text:
# Untitled Document

HUTP-01/A014 hep-th/0103167

D6 branes and M–theory geometrical transitions from gauged supergravity

José D. Edelstein and Carlos Núñez

Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University

Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

edels,nunez@lorentz.harvard.edu

We study the supergravity duals of supersymmetric theories arising in the world–volume of D6 branes wrapping holomorphic two–cycles and special Lagrangian three–cycles within the framework of eight dimensional gauged supergravity. When uplifted to 11d, our solutions represent M–theory on the background of, respectively, the small resolution of the conifold and a manifold with $`G_2`$ holonomy. We further discuss on the flop and other possible geometrical transitions and its implications.

20 March 2001

1. Introduction

The world–volume low–energy dynamics of D–branes in certain curved backgrounds defines a topologically twisted supersymmetric field theory . The twisting is necessary to allow for the world–volume of the brane to support covariantly constant spinors (this is reminiscent of a similar phenomenon in lower dimensional supergravities ). If the D–brane is wrapping a nontrivial cycle, and we take its size to zero, the infrared dynamics of the system is described by a lower dimensional field theory with either ordinary or twisted (depending on the higher dimensional twisting being respectively partial or full) reduced supersymmetry . The amount of supersymmetry preserved has to do with the way in which the cycle is embedded in a higher dimensional space. If the number of branes is taken to be large, this sort of systems provide a supergravity dual description of $`𝒩=1`$ or $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric field theories .

In this paper we will consider D6 brane configurations that reduce, at low energies, to theories with four and eight supercharges in four and five dimensions. The D6 brane system is best described in the infrared by means of $`𝒩=2`$ seven dimensional super Yang–Mills theory . So, for example, wrapping these branes on $`S^3`$ would imply, after appropriate twisting, breaking one quarter of the supercharges, the theory reducing to pure $`𝒩=1`$ four dimensional super Yang–Mills in the infrared. The above referred twisting corresponds to $`S^3`$ being a special Lagrangian submanifold of a Calabi–Yau threefold, namely, the deformed conifold $`T^{}S^3`$. On the other hand, if the D6 branes wrap a holomorphic $`S^2`$ in the cotangent bundle of $`S^2`$, $`T^{}S^2`$, the infrared dynamics will be governed by five dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang–Mills theory.

It was recently proposed that the configuration of D6 branes wrapping an $`S^3`$ in $`T^{}S^3`$ is dual, through a conifold transition, to a type IIA geometry where the D6 branes have dissapeared, being replaced by RR fluxes on the blownup $`S^2`$ . Conversely, there is a mirrored type IIB version of this phenomenon with D5 branes wrapping the $`S^2`$ becoming RR fluxes on the $`S^3`$. It was almost immediately realized that this duality can be better viewed in M–theory on $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds , where it corresponds to a flop transition . (See also  for a recent discussion on topology change in $`G_2`$ holonomy manifolds.) It is natural to analyze these configurations in 11d for the fact that uplifted D6 branes become purely gravitational. Besides, the D6 branes are strongly coupled in the ultraviolet and the would be decoupling limit has to be addressed in eleven dimensions. In particular, the 11d supergravity solution is trustable for any number of branes. Another difference with other D–branes is given by the fact that massive geodesics can escape to infinity signaling the non decoupling of gravity .

It is our purpose in this paper to study this sort of solutions under the light of lower dimensional gauged supergravity. This is the natural framework to perform twisting. The solutions emerging from these theories correspond to near horizon D–brane solutions thus giving directly the gravity duals of gauge theories living on the world–volume of the brane. Since we will work with D6 branes, the twisting would require to impose boundary conditions on eight dimensional gravitational, gauge and scalar fields so, following the methods introduced in , the natural set up for this problem is eight dimensional gauged supergravity. In particular, we will work within the framework of maximal $`8d`$ gauged supergravity  so as to have enough room for different twistings. The virtue of gauged supergravities in this respect is that they provide quite cleanly the gauge field modes that undertake the partial twisting.

Uplifting to eleven dimensions will leave us with $`M`$–theory on Ricci flat backgrounds corresponding to the small resolution of the conifold and a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold. Both manifolds eventually develop singularities where transitions to a different manifold might be possible. In the latter case, for example, the geometrical transition correspond to the above referred flop between two three–spheres that, at the singular point, constitute the base of a cone . Instead, in the former case, we found that there is no transition, and the theory in the ultraviolet falls into the singularity. The reason for the absence of a geometrical transition can be attributed, as we will discuss, to the non existence of a $`\theta `$ angle in five dimensional theories. This suggest that a duality between large $`N`$ five dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ super Yang–Mills theory and superstrings propagating in a K3 manifold with fluxes turned on, in the spirit of , does not take place.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we review maximal gauged supergravity in eight dimensions and prepare the set up for the search of solutions. Section 3 is devoted to the case of D6 branes wrapping special Lagrangian $`3`$–cycles. We first construct solutions of 8d gauged supergravity that are subsequently uplifted to 11d. The resulting geometry is that of a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold recently studied in . In section 4 we consider the case of D6 branes on holomorphic $`2`$–cycles in a deformed $`A_1`$ singularity of $`K3`$, namely $`T^{}S^2`$. When uplifted to 11d our solution is the small resolution of the conifold $`𝒪(1)+𝒪(1)\mathrm{IP}^1`$. We discuss on the obstructions to the geometrical transitions appearing in this case and their relation to generic aspects of five dimensional gauge theories. We conclude in section 5 with a discussion of our results, and an outlook of avenues for further research.

Note Added: While the final version of this paper was being typewritten, some results that overlap part of ours were reported by Jaume Gomis .

2. Review of $`d=8`$ gauged supergravity

Maximal gauged supergravity in eight dimensions was originally constructed by Salam and Sezgin . It arises from dimensional reduction of $`11d`$ supergravity on a $`SU(2)`$ group manifold . The field content of this theory consists of the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, a dilatonic scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, five scalars given by a unimodular $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`L_\alpha ^i`$ in the coset $`SL(3,\mathrm{IR})/SO(3)`$, a seventh scalar $`B`$, a three–form $`B_{(3)}`$, three two–forms $`B_{(2)}^i`$, three vector fields $`B_{(1)}^i`$ and a $`SU(2)`$ gauge potential $`A_\mu ^i`$, as well as the pseudo Majorana spinors $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\chi _i`$. In this paper we are going to restrict ourselves to a sector of the theory with vanishing $`B`$–fields. This amounts to pure gravitational solutions of the $`11d`$ system. The bosonic dynamics in this sector is governed by the Lagrangian

$$e^1=\frac{1}{4}R\frac{1}{4}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{\mu \nu i}\frac{1}{4}P_{\mu ij}P^{\mu ij}\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2\frac{g^2}{16}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}(T_{ij}T^{ij}\frac{1}{2}T^2),$$

where $`e`$ is the determinant of the achtbein $`e_\mu ^a`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }^i`$ is the Yang–Mills field strength and $`P_{\mu ij}`$ is a symmetric and traceless quantity defined by

$$P_{\mu ij}+Q_{\mu ij}L_i^\alpha (_\mu \delta _\alpha ^\beta gϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_\mu ^\gamma )L_{\beta j},$$

$`Q_{\mu ij}`$ being the antisymmetric counterpart. We have set $`\kappa =1`$. As usual, greek indices are curved ($`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ are in the group manifold 1 While working in eight dimensions, these indices describe a flat space. The dependence on the coordinates of the group manifold have been factored out, and it will only reappear when uplifting to $`11d`$ is performed. and $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ label space–time coordinates) while latin ones are flat. Notice that, for example, $`A_\mu ^\gamma =L_i^\gamma A_\mu ^i`$, as well as $`F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =L_i^\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^i`$. Finally, the potential energy corresponding to the scalar fields is governed by the so-called $`T`$–tensor,

$$T^{ij}=L_\alpha ^iL_\beta ^j\delta ^{\alpha \beta },$$

and $`T=\delta _{ij}T^{ij}`$. The equations of motion are

$$R_{\mu \nu }=P_{\mu ij}P_\nu ^{ij}+2_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+2e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \gamma }^iF_\nu ^{\gamma i}\frac{1}{3}g_{\mu \nu }^2\mathrm{\Phi },$$

$$_\mu (e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F^{\mu \nu i})=e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}P_\mu ^{ij}F_j^{\mu \nu }gg^{\nu \gamma }ϵ^{ijk}P_{\gamma jl}T_k^l,$$

$$_\mu P^{\mu ij}=\frac{2}{3}\delta ^{ij}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}F_{\mu \nu }^iF^{\mu \nu j}+\frac{g^2}{2}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ is short for

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}T_k^iT^{jk}\frac{1}{2}TT^{ij}\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{ij}\left(T_{kl}T^{kl}\frac{1}{2}T^2\right).$$

Notice that the dilaton equation is obtained from (2.1) by tracing over the latin indices.

The supersymmetry transformations for the fermions are given by

$$\delta \psi _\gamma =𝒟_\gamma ϵ+\frac{1}{24}e^\mathrm{\Phi }F_{\mu \nu }^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma ^{\mu \nu }10\delta _\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu )ϵ\frac{g}{288}e^\mathrm{\Phi }ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\gamma Tϵ,$$

$$\delta \chi _i=\frac{1}{2}(P_{\mu ij}+\frac{2}{3}\delta _{ij}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })\mathrm{\Gamma }^j\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ\frac{1}{4}e^\mathrm{\Phi }F_{\mu \nu i}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }ϵ\frac{g}{8}e^\mathrm{\Phi }(T_{ij}\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ij}T)ϵ^{jkl}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}ϵ,$$

where the covariant derivative is

$$𝒟_\mu ϵ=\left(_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}+\frac{1}{4}Q_{\mu ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ij}\right)ϵ.$$

It is useful for later purposes to work alternatively with spinors of $`32`$ components or doublets of sixteen components. Then, we will use the following representation for the Clifford algebra

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^a=\gamma ^a\times \mathrm{II}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\gamma _9\times \sigma ^i,$$

where $`\gamma ^a`$ are eight dimensional gamma matrices ($`a`$ being a flat index), $`\gamma _9=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^7`$, with $`\gamma _9^2=1`$, and $`\sigma ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices corresponding to the $`R`$–symmetry group. It will be finally convenient to introduce $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_9\frac{1}{6i}ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ijk}=\gamma _9\times \mathrm{II}`$.

In the following we will consider supergravity duals of gauge theories in four and five dimensions with four and eight supercharges respectively. Our procedure is based on taking the low energy limit for a D6 brane wrapped on three and two supersymmetric cycles in Calabi–Yau and $`K3`$ manifolds. The structure group of the normal bundle of these cycles is, respectively, $`SO(3)`$ and $`SO(2)`$, thus Salam–Sezgin theory has enough room for their twisting. When the energies are low enough, the cycle decouples and we remain with a theory that has less dimensions and less supersymmetries than the original one.

Since we will work with D6 branes, it seems natural to consider seven dimensional boundary conditions for gauge and scalar fields, so, the natural set up for this problem is eight dimensional gauged supergravity. We can see that the vacuum supersymmetric solution of this theory is given by

$$ds_8^2=e^{\frac{2}{3}\varphi }dx_{1,6}^2+dr^2,$$

$$e^{\varphi \varphi _0}=r,$$

where $`\varphi _0=\mathrm{log}(\frac{3g}{8})`$. When uplifted to eleven dimensions by means of the prescription given in Ref., after appropriate coordinate rescaling, the higher dimensional configuration is

$$ds^2=dx_{1,6}^2+N(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3).$$

After modding out the outer three–sphere by $`\text{ZZ}_N`$, we get an ALE space with an $`A_{N1}`$ singularity in coincidence with the uplifting of the near horizon solution corresponding to D6 branes in type IIA .

3. D6 branes on the deformed conifold

In this section we will obtain the gravity dual of $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang–Mills theory in four dimensions, arising in the low–energy dynamics of D6 branes wrapped on $`S^3`$ in $`T^{}S^3`$, starting from eight dimensional gauged supergravity. Let us start with an ansatz for the metric that describes such deformation of the world–volume of the D6 brane

$$ds^2=e^{2f}dx_{1,3}^2+e^{2h}d\mathrm{\Omega }_3+dr^2,$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ is the metric of the unit three–sphere. As explained in the introduction, wrapping the branes on a curved cycle implies that the theory has to be twisted on the curved part.

The fields on the D6 branes transform under $`SO(1,6)\times SO(3)_R`$ as (8,2) for the fermions and (1,3) for the scalars, while the gauge field is a singlet under $`R`$–symmetry. When we wrap the D6 branes on a three–cycle, the symmetry group splits as $`SO(1,3)\times SO(3)\times SO(3)_R`$, and we shall construct a diagonal $`SO(3)_D`$ from the $`SO(3)`$ of the cycle and the one of the R-symmetry (in other words, we mix the spin conection with the gauge connection, as explained above). It can be easily seen that the effect of the twisting is to preserve the vector fields but transforms the scalars in one forms on the curved surface, so we are left with a theory with no scalars fields in the infrared; besides four supercharges are preserved.

We will describe the $`S^3`$ as a $`SU(2)`$ group manifold by means of the left invariant forms $`w^i`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w^1=& \mathrm{cos}\varphi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi d\psi ,\hfill \\ \hfill w^2=& \mathrm{sin}\varphi d\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi d\psi ,\hfill \\ \hfill w^3=& d\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\psi ,\hfill \end{array}$$

satisfying

$$dw^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}w^jw^k,$$

in terms of which the metric of the unit sphere simply reads

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}(w^i)^2.$$

The twisting is achieved by turning on a non–Abelian $`SO(3)`$ gauge field given by the left invariant form of the three sphere,

$$A^i=(2g)^1w^i,$$

whose field strength

$$F^i=(8g)^1ϵ^{ijk}w^jw^k,$$

trivially obeys the corresponding equation of motion. This correponds to a complete identification of the spin connection with the R–symmetry. In such case it is possible to get rid of the scalars $`L_\alpha ^i`$,

$$L_\alpha ^i=\delta _\alpha ^iP_{ij}=0,Q_{ij}=gϵ_{ijk}A^k.$$

The $`T`$–tensor is drastically simplified to $`T_{ij}=\delta _{ij}`$, $`T=3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ij}=\frac{1}{4}\delta _{ij}`$. Supersymmetric configurations require the following projections in the parameter $`ϵ`$:

$$\gamma _{\underset{¯}{r}}ϵ=i\gamma _9ϵ\gamma _{ab}ϵ=\sigma ^{ab}ϵ,$$

where $`a,b=\underset{¯}{\theta },\underset{¯}{\varphi },\underset{¯}{\psi }1,2,3`$ are the directions along the three–sphere. These projection leave unbroken $`1/8`$ of the original supersymmetries, that is, four supercharges. The first order BPS equations are,

$$f^{}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\frac{1}{2g}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2h}+\frac{g}{8}e^\mathrm{\Phi },$$

$$h^{}=\frac{3}{2g}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2h}+\frac{g}{8}e^\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

By simple inspection, we can quickly find a solution

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{g^2}{16}r^2,e^{2h}=\frac{3}{4}r^2.$$

Notice that the relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=3f^{}`$ is forced from the Ricci flatness of the corresponding eleven dimensional solution. When uplifted to 11d, we obtain a Ricci flat solution of the form $`M_4\times Y_7`$ where $`Y_7`$ is a cone whose base $`X_6`$ is an Einstein manifold with the topology of $`S^3\times \stackrel{~}{S}^3`$,

$$ds^2=dx_{1,3}^2+dr^2+\frac{r^2}{9}\left[(w^a)^2+(\stackrel{~}{w}^a)^2w^a\stackrel{~}{w}^a\right],$$

$`\stackrel{~}{w}^a`$ being the left invariant one forms associated with $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$. This metric coincides with the asymptotic at large $`r`$ of the $`M`$–theory solution on a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold studied in Ref., and we note that the solution is singular in the infrared. It is natural to try to obtain a solution where the singularity is absent. In this system we do not have further degrees of freedom to turn on, that could occasionally solve the singularity; this means that there must be other solutions to the BPS equations (3.1)(3.1), such that, when uplifted to eleven dimensions, do not give place to singularities in the infrared.

We can define indeed a pair of functions, $`uh+\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`v3h\mathrm{\Phi }`$, the system simplifies to $`e^udu=\frac{g^2}{12}e^vdv`$, whose immediate solution is

$$e^u=\frac{g^2}{12}\left(e^v\frac{a^3}{3^{\frac{3}{2}}}\right),$$

$`a`$ being a constant. There is an amusing change of variable

$$r(\rho )=\frac{(2g)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{3^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(\rho ^{\frac{3}{2}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{2};\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{2};\frac{a^3}{\rho ^3}]a^{\frac{3}{2}}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})}\right),$$

where $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b,c,z]`$ is the hypergeometric function 2 Notice that in our case, for $`\rho a`$, it has a real variable $`z1`$ such that the change of variables has not branch cut discontinuity. The substracted constant in (3.1) just amounts to $`r(a)=0`$.

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[a,b,c,z]=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_m(b)_m}{(c)_m}\frac{z^m}{m!},$$

with $`(a)_n=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+n)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)`$ the Pochhammer symbol, that allows us to find a solution to the BPS equations of the form

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{g^3}{216}\rho ^3\left(1\frac{a^3}{\rho ^3}\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{2h}=\frac{g}{18}\rho ^3\left(1\frac{a^3}{\rho ^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$

When uplifted to 11 dimensions, we obtain

$$ds^2=dx_{1,3}^2+\frac{1}{\left(1\frac{a^3}{\rho ^3}\right)}d\rho ^2+\frac{\rho ^2}{12}(\stackrel{~}{w}^a)^2+\frac{\rho ^2}{9}\left(1\frac{a^3}{\rho ^3}\right)\left[w^a\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{w}^a\right]^2.$$

This is the metric of a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold which is topologically $`\mathrm{IR}^4\times S^3`$, originally constructed in . It turns out from our results that it can be obtained by means of an uplifting to 11d of a solution of eight dimensional gauged supergravity. This fits nicely with the discussions in , in the sense that one expects gauged supergravity to give a good description of the near horizon dynamics of D–branes, and this is what we are presently making manifest.

The solution obtained so far represents an $`M`$–theory background which is the direct product of four dimensional Minkowski space and a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold. In order to understand the physics behind this configuration we can go to type IIA. This issue was discussed in detail recently by Atiyah, Maldacena and Vafa , and we briefly remind here the main aspects of their discussion. The radial variable in (3.1) $`\rho a`$ fills $`S^3`$ while the other sphere $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$ remains of finite volume $`a^3`$ when the former shrinks (see Fig.1). The $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold has isometry group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}\times SU(2)_D`$, the first two factors corresponding to the left action on $`S^3`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$ respectively, and the last one is the diagonal subgroup of $`SU(2)_R\times SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{R}}`$. There is a flop transition in which the two spheres are exchanged. In this case, $`M`$–theory smooths out the singularity thanks to the existence of $`C`$–field fluxes through the three–sphere.

Fig. 1. Flop transition in M–theory. The $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold on the left can be deformed to the one on the right. $`M`$–theory avoids the singular point due to the existence of $`C`$–field fluxes.

There are two very different quotients of this manifold: a singular one by modding out by $`\text{ZZ}_NU(1)SU(2)_L`$, and a non–singular quotient if one instead chooses $`\text{ZZ}_NU(1)SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$. This is due to the fact that $`S^3`$ shrinks to a point when $`\rho a`$ while $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$ has radius $`a`$. Modding out by $`\text{ZZ}_NU(1)SU(2)_L`$ results in an $`A_{N1}`$ singularity fibered over $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$ so, after KK reduction along the circle corresponding to the $`U(1)`$, one ends with $`N`$ D6 branes wrapped on $`\stackrel{~}{S}^3`$ whose normal bundle is that corresponding to the three–sphere being a special Lagrangian in the deformed conifold . The holonomy gets correspondingly reduced from $`G_2`$ to $`SU(3)`$ . The second case, amounts to modding out by $`\text{ZZ}_NU(1)SU(2)_{\stackrel{~}{L}}`$, which has no fixed points so the quotient is regular. After KK reduction one ends with a non–singular type IIA configurations (without D–branes) on a space with the topology of $`𝒪(1)+𝒪(1)\mathrm{IP}^1`$ , and with $`N`$ units of RR flux through the finite radius $`S^2`$. This allowed the authors of Ref. to obtain the duality proposed by Vafa  from a geometrical flop in 11d.

The gauge theory defined in the planar directions of the D6 branes is, as we pointed out above, a four dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang–Mills theory (possibly with extra light fields corresponding to KK modes). We will analize the gauge theory from a IIA perspective. The coupling constant of this gauge theory is given by

$$\frac{1}{g_4^2}=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}\stackrel{~}{S}^3}{g_7^2}.$$

Following , we can define in string theory a coupling superfield whose lower component is

$$Y=\frac{V}{g_s}+iC,$$

where $`V`$ represents the volume of the three sphere in the string frame and $`C`$ is the value of the three form potential of IIA that plays the role of the $`\theta `$ angle in the gauge theory. Besides, we introduce the usual gauge superfield $`S=g_sTrW^2`$, so that the action of the theory will be given by

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{g_s}d^2\theta YS.$$

The instantons, that in our case will be euclidean D2 branes wrapped on the three–sphere, will correct this low energy action

$$𝒮_{inst}d^2\theta N^2e^{Y/N}.$$

After extremizing with respect to the superfield $`Y`$ and $`S`$, one obtains a superpotential where it can be seen that the breaking of $`U(1)`$ to $`Z_2`$ has taken place, due to the appearence of $`N`$ vacua and a gaugino condensate.

4. D6 branes on $`S^2`$ in $`T^{}S^2`$

In the same vein of previous section, we now wrap $`N`$ D6 branes on a holomorphic $`S^2`$ in $`T^{}S^2`$. The corresponding split of the symmetry group is $`SO(1,4)\times SO(2)\times SU(2)_R`$ such that, after twisting the $`SO(2)`$ with a $`U(1)SU(2)_R`$, the preserved fermions are those transforming in the $`(4,\pm ,)`$ representations, i.e. there are eight supercharges. Notice that out of three scalars, the one corresponding to the particular $`U(1)`$ chosen in the $`R`$–symmetry group survives the twisting. This leaves us with the field content of $`𝒩=2`$ five dimensional super Yang–Mills theory. The real scalar parametrizes the Coulomb branch of the theory.

From the gauged supergravity point of view, the twisting of this configuration allows us to get rid of all but one scalar field $`\lambda `$ that enters $`L_\alpha ^i`$ as

$$L_\alpha ^i=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{2\lambda }),$$

such that the symmetric $`P_{ij}`$ and antisymmetric $`Q_{ij}`$ are

$$P_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & 0& g\mathrm{sinh}3\lambda A^2\\ & \lambda & g\mathrm{sinh}3\lambda A^1\\ & & 2\lambda \end{array}\right)Q_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& gA^3& g\mathrm{cosh}3\lambda A^2\\ & 0& g\mathrm{cosh}3\lambda A^1\\ & & 0\end{array}\right).$$

It is enough to perform the twisting to turn on the gauge field $`A^3`$. The ansatz for the metric is

$$ds^2=e^{2f}dx_{1,4}^2+e^{2h}d\mathrm{\Omega }_2+dr^2,$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$, and $`f`$ and $`h`$ are only functions of the radial coordinate. Imposition of the BPS conditions $`\delta _ϵ\psi _\mu =\delta _ϵ\chi _i=0`$ translates into the following projections of the supersymmetric parameter

$$\gamma _{\underset{¯}{\theta }\underset{¯}{\varphi }}ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12}ϵ\gamma _{\underset{¯}{r}}ϵ=i\gamma _9ϵ.$$

On the other hand, the BPS equations are:

$$f^{}=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\frac{1}{6g}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2\lambda 2h}+\frac{g}{24}(2e^{2\lambda }+e^{4\lambda })e^\mathrm{\Phi },$$

$$h^{}=\frac{5}{6g}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2\lambda 2h}+\frac{g}{24}(2e^{2\lambda }+e^{4\lambda })e^\mathrm{\Phi },$$

$$\lambda ^{}=\frac{1}{3g}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }2\lambda 2h}\frac{g}{6}(e^{2\lambda }e^{4\lambda })e^\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Let us first present a solution in the simplest case of constant $`\lambda `$. It is clear from (4.1) that $`\lambda >0`$ and $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }=\xi ^{1/2}e^h`$ with $`\xi =\frac{g^2}{2}(e^{4\lambda }e^{2\lambda })`$. Plugging this relation back into (4.1)(4.1) it is immediate to obtain $`\lambda =\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{log}\frac{3}{2}`$ and $`e^{2h}=\frac{3}{8}r^2`$. Uplifting to 11d leads, after a suitable change of variables, to a metric of the form $`M_5\times Y_6`$ where $`Y_6`$ is the singular conifold with base $`T^{1,1}`$,

$$ds^2=dx_{1,4}^2+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,1},$$

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1,1}=\frac{1}{9}(d\psi +\underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _ad\varphi _a)^2+\frac{1}{6}\underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}(d\theta _a^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _ad\varphi _a^2).$$

The fact that the solution in 11d involves a Calabi–Yau manifold is expected not only from the Ricci flatness condition but for the fact that, in 10d, the D6 branes are wrapping a holomorphic cycle of a $`K3`$ manifold whose holonomy is $`SU(2)`$, and this uplifts to $`SU(3)`$ holonomy manifolds . It is natural to attempt a resolution of the singularity. The small resolution of the conifold has a metric given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_{\mathrm{res}}^2=& \kappa (\rho )^1d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{9}\kappa (\rho )\rho ^2(d\psi +\underset{a=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _ad\varphi _a)^2\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{6}\rho ^2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)+\frac{1}{6}(\rho ^2+6a^2)(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2),\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\kappa (\rho )\frac{\rho ^2+9a^2}{\rho ^2+6a^2}.$$

When $`a0`$ the metric reduces to that of the standard conifold (4.1)(4.1). It is easy to see from (4.1) that near the former apex of the conifold the $`S^3`$ shrinks to zero while the $`S^2`$ remains of finite size $`a^2`$. To resolve the singularity, we should excite new degrees of freedom. It is natural, in this case, to look for excitations of the scalar field $`\lambda `$, that must be the source of the resolution factor $`\kappa `$. In the singular limit, as well as for large radius, $`\kappa 1`$, so it should enter as a logarithm, say,

$$\lambda (r)=\frac{1}{6}\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{log}\kappa (r)\right).$$

We now insert this function back in (4.1)(4.1)(4.1) and peform a not less amusing change of variables,

$$r(\rho )=\frac{2^{\frac{17}{12}}}{3^{\frac{17}{12}}}\rho ^{\frac{3}{2}}F_1[\frac{3}{4};\frac{5}{12},\frac{5}{12};\frac{7}{4};\frac{\rho ^2}{6a^2},\frac{\rho ^2}{9a^2}],$$

where $`F_1[a;b_1,b_2;c;x,y]`$ is the Appell hypergeometric function of two variables 3 Notice that the variables of the Appel function are real and negative so this change of variables is not singular neither it has branch cut discontinuities.

$$F_1[a;b_1,b_2;c;x,y]=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_{m+n}(b_1)_m(b_2)_n}{m!n!(c)_{m+n}}x^my^n,$$

finding a solution to the BPS equations of the form

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{g^3}{144}\rho ^3\kappa ^{\frac{1}{2}}(\rho )e^{2h}=\frac{3^{\frac{1}{3}}g}{2^{\frac{1}{3}}36}\rho (\rho ^2+6a^2)\kappa ^{\frac{1}{6}}(\rho ).$$

Uplifting of this solution to 11d gives precisely the metric (4.1) of the small resolution of the conifold $`𝒪(1)+𝒪(1)\mathrm{IP}^1`$. It is again remarkable that this solution was extracted cleanly from eight dimensional gauged supergravity. In this case, the radial coordinate $`\rho 0`$ fills the three–sphere while the two–sphere remains of finite radius when $`\rho 0`$. The ALE $`A_{N1}`$ singularity fibered over $`S^2`$, that corresponds to $`N`$ D6 branes (after KK reduction along the appropriate $`U(1)`$) in type IIA wrapping an $`S^2`$ in $`T^{}S^2`$, is obtained after modding out by $`\text{ZZ}_N𝒪(1)+𝒪(1)`$.

It is natural to ask at this point about the possibility of geometrical transitions of the $`𝒪(1)+𝒪(1)\mathrm{IP}^1`$ manifold taking place. There are some key differences with respect to the configuration of the previous section. Indeed, the moduli space is one (real) dimensional, being basically parametrized by the size of the sphere, that is, $`a`$. Thus, there is no possible conifold transition. Besides, in the present case, there is no way to avoid the singular point $`a=0`$. This is related to the fact that these theories do not possess a $`\theta `$ term. This further prevents geometrical transitions of the sort discussed in section 2 of  (in the context of type IIA). Moreover, when the system heads the singularity, the gauge theory is flowing towards the ultraviolet. There is no decoupling between the gauge theory and the string modes.

5. Conclusions

In the present paper we have obtained supergravity duals of D6 branes wrapping holomorphic two–cycles in local $`T^{}S^2`$ and special Lagrangian submanifolds in a deformed conifold. More concretely, we focused on the $`M`$–theory description of such configurations looking for geometric transitions that might be pointing in the direction of new superstring dualities that amount to large $`N`$ dualities of supersymmetric gauge theories.

It is interesting to remark that both metrics found in our paper, that is, the small resolution of the conifold and the $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold, are obtained from eight dimensional supergravity, which is in some sense the natural theory for the near horizon dynamics of the D6 branes. Notice that our solutions correspond to the infinite coupling limit of type IIA, due to the fact that our 10d dilaton diverges for large values of the radial coordinates. Definitively, it would be of great interest to seek for solutions where the string coupling goes to a constant.

Manifolds with $`G_2`$ holonomy give the appropriate M–theoretic background corresponding to $`𝒩=1`$ four dimensional theories. It is then of great interest to extend our results to include the other manifolds of this kind that were reported in the literature . From the string theory point of view, it has been recently argued that they correspond to the uplifting of space–time filling intersections of D6 branes .

The framework provided by this sort of dualities that emerge from geometrical transitions in $`M`$–theory seems very promising. In the last few months, interesting papers addressing issues such as confining string , domain walls , gluino condensation and remarkable dualities between different $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories  have appeared. The information provided by supergravity duals of these configurations is, in some sense, complementary to the above mentioned dualities: unlike the latters, the formers carry information of $`D`$ terms.

We think that gauged supergravities provide a natural framework to pose some of these questions. Clearly, further research in the subject is deserved.

Acknowledgements:

We are very pleased to thank Jerome Gauntlett, Juan Maldacena, Kyungho Oh and, especially, Cumrun Vafa for most valuable comments and discussions. We thank Edward Witten for correspondence. The work of J.D.E. has been supported by the Argentinian National Research Council (CONICET) and by a Fundación Antorchas grant under project number 13671/1-55. The work of C.N. has been supported by Fundación Antorchas.

References

relax M. Bershadsky, C. Vafa and V. Sadov, “D-Branes and Topological Field Theories”, Nucl. Phys. B 463 (1996) 420 \[hep-th/9511222\]. relax See, for example, J. D. Edelstein, C. Núñez and F. A. Schaposnik, “Bogomol’nyi Bounds and Killing Spinors in d=3 Supergravity”, Phys. Lett. B 375 (1996) 163 \[hep-th/9512117\]. relax M. Bershadsky, A. Johansen, V. Sadov and C. Vafa, “Topological reduction of 4-d SYM to 2-d sigma models”, Nucl. Phys. B 448 (1995) 166 \[hep-th/9501096\]. relax J. M. Maldacena and C. Núñez, “Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem”, hep-th/0007018. “Towards the large N limit of pure $`𝒩=1`$ super Yang Mills”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 588 \[hep-th/0008001\]. relax I. R. Klebanov and N. A. Nekrasov, “Gravity duals of fractional branes and logarithmic RG flow”, Nucl. Phys. B 574 (2000) 263 \[hep-th/9911096\]. I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Gravity duals of supersymmetric SU(N) x SU(N+M) gauge theories”, Nucl. Phys. B 578 (2000) 123 \[hep-th/0002159\]. K. Oh and R. Tatar, “Renormalization group flows on D3 branes at an orbifolded conifold”, JHEP0005 (2000) 030 \[hep-th/0003183\]. I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, “Supergravity and a confining gauge theory: Duality cascades and (chi)SB-resolution of naked singularities”, JHEP0008 (2000) 052 \[hep-th/0007191\]. C. P. Herzog and I. R. Klebanov, “Gravity duals of fractional branes in various dimensions”, hep-th/0101020. relax B. S. Acharya, J. P. Gauntlett and N. Kim, “Fivebranes wrapped on associative three-cycles”, hep-th/0011190. H. Nieder and Y. Oz, “Supergravity and D-branes wrapping special Lagrangian cycles”, JHEP0103 (2001) 008 \[hep-th/0011288\]. J. P. Gauntlett, N. Kim and D. Waldram, “M-fivebranes wrapped on supersymmetric cycles”, hep-th/0012195. C. Núñez, I. Y. Park, M. Schvellinger and T. A. Tran, “Supergravity duals of gauge theories from F(4) gauged supergravity in six dimensions”, hep-th/0103080. relax B. Brinne, A. Fayyazuddin, S. Mukhopadhyay and D. J. Smith, “Supergravity M5-branes wrapped on Riemann surfaces and their QFT duals”, JHEP 0012 (2000) 013 \[hep-th/0009047\]. B. Brinne, A. Fayyazuddin, T. Z. Husain and D. J. Smith, “N = 1 M5-brane geometries”, hep-th/0012194. relax M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, “Ricci-flat metrics, harmonic forms and brane resolutions”, hep-th/0012011. M. Cvetic, G. W. Gibbons, H. Lu and C. N. Pope, “Supersymmetric non-singular fractional D2-branes and NS-NS 2-branes”, hep-th/0101096. relax N. Itzhaki, J. M. Maldacena, J. Sonnenschein and S. Yankielowicz, “Supergravity and the large N limit of theories with sixteen supercharges”, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 046004 \[hep-th/9802042\]. relax C. Vafa, “Superstrings and topological strings at large N”, hep-th/0008142. relax B. S. Acharya, “On realising N = 1 super Yang-Mills in M theory”, hep-th/0011089. relax M. Atiyah, J. Maldacena and C. Vafa, “An M-theory flop as a large N duality”, hep-th/0011256. relax H. Partouche and B. Pioline, “Rolling among G(2) vacua,” JHEP0103 (2001) 005 \[hep-th/0011130\]. relax A. Salam and E. Sezgin, “d=8 Supergravity”, Nucl. Phys. B 258 (1985) 284. relax J. Gomis, “D-Branes, Holonomy and M-Theory”, hep-th/0103115. relax J. Scherk and J. H. Schwarz, “How To Get Masses From Extra Dimensions”, Nucl. Phys. B 153 (1979) 61. relax H. J. Boonstra, K. Skenderis and P. K. Townsend, “The domain wall/QFT correspondence”, JHEP9901 (1999) 003 \[hep-th/9807137\]. relax R. Bryant and S. Salamon, “On the construction of some complete metrics with exceptional holonomy”, Duke Math. J. 58 (1989) 829. relax G. W. Gibbons, D. N. Page and C. N. Pope, “Einstein Metrics On $`S^3`$, $`R^3`$ And $`R^4`$ Bundles”, Commun. Math. Phys. 127 (1990) 529. relax P. Candelas and X. C. de la Ossa, “Comments On Conifolds”, Nucl. Phys. B 342 (1990) 246. relax L. A. Pando Zayas and A. A. Tseytlin, “3-branes on resolved conifold”, JHEP0011 (2000) 028 \[hep-th/0010088\]. relax M. Atiyah and E. Witten, to appear. E. Witten, talk given at Heterotic Dreams and Asymptotic Visions: The 60th Birthday Celebration for David Gross, ITP, Santa Barbara, March 2–3, 2001. relax B. S. Acharya, “Confining strings from G(2)-holonomy spacetimes”, hep-th/0101206. relax B. Acharya and C. Vafa, “On domain walls of N = 1 supersymmetric Yang-Mills in four dimensions”, hep-th/0103011. relax F. Cachazo, K. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “A Large N Duality via a Geometric Transition”, hep-th/0103067.


format: text

text:
# New Criteria for Bosonic Behavior of Excitons

## Abstract

Dimensional arguments lead to say that $`N`$ excitons in a sample of volume $`V`$ behave as bosons for $`\lambda Na_x^3/V1`$, $`a_x`$ being the exciton radius and $`\lambda `$ a dimensionless factor. The Mott criterion, which is based on the disappearance of all exciton bound states because of screening, gives $`\lambda 1`$. Since excitons feel each other through both Coulomb interaction and Pauli exclusion between their electrons and holes, criteria based on the underlying fermionic character of the exciton should be even more relevant. Two significant quantities are the boson departure $`1[B,B^{}]`$ and boson number $`B^{}B`$, where $`B^{}`$ is the exciton creation operator. Their expectation values in the $`N`$-exciton state are close to their boson values for $`\lambda 100`$ and $`\lambda 50`$, respectively. By contrast, the expectation value of $`B^N(B^{})^N`$ in the vacuum state is close to $`N!`$ for $`25N^2a_x^3/V1`$ only. This surprising $`N^2`$ dependence comes from the intrinsic $`N`$-body character of Pauli exclusion. Consequences of these new criteria on the Bose condensation of excitons are discussed.

When the density of electron-hole (e-h) pairs in semiconductors is very large, the carriers form an e-h plasma. Although the plasma’s Coulomb energy is large, it remains small compared to its kinetic energy so that, in this regime, the Coulomb interaction can be treated as a perturbation (with possible high-order processes, such as RPA or “bubble” diagrams, in order to avoid spurious divergences). The situation is quite different in the low-density regime, where one electron basically interacts with only one hole, giving birth to a hydrogenoid “atom” called exciton. Since bound states only appear if the Coulomb interaction between electron and hole is treated exactly, i.e., to all orders in perturbation, an exciton may be viewed as the result of a repeated interaction between electron and hole through “ladder” diagrams.

From dimensional arguments, we expect the cross-over between the two regimes to appear when the distance between two excitons is of the order of their size, i.e., when $`\lambda Na_x^3/V1`$, $`a_x`$ being the exciton Bohr radius, $`N`$ the number of excitons in the sample volume $`V`$, and $`\lambda `$ a dimensionless factor.

The high-density regime in which the Coulomb energy is dominated by the kinetic energy is valid when the parameter $`r_s`$, defined by $`N\frac{4}{3}\pi (r_sa_x)^3/V=1`$, is small compared to 1. This leads to $`\lambda =4\pi /34`$. The prefactor $`\lambda `$ can also be obtained by evaluating the carrier density for which, due to Coulomb screening, no excitonic bound state survives. The accepted result for this Mott density leads to $`\lambda 1`$.

According to the spin-statistics theorem, excitons, which are composite particles made of two fermions, should behave as bosons. While the above $`\lambda `$’s have been deduced from considerations in which the Coulomb interaction plays a crucial role, criteria based on the underlying fermionic character of the excitons should be even more relevant. Indeed, excitons are not perfect bosons because they “feel” each other not only through Coulomb interaction but also through Pauli exclusion between their electrons and holes.

In this Letter, we address the question: Up to what density can excitons be treated as bosons? We show that the criteria based on the fermionic character of excitons generate prefactors $`\lambda `$ larger than 1 by two orders of magnitude. This casts new light upon the possible observation of the challenging Bose condensation of excitons.

For the sake of simplicity, we will restrict here to excitons with zero total momentum. In terms of the free electron ($`a_k^{}`$) and hole ($`b_k^{}`$) creation operators, the exact creation operator for the ground-state exciton reads

$$B^{}=\underset{k}{}\varphi _ka_k^{}b_k^{},$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _k`$ is the ground-state exciton wave function in momentum space. From eq. (1), we get

$$D=1[B,B^{}]=\underset{k}{}|\varphi _k|^2(a_k^{}a_k+b_k^{}b_k).$$
(2)
Obviously, $`D`$ would vanish for perfect bosons. It is usually said that this operator, which measures the departure from bosonic behavior, “is of the order of $`Na_x^3/V`$”. Such a claim pertains to an operator expectation value only, so that one must specify the state on which the expectation value is taken. For the $`N`$-free-pair state

$$|\psi _{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}=a_{k_1}^{}b_{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}a_{k_N}^{}b_{k_N}^{}|0,$$
(3)
we find

$$\psi _{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}|D|\psi _{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}|\varphi _{k_i}|^22N|\varphi _{k=0}|^2$$
(4)
if all $`k_i`$’s are close to zero. For $`V`$ sufficiently larger than $`a_x^3`$ — so as to avoid boundary effects — the bulk exciton ground state gives $`|\varphi _k|^2=z/(1+k^2a_x^2)^4`$, where $`z=64\pi a_x^3/V`$. The expectation value of $`D`$ on $`|\psi _{k_1\mathrm{}k_N}`$ is thus less than 1 for $`\lambda =128\pi 400`$.

Actually, the relevant state in this problem is not the $`N`$-free-pair state but the $`N`$-pair state constructed from the ground-state exciton

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}=\frac{(B^{})^N|0}{\sqrt{0|B^N(B^{})^N|0}}.$$
(5)
This state is the valid picture for the ground state of $`N`$ pairs in the low-density limit, as shown by Keldysh and Kozlov. As the quantity

$$0|B^N(B^{})^N|0=N!F_N$$
(6)
appears in any expectation value taken on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}`$, we will start by its calculation.

If $`B`$ were a perfect boson operator, we would get $`F_N1`$. From eq. (1) we find instead

| $`F_1`$ | = | $`\sigma _1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`F_2`$ | = | $`\sigma _1^2\sigma _2`$ |
| $`F_3`$ | = | $`\sigma _1^33\sigma _1\sigma _2+2\sigma _3`$ |
| $`F_4`$ | = | $`\sigma _1^46\sigma _1^2\sigma _2+8\sigma _1\sigma _3+3\sigma _2^26\sigma _4`$ |
| $`F_5`$ | = | $`\sigma _1^510\sigma _1^3\sigma _2+20\sigma _1^2\sigma _3+15\sigma _1\sigma _2^2`$ |
|  |  | $`30\sigma _1\sigma _420\sigma _2\sigma _3+24\sigma _5`$ |

(7)
and so on, in which we have set

$$\sigma _m=\underset{k}{}|\varphi _k|^{2m}=z^{m1}f(m).$$
(8)
The normalization of $`\varphi _k`$ implies $`\sigma _1=1`$. For the bulk exciton ground state, $`f(m)=16(8m5)!!/(8m2)!!`$. By carefully counting the number of occurences of cycles of length $`2m`$ leading to $`\sigma _m`$, it is possible to show that the general expression of $`F_N`$ is

$$F_N=N!\underset{[i_m]}{}\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{i_m!}\left(\frac{(1)^{m+1}\sigma _m}{m}\right)^{i_m},$$
(9)
where the $`[i_m]`$ are determined by $`mi_m=N`$. An even more compact expression of $`F_N`$ can be found

$`F_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^N\mathrm{\Xi }}{d\eta ^N}}|_{\eta =0},`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(1+\eta |\varphi _k|^2).`$ (11)
However, these expressions are of limited practical usefulness for $`N1`$: eq. (9) already contains more than $`10^6`$ different terms for $`N=60`$, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a complicated function of $`\eta `$. For numerical purposes, the recursion formula

$$F_N=\underset{m=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^{m+1}\frac{(N1)!}{(Nm)!}\sigma _mF_{Nm}$$
(12)
with $`F_01`$ turns out to be more convenient.

We first note that eq. (6) implies $`F_N0`$ while, from eqs. (8)–(12), $`F_N`$ is a polynom of order $`N1`$ in $`z`$. Since $`\sigma _2=33z/128=(33\pi /2)a_x^3/V`$, we find that $`F_2>0`$ for $`V^{1/3}=L>L_23.7a_x`$. For large $`N`$, numerical calculations show that $`F_N>0`$ for $`L>L_N4a_xN^{1/3}`$. As expected, excitons should be a few Bohr radii apart to be considered as bulk excitons. For smaller volumes, excitons distort and the $`\sigma _m`$’s are modified accordingly.

From eqs. (8)–(9), we find that the $`z`$-expansion of $`F_N`$ starts as

$$F_N=1\sigma _2N(N1)/2+\mathrm{O}\left((N^2z)^2\right),$$
(13)
leading to a $`N^2`$ dependence of the correction to 1. The exact value of $`\sigma _2`$ given above shows that $`F_N1`$ for $`25N^2a_x^3/V1`$. A simple way to understand that this $`N^2`$ dependence comes from the $`N`$-body character of Pauli exclusion is to return to the definition of $`B^{}`$. We have

$`0|B^N(B^{})^N|0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k_i,k_i^{}}{}}\varphi _{k_1}^{}\varphi _{k_1^{}}\mathrm{}\varphi _{k_N}^{}\varphi _{k_N^{}}`$ (16)
$`\times 0|a_{k_1}\mathrm{}a_{k_N}a_{k_N^{}}^{}\mathrm{}a_{k_1^{}}^{}|0`$
$`\times 0|b_{k_1}\mathrm{}b_{k_1^{}}^{}|0.`$
The matrix elements in eq. (16) give $`\pm 1`$ (their product being +1) for {$`k_i`$}={$`k_i^{}`$} and the $`k_i`$ all different; if not, they give 0. This allows to reexpress $`F_N`$ as

$$F_N=\underset{k_1}{}|\varphi _{k_1}|^2\underset{k_2k_1}{}|\varphi _{k_2}|^2\mathrm{}\underset{k_N\{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_{N1}\}}{}|\varphi _{k_N}|^2.$$
(17)
As expected from Pauli exclusion, eq. (17) merely states that the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ exciton must be built with a wave vector different from those already used by previous excitons. Without this restriction, all the sums would be equal to 1, and so would $`F_N`$, as for perfect bosons.

The $`N^2`$ dependence of $`F_N`$ may be obtained easily from eq. (17) using a model calculation, which contains all the physics of the problem. An exciton is basically an object of spatial extension $`a_x`$, so that in a volume $`V=L^3`$ ($`La_x`$) the wave function in $`k`$-space has a width $`1/a_x`$, all the $`k`$’s being $`2\pi /L`$ apart (see Fig. 1(b)). Instead of its exact value, let us take $`\varphi _k=\varphi _0`$ up to $`k=1/a_x`$, and 0 otherwise (see Fig. 1(c)). The normalization condition implies $`N_0\varphi _0^2=1`$, where $`N_0=[(1/a_x)/(2\pi /L)]^3`$ is the number of $`k`$’s such that $`\varphi _k0`$. For $`N<N_0`$ we get

$`F_{N+1}`$ $`=`$ $`1(1\varphi _0^2)\mathrm{}(1N\varphi _0^2)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _0^{2N}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _0^2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi _0^2N)}}.`$ (19)
For $`N^2\varphi _0^21`$, eq. (18) gives $`F_N1N(N1)\varphi _0^2/2`$ in agreement with eq. (13), whereas eq. (19) gives

$$F_Ne^{N(N1)\varphi _0^2/2}\mathrm{for}N\varphi _0^21.$$
(20)
Equation (20) shows that although the excitons are “close” to bulk excitons for $`N\varphi _0^21`$, their normalization factor $`0|B^N(B^{})^N|0`$ is much smaller than $`N!`$ (as for perfect bosons) if $`N\varphi _0^21N^2\varphi _0^2`$. This $`N^2`$ dependence may be viewed as a “stimulated” many-body effect. Indeed, Pauli exclusion being intrinsically a N-body interaction, many-body effects based on this interaction are quadratic. Note that this exponentially small factor $`F_N`$ turns out to have a relatively small influence on $`N!`$ because

$$N!F_Ne^{N(\mathrm{ln}N1(N1)\varphi _0^2/2+\mathrm{})}.$$
(21)
If we now consider the exact $`\varphi _k`$, we can actually show that $`F_N`$ has a similar behavior

$$F_Ne^{N(N1)\sigma _2/2}\mathrm{for}N\sigma _21,$$
(22)
in agreement with the first terms of the expansion given in eq. (13).

We now turn to the expectation value of $`D`$ taken on $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}`$. It is convenient to introduce $`C^{}`$ defined by $`[D,B^{}]=2C^{}`$. Since $`[C^{},B^{}]=0`$ and $`D|0=0`$, we get

$$D(B^{})^N|0=2N(B^{})^{N1}C^{}|0.$$
(23)
This leads to

$`B(B^{})^{N+1}|0`$ $`=`$ $`(N+1)(B^{})^N|0`$ (25)
$`N(N+1)(B^{})^{N1}C^{}|0.`$
From eqs. (23) and (25), we easily deduce

$$D__N=\frac{0|B^ND(B^{})^N|0}{0|B^N(B^{})^N|0}=2\left(1\frac{F_{N+1}}{F_N}\right).$$
(26)
We check that $`D__N=0`$ for perfect bosons. For our model $`\varphi _k`$, eq. (18) immediately gives $`D__N=2N\varphi _0^2`$, while for the exact exciton wave function, we find

$$D__N2N\sigma _2\mathrm{for}N\sigma _21.$$
(27)
Taking $`D__N1`$ as the criterion for $`N`$ bulk excitons to behave as bosons leads therefore to a prefactor $`\lambda =33\pi 100`$.

Another relevant operator is the boson number in the $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(N)}`$ state. From eqs. (1) and (26), it is straightforward to show that

$$B^{}B__N=N(N1)D__N/2.$$
(28)
Obviously, $`B^{}B__N=N`$ for perfect bosons because $`D__N0`$. Its value is $`NN(N1)\varphi _0^2`$ with our model $`\varphi _k`$ while from eq. (27) we get

$$B^{}B__NN(1(N1)\sigma _2)\mathrm{for}N\sigma _21.$$
(29)
The percentage of pairs not counted as bosons is thus small for $`N\sigma _250Na_x^3/V1`$.

The above formalism can be readily applied to 2D excitons. From the 2D ground state wave function we have $`|\varphi _k|^2=y/(1+k^2a_x^2/4)^3`$, where $`y=2\pi a_x^2/S`$, $`S`$ being the sample’s area and $`a_x`$ still the 3D exciton Bohr radius. We find $`\sigma _m=2y/(3m1)`$, so that $`\sigma _2=2y/5`$. Numerical calculations give $`L_N1.5a_xN^{1/2}`$ for $`N1`$, while the condition $`2N\sigma _21`$ now reads $`5Na_x^2/S1`$. Assigning to the 2D exciton an effective radius $`a_{2\mathrm{D}}=a_x/4`$, which corresponds to the maximum of the radial charge density, we find again that our new criterion differs from the geometrical one $`Na_{2\mathrm{D}}^2/S1`$ by nearly two orders of magnitude.

Let us end by reconsidering the possibility of Bose-Einstein condensation of 3D excitons in the light of these new criteria. $`N`$ noninteracting bosons undergo Bose-Einstein condensation when their density $`n=N/V`$ exceeds a temperature-dependent critical value $`n_c(T)`$, which, when applied to excitons, is given by

$$\frac{k_BT}{R}=6.62\frac{m_em_h}{(m_e+m_h)^2}\left(\frac{a_x^3n_c(T)}{g}\right)^{2/3},$$
(30)
where $`R`$ and $`g`$ are the exciton binding energy and degeneracy, respectively. For Cu2O orthoexcitons, $`R150\mathrm{meV}`$, $`a_x0.7\mathrm{nm}`$, $`g=3`$, and $`m_e1`$, $`m_h0.6`$, so that $`100n_ca_x^30.1`$ for a carrier temperature $`T=10\mathrm{K}`$, which means that for $`n>n_c`$, excitons barely obey our criterion $`100na_x^31`$ for bosonic behavior. Besides, considering a typical excitation volume $`V(10\mu \mathrm{m})^2\times (1\mu \mathrm{m})`$ necessary to get a large enough density, we find $`25n_c^2Va_x^310^7`$. On account of our criterion $`25N^2a_x^3/V1`$, $`F_N`$ would be extremely small. It thus seems unlikely that excitons could be considered as noninteracting bosons under these experimental conditions. The critical density should therefore differ from eq. (30). In contrast, let us stress that both our criteria are fulfilled in the case of atoms when we put numbers corresponding to actually observed Bose-Einstein condensation. Indeed, for $`a_00.1\mathrm{nm}`$ and condensates of up to $`5\times 10^6`$ atoms, we find at most $`100Na_0^3/V10^8`$ and $`25N^2a_0^3/V10^3`$ for the different configurations reported in the literature. The main reason for such a difference lies with the temperature $`T`$, which is about $`10^7\mathrm{K}`$ in atomic condensates. Excitons being “transient” particles produced by excitations, they cannot be cooled down as much.

Conclusion

While previous criteria for bosonic behavior of excitons were related to the Coulomb interaction between electron-hole pairs, we have studied the consequences of the fermionic character of these excitons induced by Pauli exclusion between their constituents. They lead to prefactors two orders of magnitude larger than the usual Mott criterion $`Na_x^3/V1`$, so that excitons can be considered as bosons up to densities well below the Mott density only. This is of importance for the possible observation of the Bose condensation of excitons. We have also found that $`0|B^N(B^{})^N|0`$ is exponentially smaller than its boson value $`N!`$ unless $`25N^2a_x^3/V1`$. This unexpected $`N^2`$ dependence has to be related to the intrinsic $`N`$-body character of Pauli exclusion.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge very helpful discussions with Bernard Roulet, Roland Combescot, Claude Benoit à la Guillaume, Philippe Lavallard, and Catherine Gourdon.


text:
# A global equation of state of two-dimensional hard sphere systems

\[

## Abstract

Hard sphere systems in two dimensions are examined for arbitrary density. Simulation results are compared to the theoretical predictions for both the low and the high density limit, where the system is either disordered or ordered, respectively. The pressure in the system increases with the density, except for an intermediate range of volume fractions $`0.65\nu 0.75`$, where a disorder-order phase transition occurs. The proposed global equation of state (which describes the pressure for all densities) is applied to the situation of an extremely dense hard sphere gas in a gravitational field and shows reasonable agreement with both experimental and numerical data.

PACS number(s): 51.30.+i, 51.10.+y, 64.70.Dv, 45.70.-n

\]

A hard sphere (HS) system is a simple and tractable model for various physical phenomena. It was used to examine disorder-order transitions, the glass transition, or simple gases and liquids  both theoretically and numerically. The theory that describes the behavior of rather dilute hard sphere systems is the kinetic theory , where particles are assumed to be rigid and collisions take place in zero time. An extension to Boltzmann’s low density theory was introduced by Enskog , taking into account excluded volume effects and also momentum transport via collisions. In the limit of high densities, the cage-effect, where particles are captured by their neighbors , becomes important and a free-volume theory can be formulated . There exists no theory, to our knowledge, which is valid for the intermediate densities where the system changes from the disordered to the ordered state, however, various theoretical approaches were proposed in the last decades, see Refs.  and references therein.

When dissipation is added to the HS model, one has the simplest version of a granular gas, i.e. the inelastic hard sphere (IHS) model. Granular media represent the more general class of dissipative, non-equilibrium, multi-particle systems . Attempts to describe granular media by means of the kinetic theory are usually restricted to certain limits like small densities or weak dissipation . Also in the case of granular media, one has to apply higher order corrections to successfully describe the system under more general conditions  or for multi-particle contacts . The result of a kinetic theory approach is, in the simplest case, a set of balance equations for mass, momentum, and energy with constitutive expressions for the transport coefficients, describing stress, viscosity, heat conduction, and energy dissipation. In this letter, we focus on the pressure $`p`$, the isotropic part of the stress in a hard sphere gas – or in a granular gas in its elastic limit $`r1`$, with the coefficient of restitution $`r`$. The model system is periodic and two-dimensional (2D) with volume $`V=l_xl_y`$, where $`l_x`$ and $`l_y`$ are horizontal and vertical size, respectively. It contains $`N`$ particles with radii $`a`$, and masses $`m`$ which are located at positions $`𝒓_i`$ with velocities $`𝒗_i`$. The fraction of the area which is covered by particles is denoted as volume fraction $`\nu =N\pi a^2/V`$. The kinetic energy is $`E=\frac{m}{2}_{i=1}^N𝒗_i^2`$, the temperature is defined as $`T=E/N`$ in 2D and the energy density is $`E/V`$. For low and intermediate densities $`\nu <\nu _c`$ (with the “crystallisation” density $`\nu _c`$ at which order becomes important), the kinetic theory leads to an expression for the equation of state, i.e. the dimensionless excess pressure due to particle interactions

$$P:=pV/E1=2\nu g(\nu ).$$
(1)
For an ideal gas with non-interacting particles, one has $`pV/E=1`$ so that $`P=0`$; for non-zero densities one has $`P>0`$ since the collisions contribute to the momentum transport and thus to the pressure, the viscosity, the heat-conductivity and the dissipation rate. In cases with $`r<1`$ the factor 2 can be replaced by $`1+r`$. The pair correlation function at contact $`g(\nu )`$ accounts for the probability that a collision occurs. Typically, $`g(\nu )`$ is determined via a virial expansion around low densities and one can use

$$g_4(\nu )=\frac{17\nu /16}{(1\nu )^2}\frac{\nu ^3/16}{8(1\nu )^4},$$
(2)
where the subscript $`4`$ indicates that the second term is of order $`1/(1\nu )^4`$. The first term in Eq. (2) is the simpler, frequently used version $`g_2(\nu )`$ introduced by Henderson . Note that the expression in Eq. (2) is slightly different from the form in Refs. . The value of $`g_4`$, taken at contact, accounts for the excluded volume effect and the increase of the collision rate with density. At densities larger than $`\nu _c0.7`$, an ordered triangular structure is evidenced .

One of the unsolved problems concerning an application of the balance equations to a specific boundary value problem is the limited range of validity of Eq. (2). Under realistic conditions with $`r<1`$, the volume fraction can take values $`\nu >\nu _c`$  so that a solution based on Eqs. (1) and (2) can be correct up to $`\nu _c`$ only. This is even worse, since the “virial” $`\nu g(\nu )`$ also occurs in all the other transport coefficients. For the same reason, fortunately, a generalization of the pressure $`P`$ to all densities will thus enter all the other transport coefficients. This is why we examine the equation of state at all densities and propose a global equation of state which is then tested by a comparison with simulation and experiment.

For the numerical modeling of the system an event driven (ED) method  is used. A change in velocity can occur only at a collision when the standard interaction model, based on momentum and energy conservation is used . The post-collisional velocities $`𝒗^{}`$ of two collision partners, in their center of mass reference frame, are given in terms of the pre-collisional velocities $`𝒗`$, by $`𝒗_{1,2}^{}=𝒗_{1,2}\left[(𝒗_1𝒗_2)\widehat{𝒏}\right]\widehat{𝒏}`$, with the unit vector $`\widehat{𝒏}`$, pointing along the line connecting the centers of the colliding particles. This model can also be extended to the more general case of dissipative particles with rough surfaces .

The stress tensor inside a test-volume $`V`$ (whose isotropic part is the pressure $`p`$) has two contributions, one from the convectional transport of mass and thus momentum and the other due to collisions and the related momentum transport, for details see Refs.  and references therein. The mean pressure is obtained from simulations with different volume fractions $`\nu `$ in the following.

The equation of state in the dense, ordered phase has been calculated by means of a free volume theory , that leads in 2D to the reduced pressure $`P_{\mathrm{fv}}=c_0/(\nu _{\mathrm{max}}\nu )1`$, with $`c_01.8137`$ as obtained from our numerical data. Based on the simulation results we propose the corrected high density pressure

$$P_{\mathrm{dense}}=\frac{c_0}{\nu _{\mathrm{max}}\nu }h_3(\nu _{\mathrm{max}}\nu )1$$
(3)
where $`h_3(x)`$ is a fit-polynomial $`\left[1+c_1x+c_3x^3\right]`$ of order three, with $`c_1=0.04`$ and $`c_3=3.25`$ .

What remains to be done is to merge the low density pressure $`P_4`$ and the high density expression (3). To our knowledge, no theory exists, which connects these two limiting regimes. For various approaches concerning the melting and freezing transition see Refs. . Therefore, we propose the global equation of state

$$Q=P_4+m(\nu )[P_{\mathrm{dense}}P_4],$$
(4)
with an empirical merging function

$$m(\nu )=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}\left[(\nu \nu _c)/m_0\right]}$$
(5)
which selects $`P_4`$ for $`\nu \nu _c`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{dense}}`$ for $`\nu \nu _c`$, with the width of the transition $`m_0`$. The parameters $`\nu _c=0.7006`$ and $`m_0=0.0111`$ lead to qualitative agreement between $`Q`$ and the simulation results – by far better than 1 per-cent for the purely ordered and disordered regimes, and still within about 3 per-cent in the interval $`0.65\nu 0.75`$ .

When plotting $`P`$ against the volume fraction $`\nu `$ with a logarithmic vertical axis in Fig. 1, the results for the different simulations can not be distinguished from the theoretical prediction $`P_4`$ for $`\nu \stackrel{<}{}0.65`$. For larger volume fractions one obtains crystallisation around $`\nu _c0.70`$ and the data clearly deviate from $`P_4`$. In the transition regime, the coexistence of fluid and solid phases can be obtained. The pressure is strongly reduced due to the enhanced free volume in the ordered phase. The reduced pressure data eventually diverge at the maximum packing fraction in 2D $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^{\mathrm{mono}}=\pi /(2\sqrt{3})`$. Note that one has to choose the system size such that a triangular lattice fits perfectly in the system, i.e. $`l_y/l_x=\sqrt{3}h/2w`$ with integer $`w`$ and even $`h`$ – otherwise the maximum possible volume fraction can be smaller. Since our simulations are already set up on a perfect triangular lattice, the maximum density is approached for $`\nu \nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$. If, instead, the volume fraction is increased by increasing the particle size  and the simulations are started from random, low density configurations, $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is not reached due to defects in the 2D crystal . Thus our global equation of state represents the high density, small compression-rate limit.

The transition by itself is also interesting, since we obtain a hysteresis loop when the density is increased and decreased with a finite rate . Especially in the transition region, the relaxation time is very large, and the inflection in the data (see the inset in Fig. 1) can be due to either the finite relaxation time, the finiteness of the system or the initial and boundary conditions . Note that the analytical expression $`Q`$ allows for a straightforward numerical integration of the density profile (see below), since the fit-parameters are chosen such that the slope of $`Q`$ is always positive. This is a compromise between the quality of the fit on the one hand and the numerical treatability of the function on the other hand – instabilities are avoided but also memory effects are disregarded.

For a HS system in a gravitational field with the acceleration $`g`$ in the negative vertical direction, both density- and pressure gradient have to be taken into account. In the following, we compute analytically the density profile for an ideal gas ($`\nu <0.65`$); the profile for the extremely dense gas is computed numerically using the global equation of state and is found to be in excellent agreement with the numerical ED simulations, where a horizontal wall at $`z=0`$ is introduced in a periodic, two-dimensional system of width $`L=l_x/(2a)`$ and infinite height. The number density $`n=n(z)=N/V`$ is related to the volume fraction by $`n=\nu (z)/(\pi a^2)`$. Here, we briefly sketch how to obtain an analytical solution for the density profile, valid at least for low and intermediate densities .

Given the equilibrium of forces, the force $`Ldp`$ due to the pressure gradient at height $`z`$ compensates the weight $`nmgLdz`$ of the particles in a layer with height $`dz`$, so that the differential equation $`dp/dz=nmg`$ has to be solved. In the simplest case, the equation of state of an ideal dilute gas $`p=nT`$, separation of variables, and the assumption of a constant temperature, leads to an exponentially decreasing density profile $`\nu (z)=\nu _d\mathrm{exp}\left((zz_0)/z_T\right)`$, with $`\nu <\nu _d:=\nu (z_0)`$ and $`z_T=T/(mg)`$. In a closed system, the particle number $`N`$ is conserved so that integration of $`n`$ over $`z`$ determines the volume fraction at the bottom $`\nu _d=N\pi a^2/(z_TL)`$, in the dilute limit.

In denser situations ($`0<\nu <0.65`$) the pressure can be expressed as $`p=nT(1+2\nu g_2(\nu ))`$ \[we do not use $`g_4(\nu )`$ in order to keep the analysis simple\], and integration leads to an implicit definition of $`\nu (z)`$:

$$\frac{zz_0}{z_T}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\nu _0}{\nu }\frac{7}{8}\mathrm{ln}\frac{1\nu _0}{1\nu }+2[g_2(\nu _0)g_2(\nu )]$$
(6)
with the unknown volume fraction $`\nu _0`$ at $`z_0`$, again determined by the integral over the density. This leads to a third order polynomial for $`\nu _0`$, which can be solved analytically , and has at least one real solution. When the theoretical density profile in Eq. (6) is compared with numerical simulations, one obtains perfect agreement for $`\nu <0.65`$ . Since the functions $`g_2(\nu )`$ and $`g_4(\nu )`$ are wrong at larger densities $`\nu `$, one cannot expect that the pressure and the density profile are correct.

Using the gobal equation of state, $`Q`$, from Eq. (4) instead of $`2\nu g_2(\nu )`$, one has to integrate the differential equation $`dp/dz=nmg`$ numerically with $`p=nT(1+Q)`$ under the constraint that the particle number is a constant. In Fig. 2, the volume fraction $`\nu `$ is plotted against the rescaled height $`z/z_T`$ for both theory and simulations. Simulation parameters are $`N=1000`$, $`L=10`$, and $`z_T/(2a)=5.85`$ (open circles) or $`N=3000`$, $`L=50`$, and $`z_T/(2a)=0.508`$ (open squares). In addition, we present experimental results from vibrated two-dimensional arrays of small spheres  (solid dots), neglecting the fact that this situation is weakly dissipative. Both the qualitative and the quantitative behavior of the density profile is well reproduced by the numerical solution using the global equation of state. All solutions belong to one master curve and can be rescaled by a horizontal shift. The averaging result is somewhat dependent on the averaging procedure – we evidence strong coarse-graining effects in the dense, ordered regime with densities $`\nu >0.70`$. Using two methods, one tailord for the ordered regime and the other for the disordered regime, however, we obtain consistent results.

In summary, we tested existing predictions for the equation of state of a 2D hard sphere gas of arbitrary density via comparison with numerical simulations and experimental data. In the dilute case, the particle correlation at contact and the collision frequency (and thus the equation of state) are nicely predicted by the kinetic theory expressions up to intermediate densities $`\nu 0.65`$. In the dense case, the free volume theory for 2D systems can be applied to systems with densities larger than $`\nu 0.75`$. Finally, a merging function is proposed, which connects the low and high density regimes, resulting in a differentiable global equation of state for the 2D hard sphere gas for arbitrary density.

The equation of state is used to compute analytically and numerically the density profile of an elastic, monodisperse HS gas in a gravitational field. For maximum densities below $`\nu _c`$, the analytical solution works perfectly well, for higher densities, we used a numerical solver (MAPLE). The strange shape of the density profile as obtained from simulations is nicely reproduced by our theory based on the global equation of state, including a wiggle at $`\nu \nu _c`$. We remark that the ED simulation method parallels the Monte Carlo (MC) method  concerning the particle-particle interactions, but in contrast to MC allows for a definition of time and thus for the examination of the dynamics.

The presented results are obtained from homogeneous, elastic systems of arbitrary density. The range of applicability, however, is much wider. Since already weak dissipation can lead to strong inhomogeneities in density, temperature, and pressure, the global equation of state is a necessary tool to treat effects like clustering, surface-waves, pattern formation, or phase-transition and -coexistence by means of a continuum theory. In a freely cooling “granular gas”, for example, clustering leads to all densities between $`\nu 0`$ and $`\nu \nu _{\mathrm{max}}`$ .

The proposed global equation of state is based on a limited amount of data from ED simulations. First checks, whether our global equation of state still makes sense for different particle-size distribution functions are promising, however, the crystallisation effect vanishes for strong enough polydispersity . What remains to be done is to find similar global expressions for other transport coefficients like the viscosity and the heat-conductivity and, furthermore, to extend the presented approach to three dimensional systems.
We acknowledge the support of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and appreciate the helpful discussions with E. Clément, J. Eggers, D. Hong, J. Jenkins, A. Santos, and O. Strauß.


text:
# Magnetic Fields of Neutron Stars: an Overview

## 1. Introduction

Neutron stars are dense, compact remnants of evolved stars, with degenerate fermions compressed by strong gravitational fields (e.g., Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). Their structure is set almost entirely by one parameter, their mass. The latter can be measured with some accuracy only in binary systems containing a pulsar, where its distribution is found to be consistent with a narrow Gaussian, centered at $`1.35M_{}`$ and with width $`0.04M_{}`$ (Thorsett & Chakrabarty 1999), so one might presume that neutron stars are essentially all identical. This is far from true. A wide range of rotation rates and magnetic fields, together with the presence or absence of mass-transfering binary companions, allow for a rich phenomenology. Among single (or non-accreting binary) neutron stars, we distinguish “classical” pulsars, millisecond pulsars, soft gamma-ray repeaters, anomalous x-ray pulsars, and inactive, thermal x-ray emitters. Binary systems with mass transfer onto a neutron star can be divided into high-mass and low-mass x-ray binaries (according to the companion mass), with substantially different properties. Magnetic fields play an essential role by accelerating particles, by channeling these particles or accretion flows, by producing synchrotron emission or resonant cyclotron scattering, and by providing the main mechanism for angular momentum loss from non-accreting stars. It is even speculated that in some objects the magnetic field may be the main energy source for the observed radiation.

I begin by reviewing several observational “classes” of neutron stars mentioned above, with a special eye on the evidence for the presence and strength of the magnetic fields in each class (§2). In §3, the resulting magnetic fluxes are compared to those of other kinds of stars, and possible connections are discussed. Section 4 surveys the evidence for and against magnetic field evolution, and discusses physical processes which may lead to such evolution. General conclusions are presented in §5.

## 2. Classes of neutron stars and evidence for magnetic fields

### 2.1. Radio pulsars

Radio pulsars are regularly pulsating sources of radio waves, interpreted as magnetized, rotating neutron stars (Pacini 1967; Gold 1968). Beams of radiation emerging from the poles of a roughly dipolar magnetic field misaligned with respect to the rotation axis appear as pulses every time they sweep the location of the Earth. These pulses reveal rotation periods ($`P`$) from 1.55 milliseconds (ms) to several seconds, which lengthen with time ($`\dot{P}>0`$).

The simplest model for the spin-down process is to consider the neutron star as a magnetized body of moment of inertia $`I`$, rotating in vacuum with angular velocity $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (Ostriker & Gunn 1969). It loses rotational energy due to the time-variation of its magnetic dipole vector $`\stackrel{}{\mu }`$, which is rotating at a fixed inclination $`\alpha `$ with respect to to the rotation axis,

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{2}I\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)=\frac{2}{3c^3}|\ddot{\stackrel{}{\mu }}|^2=\frac{1}{6c^3}B^2R^6\mathrm{\Omega }^4\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha ,$$
(1)
which allows us to infer the dipole magnetic field strength, $`B[\mathrm{G}]3.2\times 10^{19}\sqrt{P[\mathrm{s}]\dot{P}}`$ (for radius $`R=10`$ km, $`I=10^{45}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and $`\alpha =90^{}`$).

This “dipole in vacuum” model is unlikely to be very accurate, as real pulsars are surrounded by a magnetosphere, and by an interstellar medium whose plasma frequency is much higher than the expected radiation, which therefore can’t propagate. Somewhat more realistic models (e.g., Goldreich & Julian 1969) tend to roughly confirm the estimate of $`B`$ (being less sensitive to $`\alpha `$), so this estimate is generally used. Assuming a constant field strength and moment of inertia, eq. (1) can be integrated backwards in time to give a divergent rotation rate at a time $`\tau =\mathrm{\Omega }/(2\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }})=P/(2\dot{P})`$ before the present (at which the spin parameters are to be evaluated), defining a characteristic “spin-down age” for the pulsar.

In terms of these parameters, radio pulsars fall into two fairly disjoint groups (e.g., Phinney & Kulkarni 1994):

* young ($`\tau 10^{37}`$ yr), relatively slow ($`P16`$ ms to several seconds), and strongly magnetized ($`B10^{1113}`$ G) “classical” pulsars, and
* old ($`10^{810}`$ yr), fast (1.55 to several ms), and weakly magnetized ($`10^{89}`$ G) “millisecond” pulsars.

Confirming that $`\tau `$ is related to true age, many of the “youngest” classical pulsars are found to be associated with supernova remnants (which disperse after $`10^5`$ yr), and many millisecond pulsars (but no classical pulsars) are found in globular clusters. An additional difference between the two classes is that most millisecond pulsars are found in binary systems (in most cases with old white dwarf companions), whereas the vast majority of classical pulsars are single.

One problem with this general picture is that, in the few cases where it is possible to measure $`\ddot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (all of which are young pulsars), the so-called braking index $`n\mathrm{\Omega }\ddot{\mathrm{\Omega }}/\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^2`$ does not agree with the canonical $`n=3`$ predicted in the dipole spin-down model, but has significantly smaller values, which differ from one pulsar to another (e.g., Kaspi et al. 1994). The inclusion of higher multipoles (e.g., quadrupole electromagnetic or gravitational radiation) worsens the problem. This means that the inferred magnetic dipole moment in young pulsars increases with time. Whether this corresponds to a true increase of the star’s dipole moment has not been settled (Blandford 1994).

### 2.2. Magnetars

Two puzzling kinds of astronomical objects have in recent years found a likely interpretation as very highly magnetized neutron stars (see Thompson 2000 for a review):

* Soft gamma-ray repeaters (SGRs) are a class of (so far) 4 objects which repeatedly emit bursts of gamma-rays, in addition to persistent x-rays. For two of these sources, regular pulses have been observed in the persistent x-ray emission, allowing the measurement of a rotation period and period derivative (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; Hurley et al. 1999).
* Anomalous x-ray pulsars (AXPs) show persistent x-ray emission, modulated at a stable, slowly lengthening period. Contrary to the standard, binary x-ray pulsars (§2.3), they show no evidence for a companion star (see Mereghetti & Stella 1995; van Paradijs, Taam, & van den Heuvel 1995; Mereghetti 2000).

Aside from the presence of bursts in the SGRs, these two classes of objects appear to be very similar. All measured periods lie in the narrow range $`512`$ s, and objects in both classes are associated with supernova remnants (e.g., Kaspi 2000), arguing for an interpretation as young neutron stars, in rough agreement with characteristic ages inferred from spin-down. In both classes of objects, the persistent x-ray luminosity is much larger than the inferred spin-down power. Therefore, unlike the case of radio pulsars, rotation can not be a significant energy source. The dipole fields inferred from the spin-down rate are $`10^{1415}`$ G, much larger than in previously known classical radio pulsars, though pulsars with similar inferred dipole fields have recently been found (Camilo et al. 2000). It has long been suggested that magnetic energy may be the ultimate source of both the bursts and the persistent radiation (Duncan & Thompson 1992; Paczynski 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1995, 1996), but this would still require a total magnetic energy significantly larger than inferred from the dipole field, i.e. a buried and/or disordered magnetic flux. In any case, the strong magnetic field may modify the radiation transport in the surface layers, so that these objects radiate a much larger fraction of their fossil heat in x-rays (as opposed to neutrinos) than less magnetic neutron stars (Heyl & Hernquist 1997a, b).

### 2.3. X-ray binaries

Neutron stars accreting from binary companions are a vast field of research on their own, which I cannot possibly cover here. I only point out that neutron stars with high-mass companions tend to appear as x-ray pulsars, in which the accreted material is channeled by the magnetic field onto the polar caps, whereas low-mass companions tend to live with non-pulsating neutron stars, in which the field is presumably not strong enough to channel the accretion flow. In some members of the first class, cyclotron features have been found in the x-ray spectrum, corresponding to $`B(14)\times 10^{12}`$ G (e.g., Makishima et al. 1999). Note that these are the only direct measurements of neutron star magnetic fields, akin to the many measurements of magnetic fields on white dwarfs and other stars. Assuming that these objects differ from (similarly young) classical radio pulsars only by the presence of the nearby companion, this would give evidence that the field of neutron stars is organized on a relatively large scale, so the surface field and the dipole field are of comparable magnitude.

## 3. Kinship

Most, if not all, neutron stars descend from main sequence stars with masses $`M_{MS}>8M_{}`$, i.e., O and early B stars, while lower mass main sequence stars give rise to white dwarfs. We have learned that a fraction of early-type stars (Ap/Bp stars) have strong, highly organized magnetic fields (see the presentations of G. Mathys, J.D. Landstreet, S. Bagnulo, and N. Piskunov in this volume). The same is true for a fraction of the white dwarfs, which tend to be more massive than their non-magnetic counterparts (G. Schmidt, this volume), and therefore plausibly more closely related to neutron stars.

It has long been known that the magnetic fluxes of magnetic white dwarfs and neutron stars are similar (e.g., Ruderman 1972), suggesting a common origin, possibly through flux conservation during the evolution from some progenitor phase. Although much more strongly magnetic objects have been discovered in recent years, the most strongly magnetic main sequence stars (Ap/Bp stars with $`R`$ few $`R_{}`$ and $`B3\times 10^4`$ G; e.g. Landstreet 1992), white dwarfs ($`R10^2R_{}`$, $`B10^9`$ G; e.g., Wickramasinghe & Ferrario 2000), and neutron stars (magnetars with $`R10^5R_{}`$ and $`B10^{15}`$ G; see §2.2) still turn out to have remarkably similar magnetic fluxes, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi R^2B10^{5.5}R_{}^2`$ G, despite vast differences in size, density, and magnetic field strength. Lower limits on magnetic fluxes can unfortunately not be compared, as the magnetic fields of most non-degenerate stars and white dwarfs are too weak to be detected. Of course, we may also not yet know the most magnetic stars, if they are scarce or manifest themselves phenomenologically in a way we have not yet identified.

Another interesting point is as follows. Early-type stars have convective cores and radiative envelopes. The mass of the convective core, $`M_{conv}`$, is a strongly increasing function of the total mass of the star, $`M_{MS}`$ (e.g., Kippenhahn & Weigert 1994). The mass of the eventual compact remnant, $`M_{rem}`$, is a much more weakly increasing function of $`M_{MS}`$ (e.g., Weidemann 1987). The two curves cross at $`M_{MS}34M_{}`$ ($``$ A0 stars), where $`M_{conv}=M_{rem}0.7M_{}`$, a plausible dividing line between magnetic (massive) and non-magnetic (low-mass) white dwarfs (cf. G. Schmidt, this volume). A possible interpretation is that during the main sequence phase the field exists only in the convective core of most early-type stars. (A coherent, equipartition-strength field filling the convective core of a $`4M_{}`$ main sequence star produces approximately the maximum flux estimated above.) If it remains confined to the same region during the later stages of evolution, then low-mass white dwarfs have a magnetized region buried in their interior and covered by an unmagnetized envelope (formerly part of the radiative envelope on the main sequence), whereas massive white dwarfs and neutron stars form exclusively from magnetized material, and therefore have a strong surface field.

## 4. Magnetic field evolution

### 4.1. Observational evidence

Several arguments point toward the possibility of an evolving magnetic field in neutron stars:

1) Generally speaking, young neutron stars appear to have strong magnetic fields $`10^{1115}`$ G (“classical” radio pulsars, “magnetars”, x-ray pulsars), whereas old neutron stars have weak fields $`<10^9`$ G (ms pulsars, low-mass x-ray binaries). If these two groups have an evolutionary connection, their dipole moment must decay. Millisecond pulsars are believed to have been spun up to their fast rotation by accretion from a binary companion, a remnant of which is in most cases still present (e.g., Phinney & Kulkarni 1994). Accretion may be the direct or indirect cause of the reduction in the magnetic dipole moment, or it may just be an effect of age.

2) Studies of the pulsar distribution on the $`P\dot{P}`$ diagram (analogous to “normal” stellar population synthesis studies on the HR diagram) have led to the claim that the magnetic torque decays on a time scale comparable to the life span of “classical” pulsars (Gunn & Ostriker 1970). The case for this claim was strengthened by the simultaneous consideration of pulsar space velocities and their spatial distribution perpendicular to the plane of the Galaxy (e.g., Narayan & Ostriker 1990), but was later put in doubt by other authors (e.g., Bhattacharya et al. 1992), whose more careful analysis leads to opposite results.

3) If magnetar emission is powered by magnetic energy (Thompson & Duncan 1996), then the rms magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{B}^2^{1/2}`$ must decay.

4) A possible explanation for the “anomalous” braking indices $`n<3`$ in young neutron stars is that their magnetic dipole moment increases with time.

In the remainder of this section, I discuss the physical mechanisms that may lead to such an evolution of the magnetic field.

### 4.2. Physics of spontaneous field evolution

The composition of neutron star matter is still highly uncertain (e.g., Lattimer & Prakash 2000), but it seems almost inevitable that it will contain both neutral particles (plausibly neutrons) and charged particles (protons, electrons, and possibly others). All particles are highly degenerate. The relativistic energies of the electrons reduce their cross-section for colliding against protons, and most of the phase space for final states is blocked by the Pauli principle, leading to a high conductivity and consequently to an Ohmic decay time longer than the age of the Universe (Baym, Pethick, & Pines 1969b). Therefore, little diffusion of the magnetic field can occur.

Can the magnetic field move with the fluid matter inside the neutron star, driven by magnetic stresses or buoyancy forces? Not in an obvious way. The matter in an equilibrium neutron star is fully catalyzed, i.e., weak interactions have had time to bring each fluid element into chemical equilibrium, minimizing its free energy by distributing baryon number optimally among different “flavors” of particles. This optimal distribution is density-dependent, giving rise to a mechanically stable composition gradient (Pethick 1992; Reisenegger & Goldreich 1992), regardless of the uncertainties in the composition (Reisenegger 2001). Even in the simplest and most favorable scenario, in which the matter is mostly neutrons, with a small ($`1\%`$) “impurity” of protons and electrons, magnetic stresses of order the “impurity” contribution to the fluid stresses are required to overcome the stabilizing forces, demanding a magnetic field $`>10^{17}`$ G. At lower field strengths, the magnetic stresses can only build up a small chemical imbalance, and evolve on a timescale determined by the weak interactions which erase this imbalance.

This leads to ask whether the magnetic field could move only with the charged particles, leaving the neutral particles behind. This question was addressed in a simple model (Goldreich & Reisenegger 1992) in which protons and electrons move under the effect of electromagnetic forces through a static and uniform neutral background, scattering against each other and against this background. It leads to the following evolution law for the magnetic field,

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}=\times \left(\stackrel{}{v}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)+\gamma \times \left(\frac{\stackrel{}{j}}{n_ee}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)\times \left(\frac{c}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{j}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}`$ is a weighted average velocity of all charged particles, $`\stackrel{}{j}=c\times \stackrel{}{B}/(4\pi )`$ is the electric current (due to relative motions of the charged particles), $`n_e`$ is the density of protons and electrons, $`e`$ is the proton charge, $`c`$ is the speed of light, $`\sigma `$ is an isotropic conductivity, limited by inter-particle collisions, and $`\gamma `$ is a dimensionless factor ($`|\gamma |<1`$) whose magnitude and sign depends on the relative coupling of protons and electrons to the neutral background. Each term on the right-hand side has a familiar (astro-)physical interpretation, in turn:

1) Advection of the magnetic flux by a flow of charged particles, i.e., ambipolar diffusion, familiar from star formation (e.g., T. Mouschovias, this volume): The bulk flow arises from magnetic stresses or buoyancy forces acting on the charged particles, and is impeded by inter-particle collisions. It can be decomposed into two modes, one curl-free and one divergence-free, the first of which will be choked by the chemical potential gradients it builds up in the charged particles, and can only be effective if weak interactions can reduce these gradients. Since the driving forces are $`B^2,`$ this term is $`B^3,`$ becoming much more effective at high field strengths.

2) Advection of the magnetic flux by the electric current, or Hall effect: This is a “passive” or “kinematic” effect, not “driven” by any forces and which by itself does not change the magnetic energy. However, it is nonlinear ($`B^2`$) and could possibly lead to small-scale structures in the magnetic field, particularly in the solid crust, where ambipolar diffusion cannot occur.

3) The familiar resistive or Ohmic diffusion: Linear in $`B`$; it is quite ineffective for a large-scale field, but may play a role in dissipating small-scale structures created by the other (nonlinear) processes.

For the flows disturbing chemical equilibrium (bulk flow and curl-free ambipolar diffusion), the timescale is set by weak interactions, which also produce the early cooling of neutron stars (through neutrino emission), and which are strongly temperature dependent. Therefore, if $`B<10^{17}`$ G, the only way in which these processes can be effective before the star cools down is to keep it hot by some other mechanism, such as dissipation of magnetic energy (e.g., Thompson & Duncan 1996). However, even this is not guaranteed to work, since most of the dissipated energy will be emitted in the form of neutrinos. If the field is strong enough to create a substantial chemical imbalance ($`B>10^{16}`$ G), the enhanced neutrino emission may even lead to faster cooling.

None of these mechanisms appear to be interesting at field strengths and time scales relevant to classical or millisecond radio pulsars, unless the magnetic field is confined to a thin layer in the outer crust of the star, where the conductivity is reduced and a combination of Hall drift and Ohmic dissipation may become effective. In magnetars, the high field strength makes both the Hall drift and the ambipolar diffusion quite fast, and their interaction may lead to interesting dynamics, particularly if the rms interior field is somewhat higher than the inferred dipole field, as required from energetic arguments.

This discussion did not consider the formation of superfluid and superconducting states, which probably occurs early in the evolution of a neutron star (Baym, Pethick, & Pines 1969a), concentrating vorticity and magnetic flux into quantized ropes. At moderate to low temperatures, the neutron star fluid will be much more complicated than in the description given above (Mendell 1998). The effect of these complications on magnetic field evolution are not yet well-understood, though much has been speculated. I will refrain from further discussion of these issues.

### 4.3. Induced field evolution

Aside from the mechanisms for spontaneous evolution, external agents may also change the magnetic field of a neutron star:

1) The strong thermal gradient in a cooling protoneutron star is able to overcome the stratifying effect of the chemical gradient, leading to convection. At the same time, the star has not had time to transport angular momentum and will be differentially rotating. As discussed several times in this conference, this combination naturally acts as a dynamo, which is an alternative to the “fossil flux” idea to give rise to the magnetic field in neutron stars (Thompson & Duncan 1993).

2) The thermal gradient persists for a much longer time in the outer crust of the star, where it may act as a battery, again giving rise to a substantial field (Urpin & Yakovlev 1980; Blandford, Applegate, & Hernquist 1983; Wiebicke & Geppert 1996 and references therein). This may in principle explain an increasing field in a young neutron star, as suggested by the braking index measurements.

3) Accretion from a binary companion is a natural (and popular) way of decreasing the magnetic dipole moment, although there is no agreement on the exact physics involved. Perhaps the most interesting candidate process is the burial of the magnetic flux by the accreted, highly conducting plasma (Bisnovatyi-Kogan & Komberg 1975; Romani 1993). No full models of this process have been produced so far, and three-dimensional simulations will eventually be needed to make sure all possible instabilities have been taken into account. If effective, this process still begs the question of why after its completion a minute, but fairly constant fraction of the initial dipole moment is left or regenerated to be detectable in ms pulsars. (Note that ms pulsars do not appear to be the “tip of the iceberg” of a distribution extending down to much lower fields, since the death rate of their progenitor low-mass x-ray binaries already can barely account for the detectable ms pulsars; e.g., Phinney & Kulkarni 1994; White & Ghosh 1998.)

## 5. Conclusions

The subject of magnetic fields in neutron stars has still much to offer and to demand from us. Little is known about the structure of the field, but nevertheless there is a rich phenomenology asking to be interpreted. The origin and evolution of the field is as uncertain as in all other kinds of stars. Interesting physics is at play, and there may be connections between the magnetic fields of neutron stars, their white dwarf cousins, and the main-sequence progenitors of both. It is likely that advances in the understanding of the respective magnetic fields will support each other if sufficient communication is maintained among the communities of experts, as occurred so well in the present meeting.

#### Acknowledgments.

The author is grateful to Peter Goldreich for extensive conversations and many insights which have benefited the present review. He also thanks Lars Bildsten for related discussions and for his hospitality at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, where a previous version of this presentation was prepared. The writing of this article was supported by FONDECYT (Chile) under grant no. 8970009 (Líneas Complementarias).

## References

Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Pines, D. 1969a, Nature, 224, 673

Baym, G., Pethick, C., & Pines, D. 1969b, Nature, 224, 675

Blandford, R. D. 1994, MNRAS, 267, L7

Blandford, R. D., Applegate, J. H., & Hernquist, L. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 1025

Bhattacharya, D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Hartman, J. W., & Verbunt, F. 1992, A&A, 254, 198

Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S., & Komberg, B. V. 1975, Soviet Astron., 18, 217

Camilo, F. et al. 2000, ApJ, 541, 367

Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

Gold, T. 1968, Nature, 218, 731

Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869

Goldreich, P., & Reisenegger, A. 1992, ApJ, 395, 250

Gunn, J. E., & Ostriker, J. P. 1970, ApJ, 160, 979

Heyl, J., & Hernquist, L. 1997a, ApJ, 489, L67

Heyl, J., & Hernquist, L. 1997b, ApJ, 491, L95

Hurley, K., et al. 1999, ApJ, L111

Kaspi, V. M. 2000, in Pulsar Astronomy — 2000 and Beyond, ASP Conf. Ser., 202, M. Kramer, N. Wex, & R. Wielebinski, eds.

Kaspi, V. M., et al. 1994, ApJ, 422, L83

Kippenhahn, R., & Weigert, A. 1994, Stellar Structure and Evolution (Berlin: Springer)

Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235

Landstreet, J. D. 1992, ARA&A, 4, 35

Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2000, Phys. Rep., 333-334, 121

Makishima, K., Mihara, T., Nagase, F., & Tanaka, Y., ApJ, 525, 978

Mendell, G. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 903

Mereghetti, S. 2000, in The Neutron Star-Black Hole Connection, V. Connaughton et al., eds., in press (astro-ph/99111252)

Mereghetti, S., & Stella, L. 1999, ApJ, 442, L17

Narayan, R., & Ostriker, J. P. 1990, ApJ, 352, 222

Ostriker, J. P., & Gunn, J. E. 1969, ApJ, 157, 1395

Pacini, F. 1967, Nature, 216, 567

Paczynski, B. 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 145

Pethick, C. J. 1992, in Structure & Evolution of Neutron Stars, eds. D. Pines, R. Tamagaki, & S. Tsuruta (Redwood City: Addison-Wesley), 115

Phinney, E. S., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1994, ARA&A, 32, 591

Reisenegger, A. 2001, ApJ, in press

Reisenegger, A., & Goldreich, P. 1992, ApJ, 395, 240

Romani, R. 1993, in Isolated Pulsars, van Riper, K., Epstein, R., & Ho, C., eds., 66

Ruderman, M. 1972, ARA&A, 10, 427

Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars (New York: Wiley)

Thompson, C. 2000, in The Neutron Star-Black Hole Connection, V. Connaughton et al., eds., in press (astro-ph/0010016)

Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. 1993, ApJ, 408, 194

Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 255

Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. 1996, ApJ, 473, 322

Thorsett, S. E., & Chakrabarty, D. 1999, ApJ, 512, 288

van Paradijs, J., Taam, R. E., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1995, A&A, 299, L41

Urpin, V. A., & Yakovlev, D. G. 1980, Soviet Astron., 24, 425

Weidemann, V. 1987, A&A, 188, 74

White, N. E., & Ghosh, P. 1998, ApJ, 504, L31

Wickramasinghe, D. T., & Ferrario, L. 2000, PASP, 112, 873

Wiebicke, H.-J., & Geppert, U. 1996, A&A, 309, 203

## Discussion

VAN BALLEGOOIJEN: What is the frequency of the radiation responsible for the energy loss from pulsars? What are the physical processes involved?

REISENEGGER: Taking the magnetic dipole spin-down model seriously, we expect the radiation to be nearly monochromatic at twice the rotation frequency of the star. This is far below the plasma frequency of the interstellar medium, so this radiation cannot propagate. In practice, the spin-down appears to occur through more complicated processes which are not really understood, but almost certainly involve the acceleration of charged particles and the resulting synchrotron and “curvature” radiation (the latter being due to relativistic particles moving along curved magnetic field lines). I don’t think there is a theoretical prediction for the resulting spectrum. Observationally, the spectral energy distribution ($`\nu F_\nu `$) from pulsars has a wide peak at high energies (GeV gamma-rays to hard x-rays), where most of the energy is emitted. It falls towards lower energies, from the ultraviolet to the radio. The bolometric radiation output, although uncertain due to incomplete frequency coverage and beaming effects, appears to vary from a small fraction of the pulsar spin-down power in the most energetic pulsars to a substantial fraction in less energetic objects. The remainder of the energy is carried away by a wind and eventually deposited in the surrounding “plerion” nebula.

STRASSMEIER: Does the polarisation of the radio signal (or any other radiation that you may detect) tell something about the magnetic field?

STAIRS: The polarization can tell us about the geometry of the magnetic field in the emitting region, but not about its magnitude. The latter is obtained exclusively from timing of the pulsar spin-down.

HENRICHS: Could you comment on alignment between the magnetic and rotation axis as a possible mechanism to cause the apparent decay of the field?

REISENEGGER: In the standard dipole spin-down model, this is clearly a possibility, as we are only sensitive to the dipole component perpendicular to the rotation axis. This has been explored several times, most recently by Tauris and Manchester. Theoretically, it doesn’t appear much easier to align the dipole than to make it disappear, though people are clever and do come up with ideas. In addition, slightly more sophisticated models for the spin-down process, such as the early one by Goldreich and Julian, predict spin-down even when the dipole is aligned with the rotation axis (the only case considered in that particular work), which seems to imply that the spin-down process is not very sensitive to the orientation of the magnetic dipole.

SCHMIDT: What fraction of neutron stars is magnetic? In other words, how does the pulsar birth rate compare to the core-collapse supernova rate?

REISENEGGER: That ratio is hard to nail down, as both the numerator and the denominator have large error bars which are difficult to quantify. From statistics alone, we cannot safely discard, on the one hand, that all supernovae produce pulsars or, on the other, that only a modest fraction do. However, it is interesting to note that many young supernova remnants do not contain detectable radio pulsars but rather x-ray sources (AXPs, SGRs, “quiescent” neutron stars) or no compact source whatsoever.