text:
# On bending angles by gravitational lenses in motion

## 1 Introduction

In order to derive a formula for the bending angle of light rays in the presence of a gravitational deflector, in gravitational lensing it’s commonly assumed that the observer, deflector and source are at rest in some global coordinate system (see for instance Schneider et al (1992)). However, most gravitational deflectors will not be at rest in the observer’s frame of reference. Typical gravitational lenses are of two kinds: galaxies and clusters of galaxies at cosmological distances, or massive compact objects within the Milky Way galaxy. Cosmological deflectors have peculiar velocities on top of the Hubble flow, and objects in the Milky Way usually move by the line of sight rather quickly. Still, the effect of the motion of a thin deflector to observable lensing quantities has traditionally been regarded as too small to merit discussion even in reference books in gravitational lensing. However, there have been indications that the effect is actually linear in $`v/c`$.

The earliest indication that the leading correction is probably linear in $`v/c`$ can be found in Schneider et al (1992), where it is shown that the internal motion of a deflector at rest affects the effective index of refraction in first order (Eq. (4.16) of Schneider et al (1992)). The effect is considered negligible for the purposes of Schneider et al (1992).

The next indication appears in Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993), where the authors develop a method for integrating the null geodesics of a spacetime that is a small perturbation of flat space. As an application of the method, the authors calculate the bending angle due to a point mass $`m`$, obtaning

$$\alpha =\frac{4m}{r_0}(1𝒗\mathbf{}𝒏_0)$$
(1)
where $`r_0`$ is the distance of closest approach of the lightray to the mass, and $`𝒏_0`$ is the direction of the null ray at that point. The term $`𝒗\mathbf{}𝒏_0`$ is the Doppler shift of the deflector, $`z_d`$, so we can read this result as

$$\alpha =(1+z_d)\alpha _s,$$
(2)
which means that the bending angle is corrected by a factor $`(1+z_d)`$ with respect to the bending angle of the same deflector at rest in a Minkowski background. Here the quantity $`z_d`$ should not be confused with the cosmological redshift of the deflector.

The third time the motion of the deflector was found interesting was in Capozziello et al (1999), the first of a series of papers where the leading correction to the bending angle is calculated for different types of deflectors. In Capozziello et al (1999), by pursuing the integration of null geodesics in a weak perturbation of flat spacetime by a slightly different method, for a point mass the authors find

$$\alpha =(12z_d)\alpha _s,$$
(3)
\[this is Eq. (33) in Capozziello et al (1999)\].

More recently, in Frittelli et al (2002), we use a completely different method based on envelopes of null surfaces (as opposed to null geodesics) to re-derive the lens equation, and we find $`\alpha =(1+z_d)\alpha _s`$ for the case of a lens moving along the line of sight.

Aside from a purely academic interest in lensing by moving deflectors, there has been a growing interest on the part of the microlensing sector of practicing astrophysicists, stemming from improvements in observational accuracy. Microlensing results when a background star in the Magellanic Clouds (for instance) lines up with the line of sight between us and a compact object in our Galaxy. The line up may happen due to the motion of the star, or to the motion of the compact object, but the same treatment is normally used in both instances. The motion creates a time dependent brightness curve that peaks sharply when the star is closest to a caustic created by the compact object in our past lightcone. The lightcurve is usually studied using the static lens equation, assuming the source moves with approximately uniform transverse velocity on the source plane. Inverting the lens equation one obtains a curve for the motion of the images on the lens plane which can be used to evaluate the magnification as a function of time – see for instance Paczyński (1986). The method is used indistinctively for the case that the lens moves right through the line of sight to a static source. The point to be made is that there are cases of moving lenses of interest, and corrections to the lens equation of first order in $`v/c`$ (longitudinal speed) might become observable as the technology keeps improving. An accurate determination of the leading correction of order $`v/c`$ to the bending angle of light rays due to the relative motion between the lens and the observer may become necessary in the near future.

Here the calculation of the integration of the null geodesics in the case of a time-dependent perturbation of a certain kind is pursued once more with the methods and notation of Schneider et al (1992). Our method uses elements of both of the calculations in Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993) and Capozziello et al (1999), as well as new elements and thus functions as an independent cross-check. We find full agreement with Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993) and Frittelli et al (2002), and we back up our calculation with a check of consistency with the leading correction to the time delay, which, to our knowledge, has not appeared before except in Frittelli et al (2002). The geodesic equation for linearized perturbations corresponding to a non-stationary deflector of certain generality is written down in Section 2, where the notation and approximations are defined. The bending angle is evaluated in Section 3. The effects on a microlensing lightcurve are obtained in Section 4. Concluding remarks are offered in Section 5.

## 2 Bending angle by a deflector in slow motion

Although we are not interested in the most general linearized localized perturbation off flat space, in this Section we write the equation for the null geodesics in an asymptotically flat spacetime representing a slowly moving lens of certain generality. This is because most steps in the derivation of the bending angle in the case of interest are more general and would perhaps be useful in a different context. Assuming that the metric deviates only slightly from a flat metric, we use cartesian coordinates $`x^a\{t,\stackrel{}{x}\}`$ (with $`a=0,\mathrm{},4`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}(x,y,z)`$). We assume that the metric $`ds^2=g_{ab}dx^adx^b=(\eta _{ab}+\gamma _{ab})dx^adx^b`$ where $`\eta _{ab}=diag(1,1,1,1)`$ is given in the following form

$$ds^2=(1+2\varphi )c^2dt^28c\stackrel{}{V}d\stackrel{}{x}dt(12\varphi )d\stackrel{}{x}d\stackrel{}{x}$$
(4)
where a dot in between two 3-dimensional quantities represents the Euclidean scalar product ($`\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{w}u^iw^i=u_iw_i`$) and $`\varphi =\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}=\stackrel{}{V}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$. The meaning of $`\varphi `$ or $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ is irrelevant to the calculations that follow; only their size matters. We assume that we have two independent smallness parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ such that $`\varphi \delta `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}ϵ\delta `$. The parameter $`ϵ`$ represents, in some sense, the ratio of the speed of motion of the deflector to the speed of light, and $`\delta `$ represents the strength of the Newtonian potential of the deflector’s mass density. All the calculations that follow assume that any integer powers of $`\delta `$ or $`ϵ`$ greater than 1 can be neglected, but the the product $`ϵ\delta `$ will be kept in view of the independence of the two parameters. The reader should be aware that our particular choice of metric and sizes is motivated by the case of a perfect fluid in harmonic coordinates, in which the following expressions for the potentials

$`\varphi _f(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{x}^{},t)}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{}{V}_f(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho (\stackrel{}{x}^{},t)\stackrel{}{v}(\stackrel{}{x}^{},t)}{|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}d^3x^{}}`$ (6)
hold in the near zone. However, we are not interested in these particular expressions for the potentials $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}`$, and in fact we do not use them for any of the calculations in this work. Any expressions for the potentials are allowed as long as they lead to a metric that satisfies the Einstein equations up to terms of order $`\delta ,ϵ`$ or $`ϵ\delta `$. This includes the potentials representing a lens that moves rigidly without changing shape, which will be used in the next section, and obviously the slowly-moving fluid as well.

We are interested in lightrays $`x^a(s)`$ with tangent vector $`u^a=(u^0,\stackrel{}{u})dx^a/ds`$ traveling in this spacetime. Because $`u^a`$ is null, namely $`u^au_a=0`$, it is defined only up to overall rescalings, and the scale factor can be adjusted with an appropriate choice of parameter along the path. For convenience, we choose the scaling so that $`\stackrel{}{u}\stackrel{}{u}=1`$, namely: the space part of the tangent has unit length in the Euclidean background. This is equivalent to choosing to parametrize the lightray with its Euclidean length $`\mathrm{}`$, in contrast to the wider practice of using affine parametrizations for null paths. The Euclidean line element is precisely defined by

$$d\mathrm{}^2=d\stackrel{}{x}d\stackrel{}{x},$$
(7)
evaluated along the path. We thus have, by construction, a lightray given by $`x^a(\mathrm{})=(t(\mathrm{}),\stackrel{}{x}(\mathrm{}))`$ with tangent

$`u^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\mathrm{}}},`$ (8)
$`\stackrel{}{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{x}}{d\mathrm{}}}\widehat{u},`$ (9)
where a hat $`\widehat{}`$ is used to denote a 3-vector of unit length in the Euclidean space – a directional vector. With this choice of parametrization, the nullity condition $`u^au_a=0`$ reads explicitly

$$(1+2\varphi )c^2(u^0)^28c\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{V}u^0(12\varphi )=0.$$
(10)
Solving this equation for $`u^0`$ in a power series of $`ϵ`$ and $`\delta `$ of the form $`u^0=\overline{u}^0+\delta u_\delta ^0+ϵu_ϵ^0+ϵ\delta u_{ϵ\delta }^0`$ we find

$$cu^0=12\left(\varphi 2\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{V}/c\right).$$
(11)
Thus the time component of the null tangent is found readily from the nullity condition. It is significant that the deviation of $`cu^0`$ from zeroth order is of order $`\delta `$ at least, but there is no deviation of order $`ϵ`$. Next, we wish to obtain an equation for the spatial part of the null tangent, which, because of our choice of parametrization, is reduced to the vector $`\widehat{u}`$ which gives the direction of the null ray. We obtain it from the geodesic equation in the following manner. The equation for geodesic curves with generic parametrization (not necessarily affine) reads

$$\frac{du^a}{d\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^au^bu^c\mu u^a=0,$$
(12)
where the factor $`\mu `$ is free, reflecting the freedom in the choice of parametrization (see, for instance, Eq. (3.3.2) of Wald (1984) and the subsequent discussion, or page 33 of Hawking & Ellis (1973) as well). A vanishing $`\mu `$ gives rise to an affine parametrization by definition. In our case, however, $`\mu `$ is not zero, but is so far unspecified. We need only consider the space components, namely

$$\frac{du^i}{d\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i(u^0)^2+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0j}^iu^ju^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^iu^ju^k\mu u^i=0.$$
(13)
For the connection coefficients of the linearized metric $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{cd}(h_{ad,b}+h_{bd,a}h_{ab,d})`$, we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{00}^i`$ $`=`$ $`4c\dot{V}^i+c^2\varphi _{,i}`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0j}^i`$ $`=`$ $`2c(V_{i,j}V_{j,i})\delta _{ij}\dot{\varphi }`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{jk}\varphi _{,i}\delta _{ik}\varphi _{,j}\delta _{ij}\varphi _{,k}`$ (16)
where $`{}_{,i}{}^{}/x^i`$ and $`\dot{}/t`$. With these expressions for the connection coefficients, Eq. (13) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du^i}{d\mathrm{}}}+(4c\dot{V}^i+c^2\varphi _{,i})(u^0)^2`$
$`+2(2c(V_{i,j}V_{j,i})\delta _{ij}\dot{\varphi })u^ju^0`$
$`+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^iu^ju^k\mu u^i`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (17)
Because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}^0`$ are all of order $`\delta `$ at least, only the zeroth-order of $`u^0`$ is needed. Also notice that $`u^j(V_{i,j}V_{j,i})=(\widehat{u}(\stackrel{}{V}))_i`$. Using these two facts, Eq. (2) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{u}}{d\mathrm{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{c}}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}+2\varphi 4\widehat{u}(\stackrel{}{V})`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}\dot{\varphi }+2\widehat{u}\varphi +\mu \right)\widehat{u}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (18)
But since $`\widehat{u}`$ has unit length, then $`\widehat{u}d\widehat{u}/d\mathrm{}=0`$. Taking the scalar product of (2) with $`\widehat{u}`$ we obtain

$$\frac{4}{c}\widehat{u}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}\frac{2}{c}\dot{\varphi }\mu =0,$$
(19)
which allows us to determine the unknown function $`\mu `$. Using (19) into (2) we finally have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{u}}{d\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\varphi \widehat{u}\varphi \widehat{u}2\widehat{u}(\stackrel{}{V})\right)`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{c}}(\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}\widehat{u}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}\widehat{u}).`$
If for any vector $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ we define the components that are perpendicular and parallel to the lightray $`\widehat{u}`$ by $`\stackrel{}{w}_{}\stackrel{}{w}\widehat{u}(\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{w})`$ and, in the case of the gradient, $`_{}\widehat{u}(\widehat{u})`$, this equation reads

$$\frac{d\widehat{u}}{d\mathrm{}}=2\left(_{}\varphi 2\widehat{u}(\stackrel{}{V})+\frac{2}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}_{}\right).$$
(21)
Integrating $`d\widehat{u}/d\mathrm{}`$ along the path of the lightray from the emission point to observation point gives the change in the direction of the lightray’s path at the observation point relative to the emitted direction:

$$\widehat{u}_{\text{out}}\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}=_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\frac{d\widehat{u}}{d\mathrm{}}(x^a(\mathrm{}))𝑑\mathrm{}$$
(22)
We now assume that the function $`\varphi `$ is vanishing outside of a region where it can accurately be described as the Newtonian potential of a mass density localized in a region that is small compared to the distance to the source and the observer. In such conditions, the lightray will suffer a total deviation that will be small compared with its original direction, and the change will take place only within a small range of values of $`\mathrm{}`$. In such conditions, the argument $`x^a(\mathrm{})`$ of the integrand functions $`\varphi (x^a(\mathrm{}))`$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}(x^a(\mathrm{}))`$ can be taken as the original unperturbed path of the lightray, since it deviates from such an unperturbed path only in first-order quantities, but $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ are already small. In this context, then, the argument $`x^a(\mathrm{})=(t(\mathrm{}),\stackrel{}{x}(\mathrm{}))`$ can be taken as

$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}+\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}}`$ (23)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{c}}+t_{\text{in}}`$ (24)
where $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}`$ is a constant unit vector, and $`(t_{\text{in}},\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}})`$ is an arbitrary reference point along the unperturbed path of the lightray. Typically, since the deflector has a small size and is moving slowly compared to the speed of light, it defines a localized neighborhood where $`(t_{\text{in}},\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}})`$ may be thought to lie. In the case of static deflectors, $`\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}}`$ would be taken as the impact parameter of the lightray with respect to a sensibly defined center of the lens, whereas $`t_{\text{in}}`$ would denote the time of closest approach of the lightray to the deflector. In the general case, $`(t_{\text{in}},\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}})`$ should be thought of as an average spacetime location of the interaction between the lightray and the deflector.

With these assumptions, we can define, as usual, the bending angle $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ as the difference between the initial and final directions of the lightray:

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\widehat{u}_{\text{out}}$$
(25)
and we have an explicit formula

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=2_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\left(_{}\varphi 2\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}(\stackrel{}{V})+\frac{2}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}_{}\right)𝑑\mathrm{}$$
(26)
All $`\widehat{u}`$’s in the integrand, including those implicit in the label $``$, take the value $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}`$, and the quantities $`\varphi `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}`$ are evaluated at $`x^a(\mathrm{})`$ as given by (23-24).

It is interesting to notice that the motion of the deflector may also affect the observed redshift of the source, as noted in Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993). The wave vector of a photon traveling along the null path is given by

$$k_a(\omega ,\stackrel{}{k})=\frac{dx^a}{ds},$$
(27)
if $`s`$ is an affine parameter along the null geodesic. In our case, an affine parameter $`s(\mathrm{})`$ must satisfy

$$\frac{d^2s}{d\mathrm{}^2}=\mu \frac{ds}{d\mathrm{}},$$
(28)
where $`\mu `$ is small and is given by (19). Since $`\frac{dx^0}{ds}=\frac{dx^0}{d\mathrm{}}/\frac{ds}{d\mathrm{}}`$ and since $`\frac{dx^0}{d\mathrm{}}=u^0=1/c`$ to zeroth order, then

$$\lambda =\frac{2\pi }{\omega }=2\pi c\frac{ds}{d\mathrm{}},$$
(29)
and Eq. (28) can be interpreted directly as an equation for the wavelength of the traveling photon:

$$\frac{d}{d\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\lambda =\mu $$
(30)
Since $`\mu `$ is small, this integrates to

$$\frac{\lambda _o\lambda _e}{\lambda _e}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{\lambda }=\frac{2}{c}_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\dot{\varphi }2\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}d\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
## 3 Application to a moving rigid lens

The situation that we wish to examine is that of a deflector that is moving without changing shape. We can obtain the metric of such a deflector by applying a coordinate transformation to the metric of the same deflector at rest. The metric of any deflector at rest in coordinates $`(\stackrel{}{x}^{},t^{})`$ is entirely determined by its Newtonian potential $`\varphi _s=\varphi _s(\stackrel{}{x}^{})`$ in the form

$$ds^2=(1+2\varphi _s)c^2dt^2(12\varphi _s)d\stackrel{}{x}^{}d\stackrel{}{x}^{}$$
(32)
To say that the deflector is moving rigidly along a path $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }(t^{})`$ is equivalent to making a change of coordinates $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}^{}+\stackrel{}{\gamma }(t^{})`$. Assuming that the acceleration of the path, $`\ddot{\gamma }`$ is of order quadratic in the velocity at least (namely, much smaller than the current order of approximation), we can accompany the shift in spatial positions with a change in the time coordinate $`t^{}t`$ such that $`dt=dt^{}+\dot{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}(t^{})d\stackrel{}{x}^{}/c^2`$. The metric takes the form (4) with

$`\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _s(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{\gamma }(t)),`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{}{V}(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{c}}\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t),`$ (34)
where we are using the notation $`\dot{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}(t)\stackrel{}{v}`$. \[The reader should be aware that if the acceleration is of linear order in $`v/c`$, one can still “fix” a transformation for the time coordinate, but in that case the metric will not take the form (4), and the calculation of the bending angle must be done over from the beginning.\] Using these expressions we have

$$\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}(\stackrel{}{V})=\frac{\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}}{c}_{}\varphi \widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\varphi \frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c},$$
(35)
and also

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}_{}=\dot{\varphi }\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c}$$
(36)
where contributions of the form $`\varphi \ddot{\stackrel{}{\gamma }}(t)`$ have been neglected. With (35) and (36), Eq. (21) becomes

$$\frac{d\widehat{u}}{d\mathrm{}}=2\left((12\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{v}/c)_{}\varphi +2\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(37)
where $`d\varphi /d\mathrm{}=\dot{\varphi }/c+\widehat{u}\varphi `$. Integrating Eq. (37) yields the bending angle:

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=2_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}(12\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{v}/c)_{}\varphi +2\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}d\mathrm{}.$$
(38)
In physically reasonable situations we expect the deflector to be both thin and weak, in the sense that the actual path of light $`\widehat{u}`$ deviates at most in first order from $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}`$ during the transit time through the deflector, which, under such conditions, is also small. During the transit time the velocities are approximately constant and can be pulled out of the integral sign. As a consequence, the second term in the right-hand side of Eq. (38) is proportional to the difference of the values of the potential $`\varphi `$ at the source and observer. Both values vanish, with the consequence that the second term does not contribute to the bending angle. The leading contribution to the bending angle (for small transverse accelerations, as assumed in the beginning) thus results from the first term in the right-hand side of Eq. (38):

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=2(12\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c)_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}_{}\varphi (\stackrel{}{x},t)𝑑\mathrm{},$$
(39)
where $`\varphi `$ is a function of $`\mathrm{}`$ through (33) where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`t`$ are given by (23-24). For comparison, the bending angle of the same deflector at rest is

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }_s=2_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}_{}\varphi _s(\stackrel{}{x})𝑑\mathrm{},$$
(40)
with $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ given by (23). The relationship between the two can be found, in this case, by defining a new integration variable for (39) which we here denote by $`q`$:

$$q\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{\gamma }(t(\mathrm{}))$$
(41)
In terms of this variable we have

$$\stackrel{}{x}(\mathrm{})\stackrel{}{\gamma }(t(\mathrm{}))=q\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}+\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{\gamma }_{},$$
(42)
where $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }_{}`$ is essentially a constant, as is $`\stackrel{}{x}_{\text{in}}`$. The differential form of Eq. (41) is

$$dq=(1\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c)d\mathrm{}.$$
(43)
With this change of variable, Eq. (39) becomes

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(1\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c)\stackrel{}{\alpha }_s.$$
(44)
In terms of the Doppler shift of the deflector $`z_d`$, since $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}`$ points towards the observer, we have $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c=z_d`$ so the bending angle by a moving deflector in terms of the same deflector at rest is

$$\stackrel{}{\alpha }=(1+z_d)\stackrel{}{\alpha }_s.$$
(45)
This result is in agreement with Frittelli et al (2002), where a significantly different method was used, and the deflector was assumed not to move across the line of sight. An important point to emphasize is the fact that the transverse motion of the deflector has no effect on the bending angle, as long as it is approximately uniform, as noted by Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993).

A consistency check for the validity of (45) has already been suggested by Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993): in the limit in which the thickness of the deflector vanishes, this equation verifies the aberration due to a Lorentz transformation between the frames in which the (absolutely thin) deflector is at rest or in motion with speed $`v`$.

There is also a nonvanishing leading correction to the time delay that a lightray suffers in the presence of a deflector in motion. In order to calculate it, we set $`ds^2=0`$ and solve for $`dt`$ from Eq. (4). In the current order of approximation this yields

$$cdt=\left(12\varphi +\frac{4}{c}\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{V}\right)d\mathrm{}.$$
(46)
which, in the particular case of the deflector in rigid motion becomes

$$cdt=\left(12\varphi \left(12\frac{\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{v}}{c}\right)\right)d\mathrm{}.$$
(47)
Integrating along the path of the lightray, we have the total travel time

$$ct=L2_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\left(12\frac{\widehat{u}\stackrel{}{v}}{c}\right)\varphi 𝑑\mathrm{}.$$
(48)
where $`L`$ is the Euclidean length of the path. The gravitational time delay is thus

$$c\mathrm{\Delta }t^g=2_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\left(12\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c\right)\varphi 𝑑\mathrm{}.$$
(49)
We can evaluate the integral using the same methods as in the case of the bending angle, and the same approximations: the transit time is small, so the velocities can be pulled out of the integral sign, and the same change of variable helps put the result in terms of quantities associated with the same deflector at rest. We find

$$c\mathrm{\Delta }t^g=\left(1\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c\right)_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}(2\varphi _s)𝑑q.$$
(50)
The quantity $`(2\varphi _s)𝑑q`$ is the gravitational time delay suffered by the lightray in the presence of the deflector at rest. So we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t^g=\left(1\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c\right)\mathrm{\Delta }t_s^g.$$
(51)
This formula is consistent with our bending angle because it implies the correct relationship between time delay and bending:

$$\alpha =_{}\mathrm{\Delta }t^g.$$
(52)
Finally, we can evaluate the redshift formula (31) in the case of interest. In the first place, notice that

$$\dot{\varphi }=\stackrel{}{v}\varphi _s=\stackrel{}{v}_{}\varphi _s\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\varphi _s.$$
(53)
On the other hand, $`\dot{\varphi }=c(d\varphi /d\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\varphi _s)`$. From these two relationships, we obtain

$$(1\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}/c)\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\varphi _s=\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}+\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c}\varphi _s$$
(54)
and thus $`\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\varphi _s`$ is equal to $`d\varphi /d\mathrm{}`$ up to zeroth order in $`v/c`$. This fact can be used into (53) to obtain

$$\dot{\varphi }=\stackrel{}{v}_{}\varphi _s\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}.$$
(55)
Also, from (34) and (55) we have

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{V}}=0$$
(56)
to leading order. Using (55) and (56) into Eq. (31) we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{\lambda _e}=\frac{2}{c}_{\text{source}}^{\text{observer}}\stackrel{}{v}_{}\varphi _s+\widehat{u}_{\text{in}}\stackrel{}{v}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}d\mathrm{}.$$
(57)
The integrals can be evaluated using the same methods as in the case of the bending angle and time delay, and the same approximations. The reader will have no difficulty obtaining the following

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }{\lambda _e}=\frac{\stackrel{}{v}_{}}{c}\stackrel{}{\alpha }_s.$$
(58)
The source will thus appear redshifted due to the speed of the deflector across the line of sight. This agrees with Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993).

## 4 Microlensing effects

The observation of image separation by a lens that is moving along the line of sight will necessarily be affected by the motion of the lens. However, since the effect amounts to an overall factor, it may not be separable from the mass of the lens, usually not known with sufficient certainty. This entails an inherent error (which could be as large as 10%) in the determination of the mass of the deflector on the basis of the separation of multiple images – in particular the size of an Einstein ring–, independently of the accuracy of the observations.

Additionally, since the bending angle affects not only the location but also the brightness of the images, we can straightforwardly trace corrections to the magnification equation in the general case, and in particular to the lightcurves of microlensing events, in which case the images may not be observationally separated but their combined brightness is regularly observed as a function of time.

The theory of microlensing lightcurves as put forth by Paczyński (1986) calculates the combined magnification of the two images of a lightsource by a point mass:

$$A=A_1+A_2=\frac{u^2+2}{u(u^2+4)^{1/2}},u\frac{r_0}{R_0},$$
(59)
where $`r_0`$ is the location of the source projected on the lens plane (namely, $`r_0=\beta D_l`$ in the notation of Schneider et al (1992)), and

$$R_0^2\frac{4GMD_lD_{ls}}{c^2D_s}=r\alpha _s\frac{D_lD_{ls}}{D_s}$$
(60)
where $`r`$ is the location of the image on the lens plane ($`r=\theta D_l`$ in the notation of Schneider et al (1992)) and $`\alpha _s=4GM/(c^2r)`$ is the bending angle by a point mass at the origin of coordinates on the lens plane. The light curve $`\mathrm{log}A(t)`$ is then obtained by setting $`r_0=(d^2+v_{}^2t^2)^{1/2}`$ and letting the time flow, for a given impact parameter $`d`$. This corresponds exactly to the case where the lens is at rest in the observer’s frame of reference and the source moves across the lens plane with a transverse velocity $`v_{}`$. The lightcurve is applied to the opposite case: that of a lens moving in the frame where both the source and observer are at rest, under the assumption that the motion of the lens does not affect the bending angle. What we have shown is that the application to this case is accurate if the lens is moving transversally, but there is a correction if the lens has also a component of the motion along the line of sight.

It is not complicated to calculate the correction to the lightcurve due to the longitudinal motion of the lens. This calculation amounts to the substitution $`R_0^2(1+v_{||}/c)R_0^2`$ in the lightcurve. A generic microlensing event will provide the timescale $`t_0=R_0/v_{}`$ of the event, where $`R_0`$ will carry the factor $`(1+v_{||}/(2c))`$. Consequently, unless the transverse velocity of the lens or its distance are known, its (corrected) mass cannot be determined from the timescale $`t_0`$. Statistical analysis cannot yield the deflector’s mass to a better certainty than a factor of 3 (page 454 of Paczyński (1996)). Therefore, an entangled correction to the mass of the size of $`v_{||}/c`$ would not even seem relevant.

Nevertheless, following up on Paczyński (1996), there are at least two potential cases in which the masses of individual lenses can be determined unambiguously, because the distances and proper motions of the lenses can be measured independently of the microlensing event. The first case is that of stars in globular clusters acting as lenses for the stellar background of either the Galactic bulge, LMC or SMC (Paczyński, 1994). The second case is that of nearby stars with high proper motions acting as lenses for the more distant stars in the Milky Way, LMC or SMC (Paczyński, 1995). Our analysis in this section shows that in both cases, in addition to the proper motion and distance of the lensing star, an unambiguous determination of the mass requires that the redshift of the lensing star be measured, in order for the correction factor of $`(1+v_{||}/c)`$ to be determined. The mass could finally be obtained from the timescale $`t_0`$ of the microlensing event. The relevance of the correction of order $`v_{||}/c`$ to the mass would depend on the accuracy of the measurements of $`t_0,v_{},v_{||}`$ and the distance to the lensing star, all of which can be expected to improve steadily in the future.

## 5 Concluding remarks

Our leading correction to the bending angle by a point mass differs from that obtained by Capozziello et al (1999) by a factor of -2. Both calculations use very much the same method for the propagation of light and a metric perturbation of the same form (borrowed directly from Schneider et al (1992)). The calculations depart from each other in the parametrization of the null geodesics. We use the Euclidean length of the path instead of the affine length, which simplifies our calculations in great measure. Our equation for the propagation of the lightray in the general case, Eq. (21), differs from Eq. (26) in Capozziello et al (1999) by the presence of the time-derivative of the potential $`\stackrel{}{V}`$. But because the time-derivatives of the potentials do not contribute to the bending angle of a point mass if the acceleration is small, the extra term is negligible in the application of an almost uniformly moving point mass. The major departure appears to occur in the integration of this equation to yield the bending angle of the point mass.

On the other hand, our result for the point mass agrees with Pyne & Birkinshaw (1993), a work that seems to have been overlooked, perhaps because their method lies quite outside of the standard. In fact, Pyne & Birkinkshaw use a metric perturbation of flat space based on a linearization of the Schwarzschild metric in Schwarzschild coordinates, instead of harmonic coordinates. Their metric perturbation representing a point mass contains off-diagonal terms, which are normally absent in the standard representation of the metric of a stationary mass distribution in the Newtonian limit, Eq. (32). Additionally, their calculation hinges strongly on the assumption that the Euclidean length is an affine parameter of the null geodesics of the perturbed spacetime, an assumption that is unwarranted in the intended order of approximation since, as implied by Eqs. (28) and (19), the affine length differs from the Euclidean length in terms that are linear in the strength of the Newtonian potential. Thus some question as to the validity of the Pyne & Birkinkshaw calculation of the leading order correction in $`v/c`$ may have lingered, which we hope to have dispelled in our current work.

Our work, in fact, extends the Pyne & Birkinkshaw result to extended lenses of any given deflection potential, being, thus, independent of the model. This agrees with the intuitive notion that the deflection caused by a distribution of point masses moving with the same speed should be equal to the sum of the deflections caused by the individual point masses in the distribution. However, our result in this extended case departs quite sharply from that derived by Capozziello & Re (2001), where the bending angle due to the moving lens is not proportional to the bending angle due to the same deflector at rest, but, on the contrary, it is quite complicated and model-dependent.

## acknowledgments

I wish to thank Ted Newman for extremely valuable insights relevant to this calculation, and for the pleasure of many enlightening conversations. I am indebted to Olaf Wucknitz for pointing out an oversight in an earlier version of this work. This work was supported by NSF under grant No. PHY-0070624 to Duquesne University.


format: text

text:
# Dirac’s Æther in Curved Spacetime-II: The Geometric Amplification of the Cosmic Magnetic Induction

## 1 Introduction

Information from our universe comes vastly from the propagation of light throughout the cosmic medium. However, until now the origin of the cosmic magnetic induction (CMI) in astronomical objects remains unknown (see  for a comprehensive review). In fact, no theory has completely succeeded in explaining the evolution of the CMI, from its generation in the early universe to the present values observed in a multitude of cosmic scales. In stars, magnetic fields range from $`10^8`$ T in the interiors of neutron stars to values of $`1`$ T in sunspots, and down to $`10^7`$ T in protostellar objects. It is believed that in stellar interiors the standard dynamo action, in combination with convective motions and the reconnection of the field lines, is able to explain the range of values observed. In galaxies, however, magnetic dynamos leave many unanswered questions , the most immediate of them is the rather long characteristic time-scales over which they could operate. For instance, the interstellar medium in our Galaxy has an ordered field of about $`2\times 10^{10}`$ T, superposed upon which there is a random component of about 1-2 times this value . Considering that the period of rotation of the interstellar gas about the Galactic center is $`2.5\times 10^8`$ years, there would have been at most 50 complete rotations of this gas about the center. The differential rotation of the ionized gas in the interstellar medium results in the stretching and amplification of the magnetic field in the disk. Therefore, any primordial magnetic field would be tightly wound up. The problem is that this mechanism is not enough to produce an ordered field. The winding up of the field lines would result in tightly wound tubes of magnetic flux running in opposite directions. It is then necessary to have a mechanism that is able to reconnect the lines of force in order to create the large-scale uniform field.

As we proceed to even larger structures, evidence for large scale magnetic fields are seen. In the intracluster medium in cluster of galaxies, fields of $`10^{10}`$ T have been derived from the diffuse synchrotron radio emission observed from a number of clusters of galaxies, as well as from the observation of depolarization of the emission of extended radio sources by the surrounding intracluster medium. In the intergalactic medium between clusters of galaxies, we are only able to set an upper limit for the magnetic field of $`10^{13}`$ T, a value provided from the lack of polarization of the emission reaching us from distant radio sources. However, it is widely believed that magnetic inductions are present in the universe whatever the scale we look for, and new technological developments are in their way to confirm this (e.g., the SIRTF infrared satellite and the SOAR optical telescope). Whether present-day field values were built up when the first galaxies formed remains questionable, but even if this is the case, the process requires the existence of a very week seed field that was slowly amplified over cosmic time.

It has been shown that it is possible to generate a seed CMI in a plasma with no fields present at the recombination time supposing that there are only variations in the pressure of the electrons in the plasma. This effect is known as the Biermann battery (see ). The flow of electrons to lower pressure regions results in a charged unbalanced plasma, which produces an electric field opposing the flow of electrons. As a result, the flow stops and an eletric and magnetic field (emf) is created. This emf cannot drive a current though, since the integral around any closed loop in the case of a linear gradient is zero. If, however, there are variations in the electron density throughout the plasma, different emfs can be induced in different regions and then currents flow in the plasma creating a magnetic field. Nevertheless, this process saturates at about $`10^{25}`$ T, since it is limited by the self-inductance of the current loop itself. How then to reconcile this extremely low value with the upper limit found today for the intergalactic medium between clusters?

Recently, one special mechanism has been studied in which the amplification of the seed CMI is understood as being caused by the expansion of the cosmological background . This is called geometric amplification because the only agent responsible is the geometric scale factor $`R(t)`$. One of the advantages of this approach is that it does not rule out other models, while keeping the amplification factor obtained for the seed CMI within the observational constraint.

The Dirac’s æther is a kind of cosmic conducting medium with a very small conductivity that does not violate the experimental limits which confirms the maxwellian theory in terrestrial laboratories. In the first paper , we studied the equations of the Dirac’s æther coupled to the Proca field in the background of an Einstein static universe. Here we search for a geometric amplification of the seed CMI by applying to the cosmic medium a recent version of the Dirac’s æther model . This new version of the Dirac’s æther maintains the most important features of the original Dirac’s model with aditional advantages, e.g., a new interpretation of the 4-velocity as the velocity of the different parts of the æther relative to a generic observer, inertial or not.

This work is organized as follows. In the next section, we describe the model, the symmetries of the proposed field, and solve the equations numerically. In the last section we devote ourselves to the discussion and concluding remarks.

## 2 Model and Results

In this paper we use the new equations of the Dirac’s æther coupled with geometry. For a generic observer (inertial or not) these equations are

$`F_{;\mu }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}(A^\mu v^\nu A^\nu v^\mu )_{;\mu }=J^\nu `$ (2.1)
where the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative. $`A^\mu `$ is the electromagnetic 4-potential; $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ are the components of the electromagnetic field tensor; $`v`$ is the 4-velocity of the æther relative to the observer; $`c`$ is the speed of light; and $`J^\nu (\sigma /c)v_\mu F^{\mu \nu }`$. It is interesting to remember that in a flat space-time an inertial observer moving with the cosmic æther has velocity components $`v_{\ae ther}^\mu =(1;0,0,0)`$. Others inertial observers have $`v^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu v_{\ae ther}^\nu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\nu `$, with the Lorentz transformation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ relating the observer and the æther frame. These equations (1) differ from the ones of our previous model by the presence of a skew-symmetric term $`(A^\mu v^\nu A^\nu v^\mu )_{;\mu }`$ instead of the term $`(1/\lambda ^2)A^\nu `$ (that comes from the Proca term). We adopt a cylindrical coordinate system $`x^\mu =(t;\rho ,\varphi ,\zeta )`$ in a Friedmann cosmological background. The metric tensor in all three Friedmann geometries and the field $`A^\mu `$, with cylindrical symmetry, are given by

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`diag\left[R^2(t)(1;1,u^2(\rho ),w^2(\rho ))\right],`$ (2.2)
$`A^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})f(t)/R^2(t),`$ (2.3)
where $`u(\rho )`$ and $`w(\rho )`$ are functions of the coordinate $`\rho `$. Depending on the geometry of the space-time, they will define the type of three-geometry (with constant curvature $`k_c`$) under consideration. $`f(t)`$ is a function to be determined by the field equations. The velocity of observers moving with the cosmic æther is $`v_\mu =R(t)\delta _\mu ^0`$.

The field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ has non-zero independent components $`F_{02}`$ and $`F_{12}`$. In an orthonormal basis, the non-null components of the fields $`𝐄`$ and $`c𝐁`$ are

$`E_\varphi =\dot{f}u^2/R^2,cB_\zeta =2fuu^{}/R^2,`$ (2.4)
where the dot means $`d/dt`$, the prime is $`d/d\rho `$, and $`c`$ is the light velocity. The electric field and the magnetic induction are orthogonal and non-homogeneous, and both depend on $`t`$ and $`\rho `$. Their moduli are

$`|𝐄|=|u\dot{f}|/R^2,|𝐁|=2|fu^{}|/(cR^2).`$ (2.5)
Table 1 shows the curvature $`k_c`$ of each one of the Friedmann’s geometries considered, $`R(t)`$, $`u(\rho )`$, $`w(\rho )`$, and the equation for $`f(t)`$ that needs to be solved. We are particularly interested in finding solutions for the CMI that provide an explanation for the amplification of the magnetic induction below the the suggested limit of $`10^{13}`$ T for the intergalactic medium between cluster of galaxies.

Let us now integrate numerically the equations in Table 1, from the initial cosmic conformal time $`t_i=0.0890`$ to the final time $`t_f=1.6100`$. In standard cosmology these values correspond respectively to the final stage of the matter-radiation coupling and our current epoch. $`20,000`$ integration steps are performed. We assume that the conductivity of the Dirac’s æther is $`10^{19}`$/s, $`\alpha `$ is $`10^{26}`$ m, and the initial CMI is $`10^{25}`$ T. Our model also includes a weak initial electric field of magnitude $`10^4`$ V/m to be dissipated during the time evolution. These limits are fixed in order to provide a realistic value for the modulus of the CMI that agrees with the one established by the usual theory of the cosmic fields. These initial values do not perturb the gravitational field; from a simple calculation it is evident that the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic and gravitational fields are related by a factor above $`10^{10}`$.

In Table 2, we display a small ensemble of points that gives us a qualitative view of the amplification phenomenon in terms of the quantities $`(t)`$ $``$ $`|𝐄/u|=|\dot{f}|/R^2`$ and $`(t)`$ $``$ $`|𝐁/u^{}|=2|f|/(cR^2)`$, that for simplicity we will also refer as the electric field and magnetic induction.

These results are very similar to the ones of our latter work. Comparing the initial and the final values of the fields for each geometry the data show an amplification of the $``$ field of the order $`10^{+6}`$, and an overall reduction of the electric field of the order $`10^5`$. It should be noticed that these results are determined not only by the evolution of the function $`f(t)`$ (which constrains the field equations) but also by the direct contribution of the geometry as given by the scale factor, $`R(t)`$, that is present in both mathematical expressions for $``$ and $``$. It is the interchange between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields that imposes, as the Universe evolves, the decrease of the electric field and the amplification of the $``$ field.

## 3 Conclusion

In all cases studied here, our results show the desired amplification of the initial CMI, together with the reduction of the electric field. The new version of the Dirac’s æther incorporates in a natural way the 4-velocity (first pointed out by Dirac in 1951  which is interpreted as the velocity of the æther relative to an observer. This allow us to adapt our description to any observer, inertial or not. In the case of a curved background, an observer with $`v_\alpha =R(t)\delta _\alpha ^0`$ will see the same phenomenon of amplification of the magnetic induction and reduction of the electric intensity that had already been observed in , in the context of a Proca electromagnetic field in a Dirac æther.

The geometric relations between the electromagnetic field and the metric tensor involves the scale factor $`R(t)`$. The amplification of the $``$ field in this model is determined by the coupling between gravitational and electromagnetic fields as in the usual theory of electromagnetism in a curved background. Larger couplings between the electromagnetic and the gravitational fields could lead to an even faster and/or more intense interchange, as can be seen in . As the geometric amplification describes how the expansion of the universe influences the electromagnetic fields, there is also the possibility that electromagnetic fields influence the expansion of the universe . Our results confirm once again the strict relations between the electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena.

The obtained geometric amplification is most probably superseded by the conventional dynamo effect in the interior of stars, in the intragalactic medium, and even in the scales of galaxies. However, in scales of clusters and larger, where the dynamo action most probably fails, the geometric amplification of the seed CMI may be the only important effect to be considered. We believe that in the near future technological advances will be able to detect these fields and confirm our results.

## Acknowledgements

All of us thank J. A. Helayel-Neto (Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF)) for his friendly encouragement.


text:
# Accelerator modes of square well system

## I Introduction

In recent years there is a surge of interest in studying mixed systems, with both regular and chaotic regions coexisting in phase space. Mixed systems are important as a majority of dynamical systems found in nature fall in this category. One of the outstanding problems is to resolve how chaotic orbits are influenced by regular regions in the long time limit. In this direction of study, two dimensional area-preserving maps are promising candidates as they exhibit many generic features. A text book paradigm of this kind is the standard map of kicked rotor lich . For certain values of system parameter, this map possesses special kind of orbits called Accelerator Modes (AM) chir . If an initial state of the rotor corresponds to the AM, then it is uniformly accelerated after each kick. In other words, momentum of the rotor increases linearly with time. This is to be contrasted with generic chaotic orbits that diffuse in momentum, i.e., momentum variance of an ensemble of chaotic orbits increases linearly in time leading to normal diffusion.

AM are seen in phase space as small regular islands embedded in a chaotic sea. They are separated from chaotic region by cantori (partial-barriers). If a chaotic orbit enters through the cantori, it sticks to the cantori for very long time and thus is accelerated along with the modes. Considering $`n`$ as time, such a long excursion of a chaotic orbit is an example of Lévy flight shle0 . Lévy flight, some times called as super diffusion, is characterized by $`p_n^2n^\gamma `$ with $`\gamma >1`$. AM assisted anomalous transport of this kind has been already studied with different motivations ishi . It should be noted that the above mechanism of anomalous effect is numerically ascertained.

Further studies have shown that these modes influence corresponding quantum system as well hans ; zas . In particular, the existence of regular islands in chaotic sea significantly alter the localization of quasienergy states in angular momentum, leading to enhancement in quantum transport. Developments on confining atoms in magneto-optical traps have opened experimental feasibility for atom-optics realizations of the kicked rotor. One such realization, in which an ensemble of cold cesium atoms are exposed to a periodically pulsed standing wave light, has shown that for certain values of the kick amplitude the momentum distribution of the atomic sample is non-exponentially localized klap98 . This then is shown as an effect of AM in the quantum system, in contrast to the generic exponential localization.

Semiconductor based technological developments, on the other hand, have shown that it is possible to fabricate potential wells on atomic scales. Motion of electrons in such quantum wells in presence of an external electromagnetic field has been studied for experimental signatures of quantum chaos wilk . A simple model of this kind is a particle confined in a one-dimensional infinite square well exposed to a time periodic pulse field. This system is known to be one generalization of the kicked rotor sankar . The virtue of this generalization arises from two length scales of the system, namely, width of the well and field wavelength. If the well width is an integer multiple of the field wavelength, kick to kick dynamics of the particle is equivalent to that of the rotor. Otherwise, the dynamics is described by a discontinuous map resulting in a new scenario for transition to chaos even for weak field strengths sankar .

In this paper we explore this model in the context of AM. We show that, our generalization leads to a larger parametric space, in comparison to the standard map, for existence of the AM. We demonstrate that when the border of AM (which we call a “beach”) exposes a chain of islands of a lower order resonance, “stickiness” of the beach increases significantly leading to anomalous transport. We also study the signature of such classical phenomena in the corresponding quantum system.

## II Classical System

### II.1 The Map

Let us consider a particle confined in an one-dimensional infinite square well potential $`V_0(x)`$ of width $`2a`$ and the Hamiltonian is

$$H_0=\frac{p^2}{2M}+V_0(x);V_0(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{for }|x|<a\hfill \\ \mathrm{},\hfill & \text{for }|x|a\hfill \end{array}.$$
(1)
The particle is subjected to a time periodic pulsed field of period $`T`$. The perturbed system is governed by the Hamiltonian

$$H=H_0+ϵ\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2\pi x}{\lambda }\right)\underset{n}{}\delta \left(n\frac{t}{T}\right),$$
(2)
where $`ϵ`$ and $`\lambda `$ are strength and wavelength of the field respectively; a train of delta functions accomplishes the time periodic pulse. Kick to kick dynamics of the particle can be described by the map

$`X_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{B_n}(X_n+P_n)+(1)^{B_n+1}\text{Sgn}(P_n)B_n,`$
$`P_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{B_n}P_n+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(2\pi RX_{n+1}),`$ (3)
where $`B_n=\left[\text{Sgn}(P_n)(X_n+P_n)+1/2\right]`$; $`[..]`$ and $`\text{Sgn}(..)`$ stand for integer part and sign of the argument respectively. $`B_n`$ is the number of bounces of the particle between the walls during the interval between $`n`$th and $`(n+1)`$th kick. This dimensionless map is related to physical variables by the scaling:

$$X_n=\frac{x_n}{2a},P_n=\frac{p_nT}{2aM},K=\frac{2ϵ\pi ^2T^2}{aM\lambda },R=\frac{2a}{\lambda },$$
(4)
where $`K`$ is effective field strength and $`R`$ is ratio of two length scales of the system. Henceforth we refer to the classical mapping (3) as the well map.

The well map can be studied by invoking a Generalized Standard Map (GSM)

$`J_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`J_n+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2\pi }}\mathrm{sin}(2\pi R\theta _n),`$
$`\theta _{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _n+J_{n+1}(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}),`$ (5)
since time reversal of GSM and (3) are quantitatively related. GSM is defined on a cylinder $`(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\times [1/2,1/2)`$ and the standard map is a special case with $`R=1`$. A detailed study of GSM can be found in our earlier work sankar . The GSM is highly chaotic for strong field strength (large $`K`$). In addition, it exhibits chaotic motion even for weak field strength (small $`K`$) depending on the parameter $`R`$. In order to study the AM in the well map, we invoke the GSM which is amenable to a detailed analysis.

### II.2 Stability Analysis

Periodicity of the GSM in $`J`$ and $`\theta `$ (with unit period) implies existence of AM. These are located at ($`J^{},\theta ^{}`$):

$$J^{}=m,\frac{K}{2\pi }\mathrm{sin}(2\pi R\theta ^{})=l,$$
(6)
where $`m`$ and $`l`$ are integers. They are also termed as step-$`|l|`$ AM as the acceleration is $`|l|`$ at each iteration. Fixed points belong to the family of AM with $`l=0`$. For stable AM, required stability condition is

$$\frac{4}{KR}<\mathrm{cos}(2\pi R\theta ^{})<0,$$
(7)
and using (6) this becomes

$$|l|<\frac{K}{2\pi }<\sqrt{l^2+\left(\frac{2}{\pi R}\right)^2}.$$
(8)
This inequality can also be rewritten as

$$0<R<R_1,$$
(9)
where

$$R_1=\frac{2}{\pi }\left\{\left(\frac{K}{2\pi }\right)^2l^2\right\}^{1/2}.$$

For stable AM

$$|\theta ^{}|=\frac{1}{2R}\left\{2j+1\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^1\left(\frac{2\pi |l|}{K}\right)\right\},$$
(10)
where $`j`$ is an integer. Thus the AM are characterized by two integers $`l`$ and $`j`$ and we call them as $`(l,j)_{}`$ type modes. Since the cylindrical phase space of GSM has the constraint $`|\theta ^{}|1/2`$ (equivalent to restriction of the particle dynamics to between walls of the well), zero can not be lower limit in the above inequality.

The parameter $`R`$ in GSM is recognized as frequency of the sinusoidal force term. As $`R`$ increases from zero $`|\theta ^{}|`$ decreases such that $`(l,j)_{}`$ type modes first appear in the phase space followed by the $`(l,j)_+`$ type. In a similar way, as $`R`$ decreases $`|\theta ^{}|`$ increases such that $`(l,j)_+`$ type is the first to disappear from the phase space while the $`(l,j)_{}`$ type mode is the last to disappear. Hence, lowest limit for the inequality (9) is set by the disappearance of $`(l,j)_{}`$ type modes. From Eqn. (10), the constraint $`|\theta ^{}|1/2`$ for $`(l,j)_{}`$ becomes $`R_0R`$ where

$$R_0=2j+1\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{sin}^1\left(\frac{2\pi |l|}{K}\right).$$

Thus the inequality (9) is replaced by

$$R_0R<R_1.$$
(11)
We emphasize that both the inequalities (8) and (11) must be simultaneously satisfied for existence of AM in the phase space. This is in contrast to the standard map for which the inequality (8) with $`R=1`$ itself is sufficient. Thus the two control parameters, $`K`$ and $`R`$, provide a larger parametric space, in comparison to that of the standard map, for the existence of AM. At $`K=2\pi |l|`$, the lower bound of the inequality (8), $`R_0=1/2`$ and this is the minimum possible value of $`R_0`$. In other words, for $`R<1/2`$ AM do not exist. In fact, GSM is hyperbolic for $`R<1/2`$ and there are only unstable orbits in the phase space.

### II.3 Results

Since the well map and the GSM are quantitatively related, location of AM are same for both the maps i.e., $`(X^{},P^{})=(\theta ^{},J^{})`$ and all the above arguments hold for well map also. However, AM of the well map differ only in the following way due to the reflective boundary condition. When particle is on the AM, $`n`$th kick causes the particle to undergo $`n`$ bounces between the walls. If $`n`$ is odd momentum changes its sign, in turn sign of the particle position is also flipped.

Phase space of a mixed system generally has many intricate structures. In particular, boundaries of regular region embedded in chaotic sea have structures at all scales and all of them are hard to discern. Stable AM islands are believed to be separated from the remaining chaotic region by cantori (partial-barriers). Phase space in the vicinity of the cantori is sticky as it retains long time correlations. When chaotic orbits explore all parts of the phase space, there are occasions that they pass through the cantori. When such an event occurs, chaotic orbits stick to the vicinity of cantori for long time. Thus they are dragged along the modes ballistically shle . This is a mechanism which is known to enhance momentum transport. Below we demonstrate that the beaches around the AM island when occupied by a large resonance of small order are highly sticky. This in turn implies that the cantori surrounding these must have large gaps to allow larger penetration of itinerant chaotic orbits.

Before we dwell more on AM assisted super diffusion, it is instructive to look at some of the modes of the well map. Fig. 1 shows islands for different $`R`$ values. In the given range of phase space we find one $`(1,0)_{}`$ type mode for $`R=0.7,0.8`$ and 1. As $`R`$ increases the islands move towards interior of the well. For $`R=1.4`$, one more mode just appears at boundary of the well. This is a $`(1,0)_+`$ type mode. For further large values of $`R`$ both the types fully appear and they move into the interior of the well. Evidently, parameter $`R`$ also changes the size of the islands.

In order to quantify the role of $`R`$ in AM assisted anomalous transport, we consider $`(P_nP_0)^2n^\gamma `$. Here the angular bracket stands for an ensemble average and the exponent can be evaluated by iterating an ensemble of phase space points for long time under the well map. We perform numerical calculations for two different initial ensembles: (i) phase space points uniformly distributed along the line $`P_0=0`$ which correspond to both accelerator and chaotic orbits; (ii) phase space points from a chaotic region which include only chaotic orbits.

The ensemble (i) contains more chaotic orbits than the regular (accelerator) orbits. Chaotic orbits exhibit normal diffusion in momentum i.e., like the random walk, until they are dragged along the mode. On the other hand, the accelerator orbits exhibit ballistic behaviour ($`\gamma =2`$). Hence, in the long time limit, evolution of accelerator orbits dominate the ensemble average. Fig. 2(i), shows the characteristic exponent $`\gamma `$ for different $`R`$ values. As we see, for the range of $`R`$ in Eqn. (11) $`\gamma 2`$, confirming the existence of AM islands. Here the lesser $`\gamma `$ for $`R=1.5`$ is attributed to small size of AM (see Fig. 1). On contrary, for parameters outside the range of Eqn. (11), diffusion is normal as there are no AM in the phase space.

Fig. 2(ii) corresponds to the ensemble which contains only chaotic orbits. Within the parametric range where AM exist, the exponent $`\gamma `$ shows large fluctuations. There are also occasions wherein presence of AM does not enhance the diffusion significantly. It is natural to attribute the observed fluctuations to size of the islands and stickiness of their neighbourhood. That is, big AM islands with very sticky neighbourhood can significantly enhance the transport.

For $`R=0.8`$, the exponent $`\gamma `$ is found to be maximum ($`1.6`$). As seen from Fig. 1, in this case AM island is surrounded by a chain of $`1/5`$ resonance zones. These zones are also step-1 accelerators and they are separated from chaotic region by their boundary, the so called “beaches”. Dynamics on the beach is chaotic, but very sticky with longer classical staying time. If a wandering chaotic orbit happens to approach the beach region, it stays there for long time and thus gets accelerated along the modes resulting in very large enhancement in momentum transport. This maximum transport is a generic behaviour i.e., independent of choice of the chaotic ensemble. From Fig. 1 we note that, although size of the AM for $`R=0.7`$ is larger than that for $`R=0.8`$, exponent $`\gamma `$ is maximum for the latter. This shows that the emergence of lower order resonance zones are chiefly responsible for the stickiness of the beach regions, leading to AM assisted anomalous transport. Thus the well map or equivalently GSM has a control parameter $`R`$ by tuning which AM induced super diffusion can be maximized.

More over, longer the period of resonance zones lesser the stickiness of associated beach regions. Upon magnifying boundaries of AM islands for $`R=0.7`$ and $`1`$, we found long chain of resonance zones and their beach regions. As seen from Fig. 2 (ii), enhancement is limited for both these cases.

Further, we explore step-2 AM which are smaller in size than the step-1 modes. We choose $`K/2\pi =2.05`$ and step-2 modes exist in the range $`0.57<R<1.41`$. Nearly ballistic evolution in this range and the otherwise normal diffusion are shown in Fig. 3(i). In Fig. 3(ii) the exponent exhibits large fluctuations. In order to appreciate the role of beach regions in large scale transport, we focus our attention on two distinct cases where the exponent shows a minimum and a maximum.

As we see from Fig. 4, when the enhancement is minimum (or absent) AM islands do not have the surrounding beach regions. On the other hand, transport is maximum when AM island is surrounded by short chain of resonance zones and their beach regions. These results reinforce that the expose of lower order resonance zones around the AM are chiefly responsible for stickiness of the beach and thus the resulting enhanced momentum transport.

## III Quantum System

### III.1 The Map

Analogous to the classical system, the kick to kick quantum dynamics can be studied using quantum map by solving Schrödinger equation for one period $`T`$ as

$$|\psi (t+T)=U|\psi (t),$$
(12)
where $`U=\mathrm{exp}\{ik\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x/\lambda )\}\mathrm{exp}\{iH_0T/\mathrm{}\}`$ with $`k=ϵT/\mathrm{}`$, being the effective field strength. Eigenvalue equation of the unperturbed system is $`H_0|\varphi _n=E_n|\varphi _n`$. The eigenstates and eigenvalues are given by

$`X|\varphi _n`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}(n\pi X),\hfill & \text{for }n\text{ odd}\hfill \\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}(n\pi X),\hfill & \text{for }n\text{ even}\hfill \end{array},`$ (15)
$`E_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}{2M}},`$ (16)
with $`n=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ Considering unperturbed eigenstates as the basis, time evolution of an arbitrary quantum state is $`|\psi (t)=_nA_n(t)|\varphi _n`$ where $`A_n(t)=\varphi _n|\psi (t)`$. With following substitution

$$\tau =\frac{E_nT}{\mathrm{}n^2}=\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}T}{2M}$$
(17)
quantum map (12) takes the form

$$A_m(t+T)=\underset{n}{}U_{mn}A_n(t),$$
(18)
where $`U_{mn}=e^{i\tau n^2}\varphi _m|\mathrm{exp}\{ik\mathrm{cos}(2\pi RX)\}|\varphi _n`$.

Dimensionless quantum parameters $`k,\tau `$ and the classical parameters are related through $`K/R=8k\tau `$. Since $`k1/\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, semiclassical limit for given classical system can be achieved by taking the limits $`k\mathrm{}`$ and $`\tau 0`$. In the following numerical calculations, quantum map (18) is implemented with a finite, say N, number of unperturbed basis states. By obtaining the limit

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}|A_n(t)|^21$$
(19)
we ensure that such a truncation of basis does not influence the quantum system.

As seen from Eqn. (18), unperturbed motion of the particle between successive kicks just adds phase to the wave function components through the parameter $`\tau `$ (mod $`2\pi `$). If $`\tau =2\pi `$, unperturbed motion is absent and this is called quantum resonance. Under this condition, without loss of generality, we can write

$$|\psi (t)=e^{ik\mathrm{cos}(2\pi RX)t}|\psi (0),$$
(20)
where $`t`$ represents the number of kicks. Then in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$, kinetic energy of the particle grows quadratically i.e., $`E_tt^2`$ sankar1 . This phenomenon is similar to that of the quantum kicked rotor cas . An earlier study has shown that quantum resonance of kicked rotor occurs when $`\tau `$ is rational multiples of $`2\pi `$ izra . This non-generic pure quantum phenomenon does not have any classical analogue. In order to investigate signatures of AM in the quantum system, it is necessary to suppress the resonance effect. This can be accomplished by taking $`\tau `$ as an irrational multiple of $`2\pi `$.

### III.2 The wave packet

One natural way to study the quantum signatures of the AM is using the time evolution of an initial wave packet localized in chaotic region of the classical phase space. We take a Gaussian wave packet confined in the square well as the initial state. In position representation it is given by

$$X|\psi (0)=C\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{(XX)^2}{2\sigma ^2}+\frac{iPX}{\mathrm{}_e}\right\},$$
(21)
where $`\sigma `$ measures width of the wave packet, centred at $`X`$ with momentum $`P`$. Here $`\mathrm{}_e=2\tau /\pi ^2`$ is the effective Planck constant. Normalization constant, $`C`$, is obtained from the condition

$$_{1/2}^{1/2}|X|\psi (0)|^2𝑑X=1$$

as

$$C=\left(\frac{2/\sigma \sqrt{\pi }}{\text{erf}(y_+)\text{erf}(y_{})}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{with}y_\pm =\frac{\pm 1/2X}{\sigma }.$$
(22)
As the quantum map is described in unperturbed basis states, the initial wave packet is represented in this basis. For evaluating $`A_n(0)`$ we consider following integral

$$G_n=\sqrt{2}_{1/2}^{1/2}e^{in\pi X}X|\psi (0)𝑑X.$$
(23)
With change of variable $`u=(XX)/\sqrt{2}\sigma `$ the integral becomes

$$G_n=2\sigma Ce^{iz_nX}_u_{}^{u_+}e^{(u^2i\sqrt{2}\sigma z_nu)}𝑑u,$$
(24)
where $`z_n=n\pi +P/\mathrm{}_e`$ and $`u_\pm =y_\pm /\sqrt{2}`$. Using the standard integral abram

$`{\displaystyle e^{(a_ox^2+2bx+c)}𝑑x}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a_o}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{b^2ca_o}{a_o}}\right)\text{erf}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_ox+b}{\sqrt{a_o}}}\right),`$ (25)
$`G_n`$ is represented in terms of complex error function, which can be computed using the algorithm gauti . The wave packet in the unperturbed basis is then given by

$$A_n(0)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(G_n+G_n)/2,\hfill & \text{for }n\text{ odd}\hfill \\ (G_nG_n)/2i,\hfill & \text{for }n\text{ even}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(26)
It should noted that because of the spatial confinement, the initial state is a truncated Gaussian and hence it is not a minimum uncertainty wave packet. However, it can be made close to the minimum uncertainty wave packet provided mean $`X`$ is not close to boundary of the well and $`\mathrm{\Delta }X1`$, i.e., spread in position is much less than the width of the square well. With this condition on the wave packet we consider the uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }X\mathrm{\Delta }P=\mathrm{}_e/2`$ for the following exercise. We take $`\mathrm{\Delta }X=0.02`$ throughout.

### III.3 Results

The initial wave packet is chosen with $`(X,P)=(0,0.5)`$ such that it is placed in a chaotic region. We take $`\mathrm{}_e=0.008`$ and hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }P=0.2`$. For these choice of parameters, the initial state is squeezed in position and elongated in momentum. The number of basis states considered is as high as $`N=7500`$. Dimensionless kinetic energy of the time evolved state is then given by

$`E_t`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (t)|\widehat{P}^2|\psi (t)`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{\pi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|A_n(t)|^2n^2,`$
which is equivalent to the classical energy $`P_t^2`$.

Shown in Fig. 5 are typical typical quantum evolutions for $`K/2\pi =1.05`$ with varying $`R`$ values. In all the cases, initially the quantum energy increases and then attains a quasiperiodic saturation. However, the saturation is much higher for $`R=0.8`$ than for $`R=0.7`$ and 1. It should be noted that even though effective field strength $`k`$ is larger for $`R=0.7`$ than for $`R=0.8`$, energy saturation for the later is much higher. We may compare these results with the corresponding phase space shown in Fig. 1. Thus we obtain a clear evidence that the expose of lower order resonance zones and the associated sticky beach around the AM are mainly responsible for AM assisted enhanced transport in quantum system also.

## IV Discussion

We studied accelerator modes for a particle inside a 1D infinite square well in presence of a pulsed external field. Influence of modes in altering large scale transport of the classical system has been studied by invoking an equivalent dynamical model, the generalized standard map. The virtue of the generalization arises from the ratio of two length scales, namely, well width and field wave length. This generalization is found to have larger parametric space for existence of AM.

We demonstrated that when the border of AM (beach) exposes short periodic resonance zones, stickiness of the beach region is significantly increased, leading to AM assisted super diffusion in momentum. It also appears that longer the period of resonance lesser is the stickiness of the beach, results to less enhancement in transport. The corresponding quantum system is studied using time evolved wave packet. We showed that the presence of lower order resonance around the modes are responsible in enhancing the quantum transport as well.

Some investigations on standard map show that for certain “magic” values of system parameter, AM islands are accompanied with hierarchy of self-similar structures. The vicinity of these structures are known to be regions of stickiness for the chaotic orbits zas97 ; zas97a , causing enhancement in transport. Further, various multi-island structures in the near threshold regime of the map are identified as trapping zones for wandering orbits zas98  leading to Lévy-like flights. All these results collectively support that island-around-island structures are greatly responsible for anomalous transport in the mixed phase space. Using fractional kinectic equation zas97 ; zas02 , it will be of interest to enquire the connection between the period of boundary islands and stickiness of the associated beach region.

Acknowledgement

One of us, VBS, would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the Institute of Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA, during August 2002 when this paper was being completed and written. We gratefully acknowledge very useful discussions with Dr. A. Lakshminarayan.