The best estimate is then that the flux is $``$ 100% polarized from phase 0.4–0.7, and (linearly) unpolarized at other phases.

## 4 Emission Models

There are two dominant classes of models that attempt to explain the origin of the optical emission. These two classes are the polar cap models and the outer gap models. In each of these two classes of models, the morphology and the polarization of the optical light curve are determined by the spin period, $`P`$, the angle between the rotation and magnetic axes, $`\alpha `$, and the colatitude of the observer’s line-of-sight, $`\zeta `$. The geometry is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 5. In addition, the polar cap model allows the height of the emission region, $`h`$, to vary.

The optical light curve of PSR B0656+14 is sharply double-peaked, unlike either the radio (Gould & Lyne, 1998) or the X-ray (Marshall & Schulz, 2002) light curves, which are both single-peaked. We separate the optical light curve (see Fig. 3) into 4 phase intervals. We define Peak 1 from phase 0.2–0.3, Bridge emission from phase 0.3–0.8, Peak 2 from 0.8–0.9, and Off-pulse from 0.9–1.2.

The radio pulse peaks at phase 0.0, with FWHM 0.04–0.07 at frequencies from 0.2–1.6 GHz (Gould & Lyne, 1998). The Rotating Vector Model (RVM) allows radio polarization profiles to determine the geometry of the magnetic poles relative to the rotation axis and the observer line-of-sight (LOS). In the case of PSR B0656+14, the deepest data (at 1.4 GHz) give a measurement of $`\alpha =29\mathrm{°}\pm 23\mathrm{°}`$, $`\beta =8.9\mathrm{°}\pm 6.1\mathrm{°}`$ (Everett & Weisberg, 2001), where $`\beta `$ is the angle of the closest approach of the observer LOS to the magnetic axis, defined by $`\beta =\zeta \alpha `$. The uncertainties of these angles are highly (positively) correlated. Two earlier studies investigated PSR B0656+14, with Lyne & Manchester (1988) giving $`\alpha `$=8.2°, $`\beta `$=8.2°, and Rankin (1990) giving $`\alpha `$=30° (with no estimate of $`\beta `$.) These earlier studies do not estimate errors, as they are fits to empirical assumptions about the underlying geometry whose errors are not easily estimated.

### 4.1 Polar cap model

The polar cap model assumes that the optical light is emitted near the surface of the neutron star, at radii small compared to the light cylinder radius. The optical light curve and polarization information can be tested against two predictions of the polar cap model. First, the polarization position angles can be compared to the predictions of the RVM, using geometric parameters determined by radio polarization data. Second, the phase separation between the peaks in the optical light curve, combined with the geometric parameters determined by the RVM, determines an emission height for the optical peaks. If this emission height is too large to be consistent with the polar cap model, then the model fails.

The RVM is a simple model, which assumes that the polarization position angle depends only on the projection of the magnetic dipole axis on the sky. Because the position angles predicted by the RVM have no dependence on height above the neutron star surface, we can reasonably assume that the radio and optical position angles must follow the same fit, even if they are emitted in different regions. The radio polarization data of Everett & Weisberg (2001) are not calibrated with an absolute position angle, which leaves the zero-point of radio position angles as a free parameter. We take the RVM position angles predicted by the fits to the radio polarization, degrade the temporal resolution to that of the optical observations (10 resolution elements), and add a constant position angle offset to best fit the optical polarization measurements. The best-fit RVM prediction, showing both the radio and optical position angles, is shown in Figure 6. The range of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ allowed by the radio fit does not change the predicted position angle by an amount comparable to the errors in our measurement of $`\theta _i`$, so the optical data do not reduce formal errors on $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ beyond those of the radio polarization data alone. The fit of the optical position angles to the RVM prediction is quite good, with a measured $`\chi ^2`$ of 2.3 for 2 degrees of freedom (cumulative probability 0.69). The optical position angle observations greatly expand the phase coverage of the polarization data, but the size of the optical error bars and the lack of absolute calibration of the radio data angles prevent significant improvement of the RVM fit. The fact that the optical data agree well with the radio data, given that they are obtained by entirely independent techniques, does lend credibility to the RVM. The conservative conclusion drawn from the the optical polarization position angles is that they are consistent with the assumption that the optical light is emitted along dipolar field lines, without consideration of relativistic aberration, light travel time, or retarded potentials.

The polar cap model, by assuming that the light is emitted near the neutron star surface (far from the light cylinder), makes specific predictions regarding the morphology of the light curves. For the second test, the information contained in the optical pulse profile is reduced to the separation between the peaks, which are assumed to be emitted from a single height, $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$, above the neutron star surface. The last open field lines form a pseudo-cone near the surface of the star, and the optical light is assumed to be emitted along the surface of the cone (tangent to the field lines), from some height $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ above the surface. Peaks in the optical light curve arise as the neutron star rotates and the line-of-sight intersects the cone of emission at $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$. The sharp rise of Peak 1 and sharp fall of Peak 2 match the prediction that the optical emission arises from a hollow cone (Sturner & Dermer, 1994), with the radio pulse arriving in the center of the cone, during the optical Off-pulse phase interval.

Several theoretical attempts have been made to estimate the height of the gamma-ray emission region. Recent studies have estimated that particle acceleration begins at heights 0.5–1 times the neutron star radius, $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, above the poles (Harding & Muslimov, 1998). This particle acceleration results in radiation of curvature photons or inverse Compton scattering of thermal photons, which then produce pairs, resulting in cascades of photons and particles. The optical radiation is produced after some number of generations of this cascade. We are not aware of specific estimates of the height of the optical emission regions with respect to the primary particle acceleration regions, but it has been speculated that the gamma-ray emission regions may extend to several ($``$ 3–5) $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$ (Daugherty & Harding, 1996), motivated by the requirement that observed gamma-ray pulsar statistics reflect random viewing angles of pulsars. We adopt the estimate that $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}5R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$.

The opening angle of the cone defined by the last open field lines increases with increasing height, $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$, of the emission region above the neutron star surface. All else equal, larger values of $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ result in more widely separated peaks in the optical light curve. Given values of the pulsar period, $`P`$, and the phase separation between the optical peaks, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is a function of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$. We calculate the relationship between these variables by assuming the magnetic fields are described by an inclined static dipole (defined by $`\alpha `$), and define the last open field lines as those which are tangent to the light cylinder (defined by $`P`$). We do not consider plasma loading, inertial frame dragging, or general relativistic photon propagation effects near the surface, and do not distort the field lines for any near-surface plasma effects. These additional corrections, which we neglect, can increase the opening angle of the near-surface field lines by a factor of $``$ 2 (Daugherty & Harding, 1996). The absence of these corrections results in conservative limits, in the sense that the corrections would allow larger values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ to produce the observed peak separation. For given values of $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ and $`\zeta `$, we calculate the tangents to the last open field lines, and find the values of $`\phi `$ for which the tangents to the last open field lines point toward the observer. Because $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ are not uniquely determined for PSR B0656+14, estimates of $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ depend on the range of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ allowed by the RVM. We do not use the standard small-angle approximations for the dipole field lines, but calculate the full spherical trigonometric relationships for all angles, which are valid for all values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$.

By assuming that the optical emission forms a hollow cone (Sturner & Dermer, 1994), with the radio pulse in the center of the cone, the separation between the optical peaks becomes $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{\mathrm{peak}}=0.4`$ (instead of 0.6). A plot of $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ versus $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$, showing values of $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ comparable to several $`R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, is shown in Fig. 7. It must be recognized that the uncertainties in $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ for each $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ amount to several tens of percent, in the sense that the plot is calculated for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _{\mathrm{peak}}=0.4`$, which is itself uncertain by approximately $`\pm 0.1`$. If $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ are less than $`5^{}`$, $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$ is small enough to be consistent with the intial assumption of the polar cap model (that the emission region is within a few NS radii) and the constraints of the RVM.

The data contained in Fig. 7 represent only a consistency check based on the optical peak separation, from a single height above the neutron star surface. We propose an entirely empirical model to estimate the relative emissivity versus height in the polar cap model, for a range of heights. For a single representative point in Fig. 7, we calculate the emission height at all phases, defining the height as the point at which the tangent to the last open field lines points to the observer. A plot of the emission height versus $`\phi `$ for $`\alpha =3.5^{}`$, $`\zeta =5^{}`$ is shown in Fig. 8. While this choice of $`\alpha `$ differs somewhat from the best-fit RVM estimate of $`29\pm 23^{}`$ from radio data, it corresponds to $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}5R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, which we choose as an upper limit. For this analysis (but not in the following Outer gap model section), we make use of the lag between the radio peak and the transit of the magnetic pole, as determined from the radio polarization data in Everett & Weisberg (2001). They find that the RVM estimates a lag of $`14.9\pm 0.9^{}`$ of the magnetic pole with respect to the radio peak, which we approximate as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi `$ = 0.05 (or 18). We find this lag convenient, as it makes the interpretation of the pulse profile (Fig. 3) symmetric, in the sense that the first peak arrives at $`\phi 0.25`$ (between 0.2 and 0.3 relative to the radio peak), which is 0.2 revolutions after the magnetic pole transit, and the second peak arrives at $`\phi 0.85`$, which is 0.2 revolutions before the magnetic pole transit. This should not be interpreted as an independent corroboration of the estimated lag of the magnetic pole, as there is no reason to believe the profile must be symmetric, and because the effect is smaller than the optical temporal resolution.

The emissivity at different heights above the polar caps can be crudely estimated using the height profile shown in Fig. 8. We again assume light is emitted along tangents to the last open field lines. Points on the two-dimensional surface of last open field lines emit light that would be observed at different phases, $`\phi `$, by observers at different colatitudes, $`\zeta `$. The transformation from two-dimensional area on the surface of last open field lines to solid angle ($`\phi `$, $`\zeta `$) on the sky into which optical light is emitted defines a Jacobian, which determines the relationship between emissivity (emitted flux per unit surface area) and the flux observed in a given phase interval (recognizing that the observer defines a delta-function in $`\zeta `$). At lower heights, the magnetic field lines diverge more rapidly, which results in a lower observed flux for a given emissivity (i.e., , the flux is emitted into a larger solid angle). Conversely, given an observed flux, the inferred emissivity is greater at lower heights.

A plot of the estimated emissivity versus height above the neutron star surface is shown in Fig. 9, for $`\alpha =3.5^{}`$, $`\zeta =5^{}`$. The points at small $`h`$ (less than $`3R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$) come from the Off-pulse interval, the peaks in emissivity correspond to the optical peaks, and the largest value of $`h`$ corresponds to $`\phi `$ = 0.5–0.6. This plot clearly shows the errors implicit in Fig. 7, based on the size of the horizontal bars (the range of heights that contribute to each phase bin). The heights and emissivities shown in Figs. 8 and 9 depend on the given geometry ($`\alpha =3.5^{}`$, $`\zeta =5^{}`$), but the trends in the plots remain the same for different geometries, with a rapid rise of emissivity up to $`h_{\mathrm{peak}}`$, declining at larger heights. It must be emphasized that this emissivity model is purely empirical, and is not based on any understanding of the underlying pair cascade physics or emission mechanisms.

### 4.2 Outer gap model

Outer gaps arise beyond null charge surfaces, where the Goldreich-Julian charge density vanishes (Romani & Yadigaroglu, 1995; Romani, 1996). These gaps act as accelerators, which result in cascades of high-energy particles and photons being emitted along the magnetic field lines (in the rotating frame). The gaps are “closed” some distance from the null charge surface, where the cascades supply a sufficient density of charged particles to end the acceleration. In a broad interpretation, the regions responsible for the observed optical emission are bounded by the null charge surfaces, the last open field lines, the light cylinder, and the upper edges of the gap (where the cascades close the gap). Individual models, applied to different pulsars, have assumed that high-energy emission comes from some subset of the potential emission region.

The typical assumption used to model the observed emission from an outer gap is that photons are emitted, in the rotating frame, along magnetic field lines. Calculating the resulting light curve entails applying relativistic corrections and correcting for light travel times, which means that the emission region observed at a particular phase is generally not along the line-of-sight connecting the observer to the surface of the neutron star. In addition, calculating the magnetic field line trajectories at radii comparable to the light cylinder radius requires using retarded potentials, such as those described by Deutsch (1955).

The parameters required to produce an individual light curve using an outer gap model are $`P`$, $`\alpha `$, and $`\zeta `$, as in the polar cap model, plus a width parameter $`w`$. The width parameter, $`w`$, identifies a set of magnetic field lines, based on the location at which they intersect the surface of the neutron star. The last open field lines are defined to lie at $`w=0`$, while the magnetic pole defines $`w=1`$ (Romani & Yadigaroglu, 1995). A given value of $`w`$ identifies a two-dimensional surface (a pseudo-cone), that is the collection of all magnetic field lines that strike the neutron star surface at the appropriate distance from the magnetic pole. We then assume that this surface emits optical photons tangential to the local field lines, directed inward, outward, or both, with a constant flux per unit surface area. More complex outer gap models may also include azimuthal and radial limits on the emission region inside the outer gap, or any arbitrary pattern of emission over the surfaces of constant $`w`$.

In our simplified approach, where we only determine emission peaks for a given geometry, we adopt a simple technique for identifying peaks. For a given $`\alpha `$ and $`w`$, a skymap is constructed, as described in Yadigaroglu (1997). A skymap shows the locus of points in the $`\zeta `$-$`\phi `$ plane (where $`\phi `$ is phase) which correspond to observable emission from the surface of magnetic field lines defined by $`w`$. The skymap corresponding to $`\alpha =70^{}`$, $`w=0.2`$ is shown in Fig. 10. The transformation that maps the two-dimensional surface of magnetic field lines at constant $`w`$ to the two-dimensional skymap ($`\zeta `$ vs. $`\phi `$), combined with the assumption of constant emitted flux per unit surface area, results in a map of observed flux per unit $`\zeta `$-$`\phi `$ area. The Jacobian of this transformation is large (high flux) where $`\zeta `$ and $`\phi `$ change little across or along magnetic field lines. This is most commonly the case at the envelope of the optical emission regions, between regions of $`\zeta `$ and $`\phi `$ where there is observable emission and regions where there is none. We then use the location of this boundary as an estimate of the $`\zeta `$ and $`\phi `$ at which the optical light curve peaks. One motivation for this formulation is that for a given $`\zeta `$, the lightcurve will be discontinuous at values of $`\phi `$ which cross this boundary, as the flux is zero on one side of the boundary. While this quality does replicate part of the phenomenology associated with a peak, by only reproducing the positions of the optical peaks, we make no distinction between zero emission off-peak and bridge emission.

This simplified technique is prone to identify too many peaks. There are configurations for which the outer gap models generate broad, sinusoidal pulse profiles, whose peaks are not captured by identifying boundary crossings. In addition, there are low flux regions identified by this technique that are insignificant in the overall pulse profile. Configurations with small values of $`\alpha `$, or large values of $`\zeta `$ (near 90) tend to produce more spurious peaks using this technique.

Given the large number of pulse profiles that can be constructed by varying the available parameters, we restrict the observational features we try to match. We reduce the contents of the optical light curve to the peak positions, specifically, Peak 1 occurs between phases 0.2–0.3 and Peak 2 occurs between phases 0.8–0.9. The radio pulse arrives at phase 0.0. We model the emission from three classes of outer gap models, to match the observations. Class A restricts the emission region to single values of $`w`$, and insists that the phases of the two optical peaks and the radio peak all match the observations. Class B allows emission from all values of $`w`$, and insists that the phases of the radio and optical peaks match. Class C allows emission from all values of $`w`$, but assumes the optical peaks have no relationship to the radio peak. For each of these classes, we determine the light curves produced by only outward-going photons, only inward-going photons, and a combination of inward- and outward-going photons. For each of the nine resulting constraints, we determine the values of $`\alpha `$, $`\zeta `$, and (for Class A) $`w`$ which produce the observed phases of optical peaks.

We calculate skymaps, and their corresponding envelopes, for $`\alpha `$ = 5–85 at intervals of 5, and for $`w`$ = 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20, 0.40, and 0.80. From this grid of skymaps, we calculate peak positions for values of $`\zeta `$ = 1–90 at intervals of 1. The agreement of the models with the constraints corresponding to each class, and inward- or outward-going emission, are recorded and binned into 5-square bins in $`\alpha `$-$`\zeta `$ space. The results of the agreement of the models is presented in Fig. 11. We include the regions of $`\alpha `$ and $`\zeta `$ which are consistent with the RVM applied to the radio data in Fig. 11, except in Class C, which ignores the radio data.

Further work will be required to compare the observed polarization profile to those predicted by the outer gap models under different geometries, in an attempt to further constrain the outer gap models.

## 5 Discussion

The double-peaked nature of the optical pulse profile can be interpreted in light of both polar cap and outer gap models. In the absence of a clear gamma-ray pulse profile for PSR B0656+14, and given that the soft X-rays observed for PSR B0656+14 are commonly interpreted as thermal emission from the neutron star surface, the optical pulse profile is the only high-energy data available to test these models. The optical polarization data, while not of high signal-to-noise ratio, allow a new set of diagnostics to be applied to these tests.

Unlike the radio emission, which is probably coherent curvature radiation, the optical emission mechanism is more likely to be synchrotron radiation. This is supported in the case of PSR B0656+14 by the close match between the optical fluxes and the extrapolation of the non-thermal X-ray power law component, scaling as $`\nu ^{0.45}`$ (Koptsevich et al., 2001). There are two immediate implications of this inference. First, the polarization position angle differs by 90 between curvature and synchrotron radiation. Curvature radiation in the normal mode is polarized parallel to the $`B`$ field, while the position angle of syncrotron radiation will be perpendicular to the $`B`$ field. We cannot test this prediction without absolutely calibrated radio position angles. Without absolutely calibrated position angles, there is no orientation against which to compare the measured optical position angles. Second, if the optical light is synchrotron with a negative power-law exponent, the $`B`$ field at the location of emission must be low enough that the synchrotron characteristic frequency is below the optical frequency. A critical frequency, $`\nu _\mathrm{c}`$, of $`10^{14}`$ Hz corresponds to $`B10^8`$ G, compared to the surface $`B_0=5\times 10^{12}`$ G. This constraint leads to a minimum height of the emission region of $`35R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$ for the dipole field to drop to 10<sup>8</sup> G.

The polar cap model can explain the morphology of the optical pulse profile, with the light arising from an emission within $`5R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$, for $`\alpha `$, $`\zeta 5^{}`$, as shown in Fig. 7. As is typical for polar cap models with widely separated peaks (Sturner & Dermer, 1994), the predicted values of $`\alpha `$ are small. What is striking is that the polarization position angles for the optical light curve agree very well with the sweep predicted by the Rotating Vector Model, applied to the radio polarizaion data of Everett & Weisberg (2001). While the agreement is quite good ($`\chi ^2`$ = 2.3 for 2 degrees of freedom), it is based on only three data points, which give only two degrees of freedom because the absolute position angles of the radio data are not known. The optical position angles do support the interpretation of the radio data in Everett & Weisberg (2001), which is encouraging, as the fits to the RVM using radio data from a short phase interval give estimates with a great deal of covariance in the parameters. The simple fact that the sweep of optical position angles agrees at all with the radio position angles implies a new level of confidence that the RVM applies to PSR B0656+14, considering that the RVM gives good fits to only a small fraction of pulsars with high-quality radio polarization data. It must be recognized that the radio polarization data are obtained in only a small window of phase (see Fig. 6), while the optical position angles are taken from a wider range of phase. The optical data, when combined with the radio data, give a more complete picture than is available for nearly any other radio pulsar, except the Crab (which does not follow the RVM). While the optical data do not directly confirm the estimated lag between the radio peak and the magnetic pole transit, the agreement of the optical data with the RVM fit does bolster confidence that the RVM can be interpreted quite literally in the case of PSR B0656+14. The optical position angles do not allow us to test if the optical light is synchrotron while the radio is curvature radiation, because the radio position angles are not absolutely calibrated. Regardless of the interpretation of the optical position angles, the polar cap model can explain the general morphology of the optical light curve (peak positions relative to the radio peak, bridge emission between the peaks). However, there may be a problem with an unbroken synchrotron power-law spectrum through optical frequencies requiring a larger emission height ($`35R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$) than is realistic under polar cap cascade scenarios ($`5R_{\mathrm{NS}}`$).

The outer gap models discussed here are somewhat restrictive, in that we do not accomodate several dimensions of flexibility available to outer gap models. We assume a constant emitted flux per unit surface area across the entire possible outer gap region. This assumption ignores, for example, the flexibility allowed by instituting azimuthal or radial limits to the optical emission region, which could shift the location of the peaks in the optical light curve. We also reduce the optical light curve to its simplest observable parameter, the location of the optical peaks. We find that with these restrictions, we are able to find agreement between the data and the outer gap models, as summarized in Fig. 11. However, in examining only the presence of peaks at the observed phases, we ignore the fact that most of these models produce too many peaks. For instance, the inclusion of both outward- and inward-going emission produces four peaks for most geometries. In addition, including many values of $`w`$ in the calculations (which results in many geometries compatible with the observations) would diffuse the peaks, without fine-tuning the models by restricting the emission region in azimuth or radius. The overly liberal approach we take in our modeling, which produces as many peaks as possible, is intended only to determine the ability to construct a model which produces peaks at the right positions, with the assumption that the remaining degrees of freedom could be used to fine-tune the model to better fit the entire light curve observed.

One conclusion that is not well represented in Fig. 11 is that values of $`w>0.40`$ do not contribute significantly to the observed optical peaks. Zhang & Cheng (1997) predict that because PSR B0656+14 rotates slowly, 70% of the volume of the outer magnetosphere should be filled by the outer gap. While this fractional volume is not directly comparable to $`w`$, taken simplistically, it seems to imply that the optical emission is being emitted well inside (i.e., not filling) the boundaries of the outer gap.

The Crab Pulsar is the only other pulsar for which optical polarization measurements are available. The polarization pulse profile measured in PSR B0656+14 is different in character than that measured in the Crab. The Crab’s linearly polarized flux is maximized at the peaks and minimized in the bridge, while the polarized fraction is maximized in the bridge and minimized at the peaks (Smith et al., 1988). In PSR B0656+14, the linearly polarized flux and polarized fraction are both maximized in the bridge and both minimized at the peaks. The low temporal resolution of our optical measurements will lead to a decrease in the measured linearly polarized flux, but our observations of the Crab at the same temporal resolution show a much greater polarized flux at the peaks (where the position angle swings rapidly) than in the bridge. Under the RVM, this decrease in measured linearly polarized flux would be small, as can be seen by noting that the position angle sweep is not rapid at phases 0.2 and 0.8 in Fig. 6. However, the RVM does not apply to the position angles measured in the Crab (as the position angles execute a “double sweep”), so without a more detailed polarization model for PSR B0656+14, we cannot rule out the chance that rapid swings have degraded our measured polarized flux.

The 1-$`\sigma `$ upper limit on the unpulsed flux is 16%, limiting the contribution of thermal radiation to the observed flux. As we are presenting only differential photometry in these observations, we must rely on absolute photometry presented by other authors, which almost certainly have different methods of background subtraction (and treatment of the nearby extended object). As such, we note only that this limit on the thermal radiation from PSR B0656+14 is not surprising, given realistic extrapolations of the Rayleight-Jeans emission (Koptsevich et al., 2001). The high pulsed fraction does, however, rule out models in which the optical emission is due to a fallback disk (Perna, Hernquist, & Narayan 2000). A comparable pulsed / unpulsed measurement in the UV would provide a much better constraint on the Rayleigh-Jeans tail of the thermal emission from the surface of PSR B0656+14.

We were greatly assisted by Stephen Kaye and the Palomar engineering staff. Thanks to J. Everett and A. Shearer for additional assistance, and to J. Weisberg for encouraging and constructive comments. This work was supported by NSF Grants AST-9618880, AST-9819762, and AST-0096930. This investigation made use of observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute. STScI is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555.


text:
# ”Autothixotropy” of Water - an Unknown Physical Phenomenon

## 1 Laboratory Observations

During 1978-1986 a series of measurements were performed (Vybíral, 1987 and 1989) in order to verify the gravitational law in fluids as deduced by Horák (1984). In 1978 a disturbing phenomenon was observed in the measurements which compelled the author to use another method.

In a private communication between the authors, the new - then disturbing - phenomenon was discussed and a series of experiments focusing on this phenomenon were proposed. In the Department of Physics of Pedagogical University at Hradec Králové, the original experimental device was reconstructed with the purpose of creating the best conditions for the observation of the phenomenon (see Fig. 1).

After objects immersed in the water have been at rest for one or several days, seven qualitatively different phenomena can be observed:

When the hanger is rotated by a certain angle, the plate immersed in the water remains in almost the same position, in spite of the twisting tension arising in the thin filament. (Nevertheless, a ”creep” toward a new neutral position can be observed after some time (days or weeks).) When a certain critical angle is reached, the plate will rotate - relatively quickly - into a new neutral position given by the angle of rotation of the hanger. (When a smooth-surfaced cylinder, which can rotate around its own axis, was used instead of the plate, this phenomenon was not observed.)

Another phenomenon, though - in the clarity of appearance - weaker than the phenomenon mentioned above, can simultaneously be observed: a quick rotation of the plate in the direction of the rotation of the hanger; nevertheless, the angle of the quick rotation is one or two orders of magnitude less than the angle in phenomenon (1).

(Using a one generation older device, the strongly dampened oscillations could be observed around the new equilibrium position (i.e. rest-position with twisting tension in the filament) after the mechanical pulse had been given to the plate. Such oscillations were directly observed by Voráček in a very rough experiment performed in March 1991 (not published) and (after a personal report) discovered by Vybíral when reanalyzing observational material from 1978).

The critical angle of rotation in phenomenon (1) is dependent on the period of time the water has been at rest. This angle increases with time, starting from virtually zero. (The critical angle can reach values of several tens of degrees!)

If the plate is only partially immersed, the critical angle is significantly greater than when it is immersed completely.

In case of partial immersion, the phenomenon analogous to (2) is much more prominent.

(Both phenomena (4) and (5) are time-dependent as described in (3) despite the time-invariance of the surface tension which we also tested.)

If the water is stirred after having been at rest for some time (several days), the critical angle increases from zero quicker (when being again at rest) than when new ”fresh” water is used.

The critical angle is significantly augmented and the phenomenon appears earlier if the (distilled) water is boiled (thus deaerated) before the experiment is started.

Regarding the convincing prominence of observed phenomena, we consider them being significant enough in order to claim they are real, despite the performed experiments were only qualitative. (Our attempts in carrying out quantitative experiments with an acceptable precision did not succeed, owing to too great dispersion of measured values; much more professional laboratory equipment than the one we could acquire, as well as more strict measurement conditions than those we could guarantee, would be necessary.)

In accordance with the generally accepted terminology, the above described complex of phenomena could appropriately be called the *autothixotropy* of water.

## 2 Proposed Explanation of the Phenomena

Looking for a preliminary interpretation of our observations, a hypothesis based on ”ephemeric polymerisation” of the water seems to be plausible. The existence of such a weak polymerisation was suspected decades ago, both defended and denied by experts. If the ephemeric polymerisation of water is the cause of the observed phenomena, it indicates that dipole water molecules are establishing chains or a network; first as minute complexes, thereafter combining successively with one another. The structure then becomes more and more dense while oscillating at a certain amplitude on a scale of molecules. Such a structure will be relatively fragile, susceptible perhaps even to differences in the concentration of materials dissolvable in water, at different points inside the vessel. The Brownian motion can be observed in the case of a conglomerate of molecules having a non-polar character, owing to collisions with molecules of water oscillating in the established network. A stirring - not too thorough - of the ”old” water seems to preserve parts of the network, making the subsequent ”dipole polymerisation” quicker than it would be in the ”fresh” (i.e. well stirred) water. Further, the established structure has a certain degree of elasticity. If the water is deaerated by boiling, no dissolved air (gases) has a disturbing influence either on the developing process or integrity of the structures; consequently, the phenomenon appears earlier and is more pronounced.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Numerous examples exist in the literature of the derivation of electrodynamical equations from simpler physical hypotheses. In Einstein’s original paper on Special Relativity , the Lorentz force law was derived by performing a Lorentz transformation of the electromagnetic fields and the space-time coordinates from the rest frame of an electron (where only electrostatic forces act) to the laboratory system where the electron is in motion and so also subjected to magnetic forces. A similar demonstration was given by Schwartz  who also showed how the electrodynamical Maxwell equations can be derived from the Gauss laws of electrostatics and magnetostatics by exploiting the 4-vector character of the electromagnetic current and the symmetry properties of the electromagnetic field tensor. The same type of derivation of electrodynamic Maxwell equations from the electrostatic and magnetostatic ones has recently been performed by the present author on the basis of ‘space-time exchange symmetry’ . Frisch and Wilets  discussed the derivation of Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force law by application of relativistic transforms to the electrostatic Gauss law. Dyson  published a proof, due originally to Feynman, of the Faraday-Lenz law of induction, based on Newton’s Second Law and the quantum commutation relations of position and momentum, that excited considerable interest and a flurry of comments and publications  about a decade ago. Landau and Lifshitz  presented a derivation of Ampère’s Law from the electrodynamic Lagrangian, using the Principle of Least Action. By relativistic transformation of the Coulomb force from the rest frame of a charge to another inertial system in relative motion, Lorrain, Corson and Lorrain  derived both the Biot-Savart law, for the magnetic field generated by a moving charge, and the Lorentz force law.

In many text books on classical electrodynamics the question of what are the fundamental physical hypotheses underlying the subject, as distinct from purely mathematical developments of these hypotheses, used to derive predictions, is not discussed in any detail. Indeed, it may even be stated that it is futile to address the question at all. For example, Jackson  states:

At present it is popular in undergraduate texts and elsewhere to attempt to derive magnetic fields and even Maxwell equations from Coulomb’s law of electrostatics and the theory of Special Relativity. It should immediately obvious that, without additional assumptions, this is impossible.’

This is, perhaps, a true statement. However, if the additional assumptions are weak ones, the derivation may still be a worthwhile exercise. In fact, in the case of Maxwell’s equations, as shown in References , the ‘additional assumptions’ are merely the formal definitions of the electric and magnetic fields in terms of the space–time derivatives of the 4–vector potential . In the case of the derivation of the Lorentz force equation given below, not even the latter assumption is required, as the magnetic field definition appears naturally in the course of the derivation.

In the chapter on ‘The Electromagnetic Field’ in Misner Thorne and Wheeler’s book ‘Gravitation’  can be found the following statement:

Here and elsewhere in science, as stressed not least by Henri Poincaré, that view is out of date which used to say, “Define your terms before you proceed”. All the laws and theories of physics, including the Lorentz force law, have this deep and subtle chracter, that they both define the concepts they use (here $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}`$) and make statements about these concepts. Contrariwise, the absence of some body of theory, law and principle deprives one of the means properly to define or even use concepts. Any forward step in human knowlege is truly creative in this sense: that theory concept, law, and measurement —forever inseperable—are born into the world in union.

I do not agree that the electric and magnetic fields are the fundamental concepts of electromagnetism, or that the Lorentz force law cannot be derived from simpler and more fundamental concepts, but must be ‘swallowed whole’, as this passage suggests. As demonstrated in References  where the electrodynamic and magnetodynamic Maxwell equations are derived from those of electrostatics and magnetostatics, a more economical description of classical electromagentism is provided by the 4–vector potential. Another example of this is provided by the derivation of the Lorentz force law presented in the present paper. The discussion of electrodynamics in Reference  is couched entirely in terms of the electromagnetic field tensor, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, and the electric and magnetic fields which, like the Lorentz force law and Maxwell’s equations, are ‘parachuted’ into the exposition without any proof or any discussion of their interrelatedness. The 4–vector potential is introduced only in the next-but-last exercise at the end of the chapter. After the derivation of the Lorentz force law in Section 3 below, a comparison will be made with the treatment of the law in References .

The present paper introduces, in the following Section, the idea of an ‘invariant formulation’ of the Lorentz Transformation (LT) . It will be shown that the RHS of the LT equations of space and time can be written as 4-vector scalar products, so that the transformed 4-vector components are themselves Lorentz invariant quantities. Consideration of particular length and time interval measurements demonstrates that this is a physically meaningful concept. It is pointed out that, whereas space and time intervals are, in general, physically independent physical quantities, this is not the case for the space and time components of the energy-momentum 4-vector. In Section 3, a derivation of the Lorentz force law, and the associated magnetic field concept, is given, based on the invariant formulation of the LT. The derivation is very short, the only initial hypothesis being the usual definition of the electric field in terms of the 4-vector potential, which, in fact, is also uniquely specified by requiring the definition to be a covariant one. In Section 4 the time component of Newton’s Second Law in electrodynamics, obtained by applying space-time exchange symmetry  to the Lorentz force law, is discussed.

Throughout this paper it is assumed that the electromagnetic field constitutes, together with the moving charge, a conservative system; i.e. effects of radiation, due to the acceleration of the charge, are neglected

## 2 Invariant Formulation of the Lorentz Transformation

The space-time LT equations between two inertial frames S and S’, written in a space-time symmetric manner, are:

$`x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x\beta x^0)`$ (2.1)
$`y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`y`$ (2.2)
$`z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`z`$ (2.3)
$`x^0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x^0\beta x)`$ (2.4)
The frame S’ moves with velocity, $`v`$, relative to S, along the common x-axis of S and S’. $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are the usual relativistic parameters:

$`\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{c}}`$ (2.5)
$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\beta ^2}}}`$ (2.6)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light, and

$$x^0ct$$
(2.7)
where $`t`$ is the time recorded by an observer at rest in S. Clocks in S and S’ are synchronised, i.e., $`t=t^{}=0`$, when the origins of the spatial cordinates of S and S’ coincide.

Eqns(2.1)-(2.4) give the relation between space and time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0=c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ as observed in the two frames:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }x\beta \mathrm{\Delta }x^0)`$ (2.8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }y^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }y`$ (2.9)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }z^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ (2.10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }x^0\beta \mathrm{\Delta }x)`$ (2.11)
Each interval can be interpreted as the result of a particular measurement performed in the appropriate frame. For example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ may correspond to the measurement of the distance between two points lying along the x-axis at a fixed time in S. In virtue of this, it may be identified with the space-like invariant interval, $`S_x`$, where:

$$S_x\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0)^2+\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }x$$
(2.12)
since, for the measurement procedure just described, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0=0`$. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is not necessarily defined in terms of such a measurement. If, following Einstein , the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ is associated with the length, $`\mathrm{}`$, of a measuring rod at rest in S and lying parallel to the x-axis, measurements of the ends of the rod can be made at arbitarily different times in S. The same result $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ will be found for the length of the rod, but the corresponding invariant interval, $`S_x`$, as defined by Eqn(2.12) will be different in each case. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0`$ may be identified with the time-like invariant interval corresponding to successive observations of a clock at a fixed position (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=0`$) in S:

$$S_0\sqrt{(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0)^2\mathrm{\Delta }x^2}=\mathrm{\Delta }x^0$$
(2.13)
The interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0`$ could also be measured by observing the difference of the times recorded by a local clock and another, synchronised, one located at a different position in S, after a suitable correction for light propagation time delay. Each such pair of clocks would yield the same value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^0`$, for the time difference between two events in S, but with different values of the invariant interval defined by Eqn(2.13).

In virtue of Eqns(2.12) and (2.13) the LT equations (2.8) and (2.11) may be written the following invariant form:

$`S_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}(\beta )S`$ (2.14)
$`S_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U(\beta )S`$ (2.15)
where the following 4–vectors have been introduced:

$`S`$ $``$ $`(S_0;S_x,0,0)=(\mathrm{\Delta }x^0;\mathrm{\Delta }x,0,0)`$ (2.16)
$`U(\beta )`$ $``$ $`(\gamma ;\gamma \beta ,0,0)`$ (2.17)
$`\overline{U}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`(\gamma \beta ;\gamma ,0,0)`$ (2.18)
The time-like 4-vector, $`U`$, is equal to $`V/c`$, where $`V`$ is the usual 4–vector velocity, whereas the space-like 4–vector, $`\overline{U}`$, is ‘orthogonal to $`U`$ in four dimensions’:

$$U(\beta )\overline{U}(\beta )=0$$
(2.19)
Since the RHS of (2.14) and (2.15) are 4–vector scalar products, $`S_x^{}`$ and $`S_0^{}`$ are manifestly Lorentz invariant quantites. These 4–vector components may be defined, in terms of specific space-time measurements, by equations similar to (2.12) and (2.13) in the frame S’. Note that the 4–vectors $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are ‘doubly covariant’ in the sense that $`SS`$ and $`S^{}S^{}`$ are ‘doubly invariant’ quantities whose spatial and temporal terms are, individually, Lorentz invariant:

$$SS=S_0^2S_x^2=S^{}S^{}=(S_0^{})^2(S_x^{})^2$$
(2.20)
Every term in Eqn(2.20) remains invariant if the spatial and temporal intervals described above are observed from a third inertial frame S” moving along the x-axis relative to both S and S’. This follows from the manifest Lorentz invariance of the RHS of Eqn(2.14) and (2.15) and their inverses:

$`S_x`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}(\beta )S^{}`$ (2.21)
$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`U(\beta )S^{}`$ (2.22)
Since the LT Eqns(2.1) and (2.4) are valid for any 4–vector, $`W`$, it follows that:

$`W_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{U}(\beta )W`$ (2.23)
$`W_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`U(\beta )W`$ (2.24)
Again, $`W_x^{}`$ and $`W_0^{}`$ are manifestly Lorentz invariant. An interesting special case is the energy-momentum 4–vector, $`P`$, of a physical object of mass, $`m`$. Here the ‘doubly invariant’ quantity analagous to $`SS`$ in Eqn(2.20) is equal to $`m^2c^2`$. Choosing the x-axis parallel to $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and $`\beta `$ to correspond to the object’s velocity, so that S’ is the object’s proper frame, and since $`PmcU(\beta )`$, Eqns(2.23) and (2.24) yield, for this special case:

$`P_x^{}`$ $`=`$ $`mc\overline{U}(\beta )U(\beta )=0`$ (2.25)
$`P_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`mcU(\beta )U(\beta )=mc`$ (2.26)
Since the Lorentz transformation is determined by the single parameter, $`\beta `$, then it follows from Eqns(2.25) and (2.26) that, unlike in the case of the space and time intervals in Eqns(2.8) and (2.11), the spatial and temporal components of the energy momentum 4–vector, in an arbitary inertial frame, are not independent. In fact, $`P_0`$ is determined in terms of $`P_x`$ and $`m`$ by the relation, that follows from the inverse of Eqns(2.25) and (2.26): $`P_0=\sqrt{P_x^2+m^2c^2}`$. Thus, although the LT equations for the space-time and energy-momentum 4–vectors are mathematically identical, the physical interpretation of the transformed quantities is quite different in the two cases.

The LT equation, (2.24), for the electromagnetic 4–vector potential, $`A`$, is found to play a crucial role in the derivation of the Lorentz force law presented in the following Section.

## 3 Derivation of the Lorentz force law and the Magnetic Field

In electrostatics, the electric field, $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, is customarily written in terms of the electrostatic potential, $`\varphi `$, according to the equation $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}\varphi `$. The potential at a distance, $`r`$, from a point charge, $`Q`$, is given by Coulomb’s law $`\varphi (r)=Q/r`$. This, together with the equation $`\stackrel{}{F}=q\stackrel{}{E}`$, defining the force, $`\stackrel{}{F}`$, exerted on a charge, $`q`$, by the electric field, completes the specification of the dynamical basis of classical electromagnetism.

It remains to generalise the above equation relating the electric field to the electrostatic potential in a manner consistent with special relativity. In relativistic notation , the electric field is related to the potential by the equation: $`E^i=^iA^0`$, where $`\varphi `$ is identified with the time component, $`A^0`$, of the 4–vector electromagnetic potential ($`A^0`$;$`\stackrel{}{A}`$). In order to respect special relativity the electric field must be defined in a covariant manner, i.e. in the same way in all inertial frames. The electrostatic law may be generalised in two ways:

$$E^iE_\pm ^i^iA^0\pm ^0A^i$$
(3.1)
This equation shows the only possiblities to define the electric field in a way that respects the symmetry with respect to the exchange of space and time coordinates that is a general property of all special relativistic laws . Choosing $`i=1`$ in Eqn(3.1) and transforming all quantities on the RHS into the S’ frame, by use of the inverses of Eqns(2.1) and (2.4), leads to the following expressions for the 1–component of the electric field in S, in terms of quantites defined in S’:

$$E_\pm ^1=\gamma ^2(1\pm \beta ^2)^1A^0+\gamma ^2(\beta ^2\pm 1)^0A^1+\gamma ^2\beta (1\pm 1)(^0A^0+^1A^1)$$
(3.2)
Only the choice $`E^1E_{}^1`$ yields a covariant definition of the electric field. In this case, using Eqns(2.5) and (2.6), Eqn(3.2) simplifies to:

$$E^1=^1A^0^0A^1=E^1$$
(3.3)
Which expresses the well-known invariance of the longitudinal component of the electric field under the LT.

Thus, from rotational invariance, the general covariant definition of the electric field is:

$$E^i=^iA^0^0A^i$$
(3.4)
This is the ‘additional assumption’, mentioned by Jackson in the passage quoted above, that is necessary, in the present case, to derive the Lorentz force law. However, as written, it concerns only the physical properties of the electric field: the magnetic field concept has not yet been introduced. A further a posteriori justification of Eqn(3.4) will be given after derivation of the Lorentz force law. Here it is simply noted that, if the spatial part of the 4–vector potential is time-independent, Eqn(3.4) reduces to the usual electrostatic definition of the electric field.

The force $`\stackrel{}{F}^{}`$ on an electric charge $`q`$ at rest in the frame S’ is given by the definition of the electric field, and Eqn(3.4) as:

$$F^i=q(^iA^0^0A^i)$$
(3.5)
Equations analagous to (2.24) may be written relating $`A^{}`$ and $`^{}`$ to the corresponding quantities in the frame S moving along the x’ axis with velocity $`v`$ relative to S’:

$`^0`$ $`=`$ $`U(\beta )`$ (3.6)
$`A^0`$ $`=`$ $`U(\beta )A`$ (3.7)
Substituting (3.6) and (3.7) in (3.5) gives:

$$F^i=q\left[^i(U(\beta )A)(U(\beta ))A^i\right]$$
(3.8)
This equation expresses a linear relationship between $`F^i`$, $`^i`$ and $`A^i`$. Since the coefficients of the relation are Lorentz invariant, the same formula is valid in any inertial frame, in particular, in the frame S. Hence:

$$F^i=q\left[^i(U(\beta )A)(U(\beta ))A^i\right]$$
(3.9)
This equation gives, in 4–vector notation, a spatial component of the Lorentz force on the charge $`q`$ in the frame S, and so completes the derivation.

To express the Lorentz force formula in the more familiar 3-vector notation, it is convenient to introduce the relativistic generalisation of Newton’s Second Law :

$$\frac{dP}{d\tau }=F$$
(3.10)
where $`F`$ is the 4-vector force and $`\tau =t^{}`$ is the proper time (in S’) that is related to the time $`t`$ in S by the relativistic time dilatation formula: $`dt=\gamma d\tau `$. This gives, with Eqn(3.9) and (3.10):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP^i}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{dP^i}{dt}}`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`q(^iA^\alpha ^\alpha A^i)U(\beta )_\alpha `$
$`=`$ $`\gamma q\left[^iA^0^0A^i\beta _j(^iA^j^jA^i)\beta _k(^iA^k^kA^i)\right]`$
Introducing now the magnetic field according to the definition :

$$B^kϵ_{ijk}(^iA^j^jA^i)=(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A})^k$$
(3.12)
enables Eqn(3.11) to be written in the compact form:

$$\frac{dP^i}{dt}=q\left[E^i+\beta _jB^k\beta _kB^j\right]=q\left[E^i+(\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{B})^i\right]$$
(3.13)
so that, in 3–vector notation, the Lorentz force law is:

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{p}}{dt}=mc\frac{d\gamma \stackrel{}{\beta }}{dt}=q[\stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{B}]$$
(3.14)
Writing Eqn(3.4) in 3–vector notation and performing vector multiplication of both sides by the differential operator $`\stackrel{}{}`$ gives:

$$\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}=(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{})A^0^0(\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A})=\frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}$$
(3.15)
where Eqn(3.12) has been used. Eqn(3.15) is just the Faraday-Lenz induction law, i.e. the magnetodynamic Maxwell equation. This is only apparent, however, once the ‘magnetic field’ concept of Eqn(3.12) has been introduced. Thus the initial hypothesis, Eqn(3.4), is actually a Maxwell equation. This is the a posteriori justification, mentioned above, for this covariant definition of the electric field.

It is common in discussions of electromagnetism to introduce the second rank electromagnetic field tensor, $`F^{\mu \nu }`$ according to the definition:

$$F^{\mu \nu }^\mu A^\nu ^\nu A^\mu $$
(3.16)
in terms of which, the electric and magnetic fields are defined as:

$`E^i`$ $``$ $`F^{i0}`$ (3.17)
$`B^k`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{ijk}F^{ij}`$ (3.18)
From the point of view adopted in the present paper both the electromagnetic field tensor and the electric and magnetic fields themselves are auxiliary quantities introduced only for mathematical convenience, in order to write the equations of electromagnetism in a compact way. Since all these quantities are completly defined by the 4–vector potential, it is the latter quantity that encodes all the relevant physical information on any electrodynamic problem . This position is contrary to that commonly taken in the literature and texbooks where it is often claimed that only the electric and magnetic fields have physical significance, while the 4–vector potential is only a convenient mathematical tool. For example Röhrlich  makes the statement:

These functions ($`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$) known as  potentials have no physical meaning and are introduced solely for the purpose of mathematical simplification of the equations.

In fact, as shown above (compare Eqns(3.11) and (3.13)) it is the introduction of the electric and magnetic fields that enable the Lorentz force equation to be written in a simple manner! In other cases (e.g. Maxwell’s equations) simpler expessions may be written in terms of the 4–vector potential. The quantum theory, quantum electrodynamics, that underlies classical electromagnetism, requires the introduction the 4–vector photon field $`𝒜^\mu `$ in order to specify the minimal interaction that provides the dynamical basis of the theory. Similarly, the introduction of $`A^\mu `$ is necessary for the Lagrangian formulation of classical electromagnetism. It makes no sense, therefore, to argue that a physical concept of such fundamental importance has ‘no physical meaning’.

The initial postulate used here to derive the Lorentz force law is Eqn(3.4), which contains, explicitly, the electrostatic force law and, implicitly, the Faraday-Lenz induction law. The actual form of the electrostatic force law (Coulomb’s inverse square law) is not invoked, suggesting that the Lorentz force law may be of greater generality. On the assumption of Eqn(3.4) (which has been demonstrated to be the only possible covariant definition of the electric field), the existence of the ‘magnetic field’, the ‘electromagnetic field tensor’, and finally the Lorentz force law itself have all been derived, without further assumptions, by use of the invariant formulation of the Lorentz transformation.

It is instructive to compare the derivation of the Lorentz force law given in the present paper with that of Reference  based on the relativistic transformation properties of the Coulomb force 3–vector. Coulomb’s law is not used in the present paper. On the other hand, Reference  makes no use of the 4–vector potential concept, which is essential for the derivation presented here. This demonstrates an interesting redundancy among the fundamental physical concepts of classical electromagnetism.

In Reference , Eqns(3.4), (3.12) and (3.16) were all introduced as a priori initial postulates without further justification. In fact, Schwartz gave the following explanation for his introduction of Eqn(3.16) :

So far everything we have done has been entirely deductive, making use only of Coulomb’s law, conservation of charge under Lorentz transformation and Lorentz invariance for our physical laws. We have now come to the end of this deductive path. At this point when the laws were being written, God had to make a decision. In general there are 16 components of a second-rank tensor in four dimensions. However, in analogy to three dimensions we can make a major simplification by choosing the completely antisymmetric tensor to represent our field quantities. Then we would have only 6 independent components instead of the possible 16. Under Lorentz transformation the tensor would remain antisymmetric and we would never have need for more than six independent components. Appreciating this, and having a deep aversion to useless complication, God naturally chose the antsymmetric tensor as His medium of expression.

Actually it is possible that God may have previously invented the 4–vector potential and special relativity, which lead, as shown above, to Eqn(3.4) as the only possible covariant definition of the electric field. As also shown in the present paper, the existence of the remaining elements of the antisymmetric field tensor, containing the magnetic field, then follow from special relativity alone. Schwartz derived the Lorentz force law, as in Einstein’s original Special Relativity paper , by Lorentz transformation of the electric field, from the rest frame of the test charge, to one in which it is in motion. This requires that the magnetic field concept has previously been introduced as well as knowledge of the Lorentz transformation laws of the electric and magnetic fields.

In the chapter devoted to special relativity in Jackson’s book  the Lorentz force law is simply stated, without any derivation, as are also the defining equations of the electric and magnetic fields and the electromagnetic field tensor just mentioned. No emphasis is therefore placed on the fundamental importance of the 4–vector potential in the relativistic description of electromagnetism.

In order to treat, in a similar manner, the electromagnetic and gravitational fields, the discussion in Misner Thorne and Wheeler  is largely centered on the properties of the tensor $`F^{\mu \nu }`$. Again the Lorentz force equation is introduced, in the spirit of the passage quoted above, without any derivation or discussion of its meaning. The defining equations of the electric and magnetic fields and $`F^{\mu \nu }`$, in terms of $`A^\mu `$, appear only in the eighteenth exercise of the relevant chapter. The main contents of the chapter on the electromagnetic field are an extended discussion of purely mathematical tensor manipulations that obscure the essential simplicity of electromagnetism when formulated in terms of the 4–vector potential.

In contrast to References , in the derivation of the Lorentz force law and the magnetic field presented here, the only initial assumption, apart from the validity of special relativity, is the chosen definition, Eqn(3.4), of the electric field in terms of the 4–vector potential $`A^\mu `$, which is the only covariant one. Thus, a more fundamental description of electromagnetism than that provided by the electric and magnetic field concepts is indeed possible, contrary to the opinion expressed in the passage from Misner Thorne and Wheeler quoted above.

## 4 The time component of Newton’s Second Law in Electrodynamics

Space-time exchange symmetry  states that physical laws in flat space are invariant with respect to the exchange of the space and time components of 4-vectors. For example, the LT of time, Eqn(2.4), is obtained from that for space, Eqn(2.1), by applying the space-time exchange (STE) operations: $`x_0x`$, $`x_0^{}x^{}`$. In the present case, application of the STE operation to the spatial component of the Lorentz force equation in the second line of Eqn(3.11) leads to the relation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dP^0}{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{dP^0}{dt}}=q(^0A^\alpha ^\alpha A^0)U(\beta )_\alpha `$ (4.1)
$`=`$ $`qE^iU(\beta )_i=\gamma q{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{v}}{c}}`$
where Eqns(2.5) and (3.4) and the following properties of the STE operation  have been used:

$`^0`$ $``$ $`^i`$ (4.2)
$`A^0`$ $``$ $`A^i`$ (4.3)
$`CD`$ $``$ $`CD`$ (4.4)
Eqn(4.1) yields an expression for the time derivative of the relativistic energy, $`=P^0`$ :

$$\frac{d}{dt}=q\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{v}=q\stackrel{}{E}\frac{d\stackrel{}{x}}{dt}$$
(4.5)
Integration of Eqn(4.5) gives the equation of energy conservation for a particle moving from an initial position, $`\stackrel{}{x}_I`$, to a final position, $`\stackrel{}{x}_F`$, under the influence of electromagnetic forces:

$$__I^_F𝑑=q_{\stackrel{}{x_I}}^{\stackrel{}{x_F}}\stackrel{}{E}𝑑\stackrel{}{x}$$
(4.6)
Thus work is done on the moving charge only by the electric field. This is also evident from the Lorentz force equation, (3.14), since the magnetic force $`\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ is perpendicular to the velocity vector, so that no work is performed by the magnetic field. A corollary is that the relativistic energy (and hence the magnitude of the velocity) of a charged particle moving in a constant magnetic field is a constant of the motion. Of course, Eqn(4.5) may also be derived directly from the Lorentz force law, so that the time component of the relativistic generalisation of Newton’s Second Law, Eqn(4.1), contains no physical information not already contained in the spatial components. This is related to the fact that, as demonstrated in Eqns(2.25) and (2.26), the spatial and temporal components of the energy-momentum 4–vector are not independent physical quantities.

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank O.L. de Lange for asking the question whose answer, presented in Section 4, was the original motivation for the writing of this paper, and an anonymous referee of an earlier version of this paper for informing me of related material, in the books of Jackson and Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, which is discussed in some detail in this version.