text:
# Differential Transfer Relations of Physical Flux Density Between Time Domains of the Flux Source and Observer

## I Introduction

Observing whole physical transportation process of a specified micro flux increment from being emitted to detected during a pair of corresponding time intervals on time domains of source and observer respectively, a fundamental fact can be realized that both variations of physical quantity due to possible loss or energy exchange in the process and transportational time for different flux signals within the micro flow element can contribute detected flux density at observing location significantly. Physical quantity, here divided into two main categories — general physics quantity such as phase of waves, mass, charge and particles’ number and micro system’s energy carried by the micro flow element consisted of a kind of or a compound of general physics quantities like a micro multi-charged particle system, contributes the detectable flux density in two ways; for negative contribution, some quantity of the micro flow which originated from source might be lost in the transportational process and fails to reach the observer; for energy exchange related contribution to energy flux density at observer, an amount of energy originated in external system joins or adds to the micro system’s energy for the system’s energy gain till to reach the observer, whereas it is converse for the system’s energy release. Meanwhile a variation of the flux signal’s transportation time will result in a variation of time interval in which the flux element is received by observer with respect to the time interval of the flux element emission at source, so that it affects detecting flux density with time factor. In addition, a variation of longitudinal length of the micro flux element along its moving direction, as a particular physics quantity, exists in the process and accompanied with their physical quantity’s differential transfer relation simultaneously. By combining conservative rule of physical quantity with a knowledge of time function between time domains of signal source and observer Luo (a), we will set up the three differential transfer relations which are accompanied or combined for any kind of physics flux between time domains of flux source and observer, and present integral form of the differential transfer relations, their basic properties and their potentially important application in a few cases.

## II Derivation of the Differential Transfer Relations, Basic Properties and Inference

### II.1 Derivation of the Three Differential Transfer Relations

For any micro continuous flow consisted of a kind of physical quantity from source to observer, there are three essential differential transfer relations accompanied with the transportation process simultaneously; they are the micro flux increment themselves, corresponding longitudinal length of the micro flow and energy flux, therefore the three transfer relations must share same time related characteristics or time relations.

Specifically there is the transportation process as following:

A micro flux increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$ is released from instants $`t\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ to $`t`$, then pass through the space between source and observer during transfer time $`T(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`T(t)`$ for head and tail of the micro flow element respectively, and finally are detected at observing location from instant $`t^{}\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}=t\mathrm{\Delta }t+T(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ to instant $`t^{}=t+T(t)`$ Luo (a), here $`\dot{t}[t,t+T(t)]`$. Consequently the differential transfer relations can be derived below.

#### II.1.1 General Physics Flux Density’s Differential Transfer Relation

From factual relation experienced by the micro flux increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$ in transportation process, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})`$ denotes the loss amount of physical quantity from $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$,

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\dot{t}[t,t^{}]$$
(1)
$$_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}$$

or

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)}^{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})=_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})$$
(1)
there

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)$$
(2)
to multiply Eq. (2) with $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}`$ or $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}}`$, then take a limit as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}0`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dQ(t^{})}{dt^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dQ_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{dQ(t)}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}`$
or $`J(t^{})+J_l(t^{})=J(t){\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}`$ (3)
here $`J(t^{})>0`$, $`J(t)>0`$. $`J(t^{})`$ and $`J(t)`$ are instantaneous flux or rate of physical quantity’s flow corresponding to instant $`t^{}`$at observing location and instant $`t`$ at flux source respectively; $`J_l(t^{})`$ is rate of a total accumulated flux loss at instant $`t^{}`$ at detecting position caused by the possible loss amount of physical quantity during the transfer time $`t^{}t=T(t)=T(t^{})`$; and

$$J_l(t^{})=\frac{dQ_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}=_t^t^{}\frac{d^2Q_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}^2}𝑑\dot{t}=_0^{\frac{dQ_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}}d[\frac{dQ_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}]0$$
(3)
#### II.1.2 Transfer Relation of Longitudinal Length of the micro flow along moving direction

As a particular physics flux, the length can be either compressed or elongated. So except that the micro length $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})`$ could be increased or lengthened whereas the general micro increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$ can only be decreased in general due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})`$, it has same transfer relations as general physics flux has.

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\dot{t}[t,t+T(t)]$$
(4)
$$_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}$$

or

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t)}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})=_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})$$
(4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t)$$
(5)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{}(t^{})}{dt^{}}+\frac{d\mathrm{}_c(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{d\mathrm{}(t)}{dt}\frac{dt}{dt^{}}$$

$$v_{io}(t^{})+v_c(t^{})=v_{sis}(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}$$
(6)
Where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})`$ denotes the compressed length in transportation process whereas $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(t^{})=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}`$ denotes the total accumulated length of compression during whole process $`T=t^{}t`$; $`v_c(t^{})`$ is a rate of total accumulated compressed length passed through observing point; when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(\dot{t})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(t^{})`$ and $`v_c(t^{})`$ takes positive values they reflect compression related amount respectively, whereas negative values express the opposites’ of compression or elongation related amount.

With a variation of the length, have a change of longitudinal density of the flux quantity and relevant consequence been involved.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\rho (t^{})}{\rho (t)}& =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)/\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t)}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})}\hfill \\ & =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)}\frac{v_{sis}(t)dt}{v_{io}(t^{})dt^{}}\hfill \\ & =\left[1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)}\right]\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_c(t^{})}{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
This relates to interaction between the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$ and external system and to energy exchange in the transportation process.

#### II.1.3 Energy Transfer and Exchange Relationvc
Respect to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$

From factual relations and defined restricted condition or terms in below

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\dot{t}[t,t+T(t)]$$
(7)
$$_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}=_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}_t^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}$$

or

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)}^{\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})& =_0^{\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})\hfill \\ & _0^{\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)\mathrm{\Delta }E_{so}(t)}𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(\dot{t})\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
there

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)$$
(8)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{dE(t^{})}{dt^{}}\frac{dE_{exc}(t^{})}{dt^{}}+\frac{dE_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{dE(t)}{dt}\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}& 𝒥(t^{})𝒥_{exc}(t^{})+𝒥_l(t^{})=𝒥(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}& P(t^{})𝒥_{exc}(t^{})+𝒥_l(t^{})=P(t)\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
Where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})`$ are the corresponding total energy carried by the micro flux increment $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})`$ respectively; $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{so}(t)`$ is a fractional part of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)`$ and it is carried by $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$ from the flux source to detecting section as a contributed part of energy flux source to observational energy flux at detecting position.

So exchange energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})`$ could have positive values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$’s energy gain or negative values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$’s energy loss.

$`𝒥(t^{})`$,$`𝒥(t)`$are energy flux which correspond to $`J(t^{})=\frac{dQ(t^{})}{dt^{}}`$ and $`J(t)=\frac{dQ(t)}{dt}`$ respectively; here $`𝒥(t^{})>0`$, $`𝒥(t)>0`$, and

$$𝒥_l(t^{})=\frac{dE_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}=_t^t^{}\frac{d^2E(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}^2}𝑑\dot{t}$$
(9)
$$𝒥_{exc}(t^{})=\frac{dE_{exc}(t^{})}{dt^{}}=_t^t^{}\frac{d^2E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}^2}𝑑\dot{t}\{\begin{array}{cc}>0\hfill & \text{energy gain of }\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})\hfill \\ <0\hfill & \text{energy loss of }\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})\hfill \\ =0\hfill & \text{no energy exchange of }\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})\text{ with outside}\hfill \end{array}$$
(9′′)
### II.2 Basic Properties — Simultaneity, Independent Conservation and Dependent on Rate of Signal Transfer Time

#### II.2.1 Simultaneity of the Accompanied Variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})`$,$`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})`$, the Three Essential Transfer Relations and Time Function Factor

Any change on the physical quantity in the micro increment, longitudinal length, energy carried by $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})`$ and physical or differential state inside of the micro flux element occurs simultaneously and is inner related.

#### II.2.2 Independent Conservations of Physical Quantity and Energy

Physical quantity and carried energy of a micro flux increment are independently conserved in their transportation process (Ref. Eqs. 1 and 7) and their differential transfer relations between time domains of source and observers;

From equation (1)

$$_t^{t+T(t)}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}=_t^{t+T(t)}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}$$

there its derivative for $`t^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})}{dt^{}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)}{dt}\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}& \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})}{dt^{}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)}{dt}\frac{dt}{dt^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
then

$$_{t_1^{}}^{t_2^{}}\left[\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}+\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}\right]𝑑\dot{t}=_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }Q(\dot{t})}{dt}𝑑\dot{t}$$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t_2^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t_2^{})\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t_2)=\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t_1^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t_1^{})\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t_1)$$

thus

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }Q_l(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }Q(t)0$$
(11)
Similarly, from equation (7)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _{t^{}T(t^{})}^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}& =_{t^{}T(t^{})}^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}\hfill \\ & _{t^{}T(t^{})}^t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}\hfill \end{array}$$

take its derivative for $`t^{}`$, then integration on corresponding $`[t_1^{},t_2^{}]`$ and $`[t_1,t_2]`$, there

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exe}(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)0$$
(12)
#### II.2.3 Flux’s Dependence on the Time Function Factor — Rate of Signal Transfer Time

Differential transfer relations of general physics flux and energy flux are time functions’ derivative dependent (Ref. Eqs. 3 and 7 ), here (Ref. Luo (a))

$`t^{}(t)=t+T(t)`$, $`{\displaystyle \frac{dt^{}}{dt}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{dT(t)}{dt}}`$; $`T(t)=T(t^{})`$

or

$`t(t^{})=t^{}T(t^{})`$,$`{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dt^{}}}=1{\displaystyle \frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}}`$

as the time function is reversible and longitudinal length and relative velocity spread transfer relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(t)& =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})|_t^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})|_t\hfill \\ & =_t^t^{}\left[v_{is}(\dot{t},t\mathrm{\Delta }t)v_{is}(\dot{t},t)\right]𝑑\dot{t}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
there

$$v_{io}(t^{})\frac{dt}{dt^{}}v_{sis}(t)=_t^t^{}\frac{v_{is}(\dot{t},r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{is}(\dot{t},t)\frac{dt_j}{dt}𝑑\dot{t}$$
(14)
or

$$\frac{d\mathrm{}(t^{})}{d\mathrm{}(t)}=\frac{v_{io}(t^{})dt^{}}{v_{sis}(t)dt}=1+\frac{1}{v_{sis}(t)}_t^t^{}\frac{v_{is}(\dot{t},r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{is}(\dot{t},t)\frac{dt_j}{dt}𝑑t$$
(14)
with to multiply equations (13) and (14), then take limitation as $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_j(\dot{t})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t^{}0`$

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}|_t^{}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}|_t=_t^t^{}\left[a_{is}(\dot{t},t\mathrm{\Delta }t)a_{is}(\dot{t},t)\right]𝑑\dot{t}$$
(15)
and

$$\frac{v_{is}(t^{},r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{io}(t^{})\frac{dt^{}}{dt}\frac{v_{is}(t,r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{sis}(t)=_t^t^{}\frac{a_{is}(\dot{t},r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{is}(\dot{t},t)\frac{dt_j}{dt}𝑑t$$
(16)
or

$$\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{\mathrm{\Delta }td\dot{t}}}|_t^{}}{{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})}{\mathrm{\Delta }td\dot{t}}}|_t}=\frac{{\displaystyle \frac{v_{is}(t^{},r_{is})}{r_{is}}}}{{\displaystyle \frac{v_{is}(t,r_{is)}}{r_{is}}}}\frac{v_{io}(t^{})dt^{}}{v_{sis}(t)dt}=1+\frac{1}{a_{sis}(t)+a_{is}(t,t)}_t^t^{}\frac{a_{is}(\dot{t},r_{is})}{r_{is}}v_{is}(\dot{t},t)\frac{dt_j(\dot{t})}{dt}𝑑\dot{t}$$
(16)
Where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_j(\dot{t})`$ is time interval during which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}(\dot{t})`$ pass through a specific point, that has a relative distance $`r_{is}`$ with respect to signal source; $`v_{sis}(t)`$ is initial relative velocity of head of the length with respect to signal source, $`v_{io}(t^{})`$ is a relative velocity of the length’s head with respect to observing point; $`a_{sis}(t)`$ and $`a_{is}(t^{})`$ are corresponding accelerations respectively.

### II.3 Major Inference From Eq. (3) and (9)

#### II.3.1 General Physics Flux Transfer Function between Two Time Domains

$$Q(t^{})+Q_l(t^{})=Q(t_0)+_{t_0}^{t^{}T(t^{})}J(\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(17)
or

$$_{t_0^{}}^t^{}[J(\dot{t})+J_l(\dot{t})]𝑑\dot{t}=_{t_0}^tJ(\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(17)
#### II.3.2 Energy Flux Transfer Function between The Time Domains

$$_{t_0^{}}^t^{}[𝒥(\dot{t})𝒥_{exc}(\dot{t})+𝒥_l(\dot{t})]𝑑\dot{t}=_{t_0}^t𝒥(\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(18)
or

$$E(t^{})E_{exc}(t^{})+E_l(t^{})=E(t_0)+_{t_0}^{t^{}T(t^{})}𝒥(\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(18)
Both of the transfer functions are ever increasing function.

## III Illustration and Discussion

### III.1 Examples of the Relations’ Use

#### III.1.1 Phase Flux Density and Consequent Energy Flux Density

For wave phase flux, $`\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}0`$, $`\frac{d\phi _l(t^{})}{dt^{}}0`$, from equation (3) there

$$\omega ^{}(t^{})=\omega (t)[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}]$$

or

$$\omega ^{}(t^{})\left[1+\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]=\omega (t)$$
(19)
or

$$_{t_0^{}}^t^{}\omega ^{}(\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}=_{t_0}^t\omega (\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(20)
and from equation (17), the phase transfer function

$$\phi (t^{})=\phi (t_0)+_{t_0}^t\omega (\dot{t})𝑑\dot{t}$$
(20)
$`\omega ^{}(t^{})=\frac{d\phi (t^{})}{dt^{}}`$ is observer’s measuring angular frequency; $`\omega (t)=\frac{d\phi (t)}{dt}`$ is emitting angular velocity or frequency at phase flux source for the same micro phase increment.

From equation (9) and suppose $`𝒥_{exc}(t^{})=\frac{dE_{exc}(t^{})}{dt^{}}=0`$ in non-absorption media,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒥(t^{})& =𝒥(t)\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]_{t^{}T(t^{})}^t^{}\frac{d𝒥_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}𝑑\dot{t}\hfill \\ & =𝒥(t)[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}]T(t^{})\frac{d𝒥_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}|_\xi \hfill \\ & \xi [t^{}T(t^{}),t^{}]\hfill \\ \hfill \text{or}P(t^{})& =P(t)[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}]T(t^{})\frac{d𝒥_l(\dot{t})}{d\dot{t}}|_\xi \hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
According to the electromagnetic wave energy flux relation, observer’s measuring or measured optical intensity not only has been determined by optical energy’s spatial diminishing factor related with $`T(t)`$, but also depend upon time function’s factor which is determined by a rate of signal transfer time. From equation (19), it’s known that time function’s effect must be considered in frequency-shift relevant measures and data analysis.

#### III.1.2 Charged Particles Flux and Energy Flux in Linac

For charged particles flux in linear accelerator there exists the particles’ number relation of a micro increment

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }N_l(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)$$
(22)
consequently

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})q+\mathrm{\Delta }N_l(t^{})q=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)q\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})q\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)q$$
(22)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})m_q+\mathrm{\Delta }N_l(t^{})m_q=\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)m_q\mathrm{\Delta }N(t^{})m_q\mathrm{\Delta }N(t)m_q$$
(22′′)
This means that the number of particles in the micro element will diminish as they are accelerated.

However, according to the number’s flux differential transfer relation

$$\frac{dN(t^{})}{dt^{}}=\frac{dN(t)}{dt}\left[1\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}\right]\frac{dN_l(t^{})}{dt^{}}$$
(23)
at observing location instantaneous number flux can exceed the emitting number flux due to time function related factor when $`\frac{dT(t^{})}{dt^{}}<0`$.

Furthermore, as to rf accelerator $`T(t)`$ or $`T(t^{})`$ is periodic function with a designated $`\tau ^{}`$, $`T(t+\tau ^{})=T(t)`$ and $`T(t^{}+\tau ^{})=T(t^{})`$; hence on different time domains along higher energy of the micro flux increment, there will be ever increasing high frequency fractional factor in a Fourier analysis on number flux, charge flux, mass flux and energy flux, although number of the particles, and corresponding mass and charge of the specific micro increment will decrease continuously in the transportation process.

According to equation (8) the carried energy of the micro increment, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\dot{t})`$, can be progressively increased by positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(\dot{t})`$ values; then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }E_{exc}(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E_l(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)$$
(24)
Compare equation (22′′)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M(t^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }M(t)\mathrm{\Delta }M_l(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }M(t)$$

with equation (24), we can make an inference that the energy gain $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }E(t)`$ can not be stored as or converted into any mass of the micro element for $`\mathrm{\Delta }M(t^{})\mathrm{\Delta }M(t)0`$. Then where has been the energy gain stored in the micro flux increment? We will find it stored as internal electrical potential energy in the micro increment, and partially converted to the mass center’s kinetic energy of the micro increment Luo and Zhang .

### III.2 Potential Application

1. By means of phase transfer function (Ref. Eqs. 19, 20), the phase function on observer time domain at measuring location of wave interference region can be transformed to phase source time domain on which the angular frequency or velocity is known. Then phase difference on observer time domain is expressed by term of time function and known or designated parameter of phase source Luo (b).
2. Energy flux analysis on frequency-shift astronomical measurement Luo (c).
3. As an analytic approach one longitudinal properties, energy exchange and flux of charged particles in acceleration Luo and Zhang .

## IV Conclusion

The differential transfer relations of general physics flux between time domains of source and observer, accompanied with a longitudinal length’s transfer relation, and corresponding energy flux occur or exist simultaneously; and they reflect different aspect of a specified flux increment’s transportation process between source and observer. Time function factor could significantly affect the values of corresponding fluxes on two time domains and itself or rate of it is a necessary fraction of the transfer relations. The differential transfer relations are set up on conversation of various physics quantities independently and shared time transfer relation. Based on the differential transfer relation of flux, its integral form — physical quantity transfer function between the time domains is inferred.


format: text

text:
# Optical Transitions at the Neutral and Charged Vacancies in Diamond

## I INTRODUCTION

Coulson and Kearsly introduced molecule concept for vacancy defect in diamond.1 As the results they used the common method for calculation the electronic structure of the molecules in quantum chemistry i.e. Molecular orbital and Configuration interaction.
In essence in this model, molecular orbital method gives correct symmetry and spin of the electronic levels of the vacancy and configuration interaction considers the correlation effects of e-e interaction and gives correct sequence of the electronic levels. Molecular orbital method has been the only way for accounting the appropriate symmetry and spin of the vacancy since Coulson and Kearsly model.
Already we showed that generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian can also take into account correct symmetry and spin of the system in a completely different manner.2 This approach has origin in the solid state physics and pay more attention to include symmetry and spin considerations of the system in the form of a Hubbard like Hamiltonian. This is in contrast to quantum chemistry approaches (molecular orbital theory) which pay more attention to the construction of the symmetry and spin adapted wavefunctions.
Both approaches use some parameters (8 parameters for exact evaluation of e-e interaction) which can be obtained by theory or semi empirical methods. These parameters can be obtained by choosing appropriate atomic orbital function for dangling bonds of the vacancy.
This evaluation is independent of the model of Hamiltonian calculation. These parameters are the origin of the one type of approximations which exist in the molecular model. These parameters are the only input of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian formalism and after evaluating and putting them into the computational scheme the exact eigenvalues and eigenstates can be obtained.
The situation in the Coulson and Kearsly model and its related models3 which use molecular orbital techniques is different. These models not only use these approximate parameters but also apply some approximation in constructing appropriate CI wavefunctions as the bases for calculating the Hamiltonian.
Basically the coefficients of the manually constructed CI wavefunctions in these models should be calculated by variational principal. Also there should be some hypothesis about the most probable configurations in the ground and excited electronic state of the system. Additionally there should be an assumption for truncation limit in accounting a high number of determinant Slaters in the expansion of the CI wavefunctions.
These assumptions and approximations, results to a approximately CI wavefunction for the electronic states of the vacancy in Coulson and Kearsly and related models.1,3 In our last communication 2 we also explaineded some ambiguity of the applying such CI method for this problem.
In summary, it is obvious that the CI wavefunctions in molecular models are not the exact eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian of the vacancy system.
Here we should note to this point that our using bases consist of the atomic bases i.e. $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$ in contrast to Coulson and Kearsly and all of the previous related models which use molecular symmetric and anti symmetric bases i.e. $`a`$, $`t_x`$, $`t_y`$, $`t_z`$. These bases are more convenient in explaining physical properties of the system. For example ionization of the atoms of the vacancy or possibility of the exsistance of the hunds configurations in the ground state can be verified very easily.
Previously we reported 2 the probablity of finding each electronic configuration in the exact eigenstates of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian for the GR1 transition in the neutral vacancy. (Fig.1)
These results and similar results for the ground and excited states of ND1 transition are free from approximations of the manually constructing CI wavefunctions. In this method the origin of the error only is in the Hamiltonian parameters.
For verifying the validity of these new results we have used them to calculate some experimentally observable data.

## II MODEL

Similar to Lowther4 and Mainwood and Stoneham5 we attempted to calculate the relative intensities of the well known GR1 and ND1 transitions in the neutral and charged vacancies in diamond. These intensities are calculated directly with the resultant eigenvectors of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonina and can be a reliable check for the validity of the physics which is included in the exact eigenstates of the model.
The rate of the electronic dipole transition between an initial state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ and final state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ is proportional to square of the dipole transition amplitude i.e.

$$I(if)|<\mathrm{\Psi }_i\stackrel{}{r}\mathrm{\Psi }_f>|^2$$
(1)
Accordingly for the dipole transition from the ground states of the $`V^0`$ and $`V^{}`$ i.e. GR1 and ND1 we have two allowed transitions which their intensities or transition rates are as follow:

$$I(GR1)|<^1E\stackrel{}{r}^1T>|^2$$
(2)
$$I(ND1)|<^4A\stackrel{}{r}^4T>|^2$$
(3)
The eigenvectors of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian have correct degeneracy due to symmetry and spin multiplicity of the states. So we obtain two and three independent eigenvectors for the ground and excited state of $`GR1`$ i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}T`$ respectively and we will have four and twelve independent eigenvectors for the ground and excited states of $`ND1`$ i.e. $`{}_{}{}^{4}A`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{4}T`$. In the end of this paper we have listed ( Table a, b) the expansion coefficients of each of these degenerate levels on the $`S_z`$ representation of the solving Fock space bases of the Hamiltonian. In the first quantization language this bases are determinant Slaters which are correspond to each electronic configuration. For simplicity, in this paper we will call these bases as determinant.
In Table a, b all of the exact eigenstates are orthonormal. An interesting point in the Table a is high countribution of the Hunds configurations i.e. $`(1,1,1,1)`$ in the ground state of $`V^0`$ and also the absence of this configuration( model gives exactly zero! ) in the the excited state of $`GR1`$ .
At the begining of the calculation we note that this transition amplitudes has the same value for the two set of the eigenvectors which transform with a unitary matrix. So the value of the transition amplitude is the same for $`S_z`$ or $`S^2`$ representation of the Hamiltonian eigenvectors.
For GR1 transition only the bases or determinant Slaters which have $`S_z=0`$ enter into the calculation. (Table a)

$$|^1E,i>=\underset{j=1}{\overset{36}{}}\alpha _j^i\phi _j(i=1,2)$$
(4)
$$|^1T,i>=\underset{j=1}{\overset{36}{}}\beta _j^i\phi _j(i=1,2,3)$$
(5)
In the above equations $`i`$ is the degeneracy label of the states and $`\phi _j`$’s are the $`S_z=0`$ bases of the Fock space or determinants. The $`\alpha _j^i`$ and $`\beta _j^i`$ coefficients are according to Table a, b. For $`GR1`$ transition we have $`6`$ independent transition from the two degenerate $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ states to three degenerate $`{}_{}{}^{1}T`$ states. In this work we have calculated each transition rate (intensity) separately for each of these transitions.
Here we review in detail the steps of the calculation of the intensity of one typical transition e.g. $`|^1E,1>`$ to $`|^1T,1>`$. The amplitude of this transition from Eq. (4), Eq. (5) is:

$$<^1E,1\stackrel{}{r}^1T,1>=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{36}{}}\alpha _i\beta _j<\phi _i\stackrel{}{r}\phi _j>$$
(6)
In this calculation we have evaluated all of the $`<\phi _i\stackrel{}{r}\phi _i>`$ terms up to $`s`$ order. $`s`$ is the overlap integral of the two adjacent atomic orbital of the vacancy.

$$s=$$
(7)
We have calculated the value of $`s`$ using appropriate Slater type function with exponent $`1.595`$ as atomic orbital. The result was $`0.16`$ which agrees with the previous models.1,3
These types of amplitudes i.e. $`<\phi _i\stackrel{}{r}\phi _i>`$ are direct expectation values of the dipole $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ operator which arise from the same determinant Slaters terms of the $`{}_{}{}^{1}E`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}T`$ eigenvectors in Table a. These four electronic terms can be expanded to single particle terms as follow.

$$<abcd\stackrel{}{r}abcd>=++<c\stackrel{}{r}c>+<d\stackrel{}{r}d>+O\left(s^2\right)$$
(8)
the terms which are proportional to $`s^2`$ are neglected equation in the above equation. In addition to these direct terms we have considered the cross terms in which the $`\phi _i`$ and $`\phi _j`$ in Eq. (6) are two different determinant Slaters. The main contribution of the cross terms comes from such $`<\phi _i\stackrel{}{r}\phi _j>`$ terms in which $`\phi _i`$ and $`\phi _j`$ only differ in one orbital. These terms are proportional to $`s`$. For example for contribution of the $`abc\overline{d}`$ and $`abc\overline{c}`$ determinants we have:

$$<abc\overline{d}\stackrel{}{r}abc\overline{c}>=s+s+s<c\stackrel{}{r}c>+<d\stackrel{}{r}c>+O\left(s^2\right)$$
(9)
In these expansion the sign of the terms should be considered according to the permutation of that orbital which is different in two determinants.
For simplifying the last term in Eq. (9) we have used well known Mullikens’s approximation:

$$<d\stackrel{}{r}c>=\frac{s}{2}\left(<d\stackrel{}{r}d>+<c\stackrel{}{r}c>\right)$$
(10)
Now by these rules we can calculate the rate of the transition between each degenerate ground and excited states by squaring each transition amplitude. For simplifying the writing of the formula we have used the abbreviation:

$$\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}=$$
(11)
and therefore the final amplitude of the dipole transition will be in the form:

$$<^1E,1\stackrel{}{r}^1T,1>=\alpha _1\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}+\alpha _2\stackrel{}{r}_{bb}+\alpha _3\stackrel{}{r}_{cc}+\alpha _4\stackrel{}{r}_{dd}$$
(12)
The $`\alpha _i`$ are obtained from coefficients which are listed in Table a and also using value of $`s=0.16`$.
Since the $`\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}`$ , $`\stackrel{}{r}_{bb}`$ ,… are not orthogonal and they have equal length, after squaring the amplitude to find the transition rates we will have:

$$|<^1E,1\stackrel{}{r}^1T,1>|^2=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\alpha _i^2+cos\left(\mathrm{}109.5^o\right)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\alpha _i\alpha _j)|\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}|^2$$
(13)
## III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The intensities of each six and twelve allowed dipole transitions from the two and four fold degenerate ground state of $`V^0`$ and $`V^{}`$ ( GR1 and ND1 ) are summarized in Table I, II. These transitions are calculated by the method which was explained in the last section. In the absence of $`LS`$ coupling, transition between ground and excited states with different $`S_z`$ should be zero, therefore as the results of our calculations show, Table II should be block diagonal. The total rates of the transitions from each of the degenerate ground state of the $`V^0`$ and $`V^{}`$ are summarized in the Table I, II.

As it is seen from the tables the total rates of the transition from each degenerate ground state are nearly equal. Physically this sounds good. We expect that in an spectroscopic experiment which does not distinguish the degeneracy of the ground and excited states, one can not create a change in the relative population of the balanced degenerate ground states by illumination of light.6
For obtaining the effective transition rate between degenerate ground states we should average over the the total transition rates.6 This arises from this point that the probability of the existence of the system in each of the degenerate states is equal. In other hand the number of the electrons which populate the degenerate ground states are equal.
Total transition rates of the GR1 and ND1 degenerate ground states are listed in the last line of the Table I, II.
From Table I we obtain:

$$|<^1E\stackrel{}{r}^1T>|^2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{2,3}{}}|<^1E,i\stackrel{}{r}^1T,j>|^2=0.23|\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}|^2$$
(14)
and from Table II we obtain:

$$|<^4A\stackrel{}{r}^4T>|^2=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4,12}{}}|<^4A,i\stackrel{}{r}^4T,j>|^2=0.79|\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}|^2$$
(15)
With these values we obtain the relative intensities of the GR1 and ND1 absorption lines:

$$\frac{I(ND1)}{I(GR1)}=3.4$$
(16)
This is in excellent agreement with the recent experimental work on the GR1 and ND1 transitions intensities.7,8,9 We have used these values from Davies 10 who has calibrated them. The experimental data shows that the relative intensities of the ND1 and GR1 is equal to 3.257,8or 47,9. Our theoretical value is also consistant with the experimental error which is reported more recently.11 The error of our calculation which arises from averaging over the total transition rates are 10 percent for ND1 and 11 percent for GR1. These errors should be due to approximations in obtaining the Hamiltonian parameters. This means that if we were able to estimate exact atomic orbitals of the vacancy and also Hamiltonian parameters then we expect that the total rates of the transition be equal. (last line of Tables I, II)
One important question in this problem has been the importance of the overlap effect of the vacancy orbitals. We have recalculated the intensities with the neglecting the overlap of the orbitals i.e. $`s=0`$. The results for the GR1 intensity is $`0.23`$ which is same as Eq. (14) and for ND1 the result is $`0.87`$, higher than the value of the Eq. (15). By this assumption we reach to $`3.8`$ for the relative transitions. The independent nature of the GR1 transition from the overlap parameter $`s`$ comes from the high contribution of the Hunds state in the ground state. As it was shown in Eq. (8) the transition amplitude of these type determinants is independent from $`s`$. However the value of the $`s`$ depends on the choosing of the atomic orbitals of the vacancy so by changing it the Hamiltonian parameters also should be changed. If we were able to include semiempirical nature of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian parameters to the shape of the atomic orbitals then we can be sure that the resultant overlap value is more valid. However since the Hamiltonian parameters are from Coulson and Kearsly calculation, the value of the $`s`$ in our calculation are choose to be $`0.16`$.
Our model is more similar to Mainwood and Stoneham model since their model does not need to detail form of atomic orbital i.e. calculation of the $`|\stackrel{}{r}_{aa}|`$. Also they have attributed the GR1 and ND1 transition only to extra atomic transitions. They have neglected the overlap of the vacancy orbitals ($`s=0`$) maybe due to the order of the error which exist in the approximated wavefunctions of the Lannoo model.3

## IV CONCLUSION

We applied the exact wavefunctions of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian to the transition intensities of the well known optical absorption lines of the diamond vacancies. This calculation can successfully explain recent experimental data. These results clearly show the advantage of using exact wavefunctions of the generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian with respect to previous CI wave functions. For comparing the different wavefunctions of the two model it is useful to compare the number of determinants which comes into the calculation of the transition rates. For example CI only predicts $`1\times 1`$ determinants for ND1 ground and excited states however here we considered $`8\times 8`$ determinants for the $`S_z=\pm \frac{3}{2}`$ and $`48\times 48`$ for $`S_z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ as are reported in Table b. Previous molecular orbital approaches were not able to consider different forms of the degenerate eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian and this can be another reason fort their poor quantitative results.
The results of the calculation show that the electronic configurations of the ground and excited states of GR1 ( Fig. 1) can explain quantitatively experimental data. This means that the ground state of the neutral vacancy mainly comes from the Hunds rule( 60 percent). High contribution of the Hunds states in the ground state of the neutral vacancy physically was expected.
New results of present model show that generalized Hubbard Hamiltonian has potential to go toward a quantitative understanding of the point defects problem in diamond.

## V Acknowledgment

We would like to thanks Prof. J. E. Lowther, Prof. A. M. Stoneham,
Dr. J. Goss and Prof. J. M. Baker for their comments and discussions.
e-mail: Heydaris@mehr.sharif.edu
e-mail: Vesaghi@sharif.edu
e-mail: K1@sharif.edu