text:
# 1 Introduction:macroscopic vs. microscopic fluctuations

## 1 Introduction:
macroscopic vs. microscopic fluctuations

Fluctuations are inseparable part of the statistical laws. This is well known since Boltzmann. What is apparently less known are the peculiar properties of rare big fluctuations (BF) as different from, and even opposite in a sense to, those of small stationary fluctuations. In this paper we consider the simplest type of chaotic dynamical systems, namely a finite–freedom Hamiltonian system which admits the (stable) statistical equilibrium (SE). This class of dynamical models is still popular (since Boltzmann!) in debates over the dynamical foundations of statistical mechanics (see, e.g., ”Round Table on Irreversibility” in , and ).

A fairly simple picture of BF in such systems is well understood by now, though not yet well known. To Boltzmann such a picture was the basis of his fluctuation hypothesis for our Universe. Again, as is well understood by now such a hypothesis is completely incompatible with the present structure of the Universe as it would immediately imply the notorious ”heat death” (see, e.g., ). For this reason, one may even term such systems the heat death models. Nevertheless, they can be and actually are widely used in the description and study of local statistical processes in thermodynamically closed systems. The latter term means the absence of any heat exchange with the environment. Notice, however, that under conditions of the exponential instability of motion, typical for chaotic systems, the only dynamically closed system would be the ”whole Universe”. Particularly, this excludes the hypothetical ”velocity reversal” also popular in debates over ”irreversibility” since Loschmidt (for discussion see, e.g., ).

In any case, dynamical models with SE do not tell us the whole story of either the Universe or even a typical macroscopic process therein. The principal solution of this problem, unknown to Boltzmann, is quite clear by now, namely, the ”equilibriumfree” models are wanted. Various classes of such models are intensively studied today. Moreover, the celebrated cosmic microwave background tells us that our Universe was born already in the state of a heat death which, however, fortunately to us all became unstable due to the well–known Jeans gravitational instability . This resulted in developing of a rich variety of collective processes, or synergetics, the term recently introduced or, better to say, put in use by Haken . The most important peculiarity of such a collective instability is in that the total overall relaxation (to somewhere ?) with ever increasing total entropy is accompanied by an also increasing phase space inhomogeneity of the system, particularly in temperature. In other words, the whole system as well as its local parts become more and more nonequilibrium to the extent of the birth of a secondary dynamics which may be, and is sometime, as perfect as, for example, the celestial mechanics (for general discussion see, e.g., ).

We stress that all these inhomogeneous nonequilibrium structures are not BF like in SE but are a result of regular collective instability, so that they are immediately formed under a certain condition. Besides, they are typically dissipative structures in Prigogine’s term  due to exchange of energy and entropy with the infinite environment. The latter is the most important feature of such processes, and at the same time the main difficulty in studying the dynamics of those models both theoretically and in numerical experiments which are so much simpler for SE systems.

In the latter case a BF consists of the two symmetric parts: the rise of a fluctuation followed by its return, or relaxation, back to SE (see Figs.1 and 2 below). Both parts are described by the same kinetic (e.g., diffusion) equation, the only difference being in the sign of time. This relates the time–symmetric dynamical equations to the time–antisymmetric kinetic (but not statistical!) equations. The principal difference between the both, some times overlooked, is in that the kinetic equations are widely understood as describing the relaxation only, i.e. increase of the entropy in a closed system, whereas in fact they do so (at least in SE) for the rise of BF as well, i.e. for the entropy decrease. All this was qualitatively known already to Boltzmann . The first simple example of symmetric BF was considered by Schrödinger . Rigorous mathematical theorem for the diffusive (slow) kinetics was proved by Kolmogorov in 1937 in the paper entitled ”Zur Umkehrbarkeit der statistischen Naturgesetze” (”Concerning reversibility of statistical laws in nature”)  (see also ). Regrettably, the principal Kolmogorov theorem still remains unknown to both the participants of hot debates over ”irreversibility” as well as the physicists actually studying such BF (see, e.g., ).

By now, there exists the well developed ergodic theory of dynamical systems (see, e.g., ). Particularly, it proves that the relaxation (correlation decay, or mixing) proceeds eventually in both directions of time for almost any initial conditions of a chaotic dynamical system. However, the relaxation does not need to be always monotonic which simply means a BF on the way, depending on the initial conditions. To get rid of such an apparently confusing (to many) ”freedom” we take a different approach to the problem: instead discussing the ”true” initial conditions and/or a ”necessary” restriction of those we start our numerical experiments at arbitrary initial conditions (most likely corresponding to SE), and do observe what the dynamics and statistics of BF are like. Of course, such an approach is based on a fundamental hypothesis that all the statistical laws are contained in, and can be principally derived from, the underlying fundamental (Hamiltonian) dynamics. To the best of our knowledge, there is as yet no contradiction to this principal hypothesis. Notice, however, that such an approach can be directly applied to the fluctuations in finite systems with statistical equilibrium only (for discussion see  and ). In such, and only such, systems infinitely many BF grow up spontaneously independent of the initial conditions of the motion. This is similar to the well–known Poincaré recurrences (for farther discussion see Section 4 below).

In spite of the essential restrictions the simple SE models allow us to better understand the mechanism and role of BF in the statistical physics. Besides removal of a vague problem of the initial conditions such models help a lot in clarifying the relation between macroscopic and microscopic description of chaotic systems. Particularly, spontaneous rise of a BF out of SE is a macroscopic event as well as its subsequent relaxation back to SE, even in a few–freedom system. Like other macroscopic processes the BF are not only perfectly regular by themselves but also surprisingly stable against any perturbations, both regular and chaotic. Moreover, the perturbations do not need to be small. At first glance, it looks very strange in a chaotic, highly unstable, dynamics. The resolution of this apparent paradox is in that the dynamical instability of motion does affect the BF instant of time only. As to the BF evolution, it is determined by the kinetics whatever its mechanism, from purely dynamical one, like in model (2.2) we will use in this paper, to a completely noisy (stochastic) one. As a matter of fact, the fundamental Kolmogorov theorem  is related just to the latter case but remains valid in a much more general situation. Surprising stability of BF is similar to the less known conception of robustness for the Anosov (strongly chaotic) systems  whose trajectories get only slightly deformed under a small perturbation (for discussion see ).

In the present paper we consider a particular type of BF which is characterized by a large concentration of ”particles” in a small phase space domain of a dynamical system. In other words, ”our” fluctuations are localized in phase space and separated in time. A more accurate definition of these fluctuations will be given below in Section 3 (see Eq.(3.6)). The same fluctuations in a stochastic model (with noise) were studied in detail in . There exist, of course, many other fluctuations with their own peculiarities (see, e.g., ). The primary goal of our studies was the macroscopic kinetics of big fluctuations on the background of small stationary microscopic fluctuations. A brief outline of our results was presented in .

## 2 A Hamiltonian model:
most simple but strongly chaotic

The systems with SE allow for very simple models in both the theoretical analysis as well as numerical experiments which the latter are even more important for us. In the present paper we will use one of the most simple and popular model specified by the so–called Arnold cat map (see ):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{p}=p+x\hfill & mod1\hfill \\ \overline{x}=x+\overline{p}\hfill & mod1\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
which is a linear canonical map on a unit torus. It has no parameters, and is chaotic and even ergodic. The rate of the local exponential instability, the Lyapunov exponent $`\lambda =\mathrm{ln}(3/2+\sqrt{5}/2)=0.96`$, implies a fast (ballistic) kinetics with relaxation time $`t_r1/\lambda 1`$. Throughout the paper $`t`$ denotes the time in map’s iterations.

A minor modification of this map:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{p}=p+x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/2\hfill & modC\hfill \\ \overline{x}=x+\overline{p}C/2\hfill & mod1\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`C`$ is a circumference of the phase space torus allows us to study both a fast (exponential) ballistic kinetics ( for $`C=1`$) as well as the slow (diffusive) relaxation in $`p`$ (for $`C1`$) with characteristic time $`t_pC^2/4D_p1`$ where $`D_p=1/12`$ is the diffusion rate in $`p`$. In contrast to slow diffusion in $`p`$, the relaxation time in $`x`$ does not depend on $`C`$ ($`t_r1`$) so that subsequent values of $`x`$ are practically uncorrelated. The map (2.2) has the (unstable) fixed point at $`x=x_0=1/2,p=p_0=C/2`$.

A convenient characteristic of BF size is rms volume (area) in 2D phase space ($`x,p`$)

$$\sigma (t)=\sigma _p(t)\sigma _x(t)$$
$`(2.3)`$
occupied by a group of $`N`$ trajectories (particles). In ergodic motion at equilibrium $`\sigma =\sigma _0=C/12`$. Due to a severe restriction to small $`N\stackrel{<}{}\text{ }10`$ in the numerical experiments (see below) we have to use simple (average) characteristics only like (2.3). On the other hand, these are just the macroscopic variables we are interested in.

Below we also restrict ourselves to a particular case of BF with the fixed prescribed position in the phase space:

$$x_{fl}=x_0=\frac{1}{2},p_{fl}=p_0=\frac{C}{2}$$
$`(2.4)`$
Then, the variance of phase space size $`v=\sigma ^2=\sigma _p^2\sigma _x^2`$ is determined by the relation

$$\sigma _p^2=p^2p_0^2,\sigma _x^2=x^2x_0^2$$
$`(2.5)`$
where brackets $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the averaging over $`N`$ trajectories. In ergodic motion at equilibrium $`v=v_{SE}=C^2/12^2`$. In what follows we will use the dimensionless measure $`\stackrel{~}{v}=v/v_{SE}v`$, and omit tilde. In diffusive approximation of the kinetic equation the variable $`v(t)`$ is especially convenient as it is varying in proportion to time. Moreover, $`vv_p`$ in this case because of a quick relaxation $`v_x1`$ in $`x`$.

In all advantages of variable $`v`$ its relation to the fundamental conception of entropy is highly desirable. The standard definition of the entropy, which can be traced back to Boltzmann, reads:

$$S=\mathrm{ln}f(x,p)+S_0$$
$`(2.6)`$
where $`f(x,p)`$ is a coarse–grained distribution function, or the phase–space density, and $`S_0`$ an arbitrary constant to be fixed later. Notice that the distribution calculated from any finite number of trajectories is always a coarse–grained one. However, the direct application of Eq.(2.6) requires too many trajectories, especially for BF of a small size. Nevertheless, just in the latter case, which is the main problem under consideration, we have found a simple approximate relation

$$S(t)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}v(t)$$
$`(2.7)`$
which, at least, gives a rough estimate for the entropy evolution . Moreover, if the distribution is Gaussian

$$f(x,p)f(p)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}((pp_0)^2/2v)}{\sqrt{2\pi v}}$$
$`(2.8)`$
the estimate (2.7) becomes exact as it is directly followed from the definition of the entropy (2.6). Comparison of both relations for the entropy will be considered by the end of next Section for a typical BF.

A great advantage of (2.7) is in that the computation of $`S`$ does not require very many trajectories as does the distribution function. In fact, even a single trajectory is sufficient as Fig.1 in  and below demonstrate !

A finite number of trajectories used for calculating the variance $`v`$ is a sort of the coarse–grained distribution, as required in relation (2.6), but with a free bin size which can be arbitrarily small.

Now we may turn to the numerical experiments.

## 3 Macroscopic kinetics:
complete, regular, and stable

In this Section we consider the regular BF kinetics. The data were obtained from simultaneous running of $`N`$ trajectories for very long time in order to collect sufficiently many BF for reliable separation of the regular part of BF, or the kinetic subdynamics in Balescu’s term (see  and references therein), from the stationary fluctuations. The separation was done by the plain averaging of individual $`v_i`$ values ($`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$) over all $`n`$ BF collected in a run.

The size of BF chosen for further analysis was fixed by the condition that current

$$v(t)<v_b$$
$`(3.1)`$
at some time instant $`tt_i`$, the moment of BF. Here a prescribed $`v_b`$ is the main input parameter of the run. This condition determines, in fact, the border of the whole fluctuation domain (FD): $`0<v<v_b`$.

The event of entering FD is the macroscopic ”cause” of BF whose obvious ”effect” will be subsequent relaxation to the equilibrium. However, and this is the main point of our study, the second ”effect” of the same ”cause” was preceding rise of BF in apparent contradiction with the ”causality principle” (for discussion see  and Section 4 below). In any event, the second effect requires the permanent memory of trajectory segments within some time window $`w`$ which is another important input parameter of the run.

The exact procedure of data processing during the run was as follows. Starting from arbitrary (random) initial conditions the selection rule (3.1) is checked at each iteration. Suppose, it is satisfied at some instance $`t_{in}`$ when the bundle of trajectories enters FD. In the first approximation we could consider it as the fluctuation maximum (or variance minimum): $`t_i=t_{in}`$ where sub $`i`$ is the number of current fluctuation in a run. However, such a simple procedure would cause asymmetry with respect to $`t=t_i`$. A better choice were the rule: $`t_i=(t_{in}+t_{out})/2`$ where $`t_{out}`$ is the exit moment of time from FD. Instead, we have accepted the following, a more complicated procedure which, as we hope, better restores the true BF symmetry. Starting from the moment $`t_{in}`$ we search for the minimum of $`v(t)`$ inside a rather large interval $`t_{in}<t<t_{in}+w`$. If a minimum is found at some $`t=t_{min}`$, we check that it is the minimum inside the next interval $`t_{min}<t<t_{min}+w`$ too. If so, we identify this minimum with the BF top, and set: $`t_i=t_{min}`$, otherwise we put $`t_{min}`$ to the time of better minimum and repeat the last step again. Obviuosly, the parameter $`w`$ should be small compared to $`P`$, the mean period of BF, but sufficiently long for the trajectory to leave the FD (3.1). Typically, $`w\stackrel{>}{}C^2`$, the total diffusion time, was chosen. After fixing the current $`t_i`$ value the computation within the interval $`t_i<t<t_i+w`$ had been completed, and only then the search for the next BF was continued.

As was already mentioned above, there are two rather simple limiting cases of generally very complicated kinetics, namely the fast (ballistic) and slow (diffusive) ones. An example of both in one run for $`N=1`$ (!) is presented in Fig.1 for two fluctuations of different size. In this case the general condition (3.1) was checked separately for $`p`$ and $`x`$:

$$v_p(t)<v_{pb}andv_x(t)<v_{xb}$$
$`(3.2)`$
with $`v_{pb}=v_{xb}10^5`$ and $`v_b=v_{pb}v_{xb}10^{10}`$.

The fast part of kinetics is approximately described as

$$v(\tau )v(0)\mathrm{exp}(4\lambda \tau )$$
$`(3.3)`$
where $`\tau =tt_i,\lambda `$ the Lyapunov exponent (Section 2), and where $`v(0)10^{13}`$ is the minimal variance averaged over all $`n`$ fluctuations observed in the run. Notice that the latter value is considerably smaller than the border $`v_b10^{10}`$. This is because of penetration of trajectories into FD. Interestingly, the ratio $`v_b/v(0)=2000`$ is the same for both runs in Fig.1

Surprisingly sharp crossover to diffusive kinetics, clearly seen in Fig.1, is related to the dynamical scale of diffusion which corresponds to a certain size $`v_d`$ of the increasing variance at which the exponential growth stops. Roughly, it occurs at time $`\tau =\tau _d`$ when already $`|xx_0||pp_0|1/2`$, whence $`v_{xd}12/4=3`$ and $`v_{pd}3/C^2`$. Hence, we can characterize the dynamical scale as

$$v(\tau _d)=v_d=F_dv_{pd}v_{xd}=\frac{9F_d}{C^2},\tau _d=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(v_d/v(0))}{4\lambda }$$
$`(3.4)`$
where $`F_d`$ is an empirical factor, and $`\tau _d`$ is found from Eq.(3.3). From data in Fig.1 the dynamical scale $`v_d0.015`$ independent of $`v_b`$ which gives the empirical factor $`F_d1/3`$.

In the diffusion region ($`v>v_d`$) the initial kinetics is described by a simple relation for the free diffusion (see Section 2):

$$v(\tau )\frac{\tau \pm \tau _d}{C^2}+v_d,\tau _d<\tau C^2$$
$`(3.5)`$
which is also shown in Fig.1. It includes two corrections, $`\tau _d`$ and $`v_d`$, due to the exponential ballistic kinetics. The first one with opposite signs for two symmetric parts of the fluctuation takes account for the ”lost” time after (or prior to) anti–diffusion (diffusion) while the second correction describes a finite fluctuation size at the crossover from (to) the diffusion. The mean empirical $`\tau _d=7`$, used in Fig.1, is close to the value $`\tau _d=6.5`$ found from Eq.(3.4) with another empirical quantity $`v_d=0.015`$.

The large ratio

$$B=\frac{P}{C^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}$$
$`(3.6)`$
of the mean fluctuation period $`P`$ to a characteristic time of diffusion relaxation (see Eq.(3.5)) is the definition of big fluctuation. It guaranties the separation of successive fluctuations in time.

Now we turn to the main subject of our studies, the purely diffusive kinetics of big fluctuations. To this end we, first, get rid of $`x`$–statistics excluding $`v_x`$ from the selection condition (3.1) which now reads:

$$v(t)=v_p<v_{pb}=v_b$$
$`(3.7)`$
Besides, the variance $`v_b`$ must now exceed the new dynamical border:

$$v_b>v_d=v_{pd}f_p\frac{12}{C^2}$$
$`(3.8)`$
with some empirical factor $`f_p1`$ (see Eq.(3.4), and discussion below).

A typical example of diffusive BF is shown in Fig.2. Both the regular macroscopic kinetics of anti–diffusion/diffusion as well as irregular fluctuations around are clearly seen. Notice that their size is rapidly decreasing toward the BF maximum. One may even get the impression that the motion becomes regular over there, hence the term ”optimal fluctuational path” . In fact, the motion remains diffusive down to the dynamical scale $`vv_d`$ (3.8).

Even though a separate BF by itself is fairly regular, the time instance of its spontaneous appearance $`t_i`$, and hence the individual period $`P`$, are random in the chaotic system. Due to statistical independence of BF under condition (3.6) the expected distribution in $`P`$ is Poissonian (Fig.3):

$$f(P)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(P/P)}{P}$$
$`(3.9)`$
The principal characteristic of the period statistics, $`P`$, can be estimated as follows. From the ergodicity of motion in the $`N`$–dimensional momentum space the ratio

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{T_s}{t_f}=\frac{T_s}{P}=\frac{𝒫_{fl}}{𝒫_{eq}}$$
$`(3.10)`$
This is exact relation (in the limit $`t_{run}\mathrm{}`$) where $`T_s`$ is the total sojourn time of trajectories within FD (under condition $`v(t)<v_b`$) during the whole run time $`t_{run}`$, and $`T_s`$ is the same per fluctuation. Both ratios are equal to the ratio of $`N`$–dimensional momentum volume $`𝒫`$ of the fluctuation at $`\tau =0`$ to that in equilibrium. The ratio $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ was also measured during the run. Hence

$$P=\frac{T_s}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
$`(3.11)`$
The next more difficult step is evaluation of $`T_s=2T_{ex}`$ from the diffusion equation where $`T_{ex}`$ is the exit (or entrance due to symmetry) time from (or to) FD. A simple crude estimate is: $`T_{ex}v_b/D_p=v_bC^2`$ (Section 2). However, the first numerical experiments have already revealed that the actual exit time is much shorter, roughly by a factor of $`1/N^2`$. A plausible explanation is in that the most of distribution inside FD is concentrated in a relatively narrow layer at the surface of $`N`$–dimensional sphere determined by the selection condition $`v(t)<v_b`$ (3.7). Then, the relative width of the layer $`1/N`$ implies the observed factor $`1/N^2`$. Father, the ratio

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v_b,N)=v_b^{N/2}\varphi (N)$$
$`(3.12)`$
where the geometrical function

$$\varphi (N)\left(\frac{\pi e}{6}\right)^{N/2}\frac{(11/6N)}{\sqrt{\pi N}}$$
$`(3.13)`$
admits a fairly accurate approximation down to $`N=1`$ (see Fig.4).

Collecting all the formulae above, we arrive at our final empirical relation

$$P\frac{F}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{2v_bAC^2}{N^2}F\frac{2AC^2}{N^2}\frac{v_b^{1N/2}}{\varphi (N)}$$
$`(3.14)`$
with two fitting factors, $`A`$ for the layer width, and $`F`$ for all other approximations above. Both factors cannot be united in one because the former enters a new expression for the dynamical scale which naturally generalizes Eq.(3.8). Together with inequality (3.6) for big fluctuation the new dynamical scale was using for selection of purely diffusive BF which are described by Eq.(3.14). The corresponding inequality reads (cf. Eq.(3.8)):

$$v_b>v_d,v_d\frac{A}{N^2}f_p\frac{12}{C^2}$$
$`(3.15)`$
which means that even a small part ($`A/N^2<1`$) of FD must exceed the dynamical scale.

Optimization of all empirical parameters was done as follows. The values of two factors, $`B`$ in Eq.(3.6) and $`f_p`$ in (3.15), are not crucial that is the larger they are the better for selection of purely diffusive BF. However, this reduces the amount of empirical data available. A compromise was found at $`B=7`$ and $`f_p=1`$ which leaves 36 runs of 61 done, and 34429 of overall 75053 BF computed with $`N=210`$ for comparison to Eq.(3.14). This was executed in the following way. For each selected run with parameters $`N,C,v_b`$, and computed $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the empirical factor $`F`$ supposed to be a constant was calculated from the first Eq.(3.14). The value of parameter $`A`$ was chosen by minimizing the relative standard deviation down to $`\mathrm{\Delta }F/F=0.17`$. The result, for a given set of data, was $`A6`$. The final dependence $`F(N)`$ is shown in Fig.5 where the bars are the statistical errors $`F/\sqrt{n}`$ for each run.

Coming to analysis of our main theoretical result, the second Eq.(3.14), we first remark that it does not describe at all a single trajectory ($`N=1`$). This is because we excluded $`v_{xb}`$ from the selection condition (3.7) (cf. Eq.(3.2)), and thus reduced the dimension of phase space to the minimal value, the unity. In this case, a single trajectory repeatedly crosses FD with a period $`PC^2`$, the whole diffusion time around the phase space torus, independent of FD size. More formally, it follows also from Eq.(3.14) since condition (3.6) cannot be satisfied for small $`v_b`$.

In case of two trajectories ($`N=2`$) the period does not depend on $`v_b`$, and for data in Fig.5 the ratio $`P/C^28.7`$. Due to fluctuations the actual values of this ratio are in the interval $`7.411.0`$, still not too big for a Big Fluctuation. Apparently, this leads to a relatively large scattering of points with $`N=2`$ which also persists for $`N=3`$ too.

The main, exponential in $`N`$, dependence in Eq.(3.14) is readily derived from a graphic picture of $`N`$ statistically independent particles gathering together inside a small domain with probability $`1/Pv_b^{N/2}`$. Such estimates are known for the Poincaré recurrences since Boltzmann . The estimate is especially vivid in geometrical picture of $`N`$–dimensional sphere of radius $`\sqrt{v_b}`$ considered above. Our empirical relation (3.14) considerably improves the simple estimate including a more weak power–law dependence which is evident in Fig.5.

In our studies described above we fixed the position of BF in the phase space, Eq.(2.4). If we lift this restriction, the probability of BF would increase by a factor of $`v_b^{1/2}`$, or by decrease of $`N`$ by one ($`NN1`$) because now only $`N1`$ trajectories remain independent. With the latter change all the above relations would presumably still hold true.

Our main relation (3.14) describes the diffusive kinetics for $`v_b>v_d`$, Eq.(3.15), when a big fluctuation is not too big. In the opposite case $`v_bv_d`$ of a very big fluctuation, like in Fig.1, the dependence $`P(v_b)`$ becomes much simpler
(see Eqs.(3.11) - (3.13), and ):

$$P(v_b)=\frac{T_s}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{2}{v_b^{N/2}\varphi (N)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}v_b^{N/2}$$
$`(3.16)`$
This is explained by a fast exponential kinetics near BF top (Fig.1) which implies the most short exit time $`T_{ex}1`$ and, hence, $`T_s2`$. Indeed, for both BF in Fig.1 the empirical value of the product $`P\mathrm{\Phi }=1.98`$.

In conclusion of this Section we show in Fig.6 the macroscopic kinetics of BF entropy, both ”exact” (2.6), calculated on the partition of the whole interval
($`0<p<C`$) into $`N_p=401`$ bins, and that in our approximation (2.7). Both entropies were calculated for the same 5 trajectories in one run. A necessary statistics for exact entropy was obtained at the expense of a large number $`n=4580`$ of fluctuations in the run. For comparison of both entropies we need, first, to adjust the constant $`S_0`$ in Eq.(2.6). As is easily verified, the Gaussian distribution (2.8) leads exactly to the relation (2.7) if the constant

$$S_0=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\pi e)1.4189\sqrt{2}$$
$`(3.17)`$
Approximation (2.7) holds on the most part of BF except a relatively small domain near the equilibrium where the distribution in $`p`$ approaches the homogeneous one. The exact entropy (with constant (3.17)) in equilibrium is

$$S_{SE}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi e}{6}\right)0.18$$
$`(3.18)`$
instead of zero in approximation (2.7). The difference is relatively small, the smaller the bigger is the fluctuation. In the main part of BF our simple relation of the entropy (2.7) reproduces the exact one (2.6) to a surprisingly good accuracy which confirms that the distribution in $`p`$ is indeed very close to the Gaussian one (2.8) as expected.

## 4 Conclusion: thermodynamic arrow ?

In the present paper the results of extensive numerical experiments on big entropy fluctuations (BF) in a statistical equilibrium (SE) of classical dynamical systems are presented, and their peculiarities are analysed and discussed.

All numerical experiments have been carried out on the basis of a very simple model - the Arnold cat map (2.1) on a unit torus - with only two minor, but important and helpful, modifications:

(1) Expansion of the torus in $`p`$ direction (2.2) which allows for more impressive diffusive kinetics of BF out of the equilibrium (Fig.2), and

(2) Inserting a special (unstable) fixed point for a better demonstration of exponential ballistic kinetics as well (Fig.1). Besides, this point was used as a fixed position of BF, thus relating our studies of BF to another interesting and important problem, the Poincaré recurrences (see Eq.(2.2)).

The most important distinction of our approach to the problem was in that we have abandoned from the beginning a vague question of the initial conditions, particularly a ”necessary” restriction of those in statistical physics. Instead, we started our numerical experiments at arbitrary initial conditions (most likely corresponding to SE), and did observe what the dynamics and statistics of BF were like. In other words, we studied the spontaneous BF only.

What is also important, such a spontaneous rise of BF out of SE as well as its subsequent relaxation back to SE can be considered as a statistical macroscopic event, even in a few–freedom system like (2.2). The term ”macroscopic” refers here to average quantities as variance, entropy, mean period, distribution function, and the like.

We consider a particular class of BF which we call the Boltzmann fluctuations. They are obviously symmetric with respect to time reversal (see Figs. 1, 2 and 6), so that at least in this case there is no physical reason at all for the conception of the notorious ’time arrow’. Nevertheless, a related conception, say, thermodynamic arrow, pointing in the direction of the average increase of entropy, makes sense in spite of the time symmetry . The point is that the BF characteristic relaxation time is determined by model’s parameter $`C`$ only, and does not depend on the BF itself. On the contrary, the expectation time for a given BF, or the mean period between successive fluctuations, rapidly grows with BF size and with the number of trajectories (or freedoms), Eq.(3.14). A large ratio of both $`B=P/C^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ is our definition of big fluctuation, Eq.(3.6). A similar result was obtained recently in  but the authors missed the principal difference between the time arrow and thermodynamic arrow.

A related notion of causality arrow, which by definition points from an independent macroscopic cause to its effect, also makes some physical sense (for discussion see  and Section 3 above). For Boltzmann’s BF considered in the present paper the directions of both arrows do coincide independent of the direction of time. The latter statement is the most important, in our opinion, philosophical ”moral” the principally well–known Boltzmann fluctuations do teach us.

Even though we prefer the discussion and interpretation of our empirical results in terms of entropy ($`S`$), the most fundamental conception in statistical physics, we actually use in our studies another, entropy–like, quantity, the variance $`v(t)`$ for a group of $`N`$ trajectories, Eq.(2.5). One reason is technical: the computation of $`v`$ is much simpler while that for $`S(t)`$ is either very time–consuming in numerical experiments (for exact $`S`$ (2.6)) or approximate (2.7). Besides, for diffusive kinetics, we are mainly interested in, the variance is natural variable in which the BF picture is most simple and comprehensible.

Originally, we planned to cover both sides of the BF phenomenon, the regular macroscopic kinetics as well as accompanying microscopic fluctuations (noise) around. However, our numerical experiments revealed a much more complicated structure of the latter as an example in Fig.2 demonstrates. The dependence $`v(t)`$ looks like a fractal curve on a variety of time scales, from the minimal one $`1`$ iteration up to $`C^2`$ comparable to that of BF itself. This interesting problem certainly requires and deserves farther special studies.

In the present paper the fluctuations in classical mechanics are considered only. Generally, the quantum fluctuations would be rather different. However, according to the Correspondence Principle, the dynamics and statistics of a quantum system in quasiclassics are close to the classical ones on the appropriate time scales of which the longest one corresponds just to the diffusive kinetics, and provides the necessary transition to the classical limit (for details see ). Curiously, the computer classical dynamics that is the simulation of a classical dynamical system on digital computer is of a qualitatively similar character. This is because any quantity in computer representation is discrete (”overquantized”). As a result the correspondence between the classical continuous dynamics and its computer representation in numerical experiments is generally restricted to certain finite time scales like in the quantum mechanics (see two first references ).

Discreteness of the computer phase space leads to another peculiar phenomenon: generally, the computer dynamics is irreversible due to the rounding–off operation unless the special algorithm is used in numerical experiments. Nevertheless, this does not affect the statistical properties of chaotic computer dynamics. Particularly, the statistical laws in computer representation remain time–reversible in spite of (nondissipative) irreversibility of the underlying dynamics. This simple example demonstrates that, contrary to a common belief, the statistical reversibility is a more general property than the dynamical one.

Figure captions

* Mixed kinetics for two big fluctuations of different size. Full/open circles show the time dependence of mean variance $`v(tt_i)`$ around BF maximum at $`t=t_i`$; upper horizontal straight line is equilibrium while the lower line indicates the empirical value of dynamical scale $`v_d=0.015`$, Eq.(3.4) with parameter $`F_d1/3`$. Two oblique straight lines represent the expected fast kinetics, Eq.(3.3), and two solid curves do so for the initial diffusive kinetics, Eq.(3.5). Run parameters and results are respectively: $`C=15,N=1,v_b=3.9\times 10^{11}/6.25\times 10^{10}(v_{xb}=v_{pb}),v(0)=1.96\times 10^{14}/3.1\times 10^{13},n=1971/4459,w=500`$. Average period between successive fluctuations $`P1.4\times 10^7/3.5\times 10^6`$ iterations.
* Same as in Fig.1 for a typical diffusive kinetics (anti–diffusion/diffusion): solid curve shows the average over all $`n=20259`$ fluctuations in a run, and wiggle line is the same for $`28`$ first fluctuations. Two oblique straight lines represent the expected initial diffusive kinetics, Eq.(3.5) with $`\tau _d=0`$ and empirical $`v_d^{(emp)}=0.045`$ while the theory (3.15) gives $`v_d=0.02`$. Other run parameters/results: $`C=50,N=5,v_b=0.0256,w=10^4,P7.7\times 10^5/8.7\times 10^5`$, and $`B=306/348;P/w77/87`$.
* Histogram of integrated distribution (3.9) for data in Fig.2. Each circle shows the number of periods $`P_m>m\mathrm{\Delta }P,m=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ integer; $`P_0=n,\mathrm{\Delta }P=1.5\times 10^5;P_{min}/w=1.0027;P_{max}/P=12.63;P=765084`$. Straight line is expected distribution $`n\mathrm{exp}(P/P)`$.
* Comparison of directly measured ratio $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{emp}`$, Eq.(3.10), with theoretical approximation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{th}`$, Eq.(3.12) for $`N=110`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }_{emp}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{th}`$; average over 71 runs $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=1.015\pm 0.11`$ (the standard deviation); the bars show statistical errors $`1/\sqrt{n}`$ for each run; the total number of fluctuations in all runs is 127346.
* Comparison of empirical data for 36 runs, selected from 61 runs computed for $`N=210`$ by the two rules, Eq.(3.6) with $`B>7`$ and Eq.(3.15) with $`A=6`$, to theoretical relation (3.14) with the main fitting factor $`F_m,m=1,\mathrm{},36`$ (see text). Average $`F=1.51(1\pm 0.17)`$ (the standard deviation); the bars show statistical errors $`F_m/\sqrt{n}`$ for each run; the total number of fluctuations in 36 runs is 34429.
* Macroscopic kinetics of BF entropy: lower line is ”exact” entropy, Eq.(2.6), to be compared with approximation (2.7), middle line; the upper line is the same approximation for diffusion theory, Eq.(3.5) with $`\tau _d=0`$ and empirical $`v_d^{(emp)}=0.02`$. Run parameters/results: $`C=50,N=5,v_b=0.01,w=10^4,n=4580,P3.3\times 10^6,B=1314;P/w329`$. The number of partition bins for calculating (2.6) $`N_p=401`$.


format: text

text:
# 𝐾→𝜋𝜋 Decays with Domain Wall Fermions: Towards Physical Results

## 1 INTRODUCTION

Lattice QCD allows a first principles determination of hadronic properties, including the matrix elements of operators between hadronic states. Among the more interesting matrix elements are those of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$, four-fermion operators which are responsible for the decay of a kaon into two pions. These matrix elements are needed to relate the values of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix in the standard model to physical measurements. Direct measurements of $`K\pi \pi `$ on the lattice are not possible , due to the two pions in the final state, although a recent suggestion involving tuning the lattice volume  looks promising. Alternatively, lowest order chiral perturbation theory can be used to relate $`K\pi \pi `$ to $`K\pi `$ and $`K0`$ matrix elements , which can be measured on the lattice. This approach has been extensively studied and, while quite straight-forward in principle, requires careful control over a wide range of phenomena.

Of central importance to a calculation relying on chiral perturbation theory is precise control over chiral symmetry on the lattice. A major advance in this long-standing problem is the idea of four-dimensional chiral fermions arising from mass defects in a higher-dimensional fermion formulation . With improved chiral symmetry at finite lattice spacing, the lattice Ward-Takahashi identities, without complicated renormalization, are much closer to the continuum ones. Here we seek to understand how the residual chiral symmetry breaking effects for domain wall fermions enter the removal of unphysical, power divergent contributions, which is needed to get $`K\pi \pi `$ from $`K\pi `$ and $`K0`$ matrix elements.

## 2 DOMAIN WALL FERMIONS

The RIKEN-BNL Research Center/BNL/ Columbia (RBC) Collaboration has recently finished extensive quenched simulations of the hadron spectrum and low-energy QCD physics, using domain wall fermions , with a particular focus on the residual chiral symmetry breaking effects due to finite values for the fifth dimension, $`L_s`$ . (Similar work was also reported in .) This work produced quantitative values for the residual quark mass $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$, which enters low energy QCD physics through the effective quark mass, $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}}`$, where $`m_f`$ is the input bare quark mass. The residual quark mass was shown to be small, $`1/30`$ the strange quark mass for $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`L_s=16`$.

It was also found that topological near-zero modes of the domain wall fermion operator, which are not suppressed by a fermionic determinant in quenched simulations, have pronounced effects on quark propagators for small $`m_f`$. In addition, for large volumes where topological near-zero mode effects are suppressed, a non-linear dependence of $`m_\pi ^2`$ on $`m_f`$ was found, consistent with a quenched chiral logarithm. Thus, even though the chiral properties of domain wall fermions are quite improved over other formulations, these quenched pathologies can appear in simulation results.

We have also finished measuring $`K\pi `$ and $`K0`$ matrix elements for the 10 $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ effective four-fermion operators  relevant to determinations of $`ϵ^{}/ϵ`$ and the real parts of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ and 3/2 amplitudes for $`K\pi \pi `$ decays. We have results for 200 quenched lattices of size $`16\times 32`$ with $`L_s=16`$ and $`\beta =6.0`$ and a variety of light and heavy quark masses. (For more details about the simulations see .) The analysis of these results requires control over the residual chiral symmetry breaking effects and an understanding of the role of quenched pathologies in our data. This report is a summary of our progress to date.

A final step in determining physical matrix elements is the matching of continuum and lattice operators. This has been done using non-perturbative renormalization  and details can be found in .

## 3 WARD IDENTITY CHECK

Furman and Shamir  defined axial transformations for domain wall fermions, which lead to the Ward-Takahashi identity

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu 𝒜_\mu ^a(x)O(y)`$ $`=`$ $`2m_fJ_5^a(x)O(y)`$
$`+`$ $`2J_{5q}^a(x)O(y)+i\delta ^aO(y).`$
Here $`𝒜_\mu ^a(x)`$ at the four-dimensional point $`x`$ includes spinors from all values of the the fifth coordinate. The pseudoscalar density $`J_5^a(x)`$ is constructed from four-dimensional fields in the standard way and $`J_{5q}^a(x)`$ is constructed from “mid-point” spinors at $`s=L_s/21`$ and $`L_s/2`$. (The notation is as in .)

For physics that involves momentum scales much less than the cutoff, the extra term in Eq. 3 involving $`J_{5q}^a`$ (the “mid-point” term), gives a contribution of the form $`J_{5q}^a=m_{\mathrm{res}}J_5^a`$. This defines $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ to $`O(a^2)`$, since the low-energy QCD physics of domain wall fermions should by describable by an effective Lagrangian. However, in matrix elements involving divergent quantities one only expects that $`J_{5q}^aO(m_{\mathrm{res}})J_5^a`$. Since divergent expressions enter in $`K\pi `$ amplitudes and we must manipulate the Ward-Takahashi identities to remove them, these effects need to be understood.

To test our understanding of $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ effects and our data, we first consider $`O(y)=J_5^a(y)`$ in Eq. 3. Summing over $`x`$ gives (no sum on $`a`$)

$$\underset{x}{}[m_fJ_5^a(x)+J_{5q}^a(x)]J_5^a(y)\overline{q}q=0$$
(2)
The term in the sum without $`J_{5q}^b`$ gives $`m_f/m_\pi ^2`$ pion pole terms plus $`O(m_f/a^2)`$ contact terms along with constant terms and terms of higher order in $`m_f`$. Similarly the mid-point term gives $`m_{\mathrm{res}}/m_\pi ^2`$ pion pole terms, plus $`O(m_{\mathrm{res}}/a^2)`$ contact terms as well as constant contributions. The pion pole terms enter as $`(m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}})/m_\pi ^2`$ in Eq. 2 while the contact contributions enter as $`O(m_f)+O(m_{\mathrm{res}})`$. This form for the pion pole term is consistent with $`m_\pi =0`$ at $`m_f=m_{\mathrm{res}}`$.

Thus we are lead to expect a Gell-Mann–Oakes–Renner relation for domain wall fermions with the form

$$\frac{m_\pi ^2f^2}{2(m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}})}=\overline{q}q_{m_f}+O(\frac{m_f}{a^2})+O(\frac{m_{\mathrm{res}}}{a^2})$$
(3)
This relation holds at non-zero values for $`m_f`$, with the $`O(m_f/a^2)`$ contact term contribution being cancelled by the similar term in $`\overline{q}q`$. Of course, there may be other quenched pathologies entering this expression, such as effects from topological near-zero modes or quenched chiral logarithms.

We have measured $`m_\pi `$, $`f`$, $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ for $`16^3\times 32`$ lattices at $`\beta =6.0`$  and plot our results in Figure 1. One sees that for $`L_s=16`$, the larger mass points are approximately linear, but do not seem to extrapolate towards the value of $`\overline{q}q`$ at $`m_f=m_{\mathrm{res}}`$. For $`L_s=24`$, the extrapolation is much closer, as is expected since $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ has decreased by almost a factor of 2. Also shown are solid lines representing the left-hand side of Eq. 3 when a quenched chiral logarithm fit is used for $`m_\pi ^2(m_f)`$. One sees that the effect of chiral logarithms is to exacerbate the disagreement in the extrapolation. Thus we have evidence for residual mass contact terms in this simple Ward-Takahashi identity.

In conclusion, we note that for $`L_s=16`$, the quantity $`m_\pi ^2f^2/(2\overline{q}q(m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}}))`$, which is 1 in chiral perturbation theory, differs from 1 by around 20% for our data. Thus one should avoid introducing extraneous powers of this quantity while manipulating the data. We now turn to the Ward-Takahashi identities useful for subtracting the divergent contributions to $`K\pi `$ matrix elements.

## 4 TOWARDS $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}|O_n|K^0`$

Here we discuss our tests of a particular method for removing the divergent effects in $`K\pi `$ matrix elements. Following , we define a subtracted operator

$$\stackrel{~}{O}_n=O_n+\eta _n[(m_d+m_s)\overline{s}d+(m_dm_s)\overline{s}\gamma _5d]$$
(4)
where $`O_n`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ four-fermion operator and $`\eta _n`$ is chosen such that

$$0|\stackrel{~}{O}_n|K^0=0.$$
(5)
Then following , but noting that contact terms in the Ward-Takahashi identities coming from $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ effects will enter, we find

$$\pi ^+\pi ^{}|O_n|K^0=\frac{i(m_{K^0}^2m_{\pi ^+}^2)}{f}\frac{d\pi ^+|\stackrel{~}{O}_n|K^+}{dm_M^2}$$
(6)
where the derivative removes any contact terms proportional to $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$.

The successful removal of the effects of mixing with the dimension three operators implemented in Eq. 4 requires chiral symmetry. We first check this with a simpler Ward-Takahashi identity, obtained by inserting an operator $`O=\overline{s}(y)(1\gamma _5)d(y)\overline{u}(z)\gamma _5s(z)`$ in Eq. 3. The pion pole terms in the Ward-Takahashi identity then lead to

$$\begin{array}{c}\pi |\overline{s}d|K\frac{2(m_f+m_{\mathrm{res}})}{m_\pi ^2}\\ =1+O(m_f)+O(m_{\mathrm{res}})+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(7)
There are no power divergent operators in this Ward-Takahashi identity, so the coefficient of the $`m_f`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$ contact terms are finite, but there may still be quenched chiral logarithm effects present. In Figure 2 we plot the left-hand side of Eq. 7 versus $`m_f`$. We see that for larger $`m_f`$, the points appear to extrapolate reasonably well to 1, but there is noticeable curvature for small quark masses. The figure includes results for axial vector sources, which agree with those for pseudoscalar sources, indicating that topological near-zero modes are not the origin of this non-linearity. We are investigating whether this can be explained as a quenched chiral logarithm.

We determine $`\eta _n`$ from measurements of $`0|O_n|K^0`$ for non-degenerate masses for the strange and down quarks. The upper panel of Figure 3 shows a plot of $`0|O_2|K^0/0|\overline{s}\gamma _5d|K^0`$ versus $`m_sm_d`$. We see good linearity which allows for a reliable determination of $`\eta _2`$, with statistically errors at the few percent level for this particular operator.

With the value of $`\eta _2`$ determined, $`\stackrel{~}{O}_2`$ is known and Figure 3 shows

$$\frac{\pi ^+|O_2^{\frac{1}{2}}+\eta _2(m_s+m_d)\overline{s}d|K^+}{\pi |P|00|P|K}.$$
(8)
where $`O_2^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ part of $`O_2`$. In lowest order chiral perturbation theory, the denominator is a constant, so the desired $`K\pi \pi `$ matrix element is given by the slope and the intercept is related to $`m_{\mathrm{res}}`$. We are looking carefully for non-linearities in our data, paying particular attention to the quenched chiral logarithm effects recently calculated in .

## 5 CONCLUSIONS

We have seen that the Ward-Takahashi identities for domain wall fermions include $`O(m_{\mathrm{res}}/a^2)`$ contact terms which can be removed by taking derivatives with respect to $`m_f`$. Our data also show evidence for non-linear dependence on $`m_f`$, some of which may be due to quenched chiral logarithms. We have shown that the subtracted operator $`\stackrel{~}{O}_2`$ can be determined and are now doing the subtractions for all the operators.

The calculations reported here were run on the QCDSP computers at Columbia University and the RIKEN-BNL Research Center.


text:
# The Association of Jet Production with Geometrically Thick Accretion Flows and Black Hole Rotation

## 1. Introduction

There is now substantial evidence that, in binary black hole candidate X-ray sources (BHCs), a radio-emitting, jet outflow is produced only when the X-rays are in the hard state. That is, the jet is “quenched” when the dominant accretion disk emission is from soft (2-10 keV) photons and little or no emission is seen in the hard (20-100 keV) region. Sources which display this behavior are GX 339-4 (Fender et al. (1999); Fender (1999)), GRO J1655-40 (at least in the first few 1994 outbursts; Harmon et al. (1995)), GRS 1915+105 (Harmon et al. (1997); Fender et al. (1999)), Cyg X-3 (McCollough et al. (1999)), and Cyg X-1 (Brocksopp et al. (1999)).

In addition, there is some evidence that those black hole systems which produce a strong jet contain Kerr (rapidly-rotating) black holes, although this result requires additional confirmation. Recent attempts to measure the angular momentum parameter $`jJ/(GM^2/c)`$ (i.e., “$`a/M`$” in geometric units) indicate large values in the superluminal sources GRS 1915+105 and GRO J1655-40 ($`j=0.95`$) and smaller values in the non-superluminal systems Cyg X-1 and GS 1124-68 (Cui et al. (1998)). Furthermore, in the supermassive black hole case this “spin paradigm” has useful advantages for explaining the difference between radio loud quasi-stellar radio sources (QSRs) and radio quiet quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) and why giant radio sources occur only in elliptical galaxies (Wilson & Colbert (1995); Meier (1999)).

This letter shows that these properties are a natural consequence of black hole accretion and can be explained by combining three current areas of astrophysical theory into a single model: 1) modern disk accretion theory, including geometrically thick inflows at low accretion rate, standard disks at intermediate rate, and thermally unstable disks at high rates; 2) standard jet-production theory, in which the jet power is a strong function of the poloidal magnetic field strength and of the angular velocity of that field; and 3) dynamo theory for the accretion viscosity, in which the poloidal field strength is a strong function of the disk height. Thin disk flows, despite their rapid Keplerian rotation, do not have strong vertical fields and, therefore, should not produce strong jets. Geometrically thick accretion flows, on the other hand, are expected to have strong vertical fields, but suffer from slower rotation. Only when the disk is thick and the geometry also rotates rapidly, as it does near a Kerr hole, do we obtain both strong fields and rapid rotation and, therefore, strong jets.

## 2. Supermassive Black Holes — Radio Galaxies and Quasars

### 2.1. Maximum Total Observed and Predicted Jet Power

The maximum observed total jet power possible from supermassive black hole systems will be used to constrain the models for jet production. To do so, the upper envelope of the OLWL diagram (Owen & Laing (1989); Owen & White (1991); Ledlow & Owen (1996)) for powerful radio sources is used to give a maximum radio power as a function of the host galaxy’s red optical magnitude. This relation is given approximately by

$$\mathrm{log}P_{rad}^{max}0.56M_R+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}14.9}$$

with the radio power $`P`$ in $`\mathrm{W}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$. Secondly, the Kormendy & Richstone correlation for red magnitude (Kormendy & Richstone (1995))

$$\mathrm{log}m_90.5M_R11.3$$

is used to determine radio power as a function of black hole mass, where $`m_9=M_{}/10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Finally, a factor of $`10^{11}10^{12}\mathrm{Hz}^1`$ (Bicknell (1995)), corresponding to a fraction $`ϵ10^210^3`$ of the jet power emitted in a $`10^9\mathrm{Hz}`$ bandwidth, is used to convert radio power to total jet power, yielding the following expression for an estimate of maximum total jet power

$$L_{jet}^{max}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1m_9^{1.12}ϵ_{2.5}^1$$
(1)
Any mechanism of jet production must be able to achieve this maximum power, not only instantaneously but also sustained over long periods of time, as well as scale roughly linearly with black hole mass.

To compare this observed power with theoretical estimates, jets from both standard disks and advection-dominated accretion flows (ADAFs) will be considered, comparing the results for both Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes. This discussion is similar to that of (Livio, Ogilvie, & Pringle (1999); LOP), except that the jet power from non-spinning and spinning black hole systems will be contrasted, rather than comparing the power from different components (disk and hole) within a single system; and geometrically thick accretion flows will be considered as well as thin disks. As LOP point out, when the hole is spinning, the power generated by the magnetic field threading the disk (the Blandford-Payne process; Blandford & Payne (1982)) and that from the field threading the black hole (the Blandford-Znajek process; Blandford & Znajek (1977)) will be comparable, at best. However, as pointed out earlier (Meier (1999)), even if the BZ process is neglected entirely, the jet power contributed by the field threading the disk alone still will be a function of the black hole spin, since the rotating metric contributes to the rotation of the magnetic field. That is, as viewed from an outside observer at infinity in the Boyer-Lindquist reference frame, the disk angular velocity is a sum of its angular velocity relative to the local metric $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ (i.e., in the Zero Angular Momentum Observer or ZAMO frame) plus the angular velocity of the metric itself in the Boyer-Lindquist frame $`\omega g_{\varphi t}/g_{\varphi \varphi }`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}+\omega $$

The structure equations for accretion flows (e.g., Shakura & Sunyaev (1973); Novikov & Thorne (1973); Narayan & Yi (1995)) present a solution for the disk magnetic field which generally is identified with the dominant azimuthal component $`B_\varphi `$. However, models and simulations of jet production (Blandford & Znajek (1977); Blandford & Payne (1982); Meier et al. (1997)) show that it is the strength of the poloidal field component ($`B_p=[B_R^2+B_Z^2]^{1/2}`$) that is largely responsible for the production of a jet, with the output power given by

$$L_{jet}=B_{p0}^2R_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}c$$
(2)
where $`R_0`$ is the characteristic size of the jet-formation region, and $`B_{p0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ are, respectively, the poloidal field and angular velocity of the field in that region as measured by an external observer. Now, LOP have argued, and dynamo simulations tentatively have confirmed (Khanna (1999)), that the strength of the poloidal magnetic field is limited by the vertical extent of the turbulent eddies. That is, $`B_{p0}/B_{\varphi 0}(H_0/R_0)^n`$, where $`H_0`$ is the vertical half-thickness of the disk at radius $`R_0`$, and the exponent $`n1`$, yielding an estimate of the jet power of

$$L_{jet}=B_{\varphi 0}^2H_0^2R_0^2\mathrm{\Omega }_0^2/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}c$$
(3)
which can be used to calculate the instantaneous jet power once $`B_{\varphi 0}`$, $`H_0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ are determined using a particular disk model.

### 2.2. Jet Power from Standard Thin Accretion Disks

First, standard disks will be considered. For illustrative purposes, the “middle region” solution will be used, where gas pressure and electron-scattering opacity are dominant. For the Schwarzschild case ($`\omega =0`$), a characteristic radius of $`R_0=7GM/c^2`$ (just outside the last stable orbit) will be used, along with the Keplerian angular velocity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{}=7^{3/2}(GM/c^3)^1`$. For the Kerr case, since the disk extends inside the ergosphere (inside $`R=2GM/c^2`$), a characteristic radius of $`1.5GM/c^2`$ will be used, along with $`\omega _0=\omega (R_0)0.6(GM/c^3)^1`$. This yields

$`L_{jet}^{SchwSS}`$ $``$ $`10^{42.6}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1(\alpha _2^{SS})^{1/10}m_9^{9/10}\dot{m}_1^{6/5}`$ (4)
$`L_{jet}^{KerrSS}`$ $``$ $`10^{43.5}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1(\alpha _2^{SS})^{1/10}m_9^{9/10}\dot{m}_1^{6/5}`$ (5)
$`(1+1.1j+0.29j^2)`$
where $`\alpha _2^{SS}`$ is the viscosity parameter for standard thin disks in units of $`0.01`$, $`\dot{m}_1\dot{M}/0.1\dot{M}_{Edd}`$ is the accretion rate scaled to that producing one-tenth of an Eddington luminosity, and the Eddington accretion rate is defined as $`\dot{M}_{Edd}=22M_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{yr}^1m_9`$ (assuming $`10\%`$ accretion efficiency). One-tenth the Eddington accretion rate is used as the scale value since it is roughly the rate at which the low/hard to high/soft black hole state transition is believed to occur (Narayan, Mahadevan, & Quataert (1998)).

As LOP point out, the black hole spin makes little difference for standard thin disks. Within the Kerr system, it contributes only about a third of the power. And the ratio of power from a Kerr to a Schwarzschild hole is $`20`$, with most of this due to the deeper potential well in the Kerr case. Furthermore, the jet power for a $`10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$ hole is limited to $`7\times 10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ — two orders of magnitude below our target in equation (1). So, while Shakura & Sunyaev disks might account for some of the weakest radio sources (in particular, the “radio quiet” QSOs, when there is significant optical emission from the disk), they cannot account for the most powerful radio galaxies and quasars.

### 2.3. Jet Power from Advection-Dominated Accretion Flows

Next, ADAFs will be considered, as an example of a geometrically thick accretion flow. Note that this case will include coronae of thin disks in which a dominant fraction of the gravitational binding energy of the accreting material is dissipated in the corona rather than in the disk. For these flows $`H_0R_0`$, so $`B_{p0}B_{\varphi 0}`$. With the ADAF solutions (Narayan, Mahadevan, & Quataert (1998)), both the Schwarzschild and Kerr cases yield

$`L_{jet}^{SchwAD}`$ $``$ $`10^{44.7}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1(\alpha _{1/2}^{AD})^1m_9\dot{m}_1f^2`$ (6)
$`L_{jet}^{KerrAD}`$ $``$ $`10^{46.0}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1(\alpha _{1/2}^{AD})^1m_9\dot{m}_1g^2`$ (7)
$`(0.55f^2+1.5fj+j^2)`$
where $`f\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{0NY}^{}}`$ is the ratio of the actual angular velocity to that calculated by Narayan and Yi, and $`g\frac{B_{\varphi 0}}{B_{\varphi NY}}`$ is a similar ratio for the azimuthal magnetic field. Note that, as is customary, the viscosity parameter for ADAFs is now scaled to $`0.3`$ instead of $`0.01`$. While considerably larger than the jet powers calculated for thin disks, these expressions are not simply $`(R_0/H_0)^2`$ times equations (4) and (5). This is because ADAF azimuthal fields are weaker than in thin disks, and the rotation rate of the inflowing plasma is somewhat smaller (0.4 Keplerian, as determined by Narayan & Yi). In fact, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^{}`$ is very sensitive to the exact value of the internal adiabatic index: $`f`$ could be considerably less than unity ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=5/3`$ yields $`f=0`$!), so the results have been scaled to $`f^2`$. Equation (6), therefore, is probably an upper limit for the jet power from an advection-dominated flow into a Schwarzschild hole.

On the other hand, in the Kerr case, the actual values of $`B_{\varphi 0}`$ may be higher than that calculated by Narayan & Yi, since these authors did not take the field-enhancing shear in the Kerr metric into account (see e.g., Meier (1999)). It is not unreasonable to expect an enhancement of at least $`g\omega (R_0)/\mathrm{\Omega }_{0NY}2.3`$, with a corresponding factor of 5 or more increase in jet power. This alone would put the Kerr-ADAF jet power for a $`10\%`$ Eddington accretion rate well above the target of $`10^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$. Equation (7), therefore, is likely to be a lower limit on the jet power from an advection-dominated flow into a Kerr hole. Unlike the thin disk case, then, the black hole spin in the ADAF case is very important, especially if $`f0`$. The ratio of Kerr to Schwarzschild jet power ($`20g^2/f^2`$) is potentially 100 or more.

The jet power in equation (7) is a substantial fraction of the accretion luminosity

$$\frac{L_{jet}^{KerrAD}}{L_{acc}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.80}(\alpha _{1/2}^{AD})^1(0.14f^2+0.74fj+j^2)g^2$$
(8)
Consequently, the angular momentum and energy carried away from the ADAF will have a substantial effect on the structure of the inflow, which must be taken into account in the ADAF solutions. (This is in addition to any thermal wind that may be part of an Advection-Dominated Inflow/Outflow Solution or ADIOS which also must be taken into account. See, e.g., Blandford & Begelman (1999).) Indeed, the ratio could easily exceed unity, removing more angular momentum and rotational energy from the inflow than it has in the ZAMO frame. This could reverse the spin of the ADAF in the ZAMO frame, giving it negative angular momentum, and ultimately spinning down the hole slightly when the accreting matter finally enters the horizon. Such a scenario is quite plausible in Kerr geometry and, indeed, has been seen in magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) numerical simulations of jet production near rotating holes (Koide et al. (2000)). This process is a type of Penrose mechanism, with the disk particles scattered into negative angular momentum orbits by a torsional MHD wave (the jet) that, in turn, is “scattered” upward and outward to infinity. Similar in character to the Punsly-Coroniti “ergospheric winds” (Punsly & Coroniti (1990)), this process can extract angular momentum and energy from the black hole even without the magnetic field threading the horizon.

To summarize, the most powerful extragalactic jet sources require both a geometrically thick inflow and a rapidly spinning black hole to reach the observed maximum jet powers.

## 3. Stellar Mass Black Holes — Microquasars

The possible association of black holes having potentially high spin with binary X-ray sources that produce jets, and the association of the onset of jet production in these systems with a hard emission state, is very similar in character to the need for both spin and advective accretion flow to produce extragalactic jets discussed above. In fact, diagrams drawn depicting this association (Fender et al. (1999)) can be qualitatively, and to a great extent quantitatively, understood using the above equations. For the disk structure in different accretion regimes, the discussion below will adopt the solutions of Chen et al. (1995) and Esin et al. (1998). Equations (4) - (7) will be used to calculate the jet powers, with the appropriate scaling of mass and accretion rate. Note that the jet power predicted by these equations is primarily kinetic energy and Poynting flux; the actual radio luminosity emitted will be much less. For example, during the first 1994 outburst in GRO J1655-40, which was thought to have reached accretion rates approaching $`\dot{m}1`$, the total jet power is $`10^{3839}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Meier (1996)), while the radio luminosity is only $`10^{32}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ (Harmon et al. (1995)).

For low accretion rates, $`\dot{m}<\dot{m}_A0.1(\alpha _{1/2}^{AD})^2`$ accreting black holes are in the low/hard state — steady accretion with a substantial fraction of the X-rays in the 20-100 keV band. This corresponds to an ADAF solution, which is favored over a thin disk solution in this regime. As the ADAF is stable, and expected to produce a jet power of up to $`5\times 10^{38}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1m_1\dot{m}_1j^2`$ (equation 7), a continuous jet outflow that is roughly proportional to the accretion rate is expected. This is, in fact, seen in several microquasars (Fender (1999)). Note that, although proportional to the accretion rate, the power in this model comes mostly from the rotation of the black hole and not from the accretion energy of the infalling matter. However, the efficiency of extracting the rotational energy of the hole is proportional to $`\dot{m}`$.

For $`\dot{m}>\dot{m}_A`$ the disk enters the high/soft state (Narayan, Mahadevan, & Quataert (1998)), in which the hot ADAF largely disappears and the disk takes on an optically thick, cooler structure similar in nature to the standard (Shakura & Sunyaev (1973)) thin disk solutions. Here the cool disk is modeled with the Shakura & Sunyaev “middle” region. The expected jet power from such a thin disk with a weak poloidal field (equation 5) is $`5\times 10^{36}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1m_1^{9/10}\dot{m}_1^{6/5}`$ — a hundred times weaker than in the ADAF case. This compares well to the jet suppression of $`>35`$ seen in GX 339-4 (Fender et al. (1999)) when it goes into the soft state, and is some of the best evidence that a strong jet cannot be produced unless the accretion flow is geometrically thick and hot.

For high accretion rates ($`\dot{m}0.51.0`$) the disk enters the “very high state”, in which the disk is very unstable. In GRS 1915+105, for example, the disk goes through cycles of $`20`$ minutes in duration, which begin with a dramatic dip in the soft X-rays, followed by an increase in the hard X-ray emission for several minutes. Just as the hard emission abruptly disappears, a radio jet is ejected, followed by a softening of the spectrum again. A possible explanation for this behavior is the onset of a thermal “limit cycle”, in which the disk oscillates between two unstable accretion states (standard soft and hard ADAF). Detailed modeling of this case by Szuszkiewicz & Miller (1998) suggests that the disk first bloats to a time-dependent, hot, gas-pressure-dominated ADAF-like state; then it drains rapidly into the hole; and finally a thin radiation-pressure-dominated thin disk re-fills, only to become unstable and bloat again. For a $`10M_{\mathrm{}}`$ hole, the period of the limit cycle is on the order of $`1000`$ seconds, with the active ADAF phase lasting only $`1\%`$ of that time.

There is some uncertainty in this model, however. Standard disk stability theory (Shakura & Sunyaev (1976)) predicts that unstable behavior should occur above the rather low accretion rate of $`\dot{m}0.02(\alpha _2^{SS}m_1)^{1/8}`$, when the innermost part of the disk becomes radiation pressure dominated. Indeed, the unstable disk of Szuszkiewicz & Miller (1998) had $`\dot{m}=0.06`$. This rate is so low, however, that it predicts that all disks with $`\dot{m}>\dot{m}_A`$ should be unstable; that is, there should be no stable high/soft state even in the case of X-ray binaries; at most the disk should be in a cool state for a portion of the limit cycle (20 minutes). This is in direct conflict with the observations: the disk stays in the high/soft state often for months. Using a more careful analysis, Chen et al. (1995) derive a modified transition accretion rate of

$$\dot{m}_R=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.3}(\alpha _2^{SS}m_1)^{1/8}$$
(9)
(minimum of the solid lines in their figure 2), above which limit cycle behavior should set in. Equation (9) agrees well with the observations of GRS 1915+105 and GX 339-4. Note also that the solutions of Chen et al. (1995) also predict that unstable behavior should continue for accretion rates well in excess of the Eddington rate ($`\dot{m}20`$ or so), above which a steady, radiation-pressure-dominated ADAF should set in.

Ascribing a high accretion rate ($`\dot{m}1`$) to the hard temporary ADAF state, equation (7) predicts a short-term jet power during the very high state of $`6\times 10^{39}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1m_{3/2}\dot{m}g^2`$ for a rapidly-rotating black hole. Again, allowing for possible metric-shear enhancement of the magnetic field, instantaneous jet powers well in excess of $`10^{40}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ in GRS 1915+105 are possible in this model.

## 4. A Grand Unified Scheme for Active Galactic Nuclei

Finally, we turn once again to the supermassive case. The above concepts allow us to begin to build a scheme that unifies radio loud and radio quiet AGN. It is similar to that discussed earlier (Meier (1999)), but with the addition of geometrically thick advection-dominated flows.

Since radiation pressure is even more dominant in supermassive black hole disks than in stellar mass ones ($`\dot{m}_Rm_1^{1/8}`$), it is likely that $`\dot{m}_R`$ will be less than $`\dot{m}_A`$ for some large hole mass (from equation , for $`M_{}7\times 10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$). That is, for supermassive holes, a stable high/soft state should not exist. Unlike before in the stellar mass case, the possible lack of a high/soft state is not in conflict with observations. A quasar could be in the very high state at the present time and show no signs of limit cycle behavior, as the time scale for the cycle should be $`10^8`$ times longer than the stellar-mass black hole case (several thousand years). Only every few thousand years would a quasar enter a very active phase that lasted a few decades. During that time a temporarily high accretion rate ($`\dot{m}1`$) period may occur, with jet powers also given by equations (6) and (7), while during the quiescent phase the jet powers would be given by equations (4) and (5). The final jet power on the kiloparsec scale (integrated over thousands of years and several limit cycles) would be a sum of the two pertinent equations, weighted by the duty cycle of each phase — that is, approximately equation (6) or (7), with $`\dot{m}`$ replaced by the accretion rate averaged over the long term.

Accreting supermassive black holes, then, should have only two basic states for each of the Schwarzschild and Kerr cases: low/hard (ADAF) or very high (geometrically thin, radiation-pressure-dominated and unstable flows). We consider the very supermassive ($`10^{79}M_{\mathrm{}}`$/quasar) case first. The Schwarzschild low/hard case is described only by equation (6), and corresponds to weak radio cores with little or no line emission (“Class B” according to Jackson & Wall (1999)). As discussed above, the Schwarzschild very high disk case is a linear combination of equations (4) and (6), yielding a long-term jet power of $`L_{jet}^{Schw}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}\times 10^{43}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1f^2`$ for an ADAF duty cycle of $`1\%`$ and a $`10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$ hole. In the latter state the hole usually would produce significantly more optical-UV radiation than in the low/hard state, appearing as a radio quiet “Class A” object (QSO). The Kerr low/hard case is described by equation (7), and corresponds to a Class B radio galaxy (either Fanaroff & Riley (1974) \[FR\] type I or type II without strong nuclear emission lines). The Kerr very high state is again a linear combination of equations (5) and (7), yielding $`L_{jet}^{Kerr}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}10}^{45}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1g^2`$ for a $`10^9M_{\mathrm{}}`$ hole and a $`1\%`$ duty cycle — a radio loud Class A object (quasar or FR II BLRG) with a jet perhaps hundreds of times more powerful than in the above radio quiet case.

In the moderately supermassive ($`10^{57}M_{\mathrm{}}`$/Seyfert) case, significant optical emission should be present in both the low/hard and very high states, as that emission would be produced in the middle regions of the disk, which are not affected by state transitions. In the very high state, during the thin-disk portion of the limit cycle, the peak emission would be in the extreme ultraviolet ($`0.1`$ keV). Such objects should appear similar to the highly-variable, ultrasoft narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (Brandt (2000)), whereas in the low/hard emission state they should appear more like the classical hard X-ray selected Seyferts. Their radio jet properties should be similar to those of the quasars above, though $`100`$ times weaker, with the ultrasoft objects producing a jet only when they enter the thick-disk portion of their limit cycle.

The author is pleased to acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics and workshops there on Astrophysical Dynamos and on Acceleration and Collimation of Astrophysical Jets. He is especially grateful for discussions with R. Antonucci, R. Fender, R. Hjellming, S. Koide, and E. Vishniac. Bob Hjellming was a good friend to many and will be greatly missed. This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract to NASA.


text:
# Superhorizon perturbations and preheating

## I Linear scalar perturbations

The line element allowing arbitrary linear scalar perturbations of a Friedmann–Robertson–Walker (FRW) background can be written lifshitz ; Bardeen ; KS ; MFB

$$ds^2=(1+2A)dt^2+2a^2(t)_iBdx^idt+a^2(t)\left[(12\psi )\gamma _{ij}+2_i_jE\right]dx^idx^j.$$
(1)
The unperturbed spatial metric for a space of constant curvature $`\kappa `$ is given by $`\gamma _{ij}`$ and covariant derivatives with respect to this metric are denoted by $`_i`$.

The curvature perturbation on fixed-$`t`$ hypersurfaces, $`\psi `$, is a gauge-dependent quantity and under an arbitrary linear coordinate transformation, $`tt+\delta t`$, it transforms as $`\psi \psi +H\delta t`$. On uniform-density hypersurfaces the curvature perturbation can be written as222The sign of $`\zeta `$ is chosen here to coincide with Refs. BST .

$$\zeta =\psi +H\frac{\delta \rho }{\dot{\rho }}.$$
(2)
The curvature perturbation on uniform-density hypersurfaces, $`\zeta `$, is often chosen as a convenient gauge-invariant definition of the scalar metric perturbation on large scales. These hypersurfaces become ill-defined if the density is not strictly decreasing, as can occur in a scalar field dominated universe when the kinetic energy of the scalar field vanishes. In this case one can instead work in terms of the density perturbation on uniform-curvature hypersurfaces, $`\delta \rho _\psi =\delta \rho +\dot{\rho }\psi /H`$, which remains finite.

The pressure perturbation (in any gauge) can be split into adiabatic and entropic (non-adiabatic) parts, by writing

$$\delta p=c_\mathrm{s}^2\delta \rho +\dot{p}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(3)
where $`c_s^2\dot{p}/\dot{\rho }`$. The non-adiabatic part is $`\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}\dot{p}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta p/\dot{p}\delta \rho /\dot{\rho }`$. The entropy perturbation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, defined in this way, is gauge-invariant, and represents the displacement between hypersurfaces of uniform pressure and uniform density.

## II Evolution of the curvature perturbation

The energy conservation equation $`n^\nu T_{\nu ;\mu }^\mu =0`$ for first-order density perturbations gives

$$\dot{\delta \rho }=3H(\delta \rho +\delta p)+(\rho +p)\left[3\dot{\psi }^2\left(v+\dot{E}\right)\right],$$
(4)
where $`^iv`$ is the perturbed 3-velocity of the fluid. In the uniform-density gauge, where $`\delta \rho =0`$ and $`\psi =\zeta `$, the energy conservation equation (4) immediately gives

$$\dot{\zeta }=\frac{H}{\rho +p}\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}\frac{1}{3}^2\left(v+\dot{E}\right).$$
(5)
We emphasize that we have derived this result without invoking any gravitational field equations, although related results have been obtained in particular non-Einstein gravity theories earlierHwang . We see that $`\zeta `$ is constant if (i) there is no non-adiabatic pressure perturbation, and (ii) the divergence of the 3-momentum on zero-shear hypersurfaces, $`^2(v+\dot{E})`$, is negligible.

On sufficiently large scales, gradient terms can be neglected and GBW ; David+Tony

$$\dot{\zeta }=\frac{H}{\rho +p}\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}},$$
(6)
which implies that $`\zeta `$ is constant if the pressure perturbation is adiabatic. It has been argued David+Tony  that the divergence is likely to be negligible on all super-horizon scales, and in the following we shall make that assumption.

## III Preheating

The chaotic inflation model studied originally in KLS97  and later on by Betal ; LLMW  has the scalar field potential $`V(\varphi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}g^2\varphi ^2\chi ^2`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the inflaton and $`\chi `$ the reheat field. In this model the non-adiabatic pressure perturbation is given on large scales by

$$\delta p_{\mathrm{nad}}=\frac{m^2\varphi \dot{\delta \chi }^2+\ddot{\varphi }g^2\varphi ^2\delta \chi ^2}{3H\dot{\varphi }},$$
(7)
where the long-wavelength solutions for vacuum fluctuations in the $`\varphi `$ field obey the adiabatic condition $`\delta \varphi /\dot{\varphi }=\dot{\delta \varphi }/\ddot{\varphi }`$ (see also GWBM ). We stress that we still only consider first-order perturbations in the metric and total density and pressure, but these include terms to second-order in $`\delta \chi `$. This yields the power spectrum for the non-adiabatic part of the curvature perturbation LLMW

$$𝒫_{\zeta _{\mathrm{nad}}}\frac{2^{9/2}3}{\pi ^5\mu ^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{m_{\mathrm{Pl}}}\right)^2\left(\frac{H_{\mathrm{end}}}{m}\right)^4g^4q^{1/4}\left(\frac{k}{k_{\mathrm{end}}}\right)^3I,$$
(8)
where the integral $`I`$ can be approximated to first order by $`I0.86(m\mathrm{\Delta }t)^{3/2}\mathrm{exp}[4\mu _0m\mathrm{\Delta }t]`$ (see LLMW  for details in notation). It follows from Eq. (8) that the scale dependence of $`𝒫_{\zeta _{\mathrm{nad}}}`$ is $`k^3`$. Hence there is no change in the curvature perturbation in this model due to preheating on scales relevant for large scale structure formation. But it has been shown in Green  that the steep $`k^3`$-spectrum in this model leads to an over-production of primordial black holes on smaller scales.


text:
# Non-Locality of Equivariant Star Products on 𝐓^∗(ℝℙ^𝑛)

## 1. Introduction

Lecomte and Ovsienko (\[L-O\]) constructed $`SL_{n+1}()`$-equivariant quantization maps $`𝒬_\lambda `$ for symbols of differential operators on $`\lambda `$-densities on $`^n`$.

We derive some formulas for the associated graded equivariant star products $`\varphi _\lambda \psi =\varphi \psi +_{p=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )t^p`$ on the symbol algebra $`Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)`$. The star products $`_\lambda `$ is “algebraic” in that (Proposition 3.1) it restricts to the subalgebra $``$ generated by the momentum functions $`\mu ^x`$, $`x𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$.

We compute some special values of $`\varphi _\lambda \psi `$ in Proposition 4.1. We conclude in Corollary 4.2 that $`C_p^\lambda (,)`$ fails to be bidifferential, except if $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`p=1`$. The reason is that $`C_p^\lambda (,)`$ involves operators of the form $`(E+r)^1`$ where $`E`$ is the fiberwise Euler vector field on $`T^{}^n`$ and $`r`$ is a positive number.

In our main result (Theorem 5.1), we write, for $`n`$ odd, the coefficients $`C_p^\lambda (,)`$ when $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ in terms of some new $`SL_{n+1}()`$-invariant algebraic bidifferential operators $`Z_p(,)`$ on $`^n`$ and the operators $`(E+\frac{n}{2}\pm s)^1`$ where $`s\{1,2,\mathrm{},[\frac{p}{2}]\}`$. Our proofs in §45 are applications of the formulas in \[L-O, §4.5\] for $`𝒬_\lambda `$.

The operator $`Z_p(,)`$ ($`p2`$) is quite subtle as it has total homogeneous degree $`p`$. It is not the $`p`$th power of the Poisson tensor (with respect to some coordinates) because we can show that the total order of $`Z_p(,)`$ is too large. It would be very interesting to find a way to construct $`Z_p`$ using the method of Levasseur and Stafford (\[L-S\]).

I thank Christian Duval and Valentin Ovsienko for several interesting discussions.

## 2. The Lecomte-Ovsienko quantization maps

In \[L-O\], Lecomte and Ovsienko constructed, for each $`\lambda `$, an $`SL_{n+1}()`$-equivariant (complex linear) quantization map $`𝒬_\lambda `$ from $`𝒜=Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)`$ to $`^\lambda =𝔇_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda (^n)`$. Here $`𝒜=_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜^d`$ is the graded Poisson algebra of smooth complex-valued functions on $`T^{}^n`$ which are polynomial along the cotangent fibers, and $`^\lambda =_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}_d^\lambda `$ is the filtered algebra of smooth (linear) differential operators on $`\lambda `$-densities on $`^n`$. Then $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is a quantization map in the sense that $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is a vector space isomorphism and $`\varphi `$ is the principal symbol of $`𝒬_\lambda (\varphi )`$ if $`\varphi 𝒜^d`$.

The natural action of $`SL_{n+1}()`$ on $`^n`$ lifts canonically to a Hamiltonian action on $`T^{}^n`$ with moment map $`\mu :T^{}^n𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()^{}`$. The density line bundle on $`^n`$ is homogeneous for $`SL_{n+1}()`$. This geometry produces natural (complex linear) representations of $`SL_{n+1}()`$ on $`𝒜`$ and $`^\lambda `$; $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is equivariant for these representations.

The procedure of Lecomte and Ovsienko was to construct (\[L-O, Thm. 4.1\]) an $`𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$-equivariant quantization map $`𝒬_\lambda `$ from $`Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)`$ to $`𝔇_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda (^n)`$, where $`^n`$ is the big cell in $`^n`$. They show their map is unique. Then $`𝒬_\lambda `$ restricts to a quantization map from $`𝒜`$ to $`^\lambda `$ (\[L-O, Cor. 8.1\]).

We can represent points in $`^n`$ in homogeneous coordinates $`[u_0,\mathrm{},u_n]`$. Then $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ are linear coordinates on the big cell $`^n`$ defined by $`u_0=1`$. These, together with the conjugate momenta $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n`$, give Darboux coordinates on $`T^{}^n`$.

For any vector field $`\eta `$ on $`^n`$, let $`\mu _\eta 𝒜^1`$ be its principal symbol and let $`\eta _\lambda `$ be its Lie derivative acting on $`\lambda `$-densities so that $`\eta _\lambda _1^\lambda `$. Then $`𝒬_\lambda (\mu _\eta )=\eta _\lambda `$; this follows by \[L-O, §4.3\].

The quantization map $`𝒬_\lambda `$ defines a star product; see \[L-O, §8.2\]. For $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒜`$, we put $`\varphi _\lambda \psi =𝒬_{\lambda ;t}^1(𝒬_{\lambda ;t}(\varphi )𝒬_{\lambda ;t}(\psi ))`$ where $`𝒬_{\lambda ;t}`$ is the linear map $`𝒜^\lambda [t]`$ such that $`𝒬_{\lambda ;t}(\varphi )=t^d𝒬_\lambda (\varphi )`$ if $`\varphi 𝒜^d`$. Then $`_\lambda `$ makes $`𝒜[t]`$ into an associative algebra over $`[t]`$. This satisfies

$$\varphi _\lambda \psi =_{p=0}^{\mathrm{}}C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )t^p$$
(2.1)
where $`C_0^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )=\varphi \psi `$ and $`C_1^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )C_1^\lambda (\psi ,\varphi )=\{\varphi ,\psi \}`$. Also $`C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )𝒜^{j+kp}`$ if $`\varphi 𝒜^j`$ and $`\psi 𝒜^k`$. So $`_\lambda `$ is a graded star product on $`𝒜`$.

We say that $`_\lambda `$ has *parity* if $`C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )=(1)^pC_p^\lambda (\psi ,\varphi )`$; then $`C_1^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )=\frac{1}{2}\{\varphi ,\psi \}`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

$`_\lambda `$ has parity iff $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\beta :^\lambda ^{1\lambda }`$ be the canonical algebra anti-isomorphism and let $`\alpha :𝒜𝒜`$ be the Poisson algebra anti-involution defined by $`\varphi ^\alpha =(1)^d\varphi `$ if $`\varphi 𝒜^d`$. Then $`𝒬_\lambda (\varphi ^\alpha )^\beta =𝒬_{1\lambda }(\varphi )`$ by \[L-O, Lem. 6.5\]. This implies $`C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )=(1)^pC_p^{1\lambda }(\psi ,\varphi )`$. So we have parity if $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$. Otherwise parity is violated, already for $`C_1^\lambda `$. Indeed, if $`\varphi 𝒜^0`$ and $`\mu 𝒜^1`$, then $`\varphi _\lambda \mu =\varphi \mu +\lambda \{\varphi ,\mu \}t`$, and so $`C_1^\lambda (\varphi ,\mu )=\lambda \{\varphi ,\mu \}`$ while $`C_1^\lambda (\mu ,\varphi )=C_1^{1\lambda }(\varphi ,\mu )=(\lambda 1)\{\varphi ,\mu \}`$. ∎

## 3. Algebraicity of $`_\lambda `$

Each $`x𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$ defines a vector field $`\eta ^x`$ on $`T^{}^n`$. The principal symbols $`\mu ^x=\mu _{\eta ^x}`$ are the momentum functions for $`SL_{n+1}()`$. The $`SL_{n+1}()`$-equivariance of $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is equivalent to $`𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$-equivariance, i.e., $`𝒬_\lambda (\{\mu ^x,\varphi \})=[\eta _\lambda ^x,𝒬_\lambda (\varphi )]`$. Then $`𝒬_\lambda `$ is $`𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$-equivariant, where we define $`\mu ^x`$ and $`\eta _\lambda ^x`$ for $`x𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$ by $`\mu ^{x+iy}=\mu ^x+i\mu ^y`$ and so on.

The algebra $`R(T^{}^n)`$ of regular functions (in the sense of algebraic geometry) on (the quasi-projective complex algebraic variety) $`T^{}^n`$ identifies, by restriction, with a subalgebra $``$ of $`𝒜`$. Similarly the algebra of $`𝔇^\lambda (^n)`$ of twisted algebraic (linear) differential operators for the formal $`\lambda `$th power of the canonical bundle $`𝒦`$ identifies with a subalgebra $`𝒟^\lambda `$ of $`^\lambda `$.

Then $``$ is generated by the momentum functions $`\mu ^x`$, $`𝒟^\lambda `$ is generated by the operators $`\eta _\lambda ^x`$, and $`gr𝒟^\lambda =`$. These statements follow, for instance, by \[Bo-Br, Lem. 1.4 and Thm. 5.6\], since the proofs of the relevant results there generalize immediately to the twisted case. We get natural identifications $`=𝒮/I`$ and $`𝒟^\lambda =𝒰(𝔤)/J`$ where $`I`$ is graded Poisson ideal in the symmetric algebra $`𝒮=S(𝔰𝔩_{n+1}())`$, $`J`$ is a two-sided ideal in the enveloping algebra $`𝒰=𝒰(𝔰𝔩_{n+1}())`$, and $`grJ=I`$.

Notice $``$ carries a natural representation of $`SL_{n+1}()`$, which then extends the $`SL_{n+1}()`$-symmetry it inherits from $`𝒜`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

For every $`\lambda `$, $`_\lambda `$ restricts to a graded $`G`$-equivariant star product on the momentum algebra $``$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to check that $`𝒬_\lambda `$ maps $``$ onto $`𝒟^\lambda `$ (which is stated for $`\lambda =0`$ in \[L-O, §1.5, Remark (c)\]). This follows easily in any number of ways. For instance, the formula for $`𝒬_\lambda `$ in \[L-O, (4.15)\] implies $`𝒬_\lambda (\xi _1^{a_1}\mathrm{}\xi _n^{a_n})=\frac{^{a_1}}{u_1^{a_1}}\mathrm{}\frac{^{a_n}}{u_n^{a_n}}`$. But $`\{\xi _n^d\}_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{\frac{^d}{u_n^d}\}_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are complete sets of lowest weight vectors in $``$ and $`𝒟^\lambda `$. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

The restriction of $`_\lambda `$ to $``$ has parity iff (i) $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ or (ii) $`n=1`$; see \[A-B2, §3\]. Notice that (ii) does not contradict the proof of Lemma 2.1, as $`^0=`$.

## 4. Some special values of $`\varphi _\lambda \psi `$

$`Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)`$ is the tensor product of two maximal Poisson commutative subalgebras, namely the algebra $`_{\mathrm{}}[u]=_{\mathrm{}}[u_1,\mathrm{},u_n]`$ of smooth functions on the big cell $`^n`$ and and the polynomial algebra $`[\xi ]=[\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n]`$. Let $`E`$ be the fiberwise Euler vector field $`_{i=1}^n\xi _i\frac{}{\xi _i}`$. Set $`D=_{i=1}^n\frac{^2}{u_i\xi _i}`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

If $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}[u]`$ and $`\psi [\xi ]`$ then $`\varphi _\lambda \psi =𝐠_\lambda (\varphi \psi )`$ where

$$𝐠_\lambda =1+\underset{d=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_{\lambda ;d}D^dt^d\text{and}g_{\lambda ;d}=\frac{1}{d!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\frac{Ej\lambda (n+1)}{2E+j+n+1}$$
(4.1)
###### Proof.

Let $`𝒬_{norm}:Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)𝔇_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ be the normal ordering quantization map. The construction of $`𝒬_\lambda `$ in \[L-O\] gives $`𝒬_\lambda =𝒬_{norm}𝐡_\lambda `$ where $`𝐡_\lambda =1+_{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}h_{\lambda ;d}D^dt^d`$ and $`h_{\lambda ;d}`$ are certain operators. Here $`𝔇_{\mathrm{}}(^n)`$ identifies with $`𝔇_{\mathrm{}}^\lambda (^n)`$ in the usual way.

In \[D-L-O, Th. 4.1\] they give a very nice formula for the $`h_{\lambda ;d}`$ when $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$. Going back to \[L-O, (4.15)\], we get a similar formula for all $`\lambda `$. We find

$$h_{\lambda ;d}=\frac{1}{d!}\underset{j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\frac{E+j+\lambda (n+1)}{2E+j+n+d}$$
(4.2)
Thus for $`\varphi ,\psi Pol_{\mathrm{}}(T^{}^n)`$ we have

$$\varphi _\lambda \psi =𝐠_\lambda (𝐡_\lambda (\varphi )\mathrm{\#}𝐡_\lambda (\psi ))$$
(4.3)
where $`\mathrm{\#}`$ denotes the graded star product defined by $`𝒬_{norm}`$ and $`𝐠_\lambda =𝐡_\lambda ^1`$. We find, directly from (4.2) or using \[L-O, (4.10)\], that $`𝐠_\lambda `$ is given by (4.1).

We know $`\varphi \mathrm{\#}\psi =_{p=0}^{\mathrm{}}N_p(\varphi ,\psi )t^p`$ where $`N_k(\varphi ,\psi )=\frac{1}{k!}_{\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},n\}^k}\frac{^k\varphi }{\xi _\alpha }\frac{^k\psi }{u_\alpha }`$. Now, for $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}[u]`$ and $`\psi [\xi ]`$, (4.3) gives $`\varphi _\lambda \psi =𝐠_\lambda (\varphi \psi )`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.2.

None of the operators $`C_p^\lambda `$ ($`p1`$, $`\lambda `$) is bidifferential on $`T^{}^n`$, with one exception: $`2C_1^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}`$ is the Poisson bracket.

###### Proof.

We just showed that $`C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,\psi )=g_{\lambda ;p}D^p(\varphi \psi )`$ if $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}[u]`$ and $`\psi [\xi ]`$. This implies, if $`C_p^\lambda `$ is bidifferential, that $`g_{\lambda ;p}`$ is a differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$. Looking at our expression for $`g_{\lambda ;p}`$, we deduce $`E+j+\lambda (n+1)=E+\frac{j}{2}+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)`$ for $`j=0,\mathrm{},p1`$. But this forces $`p=1`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$. By parity, $`C_1^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}=\frac{1}{2}\{,\}`$. ∎

The corollary contradicts the claim in \[L-O, §8.2\]. They no doubt meant that for each pair $`j,k`$, the restricted map $`C_p^\lambda :𝒜^j\times 𝒜^k𝒜^{j+kp}`$ is given by some bidifferential operator.

## 5. Coefficients $`C_p^\lambda `$ for $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$

In this section, we set $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ and suppress the corresponding super(sub)scripts. We put $`E^{}=E+\frac{n}{2}`$ where $`E`$ is the fiberwise Euler vector field on $`T^{}^n`$. See \[A-B3\] for an interpretation of the shift $`\frac{n}{2}`$. Let $`[m]`$ be the greatest integer not exceeding $`m`$.

We put $`T_p=_{i=1}^{[\frac{p}{2}]}(E^{}+i)`$ and $`S_p=_{i=1}^{[\frac{p}{2}]}(E^{}i)`$. These are both invertible on $`𝒜`$ if $`n`$ is odd. Our main result is

###### Theorem 5.1.

Assume $`n`$ is odd and let $`p1`$. Then $`C_p`$ has the form

$$C_p(\varphi ,\psi )=\frac{1}{T_p}Z_p(\frac{1}{S_p}\varphi ,\frac{1}{S_p}\psi ),\varphi ,\psi 𝒜$$
(5.1)
where $`Z_p`$ is an $`SL_{n+1}()`$-invariant bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

$`Z_p`$ is uniquely determined by (5.1), even if we just take $`\varphi ,\psi `$. Thus $``$ is uniquely determined by its restriction to $``$, once we know that $`(\varphi ,\psi )T_pC_p(S_p\varphi ,S_p\psi )`$ is bidifferential.

Finally, $`Z_p`$, like $`E^{}`$, extends uniquely to an $`SL_{n+1}()`$-invariant algebraic bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

###### Proof.

We return to the proof of Proposition 4.1. Let $`𝐠_d=g_dD^d`$ and $`𝐡_d=h_dD^d`$, with $`𝐠_0=𝐡_0=1`$. Writing out (4.3) termwise, we get, for $`p1`$,

$$C_p(\varphi ,\psi )=_{i+j+k+m=p}𝐠_mN_k(𝐡_i\varphi ,𝐡_j\psi )$$
(5.2)
More succinctly, $`C_p=_{i+j+k+m=p}𝐠_mN_k(𝐡_i𝐡_j)`$.

For $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$, the formula (4.2) simplifies in that $`[\frac{d+1}{2}]`$ factors cancel out. Then $`h_d=U_dV_d^1`$ where $`U_d=\frac{1}{2^dd!}_{i=1}^{[\frac{d}{2}]}(E^{}+i\frac{1}{2})`$ and $`V_d=_{i=[\frac{d+1}{2}]}^{d1}(E^{}+i)`$. Then $`𝐡_d=U_dV_d^1D^d=U_dD^dS_d^1`$. This is a formal relation, valid for $`n`$ odd since then $`S_d`$ is invertible. Similarly, (4.1) gives $`𝐠_d=T_d^1F_dD^d`$ where $`F_d=\frac{1}{2^dd!}_{i=[\frac{d+1}{2}]}^{d1}(E^{}i\frac{1}{2})`$. We put $`U_0=F_0=1`$.

We put $`Z_p(\varphi ,\psi )=T_pC_p(S_p\varphi ,S_p\psi )`$. Let $`T_{p;j}=T_pT_j^1`$ and $`S_{p;j}=S_j^1S_p`$. Now (5.2) gives $`Z_p=_{i+j+k+m=p}Z^{mkij}`$ where

$$Z^{mkij}=T_{p;m}F_mD^mN_k\left(U_iD^iS_{p;i}U_jD^jS_{p;j}\right)$$
(5.3)
Each $`Z^{mkij}`$, and so also their sum $`Z_p`$, is a bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$ with polynomial coefficients. I.e., $`Z_p`$ lies in $`_𝒫`$ where $`=[u_i,\xi _j,\frac{}{u_k},\frac{}{\xi _l}]`$ and $`𝒫=[u_i,\xi _j]`$.

Now $`Z_p`$ is invariant under $`𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$; this is clear since $`T_p`$, $`C_p`$ and $`S_p`$ are all invariant. It follows by projective geometry (as in \[L-O, §8.1\]) that $`Z_p`$ extends uniquely to a global $`SL_{n+1}()`$-invariant bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

We have $`\{C_p(\varphi ,\psi )|\varphi ,\psi \}`$ $``$ $`\{Z_p(\varphi ,\psi )|\varphi ,\psi \}`$ $``$ $`\{Z_p(\varphi ,\psi )|\varphi ,\psi 𝒜\}`$ $``$ $`\{C_p(\varphi ,\psi )|\varphi ,\psi 𝒜\}`$ where the arrows indicate that one set of values completely determines the next set. The middle arrow follows because any bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$ is completely determined by its values on $``$ (\[B, Lemma 5.1\]).

Clearly $`Z_p`$ extends naturally (and uniquely) to an algebraic differential operator $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_p`$ on $`T^{}^n`$; this amounts to replacing our Darboux coordinates $`u_i,\xi _j`$ by their holomorphic counterparts $`z_i,\zeta _j`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_p`$ is $`𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$-invariant and (by projective geometry again) extends to $`T^{}^n`$. ∎

Notice that this proof gives an explicit formula (in the coordinates $`u_i,\xi _j`$) for $`Z_p`$.

###### Remarks 5.2.

(i) Suppose $`n`$ is even. Then this proof still shows that the formula $`Z_p(\varphi ,\psi )=T_pC_p(S_p\varphi ,S_p\psi )`$ defines an operator $`Z_p`$ in $`_𝒫`$. Then (5.1) is valid as long as $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ lie in $`𝒜^{}=_{d=[\frac{p}{2}]\frac{n}{2}+1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜^d`$. We can show that all the other results in Theorem 5.1 are still true, so that (5.1) determines $`Z_p`$ uniquely even for $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒜^{}`$, $`Z_p`$ is an $`SL_{n+1}()`$-invariant bidifferential operator on $`T^{}^n`$, etc.

(ii) The maps $`𝒬_{norm}`$ and $`𝐡_\lambda `$ are equivariant with respect to only a parabolic subgroup $`P`$ of $`SL_{n+1}()`$, even though their product $`𝒬_\lambda =𝒬_{norm}𝐡_\lambda `$ is equivariant for $`SL_{n+1}()`$. Here $`P`$ is the subgroup of the affine transformations of $`^n`$ (i.e., the one which fixes the subspace $`(u_0=0)`$ in $`^n`$). Our formula (5.1) is manifestly equivariant for $`SL_{n+1}()`$.

## 6. Operators $`C_p^\lambda (\varphi ,)`$ for $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$

Next we recover part of the results found for $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$ in \[A-B1, Prop. 4.2.3\] and \[A-B2, Thm. 6.3 and Cor. 8.2\].

###### Corollary 6.1.

Let $`n1`$. For any momentum function $`\mu ^x`$, $`x𝔰𝔩_{n+1}()`$, we have

$$C_2(\mu ^x,\psi )=\frac{1}{E^{}(E^{}+1)}L^x(\psi ),\psi 𝒜$$
(6.1)
where $`L^x`$ is an order $`4`$ differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

Neither $`E^{}`$ nor $`E^{}+1`$ left divides $`L^x`$ ($`x0`$)  over $`T^{}U`$ for any open set $`U`$ in $`^n`$. Hence $`C_2(\mu ^x,)`$ is not a differential operator on $`T^{}U`$.

Finally, $`L^x`$ extends uniquely to an algebraic differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`n`$ is odd. For $`\psi 𝒜`$, (5.1) gives

$$C_2(\mu ^x,\psi )=\frac{1}{E^{}+1}Z_2(\frac{1}{E^{}1}\mu ^x,\frac{1}{E^{}1}\psi )=\frac{2}{nE^{}(E^{}+1)}Z_2(\mu ^x,\psi )$$
(6.2)
The last equality follows because the operator $`Z_2(\mu ^x,)`$ is graded of degree $`1`$.

For $`n`$ even, (6.2) is still true on account of Remark 5.2(i), except in the case where $`n=2`$ and $`\psi _{d=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒜^d`$. But if $`\psi 𝒜^0`$ then both $`C_2(\mu ^x,\psi )`$ and $`Z_2(\mu ^x,\psi )`$ vanish for degree reasons and so the first and third expressions in (6.2) are still equal.

This proves (6.1), for all $`n`$, where $`L^x=\frac{2}{n}Z_2(\mu ^x,)`$. Then $`L^x`$ extends to an algebraic differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$; this follows since both $`Z_2`$ and $`\mu ^x`$ so extend.

The $`L^x`$, for $`x0`$, all have the same order. This follows because the $`L^x`$, like the $`\mu ^x`$, transform in the adjoint representation of $`SL_{n+1}()`$. We can choose $`\mu ^x=\xi _m`$ (the choice of $`m\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is arbitrary). Let $`L^{(m)}`$ be the corresponding operator $`L^x`$. Using (5.2) we find after some calculation

$$C_2(,\xi _m)=\frac{1}{16}\frac{1}{E^{}(E^{}+1)}\xi _mD^2+\frac{1}{8}\frac{1}{E^{}+1}\frac{}{u_m}D$$
(6.3)
So $`L^{(m)}=\frac{1}{16}(\xi _mD2E^{}\frac{}{u_m})D`$. Clearly $`L^{(m)}`$ has order $`4`$. Using principal symbols, we see that $`L^{(m)}`$ has no left factors of the form $`E^{}+c`$ if $`n2`$. For $`n=1`$, (6.3) gives $`L^{(m)}=\frac{1}{16}(E^{}+\frac{1}{2})\frac{^3}{u_1^2\xi _1}`$, and so the only such factor is $`E^{}+\frac{1}{2}`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.2.

Assume $`n`$ is odd and let $`p1`$. If $`\varphi 𝒜^d`$ then

$$C_p(\varphi ,)=\frac{1}{_{i=1}^{[\frac{p}{2}]}(E^{}+i)(E^{}i+pd)}L_p^\varphi $$
(6.4)
where $`L_p^\varphi `$ is a differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$. If $`\varphi `$, then $`L_p^\varphi `$ is an algebraic differential operator on $`T^{}^n`$.

###### Proof.

This follows because $`L_p^\varphi =Z_p(S_p^1\varphi ,)`$. ∎


text:
# Molecular QSO Absorption Line Systems

### Acknowledgments.

The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation, operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.

## References

Carilli, C.L. et al. 1997, in Structure and Evolution of the IGM, eds. Petitjean and Charlot (Editions Frontiers: Paris), p. 325

Carilli, C.L. et al. 1998, in Radio Emission from Galactic and Extragalactic Compact Sources, eds. Zensus et al. (ASP: San Francisco), p. 317

Carilli, C.L. et al. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., in press

Chengalur, J.N., de Bruyn, A.G., and Narasimha, D. 1999, A&A, 343, L79

Combes, F., Wiklind T. 1999, in Highly Redshifted Radio Lines, eds. Carilli et al. (ASP: San Francisco), p. 210

Drinkwater, M.J. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 457

Frye B., Welch W. J., Broadhurst T.: 1997, ApJ 478, L25

Gerin, M., Roueff, E. 1999, in Highly Redshifted Radio Lines, eds. Carilli, et al. (ASP: San Francisco), p. 196

Hu, E.M. et al. 1995, AJ, 110, 1526

Lehar, J. et al. 2000 ApJ, 536, 584

Liszt H.S., Lucas R. 1995, A&A, 299, 847

Menten, K.M., Carilli, C.L., and Reid, M.J. 1999, in Highly Redshifted Radio Lines, eds. Carilli et al. (ASP: San Francisco), p. 218

Shah, R. et al. 1999, in Highly Redshifted Radio Lines, eds. Carilli et al. (ASP: San Francisco), p. 233

Wiklind, T., Combes, F. 1994, A&A, 286, L9

Wiklind, T., Combes, F. 1995, A&A, 299, 382

Wiklind, T., Combes, F. 1996a, Nature, 379, 139

Wiklind, T., Combes, F. 1996b, A&A, 315, 86

Wiklind, T., Combes, F. 1998, ApJ, 500, 129

Wilson, T. L., Matteucci, F. 1992, A&AR, 4, 1