text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Dualities in string theory connect seemingly different theories. One of the most unexpected predictions in this web of dualities is the appearance of 11–dimensional theory (M–theory) that manifests itself at low energies as 11–dimensional supergravity. The theory compactified on different spaces is dual to different string theories. Compactification on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ gives the M–theoretic extension of the heterotic $`E_8\times E_8`$ string, i.e. a geometric picture of 11–dimensional spacetime with two 10–dimensional walls at the ends of a finite interval along eleventh dimension . While the supergravity multiplet (graviton, gravitino and antisymmetric tensor fields) can penetrate in the $`d=11`$ bulk, the two $`E_8`$ gauge supermultiplets are confined to the two walls, respectively. The requirement of anomaly cancellation gives the relation between the 11–dimensional Newton’s constant $`\kappa `$ and the 10–dimensional gauge coupling constant $`\lambda `$ – it was first obtained in  with a numerical factor of 2 missing. The correct relation was first obtained in  and subsequently by many authors both in the downstairs and in the upstairs approaches . However, as was noted in , the previous calculations in the upstairs approach were inconsistent because of incorrect taking into account the $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry. Rather surprisingly, the result of the upstairs calculation of  gave different result than the downstairs calculation of .

Another interesting example of an orbifold in M–theory compactification is $`T^5/ZZ_2`$  which is dual to string theory IIB compactified on $`K3`$. There are 32 fixed six–planes and it turns out that there must be 16 additional twisted sector multiplets living on these six–planes to cancel anomalies. In the presence of five–branes some of these tensor multiplets are transferred to the branes.

In section 2 we analyze the anomaly cancellation in the upstairs approach for the compactification on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ and the results show complete equivalence of the downstairs and the upstairs approaches. The gauge anomaly is restricted to the walls and there are no mixing terms between the walls so that the cancellation proceeds exactly as in the downstairs approach. The combination $`\lambda ^6/\kappa ^4`$ turns out to be exactly the same as in  (while in ref.  it differs by a factor of 3). In section 3 we include five–branes and derive the field configuration for which the total anomaly vanishes. In section 4 we explicitly construct a theory compactified on $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ and show that there exists in the upstairs approach a configuration of fields that is locally (at each fixed six–plane) anomaly–free. Section 5 presents some conclusions.

## 2 M–theory on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$

The low energy limit of M–theory compactified on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ was given in . We will use in this paper slightly different normalization of the fields (the same as in ). The actions for the theory in the upstairs and downstairs approaches look the same but the range of integration and the normalizations are different.

In the upstairs approach we have full circle (of length $`2\pi \rho `$) in the eleventh dimension with two branes located at $`x^{11}=0`$ and $`x^{11}=\pi \rho `$ and we impose $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry on fields (for example $`C_{ABC}`$ and $`G_{ABCD}`$ with $`A,B,C,D=1\mathrm{}10`$ are odd under $`ZZ_2`$ and therefore vanish on the walls while $`C_{11AB}`$ and $`G_{11ABC}`$ are even). The action reads (for simplicity we keep only bosonic terms)

$$S=\frac{1}{2\overline{\kappa }^2}_{\overline{M}_{11}}\sqrt{g}\left[R+\frac{1}{48}G^2\right]\frac{1}{12\overline{\kappa }^2}_{\overline{M}_{11}}CGG\frac{1}{4\lambda ^2}\underset{i}{}_{M_{10}^i}\sqrt{g}F_i^2.$$
(1)
In the downstairs approach we take an interval (of length $`\pi \rho `$) with the two walls on its ends and instead of the $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry we have to impose appropriate boundary conditions. The action is the same but we have to replace $`\overline{M}_{11}`$ by $`M_{11}`$ (full circle by the interval in the eleventh dimension) and the coupling constant $`\overline{\kappa }`$ by $`\kappa `$ where:

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\kappa }^2,_{M_{11}}=\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{M}_{11}}.$$
(2)
Anomaly cancellation requires modifications of the Bianchi identities that involve sources on the walls. We will solve below for general $`G`$ and $`C`$ that satisfy these identities and are well defined on the full circle (i.e. are periodic).

Let us start with some definitions that will prove useful later on. We introduce a space $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of differentiable functions defined on the interval $`[0,\pi \rho ]`$ and satisfying

$$g\mathrm{\Phi }:g(0)=1,g(\pi \rho )=0.$$
(3)
For any $`g\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we define two periodic functions, $`f_g^{(1)}`$ and $`f_g^{(2)}`$, defined on the circle $`(\pi \rho ,\pi \rho ]`$:

$`f_g^{(1)}(x^{11})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}(x^{11})g(|x^{11}|),`$
$`f_g^{(2)}(x^{11})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}(x^{11})(g(|x^{11}|)1),`$ (4)
$`f_g^{(1)}(\pi \rho )`$ $`=`$ $`f_g^{(2)}(\pi \rho )=0.`$
These functions constitute the most general $`ZZ_2`$–odd primitives of delta functions located, respectively, at 0 and $`\pi \rho `$, having no other singularities and defined globally on the circle. The derivatives of these functions are:

$$\frac{f_g^{(i)}}{x^{11}}=2\delta ^{(i)}+h_g$$
(5)
where $`h_g(x^{11})=g^{}(|x^{11}|)`$ is regular everywhere and $`\delta ^{(i)}`$ is the Dirac delta function located at the $`i`$–th wall. Later we will use the same symbol to denote the corresponding one form. It is easy to prove that for any $`g`$

$$_{S_1}𝑑x^{11}h_g(x^{11})f_g^{(i)}(x^{11})f_g^{(j)}(x^{11})=\frac{1}{3}\delta _{ij}.$$
(6)
Regularization of the delta function gives also:

$`\delta ^{(i)}f_g^{(j)}f_g^{(k)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\delta _{ij}\delta _{ik})\delta ^{(i)},`$ (7)
$`\delta ^{(i)}f_g^{(j)}`$ $``$ $`0`$ (8)
(in sense of distributions i.e. when integrated with regular functions).

Having defined the primitives of delta functions we can now solve for $`G`$ in the modified Bianchi identities. They read

$$dG=\gamma \underset{i}{}\delta ^{(i)}I_i$$
(9)
where $`\gamma =(4\pi )^2\overline{\kappa }^2/\lambda ^2`$ and

$$I_i=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{tr}F_i^2\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}R^2\right)|_{M_{10}^i}.$$
(10)
An integral of $`dG`$ over a $`C_4\times I`$ where the interval $`I`$ surrounds only one wall is not vanishing but the integral over the entire interval should vanish for $`G`$ to be well defined. Therefore the sum of $`I_1`$ and $`I_2`$ must be cohomologically trivial:

$$_{C_4}(I_1+I_2)=0.$$
(11)
Because of (11) there exists a form of $`G`$ that is explicitly well defined globally. We can write

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`H_4+d\mathrm{\Omega }_1,`$
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`H_4+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ (12)
where $`H_4`$ is a harmonic 4-form and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ are 3–forms well defined globally. Then we can write the solution of (9) in the form

$$G=d\stackrel{~}{C}\frac{\gamma }{2}\mathrm{sgn}(x^{11})H_4+\gamma \underset{i}{}\delta ^{(i)}\mathrm{\Omega }_i$$
(13)
where each of the terms is well defined globally. Unfortunately, we do not know the explicit form of (12) and it is difficult to connect $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ with the $`C`$ field from M–theory where $`G=dC`$ in the bulk. Therefore we will seek the solution of (9) in a different form which is only implicitly well defined globally. The solution to (9) satisfying $`G=dC`$ in the bulk is given by

$$G=dC+\gamma \underset{i}{}\delta ^{(i)}\omega _i$$
(14)
where $`I_i=d\omega _i`$ locally111In general, $`\omega _i`$ is not well defined globally since $`I_i`$ can have contributions from harmonic forms ($`H_4`$ in (12)) but $`C`$ is likewise not well defined globally and the two contributions should cancel to produce well defined $`G`$ like in (13).. In order to analyze the consequences of $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry, we will take care to define all forms globally at least in the eleventh dimension. We expect $`G`$ to be a regular form and therefore we expect that singularities in $`\delta C`$ should cancel $`\delta ^{(i)}`$ in (14). Let us define a regular three–form $`C_{reg}`$ (depending on functions $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$) by the relation

$$C=C_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}f_{g_i}^{(i)}\omega _i.$$
(15)
Substituting this form to (14) we get a regular (along $`x^{11}`$) form

$$G=dC_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}h_{g_i}dx^{11}\omega _i\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}f_{g_i}^{(i)}I_i$$
(16)
where we used (5).

Integration of Bianchi identities over $`I\times C_4`$ where $`I`$ is an interval along $`x^{11}`$ comprising only one wall shows that $`G`$ in (16) is globally well defined only if

$$g_1(x^{11})=g_2(x^{11})=g(x^{11}).$$
(17)
Hence, the same function has to be used in $`f_g^{(1)}`$ and $`f_g^{(2)}`$ (and consequently there is only one regular derivative $`h`$). Therefore, we will suppress subscript $`g`$ from now on.

To calculate all contributions to the anomaly, we have first to find gauge variation of $`C`$. Starting from the condition $`\delta G=0`$ and using equations (14) and (15) we get

$$\delta C_{reg}=dB_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}h\underset{i}{}dx^{11}\omega _i^1$$
(18)
where $`\delta \omega _i=d\omega _i^1`$.

Let us now calculate the anomaly in the upstairs approach. The contribution from the topological term in the action is equal to

$$\delta S_{top}=\frac{1}{12\overline{\kappa }^2}\delta CGG.$$
(19)
The relation $`G=dC`$ valid in the bulk requires $`C`$ (and not $`C_{reg}`$) in the above expression – we would break supersymmetry in the bulk otherwise. Let us note that the authors of  used $`\delta C_{reg}`$ in (19) and not $`\delta C`$ and it is one of the reasons for the difference between the results of the present paper and that of 222In  a linear function was chosen for $`g`$ but as we show in the present paper nothing really depends on the choice of $`g`$ as long as conditions (3) are satisfied..

Using the expressions (16) and (18) we have

$`\delta C`$ $`=`$ $`dB_{reg}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}h{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx^{11}\omega _i^1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f^{(i)}d\omega _i^1,`$ (20)
$`G`$ $`=`$ $`dC_{reg}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}h{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx^{11}\omega _i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f^{(i)}I_i.`$ (21)
It is easy to show (see relation (8)) that the terms with $`dB_{reg}`$ and $`dC_{reg}`$ do not contribute to (19) due to regularity of $`B_{reg}`$ and $`C_{reg}`$ and the fact that $`G_{ABCD}|_i=0`$. Therefore we get

$`\delta S_{top}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\overline{\kappa }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right)^3{\displaystyle _{\overline{M}_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}\left(hdx^{11}\omega _i^1+f^{(i)}d\omega _i^1\right)`$
$`\left(hdx^{11}\omega _j+f^{(j)}I_j\right)\left(hdx^{11}\omega _k+f^{(k)}I_k\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^3}{96\overline{\kappa }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}({\displaystyle _{S_1}}hf^{(j)}f^{(k)}{\displaystyle _{M_{10}}}\omega _i^1I_jI_k`$
$`2{\displaystyle _{S_1}}hf^{(i)}f^{(k)}{\displaystyle _{M_{10}}}d\omega _i^1\omega _jI_k)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^3}{96\overline{\kappa }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijk}{}}{\displaystyle _{M_{10}}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _{jk}\right)\omega _i^1I_jI_k+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\delta _{ik}\right)\omega _i^1I_jI_k\right].`$
Expanding this result shows that the terms which mix contributions from different walls cancel and we have the final result

$$\delta S_{top}=\frac{\gamma ^3}{48\overline{\kappa }^2}\underset{i}{}_{M_{10}}\omega _i^1I_iI_i.$$
(23)
The next contribution to the anomaly is the Green–Schwarz term – we take it to be of the form333Choosing instead $`GX_7`$ with $`X_8=dX_7`$ would give the same contribution to the anomaly expressed as 12–form but the anomaly cancellation in the 10–form would then require a local counterterm.

$$S_{GS}=\frac{1}{\gamma }_{\overline{M}_{11}}CX_8.$$
(24)
Calculating the gauge variation of this term using (20) we get

$`\delta S_{GS}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\overline{M}_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(hdx^{11}\omega _i^1+f^{(i)}d\omega _i^1)X_8`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\overline{M}_{11}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(i)}\omega _i^1X_8={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle _{M_{10}}}\omega _i^1X_{8,i}.`$
The third contribution to the anomaly is the one–loop result – it is given by

$$\delta S_{1loop}=\frac{\pi }{3}\underset{i}{}_{M_{10}}\omega _i^1I_iI_i+\underset{i}{}_{M_{10}}\omega _i^1X_{8,i}.$$
(26)
The requirement of vanishing of the total anomaly i.e the sum of (23), (25) and (26) gives

$$\frac{\lambda ^6}{\overline{\kappa }^4}=\frac{(4\pi )^5}{4}.$$
(27)
Translating this result to the downstairs language using (2) we get

$$\frac{\lambda ^6}{\kappa ^4}=(4\pi )^5$$
(28)
and this relation is exactly the same as in .

## 3 M–theory on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ with five–branes

Let us now include five–branes – possible non–perturbative objects in M–theory that couple magnetically to $`G`$ and act as sources for modified Bianchi identities. Their presence can in general modify the condition (11) and therefore require non–standard identification of gauge fields with the connection. We would like to show here that we can repeat the whole discussion in the presence of five–branes in the upstairs approach.

Let us take into account the five–branes parallel to three space dimensions and two CY dimensions (it is possible that with the non-standard embedding it is no longer a Calabi–Yau space but let us leave this subtlety aside). These five–branes act then as additional sources in the Bianchi identity

$$dG=\gamma \underset{i}{}\delta ^{(i)}I_i\gamma \underset{\alpha }{}\delta _5^{(\alpha )}$$
(29)
where $`\delta _5^{(\alpha )}`$ are products of five delta one forms along four CY dimensions and $`x^{11}`$. The requirement that $`G`$ be globally defined gives

$$_{C_4}\left(I_1+I_2\right)+[C_\alpha ]=0$$
(30)
where $`[C_\alpha ]`$ is equal to the number of five–branes surrounded by a given cycle $`C_4`$.

In analogy to the previous case let us introduce a $`ZZ_2`$ odd and periodic function with jumps at $`x^{11}=x_{\alpha ^+}>0`$ and $`x^{11}=x_{\alpha ^+}`$ (it necessarily has two jumps symetrically located around $`x^{11}=0`$ because of $`ZZ_2`$ antisymmetry):

$$f^{(\alpha )}(x^{11})=\mathrm{sgn}(x^{11})[g(|x^{11}|)\theta (x_{\alpha ^+}^{11}|x^{11}|)]$$
(31)
where $`\theta `$ is the Heaviside step function.

Solving for $`G`$ gives in analogy to (16)

$$G=dC_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}hdx^{11}\omega _i\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}f^{(i)}I_i\gamma \underset{\alpha ^+}{}hdx^{11}\theta _3^{(\alpha )}\gamma \underset{\alpha ^+}{}f^{(\alpha )}dx^{11}\delta _4^{(\alpha )}$$
(32)
where $`d\theta _3^{(\alpha )}=\delta _4^{(\alpha )}`$. Therefore, we have to sum in (32) only over positive $`x_\alpha `$ (denoted by $`\alpha ^+`$) since the branes at negative values of $`x^{11}`$ are automatically taken into account. A similar argument as before (integration over a cycle comprising only one brane) shows that the function $`g`$ in (31) is the same for all branes and also the same as the one defining $`f^{(1)}`$ and $`f^{(2)}`$.

The condition (30) that $`G`$ be globally defined is also crucial for anomaly cancellation and for confining anomaly to the wall or brane. Let us now describe the anomaly cancellation in the case with five–branes. We will work with 8–forms (and not 6–forms) and will not keep track of possible local counterterms.

The contribution to the anomaly from the one–loop result is

$$\delta S^{1loop}=\underset{\alpha }{}X_{8,\alpha }.$$
(33)
The contribution to the anomaly from the Green–Schwarz mechanism is

$$\frac{1}{\gamma }\delta GX_7=\frac{1}{\gamma }GdX_6^1=\underset{\alpha }{}X_{6,\alpha }^1.$$
(34)
The contribution (34) translated to the 8–form language cancels the contribution from (33). Therefore, we expect that the contribution from the topological term should vanish. Let us show that (under some condition) this indeed is the case. Since $`\delta _5`$ is invariant under gauge and gravitational transformations, $`\delta C`$ is the same as before (20):

$`\delta C`$ $`=`$ $`dB_{reg}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}h{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dx^{11}\omega _i^1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f^{(i)}d\omega _i^1`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`d\left(B_{reg}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f^{(i)}\omega _i^1\right)+\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta ^{(i)}\omega _i^1.`$
Using (29) we get the five–brane contribution to the anomaly

$$\delta CGG|_{fb}=2\gamma \underset{\alpha }{}\left(B_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}f^{(i)}\omega _i^1\right)\left(dC_{reg}\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{j}{}f^{(j)}I_j\right)\delta _4^{(\alpha )}.$$
(36)
Therefore, if we impose conditions for all positions of branes $`(x_\alpha ^{11})`$:

$$B_{reg}(x_\alpha ^{11})=\frac{\gamma }{2}\underset{i}{}f^{(i)}(x_\alpha ^{11})\omega _i^1$$
(37)
then the contribution to the anomaly from the topological term vanishes and summing up all contributions the total anomaly does so as well.

## 4 M–theory on $`T^5/ZZ_2`$

Another interesting orbifold compactification of M–theory is that on $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ i.e. down to a theory in six dimensions with 16 supercharges . Similarly as in the ten dimensional case there is a potential gravitational anomaly. In the limit of small compactification radius the particle content of this theory (after imposing $`ZZ_2`$ on the fields) is a chiral supergravity multiplet (consisting of a graviton, 2 chiral gravitinos and 5 selfdual twoforms) and five tensor multiplets (each consisting of an antiselfdual twoform, 2 antichiral fermions and 5 scalars). This theory does not possess vectors so that the potential anomaly must be purely gravitational. It turns out that the anomaly vanishes when there are additional 16 tensor multiplets (so called twisted sector not directly obtained from the compactification). $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ has 32 fixed six–planes and the additional matter multiplets should live on these six–planes. The anomaly from the small radius theory (untwisted sector only) is equally distributed among all 32 points so that the anomaly at the $`P`$-th plane is given by:

$$I_{8,P}^{(1loop)}=\frac{1}{32}\left(2I^{(3/2)}10I^{(1/2)}\right)+N_P\left(2I^{(1/2)}I^{(3form)}\right)$$
(38)
where $`N_P`$ is the number of the twisted sector matter multiplets living on the $`P`$-th fixed plane. Using explicit formulae for the anomalies in six dimensions one gets

$$I_{8,P}^{(1loop)}=(N_P\frac{1}{2})X_8.$$
(39)
Sum over $`P`$ gives the previously mentioned condition $`N_P=16`$. Since $`N_P`$ are integers it is impossible to cancel the anomaly at any fixed six-plane and to do so one has to modify Bianchi identities to provide additional source of anomaly inflow via Green–Schwarz mechanism. If

$$dG=\underset{P}{}g_P\delta _5^{(P)}$$
(40)
then by the same arguments as before the full anomaly is given by

$$I_{8,P}=(N_Pg_P\frac{1}{2})X_8.$$
(41)
To cancel the anomaly the magnetic charges have to be half–integers satisfying

$$g_P=N_P\frac{1}{2}.$$
(42)
We will describe below an explicit construction of $`G`$ satisfying (40) in the upstairs approach. We could apply the techniques worked out in the case of $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ but it is not necessary. The $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ orbifold is simpler because the cohomology condition (30) is now replaced by an algebraic relation $`N_P=16`$.

Let us denote $`2^5=32`$ fixed six–planes by $`P(\overline{n})`$ where $`\overline{n}=(n_7,n_8,n_9,n_{10},n_{11})`$ and $`n_k=0,1`$. The action of $`ZZ_2`$ on the torus $`_k(\pi \rho _k,\pi \rho _k]`$ that leaves these 32 points intact is given by $`x_ix_i`$. Let us also introduce $`5\times 2^4=80`$ intervals joining fixed points by $`I(\overline{n}^k)`$ where $`\overline{n}^k=(n_7,\mathrm{},n_{11})`$ with $`n_k`$ left out. The interval $`I(\overline{n}^k)`$ is parallel to the $`k`$-th axis and we assume that its orientation is the same as the orientation of that axis.

The field $`G`$ satisfying (40) and antisymmetric under $`ZZ_2`$ is given by

$$G=dC+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k}{}\underset{\overline{n}^k}{}c(\overline{n}^k)\mathrm{sgn}(x^k)\delta _4^{(\overline{n}^k)}$$
(43)
where

$$\delta _4^{(\overline{n}^k)}=\frac{1}{4!}ϵ_{kpqrs}\delta \left(x^pn_p\pi \rho _p\right)\mathrm{}\delta \left(x^sn_s\pi \rho _s\right)$$
(44)
and $`c(\overline{n}^k)`$ are constants characterizing $`G`$ along the interval $`I(\overline{n}^k)`$. Calculating $`dG`$ from (43) and comparing with (40) and (42) we get

$$g_{P(\overline{n})}=\underset{k}{}(1)^{n_k}c(\overline{n}^k)=N_P\frac{1}{2}.$$
(45)
In the above equation $`\overline{n}^k`$ has the same components as $`\overline{n}`$ but with $`n_k`$ dropped. It is straightforward for any given set of $`N_P`$ (satisfying $`N_P=16`$ i.e. $`g_P=0`$) to get $`c(\overline{n}^k)`$ satisfying the above equation. Let us describe explicitly for example the “checkerboard” configuration  where 16 tensor multiplets are distributed in the most uniform way:

$$N_P=\frac{1}{2}\left[1+(1)^{n_7+n_8+n_9+n_{10}+n_{11}}\right].$$
(46)
Shrinking any of the radii in the above configuration, any pair of fixed points along the shrinking direction contributes 1 tensor multiplet what corresponds to the string limit . For this choice for $`N_P`$ it is easy to derive one of possible sets $`c(\overline{n}^k)`$:

$$c(\overline{n}^k)=\frac{1}{10}(1)^{n_7+\mathrm{}n_{11}}$$
(47)
(where the index $`n_k`$ is left out on the r.h.s.) and check that (45) is satisfied. There are of course other $`c(\overline{n}^k)`$ – differring by $`dC`$ in (43) – that give the same local cancellation of anomalies.

Other distributions of tensor multiplets among the fixed planes can be obtained from the “checkerboard” configuration by moving those mutliplets one by one from some fixed point to the neighbouring one along interval $`I(\overline{n}^k)`$. Such change requires appropriate modification of $`c(\overline{n}^k)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }c(\overline{n}^k)=\pm \frac{1}{2}$$
(48)
where the sign depends on the “orientation” of the exchange.

The theory in the presence of five–branes orthogonal to $`T^5`$ can be similarly analyzed. The location of the $`\alpha `$-th five–brane is given by a vector with components $`x_\alpha ^k`$ for $`k=7,\mathrm{},11`$. In the presence of such five–branes the modified Bianchi identities read

$$dG=\underset{P}{}g_P\delta _5^{(P)}+\underset{\alpha }{}\delta _5^{(\alpha )}.$$
(49)
Because of the $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry the five–branes must come in pairs with opposite coordinates: $`x_\beta ^k=x_\alpha ^k`$. In order to satisfy (49) the field $`G`$ must have jumps at the location of both five–branes. The requirement that $`G`$ is globally well defined can be fulfilled only when there are two additional jumps of opposite sign located at some fixed six–planes. Such negative jumps of $`G`$ at the fixed planes correspond to removing two twisted sector matter multiplets from those fixed planes and transfering them to the so called “wandering” five–branes. One of the solutions is to put both of those negative jumps for all pairs of five–branes at the origin $`P(\overline{n}=(0,0,0,0,0))`$. If we want to transfer tensor multiplets from some other fixed six–planes we have first to move those multiplets to the origin using the procedure described before (48). The solution transferring all multiplets from the origin to the branes is given by the sum of (43) and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }G=\frac{1}{25!}\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{pqrst}{}ϵ_{pqrst}\mathrm{sgn}(x^p)\theta (|x_\alpha ^p||x^p|)\delta \left(x^qx_\alpha ^q\right)\mathrm{}\delta \left(x^tx_\alpha ^t\right).$$
(50)
Now 16 twisted sector tensor multiplets are distributed between fixed planes and five–branes

$$\underset{P}{}N_P+\underset{\alpha }{}1=16.$$
(51)
The extremal situation is reached when all tensor multiplets sit on five–branes and there are no twisted sector multiplets on the fixed six–planes.

## 5 Conlusions

We have analyzed the problem of anomaly cancellation in the upstairs approach. It turned out that for the compactification on $`S^1/ZZ_2`$ orbifold all final results are sums of contributions from two walls so the anomaly cancellation can be achieved without any corrections to the original action. $`C`$ and $`G`$ fields depend on an arbitrary function of $`x^{11}`$ but the anomaly cancellation works in the same way for any choice of this function (however, one should note that for other purposes some choice may be preferred over the others like for example in  where it was shown that the Kaluza–Klein zero modes have some specific dependence on the eleventh dimension). The cancellation of anomalies in the presence of five–branes is possible but requires one additional condition on the variation of $`C`$ under the gauge and gravitational transformations. In the case of compactification on $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ (with and without five–branes) we have presented in the upstairs approach an explicit method to derive field configuration for which the total anomaly vanishes separately at each fixed six–plane.

The same results can be obtained in the downstairs approach but with appropriate boundary conditions replacing the $`ZZ_2`$ symmetry. This, however, is less straightforward to implement. For example the upstairs approach automatically takes into account proper normalization of charges. In the case of the $`T^5/ZZ_2`$ compactification the number of additional tensor multiplets is always 16 in the upstairs approach (since two $`ZZ_2`$ symmetric “wandering branes” carry two tensor multiplets) while in the downstairs approach it can be smaller (because now there is only a single brane with one tensor multiplet). In conclusion, from the point of view of anomaly cancellation, the upstairs and downstairs approaches are equivalent. In the actual computation, however, the upstairs approach seems to be more convenient.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Conrad and H.P. Nilles for discussions. K.A.M. was partially supported by the Polish KBN grant 2P03B 03715 (1998-2000). M.O. was partially supported by the Polish grant KBN 2 P03B 052 16 (1999-2000).


format: text

text:
# XNMR – A tool for knowledge bases exploration

## General Information

The XNMR package is an attempt of integration between the well-founded semantics system XSB(??) and the stable models evaluator SMODELS(?). It works in UNIX platforms (eg. Linux, Solaris), and work is being done to port it to Windows NT.

The package consists of three layers. The bottom layer is a low-level interface between XSB and SMODELS. This interface is written in C, and consists of 177 lines of code.

The second layer is a high-level library of Prolog predicates used to communicate with SMODELS. It has 117 lines of Prolog code.

The third layer is the top-loop evaluator. It is also written in Prolog, and consists of 421 lines of code.

## Description of the System

XNMR is a package intended to integrate the possible-worlds stable semantics of SMODELS with the more skeptical well-founded semantics of XSB.

It is aimed at allowing the exploration of knowledge bases. It is well-suited for debugging large knowledge bases, by exploiting the modularity of such designs.

The package uses XSB as a pre-processing phase, where the well-founded semantics of a program, with respect to a given query, is computed. As a result of this process, a residual program is computed, where the interdependencies of the undefined objects is represented. The residual program is, then, given as input to SMODELS, so that the stable models for these undefined objects can be computed.

## Applying the System

### Methodology

This work is exploratory, in the sense that it combines characteristics of two well known systems for logic programming in a general way. We believe the system may be applied to several situations where the stable models semantics is preferred, as long as the notion of relevancy to a query (see Specifics) is satisfied.

More specifically, one application of this system is in debugging large knowledge bases. The system can take advantage of its ability to deal with partial information to allow for debugging of separate parts, or modules, of a knowledge base.

Work is in progress to develop a programming methodology that will allow problems to be described in such a way as to be suitable for evaluation with XNMR. The methodology is based on ways to encode the problem such as to avoid the non-relevancy problem.

### Specifics

XNMR computes the partial stable models which are total on the relevant program, given a query. This is due to the combination of a query-driven system (XSB) to a bottom-up evaluator like SMODELS.

The models computed are total stable models with respect to the relevant parts of the program, according to the given query.

We believe this system may have successful applications on areas like debugging of knowledge bases, and null-valued databases.

### Users and Useability

The system is to be used by people with an understanding of the issues involved in the combination of well-founded and stable models semantics. Since it is integrated with XSB Prolog, it is general enough to be used in several applications.

Even though the system is not, at the moment, being used outside our research group, there are already people interested in applying it to several applications.

## Evaluating the System

### Benchmarks

To our knowledge, there are no comparative systems available today. One reasonable way to benchmark the systems, though, would be considering XSB as a pre-processor to SMODELS. This way, accepted benchmarks for SMODELS could be applied to the system, as long as they were well-behaved with respect to the relevant-program restriction imposed by the top-down nature of XSB evaluation.

The system is incorporated to the XSB Prolog system, therefore having the same user-friendliness associated to such systems.

### Comparison

The system is inherently logic-based. As stated in the previous section, there are no standard benchmarks to the system, due to its unique combination of top-down and bottom-up evaluators, which results in a restricted semantics being computed. We believe such benchmarks should be considered in an applications-based framework.

### Problem Size

The XNMR system, by itself, doesn’t impose any restrictions to the size of problems being handled. So, the restrictions of the system are those of XSB and SMODELS. We also note that the system is not a prototype, and has been fully implemented as a package of XSB.


text:
# From second to first order transitions in a disordered quantum magnet

\[

## Abstract

We study the spin-glass transition in a disordered quantum model. There is a region in the phase diagram where quantum effects are small and the phase transition is second order, as in the classical case. In another region, quantum fluctuations drive the transition first order. Across the first order line the susceptibility is discontinuous and shows hysteresis. Our findings reproduce qualitatively observations on LiHoxY1-xF4. We also discuss a marginally stable spin-glass state and derive some results previously obtained from the real-time dynamics of the model coupled to a bath.

preprint: LPTENS-97/18

\]

The study of quantum effects on the properties of spin glasses is a subject of great experimental and theoretical interest. Spin-glass phases have been identified in systems such as mixed hydrogen-bonded ferroelectrics , the dipolar magnet LiHoxY1-xF4  or Sr-doped La2CuO4  where quantum mechanics plays a fundamental role. An important question is whether quantum spin glasses are qualitatively different from their classical counterparts at low temperature. There is growing experimental evidence that the answer to this question is affirmative both in and out of equilibrium . The thermodynamics of several models of disordered magnetic systems has been investigated with various techniques. Mean-field-like models have been solved using the replica formalism in imaginary-time  and the Ising model in a transverse field has also been studied in finite dimensions. It is generally found that, in terms of a suitably defined quantum parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, a boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}(T)`$ in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T`$ plane separates spin-glass (SG) and paramagnetic (PM) phases. The transition line ends at a quantum critical point at $`T=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}(0)`$ above which the system is paramagnetic at all temperatures. In the case of the quantum spherical $`p`$-spin model, the real-time dynamics of the system coupled to a phonon bath was also investigated . In this case, a boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}(T)`$ was found across which there is a dynamic phase transition from a PM state with equilibrium dynamics to a SG with non-stationary, aging, dynamics.

In this paper we investigate in detail the equilibrium properties of this model. We find that a tricritical point $`(T^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$ divides the line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}(T)`$ in two parts. For $`TT^{}`$, the SG transition is of second order and the behavior of the quantum system is qualitatively similar to that of the classical one. However, for $`T<T^{}`$ quantum fluctuations drive the transition first order. The magnetic susceptibility is discontinuous and shows hysteresis across the first-order line. These findings reproduce qualitatively the observed behavior of LiHoxY1-xF4 in a transverse magnetic field . The equations describing this system are non-linear and there is multiplicity of solutions in parts of the phase diagram. We found as a surprise that the usual criteria used to choose between them have to be reinterpreted in order to get physically meaningful solutions in the region $`T<T^{}`$. We also discuss the properties of solutions obtained through the use of the marginality condition, an approach recently applied to the study of quantum problems. It is known from work on classical models  that the results of this approach are closely related to those obtained from the analysis of the real-time dynamics of the system. We explicitly show that this holds true in our quantum case. This unables us to identify the dynamical transition line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}(T)`$ and to derive certain properties of the non-equilibrium dynamics using the replica calculation.

The Hamiltonian of the quantum $`p`$-spin spherical model is

$$H[𝐏,𝐬,J]=\frac{1}{2M}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}P_i^2\underset{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_p}{\overset{N}{}}J_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}s_{i_1}\mathrm{}s_{i_p},$$
(1)
where $`s_i`$ is a scalar spin variable and the conjugated momenta $`P_i`$ satisfy the commutation relations $`[P_i,s_j]=i\mathrm{}\delta _{ij}`$. A Lagrange multiplier $`z`$ enforces the spherical constraint $`1/N_{i=1}^Ns_i^2=1`$. The interactions $`J_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}`$ are chosen from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance $`[J_{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}^2]_J=\stackrel{~}{J}^2p!/(2N^{p1})`$. The model has glassy properties for all $`p2`$. The Hamiltonian (1) may be interpreted in several ways. It represents a non-linear generalization of the quantum-rotor spin-glass models discussed in the literature . It also describes a quantum particle moving in an $`N`$ (eventually infinite) dimensional space in the presence of a random potential. Finally, its partition function is formally identical to that of a classical chain of “length” $`L=\beta \mathrm{}`$ embedded in an $`N`$-dimensional random environment.

The equilibrium properties of the model are obtained using a replicated imaginary-time path integral formalism . In the large $`N`$ limit, the saddle-point evaluation of the partition-function allows us to define the order-parameter $`Q_{ab}(\tau \tau ^{})=1/N_{i=1}^N𝒯s_i^a(\tau )s_i^b(\tau ^{})`$ where $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},n`$ denote the replica indices and $`𝒯`$ the imaginary-time ordering operator. In terms of $`Q_{ab}`$ the free-energy per spin reads

$`\mathrm{F}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _k}{}}[\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}(\omega _k)}{\beta \mathrm{}}}\right)n((M\omega _k^2+z)`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_d(\omega _k)}{\mathrm{}}}1)]nz{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}^2}{2\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta \mathrm{}}d\tau Q_{ab}^p(\tau )\}`$ (3)
where $`\beta =1/(k_BT)`$ is the inverse temperature, $`\omega _k=2\pi k/\beta `$ are the Matsubara frequencies, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ab}(\omega _k)=_0^\beta \mathrm{}𝑑\tau Q_{ab}(\tau )e^{i\omega _k\tau }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_d(\omega _k)=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{aa}(\omega _k)`$. ¿From here on we take $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ as the unit of energy, $`\mathrm{}/\stackrel{~}{J}`$ as the unit of time, and work with dimensionless quantities. Quantum fluctuations are controlled by the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}^2/(\stackrel{~}{J}M)`$. The classical limit of the model is recovered when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. The equilibrium solutions are determined by requiring that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{ab}(\omega _k)`$, parametrized according to different ansatze, be an extremum of $`\mathrm{F}`$. In the following we concentrate on the case $`p3`$. The phenomenology of the $`p=2`$ case  is not as rich.

For sufficiently high $`T`$ and/or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, thermal and/or quantum fluctuations destroy the SG phase and the system is in the PM phase. The free-energy is then extremal for $`Q_{ab}(\tau )=\delta _{ab}q_d(\tau )`$. Its Fourier transform is the solution of the equation

$`\stackrel{~}{q_d}(\omega _k)=\left[\omega _k^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }+z\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega _k)\right]^1,`$ (4)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega _k)=p/2_0^\beta 𝑑\tau q_d^{p1}(\tau )e^{i\omega _k\tau }`$ and $`z`$ is determined from $`q_d(0)=1`$. The above equation is non-linear and may have several solutions, some of which may be spurious. We solved Eq. (4) numerically for $`p=3`$. We found that for $`T>T^{}1/6`$ there is only one solution, irrespective of the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. However, for $`T<T^{}`$, three solutions coexist in a finite region of the $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ plane (not including the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0 axis). One of them is unstable and can be discarded from the start. We discuss below how to choose the physical solution between the remaining two. In the SG phase, inspired by the classical case , we searched for one-step RSB solutions of the form $`Q_{ab}(\tau )=q_d^{}(\tau )\delta _{ab}+q_{\mathrm{EA}}ϵ_{ab}`$, where $`ϵ_{ab}=1`$ if $`a`$ and $`b`$ belong to the same diagonal block of size $`m\times m`$ and zero otherwise, and $`q_d^{}(\tau )=q_d(\tau )q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$. The diagonal part, $`q_d(\tau )`$, the breaking point, $`m`$, and the Edwards-Anderson order parameter, $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$, are determined by extremizing $`\mathrm{F}`$. We find

$$\stackrel{~}{q}_d^{}(\omega _k)=\left[\omega _k^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }+z^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\omega _k)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(0))\right]^1,$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\tau )=p/2(q^{p1}(\tau )q_{\mathrm{EA}}^{p1})`$, $`z^{}=p/2\beta mq_{\mathrm{EA}}^{p1}(1+x_p)/x_p`$ and

$$m=Tx_p\sqrt{2/(p(1+x_p))}q_{\mathrm{EA}}^{p/2}.$$
(6)
The parameter $`x_p`$, solution of an algebraic equation, depends on $`p`$ only, and we found $`x_3=1.817`$. The condition $`q_d(0)=1`$ now yields an equation for the breaking point of the form $`m\mu _T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Solutions of Eq. (5) exist only for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$. Above this value, quantum fluctuations destroy the SG phase. We found that the function $`\mu _T(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ has two real branches in the interval $`0\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$. The physical values of $`m`$ are on the lowest branch which verifies $`\mu _T(0)=m_{\mathrm{class}}(T)`$, the classical breaking point parameter. The situations above and below $`T^{}`$ are different. For $`TT^{}`$ (but lower than the classical transition temperature), $`m_{\mathrm{max}}m(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}})=1`$, its largest possible value. For $`T<T^{}`$, instead, $`m_{\mathrm{max}}<1`$. In both cases, $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$ is finite at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$. We discuss below the consequences of these facts. We found that $`lim_{T0}m_{\mathrm{max}}(T)=0`$, implying that replica symmetry is restored at the quantum critical point as in the model discussed in reference . All these conclusions, obtained from the numerical analysis of the $`p=3`$ case, also follow from an approximate analytical solution of the equations for arbitrary $`p3`$ .

PM solutions exist throughout the $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ plane. The free-energies of the different states must thus be compared in order to construct a phase diagram. Figs. 1(a) and (b) show the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-dependence of the PM and SG free-energies for the case $`p=3`$ computed from Eq. (3) for two temperatures, above and below $`T^{}`$. Solid lines and symbols represent the PM and SG solutions, respectively. The curves end at the point where the corresponding solution disappears. It may be seen that for $`T>T^{}`$ the free-energies of the two states intersect precisely at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}(T)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}}(T)`$: the SG solution does not extend beyond the transition point and no hysteresis is expected. Below the critical point, $`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{SG}}>\mathrm{F}_{PM}`$ meaning that the SG solution maximizes the free-energy. This is the usual situation encountered in replica theories of classical spin glasses. As in the classical case, $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$ is discontinuous at the transition. The latter is nevertheless of second order because $`m=1`$ at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}`$ and, therefore, the effective number of degrees of freedom participating in the transition $`(1m)q_{\mathrm{EA}}0`$ at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}`$. There is no latent heat and the linear susceptibility is continuous.

The situation is more involved below $`T^{}`$. To start with, one has to choose between the two PM solutions labeled PM1 and PM2 in Fig. 1. Naively, one would choose the solution with the lowest free-energy, i.e., PM2. However, this solution has unphysical properties. As shown in Fig. 1(b), its free-energy never intersects that of the SG phase. Both the free-energy and the susceptibility diverge as $`T0`$. Furthermore, this solution disappears at a finite value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (not shown in the figure) and cannot thus be reached starting from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$. On the other hand, it is clear that the ground-state of Hamiltonian (1) must have finite susceptibility and energy. We thus conclude that PM2 is a spurious solution and that PM1 has to be chosen even if its free-energy is higher . The free-energies of the SG and PM1 states cross at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ as shown in the inset in Fig. 1(b). In the low temperature phase, $`\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{SG}}<\mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{PM}}`$, the opposite of what we found for $`T>T^{}`$. The SG and PM solutions extend beyond the point where they cross. There is a region of phase coexistence and hysteresis effects are thus expected in the behavior of observables.

Since now $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$ and $`m`$ are discontinuous at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}`$ the thermodynamic transition is first order with latent heat and discontinuous susceptibility (see below). The phase diagram resulting from this analysis is represented in Fig. 2 (thin lines). The flat section is the first-order line. We have computed the Edwards-Anderson order parameter and the susceptibility, $`\chi =_0^\beta 𝑑\tau [q_d(\tau )(1m)q_{\mathrm{EA}}]`$, as functions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the $`p=3`$ model. The results are displayed in Fig. 3. The susceptibility has a cusp at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}`$ for $`T>T^{}`$ and a discontinuity for $`T<T^{}`$. The dotted lines correspond to the regions of metastability. Their end points give the amplitude of the ideal hysteresis cycle. The importance of quantum fluctuations may be appreciated from the fact that half way from the transition the order parameter is already reduced by a factor of two. It can be shown analytically  that the spectrum of magnetic excitations at $`T=0`$ is gaped both in the PM and SG phases for all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ (see below, however). Consequently, the latent heat vanishes exponentially as $`T0`$. Since it also vanishes at $`T^{}`$, it must have a maximum at some intermediate temperature.

First order quantum transitions were also found in two other models, the fermionic SK-like spin-glass model and a $`p`$-spin model in a transverse field. In contrast, the SG transitions of the Heisenberg EA model and of the SK model in a transverse field are known to be second order. This is also true in finite dimensions . Early experiments on LiHoxY1-xF4 gave some indications that the second order SG transition seen above 25 mK, might become first order at lower temperatures . More recently, hysteresis effects have been observed in this system as a function of the transverse field , giving further support to this idea. The model that we study here captures this phenomenology.

We discuss next the consequences of the use of the marginality condition  rather than thermodynamics in the determination of the breaking point. In this approach it is not required that $`\mathrm{F}`$ be an extremum with respect to $`m`$ but that the SG phase be marginally stable. This implies that the “replicon” eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must vanish throughout the low-temperature phase. The calculation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$  is analogous to the classical one . The result is

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}_d(0)+\beta q_{\mathrm{EA}}(m1)}{\stackrel{~}{q}_d^2(0)\beta ^2q_{\mathrm{EA}}^2(m1)+\stackrel{~}{q}_d(0)\beta q_{\mathrm{EA}}(m2)}}\right]^2\beta ^2`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{2}}p(p1)q_{\mathrm{EA}}^{p2}.`$
The value of $`m`$ follows from the equation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, that combined with the equation $`\delta \mathrm{F}/\delta q_{\mathrm{EA}}=0`$, yields

$$m=T(p2)\sqrt{2/(p(p1))}q_{\mathrm{EA}}^{p/2}.$$
(9)
Notice that this expression is equivalent to Eq. (6) with the substitution $`x_p(p2)`$. Interestingly enough, Eq. (9) is identical to the equation found for the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) violation parameter, $`X`$, in the real-time dynamical calculation . Moreover, the static and dynamical equations for $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$ are also identical which implies that $`m=X`$. The coincidence between the values of $`X`$ and $`m`$ for the marginal SG state has been noticed several times for classical models. This is the first explicit evidence of its validity in a quantum problem. $`X`$ is related to the effective temperature  of the system, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=X^1T`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature of the thermal bath it is in contact with. Values of $`X1`$ signal the presence of a non-stationary dynamics and of FDT violations. The fact that $`\beta X=\beta m\mathrm{const}`$ when $`T0`$ shows that a non-trivial $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is generated even when the temperature of the bath vanishes. We have also shown analytically  that the internal energy, computed from $`U=(\beta \mathrm{F})/\beta `$ at constant $`m`$, coincides with the long-time limit of the energy per spin as obtained from dynamics . The dynamic transition line $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}(T)`$ may be thus identified as the boundary of the region in the $`T\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ plane where the marginally stable SG exists. Below this line, the dynamics of the system becomes non-stationary and FDT violations set in. The dynamic phase diagram for $`p=3`$ is shown in Fig. 2 (thick lines). As in the equilibrium case, $`m`$ is discontinuous across the dashed line. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}`$ lies always above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{c}`$ suggesting that the equilibrium state can never be reached dynamically starting from an initial state in the PM phase. The two lines are extremely close to each other for $`TT^{}`$. Within the accuracy of our calculations we cannot assert whether they precisely touch at $`T^{}`$, an intriguing possibility. In the region $`T<T^{}`$, $`m`$ varies continuously along $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}(T)`$ and vanishes at the quantum critical point. This has a consequence of potential interest for experiment: FDT violations are predicted to appear suddenly rather than gradually as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{d}`$ is crossed coming from the high $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ region for $`T<T^{}`$. The stationary part of the time-dependent susceptibility in the SG phase can be calculated by analytic continuation of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_d^{}(\omega _k)`$. It may be shown that the excitation spectrum of the marginal SG state is gapless . Furthermore, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ may be calculated exactly for $`T,\omega 0`$. The result is

$$\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{\chi ^{\prime \prime }(\omega )}{\omega }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\left[\frac{2q_{\mathrm{EA}}^{(2p)}}{p(p1)}\right]^{3/4}.$$
(10)
A linear excitation spectrum has also been found in the case of the Heisenberg spin glass model . However, a gapless spectrum is not a consequence of Goldstone’s theorem here as our model does not have any continuous symmetry. A more extended discussion of our results will be presented in a forthcoming paper .

One of us (CAdSS) acknowledges financial support from the Portuguese Research Council, FCT, under grant BPD/16303/98. LFC and DRG thank the ECOS-Sud program for a travel grant. We thank T. F. Rosenbaum for making available to us the results of Ref.  prior to publication. We also thank G. Biroli, J. Kurchan, G. Lozano and M. Rozenberg for useful discussions.


text:
# Coherent and incoherent dynamic structure functions of the free Fermi gas

## Figure captions

* Comparison between the dimensionless Lindhard Function (solid line above) and the dimensionless incoherent and coherent dynamic structure functions (solid and dashed lines below, respectively) at $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0.01`$.
* Same as in figure 1 at $`\stackrel{~}{q}=1`$.
* Same as in figure 1 at $`\stackrel{~}{q}=1.9`$.


text:
# Classical “Dressing” of a Free Electron in a Plane Electromagnetic Wave

## I Introduction

The behavior of a free electron in a electromagnetic wave is one of the most commonly discussed topics in classical electromagnetism. Yet, several basic issues remain to be clarified. These relate to the question: to what extent can net energy be transferred from an electromagnetic pulse (such as that of a laser) in vacuum to a free electron?

These issues are made more complex by quantum considerations, including the role of the “quasimomentum” of an electron that is “dressed” by an electromagnetic wave .

As a small step towards understanding of the larger issues, we consider a simpler question here. The response of a free electron to a plane electromagnetic wave is oscillatory motion in the plane perpendicular to the direction of the wave, in the first approximation. Thus, the electron has momentum transverse to the direction of the wave. However, the wave contains momentum only in its direction, and the radiated wave contains no net momentum (in the nonrelativistic limit). How is momentum conserved in this process?

The general sense of the answer has been given by Poynting , who noted that an electromagnetic field can be said to contain a flux of energy (energy per unit area per unit time) given by

$$𝐒=\frac{c𝐄\times 𝐁}{4\pi },$$
(1)
in Gaussian units, where E is the electric field, B is the magnetic field (taken to be in vacuum throughout this paper) and $`c`$ is the speed of light.

Poincaré  noted that this flow of energy can also be associated with a momentum density given by

$$𝐏_{\mathrm{field}}=\frac{𝐒}{c^2}=\frac{𝐄\times 𝐁}{4\pi c},$$
(2)
Hence, in the problem of a free electron in a plane electromagnetic wave we are led to seek an electromagnetic field momentum that is equal and opposite to the mechanical momentum of the electron.

In this paper we demonstrate that indeed the mechanical momentum of the oscillating electron is balanced by the field momentum in the interference term between the incident wave and the static field of the electron. We are left with some subtleties when we consider the interference between the incident wave and the oscillating field of the electron.

## II Generalities

### A Motion of an Electron in a Plane Wave

We consider a plane electromagnetic wave that propagates in the $`+z`$ direction of a rectangular coordinate system. A fairly general form of this wave is

$`𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t),`$ (3)
$`𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐱}E_y\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)+\widehat{𝐲}E_x\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t),`$ (4)
where $`\omega =kc`$ is the angular frequency of the wave, $`k=2\pi /\lambda `$ is the wave number and $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ is a unit vector in the $`x`$ direction, etc. When either $`E_x`$ or $`E_y`$ is zero we have a linearly polarized wave, while for $`E_x=\pm E_y`$ we have circular polarization.

A free electron of mass $`m`$ oscillates in this field such that its average position is at the origin. This simple statement hides the subtlety that our frame of reference is not the lab frame of an electron that is initially at rest but which is overtaken by a wave . If the velocity of the oscillating electron is small, we can ignore the $`𝐯/c\times 𝐁`$ force and take the motion to be entirely in the plane $`z=0`$. Then, (also ignoring radiation damping) the equation of motion of the electron is

$$m\ddot{𝐱}=e𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}(0,t)=e(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{cos}\omega t+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{sin}\omega t).$$
(5)
Using eq. (4) we find the position of the electron to be

$$𝐱=\frac{e}{m\omega ^2}(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{cos}\omega t+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{sin}\omega t),$$
(6)
and the mechanical momentum of the electron is

$$𝐩_{\mathrm{mech}}=m\dot{𝐱}=\frac{e}{\omega }(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}\omega t\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}\omega t).$$
(7)
The root-mean-square (rms) velocity of the electron is

$$v_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2}=\frac{e}{m\omega }\sqrt{\frac{E_x^2+E_y^2}{2}}=\frac{eE_{\mathrm{rms}}}{m\omega c}c.$$
(8)
The condition that the $`𝐯/c\times 𝐁`$ force be small is then

$$\eta \frac{eE_{\mathrm{rms}}}{m\omega c}1,$$
(9)
where the dimensionless measure of field strength, $`\eta `$, is a Lorentz invariant. Similarly, the rms departure of the electron from the origin is

$$x_{\mathrm{rms}}=\frac{eE_{\mathrm{rms}}}{m\omega ^2}=\frac{\eta \lambda }{2\pi }.$$
(10)
Thus, condition (9) also insures that the extent of the motion of the electron is small compared to a wavelength, and so we may use the dipole approximation when considering the fields of the oscillating electron.

In the weak-field approximation, we can now use (7) for the velocity to evaluate the second term of the Lorentz force:

$$e\frac{𝐯}{c}\times 𝐁=\frac{e^2(E_x^2E_y^2)}{2m\omega c}\widehat{𝐳}\mathrm{sin}2\omega t.$$
(11)
This term vanishes for circular polarization, in which case the motion is wholely in the transverse plane. However, for linear polarization the $`𝐯/c\times 𝐁`$ force leads to oscillations along the $`z`$ axis at frequency $`2\omega `$, as first analyzed in general by Landau . For polarization along the $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ axis, the $`x`$-$`z`$ motion has the form of a “figure 8”, which for weak fields ($`\eta 1`$) is described by

$$x=\frac{eE_x}{m\omega ^2}\mathrm{cos}\omega t,z=\frac{e^2E_x^2}{8m^2\omega ^3c}\mathrm{sin}2\omega t.$$
(12)
If the electron had been at rest before the arrival of the plane wave, then inside the wave it would move with an average drift velocity given by

$$v_z=\frac{\eta ^2/2}{1+\eta ^2/2}c,$$
(13)
along the direction of the wave vector, as first deduced by McMillan . In the present paper we work in the frame in which the electron has no average velocity along the $`z`$ axis. Therefore, prior to its encounter with the plane wave the electron had been moving in the negative $`z`$ direction with speed given by (13).

### B Field Momentum

The fields associated with the electron can be regarded as the superposition of those of an electron at rest at the origin plus those of a dipole consisting of the actual oscillating electron and a positron at rest at the origin. Thus, we can write the electric field of the electron as $`𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ and the magnetic field as $`𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}}`$, where the oscillating fields have the pure frequency $`\omega `$ in the low-velocity limit.

The entire electromagnetic momentum density can then be written

$$𝐏_{\mathrm{field}}=\frac{(𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}})\times (𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}+𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}})}{4\pi c}.$$
(14)
However, in seeking the field momentum that opposes the mechanical momentum of the electron, we should not include either of the self-momenta $`𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}\times 𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}`$ or $`(𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}})\times 𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}}`$. The former is independent of the electron, while the latter can be considered as a part of the mechanical momentum of the electron according to the concept of “renormalization”.

We therefore restrict our attention to the interaction field momentum

$$𝐏_{\mathrm{int}}=𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}+𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}},$$
(15)
where

$$𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}=\frac{𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}\times 𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}}{4\pi c}.$$
(16)
and

$$𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}=\frac{𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}\times 𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}}\times 𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}}{4\pi c}.$$
(17)
We recall from eqs. (7) and (12) that the transversemechanical momentum of the oscillating electron has pure frequency $`\omega `$. Since the wave and the oscillating part of the electron’s field each have frequency $`\omega `$, the term $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$ contains harmonic functions of $`\omega ^2`$, which can be resolved into a static term plus ones in frequency $`2\omega `$. Hence we should not expect this term to cancel the mechanical momentum. Rather, we look to the term $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}`$, since this has pure frequency $`\omega `$.

## III The Momentum $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}`$

The static field of the electron at the origin is, in rectangular coordinates,

$$𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}=\frac{e}{r^3}(x\widehat{𝐱}+y\widehat{𝐲}+z\widehat{𝐳}),$$
(18)
where $`r`$ is the distance from the origin to the point of observation. Combing this with eq. (4) we have

$`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi cr^3}}\{\widehat{𝐱}zE_x\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)`$ (21)
$`+\widehat{𝐲}zE_y\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)`$
$`+\widehat{𝐳}[xE_x\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)yE_y\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)]\}.`$
When we integrate this over all space to find the total field momentum, the terms in $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ vanish as they are odd in either $`x`$ or $`y`$. Likewise, after expanding the cosine and sine of $`kz\omega t`$, the terms proportional to $`z\mathrm{cos}kz`$ vanish on integration. The remaining terms are thus

$`𝐩_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{4\pi c}}(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}\omega t){\displaystyle _V}{\displaystyle \frac{z\mathrm{sin}kz}{r^3}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\omega }}(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}\omega t+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}\omega t)=𝐩_{\mathrm{mech}},`$ (24)
after an elementary volume integration.

It is noteworthy that the integration is independent of any hypothesis as to the size of a classical electron. Indeed, the integrand of (22) can be expressed as $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}(kr\mathrm{cos}\theta )/r^2`$ via the substitution $`z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Hence, the integral over a spherical shell is independent of $`r`$ for $`kr1`$, and significant contributions to the integral occur for radii up to one wavelength of the electromagnetic wave. This contrasts with the self-momentum density of the electron which is formally divergent; if the integration is cut off at a minimum radius (the classical electron radius), the dominant contribution occurs within twice that radius.

Thus, we have demonstrated the principal result of this paper.

## IV The Momentum $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$

Several subtleties in the argument appear when we consider the other interference term in the momentum density (15). For this we must first display the electromagnetic fields of an oscillating electron.

### A The Fields $`𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}}`$ and $`𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}}`$

Since we restrict our attention to an electron that oscillates with amplitude much less than a wavelength of the driving wave, and the electron attains velocities that are much less than the speed of light, it is sufficient to use the dipole approximation to the fields of the electron. While these fields are well known, they are typically presented in imaginary notation, of which only the real part has physical significance. This notation is very useful for discussions in which only time-averaged behavior is of interest. However, we wish to consider the details of momentum balance at an arbitrary moment, and it is preferable to use purely real notation.

We begin by noting that the retarded vector potential of the oscillating electron at a point r at time $`t`$ can be written

$`𝐀_{\mathrm{osc}}(𝐫,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{𝐱}(t^{}=tr/c)}{r}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m\omega cr}}[\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)],`$ (26)
using eq. (6) for the motion x of the electron. The oscillating part of the scalar potential is obtained by integration of the Lorentz gauge condition:

$$𝐀_{\mathrm{osc}}+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\varphi _{\mathrm{osc}}}{t}=0.$$
(27)
We find

$`\varphi _{\mathrm{osc}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m\omega ^2}}\{E_x[{\displaystyle \frac{kx}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$ (29)
$`+E_y[{\displaystyle \frac{ky}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)]\}.`$
The constant static potential is omitted in the above.

The scalar potential could also be deduced from the retarded potential of a moving charge. Equation (29) results on expanding the retarded distance to first order in the field strength of the plane wave.

The electric and magnetic fields are, of course, found from the potentials via

$$𝐁=\times 𝐀\text{and}𝐄=\varphi \frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐀}{t}.$$
(30)
The lengthy expressions for the rectangular components of the fields are

$`B_{\mathrm{osc},x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y}{m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right],`$ (31)
$`B_{\mathrm{osc},y}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x}{m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)\right],`$ (32)
$`B_{\mathrm{osc},z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x}{m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{ky}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)\right]`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y}{m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2x}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{kx}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right],`$ (34)
and

$`E_{\mathrm{osc},x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x}{m\omega ^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3kx^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (38)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2x^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y}{m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)],`$
$`E_{\mathrm{osc},\mathrm{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x}{m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (42)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y}{m\omega ^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3ky^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3y^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)],`$
$`E_{\mathrm{osc},\mathrm{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x}{m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxz}{r^4}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (46)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xz}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xz}{r^5}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y}{m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kyz}{r^4}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2yz}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3yz}{r^5}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)].`$
These expressions can also be deduced from the Liénard-Wiechert forms for the fields of an accelerated charge, keeping terms only to first order in the strength of the plane wave.

### B Components of $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$

Since the wave fields have no $`z`$ component, the $`x`$ component of $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$ is given by

$$P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},x}=\frac{E_{\mathrm{wave},y}B_{\mathrm{osc},z}E_{\mathrm{osc},z}B_{\mathrm{wave},y}}{4\pi c}.$$
(47)
From eqs. (33) and (42) we see that both $`B_{\mathrm{osc},z}`$ and $`E_{\mathrm{osc},z}`$ are odd in either $`x`$ or $`y`$. Therefore, the volume integral of $`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},x}`$ vanishes, and we do not consider it further. Likewise, $`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},y}`$ vanishes on integration. This confirms the claim made at the end of sec. II that the interference term $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$ is not relevant to the balance of transverse momentum between the electron and the fields.

However, the $`z`$ component of $`𝐏_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$ does not vanish on integration, and requires further discussion. As the details include some surprises (to the author) I present them at length.

$`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}=`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E_{\mathrm{w},x}B_{\mathrm{o},y}E_{\mathrm{w},y}B_{\mathrm{o},x}+E_{\mathrm{o},x}B_{\mathrm{w},y}E_{\mathrm{o},y}B_{\mathrm{w},x}}{4\pi c}}=`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x^2\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)\right]`$ (50)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y^2\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right]`$ (51)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x^2\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3kx^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (53)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2x^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_xE_y\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (55)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_xE_y\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (57)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y^2\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2c}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3ky^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (59)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3y^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)].`$
The terms of $`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ that are proportional to $`E_yE_y`$ are odd on both $`x`$ and $`y`$, and so will vanish on integration.

We now consider the implications of eq. (55) separately for waves of circular and linear polarization.

### C Circular Polarization

For a circularly polarized wave, we have $`E_x^2=E_y^2`$. Consequently the dimensionless measure of field strength is $`\eta =eE_x/m\omega c=eE_y/m\omega c`$, according to (9). The prefactors $`e^2E_x^2/4\pi m\omega ^2c`$ and $`e^2E_y^2/4\pi m\omega ^2c`$ can therefore both be written $`\eta ^2mc/4\pi `$, and have dimensions of momentum.

The terms of eq. (55) in $`E_x^2`$ and $`E_y^2`$ can be combined in pairs via the identities

$`\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)+\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (60)
$`=\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr,`$ (61)
and

$`\mathrm{sin}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (62)
$`=\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr.`$ (63)
A detail: the second term of eq. (55) in $`E_x^2`$ contains factors of $`x^2`$, while second term of in $`E_y^2`$ contains factors of $`y^2`$. But during integration, we can replace $`y^2`$ by $`x^2`$, after which the terms can be combined via (61-63).

We see already that the volume integral of $`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ will contain no time dependence!

On integration, terms such as $`f(x,r)\mathrm{sin}kz`$ and $`g(x,r)z\mathrm{cos}kz`$ that are odd in $`z`$ will vanish. The integrated field momentum is thus,

$$p_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}=_VP_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}=\frac{\eta ^2mc}{4\pi }I_1=\frac{4}{3}\eta ^2mc,$$
(64)
where $`I_1`$ is the volume integral whose integrand is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr+{\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr`$ (65)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3kx^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr`$ (66)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3y^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}\right)\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr.`$ (67)
We return to the significance of eq. (64) after describing the evaluation of integral $`I_1`$.

As seen from eq. (64), the integral $`I_1`$ must be dimensionless, although it is apparently a function of the wave number $`k`$. However, the form of (67) indicates that $`I_1`$ is actually independent of the length scale, so we can set $`k=1`$ during integration.

To perform the integration we consider a volume element $`r^2drd\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$ in a spherical coordinate system with angle $`\theta `$ defined relative to the $`z`$ axis. It is more convenient to keep $`z=r\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ as a variable of integration, using $`dz=rd\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. Then the volume integration has the form

$$_V=_0^{\mathrm{}}r𝑑r_r^r𝑑z_0^{2\pi }𝑑\varphi .$$
(68)
Most terms of (67) are independent of $`\varphi `$, so their $`\varphi `$ integral is just $`2\pi `$. For the terms in $`x^2`$, we have

$$_0^{2\pi }x^2𝑑\varphi =r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}^2\varphi d\varphi =\pi (r^2z^2).$$
(69)
While each of the four main terms of (67) diverges on integration, it turns out that the two terms in $`\mathrm{cos}z`$ taken together are finite (and likewise for the two terms in $`\mathrm{sin}z`$). We find that

$$I_1=I_A+I_B=\frac{16\pi }{3},$$
(70)
where

$`I_A`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}r}{r}}{\displaystyle _r^r}𝑑zz\mathrm{sin}z`$ (72)
$`+2\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{\mathrm{cos}r}{r^2}𝑑zz\mathrm{sin}z}`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi ,`$ (73)
and

$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{\mathrm{sin}r}{r}𝑑z\mathrm{cos}z}`$ (77)
$`3\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{\mathrm{sin}r}{r^3}𝑑zz^2\mathrm{cos}z}`$
$`+\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑r\mathrm{cos}r\left(1+\frac{1}{r^2}\right)𝑑z\mathrm{cos}z}`$
$`+\pi {\displaystyle 𝑑r\frac{\mathrm{cos}r}{r^2}\left(1\frac{3}{r^2}\right)𝑑zz^2\mathrm{cos}z}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3}}.`$ (78)
From detailed evaluation of the radial integral, we find that the integrand approaches a constant value as $`r`$ goes to zero, and that the contribution to the integral at large $`r`$ diminishes as $`1/r`$. That is, the principal contribution is from the region $`kr1`$.

We are left with the result (64) that the integral of the interference term in the field momentum density has a constant longitudinal term for an electron oscillating in a circularly polarized wave.

Recall that we have performed the analysis in a frame in which the electron has no longitudinal momentum. However, as remarked in sec. IIA, prior to its encounter with the wave, the electron had velocity $`v_z=\eta ^2c/2`$ (assuming $`\eta ^21`$), and therefore had initial mechanical momentum $`p_{\mathrm{mech},z}=\eta ^2mc/2`$. So, we would expect that this initial mechanical momentum had been converted to field momentum, if momentum is to be conserved.

The result (64) can be described as a kind of “hidden momentum” , whose appearance can be surprising if one ignores the physical processes needed to arrive at the nominal conditions of the problem.

We continue to be puzzled as to why the result (64) is 8/3 times larger than that required to satisfy momentum conservation.

### D Linear Polarization

Consider now the case of a linearly polarized wave with electric field along the $`x`$ axis. Then $`E_{\mathrm{rms}}=E_x/\sqrt{2}`$, and the prefactors in (55) can be written as $`\eta ^2mc/2\pi `$.

The remaining terms in the momentum density $`P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ have time dependences that can be expressed as sums of pure frequencies via the identities

$`2\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr`$ (82)
$`+(\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr)\mathrm{cos}2\omega t`$
$`+(\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr)\mathrm{sin}2\omega t,`$
and

$`2\mathrm{cos}(kz\omega t)\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (83)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr`$ (86)
$`+(\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr)\mathrm{cos}2\omega t`$
$`+(\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr)\mathrm{sin}2\omega t,`$
Inserting these into eq. (55) and keeping only those terms that are even in $`z`$, we find the integrated field momentum to be

$`p_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _V}P_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^2mc}{4\pi }}(I_1+I_2\mathrm{cos}2\omega t+I_3\mathrm{sin}2\omega t),`$ (88)
where integral $`I_1=16\pi /3`$ has been discussed in (67-78),

$$I_2=I_A+I_B=\frac{8\pi }{3},$$
(89)
and integral $`I_3`$ has the integrand,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr{\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr`$ (90)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{3kx^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr`$ (91)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3y^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}\right)\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr.`$ (92)
On evaluation, $`I_3=0`$.

Hence, the longitudinal component of the interference field momentum of a free electron in a linearly polarized wave is

$$p_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}=\frac{4}{3}\eta ^2mc+\frac{2}{3}\eta mc\mathrm{cos}2\omega t.$$
(93)
The constant term is the same as that found in eq. (64) for circular polarization, and represents the initial mechanical momentum of the electron that became stored in the electromagnetic field once the electron became immersed in the wave.

As for the second term of (93), recall from eq. (12) that for linear polarization the electron oscillates along the $`z`$ axis at frequency $`2\omega `$. Hence the $`z`$ component of the mechanical momentum of the electron is

$$p_{\mathrm{mech},z}=m\dot{z}=\frac{\eta ^2mc}{2}\mathrm{cos}2\omega t.$$
(94)
The term in $`p_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc},z}`$ at frequency $`2\omega `$ is $`4/3`$ of the longitudinal component of the mechanical momentum associated with the “figure 8” motion of the electron. Thus, we have not been completely successful in accounting for momentum conservation when the small, oscillatory longitudinal momentum is considered.

The factors of 4/3 and 8/3 are presumably not the same as the famous factor of $`4/3`$ that arise in analyses of the electromagnetic energy and momentum of the self fields of an electron . A further appearance of a factor of 8/3 in the present example occurs when we consider the field energy of the interference terms.

## V The Interference Field Energy

It is also interesting to examine the electromagnetic field energy of an electron in a plane wave. As for the momentum density (14), we can write

$$U_{\mathrm{total}}=\frac{(𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}+𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}})^2+(𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}+𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}})^2}{8\pi },$$
(95)
for the field energy density. Again, we no not consider the divergent energies of the self fields, but only the interference terms,

$$U_{\mathrm{int}}=U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}+U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}},$$
(96)
where

$$U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}=\frac{𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}𝐄_{\mathrm{static}}}{4\pi }.$$
(97)
and

$$U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}=\frac{𝐄_{\mathrm{wave}}𝐄_{\mathrm{osc}}+𝐁_{\mathrm{wave}}𝐁_{\mathrm{osc}}}{4\pi }.$$
(98)
In general, the interference field energy density is oscillating. Here, we look for terms that are nonzero after averaging over time. We see at once that

$$U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{static}}=0,$$
(99)
since all terms have time dependence of $`\mathrm{cos}\omega t`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$. In contrast, $`U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}`$ will be nonzero as its terms are products of sines and cosines:

$`U_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}=`$ (100)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x^2\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3kx^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (102)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2x^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3x^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_xE_y\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (104)
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)],`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_xE_y\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{3kxy}{r^4}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (106)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2xy}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{3xy}{r^5}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y^2\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}[({\displaystyle \frac{3ky^2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{r^2}})\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (108)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2y^2}{r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3y^2}{r^5}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}})\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_y^2\mathrm{sin}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right]`$ (109)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2E_x^2\mathrm{cos}(kzwt)}{4\pi m\omega ^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{k^2z}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{kz}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)\right].`$ (110)
The terms in $`E_xE_y`$ will vanish on integration over volume. The various time averages are

$`2\mathrm{cos}(kz`$ $``$ $`\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (112)
$`=\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr,`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}(kz`$ $``$ $`\omega t)\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)`$ (114)
$`=\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr,`$
$`2\mathrm{cos}(kz`$ $``$ $`\omega t)\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (116)
$`=\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{sin}kr\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{cos}kr,`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}(kz`$ $``$ $`\omega t)\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)`$ (118)
$`=\mathrm{cos}kz\mathrm{cos}kr+\mathrm{sin}kz\mathrm{sin}kr.`$
After performing the time average on eq. (106), we keep only terms that are even in $`z`$. These terms have the form (67), and so we find that

$$u_{\mathrm{int}}=_VU_{\mathrm{wave},\mathrm{osc}}=\frac{e^2(E_x^2+E_y^2)}{8\pi m\omega ^2}I_1=\frac{4}{3}\eta ^2mc^2,$$
(119)
for waves of either linear or circular polarization. As with the case of the interference field momentum, this interference field energy is distributed over a volume of order a cubic wavelength around the electron. Being an interference term, its sign can be negative.

We can interpret the quantity,

$$\frac{u_{\mathrm{int}}}{c^2}=\frac{4}{3}\eta ^2m,$$
(120)
as compensation for the relativistic mass increase of the oscillating electron, which scales as $`v_{\mathrm{rms}}^2/c^2`$ and hence as $`\eta ^2`$ (for small $`\eta `$, recall eq. (8)). Indeed, a general result for the motion of an electron in a plane wave of arbitrary strength $`\eta `$ is that its rms relativistic mass, often called its effective mass, is

$$m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m\sqrt{1+\eta ^2}.$$
(121)
For small $`\eta `$, the increase in mass is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m\frac{1}{2}\eta ^2m.$$
(122)
Thus, the decrease in field energy due to the interference terms between the electromagnetic fields of the wave and electron is $`8/3`$ times the mass increase it should compensate.

## VI Discussion

### A Temporary Acceleration

We remarked in sec. IIA that the preceding analysis holds in the average rest frame of the electron. If instead the electron had been at rest prior to the arrival of the plane wave, the velocity of the average rest frame would be $`v_z=(\eta ^2/2)/(1+\eta ^2/2)`$. For this, the amplitude of the plane wave is presumed to have a slow rise from zero to a long plateau at strength $`\eta `$, followed by a slow decline back to zero.

Once the wave has passed by the electron, the interference field energy, (119), goes to zero since the integral is dominated by the contribution at distances of order a wavelength from the electron. Hence, the electron’s kinetic energy must return to zero (or to its initial value if that was nonzero). A plane wave, or more precisely, a long pulse that is very nearly a plane wave, cannot transfer net energy to an electron. The acceleration of the electron from zero velocity to $`v_z`$ is only temporary, i.e., for the duration of the plane wave pulse.

This result was first deduced by di Francia  and by Kibble  by different arguments.

### B The Radiation Reaction

Our analysis of the energy balance of an electron in a plane wave is not quite complete. We have neglected the energy radiated by the electron. Since the rate of radiation is constant (once the electron is inside the plane wave), the total radiated energy grows linearly with time, and eventually becomes large. The interference energy, (119), is constant in time, and hence cannot account for the radiated energy.

More to follow…..

## VII Appendix: Liénard-Wiechert Fields

As an alternative to the dipole approximation, we consider the use of the Liénard-Wiechert potentials and fields of a moving electron. We have limited our analysis to the case of a weak plane wave ($`\eta `$1), for which the velocity of the electron is always small $`(\beta =v/c1)`$. In this case we may approximate the time-dependent part of the fields of the electron as proportional to the strength of the field of the plane wave (proportional to $`\eta `$. Then we find that the Liénard-Wiechert fields of the electron are the same as the fields in the dipole approximation.

We can show this in two ways. First, we verify that the Liénard-Wiechert potentials reduce to eqs. (25) and (29). Second, we can verify directly that the Liénard-Wiechert fields are the same as eqs. (33) and (42).

The Liénard-Wiechert potentials are

$$\varphi =\left[\frac{e}{R(1\beta \widehat{𝐧}}\right],𝐀=\left[\frac{e\beta }{R(1\beta \widehat{𝐧}}\right],$$
(123)
where the electron is at postion x, the observer is at r, their separation is R = r $``$ x, the unit vector $`\widehat{𝐧}`$ is $`𝐑/R`$, and the brackets, \[ \], indicate that quantities within are to be evaluated at the retarded time, $`t^{}=tR/c`$.

We work in the average rest frame of the electron. In the weak-field approximation we ignore the longitudinal motion of the electron, (12), which is quadratic in the strength of the plane wave. Then the velocity vector of the electron is

$$\beta (t)=\frac{e}{m\omega c}\left(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}\omega t\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}\omega t\right),$$
(124)
from eq. (7). The retarded velocity is thus,

$`[\beta ]`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (t^{}=tR/c)`$ (125)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m\omega c}}\left(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}(kR\omega t)+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right).`$ (126)
Distance $`R`$ differs from $`r`$ because the electron’s oscillatory motion takes it away from the origin. However, the amplitude of the motion is proportional to strength of the plane wave. Hence, we may replace $`R`$ by $`r`$ in eq. (125) with error only in the second order of field strength.

Since the vector potential includes a factor $`\beta `$ in the numerator, we can replace $`R`$ by $`r`$ and $`1\beta \widehat{𝐧}`$ by 1 in the first order in the field strength of the plane wave. Thus,

$$𝐀=\frac{e^2}{m\omega cr}\left(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right),$$
(127)
in agreement with eq. (30).

In the scaler potential, we first bring $`\beta `$ to the numerator:

$$\varphi \frac{e[1+\beta \widehat{𝐧}]}{[R]}.$$
(128)
Unit vector $`[\widehat{𝐧}]`$ differs from unit vector $`\widehat{𝐫}`$ due to the oscillation of the electron, which is proportional to the field strength of the plane wave. For the scalar potential, however, we must expand the factor $`1/[R]`$ to first order in the field strength. Now,

$$[R]=|𝐫𝐱(t^{})|=\sqrt{r^22𝐫𝐱(t^{})+𝐱^2(t^{})},$$
(129)
with

$`𝐱(t^{})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m\omega ^2}}\left(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{cos}\omega t^{}+E_y\mathrm{cos}\omega t^{}\right)`$ (130)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{m\omega ^2}}\left(\widehat{𝐱}E_x\mathrm{cos}\omega (kr\omega t)\widehat{𝐲}E_y\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)\right),`$ (131)
again approximating $`R`$ by $`r`$ in the arguments of the cosine and sine, accurate to first order in the field strength. Hence,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[R]}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(1+𝐫𝐱(𝐭^{}))`$ (132)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left\{1e{\displaystyle \frac{\left(xE_x\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t)yE_y\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)\right)}{m\omega ^2r^2}}\right\}.`$ (133)
Altogether,

$`\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{m\omega ^2}}\{E_x({\displaystyle \frac{kx}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t)+{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r^3}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t))`$ (135)
$`+E_y({\displaystyle \frac{ky}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}(kr\omega t){\displaystyle \frac{y}{r^3}}\mathrm{sin}(kr\omega t))\},`$
in agreement with eq. (29).

Similarly, we could proceed from the Liénard-Wiechert fields,

$`𝐄`$ $`=`$ $`e\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐧}\beta }{\gamma ^2(1\beta \widehat{𝐧})^3R^2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{c}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{𝐧}\times \left\{(\widehat{𝐧}\beta )\times \dot{\beta }\right\}}{(1\beta \widehat{𝐧})^3R}}\right],`$ (136)
$`𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`[\widehat{𝐧}\times 𝐄].`$ (137)
After some work, we find that these fields are the same as eqs. (33-42), to first order in the strength of the plane wave.