text:
# The MACHO Project LMC Variable Star Inventory: X. The R Coronae Borealis Stars

## 1 Introduction

The R Coronae Borealis (RCB) stars are rare, hydrogen-deficient, carbon-rich supergiants which undergo spectacular declines in brightness of up to 8 magnitudes at irregular intervals as dust forms along the line of sight (Clayton 1996). Their rarity may stem from the fact that they are in an extremely rapid phase of evolution toward white dwarfs. So understanding the RCB stars is a key test for any theory which aims to explain hydrogen deficiency in post-Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) stars. AGB and post-AGB stars are the dominant formation sites for refractory grains subsequently injected into the interstellar medium, and therefore they play an important role in any theory of dust condensation.

There are two major evolutionary models for the origin of RCB stars: the Double Degenerate and the Final Helium Shell Flash (Iben, Tutukov, & Yungleson 1996a). The former involves the merger of two white dwarfs, and the latter involves a white dwarf/evolved Planetary Nebula (PN) central star which is blown up to supergiant size by a final helium shell flash. In the final flash model, there is a close relationship between RCB stars and PN. The connection between RCB stars and PN has recently become stronger, since the central stars of three old PN’s (Sakurai’s Object, V605 Aql and FG Sge) have had observed outbursts that transformed them from hot evolved central stars into cool giants with the spectral properties of an RCB star (Kerber et al. 1999; Asplund et al. 1999; Clayton & De Marco 1997; Gonzalez et al. 1998).

However, the absolute luminosities of the RCB stars are unknown. There is no direct measurement of the distance to any Galactic RCB star (Alcock et al. 1996 and references therein). A group of RCB stars were measured by HIPPARCOS but the data provided only lower limits on their distances (Cottrell & Lawson 1998; Trimble & Kundu 1997). So the only source of distances and absolute luminosities for the RCB stars is the LMC. The distance to the LMC is fairly well determined, m-M = 18.4 mag (e.g., Nelson et al. 2000). Until recently, only three RCB stars were known in the LMC (Feast 1972). On the basis of this small sample of stars, an absolute magnitude range of $`M_V`$ = -4 to -5 is inferred. Alcock et al. (1996) reported the discovery of two additional LMC RCB stars. These two stars were both fainter, $`M_V`$ -3.5 but one of the two is a member of the subclass of hot RCB stars and may not be comparable to the cooler stars.

This paper reports the results of a more extensive search of the MACHO database for new RCB stars.

## 2 Observational Data

### 2.1 MACHO Photometry

The MACHO Project (Alcock et al. 1992) is an astronomical survey experiment designed to obtain multi-epoch, two-color CCD photometry of millions of stars in the LMC (also, the Galactic bulge and SMC). The survey makes use of a dedicated 1.27m telescope at Mount Stromlo, Australia and because of its southerly latitude is able to obtain observations of the LMC year round (Hart et al. 1996). The camera built specifically for this project (Stubbs et al. 1993) has a field of view of 0.5 square degrees which is achieved by imaging at prime focus. Observations are obtained in two bandpasses simultaneously, using a dichroic beamsplitter to direct the “blue” ($``$4400-5900 Å) and “red” ($``$5900-7800 Å) light onto 2x2 mosaics of 2048x2048 Loral CCD’s. These bandpasses are referred to as $`V_{MACHO}`$ and $`R_{MACHO}`$, respectively. Images are obtained and read out simultaneously. The 15 µm pixel size maps to $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}63`$ on the sky. The data were reduced using a profile-fitting photometry routine known as SODOPHOT, derived from DoPHOT (Schecter, Mateo, & Saha 1993). This implementation employs a single starlist generated from frames obtained in good seeing. The results reported in this survey comprise only a fraction of the planned data acquisition of the MACHO project. The MACHO data were acquired for 82 LMC fields covering approximately 40 square degrees and were monitored for about 7 years from 1992 to 1999. Most of the data come from the top-22 fields which contain approximately 9 million stars (Alcock et al. 1997a, 1999). These data have been searched for variable stars and microlensing candidates and over 40,000 variables have been found, most newly discovered. The great majority of these fall into four well known classes: there are approximately 25,000 very red semi-regular or irregular variables, 1500 Cepheids, 8000 RR Lyraes, and 1200 eclipsing binaries (Cook et al. 1995). Typically, the dataset for a given star covers a timespan of about 2700 days and contains up to 1500 photometric measurements (multiple observations are obtained on a given night whenever conditions allow). The output photometry contains flags indicating suspicion of errors due to crowding, seeing, array defects, and radiation events.

The MACHO lightcurves for the RCB candidate stars, including all available data, are shown in Figure 1. Tables containing all the MACHO photometric data for these stars are given in the Appendix. HV 12842 lies outside the MACHO fields and so has no lightcurve. Only data free from suspected errors are plotted and included in the tables. Typical photometric uncertainties are in the range 1.5-2 %. The $`V_{MACHO}`$ and $`R_{MACHO}`$ bandpasses have been converted to Kron-Cousins (KC) V and R bandpasses using transformations determined from the internal calibrations of the MACHO database (Alcock et al. 1999). Three stars in the sample, 16.6541.22, 20.5036.12, and 21.7407.7 lie outside the top-22 fields which have been photometrically calibrated. The V and R magnitudes for these fields were obtained by bootstrapping from the top-22-field calibration and should be viewed with caution. Also, 18.3325.148, 20.5036.12, and 21.7407.7 are the three brightest stars in the sample and suffer from possible saturation problems. In particular, the MACHO V-R colors for 21.7407.7 are $``$-0.2 but are actually $``$0.2 (Goldsmith et al. 1990). The $`(VR)_{KC}`$ colors for each star are also plotted in Figure 1. The stars are listed in Table 1. Two designations are given for each MACHO star, the MACHO name which includes the position of the star, and the standard field.tile.sequence number which refers to a particular star in the database. Finding charts for the stars are shown in Figure 2.

### 2.2 JHK Photometry

The Cerro Tololo Infrared Imager (CIRIM) uses a 256x256 HgCdTe NICMOS 3 array. There were two runs in 1996 and 1999 on the CTIO 1.5m telescope. The data are listed in Table 2. The typical 1-$`\sigma `$ errors are 0.02-0.03 mag in the J-band and 0.04-0.05 mag in the H- and K-bands. None of the data from the 1999 run are included because of their large uncertainties. In addition, 2MASS photometry is now available for most of the sample. These data are also listed in Table 2. The typical 1-$`\sigma `$ 2MASS errors are 0.03 mag in all three bands. The Julian Dates of the observations are also listed in Table 2.

### 2.3 Spectroscopic Data

Spectroscopic observations were obtained from 1995 to 1998. In 1995-1996, the spectra were obtained with the Reticon photon-counting system on the image-tube spectrograph on the SAAO 1.9m telescope at Sutherland, South Africa. The grating used gives a reciprocal dispersion of 100 $`\AA mm^1`$ and a resolution of approximately 4 Å, giving a useful range of about 3600-5200 Å at the angle setting used. The spectrograph is a two-aperture instrument recording the star and sky simultaneously. Normal operating procedure is to measure the star through one aperture and then the other, so the sequence goes arc, star in A, arc, star in B, arc. Each star is then wavelength calibrated by the two arcs on either side and the results of star in A and B are added together after flat-field correction and sky subtraction. Flux calibration is done by observing one standard star each night. The fluxes are given in $`ergcm^2s^1\AA ^1`$. In 1997-1998, the spectrograph was adapted to take a SITe CCD chip. The observations were taken using a grating with a reciprocal dispersion of 210 $`\AA mm^1`$ and a resolution of approximately 5 Å, giving a useful range of about 3500-7600 Å at the angle setting used.

Spectra have been obtained for all the stars in Table 1 except 6.6575.13 and 16.5641.22. A spectrum of the latter star is shown in Bessell & Wood (1983). No spectrum exists for 6.6575.13 since it has been continuously in decline since 1993. A spectrum of the hot RCB star, 11.8632.2507, is shown in Alcock et al. (1996). Further spectra are shown in Clayton et al. (2001). The spectra of the remaining stars are shown in Figure 3. All of the spectra were obtained when the stars were at or near maximum light. These spectra are sums of all individual scans.

## 3 New RCB Stars in the LMC

From the night in 1795 when Edward Pigott first noticed that R CrB had apparently disappeared from the sky, RCB stars have been characterized primarily on the basis of their lightcurves. They are the only intrinsic variables that undergo sudden and severe drops in brightness from their light maximum at irregular intervals. However, this definition has resulted in many irregular variables with poor lightcurve coverage being identified as RCB stars (Payne-Gaposchkin & Gaposchkin 1938). Spectroscopic confirmation has been used to weed out non-RCB stars from the class. Many turn out to be symbiotic, cataclysmic or semi-regular variables (Lawson & Cottrell 1990a). Much of this sorely needed spectroscopic work has been performed by Kilkenny and collaborators (Clayton 1996 and references therein). However, if a well sampled lightcurve is available then an identification with the RCB class may be made with fairly high confidence because of the distinctive nature of the RCB declines. Following the definition of Payne-Gaposchkin & Gaposchkin (1938), a typical RCB lightcurve has:
$``$ uniform brightness at maximum which may last for months or years.
$``$ A sudden drop in brightness of more than three magnitudes taking a few days or weeks.
$``$ Recovery to maximum light, which is typically slower, taking months or years.

When spectra are obtained, we see in addition that the typical RCB star has:
$``$ Weak or absent hydrogen lines and molecular bands (CH). 111V854 Cen, one of the most active RCB stars, shows fairly strong Balmer lines and CH band (Kilkenny & Marang 1989; Lawson & Cottrell 1989).
$``$ Strong carbon lines and molecular bands (CN, $`C_2`$).
$``$ Little or no $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$.

Other observables of the typical RCB star are:
$``$ Regular or semi-regular pulsations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V of a few tenths of a magnitude and periods of 40-100 days.
$``$ An infrared excess.
$``$ Effective temperature between 5000 and 7000 K. A small subclass is much hotter with effective temperatures of about 20,000 K.

The first RCB star to be discovered in the LMC was HV 966 (W Men, 21.7407.7) (Luyten 1927). He identified it as an RCB star on the basis of its irregular and sudden dips in brightness. Much later, spectra confirming its resemblance to R CrB and its membership in the LMC were obtained (Feast 1956; Rodgers 1970; Feast 1972). Subsequently, two other stars, HV 5637 (Hodge, & Wright 1969) and HV 12842 (Payne-Gaposchkin 1971), were identified as members of the RCB class on the basis of their lightcurves. Confirming spectra were soon obtained of these stars (Feast 1972). A fourth star, HV 12671, was listed by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971) as an RCB star. It is now thought to be a carbon-symbiotic star (Allen 1980; Lawson et al. 1990). Two new RCB stars were previously discovered using the MACHO database, HV 2671 (11.8632.2507) and 81.8394.1358 (Alcock et al. 1996).

The final database of MACHO variables for the top-22 fields was searched for stars which underwent large sudden brightness variations. Candidates were selected from the thousands of variable star lightcurves by selecting out those with large amplitude variations that were not periodic. These lightcurves were then viewed by eye and candidates were selected as having distinctive RCB lightcurve behavior.

In addition, the MACHO lightcurves for stars listed as irregular variables of large range by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971) were examined. HV 942 (6.6696.60) and HV 12524 (18.3325.148) were found to be RCB stars. Stars listed by Hughes (1989) as having RCB-type lightcurves were also checked. None of those lying in MACHO fields turned out to be RCB stars. However, three other variables in the Hughes list are members of the MACHO RCB star sample. Of the stars in our sample, three appear in the list of carbon stars in the LMC compiled by Sanduleak & Phillip (1977). However, none appear in the carbon star catalogs of Westerlund et al. (1978) or Blanco & McCarthy (1990).

In addition to the five RCB stars already known in the LMC, eight stars (6.6575.13, 6.6696.60, 12.10803.56, 16.5641.22, 18.3325.148, 79.5743.15, 80.6956.207, and 80.7559.28) which show lightcurves with deep, sharp declines are clearly RCB stars. See Figure 1. Two stars, 6.6575.13 and 6.6696.60 were independently discovered to be RCB stars by Wood & Cohen (2001). As summarized in Table 3, these stars share most or all of the photometric and spectroscopic criteria listed above for the typical RCB star. In particular, with the exception of 18.3325.148, as shown in Figure 1, all of these stars show the unique sharp, deep, irregular declines characteristic of RCB stars. This has been quantified in Table 3 as dm/dt, the number of magnitudes per day that the star fades. The lightcurve for 18.3325.148 shows only the long recovery from a decline often seen in Galactic RCB stars. Subsequently, spectra were obtained for all except 6.6575.13 showing that they are indeed RCB stars. The star, 6.6575.13, entered a very deep decline early in the MACHO era and has never recovered enough for a spectrum to be obtained. It is likely to be an RCB star based on its lightcurve data.

The star, 6.6696.60, joins HV 12842 and W Men as members of the warm (6000-7000 K) RCB stars showing only weak molecular bands. The others are similar to HV 5637 which is typical of the cooler (5000 K) RCB stars which have much stronger molecular bands. See Figure 3. A low dispersion spectrum of 16.5641.22 (HV 2379) was previously obtained and is also very similar to HV 5637 (Bessell & Wood 1983). The spectra were examined for evidence of hydrogen by looking at the Balmer lines and the G-band of CH at 4300 Å. The presence of 13C was searched for in the isotopic bands of C2 and CN. In particular, the Swan bands, 12C13C and 13C13C near 4700 A, other C2 bands in the 6000-6200 Å region, and the 13CN band near 6250 A were examined. The results are summarized in Table 3.

Several other stars show irregular, fairly deep (2-3 mag) declines but fade much more slowly than typical RCB stars. In their lightcurve behavior, these stars resemble the unusual Galactic RCB star, DY Per (Alksnis 1994). This star has very deep ($`>`$4 mag) declines at irregular intervals like an RCB star but the declines are very slow. The DY Per declines appear much more symmetrical than the prototypical RCB decline which features a much faster drop than rise. Further spectroscopic analysis has shown that DY Per is very cool, T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$3500 K (Keenan & Barnbaum 1997). This is significantly cooler than the coolest known Galactic RCB stars, S Aps, WX CrA, and U Aqr which have estimated T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$5000 K (Lawson et al. 1990). Keenan & Barnbaum (1997) suggest that DY Per may be hydrogen deficient. The G-band is fairly weak. The evidence for the abundance of isotopic carbon is mixed. The isotopic Swan bands, 12C13C and 13C13C near 4700 A are clearly seen but the 13CN band near 6250 A is not. The LMC DY Per stars share these characteristics. Four stars, 2.5871.1759, 10.3800.35, 15.10675.10, and 78.6460.7, show significant but slow declines of at least 2 magnitudes. See Figure 1d. They also closely resemble DY Per spectroscopically. See Figure 3c. The DY Per spectrum is from Barnbaum, Stone & Keenan (1996). Table 3 itemizes the major differences between the RCB and DY Per stars. The RCB declines are deeper and they fade faster as shown in the dm/dt column of the table. The DY Per stars show evidence for significant amounts of 13C and they are cooler than the RCB stars. The molecular bands in the cool RCB stars and the DY Per stars are of comparable strength but the DY Per spectra are intrinsically much redder. The spectra of the DY Per stars resemble R-type carbon stars (Barnbaum et al. 1996). Many carbon stars also show irregular small ($``$1 mag) declines. In addition, other stars produce dust such as carbon Miras and the V Hya stars. But these stars also show large regular variations not seen in either the RCB or DY Per stars (e.g., Feast et al. 1984; Lloyd Evans 1997). Until more extensive observations and analysis are done, it is not clear whether the DY Per stars are related to either the RCB stars or the carbon stars.

## 4 Individual Stars

Using SIMBAD, each star was checked for previous identifications. These are included in Table 1. Previous observations from the literature for the sample stars are listed below.

### 4.1 HV 12842

This is the only star in the sample that lies in an area of the LMC not covered by MACHO. It was first listed as an RCB star ($`m_{pg}`$ = 14.15-17.92 mag ) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971). Several declines have been noted (Morgan, Nandy, & Rao 1986; Lawson et al. 1990; Lawson, Cottrell, & Pollard 1991). Coordinates are from the HST Guide Star Catalog. HV 12842 is possibly an IRAS source. In the Faint Source Catalog, F05447-6425, lies within 7″ of HV 12842. At 12µm, it is 0.09 $`\pm `$ 0.01 Jy. This is within a factor of 2 of the expected IRAS brightness of a Galactic RCB star seen at the distance of the LMC. This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=15.2 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 2.5 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein).

### 4.2 20.5036.12 (HV 5637)

This star was first listed as an RCB star by Hodge & Wright (1969). They found that HV 5637 (Vmax= 14.99 mag , Bmax = 16.19 mag) had one decline of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ B $``$ 2.36 mag around JD 2425000. This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=16.5 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 2.0 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). It is listed as an RCB star ($`m_{pg}`$ = 16.38-18.20 mag) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971). Butler (1978) noted small variations ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$V = 0.2 mag). No further declines were noted during the seven years of MACHO coverage. See Figure 1.

### 4.3 21.7407.7 (W Men)

This star was first identified as an RCB star by Luyten (1927). Several declines have been noted (Milone 1975; Glass 1988; Lawson et al. 1990). This star is HV 966 which had a median $`m_{pg}`$=14.4 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 1.2 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). It is listed as an RCB star ($`m_{pg}`$ = 13.37-17.57 mag) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971).

### 4.4 11.8632.2507 (HV 2671)

This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=16.4 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 1.8 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). Kurochkin (1992) reports a maximum brightness of B= 15.5 mag and one deep decline with B $`<`$19 mag (JD 2439849.9 and 2439852.75).

### 4.5 6.6696.60 (HV 942)

This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=15.8 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 2.0 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). It is listed as an irregular variable of large range ($`m_{pg}`$ = 14.44-17.74 mag) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971). This star is also possibly detected by IRAS (Schwering 1989). As with HV 12842, the IRAS brightness is consistent with an RCB at the distance of the LMC.

### 4.6 16.5641.22 (HV 2379)

This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=16.5 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 1.8 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). Wright & Hodge (1971) report that in 1958, HV 2379 was seen at B=17.6 and then was below the plate limit for 95 days. They also summarize several hundred Harvard plates taken between 1896 and 1949 where the star varied between 16.2 and fainter than 18.6 at B. It is listed as a long period variable ($`m_{pg}`$ = 15.89-18.45 mag) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971). Feast et al. (1984) suggest that HV 2379 is related to the carbon Mira, R For, but the MACHO lightcurve, shows a typical irregular RCB-star behavior with no sign of a Mira-type pulsation. This star is also possibly detected by IRAS (Trams et al. 1999). As with HV 12842, the IRAS brightness is consistent with an RCB at the distance of the LMC. HV 2379 was also observed with ISO (van Loon 1999).

### 4.7 18.3325.148 (HV 12524)

This star had a median $`m_{pg}`$=15.9 mag and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m = 0.6 mag in the early 1900’s (Hodge & Wright 1967 and references therein). It is listed as an irregular variable of large range ($`m_{pg}`$ = 15.27-17.12mag ) by Payne-Gaposchkin (1971).

### 4.8 80.6956.207

This star is also SHV 0523154-690100 ($`<m_I>`$ = 15.36 mag, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_I`$ = 1.16 mag) (Hughes 1989).

### 4.9 80.7559.28

This star is also SHV 0526537-690959 ($`<m_I>`$ = 14.74 mag, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_I`$ = 1.24 mag) (Hughes 1989).

### 4.10 15.10675.10

This star is also SHV 0546548-710843 ($`<m_I>`$ = 13.90 mag, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_I`$ = 1.14 mag) (Hughes 1989).

## 5 Near-IR Colors

Most of the sample has been observed one or more times in the near-IR. We have plotted the J-H vs. H-K colors in Figure 4. The typical RCB star colors evolve as dust forms and then disperses. Feast (1997) shows the behavior of a large sample of Galactic RCB stars. The colors evolve from those typical of the RCB star photosphere toward those of a dust shell of $``$900 K. The colors for a combination of a 5500 K star and a 900 K shell are plotted in Figure 4. The LMC RCB star colors are consistent with the behavior of the Galactic RCB stars. With the exception of W Men, HV 2379, and HV 12842 (Bessell & Wood 1983; Glass, Lawson, & Laney 1994), each of the LMC stars has been observed only once or twice at a random point in its lightcurve. So, when plotted together, the ensemble of stars includes observations at maximum light and in declines. Together these observations map out an RCB star color evolution similar to that seen for the Galactic stars (Feast 1997). Since there are a range of photospheric and shell temperatures, Figure 4 shows more scatter than the plot of individual stars as shown by Feast (1997). Another interesting feature of Figure 4 is that the DY Per stars are well separated from the RCB stars and show colors typical of carbon stars (Westerlund et al. 1991). The two DY Per stars plotted were observed at maximum light.

## 6 Stellar Pulsations

Most or possibly all of the RCB stars are pulsators (Lawson et al. 1990). As listed in Table 3 and seen in Figure 1, most of the LMC RCB stars pulsate as well. We inspected the lightcurves for “dormant” sections - places where the lightcurve was within a magnitude or two of maximum brightness and where, if it was changing, it was increasing slowly with no obvious dust dropouts. The long-term trend in the dormant sections was subtracted, leaving just the shorter timescale oscillations. The baseline-subtracted, dormant sections of the V-band lightcurves was run through the Discrete Fourier Transform Fortran code of Roberts, Lehar, & Dreher (1987). The default frequency spacing was used, with a maximum period of one per day. In cases where there was an obvious signal, the period corresponding to the frequency with the highest power is reported. In most instances, the frequency spacing was about 5E-4 per day. Among the RCB stars, we were able to extract periods for 18.3325.148 (83.8 d), 11.8632.2507 (60.0 d), 12.10803.56 (50.5 d), 21.7407.7 (240 d, questionable significance), and 79.5743.15 (53.3 d). For the DY Per stars, we extracted periods for 78.6460.7 (208 d), 2.5871.1759 (138 d), 10.3800.35 (206 d),and 15.10675.10 (116 d). Theses two classes differ also in their typical pulsation period. The RCB stars in the LMC like their Galactic counterparts have periods between 50 and 84 days while the periods of the DY Per stars lie between 100 and 210 days. These differences are at least qualitatively in agreement with the results of theoretical models of pulsations in RCB stars (Weiss 1987). Theoretical periods for ‘Case 1’ of Weiss for M=0.825 M show $``$40 d for T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$7000 K, $``$100 d for T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$5000 K, and $``$300 d for T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$4000 K. Figure 32 of Lawson et al. (1990) shows the Galactic RCB stars plotted with Weiss ‘Case 1’ for comparison.

In a color-magnitude diagram (CMD), most of the of the RCB stars lie within the instability strip defined by the MACHO-discovered BL Her, W Virs, and RV Tauri stars extrapolated to higher luminosities (Alcock et al. 2000). These LMC variables are believed to be low-mass Population II stars. In the CMD, the one hot RCB (11.8632.2507) lies blueward of the blue edge of the instability strip as defined by the bluest BL Her and W Vir stars. The DY Per stars lie in the same region of the CMD as carbon-rich red variables, and are brighter/redder than the other observed sequences of red variables. With the exception of 11.8632.2507, the RCB and DY Per stars form an extension of the W Vir and BL Her star W-logP relation, where W = V - 2.0\*(V-R), to higher luminosities and longer periods, although there may be a “roll over” at long periods.

## 7 Absolute Luminosity of RCB Stars

The Galactic foreground reddening varies significantly across the face of the LMC ranging from E(B$``$V)Gal=0.00 to 0.17 mag (e.g., Schwering & Israel 1991; Oestreicher, Gochermann, & Schmidt-Kaler 1995). Schwering & Israel (1991) estimate that most of the LMC bar, where the MACHO fields are centered, has a Galactic foreground reddening of E(B-V)Gal=0.06-0.08. The dust inside the LMC is patchy also but a good estimate of the reddening due to dust inside the LMC foreground to the RCB stars is E(B-V)$`{}_{LMC}{}^{}`$0.1 (Oestreicher & Schmidt-Kaler 1996). There will also be a small amount (E(B-V)$``$0.1 mag) of circumstellar reddening around each RCB star even at maximum light. We will ignore that component. The total reddening due to Galactic foreground and LMC intrinsic dust is E(B-V)$``$0.17 mag or A$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$0.5 mag.

The RCB and DY Per stars are plotted in Figure 5 in a V vs. V-R CMD. The values of V and V-R plotted are those measured for each star at maximum light. A reddening vector is also plotted. In addition, a line is plotted representing the change in V and V-R with temperature assuming L$`{}_{V}{}^{}T^4`$ with stellar radius held fixed. Temperatures and colors are assumed to be those for normal supergiants (Cox 2000). On the basis of the three pre-MACHO RCB stars, Feast (1979) noted that the cool RCB star, HV 5637 is significantly fainter than HV 12842 and W Men. He suggested that there might be a relationship between absolute magnitude and effective temperature for the RCB stars. The new observations reported here reinforce this suggestion. The intrinsically brightest RCB stars at V are the warm ($``$7000 K) stars and the faintest are the cool ($``$5000 K) stars. There is a much wider range of absolute luminosity in the RCB stars than given by the canonical, $`M_V`$ = -4 to -5 mag. The foreground reddening of individual stars is somewhat uncertain but the brightest RCB stars have $`M_V`$ $``$-5 mag and the faintest are about $`M_V`$ $``$-2.5 mag. The DY Per stars are cooler and fainter still, with a maximum absolute brightness of $`M_V`$ $``$-2.5 mag.

It seems likely that 6.6696.60 is fairly heavily reddened. From Figure 3a, it can be seen that the spectrum of 6.6696.60 closely resembles W Men and HV 12842. Therefore, it is likely that the effective temperatures and colors are similar for these three stars. For 6.6696.60, Vmax= 15.0 and (V-R)max=0.6 compared to Vmax= 13.8 and (V-R)max=0.2 for the other two stars. The simplest explanation is that some combination of circumstellar and interstellar dust in front of 6.6696.60 is responsible. The high value of reddening implied, E(B-V)$``$0.8 is unlikely to be primarily interstellar reddening. More likely, a large portion of this reddening is circumstellar. From the lightcurve of 6.6696.60, seen in Figure 1b, it is quite possible that the star was never at maximum light during the the seven years of the MACHO data. This is supported by earlier photometry of this star, previously discovered as HV 942, which found the maximum brightness to be mpg=14.4 (Payne-Gaposchkin 1971). This corresponds to B$``$14.3 mag. So assuming the same B-V color as W Men, then 6.6696.60 would have V$``$13.85 mag which is the same as W Men and HV 12842 at maximum light. Similarly, 10.3800.35 maybe more reddened than the other DY per stars.

## 8 The Population of RCB stars

The MACHO LMC sample of RCB stars allows us to attempt something not possible in the Milky Way, which is to estimate the total population of RCB stars in a galaxy. Figure 6 shows an image of the LMC with the locations of the RCB and DY Per stars plotted. As mentioned in the introduction there are two suggested evolutionary paths leading to the RCB stars, the Double Degenerate and the Final Helium Shell Flash (Iben et al. 1996a). Both these suggestions imply that the RCB stars are an old population. The distribution of these stars on the sky and their radial velocities give clues to their origin. The space distribution and radial velocities of the Milky Way RCB stars are similar to those of distant planetary nebulae implying that these stars may be a bulge population (Drilling 1986). However, the scale height is 400 pc for the RCB stars assuming MBol=-5 (Iben and Tutukov 1985). So the RCB stars may be more like old disk/Population I stars. Either of the evolutionary scenarios predicts significantly more than the $``$30 RCB stars which are known in the Milky Way. For instance, Webbink (1984) estimates a population of $``$1000 RCB stars making reasonable assumptions for the Double Degenerate scenario. However, it should be pointed out that Schönberner (1986) suggests that the estimated lifetimes for both scenarios are too short to account for the number of RCB stars. Iben, Tutukov, & Yungleson (1996b) estimate that final flashes could produce 30-2000 RCB stars at any given time depending on the core mass. They estimate that the Double Degenerate or binary merger scenario could produce $``$300 RCB stars.

Most of the Galactic RCB stars were discovered early in the century on the Harvard Observatory plate survey. The detection limit was about B= 11.8 mag on these blue sensitive plates. Stars near or below this limit, reddened stars and intrinsically red stars would have been missed (Lawson & Cottrell 1990b; Lawson et al. 1990). The results for the LMC RCB stars imply that many Galactic RCB stars are significantly fainter than previously believed, making them even less likely to have been detected.

Using evolutionary models of the pulsation periods of RCB stars, one can estimate the crossing time as a function of temperature (Lawson et al. 1990 and references therein). The model results imply relative populations of RCB stars with Teff = 5000, 6000 and 7000 K of 30:5:1. Most of the known RCB stars in the Galaxy fall in the warmest subgroup. The observed population ratio is 1:1:4. Lawson et al. (1990) suggest that the apparent lack of cool RCB stars is a selection effect. Lawson & Cottrell (1990b) estimate that if all RCB stars have M$`{}_{V}{}^{}`$-5, then the real number would be 200-300 or even larger if the number of cool stars equaled the number of warm stars. The results of this study for the LMC imply that the ratio is 7:2:1 which is consistent with the theoretical ratio given above. If this is the intrinsic ratio in the Galaxy also, then there are $`10^3`$ RCB stars in the entire Milky Way, most yet to be discovered.

We can estimate the number of RCB stars in the LMC from the results of the MACHO sample. The MACHO lightcurves for most stars have extremely good coverage for $``$2500 days spanning the years 1993 through 1999. This is long enough to catch most but not all RCB stars in decline. RCB stars are true irregular variables. The historical lightcurve of R CrB itself, which now stretches back over two hundred years, shows that it has gone up to 10 years with no decline and at other times has had several declines in one year (Mattei, Waagen, & Foster 1991). The characteristic time between declines is 1000-2000 days (Clayton, Whitney, & Mattei 1993). So any search over a short time period will detect only a fraction of the RCB stars. HV 5637 is an LMC RCB star but it is relatively inactive (Hodge & Wright 1969). It shows no evidence for a decline during the 7 years of MACHO coverage. One of the Galactic RCB stars, XX Cam, shows similar behavior. It has had only one recorded decline this century (Bidelman 1948; Yuin 1948). The AAVSO monitors 31 RCB stars including R CrB, V854 Cen and XX Cam. Over the same timespan covered by the MACHO observations, 23 of these stars or about three quarters of the observed sample had deep declines of 3 magnitudes or more. Another consideration is how long can an RCB star stay in a deep decline. V854 Cen is a good example (Clayton 1996). It is 7th magnitude at maximum light yet it is not in the HD, CPD or SAO catalogs. Early in the 1900’s, this star never rose above about magnitude 13. This is a much rarer phenomenon. While several of the 31 RCB stars in the AAVSO sample were very active in the 1993-1999 time period, none spent the entire time in a deep decline. Therefore, using the Galactic RCB stars as a guide, we can expect to have detected about 75% of the LMC RCB stars lying in the MACHO fields.

Nine of the new RCB stars discovered with MACHO lie within the so-called top-22 fields which have the best temporal coverage (Alcock et al. 2000). The three pre-MACHO LMC RCB stars and HV 2379 (16.5641.22) lie outside these fields. The four DY Per stars all lie in the top-22 fields. These 22 fields cover 10 square degrees centered on the LMC bar. Kim et al. (1998) estimate the mass of the LMC within a radius of 4 kpc is 1.0 x $`10^9`$ $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The inner 4 kpc of the LMC corresponds to 71.5 square degrees at a distance modulus of 18.4. Then, extrapolating from the top-22 MACHO fields, we assume a homogeneous distribution of mass, and a 75% detection efficiency. This implies $``$85 RCB stars in the inner 4 kpc of the LMC. We can then make an estimate of the expected number of RCB stars in the Galaxy assuming M$`{}_{Galaxy}{}^{}`$ 3.8 x 1010 $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. If RCB stars occur at the same frequency in the Galaxy as in the LMC and if the bar is not somehow special, then we would expect there to be $``$3,200 RCB stars in the Milky Way. This number may be somewhat overestimated since the density of planetary nebulae and carbon stars is enhanced in the area of the LMC bar (e.g., Richer 1981; Morgan 1994). Similarly, we can estimate the expected number in the SMC. The top-6 MACHO fields in the SMC were searched in a similar manner to that described above for the LMC. These 6 fields in the SMC contain 2.2 x 106 stars as compared to 8.5 x 106 stars in the top-22 LMC fields (Alcock et al. 1997b). So extrapolating from the number found in the LMC, we would expect to find $``$2 RCB stars in the SMC. None were found.

## 9 Summary

The final results of our study of the LMC RCB stars in the top-22 MACHO fields are:
$``$ Ten new RCB stars (eight reported in this paper) were discovered using MACHO photometry bringing the total in the LMC to thirteen.
$``$ There is a much wider range of absolute luminosity in the RCB stars than previously thought. There is a range of $`M_V`$ $``$-2.5 to -5 mag. The warm ($``$7000 K) stars are brighter at V than the cool ($``$5000 K) stars.
$``$ The relative populations of LMC RCB stars with Teff = 5000, 6000 and 7000 K is 7:2:1 close to the theoretical ratio but very different from the Galactic ratio of 1:1:4. The Galactic ratio may be severely biased due to selection effects.
$``$ One hot ($``$20,000 K) RCB star was found. Three such stars are known in the Galaxy.
$``$ If the population of RCB stars in the LMC is similar to that of the Galaxy then there may be $``$3,200 RCB stars in the Galaxy.
$``$ Four stars were found which resemble the unusual Galactic RCB star, DY Per. These stars fade much more slowly than typical RCB stars. These stars are also cooler and fainter, with a maximum absolute brightness of $`M_V`$ $``$-2.5 mag. It is not clear if these stars are related to the RCB stars.

We are very grateful for the skilled support given our project by the technical staffs at the Mount Stromlo and CTIO Observatories, and, in particular, we would like to thank Simon Chan, Glen Thorpe, Susannah Sabine, and Michael McDonald for their invaluable assistance in obtaining the data. Work performed at the University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract W7405-Eng-48. Work performed by the Center for Particle Astrophysics personnel is supported in part by the Office of Science and Technology Centers of the NSF under cooperative agreement A-8809616. Work performed at MSSSO is supported by the Bilateral Science and Technology Program of the Australian Department of Industry, Technology and Regional Development. DM is supported by Fondecyt 1990440. We are grateful to the SAAO and CTIO for providing time for follow-up observations. We thank Peter Wood for suggesting that HV 2379 might be an RCB star and Cecilia Barnbaum for providing the spectrum of DY Per. This work made use of the SIMBAD astronomical database provided by the Centre de Donnèes astronomiques de Strasbourg.

## 10 Appendix

In this Appendix we provide the MACHO photometric data for each of the stars in the sample. The data are given in Tables A1 to A16 and include the HJD, R Magnitude, V magnitude and the Observation ID which is the running exposure number. The magnitudes are calculated as described in Section 2.1. In the paper edition, only a portion of Table A1 is given as an example. The remaining tables appear only in the electronic edition.


format: text

text:
# Defect Statistics in the Two Dimensional Complex Ginsburg-Landau Model

## I Introduction

We study here the statistical properties of a collection of point defects generated during the evolution of the two-dimensional complex Ginzburg-Landau equation (CGLE). We will be interested in that portion of the parameter space where the CGLE, driven by random initial conditions, has a regime of defect coarsening where the density of defects falls off with a power law in time. Our interest here is in the statistical properties of these defects and ultimately properties of the associated order parameter driven by the dynamics of the defects. Initially we will focus on the velocity distribution of the defects and the spatial correlations between defects.

The approach developed here is based on the use of a set topological invariants which are applicable to a large set of systems which generate defects as a part of an ordering process. In particular one is led to a clean expression for the velocity of the defect cores in terms of derivatives of the order parameter field evaluated at the core position. This approach not only allows one to investigate equations of motion obeyed by individual defects, but opens up the possibility of treating the statistical properties of an ensemble of interacting defects. We have, from previous work in the area of phase-ordering kinetics, the analog of the Maxwell velocity distribution for a collection of phase-ordering defects.

In the defect coarsening regime for the CGLE, the defect density, $`\overline{n}(t)`$, scales as $`L^2(t)`$ where $`L(t)`$ is a characteristic length which grows with $`t`$, and $`t`$ is the time of the evolution of the system starting with random initial conditions. In these circumstances, as shown in detail below, the defect velocity probability distribution is given, as in the purely dissipative time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau (TDGL) case, by

$`P(𝐕)=\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}})\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \overline{v}^2}}\right)\left(1+𝐕^2/\overline{v}^2\right)^2,`$ (1)
where the characteristic velocity $`\overline{v}L^1`$ is given explicitly below. Similarly the defect-defect equal-time correlation function has the same form (see below) as found for the TDGL case. In the case of the correlations between defect densities at different times, we find some rather weak deviations from the results in the TDGL case.

These results for the statistical properties of the defects, inspire one, using ideas which have been successful for treating the TDGL case, to look at the order parameter correlations. In this case we find results quite different from the TDGL case. This is due both to the spiral arms and processional motion characteristic of defects in the CGLE. The spiral arms render order parameter correlations shorter in range, compared to the TDGL case, and the order parameter correlation function shows the behavior $`\overline{n}^3(t)W(r/L(t))`$. The precessional effects are predicted to be prominent in the two-time order parameter correlation function.

## II Background

The complex Ginzburg-Landau equation can be written in the form

$`_t\psi =b^2\psi +\left(1u|\psi |^2\right)\psi `$ (2)
where $`\psi `$ is a complex field, and $`b`$ and $`u`$ are complex parameters. For the appropriate set of parameters (choice of $`b`$ and $`u`$) we find on quenching from an initially disordered state, that the CGLE generates a set of coarsening point defects. The characteristic distance between the defects increases with time due to the annihilation process between defects and antidefects.

For $`b`$ and $`u`$ real Eq.(2) reduces to the dissipative TDGL equation which is the most widely studied model for phase ordering. If we set $`b=u=i\eta `$ in Eq.(2) and take $`\eta `$ large, we find, and after a simple gauge transformation, Eq.(2) reduces to

$`i_t\psi =^2\psi +(1|\psi |^2)\psi .`$ (3)
This equation, the nonlinear Schroedinger equation (NLSE), gives a highly idealized description of the low temperature properties of a neutral superfluid. Unlike the TDGL system, the NLSE supports several conserved quantities. In particular the quantity $`d^dr|\psi (𝐫,t)|^2`$ does not change with time. This model supports the same defects as the TDGL model, but the dynamics of the defects are quite different. Two oppositely charged vortices in the TDGL model move along the line connecting them toward annihilation. In the NLSE the same two vortices move at right angles to the line connecting them.

## III Defect Charged Density and Velocity Fields

The approach developed here allows for a direct connection between a set of field equations, like the complex Ginzburg-Landau equation satisfied by an order parameter field, and the equations of motion of the cores of a set of defects. It has only recently been understood, as discussed below, that these expressions for the defect velocity reduce to the same form as found in pattern forming studies using very different arguments.

The approach developed here is motivated by addressing the question: What is the probability of finding a defect a distance $`r`$ from an anti-defect? In work on phase ordering kinetics we developed methods which are convenient for handling such questions. A motivating factor was the realization that in treating statistical properties of defects one does not want to work with formal structures which require an explicit treatment in terms of the defect positions. This leads to problems of specification of initial conditions. Instead we looked for a way of implicitly finding the positions of the defects using the order parameter field $`\psi `$ itself.

Let us consider the case of two dimensions where we have point defects. The case of line defects can also be treated using these ideas but will be discussed elsewhere. The basic idea is that the positions of defects are located by the zeros of the order parameter field $`\psi `$. Suppose, instead of the positions $`𝐫_i(t)`$ we want to write our description in terms of the zeros of $`\psi (𝐫,t)`$. It is not difficult to see that the defect charged density has the two representations

$`\rho (𝐫,t)=\delta (\stackrel{}{\psi }(𝐫,t))𝒟(𝐫,t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}q_i\delta (𝐫𝐫_i(t))`$ (4)
where $`q_i=𝒟(𝐫_i)/|𝒟(𝐫_i)|=\pm 1`$, and $`𝒟(𝐫)`$ is the Jacobian associated with the change of variables from the set of defect positions to the field $`\psi `$:

$`𝒟={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2!}}ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2}_{\mu _1}\psi _{\mu _2}\psi ^{}`$ (5)
where we sum over the $`\mu _i`$, $`ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2}`$ is the $`2`$-dimensional anti-symmetric tensor and summation over repeated indices is implied. For later reference, the unsigned defect density is given by $`n(𝐫,t)=|\rho (𝐫,t)|`$.

For systems where only unit charges are present, $`\rho `$ is the topological charge density. Notice that $`q_i`$ is well defined even for system like classical fluids where the circulation associated with a defect is not quantized.

The dynamical implications of this approach are simple. If indeed topological charge is conserved then we would expect the charge density to obey a continuity equation. It was shown in Ref.() that $`\rho `$ satisfies a continuity equation of the form

$`_t\rho =\stackrel{}{}\left(\rho 𝐯\right)`$ (6)
where the defect velocity field $`𝐯`$ is given explicitly by

$`𝒟v_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\left(\dot{\psi }_\beta \psi ^{}\dot{\psi }^{}_\beta \psi \right).`$ (7)
where $`𝒟`$ is defined by Eq.(5) and we must remember that $`𝐯`$ is multiplied by the defect core locating $`\delta `$-function in $`\rho `$ in Eq.(6). Eq.(7) gives one an explicit expression for the defect velocity field expressed in terms of derivatives of the order parameter. This expression for the defect velocity seems to be very general. Notice that we have not specified the form of the equation of motion for the order parameter only that the order parameter be complex and $`d=2`$. For the CGLE our expression for the defect velocity reduces to

$`𝒟v_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }\left(b^2\psi _\beta \psi ^{}b^{}^2\psi ^{}_\beta \psi \right).`$ (8)
Does this expression for the velocity agree with our expectations for known cases? Let us assume that we have a defect of charge $`m`$ at the origin of our two dimensional system and write the order parameter in the form: $`\psi =Re^{i\theta }`$, $`R=r^{|m|}e^w`$ and $`\theta =m\varphi +\theta _B`$, where again $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are the cylindrical coordinates relative to the core at the origin. It is then a straightforward bit of calculus to show that the velocity given by Eq.(8) reduces to

$`v_\alpha =2b^{\prime \prime }\left(_\alpha \theta _B+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{|m|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\beta w\right)2b^{}\left(_\alpha w{\displaystyle \frac{m}{|m|}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\beta \theta _B\right).`$ (9)
If we ignore the contributions due to the variation in the amplitude, $`w`$, Eq.(9) reduces to $`v_\alpha =2b^{\prime \prime }_\alpha \theta _B+b^{}\frac{m}{|m|}_\beta ϵ_{\alpha \beta }_\beta \theta _B`$. The first term is the only contribution in the NLSE case and states that a vortex moves with the local superfluid velocity. The second term is the Peach-Koehler term first found in this context by Kawasaki. These are the results from the phase-field approach and leads, for example, to the same type of interaction between two vortices as found in fluids. The velocity of a single isolated vortex is zero. For a set of two isolated vortices one has the expected behavior for the TDGL and NLSE cases.

For our purposes here the more important point is to consider the work of T$`\ddot{o}`$rnkvist and Schr$`\ddot{o}`$der. Using methods of differential geometry, they looked at the derivation of the form of the velocity of a defect in the case of the CGLE. They comment, ”The evolution of a system with (spiral) vortices may be described in terms of the defects, or filaments, along with values of the fields” $`R`$ and $`\theta `$ ”at positions away from the defects of filaments. Such a separation into collective coordinates and field variables is non-trivial, and the present work comprises the first exact treatment of this kind for a dissipative system”. The final equation they obtain, in our notation here and for two-dimensional systems, is precisely given by Eq.(9). Thus the velocity given by Eq.(9) reproduces the most sophisticated results obtained using other methods.

## IV Auxiliary Field Method

### A Overview

How can we use these expressions for $`\rho `$ and $`𝐯(\psi )`$ to compute the measureable statistical properties of an evolving CGLE system? We will use a generalization of an approximate method which has led to good results for the TDGL case. The basic idea is to assume that there is mapping from the order parameter field onto an auxiliary field $`m`$ which shares the same zeros as $`\psi `$ in space. In particularly we require $`\rho [\psi ]=\rho [m]`$ and $`𝐯[\psi ]=𝐯[m]`$ where again we use the result that the velocity is multiplied by a defect-zero- finding $`\delta `$-function. These requirements are not very constraining since they only require that $`\psi `$ be proportional to $`m`$ for small $`m`$ with corrections that are cubic in $`m`$. It has been convenient to think of $`𝐦(𝐱)`$ as a 2-vector whose magnitude gives the distance from $`𝐱`$ to a defect core. Thus, as discussed in more detail below, near the core we can take $`Re\psi =m_x`$ and $`Im\psi =m_y`$.

The main assumption in the theory is that the field $`m`$ is gaussian and the variance in $`m`$ is determined by requiring that the defect charge density continuity equation be satisfied on average:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_{\rho \rho }(12)}{t_1}}=\stackrel{}{}_1<\rho (1)𝐯(1)\rho (2)>G_{J\rho }(12)`$ (10)
where

$`G_{\rho \rho }(12)=<\rho (1)\rho (2)>`$ (11)
and $`\rho (1)=\rho (t_1,𝐱_1)`$. With these assumptions and assumptions about the initial conditions, one can work out all of the statistical properties of the defects including $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ and the defect velocity probability distribution function defined by

$`\overline{n}P(𝐕)|\rho |\delta (𝐕𝐯[\psi ]),.`$ (12)
Corrections to this gaussian approximation can be investigated using methods of the type developed in Refs..

The procedure then is to first compute $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ and $`G_{J\rho }(12)`$ assuming that $`m`$ is a gaussian field. This will give $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ and $`G_{J\rho }(12)`$ as functions of the auxiliary field correlation function

$`C_{\alpha \beta }(12)=<m_\alpha (1)m_\beta (2)>`$ (13)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ take on the values $`x`$ and $`y`$. Inserting these results for $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ and $`G_{J\rho }(12)`$ back into Eq.(10) gives an equation for $`C(12)`$. It will turn out that this equation for $`C(12)`$ can be solved analytically. This result can then be fed back into the result for $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ to obtain an explicit expression for the defect density correlation function. As part of this calculation we obtain the average defect density $`\overline{n}=<|\rho |>`$. Finally we can carry out the average over the gaussian variable $`m`$ to obtain $`P(𝐕)`$ as a function of $`C(12)`$, and in turn obtain an explicit expression for $`P(𝐕)`$.

### B Expressing $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ in terms of $`C`$

The defect density in the defect-defect correlation function defined by Eq.(11) can be written explicitly in terms of the gaussian auxiliary field $`𝐦`$ in the form

$`\rho (1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{\mu _1\mu _2}ϵ_{\nu _1\nu _2}_{\mu _1}m_{\nu _1}(1)_{\mu _2}m_{\nu _2}(1)\delta (𝐦(1))`$ (14)
and we sum over all the indices $`\nu `$ and $`\mu `$. In the isotropic case, worked out previously, the evaluation of $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ for the $`n`$-vector model for the general case of $`n=d`$ was facilitated by the decomposition of the average for $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ into a product of averages corresponding to each component. This decomposition is not possible here because the complex coefficients in the CGLE couple the components of the order parameter as the system evolves. We need a more general approach. This more general approach involves using the general identity valid for Gaussian fields:

$`<m_\nu (1)F[𝐦]>={\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑t_2d^2x_2C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(12)<\frac{\delta }{\delta m_\nu ^{}(2)}F[𝐦]>}.`$ (15)
Using this result for all of the fields in $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ acted upon by a gradient in Eq.(11), one can bring all of the gradients outside the average. This generates many terms which are products of the matrix $`C`$ and averages proportional to the quantities

$`𝒢(12)=<\delta (𝐦(1))\delta (𝐦(2))>,`$ (16)
and

$`𝒢_{\nu _1\nu _2}(12)=<{\displaystyle \frac{}{m_{\nu _1}(1)}}\delta (𝐦(1)){\displaystyle \frac{}{m_{\nu _2}(2)}}\delta (𝐦(2))>,`$ (17)
and similar higher-order derivatives of the $`\delta `$-functions which do not contribute to the final result.

A key assumption in the evaluation of $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ is that the system is isotropic in space and we can write:

$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(12)=C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(r,t_1t_2),`$ (18)
$`_\mu ^{(1)}C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(12)=C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{}(12)\widehat{r}_\mu ,`$ (19)
and

$`_\mu ^{(1)}_\mu ^{}^{(2)}C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(12)=\left[C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^L(12)C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^T(12)\right]\widehat{r}_\mu \widehat{r}_\mu ^{}C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^T(12)\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}`$ (20)
where $`𝐫=𝐱_1𝐱_2`$, and

$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^L(12)C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{\prime \prime }(12)`$ (21)
$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^T(12){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}C_{\nu \nu ^{}}^{}(12)`$ (22)
and the primes in the superscripts indicate derivatives with respect to $`r`$. Using these results one can then carry our the sums over the spatial coordinate labels, the $`\mu `$’s in $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ to obtain:

$`G_{\rho \rho }(12)=G_{\rho \rho }^{(1)}(12)+G_{\rho \rho }^{(2)}(12),`$ (23)
where

$`G_{\rho \rho }^{(1)}(12)=𝒢(12)ϵ_{\nu _1\nu _2}ϵ_{\nu _1^{}\nu _2^{}}C_{\nu _1\nu _1^{}}^L(12)C_{\nu _2\nu _2^{}}^T(12)`$ (24)
and

$`G_{\rho \rho }^{(2)}(12)=ϵ_{\nu _1\nu _2}ϵ_{\nu _1^{}\nu _2^{}}𝒢_{\sigma _2\sigma _1}(12)C_{\nu _1\sigma _1}^{}(12)C_{\sigma _2\nu _2^{}}^{}(12)C_{\nu _2\nu _1^{}}^T(12).`$ (25)
It is easy to evaluate, using the results from Appendix A, the remaining averages over the auxiliary field:

$`𝒢_{\sigma _2\sigma _1}(12)=D^2C_{\sigma _2\sigma _1}(12)𝒢(12)`$ (26)
$`𝒢(12)={\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{(2\pi )^2}}`$ (27)
where $`D`$ is defined by Eq.(A12). Expressing $`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(12)`$ in terms of $`C_0(12)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(12)`$, as given by Eq.(A2), and doing the sums over the $`\nu `$’s, we find after some rearrangement, the result for the defect density correlation function:

$`G_{\rho \rho }(12)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(Q\gamma _T^2\right)`$ (28)
where

$`\gamma _T^2=(1f_T^2)^1`$ (29)
$`f_T=\sqrt{f_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2}`$ (30)
$`f_0={\displaystyle \frac{C_0}{\sqrt{S_0(1)S_0(2)}}}`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\sqrt{S_0(1)S_0(2)}}}`$ (32)
where $`S_0(i)=C_0(ii)`$ and

$`Q=\left(f_0^{}\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\right)^2.`$ (33)
We still need to determine the auxiliary field correlation functions $`C_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is easy to see that the result given by Eq.(28), in the isotropic limit where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, reduces to result first reported by Halperin

$`G_{\rho \rho }(12)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(h^2\right)`$ (34)
where

$`h={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _Tf_0^{}}{2\pi }}.`$ (35)
### C Satisfying Conservation of Topological Charge

The calculation of the current contribution of $`G_{J\rho }`$ on the right-hand side of Eq.(10) is much the same as for $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ except for terms which involve the on-site correlation function

$`S^{(2)}(1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<\left(𝐦(1)\right)^2>=\left(^2C_0(r,t_1t_1)\right)_{r=0}.`$ (36)
$`G_{J\rho }`$ is also proportional to the factor $`\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}`$ and, after performing an integration over $`r`$, we obtain the averaged conservation law, given by Eq.(10), can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}\left(Q\gamma _T^2\right)=2b^{}M+2b^{\prime \prime }N`$ (37)
where

$`M=\gamma _T^4Q\left(\omega _0(1)+f_0^2f_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\right)+\gamma _T^2\left(f_0^{}^2f_0^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\right)`$ (38)
and

$`N=\gamma _T^4Q\left(f_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2f_0\right)+\gamma _T^2\left(f_0^{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}^2f_0^{}\right)`$ (39)
where we have introduced the time-dependent quantity

$`\omega _0(1)={\displaystyle \frac{S^{(2)}(1)}{S_0(1)}}=\left(^2f_0(r,t_1t_1)\right)_{r=0}.`$ (40)
Eq.(37) looks very complicated but simplifies if we replace $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with

$`f_0=f_Tcos\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (41)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=f_Tsin\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (42)
Then Eq.(37) can be rewritten as

$`\gamma _Tf_T^{}\left[\gamma _T\left(2\dot{f}_TR\right)\right]^{}+\gamma _T^4f_T\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\right)^2\left(2\dot{f}_TR\right)+\gamma _T^2\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\left[2f_T^2\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}f_T^{}S+f_TS^{}\right]=0`$ (43)
where

$`R=2b^{}\omega _0(1)f_T+2b^{}A+2b^{\prime \prime }B`$ (44)
$`S=2b^{}B+2b^{\prime \prime }A`$ (45)
and

$`A=^2f_Tf_T(\mathrm{\Omega })^2`$ (46)
$`B=2f_T\mathrm{\Omega }+f_T^2\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ (47)
A solution to Eq.(43) is given by

$`2\dot{f}_T=R`$ (48)
and

$`2f_T^2\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}=f_T^{}Sf_TS^{}.`$ (49)
This last equation can be reduced to

$`2f_T\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}=S`$ (50)
The set of coupled equation given by Eqs.(48) and (50) are equivalent to the equations for $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ given by

$`\dot{f}_0=b^{}\left(\omega _0(1)+^2\right)f_0+b^{\prime \prime }^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ (51)
and

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0=b^{}\left(\omega _0(1)+^2\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_0b^{\prime \prime }^2f_0.`$ (52)
This is the set of equations which must be solved self-consistently to obtain the unknown quantities $`f_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\omega (1)`$.

### D Auxiliary Field Correlation Function

Equations (51) and (52) are reduced to a set of differential equations in time if we Fourier transform in space and put in the time labels explicitly:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}f_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)=\alpha (q,t_1)f_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)\beta _q\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_1}}\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)=\alpha (q,t_1)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)+\beta _qf_0(𝐪,t_1t_2)`$ (54)
where

$`\alpha (q,t_1)=b^{}\left(\omega _0(t_1)q^2\right)`$ (55)
and

$`\beta _q=b^{\prime \prime }q^2.`$ (56)
Equations (53) and (54) need to be solved together with the symmetry condition

$`f(𝐪,t_1,t_2)=f_0(𝐪,t_1,t_2)+i\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝐪,t_1,t_2)=f^{}(𝐪,t_2,t_1)`$ (57)
and the initial condition

$`f(𝐪,t_0,t_0)=2\pi \mathrm{}^2e^{\frac{1}{2}(q\mathrm{})^2}g(q).`$ (58)
This particular choice of initial conditions, corresponding to an initial correlation length $`\mathrm{}`$, is very convenient since all integrals can be carried out analytically for all times. Finally we must remember the normalization which follows from the definition of $`f(12)`$ given by Eqs.(31) and (32):

$`f(11)={\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}f(𝐪,t_1,t_1)}=1.`$ (59)
It is not difficult to construct the appropriate solution given by

$`f(𝐪,t_1,t_2)=R(t_1,t_0)R(t_2,t_0)g(q)e^{b^{}q^2(t_1+t_22t_0)}e^{i\beta _q(t_1t_2)}`$ (60)
where

$`R(t_1,t_0)=e^{b^{}_{t_0}^{t_1}𝑑\tau \omega _0(\tau )}.`$ (61)
It is straightforward to take the inverse Fourier transform of Eq.(60) with the result

$`f(12)=R(t_1,t_0)R(t_2,t_0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{\stackrel{~}{L}^2}}\right)e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(r/\stackrel{~}{L}\right)^2}`$ (62)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{L}^2=\mathrm{}^2+4b^{}T2ib^{\prime \prime }(t_1t_2)`$ (63)
and

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{t_1+t_2}{2}}.`$ (64)
We must stop here and satisfy the constraint given by Eq.(59). We have from Eq.(62)

$`1=R^2(t_1,t_0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{L^2}}\right)`$ (65)
where

$`L^2(t_1)=\stackrel{~}{L}^2(t_1,t_1)=\mathrm{}^2+4b^{}t_1.`$ (66)
Eq.(65) serves as an equation for $`\omega _0(t_1)`$ which can be easily solved to give

$`\omega _0(t_1)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{L^2(t_1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{}^2+4b^{}t_1}}.`$ (67)
Using Eq.(65) to express $`R(t_1,t_0)`$ in terms of $`L(t_1)`$ we find

$`f(12)=\mathrm{\Phi }(t_1,t_2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1i\omega }}e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(r/\stackrel{~}{L}\right)^2}`$ (68)
where

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_1,t_2)={\displaystyle \frac{L(t_1)L(t_2)}{L^2(T)}}`$ (69)
and

$`\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{2b^{\prime \prime }(t_1t_2)}{L^2(T)}}.`$ (70)
This last definition implies

$`\stackrel{~}{L}^2=L^2(T)\left(1i\omega \right)`$ (71)
and

$`f(12)=\mathrm{\Phi }(t_1,t_2){\displaystyle \frac{e^{iz}}{1i\omega }}e^{\frac{1}{2}y^2}`$ (72)
where

$`y^2={\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{1+\omega ^2}}`$ (73)
$`x=r/L(T)`$ (74)
and

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega y^2.`$ (75)
There are a number of comments relevant to this result for $`f(12)`$ given by Eq.(68). First note that there is consistency between the definition of $`\omega _0(t)`$ given by Eq.(40) and the solution for $`f`$ which leads to Eq.(67). For equal times, $`t_1=t_2=t`$, we have

$`f(r,t)=e^{\frac{1}{2}x^2}`$ (76)
which is of the same form as in the purely dissipative case with a characteristic length $`L\sqrt{b^{}t}`$. It we look at the on-site $`r=0`$ autocorrelation function,

$`f(0,t_1,t_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }(t_1,t_2){\displaystyle \frac{1+i\omega }{1+\omega ^2}},`$ (77)
we can write for $`t_1,t_2t_0`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t_1,t_2)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_1t_2}}{T}}\right)^{\lambda _0}.`$ (78)
For $`t_1t_2`$, $`\omega `$ approaches a constant and the nonequilibrium exponent $`\lambda _0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ also governs $`f(0,t_1,t_2)`$ and is given by $`\lambda _0=1`$ which is the same as for the TDGL case for $`n=d=2`$.

The main new result is that for non-equal times the auxiliary field correlation function shows a novel oscillatory behavior. One of our chief goals below is discuss the possibility of observing this phenomena. We note here that $`f(12)`$ does obey a form of scaling for $`t_1,t_2t_0`$:

$`f(12)=f(x,\tau )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{e^{iz(x,\tau )}}{1i\omega (\tau )}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{1+\omega ^2(\tau )}}`$ (79)
where $`\tau =t_1/t_2`$,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\tau }}{1+\tau }}`$ (80)
$`\omega (\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{b^{\prime \prime }}{b^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau 1}{\tau +1}}\right)`$ (81)
and

$`z(x,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega (\tau )x^2}{1+\omega ^2(\tau )}}.`$ (82)
Rather than discussing this result for $`f(12)`$ in more detail, it is prudent to remember that $`f(12)`$ is not itself directly observable. Thus let us turn back to observables and their dependence on $`f(12)`$. We delay discussing the details of the oscillations in $`f(12)`$ until after discussing how this feeds back into the determination of observables.

## V Defect-Defect Correlation Function

### A General Result

Given the explicit solution for $`f(12)`$, Eq.(79), we can return to the evaluation of the density correlation function, $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$, given by Eq.(28). The input we need for its determination is $`\gamma _T^2=1F^2`$, where

$`F^2=|f|^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{1+\omega ^2}}e^{\frac{x^2}{1+\omega ^2}}`$ (83)
and

$`Q=\left(f_0^{}\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\right)^2`$ (84)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{x^2F^2}{L^2\left(1+\omega ^2\right)}}.`$ (85)
Inserting these results for $`\gamma _T`$ and $`Q`$ back into Eq.(28) gives

$`G_{\rho \rho }(12)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\tau )}{2\pi ^2L^4(T)(1+\omega ^2(\tau )}}g\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(1+\omega ^2(\tau ))}}\right)`$ (86)
where

$`g(s)={\displaystyle \frac{e^s(1s)\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\tau )}{\left(e^s\mathrm{\Phi }^2(\tau )\right)^2}}.`$ (87)
In analyzing $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ we must be careful to distinguish the equal-time case from the unequal times case.

### B The equal-time case

If $`t_1=t_2=t`$ and $`\tau =1`$, the density correlation function can be written as:

$`G_{\rho \rho }(r,t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2L^4(t)}}g(x)`$ (88)
where

$`g(x)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{x^2}(1x^2)1}{\left(e^{x^2}1\right)^2}}.`$ (89)
This is the same result found in the purely dissipative case. It is known that the conservation of topological charge for equal times requires one to include in the defect-defect correlation function the correlation of a defect with itself:

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\rho \rho }(r,t)=\delta (𝐫)\overline{n}(t)+G_{\rho \rho }(r,t)`$ (90)
where $`\overline{n}(t)`$ is the average defect density. Then conservation of topological charge is given by

$`{\displaystyle d^2r\stackrel{~}{G}_{\rho \rho }(r,t)}=0.`$ (91)
Inserting Eq.(90) into Eq.(91) gives

$`\overline{n}(t)={\displaystyle d^2rG_{\rho \rho }(r,t)}.`$ (92)
However using the form given by Eq.(28) we can do the integral in Eq.(92) and obtain for the average defect density

$`\overline{n}(t)=\underset{r0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\gamma _T^2}{2\pi }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi L^2(t)}}.`$ (93)
This is the expected result if scaling holds. One can also find $`\overline{n}(t)`$ by direct computation and obtain

$`\overline{n}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0(t)}{4\pi }}`$ (94)
where $`\omega _0`$ is defined by Eq.(40) and given in this approximation by Eq.(67). We see that the two determinations of $`\overline{n}(t)`$ agree.

### C The unequal-time case

For the case $`\tau 1`$ we have that the conservation of topological charge holds directly for $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ since

$`{\displaystyle d^2rG_{\rho \rho }(12)}=\underset{r0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Q\gamma _T^2}{2\pi }}=0.`$ (95)
The final step follows since $`Qr^2`$ for small $`r`$ and $`\gamma _T^2`$ is regular in this limit. If we set $`r=0`$ in $`G_{\rho \rho }(12)`$ given by Eq.(86) we obtain

$`G_{\rho \rho }(0,t_1,t_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2L^4(T)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+\omega ^2(\tau )\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\tau }{(1\tau )^2}}.`$ (96)
We see that this quantity blows up a $`\tau 1`$ signaling the existence of the $`\delta `$-function at $`r=0`$ obtained for equal times. Thus we see that the limits $`r0`$ and $`\tau 1`$ do not commute.

## VI Defect Velocity Probability Distribution Function

The defect velocity probability distribution function is defined by

$`\overline{n}(t)P(𝐕)|\rho (\psi )|\delta (𝐕𝐯[\psi ])=|\rho (m)|\delta (𝐕𝐯[m]).`$ (97)
One of the main results from the last section is that at equal times the auxiliary field probability distribution is isotropic and has the same form as in the purely dissipative case. This means that we obtain the same result here as found in Ref.() and given earlier by Eq.(1) where the characteristic velocity $`\overline{v}(t)`$ is given by

$`\overline{v}(t)=2\left(b^{}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{S^{(4)}(t)}{\omega _0(t)}}`$ (98)
where

$`S^{(4)}(t)=^4f(r,t)|_{r=0}\omega _0^2(t)`$ (99)
and using the explicit results for $`f(r,t)`$, given by Eq.(76) we obtain

$`\overline{v}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{4\left(b^{}\right)^2}{L^2(t)}}.`$ (100)
The result for $`P(𝐕)`$ given by Eq.(1) indicates that the probability of finding a defect with a large velocity decreases with time. However, since this distribution falls off only as $`V^4`$ for large $`V`$ only the first moment beyond the normalization integral exists. This seems to imply the existence of a source of large velocities. Assuming the large velocities of defects can be associated with the final collapse of a defect structure (defect-antidefect pair annihilation for point defects), Bray used general scaling arguments to obtain the same large velocity tail given by Eq.(1).

One probe of the defect dynamics is to study the correlation between two defects including the correlation between their velocities. The two-defect velocity probability distribution, $`P[𝐕_1,𝐕_2,𝐫]`$, gives the probability that two defects separated by a distance $`r`$ have velocities $`𝐕_1,𝐕_2`$. This quantity was determined in Ref.() and since it is an equal time quantity the results found there hold here. The physical results from the calculation of this quantity for the TDGL model, carried out in detail for $`n=d=2`$ using the same approximations as indicated above, are relatively simple to state. For a given separation $`r`$ , the most probable configuration corresponds, as expected, to a state with zero total velocity and a nonzero relative velocity only along the axis connecting the defects: $`𝐕_1=𝐕_2v\widehat{x}`$. Moreover there is a definite most probable nonzero value for $`v=v_{max}`$ for a given value of $`r`$. The most striking feature of these results is that for small $`r`$ the most probable velocity goes as $`v_{max}=\kappa /r`$ and $`\kappa =2.19`$ in dimensionless units defined in Ref.().

## VII Order Parameter Correlation Function

Thus far we have focussed on the statistical properties of the defects in the system and found results for $`G_{\rho \rho }`$ and $`P(𝐕)`$ which are very similar to the purely dissipative case. Only rather small differences arise when one looks at unequal times. Unfortunately neither of these quantities probes the full phase dependence of the auxiliary field correlation function which shows interesting oscillations in space at unequal times. We show here that this phase dependence may be probed via the order parameter correlation function evaluated at unequal times. Indeed this quantity, within the approximate treatment given here, is quite different from the purely dissipative case even at equal times.

The order parameter correlation function is defined by

$`C_\psi (12)=<\psi ^{}(2)\psi (1)>`$ (101)
and our approach toward its evaluation will be to find the relationship between the order parameter and the auxiliary field $`𝐦`$. In section IV we required that $`\psi `$ be proportional to $`𝐦`$ for small $`m`$ near the core of a defect. In evaluating Eq.(101) we need a more general mapping. The procedure we will use here has been successful in the purely dissipative case. Picking up on the point made in section IV, we choose $`𝐦(𝐱)`$ to represent the distance from $`𝐱`$ to the closest defect. This physical picture can be realized by constructing $`\psi (𝐦)`$ as a solution to the equation for a single stationary defect:

$`b_m^2\psi +\left(1+i\omega _1u|\psi |^2\right)\psi =0,`$ (102)
where $`𝐦`$ serves as the coordinate and $`\omega _1`$ is the oscillatory frequency. In the purely dissipative case, $`b`$ real and $`\omega _1=0`$, one has for field points well away from a defect core:

$`\psi (𝐦))=\psi _0e^{i\varphi (𝐦)}`$ (103)
where, for a defect of charge $`n`$,

$`\varphi (𝐦)=ntan^1\left(m_y/m_x\right).`$ (104)
In the purely dissipative case, insertion of Eq.(103) for $`\psi (𝐦)`$ into Eq.(101) and carrying out the Gaussian average over $`𝐦`$, leads to the result:

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2f{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1z^2\right)^{1/2}}{\left(1z^2f^2\right)^{1/2}}}`$ (105)
with $`f(12)`$ given by Eq.(68) with $`\omega =0`$. This approximate result has been rather extensively tested in the TDGL case.

In the CGLE case we have a new and interesting element. There is a range of parameters where one has spiral defects. Thus, unlike the TDGL case, one has spatial structure associated with individual defects beyond the core. In particular Hagan showed that the far-field solution of Eq.(102) is given by

$`\psi (𝐦(𝐱))=\psi _0e^{i\left(\varphi (𝐱)+qm(𝐱)\right)}`$ (106)
where $`q`$ is the wavenumber of the spiral arms asymptotically far from the defect core and $`\psi _0=\psi _0(q)`$. $`q`$ depends on the particular parameters of the CGLE as discussed by Hagan. While there are values for which $`q`$ vanishes, as in the TDGL limit, we will assume that we work in a region of parameter space where $`q0`$.

Using this set of mappings the order parameter correlation function is given by

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2<e^{i\left(\varphi (2)+qm(2)\right)}e^{i\left(\varphi (1)+qm(1)\right)}>`$ (107)
$`=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle d^2x(1)d^2x(2)e^{i(\varphi _1\varphi _2)}e^{iq(x(1)x(2))}e^{\frac{1}{2}A}}`$ (108)
where $`d^2x(i)=x(i)dx(i)d\varphi (i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$. The action $`A`$ and determinant $`D`$ are given in the Appendix. In particular $`A`$ is given by Eq.(A15) in terms of polar coordinates and we have more explicitly,

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x(1)𝑑x(1){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}x(2)𝑑x(2)e^{iq(x(1)x(2))}`$ (109)
$`\times e^{\frac{1}{2}_ix^2(i)W_0(i)}J(x(1),x(2))`$ (110)
where the angular integrations are given by

$`J(x(1),x(2))={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi (1){\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi (2)e^{i(\varphi (1)\varphi (2))}e^{D^2C_Tx(1)x(2)cos\left(\varphi (1)\varphi (2)\theta \right)}`$ (111)
and $`\theta `$ is defined by $`tan\theta =\mathrm{\Delta }/C_0`$. Shifting the angular integrations we see that the $`\theta `$-dependence factors out:

$`J(x(1),x(2))=2\pi e^{i\theta }{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{i\varphi }e^{D^2C_Tx(1)x(2)cos\varphi }.`$ (112)
If we change integration variables from $`x(i)`$ to

$`y_i=\sqrt{W_0(i)}x(i),`$ (113)
we can rewrite Eq.(110) in the form

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{f_T}}\gamma _T^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y_1𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y_2𝑑y_2e^{\frac{1}{2}\left(y_1^2+y_2^2\right)}e^{i(q_1y_1q_2y_2)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{i\varphi }e^{f_Ty_1y_2cos\varphi }`$ (114)
where

$`q_i=q\sqrt{S_0(i)}\gamma _T^1.`$ (115)
Notice that the phase dependence of the auxiliary field correlation function is isolated in the overall factor of $`f`$ in Eq.(114). The integral over $`\varphi `$ in Eq.(114) gives a modified Bessel function, but for our purposes we only need the power-series result:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi e^{i\varphi }e^{f_Ty_1y_2cos\varphi }={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!(k+1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_Ty_1y_2}{2}}\right)^{2k+1}`$ (116)
and

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}\gamma _T^2{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!(k+1)!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{2}}\right)^{2k}J_k(q_1)J_k^{}(q_2)`$ (117)
where

$`J_k(q_1)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y𝑑ye^{\frac{1}{2}y^2}e^{iq_1y}y^{2k+1}.`$ (118)
In the limit $`q0`$ Eq.(117) does, after some manipulations, reduces to the result found in the TDGL case for $`n=2`$. Note that for $`q0`$, except for $`r=|𝐫_1𝐫_2|`$ very small, $`q_i`$, given by Eq.(115), is becoming increasingly large with $`\sqrt{S_0(i)}L(t_i)`$. This means we need evaluate $`J_k(q_i)`$ only for large $`q_i`$. Evaluation of $`J_k(q_i)`$ for large $`q_i`$ is facilitated by writing

$`J_k(q_i,a)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}y𝑑ye^{ay^2}e^{iq_iy}y^{2k+1},`$ (119)
where $`J_k(q_i)=J_k(q_i,1/2)`$. We have then

$`J_k(q_i,a)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}\right)^{k+1}J(q_i,a)`$ (120)
and

$`J(q_i,a)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ye^{ay^2}e^{iq_iy}`$ (121)
$`=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2a}}}e^{\frac{q_i^2}{4a}}+iJ^{\prime \prime }(q_i,a).`$ (122)
We see that the real part of $`J`$ is exponentially small for large $`q_i^2`$. However, it is easy to see that for large $`q_i`$

$`J^{\prime \prime }(q_i,a)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_i}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{q_i^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3(2a)^2}{q_i^5}}+\mathrm{}`$ (123)
This means that the leading non-exponential contribution to the order-parameter correlation function comes from $`J_0(q_1)`$ and is given to leading order by

$`J_0(q_1,a)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{a}}\right)i{\displaystyle \frac{2a}{q_i^3}}+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{2i}{q_i^3}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (124)
Inserting this result back into Eq.(117) we obtain

$`C_\psi (12)=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}\gamma _T^2J_0(q_1)J_0^{}(q_2)`$ (125)
$`=\psi _0^2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2}}\gamma _T^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(q_1q_2)^3}}`$ (126)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0^2}{q^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{2f\gamma _T^4}{(S_0(1)S_0(2))^{3/2}}}.`$ (127)
The scaled portion of the OP correlation function for $`x0`$ can be written as

$`W(x,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{q^6}{\psi _0^2}}S_0^{3/2}(t_1)S_0^{3/2}(t_2)C_\psi (12)`$ (128)
$`=2f\gamma _T^4.`$ (129)
For $`\tau 1`$, the correlation function depends strongly on $`\eta =b^{\prime \prime }/b^{}`$ via $`\omega `$. This is not true at equal times where $`\eta =b^{\prime \prime }/b^{}`$ does not appear in the scaling function. For $`\tau 1`$ the oscillations in $`f`$ are now clear in the order parameter correlation function. Writing out the real and imaginary parts we obtain

$`W^{}={\displaystyle \frac{2F}{\sqrt{1+\omega ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1F^2\right)^2}}\left[cosz+\omega sinz\right]`$ (130)
$`W^{\prime \prime }={\displaystyle \frac{2F}{\sqrt{1+\omega ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1F^2\right)^2}}\left[sinz+\omega cosz\right],`$ (131)
where $`F`$ is given by Eq.(83) and $`\omega `$ and $`z`$ by Eqs.(81) and (82). We are interested in the oscillations associated with $`\eta =b^{\prime \prime }/b^{}0`$. These are most clearly manifested in $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ and characterized by the zeros at

$`\omega =tanz_0`$ (132)
The first zero as a function of scaled distance is given by

$`x_0^2=2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\omega ^2+\mathrm{}`$ (133)
for small $`\omega `$ and

$`x_0^2=\pi \omega 2+(1/\omega )`$ (134)
for large $`\omega `$.

## VIII Conclusions

By using some new ideas about how to characterize defect dynamics, we have shown how one can determine local expressions for the defect density and defect velocity in terms of derivatives of the order parameter fields. These exact results were then used to derive approximate results for the defect-defect density correlation function, defect velocity probability distribution, and the order parameter correlation functions. Within these approximations, which work well for the purely dissipative case, we find that the results for the defect-defect density correlation function and the defect velocity probability distribution are substantially unchanged from the TDGL case. Thus these results seem robust. The results for the two-time auxiliary field correlation function indicate some interesting oscillation of its phase as a function of scaled distance. Since the defect-defect density correlation function depends only on the amplitude of the auxiliary field correlation function these oscillations are not present. In the last section we have seen that some remnant of these oscillations is present in the order parameter correlation function. However, another new element element for the order parameter correlation function is that the spiral arms for the defects render the interactions between different spatial points much shorter range than for the purel dissipative case. Thus for different spatial points at equal times the order parameter correlation function is down by a factor of $`\overline{n}^3(t)`$ relative to the TDGL case. All of these results can be tested via numerical simulation.

Acknowledgement: This work was supported in part by the MRSEC program of the National Science Foundation under Contract No. DMR-9808595. I thank Drs. I. Aranson and P. Kevrekidis for very useful discussions.

## A

In the purely dissipative case all correlations are isotropic:

$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)=<m_\nu (i)m_\nu ^{}(j)>=\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}C_0(ij)`$ (A1)
where $`(i,j)=(1,2)`$. In the complex case, over time, the real and imaginary components of the order parameter are mixed, and this requires that we treat the more general correlation function for the auxiliary field

$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)=\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}C_0(ij)+ϵ_{\nu \nu ^{}}ϵ_{ij}\mathrm{\Delta }(12)`$ (A2)
which satisfies the required symmetry for classical fields,

$`C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)=C_{\nu ^{}\nu }(ji)`$ (A3)
if $`C_0(ij)=C_0(ji)`$. Thus the variance of the gaussian field $`𝐦`$ is determined by the two independent functions $`C_0(12)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(12)`$.

We will be concerned with various two-point averages over $`𝐦`$ of the general form:

$`C_{AB}(12)=<A(𝐦(1))B(𝐦(2))>={\displaystyle }d^2x(1)d^2x(2)A(𝐱(1))B(𝐱(2))\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱(1),(𝐱(2))`$ (A4)
where the two-point probability distribution is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐱(1),(𝐱(2))=<\delta (𝐱(1)𝐦(1))\delta (𝐱(2)𝐦(2))>`$ (A5)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d^2k(1)}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{d^2k(2)}{(2\pi )^2}e^{i_j𝐤(j)𝐱(j)}exp}.\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}k_\nu (i)k_\nu ^{}(j)C_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)\right)`$ (A6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(detC)^{1/2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}A}`$ (A7)
where the argument of the exponential is given by

$`A={\displaystyle \underset{\nu \nu ^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}x_\nu (i)x_\nu ^{}(j)W_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)`$ (A8)
and the matrix $`W`$ is the inverse of $`C`$ defined by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma k}{}}W_{\nu \gamma }(ik)C_{\gamma \nu ^{}}(kj)=\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}\delta _{ij}.`$ (A9)
$`W`$ is given explicitly by

$`W_{\nu \nu ^{}}(ij)=\delta _{\nu \nu ^{}}D^2\left[\delta _{ij}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_0(1)S_0(2)}{S_0(i)}}+C_0\right)C_0\right]ϵ_{\nu \nu ^{}}ϵ_{ij}D^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (A10)
where

$`S_0(i)=C_0(ii)`$ (A11)
$`D^2=S_0(1)S_0(2)C_T^2`$ (A12)
$`C_T^2=C_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ (A13)
and finally

$`detC=D^4.`$ (A14)
If we express $`𝐱(i)=x_i(cos\varphi _i,sin\varphi _i)`$, the argument of the exponential in the distribution takes on the simple form

$`A={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_i^2W_0(i)2D^2C_Tx_1x_2cos(\varphi _1\varphi _2\theta )`$ (A15)
where

$`C_0=C_Tcos\theta `$ (A16)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }=C_Tsin\theta `$ (A17)
and

$`W_0(i)=D^2{\displaystyle \frac{S_0(1)S_0(2)}{S_0(i)}}=S_0^1(i)\gamma _T^2.`$ (A18)