text:
# The trion as an exciton interacting with a carrier

## 1 Commutation technique for an exciton interacting with electrons

Following the commutation technique we developed for excitons interacting with excitons, in the case of excitons interacting with electrons, we are led to introduce the two parameters $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}`$ defined as

$$[V_{n,\sigma _n}^{},a_{𝐤,s}^{}]=\underset{n^{},𝐤^{}}{}\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}B_{n^{},\sigma _n}^{}a_{𝐤^{},s}^{},$$
(1)
$$[D_{n^{},\sigma _n^{};n,\sigma _n},a_{𝐤,s}^{}]=\delta _{\sigma _n^{},s}\underset{𝐤^{}}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}a_{𝐤^{},\sigma _n}^{}.$$
(2)
The “creation potential” $`V_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$ and the deviation-from-boson operator $`D_{n^{},\sigma _n^{};n,\sigma _n}`$ are the ones defined as for excitons interacting with excitons , namely $`[H,B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}]=E_nB_{n,\sigma _n}^{}+V_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$ and $`[B_{n^{},\sigma _n^{}},B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}]=\delta _{n,n^{}}\delta _{\sigma _n,\sigma _n^{}}D_{n^{},\sigma _n^{};n,\sigma _n}`$. $`H`$ is the exact semiconductor Hamiltonian and $`B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$ is the creation operator of the exciton $`n=(\nu _n,𝐐_n)`$, with energy $`E_n=ϵ_{\nu _n}+\mathrm{}^2𝐐_n^2/2(m_e+m_h)`$ and electron spin $`\sigma _n`$. (The hole “spin” being unimportant for trions, we drop it to simplify the notations). $`B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$ is linked to the electron and hole creation operators $`a_{𝐤,s}^{}`$ and $`b_𝐤^{}`$ by

$$B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}=\underset{𝐩}{}𝐩|\phi _{\nu _n}b_{𝐩+\alpha _h𝐐_n}^{}a_{𝐩+\alpha _e𝐐_n,\sigma _n}^{},$$
(3)
$$b_{𝐤_h}^{}a_{𝐤_e,s}^{}=\underset{\nu }{}\phi _\nu |\alpha _h𝐤_e\alpha _e𝐤_hB_{\nu ,𝐤_e+𝐤_h,s}^{},$$
(4)
where $`\alpha _e=1\alpha _h=m_e/(m_e+m_h)`$ and $`𝐤|\phi _\nu `$ is the exciton relative motion wave function in $`𝐤`$ space. By using the explicit expression of $`V_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$ deduced from its definition , eq. (1) leads to

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}=\delta _{𝐐_n^{}+𝐤^{},𝐐_n+𝐤}W_{\nu _n^{}\nu _n}(𝐐_n^{}𝐐_n),$$
(5)
$$W_{\nu ^{}\nu }(𝐪)=V_𝐪\phi _\nu ^{}|e^{i\alpha _h𝐪.𝐫}e^{i\alpha _e𝐪.𝐫}|\phi _\nu ,$$
(6)
$`V_𝐪`$ being the Fourier transform of the Coulomb potential. $`W_{\nu ^{}\nu }(𝐪)`$ characterizes the scattering of a $`\nu `$ exciton into a $`\nu ^{}`$ state under a $`𝐪`$ Coulomb excitation. For physical understanding, let us mention that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}`$ also reads

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}=𝑑𝐫_e𝑑𝐫_e^{}𝑑𝐫_h\varphi _n^{}^{}(𝐫_e,𝐫_h)f_𝐤^{}^{}(𝐫_e^{})\left[\frac{e^2}{|𝐫_e^{}𝐫_e|}\frac{e^2}{|𝐫_e^{}𝐫_h|}\right]\varphi _n(𝐫_e,𝐫_h)f_𝐤(𝐫_e^{}),$$
(7)
where $`f_𝐤(𝐫)=𝐫|𝐤=e^{i𝐤.𝐫}/\sqrt{𝒱}`$ is the free-particle wave function while $`\varphi _n(𝐫_e,𝐫_h)=𝐫_{eh}|\phi _{\nu _n}𝐑_{eh}|𝐐_n`$, with $`𝐫_{eh}=𝐫_e𝐫_h`$ and $`𝐑_{eh}=(m_e𝐫_e+m_h𝐫_h)/(m_e+m_h)`$, is the total wave function of the $`n`$ exciton : $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}^{\mathrm{dir}}`$ thus corresponds to the direct scattering of a ($`n`$, $`𝐤`$) exciton-electron state into a ($`n^{}`$, $`𝐤^{}`$) state induced by the Coulomb interactions *between* the exciton and the electron, when the $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ excitons are made with the *same* electron-hole pair $`(e,h)`$.

If we turn to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}`$, eqs. (2,3) and the explicit expression of $`D_{n^{},\sigma ^{};n,\sigma }`$ deduced from its definition  lead to

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}=\delta _{𝐊^{},𝐊}L_{\nu _n^{},𝐩^{};\nu _n,𝐩},$$
(8)
$$L_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}=\phi _\nu ^{}|𝐩+\alpha _e𝐩^{}𝐩^{}+\alpha _e𝐩|\phi _\nu ,$$
(9)
with $`𝐤=𝐩+\beta _e𝐊`$, $`𝐐_n=𝐩+\beta _x𝐊`$ and $`\beta _e=1\beta _x=m_e/(2m_e+m_h)`$. We can mention that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}`$ also reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}=𝑑𝐫_e𝑑𝐫_e^{}𝑑𝐫_h\varphi _n^{}^{}(𝐫_e,𝐫_h)f_𝐤^{}^{}(𝐫_e^{})\varphi _n(𝐫_e^{},𝐫_h)f_𝐤(𝐫_e),$$
(10)
which clearly shows that the $`(n,𝐤)`$ and $`(n^{},𝐤^{})`$ states are coupled by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}`$ due to their exchange of electrons, independently from any Coulomb process. This possible exchange of electrons also leads to

$$B_{n,\sigma }^{}a_{𝐤,s}^{}=\underset{n^{},𝐤^{}}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n𝐤}B_{n^{},s}^{}a_{𝐤^{},\sigma }^{},$$
(11)
while two exchanges reduce to identity :

$$\underset{n^{\prime \prime },𝐤^{\prime \prime }}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{}𝐤^{}n^{\prime \prime }𝐤^{\prime \prime }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{n^{\prime \prime }𝐤^{\prime \prime }n𝐤}=\delta _{nn^{}}\delta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}.$$
(12)
## 2 Trion creation operators

The $`\mathrm{X}^{}`$ trions being made of two electrons and one hole, their creation operators *a priori* write in terms of $`b_{𝐤_h}^{}a_{𝐤_e}^{}a_{𝐤_e^{}}^{}`$. According to eq. (4), they can also be written in terms of $`B_n^{}a_𝐤^{}`$, with $`𝐐_n+𝐤`$ being equal to the trion total momentum $`𝐊_i`$.

Let us look for these trion creation operators as

$$\mathrm{T}_{i;S,S_z}^{}=\underset{\nu ,𝐩}{}f_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊_i;S,S_z}^{},$$
(13)
where $`i`$ stands for $`(\eta _i,𝐊_i)`$, and the $`𝒯^{}`$’s are the exciton-electron creation operators defined by

$`𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;1,\pm 1}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{\nu ,𝐩+\beta _x𝐊,\pm }^{}a_{𝐩+\beta _e𝐊,\pm }^{},`$
$`𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,0}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(B_{\nu ,𝐩+\beta _x𝐊,+}^{}a_{𝐩+\beta _e𝐊,}^{}(1)^SB_{\nu ,𝐩+\beta _x𝐊,}^{}a_{𝐩+\beta _e𝐊,+}^{}\right)/\sqrt{2},`$ (14)
with $`S=(0,1)`$. Due to eqs. (8,11), these operators are such that

$$𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}^{}=(1)^S\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}L_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}𝒯_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊;S,S_z}^{},$$
(15)
while, due to the indistinguishability of the electrons, the corresponding exciton-electron states do not form an orthogonal basis, since

$$v|𝒯_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊^{};S^{},S_z^{}}𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v=\delta _{𝐊^{},𝐊}\delta _{S^{},S}\delta _{S_z^{},S_z}\left(\delta _{\nu ^{},\nu }\delta _{𝐩^{},𝐩}+(1)^SL_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}\right),$$
(16)
We can use eq. (15) to replace the $`f`$ prefactors in eq. (13) by $`F`$ defined as

$$F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(f_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}+(1)^S\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}L_{\nu 𝐩\nu ^{}𝐩^{}}f_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}^{(\eta _i;S)}\right),$$
(17)
so that, due to eq. (12), these prefactors now verify

$$F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}=(1)^S\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}L_{\nu 𝐩\nu ^{}𝐩^{}}F_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}^{(\eta _i;S)},$$
(18)
which just states that they stay invariant under the possible electron exchange corresponding to eq. (11). From eq. (13), with $`f`$ replaced by $`F`$, and eqs. (16,18), one can easily check that

$$v|𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}\mathrm{T}_{\eta _i,𝐊_i;S_i,S_{iz}}^{}|v=2\delta _{S,S_i}\delta _{S_z,S_{iz}}\delta _{𝐊,𝐊_i}F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}.$$
(19)
If we now enforce $`\mathrm{T}_{i;S,S_z}^{}|v`$ to be a trion, *i**e*., an eigenstate of $`H`$, we must have

$$v|𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊_i;S,S_z}(H_{i;S})\mathrm{T}_{i;S,S_z}^{}|v=0.$$
(20)
By using eqs. (14,1,5,19), we then derive the “Schrödinger equation” fulfilled by the trion prefactors,

$$(ϵ_\nu +\frac{\mathrm{}^2𝐩^2}{2\mu _t}\epsilon _{\eta _i;S})F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}+\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}W_{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐩+𝐩^{})F_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}^{(\eta _i;S)}=0,$$
(21)
where we have set $`_{i;S}=\epsilon _{\eta _i;S}+\mathrm{}^2𝐊_i^2/2(2m_e+m_h)`$, $`\mu _t`$ being the exciton-electron relative motion mass, $`\mu _t^1=m_e^1+(m_e+m_h)^1`$.

It can be surprising to have only *direct* Coulomb scatterings, through $`W_{\nu \nu ^{}}(𝐩+𝐩^{})`$, appearing in the trion Schrödinger equation (21). Exchange processes between electrons, through $`L_{\nu 𝐩\nu ^{}𝐩^{}}`$, seem absent. They are actually hidden in the $`F`$’s, more precisely in their invariance relation (18).

It is possible to relate the prefactors $`F`$ of the trion operator to the trion orbital wave function in a quite easy way: Indeed eqs. (13-14) lead to write this wave function as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{i;S}(𝐫_e,𝐫_e^{},𝐫_h)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐑_{ee^{}h}|𝐊_i[\psi ^{(\eta _i;S)}(𝐫_{eh},𝐮_{e^{};eh})+(1)^S(ee^{})]/2`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`𝐑_{ee^{}h}|𝐊_i\psi ^{(\eta _i;S)}(𝐫_{eh},𝐮_{e^{};eh}),`$
where we have set

$$\psi ^{\eta ;S)}(𝐫,𝐮)=\sqrt{2}\underset{\nu ,𝐩}{}F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{\eta ;S)}𝐫|\phi _\nu 𝐮|𝐩.$$
(23)
$`𝐑_{ee^{}h}=(m_e𝐫_e+m_e^{}𝐫_e^{}+m_h𝐫_h)/(2m_e+m_h)`$ is the trion center of mass position, and $`𝐮_{e^{};eh}=𝐫_e^{}𝐑_{eh}`$ is the distance between the electron $`e^{}`$ and the center of mass of the exciton made with $`(e,h)`$. (The two terms of the first line of eq. (22) are indeed equal due to eqs. (18,9)). Consequently, the prefactors of the trion expansion on the exciton-electron operators are given by

$$\sqrt{2}F_{\nu ,𝐩}^{\eta ;S)}=\psi _{\nu ,𝐩}^{\eta ;S)}=𝑑𝐫𝑑𝐮\phi _\nu |𝐫𝐩|𝐮\psi ^{(\eta ;S)}(𝐫,𝐮).$$
(24)
$`\psi _{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta ;S)}`$ is thus the generalized Fourier transform “in the exciton sense” of the relative motion wave function $`\psi ^{(\eta ;S)}(𝐫,𝐮)`$. In the standard Fourier transform, $`\phi _\nu |𝐫`$ would be replaced by $`𝐩^{}|𝐫`$.

## 3 Trion ladder diagram

It is widely known  that excitons correspond to “ladder diagrams” between one electron and one hole propagators. By writing the semiconductor Hamiltonian as $`H=H_0+V`$, these diagrams simply result from the iteration of $`(aH)^1=(aH_0)^1+(aH)^1V(aH_0)^1`$ acting on one free electron-hole pair.

For trions, the problem is much more tricky. The most naïve idea is to look for the diagrammatic expansion of the trion in terms of two electron and one hole propagators, with all possible electron-electron and electron-hole interactions between them. In one of our previous works on interacting excitons, namely an exciton interacting with a distant metal , we have however shown that these usual free electron and hole diagrams turn out to be extremely complicated when compared to the “exciton diagrams”, in which appear exciton propagators instead of free electron and free hole propagators. This exciton diagram procedure however faces a major difficulty at first, since, due to the composite nature of the exciton, there is no way to write the exact semiconductor Hamiltonian $`H`$ as $`H_0^{}+V^{}`$, with $`V^{}`$ being an exciton-electron potential, so that there is no simple iteration of $`(aH)^1`$ in terms of a $`V^{}`$ interaction.

It is however possible to overcome this difficulty by using our “commutation technique”. From the definition of the creation potential $`V_{n,\sigma _n}^{}`$, it is easy to show that

$$\frac{1}{aH}B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}=B_{n,\sigma _n}^{}\frac{1}{aHE_n}+\frac{1}{aH}V_{n,\sigma _n}^{}\frac{1}{aHE_n}.$$
(25)
With $`a=\mathrm{\Omega }+i\eta `$, this equation, along with eqs. (1,5), gives $`(\mathrm{\Omega }H+i\eta )^1`$ acting on one exciton-electron pair as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }H+i\eta }}𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊}+i\eta }}[𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}}W_{\nu ^{}\nu }(𝐩^{}+𝐩){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }H+i\eta }}𝒯_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v],`$ (26)
where $`E_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊}=ϵ_\nu +\mathrm{}^2𝐩^2/2\mu _t+\mathrm{}^2𝐊^2/2(2m_e+m_h)`$ is the energy of the free exciton-electron pair.

The iteration of the above equation leads to

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }H+i\eta }𝒯_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v=\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)𝒯_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊;S,S_z}^{}|v,$$
(27)
where $`A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)`$ given by

$`A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)=[\delta _{\nu ^{},\nu }\delta _{𝐩^{},𝐩}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊}+i\eta }}\{W_{\nu ^{}\nu }(𝐩^{}+𝐩)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _1,𝐩_1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{W_{\nu ^{}\nu _1}(𝐩^{}+𝐩_1)W_{\nu _1\nu }(𝐩_1+𝐩)}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu _1,𝐩_1,𝐊}+i\eta }}+\mathrm{}\}]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊}+i\eta }},`$ (28)
can be formally rewritten as

$$A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)=\left[\delta _{\nu ^{},\nu }\delta _{𝐩^{},𝐩}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊}+i\eta }\right]\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu ,𝐩,𝐊}+i\eta }.$$
(29)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)`$ appears as a “renormalized exciton-electron interaction”. It verifies the integral equation

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)=W_{\nu ^{}\nu }(𝐩^{}+𝐩)+\underset{\nu _1,𝐩_1}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{W}_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu _1𝐩_1}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)W_{\nu _1\nu }(𝐩_1+𝐩)}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu _1,𝐩_1,𝐊}+i\eta }.$$
(30)
Its iteration is shown in fig. (1). Before going further, let us note that

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }E_{\nu _1,𝐩_1,𝐊}+i\eta }=\frac{id\omega _1}{2\pi }g_e(\mathrm{\Omega }+\omega _1,𝐩_1+\beta _e𝐊)g_x(\omega _1;\nu _1,𝐩_1+\beta _x𝐊)=G_{xe}(\mathrm{\Omega };\nu _1,𝐩_1,𝐊),$$
(31)
with $`g_e(\omega ,𝐤)=(\omega \mathrm{}^2𝐤^2/2m_e+i\eta )^1`$ being the usual free electron Green’s function for an empty Fermi sea, while $`g_x(\omega ;n)=(\omega E_n+i\eta )^1`$ is the free boson-exciton Green’s function, as if the excitons were non-interacting bosons, *i**e*., if all the $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s *and* $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s were set equal to zero. $`G_{xe}`$ thus appears as the propagator of an exciton-electron pair. It is quite similar to the electron-hole pair propagator $`G_{eh}`$ appearing in exciton diagrams (see for example eq. 2.10 of ref. ).

The simplest way to obtain $`A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)`$ is to insert the trion closure relation between the two operators of the l.h.s. of eq. (27) and to project this equation over $`v|𝒯_{\nu ^{\prime \prime },𝐩^{\prime \prime },𝐊;S,S_z}`$. By using eqs. (19,16,24), we get

$$\underset{\eta _i}{}\frac{2\psi _{\nu ^{\prime \prime },𝐩^{\prime \prime }}^{(\eta _i;S)}\left(\psi _{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}\right)^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta _i,𝐊;S}+i\eta }=A_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{\prime \prime }\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)+(1)^S\underset{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}{}L_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{\prime \prime }\nu ^{}𝐩^{}}A_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊).$$
(32)
$`A_{\nu ^{\prime \prime }𝐩^{\prime \prime }\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)`$ is then obtained by adding the above equations for $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$. Using eq. (29), the renormalized exciton-electron interaction, *i**e*., the sum of the exciton-electron ladder “rungs”, is thus given by

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_{\nu ^{}𝐩^{}\nu 𝐩}(\mathrm{\Omega },𝐊)=\left[\delta _{\nu ^{},\nu }\delta _{𝐩^{},𝐩}+\frac{1}{G_{xe}(\mathrm{\Omega };\nu ^{},𝐩^{},𝐊)}\underset{\eta _i,S}{}\frac{\psi _{\nu ^{},𝐩^{}}^{(\eta _i;S)}\left(\psi _{\nu ,𝐩}^{(\eta _i;S)}\right)^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{\eta _i,𝐊;S}+i\eta }\right]\frac{1}{G_{xe}(\mathrm{\Omega };\nu ,𝐩,𝐊)}.$$
(33)
This result is quite similar to the “renormalized electron-hole Coulomb interaction” appearing in electron-hole ladder diagrams, as given for example in eq. (2.18) of ref. (10).

## 4 Conclusion

This work relies on a new commutation technique for excitons interacting with electrons which takes exactly into account the possible exchange between carriers, *i**e*., the close-to-boson character of the excitons. Using it, we have generated the trion creation operator in terms of exciton and electron. We have also generated the exciton-electron ladder diagram associated to these trions, in terms of exciton propagators and electron propagators.

Just as the exciton creation operator in terms of electrons and holes or the exciton ladder diagram between one electron and one hole propagators, do not help to solve the Schrödinger equation for one exciton, but allow to deal with many-body effects involving excitons, the trion creation operator and the trion ladder diagram derived here are of no use to solve the Schrödinger equation for one trion, but constitute the appropriate tools for further works on many-body effects with trions.

REFERENCES

 E. HYLLERAAS, Phys. Rev. 71, 491 (1947).

 M. LAMPERT, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1, 450 (1958).

 K. KHENG, R.T. COX, Y. MERLE D’AUBIGNÉ, F. BASSANI, K. SAMINADAYAR, S. TATARENKO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1752 (1993).

 G. FINKELSTEIN, H.SHTRIKMAN, I. BAR-JOSEPH, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 976 (1995).

 A.J. SHIELDS, M. PEPPER, D.A. RITCHIE, M.Y. SIMMONS, G.A. JONES, Phys. Rev. B 51, 18049 (1995).

 S.A. BROWN, J.F. YOUNG, J.A. BRUM, P. HAWRYLAK, Z. WASILEWSKI, Phys. Rev. B, Rapid Com. 54, 11082 (1996).

 R. KAUR, A.J. SHIELDS, J.L. OSBORNE, M.Y. SIMMONS, D.A. RITCHIE, M. PEPPER, Phys. Stat. Sol. 178, 465 (2000).

 V. HUARD, R.T. COX, K. SAMINADAYAR, A. ARNOULT, S. TATARENKO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 187 (2000).

 M. COMBESCOT, O. BETBEDER-MATIBET, Europhys. Lett. 58, 87 (2002) ; O. BETBEDER-MATIBET, M. COMBESCOT, Eur. Phys. J. B 27, 505 (2002).

 See for example, O. BETBEDER-MATIBET, M. COMBESCOT, Eur. Phys. J. B 22, 17 (2001).

 See for example, F. ARIAS DE SAAVEDRA, E. BUENDIA, F.J. GALVEZ, A. SARSA, Eur. Phys. J. D 2, 181 (1998).

 M. COMBESCOT, O. BETBEDER-MATIBET, B. ROULET, Europhys. Lett. 52, 717 (2002).

 M. COMBESCOT, O. BETBEDER-MATIBET, Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 305 (2003).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig (1)

(a) Direct Coulomb scattering between one “free” exciton and one free electron.

(b) Renormalized free exciton-electron interaction as given by the integral equation (29). It corresponds to the sums of one, two,…ladder “rungs” between one “free” exciton and one free electron.


format: text

text:
# Shot noise from action correlations

## Abstract

We consider universal shot noise in ballistic chaotic cavities from a semiclassical point of view and show that it is due to action correlations within certain groups of classical trajectories. Using quantum graphs as a model system we sum these trajectories analytically and find agreement with random-matrix theory. Unlike all action correlations which have been considered before, the correlations relevant for shot noise involve four trajectories and do not depend on the presence of any symmetry.

One of the most prominent methods to describe spectral and transport properties of ballistic quantum systems with classically chaotic dynamics relies on the semiclassical representation of the Green’s function in terms of classical trajectories. For closed systems this leads to Gutzwiller’s trace formula Gut90 , which expresses the oscillating density of states as sum over periodic orbits. For open systems the semiclassical theory of chaotic scattering Mil74 ; BS88 , and in particular its applications to electronic transport through mesoscopic devices JBS90 , are based on this approach. The power of this method as compared, e. g., to random-matrix theory (RMT) Bee97 ; GMW98  is its potential to account for system-specific details. Its main drawback lies in the difficulty to handle the resulting sums over huge sets of classical trajectories. Until recently the only method to deal with this problem was Berry’s diagonal approximation Ber85 , which neglects any nontrivial correlations between the trajectories. As a consequence many interesting phenomena such as weak localization, universality in spectral statistics and in conductance fluctuations, or the supression of shot noise cannot be described properly. Although the role of correlations between the actions of classical orbits has been appreciated for a long time \[8–10\], there is only one special case where they can be accounted for explicitly: Sieber and Richter recently calculated the leading order weak localization corrections from correlations between specific orbit pairs SR01 . This result stimulated further intense research BSW02 ; BHH02  and it is clearly a very promising approach. However, as mentioned above, weak localization is just one besides a variety of other phenomena for which action correlations are relevant as well, but cannot be accounted for by the orbit pairs considered in \[11–13\].

In this paper we address shot noise in ballistic mesoscopic conductors, which is an important source of (experimentally accessible) information about the dynamics in such systems \[18–21\]. We identify the action correlations which are responsible for shot noise and explain how due to these correlations the universal result of RMT \[5, 14–20\] can be recovered from a single system without ensemble average. The relevant correlations are fundamentally different from all those considered previously \[8–13\] because they involve four instead of just two classical trajectories. Moreover they do not depend on the presence of symmetries. We emphasize that action correlations are no small correction. They are needed to understand shot noise to leading order.

We will perform all explicit calculations in a specific model system, the quantum graph of Fig. 1b. Quantum graphs (networks) have a long record as models for electronic transport (see Kuc02  and Refs. therein). Since the pioneering work of Kottos and Smilansky they are also established in quantum chaos \[23–25, 12\]. They are particularly suitable for our purpose as the representation in terms of classical trajectories is exact and also the analogue of action correlations amounts to exact degeneracies. Previous studies showed that despite these analytical simplifications the mechanism and the role of correlations between classical trajectories are equivalent to other systems such as billiards BSW02 .

Consider a chaotic cavity with two attached waveguides supporting $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ transversal modes, respectively (Fig. 1a). For small bias voltage and temperature, negligible electron interactions and fully coherent dynamics all information about electron transport through this system is contained in the scattering matrix at the Fermi energy

$$𝒮=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r& t^{}\\ t& r^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Shot noise represents temporal current fluctuations due to the discreteness of the electron charge Sch18 . At zero temperature the average power of the noise can be expressed in terms of the transmission matrix $`t`$ as But90 ; Bee97

$$P=2e|V|G_0\text{Tr}tt^{}(1tt^{}),$$
(2)
while the assumption of uncorrelated electrons yields $`P_{\mathrm{Poisson}}=2e|V|G`$. Here $`G=G_0\text{Tr}tt^{}`$ denotes the conductance, $`e`$ is the electron charge, $`V`$ the voltage and $`G_0=2e^2/h`$ the conductance quantum. RMT yields Bee97

$$P_{\mathrm{RMT}}=2e|V|G_0N_1^2N_2^2/(N_1+N_2)^3$$
(3)
and for the conductance $`G_{\mathrm{RMT}}=G_0N_1N_2/(N_1+N_2)`$. Each result comes with a weak localization correction which is small ($`\delta PP`$, $`\delta GG`$) for large $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ and will not be considered here. For $`N_1=N_2`$ the Fano factor $`F=P/P_{\mathrm{Poisson}}=1/4`$ is obtained.

We will show that Eq. (3) can be recovered semiclassically. To this end, the element $`t_{n_2n_1}`$ of the transmission matrix is expressed as a sum over all classical trajectories111We emphasize that these trajectories are deterministic. Therefore our approach must not be confused with other quasiclassical theories such as BS00 ; NSP02 ; AAL00 . connecting the incoming mode $`1n_1N_1`$ with the outgoing mode $`1n_2N_2`$ BJS93

$$t_{n_2n_1}=\underset{p}{}A_p\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}S_p/\mathrm{}},$$
(4)
where $`S_p`$ denotes the classical action and $`A_p`$ is an amplitude related to the stability of the trajectory. While for the conductance we have to evaluate a sum over pairs of trajectories

$$\text{Tr}tt^{}=\underset{n_1=1}{\overset{N_1}{}}\underset{n_2=1}{\overset{N_2}{}}\underset{pq:n_1n_2}{}A_pA_q^{}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}/\mathrm{}(S_pS_q)},$$
(5)
the shot noise involves also a term combining four classical paths

$`\mathrm{Tr}(tt^{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m_1n_1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{m_2n_2}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{pqrs}{}}A_pA_q^{}A_rA_s^{}`$ (6)
$`\times \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}/\mathrm{}(S_pS_q+S_rS_s)}.`$
Here, the trajectories $`p,q,r,s`$ connect two incoming to two outgoing modes as shown in Fig. 2a. As Eqs. (5), (6) describe one particular system rather than an ensemble, the average $``$ is to be taken over an energy window. It should be small enough to keep the classical dynamics and in particular the amplitudes $`A_p`$ essentially unchanged. Nevertheless, in the semiclassical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ the phase factor is rapidly oscillating and only those orbit combinations survive the averaging for which the action changes are correlated.

In particular, setting $`p=q`$ in Eq. (5) the phase drops out and we are left with a sum over classical probabilities $`|A_p|^2`$. This is the diagonal approximation Ber85 . Provided that the dwell time inside the open cavity is large compared to the time needed for equidistribution over the available phase space, the probability is the same for all outgoing modes and $`G_{\mathrm{RMT}}`$ is exactly recovered JBS90 . Hence, the contribution from other pairs of correlated trajectories that might exist must vanish although no explicit demonstration of this fact has been given up to now. In presence of time-reversal symmetry the above remains valid to leading order in the mode number $`N`$.

For shot noise the diagonal approximation has two analogues (Fig. 2b,c): we can have (i) $`p=q`$, $`r=s`$ for $`m_1=n_1`$ and (ii) $`p=s`$, $`r=q`$ for $`m_2=n_2`$. In both cases no phases are left in Eq. (6) and the remaining summation is over two independent classical trajectories $`p`$, $`r`$ with the only constraint that they begin or end at the same mode, respectively. Proceeding as in the diagonal approximation to the conductance we obtain 222 Note that terms with $`p=q=r=s`$ are contained in Eq. (7) but also in Eq. (8). To avoid this overcounting one should, e. g., restrict the second sum to $`n_1m_1`$ but the resulting lower-order correction is not consider here.

$$\underset{m_1=1}{\overset{N_1}{}}\underset{m_2,n_2=1}{\overset{N_2}{}}\underset{pr}{}|A_p|^2|A_r|^2=\frac{N_1N_2^2}{(N_1+N_2)^2},$$
(7)
$$\underset{m_1,n_1=1}{\overset{N_1}{}}\underset{m_2=1}{\overset{N_2}{}}\underset{pr}{}|A_p|^2|A_r|^2=\frac{N_1^2N_2}{(N_1+N_2)^2}.$$
(8)
Combining these two results we find

$$\text{Tr}(tt^{})^2_{\mathrm{diag}}=\text{Tr}tt^{}_{\mathrm{diag}}=N_1N_2/(N_1+N_2)$$
(9)
and according to Eq. (2) this means that within the diagonal approximation there is no shot noise. This is no surprise: the diagonal approximation reduces the quantum to the classical problem and since classical dynamics is deterministic there is no uncertainty if an incoming electron is transmitted or not and hence no noise BV91 ; AAL00 . On the other hand Eq. (9) is quite remarkable as it means that within the semiclassical approximation shot noise is entirely due to nontrivial correlations between different trajectories.

What is the general mechanism for such correlations? Previous research \[9–13\] showed that pairs of trajectories have correlated actions if they explore the same (or symmetry-related) parts of phase space with a different itinerary. In terms of symbolic dynamics the code words for the two orbits are composed of the same sequences, in permuted order. The analogy to diagrammatic perturbation theory and some recent results SR01 ; BSW02  suggest further that the importance of the correlations decreases with growing number of sequences needed to represent the code of the trajectories: in the diagonal approximation to the conductance the codes are equal and the result is correct to leading order, orbit pairs composed of two loops give the next-to-leading order correction etc.

In the case of shot noise we have exhausted the diagonal approximation and consider therefore trajectories $`p,q,r,s`$ whose codes can all be represented in terms of two subsequences. Inspection shows that the only option is the diagram of Fig. 2d. Indeed the phase in Eq. (6) will almost vanish for such contributions since the combination of $`p,r`$ (full lines) almost coincides with the combination of $`q,s`$ (dashed lines) such that the respective actions cancel. A remaining small total action difference comes from the different behaviour of the trajectories inside the crossing region. In this respect the correlated trajectories of Fig. 2d are very similar to those giving rise to weak localization effects \[11–13\], i. e. the methods developed there for various specific systems should allow for a straightforward generalizion to shot noise.

In the remainder of this paper we treat one of those systems explicitly, namely the quantum graph shown in Fig. 1b. The closed version of this graph consists of a central vertex with valency $`B`$ and $`b=1\mathrm{}B`$ attached bonds with incommensurate lengths $`L_b`$. Following the standard quantization KS97  the dynamics of a particle with wavenumber $`k=(2mE)^{1/2}/\mathrm{}`$ is represented by a $`B\times B`$ bond-scattering matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{bb^{}}(k)=\sigma _{bb^{}}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i}kL_b}`$ containing energy-dependent phases $`2kL_b`$ from the free motion on the bonds and complex amplitudes describing the scattering at the central vertex. A basic requirement is unitarity (current conservation)

$$\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=\underset{\beta =1}{\overset{B}{}}\sigma _{\beta \alpha }\sigma _{\beta \alpha ^{}}^{},$$
(10)
otherwise $`\sigma `$ can be chosen according to the physical situation. For simplicity we set

$$\sigma _{bb^{}}=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi \mathrm{i}bb^{}/B}/\sqrt{B}$$
(11)
such that all classical transition probabilities are equal $`|\sigma _{bb^{}}|^21/B`$. This model was first considered by Tanner Tan01  who showed numerically that its specral statistics follows RMT. We open the graph by extending $`N=N_1+N_2`$ bonds to infinity and model a two-channel geometry by considering $`N_1`$ ($`N_2`$) of these leads as the modes in the left (right) contact (Fig. 1b). For fixed $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ we will consider the limit $`B\mathrm{}`$ in order to meet the condition of a long dwell time which was already mentioned in connection with the diagonal approximation. Within the leading-order in $`B`$ we also neglect lower-order corrections in the mode numbers $`N_1`$, $`N_2`$ in order to compare our result to Eq. (3).

For a graph the $`N\times N`$ unitary scattering matrix Eq. (1) can be expressed in terms of subblocks of the bond-scattering matrix $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ via $`𝒮=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒢(I\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝒢𝒢})^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒢`$ KS97 . $`=_1_2`$ denotes here the set of $`N=N_1+N_2`$ leads and $`𝒢`$ comprises the $`BN`$ bonds inside the graph. Expanding the Greens function of the internal part $`(I\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝒢𝒢})^1`$ into a geometric series we arrive at Eq. (4) which is in the case of graphs an identity rather than a semiclassical approximation. The sum is over all trajectories (=bond sequences) $`p=[n_1p_1\mathrm{}p_tn_2]`$ connecting the lead $`n_1_1`$ to the lead $`n_2_2`$ via an arbitrary number $`t0`$ of internal bonds $`p_j𝒢`$. The action is related to the total length of the trajectory, $`S_p/\mathrm{}=kL_p`$, where $`L_p=_{j=1}^tL_{p_j}`$. Finally the amplitude is given as $`A_p=\sigma _{n_1p_1}\sigma _{p_1p_2}\mathrm{}\sigma _{p_tn_2}`$ such that the classical probability of the trajectory is $`|A_p|^2=1/B^{t+1}`$. Consequently, we have

$$\underset{p}{}|A_p|^2=\underset{t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(BN)^t}{B^{t+1}}=\frac{1}{N},$$
(12)
from which we do indeed recover the diagonal approximation Eqs. (7)-(9).

Next we consider trajectories $`p,q,r,s`$ which are composed of four sequences $`a,b,c,d`$ as shown in Fig. 2d and assume that each of these sequences has a length $`t1`$. In order to avoid overcounting we have to ensure that for any given set $`p,q,r,s`$ the definition of $`a,b,c,d`$ is unique. Potential problems arise if all four trajectories coincide in the crossing region for one (or more) steps: $`p=[a\gamma c]`$, $`q=[b\gamma c]`$, $`r=[b\gamma d]`$, $`s=[a\gamma d]`$. It is a matter of taste if $`\gamma `$ in this situations is considered as part of $`a`$ and $`b`$ or of $`c`$ and $`d`$. We use the first representation and enforce it by the restriction $`c_\mathrm{i}d_\mathrm{i}`$ (The subscripts i/f are used for the initial/final bond in $`a,b,c,d`$.).

Returning to Eq. (6) we note that the actions of $`p,r`$ and $`q,s`$ cancel exactly such that the phase factor is absent 333This is not specific for the correlated trajectories considered here. Any correlations in graphs amount to exact degeneracies because the energy intervall for averaging in Eqs. (5), (6) can be chosen arbitrarily large KS97 ; SS00 .. As in Eq. (12) we can perform the summation over all internal bonds of the subsequences $`a,b,c,d`$ and also over the leads $`m_1,n_1,m_2,n_2`$. Only the amplitudes from transitions right at the intersection of $`a,b,c,d`$ do not combine into classical probabilities and must be considered explicitly. We obtain

$`t_{abcd}^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^2N_2^2}{N^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a_\mathrm{f}b_\mathrm{f},c_id_\mathrm{i}𝒢}{}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}^{}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}^{}`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^2N_2^2}{N^4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a_\mathrm{f}b_\mathrm{f}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_\mathrm{i}d_\mathrm{i}𝒢}{}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}^{}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}^{}(1\delta _{c_\mathrm{i}d_\mathrm{i}}).`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^2N_2^2}{N^4}}({\displaystyle \underset{a_\mathrm{f}=b_\mathrm{f}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_\mathrm{i}d_\mathrm{i}𝒢}{}}`$ (14)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a_\mathrm{f}b_\mathrm{f},c_\mathrm{i}d_\mathrm{i}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{a_\mathrm{f}b_\mathrm{f}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{c_\mathrm{i}=d_\mathrm{i}𝒢}{}})\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}^{}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}^{}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N_1^2N_2^2}{N^3}}+𝒪(B^1).`$ (15)
To perform this calculation we have repeatedly used Eq. (10) in a form which allows to transfer summations from the graph $`𝒢`$ to the leads $``$

$$\underset{\beta 𝒢}{}\sigma _{\beta \alpha }\sigma _{\beta \alpha ^{}}^{}=\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}\underset{\beta }{}\sigma _{\beta \alpha }\sigma _{\beta \alpha ^{}}^{}.$$
(16)
Moreover we used that according to Eq. (11) we have $`|\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}c_\mathrm{i}}^{}\sigma _{b_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}\sigma _{a_\mathrm{f}d_\mathrm{i}}^{}|=B^2`$ which means that the two sums in the second line of Eq. (14) yield only a negligible correction $`𝒪(B^1)`$ because the number of terms are $`N^3(N1)`$ and $`N(N1)(BN)`$, respectively. It is the first line in Eq. (14) which gives the dominant contribution. With exactly the same methods we can consider the contribution from special cases of the diagram in Fig. 2d where the length of one of the subsequences $`a,b,c,d`$ vanishes. We find that for vanishing $`a`$ or $`b`$ we get $`t_{bcd}^{(4)}=t_{acd}^{(4)}=t_{abcd}^{(4)}`$ while for vanishing $`c`$ or $`d`$ no contribution results. Finally we have $`\text{Tr}(tt^{})^2=t_{abcd}^{(4)}+t_{bcd}^{(4)}+t_{acd}^{(4)}=N_1^2N_2^2/N^3`$ and substitution of this result into Eq. (2) shows that we have indeed reproduced the RMT result from correlated classical trajectories.

We have checked that our result remains unchanged if we substitute in Eq. (2) $`\text{Tr}tt^{}(1tt^{})=\text{Tr}tt^{}rr^{}`$. Quantum mechanically this is just a consequence of unitarity, but within the semiclassical approach it is a nontrivial result since entirely different trajectories contribute and unitarity is restored only if all relevant correlations between them are properly accounted for.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to O. Agam and H. Schomerus for stimulating our interest in the problem.


text:
# A Universal Phase Diagram for PMN-𝑥PT and PZN-𝑥PT

## Abstract

The phase diagram of the Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 and PbTiO3 solid solution (PMN-$`x`$PT) indicates a rhombohedral ground state for $`x0.32`$. X-ray powder measurements by Dkhil et al. show a rhombohedrally split (222) Bragg peak for PMN-10%PT at 80 K. Remarkably, neutron data taken on a single crystal of ‘the same compound with comparable $`q`$-resolution reveal a single resolution-limited (111) peak down to 50 K, and thus no rhombohedral distortion. Our results suggest that the structure of the outer layer of these relaxors differs from that of the bulk, which is nearly cubic, as observed in PZN by Xu et al..

The well-known relaxor Pb(Mg1/3Nb2/3)O3 (PMN) retains an average cubic structure down to 5 K when cooled in zero field (ZFC). Bonneau ; deMathan ; Ye\_review  In this respect PMN represents a puzzling anomaly among the related complex-perovskite relaxors PMN-$`x`$PT and PZN-$`x`$PT (M=Mg, Z=Zn, PT=PbTiO3), all of which are believed to exhibit a rhombohedral phase at low temperatures and low PT concentrations. Choi ; Noheda\_pmn ; Kuwata ; Gop\_pzn  X-ray scattering measurements performed on a series of PMN-$`x`$PT compounds by Ye et al., for example, demonstrate the presence of a clear rhombohedral distortion for PT concentrations as low as $`x=0.05`$Ye10pt  while Lebon et al. have reported a detailed x-ray study of the cubic-to-rhombohedral phase transition in single crystal PZN with high $`q`$-resolution. Lebon  An interesting comparison between PMN and PMN-10%PT was performed by Dkhil et al. using both x-ray and neutron scattering methods on powder and single crystal samples which indicate the presence of competing tetragonal and rhombohedral order. Dkhil  In PMN these never result in a ferroelectric distortion, but in PMN-10%PT a rhombohedral distortion is observed below a critical temperature $`T_c=285`$ K. From these studies, PMN appears to be the exception in which a ferroelectric phase is never established.

Recent results, however, are now beginning to point towards a radically different physical picture. Neutron scattering data obtained by Ohwada et al. on a single crystal of PZN-8%PT suggest the presence of a low-temperature phase in the PZN-$`x`$PT family that is not rhombohedral, but that has an average cubic structure. Ohwada  This new phase was termed “Phase X.” Striking evidence of this new phase was subsequently discovered by Xu et al. in single crystal PZN where both the rhombohedral phase and Phase X were observed. Xu  More intriguing is the fact that the visibility of a given phase depends on the x-ray energy, and thus the penetration depth.

In this Letter we report the results of a high $`q`$-resolution neutron scattering study of single crystal PMN-10%PT that traces the evolution of the (111) Bragg peak from the cubic phase above $`T_c=285`$ K down to 50 K. In stark contrast to the findings of Dkhil et al. we observe no splitting of the (111) peak at any temperature in PMN-10%PT, as must occur under a rhombohedral transformation. Further, the (111) peak is nearly resolution-limited at low temperature, and comparable in width to that observed by Dkhil et al. at (222) in the cubic phase. The implications of these results are significant. Combined with the results on PZN-8%PT and PZN obtained by Ohwada et al. and Xu et al. our findings support the diametrically opposite point of view in which PMN is the rule, not the exception. In other words, none of the relaxors in either the PMN-$`x`$PT or PZN-$`x`$PT family transforms to a rhombohedral phase at low temperatures. Instead they transform into Phase X.

The neutron scattering data presented here were obtained on the BT9 triple-axis spectrometer located at the NIST Center for Neutron Research. The diffuse scattering near the (300) Bragg peak was measured at a fixed neutron energy $`E_i=E_f=`$14.7 meV ($`\lambda =2.36`$ Å) using the (002) reflection of highly-oriented crystals of pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) as monochromator and analyzer. Horizontal beam collimations were 40-46-S-40-80 (S = sample). Measurements of the (111) Bragg peak were performed in a non-standard spectrometer configuration using the (220) reflection of a perfect Ge crystal as analyzer, tighter beam collimations of 10-46-S-20-40Vinita  and a lower neutron energy of 8.5 meV to achieve an extremely sharp $`q`$-resolution of 0.0018 rlu (1 rlu = 2$`\pi /`$a = 1.5576 Å-1) FWHM. The (220) reflection of Ge was chosen because its $`d`$-spacing most closely matches that of the PMN-10%PT (111) Bragg reflection. Emilio

A high quality single crystal of PMN-10%PT was by a top-seeded solution growth technique. Ye  The growth conditions were determined from the pseudo-binary phase diagram established for PMN and PbO. The crystal, which weighs 2.65 gm (0.33,cm3), is an irregular parallelepiped with dimensions $`11.3\times 9.2\times 4.1`$ mm3, the largest facets of which are oriented approximately normal to the cubic  direction. At 500 K the crystal mosaic measured at (200) is less than 0.06 full-width at half-maximum (FWHM). The crystal was mounted on a boron nitride post with the \[01$`\overline{1}`$\] axis oriented vertically, giving access to reflections of the form $`(hll)`$. The sample holder assembly was mounted inside the vacuum space of a high-temperature closed-cycle 3He refrigerator that was then positioned and fixed onto the goniometer of the BT9 spectrometer.

In Fig. 1 we present the currently accepted phase diagram for PMN-$`x`$PT, which shows a cubic (C) to rhombohedral (R) phase transition for PbTiO3 concentrations $`x`$ less than $`32`$%. Choi ; Noheda\_pmn  The solid circles represent measured values of $`T_c`$ reported by various authors (see Fig. 4 of Ref. Ye10pt ), while the solid line is merely a guide to the eye. The lone data point for PMN ($`x=0`$) corresponds to the first-order R-to-C phase transition that occurs at 213 K after first cooling in a field $`E1.7`$ kV/cm. Ye\_review  As PMN retains an average cubic structure below this temperature when zero-field cooled (ZFC), we use the notation $`\overline{\mathrm{C}}`$ shown by the arrow. At higher concentrations, PMN-$`x`$PT exhibits a narrow region of monoclinic (Mc) phase discovered by Noheda et al. Noheda\_pmn  that lies next to the well-known morphotropic phase boundary (MPB) separating the Mc phase from the tetragonal (T) phase. The 10%PT concentration is indicated by the vertical dashed line in the phase diagram.

The inset to Fig. 1 shows the temperature dependence of the rhombohedral angle $`\alpha `$ (left-hand scale), as well as that of the diffuse scattering (right-hand scale) near the (300) Bragg peak ($`q`$ not specified), for PMN-10%PT measured by Dkhil et al using x-ray diffraction. Dkhil  The data for $`\alpha `$ are consistent with the occurrence of a first-order phase transition at 285 K, while the diffuse scattering, which is characterized by the authors as critical behavior, displays a very broad peak centered at this same temperature.

Neutron diffuse scattering results obtained on the single crystal of PMN-10%PT were obtained at the NCNR using relatively coarse horizontal beam collimations. These data, shown in Fig. 2 as a function of temperature, were measured along the  direction near (300) at different values of the reduced wavevector $`q`$ spanning the range -0.30 rlu$`q`$0.30 rlu. A break in the slope of the diffuse scattering is evident for $`q=0.06`$ rlu at a temperature near $`T_c`$ (shown by the arrow). However there is no evidence of the peak in intensity at $`T_c`$ found by x-rays. Instead, the diffuse scattering intensity increases monotonically with decreasing temperature down to 50 K at all values of $`q`$ studied. These data refute the idea that the diffuse scattering in PMN-10%PT is critical in nature. In fact, as shown in the inset to Fig. 2, the diffuse scattering is quite strong at 450 K, far above $`T_c=285`$ K. The diffuse scattering at this temperature appears as a very broad peak, with a maximum count rate of just under 103 counts/min, superimposed on top of the much narrower (300) Bragg peak which is roughly two orders of magnitude larger. In pure PMN the diffuse scattering is known to disappear at the Burns temperature $`T_d=600650`$ K Naberezhnov  above which polar nanoregions (PNR) no longer exist. Burns  The approximate corresponding value of $`T_d`$ for PMN-10%PT is shown by the arrow at 650 K.

Using the high $`q`$-resolution configuration described earlier, radial and transverse $`q`$-profiles of the (111) Bragg peak of the PMN-10%PT crystal were measured down to 50 K. Two radial scans, one in the cubic phase at 325 K, and one in the rhombohedral phase at 100 K, are shown side-by-side in Fig. 3. Above these two scans are shown the corresponding x-ray scans from Dkhil et al. The horizontal scales for the x-ray data, which were measured at (222), have been reduced by a factor of two to allow for direct comparison to the neutron data, which were measured at (111). At high temperatures both x-ray and neutron data show the presence of a single resolution-limited peak, consistent with a cubic lattice. The horizontal bars represent the calculated BT9 instrumental $`q`$-resolution FWHM, and show that x-ray and neutron resolutions are comparable. At 80 K, the x-ray data show a clear splitting of the (222) peak. At roughly the same temperature, however, the neutron data show a single peak that is only slightly broader than resolution. Remarkably, these data contradict the finding that PMN-10%PT is rhombohedral below $`T_c`$.

Our findings strongly support the opposite point of view in which *none* of the relaxors in the PMN-$`x`$PT family exhibit a rhombohedral phase in zero-field below $`T_c`$. The high-energy x-ray study of Xu et al. demonstrates the presence of a $`50`$$`\mu `$m thick (1 $`\mu `$m = 10-6m) outer layer in the closely related relaxor PZN that undergoes a rhombohedral distortion at low temperatures, while the interior volume of the crystal does not. Xu  We believe this to be the case for PMN-10%PT as well. The presence of such an outer layer would reconcile the x-ray and neutron data shown in Fig. 3 since the 8.9 keV x-rays penetrate $`10`$$`\mu `$m into the sample whereas neutrons probe the entire crystal volume. It would also explain why the diffuse scattering peak observed with x-rays at $`T_c`$ shown in Fig. 1 is absent when measured with neutrons (Fig. 2). Evidence for this outer layer is visible at the base of the 100 K neutron data shown in Fig. 3 where an asymmetric broadening is observed. While these data are insufficient to extract quantitative information about the thickness of the outer layer, they can be fitted to two Lorentzian peaks (representing the rhombohedral phase), and one Gaussian peak (for Phase X). The solid line shows a high quality of fit.

In light of the neutron results of Ohwada et al. obtained on PZN-8%PT Ohwada  and Xu et al. on PZN, Xu , we speculate that there is no bulk zero-field rhombohedral phase in PZN-$`x`$PT either. We propose instead a new and universal phase diagram for both the PMN-$`x`$PT and PZN-$`x`$PT systems, as shown in Fig. 1, in which the rhombohedral phase is replaced by Phase X. This scenario is attractive not just because it reconciles the PMN anomaly, but also because it explains the neutron scattering results of Wakimoto et al. which demonstrate the presence of a soft mode, and thus a ferroelectric polarization, below $`T_c`$ in PMN, Wakimoto1  and also of Stock et al. who showed that PMN and PZN exhibit soft modes with identical temperature dependences below $`T_c`$Stock

While the origin of an outer layer presents an interesting question, we do not believe it is of fundamental importance to the underlying properties of the relaxor compounds. Rather, we feel that the seminal question concerns the origin of Phase X and its relationship with the polar nanoregions. Starting from the diffuse scattering intensity measurements of Vakhrushev et al. on PMN, Vakhrushev  Hirota et al proposed an entirely new model of the PNR. Hirota  When ionic displacements due to a normal ferroelectric distortion are determined from measurements of Bragg intensities below Tc, the point of reference (origin) for these displacements is arbitrary. Only the relative positions between the atoms are meaningful. But in the case of the diffuse scattering in PMN, which first appears several hundred degrees above $`T_c`$, the origin is not arbitrary because the surrounding lattice is still cubic. Following this reasoning, a simple inspection of the displacements given by Vakhrushev et al. shows that the PNR center-of-mass is shifted from that of surrounding cubic phase. An approximate representation of this shift is shown in Fig. 4. One logical way to interpret the PMN displacements is to view them as the sum of a center-of-mass (COM) conserving component, and a scalar shift $`\delta `$ that is the same for all atoms. Using this approach Hirota et al. demonstrated that the COM-conserving ionic displacements match the ionic motions associated with the soft TO mode, first observed above the Burns temperature $`T_d`$Gehring  thus lending strong experimental support to this interpretation. The uniform shift of the PNR has since been suggested to be the result of the coupling between the soft TO mode and the TA mode (first appreciated by Naberezhnov et alNaberezhnov ). In this case the soft coupled TO mode will necessarily carry an acoustic component that could explain the uniform shift. Yamada ; Wakimoto

The essential point is that the uniform shift of the PNR, which is of order 60% that of the Pb displacement, combined with their large ($`30`$ – 50Å3) size, makes the process of *melting* the PNR into the surrounding ferroelectric phase exceedingly difficult, and thus immensely slow. In this respect we believe it is the shift $`\delta `$ that stabilizes Phase X. While more study is needed to characterize the PNR, and to determine the microscopic origin of the displacement $`\delta `$, we believe that these ideas form the basis of an elegant and self-consistent model in which it is possible to understand the basic properties of these lead-oxide relaxors.

We thank A. Bokov, T. Egami, K. Hirota, K. Ohwada, C. Stock, D. Vanderbilt, S. Wakimoto, and G. Xu, for stimulating discussions. We also acknowledge financial support from the U. S. Dept. of Energy under contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886, and the Office of Naval Research, Grant No. N00014-99-1-0738.


text:
# On the area of the symmetry orbits in 𝑇² symmetric spacetimes

## 1 Introduction

Areal coordinates provide a useful, geometrically-based, choice of foliation and coordinate system for families of globally hyperbolic solutions of the Einstein equations which have a closed (compact without boundary) Cauchy surface and a two-dimensional spatially acting isometry group. The key feature of these coordinates is that each of the constant time hypersurfaces (labeled by a number “$`R`$”) consists of all spacetime points which lie on two-dimensional symmetry group orbits of fixed area $`R`$. The function $`R`$ serves as the time coordinate for those spacetimes which admit areal coordinates.

Berger, Chruściel, Isenberg, and Moncrief (“BCIM”)  have shown that the maximal Cauchy development of vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data with nonvanishing twist constant admits a covering by areal coordinates. That spacetimes of this sort with vanishing twist constants (the Gowdy spacetimes ) generically admit a covering by areal coordinates was shown in  and . For Gowdy spacetimes with spatial topology $`T^3`$, the time coordinate $`R`$ covers the range $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$ . For those spacetimes with nonvanishing twist constant, BCIM show that $`R`$ takes on all values in the interval $`(R_0,+\mathrm{})`$ with $`R_0`$ some nonnegative number. Their work does not determine which spacetimes have $`R_0=0`$ and which do not.

The class of spacetimes which admit global areal coordinates has been extended beyond the vacuum case to include the maximal Cauchy development of $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data for the Einstein-Vlasov equations with spatial topology $`T^3`$ (excluding the special case of $`T^3\times R^1`$ Minkowski spacetime111The area of the group orbits is constant, so cannot serve as a time coordinate. Also excluded are flat Kasner spacetimes in which one chooses the $`T^2`$ isometry group in such a way that the area of the group orbits is constant.) . As in the vacuum case, for spacetimes in this family, the orbit area time coordinate $`R`$ has been shown to range from $`R_0`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, with no way described in  to determine for which spacetimes one has $`R_0=0`$. The same holds true for spacetimes with Gowdy symmetry and a nonvanishing magnetic field orthogonal to the group orbits .

In this work, we resolve the issue of when $`R_0`$ vanishes for the vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric spacetimes considered in BCIM. More specifically, we consider the maximal Cauchy development of vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data for the Einstein equations in the case of nonvanishing twist constant and show that $`R_0=0`$ unless the spacetime is flat Kasner. We also note that indeed flat Kasner initial data results in $`R_0>0`$. We suspect that a result similar to this one for vacuum spacetimes holds for Einstein-Vlasov solutions, but this issue has not yet been resolved. On the other hand, it is straightforward to adapt our proof to the spacetimes with magnetic field mentioned in the previous paragraph.

The bulk of this paper is devoted to proving the $`R_0=0`$ result for vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric spacetimes. The key to the proof is the analysis of a particular energy-like quantity $`(R)`$. We define $`(R)`$ in section 2, after using the results of BCIM to set up areal coordinates for the spacetimes of interest, and writing out (in section 2) the vacuum Einstein field equations in terms of these coordinates. It is relatively straightforward to show (see proposition 4 in section 4) that, presuming nonzero twist constant, $`(R)`$ vanishes at some time $`R_i`$ if and only if the spacetime generated from initial data at $`R_i`$ is flat Kasner. One also readily shows (see proposition 3) that if $`(R_i)=0`$ then $`R_0>0`$. Analyzing what happens in spacetimes with $`(R)0`$ requires more work. We do this in section 3. There, we prove via a succession of lemmas that if a smooth spacetime has areal coordinates with the time coordinate ranging over the interval $`(R_s,+\mathrm{})`$, and if for some $`R_i(R_s,+\mathrm{})`$ one has $`(R_i)0`$, then the metric functions and certain of their derivatives are bounded. It then follows via standard arguments that the spacetime further extends to the areal time interval $`(0,+\mathrm{})`$. This establishes our desired result, which we formally state in theorem 1 of section 5. We make some concluding remarks, and also note that there is a crushing singularity at $`R_0`$, in section 5.

## 2 Areal coordinates and some preliminary results

The family of spacetimes which we study in this paper is characterized by the following: Each member of the family is a maximally extended, globally hyperbolic spacetime region which satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations, which has an effectively acting $`T^2`$ isometry group whose generating Killing fields are everywhere spacelike and have nonvanishing twist quantities, and which has a compact Cauchy surface which is invariant under the $`T^2`$ action. We note that this is exactly the family of solutions considered in BCIM . We also note that if we were instead to assume that both quantities associated with the twists of the Killing fields vanish, then (after excluding the special cases mentioned in the introduction, which are characterized by the vanishing of the spacetime gradient of $`R`$ on the Cauchy surface) we would have the Gowdy spacetimes . If either or both of the twist quantities does not vanish, the exceptions just mentioned are automatically excluded (see pp 113-114 of ) and the topology of the Cauchy surface is necessarily $`T^3`$ . It was shown in earlier work  that each vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric solution with spatial topology $`T^3`$ (except for the flat solutions with group orbits of constant area, as just mentioned) locally admits areal coordinates $`(\theta ,x,y,R)`$, in terms of which the metric takes the form222The form of the metric (1) written here differs slightly from the form used in BCIM  in the following ways: 1) We replace “$`t`$” by “$`R`$”. 2) We have set the constant $`\lambda `$ to one; this can be done without loss of generality by rescaling $`\alpha `$, $`e^{2U}`$, $`e^{2\nu }`$, $`R`$ and $`K`$. 3) The area of each group orbit in the hypersurface labeled by $`R`$ is exactly $`R`$ rather than proportional to $`R`$; rescaling coordinates and metric functions allows one to do this without loss of generality. 4) The metric “shift” components $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ appearing in BCIM have, without loss of generality, been set to zero. 5) The metric functions $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ from BCIM are replaced by $`G`$ and $`H`$.

$`g`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2(\nu U)}(\alpha dR^2+d\theta ^2)+e^{2U}[dx+Ady+(G+AH)d\theta ]^2`$ (1)
$`+e^{2U}R^2(dy+Hd\theta )^2.`$
Here the time coordinate $`R`$ locally labels spatial hypersurfaces of the spacetime, and each such hypersurface consists of all of the $`T^2`$ group orbits which have area $`R`$. The spatial coordinate $`\theta `$ is periodic, with period one. In accord with the symmetry, the smooth metric functions $`\alpha `$, $`\nu `$, $`U`$, $`A`$, $`G`$, and $`H`$ are all independent of $`x`$ and $`y`$, and periodic in $`\theta `$.

Before we write out the Einstein equations in terms of areal coordinates and the metric functions appearing in (1), we wish to define a pair of functions which play an important role in our analysis below. We define $`\beta `$ via333Note that $`\beta `$ is the same function as $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, appearing in BCIM.

$$\beta =\nu +\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }{2};$$
(2)
it is used as an effective replacement for the function $`\nu `$. Then we define $`h`$ by

$$h=\frac{U_R^2}{\sqrt{\alpha }}+\sqrt{\alpha }U_\theta ^2+\frac{e^{4U}}{4R^2}\left(\frac{A_R^2}{\sqrt{\alpha }}+\sqrt{\alpha }A_\theta ^2\right);$$
(3)
note that here and below, we use the notation $`U_R=_RU`$, etc. As we shall see, the function $`h`$ plays the role of an effective energy density for these spacetimes, in that its integral over space is monotone and bounded in time, so long as $`R>0`$.

We also wish to carry out a useful simplification involving the twist quantities. For a spacetime with a spatially acting $`T^2`$ isometry group generated by a pair of (commuting) Killing fields $`X`$ and $`Y`$, the two twist quantities are given by

$$ϵ_{abcd}X^aY^b^cX^d,$$
(4)
and

$$ϵ_{abcd}Y^aX^b^cY^d.$$
(5)
If the spacetime satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations, then both of these quantities are constant. Now if one or both of these twist constants is nonvanishing, then it is easily verified that one can always choose a new set of commuting Killing fields (constant linear combinations of $`X`$ and $`Y`$) so that the twist quantity in expression (4) vanishes, while the other does not. Further, one can always choose coordinates so that one of the new Killing fields is $`_x`$ and the other is $`_y`$, and so that the metric remains in the form (1). This choice, which we shall assume throughout the rest of the paper, slightly simplifies the field equations, and also results in the condition $`=0`$ holding if and only if the spacetime is flat Kasner. Note that if $`X=_x`$ and $`Y=_y`$ were chosen so that the twist constant (4) were nonvanishing, then the condition $`=0`$ would not be preserved by the evolution, and flat Kasner would have $`0`$. Thus, in the discussion of the proof of our results, whenever the particular form of the evolution equations is involved, or whenever the quantity $``$ is under consideration, the phrase “with nonvanishing twist constant” should be taken to mean just one nonvanishing twist constant, as just described. On the other hand, the choice of Killing fields and coordinates does not affect the area function $`R`$. Thus in the statement of the theorem and also in the abstract, the phrase “with nonvanishing twist constant” should be taken to mean that both or either one of the twist constants is nonvanishing. This is true for other statements and results which involve $`R`$ only.

The vacuum Einstein equations for the metric (1), with coordinates $`x`$ and $`y`$ chosen as described in the previous paragraph, split into three sets (see section 2 in BCIM) as follows:

$`\beta _R`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha }Rh{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{4R^3}},`$ (6)
$`\beta _\theta `$ $`=`$ $`2R\left(U_RU_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{4R^2}}A_RA_\theta \right),`$ (7)
$`\alpha _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha e^{2\beta }K^2}{R^3}}.`$ (8)
$`U_{RR}\alpha U_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_R}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _RU_R}{2\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\theta U_\theta }{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{2R^2}}\left(A_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\alpha A_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),`$ (9)
$`A_{RR}\alpha A_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_R}{R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _RA_R}{2\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\theta A_\theta }{2}}4A_RU_R+4\alpha A_\theta U_\theta .`$ (10)
$`G_R`$ $`=`$ $`AH_R`$ (11)
$`H_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K}{\sqrt{\alpha }R^3}}.`$ (12)
Here $`K`$ is the (generally nonvanishing) twist constant from expression (5). Since the change $`KK`$ can be achieved by a coordinate transformation preserving all the conditions we have imposed, it is enough to consider $`K0`$.

It follows from equations (6), (8), (11) and (12) that if we specify smooth initial data

$$𝒟=\{U,U_R,A,A_R,\alpha ,\beta ,G,H,K\},$$
(13)
with $`\alpha >0`$ and with $`K0`$ a constant, then the first time derivatives of $`\beta ,\alpha ,G`$ and $`H`$ are determined in terms of $`𝒟`$ and its spatial derivatives. We then verify that the initial value problem consisting of data $`𝒟`$ satisfying (7) together with the evolution equations (9), (10) and the equations (6), (8), (11) and (12) constitutes a well posed system. Further, as proven in BCIM, we have the following:

###### Proposition 1

(BCIM) Let $`(\gamma ,\pi )`$ be a set of smooth $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data for the vacuum Einstein equations on $`T^3`$, with the data such that the spacetime gradient of the area of the isometry orbits does not vanish. For some nonnegative constant $`R_0`$, there exists a globally hyperbolic spacetime $`(M^4,g)`$ such that (a) $`M^4=T^3\times (R_0,\mathrm{})`$; (b) $`g`$ satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations; (c) $`M^4`$ is covered by areal coordinates $`(x,y,\theta ,R)`$ with $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$, so the metric takes the form (1); and (d) $`(M^4,g)`$ is isometrically diffeomorphic to the maximal Cauchy development of the data $`(\gamma ,\pi )`$.

This result is effectively a global existence theorem for the areal coordinate initial value problem (with data $`𝒟`$) cited above. In addition, it tells us that, except for the flat solutions with group orbits of constant area, areal coordinates cover the maximal spacetime development of any vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data444Note that the conclusion of proposition 1 holds regardless of whether the initial data is chosen with constant $`R`$. on $`T^3`$. This result does not, however, tell us for which solutions the range of the areal time coordinate $`R`$ extends to all positive values. We resolve this question in this paper. If $`K=0`$ we obtain the $`T^3`$ Gowdy solutions, and for these, $`R_0=0`$ . Thus we are interested in the case $`K0`$, though the method of proof applies to the case $`K=0`$ as well.

In the course of proving proposition 1, BCIM derive some useful properties of $`\beta `$, $`h`$, and the energy-like integral of $`h`$,

$$(R)=_{S^1}h𝑑\theta .$$
(14)
We now state and prove some of these properties, together with related results which will be useful in proving our main theorem.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`R_i(R_0,\mathrm{})`$.

1. If $`(R_i)=0`$ then $`(R)=0`$ for all $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$.
2. If $`(R_i)0`$ then $`(R)`$ is nonincreasing in $`R`$ on $`(R_0,\mathrm{})`$.
3. If $`(R_i)0`$ and $`K0`$ then $`(R)`$ is strictly decreasing in $`R`$ on $`(R_0,\mathrm{})`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: If $`(R_i)=0`$ then it follows from (3) and (14) that $`U_R`$, $`U_\theta `$, $`A_R`$ and $`A_\theta `$ all vanish at $`R=R_i`$ for all $`\theta `$. Therefore, $`U_{\theta \theta }`$ and $`A_{\theta \theta }`$ vanish at $`R=R_i`$ as well. But then it follows from the evolution equations that $`U_{RR}`$ and $`A_{RR}`$ vanish for all $`\theta `$ at $`R=R_i`$. Since $`U=`$ constant and $`A=`$ constant constitute a solution to the evolution equations which is consistent with any data at $`R=R_i`$ for which $`(R_i)=0`$, and since the data at $`R=R_i`$ uniquely determine a solution for all $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$, we necessarily have $`=0`$ for all $`R`$.

Based on the definition of $`h`$ and using the evolution equations and the constraints, we readily calculate the time derivative of $`h`$:

$$h_R=\frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{2R^3}h\frac{2U_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha }R}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }e^{4U}A_\theta ^2}{2R^3}+\frac{(\sqrt{\alpha }\beta _\theta )_\theta }{R}.$$
(15)
If we now integrate both sides of (15) over the circle, we have a formula for the time derivative of $``$:

$`_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{S^1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{2R^3}}h+{\displaystyle \frac{2U_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha }R}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }e^{4U}A_\theta ^2}{2R^3}}\right)𝑑\theta .`$ (16)
Clearly $`_R`$ is nonpositive. Noting from the above argument that if $`(R_i)0`$ then, for each $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$, $`h(\theta ,R)0`$ on some open subset of $`S^1`$, and noting that if $`K0`$ this implies that the first term of (16) is nonvanishing (and negative), we deduce that if $`(R_i)0`$ and $`K0`$ then $`(R)`$ is strictly decreasing. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

1. For any $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$, the function $`\beta `$ satisfies the condition

$$\underset{S_1}{\mathrm{max}}\beta (\theta ,R)\underset{S_1}{\mathrm{min}}\beta (\theta ,R)R(R).$$
(17)
2. For any pair $`R_1,R_2(R_0,\mathrm{})`$, the function $`\alpha `$ satisfies

$$\sqrt{\frac{\alpha (\theta ,R_1)}{\alpha (\theta ,R_2)}}=e^{2(\beta (\theta ,R_1)\beta (\theta ,R_2))}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{R_1}^{R_2}2\sqrt{\alpha (\theta ,R)}Rh(\theta ,R)𝑑R\right\}.$$
(18)
$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: The spatial max-min estimate for $`\beta `$ follows from the inequality $`Rh\pm \beta _\theta 0`$ (or equivalently $`|\beta _\theta |Rh`$), which holds because $`Rh\pm \beta _\theta `$ is the sum of squares (see the constraint equation formula for $`\beta _\theta `$ and the definition of $`h`$). Once we have $`|\beta _\theta |Rh`$, we may calculate (for any $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ satisfying $`0<\theta _2\theta _1<1`$),

$`|\beta (\theta _2,R)\beta (\theta _1,R)|`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle _{\theta _1}^{\theta _2}}\beta _\theta 𝑑\theta \right|,`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\theta _1}^{\theta _2}}|\beta _\theta |𝑑\theta ,`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\theta _1}^{\theta _2}}Rh𝑑\theta ,`$
$``$ $`R.`$
The estimate (17) immediately follows.

The result (18) for $`\alpha `$ follows directly from integrating

$`2\beta _R{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _R}{2\alpha }}=2\sqrt{\alpha }Rh`$ (19)
over time (R). $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Analysis for initial data with $`(R_i)0`$

For a given set of initial data $`𝒟`$ with $`K0`$ (see (13)), specified at time $`R_i`$, the quantity which determines if the range of the areal time coordinate (covering the maximal spacetime development of $`𝒟`$) extends to all positive values is $`(R_i)`$. In this section, we show that if $`(R_i)`$ is not zero (whether or not $`K=0`$), then $`R_0`$ must be zero. (Recall that, as shown in lemma 1, if $`(R_i)0`$, then $`(R)0`$ for all $`R(R_0,\mathrm{})`$.)

So let us assume, as we will throughout this section, that we have chosen data $`𝒟`$ at time $`R_i`$ for which $`(R_i)0`$. We know from proposition 1 that the domain of the maximal Cauchy development of $`𝒟`$ includes $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$ for some positive number555We reserve “$`R_0`$” to denote the first value of the time – proceeding from $`R_i`$ into the past, towards $`0`$ – to which we cannot extend the domain of dependence of the data $`𝒟`$. As we shall show here, if $`0`$, we can extend past $`R_s`$ so long as $`R_s>0`$. $`R_s`$, with $`0<R_s<R_i`$. In particular, we know that, for any $`R_a(R_s,R_i)`$, all the metric functions $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,U,A,G,H\}`$ and their derivatives are bounded on $`S^1\times [R_a,R_i]`$, and we know further that $`\alpha `$ is bounded away from zero and $`\alpha _R`$ is nonpositive on this same region. What we will now show is that the metric functions, their first derivatives and the second derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$ are bounded and $`\alpha `$ is bounded away from zero on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$ so long as $`R_s>0`$. It then follows that $`R_0=0`$.

We start by arguing that $``$ extends to $`R_s`$.

###### Lemma 3

$``$ is bounded from above on $`(R_s,R_i]`$ and therefore has a unique continuous extension to $`R_s`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: As discussed in the proof of lemma 1, if $`(R_i)0`$, then $`(R)`$ monotonically decreases into the future (and therefore monotonically increases into the past). To control the evolution of $``$ into the past, it is useful to define a closely related quantity,

$$\stackrel{~}{}=+_{S^1}\frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{4\sqrt{\alpha }R^4}𝑑\theta ,$$
(20)
which also evolves monotonically:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_R=_{S^1}\left(\frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{\sqrt{\alpha }R^5}+\frac{2U_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\sqrt{\alpha }R}+\frac{\sqrt{\alpha }e^{4U}A_\theta ^2}{2R^3}\right)𝑑\theta .$$
(21)
(The monotonic quantity defined by equation (43) in  for $`T^2`$ symmetric solutions of the Einstein-Vlasov equations reduces to $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ in the vacuum case we are considering here.) Now if we compare the right hand side of (21) with the definition (20) of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ we derive

$$\stackrel{~}{}_R\frac{4\stackrel{~}{}}{R}.$$
(22)
We readily determine that, for any $`R_k(R_s,R_i]`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{}(R_k)\stackrel{~}{}(R_i)+_{R_k}^{R_i}\frac{4\stackrel{~}{}(R)}{R}𝑑R.$$
(23)
Applying Gronwall’s inequality lemma to this inequality (as suggested on page 353 of ), we obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{}(R_k)\stackrel{~}{}(R_i)\left(\frac{R_i}{R_k}\right)^4,$$
(24)
for any $`R_k(R_s,R_i]`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{}(R_k)<\stackrel{~}{}(R_i)(R_i/R_s)^4`$ on $`(R_s,R_i)`$. This bound, together with the monotonicity of $`\stackrel{~}{}(R)`$, guarantees that $`\stackrel{~}{}(R)`$ continuously extends to $`R_s`$.

Now it follows from the definition (20) of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ that $`(R)\stackrel{~}{}(R)`$. Therefore, noting the monotonicity of $`(R)`$, we see that it too extends continuously to $`R_s`$, thus proving the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using the fact that $``$ is defined continuously on $`[R_s,R_i]`$, we now argue that the function $`\beta `$ is bounded from above:

###### Lemma 4

$`\beta `$ is bounded from above on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Using the evolution equation (16) for $``$ together with the oscillation result for $`\beta `$ from lemma 2, we calculate the following:

$`(R_s)`$ $``$ $`(R_i)+{\displaystyle _{S^1}}\left({\displaystyle _{R_s}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{2R^3}}h𝑑R\right)𝑑\theta ,`$
$``$ $`(R_i)+{\displaystyle _{S^1}}\left({\displaystyle _{R_s}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{min}_{S^1}\beta }K^2}{2R^3}}h𝑑R\right)𝑑\theta ,`$
$`=`$ $`(R_i)+{\displaystyle _{R_s}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{min}_{S^1}\beta }K^2}{2R^3}}𝑑R,`$
$``$ $`(R_i)+{\displaystyle _{R_s}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{max}_{S^1}\beta }e^{2R}K^2}{2R^3}}𝑑R,`$
$``$ $`(R_i)\left\{1+e^{2R_i(R_s)}{\displaystyle _{R_s}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\mathrm{max}_{S^1}\beta }K^2}{2R^3}}𝑑R\right\}.`$
Therefore, for any $`\theta S^1`$, we have

$$(R_s)(R_i)\left\{1+e^{2R_i(R_s)}_{R_s}^{R_i}\frac{e^{2\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{2R^3}𝑑R\right\}.$$
(26)
Assuming that $`(R_i)0`$, this gives us the integral inequality

$$_{R_s}^{R_i}\frac{e^{2\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{2R^3}𝑑Re^{2R_i(R_s)}\left(\frac{(R_s)}{(R_i)}1\right).$$

If we now integrate the time evolution equation (6) for $`\beta `$, and use the inequality which we just derived, then for each $`R_k(R_s,R_i]`$ and for each $`\theta S^1`$, we obtain

$`\beta (\theta ,R_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (\theta ,R_i)+{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{4R^3}}𝑑R{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}\sqrt{\alpha }Rh𝑑R,`$ (27)
$``$ $`\beta (\theta ,R_i)+{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{4R^3}}𝑑R,`$
$``$ $`\beta (\theta ,R_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2R_i(R_s)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(R_s)}{(R_i)}}1\right),`$
$``$ $`\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}\beta (\theta ,R_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2R_i(R_s)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(R_s)}{(R_i)}}1\right).`$
This inequality determines an upper bound for $`\beta `$ on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$, thereby proving the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

We next argue that $`\alpha `$ is controlled:

###### Lemma 5

$`\alpha `$ is bounded from above and away from zero on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$, and has a unique continuous extension to $`S^1\times \{R_s\}`$. Also, the time derivative $`\alpha _R`$ is bounded above and below on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Using the evolution equation (7) for $`\alpha `$, we derive an equation for $`(\mathrm{ln}\alpha )_R`$ which is nonpositive and only involves functions which are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$. Integrating over time, we see that $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ is bounded on this region. Since it is monotone in $`R`$ it extends to $`S^1\times \{R_s\}`$. The stated results for $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _R`$ then follow. $`\mathrm{}`$

With control of $`\alpha `$ established and $`\beta `$ bounded from above, we can now use $`1+1`$ light cone arguments to show that the rest of the metric functions are bounded and that $`\beta `$ is bounded from below on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$. We start with the functions $`U`$ and $`A`$ and their first derivatives:

###### Lemma 6

The functions $`U`$, $`A`$ and their first derivatives are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: We follow the pattern of the light cone arguments in sections 4 and 6 of BCIM. So let us first define

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }h}{2}},`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{U_R^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha U_\theta ^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{8R^2}}\left(A_R^2+\alpha A_\theta ^2\right),`$
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha }\beta _x}{2R}},`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha }\left(U_RU_\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{4R^2}}A_RA_\theta \right).`$
The derivatives of the sums and differences of these two quantities along the two null directions

$`_l`$ $`=`$ $`_R+\sqrt{\alpha }_\theta ,`$ (30)
$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`_R\sqrt{\alpha }_\theta .`$ (31)
are readily calculated. We obtain

$`_n(E+P)`$ $`=`$ $`J_+,`$ (32)
$`_l(EP)`$ $`=`$ $`J_{},`$ (33)
with $`J_+`$ and $`J_{}`$ defined by

$$J_\pm =\frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{R^3}(E\pm P)\frac{U_R^2}{R}\frac{\alpha e^{4U}A_\theta ^2}{4R^3}\frac{P}{R}.$$
(34)
Note that since $`\alpha `$ extends to $`S^1\times [R_s,R_i]`$, the vector fields $`_l`$ and $`_n`$ do as well.

Before proceeding with the integration of $`E`$ and $`P`$ along null paths generated by $`_l`$ and $`_n`$, we note some useful inequalities which follow immediately from the definitions of $`E`$, $`P`$, $`J_+`$ and $`J_{}`$ which we have just given. First, since $`E\pm P`$ are both the sum of squares, we have

$$|P|E.$$
(35)
Then, as a consequence of this result together with the definitions, we have

$$|J_\pm |\left(\frac{2e^{2\beta }K^2}{R^3}+\frac{3}{R}\right)E.$$
(36)
We now consider an arbitrary point $`(\theta ,R_k)S^1\times (R_s,R_i)`$. We let $`\gamma _l`$ and $`\gamma _n`$ denote the null paths (generated by $`_l`$ and $`_n`$, respectively) which meet at $`(\theta ,R_k)`$, and we let $`p_l`$ and $`p_n`$ denote the intersection of each of these paths with the initial data surface $`S^1\times \{R_i\}`$. If we integrate the evolution equations (33) along $`\gamma _l`$ and $`\gamma _n`$, combine the results, and use some of the estimates established above, we have

$`E(\theta ,R_k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{E(p_l)P(p_l)+E(p_n)+P(p_n){\displaystyle _{\gamma _l}}J_{}{\displaystyle _{\gamma _n}}J_+\right\},`$
$``$ $`E(p_l)+E(p_n)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{\gamma _l}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{R^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2R}}\right)E+{\displaystyle _{\gamma _n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{R^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2R}}\right)E.`$
It follows from this inequality, and from consideration of maxima over $`S^1`$, that we have

$`\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R_k)`$ $``$ $`2\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R_i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2e^{2\mathrm{max}_{S^1}\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{R^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{R}}\right)\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R)𝑑R.`$
Then applying the Gronwall inequality lemma to this result, we obtain

$$\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R_k)2\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R_i)\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{R_k}^{R_i}\left(\frac{2e^{2\mathrm{max}_{S^1}\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{R^3}+\frac{3}{R}\right)𝑑R\right\}.$$

From this it follows that

$$E(\theta ,R_k)<2\underset{S^1}{\mathrm{max}}E(\theta ,R_i)\mathrm{exp}\left\{_{R_s}^{R_i}\left(\frac{2e^{2\mathrm{max}_{S^1}\beta (\theta ,R)}K^2}{R^3}+\frac{3}{R}\right)𝑑R\right\},$$
(39)
which determines an upper bound on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$ for the positive quantity $`E(\theta ,R)`$.

Since $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ are bounded, it follows that $`h`$ is as well. Then, it follows from the definition of $`h`$ that both $`U_R`$ and $`U_\theta `$ are bounded. Integrating along appropriate paths in $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$, we obtain a bound on $`U`$. Then, since $`R`$ is bounded away from zero, it follows from the definition of $`h`$ that both $`A_R`$ and $`A_\theta `$ are bounded. Integrating along appropriate paths, we obtain a bound on $`A`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have thus far determined that $`U,U_R,U_\theta ,A,A_R,A_\theta ,\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _R`$ are bounded on the region of interest, $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$. We need to show that the same is true for $`\beta `$, for the rest of the first derivatives of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, and also for the second derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$. We obtain some of these results by direct calculation from the field equations (see lemma 7). For the others, we use a light cone argument, as sketched in lemma 8.

###### Lemma 7

The functions $`\beta `$, $`\alpha _\theta `$, $`\beta _\theta `$ and $`\beta _R`$ are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Since $`U,A`$ and their first derivatives are bounded and since $`\beta `$ is bounded from above, it follows from the formulas (6)-(7) for $`\beta _R`$ and $`\beta _\theta `$ that these two functions are also bounded. Thus $`\beta `$ is bounded from below as well as from above.

To bound $`\alpha _\theta `$, we work indirectly: We first take the spatial derivative of equation (8), obtaining

$$\alpha _{R\theta }=\frac{\alpha _R\alpha _\theta }{\alpha }+2\alpha _R\beta _\theta .$$
(40)
We then integrate this equation over time, which gives us (for any $`R_k(R_s,R_i]`$)

$`\alpha _\theta (\theta ,R_k)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _R}{\alpha }}dR\}[\alpha _\theta (\theta ,R_i)`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle _{R_k}^{R_i}}2\alpha _R\beta _\theta \mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle _R^{R_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\alpha }}ds\right\}dR].`$
The right hand side of equation (41) is bounded, so $`\alpha _\theta `$ must be bounded. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 8

The second derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$ are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Just as the control of the first derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$ is obtained via a light cone argument based on the quantities $`E`$ and $`P`$ defined in equations (28)-(29), we control the second derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$ using similar, but higher order, quantities. These are defined as follows:

$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{U_{RR}^2+\alpha U_{R\theta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{4R^2}}(A_{RR}^2+\alpha A_{R\theta }^2)\right\},`$ (42)
$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\alpha }\left(U_{RR}U_{R\theta }+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4U}}{4R^2}}A_{RR}A_{R\theta }\right).`$ (43)
Carrying out an argument similar to that used in lemma 6, we calculate the null derivatives of sums and differences of $`E_1`$ and $`P_1`$:

$`_n(E_1+P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`L_+,`$ (44)
$`_l(E_1P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`L_{}.`$ (45)
Here $`L_+`$ and $`L_{}`$ are expressions which we shall not display explicitly. The key feature of them which we need, that on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$ we have

$$|L_\pm |f_1(\theta ,R)+f_2(\theta ,R)E_1,$$
(46)
with $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ bounded, is readily derived. We then integrate equations (44)-(45) along null paths generated by $`_l`$ and $`_n`$, and derive estimates for $`E_1`$ which guarantee that it is bounded. Boundedness for $`U_{RR},U_{R\theta },A_{RR}`$, and $`A_{R\theta }`$ then follows. To show that $`U_{\theta \theta }`$ and $`A_{\theta \theta }`$ are bounded, we rely on the evolution equations (9) and (10), in which all terms except for $`U_{\theta \theta }`$ and $`A_{\theta \theta }`$ have already been determined to be bounded. $`\mathrm{}`$

All that remains is to control the shift functions $`G`$ and $`H`$:

###### Lemma 9

$`G`$ and $`H`$ and their first derivatives are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: The time derivatives of the shift functions $`G`$ and $`H`$ are specified by equations (11) and (12). Noting that the right hand sides of these equations consist entirely of bounded functions, we see that $`G_R`$ and $`H_R`$ are bounded and we integrate $`G_R`$ and $`H_R`$ along appropriate paths in $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$ to obtain bounds on $`G`$ and $`H`$. Similarly, differentiating equations (11) and (12) with respect to $`\theta `$ and then integrating with respect to time, we obtain bounds on $`G_\theta `$ and $`H_\theta `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We may now prove the basic result of this section:

###### Proposition 2

Let $`𝒟`$ be data at $`R_i>0`$ for a vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric solution of the Einstein equations with $`0`$. The maximal Cauchy development of $`𝒟`$ is covered by areal coordinates with the areal time coordinate R taking on all positive real values.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: Suppose that some development of $`𝒟`$ with $`0`$ is covered by areal coordinates with $`(\theta ,R)S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$, for some $`R_s`$ such that $`0<R_s<R_i`$. As a consequence of lemmas 3 through 9, we then know that all of the functions $`U`$, $`A`$, $`\beta `$, $`\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are bounded on $`S^1\times (R_s,R_i]`$, and their first derivatives and the second derivatives of $`U`$ and $`A`$ are bounded on this spacetime region as well. With local existence established by proposition 1, then standard long-time existence theorems for PDEs (see, for example, theorems 2.1 and 2.2, as well as corollaries 1 and 2 in666The system of first order equations for $`(\beta ,\alpha ,U,U_R/\sqrt{\alpha },U_\theta ,A_R/\sqrt{\alpha },A_\theta )`$ satisfies the hypotheses of these theorems and corollaries. chapter 2 of Majda’s book ) show that the solution in terms of the areal coordinate metric functions $`U`$, $`A`$, $`\beta `$, $`\alpha `$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ extends to $`S^1\times (0,R_i)`$. Proposition 1 then shows that the maximal Cauchy development of $`𝒟`$ is covered by areal coordinates with the areal time coordinate $`R`$ taking on all positive real values. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Analysis for initial data with $`(R_i)=0`$

In section 3, we have shown that if a set of data $`𝒟`$ has $`0`$ then the maximal development of $`𝒟`$ has $`R_0=0`$. In this section, we consider what happens if the data $`𝒟`$ has $`=0`$ and $`K0`$. We first show that the areal coordinates covering the maximal development of $`𝒟`$ have $`R_0>0`$. We then show that $`=0`$ if and only if the maximal development of the data is flat Kasner.

###### Proposition 3

Let $`𝒟`$ be a set of smooth initial data for a $`T^2`$ symmetric solution, with $`=0`$ and $`K0`$. The areal coordinates for the maximal development of $`𝒟`$ have $`R_0>0`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: If $`=0`$, then it follows from the definition of $``$ and from lemma 1 that $`h=0`$ for all $`\theta `$ and $`R`$. Examining equations (6) and (7), we then see that $`\beta _\theta =0`$ (so $`\beta `$ is independent of $`\theta `$) and that the evolution of $`\beta `$ is governed by

$$\beta _R=\frac{e^{2\beta }K^2}{4R^3}.$$
(47)
Since K is constant, this is a separable ODE, which we can readily integrate to get (presuming that the initial data is specified at time $`R=R_i`$)

$$e^{2\beta (\theta ,R)}=e^{2\beta (\theta ,R_i)}+\frac{K^2}{4R_i^2}\frac{K^2}{4R^2}.$$
(48)
We notice that, as we evolve in areal coordinates back in time, starting at $`R=R_i`$, the right hand side of equation (48) becomes smaller. Finally, for $`R`$ equal to some positive number $`R_0<R_i`$ , the right hand side of equation (48) goes to zero. It follows from equation (48) that as $`R`$ approaches this value $`R_0`$, $`\beta `$ grows without bound. Since proposition 1 tells us that areal coordinates cover the maximal development of the data $`𝒟`$, and since $`\beta `$ blowing up signals the end of areal coordinates, we conclude that the maximal development of $`𝒟`$ ends with $`R`$ equal to this value of $`R_0`$, defined by

$$0=e^{2\beta (\theta ,R_i)}+\frac{K^2}{4R_i^2}\frac{K^2}{4R_0^2}.$$
(49)
Note that, since $`\beta `$ is independent of $`\theta `$, $`R_0`$ is as well. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4

The development of a set of data $`𝒟`$ with $`K0`$ is isometric to flat Kasner if and only if $`=0`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}`$: First, let us assume that we are given a set of data with $`=0`$. It follows from the definition of $`=0`$ that $`U`$ and $`A`$ must be constant in both $`\theta `$ and $`R`$. Examining the constraint equation (7), we see that $`\beta `$ must be constant in $`\theta `$ as well. The functions $`\alpha `$, $`G`$ and $`H`$ are not necessarily independent of $`\theta `$, but spatial coordinate transformations that preserve the conditions we have imposed can be used to remove any $`\theta `$-dependence of these functions. The presence of three nowhere vanishing, spatial, linearly independent, commuting Killing vectors and calculation of the Kasner exponents shows that this is flat Kasner.

To argue the converse, let us assume that the $`T^2`$ symmetric spacetime $`\{M^4,g\}`$ we are considering is $`T^3`$ flat Kasner. Then we may choose a fixed set of three nowhere vanishing, linearly independent, commuting Killing fields $`\{W_i\}`$ tangent to the homogeneous Cauchy surfaces. It follows that the Killing fields $`X`$ and $`Y`$ which identify the spacetime as $`T^2`$ symmetric are each linear combinations of the $`\{W_i\}`$ with constant coefficients.777Note that we are considering general compactifications of the flat Kasner spacetime, with no assumption being made that the integral curves of $`\{W_i\}`$ or of $`X`$ or of $`Y`$ are closed. It is also true, by assumption, that the twist quantity of expression (4) vanishes, while that of expression (5) does not. If we now calculate the range of $`R`$, defined to be the area of the orbits generated by $`X`$ and $`Y`$, on the maximal Cauchy development of any one of the $`R=`$ constant surfaces, we find that it is $`(R_0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`R_0>0`$. (This is true regardless of our choice of $`\{W_i\}`$.) From proposition 2 it follows that $`=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We note that, combining propositions 2 and 3, we see that for vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric spacetimes with nonvanishing twist constant, $`R_0=0`$ if and only if $`0`$. We should emphasize that this result presumes that the twist quantity $`K`$ of (5) is nonzero and that the twist quantity (4) vanishes. If both twist quantities vanish (i.e., for Gowdy spacetimes), then the areal time coordinate covers the full range $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, regardless of whether $``$ is zero or not (and regardless of whether the spacetime is flat Kasner or not). If the twist quantity (4) does not vanish, then $`(R_i)0`$ does not imply that $`R_0=0`$. However, if the spacetime is flat Kasner then $`R_0>0`$, while if the spacetime is not flat Kasner then $`R_0=0`$.

## 5 Conclusion

Combining the results of sections 3 and 4, we have proven our main theorem.

###### Theorem 1

On the maximal Cauchy development of vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric initial data for the Einstein equations with nonvanishing twist constant, the area of the $`T^2`$ group orbits takes on all positive values if and only if the solution is not flat Kasner. Hence the areal coordinates $`(x,y,\theta ,R)T^3\times (R_0,\mathrm{})`$ which cover every such spacetime have $`R_0=0`$ if and only if the spacetime is not flat Kasner.

This result should be a useful tool for the study of these spacetimes. It tells us that in terms of areal coordinates, one approaches the initial cosmological singularity exactly by letting $`R`$ approach zero.

There is considerable interest in analyzing the nature of the singularities in the vacuum $`T^2`$ symmetric spacetimes. Numerical studies combined with heuristic argument strongly suggest that, generically, the cosmological singularity in these spacetimes is oscillatory (i.e., “mixmaster”) in nature . This is true for other classes of spacetimes as well (e.g., those with $`U(1)`$ symmetry ). However, there has never been a proof of generic oscillatory behavior in an infinite dimensional888See  for a finite dimensional class of spatially inhomogeneous oscillatory solutions. class of spatially inhomogeneous solutions, and the $`T^2`$ symmetric class of spacetimes is among the simplest such class in which oscillatory behavior is expected. So there is considerable incentive to study the singularities in these spacetimes further, and our result should be helpful for such studies.

We note that heuristic analyses suggest that $`R_0=0`$ is a prerequisite for oscillatory behavior to occur, and such analyses coupled with numerical work do indicate (in agreement with our results here) that generally $`R_0=0`$ . We also note that it has been shown (in ) that in $`T^2`$ symmetric solutions, $`R=R_0`$ is a crushing singularity. This means that a constant mean curvature foliation exists near the singularity, with the mean curvature growing without bound.

Our result here has an interesting corollary concerning the existence of solutions which are flat Kasner in some regions but not elsewhere. In $`T^3`$ Gowdy spacetimes, this can happen near the singularity. Specifically, in $`T^3`$ Gowdy, if initial data is given at $`0<R_i<1/2`$, and if the data is flat Kasner on some interval $`[a,b]`$, with $`ba>2R_i`$, then the region of the spacetime development of this data which is locally isometric to flat Kasner will extend to the singularity. For $`T^2`$ symmetric solutions with $`K0`$, however, our result shows that even if $`R_i>0`$ is very small and even if the proper subset of the initial $`S^1`$ on which the data is flat Kasner is very large, so long as there is some point of the initial $`S^1`$ at which $`h0`$ (and therefore, as a consequence of continuity, there is an interval on which $`h0`$) then there is no region abutting the singularity in which the spacetime is locally isometric to flat Kasner. This corollary rules out, for $`T^2`$ symmetric solutions with $`K0`$, a particular kind of construction of solutions with Cauchy horizons which can be carried out for Gowdy spacetimes.

## 6 Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY-0099373 at Oregon, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Part of this work was carried out at the Workshop on General Relativity, April 1 - June 7, 2002, Stanford Mathematics Department and American Institute of Mathematics. MW also thanks the Institute of Theoretical Science at the University of Oregon for hospitality, November-December, 2001, at the beginning stages of this work.