text:
# Diffusing-wave spectroscopy of nonergodic media1

## I Introduction

Diffusing-wave spectroscopy (DWS)11footnotetext: Accepted for publication in Physical Review E.  is an extension of “conventional” dynamic light scattering (DLS)  to the multiple scattering regime. The basic idea of DWS is to use the autocorrelation function $`g_2(\tau )=I(t)I(t+\tau )_T/I(t)_T^2`$ of the light intensity $`I(t)`$ scattered by a turbid medium to study the dynamics of scatterers in the medium. Here $`\mathrm{}_T`$ denotes time averaging which can differ from the ensemble averaging $`\mathrm{}_E`$. Introduced in 1987 , the technique of DWS has rapidly evolved in recent years, and is currently applied to study various types of turbid media, such as colloidal suspensions , particle gels and ceramic green bodies , emulsions , foams , granular , and biological  media. It has been demonstrated that DWS can be used to image macroscopic static and dynamic heterogeneities in turbid media . In 1995, Mason and Weitz have suggested that the motion of colloidal particles, characterized by DWS, can be directly related to the viscoelasticity of the surrounding medium (the corresponding experimental technique is sometimes called “DWS-microrheology”) . Much attention has been paid to this approach since it could provide fast and non-invasive access to viscoelastic properties of numerous materials, thereby opening a large new field of potential applications for DWS .

One of the main reasons for the remarkable success of DWS is the availability of a relatively simple and reliable theoretical model which describes the experimental data in all practically important cases. The theoretical model of DWS is based on the diffusion approximation . It applies equally well to both statistically homogeneous and heterogeneous media (media with inclusions, scatterer flows, etc.). Absorption of light, reflection of scattered waves at the sample boundaries, modulation of the source intensity, as well as various types of scatterer motion (Brownian and sub-brownian motion, laminar  and turbulent flows, etc.) can be taken into account within the framework of the diffusion model. Recently, the theory of DWS has been extended to nonlinear random media .

An important condition for the applicability of the existing diffusion theory to DWS experiments is the ergodicity of the turbid medium under investigation. Indeed, ensemble-averaged quantities are commonly calculated theoretically, while it is the time averaging which is most easily obtained in experiments. Thus, $`\mathrm{}_E=\mathrm{}_T`$ is required for the experimental data to be described by the theory. If the light-scattering sample is nonergodic (say, the sample or some part of it is solid-like) additional efforts, e.g. translational or rotational motion of the sample during the measurement, are necessary in order to obtain $`\mathrm{}_E`$. Similar arguments hold for the role of nonergodicity in standard DLS experiments .

In the present paper we propose a novel, elegant and simple way of performing diffusing-wave spectroscopy of nonergodic media . The method is based on the idea that light transmitted trough a sandwich of two turbid cells can be considered ergodic even if only the second cell is ergodic. We show that the resulting transmitted multiple-scattered intensity is ergodic despite the nonergodicity of random medium in the first cell. Consequently, the usual DWS theory applies to the description of the intensity autocorrelation function $`g_2(\tau )`$. Moreover, the double-cell sample can be constructed in a way that the presence of the second, ergodic cell does not obscure the light-scattering signal of the nonergodic medium under investigation. In order to simplify the interpretation of the experimental data, we introduce a so-called “multiplication rule”. Namely, we show that if a significant attenuation of diffuse waves occurs at the interface between the cells due to absorption and/or leakage of light in transverse directions, the ensemble-averaged field autocorrelation function $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ of the double-cell setup equals a product of autocorrelation functions $`g_1^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )`$ and $`g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )`$ corresponding to the individual cells \[from here on, we use superscripts $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ to denote the autocorrelation functions corresponding to single- and double-cell samples, respectively; $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are the thicknesses of the cells\]. This allows a full DWS study of the turbid media in the first cell despite its nonergodicity. Due to its simplicity and high statistical accuracy, our method is ideally suited for the study of turbid gels, colloidal glasses, and other nonergodic multiple-scattering media . The method also extends the applicability of the above-mentioned microrheology approach  to an important class of solid-like complex materials where the motion of colloidal tracer particles is highly constrained.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we provide a brief review of known experiments in the field of DLS by nonergodic media. We describe the methods used to overcome the problem of nonergodicity, and discuss the applicability of similar methods in DWS experiments. In the second part of the section, we introduce an original, novel method to deal with nonergodicity in DWS and reveal the conditions under which the method can be applied. Section III is devoted to the theoretical model of DWS in a double-layer medium. Starting from the diffusion equation for the field autocorrelation function, we obtain an expression for the autocorrelation function of light transmitted through a sandwich of two turbid cells, separated by a nonscattering but perhaps absorbing wall. Section IV introduces the so-called multiplication rule, and reveals the conditions of its applicability. In Sec. V we describe our experimental setup, and Sec. VI is devoted to the discussion of the main results of our experiments. First, we have performed model experiments to test the validity of our theoretical model, and to ensure that the experimental setup is adequately described by the theory. In these experiments, no attenuation occurs on passage of light through the wall separating the light-scattering cells, and the multiplication rule does not apply. Next, we show how our method can be applied to an important case of considerable leakage of light at the inter-cell wall. This situation is the most interesting for practical applications, since the multiplication rule implies that the autocorrelation function $`g_1^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )`$ corresponding to the first layer can be obtained simply by dividing $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ measured for the two-cell setup by $`g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )`$ measured for the second cell taken alone. In addition, our second sample is highly asymmetric: the first layer is of significant optical thickness and has a relatively short correlation decay time $`\tau _1`$, while the optical thickness of the second one is moderate and its correlation decay time $`\tau _2\tau _1`$. This prevents the light-scattering signal of the first, nonergodic cell from being obscured by the second cell. In Sec. VII we discuss different aspects of application and optimization of the two-cell technique in practice. We summarize our main results in Sec. VIII.

## II Dynamic light scattering by nonergodic media

In nonergodic random media, the scatterers are localized near fixed average positions, probing only a small fraction of their possible spatial configurations by thermal motion. As a consequence, the measured time-averaged quantities (such as the scattered intensity or its autocorrelation function) differ from the ensemble-averaged ones. Experimentally, one finds that a series of (time-averaged) measurements on a given sample yields a set of different results, each being of limited use for the characterization of the medium (see Fig. 1).

### A Concepts to deal with nonergodicity in dynamic light scattering

For diluted, nonergodic samples several methods have been applied to properly average the data obtained in DLS experiments . A good comparative review of some of these methods can be found in Refs.  and . The most direct method of performing ensemble averaging of scattered light for nonergodic samples is based on the idea of collecting light scattered by different parts of the sample, thus performing the “real” ensemble averaging . Experimentally, the sample is slowly moved or rotated, while the autocorrelation function of the scattered intensity $`g_2(\tau )`$ is collected.

Obviously, this leads to an additional decay of $`g_2(\tau )`$, which becomes increasingly rapid with increase of the translation velocity or the rotation frequency . The rotation/translation method can be extended to concentrated, turbid suspensions without any particular difficulties, and it has been actually employed in recent experiments on diffusing-wave imaging . It has, however, an important disadvantage of experimental complexity (translation or rotation of the sample is required). Besides, it is not well suited for fragile turbid systems (such as gels), since moving or rotating the sample can lead to its disturbance or even breakdown.

Pusey and Van Megen  have proposed a method of obtaining the ensemble-averaged intensity autocorrelation function from a combination of static and dynamic experiments. The idea is to measure the autocorrelation function of scattered intensity for a single sample orientation, and to subsequently rotate/translate the sample rapidly in order to obtain the average intensity for a given scattering angle. Recently, an extension of the above method to DWS experiments has been developed.

In general, all these approaches rely on a one dimensional motion of the sample, i.e. scanning the speckle pattern, which is not very efficient and therefore time consuming. This makes it intrinsically difficult to apply these methods to systems which evolve in time, e.g. gelling systems.

A different method of dealing with nonergodicity in DLS has been proposed in Refs.  and  (see also Ref.). The authors use a CCD camera to record the temporal evolution of many speckle spots simultaneously, which allows them to perform correctly both time and ensemble averages (the latter is the average over a large number of speckle spots). The method appears to be very efficient in the small-angle single-scattering regime, while its application to multiple-scattering systems is complicated by a (generally) insufficient time resolution of available CCD cameras (in DWS, fast and low-intensity speckle fluctuations are usually monitored). However, the method of Refs.  and  can be applied to study extremely slow dynamics in turbid systems where the above mentioned constraints do not apply.

### B Two-cell technique

To overcome the problem of nonergodicity, we prepare a sandwich consisting of two independent glass cells. The first cell contains a solid-like nonergodic medium under study, while the second cell is filled with an ergodic medium \[see Fig. 2(a)\]. By adjusting the concentration of scatterers in the second cell, the viscosity of the liquid where the scatterers are suspended, and the thickness of the cell, it is possible to shift the “forced” decay of the autocorrelation function due to the second cell to long correlation times $`\tau `$. Then $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ will exhibit a short-time decay due to the motion of scatterers in the first cell, at intermediate $`\tau `$ it will saturate at a plateau because of the nonergodic nature of the medium in the first cell, and finally, at long correlation times, $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ will decrease to zero due to the motion of scatterers in the second cell. Physically, the slow motion of scatterers in the second cell gently shakes and randomizes the speckle pattern of the nonergodic medium. In this way, ensemble averaging of light scattered by the first cell is accomplished, similarly to the case when the sample is moved. The time scale of this averaging can be well controlled by the scatterer motion inside the second cell, and by the thickness of the cell. The only constraint being a high enough optical thickness of the second cell, ensuring that the nonergodic intensity fluctuations produced by the first cell are averaged out upon the transmission through the second one, and that no light can pass through the latter without being scattered. The described setup offers an advantage of high statistical accuracy due to a two dimensional averaging scheme. Furthermore, no mechanical disturbance is applied to the sample, which is of particular importance when working with fragile systems.

Let us briefly discuss different aspects of time and ensemble averages in the double-cell geometry. For simplicity, we choose the intensity of light (and not its autocorrelation function) as an object of averaging, but the same arguments apply to the autocorrelation function as well. First, we consider the transmission of a plane wave through a layer of totally rigid random medium (thickness $`L_1`$, photon transport mean free path $`l_1^{}`$). We find that the ensemble-averaged intensity of multiple-scattered light $`I(𝐑,z)_E`$ at depth $`z`$ and transverse position $`𝐑=\{x,y\}`$ is independent of $`𝐑`$. Meanwhile, $`I(𝐑,z)_TI(𝐑,z)`$ is a random function of $`𝐑`$, a “fingerprint” of a given scatterer distribution in the sample.

Consequently, $`I(𝐑,z)_EI(𝐑,z)_T`$, and the considered light-scattering system is nonergodic.

Let us now add a second turbid layer (thickness $`L_2`$, photon transport mean free path $`l_2^{}`$) just after the first one \[we neglect for a moment the thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of a glass wall separating the cells, see Fig. 2(a)\]. We assume that the scatterers in the second layer are moving, and that all possible spatial configurations of scatterers are explored in course of this motion. The light intensity $`I(𝐑,z,t)`$ is then time-dependent, and the time-averaged intensity of light transmitted through the double-layer medium, $`I(𝐑,L,t)_T`$, can be considered as a result of transmission of the speckle pattern $`I(𝐑,L_1,t)_T`$, being specific for the given configuration of scatterers inside the first layer, through the second layer. Now we assume that the optical thicknesses of both layers are large enough ($`L_nl_n^{}`$), so that the diffusion picture of wave transport is valid in both layers. This allows us to estimate the typical speckle size at the $`z=L_1`$ plane as $`d\lambda `$ (see, e.g., Ref. ), where the wavelength of light $`\lambda `$ is assumed to be roughly the same in both layers and much smaller than the scattering lengths in the layers. At the same time, as long as $`L_2l_2^{}`$, the average intensity of light transmitted through the second layer is not sensitive to those details of the “source distribution” $`I(𝐑,L_1,t)`$ which are finer than $`L_2`$. Consequently, the speckle pattern $`I(𝐑,L_1,t)`$ will be completely washed out upon the transmission through the second layer, and $`I(𝐑,L,t)_T`$ will be insensitive to the exact spatial configuration of scatterers in the first (rigid) layer, being equal to $`I(𝐑,L,t)_E`$. The scattering system is then ergodic: the time and ensemble averages are equivalent. Similar arguments apply in the case when the first layer is not completely rigid, but exhibits some nonergodic dynamics. The general reason for this is the following. A given speckle spot of typical size $`dl_2^{}`$ in the $`z=L_1`$ plane can be considered as a point source of light, which produces a photon cloud spreading linearly upon the diffusion through the second layer of turbid medium. Hence, the speckle spot at $`z=L_1`$ gives contributions to the average intensity within a region of typical transverse size $`L_2`$ at the $`z=L`$ plane. For this reason, the intensity of light at a given point $`𝐑`$ of the $`z=L`$ plane is formed as a sum of contributions of $`N(L_2/d)^21`$ speckle spots located at $`z=L_1`$ \[see Fig. 2(b)\]. In this way, the averaging over a large number of independent speckle spots is performed. In some sense, such an averaging is equivalent to that obtained by translation (or rotation) of a single nonergodic layer. It is worthnoting, however, that in order to average over the same number $`N`$ of speckle spots, the sample has to be translated by a distance of order $`L_2^2/dL_2`$.

## III Theory of DWS in a double-layer medium

Adding a second cell modifies the intensity autocorrelation function of transmitted light, which now exhibits an additional decay. In order to interpret properly the experimental data, we need a theoretical model describing the autocorrelation function in a double-layer turbid medium. In this section, we show that such a model can be readily constructed, provided that the transport of light is diffusive in both layers.

Consider a slab situated between the planes $`z=0`$, $`z=L=L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }+L_2`$, and consisting of two layers of turbid media (thicknesses $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$) separated by a nonscattering but perhaps absorbing wall (thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, absorption coefficient $`M_a`$), as depicted in Fig. 2(a). $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$, are assumed to be much larger than the photon transport mean free paths inside the layers, $`l_1^{}`$ and $`l_2^{}`$, respectively. If the slab is illuminated by a plane monochromatic wave, the field correlation function $`G_1(𝐫,\tau )=E(𝐫,t)E^{}(𝐫,t+\tau )_E`$ inside each turbid layer can be found as a solution of the diffusion equation :

$`\left[^2\alpha ^2(\tau )\right]G_1(𝐫,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{3S(𝐫)}{l^{}}},`$ (1)
where $`\alpha ^2(\tau )`$ describes “attenuation” of correlation due to scatterer motion, and $`S(𝐫)=s_0\delta (zz_0)`$ is the source term ($`z_0l_1^{}`$). The explicit form of the “attenuation” coefficient $`\alpha ^2(\tau )`$ in Eq. (1) depends on the type of scatterer motion (e.g., Brownian motion, flow, etc.). One can show that $`\alpha ^2(\tau )`$ is determined by the absorption length $`l_a`$ and the mean square scatterer displacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_E`$ :

$`\alpha ^2(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{3}{l_al^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_E,`$ (2)
where $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wave number of light in the medium. For Brownian motion , $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_E=\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_T=6D_B\tau `$, and $`\alpha ^2(\tau )=3/(l_al^{})+6\tau /(\tau _0l^2)`$ with $`\tau _0=(k^2D_B)^1`$, while for a directed flow one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_{E,T}\tau ^2`$, and $`\alpha ^2(\tau )\tau ^2`$. In the case of a gel, which is an example of nonergodic medium considered in this paper, we assume that the particles undergo a sort of arrested subdiffusive motion :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2_{E,T}=\delta ^2\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\tau _c}}\right)^p\right]\right\},`$ (3)
where $`\delta `$ denotes the maximum r.m.s. particle displacement, $`\tau _c`$ is a characteristic time required for this displacement to occur, and $`p`$ is a free parameter. We expect  $`p0.7\pm 0.1`$. Eqs. (2) and (3) give

$`\alpha ^2(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{3}{l_al^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k\delta )^2}{l^2}}\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\tau _c}}\right)^p\right]\right\}.`$ (4)
The time autocorrelation function for a sample consisting of two turbid layers separated by a nonscattering wall can be found by solving Eq. (1) inside each layer, and then applying the boundary conditions at the surfaces of the medium ($`z=0`$ and $`z=L`$) and at the interfaces between the turbid layers and the nonscattering wall. Boundary conditions at $`z=0`$ and $`z=L`$ are of a well-known form :

$`[G_1(𝐫,\tau )z_1(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|{}_{z=0}{}^{}=0,`$ (5)
$`[G_1(𝐫,\tau )+z_2(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|{}_{z=L}{}^{}=0,`$ (6)
where $`𝐞_z`$ is a unit vector parallel to the $`z`$-axis, $`z_n=(2/3)l_n^{}`$, and the refractive index mismatch between the scattering and transparent media is neglected. In general, a rigorous theory would require using the extrapolation lengths $`z_n`$ calculated with account for the refractive index mismatch at the sample surfaces , or deduced from the angular distribution of diffusely transmitted light . For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to know that $`z_n\mathrm{}_n^{}`$, since the actual values of $`z_n`$ are of no importance in the limit of $`\alpha _nl_n^{}1`$ and $`l_n^{}/L_n1`$ that we apply in the following.

Boundary conditions at the interfaces $`z=L_1`$ and $`z=L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ between turbid and nonscattering media are found by applying the condition of flux conservation, as discussed by Ripoll et. al. . Neglecting the refractive index mismatch between the turbid and nonscattering media, we find :

$`[G_1(𝐫,\tau )+z_1(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|_{z=L_1}`$ (7)
$`\text{ }=f(𝐫)[G_1(𝐫,\tau )+z_2(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|{}_{z=L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}{}^{},`$ (8)
$`[G_1(𝐫,\tau )z_2(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|_{z=L_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ (9)
$`\text{ }=f(𝐫)[G_1(𝐫,\tau )z_1(𝐞_zG_1(𝐫,\tau ))]|{}_{z=L_1}{}^{},`$ (10)
with $`f(𝐫)`$ describing the losses of energy at the inter-layer wall due to absorption and/or leakage of light in transverse directions \[$`0f(𝐫)1`$ and $`f(𝐫)1`$ in the absence of both absorption and leakage\]. For an infinitely wide slab (no leakage) we have

$`f=\mathrm{exp}(M_a\mathrm{\Delta })(1M_a\mathrm{\Delta })+(M_a\mathrm{\Delta })^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,M_a\mathrm{\Delta }),`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$ is the incomplete gamma function. For realistic samples of finite width, leakage of light in transverse directions may be considerable. In the absence of absorption ($`M_a=0`$), we find for a cylindrical sample of radius $`Rl_n^{}`$ after averaging over the sample crossection:

$`f=1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{R}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{R}}\left[4+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{R}}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}.`$ (12)
Averaging over the sample crossection makes $`f`$ independent of $`𝐫`$, which largely simplifies the further analysis without affecting the final result qualitatively.

In what follows, we assume that $`f(𝐫)`$ in Eqs. (8) and (10) is given either by Eq. (11) or by Eq. (12), being independent of $`𝐫`$ in both cases. The case when both absorption and leakage are present can also be analyzed without any particular difficulties, but this leads to cumbersome formulas without introducing any new qualitative features. Both Eqs. (11) and (12) exhibit a monotonic decrease from $`1`$ ($`M_a\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }/R=0`$) to $`0`$ ($`M_a\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }/R1`$). If $`f=1`$ (no absorption, no leakage), Eqs. (8) and (10) reduce to the well-known boundary conditions between two turbid media in a direct contact . If $`f=0`$ (strong absorption and/or leakage), Eqs. (8) and (10) decouple and the problem is reduced to two single-layer problems.

Equations (1) and (5)–(10) enables us to calculate the autocorrelation function of light transmitted through the double-layer system, $`G_1(L,\tau )/G_1(L,0)`$, which in the absence of absorption ($`l_a\mathrm{}`$) inside the turbid layers reads

$`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1L_1}{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha _1L_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2L_2}{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha _2L_2)}}`$ (13)
$`\text{ }\times \left(1f^2+2z_1/L_1+2z_2/L_2\right)`$ (14)
$`\text{ }\times \left[1f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _1z_1}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _1L_1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _2z_2}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _2L_2)}}\right]^1,`$ (15)
where we assumed $`\alpha _nl_n^{}1`$ and $`l_n^{}/L_n1`$.

In our experiments, the time-averaged autocorrelation function of the scattered intensity $`g_2(𝐫,\tau )=I(𝐫,t)I(𝐫,t+\tau )_T/I(𝐫,t)_T^2`$ is measured. As the double-layer system is shown to be ergodic (see Sec. II), $`g_2`$ is related to $`g_1`$ by the Siegert relation :

$`g_2(𝐫,\tau )=1+\beta \left|g_1(𝐫,\tau )\right|^2,`$ (16)
where $`\beta 1`$ is a constant determined by the experimental setup. Let us assume that the first layer is filled with a gel, while the second one contains a suspension of Brownian particles with a correlation decay time $`\tau _2=\tau _0(l_2^{}/L_2)^2`$. We also assume that the characteristic correlation decay time of the first layer $`\tau _1`$ is much smaller than $`\tau _2`$. Then, it can be shown from Eqs. (15) and (16) that when the r.m.s. particle displacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }r(\tau )^2^{1/2}`$ approaches $`\delta `$ for $`\tau \tau _1`$ \[Eq. (3)\], the autocorrelation function $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ reaches a plateau for $`\tau _1\tau \tau _2`$. The plateau height can be found from Eq. (15). As $`\tau `$ approaches $`\tau _2`$, $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ continues to decrease.

## IV Multiplication rule

The autocorrelation function of light transmitted through a single layer of turbid medium can be found from Eq. (1) with boundary conditions (5) and (6), and since for $`\alpha l^{}1`$ and $`Ll^{}`$ the solution reads

$`g_1^{(1)}(L,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha L}{\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha L)}}`$ (17)
We can rewrite Eq. (15) as

$`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`g_1^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )\times g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )\times F,`$ (18)
where

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1f^2+2z_1/L_1+2z_2/L_2\right)`$ (19)
$`\times `$ $`\left[1f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _1z_1}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _1L_1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _2z_2}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _2L_2)}}\right]^1.`$ (20)
Hence, the autocorrelation function of light transmitted through the double-layer sample is given by a product of autocorrelation functions of individual layers, times some function $`F`$ which describes the coupling between the layers. By adjusting the parameters of the experimental setup, $`F1`$ can be achieved, and then the following multiplication rule will hold:

$`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ $``$ $`g_1^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )\times g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau ).`$ (21)
To reveal the conditions of validity of the multiplication rule (21), we consider separately the cases of low ($`f1`$) and considerable ($`f<1`$) losses of light at the inter-layer interface.

If $`f1`$, Eq. (20) becomes

$`F`$ $``$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{l_1^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{l_2^{}}}\right]`$ (22)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{l_1^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2L_2}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _2L_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2}{l_2^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1L_1}{\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _1L_1)}}\right]^1,`$ (23)
which reduces to unity only if $`\alpha _1L_11`$ and $`\alpha _2L_21`$, or $`L_1/l_1^{}L_2/l_2^{}`$ and $`\alpha _2L_21`$, or $`L_1/l_1^{}L_2/l_2^{}`$ and $`\alpha _1L_11`$. In other words, for the multiplication rule (21) to hold the optical thickness of e.g. the first layer should be much greater than that of the second one, while $`g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1`$ for the latter.

In the presence of losses at the inter-layer interface, $`f<1`$ and Eq. (20) yields $`F1`$ if $`L_n/l_n^{}1/(1f^2)`$ and $`\alpha _nl_n^{}/\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _nL_n)1f^2`$. To give an example, suppose that $`50`$% of wave energy is lost on crossing the inter-layer interface once ($`f=0.5`$). This gives $`L_n/l_n^{}4/3`$ and $`\alpha _nl_n^{}/\mathrm{tanh}(\alpha _nL_n)3/4`$. The latter conditions are commonly satisfied in typical DWS experiments, making the application of the multiplication rule rather practical.

It is worthwhile to note that there exists a different, less rigorous, but more transparent way of establishing the multiplication rule. Adopting the path-integral picture of light propagation through the double-layer medium , we can write the field autocorrelation function of transmitted light as

$`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s_2P_2(s_1,s_2)`$ (24)
$`\text{ }\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^2(\tau )_{s_1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^2(\tau )_{s_2}\right],`$ (25)
where $`P_2(s_1,s_2)`$ is the relative weight of paths consisting of segments of overall lengths $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ inside the first and the second layers, respectively. The variances of phase differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^2(\tau )_{s_n}`$ describe the dephasing of light inside the layers. For a single layer of thickness $`L`$ one has

$`g_1^{(1)}(L,\tau )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑sP_1(s)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi ^2(\tau )_s\right].`$ (26)
Obviously, if the variables $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ can be considered independent, $`P_2(s_1,s_2)=P_1(s_1)P_1(s_2)`$, and Eq. (25) reduces to a product of two terms, each being of the form (26). This transparent physical picture underlying the multiplication rule is particularly helpful if one seeks to understand the role of losses (absorption and/or leakage of light) at the inter-layer interface. Increasing the losses makes the partial lengths of light paths $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ in the layers more and more independent, since the losses reduce the probability for a typical path to cross the interface more than once. Consequently, most of the paths will consist of two independent segments, one inside the first layer (length $`s_1`$), and the other one — inside the second layer ($`s_2`$). $`P_2(s_1,s_2)`$ will then reduce to a product $`P_1(s_1)P_1(s_2)`$, exactly as required for the multiplication rule to hold. Note that the Siegert relation (16) implies that the multiplication rule applies to $`g_2(\tau )1`$ as well.

## V Experimental setup

Our experimental setup consists of a frequency-doubled NdYAG laser (“Verdi” from Coherent, wavelength $`\lambda _0=532`$ nm) with a beam width of roughly $`1`$ mm. Only minor differences are found upon expanding the beam to $`7`$ mm in width (see also Ref. ). The laser radiation is directed at the surface of the sample consisting of two cells, and the multiple-scattered, transmitted light is collected using a single mode optical fiber. The intensity of collected light is analyzed by a digital correlator (see Fig. 3). Apart from the complex structure of the sample, the described experimental setup represents a classical one for diffusing-wave spectroscopy experiments in transmission geometry . We pay special attention to the preparation of the sample, which is a key feature of our experiments. The first cell (thickness $`L_1`$) is filled by a colloidal gel, prepared from a destabilized solution of polystyrene spheres (diameter $`170`$ nm) at a volume fraction up to $`20`$% in a buoyancy-matching mixture of water and heavy water . In our experiments, the gel serves as a model nonergodic medium where the average mean square displacement of the constituent particles is reasonably well described by the model of arrested subdiffusive motion \[see Eq. (3)\]. In general, gel systems undergo a complicated temporal evolution (see, e.g., Refs. ), which is not a subject of the present paper. For our measurements, we wait after the sol-gel transition till the height of the plateau of $`g_2(\tau )1`$ is of the order $`0.5`$, and the gel properties remain constant over the measurement time of about 10–30 min. We note that experimentally $`g_2(\tau )1`$ does not exhibit a perfect plateau but rather a long stretching. This indicates a second, long-time decay of the autocorrelation function, not included in our simple theoretical model \[Eq. (3)\]. The characteristic time scale of this decay extends to minutes or hours , and hence is beyond the time window of our experiments.

Two different realizations of the two-cell sample were used in the experiments reported below (samples A and B for brevity). While sample A is a model sample constructed to test the validity of our approach, sample B is optimized to facilitate its experimental application (the multiplication rule holds for this sample).

Sample A. The sample consists of three disc-shaped microscope cover plates (radius $`R=7`$ mm, thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.15`$ mm) and two ring-shaped teflon spacers. The first cell contains a colloidal gel (volume fraction $`\mathrm{\Phi }=7`$%, photon transport mean free path $`l_1^{}=53`$ $`\mu `$m). The second cell is filled with a suspension of TiO2 powder (Aldrich, particle diameter $`<5`$ $`\mu `$m) dispersed in pure glycerol (refractive index $`n=1.47`$).

The transport mean free path for this suspension is $`l_2^{}=41`$ $`\mu `$m. The single scattering correlation time corresponding to the suspension in the second cell is $`\tau _0=23\pm 1`$ s, as determined by standard DWS measurements in backscattering geometry. The thicknesses $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ of the layers were determined from DWS measurements in transmission geometry by filling them with a suspension of known $`l^{}`$ and fitting the resulting intensity autocorrelation functions with Eq. (17). We find $`L_1=1.75`$ mm and $`L_2=1.9`$ mm. The optical thicknesses of both layers are comparable and high enough ($`L_1/l_1^{}33L_2/l_2^{}461`$), and therefore we call this sample “symmetric”. A typical photon path length $`s`$ in the sample is $`sL^2/l^{}4\times 10^2`$ mm (with $`LL_1+L_24`$ mm, $`l^{}=l_1^{}l_2^{}40`$ $`\mu `$m), which is two orders of magnitude larger than the sample thickness. Hence, the scattering of light in our sample is essentially multiple, and a typical photon path is expected to cross the buried inter-layer interface many times. Estimation  of the attenuation factor $`f`$ gives $`f0.981`$, and hence the multiplication rule will only hold for the sample A in a trivial situation of $`\alpha _1L_11`$ and $`\alpha _2L_21`$, as $`L_1/l_1^{}L_2/l_2^{}`$.

Sample B. The sample consists of two equally thick light-scattering cells (Hellma, $`L_1=L_2=1`$ mm). The thickness of the glass wall between the turbid media inside the cells is $`\mathrm{\Delta }2`$ mm. Such a thick wall leads to a significant photon leakage in transverse directions, and we put an aperture of radius $`R=2.5`$ mm in between the two cells to prevent the photons leaked out of the cell from reaching the detector. This leads to some additional decrease of the total transmitted intensity, while ensures the multiplication rule, as discussed in Sec. IV. Indeed, for $`f0.46`$ estimated theoretically  the multiplication rule should hold whenever $`L_n/l_n^{}1/(1f^2)1`$ and $`\alpha _n\mathrm{}_n^{}1f^21`$, which coincides with the conditions of validity of Eq. (15). We expect the actual value of $`f`$ to be even smaller due to (total) reflections of light at the interface which are not included in our present theoretical model. Even though the conditions of validity of the multiplication rule are satisfied, to apply it in a real experiment \[i.e. to find $`g_2^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )1`$ as a ratio of $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ and $`g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1`$\] we need both $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ and $`g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1`$ to be essentially different from $`0`$, as otherwise experimental errors in determination of the above autocorrelation functions can be significant, making the application of the multiplication rule impractical. To overcome this problem, we choose the second light-scattering cell to be of much smaller optical thickness than the first one, while the motion of scatterers is made slow inside it. Namely, the first cell is filled with a very turbid gel (volume fraction $`\mathrm{\Phi }=20\%`$, $`l_1^{}=19`$ $`\mu `$m), while the second one contains a moderately turbid suspension of colloidal polystyrene dispersed in a water-glycerol mixture ($`l_2^{}=`$ 300–500 $`\mu `$m). The decrease of the measured autocorrelation function due to the motion of scatterers in the second, ergodic cell is thereby shifted to long times $`\tau \tau _2=\tau _0(l_2^{}/L_2)^2`$ and does not obscure the light-scattering signal of the first, nonergodic cell. Hence, the multiplication rule can be efficiently applied for $`\tau \tau _2`$, while for $`\tau \tau _2`$ the measured autocorrelation function will decrease to $`0`$ due to the motion of scatterers in the second cell. For the sample B, $`L_1/l_1^{}50L_2/l_2^{}`$ 2–3, and therefore we call this sample “asymmetric”.

## VI Results and discussion

In order to demonstrate the efficiency of the method proposed and theoretically justified in Secs. IIIII, and to show the feasibility of diffusing-wave spectroscopy in nonergodic media, we have carried out several model experiments using samples A (symmetric) and B (asymmetric).

### A Symmetric sample

Open circles in Fig. 4(a) show the intensity autocorrelation function $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ of light transmitted through the symmetric sample A. The solid line going through the open circles of Fig. 4(a) is obtained by fitting the experimental data with Eq. (15) assuming $`f=1`$ (no leakage of light at the wall separating the cells). The fitting parameters are the gel parameters $`\delta =2.24`$ nm, $`\tau _c=25`$ $`\mu `$s, $`p=0.6`$ \[see Eq. (3)\], while the parameters of the medium in the second cell, as well as the cell thicknesses $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ were determined independently. We note that the two sets of parameters are only weakly correlated in the fit. Theory and experimental data are found in excellent agreement.

As shown in Fig. 4(a), the autocorrelation function of the two-cell setup $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ exhibits two characteristic decay times. The fast decay is due to the gel in the first layer, while the slow decay corresponds to the dynamics in the second layer. This is illustrated in Fig. 4(b), where we decompose $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ in two contributions due to the dynamics in the first and second layers, respectively. The contributions of the first (dash-dotted line) and second (dotted line) layers are obtained by assuming the second or the first layer to be rigid \[Eq. (15) with $`f=1`$ and $`\alpha _20`$ or $`\alpha _10`$, respectively\]. The contribution of the second layer is renormalized so that its value at $`\tau =0`$ is equal to the contribution of the first layer at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. The figure suggests that a simple interpretation of the correlation function resulting from the two-cell setup in terms of contributions of individual layers can be given if the decay times due to different layers are well separated.

The dotted line in Fig. 4(a) shows the contribution of the second layer to $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ \[the same as in Fig. 4(b) but renormalized to 1\]. Due to the presence of the first layer, although assumed to be rigid, the decay of the autocorrelation function becomes significantly faster as compared to the second layer taken alone \[full squares in Fig. 4(a)\]. This stems from the fact that the typical lengths of photon paths in the second layer are increased due to the presence of the first layer, which acts as an effective “diffuse mirror”, increasing the probability for a light path to get back to the second layer instead of being diffusely reflected from the sample.

The measurements performed on the symmetric sample A allows us to conclude that the multiple scattering of light in a two-cell sample is correctly described by the theory developed in Sec. III. At the same time, the results of this subsection serve as a test of our method, allowing diffusing-wave spectroscopy to be applied to nonergodic random media. Indeed, the parameters of the (nonergodic) gel ($`\delta `$, $`\tau _c`$ and $`p`$) can be obtained from the fit to the experimental data \[see Fig. 4\], provided that the parameters of the medium in the second cell as well as the thicknesses of both cells are measured independently.

### B Asymmetric sample

Although the results of the previous subsection seem to be sufficiently convincing to justify our method of performing DWS in nonergodic media, we will now show that the interpretation of experimental data can be further simplified by introducing leakage (or absorption) of light at the interface between the layers in combination with a proper choice of parameters of the second layer. An optimal choice of the parameters corresponds to our asymmetric sample B (see Sec. V). For this sample, the optical thickness of the second layer is much smaller than that of the first one, and the leakage of light at the inter-layer wall is considerable. This ensures the validity of the multiplication rule formulated in Sec. IV, as confirmed by the experimental results presented below. Figures 5(a) and (b) show the intensity autocorrelation functions $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ obtained for the two-cell setup (open circles). The results for two different second cells are displayed. Full squares show $`g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1`$ obtained for the isolated second cells, just as in Fig. 4. The corresponding single scattering correlation time $`\tau _0=(k^2D_B)^1`$ of the particles in the second cell has been varied by changing the glycerol content in the suspending liquid, which affects the viscosity of the liquid and, consequently, the particle diffusion coefficient $`D_B`$.

According to the multiplication rule \[Eq.(21)\], the ratio $`[g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1]/[g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1]`$ is expected to be equal to $`g_2^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )1`$, i.e. the autocorrelation function corresponding to the (first) nonergodic light-scattering cell. To check this prediction, we have calculated corresponding ratios for the curves of Figs. 5(a) and (b). The results are presented in Fig. 5(c) \[full squares correspond to the data of Fig. 5(a), while open circles — to the data of Fig. 5(b)\]. The two curves are indistinguishable, supporting the validity of the multiplication rule. Experimentally, we find that for $`\tau <5\tau _2`$ \[with $`\tau _2=\tau _0(l_2^{}/L_2)^2`$\] the deviations from the multiplication rule are negligible. The perfect agreement of the results obtained for two different media in the second cell confirms the validity of our method.

As an additional check of the multiplication rule, we have performed measurements of the intensity autocorrelation function $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ with the first layer of the double-layer sample being totally rigid (white paper was used to model rigid but turbid random medium). The results are presented in Fig. 6 by open circles for $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1`$ and full squares for $`g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1`$ (the latter is measured for the isolated second layer). Full circles are obtained by calculating the ratio $`[g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1]/[g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1]`$. As expected, the ratio is one over a sufficiently extended time range (the ratio one corresponds to no scatterer motion in the paper).

## VII How to apply the two-cell technique ?

One of the major advantages of the two-cell technique is its simplicity. Nevertheless, we would like to point out some pitfalls when designing a two-cell experiment. Firstly, it is worthwhile to mention the problem of low transmitted light intensity. Building a sandwich with regular glass cuvettes can result in a sample of significant overall thickness. Light incident on the setup spreads out diffusely which leads to relatively low intensity of light reaching the transmission side. The problem becomes even more severe if absorption and/or leakage of light are introduced at the inter-cell wall to simplify the interpretation of experimental data by using the multiplication rule. Secondly, due to reflections and additional leakage of diffuse light at the interface glass walls, some of the light scattered out of the cell can reach the detector without passing through the whole sample. To avoid this problem, we recommend to put an aperture (e.g. a black plastic foil with a centered hole of typically $`5`$ mm in diameter) between the cells to suppress photons scattered snake-like along the cell walls. Ideally, the double-cell sandwich would have only one moderately absorbing thin interface wall with a built-in circular aperture forcing all transmitted light to pass through the whole sample.

## VIII Summary and Outlook

In the present paper we propose and test experimentally a new method for the application of diffusing-wave spectroscopy to nonergodic turbid media. We show that light transmitted trough a sandwich of two turbid samples can be considered ergodic even if only the second sample is ergodic. The autocorrelation function of the transmitted intensity can be quantitatively described by the diffusion theory. This allows direct application of diffusing-wave spectroscopy for the characterization of nonergodic media without any additional efforts usually required to achieve ensemble averaging (i.e. without translation or rotation of the sample in course of the correlation function measurement). Proper averaging of the light-scattering signal is ensured by adding a second, ergodic light-scattering cell with unprecedented accuracy. In order to simplify the analysis of the experimental data, the parameters of the double-cell sample can be optimized. Namely, moderate absorption and/or leakage of light should be introduced at the interface between the light-scattering cells, and the optical thickness of the second, ergodic cell should be reduced well below the optical thickness of the cell containing the nonergodic medium, while the dynamics of scatterers in the second cell should be chosen slow. Under these conditions we have shown that the field autocorrelation function of light transmitted through the double-layer sample can be written as a product of autocorrelation functions corresponding to the individual layers: $`g_1^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )=g_1^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )\times g_1^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )`$. Consequently, it is sufficient to measure the intensity autocorrelation functions of the two cell setup $`g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )`$ and of the second, ergodic layer $`g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )`$, in order to obtain the properly averaged intensity autocorrelation function of the nonergodic layer $`g_2^{(1)}(L_1,\tau )1=[g_2^{(2)}(L_1,L_2,\tau )1]/[g_2^{(1)}(L_2,\tau )1]`$. Henceforth application of diffusing-wave spectroscopy for the characterization of nonergodic media becomes straightforward. Our method is particularly suited for the study of time evolving systems, e.g. aggregating and gelling particle suspensions (see also Refs.  and ), since the data acquisition time can easily be adjusted from a few seconds to several hours. Other promising applications include DWS-microrheology which has previously been limited to time and length scales where the motion of tracer particles is not significantly constrained. We expect the two-cell technique to extend the measurement range of this method and to provide access to a novel class of (solid-like) materials.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Veronique Trappe for useful comments and discussions.


format: text

text:
# Torsion Degrees of Freedom in the Regge Calculus as Dislocations on the Simplicial Lattice

## 1 Introduction

The theory we now call Regge Calculus was proposed in 1961 by T. Regge  as a discrete version of General Relativity formulated within the framework of Riemannian geometry. In spite of the experimental success of General Relativity, a number of authors started to put gravitational theory on the grounds of non-Riemannian geometry: The notion of Riemannian curvature was first generalized by Cartan , introducing torsion degrees of freedom, and later this concept was included in a formulation of gravitation as a gauge theory of the Poincaré group by Sciama  and Kibble  and worked out by Hehl et al.  (the theory presented in the latter reference will be referred to as Einstein-Cartan theory in the following). An even more general geometry was proposed by Hehl et al. , allowing for nonmetricity in addition to curvature and torsion degrees of freedom. An alternative approach to gravity are the so called teleparallel theories , based on the Weitzenböck geometry, working with torsion and vanishing curvature.

Despite this development in the continuum theory, only few attempts have been made to include concepts of non–Riemannian geometry into the Regge Calculus. Caselle et al.  formulated Regge Calculus as a lattice gauge theory of the Poincaré group and pointed out the possibility of including torsion as closure failures of the building blocks of the simplicial manifold (see also ). Drummond  described torsion on the d-dimensional Regge lattice as a piecewise constant tensor field, i.e. within every d-simplex the torsion field was assigned a constant value, which in general changes discontinuously at the hypersurface between two neighboring simplices. Thus, in Drummond’s approach the geometric quantities curvature and torsion are treated in a different way: While curvature appears on the lattice as a conical defect (a disclination) of the underlying simplicial manifold, torsion does not correspond to the simplicial structure itself, but is dealt with in a way similar to Sorkin’s treatment of the electromagnetic field on the simplicial lattice .

On the other hand the notion of torsion singularities, appearing as a conical defect (a dislocation), has recently been discussed in the literature again . Its application to the theory of crystal defects has been known for a long time , , , , , and the connection to gravitation is pointed out in , , , and . This suggests a natural way of incorporating torsion degrees of freedom into the Regge Calculus much in the same way as curvature: treating it as a conical defect of the simplicial manifold.

In this paper, we will apply this idea in order to find a discrete version of the Einstein-Cartan theory, i.e. we will construct the discrete analogue of the Einstein-Cartan action, choose appropriate sets of discrete variables, and compute the corresponding field equations.

## 2 Simplicial Torsion

In the presence of torsion, infinitesimal parallelograms in space-time generally do not close, i.e. to a surface element $`dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ there belongs a closure failure $`dG^\alpha `$ proportional to the torsion tensor

$$dG^\alpha =T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(1)
Here, greek indices take on the values $`0,\mathrm{},\text{d}1`$ where d is the dimension of space-time.

We assume that the tensor of the torsion density is of the form

$$T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}b^\alpha S_{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
where the Burgers vector $`b^\alpha `$ gives the strength and direction of the associated closure failure and the antisymmetric tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ the orientation of the support of the distributional torsion field. This can be motivated in a heuristic way similar to Regge’s  construction of his simplicial curvature tensor: We take a bundle of parallel dislocations in three dimensions (e.g. in an elastic medium, generated by a Volterra Process ) each with the same Burgers vector $`b^\alpha `$ (see Fig. 1), their orientation

given by the unit vector $`U^\alpha `$. Now we encircle the bundle by a small loop with normal vector $`dF^\alpha `$. Transferred to defect free space, this loop does not close, the closure failure $`dG^\alpha `$ being proportional to the Burgers vector $`b^\alpha `$. If $`dN`$ denotes the number of dislocations enclosed by the loop, we have

$`dG^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`dNb^\alpha `$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\rho U^\lambda dF_\lambda b^\alpha ,`$
where $`\rho `$ is the density of dislocations in a surface perpendicular to the bundle. Inserting the dual quantities

$`U^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{\lambda \mu \nu }S_{\mu \nu }`$
$`dF_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\lambda \beta \gamma }dF^{\beta \gamma }`$ (4)
leads to

$$dG^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\rho b^\alpha S_{\mu \nu }dF^{\mu \nu }.$$
(5)
Comparison with equation (1) yields

$$T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\rho b^\alpha S_{\mu \nu }.$$
(6)
In d dimensions, the defect has codimension two, i.e. its orientation is given by d–2 orthogonal unit vectors $`U_{}^{\alpha }{}_{1}{}^{},\mathrm{},U_{}^{\alpha }{}_{d2}{}^{}`$. The antisymmetric tensor $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ is then defined by

$$S_{\mu \nu }=ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{d2}}U_1^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}U_{d2}^{\alpha _{d2}}.$$
(7)
## 3 Discrete Action, Dynamical Variables, and Field Equations

In the geometry of a continuous manifold, torsion enters the scene when we allow the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}`$ to be nonsymmetric, its antisymmetric part defining the torsion tensor

$$T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu \mu }{}^{}.$$
(8)
Assuming the condition of metricity $`g_{\mu \nu ;\lambda }=0`$, the connection reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\mu \nu }\right\}+K_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}$$
(9)
where

$$K_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}(T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}T_\mu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\nu }{}^{}T_\nu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\mu }{}^{})$$
(10)
defines the contortion tensor and

$$\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\mu \nu }\right\}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\alpha \rho }(_\mu g_{\nu \rho }+_\nu g_{\mu \rho }_\rho g_{\mu \nu })$$
(11)
is the Levi-Civita connection of General Relativity. In terms of the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\alpha `$, the curvature tensor is defined as

$$R_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta \mu \nu }{}^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta \nu }{}^{}_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\beta \mu }{}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\gamma \nu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\gamma }{}_{\beta \mu }{}^{}.$$
(12)
Using equation (9) we can now split the curvature scalar into a part depending only on $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and on its first derivatives and a part depending only on the torsion. The result is

$`RR_{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\alpha \nu }}\right\}\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\beta \mu }}\right\}\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\alpha \beta }}\right\}\left\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\mu \nu }}\right\}\right)`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\alpha \mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\nu \mu \alpha }+T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha \mu }{}^{}T_{}^{\nu \mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}\text{divergence},`$
where the last term does not contribute to the action integral when we compute it for a manifold without boundary.

With the splitting (13) of the curvature scalar, the Einstein-Cartan action reads

$`S_{EC}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}R(g,T)}`$
$`=`$ $`S_{EH}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{4}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\alpha \mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\nu \mu \alpha }+T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha \mu }{}^{}T_{}^{\nu \mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\right)}`$
where we have identified the Einstein–Hilbert action

$$S_{EH}=\frac{1}{2}d^dx\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \beta }\left(\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\alpha \nu }\right\}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\beta \mu }\right\}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mu }{\alpha \beta }\right\}\left\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{\mu \nu }\right\}\right).$$
(15)
Discretization of the Einstein-Hilbert action leads to the Regge action , so we are concerned here with the second term in equation (3).

In Regge Calculus, the curvature scalar is defined as a distribution with support on the d–2 dimensional hypersurfaces of the lattice (in Regge Calculus called the bones of the lattice). In the same way we treat the non-Riemannian curvature scalar, in particular its non-Riemannian part, i.e. we define squares of the torsion tensor as a distribution. Using equation (6) we obtain for the contribution of the $`i`$-th bone to a typical term appearing under the Einstein-Cartan action integral (eq. (3)) \[no sum over repeated latin indices\]

$$T_{(i)}^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{(i)\alpha \mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}b_{(i)}^\alpha b_{(i)\alpha }S_{(i)}^{\mu \nu }S_{(i)\mu \nu }𝑑s_{(i)}^1\mathrm{}𝑑s_{(i)}^{d2}\delta ^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\left\{xy_{(i)}(s_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},s_{(i)}^{d2})\right\}.$$
(16)
Here, $`y_{(i)}(s_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},s_{(i)}^{d2})`$ is the set of points of the $`i`$-th bone, parameterized by $`s_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},s_{(i)}^{d2}`$. With

$$S_{\mu \nu }S^{\mu \nu }=2,S^{\mu \nu }S_{\mu \alpha }=\delta _\alpha ^\nu \left(U_{1}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}U_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }+\mathrm{}+U_{(d2)\alpha }U_{d2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }\right),$$
(17)
we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}T_{(i)}^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{(i)\alpha \mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T_{(i)}^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{(i)\nu \mu \alpha }+T_{(i)}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha \mu }{}^{}T_{(i)}^{\nu \mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}b_{(i)}^2{\displaystyle 𝑑s_{(i)}^1\mathrm{}𝑑s_{(i)}^{d2}\delta ^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\left\{xy_{(i)}(s_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},s_{(i)}^{d2})\right\}},`$ (18)
with

$$b_{(i)}^2\left((b_{(i)\alpha }U_{(i)1}^\alpha )^2+\mathrm{}+(b_{(i)\alpha }U_{(i)d2}^\alpha )^2\right),$$
(19)
where $`b_{(i)}`$ denotes the part of the Burgers vector that is parallel to the bone, i.e. only screw dislocations contribute to the action.

Summing equation (18) over all the bones of the lattice and integrating over the whole manifold yields

$$𝑑V\left(\frac{1}{4}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\alpha \mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}T^{\alpha \mu \nu }T_{\nu \mu \alpha }+T_{}^{\alpha }{}_{\alpha \mu }{}^{}T_{}^{\nu \mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}\right)$$

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_{(i)}^2{\displaystyle 𝑑V𝑑s_{(i)}^1\mathrm{}𝑑s_{(i)}^{d2}\delta ^{\left(\text{d}\right)}\left\{xy_{(i)}(s_{(i)}^1,\mathrm{},s_{(i)}^{d2})\right\}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_{(i)}^2A_{(i)},`$
where $`A_{(i)}`$ is the (d–2 dimensional) area of the $`i`$-th bone. This is the simplicial analogue to the second term in (3). For the Einstein-Hilbert term we substitute the Regge action and obtain the lattice action

$$S=\underset{i}{}\left(\phi _{(i)}+\frac{1}{16}b_{(i)}^2\right)A_{(i)},$$
(21)
where the $`\phi _{(i)}`$ are the deficit angles of the bones.

As the first set of dynamical variables of the theory, we take the link lengths $`l_{(i)}`$ of the lattice (corresponding to the components of the metric tensor of the continuum theory) as in the usual Regge Calculus. In the Einstein-Cartan theory, the components of the torsion tensor itself become the second set of variables of the action, so the Burgers vectors $`b_{(i)}`$ of the bones are the most appropriate choice (see eq. (6)) of lattice variables in a discretized Einstein-Cartan theory. Since only the projections of the Burgers vectors onto the bones contribute to the action, we choose the $`b_{(i)}`$ defined in (19) as (scalar) variables representing torsion on the simplicial lattice.

Adding a matter term $`L(\{l_{(j)}\},\{b_{(j)}\})`$ to the action, variation with respect to $`l_{(i)}`$ and $`b_{(i)}`$ gives two sets of field equations,

$$\underset{i}{}\left(\phi _{(i)}+\frac{1}{16}b_{(i)}^2\right)\frac{A_{(i)}}{l_{(j)}}=\frac{L}{l_{(j)}}$$
(22)
and

$$b_{(j)}=\frac{1}{A_{(j)}}\frac{L}{b_{(j)}}.$$
(23)
In four dimensions we have

$$\frac{A_{(i)}}{l_{(j)}}=\mathrm{cot}\theta _{(ij)},$$
(24)
where $`\theta _{(ij)}`$ is in the $`i`$-th bone (triangle of the lattice) the angle opposite to the $`j`$-th link. So, the first field equation reads

$$\underset{i}{}\left(\phi _{(i)}+\frac{1}{16}b_{(i)}^2\right)\mathrm{cot}\theta _{(ij)}=\frac{L}{l_{(j)}},$$
(25)
where the sum now extends over all the bones having the link $`l_{(j)}`$ in common.

The Burgers vector couples algebraically to the matter term $`L/b_{(j)}`$, i.e. we have no dislocations on the lattice in vacuum. Without this matter term, which is interpreted in continuum theory as the spin density of matter, the field equations reduce to the ordinary Regge equations. This is in parallel to the result of the continuum theory, where the Einstein-Cartan field equations reduce to the Einstein equation in vacuum.

## 4 Conclusion

From the application of non-Riemannian geometry to the theory of defects in solids ,, we know that the torsion field can be interpreted as a continuous distribution of dislocations. Vice versa, we can express the torsion induced by a single dislocation as a delta like distribution with support on the dislocation line. This suggests the idea of regarding torsion degrees of freedom within the Regge Calculus as dislocations of the lattice, the bones carrying singular torsion in addition to a curvature singularity. Thus, to a loop around a bone, we assign not only a rotation (of a test vector), but also a translation, which we call the Burgers vector of the bone. Discretizing the Einstein-Cartan action, we find a generalization of the Regge action where the Burgers vector of a particular bone leads to a shift of the deficit angle. Variation of the action with respect to the link lengths and the Burgers vectors leads to two sets of field equations that show fundamental properties of the continuum equations.

Fermion fields, defined on the lattice, would lead to a nonvanishing spin density and act as a source of torsion  localized at the matter. Although classically in vacuum not possible, in simplicial quantum gravity configurations with nonvanishing Burgers vectors could be important as quantum fluctuations of the lattice .

Acknowledgment
We have benefited from discussions with A. Holz and T. Filk.


text:
# On Fermat’s marginal note: a suggestion

## 1  Introduction

Around 1637 Fermat discovered his Small Theorem ($`FST`$): $`n^pn`$ mod $`p`$ for prime $`p`$ and all integers $`n`$, probably inspired by Pascal’s triangle: the multiplicative (factorial) structure of the coefficients in the expansion of $`(a+b)^p`$. Only if $`p`$ is prime does it divide the binomial coefficient of each of the $`p1`$ $`mixed`$ terms, that is: except $`a^p`$ and $`b^p`$. Hence $`p`$ divides $`(a+b)^p(a^p+b^p)`$, in other words $`(a+b)^pa^p+b^p`$ mod $`p`$, so exponent $`p`$ distributes over a sum (mod $`p`$).

One wonders, as possibly Fermat did, if this equivalence could hold mod $`p^k`$ for $`k>`$1 and some special $`a,b`$ \- thus extending $`FST`$ to higher precisions $`k`$. It will be shown that a straightforward extension of $`FST`$ to mod $`p^k`$ plays, for $`p`$=1 mod 6, an essential role in a special solution of normalized form $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$: $`a^p+b^p1`$ mod $`p^k`$. Here exponent $`p`$ distributes over a sum, yielding a partial proof of the $`FLT`$ inequality for integers (in case1: $`a,b`$ coprime to $`p`$).

### 1.1  Extending $`FST`$ to mod $`p^k`$ for $`k>`$1

Notice that $`n^pn`$ mod $`p`$ implies $`n^{p1}1`$ mod $`p`$ for $`n0`$ mod $`p`$, and in fact all $`p1`$ non-zero residues mod $`p`$ are known to form under multiplication a cyclic group of order $`p1`$. There are $`p^{k1}`$ multiples of $`p`$ among the $`p^k`$ residues mod $`p^k`$. So $`(p1)p^{k1}`$ residues are coprime to $`p`$. They form the group $`G_k`$ of $`units`$ in the semigroup $`Z_k(.)`$ of multiplication mod $`p^k`$. For each $`k>0`$ there is necessarily a cyclic subgroup of order $`p1`$, called the core $`A_k`$ of $`G_k`$. Clearly each $`n`$ in core has $`n^pn`$ mod $`p^k`$.

Actually, units group $`G_k`$ is known to be cyclic for $`p>`$2 and all $`k>`$0. Its order, as product of two coprime factors, implies it is a direct product $`G_kA_k.B_k`$ of two subgroups, namely core $`A_k`$ of order $`p1`$ and extension subgroup $`B_k`$ of order $`p^{k1}`$. Each $`n`$ in core $`A_k`$ satisfies $`n^pn`$ mod $`p^k`$, which clearly is a generalization of Fermat’s Small Theorem ($`FST`$) mod $`p`$ to mod $`p^k`$.

Furthermore, the choice of modulus $`p^k`$ yields every $`p`$-th iteration of a generator of $`G_k`$, thus all $`p`$-th power residues, to form a subgroup $`F_k`$ of order $`|G_k|/p=(p1).p^{k2}`$. For $`k`$=2 we have $`A_2F_2`$: then the core is the ’Fermat’ subgroup of $`p`$-th power residues. In general we have $`|A_k|=p1=|G_k|/p^{k1}=|F_k|/p^{k2}`$, and $`A_k=\{n^{p^{k1}}\}`$ mod $`p^k`$ for all $`n`$ in $`G_k`$.

## 2 Solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ in Core has the $`EDS`$ property

The exponent distributes over a sum for an $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ solution in core, because $`(a+b)^pa+ba^p+b^p`$ mod $`p^k`$, where $`a^pa`$ and $`b^pb`$ mod $`p^k`$. Such solution is said to have the $`EDS`$ property: Exponent $`p`$ Distributes over a Sum.

If such a solution exists, as for each prime $`p`$=1 mod 6 (see further: cubic roots), then it cannot hold for integers, providing a direct proof of integer inequality after all, despite Hensel’s lemma of infinite extension, described next. A solution $`incore`$, having the $`EDS`$ property, implies the $`FLT`$ (case1) inequality for integers. Apart from a scaling factor, the cubic root solution is in fact  the only one with all three terms in core $`A_k(k3)`$.

### 2.1  Hensel’s extension lemma is no obstacle to a direct $`FLT`$ proof

Observe that for $`k2`$ core $`A_k`$ consists of $`p`$-th power residues. The group of units is cyclic: $`G_kg^{}`$ with some generator $`g`$, and for instance $`|G_2|=(p1)p`$, so each $`p`$-th iteration of $`g`$ is in core $`A_2`$ which is a subgroup of order $`p1`$.

It is easily verified that the two least significant digits of any $`p`$-ary coded number determine if it is a $`p`$-th power residue, namely $`iff`$ it is in core $`A_2`$. If so, then any more significant extension is also a $`p`$-th power residue. This is known as Hensel’s extension lemma (1913) or the Hensel lift. This lemma implies that each $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ solution is an more-significant digit ($`msd`$) extension of a solution mod $`p^2`$.

This lemma prevented the search for a direct $`FLT`$ proof via residues, by the unwarranted conclusion that inequality for integers cannot be derived from equivalence mod $`p^k`$. In fact, the solutions of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ (case1) can all be shown to have exponent $`p`$ distributing over a sum, the ”$`EDS`$” property (or a variation of it) \[1, lem3.1\] yielding inequality for integer $`p`$-th powers $`<p^{pk}`$.

### 2.2  Cubic roots of 1 mod $`p^k`$ sum to 0 mod $`p^k`$

Additive analysis shows that $`each`$ core subgroup $`S1`$, hence of order $`|S|`$ dividing $`p1`$, sums to 0 mod $`p^k`$ ($`coretheorem`$). If 3 divides $`p1`$, hence $`p`$=1 mod 6, the subgroup $`S=\{a,a^2,a^3=1\}`$ of the three cubic roots of 1 mod $`p^k`$ sum to 0 mod $`p^k`$ , solving $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$.

For $`|S|=3`$ this zero sum is easily derived by simple means, without the elementary semigroup concepts necessary to derive the additive $`corethm`$ in general. So Fermat might have derived this cubic root solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ for $`p`$=1 mod 6, starting at $`p`$=7. A simple proof of the cubic roots of 1 mod $`p^k`$ to have zero sum follows now, showing $`a+b1`$ mod $`p^k`$ to coincide with $`ab1`$ mod $`p^k`$. Notice $`a+b=1`$ to yield $`a^2+b^2=(a+b)^22ab=12ab`$, and:

$`a^3+b^3=(a+b)^33(a+b)ab=1+3ab`$. The combined sum is $`ab1`$:

$`_{i=1}^3(a^i+b^i)=_{i=1}^3a^i+_{i=1}^3b^i=ab1`$ mod $`p^k`$. Find $`a,b`$ for $`ab1`$ mod $`p^k`$.

Since $`n^2+n+1=(n^31)/(n1)`$=0 for $`n^3`$=1 ($`n1`$), we have $`ab`$=1 mod $`p^{k>0}`$ if $`a^3b^31`$ mod $`p^k`$, so 3 must divide $`p1(p`$=1 mod 6).

### 2.3  Proof of $`FLT(case1)`$ for $`p=3,5,7`$

Consider now only $`FLT`$ case1. As mentioned earlier, the known Hensel extension lemma yields each solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ to be an extension of a solution mod $`p^2`$, so analysis of the normed $`a^p+b^p1`$ mod $`p^2`$ is necessary and sufficient for the existence of solutions at $`p`$ for any $`k`$.

For $`p`$=3 we have $`|G_2|`$=2.3 with core $`A_2=\{1,1\}`$, so core-pairsums yield $`\{2,0,2\}`$ which are not in core $`A_2`$, hence are not $`p`$-th power residues. So the $`FLT`$ inequality holds for $`p`$=3.

For $`p`$=5: $`G_2=2^{}`$ with $`|G_2|`$=4.5, and core $`A_2=(2^5)^{}=7^{}`$ mod 25. So $`A_2\{7,1,7,1\}`$ and non-zero coresums $`\pm \{2,6,8,14\}`$ which are not in core $`A_2`$, hence are not $`p`$-th power residues, and thus $`FLT`$ holds for $`p`$=5.

For $`p`$=7: $`G_2=3^{}`$ (order 6.7=42) and core $`A_2=(3^7)^{}=43^{}=\{43,42,66,24,25,01\}`$ (base 7). The sum of cubic roots of 1: $`\{42,24,01\}`$ yields equivalence mod $`7^2`$, which necessarily yields inequality for integers due to the $`EDS`$ property. So for $`p`$=7, and in fact for all $`p1`$ mod 6, $`FLT`$ (case1) holds for the corresponding cubic root solutions.

## 3  Triplets as general root-form of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$

A cubic root solution involves one inverse pair: $`a+a^11`$ mod $`p^k(a^31`$$`a1,a^1a^2)`$. The question remains if possibly other solutions to $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ exist, which can be answered by elementary semigroup techniques. In fact there is precisely $`one`$ other solution type involving $`three`$ inverse pairs in a successor coupled $`loop`$ of length 3, called

triplet: $`a+1b^1,b+1c^1,c+1a^1`$ mod $`p^k`$, where $`abc1`$ mod $`p^k`$.

If $`abc`$ then this reduces to the cubic root solution, which holds for each prime $`p1`$ mod 6. Triplet solutions occur for some primes $`p59`$. A variant of the $`EDS`$ property can be derived for them \[1, lem3.1\] sothat $`FLT`$ (case1) holds for all primes $`p>`$2.

## 4 Summary

Did Fermat find the cubic root solution? If Fermat knew the cubic root solution for $`p1`$ mod 6, and also could prove it by elementary means, as shown earlier, this might explain his enthusiastic note in the margin, about a beautiful proof.

However, to complete the proof of case1 it is required to show that the cubic root solutions are the $`only`$ solution type, which they in fact are not. It seems very unlikely that he knew about the triplets, which start at $`p`$=59. So he probably let the problem rest, realizing the cubic roots are only a partial proof of $`FLT`$ case1. Another obstacle would be $`case_2`$ where $`p`$ divides one of $`x,y,z`$, which requires a somewhat different approach .

Experimenting with $`p=3,5,7`$ (mod $`p^2`$): On Fermat’s conjecture ($`FLT`$) of the sum of two $`p`$-th powers never to yield a $`p`$-th power (for $`p>`$2), consider the next assumption about what he might have discovered, using means available at that time (1640). As shown, $`p=3`$ and $`p=5`$ yield no solution mod $`p^2`$, hence no solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ for any $`k`$.

However for $`p=7`$, using $`p`$-ary code for residues mod $`p^k`$ (prime $`p>2,k`$ digits) and experimenting mod $`7^2`$ ($`p=7,k=2)`$, it is readily verified that $`x^p+y^pz^p`$ mod $`p^2`$ does have a solution with the cubic root of unity: $`a^31`$ mod $`p^2`$. In fact: $`a+1a^1`$ mod $`7^2(a1`$ mod $`7^2`$),
or equivalently ”one-complement” normal form:

$`a+a^11`$ mod $`p^2`$, with $`a24`$ (in 7-code, decimal 18) and $`a^142`$ (decimal 30).

As shown, this cubic-root solution holds for every prime $`p1`$ mod 6, and moreover (and this is the clue): $`a^pa`$ mod $`p^k`$, for every $`k>`$0. Because cubic root ”$`a`$” is in a p-1 order $`core`$ subgroup of $`p`$-th power residues in the units group $`G_k`$ mod $`p^k`$ in ring $`Z_k(k>`$1). So:

$`a^p+a^pa+a^11(1)^p(a+a^1)^p`$, prime $`p1`$ mod 6.

For this solution $`incore`$ the Exponent $`p`$ Distributes over a Sum (”$`EDS`$” property), which blocks extension to integer equality, proving $`FLT(case_1)`$ for all such cubic root solutions.

### 4.1 By ’modern’ elementary concepts

Using elementary group concepts: the units group $`G_k`$ mod $`p^k`$ has order $`(p1)p^{k1}`$, and $`G_k`$ is known to be cyclic for all $`k>`$0. The two coprime factors imply $`G_k`$ to be a direct product of two cyclic groups

$`G_kA_k.B_k`$ with $`core`$ subgroup $`|A_k|=p1`$, and $`extension`$ subgroup $`|B_k|=p^{k1}`$.

Of course, these group theoretical arguments were not known in those days, but the insight that $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ does have a cubic root solution for every prime $`p1`$ mod 6 at each $`k>`$0, could very well be discovered by Fermat – first found by hand calculations mod $`7^2`$ (in 7-ary code for instance), and then derived algebraically in general for all $`p1`$ mod 6, as shown.

Actually, with the known group concepts as described above, the Bachet margin might be large enough to sketch the essence of this proof for the cubic root solutions, and the impossibility of extension to integer equality (by the $`EDS`$ argument).

Cubic roots not the only solution form. Assuming this solution occurred to Fermat, he must have realized that the full proof (at least of case1: with $`x,y,z`$ coprime to p) would require to show that the cubic root type of solution is the only solution type.

However this is not the case, as mentioned earlier: the general type of solution is a ”triplet”: $`a+b^1b+c^1c+a^11`$ mod $`p^k`$, with $`abc1`$ mod $`p^k`$, involving not one inverse-pair, but three inverse-pairs in a loop of length 3  - which only occurs for some primes $`p59`$, and of which the cubic root solution is a special case.

A variation of the $`EDS`$ argument holds here, so again the $`FLT`$ inequality for integers follows, proving $`FLT`$ case1 after showing that no other solutions exist ( here the non-commutative function composition of semigroups is essential, as applied to the two symmetries $`n`$ and $`n^1`$ of residue arithmetic, as well as quadratic analysis mod $`p^3`$, see thm3.2 in  ).
Moreover, there is $`FLTcase_2`$ , with an approach as given in .

## Conclusion

The above sketched cubic root solution is a partial proof of $`FLT`$ case1, possibly known to Fermat. However, missing the triplets for $`p59`$ (it is very doubtful that they could be found without computer experiments, which are easy for present day PC’s), and possibly lacking an approach for $`FLT`$ case2, he probably was inclined to keep quiet about this partial proof of $`FLT`$ case1.

It is surprising that the cubic root solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$, and the corresponding $`EDS`$ property of the exponent $`p`$ distributing over a sum, did not surface long ago. Giving some thought to possible causes of this delay, one might consider the following phenomena of mathematical, historical and psychological nature.

1. Missing link between $`FST`$ and $`FLT`$: It appears that, for unexplained reasons, no link has been made between Fermat’s Small and Last Theorem, although both feature $`p`$-th powers: residues mod $`p`$ in the first, and integers in the second. Furthermore, the $`p1`$ cycle corresponding to $`n^pn`$ is clearly common to the units group mod $`p`$ and mod $`p^k`$. So it seems that the group structure, available since the second half of the previous century, is not considered for some reason. Possibly because of other promising approaches taken in the analysis of arithmetic (e.g. Hensel’s $`p`$-adic number theory, 1913).
2. Dislike of exponentiation ( ^) which is not associative, nor commutative, nor does it disribute over addition (+). Closure properties holding for (+, .) do not hold for ( ^). However, this situation is improved by taking $`p^k`$ as modulus, because then the $`p`$-th power residues do form a subgroup $`F_k`$ of the units group $`G_k(.)`$, which for $`k`$=2 in fact is the core of $`G_2`$ with a nice additive property (zero sum subgroups). None of these properties is difficult to derive, and require only elementary semigroup concepts. It seems that application of semigroups to arithmetic ran out of fashion, rather being employed for the development of higher and more abstract purposes, such as category theory. Clearly in the elliptic curve approach $`modularforms`$, which have good closure properties, are preferred over exponentiation (Eichler : ”There are five basic arithmetic operations: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and modular forms”).
3. The $`notation`$ under which $`FST`$ usually is known: $`n^{p1}1`$ mod $`p`$, instead of the $`fixedpoint`$ notation $`n^pn`$ mod $`p`$, is less like the $`EDS`$ form $`(a+b)^pa^p+b^p`$ mod $`p`$ which might have prompted Fermat to explore the same mod $`p^2`$ and mod $`p^k`$ (2- and $`k`$\- digit arithmetic), yielding the cubic root solution mod $`7^2`$ as first example.
4. The Hensel lift. From Hensel’s $`p`$-adic number theory (1913) derives the known lemma about each solution of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ to be an extension of a solution mod $`p^2`$. So analysis mod $`p^2`$ is necessary and sufficient for root existence, with an $`FLT_k`$ root being a solution of $`a^p+b^p1`$ mod $`p^k`$. This infinite precision extension to all $`k>`$0, called the Hensel lift, is the most often cited objection against a direct proof of $`FLT`$; an unwarranted conclusion, due to the $`EDS`$ property of all $`FLT_2`$ roots: $`F_2A_2`$ is core. Moreover, analysis mod $`p^3`$ is necessary to describe the symmetries of $`FLT_k`$ roots, and characterize the general $`triplet`$ rootform .
– The irony is that the basis of the Hensel lift also carries the solution: the $`triplets`$ follow from a detailed (computer-) analysis of the solutions of $`a^p+b^p1`$ mod $`p^2`$. Special attention was given to the role of inverse pairs, as indicated by the cubic root solution, by using logarithmic code over a primitive root of 1 mod $`p^2`$ (  table 2 ).
5. Computer use. Simple computer experiments were very helpful, if not indispensible, in discovering the triplets as general rootform – given the importance of inverse-pairs as evident from the cubic root solution. It is highly improbable that they could be discovered any other way ($`p59`$). Unlike Pascal and Leibniz, who even constructed their own accumulator and multiplier respectively, the use of a computer seems to be avoided by some .
6. The $`FLT`$ proof via elliptic curves (A.Wiles, Annals of Mathematics, May 1995) blocked further interest in a simpler proof, or at least rendered such efforts irrelevant in the eyes of experts. The extreme complexity of that proof seems to be interpreted as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage.
7. The structure of a finite semigroup, starting with Schushkewitch’s analysis \[4, appx.A\] of its minimal ideal (1928), combined with the concept of $`rank`$ to model the divisors of zero, is useful to derive the additive $`core`$ theorem in general (  thm1.1: each core subgroup $`S1`$ sums to 0 mod $`p^k`$ ). The clue of $`FLT`$ mod $`p^k`$ is to look for an additive property in a multiplicative semigroup, although simple arithmetic suffices in the cubic root case.
8. The role of Authority. An often used argument against a simple $`FLT`$ proof is: So many eminent mathematicians have tried for so long that it would have been found long ago. This argument of course does not take into account the essential ingredients of the cubic-root & triplet structure of arithmetic mod $`p^k`$  and the $`EDS`$ property, such as: semigroup principles and computer experiments. These were only available since 1928 and 1950 respectively.
On the contrary, the lack of results in various directions stresses the point that something was missing, requiring a different approach (commutative arithmetic \[+, . \] in the context of associative function composition: semigroups).
9. Between disciplines: The application of semigroups, that is associative function composition, to Arithmetic \[4, p130\]  . . . e.g. viewing its two symmetries: complement $`C(n)=n`$, inverse $`I(n)=n^1`$, and the successor $`S(n)=n+1`$ as functions \[1, thm3.2\], turned out to be a rare combination. The extreme abstraction and specialisation in mathematics reduces the chances for a serious consideration of an inter- disciplinary approach.

References :

1. N. F. Benschop: ” Triplets and Symmetries of Arithmetic mod $`p^k`$
http://www.iae.nl/users/benschop/nfb0.dvi and http://arXiv.org/abs/math.GM/0103014

— The essence was presented at two international conferences: 2.(math), 3.(engineering):

2. —: ”On the semigroup of multiplication mod $`p^k`$, an extension of Fermat’s Small Theorem, and
. its additive structure”,  Semigroups and their Applications (digest p7), Prague, July 1996.

3. —: ”On the additive structure of Multiplication mod $`p^k`$, Fermat’s Small Theorem
extended to $`FLT`$, and a new binary number code”,
Logic and Architecture Synthesis (digest pp.133-140) Grenoble, Dec 1996.

4. A. Clifford, G. Preston: The Algebraic Theory of Semigroups, Vol I, pp.130-135,
and Appendix A (p.207), AMS survey #7, 1961.

5. A. Wiles ($`BBC`$ interview): http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/95-96/960115.html

6. S. Schwarz: ”The Role of Semigroups in the Elementary Theory of Numbers”,
Math.Slovaca V31 (1981) N4, pp.369-395.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We prove that the purely imaginary square well generates an infinite number of bound states with real energies. In the strong-coupling limit, our exact $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric solutions coincide, utterly unexpectedly, with their textbook, well known Hermitian predecessors.

PACS 03.65.Bz, 03.65.Ge

, sho.tex file

## 1 Introduction

An interest in the imaginary cubic anharmonic oscillators dates back to their perturbation analysis by Caliceti et al . The simplified homework example with the mere two-term non-Hermitian Hamiltonian

$$H_{BZ}=p^2+ix^3$$

has been proposed by D. Bessis and J. Zinn-Justin who had in mind its possible applicability in the context of statistical physics . The example has been re-vitalized by C. Bender et al due to its further possible methodical relevance in the relativistic quantum field theory .

The apparent reality of the spectrum of energies $`E_{BZ}`$ proved quite puzzling and inspired a conjecture of the existence of the whole “modified quantum mechanics” paying attention to similar Hamiltonians . This conjecture opened many new and interesting questions when it replaced the current Hermiticity of Hamiltonians by a weaker condition of their commutativity with a product $`𝒫𝒯`$ of the spatial parity $`𝒫`$ and the complex conjugation $`𝒯`$ where the latter factor is to be understood as a one-dimensional version of the operator of time reversal.

The recent discussion between C. Bender and A. Mezincescu  pointed out that one of the key problems of the new studies lies in the ambiguity of the spectrum which depends quite crucially on our choice of the boundary conditions which can be, in general, complexified . The fragile character of the reality of energies has been confirmed by the WKB and perturbative studies  and by the quasi-exact and exact models  where the admissible unavoided level crossings  prove sometimes followed by the spontaneous breakdown of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetry .

In such a context we intend to propose an extremely elementary $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric model which would replace the BZ interaction $`ix^3`$ (which admits just a numerical treatment) by its exactly solvable square-well analogue.

## 2 Model

In a search for analogies between the solvable and unsolvable models in one dimension, all the possible forms of a confining well are often being approximated by the ordinary real and symmetric square well

$$V^{(SQW)}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}S^2,\hfill & x(\mathrm{},\pi )(\pi ,\mathrm{}),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x(\pi ,\pi ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
In this spirit we intend to replace here the above-mentioned antisymmetric and imaginary homework potential $`V_{BZ}(x)=ix^3`$ by its elementary square-well analogue

$$V^{(ISQW)}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}iT^2,\hfill & x(\mathrm{},\pi ),\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & x(\pi ,\pi ),\hfill \\ +iT^2,\hfill & x(\pi ,\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Schrödinger equation which appears in such a setting,

$$\left[\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\frac{d}{dx^2}+V^{(ISQW)}(x)\right]\psi (x)=E\psi (x)$$
(2)
will be complemented here by the standard $`\mathrm{L}^2(lR)`$ boundary conditions

$$\psi (\pm \mathrm{})=0.$$
(3)
The well known $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric normalization convention will be employed, with a free real parameter $`G`$ in the unbroken $`𝒫𝒯`$-symmetry requirements

$$\psi (0)=1,_x\psi (0)=iG.$$
(4)
Putting $`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$ and using the ansatz

$$\psi (x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}kx+B\mathrm{sin}kx,\hfill & x(0,\pi ),\hfill & k^2=E,\\ (L+iN)\mathrm{exp}(\sigma x),\hfill & x(\pi ,\mathrm{}),\hfill & \sigma ^2=iT^2k^2,\end{array}$$
(5)
we guarantee its full compatibility with the symmetry requirements (4) by the choice of the purely imaginary constant $`B=iG/k`$ in the wave functions (5).

## 3 Matching conditions at $`x=\pi `$

We may split $`\sigma =p+iq`$ in its real and imaginary part with $`p,q0`$. This gives the rules $`p^2+k^2=q^2`$ and $`2pq=T^2`$ as a consequence. They are easily re-parameterized in terms of a single variable $`\alpha `$,

$$p=q\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,k=q\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,q=\frac{T}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\alpha }},\alpha (0,\pi /2).$$
(6)
In this language the standard matching at the point of discontinuity is immediate,

$$\mathrm{cos}k\pi +B\mathrm{sin}k\pi =(L+iN)\mathrm{exp}(\sigma \pi ),$$

$$\mathrm{sin}k\pi +B\mathrm{cos}k\pi =\frac{\sigma }{k}(L+iN)\mathrm{exp}(\sigma \pi ).$$

After we abbreviate $`\sigma /k=\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Omega }\pi `$, we get an elementary complex condition of the matching of logarithmic derivatives at $`x=\pi `$,

$$G=ik\mathrm{tan}(k+\mathrm{\Omega })\pi .$$
(7)
Its real part defines our first unknown parameter, $`G=G(\alpha )`$. Due to our normalization conventions, the imaginary part of the right-hand-side expression must vanish, $`\mathrm{Re}[\mathrm{tan}(k+\mathrm{\Omega })\pi ]=0`$. An elementary re-arrangement of such an equation acquires the form of an elementary quadratic algebraic equation for $`X=\mathrm{tan}k\pi `$. Its two explicit solutions read

$$X_1=\frac{p+q}{k},X_2=\frac{pq}{k}$$
(8)
or, after all the insertions,

$$\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\pi T\mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{(+)}}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{(+)}}}\right]=\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\pi \alpha ^{(+)}}{2}\right],$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\pi T\mathrm{sin}\alpha ^{()}}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\alpha ^{()}}}\right]=\mathrm{tan}\left[\frac{\alpha ^{()}}{2}\right].$$
(10)
These equations specify, in implicit manner, the two respective infinite series of the appropriately bounded real roots $`\alpha =\alpha _n^{(\pm )}(0,\pi /2)`$.

## 4 Energies

Even before any numerical considerations we immediately see that for $`\alpha (0,\pi /2)`$ the left-hand-side arguments $`[\mathrm{}]`$ in eqs. (9) and (10) run from zero to infinity. Their tangens functions oscillate infinitely many times from minus infinity to plus infinity. Within the same interval, the limited variation of the argument $`\alpha `$ makes both the eligible right-hand side functions monotonic, very smooth and bounded, $`\mathrm{tan}[(\pi \alpha ^{(+)})/2](1,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}[\alpha ^{()}/2](0,1)`$. A priori this indicates that our roots $`k=k(\alpha _n^{(\pm )})`$ will all lie within the fairly well determined intervals,

$$k_n^{(+)}(n+\frac{1}{4},n+\frac{1}{2}),n=0,1,\mathrm{},$$

$$k_m^{()}(m+\frac{3}{4},m+1)m=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

After such an approximate localization of the roots, an unexpected additional merit of our parametrization (6) manifests itself in an unambiguous removal of the tangens operators from both eqs. (9) and (10). This gives the following two relations,

$$k_n^{(+)}=n+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\omega _n^{(+)}}{4},k_m^{()}=m+1\frac{\omega _m^{()}}{4},\omega _n^{(\pm )}=\frac{2\alpha _n^{(\pm )}}{\pi }(0,1).$$

After an elementary change of the notation with $`\omega _n^{(+)}=\omega _{2n}`$ and $`\omega _n^{()}=\omega _{2n+1}`$, we may finally combine the latter two rules in the single secular equation

$$\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\omega _N\right)=\frac{2N+2\omega _N}{4T}\sqrt{2\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\omega _N\right)}N=0,1,\mathrm{},$$
(11)
In a graphical interpretation this equation represents again an intersection of a tangens-like curve with the infinite family of parallel lines. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The equation generates, therefore, an infinite number of the real roots $`\omega _N(0,1)`$ at all the non-negative integers $`N=0,1,\mathrm{}`$.

## 5 Wave functions in the weak coupling regime

Equation (7) in combination with eqs. (9) and (10) determines the real parameter

$$G=G^{(\pm )}=\frac{k^2}{q\pm p}$$
(12)
responsible for the behaviour of the wave functions near the origin \[remember that $`B=iG/k`$ in eq. (5)\]. For its deeper analysis let us first introduce an auxiliary linear function of $`\omega `$ and $`N`$,

$$\sqrt{R(\omega _N,N)}=\frac{2N+2\omega _N}{4T}(\frac{N+1/2}{2T},\frac{N+1}{2T})$$

and re-interpret our secular eq. (11) as an algebraic quadratic equation with the unique positive solution,

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\omega _N\right)=\frac{1}{R(\omega _N,N)+\sqrt{R^2(\omega _N,N)+1}}.$$
(13)
This is an amended implicit definition of the sequence $`\omega _N`$. As long as the right hand side expression is very smooth and never exceeds one, the latter formula re-verifies that the root $`\omega _N`$ is always real and bounded as required.

In the domain of the large and almost constant $`R1`$ (i.e., for the small square-well height $`T`$ or at the higher excitations), our new secular equation (13) gives a better picture of our bound-state parameters $`\omega _N=1\eta _N`$ which all lie very close to one. The estimate

$$\frac{\pi }{2}\eta _N=\mathrm{arcsin}\frac{1}{R+\sqrt{R^2+1}}\frac{1}{2R}\frac{5}{48R^3}+\mathrm{}$$

represents also a quickly convergent iterative algorithm for the efficient numerical evaluation of the roots $`\omega _N`$. One can conclude that in a way compatible with our a priori expectations, the value of $`p=p_N=\mathrm{Re}\sigma q/2R`$ is very close to zero and, as a consequence, the asymptotic decrease of our wave functions remains slow. We have $`q=q_N=\mathrm{Im}\sigma k`$ so that, asymptotically, our wave functions very much resemble free waves $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$. In the light of eq. (12) we have also $`\psi (x)\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$ near the origin.

## 6 Wave functions in the strong coupling regime

For the models with a very small $`R`$ (i.e., for the low-lying excitations in a deep well with $`T1`$) we get an alternative estimate

$$\frac{\pi }{4}\omega _N=\mathrm{arcsin}\sqrt{\frac{1}{2}\left[R\left(\sqrt{1+R^2}1\right)\right]}\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{4}R^2+\mathrm{}\frac{\pi }{4}.$$

In the limit $`R0`$ the present spectrum of energies moves towards (and precisely coincides with) the well known levels of the infinitely deep Hermitian square well of the same width $`I=(\pi ,\pi )`$ (cf. eq. (1) with $`S\mathrm{}`$). In this sense, the “complex-rotation” transition from the Hermitian well $`V^{(SQW)}(x)`$ of eq. (1) (with $`S1`$) to its present non-Hermitian $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric alternative $`V^{(ISQW)}(x)`$ of eq. (2) (with $`T1`$) proves amazingly smooth.

The wave functions exhibit the similar tendency. In the outer region, they are proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(px)`$ and decay very quickly since $`p=𝒪(R^{1/2})`$. The parameter $`G^{(\pm )}`$ becomes strongly superscript-dependent,

$$G^{(+)}=\frac{k^2}{q+p}=𝒪(R^{3/2}),G^{()}=(q+p)=𝒪(R^{1/2}).$$

This means that in the interior domain of $`x(\pi ,\pi )`$, the wave functions with the superscript (+) and (-) become dominated by their spatially even and odd components $`\mathrm{cos}kx`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}kx`$, respectively. In this sense, the superscript mimics (or at least keeps the trace of) the quantum number of the slightly broken spatial parity $`𝒫`$.

We can summarize that our present $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric model is, unexpectedly, quite robust. Almost irrespectively of the coupling $`T`$, the spectrum is unbounded from above and remains constrained by the inequalities

$$\frac{(N+1/2)^2}{4}E_N\frac{(N+1)^2}{4}.$$
(14)
The analogy between our exactly solvable square-well model and the standard or “paradigmatic” $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric Hamiltonian $`H_{BZ}`$ appears to be closer than expected.

## 7 Outlook

The exact solvability of our present purely imaginary square well model throws a new light on some properties of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric wave functions which are hardly accessible by approximative techniques. In the nearest future, one can expect that the further detailed study of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric square wells will give new answers to the recent puzzles as formulated in ref.  and concerning the irregular behaviour of the nodal zeros in the complex plane. Our present example indicates that a surprising alternative to the Sturm Liouville oscillation theorem could, perhaps, emerge in connection with the study of zeros of the separate real and imaginary parts of the $`𝒫𝒯`$ symmetric wave functions.

## Acknowledgement

Inspiring communication with A. Mezincescu is gratefully appreciated. Partially supported by the GA AS grant Nr. A 104 8004.

## Figure captions

### Figure 1. Graphical solution of eq. (11) ($`y=\omega _N/2`$, $`T=1`$)