text:
# Hybrid Luttinger liquid/Fermi liquid behaviour in an atomic wire on a surface

## I Introduction

In recent years it has become possible to create atomic scale wires consisting of a single chain of atoms on a semiconductor surface. These wires have obvious potential applications in future nanoscale circuitry, but most of the research effort so far has concentrated on the electronic structure of these systems.

Moreover, it has been shown that certain of these systems are not subject to the Peierls transition, even at low temperatures. Hence they are expected to behave as one-dimensional metals, with properties substantially different from the Fermi-liquid properties of higher-dimensional metals. Specifically, the discontinuity of the occupation number at the Fermi energy is lost, spin and charge excitations become separated and the correlation functions of the system develop power-law behaviour. Experimental evidence for such Luttinger liquid-like behaviour has, however, proved elusive and ephemeral. In particular, the case of Au wires on vicinal Si(111) has attracted much recent discussion Segovia et al. (1999); Altmann et al. (2001); Losio et al. (2001); Himpsel et al. (2001); Sánchez-Portal et al. (2002); Robinson et al. (2002), as have the potential Luttinger liquid properties of quasi-one-dimensional charge-transfer salts Lorenz et al. (2002); Claessen et al. (2002); Schwartz et al. (1998).

One of the important questions that remains unanswered is to what extent the coupling of the wire to the surface affects the one-dimensional properties that would be expected of an isolated wire. This is a somewhat more complicated problem than that of two coupled one-dimensional conductors, which has been widely studied Capponi et al. (1998); Clarke and Strong (1997a, b); Shannon et al. (1997); Capponi et al. (1996); Poilblanc et al. (1996); Boies et al. (1995); Clarke et al. (1994); Fabrizio (1993); Fabrizio and Parola (1993); Finkelstein and Larkin (1993); Fabrizio et al. (1992)

The present work therefore begins to tackle this problem by reducing it to its most simple form. The wire is represented as completely as possible, by a fully interacting one-dimensional conductor based on the Luttinger model. This is coupled to a one-dimensional representation of the surface, similar to the wire but without any electron-electron interactions. In this way we are able to probe the effects of the coupling of the wire to the surface in as simple a way as possible, while retaining many of the properties that would be found in a more realistic system.

In a previous paper Dash and Fisher (2001) we described the case where the one-electron properties of the two chains are the same. In this paper we build on these results by treating the more relevant case in which the properties of the chain differ. Where relevant, we have reproduced results from this earlier work.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. We start with a review of Luttinger liquid theory, followed in section II.2 by a full description of our model and a justification of its choice. We then present results for the eigenstates of the system, both for two chains identical with respect to their non-interacting properties, and for two chains with differing properties. We then present results for calculations of the spectral functions for both types of systems, and calculate the Luttinger parameter $`K_\rho `$. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results.

## II Theoretical methods

### II.1 The Luttinger model

Our calculations are based on Haldane’s solution of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model Haldane (1981), consisting of a chain of spinless idealized atoms with periodic boundary conditions. The model is characterized by a linearized dispersion relation with slope $`v_\mathrm{F}`$ and a complete separation of the populations of left- and right-moving particles (as in figure 1) and the inclusion of an infinity of negative energy electrons Haldane (1981); Voit (1995). It is this that makes the model exactly solvable, as the boson commutation relations are then exact rather than approximate.

The details of the Luttinger model are covered in several review articles (see, for example, references Voit (2000, 1995); Sólyom (1979)) and so we shall only review here those aspects of particular relevance to the current work. The total Luttinger model Hamiltonian can be split into three parts Voit (1995):

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_4.$$
(1)
$`\widehat{H}_0`$ represents the non-interacting part of the Hamiltonian:

$$\widehat{H}_0=\underset{p,k}{}v_\mathrm{F}(pkk_\mathrm{F}):\widehat{c}_{pk}^{}\widehat{c}_{pk}:,$$
(2)
where $`q`$ indicates momentum,$`p`$ ($`=\pm 1`$) the branch index and $`:\mathrm{}:`$ implies normal ordering. The interaction parts of the Hamiltonian, $`\widehat{H}_2`$ and $`\widehat{H}_4`$, are given respectively by

$`\widehat{H}_2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}g_2(q)\widehat{\rho }_+(q)\widehat{\rho }_{}(q),`$ (3)
$`\widehat{H}_4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,q}{}}g_4(q)\widehat{\rho }_p(q)\widehat{\rho }_p(q).`$ (4)
The $`\widehat{H}_2`$ term represents forward scattering between the left- and right-moving fermion branches, while the $`\widehat{H}_4`$ term represents forward scattering within a momentum branch. The density operators $`\widehat{\rho }`$ are defined in terms of the fermion operators as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\rho }_p(q)& =\underset{k}{}:\widehat{c}_{p,k+q}^{}\widehat{c}_{p,k}:\hfill \\ & =\underset{k}{}\left(\widehat{c}_{p,k+q}^{}\widehat{c}_{p,k}\delta _{q,0}\widehat{c}_{p,k}^{}\widehat{c}_{p,k}_0\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The complete Hamiltonian can be diagonalized via a Bogoliubov transformation Haldane (1981) to yield the bosonized form of the Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{p,q0}{}}v_0(q):\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(q)\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(q):+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2L}}\left[v_N\left(N_++N_{}\right)^2+v_J\left(N_+N_{}\right)^2\right]`$ (6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left(\omega _qv_\mathrm{F}|q|\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\omega _q\widehat{b}_q^{}\widehat{b}_q+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2L}}\left(v_NN^2+v_JJ^2\right),`$ (7)
where the transformed density operators $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ are related to the originals by a phase $`\varphi _q`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_p(q)=\widehat{\rho }_p(q)\mathrm{cosh}\varphi _q+\widehat{\rho }_p(q)\mathrm{sinh}\varphi _q.$$
(8)
There is a characteristic frequency $`\omega _q=\sqrt{|(v_\mathrm{F}+g_4(q)/2\pi )^2(g_2(q)/2\pi )^2|}/|q|`$ associated with the transformed bosons, while the quantum numbers $`NN_++N_{}`$ and $`JN_+N_{}`$ represent respectively the sum of the number of electrons on the positive and negative branches, and the difference between them (analogous to current).

The three velocities in the Hamiltonian are related as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v_Nv_J& =v_0^2,\hfill \\ \hfill v_N& =\frac{v_0}{K_\rho }=v_0e^{2\varphi },\hfill \\ \hfill v_J& =v_0K_\rho =v_0e^{+2\varphi },\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
and are also related to the non-interacting Fermi velocity by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill v_N=v_\mathrm{F}+\frac{g_4+g_2}{2\pi },\\ \hfill v_J=v_\mathrm{F}+\frac{g_4g_2}{2\pi }.\end{array}$$
(10)
The requirement that $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ be a diagonalized version of $`\widehat{H}`$ is ensured by the relationship between the Bogoliubov transformation phase $`\varphi _q`$ and the interaction functions $`g_i`$:

$`e^{2\varphi _q}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi v_\mathrm{F}+g_4(q)g_2(q)}{\pi v_\mathrm{F}+g_4(q)+g_2(q)}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (11)
$`K_\rho (q).`$ (12)
The spinless Luttinger liquid parameter $`K_\rho `$ is then obtained by taking the limit of $`K_\rho (q)`$ as $`q`$ tends to zero. In all of the above the limit $`q0`$ is implied where $`q`$ is not explicitly included.

In addition there are two further parameters related to $`K_\rho `$: for a spinless Luttinger liquid they are given by

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[K_\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{K_\rho }}2\right],`$ (13)
$`\gamma `$ $`=2\alpha .`$ (14)
The Fermi liquid corresponds to $`K_\rho =1`$ and $`\alpha =0`$ and so departures from these values can be used to “measure” the extent of non-Fermi liquid behaviour. $`\alpha `$ is an exponent which governs the power-law dependence of all single-particle properties (for example the density of states, which varies as $`N(E)|EE_\mathrm{F}|^\alpha `$), as well as other properties of the system, including the d.c. resistivity, which varies as $`\rho (T)T^{1\gamma }`$ Voit (1995); Ogata and Anderson (1993).

### II.2 The model

We are now able to couple two Luttinger chains (labelled by superscript $`A`$ and $`B`$) together by allowing hopping between adjacent points on each chain with matrix element $`t_{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{H}^{\mathrm{coupled}}& =\widehat{H}^A+\widehat{H}^B\hfill \\ & +t_{}\underset{x,p}{}\left(\widehat{\psi }_p^A(x)\widehat{\psi }_p^B(x)+\widehat{\psi }_p^B(x)\widehat{\psi }_p^A(x)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Other schemes of inter-chain hopping are of course possible, and we expect that they will generate similar results. We neglect any “drag effects” of inter-chain interactions that would be generated by interaction terms analogous to $`\widehat{H}_2`$ or $`\widehat{H}_4`$ involving electrons on both chains. We have the choice of using either a set of basis states generated by the diagonalized boson operators $`\widehat{b}_q^{}`$ or the non-diagonalized operators $`\widehat{a}_q^{}`$. We choose the latter, as although this has the consequence that the ground states for a single interacting chain no longer consist of the relevant zero-boson basis states, it is considerably more convenient computationally. The $`\widehat{\psi }^{}`$ are fermion creation operators given in the bosonized form by

$$\widehat{\psi }_{p,c}^{}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}e^{ipk_\mathrm{F}x}\left[e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_{p,c}^{}(x)}\widehat{U}_{p,c}e^{i\widehat{\varphi }_{p,c}(x)}\right],$$
(16)
$`\widehat{\varphi }_{p,c}(x)`$ is a boson field operator given by

$$\widehat{\varphi }_{p,c}(x)=\left(\frac{p\pi x}{L}\right)N_{p,c}+i\underset{q0}{}\theta (pq)\left(\frac{2\pi }{L|q|}\right)^{1/2}e^{iqx}\widehat{a}_{q,c},$$
(17)
where the subscripts $`p`$ refers to the branch index ($`\pm 1`$) and $`c`$ to the chain index. $`\widehat{U}_{p,c}`$ is a ladder operator whose form ensures the anticommutation properties of the final fermion operator $`\widehat{\psi }_p^{}(x)`$ despite the commutation properties of the constituent boson operators $`\widehat{a}_q`$.

In order for $`\widehat{U}_{p,c}`$ to produce anticommuting field operators on different chains, it is necessary to introduce a further phase factor into its definition, analogous to Haldane’s phase factor $`\zeta (p,N_p,N_p)`$ for ensuring anticommutation between the branches of a single chain. The total ladder operator component of equation (16) thus takes the form

$$\widehat{U}_{p,c}=\zeta (p,N_p,N_p)\zeta ^{}(c,N_c,N_c)|N_{p,c}+1,N_{p,c},$$
(18)
where the subscript $`c=\pm 1`$ is a chain index. The anticommutation properties originate in the phase factors $`\zeta `$, which can be written as

$$\zeta _{i=p,c}=(1)^{(\frac{1}{2}iN_i)}.$$
(19)
This model provides us with a substrate that is metallic, whereas in reality we want to calculate for an insulating substrate. This may be achieved within the limitations of the Luttinger model in two ways. The first of these, reported here, is to adjust the Fermi velocity of the “substrate” chain so that the electrons preferentially reside on the “wire” chain. Our method of achieving this is described in detail in section III.1. The second approach, to be reported elsewhere, is to move all the single-electron states associated with the substrate chain up in energy. This therefore has the effect of simulating a gap between the valence and (largely inaccessible) conduction bands of the substrate chain, while the states belonging to the wire chain are located within this gap.

### II.3 Computational details

The choice of a specific form for the interactions $`g_2(q)`$ and $`g_4(q)`$ is arbitrary, as the Luttinger model remains completely solvable for any interaction that fulfils certain conditions Haldane (1981). We choose a Gaussian form for the interaction and set $`g_2(q)=g_4(q)=2\pi V(q)`$ with

$$V(q)=I\mathrm{exp}\left(2q^2/r\right)$$
(20)
as this has the advantage that it maintains the same form in both real and momentum space. Other forms, such as a screened Coulomb interaction, would also be possible. The parameters $`I`$ and $`r`$ can be varied to control the “strength” and range of the interaction respectively. We complete the basic two chain model by setting the interaction strength on chain B, representing the substrate, to zero but retaining interactions on chain A.

The size of the computational Hilbert space is restricted by allowing only one boson in each mode. This does not affect the low energy properties in which we are interested, as we have checked that only higher energy excitations involve basis states with more than one boson in each mode. We also neglect the presence of the infinity of negative energy electrons, i.e. $`\widehat{c}|N_{\text{electrons}}=0=0`$. However, we are still strongly limited in the size of the system we can handle: the Hilbert space scales exponentially with both length of chains and number of electrons. The largest system for which we have been able to calculate with arbitrary numbers of electrons is one with length $`L=6`$ (i.e. 12 sites in total).

### II.4 Spectral functions

We define the spectral function $`\rho (q,\omega )`$ as

$$\rho (q,\omega )_{p,c}=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{}\left[G_{p,c}^R(k_\mathrm{F}+q,\omega +\mu )\right],$$
(21)
with $`q=k_\mathrm{F}k`$, and the retarded Green’s function $`G_{p,c}^R`$ defined as the double Fourier transform of

$$G_{p,c}^R(x,t)=i\theta (t)\{\widehat{\psi }_{p,c}(x,t)\widehat{\psi }_{p,c}^{}(0,0)\}$$
(22)
where the subscripts $`p`$ and $`c`$ again indicate branch and chain indices. Whereas for a Fermi liquid we would expect $`\rho (0,\omega )`$ to be a delta function at the Fermi energy, the situation for a Luttinger liquid is quite different Schönhammer and Meden (1993); Voit (1993); Meden and Schönhammer (1992). Spectral weight is repelled from the Fermi surface owing to the virtual particle-hole excitations generated by the inter-branch scattering term $`g_2`$, resulting in a broadened peak. As $`q`$ is increased the Fermi liquid spectral function will merely broaden like $`q^2`$ reflecting the finite lifetime of electrons away from $`E_F`$, but for a Luttinger liquid there is zero spectral weight within a range $`\pm v_0q`$ of the Fermi energy. In addition, the negative frequency contribution is suppressed exponentially with $`q`$, and for a continuum Luttinger liquid the positive frequency contributions have a power law dependence. For $`\omega >0`$ this is of the form $`\theta (\omega v_0q)(\omega v_0q)^{\gamma 1}`$ and for $`\omega <0`$ it is of the form $`\theta (\omega v_0q)(\omega v_0q)^\gamma `$, with $`\gamma `$ given by equation (14) Voit (1995).

However, for our more complex system it is not easy to obtain an analytic form and so we resort to computational methods. We calculate the Green’s function

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill G^R(k,k^{},\omega )& =N|\widehat{c}_k\left[\omega \widehat{H}+\epsilon _N\right]^1\widehat{c}_k^{}^{}|N\hfill \\ & +N|\widehat{c}_k^{}^{}\left[\omega +\widehat{H}\epsilon _N\right]^1\widehat{c}_k|N\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
using Haydock’s tridiagonal Lanczos-based procedure Haydock (1980); Golub and van Loan (1996). In order to ensure convergence, we put $`\omega \omega +i\eta `$, where $`\eta `$ is an imaginary component of the energy roughly equal to the level spacing of the system Haydock (1980). $`|N`$ is the $`N`$-electron ground state, with energy $`\epsilon _N`$. We also use the Lanczos method to calculate the eigenstates of the system.

## III Results

### III.1 Two types of system

Ideally, we would like to be able to calculate for a metallic chain coupled to an insulating chain representing the substrate. However, the metallic nature of our chains is inherent in the Luttinger model and so this is not possible with the present system. Nonetheless, we can reproduce some of the most important characteristics of such a system within the constraints of the current model. In particular, we are interested in systems where the Fermi velocities of the chains differ, i.e. the Fermi velocity for the interacting chain is less than that of the non-interacting chain, $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$. The result of this is that the electrons find it energetically preferable to reside on the interacting chain. This is one of the characteristics we would expect for a metal-semiconductor chain system, where the electrons in the wire are more mobile than those in the substrate. This has several consequences for the band structure of the coupled system, as can be seen more clearly in figure 3. The bands are not parallel and are not separated by $`2t_{}`$, as they are for two chains with equal $`v_F`$ The bands anticross at $`E=0`$, which is $`E_F`$ for our reference state of no participating electrons. Also, for similar chains, $`v_F^A=v_F^B=v_F^{\text{bonding}}=v_F^{\text{antibonding}}`$, whereas in this case we have $`v_F^A(=1.0)v_F^{\text{bonding}}(=1.002)`$ and $`v_F^B(=2.0)v_F^{\text{antibonding}}(=1.998)`$.

We now present our numerical results for these two systems—the first with $`v_F^A=v_F^B`$, the second with $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$. The quantities we calculate are those that may give us information about the Luttinger liquid properties of the system—specifically, the boson population of the eigenstates, the excitation energies and eigenstates, and the spectral function.

### III.2 Boson contributions to eigenstates

Using the methods detailed above, we calculate the ground and neutral first excited states for our two systems at various interaction strengths. We first consider the boson population of these eigenstates. As we have chosen to work in the space of un-Bogoliubov transformed bosons, it is only the non-interacting ($`I=0`$) systems that have a zero-boson population in all modes for the ground state. All the interacting systems ($`I>0`$) have contributions from basis states that include bosons on one or both chains, as these basis states are not individually eigenstates of the interacting system. For both our two chain systems, contributions to the ground state may come from basis states with no bosons on either chain, bosons on the interacting chain (chain A) or bosons on both chains. These contributions are plotted in figure 4 as a proportion of the total ground state. Note that contributions from basis states with bosons on the non-interacting chain only are negligible and are not included.

For the case where both chains have equal Fermi velocities, as shown in figure 4(a), the data for basis states with bosons only on chain A maps almost exactly onto that for a single isolated chain. However, there is also a significant contribution from states with bosons on both chains which increases with $`I`$—the presence of interactions on chain A induces interaction effects on the otherwise non-interacting chain B. For stronger interchain coupling $`t_{}`$, we see less of a contribution for both types, but nonetheless the data for bosonic states on chain A is still comparable to that of a single chain, indicating that for both $`t_{}=0.1`$ and $`t_{}=0.5`$ we are in a weakly coupled regime.

Figure 4(b) compares the results for the equal $`v_F`$ system with those from the system with $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$. Once more, the data for bosonic basis states only on chain A matches the single chain data for both of our 2-chain systems. We again observe induced chain B boson states at a level similar to that for the equal $`v_F`$ system in the $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$ system.

### III.3 Charge distribution

We can also examine the distribution of charge between the two chains. Taking a simple case where there are just two electrons available for excitation, the possible distributions are both electrons on the interacting chain, one electron on each chain, or both electrons on the non-interacting chain. Those basis states where both electrons reside on the same chain may be thought of as “ionic”-like, and those where the electrons are shared between the chains as “covalent”-like. The charge distributions for the ground and first neutral excited states are shown in figures 5(a) and 5(b). We see that for the ground states of the equal $`v_F`$ system, the eigenstates evolve smoothly from the non-interacting limit (where the charge distribution is has equal proportions of covalent and ionic states) to a situation at large values of $`I`$ where the ground state is dominated by chain B ionic states. The presence of interactions on chain A has thus forced all the available charge onto the non-interacting chain B. The case of the excited states is, however, somewhat different. The $`I=0`$ excited state is a fourfold degenerate combination of ionic and covalent states. Once even small chain A interactions are switched on, this degeneracy is lifted and the dominant basis states are covalent, as indicated by the discontinuity at $`I=0`$ in figure 5(a). As $`I`$ is increased, the role of the covalent basis states increases, but there is a further discontinuity in the charge distribution at $`I2.0`$, where the dominance of the covalent states is replaced by that of chain B ionic states. This is owing to a change in the nature of the excitation, from an inter-band excitation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$ to an intra-band excitation with $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=2\pi v_F/L`$. For $`I2.0`$, the charge distribution for the excited state is very similar to that of the ground state, indicating that no net interchain hopping is involved in these excitations.

For the $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$ system, as shown in figure 5(b), the non-interacting ground state is dominated by chain A ionic state, with lesser contributions from covalent states and a minimal contribution from chain B ionic states. As $`I`$ is increased, these evolve smoothly through a region ($`0.5I1.0`$) dominated by covalent states, to a situation, for $`I1.0`$, where the system is dominated, like the equal $`v_F`$ case, by chain B ionic states. The excited states exhibit a similar pattern of discontinuities to the equal $`v_F`$ system, although the transition from inter-band to intra-band excitations now occurs at a higher interaction strength of $`I=3.0`$.

Having examined the nature of the eigenstates, we now turn our attention to the eigenvalues, and in particular, to the neutral excitation energies. For the equal $`v_F`$ system, the ground state energy, first neutral excited state energy and the excitation energy for various interaction strengths are calculated and shown in figure 6(a). In the non-interacting limit, the excitation energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is equal to $`2t_{}`$, as would be expected for a transition between bonding and anti-bonding bands. As $`I`$ is increased, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ also increases, until it becomes saturated at $`I2.0`$ at a value of $`2\pi v_F/L`$. This corresponds to the discontinuity in the charge distribution at $`I2`$ (figure 5(a)) already associated with the change in nature of the excitation from inter- to intra-band.

For the system with $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$, however, the noninteracting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is no longer $`2t_{}`$ but is approximately $`0.81`$, as indicated by the band diagram (figure 3). As $`I`$ is increased, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ decreases and approaches zero in the range $`0.5I1.0`$, the same region as is dominated by the covalent states in the charge distribution. For $`I1.0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ once more increases until it too becomes saturated at $`I3.0`$, at a value of around 1.6. This is not, as might be suggested by the fact that all the charge is on the non-interacting chain, $`2\pi v_F^B/L`$, but is in fact slightly more than the value of $`2\pi v_F^{\text{bonding}}/L`$. The excitation energy also continues growing for $`I>3.0`$, albeit very slowly: this, and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is not exactly $`2\pi v_F^{\text{bonding}}/L`$ at saturation, is because of the combined effects of increase in energy due to induced boson states on chain B and increase in energy due to chain A interactions overtaking the effect of charge removal from chain A to chain B.

### III.4 Spectral functions

The spectral functions for the model are now considered. Results for the calculation of the spectral function for both the equal $`v_F`$ and the $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$ systems are presented in figure 7. For the equal $`v_F`$ system, figure 7(a), there are three sources of broadening of the peaks away from the delta function we would expect for a Fermi liquid. The first of these is owing to the finite value of the imaginary energy $`\eta `$ used in the numerical calculations, and leads to broadening of the peaks into Lorentzians with width $`\eta `$. The second results from the splitting into bonding and antibonding bands due to the interchain coupling and is equal to $`2t_{}`$. However, the remaining broadening, which is interaction-dependent, is due to the removal of spectral weight from the Fermi energy at $`\omega =0`$, and is indicative of residual Luttinger liquid behaviour in the coupled system.

For the $`v_F^A<v_F^B`$ system, figure 7(b), we again see the broadening of individual peaks into Lorentzians. However, the peaks initially converge as $`I`$ increases, analogous to the similar decrease in neutral excitation energy observed in the same region of $`I0.5`$. In this region around $`I0.5`$ however, two “branches” of the spectral function emerge, corresponding to separate peaks arising from covalent basis states and ionic chain B basis states—at lower values of $`I`$ the covalent peak dominates, whereas for higher values of $`I`$ the ionic B states become dominant. For the equal $`v_F`$ spectral function, a similar analysis reveals that the single peak is due to ionic B states and there is no corresponding second peak arising from covalent states. The peak separation at $`I=0`$ is approximately $`0.81`$, consistent with that indicated by the band structure, and following the emergence of the two branches noted above, the peaks separate in the $`I1.0`$ region, again indicating residual Luttinger liquid behaviour.

### III.5 Calculation of the Luttinger parameters

We can use the spectral function results to calculate the Luttinger parameters of the system. For a continuum system, this could be achieved by direct numerical measurement of the exponent $`\alpha `$ Schönhammer and Meden (1993); Meden and Schönhammer (1992); Voit (1993), but this is not possible in small discrete systems such as those under present consideration. However, we can define an effective Luttinger velocity $`v_0^{\text{eff}}`$ for the system as follows. For a single Luttinger liquid chain, the separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ of the electron and hole contributions to the spectral function is equal to $`2v_0q`$, whereas for a non-interacting double chain system $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ is equal to $`2t_{}`$. We see from figure 7(a) that for the equal $`v_F`$ system, we have a combination of both these effects, and hence define our effective $`v_0`$ in terms of the electron-hole peak separation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =2(v_0^{\text{eff}}+t_{}).$$
(24)
As we have chosen $`g_2(q)`$ to be equal to $`g_4(q)`$, we can equate equations (9) and (10) to give our effective Luttinger parameter

$$K_\rho ^{\text{eff}}=e^{2\varphi }=\frac{v_F}{v_0^{\text{eff}}}.$$
(25)
The results of this are shown in figure 10 and compared to the single-chain continuum limit.

However, for the $`v_F^Av_F^B`$ system the situation is slightly different. In the non-interacting limit the bonding-antibonding splitting is no longer $`2t_{}`$, but instead is of the order of $`q|v_F^Av_F^B|`$. Since this is, in this case, much larger than $`2t_{}`$, the bonding/antibonding splitting may be ignored, resulting in the following expression for the effective Luttinger velocity

$$v_0^{\text{eff}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 2t_{}}{2q}\hfill & (v_F^A=v_F^B),\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }{2q}\hfill & |v_F^Av_F^B|q2t_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
We may then proceed as before to calculate $`v_0^{\text{eff}}`$ and hence $`K_\rho =v_F^{\text{system}}/v_0^{\text{eff}}`$ for this system.

However, we note from figure 8 that there are two separate peaks in the electron part of $`\rho (q,\omega )`$. A decomposition of the basis states contributing to these states reveals that the lower energy peak is due to chain B-type ionic states, while the peak at higher $`\omega `$ is due to the covalent states, with virtually no contribution at all from the chain A ionic states. This is shown in figure 9. At lower interaction strengths, the covalent states dominate, but as the interaction strength increases, the chain B ionic state grow in importance and the ionic states decrease, fading completely by $`I2.0`$. The same phenomenon is responsible for the double peak structure in the hole contribution to $`\rho (q=0,\omega )`$, where the effect is somewhat less pronounced.

Either of these peaks can be used to calculate $`K_\rho `$. Figure 10 shows the results for both the covalent and ionic peaks, together with the calculated Luttinger parameters for the $`L=4`$ and $`L=6`$ equal chain systems. The values for the continuum limit of a single chain are also shown for comparison. We can see that for $`I0.5`$, this system is more Luttinger liquid-like than the equal $`v_F`$ system, but for interaction strengths greater than $`I1.0`$, the covalent branch peters out and the system becomes less Luttinger liquid-like than the corresponding equal chain system.

## IV Conclusions

The basic question we have asked in the current work is whether the coupling of an Luttinger liquid wire to a surface destroys any or all of its one-dimensional properties. We have attempted to answer this question purely by examination of the eigenstates and correlation functions of our, albeit simplified, model system. A more direct way of answering this question would be to measure the transport properties directly. However this would require substantial changes to the model which we believe would run the risk of obscuring the basic question: whether one-dimensional metallic systems coupled to surfaces *in general* retain their one-dimensional properties, regardless of the influence of such external sources as leads.

We have presented results for a system of two chains, identical except for the presence of electron-electron interactions on one chain, representing the wire. We have shown that the coupling to the surface is weak in nature even for coupling parameters as high as $`t_{}=0.5`$, as the contribution to the ground state from basis states involving bosons remains comparable to that for an isolated Luttinger-liquid chain. We have seen that there is a fundamental change in the nature of the low-lying neutral excitations at a certain value of the interaction strength, owing mainly to the finite length of the chains. However, this shift, from inter-band excitations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$ to intra-band excitations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=2\pi v_F/L`$ also leads to a transfer of charge away from the interacting “wire” chain to the non-interacting “substrate” chain, resulting in the restoration of some Fermi liquid properties. In particular the excitation energy in this region depends *not* on the Luttinger velocity $`v_0`$ but on the Fermi velocity $`v_F`$. However, the spectral properties, which depend on the nature of the charged rather than the neutral excitations, indicate that Luttinger liquid behaviour survives at values of the interaction strength not only below this threshold, but also above it. This behaviour manifests itself in the removal of spectral weight from the Fermi surface, and we have used this feature to calculate effective values of the Luttinger parameter $`K_\rho `$ for our system.

Our calculated values of $`K_\rho `$ indicate definitive Luttinger liquid behaviour for the system as a whole, and moreover, tend toward the values for an isolated continuum chain as the system length $`L`$ increases. Figure 11 shows the scaling of $`K_\rho `$ as a function of inverse system length for the equal-$`v_F`$ system at various values of the interaction strength $`I`$. The values for $`K_\rho `$ for an isolated continuum Luttinger liquid ($`L=0`$) are included and a straight line fit is shown through all three data points. One would not expect a perfect straight line fit from these data—the continuum single chain system remains, after all, substantially different in nature from a continuum two-chain system. However, the fact that the data are so linear with respect to inverse system length further reinforces our general conclusions.

In summary, therefore, we have investigated the problem of electron-electron interactions in an atomic scale wire on a surface. We have presented results that indicate that the resulting system does not behave as a pure Luttinger liquid but nonetheless retains many characteristics consistent with Luttinger liquid behaviour. It is clear from our results, however, that there is an important caveat to be borne in mind for hybrid systems such as this—that the results obtained depend very much on the properties of the system one chooses to measure.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank Gillian Gehring for helpful discussions and suggestions. This work was supported financially by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the National Physical Laboratory, Teddington, in the form of a CASE studentship. The calculations were performed on the Bentham Supercomputer at the HiPerSPACE Computing Centre, UCL, which is funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.


format: text

text:
# On the Gravitomagnetic Time Delay

## 1 Introduction

Consider the gravitational field of astronomical sources in the linear approximation of general relativity. The spacetime metric may be expressed in the quasi-inertial coordinates $`x^\mu =(ct,𝐱)`$ as $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu },`$ where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric with signature +2. In the absence of perturbing potentials $`h_{\mu \nu }(x)`$, rays of electromagnetic radiation propagate along straight lines defined by $`dx^i/dt=c\widehat{k}^i`$, where $`\widehat{𝐤}`$ is the constant unit propagation vector of the signal. These zeroth-order null geodesics will be employed throughout this work. In the exterior gravitational field of astronomical sources, however, the rays bend due to the attraction of gravity as they follow geodesics of the spacetime manifold that are null. It turns out that in order to evaluate the gravitational time delay to first order in $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ only the null condition is required, i.e.

$$g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =0.$$
(1)
We are interested in the consequences of this condition for the propagation of a ray on a background global inertial frame. Therefore, it follows from equation (1) that $`c^2dt^2|d𝐱|^2=h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$ where $`|d𝐱|^2=\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j`$. To first order in the perturbation, the bending of the ray may be neglected in evaluating the right-hand side of this result, which may be written as $`c^2h_{\alpha \beta }k^\alpha k^\beta dt^2.`$ Here $`k^\alpha =(1,\widehat{𝐤})`$ is such that $`\eta _{\mu \nu }k^\mu k^\nu =0`$. One may therefore write equation (1) in the form

$$cdt=\left(1+\frac{1}{2}h_{\alpha \beta }k^\alpha k^\beta \right)|d𝐱|.$$
(2)
Let the ray propagate from a point $`P_1:(ct_1,𝐱_1)`$ to a point $`P_2:(ct_2,𝐱_2)`$ in the background inertial frame; then,

$$t_2t_1=\frac{1}{c}|𝐱_2𝐱_1|+\frac{1}{2c}k^\alpha k^\beta _{P_1}^{P_2}h_{\alpha \beta }(x)𝑑l,$$
(3)
where $`dl=|d𝐱|`$ denotes the Euclidean length element along the straight line that joins $`P_1`$ to $`P_2`$. It follows from equation (3) that the gravitational time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_G=\frac{1}{2c}_{P_1}^{P_2}h_{\alpha \beta }(x)k^\alpha k^\beta 𝑑l.$$
(4)
Note that in this expression $`h_{\alpha \beta }`$ may be replaced by $`\overline{h}_{\alpha \beta }=h_{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }h,`$ since $`\eta _{\alpha \beta }k^\alpha k^\beta =0`$. Here $`h=\mathrm{tr}(h_{\mu \nu })`$. Moreover, under a gauge transformation of the gravitational potential $`h_{\mu \nu }h_{\mu \nu }+ϵ_{\mu ,\nu }+ϵ_{\nu ,\mu }`$, corresponding to an infinitesimal coordinate transformation $`x^\mu x^\mu ϵ^\mu `$, equation (4) simply gives the time delay in the new coordinates.

In physical circumstances where the linearized Einstein equations are applicable, the time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G`$ may be combined with the proper time $`\tau `$ measured by an observer moving with velocity $`𝐯=c𝜷`$,

$$d\tau =cdt\sqrt{g_{00}2g_{oi}\beta ^ig_{ij}\beta ^i\beta ^j},$$
(5)
in order to arrive at physically measurable predictions of the theory.

The gravitational time delay was studied by Shapiro  in terms of radar echo delay and subsequently by a number of investigators (see  and references cited therein). The general derivation of the linear effect (4) given here is free of special assumptions and can be employed in most situations of physical interest.

The gravitomagnetic time delay is discussed in sections 2 and 3. The Gödel universe is considered in section 4; we study the local gravitational time delay in this rotating universe. In section 5 we analyze the gravitomagnetic time delay in different images of the same source due to gravitational lensing. Finally, section 6 contains a brief discussion of our results.

## 2 Gravitoelectromagnetism

Let us now consider the exterior field of slowly moving sources such that the trace-reversed potential $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{}\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=(16\pi G/c^4)T_{\mu \nu }`$, once the gauge condition $`\overline{h}_{,\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$ has been imposed. We are interested in the particular retarded solution

$$\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{4G}{c^4}\frac{T_{\mu \nu }(ct|𝐱𝐱^{}|,𝐱^{})}{|𝐱𝐱^{}|}d^3𝐱^{},$$
(6)
which can be used directly in equation (4) to compute the gravitational time delay. The generalization of the Shapiro effect to time-dependent situations has been the subject of a recent investigation .

We confine our study here to the stationary field of a slowly rotating astronomical body such that $`\overline{h}_{00}=4\mathrm{\Phi }_g/c^2,\overline{h}_{0i}=2(𝐀_g)_i/c^2`$ and $`\overline{h}_{ij}=O(c^4),`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_g(x)`$ is the gravitoelectric potential, $`𝐀_g(x)`$ is the gravitomagnetic vector potential $`(\mathbf{}𝐀_g=0)`$ and we neglect all terms of order $`c^4`$ including the spatial potentials $`\overline{h}_{ij}`$. Far from the source

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_g\frac{GM}{r},𝐀_g\frac{G}{c}\frac{𝐉\times 𝐫}{r^3},$$
(7)
where $`M`$ and $`J`$ are the total mass and angular momentum of the source. We define the gravitoelectric field to be $`𝐄_g=\mathbf{}\mathrm{\Phi }_g`$ and the gravitomagnetic field to be $`𝐁_g=\mathbf{}\times 𝐀_g`$. In developing this analogy with electrodynamics, one encounters extra numerical factors that cannot be avoided. For instance, the field equation for the standard gravitomagnetic vector potential has an extra factor of $`4`$ in comparison with Maxwell’s theory . In this connection, we use the following convention that is consistent with the gravitational Larmor theorem : The standard formulas of classical electrodynamics are applicable, except that for a source of inertial mass $`M`$, the gravitoelectric charge is $`M`$ and the gravitomagnetic charge is $`2M`$ (in units such that $`G=1`$). On the other hand, for a test particle of mass $`m`$, the gravitoelectric charge is $`m`$ and the gravitomagnetic charge is $`2m`$. The source and the test particle have opposite charges to ensure that gravity is attractive. Moreover, the ratio of the gravitomagnetic charge to the gravitoelectric charge is always 2, since linearized gravity is a spin-2 field.

We find from equation (4) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_G=\mathrm{\Delta }_{GE}+\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GE}=\frac{2}{c^3}_{P_1}^{P_2}\mathrm{\Phi }_g𝑑l$$
(8)
is the Shapiro time delay and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=\frac{2}{c^3}_{P_1}^{P_2}𝐀_g𝑑𝐱$$
(9)
is the gravitomagnetic time delay, which is simply proportional to the line integral of the gravitomagnetic vector potential.

Let us now suppose that we can arrange via “mirrors” — these could be transponders on spacecraft — to have the rays travel on a closed trajectory as in Figure 1. Then the net gravitomagnetic time delay for a closed loop in the positive sense (i.e. counterclockwise) is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^+=\frac{2}{c^3}𝐀_g𝑑𝐱=\frac{2}{c^3}𝐁_𝐠𝑑𝐒,$$
(10)
which is simply proportional to the gravitomagnetic flux threaded by a surface $`S`$ whose boundary is the closed loop under consideration 111 It is interesting to note that the direct echo delay (i.e. when the loop degenerates to a line) vanishes in the gravitomagnetic case as the effective area is zero.. Imagine now a point $`P`$ on the trajectory (cf. Figure 1). If the rays travel along the same path but in the opposite direction, the net gravitoelectric time delay measured at $`P`$ will be the same while the gravitomagnetic time delay will change sign, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^+`$. Thus the total time difference at $`P`$ for the rays to go around the loop in opposite directions is given by

$$t_+t_{}=\frac{4}{c^3}𝐀_g𝑑𝐱=\frac{4}{c^3}𝐁_𝐠𝑑𝐒.$$
(11)
A different derivation of this result based on the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in the gravitational field of a rotating mass is contained in ref.  222A sign error in this reference must be corrected: In ref. , the relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=\omega (t_+t_{})`$ contains an errant minus sign. Therefore in equations (20), (21) and related discussion in section 3 of , the sign of $`t_+t_{}`$ has to be reversed..

Let us now estimate this time difference for the case of GPS signals traveling around the Earth. We find that $`t_+t_{}8\pi GJ_{}/(c^4R_{})10^{16}`$ sec. By contrast, the Shapiro time delay amounts to $`2\times 10^{10}`$ sec for clocks in GPS orbit , , so that this gravitoelectric effect may be measurable in the near future. In such an experiment, the time of flight of the signal is monitored and eventually measured by a control station on the Earth , . The corresponding gravitomagnetic effect is about two million times smaller and can be completely neglected at present. Other very small angular momentum effects in laboratory-based optical interferometry experiments have been studied in , .

## 3 Gravitomagnetic time delay

In this section, we provide explicit formulas for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$ for the case of radiation crossing a slowly rotating thin shell of matter as well as propagating in the exterior field of a distant rotating mass.

In electrodynamics, the magnetic vector potential inside a spherical shell of uniform charge density with total charge $`Q`$ and radius $`R_0`$ rotating with constant frequency $`\omega `$ is given by $`𝐀=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\times 𝐫`$, where $`𝐁=\frac{2}{3}Q𝝎/(cR_0)`$ is the uniform magnetic field inside the shell. The corresponding electric field vanishes. Therefore, the gravitomagnetic vector potential inside a uniform shell of mass $`M`$, radius $`R_0`$ and rotational frequency $`𝝎`$ is ,

$$𝐀_g=\frac{2GM}{3cR_0}𝝎\times 𝐫,$$
(12)
where the center of the shell is the spatial origin of a background inertial frame. Thus inside the shell $`𝐁_g=4GM𝝎/(3cR_0)`$ and $`𝐄_g=0`$. The gravitomagnetic time delay is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=\frac{4GM}{3c^4R_0}𝝎_{P_1}^{P_2}𝐫\times 𝑑𝐫.$$
(13)
Let $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ be the two points on the spherical shell indicating the points at which the ray enters and leaves the sphere, respectively. Then a simple calculation shows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=\frac{4GMR_0}{3c^4}𝝎(\widehat{𝐫}_1\times \widehat{𝐫}_2),$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{𝐫}_1`$ and $`\widehat{𝐫}_2`$ are unit vectors indicating the positions of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, respectively, from the center of the sphere. Note that the result vanishes if $`𝝎`$, $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ are in the same plane; in particular, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=0`$ if the ray passes through the center of the spherical shell.

Let us next consider the exterior field of a rotating mass with its center of mass at the origin of spatial coordinates such that $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ are both much larger than $`2GM/c^2`$; then, neglecting higher-order multipole moments we find that 333The general expression for the gravitomagnetic time delay in the gravitational field of higher-spin multipole moments of a stationary rotating body was derived in , equation (43). A sign error in formula (43) must be corrected: the overall sign of this expression must be reversed.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=\frac{2G}{c^4}_{P_1}^{P_2}\frac{𝐉(𝐫\times d𝐫)}{r^3}.$$
(15)
A detailed, but straightforward, calculation shows that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}=\frac{2GJ}{c^4}\left(\frac{1}{r_1}+\frac{1}{r_2}\right)\frac{\widehat{𝐉}(\widehat{𝐫}_1\times \widehat{𝐫}_2)}{1+\widehat{𝐫}_1\widehat{𝐫}_2}.$$
(16)
Thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$ also vanishes in this case if $`𝐉,𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ are in the same plane.

Let us note that equation (16) is exact and holds in general for the exterior of any spherically symmetric slowly rotating mass with constant $`𝐉`$. Moreover, let $`d`$ be the impact parameter of the light ray; then, when $`r_1/d>>1`$ and $`r_2/d>>1`$ it is possible to show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}4G𝐉\widehat{𝐧}/(c^4d)`$, where $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is a unit vector normal to the plane formed by $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ and directed along $`𝐫_1\times 𝐫_2`$. Extending this calculation to the case in which the source is a thin rotating spherical shell of constant radius $`R_0`$ and the light ray penetrates the shell such that the portion of the ray inside the shell subtends an angle $`\phi `$ at the center of the shell, we find from equations (14) and (16) that for $`r_1>>R_0`$ and $`r_2>>R_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}4G𝐉\widehat{𝐧}f(\phi )/(c^4d)`$, where $`f(\phi )=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\pi \phi }{4}\right)+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}\phi `$ varies from $`f(0)=1`$ to $`f(\pi )=0`$ as $`\phi :0\pi `$. The impact parameter of the ray is given by $`d=R_0\mathrm{cos}\frac{\phi }{2}`$, so that for $`\phi =0`$ we recover the previous expression for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$.

In two recent papers , , the gravitomagnetic time delay in different images due to gravitational lensing has been studied and a derivation of the time delay due to the spin of an external shell has been presented. These results, together with a discussion of the separability of time delays of different origin in the images, demonstrate that the gravitomagnetic time delay would in principle be measurable in the near future. In particular, the gravitomagnetic time delay must be taken into account in the analysis of gravitational lensing time delay of some extragalactic sources, since the estimated $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$ may exceed the present measurement uncertainty of $`0.5`$ day in the lensing time delay; we discuss this issue in section 5. Further measurement aspects of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$ are explored in , . It is hoped that the measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}`$ might provide information about the existence and distribution of rotating dark matter.

It would be interesting to estimate how much of the gravitational time delay between any two local points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ could be due to the cosmological content of the universe. To this end, we consider the development of a Fermi coordinate system in the neighborhood of a fundamental geodesic observer in the standard FLRW model . At an epoch with Hubble “constant” $`H`$, the gravitational time delay over any local distance $`r`$ compared to $`r/c`$ is of the order $`H^2r^2/c^2`$, which is negligibly small. A similar estimate holds for a rotating universe model as explained in the next section.

## 4 Gödel universe

The metric of the stationary and spatially homogeneous Gödel universe can be expressed as

$$ds^2=dt^22\sqrt{2}U(x)dtdy+dx^2U^2(x)dy^2+dz^2,$$
(17)
where $`U(x)=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }x)`$ and we use units such that $`c=1`$ unless specified otherwise. It turns out that for this metric the Ricci curvature is given by $`R_{\mu \nu }=2\mathrm{\Omega }^2u_\mu u_\nu `$, where $`u^\mu =\delta _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0}}^\mu `$ is the velocity vector of a particle at rest in space and coincides with the timelike Killing vector $`_t`$. The physical content of this model may be thought of as a perfect fluid with velocity $`u^\mu `$ and constant density and pressure given by $`\rho =p=\mathrm{\Omega }^2/(8\pi G)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_z`$ is the vorticity vector associated with the geodesic worldlines of the fluid. Alternatively, the universe could be filled with dust of constant density $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2/(4\pi G)`$ together with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ .

To study the influence of this rotating cosmos on the local physics, we establish a Fermi normal coordinate system in the neighborhood of a standard observer in this model. Imagine therefore an observer at rest in space and comoving with the fluid; then, the observer follows a geodesic and its velocity vector $`u^\mu =\lambda _{(0)}^\mu `$ is the temporal axis of an orthonormal tetrad frame $`\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu `$ that is parallel transported along the geodesic. In $`(t,x,y,z)`$ coordinates, such a tetrad is given by

$`\lambda _{(0)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(1,0,0,0),`$ (18)
$`\lambda _{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(1)}^\mu \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(2)}^\mu \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (19)
$`\lambda _{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(1)}^\mu \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(2)}^\mu \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (20)
$`\lambda _{(3)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,0,1),`$ (21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(1)}^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(2)}^\mu `$ are defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(1)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0,0),`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{(2)}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{2},0,U^1(x),0).`$ (23)
Here the rotation of the orthonormal triad $`\lambda _{(i)}^\mu ,i=1,2,3`$, representing ideal gyroscope directions characterizing the spatial Fermi frame, about the $`z`$-axis with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has been made explicit. The Fermi coordinate system assigns coordinates $`X^\mu =(T,X,Y,Z)`$ to an event $`P`$ in the neighborhood of the geodesic worldline under consideration as follows : there exists a unique spacelike geodesic connecting $`P`$ to the worldline at $`P_0`$ such that the two paths are orthogonal at $`P_0`$, i.e. $`\lambda _{(0)}^\mu \eta _\mu =0`$, where $`\eta _\mu `$ is the unit tangent vector to the spacelike geodesic at $`P_0`$. Let $`\tau `$ be the proper time of the observer at $`P_0,\sigma `$ be the proper length of the spacelike geodesic segment $`P_0P`$ and $`C_i=\eta _\mu \lambda _{(i)}^\mu `$ be the direction cosines of this segment with respect to the observer’s triad at $`P_0`$. Then $`T=\tau ,X=\sigma C_1,Y=\sigma C_2`$ and $`Z=\sigma C_3`$. In these Fermi coordinates, the spacetime in the neighborhood of the observer is Minkowskian except for the cosmic tidal influence expressed by the gravitational potential $`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, i.e. $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+{}_{}{}^{F}h_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, where

$`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{00}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`^FR_{0i0j}X^iX^j,`$ (24)
$`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{0i}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{0jik}^{}X^jX^k,`$ (25)
$`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{}_{}{}^{F}R_{ikjl}^{}X^kX^l.`$ (26)
Here the Riemann curvature components are the projections of the Riemann tensor on the tetrad of the observer

$${}_{}{}^{F}R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^{}=R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\lambda _{(\alpha )}^\mu \lambda _{(\beta )}^\nu \lambda _{(\gamma )}^\rho \lambda _{(\delta )}^\sigma .$$
(27)
It turns out that all of the nonzero components of the Riemann tensor in $`x^\mu =(t,x,y,z)`$ coordinates can be obtained from

$`R_{0101}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2,R_{0202}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2U^2(x),`$ (28)
$`R_{0112}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2U(x),R_{1212}=3\mathrm{\Omega }^2U^2(x),`$ (29)
using the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. It follows that in the Fermi coordinates all of the nonzero components are given by

$${}_{}{}^{F}R_{0101}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{0202}^{}={}_{}{}^{F}R_{1212}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$
(30)
via the symmetries of the Riemann tensor. Thus

$`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{00}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(X^2+Y^2),{}_{}{}^{F}h_{11}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y^2,`$ (31)
$`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{12}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{F}h_{21}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2XY,{}_{}{}^{F}h_{22}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2X^2,`$ (32)
are the only nonzero components of the gravitational potential and the metric at this linear order is given by

$`ds^2=`$ $``$ $`\left[1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2(X^2+Y^2)\right]dT^2+dX^2+dY^2+dZ^2`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(XdYYdX)^2.`$
It is now straightforward to compute the gravitational time delay (4) using the relations (31) - (32). The result is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{G}\ddot{\mathrm{o}}\mathrm{del}}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6c^3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{[𝛀(𝐑_1\times 𝐑_2)]^2}{|𝐑_1𝐑_2|}}+|𝐑_1𝐑_2|[(𝛀\times 𝐑_1)^2`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`(𝛀\times 𝐑_2)^2+(𝛀\times 𝐑_1)(𝛀\times 𝐑_2)]\},`$
where $`𝛀=\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{𝐙}`$ and $`𝐑_1`$ and $`𝐑_2`$ are the position vectors of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$, respectively.

The relative time delay for a signal from the observer $`(𝐑_1=0)`$ to a local distance $`R`$ compared to $`R/c`$ is thus given by $`(𝛀\times 𝐑)^2/c^2`$, which is negligibly small on the basis of the current upper limit of $`\mathrm{\Omega }10^{24}`$ sec-1 on the possible rate of rotation of the universe , .

## 5 Gravitomagnetic time delay and gravitational lensing

In gravitational lensing, depending upon the relative position and distance of the source, observer and deflecting mass, several images of the same source may be observed. Numerous examples of gravitational lensing have been discovered; a well-known case is the gravitational lens Q2237 + 0305, or Einstein Cross, where the path of light from a quasar estimated to be at a distance of approximately 8 billion light years is bent by the gravitational field of a galaxy estimated to be at a distance of about 400 million light years. This light bending produces four images of the same quasar as observed from the Earth , .

The gravitomagnetic time delay due to the spin of an astrophysical object might then be detected in different images of the same source by gravitational lensing. Time delay in the images may be generated by the spins of the deflecting object and of other bodies around the path of the light rays, e.g. by the spin of an external rotating mass.

Let us estimate the spin time delay corresponding to some astrophysical configurations. For simplicity, to derive the order of magnitude of the gravitomagnetic time delay we assume that the source, lens and observer are aligned. Nevertheless, there is an additional time delay, called geometrical time delay , due to the different geometrical paths followed by different rays. Depending on the geometry of the system, this additional term may be very large and may be the main source of time delay. However, if we compare the time delay of photons that follow the same geometrical path we can neglect the geometrical time delay, as in the case of two light rays with the same impact parameter but on different sides of the deflecting object. For a small deflection angle, the contribution to the travel time delay from the deflected path length traveled is of the second order in the deflecting potentials; however, depending on the geometrical configuration considered, this delay may need to be included in the total time delay. Here, for simplicity, we neglect any geometrical time delay. Furthermore, there is a relative time delay due to the quadrupole moment of the central mass distribution. It is shown in  how, in the special case of multiple images of the source with the same impact parameter, propagating along the same axis, one may in principle have enough observables to solve for the angular momentum $`J`$ and mass $`M`$ of the central deflecting body by eliminating the time delay due to the unknown quadrupole moment. Of course, for other configurations in which the source is not exactly aligned with the lens and the observer, the difference in the paths traveled and the corresponding difference in the Shapiro time delay can be the main source of relative time delay; one would then need to model and remove these delays between the different images on the basis of the observed geometry of the system.

Let us now calculate the time delay due to the spin of some astrophysical sources. For the Sun, $`GM_{}/c^21.477`$ km and $`R_{}6.96\times 10^5`$ km, by considering two light rays traveling on the equatorial plane with impact parameters $`bR_{}`$ and $`b`$, the relative gravitomagnetic time delay from formula (16) is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}=8GJ/(c^4b)1.54\times 10^{11}`$ sec. The time delay due to spin of the Sun could then, in principle, be measured using an interferometer at a distance of about $`8\times 10^{10}`$ km by detecting the gravitationally deflected photons emitted by a laser on the side of the Sun opposite the detector and traveling on opposite sides of the Sun to the interferometer. To derive the time delay due to the lensing galaxy of the Einstein Cross , , we assume a simple model for the rotation and shape of the central object. Details about this model can be found in . The angular separation between the four images is about $`0.9^{\prime \prime }`$, corresponding to a radius of closest approach of about $`650h_{75}^1`$ pc, and the mass inside a shell with this radius is $`1.4\times 10^{10}h_{75}^1M_{}`$ . Let us assume that $`GJ/c^310^{23}h_{75}^2`$ km2, we then have from formula (16) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}=8GJ/(c^4b)4`$ min. Thus, at least in principle, one could measure the time delay due to the spin of the lensing galaxy; of course, as in the case of the Sun, one should be able to model with sufficient accuracy and remove all the other delays due to other physical effects from the observed time delays between the images. As a third example we consider the relative time delay of photons due to the spin of a typical cluster of galaxies of mass $`M_C10^{14}M_{}`$, radius $`R_C5`$ Mpc and angular velocity $`\omega _C10^{18}`$ sec-1; depending on the geometry of the system and on the path followed by the photons, we then find relative time delays ranging from a few minutes to several days .

Especially interesting is the case of gravitomagnetic time delay due to the rotation of an external sphere. Let us now calculate the time delay in the travel time of photons propagating inside a rotating shell corresponding to some astrophysical configurations. In the case of the Einstein Cross , in order to get an order of magnitude of the effect, we assume that the lensing galaxy has a radius $`R5`$ kpc; after some calculations based on the model given in  and integrating formula (14), the relative time delay of two photons traveling at distances of $`650`$ pc on opposite sides from the center is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}20`$ min. If the lensing galaxy is inside a rotating cluster, or super-cluster of galaxies, to get an order of magnitude of the time delay due to the spin of the mass rotating around the deflecting galaxy, we use typical super-cluster parameters: total mass $`M=10^{15}M_{}`$, radius $`R=70`$ Mpc and angular velocity $`\omega =2\times 10^{18}`$ sec-1 . If the galaxy is in the center of the cluster and light rays have impact parameters $`15`$ kpc (of the order of the Milky Way radius), the time delay, in the case of constant density $`\rho `$ can be determined by integrating formula (14) and the result is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}1`$ day.

Finally, if the lensing galaxy is not at the center of the cluster of radius $`R`$ but at a distance $`aR`$ from the center, with $`0a1`$, by integrating formula (14) between the impact parameter $`raR`$ and $`R`$, we find that when the impact parameters $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ of two light rays are approximately equal

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}=\frac{8GM\omega }{3c^4}(r_1r_2)(1a^2)^{1/2}(14a^2).$$
(35)
Thus, if the lensing galaxy is at a distance of 10 Mpc from the center of the cluster, the relative time delay due to the spin of the external rotating mass between two photons with $`r_1r_230`$ kpc is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{GM}^{\mathrm{rel}}0.9`$ day.

Promising candidates to observe the time delay due to spin are systems of the type of the gravitational lens B0218+357 , where the separation angle between the images is so small, 335 milliarcsec for B0218+357, that the time delay between the images is also very small, about 10.5 days for the two images of this system. In such cases, the total time delay is comparable, for a favorable configuration, to the time delay due to spin. In addition, an Einstein ring is observed in the system B0218+357 and the diameter of the ring is the same as the separation of the images. In such a configuration, the Einstein ring can provide strong constraints on the mass distribution in the lens; in turn, this can be extremely useful in order to distinguish time delays of different origin. Since the present measurement uncertainty in the lensing time delay is of the order of 0.5 day, the gravitomagnetic time delay might already be observable . For example in the system B0218+357 the measured delay is 10.5$`\pm `$0.4 day. This measurement is possible because the source is a strongly variable radio object, thus one can determine the time delay of the variations in the images. In the case of B0218+357 it is possible to observe distinct variations in the total flux density, percentage polarization and the polarization position angle at two frequencies.

## 6 Discussion

Time delay plays an important role in classical wave scattering as well as quantum scattering theory (see  for a recent comprehensive survey of this subject). Here we have confined our attention to the propagation of radiation in the JWKB limit, i.e. null rays, in a gravitational field that is considered only to linear order. We have then derived expressions for the gravitomagnetic time delay of null rays propagating inside a spinning shell and in the field of rotating masses.

Since we have shown that there may be an appreciable time delay due to the spin of a body, or external shell, we draw the following conclusions.

The gravitomagnetic time delay should be taken into account in the modeling of relative time delays of the images of a source observed at a far point by gravitational lensing. This effect is due to the propagation of the photons in opposite directions with respect to the sense of the spin of the body, or external rotating shell.

If other time delays can be modeled with sufficient accuracy and removed from the observational data, the larger relative delay due to the quadrupole moment of the lensing body can be removed, at least in principle and for some configurations of the images, by using special combinations of the observables; thus, one could directly measure the spin time delay due to the gravitomagnetic field of the lensing body. In order to estimate the relevance of the spin time delay in some real astrophysical configurations, we have considered some possible astrophysical cases. We have studied the relative time delay in the gravitational lensing images caused by a typical rotating galaxy or a cluster of galaxies. We have also analyzed the relative gravitomagnetic time delay when the path of photons is inside a galaxy, a cluster or a super-cluster of galaxies rotating around the deflecting body; this effect should be large enough to be detectable from the Earth.

The measurement of the gravitomagnetic time delay due to the angular momentum of an external massive rotating sphere might be a further observable for the determination of the total mass-energy of the external body, i.e. of the dark matter content of galaxies, clusters and super-clusters of galaxies. Indeed, by measuring the gravitomagnetic time delay one can determine the total angular momentum of the rotating body and thus, by estimating the contribution of the visible part, one can determine its dark-matter content.

These estimates are preliminary because we need to apply the gravitomagnetic time delay to some particular, known, gravitational-lensing images. Furthermore, we need to estimate the size and the possibility of modeling of the other sources of time delay. Nevertheless, depending on the geometry of the astrophysical system considered, we conclude that the relative gravitomagnetic time delay may be an already observable effect.


text:
# Abstract

## Abstract

We calculate the fluctuation of the energy of a system in Tsallis statistics following the finite heat bath canonical ensemble approach. We obtain this fluctuation as the second derivative of the logarithm of the partition function plus an additional term. We also find an explicit expression for the relative fluctuation as related to the number of degrees of freedom of the bath and the composite system.

## 1 Introduction

Tsallis’ statistics, or generalized statistics, represents today a very rich field of research. Since its proposal in 1988 by Tsallis , many developments and applications were made in order to give it a physical background. Some examples are found in studies of Lévy flights , particle physics , and turbulence . The interpretation relates the parameter $`q`$ to the fluctuation of some other important physical property . Hence, many researchers consider it as the right framework to describe these phenomena.
We follow the canonical ensemble with the finite heat bath approach. This approach was first proposed by Plastino and Plastino  and further confirmed by Almeida , who gave it a strong mathematical background. In this last reference, the author introduced the equation:

$$\frac{d}{dE_i}\left(\frac{1}{\beta _i}\right)=q_i1$$
(1)
where $`\beta _i`$ is given by the Boltzmann principle allowing the calculation of the $`q`$ parameter of Tsallis’ statistics, for any system, isolated or not. We adopt a convention in the present work: since we are dealing with a canonical ensemble, we have three systems, the composed, the studied and the heat bath. Then, any quantities pertaining to these systems are labeled by $`0`$, $`1`$ and $`2`$, respectively.
This is a natural consequence of the structure function formalism , and its connexion to Tsallis’ statistical mechanics can be better understood in the following references, where some issues were treated recently: .
In this work, another issue is tackled. We propose to generalize the calculations of the energy fluctuation within the canonical ensemble. Since the interpretation of the parameter $`q`$ relies on fluctuations, we wish to calculate the fluctuation of an important quantity in a canonical ensemble, the system’s energy $`E_1`$. But first, we will revisit the main results in the ordinary picture.
In the Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics, particularly the canonical ensemble approach, we have a general composed system and we wish to study just a small part of it. The rest of the composed system is called the heat bath, and it is responsible for maintaining the temperature constant. Since the temperature is a constant, so is the small part average energy, but the system energy still fluctuates around the mean value, and the quantities defined previously can give an estimate of these fluctuations. If they are sufficiently small, we can have great confidence in the theory results.
The dispersion of the energy is given, in the canonical ensemble, by the following relation, :

$$<\mathrm{\Delta }E^2>=\frac{^2lnZ}{^2\beta }$$
(2)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function and $`\beta =\frac{1}{k_BT}`$ and $`<\mathrm{\Delta }E^2>=<E^2><E>^2`$. The relative fluctuation reads, :

$$\frac{<\mathrm{\Delta }E^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}}{<E>}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$$
(3)
Therefore, we can conclude that if the number of particles of the system is very great, then its energy will be almost all the time very close to its mean value $`<E>`$, hence confirming the validity of statistical mechanics.
We will show that, in the generalized picture, the numbers of degrees of freedom of the heat bath and of the composite system play a more important role in the measure of these fluctuations.
Another important result will be related to the derivative of $`lnZ_1`$. We will show that the dispersion of energy is still given by equation (2), but now we have the appearance of other term, proportional to $`<E_1>^2`$.
All these developments will be made in section 2. In section 3, we will illustrate these ideas with a very simple situation, two ideal gases in equilibrium. Finally, we will address our conclusions.

## 2 Calculation of fluctuations

In Tsallis’ picture we have a different energy probability density, which is not given by an exponential function, but by a power law in the form:

$$P(E_1)=\frac{1}{Z_1}\left[1(q_21)\beta ^{}E_1\right]^{1/(q_21)}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)$$
(4)
where the parameter $`\beta ^{}`$ is related to the physical temperature by:

$$(q_21)\beta ^{}=\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{1}{k_BT}$$

and we put a star on it to stress that it is not the Lagrange multiplier associated with the entropy optimization problem, as stated in . $`Z_1`$ is the partition function, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)`$ is the system’s structure function. In general the structure function is defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_i(E_i)=\frac{q_i}{q_i1}C_iE_i^{\frac{1}{q_i1}},$$

where the label $`i`$ represents the i-system
As was already stated, we do not use $`q`$-average values , we choose the ordinary one, defined by the following relation:

$$<f(E_1)>=f(E_1)P(E_1)𝑑E_1$$
(5)
where this integral, and all others to come, unless otherwise noted, must be calculated with the condition on the energy that avoids the distribution $`P(E_1)`$ to have negative values, the Tsallis’ cut-off condition. This condition has a simple physical interpretation in this approach: it means that the system’s energy cannot be greater than the energy of the whole composite system, that is $`E_1E_0`$, .
Let us calculate the energy mean-square fluctuation of the energy. First of all, we know that the temperature, $`k_BT`$, is proportional to the energy per degree of freedom of a system :

$$k_BT=\frac{E_0}{q_0/(q_01)}=\frac{<E_1>}{q_1/(q_11)}=\frac{<E_2>}{q_2/(q_21)}$$
(6)
This is the well known equipartition theorem .
Hence, the energy second moment is calculated as follows: using (4), the relation for $`\beta ^{}`$ and the system structure function:

$$<E_1^2>=\frac{\left(1\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1^{\frac{1}{q_11}+2}𝑑E_1}{\left(1\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1^{\frac{1}{q_11}}𝑑E_1}$$

These integrals yield beta functions:

$$<E_1^2>=E_0^2\frac{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11}+2,\frac{q_2}{q_21})}{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11},\frac{q_2}{q_21})}$$
(7)
With the knowledge of this quantity, we are able to calculate the energy dispersion. By using the properties of the beta functions and equation (5), we obtain for $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>`$:

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>=\frac{q_0/(q_01)}{q_1/(q_11)}\frac{q_1/(q_11)+1}{q_0/(q_01)+1}<E_1>^2<E_1>^2$$

Using the additivity of the degrees of freedom:

$$\frac{q_0}{q_01}=\frac{q_1}{q_11}+\frac{q_2}{q_21}$$
(8)
we obtain the relative fluctuation of $`E_1`$:

$$\frac{<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}}{<E_1>}=\left[\frac{q_2/(q_21)}{q_0/(q_01)+1}\frac{1}{q_1/(q_11)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(9)
Comparing to equation (3) we see that it still preserves the inverse square root dependence in the number of components of the studied system, since the quantity $`q_1/(q_11)`$ is proportional to it. But, now, this constant of proportionality is not trivial. We have a dependence on the degrees of freedom of the whole system and the bath, represented by the $`q_0`$ and $`q_2`$. Although this happens, we still arrive at relation (3) in the limit $`q_21`$ since, by equation (8), when the above mentioned limit is taken, the limit $`q_01`$ is implied.
There is another way of calculating this relative fluctuation, which is to relate it to the system’s partition function $`Z_1`$. This is the standard procedure in Boltzmann-Gibbs (BG) statistics. We start with the definition of the energy second moment:

$$<E_1^2>=\frac{\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1^2\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1}{\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1}$$

We know that:

$$<E_1^2>=\frac{q_21}{q_2}\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{1}{Z_1}\frac{}{(1/k_BT)}\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{q_2}{q_21}}E_1\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1$$

This expression can be rewritten as:

$$<E_1^2>=\frac{q_21}{q_2}\frac{q_0}{q_01}\frac{1}{Z_1}\frac{}{(1/k_BT)}\times $$

$$\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)E_1\left(1\frac{q_01}{q_0}\frac{E_1}{k_BT}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1$$

Using equations (5) and (6), we arrive at the dispersion of the energy:

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>=\frac{^2lnZ_1}{(1/k_BT)^2}\frac{q_1/(q_11)+1}{q_1/(q_11)[q_0/(q_01)+1]}<E_1>^2$$
(10)
We notice the difference between this result and the usual BG one, the last term on the right hand side of equation (10). When we take the infinite bath limit, $`q_21`$, the total number of degrees of freedom goes to infinity as well, by relation (8) $`q_01`$, and this last term vanishes.
It is a simple algebra task to show that this equation leads to relation (9) for the system’s relative fluctuation, assuming the equipartition of energy.
It was shown  that the usual mean values have the same relations with the partition function within this approach and the BG one. All of them are related in the same fashion to $`lnZ_1`$ and its derivatives. Here, the dispersion of energy is still related to the second derivative of $`lnZ_1`$, but another term comes up, which is a function of the degrees of freedom of the system and of the composite one. Why we have such a difference? The answer lies in the fact that this approach and the BG one have identical energy first moments, equipartition of energy, but this fact does not repeat in higher moments. This can be shown by a direct calculation of the $`n`$th moment of the energy within both approaches. We will start with the Tsallis formalism.
The $`n`$th moment of the energy is given by:

$$<E_1^n>=\frac{\left(1\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}E_1^n\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1}{\left(1\frac{E_1}{E_0}\right)^{\frac{1}{q_21}}\mathrm{\Omega }_1(E_1)𝑑E_1}$$
(11)
It readily gives:

$$<E_1^n>=E_0^n\frac{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11}+n,\frac{q_2}{q_21})}{B(\frac{q_1}{q_11},\frac{q_2}{q_21})}$$
(12)
Using the properties of the beta function, we write this expression as:

$$<E_1^n>=\frac{\left(q_1/(q_11)+n1\right)\mathrm{}\left(q_1/(q_11)+1\right)q_1/(q_11)}{\left(q_0/(q_01)+n1\right)\mathrm{}\left(q_0/(q_01)+1\right)q_0/(q_01)}E_0^n$$

In the BG framework, we define the mean value of a function as:

$$<f>=\frac{e^{\beta E}f\mathrm{\Omega }(E)𝑑E}{e^{\beta E}\mathrm{\Omega }(E)𝑑E}$$

Here, we do not need to worry with the cut-off condition, since the whole energy is infinite, according to the BG approach. Then, the $`n`$th moment of the energy is given by the next equation:

$$<E^n>=\frac{1}{\beta ^n}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{q_1}{q_11}+n\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{q_1}{q_11}\right)}$$

Once again, using the properties of the gamma function and the value of $`\beta `$, we have:

$$<E^n>=\left(q_1/(q_11)+n1\right)\mathrm{}\left(q_1/(q_11)+1\right)q_1/(q_11)(k_BT)^n$$
(13)
Indeed, equations (11) and (13) have equal energy first moments. In fact, for $`n=1`$ in (11), we have:

$$<E_1>=\frac{q_1}{q_11}\frac{E_0}{q_0/(q_01)}=\frac{q_1}{q_11}k_BT$$

with the help of equation (6). Also, for $`n=1`$, equation (13) yields:

$$<E_1>=\frac{q_1}{q_11}k_BT$$

We note a close resemblance with expression (12). In fact, the $`n`$th power of $`k_BT`$ is the approximate expression of the product:

$$(k_BT)^n=\underset{q_01}{lim}\frac{E_0^n}{\left(q_0/(q_01)+n1\right)\mathrm{}\left(q_0/(q_01)+1\right)q_0/(q_01)}$$

This happens because when we take this limit, the quotient $`\frac{q_01}{q_0}`$ becomes much larger than the greatest value of $`n`$ in the product, provided we choose $`n`$ not to be of the magnitude of the quotient.
Now if we allow the number of degrees of freedom of the system to be also great, much larger than the number $`n1,`$ we end up with the final moment in both approaches:

$$<E_1^n>=<E_1>^n,$$

recovering the equivalence between the canonical and the microcanonical ensembles.

## 3 Application

To illustrate our results, we take a system which is composed of two ideal gases. This composed system has $`\frac{q_0}{q_01}`$ degrees of freedom, and each component gas has $`\frac{q_1}{q_11}`$ and $`\frac{q_2}{q_21}`$ degrees of freedom. Before we proceed, a word must be said about the treatment of this system in Tsallis’ framework. Within our approach, any system which is in thermal equilibrium with a finite heat bath, i. e., a bath where $`q_21`$, has a probability density given by equation (4). Hence we do not need to have non-trivial effects, such as long range interactions or fractality for a system to exibith power law behavior. There is a common belief that these last effects are responsible for such framework to arise.
Our approach relies on another fact, the finiteness of the heat bath. Therefore, the main point in our framework is that any system in thermal equilibrium with a heat bath which have a finite number of degrees of freedom, $`q_21`$, has an energy density given by Tsallis power law function. If we take two finite ideal gases and make them interact and achieve the equilibrium situation, then we can use Tsallis statistics to study this problem.
We know, from the geometry of the phase space  and equation (1), that the following relations are valid for an ideal gas:

$$\frac{q_i}{q_i1}=\frac{DN_i}{2}$$
(14)
where $`N_i`$ is the number of particles in the $`i`$-th gas and $`D`$ is the spatial dimension.
Using equation (9), we have:

$$\frac{<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}}{<E_1>}=\left(\frac{N_2}{\frac{D}{2}N_0+1}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_1}}$$
(15)
which is still proportional to the inverse square root of the number of particles in the studied gas. It is important to strees two properties of this relative fluctuation.
The first one regards the infinite bath limit, $`N_2\mathrm{}`$. When we take this limit, it is implied that the total number of particles oes to infinity as well, $`N_0\mathrm{}`$. Then, the proportionality constant will be reduced to $`\left(\frac{2}{D}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, which is the constant obtained in the BG context.
The second regards the magnitude of the number of particles. If $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ are of the same order of magnitude, this relative fluctuation will be proportional to the inverse of the total number of particles. Therefore, it will only be small if this total number of particles is large. For example, if we have the numbers: $`N_1=2`$, $`N_2=4`$ and $`D=2`$, the fluctuation of energy will be given by:

$$\frac{<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}}{<E_1>}=\left(\frac{2}{7}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}0.534$$

This means that when we decrease the number of degrees of freedom of the thermal bath the energy flutuaction increases. As another exemple if we take a system with $`N_1=2000`$, $`N_2=4000`$ and $`D=2`$ we obtain:

$$\frac{<(\mathrm{\Delta }E_1)^2>^{\frac{1}{2}}}{<E_1>}0.018,$$

and now the energy fluctuation is small.

## 4 Conclusions

We showed that the relative fluctuation of the energy of a system in thermal equilibrium with a finite heat bath is given by a product of the number of degrees of freedom of the system, the heat bath, and the whole composite system.
We also showed that the dispersion of the energy still have a dependence on the second derivative of $`lnZ_1`$, but now a new term arises. This term is proportional to the square of the mean energy and vanishes properly in the infinite bath limit $`q_21`$.
These results show that, within this framework, the role played by the heat bath is more explicit than in the BG one. In this picture, the bath has the function of keeping the temperature constant and no other quantities related to it enter into the equations of the system with which it is in contact. Here, the number of degrees of freedom of the bath must be known in order to calculate the fluctuations of the energy. This fluctuation cannot be considered small for any system, only for large ones when this is an obvious fact.
We treated an example here, two finite ideal gases in themal equilibrium. The relative fluctuation of the system energy depends on the number of particles of the bath, $`N_2`$, and of the composed system, $`N_0`$. This fluctuation reduces to the result in BG statistics in the infite bath limit, $`N_2\mathrm{}`$. Also, if the number of particles of both gases are of the same magnitude, the relative fluctuation is only small if the total number of particles is large.

## 5 Acknowledgments

This work was supported by FUNCAP and CNPq. We also acknowledge J.E.Moreira for a critical reading of the manuscript