text:
# Variability and Velocity of Superluminal Sources

## 1. Introduction

Relativistic effects are commonly invoked to explain the superluminal motion and high brightness temperature ($`T_\mathrm{b}`$) seen in compact radio sources. $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ can be found from VLBI measurements or from variations in flux density; but these two methods depend differently on the Doppler factor. By measuring $`T_\mathrm{b}`$ in both ways, the Doppler factor and the Lorentz factor can be deduced, as well as $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int), the intrinsic temperature in the synchrotron source. Lähteenmäki et al. (1999a) have done this for several sets of sources, and found that most of the $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) have a range around $`10^{11}`$ K. This is close to the “equipartition” value $`5\times 10^{10}`$ K suggested by Readhead (1994), and the diamagnetic limit $`3\times 10^{11}`$ K calculated by Singal (1986). It is at the bottom end of the range suggested by Kellermann & Pauliny-Toth for the limit due to the inverse-Compton catastrophe, $`110\times 10^{11}`$ K. (See also Kellermann, these proceedings, page 185.)

In this paper we compare superluminal velocities, $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$, with $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$, the Doppler factor derived from variability. If a simple relativistic beaming theory is correct, there will be a close connection between these two quantities. The new large and reliable sample of superluminal sources found in the VLBA 2 cm survey (Zensus et al., these proceedings, page 27) allows this to be done with some confidence, but see Section 6 for a discussion of the $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$. We work with velocities from the VLBA 2 cm survey and Doppler factors from the Metsähovi flux density monitoring program at 22 and 37 GHz (Lähteenmäki & Valtaoja 1999b, hereafter LV99). We convert the Metsähovi values to our assumed cosmology, $`H_{}=65`$ km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{m}=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, but otherwise use the values found in their paper.

## 2. The Velocities

We only use velocities from the 2 cm survey which have three or more epochs of observation with an appropriately small error to the fit, and which satisfy several criteria for morphology. (Kellermann et al. 2003, in preparation.) The velocities are determined by a linear regression through the locations of the components being followed, and the errors shown in Figure 1 are the curve-fitting errors. We are using the fastest component for each source, on the grounds that their velocities should be representative of the true flow velocities. Slower-moving components, especially those at a bend in the jet, may be dominated by backward shock waves. Forward shock waves might also exist, and trying to understand their role is also a goal of the survey. Other geometries have been suggested for the jet, including a fast “spine” which we would preferentially see, surrounded by a slower shell. In this case, we think, the spine would also control the flux variations, so that using the fastest (spine) velocity for $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ is appropriate. In the next sections we assume that the pattern velocities are identical to the flow velocities; we comment on this assumption in Section 7.

Five sources in common to the $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ lists were excluded on the grounds that they only had components situated at a bend in the jet. We believe that in these cases we see a standing shock wave, or perhaps a stationary location in a helical jet where the flow is closest to the LOS, and hence boosted most strongly. In either case the measured velocity is a poor indicator of the flow velocity, and not useful in looking for relativistic effects. The final sample we use contains 48 sources: 4 galaxies, 14 BL Lacs, and 30 quasars.

## 3. The Doppler Factors

The 22 and 37 GHz light curves give the flux density in an outburst and the time constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. As a model we take $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to be the radius of an optically thick sphere. A solid angle is calculated and then the brightness temperature $`T_\mathrm{b}`$. (See Lähteenmäki et al. 1999a for details.) A further assumption is now needed, that the measured brightness temperature may be relativistically boosted above an intrinsic temperature $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). LV99 choose $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`=5\times 10^{10}`$ K, from the estimates of equilibrium temperature for a self-absorbed synchrotron source calculated by Readhead (1994). The variability Doppler factor is calculated as $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}=`$\[$`T_\mathrm{b}`$(var)$`/T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`]^{1/3}`$.

A more direct way to get the brightness temperature of a compact source is to measure its diameter and flux density with VLBI. The Doppler factor can then be calculated by reference to an assumed $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). In most cases of interest this yields a lower limit, because the cores of the sources are only slightly resolved with terrestrial interferometer baselines (Kellermann, these proceedings, page 185).

An alternative method of finding a Doppler factor involves the inverse Compton effect and the ratio of X-ray to radio flux. This method depends on knowing the diameter from VLBI, but is only weakly dependent on the X-ray flux, and so is close to the pure radio VLBI method described in the previous paragraph. A few cases have been studied in detail and give good results (e.g., Unwin et al. 1994).

## 4. The $`(\beta _{\mathrm{app}},\delta )`$ Relation

Lister & Marscher (1997, hereafter LM97) have made Monte Carlo simulations of a flux-limited sample of compact sources drawn from a population that has a distribution of Lorentz factor N($`\gamma )\gamma ^a`$. They assume flux boosting of the form S$`\delta ^2`$, which is appropriate for the flat-spectrum core. Figure 1(a) shows a realization for $`a=1.25`$. (See LM97 for a discussion of the exponents.) In this case the Lorentz factors are set such that $`\gamma =30`$ is the maximum value in the sample, so the points all fall under the $`\gamma =30`$ curve. Note that a majority of the sources lie under the diagonal line $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}=\delta `$, or $`\theta 1/\gamma `$, as they should, since the probability density for selecting a source peaks near $`\theta =1/2\gamma `$ (Cohen 1989; Vermeulen & Cohen 1994, hereafter VC94; LM97). For a fixed $`\gamma `$, the apparent velocity is a maximum on this line.

In Figures 1(b), (c) and (d) we show values of $`(\beta _{\mathrm{app}},\delta _{\mathrm{var}})`$ for our sample, for three values of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). We believe that our data are representative of a flux-limited sample (Zensus et al., these proceedings, page 27), and LM97 show that $`a=1.25`$ gives a reasonable fit to the apparent–velocity distribution of the Caltech-Jodrell flat spectrum survey (Taylor et al 1996). Hence our points should lie within a region bounded by a $`\gamma =\mathrm{const}`$ curve, as in Figure 1(a). In Figure 1(b) 6 points are off scale on the x-axis, and the values of $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ go to 100. In Figure 1(d) we show two $`\gamma =\mathrm{const}`$ curves, and it appears that, as in Figure 1(b), the points will not properly fill any $`\gamma `$=const curve. Figure 1(c) comes closest to the simulation, and, given the small number of points (30), it perhaps provides an adequate match. These comments about Figure 1 are confirmed by calculating the fraction $`f`$ of sources inside the $`1/\gamma `$ cone. For the Monte Carlo simulation $`f=0.80`$, and for the observations the values for the 30 quasars are (for increasing temperature) 0.87, 0.77, and 0.50. On this basis $`1\times 10^{11}`$ can be excluded, and $`2\times 10^{10}`$ is somewhat better than $`4\times 10^9`$.

## 5. The distributions of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}/\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\gamma `$

The product $`\gamma \theta `$ is a useful quantity because the probability density function for $`\theta `$ depends only on $`\gamma \theta `$ for $`\gamma ^21`$ (see VC94, Fig. 7). Hence the measured distribution of $`\gamma \theta `$ can be compared with a theoretical distribution, or one generated by a simulation, to see how closely the observations match the standard theory. In the previous section we found $`f`$, the fraction of sources with $`\gamma \theta <1`$, and we picked $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) $`=2\times 10^{10}`$ K because its value of $`f`$ is close to the expected value. However, it is clear that looking at many values of $`\gamma \theta `$ would be more powerful than looking at $`f`$ alone, as this would test the general distribution throughout the region below the $`\gamma =`$ const curves.

We actually use the ratio $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}/\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$, which, for $`\gamma ^21`$, equals $`\gamma \theta `$. (A general result for a relativistic beam is $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}=\beta \gamma \delta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, where $`\beta =v/c`$.) We form the histogram of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}/\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$, which counts the points between radii from the origin in Figure 1. In principle we can mix galaxies, BL Lacs, and quasars even though they have different parent populations, if we assume that $`a`$, and the slope of the luminosity function, are the same for all the populations. These assumptions seem somewhat dubious, however, and we only use the quasars.

Figure 2(a) shows the distribution of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}/\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ for the 100 sources in the simulation. Figures 2(b), (c), and (d) are for the 30 quasars, for the three values of $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). The histogram in Figure 2(d) is substantially flatter than that in 2(a) and supports our statement that $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`=1\times 10^{11}`$ K is too high. In Figure 2(b) the distribution is too narrow, with a large spike in the first bin. This corresponds to the high values of $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ for this temperature. In Figure 2(c) the histogram is a better match than the others, but it still has an excess in the first bin. We originally discarded 5 quasars because they had slow or stationary components located at a bend, and we believed that in those cases the measured velocity was not a good measure of the flow velocity. If we had kept those sources, they would have been in the first bin and the fit would be worse. In fact we discarded only the most egregious cases, and it is likely that there are other sources where we have measured a slow pattern rather than the flow velocity. This, we believe, explains at least part of the excess in the first bin.

The number of sources is too small to allow us to pick a particular “best” value for $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). However, it seems likely that for many quasars the intrinsic temperature in the compact synchrotron source is $`13\times 10^{10}`$ K. For illustrative purposes below we use $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`=2\times 10^{10}`$ K, and we apply it to galaxies and BL Lacs as well as quasars.

We now calculate values of $`\gamma `$, using $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`=2\times 10^{10}`$ K. However, four BL Lacs have negative $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$, with values within 1.5$`\sigma `$ of zero. We assume that $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}+2\sigma `$ is an upper limit to the velocity, and calculate the resulting upper limit to the Lorentz factor. The values of $`\gamma `$ found in this way are nearly independent of how we pick $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$, as can be seen from Figure 1; the $`\gamma =\mathrm{const}`$ curves are vertical at $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}=0`$, where $`\gamma =\delta _{\mathrm{var}}/2`$. We could instead adopt a lower limit and assume that the negative sources are in the forward jet, but moving towards the center. In this case their flux would be de-boosted, whereas in fact they are strong sources. Alternately, we could assume that they are inward-moving in the back jet. We reject this because there is plentiful evidence that in these compact sources we see only forward jets.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of Lorentz factor for the 48 sources, with upper limits denoted by arrows. The quasars have a broad distribution between 5 and 25, with a few quasars both higher and lower. The galaxies and most of the BL Lacs have $`\gamma <10`$. However, the two highest $`\gamma `$ have large error bars (the two BL Lacs above the curves in Fig. 1) and they are not reliable. The quasars and BL Lacs have a wide distribution of $`\gamma `$, but there are insufficient data to see if they might match any of the distributions found in the Monte Carlo simulations by LM97. We note that some of their distributions for $`\gamma `$ have a minimum in the first bin, as in Figure 3. It is interesting to note that Homan (these proceedings, page 35) has estimated $`\gamma `$ for the source 3C 279, by analyzing a change in velocity, and assuming that it is due to a change in $`\theta `$, not $`\gamma `$. He finds $`\gamma >15`$. Our calculation using $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ gives $`\gamma =19`$, for $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`=2\times 10^{10}`$ K. These methods of finding $`\gamma `$ are largely independent. Their good agreement adds to our conclusion that for many sources the intrinsic temperature is $`13\times 10^{10}`$ K.

## 6. Reliability of $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$

We have several concerns over the reliability of the $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ values. The first involves the procedure used to calculate $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ from a light curve. To partially address this we made some independent determinations of $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ using the same procedures as Lähteenmäki et al. (1999), and Valtaoja, et al. (1999). We used the 8 and 15 GHz variability curves from the University of Michigan web site, and the 22 and 37 GHz data from the Metsähovi web site. We found that the higher-frequencies gave better results, because there was less blending between outbursts. We did not try to investigate the effect of non-overlap of the epochs of the $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ measurements; but we have seen that for most sources successsive outbursts have a similar velocity. Also, Valtaoja et al. (1999) state that the apparent brightness temperature of well-defined flares does not vary much in any one source. However, the most important factor appears to be the identification of individual outbursts, even at the highest frequencies. This identification is somewhat subjective, and apparently we were more conservative and our values for $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ were consistently about 30% lower than the values published by LV99. In a few cases there were larger discrepancies, apparently caused by our missing some large flares not yet posted on the Metsähovi web site (Valtaoja, private communication). Thus we think that this systematic effect might limit the accuracy of $`\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ to about 30%.

The second general concern involves the model used for the source. The calculation simply assumes that the time constant of the flare is related to a radius by $`r=c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, and then that the solid angle of the source is $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\pi (r/D)^2`$, where $`D`$ is the metric distance to the source. If we were to assume instead that the diameter, not the radius, is given by $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, then the $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) would have to be increased by a factor of 4 to reproduce the simulation in Figure 1(a). Actually, $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ should be regarded as an upper limit to $`r`$; this might further increase $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int). Furthermore, to be more realistic, the sphere should be replaced by a shock wave. See e.g., Marscher & Gear (1985).

## 7. Pattern and Flow Velocities

In this work we have assumed that the pattern velocity we measure with the VLBA is the same as the flow velocity of the beam. However it is clear that this is not always so. For example, we eliminated several cases where the pattern is stationary at a bend in the jet, on the grounds that the bright spot is due to a standing shock wave, and its zero motion is not representative of the flow velocity.

VC94 made a simple model to study differing pattern and flow velocities; namely, that the flow and the pattern have different $`\gamma `$, and their ratio $`r=\gamma _\mathrm{p}/\gamma _\mathrm{b}`$ has a characteristic value. From the early VLBI data they showed that if $`r=1`$ in all sources, then $`\gamma `$ cannot be constant, and vice versa. From Figure 3 it is quite clear that $`\gamma `$ is not constant in the compact sources. That does not mean that $`r`$ is constant; indeed, since we count stationary sources as having $`r=0`$, then $`r`$ has some distribution also. If the distribution of $`r`$ mostly has values below unity, then in Figure 1 $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}`$ must be increased. The distribution of $`\gamma `$ will shift to higher values, and its shape may change. It is difficult to predict whether the best-matching $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) will increase or decrease, as that depends on the details of the $`r`$ distribution.

## 8. Conclusions

We have combined variability Doppler factors with superluminal motions, for a sample of about 50 radio sources. The distribution of $`\beta _{\mathrm{app}}/\delta _{\mathrm{var}}`$ is roughly similar to that found in a Monte Carlo simulation, provided the intrinsic temperature in the synchrotron-emitting medium is $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int)$`2\times 10^{10}`$ K. This is near the “equipartition temperature”, $`5\times 10^{10}`$ K suggested by Readhead (1994). It is below the upper limit based on the inverse-Compton effect, $`110\times 10^{11}`$ (Kellermann & Pauliny-Toth 1969; Kellermann, these proceedings, page 185), and the diamagnetic limit calculated by Singal (1986), $`3\times 10^{11}`$ K.

The galaxies, and most of the BL Lacs, have $`\gamma <10`$, when calculated with $`T_\mathrm{b}`$(int) $`=2\times 10^{10}`$ K. The quasars have a distribution which is flat between $`\gamma =5`$ and $`\gamma =25`$, with only a few quasars above and below these limits.

####

We are indebted to H. Aller, M. Aller, M. Kadler, and E. Valtaoja for helpful discussions. The NRAO and the VLBA are operated by AUI, under cooperative agreement with the NSF. This research has made use of data from the University of Michigan Radio Astronomy Observatory which is supported by funds from the University of Michigan.

### References

Cohen, M. H. 1989, in BL Lac Objects, ed. L. Maraschi, T. Maccacaro, & M.-H. Ulrich, Lecture Notes in Phys. Vol. 334, (Berlin: Springer), 13

Kellermann, K. I., et al. 1998, ApJ, 115, 1295

Kellermann, K. I., & Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K. 1969, ApJ, 155, L71

Lähteenmäki, A., Valtaoja, E., & Wiik, K. 1999a, ApJ, 51l, 112

Lähteenmäki, A., & Valtaoja, E. 1999b, ApJ, 521, 493 (LV99)

Lister, M. L., & Marscher, A. P. 1997, ApJ, 476, 572 (LM97)

Marscher, A. P. & Gear, W. K. 1985, ApJ, 298, 114

Readhead, A. C. S. 1994, ApJ, 426, 51

Singal, A. K. 1986, A&A, 155, 242

Unwin, S. C., et al. 1994, ApJ, 432, 103

Taylor, G. B., et al. 1996, ApJS, 107, 37

Valtaoja, E., et al. 1999, ApJS, 120, 95

Vermeulen, R. C., & Cohen, M. H. 1994, ApJ, 430, 467 (VC94)

Zensus, J. A., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 662

## Index

* 3C 279 §5.


format: text

text:
# Current-induced transverse spin wave instability in a thin nanomagnet

## Abstract

We show that an unpolarized electric current incident perpendicular to the plane of a thin ferromagnet can excite a spin-wave instability transverse to the current direction if source and drain contacts are not symmetric. The instability, which is driven by the current-induced “spin-transfer torque”, exists for one current direction only.

Ferromagnets serve as spin filters for an electrical current passing through the magnet: the spin of the electrons that are transmitted through a ferromagnet becomes partially polarized parallel or antiparallel to the direction of the magnetization whereas spin current perpendicular to the magnetization direction is absorbed. Spin filtering is the root cause for the “spin-transfer torque”, the phenomenon that a polarized current impinging on a ferromagnet affects its magnetization direction slon1 ; slon2 ; berger . The source of the spin polarized current can either be a different ferromagnet, or, for a thick magnet, a region of the same ferromagnet upstream or downstream in the current flow. The “spin-transfer torque” gives rise to magnetization reversal in ferromagnet–normal-metal–ferromagnet trilayers slon1 ; slon2 , which has been observed experimentally by several groups science ; katine ; grollier1 ; wegrowe ; rippard ; nyu ; msu . Dynamic manifestations of the spin-transfer torque include domain wall motion in bulk ferromagnets bergerdomain ; bergerexp ; bazaliy ; waintal  and the excitation of spin waves by polarized currents in ferromagnetic multilayers or wires slon2 ; berger ; science ; katine ; rippard ; nyu ; msu ; rippard2 ; tsoi ; ji . In all these manifestations, the current-induced spin torque can be distinguished from effects arising from the current induced magnetic field, the main difference being that spin-transfer torque effects depend on the current direction, whereas magnetic field induced effects do not.

In this letter, we show that an unpolarized current can also exert a spin-transfer torque on a ferromagnet, even if the magnet is so thin that its magnetization direction does not change along the current flow: Although an unpolarized current cannot exert a spin-transfer torque that changes the over-all magnetization direction, it can create a transverse spin wave instability for sufficiently high current densities if the source and drain contacts to the ferromagnet are not symmetric. This spin wave instability can be identified unambiguously as a spin-torque effect because of its dependence on current direction: the spin-wave instability is present for one current direction and absent for the other. The spin-wave instability should lead to a non-hysteretic feature in the current-voltage characteristic of the ferromagnetic film that exists for one current direction only. In thick ferromagnets, such features have been observed in recent experiments science ; rippard2 . The necessary criterion for the spin-wave instability, asymmetric contacts to source and drain, is generically fulfilled in experiments on nanoscale magnets katine .

The issue of current-induced spin-wave excitation has significant practical relevance for devices based on the spin-torque effect in ferromagnetic multilayers. Whereas, experimentally, the presence of dynamical phenomena in these systems is well established, the precise nature of the excitations is not well known. A theoretical understanding of current-induced spin wave excitation in multilayer structures will shed light on the possibly useful application of the current-induced dynamical excitations, e.g., as GHz resonators, as well as on ways to avoid spin-wave excitation in devices that are designed to exhibit magnetization reversal only. For ferromagnet–normal-metal–ferromagnet trilayers, a comparison between theory and experiment is obstructed by the interplay of spin wave excitations and static magnetization reversal. Our finding that dynamical phenomena exist already in a single ferromagnetic layer allows for a study of spin-wave excitations in a much simpler geometry in which dynamical and static phenomena are well separated.

The geometry of the system under consideration is shown in Fig. 1: a nanomagnet of thickness $`d`$, small enough to be considered as single domain, is connected to source and drain reservoirs via diffusive normal-metal leads of lengths $`L_{}`$ and $`L_+`$, respectively. The leads and the ferromagnet have width $`Wd`$. In the absence of an electrical current through the system, the ferromagnet has a uniform magnetization, with a direction determined by anisotropies and an external magnetic field. A current $`j`$ flows perpendicular to the ferromagnet. (Note that the electrical current $`j`$ points opposite to the electron flow.)

For a qualitative explanation of the mechanism of the spin-wave instability, we note that the passage of an electric current through a single ferromagnetic layer creates spin accumulations of opposite signs on both sides of the ferromagnet, see Fig. 1, where the sign of the spin accumulation depends on the current direction and on the spin-filtering properties of the ferromagnet. To first order in the spin-wave amplitude, the spin accumulation in the normal metal leads is not affected by the possible presence of spin waves in the ferromagnet, as long as their wavelengths are much smaller than the spin diffusion length in the normal metal. Each spin accumulation exerts a spin-transfer torque on the magnetization; the direction of the torque is to align the magnetization in the ferromagnet with the direction of the accumulated spins in the leads. Depending on the sign of the spin accumulation, such a torque either damps or enhances non-uniform spin wave excitations in the ferromagnet. The magnitudes of the spin accumulations on each side of the ferromagnet are, generically, different, since they depend on the spin diffusion length, scattering properties of normal-metal–ferromagnet interface, distance to reservoirs, etc. Therefore, an unpolarized current results, generically, in a net torque that either suppresses or enhances non-uniform spin waves in the ferromagnet, depending on current direction. The instability occurs when the current-induced enhancement of a spin wave amplitude overcomes the intrinsic spin-wave damping.

For a quantitative description of the spin-wave instability, we choose the $`x`$ axis along the leads, with the origin such that the normal-metal–ferromagnet interfaces are at $`x=\pm d/2`$, see Fig. 1. We assume that the ferromagnet is so thin that its magnetization direction varies with respect to the transverse coordinates $`y`$ and $`z`$ only, but not with respect to $`x`$. In the diffusive normal-metal leads, the electron distribution is described by potentials $`\mu _e(𝐫,t)`$ for the electron density and $`𝝁_s(𝐫,t)`$ for the electron spin valetfert ; brataas ; huertas . The current is separated into the charge current density $`j_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =x,y,z`$, and the spin current density $`𝐣_{s\alpha }`$. Since electrons adjust to the changing magnetization on a time scale much faster than that of the magnetization dynamics, current and potential are related by means of the time-independent diffusion equation in the normal metal leads,

$`^2\mu _e=0,j_\alpha =(\sigma /e)_\alpha \mu _e,\alpha =x,y,z,`$
$`l_{\mathrm{sf}}^2^2𝝁_s=𝝁_s,𝐣_{s\alpha }=(\mathrm{}\sigma /2e^2)_\alpha 𝝁_s,`$ (1)
supplemented by boundary conditions for the source and drain reservoirs $`\mu _e(L_{})=eV`$, $`\mu _e(L_+)=0`$, $`𝝁_s(\pm L_\pm )=\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Here $`\sigma `$ is the conductivity of the normal metal leads and $`l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$ the spin-diffusion length. At the normal-metal–ferromagnet interfaces, the charge and spin current $`j_x`$ and $`𝐣_{sx}`$ in the normal metal perpendicular to the interface are related to the potential drop $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$ over the interface as brataas ; tbb

$`(𝐣_{sx})_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{}/2e^2)\text{Re}g_{}\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_s\times 𝐦\pm \mathrm{}_t𝐦\right)\times 𝐦`$
$`+(\mathrm{}/2e^2)\text{Im}g_{}\left(2\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_s\times 𝐦\pm \mathrm{}_t𝐦\right),`$
$`(𝐣_{sx})_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{}+g_{})(\mathrm{}/2e^2)𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_s`$
$`(g_{}g_{})(\mathrm{}/2e^2)\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e,`$
$`j_x`$ $`=`$ $`(g_{}+g_{})(\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _e/e)+(g_{}g_{})𝐦(\mathrm{\Delta }𝝁_s/e).`$
Here $`𝐦(𝐫,t)`$ is the unit vector pointing in the direction of the magnetization of the ferromagnet, $`(𝐣_{sx})_{}`$ and $`(𝐣_{sx})_{}`$ are the $`x`$-components of the spin current perpendicular and parallel to $`𝐦`$, respectively, $`g_{}`$ and $`g_{}`$ are interface conductivities for spins aligned parallel and antiparallel to $`𝐦`$, whereas $`g_{}`$ is the “mixing conductivity” brataas ; tbb , $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\mu (\pm d/2+0)\mu (\pm d/20)`$ is the potential drop over the interface. (We assume identical conductivities and spin-flip lengths in the leads, and identical scattering properties of the ferromagnet–normal-metal interfaces, although our results are readily generalized to unequal values of $`\sigma `$, $`l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$.) At the normal-metal–ferromagnet interface, $`(𝐣_{sx})_{}`$ and $`j_x`$ are continuous, whereas $`(𝐣_{sx})_{}=0`$ in the ferromagnet. We assume that the ferromagnet is so thin that all potential drops occur at the interfaces, so that we can neglect the $`x`$-dependence of the potentials in the ferromagnet. Then Eqs. (Current-induced transverse spin wave instability in a thin nanomagnet) and (Current-induced transverse spin wave instability in a thin nanomagnet) fully determine the potentials and currents in the normal metal and the ferromagnet, as a function of $`𝐦`$.

For a thin ferromagnet, variations of the magnetization direction $`𝐦`$ along the $`x`$ axis will have a large energy cost and, hence, a large threshold for excitation. Therefore, we consider transverse modulation of $`𝐦`$ only and take $`𝐦`$ independent of $`x`$. The dynamics of $`𝐦(y,z,t)`$ is determined by the Landau-Lifschitz-Gilbert equation (without an applied magnetic field field ) slon2 ; bazaliy ,

$`_t𝐦`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha 𝐦\times _t𝐦+J\gamma M^2𝐦\times 𝐦`$
$`(\gamma /M)(K_1m_1\widehat{e}_1+K_2m_2\widehat{e}_2)\times 𝐦`$
$`+(\gamma /Md)[𝐣_{sx}(d/20)𝐣_{sx}(d/2+0)],`$
where $`\alpha `$ and $`J`$ are the bulk Gilbert damping coefficient and spin stiffness (exchange constant) respectively, $`\gamma =\mu _Bg/\mathrm{}`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $`M`$ is the magnetization per unit volume, and $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$ are anisotropy constants along principal directions $`\widehat{e}_1`$ and $`\widehat{e}_2`$, respectively, obtained by expanding the magnet’s free energy around a preferred axis $`\widehat{e}_3`$. The magnetization satisfies the boundary condition $`(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{})𝐦=0`$, where $`\widehat{n}`$ is the normal to the ferromagnet’s surface. We neglect the effect of the current-induced magnetic field on the magnetization dynamics, which is allowed if the width $`W`$ is sufficiently small, $`1`$ $`\mu `$m for typical experimental parameters. The parameters in the Landau-Lifschitz-Gilbert equation define a length scale $`1/q_\mathrm{f}`$ and current scale $`j_\mathrm{f}`$,

$$q_\mathrm{f}^2=\frac{K_1+K_2}{2JM^2},j_\mathrm{f}^2=\left(\frac{2e}{\mathrm{}}\right)^2JM^2\frac{K_1+K_2}{2}.$$
(4)
The quantities $`1/q_\mathrm{f}`$ and $`\mathrm{}j_\mathrm{f}/e`$ are proportional to the width and energy of a domain wall, respectively. Order-of-magnitude estimates of the various parameters involved here are $`d10`$ nm, $`W10^2`$ nm, $`l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$(Cu)$`10^2`$ nm katine ; albert ; $`\text{Im}g_{}\text{Re}g_{}g_{}g_{}10^{14}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$m-2 stiles ; xia  for Co/Cu and Fe/Cr interfaces; $`\sigma /l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$(Cu)$`10^{15}`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$m-2, and typically $`q_\mathrm{f}10^1`$ nm-1, $`j_\mathrm{f}10^8`$ A$`/`$cm2 for Co, Fe or Ni reference .

We first solve these equations for a uniform magnetization, $`𝐦`$ independent of the transverse coordinates $`y`$ and $`z`$. The spin accumulation $`𝝁_s`$ in the normal metal leads close to the normal-metal–ferromagnet interface is

$`𝝁_s(\pm d/2)`$ $`=`$ $`(ej_x/g_m)\mathrm{tanh}(L_\pm /l_{\mathrm{sf}})𝐦,`$ (5)
where $`j_x`$ is the charge current density and

$`g_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\sigma /l_{\mathrm{sf}})(g_{}+g_{})+2g_{}g_{}_\pm \mathrm{tanh}(L_\pm /l_{\mathrm{sf}})}{g_{}g_{}}}.`$
The spin accumulation is shown schematically in Fig. 1.

In the case of uniform magnetization, the spin accumulation $`𝝁_s`$ is always parallel to $`𝐦`$, and no current-induced torque is applied to the magnetization. The situation changes if $`𝐦`$ varies in the transverse direction. In this case, transverse diffusion of spin in the normal-metal leads gives rise to an angle between $`𝝁_s`$ and $`𝐦`$, and, hence, to a current-induced torque. In order to study this scenario in detail, we analyze Eqs. (Current-induced transverse spin wave instability in a thin nanomagnet)–(Current-induced transverse spin wave instability in a thin nanomagnet) for a small deviation of $`𝐦`$ from the equilibrium direction $`\widehat{e}_3`$. The result can be represented in terms of an equation of motion for $`\delta 𝐦=𝐦\widehat{e}_3`$. We assume a rectangular cross section of dimensions $`W_y`$ and $`W_z`$ in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions and perform a Fourier transform with respect to the transverse coordinates $`y`$ and $`z`$. The allowed wavevectors are $`q_y=\pi n_y/W_y`$, $`q_z=\pi n_z/W_z`$, where $`n_y`$ and $`n_z`$ are non-negative integers. Representing $`\delta 𝐦`$ through $`m_\pm (𝐪)=\delta m_1(𝐪)\pm i\delta m_2(𝐪)`$, one finds that, to first order in $`m_\pm `$, the equations of motion of different Fourier modes separate,

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{\gamma }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}\right)M_tm_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_2K_1}{2}}m_{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}j_\mathrm{f}(q^2+q_\mathrm{f}^2)}{2eq_\mathrm{f}}}m_\pm `$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}j_x(S_2iS_1)}{2ed}}m_\pm ,`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ are renormalized Gilbert damping parameter and gyromagnetic ratio,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Mde^2}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}G_\pm (q)}{G_\pm (q)+g_{}}},`$ (7a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \mathrm{}^2}{2Mde^2}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{}G_\pm (q)}{G_\pm (q)+g_{}}},`$ (7b)
whereas the dimensionless numbers $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ set the magnitude of the current-induced torque,

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{g_ml_{\mathrm{sf}}}}\text{Re}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pm g_{}}{G_\pm (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_\pm (0)G_\pm (q)}{g_{}+G_\pm (q)}},`$ (8a)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{g_ml_{\mathrm{sf}}}}\text{Im}{\displaystyle \underset{\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pm g_{}}{G_\pm (0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_\pm (0)G_\pm (q)}{g_{}+G_\pm (q)}},`$ (8b)
where $`g_m`$ was defined below Eq. (5) and

$`G_\pm (q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}\sqrt{l_{\mathrm{sf}}^2+q^2}\mathrm{coth}\left(L_\pm \sqrt{l_{\mathrm{sf}}^2+q^2}\right).`$
In the limit $`q0`$, Eqs. (7) coincide with the enhanced Gilbert damping and gyromagnetic ratio reported by Tserkovnyak et al. tbb .

In the absence of a current, any spatial modulation of the magnetization is damped. It is the existence of the source terms $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ in Eq. (6) that leads to a spin-wave instability at sufficiently large current density $`j`$. Note that the source terms exist only if the normal leads are asymmetric (different lengths, or different conductivities, spin-flip lengths or interface conductivities), and if the ferromagnet is a spin filter, $`g_{}g_{}`$. The source term $`S_2`$ gives rise to a small change of the ferromagnetic resonance frequency, whereas $`S_1`$ increases or decreases the amplitude of the spin wave, depending on the current direction. An instability occurs if the current-induced enhancement of the spin-wave amplitude overcomes the damping, i.e., if

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma S_1}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}}S_2\right)(j)>{\displaystyle \frac{(q^2+q_\mathrm{f}^2)d}{q_\mathrm{f}}}j_\mathrm{f}.`$ (9)
Using the order-of-magnitude estimates listed below Eq. (4), the instability criterion simplifies considerably if we set $`\text{Im}g_{}=0`$, take the limits $`d0`$ and $`\sigma /l_{\mathrm{sf}}\text{Re}g_{}`$, and consider the case $`L_{}l_{\mathrm{sf}}L_+`$ of maximally asymmetric contacts,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{j}{j_\mathrm{f}}}`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma g_m}{Mq_\mathrm{f}e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mathrm{f}^2+q^2}{1(1+q^2l_{\mathrm{sf}}^2)^{1/2}}}.`$ (10)
The r.h.s. of Eq. (10) is shown schematically in Fig. 2. For large $`q1/l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$, the spin-wave instability is dominated by the stiffness of the spin wave, which leads to a critical current density $`q^2`$. For small $`q1/l_{\mathrm{sf}}`$, the magnetization accumulation in the normal metal leads tends to remain locally parallel to the magnetization, so that the current-induced torque is strongly reduced and the critical current density for excitations at small $`q`$ is increased $`q^2`$. For a thick ferromagnet, the effect of bulk Gilbert damping becomes dominant, causing the critical current density to increase linearly with the thickness $`d`$.

In the experimentally relevant parameter regime $`1/q_\mathrm{f}l_{\mathrm{sf}}\sigma /\text{Re}g_{}`$, the critical current density is

$`j_\mathrm{c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2\gamma g_mq_\mathrm{f}}{Me^2}}j_\mathrm{f},q_\mathrm{c}=\left(q_\mathrm{f}^2/2l_{\mathrm{sf}}\right)^{1/3}.`$ (11)
For a Cu/Co/Cu geometry, we estimate $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(0.1`$nm$`)/d`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2\gamma g_mq_\mathrm{f}/Me^20.2`$, as long as $`dq_\mathrm{f}1`$. We then find $`j_\mathrm{c}10^7`$ A$`/\text{cm}^2`$, which is of the same order of magnitude as the critical current for magnetization reversal in a ferromagnet–normal-metal–ferromagnet trilayerkatine . The estimate (11) is valid as long as the width $`W1/q_\mathrm{c}`$. For small $`W`$, the instability occurs at the lowest possible wavenumber, $`q_\mathrm{c}=\pi /W`$.

In conclusion, we have shown that an unpolarized electric current passing through a thin ferromagnetic layer can create a spin wave instability with wavevector transverse to the current. The instability occurs at one current direction only and depends on the asymmetry of normal metal contacts. The mechanism for the instability is the same as the one believed to cause magnetization reversal in ferromagnetic multilayers, i.e., a spin-transfer torque arising from spin accumulation in the normal metal contacts perpendicular to the magnetization direction $`𝐦`$ and spin-filtering at the normal-metal–ferromagnet interfaces slon1 ; slon2 ; bazaliy .

Current-induced excitations that occur for one current direction only have been observed in single ferromagnetic layers science ; ji ; rippard2 . For ferromagnets much thicker than the inverse wavevector $`q_c^13\times 10^1`$nm for transverse spin waves, cf. Eq. (11), spin wave excitations with wavevector along the current flow may have a lower threshold current than transverse excitations bazaliy ; ji . Such thick ferromagnetic layers are common in the point-contact geometry science ; rippard ; ji . It is for the thin layers used in the nanopillar geometry katine ; nyu ; msu ; grollier1 ; albert  that we believe the transverse instability considered here is most significant.

We thank Yaroslav Bazaliy, Nathan Emley, Sergey Kiselev, Ilya Krivorotov, Dan Ralph, Jack Sankey and Yaroslav Tserkovnyak for discussions. This work was supported by the Cornell Center for Materials research under NSF grant no. DMR 0079992, the Cornell Center for Nanoscale Systems under NSF grant no. EEC-0117770, the NSF under grant no. DMR 0086509, and the Packard Foundation.


text:
# Bohr-Sommerfeld Quantization of Spin Hamiltonians

## Abstract

The Bohr-Sommerfeld rule for a spin system is obtained, including the first quantum corrections. The rule applies to both integer and half-integer spin, and respects Kramers degeneracy for time-reversal invariant systems. It is tested for various models, in particular the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick model, and found to agree very well with exact results.

The question in this Letter was investigated twentysome years ago by R. Shankar, in a paper in this journal with a nearly identical title shankar80 . Many physical systems involve large-magnitude spin or pseudospin degrees of freedom. Examples include spinning molecules harter77+84 ; robbins89 , superdeformed rotating nuclei hamamoto94+95 , magnetic molecular solids villain00 , and the Lipkin-Meshkov-Glick (LMG) model of certain collective excitations in nuclei lipkin65 . In all these cases, because the spin magnitude, $`j`$, is large, a semiclassical approach is natural. In some cases, such an approach is effective even for $`j`$ as small as $`1/2`$, e.g., in studies of magnetic order mattis ; haldane83+85 ; henley98 .

It may therefore surprise some readers that so far we have lacked even the Bohr-Sommerfeld (BS) quantization rule for a single spin. All previous authors cited have used heuristic or ad hoc BS rules that vary in their treatment of the first quantum corrections qtmcorrect . In this paper, we use the semiclassical propagator for spin, which has only recently been fully understood spg+etal , to find the BS rule systematically. We shall first state the rule, then apply it to a few model problems, and finally prove it.

The general problem is as follows. We are given a quantum Hamiltonian

$$=(J_x^{\mathrm{op}},J_y^{\mathrm{op}},J_z^{\mathrm{op}}),$$
(1)
where $`J_i^{\mathrm{op}}`$ ($`i=x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$) are components of the dimensionless spin operator, $`𝐉^{\mathrm{op}}`$, with the commutator $`[J_i^{\mathrm{op}},J_j^{\mathrm{op}}]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k^{\mathrm{op}}`$, and $``$ is a polynomial in $`J_i^{\mathrm{op}}`$ degreepoly . Since $`𝐉^{\mathrm{op}}𝐉^{\mathrm{op}}=j(j+1)`$ is a constant of motion, the spin magnitude $`j`$ must also be given. We want the eigenvalues of $``$ when $`j`$ is large, and the problem is, intuitively, quasiclassical.

The first step is to understand the classical limit. We expect $``$ to correspond to some classical Hamiltonian $`H_c(𝐉)`$ of a c-number angular momentum $`𝐉`$, with dynamics defined by the Poisson brackets $`\{J_i,J_j\}=ϵ_{ijk}J_k`$. Since $`𝐉𝐉`$ is conserved, we can regard the motion as taking place on a sphere of radius $`j=|𝐉|`$. All orbits on this sphere are closed and non intersecting, so it may regarded as the phase space of the system. With polar coordinates $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, and the usual identification of $`J_z`$ and $`\varphi `$ as canonically conjugate momentum and coordinate, we can expect the BS rule to quantize the action integral $`\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$. Robbins et al. robbins89  set this integral to $`(2n+1)\pi /(j+\frac{1}{2})`$, Harter and Patterson harter77+84  set it to $`2n\pi /[j(j+1)]^{1/2}`$, and Shankar shankar80  equates $`j𝒜_{\mathrm{sc}}^+`$ \[see paragraph below Eq. (27)\] to $`2n\pi `$. Neither rule is formulated in a context that extends to half-integer $`j`$. The rule we find is

$$(j+\frac{1}{2})𝒜_c^+(E)+\frac{1}{2j}_0^{T(E)}𝐉_JH_cdt=(2n+1)\pi .$$
(2)
Here, $`n`$ is an integer ranging from 0 to $`2j`$, and

$$𝒜_c^+(E)=_{H_c=E}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta )𝑑\varphi (\mathrm{mod}4\pi )$$
(3)
is the area enclosed by an orbit of energy $`E`$ areasign . For future use, let us denote the two terms in Eq. (2) by $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$, and also define

$$\stackrel{~}{ȷ}=j+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(4)
The term $`I_2`$ is also evaluated along the orbit $`H_c=E`$, which is taken to have a period $`T(E)`$. This term, and the extra $`\frac{1}{2}`$ in the $`j+\frac{1}{2}`$ factor in $`I_1`$ represent the first quantum corrections.

To make Eq. (2) precise, we must also state the rule for associating $`H_c`$ with $``$. We do this by writing

$$(𝐉^{\mathrm{op}})=\underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}c_\mathrm{}m𝒴_\mathrm{}m(𝐉^{\mathrm{op}}),$$
(5)
where $`𝒴_\mathrm{}m`$ are the spherical harmonic tensor operators, and the coefficients $`c_{lm}`$ are uniquely determined since $`\mathrm{Tr}(𝒴_\mathrm{}m^{}𝒴_\mathrm{}^{}m^{})\delta _{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}}\delta _{mm^{}}.`$ Then,

$$H_c(𝐉)=\underset{\mathrm{}m}{}c_\mathrm{}mY_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)$$
(6)
with the same $`c_\mathrm{}m`$’s, and the $`Y_\mathrm{}m`$’s are solid harmonics. Along with the $`𝒴_\mathrm{}m`$’s, they may be defined by the generating function schwinger

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}(𝐚𝐉)^{\mathrm{}}\\ (𝐚𝐉^{\mathrm{op}})^{\mathrm{}}\end{array}\right]=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{2\mathrm{}+1}}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_\mathrm{}m\lambda ^m\left[\begin{array}{c}Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)\\ 𝒴_\mathrm{}m(𝐉^{\mathrm{op}})\end{array}\right],$$
(7)
where, $`a_\mathrm{}m=\mathrm{}!/[(\mathrm{}+m)!(\mathrm{}m)!]^{1/2}`$, and

$$𝐚=\widehat{𝐳}\frac{\lambda }{2}(\widehat{𝐱}+i\widehat{𝐲})+\frac{1}{2\lambda }(\widehat{𝐱}i\widehat{𝐲})$$
(8)
is a complex vector with $`𝐚𝐚=0`$. Note that given $``$, $`H_c`$ is completely determined. To get $`H_c`$ from $``$, we also need to give the value of $`j`$. Hence, the $`H_c`$ correspondence is one-to-one. Note also that the trinomial expansion of $`(𝐚𝐉^{\mathrm{op}})^{\mathrm{}}`$ is analogous to the expansion of $`(aq+bp)^n`$ that gives Weyl ordering.

Let us now apply Eq. (2) to a few models. Our first example is $`=\omega J_z^{\mathrm{op}}`$, and $`H_c=\omega J_z`$. The orbits are given by $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =E/\omega j=\mathrm{const}`$, and $`\dot{\varphi }=\omega `$. Hence, $`I_1=2\stackrel{~}{ȷ}\pi (1E/j\omega )`$, and $`I_2=\pi E/j\omega `$, so the quantization condition is $`E_n=\omega (jn)\pi `$, with $`n=0`$, 1, 2, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`2j`$. In this simple case, the rule is exact.

Our next example is somewhat less trivial, $`=\nu (J_z^{\mathrm{op}})^2`$, $`H_c=\nu J_z^2`$. Again $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{const}`$, $`E=\nu j^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, and $`\dot{\varphi }=2\nu j\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. The rule again yields $`j\mathrm{cos}\theta =(jn)`$, i.e., $`E_n=\nu (jn)^2`$. This is also exact, but more importantly, it is in accord with Kramers’ theorem. It is not hard to see that this is true for any time-reversal invariant $``$, for which $`H_c(𝐉)=H_c(𝐉)`$.

As our third example, we consider the LMG model, just as done by Shankar. The Hamiltonian now is

$$=J_z^{\mathrm{op}}+\frac{r}{2j}\left[(J_x^{\mathrm{op}})^2(J_y^{\mathrm{op}})^2\right],$$
(9)
and $`H_c`$ is obtained by simply deleting the ‘op’ suffixes. On the orbit with energy $`E`$,

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{1\pm [1+r\mathrm{cos}2\varphi (r\mathrm{cos}2\varphi 2E/j)]^{1/2}}{r\mathrm{cos}2\varphi }.$$
(10)
Now, $`H_cH_c`$ under a 180 rotation about $`\widehat{𝐱}\pm \widehat{𝐲}`$, i.e., $`\theta \pi \theta `$, $`\varphi \varphi +\pi /2`$. This symmetry forces states to occur in pairs, $`E`$ and $`E`$, plus a nondegenerate state at $`E=0`$ for integer $`j`$. For orbits related by this symmetry, we have $`I_14\pi \stackrel{~}{ȷ}I_1`$, and $`I_2I_2`$, so the BS spectrum is also symmetric about $`E=0`$. For the orbit at $`E=0`$, $`I_1=(2j+1)\pi `$, and $`I_2=0`$, so $`E=0`$ is an allowed energy for integer $`j`$ only. From now on, we consider only $`E0`$.

The energy landscape for this model looks like this. If $`r1`$, $`H_c`$ has a maximum at $`\theta =0`$ ($`H_c=j`$) and a minimum at $`\theta =\pi `$. If $`r>1`$, these points turn into saddle points, and $`H_c`$ develops two degenerate maxima \[with $`H_c=\frac{1}{2}j(r+r^1`$)\] along the $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ meridians. Orbits at slightly lower energies circle these maxima, and are separated by a separatrix at $`E=j`$ passing through the north pole. (See Fig. 1 in Ref. shankar80, .) Hence for $`r>1`$, we expect to have pairs of levels split by tunneling for $`E`$ above or around $`j`$, and single levels below. In this paper, due to limited space, we will not incorportate tunneling effects into our BS calculations. In principle this may be done by allowing the orbits to become complex robbins89 . We have discussed how to find ground pair splittings from the propagator elsewhere gkps . For the orbits with $`E>j`$, both signs in Eq. (10) are valid, but for $`E<j`$ (and any $`r`$) only the minus sign is meaningful.

The evaluation of the two action terms in Eq. (2) requires simple one-dimensional numerical integration. The resulting BS spectrum is compared with the exact one (from numerical diagonalization of $``$) in Table 1. The values of $`j`$ and $`r`$ are the same as those used by Shankar, and it is evident that our BS analysis improves on his. Indeed, it is rather good almost uniformly, but a few aspects call for comment. For $`r<1`$, the highest energy exceeds $`j`$, and can be found by extrapolating the BS action. This amounts to allowing for complex orbits. For $`r=1`$, the energy is not quadratic in deviations about the maximum at $`\theta =0`$. In terms of the stationary phase approximation on which Eq. (2) is premised (see below), this corresponds to an exceptional case where we must include fluctuations higher than second order (Gaussian) about the stationary phase point. The two highest energies in Table 1 were obtained via the mapping $`J_x^{\mathrm{op}}q`$, $`J_y^{\mathrm{op}}jp`$, with $`[q,p]=i`$, and textbook BS quantization for a particle in one dimension. The same limitation on Eq. (2) is present for $`r>1`$ close to the tunneling barrier, i.e., $`Ej`$. Now, one may have a pair of tunnel split levels such that one level is below the barrier and the other above. Literal use of Eq. (2) then yields two degenerate levels just below the barrier, with large errors. We have chosen to find the unbound partner by extrapolating the action for $`E<j`$. A proper semiclassical approach would require including complex orbits, and non-Gaussian fluctuations. These aspects are not unique to spin, and also occur with one-dimensional double well potentials.

In the rest of the paper, we show how we derive the BS rule (2). Let $`|\widehat{𝐧}`$ be a spin coherent state with maximal spin projection along the direction $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ with polar coordinates $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$, i.e., $`𝐉^{\mathrm{op}}\widehat{𝐧}|\widehat{𝐧}=j|\widehat{𝐧}`$. In terms of stereographic coordinates

$$z=\mathrm{tan}\frac{1}{2}\theta e^{i\varphi },\overline{z}=\mathrm{tan}\frac{1}{2}\theta e^{i\varphi },$$
(11)
the state may also be written as $`|z=\mathrm{exp}(zJ_{}^{\mathrm{op}})|\widehat{𝐳}`$. Note that $`|z`$ is not normalized, and $`z|z=(1+\overline{z}z)^{2j}`$. We shall write $`|\widehat{𝐧}`$, $`|z`$, or $`|\theta ,\varphi `$ interchangeably as needed. Secondly, we shall need to discuss points on the complex unit sphere, for which $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are not real, or equivalently, $`\overline{z}`$ and $`z`$ are not true complex conjugates. Such points are specified by the pair $`(\overline{z},z)`$.

Our starting point is the semiclassical approximation spg+etal  to the propagator $`K=z_f|e^{iT}|z_i`$:

$$K_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z}_f,z_i;T)=\sqrt{\frac{N}{2j}}\left(\frac{^2S}{\overline{z}_fz_i}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(S+\frac{i}{2}_0^TA𝑑t\right).$$
(12)
with,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`j\mathrm{ln}N+{\displaystyle _0^T}\left[j{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{z}}z\overline{z}\dot{z}}{1+\overline{z}z}}iH_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z},z)\right]𝑑t,`$ (13)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{z}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}{4j}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{sc}}}{z}}+z\overline{z},`$ (14)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`(1+\overline{z}_fz(T))(1+\overline{z}(0)z_i).`$ (15)
Here, $`S`$ is the action along the least action trajectory from the point $`(\overline{z}(0),z_i)`$ to $`(\overline{z}_f,z(T))`$; as noted in Ref. spg+etal, , to find such a trajectory, i.e., a solution of the Euler-Lagrange equations,

$$\dot{\overline{z}}=\frac{i}{2j}(1+\overline{z}z)^2\frac{H_{\mathrm{sc}}}{z},\dot{z}=\frac{i}{2j}(1+\overline{z}z)^2\frac{H_{\mathrm{sc}}}{\overline{z}},$$
(16)
we must allow $`\overline{z}(0)\overline{z}_i`$ and $`\overline{z}_f\overline{z(T)}`$. The integral in $`S`$ must be evaluated along this trajectory. So must $`A𝑑t`$, the Solari-Kochetov correction, which is $`O(1/j)`$ relative to $`S`$, and key to getting a propagator that is self-consistently replicating under composition. Further,

$$H_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z},z)=z||z,$$
(17)
which we shall call the semiclassical Hamiltonian. Finally, we must sum the the right hand side in Eq. (12) over all solutions of the equations of motion if there is more than one.

Our goal is to find the Green function, and then the energy spectrum by looking for its poles. In step 1, we evaluate the Laplace transform

$$F_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z}_f,z_i;E)=_0^TK_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z}_f,z_i;T)e^{iET}𝑑T$$
(18)
by the stationary phase method. This naturally leads to the action at fixed energy $`W(E)=S(T)+iET`$, where $`E`$ and $`T`$ are related by

$$T(E)=i\frac{W(E)}{E},E(T)=i\frac{S(T)}{T}.$$
(19)
Then, using known methods marinov80 , we can show that

$$F_{\mathrm{sc}}=e^{i\gamma }\sqrt{\frac{N}{2j}}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\dot{z}_i\dot{\overline{z}}_f}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(W+\frac{i}{2}A𝑑t\right)|_{T=T(E)}.$$
(20)
Here we have included a Maslov-like phase $`e^{i\gamma }`$, which arises because the mapping from $`T`$ to $`E`$ is many to one. This is best seen by considering the case $`z_f=z_i`$, which we shall shortly encounter when we take the trace. Now, for the same energy $`E`$, there is more than one trajectory corresponding to multiple traverses of the same fundamental orbit. So, $`T`$ is an integer multiple of the basic period $`T_0`$, the different branches of $`W`$ differ by additive integer multiples of $`iET_0`$, and the phase $`e^{i\gamma }`$ is $`(1)^n`$ for $`n`$ traverses.

In step 2, we again use stationary phase to perform the trace that gives the semiclassical Green function:

$$G_{\mathrm{sc}}(E)=\frac{2j+1}{\pi }\frac{dzd\overline{z}}{(1+\overline{z}z)^{2j+2}}F_{\mathrm{sc}}(\overline{z},z;E).$$
(21)
The stationary phase condition yields $`z(T)=z`$, and $`\overline{z}(0)=\overline{z}`$, so now we are only considering closed classical orbits with energy $`E`$, with momenta that match smoothly at the end points. Next, we must integrate over small fluctuations $`\eta `$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ in $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. For the fundamental orbit at energy $`E`$, we can write

$$G_{\mathrm{sc}}=\sqrt{\frac{\stackrel{~}{ȷ}}{\pi }}\frac{d\eta d\overline{\eta }}{(1+\overline{z}z)}\frac{1}{|\dot{z}|}\mathrm{exp}(Z_{\mathrm{sc}})\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{2}Q)$$
(22)
using known classical mechanical identities. Here,

$`Z_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^T}\left[\stackrel{~}{ȷ}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{z}}z\overline{z}\dot{z}}{1+\overline{z}z}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}{4j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_{\mathrm{sc}}}{\overline{z}z}}\right]𝑑t,`$ (23)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2j+1}{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}}\left(2\overline{\eta }\eta {\displaystyle \frac{\dot{z}}{\dot{\overline{z}}}}\overline{\eta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{z}}}{\dot{z}}}\eta ^2\right).`$ (24)
The quadratic form $`Q`$ has a zero eigenvalue, corresponding to a fluctuation $`(\overline{\eta },\eta )`$ that moves us along the orbit. If we parametrize this direction by the time $`t`$, and the orthogonal direction by a variable $`r`$, then,

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\eta \\ \overline{\eta }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{z}\\ \dot{\overline{z}}\end{array}\right)t+\left(\begin{array}{c}\dot{z}\\ \dot{\overline{z}}\end{array}\right)r,$$
(25)
and $`Q=4r^2|\dot{z}|^2`$. The integration over all points along the orbit turns into an integral over $`t`$ from $`0`$ to $`T`$, and with the jacobian $`(\eta ,\overline{\eta })/(t,r)=2|\dot{z}|^2`$, the $`r`$ integral may also be done. The result is that for one traverse of the orbit we get $`iT\mathrm{exp}(Z_{\mathrm{sc}})`$. For $`n`$ traverses, we multiply by $`(1)^n`$ and let $`Z_{\mathrm{sc}}nZ_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. Summing over all $`n`$, we get

$$G_{\mathrm{sc}}(E)=\frac{iT(E)}{1+\mathrm{exp}(Z_{\mathrm{sc}}(E))}.$$
(26)
This has poles (each with unit residue) whenever

$$Z_{\mathrm{sc}}(E)=(2n+1)i\pi .$$
(27)
Equation (27) is our quantization condition. The first term in Eq. (23) is $`i\stackrel{~}{ȷ}`$ times the area $`𝒜_{\mathrm{sc}}^+`$. Unlike $`𝒜_c^+`$, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{sc}}^+`$ is computed on the orbit $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}=E`$, not $`H_c=E`$, since it is $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ that appears in Eq. (16). In the second term, we note that

$$(1+\overline{z}z)^2\frac{^2H_{\mathrm{sc}}}{z\overline{z}}=_\mathrm{\Omega }^2H_{\mathrm{sc}},$$
(28)
where $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is the angular part of the Laplacian.

A true BS rule must be in terms of the classical Hamiltonian, $`H_c`$, not $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. To cast Eq. (27) into the form (2), we must relate $`H_c`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. Using Eq. (7), we can show that

$$\widehat{𝐧}|𝒴_\mathrm{}m(𝐉^{\mathrm{op}})|\widehat{𝐧}=\left[1\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}1)}{4j}+O(j^2)\right]Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐉),$$
(29)
with $`𝐉=j\widehat{𝐧}`$ exactcoeff . Since, $`_\mathrm{\Omega }^2Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)`$, and $`𝐉_JY_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)=\mathrm{}Y_\mathrm{}m(𝐉)`$, it follows that $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}=H_c+H_1`$, where

$$H_1=\frac{1}{4j}_\mathrm{\Omega }^2H_c+\frac{1}{2j}𝐉_JH_c.$$
(30)
We have written $`H_c`$ instead of $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ on the right since the corrections are of $`O(j^2)`$.

The difference between $`𝒜_{\mathrm{sc}}^+`$ and $`𝒜_c^+`$ is now easy to find. Let us denote the solutions of Eq. (16) $`(\overline{z}_{\mathrm{sc}},z_{\mathrm{sc}})`$ and those with $`H_c`$ instead of $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ by $`(\overline{z}_c,z_c)`$. If we regard $`\overline{z}_{\mathrm{sc}}`$ and $`z_c`$ as functions of $`E`$ and $`z`$, then

$`H_c(\overline{z}_{\mathrm{sc}}(E,z),z)`$ $`=`$ $`EH_1,`$ (31)
$`H_c(\overline{z}_c(E,z),z)`$ $`=`$ $`E.`$ (32)
Writing $`\overline{z}_{\mathrm{sc}}=\overline{z}_c+\overline{z}_1`$, $`z_{\mathrm{sc}}=z_c+z_1`$, and using the equations of motion, we find

$$\overline{z}_1=i\frac{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}{2j}\frac{H_1}{\dot{z}},z_1=i\frac{(1+\overline{z}z)^2}{2j}\frac{H_1}{\dot{\overline{z}}}.$$
(33)
In this way we find

$$\stackrel{~}{ȷ}𝒜_{\mathrm{sc}}^+=\stackrel{~}{ȷ}𝒜_c^++_0^TH_1𝑑t.$$
(34)
Substituting this in Eq. (23), and making use of Eqs. (28) and (30), we see that Eqs. (27) and (2) are equivalent.

We mention in closing that we can also use coherent states to find a BS rule for one dimensional potential problems. The result is akin to Eq. (27). To show its equivalence to the textbook rule, we use Weyl ordering and the Wigner-Moyal formalism to relate $``$, $`H_c`$, and $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$. In the spin case, the problems of ordering, and of relating $`H_c`$ to $`H_{\mathrm{sc}}`$, are neatly solved by the generating formula (7).

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation Grant Nos. DMR-0202165 (AG) and DMR-0132990 (MS).


text:
# Breakdown of the Mechanism of Forming Wakes by a Current-Carrying String

## 1 Introduction

Topological defects are predicted in many gauge models as solitonic solutions resulting from spontaneous breaking of gauge or global symmetries. Among all these solutions, cosmic strings have attracted attention because they may be the source of large-scale structure in the Universe . A relevant mechanism to understand the structure formation by cosmic strings involves long strings moving with relativistic speed in the normal plane, giving rise to velocity perturbations in their wake . The mechanism of forming wakes has been considered by many authors in the General Relativity theory . More recently, Masalskiene and Guimarães  have considered the formation of wakes by long strings in the contexte of scalar-tensor theories. They have shown that the presence of a gravitational scalar field - which from now on we will call generically as “dilaton” - induces a very similar structure as in the case of a wiggly cosmic string . Further, Bezerra and Ferreira  showed that, if a torsion is presented, this effect is amplified.

From the point of view of purely gravitational physics, it was shown that the inclusion of a current hardly affects the metric outside the string . However, it is well-known that inclusion of such an internal structure can change the predictions of cosmic string models in the microwave background anisotropies . This is the main goal of this work. Namely, we analyse the formation and evolution of wakes in this spacetime and we show explicitly how the current affects this mechanism. For this purpose, we consider a model in which non-baryonic cold dark matter propagates around the current-carrying string. The Zel’dovich approximation is carried out in order to treat this motion. We anticipate that our main result is to show that the inclusion of a current brings logarithmic divergences and can actually break down the accretion mechanism by wakes. We take here a slightly different approach from papers , although our results are very similar of them.

This work is outlined as follows. In section 2, after setting the relevant microscopic model which describes a superconducting string carrying a current of timelike type, we present its gravitational field. In section 3, we consider the mechanism of formation and evolution of wakes in this framework by means of the Zel’dovich approximation. We obtained our results in the weak-field approximation. Finally, in section 4, we end up with some conclusions and remarks.

## 2 Timelike Current-Carrying Strings:

In this section we will study the gravitational field generated by a string carrying a current of timelike-type. We start with the action in the Jordan-Fierz frame

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\stackrel{~}{R}\frac{\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\stackrel{~}{g}^{\mu \nu }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}]+𝒮_m[\psi _m,\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }]$$
(1)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ is the physical metric which contains both scalar and tensor degrees of freedom, $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ is the curvature scalar associated to it and $`𝒮_m`$ is the action for general matter fields which, at this point, is left arbitrary. The metric signature is assumed to be $`(,+,+,+)`$.

In what follows, we will concentrate our attention to superconducting vortex configurations which arise from the spontaneous breaking of the symmetry $`U(1)\times U_{em}(1)`$. Therefore, the action for the matter fields will be composed by two pairs of coupled complex scalar and gauge fields $`(\phi ,B_\mu )`$ and $`(\sigma ,A_\mu )`$. Also, for technical purposes, it is preferable to work in the so-called Einstein (or conformal) frame, in which the scalar and tensor degrees of freedom do not mix.

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G_{}}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g}[R2_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi ]}`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )((D_\mu \phi )^{}D^\mu \phi +(D_\mu \sigma )^{}D^\mu \sigma )`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi }}(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+H_{\mu \nu }H^{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )V(|\phi |,|\sigma |)],`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ , $`H_{\mu \nu }=\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu `$ and the potential is suitably chosen in order that the pair $`(\phi ,B_\mu )`$ breaks one symmetry $`U(1)`$ in vacuum (giving rise to the vortex configuration) and the second pair $`(\sigma ,A_\mu )`$ breaks the symmetry $`U_{em}(1)`$ in the core of the vortex (giving rise to the superconducting properties)

$$V(|\phi |,|\sigma |)=\frac{\lambda _\phi }{8}(|\phi |^2\eta ^2)^2+f(|\phi |^2\eta ^2)|\sigma |^2+\frac{\lambda _\sigma }{4}|\sigma |^4+\frac{m_\sigma ^2}{2}|\sigma |^2$$
(3)
We restrict, then, ourselves to the configurations corresponding to an isolated, static current-carrying vortex lying in the $`zaxis`$. In a cylindrical coordinate system $`(t,r,z,\theta )`$ such that $`r0`$ and $`0\theta <2\pi `$, we make the following ansatz:

$$\phi =\phi (r)e^{i\theta }B_\mu =\frac{1}{q}[Q(r)1]$$
(4)
The pair $`(\sigma ,A_\mu )`$, which is responsible for the superconducting properties of the vortex, is set in the form

$$\sigma =\sigma (r)e^{i\psi (t)}A_t=\frac{1}{e}[P_t(r)_t\psi ]$$
(5)
where $`P_t`$ corresponds to the electric field which leads to a timelike current in the vortex. We also require that the functions $`\phi ,Q(r),\sigma (r)\text{and}P_t`$ must be regular everywhere and must satisfy the usual boundary conditions of vortex  and superconducting configurations .

The action (2) is obtained from (1) by a conformal transformation

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )g_{\mu \nu }`$
and by the redefinition of the quantity

$`G_{}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}^1`$
which makes evident the feature that any gravitational phenomena will be affected by the variation of the gravitation constant $`G_{}`$ in the scalar-tensor gravity, and by introducing a new parameter

$`\alpha ^2=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(\varphi )}{\varphi }})^2=[2\omega (\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }})+3]^1`$
Variation of the action (2) with respect to the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and to the dilaton field $`\varphi `$ gives the modified Einstein’s equations and a wave equation for the dilaton, respectively. Namely,

$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`2_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi g_{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +8\pi G_{}T_{\mu \nu }`$
$`\mathrm{}_g\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G_{}\alpha (\varphi )T`$ (6)
Where $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor which is obtained by

$$T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta S_{mat}}{\delta g_{\mu \nu }}.$$
(7)
We note, in passing, that, in the conformal frame, this tensor is not conserved providing us with an additional equation: $`_\mu T_\nu ^\mu =\alpha (\varphi )T_\nu \varphi .`$

In what follows, we will write the general static metric with cylindrical symmetry corresponding to the electric case in the form

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}dt^2+e^{2(\gamma \mathrm{\Psi })}(dr^2+dz^2)+\beta ^2e^{2\mathrm{\Psi }}d\theta ^2$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi },\gamma ,\beta `$ are functions of $`r`$ only.

The non-vanishing components of the energy-momentum tensor using (7) are

$`T_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )\left\{g^{tt}\sigma ^2P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g^{rr}\left[\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]+g^{\theta \theta }\phi ^2Q^2\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}g^{rr}\left\{g^{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{e^2}}+g^{\theta \theta }{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2}}\right\}\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\varphi )V(\sigma ,\phi )`$
$`T_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )\left\{g^{tt}\sigma ^2P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g^{rr}\left[\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]+g^{\theta \theta }\phi ^2Q^2\right\}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}g^{rr}\left\{g^{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{e^2}}+g^{\theta \theta }{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2}}\right\}\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\varphi )V(\sigma ,\phi )`$
$`T_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )\left\{g^{tt}\sigma ^2P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g^{rr}\left[\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]g^{\theta \theta }\phi ^2Q^2\right\}`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}g^{rr}\left\{g^{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{e^2}}g^{\theta \theta }{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2}}\right\}\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\varphi )V(\sigma ,\phi )`$
$`T_z^z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\varphi )\left\{g^{tt}\sigma ^2P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+g^{rr}\left[\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]+g^{\theta \theta }\phi ^2Q^2\right\}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}g^{rr}\left\{g^{tt}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{e^2}}+g^{\theta \theta }{\displaystyle \frac{Q_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{q^2}}\right\}\mathrm{\Omega }^4(\varphi )V(\sigma ,\phi ).`$
Therefore, for the electric case, eqs. (6) are written as

$`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G_{}e^{2(\gamma \psi )}\beta [T_1^1+T_3^3]`$
$`(\beta \psi ^{})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G_{}e^{2(\gamma \psi )}\beta [T_0^0+T_1^1+T_2^2+T_3^3]`$
$`\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\psi ^{})^2+\beta (\varphi ^{})^2+8\pi G_{}\beta e^{2(\gamma \psi )}T_1^1`$
$`(\beta \varphi ^{})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G_{}\beta e^{2(\gamma \psi )}T`$ (10)
In order to solve the above equations we will divide the space in two regions: the exterior region, $`rr_0`$, in which only the electric component of the Maxwell tensor contributes to the energy-momentum tensor and the internal region, $`0r<r_0`$, where all matter fields survive. $`r_0`$ is the string thickness. In the paper , the metric of such a configuration has been obtained to first order in the parameter $`G_0`$. In order to obtain this metric, we used a method applied first by Linet  which consists in re-writing the components of the energy-momentum tensor (9) as $`\delta `$-functions. We have then

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{14G_0\left[\left(UT+I^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)+I^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)\right]\right\}\left(dr^2+dz^2\right)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`r^2\left[18G_0\left(T{\displaystyle \frac{I^2}{2}}\right)4G_0\left(UTI^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)4G_0I^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)\right]d\theta ^2`$
$``$ $`\left\{1+4G_0\left[I^2\mathrm{ln}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)+\left(UTI^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)\right]\right\}dt^2`$
where $`U,T`$ and $`I`$ are macroscopic quantities which are defined as the energy per unit length, the tension per unit length and the string’s current, respectively.

## 3 Formation and Evolution of the Wakes and the Zel’dovich Approximation:

A relevant mechanism to understand the structure formation by cosmic strings involves long strings moving with relativistic speed in the normal plane, giving rise to velocity perturbations in their wake . Matter through which a long string moves acquires a boost in the direction of the surface swept out by the string. Matter moves toward this surface by gravitational attraction and, as a consequence, a wake is formed behind the string. In what follows, we will study the implications of a timelike current on the formation and evolution of a wake behind the string which generates the metric (11). For this purpose, we will mimic this situation with a simple model consisting of cold dark matter composed by non-relativistic collisionless particles moving past a long string. In order to make a quantitative description of accretion onto wakes, we will use the Zel’dovich approximation, which consists in considering the Newtonian accretion problem in an expanding universe using the method of linear perturbations.

To start with, we first compute the velocity perturbation of massive particles moving past the string. If we consider that the string is moving with normal velocity $`v_s`$ through matter, the velocity perturbation can be calculated with the help of the gravitational force due to metric (11):

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi G_0Uv_s\gamma `$ (12)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi G_0}{v_s\gamma }}\left[2\alpha (\varphi _0)^2\left(U+T+I^2\right)\left(UTI^2\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)I^2\right]`$
with $`\gamma =(1v_s^2)^{1/2}`$. The first term in (12) is equivalent to the relative velocity of particles flowing past a string in general relativity. The other terms come as a consequence of the scalar-tensor coupling of the gravitational interaction and the superconducting properties of the string.

Let us suppose now that the wake was formed at $`t_i>t_{eq}`$. The physical trajectory of a dark particle can be written as

$$h(\stackrel{}{x},t)=a(t)[\stackrel{}{x}+\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)]$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ is the unperturbed comoving position of the particle and $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is the comoving displacement developed as a consequence of the gravitational attraction induced by the wake on the particle. Suppose, for simplification, that the wake is perpendicular to the $`x`$-axis (assuming that $`dz=0`$ in the metric (11) and $`r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}`$) in such a way that the only non-vanishing component of $`\psi `$ is $`\psi _x`$. Therefore, the equation of motion for a dark particle in the Newtonian limit is

$$\ddot{h}=_h\mathrm{\Phi }$$
(14)
where the Newtonian potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the Poisson equation

$$_h^2\mathrm{\Phi }=4\pi G_0\rho $$
(15)
where $`\rho (t)`$ is the dark matter density in a cold dark matter universe. For a flat universe in the matter-dominated era, $`a(t)t^{2/3}`$. Therefore, the linearised equation for $`\psi _x`$ is

$$\ddot{\psi }+\frac{4}{3t}\dot{\psi }\frac{2}{3t^2}\psi =0$$
(16)
with appropriated initial conditions: $`\psi (t_i)=0`$ and $`\dot{\psi }(t_i)=u_i`$. Eq. (16) is the Euler equation whose solution is easily found

$$\psi (x,t)=\frac{3}{5}\left[\frac{u_it_i^2}{t}u_it_i\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{2/3}\right]$$

Calculating the comoving coordinate $`x(t)`$ using the fact that $`\dot{h}=0`$ in the “turn around”111The moment when the dark particle stops expanding with the Hubble flow and starts to collapse onto the wake., we get

$$x(t)=\frac{6}{5}\left[\frac{u_it_i^2}{t}u_it_i\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{2/3}\right]$$
(17)
With the help of (17) we can compute both the thickness $`d(t)`$ and the surface density $`\sigma (t)`$ of the wake . We have, then, respectively (to first order in $`G_0`$)

$`d(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_i}}\right)^{1/3}\left\{8\pi G_0Uv_s\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi G_0}{v_s\gamma }}\left[2\alpha (\varphi _0)^2\left(U+T+I^2\right)\left(UTI^2\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)I^2\right]\right\}`$
$`\sigma (t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v_s\gamma t}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_i}}\right)^{1/3}\left[8U(v_s\gamma )^2+2\alpha (\varphi _0)^2\left(U+T+I^2\right)\left(UTI^2\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)I^2\right]`$ (18)
where we have used the fact that $`\rho (t)=\frac{1}{6\pi G_0t^2}`$ for a flat universe in the matter-dominated era and that the wake was formed at $`t_it_{eq}`$. Clearly, from eq. (3) we see that the presence of the current makes the accretion mechanism by wakes to diverge.

## 4 Conclusion:

Inclusion of a current in the internal structure of a cosmic string could drastically change the predictions of such models in the microwave background anisotropies. In particular, a current of a timelike-type could bring some divergences leading to some unbounded gravitational effects . In this work we studied the effects of a timelike-current string in the weak-field approximation for the mechanism of wakes formation. For this purpose, we carried out an investigation of the mechanism of formation and evolution of wakes in this framework, showing the explicit contribution of the current to this effect.

Wakes produced by moving strings can provide an explanation for filamentary and sheetlike structures observed in the universe. A wake produced by the string in one Hubble time has the shape of a strip of width $`v_st_i`$. With the help of the surface density (3) we can compute the wake’s linear mass density, say $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$,

$$\sigma (t)\frac{2}{5}\frac{1}{\gamma t}\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{1/3}\left[8U(v_s\gamma )^2+2\alpha (\varphi _0)^2\left(U+T+I^2\right)\left(UTI^2\right)2\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{r_0}\right)I^2\right]$$
(19)
If the string moves slower or if we extrapolate our results to earlier epochs, we see that the logarithmic term would bring divergences and the mechanism of forming wakes, at least for this model, would break down.

## Acknowledgements

ALNO would like to thank CAPES for a PhD grant. This work was partially supported by PROCAD/CAPES.