text:
# Classical transport equation in non-commutative QED at high temperature

## I Introduction

The behavior of hot plasmas has been of considerable interest in the recent years kapusta:book89lebellac:book96das:book97 . It is known, in particular, that in QCD the leading behavior of the $`n`$-point gluon functions at temperatures $`Tp`$, where $`p`$ represents a typical external momentum, is proportional to $`T^2`$ and these leading contributions to the amplitudes are all gauge independent Braaten:1990it ; frenkel:1991ts . In order to extract the leading order contributions to the amplitude leading to gauge invariant results for physical quantities, it is necessary to perform a resummation of hard thermal loops, which are defined by

$$pkT,$$
(1)
where $`k`$ denotes a characteristic internal loop momentum. Such a procedure, however, is quite technical and an alternate simpler method, based on classical transport equations, has been quite useful in deriving the gauge invariant effective action which incorporates all the effects of the hard thermal loops Heinz:1985yq ; Jackiw:1993zr ; Nair:1993rx ; Blaizot:1994be ; kelly:1994ig ; Litim:sh . In such an approach, one pictures the constituents of the plasma as classical particles carrying color charge and interacting in a self-consistent manner. The main reason why such an approach works is that, for soft gauge fields, the occupation number per unit mode in a hot plasma is quite high due to the Bose-Einstein enhancement.

More recently, following from developments in string theory, there has been an increased interest in quantum field theories defined on a non-commutative manifold satisfying Seiberg:1999vs ; Fischler:2000fv ; Arcioni:1999hw ; Landsteiner:2000bw ; Szabo:2001kg ; Douglas:2001ba ; Chu:2001fe ; VanRaamsdonk:2001jd ; Bonora:2000ga

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed to be a constant anti-symmetric tensor with the dimensions of length squared. Furthermore, to avoid problems with unitarity, it is generally assumed that $`\theta ^{0\mu }=0`$ so that only the spatial coordinates are supposed to have non-commutativity. We will assume this in our entire discussion. The behavior of hot plasmas in such a non-commutative gauge theory is an interesting question. Let us note that, in non-commutative theories, because of the presence of a dimensional parameter, the hard thermal loop approximation allows for two extreme regions, namely,

$$\theta pT1,\mathrm{and}\theta pT1$$
(3)
where perturbative calculations become simple. Here $`\theta `$ can be thought of as the magnitude of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. In particular, the perturbative calculations Brandt:2002aa  show that in the region $`\theta pT1`$, all the oscillatory terms in the perturbative amplitudes are negligible and the leading behavior is proportional to $`T^2`$ as in “conventional” Yang-Mills theories (although $`\theta `$ dependent). However, in the other extreme limit, $`\theta pT1`$, the leading behavior is suppressed and is proportional to $`T^2(\theta pT)^2`$.

In an earlier paper Brandt:2002rw , we had proposed a classical transport equation which reproduced the correct hard thermal loop amplitudes in the region $`\theta pT1`$. In this regime, of course, one is not expected to see the extended (dipole) nature of non-commutative quanta Minwalla:1999px ; Sheikh-Jabbari:1999vm ; Bigatti:1999iz  and a classical description based on the picture of a plasma consisting of charged constituents suffices. However, away from this extreme region, the extended nature of the non-commutative quanta will become relevant and will play an important role. It is important, therefore, to ask if the leading behavior of the amplitudes, at high temperature, can be described by a classical transport equation for arbitrary values of $`\theta `$. It is not obvious a priori that such a description will work since it is known from the study of “conventional” QCD that the classical transport equation does not yield the correct contributions for the hard thermal loop amplitudes that are not proportional to $`T^2`$. In fact, such (sub-leading) contributions in “conventional” QCD are gauge dependent while the transport equation is manifestly gauge covariant. Let us note that, in general, the perturbative hard thermal loop contributions can be written as $`T^2H(\theta pT)`$ where $`H`$ is a given function of the dimensionless variable $`\theta pT`$. For $`\theta pT1`$, the leading behavior of $`H(\theta pT)1`$ while for $`\theta pT1`$, the leading behavior has the form $`H(\theta pT)(\theta pT)^2`$. Although for arbitrary values of $`\theta `$, the hard thermal loop amplitudes cannot be evaluated in closed forms, nonetheless, it is easy to check from their integral representations that the leading terms in $`H(\theta pT)`$ are gauge independent. Therefore, it would seem that a classical description, based on a transport equation, may reproduce the leading terms in the hard thermal loop approximation for arbitrary $`\theta `$.

In this paper, we describe classical transport equations, for QED, which precisely reproduce the leading hard thermal loop contributions for arbitrary values of $`\theta `$. We show that the transport equation for the charge neutral particle is characteristically different from that for the charged particle. In section II, we give the results for the leading hard thermal loop amplitudes obtained from perturbation calculations in an integral form, both for the fermion as well as the photon and the ghost loops. In section III, we describe the classical transport equation for a non-commutative charged particle, which reproduces all the hard thermal loop amplitudes for the fermion loop for arbitrary $`\theta `$. In section IV, we describe the transport equation for a charge neutral non-commutative particle which reproduces the hard thermal loop amplitudes for the photon and the ghost loops. In section V, we derive from the transport equation a manifestly covariantly conserved form of the current, which is related to the generating functional of hard thermal loops.

## II Results from perturbation theory

Let us consider the Lagrangian density for non-commutative QED of the form

$$=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\overline{\psi }(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)\psi $$
(4)
where

$$D_\mu \psi =_\mu \psi ie[A_\mu ,\psi ]_{\mathrm{MB}},F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ie[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_{\mathrm{MB}}$$
(5)
Here the Moyal bracket is defined to be

$$[A,B]_{\mathrm{MB}}=ABBA$$
(6)
where the Grönewold-Moyal star product has the form

$$A(x)B(x)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu ^{(\zeta )}_\nu ^{(\eta )}}A(x+\zeta )B(x+\eta )|_{\zeta =0=\eta }$$
(7)
We can add, to this Lagrangian density, gauge fixing and ghost terms which, in a covariant gauge, have the form

$$_{\mathrm{gf}}+_{\mathrm{ghost}}=\frac{1}{2\xi }(_\mu A^\mu )(_\nu A^\nu )+^\mu \overline{c}(_\mu cie[A_\mu ,c]_{\mathrm{MB}})$$
(8)
with $`\xi `$ representing the gauge fixing parameter.

Our method of calculation employs an analytic continuation of the imaginary-time formalism kapusta:book89lebellac:book96das:book97 . Using this approach, we relate the Green’s functions to forward scattering amplitudes of on-shell thermal particles, a technique that has been previously applied in the $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory as well as in gravity brandt:1993mj ; brandt:1993dkbrandt:1997se . The one-loop Feynman graphs which contribute to the photon self-energy are shown in figure 1, while the one-loop diagrams associated with the three-point function are represented in figure 2.

Using the Feynman rules given in the appendix, the leading order contributions to the photon amplitudes in the hard thermal loop approximation, arising from the fermion loop, are obtained to be

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}=\frac{8e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{T}}+1}G_{\mu \nu }(k;p)|_{k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|}$$
(9)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}=\frac{8ie^3}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{T}}+1}L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}(k;p_1,p_2,p_3)|_{k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|},$$
(10)
where the Lorentz structures are defined as

$$G_{\mu \nu }(k;p)=\eta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu p_\nu +k_\nu p_\mu }{(kp)}+\frac{p^2k_\mu k_\nu }{(kp)^2}$$
(11)
$`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}(k;p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda }{(kp_1)^2(kp_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu p_{3}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}+k_\mu k_\lambda p_{3}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}}{(kp_1)(kp_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k_\lambda }{(kp_3)}}\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mu ,p_1)(\lambda ,p_3)\right]`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permut}\mathrm{of}(\mu ,p_1)(\nu ,p_2)(\lambda ,p_3)`$
Similarly, the leading order contributions to the photon amplitudes coming from the photon and the ghost loops are determined to be

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}=\frac{4e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{T}}1}\left(1\mathrm{cos}(p\times k)\right)G_{\mu \nu }(k;p)|_{k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|}$$
(13)
and

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4ie^3}{(2\pi )^3}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\stackrel{}{k}|}{T}}1}}\{[1\mathrm{cos}(p_3\times k)]L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(k;p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ (14)
$`\left[1\mathrm{cos}(p_2\times k)\right]L_{\mu \lambda \nu }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(k;p_1,p_3,p_2)`$
$`[1\mathrm{cos}(p_1\times k)]L_{\lambda \nu \mu }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(k;p_3,p_2,p_1)\left\}\right|_{k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|},`$
where

$`L_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(k;p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`k_\mu k_\nu k_\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{(kp_1)^2(kp_3)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{(kp_1)^2(kp_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_3^2}{(kp_3)^2(kp_1)}}\right)`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(kp_2)(kp_3)}}\left[k_\nu k_\lambda \left(p_2p_3\right)_\mu +k_\mu \left(k_\lambda p_{2}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}k_\nu p_{3}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(kp_1)(kp_2)}}k_\mu \left(k_\lambda p_{2}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}+k_\nu p_{2}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\right)2{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu }{(kp_1)}}\eta _{\nu \lambda }`$
$`(\mu ,p_1)(\nu ,p_2).`$
In computing these results, the gauge parameter $`\xi `$ in Eq. (8) has been kept arbitrary, but the dependence on $`\xi `$ cancels out in the final result in the leading order terms. The above hard thermal loop amplitudes are gauge independent and satisfy simple Ward identities. For example, from the structure in (11), one can easily verify the transversality of the photon self-energy

$$p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p)=0,$$
(16)
for both $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}`$. Similarly, the identity relating the two and the three point functions

$$p_3^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)=2ie\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}\right)\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p_1)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu }(p_2)\right].$$
(17)
can also be seen to hold separately for the contributions from the fermion and the gauge sectors. This suggests the possibility that these leading order hard thermal loop amplitudes may be obtained from gauge covariant, classical transport equations.

## III Transport equation for charged particles

The basic idea behind the transport equation approach is to picture the thermal particles, moving in an internal loop, as classical particles in equilibrium in the hot plasma whose dynamics is governed by the classical transport equation. The transport equation can, of course, be derived in a straightforward manner once we know the dynamical equations for a particle in the background of an electromagnetic field. Let us assume that the equations of motion for a particle is given by

$`m{\displaystyle \frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`k^\mu `$ (18)
$`m{\displaystyle \frac{dk^\mu }{d\tau }}`$ $`=`$ $`eX^\mu `$ (19)
where $`\tau `$ denotes the proper time of the particle and $`X^\mu `$ represents the force it feels in the presence of a background electromagnetic field. The explicit form of $`X^\mu `$ will, of course, be different depending on whether a particle is charged or neutral and we will discuss these two cases separately. In general, the form of $`X^\mu `$ must be such that $`k^2=k^\mu k_\mu `$ is a constant and that the time evolution for $`k^\mu `$ transforms covariantly under a gauge transformation. For the present, let us note that, given the equations for the dynamics of the particle, the transport equation can be derived in a straightforward manner as follows.

Let us define the current associated with the particle as

$$j_\mu (x)=e𝑑Kk_\mu f(x,k)$$
(20)
where the sum is over helicities (One must also allow for a sum over particle species in the case where there are more particle types.). $`f(x,p)`$ represents the distribution function for the particle and the integration measure is defined to be

$$dK=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\theta (k_0)\delta (k^2m^2)$$
(21)
so as to guarantee that the particle has positive energy and is on-shell. This is, of course, a natural generalization of the conventional definition of the current to a non-commutative theory, which will reduce naturally to the usual current in the commutative limit. However, in the non-commutative theory, the current transforms in the adjoint representation of the $`U(1)`$ group and correspondingly, the distribution function must also transform covariantly under a $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation. The current is covariantly conserved,

$$D_\mu j^\mu =_\mu j^\mu ie[A_\mu ,j^\mu ]_{\mathrm{MB}}=0$$
(22)
as a consequence of the fact that it belongs to the adjoint representation of the gauge group.

Given the equations for the particle and the covariant nature of the distribution function, the transport equation has the general form

$$D_\tau f(x,k)=𝒞$$
(23)
where $`D_\tau `$ is the covariant derivative along the trajectory and $`𝒞`$, in general, can be thought of as a collision term. Using the equations of motion for the particle, we can rewrite this as

$$k^\mu D_\mu f(x,k)+eX^\mu \frac{f}{k^\mu }=m𝒞$$
(24)
It is a simple matter to check from the definition of the current in (20) and the transport equation in (24) that current conservation, (22), will hold provided we identify

$$𝒞=\frac{e}{m}\frac{X^\mu }{k^\mu }f(x,k)$$
(25)
so that we can write the transport equation, in general, as

$$k^\mu D_\mu f(x,k)+\frac{(eX^\mu f(x,k))}{k^\mu }=0$$
(26)
We note here that, for a “conventional” charged point particle, we have

$$X_{(\mathrm{conventional})}^\mu =F^{\mu \nu }k_\nu $$
(27)
so that

$$𝒞_{(\mathrm{conventional})}=0$$
(28)
Therefore, in such a case, one can naturally talk of a “collisionless” plasma. However, we note that, in principle, if $`X^\mu `$ is a more complicated function of $`k^\mu `$, then, a basic “collision” term is inevitable in discussing a hot plasma. This will become quite clear when we discuss the transport equation for a charge neutral particle in the next section.

The particles, in a non-commutative theory, have dipole characteristics. Therefore, when we talk of a charged particle in such a theory, it is natural to generalize the form of the force to include a dipole term, namely,

$$X_{(\mathrm{charged})}^\mu =\left(1+\mathrm{sin}k\times iD\right)F^{\mu \nu }k_\nu $$
(29)
where we have introduced, for simplicity, the standard notation (within the context of non-commutative theories) that

$$A\times B=\theta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu B_\nu $$

and $`D_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative introduced earlier in the adjoint representation. The first term, on the right hand side of (29), represents the standard Lorentz force for a point charged particle. The second term, when the external momentum is small (or the variations of the external fields are slow), can be thought of as a dipole interaction, which would be a natural generalization considering that non-commutative particles have dipole characteristics. Furthermore, this term vanishes when $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ so that the force reduces naturally to the conventional one for a charged point particle. If such an additional term is present in the equation of motion (19), it is clear that we will have a non-trivial contribution to the transport equation coming from $`𝒞`$. However, a posteriori, it turns out that such a dipole interaction term is not manifest in the leading perturbative amplitudes at high temperatures. Namely, the presence of such a dipole interaction term is incompatible with the required symmetries of the two and three point photon amplitudes in the leading order. This is also otherwise clear, namely, we know that fermion loops (charged loops) only give planar (but $`\theta `$ dependent) contributions.

With this, we conclude that the correct transport equation for a charged particle, in the presence of (non-commutative) background electromagnetic fields, has the form

$$k^\mu D_\mu f(x,k)+\frac{(ek_\nu F^{\mu \nu }f(x,k))}{k^\mu }=0$$
(30)
where, for hard thermal loop contributions, we have effectively

$$X_{\mathrm{eff}}^\mu =F^{\mu \nu }k_\nu $$
(31)
Equation (30) is manifestly gauge covariant and, although its form is very similar to the transport equation for “conventional” QED, the star products bring in the necessary $`\theta `$ dependence into the amplitudes.

Let us recall that the distribution function is determined from the transport equation iteratively in order to obtain the current (20), which yields the amplitudes. Thus, writing

$$f(x,k)=f^{(0)}+ef^{(1)}+e^2f^{(2)}+\mathrm{}$$
(32)
and substituting this into the transport equation (30), we obtain, to the lowest order,

$$f^{(0)}n_B(|k^0|)\mathrm{or}n_F(|k^0|)$$
(33)
which are the conventional equilibrium distribution functions for bosons and fermions, depending on the nature of the charged particle in the loop. In the present case, where we are considering the contributions from the fermion loop, we choose $`f^{(0)}n_F(|k^0|)`$. With this, we see that, to the lowest order in $`e`$, the current (20) vanishes (actually, the time component of the current to the lowest order is a constant which can be set to zero by a simple redefinition). Substituting the lowest order solution, $`f^{(0)}`$, into the transport equation (30), leads to

$$f^{(1)}=\frac{1}{k}\frac{}{k_\nu }\left((kA_\nu _\nu kA)f^{(0)}\right)$$
(34)
Substituting this into the definition of the current, (20), we obtain the leading contribution of the fermions to the photon self-energy as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}(p)=\frac{\delta j_\mu (p)}{\delta A^\nu (p)}|_{A_\mu =0}=\frac{8e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}n_F(|\stackrel{}{k}|)G_{\mu \nu }(k;p).$$
(35)
Here, and in the following, the on-shell condition $`k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ is to be always understood. It is clear that this agrees completely with (9).

With the form of $`f^{(1)}`$ determined, we can iterate the transport equation (30) to determine the distribution function in the next order which has the form

$$f^{(2)}=\frac{i}{k}\left([kA,f^{(1)}]_{\mathrm{MB}}[kA,A_\nu ]_{\mathrm{MB}}\frac{f^{(0)}}{k_\nu }+\mathrm{}\right)$$
(36)
where “$`\mathrm{}`$” represent terms that do not contribute at the leading order to the current (and, therefore, to the three point amplitude). Substituting this into the current, (20), we obtain the leading contribution of the fermions to the three point photon amplitude as ($`p_1+p_2+p_3=0`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{fermion})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2j_\mu (p_1)}{\delta A^\nu (p_2)\delta A^\lambda (p_3)}}|_{A_\mu =0}={\displaystyle \frac{16ie^3}{(2\pi )^3}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}n_F(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\frac{1}{kp_3}}`$
$`[G_{\mu \nu }(k;p_2)k_\lambda +{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{kp_2}}({\displaystyle \frac{p_2p_3}{kp_3}}k_\lambda p_{2}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{})(p_1p_2)].`$ (37)
This can be checked to be completely equivalent to the result from perturbative calculations in (10).

## IV Transport equation for charge neutral particles

The case of the transport equation for a charge neutral particle is even more interesting and challenging. A “conventional” charge neutral point particle, of course, does not feel any electromagnetic force. However, the particles in a non-commutative theory have an extended structure (because of the non-commutativity of coordinates). Consequently, even a charge neutral particle in a non-commutative theory can have a dipole structure, as is generally believed, and such a particle can feel a dipole force in the presence of background electromagnetic fields. On the other hand, such a dipole force, as we have argued in the last section, is not manifest in the leading order amplitudes calculated from perturbation theory. Therefore, one has to think more carefully with the only guidance coming from the explicit results of perturbation theory. In principle, since the dipole force does not work, one may try a properly covariantized quadrupole form of the interaction in (19) for a charge neutral particle in a non-commutative theory. While this does satisfy all the necessary requirements of gauge covariance, it leads to amplitudes which do not quite agree with the actual perturbative results. This, therefore, necessitates a systematic search for a modification of the force beyond the quadrupole interaction.

With some detailed analysis, we find that, for a charge neutral particle to have a transport equation which reproduces the hard thermal loop amplitudes coming from the photon and the ghost loops, we must have

$$X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu =2\{1\mathrm{cos}k\times (iD+e[\frac{1}{kD}F,]_{MB})\}F^\mu $$
(38)
Here, we have defined a useful (suggestive) vector

$$F^\mu =F^{\mu \nu }k_\nu $$
(39)
The meaning of this force will be discussed later. For the present, let us note that with this form of $`X^\mu `$, equation (19) is manifestly gauge covariant and leads to $`k^2=\mathrm{constant}`$. Furthermore, with this complicated form of the force on a charge neutral particle, we note that the “collision” term can no longer be neglected. This is consistent with the extended nature of particles in a non-commutative theory.

With the form of $`X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu `$ in (38), we can solve for the distribution function iteratively from the transport equation (26). The lowest order term is determined to be proportional to the equilibrium boson distribution function,

$$f^{(0)}n_B(|k^0|)$$
(40)
which leads, as in the charged case, to a vanishing current in the lowest order. At the next order, the distribution function is then determined to be

$$f^{(1)}=\frac{2}{k}\frac{}{k_\mu }\left((1\mathrm{cos}k\times i)(kA_\mu _\mu kA)f^{(0)}(k)\right)$$
(41)
The current, to this order, can now be obtained and leads to the photon two point function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(p)=\frac{\delta j_\mu (p)}{\delta A^\nu (p)}|_{A_\mu =0}=\frac{4e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}n_B(|\stackrel{}{k}|)G_{\mu \nu }(k;p)(1\mathrm{cos}p\times k)$$
(42)
This, in fact, agrees completely with eq. (13) and is purely transverse.

We can now use $`f^{(1)}`$ in the transport equation (26) to determine the distribution function at the next order. With a little bit of work, it is easy to see that

$$f^{(2)}=\frac{1}{k}\left(i[kA,f^{(1)}]_{\mathrm{MB}}\frac{1}{e}\frac{\left(X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu f\right)}{k^\mu }|_{\mathrm{quadratic}}\right)$$
(43)
Here, the restriction “quadratic” refers to quadratic terms in the $`A_\mu `$ fields (or linear in $`e`$). Let us note that $`X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu `$ involves trigonometric functions of non-commuting operators and the expansion of these functions, even to linear order in $`A_\mu `$ (the trigonometric functions are multiplied by a field strength), is highly nontrivial in the coordinate space. Namely, one must use the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula for such an expansion which involves an infinite series and a priori, it is not clear if a closed form expression necessary for the computations (and comparison with the perturbative results) can be obtained. The solution lies in the fact that these operators take a much simpler form in the momentum space. Namely, substituting this into (20), the form of the current to second order is determined to have a closed form expression in the momentum space given by

$`j_\mu ^{(2)}(p_1)`$ $`=`$ $`8ie^3{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}K\mathrm{d}^4p\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu }{kp_1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{kA((p_1+p))}{kp}}{\displaystyle \frac{((1\mathrm{cos}k\times (p_1+p))H_\sigma (p,k)f^{(0)})}{k_\sigma }}`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_\sigma }}\left((1\mathrm{cos}(k\times p_1))kA((p_1+p))A_\sigma (p)f^{(0)}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{}{k_\sigma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{kA((p_1+p))}{k(p_1+p)}}(\mathrm{cos}k\times p_1\mathrm{cos}k\times p)H_\sigma (p,k)f^{(0)}\right)+\mathrm{}]`$
Here, we have defined, for simplicity,

$$H_\sigma (p,k)=p_\sigma kA(p)kpA_\sigma (p)$$
(45)
and the “$`\mathrm{}`$” represent terms that do not contribute at the leading order.

It is now easy to obtain the three point amplitude from the second order current ($`p_1+p_2+p_3=0`$)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{(\mathrm{gauge})}(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2j_\mu (p_1)}{\delta A^\nu (p_2)\delta A^\lambda (p_3)}}|_{A_\mu =0}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8ie^3}{(2\pi )^3}}\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right){\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}}n_B(|\stackrel{}{k}|){\displaystyle \frac{1}{kp_1}}\{[1\mathrm{cos}(k\times p_1)]k_\lambda G_{\mu \nu }(k;p_1){\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{}}`$
$`+\left[1\mathrm{cos}(k\times p_3)\right]\left[k_\mu G_{\nu \lambda }(k;p_3)+k_\nu G_{\mu \sigma }(k;p_1)G_\lambda ^\sigma (k;p_3)\right]`$
$`+[\mathrm{cos}(k\times p_1)\mathrm{cos}(k\times p_3)]{\displaystyle \frac{kp_3}{kp_2}}k_\nu G_{\mu \sigma }(k;p_1)G_\lambda ^\sigma (k;p_3)(p_2p_3;\nu \lambda )\}.`$
With the help of some simple algebraic identities, it may be verified that this expression is in complete agreement with the diagrammatic result (14). This is indeed a nontrivial check that the transport equation for the charge neutral particle is, in fact, correct.

## V Summary and discussions

In this paper, we have given transport equations, for charged as well as charge neutral particles, that reproduce exactly the leading two and the three point photon amplitudes in non-commutative QED, in the hard thermal loop approximation, for arbitrary value of $`\theta `$. Since the leading amplitudes satisfy tree level Ward identities and the transport equation is manifestly gauge covariant, it follows that these are the true equations which will generate all the amplitudes in the leading hard thermal loop approximation, both for the charged as well as the charge neutral loops.

The force for the charge neutral particle, (38), is completely new and is worth discussing a little since it adds to the physical picture of particles in non-commutative theories. We note that, in the limit of small external momenta (or small variations in the background), the leading order term in the force $`X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu `$ is that of a quadrupole (in fact, in the configuration of a pair of dipoles aligned back to back). This is quite interesting in the sense that while the conventional picture of a charge neutral particle in a non-commutative theory is that of a dipole, we see that the dipole interaction is not manifest in the hard thermal loop approximation. Instead, the leading effect comes from a quadrupole interaction. Furthermore, a local quadrupole interaction (properly covariantized) is not sufficient, rather the true equations need a further modification by a nonlocal interaction.

Let us also note from the covariant form of the transport equation, (26), that we can write

$$f=\frac{e}{kD}\frac{(X^\mu f)}{k^\mu }$$
(47)
which provides an integral equation representation for the distribution function. Substituting this into the definition of the current, (20), we obtain

$$j_\mu =2e^2𝑑K\frac{k_\mu }{kD}\frac{(X^\nu f)}{k^\nu }$$
(48)
We note that this form of the current has several interesting features. It transforms covariantly and is manifestly covariantly conserved. Furthermore, even though equation (47) can only be solved iteratively leading to an iterative solution for the current (48), experience shows that the leading contributions to the current, in the hard thermal loop approximation, can be obtained from (48) by simply replacing $`ff^{(0)}`$ on the right hand side. With this, the leading form of the current becomes

$$j_\mu =2e^2𝑑K\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }k_\mu \frac{1}{kD}D_\nu \right)\frac{1}{kD}X^\nu f^{(0)}$$
(49)
Substituting the form of $`X_{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}^\mu `$ given by Eq. (38) this takes the form

$$j_\mu ^{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}=\frac{4e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}n_B(|\stackrel{}{k}|)(\eta _{\mu \nu }k_\mu \frac{1}{kD}D_\nu )\frac{1}{kD}\{1\mathrm{cos}k\times (iD+e[\frac{1}{kD}F,]_{MB})\}F^\nu ,$$
(50)
with $`F`$ defined in Eq. (39). We note that in the regime $`k\times i1`$, where the cosine oscillates rapidly and becomes negligible, this reduces to our earlier result Brandt:2002rw  (which shows only planar contributions). In the commutative limit, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, the current vanishes as should be the case for a charge neutral particle in a commutative theory. Furthermore, it is worth noting here that, for a charged particle, the current in the commutative limit, reduces to that in “conventional” QED.

If we think of the current as arising from an effective action as,

$$j_\mu [A]=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[A]}{\delta A^\mu }$$
(51)
one can, in principle, functionally integrate (50) to obtain the effective action which generates the hard thermal loops. However, except for the planar regime Brandt:2002rw , this is very difficult to carry out, in general.

The covariant conservation of the current (22), ensures that the effective action is gauge invariant. This follows because, under a gauge transformation generated by the infinitesimal gauge parameter $`\omega (x)`$,

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[A]}{\delta \omega (x)}=\mathrm{d}^4y\frac{\delta A_\mu (y)}{\delta \omega (x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }[A]}{\delta A_\mu (y)}=D_\mu j^\mu (x)=0.$$
(52)
One may take advantage of the fact that the effective action is gauge invariant, and try to evaluate it in a light-like axial gauge in which $`kA^{(k)}=0`$, with $`k_0=|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. In this gauge, it is possible to integrate (50), to obtain an effective action of the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(\mathrm{charge}\mathrm{neutral})}[A]=\frac{2e^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{\mathrm{d}^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}n_B(|\stackrel{}{k}|)\mathrm{d}^4xA_\mu ^{(k)}(x)\left[1\mathrm{cos}(k\times i)\right]A_{}^{\mu }{}_{}{}^{(k)}(x).$$
(53)
Although this expression has a deceptively simple structure, in reality, the $`k`$-integration is nontrivial due to the complicated $`k`$-dependence implicit in the potential $`A_\mu ^{(k)}(x)`$. This question clearly deserves further study.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Professor J. C. Taylor for many helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by US DOE Grant number DE-FG 02-91ER40685 and by CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil.

## Appendix A Feynman rules

The Feynman rules following from the Lagrangian given by Eqs. (4) and (8) take the forms

$`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p/m+iϵ}}=iS(p)`$
$`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{(p^2+iϵ)}}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }(1\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{p^2}}\right)=iD_{\mu \nu }(p)`$
$`:`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{p^2+iϵ}}=iD(p)`$ (54)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`ie\gamma ^\mu e^{\frac{i}{2}p_i\times p_f}`$ (56)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`2e\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right)\left[(p_1p_2)^\lambda \eta ^{\mu \nu }+(p_2p_3)^\mu \eta ^{\nu \lambda }+(p_3p_1)^\nu \eta ^{\lambda \mu }\right]`$ (58)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`2e\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2\times p_3}{2}}\right)p_3^\mu `$ (60)
$`\begin{array}{c}\text{}\end{array}`$ $`:`$ $`4ie^2[\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_2}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_3\times p_4}{2}}\right)(\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho }\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\nu \lambda })`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_3}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_4\times p_2}{2}}\right)(\eta ^{\mu \rho }\eta ^{\lambda \nu }\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho })`$
$`+\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_1\times p_4}{2}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_2\times p_3}{2}}\right)(\eta ^{\mu \nu }\eta ^{\lambda \rho }\eta ^{\mu \lambda }\eta ^{\nu \rho })],`$
where all momenta are incoming and the Dirac delta functions representing the conservation of momenta are understood.


format: text

text:
# Structure of pulsar beams: conal versus patchy

## 1 Introduction

One of the important questions in pulsar research is what the overall structure of the mean pulsar beam is and how this structure is related to highly fluctuating instantaneous pulsar radiation. It is difficult to reveal this structure as pulsar observations represent one-dimensional cuts through two-dimensional beams. However, some indirect methods have been applied in an attempt to resolve this problem and two major models of pulsar beams have emerged from this work. Rankin (1993), Gil et al. (1993) and Kramer et al. (1994) calculated the opening angles $`\rho `$ of emission corresponding to a pulse width $`W`$ measured at 10 and 50 percent of the maximum intensity. As a result, they obtained a binomial distribution of these angles, that is, for a given period $`P`$ one of the two preferred values was possible, following however a general $`P^{1/2}`$ dependence. Such distribution is most naturally interpreted as an indication of two nested cones in the structure of mean pulsar beams. This interpretation is called a conal model of pulsar beams. An alternative model postulates that the mean pulsar beam is patchy (Lyne & Manchester, 1988, LM88 hreafter), with different components randomly distributed within an almost circular “window function” (Manchester, 1995; Han & Manchester, 2001). Such a model is apparently inconsistent with the binomial distribution of the opening angles inferred from measured pulse widths. In fact, unless putative patches are distributed along nested-circular patterns, the distribution of corresponding opening angles should be (for any given period) random rather than binomial.

Recently, Mitra & Deshpande (1999, MD99 hereafter) attempted to test both these rival models. They distributed locations of the profile components (measured as the peak-to-peak separation of the outer conal components in complex profile pulsars) on one quadrant of the beam represented on the common normalised scale (with $`x`$-axis and $`y`$-axis representing longitudes $`\phi `$ and impact angles $`\beta `$, respectively; refer to Fig. 4 of MD99). They found that most of the peak intensity points are concentrated in narrow sections of the beam. This feature is a strong indication of the conal structure of the pulsar beam. It can be argued that if, indeed, the pulsar beams are patchy, then in such a case there is a high probability for the beam to be uniformly filled with peak intensity locations. Further in their analysis, they excluded the so-called conal single and conal double profiles (Rankin, 1983), which are thought to be exclusively grazing cuts of the line-of-sight at the beam boundary. They found that such exclusion in their sample led to the absence of points at high impact angles $`\beta `$, which is perfectly consistent with the nested cone model and inconsistent with the patchy beam model. In fact, within the patchy beam model there is no reason why the single and double profiles occur exclusively at high impact angles. Moreover, the midpoint of single and double profiles usually coincides with the fiducial phase, at which the multifrequency profiles align after being corrected for cold plasma dispersive delays. This property is natural within the conal model and inconsistent (in general) with the patchy beam model, since patches would have to be placed symmetrically with respect to the fiducial plane, containing both magnetic $`𝐦`$ and spin $`𝛀`$ axes (Fig. 1). As argued by MD and independently by Gil & Sendyk (2000, GS00 hereafter) the “mean” average pulsar beam consists of up to three nested cones, centered on the global magnetic dipole axis.

Observations of single pulses in strong pulsars show that longitudes of subpulses are weakly dependent on frequency as compared with longitudes of corresponding profile components (Izvekova et al., 1993; Gil et al., 2002). Within the conal model, the longitudes of profile components are determined by the intersection of the line of sight trajectory with the frequency-dependent cones of the maximum average intensity, while the longitudes of subpulses are determined by the intersection of the line-of-sight trajectory with subpulse-associated emission beams, which move across the average cones as frequency changes (Gil & Krawczyk, 1996). We demonstrate in this paper that the different frequency dependence of subpulse and profile component longitudes is a natural property of the conal model, and that both subpulses and profile components should demonstrate the same frequency dependence of their longitudes within the patchy model. We present both general qualitative arguments and detailed quantitative model calculations to support the above statements. For better understanding of our arguments, this paper should be studied along with the paper by Gil et al. (2002, GGGK hereafter), in which details of frequency dependence of emission patterns in PSR B0329$`+`$54 are discussed within the conal model of pulsar beams.

## 2 Geometry of pulsar radio beams

It is widely believed that narrow-band pulsar emission is relativistically beamed tangentially to dipolar magnetic field lines. Thus, the emission beaming geometry can be described by an opening angle $`\rho =1^{}.24sr_6^{1/2}P^{1/2}`$, where $`r_6=r(\nu )/R`$ is the normalized emission altitude (in units of stellar radius $`R=10^6`$ cm). The mapping parameter $`0s=d/r_p1`$ is determined by the locus of dipolar field lines on the polar cap ($`s=0`$ at the pole and $`s=1`$ at the polar cap edge), where $`d`$ is the distance from the magnetic axis $`𝐦`$ to the field line on the polar cap corresponding to a certain detail of the pulse profile (peak of subpulse or profile component), and $`r_p=1.410^4P^{1/2}`$ cm is the canonical polar cap radius. According to the generally - accepted concept of the radius-to-frequency mapping, higher frequencies are emitted at lower altitudes $`r(\nu )`$ than lower frequencies. Kijak & Gil (1997, 1998) found a semi-empirical formula describing the altitude of emission region corresponding to a given frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{GHz}}`$ (in GHz) which reads $`r_650\nu _{\mathrm{GHz}}^{0.21}\tau _6^{0.1}P^{0.33}`$, where $`\tau _6`$ is the pulsar characteristic age in million years and $`P`$ is the pulsar period. This formula for emission altitudes is used in our model calculations.

To perform geometrical calculations of the radiation pattern one has to adopt a model of instantaneous energy distribution on the polar cap. Any specific intensity distribution can be transferred from the polar cap along dipolar field lines to the emission region, and then along straight lines (following the opening angles $`\rho =1^{}.24(d/r_p)r_6^{1/2}P^{1/2}`$) to a given observer specified by the inclination and impact angles ($`\alpha ,\beta `$). We assume that at any instant the polar cap is populated by a number of features with a characteristic dimension $`𝒟`$, delivering to the magnetosphere corresponding plasma columns flowing along separate bundles of dipolar magnetic field lines. Each feature can be modelled by the Gaussian intensity distribution. Since the elementary pulsar radiation is relativistically beamed along the magnetic field lines, we can transform the feature-associated intensity pattern to the radio emission region and obtain the subpulse intensity $`I`$ observed at the longitude $`\phi `$ in the form $`I_i=\mathrm{exp}(\kappa l_i^2(\phi )/𝒟^2)`$ where the subscript $`i`$ lebels different features and $`l_i^2(\phi )=d^2(\phi )+d_i^22d(\phi )d_i\mathrm{cos}[\sigma (\phi )\sigma _{in}]`$. Each features is located at the position (Fig. 1) described by the polar co-ordinates $`d_i`$ (distance from the pole) and $`\sigma _{in}=\sigma _{io}+nD_r`$ (magnetic azimuth angle), where the subscript $`o`$ refers to the initial position corresponding to the first pulse, $`n`$ is the sequential pulse number and $`D_r`$ is the drift rate. The instantaneous emission of the $`n`$-th pulse is described by $`I_n(\phi )=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}I_i(\phi )`$, where the sum includes a number of adjacent features contributing significantly to the observed intensity, depends strongly on the inclination $`\alpha `$ and the impact $`\beta `$ angles, determining the cut of the line-of-sight tracjectory across the beam (Fig. 1). In fact, the running polar co-ordinates along the line-of-sight trajectory can be expressed in the form $`d(\phi )=[\rho (\phi )/1^{}.24]r_pr_6^{1/2}P^{1/2}`$ and $`\sigma (\phi )=\mathrm{atan}\left\{\frac{(\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )}{\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\rho (\phi )}\right\}`$, and $`\rho (\phi )=2\mathrm{a}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\left\{\mathrm{sin}^2(\phi /2)\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\alpha +\beta )+\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta /2)\right\}`$, (Gil et al., 1984). The average pulse profile is therefore $`I(\phi )=\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n=1}^NI_n(\phi )`$, where $`N`$ is the number of averaged single pulses. The geometry of pulsar radiation described above (for more details see Gil & Krawczyk, 1996, 1997, GGGK) can be applied to both conal and patchy beam models (Fig. 1).

We adopt a model of a pulsar beam in which the instantenous subpulse emission corresponds to a number of isolated subpulse beams, while the average emission reflects the conal structure resulting from circumferential motion of subpulse beams (Ruderman & Sutherland, 1975; Gil & Krawczyk, 1996, 1997; Gil et al., 2002). Therefore, the longitudes of subpulse peaks correspond to phases of interception of the subpulse beams by the line-of-sight trajectory, while the longitudes of profile component peaks are determined by the intersection of the line-of-sight trajectory with the average cones. The important point is that within such model the subpulse enhancements generally follow bundles of magnetic field lines different from those of enhancements corresponding to the profile components (Fig. 1 \- right-hand side). On the contrary, within the patchy model both subpulse and profile component enhancements follow approximately the same bundles of field lines (Fig. 1 \- left-hand side). This should be clear from the composite Fig. 1. In fact, subpulse enhancements are associated in both models with small subpulse spots $`S`$ following a narrow bundle of dipolar field lines, while the profile components correspond to the conical structures $`C`$ in the conal model, and to the narrow patches $`PA`$ enclosing subpulse spots in the patchy model. Because of the diverging nature of dipolar field lines controlling the plasma flow, all discussed emission features $`S`$ (spots), $`SP`$ (sub-patches), $`PA`$ (patches) and $`C`$ (cones) are frequency dependent, and two frequencies $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are marked for each feature in Fig. 1.

### 2.1 Conal model of pulsar beams

The frequency dependence of pulsar emission patterns within the angular beaming model of subpulse emission, and the related conal model for a mean pulsar beam is illustrated in the right-hand side of the composite Fig. 1. The subpulse-associated sub-beams corresponding to HPBW (half power beam width) of subpulse emission (thin small circles), which are called spots and marked by $`S(\nu )`$, perform a more or less organized circumferential motion around the magnetic axis $`𝐦`$, in which the azimuthal angle $`\sigma `$ varies with time, while the opening angle $`\rho (\nu )`$ remains constant. On average, this motion determines the cones (thick large circles) of the maximum mean intensity with the opening angles $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _2`$ at frequencies $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$, respectively. The frequency-dependent longitude $`\phi _p(\nu )`$ of the profile component is determined by the intersection of the line-of-sight with the average cone at the frequency-dependent opening angle $`\rho (\nu )`$. On the other hand, the frequency-dependent longitude $`\phi _s(\nu )`$ of a subpulse peak is determined by the local maximum intensity along the cut of the line-of-sight through the subpulse spot $`S(\nu )`$. When the frequency changes from $`\nu _1`$ to $`\nu _2`$, the subpulse peak longitude changes from $`\phi _s(\nu _1)`$ to $`\phi _s(\nu _2)`$, while the corresponding profile peak longitude changes from $`\phi _p(\nu _1)`$ to $`\phi _p(\nu _2)`$. Note that the frequency separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p=\phi _p(\nu _2)\phi _p(\nu _1)`$ of profile peaks is generally larger than the frequency separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s=\phi _s(\nu _2)\phi _s(\nu _1)`$ of subpulse peaks. This is consistent with observations published by Izvekova et al. (1993), confirmed recently by GGGK. As we argue in the next section, within the patchy beam model $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s`$, which is quite different from the conal model in which $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p\stackrel{>}{_{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s`$.

We now attempt to quantify our qualitative statements presented above. We use the geometrical method of transferring the instantaneous intensity distribution from the polar cap to the radio emission region along the dipolar field lines. To be able to compare the results of simulations with the observational data of PSR B0329+54 (GGGK) we adopt the following parameters $`P=0.714`$ s, $`\dot{P}=210^{15}`$, $`\alpha =20^{}`$, $`\beta =4^{}`$, $`\nu _1=0.4`$ GHz and $`\nu _2=1.4`$ GHz. The conal model is represented by an arrangement of 12 equisized and equidistant sparks, each having the HPBW diameter $`𝒟0.2r_p`$, circulating around the magnetic pole at a distance of about 2/3 of the polar cap radius $`r_p`$. The results of simulations are presented in Fig. 2 (panel a). The vertical solid line at about $`2.9^{}`$ represents the separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p`$ between the peaks of the average component measured at the two frequencies. The distribution of the separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s`$ of subpulse peaks measured at the two frequencies has a width of about $`0.8^{}`$ and peaks around 1.1. The apparent difference between the peak of subpulse separation and the component peak separation i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s^{\mathrm{peak}}1.8^{}`$, as well as the width and somewhat skewed shape of the distribution, resemble the observational data quite well (see Fig.4 in GGGK, keeping in mind that zero position bin in their histograms corresponds to cases when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p=\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s`$). We have taken into account only subpulses that corresponded to the same spark at both frequencies. In terms of the observational data this corresponds to subpulses correlating at two frequencies (refer to the CCF technique used in GGGK).

### 2.2 Patchy model of pulsar beams

Within the patchy model of pulsar beams (LM88; Manchester, 1995) the observed pulse profile is the product of a “source function” and a “window function”, which can be related to the energy/density distribution of plasma beams along different bundles of dipolar field lines and to properties of the emission mechanism, respectively. This model is illustrated schematically on the left-hand side of the composite Fig. 1. The subpulse-associated spots marked by $`SP(\nu )`$ corresponding to the HPBW of subpulse emission (thin small circles), occur within the limited areas $`PA(\nu )`$ called patches (the simplest and probably unrealistic model is when a patch $`PA`$ can accommodate just one sub-patch $`SP`$). The occurrence of $`SP(\nu )`$ within $`PA(\nu )`$ can be completely random, or more or less organized (including drifting). The dependence on frequency $`\nu `$ reflects the diverging nature of dipolar field lines, thus $`\nu _2<\nu _1`$. The bundle of field lines associated with a patch $`PA(\nu )`$ is only slightly larger than each bundle associated with $`SP(\nu )`$. This means that enhancements corresponding to subpulses and profile components follow approximately the same bundles of field lines. Thus, the frequency dependence of emission patterns in the patchy model (left-hand side of Fig. 1) should be different from that of the conal model (right-hand side of Fig. 1), in which subpulse enhancements (spots) and profile components (cones) generally follow quite different bundles of field lines. If the patch is relatively small as compared to the entire polar cap, then the frequency separation of the profile components $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p=\phi _p(\nu _2)\phi _p(\nu _1)`$ and that of subpulses $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s=\phi _s(\nu _2)\phi _s(\nu _1)`$ should be about the same. We demonstrate this below by means of geometrical simulations.

We have calculated a sequence of single pulses and average emission again for the case of PSR B0329+54, assuming that the subpatch $`SP(\nu )`$ is comparable in size with the spark associated emission in the conal model, and that the patch $`PA(\nu )`$ is twice larger than $`SP(\nu )`$. Thus, the projection of a patch onto the polar cap has a characteristic dimension $`P2𝒟0.4r_p`$. Such a patch encompasses about 30 in magnetic azimuth (roughly corresponding to the scale presented in Fig.1 (left-hand side)). The results of simulations are presented in Fig. 2 (panel b). The solid vertical line at about 1.25 represents the separation of the profile component associated with $`PA(\nu )`$ measured at the two frequencies. The narrow distribution of subpulse peak separations peaks exactly at the same value (we have again taken into account only subpulses associated with the same subpatches $`SP(\nu )`$ at both frequencies). It is worth noting that if we chose the sizes of $`SP(\nu )`$ and $`PA(\nu )`$ to be equal (which is the simplest and an unrealistic model of the patchy emission), the distribution would be represented by a delta function coinciding with the solid vertical line. The case presented in panel (b) is inconsistent with the frequency dependence of pulsar radiation patterns (GGGK and reference therein).

We now start to increase the azimuthal dimension of the patch $`PA(\nu )`$ along the cone, keeping the radial dimension the same (about 2 spark diameters $`𝒟`$ or about $`0.4r_p`$). Panels c - f in Fig. 2 correspond to the elongation factor 1.3, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5, respectively. Thus, the maximum elongation is equivalent to the length scale comparable with the polar cap radius $`r_p`$. As one can easily notice from panels c - f, increasing elongation results in two effects: (1) the separation of the component peaks increases towards the value corresponding to the conal model (dashed vertical line) i.e $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p3^{}`$, while the distribution of subpulse peak separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _s`$ gets broader and broader and peaks at correspondingly larger and larger distances from $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _p`$. Moreover, the skewed shape of the distribution becomes more and more apparent in panels (d) and (e), to such an extent that the case presented in panel (f) seems almost undistinguishable from the pure conal case presented in panel (a), except that the width of the distribution is too large compared with observations (see Fig. 4 in GGGK). Further increasing of the elongation factor beyond 2.5 (corresponding to 60 of magnetic azimuth or 1/6 of the full cone) does not practically change the results of the simulations. This means that the unrealistic patches elongated to a large extent along circles centered on the magnetic axis would resemble the conal model. Although this conclusion seems trivial, it allows us to constrain some characteristics of both patchy and conal models. This is described in the two following paragraphs.

First we can ask: what is the probability that an adequately large and favourable patch elongated along a cone and corresponding to panel (f) mimics the conal model presented in panel (a) of Fig. 2. Of course, we have to take into account that another similar patch is required on the opposite side of the fiducial plane (see Fig.1) to account for the second outermost component of PSR B0329+54. Let us assume for simplicity that our elongated patch is a rectangular figure with the shorter side $`A0.4r_p`$ and the longer side $`B1.0r_p`$ (see above for an estimate of the dimensions). Thus, the surface area of such a patch $`S_{patch}AB=0.4r_p^2`$ and the probability of its occurence in any location of the polar cap is $`𝒫_1=S_{patch}/S_{cap}=0.4r_p^2/(\pi r_p)^20.13`$. The probability of occurence of another such patch somewhere on the remaining part of the polar cap is $`𝒫_2=S_{patch}/(S_{cap}S_{patch})0.15`$. To estimate the probability of the proper alignment along the cone, we can calculate a number of different independent orientations of our rectangular figure inscribed into a circle of the diameter approximately equal to $`A=r_p`$. One can easily show that the number of independent orientations is approximaly $`2\pi (r_p/2)/(0.4r_p)8`$ and thus the probability of alignment along a cone $`𝒫_00.12`$. So far, the resultant probability is $`𝒫=𝒫_1𝒫_2𝒫_0^2310^4`$. The requirement of having two such patches symmetricaly placed with respect to the fiducial plane only decreases the final probability. Thus, we can conclude that mimicking the conal radiation pattern by a specially arranged patchy distribution is extremly unlikely, at least in the case of PSR B0329+54 and other pulsars showing similar frequency dependence of emission patterns (GGGK and references therein).

We can now approach the results of our elongation exercise from a different angle. Since further elongation beyond the case presented in panel (f) does not change the obtained distribution, we can constrain the possible spread of the cone in the radial direction as compared with the ideal (and probably not realistic) case presented in panel (a). Remembering that the initial patch size $`PA`$ (panel b) was twice $`SP`$, with $`SP`$ corresponding to the spark size $`𝒟`$, we conclude that the realistic version of the cone can accommodate up to two sparks in radial dimension. This means that a locus of maximum intensity within the average pulsar beam has the form of a narrow ring rather than a circle.

### 2.3 Beam reconstruction techniques:

Recently Han & Manchester (2001; HM01 hereafter) attempted to reveal the shape of pulsar radio beams. They claim to have constructed a two-dimensional image of the “average” mean pulsar beam using a special technique applied to all available multi-component pulse profiles with good quality polarimetric data. They mapped the observed profile intensity onto the line-of-sight crossing the normalized polar cap at the normalized impact angle $`\beta _n`$ estimated from the polarization angle swing. To include a second dimension (perpendicular to the line-of-sight), they broadened the distribution in latitude applying a Gaussian to each longitudinal sample. Adding all pulsars together they obtained a global average beam pattern, which (after normalization to correct for the nonuniform distribution of $`\beta _n`$) they believe represents the global mean pulsar beam. HM01 concluded that their results are consistent with the patchy rather than conal beam model (see their Fig. 4). However, as we demonstrate in items (i)-(iv) below, their beam reconstruction technique is not general enough to reveal the true structure of pulsar beams.

(i) HM01 projected all emission features onto a normalized polar cap, ignoring the dependence of the beaming angles on the emission altitude, which most probably depends both on the radio frequency and on the pulsar period and its derivative (Kijak & Gil, 1997, 1998; Kijak, 2001). Taking into account the diverging nature of dipolar field lines with increasing altitudes, the projection of the emission pattern onto the polar cap must be performed more carefully. HM01 used data at frequencies between 600 MHz and 1.6 GHz, which probably takes care of frequency dependence of the opening angles $`\rho (\nu )r^{1/2}(\nu )(\nu )^{0.1}`$. However, the period dependence $`\rho (p)P^{0.2}`$ is stronger and can result in a broader spread of projections onto the normalized polar cap for short and long period pulsars, respectively.

(ii) A similar problem concerns the putative conal structure of pulsar beams which HM01 did not reject a priori. However, they assumed that adding the normalized polar caps of different pulsars would not smear the conal structure, if it existed. It seems that the conal patterns are almost certainly different in different pulsars. MD99 showed that the pulsar emission beams follow a nested cone structure with up to three distinct cones, although only one or more of the cones may be active in a given pulsar (see also Rankin, 1993; Gil et al., 1993). Also GS00 argued that the number of cones is a function of the basic pulsar parameters $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$.

(iii) The analysis of HM01 is based on the orthogonal normalized impact parameter $`\beta _n=\beta _{90}/\rho _{90}`$ , where $`\beta _{90}`$ and $`\rho _{90}`$ are the impact angle $`\beta `$ and the beam radius $`\rho `$ computed for the inclination angle $`\alpha =90^{}`$ (LM88). The orthogonal normalized impact parameter $`\beta _n`$ differs from the actual normalized impact parameter $`\beta /\rho `$ in many aspects (e.g. Gil et al., 1993). We would like to emphasize here that $`\beta /\rho `$ depends on the pulsar period $`P`$, the inclination angle $`\alpha `$ and the observing frequency $`\nu `$. These dependences, which can affect the emission patterns, are not accounted for in the HM01 analysis based on the orthogonal impact parameter.

(iv) HM01 included the core components in their analysis. This is another possible source of confusion, since the core components are rather randomly placed with respect to the midpoint of the overall profile. For this reason MD99 excluded the core components from their analysis, which revealed a nested cone structure of pulsar beams.

Given the problems listed above, we conclude that the results of the HM01’s beam reconstruction are illusive. The lack of an apparent conal structure in their ’global’ pulsar beam does not exclude the existence of such structures in particular pulsars, expecially if they are determined by physical and geometrical factors, which may vary a great deal among different pulsars. HM01 demonstrated that the conal emission is not confined to a single region at the beam boundary. They also concluded that if multiple cones exist, they are at different radii relative to the beam radius in different pulsars. This is exactly what the multi-nested cone model of GS00 predicts. Both the number of cones and the relative radius of a given cone depend on a pulsar period and its derivative in their model.

As an example of pulsar modelling within the multi-nested cone scenario (GS00), we use the case of PSR J1834$``$0426. The patchy model for this pulsar was presented by HM01 (their Fig. 1). This pulsar has a very broad profile with the pulse width $`W130`$ degrees of longitude, which implies a small inclination angle $`\alpha 90^{}`$. Assuming a realistic emission altitude $`r_640`$ (Kijak & Gil, 1997, 1998) we estimated the observational angles $`\alpha 10^{}`$ and $`\beta 2^{}.5`$ (consistent with $`\alpha =7.9^{}`$ and $`\beta =1.6^{}`$ given by LM88). Figure 3 shows an instantenous arrangement of sparks on the polar cap of PSR J1834$``$0426, obtained from the complexity parameter of GS00. The circumferential motion of these sparks results in the average structure of two nested cones (e.g. Fig. 6 in GGGK). Notice that about 35% of the line-of-sight trajectory stays within the beam, which leads to a broad $`130^{}`$ average profile presented in Fig. 4.

## 3 Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we explore a geometrical method of pulsar radiation simulation, based on two well-justified assumptions: (i) the elementary coherent radio emission is narrow-band, and the emission altitude depends on both the frequency and the pulsar period, (ii) the emission is relativistically beamed tangently to dipolar magnetic field lines. We have considered two competitive models of the organization of pulsar emission beams: the conal model, in which enhancements related to subpulse emission in single pulses are distributed along the cones corresponding to maximum average intensity, and the patchy beam model in which subpulse enhancements corresponding to the component of the mean profile are confined to the patchy area limited both in azimuthal and radial dimensions. We examined the consistency of these rival models with the variety of observational data.

We have argued that a number of observational properties of pulsar radio emission, namely: (i) binomial distribution of the opening angles (Rankin, 1993; Gil et al., 1993; Kramer et al., 1994); (ii) high impact angles corresponding to single and double profile pulsars (MD), and (iii) different frequency dependence of a subpulse and corresponding profile component longitudes (Izvekova et al., 1993; Gil & Krawczyk, 1996; Gil et al., 2002), strongly support the conal model of pulsar beams. The alternative patchy beam model is inconsistent with these observational properties of pulsar radiation.

We have also demonstrated that the beam reconstruction technique developed by Han & Manchester (2001) is not capable of revealing the true structure of pulsar beams. In fact, their formalism assumes implicitely that neither the radio emission altitude nor the number of putative nested-cones and their locations within the pulsar depends on the pulsar period. The lack of an apparent conal structure in their ”global beam” does not exclude the conal beam model. Thus, the results of the HM01 analysis provide no strong evidence of patchy beam structure in pulsars.

We tend to favour the version of the conal model in which the relationship between the subpulse-associated beams and cones of the average emission is established through the phenomenon of the $`𝐄\times 𝐁`$ drift (Ruderman & Sutherland, 1975; Deshpande & Rankin, 1999, 2001, GS00), which forces the spark filaments of plasma to rotate slowly around the magnetic axis. This “spark model” of radio pulsars was recently tested statistically by Fan et al. (2001). They showed, by means of Monte Carlo simulations, that various pulsar parameters can be reproduced if both the spark dimension and their mutual separation are approximately equal to the height $`h`$ of the polar gap (Ruderman & Sutherland, 1975, GS00), or consequently, the maximum number of sparks along the diameter of the polar cap with the radius $`r_p`$ is $`N_{max}r_p/h`$. Thus, their conclusions are consistent with the assumptions used in this paper.

We note that evidence of a relationship between drifting subpulses and the conal structure of mean pulsar beams already exists in the literature. Hankins & Wolszczan (1987) examined three pulsars with triple average profiles showing subpulses drifting across the full pulse window (including the central component). They found that these pulsars are consistent with two nested cones of emission, each associated with a prominent subpulse drift. Moreover, Prószyński & Wolszczan (1986) showed that in complex profile pulsars there is a strong correlation between drifting subpulses associated with different profile components. Such correlations are natural within the $`𝐄\times 𝐁`$ induced conal model, but inconsistent with the patchy model of pulsar beams.

Finally, we suggest that more pulsars should be observed in the single pulse, simultanenous dual frequency mode. Our simulation method illustrated and described in Fig. 2 can be adapted to the analysis of such data in order to ultimately discriminate between conal and patchy beam models in pulsars.

###### Acknowledgements.

This paper is supported in part by the Grant 2 P03D 008 19 of the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research. We are grateful to the referee Dr. D. Mitra for extremely helpful comments that improved the final paper. We also thank Prof. Dr. R. Wielebinski for hospitality at the MPIfR in Bonn, where this work was completed. We thank E. Gil and M. Wujciów for technical assistance.