text:
# Groundstates of 𝑆𝑈(2)-Symmetric Confined Bose Gas: Trap for a Schrödinger Cat

\[

## Abstract

Conservation of the total isotopic spin $`S`$ of a two-component Bose gas — like 87Rb — has a dramatic impact on the structure of the ground state. In the case when $`S`$ is much smaller than the total number of particles $`N`$, the condensation of each of the two components occurs into at least two single-particle modes. The quantum wavefunction of such a groundstate is a Schrödinger Cat — a superposition of the phase separated classical condensates, the most “probable” state in the superposition corresponding to the classical groundstate in the sector of given $`N`$ and $`S`$.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi

\]

Symmetry has profound implications on the groundstate structure of the degenerate superfluids and superconducting systems. A remarkable example to that is superfluid 3He, which exhibits a variety of textures . These ground states are essentially classical — quantum fluctuations play no role at large length scales. Accordingly, the most important low energy physics can be well described within the mean-field (MF) approach relying on broken gauge symmetry.

Recent successes in trapping and manipulating atomic Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC)  have initiated a great interest to the physics beyond the MF in these systems. A well-known example of the non-MF behavior is the phase diffusion effect .

A remarkable case of non-MF ground state was found in the spin $`s=1`$ sodium vapor . This state is characterized by anomalous quantum fluctuations of the components with different projections of the total spin.

In this Letter, we address the case of a two-component $`SU(2)`$-symmetric Bose gas—like 87Rb , that is, the case of (pseudo-)spin-$`1/2`$ bosons. We show that, while sharing some common features with the $`s=1`$ bosons , the $`s=1/2`$ system exhibits unique properties . We pose a question of the formation of the ground state in a naturally arising situation of $`SN`$. We find that the resulting ground state is built on at least two macroscopically populated lowest one-particle modes, and is a quantum superposition of the phase separated BECs, characterized by large fluctuations of the densities of the components, the total density being fixed.

We start from the $`SU(2)`$-symmetric Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱[\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}H_1\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma +\frac{g}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ]},`$ (1)
where the interaction constant $`g=4\pi a/m`$ is represented (in units $`\mathrm{}=1`$ ) by the scattering length $`a`$ and mass $`m`$; the single particle Hamiltonian $`H_1`$ consists of the kinetic energy and the trapping potential, $`H_1=(1/2m)^2+U(𝐱)`$; the Bose-field operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma `$ have two components $`\sigma =,`$ in pseudo-spin notations, and the summation is performed over repeated pseudo-spin (Greek) indices. Due to its symmetry, this Hamiltonian conserves the total isospin $`𝐒=(S_x,S_y,S_z)`$ given as ( $`S_\pm =S_x\pm iS_y`$$`S_+S_{}^{}`$)

$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱(\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{})},S_{}={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}}.`$ (2)
These operators obey the standard $`SU(2)`$ algebra $`[S_z,S_+]=S_+,[S_z,S_{}]=S_{},[S_+,S_{}]=2S_z`$.

The absolute minimum of energy is achieved when all atoms condense to a lowest one-particle (Hartree) state $`\phi _0`$. Such a state corresponds to the maximum possible value of the isospin $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=N/2=(N_{}+N_{})/2`$, where $`N_{},N_{}`$ stand for the total numbers of atoms of each component. Thus, it follows that a very nontrivial situation will occur when, while conserving $`S`$, the condensation proceeds from the thermal cloud which contains almost the same amount of different components $`N_\sigma `$ with no inter-component correlations. Indeed, the ensemble mean of the total isospin (2) in Boltzmann gas is $`𝐒=0`$, and the mean of $`𝐒^2=S_z^2+\left(S_+S_{}+S_{}S_+\right)/2`$ yields $`𝐒^2N`$, as long as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(𝐱^{})=0`$ and the diagonal correlators decay on thermal length. Similarly, $`𝐒^2N`$, when two spatially separated degenerate components are mixed together (see below). Thus, the resulting ensemble of the ground states is characterized by typical values $`0S\sqrt{N}`$.

Since condensation of both components into one single-particle state $`\phi _0`$ is incompatible with $`SN`$, the resulting many-body state is characterized by macroscopic occupation of at least two lowest one-particle states. This contrasts the cases $`s=1/2`$ and $`s=1`$ .

We analyze the simplest case of the strong quasi-1D trap, where the energy difference $`\epsilon =\epsilon _1\epsilon _0`$ between the lowest single particle levels $`\phi _{1,0}`$, respectively, in the trapping potential $`U`$ is much larger than a typical interaction energy per particle $`\mu `$ (chemical potential at $`T=0`$). The inequality $`\mu /\epsilon 1`$ allows one to essentially simplify the description by introducing a projected Hamiltonian acting in a truncated Hilbert space containing only two single-particle modes, $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma ={\displaystyle \underset{b=0,1}{}}a_{b\sigma }\phi _b`$ (3)
where $`a_{b\sigma }`$ annihilates a particle at the level $`b`$ in the spin state $`\sigma `$. With the same accuracy, one may neglect in the projected Hamiltonian all the terms that do not conserve the total occupations of each of the two single-particle levels. These terms involve a large energy difference $`\epsilon \mu `$, and, thus, result only in higher-order—in parameter $`\mu /\epsilon `$—perturbative renormalization of the parameters of the effective (two-modes & two-colors) Hamiltonian

$`H^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=0,1}{}}\epsilon _aN_a+`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b=0,1}{}}I_{ab}N_a(N_b\delta _{a,b})+2I_{01}𝐒_0𝐒_1,`$ (5)
where $`I_{ab}=g𝑑𝐱|\phi _a|^2|\phi _b|^2`$ and $`N_b=_\sigma N_{b\sigma },S_{bz}=(N_bN_b)/2,S_{bx}=(a_b^{}a_b+a_b^{}a_b)/2,S_{by}=(a_b^{}a_ba_b^{}a_b)/2i`$; the operators $`N_{a\sigma }=a_{b\sigma }^{}a_{b\sigma }`$ and $`𝐒_a=(S_{ax},S_{ay},S_{az})`$ represent the numbers of atoms and the components of the pseudo-spin on the $`a`$th level, respectively. The quantities $`N_a`$ and $`𝐒_a^2`$ are related to each other by the identity $`𝐒_a^2=N_a(1+N_a/2)/2`$, implying that $`S_aN_a/2`$.

A standard choice of eigen numbers for the Hamiltonian (5) comes from the theory of two spins: the total spin $`S`$, its $`z`$-projection, $`M`$, and the spins $`S_0`$ and $`S_1`$; with the constraints $`|S_0S_1|SS_0+S_1`$, $`SMS`$. In this nomenclature, the spectrum of (5) is

$`E_{SMS_0S_1}`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon _0(S_0+S_1)+2\epsilon S_1+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}I_{ab}S_a(2S_b\delta _{a,b})`$ (6)
$`+I_{01}[S(S`$ $`+`$ $`1)(S_0+1)S_0(S_1+1)S_1].`$ (7)
The distribution over the eigennumbers $`S_0,S_1,S,M`$, which will be formed in the end of the cooling processes, depends essentially on the following: While $`S`$, $`M`$ and $`N`$ are the eigennumbers of $`H`$, eq.(1), the spins $`S_0,S_1`$ are not the eigennumbers of the original Hamiltonian (1). Thus, the formation of particular low energy states, amenable to treatment by the reduced Hamiltonian (5) where $`S_{0,1}`$ are now the quantum numbers, will be controlled by the microcanonical distribution with fixed values of $`S,M,N`$. For our purposes, we do not need to adopt any particular distribution for $`S`$, $`M`$ and $`N`$. We assume that their values are obtained (after the cooling is over) by a non-destructive measurement. Thus, the only remaining degree of freedom, within the chosen microcanonical ensemble, is the integer $`0K2S`$, that parameterizes $`S_1=(KS+N/2)/2`$ and $`S_0=(K+S+N/2)/2`$ in eq.(7). The corresponding Gibbs distribution over $`K`$ with the temperature created by the cooling follows from the spectrum eq.(7), which now takes a form $`E_{SMN}(K)=(\epsilon _0+\epsilon /2)N+\epsilon (KS)+o(\mu /\epsilon )`$ in the main $`\epsilon \mu `$ limit. It indicates that the ground state for given $`S,M,N`$ corresponds to $`K=0`$. The next excited $`K=1`$ state within the microcanonical ensemble costs energy $`\epsilon `$. Thus, once temperature $`T<\epsilon `$, the microcanonical ensemble for given $`S,M,N`$ essentially consists of only one state—the ground state $`K=0`$, given as

$`|SMN`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{SMN}\left(a_0^{}\right)^{S+M}\left(a_0^{}\right)^{SM}\left(R^{}\right)^{N/2S}|0,`$ (8)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`a_0a_1a_1a_0,`$ (9)
where $`S_0=(S+N/2)/2`$ and $`S_1=(S+N/2)/2`$; $`Z_{SMN}`$ is the normalization coefficient, and $`|0`$ is the vacuum. These states realize the irreducible representation of the isotopic $`SU(2)`$ group. For $`S=0,M=0`$ ( $`N`$ even), the state (8) is the $`SU(2)`$-singlet.

The state (8) exhibits quantum fluctuations of individual values of $`N_{a\sigma }`$, preserving, however, their three linear combinations: $`N_0+N_0=S+N/2,N_1+N_1=S+N/2,N_1+N_0N_1N_0=2M`$. Thus, there is only one degree of freedom, which we choose to be $`N_0`$. Most transparently, these fluctuations are described in the basis of the Fock states $`|N_0,N_0,N_1,N_1`$ , which are the fragmented condensates . Expanding (8) over the Fock basis, we get the probability to find a given value of $`N_0`$:

$`P_{SMN}(N_0)={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{SMN}^2N_0!(N/2+SN_0)!}{(N_0SM)!(N/2+MN_0)!}}.`$ (10)
To estimate the strength of the quantum fluctuations, consider $`\overline{\delta N_0^2}`$, where for any $`Q`$: $`\overline{Q}=SMN|Q|SMN`$ and $`\overline{\delta Q^2}=SMN|(Q\overline{Q})^2|SMN`$. At $`S=0`$, we have $`P_{SMN}(N_0)=2/N`$ over the whole range of $`0N_0N/2`$; and $`\overline{\delta N_0^2}=N^2/12`$. For $`1SN,S|M|1`$, the Gaussian approximation of (10) gives

$`\overline{N}_0`$ $``$ $`(S+M)(S+N/2)/2S,`$ (11)
$`\overline{\delta N_0^2}`$ $``$ $`(S^2M^2)((N/2)^2S^2)/8S^3.`$ (12)
For typical values $`S\sqrt{N}`$, we obtain $`\overline{\delta N_0^2}N^2/(8S)N^{3/2}`$. In a direct analogy with the $`s=1`$ case , these anomalous fluctuations are consequence of the conservation of the total (iso)spin .

The state (8) is a quantum superposition — a Schrödinger Cat — of the phase separated “classical” BEC’s, each BEC being characterized by well-defined spatial density distribution of the spin-up and spin-down components. The phase separation is due to the involvement of two single-particle modes with different occupations of the spin-up/down components.

Measurement of $`N_0`$ produces a collapse of the Cat. The resulting states essentially depend on how strong the interaction between the measuring device and the system is. The most “accurate” measurement of $`N_0`$, with the absolute error less than one particle, would collapse the Cat into a Fock state $`|N_0,N_0,N_1,N_1`$, with the probability (10) to obtain given $`N_0`$. Such a measurement, however, implies that the interaction of the system with the apparatus is much stronger than that due to the Hamiltonian (5). In this sense, such a measurement is destructive not only to the supposed-to-be-fragile Quantum Cat, but also to its classical counterparts.

More interesting is a less destructive measurement, which collapses Quantum Cat into some “classical” (in a particular sense) states. These classical states are the phase-coherent BEC states, which can be interpreted in terms of the classical vectors $`𝐒_0,𝐒_1`$ interacting anti-ferromagnetically by the term $`2I_{01}𝐒_0𝐒_1=I_{01}[S^2S_1^2S_0^2],I_{01}>0`$. Comparing the classical energy with the term in the square brackets in the full (quantum) expression (7), we see that the creation of such classical states costs only the energy $`\delta E_CI_{01}[S_0+S_1]I_{01}N\mu `$. Here we took into account that $`S_0S_1N`$ for $`SN`$.

The above-discussed classical BEC states are readily obtained within the Gross-Pitaevskii approach. As an instructive example, let us construct the classical groundstates. To this end we replace the bosonic fields operators by the $`c`$-fields. Accordingly, in eqs. (3,5), we replace the $`a`$-operators by the $`c`$-number amplitudes, and find the minimum of energy at given $`N,S,M`$. This yields $`a_0=\sqrt{S+N/2}\mathrm{cos}(\beta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i(\alpha _0+\gamma )/2),a_0=\sqrt{S+N/2}\mathrm{sin}(\beta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i(\alpha _0\gamma )/2),a_1=i\sqrt{S+N/2}\mathrm{sin}(\beta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i(\alpha _1+\gamma )/2),a_1=i\sqrt{S+N/2}\mathrm{cos}(\beta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i(\alpha _1\gamma )/2)`$. Here $`\mathrm{cos}\beta =M/S,(\alpha _1\alpha _0)/2=\epsilon (1+o(\mu /\epsilon ))t`$; $`\alpha _0`$ is the global phase, and $`\gamma `$ determines the $`x,y`$-projections of the total spin ( $`S_x=S\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma `$). Comparison of these with eq.(11) shows that the classical occupation numbers coincide with the expectations for the quantum ones.

The classical fields are non-stationary, which is a consequence of the energy difference between the states $`\phi _0`$ and $`\phi _1`$. Hence, wherever $`\phi _0(𝐱)`$ and $`\phi _1(𝐱)`$ have substantial overlapping, the spatial densities of the two components experience strong fluctuations, the total density remaining constant. These fluctuations are of purely classical nature and have nothing to do with the above-discussed quantum fluctuations of occupation numbers! It is reasonable to reveal these classical fluctuations directly in the quantum wavefunction (8). To this end we calculate fluctuations of the difference of the component densities, $`\eta (𝐱)=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(𝐱)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(𝐱)`$ \[Note that $`\overline{\eta }0`$ for $`|M|S`$, that is the state (8) does not exhibit any phase separation on average\]. For the fluctuations of $`\eta `$ we get

$`\overline{\delta \eta ^2}`$ $`=`$ $`4[\phi _0^4+\phi _1^44\phi _0^2\phi _1^2]\overline{\delta N_0^2}+2\phi _0^2\phi _1^2[(N/4)(N+4)`$ (13)
$``$ $`S(S+1)+4\overline{S_{0z}}(M\overline{S_{0z}})].`$ (14)
The two terms in (14) correspond to the quantum ($`\overline{\delta N_0^2}`$) and classical ($`N^2`$ for $`SN`$) fluctuations of $`\eta `$, respectively. Though the second term is dominant in a general case, it vanishes in the trap center, where $`\phi _1=0`$, and the fluctuations are of purely quantum nature.

To propose a particular set of measurements that could reveal the statistics (10), we note that the quantities $`N_0=_\sigma N_{0\sigma }=N/2+S,N_1=_\sigma N_{1\sigma }=N/2S,N_{}=N_0+N_1=N/2+M,N_{}=N_0+N_1=N/2M`$ do not fluctuate. Thus, the values $`S,M,N`$ can be extracted, in effect, without destroying the wave function. Once the set of values $`S,M,N`$ is fixed, one can measure $`N_0`$, by, e.g., observing the density of the spin-up component in the center of the trap by the spatially differentiated selective imaging . In the trap center $`\phi _1=0`$, therefore the component densities are unambiguously related to the occupations of the state $`\phi _0`$ . Actual measurements always have some uncertainties $`\mathrm{\Delta }M,\mathrm{\Delta }S,\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ in determining $`M,S,N`$, respectively. These may wash out the quantum fluctuations. First, we note that the mean value $`\overline{N}_0`$ in eq.(11) is exactly the value given within the classical geometrical picture. Thus, $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{N}_0)^2`$, where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the statistical mean, must be significantly smaller than the quantum fluctuation $`\overline{\delta N_0^2}`$, eq.(12). Practically, for $`(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2N,S\sqrt{N}`$, we find that, as long as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }M)^2S/2`$, the quantum fluctuations can be well distinguished.

We consider an intriguing alternative to the direct cooling of the two-component system in order to obtain the state (8). Namely, the merging of two spatially separated condensed species from two identical wells with equal numbers of oppositely ”polarized” particles in each of them. At $`T\epsilon `$ (which means, for our purposes, practically zero), and in the absence of tunneling between the wells, the system is in its lowest energy state. We note further that our state is $`(N/2+1)`$-fold degenerate within the given sector of $`N`$ and $`M=0`$, the other $`N/2`$ groundstates being obtained by exchanging spin-up–spin-down pairs between the wells. The key point is that the initial state is a superposition of the eigenstates of the total pseudo-spin operator with the typical values $`0S\sqrt{N}`$, and the degeneracy is exhausted by the isospin index (which, at $`M=0`$, has exactly $`N/2+1`$ values, from $`0`$ to $`N/2`$). Thus, each of the $`S`$-eigenstates in our superposition is not degenerate. Accordingly, when tunneling is slowly turned on and, finally, the inter-well barrier is adiabatically removed , the system remains in the superposition of the ground $`S`$-eigenstates, which at $`\epsilon /\mu 1`$ take on the form (8) ( $`M=0`$). Projection on the particular $`S`$ can be done by, say, measuring total density in the trap center .

Other (more exotic) options for the direct Cat-state engineering rely on merging more than two BEC clouds in the presence of the controlled $`SU(2)`$ symmetry violating potential. We will analyze them elsewhere.

Let us discuss the effect of the symmetry breaking static perturbation, which was shown to destroy the quantum fluctuating state in the case $`s=1`$ in the thermodynamical limit . A similar situation occurs in the case of the pseudo-spin $`s=1/2`$ bosons. A role of the perturbation is played by the gradient $`𝐁^{}`$ of the pseudo-magnetic field $`𝐁^{}=(0,0,B^{})`$, consisting of the difference $`U^{}=U_{}U_{}`$ of the trapping potentials for the corresponding components and of the interaction term $`\stackrel{~}{H}=(g^{}/2)𝑑𝐱[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}]`$, where $`g^{}=4\pi a^{}/m`$ and $`|a^{}|a`$ in 87Rb . Within the model, we find the corresponding term

$`H_B`$ $`=`$ $`B^{}(S_{0z}S_{1z}),`$ (15)
$`B^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱(U^{}(𝐱)+\frac{g^{}}{2}\rho (𝐱))(\phi _1^2\phi _0^2)},`$ (16)
to be added to $`H^{}`$, eq.(5), where we take into account $`N_0N_1N/2`$, and $`\rho (𝐱)=N(\phi _0^2+\phi _1^2)/2`$.

The term $`H_B`$ does not commute with the total spin, which implies that it does not favor quantum fluctuations. It decreases energy of the classical (not fluctuating) state $`|BEC=(a_0^{}a_1^{})^{N/2}|0`$ by $`\delta E_{BEC}BEC|H_B|BECB^{}N`$, ( $`B^{}>0`$). At the same time, the classical states loose energy with respect to the lowest eigenstate of $`H^{}`$ , eq.(5), by the chemical potential $`\mu `$. Accordingly, in order to insure the stability of the Schrödinger Cat state (8), the condition $`\mu |B^{}|N`$ should hold. This condition cannot be obviously satisfied in the thermodynamical limit, and should be considered in mesoscopic situations only. We note, however, that it can be well controlled within the current experimental capabilities. Taking the effective potential breaking the symmetry as the oscillator potential $`\delta U=m\nu ^2x^2/2`$, with some frequency $`\nu `$ , we find $`B^{}=\nu ^2/(2\epsilon )`$ in eq.(16), where we have employed the lowest eigenstates $`\phi _{0,1}`$, of the 1D oscillator with frequency $`\epsilon `$. Accordingly, $`\nu `$ should obey $`\nu /\epsilon \sqrt{\mu /(\epsilon N)}`$. For $`N10^4`$, $`\mu \omega _0`$, this yields $`\nu /\epsilon 10^2`$, which is well within the accuracy of the experiment . In fact, the control of the value $`B^{}`$ together with the external rf-pulses  provides a tool for manipulating the parameters of the Cat state.

Another effect of the symmetry breaking, existing even for $`B^{}=0`$, is opening the channel for irreversible transitions $`10`$. While bringing the system to the absolute ground state ( $`S=N/2`$), it is, however, of a second order in $`g^{}`$, and needs the normal component to be present to proceed at noticeable rate. In 87Rb , $`g/g^{}30`$. Thus, a time scale for a such relaxation is a factor of $`10^3`$ longer than relaxation time $`1/g^2`$ of any lowest energy excitation at considered low temperatures and densities, which makes it irrelevant for all practical purposes, if compared with the time of the Cat-state formation $`1/\mu 1/g`$ .

Let us consider stability of the above analysis with respect to external symmetry breaking temporal noise. For example, the trapping potential may be slightly different for the components and can fluctuate in time. These fluctuations may produce two qualitatively different effects: 1) heating of the cloud at some rate $`\tau _h^1`$, and 2) disruption of the coherence at a rate $`\tau _{irr}^1`$, which, generally speaking, is different from $`\tau _h^1`$.

A most detrimental for the Cat situation may occur when the noise, while producing no significant heating, disrupts the anomalous quantum correlations $`A(t)=\overline{\delta N_0^2}`$, as given by eq.(12), at times $`\tau _{irr}\tau _h`$. As discussed in ref., this occurs when the noise correlation length is larger than a typical thermal length of the cloud. Accordingly, if the noise is produced by small correlation length factors, such as, e.g., collisions with the background gas, the decoherence is not faster than the heating.

In order to investigate the case under consideration, we note that $`A(t)`$ can naturally be represented in terms of the one-particle $`\rho ^{(1)}(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐱,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱^{},t)`$ (OPDM) and two-particle $`\rho ^{(2)}(𝐱_1,𝐱_2,𝐱_2^{},𝐱_1^{},t)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐱_1,t)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝐱_2,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱_2^{},t)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱_1^{},t)`$ (TPDM) density matrices, respectively, where the averaging is performed over the initial state, which is taken to be the Cat-state (8), and over the noise. Accordingly, the equations for them should be analyzed and the rates $`\tau _{irr}^1`$, $`\tau _h^1`$ evaluated and, then, compared with each other. In the case of the white noise, this can be done, practically, exactly with the help of the Furutzu-Novikov theorem as discussed in ref..

The heating rate is defined as the inverse time $`\tau _h`$ required to increase the total kinetic energy per particle $`K(t)=(1/m)_{𝐱=𝐱^{}}^2\rho ^{(1)}(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)/Nt`$ by $`\epsilon `$. The decoherence rate $`\tau _{irr}^1`$ is defined as the inverse of a typical shortest  time of the decay of the elements of the OPDM and the TPDM. All rates can be evaluated with respect to the OPDM and the TPDM solutions in the limit $`t0`$.

It is important to note that, while the heating is most effectively produced by a short range noise, the coherence is destroyed by the long range noise due to the long range temporal fluctuations of the trapping potential $`U^{}(𝐱,t)`$. These fluctuations can be produced by thermal or any other noise of electric currents $`I^{}(t)`$ in the magnetic coils. For the purpose of estimating, we assume that

$`U^{}=U(𝐱)I^{}(t)/I,I^{}(t)I^{}(t^{})=C^2\delta (tt^{}),`$ (17)
where $`U(𝐱)`$ is some typical trapping potential, which does not fluctuate; $`I`$ stands for the static current; we assumed the white noise structure of the current fluctuations, which is characterized by the constant $`C^2`$. In the case of large temperatures of the coils $`T_C`$, this constant is given by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem as $`C^2=2T_C/R`$, where $`R`$ stands for the resistance. Proceeding as described above and in ref. and taking into account eq.(17), the heating and the decoherence rates can be found as

$`\tau _h^1\overline{(U(𝐱))^2}C^2/(m\epsilon I^2),\tau _{irr}^1\overline{U^2(𝐱)}C^2/I^2,`$ (18)
respectively, where the line stands for a typical average over the cloud volume, and the numerical coefficients of order 1-10 (depending on the order of the correlator) are omitted.

We estimate $`\overline{U^2(𝐱)}\epsilon ^2`$ and take into account that typical kinetic energy is of the order of the potential energy, that is, $`\overline{(U(𝐱))^2}/m\epsilon ^3`$. For the thermal noise, where $`C^2=2T_C/R`$, $`T_C=300K`$ (room temperature), $`\epsilon /\mathrm{}10^3`$s-1, we find $`\tau _{irr}^1\epsilon ^2k_BT/(\mathrm{}^2RI^2)10^{15}`$s-1, if the coil power $`RI^21`$W (we restored the standard units). Accordingly, the thermal noise of the coil currents can be ignored for all practical purposes.

In a general case of a non-thermal noise characterized by some relaxation time $`\tau _C`$ and the current fluctuation magnitude $`I^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ , so that $`I^{}(t)I^{}(t^{})=I^{}_{}{}^{}2\mathrm{exp}(|tt^{}|/\tau _C)`$, the white noise result  and the estimate (18) can still be employed as long as $`\tau _C\tau _{irr}`$. We, then, take $`C^2\tau _CI^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ , and obtain $`\tau _{irr}^1(\epsilon /\mathrm{})^2\tau _CI^{}_{}{}^{}2/I^2`$. This implies that, for , e.g., $`\tau _C=10^6`$s, $`\epsilon /\mathrm{}10^3`$s-1, the relative fluctuations $`I^{}_{}{}^{}2/I^2`$ can be as large as 10% and yet $`\tau _{irr}>100`$s, which should be compared with the time of the Cat-state formation . As discussed above, this time can be as short as $`1/\mu 10^210^3`$s.

The decoherence due to losses can similarly be analyzed within the framework of equations for the OPDM and TPDM. Regardless of the nature of the interaction vertex responsible for the losses, these equations can be obtained as an expansion with respect to the vertex, and, then, the rate $`\tau _{irr}^1`$ compared with the corresponding contributions to the rate of losses $`\tau _{loss}^1`$, defined as the time derivative of $`𝑑𝐱\rho ^{(1)}(𝐱,𝐱,t)`$ per one particle. Performing this general analysis, we find that $`\tau _{irr}^1`$ and $`\tau _{loss}^1`$ are of the same order. Thus, once the losses are kept low during the time of the experiment (the scale of which is determined by the adiabaticity requirement ), the decoherence can be ignored.

In summary, we have discussed the role of the isotopic $`SU(2)`$ symmetry in the formation of the ground states in a confined mesoscopic two-component Bose gas. The conservation of the total isotopic spin results in condensation of a thermal cloud, consisting of the two uncorrelated components, on two lowest single particle states in the trap. The resulting ground state is essentially non-classical Schrödinger Cat state characterized by anomalously large non-uniform fluctuations of the density of each component about its classical expectation. The symmetry breaking term may destabilize this state into the phase separation, with both components becoming the classical BEC. This process, however, can be well controlled experimentally. The realization of the fluctuating many body state provides unique opportunity for observing the effect of measurement induced collapse of the Schrödinger Cat to classical states. The conditions required for distinguishing the quantum fluctuation from the statistical noise are delineated.

The authors are grateful to N.P. Bigelow, M.J. Holland, A.E. Meyerovich, N.V. Prokof’ev, and Li You for their interest to this work and useful discussions. ABK was supported by CUNY grant PSC-63499-0032. BVS acknowledges a support from Russian Foundation for Basic Research under from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).


format: text

text:
# The Potential of Differential Astrometric Interferometry from the High Antarctic Plateau

## 1 Introduction

Properties of the atmosphere are the ultimate limit to astronomical observations from ground-based sites. Atmospheric transparency, background and seeing (indicated by the full width of the point spread function at half maximum, FWHM) are the parameters by which sites are typically compared. For observations in the optical and near infrared, high mountain sites that are above most of the Earth’s boundary layer such as Mauna Kea and the Chilean Andes are superior because of favorable values of these parameters. Transparency and background are parameters that are relatively simple to quantify and interpret. However, there is much more to seeing than the FWHM of images taken through the turbulent atmosphere.

The optical significance of turbulence in the atmosphere is due to refractive index fluctuations, driven by temperature fluctuations. These temperature fluctuations are usually described in terms of a Kolmogorov model, with a temperature structure function as follows:

$$D_T(r)=(T(x)T(x+r))^2=C_T^2r^{2/3}.$$

Here, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`x`$ and $`r`$ are location variables, and $`C_T^2`$ characterizes the amplitude of the turbulence. These temperature fluctuations cause refractive index ($`N`$) fluctuations through the refractivity dependence of air on temperature, $`C_N^2=(\delta N/\delta T)^2C_T^2`$.

The optical effect is characterized by the three-dimensional refractivity power spectrum, which for Kolmogorov turbulence is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\kappa ,h)=0.033C_N^2(h)\kappa ^{11/3}.$$

Here, $`\kappa `$ is the spatial frequency of the turbulence, and $`C_N^2(h)`$ describes the vertical profile, where $`h`$ is the height above the observatory. $`C_N^2(h)`$ is typically complicated, with multiple layers resulting from wind shear in the atmosphere.

The Fried parameter, $`r_0`$, relates the seeing to the equations above, and is the scale over which the height-integrated phase fluctuation at a given wavenumber, $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$, equals one radian RMS.

Given a $`C_N^2(h)`$ profile, the Fried parameter is

$$r_0=\left[0.423k^2sec(z)C_N^2(h)𝑑h\right]^{3/5},$$

and the FWHM of an image is $`0.98\lambda /r_0`$. $`z`$ is the zenith angle of observation. For the rest of this paper, we will refer all calculations to the zenith.

Thus, the integrated amplitude of $`C_N^2`$ determines $`r_0`$ and therefore the seeing. The integrated seeing to ice level has proven to be a major drawback for Antarctic telescopes, where the seeing is one to three arcseconds at 0.5 $`\mu `$m, a value more typical of poor, low-altitude sites than superb sites such as Mauna Kea or Cerro Paranal, where the seeing is routinely below an arcsecond.

However, other parameters, such as scintillation, isoplanatic angle, and tilt anisoplanatism, which have paramount significance in certain kinds of astronomical observations, depend on higher order moments of the $`C_N^2`$ profile. Specifically, tilt anisoplanatism is the limiting error term for astrometric interferometry, and is a result of the second moment of the $`C_N^2`$ profile. The mean square error for an astrometric measurement with a dual-beam, differential astrometric interferometer in the very narrow-angle regime ($`\theta h<<B`$) with long integrations, $`t>>B/V`$, is (Shao & Colavita, 1992):

$$\sigma _\delta ^2=5.25B^{4/3}\theta ^2h^2C_N^2(h)(Vt)^1𝑑h.$$
(1)
In this equation, $`B`$ is the baseline of the interferometer, $`\theta `$ is the angular separation of the celestial objects, $`V`$ is the wind speed as a function of height, and $`t`$ is total integration time of the observation. This calculation assumes a Kolmogorov power spectrum with no outer scale. Due to the $`h^2`$ factor, this integral is completely dominated by high altitude turbulence. Thus, a site where the $`C_N^2`$ profile is devoid of high altitude turbulence provides a substantial advantage.

The South Pole is such a site. The $`C_N^2(h)`$ profile of the atmosphere above the South Pole is fundamentally different from that of any other characterised site (Marks et al., 1999). The unusual polar atmosphere is entirely dominated by low altitude turbulence and is not affected by the turbulence generating jet streams or trade winds nor the high-altitude synoptic wind shear that creates turbulence at mid-latitudes.

First, we explore the benefits of a South Pole interferometer quantitatively, and then highlight two scientific projects for such an interferometer.

## 2 Benefits of a South Pole Interferometer

The atomspheric turbulence at a site like Mauna Kea is dominated by high altitude turbulence generated by tropopause instability, jet streams, and wind shear between synoptic weather systems. The lack of solar stratospheric heating at the South Pole during the polar winter results in a nearly adiabatic upper atmosphere, which means that the optical effects of turbulence (due to temperature fluctuations) are substantially reduced. The tropopause is at least a factor of two lower and very weak. Furthermore, there are no jet streams or trade winds at the South Pole, which are responsible for the large wind shears observed in atmospheric profiles at mid-latitude sites.

In order to compare the sites, we describe the $`C_N^2(h)`$ profile in terms of a Hufnagel-Valley (HV) model (Hardy, 1998; Roggemann & Welsh, 1996). The HV model is an empirically fitted heuristic model, used extensively in the context of theoretical calculations of light propagation through the turbulent atmosphere. The $`C_N^2`$ profile is fitted by a series of terms: a planetary boundary layer term of the form $`C_N^2(h)=A_1\mathrm{exp}(h/H_1)`$, a tropopause term of the form $`C_N^2(h)=A_2h^{10}\mathrm{exp}(h/H_2)`$, and an individual layer term of the form $`C_N^2(h)=A_3\mathrm{exp}(\frac{(hH_3)^2}{2d^2})`$. The amplitudes, $`A_n`$, heights, $`H_n`$, and the thickness, $`d`$, of the third component are all determined empirically. The values of these parameters used in our models of Mauna Kea and the South Pole are indicated in Tables 1 and 2.

Since the astrometric error is affected by the wind speed, we model the atmospheric wind profile following Greenwood (1977), but we neglect the zenith angle and azimuth terms. This model consists of a constant ground layer term and a Gaussian profile tropopause wind term:

$$V(h)=V_{\mathrm{ground}}+V_T\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{hH}{T}\right)^2\right].$$

For the Mauna Kea model, we use: $`V_{\mathrm{ground}}=5`$ m s-1, $`V_T=25`$ m s-1, $`H=12`$ km, $`T=5`$ km. For the South Pole model, we use a higher ground wind speed, and a more moderate tropopause speed at a lower altitude: $`V_{\mathrm{ground}}=10`$ m s-1, $`V_T=10`$ m s-1, $`H=7`$ km, $`T=3`$ km. The astrometric error is not strongly sensitive to the details of the wind speed.

Marks et al. (1999, 1996) have measured the $`C_N^2`$ profile at the South Pole with tower and balloon based microthermal sensors. This profile clearly shows that the vast majority of the turbulence is at altitudes below 1 km. Our HV model is fit to the median $`C_N^2`$ profile data of Marks et al. (1999). Integrating the HV model described in Table 2 and Figure 2 results in seeing of 1.8 arcseconds at 0.5 $`\mu `$m, typical for the site as measured by direct imaging and differential image motion monitors.

We now use the model to assess the astrometric errors. In order to compare sites and our calculations with others in the literature, we refer all calculations to an interferometer with a 100 m baseline, reference stars separated by 1 arcminute and a 1 hour integration, neglecting non-atmospheric noise sources.

For the South Pole model, the astrometric error is $`\sigma _\delta =6`$ $`\mu `$as. We have also integrated a standard 0.5′′ seeing Mauna Kea model (Hardy, 1998) in Table 1 and Figure 1. The astrometric error for the same interferometer parameters is $`\sigma _\delta =100`$ $`\mu `$as. Another commonly used reference atmosphere for Mauna Kea is that of Roddier et al. (1990), which is the reference atmosphere used by Shao & Colavita (1992). Integrating this 0.3′′ seeing profile we obtain an astrometric error of $`\sigma _\delta =64`$ $`\mu `$as, comparable to the Shao & Colavita (1992) value of $`\sigma _\delta =60`$ $`\mu `$as, for a 100 m baseline and a star separation of 1 arcminute. This mode of interferometry has been demonstrated to achieve these levels of precision with the Mark III and Palomar Testbed Interferometer (Colavita, 1994; Colavita et al., 1999).

A measure of performance is the integration time required to achieve a certain level of accuracy given the same interferometer configuration. Equation 1 indicates that the integration time is inversely proportional to $`\sigma _\delta ^2`$. Therefore, these calculations indicate that an astrometric interferometer at the South Pole will achieve a given astrometric accuracy 300 times faster. A 300-fold increase in the efficiency of observation enables a number of science programs generally thought to be restricted to space-based interferometers.

This calculation is possibly optimistic. A few balloon measurements of $`C_N^2`$ (Marks et al., 1999) indicate that low-level high altitude turbulence appears at times during the Antarctic Winter. This turbulence is enough to degrade the relative speed to a factor of between 4 and 10 compared to Mauna Kea. However, this is a comparison of poor conditions at the South Pole to median or better at Mauna Kea. Furthermore, the high altitude turbulence measured by the balloon flights may be contaminated by wake turbulence from the balloon itself (Marks et al., 1999). Although this hardly affects the integrated seeing, the $`h^2`$ weighting for anisoplanatism strongly emphasizes the high altitude turbulence. Further studies are warranted, particularly with SCIDAR measurements, which are most sensitive to high altitude turbulence and are immune to wake turbulence.

There are two independent, though circumstantial, pieces of evidence that a large gain in astrometric error can be realised. First, Marks et al. (1999) calculates that the mean scintillation index, $`\sigma _I^2`$, at the South Pole is four tenths of the value at Cerro Paranal. Since the scintillation index depends on a $`h^{5/6}`$ moment of the $`C_N^2`$ profile, we can estimate a lower limit to the speed improvement compared to Paranal as $`0.4^{12/5}=9`$.

Second, the tilt anisoplanatism term is similar to the Strehl anisoplanatism term that determines coherence over angular separations. Many people know the adage, “Stars twinkle. Planets don’t.” This is generally true because planets are larger than the isoplanatic angle at most locations on the Earth, so the scintillations of different parts of the planet disk are incoherent, and average out. If the isoplanatic angle is larger than the disk of a planet, then the planet will twinkle. During the South Pole winters of 1995 and 1996, one of us (JPL) saw Jupiter scintillate on occasion, indicating a isoplanatic angle larger than 30 arcseconds in the visible, even at an elevation of 22 degrees above the horizon. The mean conditions profile in Figure 2 gives an isoplanatic angle of 33 arcsec at 0.5 $`\mu `$m at the zenith. Since the isoplanatic angle is proportional to airmass to the $`8/5`$ power, this naked eye observation indicates that the zenith isoplanatic angle must be as large as 2 arcmin under some conditions. This is compelling evidence that the atmosphere above the Antarctic Plateau is uniquely lacking high altitude turbulence.

The mechanism that generates the existing turbulence at the South Pole is wind shear across the strongly inverted lower atmosphere. Such conditions are likely to exist anywhere in the Antartic plateau, but the strength and height of the inversion, and windspeed vary markedly. The height of the inversion layer at the South Pole strongly correlates with wind speed, since the settling of cold air into a strong, shallow inversion is disrupted by high wind. Wind over the Antarctic plateau is dominated by katabatic flow from the high points of the plateaus, downhill towards the coast. Therefore, higher sites such as Dome C, where the mean windspeed is only 2.6 m s-1 are likely to show strong, shallow thermal inversions, confining the turbulence generated to even lower altitudes, which will offer even larger gains to astrometric interferometry. Likely to be the ulitimate site is the highest point on the plateau, Dome A. At these sites it is even possible that the turbulent inverted layer may be shallow enough that it is feasible to elevate the telescope above it, and realise the “super seeing” suggested by Gillingham (1993). Site testing programs are underway to characterise these sites, including seeing monitoring programs. Measurements of the $`C_N^2`$ profiles will be crucial to determination of the scientific programs and instruments to be deployed at these sites.

## 3 Science Applications

The benefits shown in this calculation are limited to differential astrometric observations. Such observations have many applications. We highlight two of them here, which are particularly promising with regard to important astrophysical questions and well suited to be conducted in the southern hemisphere. We have also considered other configurations to take advantage of the unique properties of the $`C_N^2(h)`$ profile.

The factor of 300 in speed achievable with an interferometer at the South Pole result from the low altitude of the turbulence causing common aberrations that can be removed with a differential measurement. The same technique can be exploited in different ways with single telescopes and adaptive optics or interferometers. The large isoplanatic angle at the South Pole is attractive for adaptive optics applications. However, the small $`r_0`$ requires a very bright guide stars and a high order AO system, even for a moderate sized telescope. Similarly, a conventional interferometer measuring fringe visibility suffers from the poor seeing. A dual star interferometer is required to gain an advantage from the low altitude of the turbulence with phase referencing, taking advantage of the coherence of the atmosphere across large angles. Such an interferometer can be used to measure fringe visibility on a faint source, while tracking on a bright source. A generally useful interferometer in this mode would require a large number of telescopes and long baselines to allow bootstrapping the phase referencing to long baselines. To measure relative fringe phase, however, only requires a single baseline, and it is disadvantageous to resolve the source, so moderate baselines are desirable. We therefore conclude that astrometric interferometry is uniquely suited to the site characteristics and logistical constraints in Antarctica.

### 3.1 Planet Detection and Orbit Determination

Astrometric observations with accuracies near a few $`\mu `$as permit the detection and determination of the orbits of extrasolar planets. For reference, if a star like the Sun, lying at a distance of 10 pc, has a Jupiter-like planet orbiting it, the star’s position will be perturbed by a maximum of 1 mas over the orbital period ($`12`$ years). The signature of an Earth-like planet is approximately 1 $`\mu `$as. Because the South Pole interferometer could, in principal, conduct observations indefinitely, within 10 years one could not only survey and determine the three dimensional orbital characteristics of the planets discovered through radial velocity studies, but also survey a substantial number of other stars within 30 pc for signatures of extrasolar planets. By comparison, the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), which has a limited lifetime of 5 years, will be unable to observe stars over such long periods, limiting the types of planets it will find. It is necessary to fit the mass, semi-major axis, eccentricity, parallax and proper motion of the star in the astrometric solution. Accurate determination of all of these parameters with less than a complete orbit is not possible. It will therefore require significantly longer temporal baselines than SIM can provide to fully characterise the distribution of planets.

In comparison to the Keck Interferometer, the advantages of the South Pole interferometer are the factor of 300 in speed of observation, meaning that many more stars could be surveyed in a given time. Alternatively, the substantially larger isoplanatic angle permits observation of more stars. For example, instead of speed, the benefits result in a 300-fold increase in the area of sky from which reference stars can be chosen.

### 3.2 Astrometric Measurement of OGLE Microlensing Events

There is a controversial body of evidence that suggests that a substantial fraction of the dark matter in the Milky Way is in the form of old white dwarfs. These may have been detected by microlensing experiments (MACHO; Alcock et al. (2000)) and direct surveys (Oppenheimer et al., 2001). However, the locations of the lensing masses remains unmeasurable and is a major source of contention among various researchers. It is possible that none of the microlensing events correspond to lenses in the Galaxy’s halo. Astrometry of the source star during a microlensing event breaks the degeneracy in the solution to the microlensing equations. As a result, one can determine the mass and distance to the microlens itself. As shown by Boden et al. (1998), astrometric accuracy of better than 10 $`\mu `$as permits accurate determination of the lens parameters, although some degeneracy remains concerning the transverse velocity of the lens. Indeed, a lens placed at a distance of 8 kpc with the source star in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), produces an astrometric effect of about 100 $`\mu `$as, readily detectable with a modest baseline South Pole interferometer.

Although the MACHO project (Alcock et al., 2000) is no longer searching for microlenses, the OGLE-II project (Udalski et al., 1997) is currently engaged in more sensitive observations of the LMC and their system for broadcasting early detection of new events is almost operational. The LMC is easily observed from the South Pole. With continuous observation possible during the polar night, an interferometer at the South Pole could resolve the remaining question concerning the nature of the MACHO objects.

## 4 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that the unique structure of the atmosphere above the high Antarctic plateau provides significant advantages to interferometric astrometry. The calculations described above motivate improved measurements of the $`C_N^2`$ profile of the atmosphere with statistical coverage of varying conditions. If such measurements confirm our results, the construction of an interferometer at the South Pole should be considered for the near future. The observations by such an instrument will have a substantial impact on several important astrophysical problems.

## Acknowledgments

JPL has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center for Adaptive Optics, managed by the University of California at Santa Cruz under cooperative agreement No. AST-9876783. We thank the University of California–Berkeley Center for Integrative Planetary Studies for a travel grant. BRO is supported by a Hubble Postdoctoral Research Fellowship (grant number HF-01122.01-99A). We thank Jean Vernin for providing electronic versions of and discussions of South Pole $`C_N^2`$ profiles and Geoff Marcy and Ben Lane for useful discussions. This work would not have been possible without the dedicated work of Rodney Marks, who died at the South Pole while wintering over.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We wish to describe how General Relativity modifies classical physics on two different scales: the scale of elementary particles, and on cosmological scales, the large scale structure of the Universe. We shall discuss a few different scenarios, describing the main ideas. The more detailed mathematical discussions can be found in our original papers.

The mathematics of General Relativity (GR) has several features which are extremely interesting, and are quite different from the classical Newtonian theory of gravity. We will show how rich a subject GR is, both mathematically, and in its physical applications and interpretations. Indeed, GR is most interesting from a physical viewpoint because it gives a different understanding of physical phenomena.

The main feature of Einstein’s Theory of GR is that the gravitational field is the metric in 4-dimensional spacetime. Thus GR is actually a theory of spacetime in the sense that the underlying spacetime continuum is not fixed, but is allowed to vary; indeed, massive bodies modify the curvature of their surrounding spacetime geometry, and free particles traverse along geodesics determined by the metric. The second important feature of GR is the existence of black holes; this notion has no classical analogue. We shall see the role played by black holes in various aspects of this paper. Finally, we remark that GR in and of itself, is a very beautiful subject. This was already recognized by Einstein himself who in 1915, in his presentation of the theory of GR to the Prussian Academy in Berlin stated, “Hardly anyone who has grasped the theory, will be able to escape from its magic.” This is undoubtedly still true today.

## 2 Background Material

In this section we shall review some basic ideas in GR, Yang-Mills (YM) equations and the Dirac (D) equation in four-dimensional Lorentzian spacetime.

A. General Relativity

General Relativity is Einstein’s Theory of Gravity, and is based on the following 3 hypotheses.

* The gravitational field is the metric $`g_{ij}`$ in 4-dimensional spacetime. The metric is assumed to be symmetric: $`g_{ij}=g_{ji},i,j=03`$.
* At each point, $`g_{ij}`$ can be diagonalized as

$$g_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1).$$
* The equations should be independent of the particular coordinates involved, and thus the equations should be tensor equations.

$`(E_1)`$ is Einstein’s brilliant insight, whereby he “geometrizes” the gravitational field, replacing one Newtonian potential for the gravitational field by the ten metric potential functions, $`g_{ij},ij`$. $`(E_2)`$ means that Special Relativity is included in GR, (and also that the metric tensor is everywhere non-singular),while $`(E_3)`$ asserts that coordinates are merely an artifact, and physics shouldn’t depend on the choice of coordinates.

The metric $`g_{ij}=g_{ij}(x),i,j=03,x=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3),x^0`$ = ct (c = speed of light), is a tensor defined on 4-d spacetime. Einstein’s equations are ten (tensor) equations for the unknown metric $`g_{ij}`$ (gravitational field), and take the form

$$R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ij}=\sigma T_{ij}.$$
(2.1)
The left-hand side $`G_{ij}=R_{ij}\frac{1}{2}Rg_{ij}`$ is the Einstein tensor and is a geometric quantity, depending only on $`g_{ij}`$ and its derivatives, while $`T_{ij}`$, the energy-momentum tensor, represents the source of the gravitational field, and encodes the distribution of matter. The word “matter” in GR refers to everything which can produce a gravitational field, including elementary particles and electromagnetic fields. Since the Einstein tensor identically satisfies the equation $`G_{j;i}^i=0`$ (the covariant divergence vanishes) it follows that on solutions of (1), $`T_{j;i}^i=0`$, and this in turn expresses the laws of conservation and momentum, . The quantities which make up the Einstein tensor $`G_{ij}`$ are given as follows. First from the metric tensor $`g_{ij}`$, we form the Levi-Civita connection (Christofffel symbols) $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k=\frac{1}{2}g^k\mathrm{}\left(\frac{g_\mathrm{}j}{x^i}+\frac{g_i\mathrm{}}{x^j}\frac{g_{ij}}{x^{\mathrm{}}}\right),i,j,k=03,$$

where $`[g^k\mathrm{}]=[g_k\mathrm{}]^1`$, and summation convention is employed; namely every up-down index is to be summed from 0 - 3.111In a letter to a friend Einstein wrote, “I have made a great discovery in mathematics; I have suppressed the summation sign every time the summation must be made over an index that occurs twice …”.  Using these $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k`$, we construct the Riemann curvature tensor $`R_{qk\mathrm{}}^i`$:

$$R_{qk\mathrm{}}^i=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\mathrm{}^i}{x^k}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qk}^i}{x^{\mathrm{}}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pk}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_q\mathrm{}^p\mathrm{\Gamma }_p\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qk}^p.$$

Finally, we can explain the terms $`R_{ij}`$ and $`R`$ in $`G_{ij}`$; namely $`R_{ij}=R_{isj}^s`$ is the Ricci tensor and $`R=g^{ij}R_{ij}`$ is the scalar curvature.

The quantity $`\sigma `$ is a universal constant defined by

$$\sigma =\frac{8\pi \kappa }{c^4}$$

where $`\kappa `$ is Newton’s gravitational constant, and $`c`$ is the speed of light (both in “appropriate” units; we shall often choose units in which $`\kappa =1=c`$).

From these definitions, one immediately sees the enormous complexity of the Einstein equations (2.1). For this reason, we shall often seek solutions which have a high degree of symmetry, the aim being to make the resulting equations mathematically tractable.

B. Black Hole Solutions

Consider the gravitational field outside of a ball of mass $`M`$ in $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$. Solving Einstein’s equations $`G_{ij}=0`$, gives the celebrated Schwarzschild solution (1916):

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)c^2dt^2+\left(1\frac{2m}{r}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(2.2)
where $`m=\frac{\kappa M}{c^2}`$, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$ is the standard metric on the unit 2-sphere. Since $`2m`$ has dimensions of length, it is called the Schwarzschild radius. Observe that on the sphere $`r=2m`$, the metric becomes singular; indeed $`g_{tt}=0`$ and $`g_{rr}=\mathrm{}`$. By transforming the metric (2.2) to so-called Kruskal coordinates, , one sees that the Schwarzchild sphere $`r=2m`$, has the physical characteristics of a black hole: light and nearby particles can enter, nothing can escape, and there is an intrinsic (non-removable) singularity at the center $`r=0`$.

More generally, we could consider a metric of the form

$$ds^2=T(r)^2dt^2+A^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(2.3)
where

$$A(r)=1\frac{2m(r)}{r},2m(r)=r(1A(r));$$

$`m(r)`$ is called the “mass” function. For this metric, we define a black hole solution to be a solution of Einstein’s equations which satisfies

$$A(\rho )=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}\rho >0,$$

and $`A(r)>0`$ if $`r>\rho `$. $`\rho `$ is the radius of the black hole, and is often referred to as the event horizon. (Defined by the condition that it be the largest zero of the $`dr^2`$ term in the metric.)

C. Yang-Mills Equations

The Yang-Mills equations are a generalization of Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism. To see this, we first write Maxwell’s equations in an invariant way. For this, let $`A`$ be the scalar-valued 1-form

$$A=A_idx^i,A_i\mathrm{IR},$$

called the electromagnetic potential (by physicists), or a connection (by geometers). Then, $`F`$, the elecromagnetic field (curvature) is the 2-form defined by

$$F=dA.$$
(2.4)
In coordinates, $`F`$ can be written as

$$F=F_{ij}dx^idx^j,F_{ij}=\frac{A_i}{x^j}\frac{A_j}{x^i}.$$

In this set-up, Maxwell’s equations take the form

$$dF=0,d^{}F=0.$$

The first equation follows trivially from (2.4), while for the second equation, the “star” is called the Hodge star operator and in four dimensions, it maps 2-forms to 2-forms and is defined by

$$(^{}F)_k\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{|g|}\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}F^{ij},$$

where $`g=det(g_{ij})`$, and $`\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}`$ is the completely anti-symmetric symbol defined as $`\epsilon _{ijk\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{sgn}(i,j,k,\mathrm{})`$. Here, as usual, we always use the metric to raise (or lower) indices, so that

$$F^{ij}=g^\mathrm{}ig^{mj}F_\mathrm{}m.$$

It is important to notice that $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$ depends on metric $`g_{ij}`$.

The Yang-Mills equations are a set of equations which generalize Maxwell’s equations. Thus, to each Yang-Mills equation is associated a Lie group $`G`$ (of symmetries), called the gauge group. For such $`G`$, we consider its Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, defined as being the tangent space at the identity of $`G`$. Now suppose that $`A`$ is a $`𝔤`$-valued 1-form; i.e.

$$A=A_idx^i,$$

where each $`A_i`$ is in $`𝔤`$. In this (slightly!) more general case, the curvature 2-form $`F`$ is defined by

$$F=dA+AA,$$

and in components,

$$F_{ij}=\frac{A_j}{x^i}\frac{A_i}{x^j}+[A_i,A_j],A_i𝔤.$$

Notice that the commutator, $`[A_i,A_j]=0`$ if $`G`$ is an abelian group, but is generally non-zero if $`G`$ is a matrix group. The Yang-Mills equations are again given by

$$dF=0\mathrm{and}d^{}F=0.$$
(2.5)
These generalize Maxwell’s equation because for Maxwell’s equation, $`G=U(1)`$, the circle group $`(U(1)=\{e^{i\theta }:\theta \mathrm{IR}\})`$, so $`𝔤`$ consists of scalars and the commutator term vanishes. Note that for Maxwell’s equations $`d^{}F=0`$ is a linear equation for the $`F_{ij}`$’s, or for the unknown “connection coefficients” $`A_i`$. However if $`G`$ is non-abelian, say $`G=SU(2)`$, then the Yang-Mills equations $`d^{}F=0`$ become non-linear equations for the (unknown) matrices $`A_i`$.

D. The Dirac Equation in Curved Spacetime

The Dirac equation brings in Quantum Mechanics, and is a generalization of Schrödinger equation to the relativistic case. It also describes the intrinsic “spin” of certain elementary particles. The Dirac equation takes the form

$$(Gm)\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(2.6)
where $`G`$ is the Dirac operator and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a complex-valued 4-vector called wave the function (spinor) of a fermion222Fermions are distinguished from bosons in that fermions have half-integral multiples of spin, while bosons have integral multiples of spin. Only fermions obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Examples of fermions are protons and antiprotons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons, quarks, and leptons. Examples of bosons are mesons, photons, and pions. (Dirac particle) of mass $`m`$. The Dirac operator $`G`$ can be written as

$$G=iG^j(x)\frac{}{x^j}+B(x)$$

where the $`G^j`$ are $`4\times 4`$ matrices called the Dirac matrices and $`B`$ is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix. The Dirac matrices $`G^j`$ and the Lorentzian metric $`g_{ij}`$ (defined on 4-d spacetime) are related by

$$g^{jk}I=\frac{1}{2}\{G^j,G^k\},$$
(2.7)
where $`\{G^j,G^k\}`$ is the anti-commutator

$$\{G^j,G^k\}=G^jG^k+G^kG^j.$$

The Dirac matrices thus depend on the metric.

Now let $`H`$ be any space-like hypersurface in $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$, with future directed normal vector field $`\nu =(\nu _i)`$, and let $`d\mu `$ be the invariant measure on $`H`$ induced by the metric $`g_{ij}`$. Define a scalar product on solutions, $`\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the Dirac equation by

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }>=_H\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}G^j\mathrm{\Phi }\nu _j𝑑\mu .$$

This scalar product is positive definite, and, as a consequence of current conservation (c.f. )

$$_j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}G^j\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$

it is independent of the choice of the hypersurface $`H`$. By direct generalization of the expression

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^0\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2$$

in flat Minkowski space given originally by Dirac, (), where

$$\gamma ^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$

in our case $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ is the adjoint spinor, defined by

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟏}& 0\\ & \\ 0& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$

$`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ denotes complex conjugation,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}G^j\mathrm{\Psi }\nu _j$$
(2.8)
is interpreted to be the probability density of the Dirac particle. We normalize solutions of the Dirac equation by requiring

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }|\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}>=1.$$
(2.9)
If the Lorentzian metric admits a black-hole solution at $`r=\rho >0`$, (2.9) is replaced by

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \{t=\mathrm{const}.,r>r_0\}\end{array}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}G^j\mathrm{\Psi }\nu _jd\mu <\mathrm{}$$
(2.10)
for all $`r_0>\rho `$. For normalized solutions of the Dirac equation, the integral (2.10) gives the probability for the Dirac particle to be in the region $`r>r_0`$. We shall only consider Dirac particles which lie outside the event horizon. This is because the probability density (2.8) is not necessarily positive inside the event horizon so that a positive infinite contribution of the integral outside the event horizon can be compensated by a negative infinite contribution inside the event horizon. We thus demand that the integral (2.10) away from, and outside of the event horizon, be finite.

In the paper , it is shown that the Dirac matrices $`G^j`$ can be chosen to be any $`4\times 4`$ matrices which are Hermitian with respect to the scalar product

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }>=_{\mathrm{IR}^4}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Psi }\sqrt{|g|}𝑑x$$

and satisfy the anti-commutation relations (2.7). This gives us more flexibility in choosing the Dirac matrices. Namely, the relations (2.7) do not uniquely determine the Dirac matrices in curved spacetime. However it was proved in  that all choices of Dirac matrices satisfying (2.7) yield unitarily equivalent Dirac operators.

With this introduction to the Einstein equations, the YM equations and Dirac’s equation, we turn to our first topic, the coupled Einstein-Dirac-Yang/Mills (EDYM) equations.

## 3 Einstein-Dirac-Yang/Mills Equations

(joint work with F. Finster and S.T.-Yau)

The EDYM equations are obtained by varying the action

$$S=\left[\frac{1}{16\pi \kappa }R+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(Gm)\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{16\pi e^2}\mathrm{Tr}(F_{ij}F^{ij})\right]\sqrt{|g|}𝑑x$$

over Lorentzian metrics $`g_{ij}`$, $`𝔤`$-valued Yang/Mills connections $`A_idx^i`$ (where $`𝔤`$ is the Lie algebra of the given gauge group), and 4-spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Here $`e`$ is the so-called Yang/Mills coupling constant, and $`\kappa `$ is Newton’s gravitational constant. In general, the EDYM equations are extremely complicated. We specialize here to spherically symmetric solutions depending only on the radius $`r=|x|`$. Taking the gauge group as $`SU(2)`$333The gauge group $`SU(2)`$ corresponds to the weak nuclear force, while $`SU(3)`$ corresponds to the strong nuclear force. together with a special ansatz for the spinors, we can simplify the Dirac equations from complex 4-spinors to the case of an equation for real 2-spinors $`(\alpha ,\beta )^t`$, . In this set-up the (SU(2)) EDYM equations take the following form:

$`\sqrt{A}\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \\ \beta \end{array}\right)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}W/r& (m+\omega )T\\ & \\ \text{}m+\omega T& W/r\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ \\ \beta \end{array}\right)`$ (3.10)
$`rA^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1A{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1W^2)^2}{r^2}}2\kappa \omega T^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{e^2}}A(W^{})^2`$ (3.11)
$`2rA{\displaystyle \frac{T^{}}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+A+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1W^2)^2}{r^2}}+2\kappa mT(\alpha ^2\beta ^2)2\kappa \omega T^2(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)`$
$`+`$ $`4\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{T}{r}}W\alpha \beta {\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{e^2}}A(W^{})^2`$
$`r^2AW^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`(1W^2)W+e^2rT\alpha \beta r^2{\displaystyle \frac{A^{}T2AT^{}}{2T}}W^{}.`$ (3.13)
Here $`m`$ is the rest mass of the Dirac particle, $`\omega `$ is its energy, and $`W`$ is the unknown connection coefficient. Equation (3.1) is the Dirac equation, (3.2) and (3.3) are the Einstein equations (for the Lorentzian metric of the form (2.3)), while (3.4) is the Yang/Mills equation. Notice that equations (3.1), (3.3) and (3.5) all become singular when $`A=0`$; i.e., at a black-hole. (This is special to Einstein’s equations, and is the first significant difference that we see from classical equations.)

Smooth solutions of (3.1) - (3.4) are those which are defined for all $`r0`$, and are called particle-like solutions. Black hole (BH) solutions correspond to solutions having $`A(\rho )=0`$ for some $`\rho >0`$, and are defined for all $`r>\rho `$, with $`A(r)>0`$, if $`r>\rho `$. In addition solutions of (3.1)-(3.4) are required to satisfy certain initial condictions, (see ), together with the following global conditions :

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\frac{T}{\sqrt{A}}𝑑r=1(\mathrm{for}\mathrm{particle}\mathrm{like}\mathrm{solutions}),$$
(3.14)
$$0<_{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2)\frac{T}{\sqrt{A}}𝑑r<\mathrm{}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{each}r_0>\rho ,$$
(3.15)
(for BH solutions),

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r(1A(r))<\mathrm{},$$
(3.16)
$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}T(r)=1$$
(3.17)
$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}(W(r),W^{}(r))),\mathrm{is}\mathrm{finite}.$$
(3.18)
Conditions (3.5) and (3.6) state that the spinors (wave functions) are normalizable, (3.7) means that the fermions have finite (ADM) mass, (3.8) (together with (3.7)) means that the gravitational field is asymptotically Minkowskian, while (3.9) asserts that the YM field is well-behaved. We now state our main results, and discuss them afterward.

Theorem 3.1 (): There exist stable particle-like solutions of the EDYM equations for arbitrarily weak gravitational coupling constant: $`m^2k/e^20`$.

Theorem 3.2 (): Every black hole solution of the EDYM equations cannot be normalized; namely, the spinors must vanish identically outside of the black hole.

Both of these results are unexpected and rather surprising.

Theorem 3.1 is obtained using numerical methods. This (stability) result has been shown to be false for the (SU(2)), Einstein-Yang/Mills (EYM) equations, , and shows that Dirac particles in a gravitational field form bound states if an additional strong coupling to a non-abelian Yang-Mills field is taken into account. In , we employ some new numerical techniques, including a multi-parameter “shooting method”, and a scaling technique introduced in . Our result shows that weak as gravity is (e.g., it is $`10^{21}`$ times weaker than electromagnetism), it still has a regularizing effect. Although gravity is not renormalizable (which means that the problem cannot be treated in a perturbation expansion), our solutions of the EDYM equations are regular and well-behaved for arbitrarily weak gravitational coupling. Our stability result is obtained by using Conley Index techniques, .

The proof of Theorem 3.2 is given in . The result shows that the EDYM equations do not exhibit normalizable BH solutions. Thus, in the presence of quantum mechanical Dirac particles, static, spherically symmetric BH’s do not exist. Another interpretation of our result is that it indicates that Dirac particles can only either disappear into the BH or escape to infinity. We shall discuss this further in the next section.

## 4 Decay Rates and Probability Estimates for
Massive Dirac Particles in a Charged,
Rotating Black Hole Geometry

(joint work with F. Finster, N. Kamran, and S.-T. Yau)

Consider the physical situation of a Dirac particle (fermion, electron, proton, etc.) of mass $`m>0`$ outside of a charged, rotating black hole. Question: What is its long time behavior, as $`t\mathrm{}`$?

In the classical case (no Dirac equation, no quantum mechanical considerations), the particle can remain in a time-periodic orbit around the black hole (see ). In this section we shall show that our previous “indication”, (mentioned at the end of the last section) is valid. That is, if quantum mechanical effects are taken into account, the picture completely changes, and the Dirac particle either enters the black or hole, or tends to infinity; no other possibilities can occur.

In the paper , we proved that there are no normalizable, time periodic solutions of the Dirac equation in a Reissner-Nordström444The Reissner-Nordström solution is an extension of the Schwazschild solution, and is a static solution of the coupled Einstein-Maxwell equations; see . black-hole background; in particular there are no static solutions of the Dirac equation in such a background metric. This result was extended in  to the case in which the background geometry is that of a charged, rotating black hole. In this section we shall discuss such black holes and we shall show that our above “indications” are correct; i.e., in such a background geometry, a Dirac particle either tends to infinity, or enters the black hole – there are no other possibilities. In addition we shall obtain probability estimates on which of these two possibilities occurs. We begin with a brief discussion of the geometry of a charged rotating black hole.

In 1963, R. Kerr found a solution of Einstein’s equations corresponding to a rotating black hole . This result was generalized by Kerr and Newman; (see ), to a charged rotating black hole (called the Newman-Penrose solution of Einstein’s equations):

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{U}(dta\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi d\varphi )^2U\left(\frac{dr^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+d\theta ^2\right)\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{U}\left[adt(r^2+a^2)d\varphi \right]^2,$$
(4.1)
where

$`U(r,\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`r^22Mr+a^2+Q^2,`$
and $`M,aM`$, and $`Q`$ denote the mass, angular momentum, and charge of the black hole, respectively; $`a`$ is the angular velocity of the black hole. From our earlier remarks, the largest root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ corresponds to the event horizon of the black hole. We assume555This is the so-called “non-extreme” black hole.

$$M^2>a^2+Q^2,$$
(4.2)
then

$$r=\rho M+\sqrt{M^2a^2Q^2}$$

defines the event horizon, the boundary of the charged, rotating, black hole (CRBH).

Now consider the Cauchy Problem for a Dirac particle of mass $`m>0`$, and charge $`q`$, in this CRBH background geometry, (see , where we write the Dirac equation in this different way, taking the spin connection into account) having initial data outside of the event horizon $`r=\rho `$:

$$(i\gamma ^jD_jm)\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=0$$
(4.3)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_0(x),|x|>\rho .$$
(4.4)
Here is our first result.

Theorem 4.1: Let $`\delta >0`$ be given, and let $`R>\rho +\delta `$. Consider the (annular) region in $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$

$$K_{\delta ,R}=\{\rho +\delta rR\}.$$

Then the probability for the Dirac particle to be inside $`K_{\delta ,R}`$ tends to zero as $`t\mathrm{}`$; namely,

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{K_{\delta ,R}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^j\mathrm{\Psi })(t,x)\nu _j𝑑\mu =0.$$
(4.5)
Thus with probability one, the Dirac particle leaves every bounded set in $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$. The proof of this theorem is based on a result of Chandrasekhar, , who showed that the Dirac equation in the CRBH geometry can be separated into ODE’s. Moreover, using this, we can write the Dirac propagator as (see )

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{k,n\mathrm{ZZ}}{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}e^{i\omega t}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{2}{}}t_{ab}^{k\omega n}\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{k\omega n}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0d\omega ,$$
(4.6)
where the (positive) scalar product is defined in . Here $`k`$ and $`n`$ are generalized angular momentum numbers (arising from Chandrasekhar’s separation theorem), $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{k\omega n}`$ are solutions of the Dirac equation, and the $`t_{ab}^{k\omega n}`$ are generalized transmission coefficients. These functions can be written in terms of the fundamental solutions of the resulting ODE’s. For $`|\omega |>m`$, near the event horizon, the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{k\omega n}`$ go over to spherical waves. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{k\omega n}`$ corresponds to incoming waves (moving towards the black hole), and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}`$ corresponds to outgoing waves (moving away from the black hole). Near infinity, the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{k\omega n}`$ again go over to spherical waves. For $`|\omega |<m`$, the fundamental solutions (for $`a=1,2`$) near the event horizon are linear combinations of both incoming and outgoing waves. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{k\omega n}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}`$) decays (resp. grows) exponentially at infinity. The theorem is proved using the representation (4.6).

Theorem 4.1 implies that the Dirac particle must leave every bounded set in $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$. Equivalently the Dirac wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ decays to zero in $`L_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$, outside and away from the event horizon. It follows that the Dirac particle must eventually either disappear into the black hole, or escape to infinity; these are the only possibilities. This raises the following questions:

* What is the likelihood of each of these two possibilities?,

and

* What is the rate of decay of the Dirac wave function on a compact subset of $`\mathrm{IR}^3`$ outside of the black hole?

We consider question (B) first. To this end, let $`q`$ denote the charge of the Dirac particle and assume that the Dirac particle has “small charge”, in the sense that666This means that the gravitational attraction is the dominant force far from the black hole. Indeed, at large distances from the black hole the metric is asymptotically Minkowskian, and the gravitational and electromagnetic fields can be described by the Newtonian limit. In this limit the gravitational and electrical forces are $`mM/r^2`$ and $`qQ/r^2`$, the Newton and Coulomb laws, respectively.

$$mM>|qQ|.$$
(4.7)
We also assume that the angular momentum of the initial data is bounded. This means that the summation in (4.6) is over a bounded set of integers $`n`$ and $`k`$; say

$$|k|k_0\mathrm{and}|n|n_0.$$

We then have the following theorem; (see  for the proof).

Theorem 4.2: (Decay Rates): Consider the Cauchy problem (4.3), (4.4) for the Dirac equation in the non-extreme CRBH background geometry, with small charge. Assume that the Cauchy data $`\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ is smooth with compact support outside of the event horizon, and has bounded angular momentum.

(i) If for any $`k`$ and $`n`$

$$\underset{\omega m}{lim\; sup}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right|0,\mathrm{or}\underset{\omega m}{lim\; inf}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0\right|0,$$
(4.8)
then

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t,x)|=ct^{5/6}+O(t^{5/6\epsilon })\mathrm{as}t\mathrm{},$$
(4.9)
where $`c=c(x)0`$ and any $`\epsilon <\frac{1}{30}`$.

(ii) If for all $`k,n`$, and $`a=1,2,\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=0`$ for all $`\omega `$ in a neighborhood of $`\pm m`$, then for any fixed $`x`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x,t)`$ decays rapidly in $`t`$, (faster than any polynomial).

For a quantum mechanical particle, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies that its kinetic energy is not precisely known. Since the associated Hamiltonian has continuous spectrum (the operator is defined on an unbounded interval), the energy $`\omega `$ of the Dirac particle is a continuous parameter. Condition (4.8) means that the initial energy distribution has outgoing components near $`\omega =m`$ or near $`\omega =m`$. Our theorem implies that in this case, the decay rate is $`t^{5/6}`$. That is, the decay rate $`t^{5/6}`$ quantifies the effect of the black hole’s attraction, on the long time behavior of the Dirac particle.

In flat Minkowski space solutions of the wave equation having compactly supported data, decay rapidly (Hughyens principle). In the CRBH geometry, the Dirac wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ behaves near infinity like solutions of the wave equation in flat Minkowski space, and near the black hole, it should behave like a massless particle, which decays like $`t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}/2}`$ (see ). Thus one would expect (by “interpolation”) that the Dirac particle in the CRBH geometry should decay at least as fast as $`t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}/2}`$. However, Theorem 4.2 shows that the naïve picture is incorrect, and that the gravitational field affects the behavior of the Dirac particle in a far more subtle way.

Finally, one can ask why $`\omega =\pm m`$ play such special roles. To answer this, note that for a particle of mass $`m`$ in flat space, its energy $`\omega =m`$, (or $`m`$ since the Dirac equation has negative energy solutions). If the particle’s momentum is non-zero, then $`\omega >m`$. Thus in flat space, its energy is outside of the interval $`(m,m)`$. But a quantum mechanical particle can have a continuous energy distribution, but only outside of $`(m,m)`$ (this is called the “energy gap” or “mass gap”). However, in the presence of a gravitational field, the energy distribution can be supported on the entire real line, but the dominant term is near $`\pm m`$.

We now turn to question (A), and discuss the probability for our Dirac particle to escape to infinity, or to enter the black hole. Let $`R>\rho `$, (the event horizon), and define the probability $`p`$ of the Dirac particle to escape to infinity by

$$p=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{r>R}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^j\mathrm{\Psi })(t,x)\nu _j𝑑\mu .$$
(4.10)
Note that $`p`$ is independent of $`R`$; namely, if $`R_2>R_1>\rho `$, and

$$p_i=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{r>R_i}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^j\mathrm{\Psi })(t,x)\nu _j𝑑x,i=1,2,$$

then

$$p_1p_2=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(_{r>R_1}_{r>R_2}\right)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}_{R_1}^{R_2}=0,$$

by Theorem 4.1; thus $`p_1=p_2`$ and this proves our assertion. In  we prove that

$$p=\frac{1}{\pi }\begin{array}{c}\underset{|k|k_0}{}\\ \left|n\right|n_0\end{array}_{R\backslash [m,m]}\left(\frac{1}{2}2|t_{12}^{k\omega n}|^2\right)\left|<\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>\right|^2𝑑\omega .$$

Accordingly, $`1p`$ gives the probability that the Dirac particle enters the black hole. The following theorem gives conditions under which $`p=0,p=1`$, or $`0<p<1`$, in terms of the initial energy distribution.

Theorem 4.3 (): Consider the Cauchy problem as in Theorem 4.2, with initial data normalized by $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_0|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>=1.`$

(i) If the outgoing initial energy distribution satisfies $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>0`$ for some $`\omega `$ with $`|\omega |>m`$, then $`p>0`$.

(ii) If the initial energy distribution satisfies for $`a=1`$ or 2, $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>0`$ for some $`\omega ,|\omega |m`$, then $`p<1`$.

(iii) If the initial energy distribution is supported in the interval $`[m,m]`$, then $`p=0`$.

(iv) If (4.8) holds, then $`0<p<1`$.

(v) $`p=1`$ if and only if for all $`k,\omega `$ and $`n`$, the following conditions hold:

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>`$ $`=`$ $`0,\mathrm{if}|\omega |m`$
$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_1^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>`$ $`=`$ $`2t_{12}^{k\omega n}<\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0>,\mathrm{if}\omega >m.`$
Note that in case (i), the Dirac particle has a non-zero probability of escaping to infinity; in case (ii) the particle can enter the black hole, while in case (iii) the components of the initial energy distribution, which lead to the decay rate $`t^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}/6}`$, do not have enough energy to allow the Dirac particle to tend to infinity. Indeed, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^{k\omega n}`$ for $`|\omega |>m`$ is outgoing near the event horizon, and so the Dirac particle resists the gravitational attraction for a while, but it eventually gets turned around and is driven into the black hole. In case (iv), the particle has a positive probability of either escaping to infinity, or entering the black hole. Finally we can understand why $`p=1`$ for special choices of initial data. To obtain such data, consider the special situation where a Dirac particle at time $`t=\mathrm{}`$ comes in from spatial infinity. Taking $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,x)`$ as initial data and reversing the time direction, the solution of this Cauchy problem clearly escapes to infinity with probability 1.

## 5 Shock-Waves, Cosmology, and Black Holes

(joint work with B. Temple)

In the previous sections we have discussed the behavior of elementary particles in a gravitational field; that is, how General Relativity affects matter on small scales. We now change directions and discuss GR on large scales, that is we shall discuss some recent astrophysical implications of GR.

We again consider the Einstein equations (2.1) where now the energy-momentum tensor $`T_{ij}`$ is that of a perfect fluid; i.e., a fluid in which dissipation effects are neglected:

$$T_{ij}=(p+\rho )u_iu_j+pg_{ij}.$$
(5.1)
Here $`\rho `$ and $`p`$ are the density and pressure respectively, of the fluid, and $`u=(u^0,u^1,u^2,u^3)`$ is its 4-velocity, where as usual, $`u_i=g_{ij}u^j`$. The Einstein equations (5.1) describe the simultaneous evolution of the fluid and the gravitational field: matter is the source of spacetime curvature in Einstein’s theory.

Shock-waves are relevant here since the Relativistic Euler Equations are “embedded” within the Einstein equations $`G_{ij}=\sigma T_{ij}`$. This is because the Bianchi Identities in geometry, (cf. ), imply that the (covariant) divergence of the Einstein tensor $`G_{ij}`$, vanishes identically: Div $`G_{ij}=0`$, so Div $`T_{ij}=0`$, and this latter equation is precisely the Relativistic Euler Equations, expressing the conservation of energy and momentum.

We pause to make the following remarks:

* There is no “Glimm’s Theorem” () in GR, not yet anyway. However an important first step in this direction was recently made by Groah and Temple, see .
* No proof is known which demonstrates that in GR, shock-waves form from smooth data (see ).
* In GR, the initial data cannot be arbitrarily prescribed on a non-characteristic surface, and must satisfy additional constraints which are imposed by geometrical considerations (Bianchi Identities). These constraints take the form of a coupled set of 4 nonlinear elliptic equations. There are deep unresolved issues concerning these constraint equations.

In , we constructed the first examples of shock-wave solutions in GR. The shock-waves are in the fluid variables and in the metric (gravitational field). This was done by matching two different spherically symmetric metrics Lipschitz continously across a (spherically symmetric) surface of discontinuity for the fluid variables (shock-wave). The Inner Metric is the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) metric of cosmology. Its line element is given by

$$ds^2=dt^2+R(t)^2\left[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\right]$$
(5.2)
where by a suitable re-scaling of $`r`$, we can take $`k=0,1,or1`$. This metric is clearly spherically symmetric, and describes a homogeneous, isotropic spacetime (no preferred point or direction). It models an expanding universe. There is a singularity $`(R=0)`$ in backwards time (i.e., earlier than present time) which corresponds to the Big-Bang. The function $`R(t)`$ determines the red-shift factor for distant astronomical objects. (The red-shift is what astronomers see and can measure. It is actually the Doppler effect applied to astrophysics). The red shift gives information on distance, mass, and chemical composition of the objects; see  for a discussion of these things.

The Outer Metric is the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff (TOV) metric,

$$d\overline{s}^2=B(\overline{r})d\overline{t}^2+\left(1\frac{2M(\overline{r})}{\overline{r}}\right)^1d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right).$$
(5.3)
It is both time-independent and spherically symmetric, and models a static spacetime (or the interior of a star). The function $`M(\overline{r})`$ denotes the mass inside a ball of radius $`\overline{r}`$, and is given by

$$M(\overline{r})=_0^{\overline{r}}4\pi s^2\overline{\rho }(s)𝑑s,$$

where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the density function. Both the FRW and TOV metrics satisfy Einstein’s equations for a perfect fluid; see .

For cosmology, we assume that we are given an FRW metric (which models well our expanding Universe), and we solve the differential equations for an unknown TOV metric which matches the given FRW metric across an expanding (outgoing) shock wave for the fluid variables. Our idea is to match the given $`(k=0)`$ FRW metric with equation of state given by

$$p_{\mathrm{matter}}=0,p_{\mathrm{radiation}}=aT^4,$$

where $`a`$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ denotes the temperature.777This equation of state is generally taken to be the equation of state for the Universe at present time. In our shock-wave model for cosmology, this model is not an expansion of the entire universe, but rather a limited expansion into an outer ambient static spacetime modeled by the TOV metric.

In , we constructed an explicit solution of this problem, and we showed that there are unique density and pressure profiles for each initial radiation density. In our model, the initial Big-Bang is more like a classical fluid-dynamical shock-wave explosion. The mathematical theory of shock-waves,  implies that many solutions decay as $`t\mathrm{}`$ to the same shock-wave. Thus in our shock-wave cosmology, we cannot recover all the information about the early details of the explosion, (due to entropy increase across shock-waves).

However, there is a problem with our shock-wave cosmology model; namely our shock-wave is not sufficiently far enough out. Indeed, in , we calculated the present shock position to be approximately at distance (Hubble length)

$$\frac{c}{H_0}10^{10}\mathrm{light}\mathrm{years}$$

away, where $`H(t)=\dot{R}/R(t)`$ is the Hubble “constant”, and $`H_0=H`$ (present time). But we observe quasars and distant galaxies at distances of $`10^{11}10^{12}`$ light years away. For a long time we were puzzled as to why we cannot get our shock-wave further out. But we have recently answered this question in a most unexpected way. Indeed, we recently proved that if the shock wave is beyond the critical length scale

$$\frac{c}{H(t)}(\mathrm{Hubble}\mathrm{length})$$

for the FRW metric at any time $`t>0`$, then the Universe lies “inside a black hole”, in the sense that $`(1\frac{2M}{\overline{r}})`$ changes sign at the critical length scale for the FRW metric. That is, shock matching outside a black hole can only succeed for shocks lying inside one Hubble length from the center of the FRW metric at any fixed time. This is a rather surprising connection between shock-wave cosmology and black holes.

We also have proved that radiation admitted from a galaxy (or star) at the instant when it lies a distance of exactly one Hubble length from the FRW origin will be observed at the origin (at a later time) to be infinitely red shifted. Thus an observer at the FRW origin will see the shock wave “fading out of view” as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

We are in the process of modifying our shock-wave cosmology so as to allow shock waves beyond Hubble length.

REFERENCES

1. Adler, R., Bazin, M., and Schiffer, M., “Introduction to General Relativity”, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, (1975).
2. Bjorken, J., and Drell, S., Relativistic Quantum Mechinacs, McGraw-Hill, (1964).
3. Chandrasekhar, S., The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, (1992).
4. Finster, F., “Local $`U(2,2)`$ symmetry in relativistic quantum mechanics”, J. Math. Phys., 39, 6276-6290, (1988).
5. Finster, F., Smoller, J., Yau. S.-T., “Particle-like solutions of the Einstein-Dirac equations”, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104020/1 – 104020/19 (1999).
6. Finister, F., Smoller, J. , and Yau, S.-T. “Non-existence of black hole solutions for a spherically symmetric, static Einstein-Dirac-Maxwell system, Comm. Math. Phys, 205, 249-262, (1999).
7. Finister, F., Smoller, J. , and Yau, S.-T. “Non-existence of time-periodic solutions of the Dirac equation in a Reissner-Nordström black hole background”, J. Math. Phys., 41, 2173-2194 (2000).
8. Finster, F., Smoller, J., Yau S.-T., The interaction of Dirac particles with non-abelian gauge fields and gravitation–bound states, Nuclear Physics B, 584, 387-414 (2000).
9. Finster, F., Smoller, J., Yau S.-T., The interaction of Dirac particles with non-abelian gauge fields and gravitation–black holes, Michigan Math. J., 47, 199-208, (2000).
10. Finster, F., Kamran, N., Smoller, J., Yau S.-T., Non-existence of time periodic solutions of the Dirac equation in an axisymmetric black hole geometry, Comm. in Pure Appl. Math., 53, 902-929, (2000).
11. F. Finster, N. Kamran, J. Smoller and S.-T.Yau, The long time dynamics of Dirac particles in the Kerr-Newman black hole geometry (preprint).
12. F. Finster, N. Kamran, J. Smoller and S.-T.Yau, Decay rates and probability estimates Dirac particles in the Kerr-Newman black hole geometry, Comm. Math. Phys., (to appear).
13. J. Glimm, Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 18, 697-715, (1965).
14. J. Groah and B. Temple, Shock-wave solutions of the Einstein equations with perfect fluid sources: existence and consistency for the initial-value problem, (preprint).
15. R. Kerr, Gravitational field of a spinning body as an example of algebraically, special metrics, Phys. Rev. Lett., 11, 237-8, (1963).
16. P. Lax, Development of singularities of solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic partial differential equations, J. Math. Phys., 5, 611-613, (1964).
17. Smoller, J., Shock Waves and Reaction-Diffusion Equations, 2nd ed, Springer-Verlag, (1994).
18. Smoller, J., and Temple, B., Shock-wave solutions of the Einstein equations, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 128, 249-297, (1994).
19. Smoller, J., and Temple, B., Astrophysical shock wave solutions of the Einstein equations, Phys. Rev. D, 51, 2733-2743 , (1995).
20. Smoller, J., and Temple, B., Cosmology with a Shock-Wave, Comm. Math. Phys., 210, 275-308 (2000).
21. N. Straumann and Z. Zhou, Instability of the Bartnik-McKinnon solution of the Einstein-Yang-Mills equations, Phys. Lett. B., 237, 353-356, (1990).
22. Wald, R., On the instability of the n=1 Einstein-Yang-Mills black holes and mathematically related systems, J. Math. Phys., 33, 248-255, (1992).
23. Weinberg, S. Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, Wiley, (1972).

Mathematics Department
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109