format: text

text:
# R-Modes in the ocean of a magnetic neutron star

## 1 Introduction

In a series of papers Bildsten et al. (1995, 1996) showed that neutron stars accreting at high accretion rates $`10^9`$ M yr-1 are covered with massive oceans with densities $`10^9`$ g cm-3. Both theoretical consideration of the nature of burning at these rates (Fushiki & Lamb, 1987; Bildsten, 1993, 1995) and observational features of type I X-ray bursts (van der Klis, 1995) reveal that the star burns the accreting hydrogen and helium to mid-weight elements like C, O, Ne, etc., and accumulates a massive ($`10^6`$ M) degenerate liquid ocean. Fusion of this fuel to iron-group elements does not occur until densities $`10^9`$ g cm-3. The neutron stars with lower accreting rates (the atoll sources) burn the accreted hydrogen and helium directly to iron-group elements via the type I X-ray bursts which are crystallized by the larger Coulomb force at much lower densities. Further, they conjectured that the waves in these oceans might modulate the outgoing X-ray flux at frequencies comparable to what is observed.

In this paper, motivated by Bildsten et al. conjecture we study the evolution of r-modes in the ocean of magnetic neutron stars. The r-modes those are analogous to the Rossby waves in the earth’s oceans, are driven by the Coriolis force in the rotating stars. Their motions are dominantly toroidal and their oscillation frequencies are proportional to the rotation rate of the star, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since even the small magnitude of Coriolis force drives r-modes in a rotating fluid, they should be considered in the dynamics of the fluid. We model the star’s ocean with a thin rotating shell of incompressible inviscid fluid at the radius $`R`$ which is sandwiched between two hard spheres. The role of spheres is to make sure that the fluid motion is restricted to a two-dimensional spherical surface.

The paper is organized as follow. In the next section, we set up the magnetohydrodynamics equations for a spherical thin shell in the background of a uniform magnetic field in which magnetic field symmetry axis is not aligned with shell’s spin axis. We find the magnetic coupling coefficients and then the corrected eigenfrequencies and eigenvectors for $`\mathrm{}=m`$ r-mode. In section 3 we consider the kinematical secular drift of r-modes, introduced by Rezzolla et al. (2000, 2001a, 2001b), in a magnetic ocean fluid. We show that as well as the magnetic field strength causes the drift magnitude to increase, the inclination of the magnetic field axis modulates the r-mode trajectories. The latter did not consider in the previous studies. Section 4 is devoted for further discussions.

## 2 R-modes in magnetic rotating shell

Historically, the study of oscillations of fluids in a rotating shell in the presence of a magnetic field has been started about fifty years ago by geophysicists. Pioneering works by Hide (1966) and Stewartson (1966), are concerned with Earth’s core magnetic modes that may be accounted to the observed secular changes in the main geomagnetic field at the Earth’s surface. It is well known that the Earth’s magnetic field at the surface drifts westward slowly, with the period of the order of one thousand years. They assumed an unrealistic magnetic field configuration characterized by a toroidal field of constant magnitude on the shell, and found the magnetic corrected toroidal motions might cause the field drift at the surface of the Earth.

In this paper we investigate the MHD perturbations of a uniformly rotating thin spherical shell of incompressible fluid of radius $`R`$, endowed with a uniform magnetic field (more realistic configuration) which is given by

$$𝐁=B_p(\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝒆_{\widehat{r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝒆_{\widehat{\theta }}),$$
(1)
on the shell. Since the shell is sandwiched between two spherical hard covers, the motion of the fluid is restricted to a two-dimensional spherical surface. Further, we assume the symmetry axis of the field makes an angle $`\beta `$ to the shell’s rotation axis. We work in an ideal MHD framework, so that the field lines are frozen into the fluid, and the magnetic field rotates at the same rate as the shell.

For an uniformly rotating shell of incompressible fluid with angular frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ around the $`z`$-axis, the fluid velocity perturbation field in the corotating frame is exactly determined by

$`\delta 𝐯=\alpha \dot{𝝃}_\mathrm{}m,`$ (2a)
$`𝝃_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi ,t)={\displaystyle \frac{U_\mathrm{}m(R)}{R}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{}}_\varphi Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )/\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝒆_{\widehat{\theta }}+_\theta Y_\mathrm{}m(\theta ,\varphi )𝒆_{\widehat{\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right)e^{i\omega _\mathrm{}mt},`$ (2b)
for any arbitrary function $`U_\mathrm{}m(R)`$ and with dispersion relation

$$\omega _\mathrm{}m=\frac{2m\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}.$$
(2c)
Here $`\alpha `$ is the amplitude of the mode. Equations (2a) is the exact solution of the fluid equations of motion in fully nonlinear regime, see Levin & Ushomirsky (2001) for more detail and references therein.

Recently, Morsink & Rezania (2002) (MR) have studied dynamics of a rotating star in the presence of a magnetic field in which its symmetric axis is not aligned to the star’s spin axis. For the $`\mathrm{}=m`$ r-modes of an incompressible rotating fluid in the background of uniform magnetic field they obtained a shift proportional to the ratio of the magnetic energy to the rotational energy of the star in the r-mode eigenfrequencies, only.

Following MR, we consider the magnetic force, produced by the fluid’s perturbations of the rotating shell, drives the motion of fluid elements. As they’ve shown, the eigenvalue equation for eigenfrequencies and eigenvectors of the normal modes of fluid in the presence of magnetic field will be corrected by

$$\omega _A\left(c_A\frac{}{2ϵ_A}\underset{D}{}\kappa _{AD}c_D\right)=\sigma _Ac_A,$$
(3)
where the $`c_A`$ and $`\sigma _A`$ are the magnetic corrected eigenvector and eigenfrequency in the rotating frame, respectively. Here $`ϵ_A`$ is the energy of the mode in the rotating frame. The magnetic coupling coefficients, $`\kappa _{AD}`$, can be calculated on the surface of sphere as

$`\kappa _{AD}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \delta 𝐁_A^{}\delta 𝐁_D𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }},`$ (4)
$`\delta 𝐁_A=\mathbf{}\times (𝝃_A\times 𝐁),`$ (4a)
where $`=B_p^2/4\pi `$ is the magnetic field energy density 111 Equation (1) leads $`\times 𝐁=0`$. As a result, the term containing $`𝐉`$ vanishes. The term containing $`𝝃\times 𝐁`$ does not vanish, but its contribution is smaller by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^2/c^2`$ for r-modes and we neglect it in equation 4.. Note that in the above calculations we expand any perturbation vectors in terms of the modes of rotating star, $`𝝃_A`$, as

$$𝝃=\underset{A}{}c_A𝝃_Ae^{i\sigma t}.$$
(5)
Here upper-case Latin subscripts are used to label solutions and corresponds to the unique set of quantum numbers which describe the solutions.

To calculate the magnetic coupling we use the method that is described by MR. They used the spin-weighted formalism in which: (a) the vectors are expressed in the orthonormal but complex basis $`\{𝒆_+,𝒆_{}\}`$ that is related to the usual orthonormal basis $`\{𝒆_\theta ,𝒆_\varphi \}`$ by

$$𝒆_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(𝒆_\theta \pm 𝒆_\varphi \right);$$
(6)
(b) all functions are expanded by spin-weighted spherical harmonics, $`{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}m}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )`$, that are defined by (Campbell, 1971)

$${}_{s}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}m}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )=\sqrt{\frac{(2\mathrm{}+1)}{4\pi }}d_{sm}^{\mathrm{}}(\theta )e^{im\varphi }$$
(7)
where the $`d_{sm}^{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$ are the matrix representations for rotations through an angle $`\theta `$ discussed in detail by Edmonds (1974). When $`s=0`$, the spin-weighted spherical harmonics reduce to the regular spherical harmonics. The orthogonality relations are

$$_{4\pi }{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}^{}m^{}}^{}{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}m}^{}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }=\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}.$$
(8)
We use the convention that $`{}_{\sigma }{}^{}Y_{\lambda \mu }^{}(\theta ,\varphi )=(1)_\sigma ^{\sigma +\mu }Y_{\lambda \mu }(\theta ,\varphi ).`$

A uniform magnetic field tilted by an angle $`\beta `$ from the shell’s spin axis can be written in spin-weight formalism as

$$𝐁(\theta ,\varphi )=\underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{\overline{m}=1}{}}\left(\frac{}{}b_0^{1,\overline{m}}(a)_0Y_{1\overline{m}}(\theta ,\varphi )𝒆_0+b_+^{1,\overline{m}}(a)_+Y_{1\overline{m}}(\theta ,\varphi )𝒆_{}+b_{}^{1,\overline{m}}(a)_{}Y_{1\overline{m}}(\theta ,\varphi )𝒆_+\frac{}{}\right)$$
(9)
where the functions $`b_s^{1,\overline{m}}(a)`$ are given by

$$b_\pm ^{1,\overline{m}}=b_0^{1,\overline{m}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{3}}d_{\overline{m}0}^1(\beta ),$$
(10)
and the $`d_{\overline{m}0}^1`$ are given by

$$d_{10}^1(\beta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\beta ,d_{00}^1(\beta )=\mathrm{cos}\beta ,d_{10}^1(\beta )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\beta .$$
(11)
To rewrite equations (2a) in spin-weighted formalism, at first we normalize $`𝝃`$ such that the energy density of the modes in the corotating system is $`ϵ_A=𝒯`$, where $`𝒯`$ is rotational kinetic energy density of the shell. Therefore the r-modes of non-magnetic incompressible thin shell have the form

$`\omega _{\mathrm{}_Am_A}={\displaystyle \frac{2m_A\mathrm{\Omega }}{\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)}}`$ (12a)
$`U_{\mathrm{}_Am_A}=R^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)}{4m_A^2}}}`$ (12b)
$`ϵ_{\mathrm{}_Am_A}=𝒯={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho R^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{}},`$ (12c)
The spin-weighted decomposition of the $`A`$th r-mode is

$$\xi _A(x)=f_+^A{}_{+}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}_Am_A}^{}𝒆_{}+f_{}^A{}_{}{}^{}Y_{\mathrm{}_Am_A}^{}𝒆_+,$$
(13)
where the functions $`f_s^A(r)`$ are given by (Schenk et al. (2001))

$$f_+^A=f_{}^A=\frac{R}{2\sqrt{2}}\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}_A+1)}{m_A}.$$
(14)
Different components of the perturbed magnetic field, $`\delta 𝐁_A`$, due to the r-modes in the thin shell, can be found in spin-weighted formalism as

$`\delta B_{A,s}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}\delta B_{A,s}^{\lambda ,\mu }{}_{s}{}^{}Y_{\lambda \mu }^{},`$ (15)
$`\delta B_{A,0}^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}C(\mathrm{}_A,1,\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \mu & m_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}b_0^{1,\overline{m}}f_+^A\left(1+\left(1\right)^{\lambda +\mathrm{}_A}\right),`$ (15a)
$`\delta B_{A,+}^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\lambda +\mathrm{}_A+1}\delta B_{A,}^{\lambda ,\mu }`$ (15b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}C(\mathrm{}_A,1,\lambda )\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \mu & m_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}b_0^{1,\overline{m}}f_+^A\times `$ (15c)
$`\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_A\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right)}{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{}_A1\right)\left(\mathrm{}_A+2\right)}{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda & \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ 1& 2& 1\end{array}\right)\right],`$
where $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& k& \lambda \\ s& t& \sigma \end{array}\right)`$ is a Wigner 3-j symbol (Edmonds, 1974) and the constant $`C(\mathrm{}_A,\overline{\mathrm{}},\lambda )`$ is defined by

$$C(\mathrm{}_A,\overline{\mathrm{}},\lambda )=(1)^{\mathrm{}_A+\lambda +\overline{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{\frac{(2\mathrm{}_A+1)(2\overline{\mathrm{}}+1)(2\lambda +1)}{4\pi }}.$$
(16)
In equation (15) $`\lambda `$ takes on values $`\mathrm{}_A,\mathrm{}_A\pm 1`$, although Eq. (15b) will survive only for $`\lambda =\mathrm{}_A`$. Since the spin-weighted spherical harmonics obey the orthogonality relation (8), integrals over all angles of quantities quadratic in $`\delta 𝐁`$ have the simple form

$`\kappa _{AD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \delta 𝐁_A^{}\delta 𝐁_D𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }}={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}\left(\delta B_{A,0}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta B_{D,0}^{\lambda ,\mu }+\delta B_{A,+}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta B_{D,+}^{\lambda ,\mu }+\delta B_{A,}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta B_{D,}^{\lambda ,\mu }\right),`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda ,\mu }{}}\left[\delta B_{A,0}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta B_{D,0}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta _{AD}+\delta B_{A,+}^{\lambda ,\mu }\delta B_{D,+}^{\lambda ,\mu }\left(1+(1)^{\mathrm{}_A+\mathrm{}_D}\right)\right],`$ (17a)
where $`\delta _{AD}`$ is the Kronecker delta function. The last step is due to the symmetry property (15b). It then follows that the magnetic coupling coefficients between r-modes is zero unless both modes have the same parity. Since the triangle inequalities $`\mathrm{}_A1\lambda \mathrm{}_A+1`$ and $`\mathrm{}_D1\lambda \mathrm{}_D+1`$ must be satisfied, only modes satisfying $`\mathrm{}_D=\mathrm{}_A,\mathrm{}_A\pm 2`$ have non-zero magnetic coupling. Evaluating the terms appearing in equations (15b) and (LABEL:deltab+) for $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A`$, the individual terms for the allowed values of $`\lambda `$ are

$`\delta B_{A,0}^{\mathrm{}_A,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\mathrm{}_A+1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{}_A+1\right)}{4}}}\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right){\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}d_{\overline{m}0}^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}_A& \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \left(\mathrm{}_A+\overline{m}\right)& \mathrm{}_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right),`$ (18c)
$`\delta B_{A,+}^{\mathrm{}_A,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\mathrm{}_A+1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(2\mathrm{}_A+1\right)\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right)}{8\mathrm{}_A}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}d_{\overline{m}0}^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}_A& \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \left(\mathrm{}_A+\overline{m}\right)& \mathrm{}_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right),`$ (18f)
$`\delta B_{A,+}^{\mathrm{}_A+1,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\mathrm{}_A+1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right)\left(\mathrm{}_A+2\right)}{8\mathrm{}_A}}}\mathrm{}_A^2{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}d_{\overline{m}0}^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}_A+1& \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \left(\mathrm{}_A+\overline{m}\right)& \mathrm{}_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right),`$ (18i)
$`\delta B_{A,+}^{\mathrm{}_A1,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\right)^{\mathrm{}_A+1}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\mathrm{}_A1\right)\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right)}{8\mathrm{}_A}}}\left(\mathrm{}_A+1\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{m}=1}{\overset{+1}{}}}d_{\overline{m}0}^1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}_A1& \mathrm{}_A& 1\\ \left(\mathrm{}_A+\overline{m}\right)& \mathrm{}_A& \overline{m}\end{array}\right).`$ (18l)
The magnetic coupling coefficients between different r-modes can now be computed. A straight-forward calculation yields the self-coupling term, $`\kappa _{AA}`$ as

$$\kappa _{AA}=\frac{\mathrm{}_A+1}{4(2\mathrm{}_A+3)}\left\{\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)(\mathrm{}_A+2)+3+\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)(2\mathrm{}_A^2+2\mathrm{}_A3)9\right]\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \right\}.$$
(19)
The off-diagonal term, $`\kappa _{A,A+2}`$ and $`\kappa _{A,A2}`$ will be

$`\kappa _{A,A+2}=\kappa _{A+2,A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+3)}{(2\mathrm{}_A+3)(2\mathrm{}_A+5)}}}\mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)(\mathrm{}_A+3)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta ,`$ (20a)
$`\kappa _{A,A2}=\kappa _{A2,A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}_A2)(\mathrm{}_A+1)}{(2\mathrm{}_A1)(2\mathrm{}_A+1)}}}(\mathrm{}_A2)(\mathrm{}_A1)(\mathrm{}_A+1)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta ,`$ (20b)
Therefore, the equation of motion for mode’s expansion coefficients of the magnetically modified $`A`$th r-modes reduces to

$$\sigma _Ac_A=\omega _A\left[\frac{}{2𝒯}|\kappa _{A,A2}|c_{A2}+\left(1+\frac{}{2𝒯}|\kappa _{AA}|\right)c_A+\frac{}{2𝒯}|\kappa _{A,A+2}|c_{A+2}\right].$$
(21)
The final equations (19)-(21) give the magnetically corrected eigenfrequencies $`\sigma _A`$ and eigenvectors $`c_A`$ for the r-modes. To compute these eigenfrequencies and eigenvectors one should solve the $`N`$ dimensional linear algebraic system (21), where $`N`$ is the number of the modes. Therefore, for a given $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, the $`N\times N`$ matrix should be diagonalized. Since it is not possible to solve an infinite dimensions system in practice, we truncate the infinite matrix to a finite matrix and large enough $`N`$. Further we note that for the lower inclination angles, the magnetic coupling coefficients $`|\kappa _{AD}|`$ increase by $`\mathrm{}_A^3`$, while for the larger inclination angles by $`\mathrm{}_A^4`$. Since we are working in the linear regime, we have to keep $`(/2𝒯)|\kappa _{AA}|<1`$. The ratio of magnetic energy density to rotational energy density in the covered ocean at the surface of star is

$$\frac{}{2𝒯}=8\times 10^3\left(\frac{B}{10^{13}\mathrm{G}}\right)^2\left(\frac{10^9\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3}{\rho }\right)\left(\frac{10\mathrm{km}}{R}\right)^2\left(\frac{10^3\mathrm{Hz}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)^2,$$
(22)
where $`\rho `$ is the ocean’s density. In tables 1 and 2 we present the eigenfrequencies of $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=1,2,\mathrm{},6`$ r-modes. In table 1 we assume the inclination angle between field axis and shell’s spin axis is zero, $`\beta =0`$, and calculate the eigenfrequencies $`\sigma _A`$ for different ratio of the magnetic energy density to the rotational energy density, $`/2𝒯`$, by increasing the magnetic field strength, see equation (22). In table 2 we compute the eigenfrequencies by increasing the inclination angle for a specific energy ratio $`/2𝒯=10^2`$. As a result, the eigenfrequency of the mode increases by increasing both magnetic field energy density and inclination angle.

In the next section we consider the kinematical secular effects of r-modes in the oceanic fluid.

## 3 The r-mode drift by the magnetic field

In a series of papers Rezzolla et al. (2000, 2001a, 2001b) showed the existence of kinematical secular velocity field of r-mode oscillations which interacts with the background magnetic field of the star. Although, this interaction is non-linear and should be considered in non-linear regime, one can find some second-order quantities from linear result (Rezzolla et al., 2000). As an example, the second-order secular toroidal drift which appear on isobaric surfaces, can be obtained through the linear velocity field.

To investigate this secular effect in the fluid motion undergoing the magnetic corrected r-mode oscillations in the ocean fluid, we consider the real part of the magnetic corrected fluid velocity of $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A`$ r-mode, equations (2a),

$`\dot{\theta }(t)={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\alpha Q(\mathrm{}_A)c_A\widehat{\sigma }_A(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{\mathrm{}_A1}\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}_A\varphi 2\pi \widehat{\sigma }_At),`$ (23a)
$`\dot{\varphi }(t)={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}\alpha Q(\mathrm{}_A)c_A\widehat{\sigma }_A\mathrm{cos}\theta (\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{\mathrm{}_A2}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{}_A\varphi 2\pi \widehat{\sigma }_At),`$ (23b)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }_A=\sigma _A/\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and

$$Q(\mathrm{}_A)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^\mathrm{}_A\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_A!}\sqrt{\pi \mathrm{}_A(\mathrm{}_A+1)(2\mathrm{}_A+1)!/4}.$$
(23c)
In equations (23a) $`\sigma _A`$ and $`c_A`$ are the magnetic corrected eigenfrequency and eigenvector, respectively, and the time, $`t`$, is in unit of the star’s period, $`P`$.

In figures 1 to 3 we plotted the result of numerical integration of equations (23a) in the shell’s northern hemisphere for the magnetic corrected $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode with amplitude $`\alpha =0.1`$. Note, we assumed that at $`t=0`$ the only $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode is present in the fluid and all calculations are done in the corotating frame.

In the case of zero inclination angle, $`\beta =0`$, our results for all mode’s latitudes are in good agreement to those results which have been reported by Rezzolla et al. (2000, 2001a). In figure 1 we plotted $`\theta (t)`$ vs $`\varphi (t)`$ from $`t=0`$ to $`t=7.45P`$ (almost 5 cycles of the mode), with initial values $`\varphi (0)=0,\theta (0)=\pi /2`$, $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$, zero inclination angle $`\beta =0`$, and two different values of $`/2𝒯=0`$ and $`10^1`$. The aligned field causes the drift in $`\varphi `$-direction (produced by the r-mode) to increase. The corrected expression for the drift velocity of a given fluid element in the background of the uniform magnetic field will be 222 Following Rezzolla et al. (2000, 2001a) equation (24) is obtained by expanding equations (23a) in powers of $`\alpha `$, averaging over a gyration, and retaining only the lowest-order nonvanishing term.

$`𝐯_\mathrm{d}={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}K_A(\theta )\alpha (t)\sigma _A(t)𝒆_\varphi ,`$ (24)
$`K_A(\theta )=Q^2(\mathrm{}_A)c_A^2(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{2\mathrm{}_A4}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 2(\mathrm{}_A1)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{}{}}\right].`$ (24a)
As a result, because of nonzero inclination angle, the drift velocity of a fluid element undergoing the $`\mathrm{}_A`$ r-mode oscillation is affected by all $`\mathrm{}_A\pm 2`$ r-mode oscillations. Equation (24) reduces to one obtained by Rezzolla et al. (2000, 2001a), for the non-magnetic $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode, ie. $`𝐯_\mathrm{d}=K_2(\theta )\alpha (t)\omega _2(t)𝒆_\varphi `$. Therefore, the total displacement in $`\varphi `$ from the onset of the oscillation at $`t_0`$ to time $`t`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi (\theta ,t)=\underset{A}{}K_A(\theta )_{t_0}^t\alpha ^2(t^{})\sigma _A(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(25)
The change in $`\varphi `$ due to the magnetic field is given in tables 3 and 4. As a result, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{mag}}\varphi _{\mathrm{nonmag}}`$ increases by increasing the magnetic energy density. Further the high-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ magnetic r-modes are drifted more than the low-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ ones.

As shown in figures 2 and 3, the r-mode trajectories in both $`\theta `$\- and $`\varphi `$-directions are strongly modulated by the inclined magnetic field. In figure 2 from left to right, we plotted time evolution of r-mode displacements in $`\theta `$-direction, in $`\varphi `$-direction, and the projected ($`\theta ,\varphi `$) r-mode trajectory, respectively. All panels correspond to $`/2𝒯=10^2`$ and are plotted with initial conditions $`\varphi (0)=0,\theta (0)=\pi /2`$. The inclination angle is $`\beta =0`$ for the top, $`\beta =\pi /6`$ for the middle, and $`\beta =\pi /2`$ for the bottom panels. The larger the field’s angle the stronger the modulation. First and second columns of figure 2 show how $`\theta `$\- and $`\varphi `$\- displacements of the initial $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode are affected by the inclined field, respectively. In the third column we show the motion of fluid element in the northern hemisphere of the shell undergoing the $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode oscillations. The projected trajectories $`\theta (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)\mathrm{sin}\theta (t)\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)`$ show how the inclined magnetic field change the motions which will be detected by a corotating observer in the rotation equator of the shell.

It is interesting to note that the results show the modulations are more sensitive to the field inclination angle rather than the magnetic field strength. This can be understood from equations (23a). A non-diagonal matrix of the corrected eigenvectors $`c_A`$ causes modulations in both $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ trajectories. For any non-zero value of $`/2𝒯0`$, no matter how small, and $`\beta 0`$ the eigenvectors matrix is not diagonal. Furthermore, the magnitude of the corrected eigenvector $`c_A`$ changes significantly by varying $`\beta `$, while it is almost constant for different (and non-zero) values of $`/2𝒯`$. This fact is shown in figure 4. In the left panel, we plotted the element $`c_2(2,2)`$ as a function of $`\beta `$ for a fixed value of $`/2𝒯10^{10}`$. As is shown, by increasing $`\beta `$ the value of $`c_2(2,2)`$ drops by $`.02`$. While, the change in the element $`c_2(2,2)`$ due to the $`/2𝒯`$ for a fixed value $`\beta =\pi /2`$ is $`10^8`$, which is shown in the right panel of figure 4. Therefore, no matter how the value of the energy ratio small, the fluid motions are strongly modulated by a magnetic field making a large inclination angle to the star’s symmetry axis.

Furthermore, the larger the fluid element’s latitude, the stronger the modulation. This feature is shown in figure 3 which is plotted by different initial conditions $`\varphi (0)=0,\theta (0)=\pi /6`$ for both $`\beta =0`$ (the top panels) and $`\beta =\pi /2`$ (the bottom panels). Comparing both bottom panels in figures 2 and 3 reveals that the magnetic field (having the same energy density and inclination angle) has less effect on the lower latitude modes.

Finally we note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ also increases by increasing the inclination angle, see the third column of figures 2 and 3. Therefore, the motion of a fluid element of the shell undergoing the magnetic r-mode oscillation is drifted more than nonmagnetic r-mode oscillation both by field energy density and field inclination angle. These properties can be understood by considering both $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ and $`𝐯_d`$ are proportional to the corrected eigenfrequency and eigenvector, see equations (24) and (25). The corrected eigenvector changes by changing inclination angle while the corrected eigenfrequency increases by increasing field energy density.

The toroidal fluid motions produced by r-mode are perpendicular to the magnetic field. They distort the field and increase the field energy density. As shown by Rezzolla et al. (2000) if the energy that it needs to distort the magnetic field required by the mode is greater than the mode energy during an r-mode oscillation, the distortion of the magnetic field which is proportional to the $`𝐯_d`$, will prevent the oscillation from occurring. To make an estimate at which field strength the distortion effect might get to be important we calculate the ratio of the change in the magnetic energy density of the shell, $`\delta E_m=(\delta B^2/4\pi )𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }`$, to the mode energy density during one oscillation as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta E_m}{ϵ_A}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{2𝒯}}|\kappa _{AA}|,`$ (26)
$``$ $`10\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{10^{15}\mathrm{G}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^9\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3}{\rho }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{km}}{R}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{10^3\mathrm{Hz}}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)^2\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}_A^3\mathrm{for}\mathrm{small}\beta \hfill \\ \mathrm{}_A^4\mathrm{for}\mathrm{large}\beta \hfill \end{array}.`$ (26a)
Thus $`\delta E_m>ϵ_A`$ if $`B>B_{\mathrm{critical}}3\times 10^{14}\rho _9^{1/2}R_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_3\mathrm{}_A^\eta `$, where $`\eta =3/2`$ and $`\eta =2`$ for small and large inclination angles, respectively. Here $`\rho _9=\rho /10^9`$ g cm-3, $`R_{10}=R/10`$ km, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\mathrm{\Omega }/10^3`$ s-1. Hence the smaller field strength would prevent the high-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ r-mode oscillations. Further, equation (26) shows that for the higher field inclination angle the distortion effect will be stronger.

In addition the increase in the energy of the magnetic field produced by the r-mode drift reduces the mode energy and causes damping. The rate that the magnetic field extracts energy density from the mode can be estimated by

$$(1/4\pi )B_\varphi (dB_\varphi /dt)𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{A}{}K_A(\theta )\alpha ^2\sigma _AB_pB_\varphi .$$
(27)
The azimuthal field $`B_\varphi `$ is generated by r-mode drift velocity $`𝐯_d`$ from the background poloidal field. The change in $`B_\varphi `$ can be calculated approximately for the magnetic r-modes from the time $`t_0`$ that the oscillation begins to time $`t`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_\varphi (t)_A_{t_0}^tK_A(\theta )\alpha ^2(t)\sigma _A(t)B_p𝑑t`$ (Rezzolla et al., 2000). Equation (27) shows that the energy loss from the mode increases when either the field energy density or the inclination angle is increased. Furthermore, since the high-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ magnetic r-modes are drifted more than the low-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ ones, they will damp faster than the low-$`\mathrm{}_A`$ modes.

## 4 Discussion

In this paper, by assuming neutron stars in the low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) are covered by degenerate massive oceans, we have studied the interaction of the inclined magnetic field with r-mode oscillations of an incompressible ocean fluid in a thin shell approximation. Our analysis shows that in the case of large inclination angle, even for weak magnetic field energy density in comparison with the star’s rotational energy density, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\pm 2`$ r-modes are coupled significantly.

The kinematical secular drift produced by the r-mode, is studied in the background of the inclined magnetic field. The results show that the magnetic field tends to increase the fluid drift in the $`\varphi `$-direction. As a result, for the same time period, the fluids in the presence of the magnetic field undergo larger drift than fluids with no background magnetic field.

Since the magnetic field is distorted by the r-mode, we showed that the field distortion by the high-$`\mathrm{}`$ magnetic r-mode is stronger than the low-$`\mathrm{}`$ modes. Thus a smaller critical field is needed to prevent the high-$`\mathrm{}`$ r-mode oscillation from occurring. Further, the shear produced by the drift velocity of the magnetic r-mode will damp high-$`\mathrm{}`$ modes faster than the low-$`\mathrm{}`$ ones. Note that in the present paper, we assume the r-mode is stable, so we do not deal with its unstable growth in the magnetic star as has been considered by Rezzolla et al. (2000).

Observational and phenomenological studies of more than twenty LMXBs reveal that these accreting neutron stars are source of millisecond oscillations, burst oscillations, and quasi-periodic oscillations in Hz-kHz range. Different authors proposed different possible mechanisms to explain the observations in LMXBs, but the regularity of these oscillations in many sources led the investigators to consider radial or nonradial oscillations in a coronal accretion flow near the Eddington limit, see the review by van der Klis (2000). By assuming neutron stars in LMXBs covered by an ocean fluid Bildsten et al. (1995, 1996) showed that both low and high radial orders of ocean g-modes might be responsible for observed low frequency ($``$ Hz) oscillations in these stars. Recently Heyl (2001) discussed different possible oscillations (the g-modes, the Kelvin modes, and the buoyant r-modes) that may excite in the neutron star ocean during a Type-I burst, and concluded that the buoyant r-modes may meet the observations of low frequency oscillations in Type-I X-ray bursts quite well.

Figures 2 and 3 show how the inclined magnetic field modulates $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-modes. The associated envelope frequency, $`f_{\mathrm{envelope}}`$, decreases as $`f_{\mathrm{envelope}}\nu _s/10\nu _s/16`$ when the inclination angle increases from $`\beta \pi /6\pi /2`$. Here $`\nu _s=\mathrm{\Omega }/2\pi `$ is the star’s spin frequency . The frequencies of these new modes are comparable to those observed oscillations in the LMXBs in low frequencies. For the star’s spin frequency $`\nu _s300`$ Hz, the wave envelope frequency is $`f_{\mathrm{envelope}}2030`$ Hz. Different frequencies may be obtained by different initial $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A`$ r-modes. Further, the amplitude of the modulated oscillations increases by increasing the inclination angle and/or mode’s altitude.

Finally we note that during the evolution of the r-mode instability, one would expect the growth of the amplitude of the new modes. This feature can be understood from equations (23a) which show that both $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ trajectories of the r-mode are proportional to the mode’s amplitude, $`\alpha `$. Further, changes in the star’s spin frequency in this period, lead to change in the frequency of modulated modes as well. In figure 5 we plotted time evolution of $`\theta (t)`$-displacement of the $`\mathrm{}_A=m_A=2`$ r-mode, from $`t=0`$ to $`t=100P`$, for different initial mode’s amplitudes $`\alpha =0.1,0.5`$ (the top panels) and $`\alpha =0.8,0.9`$ (the bottom panels). All panels corresponds to $`/2𝒯=10^2`$, $`\beta =\pi /2`$ and are plotted with initial conditions $`\varphi (0)=0`$ and $`\theta (0)=\pi /2`$. By increasing $`\alpha `$ both amplitude and period of the modulated oscillations increase. Further, for $`\alpha `$ close to the saturation limit, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{sat}}=1.0`$, the behavior of the modulated oscillations changes drastically. Therefore, to analyze the problem carefully, one needs to solve both the nonlinear equations (23a) and the equations governing the r-mode evolution together. This is currently under investigation (Rezania, 2002).

Though there is still no firm observational evidence for the low magnetic field strength in the LMXBs, these objects are believed to be neutron stars with weak magnetic fields ($`B10^9`$ G), high accretion rates ($`\dot{M}10^9`$ M yr-1), and milliseconds periods (van der Klis, 2000). Our calculations show the existence of an inclined (even weak) magnetic field modulates the normal modes of an ocean fluid to a new mode with frequency $`f_{\mathrm{envelope}}`$. Therefore, by observing normal modes in the neutron star’s ocean, one would expect to observe these new modes.

The author is grateful to S. M. Morsink, S. Sengupta and L. Rezzeolla for reading the manuscript and numerous discussions. I would like to thank referee for his useful comments. This research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# Screened Vortex Lattice Model with Disorder

## Abstract

The three dimensional $`XY`$ model with quenched random disorder and finite screening is studied. We argue that the system scales to model with $`\lambda 0T`$ and the resulting effective model is studied numerically by defect energy scaling. In zero external field we find that there exists a true superconducting phase with a stiffness exponent $`\theta +1.0`$ for weak disorder. For low magnetic field and weak disorder, there is also a superconducting phase with $`\theta +1.0`$ which we conjecture is a Bragg glass. For larger disorder or applied field, there is a non superconducting phase with $`\theta 1.0`$. We estimate the critical external field whose value is consistent with experiment.

The phase diagram of type II superconductors in an external field has been the subject of intense theoretical and experimental investigation Blatter:94;Natterman:00 . After the discovery of high-$`T_c`$ materials, the role of both thermal and disorder induced fluctuations has been reconsidered, revealing many new interesting phenomena. In clean systems, it was realized Nelson:88;Houghton:89  that, with increasing temperature, the Abrikosov lattice melts into a vortex liquid via a thermally induced first-order transition. Experiments performed on thermodynamic quantities such as magnetization Zeldov:95  and specific heat Schilling:96  confirmed the first order nature of the melting transition in YBCO and BSSCO materials. More recent studies of the clean unscreened system in an external field nguyen:99;hove:99  have shown that the low temperature vortex lattice melts at $`T=T_M`$ to a liquid of rigid flux lines and at $`T_LT_M`$ the lines become entangled and vortex loops proliferate. Very recently, there have been studies nono:01 ; olsson:01 ; vestergren:02  of a random $`3D`$ $`XY`$ model wthout screening. These claim to study the glass transition in a superconductor but do not have the vital screening and obtain results which are inconsistent with each other so their relevance to real systems is unclear.
In this Letter, we study the stability of superconductivity in the presence of point disorder and an applied magnetic field by computing numerically the stiffness exponent $`\theta `$. We argue that the effective screening length $`\lambda `$ and temperature $`T`$ scale to zero at very long length scales so that a model with $`\lambda 0T`$, which is amenable to simulation, is a physically reasonable model of a disordered superconductor at low $`T`$. Using this effective model, we can identify the field and disorder driven transition Cubitt:93;Klein:01  from a superconducting to non-superconducting phase as the field or disorder is increased and conjecture that the former is a Bragg glass Giamarchi:94;Giamarchi:95 . The nature of the large disorder phase is still controversial: a viscous non-superconducting pinned vortex liquid Giamarchi:97  or a superconducting vortex glass Fisher:89;Fisher:91 .
The ingredients necessary to describe a typical high-$`T_c`$ superconductor in a field are (i) pinning of flux or vortex lines and loops by random point impurities and (ii) weak screening of the interactions between vortices. We argue that a model containing these essential ingredients is a three dimensional $`XY`$ model on a simple cubic lattice with quenched random phase shifts. In the vortex representation, the Hamiltonian is Villain:75 ; Jose:77 ; Vallat:94

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j}{}G(i,j)(𝑱_i𝒃_i)\mathbf{}(𝑱_j𝒃_j)$$
(1)
We may ignore boundary terms which, at least in the best twist approach, vanish by a proper choice of global twists Kosterlitz:98 . The dynamical variables are the integer valued vorticities $`𝑱_i`$ on the links of the dual lattice and subject to the local constraint $`(𝑱)_i=0`$ at every site $`i`$. The $`𝒃_i`$ are quenched random fluxes on the dual lattice which are obtained from the circulation of the quenched vector potential $`𝑨`$ and by adding a uniform external field $`h`$ in the $`\widehat{𝒛}`$ direction

$$𝒃_i=\frac{1}{2\pi }[\times 𝑨]_i+h\widehat{𝒛}$$
(2)
Here $`hBa_0^2/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the mean flux per elementary plaquette normal to the applied field $`B\widehat{𝐳}`$, $`a_0`$ is the underlying lattice spacing and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\times 10^7`$ Gauss$``$cm2 is the flux quantum. The vector potential $`A_{\mu i}`$ with $`\mu =x,y,z`$ is independently uniformly distributed $`A_{\mu i}[0,2\pi \alpha )`$ with $`0\alpha 1`$ and is defined on the bonds of the original lattice. The disorder strength $`\alpha `$ interpolates between two well known limits, the clean system, $`\alpha =0`$, and the maximally disordered, $`\alpha =1`$, gauge glass. By construction, the fields $`𝒃_i`$ satisfy the divergenceless condition $`(𝒃)_i=0`$ on every site. $`G(i,j)`$ is the screened lattice Green’s function with dimensionless screening length $`\lambda `$ in units of $`a_0`$

$$G(i,j)=\frac{(2\pi )^2}{L^3}\underset{𝐤}{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}[i𝒌(𝒓_i𝒓_j)]}{2_\mu (1\mathrm{cos}k_\mu )+\lambda ^2}$$
(3)
where $`𝒓_i=(x_i,y_i,z_i)`$ is the $`i`$-th site on the dual lattice and $`k_\mu =2\pi n_\mu /L`$, with $`\mu =x,y,z`$ and $`n_\mu =(1,\mathrm{},L)`$. The vortex system defined by Eqs. (1), (2) and (3) is a vortex lattice of spacing $`h^{1/2}`$ for $`\alpha =0`$ in the absence of disorder. Turning on disorder distorts the lattice and pins it at a favorable position in the underlying substrate lattice, as is clear from Eq. (1), but does not destroy the underlying periodicity of the vortex structure Giamarchi:94;Giamarchi:95 . Real cuprate superconductors are very anisotropic with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\lambda _z/\lambda _{x,y}5`$ for YBCO and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }100`$ for BSSCO Blatter:94;Natterman:00  where we have chosen the $`\widehat{𝒛}`$ direction as the $`c`$ axis and $`\widehat{𝒙}\mathbf{,}\widehat{𝒚}`$ directions as the $`a,b`$ axes. We note that when $`\lambda _\mu 1`$, the vortex-vortex interactions become isotropic nsh96  and, in this limit, our isotropic model is realistic.
The final and most important part of our argument is to justify the validity of the strong screening limit for an extreme type II superconductor where the bare screening length $`\mathrm{}>\lambda 1`$ is large but finite. ¿From Eq. (3), it is clear that $`\lambda `$ scales like a length so that scaling $`a_0e^la_0`$ induces the scaling $`\lambda e^l\lambda `$. Thus, at long length scales which are relevant to the weakly disordered system of interest, the effective screening length $`\lambda 1`$. In this strong screening limit, $`G(i,j)=(2\pi \lambda )^2\delta _{ij}+𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ which yields

$$\frac{H}{(2\pi \lambda )^2}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}(𝑱_i𝒃_i)^2+𝒪(\lambda ^2)$$
(4)
This local form of Eq. (4) on a cubic lattice can be regarded as a model for the long length scale properties of a disordered superconductor and can be studied numerically by very efficient combinatorial optimization algorithms Ahuja:93 ; Rieger:98  on large systems. Any nonlocal terms such as vortex - vortex interactions or boundary terms Bokil:95 ; Kosterlitz:98  in Eq. (1) render such algorithms useless. Of course, screening is weak, $`\lambda 1`$, in a real type II superconductor and one may question the relevance of a system described by Eq. (4). Since our interest is in the superconductivity and in the vortex lattice structure as a secondary effect, we argue that Eq. (4) is an adequate description of a superconductor in an external field with any finite screening. Numerical simulations Kosterlitz:98 ; Bokil:95 ; Wenegel:96  of Eq. (1) indicate that the exponent $`\theta `$ has the same value for any $`\lambda <\mathrm{}`$. We find this slightly surprising as decreasing $`\lambda `$ transforms a type II into a type I superconductor and the independence of $`\theta `$ on $`\lambda `$ seems to imply that these do not differ in any essential way at small $`T`$. Additional justification for the relevance of the model of Eq. (4) at $`T=0`$ is that $`T`$ is an irrelevant variable Giamarchi:94;Giamarchi:95  scaling to zero in the superconducting region. This gives some justification for the computationally accessible model of Eq. (4) and for our scaling arguments.
To investigate whether a transition occurs, we use defect energy scaling. In this approach, one computes the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)`$ of a defect in a system of linear size $`L`$ and fits to the scaling ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)L^\theta $$
(5)
where $`\theta `$ is the stiffness exponent and $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes an average over disorder. The sign of $`\theta `$ distinguishes two regimes: if $`\theta >0`$, inserting a defect costs an infinite energy in the thermodynamic limit and the system will be ordered at sufficiently small finite $`T`$. Conversely, if $`\theta <0`$, large domains cost little energy and, at any $`T>0`$, superconductivity will be destroyed. To calculate the defect energy we employ the method proposed by Kisker and Rieger Kisker:98 , who restated the problem of finding the ground state for Hamiltonian (4) in terms of a minimum-cost-flow problem Rieger:98 ,where the cost functions are precisely given by $`c_i(𝑱_i)=(𝑱_i𝒃_i)^2/2`$. This method makes use of the successive shortest path algorithm (SSPA) Ahuja:93  to find the ground state configuration $`\{𝑱^0\}`$ for each realization of disorder. The global flux $`𝒇`$ associated with this configuration is given by

$$𝒇=\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}𝑱_i^0$$
(6)
The elementary low energy excitation configuration $`\{𝑱^1\}`$ is obtained by gradually decreasing all costs in, say, the $`z`$ direction until the global flux $`f_z`$ jumps by one, $`f_zf_z+1`$. The lowest energy excitation will be a global vortex loop encircling the $`3D`$ torus in the $`z`$ direction. The defect energy is then obtained by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E(\text{{}𝑱^1\})E(\text{{}𝑱^0\})`$. A more conventional way of determining the defect energy is to calculate the energy difference between periodic and antiperiodic boundary conditions, which amounts to adding a global twist of $`\pi `$ along one spatial direction Kosterlitz:98 . In our case we can ignore the boundary terms because the global loop corresponds to a twist of $`2\pi `$, which has no effect as the original Hamiltonian is invariant under a discrete gauge transformation modulo $`2\pi `$. Remarkably large system sizes can be treated by applying the SSPA, while conventional methods such as repeated quenching or simulated annealing are much less efficient. In this work we study $`L\times L\times L`$ systems with $`L40`$ for different values of $`\alpha `$ in the range $`0\alpha 1`$ and magnetic field in the range $`0h0.25`$. The number of realizations of the random bonds varies from $`500`$ for $`40^3`$ systems up to $`10^4`$ for the smallest ones. There is no upper limit on $`L`$.

The zero field case has been studied in detail Pfeiffer:01  and we repeated the simulation to check our algorithm. The results are summarized in Fig. (1) for several values of $`\alpha `$ and they are essentially identical to those of Ref. Pfeiffer:01 . For weak disorder, $`\alpha <\alpha _c0.495`$, we obtain $`\theta +1.0`$ indicating a superconducting phase for $`T>0`$. For strong disorder, $`\alpha >\alpha _c`$, the stiffness exponent $`\theta 1.0`$ indicating a non superconducting phase for $`T>0`$.
In an applied field type II superconductors have a fixed density of vortex lines which, with weak disorder, form a distorted Abrikosov lattice or Bragg glass Giamarchi:94;Giamarchi:95  at small $`T`$. Increasing the field effectively increases the disorder and the Bragg glass phase transforms into an entangled array of vortex lines with no remnant of translational order. The model of Eq. (1) contains the standard description of a vortex lattice as an elastic periodic solid in a random pinning potential when $`\lambda >0`$. The essential superconducting properties seem to be unchanged as $`\lambda 0`$ but the interaction of the flux lines determining the periodic lattice structure vanishes when $`\lambda =0`$. Our strategy is to impose the required periodic vortex lattice structure by imposing a periodic array of columns of bonds along $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ which favor flux lines on these columns. We make the plausible conjecture that this procedure retains the essential physics of a disordered superconductor at $`T0`$ and it is the only system which can be simulated with large size $`L`$. To compute the defect energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)`$ it is essential to impose periodic boundary conditions in all directions and imposing a fixed number of flux lines by the source/target method Rieger:98  is not applicable.

We implement the periodic lattice potential by first adding a uniform $`h=Ba_0^2/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ to all $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ bonds. To ensure that the vortex density does correspond to this $`h`$, we introduce a potential $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the bonds of the expected vortex lattice by $`hh+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (4). The costs of the flux lines are decreased by increasing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ until the matching is satisfied with one flux line per favorable bond. We thus obtain a ground state of energy $`E_0(L)`$ with the required number $`N=hL^2`$ of flux lines. The defect energy $`E_D(L)`$ is obtained in the standard way Pfeiffer:99 ; Kisker:98  by reducing costs until an extra flux loop is induced. This is the simplest way of introducing the essential periodic part of the random pinning potential on the flux lines Giamarchi:94;Giamarchi:95 . It is interesting to note that our model is essentially that of many elastic lines in a periodic potential Knetter:01  so the transition at $`\alpha _c(h)`$ is a transition from a superconducting state to a state which is both rough and entangled. This is in contrast to a superconductor in a field with no disorder where the vortex lattice first loses translational order and becomes a liquid of rigid lines and these lines become entangled at larger field or temperature nguyen:99;hove:99 .
In Fig. (2) we show the behavior of the defect energy with system size $`L`$ for a fixed value of external field $`h=1/4`$ for different disorder strengths $`\alpha `$. It is more convenient to fix the field and vary $`\alpha `$because the period of the vortex lattice must be commensurate with the system size $`L`$ which allows only restricted values of $`h=NL^2`$ with $`N,L`$ integers. At small disorder, $`\alpha <0.40`$, we observe a positive stiffness exponent, which asymptotically tends to $`\theta =1`$. Increasing the disorder, $`\alpha >0.40`$, we find that the defect energy decreases with $`L`$ and for large $`L`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)L^1`$. There is a critical value $`\alpha _c(h=0.25)0.40`$ separating an ordered from a disordered phase. Fig. (3) shows typical ground state configurations of the system. Below the critical disorder, Fig. (3) left, the lowest energy configuration forms an almost perfect vortex lattice, while above the critical disorder, Fig. (3) right, the lines are rough and entangled Knetter:01 , as expected for a phase with proliferation of dislocations. A similar analysis for different values of $`h`$ shows that $`\alpha _c(h)`$ decreases monotonically as $`h`$ increases as shown in Fig. (4). We estimate the critical value of the external field as $`h_c=𝒪(1)`$ where $`hBa_0^2/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the mean flux per plaquette. Here $`B`$ is the actual field, $`a_0`$ is the lattice spacing and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2\times 10^7`$ Gauss$``$cm2 is the flux quantum. In the strong screening limit, $`a_0\lambda `$, whose typical value in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors is $`\lambda 10^5`$ cm. This yields an estimate for the critical field $`B_c10^3`$ Gauss. This is to be compared with the typical experimental value of $`B_c500`$ Gauss in BSSCO Cubitt:93;Klein:01 . However, this should also hold for YBCO which has a comparable $`\lambda `$ at $`T=0`$ Blatter:94;Natterman:00  and our estimate of $`B_c`$ depends on $`\lambda `$ only. This seems to disagree with experimental estimates of $`B_c10^4`$ Gauss Nishizaki:00  but the measurements are for $`T>50^oK`$.
In this Letter we have studied the strongly screened vortex glass in the presence of disorder and, for the first time, have successfully implemented a defect energy scaling study of the stability of superconductivity as indicated by the stiffness exponent $`\theta `$ in an external field using periodic boundary conditions. It would be interesting to apply this method to probe directly the behavior of the model allowing for dislocations in the vortex lattice by applying appropriate boundary conditions middle . It would also be interesting to treat a more realistic model with finite screening and to show more convincingly that the $`T=\lambda =0`$ limit studied in this Letter is the stable renormalization group fixed point of a disordered superconductor at low temperature.

We thank H. Rieger and F. O. Pfeiffer for comments and suggestions and P. Mazzanti for computational assistance. Computations were performed using the Condor system of Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare. C.G. was supported by “Fondazione A. Della Riccia”.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Crossover behavior — the interpolation between qualitatively different effective degrees of freedom of a system as a function of scale — is both ubiquitous and extremely important. Calculation of scaling functions associated with crossover behavior is, generally speaking, much more difficult than the calculation of more standard universal quantities, such as critical exponents, the latter being calculable in an approximation scheme suitable for the asymptotic region around one critical point.

An important, non-trivial and experimentally accessible example is seen in the context of confined systems and their analysis via finite size scaling. As far as the fluctuations in a system are concerned there is, in principle, a very marked difference between an “environment” consisting of infinite three dimensional space and a three dimensional box of “size” $`L`$. A general formalism for studying such crossover systems using renormalization group (RG) methods is that of “environmentally friendly” renormalization . To access the sensitivity to environment implicit in such a system it is necessary to implement a renormalization programme which is explicitly dependent on the relevant environmental parameters, such as finite size $`L`$. By so doing one can access several fixed points of one globally defined RG, and what is more, one may achieve this perturbatively using one uniform approximation scheme.

The main gist of the approach is based on the simple intuition that, viewed as a coarse graining procedure, a “good” coarse graining will be one that when effected to a length scale comparable to any length scale set by the environment will reflect the influence of the latter by changing continuously as a function of scale the type of effective degree of freedom being coarse grained. However, and this is a point to be emphasized, although the intuition is grounded in a coarse graining procedure the actual mechanics are totally different to that of a Kadanoff/Wilson type coarse graining. Instead the formalism is based on the notion of a RG as describing the invariance under reparametrization of a system, an idea which goes back to the original formulation of the field theoretic RG back in the ’50’s. Just as there are good and bad coarse grainings so there are good and bad reparametrizations. An “environmentally friendly” reparametrization is one that tracks the qualitatively changing nature of the effective degrees of freedom of a crossover system. As has been emphasized previously a necessary condition for an enviromentally friendly RG to satisfy is that the number of fixed points of the RG, defined globally on the space of parameters, be diffeomorphic to the number of points of scale invariance of the system. Unfortunately, favourite forms of field theoretic renormalization, such as minimal subtraction, manifestly do not satisfy this criterion and therefore are of only limited use in describing crossover behavior.

Previously , we have considered crossover behaviour for an $`O(N)`$ model in the context of a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson representation of the underlying lattice model based on a $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory. Given that for a dimensional crossover $`\epsilon `$ expansion methods cannot work a fixed dimension expansion was used to access the crossover the essential characteristics of the perturbation theory being based on an expansion around the Gaussian fixed point. As is well known, when an $`O(N)`$ symmetry is spontaneously broken massless Goldstone modes give singularities at large distances for any value of the temperature. The thermodynamics of these spin waves is described in the long distance limit by a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Hamiltonian which is that of the field theoretic non-linear $`\sigma `$-model . The appropriate expansion parameter in this case is the temperature, $`T`$, and hence perturbation theory corresponds to a low temperature expansion.

Crossover behaviour in the context of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model has been considered previously. In particular, Amit and Goldschmidt extended their original treatment of bicritical systems above the critical temperature using Generalized Minimal Subtraction  to below the critical temperature  thus describing the crossover between a system exhibiting an $`O(N)`$ symmetry to that of an $`O(M)`$ symmetry. In this case $`\epsilon `$ methods were perfectly feasible due to the fact that the upper critical dimension of the two fixed points was the same. In the context of finite size scaling Brézin and Zinn-Justin described crossover of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model in the context of a box or a cylinder  by treating the lowest infra-red modes of the system non-perturbatively while treating other modes in a perturbative $`\epsilon `$ expansion. However, this method does not work in the context of a dimensional crossover such as in a thin film where the reduced dimension system also exhibits a non-trivial fixed point.

More recently, the quantum version of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model  has generated a great deal of attention as it can describe the long-wavelength, low-temperature behaviour of a two-dimensional quantum Heisenberg ferromagnet which in turn has been proposed as a model of high-temperature superconductors. Given the close analogy between a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional layered system with periodic boundary conditions and a $`d`$-dimensional quantum system it is certainly of interest from this point of view to investigate further dimensional crossover in the context of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model.

In this paper we will consider dimensional crossover of a ferromagnet with $`O(N)`$ symmetry in the broken phase using as starting point the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model and utilizing the techniques of environmentally friendly renormalization to access the full universal crossover behaviour. One of the benefits of doing so is a better understanding of how environmentally friendly renormalization functions in the context of a low temperature expansion as opposed to an expansion around the critical point.

In section 1 we briefly outline some important features of the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model. In section 2 we consider some formal renormalization results leaving explicit one loop answers for the case of dimensional crossover in a film geometry to section 3. In section 4 we calculate the shift in critical temperature due to finite size effects while in section 5 we derive one-loop expressions for some relevant effective critical exponents in the broken phase. Finally, in section 6 we draw some conclusions.

## 2 The Non-Linear $`\sigma `$-Model.

We begin with the Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Hamiltonian for a Heisenberg model with $`O(N)`$ symmetry in the $`\sigma `$-model limit on a $`d`$-dimensional ($`d<4`$) film geometry of thickness $`L`$

$$[\phi _B]=\frac{1}{T_B}_0^Ld^dx\left(\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi _B^i_\mu \phi _B^iH_B^i(x)\phi _B^i\right).$$
(1)
where $`i[1,N]`$, $`\mu [1,d]`$, $`T_B`$ is proportional to the temperature of the system and $`\phi _{}^{i}{}_{B}{}^{}`$ is subject to the constraint

$$\phi _B^i\phi _B^i=1$$
(2)
We will restrict our attention here to the case of periodic boundary conditions.

The partition function $`Z`$ is obtained by performing the path integral over the order parameter fields, $`\phi _B^i`$, with the Hamiltonian (1) subject to the constraint (2). Choosing the direction of symmetry breaking to be along the $`Nth`$ direction we define $`\phi ^N=\sigma `$ and $`\phi ^i=\pi ^i,(iN)`$. The constraint implies that $`\sigma (x)=\pm (1\pi ^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Thus the partition function becomes

$$Z[H,J]=\left[\frac{d\pi _B}{(1\pi _{B}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right]\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{T_B}{\scriptscriptstyle }d^dx(\frac{1}{2}(\pi _B^i)^2+\frac{1}{2}((1\pi _{B}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}})^2J_B^i\pi _B^iH_B(1\pi _{B}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}})}$$
(3)
Clearly this theory is highly non-polynomial. The non-trivial measure term, which ensures the $`O(N)`$ invariance of the theory, can of course be exponentiated and expanded in powers of $`\pi ^2`$. These terms are necessary to cancel corresponding $`O(N)`$ non-invariant terms that arise in perturbation theory. We will assume that such terms have been cancelled in the rest of this paper and not consider them further. Rotations are implemented linearly in the $`(N1)`$-dimensional $`\pi ^i`$-subspace and non-linearly in the $`\pi ^i\sigma `$ directions. A rotation by an infinitesimal $`\omega ^i`$ induces the changes

$$\delta \pi ^i(x)=(1\pi _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}(x))^{\frac{1}{2}}\omega ^i$$
(4)
$$\delta (1\pi _{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}(x))^{\frac{1}{2}}=\omega ^i\pi ^i(x)$$
(5)
As long as $`|\pi ^i|<1`$ the symmetry will remain broken. As $`T0`$, $`\sigma (x)1`$.

From the way in which $`T`$ appears in (3) we can see that an expansion in terms of temperature is equivalent to an expansion in the number of loops, the only subtlety being that the measure term is then linear in $`T`$ and therefore contributes to an higher order in $`T`$ than the other two terms. The free propagator for the $`\pi `$ field in the absence of a magnetic field is

$$G_{\pi \pi }(k)=\frac{T_B}{k^2}$$
(6)
The magnetic field coupled to the $`\sigma `$ field acts as an IR cutoff. This can be seen by expanding the term $`H_B(1\pi _{B}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ in powers of $`\pi `$. The resulting two-point vertex function is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{(2)}(k)=\frac{k^2+H_B}{T_B}$$
(7)
From the form of the Hamiltonian, in terms of an expansion in $`\pi `$, there are interactions of arbitrary order. However, interactions with more than four powers of $`\pi `$ contribute at higher than one loop order, i.e. more powers of the “small” coupling $`T`$. Consequently to first order in $`T`$, i.e. one loop, one need only consider the four-point interaction

$$\frac{1}{8T_B}\underset{k_1k_2k}{}(k^2+H_B)\pi _B^i(k_1)\pi _B^i(kk_1)\pi _B^j(k_2)\pi _B^j(k_2k)$$
(8)
In this paper we will restrict our attention to $`O(T)`$ results and therefore will not consider higher order interactions any further.

## 3 Renormalization

In spite of the fact that the theory is non-polynomial, as is well known , it is renormalizable using only two renormalization constants $`Z_T`$ and $`Z_\pi `$ associated with the temperature and the field respectively. The relation between the bare and renormalized parameters is

$$T_B=Z_TT\pi _B^i=Z_\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}\pi $$
(9)
To preserve the rotational invariance of the renormalized constraint the field $`\sigma `$ must renormalize in the same way as $`\pi `$. Invariance of the term $`\frac{H_B\sigma _B}{T_B}`$ thereby yields the renormalization of $`H`$

$$H_B=Z_TZ_\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}H$$
(10)
The bare and renormalized vertex functions are related via

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{(N)}(k_i,T,H,L,\kappa )=Z_\pi ^{\frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi B}^{(N)}(k_i,T_B,H_B,L,\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(11)
where $`\kappa `$ is an arbitrary renormalization scale and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ an ultraviolet cutoff. The RG equation, which is a consequence of the $`\kappa `$ invariance of the bare theory, follows immediately on differentiating (11) with respect to $`\kappa `$

$$\left(\kappa \frac{}{\kappa }+\beta _t\frac{}{t}+\beta _H\frac{}{H}\frac{N}{2}\gamma _\pi \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{(N)}(k_i,T,H,L,\kappa )=0$$
(12)
where we have introduced a dimensionless temperature $`t=T\kappa ^{d2}`$ and $`\gamma _\pi =\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z_\pi }{d\mathrm{ln}\kappa }`$ is the anomalous dimension of the field. The two $`\beta `$-functions are

$$\beta _t=(d2)tt\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z_T}{d\mathrm{ln}\kappa }$$
(13)
$$\beta _H=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z_\pi }{d\mathrm{ln}\kappa }\frac{d\mathrm{ln}Z_T}{d\mathrm{ln}\kappa }$$
(14)
The two renormalization constants must be fixed by normalization conditions. The essence of environmentally friendly renormalization is that in order to obtain a perturbatively well defined description of the crossover the renormalization procedure must depend explicitly on $`L`$. The normalization conditions we will use are

$$T\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{(2)}(k=0,t(\kappa ,L\kappa ),H(\kappa ,L\kappa )=\kappa ^2,L,\kappa )=\kappa ^2$$
(15)
$$\frac{}{k^2}T\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi ^{(2)}(k,t(\kappa ,L\kappa ),H(\kappa ,L\kappa )=\kappa ^2,L,\kappa )|_{k=0}=1$$
(16)
Note that $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ is just the inverse susceptibility associated with the $`\pi `$ field.

## 4 Explicit Results

We now proceed to examine the crossover perturbatively. To one loop

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pi B}^{(2)}(k=0)=\frac{H_B}{T_B}+\frac{(N1)}{2}\frac{H_B}{L}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}p}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{p^2+H_B+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2}}$$
(17)
Using the normalization conditions (15) and (16) one finds

$$Z_\pi =1\frac{(N1)}{2L\kappa }t\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2}}$$
(18)
and

$$Z_T=1\frac{(N2)}{2L\kappa }t\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2}}$$
(19)
The $`\beta `$-function $`\beta _t`$ is thus given by

$$\beta _t(t,L\kappa )=(d2)t\frac{2(N2)}{L\kappa }t^2\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{(y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2})^2}$$
(20)
There are three different fixed points associated with (20), a $`d`$-dimensional ultraviolet fixed point in the limit $`L\kappa \mathrm{}`$, $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$; a $`(d1)`$-dimensional ultraviolet fixed point in the limit $`L\kappa 0`$, $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$; and finally, a zero temperature infrared fixed point in the limit $`\kappa 0`$. However, the approach to $`t=0`$ depends on whether we consider $`\kappa 0`$ for fixed $`L`$ or $`L\kappa \mathrm{}`$, $`\kappa 0`$.

Because the coupling $`t`$ was made dimensionless with a factor $`\kappa ^{d2}`$, in the limit $`L\kappa 0`$, $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ one finds that $`tO(L\kappa )`$. However, as emphasized in , this does not imply that in the dimensionally reduced limit that fluctuations are unimportant, as loops enter with a factor $`(L\kappa )^1`$, which diverges. The issue is made more transparent in this limit by passing to a more appropriate coupling $`t^{}=t/L\kappa `$. In the dimensionally reduced limit $`t^{}O(d^{}2)`$, where $`d^{}=d1`$, while in the bulk limit $`t^{}O(1/L\kappa )`$. Thus $`t^{}`$ looks more natural in the dimensionally reduced limit and $`t`$ in the bulk limit. Of course, these simple changes of variables cannot affect the results for physical quantities they just help make more transparent what is going on. A coupling that is natural across the entire crossover, the floating coupling, can be introduced . It is defined via $`h=a_2t`$ in the present case, where $`a_2`$ is the coefficient of $`t^2`$ in equation (20).

In terms of the floating coupling one finds

$$\kappa \frac{dh}{d\kappa }=\epsilon (L\kappa )hh^2$$
(21)
where

$$\epsilon (L\kappa )=d3+4\frac{\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2}}{(y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2})^3}}{_{n=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{(y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2})^2}}$$
(22)
The quantity $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}=2+\epsilon (L\kappa )`$ can be interpreted as a measure of the effective dimension of the system interpolating between $`d`$ and $`d1`$ in the limits $`L\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and $`L\kappa 0`$ respectively, where in both cases we are considering $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$, i.e. the behaviour near the critical point.

The corresponding fixed points for $`h`$ are: $`d2`$, $`d3`$ and $`0`$. In Figure 1 we see a plot of $`h`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}\kappa L`$ for $`d=3`$. In this case, as the theory is asymtotically free in two dimensions, the coupling goes to zero in the dimensionally reduced limit, i.e. the $`(d1)`$-dimensional ultraviolet fixed point and the trivial infrared fixed points coincide. This dimensional crossover in the coupling is controllable in the low temperature expansion. It is in fact the solution to (21) that we use as a “small” parameter in the perturbative expansion of all other quantities. It is the fact that $`h`$ captures the crossover between the different fixed points that gives us a uniform expansion parameter and therefore perturbative control of the crossover. Of course when $`d2`$ is not small one really needs to work to higher order and attempt some resummation method. It should be clear however that there is no impediment to continuing this calculation to arbitrary order in the loop expansion.

In Figure 2 we see the corresponding result for $`d=3.5`$. Here, the “double” crossover between the different fixed points is manifest. Asymptotically in the ultraviolet there is a fixed point at $`h=1.5`$ that corresponds to the $`3.5`$-dimensional critical point. In the intermediate region $`h`$ asymptotes to the critical point of the $`2.5`$-dimensional dimensionally reduced theory while, finally, in the infrared $`h0`$ corresponding to behaviour controlled by the zero-temperature fixed point that controls the coexistence curve.

Turning now to the anomalous dimension of the field, $`\gamma _\pi `$, we find

$$\gamma _\pi =\frac{2(N1)}{L\kappa }t\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d^{d1}y}{(2\pi )^{d1}}\frac{1}{(y^2+1+\frac{4\pi ^2n^2}{L^2\kappa ^2})^2}$$
(23)
or in terms of the floating coupling

$$\gamma _\pi =\left(\frac{N1}{N2}\right)h$$
(24)
The anomalous dimension also exhibits a dimensional crossover, as can be seen in Figure 3, for the case $`d=3`$, $`N=3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$, interpolating between the values $`\left(\frac{N1}{N2}\right)(d2)`$ and $`\left(\frac{N1}{N2}\right)(d3)`$ in the limits $`L\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and $`L\kappa 0`$ respectively, where once again we are considering the behaviour near the critical point. Note that in contrast to the case of an expansion around the critical point using a $`\phi ^4`$ Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson Hamiltonian $`\gamma _\pi `$ isn’t simply the critical exponent $`\eta `$. This is due to the fact that the canonical dimension of the fields $`\pi `$ and $`\sigma `$ here is zero. The bulk, $`L\mathrm{}`$, value of $`\gamma _\pi `$ is $`\gamma _\pi (\mathrm{})=(d2+\eta )`$ where the critical exponent $`\eta =(d2)/(N2)`$. In the limit $`L\kappa 0`$, $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ we see that $`\gamma _\pi (d^{}2+\eta ^{})`$ where $`d^{}=d1`$ and $`\eta ^{}=(d^{}2)/(N2)`$ is the critical exponent of the dimensionally reduced system. In the large-$`N`$ limit, $`N\mathrm{}`$, note that $`\gamma _\pi h=d_{\mathrm{eff}}^e`$, where $`d_{\mathrm{eff}}^e`$ is the effective dimension that was found in considerations of dimensional crossover in the large-$`N`$ limit of a $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ theory .

## 5 Critical Temperature Shift

The $`\beta `$ function equation is easily integrated to find

$$t(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _i},L\kappa )=\frac{1}{t_i^1\left(\frac{\kappa _i}{\kappa }\right)^{d2}+_{\kappa _i}^\kappa f(L\kappa ^{})\left(\frac{\kappa ^{}}{\kappa }\right)^{d2}\frac{d\kappa ^{}}{\kappa ^{}}}$$
(25)
where $`\kappa _i`$ and $`t_i`$ are the initial arbitrary renormalization scale and temperature . The function $`f`$ is

$$f(L\kappa )=\frac{2(N2)}{(4\pi )^{\frac{d}{2}}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s^{\frac{d2}{2}}}\mathrm{e}^s\mathrm{e}^{\frac{n^2L^2\kappa ^2}{4s}}$$
(26)
In the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ equation (25) becomes

$$t(\frac{\kappa }{\kappa _i},\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{t_i^1\left(\frac{\kappa _i}{\kappa }\right)^{d2}+_{\kappa _i}^\kappa f(\mathrm{})\left(\frac{\kappa ^{}}{\kappa }\right)^{d2}\frac{d\kappa ^{}}{\kappa ^{}}}$$
(27)
where $`f(\mathrm{})`$ simply picks out the $`n=0`$ term in the sum in $`f(L\kappa )`$. Choosing the initial temperature and initial scale in (25) and (27) to be the same one obtains

$$\left(\frac{1}{T(L)}\frac{1}{T(\mathrm{})}\right)=_{\kappa _i}^\kappa (f(L\kappa ^{})f(\mathrm{}))\kappa _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{d2}\frac{d\kappa ^{}}{\kappa ^{}}$$
(28)
where a factor of $`\kappa ^{2d}`$ has been absorbed into the dimensionless temperature. The interpretation of equation (28) is that given a particular renormalization scale $`\kappa `$ in two systems of size $`L`$ and of infinite size then the corresponding temperatures in the two systems are related as above. Given that the limit $`\kappa \mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the approach to the critical point we can take this limit in (28) to find

$$\left(\frac{1}{T_c(L)}\frac{1}{T_c(\mathrm{})}\right)=\frac{1}{2}(f(L\kappa _i)f(\mathrm{}))$$
(29)
Taking the limit $`\kappa _i0`$ corresponds to choosing the initial dimensionless temperature to be zero. The shift then becomes

$$\left(\frac{1}{T_c(L)}\frac{1}{T_c(\mathrm{})}\right)=\frac{b_d}{L^{d2}}$$
(30)
where the dimension dependent constant $`b_d`$ is

$$b_d=\frac{(N2)}{2\pi ^{\frac{d}{2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d2}{2})\zeta (d2)$$
(31)
The result (30) is fully in agreement with the expectations of finite size scaling  with the exponent $`\nu =1/(d2)`$. In the limit $`d3`$ $`b_d\mathrm{}`$ as there is a divergence in the $`\zeta `$ function at $`d=2`$. This corresponds to the fact that the the shift is ill defined due to the non-existence of a critical point in two dimensions as discussed by Barber and Fisher .

## 6 Effective Exponents

A useful set of universal scaling functions are defined by effective critical exponents that interpolate between those characteristic of the end points of the crossover of interest. Here, given that the non-linear $`\sigma `$-model is restricted to the broken phase we concentrate on the two effective exponents $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ defined as

$$\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}^1=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{d\mathrm{ln}H}|_{t_c(L)}\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sigma }{d\mathrm{ln}(t_c(L)t)}|_{H=0}$$
(32)
where $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is defined along the critical isotherm of the finite size system and $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ on the coexistence curve of the finite size system. To derive $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ we solve the RG equation for the magnetization, $`\overline{\phi }`$ with initial condition $`\overline{\phi }(\kappa =0)=1`$. We then substitute the anomalous dimension (24) and consider the limit $`L\kappa \mathrm{}`$ to find

$$\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}=\beta (t_c(L)t)\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{1}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _\pi (x,t)\frac{dx}{x}\right)$$
(33)
where $`\beta =\nu (d2+\eta )/2`$ is the bulk exponent and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _\pi =\gamma _\pi (d2+\eta )`$.

In the limit $`(t_c(L)t)0`$, $`L^{d2}(t_c(L)t)\mathrm{}`$ one finds that $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}\nu (d2+\eta )/2`$, while in the limit $`(t_c(L)t)0`$, $`L^{d2}(t_c(L)t)0`$ one obtains $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}\nu ^{}(d^{}2+\eta ^{})/2`$. At one-loop order, using equation (24), $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ interpolates between the above asymptotic values, where now $`\nu =1/(d2)`$, $`\eta =(d2)/(N2)`$, $`\nu ^{}=1/(d^{}2)`$, $`\eta ^{}=(d^{}2)/(N2)`$ and $`d^{}=d1`$.

Similarly, one finds for $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ that

$$\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}^1=\frac{\gamma _\pi }{(2d\gamma _\pi 2\gamma _t)}$$
(34)
where $`\gamma _t(\beta _t/t)`$. In the limit $`(t_c(L)t)0`$, $`L^{1/\nu }(t_c(L)t)\mathrm{}`$ one has $`\gamma _\pi (d2+\eta )`$ and $`\gamma _t0`$. Hence, we see that $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}(d+2\eta )/(d2+\eta )`$. In the limit $`(t_c(L)t)0`$, $`L^{1/\nu }(t_c(L)t)0`$ one finds that $`\gamma _\pi (d^{}2+\eta ^{})`$ and $`\gamma _t1`$. Thus, in this limit $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}(d^{}+2\eta ^{})/(d^{}2+\eta ^{})`$, where $`d^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ are as above. At the one-loop level $`\gamma _\pi `$ is as given by (24) and $`\gamma _t=\epsilon (L\kappa )h`$. In Figure 4 we see a graph of $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}^1`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{ln}L\kappa `$ for $`d=3`$ and $`N=3`$, $`4`$, $`5`$ where the full dimensional crossover is evident.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we have used environmentally friendly renormalization to consider dimensional crossover in the context of a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model on a $`d`$-dimensional film geometry with periodic boundary conditions. Using an explicitly $`L`$ dependent renormalization we derived one loop formulas for the anomalous dimension of the Goldstone field and for the $`\beta `$-function, describing the flow of the temperature as a function of RG scale. We found that there were three fixed points exhibited in the one differential equation. A $`d`$-dimensional critical point, a $`(d1)`$-dimensional critical point and a zero temperature infra-red fixed point. The $`\beta `$ function when integrated described the global flow between all three of these fixed points. Critical temperature shifts are a particularly interesting consequence of finite size behaviour. Here, we showed how such shifts could explicitly be calculated finding an expression to one-loop in agreement with finite size scaling arguments.

Finally, we derived one-loop expressions for the two effective critical exponents $`\beta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ showing how they interpolated between the asymptotic expressions associated with the corresponding $`d`$ and $`(d1)`$-dimensional critical exponents. Evidently there is much more that could be done, such as deriving the full equation of state etc. Of particular interest will be to adapt the results to that of a quantum non-linear $`\sigma `$-model and apply them to the case of a high-temperature superconductor. The same mathematical model, though with a quite different physical interpretation, will also describe a $`d`$-dimensional relativistic, quantum field theoretic non-linear $`\sigma `$-model. We hope to return to these interesting issues in a future publication.

## 8 Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Conacyt grants 30422-E and 32399-E.