text:
# Synchrotron production of photons by the two-body system

## Abstract

The power spectrum formula of the synchrotron radiation generated by the motion of a two-body charged system in an accelerator, is derived in the framework of the Schwinger source theory. The final formula can be used to verify the Lorentz length contraction of the two-body system moving in the synchrotron.
Key Words: Synchrotron radiation, source theory, electromagnetic field

The production of photons by circular motion of charged particle in an accelerator is one of the most interesting problems in the classical and quantum electrodynamics.

In this paper we are interested in the photon production initiated by circular motion and a two-body charged system. This process specifies the synergic synchrotron Čerenkov radiation, which was calculated in source theory two decades ago by Schwinger et al. (1976). We will follow also the the article Pardy, (1994a). The synergic process includes the effect of the medium, which is represented by the phenomenological index of refraction $`n`$, and it is well known that this phenomenological constant depends on the external magnetic field.

We will investigate, first, how the original Schwinger et al. spectral formula of the synergic synchrotron Čerenkov radiation of a charged particle moving in a medium is modified if we consider a two-body system. Then, we will treat this process in vacuum. This problem is an analogue of the linear problem solved recently by the author (Pardy, 1997) also in source theory. We will show that the original spectral formula of the synergic synchrotron-Čerenkov radiation is modulated by function $`\mathrm{cos}^2(a\omega /2v)`$, where $`a`$ is the distance between charges, $`v`$ is their velocity and $`\omega `$ is the frequency of the synergic radiation produced by the system.

Source theory (Schwinger, 1970, 1973; Dittrich, 1978) was initially constructed for a description of high-energy particle physics experiments. It was found that the original formulation simplifies the calculations in electrodynamics and gravity, where the interactions are mediated by the photon and graviton, respectively. It simplifies particularly the calculations with radiative corrections (Dittrich, 1978; Pardy, 1994b) .

The basic formula of the Schwinger nsource theory is the so called vacuum to vacuum amplitude:

$$0_+|0_{}=e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}W},$$
(1)
where, for the case of the electromagnetic field in the medium, the action $`W`$ is given by

$$W=\frac{1}{2c^2}\left(dx\right)\left(dx^{}\right)J^\mu \left(x\right)D_{+\mu \nu }\left(xx^{}\right)J^\nu \left(x^{}\right),$$
(2)
where

$$D_+^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\mu }{c}\left[g^{\mu \nu }+\left(1n^2\right)\beta ^\mu \beta ^\nu \right]D_+\left(xx^{}\right),$$
(3)
and $`\beta ^\mu (1,\mathrm{𝟎})`$, $`J^\mu (c\varrho ,𝐉)`$ is the conserved current, $`\mu `$ is the magnetic permeability of the medium, $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant od the medium, and $`n=\sqrt{ϵ\mu }`$ is the index of refraction of the medium. Function $`D_+`$ is defined as follows (Schwinger et al., 1976):

$$D_+\left(xx^{}\right)=\frac{i}{4\pi ^2c}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱𝐱^{}\right|}{\left|𝐱𝐱^{}\right|}e^{i\omega \left|tt^{}\right|}.$$
(4)
The probability of the persistence of vacuum follows from the vacuum amplitude (1) in the following form:

$$\left|0_+|0_{}\right|^2=e^{\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{W}},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{Im}W`$ is the basis for the definition of the spectral function $`P(\omega ,t)`$ as follows:

$$\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Im}W\stackrel{d}{=}𝑑t𝑑\omega \frac{P(\omega ,t)}{\mathrm{}\omega }.$$
(6)
Now, if we insert eq. (2) into eq. (6), we get, after extracting $`P(\omega ,t)`$, the following general expression for this spectral function:

$$P(\omega ,t)=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}\frac{\mu }{n^2}d𝐱d𝐱^{}dt^{}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱𝐱^{}\right|}{\left|𝐱𝐱^{}\right|}\right]\times $$

$$\mathrm{cos}\left[\omega \left(tt^{}\right)\right]\left[\varrho (𝐱,t)\varrho (𝐱^{},t^{})\frac{n^2}{c^2}𝐉(𝐱,t)𝐉(𝐱^{},t^{})\right].$$
(7)
Now, we will apply the formula (7) to the two-body system with the same charged particles in order to get its synergic synchrotron-Čerenkov radiation. The synchrotron radiation is produced by particle of charge $`e`$ moving in a uniform circular motion with velocity $`𝐯`$ in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the constant magnetic field $`𝐇`$ (chosen to be in the $`+z`$ direction).

On the other hand the Čerenkov electromagnetic radiation is generated by a fast-moving charged particle in a medium when its speed is faster than the speed of light in this medium. This radiation was first observed experimentally by Čerenkov (1936) and theoretically interpreted by Tamm and Frank (1937) in the framework of classical electrodynamics. A source theoretical description of this effect was given by Schwinger et al. (1976) in the zero-temperature regime, and the classical spectral formula was generalized to the finite-temperature situation in electrodynamics and gravity in the framework of the source theory by Pardy (1989, 1995).

In electrodynamics one usually considers synchrotron radiation produced by a uniformly moving charge with constant orbital velocity. Here we consider the system of two equal charges $`e`$ with the constant mutual distance $`a`$ moving with orbital velocity $`v`$ in the accelerator. For the sake of generality we consider also that a dielectric medium is present. So we write for the charge density $`\varrho `$ and for the current density $`𝐉`$ of the two-body system:

$$\varrho (𝐱,t)=e\delta \left(𝐱𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}\left(t\right)\right)+e\delta \left(𝐱𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}\left(t\right)\right)$$
(8)
and

$$𝐉(𝐱,t)=e𝐯_1\left(t\right)\delta \left(𝐱𝐱_\mathrm{𝟏}\left(t\right)\right)+e𝐯_2\left(t\right)\delta \left(𝐱𝐱_\mathrm{𝟐}\left(t\right)\right)$$
(9)
with

$$𝐱_1\left(t\right)=𝐱\left(t\right)=R\left(𝐢\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega _0t\right)+𝐣\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega _0t\right)\right),$$
(10)
$$𝐱_2\left(t\right)=R\left(𝐢\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega _0t+\delta \phi \right)+𝐣\mathrm{sin}\left(\omega _0t+\delta \phi \right)\right)=𝐱\left(t+\frac{\delta \phi }{\omega _0}\right);\delta \phi =\frac{a}{R}.$$
(11)
We will suppose for simplicity that the distance of the particles forming the two-body system is very small in comparison with the diameter $`R`$ of the circle accelerator, which means that the velocities of both particles are approximately the same, or $`𝐯_1(t)𝐯_2(t)=𝐯(t)`$, where ($`H=|𝐇|,E=`$ energy of a particle)

$$𝐯\left(t\right)=d𝐱/dt,\omega _0=v/R,R=\frac{\beta E}{eH},\beta =v/c,v=\left|𝐯\right|.$$
(12)
After insertion of eqs. (8) and (9) into eq. (7), and after some mathematical operations we get

$$P(\omega ,t)=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}\frac{\mu }{n^2}e^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dt^{}\mathrm{cos}(tt^{})[1\frac{𝐯\left(t\right)𝐯\left(t^{}\right)}{c^2}n^2]\times $$

$$\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)\right|}{\left|𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)\right|}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)\right|}{\left|𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)\right|}+$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)\right|}{\left|𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)\right|}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\frac{n\omega }{c}\left|𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)\right|}{\left|𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)\right|}\}.$$
(13)
Using $`t^{}=t+\tau `$, we get

$$𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)=𝐱\left(t\right)𝐱\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{d}{=}𝐀,$$
(14)
$$𝐱_1\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)=𝐱\left(t\right)𝐱\left(t+\tau +\frac{\delta \phi }{\omega _0}\right)\stackrel{d}{=}𝐁,$$
(15)
$$𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_1\left(t^{}\right)=𝐱\left(t+\frac{\delta \phi }{\omega _0}\right)𝐱\left(t+\tau \right)\stackrel{d}{=}𝐂,$$
(16)
$$𝐱_2\left(t\right)𝐱_2\left(t^{}\right)=𝐱\left(t+\frac{\delta \phi }{\omega _0}\right)𝐱\left(t+\tau +\frac{\delta \phi }{\omega _0}\right)\stackrel{d}{=}𝐃.$$
(17)
Using geometrical representation of vectors $`𝐱_i(t)`$, we get

$$\left|𝐀\right|=\left[R^2+R^22RR\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega _0\tau \right)\right]^{1/2}=2R\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)\right|,$$
(18)
$$\left|𝐁\right|=2R\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau +\delta \phi }{2}\right)\right|,$$
(19)
$$\left|𝐂\right|=2R\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau \delta \phi }{2}\right)\right|,$$
(20)
$$\left|𝐃\right|=2R\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)\right|.$$
(21)
Using

$$𝐯\left(t\right)𝐯\left(t+\tau \right)=\omega _0^2R^2\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau ,$$
(22)
and relations (18)–(21), we get, with $`v=\omega _0R`$

$$P(\omega ,t)=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}\frac{\mu }{n^2}e^2_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\tau \mathrm{cos}\omega \tau [1\frac{n^2}{c^2}v^2\mathrm{cos}\omega _0\tau ]\times $$

$$\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)\right]}{2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau +\delta \phi }{2}\right)\right]}{2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau +\delta \phi }{2}\right)}+$$

$$\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau \delta \phi }{2}\right)\right]}{2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau \delta \phi }{2}\right)}+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)\right]}{2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0\tau }{2}\right)}\}.$$
(23)
Introducing new variable $`T`$ by relation

$$\omega _0\tau +\alpha _i=\omega _0T$$
(24)
for every integral in Eq. (23), where

$$\alpha _i=0,\delta \phi ,\delta \phi ,0,$$
(25)
we get $`P(\omega ,t)`$ in the following form

$$P(\omega ,t)=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}\frac{e^2}{2R}\frac{\mu }{n^2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dT\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\times $$

$$\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega T\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i\right)\left[1\frac{c^2}{n^2}v^2\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega _0T\alpha _i\right)\right]\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\}.$$
(26)
The last formula can be written in the more compact form,

$$P(\omega ,t)=\frac{\omega }{4\pi ^2}\frac{\mu }{n^2}\frac{e^2}{2R}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left\{P_1^{\left(i\right)}\frac{n^2}{c^2}v^2P_2^{\left(i\right)}\right\},$$
(27)
where

$$P_1^{\left(i\right)}=J_{1a}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{cos}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i+J_{1b}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i$$
(28)
and

$$P_2^{\left(i\right)}=J_{2A}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _i\mathrm{cos}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i+$$

$$J_{2B}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{cos}\alpha _i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i+J_{2C}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i\mathrm{cos}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i+J_{2D}^{\left(i\right)}\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i,$$
(29)
where

$$J_{1a}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{cos}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(30)
$$J_{1b}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{sin}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(31)
$$J_{2A}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{cos}\omega _0T\mathrm{cos}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(32)
$$J_{2B}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{cos}\omega _0T\mathrm{sin}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(33)
$$J_{2C}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{sin}\omega _0T\mathrm{cos}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(34)
$$J_{2D}^{\left(i\right)}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\mathrm{sin}\omega _0T\mathrm{sin}\omega T\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\omega _0T}{2}\right)}\right\}.$$
(35)
Using

$$\omega _0T=\phi +2\pi l,\phi (\pi ,\pi ),l=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},$$
(36)
we can transform the $`T`$-integral into the sum of the telescopic integrals according to the scheme

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑T\frac{1}{\omega _0}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi .$$
(37)
Using the fact that for the odd functions $`f(\phi )`$ and $`g(l)`$, the relations are valid,

$$_\pi ^\pi f\left(\phi \right)𝑑\phi =0;\underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g\left(l\right)=0,$$
(38)
we can write

$$J_{1a}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{1}{\omega _0}\underset{l}{}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \left\{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\phi \mathrm{cos}2\pi l\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\right\}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(39)
$$J_{1b}^{\left(i\right)}=0.$$
(40)
For integrals with indices A,B,C,D we get:

$$J_{2A}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{1}{\omega _0}\underset{l}{}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi \left\{\mathrm{cos}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\phi \mathrm{cos}2\pi l\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\right\}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}\right\},$$
(41)
$$J_{2B}^{\left(i\right)}=J_{2C}^{\left(i\right)}=0,$$
(42)
$$J_{2D}^{\left(i\right)}=\frac{1}{\omega _0}\underset{l}{}_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \mathrm{sin}\phi \left\{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\phi \mathrm{cos}2\pi l\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\right\}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{2Rn\omega }{c}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}\right\}.$$
(43)
Using the Poisson theorem,

$$\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{cos}2\pi \frac{\omega }{\omega _0}k=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\omega _0\delta \left(\omega \omega _0k\right),$$
(44)
the definition of the Bessel functions $`J_{2l}`$, and their corresponding derivation and integral

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \mathrm{cos}\left(z\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}l\phi =J_{2l}\left(z\right),$$
(45)
$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \mathrm{sin}\left(z\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}l\phi =J_{2l}^{}\left(z\right),$$
(46)
$$\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\phi \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(z\mathrm{sin}\frac{\phi }{2}\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\phi /2\right)}\mathrm{cos}l\phi =_0^zJ_{2l}\left(x\right)𝑑x,$$
(47)
we get, with ($`aR`$)

$$\mathrm{sin}\alpha _i\mathrm{sin}\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}\alpha _i0$$
(48)
and with the definition of the partial power spectrum $`P_l`$,

$$P\left(\omega \right)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta \left(\omega l\omega _0\right)P_l,$$
(49)
the following final form of the partial power spectrum generated by motion of two-charge system moving in the cyclotron:

$$P_l(\omega ,t)=\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{a\omega }{2v}\right)\frac{e^2}{\pi n^2}\frac{\omega \mu \omega _0}{v}\left(2n^2\beta ^2J_{2l}^{}\left(2ln\beta \right)\left(1n^2\beta ^2\right)_0^{2ln\beta }𝑑xJ_{2l}\left(x\right)\right).$$
(50)
Our goal is to apply the last formula to the situation in medium of the accelerator where it is in fact, a vacuum. In this case we can put $`\mu =1,n=1`$ in the last formula and so we have

$$P_l=\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{a\omega }{2v}\right)\frac{e^2}{\pi }\frac{\omega \omega _0}{v}\left(2\beta ^2J_{2l}^{}\left(2l\beta \right)\left(1\beta ^2\right)_0^{2l\beta }𝑑xJ_{2l}\left(x\right)\right).$$
(51)
Using the approximative formulas

$$J_{2l}^{}\left(2l\beta \right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\pi }\left(\frac{3}{2l_c}\right)^{2/3}K_{2/3}\left(l/l_c\right),l1,$$
(52)
$$_0^{2l\beta }J_{2l}\left(y\right)𝑑y\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\frac{1}{\pi }_{l/l_c}^{\mathrm{}}K_{1/3}\left(y\right)𝑑y,l1,$$
(53)
with (Schwinger et al., 1976)

$$l_c=\frac{3}{2}\left(1\beta ^2\right)^{3/2},$$
(54)
substituting Eqs. (52) and (53) into Eq. (51), respecting the high-energy situation for the high-energy particles where $`(1\beta ^2)0`$, and using the recurence relation

$$K_{2/3}^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(K_{1/3}+K_{5/3}\right),$$
(55)
and definition function $`\kappa (\xi )`$

$$\kappa \left(\xi \right)=\xi _\xi ^{\mathrm{}}K_{5/3}\left(y\right)𝑑y,\xi =l/l_c,$$
(56)
we get power spectrum formula of electron-electron pair as follows:

$$P\left(\omega \right)=\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{a\omega }{2v}\right)\frac{\omega e^2}{\pi ^2R}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{6}}\left(\frac{3}{2l}\right)^{2/3}\xi ^{1/6}e^\xi ;l=\frac{\omega }{\omega _0}.$$
$`\left(57\right)`$
where we used the idea that the discrete spectrum parametrized by number $`l`$ is effectively continuous for $`l1`$. In such a case there is an relation

$$P\left(\omega \right)=P_{\left(l=\omega /\omega _0\right)}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _0}\right).$$
$`\left(58\right)`$
Formula (57) is analogous to the formula derived in Pardy (1997) for the linear motion of a two-charge system emitting Čerenkov radiation.

The radiative corrections obviously influence the spectrum (Schwinger, 1970 and Pardy, 1994b). Determination of this phenomenon forms the special problem of the accelerator physics.

Use of large accelerators,for instance, Grenoble, DESY, CERN should make possible experimental verification of the derived formulas involving also the Lorentz contraction. Instead of two electrons we can consider, say, two bunches with 1010 electrons in each bunch of volume 300$`\mu `$m $`\times `$ 40$`\mu `$m $`\times `$ 0.01 m, with the rest distance $`l=1`$ m between them. The distance between the bunches is the relativistic length $`a`$ and it can be determined by the synchrotron spectrum derived here.

The results of the Lorentz contraction measurement obtained from the synchrotron radiation spectrum in vacuum ($`n=1,\mu =1`$) should be identical with the results of a measurement obtained from a spectrum generated by linear uniform particle motion in a medium because the interference of light in vacuum does not differ from the interference of light emitted by the Čerenkov effect in a medium.

References

Čerenkov, P. A., C.R., Acad. Sci. (USSR) 3 (1936), 413.
Dittrich, W., Fortschritte der Physik, 26 (1978), 289.
Pardy, M., Phys. Lett. A 134 (1989), 357.
Pardy, M., Phys. Lett. A 189 (1994), 227. (a)
Pardy, M., Phys. Lett. B 325 (1994), 517. (b)
Pardy, M., Int. J. of Theor. Phys. 34, N. 6, (1995), 951.
Pardy, M., Phys. Rev. A 55 No. 3, (1997), 1647.
Schwinger, J., Tsai W.Y. and Erber, T, Ann. Phys. (NY) 96 (1976), 303.
Schwinger, J., ”Particles, Sources and Fields”, Vol. I, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1970.
Schwinger, J., ”Particles, Sources and Fields”, Vol. II, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973.
Tamm, I. E. and Frank, I. M., Dokl. Akad. Nauk USSR 14 (1937), 107.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

IFT-P.072/2000

Covariant Quantization of the Superstring

Nathan Berkovits1 e-mail: nberkovi@ift.unesp.br

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

Rua Pamplona 145, 01405-900, São Paulo, SP, Brasil

After reviewing the Green-Schwarz superstring using the approach of Siegel, the superstring is covariantly quantized by constructing a BRST operator from the fermionic constraints and a bosonic pure spinor ghost variable. Physical massless vertex operators are constructed and, for the first time, N-point tree amplitudes are computed in a manifestly ten-dimensional super-Poincaré covariant manner. Quantization can be generalized to curved supergravity backgrounds and the vertex operator for fluctuations around $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ is explicitly constructed. This review is written in a self-contained manner and is based on talks given at the Fradkin Memorial Conference and Strings 2000.

August 2000

1. Introduction

There are many motivations for covariantly quantizing the superstring. As in any theory, it is desirable to make all physical symmetries manifest in order to reduce the amount of calculations and simplify any cancellations coming from the symmetry. A second motivation comes from the desire to construct a quantizable sigma model action for the superstring in curved backgrounds with Ramond-Ramond flux. A third motivation is that a more symmetrical formulation of superstring theory may shed light on some of the mysteries of M-theory.

Although the light-cone Green-Schwarz (GS) formalism  has been useful for computing four-point tree-level and one-loop amplitudes, it is impractical for computing higher-point or higher-loop amplitudes because of dependence on the locations of the light-cone interaction points. Using the covariant RNS formalism, one can easily compute N-point tree-level and one-loop amplitudes involving bosons, but amplitudes involving fermions are complicated by the presence of spin fields . Furthermore, lack of manifest spacetime supersymmetry in the RNS expressions complicates the analysis of finiteness properties and, for more than one-loop, leads to picture-changing problems.

For more than 15 years, a classical super-Poincaré covariant version of the GS formalism  has existed. But until the recent work described here, quantization problems have prevented this formalism from being used to compute non-vanishing scattering amplitudes. In this review, the covariant GS formalism is quantized by constructing a BRST operator from the fermionic constraints and a bosonic pure spinor ghost variable. After constructing physical massless vertex operators, N-point tree amplitudes are computed for the first time in a manifestly ten-dimensional super-Poincaré covariant manner.

In previous papers, this author has discussed quantization of the superstring compactified to four  or six  dimensions using “hybrid” variables which combine four or six-dimensional GS variables with a $`c=9`$ or $`c=6`$ superconformal field theory for the compactification. These hybrid formalisms have manifest four or six-dimensional super-Poincaré covariance, N=2 worldsheet supersymmetry, and are related to the usual RNS formalism by a field redefinition. Unfortunately, the precise relation between these hybrid formalisms and the new ten-dimensional super-Poincaré covariant formalism is still unclear, so this review will not discuss the hybrid formalisms.

In section 2 of this paper, the covariant GS formalism will be reviewed using the approach of Siegel  where the canonical momentum to $`\theta ^\alpha `$ is an independent variable. In section 3, it will be argued  that a bosonic pure spinor variable, $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, plays the role of the worldsheet ghost in this formalism, and a BRST operator is constructed out of the fermionic constraints and $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. In section 4, physical massless vertex operators will be constructed and, in section 5, they will be used to compute N-point tree amplitudes . These amplitudes are manifestly super-Poincaré covariant and involve integration over an on-shell ‘harmonic’ superspace including five $`\theta `$’s and three $`\lambda `$’s. In section 6, the cohomology of the BRST operator is shown to reproduce the light-cone GS spectrum . In section 7, this quantization method is generalized to curved supergravity backgrounds  and the vertex operator is constructed for fluctuations around an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background with Ramond-Ramond flux . In section 8, some open problems and applications are discussed.

2. Review of GS Formalism using the Approach of Siegel

In conformal gauge, the classical covariant GS action for the heterotic superstring is

$$S=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^m\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Pi }_m\theta ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\overline{}\theta ^\beta \frac{1}{4}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m\theta ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta ]+S_R$$

where $`x^m`$ and $`\theta ^\alpha `$ are the $`d=10`$ worldsheet variables ($`m=0`$ to 9, $`\alpha =1`$ to 16), $`S_R`$ describes the right-moving degrees of freedom for the $`E_8\times E_8`$ or $`SO(32)`$ lattice, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m=x^m+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^\beta `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^m=\overline{}x^m+\frac{1}{2}\theta ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\overline{}\theta ^\beta `$ are supersymmetric combinations of the momentum. Note that $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m`$ and $`\gamma ^{m\alpha \beta }`$ are $`16\times 16`$ symmetric matrices satisfying $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{(m}\gamma ^{n)\beta \gamma }=2\eta ^{mn}\delta _\alpha ^\gamma `$ and are the off-diagonal blocks in the Weyl representation of the $`32\times 32`$ ten-dimensional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^m`$-matrices. In what follows, the right-moving degrees of freedom play no role and will be ignored. Also, all of the following remarks are easily generalized to the Type I and Type II superstrings.

Since the action of (2.1) is in conformal gauge, it needs to be supplemented with the Virasoro constraint $`T=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m=0`$. Also, since the canonical momentum to $`\theta ^\alpha `$ does not appear in the action, one has the Dirac constraint $`p_\alpha =\delta Ł/\delta _0\theta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }_m\frac{1}{4}\theta \gamma _m_1\theta )(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha `$ where $`p_\alpha `$ is the canonical momentum to $`\theta ^\alpha `$. If one defines

$$d_\alpha =p_\alpha \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }_m\frac{1}{4}\theta \gamma _m_1\theta )(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha ,$$

one can use the canonical commutation relations to find $`\{d_\alpha ,d_\beta \}=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m,`$ which implies (since $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m=0`$ is a constraint) that the sixteen Dirac constraints $`d_\alpha `$ have eight first-class components and eight second-class components. Since the anti-commutator of the second-class constraints is non-trivial (i.e. the anti-commutator is an operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }^+`$ rather than a constant), standard Dirac quantization cannot be used since it would involve inverting an operator. So except in light-cone gauge (where the commutator becomes a constant), the covariant Green-Schwarz formalism cannot be easily quantized.

In 1986, Siegel suggested an alternative approach in which the canonical momentum to $`\theta ^\alpha `$ is an independent variable using the free-field action

$$S=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}x^m\overline{}x_m+p_\alpha \overline{}\theta ^\alpha ].$$

In this approach, Siegel attempted to replace the problematic constraints of the covariant GS action with some suitable set of first-class constraints constructed out of the supersymmetric objects ($`\mathrm{\Pi }^m`$, $`d_\alpha `$, $`\theta ^\alpha `$) where

$$d_\alpha =p_\alpha \frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^m\frac{1}{4}\theta \gamma ^m\theta )(\gamma _m\theta )_\alpha $$

is defined as in (2.1) and is no longer constrained to vanish. The first-class constraints should include the Virasoro constraint $`T=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_md_\alpha \theta ^\alpha =\frac{1}{2}x^mx_mp_\alpha \theta ^\alpha ,`$ and the first-class part of the $`d_\alpha `$ constraint, which is the irreducible part of $`G^\alpha =\mathrm{\Pi }^m(\gamma _md)^\alpha .`$ To get to light-cone gauge, one also needs constraints such as $`C^{mnp}=d_\alpha (\gamma ^{mnp})^{\alpha \beta }d_\beta `$ which is supposed to replace the second-class constraints in $`d_\alpha `$. Although this approach was successfully used for quantizing the superparticle , a set of constraints which closes at the quantum level and which reproduces the correct physical superstring spectrum was never found.

Nevertheless, the approach of Siegel has the advantage that all worldsheet fields are free which makes it trivial to compute the OPE’s that

$$x^m(y)x^n(z)2\eta ^{mn}\mathrm{log}|yz|,p_\alpha (y)\theta ^\beta (z)\delta _\alpha ^\beta (yz)^1.$$

This gives some useful clues about the appropriate ghost degrees of freedom. Since $`(\theta ^\alpha ,p_\alpha )`$ contributes $`32`$ to the conformal anomaly, the total matter contribution is $`22`$ which is expected to be cancelled by a ghost contribution of $`+22`$. Furthermore, the spin contribution to the $`SO(9,1)`$ Lorentz currents in Siegel’s approach is $`M_{mn}=\frac{1}{2}p\gamma _{mn}\theta `$, as compared with the spin contribution to the $`SO(9,1)`$ Lorentz currents in the RNS formalism which is $`\psi _m\psi _n`$. These two Lorentz currents satisfy similar OPE’s except for the numerator in the double pole of $`M_{mn}`$ with $`M_{mn}`$, which is $`+4`$ in Siegel’s approach and $`+1`$ in the RNS formalism. This suggests that the worldsheet ghosts should have Lorentz currents which contribute $`3`$ to the double pole.

3. Quantization using Pure Spinors

In fact, there exists an $`SO(9,1)`$ irreducible representation contributing $`c=22`$ and with a $`3`$ coefficient in the double pole of its Lorentz current . This representation is a complex bosonic spinor $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ satisfying the “pure spinor” condition that

$$\lambda ^\alpha \gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\lambda ^\beta =0$$

for $`m=0`$ to 9. Pure spinors have previously been used by Howe  for describing super-Yang-Mills and supergravity equations of motion as integrability conditions, and by Nilsson  as superspace auxiliary fields.

There are eleven independent complex degrees of freedom in $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, as can be seen by temporarily breaking $`SO(9,1)`$ to $`SO(8)`$ and solving the constraint of (3.1). If $`\gamma ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^0\pm \gamma ^9)`$ and $`\sigma _{a\dot{a}}^j`$ are the $`SO(8)`$ Pauli matrices satisfying $`\sigma _{a\dot{a}}^{(j}\sigma _{a\dot{b}}^{k)}=2\delta ^{jk}\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}`$ for $`(j,a,\dot{a})=1`$ to 8, then $`\lambda \gamma ^{}\lambda =0`$ implies that $`s^a=(\gamma ^+\lambda )^a`$ is a null complex $`SO(8)`$ spinor satisfying $`s^as^a=0`$. Furthermore, $`\lambda \gamma ^j\lambda =0`$ implies that $`s^a\sigma _{a\dot{a}}^j(\gamma ^{}\lambda )^{\dot{a}}=0`$, which implies that $`(\gamma ^{}\lambda )^{\dot{a}}=v^j(\sigma ^js)^{\dot{a}}`$ for some complex vector $`v^j`$. $`\lambda \gamma ^+\lambda =0`$ gives no new constraints on $`s^a`$ and $`v^j`$. But this parameterization of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ is invariant under the gauge transformation $`\delta v^j=ϵ^{\dot{a}}(\sigma ^js)^{\dot{a}}`$, which allows one to gauge away half of the components of $`v^j`$. So a pure spinor $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ can be parameterized by the seven complex components of a null $`s^a`$ and the four remaining complex components of $`v^j`$ . After Wick rotation to $`SO(10)`$, one can alternatively describe $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ as a complex scale parameter multiplying the complex ten-dimensional coset space $`SO(10)/U(5)`$ .

Using either the $`SO(8)`$ or $`SO(10)/U(5)`$ descriptions of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$, a free field action $`S_\lambda `$ can be constructed out of the eleven left-moving unconstrained parameters and their canonical momenta with conformal anomaly $`c=22`$. Although the unconstrained parameters do not transform covariantly under $`SO(9,1)`$, the only combinations which appear in the vertex operators are $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and its Lorentz current $`N_{mn}`$, which satisfy the manifestly SO(9,1) covariant OPE’s

$$N_{mn}(y)\lambda ^\alpha (z)\frac{\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^{mn}\lambda )^\alpha }{yz},N_{kl}(y)N_{mn}(z)\frac{\eta _{m[l}N_{k]n}\eta _{n[l}N_{k]m}}{yz}3\frac{\eta _{k[n}\eta _{m]l}}{(yz)^2}.$$

One can alternatively obtain the OPE’s of (3.1) from an SO(9,1) WZW model of level $`3`$, however, $`\lambda ^a`$ would not be a fundamental field in such an action .

One still needs to define which states are physical in this Hilbert space. The physical state condition will be defined as ghost-number one states in the cohomology of the BRST-like operator

$$Q=𝑑z\lambda ^\alpha (z)d_\alpha (z)$$

where $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ carries ghost-number one and $`d_\alpha `$ is defined in (2.1). Since $`d_\alpha `$ satisfies the OPE $`d_\alpha (y)d_\beta (z)(yz)^1\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^m\mathrm{\Pi }_m`$, the pure spinor condition on $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ implies that $`Q`$ is nilpotent. Although it is a bit unusual that $`Q`$ is constructed from second-class constraints, it will be shown in section 5 that its cohomology reproduces the correct light-cone GS spectrum.

4. Physical Massless Vertex Operators

Since there is no tachyon, the massless open superstring state is constructed from zero modes of the dimension-zero worldsheet fields $`x^m`$,$`\theta ^\alpha `$, and $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. Since it has ghost-number one, it can be written as

$$U=\lambda ^\alpha A_\alpha (x,\theta )$$

where $`A_\alpha (x,\theta )`$ is a spinor superfield. Since $`d_\alpha (y)A_\beta (x,\theta )(yz)^1D_\alpha A_\beta (x,\theta )`$ where $`D_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }+(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha _m`$ is the superspace derivative, $`QU=0`$ implies that $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$. But since $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta =\frac{1}{32}(\gamma ^{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }(\lambda \gamma _{mnpqr}\lambda ),`$ this implies that $`(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$ for every five-form direction $`mnpqr`$. Furthermore, the gauge invariance $`\delta U=Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`A_\alpha `$ has the gauge transformation $`\delta A_\alpha =D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The equation $`(\gamma _{mnpqr})^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta =0`$ and gauge invariance $`\delta A_\alpha =D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ describe the spinor gauge superfield for linearized on-shell $`d=10`$ super-Yang-Mills . It can be gauge-fixed to the form

$$A_\alpha (x,\theta )=a_m(x)(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha +(\xi (x)\gamma _{mnp})_\alpha (\theta \gamma ^{mnp}\theta )+\mathrm{}$$

where $`a_m(x)`$ and $`\xi ^\alpha (x)`$ are the on-shell gluon and gluino and all the components in $`\mathrm{}`$ are auxiliary fields which are related to $`a_m`$ and $`\xi ^\alpha `$ by equations of motion.

To compute scattering amplitudes, one also needs vertex operators in integrated form, $`𝑑zV`$, where $`V`$ is usually obtained from the unintegrated vertex operator $`U`$ by anti-commuting with the $`b`$ ghost. But since there is no natural candidate for the $`b`$ ghost in this formalism, one needs to use an alternative method for obtaining $`V`$ which is from the relation $`[Q,V]=U`$ . Using this alternative method, one finds for the open superstring massless vertex operator that

$$V=A_\alpha (x,\theta )\theta ^\alpha +A_m(x,\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }^m+W^\alpha (x,\theta )d_\alpha +F^{mn}(x,\theta )N_{mn},$$

where $`A_m=\frac{1}{8}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_\beta `$, $`W^\alpha =\frac{1}{10}\gamma _m^{\alpha \beta }(D_\beta A^m^mA_\beta )`$, and $`F^{mn}=^{[m}A^{n]}`$. It will be useful to note that in components,

$$V=a_m(x)x^m+_{[m}a_{n]}(x)M^{mn}+\xi ^\alpha (x)q_\alpha +O(\theta ^2),$$

where $`M^{mn}=\frac{1}{2}p\gamma ^{mn}\theta +N^{mn}`$ is the spin contribution to the Lorentz current and $`q_\alpha =p_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}(x^m+\frac{1}{12}\theta \gamma ^m\theta )(\gamma _m\theta )_\alpha `$ is the spacetime-supersymmetry current, so (4.1) closely resembles the RNS vertex operator  for the gluon and gluino. If one drops the $`F^{mn}N_{mn}`$ term, the vertex operator of (4.1) was suggested by Siegel  based on superspace arguments.

For the closed superstring, the massless vertex operator is $`U=\lambda ^\alpha \widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\beta }}A_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}(x,\theta ,\widehat{\theta })`$ where $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ and $`\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ are right-moving worldsheet fields and the chirality of the $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ index depends if the superstring is IIA or IIB. The physical state condition $`QU=\widehat{Q}U=0`$ and gauge invariance $`\delta U=Q\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\widehat{Q}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`\widehat{Q}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}=Q\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ implies that

$$\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha A_{\beta \widehat{\gamma }}=\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\alpha }}A_{\beta \widehat{\gamma }}=0,\delta A_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=D_\alpha \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\widehat{\beta }}+\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\beta }}\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha ,$$

$$\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \beta }D_\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }_\beta =\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\gamma }}\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\widehat{\gamma }}=0$$

for any five-form direction $`mnpqr`$, which are the linearized equations of motion and gauge invariances of the Type IIA or Type IIB supergravity multiplet. The integrated form of the closed superstring massless vertex operator is the left-right product of the open superstring vertex operator of (4.1) and will be used in section 7 for quantizing the superstring in a curved supergravity background.

5. Tree-Level Massless Scattering Amplitudes

As usual, the $`N`$-point tree-level open superstring scattering amplitude will be defined as the correlation function of $`3`$ unintegrated vertex operators $`U_r`$ and $`N3`$ integrated vertex operators $`𝑑zV_r`$. For massless external states, these vertex operators are given in (4.1) and (4.1).

The first step to evaluate the correlation function is to eliminate all worldsheet fields of non-zero dimension (i.e. $`x^m`$, $`\theta ^\alpha `$, $`p_\alpha `$ and $`N^{mn}`$) by using their OPE’s with other worldsheet fields and the fact that they vanish at $`z\mathrm{}`$. One then integrates over the $`x^m`$ zero modes to get a Koba-Nielson type formula,

$$A=𝑑z_4\mathrm{}𝑑z_N\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(z_r,k_r,\eta _r,\theta )$$

where $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma `$ comes from the three unintegrated vertex operators and $`f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is some function of the $`z_r`$’s, the momenta $`k_r`$, the polarizations $`\eta _r`$, and the remaining $`\theta `$ zero modes.

One would like to define the correlation function $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ such that $`A`$ is supersymmetric and gauge invariant. An obvious way to make $`A`$ supersymmetric is to require that the correlation function vanishes unless all sixteen $`\theta `$ zero modes are present, but this gives the wrong answer by dimensional analysis. The correct answer comes from realizing that $`Y=\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ satisfies the constraint $`QY=0`$ since the external states are on-shell. Furthermore, gauge invariance implies that $`Y`$ should vanish whenever $`Y=Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

At zero momentum and ghost-number three, there is precisely one state in the cohomology of $`Q`$ which is $`(\lambda \gamma ^m\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^n\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^p\theta )(\theta \gamma _{mnp}\theta )`$. So if

$$f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(\theta )=A_{\alpha \beta \gamma }+\theta ^\delta B_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }+\mathrm{}+(\gamma ^m\theta )_\alpha (\gamma ^n\theta )_\beta (\gamma ^p\theta )_\gamma (\theta \gamma _{mnp}\theta )F+\mathrm{},$$

it is natural to define

$$\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(z_r,k_r,\eta _r,\theta )=F(z_r,k_r,\eta _r).$$

This definition is supersymmetric since $`(\lambda \gamma ^m\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^n\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^p\theta )(\theta \gamma _{mnp}\theta )\theta ^\alpha `$ is not annihilated by $`Q`$, and is gauge invariant since $`(\lambda \gamma ^m\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^n\theta )(\lambda \gamma ^p\theta )(\theta \gamma _{mnp}\theta )Q\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Note that (5.1) can be interpreted as integration over an on-shell harmonic superspace involving five $`\theta `$’s since $`\lambda ^\alpha \lambda ^\beta \lambda ^\gamma f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }=(d\theta \gamma _m)^\alpha (d\theta \gamma _n)^\beta (d\theta \gamma _p)^\gamma (d\theta \gamma ^{mnp}d\theta )f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ .

For three-point scattering, $`A=\lambda ^aA_\alpha ^1\lambda ^\beta A_\beta ^2\lambda ^\gamma A_\gamma ^3`$, it is easy to check that the prescription of (5.1) reproduces the usual super-Yang-Mills cubic vertex. In the gauge of (4.1), each $`A_\alpha `$ contributes one, two or three $`\theta `$’s. If the five $`\theta `$’s are distributed as $`(1,1,3)`$, one gets the $`a_m^1a_n^2^{[m}a^{3n]}`$ vertex, whereas if they are distributed as $`(2,2,1)`$, one gets the $`(\xi ^1\gamma ^m\xi ^2)a_m^3`$ vertex. Together with Brenno Vallilo, it was proven that the above prescription agrees with the standard RNS prescription of  for N-point massless tree amplitudes involving up to four fermions . The relation of (4.1) to the RNS massless vertex operator was used in this proof, and the restriction on the number of fermions comes from the need for different pictures in the RNS prescription.

6. Cohomology of Q

To compute the cohomology of $`Q=𝑑z\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$, it is convenient to use the $`SO(8)`$ parameterization of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ in terms of $`s^a`$ and $`v^j`$ discussed in section 3. The gauge invariance $`\delta v^j=ϵ^{\dot{a}}(\sigma ^js)^{\dot{a}}`$ leads to a new fermionic ghost anti-chiral spinor $`t^{\dot{a}}`$, and the invariance of the gauge parameter, $`\delta ϵ^{\dot{a}}=y^j(\sigma ^js)^{\dot{a}}`$, leads to a new bosonic ghost-for-ghost vector $`v_{(1)}^j`$. These gauge invariances continue indefinitely until one has an infinite chain of bosonic vectors $`v_{(n)}^j`$ and fermionic anti-chiral spinors $`t_{(n)}^j`$ for $`n=0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ where $`n=0`$ labels the original vector and spinor .

In terms of these left-moving dimension-zero worldsheet fields, $`Q=𝑑zs^aG^a`$ where

$$G^a=(\gamma ^{}d)^a+\sigma _j^{a\dot{a}}[v_{(0)}^j(\gamma ^+d)^{\dot{a}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(w_{(n)}^jt_{(n)}^{\dot{a}}+v_{(n+1)}^ju_{(n)}^{\dot{a}})],$$

$`(w_{(n)}^j,u_{(n)}^{\dot{a}})`$ are the canonical momenta for $`(v_{(n)}^j,t_{(n)}^{\dot{a}})`$, and the infinite sum comes from the gauge invariances. Note that $`Q^2=0`$ since $`s^as^a=0`$ and $`G^a(y)G^b(z)2(yz)^1\delta ^{ab}T(z)`$ where

$$T=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{}+v^j\mathrm{\Pi }^j+\frac{1}{2}v^jv^j\mathrm{\Pi }^++t_{(0)}^{\dot{a}}(\gamma ^+d)^{\dot{a}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(v_{(n+1)}^jw_{(n)}^j+t_{(n+1)}^{\dot{a}}u_{(n)}^{\dot{a}}).$$

One can treat $`s^as^a=0`$ as a BRST constraint by defining $`Q^{}=𝑑z[s^aG^abs^as^a+cT]`$ where $`(b,c)`$ are fermionic ghosts of dimension $`(1,0)`$. One can check that $`Q^{}`$ is nilpotent with unconstrained $`s^a`$, and has cohomology equal to that of $`Q`$. Note that the algebra of $`G^a`$ and $`T`$ is not the usual $`N=8`$ superconformal algebra since, for example, $`T`$ has dimension 1 and commutes with $`G^a`$. Nevertheless, since $`T`$ and $`G^a`$ are first-class constraints, they can be used to gauge-fix $`x^+=P^+\tau `$ and $`(\gamma ^+\theta )^a=0`$, and solve for $`x^{}`$ and $`(\gamma ^{}p)^a`$.

The only remaining constraint is that physical operators must commute with the zero mode of $`T`$, which in this light-cone gauge is $`T_0+\frac{1}{2}P^{}`$ where

$$T_0=𝑑z[\frac{1}{2}\theta \gamma ^{}\theta +v_{(0)}^jx^j+\frac{1}{2}v_{(0)}^jv_{(0)}^jP^++t_{(0)}^{\dot{a}}(\gamma ^+d)^{\dot{a}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(v_{(n+1)}^jw_{(n)}^j+t_{(n+1)}^{\dot{a}}u_{(n)}^{\dot{a}})]$$

and a Lorentz frame has been chosen in which $`P^j=0`$ for $`j=1`$ to 8. So physical operators are constructed from products of eigenvectors of $`T_0`$ whose $`(mass)^2=P^+P^{}`$ is equal to the sum of the eigenvalues multiplied by $`2P^+`$. Since $`T_0`$ is quadratic, the bosonic and fermionic eigenvectors with eigenvalues $`N`$, $`a_N`$ and $`b_N`$, can be expressed as linear combinations of the remaining light-cone variables,

$$a_N=𝑑\sigma [f_N^jx^j+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(g_{N(n)}^jv_{(n)}^j+h_{N(n)}^jw_{(n)}^j)],$$

$$b_N=𝑑\sigma [j_N^{\dot{a}}(\gamma ^+p)^{\dot{a}}+k_N^{\dot{a}}(\gamma ^{}\theta )^{\dot{a}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(l_{N(n)}^{\dot{a}}t_{(n)}^{\dot{a}}+m_{N(n)}^{\dot{a}}u_{(n)}^{\dot{a}})].$$

If one requires that these eigenvectors satisfy the normalization condition that $`𝑑\sigma (f_N^jf_N^j+_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}g_{N(n)}^jh_{N(n)}^j)`$ and $`𝑑\sigma (j_N^{\dot{a}}k_N^{\dot{a}}+_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}l_{N(n)}^{\dot{a}}m_{N(n)}^{\dot{a}})`$ are finite, one finds that the only normalizable eigenvectors are the modes of

$$y^j=x^j+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(P^+)^{n1}^{n+1}w_{(n)}^j,q^{\dot{a}}=(\gamma ^+p\frac{1}{2}P^+\gamma ^{}\theta )^{\dot{a}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(P^+)^{n1}^{n+1}u_{(n)}^{\dot{a}}.$$

These eight bosonic and eight fermionic eigenvectors generate the usual light-cone GS spectrum. So the $`T_0`$ constraint has imposed the second-class constraints as well as the mass-shell condition. It is interesting to note that an infinite set of fields has also been useful for treating the second-class constraints of the chiral boson  and the self-dual Type IIB four-form .

7. Superstring in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Background

To construct the superstring action in a curved Type II supergravity background, one adds the integrated form of the closed massless vertex operator of section 4 to the superstring action in a flat background, and covariantizes with respect to super-reparameterization invariance. As usual, one also needs to include a Fradkin-Tseytlin term for coupling the dilaton to the worldsheet curvature $`r`$. The resulting action is

$$S=d^2z[\frac{1}{2}Y^M\overline{}Y^N(G_{MN}(Y)+B_{MN}(Y))$$

$$+\overline{}Y^M\stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha E_M^\alpha (Y)+Y^M\stackrel{~}{\widehat{d}}_{\widehat{\alpha }}E_M^{\widehat{\alpha }}(Y)+\stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\widehat{d}}_{\widehat{\beta }}F^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}(Y)+\alpha ^{}r\mathrm{\Phi }(Y)]+S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }}$$

where $`Y^M=(x^m,\theta ^\mu ,\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\mu }})`$ parameterizes the curved N=2 superspace background, the first line of (7.1) is the usual GS action, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha =d_\alpha +N_{mn}(\gamma ^{mn}D)_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{d}}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}+\widehat{N}_{mn}(\gamma ^{mn}\widehat{D})_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ where $`D_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ are $`N=2`$ superspace derivatives which act on the background fields to their right, $`S_\lambda `$ and $`S_{\widehat{\lambda }}`$ are the actions in a flat background for $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$, and the lowest components of the superfields $`E_m^\alpha `$ and $`E_m^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ are the gravitini, of $`F^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}`$ are the Ramond-Ramond field strengths, and of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the dilaton. It is convenient to treat $`d_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ (instead of $`p_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{p}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$) as fundamental worldsheet fields when the background is curved. Although the above action does not have $`\kappa `$-symmetry, it is constructed such that $`\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ are holomorphic and anti-holomorphic currents when the background superfields are on-shell. One can therefore quantize the action using $`Q=𝑑z\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{Q}=𝑑\overline{z}\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ as in the flat case.

In the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background with $`n`$ units of Ramond-Ramond flux, $`F^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=n\gamma _{01234}^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}=n\delta ^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}`$, so the term $`n\delta ^{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}d_\alpha \widehat{d}_{\widehat{\beta }}`$ in (7.1) allows one to solve the equations of motion  for $`d_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ in terms of $`(x^m,\theta ^\alpha ,\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\alpha }})`$. Plugging in the appropriate values for the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background superfields, one obtains

$$S=\frac{1}{n^2g_s^2}d^2z[\frac{1}{2}\eta _{cd}J^c\overline{J}^d+\frac{1}{4}\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}(3J^{\widehat{\beta }}\overline{J}^\alpha J^\alpha \overline{J}^{\widehat{\beta }})+N_{cd}J^{cd}+\widehat{N}_{cd}\overline{J}^{cd}]+S_\lambda +S_{\widehat{\lambda }}$$

where $`J^A=(g^1g)^A`$ and $`\overline{J}^A=(g^1\overline{}g)^A`$ with $`A=(a,\alpha ,\widehat{\alpha },cd)`$ are left-invariant currents constructed from the coset supergroup $`g(x,\theta ,\widehat{\theta })\frac{PSU(2,2|4)}{SO(4,1)\times SO(5)}`$. This action is invariant under $`gMg\mathrm{\Omega }`$ where $`M`$ is a global $`PSU(2,2|4)`$ transformation and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a local $`SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$ transformation which also acts as a Lorentz rotation on the pure spinors $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}`$. It has been checked to one-loop order   that $`S`$ is conformally invariant and that $`\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha =\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}\lambda ^\alpha J^{\widehat{\beta }}`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\alpha }}\widehat{d}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=\delta _{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}\widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\beta }}\overline{J}^\alpha `$ are holomorphic and anti-holomorphic currents.

To construct the vertex operator $`U=\lambda ^\alpha \widehat{\lambda }^{\widehat{\beta }}A_{\alpha \widehat{\beta }}`$ for fluctuations around the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, one needs to generalize the equations of motion and gauge invariances of (4.1) as was done in  for the $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ background. The flat space equations of (4.1) can be generalized to $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ by simply replacing $`D_\alpha `$ and $`\widehat{D}_{\widehat{\alpha }}`$ in (4.1) with $`_\alpha =E_\alpha ^M(_M+\omega _M)`$ and $`\widehat{}_{\widehat{\alpha }}=E_{\widehat{\alpha }}^M(_M+\omega _M)`$ where $`\omega _M^{cd}=(g^1_Mg)^{cd}`$ is the $`SO(4,1)\times SO(5)`$ spin connection and $`E_A^M`$ is the super-vierbein obtained by inverting $`E_M^A=(g^1_Mg)^A`$ for $`A=(a,\alpha ,\widehat{\alpha })`$. The equations of motion and gauge invariances are still self-consistent since, although $`\{_\alpha ,\widehat{}_{\widehat{\beta }}\}`$ is non-zero in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, one can check that $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\alpha \gamma }\{_\alpha ,\widehat{}_{\widehat{\beta }}\}f_\gamma =0`$ and $`\gamma _{mnpqr}^{\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\gamma }}\{_\alpha ,\widehat{}_{\widehat{\beta }}\}\widehat{f}_{\widehat{\gamma }}=0`$ for any $`f_\gamma `$ and $`\widehat{f}_{\widehat{\gamma }}`$ and for any five-form direction $`mnpqr`$ .

8. Open Problems and Applications

In this review, it was argued that pure spinors are the worldsheet ghosts of the GS formalism and that physical states are described by ghost-number one vertex operators in the cohomology of $`Q=𝑑z\lambda ^\alpha d_\alpha `$. Although these ideas were successfully used for computing N-point tree amplitudes, a more geometrical understanding would be useful for computing loop amplitudes where the ghosts play a more important role. In particular, one would like to understand how to formulate the action in a reparameterization-invariant manner and how the ghosts arise from the gauge-fixing procedure.

The relatively simple form of the vertex operator for fluctuations around the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background suggests that it might be possible to compute tree amplitudes in this background. Although the currents $`J^A`$ are not holomorphic since $`\overline{}J^A=h_{BC}^AJ^B\overline{J}^C`$ where $`h_{BC}^A`$ are constants  , conformal invariance together with the $`AdS`$ isometries may be enough to imply their OPE’s. Of course, even knowing these OPE’s, one would still have to compute the zero mode contribution from $`(x^m,\theta ^\mu ,\widehat{\theta }^{\widehat{\mu }})`$ to the tree amplitude, which might be complicated in an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Michael Bershadsky, Osvaldo Chandía, Warren Siegel, Brenno Vallilo, and Edward Witten for useful conversations, and CNPq grant 300256/94-9 and the Clay Mathematics Institute for partial financial support. This research was partially conducted during the period the author was employed by the Clay Mathematics Institute as a CMI Prize Fellow.

References

relax M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Supersymmetrical Dual String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B181 (1981) 502. relax D. Friedan, E. Martinec and S. Shenker, Conformal Invariance, Supersymmetry and String Theory, Nucl. Phys. B271 (1986) 93. relax M.B. Green and J.H. Schwarz, Covariant Description of Superstrings, Phys. Lett. B136 (1984) 367. relax N. Berkovits, Covariant Quantization Of The Green-Schwarz Superstring in a Calabi-Yau Background, Nucl. Phys. B431 (1994) 258, hep-th/9404162. relax N. Berkovits and C. Vafa, N=4 Topological Strings, Nucl. Phys. B433 (1995) 123, hep-th/9407190. relax W. Siegel, Classical Superstring Mechanics, Nucl. Phys. B263 (1986) 93. relax N. Berkovits, Super-Poincaré Covariant Quantization of the Superstring, JHEP 04 (2000) 018, hep-th/0001035. relax N. Berkovits and B.C. Vallilo, Consistency of Super-Poincaré Covariant Superstring Tree Amplitudes, JHEP 07 (2000) 015, hep-th/0004171. relax N. Berkovits, Cohomology in the Pure Spinor Formalism for the Superstring, hep-th/0006003. relax N. Berkovits and Osvaldo Chandía, to appear. relax F. Essler, M. Hatsuda, T. Kimura, E. Laenen, A. Mikovic, W. Siegel and J. Yamron, Covariant Quantization of the First Ilk Superparticle, Nucl. Phys. B364 (1991) 67. relax P.S. Howe, Pure Spinor Lines in Superspace and Ten-Dimensional Supersymmetric Theories, Phys. Lett. B258 (1991) 141, Addendum-ibid.B259 (1991) 511; P.S. Howe, Pure Spinors, Function Superspaces and Supergravity Theories in Ten Dimensions and Eleven Dimensions, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 90. relax B.E.W. Nilsson, “Pure Spinors as Auxiliary Fields in the Ten-Dimensional Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theory”, Class. Quant. Grav. 3 (1986) L41. relax M. Bershadsky, private communication. relax W. Siegel, Superfields in Higher-Dimensional Spacetime, Phys. Lett. 80B (1979) 220. relax N. Berkovits, M. Hatsuda and W. Siegel, The Big Picture, Nucl. Phys. B371 (1992) 434, hep-th/9108021. relax B. McClain, Y.S. Wu and F. Yu, Covariant Quantization of Chiral Bosons and OSp(1,1/2) Symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B343 (1990) 689; C. Wotzasek, The Wess-Zumino Term for Chiral Bosons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 129. relax N. Berkovits, Manifest Electromagnetic Duality in Closed Superstring Field Theory, Phys. Lett. B388 (1996) 743, hep-th/9607070. relax N. Berkovits and W. Siegel, Superspace Effective Actions for 4D Compactifications of Heterotic and Type II Superstrings, Nucl. Phys. B462 (1996) 213, hep-th/9510106. relax N. Berkovits, C. Vafa and E. Witten, Conformal Field Theory of AdS Background with Ramond-Ramond Flux, JHEP 9903 (1999) 018, hep-th/9902098. relax N. Berkovits, M. Bershadsky, T. Hauer, S. Zhukov and B. Zwiebach, Superstring Theory on $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ as a Coset Supermanifold, Nucl. Phys. B567 (2000) 61, hep-th/9907200. relax R. Metsaev and A. Tseytlin, Type IIB superstring action in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, Nucl.Phys. B533 (1998) 109, hep-th/9805028. relax L. Dolan and E. Witten, Vertex Operators for $`AdS_3\times S^3`$ Background with Ramond-Ramond Flux, JHEP 9911 (1999) 003, hep-th/9910205. relax M. Bershadsky, S. Zhukov and A. Zaintrob, $`PSL(n|n)`$ Sigma Model as a Conformal Field Theory, Nucl. Phys. B559 (1999) 205, hep-th/9902180. relax E. Witten, private communication.


text:
# COSMIC STRINGS LENS PHENOMENOLOGY REVISITED

## 1 Motivations

At a time when the observational data seem to converge towards models of structure formation with scalar adiabatic initial fluctuations obeying Gaussian statistics $`^\mathrm{?}`$, it is probably worth recalling that cosmic strings, and more generally tolopological defects, form under very general circumstances. Therefore, although they may not be the main seeds of the large-scale structure of the universe or of the CMB anisotropies, relics of such objects due to early time phase transitions may still exist. With the advance of a new generation of telescopes and large field CCD cameras we think it is worth to keep in mind what could be their observational effects.

In this presentation we are thus interested in the observational signature of cosmic strings on background galaxies. Future large-scale surveys that are in preparation for weak lensing observations and that are going to cover a fair fraction of the sky with unprecedented image quality are a natural playground for elaborating detection strategies of such strings.

## 2 General lens properties of strings

### 2.1 Uniform straight strings

The case of uniform straight string (with Goto-Nambu equation of state) has been exhaustively described in the literature $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In this case the metric is actually flat around the string. The only effect of the string is to induce a “missing angle” so that space is conical around the string. As a result galaxies that are behind the string may exhibit double images. The pair separation of these images is directly proportional to the lineic energy density of string $`\mu _0`$. For strings that formed at the Grand Unification scale, that would corresponds to image separation of a few arcsecs. Optical investigations, for that respect, seem the most appropriate way of detecting such strings.

However, the idea strings induce series of image pairs is however coming from a simplified description of the string energy properties. Simple numerical experiments $`^\mathrm{?}`$ done with numerical simulations of string networks suggest that this is too naive a view and that the lens phenomenology of strings is much more complex.

### 2.2 General string effects

In general the displacement field induced by strings is not uniform, and thus significant deformation effects of background galaxies can be induced. One can show that, under very general hypothesis (with respect to the string equation of state and geometry), there exists a potential from which the elements of the deformation matrix derive $`^\mathrm{?}`$. It can formally be written in terms of the angular positions $`(x,y)`$,

$$\phi (x,y)=4G\frac{D_{\mathrm{LS}}}{D_{\mathrm{OS}}}\mathrm{d}s\mu [x_{\mathrm{str}.}(s),y_{\mathrm{str}.}(s)]\mathrm{log}([xx_{\mathrm{str}.}(s)]^2+[yy_{\mathrm{str}.}(s)]^2)^{1/2}$$
(1)
where $`(x_{\mathrm{str}.}(s),y_{\mathrm{str}.}(s))`$ are the angular string coordinates for the angular curvilinear position $`s`$, $`\mu (x_{\mathrm{str}.}(s),y_{\mathrm{str}.}(s))`$ is the “projected energy density” at those positions, $`G`$ is the Newton constant and $`D_{\mathrm{LS}}/D_{\mathrm{OS}}`$ is the ratio of the angular distance between the string and the source-plane to the one between the observer and the source plane in the thin lens approximation. The projected energy density is located on the intersection between the string world-sheet and the past light cone of the observer (e.g. Fig. 1). Its amplitude is given by a combination of the projected $`T_{00}`$, $`T_{0z}`$ and $`T_{zz}`$ components of the stress-energy tensor of the string if the line-of-sight is along the $`z`$ direction. The displacement field is given by,

$$\xi _i=_i\phi (x,y),$$
(2)
and the elements of the deformation matrix can be written as,

$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(_x^2_y^2\right)\phi (x,y),`$ (3)
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`2_x_y\phi (x,y),`$ (4)
the local convergence being zero except on the string itself. This result holds despite the fact that not only scalar fluctuations are contributing to the lens effects, but also vector and tensor modes $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

## 3 A simplified model: the Poisson strings

In order to have analytical insights into the string lens phenomelogy, realistic moels for string shape and energy should incorpate complex features: the string are very far from being straight lines with uniform energy distribution. We choose $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to describe the energy fluctuation in a simple manner, assuming that the string follows a straight line, but with local energy fluctuations. This fluctuations are assumed to account for the various changes of shape, density of the strings, to possible non-standard equation of states, or to the existence of currents along the string. We therefore assume the string to be straight along the $`y`$ direction, and the local projected lineic energy density $`\mu (s)`$ to be a random field. To specify our model we still need to explicit the statistical properties of the $`\mu `$ field. Its average value obviously does not vanish and is given by

$$<\mu (s)>=\mu _0\frac{\xi _0}{4\pi GD_{LS}/D_{OS}},$$
(5)
where $`\xi _0`$ is the typical angular displacement induced by the string ($`2\xi _0`$ would be the pair separation if the string were uniform).

With the lack of any well understanding of the string microscopic physics, we simply assume the coherence length of $`\mu `$ to be much smaller than the other distances intervening in the problem. In this case the 2-point correlation function of $`\mu `$ can be written,

$$<\mu (s_1)\mu (s_2)>=s_0\mu _0^2\delta _{\mathrm{Dirac}}(s_1s_2).$$
(6)
An important consequence of this assumption is that, at finite distance from the string, the deformation matrix elements are sourced by an infinite amount of independent portions of the string. They thus obey Gaussian statistics. The lens properties of the string are thus entirely determined by (6), independently of what could be the one-point probability distribution function of $`\mu `$.

#### Elementary phenomenology of ”Poisson string”

On Fig. 2 we depict an example of numerical implementation of such a cosmic string, showing various features associated with this lens system. The grey levels show the variation of amplification given by the determinant of amplification matrix. Along the brightest areas the amplification is infinite; these locations form the critical lines. This is where the most dramatic lens effects could be detected: giant arcs, merging of images… Note that such lines simply do not exist for strings with uniform density! The critical lines are made mainly of two long lines running along the string without crossing it.

It is worth noting that we are here generically in a regime of 3 images in the vicinity of the string (except in rare cases where it can be 5) instead of 2 as for a strictly uniform string. The dashed lines show the locations of the counter images of the critical lines. It delimits the region, in the image plane, within which multiple images can be found. It can be noted however that the amplification rapidly decreases in the vicinity of the string, so that central images (i.e. the ones situated in between the two infinite critical lines) are expected to be strongly de-amplified, except when they are close to one of the critical lines.

### 3.1 Statistical properties

The necessary conciseness of these notes does not allow to present a detailed presentation of the statistical properties of such a system. The simplicity of the model allows however the computation of a lot of general properties, from the position of the critical lines, to the total length of the caustics $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

In Fig. 3 we present for instance the number density of intersection points of the critical lines with any horizontal axis. From this one can infer for instance the average number of intersection points (on one side of string):

$$\overline{n}=_0^+\mathrm{}dxn_{\mathrm{crit}.}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}1.155.$$
(7)
The number of intersection points being an odd number, it means that the critical line crosses one horizontal line more than once in at most 7% of the cases. It supports the fact that we are dominated by the two long critical lines located on each side of the string. In rare cases, however, inner critical lines can give rise to complex multiple image systems.

The typical distance of the critical lines to the string can also be computed. It is given by

$$d_{\mathrm{crit}.}=\frac{_0^+\mathrm{}dxx\overline{n}_{\mathrm{crit}.}(x)}{_0^+\mathrm{}dx\overline{n}_{\mathrm{crit}.}(x)}0.70(s_0\xi _0^2)^{1/3}$$
(8)
whereas the scatter of this distance is about

$$\mathrm{\Delta }d_{\mathrm{crit}.}=0.31(s_0\xi _0^2)^{1/3}.$$
(9)
The total length of the critical lines (per unit string length) turns out to be also calculable. Remarkably one finds

$$L_{\mathrm{crit}.}=\frac{4}{\sqrt{3}}𝐄\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)L2.80L,$$
(10)
where $`𝐄`$ is the complete elliptic integral, independently of the parameter of the model. In particular it does not depend on the dimensionless ratio $`s_0/\xi _0`$, nor on the position of the source plane! And because this result is finite, it also proves that the closed critical lines have a finite total length despite the fact that they are in infinite number.

## 4 Observational prospects

In Fig. 4 we present a simulated image of background galaxies deformed by a straight Poisson string (the case of a Poisson string loop is depicted on the cover). On these images pairs can be clearly identified, although distances and orientations fluctuate from pair to pair contrary to the standard picture. One can also notice numerous small images that appear along the string. The presence of these images are due to the fluctuating small scale structures of the string. They are associated with an infinite number of critical lines (and caustics) near the string. In high resolution images, that might be the most effective way of detecting strings.

This investigation provides a new description of the phenomenological properties of lens physics for cosmic strings. The model we present is based on general results which state that the lens effects of string are those obtained from lineic energy density. The model we propose should capture most of the generic properties expected in such a case. Although we have obviously not demonstrated the validity of the description we adopted, its resemblance with previous numerical results obtained with simulated string networks $`^\mathrm{?}`$ makes us think that this model could serve as a guideline for detection strategies in future large angular surveys.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Y. Mellier and P. Peter for fruitful discussions on this subject, and T. Vachaspati for his encouragements.

## References


text:
# Aging and response properties in the parking-lot model

## 1 Introduction

The vibratory compaction of granular materials has long been of importance in technological applications, but it is only recently that physicists have started to investigate the process from a fundamental perspective. In particular, Knight et al. performed experiments KFLJN95  in which a column containing monodisperse spherical beads was subject to a long sequence of taps with an intensity characterized by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A/g`$ where $`A`$ is the maximum acceleration and $`g`$ is the gravitational constant. These experiments showed that the density of the beads increases monotonically and surprisingly slowly with the number of taps, $`n_t`$, for various intensities of tapping. More specifically, the density approaches the steady state value as $`1/\mathrm{ln}(n_t)`$.

In two other studies, Nowak et al. NKPJN97 ; NKBJN98  investigated the effect of cycling $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. vibrating the column for a fixed number of taps with a sequence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ values. They found that as this parameter increases, the density of the granular material increases. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is subsequently reduced by reversing the initial sequence, the density continues to increase. This second branch is reversible in that it is retraced if the increasing sequence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is repeated. In the same experiments, Nowak et al. monitored the power spectrum of the density fluctuations near the steady state for different values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The spectrum is distinctly non-Lorentzian, with the highest and lowest characteristic frequencies being separated by a non-trivial power-law-like regime.

How can these effects be understood? The energy required to displace a granular particle through a distance equal to its diameter is typically much larger than $`k_BT`$, so granular materials are essentially athermal systems and their properties are dominated by geometrical frustration effects. When the system is already quite dense, even a small additional increase in density requires a large scale cooperative rearrangement of the particles. The logarithmic compaction, the irreversible/reversible cycles and the non-Lorentzian power spectrum of the density fluctuations are essentially the result of this effect.

The experimental results have stimulated a few Monte Carlo studies BM00  and a plethora of simple models that incorporate geometrical frustration or quenched disorder (see Ref.H00  and references therein). The latter include the (off-lattice) adsorption-desorption or parking lot model (PLM), Frustrated Lattice Gas (FLG) models, including Tetris, and one-dimensional lattice models with short range dynamical constraintsPBS00 . All these are capable of reproducing qualitatively the experimentally observed kinetics.

Different Frustrated Lattice Gas (FLG) modelsCLHN97 ; NC99 ; N99 ; BL00 ; BL00b  have been proposed in which particles occupy the sites of a square lattice tilted by 45o. Each particle has two internal degrees of freedom which, in the Tetris realizationCLHN97 , correspond to two possible orientations at a site. Neighboring sites can only be occupied if both particles have a favorable orientation. Vibration is introduced by allowing the particles to move upward with a probability $`p_{up}`$. The connection to the compaction experiments is provided by the parameter $`\gamma =1/\mathrm{ln}(p_{up}/p_{down})`$ which plays the same role as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The main virtue of this description is that it accounts for the layer structure of the granular material. In the absence of quenched disorder, the system evolves to a compact steady state according to a $`1/\mathrm{ln}(t)`$-law. To mimic the geometric frustration of the packing, kinetic constraintsCLHN97 ; BL00  can also be replaced by the introduction of quenched disorderNC99 .

Here we focus on the adsorption-desorption model in which hard rods are placed on a line at randomly selected positions with a constant rate $`k_+`$. If the trial particle does not overlap any rod already on the line, it is accepted. In addition, all adsorbed rods are subject to removal (desorption) at random with a constant rate $`k_{}`$. The properties of the model depend only on the ratio $`K=k_+/k_{}`$, with large values of $`K`$ corresponding to small desorption rates. (Pioneering work was done in the limit of $`K\mathrm{}`$JTT94 ; KB94 ). The connection to the granular compaction experiment is made by regarding the particles on the line as a layer in the vibrating column. The effect of a tap is to eject particles from the layer (desorption), which is followed by the replacement of the particles, generally in different positions, and possibly the incorporation of additional particles. $`1/K`$ plays a role similar to that of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In this approach, mechanical stability is implicitly included by the absence of motion of the particles when the desorption is switch off. This microscopic and off-lattice description of granular compaction is suitable for describing all previous experiments and, as we see below, is in fair agreement with experimental results.

The kinetics and equilibrium properties of the adsorption-desorption model have been previously investigated NKBJN98 ; BKNJN98 ; KNT99 ; TTV99 ; TTV00 : in the limit of small desorption rate (that is appropriate to describe granular compaction), the density increases very slowly as $`1/\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ until it nears the steady state value, at which point the kinetics cross over to an exponential form. The characteristic relaxation time $`\tau _{eq}`$ of this final regime behaves like $`K^2/\mathrm{ln}(K)^3`$ KNT99 ; TTV99 . Moreover, the density-density correlation function exhibits two characteristic time-scales: the shortest one is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(K)`$ and is associated with a local rearrangement of particles, whereas the longest one, $`\tau _{eq}`$, corresponds to a collective rearrangement permitting an increase of the density. The ratio of these time scales increases rapidly as $`K`$ becomes larger, and the intermediate timescale region is characterized by a power law behavior.

Here we show that the irreversible/reversible cyclesNKPJN97 ; NKBJN98  and the recently demonstrated presence of memory effects JTMJ00  in the compaction of glass beads can be reproduced by the adsorption-model. All the salient features of the phenomenology of vibrated granular materials are thus qualitatively described by the model. We also show that, because of the very slow relaxation to equilibrium (due to cooperative rearrangements of the particles), the model displays out-of-equilibrium dynamical effects such as agingBCKM98 , and we study these properties both in the response and the correlation functions. Interestingly, the aging behavior of the two-time correlation function of the density fluctuations is found to be different from that observed for the FLG and Tetris modelsNC99 ; BL00 . This leads us to suggest an experimental way of discriminating among the different models applied to vibrated granular materials.

## 2 Model and Simulation

If time is expressed in units of $`k_+`$, the kinetics is given by

$$\frac{d\rho }{dt}=\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\frac{\rho }{K},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$, the insertion probability at time $`t`$ (or density $`\rho `$), is the fraction of the line that is available for the insertion of a new particle. The presence of a relaxation mechanism, implies that the system eventually reaches a steady state that corresponds to an equilibrium configuration of hard particles with $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}=K\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{eq}}(\rho _{\mathrm{eq}})`$, where $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ denotes the equilibrium density. At equilibrium, the insertion probability is given exactly by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{eq}}(\rho )=(1\rho )\mathrm{exp}(\rho /(1\rho )).$$
(2)
The kinetics of the model were simulated using the event-driven algorithm described previously TTV00 .

## 3 Densification branches and memory effects

Following the experimental procedure of compaction cyclesNKBJN98 ; NKPJN97 , we have performed simulations in which the rate of desorption, $`1/K`$, is first increased at a given rate and then cycled down and up, the simulation being stopped after the same time $`t=40000`$. (Recall that $`1/K`$ plays the same role as the tapping intensity and that, when expressed in units of $`k_+`$, time is assumed to measure the number of taps; this leads to the reasonable behavior that the number of desorption events increases as the tapping strength increases). Figure1a displays the density as $`1/K`$ varies between $`10^4`$ and $`10^3`$, and is similar to the behavior observed experimentally and numerically in the FLG modelsNC99 ; BL00 . Along the first (irreversible) branch the density increases rapidly and then passes through a maximum as $`1/K`$ increases. When the initial sequence of $`1/K`$ is reversed ($`1/K`$ decreasing), the density increases monotonically. When the initial (increasing) sequence of $`1/K`$ is repeated, the density now decreases monotonically, nearly retracing the second branch. The residual hysteresis observed between the second and third branches is also present in other modelsH00 , and it diminishes as one considers larger values of $`K`$ and larger time intervals between changes of desorption rate. Note that the densities attained in the present adsorption-desorption model are typical of a one-dimensional system and that more realistic values would be obtained by employing the two-dimensional version of the model.

To further compare the model predictions to the available experimental data on vibrated granular materials, we have studied the effect of an abrupt change in the desorption rate $`1/K`$ on the densification kinetics. This is illustrated in Fig. 1b in which $`K`$ is switched from $`500`$ to $`2000`$ and vice-versa. The same “anomalous” behavior as observed experimentally by Josserand et al. JTMJ00 , i.e. an acceleration in the densification process when $`1/K`$ is suddenly lowered and the reverse phenomenon when $`1/K`$ is increased, is found in the adsorption-desorption model.

## 4 Response functions and aging

Compaction cycles and memory effects characterize the response of the system to a moderate or large change of the tapping strength. We consider below another facet of the out-of-equilibrium dynamical behavior of the system by examining the response to a small perturbation and the associated two-time correlation function.

Non-equilibrium studies have been performed on FLG models: NicodemiN99  demonstrated that these models exhibit a negative response and Nicodemi and Coniglio NC99  showed that the aging regime of this model is characterized by $`C(t,t_w)\mathrm{ln}(t_w)/\mathrm{ln}(t)`$. Barrat and LoretoBL00  performed extensive simulations on the Random Tetris model and clearly showed that the aging behavior is the same.

We calculate the response function as follows. Starting from an empty line, the system evolves at a fixed desorption rate. At the end of a fixed waiting period, $`t_w`$, two clones of the system are made. The original systems continues to evolve with the same desorption rate $`K`$, and the two others with $`K\pm \delta K`$. The response then corresponds to the difference in density of the copy and the original system at a later time $`t`$. In order to obtain reasonable statistics, it is necessary to average over many independent runs (typically $`10^4`$). Since the model at equilibrium is equivalent to a grand canonical ensemble, the variable conjugate to the density is $`\beta \mu `$ where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ and $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. From Eq. (1) at equilibrium we have that $`\beta \mu =\mathrm{ln}(K)`$ and the response function to a change in $`\mathrm{ln}(K)`$ is therefore defined as

$$R(t,t_w)=\frac{\rho (t)}{\mathrm{ln}(K(t_w))}$$
(3)
To be more precise, this is an integrated response function since the perturbation is applied over an extended time. Note that when $`t`$ becomes larger than the ergodic time $`\tau _{eq}`$, the response function attains the positive equilibrium value $`R_{eq}=\rho (1\rho )^2`$. The fluctuation-dissipation theorem applies when $`t_w>t_{eq}`$ and we recover the time translation invariance $`R(t,t_w)=R(\tau =tt_w)`$ in which case the response function associated with changes in the external field $`\beta \mu =\mathrm{ln}(K)`$ (coupled to the density fluctuations) and the density-density correlation function are related:

$$R(\tau )=\stackrel{~}{C}(0)\stackrel{~}{C}(\tau )$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}(\tau )=<\delta \rho (\tau )\delta \rho (0)>`$. (Note that as usual for hard objects, the temperature is irrelevant and does not explicitly enter in Eq. (4) because it is included in $`\mathrm{ln}(K)=\beta \mu `$.) From our previous study of the fluctuations around equilibrium TTV00  we derive the analytical short time form which is exact for $`K\mathrm{}`$:

$$R(\tau )=\frac{L_W(K)^2}{1+L_W(K)}\left(1\frac{L_W(K)}{\tau +L_W(K)}e^{\tau /K}\right)+O(1/K)$$
(5)
where $`L_W`$ is the Lambert-W function and for long times the equilibrium value is attained exponentially with a characteristic time of order $`K^2/\mathrm{ln}(K)^3`$. It is worth stressing that with the definition adopted above of a response to $`\mathrm{ln}(K)`$, a positive response means that an increase of $`K`$ (i.e., a decrease in tapping strength) increases the density, whereas a negative response corresponds to a density decrease.

Fig 2a displays two response functions for a system with $`K=500`$. For a waiting time ($`t_w=2000`$) larger than the ergodic timeBCKM98 , the system is already at equilibrium and the response is obviously monotonically increasing and in agreement with the analytical result, Eq. (5). At short times, the behavior of both curves is quite similar, but for $`t_W=1000`$ the response then decreases and attains a minimum before increasing again towards the equilibrium value (as expected in a system with interrupted aging). Fig 2b shows the response functions in the aging regime for a larger value of $`K=5000`$ for three different waiting times. The shape of the curves is similar to Fig 2a, but the amplitude of the initial increase of $`R(t,t_w)`$ is smaller than for $`K=500`$. The negative minimum, that results from a competition between local rearrangements (leading to short-time “anomalous” response discussed above) and global rearrangements (allowing for the densification), is less pronounced as $`t_w`$ increases. For long times, which are not accessible in the simulations, the response becomes positive as it approaches the equilibrium value.

In order to investigate the out-of-equilibrium evolution of the density-density correlation function, we consider the adsorption-desorption model in the limit where the desorption is infinitely smallJTT94 . In this case ($`K\mathrm{}`$), the relaxation time $`\tau _{eq}`$ BCKM98  is infinite and the system always evolves with out-of-equilibrium dynamics. For $`K`$ large, but finite ($`5000`$), the out of equilibrium and aging behavior is interrupted since $`t`$ may become larger than $`\tau _{eq}`$. We have however checked that the aging behavior when $`t<\tau _{eq}`$ is similar to that of the $`K\mathrm{}`$ case.

The normalized two-time density-density correlation function is defined as follows:

$$C(t,t_w)=\frac{<\rho (t)\rho (t_w)><\rho (t)><\rho (t_w)>}{<\rho (t_w)^2><\rho (t_w)>^2}$$
(6)
where the angular brackets denote an average over independent runs and $`tt_w`$.

Fig. 3 shows $`C(t,t_w)`$ as a function of $`t`$ for different values of the waiting time $`t_w`$. The system exhibits aging: the larger $`t_w`$, the longer the memory of the initial configuration persists. This aging regime is characterized by a violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and the breakdown of time-translational invariance BCKM98 .

When $`t`$ and $`t_w`$ are large enough (but still smaller than the equilibration time), the aging behavior is usually described by a non-trivial form involving a single scaling variable that is the ratio of a function of $`t`$ (or of the elapsed time $`tt_w`$) divided by the same function of $`t_w`$. In the FLG models, it was found numerically that the appropriate scaling variable is $`\mathrm{ln}(t)/\mathrm{ln}(t_w)`$NC99 . For the adsorption-desorption model we show in Fig. 4a that when the two-time correlation function $`C(t,t_w)`$ is plotted as a function of $`(tt_w)/t_w`$ the data for five waiting times, ranging from $`25`$ to $`5000`$, collapse onto a single curve. This aging behavior, similar to that found in a large variety of systemsBCKM98 , is thus different from the $`\mathrm{ln}(t)/\mathrm{ln}(t_w)`$ dependence of the FLG models. Fig. 4b clearly demonstrates the absence of a master curve with this scaling. Moreover, no better result is obtained when $`\mathrm{ln}(tt_w)/\mathrm{ln}(t_w)`$ is used in place of $`\mathrm{ln}(t)/\mathrm{ln}(t_w)`$.

This finding suggests an experimental test for deciding which phenomenological model, each built on different assumptions: geometrical frustration in the adsorption-desorption model, quenched disorder or kinetic constraints and layer structure in FLG models, is more relevant to describe the physics of vibrated granular materials. Since all predict the logarithmic compaction, the irreversible/reversible cycles, the non-Lorentzian power spectrum of the density fluctuations and the memory effects observed experimentally, a promising way to validate or invalidate them as a minimal theoretical approach would be to study experimentally the two-time correlation function of the density fluctuations in the course of the densification process.

###### Acknowledgements.

J.T. thanks the National Science Foundation (CHE-9814236) for financial support. P.V. thanks A. Barrat for stimulating discussions.


text:
# 2-adic Behavior of Numbers of Domino Tilings

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to James Propp for telling me of his conjecture, to the anonymous referee for pointing out a sign error in the original manuscript, and to Karen Acquista, Noam Elkies, Matthew Emerton, and Vis Taraz for helpful conversations.