text:
# Double giant dipole resonances in time-dependent density-matrix theory

## Abstract

The strength functions of the double giant dipole resonances (DGDR) in 16O and 40Ca are calculated with the use of an extended version of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory known as the time-dependent density-matrix theory. The calculations are done in a self-consistent manner, in which the same Skyrme force as that used for a mean-field potential is used as an effective interaction for a two-body correlation function. It is found that the DGDR in 16O has a large width due to the Landau damping, although the centroid energy of the strength distribution is close to twice the energy of the giant dipole resonance (GDR) calculated in RPA. The DGDR in 40Ca is found more harmonic than that in 16O: the strength function of the DGDR in 40Ca is similar to what is predicted from the strength function of the GDR in RPA.

PACS numbers: 21.60.Jz, 24.10.Cn, 24.30.Cz

Keywords: giant dipole resonance, double phonon state, extended time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory

The double phonon states of giant resonances have become the subject of a number of recent experimental and theoretical investigations . Microscopic calculations of the strength functions of double giant dipole resonances (DGDR) have also been done based on the shell model  and quasiparticle-phonon models . However, few microscopic studies have been reported, in which a single-particle basis and a residual interaction are treated in such a self-consistent manner as used in random-phase-approximation (RPA) calculations for giant resonances . We have recently proposed a self-consistent approach  based on an extended version of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock theory (TDHF) known as the time-dependent density-matrix theory (TDDM) , in which the same Skyrme force as that used for the calculation of a mean-field potential is used as a residual interaction for a two-body correlation function. We applied the model to the double giant quadrupole resonances (DGQR) in 16O and 40Ca  and showed that the DGQR’s in these nuclei have strong harmonic properties. The aim of this paper is to report the results of the application of the TDDM approach to the DGDR’s in 16O and 40Ca.

The formulation of TDDM is based on the truncation of the hierarchy of reduced density matrices, in which genuine correlated parts in a three-body density matrix and higher reduced density matrices are neglected . The TDDM equations thus determine the time evolution of a one-body density matrix $`\rho `$ and a two-body correlation function $`C_2`$ defined by $`C_2=\rho _2A[\rho \rho ]`$, where $`A[\rho \rho ]`$ is the antisymmetrized product of the one-body density matrices and $`\rho _2`$ is a two-body density matrix. In TDDM, further truncation is made by expanding $`\rho `$ and $`C_2`$ with a finite number of single-particle states $`\{\psi _\alpha \}`$ as

$`\rho (11^{},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}}n_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(t)\psi _\alpha (1,t)\psi _\alpha ^{}^{}(1^{},t),`$ (1)
$`C_2(121^{}2^{},t)={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}}C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(t)\psi _\alpha (1,t)\psi _\beta (2,t)\psi _\alpha ^{}^{}(1^{},t)\psi _\beta ^{}^{}(2^{},t),`$ (2)
where the numbers denote space, spin and isospin coordinates. The time evolution of $`\rho `$ and $`C_2`$ is determined by the following three coupled equations :

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\psi _\alpha (1,t)=h(1,t)\psi _\alpha (1,t),`$ (3)
$`i\mathrm{}\dot{n}_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}={\displaystyle \underset{\beta \gamma \delta }{}}[\alpha \beta |v|\gamma \delta C_{\gamma \delta \alpha ^{}\beta }C_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }\gamma \delta |v|\alpha ^{}\beta ],`$ (4)
$`i\mathrm{}\dot{C}_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}=B_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}+P_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}+H_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}},`$ (5)
where $`h(1,t)`$ is the mean-field hamiltonian and $`v`$ the residual interaction. The term $`B_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ on the right-hand side of Eq.(5) represents the Born terms (the first-order terms of $`v`$). The terms $`P_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ and $`H_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ in Eq.(5) contain $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ and represent higher-order particle-particle (and hole-hole) and particle-hole type correlations, respectively. Thus full two-body correlations including those induced by the Pauli exclusion principle are taken into account in the equation of motion for $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$. The explicit expressions for $`B_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$, $`P_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ and $`H_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ are given in Ref.. The small amplitude limit of TDDM was investigated  and it was shown that TDDM can be reduced to the second RPA - in such a limit. The number of two-body matrices treated in TDDM grows very rapidly with increasing mass number, restricting the application of TDDM to light nuclei for the present. To solve the coupled equations, we use the Skyrme interaction of the form

$`v(𝐫𝐫^{})`$ $`=`$ $`t_0(1+x_0P_\sigma )\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t_1\{k^2\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})+\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})k^2\}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`t_2𝐤^{}\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{})𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}t_3\rho \left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐫+𝐫^{}}{2}}\right)\delta ^3(𝐫𝐫^{}),`$ (7)
where $`𝐤=(_𝐫_𝐫^{})/2i`$ acts to the right and $`𝐤^{}=(_𝐫^{}_𝐫)/2i`$ acts to the left. The factor 1/2 on the density dependent term contains the contribution of a rearrangement effect . We use the parameter set of the Skyrme III force (SKIII) . The spin-orbit force is neglected. We assume that the motion of the DGDR is generated by a two-body operator $`\widehat{D}^2`$:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)=e^{ik\widehat{D}^2}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (8)
where $`\widehat{D}`$ is a one-body dipole operator and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ the ground-state wave function. The initial conditions for solving the coupled equations Eqs.(3)-(5) are determined with the use of the above wave function. We evaluate the initial values of $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$

$`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(t=0)=\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0)|a_\alpha ^{}^+a_\beta ^{}^+a_\beta a_\alpha |\mathrm{\Psi }(t=0),`$ (9)
assuming that $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the Hartree-Fock (HF) ground-state wave function. At first order of $`k`$, the initial condition for $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ becomes

$`C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|a_\rho ^+a_\sigma ^+a_\nu a_\mu |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`2ik\{\mu |D|\rho \nu |D|\sigma \mu |D|\sigma \nu |D|\rho \}`$ (11)
$`C_{\rho \sigma \mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|a_\mu ^+a_\nu ^+a_\sigma a_\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2ik\{\rho |D|\mu \sigma |D|\nu \rho |D|\nu \sigma |D|\mu \},`$ (13)
where $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ refer to unoccupied single-particle states, and $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ refer to occupied ones. We choose the dipole operator in the above equations such as $`D=\tau _zz`$. Other elements of the initial $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ vanish at first order of $`k`$. Similarly, non-varnishing initial values of $`n_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}`$ become

$`n_{\mu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|a_\rho ^+a_\mu |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`2ik{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\mu |D|\nu \nu |D|\rho `$ (15)
$`n_{\rho \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }|a_\mu ^+a_\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`2ik{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}\rho |D|\nu \nu |D|\mu .`$ (17)
For the initial $`\psi _\alpha `$’s we use the HF single-particle wave functions. The strength function of the DGDR, defined by

$`S_2(E)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}|\mathrm{\Phi }_n|\widehat{D}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2\delta (EE_n),`$ (18)
is given by the Fourier transform of the time-dependent two-body dipole moment $`D_2(t)`$ as

$`S_2(E)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi k\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}D_2(t)\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{Et}{\mathrm{}}}dt,`$ (19)
where $`D_2`$ is given by

$`D_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\widehat{D}^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{}}\alpha |D^2|\alpha ^{}n_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}}\alpha |D|\alpha ^{}\beta |D|\beta ^{}\{A[n_{\alpha ^{}\alpha }n_{\beta ^{}\beta }]+C_{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}\alpha \beta }\}.`$ (21)
The terms without $`C_{\alpha \beta \alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}`$ in the above equation have negligible contribution to the Fourier transformation in Eq.(14). The $`k`$ dependence of $`S_2(E)`$ thus obtained is negligible as long as $`k`$ is sufficiently small. The energy-weighted sum rule (EWSR) for the DGDR is given as

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ES_2(E)𝑑E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|[\widehat{D}^2,[H,\widehat{D}^2]|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{m}}\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{D}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0+4(t_1+t_2)\mathrm{\Phi }_0|\widehat{R}\widehat{D}^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0,`$ (23)
where $`H`$ is the total hamiltonian and $`m`$ the nucleon mass. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(16) is due to the momentum dependence of the Skyrme force and $`\widehat{R}`$ is the following two-body operator

$`\widehat{R}={\displaystyle \underset{ip,jn}{}}\delta ^3(𝐫_i𝐫_j).`$ (24)
The EWSR value is evaluated with the use of the HF wave function for $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq.(16) has a contribution of about 30% to the total EWSR value.

To solve the coupled equations Eqs.(3)-(5), we use a minimum number of single-particle states: the $`1s,1p,2s`$ and $`1d`$ single-particle orbits for 16O and the $`1s,1p,2s,1d,2p`$ and $`1f`$ orbits for 40Ca. To check the validity of such truncation of the single-particle space, we performed RPA calculations for the GDR strength functions in 16O and 40Ca using the time-dependent RPA equations  in the same truncated space. The obtained results were compared with those of the TDHF calculations which correspond to continuum RPA calculations . The fractions of the EWSR values depleted in the energy interval $`040`$MeV were turned out to be 90% in 16O and 93% in 40Ca, respectively. These values are sufficiently large and comparable with the TDHF values which are close to 100% . However, the excitation energies of the GDR’s in RPA were slightly larger than those in TDHF. To adjust the excitation energies of the GDR’s to the TDHF values, we reduced the parameter $`x_0`$ of the spin-dependent term of the Skyrme force Eq.(6). The obtained value of $`x_0`$ was 0.3 instead of the original value of 0.45. We use this reduced value of $`x_0`$ in the following calculations. The spin-dependent term of the Skyrme force has a negligible contribution to the mean-field potential in spin-isospin symmetric nuclei like 16O and 40Ca considered here  and, therefore, the single-particle wave functions are not affected by the reduction of the strength of the spin-dependent term. The integration in Eq.(14) is performed for a finite time interval of $`1.52\times 10^{21}`$s. As a result $`S_2(E)`$ has small fluctuations. To reduce the fluctuations in $`S_2(E)`$, we multiply $`D_2(t)`$ by a damping factor $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }t/2}`$ before performing the time integration. This corresponds to smoothing the strength function with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We use $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$MeV. Other calculational details are explained in our previous publications .

The strength distribution of the DGQR in 16O calculated in TDDM is shown in Fig.1 (thick solid line). The bump seen around $`E=45`$MeV corresponds to the DGDR. The strength function $`S_1(E)`$ of the GDR obtained from the time-dependent RPA calculation is also shown in Fig.1 (dotted line). The width of the GDR is small and nearly equal to the width due to the smoothing and the finite time integration as explained above. The thin vertical bar at $`E=45.8`$MeV indicates the location of the DGDR strength predicted from the GDR shown in Fig.1. The fraction of the EWSR value of the DGDR depleted in the energy interval 10–60MeV is 82%. The centroid energy of the DGDR strength distribution between 35MeV and 55MeV is 44.6MeV. The energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=45.8`$MeV$`44.6`$MeV$`=1.2`$MeV is small but slightly larger than the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.8`$MeV obtained from the work done by de Souza Cruz and Weiss  using the generator coordinate method and the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<0.7`$MeV obtained from the formula given by Bertsch and Feldmeire . Though the centroid energy of the DGDR is close to twice the GDR energy, the DGDR in 16O has a large width due to the Landau damping.

The strength distribution of the DGQR in 40Ca calculated in TDDM is shown in Fig.2 (solid line). The bump seen around $`E=40`$MeV corresponds to the DGDR. The strength function $`S_1(E)`$ of the GDR in 40Ca calculated in the time-dependent RPA is also shown in Fig.2 (dotted line). The GDR strength is split into two peaks in the case of 40Ca. A similar split is seen in the TDHF calculation for 40Ca . The fraction of the EWSR value of the DGDR depleted in the energy interval 10–60MeV is 88%. In Fig.3 the strength function of the DGDR (thick solid line) is compared with what is expected from that of the GDR shown in Fig.2: The thin vertical bars in Fig.3 indicate the locations and relative strengths of the DGDR predicted from the GDR in RPA, assuming that the GDR consists of the two discrete components. The centroid of the DGDR strength distribution in the energy range 30–50MeV is 39.6MeV, while that of the GDR prediction is 39.0MeV. The energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0.6`$MeV may be larger than 0.2MeV obtained from Refs. but is smaller than 1.0MeV given by the shell model calculation for 40Ca . Though the main peak in TDDM located at 40MeV has more strengths than that predicted from the RPA calculation, the DGDR seems to have weaker Landau damping in 40Ca than in 16O and the shape of the strength distribution is similar to what is expected from the GDR in RPA. This means that the dipole mode becomes fairly harmonic in the mass region of 40Ca. A similar conclusion was obtained by de Souza Cruz and Weiss  comparing the DGDR in 16O with that in 40Ca. The small anharmonicities of the DGDR in Ca have also been pointed out by Catara et al. using a boson expansion approach and the anharmonicities of the DGDR’s in heavier nuclei have recently been studied by several groups .

In summary, the strength functions of the DGDR’s in 16O and 40Ca were calculated in TDDM in a self-consistent manner, in which the same Skyrme force as that used for the calculation of the mean-field potential was used for the two-body correlation function. It was pointed out that the strength function of the DGDR is obtained from the Fourier transform of the time-dependent two-body dipole moment. It was found that in both nuclei the excitation energies of the DGDR’s are very close to twice those of the GDR’s. It was also found that the DGDR in 16O has a large width due to the Landau damping, indicating the anharmonicity of the dipole mode in 16O.


format: text

text:
# Low Frequency Radio Emission of Pulsar PSR J1907+0919 Associated with the Magnetar SGR 1900+14

## 1. Introduction

Among known soft gamma- ray repeaters to date, only SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806-20 are the objects for which a secular spin-down of the pulse periods (5.16 s and 7.47 s accordingly) with $`\dot{P}`$ of order $`10^{10}`$s/s was detected and thereby was established that these SGRs are neutron stars with a superstrong magnetic field of order $`10^{15}`$G (Kouveliotou et al. 1998; Kouveliotou et al. 1999), called as a ”magnetars” (Duncan & Thompson 1992).

Since the end of 1998 we carried out the observations of the SGR 1900+14 at low frequency (111 MHz) and have detected the periodic pulsed radio emission from this magnetar (Shitov 1999). In this paper we report the results of our observations obtained till August 1999.

## 2. Observations

The observations of the magnetar SGR 1900+14 were started since 1998 December using the BSA radio telescope operating now at the new frequency of 111 MHz. (In 1998 October BSA - wavelength dipole array with dimensions of 187 x 384 m, transit time of $`200s/Cos(\delta )`$ \- was reconstructed to shift the previous operating frequency of 102.5 MHz to the new one of 111 MHz (Kutuzov et al. 1999) ) We used 128 x 20 kHz filterbank receiver and multichannel recording system to record the individual pulses during the BSA transit time. Different sampling intervals of 22.6816 and 20.1728 ms were used. All further processing procedures: cleaning of the noise signal in a each frequency channel, dedispersion, spectral analysis, the folding of dedispersed data for integrated pulse profile and the timing analysis were made ”off line”.

## 3. The detection of radio pulses from SGR 1900+14

For the first time we have detected pulsed with 5.161-s period radio emission from SGR 1900+14 in 1998 December 12, when as result of dedispersion procedures the integrated pulse profile with a good enough signal/noise ratio appeared with a dispersion measure ( DM ) of about $`280pccm^3`$. It was surprising that the revealed profile was quite narrow, with the width of about $`7.^{}5`$. The next radio detection of SGR 1900+14 like the first one was only in 1999 January 6 (note that between this dates the antenna array was often covered by hoar-frost). Fig. 1 demonstrates these two detection of the SGR signals at 111 MHz.

During subsequent regular observations the pulses from SGR 1900+14 with the same DM values and similar pulse width of about 100 ms were detected repeatedly. The estimated for the best records mean flux density at 111 MHz is approximately 50 mJy. The measured value of $`DM=281.4(9)pccm^3`$. So far as the period derivative $`\dot{P}`$ was known for the magnetar with the limited accuracy the pulses were recorded in a unpredictable phases (Fig.2, left) till the middle of January 1999 when $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ were improved as a result of the timing analysis.

Fig.2 (right) demonstrates some pulse profiles of SGR 1900+14, the phase of which aligned in an accordance with the timing solution.

There were a number of records in which we have detected interpulses with amplitude (and, of course, dispersion measure) like the main pulse, and which were located in different phases. Two examples of these interpulses are seen in Fig. 2 (09 01 99 and 17 06 99).

## 4. Timing analysis

For timing analysis of our data as the initial parameters of SGR 1900+14 we used the values of P = 5.160199(2) s, $`\dot{P}=1.14(23)10^{10}`$ s/s, MJD = 51056.0, obtained by Kouveliotou et al. (1999) in 1998 August 28. The exact position of the magnetar: $`R.A.(J2000)=19h07m14.^\mathrm{s}33`$, $`Dec.(J2000)=09{}_{}{}^{}19{}_{}{}^{}20.^{\prime \prime }1`$ , obtained with the VLA observations of an outburst of relativistic particles from SGR 1900+14 (Frail, Kulkarni & Bloom 1999) we used in our analysis. The first timing solution for $`P`$ and $`\dot{P}`$ was found for the first records, obtained in the date interval Dec. 12 1998 - Jan. 14 1999, after that in the subsequent observations with improved parameters the pulses were detected in the precalculated phases. In IAUC 7110 we have reported the solution: P = 5.161297854 (83)s, $`\dot{P}`$ = 1.23228 (34)s/s, which was found for the interval Dec. 12 1998 - Feb. 4 1999.

In this paper we present the results, obtained during Dec. 12 1998 \- July 30 1999. We have selected 16 best records and found for this dates interval the following timing solution: P = 5.161297899 (67) s, $`\dot{P}=1.23197(15)10^{10}`$ s/s, $`\ddot{P}=+0.53(14)10^{20}`$ s/s/s, MJD = 51159.4605 with the RMS of phase residual of 28 ms. The inclusion of the second period derivative essentially improved the timing in this interval of dates (see Fig. 3). For the epoch MJD = 51056.0, found parameters give P = 5.1601969 s, that is in a good agreement with Kouveliotou’s et al. (1999) measurements.

## 5. Conclusions

New radio pulsar PSR J1907+0919 associated with the soft gamma repeater SGR 1900+14 is representative of a new class of pulsars with a superstrong magnetic field, slow down value of which for this pulsar is $`8.110^{14}`$ G. Presented results confirm that this object is a magnetar (Duncan & Thompson 1992; Kouveliotou et al. 1999). The pulsar distance of about 5.8 kpc determined from dispersion measure $`DM=281pccm^3`$ supports the suggested earlier in a number of papers genetic connection of SGR 1900+14 with supernova remnants SNR G42.8+0.6. As timing analysis have shown there is no evidence for binary orbital motion of this pulsar, at least with $`P_{orb}<250`$ days and with $`a\mathrm{sin}i>60`$ ms.

### Acknowledgments.

This work was supported partly by grant INTAS 96-0154.

## References

Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

Frail, D.A., Kulkarni, S.R. & Bloom, J.S. 1999, Nature, 398, 127

Hurley, K., Kouveliotou, C., Murakami, T., & Strohmayer, T. 1998, IAU Circ. 7001

Kouveliotou, C., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235

Kouveliotou, C., Strohmayer, T., Hurley, K., van Paradijs, J., Finger, M. H., Dieters, S., Woods, P., Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C. 1999, ApJ, 510, L115

Kutuzov, S. M., et al. 1999 in Lebedev Physical Institute Proc., submitted

Shitov, Yu.P. 1999, IAU Circ. 7110


text:
# Extending the Velocity-dependent One-scale String Evolution Model

## I Introduction

The velocity-dependent one-scale (VOS) model provides the most convenient and reliable method by which to calculate the large-scale quantitative properties of a string network in cosmological and other contexts. It is widely used for making quantitative predict ions of the potential observational implications of cosmic strings. Given its simplicity, it is remarkable how well the VOS model performs when tested against high resolution numerical simulations of string networks. It is well-known that string evolution is a complex physical process with a build-up of small-scale structure on the strings, which is very computationally demanding to model accurately. Analytic approaches like the VOS model, abandon the possibility of describing the statistical physics of the string network accurately and concentrate instead on its thermodynamics. In other words, a small number of macroscopic quantities are selected and the microscopic string equations of motion are used to derive evolution equations for these averaged quantities. The price to be paid in this approach is that the averaging process introduces phenomenological parameters whose values are not specified by the model itself. Instead, one must still fix these parameters by direct comparison with numerical simulations.

The VOS model is a generalization of the ‘one-scale’ model pioneered by Kibble (see also ref.) which describes string motion in terms of a single correlation length $`L`$. By incorporating a variable rms velocity $`v`$, the VOS model extends its validity into early regimes with frictional damping and across the important matter-radiation transition, thus giving a quantitative picture of the complete history of a cosmic string network. Other analytic approaches to string evolution have attempted to incorporate the additional small-scale structure seen in numerical simulations. This includes a ‘kink-counting’ model, a functional approach , a ‘three-scale’ model and a ‘wiggly’ model . While these are important for characterising detailed network features, they introduce a significant number of further phenomenological parameters which must be fixed by simulations (and which remain rather uncertain). Nevertheless, for describing the large-scale properties of a long-string network, the VOS model has proved to be sufficient for a good quantitative fit using only a single parameter, the loop chopping efficiency $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$.

The purpose of the present paper is, first, to provide a concise exposition of the VOS string evolution model. We summarise how it can be applied to describe cosmological string evolution, including late times with a cosmological constant, and we present the very different histories of both GUT- and electroweak-scale strings. Secondly, we propose an improvement of the VOS model by presenting a new ansatz for the momentum parameter $`k`$, which we justify both analytically and numerically. Thirdly, we present a further extension incorporating radiation backreaction, which provides small corrections to the cosmological scaling laws and which also compares favourably with published results of global string simulations. Finally, we review generalizations in a curved FRW spacetime, giving some further asymptotic scaling solutions. We report on detailed comparisons between numerical string simulations and the VOS model elsewhere .

## II The VOS string network model

The velocity-dependent one-scale model has been described in considerable detail elsewhere , so here we limit ourselves to a brief summary which highlights the features that will be important for what follows. Also for simplicity, we will only discuss the evolution of the long string network, even though this formalism is also applicable to the loop population, mutatis mutandis. We will discuss this case in detail elsewhere .

### A The averaged evolution equations

Averaged quantities which we could use to describe the string network are its energy $`E`$ and RMS velocity $`v`$ defined by

$$E=\mu a(\tau )ϵ𝑑\sigma ,v^2=\frac{\dot{𝐱}^2ϵ𝑑\sigma }{ϵ𝑑\sigma },$$
(1)
where the string trajectory $`𝐱(\sigma ,t)`$ is parametrised by the worldsheet coordinates $`\sigma `$ and $`t`$ and the ‘energy density’ $`ϵ(\sigma ,t)`$ gives the string length per unit $`\sigma `$ along the string.

Any string network divides fairly neatly into two distinct populations, long (or ‘infinite’) strings and small closed loops with corresponding quantities denoted by a subscript $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ respectively. The long string network is a Brownian random walk on large scales and can be characterised by a correlation length $`L`$. This can be used to replace the energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}=\rho _{\mathrm{}}V`$ in long strings in our averaged description, that is,

$$\rho _{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mu }{L^2}.$$

A phenomenological term must then be included to account for the loss of energy from long strings by the production of loops, which are much smaller than $`L`$. A ‘loop chopping efficiency’ parameter $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is introduced to characterise this loop production as

$$\left(\frac{d\rho _{\mathrm{}}}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{to}\mathrm{loops}}=\stackrel{~}{c}v_{\mathrm{}}\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{}}}{L}.$$
(2)
In this approximation, we would expect the loop parameter $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ to remain constant irrespective of the cosmic regime, because it is multiplied by factors which determine the string network self-interaction rate.

From the microscopic string equations of motion, one can then average to derive the evolution equation for the correlation length $`L`$,

$$2\frac{dL}{dt}=2HL(1+v_{\mathrm{}}^2)+\frac{L}{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{f}}v_{\mathrm{}}^2+\stackrel{~}{c}v_{\mathrm{}},$$
(3)
where $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{f}`$ is a friction damping length scale. The first term in (3) is due to the stretching of the network by the Hubble expansion which is modulated by the redshifting of the string velocity. The second term is due to frictional interactions by a high density of background particles scattering off the strings. The friction length scale $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{f}`$ (defined in ref. ) typically depends on the background temperature as $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{f}(1)\mu T^3`$, so that it grows with the scale factor as $`a^3`$. It usually becomes irrelevant after a time $`t_{}(G\mu )^1t_c`$ (with $`t_c`$ being the epoch at which the network was formed) which is a very short time for GUT-scale strings but can be as late as $`t_0`$ for electroweak strings. Note also that equation (3) is valid for an arbitrary flat FRW model with $`H`$ given by the Friedmann equation,

$$H^2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2=H_0^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{R0}}a^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}a^3\right)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{R0}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}`$ are the fractional radiation and matter densities today at $`t_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the cosmological constant and we take $`a(t_0)=1`$.

One can also derive an evolution equation for the long string velocity with only a little more than Newton’s second law

$$\frac{dv_{\mathrm{}}}{dt}=\left(1v_{\mathrm{}}^2\right)\left[\frac{k}{L}\left(2H+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_\mathrm{f}}\right)v_{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(5)
where $`k`$ is called the ‘momentum parameter’. The first term is the acceleration due to the curvature of the strings and the second damping term is from both the expansion and background friction. The parameter $`k`$ is defined by

$$k\frac{(1\dot{𝐱}^2)(\dot{𝐱}𝐮)}{v(1v^2)},$$
(6)
with $`\dot{𝐱}`$ the microscopic string velocity and $`𝐮`$ a unit vector parallel to the curvature radius vector. In previous work , we left $`k`$ as a second phenomenological parameter, while pointing out that it is related to small-scale structure and also demonstrating specified asymptotic dependencies on the velocity. In the next section, however, we justify an accurate ansatz for $`k`$ which removes this additional freedom. For most relativistic regimes relevant to cosmic strings it is sufficient to define it as follows:

$$k_{\mathrm{rel}}(v)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\frac{18v^6}{1+8v^6}.$$
(7)
In the extreme friction-dominated case ($`v0`$), we have the nonrelativistic limit $`k_{\mathrm{nr}}=2\sqrt{2}/\pi `$ with a more complicated ansatz than (7) interpolating between these limits for intermediate regimes.

Finally, we end this summary by noting that the VOS model has been extensively compared with the results of numerical simulations and shown to provide a good fit to the large-scale properties of a string network. In particular, it matches well the evolution between asymptotic regimes as a network passes through the matter–radiation transition. Comparisons with numerical simulations confirm the constancy of the only free parameter, the loop chopping efficiency $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, and fix its value to be

$$\stackrel{~}{c}=0.23\pm 0.04.$$
(8)
The VOS model for any flat FRW cosmology, then, consists of the evolution equations (3) and (5) with the parameters $`c`$ specified in (8) and $`k`$ given by (7) (or a more accurate general expression given below) and the scale factor $`a`$ satisfying the Friedmann equation (4).

### B Scale-invariant solutions

We now start to use the VOS model to provide a general overview of the evolution of string networks in various cosmological scenarios. First we analyse some basic late-time properties of cosmic string networks, neglecting the effect of friction due to particle scattering. A crucial question is whether or not they can reach a ‘scale invariant’ attractor solution which is required, among other things, for a Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum of primordial density fluctuations to be generated. This can be discussed by analysing the VOS equations (3) and (5).

Scale-invariant solutions of the form $`Lt`$, $`LH^1`$ or $`Ld_H`$, together with $`v_{\mathrm{}}=const.`$, only appear to exist when the scale factor is a power law of the form

$$a(t)t^\beta ,\beta =const.,0<\beta <1.$$
(9)
This condition implies that

$$LtH^1d_H,$$
(10)
with the proportionality factors dependent on $`\beta `$. It is useful to introduce the following useful parameters to describe the relative correlation length and densities, defining them respectively as

$$L=\gamma t,\zeta \gamma ^2=\rho _{\mathrm{}}t^2/\mu .$$
(11)
By looking for stable fixed points in the VOS equations, we can express the actual scaling solutions in the following implicit form:

$$\gamma ^2=\frac{k(k+\stackrel{~}{c})}{4\beta (1\beta )},v^2=\frac{k(1\beta )}{\beta (k+\stackrel{~}{c})},$$
(12)
where $`k`$ is the constant value of $`k(v)`$ given by solving the second (implicit) equation for the velocity. Although it may not be obvious by inspection, it is easy to verify numerically that this solution is well-behaved and stable for all realistic parameter values.

If the scale factor is not a power law, then simple scale-invariant solutions like (12) do not exist. Physically this happens because the network dynamics are unable to adapt rapidly enough to the changes in the background cosmology. A prime example of this is, of course, the transition between the radiation and matter-dominated eras. The evolution of a GUT-scale network shown in fig. 1 illustrates asymptotic regimes in which string evolution is scale-invariant, as well as the matter–radiation transition where it is not. Note that for realistic cosmological parameter choices, a string network today is still only slowly approaching its asymptotic matter density. Since, the cosmological importance of the changes in the network properties during the matter–radiation transition cannot be over-emphasised, it is important to calculate these accurately either with direct numerical simulations or with the VOS or similar analytic model. The same is also true for late time curvature or cosmological constant domination.

### C Friction-dominated scaling solutions

During friction-dominated epochs one has different ‘scaling’ solutions. However, these are no longer ‘scale-invariant’, since in this case the network retains a memory of its initial conditions, and in particular of the epoch of formation. This can be conveniently expressed by a parameter

$$\theta \left(\frac{t_c}{t_{Pl}}\right)^{1/2},$$
(13)
which is essentially the value of the ratio of the damping terms due to friction and Hubble damping, measured at the epoch of string formation.

Thus in realistic cosmological contexts one can have two different regimes . The first is a ‘stretching’ regime,

$$\frac{L}{L_c}=\left(\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{1/2},v=\frac{t}{\theta L_c},$$
(14)
which is an early-time, transient period which will occur when the initial string density and velocity are sufficiently low—for example, as a result of a slow first-order phase transition. In this case the network starts out with a correlation length significantly larger than the damping length and so is ‘frozen’, and is conformally stretched. However the damping length is growing as $`\mathrm{}_ft^{3/2}`$, so it quickly catches up with it, ending this regime. However, this can last for many orders of magnitude in time for electroweak-scale networks. Although this is not cosmologically relevant except for extremely light strings, the analogous regime in the matter-dominated case would be

$$Lt^{2/3},vt^{4/3}.$$
(15)
The true attractor solution for a friction-dominated epoch, which follows the stretching regime (if this exists) is the Kibble regime, which in the radiation era has the form

$$\frac{L}{L_c}=\left[\frac{2k_{nr}(\stackrel{~}{c}+k_{nr})}{3\theta }\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{5/4},v=\left[\frac{3k_{nr}}{2\theta (\stackrel{~}{c}+k_{nr})}\right]^{1/2}\left(\frac{t}{t_c}\right)^{1/4},$$
(16)
where $`k_{nr}`$ is the value of the momentum parameter in the nonrelativistic limit given above. In this case the correlation length stays halfway between the damping length and the horizon length. Again there is a matter era analogue, which as the form

$$Lt^{3/2},vt^{1/2},$$
(17)
but this is rarely relevant cosmologically. In the extreme case of an electroweak scale network, friction domination ends after radiation-matter equality, but not far enough away from it for this regime to be reached.

These points are illustrated in fig. 2 where we see the evolution of an electroweak-scale string network. It is interesting to note the scaling behaviour for two cases with very different initial conditions from extreme first- and second-order transitions. The high density strings from a second-order transition quickly approach the Kibble scaling regime (16) discussed above. However, the low density strings from a first-order transition begin in a distinct stretching regime (14) and persist in it with their density falling slowly until it matches that for the attractor Kibble regime. In this case, the string network retains a ‘memory’ of its initial density for about ten orders of magnitude in cosmic time. However, even during the friction-dominated regime the network is able to erase this memory once the Kibble regime is reached. On the other hand, the memory of the epoch of formation is not erased—one could in principle recover it by measuring the parameter $`\theta `$. This can also be seen for GUT strings in fig. 1, although the network does not have time to relax into a definite scaling regime before friction-domination ends. For electroweak strings, there are also interesting departures from scaling behaviour at the matter–radiation transition and the network remains friction-dominated until about three orders of magnitude in time afterwards. Also note that in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$ case the strings only reach the relativistic regime at about the present time, and in the observationally preferred case $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$ they are always non-relativistic. This point is crucial, among other things, for a quantitative analysis of the evolution of superconducting strings and vortons .

### D A cosmological constant

We can also use the VOS model in a flat background to discuss the domination at late times by a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ , a model for which there appears to be growing observational evidence. In the extreme asymptotic case when the universe is inflating we have $`a\mathrm{exp}(Ht)`$ with $`H=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}`$. The network will ‘freeze out’ and will simply be conformally stretched, that is,

$$La,v_{\mathrm{}}a^1,$$
(18)
where, as soon as the strings become nonrelativistic $`k_{\mathrm{nr}}=2\sqrt{2}/\pi `$, their product satisfies

$$Lv_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }H.$$
(19)
Of course, this solution will only apply at early times actually during inflation. At the present time we will only be slowly approaching a new stretching regime, so we have to solve the VOS model explicitly. This is shown for a model in which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.8`$, as a dashed line at late times in figs. 12, as well as in detail for GUT-scale strings in fig. 3. It is clear that there is a significant fall in the string density and velocity, an effect which, for example, would affect the large-angle anisotropies in the cosmic microwave sky. The evolution of the string network is clearly not scale-invariant during any period after $`t_{\mathrm{eq}}`$.

## III The momentum parameter

Having introduced the VOS model and some of its key cosmological implications, we now turn to a more detailed discussion of the so-called ‘momentum parameter’ $`k`$ defined in (6) and which is important for solving (5). String velocities are determined by the current acceleration to which they are subjected from the local string curvature, as well as their ‘bulk’ momentum left-over from previous accelerations. Heuristically, we can imagine separating the velocity into these the curvature ‘c’ and bulk ‘p’ contributions as $`\dot{𝐱}=\dot{𝐱}_\mathrm{c}+\dot{𝐱}_\mathrm{p}`$. In the extreme friction-dominated limit, the velocity is entirely due to the curvature and reaches a limiting average velocity set by the friction length scale, $`v_\mathrm{c}\dot{𝐱}_\mathrm{c}^2^{1/2}=\mathrm{}_f/L`$. However, as the velocity increases towards relativistic values we can expect the momentum contribution to become larger. Let us suppose that their relative contribution is proportional to some power law of the total velocity $`v`$, that is, $`v_\mathrm{p}/v_\mathrm{c}v^\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is clearly greater than unity. In this case, one can find after some straightforward (although tedious) manipulations that the following approximate relation holds for the momentum parameter $`k`$

$$k\frac{12^\alpha v^{2\alpha }}{1+2^\alpha v^{2\alpha }}.$$
(20)
In this we have also used the fact that flat spacetime analytic calculations  have shown that

$$k(1/\sqrt{2})=0,$$
(21)
which holds exactly. Note that the above expression means that (20) can also be approximately written as

$$k\frac{1(v_p/v_c)^2}{1+(v_p/v_c)^2}.$$
(22)
We can determine $`\alpha `$ by studying the well-known  helicoidal string solution in flat space but perturbed by a frictional force. This solution is

$$𝐱=(A\mathrm{sin}\sigma (\mathrm{cos}t+\eta ),A\mathrm{cos}\sigma (\mathrm{cos}t+\eta ),\sqrt{1A^2}\sigma ),$$
(23)
where $`0A1`$ and $`\eta `$ is a small perturbation, which vanishes if there is no friction. Here, $`A=1`$ corresponds to a circular loop, while $`A=0`$ is a static straight string. The evolution equation for the perturbation $`\eta `$ has the form

$$\ddot{\eta }+2\dot{\eta }\frac{\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t}{1A^2\mathrm{sin}^2t}+\eta \frac{(1A^2)\mathrm{sin}^2t\mathrm{cos}^2t}{1A^2\mathrm{sin}^2t}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}t}{\mathrm{}_f}(1A^2\mathrm{sin}^2t),$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{}_f`$ is the friction length scale. This can then be solved numerically, and from this solution one can calculate $`k`$. By changing parameters $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{}_f`$ one can do this for a wide range of velocities, and hence obtain a plot of $`k=k(v)`$. This is plotted in Fig. 4 and compared with cases $`\alpha =2`$ and $`\alpha =3`$ of our ansatz (20). It can be seen that $`\alpha =3`$ provides an excellent approximation in this regime.

There is, however, one problem with this simple ansatz, namely that it would give $`k(0)=1`$. Even though one might naively expect this to be the correct limit, it is not so. This can be seen easily as follows. Assume that the velocity of say a loop is determined only by curvature, that is, neglect the momentum contribution. (This should be valid in the non-relativistic case.) Then $`k`$ will be approximately given by

$$k\frac{<|\dot{𝐱}^2|(1\dot{𝐱}^2)>}{v(1v^2)}.$$
(25)
This quantity can be easily calculated for the analytic helicoidal solution, yielding

$$k=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\frac{12A^2/3}{1A^2/2}.$$
(26)
Hence we find in the small amplitude limit $`A0`$ that

$$k_{\mathrm{nr}}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }0.9.$$
(27)
We also note in passing that in the relativistic limit $`A1`$ this same calculation would give $`k4\sqrt{2}(3/\pi )0.6`$ instead of the true value $`k=0`$, which clearly demonstrates the importance of momentum in the relativistic case.

The final issue to be considered is the transition between the two regimes. The only reliable way of studying this issue is through direct measurement in a string network simulations with ultra-high resolution. We shall report on the details of this elsewhere . Here we simply point out that we do confirm the value $`k_{\mathrm{nr}}`$ as the non-relativistic limit. It is then easy to find a fitting function for the transition between the regimes which has the correct asymptotic limits described previously, that is,

$$k(v)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }(1v^2)(1+2\sqrt{2}v^3)\frac{18v^6}{1+8v^6}.$$
(28)
The additional factors are required to reproduce both the relativistic and non-relativistic limits accurately. Note that if one is only interested in the relativistic regime (say for GUT-scale cosmic strings, as in the present paper) then the simpler expression (7), that is

$$k_{\mathrm{rel}}(v)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\frac{18v^6}{1+8v^6},$$
(29)
should be sufficiently accurate to provide reliable results. On the other hand, a reliable approximation for small non-relativistic velocities in the friction-dominated limit extends (27) as

$$k_{\mathrm{nr}}(v)=\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{\pi }(1v^2).$$
(30)
We plot these three ansatze in fig. 5, and also confirm the validity of $`k_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ and $`k_{\mathrm{nr}}`$ in the appropriate limits.

Before we end this section, however, it is wise to discuss the interpretation of parameter $`k`$ in this model. It should be kept in mind that this is, ab initio, a phenomenological parameter, which accounts for a number of non-trivial effects related to the presence of small-scale structures on the strings. By construction, our model does not explicitly account for these small-scale effects, and hence they end up somehow encoded in $`k`$. One should not therefore infer too much from the aesthetic qualities of the function $`k(v)`$ we find—it is simply a phenomenological parameter that does a good job. Presumably this parameter will have a much clearer interpretation in the context of a proper wiggly string evolution model .

## IV The effect of radiation back-reaction

We now turn to some further extensions of the VOS model. The effect of gravitational back-reaction on the long-string network  can be included in the evolution equation for the correlation length (3) in the same way as previously achieved for the evolution of the length of a string loop. For gravitational radiation the following term can be added to the right-hand side of (3)

$$2\left(\frac{dL}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{gr}}8\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{gr}}v_{\mathrm{}}^6=8\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}G\mu v_{\mathrm{}}^6.$$
(31)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is a constant which is a long-string analogue of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }65`$ found for the radiative decay of strings. Of course, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ will be affected by a number of physical factors such as the presence of small-scale structure, but we can expect it to satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\text{ }<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and it would be surprising if it were very much smaller. Clearly, due to the high velocity power ($`v^6`$) involved in radiative backreaction, this term will not be important in any regime where string motion is strongly friction-dominated (and hence non-relativistic). We note also that there is an interesting coincidence in the ansatz (7) for the momentum parameter $`k`$ which too has a $`v^6`$ power, but we are unsure as yet whether this has any deeper significance.

For global string radiation into Goldstone bosons or axions, the corresponding radiative decay term at a time $`t`$ will be

$$2\left(\frac{dL}{dt}\right)_{\mathrm{ax}}8\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ax}}v_{\mathrm{}}^6=\frac{8\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}v_{\mathrm{}}^6}{2\pi \mathrm{ln}(t/\delta )},$$
(32)
where the logarithmic term arises because of the long-range fields of the global string and $`\delta `$ is the string width. For cosmological GUT-scale strings, the backreaction term for local strings is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G\mu 10^4`$ whereas for global strings it is about three orders of magnitude larger.

Note that the velocity equation has no correction at this order due to the gravitational back-reaction effects. Such effects are already included through the string curvature, which acts as a source for the velocity equation (i.e., the $`1/L`$ term), which will be different in this case.

Remarkably, the inclusion of the back-reaction term does not affect the existence of a scale-invariant attractor solution. However, it does of course influence the quantitative values of the scaling parameters, as well as the timescale necessary for this solution to be reached. For example, the inclusion of back-reaction can make the approach to scaling much faster.

If the gravitational back-reaction is non-zero, one can distinguish two asymptotic cases. Firstly, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is small (of order unity at most) then the effect of back-reaction on the scaling solution will also be small. This will be the case, for example, for most local or global string networks in a cosmological context. We can express this as

$$\gamma ^2\gamma _0^2\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }\right),v^2v_0^2\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }\right),$$
(33)
where $`\gamma _0`$ and $`v_0`$ are the “unperturbed” scaling values, given by eqns. (12), and the back-reaction correction has the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=8\beta v_0^5\mathrm{\Sigma }=8\beta \left[\frac{k(1\beta )}{\beta (k+\stackrel{~}{c})}\right]^{5/2}\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(34)
On the other hand, for large enough values of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the back-reaction term will dominate the evolution equation for the string length scale $`L`$, and the attractor scale-invariant solution has a different form altogether. It is not possible to write this solution in closed form, even expressing $`k`$ implicitly as above. However, it is possible to write it as a series. The dominant term and the first correction take the form

$$\gamma =\frac{k}{2\beta }\left[\frac{8\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }}{k(1\beta )}\right]^{1/7}\left(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(35)
$$v=\left[\frac{k(1\beta )}{8\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }}\right]^{1/7}\left(1\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(36)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\frac{1}{2^{6/7}7}(k+\stackrel{~}{c})\left[\frac{\beta }{k(1\beta )}\right]^{5/7}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2/7}.$$
(37)
In fig. 6 we plot the approach to scaling of some relevant string networks in the radiation and matter eras. The different timescales for convergence towards the attractor solution are clearly noticeable. Here, we have chosen initial conditions that would correspond to somewhat extreme first and second order phase transitions. Also note that for the radiation era we have neglected the effect of friction due to particle scattering, in order to reproduce the initial conditions often used in numerical simulations of string networks. For each of the cases above, three curves are plotted, corresponding to the values $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ (no back-reaction), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1.25`$ (close to the maximum value that can be accurately described by the scaling solution (3334)) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=5.5`$ (beyond which the scaling solution (3537) becomes accurate).

For large $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the effects of back-reaction seen in fig. 6 on could be quite dramatic for the string network density, but note that they are much less drastic for the string velocities. In particular, we emphasize that gravitational back-reaction alone does not slow down a string network to non-relativistic speeds—only a friction-dominated regime can achieve this.

Interestingly, there has been recent work on numerical simulations of global string networks  which explore the strong backreaction regime described by (3537). These authors report a surprisingly low string density relative to the gauged case. For their expanding universe simulations in the realistic case with periodic boundary conditions, they find the following radiation and matter era densities respectively,

$$\zeta _{\mathrm{rad}}=0.9\pm 0.1,\zeta _{\mathrm{mat}}=0.5\pm 0.1.$$
(38)
These results are perfectly consistent (within the estimated error bars) with our extended VOS model if we adopt a back-reaction parameter

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ax}\text{-}\mathrm{sim}}3.$$
(39)
Indeed, this corresponds to the approximate average value for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ax}}`$ that one would estimate for simulations of this resolution. Present limitations on numerical dynamic range give the upper bound $`\mathrm{ln}(t/\delta )5`$ (at the end of the simulation), implying $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ax}\text{-}\mathrm{sim}}2`$ throughout.

It is important to note, however, that the immediate extrapolation of these results (38) to a cosmological context would be erroneous. For example, for GUT-scale global strings, at the present time we can expect $`\mathrm{ln}(t/\delta )100`$, which implies the appropriate backreaction parameter in this case will be $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{ax}}0.1`$. Such cosmic global strings are firmly in the regime (3334) where backreaction effects are small and, in this case, these would reduce the local string density by less than 10%. We make a more detailed comparison with  elsewhere .

## V String networks in general FRW spacetimes

In this section we discuss the behaviour of our model in more general FRW universes, and in particular in open universes .

The evolution equations will obviously be affected by the different behaviour of the scale factor, as given by the Friedmann equation

$$H^2\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)=H_0^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{R0}}a^4+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}a^3+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Q0}}a^m\right)+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }Ka^2.$$
(40)
Note that we are allowing for curvature, and also for an extra fluid whose energy density decays as $`a^m`$. It should be kept in mind that the Friedman equation should, in general, contain a contribution for the string density, since it is possible that this becomes cosmologically important.

However, apart from these effects, one must also include an additional correction due to the curvature . One should note that this is essentially the curvature radius of the strings, $`L`$, divided by the radius of spatial curvature of the universe,

$$=\frac{H^1}{1\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/2}}.$$
(41)
Indeed, after a certain amount of algebra, one finds correction terms that are of the form

$$w=1(1\mathrm{\Omega })(HL)^2.$$
(42)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes the total density of the universe. For a universe with a critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$, we have $`w=1`$.

The evolution equation for the correlation length $`L`$ now takes the form

$$2\frac{dL}{dt}=2HL+\frac{L}{\mathrm{}_d}\frac{v_{\mathrm{}}^2}{w^2}+\stackrel{~}{c}v_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(43)
For simplicity wa have also defined a damping length, including both the effects of Hubble damping and friction,

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_d}=2H+\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_f},$$
(44)
with the friction length scale $`\mathrm{}_f`$ being defined in .

Similarly, the velocity equation becomes

$$\frac{dv_{\mathrm{}}}{dt}=\left(1\frac{v_{\mathrm{}}^2}{w^2}\right)\left(w^2\frac{k}{L}\frac{v_{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}_d}\right).$$
(45)
Note that these are valid for any cosmological scenario<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*There are some additional subtleties involved when discussing the mechanism of loop production in the case of Minkowski space string networks, which make it quite different from any cosmological scenario. We shall discuss this important point elsewhere . We do expect the loop chopping efficiency $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ to be a constant, regardless of the cosmological model, since it is supposed to be reflecting a rather deep and fundamental property of the evolution of a network. Indeed, we think that whether or not one finds a constant chopping efficiency can in some sense be seen as a measure of how accurately the analytic modelling is reproducing the true dynamics of the network.

We can now re-examine the question of the existence of ‘scale invariant’ attractor solutions. Again, scaling solutions of the form $`Lt`$, $`LH^1`$ or $`Ld_H`$, together with $`v_{\mathrm{}}=const.`$ will only exist provided one has

$$a(t)t^\beta ,\beta =const.,0<\beta <1,$$
(46)
but now we also require

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=const.$$
(47)
The simplest example of the second condition is of course a flat, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{M0}}=1`$ universe, but there are examples of cosmological models which have attractors other than $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$ . In any case, note that there can be additional relations between the values of $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for specific models. Writing $`L=\gamma t`$ as before, the scaling solution is now given in the implicit form

$$\gamma ^2=w^2\frac{k(k+\stackrel{~}{c})}{4\beta (1\beta )},v^2=w^2\frac{k(1\beta )}{\beta (k+\stackrel{~}{c})},$$
(48)
where $`k`$ is (implicitly) the constant value of $`k(v)`$ for the appropriate value of velocity, and

$$w=\frac{2(1\beta )}{(1\mathrm{\Omega })\beta k(k+\stackrel{~}{c})}\left[\left(1+\frac{(1\mathrm{\Omega })\beta k(k+\stackrel{~}{c})}{(1\beta )}\right)^{1/2}1\right].$$
(49)
Again, although it may not be immediately obvious, it can be checked numerically that this solution is well-behaved for all sensible values of the parameters. If the two conditions above do not hold, then a scaling solution will not exist.

We should also mention another cosmologically important solution: in an open universe with $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, $`at`$, the asymptotic solution is

$$L=At\left(\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{1/2}A=\left[\frac{k_{nr}\stackrel{~}{c}}{2(1k_{nr})}\right]^{1/2}2.13\stackrel{~}{c}^{1/2},$$
(50)
$$v_{\mathrm{}}=B\left(\mathrm{ln}t\right)^{1/2},B=\left[\frac{k_{nr}(1k_{nr})}{2\stackrel{~}{c}}\right]^{1/2}0.21\stackrel{~}{c}^{1/2},$$
(51)
with $`k_{nr}`$ given by(27). Note that this is not a scale-invariant solution, since $`H^1=t`$ and $`d_H=t\mathrm{ln}t`$. In other words, by looking at the network one would be able to determine when the curvature-dominated period had started.

## VI Discussion and conclusions

In this paper we have presented a modified version of the velocity-dependent one-scale (VOS) model  which depends on a single free parameter, the loop chopping efficiency $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. We have tested it against the largest and most accurate numerical simulations to date , and we find that it provides a good fit to the large-scale scaling properties of the string network in both the radiation and matter epochs, as well as in the transition between the two eras—we will describe these tests elsewhere . These facts and its intrinsic simplicity make this model particularly suited for any analytic or semi-analytic study of cosmic strings where one is only interested in the large-scale features of the network.

We have re-analysed some simple evolutionary properties of cosmic string networks in the light of the VOS model and corresponding numerical simulations. An important conclusion to note is that any realistic cosmic string network is not scaling at any time from just before the epoch of equal matter and radiation through to the present day. This is something that must be properly taken into account particularly when discussing string-seeded structure formation scenarios with GUT-scale strings. The extended VOS model is also valid when deviations from scaling are even larger at late times in a universe which becomes dominated by curvature or a cosmological constant.

Finally, we considered the effects of radiation back-reaction on the scaling properties of the long string network, and we have shown that although the existence (or otherwise) of a scale-invariant attractor solution will not be affected, the quantitative scaling properties can be. In some cases, the suppression of string density can be quite dramatic (as we saw for small-scale global string simulations), although the string velocities always remain relativistic. For the most part, however, the density of a cosmic string network, whether local or global is only affected slightly by radiation backreaction effects.

Despite the many virtues of the VOS model, we are aware, of course, that the small number of available degrees of freedom means that this model is unable to provide a proper description of the small-scale properties of the network; these are important in a number of cosmological scenarios (and sometimes even crucial). Nevertheless, we believe that the phenomenological parameter $`k`$ does encode some important small-scale structure effects, though clearly a more detailed analytic and numerical study is still required. A number of possible approaches to the problem of string small-scale structure have been suggested in the literature , and our own analysis using Carter’s elastic string model  will be discussed in a forthcoming publication .

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Pedro Avelino, Brandon Carter, Jonathan Moore, Levon Pogosian, Tanmay Vachaspati and Proty Wu for useful conversations. C.M. also acknowledges discussions with a number of participants in the EC Summer School ‘Multi-fractals—Mathematics and Applications’, held at the Isaac Newton Institute. C.M. is funded by FCT (Portugal) under ‘Programa PRAXIS XXI’ (grant no. PRAXIS XXI/BPD/11769/97). This work was performed on COSMOS, the Origin2000 owned by the UK Computational Cosmology Consortium, supported by Silicon Graphics/Cray Research, HEFCE and PPARC.