text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Long ago, the question has been addressed of constructing geometric field theories of gravity from the non-symmetric metric

$$G_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu },$$
(1.1)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the symmetric part of $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is an antisymmetric tensor field. Such a model was first discussed in 1925 by Einstein  in an attempt to unify gravity and electromagnetism, and developed by himself and others . In some sense, modern string theory has revived this attempt at geometric unification of forces

But the couplings of a gauge field like a massless 2-form $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and a (symmetric) metric $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ are severely restricted by consistency requirements, thereby disqualifying the old theory of Einstein and its modern versions (like the “nonsymmetric gravity theory” of Moffat ). The first proof of the physical inconsistency of these models has been given by T. Damour, S. Deser and J. McCarthy . They have shown that all “geometric” actions (see  for a precise explanation of the sense of this term) homogeneous of order two in the number of derivatives violate standard physical requirements. In this paper, we confirm their results while relaxing some of the assumptions made by these authors.

To analyze the generic geometric models, they had to expand the action in powers of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ about a classical symmetric background, and consider the merits of the resulting theory, that means study the consistency of the deformations of a theory of gravity coupled to a differential 2-form in terms of standard physical criteria: absence of negative-energy excitations and coherence of the degree-of-freedom content. The first point of their argument is that the absence of negative-energy excitations requires (whatever the gravitational background) the $`B`$ expansion to begin with the (quadratic) kinetic term $`H_{\mu \nu \lambda }H^{\mu \nu \lambda }`$ where $`H_{\lambda \mu \nu }_\lambda B_{\mu \nu }+_\mu B_{\nu \lambda }+_\nu B_{\lambda \mu }`$ is the field strength. This action has the usual gauge invariance $`\delta B_{\mu \nu }=_\mu ϵ_\nu _\nu ϵ_\mu `$. Secondly, geometric actions homogeneous in two derivatives generate powers of the undifferentiated $`B_{\mu \nu }`$. These higher-power terms generically violate the gauge invariance of the leading kinetic term. Furthermore, it is even impossible to overcome this problem by a deformation of the abelian gauge invariance .

A modern useful tool to study consistent deformations is the BRST field-antifield formalism. It is known that if $`s`$ is the BRST operator of the free theory, the first order vertices of consistent deformations are constrained to belong to the cohomological group $`H_0^n(s|d)`$ of $`s`$ modulo $`d`$ in ghost number $`0`$ and form degree $`n`$ (the dimension of spacetime) . By using the powerful tool of homological algebra, we completely determine all non trivial consistent deformations at first order in the coupling constant for a system of abelian 2-forms coupled to gravity for $`n4`$.111For $`n<4`$, the 2-forms do not carry any degree of freedom, hence this case is not considered.

Our result is that all non trivial first-order consistent deformations are of the four following types:

* Strictly invariant polynomials in the curvatures $`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ and $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }^A`$.
* Couplings invariant under the abelian transformation up to a divergence. They generalize the purely gravitational deformations previously known in the literature (denoted as $`𝒜_{chiral}`$ in ) and the Chern-Simons type self-coupling of the 2-forms (which exist only for specific values of $`n`$).
* Exotic couplings of the 2-form gauge fields to gravitational Chern-Simons forms (see ). These interactions deform the gauge transformations of the free theory in a non trivial way.
* The Freedman-Townsend coupling  (only allowed for $`n=4`$), where the abelian gauge transformations for the 2-forms are non trivially deformed.

We notice that non trivial deformations of “gravity + 2-form” are at most linear in the undifferentiated $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ which confirms the results of Damour et al. that geometric actions including higher powers of the undifferentiated $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ are physically inconsistent or trivial. No assumption is made here on the degree of homogeneity in the derivatives nor on the form of the gravity action (except that it must define a normal theory, according to the terminology of ).

In the next section, we determine all the cohomological class of $`H(s|d)`$ in ghost number $`0`$ and form degree $`n`$ and we relate those classes to the first-order consistent deformations of the theory.

## 2 The model

Throughout the paper we shall work in the vielbein formulation of gravity. Denoting the vielbein fields by $`e_\mu ^a`$, we define the inverse vielbeins, the metric, the Christoffel connection and the spin connection through,

$`E_a^\mu e_\mu ^b=\delta _b^a,e_\mu ^aE_a^\nu =\delta _\mu ^\nu ,g_{\mu \nu }=e_{\mu a}e_\nu ^a,g^{\mu \nu }=E^{a\mu }E_a^\nu ,`$ (2.1)
$$_\mu e_\nu ^a\omega _{\mu b}^ae_\nu ^b\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho e_\rho ^a=0,\omega _\mu ^{ab}=\omega _\mu ^{ba},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\rho ,$$
(2.2)
where Lorentz indices ($`a,b,\mathrm{}`$) are raised and lowered with the Minkowski metric.

As we pointed out in the introduction, our calculations are valid for a wide range of gravity action. For simplicity, the model we consider here is the standard Einstein-2-form system. Its lagrangian reads,

$$_0/e=\frac{1}{2}R\frac{1}{12}g^{\mu \lambda }g^{\nu \sigma }g^{\rho \theta }H_{\mu \nu \rho }^AH_{A\lambda \sigma \theta },$$
(2.3)
where $`e`$ is the determinant of the vielbeins, $`R=R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}E_a^\mu E_b^\nu `$ is the Riemann curvature and $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }^A`$ are the $`2`$-form field strengths.

Because of the gauge invariance of the classical action under the diffeomorphisms, local Lorentz transformations and gauge transformations of the $`2`$-form potentials ($`B_{\mu \nu }^AB_{\mu \nu }^A+_\mu ϵ_\nu ^A_\nu ϵ_\mu ^A`$), we are led to introduce within the field-antifield formalism the following set of ghosts: $`\xi ^\mu `$ (diffeomorphisms ghosts), $`C^{ab}`$ (Lorentz ghosts), $`B_\mu ^A,B^A`$ ($`2`$-form ghosts). The extra ghosts $`B^A`$ (“ghosts of ghosts”) required in the 2-form sector arise because the gauge transformations of the $`2`$-form potentials are reducible. Indeed, they vanish when the gauge parameters are set to $`ϵ_\mu ^A=_\mu \lambda ^A`$ where $`\lambda ^A`$ are arbitrary functions. In the sequel we will denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ all the fields and ghosts: $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Gamma }\}=\{e_\mu ^a,B_{\mu \nu }^A,\xi ^\mu ,C^{ab},B_\mu ^A,B^A\}`$. The corresponding antifields will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$: $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\}=\{e_a^\mu ,B_A^{\mu \nu },\xi _\mu ^{},C_{ab}^{},B_A^\mu ,B_A^{}\}`$. In terms of these variables the minimal solution of the BRST master equation reads:

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^nx(_0\xi ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Gamma }+e_a^\mu (e_\nu ^a_\mu \xi ^\nu +e_\mu ^bC_b^a)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_K^{}C^IC^Jf_{IJ}^K`$ (2.4)
$`+B_A^{\mu \nu }(_\mu B_\nu ^A+_\mu \xi ^\rho B_{\rho \nu }^A)B_A^\mu (_\mu B^A+_\mu \xi ^\rho B_\rho ^A)).`$
In the above expression the $`f_{IJ}^K`$ denote the structure constants of $`𝒢_L`$. We have also used the notation, $`C^I=C^{ab}.`$ The action of the BRST differential on the variables is then defined as: $`s\mathrm{\Phi }^A=\frac{\delta ^RS}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}},s\mathrm{\Phi }_A^{}=\frac{\delta ^RS}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A}`$.

In order to obtain the possible deformations of (2.3) we need to compute the local BRST cohomology $`H(s|d)`$ in the algebra of local forms. These are by definition linear combinations of spacetime forms $`\omega ^\tau (x,dx)`$ with coefficients that are local functions. By local functions it is meant functions which depend polynomially on the variables $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _j}\mathrm{\Phi }^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _j}\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ except the undifferentiated vielbeins $`e_\mu ^a`$ for which a smooth and regular dependence in an open neighborhood of some regular background configuration ($`\text{det}(e_\mu ^a)0`$) is allowed. We shall denote the algebra of local forms by $``$ and the algebra of local functions by $`𝒜`$. Thus: $`=\mathrm{\Omega }(M)𝒜;aa=_\tau \omega ^\tau \alpha _\tau ,\omega ^\tau \mathrm{\Omega }(M),\alpha _\tau 𝒜.`$

For gravitational theories it turns out that the local BRST cohomology in form degree $`n`$ and ghost number $`g`$ can easily be obtained from the cohomology $`H(s)`$ of the BRST differential $`s`$ . Indeed, one has the following isomorphism222This isomorphism holds because we assume the spacetime manifold to be homeomorphic to $`𝐑^n`$.:

$$H_g^n(s|d,)\frac{H^{g+n}(s,𝒜)}{𝐑}$$
(2.5)
In particular, this isomorphism holds in ghost number $`0`$ and therefore for the consistent deformations. It is implemented as follows: if $`\alpha ^n`$ is a representative of $`H^n(s,𝒜)`$, then the corresponding representative of $`H_0^n(s|d,)`$ is given by $`a_0^n=\frac{1}{n!}b^n\alpha ^n`$ where $`b`$ is the operator defined by $`b=dx^\mu \frac{}{\xi ^\mu }`$ .

The first part of the analysis of $`H(s)`$ consists in finding new generators of the algebra $`𝒜`$ which isolate a contractible part of the algebra with respect to the differential $`s`$. Taking into account the results of  we define the new basis of generators of $`𝒜`$ as:

$`\{𝒯^r\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{D_{a_1}\mathrm{}D_{a_k}R_{ab}^I,D_{a_1}\mathrm{}D_{a_k}H_{bcd}^A:k=0,1,\mathrm{}\},`$ (2.6)
$`\{𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{D_{a_1}\mathrm{}D_{a_k}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}:k=0,1,\mathrm{}\},`$ (2.7)
$`\widehat{\xi }^a`$ $`=`$ $`\xi ^\mu e_\mu ^a,\widehat{C}^I=C^I+\xi ^\mu \omega _\mu ^I,`$ (2.8)
$`\widehat{B}^A`$ $`=`$ $`B^A+\xi ^\mu B_\mu ^A+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\xi ^\nu \xi ^\mu B_{\mu \nu }^A,`$ (2.9)
$`\{U_l\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}e_{\mu )}^a,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}\omega _{\mu )}^I,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}B_{\nu _1)}^A,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}B_{[\nu _1)\nu _2]}^A:`$ (2.10)
$`k=0,1,\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\{V_l\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}se_{\mu )}^a,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}s\omega _{\mu )}^I,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}sB_{\nu _1)}^A,_{(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}sB_{[\nu _1)\nu _2]}^A:`$ (2.11)
$`k=0,1,\mathrm{}\},`$
where,

$`H_{abc}^A`$ $`=`$ $`E_a^\mu E_b^\nu E_c^\rho H_{\mu \nu \rho }^A`$ (2.12)
$`R_{ab}^I`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ab}^{cd}=E_a^\mu E_b^\nu R_{\mu \nu }^{cd},`$ (2.13)
$`\omega _\mu ^I`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _\mu ^{ab},`$ (2.14)
$`\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\widehat{e}_a^b,\widehat{B}_A^{ab},\widehat{\xi }_a^{},\widehat{C}_I^{},\widehat{B}_A^a,\widehat{B}_A^{}\},`$ (2.15)
$`\widehat{e}_a^b`$ $`=`$ $`e_\mu ^be_a^\mu /e,\widehat{C}_I^{}=C_I^{}/e,`$ (2.16)
$`\widehat{B}_A^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^bB_A^{\mu \nu }/e,\widehat{B}_A^a=e_\mu ^aB_A^\mu /e,\widehat{B}_A^{}=B_A^{}/e`$ (2.17)
$`\widehat{\xi }_a^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_a^\mu (\xi _\mu ^{}A_\mu ^IC_I^{}B_{\mu \nu }^AB_A^\nu B_\mu ^AB_A^{})/e`$ (2.18)
It is easily shown that any local function can be expressed in terms of the new generators.

The first advantage of the new basis is that on all but the variables $`U_l`$ and $`V_l`$, the action of $`s`$ takes the familiar form:

$$s=\delta +\gamma ,$$
(2.19)
with,

$`\delta 𝒯^r=\delta \widehat{\xi }^a=\delta \widehat{C}^I=\delta \widehat{B}^A=0,`$ (2.20)
$`\delta \widehat{e}_a^b=(R_a^b{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _a^bR){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{acd}^AH_A^{bcd}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\delta _a^bH_{cde}^AH_A^{cde},`$ (2.21)
$`\delta \widehat{C}_{ab}^{}=2\widehat{e}_{[ab]}^{},\delta \widehat{\xi }_a^{}=D_b\widehat{e}_a^b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_A!}}\widehat{B}_A^{b_1b_2}\widehat{H}_{ab_1b_2}^A`$ (2.22)
$`\delta \widehat{B}_A^{a_1a_2}=D_b\widehat{H}_A^{ba_1a_2},\delta \widehat{B}_A^{a_1}=D_b\widehat{B}_A^{ba_1},\delta \widehat{B}_A^{}=D_b\widehat{B}_A^b,`$ (2.23)
$`\delta D_{a_1}\mathrm{}D_{a_k}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=D_{a_1}\mathrm{}D_{a_k}\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$ (2.24)
$`\gamma 𝒯^r=(\widehat{\xi }^aD_a+\widehat{C}^I\delta _I)𝒯,\gamma 𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{}=(\widehat{\xi }^aD_a+\widehat{C}^I\delta _I)𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{}`$ (2.25)
$`\gamma \widehat{\xi }^a=\widehat{C}_b^a\widehat{\xi }^b,\gamma \widehat{C}^I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{C}^J\widehat{C}^Kf_{KJ}^I+\widehat{F}^I,\gamma \widehat{B}^A=\widehat{H}^A,`$ (2.26)
where

$$\widehat{R}^I=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{\xi }^c\widehat{\xi }^dR_{cd}^I,\widehat{H}^A=\frac{1}{6}\widehat{\xi }^c\widehat{\xi }^b\widehat{\xi }^aH_{abc}^A.$$
(2.27)
In the above equations, the notation $`\widehat{C}^I\delta _I𝒯^r`$ stands for the Lorentz infinitesimal transformation of $`𝒯^r`$ with the infinitesimal parameter replaced by the ghost $`\widehat{C}^I`$. For example, if $`𝒯^r=𝒯^a`$ is a contravariant vector then $`\widehat{C}^I\delta _I𝒯^a=\widehat{C}_b^a𝒯^b`$.

The gradings associated to $`\delta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are respectively the antighost number (denoted antigh) and the pureghost number (denoted puregh); their sum is equal to the ghost number (denoted gh). The table summarizes the various gradings associated to the operators, the fields, the ghosts and the antifields.

The second advantage of the new basis is that it exhibits a manifestly contractible part of the algebra $`𝒜`$. Indeed, by construction, the variables $`U_l`$ and $`V_l`$ are mapped on each other by the BRST differential,

$$sU_l=V_l,sV_l=0,$$
(2.28)
and since the BRST differential does not mix the $`U_l`$ and $`V_l`$ with the rest of the variables, each couple $`\{U_l,V_l\}`$ drops out from the cohomology and we have $`H(s,𝒜)H(s,𝒜_2)`$ where $`𝒜_2`$ is the algebra generated by the set $`\{𝒯^r,𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{},\widehat{\xi }^a,\widehat{C}^I,\widehat{B}^A\}`$.

To summarize, the above discussion indicates that to obtain $`H_0^n(s|d,)`$ we only need to calculate $`H^n(s,𝒜_2)`$. This is the subject of the next section.

## 3 BRST cohomology in $`𝒜_2`$ and consistent vertices

In order to get the cohomology $`H^n(s,𝒜_2)`$ we need to solve the equation,

$$s\alpha ^n=0,\alpha ^n𝒜_2,$$
(3.1)
where two solutions of (3.1) are identified if they differ by an $`s`$-exact contribution, i.e, $`\alpha ^n\alpha ^n+s\beta ^{n1}`$ with $`\beta ^{n1}𝒜_2`$.

The approach we follow is identical to the one developed in  so we only emphasize here the main ideas and the new results. A more in-depth presentation will be given in .

First, the cocycle $`\alpha ^n`$ is decomposed according to a degree called the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree which counts the polynomial degree in the variables $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$,

$$\alpha ^n=\underset{k=l}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _k.$$
(3.2)
According to the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree, the BRST differential decomposes into four parts, $`s=s_0+s_1+s_2+s_3`$, which can be read off from (2.20)-(2.26). The first term is given by,

$$s_0=\delta +\gamma _L$$
(3.3)
where $`\delta `$ is the Koszul-Tate differential and $`\gamma _L`$ is the longitudinal exterior derivative along the gauge orbits of $`𝒢_L`$,

$$\gamma _L=\frac{1}{2}\widehat{C}^J\widehat{C}^Kf_{JK}^I\frac{}{\widehat{C}^I}+\widehat{C}^I\delta _I,$$
(3.4)
with,

$$\delta _{ab}\widehat{\xi }_c=\eta _{bc}\widehat{\xi }_a\eta _{ac}\widehat{\xi }_b,\delta _I\widehat{C}^J=f_{IK}^J\widehat{C}^K.$$
(3.5)
$`s_1`$ plays the rôle of an exterior covariant derivative whose differentials are the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$. Its action is given by,

$$s_1𝒯^r=\widehat{\xi }^aD_a𝒯^r,s_1𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{}=\widehat{\xi }^aD_a𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{},s_1\widehat{\xi }^a=s_1\widehat{C}^I=s_1\widehat{B}^A=0.$$
(3.6)
Finally, the operators $`s_2`$ and $`s_3`$ are given by,

$$s_2=\widehat{R}^I\frac{}{\widehat{C}^I},s_3=\widehat{H}^A\frac{}{\widehat{B}^A}.$$
(3.7)
According to the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree, eq. (3.1) decomposes into the following tower of equations:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`s_0\alpha _l,`$ (3.8)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`s_0\alpha _{l+1}+s_1\alpha _l,`$ (3.9)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`s_0\alpha _{l+2}+s_1\alpha _{l+1}+s_2\alpha _l,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
Up to trivial terms which only modify components of higher $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree, eq. (3.8) indicates that $`\alpha _l`$ is an element of the cohomology $`H(s_0,𝒜_2)`$. Given the definition of $`s_0`$, this cohomology is analyzed in a very similar fashion as the standard BRST cohomology for non-gravitational theories. Using the acyclicity of $`\delta `$ in antighost number $`k>0`$, one can show that each class of $`H(s_0,𝒜_2)`$ admits an antifield independent representative so that the cocycle condition becomes, $`\gamma _L\alpha _l=0`$. This equation is the well known coboundary condition for the Lie algebra cohomology of $`𝒢_L`$ in a $`𝒢_L`$-module so the most general form for the non-trivial $`\alpha _l`$ is,

$$\alpha _l=\alpha _l^i(\widehat{\xi }^a,𝒯^r)\omega _i(\theta _K(\widehat{C}^I),\widehat{B}^A),\delta _I\alpha _l^i(\widehat{\xi }^a,𝒯^r)=0.$$
(3.11)
In (3.11), the $`\omega _i`$ are polynomials in the $`\widehat{B}^A`$ and the $`\theta _K(\widehat{C}^I)`$ which are the primitive elements of the Lorentz Lie algebra cohomology. In $`n=2r`$ and $`n=2r+1`$ dimensions, they are given by,

$`\theta _K(C)`$ $`=`$ $`C_{a_1}^{a_2}D_{a_2}^{a_3}\mathrm{}D_{a_{2K}}^{a_1},K=1,2,\mathrm{},r1,`$ (3.12)
$`\theta _r(C)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}C_{a_1}^{a_2}D_{a_2}^{a_3}\mathrm{}D_{a_{2r}}^{a_1}\hfill & \text{for}n=2r+1\hfill \\ ϵ_{a_1b_1\mathrm{}a_rb_r}C^{a_1b_1}D^{a_2b_2}\mathrm{}D^{a_rb_r}\hfill & \text{for}n=2r\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.15)
where $`D_a{}_{}{}^{b}=C_a{}_{}{}^{c}C_{c}^{}^b`$.

Let us first consider the case $`l=n`$. Since we are interested in solutions of (3.1) in ghost number $`n`$, in (3.11) we necessarily have $`\omega _i(\theta _K(\widehat{C}^I),\widehat{B}^A)=k_i`$ where the $`k_i`$ are constants (the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$ are of ghost number 1). In that case, no further condition is imposed on $`\alpha _n`$ and we have,

$$\alpha =\alpha _n=L(𝒯)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }},\delta _IL=0,$$
(3.16)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\widehat{\xi }^0\mathrm{}\widehat{\xi }^{n1}`$. The above elements of $`H(s)`$ give rise in $`H_0^n(s|d,)`$ to the cocycles,

$$\alpha =L(𝒯)d^nx,\delta _IL=0,$$
(3.17)
which constitute the first set of consistent interactions announced in the introduction. Since these vertices are strictly gauge invariant they do not require any modification in the gauge transformations of the theory.

We now turn our attention to the case $`l<n`$. To that end, we substitute the general form (3.11) into eq. (3.9). By doing so, one easily proves  that $`\alpha _l^i(\widehat{\xi }^a,𝒯^r)`$ has to obey the following equation,

$$s_1\alpha _l^i+\delta \alpha _{l+1,1}^i=0,$$
(3.18)
where $`\alpha _{l+1,1}^i=\alpha _{l+1,1}^i(\widehat{\xi }^a,𝒯^r,𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{})`$ is of antighost number $`1`$ and satisfies $`\delta _I\alpha _{l+1,1}^i(\widehat{\xi }^a,𝒯^r,𝒯_{\overline{r}}^{})=0`$. Trivial solutions of (3.18) ($`\alpha _l^i=s_1\beta _{l1}^i+\delta \beta _l^i`$) are irrelevant since they amount to trivial contributions in $`\alpha `$.

Eq. (3.18) along with its coboundary condition define the so-called “invariant characteristic cohomology” $`H_{char}^{inv}(d)`$ (with $`d`$ formally substituted by $`s_1`$) which plays a central rôle in the analysis of any local field theory. Theorems concerning $`H_{char}^{inv}(d)`$ in the cases of pure gravity and $`p`$-form gauge theory can be found respectively in  and . The extension of those results in the case of gravity coupled to a system of $`2`$-forms is fully treated in . Here, we may restrict our attention to solutions of eq. (3.18) in ghost number $`n2`$. Indeed, taking into account (3.12) and (3.15) we see that the $`\theta _K(\widehat{C}^I)`$ and $`\widehat{B}^A`$ are at least of ghost number $`2`$; therefore, to construct solutions of (3.1) in ghost number $`n`$, we necessarily have $`ln2`$. In that case, the most general solution of (3.18) is up to trivial terms given by ,

$$\alpha _l^i=P^i(f_K,\widehat{H}^A)+\delta _l^{n3}k_A^i\overline{\widehat{H}}^A+\delta _l^{n2}\delta _4^nk_{AB}^i\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\overline{\widehat{H}}^B.$$
(3.19)
In (3.19), the $`k_A^i`$ and $`k_{AB}^i=k_{BA}^i`$ are constants, $`\overline{\widehat{H}}^A`$ is the Hodge dual of $`\widehat{H}^A`$ and the $`f_K`$ are generators for the the $`𝒢_L`$-invariant polynomials in the $`\widehat{R}^I`$. The $`f_K`$ are given in the cases $`n=2r`$ and $`n=2r+1`$ by:

$`f_K`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}_{a_1}^{a_2}\widehat{R}_{a_2}^{a_3}\mathrm{}\widehat{R}_{a_{2K}}^{a_1},K=1,2,\mathrm{},r1,`$ (3.20)
$`f_r`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{R}_{a_1}^{a_2}\widehat{R}_{a_2}^{a_3}\mathrm{}\widehat{R}_{a_{2r}}^{a_1}\hfill & \text{for}n=2r+1\hfill \\ ϵ_{a_1b_1\mathrm{}a_rb_r}\widehat{R}^{a_1b_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{R}^{a_rb_r}\hfill & \text{for}n=2r.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.23)
From (3.19) we see that $`\alpha _l^i`$ involves two kinds of contributions. The first consists of the polynomials $`P^i(f_K,\widehat{H}^a)`$ which obey (3.18) without the need for a term $`\alpha _{l+1,1}^i`$. One says that the corresponding $`\alpha _l^i`$ are strongly $`s_1`$-closed. On the other hand, the last two terms of (3.19) are only weakly $`s_1`$-closed since they require a term $`\alpha _{l+1,1}^i`$ in order to satisfy eq. (3.18).

Let us first consider the BRST cocycles generated by the strongly $`s_1`$-closed $`\alpha _l^i`$. Their part of lowest $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree is of the form,

$$\alpha _l=P^i(f_K,\widehat{H}^A)\omega _i(\theta _K(\widehat{C}^I),\widehat{B}^A).$$
(3.24)
We need to complete these $`\alpha _l`$ by terms of higher $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree in order to obtain BRST cocycles. To do this, we associate to the $`\theta _K`$ the following quantities :

$$q_K=\underset{k=0}{\overset{2K1}{}}()^k\frac{(2K)!(2K1)!}{(2K+k)!(2Kk1)!}Str(\widehat{𝒞}\widehat{𝒟}^k\widehat{}^{2Kk1}),$$
(3.25)
with,

$$\widehat{𝒞}=\widehat{C}^IT_I,\widehat{𝒟}=\widehat{𝒞}^2,\widehat{}=\widehat{R}^IT_I.$$
(3.26)
In (3.26), the $`T_I`$ are the matrices of the adjoint representation of $`so(n1,1)`$ except for $`n=2r`$ in which the spinor representation is used. At lowest $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree the $`q_K`$ begin with $`\theta _K`$ and are such that $`sq_K=f_K`$.

The usefulness of the $`q_K`$ stems from the fact that if $`\alpha `$ is a cocycle with $`\alpha _l`$ as in (3.24), then one may assume that $`\alpha =\alpha (f_K,q_K,\widehat{H}^A,\widehat{B}^A)=P^i(f_K,\widehat{H}^A)\omega _i(q_K,\widehat{B}^A)`$, i.e., $`\alpha `$ is obtained from $`\alpha _l`$ by replacing the $`\theta _K`$ by the $`q_K`$ . Furthermore, one can show that if $`\alpha =\alpha (f_K,q_K,\widehat{H}^A,\widehat{B}^A)=s\beta `$ then $`\beta =\beta (f_K,q_K,\widehat{H}^A,\widehat{B}^A)`$. The analysis of the BRST cocycles arising from (3.24) is therefore reduced to the investigation of the BRST cohomology in the so-called small algebra generated by the variable $`q_K,f_K,\widehat{H}^A,\widehat{B}^A`$.

This problem has been studied in detail for the pure gravitational case in . It is shown that in ghost number $`n`$ the BRST cocycles in the small algebra are of the “Chern-Simons” form, $`\alpha =q_KP(f_K)`$. Here, the only difference comes from the presence of $`\widehat{H}^A`$ and $`\widehat{B}^A`$ among the generators of the small algebra; they are related by $`s\widehat{B}^A=\widehat{H}^A`$. The procedure is nearly identical to  and one can show  that in ghost number $`n`$ the BRST cocycles are again of the Chern-Simons form, i.e.,

$$\alpha =q_KP_K(f_L,\widehat{H}^A)+\widehat{B}^AQ_A(f_K,\widehat{H}^B).$$
(3.27)
The corresponding consistent deformations are obtained from (3.27) by the substitution $`\widehat{\xi }^adx^\mu `$. They constitute the second set of vertices announced in the introduction. Note that they are invariant up to a boundary term and therefore do not require a modification of the gauge transformations.

We now consider the BRST cocycles generated by the weakly $`s_1`$-closed $`\alpha _l^i`$. Taking into account (3.12), (3.15) and (3.19), we see that in spacetime dimension $`n>4`$, the only possibility we have in ghost number $`n`$ for $`\alpha _l`$ is,

$$\alpha _{n3}=k_A^1\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\theta _1,$$
(3.28)
with $`\theta _1=C_a^bC_b^cC_c^a`$. $`\alpha _{n3}`$ has to be completed with terms of higher $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$-degree in order to obtain a BRST cocycle. To that end we introduce the following notation :

$$q^A=\overline{\widehat{H}}^A+\overline{\widehat{B}}_1^A+\overline{\widehat{B}}_2^A+\overline{\widehat{B}}_3^A,$$
(3.29)
where the $`\overline{\widehat{B}}_j^A`$ are defined through, $`\delta \overline{\widehat{B}}_1^A+d\overline{\widehat{H}}^A=0`$, $`\delta \overline{\widehat{B}}_2^A+d\overline{\widehat{B}}_1^A=0`$, $`\delta \overline{\widehat{B}}_3^A+d\overline{\widehat{B}}_2^A=0`$ ($`\overline{\widehat{B}}_j^A`$ is proportional to the dual of the antifield of antighost $`j`$, with the $`\widehat{\xi }^a`$ as differentials).

Using the above definition, it is straightforward to complete (3.28) to a BRST cocycle. Indeed, as can be seen by direct substitution,

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`k_A^1q^Aq_1`$ (3.30)
$`=`$ $`k_A^1\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\theta _1+\alpha _{n2}+\alpha _{n1}+\alpha _n.`$ (3.31)
is a solution of (3.28). The corresponding elements of $`H(s|d,)`$ are again obtained from (3.30) by the substitution $`\widehat{\xi }^adx^\mu `$. Their components of antighost number zero give rise to the following class of consistent vertices:

$$V=k_A^1\overline{H}^ATr(\omega R\frac{1}{3}\omega ^3)$$
(3.32)
where $`\overline{H}^A`$ is the dual of the field strength $`H^A`$, $`\omega =\omega _\mu ^Idx^\mu T_I`$ and $`R=\frac{1}{2}dx^\mu dx^\nu R_{\mu \nu }^IT_I`$ (the $`T_I`$ are the matrices of the adjoint representation of $`so(n1,1)`$). These vertices require a modification in the gauge transformations since they are not invariant under the original ones. They belong to the third type of interactions described in the introduction.

In the particular case of spacetime dimension $`n=4`$ further couplings are possible. Indeed, in ghost number $`n=4`$ we have the following candidates for $`\alpha _l`$,

$$\alpha _l=k_A^1\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\theta _1+k_A^2\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\theta _2+k_{ABC}\overline{\widehat{H}}^A\overline{\widehat{H}}^B\widehat{B}^C,$$
(3.33)
where $`k_{ABC}=k_{BAC}`$ and $`\theta _2=ϵ_{abcd}C^{ab}C^{ce}C_e^d`$. The above $`\alpha _l`$ are easily completed to the following BRST-cocycles,

$$\alpha =k_A^1q^Aq_1+k_A^2q^Aq_2+k_{ABC}q^Aq^B\widehat{B}^A.$$
(3.34)
The first two terms yield consistent vertices identical to (3.32) (with the trace taken once in the adjoint representation and once in the spinorial representation of $`so(n1,1)`$):

$$V=k_A^1\overline{H}^ATr_{adj}(\omega R\frac{1}{3}\omega ^3)+k_A^2\overline{H}^ATr_{sp}(\omega R\frac{1}{3}\omega ^3)$$
(3.35)
The last term in (3.34) produces the Freedman-Townsend coupling,

$$V=k_{ABC}\overline{H}^A\overline{H}^BB^C.$$
(3.36)
This vertex is again not invariant under the original gauge transformations and a modification of these transformations is imposed.

## 4 Comments

In this article we have computed the local BRST cohomology $`H(s|d)`$ in ghost number $`0`$ and form degree $`n`$ in order to obtain all the first-order vertices of gravity coupled to a system of $`2`$-form gauge fields.

The first two types of couplings we obtain (strictly invariant polynomials in the curvatures and Chern-Simons forms) are consistent to all orders in the coupling constant since they are gauge invariant (up to a total derivative for the Chern-Simons forms) under the original gauge transformations. These vertices correspond to antifield independent representative of the BRST cohomology.

The last two types of vertices we describe are not invariant under the original gauge transformations since they depend non-trivially on the antifields. In that case a modification of the gauge transformations is required as well as the addition of higher-order vertices in order to obtain a theory consistent to all orders in the coupling constant. For the exotic couplings of the 2-form gauge fields to gravitational Chern-Simons forms, the full theory is of the Chapline-Manton type in which the 2-form curvature present in (2.3) is replaced by $`H_A^{}=H_A+k_ATr(\omega F\frac{1}{3}\omega ^3)`$. The Freedman-Townsend coupling gives rise to a non-polynomial full theory. Polynomiality can be restored by describing the theory with a “first-order formulation” and the full lagrangian is simply a covariantized version of the original Freedman-Townsend theory.

Our analysis can be extended to cover the couplings of gravity to $`p`$-forms .

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Marc Henneaux for suggesting the problem. We also thank him along with Glenn Barnich and Friedemann Brandt for useful discussions. This work is supported in part by the “Actions de Recherche Concertées” of the “Direction de la Recherche Scientifique - Communauté Française de Belgique” and by IISN - Belgium (convention 4.4505.86).


format: text

text:
# The Equilibrium Structure of Cosmological Halos: From Dwarf Galaxies to X-ray Clusters

(13 March 2000)

Abstract

A new model for the postcollapse equilibrium structure of virialized objects which condense out of the cosmological background universe is described and compared with observations and simulations of cosmological halos from dwarf galaxies to X-ray clusters. The model is based upon the assumption that virialized halos are isothermal, which leads to a prediction of a unique nonsingular isothermal sphere for the equilibrium structure, with a core radius which is approximately 1/30 times the size and a core density which is proportional to the mean background density at the epoch of collapse. These predicted nonsingular isothermal spheres are in good agreement with the observations of the internal structure of dark-matter-dominated halos from dwarf galaxies to X-ray clusters.

Poster paper presented at the Institute for Theoretical Physics Conference on Galaxy Formation and Evolution, March 14-17, 2000, at the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Equilibrium structure of virialized halos

\[Shapiro, Iliev, and Raga 1999, MNRAS, 307, 203 (Einstein-de Sitter case); Iliev and Shapiro 2000 (low-density, open and flat with cosmological constant)\]

* Problem and Motivation

+ Question: What equilibrium structure forms when a density perturbation collapses out of the expanding background universe and virializes?
    + An analytical model for the structure (e.g. mass profile, temperature, velocity dispersion, radius) of virialized cosmological halos would be a valuable tool for the semi-analytical modeling of galaxy and cluster formation in a hierarchical clustering model like CDM.

    - Earlier work adopted crude approximations involving either uniform spheres or singular isothermal spheres which resulted from top-hat perturbation collapse
        - What is a more realistic outcome, even for the simple top-hat problem?
    + N-body simulations of CDM predict dark matter halo profiles with singular density profiles, but a finite density core is required to explain:

    - Dwarf galaxy rotation curves
        - Cluster mass profiles inferred from gravitational lensing
    + As a result, the cold, collisionless nature of CDM has recently been re-examined to allow for variations which affect the post-collapse equilibrium structure of halos.
    + Suppose we ignore the details of this relaxation process and adopt the assumption that the final equilibrium is isothermal.
    + Solve this problem and compare the result with dwarf galaxy rotation curves and X-ray cluster data.
* Model:

+ Top-hat density perturbation collapses and virializes
    + Virialization leads to a truncated isothermal sphere in hydrostatic equilibrium (TIS) $``$ solution of the Lane-Emden equation (modified for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$)
    + Total energy of top-hat is conserved thru collapse and virialization
    + Postcollapse temperature set by virial theorem (including effect of finite boundary pressure)
* Is the solution uniquely determined? – No, some additional information is required:

+ Minimum-Energy Solution: Boundary pressure is that for which the conserved top-hat energy is the minimum possible for an isothermal sphere of fixed mass within a finite truncation radius.
    + The Self-Similar Spherical Cosmological Infall Solution (Bertschinger 1985) confirms this choice if we identify the virialized object with the spherical region of post-shock gas and shell-crossing dark matter $``$ explains dynamical origin of boundary pressure adopted above as the result of thermalizing the energy of infall.

Summary of the TIS Solution
* Top-hat perturbation $``$ unique, nonsingular TIS (minimum-energy configuration)

$``$ universal, self-similar density profile for the postcollapse equilibrium of cosmic structure

+ Unique scale and amplitude set by top-hat mass and collapse epoch
    + Same density profile for gas and dark matter (no bias)
* Matter-Dominated Case (see Table 1 and Fig. 1)

+ Finite core size: $`r_0=0.034\times `$ radius $`r_t`$
    + Central density: $`\rho _0=514\times `$ surface density $`\rho _t`$
    + $`T=2.16T_{\mathrm{uniform}\mathrm{sphere}}=0.72T_{\mathrm{singular}\mathrm{isothermal}\mathrm{sphere}}`$
    + At intermediate radii, $`\rho `$ drops faster than $`r^2`$
* Flat, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ Case

+ Profile varies with epoch of collapse, approaching case I above for early collapse.

    For example: for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1\lambda _0=0.3`$ for $`z_{coll}=(0;0.5;1)`$:

    - $`r_t/r_0=(30.04;29.68;29.54)`$
        - $`\rho _0/\rho _t=(529.9;520.8;517.2)`$
        - $`T/T_{\mathrm{uniform}\mathrm{sphere}}=(2.188;2.170;2.163)`$

Table 1: The Postcollapse Virial Equilibrium Resulting

from the Collapse of Top-Hat Density Perturbations:

Einstein-de Sitter Universe

|  | Uniform | Singular | Our |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | Sphere | Isothermal | Solution |
|  |  | Sphere |  |
| $`\eta =\frac{r_t}{r_m}`$….. | 0.5 | 0.417 | 0.554 |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BT_{\mathrm{vir}}}{\left(\frac{2}{5}\frac{GMm}{r_{\mathrm{vir}}}\right)}}`$ | 1 | 3 | 2.16 |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\rho _t}}`$……….. | 1 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 514 |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _t}}`$……….. | 1 | 3 | 3.73 |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_t}{r_0}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..`$ | – NA – | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 29.4 |
| $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\rho _b\left(t_{\mathrm{coll}}\right)}}`$….. | $`18\pi ^2`$ | $`18\pi ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}\right)^3\pi ^5`$ |  |
|  | $`178`$ | $`307`$ | 130.5 |

Our solution = minimum-energy, truncated, nonsingular, isothermal sphere

Note: $`\rho _b`$ cosmic mean matter density

Density Profile of Halo which Forms from Top-Hat

Perturbation Collapse and Virialization

Fig.1: Density profile of truncated isothermal sphere which forms from the virialization of a top-hat density perturbation in a matter-dominated universe. Radius $`r`$ is in units of $`r_m`$ \- the top-hat radius at maximum expansion, while density $`\rho `$ is in terms of the density $`\rho _{SUS}`$ of the standard uniform sphere approximation for the virialized, post-collapse top-hat. (TIS = our solution, SUS = uniform sphere, SIS = singular isothermal sphere). Bottom panel shows logarithmic slope of density profile.

Direct Comparison with NFW Profile

Fig. 2: Continuous line = TIS profile; Dashed lines = “NFW” = Navarro, Frenk, and White (1996, 1997) profile:

$$\rho \left(r\right)=\frac{\delta _c\rho _{b0}}{cx\left(cx+1\right)^2},x=\frac{r}{r_{200}}$$

Range of $`c`$ appropriate for X-ray clusters to early forming dwarf galaxies.

Dwarf Galaxy Rotation Curves

Q: How well does our TIS profile match the observed mass profiles of dark-matter-dominated dwarf galaxies? The observed rotation curves of dwarf galaxies can be fit according to the following density profile with a finite density core (Burkert 1995):

$$\rho \left(r\right)=\frac{\rho _{0,Burkert}}{\left(r/r_c+1\right)\left(r^2/r_c^2+1\right)}$$

A: The TIS profile gives a nearly perfect fit to the Burkert profile. (see Fig. 3)

Fig. 3: Rotation Curve Fit. Best fit parameters:

$$\frac{\rho _{0,Burkert}}{\rho _{0,TIS}}=1.216,\frac{r_c}{r_{0,TIS}}=3.134$$

Solid line = Best fit TIS; Dashed line = Burkert profile, where $`\sigma _{TIS}^2=v^2/3=k_BT/m.`$

Q: How well does this best fit TIS profile predict the $`r_{max}`$ and $`v_{max}`$?

A: $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_{max,Burkert}}{r_{max,TIS}}}=1.13,{\displaystyle \frac{v_{max,Burkert}}{v_{max,TIS}}}=1.01`$

(i.e. excellent agreement)

The $`v_{max}r_{max}`$ relation for dwarf and LSB galaxies.

Q: Can the TIS halo model explain the observed correlation of $`v_{max}`$ and $`r_{max}`$ for dwarf spiral and LSB galaxies?

A: Yes, when the TIS halo model is combined with the Press-Schechter model which predicts the typical collapse epoch for objects of a given mass (i.e. the mass of the $`1\sigma `$-fluctuations vs. $`z_{coll}`$). (See Fig. 4) For the three untilted CDM models plotted, a cluster normalized Einstein-de Sitter model, and COBE-normalized low-density models ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$ and $`\lambda _0=0`$ or 0.7), only the flat models yield a reasonable agreement with the observed $`v_{max}r_{max}`$ relation.

Fig. 4: Dwarf galaxies (triangles) and LSB galaxies (squares) from Kravtsov et al. (1998); Burkert: fit to data (Mori & Burkert 2000); SCDM: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$, $`\sigma _{8h^1}=0.5`$ (cluster normalized); OCDM: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0`$ (COBE normalized); $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.3`$, $`\lambda _0=0.7`$, (COBE normalized); $`h=0.65`$ for all.

Galaxy Halo $`M\sigma _v`$ Relation

Q: How well does our TIS halo model scaling relation predict the velocity dispersion of galactic halos which form in the CDM model according to N-body simulations?

A: Antonuccio-Delogu, Becciani, & Pagliaro (1999) used an N-body treecode at high-res ($`256^3`$ particles) to simulate galactic halos in the region of a single and a double cluster. The agreement with the TIS model is good.

Fig. 6: Velocity dispersion vs. mass for galactic haloes in cluster regions: (upper panel) double cluster, (lower panel) single cluster.

X-Ray Cluster Scaling Relations

Q: How well does the TIS halo model predict the internal structure of X-ray clusters found by gas-dynamical/N-body simulations of X-ray cluster formation in the CDM model?

A: As shown below and in Fig. 5, our TIS model predictions agree astonishingly well with the mass-temperature and the radius-temperature virial relations and integrated mass profiles derived from numerical simulations by Evrard, Metzler and Navarro (1996). Apparently, these simulation results are not sensitive to the discrepancy between our prediction of finite density core and the N-body predictions of a density cusp for clusters in CDM.

* Mass Profile – Temperature Relation

$$r_Xr_{10}\left(X\right)\left(\frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}\right)^{1/2};X\frac{\rho \left(r\right)}{\rho _b}$$

Fig.5 (triangles) fit to CDM simulation results by Evrard, Metzler and Navarro (1996); (continuous line) TIS prediction.
* Mass-Temperature and Radius-Temperature Virial Relations

Evrard, Metzler and Navarro (1996)

$`M_{500}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1.11\pm 0.16\right)\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{3/2}h^1M_{},`$
$`r_{500}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1.24\pm 0.09\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{1/2}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}.`$
$`M_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`1.45\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{3/2}h^1M_{},`$
$`r_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`1.85\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{1/2}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}.`$
Our solution

$`M_{500}`$ $`=`$ $`1.11\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{3/2}h^1M_{},`$
$`r_{500}`$ $`=`$ $`1.24\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{1/2}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}.`$
$`M_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`1.55\times 10^{15}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{3/2}h^1M_{},`$
$`r_{200}`$ $`=`$ $`1.88\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{10\mathrm{keV}}}\right)^{1/2}h^1\mathrm{Mpc}.`$

$`\beta `$-fits to X-ray Cluster Brightness and

Density Profiles

$$\rho _{gas}=\frac{\rho _0}{\left(1+r^2/r_c^2\right)^{3\beta /2}},I=\frac{I_0}{\left(1+\theta ^2/\theta _c^2\right)^{3\beta 1/2}}$$

Q: How well does the TIS model for the internal structure of X-ray clusters predict the observed and simulated X-ray brightness profile of clusters?

A: It predicts gas density profiles and brightness profiles which are well-fit by a $`\beta `$profile, with $`\beta `$-values for the TIS $`\beta `$-fit which are close to those of simulated clusters in the CDM model, but somewhat larger than the conventional observational result that $`\beta 2/3`$. However, recent X-ray results suggest that the true $`\beta `$-values are larger than 2/3 when measurements at larger radii are used and when central cooling flows are excluded from the fit.

| Brightness profile observations | $`\beta `$ |
| --- | --- |
| Jones and Foreman (1999) | 0.4-0.8, ave. 0.6 |
| Jones and Foreman (1992) | $`2/3`$ |
| Balland and Blanchard (1997) | 0.57 (Perseus) |
|  | 0.75 (Coma) |
| Durret et al. (2000) | 0.53 (incl. cooling flow) |
|  | 0.82 (excl. cooling flow) |
| Vikhlinin, Forman, & Jones (1999) | 0.7-0.8 |
| (fit by Henry 2000) |  |
| TIS $`\beta `$-fit ($`r_c/r_{0,TIS}=2.639`$) | 0.904 |
| Gas density profile simulations | $`\beta `$ |
| Metzler and Evrard (1997) | 0.826 (DM) |
|  | 0.870 (gas) |
| Eke, Navarro, and Frenk (1998) | 0.82 |
| Lewis et al. (1999) (adiabatic) | $`1`$ |
| Takizawa and Mineshige (1998) | $`0.9`$ |
| Navarro, Frenk, and White (1995) | 0.8 |
| TIS $`\beta `$-fit ($`r_c/r_{0,TIS}=2.416`$) | 0.846 |

X-ray Cluster Gas Entropy

Q: Can the TIS model for the internal structure of X-ray clusters explain the observed correlation between the gas entropy near the cluster center and cluster virial temperature?

A: Yes, but only for high-T clusters (i.e. $`T>`$ few keV) for which energy release feedback effects were probably not big enough to alter the entropy of the equilibrium halo. (See Fig. 7)

$$S=T/n_e^{2/3},\text{at }r=0.1r_{vir}$$

Fig. 7: Cluster entropy vs. temperature. Data: Ponman, Cannon, and Navarro (1999) Nature, 397; Error bars: T – 90% confidence level, entropy – span of variation from $`r=0.05r_{vir}`$ to $`r=0.2r_{vir}`$. Our solution: thick line = S at $`r=0.1r_{vir}`$, dashed lines = S at $`r=0.05r_{vir}`$ (lower), and $`0.2r_{vir}`$ (upper).

Cluster Mass Profiles Deduced from Strong Gravitational Lensing

Q: Can the TIS halo model explain the mass profile with a finite density core measured by Tyson, Kochanski, and Dell’Antonio (1998) for cluster CL 0024+1654 at $`z=0.39`$ using the strong gravitational lensing of background galaxies by the cluster to infer the cluster mass distribution?

A: Yes, the TIS model not only provides a good fit to the shape of the projected surface mass density distribution of this cluster (see Fig. 8) within the arcs, but when we match the central value as well as the shape, our model predicts the overall mass, and a cluster velocity dispersion in close agreement with the value $`\sigma _v=1200`$ km/s measured by Dressler and Gunn (1992).

Fig. 8: Projected surface density of cluster CL 0024+1654 inferred from lensing measurements, together with the best fit TIS model.

Summary

* TIS profile fits dwarf galaxy rotation curves; combined with Press-Schechter formalism matches results for observed $`v_{max}r_{max}`$ relation for dwarf galaxies
* Predicted mass-velocity dispersion relation agrees with high resolution N-body simulations of galactic halo formation by Antonuccio-Delogu et al. (1999)
* Predicted mass-radius-temperature scaling relations match simulation results from X-ray clusters in CDM model

+ Our solution derives empirical fitting formulae of Evrard, Metzler and Navarro (1996)
    + Agrees well with X-ray cluster observations at $`z=0`$
* Fits high temperature X-ray cluster entropy data
* X-ray brightness profile is predicted to match $`\beta `$-fit with $`\beta 0.9`$, larger than typically observed, but similar to results of gas-dynamical/N-body simulations of X-ray clusters in CDM model
* Fits the cluster mass profile with finite core derived from strong gravitational lensing data of Tyson et al. (1999) on CL 0024+1654
* Predicted mass profile is close to NFW profile for low values of concentration parameter, outside the core

This work was supported in part by NASA Grants NAG5-2785, NAG5-7363, and NAG5-7821, NSF Grant ASC-9504046, and Texas Advanced Research Program Grant 3658-0624-1999, and benefitted from PRS’ participation at the Aspen Center for Physics in summer 1998 and 1999.

References

Antonuccio-Delogu, Becciani, & Pagliaro (1999) To appear in the proceedings of the Marseille IGRAP99 conference ”Clustering at High Redshift”, astro-ph/9910266

Balland C., and Blanchard A. (1997), ApJ, 487, 33

Bertschinger E. 1985, ApJS, 58, 39

Burkert A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25

Dressler and Gunn 1992, ApJS, 78, 1

Durret et. al. 2000, astro-ph/0002519

Eke V.R., Navarro J.F., and Frenk C.S. 1998, ApJ 503, 569

Evrard A.E., Metzler C.A., and Navarro J.F. 1996, ApJ, 469, 494

Henry P. 2000, astro-ph/0002365

Iliev & Shapiro 2000, in preparation

Jones C., and Forman W., 1992, in Clusters and Superclusters of Galaxies, ed. A. C. Fabian Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 49-70

Jones C., and Forman W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 65

Kravtsov A. V., Klypin A. A., Bullock J. S., and Primack J. R. 1998, ApJ, 502, 48

Lewis, G. F., Babul A., Katz N., Quinn T., Hernquist L., Weinberg D.H., astro-ph/9907097

Metzler C.A., and Evrard A.E., astro-ph/9710324

Mori M., & Burkert A. 2000, astro-ph/0001422

Navarro J.F., Frenk C.S., and White S.D.M. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 720

Navarro J.F., Frenk C.S., and White S.D.M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Navarro J.F., Frenk C.S., and White S.D.M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

Ponman T.J., Cannon D.B., and Navarro J.F. 1999, Nature, 397, 135

Shapiro, Iliev, and Raga 1999, MNRAS, 307, 203

Takizawa M., Mineshige S. 1998, ApJ, 499, 82

Tyson J.A., Kochanski, G.P., and Dell’Antonio I.P. 1998, ApJ, 498, L107

Vikhlinin A., Forman W., & Jones C. 1999, astro-ph/9905200


text:
# Acoustic coupling between two air bubbles in water

## 1. Introduction

Bubbles play an important role in the sound propagation in everyday life liquids. For example, the murmur of the brooks essentially originates, as first suggested by Bragg, in the oscillations of air bubbles captured and dragged along by the water. The so-called “hot chocolate effect”, namely the rising of sound pitch when one repeatedly taps the bottom of the mug in which some instant coffee or chocolate is being dissolved, is explained by the releasing into the water of the tiny bubbles trapped in the powder. Bubble dynamics and acoustic properties of liquids containing a large number of bubbles have been widely studied for a long time. A very good and complete review in this domain was achieved by Leighton. Inter alia, the problem of the interaction of two neighbouring bubbles has been discussed using fluid dynamics tools or the acoustic-electrostatic analogy. Moreover, the free oscillations of a system of two (and even three) air cavities formed in a metal plate lying on a water surface have been theoretically and experimentally investigated in detail (including cubic nonlinearities). The aim of the present article is to present a simple, readily reproducible, experimental study of the forced oscillation regime of a two-air bubble system in water. We begin with a short introductory theory in which we show that the two-bubble system is mostly equivalent to a set of two magnetically coupled electric circuits.

## 2. Theoretical model

An air bubble in water will be considered as a perfect sphere111 The correction to the Minnaert angular frequency due to deviation from the spherical shape can be shown to be negligible. of radius $`R(t)=R_0+\xi (t)`$, with variation $`\xi `$ much smaller than equilibrium value $`R_0`$. It can be shown that $`\xi (t)`$ oscillates with Minnaert’s angular frequency $`\omega _0=\sqrt{3\gamma P_0/\rho _0R_0^2}`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the specific heat ratio $`C_p/C_v`$ of air, and $`P_0`$ and $`\rho _0`$ respectively stand for the equilibrium pressure222 The pressure difference accross the bubble boundary due to air-water surface tension is about $`1\%P_0`$ for a typical radius of $`1mm`$ (see  eq. (65b)) and will be neglected: $`P_0`$ is also the equilibrium pressure of enclosed air. and mass density of water. This oscillation is damped through several mechanisms: of course the acoustic radiation damping (thanks to which the bubble noise is audible), but also the viscous and thermal dampings. We will neglect, in the following simplified theory, the last two ones. Moreover, allowing for the typical $`1KHz`$ acoustic frequency and $`1mm`$ bubble size we deal with in our experiment, we will neglect any sound propagation in the enclosed air. We thus deliberately restrict the present study to the (radial) fundamental resonance of the air bubble-water system.

### 2.1 One-bubble free oscillation

Let us consider one bubble with radius $`R_0`$ immersed in an infinite volume of water at equilibrium pressure $`P_0`$. Let $`P(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ be the actual pressure at site $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and instant $`t`$. The extra pressure $`p(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is defined as $`P(\stackrel{}{r},t)P_0`$. According to Minnaert’s assumption, the enclosed air undergoes isentropic transformations and its (extra) pressure $`p(t)`$ is homogeneous inside the bubble. Then, neglecting air’s inertia as well as the air-water surface tension, $`p(t)`$ and the radius variation $`\xi (t)`$ are linked by:

$$\frac{p(t)}{P_0}+\frac{3\gamma \xi (t)}{R_0}=0$$
(1)
On the other hand, it can be easily shown that (extra) pressure $`p(r,t)`$ at distance $`r`$ from the center of the bubble follows a d’Alembert-like 1D equation, the solution of which exactly reads, for $`rR_0`$:

$$p(r,t)=\frac{1}{r}\rho _0R_0^2\left[\xi ^{^{\prime \prime }}\frac{R_0}{c}\xi ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}+\mathrm{}+(\frac{R_0}{c})^k\xi ^{(2+k)}+\mathrm{}\right](t\frac{rR_0}{c})$$
(2)
where $`c`$ is the sound velocity in water. If the acoustic wavelength $`\lambda `$ is much larger than $`r`$ (i.e., under the circumstances, if condition $`r\omega _0/c1`$ is fulfilled), then $`p(r,t)`$ can be approximated by:

$`p(r,t)`$ $``$ $`\rho _0R_0^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(t)}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^{^{\prime \prime \prime }}(t)}{c}}\right]`$ (3)
$``$ $`\rho _0R_0^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^{^{\prime \prime }}(t)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^2}{c}}\xi ^{^{}}(t)\right]`$ (4)
Then, equalling $`p(t)`$ in eq. (1) to $`p(R_0,t)`$ in eq. (4), one gets, all calculations carried out:

$$\xi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\frac{\omega _0^2R_0}{c}\xi ^{^{}}+\frac{3\gamma P_0}{\rho _0R_0^2}\xi =\xi ^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}\xi ^{^{}}+\omega _0^2\xi =0$$
(5)
which is the well-known differential equation of a weakly333 Ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}/\omega _0=\omega _0R_0/c`$ is actually assumed to be much smaller than unity, as a consequence of the the validity condition of eq. (4). damped 1D harmonic oscillator.

### 2.2 Two-bubble free oscillation

Let us now add a second bubble, with the same (equilibrium) radius $`R_0`$, at a distance $`d`$ apart from the first one. Let $`\stackrel{}{r_i}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) be the (equilibrium) position of the $`i^{th}`$ bubble center, $`\xi _i(t)`$ its radius variation, $`p_i(t)`$ the (inner) extra pressure of the enclosed air, and $`p_i(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (resp. $`\stackrel{}{u}_i(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ the would-be (outer)extra pressure (resp. displacement with respect to equilibrium) at point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ and instant $`t`$ in the water medium if bubble $`i`$ was alone. Then, allowing for the superposition principle for small displacements, we assume that overall water extra pressure and displacement respectively read:

$`p(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)+p_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{u}_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)+\stackrel{}{u}_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ (7)
with, of course, $`p_i(t)`$ and $`\xi _i(t)`$ still linked by eq.(1). On the surface of the first bubble: $`r_1=\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_1\right|=R_0`$, $`r_2=\left|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_2\right|d`$, and $`p(\stackrel{}{r},t)=p_1(t)`$. A similar constraint is required on the surface of the second bubble, where $`r_1d`$ and $`r_2=R_0`$. If the bubble spacing $`d`$ is much smaller than $`\lambda `$ (i.e. $`\omega _0d/c1`$)444 In our experiments $`\lambda `$ is of order $`1m`$, while $`d`$ ranges from $`1`$ to $`5cm`$., then eq. (4) is available and we finally get the following pair of coupled motion equations:

$`\xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\alpha \xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}(\xi _1^{^{}}+\xi _2^{^{}})+\omega _0^2\xi _1=0`$ (8)
$`\alpha \xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}(\xi _1^{^{}}+\xi _2^{^{}})+\omega _0^2\xi _2=0`$ (9)
where $`\alpha =R_0/d(<0.5)`$ can be regarded as a dimensionless coupling constant. Observe, by the way, that if double condition: $`R_0d\lambda `$ is fulfilled, eqs. (8) and (9) are available (with $`\alpha 0`$), and dynamic variables $`\xi _i`$ are still coupled by radiation damping, since the dissipation terms do not involve $`\alpha `$.

Defining symmetrical and antisymmetrical normal variables $`\varphi _s(t)`$ and $`\varphi _a(t)`$ as respectively the sum and the difference of $`\xi _1(t)`$ and $`\xi _2(t)`$, we get the uncoupled equations system:

$`(1+\alpha )\varphi _s^{^{\prime \prime }}+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}\varphi _s^{^{}}+\omega _0^2\varphi _s`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
$`(1\alpha )\varphi _a^{^{\prime \prime }}+\omega _0^2\varphi _a`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (11)
It is noteworthy that, as far as only radiation is concerned, the symmetrical mode’s damping rate is twice the single-bubble’s one, while the antisymmetrical mode is undamped.This feature is easily understood in terms of constructive (resp. destructive) interference between the acoustic waves radiated by each bubble, and parallels a well-known situation in the atomic physics domain (super- and sub- radiant quantum states of a couple of identical atoms interacting with each other through the E.M. field). From eqs. (10) and (11), it is clear that the symmetrical mode has the lower angular frequency $`\omega _s=\omega _0/\sqrt{1+\alpha }`$, and the antisymmetrical mode the higher one $`\omega _a=\omega _0/\sqrt{1\alpha }`$. Observe that, leaving apart the calculation of radiative damping, it is very easy to derive above expressions of $`\omega _{s,a}`$ using the following trick. Let us consider the water as an uncompressible fluid (i.e. $`c\mathrm{}`$). The water displacement due to bubble $`i`$’s motion simply reads:

$$\stackrel{}{u}_i(\stackrel{}{r},t)=\xi _i(t)\frac{R_0^2}{r_i^2}\stackrel{}{e}_{r_i}$$
(12)
with $`\stackrel{}{e}_{r_i}=(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)/|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i|=(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{r}_i)/r_i`$. Then, allowing for eq. (7), the overall water kinetic energy $`T`$ is:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\rho _0{\displaystyle d^3r}({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{u}}{t}})^2`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_0\left(\xi _1^{}_{}{}^{}2+\xi _2^{}_{}{}^{}2+2\alpha \xi _1^{^{}}\xi _1^{^{}}\right)`$ (14)
where $`M_0=4\pi R_0^3\rho _0`$ is the effective mass of either bubble. On the other hand, the total potential energy $`V`$ associated with the isentropic compressibility of the enclosed air reads:

$$V=\frac{1}{2}K\left(\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2\right)$$
(15)
where $`K=12\pi \gamma R_0P_0`$ is the effective stiffness of either bubble. The Lagrange equations derived from $`L=TV`$ are:

$`\xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\alpha \xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\omega _0^2\xi _1=0`$ (16)
$`\alpha \xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\omega _0^2\xi _2=0`$ (17)
which is exactly the $`c\mathrm{}`$ limit of eqs. (8) and (9). It is worth noticing that eqs. (14) through (17) are formally equivalent to those of a system of two ($`L,C`$) electric circuits coupled by mutual induction with coefficient $`\alpha L`$. In this analogy, $`M_0`$ and $`K`$ respectively correspond to $`L`$ and $`1/C`$, and the $`\xi _i`$’s to the electric charges $`q_i`$ of either capacitor.

### 2.3 Forced oscillation

Let us now suppose that the above studied two-bubble system is driven by an external acoustic source with an angular frequency $`\omega `$ near Minnaert’s one, $`\omega _0`$. The phase difference of the driving pressures on both bubbles can therefore be neglected, since $`\omega d/c1`$. Let $`p_{ei}(t)`$ be the external pressure undergone by bubble $`i`$. Motion eqs. (8) and (9) are then completed in:

$`\xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\alpha \xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}(\xi _1^{^{}}+\xi _2^{^{}})+\omega _0^2\xi _1={\displaystyle \frac{p_{e1}(t)}{\rho _0R_0}}`$ (18)
$`\alpha \xi _1^{^{\prime \prime }}+\xi _2^{^{\prime \prime }}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}(\xi _1^{^{}}+\xi _2^{^{}})+\omega _0^2\xi _2={\displaystyle \frac{p_{e2}(t)}{\rho _0R_0}}`$ (19)
or equivalently:

$`\varphi _s^{^{\prime \prime }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rad}}{1+\alpha }}\varphi _s^{^{}}+\omega _s^2\varphi _s`$ $`=`$ $`F_{es}(t)`$ (20)
$`\varphi _a^{^{\prime \prime }}+\omega _a^2\varphi _a`$ $`=`$ $`F_{ea}(t)`$ (21)
with $`F_{es}(t)=(p_{e1}(t)+p_{e2}(t))/\rho _0R_0(1+\alpha )`$ and $`F_{ea}(t)=(p_{e1}(t)p_{e2}(t))/\rho _0R_0(1\alpha )`$. Solving for $`\varphi _s`$ and $`\varphi _a`$ in above eqs. (20) and (21), one gets $`\xi _1(t)`$ and $`\xi _2(t)`$, and consequently (using eq. (4)) quantities $`p_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ and $`p_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ at any point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ of the medium. At last, comparing external (applied) pressure $`p_e(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ with the actual overall extra pressure $`p(\stackrel{}{r},t)=p_e(\stackrel{}{r},t)+p_1(\stackrel{}{r},t)+p_2(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$, we can experimentally measure the two-bubble system’s response as a function of $`\omega `$. In this respect (and provided that the excitation-detection geometry allows it), resonances are expected for $`\omega =\omega _s`$ and $`\omega =\omega _a`$.

## 3. Experiments

Our aim is to demonstrate the existence of both above mentioned modes. From an experimental point of view, it turns out to be easier to implement a forced oscillation scheme than a free oscillation one. We therefore present the former hereafter.

### 3.1 Experimental setup

A small net (see fig.1), made up with a gauze maintained with a wire, is designed to catch up an air bubble in water and to fix it at any desired position without appreciably modifying acoustic impedance and spherical symmetry. Two such devices are used for studying the two-bubble system. The external driving source is a speaker and extrapressure $`p(\stackrel{}{r},t)`$ is measured with a small microphone. A function generator, to which the speaker is connected, produces a c.w. sinusoidal signal with a frequency slowly swept from $`f_{low}`$ to $`f_{high}`$. The signal delivered by the microphone is transmitted to a lock-in amplifier which compares it with the reference one (delivered by the function generator) and decomposes it into real and imaginary parts. Both parts can be seen on an oscilloscope and recorded with a computer (see fig.2).

In a preliminary set of experiments, without any bubble in the aquarium, the response of the microphone is calibrated for different speaker-microphone configurations. Two kinds of configurations are presented in figure 3. In figs. 3(a) and 3(b) the configuration is deliberately asymmetrical: the microphone is mainly susceptible to bubble 2’s motion, while the speaker selectively drives bubble 2 (fig. 3(a)) or bubble 1 (fig. 3(b)), so that $`F_{ea}(t)`$ is nonzero: both modes can be excited and the associated motions detected. In fig. 3(c), the speaker is placed far from the bubbles; then, not only the phases, but also the amplitudes of the external pressures $`p_{1e}(t)`$ and $`p_{2e}(t)`$ undergone on either bubble are appreciably equal. In such a symmetrical excitation configuration, $`F_{ea}(t)=0`$, so that the antisymmetrical mode remains unexcited. Observe, by the way, that since distances $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ between the bubbles and the microphone are equal, the latter would detect no contribution from the antisymmetrical mode even though it was excited (see eqs.(4) and (6): $`r_1=r_2`$ and $`\xi _1=\xi _2`$ yields $`p_1(r_1,t)+p(r_2,t)=0`$ ).

### 3.2 Results and discussion

In figs. 4(a) and 4(b), the imaginary part $`Imp`$ of the output signal from the lock-in amplifier is displayed versus the speaker frequency $`f`$ for various values of the bubbles spacing $`d`$. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) respectively correspond to configurations 3(a) and 3(b). Two resonances can be made out in fig 4(a) and (though at a lesser degree) in fig 4(b). Observe that the sign of the signal at the higher frequency resonance is changed from 4(a) to 4(b), while the lower frequency one remains unchanged. This is consistent with the latter signal being associated with the symmetrical mode’s resonance ($`\omega _s=\omega _0/\sqrt{1+\alpha }<\omega _0`$, and $`F_{es}`$ unchanged from configuration 3(a) to 3(b)), and the former one with the antisymmetrical mode’s resonance $`(\omega _a=\omega _0/\sqrt{1\alpha }>\omega _0`$, and $`F_{ea}`$ changed into $`F_{ea}`$ from configuration 3(a) to 3(b)).

It is noteworthy that both resonances have appreciably the same width. This is in contradiction with simplified eqs.(10) and (11) (or (20) and (21)), in which only the radiation damping was considered. In fact, as mentioned in introduction, other kinds of damping should be taken into account: if viscous damping is absolutely negligible for such large bubbles, thermal damping is not (see fig.8 in ), and may be at the origin of the linewidth. Further discussion of this point is out of the scope of the present paper. In figure 5, we have plotted, for both symmetrical and antisymmetrical modes, and for $`R_02mm`$, the inverse squared frequency $`f^2`$ (multiplied by a factor of $`10^7`$) versus the inverse bubble spacing $`d^1`$, in order to get a visual check of theoretical relations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_s^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{f_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_a^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{f_0^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}`$ (23)
Although experimental points are appreciably aligned, the measured slopes are about $`40\%`$ below theoretical prediction, suggesting that coupling constant $`\alpha `$ has been overestimated. In fact, theoretical value $`\alpha =R_0/d`$ was derived in eq.(14) when integrating the water kinetic energy density $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _0(\frac{\stackrel{}{u}}{t})^2`$ over the whole space555 More precisely: over the whole space outside the two bubbles (the inner air’s inertia being negligible). Nevertheless, it can be shown that the coefficient of coupling term $`\xi _1^{^{}}\xi _2^{^{}}`$ in integral (14) does not depend on the bubbles radius $`R_0`$.. This inertial coupling is naturally lowered if some obstacle lies between the bubbles and consequently screens (part of) the water flow666 The effective mass $`M_0`$ is modified too, but at a lesser degree.. Now, this is exactly what happens in configurations 3(a) and 3(b): to be able to excite the antisymmetrical mode, we are compelled to insert the speaker between the two bubbles, thus bringing about the above screening effect. In order to check this interpretation, we performed the same experiment with configuration 3(c), and recorded, for the symmetrical branch of the linear fitting of fig. 5, a slope of about $`90\%`$ of the theoretically predicted value.

At last, it should be noted that, when blocked from the top by the net, the bubble is, strictly speaking, no longer spherical. As mentioned in footnote 1, such a deviation from the spherical shape is (almost) of no consequence, and we have used the formulas derived above in section 2 with $`R_0`$ standing for the radius of the sphere of equivalent volume (i.e. the radius of the bubble before it is captured by the net). Nevertheless, this feature of our experimental setup raises the following difficulty: since, in course of motion, the fixed point of the bubble is no longer its centre (as implicitly assumed in the theoretical model) but its top, expression (12) of the water displacement is no longer correct; a dipolar term should be added to the spherical monopolar one. As a consequence, the kinetic energy $`T`$ derived in eq.(14) is modified too. More precisely, an exact calulation shows that $`T`$ should be multiplied by a factor of $`7/6`$ and the coupling constant $`\alpha `$ by a factor of $`1+R_0^2/(4d^2)`$. These corrections lie within our experimental accuracy. We have consequently neglected them. In this respect, it may be noted that the gauze in our device does not act like a rigid wall because the water can flow through the meshes of the net. The situation is therefore different from that discused in other studies considering the influence of the proximity of a rigid boundary on the Minnaert frequency.

## 4. Conclusion

As a conclusion, the acoustic inertial coupling between two air bubbles in water has been experimentally put in evidence. Theoretical analysis shows that the two-bubble system is formally equivalent to a set of two magnetically coupled ($`L`$,$`C`$) electric circuits, with two eigenmodes, respectively symmetrical and antisymmetrical. Experimental measurements and theoretical predictions are in $`10\%`$ accuracy agreement.

## 5. Acknowledgment

We gratefully thank Professor F.Massias for enriching discussions about the correction to the Minnaert frequency in the case of a bubble fixed from the top by a wide-mesh net.

## Figure Captions

Simple tool for capturing the bubble

Diagram of the experimental setup. In the experiment, we pump air into a tube immersed in water to produce the bubbles. The radii difference between these bubbles is small and will be neglected. (It can be shown that a small radii difference yields second order correction of $`\omega _s`$ and $`\omega _a`$).

Different geometrical configurations

(a) Spectra of symmetrical and antisymmetrical modes in configuration 3(a).
(b) Change of sign of $`Imp`$ for the antisymmetrical mode when configuration 3(b) is adopted.

Linear fitting of the plot $`\frac{1}{f_{s,a}^2}10^7(Hz^2)`$ vs. $`\frac{1}{d}(cm^1)`$ for the two modes. Average of the resonance frequency of the two bubbles: $`1499Hz`$; corresponding radius: $`0.217cm`$; slopes for the two fitting lines: $`0.578`$ and $`0.550`$ $`(cmsec^2)`$; slopes of theoretical prediction: $`\pm 0.966(cmsec^2)`$.