text:
# Dynamical properties of a family of collisionless models of elliptical galaxies

## 1 Introduction

We examine the results of a set of simulations of collisionless collapse of a stellar system and focus on the fit of the final quasi-equilibrium configurations by means of the so-called $`f^{(\nu )}`$ models (see sti87 , ber03 ). The models, constructed on the basis of theoretical arguments suggested by statistical mechanics, are associated with realistic luminosity and kinematic properties, suitable to represent elliptical galaxies. All the simulations have been performed using a new version tren04  of the original code of van Albada (see van82 ; the code evolves a system of simulation particles interacting with one another via a mean field calculated from a spherical harmonic expansion of a smooth density distribution), starting from various initial conditions characterized by approximate spherical symmetry and by a small value of the virial parameter $`u`$ ($`u=2K/W<0.2`$; here $`K`$ and $`W`$ represent total kinetic and gravitational energy). From such initial conditions, the collisionless “gravitational plasma” evolves undergoing incomplete violent relaxation lyn67 .

The models, in spite of their simplicity and of their spherical symmetry, turn out to describe well and in detail the end products of our simulations. We should note that the present formulation neglects the presence of dark matter. Since there is convincing evidence for the presence of dark matter halos also in elliptical galaxies, this study should be extended to the case of two-component systems, before a satisfactory comparison with observed galaxies can eventually be claimed.

## 2 N-body experiments

Most simulations have been run with $`8\times 10^5`$ particles; the results have been checked against varying the number of particles. The units chosen are $`10^{11}M_{}`$ for mass, $`10kpc`$ for length, and $`10^8yr`$ for time. In these units the gravitational constant is $`G4.497`$, the mass of the model is $`2`$, and the initial radius of the system $`1`$.

We focus on clumpy initial conditions. These turn out to lead to more realistic final configurations (van82 , lon91 ). They can be interpreted as a way to simulate the merging of several smaller structures to form a galaxy. The clumps are uniformly distributed in space, within an approximate spherical symmetry; the ellipticity at the beginning of the simulation is small, so that the corresponding initial shape would resemble that of $`E2E3`$ galaxies. We performed several runs varying the number of clumps and the virial ratio $`u`$ in the range from $`0.05`$ to $`0.2`$. Usually the clumps are cold, i.e. their kinetic energy is all associated with the motion of their center of mass.

The simulations are run up to time $`t=10`$, when the system has settled into a quasi-equilibrium. The violent collapse phase takes place within $`t1`$ . The final configurations are quasi-spherical, with shapes that resemble those of $`E2E3`$ galaxies. The final equilibrium half-mass radius $`r_M`$ is basically independent of the value of $`u`$. The central concentration achieved is a function of the initial virial parameter $`u`$, as can be inferred from the conservation of maximum density in phase space lon91 .

## 3 Physically justified models

For a spherically symmetric kinetic system, extremizing the Boltzmann entropy at fixed values of the total mass, of the total energy, and of an additional third quantity $`Q`$, defined as $`Q=J^\nu |E|^{3\nu /4}fd^3qd^3p`$, leads (sti87 ; see also ber03 ) to the distribution function $`f^{(\nu )}=A\mathrm{exp}[aEd(J^2/|E|^{3/2})^{\nu /2}]`$, where $`a`$, $`A`$, $`d`$, and $`\nu `$ are positive real constants; here $`E`$ and $`J`$ denote single-star specific energy and angular momentum. At fixed value of $`\nu `$, one may think of these constants as providing two dimensional scales (for example, $`M`$ and $`Q`$) and one dimensionless parameter, such as $`\gamma =ad^{2/\nu }/(4\pi GA)`$. In the following we will focus on values of $`\nu `$ ranging from 3/8 to 1 .

The corresponding models are constructed by solving the Poisson equation for the self-consistent mean potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ generated by the density distribution associated with $`f^{(\nu )}`$. At fixed value of $`\nu `$, the models thus generated make a one-parameter family of equilibria, described by the concentration parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }=a\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$, the dimensionless depth of the central potential well.

The projected density profile of the models is very well fitted by the $`R^{1/n}`$ law (for a definition of the law and of the effective radius $`R_e`$, see ber02 ), with the index $`n`$ varying in the range from $`2`$ to $`6`$, depending on the precise value of $`\nu `$ and on the concentration parameter $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. At worst, the residuals from the $`R^{1/n}`$ law are less than $`0.25`$ mag over a range of more than $`8`$ mag, while in general the residuals are less than $`0.1`$ mag in a range of more than $`10`$ mag.

The models are isotropic in the inner regions, while they are characterized by almost radial orbits in the outer parts. The local value of pressure anisotropy can be measured by $`\alpha (r)=2(p_\theta ^2+p_\varphi ^2)/p_r^2`$. The form of the transition from isotropy ($`\alpha 0`$) to radial anisotropy ($`\alpha 2`$) is governed by the index $`\nu `$: higher values of $`\nu `$ give rise to a sharper transition. The anisotropy radius, that is the location where the transition takes place (with $`\alpha =1`$), is close to the half-mass radius of the models ber03 .

## 4 Fits and phase-space properties

In order to study the output of the simulations we compare the density and the anisotropy profiles, $`\rho (r)`$ and $`\alpha (r)`$, of the end products with the theoretical profiles of the $`f^{(\nu )}`$ family of models; smooth simulation profiles are obtained by averaging over time, based on a total of $`20`$ snapshots taken from $`t=8`$ to $`t=10`$. For the fitting models, the parameter space explored is that of an equally spaced grid in $`(\nu ,\mathrm{\Psi })`$, with a subdivision of $`1/8`$ in $`\nu `$, from $`3/8`$ to $`1`$, and of $`0.2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, from $`0.2`$ to $`14.0`$; the mass and the half-mass radius of the models are fixed by the scales set by the simulations. A least $`\chi ^2`$ analysis is performed, with the error bars estimated from the variance in the time average process used to obtain the smooth simulation profiles. A critical step in this fitting procedure is the choice of the relative weights for the density and the pressure anisotropy profiles. We adopted equal weights for the two terms, checking a posteriori that their contributions to $`\chi ^2`$ are of the same order of magnitude.

As exemplified by Fig. 1, the density of all the simulations is well represented by the best fit $`f^{(\nu )}`$ profile over the entire radial range. The fit is satisfactory not only in the outer parts, where the density falls under a threshold value that is nine orders of magnitude smaller than that of the central density, but also in the inner regions, where, in principle, there could be problems of numerical resolution. We have performed simulations with different numbers of particles, without noticing significant changes in the relevant profiles and in the quality of the fits. The successful comparison between models and simulations is also interesting because, depending on the initial virial parameter $`u`$, the less concentrated end products are fitted by a density profile which, if projected along the line-of-sight, exhibits different values of $`n`$ in an $`R^{1/n}`$ best fit analysis. In turn, this may be interpreted in the framework of the proposed weak homology of elliptical galaxies ber02 .

To some extent, the final anisotropy profiles for clumpy initial conditions are found to be sensitive to the detailed choice of initialization. In other words, runs starting from initial conditions with the same parameters, but with a different *seed* in the random number generator, give rise to slightly different profiles. The agreement between the simulation and the model profiles is good (see Fig. 1), except for about $`20\%`$ “irregular” cases; the origin of these is not clear, and we argue that they correspond to inefficient mixing in phase space during collapse (a discussion of these issues will be provided in a separate paper, currently in preparation).

At the level of phase space, we have performed two types of comparison, one involving the energy density distribution $`N(E)`$ and the other based on $`N(E,J^2)`$. The chosen normalization factors are such that: $`M=N(E)𝑑E=N(E,J^2)𝑑E𝑑J^2.`$ In Fig. 1 we plot the final energy density distribution for a simulation run called $`C2`$ (a regular case) with respect to the predictions of the best fit model identified from the study of the density and pressure anisotropy distributions. The agreement is very good, especially for the strongly bound particles. In some simulations, the distribution of less bound particles shows some deviations from the theoretical expectations, especially in the “irregular” cases, when the final $`N(E)`$ exhibits a double peak; one peak is around $`E=0`$, as expected, while the other is located at the point where there was a peak in $`N(E)`$ at the initial time $`t=0`$. We interpret this feature as a signature of inefficient phase mixing. Finally, at the deeper level of $`N(E,J^2)`$, simulations and models also agree very well, as illustrated in the right set of four panels of Fig. 1. For the case shown, the distribution contour lines essentially coincide in the range from $`E_{min}`$ to $`E30`$; however, the theoretical model shows a peak located near the origin, corresponding to an excess of weakly bound stars on almost radial orbits.


format: text

text:
# T-duality for principal torus bundles

## 1. Introduction

T-duality is one of the most powerful tools in (super)string theory. It provides an equivalence between string theories which, in their low-energy field theory limit might superficially look very different, but are in fact the same in the sense that there exists a 1–1 correspondence between fields, states, etc. In particular, T-duality should relate the various D-branes in the theory, which is mathematically expressed as the fact that there should be an isomorphism between the relevant (twisted) K-theories (and their close cousin, (twisted) cohomology).

Locally, the T-duality transformation rules on the massless fields in string theory, known as the Buscher rules, have been known for quite some time . Global issues, though, in particular in the background of NS H-flux , have remained obscure (see  for some early investigations).

In a recent paper, T-duality for principal circle bundles $`\pi :EM`$ (i.e. circle bundles with a free circle action), in the background of H-flux $`[H]H^3(E,)`$ was examined . Such bundles are classified by their first Chern class $`c_1(E)H^2(M,)`$, and it was shown that T-duality interchanges the fibrewise integral of the H-flux with the first Chern class. I.e. $`(E,H)`$ and its T-dual $`(\widehat{E},\widehat{H})`$ are related by

$$c_1(E)=_{\widehat{𝕋}}\widehat{H},c_1(\widehat{E})=_𝕋H,$$
(1.1)
as can easily be argued from the Gysin sequences of the bundles $`E`$ and $`\widehat{E}`$. In addition, the isomorphisms between the twisted cohomologies and twisted K-theories of $`(E,H)`$ and its T-dual $`(\widehat{E},\widehat{H})`$ were explicitly constructed.

In the present paper we will generalize these results to principal torus bundles, and identify a subset of T-dualizable H-fluxes which admit T-duals in a completely analogous way to the circle bundle case. We certainly do not want to claim that T-duals do not exist if one goes outside of this restrictive class, in fact it is well-known that the torus action need not be free, i.e. the torus action may have fixed points. Many examples of T-duals in this more general set-up, in particular in the context of mirror symmetry (see, e.g.,  for the original idea, and  for most recent developments), have been constructed, but as far as we know no complete picture is known in the presence of H-flux. The purpose of this paper was to identify a class of torus bundles and H-fluxes which admit T-duals in the same class, and lead to isomorphisms in twisted cohomology and twisted K-theory, in a manner which generalizes the case of circle bundles. In particular we were aiming for a (generalized) Gysin sequence which relates the cohomologies of the torus-bundle $`(E,H)`$ and its T-dual $`(\widehat{E},\widehat{H})`$.

The restriction to principal torus bundles is a natural one, physically it corresponds to the situation where momentum along the torus directions is conserved. In the case of circles bundles, all orientable circle bundles are in fact principal circle bundles. An example of a non-principal (and therefore non-orientable) circle bundle over the circle is the Klein bottle for which the analysis in  does not apply. For torus bundles, though, the situation is completely different. There are many more torus bundles than principal torus bundles (principal torus bundles over the torus have been classified in ). Moreover, even in the case of principal torus bundles not all H-fluxes admit a straightforward T-dual. There is a subset of H-fluxes, essentially those closed 3-forms which only have one ‘leg’ in the torus direction, which do however admit a T-dual, which is again a principal torus bundle with an H-flux in the same ‘T-dualizable’ subset.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we discuss the subset of T-dualizable H-fluxes on principal torus bundles, and give an explicit characterization of both the dual torus bundle as well as the dual H-flux. We also show how this would fit into a generalized Gysin sequence. In Section 3 we discuss some examples of both T-dualizable torus bundles (such as the group manifold) and non T-dualizable torus bundles, and discuss the complications which arise for non principal torus bundles.

For reasons of clarity, we restrict the discussion in this paper to T-duality aspects pertaining to the image of integral cohomology classes in de-Rham cohomology, i.e. the cohomology of differential forms with integral periods. The full result, as well as further details on the results in this paper, will be dealt with in a companion paper .

## 2. T-duality for principal torus bundles

### 2.1. $`T`$-dualizable H-fluxes

Let us denote the circle by $`𝕋`$, the $`n`$-torus by $`𝕋^n`$, or $`𝖳`$ for short. $`𝖳`$ can be considered as an (abelian) Lie group, and we let $`𝔱`$ denote the Lie algebra of $`𝖳`$, and $`\widehat{𝔱}`$ the dual Lie algebra.

Now let $`\pi :EM`$ be a principal $`𝖳`$-bundle. The action of $`𝖳`$ on $`E`$ associates to each element $`X𝔱`$ a vector field on $`E`$ which, by abuse of notation, we will also denote as $`X`$. We will denote the Lie derivative and contraction with respect to the vector field $`X`$ as $`_X`$ and $`ı_X`$, respectively.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^k(N,𝔱)`$ denote the set of $`k`$-forms, and $`𝔱`$-valued $`k`$-forms, on $`N`$, respectively, and let $`H^k(N)`$ and $`H^k(N,𝔱)`$ be the associated de-Rham cohomology groups of differential forms with integral periods. \[In the rest of the paper the integrality conditions on closed forms will not be explicitly stated.\] A form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^k(E)`$ is called basic if $`\omega `$ is the pull-back of a form on the base manifold $`M`$. This is equivalent to the requirement that $`_X\omega =ı_X\omega =0`$ for all $`X𝔱`$. An H-flux on $`E`$ is, by definition, a closed, integral, 3-form $`H\mathrm{\Omega }^3(E)`$, i.e. it determines a class $`[H]H^3(E)`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

An H-flux $`H`$ is called T-dualizable when there exists a closed, $`\widehat{𝔱}`$-valued, 2-form $`\widehat{F}`$ on $`M`$ such that the pair $`(H,\widehat{F})`$ satisfies

$$dH=0,ı_XH=\pi ^{}\widehat{F}(X),$$
(2.1)
for all $`X𝔱`$, where $`\widehat{F}(X)\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M)`$ denotes the dual pairing of $`\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(M,\widehat{𝔱})`$ with $`X𝔱`$.

###### Remark.

More generally, one may define a T-dualizable flux as a pair $`(H,\widehat{F})`$ such that the relations (2.1) hold at the level of cohomology only. As this would unnecessarily complicate the discussion below, we will simply assume that representatives $`(H,\widehat{F})`$ have been chosen such that (2.1) holds at the level of forms.

Note, that the closed 2-form $`\widehat{F}`$ on $`M`$, i.e. $`[\widehat{F}]H^2(M,\widehat{𝔱})`$, determines a principal $`\widehat{𝖳}`$-bundle $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{E}M`$, which we will refer to as the T-dual torus bundle. In fact, to be precise, $`[\widehat{F}]`$ only determines $`\widehat{E}`$ up to torsion. To determine the torsion part of $`\widehat{E}`$ we need to work with integer cohomology classes. As the purpose of this paper is to explain the main ideas behind the construction, we will simply accept the fact that if we were to work with the ‘appropriate’ cohomology theory the T-dual bundle $`\widehat{E}`$ would be uniquely determined (up to isomorphism). As far as providing the isomorphism of the twisted cohomology of $`E`$ with that of $`\widehat{E}`$ the torsion part of $`\widehat{E}`$ is irrelevant.

From Definition 2.1 it follows that all T-dualizable H-fluxes $`(H,\widehat{F})`$ necessarily satisfy $`_XH=0=_X\widehat{F}`$ for all $`X𝔱`$. In fact, it is well-known that every closed form on $`E`$ is cohomologous to a closed form $`\omega `$ on $`E`$ that satisfies $`_X\omega =0`$. So, without loss of generality, we may assume that all forms in question are invariant. On this subspace the de-Rham differential $`d`$ anti-commutes with the contraction $`ı_X`$, since $`_X=\{d,ı_X\}`$, so, after defining a locally defined 1-form $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{loc}}^1(E,𝔱)`$ such that $`\pi ^{}\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$, we may interpret the conditions (2.1) on the pair $`(H,\widehat{A})`$ as defining some sort of Deligne cohomology class in a double complex, except for the fact that $`\widehat{A}`$ is only locally defined on $`E`$. One might be tempted to think that the pull-back $`\pi ^{}\widehat{F}`$ is exact on $`E`$, and that therefore $`\widehat{A}`$ is globally defined on $`E`$, but this is incorrect. In fact, the set-up is precisely such that $`\widehat{\pi }^{}\widehat{F}`$ is exact on the T-dual bundle $`\widehat{E}`$, and that the various locally defined $`\widehat{A}`$ patch together to form a globally defined connection 1-form, with values in $`\widehat{𝔱}`$, on $`\widehat{E}`$, such that $`\widehat{\pi }^{}\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\widehat{E},\widehat{𝔱})`$ is normalized such that

$$ı_X\widehat{A}=X,$$
(2.2)
for all $`X\widehat{𝔱}`$.

###### Remark.

Finally, we remark that the conditions (2.1), written in terms of $`(H,\widehat{A})`$, are remarkably similar to the conditions defining an equivariant cohomology class, i.e., a class in $`H_𝖳^3(E)`$. Equivariant cohomology works with differential forms which are also polynomials on the Lie algebra $`𝔱`$ of the group $`𝖳`$, where the total degree of a homogeneous form $`\alpha `$ is defined as the sum of the form degree of $`\alpha `$ plus twice the polynomial degree. The equivariant differential $`d_𝖳`$ is defined as

$$d_𝖳\alpha (X)=d\alpha (X)ı_X\alpha (X).$$
(2.3)
Written in terms of $`\alpha =H+\widehat{A}`$, the condition that $`\alpha `$ is closed under $`d_𝖳`$ gives, after collecting the terms of the same form degree,

$$dH=0,ı_XH=d\widehat{A}(X),ı_X\widehat{A}(X)=0.$$
(2.4)
The first two equations correspond to (2.1), while the latter is a normalization condition on $`\widehat{A}`$. The difference between Eqn. (2.1) and equivariant cohomology is, though, that $`\widehat{A}`$ is only defined locally. In fact, since $`𝖳`$ acts freely on $`E`$, one would have $`H_𝖳(E)H(M)`$, which makes equivariant cohomology not particularly useful in this case.

### 2.2. The T-dual H-flux

In Sect. 2.1 we have seen how, given a $`𝖳`$-bundle $`\pi :EM`$, and a T-dualizable H-flux $`(H,\widehat{F})`$, we have defined a T-dual $`\widehat{𝖳}`$-bundle $`\widehat{\pi }:\widehat{E}M`$, with connection $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\widehat{E},\widehat{𝔱})`$, such that $`\widehat{\pi }^{}\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$, and normalized according to Eqn. (2.2). The goal of this section is to define the T-dual H-flux. It will turn out that the T-dual $`\widehat{H}`$ is a T-dualizable H-flux on $`\widehat{E}`$, as one would hope.

As in  we could proceed to find $`\widehat{H}`$, up to a basic form, from a generalized Gysin sequence (see Sect. 2.3). Here we proceed by simply defining $`\widehat{H}`$ and show it has the required properties.

Let $`A`$ be a connection 1-form on $`E`$, that is $`A\mathrm{\Omega }^2(E,𝔱)`$ such that its curvature $`F=dA`$ is (the pull-back of) a closed 2-form on $`M`$. We normalize $`A`$ such that $`ı_XA=X`$. These together imply that $`_XA=0`$. Since the T-dual connection and H-flux live on a different space as the original connection and H-flux, in order to compare them we need to pull all of these forms back to a common space, known as a correspondence space. The correspondence space, in this case, is the fibred product of $`E`$ and $`\widehat{E}`$, i.e.

$$E\times _M\widehat{E}=\{(x,\widehat{x})E\times \widehat{E}|\pi (x)=\widehat{\pi }(\widehat{x})\}.$$
(2.5)
The projection $`p:E\times _M\widehat{E}E`$ is given as the composition

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}E\times _M\widehat{E}& \stackrel{1\widehat{\pi }}{}& E\times _MM& \stackrel{}{}& E\end{array}$$
(2.6)
and defines $`E\times _M\widehat{E}`$ as a principal $`\widehat{𝖳}`$-bundle over $`E`$. Similarly for $`\widehat{p}`$. This shows we have a commutative diagram of torus bundles

In the remainder of this section all forms are pulled back to the space on which the equation makes sense, but for notational simplicity we will omit the pull-backs from the equations.

First of all, consider the difference $`\mathrm{\Omega }=Ad\widehat{A}H`$, where we define the $``$ as the wedge between forms followed by the canonical pairing between $`\widehat{𝔱}`$ and $`𝔱`$. A priori, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a form on $`E`$, but we will show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is actually a basic 3-form. Obviously we have $`_X\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, and a little calculation gives

$$ı_X\mathrm{\Omega }=d\widehat{A}(X)ı_XH=0,$$

which together imply that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is basic. In other words, this implies that our T-dualizable H-flux $`H`$ can be written as

$$H=Ad\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(2.7)
for some $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^3(M)`$. Note that, in particular,

$$dAd\widehat{A}=d\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(2.8)
hence $`[F\widehat{F}]=0`$ in $`H^4(M)`$.

We now define the T-dual H-flux on $`\widehat{E}`$ to be

$$\widehat{H}=dA\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(2.9)
Then, a simple calculation shows that $`\widehat{H}`$ is a closed, $`\widehat{𝖳}`$-invariant, 3-form on $`\widehat{E}`$. Moreover it is T-dualizable, since

$$ı_{\widehat{X}}\widehat{H}=dA(\widehat{X})=F(\widehat{X}).$$
(2.10)
Finally, observe that on the correspondence space $`E\times _M\widehat{E}`$, the difference $`H\widehat{H}`$ is exact111A similar conclusion was reached in , Sect. 4., since

$$H\widehat{H}=Ad\widehat{A}dA\widehat{A}=d(A\widehat{A}).$$
(2.11)
This, in particular implies that $`A\widehat{A}`$ intertwines between the twisted cohomologies (and twisted K-theories) of $`(E,H)`$ and $`(\widehat{E},\widehat{H})`$. The explicit isomorphism between the $`_2`$-graded twisted cohomologies of $`E`$ and $`\widehat{E}`$, i.e. $`H^{\overline{i}}(E,[H])H^{\overline{i+n}}(\widehat{E},[\widehat{H}])`$ where $`n`$ is the rank of the torus and $`\overline{i}=imod2`$, is a straightforward generalization of the result in , namely that the Buscher rules on the RR fields can be encoded in the formula,

$$G\widehat{G}=_𝖳e^{A\widehat{A}}G.$$
(2.12)
This reduces to the familiar formula for the Buscher rules in , both locally, and globally when the flux $`H=dB`$ is exact. A similar generalization exist for the isomorphism between the respective twisted K-theories, $`K^{\overline{i}}(E,[H])K^{\overline{i+n}}(\widehat{E},[\widehat{H}])`$, and the two isomorphisms are compatible in the sense that the Riemann-Roch theorem holds in this case as well (see  for more details).

###### Remark.

It is well-known that an $`n`$-torus, for $`n>1`$, admits a group of T-dualities, namely $`SO(n,n;)`$. Additional T-dualities can be recovered in the formalism above by taking non-canonical pairings between $`𝔱^n`$ and $`\widehat{𝔱}^n`$.

### 2.3. The generalized Gysin sequence

In this section we will briefly indicate how the above construction would nicely fit in the framework of a generalized Gysin sequence. In fact, the existence of this Gysin sequence motivated our restriction to principal torus bundles and our definition of T-dualizable H-fluxes. The Gysin sequence we are about to discuss is the de-Rham analogue of the Gysin sequence in .

In general, a torus bundle, or any fibre bundle, gives rise to a spectral sequence (the so-called Leray spectral sequence) computing the cohomology of the bundle space from the cohomology of the base space and the fibre. In the case of sphere bundles this spectral sequence collapses into a long exact sequence, the Gysin sequence, in cohomology (see, e.g., ), but this is not the case for torus bundles. But even if it did, with the application to T-duality in mind we are interested in relations between cohomology groups involving the cohomology group that classifies (a subclass of) torus bundles. Principal $`n`$-torus bundles over a base space $`M`$ are classified by the sheaf cohomology group $`H^1(M,\underset{¯}{𝖳})H^2(M,^n)`$, whose image in de-Rham cohomology can be identified with $`H^2(M,𝔱)`$. Thus, for a given torus bundle $`\pi :EM`$ we are looking for a long exact sequence relating the cohomologies $`H^k(E)`$ and $`H^k(M,𝔱)`$. The missing ingredient is a third cohomology group $`H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)`$. It was introduced, in the sheaf language, by Raeburn and Williams in , where it was refered to as $`𝔱`$-equivariant cohomology. However, while it is closely related to the conventional equivariant cohomology corresponding to the $`𝖳`$-action on $`E`$, it is in general not the same (cf. the discussion in Sect. 2.2). To avoid confusion we will refer to it as the RW-cohomology, and use the notation $`H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)`$. Its definition is generalizing Definition 2.1.

An element in $`H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)`$ is a pair $`(H,\widehat{F})`$, with $`H\mathrm{\Omega }^k(E)`$ and $`\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Omega }^{k1}(M,\widehat{𝔱})`$, such that the following conditions are satisfied for all $`X𝔱`$

$$dH=0,ı_XH=\pi ^{}\widehat{F}(X),d\widehat{F}=0.$$
(2.13)
The RW-cohomology is the set of such pairs modulo pairs of the form $`(H,\widehat{F})=(dB,dC)`$, where $`B\mathrm{\Omega }^2(E)`$ and $`C\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M,\widehat{𝔱})`$, such that $`ı_XB=\pi ^{}C(X)`$, for all $`X𝔱`$.

As an aside, let us remark that the Čech analogue of $`H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)`$ is the sheaf cohomology group $`H_{\text{R}W}^{k1}(E,𝔱,\underset{¯}{𝕋})`$, and that $`H_{\text{R}W}^1(E,𝔱,\underset{¯}{𝕋})`$ is in 1–1 correspondence with the isomorphism classes of $`𝖳`$-equivariant line bundles over $`E`$ that are locally trivial over $`M=E/𝖳`$ , while $`H_{\text{R}W}^2(E,𝔱,\underset{¯}{𝕋})`$ is in 1–1 correspondence with the stable isomorphism classes of $`𝖳`$-equivariant bundle gerbes $`LE^{[2]}`$ that are locally trivial over $`E^{[2]}/𝖳`$ .

Now, given a principal $`𝖳`$-bundle $`\pi :EM`$ characterized by a curvature $`F`$, i.e. $`[F]H^2(M,𝔱)`$, we expect to derive a long exact sequence in cohomology (for $`k1`$), the so-called generalized Gysin sequence, given as in  by,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}\mathrm{}& & H^k(M)& \stackrel{p^{}}{}& H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)& \stackrel{b}{}& H^{k1}(M,\widehat{𝔱})& \stackrel{F}{}& H^{k+1}(M)& & \mathrm{}\end{array}$$

where the various maps are explicitly given by222We write the maps as given on representatives of the various cohomology groups for notational simplicity.

$`p^{}`$ $`:H^k(M)H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱),`$ $`H(\pi ^{}H,0),`$
$`b`$ $`:H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)H^{k1}(M,\widehat{𝔱}),`$ $`(H,\widehat{F})\widehat{F},`$
$`F`$ $`:H^{k1}(M,\widehat{𝔱})H^{k+1}(M),`$ $`\widehat{F}\widehat{F}F.`$ (2.14)
In the last definition, we remind the reader that $`\widehat{F}F`$ stands for taking both the wedge product of the $`\widehat{𝔱}`$-valued $`(k1)`$-form $`\widehat{F}`$ with the $`𝔱`$-valued 2-form $`F`$, as well as the canonical pairing between $`\widehat{𝔱}`$ and $`𝔱`$, to produce an $``$-valued $`(k+1)`$-form.

The results and computations in Sects. 2.1 and 2.2 can easily be interpreted as ‘diagram chasing’ in this generalized Gysin sequence (the $`k=3`$ segment, in particular) in an analogous manner to the discussion in . Finally, we remark that the circle bundle case is obtained from the more general case above by observing that $`H_{\text{R}W}^k(E,𝔱)H^k(E)`$, for $`k1`$, if $`E`$ is a principal circle bundle (cf. ).

## 3. Examples

### 3.1. The trivial $`𝕋^2`$-bundle over $`𝕋`$

There are no nontrivial principal $`𝕋^2`$-bundles over $`𝕋`$ as $`H^1(𝕋,\underset{¯}{𝕋}^2)H^2(𝕋,^2)=0`$. In particular, the nilmanifold (‘twisted 3-torus’) that enters in many physically interesting examples, is a nontrivial $`𝕋^2`$-bundle over $`𝕋`$, but it is not principal.

A simple example of a principal torus bundle with non T-dualizable H-flux is provided by $`𝕋^3`$, considered as the trivial $`𝕋^2`$-bundle over $`𝕋`$, with $`H`$ given by $`k`$ times the volume form on $`𝕋^3`$. In this case $`ı_XH`$, with $`X𝔱`$, is not a basic 2-form for obvious reasons, hence $`H`$ is non T-dualizable in the sense of Definition 2.1.

It is illuminating to work out explicitly what happens in this case, as naively one might T-dualize one circle at a time by applying the Buscher rules (see also the discussion in ). Explicitly, in terms of Cartesian coordinates $`(x,y,z)(x+1,y,z)(x,y+1,z)(x,y,z+1)`$ we have a metric $`g`$ and H-flux $`H`$ given by

$$g=dx^2+dy^2+dz^2,H=kdxdydz.$$
(3.1)
After choosing a local gauge $`H=dB`$, with $`B=kxdydz`$, application of the Buscher rules  to the circle defined by $`z`$ yields

$$\widehat{g}=dx^2+dy^2+(d\widehat{z}+kxdy)^2,\widehat{H}=0,$$
(3.2)
which can be interpreted as a metric on the nilmanifold defined by $`(x,y,\widehat{z})(x+1,y,\widehat{z}ky)(x,y+1,\widehat{z})(x,y,\widehat{z}+1)`$. We would now like to apply the Buscher rules to the circle defined by $`y`$, but it is clear from the identifications that there is no corresponding circle action – which is related to the fact that the nilmanifold is not a principal $`𝕋^2`$-bundle. A naive application of the Buscher rules gives results which are suspicious, as the transformed metric does not appear to be a metric on any torus bundle . The conclusion is that if one tries to T-dualize a principal torus bundle with a non T-dualizable H-flux, in the sense of Def. 2.1, it will certainly take us out of the realm of principal torus bundles or, perhaps, there is even a genuine obstruction for such a T-duality. Similarly, T-duality for non principal torus bundles is not straightforward, or perhaps problematic, for the same reasons.

### 3.2. The group manifold

For an example of a T-dualizable flux consider a simple, compact Lie group $`𝖦`$. Let $`𝖳`$ denote its maximal torus. We can consider $`𝖦`$ as a principal $`𝖳`$-bundle over the flag manifold $`𝖦/𝖳`$.

Let $`[H_0]`$ denote the generator of $`H^3(𝖦,)`$, and let $`H_0`$ be a de-Rham representative of $`[H_0]`$. Explicitly, if Tr denotes a properly normalized trace on the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of $`𝖦`$, we may take

$$H_0=\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }),$$
(3.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=g^1dg`$ denotes the left-invariant Maurer-Cartan 1-form on $`𝖦`$.

Now consider the H-flux $`H=kH_0`$, for some positive integer $`k`$, and let $`X𝔱`$. We have

$$ı_XH=k\text{Tr}(X\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta })=kd\left(\text{Tr}(X\mathrm{\Theta })\right)$$
(3.4)
where, in the second step, we have used the Maurer-Cartan equation $`d\mathrm{\Theta }+\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$. First, consider $`\widehat{F}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝖦,\widehat{𝔱})`$ defined by $`\widehat{F}(X)=k\text{Tr}(X\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta })`$. Since, for any $`Y𝔱`$ we have $`_YH=0`$, the same holds for $`\widehat{F}`$, i.e. $`_Y\widehat{F}=0`$. Moreover, for all $`X,Y𝔱`$, we have $`ı_Y\widehat{F}(X)=k\text{Tr}([X,Y]\mathrm{\Theta })=0`$ hence $`ı_Y\widehat{F}=0`$. This shows that $`\widehat{F}`$ is a basic, closed, $`\widehat{𝔱}`$-valued 2-form, i.e. $`[\widehat{F}]H^2(𝖦/𝖳,\widehat{𝔱})`$. Moreover, the second equality shows that we can write $`\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$, with $`\widehat{A}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\widehat{𝖦},\widehat{𝔱})`$ defined by $`\widehat{A}(X)=k\text{Tr}(X\mathrm{\Theta })`$. In particular this shows that all H-fluxes on a group manifold are T-dualizable with respect to the maximal torus $`𝖳`$ (or, with respect to any subtorus, for that matter).

Note that $`\widehat{A}`$ is not a basic form, but rather a globally defined connection on a T-dual $`\widehat{𝖳}`$-bundle $`\widehat{𝖦}`$. It is not hard to see that, in fact, $`\widehat{𝖦}=𝖦/(_k)^r`$, where $`r`$ is the rank of $`𝖦`$ and $`(_k)^r𝖳=𝕋^r=𝕋\times 𝕋\times \mathrm{}\times 𝕋`$ is the subgroup of $`𝖳`$ such that each $`_k𝕋`$ with generator $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/k)`$. In the case of $`𝖦=SU(2)`$, the T-dual manifold $`𝖦/_kS^3/_k`$ is the Lens space $`L(1,k)`$, and we reproduce the result of .

The example of the group manifold can be generalized to more general principal $`𝖳`$-bundles over the flag manifold $`𝖦/𝖳`$, and leads to a whole web of dualities with corresponding isomorphisms between the respective twisted cohomologies and K-theories.


text:
# Interacting fermions in quasi-one-dimensional harmonic traps

## Abstract

Quasi-one-dimensional (quasi-1d) two-component Fermi gases with effectively attractive and repulsive interactions are characterized for arbitrary interaction strength. The ground-state properties of the gas confined in highly elongated harmonic traps are determined within the local density approximation. For strong attractive effective interactions the existence of a molecular Tonks-Girardeau gas is predicted. The frequency of the lowest breathing mode is calculated as a function of the coupling strength for both attractive and repulsive interactions.

The study of cold quasi-1d atomic quantum gases presents a very active area of research. So far, most of the experimental EXP1  and theoretical Olshanii ; Petrov ; Dunjko ; Menotti ; Girardeau2  investigations have been devoted to quasi-1d Bose gases and, in particular, to the strongly-interacting Tonks-Girardeau gas, which can be mapped to a gas of non-interacting fermions Girardeau1 ; Olshanii ; Reichel . Quasi-1d atomic Fermi gases have not been realized experimentally yet.

The role of interactions in quasi-1d atomic Fermi gases has been studied mainly in connection with Luttinger liquid theory Wonneberger ; Recati . Recati et al. Recati  investigate the properties of a two-component Fermi gas with repulsive interspecies interactions confined in highly-elongated harmonic traps. In the limit of weak and strong coupling these authors relate the parameters of the Luttinger Hamiltonian, which describe the low-energy properties of the gas, to the microscopic parameters of the system. The Luttinger model is used to analyze the manifestations of the uncoupled dynamics of spin and density waves (spin-charge separation).

This Letter investigates the properties of inhomogeneous quasi-1d two-component Fermi gases under harmonic confinement with attractive and repulsive interspecies interactions. The present study is based on the exact equation of state of a homogeneous 1d system of fermions with zero-range attractive Gaudin ; Krivnov  and repulsive Yang  interactions treated within the local density approximation (LDA). We calculate the energy per particle, the size of the cloud, and the frequency of the lowest compressional mode as a function of the effective 1d coupling constant, including infinitely strong attractive and repulsive interactions. Moreover, for attractive interactions we discuss the cross-over from the weak- to the strong-coupling regime and point out the possibility of forming a mechanically stable molecular Tonks-Girardeau gas.

Quasi-1d two-component Fermi gases with effectively attractive and repulsive 1d interspecies interactions can be realized in highly-elongated traps. The behavior of atomic gases tightly-confined in two directions can, if the confinement is chosen properly, be characterized to a very good approximation by an effective 1d coupling constant, $`g_{1d}`$, which encapsulates the atom-atom interaction strength. This coupling constant can be tuned to essentially any value, including zero and $`\pm \mathrm{}`$, by varying the 3d $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{3d}`$ through application of an external magnetic field in the proximity of a Feshbach resonance.

In homogeneous 1d Fermi gases with attractive interactions, sound waves propagate with a well defined velocity, while spin waves exhibit a gap Krivnov . Furthermore, in the strong-coupling regime, the ground state is comprised of bosonic molecules, consisting of two fermions with different spin whose spatial size is much smaller than the average intermolecular distance Krivnov . Consequently, BCS-type equations have been discussed for effectively attractive 1d interactions 1DBCS . The quasi-1d molecular Bose gas discussed here has similarities with the formation of a molecular Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) from a 3d Fermi sea close to a magnetic atom-atom Feshbach resonance EXP3 , which may allow study of the BCS-BEC cross-over BCSBEC . In contrast to the 3d case, the cross-over from the weak-coupling regime of large, overlapping Cooper pairs to the strong-coupling regime of small, tightly bound Bose pairs can be investigated in 1d within an exactly solvable model.

Consider a two-component atomic Fermi gas confined in a highly-elongated trap. The fermionic atoms are assumed to belong to the same atomic species, that is, to have the same mass $`m`$, but to be trapped in different hyperfine states $`\sigma `$, where $`\sigma `$ represents a generalized spin or angular momentum, $`\sigma =`$ or $``$. The trapping potential is assumed to be harmonic and axially symmetric,

$$V_{trap}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}m\left(\omega _\rho ^2\rho _i^2+\omega _z^2z_i^2\right).$$
(1)
Here, $`\rho _i=\sqrt{x_i^2+y_i^2}`$ and $`z_i`$ denote, respectively, the radial and longitudinal coordinate of the $`i`$th atom; $`\omega _\rho `$ and $`\omega _z`$ denote, respectively, the angular frequency in the radial and longitudinal direction; and $`N`$ denotes the total number of atoms. We require that the anisotropy parameter $`\lambda 1`$, where $`\omega _z=\lambda \omega _\rho `$, so that the transverse motion is “frozen” to zero point oscillations. At zero temperature this implies that the Fermi energy associated with the longitudinal motion of the atoms in the absence of interactions, $`ϵ_F=N\mathrm{}\omega _z/2`$, is much smaller than the separation between the levels in the transverse direction, $`ϵ_F\mathrm{}\omega _\rho `$. This condition is fulfilled if $`N\lambda 1`$. The outlined scenario can be realized experimentally with present-day technology using optical traps.

If the Fermi gas is kinematically in 1d, it can be described by an effective 1d Hamiltonian with contact interactions,

$$H=N\mathrm{}\omega _\rho +H_{1d}^0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z_i^2,$$
(2)
where

$$H_{1d}^0=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2}{z_i^2}+g_{1d}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N_{}}{}}\delta (z_iz_j)$$
(3)
and $`N=N_{}+N_{}`$. This effective Hamiltonian accounts for the interspecies atom-atom interactions, which are parameterized by the 3d $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{3d}`$, through the effective 1d coupling constant $`g_{1d}`$ Olshanii ,

$$g_{1d}=\frac{2\mathrm{}^2a_{3d}}{ma_\rho ^2}\frac{1}{1Aa_{3d}/a_\rho },$$
(4)
but neglects the typically much weaker intraspecies $`p`$-wave interactions. In Eq. (4), $`a_\rho =\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _\rho }`$ is the characteristic oscillator length in the transverse direction and $`A=|\zeta (1/2)|/\sqrt{2}1.0326`$. Alternatively, $`g_{1d}`$ can be expressed through the effective 1d scattering length $`a_{1d}`$, $`g_{1d}=2\mathrm{}^2/(ma_{1d})`$, where

$$a_{1d}=a_\rho \left(\frac{a_\rho }{a_{3d}}A\right).$$
(5)
Figure 1 shows $`g_{1d}`$ and $`a_{1d}`$ as a

function of the 3d $`s`$-wave scattering length $`a_{3d}`$, which can be varied continuously by application of an external field. The effective 1d interaction is repulsive, $`g_{1d}>0`$, for $`0<a_{3d}<a_{3d}^c`$ ($`a_{3d}^c=0.9684a_\rho `$), and attractive, $`g_{1d}<0`$, for $`a_{3d}>a_{3d}^c`$ and for $`a_{3d}<0`$. By varying $`a_{3d}`$, it is possible to go adiabatically from the strongly-interacting repulsive regime ($`g_{1d}+\mathrm{}`$ or $`a_{3d}a_{3d}^c`$), through the weakly-interacting regime ($`g_{1d}0`$) to the strongly-interacting attractive regime ($`g_{1d}\mathrm{}`$ or $`a_{3d}a_{3d}^c`$).

For two fermions with different spin the Hamiltonian $`H_{1d}^0`$, Eq. (3), supports one bound state with binding energy $`ϵ_{bound}=\mathrm{}^2/(ma_{1d}^2)`$ and spatial extent $`a_{1d}`$ for $`g_{1d}<0`$, and no bound state for $`g_{1d}>0`$, that is, the molecular state becomes exceedingly weakly-bound and spatially-delocalized as $`g_{1d}0^{}`$. In the following we investigate the properties of a gas with $`N`$ fermions, $`N_{}=N_{}`$, for both effectively attractive and repulsive 1d interactions with and without longitudinal confinement.

To start with, consider the Hamiltonian $`H_{1d}^0`$, Eq. (3), which describes a homogeneous 1d two-component Fermi gas. The ground state energy $`E_{hom}`$ of $`H_{1d}^0`$ has been calculated exactly using Bethe’s ansatz for both attractive Gaudin  and repulsive Yang  interactions, and can be expressed in terms of the linear number density $`n_{1d}`$, $`n_{1d}=N/L`$, where $`L`$ is the size of the system,

$$\frac{E_{hom}}{N}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}e(\gamma ).$$
(6)
The dimensionless parameter $`\gamma `$ is proportional to the coupling constant $`g_{1d}`$, $`\gamma =mg_{1d}/(\mathrm{}^2n_{1d})`$, while its absolute value is inversely proportional to the 1d gas parameter $`n_{1d}|a_{1d}|`$, $`|\gamma |=2/n_{1d}|a_{1d}|`$. The function $`e(\gamma )`$ is obtained by solving a set of integral equations web , which is similar to that derived by Lieb and Liniger LL  for 1d bosons with repulsive contact interactions. To obtain the energy per particle, Eq. (6), we solve these integral equations for attractive $`(\gamma <0)`$ Gaudin  and repulsive interactions ($`\gamma >0`$Yang .

Figure 2 shows

the energy per particle, $`E_{hom}/N`$ (solid line), the chemical potential $`\mu _{hom}`$, $`\mu _{hom}=dE_{hom}/dN`$ (dashed line), and the velocity of sound $`c`$ (inset), which is obtained from the compressibility of the system, $`mc^2=n_{1d}\mu _{hom}/n_{1d}`$, as a function of the interaction strength $`\gamma `$. In the weak coupling limit, $`|\gamma |1`$, $`\mu _{hom}`$ is given by

$$\mu _{hom}=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}+\gamma \frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}+\mathrm{},$$
(7)
where the first term on the right hand side is the energy of an ideal two-component atomic Fermi gas, and the second term is the mean-field energy, which accounts for interactions. The chemical potential increases with increasing $`\gamma `$, and reaches an asymptotic value for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ Recati  (indicated by a horizontal arrow in Fig. 2),

$$\mu _{hom}=\pi ^2\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}\frac{16\pi ^2\mathrm{ln}(2)}{3\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}+\mathrm{}.$$
(8)
The first term on the right hand side coincides with the chemical potential of a one-component ideal 1d Fermi gas with $`N`$ atoms. Interestingly, for $`\gamma 1`$, the strong atom-atom repulsion between atoms with different spin plays the role of an effective Pauli principle.

For attractive interactions and large enough $`|\gamma |`$ the energy per particle is negative (see Fig. 2), reflecting the existence of a molecular Bose gas, which consists of $`N/2`$ diatomic molecules with binding energy $`ϵ_{bound}`$. Each molecule is comprised of two atoms with different spin. In the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the chemical potential becomes

$$\mu _{hom}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2ma_{1d}^2}+\frac{\pi ^2}{16}\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}+\frac{\pi ^2}{12\gamma }\frac{\mathrm{}^2n_{1d}^2}{2m}+\mathrm{}.$$
(9)
The first term is simply $`ϵ_{bound}/2`$, one half of the binding energy of the 1d molecule, while the second term is identical to the chemical potential of a bosonic Tonks-Girardeau gas with density $`n_{1d}/2`$, consisting of $`N/2`$ molecules with mass $`2m`$ note . Importantly, the compressibility remains positive for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ \[a horizontal arrow in the inset of Fig. 2 indicates the asymptotic value of $`c`$, $`c=\pi \mathrm{}n_{1d}/(4m)`$\], which implies that two-component 1d Fermi gases are mechanically stable even in the strongly-attractive regime. In contrast, the ground state of 1d Bose gases with $`g_{1d}<0`$ has negative compressibility McGuire  and is hence mechanically unstable. The formation of a quasi-1d molecular gas discussed here has some analogies to the formation of a 3d molecular BEC EXP4  and the BCS-BEC cross-over for 3d Fermi systems BCSBEC .

Using the solutions for the homogeneous two-component 1d Fermi gas,

we now describe the inhomogeneous gas, Eq. (2), within the LDA Dunjko ; Menotti ; Recati . This approximation is applicable if the size $`R`$ of the cloud is much larger than the harmonic oscillator length $`a_z`$ in the longitudinal direction, $`a_z=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _z}`$, implying $`ϵ_F\mathrm{}\omega _z`$ and $`N1`$. The chemical potential $`\mu `$ of the inhomogeneous system can be determined from the local equilibrium condition,

$$\mu =\mu _{hom}[n_{1d}(z)]+\frac{1}{2}m\omega _z^2z^2,$$
(10)
and the normalization condition $`N=_R^Rn_{1d}(z)𝑑z`$, where $`z`$ is measured from the center of the trap and $`R=\sqrt{2\mu ^{}/(m\omega _z^2)}`$, where $`\mu ^{}=\mu `$ for $`g_{1d}>0`$ and $`\mu ^{}=\mu +|ϵ_{bound}|/2`$ for $`g_{1d}<0`$. The normalization condition can be reexpressed in terms of the dimensionless chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ and the dimensionless density $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{1d}`$ \[$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=\mu ^{}/(\mathrm{}^2/2ma_{1d}^2)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{1d}=|a_{1d}|n_{1d}`$\],

$$N\frac{a_{1d}^2}{a_z^2}=_0^{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}\frac{\stackrel{~}{n}_{1d}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }x)}{\sqrt{x}}𝑑x.$$
(11)
This expression emphasizes that the coupling strength is determined by $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2`$; $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^21`$ corresponds to the weak coupling and $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^21`$ to the strong coupling regime, irrespective of whether the interactions are attractive or repulsive Menotti .

Figure 3 shows the energy per particle $`E/N`$ and the size $`R`$ of the cloud as a function of the coupling strength $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2`$ for positive and negative $`g_{1d}`$ calculated within the LDA for an inhomogeneous two-component 1d Fermi gas. Compared to the non-interacting gas, for which $`R=\sqrt{N}a_z`$, $`R`$ increases for repulsive interactions and decreases for attractive interactions. For $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^21`$, $`R`$ reaches the asymptotic value $`\sqrt{2N}a_z`$ for the strongly repulsive regime, $`g_{1d}+\mathrm{}`$, and the value $`\sqrt{N/2}a_z`$ for the strongly attractive regime, $`g_{1d}\mathrm{}`$. The shrinking of the cloud for attractive interactions reflects the formation of tightly bound molecules. In the limit $`g_{1d}\mathrm{}`$, the energy per particle approaches $`ϵ_{bound}/2+N\mathrm{}\omega _z/4`$, indicating the formation of a molecular bosonic Tonks-Girardeau gas, consisting of $`N/2`$ molecules.

Using a sum rule approach, the frequency $`\omega `$ of the lowest compressional (breathing) mode of harmonically trapped 1d gases can be calculated from the mean-square size of the cloud $`z^2`$ Menotti ,

$$\omega ^2=2\frac{z^2}{dz^2/d\omega _z^2}.$$
(12)
In the weak and strong coupling regime ($`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^21`$ and $`1`$, respectively), $`z^2`$ has the same dependence on $`\omega _z`$ as the ideal 1d Fermi gas. Consequently, $`\omega `$ is in these limits given by $`2\omega _z`$, irrespective of whether the interaction is repulsive or attractive. Solid lines in Fig. 3 show $`\omega ^2`$, determined numerically from Eq. (12), as a function of the interaction strength $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2`$. A non-trivial behavior of $`\omega ^2`$ as a function of $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2`$ is visible. To gain further insight, we calculate the first correction $`\delta \omega `$ to the breathing mode frequency $`\omega `$

\[$`\omega =2\omega _z(1+\delta \omega /\omega _z+\mathrm{})`$\] analytically for weak repulsive and attractive interactions, as well as for strong repulsive and attractive interactions. For the weak coupling regime, we find $`\delta \omega /\omega _z=\pm (4/3\pi ^2)/(Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2)^{1/2}`$, where the minus sign applies to repulsive interactions and the plus sign to attractive interactions. For the strong coupling regime, we find $`\delta \omega /\omega _z=[16\sqrt{2}\mathrm{ln}(2)/15\pi ^2](Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2)^{1/2}`$ for repulsive interactions and $`\delta \omega /\omega _z=(8\sqrt{2}/15\pi ^2)(Na_{1d}^2/a_z^2)^{1/2}`$ for attractive interactions. Dashed lines in Fig. 4 show the resulting analytic expansions for $`\omega ^2`$. These expansions describe the lowest breathing mode frequency quite well over a fairly large range of interaction strengths. Not surprisingly, their validity breaks down for $`Na_{1d}^2/a_z^21`$.

In conclusion, we have investigated the cross-over from weak to strong coupling of quasi-1d harmonically trapped two-component Fermi gases with both repulsive and attractive effective interactions. The frequency of the lowest breathing mode, which can provide an experimental signature of the cross-over, is calculated. We predict the existence of a stable molecular Tonk-Girardeau gas in the strongly attractive regime. We believe that our results, which are derived using a 1d model Hamiltonian with contact interactions, hold when more realistic interactions are considered and when the transverse motion is treated explicitly.

Acknowledgements: GEA, SG and LPP acknowledge support by the Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’ Università e della Ricerca (MIUR). DB acknowledges support by the NSF (grant 0331529).


text:
# What can we learn from noncoding regions of similarity between genomes?

## 1 Background

Since the publication of draft sequences for the human  and mouse  genomes, several groups have run large-scale comparisons of the sequences to detect regions of conserved sequence. An initial survey of these was published along with the draft mouse genome . Briefly, protein coding genes are – as we might expect – among the most strongly conserved regions, but homologous sequences can be found throughout the genome. In total, it is possible to align up to 40% of the mouse genome to human sequence , but it seems likely that at least some of this is just random “comparative noise” – regions of sequence which serve no particular purpose but which, purely by chance, have not yet accumulated enough mutations to make their evolutionary relationship unrecognizable. However, it is widely accepted that some of the noncoding-but-similar regions, especially those with the highest levels of sequence identity between the two species, are preferentially conserved because they perform some important function. It has been estimated that around 5% of the genome is under purifying selection , indicating that mutations in these regions have deleterious effects: a strong suggestion of some important function..

Here, we apply the Eponine Windowed Sequence (EWS) sequence analysis method  method which uses a Relevance Vector Machine  to extract a minimal set of short motifs which are able to discriminate between two sets of sequences: in this case, a positive set of conserved non-coding sequences and a negative set of randomly picked sequences. The EWS model is an adaption of the Eponine Anchored Sequence model first described in  and subsequently used to predict a range of additional biological features including translation start sites and transcription termination sites \[A. Ramadass, unpublished\] While EAS is designed to classify individual points in a sequence – a feature which allows the EponineTSS model to predict precise locations for transcription start sites – EWS classifies complete blocks (windows) of sequence. The design and implementation of the EWS model is described in detail in .

## 2 Results

We considered a set of ‘tight’ alignments made by the blastz program  between release NCBI33 of the human genome and release NCBIM30 of the mouse genome. In total, this method reported 787173 blocks alignable between the two genomes. We considered only those blocks assigned to human chromosome 6, a 170Mb chromosome which has recently undergone manual annotation of gene structures and other features . This chromosome included 44105 (5.6%) of the total alignments. These varied in length from 34 to 9382 bases, with a length distribution skewed towards relatively short alignments, as shown in figure 1.

Since we were interested in non-coding features of the genome, we ignored all regions where an alignment overlaps an annotated gene structure. This removed 20.8% of aligned bases. It is possible that some genes, and especially psuedogenes, have been missed by the annotation process, so we also removed portions covered by ab initio gene predictions from the Genscan program . This eliminated an additional 4.3% of aligned bases. Finally, repetitive sequence elements annotated by the programs RepeatMaster  and trf  (5.9%) were removed from the working set. The remainder of the aligned regions were split into non-overlapping 200 base windows, ignoring any portions less that 200 bases. This gave a set of 13925 sequences which are well-conserved between human and mouse – and therefore likely to be functional – but which are very unlikely to be part of the protein-coding repertoire. These formed the positive training set for our machine learning strategy.

A negative training set of equal size was prepared by picking 200-base windows at random from the non-coding, non-repetitive portions of chromosome 6, using the same criteria to define repeats and coding sequence. While it is probable that this set also included some functional sequences, we would expect them to be represented at a substantially lower level than in the conserved set.

These two sets of sequence were presented to the Eponine Windowed Sequence machine learning system. Randomly chosen 5-base words were used as seed motifs, and three models were trained, each for 2000 cycles. The set of motifs used in model 1 is shown in table 1

While the exact set of motifs used in the model varied somewhat from run to run, testing pairs of models on non-overlapping windows from a 1Mb region of human chromosome 22 and plotting the scores showed that the model outputs were highly correlated (e.g. figure 2). We calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient for all pairs, and in all cases this was greater than $`0.96`$. From this strong correlation, we concluded that any variations in the model were simply the result of the trainer picking one representative from a group of motifs which provide similar information.

We scanned genomic sequences using these models at a range of thresholds, and examined the results using the Ensembl genome browser . Visual inspection showed that many of the highest-scoring regions were localized near the start of genes. This prompted us to look at the distribution of high-scoring with respect to the starts of a set of well-annotated genes. We considered the GD\_mRNA genes from version 2.3 of the human chromosome 22 annotation. These are confidently annotated genes with experimental evidence as described in , which confirms at least the approximate location of the ends of the transcripts, and are entirely independent from the chromosome 6 training data. Figure 3 shows the density of predictions with GLM scores $`0.90`$ relative to the annotated 5’ ends of these genes. This shows a strong peak of predictions close to the annotated starts, demonstrating that the model is predicting some sequences commonly located around the transcription start site of genes. Combining this observation with the fact that the model was trained from conserved (and therefore presumed functional) sequences, we believe that it is detecting signals found in the promoter regions of genes.

Evaluation of promoter-prediction methods on a large scale is a difficult exercise, since there are no large pieces of genomic sequence for which we can be certain we know the complete set of transcribed regions, and even in the case on well-known genes we often do not know the precise location at which transcription begins. In , we developed a pseudochromosome, derived from release 2.3 of the chromosome 22 annotation. As described above, this includes a subset of 284 experimentally verified gene structures. The pseudochromosome was constructed to include these genes while omitting all other annotated genes (which could be substantially truncated). We considered predictions (groups of one or more overlapping windows which all have scores greater than some chosen threshold) to be correct if they lie withing 2kb of an annotated gene start, and false otherwise. Plotting accuracy (proportions of predictions which are correct) against coverage (proportion of transcript starts which are detected by one of the correct predictions) gives an ROC curve. This is plotted for three different models in figure 4. Firstly, this shows that predictive performance for all three models is rather similar similar. It also shows that they can function as accurate promoter predictors, with accuracy rising to a plateau of around $`0.7`$.

We picked model 1 for further study. Using a score threshold of $`0.91`$, this gives an accuracy of $`0.68`$ and a coverage of $`0.31`$. We compared the set of genes correctly detected by this model to two other methods: firstly, the EponineTSS predictor described in , and secondly, the published results from the PromoterInspector program . PromoterInspector results were mapped to pseudochromosome coordinates using the procedure described in . Figure 5 shows how the set of promoters detected by these three distinct methods overlaps. There are clearly strong correlations between all three methods. In particular, at this threshold the EpoHomol model detects 98 promoters which were found by at least one of the other methods, but only 4 novel promoters.

## 3 Conclusions

We have shown here that, when presented with a set of non-coding sequences which are strongly conserved between human and mouse, a simple motif-oriented machine learning system consistently builds models which are able to detect a substantial fraction of human promoter regions with good accuracy. This strongly suggests that this promoter signal represents the most widely used motif-based signal in functional non-coding sequence. While the model learned here can clearly be applied for the purpose of genome-wide promoter annotation, in practice existing methods offer better coverage and (in the case of the EponineTSS predictor) predictions for the precise location of the transcription start site.

It is interesting that the promoter model learned by this technique detected substantially the same set of promoters as found by the EponineTSS and PromoterInspector methods. It has previously been remarked that these two methods detect similar sets , but this could perhaps be explained by the fact that both methods were initially derived from similar sets of known promoter sequences (in both cases, training data was extracted from the EPD database . In the case of the homology models described here, there is no connection with EPD, or any similar set of known promoters: the training data was picked purely on the basis of its high similarity to corresponding portions of the mouse genome. These result therefore support the alternate view that there is a particular ‘easily detected’ subclass of promoter sequences.

One distinct group of promoters, which previous results show may correspond to this easily detected family, is those promoters associated with CpG islands \[ref\]. However, while a number of the motifs listed in table 1 are G/C rich and/or contain the CpG dinucleotide, by no means all of the motifs match this description, and indeed one motif containing CpG has a negative weight in the linear model – their presence reduces the model output score – while some A/T rich motifs have positive weights. We therefore believe that the signals detected here are significantly more complex than a simple overrepresentation of CpG dinucleotides.

## 4 Materials and Methods

### 4.1 Genomic sequence and annotation

Human genome sequence release NCBI33 and mouse genome release NCBIM30 were extracted from Ensembl databases , which also contained gene predictions from Genscan  and repeat data from RepeatMasker  and trf . Curated annotation of gene structures on human chromosome 6 was obtained from the Vega database . Vega and Ensembl data was extracted directly from the SQL databases using the BioJava toolkit with biojava-ensembl extensions .

### 4.2 Genome alignments

Human-mouse genome alignments were generate by the blastz alignment. These were subsequently re-scored and filtered to give a ‘tight’ set of high-confidence alignments, as described in . We downloaded the tight alignment set from the UCSC genome website .

### 4.3 Pseudochromosome for testing promoter-finding methods

A 16.3Mb pseudochromosome sequence was produced based on version 2.3 of the curated annotation for human chromosome 22. This includes all the experimentally-validated gene structures and their upstream regions, while omitting regions containing genes that are predicted but not fully verified. In the case of a pair of divergent genes where one has been verified and the second has not, their shared upstream region was cut at the midpoint. More information about pseudochromosome construction is given in .

### 4.4 Eponine Windowed Sequence learning

The Eponine Windowed Sequence (EWS) model is a machine learning system for identifying a small set of motifs which can be effectively used to classify some set of training sequences . In this case, we applied a slightly restricted version of the EWS trainer which omitted the “Append Column” sampling rule, restricting the model to learning motifs with length less than or equal to the length of the seed motifs.

## 5 Acknowledgments

Chromosome 22 annotation data version 2.3 were produced by the Chromosome 22 Annotation Group at the Sanger Institute and were obtained from the World Wide Web at http://www.sanger.ac.uk/HGP/Chr22 (Dunham et al. unpublished data). TD would like to thank the Wellcome Trust for funding.


text:
# New limits on the generation of magnetic field

## 1 Introduction

In a variety of astrophysical systems the observed strength of magnetic field is close to an equipartition value. Generally it is believed that the present values were reached by dynamo amplification of an initially weak seed field (Widrow 2002). However, the mechanism responsible for generating the seed fields remains uncertain. Along with other possible candidates a radiation drag has been proposed. In plasma moving with respect to a radiation field the drag force acting on electrons is stronger than on protons, causing the generation of electric currents. These currents give rise to a magnetic field in the system. Mishustin & Ruzmaikin (1972) estimated that the value of magnetic fields generated in protogalaxies by radiation drag is in the range $`10^{18}6\times 10^{17}`$ G. However, a subsequent analysis by Balbus(1993) implied that, independent of the radiation intensity, the maximal value of the magnetic field generated by radiation drag is $`m_\mathrm{p}c\mathrm{\Omega }/e`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the initial angular velocity. For a typical protogalactic disk this limit is $`10^{19}`$ G, which might be too small to account for the required seed field (Kulsrud 1999, but see Widrow 2002, Davis, Lilley & Tornkvist 1999). According to Balbus this limit also invalidates theoretical estimates of magnetic field in several other systems, such as bipolar jets in protostellar systems (Chloe & Jones 1993) and disks around massive compact objects (Walker 1988).

In this paper, however, we show that this limit is valid only if the plasma is fully ionized, optically thin, and uncoupled to any other form of matter. If on the other hand a large fraction of the gas is neutral, condensed in optically thick clouds, or coupled to another form of matter (stars, dark matter etc) then this limit might have to be relaxed by several orders of magnitude.

## 2 Equations

### 2.1 Two-component system

Lets assume first that plasma is fully ionized, optically thin and uncoupled to any other form of matter. For simplicity we assume that plasma is composed only of protons and electrons. In self-gravitating astrophysical ionized objects global electric forces must be similar in magnitude to the gravitational forces. This means that the large-scale deviations from neutrality $`(n_\mathrm{p}n_\mathrm{e})/n_\mathrm{e}`$ are close to $`Gm_\mathrm{p}^2/e^210^{38}`$, the ratio between the electrical and gravitational forces. This is a tiny number and therefore we assume that the plasma is locally neutral, i.e., $`n_\mathrm{e}=n_\mathrm{p}`$. Similarly, because the magnetic field of an object of size $`R`$ is proportional to $`R(n_\mathrm{e}V_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{p}V_\mathrm{p})`$, for large objects the requirement of a small magnetic field translates into nearly equal velocities for electrons and protons, i.e., $`V_\mathrm{e}=V_\mathrm{p}`$. Also for large ionized objects we can assume that electrons and protons are tied together by induction, neglecting the collisional friction. Using these assumptions we write the equations of motions for protons and electrons as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mathrm{p}}}(E{\displaystyle \frac{B\times V_\mathrm{e}}{c}})+\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{(n_\mathrm{e}kT)}{n_\mathrm{e}m_\mathrm{p}}},`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m_\mathrm{e}}}({\displaystyle \frac{B\times V_\mathrm{e}}{c}}E)+\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{(n_\mathrm{e}kT)}{n_\mathrm{e}m_\mathrm{e}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{m_\mathrm{e}}},`$ (2)
where $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential and $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is the radiation drag force on each electron. Combining both equations we find the electric field

$$E=\frac{B\times V_\mathrm{e}}{c}+\frac{m_\mathrm{p}m_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{(n_\mathrm{e}kT)}{en_\mathrm{e}}+\frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{e}.$$
(3)
Taking curl of both sides of the above equation and using Faraday equation gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{ct}}={\displaystyle \frac{\times V_\mathrm{e}\times B}{c}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{p}m_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{(n_\mathrm{e}kT)}{en_\mathrm{e}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\times F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{e}}.`$ (4)
The first and the second term on the right side of (2.1) are respectively the dynamo amplification and the battery mechanism (Biermann 1950). Since we are interested in generation of magnetic field due to radiation drag only, we will ignore these terms. Thus we remain with

$$\frac{B}{ct}=\frac{m_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{\times F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{e}.$$
(5)
The radiation drag will act only as long as plasma rotates with respect to photonic fluid, i.e. until it loses all its angular momentum.If we ignore possible contraction or expansion of the object during the process, then integrating (5) in time gives

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{m_\mathrm{p}c}{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}\frac{\times (P_e+P_p)}{e}=\frac{\times (m_\mathrm{p}cV_0)}{e},$$
(6)
where $`V_0`$ and is the initial rotational velocity of plasma and $`P_e`$ and $`P_p`$ are the initial momenta of electrons and protons. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\times V`$ is the angular velocity we get

$$\mathrm{B}_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\mathrm{e}}10^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{G}$$
(7)
Similar limits were previously obtained by several authors (Harrison 1970; Balbus 1993).

### 2.2 Three-component system

We now introduce a third component into the system, which interacts with electrons and protons but not with radiation. The relevant equations of motion are now

$`m_\mathrm{p}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`eE+K_\mathrm{p}(V_\mathrm{x}V_\mathrm{e}),`$ (8)
$`m_\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`eE+K_\mathrm{e}(V_\mathrm{x}V_\mathrm{e})+F_{\mathrm{rad}},`$ (9)
$`(m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}){\displaystyle \frac{dV_\mathrm{x}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi (K_\mathrm{p}+K_\mathrm{e})(V_\mathrm{e}V_\mathrm{x}),`$ (10)
where $`\chi `$ is the mass density ratio of the plasma to the third component, $`V_x`$ is the velocity of the third component, and $`K_\mathrm{e}`$ and $`K_\mathrm{p}`$ are, respectively, coupling constants of the electrons and protons to the third component. Combining the equations we obtain

$$eE\left(\frac{1}{m_\mathrm{e}}+\frac{1}{m_\mathrm{p}}\right)=\frac{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}{\chi \left(K_\mathrm{e}+K_\mathrm{p}\right)}\left(\frac{K_\mathrm{p}}{m_\mathrm{p}}\frac{K_\mathrm{e}}{m_\mathrm{e}}\right)\frac{dV_\mathrm{x}}{dt}+\frac{F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{m_\mathrm{e}}.$$
(11)
If there is a strong coupling between the plasma and the third component, or equivalently the timescale of the drag $`m_\mathrm{p}V_\mathrm{e}/F_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ is much larger than $`m_\mathrm{p}/(K_\mathrm{p}+K_\mathrm{e})`$, then the velocity of the third component is close to the velocity of plasma, i.e., $`V_\mathrm{e}V_\mathrm{x}`$. Then

$$(1+\chi ^1)(m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e})\frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}=F_{\mathrm{rad}}$$
(12)
Combining eqs. 11 and 12 we obtain

$$eE=\left(m_\mathrm{p}+\frac{K_\mathrm{p}}{K_\mathrm{p}+K_\mathrm{e}}\frac{m_\mathrm{p}+m_\mathrm{e}}{\chi }\right)\frac{dV_\mathrm{e}}{dt}.$$
(13)
Using Faraday’s law and integrating in time we derive the following upper limit on the magnetic field

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}=\left(1+\frac{(1+m_\mathrm{e}/m_\mathrm{p})K_\mathrm{p}}{\chi (K_\mathrm{e}+K_\mathrm{p})}\right)\frac{m_\mathrm{p}c\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{e}.$$
(14)
If $`K_\mathrm{p}K_\mathrm{e}`$, as is the case for coupling with neutral gas, then this limit reduces to

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}(1+\chi ^1)\frac{m_\mathrm{p}c\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{e}.$$
(15)
## 3 Conclusions

The new limit is therefore larger by a factor of $`(1+\chi ^1)`$. One should not conclude, however, that the magnetic field becomes unbounded when $`\chi `$ goes to zero. For an object of a fixed mass and angular momentum decreasing $`\chi `$ is equivalent to decreasing $`n_\mathrm{e}`$, so for too small $`\chi `$ induction becomes weaker than friction, which contradicts our initial assumption. In this case, according to eq. 9 the maximal velocity of the electrons relative to the protons is $`F_{\mathrm{rad}}/K_\mathrm{e}`$ and the upper limit on magnetic field is obtained from

$$\times B_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{4\pi }{c}j=\frac{4\pi e}{c}n_\mathrm{e}\frac{F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{K_\mathrm{e}}$$
(16)
For an object with a radius $`R`$ this yields

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}=\frac{4\pi e}{c}n_\mathrm{e}\frac{F_{\mathrm{rad}}}{K_\mathrm{e}}R$$
(17)
Since $`K_\mathrm{e}`$ is proportional to the density of the third component then $`B_{\mathrm{max}}n_\mathrm{e}/K_\mathrm{e}\chi `$.

As the upper limit on $`B`$ varies non-monotonically with $`\chi `$, the maximal magnetic field is reached for some intermediate value of $`\chi `$, which depends on the physical parameters of the system (temperature, radiation strength, size of the object etc). Still in large astrophysical systems $`\chi `$ needs to be very small before eq.15 becomes invalid and thus the new limit would be much larger than the previous one. Taking protogalaxies in the post-recombination era as an example we find that since the fraction of ionized gas is of order $`10^4`$ the new upper limit is $`10^{15}\mathrm{G}`$, which is consistent with Mishustin & Ruzmaikin results.

## acknowledgment

I thank Adi Nusser for stimulating discussions. This research is supported by a grant from the German Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development.


text:
# UWThPh-2003-45 Quark mixing from softly broken symmetries

## Introduction

The seesaw mechanism  is a very popular mechanism for explaining the smallness of the neutrino masses. Extending the lepton sector of the Standard Model (SM) by right-handed neutrino singlets $`\nu _R`$, one obtains the full Majorana mass matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_L& M_D^T\\ M_D& M_R\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
for the neutral components of the left-handed SM lepton doublets, $`\nu _L`$, together with the charge-conjugates of the neutrino singlets, $`\left(\nu _R\right)^c`$. If the scale inherent in $`M_R`$ is much larger than the scales of $`M_L`$ and $`M_D`$, then eq. (1) leads to an effective mass matrix

$$M_LM_D^TM_R^1M_D$$
(2)
for the light neutrinos.

On the one hand this mechanism provides a rationale for the smallness of the neutrino masses, yet on the other hand it complicates the situation with respect to lepton mixing. This has now four sources: the charged-lepton mass matrix, $`M_L`$, $`M_D`$, and $`M_R`$. In  a scenario has been proposed where the sole source of lepton mixing is $`M_R`$. That scenario is based on the following assumptions:

1. The lepton-family numbers $`L_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) are conserved by all terms in the Lagrangian of dimension 4;
2. The $`L_\alpha `$ are broken *softly* by the $`\nu _R`$ Majorana mass terms in $`M_R`$, which have dimension 3.

Such a framework  leads to a renormalizable theory, and it has been shown  to be compatible with all experimental constraints. Within the above scenario several models for explaining maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing have been devised .

In this letter we transfer the idea of obtaining lepton mixing from softly broken lepton-family symmetries to the quark sector. We add vector-like isosinglet quarks to the SM and suggest that it is the dimension-3 mass terms of those quarks which are responsible for mixing.

## Extension of the SM quark sector

$`SU(2)`$-singlet (isosinglet) vector-like quarks may be added either to the SM down-type-quark sector, or to the up-type-quark sector, or to both simultaneously. For definiteness we shall first assume that they are added only to the down-type-quark sector; an extension of this sector through vector-like isosinglet quarks is motivated by the Grand Unified Theories based on the Lie algebra $`E_6`$ . We add $`n`$ left-handed and $`n`$ right-handed quark $`SU(2)`$ singlets, each of them with electric charge $`1/3`$, to the SM . We then have 3 left-handed quark doublets $`q_L=(p_L,n_L)^T`$, $`n`$ left-handed quark singlets $`N_L`$, and $`3+n`$ right-handed quark singlets $`N_R`$; there are also 3 right-handed quark fields $`p_R`$ with electric charge $`+2/3`$ . The gauge symmetry allows the terms

$$=\mathrm{}+\overline{q}_L\left(i\sigma _2\varphi ^{}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }p_R+\overline{q}_L\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }N_R+\overline{N}_LMN_R+\text{H.c.},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a dimensionless $`3\times 3`$ matrix, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a dimensionless $`3\times (3+n)`$ matrix, and $`M`$ is a dimension-1 $`n\times (3+n)`$ matrix. For simplicity we have considered only one Higgs doublet, but this framework is independent of the number of Higgs doublets. Writing $`M_p=v^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`m=v\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`v`$ is the vacuum expectation value of $`\varphi ^0`$, one obtains the mass terms

$$\overline{p}_LM_pp_R+(\overline{n}_L,\overline{N}_L)N_R,$$
(4)
where the $`\left(3+n\right)\times \left(3+n\right)`$ matrix $``$ is given by

$$=\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ M\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
For the discussion of quark mixing we must consider

$$^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}mm^{}& mM^{}\\ Mm^{}& MM^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
It is natural to assume that $`m`$ is of the order of the electroweak (Fermi) scale while $`M`$ is of a much larger scale. Then the effective mass-squared matrix for the light down quarks is

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=mm^{}mM^{}\left(MM^{}\right)^1Mm^{}.$$
(7)
Notice the similarity of the transition from eq. (6) to eq. (7) to the well-known seesaw transition from eq. (1) to eq. (2). However, eq. (7) does *not* involve a true seesaw mechanism; in general, no suppression of the magnitude of the quark masses is produced by eq. (7).

## Softly broken quark-family numbers

Equation (7) can be used  to generate *unsuppressed* $`CP`$ violation at low energies from the spontaneous breaking of that symmetry in a heavy sector. In this note we point out that quark *mixing* can also be generated from eq. (7), if some horizontal symmetry is *softly* broken in the matrix $`M`$.

As a first example, let us assume that $`n=3`$; then there are six $`N_R`$, which we divide in two sets: three $`N_{R1}`$ and three $`N_{R2}`$. We furthermore assume that there are three family numbers $`F_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =u,c,t`$) such that the fields $`q_{L\alpha }`$, $`N_{L\alpha }`$, $`p_{R\alpha }`$, $`N_{R1\alpha }`$, and $`N_{R2\alpha }`$ all have $`F_\alpha =1`$, and $`F_\beta =0`$ for $`\beta \alpha `$. We require family-number conservation in all terms of dimension 4 in the Lagrangian. Then,

$$m=(m_1,m_2),$$
(8)
where $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are diagonal $`3\times 3`$ matrices. On the other hand,

$$M=(M_1,M_2),$$
(9)
and we allow the $`3\times 3`$ matrices $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ to be non-diagonal, since they correspond to dimension-3 (soft) terms in the Lagrangian. Equation (7) now reads

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=m_1m_1^{}+m_2m_2^{}\left(m_1M_1^{}+m_2M_2^{}\right)\left(M_1M_1^{}+M_2M_2^{}\right)^1\left(M_1m_1^{}+M_2m_2^{}\right),$$
(10)
and $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ will in general be non-diagonal. On the other hand, the Yukawa-coupling matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in eq. (3) is diagonal, and so is the up-type-quark mass matrix:

$$M_p=\mathrm{diag}(m_ue^{i\varphi _u},m_ce^{i\varphi _c},m_te^{i\varphi _t}),$$
(11)
where $`m_{u,c,t}`$ are the up-type-quark masses; the $`\varphi _{u,c,t}`$ are arbitrary phases, which should be removed through rephasings of the $`p_R`$.

Both $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ must be present for non-trivial mixing to be obtained. For instance, if $`M_1=0`$ then eq. (10) gives

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=m_1m_1^{}+m_2m_2^{}m_2M_2^{}\left(M_2M_2^{}\right)^1M_2m_2^{}=m_1m_1^{},$$
(12)
which is diagonal.

Let us consider the mass terms involving the fields $`n_L`$. Since $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are diagonal, there are three separate expressions (one for each $`\alpha `$)

$$\overline{n}_{L\alpha }\left[\left(m_1\right)_{\alpha \alpha }N_{R1\alpha }+\left(m_2\right)_{\alpha \alpha }N_{R2\alpha }\right].$$
(13)
We may rotate each pair $`(N_{R1\alpha },N_{R2\alpha })^T`$ by a unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrix such that $`\left(m_2\right)_{\alpha \alpha }`$ becomes zero. Then $`m_2=0`$ and eq. (10) reads

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=m_1m_1^{}m_1M_1^{}\left(M_1M_1^{}+M_2M_2^{}\right)^1M_1m_1^{}.$$
(14)
One may further perform unitary transformations of the $`N_L`$ and $`N_{R2}`$ in such a way that $`M_2`$ becomes diagonal and real non-negative (bi-diagonalization of $`M_2`$).

It is interesting to notice that a genuine seesaw mechanism for Dirac fermions may be obtained from eq. (14) if $`M_1`$ happens to be of a much larger order of magnitude than $`M_2`$; we stress, though, that the inequality $`M_1M_1^{}M_2M_2^{}`$ must hold in the basis where $`m_2=0`$. Then we obtain the mass terms in leading order as

$$\overline{n}_L\left(m_1M_1^1M_2\right)N_{R2}+\overline{N}_LM_1N_{R1}.$$
(15)
The diagonal elements of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ conserve the quark-family numbers. It is natural to assume that the off-diagonal elements of those matrices are small compared to the diagonal ones.777This assumption may be misleading, though, since the down-type-quark masses have different orders of magnitude, and therefore the diagonal elements of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are also likely to be widely different. This might give a rationale for rather small quark mixing, in contrast to large lepton mixing. Let us then assume that

$`m_2=0`$;

both $`m_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are diagonal and real;

$`M_1=\widehat{M}_1+A`$, where $`\widehat{M}_1`$ is diagonal and real while $`A`$ has zeros in the diagonal and its off-diagonal elements are small compared to the diagonal elements of both $`\widehat{M}_1`$ and $`M_2`$.

Then, to first order in $`A`$ one obtains

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=\frac{m_1^2M_2^2}{\widehat{M}_1^2+M_2^2}\frac{m_1\widehat{M}_1}{\widehat{M}_1^2+M_2^2}A\frac{m_1M_2^2}{\widehat{M}_1^2+M_2^2}\frac{m_1M_2^2}{\widehat{M}_1^2+M_2^2}A^{}\frac{m_1\widehat{M}_1}{\widehat{M}_1^2+M_2^2}.$$
(16)
## Less than 3 isosinglet quarks

In order to simplify the above scheme one may allow for $`n<3`$. There will still be three $`U(1)_\alpha `$ groups ($`\alpha =u,c,t`$), but one (if $`n=2`$) or two (if $`n=1`$) of these groups act trivially on the $`N_{R2}`$. For instance, if $`n=1`$ then $`M_1`$ is a row vector with three elements and $`M_2`$ is just a number; $`m_2`$ is a column vector with three elements.888The position of its non-zero element is determined by the transformation property of $`N_{R2}`$ under the $`U(1)_\alpha `$ groups. As discussed before, with a change of basis we achieve $`m_2=0`$. Then, with the notation $`m_1=\mathrm{diag}(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$, $`S^2=M_1M_1^{}+M_2M_2^{}`$ (now this is simply a number), and $`\mathrm{}_j=\left(M_1\right)_j/S`$, from eq. (14) one obtains

$$\left(D_{\mathrm{light}}\right)_{ij}=a_ia_j^{}\left(\delta _{ij}\mathrm{}_i^{}\mathrm{}_j\right).$$
(17)
From this equation we see that

$$\left(D_{\mathrm{light}}\right)_{12}\left(D_{\mathrm{light}}\right)_{23}\left(D_{\mathrm{light}}\right)_{31}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left|a_j\right|^2\left|\mathrm{}_j\right|^2$$
(18)
is real and negative. Since the up-type-quark mass matrix in eq. (11) is diagonal in this basis, $`D_{\mathrm{light}}=VM_d^2V^{}`$, where $`M_d^2`$ is the diagonal matrix of the squared down-type-quark masses and $`V`$ is the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Thus,

$$\underset{i,j,k=d,s,b}{}m_i^2m_j^2m_k^2V_{ui}V_{ci}^{}V_{cj}V_{tj}^{}V_{tk}V_{uk}^{}$$
(19)
is real and negative in this model. This means that there is no $`CP`$ violation in the CKM matrix, and thus $`V`$ may be set real. Moreover, given the known hierarchy of the down-type-quark masses and of the CKM matrix elements, the quantity in eq. (19) is approximately equal to

$$m_b^4V_{tb}^2V_{ub}V_{cb}\left(m_b^2V_{ub}V_{cb}+m_s^2V_{us}V_{cs}\right),$$
(20)
which must be negative. This implies that the CKM-matrix Wolfenstein parameter $`\rho `$  is negative in this model. A negative $`\rho `$ is experimentally disfavored in the SM—see for instance —but here things are more complicated, since this model has flavor-changing quark currents coupling to the $`Z^0`$ , and, moreover, it must be endowed with some extra structure, like for instance several Higgs doublets, in order to account for $`CP`$ violation.

## Non-Abelian symmetries

Another possibility consists in assuming that the horizontal symmetry is non-Abelian, instead of being the product of three $`U(1)_\alpha `$ groups. This is interesting since $`m_1`$ and/or $`m_2`$ may then become more constrained, in particular two or three of their diagonal elements may become equal. Relevant discrete groups might for instance be the dihedral groups , $`S_4`$, or $`A_4`$, which have three-dimensional irreducible representations (irreps), or $`S_3`$, or $`D_4`$, which have two-dimensional irreps.

For instance, the group of the permutations of four objects, $`S_4`$, has a three-dimensional faithful irrep $`\underset{¯}{3}`$ generated by

$$(13)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),(24)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),(12)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(21)
where $`(13)`$, $`(24)`$, and $`(12)`$ are transpositions. The product $`\underset{¯}{3}\underset{¯}{3}`$ contains only one invariant of $`S_4`$; if $`\psi _j`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) and $`\psi _j^{}`$ ($`j=1,2,3`$) are two triplets of $`S_4`$, then $`\psi _1\psi _1^{}+\psi _2\psi _2^{}+\psi _3\psi _3^{}`$ transforms trivially under $`S_4`$. One may then postulate that the three $`q_{L\alpha }`$, the three $`N_{R1\alpha }`$, and the three $`N_{R2\alpha }`$ are all triplets of $`S_4`$; if the Higgs doublets are invariant under $`S_4`$, this immediately makes $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ proportional to the unit matrix, and thus diagonal, even in the absence of any $`U(1)_\alpha `$ symmetries. As for $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, they are arbitrary since we allow $`S_4`$ to be softly broken.

Another example is the symmetry $`D_4`$, which has a two-dimensional faithful irrep $`\underset{¯}{2}`$ given by the matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(22)
and all the products thereof. The product $`\underset{¯}{2}\underset{¯}{2}`$ contains only one invariant $`\underset{¯}{1}`$ of $`D_4`$; if $`(\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ and $`(\psi _1^{},\psi _2^{})`$ are two doublets of $`D_4`$, then $`\psi _1\psi _1^{}+\psi _2\psi _2^{}`$ is invariant under $`D_4`$. Thus, if the three $`q_{L\alpha }`$ transform as $`\underset{¯}{2}\underset{¯}{1}`$ and if $`n=1`$ with the four $`N_R`$ transforming as $`\underset{¯}{2}\underset{¯}{1}\underset{¯}{1}`$, then, choosing a basis where $`m_2=0`$, $``$ will be as described before in eq. (17) but with $`a_1=a_2`$.

A disadvantage of non-Abelian symmetries, though, is that one must allow for isosinglet vector-like quarks in both the down-type- and up-type-quark sectors. Indeed, since the $`q_{L\alpha }`$ transform as a multi-dimensional representation of some discrete (or continuous) non-Abelian group, the absence of soft breaking of that group in one of the sectors leads to degenerate quarks in that sector. In order to avoid having two quarks with equal masses, the discrete group must be (either softly or spontaneously) broken in both the up-type-quark and down-type-quark sectors.

## A particular case

Suppose for instance that $`n=2`$ and that there is a softly broken symmetry $`S_4`$ such that

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& 0\\ M& N\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
where $`m`$ is proportional to the unit matrix and (without loss of generality) real, while $`M`$ is an arbitrary $`2\times 3`$ matrix and $`N`$ an arbitrary $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Then,

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}=m^2\left[\mathrm{𝟙}M^{}\left(MM^{}+NN^{}\right)^1M\right].$$
(24)
We assume that the two row vectors in $`M`$ are linearly independent. Then there is a column vector $`v_3`$—unique up to a phase—such that $`Mv_3=0`$. It is clear that $`D_{\mathrm{light}}v_3=m^2v_3`$. There is a $`2\times 2`$ unitary matrix $`U`$ and a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix $`W`$ such that

$$M=U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mu _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \mu _2& 0\end{array}\right)W^{},$$
(25)
with real and positive $`\mu _{1,2}`$. Then, with $`\widehat{\mu }=\mathrm{diag}(\mu _1,\mu _2)`$,

$$MM^{}=U\widehat{\mu }^2U^{}.$$
(26)
It is easy to see that

$$M^{}\left(MM^{}+NN^{}\right)^1M=W\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\mathrm{𝟙}+B\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)W^{},$$
(27)
where

$$B=\widehat{\mu }^1U^{}NN^{}U\widehat{\mu }^1.$$
(28)
Let $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ be the eigenvectors of the $`2\times 2`$ Hermitian matrix $`B`$, corresponding to the (real and positive) eigenvalues $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, respectively. Write $`W=(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$, where $`\{v_1,v_2,v_3\}`$ is an orthonormal system of 3-vectors. (Obviously, $`v_3`$ is the vector satisfying $`Mv_3=0`$.) We define

$$y_j=\left(x_j\right)_1v_1+\left(x_j\right)_2v_2\mathrm{for}j=1,2.$$
(29)
Then,

$$D_{\mathrm{light}}y_j=\frac{m^2\lambda _j}{1+\lambda _j}y_j\mathrm{for}j=1,2.$$
(30)
We have thus found that $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$, and $`v_3`$ are the eigenvectors of $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $`m^2\lambda _1/\left(1+\lambda _1\right)`$, $`m^2\lambda _2/\left(1+\lambda _2\right)`$, and $`m^2`$, respectively.

Since $`N`$ is arbitrary, $`NN^{}`$ is an arbitrary Hermitian matrix, and $`B`$ too can be taken as a general Hermitian positive $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Therefore, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are arbitrary. Also, $`m^2`$ is unconstrained by the symmetry $`S_4`$. Finally, since $`M`$ is arbitrary, $`W`$ too is an arbitrary $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix, which means that $`y_1`$, $`y_2`$, and $`v_3`$ are arbitrary. We thus conclude that the matrix $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ in eq. (24) is a completely general $`3\times 3`$ mass-squared matrix. This means that our simple case with $`n=2`$ and softly broken $`S_4`$ symmetry leaves $`D_{\mathrm{light}}`$ unconstrained.

## Conclusions

In this letter we have suggested that the Yukawa couplings of an extension of the SM with isosinglet vector-like quarks may respect a horizontal symmetry which would lead to trivial quark mixing. However, that horizontal symmetry is *softly* broken *at a high scale* (much above the Fermi scale) by the gauge-invariant mass terms of the vector-like quarks. We have stressed that this leads to *unsuppressed* quark mixing at low energies, even though that mixing arises from the heavy sector of the theory. The number of vector-like quarks is largely arbitrary, and the horizontal symmetry may either consist in the product of three $`U(1)`$ quark-family groups or it may be a discrete or continuous non-Abelian group implying flavor-diagonal Yukawa couplings.

## Acknowledgement

The work of L.L. was supported by the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia under the contract CFIF-Plurianual.