text:
# Vortex Charging Effect in a Chiral 𝑝_𝑥±𝑖𝑝_𝑦-Wave Superconductor

## I Introduction

The discovery of many types of superconductors from heavy fermion compounds to high-$`T_c`$ cuprates has driven us to study a large variety of new physics beyond the standard BCS theory for conventional $`s`$-wave superconductors. The study of the unconventional superconductivity was stimulated by the discovery of superfluid 3He in which a spin triplet $`p`$-wave state realizes. Unlike the conventional $`s`$-wave state, the $`p`$-wave state has both spin and orbital degrees of freedom. This is the most pronounced feature of the unconventional superconductors observed in their thermodynamics and impurity effects or detected by tunneling spectroscopy, NMR, $`\mu `$SR measurements, and so on.

Sr2RuO4 is the first layered perovskite compound showing superconductivity without CuO2 planes.  The recent experimental and theoretical studies have indicated that the superconducting pairing symmetry of Sr2RuO4 is not a simple $`s`$-wave. The absence of a Hebel-Slichter peak in NQR  and the sensitivity of $`T_c`$ on non-magnetic impurities  point towards unconventional pairing. The indication of broken time reversal symmetry,  observed in $`\mu `$SR measurements, gives a strong argument for the unconventional paring state. The Knight shift experiment shows that the spin susceptibility is not affected by the superconducting state,  which is the strong evidence of a spin-triplet pairing. Sigrist et al. suggested that a $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave state, which breaks the time reversal symmetry in a tetragonal crystal field, is the most likely pairing state for Sr2RuO4.  The line node behavior is reported in the latest experiments  related to the low temperature thermodynamical measurements, such as specific heat and NMR $`T_1^1`$. An orbital dependent superconductivity  and gap anisotropy  were suggested to understand the line node behavior. Here we focus on the $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave pairing state, since this representation is the simplest and essential form. We will see rich physics of this chiral state.

The most intriguing character of the $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave state is that the Cooer pair has $`\pm 1`$ angular momentum, i.e. the pair electrons are rotating. This property is similar to that of the A phase of the superfluid 3He. Due to the violation of the time reversal symmetry, we have two types of vortices, one of which is in the same direction to the angular momentum of the rotating Cooper pair, and the other is in the opposite direction. The rotating pair shows up in quasiparticle states around a vortex core.

In this letter we present an interesting new physics related to a vortex. We focus on a vortex charging effect.  It was pointed out that for an $`s`$-wave superconductor the vortex charge is proportional to the slope of the density of states at the Fermi level.  Hayashi et al. has proposed that the vortex charge is determined by the quasiparticle structure in the vortex core  rather than the slope of the density of states. Very recently, it has been reported that Chern-Simons terms lead to a fractional vortex charge for the $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave state.  Thus the origin of the vortex charge is still controversial. To make this point clearer, we investigate the vortex charging effect in the chiral $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave state, concentrating our attention on a microscopic origin of the vortex charge. This is demonstrated by solving the BdG equation self-consistently, including both charge and current screenings. This is the first full self-consistent BdG study of a single vortex. We would like to show how the rotating Cooper pair shows up in the vortex charging effect.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present our formulation for calculating the quasiparticle states near the vortex core based on the BdG equation. In Sec. III, we show numerical results. We give summary and discussions in Sec. IV.

## II Formulation

Let us begin with the following BdG and gap equations for the $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave state:

$`h_0u_n{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_F}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \mathrm{}_\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{}_\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm )\right]v_n=E_nu_n,`$ (2)
$``$ $`h_0^{}v_n{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_F}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \mathrm{}_\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{}_\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_\pm )\right]^{}u_n=E_nv_n,`$ (5)
$`h_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m}}\left(i+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝑨\right)^2eA_0\mu ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒓)=i{\displaystyle \frac{V_p\mathrm{\Omega }}{2k_F}}{\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)\left[v_n^{}(𝒓)\mathrm{}_{}u_n(𝒓)u_n(𝒓)\mathrm{}_{}v_n^{}(𝒓)\right].`$
The detailed derivation is given in the Appendix. Throughout this paper, we use $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`k_\mathrm{B}=1`$ units. $`e>0`$ is the electron charge. $`E_n`$ is the energy eigenvalue for the superconducting quasiparticle, and $`\mathrm{}_\pm =_x\pm i_y`$ is used. $`A_0`$ and $`𝑨`$ are the scalar and vector potentials, respectively. $`V_p>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the $`p`$-wave attractive interaction and volume of the two-dimensional system, respectively. $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ is a cutoff energy, and $`\mu `$ is a chemical potential. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ is the order parameter for the $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave. For simplicity, we assume that the superconductor is basically two-dimensional and has a cylindrical Fermi surface. We note that the BdG solution has the following time reversal relation:

$$\{u_{E_n},v_{E_n}\}=\{v_{E_n}^{},u_{E_n}^{}\}.$$
(6)
The solution of the BdG equation determines the two-dimensional electron and current densities:

$`n(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{E_n}{}}|u_n(𝒓)|^2f(E_n),`$ (8)
$`𝑱(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie}{m}}{\displaystyle \underset{E_n}{}}\left[u_n^{}(𝒓)u_n(𝒓)u_n(𝒓)u_n^{}(𝒓)\right]f(E_n){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{mc}}n(𝒓)𝑨(𝒓).`$ (9)
By using the relation (6), both densities have been expressed in terms of the $`u_n`$ amplitude. $`f(E_n)`$ is the Fermi distribution function and the $`E_n`$ summation in Eq. (II) runs both negative and positive regions. The scalar and vector potentials obey the Maxwell equations:

$`^2A_0(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e}{d}}\left[n_0n(𝒓)\right],`$ (11)
$`^2𝑨(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{cd}}𝑱(𝒓).`$ (12)
We have introduced a layer spacing $`d`$ to convert the area densities into the volume ones. To satisfy charge neutrality we introduce a uniform $`n_0`$ as the density of positive background charge. We have taken the origin of the coordinate at the vortex center.

In the bulk region $`p_x+ip_y`$ and $`p_xip_y`$-wave states are degenerate. In this letter we will choose one of the two degenerate states, the $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave state as a dominant component. However, the other component ($`p_xip_y`$) is admixed with the bulk state ($`p_x+ip_y`$) close to the vortex core.  Therefore our formulation includes both $`p_x\pm ip_y`$ components. The $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave state has a $`+1`$ Cooper pair phase winding, since $`\mathrm{}_+`$ in Eq. (II) is expressed as

$$\mathrm{}_+=e^{i\varphi }(_r+\frac{i}{r}_\varphi ).$$
(13)
Here $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the two-dimensional polar coordinates. A single vortex produces an additional phase winding $`\pm 1`$. Therefore there are two kind of vortices: the vortex winding direction is parallel or anti-parallel relative to the Cooper pair winding. As we will see later, the former vortex is charged up, while the latter is not. We name the former and the latter C(charged)-vortex and U(uncharged)-vortex, respectively. The C-vortex has two fold winding $`+2`$ effectively. On the other hand, the phase winding is zero for the U-vortex, since the winding of the Cooper pair cancels the vortex one. Due to the rotational symmetry of the system, angular momentum is a good quantum number. The BdG solutions are then classified by the angular momentum. To keep the rotational symmetry, there is only the following combination of the order parameters for the C and U-vortices:

$`(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{vortex})`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)e^{i\varphi },\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)e^{i3\varphi },`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{U}\mathrm{vortex})`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_+(r)e^{i\varphi },\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r,\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(r)e^{i\varphi },`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ are the dominant and admixed components, respectively. Hence the wavefunction $`u_n`$ couples with $`v_n`$ in the following angular momentum spaces:

$`(\mathrm{C}\mathrm{vortex})u_n^lv_n^{l2},`$ (17)
$`(\mathrm{U}\mathrm{vortex})u_n^lv_n^l,`$ (18)
where the superscripts represent the angular momenta of $`u_n`$ and $`v_n`$. The GL calculation showed that the U-vortex is energetically favored.  However, in a real sample we can expect two types ($`p_x\pm ip_y`$) of domains, so that there are both C and U-vortices in the presence of an external magnetic field. We solve the two-dimensional single vortex problem on a disk of radius $`R`$. Since we treat a cylindrical system, it is convenient to expand wave functions by the following base functions:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}u_n(𝒓)\\ v_n(𝒓)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{lnj}e^{il\varphi }\phi _{lj}(r)\\ v_{l^{}nj}e^{il^{}\varphi }\phi _{l^{}j}(r)\end{array}\right),`$ (20)
$`\phi _{lj}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R^2}}}J_l({\displaystyle \frac{Z_{lj}r}{R}})`$ (21)
Here $`J_l`$ is the $`l`$-th Bessel function, $`Z_{lj}`$ is the $`j`$-th zero of $`J_l`$ and $`R`$ is the radius of the system. $`l^{}`$ in Eq. (IIa) takes $`l2`$ ($`l`$) for the C-vortex (U-vortex).

In the practical numerical calculation, we use no-dimensional quantities. We express them with bar as follows:

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}\overline{},T=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{T},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm ,E_n=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{E}_n,`$ (23)
$`\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{\mu },E_\mathrm{c}=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{E}_c,`$ (24)
$`𝒓`$ $`=`$ $`\xi _0\overline{𝒓},\mathrm{}_\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}\overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_\pm ,`$ (25)
$`u_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}\overline{u}_n,v_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}\overline{v}_n,`$ (26)
$`eA_0`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\overline{a}_0,{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}𝑨={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0}}\overline{𝒂},`$ (27)
$`n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0^2}}\overline{n},n_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\xi _0^2}}\overline{n}_0,`$ (28)
$`𝑱`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m\xi _0^3}}\overline{𝑱}.`$ (29)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (unit of energy) is the magnitude of the order parameter at $`T=0`$. $`\xi _0=v_\mathrm{F}/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (unit of length) is the superconducting coherence length. Using these non-dimensional quantities, we obtain the following set of equations:

$`\overline{h}_0\overline{u}_n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_F\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm \overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm )\right]\overline{v}_n=\overline{E}_n\overline{u}_n,`$ (31)
$`\overline{h}_0^{}\overline{v}_n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_F\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm \overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_\pm +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_\pm \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm )\right]^{}\overline{u}_n=\overline{E}_n\overline{v}_n,`$ (32)
$`\overline{h}_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k_\mathrm{F}\xi _0}}\left(i\overline{}+\overline{𝒂}\right)^2\overline{a}_0\overline{\mu },`$ (33)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (\overline{𝒓})`$ $`=`$ $`ig{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k_F\xi _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{0\overline{E}_n\overline{E}_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}_n}{2\overline{T}}}\right)\left[\overline{v}_n^{}(\overline{𝒓})\overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_{}\overline{u}_n(\overline{𝒓})\overline{u}_n(\overline{𝒓})\overline{\overline{\mathrm{}}}_{}\overline{v}_n^{}(\overline{𝒓})\right],`$ (34)
$`\overline{n}(\overline{𝒓})`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{E}_n}{}}|\overline{u}_n(\overline{𝒓})|^2f(\overline{E}_n),`$ (35)
$`\overline{𝑱}(\overline{𝒓})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{E}_n}{}}\left[\overline{u}_n^{}(\overline{𝒓})\overline{}\overline{u}_n(\overline{𝒓})\overline{u}_n(\overline{𝒓})\overline{}\overline{u}_n^{}(\overline{𝒓})\right]f(\overline{E}_n)\overline{n}(\overline{𝒓})\overline{𝑨}(\overline{𝒓}),`$ (36)
$`\overline{}^2\overline{a}_0(\overline{𝒓})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{k_\mathrm{F}\xi _0}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0}{\lambda _{\mathrm{TF}}}}\right)^2\left[\overline{n}_0\overline{n}(\overline{𝒓})\right],`$ (37)
$`\overline{}^2\overline{𝒂}(\overline{𝒓})`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0}{\lambda _\mathrm{L}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{n}_0}}\overline{𝑱}(\overline{𝒓}).`$ (38)
Here $`\lambda _{\mathrm{TF}}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}`$ are the Thomas-Fermi screening lenth and London penetration depth, respectively. They are given by

$`\lambda _{\mathrm{TF}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi e^2N(0)}}={\displaystyle \frac{d}{4e^2m}},`$ (40)
$`\lambda _\mathrm{L}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{md}{e^2n_0}},`$ (41)
where $`N(0)`$ is the density of states at Fermi energy. For two-dimensional layer system, it is given by $`N(0)=m/\pi d`$. $`g`$ in Eq. (IId) is a non-dimensional coupling for the $`p`$-wave defined as $`g=V_p\mathrm{\Omega }/(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\xi _0^2)`$. We have three no-dimensional parameters: $`k_\mathrm{F}\xi _0`$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{TF}}/\xi _0`$, and $`\lambda _\mathrm{L}/\xi _0`$.

In our numerical calculation, we obtain $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\pm (\overline{𝒓})`$, $`\overline{a}_0(\overline{𝒓})`$, and $`\overline{𝒂}(\overline{𝒓})`$ by solving Eq. (II) iteratively within a Gygi and Schlüter method.  In the self-consistent calculation we fix the total number of electrons to the normal state value by adjusting $`\overline{\mu }`$.

## III Numerical Results

Let us discuss our BdG self-consistent solutions. First we show the order parameters in Fig. 1(a). The admixed component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ is induced around the vortex core as expected. It shows the asymptotic behavior $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}r`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}r^3`$ ) for the U-vortex (C-vortex), which is consistent with the GL result.  $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{}|`$ for the U-vortex is larger than the C-vortex one. This indicates that the U-vortex gains much condensation energy. In Fig. 1(b) we show several energy eigenvalues of the BdG equation. We notice that both vortices have zero energy bound states.  The appearance of the zero energy states is the consequence of the symmetric property of the BdG equation \[Eq. (6)\]. As we discuss later, the bound state for $`l_u=0`$ is very important to the vortex charging effect,  where $`l_u`$ is the angular momentum of the wavefunction $`u_n`$. $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{U}`$ in Fig. 1(b) represent the bound state. Next we show the charge density around the vortex core. As in Fig. 2(a) large charge density appears in the vortex core.  The induced electric field is screened as we go far from the vortex center. Figure 2(b) is the spatial dependence of the electron density at various temperatures. At $`T=0`$ the electron density is suddenly decreased in the core region, which results in the vortex charge. With the increase of temperature, the electron density becomes uniform and the charge density is reduced accordingly. Contrary to the C-vortex, the electron density is almost uniform at all temperatures for the U-vortex, so that the vortex charge is very small in this case.

Let us explain the microscopic origin of the vortex charging effect. First we discuss the C-vortex case. There are two contributions to the electron density $`n`$. One is from the bound states, and the other is from the extended states. We name the former $`n_\mathrm{B}`$, and the latter $`n_\mathrm{E}`$ ($`n=n_\mathrm{B}+n_\mathrm{E}`$). In general only the $`l_u=0`$ states contribute to the local electron density at the vortex center. In the microscopic study we find out the important role of the bound state with zero angular momentum ($`l_u=0`$).  At zero temperature only the $`E_n0`$ states are effective in Eq. (II). Therefore the bound state $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$ in Fig. 1(b) cannot contribute to the electron density, since this state is unoccupied \[Fig. 3(a)\]. $`n_\mathrm{B}`$ is then suddenly decreased in the core region as in Fig. 3(b), and the total electron density is decreased close to the vortex center, resulting in the finite vortex charge. At finite temperatures the contribution from the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$ state comes out \[Fig. 3(a)\] due to the finite Fermi distribution function in Eq. (II) for $`E_n>0`$. Correspondingly, $`n_\mathrm{B}`$ increases in the core region as shown in Fig. 3(b). At $`T=0.3\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, which is larger than the energy of $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$, the electron density is almost uniform due to the contribution from the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$ state. The vortex charge is then reduced strongly at high temperatures as shown in Fig. 2(b).

Next we discuss the U-vortex. Contrary to the C-vortex, the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{U}`$ bound state in Fig. 1(b) can contribute to the electron density at all temperatures, since this state is located at zero energy. As the consequence, the electron density for the U-vortex is almost uniform. In the U-vortex case we find very small temperature dependence in the electron density, since the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{U}`$ state is located at zero energy and participates in the energy excitations with the same rate at all temperatures. We note that the electron density for the U-vortex is very similar to that for the C-vortex at $`T=0.3\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where the $`\mathrm{B}_\mathrm{C}`$ state is occupied. We conclude that the appearance of the vortex charge depends on the position of the $`l_u=0`$ bound state relative to the temperature. In the conventional $`s`$-wave case, the vortex charge always appears at sufficiently low temperatures,  which is similar to the C-vortex result.

Let us mention the effect of charge screening. We show the total electron density $`n`$ and contribution from extended states $`n_\mathrm{E}`$ for two cases, where charge screening is taken into account or not (see Fig. 4). In the no charge screening case, the contribution from extended states $`n_\mathrm{E}`$ is small at the vortex core. The total electron density $`n`$ is then decreased, resulting in larger vortex charge. Note that the scalar potential in Eq. (IIg) is zero ($`\overline{a}_0=0`$) for no charge screening ($`\lambda _\mathrm{T}\mathrm{}`$). Therefore the scalar potential does not work to screen the vortex charge. On the other hand, when the charge screening turns on, quasiparticles respond to the vortex charge via the scalar potential $`\overline{a}_0`$ in the BdG equation (IIa)-(IIc). $`n_\mathrm{E}`$ is then increased to cancel the vortex charge. In contract to the extended state, electron density of the bound states $`n_\mathrm{B}`$ does not exhibit difference between the charge screening and no screening cases. Since the bound states are localized around the vortex core, their wave function hardly modulate, while the extended states do easily. Hence the extended states quickly respond to the electric field and they screen the vortex charge. However, there still remains the substantial vortex charge.

We discuss the effect of magnetic field. The Chern-Simons physics  and Bernoulli effect  take place in the presence of magnetic field. To see this effect we compare the two results, where $`\overline{𝒂}`$ is present or ignored (no magnetic field). The scalar potential $`\overline{a}_0`$ is taken into account for both cases. Our result shows that the effect of the magnetic field is too small to be seen. Thus we find that the vortex charge is mainly determined by the microscopic quasiparticles structure, which reflects the phase winding of the chiral pairing. Figure 5 shows a schematic picture of the energy spectrum of vortex bound states for various winding pairings. The lowest-lying state appears at the symmetric position of $`l_u`$ and $`l_v`$ due to the relation (6), where $`l_u`$ and $`l_v`$ are the angular momenta of $`u_n`$ and $`v_n`$, respectively. For the C-vortex the bound state energy is positive for $`l_u=0`$, while it is negative or zero for the U-vortex. Therefore the C-vortex is always charged up at low temperatures, while the U-vortex is not. Thus the vortex charge can be discussed in terms of the vortex bound states for all types of chiral pairings. Similarly, we can understand that the $`s`$-wave (zero winding) vortex is charged up.

Finally let us discuss non-chiral pairings, such as $`p_x`$, $`p_y`$, and $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-waves. These states are all gapless and it is reported that there is no bound states for the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave.  Since the system is anisotropic in this case, the energy eigenstates are not classified by the angular momentum. Therefore the above argument for the vortex charging is difficult to apply to this case. However, our result implies that the detailed quasiparticle structure in the vortex core is important for the vortex charging effect even in the gapless pairing cases.

## IV Summary and Discussions

In conclusion, we have solved the problem of a single $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave vortex self-consistently within the Bogoliubov-de Gennes theory. The full self-consistent calculation including both charge and current screenings was performed for the first time to investigate vortex problems. Due to the time reversal symmetry breaking, there are two types of vortices. We found a substantial vortex charge in the C-vortex case, while the vortex charge is suppressed for U-vortex. We conclude that the vortex charging effects are mainly determined by the local quasiparticle structure around the vortex core, reflecting the chiral $`p_x\pm ip_y`$-wave paring. Especially the lowest vortex bound state is very important for the charging effect at low temperatures.

In a real sample we can expect two types ($`p_x\pm ip_y`$) of domains. Therefore we expect both C and U-vortices in the presence of an external magnetic field. In domains, where the C-vortex is realized, an electronic field is induced due to the vortex charge. Therefore the charge of the C-vortex can be detected. If we use a field cooled sample, a single domain forming the U-vortex is realized all over the sample, since the U-vortex is energetically favorable.  In this case it is difficult to find a signal from the U-vortex, since the charge of the U-vortex is much smaller than the C-vortex one. Thus we can distinguish the two types of C and U-vortices.

How can we detect the vortex charge? The vortex charge can induce lattice distortion and it scatters neutrons. It is reported that a polarized neutron scattering can be used to detect the vortex charge.  NQR is also one of the possible experiment which can detect the vortex charging effect, since the NQR detects the local electric field induced by the vortex charge. Very recently, Kumagai $`et`$ $`al`$. reported that the vortex charge is observed by the NQR in a high-$`T_c`$ material.  Thus the detection of the vortex charge is in progress now. It is very exciting if the vortex charge of the chiral superconductor is detected, since it can provide a very strong evidence of the rotating Cooper pair.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors express their sincere thanks to M. Sigrist, G. Blatter, and A. Furusaki for many stimulating discussions. One of the authors (MM) thanks N. Hayashi for helpful discussions on the BdG equation and the vortex charging effect. He would like to acknowledge M. Koga for his critical reading of the manuscript. This work is supported by Casio Science Promotion Foundation.

## A Derivation of Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation and Gap equation

In this appendix we derive the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation and gap equation for the $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave superconductor, which we use in the text.

Let us start from the the following Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation:

$`h_0(𝒓)u_n(𝒓)+{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,𝒓^{})v_n(𝒓^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`E_nu_n(𝒓),`$ (A2)
$`h_0^{}(𝒓)v_n(𝒓){\displaystyle 𝑑𝒓^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(𝒓,𝒓^{})u_n(𝒓^{})}`$ $`=`$ $`E_nv_n(𝒓).`$ (A3)
Coordinates $`𝒓`$ and $`𝒓^{}`$ can be transformed into the center of mass and relative coordinates.

$$𝑹=\frac{𝒓+𝒓^{}}{2},𝑿=𝒓𝒓^{}.$$
(A4)
The $`p_x+ip_y`$-wave pairing is expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝑹){\displaystyle \frac{k_x}{k_\mathrm{F}}}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝑹){\displaystyle \frac{k_y}{k_\mathrm{F}}},`$ (A6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝑿)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒌e^{i𝒌𝑿}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝒌)}`$ (A7)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒌\frac{1}{k_\mathrm{F}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝑹)_x^{}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝑹)_y^{}\right]e^{i𝒌(𝒓𝒓^{})}}`$ (A8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_\mathrm{F}}}\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝑹)_x^{}+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝑹)_y^{}\right]\delta (𝒓𝒓^{}).`$ (A9)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ are the $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ components of the order parameter. Substituting Eq. (Ab) into Eq. (A), we obtain

$`h_0(𝒓)u_n(𝒓){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{k_\mathrm{F}}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)_x+i\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)_y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)+i_y\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)\right]\right\}v_n(𝒓)=E_nu_n(𝒓),`$ (A11)
$``$ $`h_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓)v_n(𝒓){\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_\mathrm{F}}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)_xi\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)_y+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[_x\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)i_y\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)\right]\right\}u_n(𝒓)=E_nv_n(𝒓).`$ (A12)
Next we derive gap equation. The order parameter is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,𝒓^{})=V(𝒓,𝒓^{})\underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{E_n}{2T}\right)u_n(𝒓^{})v_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓)V(𝒓,𝒓^{})D(𝒓,𝒓^{}),$$
(A13)
where $`E_\mathrm{c}`$ is a cutoff energy. For the $`p`$-wave pairing, we assume the following $`p`$-wave interaction:

$$V(𝒓,𝒓^{})=\frac{V_p\mathrm{\Omega }}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑𝒌e^{i𝒌𝑿}\frac{k^2}{k_\mathrm{F}^2}.$$
(A14)
Here $`V_p>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are the $`p`$-wave attractive interaction and two-dimensional volume of the system, respectively. The order parameter is then expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝒌)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝑿e^{i𝒌𝑿}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒓,𝒓^{})}`$ (A16)
$`=`$ $`V_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle 𝑑𝒌^{}\frac{k^2}{k_\mathrm{F}^2}\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}𝑑𝑿e^{i𝒌𝑿}D(𝑹+\frac{𝑿}{2},𝑹\frac{𝑿}{2})e^{i𝒌^{}𝑿}}.`$ (A17)
We expand $`D(𝑹+\frac{𝑿}{2},𝑹\frac{𝑿}{2})`$ as

$$D(𝑹+\frac{𝑿}{2},𝑹\frac{𝑿}{2})R(𝑹,𝑹)+\left[\frac{D(𝑹,𝑹^{})}{𝑹}\frac{D(𝑹,𝑹^{})}{𝑹^{}}\right]_{𝑹^{}𝑹}\frac{𝑿}{2},$$
(A18)
and obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝒌)`$ $``$ $`V_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{k_\mathrm{F}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)u_n(𝑹)v_n^{}(𝑹)`$ (A19)
$``$ $`iV_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{𝒌}{k_\mathrm{F}^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{}{𝑹}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝑹^{}}}){\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)u_n(𝑹)v_n^{}(𝑹^{})|_{𝑹^{}𝑹}.`$ (A20)
The first term in Eq. (A20) is zero due to the $`p`$-wave pairing. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝑹,𝒌)`$ can be divided into two parts as in Eq. (Aa), the gap equation takes the following form:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`V_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_\mathrm{F}}}(_x_x^{}){\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)u_n(𝒓)v_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓^{})|_{𝒓^{}𝒓},`$ (A22)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)`$ $`=`$ $`V_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_\mathrm{F}}}(_y_y^{}){\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)u_n(𝒓)v_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓^{})|_{𝒓^{}𝒓}.`$ (A23)
For a cylindrical system, it is convenient to introduce the following form for order parameters:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒓)=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝒓)\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝒓)].$$
(A24)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ is the order parameter for the $`p_x\pm p_y`$-wave pairing. By using the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm `$ representation, the Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation and the gap equations are expressed as

$`h_0(𝒓)u_n(𝒓){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{k_\mathrm{F}}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒓)\mathrm{}_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒓)\mathrm{}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{}_+\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒓)+\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒓)\right]\right\}v_n(𝒓)=E_nu_n(𝒓),`$ (A26)
$``$ $`h_0^{}(𝒓)v_n(𝒓){\displaystyle \frac{i}{k_\mathrm{F}}}\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒓)\mathrm{}_++\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒓)\mathrm{}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{}_+\mathrm{\Delta }_+(𝒓)+\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(𝒓)\right]\right\}^{}u_n(𝒓)=E_nv_n(𝒓),`$ (A29)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm (𝒓)=V_p\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2k_\mathrm{F}}}(\mathrm{}_{}\mathrm{}_{}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{0E_nE_\mathrm{c}}{}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_n}{2T}}\right)u_n(𝒓)v_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(𝒓^{})|_{𝒓^{}𝒓},`$
$`\mathrm{}_\pm =_x\pm i_y.`$


format: text

text:
# Flat Spacetime Gravitation with a Preferred Foliation

## I Introduction

It is known that general relativity can be formally derived as a flat spacetime theory . Such a derivation can be based on invariance (up to a boundary term) of the free gravitational action under an infinitesimal gauge transformation and on universal coupling of all energy-momentum, including that of gravitation itself, to serve as the source . In this context there exists a gravitational energy-momentum tensor , not merely a pseudotensor, so gravitational energy-momentum is localized in a coordinate-invariant (but gauge-variant) way. As W. Thirring observed, it is not clear *a priori* why Riemannian geometry is to be preferred over all the other sorts of geometry that exist, so a derivation (as opposed to postulation) is attractive .

Here we introduce on an $`n`$-dimensional space a preferred temporal foliation $`_\mu \theta `$ along side the $`n`$-dimensional flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }(x)`$ (in arbitrary coordinates) as nondynamical objects. While the dimension $`n`$ is not specified, we expect that $`n=4`$ with metric signature $`+++`$ and $`n=5`$ with signature $`+++`$  will be of the greatest interest. (If $`n=4`$, then Greek indices run from 0 to 3 and $`\theta =x^0=t`$ for some preferred inertial frame in the natural coordinates. If $`n=5`$, then Greek indices run over 0,1,2,3,5 with $`\theta =x^5=\tau `$ in natural coordinates, $`\tau `$ being an invariant supertime.) The foliation $`_\mu \theta `$ obeys $`(_\mu \theta )\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \theta =1`$ and $`_\nu _\mu \theta =0.`$ We define the unit normal covector by $`n_\mu =_\mu \theta `$. Its $`\eta `$-raised counterpart $`n^\nu =n_\mu \eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is future-pointing . The metric and foliation induce a projection tensor $`h_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+n_\mu n_\nu `$. If we agree to refer to $`\theta `$ as “time” (perhaps meaning $`\tau `$) and the remaining dimensions as “space” (perhaps having signature $`+++`$) for convenience, then the projection tensor serves as the “spatial” metric. The symmetric gravitational potential is $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ (of density weight 0), and bosonic matter fields are denoted by $`u`$ (with all indices suppressed). One could take $`\gamma `$ to be either a contravariant density of any weight (except $`\frac{1}{2}`$) or a covariant density of any weight (except $`\frac{1}{2}`$). (These weights are special because the resulting inverse metric tensor density or metric tensor density, respectively, has a determinant of $`1`$, so there are only 9 independent components. Thus, invertibility issues arise.) In the massless case, this choice makes no difference. If it were desired to add a gauge-symmetry-breaking mass term, the choice of index position and weight would affect the results.

## II Spatial Gauge Invariance and Universal Momentum Coupling

This derivation is an improved version of previous work of ours on this subject , based on improvements in the corresponding derivation of general relativity . Unlike our previous parametrized derivation , this one does not assume that $`n_\mu n_\nu \gamma ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, so one can retain the lapse function $`N`$ of an ADM split  as a nontrivial quantity, as opposed to requiring $`N=1`$ *a priori* and thus not varying it. The assumption of gauge invariance requires that the field be massless, except for the time-time part $`n_\mu n_\nu \gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$, which can be massive. One can show this fact directly by writing the most general algebraic quantity that is quadratic in the gravitational potentials. (As in the case without a preferred foliation , there is no mathematical objection to adding a mass term that breaks the gauge invariance. A possible physical difficulty with negative energy will be noted below. Including both mass terms would imply that the time-time part of the field had a different rest mass from the rest of the field.)

### A Free Field Action

Let $`S_f`$ be the action for a free gravitational field (in the sense that the gravitational coupling constant vanishes). We require that $`S_f`$ change only by a boundary term under the infinitesimal gauge transformation

$`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }+^\mu \xi ^\nu +^\nu \xi ^\mu ,`$ (1)
$`\xi ^\nu `$ being a vector field obeying $`\xi ^\nu n_\mu =0`$.

For any $`S_f`$ invariant in this sense under (1), the free field equations’ divergence is purely temporal, for its spatial projection vanishes, as we now show. The action changes by

$`\delta S_f={\displaystyle }d^nx[{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_f}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}(^\nu \xi ^\mu +^\mu \xi ^\nu )+e^\mu ,_\mu ]={\displaystyle }d^nxf^\mu ,_\mu .`$ (2)
The forms of the boundary terms $`e^\mu ,_\mu `$ and $`f^\mu ,_\mu `$ are not needed. Integrating by parts, letting $`\xi ^\mu `$ have compact support to annihilate the boundary terms (as we shall do throughout the paper), and recalling the purely spatial character of $`\xi ^\mu `$, we obtain the identity

$`h_\alpha ^\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_f}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}=0.`$ (3)
### B The Asymmetric Metric Energy-Momentum Tensor

An expression for the total energy-momentum tensor can be derived from $`S`$ using the metric recipe  in the following way, making allowances for the presence of another absolute object. The action depends on the flat metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, the foliation $`n_\mu `$, the gravitational potential $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$, and bosonic matter fields $`u`$, the last representing any number of tensor densities of arbitrary weights and index positions. Under an arbitrary infinitesimal coordinate transformation described by a vector field $`\psi ^\mu `$, the action changes by the amount

$`\delta S={\displaystyle }d^nx({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi \gamma ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta u}}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi u+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi \eta ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\mu }}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi n_\mu +g^\mu ,_\mu ),`$ (4)
where $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi `$ is the Lie derivative with respect to $`\psi ^\mu `$ and $`g^\mu ,_\mu `$ is another boundary term of no present interest. But $`S`$ is a scalar, so $`\delta S=0`$. Letting the matter and gravitational field equations hold gives

$`\delta S={\displaystyle d^nx(\frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi \eta ^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\mu }\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi n_\mu )}=0,`$ (5)
or, upon rewriting the Lie derivatives in terms of the covariant derivative compatible with the flat metric ,

$`^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_\nu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\mu }}=0.`$ (6)
One can identify $`\frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}\frac{1}{2}n_\nu \eta _{\mu \alpha }\frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\alpha }`$ as the energy-momentum tensor. Its asymmetry reflects the preferred character of $`n_\mu `$. If we take the spatial projection of this quantity, we obtain the tensor of momentum density and its flux $`h_\alpha ^\nu \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}`$.

### C Full Universally-Coupled Action

For the full theory, we postulate that the spatial projection of the Euler-Lagrange equations should be just the spatial projection of the free field equations for $`S_f`$ augmented by the momentum tensor (including gravitational momentum):

$`h_\alpha ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}=h_\alpha ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_f}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}\lambda h_\alpha ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}},`$ (7)
where $`\lambda `$ is a coupling constant. If $`n=4`$ and the theory in question is general relativity, then $`\lambda =\sqrt{32\pi G}`$; for other theories, the Newtonian limit would need consideration. If $`n=5`$, then $`\lambda `$ has different dimensions from Newton’s constant $`G`$, with an additional length entering . Horwitz *et al.* have previously noted the entrance of an additional length in their parametrized electromagnetism .

One is free to make a change of variables in $`S`$ from the flat metric $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and gravitational potential $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$ to $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, where

$`g^{\mu \nu }=\eta ^{\mu \nu }+\lambda \gamma ^{\mu \nu }.`$ (8)
Equating coefficients of the variations gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}`$ (9)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}=\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}.`$ (10)
Putting these two results together gives

$`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|\gamma =\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}}.`$ (11)
Equation (11) splits the energy-momentum tensor into one piece that vanishes when the gravitational Euler-Lagrange equations hold and one piece that does not. Using this result in (7) gives

$`\lambda h_\alpha ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g=h_\alpha ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_f}{\delta \gamma ^{\mu \nu }}},`$ (12)
which says that the spatial projection of the free field Euler-Lagrange derivative must equal (up to a constant factor) that part of the momentum tensor that does not vanish when the gravitational field equations hold. Recalling (3), one derives

$`h_\alpha ^\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g=0,`$ (13)
which says that the part of the momentum tensor not proportional to the gravitational field equations has identically vanishing divergence. This result concerning the splitting of the momentum tensor will be used in considering the gauge transformations of the full theory. It also ensures that the gravitational field equations *alone* entail conservation of momentum, without any separate postulation of the matter equations. (Previously the derivation of a conserved momentum tensor required that gravity *and matter* obey their field equations, as in (5).) But the conservation of energy still depends upon the matter field equations.

Expanding the projection tensor gives

$`^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \alpha }}}|g+n^\nu n_\alpha ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g=0.`$ (14)
Let us divide the action into 3 pieces: a piece $`S_1`$ independent of $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (the other variable being $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, not $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$), a piece $`S_2`$ that contributes a symmetric curl (*i.e.*, a quantity with identically vanishing divergence on either index) to the stress tensor, and another piece $`S_3`$. We therefore write

$`S=S_1[g,u,n]+S_2[g,u,\eta ,n]+S_3[g,u,\eta ,n],`$ (15)
suppressing all indices in the arguments. Given the assumed property of $`S_2`$, one can write

$`\eta ^{\mu \alpha }\eta ^{\nu \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_2}{\delta \eta ^{\alpha \beta }}}|g={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\rho _\sigma (^{[\mu \rho ][\sigma \nu ]}+^{[\nu \rho ][\sigma \mu ]})+b\sqrt{\eta }\eta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (16)
 (pp. 89, 429), where $`^{\mu \rho \sigma \nu }`$ is a tensor density of weight $`1`$ and $`b`$ is a constant. This result follows from the converse of Poincaré’s lemma in flat spacetime. One easily verifies that if

$`S_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^nxR_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\eta )^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(g,u,\eta ,n)+{\displaystyle }d^nx𝒳^\mu ,_\mu +2b{\displaystyle }d^nx\sqrt{\eta },`$ (17)
then $`\frac{\delta S_2}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}|g`$ has just the desired form, while $`S_2`$ does not affect the Euler-Lagrange equations because its value is $`0`$. $`𝒳^\mu `$ is a weight $`1`$ vector density, because we require that $`S`$ be a scalar. For convenience we deposit all boundary terms into $`S_2`$.

One can also show that if

$`S_3=2{\displaystyle d^nx_\beta \psi ^{\alpha \beta }(g,u,\eta ,n)n_\alpha _\mu n^\mu },`$ (18)
then (14) is satisfied. Now both terms of that equation are used, not just one as for $`S_2`$. Here $`\psi ^{\alpha \beta }(g,u,\eta ,n)`$ is any (2,0) weight 1 tensor density constructed from all the fields, dynamical and nondynamical. It turns out that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_3}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}=n^\rho n_\alpha \eta _{\mu \nu }_\beta _\rho \psi ^{\alpha \beta }+2n_\alpha n_{(\nu }_{\mu )}_\beta \psi ^{\alpha \beta }.`$ (19)
Combining these 3 terms gives the total action

$`S=S_1[g^{\mu \nu },u,n_\mu ]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^nxR_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(\eta )^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }(g,u,\eta ,n)}+2b{\displaystyle d^nx\sqrt{|\eta |}}+`$ (20)
$`2{\displaystyle }d^nx_\beta \psi ^{\alpha \beta }(g,u,\eta ,n)n_\alpha _\mu n^\mu +{\displaystyle }d^nx𝒳^\mu (g,u,\eta ,n),_\mu .`$ (21)
One sees that $`S_1`$ can contain mass and self-interaction terms for the time-time component of the gravitational potential, using $`\sqrt{g}`$ to the first power and any suitable function of $`g^{\mu \nu }n_\mu n_\nu +1`$. With this action, one could write down a number of theories, including (of course) general relativity. One would still need to verify that any given theory made sense theoretically (such as by having adequate positive energy properties) and empirically, for the universal coupling principle does not address such questions fully.

### D Gauge Invariance

It is instructive to determine what has become of the original free field gauge invariance. The scalar character of the action $`S[g,u,\eta ,n]`$ implies that the variation of the action under a coordinate transformations vanishes:

$`\delta S_{ct}={\displaystyle }d^nx({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi g^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta u}}\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi u+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g\mathrm{\pounds }_\psi \eta ^{\mu \nu }+h^\mu ,_\mu )=0.`$ (22)
But in a flat spacetime theory, invariance under coordinate transformations is trivial. A *gauge* transformation, on the other hand, would be a transformation that changes the action changes only by a boundary term, but is not a coordinate transformation. Using the coordinate transformation formula and noting that the terms involving the absolute objects do not contribute more than a divergence, one easily verifies that a (pure) gauge transformation is given by $`\delta g^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi g^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\delta u=\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi u`$, $`\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, $`\delta n_\mu =0`$, where $`\xi ^\mu n_\mu =0`$, but $`\xi ^\mu `$ is otherwise arbitrary. In showing that the term for the flat metric does not contribute nontrivially, one must recall from (13) above that

$`h_\alpha ^\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g=0`$ (23)
identically. The term for the foliation does not contribute at all because $`\mathrm{\pounds }_\xi n_\mu =0`$ on account of the constancy of $`n_\mu `$ and the assumption that $`\xi ^\mu n_\mu =0`$. Thus, gauge transformations change (bosonic) dynamical fields in the same way that ‘spatial’ coordinate transformations do, but leave the nondynamical objects unchanged.

### E Bianchi Identities

Taking the independent variables to be those in $`S[g^{\mu \nu },u,\eta ^{\mu \nu },n_\mu ]`$, one can easily derive the Bianchi identities. Letting the Euler-Lagrange equations hold, one finds an additional equation that holds as a consequence. This phenomenon is not unprecedented: in unimodular general relativity (which also has a nondynamical object present, namely, a volume element), this additional equation restores the trace of the Einstein equations (up to an arbitrary cosmological constant) that failed to appear in the Euler-Lagrange equations . So a constraint not admitted through the front door might still reenter through the back door.

From a Hamiltonian point of view, one says that dynamical preservation of the momentum constraints (roughly, the time-space Einstein equations) implies the Hamiltonian constraint (roughly, the time-time component of the Einstein equations), up to an arbitrary constant, in the unimodular theory. On the other hand, we find that in the theory obtained from the Hamiltonian for general relativity but with $`N=1`$ *a priori* (so the Hamiltonian constraint does not follow from the variation of the Hamiltonian), no further constraint, including any portion of the Hamiltonian constraint, is required to preserve the momentum constraints. At least that is the case in the vacuum theory; we expect that minimally coupled matter would behave similarly. Also see (). But it would appear that this theory would have trouble with the negative energy degree of freedom constituted by the determinant of the curved spatial metric, so it does not seem physically viable.

We return now to the Lagrangian formulation for theories with a flat background metric and a preferred foliation. Making a coordinate transformation, letting the matter and gravitational field equations hold, discarding the boundary terms, and using the arbitrariness of the coordinate transformation yields the relation

$`^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_\nu _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\mu }}=0.`$ (24)
On account of (13), the spatial projection of this equation already holds identically. The remainder, the temporal component, takes the form

$`2n^\nu ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}}|g+_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta n_\mu }}=0.`$ (25)
When the action is expanded as using $`S=S_1+S_2+S_3`$, as in (15), several terms vanish, namely, $`\frac{\delta S_1}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}|g`$, $`^\mu \frac{\delta S_2}{\delta \eta ^{\mu \nu }}|g`$, and $`\frac{\delta S_2}{\delta n_\mu }`$. After showing that $`\frac{\delta S_3}{\delta n_\mu }=2^\mu n_\alpha _\beta \psi ^{\alpha \beta }`$, one finds that the contributions from $`S_3`$ cancel each other. The final result takes the rather simple form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S_1}{\delta n_\mu }}=0.`$ (26)
The physical meaning of this equation will depend on the precise form of $`S_1`$.

## III Interpretation of the $`+++`$ Formalism

In 5-dimensional form this work suggests itself as a route to a theory of “parametrized” gravitation, the extra dimension being the invariant supertime $`\tau `$. If the extra time dimension is to be interesting, it is necessary that physical fields be permitted to depend on $`\tau `$ . But then one faces the question of relating a 5-dimensional description to the observed 4 dimensions. One common approach in an electromagnetic context has been “concatenation,” in which the $`\tau `$-dependent vector potential is integrated over all $`\tau `$ (from eternity past to eternity future) to give standard Maxwell potentials, the latter supposedly being tied to experiments . We have previously argued that concatenation is unsatisfactory , *pace* (). One reason is that it makes essential use of the linearity of the field equations, but this linearity does not hold generically; in particular, it is violated by any reasonable theory of gravity . It is doubtful that any variant of concatenation of a nonlinear parametrized theory would give a plausible nonlinear nonparametrized theory. Even Yang-Mills theories, though formally similar to electromagnetism, cannot be concatenated. Another reason is that observations are said to be influenced by all values of $`\tau `$, including future ones, yet $`\tau `$ is thought to be related to the process/flowing aspect of time . The latter fact implies that experiments performed by real people in ordinary life ought to occur at some definite moment (or finite interval) of $`\tau `$. So concatenation introduces the paradox of backwards causation in $`\tau `$ . It also introduces a curious distinction between measurement and evolution, like certain versions of quantum mechanics, rather than regarding measurement as a specific kind of evolution.

Motivated by these criticisms, we previously suggested that omitting concatenation and interpreting all experiences as involving a convective derivative with respect to $`\tau `$ along a worldline might yield an adequate interpretation of the parametrized formalism . However, the non-concatenated view has a drawback of its own, for such a theory generically agrees with standard well-confirmed 4-dimensional electromagnetism (*e.g.*, light speed measurements) only if the dependence on $`\tau `$ is quite weak . This limit is similar to the zero mode limit considered by Frastai and Horwitz , who have been aware of some of the difficulties with concatenation . They observed that the zero mode limit is a sufficient condition for agreement of the parametrized theory with experiment. But our suggestion is that approaching the zero mode limit is a *necessary* condition. For example, the lack of observed dispersion in light propagation indicates that the $`\tau `$ derivatives are much smaller than the $`t`$ derivatives in such contexts. One could wonder wonder what physical purpose $`\tau `$ serves . If $`\tau `$ were to be associated with temporal becoming only, with no physical content (*c.f.* (), then perhaps a more attractive and economical solution exists in the $`n=4`$ context, as we will explain below.

A recent development in membrane theory might possibly be of interest here. Recently the somewhat analogous question “Can there be ‘large’ extra dimensions?” has received a surprising positive answer. The Randall-Sundrum scenario  appears to permit higher-dimensional theories to have large extra dimensions while giving empirically reasonable results. Perhaps one can imagine a parametrized analog of this move.

Our discussion above has considered only parametrized field theory. It is also worthwhile to consider the interpretation of parametrized particle mechanics, a subject that has received some attention . If the Stueckelberg-Feynman notion of positrons as electrons moving backwards-in-$`t`$ with respect to $`\tau `$ is employed, as has often been suggested, then the issue of backwards-in-$`\tau `$ causation appears. One might instead require that particle trajectories be such that $`t`$ is always an invertible function of $`\tau `$ to avoid that problem. One drawback is that one loses the opportunity to consider pair-creation and pair-annihilation processes in a classical framework. But then it appears that field theory is necessary after all to handle a variable number of particles, and the problems above must be faced.

In conclusion, it is clear that the parametrized formalism still faces fundamental interpretive questions.

We also note some interesting work by Cawley  and by Hsu and Shi . The classical work of J. L. Cook  will be considered in an appendix.

## IV Interpretation of the $`+++`$ Formalism

In a 4-dimensional context this formalism corresponds to the existence of a preferred reference frame. It is generally assumed that no such thing exists, though the subject has received some attention . The presumed nonexistence of a preferred frame is in some important respects quite helpful, because of the resulting tight restrictions on the number of theories that can be conceived. With a very few possible exceptions, all known physical processes are consistent with the orthodox relativistic view that there is no preferred foliation (and that backwards-in-time causation does not occur). In view of the apparently limited gains and substantial losses realized by giving up Lorentz invariance, one might wonder what is the purpose of considering a preferred foliation in physics. It would seem that a rather good argument is needed to justify such work. We now consider whether such an argument is available.

### A Possible Habitats for a Preferred Foliation in Physics?

One apparent difficulty for standard Lorentz-invariant physics is the remarkable behavior seen in certain quantum mechanical experiments, such as by Aspect *et al.*, in which 2 particles in a suitable superposed state seem to be able to ‘communicate’ superluminally. Much of the physics community seems to believe that locality is doomed, and has given up on it, at least when its mind is on quantum mechanics. However, this would be a tremendous loss, and so it ought not to be accepted unnecessarily .

What can be said in defense of locality? We do not claim to give a comprehensive review, but only provide two suggestions. Evidently the detector efficiency loophole is still open . Szabo and Fine’s model even works for experiments testing the GHZ scenario , a more recent and perhaps more potent threat to local hidden variables than Bell’s theorem. Detector efficiencies are still too low to close this loophole . One also knows that the experiments violating the Bell inequalities are compatible with the orthodox relativity if one is prepared to embrace “superdeterminism” , which violates the inequalities by introducing correlations between the hidden variables and the detector settings. By positing a common cause for these correlations, one can preserve orthodox relativity, the Aspect experiments notwithstanding. Because the GHZ theorem involves similar locality assumptions to those involved in Bell’s theorem , we suspect that it can be subverted analogously. However, this view’s demanding philosophical underpinnings, such as its denial of (libertarian) free will<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Free will faces a potent long-standing conceptual objection that an action that isn’t fully caused is to that extent merely random and thus un-free , so the denial of free will might be inevitable on other grounds. If so, then the entrance fee for superdeterminism will decrease. and evident need for an all-determining Agent to correlate the initial conditions of the world, might limit its appeal (see, *e.g.*, Bell’s attitude  (pp. 100-103, 110, 154)).On the other hand, the 3 major monotheistic traditions all have (or had) strands that affirm theological determinism: Pharisaic Judaism , Reformed/Calvinist Christianity, and Islam. That there might be a natural affinity here is suggested by the language (*e.g.*, () about events being “already ‘written in a book’.” The resemblance to Psalm 139:16 (NASB) cannot be accidental:  Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Thy book they were all written,
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.   The detector efficiency loophole has also seemed unappealing to some, such as Bell  (p. 109). However, it is at least worthwhile to show that these strategies exist, because they show that even in this peculiar aspect of quantum mechanics, nothing is presently known with certainty that requires a preferred frame.

Another trouble spot for the usual relativistic view of time is quantum gravity’s “problem of time” , which consists in the *prima facie* disappearance of time from quantum versions of general relativity. However, we suspect that the problem lies not in the lack of a particular preferred frame (a feature shared with special relativity; the success of standard field theory in other contexts suggests that this feature is not at fault), but in the lack of a preferred class of inertial frames peculiar to the form of gauge invariance of general relativity. That is, plausibly the ‘fault’ lies in how general relativity differs from special relativity (general covariance, *i.e.*, lack of nondynamical objects), so one needn’t add structures unknown to special relativity to address the issue. One expects that the problem of time would disappear if one suitably introduced a nondynamical background metric into the equations of motion. Adding a small rest mass to the theory would be an obvious way to implement this procedure (and thereby obtain a nonvanishing Hamiltonian), if the traditional negative-energy objection to massive gravity  (appendix on “ghost” theories) can be overcome. M. Visser has recently suggested that it can . One might also prefer that the curved metric respect the flat background’s null cone structure, a nontrivial condition that, to our knowledge, has not been successfully imposed in an attractive way.This issue was considered for (massless) general relativity by Penrose . Massive theories differ from the massless case in several ways: (1) the gauge-dependence of the relation between the two null cones disappears with the gauge freedom; (2) the supposed difficulty with long-range divergence between the curved and flat null geodesics disappears, and (3) the relation between the two null cones will tend to depend on the specific mass term employed.

Recently another suggested habitat for the violation of Lorentz invariance has appeared. T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly have suggested that there is “reason to doubt exact Lorentz invariance: it leads to divergences in quantum field theory associated with states of arbitrarily high energy and momentum. This problem can be cured with a short distance cutoff which, however, breaks Lorentz invariance” . They then introduce an “aether” consisting of a dynamical unit timelike vector (or covector) field. Their aether, being dynamical and failing in general to define a preferred foliation (because the covector typically is not a gradient), differs from what we consider. Their divergence argument might give a good reason to consider a preferred foliation, such as we have considered here. But it seems premature to put too much reliance on this proposal.

### B A Preferred Foliation from the Process Theory of Time

If these areas of physics do not provide sufficiently strong evidence for the existence of an observable preferred foliation in physics, then one might ask if there are extra-physical reasons for considering a preferred temporal foliation in physics. It so happens that in the 20th century’s central debate in the philosophy of time , one of the two views, if established, would show that a preferred foliation exists at the most fundamental level. (Below we will find authors arguing that if a preferred foliation exists, then presumably it manifests itself in physics.) This is the debate about the objectivity or otherwise of temporal becoming, that is, the ‘flow’ of time . Some physicists and philosophers, based to a large degree on the influence of relativity , incline toward the “block universe” view that regards all moments of time as ultimately equal in status; the notions of past, present, and future are regarded as illusory or mind-dependent. If the block view (also known as “stasis,” “B-theory,” or “tenseless”) is correct, then all facts can in principle be displayed on a (single) spacetime diagram.<sup>§</sup><sup>§</sup>§If one is reluctant to make statements such as “$`2+2=4`$ in 1980,” one can admit a class of timeless truths also, but that seems unnecessary . Facts such as “I am John Perry” , if they are nontrivial, might not fit on a spacetime diagram, but since their temporal properties are not the problem, we can set them aside. On the other hand, if a spacetime diagram (perhaps augmented by timeless mathematical and logical truths) cannot display all facts, because some facts have temporal properties inconsistent with such a representation, then the “process” (“A-theory,” “tensed”) view that affirms objective becoming will be established.

The process view of time receives some unexpected assistance from stasis advocate D. H. Mellor, who wrote  (pp. 4-5):

> The tenseless camp often offers only weak inducements to join it: the relative simplicity of tenseless logic, for example, or its consonance with relativity’s unification of space and time. But tenseless time needs a stronger sales pitch than that. Tense is so striking an aspect of reality that only the most compelling argument justifies denying it: namely, that the tensed view of time is self-contradictory and so cannot be true.”

Mellor claims to find this needed contradiction in McTaggart’s paradox, but this claim is not generally accepted and indeed appears to be false . If McTaggart’s paradox fails to demonstrate a contradiction, but Mellor’s judgement is otherwise to be trusted, then the process view of time wins already. But some will require a more compelling case, which we believe can be made.

There is an argument (largely from (; a more developed version is forthcoming ) that appears to disprove the block view by showing that it cannot accommodate certain facts . In order to make one’s appointments on time, one frequently needs to know what time it is *now*. For example, if one wants to pay taxes to the American government in a timely way, one might want to know that “It is now April 2.” Otherwise, one might file many weeks or even years late, because one just would not know when to file . This sort of fact, along with more general facts about what is occurring *now*, cannot be represented tenselessly , such as on a spacetime diagram, or known by a timeless being (even a divine one, as Kretzmann has in mind) , *i.e.*, one lacking temporal location and duration. Let us see why this is the case. On such a diagram, one might make a mark at “April 2” on the time axis, but this mark will soon be outdated, so it will no longer represent “now.” Trying to keep the “now” mark current would require continually erasing and drawing on the spacetime diagram, which is of course illegal, for one then has a *succession* of diagrams (a movie), not a single one. Neither will the fact “It is April 2 on April 2” be of any use, both because it is a tautology  and thus cannot inspire any action at all, and because it is always true  and thus cannot motivate action at any special moment. If one finds the use of a date label such as April 2 troubling (as if a substantivalist view of time might be to blame), one could substitute some ordinary occurrence: “A rooster is crowing now” would serve, provided that the rooster only crows shortly before tax day. So “now” points to one or more facts that the block universe cannot accommodate. We must therefore reject the following claim by H. Reichenbach  (pp. 16,17):

> There is no other way to solve the problem of time than the way through physics …If time is objective the physicist must have discovered that fact, if \[sic\] there is Becoming the physicist must know it …It is a hopeless enterprise to search for the nature of time without studying physics. If there is a solution to the philosophical problem of time, it is written down in the equations of mathematical physics.

We must further differ from Reichenbach, who asserted that determinism would exclude becoming , for irreducibly tensed facts provide a ground for an objective flow of time, even if determinism is true. (Interestingly, Reichenbach concluded that physics in fact does ground time flow.) Thus, we conclude that a preferred foliation generated by the “moving now” exists.

### C Must a Preferred Foliation Be Physically Observable?

It seems natural to assume that if a preferred foliation exists, it ought to manifest itself in physics fairly readily.In the positivist era of the 20th century, the question in the the title of this subsection might have received the answer “of course,” because the verificationist criterion for meaning would have said that it was meaningless to talk about entities that are unobservable in principle. But such thought-stopping replies need not detain us today. Such an intuition indicates that Reichenbach’s claim, though too strong, was not wholly misguided. In contemplating the notion of “beables” for quantum field theory, J. S. Bell wrote:

> As with relativity before Einstein, there is then a preferred frame in the formulation of the theory …but it is experimentally indistinguishable. It seems an eccentric way to make a world.

 (p. 180, ellipses in the original; see also p. 155). (This seems to have been Bell’s *a priori* judgement of the idea. While he thought it somewhat odd, he nevertheless thought it worthwhile to consider as “the cheapest resolution” of what he saw *a posteriori* to be a real difficulty posed by the Aspect experiments .) Philosopher T. Maudlin, in attempting to make sense of quantum mechanics and reconcile it to relativity, suggests that backwards causation or a preferred reference frame might be the least unacceptable ways of doing so . Concerning the possibility of a preferred frame in making sense of quantum mechanics, Maudlin, perhaps having in view Einstein’s line that God is subtle but not malicious, writes:

> One way or another, God has played us a nasty trick. The voice of Nature has always been faint, but in this case it speaks in riddles and mumbles as well. Quantum theory and Relativity seem not to directly contradict each other, but neither can they easily be reconciled. Something has to give: either Relativity or some foundational element of our world-picture must be modified …the real challenge falls to the theologians of physics, who must justify the ways of a deity who is, if not evil, at least extremely mischievous. (p. 242)

So if one is persuaded that the flow of time is objective and that a preferred foliation ought to show itself readily in physics, then one might consider the formalism above for gravitation with $`n=4`$, or perhaps some other way of including the foliation in physics. D. Bohm’s nonlocal deterministic version of quantum mechanics is perhaps presently the most vibrant work that assumes a preferred foliation of 4-dimensional spacetime; the theory is presently being applied to quantum gravity and quantum cosmology . (But its nonlocality is not easy to embrace, even if one can tolerate a preferred frame.) However, as Butterfield and Isham note, “\[m\]ost general relativists feel \[that\] this response is too radical to countenance: they regard foliation independence as an undeniable insight of relativity” .

We suggest that the following explanatory strategy might relieve this tension between the philosophical support for objective becoming and the dearth of physical support for a preferred foliation, at least if theism is plausible. Rather than regarding the inclusion of a physically invisible (or nearly so) preferred foliation as an“eccentric”  or “if not evil, at least extremely mischievous”  way to make a world, one might suggest that the Maker rendered the preferred foliation physically invisible as an act of *benevolence* to physicists. To put it more plainly, the world was made Lorentz-invariant to make physics easier.Another suggestion might be that the world was made Lorentz-invariant to make physics prettier. As we noted above, the requirement of Lorentz invariance so restricts the possible theories that the principle of Lorentz invariance answers a vast number of questions that would otherwise require laborious experimentation to settle. Writing down, *e.g.*, all possible terms in linearized gravity, first given Lorentz invariance, and then given a preferred foliation, would give one a clear sense of the economy afforded by Lorentz invariance. (Perhaps other symmetries are amenable to a similar interpretation.) We will content ourselves with the simpler scalar and vector field cases. Viewed from a spacetime perspective, rendering the foliation invisible amounts to keeping the foliation from appearing nontrivially in the action, with only the flat metric present. Viewed from the perspective of space-at-a-time, it means that the foliation only appears in concert with the spatial metric, in such a way that, along with a fundamental constant with dimensions of velocity, neither the foliation nor the spatial metric appears alone, but only the two combined into an effective spacetime metric.

We will now write down all possible terms that could appear in the Lagrangian density for a real scalar field $`\varphi `$, restricting the equations of motion to be linear and to have (at most) second derivatives. The existence of fundamental constants with dimensions of velocity ($`c`$) and angular momentum ($`\mathrm{}`$) will be assumed, although we choose units in which these constants have unit value. Because the equations of motion, which are perhaps more important than the Lagrangian density, are unchanged by the addition of a divergence, we will regard terms that are equal up to a divergence as equivalent to avoid overcounting, and will drop terms that are themselves divergences. For brevity, we use a vertical bar to denote the flat metric’s covariant derivative. We also the overdot notation to indicate the time derivative $`n^\mu _\mu `$. The possible terms lacking $`n_\mu `$ are $`\varphi _{|\mu }\varphi ^{|\mu }`$ and $`\varphi ^2`$. The first term is so basic that we will assume that it must always be present, even if the foliation appears in the theory. The values of all other coefficients are relative to this one, which depends on the normalization only. (Our results thus cannot be criticized as inflated, being instead perhaps a bit pessimistic.) If $`n_\mu `$ is also present, then $`\dot{\varphi }^2`$ is also available. Thus there are 2 unspecified constants in the case with a preferred foliation observable, but there is only 1 with it absent, in the case of a scalar field. This is a savings already, though a modest one. The vector case will be more compelling.

In the case of a vector field, the possible terms in the Lorentz-invariant case, taking into account the restrictions above are these: $`A_{|\nu }^\mu A_\mu ^{|\nu }`$, $`A_{|\mu }^\mu A_{|\nu }^\nu `$, $`A^\mu A_\mu `$, and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_{\mu |\nu }A_{\alpha |\beta }`$, leaving 3 unspecified coefficients. If Lorentz invariance is not required, there appear in addition $`\dot{A^\mu }\dot{A^\nu }n_\mu n_\nu `$, $`A_{|\sigma }^\mu A^{\nu |\sigma }n_\mu n_\nu `$, $`\dot{A^\mu }\dot{A_\mu }`$, $`\dot{A^\mu }A_{|\nu }^\nu n_\mu `$, $`A^\mu A^\nu n_\mu n_\nu `$, $`A_{|\mu }^\mu A^\nu n_\nu `$, and $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_{\mu |\nu }A_\alpha n_\beta `$, giving 10 unspecified coefficients without Lorentz invariance. The economy afforded by Lorentz invariance is thus considerable in the case of a vector field. One expects that it would be substantial for higher-rank fields as well. We have not considered complex fields or fermionic matter, but we imagine that Lorentz invariance provides a respectable simplification in those cases as well. Complex fields have an interesting property not shared by a single real scalar field, *viz.*, they admit first-order-in-time equations of motion such as the Schrödinger equation. (For a single real field, the most similar term in the Lagrangian density, $`\varphi \dot{\varphi }`$, is merely a divergence.) So the investigation of these other types of fields, and of sets of real fields with internal symmetry groups, might be of interest.

In view of these simplifications, it is not too implausible to think that temporal becoming is objective, and yet physics is exactly Lorentz invariant, if the existence of a benevolent God who supports the enterprise of physics is plausible. Such a divine motivation does fit naturally within traditional monotheistic religion. According to the traditional story (Genesis 1:28), God tells the human race to reproduce and to fill the earth and subdue it, and to rule over other creatures. This command, which has been dubbed the “cultural mandate,” has been seen as encouraging the scientific study of natural phenomena. If this conclusion is correct, then physicists and philosophers can pursue their respective visions of time without mutual interference. The great gulf that Stapp  and Horwitz *et al.*  have found between “Einstein time” and “process time” is thus perhaps not so fixed. The need for a preferred foliation in physics would then need to be shown on grounds other than the flow of time, if at all.

This suggestion just made also answers an objection against the idea that God is temporal, *i.e.*, has a location and a duration in time . A temporal God’s knowledge of which events are objectively simultaneous defines a preferred foliation. But we have already addressed the relativistic objection to a preferred foliation. Introducing an omnipresent knower creates no further difficulties.

We close by concluding that even if one is persuaded of the existence of a preferred foliation of spacetime, there presently seems to be no compelling reason for rejecting standard Lorentz-invariant physics. However, there are some reasons strong enough to make consideration of the violation of Lorentz invariance an interesting pursuit.

## A $`\tau `$-related work of J. L. Cook

The work by J. L. Cook  deserves examination. In view of its early date for $`\tau `$-related work and its degree of development (to the point of including numerical results), this work perhaps deserves a larger role in the history of parametrized physics than it has hitherto received, if it is sound. However, we will raise questions about both the particle mechanics and the derivation of the 2-body gravitation interaction from a field theory.

Concerning mechanics, there is a question about how is the constraint of unit 4-velocity is preserved. Such a constraint is never mentioned by Cook, and it is suggested that particles have 4 degrees of freedom  (p. 122)  (p. 471). But given that Cook regards $`\tau `$ as proper time  (p. 121), this constraint ought to hold. It is an important feature of relativistic mechanics, so its omission is puzzling.

In addressing the 2-body problem, Cook undertakes to derive the 2-body electromagnetic and gravitational interactions from corresponding field theories. For electromagnetism, $`\tau `$-dependent potentials are introduced in some postulated field equations. The justification for the equations seems to be not so much a principled $`\tau `$-dependent theory (which might follow from an action principle), but a desire to obtain equations that, upon integration over all $`\tau `$ (a procedure later called “concatenation” by Horwitz *et al.*, and which Cook sees as implicit in the work of Wheeler and Feynman), yield Maxwell’s equations. While an extra scalar potential in some way corresponding to $`\tau `$ is introduced, it seems to play little role in the theory.

In view of the similarity between electromagnetism and general relativity, one might expect that the search for the gravitational 2-body interaction would follow the same plan as in electromagnetism. Surprisingly enough, that is not the case. Study of Cook’s work leaves us with significant unanswered questions.

Regarding the field theories used to derive the 2-body potentials, why is it that for gravitation, 5-dimensional $`\tau `$-dependent Einstein field equations are assumed to hold<sup>\**</sup><sup>\**</sup>\**We now turn to amend a previous criticism  of Cook’s paper  to the effect that the allowed dependence on $`\tau `$ was restricted. This remark was based on the lack of $`\tau `$-derivatives in equation 46 of (), based on the definition of the $`\mathrm{}`$ symbol in equation 42b. However, from equation 44 and the coordinate condition just above equation 46, it follows that the $`\mathrm{}`$ symbol in equation 46 ought to refer to a 5-dimensional wave equation, not a 4-dimensional one. One could then regard the lack of $`\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}`$ in equation 46 as merely a typographical error., but 5-dimensional Maxwell equations are not assumed for electromagnetism ? This inconsistency suggests a degree of arbitrariness in the assumed field theories.

It should also be noted that the 5-dimensional Einstein equations are written in terms of 2-body *relative* coordinates, the center of mass motion presumably having been factored out. But what does it mean to write a field theory in terms of relative coordinates? The relative coordinates in a 2-body problem take only 1 value at any moment (meaning a moment of $`\tau `$, in this case), but the coordinates in a field theory take on all values. Furthermore, on what grounds does one assume that something like 5-dimensional Einstein field equations should hold with respect to the relative coordinates? This is hardly follows from “standard methods” (p. 127) or Møller’s book , to which Cook appeals. The situation becomes still less clear for the $`n`$-body problem, for then there are $`n1`$ sets of coordinates available.

Finally, concatenation of the linearized gravitational potential plays an essential role in finding the line element . As we have noted above, concatenation of a $`\tau `$-local theory to give an ordinary theory depends essentially on the linearity of the theory , but linearity holds only in a weak-field approximation for gravitation. What is the generalization to the case of the full nonlinear Einstein equations that are assumed? Cook gives no hint of an answer, and we cannot think of any attractive candidates either.

In view of the questions listed above, we conclude that, although “interactions over surfaces of equal proper times are not known and must be determined from field equations” , the gravitational interaction found in () has not been persuasively derived from a field theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Dr. L. P. Horwitz for many helpful comments on this paper.


text:
# Deep imaging of Q2112+059: A bright host galaxy but no DLA absorber Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias. ,Based on observations with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data Archive at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under NASA contract No. NAS5-26555.

## 1 Introduction

We have during the last several years been undertaking programmes aimed at detecting optical counterparts of the most H I rich class of QSO absorption line systems, the Damped Ly$`\alpha `$ absorbers or DLAs for short (Møller and Warren 1993, 1998; Fynbo et al. 1999, 2000a,b). DLAs cause Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption lines with damping wings corresponding to H I column densities larger than $`2\times 10^{20}cm^2`$. This very large column density absorption occurs in regions of self shielding, cool gas, i.e. where one would expect stars to form. Furthermore, they contain nearly all the neutral gas in the universe (Wolfe et al. 1995). Hence DLAs at high redshift are prime candidates for being the progenitors of present day galaxies.

At redshifts $`z<1.65`$ DLAs are both rarer and observationally more difficult to detect since Ly$`\alpha `$ is not shifted above atmospheric cut–off and hence cannot be observed with ground based telescopes (Lanzetta et al. 1995; Jannuzi et al. 1998; Rao & Turnshek 2000). Le Brun et al. (1997) reported candidate galaxy counterparts of 7 such low redshift absorbers that are either confirmed DLAs or strong MgII/FeII absorbers. They found that those candidate galaxy counterparts cover a wide range in morphological types.

The zem = 0.457 BAL QSO Q2112+059 (2000.0 coordinates RA 21 14 52.6, DEC +06 07 41) is radio quiet, and has optical magnitudes B = 15.52 and V = 15.77. Lanzetta et al. (1995) reported the detection of a candidate DLA at zabs = 0.2039 in the IUE spectrum of Q2112+059. In September 1996 we performed an imaging study of Q2112+059 in an attempt to detect the optical counterpart of this DLA. The imaging and data reduction is described in Sect. 2, in Sect. 3 we present spectroscopic data from the Hubble Data Archive and in Sect. 4 and 5 we discuss our results.

For easy comparison to earlier work on this subject, we shall here assume a Hubble constant of 50 km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$=1.0.

## 2 Imaging

### 2.1 Observations and Data Reduction

The observations were performed in 1996 with HiRAC (High Resolution Adaptive Camera) on the 2.56 m Nordic Optical Telescope under photometric and excellent seeing conditions. The CCD used was a 1k$`\times `$1k back-side illuminated thinned Tektronix with a pixel scale of 0.176 arcsec. The data were all obtained in the Bessel I filter. The journal of observations is given in Table 1. A total integration time of 3.25 hours was obtained. Also observed were 7 Landolt sequences (Landolt 1992).

The 39 individual frames were bias subtracted, flat-fielded and subsequently coadded using the optimal combination code described in Møller and Warren (1993).

In Fig. 1 we show the final combined image of 973$`\times `$1023 pixels (171$`\times `$180 arcsec2) surrounding Q2112+059 which is marked with an arrow. Using the Landolt sequences we obtained the calibration from the instrumental system to Cousins I. The uncertainty in the zero–point is 0.02 mag. For Q2112+059 we find I = 15.16$`\pm `$0.02, where the error is dominated by the zero–point error. The sky brightness was $`\mu _I`$(sky) = 19.0 mag arcsec-2 and the sky noise in the final combined image 26.8 mag arcsec-2. The full–width–at–half–maximum (fwhm) of point sources in the combined image is 0.69 arcsec.

There is no indication of variability of Q2112+059 with amplitude above 0.01mag on time-scales from tens of minutes to days.

### 2.2 PSF quality and stability test

In order to search for faint sources near the line of sight to the bright Q2112+059 a good PSF-subtraction is mandatory. To test the stability of the PSF we selected 5 bright stars distributed over the full field. These stars are marked A–E in Fig. 1. We then determined the radial profiles of the field stars by averaging over the azimuth angle on a 9 by 9 sub–pixel grid. In Fig. 2a we have plotted the radial profiles determined in this way. Also plotted is the radial profile of Q2112+059. All profiles were normalised to the same level in the centre (shown in detail in the inserted logarithmic plot in Fig. 2a). The surface brightness ($`\mu _\mathrm{I}`$) zero–point in Fig. 2a was chosen to be that of the Q2112+059 profile. It is seen that, i) the 5 bright stars have radial profiles (full drawn lines) that are identical to within the thickness of the lines out to about 2.8 arcsec, and ii) the radial profile of Q2112+059 (short dash) shows excess flux over that of the field stars. To quantify the excess we plot in Fig. 2b the residual surface brightness after subtraction of the weighted mean stellar profile determined from the field stars A – E. At radial distances ranging from 1.4 to 3.6 arcsec from the centroid of the QSO, the excess surface brightness is 0.08–0.14 mag. In the same range the scatter of the stellar PSFs is about a factor 10 – 20 smaller. At radial distances larger than 3.6 arcsec the profiles are dominated by sky noise.

We end this section concluding that the PSF is very stable across the field and that the profile of Q2112+059 has significant excess flux over that of a PSF.

### 2.3 2D PSF–subtraction

To examine the nature of the excess flux we proceeded with a two dimensional PSF subtraction using DAOPHOT II (Stetson 1987, 1999). For the determination of the 2D PSF we chose to use star A, which is the closest to Q2112+059, but as demonstrated above our results are not dependent on this specific choice of PSF star. When we subtracted the PSF of the QSO using the scaling of the PSF automatically chosen by DAOPHOT II this produced a residual consisting of an extended positive residual surrounding a negative “hole” in which the PSF had been over–subtracted. This is the typical residual one will see when a point source and an extended object are superimposed on roughly the same position (see e.g. Fig. 2b where the PSF subtracted QSO profile is 0 in the centre but 0.13 mag 3 arcsec out). To obtain a image of the underlying extended object without the “hole” from the PSF subtraction, we must impose some additional condition. A reasonable assumption is that the extended object is “flat” across the centroid of the QSO, so we shall use this as the extra constraint to break the degeneracy.

Fig. 3 shows the result of this final two dimensional PSF–subtraction. In the upper left panel is shown 100$`\times `$100 pixels (17.6$`\times `$17.6 arcsec2) around Q2112+059. The upper right panel shows the same area after the final subtraction of the PSF. The residual image in the upper right frame shows a fairly large extended object (marked S), presumably a galaxy. The centroid of this object coincides with that of the QSO to within 0.4 pixel (0.07 arcsec). The isophotes of the residual show no clear evidence for ellipticity, rather they are consistent with $`e=0`$. There are two additional objects that are both consistent with being point sources 5 and 7 arcsec east of S, and patches of faint extended fuzz both east and west of the object S. In the lower panels of Fig. 3 we show for comparison the field star C (0.35 mag fainter than Q2112+059) before and after PSF–subtraction.

## 3 Spectroscopy from the HDA

Our original aim with the observations was to detect the optical counterpart of the DLA, but the perfect alignment of the galaxy S with the QSO reported above suggests that we probably have detected the QSO host galaxy rather than the galaxy causing the reported candidate DLA absorption. To help clarify this we searched the Hubble Data Archive (HDA) for spectroscopic data of Q2112+059. In this section we describe the results of this search.

### 3.1 Retrieval of the spectra and Data Reductions

We found two data sets suitable for this study. Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) spectra over the region from 1330 Å to 1610 Å (grism G140L) was obtained in 1995 (PI Lanzetta) and in 1992 spectra of the region from 1610 Å to 3250 Å was obtained with the Faint Object Spectrograph (FOS) (PI Bahcall). Only the FOS-spectra has been published (Jannuzi et al. 1998).

We retrieved the calibrated GHRS spectrum from the archive. Hence, the data reduction was limited to extracting the 1 dimensional spectrum and 1$`\sigma `$ error spectra from the calibrated science data files and using the calibrated wavelength solution files.

### 3.2 Results

Fig. 5 shows the spectrum of Q2112+059 covering the region from 1425 Å to 1505 Å. Also shown is the 1$`\sigma `$ error per 0.72Å bin (lower curve).

The presence of a damped Ly$`\alpha `$ absorption line in the Ly$`\alpha `$ forest of Q2112+059 at $`z_{abs}=0.2039`$ is excluded at the 29$`\sigma `$ confidence level. The FOS spectrum shows absorption due to gas in the Milky Way and intervening metal line systems at redshifts z=0.370 and z=0.418 as well as metal line systems associated with Q2112+059, but no absorption lines at the redshift z=0.2039 (Jannuzi private communication; Turnshek et al. in prep.).

As discussed by Rao & Turnshek (2000) only 2 of 14 candidate DLA systems from the IUE survey of Lanzetta et al. (1995) have been confirmed. Q2112+059 adds one to the list of non-confirmed candidates.

## 4 Nature of the host galaxy

As there clearly is no DLA absorber in the sightline towards Q2112+059, and as the centroid of the extended object we have detected is closely aligned with the position of the QSO (to within 0.07 arcsec), we conclude that we have detected the host galaxy of Q2112+059. We now return to a discussion of what can be learned about the nature of this galaxy from our deep imaging.

An attempt to fit a 2D galaxy model to the 2D PSF subtracted image shown in Fig 3 was unsuccessful as the signal–to–noise of the image was too poor to provide meaningful constraints. However, the alignment of the QSO with the centroid of its host, and the fact that there is no evidence in the 2D residual image (Fig. 3) for any elongation of the extended object, suggest that we could significantly lower the number of fitting parameters, and at the same time increase the signal–to–noise of the data to fit, if we returned to the 1D regime. Again, as in the 2D case, we are left with the degenerate problem of deciding how to scale the PSF we subtract from the data. Galaxy cores are known often to have central spikes (see e.g. Møller et al. 1995) which could be due either to central point sources (AGN), to central density cusps or (which is the most likely) to a combination of both (for a discussion see Stiavelli et al. 1993). In the case of Q2112+059 there clearly is a central AGN (the QSO), which is the point source we wish to separate out. Therefore, as in Møller et al. (1995) we break the degeneracy by imposing the condition that the central profile must be isothermal in the sense that the galaxy core is fitted by a modified Hubble profile. This condition closely corresponds to the requirement we used for the 2D PSF subtraction, namely that the residual must be “flat” or “smooth” in the centre. With this assumption we effectively assign the maximum possible flux to the central point–source, and therefore obtain a lower limit to the flux of stellar origin. However, the central density cusps of local early–type galaxies do not contain any significant fraction of the total stellar light (1–10% of the flux measured inside the galaxy core, Møller et al. 1995), so the resulting uncertainty on the flux from the total stellar component is insignificant.

For the 1D PSF we again used the weighted mean of the 5 field stars (all field stars were given weights corresponding to their flux, except star E which was given a lower weight because of the nearby saturated star which caused variable sky across the profile). In Fig. 5a and Fig. 5b we plot the host surface brightness per square arcsec ($`\mu _I`$) against R1/4. Superimposed on the data are profiles corresponding to a range of galaxy models. In Fig. 5a we have superimposed six exponential disc profiles

$$I(R)=I_0\times exp(R/R_s)$$

with scale lengths $`R_s`$ (0.1–0.6 arcsec), and in Fig. 5b the radial profile of a model with an R1/4 outer profile

$$I(R)=I_0\times \mathrm{exp}(7.67\times ((R/R_e)^{0.25}1)),$$

and a modified Hubble profile

$$I(R)(1+(R/R_c)^2)^1,$$

in the core. The models shown were produced on a 2D sub–pixel grid and convolved with the observed 2D PSF. The final 1D model profiles were then determined as azimuthal averages using the same procedure as for the data.

It is seen that the radial profile of the host is noisy in the central 0.5 arcsec where the errors from the PSF subtraction are large and at radii larger than 3.5 arcsec where the uncertainty in the measurement of the sky–level becomes dominant (sky–level errors are shown as short dash curves in Fig. 5). At radii between 0.5 and 3.5 arcsec the profile is very well determined.

Fig. 5a shows that it is not possible to obtain an acceptable fit with an exponential disc profile for any scale length. In contrast, as seen in Fig. 5b, a model with an R1/4 outer profile with an effective radius of $`R_e=0.53`$ arcsec (3.6 kpc) and a modified Hubble profile with a core radius of $`R_c=0.07`$ arcsec (0.5 kpc) in the core provides an excellent fit.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

Based on an IUE spectrum of Q2112+059 Lanzetta et al. (1995) reported a candidate damped Ly$`\alpha `$ line at z=0.2039. Subsequent HST spectroscopy (Fig. 4) has not confirmed this. This result is important in its own right as DLAs are very rare at $`z<1`$. In the sample of DLAs presented in Wolfe et al. (1995) there are 10 DLAs at z$`<`$1.0. Of the 10 only 4 are at z$`<`$0.5, and one of those was the candidate DLA towards Q2112+059.

Having ruled out the presence of an intervening DLA at z = 0.2039, we find that we are forced to interpret the elliptical galaxy we detect under the PSF of Q2112+059 as the host galaxy of the QSO. The host galaxy has an I-band magnitude of 18.8 (total magnitude determined from the model fit), and an effective radius of 3.6 kpc. I=18.8 corresponds to M$`{}_{I}{}^{obs}=23.6`$ (no k-correction) in the assumed cosmology (Sect. 1).

McLure et al. (1999) find that both radio galaxies (RGs), radio loud QSOs (RLQs) and bright radio quiet QSOs (RQQs) preferentially are hosted by massive, bright elliptical galaxies. Our detection of a bright elliptical galaxy hosting the radio quiet Q2112+059 is consistent with this result. In Table 2 we compare our results to those of McLure et al. (1999) and find that the host galaxy of Q2112+059 is in the bright end of the absolute magnitude distribution, but has a smaller effective radius than any RQQ host galaxy in their sample.

Schneider et al. (1983) studied the brightest cluster galaxies in 83 Abell clusters (with redshifts in the same range as the McLure et al. samples). They found a tight correlation between the core radii and effective radii. The host galaxy of Q2112+059 falls nicely on this correlation, but is smaller than any of the brightest cluster galaxies of the Schneider et al. sample.

Compared to the work on local early type galaxies by Kormendy (1977), the effective radius of the host galaxy of Q2112+059 falls in the overlapping region between “compact” and “normal” early type galaxies.

Finally, since the host galaxy we have detected is a spheroid we can estimate the mass of the black hole using the correlations derived by Magorrian et al. (1998) assuming that the correlation found at z=0 is also valid at z=0.457. We derive a black hole mass of about 9$`\times `$109 M.

## Acknowledgments

We thank B. Januzzi for providing us with results on metal absorption lines in the FOS spectrum of Q2112+0519 prior to their publication. We are grateful to our referee Dr. Villar–Martin for suggestions and comments which helped clarifying our manuscript on several important points and significantly improved the presentation of our results.