format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Quantum parallelism in quantum information processing

Miroljub Dugić1 and Milan M. Ćirković2

1Department of Physics, Faculty of Science

P.O.Box 60, 34 000 Kragujevac, Yugoslavia

E-mail: dugic@knez.uis.kg.ac.yu

2Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11160 Belgrade, Yugoslavia

E-mail: mcirkovic@aob.aob.bg.ac.yu

Key words: quantum operations, fidelity, nonideal measurement, quantum parallelism

Abstract: We investigate distinguishability (measured by the fidelity) of the initial and the final state of a qubit, which is an object of the so-called nonideal quantum measurement of the first kind. We show that the fidelity of a nonideal measurement can be greater than the fidelity of the corresponding ideal measurement. This result is somewhat counterintuitive, and can be traced back to the quantum parallelism in quantum operations, in analogy with the quantum parallelism manifested in the quantum computing theory. In particular, while the quantum parallelism in quantum computing underlies efficient quantum algorithms, the quantum parallelism in quantum information theory underlies this, classically unexpected, increase of the fidelity.

1. Introduction: fidelity and quantum measurement

The sensitivity of quantum systems to various interactions with its environment resulting in different kinds of the ”quantum operations” on the actual system is one of the major challenging problems for the realization of quantum computers . Needless to say, the efforts undertaken in this regard should, hopefully, make implementation of the error-correction strategies and methods easier and more efficient \[3-6\].

The ”quantum operations”  generally result in an uncontrollable change of a qubit’s state which is characterized by the decrease in fidelity . The latter is a useful measure of distinguishability of the initial and the final qubit’s states, albeit not representing a metric in the qubit’s Hilbert state space. More precisely, fidelity is defined by the following expression :

$$F(\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\sigma })=F(\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\rho })=\mathrm{Tr}\sqrt{\widehat{\rho }^{1/2}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\rho }^{1/2}}.$$
$`(1)`$
It equals unity if and only if $`\widehat{\sigma }=\widehat{\rho }`$, while it equals zero for the orthogonal initial and final states (since $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\sigma })=0`$). In general, the fidelity satisfies $`0F(\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\rho })1`$. Above, $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }`$ represent the initial and the final state of the qubit. From now on, we distinguish between the ”pure” and the ”mixed” quantum state , referring to them as to the state vector and state operator (statistical operator), respectively. There is also an alternative characterization of fidelity  which proves to be equivalent with Eq. (1).

Here we report on the observation that fidelity of the so-called nonideal quantum measurements of the first kind can result in the fidelity increase relative to fidelity of the corresponding ideal measurements. This result is counterintuitive, for the simple reason that—relative to the ideal measurements —the nonideal measurements bear unavoidable uncertainty (ignorance) in the final state operator . Needless to say, it is our classical intuition which tacitly assumes that lack of information on the system’s (qubit’s) state should imply decrease of fidelity relative to the situation(s) in which there is no uncertainty. Simultaneously, we classically expect the entropy increase to be manifested with the decrease of fidelity . We hereby show that the rather unexpected increase of fidelity can be traced back to the quantum parallelism in quantum information processing, in full analogy with the quantum parallelism as defined in the quantum computing theory.

In Section 2 we give precise definition of the nonideal measurement \[10–12\], as well as a precise formulation of the task to be performed. In Section 3 we show that the nonideal measurements can lead to the fidelity increase. Section 4 contains discussion of this and related non-classical phenomena, while the conclusions are given in Section 5.

2. Nonideal quantum measurements

A ”quantum operation” is defined as the map of an arbitrary (”pure” or ”mixed”) initial state $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ :

$$E:\widehat{\sigma }\underset{n}{}\widehat{A}_n\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{A}_n^{\mathrm{}},$$
$`(2)`$
where the $`\widehat{A}_n`$ are system operators which satisfy the completeness relation $`_n`$ $`\widehat{A}_n`$ $`\widehat{A}_n^{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{I}`$; conversely, any map of this form is a quantum operation.

As a special kind of quantum operations appear the so-called ideal quantum measurements of the first kind , for which Eq. (2) reads:

$$E:\widehat{\sigma }\underset{n}{}\widehat{P}_n\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{P}_n,$$
$`(3)`$
where the orthogonal projectors $`\widehat{P}_n`$ represent the eigenprojectors of the measured observable, satisfying $`_n\widehat{P}_n=\widehat{I}`$.

Physically, the right-hand side of Eq. (3)—which always describes a ”mixed” state represented by a statistical operator (state operator: some $`\widehat{\sigma }^{}`$ ($`\widehat{\sigma ^{}}^2\widehat{\sigma ^{}}`$))—can be interpreted as the final state of an ensemble (of the objects of measurement), which was the object of a ”nonselective” quantum measurement  or of a measurement with the result of measurement ignored. In older terminology, the latter refers to a ”selective” measurement with the measurement result ”unread”.

In the quantum information (and computation) issues, the quantum measurement processes prove to be of substantial importance; e.g., as the (intermediate or the final) steps in quantum computing algorithms, as the procedures of preparation of the qubits’ states, or as a formal analogue of the process of decoherence , as well as in some quantum information protocols. However, as was first pointed out by Wigner , and later elaborated by Araki and Yanase , realistic quantum measurements usually suffer from unavoidable errors, i.e. from unavoidable uncertainty in the final state of the measured object. Let us put this notion in the mathematical terms.

First, without a loss of generality, consider the ideal quantum measurement of the observable $`\widehat{S}_z`$—the $`z`$-component of ”spin” (qubit). The ideal measurement of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ is presented by :

$$\widehat{U}||\chi =||+,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\widehat{U}`$ represents the unitary (Schrödinger) evolution in time of the combined system ”object (qubit) + apparatus (Q+A)”, the initial state vector $`|`$ is an eigenstate of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ for the value $`+\mathrm{}/2`$, for arbitrary initial state vector $`|\chi `$ of the apparatus, and we omit the unnecessary symbol of the tensor product. Similarly, for the initial state vector of the object $`|`$ which is the eigenstate of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ for the value $`\mathrm{}/2`$, the ideal measurement is defined as:

$$\widehat{U}||\chi =||,$$
$`(5)`$
while $`+|=0`$.

However, as it was emphasized by Wigner , these expressions refer directly only to the quantum measurements of the constants of motion. Following Wigner , Araki and Yanase  showed that quantum measurements of observables which are not the constants of motion are possible, but only with the limited accuracy. Actually, for the nonideal quantum measurement of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ one obtains (we introduce normalization factors in the original expressions ):

$$\widehat{U}||\chi =(1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}||++ϵ_{}||,$$
$`(6)`$
$$\widehat{U}||\chi =(1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}||+ϵ_{}||+,$$
$`(7)`$
for the cases considered above, respectively. Subsequently, Yanase  was able to show that:

$$ϵ_{}^2+ϵ_{}^2=ϵ^2(8\widehat{M}_x^2)^1$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\widehat{M}_x`$ represents an additive constant of motion of the apparatus; note that, as the apparatus becomes more macroscopic, the lower bound of $`ϵ`$ becomes smaller .

Now, relative to the ideal measurements presented by Eqs. (4) and (5), nonideal measurements introduce an unavoidable error $`ϵ`$ in knowing the value of the measured quantity. Actually, as it directly follows from, e.g., Eq. (6), the ensemble final state operator reads:

$$\widehat{\rho }^{}=tr_A[\widehat{U}|||\chi \chi |\widehat{U}^{\mathrm{}}]=(1ϵ^2/2)||+ϵ^2/2||,$$
$`(9)`$
where we have used the equality $`ϵ_{}=ϵ_{}=ϵ/\sqrt{2}`$, which follows from the expression in (8) and from the normalization condition $`|\chi |\widehat{U}\widehat{U}^{\mathrm{}}||\chi =0`$. With ”$`tr_A`$” we denote the ”tracing out” of the apparatus degrees of freedom. Physically, this error is substantial: albeit the ensemble of objects is in an eigenstate of the measured observable (the eigenvalue is $`\mathrm{}/2`$), the measurement leads to the opposite (wrong) result, giving the value $`\mathrm{}/2`$ with nonzero probability $`ϵ^2/2`$. From the information-theoretic point of view, this error introduces unavoidable uncertainty (ignorance) about the final state (i.e. instead of the state vector $`|`$, the final state is the state operator given by Eq. (9)), which is classically expected to give rise to a fidelity decrease, relative to the fidelity of the ideal measurement (where $`ϵ=0`$).

Surprisingly enough, we will show that this is not necessarily the case. Actually, we will show that fidelity of the nonideal quantum measurement can increase, thus constituting a counterintuitive result: having less control imposed on the final state, one obtains better fidelity of the operation considered.

3. Nonideal measurements can increase the fidelity

Let us first consider the cases studied in Section 2. And let us introduce the indices ”id” and ”nonid” for the ideal and nonideal measurements, respectively.

From the expressions of Eqs. (4) and (5) for the ideal measurement of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ it obviously follows that the final and the initial state operators are equal, $`\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{\sigma }`$, which gives rise—for both expressions (4) and (5)—to the maximum fidelity $`F(\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\sigma })=1`$. However, for the nonideal measurements presented by Eqs. (6) and (7), the initial and the final state operators are not equal anymore. Actually, e.g., from Eq. (6), it follows that the final state operator is given by Eq. (9), thus giving rise to the fidelity of the measurement:

$$F_{nonid}F(\widehat{\rho }_{nonid},\widehat{\sigma })=|\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}|^{1/2}=(1ϵ^2)^{1/2},$$
$`(10)`$
where we have used the symmetry property of the fidelity (cf. Eq. (1)) and the fact that the initial state is the ”pure” quantum state, $`\widehat{\sigma }||`$. Now, for the difference of the two fidelities we obtain:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }FF_{id}F_{nonid}ϵ^2/2>0,$$
$`(11)`$
as one would classically expect.

Let us now consider arbitrary initial state vector of the qubit:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\alpha |+\beta |,|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1,$$
$`(12)`$
and let us calculate the fidelities of the ideal and nonideal measurements of $`\widehat{S}_z`$.

For the ideal measurement, the expressions Eqs. (4), (5) give:

$$\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\chi =\alpha ||++\beta ||,$$
$`(13)`$
which gives for the state operator of the qubit:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{id}^{}=|\alpha |^2||+|\beta |^2||.$$
$`(14)`$
Now, the fidelity of the ideal measurement reads:

$$F_{id}^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\rho }_{id}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}=[12|\alpha |^2+2(|\alpha |^2)^2]^{1/2}.$$
$`(15)`$
On the other side, for the case of nonideal measurement, after some simple algebra, in analogy with Eq. (13), one obtains:

$$\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }|\chi =[\alpha (1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}+\beta ϵ_{}]||++[\beta (1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}+\alpha ϵ_{}]||,$$
$`(16)`$
which after the tracing out gives for the state operator of the qubit:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{}=|\alpha (1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}+\beta ϵ_{}|^2||+|\beta (1ϵ_{}^2)^{1/2}+\alpha ϵ_{}|^2||.$$
$`(17)`$
The corresponding fidelity computation gives:

$$F_{nonid}^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{1/2}=\{|\alpha |^2|\alpha (1ϵ^2/2)^{1/2}2^{1/2}\beta ϵ|^2+$$

$$+|\beta |^2|\beta (1ϵ^2/2)^{1/2}+2^{1/2}\alpha ϵ|^2\}^{1/2}.$$
$`(18)`$
To simplify the expression Eq. (18) we treat the complex numbers $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as the vectors in plane, so defining the angle $`\theta `$ as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{\beta }/|\alpha ||\beta |`$. Then Eq. (18) reads:

$$F_{nonid}^{}=\{1ϵ^2/2+2(|\alpha |^2)^22(|\alpha |^2)^2ϵ^2+2|\alpha |^2ϵ^22|\alpha |^2$$

$$ϵ|\alpha |^3[8(1|\alpha |^2)(1ϵ^2/2)]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta +ϵ|\alpha |[2(1|\alpha |^2)(1ϵ^2/2)]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \}^{1/2}.$$
$`(19)`$
From Eqs. (15) and (19) we obtain:

$$F_{id}^{}_{}{}^{}2F_{nonid}^{}_{}{}^{}2=ϵ^2/2+2(|\alpha |^2)^2ϵ^22|\alpha |^2ϵ^2+$$

$$ϵ|\alpha |^3[8(1|\alpha |^2)(1ϵ^2/2)]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta ϵ|\alpha |[2(1|\alpha |^2)(1ϵ^2/2)]^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}\theta .$$
$`(20)`$
Keeping in mind positivity of the fidelity, the fidelity difference, $`F_{id}^{}F_{nonid}^{}`$, is of the same sign as the difference given by Eq. (20).

In Fig. 1 we give the plot of $`F_{id}^2F_{nonid}^2`$ against ($`|\alpha |^2,\theta `$), for the respecting intervals $`[0,1]`$ and $`[0,\pi ]`$, for the two values of $`ϵ`$. As it is obvious from Fig. 1, the shape of the plot is independent on the values of $`ϵ`$, while the maximum (minimum) value(s) of the difference is of the order of $`0.1ϵ`$ ($`10ϵ`$).

Figure 1. The plot of $`F_{id}^2F_{nonid}^2`$ against $`(|\alpha |^2,\theta )`$, for the respecting intervals $`[0,1]`$ and $`[0,\pi ]`$, for the two values of $`ϵ`$ (note the different orientations of the figures): (a) $`ϵ=10^3`$, and (b) $`ϵ=10^{10}`$. The values of the variables are in the horizontal plane. The shape of the plot is independent on the values of $`ϵ`$: In the both cases appears that the given difference (and also the fidelity difference $`F_{id}^{}F_{nonid}^{}`$) is negative for the following combinations of the intervals: $`\{|\alpha |^2(0,0.5)and\theta (0,\pi /2)\}`$, as well as for $`\{|\alpha |^2(0.5,1)and\theta (\pi /2,\pi )\}`$. The maximum (minimum) value of the difference is of the order of $`10ϵ`$ ($`0.1ϵ`$).

From Fig. 1 we conclude that our classical intuition, which is confirmed by Eq. (11), is also confirmed by Fig. 1, but only for special choice of $`|\alpha |^2`$ and $`\theta `$. Actually, as it is obvious from Fig. 1, one has, for instance:

$$F_{nonid}^{}>F_{id}^{},|\alpha |^2(0,0.5)and\theta (0,\pi /2),$$
$`(21)`$
which challenges our classical intuition.

4. Interpretation of the fidelity increase

The quantum operations (nonideal measurements) presented by Eqs. (6) and (7), are ”coherently superimposed” in the operation presented by Eq. (16). That is, due to the linearity of the Schrödinger law, the two mutually independent operations in Eqs. (6) and (7) are coherently superimposed in Eq. (16). This gives rise to the fidelity increase as presented by Eq. (21). This observation calls for analogy with the quantum parallelism as defined in the quantum computation theory . But this interpretation leads to the following question: whether the fidelity increase can or cannot ever be observed for the arbitrary initial ”mixed state” (”incoherent mixture” of the initial state vectors $`|`$ and $`|`$ of the qubit ) represented by a state operator, rather than by a state vector?

To answer this question we consider arbitrary initial ”mixed state” (state operator):

$$\widehat{\sigma }=W_1||+W_2||,W_1+W_2=1,$$
$`(22)`$
and calculate the fidelities of both ideal and nonideal measurement of $`\widehat{S}_z`$; note that for $`W_1=1`$ ($`W_2=1`$) one obtains the case(s) studied above, i.e. the expression(s) Eq. (4) (Eq. (5)).

Again, as it can be easily shown, the ideal measurement of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ does not change the initial state of the qubit, thus giving rise to the maximum fidelity. However, for the nonideal measurement, after some algebra one obtains for the state operator of the qubit:

$$\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{\prime \prime }=tr_A[\widehat{U}\widehat{\sigma }|\chi \chi |\widehat{U}^{\mathrm{}}]=[W_1(1ϵ^2/2)+W_2ϵ^2/2]||+$$

$$+[W_2(1ϵ^2/2)+W_1ϵ^2/2]||.$$
$`(23)`$
Therefore, the fidelity in this case reads:

$$F_{nonid}^{\prime \prime }=tr\{\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{{}_{}{}^{}1/2}\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{{}_{}{}^{}1/2}\}^{1/2}=tr\{\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{}\}^{1/2}=$$

$$=W_1\{1ϵ^2/2+(1W_1)ϵ^2/2W_1\}^{1/2}+(1W_1)\{1ϵ^2/2+W_1ϵ^2/2(1W_1)\}^{1/2}1,$$
$`(24)`$
where we used $`[\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\rho }_{nonid}^{}]=0`$, and we perceive the last inequality as obvious, while equality refers only to $`W_1=W_2=1/2`$. It is worth emphasizing that for $`W_1=1`$ ($`W_2=1`$), the expression in Eq. (24) reduces to Eq. (10).

Therefore, for the state operator $`\widehat{\sigma }`$, one never obtains the fidelity increase, which justifies that the fidelity increase is ultimately due to the coherent superpositions of the qubit’s states, Eq. (12) (and also due to linearity of the Schrödinger law—cf. Eq. (16)). In other words, the classically unexpected fidelity increase is caused by the quantum coherence, i.e. is due to the parallel quantum operations in the coherent mixtures of the qubit’s state vectors.

5. Discussion

The main result of this paper is the fidelity increase due to nonideal quantum measurements, as pointed out by Eq. (21). The interpretation given in the previous Section allows for analogy with the quantum parallelism as distinguished in the quantum computing theory. To this end one may note that, while the quantum parallelism is a general feature of the quantum computation , the fidelity increase we point out refers to the limited case of the ”pure” state, cf. Eq. (21). Then the following reasoning may seem plausible: since the fidelity increase does not refer to arbitrary state vector $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the interpretation given in Section 4 should be considered incomplete, if not incorrect. But, we believe this conclusion to be wrong.

Instead, we maintain that our interpretation is of the general validity (i.e. applicable to any ”pure” state of the qubit), while not requiring the general increase of the fidelity for nonideal measurements. That is, the operations considered do not require the fidelity increase per se. Rather, the fidelity increase should be considered to point to the quantum parallelism, being its (classically unexpected) consequence. Again, we can make analogy with the quantum parallelism in quantum computing: quantum parallelism in quantum computing does not a priori guarantee that any quantum-computation algorithm will be substantially more efficient than its classical counterpart per se. However, it is well-known that the major motivation for research in quantum computing is exactly the fact that specific implementations of a concrete quantum-computation algorithm can be shown to be more efficient than any possible classical analogue. This, we believe, justifies the full analogy between the quantum parallelism in quantum computing, and in the quantum-measurement-like quantum operations (e.g., the decoherence) on a qubit.

The following question may at first sight seem reasonable: does the fidelity increase can be used for achieving the fidelity arbitrarily close to unity, by choosing a ”sufficiently nonideal” measurement, i.e. by choosing sufficiently big $`ϵ`$? But this question hides a misinterpretation of our result. In the presumed case one would have, at least as to the lower bound of $`ϵ`$ (cf. Eq. (8)) to be a reasonable fraction of unity. However, as the r.h.s. of Eq. (8) implies, the norm of the (bounded) observable $`\widehat{M}_x`$ would have to be of the order of unity, which is physically unacceptable. Actually, such observable would refer to a microscopic system (here: apparatus), in contradistinction to the requirement that the apparatus should be sufficiently macroscopic \[9, 11-13\]. In other words, the use of the nonideal measurements in approaching the equality $`F(\widehat{\sigma },\widehat{\rho })1`$ would contradict applicability of the formulae used in the above calculations (which refer only to the ”macroscopic apparatus”).

Finally, our considerations bear full generality due to: (i) all the results concerning the measurements of $`\widehat{S}_z`$ can be straightforwardly applied to the measurements of arbitrary observable of a qubit, (ii) the quantum parallelism can be observed only in comparison of the results (i.e. of the fidelities) for the ”coherent” (12) and for the ”incoherent” (22) mixtures of the same state vectors. The latter is the reason we do not calculate fidelity for an arbitrary mixed state of the qubit. Finally, (iii) the considerations given here can be straightforwardly extended to account for the $`N`$-qubit systems. The latter circumstance can undoubtedly be of some practical interest in the quantum information research.

6. Conclusion

It is to be expected that lack of information (uncertainty) about a system’s state should be characterized by the fidelity decrease, relative to the situations in which there is not the uncertainty. In the context of the quantum measurement process, which is a special kind of the so-called ”quantum operations”, this classical expectation stems that the fidelity of a nonideal quantum measurement should exhibit decrease, relative to the corresponding ideal measurement. However, and contrary to this classical intuition, we show that the nonideal measurements can lead to the fidelity increase. That is, the fidelity of the nonideal measurements can be greater than the fidelity of the corresponding ideal measurements. This counterintuitive result can be traced back to the quantum parallelism in the quantum information processing, in full analogy with the quantum parallelism as conventionally discussed in the quantum computing theory. One may note that, as the quantum parallelism underlies the efficient quantum computing algorithms, the quantum parallelism underlies the classically unexpected increase of the fidelity of the nonideal quantum measurements.

References:

 P. W. Shor, SIAM J. Comp. 26 (1997) 1484; L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 325

 A. Yu. Kitaev, A. Kh. Shen’, M. N. Vyalyi, ”Classical and Quantum Computation” (MCCME, CheRo, Moscow, 1999 (in Russian)); D. Aharonov, in Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, ed. Dietrich Stauffer (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998) vol. VI

 P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995) R2943; A. Ekert and C. Macchiavello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 2585; A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 793; D. P. DiVincenzo and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 3260

 L. Viola and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 58 (1998) 2733

 P. Zanardi and M. Rasetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1997) 3305

 M. Dugić, Quantum Computers and Computing 1 (2000) 102

 K. Kraus, ”States, Effects, and Operations” (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983)

 A. Uhlman, Rep. Prog. Math. Physics 9 (1976) 273

 J. von Neumann, ”Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics” (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955)

 E. P. Wigner, Z. Physik 133 (1952) 101

 H. Araki and M. M. Yanase, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 622; M. M. Yanase, Phys. Rev. 123 (1961) 666

 B. d’Espagnat, ”Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics” (Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1971)

 W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 1862; Prog. Theor. Phys. 89 (1993) 281

 M. Dugić, Physica Scripta 53 (1996) 9; Physica Scripta 56 (1997) 560

 S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. A 39 (1989) 5378


text:
# A new survey of variability in the core of M15 with TRIFFID-2

## 1. Introduction

M15 is a massive core-collapsed cluster, with an enormous stellar density in the central $``$1$`\times `$1, reflected in the scarcity of photometric variable star detections in this field. However, Ferraro & Paresce (1993) used the HST/FOC to identify 19 variable candidates. Our earlier work (Butler et al. 1998), using a TRIFFID/MAMA camera similar to that described here, resulted in light curves and periods for all but four of these, with a further 16 suspected new variables.

We made new observations in *B* and *V* simultaneously with the TRIFFID-2/MAMA camera on the 1m JKT (La Palma), over 12 nights in July 1997, with seeing of 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$7-0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$8. The 2-d photon-counted data were first sharpened post-exposure by tip/tilt correction at 1ms time resolution. The ISIS (Alard & Lupton 1998) image matching and difference imaging package was used to search for frame-to-frame variability. All star-like objects 6-sigma above the local background of the the median of the set of difference images were selected as candidate variables (see Figure 1). PSF-fitting photometry was performed at accurate positions for the candidate variables in the difference images. The resulting relative fluxes were converted to absolute fluxes by performing profile-fitting photometery on the reference image. The instrumental magnitudes were zeropointed against photometry of HST/WFPC2 archival images in the F555W and F439W filter system. Accurate periods (and hence lightcurves) were obtained for the set of magnitude measurements for all candidate variables using the Phase Dispersions Minimisation technique (PDM, Stellingwerf 1978). Simulations performed using an artificial image-set modeled on our M15 observations indicate that we are sensitive to RR Lyrae variables with an amplitude swing of 0.15 mag (at 80% detection probability). We also increased our sensitivity to dwarf novae (DNe) by summing all images per night prior to ISIS analysis.

## 2. Results

We confirmed all known variables and detected 22 new ones. The lightcurve shape, amplitude, scatter and most significant period distinguished 12 RRab, 19 RRc and 2 (probable) RRd variables. The nature of 11 variables remains uncertain. We found that the core RR Lyrae population has similar periods and amplitudes to the outer population. However, in the core we find a marked increase in the ratio of RRc/RRab stars and a dearth of RRd stars, with respect to the outer reaches. The latter can be reconciled on observational grounds but the former cannot. Also detected were the LMXB counterpart AC211, a W Vir type Cepheid, and a BL Her type Cepheid - objects 20, 33 and 18 in Figure 1. Our search yielded no candidate DNe. From simulations, we estimate fewer than 10 (with 92% probability) DNe of absolute mag 4.3 (F555W/$`V`$) to exist in the studied region. This is the first such quantitative result for M15.

## References

Alard, C. & Lupton, R. H. 1998, ApJ, 503, 325

Butler, R. F. et al. 1998, MNRAS, 296, 379

Ferraro, F. R. & Paresce, F. 1993, AJ, 106, 154

Stellingwerf, R. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 953


text:
# Quantization of the Chern-Simons Coupling Constant

## 1 Introduction

Yang-Mills gauge theory in $`2+1`$ dimensions with a Chern–Simons (CS) term (also called topological mass term) is known to have its topological mass quantized for gauge groups with a non-trivial third homotopy group . The argument goes as follows. The CS term added to the Yang-Mills action preserves local gauge invariances for spacetime manifolds without boundary, but is not invariant under large gauge transformations. Under large gauge transformations, the total action varies by a term proportional to the instanton number representing the class of $`\pi _3(G)`$. If we ask for the invariance of the path integral under such topologically non-trivial gauge transformations, we get a quantization condition of the CS coupling constant.

In general, the CS coupling constant is quantized since $`\pi _3(G)\text{}`$ for any compact connected simple Lie group $`G`$ . However, in the Abelian case with compact group manifold $`G=U(1)`$ all the homotopy groups higher than $`\pi _1`$ are trivial and, a priori, the CS coupling constant can take arbitrary values. The authors of  have pointed out that when electric and magnetic charges are present the CS coupling constant must be quantized just as in the non-Abelian case. The quantization arises from two key features. The first, is that in the presence of magnetic sources the electric charge is non-conserved for non-vanishing CS coupling constant, hence electric worldlines may end on magnetic sources. The value of the electric charge created or annihilated on a magnetic charge is related to the CS coupling constant. The second key property is the usual Dirac charge quantization condition that was shown to remain valid in the presence of a CS term. It was also pointed out in  that their result may be straightforwardly generalized to $`p`$-form electrodynamics in $`(2p+1)`$-dimensional spacetime, where the electric $`(p1)`$-branes have the same dimensionality as the Dirac brane attached to the magnetic $`(p2)`$-brane.

The quantization of the Abelian CS coupling constant was rederived in  for spacetimes with topology $`S^1\times M^2`$ in the presence of a non-vanishing total magnetic flux on $`M^2`$. Since the spacetime manifold contains a one-cycle $`S^1`$, a quantization condition is expected from the fact that $`\pi _1\left(U(1)\right)\text{}`$. Similar phenomena occur at finite temperature . In this case we are interested in Euclidean spacetimes, where the time direction is effectively compactified into a circle.

All the analysis cited above considered odd-dimensional spacetimes with linear equations of motion. The next step would be to consider Abelian theories with a cubic CS term in the action. This is the subject of the present paper. The non-Abelian case has been considered in CS gravity, and it also leads to the quantization of the CS coupling constant, which corresponds, in that case, to the quantization of Newton’s constant . For $`p`$-form electrodynamics, a cubic term exists only in $`(3p+2)`$-dimensional spacetime. Furthermore, if we want a non-vanishing CS term $`p`$ has to be odd since the gauge group is Abelian. The extended objects carrying electric charge in these theories are $`(p1)`$-branes. Magnetic charge is carried by spacelike $`2p1`$–dimensional extended objects.

Cubic CS terms in $`p`$-form electrodynamics appear, for instance, in the bosonic sector of many supergravity theories. An example of such a theory is the celebrated eleven-dimensional supergravity , which is currently believed to describe the low energy effective action of M-theory. Five-dimensional supergravity also contains a CS term. This theory is known to resemble $`D=11`$ supergravity in many respects  and could be used as a toy model to test various ideas of $`M`$-theory in a simpler setting (see also  for another five-dimensional toy model). This similarity arises from the fact that $`D=5`$ supergravity can be realized as a specific truncation of a Calabi-Yau compactification of $`D=11`$ supergravity .

Because of its simplicity, the paper will consider only five-dimensional Maxwell–Chern–Simons (MCS) electrodynamics, which is the first example of the theories we are looking for. This case is analogous to the bosonic sector of $`D=5`$ simple supergravity in a fixed gravitational background. The analysis will use differential forms so that generalization to higher dimensions is straightforward.

## 2 A 5D model of a gauge field with a Chern–Simons term

MCS theory coupled to electric sources may be described, in five-dimensional spacetime $`_5`$ by the following action,

$$I=\frac{1}{2}F{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{6}FFAA{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{},$$
(2.1)
where $`A`$ is the gauge field, $`F=dA`$ its curvature, $`J_e`$ the electric current and $`\alpha `$ a dimensionfull constant called the CS coupling constant. The electric sources are pointlike objects, which, by analogy with eleven-dimensional supergravity, we may call them M$`0`$-branes. The equations of motion and Bianchi identity are

$`d{}_{}{}^{}F+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}FF`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}`$ (2.2)
$`dF`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.3)
The action is gauge invariant if and only if $`J_e`$ is a conserved current, i.e., if $`d^{}J_e=0`$. This requirement is consistent with the equations of motion, as can be seen by taking the exterior derivative of (2.2), which gives precisely (2.3). We may take the electric current to be generated by the 1–dimensional worldvolume, $`_1`$, of a particle of charge $`e`$, parameterized by $`z^\mu (\tau )`$. The dual of its associated current may be written as $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}=eP(_1)`$, where the four–form $`P(_1)`$ is the Poincaré dual of $`_1`$. (In Appendix A we introduce the definition and some key properties of Poincaré duality. For more details on this subject and its use in electrodynamics see .)

Now we introduce magnetic sources. In 5D, $`{}_{}{}^{}F`$ is a 3–form, and therefore these will correspond to one-dimensional extended objects: “magnetic strings”, or M$`1`$-branes. The magnetic string current is described by a 2–form, $`J_m`$. The field equations now take the form

$`d{}_{}{}^{}F+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}FF`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}`$ (2.4)
$`dF`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}.`$ (2.5)
These equations are gauge invariant, but the electric current $`J_e`$ is not, in general, conserved. In fact, taking the exterior derivative of (2.4) gives

$$d{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}=\alpha {}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}F.$$
(2.6)
This last equation is telling us that electric current does not need to be conserved on the worldsheet of a magnetic string, $`_2`$, unless the flux of the field strength across $`_2`$ is required to vanish. Since the magnetic current $`J_m`$ is conserved, its worldsheet, $`_2`$, is a two-dimensional surface with no boundaries. The dual of the magnetic charge may be written: $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}=gP(_2)`$, where $`g`$ is a constant measuring the charge of the magnetic source.

Note that the present situation is different from both the standard Maxwell case and the quadratic Chern–Simons studied in . Indeed, Eq. (2.6) shows that we cannot specify external sources, because the conservation rule for $`J_e`$ depends explicitly on the field strength $`F`$. This is a major obstacle in the construction of a variational principle giving rise to Eqs. (2.4) and (2.5). One solution would be to consider the manifold $`_2`$ to be a surface where boundary conditions must be prescribed. However, here we adopt a different strategy, inspired by eleven–dimensional supergravity. We will add degrees of freedom living on the magnetic string worldsheet. These new degrees of freedom will dynamically introduce the “boundary conditions” for $`F`$. In the next section we will present an action principle giving rise to equations (2.4) and (2.5).

## 3 The Action

Consider the modified Bianchi identity (2.5). Following the standard procedure, we introduce a Dirac worldvolume, $`𝒩_3`$, whose boundary is the magnetic string worldvolume, $`_2=𝒩_3`$, and solve it by writing the field strength as $`F=dA+^{}G`$. Here $`{}_{}{}^{}G=P(𝒩_3)`$, and therefore $`{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}=d^{}G`$ (see Appendix A). On the magnetic string worldvolume, $`_2`$, we shall also introduce a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, which describes the new degrees of freedom discussed in the previous section. Consider now the following action principle in 5 spacetime dimensions:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}F}F+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{6}}{\displaystyle 𝑑A}dAA+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle {}_{}{}^{}G}AdA`$ (3.1)
$`{\displaystyle A}{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}{\displaystyle \left(fA+\frac{1}{2}{}_{}{}^{}ff+\omega \mathrm{\Phi }{}_{}{}^{}j\right)}{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}+I_k.`$
Here

$$f=d\mathrm{\Phi }A_{pullback}+{}_{}{}^{}g_{1}^{},$$
(3.2)
where $`A_{pullback}`$ denotes the pullback of $`A`$ on $`_2`$, and $`^{}`$ is the Hodge star on the worldvolume $`_2`$. From now on, we will omit the subscript “pullback” which should be self-evident from the context. The parameter $`\omega `$ is any real number and $`I_k`$ are kinetic terms. Finally, $`g_1`$ defines a set of Dirac worldlines that originate instantons (localized at one spacetime event) on the magnetic string worldsheet. The case of one instanton of strength $`\nu `$ located at the point $`_0`$ (denoted in that way to make higher dimensional generalization straightforward) is described by the dyonic instanton “current” $`{}_{}{}^{}j=\nu P(_0)`$, a $`0`$-form proportional to the Poincaré dual to $`_0`$ in $`_2`$. The Dirac point is defined by a worldline $`𝒩_1`$ ending or originating at the instanton, in such a way that $`{}_{}{}^{}j=d{}_{}{}^{}g`$ if $`{}_{}{}^{}g=\nu P(𝒩_1)`$.

Note that, for simplicity of notation, sometimes we make use of $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}g_{1}^{}`$ in the action as $`5`$-dimensional forms. These should be understood as arbitrary extensions whose pullback gives the corresponding $`2`$–dimensional differential form on the string worldsheet.

## 4 Gauge invariances

The action (3.1) is invariant under two different gauge transformations. First,

$`A`$ $``$ $`A+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (4.1)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (4.2)
where, in the second equation, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is understood as the pullback along the string. In the absence of magnetic sources, this transformation reduces to the standard gauge transformation of electrodynamics. In the present case, the invariance of the action under (4.1) and (4.2) requires that the following identity is satisfied:

$$d{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}=\frac{\alpha }{2}(1\omega ){}_{}{}^{}j{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}.$$
(4.3)
This expression shows that electric charge does not need to be conserved if $`\omega 1`$. In fact, an electric worldline may end on a magnetic worldsheet and create a dyonic instanton on it. The eleven–dimensional analog is the well known fact that M$`2`$-branes can end on M$`5`$-brane with a dyonic string as intersection. In that case, a spacelike picture is possible because there is “more room” in eleven dimensions. Also note that in the absence of instantons on the worldsheet of the string, we get conservation of the electric charge for any value of $`\omega `$. The Poincaré dual translation of the relation (4.3) is $`_1=_0_2`$ since $`{}_{}{}^{}j{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}`$ is proportional to the Poincaré dual of $`𝒩_1`$ in $`_5`$ ($`{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}`$ first projects on $`_2`$ and then $`{}_{}{}^{}j`$ projects on $`𝒩_1`$ in $`_2`$).

The second gauge freedom of this system is associated with the position of the Dirac brane and can be described as follows. We may deform $`𝒩_3`$ into a new manifold $`𝒩_3^{}`$ sharing the same boundary $`_2`$. This new manifold is equally appropriate for solving (2.5) in the way indicated above. The field strength $`F`$ is invariant under this displacement of the Dirac brane, but

$`{}_{}{}^{}G_{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}G+d^{}V,`$ (4.4)
$`A^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A{}_{}{}^{}V.`$ (4.5)
Here, $`{}_{}{}^{}V=gP(𝒱)`$ is the one-form dual to the manifold $`𝒱`$ swept while moving the Dirac worldvolume from $`𝒩_3`$ to $`𝒩_{}^{}{}_{3}{}^{}`$, that is, $`𝒱=𝒩_3^{}𝒩_3`$. The field $`f`$ on the magnetic string is also invariant under (4.5) because the pullback of $`{}_{}{}^{}V`$ vanishes. The action (3.1) is invariant under small displacements of the Dirac brane, that is, displacements such that $`𝒱`$ does not intersect the worldvolume of any other object. This shows that the Dirac membrane is unobservable.

The same remark applies to the Dirac point living on the magnetic string. The corresponding gauge transformation is

$`{}_{}{}^{}g{}_{}{}^{}g+d{}_{}{}^{}v,\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }{}_{}{}^{}v.`$ (4.6)
The scalar $`{}_{}{}^{}v`$ is proportional to the Poincaré dual of the surface described by the Dirac worldline in the string worldsheet. The action is obviously invariant under (4.6).

## 5 Equations of motion

The equation of motion coming from varying $`A`$ is

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{2}FF\frac{\alpha }{2}{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}({}_{}{}^{}f+f)={}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}.$$
(5.1)
Note that on deriving this equation we have made use of the following identity, which is discussed in Appendix B,

$${}_{}{}^{}G{}_{}{}^{}G=0.$$
(5.2)
If conveniently regularized, this identity holds at any point where the Dirac worldvolumes do not intersect, which will be the case in general, because, as we shall see below, consistency of the variational principle will require that Dirac membranes never intersect themselves (Dirac veto).

Varying $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we obtain,

$$\left(dA+d^{}f+\omega {}_{}{}^{}j\right){}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}=0.$$
(5.3)
As a consistency check, note that taking the exterior derivative of (5.1) and using (5.3) we get (4.3). From the definition of $`f`$, we also have, on $`_2`$, the Bianchi identity

$$df=dA+{}_{}{}^{}j.$$
(5.4)
Since the magnetic worldsheet is a Minkowskian two–dimensional manifold, the 1–form field strength $`f`$ defined on it can be decomposed into its self–dual part $`f_+`$ and anti–self–dual part $`f_{}`$,

$$f=f_++f_{},{}_{}{}^{}f_{\pm }^{}=\pm f_\pm .$$
(5.5)
Equation (5.1) can then be rewritten,

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{2}FF\alpha {}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}f_+={}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{},$$
(5.6)
while expressions (5.3) and (5.4) are equivalent to

$`df_++dA`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\omega }{2}}{}_{}{}^{}j,`$ (5.7)
$`df_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\omega }{2}}{}_{}{}^{}j.`$ (5.8)
These last two equations are defined on the magnetic worldsheet. We notice that the anti–self–dual part is decoupled from the bulk field $`A`$, since $`f_{}`$ does not appear in (5.6) nor in (5.7).

When $`\omega =1`$, it is therefore natural to consider the sector of the theory where $`f_{}=0`$, in which case the dyonic instanton is self–dual. Furthermore, the equations (5.6) and (5.7) then describe the bosonic sector of simple D=5 supergravity . The worldsheet self-dual boson is precisely the analog of the dynamics of the M$`5`$-brane in eleven–dimensional supergravity. Strictly speaking, for these theories, the self-duality condition must arise from the variational principle. Indeed, it is possible to write an action similar to (3.1) for which $`f_{}=0`$ arises as a consequence of the variation of the action, using the PST technique . A regularized action has been proposed recently in . Concerning the issue of regularization in MCS theories with cubic CS term, one may look also at .

Note however that one may consider other sectors of the theory for arbitrary values of $`\omega `$. For instance, the sector $`f_+=0`$ leads to the equation (2.4) which does not contain explicitly the magnetic membrane fields. Still, the presence of the magnetic source imposes boundary conditions on $`F`$ via equation (5.7). In particular, when $`\omega =+1`$, on the brane, the electric field is orthogonal to the magnetic string.

## 6 Charge Conservation

It is a well known fact that the “brane source charge” is not conserved in theories with CS terms (for an extensive discussion on this, see ). In the present case, as we have already noticed, the electric source charge current, $`J_e`$ is not conserved. Nevertheless, we know that the action (3.1) is gauge invariant in the standard way. We therefore expect a conserved charge associated to this symmetry. We may discover this conservation law from the equations of motion. In fact, from (4.3) we see that

$$d\left({}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}\frac{\alpha }{2}(1\omega ){}_{}{}^{}g{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}\right)=0.$$
(6.1)
This can be rephrased by saying that the Dirac worldline is the geometric continuation of the electric worldline in the magnetic string worldsheet. The electric charge is therefore “transferred” into the Dirac point. This is exactly the same phenomena that was described previously in three spacetime dimensions .

Now we can define the following conserved charge,

$$Q=\underset{D^4}{}({}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}\frac{\alpha }{2}(1\omega ){}_{}{}^{}g{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{})$$
(6.2)
Here $`D^4`$ is a four–dimensional, spacelike ball, whose boundary $`D^4=S^3`$. is a three–sphere. Note that although $`Q`$ is a conserved quantity in virtue of (6.1), it is not gauge invariant. In fact, we can always deform the Dirac worldvolume so that, for instance, if initially it crossed $`D^4`$, at the end it will no longer cross it. To define a gauge invariant charge, we must define $`Q`$ in the limit where the radius of $`S^3`$ goes to infinity.

Let us now take two different representatives, $`D_{(1)}^4`$ and $`D_{(2)}^4`$. The first one does not intersect the magnetic worldsheet while the second one has no intersection with the worldline. If we evaluate the tension with $`D_{(1)}^4`$ we get

$`{\displaystyle \underset{D_{(1)}^4}{}}{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}=e`$
and with $`D_{(2)}^4`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(1\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{D_{(2)}^4}{}}{}_{}{}^{}g{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha g}{2}}(1\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{S^1}{}}{}_{}{}^{}g={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha g}{2}}(1\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{B^2}{}}{}_{}{}^{}j`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha g\nu }{2}}(1\omega )`$
where $`D_{(2)}^4_2=S^1=B^2`$. In conclusion, the electric charge $`e`$, created (or annihilated) on a instanton of charge $`\nu `$, located on a magnetic string of charge $`g`$ is given by

$$e=\frac{\alpha g\nu }{2}(1\omega ).$$
(6.3)
Note now that the Bianchi identity (5.7) implies that

$$f_+=d\mathrm{\Phi }_+A+\frac{1\omega }{2}{}_{}{}^{}g.$$
(6.4)
This last equation combined with (5.6) leads to

$$d({}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{2}AdA+\alpha A{}_{}{}^{}G+\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_+{}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{})={}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}+\frac{\alpha }{2}(1\omega ){}_{}{}^{}J_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}g.$$
(6.5)
from where we can rewrite $`Q`$ in terms of quantities defined at spatial infinity only,

$$Q=_{S_{\mathrm{}}^3}{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{2}AdAg\alpha _\gamma A\alpha g\left(\mathrm{\Phi }(+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{})\right).$$
(6.6)
Here $`\gamma `$ is the line where the Dirac membrane intersects the sphere $`S_{\mathrm{}}^3`$. The quantities $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pm \mathrm{})`$ are the values of the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at the points where the magnetic string intersects $`S_{\mathrm{}}^3`$, where the sign in $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ is defined by the orientation of the string.

## 7 Dirac vetos

Let us now vary the action with respect to the Dirac worldvolume. If we first fix its boundary (the string worldsheet) we obtain,

$$d{}_{}{}^{}F+\frac{\alpha }{2}dAdA|{}_{\text{pullback on Dirac worldvolume}}{}^{}=0.$$
(7.1)
For consistency with (5.6) this implies three Dirac vetos

* No electric charge can be located on the Dirac worldvolume. This is the standard Dirac veto.
* No magnetic charge can be located on the Dirac worldvolume.
* Dirac worldvolumes cannot intersect each other (or themselves). In other words, the pullback of $`{}_{}{}^{}G`$ on the Dirac worldvolume must vanish, so that $`dA`$ may be replaced by $`F`$ in (7.1). Note that the Dirac vetos, in the presence of the CS term, are more restrictive than in the Maxwell case where only the first one applies.

From the variation of the magnetic string we obtain the Lorentz force equation acting on the magnetic strings. This equation will depend on the precise form of the kinetic terms $`I_k`$ present in the action (3.1).

If we vary the action with respect to the Dirac wordline with the instanton position fixed, we get

$`d({}_{}{}^{}f+A)|{}_{\text{pullback on Dirac worldine}}{}^{}=0,`$ (7.2)
which implies, for consistency with (5.3), a Dirac veto on the string worldsheet:

* No dyonic charge can be located on the Dirac worldine. This is only necessary if $`\omega 0`$.

## 8 Quantization conditions

### 8.1 Quantization condition in the bulk

Consider a finite displacement of a given Dirac membrane, described, as in section 4, by the manifold $`𝒱`$ swept by the Dirac worldvolume as it is moved from $`𝒩_3`$ to $`𝒩_3^{}`$, so that $`𝒱=𝒩_3^{}𝒩_3`$. We again define the Poincaré dual of this manifold, $`{}_{}{}^{}V=P(𝒱)`$. The variation of the action is given by

$$\delta _VI={}_{}{}^{}V{}_{}{}^{}J_{e}^{}.$$
(8.1)
Note that the terms coming from integrating over Dirac membranes, Dirac points, magnetic strings or instantons vanish. This is due to the Dirac vetos. In fact, $`𝒱`$ is a 4–dimensional, compact, manifold. If there were, say, a magnetic string worldsheet, $`_2`$, inside it (a non–compact 2–dimensional manifold), then an intersection between $`_2`$ and $`𝒱`$ is unavoidable. But $`𝒱`$ describes the initial and final configurations of the magnetic string, and therefore the intersection implies that either the final or the initial configuration (or both) cannot satisfy the Dirac veto. The same phenomena occurs for Dirac membranes. Now we can easily integrate (8.1) to get,

$$\delta _VI=egk,$$
(8.2)
where $`k\text{}`$ is the number of electric worldlines crossing through $`𝒱`$. Obviously, for an infinitesimal variation we may always keep $`𝒱`$ free of electric intersections, hence this anomaly appears only for finite gauge transformations.

If we require the path integral to be invariant under (8.2), we obtain the usual Dirac quantization condition

$`eg`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi n`$ (8.3)
for any integer $`n`$ (we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$).

### 8.2 Quantization condition on the worldsheet

In the case of the instanton the computation of the Dirac anomaly is subtle, among other things because the instanton is dyonic. The Dirac anomaly is,

$`\delta _vI`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha g\omega }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{_2}{}}{}_{}{}^{}v{}_{}{}^{}j.`$ (8.4)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}v=\nu P(𝒱_2)`$, and $`𝒱_2`$ is defined, on the magnetic string worldsheet, by the variation of the Dirac point worldline. Taking into account the fact that the instanton is dyonic (and therefore lives on $`𝒱_2`$), it can be shown that consistency at the quantum level imposes

$$\alpha g\nu ^2\omega =2\pi m$$
(8.5)
with $`m`$ an integer. The quantization of an instanton in two dimensions was previously considered in . As one can see, there is a subtle factor of two with respect to the “naive” application of Dirac quantization condition with equal electric and magnetic charge. This feature is generic for dyons  (in dimensions 2 mod 4), and comes from the fact that the phase $`e^{iI}`$ must be strictly invariant only under gauge transformations connected to the identity. The simplest system for which this consideration applies contains two dyons, which multiplies by two the total flux (for details see ).

### 8.3 Quantization of the CS coupling constant

From (6.3), (8.3) and (8.5) we obtain

$$\alpha =\frac{\omega }{(1\omega )^2}\frac{(e_0)^3}{\pi ^2}N,(N\text{}),$$
(8.6)
which is the announced quantization condition of the CS coupling constant $`\alpha `$, where $`e_0`$ is the minimal electric charge of the MCS theory. The integer $`N`$ is directly related to the (quantized) electric charge created by the minimal instanton charge ($`m=1`$) living on the string with minimal magnetic charge $`2\pi e_0`$. This formula is only valid when $`\omega 0,1`$. When $`\omega =0`$ the right hand side of (8.4) identically vanishes, and therefore the quantization condition in the worldsheet, (8.5), is not required. The parameter $`\alpha `$ can therefore take any value in this case. When $`\omega =1`$, the electric charge is conserved, and therefore we cannot relate, through (6.3), the value of electric and magnetic sources. Again, in this case, $`\alpha `$ is arbitrary.

When $`\omega =1`$ and $`f_{}=0`$, the system is (on-shell) the 5-dimensional analog of the MCS sector of 11-dimensional supergravity coupled to M2– and M5–branes. The coupling constant $`\alpha `$, in that case, is fixed by the requirement of supersymmetry, and it turns out to be given by the choice $`N=1`$ in (8.6).

## 9 Conclusions

In the present paper we first constructed a gauge invariant action principle which generalizes the usual MCS theory (for cubic CS terms) so that it can be coupled to magnetic sources. It turns out that there is no way to implement that by attaching Dirac branes to the magnetic sources only. It is necessary – as it is the case when eleven–dimensional supergravity is coupled to M5–branes – to add further degrees of freedom living on the magnetic source. Then we studied the quantum consistency of the different possible theories (parameterized by a real parameter, $`\omega `$), and conclude that the CS coupling constant must be quantized according to (8.6). Although we have used the 5–dimensional case throughout this paper, the generalization for higher ($`5`$ modulo $`6`$) dimensional spacetime is straightforward. One only needs to substitute the different form fields by their analogs of higher degree.

Bachas  obtained previously a similar quantization condition<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Compare the relation (9.1) with equation (4.22) of . The different normalizations can be translated into $`\alpha =\sqrt{2}k\kappa _{(5)}`$ and $`e_0=\sqrt{2}\kappa _{(5)}q`$.

$$\alpha =\frac{(e_0)^3}{(2\pi )^2}M,(M\text{}).$$
(9.1)
His derivation was based on a different argumentation, using compactification to four dimensions together with the Witten effect. The two quantization conditions (8.6) and (9.1) coincide for $`\omega =1`$.

Condition (9.1) was obtained even earlier under the assumption that $`F`$ was a non-trivial cocycle with integer periods , that is, in the absence of magnetic sources. Indeed, since the five-dimensional spacetime manifold $`_5`$ is closed, it can be taken as the boundary of a six-dimensional manifold $`_6`$. Therefore the CS term $`FFA`$ is lifted to $`FFF`$. Furthermore, physics should not depend on the choice of the auxiliary manifold $`_6`$. Under the assumption that the change $`\delta _6`$ of six-dimensional manifold is the direct product of three two-cycles on which $`F`$ takes integer periods, the condition (9.1) follows from the invariance of the path integral.

However, as pointed out by Witten , a CS term is quantum-mechanically inconsistent when $`M`$ is not a multiple of $`6`$ because the integral of $`FFF`$ is not a multiple of six for arbitrary closed manifolds $`\delta _6`$. In other words, the insertion of the action (2.1) in the path integral may lead to inconsistencies if the $`U(1)`$ bundle of the MCS theory is non-trivial. Quantum consistency is restored by adding the gravitational and fermionic sector of eleven-dimensional supergravity, as shown in , by taking into account gravitational corrections plus a rather subtle argument using $`E_8`$ gauge theory (see also  for subsequent developments).

We stress that, in contrast, we derived here (8.6) from the presence of magnetic sources (thus $`F`$ is not closed) but with a trivial $`U(1)`$ bundle and a topologically trivial spacetime manifold (i.e. $`_5^5`$), thereby avoiding the above-mentioned quantum inconsistency. Surprisingly enough, we still obtain the supergravity factor in this extremely simple situation.

Note added in proof : While finishing the present article, the work  appeared, which consider similar issues regarding the construction of the action principle. This is done from a different perspective, and in the framework of $`M`$–theory .

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge K. Lechner, P. Marchetti, D. Marolf, D. Sorokin, C. Teitelboim, M. Tonin, E. Witten, and specially Marc Henneaux for useful discussions.

X.B. gratefully acknowledges support by the European Commission TMR program HPRN-CT-00131. Institutional support to the Centro de Estudios Cient ficos (CECS) from Empresas CMPC is gratefully acknowledged. CECS is a Millennium Science Institute and is funded in part by grants from Fundación Andes and the Tinker Foundation. A.G. gratefully acknowledges support from FONDECYT grants 1010449, 1010446 and from Fundación Andes. A.G. also wishes to thank the kind hospitality of the Service de Physique Théorique et Mathématique at Université Libre de Bruxelles, where part of this work was done.

## Appendix A Review of Poincaré duality

Let $`_p`$ be a smooth, oriented manifold of dimension $`p`$ embedded on a $`D`$–dimensional manifold $``$. Let $`x^\mu `$, $`\mu =1\mathrm{}D`$ be coordinates on $``$. We parameterize $`_p`$ with $`p`$ coordinates $`\sigma ^i`$ by $`x^\mu =z^\mu (\sigma ^i)`$ and define the following $`p`$–tensor on $``$

$$V^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}(x)=__p\delta ^{(D)}(xz)𝑑z^{\mu _1}\mathrm{}𝑑z^{\mu _p}.$$
(A.1)
The Poincaré dual of $`_p`$, $`P(_p)`$, is the $`(Dp)`$–form defined by

$$P(_p)={}_{}{}^{}V.$$
(A.2)
The key, defining property of the Poincaré dual is that given any $`p`$–form on $``$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$$\underset{_p}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{pullback}}=\underset{}{}P(_p)\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(A.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{pullback}}`$ is the pullback of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`_p`$. Another important property of the Poincaré dual is the following: If $`_p`$ is the boundary of $`_p`$, then

$$P(_p)=()^{Dp+1}dP(_p).$$
(A.4)
Both (A.3) and (A.4) can be derived straightforwardly from (A.1), (A.2).

## Appendix B Regularization of $`{}_{}{}^{}G{}_{}{}^{}G`$

In this appendix we show that the singular expression

$${}_{}{}^{}G(x){}_{}{}^{}G(x),$$
(B.1)
may be set locally to zero by properly regularizing the delta functions present on it. The idea is to give some small transverse width $`ϵ`$ to the Dirac worldvolume, and then take the limit $`ϵ0`$. For this purpose, we will consider, in a neighborhood of the point $`x`$, a local set of coordinates on spacetime such that the Dirac worldvolume is parallel to the coordinates $`(x^0,x^1,x^2)`$. The dual of expression (B.1) is a 1–form whose components are proportional to

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \tau }\delta ^{(5)}(xy)𝑑y^\alpha dy^\mu dy^\nu \delta ^{(5)}(x\stackrel{~}{y})𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}^\rho d\stackrel{~}{y}^\sigma d\stackrel{~}{y}^\tau .$$
(B.2)
Here both integrals are taken over the worldvolume of the Dirac membrane, which may be parameterized by $`\sigma ^a`$ ($`a=0,1,2`$), setting $`y^\mu y^\mu (\sigma ^a)`$. In the local set of coordinates we chose, we can write $`y^a=\sigma ^a`$, $`y^3=y^4=0`$. The transversal width of the delta function is implemented by taking

$$\delta ^{(5)}(xy(\sigma ))\delta (x^a\sigma ^a)\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ(x^3)\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ(x^4),$$
(B.3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_ϵ`$ is any regular function which is equal to the delta function as $`ϵ`$ vanishes. The deltas in the longitudinal directions are kept unchanged, and can be integrated so that expression (B.2) is proportional to

$$ϵ_{abcde}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(x^3)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^4)\right)^2\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{\alpha ab}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{cde},$$
(B.4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}^{abc}`$ is the Levi–Civita symbol of the Dirac 3–dimensional worldvolume. It is clear that this quantity is zero for any finite value of $`ϵ`$, and in particular in the limit $`ϵ0`$. Let us mention that the previous argument can also be applied to any product of Poincaré duals taken at the same point. Indeed, any such kinds of identities (e.g. $`{}_{}{}^{}V(x){}_{}{}^{}V(x)`$) have been implicitly set to zero everywhere in this paper.

Let us now mention some topological subtleties. First of all, the expression (A.1) is, strictly speaking, only well-defined locally . Secondly, the above proof of (5.2) was essentially local, a point directly linked to the previous one. A way out of this problem is to consider the following “framing” regularization procedure (see  pp. 284-285, and references therein) : Let $`P(_p)P(_p)`$ be a product of Poincaré duals taken at the same point. We replace it by the non-singular product $`P(_p)P(_p^ϵ)`$, where $`_p^ϵ`$ is a manifold (i) “close” to $`_p`$ the maximal separation of which is measured by $`ϵ`$, and (ii) without any intersection with $`_p`$ : $`_p_p^ϵ=\mathrm{}`$. Eventually, one takes the limit of vanishing $`ϵ`$.

This framing procedure should also be applied to the action itself for every appearing singular product. For instance the cubic CS term $`dAdAA`$ also needs to be regularized since $`A`$ contains a delta-like singularity. Therefore, three non–intersecting branes are required to regularize the CS action: the original Dirac brane worldsheet, $`_2`$, and two (auxiliary) displaced worldsheets, $`_2^ϵ`$ and $`_2^ϵ^{}`$ ($`ϵ0`$, $`ϵ^{}0`$).


text:
# Gas Flow Structure in Binary Systems with Mass Exchange Driven by Stellar Wind

## 1 Introduction

The overwhelming majority of stars are binaries. In wide pairs the effect of one component to another is negligible but if the components are close enough we can’t ignore the interaction between them. One of the most bright manifestations of this interaction is the mass exchange between the components. Such systems are called interacting binaries. The study of the flow structure in these systems is important for the consideration of their evolutionary status as well as for interpretation of observations.

Surely, the strong interaction is observed for close systems where at least one of components fills its critical surface (so called Roche lobe), i.e. equipotential surface passing through the inner Lagrangian point $`L_1`$ (see, e.g., ). In the $`L_1`$ point the pressure gradient is not balanced by the gravitational force and the component that fills its Roche lobe loses matter through the $`L_1`$ point. But in many cases even if no one of components fills its Roche lobes the mass transfer between them may be rather intense due to the stellar wind from one of the components (or in some cases from both of them). In this work we consider the flow structure in a binary system with mass exchange driven by stellar wind using symbiotic stars as the example.

Now it is generally recognized that classic symbiotic stars are binary systems consisting of a cool giant and a hot compact star (white dwarf or subdwarf) surrounded by nebulosity. Symbiotic stars are also characterized by a significant photometric and spectroscopic variability and, in particular, by the irregular flare activity. It is also avowed that components in these systems don’t fill their Roche lobes and there are evidences that the giant loses mass at the high rate due to stellar wind and the intense interaction between the components takes place. These hypotheses are also supported by observations (see, e.g., ).

In order to explain the flare activity in symbiotic stars different mechanisms were proposed (see, e.g., ). In particular, the most probable scenario for a classic symbiotic star is the one where the additional energy release is due to the fluctuations of the accretion rate near the level of the stationary thermonuclear burning . If the accretion rate exceeds the maximum value when the hydrogen can burn in a layer source of a degenerate core, the accreting gas stores above the burning layer and grows to the giant’s size . This process is usually associated with outbursts in classical symbiotic stars. What are these changes in the accretion rate caused by? In a number of works (e.g., ) some attempts to explain such a flare activity by the giant’s wind variability were made but the observations carried out before the outburst registered only insignificant changes of the wind . This fact imposes restrictions to all outburst scenarios caused by changes of giant’s characteristics.

In this work we have carried out the 2D numerical investigation of mass transfer in classical symbiotic systems using TVD method that is considered to be the best for numerical simulation of mass transfer in binary systems . The main attention was paid to consideration of the solution where stellar wind velocity has changed from below to above of the orbital velocity of the system as well as to study of the transition from the disk accretion to the accretion from the flow and appropriate rearrangement of the flow structure.

## 2 Model

All the calculations were carried out for a binary system with parameters of the classic symbiotic star – Z And.

In order to study the gas flow structure in the equatorial plane of a classical symbiotic system the 2D numerical simulation has been carried out. The zero point of the coordinate system was placed to the center of the donor, $`x`$ axis was directed along the line connecting centers of the components, $`y`$ axis – along the accretor’s orbital motion. The flow was described by the system of Euler’s equations in the coordinate frame rotating with the angular velocity of the binary system $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\frac{\rho }{t}+\frac{\rho u}{x}+\frac{\rho v}{y}=0,$$

$$\frac{\rho u}{t}+\frac{(\rho u^2+p)}{x}+\frac{\rho uv}{y}=\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x}+2\mathrm{\Omega }v\rho ,$$

$$\frac{\rho v}{t}+\frac{\rho uv}{x}+\frac{(\rho v^2+p)}{y}=\rho \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}2\mathrm{\Omega }u\rho ,$$

$$\frac{\rho E}{t}+\frac{\rho uh}{x}+\frac{\rho vh}{y}=\rho u\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{x}\rho v\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{y}.$$

Here $`𝒖=(u,v)`$ is the velocity vector, $`p`$ – pressure, $`\rho `$ denotes density, $`h=\epsilon +p\mathrm{/}\rho +\left|𝒖\right|^2\mathrm{/}2`$ – specific total enthalpy, $`E=\epsilon +\left|𝒖\right|^2\mathrm{/}2`$ – specific total energy, $`\epsilon `$ – specific intrinsic energy , $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)`$ – force potential.

In the standard problem definition when only gravitational forces from the point mass components and centrifugal force are taken into account the force potential looks as the following:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)=\frac{GM_1}{|𝒓𝒓_1|}\frac{GM_2}{|𝒓𝒓_2|}{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝒓𝒓_c)^2.$$

Here $`M_1`$ is the donor’s mass, $`M_2`$ – mass of the accretor, $`𝒓_1`$, $`𝒓_2`$ are the radius-vectors of the centers of components, $`𝒓_c`$ – radius-vector of the mass center of the system. This is so-called Roche potential. But in our case the additional force responsible for donor’s wind acceleration should be also taken into account. Therefore, the form of the potential will change.

Previous studies (e.g., ) have shown that the general flow structure in the system where components do not fill their Roche lobes is defined first and foremost by the stellar wind parameters. Unfortunately, wind velocity regime is not well-known due to the absence of an avowed mechanism of gas acceleration in stellar atmospheres, so we used the parametric representation for the force responsible for the acceleration of the wind in the following form:

$$𝑭(𝒓)=\alpha \frac{GM_1}{|𝒓|^2}\frac{𝒓}{|𝒓|}.$$

where $`\alpha `$ – parameter.

After taking into account this force directed from the donor, the modified force potential looks as the following:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒓)=\frac{GM_1}{|𝒓𝒓_1|}+\alpha \frac{GM_1}{|𝒓𝒓_1|}\frac{GM_2}{|𝒓𝒓_2|}{}_{}{}^{1}/_{2}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(𝒓𝒓_c)^2.$$

Results of numerical modelling carried out for a wide range of $`\alpha `$ (see ) have shown that if $`\alpha <0.8`$ there is no stationary solution and gas injected to the space between the components falls back to the donor’s surface. Finally there are no matter left to form the circumbinary envelope (the obtained densities do not exceed the background value). The situation is rather different when $`\alpha `$ has larger values. In these cases stationary regime takes place after few orbital periods from the beginning of calculations. In this work we accept $`\alpha =1`$ as in , i.e. we assume that the accelerating force balances the donor’s gravitational force. The accepted value of $`\alpha `$ provides the wind velocity change according to the $`\beta `$-law (Lamers law) with $`\beta 1`$ and the value at infinity $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ that are in agreement with observations.

To complete the system the ideal gas equation of state was used

$$p=(\gamma 1)\rho \epsilon ,$$

where the ratio of the specific heats $`\gamma `$ was accepted to be $`{}_{}{}^{5}/_{3}^{}`$. The solution with $`\gamma ={}_{}{}^{5}/_{3}^{}`$ corresponds to the case without energy losses and gives correct results only for a system where radiative losses are negligible, i.e. for an optically thick media. The observed value H/K of C iv 1550Å doublet shows that in a quiescent state the circumbinary envelope in Z And is optically thin . We don’t consider all the envelope but only the area in the vicinity of the accretor in the equatorial plane of the system, namely the disk. As our estimates show, in the case of Z And the observed values of accretion rate is $`\underset{accr}{\overset{}{M}}=4.510^9M_{}`$/year and the disk with $`T=15000`$ K will be optically thick i.e. in the area we study the use of the adiabatic model is correct. The optical thickness $`\tau `$ is defined as the product of the absorption coefficient $`\kappa `$, density and the layer’s width $`\tau =\kappa \rho l`$. In the case of disk accretion the ratio of the layer width where $`\tau =1`$ to the disk width is the pacing factor. For the case of disk accretion

$$\underset{accr}{\overset{}{M}}=2\pi RH\rho v_r,$$

where $`R`$ – disk radius, $`H`$ – disk half width, $`v_r`$ – radial component of the velocity

$$v_r=\frac{\alpha _{ss}c_sH}{R},$$

where $`c_s`$ – sonic velocity, $`\alpha _{ss}`$ – Shakura-Suynyaev parameter, and

$$H=\frac{c_s}{V_K}R,$$

where $`V_K`$ is the Keplerian velocity, and finally this factor can be expressed as:

$$\frac{l^{\tau =1}}{H}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _{ss}}{\kappa \stackrel{}{M}_{accr}}\frac{c_s^2R}{V_K}=\frac{2\pi \alpha _{ss}}{\kappa \stackrel{}{M}_{accr}}\frac{TR^{3/2}}{\sqrt{GM}},$$

where $``$ is the gas constant. For the typical disk temperatures $`T15000`$ K the absorption coefficient depends on density weakly and equals $``$ 100 cm2/g . Let us assume $`T=15000`$ K, $`R=50R_{}=A/10`$, $`M=0.6M_{}`$ (in this case $`c_s=11`$ km/s, $`V_K=49`$ km/s, $`H=11R_{}`$) then we will obtain:

$$\frac{l^{\tau =1}}{H}=810^3\left(\frac{\alpha _{ss}}{0.1}\right)\left(\frac{\kappa }{100\text{cm}^2/\text{g}}\right)^1\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{M}_{accr}}{10^8M_{}/\text{yr}}\right)^1,$$

So, when $`\underset{accr}{\overset{}{M}}=4.510^9M_{}`$/yr the value of the optical width reaches the value $`\tau =1`$ at less than 2% of the disk’s width and we can conclude that the solution with $`\gamma ={}_{}{}^{5}/_{3}^{}`$ is applicable for considered systems.

Parameters of Z And we used in our calculations were taken from  and are summarized in the Table 1. The choice of namely Z And for our calculations is rather reasonable because Z And is one of the most studied classic symbiotic stars. The studies of the energy distribution in the wide spectral range (from UV to IR) during the quiescent period (1978-1982)  allowed to estimate the characteristics of Z And: the donor (cool M3.5III giant) loses mass at the rate of $`2\times 10^7M_{}`$/yr; the hot compact component (accretor) has the temperature $`10^5`$ K and accretes the small part of the gas of the donor’s wind (about 2%). Gas of the circumbinary envelope has the electron density of $`210^{10}\text{cm}^3`$ and the temperature $`1.5÷810^4`$ K. Systematic observations of Z And allowed to estimate its characteristics during the outburst and to find the features that can be easily explained in terms of the formation and subsequent drop-off of the optically thick shell by the accretor at the rate of about 250–300 km/s.

To solve the system of the 2D gasdynamic equations the TVD-type Roe scheme  with the restrictions of fluxes in the Oscher form  was used. The scheme is quasi-monotonic and has the third order of spatial accuracy and the first order of time accuracy. The uniform grids consisting of $`301\times 301`$ nodes and $`601\times 601`$ nodes were used. The considered domain has the form of a square $`[A\mathrm{}2A]\times [{}_{}{}^{3}/_{2}^{}A\mathrm{}{}_{}{}^{3}/_{2}^{}A]`$ with excluded circles of radii equal to the ones of components and centers in the component’s centers. The free outflow boundary conditions ($`𝒖=0`$, $`p=0`$) were accepted on the outer border as well as on the accretor surface. On the surface of the donor star the boundary conditions of the mass inflow were adopted. It should be mentioned that the boundary value of the density on the donor’s surface doesn’t influence the solution because the set of equations used allows scaling of the $`\rho `$ (with the simultaneous scaling of $`p`$). Boundary conditions on the donor are following: density $`\rho (R_1)=1`$, temperature $`T(R_1)=3200`$ K, the gas is injected to the system along the vector normal to the surface and its velocity is equal to $`V`$. The simulations were carried out in the velocity $`V`$ range from 25 to 75 km/s. The solving of the set of equations was carried out by means of method of establishment from initial state with parameters $`\rho _0=10^5\rho (R_1)`$; $`p_0=10^4\rho (R_1)c^2(R_1)/\gamma `$, $`𝒖_0=0`$ up to steady state configuration.

## 3 Results

The results have shown that when the wind velocity is less than $`V=35`$ km/s the bow shock and the accretion disk behind it form in the system and the stationary gas flow regime takes place (see the top panel of Fig. 1). We consider the stationary regime to be reached when the amount of gas injected to the system becomes equal to the one that leaves it (part of the gas is being accreted and part leaves the considered domain through the outer border). After that the total amount of the gas in the system doesn’t change and the accretion rate remains constant. It happens after approximately four orbital periods after beginning of calculations. Results of calculations show that the greater the wind velocity the less the distance between the bow shock and the accretor and when the value of velocity is big enough the disk disappears and the shock becomes the attached one so the disk does not form (see the bottom panel of Fig. 1). The accretion rate in these cases is slightly higher .

The observed values of the wind velocity in symbiotic stars are not far from the value $`V=35`$ km/s that divides two principally different cases with different accretion regimes. So if at some moment the wind’s velocity increases and exceeds 35 km/s the the disk will be destroyed and the accretion regime will change. It should be mentioned that the value $`V=35`$ km/s dividing different accretion regimes is also close to the orbital velocity (32 km/s). This fact is in accordance with .

In order to consider the process of transition between these two regimes after the wind velocity increase we took the stationary solution for the case $`V=25`$ km/s, increased the velocity up to $`V_1`$ and continued calculations. Different cases with $`V_1`$ values in the interval 35 km/s $`V_175`$ km/s were considered.

In Figure 2 the morphology of the gas flow – density field and velocity vectors (shown by arrows) – for the case of the wind velocity change from $`V=25`$ km/s to $`V_1=40`$ km/s is presented. Donor’s surface is shown by the circle with the center in (0,0) point and the radius $`R_1`$. Dashed lines mark the standard Roche equipotential contours. The star symbol marks accretor. Distances are given in the units of the solar radius. Two moments are presented: the first one is for $`0.015P_{orb}`$ (top panel) and the second one is for $`0.05P_{orb}`$ (bottom panel) after the wind velocity change. We can see that after the wind velocity change two shocks (seen as condensations of density isolines) propagating from the donor’s surface are formed. Being very close to each other at the first moments they begin to diverge gradually with time. Let us try to explain this phenomenon. Changing of the velocity regime on the surface of mass-losing star results in the collision of two codirectional flows: the ‘new’ one (moving with the radial velocity 40 km/s) and the ‘old’ one (25 km/s). This collision can be described in terms of the Riemann problem. Introducing a new coordinate system moving with the velocity of 32.5 km/s in the radial direction it can be reduced to the frontal collision of two flows with velocities $`\pm `$7.5 km/s. The solution of this Riemann problem is two diverging shocks moving with velocities (see, e.g., )

$$D_{1,2}=\pm \left(\frac{\gamma +1}{4}U+\sqrt{\left(\frac{\gamma +1}{4}U\right)^2+c_s^2}U\right).$$

Substituting $`\gamma ={}_{}{}^{5}/_{3}^{}`$, $`U=7.5`$ km/s, $`c_s=5`$ km/s we obtain $`D_{1,2}=\pm 4.5`$ km/s. Coming back to the original coordinate system we obtain two successive shocks with velocities $`D_1=37`$ km/s, $`D_2=28`$ km/s. Note that these values correspond to the first moments of time after the switching of the velocity regime and later will be changed under the action of forces and variation of $`c_s`$.

Let us also estimate the strength of these shocks via the relative pressure jump $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p_0}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }p=p_1p_0`$, and $`p_0`$, $`p_1`$ are the values of pressure before and after the shocks. Using formulae :

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p_0}\right)_1=\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}\left(\frac{(D_1V)^2}{c_s^2}1\right),$$

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p_0}\right)_2=\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma +1}\left(\frac{(D_2V_1)^2}{c_s^2}1\right),$$

and substituting $`\gamma ={}_{}{}^{5}/_{3}^{}`$, $`c_s=5`$ km/s, $`V=25`$ km/s, $`V_1=40`$ km/s, $`D_1=37`$ km/s, $`D_2=28`$ km/s we obtain $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p_0}}\right)_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }p}{p_0}}\right)_2=6`$ (the equal strength of two shocks is obvious due to the symmetry of the problem in an appropriate coordinate system).

Figure 3 illustrates the pressure change in the area near the bow shocks. Here we can see that in the area between the two shocks the jump in pressure is in accordance with the above estimates.

When the first of shocks reaches the bow shock located in front of the accretor (after $`0.092P_{orb}`$ in the case of $`V_1=40`$ km/s) the process of the flow rearrangement near the accretor starts. The coming shocks begin to interact with the matter of the disk and crush it forcing the most part of the matter composing the disk to fall on the accretor’s surface.

The set of panels in Figure 4 presents the morphology of the gas flow in the vicinity of the accretor for different moments at early stages of the flow rearrangement. Here the area $`[0.8A\mathrm{}1.2A]\times [0.2A\mathrm{}0.2A]`$ (or $`80\times 80`$ grid cells) is presented. After the time of about $`0.09P_{orb}`$ ($``$70 days) after the wind velocity change the first of the two shocks formed reaches the vicinity of the accretor, namely the bow shock in front of it (Fig. 4 – left top panel). The first wave makes the bow shock to come closer to the accretor (see Fig. 4 – right top panel) but the disk still exists. Then ( $`14`$ days later) the second wave comes (see Fig. 4 – left bottom panel) and destroys the disk (see Fig. 4 – right bottom panel).

The accretion rate during the flow rearrangement undergoes significant changes. The accretion rate behaviour during the process of the flow rearrangement is presented in Figure 5 for different values of the final wind velocity.

We can see that when the final wind velocity $`V_1`$ equals 30 km/s there is no significant increase of the accretion rate while some small variations exist. These variations are probably due to disturbances of the accretion disk by the shock waves formed after the velocity increasing that are not strong enough to crush it. The situation is principally different for other cases – here the jump in the accretion rate takes place. For example, when the final wind velocity is equal to 40 km/s the accretion rate jumps in more than 14 times and in case of 75 km/s – in more than 16 times. This abrupt increase of the accretion rate is caused by the destruction of the accretion disk.

It should be mentioned that the study of the transition period is limited in the framework of this model. After the accretion rate jump the accepted boundary conditions on the accretor change and the model used doesn’t describe the real physical situation any more. Correspondingly, the presented results of calculations of the flow rearrangement period are correct only at first stages of the process.

According to the estimates based on observations  in the case of Z And the donor’s wind velocity is $`2540`$ km/s when the system is at quiescence. These values of the wind velocity are close to the critical value 35 km/s dividing different accretion regimes. If we suppose the presence of a minor variations of the wind velocity caused, e.g., by the typical giant’s activity  the wind velocity can, at some moment, become greater than the critical value. As the consequence the change of the flow structure and of the accretion regime will occur followed by the abrupt jump of the accretion rate in the transition period.

## 4 Conclusions

The 2D numerical investigation of the gas flow structure in the interacting binary systems with the mass exchange via stellar wind (and namely for their subclass – symbiotic systems) has been carried out using the Roe-Oscher scheme. The modelling has been carried out for different values of the wind velocity. The effect of the velocity change on the system’s behavior was of special interest.

It is shown that after the wind velocity increase the collision of two codirectional flows results in the formation of two shock waves that begin to propagate from the donor’s surface. These shocks can lead to the significant changes in the flow structure near the accreting component and namely to the accretion regime change.

These results were used as the ground for the new mechanism providing the change of the accretion rate and explaining the nature of outbursts in symbiotic stars. The point of this mechanism is in the abrupt change of the flow structure near the accreting component as a result of minor fluctuations of the wind from the mass-losing component. These changes come out in the accretion regime change, namely, in transition from the disk accretion to the accretion from the flow when the wind velocity increases. The process of the flow rearrangement in such cases is followed by the jump in the accretion rate.

Results of modelling of the flow structure in the classical representative of the studied type of binary systems Z And show that in the quiescent state characterized by the wind velocity from 25 to 40 km/s the steady accretion disk forms in the system. In the given regime the accretion efficiency is $``$1% of the donor’s mass loss. If the wind velocity increases and becomes greater than 35 km/s the disk disappears and the cone shock wave forms. In stationary solutions for high-velocity regimes ($`3575`$ km/s) the accretion rate is slightly higher and equals $``$2% of the donor’s mass loss. But during the flow rearrangement when the wind with increased velocity reaches disk and crushes it the accretion rate increases in dozens times!

The analysis of the observations of symbiotic stars during the active stages shows that the most part of the registered manifestations can be explained in terms of the drop-off of the optically thick shell by the accretor . The suggested mechanism provides the accretion rate jump and corresponding increase of the energy release rate large enough to provide the drop-off of the part of the gas from the accretor. Therefore it leads to the appearance of the flow features that can explain the observations.

## 5 Acknowledgements

This work was partly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (projects 02-02-16088, 02-02-17642, 00-01-00392), RF President grant 00-15-967221, Federal Programs ”Mathematical Modelling” and ”Astronomy” as well as by INTAS (grant 00-491).

## References

1. A. A. Boyarchuk, D. V. Bisikalo, O. A. Kuznetsov and V. M. Chechetkin, Mass Transfer in Close Binary Stars, Taylor&Francis (2002).
2. A. A. Boyarchuk, in Variable Stars and Galaxies, Ed. by B. Warner (ASP Conference Series, 1992), 30, pp. 325–338.
3. J. Mikołajewska and S. J. Kenyon, Monthly Notices Roy. Astron. Soc. 256, 177 (1992).
4. T. Fernandez-Castro, R. Gonzales-Riestra, A. Cassatella, A. R. Taylor and E. R. Seaquist, Astrophys. J. 442, 366 (1995).
5. A. V. Tutukov and L. R. Yungelson, Astrofiz. 12, 521 (1976).
6. B. Paczyński and A. Żytkow, Astrophys. J. 222, 604 (1978).
7. B. Paczyński and B. Rudak, Astron. & Astrophys. 82, 349 (1980).
8. E. M. Sion, M. J. Acierno, and S. Tomczyk, Astrophys. J. 230, 832 (1979).
9. I. Iben, Jr., Astrophys. J., 259, 244 (1982).
10. M. Y. Fujimoto, Astrophys. J. 257, 767 (1982).
11. I. Iben, Jr. and A. V. Tutukov, Astrophys. J. 342, 430 (1989).
12. M. Friedjung, in Cataclysmic Variables and Related Objects, Ed. by M. Hack and C. La Douse (US Gov. Printing Office, Washington, 1993), pp. 647–655.
13. S. J. Kenyon and J. S. Gallagher, Astron. J. 88, 666 (1983).
14. G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Ya. M. Kazhdan, A. A. Klypin, A. E. Lutskii and N. I. Shakura, Astron. Zh. 56, 359 (1979) \[Sov. Astron. 23, 201 (1979)\].
15. D. V. Bisikalo, A. A. Boyarchuk, O. A. Kuznetsov and V. M. Chechetkin, Astron. Zh. 71, 560 (1994) \[Astron. Reports 38, 494 (1994)\].
16. D. V. Bisikalo, A. A. Boyarchuk, O. A. Kuznetsov and V. M. Chechetkin, Astron. Zh. 73, 727 (1996) \[Astron. Reports 40, 662 (1996)\].
17. E. Kilpio, Odessa Astron. Publ. 14, 41 (2001).
18. T. Theuns and A. Jorissen, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 265, 946 (1993).
19. T. Theuns, H. M. J. Boffin, and A. Jorissen, Monthly Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 280, 1264 (1996).
20. K. R. Bell and D. N. Lin, Astrophys. J. 427, 987 (1994).
21. T. Fernandez-Castro, A. Cassatella, A. Gimenez and R. Viotti, Astrophys. J. 324, 1016 (1988).
22. P. L. Roe, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 37 (1986).
23. S. Chakravarthy and S. Osher, AIAA Pap N 85–0363 (1985).
24. D. V. Bisikalo, A. A. Boyarchuk, E. Yu. Kilpio and O. A. Kuznetsov Astron. Zh. 79,(2002) (in press)
25. A. A. Samarskii and Yu. P. Popov, Finite-Difference Methods of Solution of Gas Dynamics, Moscow, Nauka Academic Press (in Russian) (1980).