text:
# Premartensitic Transition in 𝐍𝐢_{2+𝑥}𝐌𝐧_{1-𝑥}𝐆𝐚 Heusler Alloys

## Abstract

The temperature dependencies of the resistivity and magnetization of a series of $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ (x = 0 - 0.09) alloys were investigated. Along with the anomalies associated with ferromagnetic and martensitic transitions, well-defined anomalies were observed at the temperature of premartensitic transformation. The premartensitic phase existing in a temperature range 200 – 260 K in the stoichiometric $`\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{MnGa}`$ is progressively suppressed by the martensitic phase with increasing Ni content and vanishes in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.09}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.91}\mathrm{Ga}`$ composition.

In $`\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{MnGa}`$, like in many other Heusler alloys containing manganese, the indirect exchange interaction between magnetic ions results in ferromagnetism which is usually described in terms of the local magnetic moment at the Mn site . For the stoichiometric $`\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{MnGa}`$ a structural transition of the martensitic type from the parent cubic to a complex tetragonally based structure occurs at $`T_M=202`$ K while ferromagnetic ordering sets at $`T_C=376`$ K . The martensitic transition temperature $`T_M`$ was found to be sensitive to the composition, and values of $`T_M`$ between 175 and 450 K have been reported. A specific feature of the Ni-Mn-Ga system is that in alloys with a high $`T_M`$ ($`>270`$ K) a number of intermartensite transformations can be induced by an external stress , whereas in the alloys with lower $`T_M`$ the martensitic transition is preceded by a weakly first order premartensitic phase transition . The inelastic neutron scattering experiments  performed on stoichiometric $`\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{MnGa}`$ showed the existence of a soft $`[\xi \xi 0]\mathrm{TA}_2`$ phonon mode in a wide temperature interval, which is common to martensitic alloys having bcc structure. An important observation in these measurements was that the $`\mathrm{TA}_2`$ phonon branch at a wave vector of $`\xi _00.33`$ incompletely condenses at the premartensitic transition $`T_P260`$ K, well above the martensitic transition $`T_M=220`$ K. On cooling from $`T_P`$ to $`T_M`$ the frequency of the soft mode increases. This would suggest that the soft mode formation is associated with the premartensitic phase transformation rather then with the martensitic one. By transmission electron microscopy observation  it was established that the premartensitic phase consists in a micromodulated ”tweed” structure without macroscopic tetragonal distortions so that the parent cubic symmetry is preserved. The modulation of the premartensitic phase was found to correspond to the wave vector $`\xi _00.33`$.

It is necessary to stress that although no premartensitic transition was found in compositions with high $`T_M`$, the precursor phenomenon (softening of the $`[\xi \xi 0]\mathrm{TA}_2`$ phonon branch at the wave vector $`\xi _00.33`$) has been clearly observed by inelastic neutron scattering . Except for the partial condensation of the $`\mathrm{TA}_2`$ phonon branch observed by Zheludev et al., the only essential difference between the inelastic neutron scattering results performed on three samples of different stoichiometry  is that the width in $`\xi `$ where softening occurs becomes broader as $`T_M`$ increases.

At the presence the reason why the premartensitic transformation is observed only in the alloys with $`T_M260`$ K seems to be unclear. There is strong evidence  that the magneto-elastic interaction plays a crucial role in the formation of the premartensitic phase. Also, the theoretical investigation  predicts that the premartensitic transition is observed only in the case of large values of the magneto-elastic coupling parameter. From the results of magnetic and transport measurements of several near-stoichiometric $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1+x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ samples  it can be concluded that the premartensitic transition is less sensitive to the change of composition than the martensitic one. This gives ground to suggest that a deviation from the stoichiometry can lead to the disappearance of the premartensitic transition in some critical composition.

The importance of the conduction electron density in stabilizing the Heusler structure was noted a long ago and, in particular, it was suggested  that the structure is stabilized because the Fermi surface touches the Brillouin zone boundary. From this point of view a partial substitution of Mn for Ni in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys resulting in an increase of the conduction electron density should increase the martensitic transition temperature. This makes it possible to determine the compositional dependencies of $`T_M`$ and $`T_P`$. For this purpose we have studied temperature dependencies of electrical resistivity and magnetization in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys in which Mn is partially substituted for Ni in the range of $`x=00.09`$.

The polycrystalline $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ ingots were prepared by a conventional arc-melting method in Ar atmosphere. The ingots were homogenized in vacuum at 1100 K for 9 days and slowly cooled to room temperature. Room temperature X-ray diffraction showed single-phase cubic structure of the alloys. The samples for the resistivity and magnetization measurements were spark cut from the ingots and were of $`0.6\times 1\times 6`$ $`\mathrm{mm}^3`$ dimensions. The electrical resistivity was measured in a temperature range 100 – 450 K by ac four-terminal method. Magnetic measurements were done by a SQUID magnetometer.

The temperature dependencies of resistivity $`\rho `$ measured at cooling in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ ($`x=00.09`$) samples are shown in Fig. 1. Except for the $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.09}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.91}\mathrm{Ga}`$ composition, the $`\rho (T)`$ dependencies in the other samples exhibit three well-defined anomalies at temperatures corresponding to the ferromagnetic ($`T_C`$), premartensitic ($`T_P`$) and martensitic ($`T_M`$) transitions. With deviation from the stoichiometry the change in a slope of the resistivity curve related to the ferromagnetic transition shifts to lower temperatures, and the jump-like behavior of $`\rho `$ related to the martensitic transformation shifts to higher temperatures. This decrease of $`T_C`$ and increase of $`T_M`$ with increasing Ni content is in good agreement with . While the change in a slope at $`T_C`$ and jump-like behavior at $`T_M`$ are typical features of the resistivity in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys, the prominent anomaly at $`T_P`$ has been observed for the first time. Namely, the resistivity demonstrates either a well-defined peak ($`x=00.04`$ samples) or a two-step-like behavior ($`x=0.060.08`$ samples) at this temperature. The premartensitic transition temperature $`T_P`$ was determined either as the peak or as the bend of two-step-like resistivity curve. Instead of $`T_C`$ and $`T_M`$, the premartensitic transition temperature $`T_P`$ does not shift with Ni excess and $`T_P260`$ K remains essentially the same for all alloys in the studied range of compositions (Fig. 2).

In the compositions with low Ni content $`T_M`$ and $`T_P`$ are well separated and the premartensitic transition manifests itself as a well-defined peak on the resistivity curve. Increasing Ni content results in enhancement of $`T_M`$ and, as a consequence, only the right (high-temperature) part of the peak is presented on $`\rho (T)`$ for the $`x=0.060.08`$ samples (Fig. 1). The left (low-temperature) part of the peak can be not detectable in the martensitic phase because all physical characteristics of the materials (crystal structure, Fermi surface, mean free path and so on) drastically change upon the martensitic transformation. It is also interesting to compare the behavior of the resistivity at $`T_M`$ and $`T_P`$ measured at heating and cooling for $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.04}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.96}\mathrm{Ga}`$ and $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.08}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.92}\mathrm{Ga}`$ (Fig. 3). In the case of $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.04}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.96}\mathrm{Ga}`$, the resistivity shows a significant temperature hysteresis at $`T_M`$ whereas the temperature hysteresis at $`T_P`$ is small, which is in agreement with published results . In the $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.08}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.92}\mathrm{Ga}`$ sample the two-step-like anomaly observed at cooling completely disappears upon warming up and the resistivity smoothly decreases down to the extreme value. Moreover, the hysteretic feature seen in the upper part gradually narrows and vanishes in the down part. This testifies that the observed two-step-like behavior of the resistivity is not a peculiar feature of the martensitic transition in the $`x=0.060.08`$ samples but is the outcome of simultaneously occurring premartensitic and martensitic transitions. The anomaly of resistivity corresponding to $`T_P`$ had been completely taken up by the martensitic phase for the highest Ni composition in the series, $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.09}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.91}\mathrm{Ga}`$, and resistivity shows only two anomalies corresponding to the ferromagnetic and martensitic phase transitions (Fig. 1). In our opinion, these findings are consistent with the absence of the premartensitic transition in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys with a high $`T_M`$ temperature .

The temperature dependencies of magnetization $`M`$ measured in a 100 Oe magnetic field also showed clear anomalies at $`T_P`$ in the $`x=00.04`$ samples. However, such anomalies were not observed, neither upon cooling nor upon heating, in the $`x=0.060.08`$ samples. Actually, the absence of them upon warming up agrees with the corresponding resistivity data. Since in the $`x=0.060.08`$ samples the martensitic and premartensitic transitions are merged, the related to $`T_P`$ anomalies of $`M`$ are not observed upon cooling probably because they are masked by the drastic decrease of $`M`$ occuring upon the martensitic transformation. An example of $`M(T)`$ dependence for the compositions with separated $`T_P`$ and $`T_M`$ is shown in Fig. 4. $`M(T)`$ revealed a pronounced dip in magnetization of the sample at $`T_P`$. The drastic decrease in magnetization at $`227`$ K, shown in the inset of Fig. 4, is common for transformations from ferromagnetic martensite to ferromagnetic austenite in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys and will be not discussed here. The temperature of the premartensitic transition $`T_P`$ is equal to 262 K, which is in excellent agreement with the corresponding resistivity data. Instead of a smooth diminution of the magnetization at $`T_M`$, the premartensitic transition is attended by a complicated behavior of the magnetization. The rapid decrease of magnetization in the temperature interval from 268 to 262 K can be a consequence of the freezing of the atomic displacements related to the soft $`\frac{1}{3}[110]`$ phonon mode. In this case the appearance of modulations of the cubic phase results in an increase of magnetic anisotropy which explains the drop of magnetization. The upturn in magnetization at temperatures below $`T_P=262`$ K is due presumably to the ordering of the premartensitic phase. This suggestion is consistent with the evolution of the Bragg peak at $`q=(\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{3}0)`$ (Ref. 9) and the results of ultrasonic measurements  which clearly demonstrated that the premartensitic phase becomes fully developed and ordered at temperatures below $`T_P`$.

The martensitic transformation in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys is believed to occur due to the contact between the Fermi surface and a Brillouin zone boundary . In this sense the compositional dependence of $`T_M`$ in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ can be understood as resulting from a change of the Fermi energy due to the increase in the conduction electrons concentration upon substitution of Mn for Ni. On other hand, it has been suggested  that the origin of the premartensitic transition lies in specific nesting features of the multiply connected Fermi surface. The effect of uniaxial stress  on the anomalous phonon branch in $`\mathrm{Ni}_2\mathrm{MnGa}`$ results in the shifting of the phonon anomaly and the premartensitic transition temperature $`T_P`$ to higher q-values and temperatures. External stress can actually change the geometry of the Fermi surface and modifies the nesting vector. The fact that $`T_P`$ does not depend on x in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys means presumably that the increase in the conduction electrons concentration does not affect significantly this particular part of the Fermi surface.

Summarizing our speculation about the compositional dependence of the martensitic and premartensitic phase transitions, we argue that the premartensitic phase is suppressed by the martensitic phase with deviation from the stoichiometry in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys. The premartensitic transition couples with the martensitic transition in the range of $`x`$ from 0.06 to 0.08 and completely vanishes at 264 K in the critical composition $`x=0.09`$ of $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys. However, we do not rule out the possibility that the premartensitic transition gives rise to an intermartensitic transition in alloys with higher Ni content. Actually, such a possibility has been mentioned in , where the authors analyze data collected from the literature for a broad range of Ni-Mn-Ga compositions. From this point of view it is also worth mentioning that in a simpler classification the experimentally observed modulations of the martensitic phase in Ni-Mn-Ga alloys correlate with the temperature of martensitic transition $`T_M`$ as follow : 5-layered martensite is observed in alloys with $`T_M<270`$ K, whereas alloys with $`T_M>270`$ K exhibit 7- or 10-layered martensitic structures. This characteristic martensitic transition temperature $`T_M=270`$ K where the modulation of the martensitic phase changes from 5 to 7 (or 10) layers accords well with the critical temperature $`T_P=264`$ K at which the premartensitic phase vanishes.

Very recently  a phenomenological theory of structural and magnetic phase transitions in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys which takes into account strain, crystal lattice modulation, magnetic order parameter and interaction between these subsystems has been developed. It has been shown that the addition of an order parameter $`\psi `$ accounting for the crystal lattice modulation of the premartensitic phase to the general expression of the free energy  leads to an intermartensitic transition. On the compositional phase diagram this transition results from an extension of the line of the premartensitic transition into martensitic phase. The results of numerical calculations indicate that the premartensitic transition temperature as a function of concentration in $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2+x}\mathrm{Mn}_{1x}\mathrm{Ga}`$ alloys intersects the line of the martensitic phase transition at $`x0.11`$. This agrees fairly well with the experimental value $`x=0.09`$.

In conclusion, the most novel and significant findings of our experiments are that the premartensitic phase is progressively suppressed by the martensitic phase until it completely vanishes in the critical composition $`\mathrm{Ni}_{2.09}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.91}\mathrm{Ga}`$ at 264 K. If the suggested in  and  features of the Fermi surface indeed are responsible for $`T_M`$ and $`T_P`$, this means that the increase in the conduction electrons density does not modify the nesting vector and affects mainly the Fermi energy.

We are grateful to Professor A. N. Vasil’ev and Professor V. D. Buchel’nikov for helpful discussions. This work has been partially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 11695038 from the Japan Society of the Promotion of Science and by Grant-in-Aid of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research No. 99-02-18247.


format: text

text:
# On Steady State Neutrino Heated Ultra-Relativistic Winds from Compact Objects

## 1 Introduction

margin: margin:

We examine properties of ultrarelativistic winds from compact objects and we thereby obtain insights into the special case where these winds arise from neutrino heating. Our principal motivation for the present study is to determine if physically plausible steady state solutions exist in the ultrarelativistic regime and to determine the relation between neutrino parameters and the character of the outflow. A peculiar feature of the steady state ultrarelativistic solutions is that the matter temperature near the neutron star surface is cold. We comment below on whether or not this is physically realizable. We also study how the final neutron to proton ratio (or alternatively electron fraction, $`Y_e=1/(n/p+1)`$), is set in these models. Only for large ($`>10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$) electron neutrino or electron anti-neutrino temperatures does $`Y_e`$ in the initial wind material come into steady state equilibrium with the neutrino fluxes.

There is a rich literature concerning steady state outflow from neutron stars. In connection with supernovae the neutrino-driven wind occuring several seconds post core bounce is interesting because it is the favored candidate for the site of the r-process elements (Meyer et al., 1992; Woosley et. al., 1994; Takahashi, Witti, & Janka, 1994). The relation between neutrino parameters and the wind have been extensively discussed (Duncan, Shapiro, & Wassermann, 1986; Qian & Woosley, 1996). These studies were concerned with gentle, modest entropy winds, characterized by Lorentz factors of order unity far from the star. margin:  Near the neutron star surface these gentle winds are well approximated as margin:  being in hydrostatic equilibrium. The temperature is set by the competition between neutrino heating and neutrino cooling terms, i.e., the matter temperature is roughly equal to the temperature characterizing the neutrinos. Apart from margin:  effects due to nucleosynthesis, the final electron fraction in these gentle winds is set by the ratio of electron neutrino ($`\nu _e`$) and electron anti-neutrino ($`\overline{\nu }_e`$) capture rates on nucleons (Qian et al., 1993). The general relativistic extension of the wind equations, redshift factors, and neutrino trajectory bending have been discussed by Fuller & Qian (1996), Cardall & Fuller (1997), and Salmonson & Wilson (1999). These works also emphasize subrelativistic outflow velocities. margin:  Detailed studies of relativistic effects along these lines for r-process nucleosynthesis have been carried out recently by Otsuki et al. (2000).

In a pioneering study Paczyński (1990) examined ultrarelativistic flow from neutron stars relevant for studies of GRB’s. In this work no reference was made to a heating term and, except for photon diffusion which is unimportant near the neutron star surface, the flow was assumed adiabatic. This work provided a detailed picture of the wind evolution far from the neutron star surface, which is the regime relevant for optical emission in GRB’s. There are many similarities between these steady state ultra-relativistic winds and the fireballs discussed in connection with GRB’s (Shemi & Piran, 1990).

The present study is an attempt to fill the gap between detailed studies of the relation between neutrino heating and sub-relativistic outflow and the study of ultra-relativistic outflow without reference to a heating mechanism. This is also a detailed look at the ‘guts’ of a simple model for a GRB central engine. It may be applicable to the model proposed by Salmonson, Wilson, & Mathews (1999). In this model binary neutron stars are compressed and heated as gravitational radiation saps orbital kinetic energy during the last seconds of inspiral. The heating drives copious neutrino loss ($`L_\nu 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$) which in turn drives a hot pair plasma from the neutron star surface.

Lastly, it has recently been argued that the electron fraction in neutrino-heated fireballs may be a clue to neutrino physics at the central engine, and may have observable consequences (Fuller, Pruet, & Abazajian, 2000). The present study serves as a “proof of concept” of this idea for a simple case. Interestingly, we find that the electron fraction in the wind far from the central engine is set by processes very near the central engine. If this is a generic feature of GRB central engine models, information about the electron fraction in GRB’s may help pin down the central engine.

## 2 Equations

The general relativistic equations describing the outflow of material from the neutron star are Euler’s equations:

$`𝐮\left(𝐓\right)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐮\left(𝐓_\nu \right)`$ (1)
$`\left(𝐠+𝐮𝐮\right)\left(𝐓\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(𝐠+𝐮𝐮\right)\left(𝐓_\nu \right),`$ (2)
baryon number conservation,

$$\left(\rho _\mathrm{b}𝐮\right)=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(3)
and the change in electron fraction due to lepton capture on baryons,

$$𝐮\left(𝐘_𝐞\right)=\left(1Y_e\right)\left(\lambda _{\nu _e\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}+\lambda _{e^+\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}\right)Y_e\left(\lambda _{\overline{\nu }_e\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}+\lambda _{e^{}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}\right).$$
(4)
In the above $`𝐮`$ is the 4-velocity of the outflowing material, $`𝐓`$ and $`𝐓_\nu `$ are the stress-energy tensors for the outflowing matter and the neutrinos respectively, $`𝐠`$ is the metric tensor, and $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ is the rest mass energy density of baryons in the plasma comoving frame. In Eq. (4) $`\lambda _{\nu _e\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}`$ and $`\lambda _{\overline{\nu }_e\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}`$ are the capture rates for electron anti-neutrinos and electron neutrinos on neutrons and protons respectively, and $`\lambda _{e^+\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}`$ and $`\lambda _{e^{}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}`$ are the capture rates for positrons and electrons on neutrons and protons respectively. In what follows we employ the Schwarzschild metric and use natural units, $`G=c=\mathrm{}=k_b=1`$, with $`k_b`$ the Boltzmann constant. In margin:  Schwarzschild coordinates the line element is

$$ds^2=𝐠_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\left(12M/r\right)dt^2+\left(12M/r\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(5)
Here $`M`$ is the mass of the neutron star and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$. Imposing steady state conditions and writing the radial component of the 4-velocity $`\mathrm{u}^r`$ as $`\mathrm{u}^r=vy`$ where $`y=\left(12M/r\right)^{1/2}/\left(1v^2\right)^{1/2}`$ and $`v`$ is the outflow velocity of the plasma as measured in an inertial frame at rest in the Schwarzschild coordinate ($`t,r,\theta ,\varphi `$) system allows us to rewrite the equations above as

$`(1v^2)a\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\rho +P\right)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{vv^{}}{1v^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(12M/r\right)}}\right]+P^{}`$ (6a)
$`q\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ $`=`$ $`vy\left[\rho ^{}+\left(\rho +P\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{v^{}}{v(1v^2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(12M/r\right)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\right)\right]`$ (6c)
$`\dot{M}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r^2\rho _\mathrm{b}vy`$ (6e)
$`vyY_e^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1Y_e\right)\left(\lambda _{\nu _e\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}+\lambda _{e^+\mathrm{n}\mathrm{p}}\right)Y_e\left(\lambda _{\overline{\nu }_e\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}+\lambda _{e^{}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{n}}\right).`$ (6g)
In the above, primes denote differentiation with respect to r, and $`\rho `$ and $`P`$ are the total energy density (including rest mass) and pressure, respectively, of the plasma in the comoving plasma frame. We have also introduced $`a=\left(\left(𝐠+𝐮𝐮\right)\left(𝐓_\nu \right)\right)_r/\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ and $`q=𝐮\left(𝐓_\nu \right)/\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ which are respectively the momentum and energy deposition into the plasma per unit time per unit baryon rest mass. $`\dot{M}`$ is the mass outflow rate. The second law of thermodynamics and some algebra allows us to produce from these expressions two more first integrals of the flow:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{b}q}{Tvy}}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\widehat{H}y)}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`y\left((1v^2)a+q/(vy)\right).`$ (8)
Here we have introduced the nucleon mass $`m_\mathrm{b}`$, the entropy per baryon $`s`$ (in units of Boltzmann’s constant), and the enthalpy $`\widehat{H}=(\rho +P)/\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ of the plasma. It is useful to have explicit formulas for these quantities:

$`s=5.21\rho _8^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mathrm{MeV}}}\right)^3`$ (9a)
(9b)
$`\widehat{H}1H={\displaystyle \frac{Ts}{m_\mathrm{b}}}`$ (9c)
In this equation $`\rho _8`$ is the density in units of $`10^8\mathrm{gcm}^3`$. The number 5.21 above becomes 1.89 as $`T`$ decreases below the threshold for pair production. In writing Eqs. 9a and 9c we have assumed that the electrons are non-degenerate and that the entropy of light particles dominates the entropy of nucleons (i.e. $`s>20`$). This is relevant for our analysis because we will be concerned principally with conditions near the sonic point, and we will show below that low entropy conditions near the sonic point cannot lead to ultrarelativistic flow at infinity. The quantity H is related to the quantity $`\eta `$, the ratio of energy density to rest mass energy density often discussed in connection with GRB’s, through $`\eta (3/4)H+1`$.

If the flow is to be relativistic at infinity it must either be supersonic at the neutron star surface or pass through a sonic point somewhere above the neutron star. In the present work we focus on the case where the flow is not already supersonic at the neutron star surface. For the case of nondegenerate electrons and negligible baryon pressure ($`s>20`$) the equation governing $`v^{}`$ can be written as

$$\frac{1}{v\left(1v^2\right)}\left(1+H\right)\left(v^2v_s^2\right)v^{}=\frac{1}{r}\left[\frac{2}{3}H\left(1+2H/3\right)\left(M/r\right)\frac{1}{12M/r}+ar\left(1v^2\right)\frac{qr}{3\mathrm{u}^r}\right]$$
(10)
From this equation we see that at the sonic point the following conditions must be satisfied,

$$v^2=v_s^2=\frac{H}{3}\frac{1}{H+1}$$
(11a)
and
$$\left(1g\left(r\right)\right)\frac{2}{3}H=g(r)+\frac{qr}{3\mathrm{u}^r}\left(1v^2\right)ar.$$
(11b)
In this last equation we have introduced

$$g\left(r\right)M/\left(r2M\right)$$
(12)
and $`v_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=(dp/d\rho )`$ is the sound speed with the differentiation is taken at constant entropy.

Eq. (11b) implies that at the sonic point $`qr/\mathrm{u}^rH<g(r)`$. This is interesting because the change in entropy of the outflowing gas past the sonic point is implicitly given by

$$\frac{ds}{s}=\frac{qm_\mathrm{b}}{Ts}\frac{dr}{\mathrm{u}^r}=\frac{qdr}{\mathrm{u}^rH}<\left(\frac{qr}{\mathrm{u}^rH}\right)_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}1,$$
(13)
Here the subscript $`s`$ denotes values at the sonic point and the second to last inequality holds if $`q/\mathrm{u}^rH`$ decreases more rapidly than $`r^1`$. When the inequality in Eq. (13) holds, then, the entropy is approximately constant past the sonic point. Because the hydrodynamic equations imply that $`3T^{}/T=s^{}/s2/r(\mathrm{u}_{}^{r}{}_{}{}^{}/\mathrm{u}^r)`$, the inequalities in Eq. (13) also imply that the temperature cannot increase substantially past the sonic point for accelerating flow. This implies that the enthalpy per baryon is roughly constant or decreasing past the sonic point. We then arrive at the important result that that the final Lorentz factor of the wind is not much larger than the value of $`H`$ at the sonic point when the above inequality is satisfied. (The final Lorentz factor of the wind occurs when when the energy in relativistic particles $`H\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ has been converted to baryon kinetic energy.) This will allow us to make important conclusions regarding the sonic point conditions needed in order that the final flow be relativistic.

We can roughly divide the possible sonic point solutions into two families: those for which the terms involving the heating and momentum deposition terms q and a may be neglected (Family I), and those for which these terms are important in determining the conditions at the sonic point (Family II). As we will show that the neutrino energy deposition terms satisfy the inequalities in Eq. (13) when H and $`\mathrm{u}^r`$ increase with radius, only family II solutions can support steady state ultrarelativistic flow. An exception to this occurs when the sonic radius is very near 3M. Previous discussions of steady state winds from neutron stars have focused on family I solutions. For these solutions $`H(3/2)M/(r3M)`$ at the sonic point, and hence the sonic point must be near 3M in order to produce ultrarelativistic flow in the absence of heating terms (Paczyński, 1990). For neutrino driven wind studies relevant for the r-process the heating terms are generally not important near the sonic point simply because those flows are subrelativistic or mildly relativistic, so that the sonic point occurs far from the neutron star where neutrino heating has fallen off.

For Family II solutions (those where heating determines the sonic point conditions and drives the flow relativistic) some general observations can be made. If we assume that $`H(r_s)H(r_0)`$ and $`s(r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}})s(r_0)`$ (where $`r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$ is the schwarzschild radial coordinate of the sonic point and $`r_0`$ is the initial radial coordinate of the flow, usually taken to be the neutron star radius here) then the sonic point condition and Eq. 8 imply

$$_{r_0}^{r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}\frac{yq}{\mathrm{u}^r}y_{eff}_{r_0}^{r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}\frac{q}{\mathrm{u}^r}\left(\frac{yqr}{2\mathrm{u}^r(1g)}\right)_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}.$$
(14)
In Eq. 14 we have defined $`y_{eff}`$, we have assumed that $`(1g)H1`$ at the sonic point, and we have neglected the momentum deposition term $`a`$. Eq. 14 serves to specify the position of the sonic radius given a heating term $`q`$ and a velocity profile. If $`q/\mathrm{u}^rr^\beta `$ (which occurs in steady state winds if the heating rate per unit volume drops as $`r^{\beta 2}`$) the sonic point occurs at

$$\frac{r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}{r_0}\left(\frac{2(\beta 1)y_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}{y_{eff}(1g_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}})}+1\right)^{1/(\beta 1)},$$
(15)
which implies that the sonic point occurs near $`r_0`$ for rapidly dropping heating terms. Again the momentum deposition term $`a`$ has been neglected in this approximation. Another interesting property of these winds is that the temperature does not vary greatly within the sonic radius if $`q`$ is a decreasing function of radius. This is seen by noting that Eqs. 7 and 14 imply

$$T_s^1\left(\frac{y_s}{y_{eff}}\right)\frac{_{r_0}^{r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}q/T\mathrm{u}^r}{_{r_0}^{r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}}q/\mathrm{u}^r},$$
(16)
which allows us to to define an effective temperature within the sonic point, $`T_{eff}=T_sy_s/y_{eff}`$.

The above equations allow us to extract the properties of ultrarelativistic steady state winds for arbitrary heating functions. We now turn to the particular case where neutrinos from the central compact object are responsible for the heating.

## 3 Neutrino driven ultra-relativistic winds

Perhaps the first question raised by a study of steady state neutrino-heated wind solutions is whether or not these winds are physically realizable for conventional compact objects. There are two parts to this question: i) whether or not steady state can be achieved; and ii) whether or not the flow can be relativistic. We defer consideration of the second part until later, when we discuss mass ablation from the neutron star surface. While a hydrodynamic simulation is needed to determine the timescale to achieve steady state in these winds, a rough estimate is that the equilibration timescale is of order the sound crossing time between the sonic radius and the neutron star surface, $`10^4\mathrm{s}`$. This timescale is short compared to the neutrino diffusion timescale, which is of the order of seconds. The neutrino diffusion timescale governs the evolutionary timescale of the neutron star unless it undergoes a phase transition or becomes dynamically unstable. It is known that for most cold neutron star equations of state general relativistic instability sets in for $`r3M`$. Below this radius the star becomes dynamically unstable and collapses on a dynamic timescale which is comparable to the equilibration timescale given above. For these small radius stars, then, it may not be sensible to put much stock in a margin:  steady state wind solution.

Before describing in some detail properties of the allowed steady state solutions, we must first examine the neutrino energy deposition terms. To parametrize the neutrinos we make the usual assumption that the neutrinos are emitted from a neutrinosphere with some radius $`r_0`$ (in this work we do not make a distinction between neutrinosphere radius and neutron star radius) and are characterized at the neutrinosphere by a Fermi-Dirac black body energy distribution with temperature $`T`$ and zero chemical potential,

$$f_\nu =\frac{1}{e^{E/T}+1}.$$
(17)
This is a crude approximation to the actual expected energy spectra but suffices to mock-up the energy deposition physics (see Cardall & Fuller (1997)). We further make the free streaming approximation, i.e. we neglect the fact that the neutrinos suffer a small depletion with increasing radius owing to interactions with the outflowing plasma. The facts that real neutron stars are characterized by some small but finite decoupling region over which the neutrino distribution function continues to evolve and that neutrinos from real neutron stars are in general non-thermal or better characterized by degenerate spectra are not important for our arguments. For a discussion of when it is apropriate to treat the neutrino as sharply decoupling from a neutrinosphere see Salmonson & Wilson (1999).

Evaluating $`𝐓_\nu `$ for various neutrino plasma interactions is most easily accomplished by noting that Liouville’s theorem implies that in an inertial frame at rest at some Schwarzschild coordinate r the neutrino distribution function is characterized by the red-shifted temperature

$$T_\nu \left(r\right)=T_\nu (r_0)\left(\frac{12M/r_0}{12M/r}\right)^{1/2}hT_\nu (r_0),$$
(18)
(see Fuller & Qian (1996)) which also serves to define the redshift factor $`h`$, and a maximum angle of deviation from the radial direction given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{max}x=\left(1\left(\frac{r_0}{r}\right)^2\frac{12M/r}{12M/r_0}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
The mass $`M`$ of the neutron star appears in the expresion for $`x`$ because of the bending of null trajectories in the Schwarzschild geometry as has been discussed by Cardall & Fuller (1997) and Salmonson & Wilson (1999).

In an inertial frame at rest in Schwarzschild coordinates, the contribution to $`𝐓_\nu (𝐐_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{\mathrm{𝟎}}},𝐐_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{𝐫}})`$ from neutrino-antineutrino annihilation is

$`Q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2}{9(2\pi )^5}}CT_\nu \left(r\right)^4T_{\overline{\nu }}\left(r\right)^4F_4\left(0\right)F_3\left(0\right)\left(T_\nu \left(r\right)+T_{\overline{\nu }}\left(r\right)\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left(x\right)`$ (20)
$`Q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2}{9(2\pi )^5}}CT_\nu \left(r\right)^4T_{\overline{\nu }}\left(r\right)^4F_4\left(0\right)F_3\left(0\right)\left(T_\nu \left(r\right)+T_{\overline{\nu }}\left(r\right)\right)\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)/4`$ (21)
In the above $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=(x1)^4(x^2+4x+5)`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=(x1)^4(x+1)(3x^2+9x+8)`$, $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi constant, and hats are used to denote quantities in an inertial frame at rest in the Schwarzschild coordinate sytem. The quantities $`F_3(0)=7\pi ^4/120`$ and $`F_4(0)23.3`$ are the Fermi-integrals of argument zero. The quantity $`C`$ depends on the neutrino species. For $`\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ annihilation $`C=(1+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w)^2+4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _w`$ where $`\theta _w`$ is the Weinberg angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w0.23`$), while for $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ annihilation $`C=(12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w)^2+4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _w`$. For simplicity in what follows we will assume that the luminosity of a single neutrino flavor gives all $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation heating and that for this flavor the neutrino and antineutrino temperatures are equal, $`T_\nu =T_{\overline{\nu }}`$. We will refer to this single neutrino flavor as $`\mu `$ or $`\tau `$. This is merely a calculational device designed to reproduce the total heating rate from all neutrino flavors and adjusted accordingly for sensitivity studies.

Making a transformation back to Schwarzschild coordinates, we find that $`\rho _\mathrm{b}q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}=(1v^2)^{1/2}Q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{0}}(1v\mathrm{\Psi }/4\mathrm{\Phi })`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{b}a_{\nu \overline{\nu }}=(1v^2)^1(12M/r)^{1/2}Q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}^{\widehat{0}}(\mathrm{\Psi }/4\mathrm{\Phi }v)`$. The terms entering the right hand side of the sonic point condition are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{rq_{\nu \overline{\nu }}}{3\mathrm{u}^r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{10^9r_6}{(1v^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{u}^r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(T_\nu (r)/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^9}{\left(T/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^4}}\mathrm{\Phi }H\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{\Psi }}{4\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right)`$ (22)
$`a_{\nu \overline{\nu }}\left(1v^2\right)r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{310^8r_6}{(12M/r)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(T_\nu (r)/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^9}{\left(T/\mathrm{MeV}\right)^4}}\mathrm{\Phi }H\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{4\mathrm{\Phi }}}v\right),`$ (23)
where $`r_6=r/10^6\mathrm{cm}`$.

Evaluation of the contribution to $`(𝐓_\nu )`$ from neutrino-plasma interactions is complicated by the fact that an inertial observer comoving with the outflowing plasma sees a neutrino distribution function whose temperature varies with direction as $`T_\nu (r)(1v\mathrm{cos}\theta )/(1v^2)^{1/2}`$. The effect of this velocity (and direction) dependent redshift is to make the neutrino-plasma heating rates small as the outflow velocity becomes large. We will show that neutrino-antineutrino annihilation is the dominant heating term for the conditions of interest here. It suffices for us to note that in the limit where $`v=0`$, the contributions to $`(𝐓_\nu )`$ from neutrino-electron scattering and neurino capture on baryons are, respectively,

$$q_{\nu e}10q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}\frac{T^4}{T_\nu ^4}\frac{1}{h^4}\frac{1x}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(24)
if $`T<T_\nu `$, and

$$q_{\nu b}10^3q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}\frac{T^4\left(T_{\overline{\nu }_e}^6Y_e+T_{\nu _e}^6\left(1Y_e\right)\right)}{m_\mathrm{b}h^3HT_\nu ^9}\frac{1x}{\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$
(25)
Note that all of these heating terms satisfy the inequality in Eq. (13) if $`H`$ increases with radius. Neutrino-Antineutrino annihilation satisfies Eq. (13) because $`q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}/H\mathrm{\Phi }r^2/(\dot{M}H)`$ which falls more rapidly than $`r^6`$. Neutrino electron scattering satisfies Eq. (13) because $`q_{\nu e}/H(1x)r^2`$ Neutrino capture on baryons also satisfies this condition because $`q_{\nu b}/H(1x)/H`$. These estimates for the scaling of the heating rates with radius neglect the dependence of the heating on the redshift factor $`h`$. This implies that the heating rates decrease even more rapidly with increasing radius if the wind is accelerating. This means that if the final flow is to be ultra-relativistic, we must have $`H>1`$ at the sonic point, i.e., either $`r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}3M`$, or,

$$T1\mathrm{MeV}\left(\frac{r_6\mathrm{\Phi }\left(1g\right)\left(T_\nu (r)/10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\right)^9}{\mathrm{u}^r}\right)^{1/4}$$
(26a)
for $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation dominating the heating, or

$$T_\nu >40\mathrm{MeV}h^1\left(\frac{1g}{r_6(1x)}\right)^{1/5}$$
(26b)
if electron-neutrino scattering dominates the heating rate, or,

$$T_\nu >30\mathrm{MeV}h^1\left(\frac{1g}{r_6(1x)}\right)^{1/6}$$
(26c)
if neutrino capture on baryons dominates. In Eqs. (26a,26b, and 26c) the vvalues of all quantities are taken at the sonic point.

Unless the sonic radius occurs near $`3M`$ ($`g1`$), the neutrino temperatures needed to drive steady state ultrarelativistic flow imply extraordinary neutrino luminosities. (For example, consider the cases inherent in Eqs. 26b and 26c, $`L10^{54}r_6^2(T_\nu /20\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^4\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$.) In what follows we therefore restrict ourselves to the case where $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation dominates the heating at the sonic point and where only smaller, more realistic, neutrino luminosities are required.

### 3.1 Steady state flow when $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation dominates at the sonic point

Having determined that for modest neutrino luminosities ($`L<10^{54}\mathrm{ergs}\mathrm{s}^1`$) ultrarelativistic steady state flow only occurs if $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation heating dominates at the sonic point, we now turn to a discussion of the behavior of these solutions.

For $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ annihilation the heating scales as $`q/\mathrm{u}^r\mathrm{\Phi }r^2h^9+O(v)`$ and the sonic radius is readily estimated. This is shown in Fig. 1. From this figure we see that the sonic radius is generically near $`r_0`$. Because $`q_{\nu \overline{\nu }}/\mathrm{u}^r`$ decreases rapidly with radius we may approximate $`y_{eff}y(r_0)`$ and $`T_{eff}T(r_0)(y_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}/y_{eff})T_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$, which implies that the temperature is “cold” within the sonic radius so long as thermal neutrino energy losses are unimportant. Here “cold” means smaller than the neutrino energy distribution temperatures.

The mass ablation rate for $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ dominated solutions is

$$\dot{M}10^4\left(M_{}s^1\right)\left(\frac{r_6^3\mathrm{\Phi }(1g)(T_\nu (r)/10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V})^9}{H}\right)_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}.$$
(27)
If $`\dot{M}`$ is too large the flow cannot be relativistic. This is the “baryon loading problem” discussed in connection with GRB’s. The relation between $`\dot{M}`$ and the neutrino heating rates depends in detail on the structure of the compact object atmosphere below, above, and through the neutrinosphere. As argued by Fryer & Woosley (1998), obtaining a sufficiently low $`\dot{M}`$ may be particularly difficult for $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$ energy deposition because this heating rate drops so rapidly with radius. This requires the density scale height above the neutrinosphere to be small. For type II supernovae, calculations show that $`\dot{M}\dot{E}_\nu /(GM/r_0)`$, where $`\dot{E}_\nu `$ is the integrated neutrino energy deposition rate (Woosley et. al., 1994). This implies that most of the neutrino energy deposition goes into extracting baryons from the gravitational potential well of the neutron star. For supernovae, then, ultra-relativistic winds are not expected unless the early-time density scale height is smaller than expected or the late time neutrino luminosities are larger than expected. Fryer & Woosley (1998) have argued that the baryon loading problem cannot be overcome for mass ejection from strange stars resulting from the phase transition of a cooling or accreting neutron star while Salmonson, Wilson, & Mathews (1999) have argued that neutrino heating during the compression of an inspiralling neutron star might lead to ultrarelativistic flow. The question must be considered for each proposed GRB site.

An estimate of $`T_{eff}`$ allows a simple determination of the influence of neutrino capture on the electron fraction in the outflow. Noting that the number of neutrino captures per baryon $`n_c`$ is approximately given by $`dn_c=drq_{\nu \mathrm{b}}/(T_\nu \mathrm{u}^r)`$, where $`\nu =\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ for neutrino capture on neutrons or protons, gives the total number of neutrino captures per baryon between the neutron star surface and the sonic point

$$n_c10^6r_6(h^5(1g)(1x))_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}(T_{\overline{\nu _e}}^5+T_{\nu _e}^5)\mathrm{ln}\left(s_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}/s_0\right),$$
(28)
where $`s_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$ and $`s_0`$ are the entropy at the sonic point and neutron star surface, respectively. With this expression we can solve for the final electron fraction in the fireball, neglecting $`e^+/e^{}`$ capture because of the low plasma temperature. Representive solutions are shown in Fig.2. This figure serves to illustrate the basic features of how the final electron fraction is set: i) For low $`T_{\nu _e},T_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$, $`Y_e`$ simply remains what it was in the neutron star. ii) As $`T_{\nu _e},T_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ increase, the final $`Y_e`$ tends toward equilibrium with respect to neutrino capture (i.e. $`Y_eT_{\nu _e}^5/(T_{\nu _e}^5+T_{\overline{\nu _e}}^5)`$), while still retaining some memory of the value of the electron fraction in the neutron star crust. And iii) For $`T_{\nu _e}`$ or $`T_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ $`>10\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, $`Y_e`$ is set ultimately by the competition between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu _e}`$ captures. If the neutrino temperatures are high and neutrinos set the electron fraction in the outflow, the final electron fraction is expected to be low because the neutrinos emitted from a neutron rich star generically satisfy the temperature hierarchy $`T_{\nu _e}T_{\overline{\nu _e}}`$. Because neutron star crusts typically have $`Y_e<0.1`$, the electron fraction in the outflow is also expected to be low even when neutrino capture does not set the final electron fraction.

A numerical example of a steady state neutrino heated wind leading to ultrarelativistic flow is shown in Fig 3. For this example we have taken $`M=1.4M_{}`$, $`r_0=4M`$, $`T_{\nu _\mu }=T_{\overline{\nu }_\mu }=10\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`\eta =4/3H=100`$ at the sonic point. As the wind behavior shown in figure 1 is quite independent of $`H`$ (except of course for the baryon density which scales trivially with $`H`$) as long as $`H>`$ a few, we have only shown a single numerical example. The sonic radius can be chosen to match a particular entropy at the neutron star surface. Increasing $`r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$ increases the entropy at the surface. The value of the surface entropy is very sensitive to changes in $`r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$. Numerically, for $`r_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}}`$ too large, the scale height for velocity changes becomes very small and the integration fails. Physically, the sonic radius is set by the requirement that the energy flow $`\dot{E}`$ at the sonic radius equals the net neutrino energy deposition rate interior to the sonic radius. Our plot only extends out to $`r3r_0`$. Past this radius neutrino energy deposition is unimportant and the flow satisfies the simple scaling laws given in Piran, Shemi, & Narayan (1993). The final Lorentz factor of the wind is approximately 150.

## 4 Conclusions

We have extended the study of steady state winds from compact objects to include the case where the wind is driven by a heating term and the wind velocity at infinity is ultra-relativistic. We find that for heating rates per unit volume which drop more rapidly than $`r^3`$, the sonic point condition is dominated by the heating and momentum deposition terms, the sonic radius is near the compact object radius, and the temperature within the sonic radius is roughly constant.

Particular attention has been paid to the case where the wind is driven principally by neutrino energy deposition. For these winds neutrino anti-neutrino annihilation dominates the heating unless the neutrino luminosity is very large ($`10^{54}\mathrm{ergs}^1`$). Interestingly, then, for a given neutrino luminosity there are an infinite family of steady state supersonic solutions. On one branch of this family is the usual subrelativistic solution discussed for supernovae, and on the other their exists a continuum of ultra-relativistic solutions dominated by neutrino heating at the sonic point. Of course, the low mass ablation rate needed for the ultra-relativistic solutions may not be compatible with the structure of the atmosphere of the compact object near the neutrinosphere. This needs to be investigated for each compact object.

The way in which the electron fraction is set in the steady state winds we have discussed depends sensitively on the neutrino luminosity, with the number of neutrino captures per baryon varying as the fifth power of the neutrino temperature and depending only logarithmically on the final Lorentz factor of the outflow. For high $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ temperatures the final electron fraction is set by neutrino capture. Otherwise $`Y_e`$ remembers its value in the neutron star crust. At least for a simple case, then, the electron fraction in the outflow is a diagnostic of conditions within the central engine. This is interesting because a priori one might guess that the electron fraction comes to equilibrium at $`Y_e=1/2`$, or is always dominated by neutrino capture, as is the case for supernovae. It is also interesting because recently (Bahcall & Meszaros, 2000) it has been argued that neutrinos arising from pion decay in GRB fireballs may be detectable. This neutrino signal depends, along with the other parameters characterizing the fireball, on the electron fraction in the fireball. If more realistic GRB central engine models also leave their finger prints in the electron fraction in the outflow, such a signal might be used to distinguish between central engine models.

This work was partially supported by NSF Grant PHY98-00980 at UCSD, and an IGPP mini-grant at UCSD. We are indebted to C.Y. Cardall for the use of an unpublished paper on the relativistic formulation of the wind equations.


text:
# Thermodynamic properties of a simple model of like-charged attracting rods

## I Introduction

It has been observed that like-charged macromolecules can attract each other in solutions containing multivalent counterions. This attraction manifests itself in in vitro formation of toroidal bundles of concentrated DNA , similar to the one found in bacteriophage heads , and the appearance of rodlike bundles of f-actin and tobacco mosaic virus in the presence of multivalent counterions . A number of models have been suggested to explain this curious phenomenon. The fundamental ingredient in all of these models is the role played by the condensed counterions . Thus, the attraction has been attributed to the correlations between the condensed counterions on the two polyions . The mathematical problem of how these correlations can be taken into account is highly non-trivial. Two approaches have been proposed. One relies on field theoretic methodology and uses what can be classified as a high temperature expansion to account for the correlations between the condensed counterions , while the second is a zero temperature approximation, in which the counterions are thought to form correlated Wigner crystals on the surfaces of the two polyions . Neither one of the approaches is exact, although the zero temperature Wigner crystal approximation seems to be better at capturing the true nature of correlations .

In a previous work we have introduced a simple model which has allowed us to study exactly the force between two parallel charged rods with a layer of condensed counterions . In this paper we shall extend this work to allow for a relative inclination between the two rods. This problem is of particular interest in kinetics of the bundle formation. Indeed, it has been observed that the bundles of stiff polyions have a characteristic size. This is quite surprising since the correlation induced attraction should favor the formation of infinitely thick bundles, after all the ionic crystals can grow to macroscopic sizes. A possible explanation for the bundles not growing beyond some specific size can be found in the kinematics of bundle formation. The condensed counterions do not fully neutralize the charge of a polyion. For a rodlike polyion formed by $`Z`$ $`q`$ charges separated by distance $`b`$, placed in a solvent with dielectric constant $`D`$, in the presence of counterions of charge $`\alpha q`$, the Manning criterion  states that the number of condensed counterions on a polyion is $`n=(11/\alpha \xi )Z/\alpha `$ where $`\xi =q^2/Dbk_BT`$. Thus, for the case of DNA with divalent counterions $`88\%`$ of the DNA’s charge is neutralized. It is easy to convince oneself that if the interaction between two rodlike molecules is repulsive, there will be a greater probability that they will be found perpendicular to one another. The correlation induced attraction between the DNA molecules is short ranged, what means that the electrostatic repulsion is dominant on large scales. Thus, the two polyions will in general repel one another. It is only when the two macromolecules come in a close contact that the thermal fluctuations might be able to overcome the free energy barrier between the perpendicular and the parallel configurations, allowing the correlation induced attraction to take over and the polyions to “bundle up”. It has been argued that the size of this free energy barrier scales with the size of the bundle already formed . Thus, there comes a point when the thermal fluctuations will not be able to overcome the free energy barrier. Motivated by this discussion we shall now proceed with the study of interactions between rotating like-charged rods.

## II Definition of the model and its solution

We consider two rodlike polyions, each one with $`Z`$ charges $`q`$ with separation $`b`$ between neighbor charges. On each polyion, $`n`$ $`\alpha `$-valent counterions, with charge $`\alpha q`$, are condensed. The sites where the condensed counterions are located are described by occupation variables $`\sigma _{ij}`$, such that $`\sigma _{ij}=1`$ if a counterion is condensed on the $`i`$’th monomer ($`i=1,\mathrm{},Z`$) of the $`j`$’th polyion ($`j=1,2`$) and $`\sigma _{ij}=0`$ otherwise. When a counterion is condensed on a monomer, we assume that the only effect is the renormalization of the local charge, from $`q`$ to $`q+\alpha q`$. The rods are located on two parallel planes separated by a distance $`d`$ and the line joining the centers of the rods is supposed to be perpendicular to these planes. The angle between the directions of the rods is equal to $`\theta `$, so that $`\theta =0`$ corresponds to the case of parallel rods previously considered . The definitions above are illustrated in Fig. 1. Notice that, for simplicity, we will consider only odd values of $`Z`$, so that for nonzero values of $`\theta `$ the distance between the central charges of each rod vanishes as $`d0`$. The polyions are placed in a uniform solvent whose dielectric constant is equal to $`D`$. For a given configuration $`\{\sigma \}`$ of condensed counterions the Hamiltonian for the pair of polyions may then be written as

$$=\frac{q^2}{2D}\underset{i,i^{^{}}=1}{\overset{Z}{}}\underset{j,j^{^{}}=1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{(1\alpha \sigma _{ij})(1\alpha \sigma _{i^{^{}}j^{^{}}})}{b\delta (i,j,i^{^{}},j^{^{}})},$$
(1)
where the denominator is the distance between the sites $`(i,j)`$ and $`(i^{^{}},j^{^{}})`$, the sum is restricted to $`(i,j)(i^{^{}},j^{^{}})`$, and

$$\delta (i,j,i^{^{}},j^{^{}})=\{\begin{array}{cc}x|ii^{^{}}|,\text{if }j=j^{^{}},\hfill & \\ \hfill & \\ \sqrt{x^2+f_i^2+f_i^{^{}}^22f_if_i^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta },\text{if }jj^{^{}}\text{;}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2)
with $`x=d/b`$ and

$$f_i=\frac{Z+12i}{2}.$$
(3)
The values of occupation variables obey the constraints $`_{i=1}^Z\sigma _{i1}=_{i=1}^Z\sigma _{i2}=n`$.

The partition function of the model is given by

$$Q=\underset{\{\sigma \}}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(\beta )=\underset{\{\sigma \}}{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(\xi H),$$
(4)
where the prime denotes the constraint of fixed numbers of condensed counterions on each polyion. The adimensional reduced Hamiltonian $`H`$ is given by

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{(i,j)(i^{^{}},j^{^{}})}{}\frac{(1\alpha \sigma _{ij})(1\alpha \sigma _{i^{^{}}j^{^{}}})}{\delta (i,j,i^{^{}},j^{^{}})},$$
(5)
and $`\xi =\beta q^2/Db`$ is the Manning parameter . For a given counterion configuration $`\{\sigma \}`$, if a transformation $`\sigma _{ij}^{^{}}=1\sigma _{ij}`$ is performed, the Hamiltonian changes as

$$H(Z,\alpha ,n,x,\theta ,\{\sigma \})=(\alpha 1)^2H(Z,\alpha ^{^{}},n^{^{}},x,\theta ,\{\sigma ^{^{}}\}),$$
(6)
where $`\alpha ^{^{}}=\alpha /(\alpha 1)`$ and $`n^{^{}}=Zn`$. This relation leads to the following invariance property of the partition function of the model

$$Q(Z,n,\xi ,\alpha ,x,\theta )=Q(Z,Zn,[\alpha 1]^2\xi ,\alpha /[\alpha 1],x,\theta ),$$
(7)
and therefore we may restrict ourselves to $`n<Z/2`$ in the calculations. The free energy of the model is $`\varphi =k_BT\mathrm{ln}Q`$, and the force between the rods is $`F=\frac{\varphi }{d}`$. It is then useful to define an adimensional force as

$$f=\frac{Db^2F}{q^2}=\frac{1}{\xi Q}\frac{Q}{x}.$$
(8)
It should be stressed that the definition of $`f`$ we use here is different from the one used in , since the earlier definition diverges at vanishing temperature. The sign was chosen in such a way that repulsive forces are positive.

To solve the model exactly, one may define activity variables

$`y_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{i}}\right],i=1,\mathrm{},Z1`$ (9)
$`z_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{d_{ij}}}\right],i,j=1,\mathrm{},Z,`$ (10)
where $`d_{ij}=\sqrt{x^2+f_i^2+f_i^{}^22f_if_i^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$. It may then be noticed that the partition function may be written as

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}w_i,$$
(11)
where

$`N_c=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Z!}{n!(Zn)!}}\right]^2`$

is the number of condensed counterions configurations and the statistical weight of the $`i`$’th configuration is given by

$$w_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{Z1}{}}y_j^{u_{ij}}\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{Z}{}}z_{kj}^{v_{ikl}},$$
(12)
$`u_{ij}`$ and $`v_{ikl}`$ being quadratic polynomials in $`\alpha `$ with integer coefficients. It is possible to generate these sets of integer numbers with a computer program and thus obtain the partition function of the model exactly. On a conventional personal computer with a rather moderate processing time it is easy to obtain results up to $`Z=13`$, and simulations  for larger polyions show that the qualitative behavior of the model does not change much beyond this value, so we will restrict ourselves here to $`Z13`$.

## III Results for the thermodynamic behavior of the model

The thermodynamic behavior of the model is determined by the free energy $`\varphi `$, and we will start considering the dependence of $`\varphi `$ on $`\theta `$. For convenience, we define an adimensional free energy

$$\phi =\frac{Db}{q^2}\varphi =\frac{1}{\xi }\mathrm{ln}Q.$$
(13)
The free energy is a function of the parameters $`Z`$, $`n`$, $`\xi `$, $`\alpha `$, $`x`$, and $`\theta `$. For reasons which will become clear below, we replace the parameter $`\alpha `$ by

$$a=\frac{2n\alpha }{Z}1,$$
(14)
so that we will consider the free energy $`\phi (Z,n,\xi ,a,x,\theta )`$. For all cases we noticed that the global minimum of the free energy is located either at the parallel ($`\theta =0`$) or at the perpendicular ($`\theta =\pi /2`$) configuration of the rods. An example of this is shown in Fig. 2, and one may note that, in general, the parallel configuration is stable for small distance $`x`$ and the perpendicular one becomes stable as $`x`$ is increased. So, in what follows we will concentrate our attention on the parallel and perpendicular rod configurations only.

We will now focus on the regions of the parameter space where the parallel and perpendicular configurations are stable. We will start discussing the behavior of the model at vanishing values of $`x`$. In this limit, the partition sum is dominated by the contributions coming from interactions between charges separated by a distance $`x`$. For the case $`\theta =0`$ we have $`Z`$ pairs in this situation. We may then rewrite the partition function as

$$Q_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{Z1}{}}y_j^{u_{ij}}z_0^{_{k=1}^Zv_{ikk}}\underset{lm}{}z_{lm}^{v_{ilm}},$$
(15)
where $`z_0=z_{kk}=\mathrm{exp}(\xi /x)`$ vanishes as $`x0`$. Now let us call

$$v=\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}v_i=\underset{i}{\mathrm{min}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{Z}{}}v_{ikk},$$
(16)
and let us suppose that the first $`N_1`$ of the $`N_c`$ condensed counterion configurations correspond to this value of $`v_i`$. Thus

$$Q_{}=z_0^vW_{}(1+P),$$
(17)
where

$`W_{}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Z1}{}}}y_j^{u_{ij}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}z_{lm}^{v_{ilm}},`$

and

$`P={\displaystyle \frac{1}{W_1}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=N_1+1}{\overset{N_c}{}}}z_0^{v_iv}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{Z1}{}}}y_j^{u_{ij}}{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}z_{lm}^{v_{ilm}}`$

vanishes as $`x0`$, since $`v_i>v`$. The $`N_1`$ configurations considered here are the ones that maximize the number of $`(1,1+\alpha )`$ pairs separated by a distance $`x`$, and thus $`v=Z2n\alpha =Za`$. For the parallel configuration, we thus have that at small values of $`x`$, the partition function is asymptotically given by

$$Q_{}W_{}z_0^{Za}.$$
(18)
A simple combinatorial calculation leads to

$$N_1=\frac{Z!}{(n!)^2(Z2n)!}.$$
(19)
The same line of reasoning may be applied to the perpendicular case, where only the pair of central charges $`([Z+1]/2,1)`$ and $`([Z+1]/2,2)`$ is separated by a distance $`x`$. One thus has in this case

$$Q_{}W_{}z_0^{1\alpha },$$
(20)
with

$$W_{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{Z1}{}}y_j^{u_{ij}}\underset{(l,m)([Z+1]/2,[Z+1]/2)}{}z_{lm}^{v_{ilm}},$$
(21)
where the first $`N_2`$ configurations are now supposed to be the ones with a central $`(1,1+\alpha )`$ pair, and

$$N_2=\frac{[(Z1)!]^2}{(Zn)!(Zn1)!n!(n1)!}.$$
(22)
¿From equations 18 and 20, $`Q_{}=Q_{}`$ at small distances leads to

$$a=a_0+a_1x+𝒪(x^2),$$
(23)
with

$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z2n}{Z(2n1)}},`$ (24)
$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{Z\xi (2n1)}}(\mathrm{ln}W_2\mathrm{ln}W_1).`$ (25)
It is thus apparent that the sign of the inclination of the curve $`\phi _{}=\phi _{}`$ in the $`(a,x)`$ plane at $`x=0`$ is determined by the sign of $`W_2W_1`$, since $`\mathrm{ln}(x)`$ is a monotonically increasing function.

In Fig. 3 the curve of equal free energies in the plane $`(a,x)`$ is shown for the case $`Z=9`$, $`n=2`$. For all temperatures, the curves meet at $`(a_0=5/27,x=0)`$, as expected. For the case of the ground state (vanishing temperature), the curve displays discontinuous derivatives at points where the configurations of the ground state change. Another point which is worth observing is that for $`\xi >1.489528\mathrm{}`$ or $`\xi <0.288876\mathrm{}`$ the curve starts with negative inclination at $`(a_0,0)`$. Thus, for a value of $`a`$ somewhat smaller than $`a_0`$ the perpendicular configuration is stable at large and small distances, while parallel rods are stable at intermediate distances. Thus, in this case we find that the perpendicular phase is reentrant as the distance $`x`$ is lowered. Figure 4 shows the initial inclination $`a_1=\left(\frac{a}{x}\right)_{x=0}`$ as a function of $`\xi `$ for some examples. As is apparent in expression 25, these inclinations diverge as $`\xi 0`$, their sign in this limit being determined by $`W_2W_1`$. As a general rule, one notices that reentrant behavior is found for relatively small values of $`n`$ in the examples that we have studied ($`n<3`$ for $`Z=7,9,11`$ and $`n<4`$ for $`Z=13`$).

Finally, we discuss the behavior of the force defined in Equation 8. As a general rule, for sufficiently large values of $`a`$, the force is repulsive at large distances and becomes attractive as the distance is lowered. It is useful to find the value of the distance $`x`$ for which the forces $`f_{}`$ and $`f_{}`$ vanish. The behavior of these curves at small distances may be found from the asymptotic behavior of the free energies described in equations 18 and 20. We find

$$f_{}h_{}x\frac{Za}{x^2},$$
(26)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi W_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{}}{x}}=h_{}x+𝒪(x^2).`$

Thus, for small values of $`x`$, the curve $`f_{}=0`$ reads

$$x\left(\frac{Za}{h_{}}\right)^{1/3},$$
(27)
so that attractive forces in the parallel configuration are possible only if $`a>0`$, since $`h_{}>0`$. For the perpendicular configuration, similar considerations lead to

$$f_{}h_{}x\frac{\alpha 1}{x^2},$$
(28)
and therefore the curve $`f_{}=0`$ for $`x1`$ is given by

$$x\left(\frac{\alpha 1}{h_{}}\right)^{1/3}.$$
(29)
For small separations between the rods, the curve $`f_{}=0`$, in the $`(a,x)`$ plane, tends to $`a=a_{}=1+2n/Z`$. In Fig. 5 the curves $`f_{}=0`$, $`f_{}=0`$, and $`\phi _{}=\phi _{}`$ are depicted for a particular case. One notices that for $`a>a_0`$, the force between the rods is attractive for sufficiently small distances $`x`$ and the rods are in the parallel configuration. For $`a_{}<a<a_0`$ the force is still attractive at small $`x`$, but the rods are in the perpendicular configuration.

The behavior of the force as a function of the distance $`x`$ is shown in Fig. 6 for $`a=0.2`$. At $`x=1`$ the force is repulsive and the rods are perpendicular. As the distance is lowered, the force becomes attractive, with the rods still in the perpendicular configuration. At $`x=0.246924\mathrm{}`$ the rods change to the parallel configuration and the attractive force becomes much larger. At a small distance, the force displays an asymptotic behavior of the form $`Za/x^2`$, according to Eq. 26. At $`a=0.75`$ the force is repulsive at large distances, with perpendicular rods. As the distance is lowered, the force changes discontinuously to attractive as the rods become parallel. Finally, an example of the behavior of the force as a function of the temperature $`1/\xi `$ may be seen in Fig. 7. For the values of the parameters used to obtain these data, the parallel configuration is stable. In general, the modulus of the force increases as the temperature is lowered, since the charge correlations grow in this case. However, at relatively low temperatures and short separations between the polyions, this rule may not apply, as is the case in the example shown. The reason for this is that the ground state configuration, which corresponds to the lowest electrostatic energy, is not, in general, the configuration which maximizes the attractive force. For low temperature and short distances there are configurations which have forces more attractive than what is found in the ground state. The total force, being a weighted mean of forces associated with all configurations can, therefore, become more attractive than the force at T=0.

## IV Discussion and conclusions

To get a better understanding of the range of electrostatic correlational forces involved, we study a simple example of two parallel long polyions with $`Z/2`$ condensed divalent counterions. In the ground state the counterions are distributed periodically along the polyions. At finite temperature, this periodicity will be destroyed, the correlations between the condensed counterions, however, will persist. Thus, for sufficiently large electrostatic coupling, i.e. Manning parameter, the electrostatic potential at position ($`\rho ,s`$) from a polyion can be approximated as,

$$\varphi (\rho ,s)=q\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{\sqrt{\rho ^2+(snb)^2}}.$$
(30)
Appealing to Poisson sum rule the asymptotic large distance behavior or this sum can be evaluated yielding

$$\varphi (\rho ,s)=\frac{4q}{\sqrt{2\rho b}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \rho }{b}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi s}{b}\right).$$
(31)
The energy of interaction between two lines of charge with staggered charges is then

$$E=\frac{4qZ}{\sqrt{2\rho b}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \rho }{b}\right)$$
(32)
and the force, $`F=E/\rho `$, is

$$\frac{F}{Z}=\frac{4q}{\sqrt{2\rho b^3}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \rho }{b}\right)\left(\pi +\frac{b}{2\rho }\right)$$
(33)
We see that the correlation induced attraction decays exponentially, with the characteristic range of $`l=b/\pi `$.

We have studied the electrostatic interaction between two charged rods with a layer of condensed counterions. This is the simplest model of interaction for like-charged polyions in a polyelectrolyte solutions. It is shown that in spite of the equal net charge on the two macromolecules the correlations between the condensed counterions can produce an effective attraction. We show, however, that this attraction is of extremely short range, comparable to the monomer separation along the macromolecules. Furthermore, it is found that at large distances the monopolar repulsion between the charge densities forces the polyions into a perpendicular configuration. At short distances the correlations between the condensed counterions can become sufficient to produce a macromolecular alignment. The energy barrier associated with the transition from the perpendicular to the parallel configuration might be relevant for the kinematics of bundle formation in solutions of stiff polyelectrolytes .


text:
# Strong-weak coupling duality in anisotropic current interactions

## I Introduction

Current-current interactions in two dimensions arise in many important physical systems, for example in non-Fermi liquids, Kosterlitz-Thouless transitions, and disordered Dirac fermions. For the generally non-integrable anisotropic cases, the renormalization group (RG) to low orders in perturbation theory has been one of the main tools for understanding these theories. Recently, an all-orders $`\beta `$eta function was proposed. Some difficulties were encountered in understanding completely the consequences of these $`\beta `$eta functions, due mainly to the existence of poles. In this paper we resolve some of these difficulties by using the duality pointed out in  combined with some added topology in the space of couplings. We focus only on the anisotropic $`su(2)`$ case.

The $`\beta `$eta functions were originally computed by using the current-algebra Ward identities to isolate the $`\mathrm{log}`$ divergences at each order and summing the perturbative series. These series converge in a neighborhood of the origin which we identify as the perturbative domain. The $`\beta `$eta functions turn out to be rational functions of the couplings and possess pole singularities at the boundary of this perturbative domain. We extend the $`\beta `$eta functions away from this domain by analytical continuation. Although simple, this ansatz is a hypothesis which may hide some dynamical effects, for example the possibility that degrees of freedom become relevant at the singularities. Assuming that the proposed $`\beta `$eta functions capture all perturbative contributions, the analytical continuation prescription provides a non-perturbative definition of them. One of the aims of this paper is to check the consistency of the proposed $`\beta `$eta functions upon analytical continuation and to decipher the consequences.

It is useful to recall a few properties of the renormalization group transformations we expect, and to discuss pathologies that may be encountered. RG transformations, defined for example in the Wilsonian scheme by successive integrations of the fast modes, induce a map on the space of effective actions. In this space, of a priori huge dimension, the RG transformations may be extended to arbitrarily large scales. The space of effective actions contains many irrelevant directions, corresponding to what are called stable manifolds, which are washed out in the continuum limit. The remaining directions, hopefully finite in number, label the continuous field theories if they exist. For renormalizable theories the RG transformations may be projected onto this parameter space. The renormalized coupling constants may then be viewed as the values of these parameters at the renormalization length scale. For renormalizable theories, this then defines RG flows which may be extended to arbitrarily large or small scales as they simply correspond to space dilatations in the continuous field theories.

In perturbation theory one computes $`\beta `$eta functions in some domains which may not cover all of phase space. The sizes of these domains, as well as the analytical properties of the $`\beta `$eta functions, depend on renormalization prescriptions, i.e. on choices of coordinates. As a consequence, some RG trajectories cannot be extended from perturbative domains to arbitrarily large scales. For example, one of the perturbative coordinates may blow up after a finite scale transformation. This signals that either some relevant degrees of freedom or some non-perturbative effects have been missed, or that the perturbative domains have to be extended. Thus, as a rule we shall look for extensions of the perturbative phase spaces such that all RG trajectories can be followed up to infinitely large scales. In this situation we may call the RG phase space complete in analogy with General Relativity where one looks for geodesically complete manifolds. Similarly, if the RG flows defined in this way cannot be extended to small scales, but break at some ultraviolet cut-off, this may indicate the absence of a non-perturbatively defined renormalizable continuous theory.

## II Duality in the $`\beta `$eta function

The models we consider are perturbations of the $`su(2)_k`$ WZW models, the latter being conformal field theories with $`su(2)`$ affine symmetry . Let us normalize the $`su(2)`$ level $`k`$ current algebra as follows

$$J_3(z)J_3(0)\frac{k}{2z^2},J_3(z)J^\pm (0)\pm \frac{1}{z}J^\pm (0),J^+(z)J^{}(0)\frac{k}{2z^2}+\frac{1}{z}J_3(0)$$
(1)
and similarly for $`\overline{J}`$, and consider the anisotropic left-right current-current perturbation:

$$S=S_{su(2)_k}+\frac{d^2x}{2\pi }\left(g_1(J^+\overline{J}^{}+J^{}\overline{J}^+)+g_2J_3\overline{J}_3\right)$$
(2)
The $`\beta `$eta functions proposed in  are

$`\beta _{g_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1(g_2g_1^2k/4)}{(1k^2g_1^2/16)(1+kg_2/4)}}`$ (3)
$`\beta _{g_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2(1kg_2/4)^2}{(1k^2g_1^2/16)^2}}`$ (4)
The $`su(2)`$ invariant isotropic lines correspond to $`g_1=g_2`$, and also to $`g_1=g_2`$ due to the $`su(2)`$ automorphism $`J^\pm J^\pm `$ which can be performed on the left-moving currents only sending $`g_1g_1`$.

By rescaling the currents $`J\sqrt{k}J`$ in the isotropic case one easily sees that

$$\beta _g=\frac{1}{k}F(C_{adj}/k,kg)$$
(5)
where $`C_{\mathrm{adj}}`$ is the quadratic Casimir in the adjoint representation, and $`F`$ is a function of the combinations $`C_{\mathrm{adj}}/k,kg`$. The $`\mathrm{log}`$ divergences that contribute to the $`\beta `$eta function found in  are linear in $`C_{\mathrm{adj}}/k`$ to any order in perturbation theory, which explains the simple $`k`$ dependence in (3). The manner in which $`\mathrm{log}`$ divergences were isolated in  led to no corrections which are higher powers of $`C_{\mathrm{adj}}/k`$, and thus corrections to higher powers of $`1/k`$, however the argument given does not constitute a proof that there are no such corrections. The work  also did not deal with potential infra-red divergences. In this work we do not address these issues but simply assume the above $`\beta `$eta function is correct and see if it can be made sense of.

In  various regimes of behavior of the RG flows were identified. The main difficulty encountered in interpreting these flows was due to the fact that in some regimes after a finite scale transformation one flows to the poles and one cannot extend the flows reliably beyond the poles numerically. Another difficulty encountered in  is that for some RG trajectories one of the coupling constants $`g_{1,2}`$ blows up after a finite scale transformation. In this paper we propose a resolution of this difficulty based on a strong-weak coupling duality of the $`\beta `$eta function and some added topology of the space of couplings.

Consider the isotropic $`\beta `$eta function for $`g_1=g_2=g`$ (for $`k=1`$) with a double pole at $`g=4`$:

$$\beta _g=\frac{16g^2}{(g+4)^2}$$
(6)
It exhibits a duality. Define a dual coupling $`g^{}=16/g`$ and let $`\beta ^{}(g^{})=(g^{}/g)\beta (g)`$, then

$$\beta ^{}(g^{})=\beta (gg^{})$$
(7)
Suppose the flow starts at $`g<4`$ toward the pole. Then at some scale $`r_0`$, $`g=g^{}=4g_0`$, where $`g_0`$ is the self-dual coupling. The duality of the $`\beta `$eta function implies that a coupling $`g`$ at a scale $`r`$ flows to $`g^{}`$ at a scale $`r_0/r`$. Thus the ultraviolet and infrared values of $`g`$ are simply related by duality. This can be seen from the analytical solution:

$$gg^{}+8\mathrm{log}(g/g_0)=16\mathrm{log}(r/r_0)$$
(8)
The anisotropic $`\beta `$eta function also exhibits the duality (7) with

$$g_1^{}=\frac{16}{k^2g_1},g_2^{}=\frac{16}{k^2g_2}$$
(9)
If $`g_{1,2}(r)`$ is a solution of the RG equations, so is $`g_{1,2}^{}(r_0/r)`$ for any $`r_0`$. To simplify the notation, unless explicitly stated we rescale $`g_{1,2}`$ to absorb the $`k`$ dependence.

The precise shape of the RG trajectories can be determined by using the RG invariant

$$Q=\frac{g_1^2g_2^2}{(g_24)^2(g_1^216)}$$
(10)
It is simple to show

$$\underset{g}{}\beta _g_gQ=0$$
(11)
In consistency with the duality of the $`\beta `$eta functions, one finds that $`Q`$ is self-dual, i.e. $`Q(g)=Q(g^{})`$. Eq.(10) may be inverted to express $`g_1^2`$ as a function of $`Q`$ and $`g_2`$. This gives the equations for the RG trajectories. The $`\beta `$eta function for $`g_2`$ may be written as a function of $`g_2`$ and $`Q`$ only:

$$\beta _{g_2}=16\frac{(g_2^216Q(g_24)^2)(1Q(g_24)^2)}{(g_2+4)^2}$$

The remaining pole at $`g_2=4`$ reflects the instability of the theory at that value of $`g_2`$; see its bosonized form (14) in the following section. The zeroes of $`\beta _{g_2}`$ are then found to be either on the $`g_2`$-axis with $`g_1=0`$ or at infinity $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$.

We propose to use the duality (9) to extend the flows through the poles. Namely, if at a scale $`r`$ the couplings are $`g_{1,2}(r)`$, and the flow reaches the pole at a scale $`r_0`$, then at the scale $`r_0/r`$ the couplings are given by $`g_{1,2}^{}(r)`$. This procedure for example allows us to make sense of all trajectories in the shaded domains in Figure 1. The beta functions (3) are ill-defined at the self-dual points and as a consequence there are many trajectories going through these points. To resolve this paradox one has to locally change the description of the phase space. Namely, points of the phase space will be described by coordinates $`(g_1,g_2,Q)`$ with the identification (10). This is a redundant description away from the self-dual points but not in the neighborhood of these points where it amounts to choosing for example $`(g_2,Q)`$ as coordinates. This procedure, which is related to the mathematical construction known as local blowing up, changes slightly the topology of the phase space.

It turns out one additional ingredient is needed for a global interpretation of the phase diagram. Consider the region $`g_2>4,g_1<4`$. Using $`Q`$, one sees that here one is attracted to $`g_2\mathrm{}`$ with $`0<g_1<4`$. Using duality arguments, it is easy to convince oneself that these trajectories reach $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ in a finite RG time $`\mathrm{log}r`$. Without further information one cannot extend the RG flows to arbitrarily large scales on the two dimensional plane with coordinates $`g_1,g_2`$. Since these trajectories are not flowing to a self-dual point, one cannot use duality to extend the flows. However at $`|g_2|=\mathrm{}`$, the $`\beta `$eta function satisfies

$$\beta (g_1,g_2)=\beta (g_1,g_2)\mathrm{when}|g_2|\mathrm{}$$
(12)
Thus if a flow goes to $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ after a finite scale transformation, one can consistently continue the flow at $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$. This is also consistent with the fact that $`Q(g_2)=Q(g_2)`$ at $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$. Thus we propose to identify the points $`g_2=\pm \mathrm{}`$ which endows the coupling constant space with the topology of a cylinder. Alternatively, instead of identifying the two infinities $`g_2=\pm \mathrm{}`$, one can view the procedure as gluing multiple patches of the coupling constant space together at $`g_2=\pm \mathrm{}`$, with (12) as a consistent gluing condition. The $`+\mathrm{}`$ of one patch is identified with $`\mathrm{}`$ of the next patch. In this alternative construction the phase space will also acquire a non-trivial topology.

With the above hypotheses all RG flows can be extended to arbitrarily large or small length scales. All flows either begin on the $`g_2`$ axis and terminate at $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$, or vice versa. Since both $`g_1=0`$ and $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$ are simple zeroes of the $`\beta `$eta functions, it takes an infinite RG time for the trajectories to reach these loci. Consider the flows that originate from $`g_1=0`$, $`0<g_2<4`$. They are attracted to the self-dual point $`(g_1,g_2)=(4,4)`$, and then by duality end up at $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$, $`4<g_2<\mathrm{}`$. Similarly, the flows that originate from $`g_1=0`$, $`g_2<4`$ end up at $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$, $`4<g_2<0`$. The flows that end up on the $`g_2`$ axis with $`4<g_2<0`$ originate from $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}<g_2<4`$ by duality around the self-dual point $`(4,4)`$. Consider now the flows that originate from $`g_1=0`$, $`g_2>4`$. After a finite RG time $`\mathrm{log}r`$, they are attracted to $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ with $`0<g_1<4`$. These flows then continue from $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ of the next patch to the self-dual point $`(g_1,g_2)=(4,4)`$ and end up at $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$, $`0<g_2<4`$. Again, since the flow went through a self-dual point, the couplings in the UV and IR are related by duality. The resulting phase diagram is shown in figure 1. For $`g_1<0`$, the phase diagram is the reflection of the figure about the $`g_1`$ axis since $`\beta _{g_1}=\beta (g_1)`$, $`\beta _{g_2}=\beta (g_1)`$.

Interestingly one phase exhibits roaming or cyclic RG trajectories. Namely, flows that begin in a patch at $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$, $`4<g_1<\mathrm{}`$, flow through the poles at $`(g_1,g_2)=(4,4)`$, then through the poles at $`(4,4)`$, then off to $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$, $`4<g_1<\mathrm{}`$ where they start over again at $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ in the next patch. It takes a finite RG time to go from $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ to $`g_2=+\mathrm{}`$ following these trajectories. With the points $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ and $`g_2=\mathrm{}`$ identified, these trajectories are cyclic, but in the alternative construction of the phase space by gluing multiple patches, these trajectories explore all patches. Note that these flows pass by the perturbative domain, $`|g_1|<4`$, $`|g_2|<4`$, in which the perturbative expansions of the $`\beta `$eta functions converge. If one assumes that field theories with initial couplings in the perturbative domain exist, one is naturally lead to include these RG trajectories into the phase space.

In the perturbative domain $`0<g_{1,2}<4`$ one observes flows toward the $`su(2)`$ invariant isotropic line, but this line is unstable beyond the pole and the above duality arguments indicate that the $`su(2)`$ symmetry does not continue to be restored at strong coupling. The phases above or below the isotropic line have then very different large scale asymptotics. As we describe in the next section, if the flows continued along the isotropic line, this would be inconsistent with the believed existence of a sine-Gordon phase. These issues were recently addressed at one loop in .

## III Sine-Gordon and sinh-Gordon phases

In this section we interpret the RG flows in a bosonized description. When $`k=1`$, the current algebra can be bosonized as

$$J^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pm i\sqrt{2}\phi \right),J_3=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}_z\phi $$
(13)
where $`\phi (z)`$ is the $`z`$-dependent part of a free massless scalar field $`\varphi =\phi (z)+\overline{\phi }(\overline{z})`$. Viewing the $`g_2`$ coupling as a perturbation of the kinetic term and rescaling the field $`\varphi `$ one obtains the sine-Gordon (sG) action

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+g_1\mathrm{cos}(b\varphi )\right]$$
(14)
where $`b(g_1,g_2)`$ is to be determined.§§§$`b`$ is related the conventional sine-Gordon coupling $`\beta `$ by $`b=\beta /\sqrt{4\pi }`$, where $`\beta =\sqrt{4\pi }`$ corresponds to the free-fermion point and $`\sqrt{8\pi }`$ is the Kosterlitz-Thouless point.

When $`g_10`$, $`\beta _{g_1}4g_2g_1/(4+g_2)`$. Since this is linear in $`g_1`$, we can identify the dimension $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`\mathrm{cos}b\varphi `$. Generally, if $`\beta (g_c)=0`$, then

$$\beta (g)=(2\mathrm{\Gamma })(gg_c)+\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the dimension of the perturbing operator. Thus $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }=4g_2/(4+g_2)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=b^2`$ we find

$$\frac{b^2}{2}=\frac{1g_2/4}{1+g_2/4},\mathrm{when}g_10$$
(16)
With this identification, the $`\beta `$eta function matches the known two-loop result. Since $`g_2`$ flows under RG, the above formula cannot be valid for all $`g`$ since the exact S-matrix for the sG theory depends on an RG invariant $`b`$ with $`0<b^2<2`$. It is natural then that in general $`b`$ is a function of the RG invariant $`Q`$. Matching (16) at $`g_1=0`$ one finds

$$\frac{b^2}{2}=\frac{1}{1+8\sqrt{Q}}$$
(17)
We propose the above formula is valid for all $`g`$. A non-trivial check is at $`g_1=\mathrm{}`$ where $`\beta _{g_1}16g_1/(4+g_2)`$. Again identifying $`b^2`$ through the dimension of $`\mathrm{cos}b\varphi `$, one finds

$$\frac{b^2}{2}=\frac{g_24}{g_2+4}\mathrm{when}g_1\mathrm{}$$
(18)
One sees that the expression (17) matches both (16) and (18) and thus has the right behavior at $`g_1=0,\mathrm{}`$. This is of course consistent with duality (9).

The flows that originate from $`g_1=0`$, $`0<g_2<4`$, have $`0<b^2<2`$; we thus identify this as a sG phase. Thus we see that the very existence of a sine-Gordon phase relies on the existence of the RG invariant $`Q`$. The flows that terminate at $`g_1=0`$, $`4<g_2<0`$, have $`2<b^2<\mathrm{}`$. The operator $`\mathrm{cos}b\varphi `$ is thus irrelevant and this is the massless Kosterlitz-Thouless phase.

The other flows that originate from the $`g_2`$ axis correspond to a negative $`b^2`$. Letting $`b=ib_{shG}`$, we interpret this as a sinh-Gordon phase (shG) with the action (14) where $`\mathrm{cos}b\varphi \mathrm{cosh}b_{shG}\varphi `$. This analytical continuation is compatible with the interpretation of the singularities at $`g_2=4`$ as consequences of instabilities of the kinetic term in eq.(14). The region $`4<g_2<\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`0<b_{shG}^2<2`$ whereas $`g_2<4`$ corresponds to $`2<b_{shG}^2<\mathrm{}`$, so the whole range of $`b_{shG}^2`$ is covered. The flows all originate from the $`g_2`$ axis since $`\mathrm{cosh}b_{shG}`$ is relevant for $`b_{shG}`$. Repeating the above argument we find

$$\frac{b_{shG}^2}{2}=\frac{1}{8\sqrt{Q}1}$$
(19)
Consider now the roaming or cyclic RG flows of the last section. In this region $`Q`$ is negative, $`\mathrm{}<Q<0`$. Assuming it is valid in this regime, eq. (17) implies then that $`b^2`$ has both real and imaginary parts so that it is neither sine-Gordon nor sinh-Gordon. This is actually reminiscent of Zamolodchikov’s staircase model. The staircase model corresponds to $`b_{shG}^2/(2+b_{shG}^2)=1/2\pm i\theta _0/2\pi `$, which implies $`b_{shG}^2/2=e^{i\alpha }`$ where $`\mathrm{cos}\alpha =(1(\theta _0/\pi )^2)/(1+(\theta _0/\pi )^2)`$. From (19) one sees that for small $`\alpha `$, $`i\alpha =8\sqrt{Q}`$, which is compatible with $`Q`$ being negative. Of course, more investigation is required for a better characterization of this phase.

The above flows do not have non-trivial fixed points in both the UV and IR that can be compared with known results. However, by letting $`g_1`$ be imaginary, there are such flowsThis check was suggested to us by Al. Zamolodchikov. The resulting imaginary potential sine-Gordon theory is known to possess both an ultra-violet and infra-red fixed point, both of which are $`c=1`$ gaussian conformal field theories at different radius of compactification. The anisotropic $`su(2)`$ $`\beta `$eta function precisely confirms this. To see this, let $`g_1ig_1`$. There is still a line of fixed points at $`g_1=0`$. At small coupling $`Q(g_1^2+g_2^2)/256`$, thus the RG contours are circles rather than hyperbolas. This implies that flows can originate in the ultra-violet along the positive $`g_2`$ axis and end up at a different fixed point on the negative $`g_2`$ axis. The values of $`g_2`$ in the UV and IR can be determined from the RG invariance of $`Q`$. Since $`Q=(g_2/(g_24))^2/16`$ at $`g_1=0`$, one finds

$$\frac{g_2^{IR}}{g_2^{IR}4}=\frac{g_2^{UV}}{g_2^{UV}4}$$
(20)
Let us express this result in terms of the anomalous dimension of the perturbation at the fixed points. As discussed above, using eq. (15) this gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2(4g_2)/(4+g_2)`$ at $`g_1=0`$ fixed points. Using (20) one finds

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IR}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{UV}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{UV}1}$$
(21)
This agrees precisely with the statements made in . Note that for $`1<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{UV}<2`$ relevant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IR}`$ is irrelevant as it should be. Since (21) turns out to be exact, this strongly suggests there are no further corrections to the $`\beta `$eta function.

For higher $`k`$ the above results are generalized to the fractional supersymmetric sine-Gordon model. This serves as a mild check of the $`k`$ dependence of the $`\beta `$eta function. In these models, the interaction $`\mathrm{cos}b\varphi `$ is replaced with $`\psi _1\overline{\psi }_1\mathrm{cos}b_{fssg}\varphi `$ where $`\psi _1`$ are $`Z_k`$ parafermions of dimension $`(k1)/k`$. The case $`k=2`$ is the supersymmetric sine-Gordon model. Since $`\beta _{g_1}g_2g_2/(1+kg_2/4)`$ when $`g_10`$, repeating the above arguments we find

$$b_{fssg}^2=\frac{2(4kg_2)}{k(4+kg_2)},\mathrm{when}g_10$$
(22)
¿From the $`\beta `$eta functions we find that the fractional supersymmetric sine-Gordon regime corresponds to $`0<g_2<4/k`$ which corresponds to $`0<b_{fssg}^2/2<1/k`$, in agreement with . This is not a strong check of the $`k`$ dependence since we have input the dimension of the parafermions by hand.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, by using duality and endowing the coupling constant space with some additional topological properties, we managed to interpret the RG flows at strong and weak coupling based on the $`\beta `$eta functions proposed in . This supports the analytic continuation of the $`\beta `$eta function to strong coupling.

The cyclic or roaming RG trajectory we found needs further investigation. We point out that cyclic RG flows are ruled out under the assumptions of the c-theorem which shows that the central charge $`c`$ always decreases. Though the action written in terms of currents is hermitian, the bosonized form indicates that in some domains the kinetic term can be negative. Thus, presumably the assumption of positivity breaks down in the cyclic domain. We also remark that cyclic RG trajectories have previously occurred in certain problems in nuclear physics.

We have extended the scheme described in this paper to the $`\beta `$eta functions for the network model computed in  and this will be described in a separate publication.

## V Acknowledgments

We wish to thank P. Argyres, M. Bauer, K. Gawedzki, P. Lepage, M. Neubert, Al. Zamolodchikov and J.B. Zuber for discussions. This work is in part supported by the NSF and by the CNRS.