format: text

text:
# The Cauchy Problem of Lorentzian Minimal Surfaces in Globally Hyperbolic Manifolds

## 1 Introduction

In the search for a unified field theory of all interactions it is widely believed that a perturbative expansion of such a theory could be provided by String Theory. Its classical action, at least in the case of Closed Bosonic String Theory, is the area of a surface mapped into spacetime. As the latter one is supposed to have Lorentz signature the idea of a one-dimensional object moving through the space suggests that one should consider only mappings that induce a Lorentzian metric on the surface to get a consistent definition of area. While harmonic mappings of Lorentzian surfaces into Riemannian manifolds are a well-examined object since the pioneering work of Gu (), there seems to be no comparable global result in the double-Lorentzian case in the literature. All gradient estimates (a main tool in Gu’s paper) fail in this case because of the presence of the null cone, so one has to apply different methods. The result given by Shatah and Struwe in  is a local one without time estimates. The main result of this section is that the minimal surface problem is globally well-posed if we assume global hyperbolicity for the target manifold (which replaces in some sense the tacit assumption of bounded geometry in Gu’s paper). The solution will exist locally on the string worldsheet, but globally in the target space in the sense that the image will intersect any time slice in a standard way. The results extend earlier results of Thomas Deck () for static spacetimes.

The minimal surface problem for a Riemannian target space was solved by J.Douglas in the case of a flat target space () and by C.B.Morrey in the case of a general Riemannian manifold as target space (). The problem for flat Lorentzian target space is trivial as it consists basically in solving the linear wave equation. But in the case of non-flat Lorentzian target manifolds left- and rightmovers in the language of physics do not decouple any more such that the problem is more involved. We are going now to adress this remaining gap in the case of a globally hyperbolic target manifold giving an affirmative answer.

## 2 General facts

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a Lorentzian manifold of dimension $`n`$. We first recall some well-known facts about minimal surfaces.

###### Definition 1

The area of a map $`y:𝕊^1\times 𝕀M`$ for which the pulled-back metric is Lorentzian everywhere is defined to be

$$A(y):=_{(𝕊^1\times 𝕀,y^{}g)}1.$$

If $`y`$ is a critical point of the area functional in the space of smooth maps it is called minimal surface.

This functional has a lot of symmetries: it is invariant under diffeomorphisms of $`N`$.

###### Definition 2

Let $`(N,h)`$ be a two-dimensional Lorentzian manifold. A map $`y:SM`$ is called wave map iff it satisfies the following differential equation:

$$trdy=0$$

where the trace is understood with respect to the metric $`h`$ on $`N`$, that means in coordinates $`t,x`$ which are orthogonal at a point $`pN`$:

$$(_t)^2y^\alpha (_x)^2y^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)(_ty^\beta _ty^\gamma _xy^\beta _xy^\gamma )=0$$

at $`p`$.

Equivalently, we can write the equations in characteristic coordinates $`\xi :=x+t,\eta :=xt`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as

$$_\xi _\eta y^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)_\xi y^\beta _\eta y^\gamma =0.$$

###### Theorem 3

$`y`$ is a minimal surface iff it is a wave map with respect to $`y^{}g`$.

###### Definition 4

For a map $`y:(N,h)(M,g)`$ the energy $`E(y)`$ is defined as

$$E(y):=_{(N,h)}df,df$$

where the norm is the operator norm. If $`y`$ is a critical point of $`E`$ in the space of smooth maps it is called minimal-energy surface.

The energy is invariant under conformal changes of $`h`$. The next theorem is an immediate consequence from the Euler Lagrange equations:

###### Theorem 5

$`y`$ is a minimal energy surface iff it is a wave map and $`y^{}g`$ is conformally equivalent to $`H`$.

Thus, minimal energy surfaces are minimal surfaces, and while area and energy differ as functionals they have the same critical points. By diffeomorphism invariance and by the result of Kulkarni () that every Lorentzian metric on a cylinder wit Lorentzian ends can be linked by a diffeomorphism to a conformal multiple of the standard metric, we get

###### Theorem 6

$`y:𝕊^1\times [0,1]`$ is a minimal surface if it is a wave map w.r.t. the standard metric and if $`y^{}g`$ is conformally equivalent to the standard metric.

We will first focus on the first property: that $`y`$ be a wave map.

## 3 Wave maps. Local existence and uniqueness

We will look for wave maps $`y`$ from some subsets of the upper half Minkowski plane to $`M`$ with some initial values on the x-axis. Throughout the proof we will work in characteristic coordinates $`\xi :=\frac{t+x}{2}`$, $`\eta :=\frac{tx}{2}`$ on $`^{1,1}`$. Let $`\frac{y^\alpha }{\xi }=u^\alpha ,\frac{y^\alpha }{\eta }=v^\alpha `$. We will need an auxiliary Riemannian metric $`h=,^+`$ and an associated norm $`||.||`$ on $`M`$. Define, for every $`pM`$, $`R(p)`$ as the injectivity radius of $`h`$ at $`p`$, fix coordinate patches at every $`p`$ associated to these balls, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha `$ be the Christoffel symbols of the Levi-Civita connection of $`g`$ in the chosen coordinates, let $`G(p)`$ be the maximum of the operator norm (w.r.t. h) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ in the coordinate patch around $`p`$, similarly $`\underset{¯}{u},\underset{¯}{v}:=u_{C^1(\{t=0\})},v_{C^1(\{t=0\})}`$, respectively.

###### Theorem 7

Let $`M`$ be a Lorentzian manifold, let $`k=(k_0,k_1):TM`$ be a smooth curve of bounded derivatives, i.e. $`|_sk_i|c_{|s|}`$ for all $`s`$ and $`_xk_0,_xk_00k_1,k_1`$ everywhere. Let $`G(p)`$ be bounded by $`G(\delta )`$ in a neighborhood $`B_\delta (k_0)`$ of $`im(k_0)`$. Then there is a unique smooth map from a neighbourhood of the x-axis to $`M`$ which is a wave map and whose restriction and normal derivative at $`\{t=0\}`$ correspond to the given curve, i.e. $`y(0,x)=k_0(x)`$, $`_ty(0,x)=k_1(x)`$. Let $`R_k:=inf_{pim(k_0)}R(p)`$, $`L_k:=\mathrm{min}\{\frac{R_k}{5},\frac{1}{11G(\delta )},\frac{\delta }{5}\}`$, then the neighbourhood can be chosen as a small strip $`y:\{t[0,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}l]\}M`$ with $`l:=\frac{L_k}{(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})}`$. Note that if $`k`$ is a closed curve in $`TM`$ then $`l`$ is bounded from zero.

The theorem will be proved as an easy corollary of the same statement for small characteristic triangles based on the boundary curve $`\{t=0\}`$:

###### Lemma 8

Let $`M`$ be a Lorentzian manifold, let $`k=(k_0,k_1):TM`$ be as above, $`l`$ as above. Then for each characteristic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of base length $`l`$ there is a unique smooth map $`y:\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ which is a wave map and whose restriction and normal derivative at $`\{t=0\}`$ correspond to the given curve, i.e. $`y(0,x)=k_0(x)`$, $`_ty(0,x)=k_1(x)`$.

Proof. First note that the choice of $`l`$ as above assures that the image of each interval of length $`l`$ is contained in some coordinate patch as $`l\frac{R_k}{2_xk_0^+}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the triangular region spanned by the interval of length $`l`$ (which we call the base side $`a`$ of the triangle) and the characteristic lines beginning at the endpoints of the interval. For every point $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we define four special lines: The lines $`c_{p,\eta }`$ resp. $`c_{p,\xi }`$ are just the characteristic lines along the constant vector fields $`_\eta `$ resp. $`_\xi `$ ending at $`p`$ and beginning at the basis of the triangle at points we call $`p^{}`$ resp. $`p^{\prime \prime }`$ while the lines $`\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\eta }`$ resp. $`\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\xi }`$ are the lines on the base side from the left endpoint of the base side to $`p^{}`$ resp. $`p^{\prime \prime }`$. We use a way of splitting the differential equation similar to the one in Gu’s paper () and consider the following system of first-order ordinary differential equations of maps $`y,z,u,v,\widehat{u},\widehat{v}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`^n`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u^\alpha }{\eta }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)u^\beta \widehat{v}^\gamma =0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}^\alpha }{\eta }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)\widehat{u}^\beta v^\gamma =0,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v^\alpha }{\xi }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)\widehat{v}^\beta u^\gamma =0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{v}^\alpha }{\xi }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)v^\beta \widehat{u}^\gamma =0,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y^\alpha }{\xi }}=u^\alpha ,{\displaystyle \frac{y^\alpha }{\eta }}=v^\alpha ,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z^\alpha }{\xi }}=\widehat{u}^\alpha ,{\displaystyle \frac{z^\alpha }{\eta }}=\widehat{v}^\alpha `$
with initial conditions

$$y^\alpha (0,x)=z^\alpha (0,x)=k_0^\alpha (x),$$

$$u^\alpha (0,x)=\widehat{u}^\alpha (0,x)=\frac{k_0^\alpha (x)}{x}+k_1^\alpha (x),v^\alpha (0,x)=\widehat{v}^\alpha (0,x)=\frac{k_0^\alpha (x)}{x}+k_1^\alpha (x).$$

Note that for example the first equation of the system (3) corresponds to the invariant equation $`_\eta u=0`$ (with $``$ denoting the covariant derivative), an equation of parallel transport along $`\eta `$-lines. A solution of this system will give $`y=z`$ (because of uniqueness and symmetry of the equations under $`yz,u\widehat{u},v\widehat{v}`$) and therefore be a solution of the original problem. At this point we can forget about the Lorentzian metric $`g`$ that does not appear at all in the equations and use the Riemannian metric $`h`$ as long as we still keep the Christoffel symbols of $`g`$.

Now consider the following iteration procedure whose fix points are exactly the solutions of ( 3): Let $`(y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0,\widehat{u}_0,\widehat{v}_0)`$ be any system of maps satisfying the respective initial conditions and

$$\frac{y_0^\alpha }{\xi }=u_0^\alpha ,\frac{y_0^\alpha }{\eta }=v_0^\alpha ,\frac{z_0^\alpha }{\xi }=\widehat{u}_0^\alpha ,\frac{z_0^\alpha }{\eta }=\widehat{v}_0^\alpha $$

Now the iteration process

$`(y_m,z_m,u_m,v_m,\widehat{u}_m,\widehat{v}_m)(y_{m+1},z_{m+1},u_{m+1},v_{m+1},\widehat{u}_{m+1},\widehat{v}_{m+1})`$ is defined by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{m+1}^\alpha }{\eta }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_m)u_{m+1}^\beta \widehat{v}_m^\gamma =0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{u}_{m+1}^\alpha }{\eta }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y_m)\widehat{u}_{m+1}^\beta v_m^\gamma =0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_{m+1}^\alpha }{\xi }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_m)\widehat{v}_{m+1}^\beta u_m^\gamma =0,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{v}_{m+1}^\alpha }{\xi }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y_m)v_{m+1}^\beta \widehat{u}_m^\gamma =0`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_{m+1}^\alpha }{\xi }}=u_{m+1}^\alpha ,`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z_{m+1}^\alpha }{\eta }}=\widehat{v}_{m+1}^\alpha `$
Note that a fix point of this iteration procedure will also be $`(yz,u\widehat{u},v\widehat{v})`$-symmetric because of the initial conditions and

$$\frac{v}{\xi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)\widehat{v}u=\frac{u}{\eta }=\frac{y}{\eta \xi }$$

which yields $`v=\frac{y}{\eta }`$ and the other missing equation of system (3). It will therefore be a solution of the original problem. Now we consider only maps $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ which have the origin of our local coordinate system as the image of the left endpoint of the base side, thus we can forget about $`y,z`$ just by inserting

$$y_m(p)=_0^{l(c_{p,\xi })}u_m(c_{p,\xi }(t))𝑑t+_0^{l(\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\xi })}(\widehat{u}_m\widehat{v}_m)(\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\xi }(t))$$

$$z_m(p)=_0^{l(c_{p,\eta })}\widehat{v}_m(c_{p,\eta }(t))𝑑t+_0^{l(\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\eta })}(\widehat{u}_m\widehat{v}_m)(\underset{¯}{c}_{p,\eta }(t))$$

(every curve, defined as above, is parametrized by arc length in Euclidean $`^2`$, $`l`$ denotes the respective lengths). As stated above, this iteration procedure is well-defined and meaningful in the space of maps with different images of the base sides but one and the same image of the left endpoint of the base side. Nevertheless the initial data remain fixed during the iteration procedure, $`u_{m+1}|_{\{t=0\}}=u_m|_{\{t=0\}}`$ etc.; the corresponding operator taking $`r_m:=(u_m,v_m,\widehat{u}_m,\widehat{v}_m)`$ to $`r_{m+1}:=(u_{m+1},v_{m+1},\widehat{u}_{m+1},\widehat{v}_{m+1})`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3,\mathrm{\Phi }_4)`$. It is mapping $`C^1`$ maps to $`C^1`$ maps which is seen trivially from the defining equation for half of the coordinates, for the other half of coordinates use the usual theorems about differentiable dependence of ODE systems on parameters as in  , II. 13. V. From now on, we will omit the sequential index of the $`r_n`$; a subindex will now be related to $`r=(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)`$.

Now we have a special solution of the system (3) to compare with, namely the one with $`_t|_{t=0}y=\pm _x|_{t=0}y`$, i.e. with $`u=0=\widehat{u}`$ or $`v=0=\widehat{v}`$ everywhere, we decide for $`u=0=\widehat{u}`$. It is easy to see that this is a solution (for a different initial value curve $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$, but still $`\stackrel{~}{k}_0=k_0`$), we call it $`s:=(0,V,0,V)`$ (with $`V:=(vu)|_{\{t=0\}}`$). Its image is one-dimensional, namely the chosen interval of the curve $`k_0`$; as it is a solution, it is a fix point of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$: $`\mathrm{\Phi }((0,V,0,V))=(0,V,0,V)`$. Moreover, as we assumed $`l\frac{R_k}{2uv_{\{t=0\}}^+}`$, $`l`$ is so small that the whole image of the base of the triangle is contained in some coordinate patch with distance $`\frac{R_k}{2}`$ from its boundary, thus we have a ball-shaped coordinate patch $`B`$ containing the image of $`s`$ with

$$dist(im(s),B)\frac{R_k}{2}$$
(3)
Now consider the affine subspace $`M(r):=\{fC^1(\mathrm{\Delta },(^n)^4)|f|_a=r|_a\}`$, define seminorms $`||.||_j`$ of maps from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`(^n)^4`$ by

$$f_0:=max_{i=1,\mathrm{}4}\{f_i_{C^0(\mathrm{\Delta })}\}$$

$$f_j:=max_{i=1,\mathrm{}4}\{d^jf_i_{C^0(\mathrm{\Delta })}\}$$

Note that in the case $`j=1`$ the corresponding distance to the special solution (or to any other map in $`M(r)`$) is then a metric on $`M(r)`$ as $`fg_1=0`$ means that $`f`$ and $`g`$ differ by an additive constant.

Now, for given $`K`$, $`r,sC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Delta },^M)`$ let us define

$$M_K(r,s):=\{fM(r)|fs_1K\}.$$

Note that in general $`s`$ does not need to be in $`M(r)`$. For technical reasons, we consider the reflection $`s`$ at the symmetry axis of the characteristic triangle and the map $`s^{}:=(\mathrm{𝟏},s,\mathrm{𝟏},s)`$. We define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}:=s^{}\mathrm{\Phi }s^{}`$.

###### Lemma 9

Recall $`\underset{¯}{u}:=u_{\{t=0\}}^{C^1},\underset{¯}{v}:=v_{\{t=0\}}^{C^1}`$. Define $`K:=\frac{3}{l}(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})`$, then

(i) If $`rC^1`$, then $`_\eta _\eta (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r))`$ and $`_\eta _\xi (\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r))`$ exist and are continuous.

(ii) $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r)|_a=r|_a`$, i.e. the values of the maps on the base side remain fixed.

(iii) Let $`s`$ be the special solution to $`r`$ as above, then $`rs_1K`$ implies that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r)s_1K`$.

Proof of the lemma. (i) and (ii) follow easily from the defining equations. For (iii) use that on the base side $`a`$, $`s`$ and $`r`$ differ at most by the length $`(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})`$, so $`rs_1K`$ implies $`||rs||_0Kl+(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})=4(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})=:K^{}`$.

As $`rs_0<K^{}`$ we have the following estimates:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y_m)v^\gamma G(\delta )(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v}+rs_0)5G(\delta )(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})$$

and thus standard ODE estimates (  , 2.12.V.) give

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(r)_{C^0},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2(r)V_{C^0},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_3(r)_{C^0},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_4(r)V_{C^0}(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})e^{5Gl(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})}K^{}$$

Now we want to get the same result for $`K`$ instead of $`K^{}`$ and on the $`C^1`$ level. For half of the coordinates this follows easily from the defining equations and the $`C^0`$ estimates, as e.g.

$$\frac{u_{m+1}}{\eta }_{C^0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(z_m)u_{m+1}\widehat{v}_m_{C^0}(K^{})^2G\frac{3}{8}\frac{K^{}}{l}=\frac{K}{2}$$

as $`l\frac{3}{32(\underset{¯}{u}+\underset{¯}{v})G}`$. The other half we get by applying again the quoted standard ODE theorem (, 2.13.V. and 2.12.V.) to $`_xr`$ ($`r`$ considered to be fixed on the corresponding characteristic line) where the norm of the Lipschitz coefficient is again $`GK^{}`$. Then the comparison with the fix point $`s`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ yields $`_x(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(r))_xs_0\gamma e^{Ll}`$ where $`\gamma `$ is the distance $`_xr_xs_{C^0(a)}`$ of the maps restricted on $`a`$ which is less or equal to $`\frac{K}{4}`$ while $`L`$ is the Lipschitz coefficient which can be taken to be $`GK^{}`$, so

$$_xr_xs_0\frac{K}{4}e^{GK^{}l}<\frac{K}{2}$$

which completes the proof of the lemma $`\mathrm{}`$

In short, the lemma above tells us that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s))M_K(r,s)`$ (and that differentiasbility improves a little bit) if we choose $`K`$ as above.

###### Lemma 10

The set $`A:=\mathrm{\Phi }(conv(\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s))))`$ has compact closure in $`C^1(\mathrm{\Delta },^N)`$.

Proof. According to Arzela-Ascoli, a set in $`C^1`$ is precompact if and only if it is $`C^1`$-bounded and all of its first derivatives are equicontinuous (Lipschitz-bounded). But following the lemma above, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s))M_K(r,s)`$, $`conv(\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s)))M_K(r,s)`$ as the norms are convex, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(conv(\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s))))M_K(r,s)`$ following the lemma again. Therefore $`A`$ is bounded in $`C^1`$.

Now $`u,v,\widehat{u},\widehat{v}`$ are equicontinuous as they are $`C^1`$-bounded. Analogously for $`_\eta u`$, $`_\xi v`$, $`_\eta \widehat{u}`$, $`_\xi \widehat{v}`$ (look at the defining equations). Thus it remains to be shown that $`_\xi u`$, $`_\eta v`$, $`_\xi \widehat{u}`$, $`_\eta \widehat{v}`$ are equicontinuous in $`A`$. First one can establish equicontinuity in one half of the directions, i.e. show that $`_\xi u(p)_\xi u(p+\tau \eta )C\tau `$. This can be proven by the usual ODE theorem about differential dependence on the parameter $`\eta `$ and then performing the admissible formal differentiation

$$_\eta (_\xi u_2)=_\xi (_\eta u_2)=_\xi (\mathrm{\Gamma }(y_1)u_2v_1)$$

which shows equicontinuity w.r.t. one half of the variables.

The other half one can get by differentiating the defining equation as above

$$\frac{}{\eta }\frac{u_2^\alpha }{\xi }=(\frac{}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1))\widehat{v}_1^\gamma u_2^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1))(\frac{}{\xi }\widehat{v}_1^\gamma )u_2^\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha _{\beta \gamma }(z_1)\widehat{v}_1^\gamma (\frac{}{\xi }u_2^\beta )=:f(\eta ,\frac{u_2}{\xi }),$$
(4)
understood as the defining ODE for $`\frac{u}{\xi }`$ along a fixed $`\eta `$-line for given $`u`$. Now we compare the $`\eta `$-line with a second one of distance $`ϵ`$ for which all quantities are denoted by $`u^{(ϵ)},\widehat{v}^{(ϵ)},z^{(ϵ)}`$:

$$f^{(ϵ)}(\eta ,\frac{u_2}{\xi }):=(\frac{}{\xi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)}))\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma }u_2^{(ϵ)\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)})(\frac{}{\xi }\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma })u_2^{(ϵ)\beta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)})\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma }(\frac{}{\xi }u_2^{(ϵ)\beta })$$

The equicontinuity will be shown by the theorem about continuous dependence of ODEs on a real parameter (, II.12.VI). To do this, we have to prove that for any $`\delta >0`$ there is an $`ϵ>0`$ such that

$$f^{(ϵ)}(\eta ,\frac{u_2}{\xi })f(\eta ,\frac{u_2}{\xi })\delta .$$

So we have to consider

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1))\widehat{v}_1^\gamma u_2^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)}))\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma }u_2^{(ϵ)\beta }`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1))({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\widehat{v}_1^\gamma )u_2^\beta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)}))({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma })u_2^{(ϵ)\beta }`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1)\widehat{v}_1^\gamma ({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}u_2^\beta )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z_1^{(ϵ)})\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}u_2^{(ϵ)\beta })`$
The first line is quite easily shown to be less than $`3GK^3ϵ`$ as every difference between terms with $`(ϵ)`$ and such without is less than $`Kϵ`$ or $`Gϵ`$, equally the last line. Most subtle is the second one as it seems we have not enough control over $`\frac{}{\xi }\widehat{v}_1^\gamma \frac{}{\xi }\widehat{v}_1^{(ϵ)\gamma }`$. But on $`\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s))`$ this term is bounded linearly in $`ϵ`$ as $`\frac{\widehat{v}_1^\alpha }{\xi }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y_0)v_1^\beta \widehat{u}_0^\gamma `$. This Lipschitz bound survives the convex closure as the $`C^1`$ Lipschitz norm is continuous in $`C^1`$ and convex. Thus the second line is equally bounded in linear terms of $`ϵ`$ and we are done $`\mathrm{}`$

Therefore we can apply the Schauder-Tychonoff fix point theorem (, p.148) to the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ restricted to the closed convex set $`conv(\mathrm{\Phi }(M_K(r,s)))`$ and prove the existence of a fix point in $`C^1`$ in $`(u,v,\widehat{u},\widehat{v})`$, i.e. of a $`C^2`$-fix point in $`(y,z)`$. Below we will prove uniqueness of such fix points. Regularity of the solution is easily seen by succesive aplication of the quoted ODE theorem (, 2.13.V. and 2.12.V.) to the solution (the single equations of the system 3 considered as solutions to ODEs) $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 11

$`C^2`$-solutions $`(y,z)`$ of (3) are uniquely determined by their initial values on the base $`a`$ of the triangle.

Proof. The proof will use energy estimates for symmetric hyperbolic systems, thus we want to bring the system into this form. To this aim we rewrite the equations in a more symmetric way, with only $`y,z`$ as variables:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}y^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z){\displaystyle \frac{y^\beta }{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{z^\gamma }{\eta }}`$ $`=0`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta }}z^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y){\displaystyle \frac{z^\beta }{\xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{y^\gamma }{\eta }}`$ $`=0`$
with initial conditions $`y((x,0))=k_0(x)=z((x,0))`$ and $`_ty((x,0))=k_1(x)=_tz((x,0))`$. Although this looks like only a part of the system (3), namely the first and the last equation, it is actually equivalent to it, because if $`(y,z)`$ is a solution to (5), $`(z,y)`$ is as well, so uniqueness of the solution implies that then $`y=z`$ holds which causes equivalence to the system (3). We arrange the system still a bit differently:

$$\frac{}{x}\frac{}{x}y^\alpha \frac{}{t}\frac{}{t}y^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)\frac{y^\beta }{x}\frac{z^\gamma }{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)\frac{y^\beta }{t}\frac{z^\gamma }{t}=0$$

$$\frac{}{x}\frac{}{x}z^\alpha \frac{}{t}\frac{}{t}z^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)\frac{z^\beta }{x}\frac{y^\gamma }{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)\frac{z^\beta }{t}\frac{y^\gamma }{t}=0$$

With the notation $`U:=(y,z)`$ we can define the functionals

$$F^\alpha (U):=\frac{}{x}\frac{}{x}y^\alpha \frac{}{t}\frac{}{t}y^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)\frac{y^\beta }{x}\frac{z^\gamma }{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (z)\frac{y^\beta }{t}\frac{z^\gamma }{t}\mathrm{for}\alpha n1$$

$$F^\alpha (U):=\frac{}{x}\frac{}{x}z^\alpha \frac{}{t}\frac{}{t}z^\alpha +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)\frac{z^\beta }{x}\frac{y^\gamma }{x}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (y)\frac{z^\beta }{t}\frac{y^\gamma }{t}\mathrm{for}\alpha n$$

Obviously $`U`$ is a solution if and only if the $`^{2n}`$-valued functional $`F`$ vanishes. Now let $`N=2n`$, $`X=(x,t)`$, then the PDE system is now in the form

$`F(X,U(X),DU(X),D^2U(X))=0`$

$`F:S:=\mathrm{\Delta }\times ^N\times (^2^N)\times (^2_s^2)^N^N`$

where $`_s`$ denotes the symmetrical tensor product. An element of $`S`$ will be written in the form $`(X,z,p,r)`$. Now, following  we want to construct a suitable quasilinear operator $`L:S^N`$ with

$`L^\alpha (U_1U_0)=F^\alpha (U_1)F^\alpha (U_0).`$

This is done by defining

$$V^\alpha :=U_1^\alpha U_0^\alpha $$

$$U_\tau ^\alpha :=\tau U_1^\alpha +(1\tau )U_0^\alpha $$

$$a_{ij\beta }^\alpha (X):=_0^1\frac{F^\alpha }{r_{ij}^\beta }(X,U_\tau (X),DU_\tau (X),D^2U_\tau (X))𝑑\tau $$

$$b_{i\beta }^\alpha (X):=_0^1\frac{F^\alpha }{p_i^\beta }(X,U_\tau (X),DU_\tau (X),D^2U_\tau (X))𝑑\tau $$

$$c_\beta ^\alpha (X):=_0^1\frac{F^\alpha }{z^\beta }(X,U_\tau (X),DU_\tau (X),D^2U_\tau (X))𝑑\tau $$

and

$$LV:=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij\beta }^\alpha V_{x^ix^j}^\beta +\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{N}{}}b_{i\beta }^\alpha V_{x^i}^\beta +\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{N}{}}c_\beta ^\alpha V^\beta ,$$

everything taken at $`X=(x,t)`$. All coefficients are sufficiently smooth and uniformly bounded, $`a_{ij\beta }^\alpha =\delta _{ij}ϵ_i\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$. We have to show that if $`LV=0`$, $`V|_{\{t=0\}}=0`$ then $`V=0`$ everywhere. Now using techniques shown in  we can define $`w^3^N`$, $`w_1=V_x,w_2=V_t,w_3=V`$ and transform the system for the very last time into

$$_tw_1^\alpha _xw_2^\alpha =0$$

$$_tw_2^\alpha _xw_1^\alpha \underset{\beta =0}{\overset{N1}{}}(b_{1\beta }^\alpha w_1^\beta +b_{2\beta }^\alpha w_2^\beta )\underset{\beta =0}{\overset{N1}{}}c_\beta ^\alpha w_3^\beta =0$$

$$_tw_3^\alpha _xw_3^\alpha w_2+w_1=0$$

or in short

$$Lw=A_tw+A^1_xw+B(x,t,w)w=0$$

with $`A=\mathrm{𝟏}_{^3^N}`$,

$$A^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{𝟏}_^N& 0\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_^N& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{𝟏}_^N\end{array}\right),B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ _\beta b_{1\beta }^\alpha & _\beta b_{2\beta }^\alpha & _bc_\beta ^\alpha \\ \mathrm{𝟏}_^N& \mathrm{𝟏}_^N& 0\end{array}\right)$$

Again $`B`$ is sufficiently smooth and uniformly bounded. We multiply the above equation by $`w^T`$ from the left and get by symmetry of the $`A`$-matrices

$$_t(w^TAw)+_x(w^TA^1w)=2w^TBw$$

and integrating over a domain $`R`$ and applying the divergence theorem

$$_Rw^T(A\frac{dt}{d\nu }+A^1\frac{dx}{d\nu })w=2_Rw^TBw$$

where $`\nu `$ is the outer normal vector of the region. Now, if we take $`R_s=\mathrm{\Delta }\{ts\}`$, on the base side $`w`$ vanishes by assumption, the terms coming from the left and right boundary are easily seen to be positive definite, so if $`\frac{K}{2}`$ is an upper estimate for the operator norm of $`B`$ we get

$$E(s):=_{\{t=s\}}w^Tw2_{R_s}w^TBwK_{R_s}w^Tw,$$

thus $`E(s)K_0^sE(t)𝑑t`$, therefore $`_sE(s)Ke(s)`$ and $`_s(e^{Ks}_0^sE(t)𝑑t)0`$. But $`e^{Ks}_0^sE(t)𝑑t`$ is positive by definition and vanishes at $`s=0`$, so it vanishes everywhere, thus $`w`$ as well. This completes the argument $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Minimal surfaces. Local existence, uniqueness

A harmonic mapping is a minimal surface, i.e. a critical point of the area functional, if and only if it is conformal. In Riemannian signature the solution of the PDE’s corresponding to conformality is an additional difficulty, in Lorentzian signature it’s a matter of initial data:

###### Theorem 12

Assumptions as in Theorem 7 and additionally assume that the curve $`k`$ is such that $`_xk_0,_xk_0rangle=k_1,k_1`$ and $`_xk_0k_1`$ (note that the first requirement can be satisfied by reparametrization of the curve). Then the corresponding wave map is conformal.

Proof. This is just a consequence of the facts that for such a curve

* $`u=0=v`$ on the x-axis,
* $`u=0=v`$ everywhere where the surface is defined (because of parallel transport)
* therefore the pulled-back metric is a multiple of the Minkowski metric (with a possibly not overall-positive conformal factor) $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we want to exclude sign changes of the conformal factor which is positive on the x-axis.

###### Theorem 13

Let $`M`$ be time-oriented. If the curve $`k:M`$ satisfies $`_xk_0=k_10`$, $`_xk_0k_1`$ and $`k_1\pm _xk_00`$ at every point, then the corresponding wave map has always

$$_ty0,_xy0$$

and thus is a Lorentzian minimal surface, i.e. a critical point of the area functional whose pulled-back metric is conformally equivalent to the standard Minkowski metric.

Proof. We then have that on the x-axis always $`u,v0`$. As $`u,v`$ are parallel-transported over the surface along characteristic lines we know that both of them are nowhere equal to the zero vector and therefore both of them stay on the forward light cone because of time-orientation. So $`_ty=\frac{1}{2}(u+v)`$ is (being a convex combination) contained in the solid forward light cone. Therefore $`_ty`$ is always causal and future-directed while $`_xy`$ is spacelike or lightlike $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that however, it can happen that $`u,v`$ touch the light cone somewhere (and thus coincide there): Consider e.g. the case of a $`k_0`$ being just a circle of radius $`r`$ lying on the $`x_1x_2`$-plane in 3-dimensional Minkowski space, $`k_1=x_0`$ constant, the rotational-symmetric solution $`y(x,t)=(r\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{sin}x,r\mathrm{cos}t\mathrm{cos}x,t)`$ is one with cosine-shaped radius, so if the length of the string is $`2\pi `$ the circle $`\{t=\pi \}`$ is mapped onto a single point in $`^{1,3}`$, $`_xy=0`$ there. Note that the resulting minimal surfaces will in general neither maximize nor minimize the area functional (cf. ).

## 5 Global existence

In the following we consider only globally hyperbolic Lorentzian manifolds, i.e. $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`\times N`$ and the Lorentzian metric $`g`$ at a point $`p=(t,x_1\mathrm{}x_n)`$ is a direct product $`dt^2+g^{ij}(p)dx_idx_j`$ in local coordinates. As additional Riemannian metric $`h`$ we take now the flip metric to g, i.e. $`+dt^2+g^{ij}(p)dx_idx_j`$. Of course, this depends on the choice of coordinates, but it does not matter for the proof.

Moreover, we shall restrict ourselves to the case of closed curves as initial data. These give rise to smooth maps from subsets of flat cylinders into spacetime because periodic initial data produce periodic solutions (as horizontal translations are conformal transformations). As one can expect, we do not get a worldsheet notion of globality. Every statement about global existence on the world-sheet in a reparametrization-invariant theory would be a pure artefact of the chosen gauge as global existence has no gauge-invariant meaning. Instead, we have a target space global existence theorem, i.e., whatever spacelike submanifold of spacetime we take, its preimage under $`y`$ will be a one-sphere on the cylindrical worldsheet.

###### Theorem 14

Let $`M`$ be globally hyperbolic, let $`k=(k_0,k_1):TM`$ be a smooth $`2\pi `$-periodic curve with $`k_1\pm _xk_00`$ at every point, $`_xk_0=k_10`$ and $`_xk_0k_1`$. Then there is a unique smooth (and $`2\pi `$\- periodic) map from an open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of the upper half plane $`y:\{x0\}M`$ which is a minimal surface and whose restriction and normal derivative at $`\{t=0\}`$ correspond to the given curve, i.e. $`y(0,x)=k_0(x)`$, $`_ty(0,x)=k_1(x)`$, and with the property that for all $`p\mathrm{\Omega }\{t=0\}`$

$$\underset{xp}{lim}y^0(x)=\mathrm{},$$

i.e. $`y^1(\{x_0\}\times N)`$ is always a smooth $`2\pi `$-periodic graph over the x-axis in $`^{1,1}`$.

Proof. First define the maximal domain of existence of $`y`$ , $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, as the largest open and connected region in $`^{1,1}`$ containing the x-axis on which a solution is defined. Now assume that there is a real number $`T`$ such that $`y^1(\{T\}\times N𝕊^1`$. As this is a closed interval, we can choose $`T`$ as the minimum of these zero component bounds. Now observe the curves $`y^1(\{\tau \}\times N)`$ for $`t<T`$ on the cylinder. These are smooth closed spacelike curves on the cylinder which are therefore graphs over the x-axis such that we can write them as $`(x,f_\tau (x))`$ with real functions $`f_\tau `$.. Now from conformality of $`y`$ and from the proof of Theorem 13 one sees that $`y`$ always maps the backward null cone to the backward null cone in spacetime; thus $`_\xi y^0,_\eta y^0>0`$ ($`y^0`$ is increasing along upward characteristic lines). Thus the $`f_\tau `$ are Lipschitz functions with Lipschitz constant 1, and their limit curve corresponding to $`f_T:=lim_{\tau T}f_\tau `$ either is situated at infinity (then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the whole cylinder) or is a proper curve on the cylinder which is not necessarily smooth anymore but still Lipschitz with Lipschitz constant 1. Let us consider the second case first. The limit curve contains points of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and points of its complement which is closed and therefore compact, thus we can choose an $`\underset{¯}{x}`$ such that $`f_T(\underset{¯}{x})\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and is one of the values $`x`$ where $`f_T(x)`$ is minimal among all $`x`$ for which $`(x,f_T(x))\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Then because of the twofold minimal choice of this point the backward causal cone of $`(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ in $`^{1,1}`$ belongs entirely to the domain of existence with the exception of $`(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ itself, and in this cone we have $`y^0T`$. Within this cone we choose now an arbitrary characteristic triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with $`(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ as top point. The base side of this triangle we call $`a`$. This gives us suitable $`L^1`$-bounds for $`u`$ and $`v`$ in this triangle in the following way: Let $`T_0:=\mathrm{min}\{y^0(p)|pa\}`$. Then we have for every point $`p\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ the estimate

$$_{c_{p,\xi }}u=\sqrt{2}_{c_{p,\xi }}u^0\sqrt{2}(TT_0)$$

Therefore, $`y(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)B_{\sqrt{2}(TT_0)}(a)`$. Choose the triangle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ so small that this ball is contained in some $`h`$-ball of half the injectivity radius at its midpoint. Let $`G`$ be an upper bound for the operator norm of the Christoffel symbols in this ball. Now, the global upper estimate $`\sqrt{2}(TT_0)`$ for all integrals of the form $`_{c_\xi }u`$ and $`_{c_\eta }v`$ together with $`G`$ imply global $`C^0`$-bounds for $`u,v`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ because of the defining differential equation

$$0=D_\eta u=_\eta u^\gamma (x)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma (y)u^\alpha (x)v^\beta (x).$$

(cf. ). Now the length of the triangles one can add is proportional to $`\frac{1}{u+v}`$, but this quantity is bounded from zero now in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$, thus somewhere one can find a horizontal line from the left to the right side of the triangle which one can prolong still a bit over the endpoints such that it is still in the injectivity radius ball (which is possible since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is open) and satisfies the conditions of the local statement (as in the estimates of the local statement there was enough space left). Thus, one can add a triangle containing the point $`(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ in its interior, a contradiction.

Thus, for all $`x`$,

$$\underset{p\mathrm{\Omega }\{t=0\}}{lim}y^0(p)=\mathrm{}$$

Now the only case that cannot be treated like this is when $`\underset{¯}{t}=\mathrm{}`$. As above, from the definition of $`(\underset{¯}{x},\underset{¯}{t})`$ it can be easily seen that then $`y`$ is defined globally on the cylinder. But then following suitable characteristic lines one can show that the whole halfplane $`C^1`$-converges to one point $`P`$ in the image for $`t\mathrm{}`$ (which again enables us to get an a priori bound on the Christoffel symbols). The proof can then be given by using Lorentzian normal coordinates at this point: Let the solution already be in the $`\delta `$-ball around $`P`$, with $`\delta R`$. Then we write down the ODE estimates for a solution of system (3) compared to a solution $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ of the flat equations, i.e. with all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ set to zero, with same initial values $`\underset{¯}{u}`$, along a characteristic line $`c(t)`$:

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (c(t))v^\gamma (c(t))h(t)`$ then

$$u(t)\stackrel{~}{u}(t)e^{_0^th(t)}_0^te^{_0^sh(s)}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (c(s))v^\gamma (c(s))\stackrel{~}{u}(s))𝑑s$$

$$e^{_0^th(t)}_0^t(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^\alpha (c(s))v^\gamma (c(s))\stackrel{~}{u}(s))𝑑s$$

$$e^{_0^tG(s)v(s)𝑑s}_0^t(G(s)v(s)\underset{¯}{u})𝑑s$$

where $`G(s)`$ is an upper bound for the operator norm of the Christoffel symbols at $`y(x,\tau )`$ for $`\tau t(c(s))`$, a monotonically decreasing function with limit zero because of the choice of Lorentzian normal coordinates. Therefore

$$u(t)\stackrel{~}{u}(t)e^{G\delta }G\underset{¯}{u}\delta $$

Now choose a $`\delta `$ such that $`e^{G\delta }G\delta \frac{1}{2}`$. Then $`y^0(c_\xi (l))y^0(c_\xi (0))l\underset{¯}{u}le^{G\delta }G\delta \underset{¯}{u}`$ (the first part of the sum corresponds to the solution in flat target space while the second one is the maximal possible distance from this flat solution). Once again: $`y^0(c_\xi (l))y^0(c_\xi (0))l\underset{¯}{u}le^{G\delta }G\delta \underset{¯}{u}\frac{1}{2}l\underset{¯}{u}2\delta `$ for $`l`$ large enough, therefore $`y^0`$ would transgress $`P^0+\delta `$, a contradiction $`\mathrm{}`$

Of course, one can reverse the direction of the process and solve the minimal surface equations backwards in time. Then one ends with a map $`y`$ from an open set of a cylinder into spacetime, and as $`y^0(x,t)`$ is a function strictly monotone in t with limits $`\pm \mathrm{}`$, $`y`$ crosses every spacelike submanifold of spacetime in the image of a one-sphere (which can, of course, degenerate to a point e.g. in the example of the previous section).

## 6 Summary

Now let us summarize the main result. The calculations above show that for any given curve with the properties described above there is exactly one minimal surface parametrized by conformal gauge, i.e. such that the pulled-back metric is conformally equivalent to the two-dimensional Minkowski metric on the cylinder. As mentioned before, every metric on the cylinder with Lorentzian ends can be brought into this gauge (cf. ). Therefore this initial curves are in one-two-one correspondence to unparametrized minimal surfaces. On the other hand we can give up parametrizations of the initial curves and consider them just as one-dimensional submanifolds of the total space of $`CM`$ where $`\pi :CMM`$ is just the subbundle of $`TM`$ of all timelike tangential vectors. In summary, for $`M`$ being globally hyperbolic, we have established the following one-to-one correspondences:

closed spacelike curves in $`M`$ with an orthogonal timelike vector field along it, modulo reparametrizations

$``$ closed spacelike curves $`c`$ in $`M`$ with an orthogonal timelike vector field $`V`$ along it, with $`V=\dot{c}`$

$``$ minimal Lorentzian surface maps from an cylindrical open subset $`O`$ of a cylinder (with $`𝕊^1\times \{0\}`$ as the lower boundary of $`\overline{O}`$) into $`M`$ in conformal gauge (i.e. such that the pulled-back metric is conformally equivalent to the standard Lorentzian metric on the cylinder), modulo rigid rotations

$``$ unparametrized minimal Lorentzian surface maps from a cylinder into $`M`$

where the arrows from below in inverse direction stand for the choice of the conformal parametrization, the restriction to the boundary, and finally forgetting the parametrization. Note that despite of the somewhat unusual notion of global solution, the notion is covariant in the sense that it does not depend on the choice of a time slice.

Stability in characteristic triangles or corresponding stripes is easily proven by the same energy estimates with $`w`$ nonvanishing on the lower boundary this time. Thus intersecting with any spacelike Cauchy submanifold is not only a one-to-one correspondence but a diffeomorphism between Frechet manifolds.


text:
# Thermal conductivity in superconducting borocarbides LuNi2B2C and YNi2B2C [1]

## Abstract

We have recently proposed the s+g wave model for superconducting borocarbides. In spite of a substantial s-wave component, this order parameter exhibits the $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependent specific heat and a thermal conductivity linear in H in the vortex state. This is characteristic for nodal superconductors when T,$`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the quasiparticle scattering rate and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the maximum superconducting gap. Here we investigate the thermal conductivity parallel to the c- and a- axis in a magnetic field tilted by $`\theta `$ from the c- axis and rotating within the a-b plane.

The superconductivity in the rare earth borocarbides LuNi2B2C and YNi2B2C is of great interest. We have proposed recently the superconducting order parameter

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }(1+\mathrm{sin}^4\vartheta \mathrm{cos}(4\phi ))$$
(1)
where $`\vartheta `$ and $`\phi `$ are polar and azimuthal angle of k respectively. Recent thermal conductivity experiments suggest that crystallographic  and  are the nodal directions, i.e. the order parameter of Eq. 1 is rotated by $`\frac{\pi }{4}`$ in the a-b plane. This gap function accounts for the $`\sqrt{H}`$ dependence of the specific heat and the H- linear term in the thermal conductivity observed recently. The aim of this paper is to generalize an earlier result for $`\kappa _{zz}`$, $`\kappa _{xx}`$ and $`\kappa _{xy}`$ for general magnetic field (H) orientation given by the polar angle $`\theta `$ with respect to the c- axis and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. First in the absence of H the specific heat and the electronic thermal conductivity for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_s}{\gamma _NT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{27}{4\pi }}\zeta (3)({\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mathrm{\Delta }}})+..`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{xx}}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{m\mathrm{\Delta }}};{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{zz}}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{nC_0}{m\mathrm{\Delta }}}`$ (3)
where C0=$`(\frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Delta }})^{\frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{ln}(2\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}})]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Note that $`\kappa _{xx}`$ obeys the universal behaviour while $`\kappa _{zz}`$ does not. This is because the heat current operator j$`{}_{}{}^{h}{}_{z}{}^{}`$ vanishes on the four second order nodal points $`(\vartheta ,\phi )`$ = ($`\frac{\pi }{2},\pm \frac{\pi }{4}`$) and ($`\frac{\pi }{2},\pm \frac{3\pi }{4}`$) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$given in Eq.(1). Also this leads to a H$`{}_{}{}^{\frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\stackrel{~}{v}\sqrt{eH}}\right)`$ dependence of $`\kappa _{zz}`$ as discussed below.

In the presence of a magnetic field with general orientation defined by ($`\theta ,\varphi `$) the specific heat and thermal conductivities in the vortex phase are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_s}{\gamma _NT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}\sqrt{eH}}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Delta }}}I_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{zz}}{\kappa _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{\stackrel{~}{v}\sqrt{eH}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^3(eH)^{\frac{3}{2}}}{\mathrm{\Delta }^3}}I_{zz}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{xx}}{\kappa _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^2(eH)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}I_+^2(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{xy}}{\kappa _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^2(eH)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}I_{}(\theta ,\varphi )I_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (7)
where we have the identity

$`I_{zz}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )I_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (8)
$`I_\pm (\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (10)
$`\pm \{[1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )]^{\frac{1}{2}}\}`$
Here we have assumed the superclean limit defined by $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }}\stackrel{~}{v}\sqrt{eH}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{v}=\sqrt{v_av_c}`$ where $`v_{a,c}`$ denote the anisotropic Fermi velocities. The angular dependences of $`\kappa _{zz}`$ and $`\kappa _{xy}`$ according to Eqs. 4,8 for the s+g wave case are shown in the left panel of Fig.1 and in Fig.2. For comparison, we also present the corresponding angular dependence of $`\kappa _{zz}`$ for the d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ state with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$=$`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi )`$ as in high Tc cuprates, CeCoIn5 and $`\kappa `$-(ET)2Cu(NCS)2 . Of course for d- wave superconductors the universal zero- field behaviour is valid both for $`\kappa _{xx}`$ and for $`\kappa _{zz}`$, and both exhibit a similar angular dependence in the vortex phase. In this case the dependence on field angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$ is given by

$`I_\pm (\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\psi J_\pm (\psi )`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi }{2}}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\psi (1\mathrm{cos}(2\psi ))J_+(\psi )`$ (12)
$`J_\pm (\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )\mathrm{cos}(2\psi ))`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\mathrm{sin}\psi \sqrt{1\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )}]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`\pm [1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )+\mathrm{cos}(2\psi ))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\mathrm{sin}\psi \sqrt{1+\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )}]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
Then $`\kappa _{xx}`$ and $`\kappa _{xy}`$ are obtained from I$`{}_{\pm }{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi `$) as in Eq. 4 but now for d- wave:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{zz}}{\kappa _n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{v}^2(eH)}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}I_{zz}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (17)
$`I_{zz}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`I_+(\theta ,\varphi )\stackrel{~}{I}_+(\theta ,\varphi )`$ (18)
The $`\varphi `$\- dependence of $`\kappa _{zz}`$ for various $`\theta `$ is shown in comparison to the s+g wave case in Fig. 1. As is readily seen from Fig. 1 in the s+g- wave case a pronounced cusp like feature develops for $`\theta `$=90 and $`\varphi =\pm `$ 45 due to the (second order) point node, while in the d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ wave case with an extended line node along c no cusps appear and also the absolute value of angular variation is much smaller. This is clearly visible from the upper panel of Fig. 2 which also shows monotonic $`\theta `$\- dependence for s+g- wave and nonmonotonic behaviour for d-wave. The latter has a minimum at $`\theta _m`$ 47 which is due to a maximum Doppler shift for $`\theta `$=45 resulting in a dominating term I$`{}_{zz}{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )1(5/64)\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta )`$+.. . Note that I$`{}_{zz}{}^{}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ in Fig. 1 exhibits a rather sharp minimum as function of $`\varphi `$ at $`\theta _m`$ wheras for $`\theta `$= 90 the minimum is flat. Experimentally however the $`\kappa _{zz}`$ thermal conductivity shows very strong cusps at $`\theta `$=90 (and $`\varphi `$=0 due to rotated order parameter) in YNi2B2. This is a strong point for the s+g wave case being the appropriate one for YNi2B2C and LuNi2B2C . Therefore the thermal conductivity in the superclean limit can discriminate s+g- wave against d- wave superconductivity.

The angular dependence of the thermal Hall coefficient $`\kappa _{xy}`$ in the s+g wave case is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 2. It exhibits a sign change as function of $`\varphi `$ and varies smoothly with $`\theta `$. In the d- wave case $`\kappa _{xy}`$ looks rather similar.
As we have already discussed elsewhere the thermal conductivity provides a unique window to look at the nodal structure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)`$in unconventional superconductors.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Koichi Izawa and Yuji Matsuda for useful discussions on superconducting borocarbides.


text:
# High energy cosmic-rays from gamma-ray burst sources: A stronger case

## 1 Introduction

The widely accepted interpretation of the phenomenology of $`\gamma `$-ray bursts (GRB’s), bursts of 0.1 MeV–1 MeV photons lasting for a few seconds (see Fishman & Meegan, 1995, for review), is that the observable effects are due to the dissipation of the kinetic energy of a cosmologically distant, relativistically expanding wind, a “fireball,” whose primal cause is not yet known (for reviews see Piran, 2000; Mészáros, 2002; Waxman, 2003a). Waxman (1995a), Milgrom & Usov (1995) and Vietri (1995) have suggested that ultra-high energy, $`>10^{19}`$ eV, cosmic rays (UHECR’s) may be produced in GRB sources. The model suggested in (Waxman, 1995a) was based on two arguments. First, it was shown that the constraints imposed on the relativistic wind by the requirement that it produces observed GRB characteristics are similar to the constraints imposed on such a wind by the requirement that it would allow proton acceleration to $`>10^{20}`$ eV. Second, the energy generation rate of $`\gamma `$-rays by GRB’s was shown to be similar to the energy generation rate required to account for the observed UHECR flux (Waxman, 1995a, b).

The origin of UHECR’s is one of the most exciting open questions of high energy astrophysics (Bhattacharjee & Sigl, 2000; Nagano & Watson, 2000). The extreme energy of the highest energy events poses a challenge to models of particle acceleration. Since very few known astrophysical objects have characteristics indicating that they may allow acceleration of particles to the observed high energies (Waxman, 2003b), the question of whether GRB’s are possible UHECR sources is of great interest. Moreover, since the GRB model for UHECR production makes unique predictions, which differ from those of other models (see Waxman, 2001, and discussion in § 4), the design and analysis of future large area UHECR experiments may be affected by the answer to this question.

The detection over the past few years of ”afterglows,” delayed low energy (X-ray to radio) emission of GRBs (for review see Kulkarni et al., 2000) confirmed the cosmological origin of the GRB’s, through redshift determination of GRB host-galaxies, and confirmed standard model predictions of afterglows that result from the collision of an expanding fireball with its surrounding medium (e.g. Piran, 2000; Mészáros, 2002; Waxman, 2003a). In addition to providing strong support to the fireball model, these observations also provide new constraints on fireball model parameters and more accurate information on the redshift distribution of GRB sources. Recently, new data on the spectrum and flux of UHECR’s was presented by the HiRes experiment (Abu-Zayyad et al., 2002), providing improved constraints on the generation rate and spectrum of UHECR’s (Bahcall & Waxman, 2003). Here we discuss the implications of these new GRB and UHECR observations to the GRB model for UHECR production.

In § 2.1 we briefly describe the model proposed in (Waxman, 1995a) for proton acceleration in GRB fireballs. The main goal of this section is to identify the key constraints that the relativistic wind parameters need to satisfy, Eqs. (1) and (2), in order to allow acceleration of protons to $`>10^{20}`$ eV (A more detailed and pedagogical description of the model is given in Waxman, 2001). The association of GRB and UHECR sources was motivated mainly by the fact that these constraints were similar to those inferred, based on independent physical arguments, from $`1`$ MeV $`\gamma `$-ray observations. Recent lower energy afterglow observations provide new constraints on model parameters, which are independent of the $`\gamma `$-ray constraints. In § 2.2 we show that the afterglow constraints are similar to the $`\gamma `$-ray constraints, and in fact imply parameter values which are more favorable for the acceleration of protons to $`>10^{20}`$ eV. In § 2.3 we compare our results to those of other authors. In particular, we show that results derived by several authors, arguing that the maximum proton energy is too low (Gallant & Achterberg, 1999; Achterberg et al., 2001) or that the proton spectrum is too steep (Ostrowski & Bednarz, 2002) to account for the observed UHECR spectrum, are not applicable to the model proposed in (Waxman, 1995a).

The determination of GRB redshifts, made possible by afterglow detection, lead to significant changes in, and to significantly reduced uncertainties of, the estimates of both GRB rate and average $`\gamma `$-ray energy release (per single GRB). We show in § 3.1 that the local energy production rate in $`\gamma `$-rays by GRB’s, inferred using recent redshift measurements, is similar to the pre-afterglow estimate. In § 3.2 we show that the local rate of energy production in UHECR’s inferred using recent UHECR observations is consistent with, although more accurate than, earlier estimates (Waxman, 1995b), and hence comparable to the energy production rate in $`\gamma `$-rays by GRB’s. In § 3.3 we demonstrate that recent claims to the contrary (Stecker, 2000; Berezinsky et al., 2002), in particular that the UHECR energy production rate is 3 order of magnitude higher than the GRB $`\gamma `$-ray production rate (Berezinsky et al., 2002), are erroneous.

Our main results are summarized in § 4.

## 2 Proton acceleration in GRB fireballs

### 2.1 Brief description of the model

General phenomenological considerations, based on $`\gamma `$-ray observations, indicate that, regardless of the nature of the underlying sources, GRB’s are produced by the dissipation of the kinetic energy of a relativistic expanding fireball. A compact source, $`r_010^7`$ cm, produces a wind, characterized by an average luminosity $`L10^{52}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1`$ and mass loss rate $`\dot{M}`$. At small radius, the wind bulk Lorentz factor, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, grows linearly with radius, until most of the wind energy is converted to kinetic energy and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ saturates at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }L/\dot{M}c^2300`$. Variability of the source on a time scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }t10`$ ms, resulting in fluctuations in the wind bulk Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on a similar time scale, results in internal shocks in the ejecta at a radius $`rr_d\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c\mathrm{\Delta }tr_0`$. It is assumed that internal shocks reconvert a substantial part of the kinetic energy to internal energy, which is then radiated as $`\gamma `$-rays by synchrotron and inverse-Compton radiation of shock-accelerated electrons. At a later stage, the shock wave driven into the surrounding medium by the expanding fireball ejecta leads to the emission of the lower-energy afterglow.

The observed radiation is produced, both during the GRB and the afterglow, by synchrotron emission of shock accelerated electrons. In the region where electrons are accelerated, protons are also expected to be shock accelerated. This is similar to what is thought to occur in supernovae remnant shocks, where synchrotron radiation of accelerated electrons is the likely source of non-thermal X-rays, and where shock acceleration of protons is believed to produce cosmic rays with energy extending to $`10^{15}\mathrm{eV}`$ (e.g. Koyama et al., 1995; Berezhko et al., 2002; Völk et al., 2002). Thus, it is likely that protons, as well as electrons, are accelerated to high energy within GRB fireballs.

The internal shocks within the expanding wind are expected to be mildly relativistic in the wind rest frame, due to the fact that the allowed range of Lorentz factor fluctuations within the wind is from few $`\times 10^2`$ (the lower limit required to avoid large optical depth) to few $`\times 10^3`$ (the maximum Lorentz factor to which shell acceleration by radiation pressure is possible, e.g. Waxman, 2003a). This implies that the Lorentz factors associated with the relative velocities are not very large. Since internal shocks are mildly relativistic, we expect our understanding of non-relativistic shock acceleration to apply to the acceleration of protons in these shocks. In particular, the predicted energy distribution of accelerated protons is expected to be $`dn_p/dE_pE_p^2`$ (Axford et al., 1977; Bell, 1978; Blandford & Ostriker, 1978), similar to the predicted electron energy spectrum, which is consistent with the observed photon spectrum.

Several constraints must be satisfied by wind parameters in order to allow proton acceleration to high energy $`E_p`$. We summarize below these constraints. The reader is referred to (Waxman, 1995a, 2001) for a detailed derivation. The requirement that the acceleration time be smaller than the wind expansion time (which also implies that the proton is confined to the acceleration region over the required time) sets a lower limit to the strength of the wind magnetic field. This may be expressed as a lower limit to the ratio of magnetic field to electron energy density (Waxman, 1995a),

$$u_B/u_e>0.02\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2.5}^2E_{p,20}^2L_{\gamma ,52}^1,$$
(1)
where $`E_p=10^{20}E_{p,20}`$ eV, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=10^{2.5}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2.5}`$ and $`L_\gamma =10^{52}L_{\gamma ,52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ is the wind $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity. A second constraint is imposed by the requirement that the proton acceleration time be smaller than the proton energy loss time, which is dominated by synchrotron emission. This sets an upper limit to the magnetic field strength, which in turn sets a lower limit to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (Waxman, 1995a; Rachen & Mészáros, 1998)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }>130E_{p,20}^{3/4}\mathrm{\Delta }t_2^{1/4}.$$
(2)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=10^2\mathrm{\Delta }t_2`$ s. As explained in (Waxman, 1995a), the constraints Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) hold regardless of whether the fireball is a sphere or a narrow jet (as long as the jet opening angle is $`>1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). The luminosity in Eq. 1 is the ”isotropic equivalent luminosity”, i.e. the luminosity under the assumption of isotropic emission.

Internal shocks within the wind take place at a radius $`r_d\mathrm{\Gamma }^2c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The constraint of Eq. (1) is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, i.e. independent of the internal collision radius, while the constraint of Eq. (2) sets a lower limit to the collision radius for a given $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. This implies that protons may be accelerated to $`>10^{20}`$ eV regardless of the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, which may range from the dynamical time of the source ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ ms) to the wind duration ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t1`$ s), provided the magnetization and Lorentz factor are sufficiently large, following Eqs. 1 and 2.

At large radii the external medium affects fireball evolution, and a ”reverse shock” is driven backward into the fireball ejecta and decelerates it. For typical GRB fireball parameters this shock is also mildly relativistic (e.g. Waxman, 2003a), and its parameters are similar to those of an internal shock with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t10`$ s. Protons may therefore be accelerated to $`>10^{20}`$ eV not only in the internal wind shocks, but also in the reverse shock (Waxman & Bahcall, 2000; Waxman, 2001). This implies that proton acceleration to $`>10^{20}`$ eV is possible, provided the constraints of Eqs. 1 and 2 (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }t10`$ s) are satisfied, also in (the currently less favorable) scenario where GRB $`\gamma `$-rays are produced in the shock driven by the fireball into the surrounding gas, rather than by internal collisions (as suggested, e.g., in Dermer, 1999).

The constraints given by Eqs. (1) and ( 2) are remarkably similar to those inferred from $`\gamma `$-ray observations, based on independent physical arguments: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>300`$ is implied by the $`\gamma `$-ray spectrum by the requirement to avoid high pair-production optical depth, and magnetic field close to equipartition, $`u_B/u_e0.1`$, is required in order to account for the observed $`\gamma `$-ray emission (Piran, 2000; Mészáros, 2002; Waxman, 2003a). This was the basis for the association of GRB’s and UHECR’s suggested in (Waxman, 1995a). In the following sub-section we discuss the new constraints on model parameters implied by afterglow observations, and their implications.

### 2.2 Implications of afterglow observations

Afterglow observations lead to the confirmation of the cosmological origin of GRBs and confirmed standard model predictions of afterglow that results from synchrotron emission of electrons accelerated to high energy in the highly relativistic shock driven by the fireball into its surrounding gas. Afterglow observations provide therefore strong support for the underlying fireball scenario. In addition, afterglow observations provide important information on the values of model parameters that enter the constraints given by Eqs. (1) and (2).

Prior to the detection of afterglows, it was commonly assumed that the farthest observed GRB’s lie at redshift $`z1`$ (Mao & Paczyński, 1992; Piran, 1992). Based on afterglow redshift determinations, we now know that detected GRB’s typically lie at farther distances (e.g. Bloom, Frail & Kulkarni, 2003). This implies that the characteristic GRB luminosity is higher by an order of magnitude compared to pre-afterglow estimates, $`L_\gamma 10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ instead of $`L_\gamma 10^{51}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$. This relaxes the constraint on magnetic field energy fraction given by Eq. (1). The implications of the revised GRB redshift distribution to the inferred GRB energy production rate are discussed in detail in § 3.

In several cases, fast follow up afterglow observations allowed the detection of radio and optical emission from the reverse shock (Zhang, Kobayashi & Mészáros, 2003; Soderberg & Ramirez-Ruiz, 2003, and references therein). These observations provide direct information on the plasma conditions in the reverse shock, where acceleration of protons to high energy may take place (see § 2.1). Two major conclusions were drawn from the analysis of the early optical and radio reverse shock emission. First, lower limits to the initial fireball Lorentz factors were inferred, in the range of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>100`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>1000`$ (Zhang, Kobayashi & Mészáros, 2003; Soderberg & Ramirez-Ruiz, 2003). Second, the magnetic field in the reverse shock was inferred to be close to equipartition, that is $`u_B/u_e`$ was inferred to be of order unity (Waxman & Draine, 2000; Zhang, Kobayashi & Mészáros, 2003). Early afterglow observations provide therefore constraints on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and on $`u_B/u_e`$ which are (i) Independent of the constraints derived from $`\gamma `$-ray observations; (ii) Consistent with the $`\gamma `$-ray constraints; and (iii) Are remarkably similar to the constraints of Eqs. (1) and (2), that need to be satisfied in order to allow proton acceleration to $`>10^{20}`$ eV.

### 2.3 Comparison with other authors

Gallant & Achterberg (1999) and, more recently, Achterberg et al. (2001) have considered particle acceleration by the ultra-relativistic, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }300`$ shock driven by the fireball into its surrounding medium. They argue that protons can not be accelerated in this external ultra-relativistic shock to ultra-high energy. Regardless of whether or not this claim is valid, it is irrelevant for the model proposed in (Waxman, 1995a) and discussed in § 2.1, where proton acceleration takes place in internal (reverse) mildly-relativistic shocks. Similarly, the claims in Ostrowski & Bednarz (2002), that the spectrum of protons accelerated in ultra-relativistic shocks is much steeper than $`dn_p/dE_pE_p^2`$, the spectrum expected for sub-relativistic shocks and required to account for the observed UHECR spectrum (see § 3.2), are not applicable to the model proposed in (Waxman, 1995a).

It should be emphasized here, that non-relativistic collisionless shocks are observed in many types of astrophysical systems, and that the theoretical understanding of particle acceleration in such shocks (Drury, 1983; Blandford & Eichler, 1987) is more developed than in the case of relativistic collisionless shocks. The GRB model for particle acceleration, described in § 2.1, relies on our understanding of acceleration in non-relativistic collisionless shocks, and therefore is not subject to the uncertainties described in the preceding paragraph, which are related to acceleration in ultra-relativistic shocks.

Association of GRB’s and UHECR’s has been also suggested by Vietri (1995) and by Milgrom & Usov (1995), who noted that GRB’s may accelerate protons to $`>10^{20}`$ eV energy. While Milgrom & Usov did not suggest an acceleration mechanism, the criticism of Gallant et al. (1999) may be relevant to the mechanism proposed by Vietri. Their main point is that the fractional energy gain per shock crossing is of order unity for highly relativistic shocks, rather than of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ as suggested in Vietri (1995). This implies that the acceleration time in ultra-relativistic shocks is much longer than estimated by Vietri (1995). However, this conclusion does not necessarily imply that the acceleration process is ineffective. In their estimate of the acceleration time Gallant & Achterberg (1999) and Achterberg et al. (2001) used an up-stream magnetic field amplitude of $`1\mu `$G, typical to the inter-stellar medium. GRB observations imply that this pre-shock magnetic field must be amplified by many orders of magnitude in the GRB shock (Gruzinov & Waxman, 1999), and it is therefore far from clear that the magnetic field value relevant for particle deflection up-stream is the un-perturbed pre-shock field. The up-stream magnetic field may be amplified ahead of the shock by, e.g., the streaming of high energy particles (Bell & Lucek, 2001; Dermer, 2002), in which case acceleration to ultra-high energy is possible.

## 3 UHECR energy generation rate and spectrum

### 3.1 The GRB energy generation rate

The GRB model for UHE cosmic-ray production was suggested prior to the detection of afterglows. Estimates of the rate of GRB’s were based at that time on the $`\gamma `$-ray flux distribution, and ranged from $`3/\mathrm{Gpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (Piran, 1992) to $`30/\mathrm{Gpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (Mao & Paczyński, 1992). The estimated average $`\gamma `$-ray energy release in a single GRB, based on a characteristic peak flux of $`10^{51}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ (e.g. Fishman & Meegan, 1995), was $`10^{52}`$ erg. These estimates were subject to large uncertainties, since the $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity function as well as the evolution of GRB rate with redshift were poorly constrained. Based on the rate and energy estimates, the rate of $`\gamma `$-ray energy generation by GRB’s was estimated to be $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$. The determination of GRB redshifts, which was made possible by the detection of afterglows, allows a more reliable estimate.

Most of the GRB’s are observed from $`z>1`$, since they can be detected out to large redshift. This implies that the GRB rate density at $`z>1`$ is better constrained by the observations than the local, $`z=0`$, rate. The inferred local rate depends on the assumed redshift evolution. It is now commonly believed that the GRB rate evolves with redshift following the star-formation rate, based on the association of GRB’s with type Ib/c supernovae. This association, which was originally motivated by the temporal and angular coincidence of GRB980425 and SN1998bw (Galama et al., 1998), has gained significant support from the identification of a SN1998bw-like spectrum in the optical afterglow of GRB030329 (Stanek et al., 2003; Hjorth et al., 2003). It is also supported by evidence for optical supernovae emission in several GRB afterglows (Bloom, 2003). Adopting the assumption, that the GRB rate follows the redshift evolution of the star formation rate, the local ($`z=0`$) GRB rate density was inferred by Schmidt (2001) to be $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z=0)0.5\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$. A similar result was later obtained, under similar assumptions, by Perna, Sari & Frail (2003).

The local rate density determined by Schmidt (2001) and by Perna, Sari & Frail (2003) is uncertain due to uncertainties in the determination of the evolution of the star formation rate: A faster evolution (rate increase) with redshift implies a lower local, $`z=0`$, GRB rate. In their analysis, both Schmidt (2001) and Perna, Sari & Frail (2003) have not used, however, the detailed information provided by BATSE on the observed distribution of GRB peak fluxes, and the detailed shape of the observed GRB redshifts distribution (Schmidt, 2001, has used only the value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$). In a more detailed analysis, taking into account these constraints, Guetta, Piran & Waxman (2003) have shown that observations allow to discriminate between different assumptions regarding the evolution with redshift of the GRB rate density. Redshift evolution following the Rowan-Robinson (Rowan-Robinson, 1999) star formation rate evolution ($`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}10^{0.75z}`$ up to $`z=1`$) was found consistent with observations, while a more rapid evolution (as assumed, e.g. in Porciani & Madau, 2001), was found inconsistent. For the Rowan-Robinson evolution, Guetta, Piran & Waxman (2003) find $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z=0)0.5\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^9\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$. Given the current (systematic uncertainties in the redshift) data, this rate is accurate to within a factor of a few (Guetta, Piran & Waxman, 2003).

The local energy generation rate in $`\gamma `$-rays by GRB’s, $`\dot{\epsilon }_\gamma `$, is given by the product of $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z=0)`$ and the average $`\gamma `$-ray energy release in a single GRB, $`\epsilon _\gamma `$. Bloom, Frail & Kulkarni (2003) provide $`\epsilon _\gamma `$ for 27 bursts with known redshifts, in a standard rest-frame bandpass, 0.02 MeV to 2 MeV. The average is $`\epsilon _\gamma =2.9\times 10^{53}`$ erg, with estimated uncertainty, due to the correction to a fixed rest-frame bandpass, of $`20\%`$ for individual bursts (and much smaller for the average). In calculating $`\dot{\epsilon }_\gamma `$ from this value of $`\epsilon _\gamma `$, the following point should be taken into account. $`\epsilon _\gamma `$ is the average energy for bursts with known redshift, most of which were localized by the BeppoSAX satellite. Since BeppoSAX has a higher detection flux threshold than BATSE (see Band, 2003; Guetta, Piran & Waxman, 2003), it is sensitive to $`70\%`$ of the bursts detectable by BATSE, for which the GRB rate $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z=0)`$ was inferred. Thus, the energy generation rate by bursts detectable by BeppoSAX is

$$\dot{\epsilon }_{\gamma [0.02\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}]}^{\mathrm{GRB}}0.7R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z=0)\epsilon _\gamma =10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(3)
As mentioned above, the main uncertainty in determining $`\dot{\epsilon }_\gamma `$ is related to the uncertainty in the local GRB rate, due to which the value given in Eq. 3 is accurate to within a factor of few.

The energy generation rate given by Eq. 3 does not reflect the total energy emitted by GRB’s in $`\gamma `$-rays, rather the energy emitted in the $`[0.02\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}]`$ band. Emission at higher energy has been detected in many GRB’s (see, e.g. González *et al.*, 2003), implying that the total $`\gamma `$-ray energy emission is higher than that limited to the $`[0.02\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}]`$ band. A bandpass independent results may be obtained as follows. GRB $`\gamma `$-ray spectra are well described by broken power-laws, $`dn_\gamma /dE_\gamma E_\gamma ^\alpha `$ for $`E_\gamma <E_b`$ and $`E_\gamma ^\beta `$ for $`E_\gamma >E_b`$ (Band, 1993; Preece et al., 1998). The observed (redshifted) break energy $`E_b`$ is typically a few hundered keV, $`\beta 2`$ and $`\alpha 1`$. The observed $`\gamma `$-rays are produced in the fireball model by synchrotron and inverse-Compton emission of electrons accelerated to high energy by collisionless shocks in the expanding fireball wind (see § 2 for more detail). The high energy part of the GRB spectrum is produced by energy loss of relativistic electrons, accelerated to a power-law distribution, $`dn_e/dE_eE_e^2`$. Taking into account the fact that the photon energy is proportional to the square of the electron energy (and hence that $`\mathrm{log}(E_\gamma )`$ spans twice the range spanned by $`\mathrm{log}(E_e)`$), and that the rest frame break energy is higher than observed by a factor $`1+z`$, the rate of energy generation in relativistic electrons is

$$E_e^2\frac{d\dot{n}_e^{\mathrm{GRB}}}{dE_e}\dot{\epsilon }_{\gamma [0.02\mathrm{MeV},2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}]}^{\mathrm{GRB}}10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(4)
Finally, the following point should be mentioned. The numbers quoted above for the GRB rate density and $`\gamma `$-ray energy release are based on the assumption that GRB $`\gamma `$-ray emission is isotropic. If, as now commonly believed (see Frail et al., 2001, and references therin), the emission is confined to a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }<4\pi `$, then the GRB rate is increased by a factor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi )^1`$ and the GRB energy is decreased by the same factor. However, their product, the energy generation rate, is independent of the solid angle of emission.

### 3.2 Comparison with UHECR observations

The cosmic-ray spectrum flattens at $`10^{19}`$ eV (Bird et al., 1995; Hayashida et al., 1999). There are indications that the spectral change is correlated with a change in composition, from heavy to light nuclei (Bird et al., 1995; Dawson et al., 1998; Abu-Zayyad et al., 2001). These characteristics, which are supported by analysis of Fly’s Eye, AGASA and HiRes-MIA data, and for which some evidence existed in previous experiments (Watson, 1991), suggest that the cosmic ray flux is dominated at energies $`<10^{19}`$ eV by a Galactic component of heavy nuclei, and at UHE by an extra-Galactic source of protons. Also, both the AGASA and Fly’s Eye experiments report an enhancement of the cosmic-ray flux near the Galactic disk at energies $`10^{18.5}`$ eV, but not at higher energies (Bird et al., 1998; Hayashida et al., 1999a). Fly’s Eye stereo spectrum is well fitted in the energy range $`10^{17.6}`$ eV to $`10^{19.6}`$ eV by a sum of two power laws: A steeper component, with differential number spectrum $`JE^{3.50}`$, dominating at lower energy, and a shallower component, $`JE^{2.61}`$, dominating at higher energy, $`E>10^{19}`$ eV. The data are consistent with the steeper component being composed of heavy nuclei primaries, and the lighter one being composed of proton primaries.

Bahcall & Waxman (2003) have shown that the observed UHECR flux and spectrum may be accounted for by a two component, Galactic + extra-Galactic model. For the Galactic component, this model adopts the Fly’s Eye fit,

$$\frac{dn}{dE}E^{3.50}.$$
(5)
The spectrum and energy generation rate of extra-Galactic protons are given in this model by

$$E_p^2\frac{d\dot{n}_p^{\mathrm{CR}}}{dE_p}=0.65\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(6)
The spectral index, 2, is that expected for acceleration in sub-relativistic collisionless shocks in general, and in particular for the GRB model discussed in § 2.1. The energy generation rate integrated over the energy range of $`10^{19}`$ eV to $`10^{21}`$ eV is

$$\dot{\epsilon }_{[10^{19},10^{21}]\mathrm{eV}}^{\mathrm{CR}}=3\times 10^{44}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1.$$
(7)
Uncertainties in the absolute energy calibration of the experiments lead to uncertainty of $`20\%`$ in this rate (Bahcall & Waxman, 2003).

The model used in (Bahcall & Waxman, 2003) is similar to that proposed in Waxman (1995b). The improved constraints on UHECR spectrum and flux provided by the recent observations of HiRes do not change the estimates given in (Waxman, 1995b) for the energy generation rate and spectrum, Eq. (6), but reduce the uncertainties. Comparing Eqs. (6), or (7), and (4) (which, as explained in § 3.1, is accurate to within a factor of a few) we find that the rate at which GRB’s produce energy in accelerated high energy electrons is comparable to the rate at which energy should be produced in high energy protons in order to account for the observed UHECR flux.

It is important to emphasize the following point. As explained in § 3.1, the $`\gamma `$-ray energy production rate reflects the rate at which energy is produced by GRB’s in relativistic electrons. The ratio between the energy carried by relativistic electrons and protons is not known from basic principles (observations suggest that in sub-relativistic shocks protons carry $`10`$ times more energy than electrons, e.g. Blandford & Eichler, 1987; Berezhko et al., 2002). Thus, an exact match between the $`\gamma `$-ray and UHECR generation rates should not in general be expected. Rather, the two rates are expected to be similar to within an order of magnitude.

### 3.3 Comparison with other authors

Recent claims, that the GRB energy generation rate is too small to account for the observed UHE cosmic-ray flux, (Stecker, 2000; Berezinsky et al., 2002), are not valid.

In (Stecker, 2000) it is argued that at most ”10% of the cosmic rays observed above $`10^{20}`$ eV can be accounted for by GRB’s.” The UHECR energy generation rate estimated in (Stecker, 2000) is similar to the rate given by Eq. (6), as derived in (Waxman, 1995b; Bahcall & Waxman, 2003), but the GRB $`\gamma `$-ray energy generation rate estimated in (Stecker, 2000) is smaller by approximately an order of magnitude compared to the rate derived here, Eq. (3). The $`\gamma `$-ray energy generation rate by GRB’s is underestimated in (Stecker, 2000) by an order of magnitude, since it is based on an earlier, less accurate estimate of the GRB rate per unit volume, compare (Schmidt, 1999) to (Schmidt, 2001; Frail et al., 2001; Guetta, Piran & Waxman, 2003), and neglects GRB $`\gamma `$-rays in the 1 MeV to 2 MeV band.

Berezinsky (2002) claims that the required UHECR generation rate is three orders of magnitude larger than the GRB $`\gamma `$-ray energy generation rate. He argues that the energy generation rate of UHECR’s implied by observations is $`3\times 10^{46}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}^1`$. The discrepancy with our derived rate, Eq. (7), arises because Berezinsky assumes that extra-Galactic protons dominate the observed flux in the range of $`10^{17}`$ eV to $`10^{18}`$ eV. However, most observers attribute the flux in this energy range to Galactic cosmic rays. Thus, in our model, Eqs. (56), extra-Galactic sources dominate the flux only above $`10^{19}`$ eV, and the fraction of the observed cosmic-ray flux that is contributed by the extra-Galactic component at the energy range of $`10^{17}`$ eV to $`10^{18}`$ eV is

$$\frac{J^{\mathrm{ex}\mathrm{Galac}.}}{J^{\mathrm{Galac}.}}10^2\left(\frac{E}{10^{17}\mathrm{eV}}\right).$$
(8)
Observations strongly suggest that cosmic-rays above and below $`10^{19}`$ eV originate from different sources: Galactic sources of heavy nuclei are likely to dominate below $`10^{19}`$ eV, while extra-Galactic proton sources are likely to dominate at higher energy. Thus, by assuming that extra-Galactic particles dominate the flux down to $`10^{17}`$ eV, Berezinsky greatly overestimates the required energy for extra-galactic sources. In addition, the GRB energy generation rate is underestimated in (Berezinsky et al., 2002) in the same way as in (Stecker, 2000).

## 4 Discussion.

The main constraints that a relativistic wind (fireball) need to satisfy to allow proton acceleration to $`>10^{20}`$ eV are given by Eqs. (1) and (2): The magnetic field energy density $`u_B`$ should exceed a few percent of the relativistic electron energy density $`u_e`$, and the wind Lorentz factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should exceed $`10^2`$. The similarity of these constraints and the constraints imposed on wind parameters, based on independent physical considerations, by $`\gamma `$-ray observations were the basis for the association of GRB and UHECR sources suggested in (Waxman, 1995a). Afterglow observations have shown that the characteristic GRB luminosity is higher than estimated based on $`\gamma `$-ray observations alone, $`10^{52}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$ instead of $`10^{51}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{s}`$, relaxing the constraint of Eq. (1) on $`u_B/u_e`$. In addition, early optical and radio afterglow observations provide new constraints on wind parameters: They imply large Lorentz factors, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>10^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>10^3`$, and large magnetic field energy density in the fireball plasma, $`u_B/u_e`$ of order unity (see § 2.2). These constraints are consistent with those previously inferred from $`\gamma `$-ray observations, and with the constraints imposed by the requirement to allow proton acceleration to $`>10^{20}`$ eV.

The local, $`z=0`$, $`\gamma `$-ray energy generation rate by GRB’s is $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (see Eqs. (3), (4)). Afterglow observations allow to determine this rate to within a factor of a few. The main uncertainty is due to uncertainties in the redshift evolution of the GRB rate (see § 3.1). The local rate of energy generation in high energy protons, required to account for the observed UHECR flux, is determined by observations with smaller uncertainty, and is also $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (see § 3.2, eqs. (6), (7)).

Prior to direct GRB redshift measurements, which became possible with the detection of afterglows, estimates of the GRB rate ranged from $`3/\mathrm{Gpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (Piran, 1992) to $`30/\mathrm{Gpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ (Mao & Paczyński, 1992). These estimates were subject to large uncertainties, since the $`\gamma `$-ray luminosity function as well as the evolution of GRB rate with redshift were poorly constrained. The measurements of GRB redshifts allow a more accurate estimate, $`0.5/\mathrm{Gpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$ at $`z=0`$. Although this rate is significantly lower than the pre-afterglow estimates, the estimated rate of energy generation in $`\gamma `$-rays by GRBs is similar to the pre-afterglow estimate, which was $`10^{44}\mathrm{erg}/\mathrm{Mpc}^3\mathrm{yr}`$. This is due to the fact that the average $`\gamma `$-ray energy release in a single GRB is larger than the pre-afterglow estimates, $`10^{53.5}`$ erg instead of $`10^{52}`$ erg.

The numbers quoted above for the GRB rate density and $`\gamma `$-ray energy release are based on the assumption that GRB $`\gamma `$-ray emission is isotropic. If, as now commonly believed (see Frail et al., 2001, and references therin), the emission is confined to a solid angle $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }<4\pi `$, then the GRB rate is increased by a factor $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi )^1`$ and the GRB energy is decreased by the same factor. However, their product, the energy generation rate, is independent of the solid angle of emission.

The local GRB rate implies that the rate of GRB’s out to a distance from which most protons of energy exceeding $`10^{20}`$ eV originate, $`90`$ Mpc (see figure 2 in Waxman, 1995b), is $`10^3/`$yr. The number of GRB’s contributing to the observed flux at any given time is given by the product of this rate and the spread in arrival time of protons, due to the combined effect of stochastic propagation energy loss and deflection by magnetic fields (Waxman, 1995a). This time spread may be as large as $`10^7`$ yr for $`10^{20}`$ eV originating at $`90`$ Mpc distance, implying that the number of GRBs contributing to the $`>10^{20}`$ eV flux at any given time may reach $`10^4`$ (Waxman, 2001). The upper limit on the strength of the inter-galactic magnetic field, combined with the low local rate of GRB’s, leads to unique predictions of the GRB model for UHECR production (Miralda-Escudé & Waxman, 1996; Waxman & Miralda-Escudé, 1996), that may be tested with operating (Abu-Zayyad et al., 2002), under-construction (Cronin, 1992) and planned (Teshima et al., 1992) large area UHECR detectors. In particular, a critical energy is predicted to exist, $`10^{20}\mathrm{eV}E_c<4\times 10^{20}\mathrm{eV}`$, above which a few sources produce most of the UHECR flux, and the observed spectra of these sources is predicted to be narrow, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E/E1`$: The bright sources at high energy should be absent in UHECRs of much lower energy, since particles take longer to arrive the lower their energy. The model also predicts the emission of high-energy, $`>1`$ TeV neutrinos (Waxman & Bahcall, 1997), a prediction that may be tested with operating (AMANDA), under-construction (ANTARES,IceCube,NESTOR) and planned (NEMO) large volume neutrino telescopes (see Halzen & Hooper 2002 for review). For more detailed discussion of model predictions, see (Waxman, 2001).

At energies $`>10^{20}`$ eV, the predicted number, $`N`$, of events in conventional models is uncertain due to the unknown clustering scale, $`r_0`$, of the sources, $`\sigma (N_{\mathrm{predicted}})/N_{\mathrm{predicted}}=0.9(r_0/10\mathrm{Mpc})^{0.9}`$ (Bahcall & Waxman, 2000). For GRB’s in particular, the flux above $`3\times 10^{20}`$ eV is expected to be dominated by few sources (Miralda-Escudé & Waxman, 1996), and hence large deviations from a homogeneous source distribution may be expected (see Waxman (2001) for detailed discussion).

#### Acknowledgments.

EW thanks J. N. Bahcall for useful discussions, and the IAS for hospitality. This research was partially supported by MINERVA and AEC grants.


text:
# The NJL model and strange quark matter

## Abstract

The stability of strange quark matter is studied within the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model with three different parameter sets. The model Lagrangian contains 4-fermion (with and without vector interaction) and 6-fermion terms; the minimum energy per baryon number as a function of the strangeness fraction of the system is compared to the masses of hyperons having the same strangeness fraction, and coherently calculated in the same version of the model, and for the same parameter set. The results show that in none of the different parameter sets strangelets are stable, and in some cases a minimum in the energy per baryon does not even exist.

PACS: 12.39.-x, 14.20.Jn, 12.38.Mh

Strangelet detection in heavy ion collisions has been proposed long ago  as a signature of Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP) formation: it has been suggested that rather cold droplets of stable or metastable strange-quark matter may be distilled in heavy-ion collisions during the phase transition from a baryon-rich QGP to hadron matter: the prompt anti-kaon and pion emission from the surface of the fireball could rapidly cool the QGP, thus favouring the condensation into metastable or stable droplets of strange quark matter .

The investigation of strangelet stability is therefore rather crucial: it is fundamental to find out whether this system is more or less stable than hyperons, in order to understand which state is more likely to be produced in heavy ion collisions, either hyperons and strange mesons or strangelets. The properties and stability of strangelets have been discussed within the MIT bag model, a confined gas stabilized by the vacuum pressure $`B`$ ; more recent calculations, employing different quark models , pointed out that strangelet stability is strongly model dependent.

In this paper we want to discuss the properties of strange quark matter within the NJL model, which has already been successfully utilized in the past to study strange quark matter ; we consider homogeneous quark matter made up of $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks; no $`\beta `$-equilibrium is required: in the system there is a strangeness fraction $`R_s=\rho _s/\rho `$, $`\rho `$ being the total baryon density of quarks and $`\rho _s`$ the baryonic density of strange quarks. Furthermore, electromagnetic interaction has been neglected, so that the minimum of the energy corresponds to an equal number of $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks. We therefore consider the curves corresponding to the minimum energy per baryon number as a function of $`R_s`$ and compare these curves to the hyperon masses evaluated in the same version of the NJL model and for the same parameter values, in order to understand whether strange matter is more stable than hyperons or viceversa.

Many versions of the NJL model have been used in the past; in our calculation we use a three flavour Lagrangian of the form :

$$_{NJL}=_0+_m+_{(4)}+_{(6)}$$
(1)
where:

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`i\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi ,`$ (2)
$`_m`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }\widehat{𝐦}\psi ,`$ (3)
$`_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{8}{}}}\left[\left(\overline{\psi }\lambda _k\psi \right)^2+\left(i\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\lambda _k\psi \right)^2\right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{G_V}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{8}{}}}\left[\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu (\lambda _k)\psi \right)^2+\left(\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \gamma _5(\lambda _k)\psi \right)^2\right],`$
$`_{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`K\left[\underset{i,j}{det}\left(\overline{\psi }_i(1+\gamma _5)\psi _j\right)+\underset{i,j}{det}\left(\overline{\psi }_i(1\gamma _5)\psi _j\right)\right].`$ (5)
In the above $`\psi \left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ d\\ s\end{array}\right)`$ is the quark field, $`\widehat{𝐦}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_u& 0& 0\\ 0& m_d& 0\\ 0& 0& m_s\end{array}\right)`$ is the mass matrix, $`\lambda _1\mathrm{}\lambda _8`$ are the Gell–Mann flavour matrices, and $`\lambda _0\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}`$.

$`_{(4)}`$ generates four–leg interaction vertices, while $`_{(6)}`$ gives rise to six–leg, flavour-mixing, interaction vertices; $`G`$ and $`G_V`$ are parameters of the model with the dimensions of $`[L^2]`$ and $`K`$ is a parameter with the dimensions of $`[L^5]`$. In the following we will consider both zero and nonzero values for $`G_V`$, in order to see the effects of a repulsive vector interaction on the stability of strangelets. In the limit $`m_i=0,i`$, the symmetries of the model Lagrangian are the following ones:

$$U_V(1)\times SU_V(3)\times SU_A(3)\times SU_c(3)$$
(6)
where, of course, $`SU_c(3)`$ is global; $`U_A(1)`$ is broken by the existence of the axial anomaly.

In the mean field approximation it is possible to evaluate the dynamical quark masses, generated by their interaction with the vacuum, which are given by the following gap equation:

$$m_i^{}=m_i2G\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i+2K\overline{\psi }_j\psi _j\overline{\psi }_k\psi _k(ijk)$$
(7)
where

$$\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i=\frac{3}{\pi ^2}\underset{p_F^i}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}dp\frac{m_i^{}p^2}{\sqrt{p^2+(m_i^{})^2}}$$
(8)
is the chiral condensate for the $`i`$-flavour. Since the NJL model is not renormalizable, a three–dimensional regularization with an ultraviolet cut–off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is introduced.

The energy density of the system in mean field approximation turns out to be:

$`\epsilon =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,d,s}{}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p_F^i}{\overset{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}}dpp^2\sqrt{p^2+(m_i^{})^2}+\left[{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,d,s}{}}G\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i^2\right]+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=u,d,s}{}}`$ $`G_V\rho _{V_i}^24K\overline{\psi }_u\psi _u\overline{\psi }_d\psi _d\overline{\psi }_s\psi _s+\epsilon _0.`$
In the above formula, the constant $`\epsilon _0`$ is introduced in order to set the vacuum energy density equal to zero, and $`\rho _{V_i}`$ is the time component of the vector current: $`\rho _{V_i}=\overline{\psi }_i\gamma _0\psi _i`$. The dependence of the above formula on $`R_s`$ and $`\rho `$ can be easily found by recalling that:

$`\rho _s`$ $`=`$ $`R_s\rho `$ (10)
$`\rho _{V_u}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{V_d}=3{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1R_s\right)}{2}}\rho `$ (11)
$`\rho _{V_s}`$ $`=`$ $`3R_s\rho `$ (12)
in the above formulas, $`\rho _i`$ are the baryonic densities of quark $`i`$, which are related to $`\rho _{V_i}`$ by:

$$\rho _i=\frac{1}{3}\rho _{V_i}$$
(13)
and to the Fermi momenta by:

$`k_{F_s}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3\pi ^2\rho _s\right)^{1/3}`$ (14)
$`k_{F_{u,d}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{2}}\rho \left(1R_s\right)\right)^{1/3},`$ (15)
$`\rho `$ being the total baryon number density in the system ($`\rho =N/V`$). In the above the colour degeneracy and baryon number $`1/3`$ of the quarks have been taken into account111Colour degeneracy is taken into account, even if no explicit gluon field is present in the model Lagrangian. .

From the above formulas, the energy per baryon number turns out to be:

$$\frac{E_{tot}}{N}=\frac{ϵ_{tot}}{\rho }.$$
(16)
In order to investigate the influence of the parameter values on strangelet stability, in this work three different parameter sets will be used:

| set 1 | set 2 | set 3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`mm_u=m_d=5.5`$ MeV | $`mm_u=m_d=5.5`$ MeV | $`mm_u=m_d=3.6`$ MeV |
| $`m_s=140.7`$ MeV | $`m_s=135.7`$ MeV | $`m_s=87`$ MeV |
| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=602.3`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=631.4`$ MeV | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=750`$ MeV |
| $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=3.67`$ | $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=3.67`$ | $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=3.67`$ |
| $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=12.36`$ | $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=9.29`$ | $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=8.54`$ |

These parameters have been employed in Refs.  (set1),  (set 2) and  (set 3); in the first two cases, the current masses for the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quarks are fixed on the basis of isospin symmetry and of limits on the average $`\overline{m}=(m_u+m_d)/2`$ at 1 GeV scale, while the remaining four parameters are fitted to reproduce the masses of $`\pi `$, $`K`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ mesons, together with the pion–decay constant $`f_\pi `$; the third parameter set also reproduces fairly well these experimental values.
We choose for $`G_V`$ the two following values, in order to discuss the relevance of the repulsive vector interaction in strangelet formation:

$$G_V=0G_V=0.5G$$
(17)
the second value being motivated, for example, in Ref. .

With the above parameter values, the effective quark masses in the vacuum and the chiral condensates turn out to be:

|  | set 1(MeV) | set 2(MeV) | set 3(MeV) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`m_u^{}=m_d^{}`$ | 367.7 | 335.5 | 361 |
| $`m_s^{}`$ | 549.5 | 527.6 | 501 |
| $`|\overline{\psi }\psi _u|^{1/3}=|\overline{\psi }\psi _d|^{1/3}`$ | 241.9 | 246.7 | 287 |
| $`|\overline{\psi }\psi _s|^{1/3}`$ | 257.7 | 266.7 | 306 |

In Ref.  a comparison is made between the minimum energy per baryon with respect to $`\rho `$ at fixed $`R_s`$, and the hyperon masses coherently calculated in the same model and for the same parameter values, in order to understand which state is more stable. In the same spirit of this work, we compare our curves to the theoretical hyperon masses evaluated in the NJL model and for the same parameter values: for the first two parameter sets and $`G_V=0`$ we used the hyperon masses evaluated in Ref. ; following the same techniques presented in Ref. , we also calculated the hyperon masses for parameter set 3 and for $`G_V=0.5G`$: they are all shown in Table 1. In Fig. 1 we present our results for the three different parameter sets: the continuous lines correspond to $`G_V=0.5G`$, the dashed lines to $`G_V=0`$; concerning the hyperon masses, empty triangles correspond to $`G_V=0`$ and empty squares to $`G_V=0.5G`$; full circles are instead the experimental hyperon masses. As it is evident from this figure, for all three parameter sets, with or without vector interactions, the curves corresponding to strangelets turn out to be well above the hyperon masses having the same strangeness fraction: independently of the parameter set used, and of the presence of the vector interaction, strangelets are, therefore, not stable in the NJL model. From the left panel we can see that with the parameter set one and a nonzero value for $`G_V`$, a minimum in the energy per baryon is present only up to $`R_s=0.7`$, as already pointed out in Ref. . In the central panel the results corresponding to parameter set 2 are shown, from which it is evident that the vector interaction further reduces the range of values of $`R_s`$ corresponding to a minimum in the energy per baryon: in this case in fact a minimum is present only for $`0.16R_s0.56`$. Within parameter set 3 this range is even more reduced, as it appears from the third panel: in the case of $`G_V0`$ a minimum is present only for $`0.21R_s0.45`$. With this parameter set, even for $`G_V=0`$, the range of $`R_s`$ which is compatible with the existence of a minimum is limited to: $`R_s0.79`$. In order to get a feeling of the occurrence of these minima, we show the curves corresponding to the energy per baryon as a function of $`\rho `$ for different values of $`R_s`$ in Fig 2, for the three parameter sets and with $`G_V=0.5G`$: full circles indicate local minima.

Our analysis shows that the existence of stable or metastable strangelets is not supported by the NJL model: the curves corresponding to the minimum energy per baryon as a function of the strangeness fraction are always higher than the corresponding hyperon masses coherently calculated in the model for the same parameter values, and in some cases the minimum does not exist; these results seem therefore to indicate that hyperons are more likely to be produced in heavy ion collisions, since they are more stable. This fact confirms the model dependence of the strangelet stability, which could set serious challenges to the search for these objects in heavy ion collisions.