text:
# Faint field galaxies: an explanation of the faint blue excess using number evolution models

## 1. Introduction

The origin and nature of the excess population of faint blue galaxies (FBG) has been a topic of intense debate for many years (Koo & Kron 1992; Ellis 1997). The number counts of galaxies at blue ($`B`$, $`\lambda _{eff}`$= 4500 Å) and near-infrared ($`K`$, $`\lambda _{eff}`$=2.2 $`\mu `$m) wavelengths produce conflicting results. The $`B`$-band counts show an excess over the no-evolution predictions, and suggest strong luminosity evolution in galaxy populations, while the $`K`$-band counts are well fitted by models with only passive evolution. When spectroscopic samples are available, it is found that the redshift distributions of galaxies are also consistent with passive evolution while strong luminosity evolution will lead to a high-$`z`$ distribution, in excess of the observations. To avoid these paradoxes, a number of scenarios have been suggested. The first is pure luminosity evolution (PLE) in galaxy populations, which increases the distance to which galaxies may be seen (Tinsley 1980; Bruzual & Kron 1980; Koo 1981, 1985; Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange 1990; Gronwall & Koo 1995; Pozzetti, Bruzual, & Zamorani 1996). The second attempt is the choice of a cosmological geometry that maximizes the available volume, either by adopting a low value of the deceleration parameter $`q_0`$ (an open cosmological model) or by introducing a cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$ (Broadhurst, Ellis & Shanks 1988; Colless et al. 1990; Cowie, Songaila & Hu 1991; Colless et al. 1993; Fukugita et al. 1990). The third is to increase the number of galaxies at earlier times, either by introducing additional populations, which once existed at high $`z`$ but have since disappeared or self-destructed (Broadhurst, Ellis, & Shanks 1988; Cowie 1991; Babul & Rees 1992; Babul & Ferguson 1996; Ferguson & Babul 1998), or by merging, that is by assuming that present-day galaxies were in smaller fragments at high redshifts (Rocca-Volmerange & Guiderdoni 1990; Cowie et al. 1991; Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange 1991; Broadhurst, Ellis & Glazebrook 1992; Carlberg & Charlot 1992; Kauffmann, Guiderdoni & White 1994; Roukema et al. 1997).

One constraint on the nature and evolutionary behavior of faint galaxies arises from the morphological number counts derived from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), whose unprecedented imaging ability enables galaxies to be segregated morphologically into several broad classes (Glazebrook et al. 1995a; Driver et al. 1995; Abraham et al. 1996; Teplitz et al. 1998). These morphological data have provided us with valuable information to understand the origin and evolution of galaxies. Now, any self-consistent theory of galaxy evolution and cosmology must pass the test of matching the distribution of galaxy properties derived from HST morphological data.

In a previous investigation (He & Zhang 1998, hereafter HZ98), we modelled the number counts of E/S0 galaxies obtained from the MDS and the HDF in the HST $`I_{814}`$-bandpass ($`\lambda _{eff}`$=8000Å), and found that the number counts of ellipticals could be well explained by PLE models in any cosmological model if ellipticals are assumed to have formed at high redshifts (say $`z_f`$=5.0) and thereafter have passively evolved (i.e., no further star formation). This is just the traditional scenario of the formation and evolution for elliptical galaxies. However, incorporating other observations such as redshift and color distributions and the modelling of the other types (i.e., early- and late-type spirals and irregulars, as separated by HST), we have found that the FBG problem cannot be resolved by the conventional scenario for elliptical galaxies, and the inclusion of dust extinction also cannot save the scenario. This conclusion holds in each of the three cosmological models under consideration: flat, open and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated. Our investigation suggests that number evolution may be essential to explain the faint data (He & Zhang 1999a, hereafter HZ99a).

Number evolution models have been widely considered to account for the paradoxes concerning the FBG problem, whereas PLE model is the starting point of our investigation. We model the number counts of the three classes of galaxies- ellipticals, early-type spirals, and late-type spirals/irregulars- which are derived from the HST $`I_{814}`$-passband, and in combination with the analysis of redshift distributions in the observed magnitude bins, we find that PLE models can explain the number counts at the bright magnitudes of $`I_{814}<22.5`$. This indicates that PLE models could be valid up to $`z1`$, in apparent contradiction to scenarios of strong number evolution at low redshifts (e.g., Kauffmann, Charlot, & White 1996). Kauffmann et al. concluded that only one third the number of nearby bright elliptical galaxies were in place at $`z1`$, which would seem to be inconsistent with the number counts at the bright end. Our conclusion is consistent with those of Roukema & Yoshii (1993) and Woods & Fahlman (1997) based on the analysis of angular correlation function, and that of Totani & Yoshii (1998) based on the $`V/V_{max}`$ analysis (Schmidt 1968), and in particular, agrees well with the results of Im et al. (1999), based on the morphologically divided redshift distribution of faint galaxies, and those of Brinchmann et al. (1998) and Lilly et al. (1998), based on the HST imaging of the CFRS and LDSS redshift surveys.

We tentatively construct a set of phenomenological number-luminosity evolution (NLE) models to explain data such as the morphological number counts in both the $`I_{814}`$-band of the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 (WFPC2) and the $`H_{1.6}`$-band of the Near-Infrared Camera and Multiobject Spectrometer (NICMOS), as well as the counts in $`B`$\- and $`K`$-bands derived from most of the ground-based observations and redshift distributions derived from the Hawaii sample (Cowie et al. 1996) and the Canada-France Redshift Survey (CFRS) (Lilly et al. 1995a). The significant feature of these models is that the number evolution is small at redshifts of $`z<1`$, while it is large at high redshifts. We find that NLE models can roughly reproduce these observations.

To simplify the modelling, we employ the constraint of conservation of the comoving mass density of galaxies, in the form of Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1991). We find that a population of late-type spiral/irregular galaxies and star-forming galaxies naturally emerge in our models, due to mass conservation. Such a population will peak at $`z2.83`$. Between $`z3`$ and the present day, it behaves as a population which seems to be fading, disappearing or self-destructing, with very blue colours. Such a population also seems to be consistent with the recent findings using Lyman-break selection techniques (see Steidel & Hamilton 1992, 1993; Steidel, Pettini, & Hamilton 1995; Madau 1995). This conclusion, however, is only valid in open (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=0.1) or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated (e.g., $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=0.2, $`\lambda _0`$=0.8) cosmological models. If the universe is flat ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$=1), the comoving mass density of such a predicted population becomes negative at high redshifts ($`z>3`$), which is physically unreasonable. Therefore, to account for the faint data, we abandon the constraint of mass conservation and introduce a star-forming population ad hoc into the modelling.

In Section 2, we present the PLE models. We are particularly interested in the behaviors of the models at bright magnitudes, or at low redshifts. Section 3 is devoted to the number evolution models. The summary and conclusions are presented in Section 4.

## 2. Pure Luminosity Evolution

PLE model is the starting point of the investigation. This kind of model takes as ingredients the stellar evolutionary tracks, normally for a restricted metallicity range, the initial mass function (IMF), and a gas consumption timescale associated with star formation rate (SFR), which are adjusted to give the present range of colors across the Hubble sequence. With each galaxy assumed to evolve as an isolated system, the rest-frame spectral energy distribution (SED) can be predicted at a given time and thus an evolutionary correction can be determined (Ellis 1997). The evolutionary SEDs of galaxies are computed using population synthesis models, (e.g., the latest Bruzual & Charlot synthesis code, which we employ in this work). The reader is referred to HZ98, HZ99a or Pozzetti et al. (1996) for details of the modelling. We also consider the effects of dust extinction, following Wang’s (1991) prescription, which is similar to that of HZ98 and HZ99a. However we choose a larger optical depth of $`\tau ^{}=0.3`$ than that adopted by Wang for galaxies other than ellipticals (see also Campos & Shanks 1997).

Similar to the prescription of HZ98 and HZ99a, we adopt three representative cosmological models in this work: 1) flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1.0`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, and $`h=0.5`$ ($`H_0`$=100 $`h`$ km s-1 Mpc-1) (hereafter, Scenario A), 2) open, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.1`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, and $`h=0.5`$ (Scenario B), and 3) flat and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$, $`\lambda _0=0.8`$, and $`h=0.6`$ (Scenario C). We assume a formation redshift $`z_f=5.0`$ for all types of galaxies in all three cosmological models.

We first consider the modelling of the morphological number counts derived from the MDS and the HDF in the $`I_{814}`$-passband. The basic ingredient of the models, the present-day luminosity function (LF), is not well-determined by local surveys due to inherent uncertainties such as a large local fluctuation (Shanks 1989), significant local evolution (Maddox et al. 1990a), selection effects and/or incompleteness (Zwicky 1957; Disney 1976; Ferguson & McGaugh 1995), or perhaps systematic errors in local surveys (Metcalfe, Fong & Shanks 1995a). Therefore, a simple 3 parameter Schechter function ($`\varphi ^{}`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$, cf., Schechter 1976), as adopted by most authors, seems not to be universal, and hence not to be quite appropriate as an average over all types and environments (cf., Binggeli, Sandage, & Tammann 1988). In particular, much recent work finds a tail for dwarfs and late types that is steeper than $`\alpha `$-1.3 (Driver, Windhorst & Griffiths 1995), and in addition, low surface brightness galaxies (LSBGs) may make up a significant amount of the luminosity density of the local universe (see Impey & Bothun 1997 for a review about LSBGs). Regardless of these uncertainties, the simple Schechter form for local LFs is still our working assumption in the current research.

Firstly, we adjust the Schechter LF parameters by trial and error so that the model predictions can match better the bright-end number counts, since the count normalization is sensitive to the three parameters $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$, especially the former two (cf. Ellis 1997). The LFs for galaxies are listed in Table 1. Secondly, we test these ad hoc adoptions by comparison with observations. It can be seen, in Figure 1, that both the $`B`$\- and the $`K`$\- band adopted LFs lie close to the observations, and in particular, the observed faint-end slopes are not as high as, say -1.5, as predicted by the semi-analytic models (cf. Cole et al. 1994; Kauffmann, White & Guiderdoni 1993).

### 2.1. Number counts for elliptical galaxies

We adopt the Scalo (1986) IMF for ellipticals and the Salpeter (1955) IMF for the other types. As addressed in HZ98, the Scalo IMF is less rich in massive stars than the Salpeter IMF because of the steeper slope of the former at the high-mass end. The SFR for ellipticals is adopted as the simple exponential form

$$\psi (t)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _e),$$
$`(1)`$
where $`\psi (t)`$ refers to the SFR, and $`\tau _e`$ is the timescale characterizing this kind of SFR. A single value of $`\tau _e`$ can not satisfactorily reproduce the $`BK`$ color distribution (He & Zhang 1999b), which may be a reflection of intrinsic complexities such as the metallicity variations among the population of ellipticals. Besides, there is also an age-metallicity degeneracy (Worthey 1994), which greatly complicates the situation. For the sake of simplicity, we neglect the chemical evolution in the current work. In our models, ellipticals are subdivided into five parts equal in number, with each one of them specified by a different $`\tau _e`$ for SFR to characterize its luminosity evolution. By such treatments, we hope to circumvent the metallicity-age degeneracy. The values of $`\tau _e`$, modelled $`BI`$ and $`BK`$ colors are shown in Table 2. Notice that the observed average $`B`$-$`K`$ color for present-day ellipticals is $`4.10`$ (Johnson photometric system), with the dispersion being about $`0.10.2`$ mag, and hence these values of the parameter $`\tau _e`$ are acceptable. It is well known that the local photometric and spectroscopic properties of ellipticals are largely insensitive to the past star formation history (cf. Bruzual 1983; Bower, Lucey & Ellis 1992; Charlot & Silk 1994).

We show in Fig.2-(a) the predicted number counts for ellipticals by PLE models to compare with those derived from HST in $`I_{814}`$-passband. It can be seen that up to $`I_{814}`$=22.5, the predictions can satisfactorily reproduce the bright-end number counts in all the three scenarios, indicating the PLE models are valid within this magnitude range. At the faint-end ($`I_{814}>22.5`$), however, the predictions in Scenarios B and C largely overestimate the observations. Although the prediction for Scenario A fits the bright counts well, as we have analyzed in HZ99a, models with strong luminosity evolution predict too many high-$`z`$ objects, in substantial disagreement with the color-selected sample from Cowie et al. (1996).

Though PLE models are unacceptable, we present redshift distributions for ellipticals in the observed $`I_{814}`$ magnitude bins, in order to better understand the models. In Fig.2-(b), (c) and (d), we show predictions of redshift distributions in the three magnitude bins, $`I_{814}<21.0`$, $`21.0<I_{814}<22.5`$, and $`22.5<I_{814}<25.0`$. The redshift distributions peak around $`z0.5`$, indicating the counts at $`I_{814}<21.0`$ are contributed by the objects at the redshifts of $`z<0.5`$ or even as large as $`z0.8`$ (the half maximum of the peaks), and from Fig.2-(c), it can be seen that the peaks appear at $`z0.8`$, indicating the objects between $`21.0<I_{814}<22.5`$ are mostly at $`z<0.8`$ or $`1.0`$. From the previous analysis, we know that the number counts at $`I_{814}<22.5`$ can be well explained by PLE models up to $`z1`$. As addressed above, the predicted number counts at $`I_{814}>22.5`$ in Scenarios B and C significantly exceed the observations, and from Fig.2-(d), we know that these excessive objects mostly lie in $`z1`$. This implies, for example, that if a merger scenario for the evolution of ellipticals is involved, then the merger rate in the interval $`0<z<1`$ seems to be small. This conclusion is valid in all the three world models under consideration.

We now consider an example of strong number evolution for ellipticals. Kauffmann, Charlot & White (1996) claimed, based on $`<V/V_{max}>`$ analysis (Schmidt 1968) and the data from the CFRS and the Hawaii Deep Survey (Cowie et al. 1996), that only one third of the nearby bright elliptical galaxies existed at $`z1`$. We adopt their expression of the number density evolution for ellipticals with respect to $`z`$, i.e., $`F=(1+z)^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma =1.5\pm 0.4`$ (This means $`F1/3`$ at $`z=1`$), to compare the predictions with observations. We show the model predictions in Fig.2-(a). Obviously, such a strong number evolution cannot be accepted, since it underestimates the bright-end number counts. Notice that the bright-end counts are mostly contributed by $`L^{}`$ galaxies, and hence they are insensitive to the LF faint-end slope $`\alpha `$. An enhancement of the normalization $`\varphi ^{}`$ by, say 50% can improve the goodness of fit, but such an enhancement will produce too many bright ellipticals at the present day, and conflict with the local surveys, especially the LF at $`K`$-band. It is worthy of mentioning that Totani & Yoshii (1998) have performed a detailed $`V/V_{max}`$ test, and concluded that the value of $`<V/V_{max}>`$ for ellipticals is $``$0.5 in the redshift range $`0.3<z<0.8`$, which means that the number density is nearly unchanged in this redshift range, and this conclusion is similar to ours. We conclude that strong number evolution for ellipticals at low redshifts is not acceptable.

### 2.2. Number counts for early-type spiral galaxies

Using the morphological classification of galaxies by HST, we combine Sab and Sbc galaxies into a group of early-type spirals. The LFs are presented in Table 1. The SFR is taken the same exponential form as Eq. , but the timescales are generally larger than those of ellipticals in order to match their local photometric properties. These parameters are listed in Table 2.

In Fig.3-(a), we present our PLE model predictions of number counts to compare with the observations. The models satisfactorily reproduce the observations at almost all magnitudes in Scenarios B and C, indicating little number evolution. For Scenario A, however, the PLE model cannot account for observations at $`I_{814}>22.5`$, and hence other assumptions than PLE are needed. As is Section 2.1, we analyze the redshift distributions in the observed magnitude bins.

We can see from Fig.3-(b) and (c) that, in the magnitude bins $`I_{814}<21.0`$ and $`21.0<I_{814}<22.5`$, there are peaks in the redshift distributions at $`z0.50.8`$, indicating that PLE models could be valid even out to the redshift of the half maximum of the peaks, i.e., $`z0.81.0`$. For $`I_{814}>22.5`$, we can see from Fig.3-(d) that the models fail to predict enough early-type spirals at the redshifts of $`z>1.0`$.

### 2.3. Number counts for late-type spiral/irregular galaxies

We mix Scd and Sdm/Irr classes into a category of late-type spiral/irregular galaxies. In addition, we introduce another population which has very blue colors (even bluer than irregular galaxies), and we refer to it as the vB galaxies with the name taken after Pozzetti et al. (1996). The vB galaxies are included to explain the bluest colours, $`BK2`$ of the Hawaii sample and $`(VI)_{AB}0.5`$ of the CFRS sample. As addressed by Totani & Yoshii (1998), such very blue galaxies comprise nearly 10% of the CFRS sample. The very blue colors suggest that they are star-forming galaxies, and hence vB galaxies are meant to reproduce the population of star-burst galaxies present at each $`z`$, whose evolution does not follow the prescription of standard population synthesis. Following the treatment of Pozzetti et al., we assume that star formation in these galaxies keeps their SEDs constant in time, and the SEDs can be approximated by a model with constant SFR lasting 1.5 Gyr.

Their LFs are also listed in Table 1. In Fig.4-(a), we show the predicted number counts for comparison with observations. Similar to the cases of ellipticals and early-type spirals, the PLE models can also reproduce the late-type spiral/irregular population to $`I_{814}<22.5`$, indicating that PLE models could be valid in the redshift range $`z<0.81`$ (Fig.4-(b) and (c)), while at $`I_{814}>22.5`$, especially for Scenario A, the models underpredict the observations, indicating the models need to be improved at high redshifts of $`z>1`$ (Fig.4-(d)).

In short, PLE models can well explain the number counts of all types of galaxies at the magnitudes of $`I_{814}<22.5`$, or equivalently, according to the analysis of redshift distributions, at the redshifts of $`z<1`$. Hence, strong number evolution at low redshifts is not acceptable, comparing to the observations.

## 3. Number-Luminosity evolution

Pure luminosity evolution works fairly well at low redshifts, $`z<1`$, as suggested by our previous investigations. Next, without considering the underlying physical mechanism, we phenomenologically construct a set of number evolution models to explain the faint data. There is no doubt that the luminosity evolution must occur, due to the aging of star populations. Moreover, if mergers between galaxies are included in the modelling, it is more realistic to consider the additional star formation, that can be induced by interactions between galaxies. For simplicity, we use the same galaxy evolution models as in Section 2 to compute the $`K`$-corrections and evolutionary-corrections for galaxies, without considering more complicated star formation scenarios (e.g., Colín, Schramm, & Peimbert 1994; Fritze-v.Alvensleben & Gerhard 1994), or various complicated physical processes concerning the formation of galaxies (cf. Roukema et al. 1997).

Number evolution can be simply realized by making the LF parameters $`\varphi ^{}`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$ functions of $`z`$. For this, we adopt the following expressions:

$$\varphi ^{}(z)=\varphi ^{}{}_{0}{}^{}(1+z)_{}^{Q_0+Q_2z^2},$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\varphi _0^{}`$ refers to the characteristic density of present-day galaxies. $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_2`$ are two free parameters. This form is a refinement of our previous formalism (cf. HZ99a), and can also be treated as a modification of that of Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1991), in which the power-law index is not a function of $`z`$. Obviously, $`Q_2`$ will mostly affect the high-$`z`$ behavior. The evolution of the faint-end slope $`\alpha `$ is parametrized as the following:

$$\alpha (z)=\alpha _0\gamma {}_{1}{}^{}\left(\frac{z}{z_f}\right)\gamma {}_{2}{}^{}\left(\frac{z}{z_f}\right)_{}^{2},$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\alpha _0`$ represents the local quantity, and $`z_f`$ is the formation redshift. The two parameters $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ characterize the functional relationship between $`\alpha `$ and $`z`$. In principle, $`M^{}`$ should also be a function of $`z`$. We find, however, the variation of $`M^{}`$ can be to some extent compensated by that of $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\alpha `$, and for simplicity, we neglect the variation of the characteristic magnitude. Our model is therefore similar to the $`\varphi ^{}`$-$`\alpha `$ model of Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1991).

Thus we have four free parameters, $`Q_0`$, $`Q_2`$, $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, with which to characterize the number evolution. Nevertheless, for a specific Hubble type, there is no need to invoke simultaneously all the four parameters. Our strategy to proceed is to involve as few of these parameters as possible, as long as the models can reproduce the observed data. We model the three Hubble types independently.

### 3.1. Morphological number counts

We first consider the explanation of elliptical number counts by the NLE models. From Section 2, we realize that the number evolution is small at $`z<1`$, hence the (absolute) value of the parameter $`Q_0`$ should be low. Since the PLE predictions exceed the observations at faint magnitudes (i.e, at high redshifts), the parameter $`Q_2`$ should be negative. We try to fix these two parameters by trial and error to match the data. It can be seen from Panel (a) of Figure 5, that the NLE models can reproduce well the data at both bright and faint magnitudes in each of the three Scenarios. The values of $`Q_0`$ and $`Q_2`$ are listed in Table 3, and in Figure 6, we show the relationship of $`\varphi ^{}`$ with $`z`$. We can see that the number density of ellipticals is nearly unchanged in the redshift range of $`z<1`$; while at high redshifts, ellipticals are absent regardless of the cosmological models. This conclusion agrees well with the finding of Totani & Yoshii (1998) based on the $`V/V_{max}`$ analysis, and is also in agreement with that of Zepf (1997).

The number counts of early-type spirals can also be satisfactorily reproduced by our models (See Panel (b) of Figure 5). For Scenarios B and C, only $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are needed, and $`Q_0`$ or $`Q_2`$ is not necessary. There are additional advantages for such $`\alpha `$-variation models, that the faint-end counts are contributed by dwarfs rather than bright galaxies, and hence there are no high-$`z`$ tails predicted by the models. For Scenario A, it seems that $`Q_2`$ is also needed, since the flat universe has less volume at high redshifts than the open or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe, and hence a slightly positive $`Q_2`$ can help to improve the fit at faint magnitudes. The values of these parameters are also listed in Table 3. We can see that the variation of $`\alpha `$ at low redshifts is also not dramatically large. For example, $`\alpha `$ steepens only by 0.06 from $`z=0`$ to $`z=1`$ in Scenario A.

The modelling for the late-type spiral/irregular and vB galaxies is similar to that for ellipticals and early-type spirals, but requires even more free parameters. As a result, we proceed in an alternative way. In a scenario of hierarchical clustering, galaxies are constantly merging over cosmic time. If the hierarchical picture is realistic, and in the absence of other scenarios such as fading or self-destructing of a galaxy population, then the total comoving masses of gas and stars can be regarded to be enclosed within galaxies. Hence the total comoving mass density should be conserved in merger processes. We employ the conservation of mass to constrain the number density evolution of the latest Hubble types.

Mass (baryonic, including gas and stars) conservation can be expressed in the following way:

$$\underset{j}{}M_j^{}(z)\varphi _j^{}(z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha _j(z)+2)=\mathrm{constant},$$
$`(4)`$
which is taken from Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1991). $`M^{}`$ is the characteristic mass of the galaxy mass function (MF). The total mass density is computed by summing over galaxy type $`j`$, and the constant can be determined by present-day quantities. In order to obtain the evolution of LFs, we need to convert the evolving MFs into evolving LFs, and hence the mass-to-luminosity ($`M/L`$) ratios are needed. Unfortunately, the $`M/L`$ ratios are poorly determined, especially for $`B`$-passband. However, the near-infrared light is less affected by star formation, and thus by evolution, than the optical emission, and it is a good tracer of the total mass within galaxies. Hence we will make use of $`K`$-band LFs instead of the MFs of galaxies.

We assume the faint-end slope $`\alpha `$ for late-type galaxies (Scd, Sdm/Irr, and vB) evolves in the same way as for the early-type spirals (Sab and Sbc). In this case the evolution of $`\varphi ^{}`$ can be determined by Eq. . The evolution of the characteristic number density $`\varphi ^{}`$ for $`L^{}`$ galaxies is illustrated in Figure 7. We first analyze the cases for Scenarios B and C. Using the constraint of mass conservation suggested by Eq. , $`\varphi ^{}`$ increases with increasing $`z`$ to the maximum at $`z2.8`$ in both Scenarios B and C, and then decreases to almost zero at the formation redshift $`z_f`$. At $`z=1`$, the number density $`\varphi ^{}`$ for $`L^{}`$ galaxies is 44% and 88% higher than the present-day value for Scenarios B and C, respectively. Notice that the Sdm/Irr/vB galaxies are star-forming galaxies, as suggested by their blue colors and predicted by our population synthesis models. If we only focus on these galaxies, they appear to be a disappearing or self-destructing population (cf. Babul & Rees 1992; Babul & Ferguson 1996; Ferguson & Babul 1998), but they are produced naturally by the merger scenario, and are not needed to be ad hoc introduced into the models. In particular, since the faint-end slope $`\alpha `$ also increases with $`z`$, there are even more dwarf galaxies at high redshifts. Such a population seems to be qualitatively consistent with the recent findings using Lyman-break selection techniques (see Steidel & Hamilton 1992, 1993; Steidel, Pettini, & Hamilton 1995; Madau 1995) that a substantial population of star-forming galaxies exists at $`z3`$ (Steidel et al. 1996; Steidel et al. 1998). We believe that such a population of Lyman-break galaxies can be identified with the Sdm/Irr/vB galaxies suggested by our models.

Such an analysis, however, cannot be applied to the case of Scenario A. In Figure 7, $`\varphi ^{}`$ becomes negative when $`z>3`$, which is obviously unphysical. The reason why $`\varphi `$ becomes negative at high redshifts is that a flat universe has less volume at a given redshift than an open or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe. Therefore, in order to account for the faint-end counts, the number evolution of early-type spirals for Scenario A has to be larger than that for Scenarios B and C (See Table 3). On the other hand, the number evolution of ellipticals for Scenario A is less than for Scenarios B and C. As a result, the increase of the mass density for early-type spirals exceeds the corresponding decrease for ellipticals. Therefore, if the model is subject to the constraint of the mass density conservation, it will inevitably predict a negative $`\varphi ^{}`$ for Sdm/Irr/vB galaxies at high-redshifts. The implication is that the mass density conservation suggested by Eq.  cannot be applied to the case of Scenario A, and furthermore, in order to explain the faint data, the mass density must increase with $`z`$.

The failure of the assumption of mass density conservation in Scenario A can be understood in several different ways, and its cosmological interpretation is also not unique. There may be a disappearing/self-destructing population of star-forming galaxies at high redshift which has no present-day counterpart. Another possibility is that galaxies have been losing mass during their evolution, in particular, during the period of merging between galaxies, due to supernovae which enable the gas to escape from the potential well of dark matter halos. The situations may be very complicated.

Regardless of the difficulty in explaining the physical mechanism behind the non-conservation of the mass density for galaxies, we can follow the same ad hoc prescription as that for early-type spirals to adjust the parameters ($`Q_0`$, $`Q_2`$, $`\gamma _1`$, and $`\gamma _2`$) of the models to match the data, without discriminating between the two possibilities discussed above. The values of these parameters are also listed in Table 3. The predicted number counts for the latest type galaxies are shown in Panel (c) of Figure 5. It can be seen that the predictions can be accepted within the uncertainties. In addition, the predictions for the overall population (shown in Panel (d) of Figure 5) are also acceptable.

The morphological number counts in the near-infrared bands have also been provided by NICMOS (Teplitz et al. 1998). Predictions of the NLE models are presented in Figure 8 to compare with the observed data in the $`H_{1.6}`$ band ($`\lambda _{eff}`$= 1.6$`\mu `$m). We can see that the models can reasonably reproduce the data.

### 3.2. Number counts in $`B`$\- and $`K`$\- passbands

We now examine whether the number evolution models can reproduce $`B`$\- and $`K`$-bands number counts obtained from the majority of surveys so far. From Figure 9 we can see that the models can reproduce better the number counts at bright magnitudes in both the $`B`$ ($`B<21`$) and the $`K`$ ($`K<17`$) bands, indicating that the normalization (involving both $`\varphi _0^{}`$ and $`L^{}`$, cf. Ellis 1997) is appropriate using the adopted LFs. (Due to large uncertainties in the local LFs, the normalizations are usually chosen to scale the model predictions to the observed number counts at a relatively faint magnitude of $`B19.0`$. See Pozzetti et al. 1996 for a comprehensive review). Furthermore, the NLE models can reproduce the counts at the faintest $`B`$ and $`K`$ magnitudes for each of the three Scenarios.

### 3.3. Redshift distribution

The spectroscopic studies with the LRIS spectrograph on the Keck Telescope of two of the Hawaii deep survey fields SSA 13 and SSA 22 (Cowie et al. 1996) and the CFRS present two of the largest and deepest redshift samples so far, providing powerful tools for understanding the evolution of galaxies.

In Fig.10-(a), (b), and (c), we show the predicted $`z`$-distributions in the magnitude range of $`22.5<B<24.0`$ in the three Scenarios, to compare with measured redshifts from Cowie et al. (1996), whose completeness is more than 85%. We can see that the predictions roughly match the observed data, and in particular, there are no very high-$`z`$ tails. In Fig.10-(d), (e), and (f), we compare the NLE-model predicted $`z`$-distributions, limited in the magnitude range of $`17.5<I_{AB}<22.5`$, with the CFRS sample (Lilly et al. 1995a; Le Fèvre et al. 1995; Lilly et al. 1995b; Hammer et al. 1995; Crampton et al. 1995). Notice that the CFRS data are less deep than the Hawaii sample, with the completeness $``$85%. We can see that the predictions are reasonably matched by the data, especially for Scenarios B and C. However, we should also realize that all models overpredict galaxies with $`z>1`$. The overprediction may be due to the $`z`$-unidentified galaxies, since the completeness of both of the two samples is around 85%, and, according to Pozzetti et al., such $`z`$-unidentified galaxies are most probably at high $`z`$ (see Section 3.6 of Pozzetti et al. 1996).

## 4. Summary and Conclusions

Recent morphological data on faint galaxies are of great significance for us in understanding the distant universe, and have shed new light on the long-standing FBG problem. We have systematically investigated this question using HST data. In previous work, we found that the number counts of ellipticals could be explained successfully by PLE models only a scenario where ellipticals have extremely short SFR timescales ($`\tau _e=0.2`$, 0, and 0.05 Gyr for flat, open and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ -dominated universes, respectively), i.e., they formed at high-$`z`$ (say $`z_f=5`$) and have passively evolved since their formation (HZ98). Such a view, however, would contradict other observations such as color distributions (HZ99a). Hence, the evolution of galaxy number density seems to be required, and one of the main purposes of this work is to study the nature of the number evolution.

PLE models are the starting point of our investigation. By modelling the number counts of the three morphological classes in the HST $`I_{814}`$-passband, in combination with the analysis of redshift distributions in the three observed magnitude bins, $`I_{814}<21.0`$, $`21.0<I_{814}<22.5`$, and $`22.5<I_{814}<25.0`$, we find that PLE models can fit the number counts at the bright magnitudes of $`I_{814}<22.5`$, indicating such PLE models could be valid up to $`z1`$. As a result, scenarios of strong number evolution at low redshifts such as that of Kauffmann et al. (1996) would seem to be rejected. The results agree well with those of Im et al. (1999), based on the morphologically divided redshift distribution of faint galaxies, and those of Brinchmann et al. (1998) and Lilly et al. (1998), based on the HST imaging of the CFRS and LDSS redshift surveys. In addition, our conclusions are also consistent with those of Roukema & Yoshii (1993) and Woods & Fahlman (1997) based on analysis of the angular correlation function, and that of Totani & Yoshii (1998) based on the $`V/V_{max}`$ analysis.

We then constructed a set of phenomenological number-luminosity evolution models and by trial and error fixed a set of model parameters to explain the data such as morphological number counts both in $`I_{814}`$\- and in $`H_{1.6}`$-bands, as well as the counts in the $`B`$\- and $`K`$-bands, and redshift distributions derived from the Hawaii and the CFRS samples. The significant feature of these models is that the number evolution is small at redshifts of $`z<1`$ and large at higher redshifts. We find that the models can roughly reproduce the above-mentioned observations in each of the cosmologies under consideration.

To simplify the modelling, we employ the constraint of conservation of the comoving mass density of galaxies, in the form presented by Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1991). We find that a population of late-type spiral/irregular galaxies and very blue galaxies naturally emerge in these models. Such a population will peak at $`z2.8`$. We argue that such a population seems to be consistent with the recent findings using Lyman-break photometric selection techniques. This conclusion, however, is only valid in an open or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated cosmological models. If the universe is flat, the comoving number density of such a predicted population becomes negative at high redshifts ($`z>3`$), and hence it is obviously physically unacceptable. Therefore, in order to account for the faint data, such a population has to be introduced ad hoc into the modelling. The failure of the mass conservation assumption in a flat universe model, as discussed in Section 3.1, may imply the existence of a disappearing/self-destructing population of star-forming galaxies at high redshifts, whose present-day counterpart is not detectable. Alternatively, galaxies may have been losing mass during their lifetimes, due to supernova bursts, for example. If so, the evolutionary scenario for galaxies may be extremely complicated.

We have not taken into account the evolution of metallicity with redshift, and details such as the recycling of the residual gas ejected by dying stars. These would be future improvements over our current simple prescriptions. Nevertheless, the models faithfully reproduce the number counts and the redshift distributions, and these results can be treated as heuristic guidelines for further investigations.

## Acknowledgments

PH should like to thank Mr. S. Charlot for providing us with their synthesis spectral evolutionary models and helpful correspondences, and Dr. D. Crampton for making the CFRS data available to us in electronic form. We acknowledge the valuable discussion between Dr. B. F. Roukema. We thank Dr. Chris D. Impey for a thorough reading of the first version of this paper, and for his constructive suggestions. We also thank The State Key Laboratory of Science and Engineering Computing (LSEC) of Academia Sinica for providing us with computer supports. This work is in part supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


format: text

text:
# References

Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 16, No.1 (2001) 1377–1383
c World Scientific Publishing Company

$`(1/2,1/2)`$ REPRESENTATION SPACE

— AN AB INITIO CONSTRUCT —

D. V. AHLUWALIA***Summer address: Group P-25, Mail Stop H-846, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA. E-mail: ahluwalia@phases.reduaz.mx; http://phases.reduaz.mx and M. KIRCHBACH E-mail: kirchbach@chiral.reduaz.mx; http://chiral.reduaz.mx

Theoretical Physics Group

Facultad de Fisica, Univ. Aut. de Zacatecas

ISGBG, Ap. Postal C-600, Zacatecas, ZAC 98062, Mexico

Received (received date)
Revised (revised date)

A careful ab initio construction of the finite-mass $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space of the Lorentz group reveals it to be a spin-parity multiplet. In general, it does not lend itself to a single-spin interpretation. We find that the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space for massive particles naturally bifurcates into a triplet and a singlet of opposite relative intrinsic parties. The text-book separation into spin one and spin zero states occurs only for certain limited kinematical settings. We construct a wave equation for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ multiplet, and show that the particles and antiparticles in this representation space do not carry a definite spin but only a definite relative intrinsic parity. In general, both spin one and spin zero are covariantly inseparable inhabitants of massive vector fields. This last observation suggests that scalar particles, such as the Higgs, are natural inhabitants of massive $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space.

Keywords: Lorentz group, Discrete symmetries, massive gauge fields

Spin-Parity Lorentz Multiplets complement the supersymmetry multiplets. The former are characterized by purely bosonic (or fermionic) constituents, while the latter carry bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom simultaneously. To establish this assertion, via an example, we here present an ab initio study of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space and find that it is much richer than usually believed. The new physical element arises from fully respecting the algebra of the Lorentz group. Specifically, since the generators of rotations and boosts do not commute in general, we will find that a massive $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space supports an irreducible multiplet of spin 1 and spin 0. The separability of spin 1, and spin 0, occurs only in some kinematically restricted settings.

The construction of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space begins with the observation that it is a direct product of the $`(1/2,0)`$ and $`(0,1/2)`$ representation spaces, i.e., $`(1/2,1/2)=(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$. Under the Lorentz boost the right-handed $`(1/2,0)`$ spinors, $`\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{p})`$, transform as

$`\varphi _R\left(\stackrel{}{p}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left(+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(E+m)}}}\left[(E+m)I_2+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}\right]\varphi _R(\stackrel{}{0}),`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{}{\phi }`$ is the boost parameter,? and $`I_2`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. The left-handed $`(0,1/2)`$ spinors, $`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})`$, transform according to

$`\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{p})=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}}\stackrel{}{\phi }\right)\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2m(E+m)}}}\left[(E+m)I_2\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}\right]\varphi _L(\stackrel{}{0}).`$ (2)
Now to describe the physical states inhabiting the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space, one needs four independent rest states, and the boost, $`\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})`$, given by

$`\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m(E+m)}}\left[(E+m)I_2+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}\right]\left[(E+m)I_2\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{p}\right].`$ (3)
Associated with $`\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})`$ are the boost generators

$`K_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& i& 0\end{array}\right],K_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (12)
$`K_z=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (17)
Similarly, the generators of the rotations for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space are:

$`J_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right],J_y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& i& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (26)
$`J_z=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (31)
In the rest frame, the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space can be decomposed into eigenstates of $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`J_z`$. The spin-$`1`$ sector carries three independent rest-frame states:

$`w_{1,+1}(\stackrel{}{0})=\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right],w_{1,0}(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right],w_{1,1}(\stackrel{}{0})=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\end{array}\right],`$ (44)
while the spin-$`0`$ sector carries one state only

$`w_{0,0}(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\\ 1\\ 0\end{array}\right].`$ (49)
By the Wigner argument, $`\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})w_{j,m}(\stackrel{}{0})`$ can be identified with the states corresponding to momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$. The explicit expressions for these are:

$`w_1(\stackrel{}{p}):=\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})w_{1,+1}(\stackrel{}{0})=N\left[\begin{array}{c}(E+mp_z)(E+m+p_z)\\ (p_x+ip_y)(E+m+p_z)\\ (p_x+ip_y)(E+mp_z)\\ (p_x+ip_y)^2\end{array}\right],`$ (54)
$`w_2(\stackrel{}{p}):=\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})w_{1,0}(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{c}2(p_xip_y)p_z\\ \left(p_z^2+2mp_z+2Ep_zp_y^2p_x^2+(E+m)^2\right)\\ \left(p_z^22mp_z2Ep_zp_y^2p_x^2+(E+m)^2\right)\\ 2(p_x+ip_y)p_z\end{array}\right],`$ (59)
$`w_3(\stackrel{}{p}):=\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})w_{1,1}(\stackrel{}{0})=N\left[\begin{array}{c}(p_xip_y)^2\\ (p_xip_y)(E+m+p_z)\\ (p_xip_y)(E+mp_z)\\ (E+mp_z)(E+m+p_z)\end{array}\right],`$ (64)
$`w_4(\stackrel{}{p}):=\kappa (\stackrel{}{p})w_{0,0}(\stackrel{}{0})={\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{c}2(p_xip_y)(E+m)\\ \left(p_z^2+2mp_z+2Ep_z+p_y^2+p_x^2+(E+m)^2\right)\\ \left(p_z^22mp_z2Ep_z+p_y^2+p_x^2+(E+m)^2\right)\\ 2(p_x+ip_y)(E+m)\end{array}\right],`$ (69)
where the normalization factor takes the value,

$`N:=\left[2m(E+m)\right]^1.`$ (70)
The new labeling $`w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$, $`\zeta =1,2,3,4`$, has been introduced to emphasize that, in general, $`w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ are not single-spin valued states. Since the generators of rotations commute with the generators of boost only in case the rotation plane is perpendicular to the direction of motion, a general decomposition of the (1/2,1/2) representation space into the spin 1 and spin 0 sectors is ruled out. Stated differently, since $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ is not a Casimir operator of the Poincaré group, a generally valid decomposition of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space into spin 1 and spin 0 sectors is forbidden.

The exception occurs for the helicity basis in which one chooses the physical setting to be such that the “quantization axis” for the spin-projections is aligned along the direction of motion. More specifically, $`[J_ı,K_ȷ]`$ vanish only if $`ı`$ equals $`ȷ`$. For instance, by setting, $`p_x=0=p_y`$, in the above expressions for $`w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ in order to produce a special case of the helicity basis, we find that (a) The $`w_1(\stackrel{}{p})`$\- and $`w_3(\stackrel{}{p})`$-states are eigenvectors of $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`J_z`$ with eigenvalues $`2[=1(1+1)]`$, $`\pm 1`$, respectively; and (b) A third spin-1 state – to be denoted by $`v_2(\stackrel{}{p})`$ – can be obtained from either $`w_3(\stackrel{}{p})`$, or $`w_1(\stackrel{}{p})`$, through the action of the ladder operators $`J_+:=J_x+iJ_y`$, and $`J_{}:=J_xiJ_y`$, respectively. The state $`v_2(\stackrel{}{p}):=\left(1/\sqrt{2}\right)J_+w_3(\stackrel{}{p})=\left(1/\sqrt{2}\right)J_{}w_1(\stackrel{}{p})`$ turns out to be simultaneous eigenvector of $`\stackrel{}{J}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`J_z`$ with eigenvalues $`2[=1(1+1)]`$ and $`0`$, respectively. Note, that $`v_2(\stackrel{}{p})`$ is essentially different from $`w_2(\stackrel{}{p})`$. The three states $`\{w_1(\stackrel{}{p}),v_2(\stackrel{}{p}),w_3(\stackrel{}{p})\}`$ constitute a spin-$`1`$ multiplet; (c) Finally, a fourth state $`v_4(\stackrel{}{p})`$, orthonormal to the previous ones, can be constructed and shown to be a genuine spin-$`0`$ state. Thus, the particular cases of the helicity basis from above, on the one hand, and the rest frame, on the other hand, represent two kinematically-restricted scenarios where the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ space can split into spin $`0`$, and spin $`1`$.

The orthonormality relations for $`w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ are

$`\overline{w}_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\text{for}\zeta =1,2,3\hfill & \\ +1\text{for}\zeta =4\hfill & \end{array}`$ (71)
while the completeness relation reads

$`w_4(\stackrel{}{p})\overline{w}_4(\stackrel{}{p}){\displaystyle \underset{\zeta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\overline{w}_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})=I_4,`$ (72)
where $`I_4`$ equals $`4\times 4`$ identity matrix. In the above expressions we have defined

$`\overline{w}_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p}):=w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})^{}\lambda _{00},\text{where}\lambda _{00}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (77)
It will be seen below that $`\lambda _{00}`$ is a part of a larger set of covariant matrices. For the moment it suffices to note that $`S\lambda _{00}S^1`$, with

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}0& i& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0& i\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& i& i& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (82)
is the flat space-time metric with the diagonal $`\{1,1,1,1\}`$. We note that $`\lambda _{00}`$ also serves as the Parity operator:

$`\lambda _{00}w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})=\{\begin{array}{cc}w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\text{for}\zeta =1,2,3\hfill & \\ +w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\text{ for}\zeta =4\hfill & \end{array}`$ (83)
So, while $`w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ may not carry a definite spin they are endowed with a definite relative intrinsic parity. The relevant projectors onto sub-spaces of opposite relative intrinsic parities are:

$`P_+=w_4(\stackrel{}{p})\overline{w}_4(\stackrel{}{p}),\text{and}P_{}={\displaystyle \underset{\zeta =1}{\overset{3}{}}}w_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})\overline{w}_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p}).`$ (84)
We now note that $`Sw_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ transforms as a Lorentz four vector and carries a Lorentz index that can be lowered and raised with the flat space-time metric pointed out above. Thus, we introduce:

$`A_\zeta ^\mu (\stackrel{}{p}):=Sw_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p}),`$ (85)
and, additionally

$`𝒫_\pm :=SP_\pm S^1,`$ (86)
and

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }:=S\lambda _{\mu \nu }S^1.`$ (87)
In a way reminiscent of the Dirac case, the wave equation for $`A_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})`$ can be read off from the projectors and is seen to be:

$`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu ϵm^2I_4\right)A_\zeta (\stackrel{}{p})=0,`$ (88)
where $`ϵ`$ equals $`+1`$ for $`\zeta =4`$ and is $`1`$ for $`\zeta =1,2,3`$. The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }`$ matrices can be read off from

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu =m^2\left(𝒫_+𝒫_{}\right).`$ (89)
By studying $`\text{det}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }p^\mu p^\nu ϵm^2I_4\right)`$, we find that: (a) For $`ϵ=1`$, the above equation carries three “positive–energy–” and three “negative–energy–” solutions with the correct dispersion relation, $`E^2=\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2`$, while (b) For $`ϵ=+1`$, there is one “positive–energy–”and one “negative–energy–” solution. We conjecture that a complete CPT analysis would show these to be particle-antiparticle solutions. Thus the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space manifestly carries the particle and antiparticle states with equal masses. This result is not contained in the usual considerations based on the Proca equation. It is further apparent from the derived wave equation that in the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space $`[C,P]=0`$. This contrasts with $`\{C,P\}=0`$ for the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space .

The $`a^\nu `$ associated with the usual spin-1 Proca equation

$`_\mu F^{\mu \nu }+m^2a^\nu =0,`$ (90)
by construction$`F^{\mu \nu }=^\mu a^\nu ^\nu a^\mu `$, is antisymmetric. satisfies $`_\nu a^\nu =0`$ (for $`m0`$). However, “$`_\nu A^\nu =0`$” can not be implemented in the massive $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space without violating the completeness relation (72). While the new wave equation (88) contains all solutions of (90), the converse is not true. For this reason, the Proca equation is not endowed with the complete physical content of the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space. Its content is confined entirely to the space associated with the projector $`P_{}`$ (see Eq. (84)).

Every knowledgeable reader by now must have noted as to how parallel is the presented construct with the Dirac construct for spin one half, and that the usual “completeness relation” written in Proca framework is not a completeness relation in the usual mathematical sense. The mathematically correct form of the completeness relation is Eq. (72). It is the exact parallel of its counterpart in the $`(1/2,0)(0,1/2)`$ Dirac construct.

In view of these observations, we now critically study the “constraint”:

$`_\beta A^\beta =0,`$ (91)
which in the momentum-space takes the form,

$`p_\beta A_\zeta ^\beta (\stackrel{}{p})=0`$ (92)
The latter “constraint” can be evaluated using the results obtained above. We find

$`p_\beta A_\zeta ^\beta (\stackrel{}{p})=0\{\begin{array}{cc}c_\zeta \left(m^2p_\beta p^\beta \right)\hfill & \text{=\hspace{0.17em}0, }\text{for}\text{ }\zeta =1,2,3\hfill \\ (i/m)p_\beta p^\beta \hfill & \text{=\hspace{0.17em}0, }\text{for}\text{ }\zeta =4\hfill \end{array}`$ (93)
where, $`c_1=i(p_x+ip_y)`$, $`c_2=ip_z`$, and $`c_3i(p_xip_y)`$. In other words, the conditions for $`\zeta =1,2,3`$ yield $`p_\beta p^\beta =m^2`$, which certainly is not an additional constraint for a Lorentz covariant theory. For $`\zeta =4`$, $`p_\beta A_4^\beta =im`$, and cannot be set equal to zero unless one is considering massless particles – for which case it is trivially satisfied (and, again, does not constitute an additional constraint). We thus arrive at the conclusion that $`p_\beta A_\zeta ^\beta (\stackrel{}{p})=0`$ is trivially satisfied for the massless case. Therefore, it cannot be used as a “constraint.” On the other hand, for the massive case it is equivalent to, $`E^2=\stackrel{}{p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+m^2`$, for $`\zeta =1,2,3`$, whereas for $`\zeta =4`$ it can not be fulfilled at all.

It is thus apparent from the above considerations that an isolated kinematically-unrestricted massive spin-$`1`$ field theory can only be based upon the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space. However, contrary to the canonical wisdom, the $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ representation space supports one of the unusual Wigner classes.? In this representation space massive bosons, and antibosons, carry opposite relative intrinsic parities.? For this reason, e.g., the standard-model’s $`W^\pm `$ and $`Z`$ bosons cannot be described as $`(1,0)(0,1)`$ particles, and we are left with the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space – as is in fact appropriate for gauge bosons. On the other hand, the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space is a multiplet of spin $`1`$ and spin $`0`$. If single-spin valued spin-$`1`$ particles are to be created in this representation space then, (a) They must be spin-polarized along the direction of motion with the eigenvalues of the helicity operator, $`\left(\stackrel{}{p}/|\stackrel{}{p}|\right)\stackrel{}{J}`$, equal to $`\{+1,0,1\}`$; (b) The completeness relation for the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space obtained above requires such spin-$`1`$ particles to be necessarily accompanied by a spin-$`0`$ partner. In the most general case, the $`(1/2,1/2)`$ representation space naturally splits only into a triplet and a singlet of opposite relative intrinsic parities, which are not to be confused with the spin-1 triplet and the spin-0 singlet. This confirms an earlier conjecture by one of us? that $`(j,j)`$, or in general $`(j,j)[(1/2,0)(0,1/2)]`$, representation spaces do not carry a single-spin interpretation. Instead, they should be interpreted as spin-parity Lorentz multiplets, an observation empirically supported by the existing data on the non-strange baryonic spectra.

References


text:
# Microscopic shape of shocks in a domain growth model

## Introduction

The hydrodynamical limit of the nearest neighbor asymmetric simple exclusion model leads to the inviscid Burgers equation

$$\frac{u}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{u^2}{x}=0$$

which is a special case of the one-component hyperbolic conservation law

(1)
$$\frac{u}{t}+\frac{J(u)}{x}=0$$

where $`uJ(u)`$ is a smooth, typically convex function. (By changing $`x`$ to $`x`$, concave $`J`$-s can be transformed to convex ones.) This equation has a shock (weak) solution starting with initial data

$$u(0,x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}u_{\text{left}}\hfill & ,& x<0\hfill \\ u_{\text{right}}\hfill & ,& x0\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`u_{\text{left}}>u_{\text{right}}`$. The stable weak solution is of the form

$$u(t,x)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}u_{\text{left}}\hfill & ,& x<st\hfill \\ u_{\text{right}}\hfill & ,& xst\hfill \end{array}$$

where the speed $`s`$ of the traveling shock is determined by the Rankine-Hugoniot formula

(2)
$$s=\frac{J(u_{\text{right}})J(u_{\text{left}})}{u_{\text{right}}u_{\text{left}}},$$

see e.g. . This is what we see on a macroscopic scale. The microscopic structure (i.e. on the level of particles) of the shock is of great interest. It has been considered in the context of the asymmetric simple exclusion process, and rather complicated microscopic structures have been found     . In the more general context of attractive particle systems the microscopic structure of the shock was investigated by .

In the present note we consider a class of one-dimensional domain growth models, parametrised by a jump rate function, $`r:`$. In a special case of the rate function we show that the shock, as seen from a defect tracer (second class particle) has stationary (in time) distribution of product structure which we identify. We also show that this is a peculiarity of the case considered, no other model in the wide class of these models has this property. The structure of the paper is the following:

In section 2 we define the class of models considered and determine the stationary distributions for them.

We describe the hydrodynamic limit of these models and calculate the speed of the shocks using Rankine-Hugoniot formula (2) in section 3.

In section 4 we introduce the defect tracer in our models. Via Rankine-Hugoniot formula, we also give an indication on the fact that, in general, shock solutions are closely related to measures stationary as seen from the defect tracer.

The last section contains our main result on the product structure of such a stationary distribution as seen from the defect tracer. This gives an explicit description of the microscopic shape of some types of shock solutions.

## 2 . The bricklayers’ model

### 2.1 Infinitesimal generator

We consider the phase space

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\underset{¯}{\omega }=(\omega _i)_i:\omega _i\}=^{}.$$

For each pair of neighboring sites $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ of $``$, we can imagine a column built of bricks, above the edge $`(i,i+1)`$. The height of this column is denoted by $`h_i`$. If $`\underset{¯}{\omega }(t)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a fixed time $`t`$ then $`\omega _i(t)=h_{i1}(t)h_i(t)`$ is the negative discrete gradient of the height of the “wall”. The growth of a column is described by Poisson processes. A brick can be added to a column:

$$(\omega _i,\omega _{i+1})(\omega _i1,\omega _{i+1}+1)\text{with rate}r(\omega _i)+r(\omega _{i+1}).$$

See fig. 1 for some possible instantaneous changes. The process can be represented by bricklayers standing at each site $`i`$, laying a brick on the column on their right with rate $`r(\omega _i)`$ and laying a brick to their left with rate $`r(\omega _i)`$. This interpretation gives reason to call these model bricklayers’ model.

For small $`\epsilon `$ the conditional expectation of the growth of the column between $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ in the time interval $`[t,t+\epsilon ]`$ is $`\left\{r(\omega _i(t))+r(\omega _{i+1}(t))\right\}\epsilon +𝔬(\epsilon )`$. Note that the process has a left-right mirror symmetry, i.e. the rate of a column’s growth is the same as if looking at the reflected configuration. We want the dynamics to smoothen our interface, that is why we assume monotonicity of the rate function $`r`$, which means that a column grows more rapidly if it has a higher neighbor on the right or on the left. In later sections we shall impose another restrictive condition on $`r`$, see (5).

At time $`t`$, the interface mentioned before is described by $`\underset{¯}{\omega }(t)`$. Let $`\phi :\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded cylinder function i.e. $`\phi `$ depends on a finite number of values of $`\omega _i`$. The growth of this interface is a Markov process, with the formal infinitesimal generator $`L`$:

$$(L\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=\underset{i}{}\left\{\left[r(\omega _i)+r(\omega _{i+1})\right]\left[\phi (\mathrm{},\omega _i1,\omega _{i+1}+1,\mathrm{})\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]\right\}.$$

Note that for each index $`i,\omega _i`$ can also be negative hence direct particle interpretation fails, see the remark after formula (4).

When constructing the process rigorously, problems may arise due to the unbounded growth rates. The system being one-component and attractive, we assume that existence of dynamics on a set of tempered configurations $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (i.e. configurations obeying some restrictive growth conditions) can be established by applying methods initiated by Liggett and Andjel  . Technically we assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is of full measure w.r.t. the canonical Gibbs measures defined in 2.2. We do not deal with this question in the present paper.

The exponential bricklayers’ model

A special case of the models is the exponential bricklayers’ model (EBL), where for $`z`$

(3)
$$r(z)=\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}}\text{e}^{\beta z}$$

with a positive real parameter $`\beta `$.

### 2.2 Translation invariant stationary product measures

In this subsection we show a natural way to construct a stationary translation invariant product measure for our models. By chapter one of , a measure $`\mu `$ is stationary, iff for any bounded cylinder function $`\phi `$,

$$𝐄(L\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=0$$

is satisfied for a process distributed according to $`\mu `$. We assume $`\mu `$ to be a product measure with marginals

$$\mu (z)=\mu \{\underset{¯}{\omega }:\omega _i=z\}$$

for $`z`$. By changing variables and using product structure of $`\mu `$,

$$\begin{array}{c}𝐄(L\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=\hfill \\ \hfill =𝐄\underset{i}{}\left\{\left[r(\omega _i)+r(\omega _{i+1})\right]\left[\phi (\mathrm{},\omega _i1,\omega _{i+1}+1,\mathrm{})\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]\right\}=\\ \hfill =𝐄\underset{i}{}[r(\omega _i+1)\frac{\mu (\omega _i+1)}{\mu (\omega _i)}\frac{\mu (\omega _{i+1}1)}{\mu (\omega _{i+1})}+r(\omega _{i+1}+1)\frac{\mu (\omega _i+1)}{\mu (\omega _i)}\frac{\mu (\omega _{i+1}1)}{\mu (\omega _{i+1})}\\ \hfill r(\omega _i)r(\omega _{i+1})]\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega }).\end{array}$$

This expression becomes zero if we make the sum telescopic on the cylinder set supporting $`\phi `$. Hence stationarity of $`\mu `$ is assured by assuming

$$r(z)\frac{\mu (z)}{\mu (z1)}\text{and}r(z)\frac{\mu (z)}{\mu (z+1)}$$

to be constants. As a consequence, we obtain the condition

(4)
$$r(z)r(z+1)=\text{constant  .}$$

There are two essentially different choices.

$$r(z)r(z+1)=0$$

defines models of zero range types, we do not consider this possibility here. The other choice is choosing the right-hand side of (4) to be a positive constant. In this case, by rescaling time, we can turn this constant to be one without loss of generality:

(5)
$$r(z)r(z+1)=1.$$

Rates (3) of the EBL model satisfy this condition.

For $`n`$, we define

$$r(n)!:=\underset{y=1}{\overset{n}{}}r(y)$$

with the convention that the empty product has value one. Let

$$\overline{\theta }:=\mathrm{log}\left(\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}(r(n)!)^{1/n}\right)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}(r(n)),$$

which is strictly positive by (5) and by monotonicity of $`r`$, and can even be infinite. With a generic real parameter $`\theta (\overline{\theta },\overline{\theta })`$, we define

$$Z(\theta ):=\underset{z=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\text{e}^{\theta z}}{r(|z|)!}$$

and the product measure $`\mu ^{(\theta )}`$ with marginals

(6)
$$\mu ^{(\theta )}(z):=\frac{1}{Z(\theta )}\frac{\text{e}^{\theta z}}{r(|z|)!},$$

which has the property

(7)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill r(z)\frac{\mu ^{(\theta )}(z)}{\mu ^{(\theta )}(z1)}& =\text{e}^\theta \hfill \\ \hfill r(z)\frac{\mu ^{(\theta )}(z)}{\mu ^{(\theta )}(z+1)}& =\text{e}^\theta ,\hfill \end{array}$$

thus it is stationary. We call these measures canonical Gibbs-measures.

For the special case of the EBL model, for $`\theta (\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, we obtain the discrete normal distribution

(8)
$$\mu ^{(\theta )}(z)=\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}\left(z\frac{\theta }{\beta }\right)^2}}{\text{e}^{\frac{\theta ^2}{2\beta }}Z(\theta )}=\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}(zm)^2}}{\stackrel{~}{Z}(\beta ,m)}$$

with the notation $`m:=\theta /\beta `$.

## 3 . Hydrodynamical limit

Being attractive due to monotonicity of $`r`$, we can take the hydrodynamical limit of a bricklayers’ model by

(9)
$$u(t,x):=𝐄\omega _{x/\epsilon }(t/\epsilon ).$$

Then via formal computations we obtain differential equation (1)

$$\frac{u}{t}+\frac{J(u)}{x}=0$$

as $`\epsilon 0`$, where $`J(u)`$ is defined as follows. The function $`u(\theta )=𝐄^{(\theta )}(\omega )`$ of $`\theta `$ is strictly increasing since the derivative

$$\frac{\text{d}u(\theta )}{\text{d}\theta }=\left(𝐄^{(\theta )}(\omega ^2)\left(𝐄^{(\theta )}(\omega )\right)^2\right)$$

is positive ($`\overline{\theta }<\theta <\overline{\theta }`$). Let $`\theta (u)`$ be the inverse function. The quantity $`𝐄^{(\theta )}\left(r(\omega )+r(\omega )\right)`$ depends on $`\theta `$, and $`J`$ is defined by

(10)
$$J(u):=𝐄^{(\theta (u))}\left(r(\omega )+r(\omega )\right)=2\mathrm{cosh}(\theta (u)).$$

###### Proposition 3.1.

There exist $`\theta _1<0<\theta _2`$ numbers such that $`J(u)`$ defined above is convex on the interval $`(u(\theta _1),u(\theta _2))`$.

###### Proof.

With the notations

$$u^{}(\theta ):=\frac{\text{d}u(\theta )}{\text{d}\theta }\text{and}u^{\prime \prime }(\theta ):=\frac{\text{d}^2u(\theta )}{\text{d}\theta ^2}$$

and by computing derivatives of inverse functions, we obtain from (10)

$$\frac{\text{d}^2J}{\text{d}u^2}(u(\theta ))=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\theta )}{2}\frac{1}{(u^{}(\theta ))^2}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\theta )}{2}\frac{u^{\prime \prime }(\theta )}{(u^{}(\theta ))^3}.$$

The positivity of the left-hand side is assured in case $`\theta =0`$, and is equivalent to the condition

(11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{u^{\prime \prime }(\theta )}{u^{}(\theta )}<\mathrm{ctanh}(\theta ),\hfill & \text{if}\theta >0,\hfill \\ \frac{u^{\prime \prime }(\theta )}{u^{}(\theta )}>\mathrm{ctanh}(\theta ),\hfill & \text{if}\theta <0\hfill \end{array}$$

by positivity of $`u^{}(\theta )`$. The function $`\theta u(\theta )`$ is analytic in $`(\overline{\theta },\overline{\theta }),u^{}(\theta )`$ is strictly positive, hence the left-hand side of (11) is bounded on the interval $`(\theta ^{},\theta ^{})`$ for each $`0<\theta ^{}<\overline{\theta }`$. Due to the unbounded behavior of $`\mathrm{ctanh}(\theta )`$ on any interval containing zero, there exist $`\theta _1<0<\theta _2`$ for which (11) and hence convexity of $`J(u)`$ is satisfied. ∎

Using definitions (10) and (9) in Rankine-Hugoniot formula (2), the speed of the shock can now be written as

(12)
$$s=\frac{𝐄^{(\theta (u_{\text{right}}))}\left(r(\omega )+r(\omega )\right)𝐄^{(\theta (u_{\text{left}}))}\left(r(\omega )+r(\omega )\right)}{𝐄^{(\theta (u_{\text{right}}))}(\omega )𝐄^{(\theta (u_{\text{left}}))}(\omega )}.$$

## 4 . The defect tracer

### 4.1 Coupling the models

Let $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^+(0)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^{}(0)`$ be two elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. At time $`t=0`$ we start with a configuration where these two realizations differ at only one site:

$$\omega _i^+(0)=\omega _i^{}(0)\text{if }i0\text{and}\omega _0^+(0)=\omega _0^{}(0)+1.$$

One possible representation can be imagined by two walls. At time 0, the walls are the same on the right side of position 0, and every column of the wall + is higher by one brick than column of wall - on the left side of zero. We want the two processes to grow together in such a way, that the difference between them remains “one step” at any time $`t>0`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}(t>0)(_1Q(t)):\omega _i^+(t)=\omega _i^{}(t)\text{if }iQ(t)\text{and}\hfill \\ \hfill \omega _{Q(t)}^+(t)=\omega _{Q(t)}^{}(t)+1.\end{array}$$

We shall call this difference between the two models *defect tracer*, and $`Q(t)`$ is its position at time $`t`$. We show the coupling which preserves the only one defect tracer while both $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^{}`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^+`$ evolves as usual. This coupling for the simple exclusion model is described (with particle notations) in  and . Let our defect tracer be posed at point $`Q`$ (i.e. $`\omega _Q^+=\omega _Q^{}+1;\omega _i^+=\omega _i^{}`$ if $`iQ`$), and let $`h_i^+`$ (or $`h_i^{}`$) mean that the column of $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^+`$ (or the column of $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^{}`$, respectively) between the points $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ has grown by one brick. Then the growing rule for the columns $`h_{Q1}^\pm `$ and $`h_Q^\pm `$ is shown in table 1.

Every line of that table represents a possible step with rate written on the first column. These rates are non-negative due to monotonicity of $`r`$. For each column of this table, summing the rates corresponding to the possible steps assures us that columns of each $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^+`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^{}`$ evolve as usual in the neighborhood of $`Q`$. For $`iQ1`$ or $`Q,h_i^+`$ and $`h_i^{}`$ increases at the same time with the original rate $`r(\omega _i^{})+r(\omega _{i+1}^{})=r(\omega _i^+)+r(\omega _{i+1}^+)`$.

How does an observer following the defect tracer see the surface? We introduce the drifted form $`𝝉_k\underset{¯}{\omega }`$ of an $`\underset{¯}{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as follows. Let $`k`$, then $`𝝉_k\underset{¯}{\omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and

$$(𝝉_k\underset{¯}{\omega })_i:=\omega _{ik}.$$

From now on, we denote by $`\underset{¯}{\omega }(t)`$ the $`\underset{¯}{\omega }^{}(t)`$ process as seen from the position $`Q(t)`$ of the defect tracer, i.e. $`\omega _i:=\omega _{Q+i}^{}`$. According to the coupling rules, we can write the infinitesimal generator for $`\underset{¯}{\omega }`$:

(13)
$$\begin{array}{c}(L^{\text{(d.t.)}}\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{i1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}\left\{\left[r(\omega _i)+r(\omega _{i+1})\right]\left[\phi (\mathrm{},\omega _i1,\omega _{i+1}+1,\mathrm{})\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]\right\}+\\ \hfill +\left[r(\omega _1)+r(\omega _01)\right]\left[\phi (\mathrm{},\omega _11,\omega _0+1,\mathrm{})\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]+\\ \hfill +\left[r(\omega _0)+r(\omega _1)\right]\left[\phi (\mathrm{},\omega _01,\omega _1+1,\mathrm{})\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]+\\ \hfill +\left[r(\omega _0)r(\omega _01)\right]\left[\phi (𝝉_1(\mathrm{},\omega _11,\omega _0+1,\mathrm{}))\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right]+\\ \hfill +\left[r(\omega _0+1)r(\omega _0)\right]\left[\phi (𝝉_1\underset{¯}{\omega })\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right].\end{array}$$

### 4.2 The speed of the defect tracer

The main problem of this note is to find a stationary measure for the process as seen from the defect tracer, i.e. to find a measure $`\mu ^{\text{(d.t.)}}`$, for which

$$𝐄(L^{\text{(d.t.)}}\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=0$$

is satisfied. Before giving a partial answer to this question, we give an early indication on the correspondence to shocks of such a measure $`\mu ^{\text{(d.t.)}}`$.

Let $`a<1`$ (and $`b>1`$) be sites far on the left side (and far on the right side, respectively) of the defect tracer. We choose the function

$$\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega }):=\underset{k=a}{\overset{b}{}}\omega _k$$

in (13) to obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}(L^{\text{(d.t.)}}\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=\left[r(\omega _{a1})+r(\omega _a)\right]\left[r(\omega _b)+r(\omega _{b+1})\right]+\hfill \\ \hfill +\left[r(\omega _0)r(\omega _01)\right](\omega _{a1}\omega _b)+\left[r(\omega _0+1)r(\omega _0)\right](\omega _{b+1}\omega _a).\end{array}$$

Let us assume that a measure $`\mu ^{\text{(}d.t.)}`$ is stationary for $`L^{\text{(}d.t.)}`$. Let us also assume that as $`l\pm \mathrm{}`$, the random variable $`\omega _l`$ becomes asymptotically independent of $`\omega _1,\omega _0,\omega _1`$, and the distribution of $`\omega _l`$ converges weakly. Then we have

(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}0=𝐄(L^{\text{(d.t.)}}\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=𝐄\left[r(\omega _a)+r(\omega _a)\right]𝐄\left[r(\omega _b)+r(\omega _b)\right]+\hfill \\ \hfill +𝐄\left[r(\omega _0)r(\omega _01)\right]𝐄(\omega _a\omega _b)+𝐄\left[r(\omega _0+1)r(\omega _0)\right]𝐄(\omega _b\omega _a)+\\ \hfill +H(a,b),\end{array}$$

where the error function $`H(a,b)`$ tends to zero if $`a\mathrm{}`$ and $`b\mathrm{}`$. (For the product measure $`\mu ^{\text{(d.t.)}}`$ we find in the next section, $`H(a,b)=0`$ for any $`a<1,b>1`$.) According to the rules of the coupling, and assuming also ergodicity of the process as seen from the view of the defect tracer, we have the law of large numbers

$$v:=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{Q(t)}{t}=𝐄\left\{\left[r(\omega _0+1)r(\omega _0)\right]\left[r(\omega _0)r(\omega _01)\right]\right\}\text{a.s.}$$

for the speed of the defect tracer. Hence we conclude from (14) that

$$v=\underset{a\mathrm{},b\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{𝐄\left[r(\omega _b)+r(\omega _b)\right]𝐄\left[r(\omega _a)+r(\omega _a)\right]}{𝐄(\omega _b)𝐄(\omega _a)}$$

in case $`𝐄(\omega _a)𝐄(\omega _b)`$ and their limits are not equal i.e. the slope of the surface is different far on the two sides. This formula is the same as (12), which we obtained for the speed of the shock using the Rankine-Hugoniot formula. This shows that a measure $`\mu ^{\text{(d.t.)}}`$ with different asymptotics on the left and on the right can be identified as the microscopic structure of a shock solution of (1).

## 5 . Stationary measures as seen from the defect tracer

In this section we find a stationary product measure satisfying (7) for the defect tracer of the EBL model. We also show that this kind of measure only exists for the EBL model.

Intuitively one expects that far from the defect tracer a stationary measure behaves like the canonical Gibbs-measure $`\mu ^{(\theta )}`$, since the defect tracer is only a local “error” for the evolution of the process. The canonical measure has one parameter $`\theta `$, but it is not necessary that in this case parameter $`\theta _{\text{left}}`$ far on the left side would be equal to the parameter $`\theta _{\text{right}}`$ far on the right side. Let

$$\underset{¯}{\theta }:=\{\theta _i:i\}$$

be a sequence of parameters. Then it seems to be reasonable to assume that the product measure $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$ with marginals

$$\mu _i(z)=\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}\{\underset{¯}{\omega }:\omega _i=z\}:=\mu ^{(\theta _i)}(z)=\frac{1}{Z(\theta _i)}\frac{\text{e}^{\theta _iz}}{r(|z|)!}$$

is stationary for $`L^{\text{d.t.}}`$ (13) ($`i`$). This measure only differs from the canonical $`\mu ^{(\theta )}`$ (6) in that the parameter of its one-dimensional marginals depends on the position. The question is whether there are any choices of $`\underset{¯}{\theta }`$ for $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$ to be stationary.

###### Theorem 5.1.

For a bricklayers’ model, if $`r`$ is not the constant function, then the measure $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$ described above is stationary for $`L^{\text{(d.t.)}}`$ if and only if $`r`$ is the rate of an EBL model with any parameter $`\beta >0`$, and for the $`\underset{¯}{\theta }`$ parameters of $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$

$$\theta _i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\theta _{\text{left}}\hfill & \text{if}i1,\hfill \\ \theta _{\text{right}}:=\theta _{\text{left}}\beta \hfill & \text{if}i0\hfill \end{array}$$

is satisfied with an arbitrary real number $`\theta _{\text{left}}`$.

###### Proof.

Stationarity means

$$𝐄^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}(L^{\text{d.t.}}\phi )(\underset{¯}{\omega })=0,$$

after some changes of variables, by straightforward computations we obtain from (13)

(15)
$$0=𝐄^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}\left\{\left\{A+B+C+D\right\}\phi (\underset{¯}{\omega })\right\},$$

where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i1}{}}[[r(\omega _i+1)+r(\omega _{i+1}+1)]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i(\omega _i+1)\mu _{i+1}(\omega _{i+1}1)}{\mu _i(\omega _i)\mu _{i+1}(\omega _{i+1})}}`$
$``$ $`[r(\omega _i)+r(\omega _{i+1})]],`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\left[r(\omega _1+1)+r(\omega _0)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1(\omega _1+1)\mu _0(\omega _01)}{\mu _1(\omega _1)\mu _0(\omega _0)}}`$
$``$ $`r(\omega _1)r(\omega _0)r(\omega _0+1)+r(\omega _0),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\left[r(\omega _1+1)r(\omega _1)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _1(\omega _0+1)\mu _0(\omega _11)}{\mu _1(\omega _0)\mu _0(\omega _1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{j1}(\omega _j)}{\mu _j(\omega _j)}},`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left[r(\omega _1+1)r(\omega _1)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{j+1}(\omega _j)}{\mu _j(\omega _j)}}.`$
We eliminate the expressions $`\mu _k`$ for all $`k`$ with the use of (5) and (7)

$`r(z){\displaystyle \frac{\mu _k(z)}{\mu _k(z1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\theta _k}\text{and}`$
$`r(z){\displaystyle \frac{\mu _k(z)}{\mu _k(z+1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\theta _k}`$
to obtain

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i1}{}}\left[\text{e}^{\theta _i\theta _{i+1}}r(\omega _{i+1})+\text{e}^{\theta _i\theta _{i+1}}r(\omega _i)r(\omega _i)r(\omega _{i+1})\right],`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0}r(\omega _0)+\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0}r(\omega _1){\displaystyle \frac{r(\omega _0)}{r(\omega _0+1)}}`$
$``$ $`r(\omega _1)r(\omega _0)r(\omega _0+1)+r(\omega _0),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`r(\omega _0)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r(\omega _1)}{r(\omega _1+1)}}\right)\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\text{e}^{(\theta _{j1}\theta _j)\omega _j}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\theta _j)}{Z(\theta _{j1})}},`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left[r(\omega _1+1)r(\omega _1)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\text{e}^{(\theta _{j+1}\theta _j)\omega _j}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\theta _j)}{Z(\theta _{j+1})}}.`$
For $`a<1,b>1`$ fixed, let us consider bounded cylinder functions $`\phi `$, which depend on the variables $`\omega _a,\omega _{a+1},\mathrm{},\omega _b`$. By stationarity of $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$, (15) is satisfied for all of them. Hence it is necessary that $`A+B+C+D`$ does not depend on the variables $`\omega _a,\omega _{a+1},\mathrm{},\omega _b`$ and its mean is zero according to $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$. Only $`C,D`$, and the second term in $`B`$ are the terms which can contain product of functions of different variables $`\omega _k`$. Each of them is positive by monotonicity of $`r`$. Thus it follows that each of these three terms must not depend on more than one variable. This implies

$$\frac{r(z)}{r(z+1)}=\text{constant}=r(0)^2$$

due to the form of the second term in $`B`$. The value $`r(0)^2`$ of this constant is a consequence of (5). Thus we conclude that $`r`$ is necessarily exponential, the rates are that of the EBL model (3). $`C`$ and $`D`$ can also contain at most one variable, hence we obtain $`\theta _k=\theta _1`$ for $`k1`$ and $`\theta _k=\theta _0`$ for $`k0`$. This means that we have at most two kinds of marginals of $`\mu ^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}`$, one on the left-hand side of the defect tracer and an other one on its right-hand side. In (15), computing the expectation value of $`\phi `$ times the terms of $`A`$, summed up for $`ia2`$ and for $`ib+1`$, gives zero. The reason for this is that the variables in these terms are independent of the variables which $`\phi `$ depends on. For the rest of the indices, note that we have a telescopic sum for $`A`$. Due to this and using the rates of the EBL model, we can simplify our expressions to

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`r(\omega _{a1})r(\omega _{a1})+r(\omega _{b+1})r(\omega _{b+1})+`$
$`+`$ $`r(\omega _1)r(\omega _1)+r(\omega _0)r(\omega _0),`$
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0}r(\omega _0)+\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0\beta }r(\omega _1)`$
$``$ $`r(\omega _1)r(\omega _0)\text{e}^\beta r(\omega _0)+r(\omega _0),`$
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1\text{e}^\beta \right)r(\omega _0)\text{e}^{(\theta _1\theta _0)(\omega _0+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\theta _0)}{Z(\theta _1)}},`$
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\text{e}^\beta 1\right)r(\omega _1)\text{e}^{(\theta _0\theta _1)\omega _1}{\displaystyle \frac{Z(\theta _1)}{Z(\theta _0)}}.`$
It is easy to check that simply choosing $`\theta _1=\theta _0`$ does not eliminate the variables $`\omega _1,\omega _0`$ from $`A+B+C+D`$. Hence this can not be a solution for $`\underset{¯}{\theta }`$ to make equation (15) be satisfied for all $`\phi `$. This means that the marginals on the left-hand side of the defect tracer are different from those on the right-hand side. When taking expectation value in (15), this leads to having constant times $`\phi `$ from the terms containing $`\omega _{a1}`$ and $`\omega _{b+1}`$ in the first part of the expression of $`A`$. In order to make (15) be satisfied for all $`\phi `$, it is necessary that we obtain other constants to have zero together with. They can only come from $`C`$ and $`D`$. Thus we conclude

(16)
$$\text{e}^{\theta _1\theta _0}=\text{e}^\beta $$

with the use of the form (3) of $`r`$. In view of (8), we have the measures

(17)
$$\mu _i(z)=\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}\left(z\frac{\theta _i}{\beta }\right)^2}}{\text{e}^{\frac{\theta _i^2}{2\beta }}Z(\theta _i)}=\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}(zm_i)^2}}{\stackrel{~}{Z}(\beta ,m_i)}$$

with $`m_i:=\theta _i/\beta `$. We know that the normalization $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(\beta ,m)`$ in the right-hand side of (17) is periodic in the parameter $`m`$ with period one, which tells us

$$\frac{Z(\theta _1)}{Z(\theta _0)}=\frac{Z(\theta _0+\beta )}{Z(\theta _0)}=\frac{\text{e}^{\frac{(\theta _0+\beta )^2}{2\beta }}\stackrel{~}{Z}(\beta ,\frac{\theta _0}{\beta }+1)}{\text{e}^{\frac{(\theta _0)^2}{2\beta }}\stackrel{~}{Z}(\beta ,\frac{\theta _0}{\beta })}=\text{e}^{\frac{\beta }{2}+\theta _0}.$$

Using this result together with (16) and with the property $`𝐄^{(\underset{¯}{\theta })}r(\pm \omega _i)=\text{e}^{\pm \theta _i}`$, we see that (15) is satisfied, which completes the proof. ∎

The form of the measure described in this theorem shows that the discrete normal distribution of $`\omega _i,i1`$ is shifted by $`+1`$ compared to the distribution of $`\omega _j,j0`$. This gives us the picture of a (random) valley with the (randomly) moving defect tracer in its center. Since the position of the defect tracer is not deterministic, we do not see the sharp change between the distribution of the two sides of this valley, if looking the model from outside.

## Acknowledgement

The author is grateful to Bálint Tóth for introducing bricklayers’ models together with the problem, and for helping him in many questions. Correcting mistakes is also acknowledged to him, as well as to Benedek Valkó.

| Márton Balázs |
| --- |
| (balazs@math.bme.hu) |
| Institute of Mathematics, |
| Technical University Budapest |
| 1111 Egry József u. 1 H ép. V. |
| Budapest, Hungary |