text:
# From the Square Lattice to the Checkerboard Lattice : Spin Wave and Large-n limit Analysis

## I Introduction

In one dimension (1D) the ground state of the Heisenberg antiferromagnet may be quasi-ordered or disordered, depending on the spin parity S haldane . When S is an integer, and in particular, when $`S=1`$, the ground state corresponds to a magnetically disordered state where spin-spin correlation functions (CFs) exponentially decay with distance and with total spin $`S_\mathrm{t}=0`$. This state is called a quantum spin liquid (QSL) as the spin-spin CFs are equivalent to the density-density CFs in conventional liquids and because it has total spin $`S=0`$ and no broken symmetry. This concept can be generalized to classical systems if the spins are considered as $`O(3)`$ vectors. The constraint $`S=0`$ is then removed and the state is termed a classical spin liquid (CSL). Another notion for spin liquid ground states emerged from earlier studies by Wannier wannier50  and Houtappel houtappel50  and is related to geometrical frustration. In that case, it is the geometry of the underlying lattice that leads to magnetic disorder and not its dimensionality. Naturally, frustrated structures may exist not only for $`D=1`$ and for over 50 years frustrated lattices have been examined in the search for disordered ground states in higher dimensions ($`D=2,3`$). One goal of this research into peculiar structures is the study of unconventionnal spectra, not covered by the Lieb and Mattis theorem liebmattis62 .

To date, two particular lattices have been considered as good candidates for spin liquid ground states : the kagomé lattice and the pyrochlore lattice. The first one is a two dimensional arrangement of corner sharing triangles, while the latter is a three dimensional structure of corner sharing tetrahedra. Both lattices have been theoretically investigated and it has been suggested that in the classical case, as well as in the quantum case, they possess spin liquid like ground states leche97 ; garcan99 ; moecha98 ; canals9800 . Experimentally, all systems that can be well described by the antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model on these lattices have been found to possess this spin liquid behavior or unconvential behaviors that can be ascribed in part to the underlying “theoretical” spin liquid ground state diep94 . This suggests that both the elementary cells (triangle or tetrahedron) and the connectivity (corner sharing) are major ingredients for magnetic disorder. In this paper, we study such a lattice, where the elementary cell is a tetrahedron and where connectivity is corner sharing : the checkerboard lattice (see Fig. 1).

This system is two dimensionnal and can be described as the two dimensional analog of the pyrochlore lattice : each atom possess locally the same environment. It has recently been proven that its quantum ground states are singlets lieb99  for finite systems. The aim of this work is to test wether this conclusion may be valid for an infinite lattice. To do so we start away from the isotropic checkerboard limit, when diagonal bonds are weakened (see Fig. 2), and we test wether this system undergoes a Neel ordering transition when reaching the isotropic limit. This approach is very close in spirit to the one previously done by Chandra and Douçot chandra88  on the $`J_1`$-$`J_2`$ square lattice model. This is done within the frame of the linear spin wave theory and the Dyson-Maleev approximation dyson56 . Whereas for the linear spin wave approach there always exists a critical coupling for which the local magnetization is unstable, whatever the value of the spin, in the case of the Dyson-Maleev approach there is a critical coupling only for the case $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$. The peculiar case $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ is explored within a fermionic large-n limit of the SU(2) hamiltonian. It is found that the system should order in a valence bond solid of disconnected 4-spins singlets. The notations, the hamiltonian, and the linear spin wave analysis are introduced in Sec. II. The Dyson-Maleev formalism is shortly described in Sec. III as it is can be seen as an extension of Sec. II. Results of the linear spin wave theory and the Dyson-Maleev approach are presented and discussed in Sec. IV. The case $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ is detailed in Sec. V.

## II Lattice, Hamiltonian and Spin Wave Analysis

### II.1 Notations and Lattice Description

The checkerboard lattice can be described as a square lattice with a unit cell containing 2 spins (see Fig. 1). Each cell of the lattice can be obtained from the others by applying the translations $`a=(1,0)`$ and $`b=(0,1)`$. This means that each site of the lattice can be defined by two indices $`(i,n)`$. The first corresponds to the unit cell ($`i=1\mathrm{}\mathrm{N}`$) where N is the total number of cells in the lattice and the other to the type of the site ($`n=1,2`$). We introduce two kinds of interactions, $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$. $`J`$ corresponds to a coupling constant on a square lattice. $`J^{}`$ can be seen as a coupling constant within one square over two of the square lattice (see Fig. 2).

Using these notations, the Brillouin zone of the underlying Bravais lattice is $`\mathrm{BZ}(\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{x},\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{y})=[\pi ,\pi ]\times [\pi ,\pi ]`$ and the structure coefficients can be defined as $`\delta =\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\delta })=\mathrm{cos}((k_\mathrm{x}+k_\mathrm{y})/2)`$, $`\gamma =\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\gamma })=\mathrm{cos}((k_\mathrm{x}+k_\mathrm{y})/2)`$, $`ϵ=\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{ϵ})=\mathrm{cos}(k_\mathrm{x})`$, $`\eta =\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\eta })=\mathrm{cos}(k_\mathrm{y})`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\delta }`$, $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, $`\stackrel{}{ϵ}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\eta }`$ are depicted in Fig. 2.

### II.2 Spin Wave Hamiltonian

The Heisenberg hamiltonian for this system is

$$H=\underset{ij}{}J_{ij}S_i.S_j$$
(1)
where $`J_{ij}`$ are coupling constants ($`J_{ij}<0`$ for an antiferromagnet) and $`S_i`$ is the spin located at site $`i`$. This spin hamiltonian may be transformed into a boson hamiltonian through an Holstein-Primakoff transformation, provided that we know its Mean Field ground states (MF) from the square lattice limit to the checkerboard lattice limit, i.e for all values of $`r=J^{}/J`$. One way to know the MF ground state(s) is to compute the Fourier transform of the interactions on the lattice rei91 .

$$H=\underset{i,j}{}J_{ij}S_i.S_j=\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}J(\stackrel{}{q})S_\stackrel{}{q}.S_\stackrel{}{q}$$
(2)
As we here deal with a 2-spin unit cell, its Fourier transform $`J(\stackrel{}{q})`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ matrix and must be diagonalized to find the normal modes $`\lambda ^{\mu =1,2}(\stackrel{}{q})`$. The ground state (if unique) then corresponds to the lowest eigenvalue $`\lambda ^1(\stackrel{}{q_0})`$ and is described by the propagation vector $`\stackrel{}{q}_0`$ and the associated eigenvector $`V_1(\stackrel{}{q}_0)`$ which fixes the inner structure of the unit cell. In the range $`0r<1`$, $`\stackrel{}{q}_0`$ always equals $`0`$ and the eigenvector is always equal to $`(1,1)`$ which means that the ground state is non-degenerate and corresponds to the antiferromagnetic Néel state (see Fig. 3 top and middle). At the peculiar point $`r=1`$, we obtain a flat branch, signaling that at the MF level, the system is continuously degenerate (see Fig. 3 bottom), as previously noted in Ref. rei91, .

That behavior can be explained in terms of local degrees of freedom. In the limit $`J^{}=J`$, we note that the hamiltonian may be decomposed as a sum of squares over “tetrahedra”, as it has been done in the kagomé as well as in the pyrochlore lattice

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}S_i.S_j`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{Tet}.}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}S_i\right)^2+2\mathrm{N}\mathrm{J}\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{S}+1)`$
We see that the classical ground state is defined by the constraint $`_{i=1}^4S_i=0`$ on each tetrahedron. Furthermore, as tetrahedra are corner sharing, this constraint is not sufficient to order the system and there are an infinite number of ways to satisfy it, which results in a flat branch over the whole Brillouin zone. This is exactly the same phenomenon that was previously observed on the kagomé as well as on the pyrochlore lattice. Nevertheless, the Néel state belongs to this infinite set of MF ground states, and as it is the correct one for any $`r<1`$, we will also consider this state by continuity for the point $`r=1`$. For the parameter range $`r>1`$, the situation is quite different as MF ground states are continuously degenerate along lines corresponding to the border of the square lattice Brillouin zone (see Fig. 4).

This precludes a description via a spin wave analysis in this range as no magnetic ground state can be choosen as a trial state. This is the same situation as the one encountered on the kagomé or the pyrochlore lattices where spin wave calculations can only compare relative stability of Néel states without considering the entire set of these states chubukov92 . So, we will restrict ourselves to the range $`0r1`$, and consider the antiferromagnetic Néel state as the trial state. We therefore introduce two species of bosons, each one related to a different sublattice, and restrict the developpement of spin operators to the lowest order in the spin wave expansion The resulting bosonic hamiltonian is then diagonalized through a Bogoliubov transformation. We are left with two branches of “magnons” whose dispertions are $`ϵ_\alpha =(1/2)(fg+\sqrt{(f+g)^24h^2})`$ and $`ϵ_\beta =(1/2)((fg)+\sqrt{(f+g)^24h^2})`$ where $`f_k=2+r(ϵ1)`$, $`g_k=2+r(\eta 1)`$, $`h_k=\delta +\gamma `$ and $`r=J^{}/J`$ ($`\delta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`ϵ`$ and $`\eta `$ are defined in Sec. II.1).

Restricting to the ground state, the energy as well as the local magnetization are obtained through

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{N}}}H=2JS^2J^{}S^2JS{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}𝒞(\stackrel{}{k})`$ (4)
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`S_i^{1z}_\mathrm{o}=Sc_i^+c_i_\mathrm{o}=S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}}v_\alpha ^2(\stackrel{}{k})`$ (5)
with $`𝒞_k=\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_\alpha +ϵ_\beta +(fg)(u_\alpha ^2u_\beta ^2)(f+g))`$ and where the coefficients of the Bogoliubov transformation are $`u_\alpha =h/\sqrt{h^2(ϵ_\alpha f)^2}`$, $`v_\alpha =(fϵ_\alpha )/\sqrt{h^2(ϵ_\alpha +f)^2}`$, $`u_\beta =(ϵ_\beta +f)/\sqrt{(ϵ_\beta +f)^2h^2}`$ and $`v_\beta =h/\sqrt{(ϵ_\beta +f)^2h^2}`$.

## III Dyson-Maleev Representation

We use the same hamiltonian of Eq. 1 and introduce the Dyson-Maleev transformation dyson56 . Because of its algebra, the Dyson-Maleev transformation rewrites the hamiltonian of Eq. 1 as a sum of two and four operators terms. The simplest method to solve the problem is to decouple the four operators term introducing an a priori decoupling scheme. In the present case, we follow the mean field decoupling of Ref. chu91, . Three quantities are introduced that correspond each to a two bosons like excitations,

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`a_i^+a_i=b_j^+b_j`$
$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`a_i^+a_l=b_j^+b_m;il,jm`$ (6)
$`𝒯`$ $`=`$ $`a_i^+b_j^+`$
Other types of excitations are neglected and considered as higher energy processes as previously proposed by Takahashi takahashi89 , Using these approximations, the Dyson Maleev hamiltonian is then linearized and diagonalized through another Bogoliubov transformation. The structure of the transformation is identical to the one of the linear spin wave case, but with new coefficients. These coefficients are $`f_k^{^{}}=2A+rB(ϵ1)`$, $`g_k^{^{}}=2A+rB(\eta 1)`$, $`h_k^{^{}}=A(\delta +\gamma )`$ where $`A=1(𝒟+𝒪)/2S`$ and $`B=1(𝒟𝒯)/2S`$. Finally the three self consistent coefficients at zero temperature are obtained through the three coupled relations,

$`𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}v_\alpha ^{}_{}{}^{}2(k)`$
$`𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}u_\alpha ^{^{}}(k)v_\alpha ^{^{}}(k)(\delta +\gamma )`$ (7)
$`𝒯`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}v_\alpha ^{}_{}{}^{}2(k)(ϵ+\eta )`$
and the local magnetization of the Néel state is simply $`M=S_i^{1z}_0=S𝒟`$.

## IV Results of the spin wave approach

In the following, we fix $`J=1`$ and take $`1J^{}0`$. We first discuss the linear spin wave results and then the Dyson-Maleev approach. In Fig. 5 and 6, the energy as well as the local magnetization are plotted as functions of the ratio $`r=J^{}/J`$.

For the case $`r=0`$, well known results for the $`S=1/2`$ square lattice are recovered : $`E=0.658`$ and $`M=0.3`$. The magnon spectrum is very simple; there is only one dispersive branch, which is two times degenerate in our case because of the 2-spin unit cell description (Fig. 7 top).

With increasing $`r`$, there are three zones to distinguish.First, in the range $`0rr_c`$, the magnon spectrum has two distinct manifolds, each of these being dispersive (Fig. 7 middle). This occurs now because the site of the unit cell no longer have the same symmetry. $`r_c`$ corresponds to a critical coupling below which the local magnetization is finite, even renormalized by quantum corrections. For $`S=1/2`$, $`r_c0.75`$ which was already obtained in Ref. singh98,  and for $`S=1`$, $`r_c0.93`$. Critical values for higher spins are shown in the phase diagram of Fig. 8.

The second zone corresponds to the range $`r_cr<1`$. Because of quantum corrections, local magnetization is renormalized to zero, which means that in this approximation, the system does not show magnetic ordering. Even if quantum fluctuations drive the system to disorder, one notes that magnons are still dispersive. This means that there is no peculiar contribution coming from their structure. This is no longer the case for the special point $`r=1`$. At this point, the lowest branch of spin waves is flat over the whole Brillouin zone (Fig. 7 bottom) . This has several consequences. First, this means that at the level of this approximation, there will always be a critical coupling, whatever the value of the spin. This comes directly from the non-analytic behavior of $`v_\alpha (\stackrel{}{k})`$ when $`r1`$ along directions $`ky=\pm kx`$. Because of that the local magnetization diverges as $`1/\sqrt{(}1r)`$, i.e is renormalized to zero, whatever the value of S. Consequently, we obtain a phase diagram ($`1/S`$,$`J^{}/J`$) very similar to the one of the $`J_1J_2`$ square lattice model where $`J^{}/J`$ plays the role of $`J_2/J_1`$ (see Fig. 8 and Fig. 2 of Ref. chandra88, ). This problem of flat mode is often encountered in frustrated lattices and it rules out the possibility of studying the $`r=1`$ point without going to next order of expansion in our model, i.e, without including quartic terms. Whether such an inclusion of quartic terms is relevant is not clear as it corresponds to consider quartic modes as perturbations of zero quadratic modes. Nevertheless, it is the simplest next step to be done in the frame of spin wave (Holstein-Primakoff) analysis chubukov92 . Second, it has a meaning very close to MF conclusions. If the lowest branch of magnons is flat, this means that the system has no spin stiffness. Thus, any local deformation will not propagate through lattice. This is very close to the argument of continuous degeneracy obtained through the MF approach, i.e the existence of an infinite number of local degrees of freedom (see Eq. 3). These degrees of freedom are one of the signatures of frustrated systems and may be counted, in the case of classical spins, through the “Maxwellian counting” rule moecha98 . At the level of the LSW approximation, this means that quantum fluctuations and geometrical frustration may destabilize the Néel state for a finite range of $`J^{}`$. Wether a quantum spin liquid ground state in this range is stable is beyond this approach even if the existence of critical couplings goes in the right direction.

We now turn to the Dyson-Maleev approach. As for the preceding case, the local magnetization has been computed for different value of the spin. The main result is that for all $`S1`$, there is no critical coupling, i.e the local magnetization of the Néel state is always finite in the isotropic limit $`r=1`$. This is illustratred in Fig. 9 where reduced local magnetization $`S_i^z_0/S`$ is plotted versus the inverse spin value $`1/S`$ at $`r1`$.

The only exception is for $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ for which it seems that there is a critical coupling at $`r0.98`$. To test wether the stability of the Néel state for the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ comes from a flat mode or from quantum fluctuations, we have plotted the associated dispersions over the whole Brillouin zone (see Fig. 10).

From the structure of the bosons excitations, it is clear that including quantum fluctuations via the Dyson-Maleev formalism destroys the pathological structure of the flat mode. Therefore, destabilization of the Néel state is only driven by quantum fluctuations within this approximation and not by a zero spin stiffness as it was the case in the LSW approximation in the limit $`r1`$.

These results are quite surprising as they are qualitatively different from the LSW approximation. This suggests that the more accurately the quantum fluctuations are taken into account, the more the Néel state is stable, even in the isotropic limit. This is unexpected as the checkerboard antiferromagnet was expected to behave like the kagomé antiferromagnet. In the latter case, the reduction of the local magnetization to zero by quantum fluctuations and geometry, within a finite range of couplings, has been shown using two distinct numerical methods wallech97 . It was found that going from the triangular limit to the kagomé limit, there is a singular point associated to a critical coupling ($`r_c=J_c^{}/J0.9`$), where local magnetization vanishes. Here, we obtain the same conclusion within the LSW approximation but not within the mean field treatment of the Dyson-Maleev approach. Wether this discrepency comes from the quantum fluctuation that are better incorporated in the latter formalism, or comes from the mean field treatment of the DM representation is not clear. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that a recent work moessner2001  shows the same tendency, i.e a transition from an $`S=0`$ ground state to a stable Néel state with increasing spin size $`S`$. If the present calculations treats correctly quantum fluctuations (which is not proven in this paper), the frontier between the expected VBS state and the Néel ordering moessner2001  would then be at $`S=1`$. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the present work does not test wether other classical ground states could be stable at the isotropic point and have the same or a different energy then the Néel ground state. Consequently, an intrinsic or accidental degeneracy of magnetic ground states for $`S1`$ is not ruled out by this approach.

## V The $`S=1/2`$ case

As shown in the preceding sections, it seems that only for $`S=1/2`$ can the ground state be non-magnetic. To shed light on the behavior of the $`S=1/2`$ checkerboard antiferromagnet, it is possible to use a “fermionic” SU(n) generalization of the SU(2) group \[Note that $`n>2`$ does not correspond to a higher spin representation of SU(2). Therefore, a mean-field solution of the SU(n) hamiltonian is expected to be much closer to the SU(2) physics than the classical description of sec. II.2\]. This formalism has been previously introduced by Marston and Affleck marston89  and applied to the square antiferromagnet. The advantage of this description is that it works on all lattices, even frustrated marston91  or not bipartite, and that it is well suited for the checkerboard antiferromagnet as spin order never occurs in the exactly solvable large-n limit marston89 , as it is expected in the range $`r_cr1`$ for $`n=2`$. At large n, the hamiltonian can be written as

$$H=\underset{(i,j)}{}\left\{\left(\frac{n}{J}\right)\left|\chi _{ij}\right|^2+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\chi _{ij}c_{i\alpha }^+c_{j\alpha }+\text{H.c}\right)\right\}$$
(8)
where $`\chi _{ij}=(J/n)c_{i\alpha }^+c_{j\alpha }`$ are bond variables and where spin-spin interaction has been expressed by use of electron operators through $`S_i.S_j=(1/2)_{\alpha ,\beta }c_{i\alpha }^+c_{j\beta }c_{j\beta }^+c_{j\alpha }+\text{constant}`$. The $`\chi `$ variables may be seen as valence bond operators affleck88  as $`(n/J)\chi _{ij}^+\chi _{ij}`$ is the number of valence bonds on the link $`(ij)`$. Therefore, in this formalism, every ground state is described by a map of these complex scalar fields. Several authors have concentrated on the mean-field solutions (“$`1/n=0`$”) marston89 ; dombre89 ; rokhsar90  and in particular, it is possible to apply here a theorem established by D. Rokhsar rokhsar90 . First it is clear that the checkerboard antiferromagnet is “dimerizeable with respect to $`J`$” as “it is possible to partition the network into disjoint pairs of sites such that (a) every site belongs to one and only one pair, and (b) for each pair (i,j) whe have $`J_{ij}=J`$”. In the range $`JJ^{}`$ it is possible to apply his theorem which shows that mean-field ground states are (spin-Peierls or box)-phases rokhsar90  (see Fig. 11).

Keeping in mind that the case of interest is for $`n=2`$, wee look for the proposed states that lower the energy of the real $`S=1/2`$ case. It is straightforward to see that box-phases lower this energy with respect to $`J`$, as soon as these phases are regular tilings of the underlying square lattice by disconnected $`J`$-squares (see Fig. 11). Taking now into account the $`J^{}`$ couplings, only one of these phases survives, where $`J^{}`$ links are not frustrated. At this point, it means that if the SU(n) description of the SU(2) case is relevant, it suggests that for $`S=1/2`$, in the range $`r_cr1`$, the ground state should be two times degenerate (because there are two choices for the tiling), consisting in a valence bond solid of disconnected squares without crossings (in the range $`0r<r_c`$ it is clear that this formalism is not relevant as the local magnetisation is finite). The proposed ground state (see Fig. 11(c)) could be tested by comparing the VBS energy per site $`E=0.5`$ and the correlations functions with results of exact diagonalisations for example fouet01 .

## VI Discussion and Conclusion

To conclude, Linear Spin Wave analysis has shown that away from the isotropic checkerboard lattice limit, there is a finite range of coupling for wich the Néel state is unstable, whatever the value of the spin. Strikingly, when using a self consistent decoupling within the Dyson-Maleev formalism, it is shown that the Néel state is never destabilized, excepted for the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ case. The stability of the Néel state with respect to other magnetized states has not been tested in this work. Recent work moessner2001  supports that this state should be the ground state for large $`S`$. It is compatible with the present results although it is at variance with results obtained with the infinite-component canals01bis  antiferromagnetic model on the chekerboard lattice ($`d\mathrm{}`$). A possible explanation for this discuss  is that for large S, there should be quantum order by disorder (as supported in moessner2001 ) but this order by disorder comes with an energy scale of J/S rather than J. Therefore, in the classical limit, the temperature at which the correlation length grows exponentially goes to zero. In other words, the limits $`T0`$ and $`S\mathrm{}`$ (or $`d\mathrm{}`$) should not commute. For the special $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ case, the fermionic large-n limit suggests that the ground state is a valence bond solid of disconnected 4-spins singlets on squares without crossings. That conclusion is consistent with results of Refs. moessner2001,  and fouet01, .

The present work shows that the isotropic checkerboard antiferromagnet should display behaviors qualitatively different from the one of the kagomé and the pyrochlore antiferromagnet. Moreover, quantum fluctuations have to be treated with care as they can drive the system from a purely quantum ground state to a Néel like ground state. In this frame, the structure of the singlet and triplet towers of state should be extremally $`S`$-dependent and exact diagonalization of finite clusters with different spin size would be of high interest, especially to test wether the descrepency already appears between the $`S=\frac{1}{2}`$ and the $`S=1`$ cases.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to thank Maged Elhajal, Peter Holdsworth, Claudine Lacroix and Roderich Moessner for interesting and stimulating discussions.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

LARGE SCALE QUANTIZATION AND THE PUZZLING COSMOLOGICAL PROBLEMS
Arbab I.Arbab111arbab64@hotmail.com

Department of Physics, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Omdurman Ahlia University, P.O. Box 786, Omdurman, SUDAN

Abstract

We have investigated the implications of Quantum Mechanics to macroscopic scale. Evaporation of Black Holes and evolution of pulsars may be one of the consequences of this conjecture. The two equations $`GM=Rc^2`$ and $`GM^2=\mathrm{}c`$ where $`R`$ and $`M`$ are the radius and the mass of the universe, are governing the evolution of the universe throughout its entire cosmic expansion, provided that the appropriate Planck constant is chosen. The existence of very large values of physical quantities are found to be due to cosmic quantization. We predict a constant residual acceleration of the order $`10^7\mathrm{cms}^2`$ acting on all objects at the present time.
PACS(numbers): 03.65, 98.80
Keywords: Cosmology, Black holes, quantum mechanics, vacuum energy density, ideas and models
1. INTRODUCTION
The general theory of relativity (GTR), which attributes the structure of space-time to the gravitating mass, is incompatible with the theory of quantum mechanics (QM). While quantum mechanics is a linear theory the GTR is highly nonlinear so that the two theories are dissimilar. Attempts to linearize the GTR do no give all manifestation of the theory. Initially the intention of the development of GTR was to describe the large scale structure of the universe, i.e., solar and galactic scales, whereas QM deals with the microscopic scales. The unification of electromagnetic, weak and strong was successful and gave a lot of hints to further unification with the hitherto unachievable gravitational interaction. Particle physicists are ambitious to get the unification of all interactions at an energy scale of $`10^{19}\mathrm{GeV}`$!

However, these disparate worlds can meet in some cases. In these situations, phenomena in atomic physics appear to be written in the language of gravity and Einstein’s GTR. By knowing the working of one subject, we can thus make educated guesses about the other.
One therefore should not look for a paradigm in which gravity is manifested as a force, but we should treat gravity as a background (framework) on which other interactions occur. Thus gravity provides only the shape of the space-time membrane on which other interactions are carried. We therefore, expect that gravitational effects are always present and manifested in the way space-time affects our physical phenomena. We remark that one should treat gravity not as an independent interaction but rather as a framework in which all interactions take place and consider only the strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions to be independent. We therefore expect to observe quantum effects at microscopic as well as macroscopic scale depending on the dimension of the system under consideration. This would imply that quantum effect at cosmic scale to be similar to those at microscopic scale, they only differ in the magnitude of the quantization. This is plausible since the masses and distances are enormous for macroscopic system.
After making these arrangement we would end up with a cosmic Planck constant having a huge value for macroscopic scales. The relative errors in determining the physical properties of the macroscopic system would have the same value as for microscopic one. One would also expect that the same laws governing the microscopic scale to be still functioning but with scaled ones. This might require some physical quantities to evolve in order to satisfy these laws.

Based on Tiftt’s  experimental data on galactic red-shift DerSarkissian  suggested a cosmic quantum mechanics (CQM) characterized by the Planck constant

$$h_\mathrm{g}=10^{102}h=10^{68}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}$$
(1)
where $`h`$ is the ordinary Planck constant of the quantum mechanics. The quantum state of a galaxy is described by a wave function $`\psi (x,t)`$ so that galaxies become the elementary particles of CQM. For a gravitational system and according to Einstein equivalence principle a body with observable inertial mass ($`m_i)`$ has observable active mass ($`m_a`$) and hence an observable gravitational field. The observability of the this field requires that the total energy (self-gravitational energy) stored in it is measurable and, therefore, greater than $`h/2t`$ (according to the uncertainty principle $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t>h/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }tt,\mathrm{\Delta }EE`$). For a spherical body of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$ we have

$$\frac{GM^2}{R}>h/2t.$$
(2)
But we know, from general relativity, that $`\frac{GM}{Rc^2}1`$ so that $`Mc^2>h/2t`$.

In QM a body is observable only if its self-gravitational energy $`E_G`$ is greater than $`h/2t(E_G>h/2t`$). All bodies in QM obey this inequality. By supposing that the CQM obey the same rules as QM except that the corresponding Planck constant is different we can write,

$$E_G>h_c/2t$$
(3)
which is obeyed by all cosmic bodies. For galaxies this formula gives

$$\frac{GM^2}{R}>h_c/2t.$$
(4)
This implies that, for $`t=10^{17}\mathrm{sec}`$, $`R=10^{19}\mathrm{m}`$, and

$$h_c=10^{68}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s},$$
(5)
$`M>10^{40}\mathrm{kg}`$. This represents a constraint for galaxies obeying CQM (however all galaxies obey this). A system with spatial dimension $`R`$, mass $`M`$, spin $`S`$ and a positive energy density has $`R>\frac{S}{Mc}`$ . This together with eq.(4), yield the inequality

$$M^3>\frac{Sh_c}{2Gct}$$
(6)
that holds for cosmic bodies obeying CQM with intrinsic spin angular momentum. The quantization of spin requires that $`S=nh`$ ($`n`$ is an integer). Hence,

$$M^3>\frac{h_c^2}{Gct}$$
(7)
valid for spinning cosmic bodies. By considering a cluster made by many galaxies with quantized spin Ruffini and Bonazzola  have shown that there exists no equilibrium configuration for a cluster of more that $`N(\frac{M_P}{M})^A`$ galaxies of mass $`M`$ in their ground state, where $`M_P`$ is the cosmic Planck mass

$$M_P=\left(\frac{h_cc}{G}\right)^{1/2}10^{43}\mathrm{kg},$$
(8)
where $`A=2`$ for bosons, $`A=3`$ for fermions. Thus CQM applies well to galaxies. Is there other CQM that applies at planetary, solar or universal scale with different quantum of action ($`h_c`$)?

Caldirola et al  suggested in a framework of unified theory of strong and gravitational interaction that a quantum of action for the universe is given by

$$h_c=MRc$$
(9)
where $`M`$, $`R`$ are the mass and the radius of the universe. Equation (9) gives

$$h_c=10^{87}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}$$
(10)
with $`M=10^{53}\mathrm{kg}`$ and $`R=10^{26}\mathrm{m}`$ .
A possible connection between $`h`$ and $`h_c`$ for the universe exists where $`\frac{h}{r^3}\frac{h_u}{R^3}`$ where $`r`$ is the size of a typical hadron and $`h_u`$ regarded as nonvanishing total angular momentum of the universe due to torsion field . Massa  enlarged the above relation to become

$$\frac{h}{r^3}\frac{h_u}{R^3}\frac{h_g}{R_g^3}$$
(11)
where $`R_g`$ is a typical radius of a galaxy ($`R_g10^{19}\mathrm{m})`$. It was suggested by Caldirola et al  that “these forms are special case of a more general form still unknown”. In fact, the CQM for planetary scale is introduced by Pierucci  in which

$$h_c=10^{13}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}$$
(12)
which explains the Titius-Bode law and other regularities of the solar system. Massa considered the possibility of the growth of $`h_c`$ with cosmic time ($`t`$). He, according to the Large Number hypothesis (LNH) , suggested that for a flat universe $`h_ct^{5/2}`$, and he concluded that the CQM is incompatible with this LNH. Carneiro  investigated the extension of scale invariance to quantum behavior. The price that paid was the scaling of Planck constant ($`h`$) leading to quantization of large structure that treated till now as classical systems. He used the LNH in his theory and concluded that the angular momentum for a rotating universe is of the order of magnitude of $`10^{87}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$.

So far there is yet no evidence that the universe is rotating but if it does it should do that with this value! However, Kuhne  claimed an observation of a rotation of the universe. We remark that an order of magnitude for the universe angular momentum is within the limit for the global rotation obtained from the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) anisotropy obtained by Kogut et al . Carneiro  suggested that “one of the possible explanation of the large scale quantization could be based on an evolutional point of view: the quantum nature of the universe during its initial times has molded its-apparently quantized nowadays large scale structure”.
We also note that Nottale obtained, on a different ground, a scale Planck constant of order $`10^{42}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$ for a QM model for the solar system .
Carneiro  applied the Bohr quantization condition to the motion of Earth around the Sun and found that this is consistent provided that Planck constant has the value $`10^{42}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$. Muradian  found an angular momentum of stars around $`10^{42}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$ which is close to Kerr limit of a rotating black hole with a mass of $`10^{30}\mathrm{kg}`$.
In this work we try to explain the origin of large numbers occurring in nature by appealing to this conjecture. The hierarchical nature of mass, cosmological constant, entropy, temperature and angular momentum are found to be one of the manifestation of this conjecture. The evolution and characteristics of astrophysical objects like, black holes and binary pulsars are investigated in the framework of this conjecture. The huge quantum number is absorbed in the definition of the cosmic Planck constant. These numbers are in the order of $`10^{20},10^{40},10^{60}.10^{80},10^{100},10^{120}`$. This makes our universe appear to have a Planckian manifestation, i.e. all of the present cosmological parameters are one of the above numbers times the Planckian quantity. In this work the Large Number Hypothesis finds its physical justification.

We present our model in sect.2 and discuss its implication in a framework in which $`G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vary with cosmic time in sec.3. In sect.4 we apply our conjecture to Black Holes and Binary Pulsars. In sec.4 we constrain the maximal acceleration and force appearing in the universe, according to our model. We wind up our paper with a conclusion.
2. THE MODEL
The usual definition of Planck mass ($`m_P`$) can be inverted to give

$$h=\frac{Gm_P^2}{c}.$$
(13)
In a similar fashion, we suggest a cosmic Planck constant ($`h_c`$) with a cosmic Planck mass $`M_P`$ as

$$h_c=\frac{GM_P^2}{c}.$$
(14)
Another possibility, from a dimensional point of view, is

$$h_c=\frac{c^3}{G\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant. This is equivalent to writing it as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{L_P^2}`$ where $`L_P`$ is the Planck length. By supposing that the energy density of the vacuum is caused by the gravitational interaction of the neighboring particles with mass $`m`$, Lima and Carvalho  obtained

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{G^2m^6}{\mathrm{}^4}.$$
(16)
from which one can write

$$h_c=\frac{G^{1/2}M_P^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/4}}.$$
(17)
Hence, we have three different forms of cosmic Planck constant to be tested with observation.
2. A MODEL WITH VARIABLE $`G`$ AND $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
We have shown in an earlier work that  $`Gt^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2,mt^1`$ in the early universe.
Therefore, all three forms reduce to the ordinary Planck constant in the early universe (radiation dominated era). Thus one has $`h_c=h`$ in the early universe. Hence CQM and QM are equal in the early universe. However, in the matter dominate universe  $`Gt,\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2`$ and $`m=\mathrm{constant}`$. Therefore $`h_ct`$. This asserts that the Planck constant evolves with time and that why it has different values for different systems. Thus QM applies to macroscopic system in the same way as in microscopic system except Planck constant is replaced by the cosmic Planck constant.

Equation (15) shows that the quantum of action for the universe is related to the vacuum energy density ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) of the universe, so that one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_P}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}=\frac{h_c}{h}=10^{120}.$$
(18)
This gives a present value for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$) a value of $`10^{52}\mathrm{m}^2`$ as expected from present observations. Equations (15) and (17) yield

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{c^4}{G^2M_P^2},$$
(19)
as a cosmological law governing the evolution of the universe. This implies that in the early universe  ($`Gt^2,mt^1`$) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2`$. Similarly in the matter dominated phase ($`Gt,m=\mathrm{const}.)\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{t}^2`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }t^2`$ during both phases. To reproduce the result in eqs. (1), (5) and (10) one requires $`M_P^u=10^{53}\mathrm{kg}`$, $`M_P^g=10^{43}\mathrm{kg}`$ and $`M_P^s=10^{30}\mathrm{kg}`$, representing the corresponding Planck masses at universal, galactic and solar scales, respectively. We remark that cosmic Planck constant for the planetary system is $`10^{26}\mathrm{kg}`$. This represents the average mass of the planets in the solar system. Hence,

$$h_c=\frac{GM_P^2}{c}=10^{34}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}.$$
(20)
This value is different from the Planck constant for the planetary system quoted in eq.(12). Thus eqs.(14), (15) and (17) provide a bridge connecting macroscopic and microscopic phenomena through a simple formula. It is found that the universe satisfies the equation

$$GM=Rc^2.$$
(21)
This is an statement of the equality of the rest mass energy of the universe to its gravitational energy (i.e., $`Mc^2=\frac{GM^2}{R}`$). We observe that eq.(9) is same as eq.(14), if we use the Mach relation (eq.(21)) .

We have shown in an earlier work  that eq.(21) gives $`Rt`$, so that eq.(21) yields

$$M\frac{c^3t}{G}.$$
(22)
which is similar to eq.(7). This inequality is obtained by  by different approaches. One may define a maximal mass for a bound system, at time $`t`$, to be gravitational stable with

$$M_{max.}=\frac{c^3t}{G}.$$
(23)
So that the above equation becomes

$$MM_{max.}.$$
(24)
This formula is obtainable from Friedman cosmology ($`3H^2=8\pi G\rho `$) with $`Rt,Ht^1`$ giving $`M=\frac{c^3t}{G}`$.
If we consider the stars to be the atoms of the universe we will observe that the universe is a typical one solar mole, consisting of $`10^{23}`$ stars(suns).
The $`M_{max.}`$ defined above would have a significance for the time $`t=1`$ sec and $`t=10^8`$ sec. The former defines the Planck mass for the stars and the latter for galaxies. Specifically,

$$\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{max}.}=10^{35}\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{and}\mathrm{M}_{\mathrm{max}.}=10^{43}\mathrm{kg},$$
(25)
respectively. Hence the stars and globular galaxies today were once the actual states of our past states of our universe. That is why one need not go back in time to see how was the past. Thus our universe may contain information about the past with it at all times and not just cosmic background radiation! For these system the Planck constant evolves as

$$\mathrm{}_c=\frac{c^5}{G}t^2$$
(26)
During this time the gravitational constant has remained unchanged. Hence, stars and globular galaxies would have the following cosmic Planck constants:

$$10^{52}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}\mathrm{and}10^{68}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s},$$
(27)
respectively. However,these values are reported by Capozziello et al..
We now turn to calculate the Compton wavelength of the universe, i.e., $`\lambda _U=\frac{h_c}{Mc}=10^{26}\mathrm{m}`$, which is of the same order of magnitude of the present radius of the universe. Thus the use of CQM for the present universe is also logical and plausible. Thus all known bounded systems are characterized by their cosmic Planck constant.
We would like to remark that the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth (E) is found to be $`7.98\times 10^{25}Gcm^3`$. This value can be obtained from the definition of the magnetic dipole moment, i.e., $`\mu _E=\frac{e\mathrm{}}{2mc}`$ for an atomic system. Here we make the following replacement: $`e^2=Gm^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}=10^{34}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$, $`m=M=6\times 10^{24}\mathrm{kg}`$. This gives the same order of magnitude for the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth. Thus, as we remarked in the beginning, having known the atomic system parameters their gravitational analog can be obtained by the generalization above. We also note that $`\mu m^2`$. Hence, one can conclude that for Mercury (M) this gives $`\mu _\mathrm{M}=\mu _\mathrm{E}(\frac{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{M}}{\mathrm{m}_\mathrm{E}})^2=7.98\times 10^{25}(0.0553)^2=2.4\times 10^{22}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{cm}^3`$. This in fact is the presently known value for Mercury. We observe that there is a new large numbers associated with our physical world. These numbers are $`(10^{34})^a`$, where $`a=1,2,2.5,2.75,3,3.5`$. These magic numbers identify bound structures that are present in our universe today; the atoms, planets, stars (suns), globular galaxies, galaxies and the whole universe. Thus these structures represent self-similar systems. And all these systems manifest the quantum behavior, but in different ways. The above quantum numbers can be compared with Dirac large numbers $`(10^{40})^n`$, with some $`n`$. Here we have seen that the cosmic Planck constant is a multiple of $`10^{68},10^{85},10^{102},10^{119}`$ times the ordinary Planck constant. Or, equivalently, the quantum numbers for large-scale system are $`10^{68},10^{85},10^{102},10^{119}`$, instead of the $`1,2,3,..`$ for the microscopic system.
3. APPLICATION OF CQM TO BLACK HOLES
Consider a spinning ($`S`$) black hole (or neutron star) with frequency $`\omega `$. We have

$$S=I\omega ,$$
(28)
with $`I=MR^2`$, $`M`$ and $`R`$ are the mass and radius of the object. For an object with a gravitational radius $`R=\frac{2GM}{c^2}`$ and spin $`Sh_c`$, eq.(28) yields

$$\omega =\frac{c^3}{GM},$$
(29)
Pulsars are believed to be rotating neutron stars and a newborn pulsar formed in supernova may be rotating with a frequency of $`10^3\mathrm{s}^1`$ emitting a gravitational radiation with a rate of $`10^{48}\mathrm{Js}^1.`$ For a pulsar of a mass $`M=M_{}`$ one gets, from CQM, a period of $`10^3`$ sec. One of the most promising source is the pulsar NP0532 in the Crab nebula . This pulsar is observed to emit pulses of electromagnetic radiation, at optical, X-ray and radio frequencies with a period of 33 $`\mathrm{msec}`$. Thus our model, though based on rough estimates, is in a good agreement with observations.
A black hole emitting radiation as a black body with a temperature $`T`$ given by

$$k_BT=\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(30)
Using eqs.(29) one gets

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{GMk_B}$$
(31)
in comparison with Hawking  formula obtained from QM treatment for a non-rotating black hole, viz.,

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{4\pi GMk_B}.$$
(32)
A rotating galaxy of mass $`10^{43}\mathrm{kg}`$ would have a frequency of $`10^8\mathrm{s}^1`$ or a period of $`10\mathrm{years}`$. We can compare this value with the presently observed rotation of galaxies. The time for the evaporation of the black hole can be estimated from the uncertainty relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }th_c$$
(33)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=Mc^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=\tau `$. This upon using eq.(14) becomes

$$\tau =\frac{GM}{c^3}.$$
(34)
Since $`\frac{GM^2}{c\mathrm{}}=1`$, one can write eq.(34) as

$$\tau =\frac{GM}{c^3}.\frac{GM^2}{c\mathrm{}}=\frac{G^2M^3}{c^4\mathrm{}}.$$
(35)
Which is obtained by Hawking  from a quantum mechanical treatment. Hence, we may write for the evaporation of Black holes the formula

$$\tau =\frac{G^2M^3}{c^4h_c}$$
(36)
as a CQM analogue.
We see that a black hole of one Planck mass $`m_P`$ evaporate during Planck time ($`10^{43}\mathrm{s}`$). A galactic rotating black mass evaporates during a time of 1 year while a solar rotating black hole evaporates during a time of $`\mu sec`$. A rotating black hole of size of the universe evaporates during a time of $`10^{10}`$ years.
The entropy of a black hole is given by

$$S=\frac{GM^2}{c\mathrm{}}k_B$$
(37)
which upon using eq.(14) yields

$$S=\frac{\mathrm{}_c}{\mathrm{}}k_B=\left(\frac{k_B}{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{}_c$$
(38)
This entropy is independent of the mass of the object in question as long as $`\mathrm{}_c`$ describes that object. We see that for a black hole formed in the early universe $`\mathrm{}_c=\mathrm{}`$, and therefore irrespective of its mass the black hole will have one unit of entropy, i.e., $`S=k_B`$. Black holes forming during solar and galactic time will have entropy that is multiple of $`\mathrm{}_c`$. We thus conclude that the entropy of black holes is quantized. A galactic mass black hole will have an entropy of $`10^{102}\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}`$, while a solar mass black hole will have an entropy of $`10^{76}\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}`$. However, a black hole of the mass of the universe has an entropy of $`10^{120}\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}`$.
4. THE VACUUM ENERGY DENSITY222see ref. for a review about vacuum energy
The Planck energy density is defined as

$$\rho _P=\frac{c^5}{G^2\mathrm{}}$$
(39)
which represents the maximum density of the universe at Planck time. We now employ the CQM and evaluate the present maximum energy density of the universe, i.e.,

$$\rho _P^0=5.4\times 10^{28}\mathrm{gcm}^3.$$
(40)
Present observations set a limit on the present energy density as

$$10^{30}\mathrm{gcm}^3<\rho ^0<10^{29}\mathrm{gcm}^3.$$
(41)
We have thus obtained a constraint on the density of the universe viz., $`\rho ^0\rho _P^0`$. It is evident that the Planck energy density of the universe indeed evolves with time.
We argue that the Planckian energy density ($`\rho _P`$) is equal to the vacuum energy density of the universe at all times. In this sense the universe is still governed by quantum mechanics (cosmic). We have, from Einstein de Sitter model, the relation

$$3H^2=8\pi G\rho $$
(42)
Upon using eq.(39) this becomes

$$GH^2\mathrm{}=\frac{8\pi }{3}c^5=2\times 10^{43}$$
(43)
This equation may be taken to define a cosmic Planck constant. Thus

$$\mathrm{}_c=\frac{2\times 10^{43}}{GH^2}.$$
(44)
In the early universe  we have $`Gt^2`$, $`Rt`$, so that the cosmic Planck constant coincides with the ordinary Planck constant $`\mathrm{}`$. At the present time, we see that the cosmic Planck constant, $`h_c=10^{87}\mathrm{J}.\mathrm{s}`$. In the present universe we have  $`Gt`$, $`Rt`$, so that eq.(44) implies $`\mathrm{}_ct`$. This confirms our earlier findings of cosmic Planck constant for the whole universe. Therefore (44) represents an additional definition of cosmic Planck constant to those already found in eqs.(14), (15), and (17).

The vacuum energy density is defined as

$$\rho _v=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{8\pi G}=\frac{c^5}{G^2\mathrm{}}$$
(45)
During the radiation dominated phase this yields

$$\rho _v=\rho _{vP}\left(\frac{t_P}{t}\right)^4,$$
(46)
where $`\rho _{vP}`$ is the vacuum energy density at Planck time. This shows that $`\rho _v`$ behaves like radiation in the early universe. During the matter dominated phase one gets

$$\rho _v=\rho _{v0}\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)^3,$$
(47)
where $`\rho _{v0}`$ is the vacuum energy density at present time. Similarly $`\rho _v`$ scales like matter in the matter dominated phase. This would mean that the vacuum contribution to the energy density of the university has been very significant in the past and in the present time. It is therefore not surprising to find out that the vacuum contribute $`66\%`$ to the total energy density of the present universe. Thus one may resolve the dark matter energy that is postulated to circumvent some astrophysical problems. We remark that since the vacuum energy density was equal to the Planck energy density in the early universe it still governed by this quantum energy. This is plausible since the Planck energy density energy with time. One thus could say that our universe today is a typical quantum system. Moreover, the Planck length has become today our physical radius of the universe. We also see that the Planck length $`L_P=\sqrt{G\mathrm{}/c^3}`$ has the same time evolution in both the early phase and the present matter phase, viz.

$$L_P\left(t\right)=L_P\left(\frac{t_P}{t}\right)$$
(48)
and

$$L_P\left(t\right)=L_P\left(\frac{t_0}{t}\right)$$
(49)
Equation shows that the vacuum’s quanta shifts like photon according to the Planck law. Thus if they had different background temperature the former would cool (at the present time and in the early universe) as

$$T_v\left(t\right)=T_{vP}\left(\frac{t_P}{t}\right)$$
(50)
where $`T_{vP}`$ is the vacuum temperature during Planck time (see eq.(57)). We observe that in the early universe we have

$$mt^1\mathrm{and}Tt^1R^1$$
(51)
so that if these relations hold throughout the cosmic expansion, one would obtain the relation

$$m=m_P\left(\frac{t_P}{t}\right)$$
(52)
where $`m_P`$ is the Planck mass at Planck time and $`T`$ is the temperature. We note that De Sabbata and Sivaram  relate the temperature ($`T`$) to curvature ($`\kappa `$) and showed that $`T\sqrt{\kappa }`$, but the time ($`t`$) scales as $`t\frac{1}{\sqrt{\kappa }}`$. For a maximal curvature $`\kappa _{max.}=\frac{c^3}{\mathrm{}G}`$, which implies

$$Gt^2,\mathrm{and}\mathrm{T}\mathrm{t}^1.$$
(53)
Comparison with eq.(15) immediately yields

$$\kappa _{max.}=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(54)
Thus one may connect the smallness of the present value of the cosmological constant to the flatness of our present universe.
Using eq.(52) one would obtain

$$m=10^5\left(\frac{10^{43}}{10^{18}}\right)=10^{66}\mathrm{g}.$$
(55)
which represents a minimal mass scale at the present time. Equation (50) gives

$$T_v=10^{32}\left(\frac{10^{43}}{10^{18}}\right)=10^{32}\times 10^{61}=10^{29}\mathrm{K},$$
(56)
where $`T_P=10^{32}\mathrm{K}`$. We remark that De Sabbata and Sivaram obtained a similar value by considering a time-temperature uncertainty relation ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\Delta }T=\mathrm{}/k_B`$) and relate the maximum time to Hubble time. They suggested that they could obtain such a value by considering a black hole of a mass of the universe using the formula outlined in eq.(31). Or by considering the maximal possible entropy of $`10^{120}\mathrm{k}_\mathrm{B}`$ which would imply this minimal temperature. They also found a similar value and noted that this minimal temperature corresponds to the quantum fluctuations of cosmological torsion background.
Massa  has obtain a similar value and relates this to the mass of graviton. He argued that in an expanding universe this mass depends on time. Rosati  found the quantum field today has typically a mass of the order of $`10^{66}\mathrm{g}`$. Larionov  attributed a similar mass term to an effective mass associated with the vacuum energy density (or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). He assigned this extremely low value of this effective mass to a quantum with wavelength equal to the present radius of the universe. One may also add to this conjecture the cosmological constant problem (rooted in the enormous value, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P=10^{120}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$) as due to the cosmic quantization, as is evident from eq.(18)!In fact, Zizzi  has brought an idea of quantized cosmological constant that is in the same line as our reasoning here.
According to Massa assertion the graviton has a mass; this would mean that the range of the gravitational interaction is not infinite but limited by this mass scale. Hence, the maximum possible interaction distance between any two gravitating objects has to be at a maximum distance of $`10^{26}\mathrm{m}`$. A similar assertion would also hold for electromagnetic interaction if it turned out that a photon is not massless!
We have so far shown that the two formulae (eqs.(14) and (21))

$$GM=c^2R\mathrm{and}\mathrm{GM}^2=\mathrm{}_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{c}$$
(57)
hold throughout the cosmic evolution of the universe, provided we consider the CQM to be a valid principle.
4. MAXIMAL ACCELERATION AND FORCE
The self-gravitational force of a system of mass $`M`$ and radius $`R`$ is given by

$$F=\frac{GM^2}{R^2}.$$
(58)
Using eq.(57)

$$F=\frac{c^4}{G},$$
(59)
for the universe. This force is clearly independent of the mass of the object into consideration. It is thus a universal force, and since it depends on $`G`$ inversely it defines a maximal self-gravitational force. There corresponds to this maximal force a maximal acceleration ($`F_{max.}=Ma_{max.}`$) defined by

$$a_{max}=\frac{c^4}{GM}.$$
(60)
If we consider a variable gravitational constant as suggested in , one gets a minimal gravitational force in the universe during the nuclear (or hadronic) epoch as

$$F_{min.}=10^2N,$$
(61)
since during nuclear (or hadronic) epoch the gravitational constant was $`G_N=10^{40}G_0`$. The smallness of this force may account for the fact that quarks are asymptotically free inside hadrons, according to the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). A maximal force in the universe during the present or Planck time is

$$F_{max.}=10^{44}N.$$
(62)
We remark that the factor $`\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}`$ appearing in the Einstein’s equation may be interpreted as the force per area required to give space-time unit curvature, that is $`10^{43}Nm^2`$ for a curvature of $`1m^2`$. Space-time is therefore an extremely stiff medium. De Sabbata and Siviram noted that there exists a maximal acceleration given by

$$a_{max.}=\frac{c^{7/2}}{G^{1/2}\mathrm{}^{1/2}},$$
(63)
originated as quantum effect due to torsion. Their formula reduces to our formula upon using eq.(14) into (60). Therefore, we have, according to CQM

$$a_{max.}=\frac{c^{7/2}}{G^{1/2}h_c^{1/2}}.$$
(64)
We now turn to calculate the maximal acceleration at a universal scale, according to CQM.

$$a_{max.}=10^9ms^2.$$
(65)
However, De Sabbata obtained a value of $`10^{10}\mathrm{ms}^2`$ on different grounds that agrees with . Note that the maximal acceleration at Planck time was $`a_{max}=10^{51}\mathrm{ms}^2`$. Very recently, Anderson et al. have found an unmodelled acceleration towards the Sun of $`8.09\times 10^8\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^2`$ for Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11. Kuroda and Moi  have measured the relative acceleration in free fall of pairs of test bodies (aluminium/copper-aluminium/carbon))and found it to be of the order of $`3\times 10^9\mathrm{ms}^2`$. One may therefore attribute this acceleration to some residual quantum background filling the whole universe having a Planckian temperature of the order $`10^{29}\mathrm{K}`$, as shown before.
5. CONCLUSION
We have extended the implication of quantum mechanics form microscopic scale to include macroscopic scale. This extension resulted in a lot of interesting consequences concerning the evolution and characteristics of black holes and binary pulsars. We have found that quantities like entropy, cosmological constant and time are quantized for macroscopic scales. Limiting values for temperature, entropy, angular momentum ($`\mathrm{}_c`$), force, acceleration are obtained due to this conjecture. The universe is found to have an energy density less that Planckian density at the present time. We have also shown that we have different Planckian parameters for the universe for different time. The relation $`GM^2=\mathrm{}c`$ which was found to apply in the early universe is still valid during other phases, provided that we replace the ordinary Planck constant with the cosmic Planck constant, whose value depends on the properties of the macroscopic entity. We have provided a physical justification for the Large Number Hypothesis advocated by Dirac. We have made a correspondence between atomic and gravitational systems and that all atomic parameters have their gravitational analogue. The comparison between the atomic parameters and the large scale parameters always involves numbers of orders of $`10^{20},10^{40},10^{60},10^{80},10^{100},10^{120}`$ times the atomic parameters.
providing

REFERENCES
1. W. Tifft, Astrophys. Journal 206,(1976)38, Astrophys. Journal 221(1978)756, Astrophys.Journal 236(1978)70, Astrophys. Journal 257(1982)442, Astrophys. Journal 262(1982)44
2. M. DerSarkissian, Lett. Nouvo Cimento 40(1984)390, Lett. Nouvo Cimento 43(1985) 274
3. C. Massa, Lett. Nouvo Cimento 44(1985) 671
4. L. Motz, Lett. Nouvo. Cimento 26(1962)673
5. R. Ruffini and S.Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. 187(1969)1767
6. P. Caldirola, M.Pavsic and E.Recami, Nouvo Cimento B48(1978)205, A.S. Goldhaber and M.M. Nieto, Phy. Rev. 9(1974) 1119
7. V. de Sabbata and M.Gasperini, Lett. Nouvo. Cimento 25(1979)489
8. M. Pierucci, Nouvo Cimento B21(1974)69
9. R.H. Dicke, Nature 192(1962)440
10. S. Carneiro, Foundation of Physics Letters11(1998)95
11. R.W. Kuhne, astro-ph/9708109
12. A. Kogut, G.Hinshaw, A.J. Banday, Phys. Rev. D55(1997)1901
13. L. Nottale, Fractal Space-time and Microphysics: Towards a theory of scale relativity (World Scientific, Singapore (1993) pp.311-321
14. R.Muradian, Astrophys. Space Sci.69 (1980)339
15. J.A.S. Lima and J.C. Carvalho, Gen. Rel. Gravit. 26(1994) 909
16. A.I. Arbab, astro-ph/9911311
17. H. Genreith, gr-qc/9909009, astro-ph/9905317
18. J. Weber, Phy. Rev. Lett. 21 (1968) 395
19. S.W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199
20. V. De Sabbata and Z. Zhang, Black Hole Physics, Kluwer Academic Publisher (Netherlands) 1992.
21. C. Massa, Lett. Nouvo Cimento 44 (1985) 609, Lett. Nouvo Cimento 44 (1985) 694
22. F. Rosati, hep-ph/9908518
23. M. G. Larionov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 252 (1997) 139
24. D. Lindley, Nature 359 (1992), M. Milgrom and R.H. Sanders, Nature 362 (1992) 25
25. G.C.McVittie, Cosmological Theory, (London, 1950), D.W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (Cambridge,1971)
26. M. Robert, gr-qc/0012062
27. Capozziello et al, gr-qc/9901042
28. P. A. Zizzi,gr-qc/0008049
29. John D. Anderson et al, gr-qc/9808081, gr- qc/ 0104064.
30. K. Kuroda and N.Moi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62(1989) 1941


text:
# Extremal statistics in the energetics of domain walls

## Abstract

We study at $`T=0`$ the minimum energy of a domain wall and its gap to the first excited state concentrating on two-dimensional random-bond Ising magnets. The average gap scales as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1L^\theta f(N_z)`$, where $`f(y)[\mathrm{ln}y]^{1/2}`$, $`\theta `$ is the energy fluctuation exponent, $`L`$ length scale, and $`N_z`$ the number of energy valleys. The logarithmic scaling is due to extremal statistics, which is illustrated by mapping the problem into the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang roughening process. It follows that the susceptibility of domain walls has also a logarithmic dependence on system size.

PACS # 05.70.Np, 75.50.Lk, 68.35.Ct, 64.60.Ht

The energy landscapes of random systems are often assumed to be described at low temperatures by scaling exponents that follow from the behavior of the ground states. In the renormalization group (RG) language this means that temperature is an irrelevant variable. In most quenched random systems, the energy landscape contains many low-lying metastable minima separated by high barriers. Examples can be found in the realm of random magnets, the most famous one being of course spin glasses . The dynamical behavior at finite temperatures, as a result of a temperature change or the application of an external field, will naturally depend on the associated barriers and energy differences between the minima.

It is often assumed that energy differences or barriers between configurations ($`\delta E`$) relate to the length $`l`$ involved by a scaling relation $`\delta El^\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is an energy fluctuation exponent. It measures the dependence of the first non-analytic correction to the ground state or free energy on the length scale. Here we show that for extended manifolds, or Ising magnet domain walls (DW) \[equivalent to directed polymers (DP) in (1+1)-dimensions\] the energy difference between the ground state energy and the next state (“first excited state”) follows from extremal statistics. This is due to the fact that, usually, one can assume that the energy landscape, at large enough scales, consists of many independent valleys. Finding the gap between the minimum and the second-most favorable state is then a straightforward extremal statistics problem as is the simpler one of the minimum of all the independent valley energies. The extreme statistics leads to logarithmic factors in the gap and minimum energies, which we show also by numerical calculations. The same result can be applied also to other disordered systems, where the energy landscape of DW can be reduced to a one-dimensional form. We also interpret the results in the language of kinetic roughening, since DP maps into the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation of growth . Finally, as an application we show that the extremal statistics scaling shows up in the susceptibility of DW.

Here we consider elastic manifolds at $`T=0`$ with quenched short-range, e.g. point-like defects, randomness and in $`d=(D+n),n=1`$ dimensions, in which $`D`$ is the dimension of the manifolds and $`d`$ is the dimension of their embedding space. The continuum Hamiltonian for such an elastic manifold is

$$=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}\{z(𝐱)\}^2+V_r(𝐱,z)\right]\mathrm{d}^D𝐱,$$
(1)
where $`z(𝐱)`$ is the height of the interface and $`𝐱`$ is the $`D`$ dimensional internal coordinate of the manifold. The first term in the integrand is the elastic contribution with the corresponding surface stiffness $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the interface and the second term comes from the random potential. For random manifolds we use quenched random bond (RB) disorder, which means that the random potential is delta-point correlated, i.e., $`V_r(𝐱,z)V_r(𝐱^{},z^{})=2𝒟\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})\delta (zz)`$. The geometric behavior of the manifold is characterized by $`w^2=\left[z(𝐱)\overline{z(𝐱)}\right]^2L^{2\zeta }`$, where $`L`$ is the linear size of the system and $`\zeta `$ is the corresponding roughness exponent. At low temperatures in $`(1+1)`$ dimensions, due to the equivalence of DP in random media  to the KPZ equation, the exact roughness exponent reads $`\zeta =2/3`$ . In higher dimensions functional RG gives the approximate expression $`\zeta 0.208(4D)`$  for RB DW. Since the width of a manifold grows as $`L^\zeta `$ it is expected that the number of independent valleys  is proportional to $`N_zL_z/L^\zeta `$. At $`T=0`$ the total average minimum energy $`E_0`$ of an elastic manifold equals its free energy and grows linearly with the manifold area $`L^D`$ and its fluctuations scale as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=(E_0E_0)^2^{1/2}L^\theta `$, where $`\theta =2\zeta +D2`$ .

Let us now derive analytically the scaling of the “extreme statistics” contributions to the lowest minimum, $`E_0`$, and the gap between two lowest minima, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1=E_1E_0`$. We consider the case of many independent valleys in the landscape $`N_z>1`$, which means that the DP can have an arbitrary starting or end point, and that $`L_z>L^\zeta `$. For the “single valley” boundary condition case (one end of the manifold fixed), it is known numerically that near its mean the distribution is Gaussian . Hence we draw the energies $`E`$ from the distribution

$$P(E)=k\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left(\frac{|EE|}{\mathrm{\Delta }E}\right)^\eta \right\},$$
(2)
where $`EL^D`$ is the average energy of the manifold and $`\mathrm{\Delta }EL^\theta `$ measures its fluctuations and $`k`$ normalizes the integral so $`k1/L^\theta `$. The exponent $`\eta `$ is not constant . Near the peak $`\eta =2`$. In the low energy tail numerical simulations indicate that $`\eta _{}1.6`$, while in the high energy tail the best estimate is $`\eta _+2.4`$ . At this stage we allow $`\eta `$ to be variable but note that it is the behavior near the mean and the low energy tail which is the most important in this calculation. In a system with $`N_zL_z/L^\zeta `$ independent local minima the probability that the global minimum has energy $`E`$ is given by,

$$L_{N_z}(E)=N_zP(E)\left\{1C_1(E)\right\}^{N_z1},$$
(3)
where $`C_1(E)=_{\mathrm{}}^EP(ϵ)𝑑ϵ`$ . The gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1`$ follows similarly. Its distribution, $`G_{N_z}(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1,E)`$ is given by

$`G_{N_z}(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1,E)=N_z(N_z1)P(E)P(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)`$ (4)
$`\{1C_1(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)\}^{N_z2}.`$ (5)
$`G_{N_z}(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1,E)`$ is the probability that if the lowest energy manifold has an energy $`E`$, then the gap to the next lowest energy level is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1`$. The average value of the global minimum is given by

$$E_0=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}EL_{N_z}(E)𝑑E,$$
(6)
which is not analytically integrable. The typical value of the lowest energy may be estimated using an extreme scaling estimate. It follows from the fact the term the inside $`\{\}`$ in (3) becomes unity if $`C_1`$ is small enough. It has proven useful in other contexts, for example breakdown of random networks, and reads here ,

$$1/kN_zP(E_0)1$$
(7)
which yields,

$$E_0E\mathrm{\Delta }E\{\mathrm{ln}(N_z)\}^{1/\eta },$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }EL^\theta `$.

To estimate the typical value of the gap, we use similarly to (7)

$$1/k^2N_z(N_z1)P(E_0)P(E_0+\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)1,$$
(9)
which with (8) and the fact that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }E_1||E_0|`$ yields,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E^\eta }{\eta (EE_0)^{\eta 1}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{\eta \{\mathrm{ln}(N_z)\}^{(\eta 1)/\eta }}.$$
(10)
We thus find that in addition to the usual sample to sample variations in the energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }EL^\theta `$) there is a slow reduction in the gap which scales as $`\{\mathrm{ln}(N_z)\}^{(\eta 1)/\eta }`$, provided $`N_z>1`$. Our case is closely related to the weakly broken replica symmetry  of DP, see also Ref. , where the relation between replica methods and extremal statistics is discussed.

The $`(1+1)`$ dimensional DW maps, in the continuum limit, to the KPZ equation by associating the minimum energy of a DW with the minimum arrival time $`t_1E_0`$ of a KPZ-surface to height $`h`$. The connection is illustrated in Fig. 1 in the limit of many valleys $`N_z>1`$. The minimal path of the DW with the endpoint $`z(L)`$ equals the path by which the interface reaches $`h=L`$, at location $`x_1=z`$ and at time $`t_1=E_0`$. Thus $`t_1`$ attains a logarithmic correction, from Eq. (8), of size $`h^\beta \{\mathrm{ln}(L_z/h^{1/z})\}^{1/\eta }`$, where $`\beta =1/3`$ and $`z=3/2`$ are now the roughening exponent and dynamical exponent of the KPZ universality class . Consider now the second smallest arrival time $`t_2`$. In the KPZ language of DP, if the path $`x_2(t^{})`$ that gives $`t_2`$ is completely independent of the $`x_1(t^{})`$ that results in $`t_1`$ then $`t_2`$ and $`x_2`$ are related to a separate, independent valley of the DP landscape. The difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_2t_1`$ then equals $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1`$ of DW, and likewise obeys extremal statistics, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }th^\beta [\mathrm{ln}(L_z/h^{1/z})]^{(\eta 1)/\eta }`$. For growing surfaces this limit is the early stages of growth, in which the correlation length $`\xi L_z`$, and therefore the arrival times, or DW energies, are independent.

In order to check the scaling behavior of the gap energy (10), we have done extensive exact ground state calculations of elastic manifold in the two dimensional (2D) spin-half RB Ising model, i.e. we take a nearest neighbor Ising model with random but ferromagnetic couplings $`J_{ij}>0`$. Calculations are performed by varying both the parallel length $`L`$ and the height $`L_z`$ of systems oriented in the {10} direction. The DW is imposed by antiperiodic boundary conditions in the $`z`$-direction at $`z=0`$ and $`z=L_z`$. The elastic manifold is the interface, which divides the system in two parts one containing up spins and the other containing down spins. At $`T=0`$ the problem of finding the ground state DW is a global optimization problem which is solved exactly using a mapping to the minimum-cut maximum-flow problem. The so-called push-and-relabel method solves this problem efficiently and has been extensively discussed elsewhere .

In order to control the average number of the minima $`N_zL_z/L^\zeta `$ in a chosen system size, we set the initial position of the interface $`\overline{z}_0`$ in a fixed size window at height $`\overline{z}_0/L_z\mathrm{const}`$. If the ground state interface is originally outside the window, with room only for a single valley, it is neglected and a new configuration is created. After the original ground state is found, with its energy $`E_0`$, the lattice is reduced so that bonds in and above the window are neglected and the new ground state, its $`E_1`$ and the corresponding gap energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1`$, is found. We studied at least $`N=500`$ realizations of system sizes up to $`L=300`$ and $`L_z=500`$. Fig. 2 starts the discussion of the numerical data by showing how the ground state energy $`E_0`$ behaves as a function of $`L`$ and $`L_z`$. The scaling result (8) expects that the correction to the energy follows a logarithmic dependence on $`N_z`$, which is confirmed in the figure. Note that the extraction of this correction from the data requires an educated guess of how $`E`$, the single valley energy, behaves with $`L`$. We have used an Ansatz $`EaL+b`$ with the values of $`a`$ and $`b`$ demonstrated in Fig. 2, so that the exponent value $`\eta =2`$ corresponds to a Gaussian distribution. Due to the nature of the procedure it would probably be possible to obtain a reasonable fit for e.g. $`\eta =\eta _{}`$ as well.

For small sample sizes, $`L_z<L^\zeta `$ the value of the energy $`E_0`$ is affected by confinement. Similarly, the gap is controlled by confinement effects in this limit. When $`L_z`$ is large there are many independent valleys and extreme statistics effects are important, hence we expect,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E_1(L,L_z)\{\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{f}(L_z),\hfill & \text{ }\hfill & L_zL,\hfill \\ L^\theta /[\mathrm{ln}(L_z/L^\zeta )]^{(\eta 1)/\eta },\hfill & & L_zL\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where we have used Eq. (10) and $`N_zL_z/L^\zeta `$. We attempt to collapse the data by using the reduced variables $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1(L,L_z)/L^\theta `$ versus $`L_z/L^\zeta `$ for various $`L`$ and $`L_z`$. As seen in Fig. 3 we find a nice agreement with the extreme scaling form, with the ratio $`(\eta 1)/\eta =1/2`$, i.e. by using a Gaussian distribution.

Next we consider the relation of the extremal statistics to the susceptibility of these manifolds. In the $`D`$-dimensional case the susceptibility is defined by,

$$\chi =\underset{h0+}{lim}\frac{m}{h},$$
(12)
where the change in the magnetization of the whole $`d`$ dimensional system is calculated in the limit of the vanishing external field from the positive side  and the brackets imply a disorder-average. We have recently shown that the general behavior follows from a level-crossing phenomenon, which involves an extra potential $`V_h(z)=hz`$, dependent on the height of the interface, in the Hamiltonian (1), and $`h`$ is an applied external field to the manifold. In any particular configuration when $`h`$ is varied the manifold position changes in macroscopic ’jumps’ , the first one occurring at $`h_1`$.

One may write the susceptibility, Eq. (12), with the help of the probability distribution of the fields $`h_1`$ $`P(h_1)`$ in the form

$$\chi =\underset{h0+}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{\mathrm{\Delta }h}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z_1}{L_z}\underset{h0+}{lim}P(h_1),$$
(13)
because the magnetization of a system $`m(h)\overline{z(h)}/L_z`$, and since the distance in the jump between the minima $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_1L_z`$ , independently of the sample-dependent $`h_1`$. It is expected that a scaling form $`P(h_1)h_1\overline{P}(h_1/h_1)`$ applies, and that $`P`$ remains finite in the limit $`h_10`$. Next we compare the average susceptibility as a function of the number of valleys $`N_z`$ to the conjecture that in the presence of the field the average gap for the original and excited state follows an extremal statistics form similar to Eq. (10).

The simulations are done again using a fixed height window in which the original ground state without the field is found. After that the external field $`h`$ is slowly applied by increasing the coupling constant values $`J_{}(z)=J_{random}+hz`$, where $`J_{}`$ is perpendicular to the $`z`$-direction, until the first jump is observed with the corresponding $`h_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }z_1`$. In order to find the scaling relation for the first jump field $`h_1`$, we make the Ansatz $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_1=h_1LL_z`$, since the field contributes to the polymer energy proportional to $`L^D`$ ($`D=1`$) and $`L_z\mathrm{\Delta }z_1`$ is the difference in the field contributions $`hz`$ to the energy at finite $`h`$ at different average valley heights $`z_0`$, $`z_1`$. Hence

$$h_1(L,L_z)LL_zL^\theta f\left(\frac{L_z}{L^\zeta }\right),$$
(14)
where the scaling function $`f(y)=[\mathrm{ln}(L_z/L^\zeta )]^{(\eta 1)/\eta }`$. Fig. 4 shows the scaling function (13) with a collapse of $`h_1(L,L_z)L^{1\theta }L_z`$ versus $`L_z/L^\zeta `$ for various $`L`$ and $`L_z`$ which is again in good agreement the logarithmic extreme scaling correction. Generalizing to arbitrary dimensions one has the behavior of $`h_1(L,L_z)L^{\theta D}L_z^1[\mathrm{ln}(L_z/L^\zeta )]^{(\eta 1)/\eta }`$. For the susceptibility, Eq. (13), one obtains, using $`h_1`$ for the normalization factor at $`P(h_1=0)`$,

$$\chi L^{D\theta }L_z[\mathrm{ln}(L_z/L^\zeta )]^{(\eta 1)/\eta },$$
(15)
and in the isotropic limit, $`LL_z`$, the total susceptibility $`\chi _{tot}=L^d\chi `$ becomes (when $`\eta =2`$)

$$\chi _{tot}L^{2D+1\theta }[(1\zeta )\mathrm{ln}(L)]^{1/2}.$$
(16)
Notice that for most random manifolds $`1\zeta >0`$ with the exception of 2D random field Ising DW for which $`\zeta 1`$ at large scales , and thus the susceptibility does not diverge  as the premise $`N_z>1`$ does not hold in that case. If the condition $`N_z>1`$ is violated the extreme statistics correction disappears. Thus the extremal statistics of energy landscapes leads to a logarithmic multiplier in the susceptibility, Eq. (16), of the DW. This result differs from algebraic forms of scaling , see also .

To conclude, we have considered the average energy differences or “gaps” in the energy landscape of (two-dimensional) elastic manifolds. An extremal statistics argument in the system geometry with many independent valleys shows that the ground state energy and the gap have logarithmic scaling functions, also reproduced with numerical studies. An illuminating connection can be made to Kardar-Parisi-Zhang nonequilibrium surface growth. Finally, we demonstrate that the gap scaling shows up in the susceptibility of random manifolds. This might have implications for flux line lattices in high-temperature superconductors, where a similar problem related to barriers has been analyzed with the aid of extremal statistics .

This work has been supported by the Academy of Finland’s Centre of Excellence Programme (ETS and MJA). PMD thanks the DOE under contract DOE-FG02-090-ER45418 for support.