text:
# Non-spherical core collapse supernovae and nucleosynthesis

## 1 Model description and numerical setup

Our simulation is split into two stages. The early evolution ($`t<1`$ s) is computed with the HERAKLES code (Plewa & Müller, in preparation) which solves the multidimensional hydrodynamic equations using the direct Eulerian version of the Piecewise Parabolic Method  and which incorporates the physics (equation of state, neutrino source terms and light bulb) described in the simulations of neutrino driven supernovae by  with the following modifications. General relativistic corrections are added to the gravitational potential. A 14-isotope network is implemented to compute the explosive nucleosynthesis including the 13 $`\alpha `$-nuclei from $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ and a tracer nucleus which is used to keep track of the neutronization of the material. The 2D spherical grid consists of 400 radial zones ($`3.17\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}r1.7\times 10^9`$ cm) and 192 angular zones ($`0\theta \pi `$). The initial data is a 15 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ progenitor model  which has been collapsed . The following set of neutrino parameters is adopted (cf. ): $`L_{\nu _e}^0=3.094\times 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s},L_{\nu _x}^0=2.613\times 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s},\mathrm{\Delta }Y_l=0.0963,\mathrm{\Delta }\epsilon =0.0688`$. The neutrino spectra and the functional form of the luminosity decay are the same as in . A random initial seed perturbation is added to the velocity field with a modulus of $`10^3`$ of the (radial) velocity of the post–collapse model. The computation begins 20 ms after core bounce and is carried up to 800 ms when the explosion energy has saturated at $`E_{\mathrm{expl}}=1.77\times 10^{51}`$ erg.

The subsequent propagation of the shock through the stellar envelope and the growth of RT instabilities is simulated with the adaptive mesh refinement code AMRA (Plewa & Müller, in preparation). Neutrino physics is not included in AMRA because it does influence the explosion dynamics only within the first few seconds. Newtonian self-gravity is taken into account by solving Poisson’s equation in one spatial dimension with an angular average of the density, which is an adequate approximation once the shock has left the iron core. The equation of state includes contributions from photons, non-degenerate electrons, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$-pairs, $`{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{H}`$, and the nuclei included in the reaction network.

The AMR calculations are started with the inner and outer boundaries located at $`r_{\mathrm{in}}=10^8`$ cm and $`r_{\mathrm{out}}=4.8\times 10^{10}`$ cm. No further seed perturbations are added. The maximum resolution is equivalent to that of a uniform grid of $`3072\times 768`$ zones. The radial extent of the base grid is extented whenever the supernova shock approaches the outer grid boundary, which attains a maximum value of $`r_{\mathrm{out}}=3.9\times 10^{12}`$ cm at $`t=2095`$s. Reflecting (outflow) boundary conditions are imposed in angular (radial) direction. The initial data for the AMR simulation consists of three different parts. Interior to 17 000 km ($`1.63\mathrm{M}_{}`$) data from the simulations of the first stage of the explosion, and exterior to that radius data from Bruenn’s 1D post-collapse model are used. Matched to Bruenn’s model (covering only parts of the He core) is a new progenitor model of Woosley (private communication; data for the 1988 model are no longer available).

## 2 Results and discussion

The simulation of the early evolution shows, in accordance with , that neutrino driven convection leads to the formation of a roughly spherical but very inhomogeneous post–shock shell containing dense $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$–rich regions and low–density, deleptonized bubbles. These inhomogeneities provide the seed for RT mixing in the stellar envelope at the Si/O and (C+O)/He interfaces of the SN 1987A progenitor model within only about a minute after core bounce .

The stellar metal core is completely shredded only 5 minutes after bounce and high velocity clumps of newly synthesized elements are observed to be ejected up to the outer edge of the He–core. While the instability is turning the inner core of the star inside out, a dense shell forms at the He/H interface as a result of the deceleration of the main shock in the H–envelope. The subsequent interaction of the metal–enriched clumps with this dense He–shell leads to their strong deceleration. After entering the shell the clumps reach transonic speeds and dissipate a large fraction of their kinetic energy. As a result the entire dense shell and the H–envelope are pervaded by bow-shocks and strong acoustic waves from 3000 to 10 000 s after core bounce. During this interaction, which has not been reported in any previous calculation of RT instabilities in SNe II progenitors, the composition within the clumps themselves is almost entirely homogenized. Furthermore, acting like a wall the shell shields the H–envelope of the star from becoming enriched with freshly synthesized elements.

According to a linear stability analysis the He/H interface should be RT unstable. However, we do not find a strong growth of the instability at this interface. Since the supernova shock is almost perfectly spherically symmetric when it emerges from the He–core the evolution in these layers proceeds basically one-dimensional. Only when the metal–enriched clumps reach the inner boundary of the dense shell behind the He/H interface and start to dissipate their energy about 3000 s after bounce, are perturbations from spherical symmetry induced by the waves which are thereby excited. However, as the interface is only moderately unstable at this time, only small scale variations are observed. If this result also holds for other progenitor models, it indicates that neutrino driven convection alone is not able to provide the perturbations which are needed to induce strong mixing of the helium core and the H–envelope as observed in SN 1987 A.

Already within the first 300 s of the explosion elements like $`{}_{}{}^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{32}\mathrm{Si}`$ that made up the original metal core as well as the newly synthesized $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ have been mixed almost homogeneously throughout the inner $`2.0\mathrm{M}_{}`$, i.e., throughout about the inner half of the He–core. The extent of mixing increases up to $`3.2\mathrm{M}_{}`$ at 10 000 s. Species which are not mixed this far out in mass are $`{}_{}{}^{44}\mathrm{Ti}`$ and our neutronization tracer. These nuclei were synthesized in the innermost layers of the ejecta which were located very close to the collapsed core.

The dynamics of the explosion is reflected in the distribution of the mass of $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ in velocity space (Fig. 1). The most conspicuous feature which can be seen in this plot is the bulk deceleration of the material from velocities as large as $`5000`$km/s at a time of 50 s after bounce to less than 1500 km/s after 10 000 s. At 50 s the average $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ velocity is $`3500`$ km/s with a spread of about $`\pm 1400`$km/s. At 10 000 s the corresponding values are $`900`$km/s and $`\pm 500`$km/s. The maximum velocities are significantly smaller than the ones which have been observed in SN 1987A. During no phase of the evolution we do see an acceleration of material from the former metal core of the star. This is in contrast to the results of Herant & Benz (1992) who report to have obtained nickel velocities comparable to those observed in SN 1987A provided that they premixed the $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ in their SPH calculations throughout 75% (in mass) of the metal core ($`2\mathrm{M}_{}`$) of their $`20\mathrm{M}_{}`$ progenitor.

The occurrence of conditions which could give rise to the development of an instability at the He/H interface is harmful for the propagation of the clumps. Even if very strong perturbations are imposed upon the dense unstable shell which forms at this interface the instability is growing too slowly in order to shred this “wall” before the clumps will reach it. On the other hand, with a smoother density profile between the He–core and the H–envelope, the dense shell might either not form at all or become at least less pronounced which might help the clumps to preserve most of their energy. Such a smoother density profile could be envisaged when the progenitor star of SN 1987A was not the result of the evolution of a single star but a merger of two smaller stars . The dimensionality of our simulations may also be a possible cause of the problem. The fingers found in 2D calculations are in fact axially symmetric tori which also experience a larger drag when propagating outwards than genuinely 3D mushroom structures.

Finally, “missing physics” in the explosion models itself might be responsible for the small maximum nickel velocities that we obtain. Effects like rotation or anisotropic neutrino emission might have to be considered for the explosion mechanism. These may result in an additional large scale asphericity of the shock or even in jet-like outflows of the ejecta. In that case it has been claimed  that it is possible to reproduce nickel velocities in excess of 3000 km/s. However, these simulations suffer from coarse resolution and from rather unrealistic parameterized initial conditions.

## 3 Summary

Our calculations prove for the first time that convective instabilities which develop during the first second of the explosion are able to provide the seed for significant RT mixing at the Si/O and (C+O)/He interfaces. This might offer an explanation for the mixing observed in the explosions of SNe Ib/Ic .

During the first $`30`$ minutes of the explosion our $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ velocities are as high as those measured in the Type II SN 1987A and the Type IIb SN 1993J. The main reason for this agreement is the subsonic ballistic motion of the clumps relative to the mean background flow. The concordance with observations is, however, destroyed, when the clumps enter the outer helium core and encounter a dense (RT unstable) shell which is left behind by the shock at the He/H interface. The clumps are decelerated to velocities $`<2000`$km/s because their propagation in this new environment is transonic. Hence, the main difficulty for future simulations is how to avoid to decelerate the initially fast $`{}_{}{}^{56}\mathrm{Ni}`$ clumps.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “Nature of the Spin Glass State”

## Abstract

We show that the interface excitations of Palassini-Young and Krzakala-Martin cannot yield new thermodynamic states.

Recently, Palassini and Young  numerically studied the ground state structure of nearest-neighbor Ising spin glasses with Gaussian couplings in spatial dimensions $`d=3,4`$. Using a novel coupling-dependent bulk term in the Hamiltonian, they looked for large-scale, low-energy excitations above the ground state in fixed volume with periodic boundary conditions (b.c.’s). They interpret their results as evidence of spin configurations whose interface with the ground state (i.e., couplings satisfied in the excitation configuration but not in the ground state, or vice-versa) scales as $`L^{d_s}`$, with $`d_s<d`$. At the same time the excitation energy was found to scale as $`L^\theta ^{}`$, with $`\theta ^{}=0`$; i.e., it remained finite as $`L\mathrm{}`$ . This is in distinction to the similar exponent $`\theta `$, which governs the energy difference under a change in coupling-independent b.c.’s, such as periodic to antiperiodic. In both $`d=3,4`$, numerical studies are consistent with $`\theta >0`$ (see references in ). Similar results to  were found in $`d=3`$ by Krzakala and Martin .

In this Comment, we show that the two properties $`d_s<d`$ and $`\theta ^{}=0`$ are incompatible thermodynamically; i.e., such excitations cannot give rise to new (ground or pure) states: if such interfaces exist, they cannot be pinned, but rather must deflect to infinity as $`L\mathrm{}`$. (They could also vanish altogether, as noted in .)

Suppose that these interfaces are pinned; this implies the existence of infinite volume states that differ by interfaces with $`d_s<d`$ and whose energy remains of order one as $`L\mathrm{}`$. Consider two such states $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and the periodic b.c. metastate  for the above model with periodic b.c.’s (our argument works also for other b.c.’s chosen independently of the couplings); the metastate simply gives the probability of finding a given ground state pair (GSP) in a typical large volume.

As one moves along the interface, its energy should be larger sometimes in $`\alpha `$ and sometimes in $`\beta `$, so in some volumes $`\alpha `$ would be the ground state and in others $`\beta `$. Both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ would therefore have positive weight in the metastate, i.e., would appear in a positive fraction of volumes. For simplicity we assumed above only a single excitation, but this argument can be extended to an arbitrary number (even uncountably many).

But, as in  (Lemma 2), if the periodic b.c. metastate is supported on multiple GSP’s, these must have relative interfaces with dimension $`d_s=d`$. It follows that the conditions $`d_s<d`$ and $`\theta ^{}=0`$ are incompatible for pinned interfaces on sufficiently large length scales. (Pinned interfaces with $`d_s<d`$, leading to multiple ground states at zero temperature and pure states at positive temperature, would probably require $`\theta ^{}>(d1)/2`$ , and could only be seen with coupling-dependent b.c.’s.)

It follows that, if there exist excitations above the ground state with $`d_s<d`$ and energy of order one independently of $`L`$, they would simply deflect to infinity as $`L\mathrm{}`$. So the possibility of their existence could be relevant in determining the excitation spectrum of spin glasses, but they would not imply the existence of new thermodynamic (ground or pure) states.

This research was supported in part by NSF Grants DMS-98-02310 (CMN) and DMS-98-02153 (DLS). The authors thank Peter Young and Matteo Palassini for useful correspondence.


text:
# When is S=A/4?

## I Introduction

In the past 25 years there has been a great deal of activity around the nature and origin of black hole entropy, since the pioneer work of Bekenstein and Hawking who found a close relation between entropy and area of black holes . It is generally regarded that the identification of the fundamental degrees of freedom and the computation of the entropy for a black hole is one of the major challenges for any candidate quantum theory of gravity. Of particular importance are the recent attempts to recover, from basic approaches to quantum gravity, the “standard expression” for the entropy of a black hole . For a recent review see . Our aim in this article is to review and discuss the foundations of those attempts by examining in detail under what conditions this standard answer can be expected to be obtained.

The question of when entropy is equal to $`A/4`$ for a black hole is in fact made of at least 3 questions:

1. To what exactly and under what conditions do we expect, in general, to assign an entropy?
2. When is the entropy assigned to a black hole equal to 1/4 of its area?
3. To which area exactly do we refer in answering the above question?

The first (and probably the most controversial) of these questions is in itself a collection of questions:

1.a) Under what physical circumstances do we assign an entropy?

1.b) To what do we assign entropy?: To a history?, to an “instantaneous” state of a system?, to a our description of such a state of the system?

1.c) What needs to be specified in order to assign an entropy?

More concretely, question 1.a), namely under what circumstances we assign entropy, refers to the issue of assigning entropy to: i) all situations, ii) stationary situations, iii) quasi-stationary situations, or iv) some other set of situations, larger than ii) but smaller than i).

In answering this question, we are also led to the issue of what type of entropy are we talking about: thermodynamic entropy or statistical mechanical entropy. Within this later case we should also decide whether we refer to the Boltzmann or the Gibbs entropy.

Once one has decided when to assign entropy, one should also specify to what “object” it should be associated. For instance, one should say if the entropy is to be associated with the interior, the exterior or the horizon of a black hole. Finally, the question of what needs to be specified in order to assign entropy \[(1.c)\], refers to standard specifications that one provides in treating the statistical mechanics of any system, for instance, the distinction between system and observer, coarse graining, etc.

On a closer look, one can see that all the questions that make up the question of when to assign entropy, are in a sense, an indication that we need to put the concept of entropy on a firmer ground than it is at the moment. It might seem that the fact that statistical mechanics can deal successfully with all practical applications of the subject is an indication that all is well and clear. However, to understand the limitations let us focus for a moment on another concept where the situation is fully clarified, but was not so when the concept was firstly used: The concept of energy. For a start, one realizes that for free particles the kinetic energy is conserved, and then, that for certain forces one can introduce a potential energy, where now it is the sum of the former and the latter that constitutes the true conserved energy. The story can be continued with the realization that one needs to incorporate more forms of energy in order to maintain the validity of the conservation law in more general circumstances. It is only when one regards energy as the “conserved quantity in the presence of time-invariance”, that the mystery behind all its apparent manifestations disappears, and one recognizes that one is truly talking in all cases about one single quantity: energy. Similarly, it seems that we would need an ‘unified’ definition of entropy similar to the one available for energy, in order to clarify the situation and in particular the discussion around question 1, namely the question of when to assign entropy to a system. In other words, in the case of energy one knows that one of the implied aspects of having a single energy conservation law, instead of, say, one for kinetic energy and one for potential energy, is the tacit acknowledgment that there exits physical process that convert one type of the energy into another. Moreover, given two types of energies, one can in principle (in almost all cases) find one physical process taking the first type into the second. The exceptions are in fact supposed to be codified trough the concept of entropy and by the second law of thermodynamics (besides the usual limitations arising from other conservation laws). In the same way, if such a ‘unified recipe’ to deal with entropy was at hand, one would hope to understand not only the second law (in its generalized form including, in particular, the entropy of black holes), but also the limitations, if any, to converting one type of entropy into another.

This last point is particularly interesting, because as far as the authors know, no such restriction has been advanced to date and thus the second law is the only limitation for the conversion of energy from one type to another. In fact one can give strong arguments that such restrictions must exist, in particular, associated with the issue of locality: No one would believe that one is allowed to device a machine that, say, transfers heat from a cold reservoir to a hot one without any additional local effects, and which avoids violating the second law simply by having a second part of the machine that creates sufficient entropy in a distant galaxy. Such considerations clearly indicate that one must face the issue of localization of entropy in general, and by having a black hole as a part of such contraption, the localization of black hole entropy in particular. One would like to have a general definition, analogous say to the definition of the energy momentum tensor, of an entropy current $`S^a`$ (see ) satisfying an equation of the form:

$$_aS^a0$$
(1)
such that the entropy associated with an hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with unit normal $`n^a`$, and volume element $`\mathrm{d}V`$, given by,

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }n_aS^adV,$$
(2)
be such that the entropy associated to an hypersurface is greater or equal to that associated with an hypersurface to the past of the first one.

Such a general and precise notion of entropy would seem to be required, before one can hope to have a complete understanding of the reasons behind the validity of a generalized second law (including the contribution to entropy associated with black holes). There are in fact proposals for the derivation of this generalized second law, which however fail to clarify the underling reason for their validity, in the sense that, for example, the conservation of energy is understood as a result of a time invariance of the underlying theory. Needless to say, these issues can not be treated with the current understanding, because we lack, among other things, the notion of localization of the entropy.

Assuming that one is willing to consider entropy as assigned to all situations, one is then confronted with question 2: is the entropy associated to a black hole always proportional to its area? It is clear that in (quasi)stationary situations, the existence of the first law leads us to the conclusion that entropy is proportional to area. Then, the question narrows to: should we consider area as a measure of entropy, also for the dynamical case?

The third question then refers to the identity of the area horizon one wishes to consider in order to identify it with entropy. There are situations in which all known notions of horizon agree (if defined). In particular, this is true when the spacetime under consideration is stationary.

However, already in the quasi-stationary case there are differences between, say, the event horizon and an isolated horizon. In the dynamical case, none of the definitions agree. It is then of vital importance to “make up our mind” about the nature of the relevant horizon.

It is important to stress that the question of when entropy and area are proportional (question 2) and to the nature of the horizon (question 3) have to be considered once one has tried to answer question 1 in detail. In the hypothetical case that one has an “universal” definition for entropy, one might hope that question 3 would be settled ‘ab initio’ and that question 2 can be answered by a direct application of the relevant formalism (assuming one has a quantum theory of gravity).

The purpose of this work is to critically review our current understanding of the foundations of black hole entropy and to point out the interrelations (not always fully appreciated) between the positions one takes in answering the various questions here posed, and the requirements that the positions one adopts in facing each of these issues ought to be mutually consistent. It is important to stress that this article does not intend to give a global answer to the issues that are addressed, but rather to point out the unresolved issues.

In this work we restrict our attention to the general theory of relativity (with, in principle, arbitrary matter couplings), and do not consider higher derivative theories, for which the relation between entropy and area does not seem to hold even at the classical level (i.e., in the generalized first law).

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II we discuss the question of when entropy is defined. Section III is devoted to the study of when entropy and horizon area are proportional. The question of the nature of the horizon is the subject of Sec. IV. Finally, we end with a discussion in Section V.

## II When is entropy defined?

First, let us elaborate on the question of what kind of entropy we should focus on, namely thermodynamical vs statistical.

We know that the thermodynamic entropy is associated with stationary and quasi-stationary situations. In the case of black holes, this is normally reflected in the existence of the ordinary first law, and the thermodynamic entropy would be the quantity appearing there. Nevertheless, we are in fact interested in the statistical mechanical entropy because, as one can argue, it is the most general kind of entropy since, for every situation in which the thermodynamical entropy is defined, so is the statistical mechanical entropy. In these cases the two essentially agree, but there are situations is which the (standard) thermodynamic entropy is not even defined. Furthermore, it is the statistical mechanical entropy the object that, in principle, can be calculated from the basic microscopic theory, which in the case of a black hole’s entropy contribution would be the quantum theory of gravity***It is also known that from purely dimensional reasons, one would need to introduce Planck’s constant $`\mathrm{}`$ in order to identify entropy with area . This expectation was fully realized in Hawking semi-classical calculation , thus indicating that black hole entropy is quantum mechanical in nature..

Now, the two types of statistical entropy, namely Boltzmann and Gibbs are, in principle, conceptually different. The first, depends on the exact microstate of the system under consideration and is defined as the logarithm of the number of microstates being “macroscopically indistinguishable” from the given one. This set is said to represent the mesostate. That is, if $`N_i`$ denotes the number of microstates making up the $`i^{th}`$ mesostate, then the Boltzmann entropy is,

$$S=\mathrm{log}N_i$$
(3)
whenever the microstate finds itself within the $`i^{th}`$ mesostate.

The second is an “ensemble functional”, rather than a function of the actual physical state of the system. Associated with the ensemble there is a probability density $`\rho `$ on the space of microstates, and the Gibbs entropy is

$$dx\rho (x)\mathrm{log}(1/\rho (x)).$$
(4)
However, in practice we use an essentially identical coarse graining prescription to define the level of uncertainty that allows us to construct either the notion of mesostate for Boltzmann entropy or the ensemble for the Gibbs entropy. Since the statistical mechanical entropy is more general than the thermodynamical entropy, the former must be defined at least in stationary and quasi-stationary situations \[ii) and iii) above\]. We know of no criteria that would be appropriate to specify a more general situation (case iv) above) so our options for when the statistical entropy is defined seems to be restricted to just the set i) (i.e. always) or the same as the thermodynamical entropy (i.e. stationary and quasi-stationary cases).

We would like to further argue against the choice of having the statistical entropy defined only in the stationary and quasi-stationary cases. Making this choice would render the second law as practically useless to prevent, for instance, the construction of perpetual motion machines ( i.e. consider a contraption that moves in such a way as to avoid passing trough a situation for which entropy is defined).

Moreover, this option would seem to destroy the Markovian nature of a physical theory, namely the property that the predictive power of a physical theory is not increased by considering the past together with the present, as compared to the consideration of the present alone. That is, if the present corresponds to a situation in which entropy is not defined, we could not preclude a future situation with a given entropy $`S_1`$, in terms of our knowledge of the present, but could, for example, preclude that situation if we use (together with the second law) the fact that in the past the (closed) system was in a situation characterized by an entropy $`S_0>S_1`$. One could argue that the Markovian aspect should be associated with the whole physical theory and not with each physical law separately. However, in this case, the fact that the second law is the only law incorporating a particular arrow of time, it seems difficult to imagine that the other known physical laws could restore the Markovian nature to the situation at hand. All these considerations seem to take us to the position of accepting 1.a.i), i.e The statistical entropy should be defined for all situations (See also ).

Now, in providing this answer we are in fact providing also a partial answer to the question of which object should one assign an entropy to \[1.b) above\] in the sense that we are assigning an entropy to a physical situation with a notion of localization in time. The alternative of assigning an entropy to a complete spacetime or a history (as indicated for example in ) would seem to make the concept of entropy completely useless in the sense of adding predictive power, and in particular as a tool for ruling out perpetual motion machines. In a sense we are puzzled as to what would be the current view of the authors in  about the area increase theorem in classical general relativity and its resulting connection with the generalized second law.

Another, more moderate view, would be to assign an entropy with a situation localized in time but within the context of a spacetime or history. Here again there are potential problems if we require the history to be known to a larger extent that is possible from a description in terms of initial data -a situation that could occur if we let quantum events play a decisive role in the selection of the possible histories, as in the examples discussed in \- as we could render the concept of entropy, again, useless in ruling out perpetual motion machines. These problems would be avoided if we accept that there be no supplementary information in the history.

Thus, from the previous discussion we are lead to the conclusion that in order for the concept of entropy to be useful in the ways we expect it to be, we must assign entropy under all circumstances and to instantaneous physical situations.

The remaining aspect of question 1.b), namely to which object to assign entropy is in fact incorporated within the question of what needs to be specified in order to define entropy \[question 1.c) above\] which we address next. It is obvious that we must specify at least the physical system to which one is about to associate an entropy, and the coarse graining needed to define the macrostate (in the Boltzmann scheme) or the ensemble (in the Gibbs scheme). This leads to the conclusion that in fact we do not assign entropy to a physical situation, but to our description of the physical situation. This view is consistent with the assignment of entropy to, say, de Sitter and Rindler horizons as in . This is a consequence of the fact that there is, in principle, no natural specification of the coarse graining, if no specification is given of the experimental procedure used to prepare the system. Thus, entropy would seem to be a relative concept, with different physicists disagreeing about the value of the entropy of a specific system at a given “time”. This in itself is not so worrisome, after all, other concepts like energy or length suffer from the same relativism and are nevertheless very useful. However, this indicates that we must specify the observer with respect to which entropy is to be assigned. It is even possible that the two specifications, observer and coarse graining become intertwined, as for example in the case of a Black Hole, for which one can think that the prescription to disregard whatever occurs inside is in fact part of the coarse graining , or part of the specification of the observer (whom we can think is restricted to move in the outside thus having no access to any information about the inside). This must not be interpreted as in any way saying that the entropy of a black hole, is associated with the internal degrees of freedom since that would lead to various problems , but only as the statement that there is entropy to be assigned in this case because we are disregarding the inside. That is, we leave open the possibility that, for instance, the entropy might have to do with those degrees of freedom of the inside which can affect the outside through boundary conditions, or correlations, which would lead to the view that the relevant degrees of freedom are those associated with the horizon . Returning to the issue raised in 1.c), in particular, to the details of the specification of observer and its observational capacity, we must, in accordance with the limitations imposed by the relativistic nature of physical reality, agree from the onset that the observer must be replaced by a collection of observers. We are faced then with the problem of having to specify the extent of this set of observers in order to be able to decide the extent of the observable quantities, a specification that one could hope will take into account, for example, the existence of horizons of various sorts. In particular, in the case one wished to consider event horizons in the previous discussion one would immediately run again into the problems derived from the teleological nature of such object, i.e. the fact that the present location of the horizon depends strongly on events in the future that might, as in the example considered in , make it impossible to predict its location based on the full knowledge of the system at present.

## III Stationary vs. Dynamic

Now we turn to question 2. That is, when is the entropy of a black hole proportional to its area? Here again we seem to face various alternatives: 2.a) In stationary and quasi-stationary situations; 2.b) Always; and 2.c) Some other restricted set of circumstances.

If we take the option that entropy and area are proportional only in stationary and quasi-stationary situations, we immediately face two questions. First, what are we going to take as the expression for entropy in other situations? One can try to answer this question both at the classical level and in the quantum domain. Classically, one would have to define a geometrical quantity to be associated with a dynamical entropy. Several such attempts are available in the literature . Note that the particular prescription becomes intertwined with our question 3, that is, with the nature of the horizon one wishes to consider. A second possibility is that the answer will be available only when we have a full theory of quantum gravity. After all, if asked to compute the entropy of a given non-equilibrium (macroscopic) configuration of a mass of gas, we need to go to the microscopic theory to count microstates etc, and we can not expect the answer to be a simple function of a single macroscopic parameter (which might not even be defined). Furthermore, within a full quantum theory of gravity, a generic configuration might not even have a macroscopic description in terms of a space-time with a horizon in it (like in some of the D-brane calculations ).

An important issue in both cases is, in a sense, the other side of the same coin, i.e., what are we going to make of the area theorem? If the dynamical entropy is not to be identified with the area of the event horizon, the existence of this theorem will lead to a strange situation because we will have on the one hand, the second law for the true entropy (which would not be a simple expression) and the second unrelated non-decreasing quantity: the area of the event horizon.

Furthermore, we note that the first law of black hole mechanics:

$$\delta M=\frac{\kappa }{8\pi }\delta A+\delta W$$
(5)
where $`M`$ is the ADM mass, $`\kappa `$ the surface gravity, $`A`$ the area of the event horizon, and $`\delta W`$ stands for work terms, is known to be valid for arbitrary variations of stationary black holes  even if these configurations are unstable. Thus, the point of the phase space to which the variation has taken the original stationary black hole, is not only not stationary, but it can not be said to be a configuration that would remain close to a stationary one, i.e. can not be said to be quasi-stationary. Nevertheless the identification of this law with the first law of thermodynamics, clearly indicates that we are assigning an entropy $`SA`$ to these black holes.

Assuming that we take option 2.b), namely that the entropy is always proportional to the horizon area, then we are lead to a problematic situation because of the fact that we need to know the area of which horizon we are talking about. The event horizon seems not to be adequate since we need to know the complete spacetime in order to locate the horizon, and, as we concluded previously, the entropy need to be assigned to an instant of time, which in general relativistic settings corresponds to Cauchy hypersurfaces. We could take the view that the prescription is, then, to take the data associated with the hypersurface, including the geometry and the matter fields, evolve it according to Einstein’s equations and proceed to locate the horizon in the corresponding hypersurface. Unfortunately this is also not a viable option in general as demonstrated by the example discussed in , in which the initial data, although complete, is not enough to locate the horizon on account of a decisive role played by a quantum measurement that is to be performed to the future of the given hypersurface, leading to fluctuations of the area of the event horizon with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }AA.$$
(6)
The previous discussion seems to lead us to option 2.c), that is, to some other restricted set of circumstances, which still needs to be specified. In this regard, again the analysis of the example in  would point to the following generalization of the previous prescription: take the data associated with the hypersurface, including the geometry and the matter fields, consider the possible evolutions taking into account quantum alternatives and proceed to locate the horizon on the initial hypersurface for each of the corresponding spacetimes, and finally add the corresponding values of the areas with the appropriate probabilistic weights. So far we have centered our discussion of this question assuming that the entropy would be associated with the area of the event horizon, and in fact, the alternative 2.c) (some other restricted set of circumstances) is also an opening for the consideration of the next section.

## IV Area of What?

In the past sections we have argued that the event horizon, even when it has a clear space-time definition, and is in a sense the obvious choice one might make, has several problems for a satisfactory definition of entropy. Again, the main problem of choosing the event horizon is its teleological nature that makes the situation different (as explained in Ref.) from the case of an ordinary thermodynamical system put in a quantum superposition of states. As explained in , if one wishes to adopt the event horizon, then one needs to give up a canonical theory and/or modify the existing quantum theory. On the other hand, if one is not willing to give up a canonical quantum theory, then one can not consistently insist on the event horizon as the relevant quantity. One might conclude that, in this case, the event horizon should be replaced by another geometrical quantity in dynamical situations and then one is faced with the problem of finding a suitable alternative. The purpose of this section is to review the available possibilities, which to our knowledge are: 1) The apparent horizon , 2) The isolated horizon , and 3) The trapping horizon .

The apparent horizon has very serious problems, since it is known to be discontinuous for dynamical situations like a collapsing star ,. Furthermore, it is known that even the Schwarzschild spacetime contains Cauchy hypersurfaces with no apparent horizons.

The second alternative, namely isolated horizons, are particularly interesting for several reasons. First, it has been shown that for quasi-stationary processes, the (quasi-local) horizon mass satisfies a first law in which the entropy is proportional to the horizon area . Secondly, there exists a calculation of the statistical mechanical entropy that recovers the “standard result” $`S=A/4`$ for various types of black holes . This formalism is in fact a generalization of the standard stationary scenario to more physically realistic situations, because the exterior region need not to be in equilibrium. Nevertheless, the whole approach is based in the assumption that the horizon itself is in internal equilibrium. In particular, its area has to be constant, and nothing can “fall into the horizon”. In this regard, isolated horizons as presently understood, are not fully satisfactory since the formalism is not defined and does not work in general, dynamical, situations.

Moreover, there are situations in which one is faced with the occurrence of several isolated horizons, intersecting a single hypersurface, one within the other, and one must decide to single out the one to which entropy is to be assigned. We can take the view that this should be the outermost horizon, but this seems to be just an add hoc choice, unless it is argued that the selection is the natural one associated with the fact that we are specifying the “exterior” observers to be the ones with respect to which entropy is assigned. This view would be natural if we take the position that the assignment of entropy is related to the coarse graining, which is partially specified by pointing out the region from which information is available to the observer. However, this point of view would conflict with the fact that the isolated horizons are not good indicators of such regions, basically because their definition is purely local and thus not fully based on causal relations.

Isolated horizons are well defined for equilibrium situations. If some matter or radiation falls into the horizon, the previously isolated horizon $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ will cease to be isolated, and (one intuitively expects) there will be in the future a new isolated horizon $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, once the radiation has left and the system has reached equilibrium again. One would like to have a definition of horizon that interpolates between these two isolated horizons $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, such that the physical situation can be described as a generalized horizon that “grows” whenever matter falls in. There is a natural direction for this notion of horizon, and this leads us to the third possibility, namely, trapping horizons .

In a series of papers, Hayward has been able to show that there exists (at least in the spherically symmetric case) a dynamical (as opposed to quasi-stationary) first law, for a (quasi-local) energy that, however, does not coincide with the horizon energy of the isolated horizons formalism (in the static limit). There exists also a second law, for the area of the trapping horizon, when a particular foliation of the space-like horizon is chosen. However, we face the problem that, by definition, these horizons can be specified only when the full spacetime is available: given a point in spacetime, the issue of whether or not it lies on a marginally trapped 2-surface, can not in general, be fully ascertained until the whole spacetime (where the rest of the 2-surface is to be located) is given. These option is also problematic because the trapping horizons are in general space-like and thus there is no guarantee that a given hypersurface would not intersect the horizon in several components thus leading to the same problem of in-definition that was mentioned in connection with option 2). Moreover, in this case the horizon can even be tangent to the hypersurface which is an extreme version of the previous problem. The fact that all this objections can be raised against this option, has its origin in the fact that the trapping horizon is not a surface defined on the grounds of causality alone.

It would be interesting to have a coherent formalism developed, which incorporates both the isolated and the trapping horizons formalisms, and that allows for a dynamical description of “black hole horizons”.

## V  Discussion and Conclusions

In this paper, we have critically reviewed our current understanding of black hole entropy, focusing on the conceptual foundations that lie below the assignment of entropy to a black hole. In particular, we have argued that for the full content of the second law to be useful one needs to take the view that entropy should be assigned to all physical situations. Moreover we also argued that entropy should be assigned to situations localized in time, which in the general covariant setting implies that it should be assigned to Cauchy hypersurfaces, which can be viewed as immersed in spacetimes but only to the extent that the spacetimes themselves can be obtained from the data on the corresponding hypersurfaces.

The conclusions above seem to be very robust in the sense that taking an alternative viewpoint would seem to force us to deprive the second law from its predictive power and therefore from much of its meaning.

This has lead us to a rather paradoxical situation when dealing with the entropy of a black hole, because the alternatives that are available to play the role of entropy in the general dynamical case are all suffering from serious disadvantages: The event horizon can not in general be localized on a given hypersurface, and the best that can be expected is to have a probability for its various possible locations associated with the various possible spacetime developments of the given initial data. The apparent horizon would lead to the assignment of zero entropy even to some Cauchy hypersurfaces of the Schwarzschild spacetime. The Trapping horizons are also in general not localisable in the absence of the full spacetime and moreover are in general space-like, a feature that can lead to the multiple crossings of the horizon with the given space-like hypersurface, unless a preferred foliation of the horizon is chosen to begin with, and therefore a natural definition of “time evolution” along the horizon.

One possible conclusion is that the general expression for the entropy of a dynamical back hole that would arise from a complete quantum gravity theory, would be rather complicated and dependent on the details of the theory, a situation which would put such entropy in a similar footing with the entropies of other systems which, in the dynamical situation, are not expressible as simple functions of a few macroscopic parameters. The puzzling aspect of this view is the meaning we would ascribe to the classical area increase theorem, since we would have to abandon its interpretation as being just an expression of the second law, in the case of classical black holes.

Another possibility is that, in the semi-classical limit of the full theory, the states that yield space-times with a horizon in it, would have the property that the horizons are quasi-stationary (or even isolated). ‘Dynamical states’ would be present but they might not be interpreted as a classical space-time with a dynamical horizon. This drastic conclusion would of course have deep implications on black hole evaporation and information loss. This would imply that there are no quantum counterparts to classical dynamical black holes in certain regimes.

An alternative (an more moderate) conclusion would be to take the entropy as the probability-weighted average of the event horizon areas associated with the possible future developments of the appropriate Cauchy data. This was, for instance, the viewed taken in the analysis of  where an argument in favor of this proposal was obtained from a sum-over-histories formulation of quantum mechanics, together with the hypothesis that taking $`S=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho )`$ with $`\rho `$ the density matrix for the exterior black hole region yielded the correct result $`A/4`$ in the standard situations.

This discussion leads us to conclude that quite aside the issue of finding a correct theory of quantum gravity, the status and interpretation of the thermodynamics of black holes is rather incomplete. Furthermore, the basic issues raised in its connection could prove fundamental as guidance in the search for the quantum theory of gravityThus, in contrast with the stationary black hole situation, for which there seems to be no clues distinguishing the various approaches towards a theory of quantum gravity (as has been argued for instance in  (however see )), we expect the dynamical black hole case to be a much more demanding, therefore a more selective test for such proposals..

## acknowledgments

We would like to thank A. Ashtekar for helpful comments. This work was in part supported by DGAPA-UNAM Grant No. IN121298 and by CONACyT grants J32754-E and 32272-E. AC was also partially supported by NSF grant No. PHY-0010061.


text:
# Nonlinear Evolution of the 𝑟-Modes in Neutron Stars

## Abstract

The evolution of a neutron-star $`r`$-mode driven unstable by gravitational radiation (GR) is studied here using numerical solutions of the full nonlinear fluid equations. The dimensionless amplitude of the mode grows to order unity before strong shocks develop which quickly damp the mode. In this simulation the star loses about 40% of its initial angular momentum and 50% of its rotational kinetic energy before the mode is damped. The nonlinear evolution causes the fluid to develop strong differential rotation which is concentrated near the surface and poles of the star.

The $`r`$-modes of all rotating stars are driven towards instability by gravitational radiation (GR) reaction , and the strength of this destabilizing force is sufficient to dominate over internal dissipation in hot, rapidly rotating neutron stars . The growth timescale of the instability is about 40 s for neutron stars with millisecond rotation periods. Thus it is generally expected that GR will cause the dimensionless amplitude of the most unstable ($`m=2`$) $`r`$-mode to grow to order unity within about ten minutes of the birth of such a star. The emission of GR by this process removes angular momentum and rotational kinetic energy from the star. The strength of the GR emitted and the timescale for spinning down the young neutron star depend critically on the amplitude to which the $`r`$-mode grows. Initial estimates assumed that the amplitude would grow to order unity before some unknown process would saturate the mode. With this saturation amplitude, a neutron star spins down to about one tenth its maximum angular velocity in about one year, and the GR from this event might be detectable by LIGO II . Stergioulas and Font  find no saturation of the $`r`$-modes even at large amplitudes in their nonlinear numerical study. Thus at present no one really knows what process will saturate the $`r`$-modes, or how large their amplitudes will grow. Here we investigate the growth of the $`r`$-modes by solving numerically the nonlinear hydrodynamic equations driven by GR reaction.

Neutron stars are compact objects with reasonably strong gravitational fields, $`GM/R0.2c^2`$. While these objects may contain fluid moving at fairly large velocities, $`v^2GM/R`$, Newtonian theory is expected to describe them up to errors of order $`GM/Rc^2`$. For simplicity then we study here the nonlinear evolution of the $`r`$-modes using the Newtonian equations:

$$_t\rho +\stackrel{}{}\left(\rho \stackrel{}{v}\right)=0,$$
(1)
$$\rho \left(_t\stackrel{}{v}+\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{v}\right)=\stackrel{}{}p\rho \stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\rho \stackrel{}{F}_{GR},$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is the fluid velocity, $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the density and pressure, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Newtonian gravitational potential, and $`\stackrel{}{F}_{GR}`$ is the GR reaction force. The gravitational potential is determined by Poisson’s equation,

$$^2\mathrm{\Phi }=4\pi G\rho .$$
(3)
The GR reaction force $`\stackrel{}{F}_{GR}`$ due to a time-varying current quadrupole (the dominant multipole for the $`r`$-modes) can be written (see Blanchet  and Rezzolla, et al. ):

$`F_{GR}^xiF_{GR}^y=\kappa i(x+iy)\left[3v^zJ_{22}^{(5)}+zJ_{22}^{(6)}\right],`$ (4)
$`F_{GR}^z=\kappa \mathrm{Im}\left\{(x+iy)^2\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{v^x+iv^y}{x+iy}}J_{22}^{(5)}+J_{22}^{(6)}\right]\right\},`$ (5)
where $`J_{22}^{(n)}`$ represents the $`n`$’th time derivative of $`J_{22}`$,

$$J_{22}=\rho r^2\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{Y}_{22}^Bd^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x,$$
(6)
and $`\stackrel{}{Y}_{22}^B=\widehat{r}\times r\stackrel{}{}Y_{22}/\sqrt{6}`$ is the magnetic-type vector spherical harmonic. In slowly rotating stars the $`m=2`$ $`r`$-mode projects onto $`J_{22}`$ and no other $`J_{lm}`$. The parameter $`\kappa `$ that appears in Eqs. (4) and (5) sets the strength of the GR reaction force, and has the value $`\kappa =32\sqrt{\pi }G/(45\sqrt{5}c^7)`$ in general relativity theory. For practical reasons (see further discussion below), we take $`\kappa `$ to be about 4500 times this value.

We solve Eqs. (1)–(3) numerically in a rotating reference frame using the computational algorithm developed at LSU to study a variety of astrophysical hydrodynamic problems . Briefly, the code performs an explicit time integration of the equations using a finite-difference technique that is accurate to second order both in space and time, and uses techniques very similar to those of the familiar ZEUS code .

We find that as written, Eqs. (4) and (5) for $`\stackrel{}{F}_{GR}`$ are nearly useless in a numerical evolution. The problem is the large number of time derivatives of $`J_{22}`$ that appear there. In the case of a pure mode with frequency $`\omega `$ this problem is easily solved: $`J_{22}^{(n)}=(i\omega )^nJ_{22}`$. Even when the amplitude of the $`r`$-mode becomes large, we expect the fluid motion to be dominated by periodic motions at the fundamental frequency of the $`r`$-mode. Thus, we expect the normal-mode expressions for the time derivatives of the multipole moments to be reasonably accurate even in the nonlinear regime. It is easy to evaluate $`J_{22}`$ from Eq. (6), and $`J_{22}^{(1)}`$ can also be expressed as an integral over the fluid variables using Eqs. (1) and (2):

$$J_{22}^{(1)}=\rho \left[\stackrel{}{v}\stackrel{}{}\left(r^2\stackrel{}{Y}_{22}^B\right)\stackrel{}{v}r^2\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{Y}_{22}^B\right]d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x.$$
(7)
Thus we evaluate the time derivatives needed in Eqs. (4) and (5) using $`J_{22}^{(5)}=\omega ^4J_{22}^{(1)}`$ and $`J_{22}^{(6)}=\omega ^6J_{22}`$. We have verified that using these approximations our numerical code accurately reproduces the analytical description of the $`r`$-mode evolution and growth due to GR reaction in slowly rotating models.

In order to monitor the nonlinear evolution of an $`r`$-mode, it will be helpful to introduce nonlinear generalizations of the amplitude and frequency of the mode. Since the $`r`$-mode projects primarily onto the multipole moment $`J_{22}`$, we define the nonlinear amplitude to be

$$\alpha =\frac{8\pi R_0|J_{22}|}{\mathrm{\Omega }_0\rho r^4d^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}x},$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ is the initial angular velocity and $`R_0`$ is the radius of the corresponding nonrotating stellar model. This $`\alpha `$ is normalized to reduce to the standard definition used in perturbations of slowly rotating stars . We must also define a generalization of the frequency of the $`r`$-mode. For a small-amplitude mode the time derivative of $`J_{22}`$ is proportional to the frequency: $`J_{22}^{(1)}=i\omega J_{22}`$. Thus we are led to define the following nonlinear generalization of the $`r`$-mode frequency

$$\omega =\frac{|J_{22}^{(1)}|}{|J_{22}|}.$$
(9)
These expressions for $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ are very stable numerically since they are expressed as integrals.

We have studied the growth of an $`r`$-mode as described above by solving numerically the nonlinear hydrodynamic equations for a rotating stellar model represented on a $`64\times 128\times 128`$ cylindrical grid. We prepare initial data for this evolution by constructing first a rigidly rotating equilibrium stellar model. For simplicity we use the polytropic equation of state $`p=K\rho ^2`$, which approximates the features of more realistic neutron-star models reasonably well. The model most extensively studied here is very rapidly rotating, with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.635\sqrt{\pi G\overline{\rho }_0}`$ where $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ is the average density of the nonrotating star of the same mass. The ratio of the initial rotational kinetic energy to gravitational potential energy for this model is $`T/|W|=0.101`$. At the initial time we take the fluid density to be that of this equilibrium stellar model, while the fluid velocity is taken to include a small amplitude $`r`$-mode perturbation:

$$\stackrel{}{v}=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\stackrel{}{\phi }+\alpha _0R_0\mathrm{\Omega }_0\left(\frac{r}{R_0}\right)^2\mathrm{Re}(\stackrel{}{Y}_{22}^B).$$
(10)
In our simulation we take the initial $`r`$-mode amplitude to be $`\alpha _0=0.1`$.

According to perturbation theory , the ratio of the GR growth time to the $`r`$-mode pulsation period is expected to be $`\tau _{GR}/P_r=5.64\times 10^4`$ for the stellar model studied here. At this rate, growth of the $`r`$-mode is far too slow to be studied effectively via an explicit hydrodynamic simulation. To overcome this, we artificially increase $`\kappa `$ in Eqs. (4) and (5) to a value such that $`\tau _{GR}/P_r12.6`$, i. e., the strength of our GR reaction is about 4500 times stronger than it should be. This made the growth rate of the $`r`$-mode large enough so that it could be followed up to nonlinear amplitude with a reasonable amount of computing time, yet kept it slow relative to the dynamical and sound-crossing times.

Figure 1 shows the $`\mathrm{Re}(J_{22})`$ that results from the evolution of this system. Time in these figures is given in units of the initial rotation period of the star: $`P_0=2\pi /\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$. Figure 1 illustrates that the evolution of $`J_{22}`$ is dominated by the sinusoidal $`r`$-mode oscillations. Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of the $`r`$-mode amplitude in this simulation. We see that the growth is exponential (as predicted by perturbation theory) until $`\alpha 2`$. Then some nonlinear process limits the growth; $`\alpha `$ peaks at $`\alpha =3.35`$ and then decreases rapidly. The evolution of the $`r`$-mode frequency $`\omega `$ defined by Eq. (9) is illustrated in Fig. 3. The evolution of $`\omega `$ is quite smooth when the amplitude of the $`r`$-mode is large: $`\alpha 0.5`$. At early ($`t10P_0`$) and at late ($`t28P_0`$) times when the $`r`$-mode amplitude is small, we see that other modes also make noticeable contributions to $`J_{22}`$, and hence to $`\omega `$.

Several authors  have suggested that the nonlinear evolution of an unstable $`r`$-mode could generate differential rotation. This differential rotation would amplify existing magnetic fields in the star, and these in turn might significantly affect the evolution of the $`r`$-mode. We have explored this possibility by monitoring the average differential rotation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ grows to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }0.41\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ at time $`t28P_0`$ and then decreases. Here $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the ratio of the angular momentum to the moment of inertia of the star. But the average value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ may be misleading. Figure 4 illustrates the spatial dependence of the azimuthally averaged angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\varpi ,z)=\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑\phi /2\pi `$ at the time $`t=25.6P_0`$. We see that the differential rotation is confined mostly to a thin shell of material near the surface of the star, and is particularly concentrated near each polar cap. The bulk of the material in the star remains fairly rigidly rotating. Thus it appears that the magnetic fields generated by this differential rotation may have strong effects locally (e.g., leading to the ejection of material at the surface or along the rotation axis), but may not affect the global behavior of the $`r`$-mode as much as if the differential rotation were distributed more uniformly.

Energy and angular momentum are removed from the star by GR emission from the $`r`$-mode according to the expression :

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\frac{|\omega |}{2}\frac{dJ}{dt}=\frac{128\pi }{225}\frac{G}{c^7}\kappa \omega ^6|J_{22}|^2.$$
(11)
Figure 5 illustrates the evolution of the total angular momentum $`J`$, the total mass $`M`$, and the kinetic energy of the fluid $`T`$. We see that $`M`$ is essentially unchanged, while $`J`$ decreases by about 40%. The numerical evolution of $`J`$ agrees with Eq. (11) to within a few percent . Figure 5 reveals that the kinetic energy of the star, $`T`$, continues to decrease for about two rotation periods after the rate of emission of $`J`$ into GR falls to zero.

What nonlinear process is responsible for limiting the growth of the $`r`$-mode? Figure 5 reveals that the kinetic energy of the star, $`T`$, continues to decrease even after the rate of emission of $`J`$ into GR falls to zero. This implies that the energy stored in the $`r`$-mode is not being radiated away as GR or being transferred to other macroscopic modes. For if it were, $`T`$ would be more or less conserved once the GR losses become small. Rather we see that at $`t26P_0`$, as the amplitude of the $`r`$-mode peaks, the predicted evolution of the total energy $`E`$ due to GR loss (the dashed curve in Fig. 6) significantly diverges from the numerical evolution of $`E`$. This nonconservation of $`E`$ is due to the formation of shocks associated with the breaking of surface waves as illustrated in Fig. 7 .

In summary then, we find that an $`r`$-mode can grow to relatively large amplitude under the influence of the GR reaction force. The hydrodynamic mechanism that acts to suppress the $`r`$-mode in our simulation is the formation of shocks near the surface of the star. Since the GR reaction force in our simulation is too strong by a factor of 4500, it is still possible that slower hydrodynamic processes (like the transfer of energy to other modes) could limit the $`r`$-mode at smaller values of $`\alpha `$. It is also possible that the coupling of the $`r`$-mode to $`g`$-modes in real neutron-star matter (but absent from our barotropic simulation) could also limit the growth at smaller $`\alpha `$. However if shock formation turns out to be the dominant suppression mechanism, then we expect the peak amplitude to be relatively insensitive to the strength of the GR coupling.  In this case the dimensionless amplitude of the mode will peak at about $`\alpha =3.4`$. This implies that the spindown the star by GR will occur in about one tenth ($`1/\alpha _{\mathrm{max}}^2`$) the time previously estimated .

During our simulation about 40% of the initial angular momentum and 50% of the initial rotational kinetic energy is radiated away as GR. Most of this energy is radiated in a much narrower frequency band $`\mathrm{\Delta }f0.05f`$ than had been expected . Further, the frequency of the $`r`$-mode is about 20% smaller than that predicted by simple perturbation theory. Both of these effects tend to make the GR emitted by this process more easily detectable by LIGO. Even at the end of our simulation the star is still rather rapidly rotating, and we presume that GR will again drive the $`r`$-mode unstable and a second episode of spindown will occur. During our simulation about 16% of the initial rotational kinetic energy of the star is dissipated by the shocks. This energy will be converted to heat in a real neutron star and this would delay cooling and the formation of a crust. A detailed thermal analysis will have to be carried out to determine exactly what other effects this thermal energy may have.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank J. Friedman, B. Owen, K. Thorne, and R. Wagoner for helpful discussions. We also thank H. Cohl, J. Cazes, and especially P. Motl for contributions to the LSU hydrodynamic code. This research was supported by NSF grants PHY-9796079, AST-9987344, AST-9731698, PHY-9900776, and PHY-9907949, and NASA grants NAG5-4093 and NAG5-8497. We thank NRAC for computing time on NPACI facilities at SDSC where tests were conducted; and we thank CACR for access to the HP V2500 computers at Caltech, where the primary simulations were performed.


text:
# Zero Temperature String Breaking with Staggered Quarks Presented by C. DeTar.

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The heavy quark-antiquark potential is known quite accurately in quenched simulations. It is traditionally measured with the Wilson-loop observable, proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}[V(R)T]`$ at large $`T`$. In the presence of dynamical quarks it is expected that the potential levels off with increasing $`R`$, signaling string breaking. However, in QCD simulations string breaking has proven to be very difficult to detect with this observable, even out to $`R2`$ fm.

The reason string breaking has not been seen using the traditional Wilson-loop observable has been apparent for some time . The Wilson loop can be regarded as a hadron correlator with a source and sink state “F” consisting of a fixed heavy quark-antiquark pair and an associated flux tube. The correct lowest energy contribution to the Wilson-loop correlator at large $`R`$ should be a state “M” consisting of two isolated heavy-light mesons. However, such a state with an extra light dynamical quark pair has poor overlap with the flux-tube state, so it is presumably revealed only after evolution to very large $`T`$. To hasten the emergence of the true ground state, it is necessary to enlarge the space of sources to include both F and at least one M state.

String breaking has been demonstrated in the strong-coupling approximation to QCD , and a variety of QCD-like theories , and in SU(3) with dynamical quarks at nonzero temperature. Last year, we reported a preliminary low-statistics result for two flavors of staggered quarks , and, earlier this year, Pennanen and Michael announced evidence for string breaking at zero temperature using Wilson-clover quarks and a novel technique for variance reduction in computing the light quark propagator . This year we report results with higher statistics .

## 2 METHODOLOGY

We work with 198 configurations of size $`20^3\times 24`$, generated with the one-plaquette gauge action at $`6/g^2=5.415`$ in the presence of two flavors of conventional dynamical staggered quarks of mass $`am=0.0125`$. The lattice spacing (via the Sommer parameter ) is approximately 0.163 fm, and $`m_\pi /m_\rho =0.358`$, giving a comfortable box size and a relatively light quark.

Our flux tube “F” source and sink operator is constructed from the product of smeared spatial links, for the most part taken along one of the lattice axes, using 10 APE smearing iterations , combining the direct link with a factor $`1\alpha `$ (in our case, $`\alpha =0.294`$) and six staples with factor $`\alpha /6`$ with SU(3) projection after each iteration. The correlator of this operator $`G_{FF}(R,T)`$ is the familiar Wilson loop with smeared space-like segments, and point-like static quark and antiquark lines. Our two-meson source and sink operator “M” is the direct product of static-light meson and antimeson operators.111In the continuum limit the meson pairs created by this operator are in a combination of light quark singlet and nonsinglet states, and only the singlet part should mix with the flux tube. On our coarse lattice, where only one meson-meson state is important, this affects the overlap $`Z_M`$, but not the mixing parameters. In this analysis we have not attempted to reconcile the restriction to two flavors in internal quark loops with the flavor counting of the external states, which would affect the relative weights of the “direct” and “exchange” contributions to $`G_{MM}`$. With the accuracy we have achieved so far, this makes no detectable difference. In constructing the static-light meson we use a light-quark wave function with weight 2 at zero separation and 1 on each of the six on-axis second neighbors. Thus we measure the additional correlation matrix elements $`G_{MM}(R,T)`$, $`G_{MF}(R,T)`$ and $`G_{FM}(R,T)`$, diagramed in Figs. 1 and 2. These observables are computed for all translational and cubic rotational displacements. The required all-to-all propagator is estimated using a random source technique with 128 random sources per configuration.

## 3 RESULTS

The static-light meson correlator in Fig. 3 has contributions from both a nonoscillating $`S`$-wave ($`B`$-meson-like) light-quark orbital and oscillating $`P`$-wave ($`B^{}`$-meson-like) orbital with $`aE_S=0.7884(12)`$ and $`aE_P=1.022(6)`$. Thus our two-meson correlator includes nonoscillating combinations $`SS`$ and $`PP`$ and an oscillating $`SP`$. If mixing is weak, our two-channel correlators should also include a flux-tube level with an approximately Coulomb-plus-linear behavior in $`R`$. Our fit ansatz for the two-channel correlator is

$$G_{AB}(R,T)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}Z_{Ai}^{}(R)Z_{Bi}(R)[\lambda _i(R)]^{T+1},$$
(1)
where $`A,B`$ refer to the flux tube $`F`$ or meson-meson $`M`$ states and $`\lambda _i(R)`$ is a real (positive or negative) eigenvalue of the transfer matrix. The channel energy is $`\mathrm{log}(|\lambda _i(R)|)`$.

For simplicity we restrict the analysis to three spectral components

$`\lambda _1(R)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{V_1(R)}`$
$`\lambda _2(R)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{V_2(R)}`$ (2)
$`\lambda _3(R)`$ $`=`$ $`()^{R+1}e^{V_3(R)},`$
corresponding in the unmixed language, respectively, to the $`SS`$, $`SP`$, and flux-tube components. The peculiar phase for the flux tube component is required by discrete lattice symmetry and can be obtained simply by interpreting the Wilson loop as a heavy staggered quark loop.

Results for the three levels are plotted in Fig. 4. We see clear evidence for string breaking at the first level crossing (about 1 fm), but with our statistics, we see no evidence for rounding associated with avoided level crossing. Thus string-breaking pair-creation and annihilation transitions are weak in QCD.

To explore mixing further, we introduce a mixing model similar to that of Drummond, Pennanen and Michael.

$$G(R,T)=\stackrel{~}{Z}^0(R)𝒯(R)^{T+1}Z^0(R),$$
(3)
where the transfer matrix is given by

$$𝒯(R)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1^0(R)& 0& x\\ 0& \lambda _2^0(R)& y\\ x& y& \lambda _3^0(R)\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
and the mixing coefficients are $`x`$ and $`y`$. This model matches our fit ansatz reasonably well, allowing us to extract values for the mixing parameters, the magnitudes of which are plotted in Figs. 5 and 6. We see that mixing is weak and is small in the vicinity of level crossing.

## 4 DISCUSSION

To see string breaking in the heavy-quark potential, it is helpful to introduce explicit meson-meson channels. Mixing among the channels is found to be very weak. String breaking occurs at the first level crossing, i.e., with our quark mass, about one fermi. These results justify a two-channel model of excited quarkonium decay, in which a closed channel populated by bound states couples weakly to an open channel .

This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation and Departmet of Energy and used computer resources at Indiana University, the San Diego Supercomputer Center (NPACI), and the University of Utah (CHPC).


text:
# Dynamics of ferromagnetic spherical spin models with power law interactions: exact solution

## I Introduction

Systems with long range interactions are very common in nature. Some important examples are dipolar systems in which the interaction decays with distance as $`1/r^3`$; charged systems with Coulomb interactions $`1/r`$; spin glasses characterized by RKKY interactions; block copolymers and models of structural glasses, to name a few. In spite of their ubiquity these kind of systems receive normally much less attention than short range ones, perhaps because of its grater analytical complexity. Power law decaying interactions interpolate between the much studied, although not realistic, mean field limit and the strictly local nearest neighbour interactions. Although short range interactions are assumed to be dominant in a great variety of systems, this may not be so in many others, spin glasses being a known and controvertial example.

In pure systems, the dynamics after a quench in temperature from the high temperature phase to the low ordered one proceeds by a slow coarsening of domains characteristic of the low energy excitations of the system. This coarsening process is characterized by growth laws which show how the typical lenght scales associated with the domains grow with time. Typical growing laws are $`l(t)t^{1/z}`$ with $`z`$ a dynamic exponent characteristic of the universality class of the system. Order parameters, correlation and response functions also show typical scaling behaviour. Exponents and scaling functions also depend on the dynamics being with conserved or non conserved order parameter and also on the nature of the order parameter. From here on we will discuss only results for the vector order parameter case ($`n>1`$). In the case of long range forces decaying as $`r^{(d+\sigma )}`$, a calculation of the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit of the O(n) model gives a growth law $`l(t)t^{1/\sigma }`$, for non conserved order parameter. In the conserved case there appears the phenomenon of “multiscaling” with two characteristic lenght scales: $`l_1t^{1/(2+\sigma )}`$ and $`l_2(t/\mathrm{ln}t)^{1/(2+\sigma )}`$. Here we rederive these results working diretly on the spherical model at finite temperature and for general spatial dimension $`d`$. We will also derive the scaling forms for the structure factor, two times autocorrelations and associated responses. In recent years much attention have been devoted to a possible extension of the fluctuation dissipation relations to the case of non equilibrium dynamics. It turns out that, in many cases, the fluctuation- dissipation theorem (FDT) may be generalized by introducing the concept of time dependent “effective temperatures”. These are difficult to obtain both analytically and also to be measured in experiments. The simplicity of the spherical model permits us to analyze the character of the violation of the FDT during the coarsening process and to obtain explicitly the effective temperature.

It is known that the ferromagnetic spherical model with long range interactions has a phase transition in all dimensions $`d`$ (contrary to the short range model which only has transition for $`d>2`$). In $`d=1`$ a ferromagnetic phase is present at finite temperature provided that $`0<\sigma <1`$ and also in $`d=2`$ provided that $`0<\sigma <2`$. Our results concerning the ordering dynamics after a quench from the high temperature phase to the low temperature one are valid for every $`\sigma `$ such that $`0<\sigma <s`$, where $`s=d`$ for $`d2`$ and $`s=2`$ for $`d>2`$. The case of $`\sigma =2`$ will be excluded as the systems in $`d=1`$ and $`d=2`$ have no phase transitions in this case. For $`d>2`$ and $`\sigma >2`$ the system has the same critical properties of the model with short range interactions.

## II The model

We consider spherical spin models consisting of $`N`$ continuous spins $`s_i(t)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) which satisfy for all times $`t`$ the spherical constraint

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}s_i^2(t)=N.$$
(1)
The Hamiltonian of the system is given by

$$=\underset{(i,j)}{}J(𝐫_{ij})s_is_j$$
(2)
where the sum runs over all distinct pairs $`(i,j)`$ of spins of a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice and $`𝐫_{ij}`$ is the distance vector between sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. The interactions $`J(𝐫_{ij})`$ decay as a power law of the distance between a pair of spins in the following way:

$$J(𝐫_{ij})=J_0\frac{r_{ij}^{(d+\sigma )}}{_j^{}r_{ij}^{(d+\sigma )}}forij$$
(3)
where $`_j^{}`$ runs over all sites $`ji`$; $`d`$ is the space dimension, $`\sigma >0`$, $`J_0>0`$ and $`J(0)=0`$. Let us now introduce the Fourier transform of the spin variables $`s_i(t)`$

$$s_𝐤(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j}{}s_j(t)e^{i𝐤𝐫_j}$$
(4)
with $`s_𝐤(t)=s_𝐤^{}(t)`$. Considering periodic boundary conditions the wave vector is $`𝐤=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_d)`$ with $`k_i=2\pi n_i/L,n_i=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},\pm (L/21),\pm (L/2)`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},d`$) and $`N=L^d`$. Now defining

$$J(𝐤)\underset{𝐫}{}J(𝐫)e^{i𝐤𝐫}$$
(5)
the Hamiltonian (2) is diagonalized,

$$=\underset{𝐤}{}J(𝐤)|s_𝐤(t)|^2$$
(6)
with

$$J(𝐤)=J_0\frac{_𝐥^{}|𝐥|^{(d+\sigma )}\mathrm{cos}(𝐤𝐥)}{_𝐥^{}|𝐥|^{(d+\sigma )}},$$
(7)
where the sum $`_𝐥^{}`$ is over all lattice vectors $`𝐥0`$. The critical temperature of this model is given by

$$\beta _cJ_0=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{1J(𝐤)/J_0}$$
(8)
In the long wavelength scaling limit $`k<<1`$ Eq.(7) behaves as ,

$$J(𝐤)J_0(1Ck^\sigma +O(k^2))$$
(9)
where

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I_{d,\sigma }}{v_a\mathrm{\Omega }_{d,\sigma }()}}`$ (10)
$`I_{d,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^{1\sigma }\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\sigma /2)}{\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2+\sigma /2)}}`$ (11)
$`v_a`$ is the volume of a unit cell in a d-dimensional Bravais lattice $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{d,\sigma }()=_𝐥^{}|𝐥|^{(𝒹+\sigma )}`$. This approximation is valid for $`0<\sigma <2`$. At $`\sigma =2`$ logaritmic corrections are present in $`d=2`$. In $`d`$ dimensions and for $`\sigma >2`$ the leading term in the above expansion is $`O(k^2)`$ and so the critical properties of the model are those corresponding to short range interactions. The dynamical properties in this case are also well known (see e.g. ). The analysis we present in this work can be extended to the mean filed regime $`d\sigma <0`$. However, several works on related models  suggest that the critical properties (both statical and dynamical) in the whole interval are the same as those for the case $`\sigma =d`$ (mean field). The dynamics for this last case can be almost trivially solved, showing no coarsening effects (for instance, the two-times autocorrelation function always decays exponentially with the difference of times). Hence, we will not discuss this further in this paper.

We will concentrate on the analysis of the correlation and response functions. The two-time autocorrelation function is defined as

$`C(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}<s_𝐫(t)s_𝐫(t^{})>`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}C_𝐤(t,t^{})`$ (13)
with $`C_𝐤(t,t^{})s_𝐤(t)s_𝐤(t^{})`$. Note that $`C_𝐤(t,t)=_𝐫C(𝐫,t)e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$ is the dynamic structure factor while $`C(𝐫,t)s_0(t)s_𝐫(t)`$ is the spatial correlation function. The two-time response function is defined as

$`G(t,t^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta s_𝐫(t)}{\delta h_𝐫(t^{})}}|_{h=0}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}G_𝐤(t,t^{})`$ (15)
with

$$G_𝐤(t,t^{})=\frac{\delta s_𝐤(t)}{\delta h_𝐤(t^{})}.$$
(16)
where $`h_𝐫(t)`$ is an inhomogeneous external magnetic field and

$`h_𝐤(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐫}{}}h_𝐫(t)e^{i𝐤𝐫}.`$

## III Non conserved order parameter

In this case we consider a Langevin dynamics for the spins,

$$\frac{s_i}{t}=\frac{\delta }{\delta s_i}z(t)s_i(t)+\xi _i(t),$$
(17)
where the Lagrange multiplier $`z(t)`$ enforces the spherical constraint at each instant and $`\xi `$ is a gaussian white noise with moments $`<\xi _i(t)>=0`$ and $`<\xi _i(t)\xi _j(t^{})>=2T\delta _{ij}\delta (tt^{})`$ as usual.

The Langevin equation in Fourier space reads,

$$\frac{s_𝐤}{t}=(J(𝐤)z(t))s_𝐤(t)+\xi _𝐤(t)$$
(18)
with $`<\xi _𝐤(t)>=0`$ and $`<\xi _𝐤(t)\xi _𝐤^{}(t^{})>=2T\delta _{𝐤,𝐤^{}}\delta (tt^{})`$. The formal solution of (18) is:

$$s_𝐤(t)=s_𝐤(0)e^{J(𝐤)t_0^tz(t^{})𝑑t^{}}+_0^te^{J(𝐤)(tt^{})_t^{}^tz(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }}\xi _𝐤(t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(19)
From (19) and setting $`t>t^{}`$ we get

$$C_𝐤(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\mathrm{\Xi }(t^{})}}\left[C_𝐤(0,0)e^{J(𝐤)(t+t^{})}+2T_0^t^{}e^{J(𝐤)(t+t^{}2t^{\prime \prime })}\mathrm{\Xi }(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{\prime \prime }\right]$$
(20)
where $`C_𝐤(0,0)=_𝐫C(𝐫,0)e^{i𝐤𝐫}`$ is the initial autocorrelation and

$`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)e^{2_0^tz(t^{})𝑑t^{}}.`$

Again using (19) we easily obtain

$$G_𝐤(t,t^{})=e^{J(𝐤)(tt^{})}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Xi }(t^{})}{\mathrm{\Xi }(t)}}.$$
(21)
From the spherical constraint $`C(t,t)=1`$ $`t`$ we obtain a selfconsistent Volterra equation for the function $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}\left[C_𝐤(0,0)e^{2J(𝐤)t}+2T_0^te^{2J(𝐤)(tt^{})}\mathrm{\Xi }(t^{})𝑑t^{}\right].$$
(22)
In order to solve this equation for $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ we must specify the initial correlation $`C(𝐫,0)`$. For a random initial configuration with magnetization $`m_0`$ we can choose $`C(𝐫,0)=\delta _{𝐫,0}+(1\delta _{𝐫,0})m_0^2`$, so $`C_𝐤(0,0)=(1m_0^2)+m_0^2N\delta _{𝐤,0}`$. We will choose $`m_0=0`$ which is an interesting case for studying the phase ordering dynamics after a quench from the disordered to the low temperature ordered phase. With this choice $`C_𝐤(0,0)=1`$.

The simplest and most relevant case to study is a quench to zero temperature. It has been shown that scaling functions and exponents are the same in the whole low temperature phase and the role of temperature flutuations only amounts to a renormalization of the amplitudes. We will show this results emerging cleanly from the exact solution of the model at temperatures $`T<T_c`$.

For $`T=0`$ we obtain from Eq.(22) in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}e^{2J(𝐤)t}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}𝑑𝐤e^{2J(𝐤)t}.$$
(23)
Using (9) and making a change of variables $`u=k^\sigma t`$ this integral can be explicitely evaluated:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\frac{e^{2J_0t}}{t^{d/\sigma }}_0^{2\pi ^\sigma t}u^{\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}e^{J_0Cu}𝑑u$$
(24)
For $`0<\sigma <d`$ and $`t1`$ the asymptotic behavior is

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)A\frac{e^{2J_0t}}{t^{d/\sigma }}$$
(25)
with

$`A={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_d}{(2\pi )^d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{\sigma }}\right)2^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}u^{\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}e^{J_0Cu}𝑑u`$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d`$ is the volume of a d-dimensional hypersphere of unit radius. Using this result we obtain for the two time autocorrelation:

$`C_𝐤(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{J_0(1Ck^\sigma )(t+t^{})}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Xi }(t)\mathrm{\Xi }(t^{})}}}`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A}}e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (t+t^{})}(tt^{})^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}`$ (27)
In particular we note that the dynamic structure factor

$$C_𝐤(t)=\frac{1}{A}e^{J_0Ck^\sigma t}t^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}$$
(28)
shows the expected scaling form

$$C_𝐤(t)=L^d(t)f(kL(t))$$
(29)
with

$$L(t)=t^{1/\sigma },$$
(30)
thus recovering the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit of the O(n) model .

It is known that in the asymptotic coarsening regime a ferromagnet ages, that is, two time correlation and response functions depend on both times $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ explicitly through a non trivial scaling form. In coarsening systems the dependence is of the form $`L(t)/L(t^{})`$ ($`t,t^{}1`$), i.e., correlations and responses depend on both times through the ratio of the corresponding characteristic lenghts. We will analyze the aging dynamics of the present system with the inclusion of finite temperature fluctuations. In doing so we will see that two times scaling laws in the aging regime are exactly the same, asymptotically, for every temperature $`T<T_c`$. At finite temperatures the Volterra equation (22) can be solved by Laplace transforming $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}(s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Xi }(t)e^{st}𝑑t$$
(31)
Using that $`C_𝐤(0,0)=1`$ the Laplace transform $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}(s)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ results:

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}(s)=\frac{\frac{1}{N}_𝐤\frac{1}{s2J(𝐤)}}{12T\frac{1}{N}_𝐤\frac{1}{s2J(𝐤)}}$$
(32)
In order to obtain the scaling behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}(s)`$ we have to calculate first the function

$$K(s)\frac{1}{N}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{1}{s2J(𝐤)}.$$
(33)
In the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$

$$K(s)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{d𝐤}{s2J(𝐤)}$$
(34)
Introducing (9) and after some algebra one obtains in the scaling regime $`k1`$:

$$K_cK\{\begin{array}{cc}ϵ^{\frac{d\sigma }{\sigma }}\hfill & \text{if }d/2<\sigma <d\hfill \\ ϵ\mathrm{ln}ϵ\hfill & \text{if }\sigma =d/2\hfill \\ ϵ\hfill & \text{if }0<\sigma <d/2\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
where $`ϵ=s2J_0`$ and $`K_c=K(2J_0)=\beta _c/2`$ (see Eq.(8)). From now on one would proceed by different routes depending on the value of $`\sigma `$. Nevertheless it can be shown that the final results for the scaling behaviors of the correlations and responses are the same for all $`0<\sigma <2`$. Hence, we will only present here the calculations for $`d/2<\sigma <d`$.

With the help of (32),(34) and (35) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}(s)=\frac{\frac{\beta _c}{2}B(s2J_0)^{\frac{d}{\sigma }1}}{1\frac{\beta _c}{\beta }+\frac{2B}{\beta }(s2J_0)^{\frac{d}{\sigma }1}}$$
(36)
with $`B=A|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1d/\sigma )|`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ being the gamma function. Working in the low temperature limit $`\beta \beta _c`$ and for long times we can antitransform the above expression obtaining

$$\mathrm{\Xi }(t)=\frac{A}{(1\beta _c/\beta )^2}\frac{e^{2J_0t}}{t^{d/\sigma }}.$$
(37)
One can see that the only difference with the $`T=0`$ expression (25) is the factor $`(1\beta _c/\beta )^2`$.The time dependence and exponents were not affected by finite temperature. Now we can go back and calculate the two time correlation (20). It is important to note that for the evaluation of $`C_𝐤(t,t^{})`$ we need $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ for all times and not only for long ones. A detailed analysis of the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Xi }(t)`$ for short as well as long times shows that its contribution to the long time solution of $`C_𝐤(t,t^{})`$ will only be finite for times $`t>t_{mic}`$, $`t_{mic}`$ being some microscopic timescale. One then obtains

$$C_𝐤(t,t^{})e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (t+t^{})}\left[\frac{(1\beta /\beta _c)^2}{A}(tt^{})^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}+2Tt^{}\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}_{t_{mic}/t^{}}^1e^{2J_0Ck^\sigma t^{}u}u^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}𝑑u\right]$$
(38)
The behaviour of the autocorrelation depends on the integral which is a function of $`k^\sigma t^{}`$.

Now we will analyze the two different dynamical regimes $`k^\sigma t1`$ (fluctuations inside the domains) and $`k^\sigma t1`$ (coarsening regime) and show how this reflects in the fluctuation-dissipation relations.

### A $`k^\sigma t^{}1`$ : bulk fluctuations or quasi-equilibrium behaviour

In this case the two time autocorrelation (38) shows the asymptotic behavior

$$C_𝐤(t,t^{})e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (t+t^{})}\left[\frac{(1\beta _c/\beta )^2}{A}e^{J_0Ck^\sigma t^{}}(tt^{})^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}+\frac{T}{J_0Ck^\sigma }\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}e^{2J_0Ck^\sigma t^{}}\right]$$
(39)
and for long times $`tt^{}`$ we have that

$$C_𝐤(t,t^{})\frac{T}{J_0Ck^\sigma }\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (tt^{})},$$
(40)
that is, the dynamics becomes stationary with exponential decay of correlations. It is simple to obtain the two time response function (21) which gives

$$G_𝐤(t,t^{})=\left(\frac{t^{}}{t}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (tt^{})}.$$
(41)
Comparing Eqs.(40) and (41) we see that the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem:

$$TG_𝐤(t,t^{})=\frac{C_𝐤(t,t^{})}{t^{}}$$
(42)
is obeyed in this regime. That is, short wavelength fluctuations $`k1/L(t)`$ reflect the (local) equilibrium inside the domains. We now analyze the more interesting coarsening regime.

### B $`k^\sigma t^{}1`$ : coarsening, non equilibrium behaviour

The autocorrelation behaves in this regime as

$$C_𝐤(t,t^{})e^{J_0Ck^\sigma (t+t^{})}\left[\frac{(1\beta _c/\beta )^2}{A}(tt^{})^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}+\frac{2T}{\left(1\frac{d}{\sigma }\right)}t^{}\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}+𝒪(k^\sigma t^{})\right]$$
(43)
We see that the only effect of temperature on the structure factor is a renormalization of the amplitude:

$$C_𝐤(t)=\frac{(1\beta _c/\beta )^2}{A}t^{d/\sigma }e^{2J_0Ck^\sigma t}.$$
(44)
This has the same scaling as the zero temperature limit (28).

In order to analyze the two time scalings in the aging regime we integrate out all modes $`𝐤`$ in the autocorrelation:

$$C(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}𝑑𝐤C_𝐤(t,t^{})$$
(45)
This gives

$$C(t,t^{})=\frac{2^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}}{(t+t^{})^{d/\sigma }}\left[(1\beta _c/\beta )^2(tt^{})^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}+\frac{2AT}{\left(1\frac{d}{\sigma }\right)}t^{}\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}\right]$$
(46)
In the aging regime $`tt^{}`$ this simplifies to

$`C(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`2^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}(1\beta _c/\beta )^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^{}}{t}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}`$ (47)
$``$ $`f\left({\displaystyle \frac{L(t^{})}{L(t)}}\right)`$ (48)
which shows the aging scaling typical of coarsening systems with $`L(t)=t^{\frac{1}{\sigma }}`$ valid for general vector models. A similar computation for the response function gives

$$G(t,t^{})=\frac{2^{\frac{d}{\sigma }}A}{(tt^{})^{d/\sigma }}\left(\frac{t}{t^{}}\right)^{\frac{d}{2\sigma }}$$
(49)
It can be readly seen that the Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem (42) is not obeyed in this regime. Nevertheless it can be extended to this non equilibrium regime defining the so called “fluctuation-dissipation ratio”  as

$$X(t,t^{})=\frac{TG_𝐤(t,t^{})}{\frac{C_𝐤(t,t^{})}{t^{}}}$$
(50)
This function is particularly interesting in the case of complex systems such as spin glasses or structural glasses where it can be associated with physical effective temperatures. Its time dependence encodes information on the time scales structure of the system. In the case of coarsening systems the response is weak and asymptotically goes to zero, signalling the weakness of memory effects in these systems. This can be explicitely seen in this model where at long times

$$X(t,t^{})(t^{})^{1\frac{d}{\sigma }}0$$
(51)
We see in the above result that $`X(t,t^{})`$ is, asymptotically, a function only of $`t^{}`$, as is observed in models of structural glasses. This implies that, in particular for fixed $`t^{}`$, the fluctuation-dissipation ratio is a constant. The value of the exponent $`1\frac{d}{\sigma }`$ also shows that the dynamics becomes faster, and memory effects weaker, as the interactions become more long ranged. This means that ferromagnetic domain walls move faster as long range interactions become more important.

## IV Conserved order parameter

We now consider the continuous limit of the spherical model, that is, the spin variables $`s_i(t)`$ are replaced by a field $`s(𝐫,t)`$, $`𝐫`$ now being a d-dimensional continuous position vector, and where the field is subject for all times $`t`$ to the spherical constraint:

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\left[s(𝐫,t)\right]^2}=V,`$

where the integral is carried out over an hypercube of side $`L`$ with $`V=L^d`$. We will restric the analysis to zero temperature. In the case of conserved order parameter the dynamics is governed by the Cahn-Hilliard equation:

$$\frac{s(𝐫,t)}{t}=^2\frac{\delta ^{}}{\delta s(𝐫,t)}$$
(52)
where the Hamiltonian takes now the form

$$^{}=𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐫^{}J\left(|𝐫𝐫^{}|\right)s(𝐫,t)s(𝐫^{},t)+z(t)𝑑𝐫\left[s(𝐫,t)\right]^2.$$
(53)
Transforming Fourier we arrive at

$$\frac{s_𝐤}{t}=k^2\frac{\delta }{\delta s_𝐤}=k^2\left\{[J(k)z(t)]s_𝐤\right\}$$
(54)
where the asymptotic form (9) is assumed for $`J(k)`$ . The formal solution of Eq.(54) is now:

$$s_𝐤(t)=s_𝐤(0)e^{k^2J(𝐤)tk^2_0^tz(t^{})𝑑t^{}},$$
(55)
and the structure factor reads:

$$C_𝐤(t)=C_𝐤(0)e^{2k^2J(k)t2k^2g(t)}$$
(56)
with $`g(t)_0^tz(t^{})𝑑t^{}`$ and considering again $`C_𝐤(0)=1`$. Following  we will obtain the scaling form of the structure factor by making the reasonable assumption that $`C_𝐤(t)`$ will present a maximum as a function of $`k`$ at some $`k_m(t)`$ and at long times it will evolve into a Bragg peak. From the spherical constraint $`(2\pi )^d𝑑𝐤C_k(t)=1`$ it follows that $`C_{k_m}(t)`$ scales with $`k_m`$ as

$$C_{k_m}(t)k_m^d.$$
(57)
Maximizing $`C_k(t)`$ we obtain

$$k_m^\sigma =\frac{2}{2+\sigma }\frac{\left[J_0tg(t)\right]}{J_0Ct}$$
(58)
From Eqs.(56), (57) and (58) we get

$$\frac{k_m^{2+\sigma }}{\mathrm{ln}k_m}=\frac{d}{J_0C\sigma t}$$
(59)
whose asymptotic solution for long times is

$$k_m\left[\frac{d}{J_0C\sigma (2+\sigma )}\frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{t}\right]^{\frac{1}{2+\sigma }}$$
(60)
We can now reconstruct the structure factor obtaining finally:

$$C_k(t)=\left[l^d(t)\right]^{\varphi (k/k_m)}$$
(61)
in which

$$l(t)=t^{\frac{1}{2+\sigma }}$$
(62)
and the scaling function

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{(2+\sigma )}{\sigma }x^2\frac{2}{\sigma }x^{2+\sigma }$$
(63)
As in the short range case, the phenomenon of “multiscaling” is also present with long range interactions. In our case two characteristic lenght scales show up:

$$l(t)t^{1/z}withz=2+\sigma $$
(64)
and

$$k_m^1(t)\left(\frac{t}{\mathrm{ln}t}\right)^{1/z}$$
(65)
Interestingly, this second lenght scale grows more slowly than $`t`$ and will produce a particular scaling form of the two time autocorrelations called “sub-aging”. This behaviour has been studied in detail recently in  for the O(n) model with short range interactions in the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit. Here we generalize the result to systems with power law interactions.

Now it is straitforward to write the solution to (55) at long times:

$$s_𝐤(t)=s_𝐤(0)\mathrm{exp}\left\{k^{2+\sigma }J_0Ct+k^2\left[\frac{d}{2\sigma }\left(\frac{(2+\sigma )}{2}J_0Ct\right)^{2/\sigma }\mathrm{ln}t\right]^{\frac{\sigma }{2+\sigma }}\right\}$$
(66)
From this result we obtain the two time autocorrelation following the steps done in the non conserved case. The first important point to note is that, similar to what happens with short range interactions, the autocorrelation $`C(t^{}+\tau ,t^{})`$ relaxes completely in a time $`\tau t^{}`$:

$$C(2t^{},t^{})\left(t^{}\right)^{\frac{d}{2+\sigma }(f1)}0$$
(67)
where

$$f=\left(\frac{2^{\frac{2}{2+\sigma }}+1}{3}\right)^{2/\sigma }\frac{2^{\frac{2}{2+\sigma }}+1}{2}<1$$
(68)
and we have set $`J_0C=1`$. So the dynamics is considerably faster than in the non conserved case. In the regime when $`\tau t^{}`$ we obtain:

$$C(t^{}+\tau ,t^{})(t^{})^{\frac{d}{2+\sigma }\left[\left(\frac{2}{\sigma }\right)^{2/\sigma }1\right]}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{2}{\sigma }\right)^{2/\sigma }\left(\frac{d}{2+\sigma }\right)\frac{\mathrm{ln}t^{}}{(2+\sigma )\sigma ^2}\left(\frac{\tau }{t^{}}\right)^2\right\}$$
(69)
It is interesting to compare this result with the corresponding one for short range interactions . First of all, if $`\sigma 2`$, the correlation decays algebraically with $`t^{}`$, as noted above. For fixed $`t^{}`$ the relaxation goes as

$$C(t^{}+\tau ,t^{})e^{b\left(\frac{\tau }{t_r}\right)^2}$$
(70)
with $`b=\left(\frac{2}{\sigma }\right)^{2/\sigma }\left(\frac{d}{2+\sigma }\right)\frac{1}{(2+\sigma )\sigma ^2}`$ and

$$t_r=\frac{t^{}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}t^{}}}$$
(71)
This relaxation time is smaller than $`t^{}`$ and the particular aging dynamics is called “sub-aging”. The same scaling is observed in the short range case .

Finally we want to point out that, although these results are interesting per se as show complex behaviour emerging from a closed analytic solution of the model, it is important to note that the presence of multiscaling in dynamics with conserved order parameter is limited to the spherical limit of general $`n`$-vector models. Simple scaling is recovered when corrections to order $`1/n`$ are considered.

## V Conclusions

Summarizing, we presented the exact solution for the dynamics of the ferromagnetic spherical model with power law decaying interactions in arbitrary dimension, after a quench from infinite temperature into the ordered phase. In the case of non-conserved order parameter we analyzed the Langevin dynamics of the model, obtaining the exact long time scaling form for correlations and responses at finite temperature. In the case of conserved order parameter we analyzed a microscopic version of the Cahn-Hilliard dynamics of the model at zero temperature, obtaining the long time scaling form of the two time autocorrelation function. These exact results allow us to check at a microscopic level several scaling hypotesis about coarsening dynamics in pure systems, which are currently derived at a coarse grained level through phenomenologycal Landau-Ginzburg and Cahn-Hilliard equations. In particular, we recovered some know results about the scaling behavior of the $`n\mathrm{}`$ limit of the $`O(n)`$ model, by working directly on the spherical model. This allowed us to extend those results by obtainig explicit scaling forms for several correlation and response functions.

One new result worth to mention is that of the Fluctuation-Dissipation ratio Eq.(51). This behavior has been observed numerically in several non disordered systems  and it has been conjectured to be characteristic of systems which do not present replica symmetry breaking , i.e. systems with a single pure state. Up to now, the present result is one of the few exact solutions available confirming that conjecture.

A natural and interesting extension of this work is the study of the dynamics of frustrated systems without disorder, like models with competing short-range ferromagnetic and long-range antiferromagnetic (e.g., dipolar) interactions, in which simulations have shown a rich dynamical behavior . In fact, there is a whole class of different physical systems with these characteristic competing interactions, two examples being charged systems with weak coulomb interactions and a proposed model for the behaviour of structural glasses.

Acknowledgments: D.A.S. wish to thank the Abdus Salam ICTP for warm hospitality, where part of this work was completed. This work is partly supported by the following agencies: CNPq (Brazil), CONICET (Argentina), CONICOR (Córdoba, Argentina) and Secretaría de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Unversidad Nacional de Córdoba (Córdoba, Argentina).