text:
# Reissner-Nordström Black Holes and Thick Domain Walls

## I Introduction

Relics of cosmological phase transitions are considered to play an important role in cosmology . They are signs of the high-energy phenomena which are beyond the range of contemporary accelerators. Such topological defects as cosmic strings attracted great interests due to the motivation of the uniqueness theorems for black holes and Wheeler’s conjecture black holes have no hair. Black hole cosmic string configurations were studied from different points of view  revealing that cosmic string could thread it or could be expelled from black hole. As far as the dilaton gravity was concerned it was also justified  that a vortex could be treated by the remote observer as a hair on the black hole. On the other hand, for the extreme dilaton black hole one has always the expulsion of the Higgs field (the so-called Meissner effect). The problem of vortices in de Sitter (dS) background was analyzed in Ref., while the behaviour of Abelian Higgs vortex solutions in Schwarzschild anti de Sitter (AdS), Kerr, Kerr-AdS and Reissner-Nordström AdS was studied in Refs.. The vortex solution for Abelian Higgs field Eqs. in the background of four-dimensional black string was obtained in Ref..

In order to investigate the behaviour of the domain walls or cosmic strings configurations in curved spacetime a number of works use a thin wall or string approximations, i.e., infinitely thin non-gravitating membrane described by the Nambu-Goto Lagrangian. Dynamics of scattering and capture process of an infinitely thin cosmic string in the spacetime Schwarzshild black hole were elaborated in Ref.. Christensen et al.  revealed that there existed a family of infinitely thin walls intersecting black hole event horizon. Then, the considerations were applied to the scattering of inifitely long cosmic string by a rotating black hole .

Nowadays, the idea that the Universe is embedded in higher-dimensional spacetime acquires much attention. The resurgence of the idea is motivated by the possibility of resolving the hierarchy problem , i.e., the difference in magnitudes of the Planck scale and the electroweak scales. Also the most promising candidate for a unified theory of Nature, superstring theory predicts the existence of the so-called D-branes which in turn renews the idea of brane worlds. From this theory point of view the model of brane world stems from the idea presented by Horava and Witten . Namely, the strong coupling limit of $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string theory at low energy is described by eleven-dimensional supergravity with eleventh dimension compactified on an orbifold with $`Z_2`$ symmetry. The two boundaries of spacetime are ten-dimensional planes, to which gauge theories are confined. Next in Refs. it was argued that six of the eleven dimensions could be consistently compactified and in the limit spacetime looked five-dimensional with four-dimensional boundary brane.
Then, it is intriguing to study the interplay between black holes and domain walls (branes). Nowadays, this challenge acquires more attention. The problem of stability of a Nambu-Goto membrane in Reissner-Nordsröm de Sitter (RN-dS) spacetime was studied in Ref., while the gravitationally interacting system of a thick domain wall and Schwarschild black hole was considered in . Emparan et al.  elaborated the problem of a black hole on a topological domain wall. In  the dilaton black hole-domain wall system was studied analytically and it was revealed that for the extremal dilaton black hole one had to do with the expulsion of the scalar field from the black hole (the so-called Meissner effect). The numerical studies of domain wall in the spacetime of dilaton black hole was considered in Ref., where the thickness of the domain wall and a potential of the scalar field $`\phi ^4`$ and sine-Gordon were taken into account.

In our paper we try to provide some continuity with the previous works  concerning the behaviour of dilaton black hole domain wall systems, namely we shall consider the thick domain wall in the background of RN black hole.

The paper is organized as follows. Sec.II is devoted to the basic equations of the considered problem. In Sec.III we studied the RN-domain wall system both for $`\phi ^4`$ and sine-Gordon potential. We pay special attention to the extremal RN black hole case and reveal that there is an expulsion of the domain wall fields under certain conditions. In Sec.IV we concluded our investigations.

## II Reissner-Nordström black hole domain wall system

In our paper we shall consider the spherically symmetric solution of Einstein-Maxwell equations described by the RN black hole metric of the form

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(1)
The metric is asymptotically flat in the sense that the spacetime contains a data set $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{end},g_{ij},K_{ij})`$ with gauge fields such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{end}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`𝐑^3`$ minus a ball and the following asymptotic conditions are fulfilled:

$`|g_{ij}\delta _{ij}|+r|_ag_{ij}|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}g_{ij}|+r|K_{ij}|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}K_{ij}|𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\right),`$ (2)
$`|F_{\alpha \beta }|+r|_aF_{\alpha \beta }|+\mathrm{}+r^k|_{a_1\mathrm{}a_k}F_{\alpha \beta }|𝒪\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\right).`$ (3)
RN black hole spacetime will be the background metric on which we shall consider the domain wall equations of motion built of a self-interacting scalar field. In our investigations we use a general matter Lagrangian with real Higgs field and the symmetry breaking potential of the form as follows:

$$_{dw}=\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi U(\phi ),$$
(4)
where $`\phi `$ real Higgs field and the symmetry breaking potential $`U(\phi )`$ has a discrete set of degenerate minima. The energy-momentum tensor for scalar field may be written as follows:

$$T_{ij}(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}_m\phi ^m\phi U(\phi )g_{ij}+_i\phi _j\phi .$$
(5)
It is turned out that for the convenience we can scale out parameters via transformation $`X=\phi /\eta `$ and $`ϵ=8\pi G\eta ^2`$ . The parameter $`ϵ`$ is responsible for the gravitational strength and it is also connected with the gravitational interaction of the considered Higgs field. One can also define the potential $`V(X)=\frac{U(\phi )}{V_F}`$, where $`V_F=\lambda \eta ^4`$. All these quantities enable us to rewrite the Lagrangian for the domain wall fields in a more suitable form. Namely, it now reads

$$8\pi G_{dw}=\frac{ϵ}{w^2}\left[w^2\frac{_\mu X^\mu X}{2}+V(X)\right],$$
(6)
where $`w=\sqrt{\frac{ϵ}{8\pi GV_F}}`$ represents the inverse mass of the scalar after symmetry breaking. It characterizes the width of the wall defect. Just using Eq.(6) we arrive at the following expression for $`X`$ field:

$$_\mu ^\mu X\frac{1}{w^2}\frac{V}{X}=0.$$
(7)
As in Ref. we shall take into account for two cases of potentials with a discrete set of degenerate minima, namely the $`\phi ^4`$ potential described by the relation

$$U_1(\phi )=\frac{\lambda }{4}(\phi ^2\eta ^2)^2,$$
(8)
and the sine-Gordon potential in the form of

$$U_2(\phi )=\lambda \eta ^4\left[1+\mathrm{cos}(\phi /\eta )\right].$$
(9)
## III Boundary conditions

### A Boundary conditions for $`\phi ^4`$ potential

As we mentioned RN black hole spacetime is asymptotically flat, thus the asymptotic boundary solution of equation of motion for potential (8) will be the solution of equation of motion in flat spacetime. It reads as

$$\phi _1(z)=\eta \mathrm{tanh}(\sqrt{\lambda /2}\eta z),$$
(10)
or rewritten in our units implies the following:

$$X(r,\theta )=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{2}w}\right)$$
(11)
Thus, the equation of motion (7) for the scalar field $`X`$ in the considered background has the form of

$$\frac{1}{r^2}_r\left[\left(r^22Mr+Q^2\right)_rX\right]+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta X\right]\frac{1}{w^2}X(X^21)=0.$$
(12)
and the energy density yields

$$E=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_rX\right)^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(_\theta X\right)^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right]w^2\frac{1}{4}(X^21)^2.$$
(13)
On the horizon of the RN black hole relation (12) gives the following boundary condition:

$$\frac{r_+r_{}}{r_+^2}_rX|_{r=r_+}=\frac{1}{r_+^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta X\right]+\frac{1}{w^2}X(X^21),$$
(14)
where $`r_+=M+\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$ and $`r_{}=M\sqrt{M^2Q^2}`$ are respectively the outer and the inner horizon of the RN black hole.
As in Ref. we shall investigate only the case when the core of the wall is located in the equatorial plane $`\theta =\pi /2`$ of the black hole, we impose the Dirichlet boundary condition at the equatorial plane

$$X|_{\theta =\pi /2}=0,$$
(15)
as well as the regularity of the scalar field on the symmetric axis requires the Neumann boundary condition on the z-axis:

$$\frac{X}{\theta }|_{\theta =0}=0.$$
(16)
For the asymptotical flatness of the RN black hole solution we should have far from the black hole the flat spacetime solution (10). But we are limited by our computational grid which is finite, then we require the following boundary condition ought to be satisfy at the boundary of the grid

$$X|_{r=r_{max}}=\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{r_{max}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{2}w}\right).$$
(17)
### B Boundary conditions for the sine-Gordon potential.

As far as the sine-Gordon potential (9) is concerned the flat spacetime solution is given by

$$\phi _2(z)=\eta \left\{4\mathrm{arctan}\left[\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\lambda }\eta z)\right]\pi \right\},$$
(18)
or in our units this is equivalent to following:

$$X(r,\theta )=4\mathrm{arctan}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r\mathrm{cos}\theta }{w}\right)\right]\pi .$$
(19)
In this case $`V(X)=1+\mathrm{cos}(X)`$ and $`V/X=\mathrm{sin}(X)`$, and thus the equation of motion (7) takes the form

$$\frac{1}{r^2}\left[_r\left(r^22Mr+Q^2\right)_rX\right]+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta X\right]+\frac{1}{w^2}\mathrm{sin}(X)=0,$$
(20)
while the energy density is given by the relation

$$E=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_rX\right)^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(_\theta X\right)^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right]w^21\mathrm{cos}(X).$$
(21)
On the horizon from Eq.(20) one has the boundary condition as follows:

$$\frac{r_+r_{}}{r_+^2}_rX|_{r=r_+}=\frac{1}{r_+^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta X\right]\frac{1}{w^2}\mathrm{sin}(X).$$
(22)
Of course, this must be accompanied by the Dirichlet boundary conditions at the equatorial plane of the black hole (15), and the Neumann boundary condition on the symmetry axis (16), and at the outer edge of the grid

$$X|_{r=r_{max}}=4\mathrm{arctan}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{r_{max}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{w}\right)\right]\pi .$$
(23)
Another interesting problem that should attract attention to is the case of extremal RN black hole domain wall configuration. As was revealed analitycally in Ref. that for some range of parameters we should have the expulsion of the domain wall, contrary to the situation which takes places in extremal dilaton black holes . Simple arguments given in Ref. it was revealed that for at least very small extremal black hole sitting inside the domain wall, the black hole would expel it. The mass bound for the extremal RN black hole for the expulsion was also found. For $`w=1`$ the black hole mass have to satisfy the condition $`M^2<\frac{1}{2}`$.

When $`r_+=r_{}`$ we have to do with the extremal RN black hole and it implies the condition $`Q=M`$. For this case the metric has the following form:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)^2dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(24)
Equation of motion for the domain wall’s scalar fields in the background of RN extremal black hole yields

$$\frac{1}{r^2}_r\left[\left(rM\right)^2_rX\right]+\frac{1}{r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta }_\theta \left[\mathrm{sin}\theta _\theta X\right]=\frac{1}{w^2}\frac{V}{X},$$
(25)
while the relation for energy implies the following:

$$E=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(_rX\right)^2\left(1\frac{M}{r}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(_\theta X\right)^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right]w^2V(X).$$
(26)
## IV Numerical calculations

### A Reissner-Nordström black hole

The method of solving equations of motion for the scalar fields $`X`$ is the same as in Ref.. We applied the modified overrelaxation method in order to take into account the boundary conditions on the considered black hole horizon. Eqs. of motion will be solved on a uniformly spaced polar grid $`(r_i,\theta _i)`$ with the boundaries at $`r_{min}=r_+`$, the outer radius will be $`r_{max}r_+`$ (we take usually $`r_{max}=20r_+`$ ). The angle $`\theta `$ changes from $`0`$ to $`\pi /2`$. Then, one approximates the derivatives with finite-difference expressions on the grid. The rest of the solution for scalar field $`X`$ will be obtained from the symmetry condition. The example solutions of the equation of motion for different parameters and field configurations are shown on Figs 1, 2, 3, and 4.

### B An extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole

For the extremal RN black hole scalar fields on the horizon decouple from the rest of the grid and equation of motion (25) becomes an ordinary differential equation:

$$_{\theta \theta }X+\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\theta }_\theta X\frac{r_+^2}{w^2}\frac{V}{X}=0.$$
(27)
For the reasons given in  one must carefully examine the solution on the horizon. The solution $`X=0`$, which corresponds to the expulsion of the field from the black hole (the Meissner effect) always solves relation (27). But sometimes other solution is possible and energetically more favourable. The previous studies envisage () that the relative size of the domain wall compared to the size of the black hole becomes a factor which determines the overall behaviour of the field on the horizon. For this reason we parameterize equation (27) with parameter $`\alpha \frac{r_+^2}{w^2}`$ and solve (27) numerically using two point boundary relaxation method (). Fig. 5 shows the dependence of the scalar field $`X`$ on the black hole z-axis as a function of the parameter $`\alpha `$ for the $`\phi ^4`$ potential. Fig. 6 depicts the same dependence for the sine-Gordon potential. The difference of the scalar field behaviours is clearly visible. For the value $`\alpha <2.0`$ we have the field expulsion, while for $`\alpha >2.0`$ the field pierces the horizon of the extremal RN black hole. The value of the critical parameter is the same in both cases, which is easily understood when one considers the series expansion of the $`V/X`$ around zero and neglects higher terms.

Figs 7, 8, 9, 10 show examples of the field configuration for various combinations of the $`\alpha `$ parameter and the adequate potentials.

Summing it all up we conclude that the numerical studies of the scalar domain wall field in the vicinity of RN black hole reveal that for the extremal case one has not always expulsion of the fields from the black hole. This phenomenon depends on the value of the black hole radius $`r_+`$ and the width of the domain wall. If the parameter $`\alpha <2.0`$ we have expulsion of the scalar field $`X`$ while for $`\alpha >2.0`$ the scalar fields penetrate the extremal RN black hole horizon. The domain wall extremal RN black hole system was studied analytically in Ref.. By simple argument it was revealed that at least small extremal RN black holes sitting inside the domain wall would expel it. Then a more precise bound on the mass of the considered black hole was established. For $`M^2<1/2`$ the defect’s field cease to penetrate the black hole horizon, but for $`M^2>1/2`$ one has no such expelling. In Ref. the considerations were conducted for the case of the domain wall’s width equaled to $`1`$.

On the contrary, in the case of extremal dilaton black hole domain wall system it was shown that one had always expulsion of the scalar field . It turned out that the simplest generalization of Einstein-Maxwell theory by adding massless dilaton field dramatically changed the structure of the extremal black hole. The similar situation takes place when one consideres anothe topological defect, i.e., cosmic string. For extremal dilaton black holes we observe always expulsion of the fields .

## V Conclusions

In our paper we elaborated the problem of thick domain walls in the background of a spherically symmetric solution of Einstein-Maxwell field equations. The domain wall equations of motion were built of a self-interacting real scalar fields with the symmetry breaking potential having a discrete set of degenerate minima. Using the modified overrelaxation method modified in order to comprise the boundary conditions of the scalar field $`X`$ on the black hole horizon we solved numerically Eqs. of motion for $`\phi ^4`$ and sine-Gordon potentials. All our solutions depended on the parameter $`w=1/\sqrt{\lambda }\eta `$ which was responsible for the domain wall thickness. We revealed the systems of axisymmetric scalar field configurations representing thick domain wall in the nearby of RN black hole for both kinds of potentials. We paid special attention to the extremal RN black hole solution. We parametrized the equations of motion with the parameter $`\alpha =\frac{r_+^2}{w^2}`$ and solved it by means of the two-point boundary relaxation method. For $`\alpha <2`$ one observed the complete expulsion of the scalar field $`X`$ from the extremal RN black hole (the so-called Meissner effect), while for $`\alpha >2`$ the domain wall’s field penetrated the extremal RN black hole horizon. This behaviour is in contrast to the behaviour of scalar field in the background of the extremal dilaton black hole, where we have a complete expulsion of the scalar fields.

Acknowledgements:
M.R. was supported in part by KBN grant No. 2 P03B 124 24.


format: text

text:
# Determining the equation of state of dark energy from angular size of compact radio sources and X-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters

## 1 Introduction

One of the most remarkable cosmological findings of recent years is, in additional to the cold dark matter (CDM), the existence of a component of dark energy (DE) with negative pressure in our universe. It is motivated to explain the acceleration of the universe discovered by distant type Ia supernova (SNeIa) observations (Perlmutter et al. 1998, 1999; Riess et al. 1998, 2001), and to offset the deficiency of a flat universe, favoured by the measurements of the anisotropy of CMB (de Bernardis et al. 2000; Balbi et al. 2000, Durrer et al. 2003; Bennett et al. 2003; Spergel et al. 2003), but with a subcritical matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.3`$, obtained from dynamical estimates or X-ray and gravitational lensing observations of clusters of galaxies(for a recent summary, see Turner 2002). While a cosmological constant with $`p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the simplest candidate for DE, it suffers from the difficulties in understanding of the observed value in the framework of modern quantum field theory (Weinberg 1989; Carroll et al. 1992) and the “coincidence problem”, the issue of explaining the initial conditions necessary to yield the near-coincidence of the densities of matter and the cosmological constant component today. In this case, quintessence (a dynamical form of DE with generally negative pressure) has been invoked (Ratra and Peebles 1988; Wetterich 1988; Caldwell, Dave and Steinhardt 1998; Zlatev, Wang and Steinhardt 1998). One of the important characteristics of quintessence models is that their equation of state, $`\omega _xp_x/\rho _x`$, vary with cosmic time whilst a cosmological constant remains a constant $`\omega _\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Determination of values of $`\omega _x`$ and its possible cosmic evolution plays a central role to distinguish various DE models. Such a challenging has triggered off a wave of interest aiming to constrain $`\omega _x`$ using various cosmological databases, such as SNeIa (Garnavich et al. 1998; Tonry et al. 2003; Barris et al. 2003; Knop et al. 2003; Zhu and Fujimoto 2003); old high redshift objects (Lima and Alcaniz 2000a); angular size of compact radio sources (Lima and Alcaniz 2002); gravitational lensing (Chae et al. 2002; Sereno 2002; Dev, Jain and Mahajan 2003; Huterer and Ma 2003); SNeIa plus Large Scale Structure (LSS) (Perlmutter, Turner & White 1999); SNeIa plus gravitational lensing (Waga and miceli 1999); SNeIa plus X-ray galaxy clusters (Schuecker et al. 2003); CMB plus SNeIa (Efstathiou 1999; Bean and Melchiorri 2002; Hannestad and Mörtsell 2002; Melchiorri et al. 2003); CMB plus stellar ages (Jimenez et al. 2003); and combinations of various databases (Kujat et al. 2002). Other potential methods for the determination of $`\omega _x`$ have also widely discussed in literatures, such as the proposed SNAP satellite111SNAP home page, http://snap.lbl.gov (Huterer and Turner 1999; Weller and Albrecht 2001; Weller and Albrecht 2002); advanced gravitational wave detectors (Zhu, Fujimoto and Tatsumi 2001; Biesiada 2001); future SZ galaxy cluster surveys (Haiman, Mohr and Holder 2001); and gamma ray bursts (Choubey and King 2003; Takahashi et al. 2003).

In this work, we shall consider the observational constraints on the DE equation of state parameterized by a redshift independent pressure-to-density ratio $`\omega _x`$ arising from the latest observations of angular size of high-$`z`$ milliarcsecond compact radio sources compiled by Gurvits, Kellermann & Frey (1999) and the X-ray gas mass fraction data of clusters of galaxies published by Allen et al. (2002, 2003). The basics of a constant $`\omega _x`$ assumption are two folds: on the one hand, the angular diameter distance $`D^A`$ used in this work is not sensitive to variations of $`\omega _x`$ with redshift because it depends on $`\omega _x`$ through multiple integrals (Maor et al. 2001; Maor et al. 2002; Wasserman 2002); on the other hand, for a wide class of quintessence models (particularly, those with tracking solutions), both of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ and $`\omega _x`$ vary very slowly (Zlatev et al. 1999; Steinhardt et al. 1999; Efstathiou 1999), and an effective equation of state, $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}\omega _x(z)\mathrm{\Omega }_x(z)𝑑z/\mathrm{\Omega }_x(z)𝑑z`$ is a good approximation for analysis (Wang et al. 2000). We relaxe the usual constraint $`\omega _x1`$, because recent years there have been several models which predict a DE component with $`\omega _x<1`$ (Parker and Raval 1999; Schulz and White 2001; Caldwell 2002; Maor et al. 2002; Frampton 2003) and also we hope to explore its effects on the $`\omega _x`$ determination. The confidence region on the ($`\omega _x`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) plane obtained through a combined analysis of the two databases suggests $`2.22<\omega _x<0.62`$ at 95.4% confidence level, which goes to $`1\omega _x<0.60`$ when the constraint $`\omega _x1`$ is imposed.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In the next section, we provide the bounds on $`\omega _x`$ from the angular size-redshift data. Constraints from the X-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters are discussed in section 3. Finally, we present a combined analysis, our concluding remarks and discussion in section 4. Throughout of the paper, we assume a flat universe which is suggested by the measurements of the anisotropy of CMB and favoured by inflation scenario.

## 2 Constraints from the angular size-redshift data

We begin by evaluating the angular diameter distance $`D^A`$ as a function of redshift $`z`$. The redshift dependent Hubble parameter can be written as $`H(z)=H_0E(z)`$, where $`H_0=100h`$kms-1Mpc-1 is the Hubble constant at the present time. For a flat universe that contains (baryonic and cold dark) matter and dark energy with a constant $`\omega _x`$ (we ignore the radiation components in the universe that are not important for the cosmological tests considered in this work), we get (Turner and White 1997; Chiba et al. 1997; Zhu 1998)

$$D^A(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)=\frac{c}{H_0}\frac{1}{1+z}_0^z\frac{dz^{}}{E(z^{};\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)},E^2(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)=\mathrm{\Omega }_m(1+z)^3+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_m)(1+z)^{3(1+\omega _x)}.$$
(1)
We first analyze the angular size-redshit data for milliarcsecond radio sources recently compiled by Gurvits, Kellermann and Frey (1999) to constrain $`\omega _x`$. The basics of the angular size-redshit test in the context of dark energy was first discussed in a theoretical viewpoint by Lima and Alcaniz (2000b) without using any database. They also provide an analytical closed form which determines how the redshift $`z_m`$, at which the angular size takes its minimal value, depends on $`\omega _x`$. Later on, using the same database compiled by Gurvits, Kellermann and Frey (1999), Lima and Alcaniz (2002) obtained $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.2`$ and $`\omega _x1.`$. A distinguishing characteristic of our analysis is that the usual constraints $`\omega _x1`$ is relaxed. This database shown in Figure 1 is 145 sources distributed into twelve redshift bins with about the same number of sources per bin. The lowest and highest redshift bins are centered at redshifts $`z=0.52`$ and $`z=3.6`$ respectively. We determine the model parameters $`\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ through a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization method. The range of $`\omega _x`$ spans the interval \[-3,0\] in steps of 0.01, while the range of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ spans the interval  also in steps of 0.01.

$$\chi ^2(l;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)=\underset{i}{}\frac{\left[\theta (z_i;l;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)\theta _{oi}\right]^2}{\sigma _i^2},$$
(2)
where $`\theta (z_i;\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\omega _x)=l/D^A`$ is the angle subtended by an object of proper length $`l`$ transverse to the line of sight and $`\theta _{oi}`$ is the observed values of the angular size with errors $`\sigma _i`$ of the $`i`$th bin in the sample. The summation is over all 12 observational data points.

As pointed out by the authors of previous analyses on this database (Gurvits, Kellermann and Frey 1999; Vishwakarma 2001; Alcaniz 2002; Zhu and Fujimoto 2002; Jain, Dev and Alcaniz 2003; Chen and Ratra 2003), when one use the angular size data to constrain the cosmological parameters, the results will be strongly dependent on the characteristic length $`l`$. Therefore, instead of assuming a specific value for $`l`$, we have worked on the interval $`l=15h^130h^1`$pc. In order to make the analysis independent of the choice of the characteristic length $`l`$, we also minimize equation (2) for $`l`$, $`\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ simultaneously, which gives $`l=22.64h^1`$pc, $`\omega _x=1.19`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.23`$ as the best fit. Figure 2 displays the 68.3% and 95.4% confidence level contours in the ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\omega _x`$) plane using the lower shaded and the lower plus darker shaded areas respectively. It is clear from the figure hat $`\omega _x`$ is poorly constrained from the angular size-redshift data alone, which only gives $`\omega _x<0.32`$ at 95.4% confidence level. However, as we shall see in Sec.4, when we combine this test with the X-ray gas mass fraction test, we could get fairly stringent constraints on both $`\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$.

## 3 Constraints from the galaxy clusters X-ray data

Clusters of galaxies are the largest virialized systems in the universe, and their masses can be estimated by X-ray and optical observations, as well as gravitational lensing measurements. A comparison of the gas mass fraction, $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}=M_{\mathrm{gas}}/M_{\mathrm{tot}}`$, as inferred from X-ray observations of clusters of galaxies to the cosmic baryon fraction can provide a direct constraint on the density parameter of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ (White et. al. 1993). Moreover, assuming the gas mass fraction is constant in cosmic time, Sasaki (1996) show that the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ data of clusters of galaxies at different redshifts also provide an efficient way to constrain other cosmological parameters decribing the geometry of the universe. This is based on the fact that the measured $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values for each cluster of galaxies depend on the assumed angular diameter distances to the sources as $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}[D^A]^{3/2}`$. The ture, underlying cosmology should be the one which make these measured $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ values to be invariant with redshift (Sasaki 1996; Allen at al. 2003).

Using the Chandra observational data, Allen et al. (2002; 2003) have got the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles for the 10 relaxed clusters. Except for Abell 963, the $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ profiles of the other 9 clusters appear to have converged or be close to converging with a canonical radius $`r_{2500}`$, which is defined as the radius within which the mean mass density is 2500 times the critical density of the universe at the redshift of the cluster (Allen et al. 2002, 2003). The gas mass fraction values of these nine clusters at $`r_{2500}`$ (or at the outermost radii studied for PKS0745-191 and Abell 478) were shown in Figure 5 of Allen et al. (2003). We will use this database to constrain the equation of state of the dark energy component, $`\omega _x`$. Our analysis of the present data is very similar to the one performed by Lima et al. (2003). However, in additional to including new data from Allen et al. (2003), we also take into account the bias between the baryon fractions in galaxy clusters and in the universe as a whole. Following Allen et al. (2002), we have the model function as

$$f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z_i;\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\frac{b\mathrm{\Omega }_b}{\left(1+0.19h^{1/2}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_m}\left[\frac{h}{0.5}\frac{D_{\mathrm{SCDM}}^A(z_i)}{D^A(z_i;\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)}\right]^{3/2}$$
(3)
where the bias factor $`b0.93`$ (Bialek et al. 2001; Allen et al. 2003) is a parameter motivated by gas dynamical simulations, which suggest that the baryon fraction in clusters is slightly depressed with respect to the Universe as a whole (Cen and Ostriker 1994; Eke, Navarro and Frenk 1998; Frenk et al. 1999; Bialek et al. 2001). The term $`(h/0.5)^{3/2}`$ represents the change in the Hubble parameter from the defaut value of $`H_0=50\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ and the ratio $`D_{\mathrm{SCDM}}^A(z_i)/D^A(z_i;\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ accounts for the deviations of the model considering from the default standard cold dark matter (SCDM) cosmology.

Again, we determine $`\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ through a $`\chi ^2`$ minimization method with the same parameter ranges and steps as last section. We constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_mh^2=0.0205\pm 0.0018`$, the bound from the primodial nucleosynthesis (O’Meara et al. 2001), and $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$, the final result from the Hubble Key Project by Freedman et al. (2001). The $`\chi ^2`$ difference between the model function and SCDM data is then (Allen et al. 2003)

$$\chi ^2(\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}\frac{\left[f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z_i;\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)f_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{o}i}\right]^2}{\sigma _{f_{\mathrm{gas},i}}^2}+\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^20.0205}{0.0018}\right]^2+\left[\frac{h0.72}{0.08}\right]^2,$$
(4)
where $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}^{\mathrm{mod}}(z_i;\omega _x,\mathrm{\Omega }_m)`$ refers to equation (3), $`f_{\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{o}i}`$ is the measured $`f_{\mathrm{gas}}`$ with the defaut SCDM cosmology, and $`\sigma _{f_{\mathrm{gas},i}}`$ is the symmetric root-mean-square errors ($`i`$ refers to the $`i`$th data point, with totally 9 data). The summation is over all of the observational data points.

Figure 3 displays the 68.3% and 95.4% confidence level contours in the ($`\omega _x`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) plane of our analysis using the lower shaded and the lower plus darker shaded areas respectively. The best fit happans at $`\omega _x=0.86`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.30`$ . As shown in the figure, although the X-ray gas mass fraction data constrains the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ very stringently, it still poorly limits the dark energy equation of state $`\omega _x`$. The situation can be dramatically improved when the two databases are combined to analysis, in particularly, a nontrivial lower bound on $`\omega _x`$ will be obtained (see below).

## 4 Combined analysis, conclusion and discussion

Now we present our combined analysis of the constraints from the angular size-redshift data and the X-ray gas mass fraction of galaxy clusters and summarize our results. In Figure 4, we display the 68.3% and 95.4% confidence level contours in the ($`\omega _x`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$) plane using the lower shaded and the lower plus darker shaded areas respectively. The best fit happans at $`\omega _x=1.16`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.29`$. As it shown, fairly stringent bounds on both $`\omega _x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ are obtained, with $`2.22<\omega _x<0.62`$ and $`0.28<\mathrm{\Omega }_m<0.32`$ at the 95.4% confidence level. The bound on $`\omega _x`$ goes to $`1\omega _x<0.60`$ when the constraint $`\omega _x1`$ is imposed.

Although precise determinations of $`\omega _x`$ and its possible evolution with cosmic time are crucial for deciphering the mystery of DE, currently $`\omega _x`$ has not been determined quite well even with an assumption of $`\omega _x`$ being constant (Hannestad and Mörtsell 2002; Spergel et al. 2003; Takahashi et al. 2003). It is worthy of determining $`\omega _x`$ using a joint analysis. In this paper we have shown that stringent constraints on $`\omega _x`$ can be obtained from the combination analysis of the angular size-redshift data and the X-ray mass fraction data of clusters, which is a complementary to other joint analyses. At this point we compare our results with other recent determinations of $`\omega _x`$ from independent methods. For the usual quintessence model (i.e., the constraint $`\omega _x1`$ is imposed), Garnavich et al. (1998) found $`\omega _x<0.55`$ using the SNeIa data from the High-$`z`$ Supernova Search Team, while Lima and Alcaniz (2002) obtained $`\omega _x<0.50`$ using the anugular size-redshift data from Gurvits, Kellerman and Frey (1999) (95% confidence level). Our result of $`\omega _x<0.60`$ is a little bit more stringent than theirs. However Bean and Melchiorri (2002) found an even better constraint, $`\omega _x<0.85`$, by analyzing SNeIa data and measurements of LSS and the positions of the acoustic peaks in the CMB spectrum. For the more general dark energy model including either normal XCDM, as well as the extended or phantom energy (i.e., the constraint $`\omega _x1`$ is relaxed), Hannestad and Mörtsell (2002) combined CMB, LSS and SNeIa data for analyzing and obtained $`2.68<\omega _x<0.78`$ at 95.4% confidence level, whose lower and upper bounds are a little bit lower than ours ($`2.22<\omega _x<0.62`$ at 95.4% confidence level). Recently, Schuecker et al. (2003) combined REFLEX X-ray clusters and SNeIa data to obtain $`1.30<\omega _x<0.65`$ with $`1\sigma `$ statistical significance. From Figure 4, it is found our $`1\sigma `$ result is $`1.72<\omega _x<0.83`$, which is comparable with the results of Schuecker et al. (2003). Using the X-ray gas mass fraction of 6 galaxy clusters, Lima et al. (2003) found $`2.08<\omega _x<0.60`$ ($`1\sigma `$ level), which is less stringent than the result presented in this work. This is because we used more X-ray gas mass fraction data of galaxy clusters and combined the angular size-redshift data of compact radio sources for analyzing. The analysis presented here reinforces the interest in precise measurements of angular size of distant compact radio sources and statistical studies of the intrinsic length distribution of the sources. It is also hopefully that our constraints will be dramatically improved after more acurate X-ray data from Chandra and XMM-Newton become available near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank L. I. Gurvits for sending us their compilation of the angular size-redshift data and helpful explanation of the data, S. Allen for providing us the X-ray mass fraction data and various help about data analysis, J. S. Alcaniz and D. Tatsumi for their helpful discussion. Our thanks go to the anonymouse referee for valuable comments and useful suggestions, which improved this work very much. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Priority Areas (No.14047219) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.


text:
# Surface Acoustic Waves probe of the 𝑝-type Si/SiGe heterostructures

## I Introduction

For the first time an acoustic method has been applied in a study of $`p`$-type Si/SiGe heterostructures. Since Ge and Si are not piezoelectrics the only way to measure acoustoelectric effects in these systems is a hybrid method: a SAW propagates along the surface of a piezoelectric LiNbO3 while the Si/SiGe sample is being slightly pressed onto LiNbO3 surface by means of a spring. In this case a strain from the SAW is not transmitted to the sample and it is only the electric field accompanying the SAW that penetrates into the sample and creates currents that, in turn, produce a feedback to the SAW. As a result, both SAW attenuation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and velocity $`V`$ appear to depend on the properties of the 2DHG. SAW-acoustics proves to be an effective probe of heterostructure parameters, especially as it is contactless and does not require the Hall-bar configuration of a sample. Moreover, simultaneous measurements of attenuation and velocity of SAW provide a unique possibility to determine the *complex* AC conductivity, $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )=\sigma _1(\omega )i\sigma _2(\omega )`$, as a function of magnetic field $`H`$ and SAW frequency $`\omega `$. Furthermore, the magnetic field dependence of $`\sigma _{xx}(\omega )`$ provides information on both the extended and localized states ildPRB .

## II Experimental Results

The absorption $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and velocity shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ of the SAW, that interacts with 2DHG in the SiGe channel, have been measured at temperatures T=0.7-1.6 K in magnetic fields up to H=7 T. DC-measurements of the resistivity components $`\rho _{xx}`$ and $`\rho _{xy}`$ have also been carried out in magnetic fields up to 11T in the temperature range 0.3-1.3 K and have shown the integer quantum Hall effect.

The samples were modulation doped Si/SiGe heterostructures with 2DHG sheet density $`p=2\times 10^{11}`$ cm-2 and mobility $`\mu =10500`$ cm2/Vs Miron .

Fig. 1 illustrates the field dependences of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$ for the frequency 30MHz at T=0.7 K as well as components of the magnetoresistance. One can see the absorption coefficient and the velocity shift both undergo SdH-type oscillations.

High frequency conductivity $`\sigma _{xx}^{AC}=\sigma _1i\sigma _2`$ is extracted from simultaneous measurements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$, using eqs. 1-5 of ildPRB .

It turns out, that at T=0.7K and filling factor $`\nu `$=2 (H = 4.3 T) $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ (fig.2). At the same time $`\sigma _1\sigma _{xx}^{dc}`$. These facts suggest that only some of holes in the 2D-channel are localized, and $`\sigma _{xx}^{AC}`$ is determined by both localized and delocalized holes. For total localization one needs $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$, $`\sigma _{xx}^{DC}`$=0 Efros . At $`\nu `$=3 (H=2.9 T) localization effects are negligible: $`\sigma _1\sigma _{xx}^{dc}>\sigma _2`$.

At T=0.7K we have measured the dependences of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$(H), $`\mathrm{\Delta }V/V`$(H) and $`\sigma _1`$(H) on the SAW intensity at 30MHz. Fig. 3a shows $`\sigma _1`$ versus $`P`$ (the RF-source power) for magnetic fields of H = 2.9 T and 4.3 T. Fig.3b illustrates the temperature dependence of $`\sigma _1`$ measured in the linear regime. One can see from these plots that $`\sigma _1`$ increases with increasing temperature and SAW power.

For delocalized holes in this magnetic field, the observed nonlinear effects (Fig.3a) are probably associated with carrier heating. One may describe 2DHG heating MirDeform  by means of a carrier temperature $`T_c`$, greater than the lattice temperature $`T`$, provided that the following condition is met:

$`\tau _0<<\tau _{cc}<<\tau _\epsilon .`$ (1)
Here $`\tau _0`$, $`\tau _{cc}`$ and $`\tau _\epsilon `$ are the momentum relaxation time, the carrier-carrier interaction time and the energy relaxation time, respectively. Calculations give $`\tau _0=1.4\times 10^{12}`$s; $`\tau _{cc}`$ = 6.4 $`\times 10^{11}`$s FNTMir ; $`\tau _\epsilon `$ will be discussed below.

The carrier temperature $`T_c`$ is determined using SdH thermometry by comparing the dependences $`\sigma _1`$(T) and $`\sigma _1`$(P).

To characterize heating process one needs to extract the absolute energy losses as a result of the SAW interaction with the carriers $`\overline{Q}=\sigma _{xx}E^2=4\mathrm{\Gamma }W`$, where $`W`$ is the input SAW power scaled to the width of the sound track, $`E`$ is the intensity of the SAW electric field HeatSAW :

$`|E|^2=K^2{\displaystyle \frac{32\pi }{V}}(\epsilon _1+\epsilon _0){\displaystyle \frac{z(q)qe^{(2qa)}}{1+(\frac{4\pi \sigma _{xx}^{AC}}{\epsilon _sV}t(q))^2}}W,`$ (2)
$`K^2`$ is the electromechanical coupling constant of the lithium niobate (Y-cut), $`q`$ is the SAW wave vector; $`\epsilon _s`$, $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\epsilon _1`$ are the dielectric constants of semiconductor, free space and LiNbO3, respectively; $`a`$ is the width of the sample-LiNbO3 clearance; $`z(q)`$ and $`t(q)`$ are functions to allow for the electrical and geometrical properties of the sample.

We have analyzed the energy losses rate per hole $`Q=\overline{Q}/p`$ as a function of $`T_c`$ (Fig.4). In the inset, $`Q`$ is plotted vs $`(T_c^5T^5)`$ and a linear dependence is illustrated.

For weak heating ($`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T_cTT`$) one can estimate the energy relaxation time from $`\tau _\epsilon =(\pi k_B)^2/(3\gamma A_\gamma \epsilon _FT^{\gamma 2})`$ HeatSAW , where $`\gamma `$=5 in this case, $`\epsilon _F`$ is the Fermi energy and $`A_5`$ is the slope of the $`Q`$($`T_c^5T^5`$) dependence. Using this equation we have computed $`\tau _\epsilon =(3.8\pm 0.4)\times 10^8`$s. Thus, relation (1) is satisfied.

The observed dependence of the energy loss rate on the carrier temperature as $`Q=A_5(T_c^5T^5)`$ corresponds to the case of energy relaxation via carrier scattering from the deformation potential of the acoustic phonons with weak screening Karpus ; MirDeform . In which case the slope $`A_5`$ is Karpus :

$`A_5={\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{2}m^2\zeta (5)D_{ac}^2k_B^5}{\pi ^{5/2}s^4\mathrm{}^7p^{3/2}\rho }},`$ (3)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density, $`s`$ is the longitudinal sound velocity, $`m`$=0.24$`m_e`$ is the effective mass FNTMir . Thus, one can determine the value of the deformation potential as $`D_{ac}`$=5.3$`\pm `$0.3 eV. The value of $`D_{ac}`$ calculated from DC measurements of phonon-drag thermopower was reported to be 5.5$`\pm `$0.5 eV for the same 2DHG Si/SiGe sample MirAgan .

###### Acknowledgements.

The work was supported by RFFI, NATO-CLG 979355, INTAS-01-084, Prg. MinNauki ”Spintronika”.


text:
# Int. J. Mod. Math. 2(2007), no. 2, 247–251. An Extension of a Curious Binomial Identity

## 1 Introduction

In 2002 Z. W. Sun  established the following combinatorial identity:

$`(x+m+1){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+n}{mn}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+2n}{n}}\right)`$ (1.1)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+n}{mn}}\right)(4)^n+(xm)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{m}}\right),`$
where $`m=\{0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}.`$ Later A. Panholzer and H. Prodinger  gave a new proof using generating functions, D. Merlini and R. Sprugnoli  obtained another proof by means of Riordan arrays, S. B. Ekhad and M. Mohammed  presented a WZ proof of the identity, and W. Chu and L.V.D. Claudio  re-proved the identity by using Jensen’s formula.

In this paper we aim to extend the curious identity as follows.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For any $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, we have

$`\left(x+(m+1)z\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+nz}{mn}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}}\right)`$ (1.2)
$`=`$ $`z{\displaystyle \underset{0lnm}{}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+l}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^{n+l}(1z)^{nl}+(xm)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{m}}\right);`$
equivalently,

$`\left(x+(m+1)z+1\right){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+nz}{mn}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}}\right)`$ (1.3)
$`=`$ $`(z+1){\displaystyle \underset{0lnm}{}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+l+1}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^{n+l}(1z)^{nl}+(xm)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{m}}\right).`$
Remark 1.1. Soon after the initial version of this paper was posted as a preprint (arXiv:math.CO/0401057), D. Callan \[C\] found a nice combinatorial interpretation of the identity (1.1) (which was called “Sun’s identity” by him) and also a slightly more complicated combinatorial proof of our generalization (1.2).

Clearly, (1.2) in the case $`z=1`$ gives Sun’s identity (1.1), and (1.3) in the case $`z=1`$ yields the following equivalent form of (1.1).

###### Corollary 1.2.

Let $`m`$. Then

$`(x+m+2){\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+n}{mn}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+2n}{n}}\right)`$ (1.4)
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+n+1}{mn}}\right)(4)^n+(xm)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{m}}\right).`$
Remark 1.2. (1.4) in the special case $`xm`$ and $`y=1`$, was ever conjectured by Z. H. Sun.

###### Corollary 1.3.

For any $`m`$ we have

$$\underset{0lnm}{}(1)^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{l+(m+1)z}{mn}\right)(1+z)^{nl}(1z)^{n+l}=(m+1)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(m+1)z1}{m}\right).$$

Proof. Just take $`x=(m+1)z`$ in (1.2) and then replace $`z`$ by $`z`$.

## 2 Proof of Theorem 1.1

The starting point of our proof of Theorem 1.1 is the following known identity:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +n\beta }{n}\right)\left(\frac{x1}{x^\beta }\right)^n=\frac{x^{\alpha +1}}{(1\beta )x+\beta }.$$
(2.1)
It appeared as (9) of H. W. Gould , and dates back to an identity of Lambert (cf. (E.3.1) of ). Both (2.1) and Lambert’s identity can be proved by Lagrange’s inversion formula (see pp. 631–632 of ). In 2005 V. J. W. Guo and J. Zeng  applied (2.1) to deduce some combinatorial identities originally motivated by the enumeration of convex polyominoes.

Let $``$ be the complex field. For a formal power series $`f(t)[[t]]`$, the coefficient of $`t^n`$ in $`f(t)`$ will be denoted by $`[t^n]f(t)`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. In the case $`m=0`$, both (1.2) and (1.3) are trivial. Below we assume that $`m`$ is a positive integer.

Putting $`\alpha =y`$, $`\beta =z+1`$ and $`x=1/(1+t)`$ in (2.1), we find that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}\right)\left(t(1+t)^z\right)^n=\frac{(1+t)^y}{1+t(z+1)}.$$

Thus

$`[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}=`$ $`[t^m]{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}}\right)(t)^n(1+t)^{nz+x+y}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+nz}{mn}}\right).`$
(As pointed out by one of the referees, this identity can be reproved by a mixed use of Lagrange’s inversion formula and the Riordan array method.) On the other hand,

$`[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}=[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)(t(z+1)+2)}}`$
$`=`$ $`[t^m](1+t)^x{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(t(z+1)\left(t(z+1)+2\right)\right)^n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n(z+1)^n[t^{mn}](1+t)^x\left(t(z+1)+2\right)^n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n(z+1)^n[t^{mn}](1+t)^x\left((z+1)(1+t)+1z\right)^n`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n(z+1)^n[t^{mn}](1+t)^x{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)(z+1)^l(1+t)^l(1z)^{nl}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n(z+1)^n{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+l}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^l(1z)^{nl}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0lnm}{}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+l}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^{n+l}(1z)^{nl}.`$
Since

$`[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}=`$ $`[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}((1+t)(z+1)z)`$
$`=`$ $`(z+1)[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^{x+1}}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}z[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}},`$
by the above we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+y+nz}{mn}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{y+n(z+1)}{n}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(z+1){\displaystyle \underset{0lnm}{}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+1+l}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^{n+l}(1z)^{nl}`$
$`z{\displaystyle \underset{0lnm}{}}(1)^n\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x+l}{mn}}\right)(1+z)^{n+l}(1z)^{nl}.`$
From this we immediately see that (1.2) and (1.3) are equivalent.

Observe that

$`m[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}=`$ $`[t^{m1}]{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`[t^{m1}]\left({\displaystyle \frac{(z+1)(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x(1+t)^{x1}}{1+t(z+1)}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`[t^m]\left({\displaystyle \frac{t(z+1)(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{xt(1+t)^{x1}}{1+t(z+1)}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`[t^m]\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{(1+t(z+1))^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{xt(1+t)^{x1}(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}\right)`$
and hence

$$(m+1)[t^m]\frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}[t^m]\frac{(1+t)^x}{\left(1+t(z+1)\right)^2}=[t^m]\frac{xt(1+t)^{x1}}{1+t(z+1)}.$$

It follows that

$`\left(x+(m+1)z\right)[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}z[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{\left(1+t(z+1)\right)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`x[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^x}{1+t(z+1)}}+z[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{xt(1+t)^{x1}}{1+t(z+1)}}=x[t^m]{\displaystyle \frac{(1+t)^{x1}(1+t+zt)}{1+t(z+1)}}`$
$`=`$ $`x[t^m](1+t)^{x1}=x\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x1}{m}}\right)=(xm)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x}{m}}\right).`$
This, together with the previous arguments, yields the identity (1.2).

The proof of Theorem 1.1 is now complete.

Acknowledgments. The first author is supported by a Key Program (Grant No. 10331020) of the National Natural Science Foundation in China. Both authors thank the referees for helpful comments.

Zhi-Wei Sun: Department of Mathematics, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, People’s Republic of China

E-mail address: zwsun@nju.edu.cn

Ke-Jian Wu: Department of Mathematics, Zhanjiang Normal College, Zhanjiang 524048, People’s Republic of China

E-mail address: kjwu328@yahoo.com.cn


text:
# Sum rules and short-range correlations in nuclear matter at finite temperature

## Abstract

The nucleon spectral function in nuclear matter fulfills an energy weighted sum rule. Comparing two different realistic potential, these sum rules are studied for Green’s functions that are derived self-consistently within the $`T`$ matrix approximation at finite temperature.

The microscopic study of the single-particle properties in nuclear matter requires a rigorous treatment of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) correlations bal1 ; her1 . In fact, the strong short-range and tensor components, which are needed in realistic NN interactions to fit the NN scattering data, lead to important modifications of the nuclear wave function. A clear indication of the importance of correlations is provided by the observation that a simple Hartree-Fock calculation for nuclear matter at the empirical saturation density using such realistic NN interactions typically results in positive energies rather than the empirical value of $`16\text{MeV}`$ per nucleon her1 .

Correlations do not only manifest themselves in the bulk properties but also modify the single-particle properties in a substantial way. Several recent calculations have shown without ambiguity how the NN correlations produce a partial occupation of the single particle states which would be fully occupied in a mean field description and a wide distribution in energy of the single particle strength. These two features have also been empirically founded in the analysis of the (e,e’p) nucleon knock-out reactions exp1 . The theoretical studies have been conducted both in finite nuclei her2  and also in nuclear matter fan1 ; ram1 ; dick1 .

An optimal tool to study the single particle properties is provided by the self-consistent Green’s function technique (SCGF) dick2 . This method gives direct access to the single particle spectral function, which should be self-consistently determined at the same time than the effective interactions between the nucleons in the medium. Enormous progress in the SCGF applications to nuclear matter have been reported in the last years, both at zero dick1  and finite temperature boz1 ; boz2 ; fri03 .

The efforts at $`T=0`$ have mainly been addressed to provide the appropriate theoretical background for the interpretation of the (e,e’p) experiments while the investigation at finite $`T`$ are mainly oriented to describe the nuclear medium in astrophysical environments or to the interpretation of the dynamics of heavy ion collisions.

In any case, the key quantity is the single-particle spectral function, i.e. the distribution of strength in energy when one adds or removes a particle of the system with a given momentum. A possible way to analyze the single-particle spectral function is by means of the energy weighted sum rules. They are well established in the literature and have been numerically analyzed in the case of zero temperature pol94 .

The analysis of the energy weighted sum-rules can give useful insights not only on the numerical accuracy of the many-body approach used to calculate them but also can help to understand the properties and structure of the NN potential.

This paper is devoted to study the physical implications of the fulfillment of these sum rules for single particle spectral functions in nuclear matter at finite $`T`$. This investigation is based on the framework of SCGF employing a fully self-consistent ladder approximation in which the complete spectral function has been used to describe the intermediate states in the Galistkii-Feynman equation.

After a brief summary of the definitions of the single-particle spectral function, we give a simple derivation of the sum rules. Then we analyze the results for two types of realistic potentials, the CDBONN and the Argonne V18, and discuss the different behaviors based on the different strength of the short-range and tensor components of both potentials.

For a given Hamiltonian $`H`$, the Green’s function for a system at finite temperature can be defined in a grand-canonical formulation:

$$\mathrm{i}g(𝐤t;𝐤^{}t^{})=\mathrm{Tr}\{\rho 𝐓[a_𝐤^{}(t)a_𝐤^{}^{}(t^{})]\}.$$
(1)
$`𝐓`$ is the time ordering operator that acts on a product of Heisenberg field operators $`a_𝐤(t)=e^{\mathrm{i}tH}a_𝐤e^{\mathrm{i}tH}`$ in such a way that the field operator with the largest time argument $`t`$ is put to the left. The trace is to be taken over all energy eigenstates and all particle number eigenstates of the many body system, weighted by the statistical operator,

$$\rho =\frac{1}{Z}e^{\beta (H\mu N)}.$$
(2)
$`\beta `$ and $`\mu `$ denote the inverse temperature and the chemical potential, respectively. N is the operator that counts the total number of particles in the system,

$$N=\underset{𝐤}{}a_𝐤^{}(t)a_𝐤^{}(t)$$
(3)
$`N`$ is independent of time, since it commutes with $`H`$. The normalization factor in Eq. (2) is given by the grand partition function of statistical mechanics,

$$Z=\mathrm{Tr}e^{\beta (H\mu N)}.$$
(4)
For a homogeneous system, the Green’s function is diagonal in momentum space and depends only on the absolute value of $`𝐤`$ and on the difference $`\tau =t^{}t`$. Starting from the definition of the Green’s function, we first focus on the case $`\tau >0`$. In order to recover the expression for the ensemble average of the occupation number $`n(k)`$ for $`\tau =0^+`$, the following definition of the correlation function, $`g^<`$, includes an additional factor of $`\mathrm{i}`$ with respect to the definition of the Green’s function $`g`$,

$$g^<(k,\tau )=\mathrm{Tr}\{\rho e^{\mathrm{i}\tau H}a_𝐤^{}e^{\mathrm{i}\tau H}a_𝐤^{}\}.$$
(5)
$`g^<(k,\tau )`$ can be expressed as a Fourier integral over all frequencies,

$$g^<(k,\tau )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }e^{\mathrm{i}\omega \tau }A^<(k,\omega )$$
(6)
if $`A^<(k,\omega )`$ is defined by kraeft :

$$A^<(k,\omega )=2\pi \underset{nm}{}\frac{e^{\beta (E_m\mu N_m)}}{Z}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_n|a_k|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\right|^2\delta (\omega (E_mE_n)).$$
(7)
This can be easily checked by inserting the eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ into the expression of the trace in Eq. (5). It is important to note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ are simultaneous eigenstates of both the number operator and the Hamiltonian.
A similar analysis can be conducted for $`\tau <0`$, yielding a function

$$A^>(k,\omega )=e^{\beta (\omega \mu )}A^<(k,\omega ).$$
(8)
The spectral function at finite temperature is defined as the sum of the two positive functions, $`A^<`$ and $`A^>`$,

$$A(k,\omega )=A^<(k,\omega )+A^>(k,\omega ).$$
(9)
Expression (7), for $`A^<`$, can be compared to the result for the hole spectral function at zero temperature, that was reported in Ref pol94 ,

$$A_h(k,\omega )=2\pi \underset{n}{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}|a_k|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A\right|^2\delta (\omega (E_0^AE_n^{A1})),$$
(10)
where $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^A`$ is the ground state of an $`A`$ particle system and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{A1}`$ labels the excited energy eigenstates of a system that contains one particle less. The physical interpretation of the hole spectral function in a system at zero temperature is the following: $`A_h(k,\omega )`$ is the probability to remove a particle from the ground state of the $`A`$-body system, such, that the residual system is left with an excitation energy $`E_n^{A1}=E_0^A\omega `$. $`E_0^A`$ is the ground state energy of the $`A`$ particle system. It is clear that the lowest possible energy of the final state is the ground state energy of the $`A1`$ particle system, so that there is an upper limit for the hole spectral function at $`\omega =E_0^AE_0^{A1}=\mu `$. In a similar fashion, the particle spectral function $`A_p`$ can be defined as the probability to attach a further nucleon to the system in such a way, that the excitation energy of the compound system with respect to the ground state energy of the initial system is $`\omega =E^{A+1}E_0^A`$. In this case, one can argue that, to add a further particle, one has to pay at least the chemical potential, so that $`\mu `$ is a lower bound for $`\omega `$. At zero temperature, this behavior causes a complete separation of the particle and the hole spectral function.

The situation is quite different in a grand-canonical formulation at finite temperature To illustrate these changes, the full spectral function A, as well as $`A^>`$ and $`A^<`$ are shown in Fig. 1 for three momenta around the Fermi momentum of a zero temperature system at the same density, $`\rho =0.2\text{fm}^3`$. Numerical values for the integrated strength of $`A^<`$ are listed in Table 1. Since thermally excited states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$ are always included in the grand-canonical ensemble average according to their weight factor $`e^{\beta (E_m\mu N_m)}`$, one can take out a particle from a thermally excited state and end up in a weakly excited state close to the ground state of the residual system. This leads to a contribution to $`A^<`$ for an energy $`\omega `$ larger than $`\mu `$. Also one has to keep in mind that we are considering a grand-canonical average. This implies that with the appropriate weight one also considers systems with a density larger than the mean value. For those systems, a removal of particles from states with single-particle energies above $`\mu `$ will also be possible.

Similarly, a particle can be added to a thermally excited state, leaving the compound system in a state close to its ground state, so that $`A^>(k,\omega )`$ extends to the region below $`\mu `$. In any case, there is no longer a separation between $`A^>`$ and $`A^<`$, and the maxima of both functions can even coincide. This is also quite obvious from the relation (8).

For the $`T`$ matrix approximation to the self energy reported in fri03 , one can determine the single-particle Green’s function as the solution of Dyson’s equation for any complex value of the frequency variable $`z`$,

$$g(k,z)=\frac{1}{z\frac{k^2}{2m}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,z)}.$$
(11)
Using the analytical properties of the finite temperature Green’s function along the imaginary time axis, an important relation between the spectral function and the Green’s function can be derived and analytically continued to slightly complex values kad62 :

$$g(k,\omega +\mathrm{i}\eta )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega ^{}}{2\pi }\frac{A(k,\omega )}{\omega \omega ^{}+\mathrm{i}\eta }.$$
(12)
One can extract sum rules from the asymptotic behavior at large $`\omega `$ by expanding the real part of both expressions for the Green’s function, Eqs. (11) and (12), in powers of $`\frac{1}{\omega }`$. This yields

$$\mathrm{Re}g(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega }\left\{1+\frac{1}{\omega }\left[\frac{k^2}{2m}+\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )\right]+\mathrm{}\right\}$$
(13)
and

$$\mathrm{Re}g(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega }\left\{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\omega ^{}A(k,\omega ^{})+\frac{1}{\omega }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\omega ^{}\omega ^{}A(k,\omega ^{})+\mathrm{}\right\}.$$
(14)
By comparing the first two expansion coefficients, one finds the $`m_0`$ and the $`m_1`$ sum rules,

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }A(k,\omega )=1,$$
(15)
and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{d}\omega }{2\pi }A(k,\omega )\omega =\frac{k^2}{2m}+\underset{\omega \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )$$
(16)
Similar sum rules can be obtained from the higher order terms, as it was done in Ref. pol94  for $`m_2`$. Thinking of an arbitrary approximation scheme for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )`$, it might be interesting to ask whether or to what extend such a scheme fulfills the sum rules. This is, however, not the point we want to address in this paper. In the $`T`$ matrix approximation, the real part of the self energy can be computed from the imaginary part, using a dispersion relation,

$$\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(k)\frac{𝒫}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}d\lambda \frac{\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\lambda +\mathrm{i}\eta )}{\omega \lambda }.$$
(17)
In the derivation of Eq. (17), the spectral decomposition of the Green’s function was already used, so it is a property of the $`T`$ matrix approach that it automatically fulfills the sum rules. Nevertheless, besides providing a useful consistency check for the numerics, it is interesting to use the sum rules to compare the importance of short-range correlations for different realistic potentials on a quantitative level. The first term on the right hand side of Eq. (17) is the energy independent part of the self energy,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}(k)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}\left|V\right|\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}_An(k^{}).$$
(18)
which can be identified with $`lim_\omega \mathrm{}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Sigma }(k,\omega )`$, since the dispersive part decays like $`\frac{1}{\omega }`$ for $`\omega \pm \mathrm{}`$. Eq. (18) looks like a Hartree-Fock potential, however, $`n(k)`$ is the momentum distribution that is determined from a non-trivial spectral function $`A^<`$ in Eq. (6), assuming $`\tau =0`$. In contrast, the Hartree-Fock self energy at finite temperature must be determined from an energy spectrum $`ϵ(k)`$ and a momentum distribution $`n_{HF}(k)=f(ϵ(k))`$, where $`f(\omega )`$ is the Fermi function. Unlike $`n_{HF}(k)`$, the non-trivial $`n(k)`$ accounts for depletion effects of the bound states due to short-range correlations. In this sense, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a generalization of a Hartree-Fock potential. Fig. 2 illustrates the difference between the two pictures with the corresponding Feynman diagrams.

All results in this paper have been obtained using the iteration procedure that was described in Ref.fri03 . Fully self-consistent spectral functions were calculated for two realistic potentials, the stiffer Argonne V18 and the softer CDBONN.

The $`m_0`$ sum rule is fulfilled better than $`0.1\%`$ in the complete momentum range. Results for the $`m_1`$ sum rule are given in Fig 3 for a temperature of $`T=10\text{MeV}`$ and a density of $`\rho =0.2\text{fm}^3`$. It is satisfied better than $`1\%`$. Both right hand side and left hand side are plotted, but the curves lie on top of each other and cannot be distinguished (solid lines). The lower dash-dotted line shows the $`m_1`$-contribution from $`A^<`$, which is always negative and goes to zero for high momenta, since there $`A^<`$ is strongly suppressed. The probability to remove a high-momentum particle from the system is simply very small. The upper dash-dotted line displays the contribution from $`A^>`$. Due to the short-range correlations, there is a high-energy tail present in the spectral function, and so this contribution is already positive at low momenta, furthermore, it is nearly constant in this range, reflecting the fact that the high energy strength distribution is momentum independent. As soon as the quasiparticle peak of the spectral function is located at energies greater than $`\mu `$, the $`A^>`$ contribution increases steadily, following the position of this peak. Both contributions add up to $`m_1`$. It is interesting to remind the fact that for free particles, the sum rules are automatically fulfilled. In this case, $`A^<`$ and $`A^>`$ are delta peaks that are located at the same position and their strength adds up to one. Their relative strength is given by the ratio of the phase space factors $`f(ϵ(k))`$ and $`[1f(ϵ(k))]`$, respectively, where $`ϵ(k)=\frac{k^2}{2m}`$ in the free case.
The results in Fig. 3 shows that the sum rule $`m_1`$ is rather sensitive to the differences in the NN potentials. The $`m_1`$ results for the CDBONN interaction is about $`65\text{MeV}`$ more attractive than the Argonne V18 result. A closer examination shows that this is predominantly due to the $`A^>`$ contribution, which is almost $`50\text{MeV}`$ more repulsive for the Argonne V18. This means that the Argonne potential produces more correlations in the sense that the strength that effects $`m_1`$ is redistributed to higher energies.
The dotted lines are the simple Hartree-Fock estimate of $`m_1`$ for the same temperature and density. For both potentials, the Hartree-Fock result makes up quite a good approximation to the sum rule. This result is interesting, since it permits a quantitative estimate of the amount of correlations produced by any given NN potential without a sophisticated many-body calculation.
Fig. 4 reports the exhaustion of the sum rules $`m_0`$ (left panel) and $`m_1`$ (right panel) versus the upper integration limit $`\omega `$ for a momentum of $`k=500\text{MeV}`$. At this momentum, the quasiparticle peak is located around $`100\text{MeV}`$. For both interactions that were considered, the main contribution to $`m_0`$, more than $`80\%`$, come from the quasiparticle peak of the spectral function. In the region far above the peak, the CDBONN saturates considerably faster. In Table. 2, the upper integration limits that have to be chosen to exhaust the sum rule to a given percentage are reported for $`m_0`$ and $`m_1`$ and compared for both potentials. In the case of $`m_0`$ and the stiffer Argonne V18, one must integrate almost twice as far as for the softer CDBONN. The saturation of the $`m_1`$ sum rule is different, because in this case, a somewhat higher energy region of the spectral function is probed. In the right panel of Fig. 4, one can observe that the quasiparticle peak contributes less than $`50\%`$ to $`m_1`$, and the high-energy tail becomes much more important, since it is weighted by a factor of $`\omega `$. While both potentials behave qualitatively similar up to an integration limit of about $`700`$ or $`800\text{MeV}`$, where $`m_1`$ is already exhausted by about 75% for the CDBONN potential (cf.Tab. 2), a large contribution of about $`40\%`$ is still above this energy in the case of the Argonne V18. One can also note, that, to exhaust $`m_1`$ completely, one has to integrate up to higher energies in the case of the CDBONN. However, these contributions to the spectral function above $`\omega 4000\text{MeV}`$ are weak and yield no further repulsion.

This work has been supported by the German-Spanish exchange program (DAAD, Acciones Integradas Hispano-Alemanas). We also would like to acknowledge financial support from the Europäische Graduiertenkolleg Tübingen - Basel (DFG - SNF) and the DGICYT (Spain) Project No. BFM2002-01868 and from Generalitat de Catalunya Project No. 2001SGR00064.