text:
# Correlations in Networks associated to Preferential Growth

## I Growing Networks

First let us consider a network grown to some number of vertices $`N`$, that we fix from the beginning (typically we use $`N=10^3`$). The network grows to this size by a process where we at each step do the following:

* With probability $`p`$ a new vertex is added and connected with an edge to a preferentially selected vertex.
* With probability $`1p`$ a new edge is added between two vertices which are

+ with probability $`q`$ both chosen preferentially.
    + with probability $`1q`$ one vertex is chosen preferentially and the other vertex is randomly chosen.

Double edges or loops are not allowed and therefore each time we add an edge to the network, a check is performed. If the connection is not valid, one attempts to put the edge somewhere else. This will always be possible, except for some non important cases where the network is very small. To have good statistics a number of networks are grown to the desired size $`N`$ by the rules above. Also for every network that is produced one makes a sample of randomized networks with exactly the same degree distribution as the grown network, as described in Maslov and Sneppen (2002). We look at the like-hood of having a connection between vertices of edge-degree $`K_1`$ to vertices of edge-degree $`K_2`$ in the real network and compare it with the probability of finding the same connection obtained in the random sample of network Maslov and Sneppen (2002):

$$R(K_1,K_2)=\frac{P(K_1,K_2)}{P_{random}(K_1,K_2)}$$
(1)
The reason for comparing with a set of rewired networks is because of the inherently complicated nature of a network. So far the analytical approaches only applies to networks where multiple edges between two vertices and loops are allowed. With a specific degree distribution and not allowing for loops or multiple edges between vertices there is a limited freedom when attaching edges. This restriction will give a preference to small vertices connecting with large vertices in a scale-free network. In order to measure how the correlations in the created network differs from the one expected from a network with the same degree sequence we divide the number of specific connections in the studied network with the number of connections in the randomized networks. In principle one could also have obtained information about this “two-point” correlation from the measure of assortative mixing Newman (2002), compared with the set of randomized networks, but the full correlation profile contains more specific details about the topology.

In the figure 1 we show the degree distribution of three differently grown networks labeled A, B and C. That is we consider growth with different rates of edge additions to vertex additions as quantified by $`p`$. Further, the given $`p=0.4`$ corresponds to adding 4 vertices each with one edge attached preferentially, to every elementary addition of 6 edges. The $`q=1`$ and $`q=0`$ corresponds to preferential attachment of these 6 edges in both ends, respectively to attachment of one of their ends to a randomly selected vertex. In all cases one obtains scale free networks Dorogovtsev et al. (2001); Caldarelli et al. :

$$P(k)\frac{1}{k^\gamma }$$
(2)
with exponent $`\gamma `$ that decreases with both $`p`$ and $`q`$. For the three cases in figure 1 we have that (A) $`p=0.4`$ with $`q=0`$ gives $`\gamma =2.86`$, (B) $`p=0.4`$ with $`q=1`$ gives $`\gamma =2.14`$ and (C) $`p=0.8`$ with $`q=1`$ gives $`\gamma =2.6`$.

Figure 1 (A-C) examines the correlation profile. The overall pattern is that in all cases highly connected vertices tend to connect to highly connected vertices, a feature which in Trusina et al. (2004) was associated with hierarchical topologies of networks. Also an overall pattern, is that the more edges there are, the more $`R(K_1,K_2)`$ approaches unity and the hierarchical topologies thus tend to be suppressed by the overall noise. Examining the different types of growth, we furthermore see that the most hierarchical networks are obtained when edges are added randomly in one end and preferentially in the other end. In a somewhat similar vein assortativity was studied in Catanzaro et al. .

Since analytical calculations usually are limited to only apply to networks where loops and multiple edges between vertices are allowed, we also investigate what effect this has to the correlation profile by performing the same growth process as before, but with the difference that multiple edges and loops are accepted. Multiple edges and loops are accepted both in the process of growing the networks and the creation of the randomized networks. In figure 2 the correlation profile is visible.

In the figure 2 we see that, even if double edges and loops are allowed, indeed the highly connected vertices are connected more frequently to each other compared with a maximal randomization. However, the peak is shifted towards higher degrees because many edges are allowed between two vertices. If still more edges to vertices are inserted, the differences will be even larger because of the number of double edges and loops that will be created. The preferential attachment is however not the full story of the correlations, there are more to it. In the process of preferential attachment, the oldest vertices tend to become the vertices of highest degree. Furthermore, the insertion of an edge in the network connects two vertices created before the time of the edge insertion. This implicates that when the network is created and all vertex and edge insertions are made, more edges are put between older vertices than the younger vertices simply because the network is smaller in the early stages of the growth process; thus older vertices have a higher probability to be connected by an edge than the younger vertices created in the later stages. This explains why even if the edges are inserted randomly in both ends one gets a highly hierarchical structure, figure 3A, compared to what is expected from the resulting degree distribution. The degree distribution no longer follows a power law but is still fairly broad. Comparing to the the process where the excess edges are inserted after the insertion of all the vertices to the network, figure 3B, we observe that the hierarchical structure is no longer as apparent as in figure 3A. Furthermore, as a consequence of inserting fewer edges to the older (more connected) vertices the degree distribution is not as broad as in 3A.

## II Stationary Networks

Many real world networks are not constantly growing, but may anyway be governed by a growth process, that then should be supplemented by means of elimination of parts of the network. In the case of preferential growth the oldest vertices also become the most central ones which is shown in the degree-degree correlation profile 1. It is therefore of interest to examine what happens if the oldest vertices may be randomly eliminated. This is investigated in the following steady state model for growth and elimination in networks.

Given we want a network consisting of $`N`$ vertices, we grow the network as before, but in addition add a removal step at any time the number of vertices exceeds $`N`$. The total algorithm then reads:

* With probability $`p`$ a new vertex is added and connected with an edge to a preferentially selected vertex.
* With probability $`1p`$ a new edge is added between two vertices which are

+ with probability $`q`$ both chosen preferentially.
    + with probability $`1q`$ one vertex is chosen preferentially and the other vertex randomly chosen.
* If #vertices $`>`$ N, remove a random vertex $`n`$ and all vertices that after the removal of $`n`$ becomes isolated.

At given time-steps (typically at the order of the size of the network), randomizations of the network are made in order to calculate the degree-degree correlation profiles. Figure 4 demonstrates that now, with both growth and elimination, the scale invariance is broken. This is a striking difference to the original Simon Simon (1955) model of “rich get richer”. In his model money was assigned to people stochastically with a probability given by their present wealth leading to a power law distribution of wealth.

In his case one also obtains a power law distribution if one randomly eliminates agents independently of their wealth, see also Bornholdt and Ebel (2001). The reason for the different behavior in the network case is due to the fact that when one eliminates vertices with few connections, then with high probability one also reduces the number of connections for the vertices with high degrees.

Considering the correlation profiles for the steady state networks one first of all notices that hierarchical features remain. Further, when comparing to the steadily growing networks the hierarchical features are suppressed. Also notice that for the high $`p`$ or low $`q`$ the degree distribution became close to exponential, a feature that in itself will diminish the importance of the edge degree as an informative characteristic of the vertex structure. However, the relative strength of observed correlations for steady state networks are qualitatively similar to what was obtained for the growing networks.

In summary we have shown that preferential attachment and continuous edge insertions leads to a rather robust characteristic type of hierarchical degree-degree correlations. Thus for real world scale-free networks that does not exhibit hierarchical features, preferential growth is probably not the main ingredient in forming their topology. An example of such real world networks includes the protein-protein interaction networks in yeast, which exhibits pronounced anti-hierarchical topology Maslov and Sneppen (2002); Trusina et al. (2004). Thus the robustness of the hierarchical topology that preferential attachment gives rise to, points to some difficulty in the preferential attachment scenario put forward in Eisenberg and Levanon (2003) for protein-protein networks, not withstanding the fact that it was found that the older proteins were observed to be more connected than the younger ones.


format: text

text:
# Modeling AGN spectra with PHOENIX: a self-consistent approach

## 1. Introduction

It may be that the FeLoBAL QSO phenomenon is a phase in which the central super-massive black hole is strongly obscured by the surrounding material. The spectra of some of these objects are indeed redder than the spectra of typical AGN, which could signify thermal re-processing of the underlying central–engine emission. At some point, due to either an ejection event or a wind, the outer envelope of this cloud would be blown away. In the spectra of these objects we see spectral features that appear to be consistent with this. In fact, they appear much the same as the P-Cygni profiles that are seen in objects that have winds. We present models that are consistent with this scenario.

## 2. Computer modeling

We are beginning to model FeLoBALs, assuming a single spherically symmetric line forming region, with SYNOW and PHOENIX in an attempt to to understand more about their physical properties.

SYNOW is a paramterized spectral synthesis code used for line identification in spectra of supernovae and supernova–like events. The major assumptions are spherical symmetry, $`v`$ (velocity) $`r`$ (radius), and that the line source functions are those of resonance scattering. SYNOW’s strengths are speed and inclusion of multiple scattering while using a large atomic line list. It is difficult, however, to quantitatively interpret the results of SYNOW in terms of physical parameters.

PHOENIX assumes a one-dimensional atmosphere either in spherical or slab geometry. PHOENIX’s greatest strength is its self-consistent solution of the radiation field with the NLTE atomic level populations. PHOENIX requires only a few input parameters, most of which are observable. This can result in a high degree of physical realism.

PHOENIX can be used with LTE or NLTE level populations. With PHOENIX we match observables with the initial boundary conditions in the hope of deriving realistic physical parameters. The boundary conditions are the luminosity and the pressure at the outside of the atmosphere. Input parameters include: the maximim velocity of the ejecta, the chemical compositions, etc. In addition PHOENIX can use a variety of velocity laws for the atmosphere including those used in winds and supernovae. PHOENIX calculates the spectrum self-consistently therefore providing reliable information about temperatures and densities, and the kinetic energy and mass-loss rate for the ejected atmosphere.

## 3. Analysis

We have used SYNOW to fit the spectrum of ISO J005645.1–273816 (Duc et al. 2002) identifying lines of C III, Mg II, Al III, Si II, Cr II, Fe II, Fe III, and Ni II (Figure 1). In the synthetic spectrum, almost all of the features that are not labeled are produced by Fe II. The model has a velocity at the photosphere of 1500 km s-1, a power law optical depth distribution with index of $`2`$, and an excitation temperature of 7000 K. The two emission spikes in the observed spectrum that are marked with crosses are spurious.

The spectrum of another FELoBAL, FBQS1214+2803 (White et al. 2002) was studied with SYNOW by Branch et al. (2002), who emphasized the need for a more detailed self-consistent calculation. We have calculated a PHOENIX model for FBQS1214+2803 with the following physical parameters: a luminosity of L=$`6\times 10^{46}`$ ergs s-1, which with an effective temperature of $`7000`$ K corresponds to a radius of $`4\times 10^{17}`$ cm. We used $`v_{max}=2600`$ km -1, $`vr`$, solar metallicity, LTE, and a power law density structure with an index of $`8`$. This density structure is probably more correct for an ejection event than a wind and in the future we intend to explore other density distributions such as $`2`$ which would be expected for a wind. The pressure at the surface is set to be $`1\times 10^{12}`$ ergs cm-3. So far we have only investigated the region of the Mg II doublet. With this set of parameters and boundary conditions we can clearly see the Mg II feature (Figure 2). However, the Mg II optical depth appears to be too low and the emission peak is slightly blue-shifted perhaps due to the absorption feature of a redder line. This may be fixed by introducing NLTE and finding a more adequate realization of physical conditions that increase the optical depth of Mg II and reduce the optical depths of other features.

Given the input parameters above our model implies a mass loss rate of $`5\times 10^5`$ M$`_{}`$ yr-1. This is high, and if correct may imply an ejection event. However, these are preliminary models and with a more satisfactory set of input parameters the final result will differ.

## 4. Conclusion

We have shown that the resonance scattering interpretation of at least some FeLoBAL spectra needs to be considered. In particular, the SYNOW model of ISO J005645.1–273816 is superb. However much more work needs to be done. We need to do NLTE calculations and explore additional density and velocity structures. We also need to model ISO J005645.1–273816 and other FeLoBALs to learn the extent to which the resonance scattering interpretation is applicable.

## References

D. Branch, K. Leighly, R.C. Thomas, E. Baron, 2002, AJ, 578, L37-L40

P.-A. Duc, P.B. Hall, D. Fadda, P. Chanial, D. Elbaz, P. Monaco, E. Pompei, B.M. Poggianti, H. Flores, A. Franceshcini, A. Biviano, A. Moorwood,and C. Cesarsky, 2002, A&A, 389, L47-L50

R.L. White et al., 2002, ApJS, 126, 133-207


text:
# Propagation of Light in Doubly Special Relativity

## I Introduction

Doubly special relativity (DSR), which is a generalization of special relativity with two observer-independent scales, has attracted much attention recently in an attempt to describe the phenomenological aspects of physics on the Planck scale. It was first introduced as a generalization of the Lorentz transformation, respecting the principle of relativity in a linear fractional form \[1-3\]. It was recently suggested again as a generalization of special relativity to include one more invariant scale, in addition to the speed of light, introduced in a modified Lorentz transformation in momentum spacedsr-intro , and it was subsequently shown to be a nonlinear representation of the Lorentz group . It has also been pointed out that these theories can be understood as particular bases of the $`\kappa `$-Poincare theory based on quantum (Hopf) algebra, and the resulting energy-momentum space admits description in terms of a deSitter-type geometrynovak . Although DSR defined in momentum space has provided a possibility of explaining phenomena such as ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with energies above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cut-off and high-energy gamma rays  and a candidate for a varying light velocity theory for cosmologygray , some questions on the interpretation and the consistency of the proposal have been raised.

First of all, it is not clear how to define the velocity of a particle unambiguously in an inertial frameiframe . The authors of Ref. 10 has also raised the possibility of large-scale non-locality in the DSR defined in momentum space. The root of such problems lies in the fact that we do not know the exact position-space transformation corresponding to the modified Lorentz transformation defined in momentum space, such as those suggested in Refs. 4 and 5. In position space, the velocity of a particle is unambiguously defined as $`dx^i/dt`$ and the unique momentum of the particle from the velocity. Also, the (non)locality of field theory can be addressed unambiguously in position space whereas in Ref. 10, a Fourier transformation was used to obtain the behavior of the field in position space. To use a Fourier transformation, one has to rely on the quantum-mechanical relation $`p_i=i/x^i`$ for discussion of classical theory. Although there have been attempts to obtain the position-space transformation corresponding to the given momentum-space nonlinear Lorentz transformations , the results depend on the momentum, and their physical interpretation is not yet clear.

Thus, if the physical implications of nonlinear relativity are to be understood, it is preferable to start with the modified Lorentz transformation defined in position space. The nonlinear representation of the Lorentz group in position space with a large invariant length scale was first proposed by Fockfock , the so-called Fock-Lorentz transformation, and elaborated by Manidamanida  and Stepanovstepanov . Recently, Kimberly, Magueijo, and Medeiros (KMM) proposed a nonlinear relativity in position space with a Planck scale invariantkmm , which is relevant in applications to Planck-scale physics. The purpose of this paper is to study the physical implications of nonlinear relativity theories defined in position space.

In the next section, we study the space-time structure of the position-space nonlinear relativity proposed by KMM. We show that the maximum signal velocity determined by the null geodesic condition is infinitely large near the Planck time and monotonically decreases in time to the light velocity, c, when time becomes infinite. In Section III, we solve Maxwell’s equations invariant under the KMM transformation proposed in Ref. 11. Although the Maxwell wave appears to have infinitely large energy near the Planck time, its velocity is shown to be the same as the conventional light velocity. Finally, in Section IV, we discuss some implications of our results.

## II Space-time Structure of Nonlinear Relativity in Position Space

In this section, we study the space-time structure of the nonlinear relativity proposed by KMMkmm  and will briefly discuss that of the Fock-Lorentz case \[1-3\]. The nonlinear realization of the Lorentz group may be obtained by means of a transformation $`V`$ such that the new boost generators of the Lorentz group with respect to space-time coordinates are

$`K^i=V^1L_0^iV,`$ (1)
where

$`L_{\alpha \beta }=x_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\beta }}x_\beta {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\alpha }}`$ (2)
are the standard Lorentz generators. Despite this transformation, the new generators satisfy the ordinary Lorentz algebra,

$`[J^i,K^j]=ϵ^{ijk}K_k,[K^i,K^j]=ϵ^{ijk}J_k,[J^i,J^j]=ϵ^{ijk}J_k,`$ (3)
where $`J^i=ϵ^{ijk}L_{jk}`$. Thus, the new generators constitute a new (nonlinear) representation of the Lorentz algebra. KMM chose $`V`$ as

$`V=e^{\frac{t_P}{t}D},`$ (4)
where $`D=x^a_a`$ and $`t_P`$ represents a new invariant scale, the Planck time. Now, due to Eq. (1), the boost generators for nonlinear relativity take the form

$`K^i=L_0^i{\displaystyle \frac{t_Px^i}{t^2}}D,`$ (5)
which in turn induces a nonlinear representation of a Lorentz transformation. The nonlinear Lorentz transformation is given by $`x^\mu =V^1e^{\omega ^{\alpha \beta }L_{\alpha \beta }}Vx^\mu `$:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (t\text{v}x^3)(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})+t_P,`$ (6)
$`x^3`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (x^3\text{v}t)[(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})+{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{\gamma (t\text{v}x^3)}}],`$ (7)
$`x^a`$ $`=`$ $`x^a[(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})+{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{\gamma (t\text{v}x^3)}}],a=1,2,`$ (8)
where $`\text{v}=\mathrm{tanh}\omega ^{03}`$ is the relative velocity between two frames, which is assumed to be in the $`x^3`$-direction, and $`\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\text{v}^2}}`$ is the Lorentz factor. Note that the transformations in Eqs. (6)-(8) are singular at $`t=t_P`$, the Planck time. Thus, the theory describes the region of space-time after or before the Planck time. We also note that changing the sign of $`t_P`$ (or $`t`$) in Eq. (4) leads to another nonlinear representation of the Lorentz group, so one can implement the time reversal symmetry in the system, as noted by KMM kmm . As KMM pointed out kmm , the nonlinearity of the representation destroys translational invariance. Thus, the addition law for the coordinate variables is not obvious and needs further study, as is the case for the momentum variables in DSR defined in momentum space. Even though the position space DSR proposed by KMM and by FR nonlinear relativity poses many problems, the position space DSR can be useful in understanding how to define the velocity of light. To this end, we will consider the null geodesic condition in this section and the Maxwell equation in the next section.

The nonlinear KMM transformation, Eqs. (6)-(8), can be represented as a linear Lorentz transformation in terms of the new variables

$`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu =x^\mu (1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}}).`$ (9)
It is easy to check that the quantity

$`\stackrel{~}{t}^2\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}=(t^2\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x})(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})^2`$ (10)
is invariant under the KMM transformation. The metric of the coordinate system is then given by

$`ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{t}^2d\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}d\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}=dt^2[{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t^2}}\stackrel{}{x}dt+(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})d\stackrel{}{x}]^2.`$ (11)
The explicit components of the metric tensor read

$`g_{00}^{KMM}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P^2\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}}{t^4}},`$ (12)
$`g_{0i}^{KMM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t_Px^i}{t^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}}),`$ (13)
$`g_{ij}^{KMM}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})^2,`$ (14)
with its determinant given by

$`g^{KMM}=(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})^6.`$ (15)
The maximum velocity of the signal propagation in DSR is determined by the condition for the null geodesic, $`ds^2=0`$, in Eq. (11):

$`[\stackrel{}{v}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{t_P}{t}}}){\displaystyle \frac{t_P\stackrel{}{x}}{t^2}}]^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1\frac{t_P}{t})^2}}.`$ (16)
Thus, in the direction where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is parallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, the maximum signal velocity is given by

$`v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{t_P}{t}}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_Px}{t^2}}).`$ (17)
This shows that the maximum signal velocity depends on the position in space-time. The signal velocity at the origin, $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$, is infinitely large near the Planck time and monotonically decreases in time to the conventional light velocity when time approaches infinity. This is exactly what one expected when DSR was first introduced for application to Planck-scale physics .

To diagonalize the metric in Eq. (11), we define a new radial coordinate $`r`$ as

$`r=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}}t(tt_P),`$ (18)
which turns the metric in Eq. (11) into

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t^4}}[(\sqrt{t^4{\displaystyle \frac{4r^2}{t^2}}}dt+{\displaystyle \frac{2r}{t\sqrt{t^4\frac{4r^2}{t^2}}}}dr)^2{\displaystyle \frac{t^6}{t^64r^2}}dr^2r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)].`$ (19)
If new variables $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ as

$`T=t^2,\stackrel{~}{R}={\displaystyle \frac{2r^2}{T^3}}`$ (20)
are introduced, the metric in Eq. (19) may be put into a diagonal form:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{Td\tau ^2}{12\stackrel{~}{R}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{12\stackrel{~}{R}}}r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)]`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T(12\stackrel{~}{R})}}[d\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{12\stackrel{~}{R}}{T}}dl^2],`$ (22)
where the new time variable $`\tau `$ is defined by

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T+\stackrel{~}{R}T),`$ (23)
and the metric of the space-like hypersection is given by

$`dl^2={\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{12\stackrel{~}{R}}}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2).`$ (24)
Although the diagonalized metric in Eq. (22) is similar in form to that of the Fock-Lorentz case manida , it is not a Friedmann-Lobachevsky type metric because the spatial part of the metric, $`dl^2`$, is $`\tau `$-dependent. Note also that the Planck-scale invariant $`t_P`$ does not appear in the metric in Eqs. (19) and (21). Although the KMM transformation is singular at $`t=t_P`$ and, thus, the physics before and after this time must be treated separately, this implies that $`t=t_P`$ is not a geometrically special point. Although this fact appears to be unexpected, it is natural in view of the fact that the space-time structure of doubly special relativity is obtained by a nonlinear coordinate transformation, Eq. (9), from the Minkowski space-time; thus, the curvature tensor obtained from the metric in Eq. (11) vanishes.

We now consider the Fock-Lorentz(FL) transformation which is induced by the transformation, $`V=e^{\frac{t}{R}D}`$:

$`t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (t\text{v}x^3)}{1(\gamma 1)\frac{t}{R}+\gamma \text{v}\frac{x^3}{R}}},`$ (25)
$`x^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (x^3\text{v}t)}{1(\gamma 1)\frac{t}{R}+\gamma \text{v}\frac{x^3}{R}}},`$ (26)
$`x^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^a}{1(\gamma 1)\frac{t}{R}+\gamma \text{v}\frac{x^3}{R}}},a=1,2,`$ (27)
where R is a large invariant length scale, and the direction of the relative motion between the two frames is assumed to be in the $`x^3`$-direction. Note that, if one defines new variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{x^\mu }{1+\frac{t}{R}}},`$ (28)
this new variable transforms as a 4-vector under the linear Lorentz transformation, and the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{t}^2\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{x}}=(t^2\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x})/(1+\frac{t}{R})^2`$ can easily be shown to be invariant under the Fock-Lorentz transfomation \[1-2\]. By using Eq. (28), one finds the metric of the coordinate system,

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\frac{t}{R})^4}}[dt^2((1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{R}})d\stackrel{}{x}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{R}}dt)^2].`$ (29)
This metric may be put into a diagonal formmanida :

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{\widehat{t}^4}}(d\widehat{t}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{t}^2}{R^2}}dl^2),`$ (30)
where $`t=\widehat{t}\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}}`$, and $`dl^2`$ is given by

$`dl^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}}}({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1\frac{r^2}{R^2}}}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)).`$ (31)
The components of the metric tensor in Eq. (29) read

$`g_{00}^{FL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\frac{\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}}{R^2}}{(1+\frac{t}{R})^4}},`$ (32)
$`g_{0i}^{FL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{x^i}{R}}{(1+\frac{t}{R})^3}},`$ (33)
$`g_{ij}^{FL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ij}}{(1+\frac{t}{R})^2}},`$ (34)
whose determinant is given by

$`g^{FL}=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{R}})^{10}.`$ (35)
The maximum signal velocity in Fock-Lorentz nonlinear relativity is determined by the null geodesic condition, $`ds^2=0`$, in Eq. (29):

$`[(1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{R}})\stackrel{}{v}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{x}}{R}}]^2=1.`$ (36)
Thus, in the direction where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is parallel to $`\stackrel{}{v}`$, the maximum signal velocity becomes

$`v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{t}{R}}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{R}}).`$ (37)
As in the case of the KMM nonlinear relativity, the maximum signal velocity in the FL nonlinear relativity depends on the position in space-time. The velocity at the origin, $`\stackrel{}{x}=0`$, on the other hand, is maximum and has the value of the conventional light velocity at $`t=0`$ and monotonically decreases in time to become zero when $`t`$ becomes infinite.

## III Solutions of Doubly Special Relativistic Maxwell’s Equations

To understand the physical implications of doubly special relativity, we solve Maxwell’s equations invariant under the KMM transformationkmm  and the Fock-Lorentz transformationfock . Maxwell’s equations, invariant under the nonlinear Lorentz transformations Eqs. (6)-(8) and Eqs. (25)-(27), are of the form

$`D_\alpha F^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J^\beta ,`$ (38)
$`D_\alpha {}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (39)
where $`D_\alpha `$ represents a covariant derivative induced by the metrics, Eq. (11) and Eq. (29), for the KMM and FL DSR, respectively. Thus, Eqs. (38) and (39) may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{g}F^{\alpha \beta })}{x^\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J^\beta ,`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{g}{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\alpha \beta })}{x^\alpha }}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (41)
To solve Eqs. (40) and (41), one finds it convenient to write $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ in terms of the electric and magnetic fields, $`E_i=F^{0i},B_i={}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{0i}`$. Then, the homogeneous equation, Eq. (41), becomes

$`_iB_i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (42)
$`D_0B_i+ϵ_{ijk}_jE_k`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (43)
where $`D_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_0\sqrt{g}`$, which reflects the fact that the space-time coordinates are nonlinear. These equations can be solved by writing the fields in terms of the potential $`A_\mu `$;

$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ijk}_jA_k,`$ (44)
$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`_iA_0D_0A_i.`$ (45)
The inhomogeneous equation, Eq. (40), becomes

$`_iE_i`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J^0,`$ (46)
$`D_0E_i+ϵ_{ijk}_jB_k`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J_i.`$ (47)
Note that the system is invariant under the gauge transformation

$`A_iA_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_i+_i\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (48)
$`A_0A_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A_0+D_0\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ (49)
Substituting Eqs. (44) and (45) into Eqs. (46) and (47), one obtains the wave equation for $`A_\mu `$:

$`(D_0^2_i_i)A_\mu =4\pi J_\mu ,`$ (50)
where we have used the gauge-fixing condition $`D_0A_0+_iA_i=0`$. Note that Eq. (50) is equivalent to

$`(_0^2_i_i)\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =4\pi \stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ,`$ (51)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\sqrt{g}A_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{J}\mu =\sqrt{g}J_\mu .`$ (52)
One can now readily find the solutions of the doubly special relativistic Maxwell’s equations. In the source-free region, the general solution is of the form

$`A^\mu (t,\stackrel{}{x})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle d^3k𝑑\omega ϵ^\mu (\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}i\omega t}},`$ (53)
where $`ϵ^\mu `$ is the polarization vector satisfying

$`ϵ^0\omega =\stackrel{}{ϵ}\stackrel{}{k},`$ (54)
and the dispersion relation is given by

$`\omega ^2k^2=0.`$ (55)
This shows that the solutions of Maxwell’s equations are just plane waves multiplied by an envelope function, $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}`$, coming from the background metric factor appearing in Eq. (52). Note that, for the KMM case, the determinant of the metric is

$`\sqrt{g^{KMM}}=(1{\displaystyle \frac{t_P}{t}})^3,`$ (56)
and, for the Fock-Lorentz case, it is

$`\sqrt{g^{FL}}=(1+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{R}})^5.`$ (57)
Thus, in the case of the KMM DSR, the amplitude of the wave decreases in time, starting from the Planck time when the amplitude is infinitely large. In the Fock-Lorentz case, on the other hand, the amplitude of the wave increases in time, starting from $`t=0`$ when the amplitude is the same as it is in the conventional plane-wave case. It appears that energy is continuously extracted from (supplied to) the Maxwell system in the KMM case (FL case), although there is no source or sink in the system. Although, in the case of KMM, the Maxwell wave appears to have infinitely large energy near the Planck time, the wave velocity is not affected by the nonlinearity of the Lorentz group representation. This is also the case for the Fock-Lorentz relativity.

It is to be noted that the velocity of the Maxwell waves is the same as that of the conventional light wave, but is not the same as the maximum signal velocity, Eqs. (17) and (37) for the KMM and the FL relativity, respectively, which follow from the null geodesic condition. This is in marked contrast to the case of linear relativity, where light propagates along the null geodesics.

The fact that the energy appears to be supplied or extracted without any source or sink in DSR can also be seen in Poynting’s theorem. From Maxwell’s equations, Eqs. (46) and (47), one obtains the continuity equation

$`D_0u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\stackrel{}{}(\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{B})=\stackrel{}{J}\stackrel{}{E},`$ (58)
where

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle d^3x(E^2+B^2)}.`$ (59)
Note that the first term in Eq. (58) can be written as

$`D_0u=_0u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}(_0\sqrt{g})u.`$ (60)
The second term of Eq. (60) may act like a source term, and due to this term, the energy-momentum of the wave is not conserved globally.

## IV Discussion

DSR in momentum space is obtained by defining the modified algebra

$`K^i=U^1L_0^iU,`$ (61)
where $`L_{\alpha \beta }=p_\alpha \frac{}{p^\beta }p_\beta \frac{}{p^\alpha }`$ are the generators of the linear Lorentz transformation. From the modified generators, $`K^i`$, one obtains the modified Lorentz transformation in momentum space, which in turn gives the modified dispersion relation

$`E^2f^2(E)p^2g^2(E)=m^2,`$ (62)
where the forms of the functions f and g are determined by the form of the transformation $`U`$. From the dispersion relation in Eq. (62), one defines the group velocity of the particle in question and discusses the effects in Planck-scale physics .

Although p in the linear Lorentz generators, $`L_{\alpha \beta }`$, is clearly the momentum of the particle, it is not clear what represents the variable p appearing in the modified generators, $`K^i`$, and in the nonlinear Lorentz transformation. Thus, it is not clear whether the “group velocity” defined from the dispersion relation in Eq. (62) represents the true group velocity of the particle in question. We believe that this fact is the source of the questions raised by the authors of Refs. .

One way to define the velocity of a particle unambiguously is to solve the field equation corresponding to the particle in question. Since the exact nonlinear Lorentz transformation in position space corresponding to the momentum-space DSR relevant in Planck-scale physics  is not yet known, we solved Maxwell’s equations invariant under the KMM transformationkmm  and the Fock-Lorentz transformationfock  in an attempt to understand how the light wave propagates in DSR. As we showed in the last section, although the Maxwell wave in KMM nonlinear relativity appears to acquire infinitely large energy near the Planck time, its velocity is the same as that of conventional light waves. The reason is that the nonlinear Lorentz transformation does not affect the phase of the Maxwell wave, but contributes only to the amplitude of the wave.

Another puzzle present in doubly special relativity defined in position space is that the velocity of the doubly special relativistic Maxwell wave is not the same as the maximum signal velocity determined by the null geodesics. The maximum signal velocity in KMM nonlinear relativity is infinitely large near the Planck time and approaches the conventional light velocity as time becomes large, which is exactly the property that is needed for application to Planck-scale physics. The velocity of the solution of Maxwell’s equations invariant under the KMM transformation, however, is exactly the same as the conventional light velocity, although its energy becomes infinitely large near the Planck time. This raises many interesting questions, such as the one concerning the relation between null geodesics and the particle trajectory or wave propagation, whether there exists a particle or a wave that travels with the maximum signal velocity determined by the null geodesics, etc. This also raises another serious question on the causality of the theories based on the KMM transformations because the light cone determined by Maxwell’s equations may be inside or outside the null cone determined by the null geodesic equation, Eq. (16), depending on the position of the particle in question. Note that the dispersion relation, Eq. (62), is obtained from the metric of the coordinate system defined in momentum space. However, our analysis indicates that the signal velocity determined by the metric may not be the same as that determined by the solutions of the field equations. Thus, if the physics of doubly special relativity are to be understood more clearly, further investigations of the field equations invariant under the nonlinear Lorentz transformations and the implications of the null geodesics are needed.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Sabbatical Year Program of Ewha Woman’s University (SKK), by the Yonsei University Research Fund (SMK), by the Basic Research Program of the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation under Grant number R01-1999-000-00018-0(2003)(CR), and by Korea Research Foundation under Project number KRF-2003-005-C00010 (JHY).


text:
# Magnetic extrema in electronic susceptibility and heat capacity of mesoscopic systems

## 1 Introduction

Low temperature oscillations of diverse electromagnetic and thermal characteristics (resistivity, magnetization, susceptibility, thermal conduction, heat capacity etc.) of macroscopic and mesoscopic bodies in an increasing uniform magnetic field are apparently a general property of systems formed by charged particles. These oscillations have been last years studied experimentally and theoretically in mesoscopic systems of different geometry and microscopical structure: in mesoscopic rings , in a thin spherical layer , in superconducting discs , in micron-size heterostrucures . Observing such variety of properties and objects one is forced to arrive at a conclusion that there must be a common reason for arising this phenomenon. In this Letter as a source of such oscillations we regard crossings of the quantum levels of a mesoscopic system abstracting from the physical nature of the levels and system itself. We concentrate here on static properties (the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ and heat capacity $`C`$) in the regime of the thermodynamical equilibrium of the canonical ensemble at low temperatures.

We assume that a system exposed to a uniform magnetic field ($`B`$) possesses a number of discrete quantum states altering their mutual energy disposition depending on $`B`$. Thereby for each value of $`B`$ there exist a lowest state, the ground state for a given $`B`$, and the nearest to it first excited state with energies $`E_0(B)`$ and $`E_1(B)`$ respectively. Each of these energies is a smooth function of $`B`$, however $`E_0(B)`$ and $`E_1(B)`$ can locally have opposite slopes with $`B`$. Therefore the difference $`E_{10}(B)`$

$$E_{10}(B)=E_1(B)E_0(B);E_{10}(B_0)=0.$$
(1)
can become equal to zero for a value of $`B=B_0`$.

In Sec.2 we show that this point of the level crossing is a peculiar point where at very small temperatures both $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ reach local extrema: a maximum for $`\chi `$ and a minimum for $`C`$.

## 2 Extrema in $`\chi `$ and $`C`$

In the low temperature limit only two first terms practically exhaust the canonical partition function

$$Z=exp[\beta E_0(B)]+exp[\beta E_1(B)]+Z_\mathrm{r},\beta =1/T.$$
(2)
The rest, $`Z_\mathrm{r}`$, gives a weak background for $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ near the point $`B_0`$ in the vicinity of which the partition function can be expressed via a small parameter $`\xi `$:

$`\xi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{exp[\beta E_{10}(B)]1\};\xi (B_0)=0,`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{ln}Z=\beta E_0(B)+\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi )+\alpha +\mathrm{ln}2,`$
$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i2}{}}exp\{\beta (E_iE_0)\}1.`$
The magnetic susceptibility and heat capacity are naturally divided near $`B_0`$ into smoothly varying parts $`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$, $`C_\mathrm{s}`$ and the rapidly varying functions $`\chi _\mathrm{e}`$, $`C_\mathrm{e}`$ with extrema in $`B_0`$:

$`\chi (B_0)=\chi _\mathrm{s}+\chi _\mathrm{e},`$ (4)
$`\chi _\mathrm{s}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2(E_0\alpha T)}{B_0^2}},\chi _\mathrm{e}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta V}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi )}{B_0^2}},`$ (5)
$`C(B_0)=C_\mathrm{s}+C_\mathrm{e},`$ (6)
$`C_\mathrm{s}=\beta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\alpha }{\beta ^2}},C_\mathrm{e}=\beta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{ln}(1+\xi )}{\beta ^2}}.`$ (7)
$`V`$ is the volume of the system. The derivative $`/B_0`$ implies hereafter the derivative with respect to $`B`$ in the point of $`B=B_0`$.

At low temperatures ($`T<\delta `$, $`\delta `$ is the mean level spacing at $`B=0`$) we take into account only those terms in Eqs.(5) and (7) which are proportional to the maximum power of $`\beta `$ at $`B=B_0`$, $`^n\xi /B_0^n0.5(\beta )^n(E_{10}/B_0)^n`$, that gives

$`\chi _\mathrm{e}(B_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{4V}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{10}}{B_0}}\right)^2>0,`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi _\mathrm{e}}{B_0}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{^2\chi _\mathrm{e}}{B_0^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^3}{8V}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{10}}{B_0}}\right)^4<0,`$ (9)
$`C_\mathrm{e}(B_0)=0,`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_\mathrm{e}}{B_0}}=0,{\displaystyle \frac{^2C_\mathrm{e}}{B_0}}=\beta ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_{10}}{B_0}}\right)^2>0.`$ (11)
$`\chi _\mathrm{e}`$ is paramagnetic ($`\chi _\mathrm{s}`$ determines the diamagnetic component of $`\chi `$) and proportional to the squared difference of the magnetic moments of the crossing states. Thus, Eqs.(8) -(11) confirm the existence of a local maximum in $`\chi `$ and a minimum in $`C`$ at the level crossing point $`B_0`$. Increasing the field can generate appearance of new level crossing points that will give $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ an oscillating functions of $`B`$. Intervals between peaks and their amplitudes depends on the physical nature of the system and its shape. Here we limit ourselves by considering weak fields (the cyclotron radius is much larger than the size of the system). The alterations of quantum levels v.s. $`B`$ are caused by removing the spin and rotational degeneracy, the latter occurs when a system has rotational symmetry. To investigate oscillating behavior of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ in Sec.3 we apply the independent electron model to normal mesoscopic systems and in Sec.4 superconducting clusters of the perfect spherical shape are described by using the exact solution of the conventional superconducting hamiltonian.

## 3 Magnetic oscillations in normal clusters

The character of oscillations in electron $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ of a mesoscopic system is dependent on the its shape. In spherical clusters at $`B=0`$ each many–fold degenerate level (the spin-orbital interaction is omitted here) displays a sheaf-wise splitting. Hence magnetic sublevels originated from one spherical $`l`$-shell ($`l`$ is an orbital momentum) cannot cross each other with the growth of $`B`$. Thus the minimum strength of a magnetic field, $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$, (here we consider the case of the closed Fermi–shell at $`B=0`$) required to arouse the first crossing and the first extremum is determined by $`\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}`$, the distance between the Fermi–shell, $`l_F`$–shell, and the unoccupied $`l_{F+1}`$–shell at $`B=0`$: $`\mu _B^{}B_{\mathrm{min}}(l_F+l_{F+1}+2)=\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}`$, $`\mu _B^{}=\mu _Bm^{}/m`$, $`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass. We assume that orbital and spin projections are aligned at the first crossing. Nevertheless the absolute value of $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is practically independent of $`l`$, since the level splitting near $`F`$ at $`B=0`$ is proportional to $`l`$: $`\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}(2l_F+1)\delta `$, where $`\delta =4\epsilon _F/3N`$ is the mean level spacing of the Fermi gas near the Fermi energy ($`\epsilon _F`$). Thus, $`B_{\mathrm{min}}\delta m^{}/\mu _Bm`$ and for nanometer normal metallic clusters ($`N10^5`$, $`\epsilon _F10`$ $`eV`$ and $`m=m^{}`$) $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is of the order of $`1T`$. The evolution of some single–electron levels in a spherical cavity and corresponding extrema in $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ are shown in Fig.1.

Properties of quantum dots are frequently interpreted in the two-dimensional cylindrically symmetric oscillator model . This symmetry also gives a rather high degeneracy of electron levels near the Fermi level, which is removed in the same manner as in the previous spherical case. $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of the first level crossing is assessed analogously: $`B_{\mathrm{min}}\epsilon _Fm^{}/2N\mu _Bm`$, $`N`$ is the free electron number in the quantum dot. As $`\epsilon _F`$ and $`m^{}/m`$ for such systems can be small (e.g. for GaAs $`m^{}/m0.07`$, $`\epsilon _F10`$ $`meV`$ ) oscillations of $`\chi `$ could be observable in relatively weak fields for a wide range of $`N`$. $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ v.s. the cyclotron frequency are shown in Fig.2,3 for $`N10^3`$ ( we consider the case of the closed cylindrical Fermi–shell at $`T=B=0`$ ). The feature of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ oscillations in systems with cylindrical or spherical symmetry is the presence of several groups of peaks corresponding firstly crossings of levels from two nearest cylindrical or spherical shells separated at $`B=0`$ by one shell gap, then cross levels separated at $`B=0`$ by two shell gaps and so on.

Increasing temperature (Fig.3) leads to confluence of separate peaks so that curves for $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ become similar and their gross structure is caused by the shell structure of the single–particle energy spectrum.

Much simpler behavior of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ as function of $`B`$ is observed in clusters having no rotation symmetry axis. In this case level crossings are caused by the Zeeman splitting and perturbation of orbital motion by weak fields proves to be insignificant, because orbital energy shifts for such systems are quadratic in $`B`$. Then signs of energy denominators appearing in perturbative calculations are opposite for levels near the Fermi–level that reduces second order terms. The example of such “spin” oscillations of $`\chi `$ is concerned with electron system in the oscillator well with oscillator frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=0.9\mathrm{\Omega }_y=0.5\mathrm{\Omega }_z`$ that corresponds to an ellipsoid with semiaxes $`a_x1.1a_y=2a_z`$ (we adopt the relation between semiaxes and oscillator frequencies from Ref. : $`\mathrm{\Omega }_xa_x=\mathrm{\Omega }_ya_y=\mathrm{\Omega }_za_z`$). Such system has no rotation axis and a magnetic field directed along $`x`$–axis generates “spin” oscillations (Fig.4).

These oscillations of $`\chi `$ in the anysotropic oscillator are much like oscillations in the equal level spacing model .

## 4 Magnetic oscillations in the gapless superconducting region

Another example of magnetic oscillations of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ is given by the single-shell model (SSM) of superconductivity. Such model can be a reasonable approach to a description of spherical superconducting clusters with numbers of conduction electrons $`10^3<N<10^5`$ . There is a wide range of orbital momentum $`l_F`$ for states successively becoming the Fermi level with growth of $`N`$. Averaging through $`N`$ gives $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{\mathrm{sh}}N^{1/3}`$ . At $`B=0`$ the level spacing between degenerate shells $`\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}2\stackrel{~}{l}_F\delta 8\epsilon _F/3N^{2/3}`$ is much more than the BCS superconducting gap at $`B=T=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(0)`$, e.g. $`\delta _{\mathrm{sh}}>10`$ $`meV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(0)<1`$ $`meV`$ for $`Al`$-clusters with $`N`$ under consideration. Therefore the superconducting pair correlations can arise between electrons (their number is $`N_{\mathrm{sh}}`$) occupying only one shell with a large $`l`$.

The Hamiltonian of SSM consists of the pairing interaction with the strength $`G`$ and the interaction with a field $`B`$. The exact spectrum of such Hamiltonian is well known  and at $`B=0`$ is determined by the seniority $`\nu `$ (unpaired electron number)

$$E_\nu =\frac{G}{4}(N_{\mathrm{sh}}\nu )(4l+4N_{\mathrm{sh}}\nu ).$$
(12)
For each $`\nu `$ there is a multiplet of states (degenerate at $`B=0`$) with different orbital and spin projections which are splitted by a field. The energy of the lowest state for each $`\nu `$ is

$$E_\nu (\omega )=E_\nu \frac{\omega }{4}\{\nu (4l+2\nu )\frac{1}{2}[1()^\nu ]+4(1\delta _{\nu .0})\},$$
(13)
Thus with growth of $`B`$ (in this Section $`\omega \mathrm{}\omega \mu _B^{}B`$) the role of the ground state is successively played by states with $`\nu =0,2,4,\mathrm{}`$ for even $`N_{sh}`$ or $`\nu =1,3,5\mathrm{}`$ for odd $`N_{\mathrm{sh}}`$, i.e. increasing $`B`$ leads to a sequence of crossings of the $`\nu `$-level with $`\nu +2`$-level, resulting in a step–wise decrease of the pairing gap (the region of the gapless superconductivity).

To take into account the temperature dependence of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ quantities we have analytically summed up those components of the canonical partition function $`Z`$ which involve states inside the considered $`l`$–shell

$`Z={\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}exp(\beta E_\nu )[\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu 2}(1\delta _{\nu .0})],`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma _{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{\nu /2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\delta _{\sigma .0}}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\nu /2+\sigma }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\nu /2\sigma }\mathrm{cosh}(2\beta \omega \sigma ),`$
$`\sigma _{min}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[1()^\nu ],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_k=\delta _{k.0}+(1\delta _{k.0}){\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega \frac{2l+2\mu }{2})}{\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega \frac{\mu }{2})}},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_BT}}.`$
Fig.5 shows $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ as functions of the magnetic field and temperature. The latter is measured in $`T_{\mathrm{crit}}`$, the critical temperature of the conventional BCS theory for half–filled shell.

Oscillations of $`\chi `$ and $`C`$ created by level crossings in SSM spread on a range of rather small fields $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{BCS}}(0)/\stackrel{~}{l}_F`$  ($`B<0.5`$ $`T`$ for $`Al`$-clusters with $`N>10^3`$ and $`m=m^{}`$). In nonspherical superconducting clusters where a weak magnetic field does not influence orbital motion, the level crossings are determined only by alignment of spins. Therefore greater values of $`B_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are expected to induce the first extrema in $`\chi `$ and $`C`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion we have shown that an increasing uniform magnetic field applied to a mesoscopic system transforms the structure of the ground state in a such a way that in level crossing points synchronously appear local extrema in magnetic susceptibility (maxima) and heat capacity (minima). Thereby these thermodynamic quantities oscillate with growth field. Periodicity and amplitudes of the low temperature oscillations carry information concerning properties of the quantum states of investigated normal and superconducting systems.


text:
# Untitled Document

CAPTIONS

fig.1 : $`\epsilon ,\dot{\epsilon },\ddot{\epsilon }`$ as functions of $`\tau `$. These are called gamma1, gamma2, and gamma3, respectively, on the figures. To make the second and third figures convenient to represent, we have added $`150`$ to the values of the second, and $`5\times 10^3`$ to the last, assuring positivity (and value greater than unity) in our data range, and taken the logarithm base 10. Recursive, approximate quasiperiodic behavior is clearly visible in the variables $`\dot{\epsilon },\ddot{\epsilon }`$.

fig.2 : The orbit as it enters the region of the attractor, shown in the space of $`\dot{\epsilon },\ddot{\epsilon }`$, showing the transition from the initial conditions to the strange attractor. In $`\tau `$, the curve starts on the $`\dot{\epsilon }`$ axis to the right of the origin, and ends at the lower left of the origin.

fig.3 : This curve continues the evolution within the attractor, starting in the neighborhood of the origin, winding up and around to the right and terminating almost at the same point (a little above), coming in from the right.

fig.4 : This curve is a magnification the motion in the neighborhood of the end point of figure 3, starting below the axis and moving to the left. It makes another loop, and ends in a smaller pattern.

fig.5 : The smaller pattern approached in figure 4 is shown in detail, now displaying a somewhat different general pattern. Here, $`\ddot{\epsilon }`$ enters oscillations as $`\epsilon `$ approaches the neighborhood of unity. Figures 5a and 5b show enlargements of the innner loop, and figure 5c shows the endpoint in more detail.

fig.6 : $`\dot{\epsilon },\epsilon `$ plane in the $`\tau `$ interval represented in fig. 2.

fig7a : $`\dot{\epsilon },\epsilon `$ plane in the $`\tau `$ interval represented in figure 3.

fig.7b : $`\dot{\epsilon },\epsilon `$ plane in the $`\tau `$ interval represented in figure 4, including the details corresponding to figure 5.

fig.8 : Largest averaged Lyapunov exponent (the values must be divided by the size of the interval $`10^7`$) as a function of the accumulated $`\tau `$. We have used interval $`0.4\times 10^6`$. Note the sharp jump at approximately $`10,400`$ steps, indicating the development of a very large instability in this neighborhood (the additional terms here are divided by $`10^4`$, the number of time steps.

fig.9 : The time series for $`\epsilon (\tau )`$ on a three dimensional space corresponding to shift by 20 time steps.

fig.10 : The time series for $`\dot{\epsilon }(\tau )`$ on a three dimensional space corresponding to shift by 40 time steps.

fig.11 : The time series for $`\ddot{\epsilon }(\tau )`$ on a three dimensional space corresponding to shift by 20 time steps.

fig.12. : In these figures, showing $`\dot{\epsilon }`$ vs. $`\epsilon `$ and $`\ddot{\epsilon }`$ vs. $`\dot{\epsilon }`$, we have changed the initial conditions, and find a similar pattern.


text:
# Chemical abundances of 𝛽 Cephei stars from low- and high-resolution UV spectra

## 1. Introduction

In early type stars the ultraviolet spectral region is important for several reasons. Firstly, since the majority of the total flux is emitted here, it provides a rather sensitive indicator of a photospheric temperature and luminosity. Secondly, the UV spectra are dominated by lines of the iron-group elements, which cause the origin of the opacity bump at temperature $`2\times 10^5`$ K, where the classical $`\kappa `$ mechanism drives pulsations of $`\beta `$ Cep stars. Consequently, the position of the instability domain in the HR diagram strongly depends on the metal abundance (Pamyatnykh 1999).

We derive stellar parameters (metallicity, \[m/H\], effective temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, stellar diameter, $`\theta `$) and interstellar extinction, $`E(BV)`$, for all $`\beta `$ Cep stars observed by International Ultraviolet Explorer satellite. The parameters are derived by means of an algorithmic procedure of fitting theoretical flux distributions to the low-resolution IUE spectra and optical spectrophotometric observations. The errors are estimated by using the bootstrap method (Press et al. 1992). We also show some examples of high-resolution HST/GHRS spectra for one $`\beta `$ Cep star: $`\gamma `$ Peg.

## 2. Analysis of low resolution IUE spectra

### 2.1. Observations and method

The observational material consists of the IUE spectra with the absolute calibration and reduction done by NEWSIPS package. The spectra were coadded if more than one spectrum was available for a star. The ultraviolet observations expressed in the absolute units were supplemented by optical spectrophotometric measurements taken from the literature. We used Johnson and Strömgren photometry if no optical spectrophotometric data were available.

We applied the least-squares (LS) optimalization algorithm of fitting theoretical flux distributions to observations. This method enables us to obtain various parameters involved in stellar spectra ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, \[m/H\], $`E(BV)`$, $`\theta `$). We used theoretical models of Kurucz (1996) with the value of the microturbulent velocity, $`v_t=2`$ km/s, for all stars. In addition, the mean interstellar reddening curve of Fitzpatrick (1999) was adopted for the majority of the analysed objects. Because of the spatial variability of the extinction law, for the field stars with $`E(BV)>0.10`$, five additional parameters, specifying the shape of the UV extinction curve (Fitzpatrick 1999) were estimated. For $`\beta `$ Cep stars in open clusters we adopted the extinction curves from Massa & Fitzpatrick (1986). The surface gravity was determined as a mean value from four methods. Three of them use Strömgren and Geneva photometry. In the last method, we estimated the gravities using the formula obtained from stellar evolutionary models computed by A. Pamyatnykh (private communication) for OPAL opacities with $`Z=0.02`$. We found the following relation: $`\mathrm{log}g=12.5894+4.4810\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}0.7870\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$, with the standard deviation amounts to 0.01 dex. We used Hipparcos parallaxes in order to calculate $`\mathrm{log}L/L_{}`$. During the best-fit procedure the luminosity was corrected for the Lutz-Kelker bias (Lutz & Kelker 1973). The distances to the clusters were taken from the literature. The errors were estimated by using the technique of bootstrap resampling (Press et al. 1992, Niemczura 2003). This technique allows to get reliable uncertainties of the parameters and correlations between them.

### 2.2. Results

In Fig. 1, we show the $`\mathrm{log}g`$ vs. $`\mathrm{log}T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ diagrams with observational points and theoretical instability strips for three values of $`Z`$. The mean value of the metal abundance parameter for the field stars is equal to $`0.14\pm 0.03`$ dex, and ranges from $`0.47`$ (27 CMa) to $`0.21`$ dex (HN Aqr). The mean values of \[m/H\] for the stars in clusters are equal to $`0.05\pm 0.06`$ dex for NGC 3293, $`0.43\pm 0.05`$ for NGC 4755 and $`0.01\pm 0.06`$ for NGC 6231. The clusters NGC 3293 and NGC 4755 have similar ages, but the $`\beta `$ Cep instability strip in the second one is shifted to the lower temperatures. This can be explained by the lower value of \[m/H\] obtained for the NGC 4755 stars. The mean \[m/H\] for all stars we analysed is $`0.13\pm 0.03`$. These determinations are consistent with our previous results (Daszyńska et al. 2002), obtained with the less accurate method. Metal abundances of hot stars in the solar vicinity are lower by about 0.20 dex than the solar value and were reported by many authors (see Niemczura 2003 and references therein). The values from the low-resolution IUE observations are in agreement with these results. In the next step we checked whether the obtained metallicities are correlated with any stellar parameter. We found small correlations between \[m/H\] and all parameters (from 0.17 for $`E(BV)`$ to 0.26 for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$), which mean that \[m/H\] can be reliably derived from the best-fit procedure. Then we tried to find quantities, which can be determined by metallicity in $`\beta `$ Cep stars. The value of the dominant period, its amplitudes of the light and radial velocity variations, as well as the projected rotational velocity are not correlated with the value of \[m/H\], as has been already shown by Daszyńska et al. (2002). For more details we refer reader to Niemczura & Daszyńska-Daszkiewicz (2003).

## 3. High resolution HST/GHRS spectra of the $`\beta `$ Cephei star $`\gamma `$ Peg

High-quality UV spectra of $`\gamma `$ Peg have become available with Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) aboard HST. Observations were made with two gratings, G160M (1340 – 1380 Å) and ECH-B (2060 – 2071 Å), with the spectral resolving power of about 20.000 and 80.000, respectively. Both spectral ranges are dominated by the iron peak elements like Fe, Cr, Mn, Ni, Si, Zn, V and Ti. In Fig. 2 we show a comparison of the ECH-B spectrum of $`\gamma `$ Peg with the theoretical one computed with Kurucz LTE line-blanketed models, for \[m/H\]$`=0.2`$ dex and stellar parameters obtained from the above analysis of IUE spectra. The overall fit is quite good, but for more detail analysis the abundances of elements should be determined individually.

## 4. Conclusions and future prospects

The abundance of the metals, especially of iron, in $`\beta `$ Cephei pulsating variables is one of the fundamental parameters. In the case of main sequence B stars, values obtained from the UV spectra give mainly the estimation of \[Fe/H\]. Because the Kurucz models are overestimated in the iron element we have to include the correction for \[m/H\] of about 0.12 dex. The metallicities of the $`\beta `$ Cep stars predicted by the theory of pulsations are not in contradiction with most values determined by us. Pamyatnykh (1999) showed that the $`\beta `$ Cephei instability strip vanishes for $`Z0.01`$, corresponding to \[m/H\] $`0.30`$ dex, and to \[m/H\] $`0.42`$ dex from the Kurucz’s fluxes. There is a few stars with the metallicity parameter lower than this limit. But we have to remember that our values give an information mainly about photospheric metal abundances. Some other effects which we did not take into account, like diffusion or element mixing may also be importantant. We did not change the mixture of elements, neither. In spite of this, our results provide a very important information about the metallicity range for these pulsating stars. However, for asteroseismological purposes, there is a need for a detailed analysis of chemical composition, because oscillation frequencies are very sensitive to the adopted mixture. This is the aim of our future work and here we show an example of high-resolution HST/GHRS spectrum of $`\gamma `$ Peg with the best-fit of theoretical models.

#### Acknowledgments.

We gratefully thank Alosza Pamyatnykh for calculations a number of evolutionary tracks.

## References

Daszyńska, J., Niemczura, E., & Cugier, H. 2002, Adv. in Space Res. 31, 387

Fitzpatrick, E.L. 1999, PASP, 111, 63

Fitzpatrick, E.L., & Massa, D. 1999, ApJ, 525, 1011

Grevesse, N., & Noels, A. 1993, in ed. N. Pratzo et al., Origin and evolution of the Elements

Kurucz, R. 1996, http://cfaku5.harvard.edu

Lutz, T.E., & Kelker, D.H. 1973, PASP, 85, 573

Massa, D., & Fitzpatrick, E.L. 1986, ApJ, 60, 305

Niemczua, E. 2003, A&A, 404, 689

Niemczua, E., Daszyńska-Daszkiewicz J., 2003, in preparation

Pamyatnykh, A.A. 1999, AcA 49, 119

Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., & Vetterling, W.T. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran, 2nd ed. (Cambrige University Press)


text:
# Neutrino Star as Galactic Cluster Dark Halo

## Abstract

Recent strong lensing data and rotation curves of dwarf galaxies indicate that many galactic clusters may have a soft core instead of a central cusp in their density distribution. This result challenges the standard CDM (Cold Dark Matter) theory prediction based on N-body simulations. We find that the observed density profile is consistent with that of a spherical gas of degenerate fermions such as neutrinos in hydrostatic equilibrium. Also, we compare two different models of the dark matter halo and their predictions for the hot gas profile.

Recent strong lensing data and rotation curves of dwarf galaxies suggest that matter distribution takes the form of a soft core at the centers of some galaxy clusters . However, N-body simulations based on the CDM theory predict that the density profile of the dark matter halo should be singular at the center which is called the NFW profile . One possibility to resolve the discrepancy is that the dark matter may not be collisionless as assumed in previous simulations. They may interact with each other and form a profile different from the NFW profile. In the following, we show that indeed the observed density profile is consistent with that of a degenerate gas of massive neutrinos in hydrostatic equilibrium. We will first review a method of inferring the dark matter distribution from the density profile of the hot gas in a galaxy cluster . Then we will demonstrate that one of the dark matter candidates, massive neutrinos, which can be either collisionless or self-interacting, can account for the observed profiles.

One of the most common methods to probe the dark matter distribution is to make use of the gas density profile. We assume that the hot gas is in hydrostatic equilibrium, i.e.,

$$\frac{dn_g(r)}{dr}=\frac{GM(r)m_gn_g(r)}{kTr^2},$$
(1)
where $`n_g(r)`$ is the number density of hot gas, $`M(r)`$ is the total mass enclosed within a radius $`r`$, $`k`$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $`m_g`$ is the mass of the gas particles. Here we assume that the hot gas is isothermal throughout the cluster, with a constant temperature $`T`$, which is valid as the heat conduction by electrons is quite efficient. By knowing the number density profile of the hot gas, we can probe the distribution of dark matter. There is a general form of the hot gas density profile called the $`\beta `$ model ,

$$n_g(r)=\frac{n_0}{[1+\stackrel{~}{r}^2]^{3\beta /2}},$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}r/r_c`$, $`r_c`$ being the core radius, $`\beta `$ is a parameter, and $`n_0`$ is the central number density. Different clusters have different values of $`n_0`$, $`r_c`$ and $`\beta `$. Now, we can solve Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) and get:

$$M(r)=\frac{3kT\beta r^3}{Gm_g(r^2+r_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}.$$
(3)
For $`r`$ much greater than $`r_c`$, $`M(r)r`$, whereas for $`r`$ much smaller than $`r_c`$, $`M(r)r^3`$, which means that the density is constant,

$$\rho \rho _c\frac{9kT\beta }{4\pi Gm_gr_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}},r<<r_c.$$
(4)
In general, from Eq. (3), we can obtain the mass density of the dark matter, assuming that the total mass is dominated by dark matter together with the hot gas,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}=\frac{\rho _c}{3}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+3}{(\stackrel{~}{r}^2+1)^2}\right]m_gn_g(r),$$
(5)
which is quite different from the NFW profile,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}=\frac{\rho _0}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},$$
(6)
where $`\rho _0`$ and $`r_s`$ are parameters. Possible sources of the discrepancy are problems in the NFW profile, or the $`\beta `$ model, or the assumption of isothermal distribution in the cluster. For example, it has been proposed that including the cooling flow of hot gas in the above model will result in a dark matter distribution that is closed to the NFW prediction .

Nevertheless, the hot-gas method is model dependent and the uncertainties are still large. To understand more about the dark matter, one powerful and model independent alternative is to use strong lensing to probe the distribution of dark matter. This method still has large errors and is limited in data collection. One of the clusters studied recently is CL0024+1654 . It was concluded that CL0024+1654 has a soft core in the center which is different from the NFW profile . Furthermore, some observations of dwarf galaxies mass distribution also indicate that the inner halo density is nearly constant .

It has been proposed that cold dark matter may have weak self-interaction instead of being collisionless . Following this suggestion, we assume that the dark matter can establish hydrostatic equilibrium,

$$\frac{dP_{\mathrm{DM}}}{dr}=\frac{GM(r)\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}(r)}{r^2},$$
(7)
where $`P_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ is the dark matter pressure. Then, we can combine Eq. (1) and Eq. (7) to get

$$\frac{dP_{\mathrm{DM}}(\rho _{\mathrm{DM}})}{\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}}=\frac{kT}{m_g}\frac{dn_g}{n_g}.$$
(8)
From Eq. (8), we can obtain the equation of state (EOS) of dark matter $`P_{\mathrm{DM}}(\rho _{\mathrm{DM}})`$ from the hot gas density profile. If we assume a polytropic relation between the pressure and density of the dark matter,

$$P_{\mathrm{DM}}=K\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma },$$
(9)
where $`K`$ and $`\gamma `$ are parameters in the EOS, Eq. (8) becomes

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\rho _g}{\rho _{gc}}\right)=\frac{m_g\gamma K}{kT(\gamma 1)}\left[\rho _{\mathrm{DM}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma 1}\rho _{\mathrm{DMc}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma 1}\right],$$
(10)
with $`\gamma >1`$, and $`\rho _{gc}`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{DMc}}`$ are central density of hot gas and dark matter respectively. The hot gas density profile directly tracks the dark matter profile and is sensitive to the steepness of the dark matter EOS.

In the following, we consider massive neutrinos as a specific model of dark matter and solve the cluster core problem. At low density, neutrinos are collisionless as they have very small interaction cross-section. However, at high density they become degenerate, and they can therefore be in hydrostatic equilibrium. It has been proposed that such neutrino “stars” may be found in the centers of galaxies . Here we propose that they may exist at the centers of galaxy clusters. Since the interaction cross-section of neutrinos is small, we can treat them as a zero temperature gas. The degenerate pressure for non-relativistic neutrinos is given by

$$P_\nu =\frac{h^2}{5m_\nu }\left(\frac{3}{8\pi }\right)^{2/3}n_{\nu }^{}{}_{}{}^{5/3},$$
(11)
where $`n_\nu `$ and $`m_\nu `$ are the number density and mass of the neutrinos. We can then solve for the density profile of a neutrino star assuming hydrostatic equilibrium (shown in Fig. 1), which is expectedly similar to that of a white dwarf. Here we set the neutrino mass to be 3 eV and the central number density to be $`10^8`$ cm-3, which fits the observational data for clusters. The radius of the neutrino star is several kpc which is comparable to the cluster scale. The total mass is about $`10^{14}`$ solar masses, which is also close to the total mass of a cluster. A neutrino star has a core in the center, the radius of which depends on the central mass density only. The higher the central mass density is, the smaller is the core radius and vice versa. The inner density profile is similar to the data obtained from gravitational lensing. This suggests that at least some clusters may be degenerate fermions dominated. From Fig. 1, we can approximate the neutrino star density profile as following: for $`r<<r_0`$, $`M(r)=Cr^3`$, where $`C`$ is a constant, and for $`r>>r_0`$, $`M(r)=M_0`$, where $`M_0`$ and $`r_0`$ are the total mass and core radius of the neutrino star. Using the above approximation, we can analyse the density profile of the hot gas inside a cluster core if its mass is dominated by the neutrino star. If $`M(r)=Cr^3`$, we have

$$n_g=n_0e^{ar^2},$$
(12)
where $`a=GCm_g/2kT`$. For $`r<<a^{1/2}`$, the hot gas profile is smooth and flat. Therefore, the core radius is

$$r_c=a^{1/2}=\left(\frac{2kT}{GCm_g}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(13)
Clearly, $`r_c`$ is not necessarily equal to $`r_0`$, but it is affected by the central mass density of the neutrino star and temperature of the hot gas. In our model, for $`T=10^8`$ K and central mass density $`\rho _c=10^{25}`$ gcm-3, $`r_c`$ is about 150 kpc.

We can also calculate the density profile of the hot gas numerically. In Fig. 2, we show the hot gas profile using the above parameters of a neutrino star, and we find that it is well fitted by using a $`\beta `$ model with $`\beta =1.1`$ and $`r_c`$=150 kpc. This indeed agrees with the observational value of $`\beta `$ between 0.9-1.1 .

We now compare the results of using three different models, the NFW dark matter profile, neutrino star model and hot gas self-bounded profile. Here, we continue to assume that the temperature of the hot gas is constant throughout the cluster. Fig. 3 shows the hot gas profiles from these three models. We can see that the three hot gas profiles have similar central mass density and temperature. However, the slopes of the hot gas profiles for $`r>r_c`$ are different, being smallest for self-bounded model and largest for the neutrino star model. In fact, the slope of the hot gas profile depends not only on the dark matter profile but also on the temperature profile of the hot gas and velocity dispersion of the dark matter particles. Therefore, the dark matter profile obtained by using the hot gas profile alone is model dependent. For $`r>r_0`$, the total density profile is dominated by the hot gas and the total density tail $`\rho _T`$ is approximately proportional to $`r^3`$ which agrees with the observational result . To understand the dark matter distribution better, gravitational lensing is a potentially more powerful method. It is model independent, and we can know the mass density profile directly without using any hot gas model if the cluster is dominated by the dark matter. For example, the cluster CL0024+1654 observed by Tyson $`et`$ $`al.`$ does not have a cD galaxy, which means that the mass of dark matter is dominant at the center of the cluster . Gravitational lensing data suggests that the NFW profile may not be correct.

We have shown in this article that observational data on cluster hot gas is consistent with the existence of neutrino stars, which can account for at least parts of the dark matter. But how are these neutrino stars formed? It is commonly believed that there is a cosmological neutrino background originating from the Big Bang , corresponding to a temperature of about 1 K now, or about 0.1 meV in energy scale. Therefore it is conceivable that cosmological neutrinos with rest mass even in the sub-eV range are non-relativistic. Recent experimental observations of neutrino oscillations point to a range of the mass difference between muon and tau neutrinos to be $`5\times 10^4<\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<6\times 10^3`$ eV2 . Therefore at least one species of the cosmologocal background neutrinos should be non-relativistic, and the interplay between gravitational attraction and degenerate pressure makes it possible to create neutrino stars. We have carried out hydrodynamics simulations of their formation process, and preliminary results indicate that hydrostatic neutrino stars can indeed form with a wide range of parameters .

One of the interesting properties of the neutrino star is that it has a flat core, which agrees with the gravitational lensing data as well as the rotation curves of dwarf galaxies, but contradicts with the NFW profile. Recently, Sand $`et`$ $`al.`$ has provided an upper limit of the slope of the central density profile $`\alpha <0.57`$ which is different from NFW’s ($`\alpha =1`$) . In our model, $`\alpha `$ is approximately zero. In order to solve the ”core problem” of galactic clusters, more data will clearly be needed.

The work described in this paper was substantially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China (Project No. 400803).


text:
# 𝒮𝒫ℳ Bulletin Issue number 7: January 2004 CE

## 1. Editor’s note

Open problem solved. We are glad to announce the first solution of a *Problem of the Month* posed in the $`𝒮𝒫`$ Bulletin. The problem from the third issue was solved by Lubomyr Zdomsky, a student of Taras Banakh. This solution is a part of a large project carried by these two mathematicians, which will hopefully be announced in this bulletin when it is finished.

Past problems. We also have a mew section on past problems in the $`𝒮𝒫`$ Bulletin.

Paper on open problems. We have finished writing a paper containing a significant portion of the important problems in the field of SPM. Email us to get a copy of the paper.

ArXiv papers. From now on, we will try to include announcements of papers which are of interest to readers of this bulletin and were recently announced in the *Mathematics ArXiv*.

We encourage all contributors to submit their papers to the Mathematics ArXiv prior to the submission of an announcement to the $`𝒮𝒫`$ Bulletin, so to guarantee larger exposure for their papers. (The submission to the ArXiv does not guarantee the inclusion of the announcement in this bulletin, so please also email us a note concerning your submission to the ArXiv after you complete it.) Submissions to other e-print servers can also be considered, upon request.

Contributions to the next issue are, as always, welcome.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~tsaban

## 2. Research announcements

### 2.1. Models in which every nonmeager set is nonmeager in a nowhere dense Cantor set

We prove that it is relatively consistent with ZFC that in any perfect Polish space, for every nonmeager set $`A`$ there exists a nowhere dense Cantor set $`C`$ such that $`AC`$ is nonmeager in $`C`$. We also examine variants of this result and establish a measure theoretic analog.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0311443

*Maxim R. Burke, Arnold W. Miller*

miller@math.wisc.edu

### 2.2. The $`\gamma `$-Borel conjecture

In this paper we show that it is relatively consistent with ZFC that every $`\gamma `$-set is countable while not every strong measure zero set is countable. This answers a question of Paul Szeptycki. A set is a $`\gamma `$-set iff every $`\omega `$-cover contains a $`\gamma `$-subcover. An open cover is an $`\omega `$-cover iff every finite set is covered by some element of the cover. An open cover is a $`\gamma `$-cover iff every element of the space is in all but finitely many elements of the cover. Gerlits and Nagy proved that every $`\gamma `$-set has strong measure zero. We also show that is consistent that every strong $`\gamma `$-set is countable while there exists an uncountable $`\gamma `$-set. On the other hand every strong measure zero set is countable iff every set with the Rothberger property is countable.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0312308

*Arnold W. Miller*

miller@math.wisc.edu

### 2.3. Consistency of a counterexample to Naimark’s problem

We construct a C\*-algebra that has only one irreducible representation up to unitary equivalence but is not isomorphic to the algebra of compact operators on any Hilbert space. This answers an old question of Naimark. Our construction uses a combinatorial statement called the diamond principle, which is known to be consistent with but not provable from the standard axioms of set theory (assuming those axioms are consistent). We prove that the statement “there exists a counterexample to Naimark’s problem which is generated by $`\mathrm{}_1`$ elements” is undecidable in standard set theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.OA/0312135

*Charles Akemann, Nik Weaver*

nweaver@math.wustl.edu

### 2.4. Comparing the automorphism group of the measure algebra with some groups related to the infinite permutation group of the natural numbers

We prove, by a straight construction, that the automorphism group of the measure algebra and the subgroup of the measure preserving ones cannot be isomorphic to the trivial automorphisms of $`P()/fin`$.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.LO/0312472

*Pietro Ursino*

### 2.5. Quantitative study of semi-Pfaffian sets

We study the topological complexity of sets defined using Khovanskii’s Pfaffian functions, in terms of an appropriate notion of format for those sets. We consider semi- and sub-Pfaffian sets, but more generally any definable set in the o-minimal structure generated by the Pfaffian functions, using the construction of that structure via Gabrielov’s notion of limit sets. All the results revolve around giving effective upper-bounds on the Betti numbers (for the singular homology) of those sets.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0401079

*Thierry Zell*

zell@math.gatech.edu

### 2.6. $`o`$-bounded groups and other topological groups with strong combinatorial properties

We construct several topological groups with very strong combinatorial properties. In particular, we give simple examples of subgroups of $``$ (thus strictly $`o`$-bounded) which have the Hurewicz property but are not $`\sigma `$-compact, and show that the product of two $`o`$-bounded subgroups of $`{}_{}{}^{}`$ may fail to be $`o`$-bounded, even when they satisfy the stronger property $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Omega })`$. This solves a problem of Tkačenko and Hernandez, and extends independent solutions of Krawczyk and Michalewski and of Banakh, Nickolas, and Sanchis. We also construct separable metrizable groups $`G`$ of size continuum such that every countable Borel $`\omega `$-cover of $`G`$ contains a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`G`$.

http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0307225

*Boaz Tsaban*

tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

## 3. Problem of the month

Let us write $`BC(P)`$ for the Borel Conjecture for sets with property $`P`$, that is, the hypothesis that every set of reals with property $`P`$ is countable.

In \[§2.2 above\] Miller proves that $`BC(𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪))`$ implies (and is therefore equivalent to) $`BC(SMZ)`$, where SMZ stands for *strong measure zero*. The proof splits into two cases: $`\mathrm{}_1=𝔟`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1<𝔟`$. In the case $`\mathrm{}_1<𝔟`$ Miller really shows that strong measure zero plus $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$. In Theorems 14 and 19 of  it is shown that in fact,

$$SMZ+𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)+𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })()_{GN},$$

where $`()_{GN}`$ is the Gerlitz-Nagy covering proeprty introduced in . This characterization implies that $`()_{GN}`$ is strictly stronger than $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$, since it implies that $`\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(()_{GN})=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)),\mathrm{𝗇𝗈𝗇}(𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma }))\}=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}(),𝔟\}(=\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}())`$, and it is consistent that $`𝔟<\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$.

So we have:

###### Theorem 3.1.

$`BC(()_{GN})BC(SMZ)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\mathrm{}_1<𝔟`$ and there exists an uncountable strong measure zero set $`X`$. As $`SMZ`$ is hereditary, we may assume that $`|X|=\mathrm{}_1`$, and therefore $`X`$ satisfies $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ as well, that is, $`X`$ satisfies $`()_{GN}`$.

Next, assumet that $`\mathrm{}_1=𝔟`$.

Consider the collection $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp}`$ of open $`\omega `$-covers $`𝒰`$ of $`X`$ such that there exists a partition $`𝒫`$ of $`𝒰`$ into finite sets such that for each finite $`FX`$ and all but finitely many $`𝒫`$, there exists $`U`$ such that $`FU`$ .

In  it is proved that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp})`$ is equivalent to having $`()_{GN}`$ in all finite powers. Now if $`\mathrm{}_1=𝔟`$ then by  there exists an uncountable element $`X`$ in $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp})`$ (in particular, $`X`$ satisfies $`()_{GN}`$). ∎

It is a conjecture of Tomasz Weiss that $`()_{GN}`$ is closed under taking finite products. If $`()_{GN}`$ is closed under taking finite *powers*, then $`()_{GN}=𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp})`$ and we have that $`BC(𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }^{gp}))BC(SMZ)`$. Otherwise, I do not even know whether $`BC(𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ implies $`BC(SMZ)`$ (it does if $`()_{GN}`$ implies $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$ in all finite powers.) In fact we need to prove the following.

###### Conjecture 3.2.

If $`X`$ has strong measure zero and $`|X|<𝔟`$, then all finite powers of $`X`$ have strong measure zero (equivalently, all finite powers of $`X`$ satisfy $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$).

This constitutes the *Problem of the month*.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

## 4. Problems from earlier issues

In this section we list the past problems posed in the $`𝒮𝒫`$ Bulletin. For definitions, motivation and related results, consult the corresponding issue.

For conciseness, we make the convention that all spaces in question are zero-dimentional, separable metrizble spaces.

###### Issue 1.

Is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{T}}\right)`$?

###### Issue 2.

Is $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })=𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$? And if not, does $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ imply $`𝖲_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Omega })`$?

###### Issue 3.

Does there exist (in ZFC) a set satisfying $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$ but not $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$?

###### Solution.

Yes (Lubomyr Zdomsky, 2003). ∎

###### Issue 4.

Does $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{T})`$ imply $`𝖴_{fin}(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$?

###### Issue 5.

Is $`𝔭=𝔭^{}`$?

###### Issue 6.

Does there exist (in ZFC) an uncountable set satisfying $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$?

Previous issues. The first issues of this bulletin, which contain general information (first issue), basic definitions, research announcements, and open problems (all issues) are available online, on http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/$`x`$, where $`x`$ is 0301011, 0302062, 0303057, 0304087, 0305367, and 0312140, respectively, for issues number $`1`$ to $`6`$.
Contributions. Please submit your contributions (announcements, discussions, and open problems) by e-mailing us. It is preferred to write them in . The authors are urged to use as standard notation as possible, or otherwise give the definitions or a reference to where the notation is explained. Contributions to this bulletin would not require any transfer of copyright, and material presented here can be published elsewhere.
Subscription. To receive this bulletin (free) to your e-mailbox, e-mail us.