text:
# Self-Organized Bottleneck in Energy Relaxation

## Abstract

We study an energy relaxation process after many degrees of freedom are excited in a Hamiltonian system with a large number of degrees of freedom. Bottlenecks of relaxation, where relaxations of the excited elements are drastically slowed down, are discovered. By defining an internal state for the excited degrees of freedom, it is shown that the drastic slowing down occurs when the internal state is in a critical state. The relaxation dynamics brings the internal state into the critical state, and the critical bottleneck of relaxation is self-organized. Relevance of our result to relaxation phenomena in condensed matters or large molecules is briefly discussed.

Relaxation process to equilibrium has gathered much attention of physicists over several decades. Although the relaxation near equilibrium has been well formulated theoretically, the process far from equilibrium is not yet fully understood, while relaxation phenomena after strong excitation can show novel and interesting behaviors. For example, single-molecule Myosin, a motor protein, shows anomalously long energy storage when biochemically excited by ATP Ishijima . Such slow relaxations are also found in the dynamics of single enzymes Lu ; Edman-Rigler .

When a system is excited weakly, it is described by a superposition of elementary excitations with weak interactions. When the excitation is strong, on the other hand, it is inevitable to take into account strong interactions of the excited modes, which may behave cooperatively. Even though a general theory for such case may not be available, it is important to find a class of novel relaxation phenomena, and propose novel physical concepts associated with it.

In this Letter, we report a relaxation process when quite a few degrees of freedom are highly excited, in a simple Hamiltonian system with large degrees of freedom. The excited elements which interact strongly form a partial thermodynamic system, to which an internal state (with effective temperature etc.) is assigned. The relaxation depends on this internal state, and, in turn, the internal state dynamically changes with the relaxation. We will show that, due to the interplay between the relaxation and the internal state dynamics, the partial system self-organizes a critical state, which forms a bottleneck in the relaxation course. We discuss its mechanism, in particular by emphasizing distinction of it from critical slowing down and self-organized criticality SOC .

As a specific model we adopt a Hamiltonian system Konishi-Kaneko ; Ruffo ;

$$H(\theta ,p)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}+\frac{1}{2N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}V(\theta _i\theta _j),$$
(1)
with,

$$V(\theta )=\frac{K}{(2\pi )^2}\left[1\mathrm{cos}2\pi \theta \right].$$
(2)
The equations of motion are given by,

$$\frac{dp_i}{dt}=\frac{K}{2\pi N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}2\pi (\theta _i\theta _j),$$
(3)
where $`N`$ pendula are globally coupled, interacting each other through phase difference $`2\pi (\theta _i\theta _j)`$. Each pendulum can have two types of motion; rotation at a higher energy and libration at a lower energy.

This system is known to exhibit continuous phase transition in equilibrium in the thermodynamic limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ Ruffo . Order parameter $`M`$ for this transition is defined as, $`Me^{i2\pi \varphi }=_{j=1}^Ne^{i2\pi \theta _j}/N.`$ When total energy $`E`$ is very small, $`M1`$, where all pendula librate. As the total energy increase, $`M`$ decrease, where some pendula librate and others rotate, changing their types of motion temporally. Above the transition energy $`E_c=0.75/(2\pi )^2`$, $`M1/\sqrt{N}`$, and all pendula rotate almost freely.

Energy relaxation when a single pendulum is excited is found to be very slow Nakagawa-Kaneko , with the relaxation time increasing as a stretched exponential form of the excited energy, as is discussed in terms of Boltzmann-Jeans conjecture BJC ; BJC\_recent .

Here, we are interested in relaxation properties when a part of the system composed of many pendula are excited. At $`t=0`$, $`N^{(K)}`$ pendula are simultaneously kicked, i.e. excited instantaneously, with the same momentum $`P^{(K)}`$. Here, we consider the case that the rest system is huge enough, and is regarded to be in thermal equilibrium. Instead of carrying out numerical simulations of the Hamiltonian system (1) with such huge degrees of freedom, we add a heat bath to the rest of the system; i.e. equations of the motion of the rest $`NN^{(K)}`$ pendula are given by the Langevin equation,

$$\frac{dp_i}{dt}=\frac{K}{2\pi N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}2\pi (\theta _i\theta _j)\gamma p_i+\xi _i(t),$$
(4)
where $`\xi _i(t)`$ is white-gaussian random noise, that is $`\xi _i(t)=0`$ and $`\xi _i(t_0)\xi _j(t_0+t)=2\gamma T\delta _{ij}\delta (t)`$.

A typical time series of the energy relaxation after the kick is drawn in Figure 1.

The excited pendula that rotate relax one by one to librate with the rest of the pendula, so that the population of excited pendula $`N^{(E)}`$ decrease from $`N^{(K)}`$ to zero, whose time series is drawn in Figure 2-(a). It shows several plateaus, where the relaxation is drastically slowed down. We call these plateaus as bottlenecks of the relaxation.

With regards to this intermittent appearance of the relaxation bottlenecks, we ask whether the bottleneck appears randomly or follows some rule. If the latter is the case, the state of the excited partial system should be important, since other huge degrees are kept at a constant temperature during the relaxation.

Here, the interaction between the rotating and librating pendula is small on the average, because the temporal average of the term $`\mathrm{sin}2\pi (\theta _i(t)\theta _j(t))`$ is negligible if the momenta of the two pendula are much different. Indeed, this is the origin of long relaxation time scale in the Boltzmann-Jeans conjecture Nakagawa-Kaneko . The interaction between two excited pendula, on the other hand, can be strong, if the momenta are not much different. In fact, by taking a Galilean frame moving with the average velocity of the excited pendula, they often librate each other, keeping attracting interactions.

Hence our system is represented by two partial systems which are weakly coupled. One system is composed of excited pendula whose momenta $`P^{(E)}`$, while the rest system has momenta $`0`$. Since the interaction between the two partial systems are small, it is relevant to consider a thermodynamic state of each partial system at the first-order approximation. The state of the relaxed part is basically determined by the heat bath with the temperature $`T`$. The state of the excited part, on the other hand, changes as the relaxation process progresses. Thus it is important to study a thermodynamic state of the excited part as an internal state of the whole system.

As a quantity representing the internal state, we introduce effective temperature of the excited part $`T^{(E)}`$ as

$$T^{(E)}=\frac{1}{N^{(E)}}\underset{i}{}^{(E)}(p_iP^{(E)})^2,$$
(5)
by taking an inertial frame with the center-of-mass momentum of the excited part $`P^{(E)}=_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}p_i/N^{(E)}`$, where $`^{(E)}`$ denotes the summation over excited pendula partial\_quantity .

To see how the relaxation depends on the internal state, we first define the first relaxation time $`\tau `$ as the time when the first one of $`N^{(K)}`$ excited pendula loses energy to librate. In other words, $`\tau `$ is the first escape time of a pendulum from the excited to the relaxed part. The relation between $`\tau `$ and $`T^{(E)}`$ is plotted in Figure 3, where $`T^{(E)}`$ is time-averaged for a while just after the pendula are excited.

A peak is discernible. The temperature for this peak corresponds to the critical point for the phase transition of the excited part $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}=T_cN^{(E)}/N`$ scaling , when the excited part is regarded as in equilibrium.

We have also computed the time series of $`T^{(E)}`$ and $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$, and plotted in Figure 2-(b) and (c), respectively. The plateau of $`N^{(E)}`$ actually corresponds to the time when the effective temperature of the excited pendula is around the critical temperature. From these results it is concluded that the relaxation bottleneck occurs when the internal state is around a critical point.

One might think that this phenomenon is nothing but a critical slowing down of the excited system. This is not the case. First note that the whole system is not necessarily in a critical state. In fact we verified that the coincidence of this peak position to the effective critical point is qualitatively independent of the heat bath temperature $`T`$ (not shown). Next note that such long relaxation bottleneck is not found when disregarding the rest system. In fact we estimated the first escape time of a pendulum in only a single system, by calculating the time until one of the pendula first takes a momentum smaller than a threshold. This escape time increases with the decrease of the temperature, without showing any peak (not shown). Hence the present slow relaxation is inter-system relaxation, not intra-system relaxation to which the so-called critical slowing down belongs.

Then how is the excited system sticked to the critical point through the interaction with the rest system? To answer this question, we consider how the internal state changes before and after one of the excited pendula relaxes. To see this change, we introduce effective temperature change $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ defined as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}\frac{N^{(E)}}{N^{(E)}1}T_{after}^{(E)}T_{before}^{(E)},$$
(6)
where $`T_{before}^{(E)}`$ and $`T_{after}^{(E)}`$ is the effective temperature before and after the first relaxation of an excited pendulum, respectively, while the factor $`N^{(E)}/(N^{(E)}1)`$ comes from the contribution of scaling scaling . The relation between $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ and $`T_{before}^{(E)}`$ is plotted in Figure 4, where $`T_{before}^{(E)}`$ and $`T_{after}^{(E)}`$ are time averages over a given period just before and after $`\tau `$, respectively. The average of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ is positive when $`T_{before}^{(E)}<T_c^{(E)}`$, while negative when $`T_{before}^{(E)}<T_c^{(E)}`$. This result indicates that the internal state tends to be attracted into the critical state, through the interaction between the excited system and the rest.

To analyze the above temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$, we note two factors for it; the increase of the temperature by work given to the excited part from the relaxed part, and the decrease of the temperature by an escape of a pendulum from the excited part.

First, a work is given from the relaxed part to the excited part, which causes temperature increase as the second law of thermodynamics indicates. Temperature change by the work is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}=𝑑t\dot{T}^{(E)}(t)`$ with

$$\dot{T}^{(E)}=\frac{2}{N^{(E)}}\underset{j}{}^{(E)}p_j\dot{p_j}2P^{(E)}\dot{P}^{(E)}.$$
(7)
Using the order parameter of the partial systems $`M^{()}e^{i\varphi ^{()}}=_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{()}e^{i\theta _j}/N^{()},`$ where $``$ is $`E`$ or $`R`$ partial\_quantity , we obtain the following expression, which is closed only by macroscopic variables:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}E^{(E)}=K{\displaystyle \frac{N^{(R)}}{N}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(M^{(E)}e^{i\varphi ^{(E)}}\right)`$ (8)
$`+iM^{(E)}e^{i\varphi ^{(E)}}P^{(E)}\}M^{(R)}e^{i\varphi ^{(R)}}.`$
Here $`E^{(E)}`$ is the effective total energy of the excited part, given by $`E^{(E)}=\frac{T^{(E)}}{2}+\frac{N^{(E)}}{N}\frac{K}{2}\left[1M_{}^{(E)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right].`$ The first term of the r.h.s. of (8) is a fast varying term, and can be neglected. With this approximation, the total energy change $`E^{(E)}`$ of the excited part is proportional to $`M^{(E)}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(E)}/C^{(E)}`$, where $`C^{(E)}`$ is effective specific heat of the excited part, we obtain,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}M^{(E)}/C^{(E)}.$$
(9)
Its temperature dependence in the thermodynamic limit of the excited part is drawn in Figure 5-(a), which is positive at $`T^{(E)}<T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$ and vanishes for $`T^{(E)}>T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$.

Second, the temperature of the excited part decreases when a pendulum escapes from the excited part, which has the largest negative momentum at the center-of-mass inertial frame of the excited part. This factor is estimated by calculating the decrease of temperature with the decrease of energy, by neglecting the interaction with the relaxed part. The escape of a pendulum, with momentum $`p_{esc}`$ measured from the center-of-mass inertial frame, takes away the energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{esc}=p_{esc}^2/2`$ from the excited part. Since temperature is a function of the total energy as $`T^{(E)}=T^{(E)}(E^{(E)})`$, the effective temperature change (6) can be described as, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}=N^{(E)}/(N^{(E)}1)T^{(E)}(E^{(E)})T^{(E)}(E^{(E)}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{esc})`$. In the limit $`N^{(E)}\mathrm{}`$, this is estimated by the specific heat $`C^{(E)}`$ as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}C_{}^{(E)}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{\Delta }E_{esc}C_{}^{(E)}{}_{}{}^{1},$$
(10)
whose temperature dependence is drawn in Figure 5-(b).

By combining above the two factors, Figure 4 can be explained qualitatively, as shown in Figure 5-(c). $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ is positive at a temperature below $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$. As the temperature approaches $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$ from below, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ decreases, Above $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$, there is only the negative contribution. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }T^{(E)}`$ changes its sign from positive to negative as the temperature is increased from below to above $`T_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{(E)}`$.

In summary, by using simple Hamiltonian system, we have discovered a bottleneck of energy relaxation, given by a critical state of an internal state of the excited part. This critical state is self-organized through the course of relaxation. The long-term relaxation from highly excited state to equilibrium consists of alternation between approach to critical state and collapse of the state. In contrast to the so-called self-organized criticality SOC , the critical state is spontaneously formed without continuous driving, once a part of a system is highly excited. Although we have demonstrated this bottleneck critical state by a simple Hamiltonian system, the mechanism is expected to be general, as long as the system can exhibit continuous phase transition, and one part of the system is highly excited.

The self-organized bottleneck at a critical state may be observed in condensed matter, and in molecules with sufficiently large degrees of freedom, when a partial system is highly excited. One candidate for the experimental verification is partial excitation of semi-conductor material by laser radiation, where so-called exciton Mott transition is found Gonokami . Also proteins show drastically slow relaxation when they are functioning as motors Ishijima  or enzymes Lu ; Edman-Rigler . The present bottleneck may shed new light on the understanding of such phenomena.

The authors are grateful to S. Sasa and N. Nakagawa for discussion, and A. Shimizu for informing Ref Gonokami . This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture of Japan.


format: text

text:
# Diffusion and Settling in Ap/Bp Stars

## 1. Introduction

Ap/Bp stars are chemically peculiar stars in which in which relatively strong magnetic fields have been measured (see Ryabchikova 1991; see also the many other papers devoted to these stars in these proceedings). They are early A and late B stars, ranging from 8000 to 15000 K in effective temperature, in which large abundance anomalies have been found. Their magnetic fields typically of the order of 1 to 10 kG.

Ap/Bp stars, while similar in many ways to other main sequence chemically peculiar stars, have quite specific abundance anomalies. They are typically enriched in rare earth elements and some lighter elements such as silicon. They have been found to feature surface composition inhomogeneities (e.g. Kushnig et al. 1999, see also Hatzes 1996) and to have a stratified atmospheric composition (e.g. Ryabchikova et al. 2002). As the main difference between them is the presence of magnetism in Ap stars, the understanding of the formation and evolution of the chemical composition in Ap stars may yield a new understanding of the structure of the magnetic fields.

Some of the cooler Ap stars are pulsating, the so-called roAp stars. Those stars are within the boundaries of the classical instability strip where pulsations are driven by the opacity of helium. As diffusion leads to helium deficiencies, it is a challenge to ensure that the required opacity is maintained in the driving region for the $`\kappa `$-mechanism to be efficient. Therefore, the modeling of the stratification in Ap stars is of central importance to the study of roAp stars.

## 2. Diffusion in Stars

Diffusion is defined here as the relative drift of elements with respects to each other. This drift occurs when forces acting on the the components of the stellar plasma differ from species to species. The term settling refers to the inward drift of heavier species with respect to light species under the action gravity only. In this section I will briefly describe the main physical processes that lead to (or inhibit) diffusion in stars, starting first with a general description, followed by a more specific discussion of diffusion in the presence of magnetic fields.

The types of stars in which diffusion occurs depend on how fast diffusion can affect the abundances and what are the competing processes. Stars with appreciable surface chemical peculiarities are slowly rotating stars that feature low mass loss and shallow surface convection zones, i.e. early F to late B main sequence stars (Michaud et al. 1976), white dwarfs (Fontaine & Michaud 1979), and hot horizontal branch stars (Michaud, Vauclair, & Vauclair 1983). Long lived low mass stars can be significantly affected by diffusion in the core (Proffitt & Michaud 1991).

### 2.1. Diffusion in Non-magnetic Stars

In non-magnetic and slowly rotating stars, spherical symmetry can be assumed. Diffusion will lead to vertical (radial) stratification of the elements but not to inhomogeneities on the surface. Diffusion in non-magnetic stars has been studied extensively in the past (see Michaud et al. 1976; Richer, Michaud, & Turcotte 2000; and references therein) and so will be described here only very briefly.

The variation of composition for an element $`i`$ with time can be calculated from the continuity equation

$$\frac{c_i}{t}=\frac{}{r}\left(c_iv_D(i)\right),$$
(1)
where the diffusion velocity is expressed as (Babel & Michaud 1991a)

$$v_D(i)=D_i\left\{\frac{c_i}{r}+\frac{A_im_p}{kT}(g_{\mathrm{rad};\mathrm{i}}g)+\alpha \frac{\mathrm{ln}T}{r}+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(2)
or a similar expression. The diffusion coefficient $`D_i`$ is mainly determined by collisional cross sections and, as the Coulombian interactions dominate, on the degree of ionization of species $`i`$. It is an average of the diffusion coefficients of the individual ionization states of species $`i`$. The term including the temperature gradient is the thermal diffusion term. Its coefficient $`\alpha `$ is also determined by collisional cross-sections. One may add a turbulent diffusion coefficient to $`D_i`$ to account for turbulent particle transport, such as due to convection.

The most important factors that determine the amplitude and sign of $`v_D(i)`$ is the net effect of the inward gravitational acceleration and the outward radiation acceleration, $`g_{\mathrm{rad};\mathrm{i}}g`$. If $`gg_{\mathrm{rad};\mathrm{i}}`$0, then the species will levitate, whereas it will sink if $`gg_{\mathrm{rad};\mathrm{i}}`$0. The radiative acceleration $`g_{rad}`$ is highly dependent on the ionization state and the atomic properties of the species. In the absence of mass loss, the stratification and the photospheric abundances are determined in the most part by the combined effects of gravity, radiation pressure and convection (or mixing).

The radiation acceleration on a species decreases when its abundances increases because of saturation. It also depends to a lesser degree on the abundance of other elements because of the competition for photons in overlapping lines for example (Michaud et al. 1976; Richer et al. 1998).

Where the diffusion time scales are short, the abundances will reach an equilibrium (i.e. a null total velocity). It is an appropriate assumption in the atmosphere of Ap stars when evolutionary effects are neglected, i.e. the static case. In the simplest possible case, where only gravity and radiation pressure are taken into account, the equilibrium will be reached when the composition has evolved so that the radiative acceleration balances gravity. The equilibrium solution is in fact more complicated due to the contributions of other processes, including mass loss.

There are other microscopic processes that may have to be considered in the relatively cool and outer regions of stars if they are stable. One is ambipolar diffusion through which protons and electrons drift with respect to hydrogen atoms which would in turn affect the drift of other species (Babel & Michaud 1991c). Another that has so far not been shown to be significant in Ap stars is light induced drift which can arise from an anisotropic radiation field in spectral lines (LeBlanc & Michaud 1993).

### 2.2. The Effect of Magnetic Fields

Magnetic fields have several consequences, direct and indirect, on how diffusion will affect the chemical composition.

Effect on drift of ionized species. The magnetic field reduces the diffusion coefficients in the direction perpendicular to the magnetic field lines (Michaud, Mégessier, & Charland 1981). This effect is proportional to the strength of the field and to the charge of the species. Neutrals do not feel the field while ions do. As a result, the drift of ionized species across field lines may be impeded and they might have a tendency to drift along the field lines.

Effect on radiative accelerations. Radiative accelerations are mostly due to absorption in spectral lines. In the presence of a magnetic field the degeneracy of the lines may be lifted. In lines that are saturated, this will reduce the saturation and increase the radiative acceleration by factors up to 50 (Borsenberger, Michaud, & Praderie 1981; Alecian & Stift 2002). A smaller effect is that an horizontal component to radiative acceleration is induced which can potentially have significant effects on some species (Babel & Michaud 1991b).

Effect on convection. Convection can be suppressed in the presence of strong vertical field lines. Balmforth et al. (2001) have shown that convection would be expected to be strongly suppressed at the magnetic poles for stars with a field as small as $`10^3`$ G. At the magnetic equator however, they argue that the magnetic restoring force is not able to compete against buoyancy and that convection is not suppressed, although the field might maintain some coherence in fluid motions. Turbulent motions that occur above the convection zone in non magnetic stars may be stabilized in in the presence of the magnetic field.

The combined effects of introducing magnetic fields in diffusion calculations is that it breaks the spherical symmetry leading to surface variations of abundances. This creates a map of the surface magnetic field that can be decoded with a proper modeling of horizontal abundance inhomogeneities with respect to the geometry of the magnetic field. It will also lead to a different vertical stratification than in the non-magnetic case because of the changes in mixing and radiative accelerations.

## 3. Application to Ap/Bp Stars

In this section we will review some results and expectations for Ap/Bp stars.

The goal is, naturally, for models of Ap/Bp stars to be able to reproduce surface inhomogeneities comparable to observations, in amplitude and in morphology, as well as predicting the correct vertical stratification. Because of the complexity of the problem, most models have included many simplifications, e.g. treating the magnetic poles and equator, where the field lines are either vertical or horizontal, separately, or assuming a very simple magnetic geometry, However simplified, these models provide predictions as to which elements should be over- or under-abundant depending on specific field geometries that can be compared to observations.

### 3.1. Magnetic Poles - Vertical Field Lines

As mentioned above, the convective structure at the poles and equator is different. Convection is expected to be suppressed, or at the very least substantially reduced, at the poles. On the other hand, the vertical field lines do not impede mass loss whereas the horizontal field lines at the equator trap the wind but allow convection to occur. At the poles, diffusion in Ap stars is comparable to diffusion in hot non-magnetic stars, such as the HgMn stars. The vertical stratification will mainly determined by the competition between diffusion and mass loss with no impact from the field lines as they are parallel to the motions. Radiative forces are affected by the magnetic field as discussed above.

Babel & Michaud (1991a) produced a parameter free model for the star 53 Cam that showed that simple diffusion is not sufficient to reproduce the observed surface abundance inhomogeneities and that another physical process, most probably mass loss, is needed. They estimated that a mass loss of the order of $`10^{12}`$-$`10^{14}`$ M$``$ yr-1 is required. Mass loss of that order would be typical of A stars in general, magnetic or not. Babel (1993) added mass loss to the model and claims to reproduce the observations qualitatively. Vauclair, Dolez, & Gough (1991) examined the behavior of helium at the poles of an Ap star to see if enough helium could be maintained in superficial regions to account for the pulsations of roAp stars (helium has a very small $`g_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ at normal abundances and therefore always settles). They show that a helium reservoir can indeed be maintained with a mass loss of the order of $`10^{13}`$ M$``$ yr-1.

The composition of He depends only on the strength of the mass loss, but for other elements a lot will depend on the profile of the radiative acceleration for each species. Some species may be preferentially lost in the wind while others will accumulate in the line forming regions. Species that aren’t radiatively supported in the upper atmosphere will not be dragged by a metallic wind in which H and He are not expelled (Babel 1994).

In such models the mass loss rate is essentially a free parameter since the values needed to affect diffusion are below the threshold of detectability. However, Ap stars offer the opportunity of constraining the mass loss by comparing predicted and observed polar abundances, provided the radiative accelerations are known with sufficient accuracy.

Recently, an effort has been initiated (Michaud et al. 2002) where consistent diffusion of multiple species as has been done in non-magnetic stars for several years (Richer et al. 2000, and references therein). Their calculations do not take the effects of magnetism on diffusion apart from a reduction in mixing relative to Am stars.

### 3.2. Magnetic Equator - Horizontal Field Lines

Wherever the field lines are nearly horizontal, convection is thought to occur but mass loss is not. The magnetic field should stabilize the atmosphere and allow stratification to form above the convection zone. Ions and neutrals will behave differently as the vertical motions cross field lines.

The magnetic fields in Ap stars are low enough so that their effect on diffusion is expected to be limited to the most superficial regions of the stars. Horizontal fields stronger than $`10^5`$ G would be needed to prevent species from being pushed upward in the line forming region (Michaud et al. 1981).

As a result, elements that are not radiatively supported, such as He or O, will be depleted from the equatorial regions. Elements that are pushed outward by the radiative forces will likely be trapped by the field lines and will accumulate and be observed as being overabundant.

In the cases where there is a large fraction of neutrals and where the neutral and ions do not behave similarly, i.e. the neutral being supported and ions not and vice versa, the net effect can be more complicated. For elements where the neutral is radiatively supported but the first ionized state is not, the case of Si is discussed by Michaud et al. (1981), the neutral population would be pushed upward across the field lines but the ionized population would settle. When it does so its vertical drift will be impeded by the field lines. It would tend to diffuse horizontally, and form a band around the region where the field lines are horizontal. This effect would only be seen if the reservoir for that element is limited, meaning that the element would be radiatively supported only in the upper fraction of the envelope.

The detailed distribution of elements in equatorial or intermediate regions (i.e. where the field is horizontal or oblique) will depend heavily on the details of horizontal diffusion, which remains uncertain.

## 4. Conclusion

Theoretical predictions for the vertical and horizontal stratification in Ap/Bp stars are now starting to become more precise. However much still lies ahead before the predictions can be considered reliable. Some recent observations of abundance patterns in Ap stars can’t be easily reconciled with current theoretical expectations (e.g. Strasser, Landstreet, & Mathys 2001 for HD 187474). They present evidence of polar overabundances of some elements (Si, Cr, Mn), elements that are expected to supported by radiative pressure and therefore should be lost to the wind. On the other hand they find other abundances that are in good agreement with theoretical expectations, e.g. oxygen depletion, enrichment in rare earth elements. As they point out, the absence of detailed models prevents meaningful comparisons with their observations.

Alecian & Stift (2002) show that one must be wary of any theoretical predictions based on incomplete models. Nonetheless, as more physics is incorporated in the models, and improved atomic data lead to more accurate diffusion coefficients and radiative accelerations, comparing the models to the observations will help us understand how convection and mixing is affected by magnetism and how mass loss takes place in A stars.

A major modeling effort needs to be done to couple the observations to the underlying physical processes. taking into account the 3-D transport processes and radiative transfer requires a large code development effort which is however possible given today’s computing power.

#### Acknowledgments.

I wish to thank Georges Michaud for his helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of this paper. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration by the University of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract No.W-7405-Eng-48.

## References

Alecian, G., & Stift, M. J. 2002, A&A, 387, 271

Babel, J. 1993, in Peculiar Versus Normal Phenomena in A-Type and Related Stars, ASP Conf. Ser. 44, eds M. M. Dworetsky, F. Castelli, & R. Faraggiana (ASP:San Francisco), 458

Babel, J. 1994, A&A, 301, 823

Babel, J., & Michaud, G. 1991a, ApJ, 366, 560

Babel, J., & Michaud, G. 1991b, A&A, 241, 493

Babel, J., & Michaud, G. 1991c, A&A, 248, 135

Balmforth, N. J., Cunha, M. S., Dolez, N., Gough, D. O., & Vauclair, S. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 362

Borsenberger, J., Michaud, G., & Praderie, F. 1981, ApJ, 243, 533

Fontaine, G., & Michaud, G. 1979, ApJ, 231, 826

Hatzes, A. P. 1996, in Stellar Surface Structure, IAU Symp. 176, eds K. G. Strassmeier & J. L. Linsky (Kluwer:Dordrecht), 305

Kushnig, R., Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Weiss, W. W., & Gelbmann, M. J. 1999, A&A, 348, 924

LeBlanc, F., & Michaud, G. 1993, ApJ, 408, 251

Michaud, G., Charland, Y., Vauclair, S., & Vauclair, G. 1976, ApJ, 210, 447

Michaud, G., Mégessier, C., & Charland, Y. 1981, A&A, 103, 244

Michaud, G., Brassard, P., Richer, J., Richard, O., & Fontaine, G. 2002, in Radial and Nonradial Pulsations as Probes of Stellar Physics, ASP Conf. Ser. 259, eds C. Aerts, T. R. Bedding, & J. Christensen-Dalsgaard (ASP: San Francisco), 288

Michaud, G., Vauclair, G., & Vauclair, S. 1983, ApJ, 267, 256

Proffitt, C. R., & Michaud, G. 1991, ApJ, 371, 584

Richer, J., Michaud, G., Iglesias, C. A., Rogers, F. J., Turcotte, S., & LeBlanc, F. 1998, ApJ, 492, 833

Richer, J., Michaud, G., & Turcotte, S., 2000, ApJ, 529, 338

Ryabchikova, T. A. 1991, in Evolution of Stars: The Photospheric Abundances Connection, IAU symp. 145, eds G. Michaud & A. Tutukov (Kluwer: Dordrecht), 149

Ryabchikova, T. A., Piskunov, N. E., Kochukov, O., Tsymbal, V., Mittermayer, P., & Weiss, W. W. 2002, A&A, 384, 545

Vauclair, S., Dolez, N., & Gough, D. O. 1991, A&A, 252, 618

## Discussion

Ryabchikova: Do you expect different abundance profiles for example, for Fe-peak elements, in Ap and Am star of the same effective temperature?

Turcotte: Abundance profiles are expected to differ in Ap and Am stars of the same temperature mainly because the atmospheres of Am stars is thought to be mixed, as the hydrogen convection zones in Am stars are not suppressed by magnetic fields. In Ap stars, where the atmosphere is not mixed, stratification occurs. In the interior, one should expect that diffusion in Ap stars will occur as in Am stars because the magnetic field is expected to be too small to have a significant effect.

Cally: In magnetic stars with complex magnetic structure in the atmosphere, we might expect a hierarchy of different closed magnetic loop structures. Might this lead to horizontal chemical inhomogeneities at the footprints, since we might expect more settling in high loops compared to that in low loops?

Turcotte: Wherever such loops exist we would expect the inhomogeneities to reflect the structure of the magnetic field, whatever the geometry. One would need much better modeling than available to make specific predictions.


text:
# Born renormalization in classical Maxwell electrodynamics

## 1 Introduction

Classical, relativistic electrodynamics is unable to describe interaction between charged particles, intermediated by electromagnetic field. Indeed, typical well posed problems of the theory are of the contradictory nature: either we may solve partial differential equations for the field, with particle trajectories providing sources (given a priori !), or we may solve ordinary differential equations for the trajectories of test particles, with fields providing forces (given a priori !). Combining these two procedures into a single theory leads to a contradiction: Lorentz force due to self-interaction is infinite in case of a point particle. Replacing point particle by an extended object is not a good remedy for this disease because it requires a field-theoretical description of the interior of the particle (rigid spheres do not exist in relativity!). This means that the three degrees of freedom of the particle must be replaced by an infinite number of degrees of freedom of the matter fields constituting the particle. Moreover, a highly nonlinear model for the interaction of these fields must be chosen in order to assure the stability of such an object. As a consequence, there is no hope for an effective theory.

There were many attempts to overcome these difficulties. One of them consists in using the Lorentz–Dirac equation, see ,,. Here, an effective force by which the retarded solution computed for a given particle trajectory acts on that particle is postulated (the remaining field is finite and acts by the usual Lorentz force). Unfortunately, this equation has many drawbacks (cf. Section 8 of ). See also  for another approach to this problem.

In papers  and  a mathematically consistent theory of the physical system “particle(s) + fields” was proposed, which overcomes most of the above difficulties even if some problems still remain. The theory may be defined as follows. We consider a system consisting of charged point particles and the electromagnetic field $`f_{\mu \nu }`$. We always assume that the latter fulfills Maxwell equations with Dirac ,,delta-like” currents defined uniquely by the particle trajectories. Given such a system, we are able to define its total ,,renormalized four-momentum”. For a generic choice of fields and particle trajectories this quantity is not conserved. Its conservation is an additional condition which we impose on the system. It provides us the missing ,,equations of motion” for the trajectories and makes the system mathematically closed (cf. ).

Definition of the renormalized four-momentum of the system composed of fields and particles, proposed in , was based on the following reasoning. Outside of the particles, the contribution to the total four–momentum carried by the Maxwell field $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by integrals of the Maxwell energy–momentum tensor–density

$$T^{\mu \nu }=T^{\mu \nu }(f)=\sqrt{g}(f^{\mu \lambda }f_\lambda ^\nu \frac{1}{4}g^{\mu \nu }f^{\kappa \lambda }f_{\kappa \lambda })$$
(1)
over a space–like hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (the notation is prepared for working in curvilinear coordinates). Unfortunately, the total integral of this quantity is divergent because of the field singularities at the particle’s positions. The idea proposed in  is to consider for each particle a fictitious “reference particle” which moves uniformly along a straight line tangent to the trajectory of the real particle at the point of intersection with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The constant velocity u of this hypothetical particle is thus equal to the instantaneous velocity of the real particle at the point of intersection. Give a label $`(i)`$ to each of those hypothetical particles and consider the corresponding Coulomb field $`f_{(i)}^C`$ boosted to velocity $`\text{u}_{(i)}`$. In the rest frame of the $`(i)`$-th particle, the magnetic and electric components of this field may be written as

$$B_{(i)}^C=0,(D_{(i)}^C)^k=\frac{e_{(i)}}{4\pi }\frac{x^k}{r^3}.$$
(2)
The “reference particle” has the same charge $`e_{(i)}`$ and the same rest mass $`m_{(i)}`$ as the real particle. By the mass we mean, however, not the “bare mass”, which must later be “dressed” with the energy of its Coulomb tail (which always leads to infinities during renormalization procedure), but the total energy of the composed system “particle + field” at rest. Hence, the total four–momentum of the $`i`$’th reference particle (together with its field $`f_{(i)}^C`$) equals

$$p_{(i)}^\nu =m_{(i)}u_{(i)}^\nu .$$
(3)
Now, to define the renormalized four-momentum $`p^{C\nu }`$ carried by the particles and the field $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ surrounding them, we split the energy-momentum density $`T(f)`$ into the sum of the reference densities $`T(f_{(i)}^C)`$ and the remaining term. According to , the remaining term is integrable (more strictly, the principal value of the integral exists), while $`T(f_{(i)}^C)`$ terms are already “taken into account” in the four–momenta $`m_{(i)}\text{u}_{(i)}`$ of the particles (computed at the points of intersection). Hence, the “Coulomb–renormalized four–momentum” of the system is defined by the following formula:

$$p^{C\nu }:=P_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left[T^{\mu \nu }(f)\underset{i}{}T^{\mu \nu }(f_{(i)}^C)\right]𝑑\sigma _\mu +\underset{i}{}m_{(i)}u_{(i)}^\nu .$$
(4)
It was proved in  that $`p^{C\nu }`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ only through the points $`A_i`$ of intersection of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the trajectories. Next, one postulates that $`p^{C\nu }`$ doesn’t depend on those points. This condition implies the dynamics of the particles  and makes the evolution of the system unique (cf. ).

The above theory is not completely satisfactory, because the subtraction of $`T(f_{(i)}^C)`$ in (4) kills only terms which behave like $`r^4`$, while the $`r^3`$-terms remain in (4) and are integrated with $`r^2dr`$ (for simplicity we assume here that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ near the particle corresponds to $`x^0=`$ const. in the rest frame). This phenomenon is implied by the analysis of the Maxwell field behaviour in the vicinity of the particle, cf. (5) or Section 5 of . It leads to logarithmic divergencies which disappear only due to the principal value sign $`P`$ in front of the integral (4). That sign means that we first compute the integral over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒰`$, where $`𝒰=𝒰_i`$ and $`𝒰_i`$ is a small symmetric neighbourhood of the i-th particle and then we pass to the limit with $`𝒰_i`$ shrinking to the point: $`𝒰_iA_i`$. The symmetry is necessary to kill the $`r^3`$-term under integration because it is anti-symmetric.

The main result of the present paper is a new, improved renormalization procedure, which does not rely on the symmetry of $`𝒰_i`$. We call this new procedure a Born renormalization, because the Coulomb reference for a moving particle, matching only its velocity, is here replaced by the Born solution, matching both the velocity and the acceleration of the particle.

We are going to prove in the sequel, that the four-momentum defined via the Coulomb–renormalization is a special case of the result obtained via Born–renormalization, while the physical interpretation of the latter is more natural: all the integrals occurring here are uniquely defined without any use of the principal value sign. Moreover, the ultra-local dependence of the four-momentum upon the acceleration of the particle, implied by the Born renormalization, will change the equations of motion of the particles. That dependence may be also a key to the instability problem of the theory (with an appropriate dependence of the involved functions on the acceleration). We prove in Section 6 that, disregarding this dependence, we recover the previous Coulomb-renormalized formulae.

Our results are based on an analysis of the behaviour of the Maxwell field in the vicinity of the particles done in papers ,  (cf. also ). Although the asymptotic behaviour of the radiation field far away from the sources may be found in any textbook, the “near-field” behaviour is less known. The main observation is that – for any choice of particle trajectories – the difference between the retarded and the advanced solution is bounded (in the vicinity of the particles). Hence, we restrict our considerations to the fields which differ from the particle’s retarded (or advanced) field by a term which is bounded in the vicinity of that particle. We also assume that the field at spatial infinity, i.e. for $`r\mathrm{}`$, is at most of the order of $`r^2`$. Fields fulfilling those requirements are called regular. In the particle’s rest frame, regular fields have the following behaviour near the particle (cf. (25) of ):

$$B^k=\stackrel{~}{B}^k,D^k=(D^s)^k+\stackrel{~}{D}^k,(D^s)^k=\frac{e}{4\pi }\frac{x^k}{r^3}\frac{e}{8\pi r}\left(a_i\frac{x^ix^k}{r^2}+a^k\right),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{D}`$ are bounded and $`a^k`$ are the components of the acceleration of the particle. Above formulae may be proved for the retarded field using Lienard–Wiechert potentials (cf. ,,)111We use this opportunity to correct a missprint in formulae (77)–(79) of : the right hand sides should be multiplied by $`r`$ and the indices below $`B`$ on the left hand sides should be increased by one. Correct formulae for the arithmetic mean of the retarded and the advanced fields may be found in . . Hence, they are valid for all regular fields.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Sections 2 and 3 we recall and investigate the Fermi–propagated system of coordinates and the Born solution. In Sections 4–7 we restrict ourselves (for simplicity) to the case of a single particle interacting with the field (A straightforward generalization of these results to the case of many particles is given in Section 8. This generalization does not require any new ingredient because interaction between particles is intermediated via linear Maxwell field.) In Section 4 we define the Born–renormalized four–momentum $`p^{B\nu }`$ of the system and prove that it depends on the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ through the point of intersection with the trajectory only. In Section 5 we assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ near the trajectory coincides with the $`x^0=`$ const. in the Fermi system which allows us to find an explicit expression for $`p^{B\nu }`$. In Section 6 we compare $`p^{B\nu }`$ with the Coulomb–renormalized $`p^{C\nu }`$ of . The difference of the two is a function of four–velocity and acceleration at the point of intersection. In Section 7 we extend the results of Sections 4–6 to the case of the angular momentum tensor. The fall-off conditions at spatial infinity and technical details of the proofs are presented in Appendices.

We stress that our approach to renormalization never uses any cancellation procedure of the type ”$`+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$”. Here, everything is finite from the very beginning and the point particle is understood as a mathematical model, approximating a realistic, physical particle which is assumed to be extended. To formulate such a model one has to abandon the idea of a point particle “floating over the field” but rather treat it as a tiny “strong field region” (its internal dynamics is unknown but – probably – highly nonlinear), surrounded by the “week field region”, governed by the linear Maxwell theory. The strong field region (particle’s interior) interacts with the field via its boundary conditions. In other words: the idea to divide “horizontally” the total energy of the system into: 1) the “true material energy” + 2) the free field energy and, finally, 3) the interaction energy which adds to the previous two contributions, must be rejected from the very beginning. Such a splitting, which is possible for linear systems, makes no sense in case of a realistic particle. In our approach, only “vertical” splitting of the energy into contributions contained in disjoint space regions, separated by a chosen boundary, makes sense because of the locality properties of the theory.

The main advantage of the theory constructed this way is its universality: the final result does not depend upon a specific structure of the particle’s interior, which we want to approximate. Moreover (what is even more important!), it does not depend upon a choice of the hypothetical ,,boundary” which we have used to separate the the strong field region from the weak field region: the only assumption is that it is small with respect to characteristic length of the external field.

## 2 The Fermi–propagated system

In this Section we recall and investigate the properties of the Fermi–propagated system of coordinates. It is a non–inertial system such that the particle is at rest at each instant of time. The use of the Fermi system simplifies considerably description of the field boundary conditions in the vicinity of the particle, given by (5) and (2). The price we pay for this simplification is a bit more complicated (with respect to the inertial system) description of the field dynamics, cf. , .

Let $`y^\lambda `$, $`\lambda =0,1,2,3`$, denote the (Minkowski) spacetime coordinates in a fixed inertial (‘laboratory’) system. By $`𝐟_\lambda =\frac{}{y^\lambda }`$ we denote the corresponding orthonormal basis for the metric tensor $`\eta =\mathrm{diag}(,+,+,+)`$. Let $`q^\lambda (t)=(t,q^k(t))`$ be a particle’s trajectory and $`\tau =\tau (t)`$ be the particle’s proper time. Then $`\frac{d\tau }{dt}=(1v^2)^{1/2}`$ where $`v^k=\dot{q}^k`$ (dot denotes the derivative w.r.t. $`t`$). The normalized four–velocity is given by: $`\text{u}=\frac{dq}{d\tau }=((1v^2)^{1/2},(1v^2)^{1/2}v^k)`$ and the particle’s acceleration $`\text{a}=\frac{d\text{u}}{d\tau }=\frac{d^2q}{d\tau ^2}`$. Clearly, $`(\text{u}|\text{a})=0.`$

We define the rest-frame space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ as the hyperplane orthogonal to the trajectory (i.e. to $`𝐞_{(0)}=\text{u}`$) at $`q(t)`$. Choose any orthonormal basis $`𝐞_{(l)}`$, $`l=1,2,3`$, in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, such that $`𝐞_{(\mu )}`$ are positively oriented. Thus $`(𝐞_{(\alpha )}|𝐞_{(\beta )})=\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$. Denote by $`𝐞_{(l)}(t)=(c_l(t),d_l^k(t))`$, $`l=1,2,3`$ the laboratory components of the triad. We define a new system of coordinates $`x^\mu =(\tau ,x^l)`$ putting $`y^\lambda =q^\lambda (t)+x^le_{(l)}^\lambda (t)`$. This is only a local system, defined in a vicinity of the trajectory. For fixed $`\tau `$ (or $`t`$), $`y`$ cover the entire $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and the particle remains always at the origin $`x^l=0`$. In coordinates $`(x^\mu )`$ the metric tensor equals $`g_{\mu \nu }=(\frac{}{x^\mu }|\frac{}{x^\nu })`$ where $`\frac{}{x^\mu }\frac{y}{x^\mu }`$. In particular, $`\frac{}{\tau }=\text{u}+x^l\frac{d𝐞_{(l)}}{d\tau }`$, $`\frac{}{x^l}=𝐞_{(l)}`$. Thus $`g_{kl}=\delta _{kl}`$. Orthogonality condition $`(𝐞_{(l)}|\text{u})0`$ implies the following identity: $`\frac{d}{d\tau }(𝐞_{(l)}|\text{u})=0`$ which means that $`(\frac{d𝐞_{(l)}}{d\tau }|\text{u})=(𝐞_{(l)}|\frac{d\text{u}}{d\tau })=(𝐞_{(l)}|\text{a})=a_l`$, where $`a_l𝐞_{(l)}=\text{a}`$.

Fermi frame is defined by the following constraint imposed on the triad $`𝐞_{(l)}`$: $`g_{0l}N_l=0`$. This implies that $`\frac{d𝐞_{(l)}}{d\tau }`$ is proportional to u, $`\frac{d𝐞_{(l)}}{d\tau }=a_l\text{u}`$ and determines the propagation of $`𝐞_{(l)}`$ uniquely (provided they are given for $`t=t_0`$) and consistently (one has $`\frac{d}{d\tau }(𝐞_{(\mu )}|𝐞_{(\nu )})=0`$). This condition implies $`\dot{c}_l=a_l`$, $`\dot{d}_l^k=v^ka_l`$. Moreover, one has $`\frac{}{\tau }=N𝐞_{(0)}`$, where $`N=1+a_lx^l`$. Thus $`g_{00}=(N𝐞_{(0)}|N𝐞_{(0)})=N^2`$ (i.e., N is the lapse function).

In this Fermi–propagated system the field $`f`$ is related to the electric and magnetic fields by (cf. (5)–(6) of )

$$f^{0k}=N^1D^k,f^{kl}=ϵ^{klm}B_m.$$

Sometimes it is more convenient to use nonholonomic field coordinates $`f^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$, calculated w.r.t. the tetrad $`𝐞_{(\alpha )}`$. They are related to $`f^{\mu \nu }`$ by $`f^{\mu \nu }=e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\nu f^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$ where $`\mu ,\nu `$ are taken w.r.t. $`(y^\lambda )`$ or, alternatively, w.r.t. $`(x^\lambda )`$. In the latter case one has $`e_{(l)}^k=\delta _l^k`$, $`e_{(0)}^k=e_{(k)}^0=0`$, $`e_{(0)}^0=N^1`$, which gives $`f^{(0)(k)}=D^k`$, $`f^{(k)(l)}=ϵ^{klm}B_m`$, like in the laboratory frame. Also $`g_{(\alpha )(\beta )}=(𝐞_{(\alpha )}|𝐞_{(\beta )})=\eta _{\alpha \beta }`$. Thus $`T^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$ has the same form as in the laboratory:

$$\begin{array}{c}T^{(0)(0)}=\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2),T^{(0)(k)}=T^{(k)(0)}=(D\times B)^k,\hfill \\ T^{(k)(l)}=D^kD^lB^kB^l+\frac{1}{2}\delta ^{kl}(D^2+B^2).\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(6)
We shall use the following

Proposition. When integrating over $`𝒪\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, one can put (in any system of coordinates)

$$e_{(\alpha )}^\mu d\sigma _\mu =\delta _{\alpha 0}d\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the volume element for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and $`d\sigma _\mu `$ are the basic three–volume forms.

Proof. Taking the laboratory frame, $`e_{(\alpha )}^\mu d\sigma _\mu =e_{(\alpha )}^\mu \frac{}{y^\mu }dy^0dy^1dy^2dy^3=𝐞_{(\alpha )}𝐞^{(0)}𝐞^{(1)}𝐞^{(2)}𝐞^{(3)}`$ equals $`𝐞^{(1)}𝐞^{(2)}𝐞^{(3)}=d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for $`\alpha =0`$, but for $`\alpha 0`$ it contains $`𝐞^{(0)}`$, hence it vanishes when we integrate over $`𝒪\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. Q.E.D.

Now consider the laboratory frame. On each hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ we introduce coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{y}^\lambda =y^\lambda q^\lambda (t)=x^le_{(l)}^\lambda `$ calculated w.r.t. the particle and we decompose the angular momentum tensor–density

$$^{\mu \nu \lambda }=y^\nu T^{\mu \lambda }y^\lambda T^{\mu \nu }$$
(7)
as follows:

$$^{\mu \nu \lambda }=\stackrel{~}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }+q^\nu T^{\mu \lambda }q^\lambda T^{\mu \nu },$$
(8)
$$\stackrel{~}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }=\stackrel{~}{y}^\nu T^{\mu \lambda }\stackrel{~}{y}^\lambda T^{\mu \nu }.$$
(9)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ computed at $`y`$ is the angular momentum tensor–density w.r.t. the position of the particle $`q(t)`$ such that $`y`$ belongs to the hyparplane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ with $`q(t)`$ at its origin.

Integrating over $`𝒪\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ one may use the nonholonomic coordinates $`T^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$ (cf. Proposition and (6)):

$$T^{\mu \nu }d\sigma _\mu =e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\nu T^{(\alpha )(\beta )}d\sigma _\mu =e_{(\beta )}^\nu T^{(0)(\beta )}d\mathrm{\Sigma },$$

$$T^{\mu \nu }d\sigma _\mu =e_{(0)}^\nu \frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }+e_{(k)}^\nu (D\times B)^kd\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(10)
$$\stackrel{~}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }d\sigma _\mu =(x^le_{(l)}^\nu e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\lambda T^{(\alpha )(\beta )}x^le_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\nu T^{(\alpha )(\beta )})d\sigma _\mu $$

$$=x^l(e_{(l)}^\nu e_{(\beta )}^\lambda e_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(\beta )}^\nu )T^{(0)(\beta )}d\mathrm{\Sigma },$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }d\sigma _\mu =(e_{(l)}^\nu e_{(0)}^\lambda e_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(0)}^\nu )x^l\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }+\hfill \\ (e_{(l)}^\nu e_{(k)}^\lambda e_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(k)}^\nu )x^l(D\times B)^kd\mathrm{\Sigma }.\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(11)
## 3 The Born solution

Consider a uniformly accelerated particle, i.e. $`a_l=\mathrm{const}.`$ We have: $`\frac{d\text{u}}{d\tau }=a_l𝐞_{(l)}`$, $`\frac{d𝐞_{(l)}}{d\tau }=a_l\text{u}`$, which determines its trajectory (a hyperbola) and its Fermi-propagated system uniquely, provided $`q(0)=0`$ and the initial data $`a_l`$, $`𝐞_{(l)}`$, $`𝐮`$ are given. The propagation may be obtained by action of the one-parameter group $`𝒢`$ of proper Lorentz transformations (boosts) on initial data. The group $`𝒢`$ leaves invariant the point $`e_{(l)}(0)a^l/a^2`$, where $`a=|\text{a}|`$.

We may use a time-independent 3-rotation from $`𝐞_{(l)}`$ to a new triad $`𝐛_{(l)}`$, such that the acceleration $`𝐚`$ is proportional to the third axis: $`a^l𝐞_{(l)}\text{a}=a𝐛_{(3)}`$. Denote the corresponding Fermi–propagated coordinates by $`x^l`$ (for $`𝐞_{(l)}`$) and by $`z^l`$ (for $`𝐛_{(l)}`$). The spherical coordinates related to $`z^l`$ are called $`r,\theta ,\varphi `$. The Born solution of Maxwell equations with a delta-like source carried by the particle (cf. ,, Section 3.3 of  and ) reduces in these coordinates to the following time–independent expression:

$$D_r=\frac{e}{\pi r^2}\frac{2+ar\mathrm{cos}\theta }{(a^2r^2+4+4ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{3/2}},$$
(12)
$$D_\theta =\frac{e}{\pi r^2}\frac{ar\mathrm{sin}\theta }{(a^2r^2+4+4ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{3/2}},$$
(13)
$$D_\varphi =B_r=B_\theta =B_\varphi =0.$$
(14)
The electric field $`D`$ is singular not only at $`r=0`$, where it behaves as in (5) with $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ bounded (cf. ), but also for $`r=2/a`$, $`\theta =\pi `$. It turns out that the solution describes two symmetric particles with opposite charges and opposite accelerations. Actually, the Born solution may be defined as a unique solution of the problem which is invariant with respect to the symmmetry group $`𝒢`$ of the problem and satisfies other natural assumptions (cf. ,).

The Fermi propagation consists in acting with the Lorentz rotations (boosts) $`g𝒢`$ on the hyperplanes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$. This action leaves the 2-plane $`𝔭:=\left\{N=0\right\}=\left\{z^3=\frac{1}{a}\right\}`$ invariant. The plane splits each $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ into two half–hyperplanes. Denote by $`P_\tau =\{x\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau :z^3>\frac{1}{a}\}`$ the one which contains our original particle situated at $`r=0`$.

Assume that $`𝒪P_\tau `$ is a small region around the particle described by $`r<R(\theta ,\varphi )`$ where the latter is a given function. In Section 5 we shall need

Proposition.

$$\begin{array}{c}_{P_\tau \backslash 𝒪}\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }=_E\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2r^2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta drd\theta d\varphi }{(a^2r^2+4+4ar\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}\hfill \\ =\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}_{S^2}\{\frac{1}{16R(\theta ,\varphi )}+\frac{1}{8}a\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))+O(R)\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi ,\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(15)
where $`E=P_\tau \backslash 𝒪=\{(r,\theta ,\varphi ):rR(\theta ,\varphi ),r\mathrm{cos}\theta >1/a\}`$ (in spherical coordinates).

$$\begin{array}{c}_{P_\tau \backslash 𝒪}z^k\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ =\frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2}_{S^2}\{\mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\frac{z^k}{r}+O(R)\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \frac{e^2}{8\pi }\delta _{3k}.\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(16)
Proof. By lengthy but standard computations. Q.E.D.

The above result can be reformulated using the following construction. For $`G=_kr^kf_k(\theta ,\varphi )`$ we define its singular part $`G_s=_kr^kf_k(\theta ,\varphi )1_{[0,d_k]}(r)`$ where $`d_k=0`$ for $`k>3`$, $`d_k=1/a`$ for $`k=3`$, $`d_k=+\mathrm{}`$ for $`k<3`$ ($`1_B`$ is a characteristic function of a set $`B`$, i.e. $`1_B(y)=0`$ for $`yB`$, $`1_B(y)=1`$ for $`yB`$). Then (cf.(5))

$$\frac{1}{2}[(D^s)^2]_s=\frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\frac{2a\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^3}1_{[0,1/a]}\right),$$
(17)
$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}\frac{1}{2}[(D^s)^2]_s𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}_{S^2}\left\{\frac{1}{16R(\theta ,\varphi )}+\frac{1}{8}a\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\right\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi ,$$
(18)
$$\left[\frac{1}{2}z^k(D^s)^2\right]_s=\frac{e^2z^k}{32\pi ^2r^4}1_{[0,1/a]},$$
(19)
$$_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}\left[\frac{1}{2}z^k(D^s)^2\right]_s𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2}_{S^2}\mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\frac{z^k}{r}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi .$$
(20)
## 4 The Born-renormalized four-momentum

Throughout the paper we assume that the particle has no internal degrees of freedom, i. e. it is completely characterized by its charge $`e`$ and mass $`m`$. Consider a regular Maxwell field $`f`$ consistent with the trajectory of the particle (cf. Section 1). We fix a point $`A`$ on its trajectory, corresponding to given values of the proper time $`\tau `$, four–velocity u and acceleration a.

Formula (4) for the Coulomb-renormalized four-momentum was based on the following heuristic picture: A real, physical particle is an extended object, an exact solution of the complete system: “matter fields + electromagnetic field”. The reference particle (passing through $`A`$ and moving with the constant four–velocity $`𝐮`$) is also an exact, stable solution of the same system, which, moreover, is static (,,soliton-like”). Outside of a certain small radius $`r_0`$ the matter fields vanish and the electromagnetic field reduces to the Coulomb field $`f^C`$. Hence, for $`𝒰`$ which is very small from the macroscopic point of view but still big from the microscopic point of view (i.e. much bigger than the ball $`K(A,r_0)`$ around the particle), the total amount of the four-momentum carried by the soliton solution and contained in $`𝒰`$ equals:

$$p^{C\nu }(𝒰)=mu^\nu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒰}T^{\mu \nu }(f^C)𝑑\sigma _\mu .$$
(21)
The stability assumption means, that for the real particle surrounded by the field $`f`$, the amount of the four-momentum contained in $`𝒰`$ does not differ considerably from the above quantity, provided $`𝒰`$ is very small with respect to the characteristic length of $`f`$. Together with the amount of the four-momentum contained outside of $`𝒰`$:

$$p^\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒰)=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒰}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu ,$$
(22)
quantity (21) provides, therefore, a good approximation of the total four-momentum of the “extended particle + electromagnetic field” system:

$$p^\nu _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒰}\left[T^{\mu \nu }(f)d\sigma _\mu T^{\mu \nu }(f^C)\right]+mu^\nu .$$
(23)
Treating the point particle as an idealization of the extended particle model and applying the above idea, we may shrink $`𝒰`$ to a point, i. e. $`𝒰A`$, with respect to the macroscopic scale (but keeping $`𝒰`$ always very big with respect to the microscopic scale $`r_0`$). This procedure – in case of many particles – gives us precisely formula (4).

Now, we assume that also the Born solution has its “extended-particle version”. More precisely, we assume that the total system: “matter fields + electromagnetic field”, admits a stable, stationary (with respect to the one-parameter group $`𝒢`$ of boosts) solution, which coincides with the Born field $`f^B`$ outside of a certain small radius $`r_0`$ around the particles. This solution represents a pair of uniformly accelerated particles. Denote by $`P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})`$ the amount of the total four-momentum carried by this solution in the half-hyperplane $`P_\tau `$. Hence, the amount of the four-momentum contained in $`𝒰`$ equals:

$$p^{B\nu }(𝒰)=P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})_{P_\tau \backslash 𝒰}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu .$$
(24)
Replacing (21) by (24) in formula (23), we obtain the following approximation for the total four-momentum:

$`p^\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒰}}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu {\displaystyle _{P_\tau \backslash 𝒰}}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu +P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu {\displaystyle _{P_\tau \backslash 𝒪}}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _{𝒪\backslash 𝒰}}\left[T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)\right]𝑑\sigma _\mu +P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a}),`$ (26)
where $`𝒪`$ is a fixed macroscopic neighbourhood of the particle, contained in $`P_\tau `$ and containing $`𝒰`$. Again, treating point particle as an idealization of the extended particle model and applying the above idea, we may pass to the limit $`𝒰A`$ with respect to the macroscopic scale (but keeping $`𝒰`$ always very big with respect to the microscopic scale $`r_0`$). Unlike in the Coulomb renormalization, the limit exists without any symmetry assumption about $`𝒰`$, because $`T(f)T(f^B)`$ behaves like $`r^2`$ in the vicinity of the particle (due to formulae (5), (6) and Section 3). Hence, we obtain the following

Definition. The renormalized four-momentum of the “point particle + electromagnetic field” system is given (in the laboratory system) by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill p^{B\nu }& :=& _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu _{P_\tau \backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu \hfill \\ & +& _𝒪\left[T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)\right]𝑑\sigma _\mu +P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a}).\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(27)
The Born field $`f^B`$ above is computed assuming that the proper time $`\tau `$, u, a and $`𝐞_{(l)}`$ at $`A`$ for both particles (real and uniformly accelerated) coincide. Thus they have the same hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ passing through $`A`$ and the same Fermi coordinates $`x^l`$ on it.

The right-hand side of (27) does not depend, obviously, upon a choice of $`𝒪P_\tau `$. On the grounds of symmetry we must have: $`P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})=m(a)u^\nu +p(a)a^\nu `$, where $`m(a)`$ and $`p(a)`$ are phenomenological functions of one variable $`a=|\text{a}|`$. We call (27) the Born-renormalized four-momentum of the system “point particle + Maxwell field”.

Unfortunately, the above definition cannot be directly generalized to the case of many particle system because, in general, there is no common rest-frame space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ for different particles. In what follows we shall rewrite the above definition in a way, which admits an obvious generalization to the case of many particles. For this purpose we replace $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ by an arbitrary spacelike hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is flat at infinity. More precisely, one has

Proposition. Quantity (27) may be rewritten as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}p^{B\nu }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +_𝒪[T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)]𝑑\sigma _\mu \hfill \\ _{P\backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu +P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`P`$ are any space–like hypersurfaces which coincide along some region $`𝒪`$ around $`A`$ (we assume that $`P`$ has boundary equal to $`𝔭=\{z^3=\frac{1}{a}\}`$, $`P`$ approximates $`P_\tau `$ at infinity and that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ approximates a space-like hyperplane at infinity)-cf. the figure below.

Definition. Hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as in the Proposition is called special if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ in a neighbourhood of $`A`$, i. e. if one can take $`P=P_\tau `$ (cf. the Noether theorem $`_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=0`$).

Idea of proof. First let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be special ($`P=P_\tau `$) and choose $`𝒪`$ contained in $`P_\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then the first terms in (27) and (28) coincide ($`f`$ is a solution of Maxwell equations, we use Noether theorem) and (28) holds. We can assume that in Fermi coordinates $`𝒪=K(A,R)`$, a ball with a small radius $`R`$. Next we can take any $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ as in the Proposition and denote the corresponding right hand side of (28) by $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{B\nu }`$. We need to prove $`p^{B\nu }=\stackrel{~}{p}^{B\nu }`$. Now we modify the interior of $`𝒪`$, thus replacing $`𝒪`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}`$ without changing its boundary, in such a way that small pieces of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ around $`A`$ coincide. It modifies $`p^{B\nu }`$ by

$$\left|\left(_𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}}\right)[T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)]d\sigma _\mu \right|2_0^RCr^2r^2𝑑r=2CR$$

(cf. Appendix B, $`C`$=const.). Next we replace $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^{}`$ by its small piece contained in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. Finally, we modify $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`P`$ outside of that small piece getting $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, which doesn’t change $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{B\nu }`$ because $`f,f^B`$ are solutions of the Maxwell equations (cf. the Noether theorem and the assumption before (5)). Thus $`p^{B\nu }`$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{B\nu }`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ differ by a term of order $`R`$. Taking the limit $`R0`$, we get $`\stackrel{~}{p}^{B\nu }=p^{B\nu }`$.

## 5 Explicit formula for the four–momentum

Here we specify the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (28) to be special (i.e. $`A𝒪\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$), $`P=P_\tau `$ (cf. Section 4) and choose the spherical coordinates related to a Fermi–propagated system as in Section 3.

Let $`𝒰𝒪`$ be given by $`r<R(\theta ,\varphi )`$. According to (10), (14) and (15),

$$_{P_\tau \backslash 𝒰}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)d\sigma _\mu =e_{(0)}^\nu \frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}_{S^2}\{\frac{1}{16R(\theta ,\varphi )}$$

$$+\frac{1}{8}a\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))+O(R)\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi .$$

Using (27),(10) and (18), the Born–renormalized four–momentum

$$p^{B\nu }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +[e_{(\lambda )}^\nu K^{(\lambda )}(𝒪)+P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})],$$
(29)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}K^{(0)}(𝒪)=lim_{𝒰0}[_{𝒪\backslash 𝒰}\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ \frac{e^2}{2\pi ^2}_{S^2}\{\frac{1}{16R(\theta ,\varphi )}+\frac{1}{8}a\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi ]\hfill \\ =_𝒪\{\frac{1}{2}(D^2+B^2)\frac{1}{2}[(D^s)^2]_s\}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}\frac{1}{2}[(D^s)^2]_s𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma },\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(30)
$$K^{(k)}(𝒪)=_𝒪(D\times B)^k𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(31)
Now $`𝒪`$ doesn’t need to be inside $`P_\tau `$ – only inside $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ – use (10) and (30)-(31).

## 6 Relation with the Coulomb–renormalization

According to (4) and (28), the difference between Born– and Coulomb–renormalized four–momentum

$$p^{B\nu }p^{C\nu }=mu^\nu +L^\nu ,$$

where

$$L^\nu =P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})+_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f^C)𝑑\sigma _\mu $$

$$+P_𝒪[T^{\mu \nu }(f^C)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)]𝑑\sigma _\mu _{P\backslash 𝒪}T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu ,$$

which looks like (28) but with the $`P`$ sign. Repeating the arguments of Section 5, we get for $`L^\nu `$ an analogue of (29)–(31), again with the $`P`$ sign and with $`D`$, $`B`$ replaced by $`D^C`$, $`B^C`$. Setting $`𝒪=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau =\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and using (2),(17), one obtains

$$L^\nu P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})=\underset{R0}{lim}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash K(R)}\{\frac{1}{2}(D^C)^2\frac{1}{2}[(D^s)^2]_s\}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$

Thus one gets

Proposition. Coulomb– and Born–renormalization of four–momentum give always the same result iff $`P^\nu (\text{u},\text{a})mu^\nu `$.

## 7 Born–renormalization of the angular momentum tensor

In analogy with (27) we define the Born–renormalized tensor of angular momentum

$$\begin{array}{c}M^{B\nu \lambda }:=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +_𝒪[^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^B)]𝑑\sigma _\mu \hfill \\ _{P\backslash 𝒪}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu +M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a})+\frac{e^2}{8\pi a}(u^\nu a^\lambda u^\lambda a^\nu ),\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(32)
where $``$ was defined in (7), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, $`P=P_\tau `$.

The above formula renormalizes the field infinity near the particle, leaving opened the standard convergence problems at spatial infinity ($`r\mathrm{}`$). We discuss briefly these issues in Appendix A. Here, we only mention that these global problems never arise, when the particle’s equations of motion are derived from the momentum and the angular momentum conservation. Indeed, the conservation condition may always be verified locally, i. e. on a family of hypersurfaces $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\tau `$ which coincide outside of a certain (spatially compact) world tube $`T`$. Comparing the value of angular momentum calculated on two different $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_\tau `$ never requires integration outside of $`T`$, because the far-away contributions are the same in both cases.

The last term in (32) could be incorporated into $`M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a})`$ but for the future convenience (see remark at the end of this Section) it was written separately. The sum of those two terms can be interpreted as the total angular–momentum of the particle dressed with the Born field. On the symmetry grounds $`𝐌(\text{u},\text{a})=(\text{u}\text{a})R(a)+(\text{u}\text{a})^{}S(a)`$ (one has $`(\text{u}\text{a})^{\nu \lambda }=u^\nu a^\lambda u^\lambda a^\nu `$, $`(\text{u}\text{a})^{}=(𝐞_{(0)}a𝐛_{(3)})^{}=a𝐛_{(1)}𝐛_{(2)}`$, cf. Section 3). Clearly (32) doesn’t depend on the choice of $`𝒪P`$. Using the Appendices and the Noether theorem $`_\mu ^{\mu \nu \lambda }=0`$, one proves (32) for general $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`P`$ as in Proposition of Section 4.

If we restrict ourselves to special hypersurfaces, then using (11), (16) and relation between $`x^k`$ and $`z^k`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ (Section 3), we get

$$_{P\backslash 𝒰}\stackrel{~}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^B)𝑑\sigma _\mu =(e_{(l)}^\nu e_{(0)}^\lambda e_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(0)}^\nu )$$

$$\times \left[\frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2}_{S^2}\{\mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\frac{x^l}{r}+O(R)\}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi \frac{e^2a^l}{8\pi a}\right],$$

where $`𝒰`$ is given by $`r<R(\theta ,\varphi )`$. Next, (32), (11) and (20) give (uncontinuous terms of $`\frac{a^\lambda }{a}`$ type cancel out!)

$$\begin{array}{c}M^{B\nu \lambda }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +(e_{(l)}^\nu e_{(\rho )}^\lambda e_{(l)}^\lambda e_{(\rho )}^\nu )L^{(l)(\rho )}(𝒪)\hfill \\ +[q^\nu (\tau )e_{(\rho )}^\lambda q^\lambda (\tau )e_{(\rho )}^\nu ]K^{(\rho )}(𝒪)+M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a}),\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(33)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}L^{(l)(0)}(𝒪)=lim_{𝒰0}[_{𝒪\backslash 𝒰}\frac{1}{2}x^l(D^2+B^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }+\hfill \\ \frac{e^2}{32\pi ^2}_{S^2}\mathrm{log}(aR(\theta ,\varphi ))\frac{x^l}{r}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\varphi ]\hfill \\ =_𝒪\left\{\frac{1}{2}x^l(D^2+B^2)\left[\frac{1}{2}x^l(D^s)^2\right]_s\right\}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }\hfill \\ _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \backslash 𝒪}\left[\frac{1}{2}x^l(D^s)^2\right]_s𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma },\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(34)
$$L^{(l)(k)}(𝒪)=_𝒪x^l(D\times B)^k𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(35)
Again $`𝒪`$ doesn’t need to be inside $`P`$.

Finally, comparing on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ the Born– and Coulomb–renormalization, i.e.

$$M^{C\nu \lambda }=P_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau }[^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^C)]𝑑\sigma _\mu $$

(cf. Appendix A), we get that $`M^{B\nu \lambda }M^{C\nu \lambda }`$ equals (32) for $`f=f^C`$ and the $`P`$ sign before the second term. Thus it equals (33) with $`D,B`$ in (30), (31), (34), (35) replaced by $`D^C`$, $`B^C`$ and the $`P`$ sign in (30). Setting $`𝒪=\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau =\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and using (2) and (19), $`M^{B\nu \lambda }M^{C\nu \lambda }=M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a})`$. Therefore both renormalizations give the same result iff $`M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a})=0`$. This equation was the reason to separate the last term in Definition (32) from $`M^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u},\text{a})`$.

## 8 The case of many particles

Here we extend the results of Sections 4–7 to the case of many particles. For the $`i`$-th particle we fix a point $`A_i`$ on its trajectory, corresponding to a proper time $`\tau _i`$. The space–like hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ passes through all $`A_i`$. At the beginning we assume that some regions $`𝒪_i\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ around $`A_i`$ are contained in $`P_{\tau _i}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _i}`$ corresponding to the $`i`$-th particle and that, asymptotically, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ approximates a space-like hyperplane (special hypersurface). The formula for the Born–renormalized four–momentum generalizes to:

$$\begin{array}{c}p^{B\nu }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪_i}T^{\mu \nu }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +_i_{𝒪_i}[T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f_{(i)}^B)]𝑑\sigma _\mu \hfill \\ _i_{P_{(i)}\backslash 𝒪_i}T^{\mu \nu }(f_{(i)}^B)d\sigma _\mu +_iP_{(i)}^\nu (\text{u}{}_{(i)}{}^{},\text{a}{}_{(i)}{}^{}),\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(36)
$`P_{(i)}=P_{\tau _i}`$ for the $`i`$-th particle. One proves the analogue of the Proposition of Section 4. For the special hypersurface (29) generalizes to:

$$p^{B\nu }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪_i}T^{\mu \nu }(f)d\sigma _\mu +\underset{i}{}[e_{(\lambda )}^\nu K^{(\lambda )}(𝒪_i)+P_{(i)}^\nu (\text{u}{}_{(i)}{}^{},\text{a}{}_{(i)}{}^{})],$$
(37)
where $`K^{(\lambda )}(𝒪_i)`$ are given as in (30)–(31) with $`𝒰_i`$ described by $`r<R_{(i)}(\theta ,\varphi )`$.

The comparison with the Coulomb renormalization gives

$$p^{B\nu }p^{C\nu }=\underset{i}{}\{m_{(i)}u_{(i)}^\nu +L_{(i)}^\nu \},$$

where $`L_{(i)}^\nu `$ are as in Section 6 and the analogue of the Proposition of Section 6 holds.

The Born–renormalized tensor of angular momentum takes now the form:

$$\begin{array}{c}M^{B\nu \lambda }=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪_i}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)𝑑\sigma _\mu +_i_{𝒪_i}[^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f_{(i)}^B)]𝑑\sigma _\mu \hfill \\ _i_{P_{(i)}\backslash 𝒪_i}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f_{(i)}^B)d\sigma _\mu +_i[M_{(i)}^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u}{}_{(i)}{}^{},\text{a}{}_{(i)}{}^{})+\frac{e_{(i)}^2}{8\pi a_{(i)}}(\text{u}{}_{(i)}{}^{}\text{a}{}_{(i)}{}^{})^{\nu \lambda }].\hfill \end{array}\}$$
(38)
The analogue of Proposition of Section 4 holds. What concerns (33), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪`$ is now replaced by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\backslash 𝒪_i`$ and one has $`_i`$ before the remaining $`i`$–dependent terms. For a special $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ one defines the Coulomb renormalization

$$M^{C\nu \lambda }=P_\mathrm{\Sigma }[^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)\underset{i}{}^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f_{(i)}^C)]𝑑\sigma _\mu $$
(39)
and shows that the both renormalizations give the same result iff $`M_{(i)}^{\nu \lambda }(\text{u}{}_{(i)}{}^{},\text{a}{}_{(i)}{}^{})0`$ for all $`i`$.

## Appendices

## Appendix A Field fall-off conditions at spatial infinity and a possibility to define global angular momentum

To define the four-momentum of the system, we assume that the field behaves at spatial infinity (i. e. for $`r\mathrm{}`$) like $`r^2`$. To define globally the angular momentum of the system, much stronger fall-off conditions are necessary. Here, we present a possible choice: we assume that the field behaves at spatial infinity like a superposition of boosted Coulomb fields (modulo $`r^3`$–terms). Then (for any space-like hyperplane) the angular momentum density behaves like an anti-symmetric $`r^3`$–term (modulo $`r^4`$–terms). This is sufficient to define global value of angular momentum using the “principal value” sign for integration at infinity. This means that we first integrate over spatially symmetric regions $`V\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of an asymptotically flat hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and then pass to the limit $`V\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The symmetry depends upon a choice of a central point $`x_0`$, but it is easy to check that the final result of such a procedure does not depend upon this choice. Moreover, the above asymptotic conditions allow us to change $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at infinity. Indeed, the difference between results obtained for different $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$’s equals to a surface integral at infinity which vanishes as a consequence of the assumed asymptotic conditions (cf. also ). We stress, however, that the renormalization proposed in the present paper cures the local and not global problems. Derivation of particle’s equations of motion from field equations does not rely on the global problems.

## Appendix B Approximation by the Born field near the trajectory

Suppose (cf. Section 4) that we have two trajectories: of a real particle $`p`$ and of the reference particle $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, which is uniformly accelerated. Both trajectories touch at $`A`$, where the proper times $`\tau _0`$, the four–velocities u, the accelerations a and $`𝐞_{(l)}`$ coincide. In general, the quantities related to $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ differ from those related to $`p`$ and are distinguished by tilde. Then $`A\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\tau _0}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\tau _0}`$, but for $`H`$ approaching $`A`$, one has $`H\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and in general $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Denote by $`r`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{r}`$) the radius of $`H`$ w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$). One has

Proposition. Suppose that $`H`$ belongs to a region of space–like directions w.r.t. $`A`$, which is separated from the light cone at $`A`$ and that $`H`$ approaches $`A`$. Then

1. $`r/\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}/r1`$
2. $`T^{\mu \nu }(f)T^{\mu \nu }(f^B)r^2`$
3. $`^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f)^{\mu \nu \lambda }(f^B)r^2`$

where $`f`$ is a Maxwell field related to $`p`$, $`f^B`$ is the Born solution related to $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$.

Idea of proof. We may set $`\tau _0=0`$, $`q(0)=0`$, $`u(0)=(1,0,0,0)`$, $`a(0)=\stackrel{~}{a}(0)`$. One has $`\mathrm{\Delta }a(\tau )a(\tau )\stackrel{~}{a}(\tau )\tau `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(\tau )\tau ^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(\tau )\tau ^3`$, the angle between $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ is of order $`\tau ^2`$. Denoting by $`\delta F`$ the difference of $`F`$ computed for $`H`$ w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ and w.r.t. $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and using geometric considerations, we get $`\tau Cr`$, $`\delta \tau r^3`$, $`\delta x^kr^3`$, $`\delta rr^3`$, $`\stackrel{~}{r}/r1=\delta r/rr^2`$, 1) follows. Using $`T^{\mu \nu }=e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\nu T^{(\alpha )(\beta )}`$, (6) and (5), one gets $`T^{\mu \nu }e_{(\alpha )}^\mu e_{(\beta )}^\nu (r^2+ar^1+C)^2r^4`$, $`\delta \frac{de_{(\alpha )}^\mu }{d\tau }\delta a\tau `$, $`\delta e_{(\alpha )}^\mu \tau ^2r^2`$, $`\delta r^2r^3\delta r1`$, $`\delta ar`$, $`\delta r^1r^2\delta rr`$, $`\delta Tr^2`$, 2) holds. Moreover, $`\delta q^\lambda =\mathrm{\Delta }q^\lambda +\stackrel{~}{q}^\lambda (\tau )\stackrel{~}{q}^\lambda (\stackrel{~}{\tau })\tau ^3+r^3r^3`$,

$$\delta y^\lambda =\delta q^\lambda +x^l\delta e_{(l)}^\lambda +(\delta x^l)e_{(l)}^\lambda r^3+rr^2+r^31r^3,$$

$$\delta ^{\mu \nu \lambda }=y^\nu \delta T^{\mu \lambda }+(\delta y^\nu )T^{\mu \lambda }(\lambda \mu )1r^2+r^3r^4r^2,$$

3) follows.

Acknowledgements

We thank Marcin Kościelecki and Szymon Charzyński for fruitful discussions.