text:
# Cosmological Consequences of the Yukawa Potential Involvement in Gravitational and Electromagnetic Fields Interaction Evaluated by ENU Model

## 1 Introduction

Starting from the beginning of 80’s, the inflation model of the universe acquired dominant position in cosmology. The model has been able to eliminate certain cosmological problems, at the same time it has, however, open new questions, such as the Universe age, Hubble’s constant or deceleration parameter values. It has not, however, contributed to deepen our understanding of the gravitation and its relation to the other physical interactions. Moreover, in accordance with some analyses , the initial nonhomogenities should not be eliminated but they are rather enhanced within the inflation period.

Open questions have been a challenge for developing further models of the Universe, one of them being Expansive Nondecelerative Universe model \[2-4\]. The ENU model manifest its capability both by offering answers to several open questions and supporting results obtained by other theoretical approaches. The present paper continues in this tendency and is aimed to contributing to a solution of some cosmological problems, in particular those linked to the Yukawa potential consequences, independent way of dark matter estimation, ionospheric F2 layer behaviour, and cyclotron radiation.

## 2 Background of Expansive Nondecelerative Universe model

The cornerstones of ENU, rationalized in more detail in \[2-4\] are as follows:

1. The Universe, throughout the whole expansive evolutionary phase, expands by a constant rate equals the speed of light $`c`$ obeying thus relation

$$r_U=ct_U=\frac{2Gm_U}{c^2}$$
(1)
where $`r_U`$ is the Universe radius, $`t_U`$ is the cosmological time, $`m_U`$ is the Universe mass (their present ENU-based values are $`r_U1.299x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{26}`$ m, $`m_U8.673x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{52}`$ kg, $`t_U1.373x\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}`$ yr, and match well with generally accepted values \[5-7\]).
2. The curvature index and Einstein cosmologic constant are of zero value.
3. The mean energy density of the Universe is identical just to its critical density (its present value given by the ENU is $`9.536\times 10^{27}`$ kg/m3, that provided in  is $`9.47\times 10^{27}`$ kg/m$`{}_{}{}^{3})`$.
4. Since $`a`$ is increasing in time, $`m_U`$ must increase as well, $`i.e`$. in the ENU, the creation of matter occurs. The total mass-energy of the Universe must, however, be exactly zero. It is achieved by a simultaneous gravitational field creation, the energy of which is negative. The fundamental mass-energy conservation law is thus observed.
5. Due to the matter creation, Schwarzschild metrics must be replaced in ENU by Vaidya metrics  in which the line element is formulated as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{cdt}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_{(m)}^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }}{r}}\right)c^2dt^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }}{r}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (2)
$`r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)`$
and the scalar curvature $`R`$ (which is, contrary to a more frequently used Schwarzschild metric, of non-zero value in Vaidya approach also outside a body allowing thus to localize the gravitational energy density) in the form

$$R=\frac{6G}{c^3r^2}.\frac{dm}{dt}=\frac{3r_g}{r_Ur^2}$$
(3)
where $`m`$ is the mass of a body, $`G`$ ($`6.67259\times 10^{11}`$ kg-1 m3 s$`{}_{}{}^{2})`$ is the gravitational constant, $`r`$ is the distance from the body, $`r_g`$ is the gravitational radius of the body, $`f_{(m)}`$ is an arbitrary function, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$is defined  as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{Gm}{c^2}$$
(4)
In order to $`f_{(m)}`$ be of nonzero value, it must hold

$$f_{(m)}=\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\frac{d}{dr}\left(1\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }}{r}\right)\right]=\frac{2\mathrm{\Psi }^2}{r^2}$$
(5)
Based on (1), in the framework of the ENU model

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{cdt}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{r_U}$$
(6)

Dynamic character of the ENU is described by Friedmann equations. Introducing dimensionless conform time, equation (1) can be expressed as

$$cdt=r_Ud\eta $$
(7)
from which

$$r_U=\frac{dr_U}{d\eta }$$
(8)
Applying Vaidya metric and stemming from Robertson-Walker approach, Friedmann equations can be then written in the form

$$\frac{d}{d\eta }(\frac{1}{r_U}.\frac{dr_U}{d\eta })=\frac{4\pi G}{3c^4}r_U^2(\epsilon +3p)$$
(9)
$$(\frac{1}{r_U}.\frac{dr_U}{d\eta })^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3c^4}r_U^2\epsilon k$$
(10)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the critical energy density (the Universe actual density within the ENU model) and $`p`$ is the pressure. Based on (9) and (10) it follows

$$\epsilon =\frac{3c^4}{8\pi Gr_U^2}$$
(11)
$$p=\frac{\epsilon }{3}$$
(12)
Equations (11) and (12) represent the matter creation and the negative value of gravitational energy, respectively (for more details, see \[2 - 4\]).

Applying Vaidya metric to one body (a system with the mass $`m)`$, a distance dependence of the gravitational field density $`\epsilon _g`$ created by this body obeys relation (13) in the weak field condition

$$\epsilon _g=\frac{Rc^4}{8\pi G}=\frac{3mc^2}{4\pi r_Ur^2}$$
(13)
The absolute value of the gravitational field density of a system equals to the critical density at the distance $`r_{ef}`$ (effective interaction range of its gravitational force). Comparison of the relations (4), (11) and (13) leads to

$$r_{ef}=\left(r_gr_U\right)^{1/2}=\left(2\mathrm{\Psi }r_U\right)^{1/2}$$
(14)
in which $`r_g`$ means the gravitational radius of a body with the mass $`m.`$

Vaidya metric may be applied in all cases for which the gravitational energy is localizable, i.e. in cases being governed by relation (15)

$$r<r_{ef}$$
(15)
Gravitational influence can be thus actually realized only if the absolute value of the gravitational energy density created by a body exceeds the critical energy density, i.e. the mean gravitational energy density of the Universe. If

$$rr_{ef}$$
(16)
Vaidya metric adopts the form of Schwarzschild metric preventing the energy of gravitational field from localization.

A typical feature of the ENU model lies in its simplicity, in fact that no “additional parameters” or strange “dark energy” are needed, and in the usage of only one state equation in describing the Universe.

## 3 Yukawa potential and our solar system

The potential bearing Yukawa name was introduced into physics in 1935 in connection with prediction of mesons . Originally it was formulated in the form

$$E_{p(r)}=\frac{E_or_o}{r}\mathrm{exp}(r/r_o)$$
(17)
where $`E_{p(r)}`$ is the nuclear potential energy between two nucleons at the distance $`r`$, $`r_o`$ is the range of the nuclear forces, $`E_o`$ is the strength of the interaction. A similar potential was, however, formulated some years earlier by Neumann and Seeliger when describing gravitational interactions.

Later on, the Yukawa potential demonstrated its importance in solving various issues of particle physics and penetrated into chemistry, mainly in rationalization of liquid-vapour equilibrium, monomer-dimer mixtures behaviour, etc. \[12–14\].

Reevaluating Einstein equations, Zhuck highlighted the importance of the Yukawa potential for the Universe understanding and manifested its importance for the gravity forces in his recent paper paper .

In this paper the Yukawa-type gravitational potential is discussed from the viewpoint of its applicability for a single body and, more generally, for any system with defined dimensions such as a galaxy, supercluster, etc.). Differences emerging from application of the Newtonian and Yukawa potentials are exemplified by our solar system, eliptic galaxies and super clusters parameters. The discussion is held in the framework of the Expansive Nondecelerative Universe model (ENU).

Taking Vaidya metric into account, the non-relativistic gravitational potential outside a body with the mass $`m`$ can be expressed in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_o\mathrm{exp}(r/r_{ef})$$
(18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_o=G\frac{\rho }{r}𝑑V=\frac{Gm}{r}$$
(19)
It follows both from the Zhuck  and our approaches that consequences of the potential, i.e. differences between results provided using the Newtonian and Yukawa potentials can actually be observed only taking sufficiently large distances $`r`$ into account. We have chosen our solar system (its the most distant planets - Neptun and Pluto), and eliptic galaxies as examples. The results obtained enable us to estimate the amount of dark matter in the investigated galaxies and in the whole Universe.

The Sun mass is

$$m_{(Sun)}=1.9891\times 10^{30}\text{kg}$$
(20)
which represents 99.866% of the mass of the whole solar system, $`m_{SS}`$, being

$$m_{(SS)}1.9918\times 10^{30}\text{kg}$$
(21)
The effective interaction range of the solar system $`r_{ef(SS)}`$ based on (14) and (21) is as follows

$$r_{ef(SS)}6.43\times 10^{14}\text{m}$$
(22)
A mean square of velocity of the planets revolution can be expressed, the Yukawa potential including, as

$$\overline{v}^2=\frac{4\pi ^2\overline{r}^2}{t^2}=\frac{Gm_{(SS)}}{\overline{r}}\mathrm{exp}(\overline{r}/r_{ef})$$
(23)
of which

$$r_{ef}\mathrm{ln}\frac{4\pi ^2\overline{r}^3}{Gm_{(SS)}t^2}=\overline{r}$$
(24)
where $`t`$ is the orbital period of a planet around the Sun, $`\overline{r}`$ is a mean Sun-to-planet distance. Relations (21), (22), (24), and known $`t`$ for Neptun lead to the following ENU-based value

$$\overline{r}_{(Neptun)ENU}=4.488\times 10^{12}\text{m}$$
(25)
Calculation based on the Newtonian potential gives

$$\overline{r}_{(Neptun)NP}=4.496\times 10^{12}\text{m}$$
(26)
Difference of both the values is about 0.2%. A similar treatment for Pluto leads to

$$\overline{r}_{(Pluto)ENU}=5.862\times 10^{12}\text{m}$$
(27)
and

$$\overline{r}_{(Pluto)NP}=5.878\times 10^{12}\text{m}$$
(28)
i.e. about 0.3% deviation.

## 4 The Universe dark matter estimation

Generally, the more massive gravitationally bonded structure, the lower its energy density. It can be supposed that for superclusters or giant clusters of galaxies, their energy density approaches the critical density. It means that dimension of such systems is

$$rr_{ef}$$
(29)
Consequently, the total mass of such systems dark, matter including, may be determined directly from their dimensions. Based on (14) and (29) it follows

$$m_{(Galaxy,total)}\frac{r^2c^2}{2Gr_U}$$
(30)
The observable mass of the most massive, up-to-now known eliptic galaxies reaches

$$m_{(Galaxy,obs)}10^{13}m_{(Sun)}$$
(31)
and their dimensions are about

$$rr_{ef}1.56\times 10^{22}\text{m}$$
(32)
Stemming from (30) and (32) the total mass of such galaxies, dark matter including, represents

$$m_{(Galaxy,total)}10^{15}m_{(Sun)}$$
(33)
An observable mass of an average-sized super cluster is

$$m_{(SC,obs)}10^{16}m_{(Sun)}$$
(34)
and its dimension is about

$$r_{(SC)}r_{ef}7.1\times 10^{23}\text{m}$$
(35)
Based on (30), the total mass of a super cluster reaches

$$m_{(SC,total)}10^{18}m_{(Sun)}$$
(36)
which directly leads, comparing the values mentioned in (33) and (36), to a result that the total mass exceeds by about two orders the ”visible” mass, i.e. the majority of the total matter is hidden in the form of dark matter.

Based on validity of (29), relations (23) and (30) provide the rotational velocity of super cluster (SC) and giant eliptic galaxies (EG)

$$v=c\left(\frac{r}{2\times 2.71r_U}\right)^{1/2}$$
(37)
Provided that the dimensions (radius) of gravitationally bonded systems - super clusters and giant eliptic galaxies - are known, and including the gauge factor $`r_U`$ value into account, values of their rotational velocity emerge

$`v_{(EG)}`$ $``$ $`1.3\times 10^6\text{m/s}`$ (38)
$`v_{(SC)}`$ $``$ $`8.9\times 10^6\text{m/s}`$ (39)
The above mentioned ENU-based calculated values are in good accordance with those experimentally observed.

## 5 Breaking electron-cation radiation of the F2 layer of ionosphere

The F2 layer is part of the Earth ionosphere formed predominantly by atomic ogyxen cations and electrons (the concentration and kind of neutral molecules, a degree of ionization and temperature depend on several factors, the most important being solar radiation intensity, season of the year, etc.) . Our attention will be focused on the electrons present in the F2 layer.

The effective cross section $`d\sigma `$ related to the emission of a photon (bremsstrahlung, i.e. breaking radiation) in the frequency interval $`d(\mathrm{}\omega )`$ by an electron in the field of a cation with the charge $`Ze`$ is defined by Bethe-Heitler formula

$$d\sigma =\frac{8Z^2\alpha r_e^2}{3}.\frac{m_ec^2}{E_e}.\frac{d\omega }{\omega }.\mathrm{ln}\frac{\left[E_e^{1/2}+\left(E_e\mathrm{}\omega \right)^{1/2}\right]^2}{\mathrm{}\omega }$$
(40)
where $`\alpha `$ is the fine structure constant, $`m_e,r_e,E_e`$ are the electron mass, radius, and kinetic energy, respectively.

The radiation output of a plasma volume unit is obtained by multiplying the photon energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ with the current density of electrons $`n_e`$ colliding with cations having the density $`n_i.`$ In a limiting case of the total one-electron ionization (a state not far from the actual state approached at favourite atmospheric conditions), $`Z=1,n_e=n_i=n`$, and

$$dI_{(\omega )}=n^2\mathrm{}\omega vd\sigma $$
(41)
At integration of (40) the following substitution is applied

$$2E_e=\mathrm{}\omega \left(1+chx\right)$$
(42)
Then, based on (40) to (42), the total radiation output of a plasma volume unit at the electron-cation collisions is given as

$$I_{(e_i)}=\frac{32}{3}.\left(\frac{2}{\pi }\right)^{1/2}\alpha c^3r_e^2m_en^2t^{1/2}$$
(43)
where

$$t=\frac{kT}{m_ec^2}$$
(44)
It is generally accepted that the F2 layer peaks at about $`2\times 10^{12}`$ e-/m3 during the day and $`5\times 10^{10}`$e-/m3 during the night. The electron temperature is widely spread in the range of 1000 K to 3000 K. On the other hands, for the cations, the temperature covers 800 K to 1500 K. The pressure in this region ranges between $`10^510^6`$ Pa and the ionic mean free path is 4.5 to 15 km. Accordingly, the ionospheric plasma can be considered as a highly ionized, almost collisionless gas in the F2 region . Based on the above values and relation (43), the total output of the breaking radiation in a volume unit of the F2 layer reaches (in the calculation, limiting conditions of the temperature interval from 1000 K to 3000 K, and electron concentration from $`1\times 10^{12}`$ e-/m3 to $`2\times 10^{12}`$ e-/m3 were taken)

$$I_{(e_i)}=4.9\times 10^{15}3.3\times 10^{14}\text{W/m}$$
(45)
Gravitational output is in the ENU defined as

$$\left|P_g\right|=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}R𝑑V=\frac{mc^3}{r_U}$$
(46)
Taking the concentration of oxygen cations in a volume unit of the F2 layer,

$$\left|P_g\right|=5.0\times 10^{15}1.0\times 10^{14}\text{W/m}$$
(47)
Thus, during the daytime, the gravitational output approaches the breaking radiation output (intervals of the outputs overlaps, as shown by (45) and (47)).

## 6 Cyclotron radiation of the Sun surface

The mass density at the Sun surface is about

$$\rho 1\text{kg/m}\text{3}$$
(48)
which corresponds to particle concentration

$$n10^{27}\text{m}\text{-3}$$
(49)
at the Sun surface temperature

$$T5.8\times 10^3\text{K}$$
(50)
At these conditions (further, for calculation purposes, the value expressed in (48) is taken as an exact value), the ionization degree is

$$\chi =1.161\times 10^6$$
(51)
which leads to the concentration of free electrons

$$n_{(e)}=1.161\times 10^{21}\text{m}\text{-3}$$
(52)
At such conditions the Debye-Hückel radius is still higher than the mean ion-ion distance, i.e. the kinetic energy of the present particles exceeds electromagnetic Coulomb energy of the ions.

Owing to the relatively great mass of the present cations, their cyclotron radiation may be omitted. Breaking electron-cation and electron-electron radiation (bremsstrahlung ) is due to a high cation concentration extremely high.

A particle with the charge $`e`$ and acceleration $`a`$ emits in a second the energy

$$E_c=a^2.\frac{e^2}{6\pi \epsilon _oc^3}$$
(53)
Following substitutions

$$a=\frac{ev_eB}{m_e}$$
(54)
and

$$r_e=\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon _om_ec^2}$$
(55)
equation (53) may be expressed as

$$E_c=\frac{8\pi r_e^2c\epsilon _ov_e^2B^2}{3}$$
(56)
where

$$v_e^2=\frac{2kT}{m_e}$$
(57)
The total cyclotron radiation in a volume unit of the plasma forming the Sun surface is

$$I_c=n_eE_c=\frac{16\pi r_e^2c\epsilon _okTn_eB^2}{3m_e}$$
(58)
The gravitational output of this volume unit is

$$P_g=\frac{\rho _{pl}c^3}{r_U}0.2\text{W/m}\text{3}$$
(59)
provided that the plasma density is

$$\rho _{pl}1\text{kg/m}\text{3}$$
(60)
The identity of (58) and (59) gives the value of induction

$$B7.6\times 10^2\text{T}$$
(61)
This is a real value since the maximal value at Sun spots approaches

$$B_{\mathrm{max}}10^1\text{T}$$
(62)
The magnetic field energy density is defined as

$$W_B=\frac{B^2}{2\mu _o}$$
(63)
Then, a comparison of (13) and (63) leads to the critical Sun induction value

$$B_{crit}3.8\times 10^2\text{T}$$
(64)
The above results, namely very closed values of (61) and (64) allow us to formulate a conclusion stating that the cyclotron and gravitational output of a volume unit of the plasma forming the Sun surface are (almost) identical which may have an effect on the Sun corona heating.

## 7 Cyclotron radiation at the end of radiation era

At the end of radiation era, the concentration of ions was very low and, consequently, the effect of breaking electron-ion and electron-electron radiation may be omitted. This part will be devoted and limited to cyclotron radiation only. Stemming from the identity of (56) and (69), introduction of the expressions (65) – (68)

$$r_e=\frac{\alpha \mathrm{}}{m_ec}$$
(65)
$$v_e^2=\frac{2kT}{m_e}$$
(66)
$$kT=E_{Pc}.\left(\frac{l_{Pc}}{r_U}\right)^{1/2}$$
(67)
$$B^2=\frac{3c^2}{8\pi Gr_U^2\epsilon _o}$$
(68)
and application of the gravitational output of an electron

$$\left|P_e\right|=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{c^4}{8\pi G}.RdV=\frac{m_ec^3}{r_U}$$
(69)
lead to

$$r_{U(re)}=\left[\frac{2\alpha ^2E_{Pc}\mathrm{}^2\left(l_{Pc}\right)^{1/2}}{m_e^4Gc^2}\right]^{2/3}10^{22}\text{m}$$
(70)
where $`E_{Pc}(1.2211\times 10^{19}`$ eV) and $`l_{Pc}(1.616051\times 10^{35}`$ m) are the Planck energy and length, respectively. Relation (70) shows that at the end of radiation era, the electron emitted identical amounts of the cyclotron radiation and gravitational energy. It should be pointed out that the gravitational influence of the electron was not observable at that time.

The Compton wavelength of a proton is

$$\lambda _p=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}$$
(71)
where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass. When comparing (14) and (71), the time of the proton gravitational influence on its surrounding is obtained. It is the time in which the Universe radius reached the value

$$r_{U(re)}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2Gm_p^3}10^{22}\text{m}$$
(72)
i.e. just at the end of radiation era. Putting relations (70) and (72) identical, a formula relating the proton and electron masses is obtained in the form

$$\frac{m_p}{m_e}=\left(\frac{m_{Pc}}{32m_p}\right)^{1/8}\alpha ^{1/2}=1860$$
(73)
The value in (73) is in excellent agreement with the experimental value.

### 7.1 Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Grant Agency VEGA through grant No. 1/9251/2.

## References

 R. Penrose, The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, p. 44

 V. Skalský, M. Súkeník, Astroph. Space Sci., 178 (1991) 169; 181 (1991), 153; 191 (1992) 329; 209 (1993) 123; 215 (1994) 137;

 M. Súkeník, J. Šima, Spacetime and Substance, 3 (2001) 125

 J. Šima, M. Súkeník, Entropy, 4 (2002) 152

 R. Cayrel, V. Hill, T.C. Boers, B. Barbuy, M. Spite, F. Spite, B. Plez, J. Anderson, P. Bonifacio, P. Francois, P. Molaro, B. Nordsrom, F. Primas, Nature 409 (2001) 691

 D.E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J., C15 (2000) 1

 A.H. Guth, The Inflationary Universe, Addison Wesley, New York, 1997, p.22

 P.C. Vaidya, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., A33 (1951) 264

 K.S. Virbhadra, Pramana – J. Phys., 38 (1992) 31

 A.N. Monin, Cosmology, Hydrodynamics and Turbulence: A.A. Friedmann and Extension of jis Scientific Heritage, Moscow, 1989, p.103 (in Russian)

 H. Yukawa, Progr. Theor. Phys. 17 (1935) 48

 N. Sulaiman, S.M. Osman, I. Ali, R.N. Singh, J. Non-Crystalline Solids 312 (2002) 227

 S.M. Osman, I. Ali, R.N. Singh, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 (2002) 8415

 I. Ali, S.M. Osman, M. Al-Busaidi, R.N. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys., B13 (1999) 3261

 N.A. Zhuck, Spacetime and Substance, 2 (2001) 154

 Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 78th Ed., CCR, Boca Raton (1997)

 M.C. Kelley, The Earth’s Ionosphere, Academic Press, San Francisco, 1989

 H-J. Rhee, J. Astron. Space Sci., 14 (1997) 269

 H.A. Bethe, W. Heitler, Proc. Royal Soc., London, A146 (1934) 83

 W. Heitler, Quantum Theory of Radiation, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1954


format: text

text:
# Logarithmic Corrections in Dynamic Isotropic Percolation

## I Introduction

Spreading phenomena occur in nature in many kinds with examples ranging from epidemics or forest fires BrHa57 ; Mo77 ; Li85 ; Du88 ; Ba85  over the growth of populations Ba85 ; Mu89  and the activity of catalyzers ZiGuBa86 ; JeFoDi90  to the formation of stars and galaxies SchuSe78 . In general terms the spreading of nonconserved agents has the following scenario: An agent (e.g., an active site of a lattice, an infected individual or a burning tree) randomly activates one or more of its neighbors. In the next timestep these infected neighbors act as agents themselves and so on. Via this elementary reaction, the activation spreads out diffusively in $`d`$-dimensional space. Competition between the agents for the resources of new activations limits their local density. Moreover, an agent become spontaneously deactivated after some time. The long term behavior of the process, assumed to be emanating from a seed or germ at the origin, depends crucially on the difference $`\tau `$ between the deactivation and the activation rate. For $`\tau >\tau _c`$ the process spreads, approaching a homogeneous steady state, over the entire space. For $`\tau <\tau _c`$ the spreading will finally ebb away as an inactive extinct state is approached (with possibly a static disturbance of the initial state, but only in a finite volume). The critical point $`\tau =\tau _c`$ separates this endemic absorbing phase from the epidemic active phase. Spreading near $`\tau =\tau _c`$ constitutes a critical phenomenon and is described by universal scaling laws.

There exist two fundamental universality classes of critical spreading phenomena depending on the nature of the debris of the elementary deactivation process. If the deactivated agents can recover so that they may become newly activated (so called simple epidemic), the process belongs to the directed percolation (DP) universality class Ja81  (for a review see, e.g., Ref. Hi01 ). Here, in the active phase, one can have an epidemic surviving in loco. On the other hand, if the debris stays inactive forever (so called general epidemic), the spreading process becomes locally extinct. In this case, the process belongs to the dynamic isotropic percolation (dIP) universality class and the statistics of the clusters formed by the debris are described by the usual percolation theory (for reviews see, e.g., Refs. StAh94 ; BuHa96 ). Here, the epidemic cannot, of course, survive in loco, but an infinite epidemic is nevertheless possible in the form of a solitary wave of activity. When starting from a punctual seed, this leads to annular growth (e.g., fairy rings in two dimensions).

Most significantly, perhaps, numerical simulations and renormalization group methods have contributed to our present understanding of spreading phenomena. Until recently, accurate numerical investigations have been limited to lower spatial dimensions. However, due to the staggering pace of hardware improvements and the development of sophisticated algorithms, numerical results for spreading in high dimensions become available PaZiSt01 ; Gra02 ; osterkamp&Co\_2003 ; Gra\_pr ; Lue03 . Some of these results Gra\_pr ; Lue03  clearly indicate the importance of logarithmic corrections to scaling in the upper critical dimensions $`d=4`$ for DP and $`d=6`$ for dIP. Analytic work on logarithmic corrections to percolation started not long after renormalization group methods became available. Essam et al. essam&Co\_78  determined the logarithmic corrections for the probability $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ of belonging to an infinite cluster, the clusters’ mean-square size $`S`$ and the correlation length $`\xi `$ as functions of the deviation from criticality $`\tau \tau _c`$ as well as the logarithmic corrections at criticality to a ”ghost” field $`H`$ as a function of $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$. Aharony aharony\_80  investigated logarithmic corrections in the context of universal amplitude ratios. More recently, Ruiz-Lorenzo ruiz-lorenzo\_98  presented the logarithmic corrections to $`S`$ and $`\xi `$ at criticality as functions of the system size. In an upshot one can say that the previous results on logarithmic corrections in percolation are (i) restricted to static percolation, and (ii) limited to the leading correction.

For another system prominent in statistical physics, viz. linear polymers, logarithmic corrections observed in simulations have been very successfully described by renormalized field theory GHS94 ; GHS99 . It turned out, however, that the leading logartihmic corrections are not sufficient to yield a satisfactory agreement with the numerical data. To the contrary, it was found that it is crucial to include the next to leading correction. We expect a similar importance of the second order correction in the percolation problem.

The goal of this paper is to present analytical results for dIP in $`d=6`$ that are, with reasonable expectation, accurate enough to to yield a satisfactory agreement with numerical simulations. We derive these results for some of the most interesting observables in dynamic percolation, namely the number $`N(t)`$ of agents (active infected sites) at time $`t`$ generated by a seed at the space- and time-wise origin $`(𝐱=\mathrm{𝟎},t=0)`$, the survival probability $`P(t)`$ of the corresponding cluster as well as the mean distance $`R(t)`$ of the agents from the origin (radius of gyration).

The logarithmic corrections that we study here will not be found in real physical systems because the upper critical dimension 6 for dIP does not coincide with physical dimensions, $`d=2`$ or $`d=3`$. However, our results are sure to be valuable with respect to numerical simulations. Our final analytic expressions are well suitable for comparison to numerical data. Moreover, our results define a non-universal time scale that signals the onset of asymptotic behavior. This time scale may be used to assess the effective significance of a given microscopic simulation model for the dIP universality class.

Complementary to the work presented here we have investigated logarithmic corrections in DP. Our results on observables akin to the quantities studied here are certainly equally interesting and will be presented in the near future JaSt\_u1 . Taking a third route, we explored logarithmic corrections in static IP with emphasis on transport properties. A paper on this subject StJa03  will be available soon.

The outline of the present paper is the following: In Sec. II we briefly review the renormalized field theory of the general epidemic process (GEP) and previous renormalization group results on dIP. Moreover, we conduct some general considerations about logarithmic corrections in the given context. Section III hosts the core of our analysis and contains the main results. Section IV concludes the main part of this paper with a discussion of our results and several remarks. Details of our diagrammatic perturbation calculation are relegated to an Appendix.

## II Renormalized field theory of the GEP – a brief review and general considerations on logarithmic corrections

In this section we briefly review the field theoretic description of the GEP and its renormalization. The aim is to provide the reader with background and to establish notation as well as known results that we need as we go along. Furthermore, we outline the general structure of the sought after logarithmic corrections.

The GEP Mo77 ; Ba85 ; Mu89  is a kinetic growth model that was introduced by Grassberger Gra83  as a lattice model of dIP. On a coarse grained scale, the GEP can be minimally formulated by means of the Langevin equation in the Ito sense Ja85

$`\lambda ^1\dot{n}(𝐱,t)`$ $`=^2n(𝐱,t)\tau n(𝐱,t)gn(𝐱,t)`$
$`\times \lambda {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}n(𝐱,t^{})+\zeta (𝐱,t),`$ (1a)
$`\overline{\zeta (𝐱,t)\zeta (𝐱^{},t^{})}`$ $`=\lambda ^1g^{}n(𝐱,t)\delta (tt^{})\delta (𝐱𝐱^{}).`$ (1b)
Here $`n(𝐱,t)`$ is the density of infected particles at time $`t`$ and space coordinate $`𝐱`$. The variable $`\tau `$ is essentially the rate difference mentioned in the introduction (shifted by $`\tau _c`$) and specifies the deviation from criticality. $`\lambda `$ represents a kinetic coefficient. The Gaussian random field $`\zeta (𝐱,t)`$ subsumes reaction noise and otherwise neglected microscopic details (the overbar indicates averaging over its distribution). Its correlation respects the existence of the absorbing state. Many other analytic terms are conceivable as contributing to Eqs. (1). These, however, turn out to be irrelevant in the sense of the renormalization group. Especially, a diffusional noise contribution, relevant for diffusion limited reactions with multiplicative noise, can be neglected.
Langevin equations are only a convenient shorthand for a stochastic process. For the application of renormalized field theory, however, a path integral formulation of the GEP is more adequate than the Langevin equation (1). The dynamic functional Ja76 ; DeDo76 ; Ja92 , or in a more recent terminology the response functional, of the GEP is given by Ja85 ; CaGra85

$$𝒥=d^dx𝑑t\lambda \stackrel{~}{s}\left(\lambda ^1\frac{}{t}+(\tau ^2)+g(S\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{s})\right)s.$$
(2)
In deriving $`𝒥`$ from the Langevin equation one exploits a rescaling form invariance of the response functional $`𝒥`$ that allows to equate $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$. $`s(𝐱,t)`$ is proportional to $`n(𝐱,t)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{s}(𝐱,t)`$ is the response field corresponding to $`s(𝐱,t)`$. The $`S`$ in the functional (2) stands for the density of debris $`S(𝐱,t)=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^t𝑑t^{}s(𝐱,t^{})`$. Note that

$$\stackrel{~}{s}(𝐱,t)S(𝐱,t)$$
(3)
is a symmetry transformation of the response functional Ja85 .

$`𝒥`$ presents a vantage point for a systematic perturbation calculation in the coupling constant $`g`$. Most economically this calculation can be done by using dimensional regularization and minimal subtraction. Using this scheme, the critical point value $`\tau =\tau _c`$ is formally set to zero by the perturbational expansion. Generally, $`\tau _c`$ is a non-analytical function of the coupling constant $`g`$. Thus, we implicitly make the additive renormalization $`\tau \tau _c\tau `$. For background on these methods we refer to Refs. Am84 ; ZJ96 . An appropriate renormalization scheme is

$`s\stackrel{̊}{s}=Z^{1/2}s,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{̊}{\stackrel{~}{s}}=\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{s},`$ (4a)
$`\lambda \stackrel{̊}{\lambda }=Z^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}\lambda ,`$ $`\tau \stackrel{̊}{\tau }=\stackrel{~}{Z}^1Z_\tau \tau ,`$ (4b)
$`g\stackrel{̊}{g}=\stackrel{~}{Z}^{3/2}Z_u^{1/2}g,`$ $`G_\epsilon g^2=u\mu ^\epsilon .`$ (4c)
Here, the $`\stackrel{̊}{}`$ indicates unrenormalized quantities. $`\epsilon =6d`$ measures the deviation from the upper critical dimension. The factor $`G_\epsilon =\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)/(4\pi )^{d/2}`$ is introduced exclusively for later convenience. $`\mu `$ is an external inverse length scale. Note that the renormalizations (4) preserve the invariance (3). The renormalization factors $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$, $`Z_\tau `$, and $`Z_u`$ are known to 3-loop order AKM81 . One of us Ja85  calculated $`Z`$ to 2-loop order. In the following we will need the renormalization factors explicitly to 1-loop order to which they are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}+\mathrm{},`$ $`Z=1+{\displaystyle \frac{4u}{3\epsilon }}+\mathrm{},`$ (5a)
$`Z_\tau =1+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{},`$ $`Z_u=1+{\displaystyle \frac{4u}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{}.`$ (5b)
The critical behavior of the Green’s functions $`G_{n,\stackrel{~}{n}}=[s]^n[\stackrel{~}{s}]^{\stackrel{~}{n}}^{(cum)}`$ is governed by the Gell-Mann–Low renormalization group equation (RGE)

$$\left[𝒟_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\left(n\gamma +\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\right)\right]G_{n,\stackrel{~}{n}}(\{𝐫,t\};\tau ,u;\lambda ,\mu )=0$$
(6)
with the differential operator

$$𝒟_\mu =\mu _\mu +\lambda \zeta _\lambda +\tau \kappa _\tau +\beta _u.$$
(7)
The Wilson functions appearing in the RGE are given to 2-loop order by AKM81 ; Ja85

$`\gamma `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}u+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1895}{54}}+9\mathrm{ln}35\mathrm{ln}4\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{16}},`$ (8a)
$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}u+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{216}}u^2,`$ (8b)
$`\kappa `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}u{\displaystyle \frac{193}{108}}u^2,`$ (8c)
$`\zeta `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma \stackrel{~}{\gamma }}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{7}{12}}u+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1747}{54}}+9\mathrm{ln}35\mathrm{ln}4\right){\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{32}},`$ (8d)
$`\beta `$ $`=\epsilon u+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}u^2{\displaystyle \frac{671}{72}}u^3+\left({\displaystyle \frac{414031}{2592}}+93\zeta (3)\right){\displaystyle \frac{3u^4}{16}}.`$ (8e)
Note that we have stated $`\beta `$ to 3-loop order because the high order contribution improves our quantitative predictions. In the remainder we will adopt a convenient abbreviated notation for the Wilson functions of the type $`f(u)=f_0+f_1u+f_2u^2+\mathrm{}`$ with $`f`$ standing for $`\gamma `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, $`\kappa `$, $`\zeta `$, and $`\beta `$, respectively. The meaning of the coefficients $`f_0`$, $`f_1`$ and so on should be evident.
The RGE can be solved by the method of characteristics. To this end one introduces a flow parameter $`l`$ and sets up characteristic equations that describe how the scaling parameters transform if the external momentum scale is changed by varying $`\overline{\mu }(l)=\mu l`$. The characteristic for the dimensionless coupling constant $`u`$ reads

$$l\frac{dw}{dl}=\beta (w)$$
(9)
where we abbreviated $`w=\overline{u}(l)`$. Solving this differential equation for $`\epsilon =6d=0`$ yields

$$l=l(w)=l_0w^{\beta _3/\beta _2^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{\beta _2w}+\frac{(\beta _3^2\beta _2\beta _4)}{\beta _2^3}w+O(w^2)\right],$$
(10)
where $`l_0`$ is an integration constant. The remaining characteristics are all of the same structure, namely

$$l\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\overline{Q}(w)}{dl}=q(w).$$
(11)
Here, $`Q`$ is a placeholder for $`Z`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$, $`Z_\tau `$, and $`Z_\lambda `$, respectively. $`q`$ is an ambiguous letter for $`\gamma `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$, $`\kappa `$, and $`\zeta `$, respectively. Exploiting $`ld/dl=\beta d/dw`$ we obtain the solution

$$\overline{Q}(w)=Q_0w^{q_1/\beta _2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{(q_2\beta _2q_1\beta _3)}{\beta _2^2}w+O(w^2)\right],$$
(12)
where $`Q_0`$ symbolizes a non universal integration constant.

With the solutions to the characteristics the scaling behavior of the Green’s functions is found to be

$`G_{n,\stackrel{~}{n}}(\{𝐱,t\};\tau ,u;\lambda ,\mu )`$
$`=(\mu l)^{n(d+2)/2+\stackrel{~}{n}(d2)/2}Z(w)^{n/2}\stackrel{~}{Z}(w)^{\stackrel{~}{n}/2}`$ (13)
$`\times G_{n,\stackrel{~}{n}}(\{l\mu 𝐱,Z_\lambda (w)(l\mu )^2\lambda t\};Z_\tau (w)\tau /(\mu l)^2,w;1,1).`$
The flow parameter introduced via the characteristics is arbitrary. Thus, we have a freedom of choice that can be exploited to re-scale the relevant variables, viz. $`𝐱`$, $`t`$ and $`\tau ^1`$, so that they acquire a finite asymptotic value. For the goals pursuit in this paper, an appropriate choice is

$$Z_\lambda (w)(l\mu )^2\lambda t=X_0,$$
(14)
where $`X_0`$ is a constant of order unity. With this choice $`w`$ and $`l`$ tend to zero for $`\lambda \mu ^2t\mathrm{}`$. Based on our choice (14) we introduce the convenient time variable

$$s=\frac{\beta _2}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(t/t_0\right)=\frac{7}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left(t/t_0\right),$$
(15)
where $`t_0X_0`$ is a non universal time constant. From Eq. (10) and Eq. (12), specialized to $`Z_\lambda `$, we get

$$s=w^1a_1\mathrm{ln}w+a_2w+O(w^2)$$
(16)
for the derived time variable. The constants $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are given by

$`a_1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2\zeta _12\beta _3}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1195}{504}}=2.37103,`$ (17a)
$`a_2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _1\beta _3\zeta _2\beta _2}{2\beta _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _2\beta _4\beta _3^2}{\beta _2^2}}`$ (17b)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1766273}{1016064}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10\mathrm{ln}29\mathrm{ln}3}{64}}+{\displaystyle \frac{279\zeta (3)}{56}}=7.68098.`$ (17c)
Using Eq. (16) we obtain for the dimensionless coupling constant as a function of time the expression
$$w=s^1\mathrm{exp}\left[a_1\frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s}+O(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2s}{s^2},\frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s^2},\frac{1}{s^2})\right].$$
(18)
Exploiting Eqs. (II), (10), (12) and (18) we find that the observables to be considered are of the form

$$𝒜=𝒜_0\mathrm{exp}\left[as+b\mathrm{ln}s+\frac{c\mathrm{ln}s+c^{}}{s}+O(\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2s}{s^2},\frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s^2},\frac{1}{s^2})\right].$$
(19)
$`𝒜_0`$ is, like $`t_0`$, a non universal constant. $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ are universal numbers. $`a`$ stems from mean field theory. $`b`$ and $`c`$ represent 1- and 2-loop renormalization group results, respectively. $`c^{}`$ comprises contributions from the Wilson functions to 2-loop order as well as an amplitude to be determined in an explicit 1-loop calculation of $`𝒜`$. This amplitude depends on $`X_0`$, as do $`s`$ and $`𝒜_0`$. Over all, a variation of $`X_0`$ leaves $`c^{}`$ invariant.

## III Logarithmic corrections for the observables of interest

Equipped with important intermediate results as well as some knowledge of the structure of the Green’s functions, we next determine the sought after logarithmic corrections. Since we already know the general form of the results, this part will be fairly brief.

### III.1 Number of active particles

The number of active particles generated by a seed at the origin is given at criticality, $`\tau =0`$, by

$`N(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle d^dxG_{1,1}(𝐱,t;0,u;\lambda ,\mu )}`$
$`=\left(Z(w)\stackrel{~}{Z}(w)\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle d^dx(\mu l)^d}`$
$`\times G_{1,1}(l\mu 𝐫,Z_\lambda (w)(l\mu )^2\lambda t;0,w;1,1)`$ (20)
$`=\left(Z(w)\stackrel{~}{Z}(w)\right)^{1/2}G_{1,1}(𝐪=0,X_0;0,w;1,1).`$
Specializing solution (12) to $`Q=Z`$ and $`Q=\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ we obtain

$`\left(Z(w)\stackrel{~}{Z}(w)\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma _1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1)}{2\beta _2}}\mathrm{ln}w`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma _2+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2)\beta _2(\gamma _1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1)\beta _3}{2\beta _2^2}}\right)w+O(w^2)].`$ (21)
A perturbation expansion of the Green’s function $`G_{1,1}`$ brings about an amplitude $`A_N(X_0)`$ that we define via

$$G_{1,1}(𝐪=0,X_0;0,w;1,1)\left(1+A_N(X_0)w+O(w^2)\right).$$
(22)
This amplitude follows from our 1-loop calculation presented in Appendix A.1 as

$$A_N(X_0)=\frac{3}{8}\left(𝒵+\frac{3}{2}\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{3}\right)$$
(23)
where we used the shorthand notation $`𝒵=\mathrm{ln}X_0+C_E`$ with $`C_E`$ being Euler’s constant. Collecting Eqs. (20), (21) and (22) we find

$`N(t)`$ $`=N_0\left(w^1+B_N\right)^{a_N}\mathrm{exp}\left(c_Nw+O(w^2)\right)`$
$`=N_0^{}(s+B_N)^{a_N}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_N\mathrm{ln}s+c_N}{s}}`$
$`+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}})]`$ (24)
where $`N_0`$ is a non universal constant, $`N_0^{}`$ is a non universal constant slightly different from $`N_0`$, and $`B_N=A_N/a_N`$. The first row of (24) and the result (16) constitute a parametric representation of the tuple $`(N,s)`$ that is suitable for comparison to numerical simulations. The second row of (24) shows the more traditional form. The constants $`a_N`$, $`b_N`$, $`c_N`$, and $`B_N`$ are given by

$`a_N`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{14}}=0.214286,`$ (25a)
$`b_N`$ $`=a_N{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _3\zeta _1\beta _2}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1195}{2352}}=0.508078,`$ (25b)
$`c_N`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}{2\beta _2}}\beta _3{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}{2\beta _2^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{365}{1568}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9\mathrm{ln}35\mathrm{ln}4}{112}}=0.206387,`$ (25c)
$`B_N`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\left(𝒵+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{3}}\right)=1.75𝒵+2.22066.`$ (25d)
Note from Eqs. (15) and (24) that the arbitrary constant $`𝒵`$ could be eliminated by a rescaling of the nonuniversal time constant $`t_0`$. This finding will also apply to the remaining results stated below.

At this point we would like to warn against attempts to deduce the logarithmic corrections for dynamic quantities from the logarithmic corrections calculated for static percolation. Grassberger Gra02 , for example, exploited the results of Essam et al essam&Co\_78  via replacing $`\tau `$ by $`1/t`$ on the grounds that the critical exponent $`\nu _t`$ for the correlation time is one in mean-field theory. This reasoning leads to $`N(t)[\mathrm{ln}(t)]^{2/7}`$ footnote . From Eqs. (24) and (25a), however, we see that the correct result, to leading order, is $`N(t)[\mathrm{ln}(t/t_0)]^{3/14}`$. By merely using the mean field relation between $`\tau `$ and $`t`$ one misses contributions to the leading logarithmic term stemming from renormalization factors including $`Z`$ \[cf. Eq. (21)\]. Since $`Z`$ is absent in static percolation footnote2 , one cannot deduce the logarithmic behavior of the dynamic quantity $`N(t)`$ from the known results for static percolation. Likewise, it should not be attempted to combine our dynamic results, e.g. those for $`N(t)`$ and $`R(t)`$, to obtain predictions on logarithmic corrections in static percolation.

### III.2 Radius of gyration

The mean square distance from the origin of the active particles is defined as

$$R(t)^2=\frac{d^dx𝐱^2G_{1,1}(𝐱,t)}{2dd^dxG_{1,1}(𝐱,t)}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)}{q^2}|_{𝐪=0}.$$
(26)
From the scaling form (II) it follows for $`\tau =0`$ that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)}{q^2}}|_{𝐪=0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}((l\mu )^1𝐪,Z_\lambda (w)(l\mu )^2\lambda t;0,w;1,1)}{q^2}}|_{𝐪=0}`$
$`=(l\mu )^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}(𝐪,X_0;0,w;1,1)}{q^2}}|_{𝐪=0}.`$ (27)
Incorporating the solutions to the appropriate characteristics and the results of Appendix A.1

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}(𝐪,\lambda \mu ^2t=X_0;0,w;1,1)|_{𝐪=0}`$
$`=X_0\left(1+A_R(X_0)w+O(w^2)\right),`$ (28)
with

$$A_R(X_0)=\frac{7}{24}\left(𝒵\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{7}\right),$$
(29)
we find

$`t^1R^2`$ $`=R_0^2\left(w^1+B_R\right)^{a_R}\mathrm{exp}\left(c_Rw+O(w^2)\right)`$
$`=R_0^2(s+B_R)^{a_R}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_R\mathrm{ln}s+c_R}{s}}`$
$`+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}})].`$ (30)
with $`R_0^2`$ and $`R_0^2`$ being non-universal amplitudes. Here the constants $`a_R`$, $`b_R`$, $`c_R`$, and $`B_R=A_R/a_R`$ are given by

$`a_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _1}{\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}=0.166666,`$ (31a)
$`b_R`$ $`=a_R{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _3\zeta _1\beta _2}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1195}{3024}}=0.395172,`$ (31b)
$`c_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _2}{\beta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _1\beta _3}{\beta _2^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{937}{6048}}+{\displaystyle \frac{9\mathrm{ln}35\mathrm{ln}4}{112}}=0.128534,`$ (31c)
$`B_R`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\left(𝒵{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{7}}\right)=1.75𝒵1.33995.`$ (31d)
### III.3 Survival probability

As shown in Ref. Ja02 , the survival probability of an active cluster emanating from a seed at the origin is given by

$`P(t)`$ $`=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{e}^{k𝒩}\stackrel{~}{s}(t)`$ (32)
where $`𝒩=d^dxs(𝐱,0)`$. For the purpose of actual calculations, it is convenient to rewrite Eq. (32) as

$`P(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{s}(t)_k`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`G_{0,1}(t,\tau ,k=\mathrm{},u;\lambda ,\mu )`$
where $`\mathrm{}_k`$ stands for averaging with respect to the response functional $`𝒥_k`$ that is obtained upon augmenting the original reponse functional (2) by a source $`k(t)=k\delta (t)`$ conjugate to the field $`s`$:

$`𝒥_k=𝒥+{\displaystyle 𝑑tk(t)𝒩(t)}.`$ (34)
With this source present, one no longer has $`\stackrel{~}{s}=0`$. To avoid tadpoles in our perturbation calculation, we perform a shift $`\stackrel{~}{s}\stackrel{~}{s}+\stackrel{~}{M}`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{s}=0`$ is restored This procedure leads to the new response functional

$`𝒥_k={\displaystyle }d^dxdt(\lambda \stackrel{~}{s}(\lambda ^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}`$
$`+(\tau g\stackrel{~}{M}^2)+g(S{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{s}))s`$
$`+\lambda g\stackrel{~}{M}sS+(\stackrel{.}{\stackrel{~}{M}}+\lambda \tau \stackrel{~}{M}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda g}{2}}\stackrel{~}{M}^2+k)s).`$ (35)
Based on this functional we calculate $`G_{0,1}=\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to 1-loop order. Some details of this calculation are in Appendix A.2. We obtain

$`G_{0,1}(X_0,0,k=\mathrm{},w;1,1)`$
$`w^{1/2}\left(1+A_P(X_0)w+O(w^2)\right).`$ (36)
with the amplitude $`A_P(X_0)`$ reading

$$A_P(X_0)=\frac{5}{8}\left(𝒵+1\frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{5}\right).$$
(37)
Recalling the scaling form (II) and our choice for the flow parameter we deduce that, for $`\tau =0`$,

$$P(t)=\stackrel{~}{Z}(w)^{1/2}(\mu l)^2G_{0,1}(X_0,0,\mathrm{},w;1,1).$$
(38)
Collecting, we then obtain

$`tP(t)`$ $`=P_0\left(w^1+B_P\right)^{a_P}\mathrm{exp}\left(c_Pw+O(w^2)\right)`$
$`=P_0^{}(s+B_P)^{a_P}[1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_P\mathrm{ln}s+c_P}{s}}`$
$`+O({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}s}{s^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s^2}})].`$ (39)
$`P_0`$ and $`P_0^{}`$ are simply related non universal amplitudes. The constants $`a_P`$, $`b_P`$, $`c_P`$, and $`B_P=A_P/a_P`$ are given by

$`a_P`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta _1+\beta _2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{14}}=0.357143,`$ (40a)
$`b_P`$ $`=a_P{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _3\zeta _1\beta _2}{2\beta _2}}={\displaystyle \frac{5975}{7056}}=0.846797,`$ (40b)
$`c_P`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_22\zeta _2}{2\beta _2}}+\beta _3{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta _1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}{2\beta _2^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1637}{14112}}{\displaystyle \frac{9\mathrm{ln}35\mathrm{ln}4}{112}}=0.0896074,`$ (40c)
$`B_P`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\left(𝒵+1{\displaystyle \frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{5}}\right)=1.75𝒵0.918617.`$ (40d)
## IV Discussion of results and concluding remarks

As far as time dependent observables in percolation are concerned, we are not aware of any previous analytic work addressing logarithmic corrections. More general, we do not know of any work that has determined logarithmic corrections in percolation (static or dynamic, IP or DP) beyond the leading corrections. Here we went beyond the leading terms, and hence we are confident that our results compare well with simulations, perhaps even quantitatively. For linear polymers it turned out that the knowledge of the leading logarithmic correction is not sufficient for a good agreement between simulation data and theory. Rather, the next to leading corrections turned out to be crucial in comparing numerical and analytical results. We expect the same for percolation. Indeed, preliminary Monte Carlo results corroborate this expectation Gra\_pr ; Lue03 .

Our results define a non-universal time-scale $`t_0`$. For times $`t`$ greater then $`t_0`$ we expect the validity of our asymptotic expansions. The time-scale $`t_0`$ can be utilized as a measure of quality for different microscopic models of dynamical percolation. Thus, our results may guide those performing simulations in choosing the most efficient model.

It is interesting to note that the time-scale $`t_0`$ has an analog in quantum chromodynamics. For times greater than $`t_0`$ the model becomes asymptotically free. Thus, with the exchange of an infrared(IR)-free theory to an ultraviolet(UV)-free theory, $`t_0`$ corresponds to the hadronization scale of quantum chromodynamics. The dependence of our results on this dimensional non-universal parameter $`t_0`$ parallels therefore the phenomenon of dimensional transmutation in renormalizable asymptotically free quantum field theories that are naively scale-free.

Our results feature a mutual non-universal constant, viz. $`𝒵`$. This constant could be eliminated by rescaling $`t_0`$. One might be tempted to think that one could eliminate the entire amplitudes, $`A_N(X_0)`$ and so on, from our results by rescaling $`t_0`$, and that the calculation of the amplitudes is hence superfluous. One has to keep in mind however, that one has to choose $`t_0`$ consistently for all observables. Thus, one cannot remove the amplitudes simultaneously from all the observables, and their calculation is indeed necessary.

We refrain from eliminating $`𝒵`$ from our results because it might be exploited, due to its non-universality, as a fit parameter. By fitting $`𝒵`$ one can compensate partially for the effect of higher order terms that have been neglected in our calculations. In this sense one can think of $`𝒵`$ as mimicking these higher order terms.

When written as an explicit function of time the observables of interest have fairly complicated formulae. Using the parametric representation in terms of the effective coupling constant $`w`$ eases this situation. Moreover, the time and the observables posses a nicely systematic expansion in $`w`$ so that it is straightforward to keep track of the different orders in perturbation theory. In the traditional from, the orders are not so clear cut because nested functions of logarithms have to be compared. The parametric representations can be conveniently compared to simulations. Essentially, one just needs to make parametric plots of the tuples $`(N,s)`$, $`(R,s)`$ and $`(P,s)`$ and then compare the numerical data to these plots.

In order to improve the accuracy of our results, one needs a refined quantitative knowledge of the Wilson functions. Whereas the $`\epsilon `$ expansion results for the critical percolation exponents have been improved by resummation techniques such as Padé-Borel resummation AKM81 , this kind of refinement has not yet been achieved for the percolation Wilson functions. Here lies an opportunity for useful future work for the ambitious. Another possibility for future work is to improve the results on static percolation mentioned in the introduction by calculating the next to leading logarithmic corrections. With the kind of field theoretic methods that we applied here, this is a reasonable task.

Apparently, firm numerical results that are suitable for comparison to our analytical results are not available yet. We hope, however, that our work triggers increasing efforts in this direction, and that corresponding numerical results will be available in the near future.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work has been supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via the Sonderforschungsbereich 237 “Unordnung und große Fluktuationen” and the Emmy Noether-Programm. We thank D. Stauffer for bringing our attention to several references.

*

## Appendix A Explicit calculation of Green’s functions

In this Appendix we outline our 1-loop calculation of scaling functions belonging to the Green’s functions $`G_{1,1}`$ and $`G_{0,1}`$. In particular, we compute the amplitudes $`A_N(X_0)`$, $`A_P(X_0)`$, and $`A_R(X_0)`$ entering the logarithmic corrections.

### A.1 The Green’s function $`G_{1,1}`$

A first step of any diagrammatic perturbation calculation is, of course, the determination of the constituting elements. From the response functional (2) we gather the Gaussian propagator

$$G(𝐪,t)=\theta (t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\lambda (\tau +q^2)t\right]$$
(41)
and the 3-leg vertices $`\lambda g`$ and $`\lambda ^2g\theta (tt^{})`$, where $`\theta (t)`$ denotes the step function. With these elements, the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪,t)`$ is given at 1-loop order by the diagram depicted in Fig. 1.

This diagram stands for the mathematical formula,

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪,t)=\lambda ^3g^2_0^t𝑑t^{}_𝐩G(𝐩,t^{})G(𝐪𝐩,t).$$
(42)
After integrating out the loop momentum we can rewrite $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪,t)`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪,t)={\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda g)^2}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}}\left(\lambda t\right)^{1d/2}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[\lambda t\left((1+s)\tau +sq^2/(1+s)\right)]}{(1+s)^{d/2}}}.`$ (43)
For our purposes we need Green’s or connected correlation functions rather than vertex functions. Hence, we have to consider Feynman diagrams with external legs attached rather than amputated diagrams. The Green’s function $`G_{1,1}`$ is determined by the Dyson equation

$`G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=G(𝐪,t)+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }G(𝐪,tt^{})`$
$`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }(𝐪,t^{}t^{\prime \prime })G(𝐪,t^{\prime \prime })+\mathrm{}.`$ (44)
A diagrammatic representation of the Dyson equation is given in Fig. 2.

Upon substituting (43) into (44) we obtain after an integration

$`G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=G(𝐪,t)[1{\displaystyle \frac{u(\lambda \mu ^2t)^{\epsilon /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{(1+s)^{d/2}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dx(1x)x^{1d/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\alpha (s)x\right)].`$ (45)
Here, we used the shorthand notation

$$\alpha (s)=\left(\frac{q^2}{1+s}(1+s)\tau \right)\lambda t.$$
(46)
Now, we set $`\tau =0`$ and expand Eq. (45) to order $`q^2`$. The integrations are easily performed. After $`\epsilon `$-expansion we get

$`G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=G(𝐪,t)[1+{\displaystyle \frac{u(\lambda \mu ^2t)^{\epsilon /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)}}(({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\epsilon }}+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{8}})`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{7}{12\epsilon }}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{24}})\lambda q^2t)].`$ (47)
The next step is to remove the $`\epsilon `$ poles by employing the renormalization scheme (4). Letting $`G_{1,1}\stackrel{̊}{G}_{1,1}`$, $`\lambda \stackrel{̊}{\lambda }`$, and using

$$G_{1,1}=(\stackrel{~}{Z}Z)^{1/2}\stackrel{̊}{G}_{1,1}=\left(1\frac{3u}{4\epsilon }\right)\stackrel{̊}{G}_{1,1}$$
(48)
as well as

$$\stackrel{̊}{\lambda }=(\stackrel{~}{Z}/Z)^{1/2}\lambda =\left(1\frac{7u}{12\epsilon }\right)\lambda ,$$
(49)
we observe that the $`\epsilon `$ poles are indeed removed. For the renormalized Green’s function we obtain

$`G_{1,1}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3u}{8}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \mu ^2t)+C_E+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{3}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7u}{24}}\left(\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \mu ^2t)+C_E{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{7}}\right)`$ (50)
Two results important for the logarithmic correction can be extracted from (50). Upon setting $`𝐪=0`$ we find

$`G_{1,1}(𝐪=0,\lambda \mu ^2t=X_0;\tau =0,w;1,1)`$
$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left(𝒵+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{3}}\right)w,`$ (51)
and hence the amplitude $`A_N(X_0)`$ as stated in Eq. (22). Moreover, we get

$`X_0^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}G_{1,1}(𝐪,\lambda \mu ^2t=X_0;\tau =0,w;1,1)|_{q^2=0}`$
$`=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{24}}\left(𝒵{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{7}}\right)w,`$ (52)
which leads to our result for $`A_R(X_0)`$ given in Eq. (29).

### A.2 The Green’s function $`G_{0,1}`$

Now we determine $`G_{0,1}`$ as required in (33).

The diagrammatic elements associated with the functional (35) comprise the two vertices encountered in Appendix A.1. In addition, there is a third vertex, viz. the one depicted in Fig. 3a. The Gaussian propagator for the new functional has to be determined from the differential equation

$$\left[\lambda ^1_t+\tau g\stackrel{~}{M}(t)+q^2\right]\overline{G}(𝐪,t,t^{})=\lambda ^1\delta (tt^{}).$$
(53)
To avoid tadpoles, $`\stackrel{~}{M}(t)`$ has to satisfy the differential equation

$$\stackrel{.}{\stackrel{~}{M}}(t)\lambda \tau \stackrel{~}{M}(t)+\frac{\lambda g}{2}\stackrel{~}{M}(t)^2k(t)+T(t)=0.$$
(54)
At 1-loop order, the tadpole $`T(t)`$ is given by the diagram shown in Fig. 3b.

The initial and terminal conditions for the fields necessitate the ansatz $`\stackrel{~}{M}(t)=\theta (t)K(t)^1`$. The type of the source term, $`k(t)=k\delta (t)`$ with $`k\mathrm{}`$, demands the initial condition $`K(0)=0`$. With this information, the differential equation (54) can be transformed without much effort into the integral equation

$$K(t)+\frac{g}{2\tau }=\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \tau t}\left(_0^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \tau t^{}}K(t^{})^2T(t^{})+\frac{g}{2\tau }\right).$$
(55)
At mean field level, the solution to Eq. (55) is given by

$$K_0(t)=\frac{g}{2\tau }\left(\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \tau t}1\right).$$
(56)
Inserting the corresponding $`\stackrel{~}{M}_0(t)=K_0(t)^1`$ into the differential equation (53) we find the modified Gaussian propagator

$$\overline{G}_0(𝐪,t,t^{})=\theta (tt^{})\left(\frac{K_0(t)}{K_0(t^{})}\right)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[\lambda (\tau q^2)(tt^{})\right].$$
(57)
Having the modified Gaussian propagator at our demand, we are now in the position to calculate the diagram depicted in Fig. 3b. Eventually, we obtain

$`K(t)^2T(t)=\lambda ^3g^2K_0(t)^2{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{K_0(t^{})K_0(t^{\prime \prime })^2\mathrm{exp}[\lambda \tau (2tt^{}t^{\prime \prime })]}{[4\pi \lambda (2tt^{}t^{\prime \prime })]^{d/2}}}.`$ (58)
The further evaluation of Eq. (58) is fairly straightforward for $`\tau =0`$. Away from criticality, the calculation is more challenging and will be addressed in a future publication JaSt\_u2 . Here, we find for $`\tau =0`$ and after $`\epsilon `$ expansion

$$K(t)^2T(t)=\frac{\lambda g^3(\lambda t)^{\epsilon /2}}{(4\pi )^{d/2}}\left(\frac{5}{8\epsilon }+\frac{5}{8}\frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{16}\right).$$
(59)
Insertion of this intermediate result into (55) yields

$$K(t)=\frac{g\lambda t}{2}\left[1\frac{u(\lambda \mu ^2t)^{\epsilon /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)}\left(\frac{5}{4\epsilon }+\frac{5}{8}\frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{8}\right)\right].$$
(60)
Next, we renormalize. Indicating the consistency of our previous steps, the appropriate combination of renormalization factors $`(Z\stackrel{~}{Z}/Z_u)^{1/2}=1+5u/(4\epsilon )+\mathrm{}`$ cancels the $`\epsilon `$ pole in (60). The renormalized $`K(t)`$ reads

$$K(t)=\frac{g\lambda t}{2}\left[1\frac{5u}{8}\left(\mathrm{ln}(\lambda \mu ^2t)+C_E+1\frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{5}\right)\right].$$
(61)
Exploiting $`G_{0,1}(t)=K(t)^1`$ and $`\lambda \mu ^2t=X_0`$ as well as recalling the definition of $`𝒵`$ we finally obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\pi )^{3/2}X_0}{2}}G_{0,1}(\lambda \mu ^2t=X_0;\tau =0,w;1,1)`$
$`=w^{1/2}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\left(𝒵+1{\displaystyle \frac{11\mathrm{ln}2}{5}}\right)w\right].`$ (62)