text:
# Group theoretical analysis of symmetry breaking in two-dimensional quantum dots

## I Introduction

### A Background on the mean-field breaking of spatial symmetries in quantum dots

Two-dimensional (2D) quantum dots (QD’s) created at semiconductor interfaces with refined control of their size, shape and number of electrons are often referred to as “artificial atoms”. For high magnetic fields ($`B`$), it has been known for some time (ever since the pioneering work  of Laughlin in 1983 concerning the fractional quantum Hall effect) that 2D few-electron systems exhibit complex strongly-correlated many-body physics. Nevertheless, for low magnetic fields, the term artificial atoms was used initially to suggest that the physics of electrons in such man-made nanostructures is exclusively related to that underlying the traditional description of natural atoms (pertaining particularly to electronic shells and the Aufbau principle), where the electrons are taken  to be moving in a spherically averaged effective central mean field. This traditional picture was given support by experimental studies on vertical QD’s, which were followed by a series of sophisticated theoretical investigations yielding results conforming to it.

However, in 1999, the circular (for 2D QD’s) central-mean-field picture was challenged by the discovery of solutions with broken space symmetry in the context of spin-and-space unrestricted Hartree-Fock (sS-UHF) mean-field calculations. These broken symmetry (BS) solutions appear spontaneously (due to a phase transition) when the strength of the interelectron repulsion relative to the zero-point kinetic energy ($`R_W`$) exceeds a certain critical value. They indicate formation of Wigner (or electron) molecules (WM’s or EM’s) with the electrons located at the vertices of nested regular polygons (often referred to as concentric rings), familiar from studies of classical point charges. Such molecules were characterized by us as strong or weak Wigner crystallites depending on their rigidity or lack thereof (i.e., floppiness), suggesting the existence of additional “phase transitions” as a function of the parameter $`R_W`$ (see section II.B for its precise definition). Furthermore, it was noted that the symmetry breaking should be accompanied by the emergence of a spectrum of collective rovibrational excitations (finite-size analogs of the Goldstone modes). A subsequent investigation based on exact solutions for a Helium QD (2e QD) confirmed these results and provided a systematic study of the molecular rovibrational collective spectra and their transition to independent particle excitations, as the rigidity of the WM was reduced through variation of the controlling parameter $`R_W`$.

We remark here that the lower-energy BS UHF solutions already capture part of the correlation energy, compared to the restricted HF (RHF) ones. Improved numerical accuracy has been achieved in subsequent studies through the restoration of the broken symmetries via projection techniques. Consequently, the methodology of symmetry breaking at the UHF mean-field level and of subsequent symmetry restoration via post Hartree-Fock methods provides a systematic controlled hierarchy of approximations toward the exact solution, with anticipated advantages for complex many electron systems (under field-free conditions and in the presence of a magnetic field), whose treatment is computationally prohibitive with other methods (e.g., exact diagonalization).

### B Background on the mean-field breaking of symmetries in other finite-size fermionic systems

The mean field approach has been a useful tool in elucidating the physics of small fermionic systems, from natural atoms and atomic nuclei to metallic nanoclusters, and most recently of two-dimensional quantum dots. Of particular interest for motivating the present work (due to spatial-symmetry-breaking aspects) has been the mean-field description of deformed nuclei and metal clusters (exhibiting ellipsoidal shapes). At a first level, deformation effects in these systems can be investigated via semi-empirical mean-field models, like the particle-rotor model of Bohr and Mottelson (nuclei), the anisotropic-harmonic-oscillator model of Nilsson (nuclei and metal clusters), and the shell-correction method of Strutinsky (nuclei and metal clusters). At the microscopic level, the mean field is often described via the self-consistent single-determinantal Hartree-Fock (HF) theory. At this level, however, the description of deformation effects mentioned above requires consideration of unrestricted Hartree-Fock wave functions that break explicitly the rotational symmetries of the original many-body hamiltonian, but yield HF determinants with lower energy compared to the symmetry-adapted restricted Hartree-Fock solutions.

In earlier publications, we have shown that, in the strongly correlated regime, UHF solutions violating the rotational (circular) symmetry arise most naturally in the case of 2D single QD’s and for both the cases of zero and high magnetic field. Unlike the case of atomic nuclei, however, where symmetry breaking is associated with quadrupole deformations, spontaneous symmetry breaking in 2D QD’s induces electron localization associated with formation of WM’s.

The violation in the mean-field approximation of the symmetries of the original many-body hamiltonian appears to be paradoxical at a first glance. However, for the specific cases arising in Nuclear Physics and Quantum Chemistry, two theoretical developments have resolved this paradox. They are: (1) the theory of restoration of broken symmetries via projection techniques, and (2) the group theoretical analysis of symmetry-broken HF orbitals and solutions in chemical reactions initiated by Fukutome and coworkers, who used of course the symmetry groups associated with the natural 3D molecules. Despite the different fields, the general principles established in these earlier theoretical developments have provided a wellspring of assistance in our investigations of symmetry breaking in QD’s. In particular, the restoration of broken circular symmetry in the case of single QD’s has already been demonstrated by us in three recent publications.

### C Content of this paper

In the present paper, we will provide an in-depth group theoretical analysis of broken-symmetry UHF orbitals and electron densities (ED’s) in the case of single parabolic QD’s. We will show that such an analysis provides further support for our earlier interpretation concerning the spontaneous formation of collectively rotating electron (or Wigner) molecules (REM’s). Indeed we will demonstrate deep analogies between the electronic structure of the WM and that of the natural 3D molecules. In particular, we will show that the breaking of rotational symmetry results in canonical UHF orbitals that are associated with the eigenvectors of a molecular-type Hückel hamiltonian having “atomic” sites at positions specified by the equilibrium configuration of the classical $`N`$-electron problem; these “atomic” sites are localization sites for the electrons, and they do not imply the presence of a positive nucleus. Thus, in contrast to the fully delocalized and symmetry-adapted, independent-particle-model-type orbitals of the RHF, the BS UHF orbitals with the same spin direction resemble closely the molecular orbitals (MO’s) formed by linear combinations of atomic orbitals (LCAO’s), which are prevalent in Chemistry. (Naturally, the LCAO behavior of the UHF orbitals with the same spin direction allows for a more precise understanding of the term “electron localization” used by us in previous publications.) An important conclusion of the present paper is that the BS UHF orbitals are not necessarily unique; what matters, in analogy with the LCAO-MO’s of natural molecules, is that they transform according to the irreducible representations of the point group specified by the discrete symmetries of the classical equilibrium configuration.

Our study leads to the following two main results: (i) in analogy with 3D natural molecules, the WM’s can rotate and the restoration of the total-spin and rotational symmetries via projection techniques describes their lowest rotational bands (yrast bands) in addition to the ground state, and (ii) the lowering of the symmetry, which results in the (discrete) point-group symmetry of the UHF wave function, underlies the appearance of the sequences of magic angular momenta (familiar from exact-diagonalization studies) in the excitation spectra of single QD’s. Since exact-diagonalization methods are typically restricted to small sizes with $`N10`$, the present two-step method of breakage and subsequent restoration of symmetries offers a promising new avenue for accurately describing larger 2D electronic systems. A concrete example of the potential of this approach is provided by Ref.  and Ref. , where our use of the the symmetry-breaking/symmetry-restoration method yielded analytic expressions for correlated wave functions that offer a better description of the $`N`$-electron problem in high magnetic fields compared to the Jastrow-Laughlin expression.

Since the group-theoretical aspects of symmetry breaking at the mean-field level (and their relation to the properties of the exact solutions) remain a vastly unexplored territory in the area of condensed-matter finite-size systems, in the following we will present an introductory investigation of them through a series of rather simple, but nontrivial, illustrative examples from the field of 2D parabolic QD’s. The plan of the paper is as follows: Section II reviews briefly the set of UHF equations employed by us; Section III and section IV present the case of three electrons in the absence and in the presence of an external magnetic field $`B`$, respectively. The more complicated case of six electrons at $`B=0`$ is investigated in section V, while section VI discusses the companion step of the restoration of broken symmetries, which underlies the appearance of magic angular momenta in the exact spectra. Finally, section VII presents a summary.

Before leaving the Introduction, we wish to stress that analogs of several of the group theoretical concepts and manipulations employed in this paper can be found in textbooks concerning standard applications of symmetry groups to the electronic structure and chemistry of 3D natural molecules. Here, however, we will use these otherwise well-known group theoretical aspects to elucidate the molecular interpretation of the BS UHF determinants (and associated orbitals) in the unexpected context of a newly arising area of physics, namely the physics of strong correlations in 2D circular artificial atoms (QD’s).

## II The UHF equations

### A The Pople-Nesbet equations

The UHF equations we are using are the Pople-Nesbet equations described in detail in Ch. 3.8 of Ref. . For completeness, we present here a brief description of them, along with details of their computational implementation by us to the 2D case of semiconductor QD’s.

The key point is that electrons of $`\alpha `$ (up) spin are described by one set of spatial orbitals $`\{\psi _j^\alpha |j=1,2,\mathrm{},K\}`$, while electrons of $`\beta `$ (down) spin are described by a different set of spatial orbitals $`\{\psi _j^\beta |j=1,2,\mathrm{},K\}`$ (of course in the RHF $`\psi _j^\alpha =\psi _j^\beta =\psi _j`$). Next, one introduces a set of basis functions $`\{\phi _\mu |\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},K\}`$ (constructed to be orthonormal in our 2D case), and expands the UHF orbitals as

$$\psi _i^\alpha =\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{K}{}}C_{\mu i}^\alpha \phi _\mu ,i=1,2,\mathrm{},K$$
(1)
$$\psi _i^\beta =\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{K}{}}C_{\mu i}^\beta \phi _\mu ,i=1,2,\mathrm{},K.$$
(2)
The UHF equations are a system of two coupled matrix eigenvalue problems,

$$𝐅^\alpha 𝐂^\alpha =𝐂^\alpha 𝐄^\alpha $$
(3)
$$𝐅^\beta 𝐂^\beta =𝐂^\beta 𝐄^\beta ,$$
(4)
where $`𝐅^{\alpha (\beta )}`$ are the Fock-operator matrices and $`𝐂^{\alpha (\beta )}`$ are the vectors formed with the coefficients in the expansions (1) and (2). The matrices $`𝐄^{\alpha (\beta )}`$ are diagonal, and as a result equations (3) and (4) are canonical (standard). Notice that noncanonical forms of HF equations are also possible (see Ch. 3.2.2 of Ref. ). Since the selfconsistent iterative solution of the HF equations can be computationally implemented only in their canonical form, heretofore canonical orbitals and solutions will always be implied, unless otherwise noted explicitly. We note that the coupling between the two UHF equations (3) and (4) is given explicitly in the expressions for the elements of the Fock matrices below \[Eqs. (8) and (10)\].

Introducing the density matrices $`𝐏^{\alpha (\beta )}`$ for $`\alpha (\beta )`$ electrons,

$$P_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =\underset{a}{\overset{N^\alpha }{}}C_{\mu a}^\alpha (C_{\nu a}^\alpha )^{}$$
(5)
$$P_{\mu \nu }^\beta =\underset{a}{\overset{N^\beta }{}}C_{\mu a}^\beta (C_{\nu a}^\beta )^{},$$
(6)
where $`N^\alpha +N^\beta =N`$, the elements of the Fock-operator matrices are given by

$`F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha =H_{\mu \nu }`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}P_{\lambda \sigma }^\alpha [(\mu \sigma |\nu \lambda )(\mu \sigma |\lambda \nu )]`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}P_{\lambda \sigma }^\beta (\mu \sigma |\nu \lambda )`$ (8)
$`F_{\mu \nu }^\beta =H_{\mu \nu }`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}P_{\lambda \sigma }^\beta [(\mu \sigma |\nu \lambda )(\mu \sigma |\lambda \nu )]`$ (9)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}P_{\lambda \sigma }^\alpha (\mu \sigma |\nu \lambda ),`$ (10)
where $`H_{\mu \nu }`$ are the elements of the single electron hamiltonian with an external magnetic field $`B`$ and an appropriate potential confinement, and the Coulomb repulsion is expressed via the two-electron integrals

$`(\mu \sigma `$ $`|\nu \lambda )=`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫_1𝑑𝐫_2\phi _\mu ^{}(𝐫_1)\phi _\sigma ^{}(𝐫_2)\frac{1}{|𝐫_1𝐫_2|}\phi _\nu (𝐫_1)\phi _\lambda (𝐫_2)},`$
with $`\kappa `$ being the dielectric constant of the semiconductor material. Of course, the Greek indices $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\sigma `$ run from 1 to $`K`$.

For a QD, the external confinement is assumed to be parabolic, and the single-particle hamiltonian in a perpendicular external magnetic field $`B`$ is written as

$$H=\frac{(𝐩e𝐀/c)^2}{2m^{}}+\frac{1}{2}m^{}\omega _0^2(x^2+y^2)+\frac{g^{}\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}𝐁𝐬.$$
(13)
The vector potential $`𝐀`$ is given in the symmetric gauge by

$$𝐀(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}𝐁\times 𝐫=\frac{1}{2}(By,Bx,0),$$
(14)
and the last term in Eq. (13) is the Zeeman interaction with $`g^{}`$ being the effective $`g`$ factor, $`\mu _B`$ the Bohr magneton, and $`𝐬`$ the spin of an individual electron. $`m^{}`$ is the effective electron mass and $`\omega _0`$ is the frequency parameter of the parabolic potential confinement.

The system of the two coupled UHF matrix equations (3) and (4) is solved selfconsistently through iteration cycles. For obtaining the numerical solutions, we have used a set of $`K=78`$ basis states $`\phi _i`$’s that are chosen to be the product wave functions formed out from the eigenstates of the one-dimensional harmonic oscillators along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes. Note that the value $`K=78`$ corresponds to all the states of the associated 2D harmonic oscillator up to and including the 12th major shell.

Having obtained the selfconsistent solution, the total UHF energy is calculated as

$$E_{\text{UHF}}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\mu }{}\underset{\nu }{}[(P_{\nu \mu }^\alpha +P_{\nu \mu }^\beta )H_{\mu \nu }+P_{\nu \mu }^\alpha F_{\mu \nu }^\alpha +P_{\nu \mu }^\beta F_{\mu \nu }^\beta ].$$
(15)
### B Solutions representing Wigner molecules

As a typical example of a solution that can be extracted from the above UHF equations, we mention the case of $`N=19`$ electrons for $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=5`$ meV, $`R_W=5`$ $`(\kappa =3.8191)`$, and $`B=0`$. The Wigner parameter $`R_WQ/\mathrm{}\omega _0`$, where $`Q`$ is the Coulomb interaction strength; $`Q=e^2/\kappa l_0`$, with $`l_0=(\mathrm{}/m^{}\omega _0)^{1/2}`$ being the spatial extent of the lowest single-electron wave function in the parabolic confinement.

Fig. 1 displays the total electron density of the BS UHF solution for these parameters, which exhibits breaking of the rotational symmetry. In accordance with ED’s for smaller dot sizes published by us earlier, the ED in Fig. 1 is highly suggestive of the formation of a Wigner molecule, with an (1,6,12) ring structure in the present case. This polygonal ring structure agrees with the classical one and is sufficiently complex to instill confidence that the Wigner-molecule interpretation is valid. The following question, however, arises naturally at this point: is such molecular interpretation limited to the intuition provided by the landscapes of the total ED’s, or are there deeper analogies with the electronic structure of natural 3D molecules? The answer to the second part of this question is in the positive, and the remainder of this paper is devoted to discovering such analogies. However, since the $`N=19`$ case represents a rather complicated group-theoretical structure, for simplicity and transparency, we will study in the following smaller QD sizes. This, however, will not result in any loss of generality in our conclusions.

In previous publications, we found that space symmetry breaking in the UHF equations appears spontaneously for $`R_W>1`$. Below we choose to work with larger values of $`R_W`$ (e.g., 10 or higher), for which the effects of strong correlations are fully developed. The group-theoretical investigation of the intermediate regime near the phase transition is left for a future publication. In all calculated cases, we used $`\mathrm{}\omega _0=5`$ meV, $`m^{}=0.067m_e`$ (GaAs), and $`g^{}=0.44`$ (GaAs).

We note that the Pople-Nesbet UHF equations are primarily employed in Quantum Chemistry for studying the ground states of open-shell molecules and atoms. Unlike our studies of QD’s, however, such chemical UHF studies consider mainly the breaking of the total spin symmetry, and not that of the space symmetries. As a result, for purposes of emphasis and clarity, we have often used (see, e.g., our previous papers) prefixes to indicate the specific unrestrictions involved in our UHF solutions, i.e., the prefix s- for the total-spin and the prefix S- for the space unrestriction.

### C Solutions representing pure spin density waves

Before leaving this section, we mention another class of BS solutions, which can appear in single QD’s, namely the spin density waves (SDW’s). The SDW’s are unrelated to electron localization and thus are quite distinct from the WM’s; in single QD’s, they were obtained earlier within the framework of spin density functional theory. To emphasize the different nature of SDW’s and WM’s, we present in Fig. 2 an example of a SDW obtained with the UHF approach \[the corresponding parameters are: $`N=14`$, $`S_z=0`$, $`R_W=0.8`$ ($`\kappa =23.8693`$), and $`B=0`$\]. Unlike the case of WM’s, the SDW exhibits a circular ED \[see Fig. 2(a)\], and thus does not break the rotational symmetry. Naturally, in keeping with its name, the SDW breaks the total spin symmetry and exhibits azimuthal modulations in the spin density (SD) \[see Fig. 2(b); however, the number of humps is smaller than the number of electrons\]. The SDW’s in single QD’s appear for $`R_W1`$ and are of lesser importance; thus in the following we will exclusively study the case of WM’s.

## III Three electrons without magnetic field

### A The $`S_z=3/2`$ fully spin polarized case

We begin with the case of $`N=3`$ fully spin polarized $`(S_z=3/2)`$ electrons in the absence of a magnetic field and for $`R_W=10`$ $`(\kappa =1.9095)`$. Fully spin polarized UHF determinants preserve the total spin, but for this value of $`R_W`$ the lowest in energy UHF solution is one with broken circular symmetry. As it will be seen below, broken rotational symmetry does not imply no space symmetry, but a lower point-group symmetry. Before proceeding with the study of the BS solution, however, it will be helpful to review the symmetry-adapted RHF solution first. This RHF solution can be obtained from the UHF equations (3) and (4) by using a circular electron-density guess as the input of the first iteration. In the independent particle model, the $`N=3`$, $`S_z=3/2`$, and $`B=0`$ 2D case corresponds to a closed electronic shell with configuration $`1s1p_+1p_{}`$ or $`1s1p_x1p_y`$ $`(p_\pm p_x\pm ip_yre^{\pm i\theta })`$, and thus the independent-particle-model ED is necessarily circular. We will confirm that the RHF solution conforms indeed to the prediction of the independent particle model, and subsequently we will contrast the UHF solution to it.

The RHF solution for $`R_W=10`$ and $`B=0`$ has an energy of 92.217 meV; the corresponding orbitals are real and are displayed in the left column of Fig. 3. They are like the $`1s`$ \[Fig. 3(a)\], $`1p_x`$ \[Fig. 3(b)\], and $`1p_y`$ \[Fig. 3(c)\] orbitals of the independent particle model. The nodeless $`1s`$ orbital has a maximum at $`r>0`$ due to the large Coulomb repulsion; its energy is 44.526 meV. The energy of the two degenerate $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ orbitals is 50.489 meV. Notice that neither the $`p_x`$ nor $`p_y`$ orbital is rotationally symmetric; however, the total ED \[Fig. 3(d)\] has the expected circular symmetry. It is of interest to obtain the RHF solution for a very small external magnetic field (i.e., in the limit $`B0`$). In this case, the calculated total and orbital energies, as well as the total ED \[Fig. 3(d)\] remain unchanged. However, the two degenerate $`p`$ orbitals are now complex \[$`p_\pm `$, see Fig. 3(f) and Fig. 3(g)\] and have good angular momenta $`l=\pm 1`$, and thus their modulus square is circularly symmetric.

We focus now on the sS-UHF solution for $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=3/2`$, and for the same choice of parameters as with the RHF case. The UHF total energy is 89.691 meV, and thus it is lower than the corresponding RHF one. In Fig. 4 we display the UHF symmetry-violating orbitals (a$``$c) whose energies are (a) 44.801 meV, (b) and (c) 46.546 meV, namely the two orbitals (b) and (c) with the higher energies are again degenerate in energy. An inspection of Fig. 4 immediately reveals that these orbitals have retained some properties of the delocalized $`1s`$, $`1p_x`$ and $`1p_y`$ orbitals, familiar from the independent particle model and the RHF; that is, orbital (a) is nodeless, while each one of the orbitals (b) and (c) has a single nodal line. However, overall the BS orbitals (a$``$c) drastically differ from the orbitals of the independent particle model. In particular, they are associated with specific sites (within the QD) forming an equilateral triangle, and thus they can be described as having the structure of a linear combination of “atomic” (site) orbitals (LCAO’s). Such LCAO molecular orbitals (MO’s) are familiar in natural molecules, and this analogy supports the term “electron (or Wigner) molecules” for characterizing the BS UHF solutions.

In the LCAO-MO approximation, one needs to solve a matrix eigenvalue equation determined by the overlaps $`S_{ij}`$ ($`ij`$) and the hamiltonian matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ii}`$ between the atomic orbitals. A further simplified approximation, the Hückel approximation (HüA), consists in taking all $`S_{ij}=0`$, and all $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij}=0`$ unless the $`i`$th and $`j`$th atoms (sites) are adjacent. For our example this latter approximation is applicable, since the value $`R_W=10`$ is rather high. When using the notations $`ϵ=\stackrel{~}{H}_{11}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{22}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{33}`$ and $`\beta =\stackrel{~}{H}_{12}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{13}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{23}<0`$, the Hückel eigenvalue equation for the case of $`N=3`$ electrons on the vertices of an equilateral triangle is written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& \beta & \beta \\ \beta & ϵ& \beta \\ \beta & \beta & ϵ\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
and the associated LCAO-MO orbitals are $`\psi _i=f_1^i\varphi _1+f_2^i\varphi _2+f_3^i\varphi _3`$, having $`E_i`$ eigenvalues with $`i=1,2,3`$. The $`\varphi _j`$’s are the original Gaussian-type atomic (site) orbitals.

From the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of (16), one finds the following three LCAO-MO’s:

$$\psi _1=(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3)/\sqrt{3}$$
(17)
with energy $`E_1=ϵ2\beta `$,

$$\psi _2=(2\varphi _1\varphi _2\varphi _3)/\sqrt{6}$$
(18)
with energy $`E_2=ϵ+\beta `$, and

$$\psi _3=(\varphi _2\varphi _3)/\sqrt{2}$$
(19)
with energy $`E_3=E_2`$. It is apparent that the structure of these three LCAO-MO’s and the level diagram of their energies agrees very well with the corresponding symmetry-broken UHF orbitals \[displayed in Figs. 4(a) $``$ 4(c)\] and their energies. (Using the HF values for $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, one finds $`ϵ45.961`$ meV and $`\beta 0.585`$ meV.) We notice here that such LCAO orbitals are familiar in Organic Chemistry and are associated with the theoretical description of Carbocyclic Systems, and in particular the molecule C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>3</sub> (cyclopropenyl, see, e.g., Ref. ).

Naturally, since the orbitals (b) and (c) are degenerate in energy, they are not uniquely defined: any linear combination associated with a unitary $`2\times 2`$ transformation will produce a pair of different, but equivalent (b) and (c) orbitals. The fact that the UHF orbitals in Fig. 4 have the specific highly symmetrized (see below) form given above is the result of an accidental choice of the initial electron-density input in the HF iteration. We have checked that any such pair of (b) and (c) orbitals leaves the 2D total UHF electron density unchanged. This suggests that there is an underlying group theoretical structure that governs the BS UHF orbitals. The important point is not the uniqueness or not of the 2D sS-UHF orbitals, but the fact that they transform according to the irreducible representations of specific point groups, leaving both the sS-UHF determinant and the associated electron densities invariant. Given the importance of this observation, we proceed in the rest of this section with a group theoretical analysis of the BS sS-UHF orbitals for the $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=3/2`$ case.

The ED portrayed in Fig. 4(d) remains invariant under certain geometrical symmetry operations, namely those of an unmarked, plane and equilateral triangle. They are: (1) The identity $`E`$; (2) The two rotations $`C_3`$ (rotation by $`2\pi /3`$) and $`C_3^2`$ (rotation by $`4\pi /3`$); and (III) The three reflections $`\sigma _v^I`$, $`\sigma _v^{II}`$, and $`\sigma _v^{III}`$ through the three vertical planes, one passing through each vertex of the triangle. These symmetry operations for the unmarked equilateral triangle constitute the elements of the group $`C_{3v}`$.

One of the main applications of group theory in Chemistry is the determination of the eigenfunctions of the Schrödinger equation without actually solving the matrix equation (16). This is achieved by constructing the so-called symmetry-adapted linear combinations (SALC’s) of AO’s. A widely used tool for constructing SALC’s is the projection operator

$$\widehat{𝒫}^\mu =\frac{n_\mu }{|𝒢|}\underset{R}{}\chi ^\mu (R)\widehat{R},$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{R}`$ stands for any one of the symmetry operations of the molecule, and $`\chi ^\mu (R)`$ are the characters of the $`\mu `$th irreducible representation of the set of $`\widehat{R}`$’s. (The $`\chi ^\mu `$’s are tabulated in the socalled character tables.) $`|𝒢|`$ denotes the order of the group and $`n_\mu `$ the dimension of the representation.

The task of finding the SALC’s for a set of three $`1s`$-type AO’s exhibiting the $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry of an equilateral triangle can be simplified, since the pure rotational symmetry by itself (the rotations $`C_3`$ and $`C_3^2`$, and not the reflections $`\sigma _v`$’s through the vertical planes) is sufficient for their determination. Thus one needs to consider the simpler character table of the cyclic group $`C_3`$ (see Table I)

From Table I, one sees that the set of the three $`1s`$ AO’s situated at the vertices of an equilateral triangle spans the two irreducible representations $`A`$ and $`E`$, the latter one consisting of two associted one-dimensional representations. To construct the SALC’s, one simply applies the three projection operators $`\widehat{𝒫}^A`$, $`\widehat{𝒫}^E^{}`$, and $`\widehat{𝒫}^{E^{\prime \prime }}`$ to one of the original AO’s, let’s say the $`\varphi _1`$,

$`\widehat{𝒫}^A\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`(1)\widehat{E}\varphi _1+(1)\widehat{C}_3\varphi _1+(1)\widehat{C}_3^2\varphi _1`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`(1)\varphi _1+(1)\varphi _2+(1)\varphi _3`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3,`$ (23)
$`\widehat{𝒫}^E^{}\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`(1)\widehat{E}\varphi _1+(\epsilon )\widehat{C}_3\varphi _1+(\epsilon ^{})\widehat{C}_3^2\varphi _1`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _1+\epsilon \varphi _2+\epsilon ^{}\varphi _3,`$ (25)
$`\widehat{𝒫}^{E^{\prime \prime }}\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`(1)\widehat{E}\varphi _1+(\epsilon ^{})\widehat{C}_3\varphi _1+(\epsilon )\widehat{C}_3^2\varphi _1`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\varphi _1+\epsilon ^{}\varphi _2+\epsilon \varphi _3.`$ (27)
The $`A`$ SALC in Eq. (23) has precisely the same form as the $`\psi _1`$ MO in Eq. (17), which was determined via a solution of the Hückel equation (16). The two $`E`$ SALC’s \[Eq. (25) and Eq. (27)\], however, are complex functions and do not coincide with the real $`\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _3`$ found above \[Eq. (18) and Eq. (19)\]. As we will see in section IV, these complex SALC’s agree with BS UHF orbitals obtained in the case of an applied magnetic field. On the other hand, a set of two real and orthogonal SALC’s that spans the $`E`$ representation can be derived fron Eq. (25) and Eq. (27) by simply adding and substracting the two complex ones. This procedure recovers immediately the real $`\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _3`$ discussed earlier.

We stress here that the UHF orbitals of Fig. 4 are canonical (see section II.A). As is well known from Quantum Chemistry, in general the canonical spin orbitals will be spread out over the different sites (atoms) of a natural molecule and will form a basis for the irreducible representations of the symmetry group of the molecule. Once the canonical orbitals are available, there is an infinite number of noncanonical spin orbitals that span reducible representions of the symmetry group of the molecule and can be obtained via a unitary transformation of the canonical set. We remind the reader that noncanonical spin orbitals are solutions of a generalized HF equation involving off-diagonal elements $`E_{ij}`$ in the matrix formed out of the HF orbital energies (see section II.A). Naturally, the unitary transformation leaves the UHF determinant and total energy invariant. In particular there is a unitary matrix that transforms the canonical spin orbitals to the fully localized AO’s; i.e., for the $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=3/2`$ case, such a unitary matrix transforms the canonical $`\psi _i`$’s ($`i=1,2,3`$) to the noncanonical AO’s $`\varphi _i`$’s.

Note that such noncanonical orbitals for $`N=3`$ were recently used to formulate a non-selfconsistent variant to the Pople-Nesbet HF equations listed in section II.A. This variant relied on the manifestation of spontaneous symmetry breaking that was discovered earlier via our selfconsistent UHF results. Notice, however, that Ref.  obtained an incomplete wave function, since the companion step of restoration of the rotational symmetry was not considered (see section VI below).

### B The $`S_z=1/2`$ partially spin polarized case

In Fig. 5, we display the sS-UHF symmetry-violating orbitals (a$``$c) for the case of a partially polarized QD at $`R_W=10`$ and $`B=0`$ with two spin-up and one spin-down electrons ($`N=3`$ and $`S_z=1/2`$). The UHF orbital energies of these electrons are: (a) 45.350 and (b) 46.515 meV for the spin-up orbitals, and (c) 45.926 meV for the spin-down orbital. An inspection of Fig. 5 reveals that these orbitals have retained the nodal structure of the corresponding independent-particle-model orbitals in the familiar $`1s^21p_x`$ configuration; namely, (a) and (c) are nodeless, while (b) exhibits a single nodal line. Apart of this property, however, and in consonance with the $`S_z=3/2`$ case studied in a previous subsection, the BS UHF orbitals again differ drastically from the ones associated with the independent particle model; again they are associated with three sites within the QD arranged in an equilateral triangle. In contrast to the fully polarized case, however, there are no linear combinations of atomic orbitals involving all three vertices of the triangle. Indeed the single spin-down electron remains by itself as an unmodified AO, while only the two spin-up electrons combine to form LCAO MO’s. This behavior here is a special case of a general property of the sS-UHF, i.e., only AO’s associated with the same spin direction can in principle combine to form LCAO MO’s. This property, however, does not extend to the Generalized Hartree-Fock  which incorporates the additional unresctriction that the $`z`$-projection ($`S_z`$) of the total spin is not preserved and it is not a good quantum number. (Notice that unlike the practice in this paper, Ref.  uses the term UHF for the Generalized HF.)

In the same spirit with the treatment of the fully polarized case in subsection III.A, and taking into consideration the decoupling of the two different spin directions in the sS-UHF, one can write a corresponding Hückel matrix equation for the $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=1/2`$ case as follows,

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& \beta & 0\\ \beta & ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right).$$
(28)
From the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of (28), one finds the following three LCAO-MO’s: (a) $`\psi _1=(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ with energy $`E_1=ϵ\beta `$, (b) $`\psi _2=(\varphi _1\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ with energy $`E_2=ϵ+\beta `$, and (c) $`\psi _3=\varphi _3`$ with energy $`E_3=ϵ`$. The structure of these three LCAO-MO’s agrees very well with the corresponding symmetry-violating UHF orbitals for the $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=1/2`$ case displayed in Figs. 5(a) $``$ 5(c). This agreement extends also to the level diagrams of the corresponding orbital energies. (Using the UHF values for $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$, one finds $`\beta =0.582`$ meV and $`ϵ=45.932`$ meV $`E_3`$.)

Concerning the underlying symmetry-group structure of the UHF orbitals in Fig. 5, we observe that (unlike the fully polarized case) the two rotations, i.e., $`C_3`$ (rotation by $`2\pi /3`$) and $`C_3^2`$ (rotation by $`4\pi /3`$), are not part of the symmetry operations of the relevant point group \[due to the dissimilarity between spin-up and spin-down orbitals; this can be seen clearly through inspection of the spin density in Fig. 5(e)\]. Because of the 2D character of the dot, the only symmetry operations for the $`N=3`$ and $`S_z=1/2`$ case are the identity $`E`$ and a single reflection, $`\sigma _v^I`$, through the vertical plane passing through the spin-down electron. Such a group {$`E`$, $`\sigma _v^I`$} is a subgroup of the familiar $`C_{2v}`$ group associated with the 3D H<sub>2</sub>O molecule (observe that the O atom corresponds to the spin-down electron and the two H atoms correspond to the two spin-up electrons). According to Ref.  (see p. 181), the representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ formed by the three original AO’s can be reduced to irreducible $`A_2`$ and $`B_1`$ representations as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=A_2+2B_1`$. By applying projection operators \[see Eq.(20)\] to the $`\varphi _1`$ AO and using the character Table II,

one finds the following two normalized SALC’s,

$$\psi _{A_2}=(\varphi _1\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2},$$
(29)
and

$$\psi _{B_1}=(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(30)
Naturally the second SALC of $`B_1`$ symmetry is

$$\psi _{B_1}^{}=\varphi _3.$$
(31)
Once more, we stress the fact that the SALC’s \[Eqs. (29)$``$ (31)\] derived above via symmetry-group theory have the same structure as the canonical UHF orbitals displayed in Fig. 5. Observe further that in the Generalized HF (as also in the case of the H<sub>2</sub>O molecule and the allyl anion) the two SALC’s of $`B_1`$ symmetry are allowed to couple, producing more complicated orbitals and energy level diagrams (see p. 1037 of Ref.  and p. 183 in Ref. )

## IV Three electrons in a finite magnetic field

### A The $`S_z=3/2`$ fully polarized case

In this section, we study the case of three fully polarized electrons under a magnetic field $`B`$. Since for $`B0`$, the BS UHF orbitals are necessarily complex functions, Fig. 6 displays the modulus square of these orbitals. The UHF total ED displayed in Fig. 6(d) and the modulus square of the orbitals exhibit an apparent $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry as was the case at $`B=0`$ (section III.A). However, the phases of the complex orbitals at $`B0`$ contribute to a modification of the symmetry group. This modification has been studied earlier for the case of infinite crystalline systems with periodic space lattices where the electrons occupy Bloch orbitals, and such studies have led to the consideration of two physically equivalent group structures, namely the ray groups  and the magnetic translation groups.  In our case of a finite periodic crystallite, corresponding magnetic rotation groups would be straightforward to consider. However, in order to appreciate the modifications introduced by the magnetic field, it will be simpler to modify the Hückel (tight-binding) hamiltonian according to the Harper-Peierls prescription,  which accounts for the magnetic gauge transformation when moving from one crystalline site to another.

Thus according to Peierls and Harper, the proper atomic orbitals $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j`$’s for $`B0`$ (centered at $`𝐑_j`$) are the real $`\varphi _j`$’s multiplied by an appropriate phase as follows,

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_j(𝐫;𝐑_j)=\varphi _j(𝐫;𝐑_j)e^{\frac{ie}{\mathrm{}c}𝐀(𝐑_j)\mathbf{}𝐫}.$$
(32)
Because of this position-dependent phase in the AO’s, the hopping matrix elements $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij}`$ (see section III.A) are now complex, and the Hückel equation (16) for three electrons is modified as follows:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}\\ \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& ϵ& \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}\\ \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& ϵ\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right),$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=(e/\mathrm{}c)𝐀(𝐑_j𝐑_i)\mathbf{}𝐑_i`$, $`(i,j)=(1,2),(2,3),(3,1)`$, with $`𝐑_k`$, $`k=1,2,3`$ being the positions of the vertices of the equilateral triangle. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi })/(3\mathrm{\Phi }_0)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the total magnetic flux through the equilateral triangle and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/e`$ is the unit flux.

From the eigenvectors of equation (33), one finds the following LCAO-MO’s,

$$\psi _1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3,$$
(34)
$$\psi _2e^{2\pi i/3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+e^{2\pi i/3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3,$$
(35)
$$\psi _3e^{2\pi i/3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+e^{2\pi i/3}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3,$$
(36)
with corresponding orbital energies,

$$E_1=ϵ2\beta \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(37)
$$E_2=ϵ2\beta \mathrm{cos}[(2\pi /3+\mathrm{\Omega })],$$
(38)
$$E_3=ϵ2\beta \mathrm{cos}[(2\pi /3\mathrm{\Omega })].$$
(39)
Substituting the specific value for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ given above, one can write the eigenvalues (37-39) in a more symmetric compact form,

$$E_j=ϵ2\beta \mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{2\pi }{3}(j+\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0})\right],j=1,2,3.$$
(40)
Since the original AO’s do not practically overlap for $`R_W=10`$, the phases in front of the $`\varphi _i`$’s in Eqs. (34-36) do not contribute substantially to the modulus square of the orbitals. As a result, for all values of $`B`$, all three orbitals exhibit similar orbital densities that are approximately equal to $`\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2+\varphi _3^2`$. Observe that this agrees very well with the behavior of the canonical UHF orbitals (modulus square) at $`B=2`$ T displayed in Fig. 6. At zero magnetic field $`B=0`$, the LCAO-MO’s in equations (34-36) reduce to the specific form given earlier in Eqs. (23-27) of section III.A. We stress here that in section III.A these LCAO-MO’s were derived from arguments based exclusively on the group theoretical structure of the $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry group.

Naturally, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, the orbital energies in Eq. (40) reduce to the corresponding $`B=0`$ result derived in section III.A, namely $`E_1=ϵ2\beta `$ and $`E_2=E_3=ϵ+\beta `$. Notice, however, that for arbitrary values of $`B`$, the degeneracy between $`E_2`$ and $`E_3`$ is lifted. In addition, the three energies $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$, and $`E_3`$ in Eq. (40) exhibit prominent Aharonov-Bohm (AB) oscillations. It is interesting to compare this behavior to the behavior of the calculated canonical UHF orbital energies for $`R_W=10`$. These UHF orbital energies as a function of $`B`$ are displayed in Fig. 7. An inspection of Fig. 7 reveals that the UHF orbital energies do exhibit (as expected) an Aharonov-Bohm oscillation as a function of $`B`$. However, these oscillations are more complicated from what can be simply anticipated from the analytic formulas in Eq. (40). Namely, the amplitude of the UHF AB oscillations decreases as $`B`$ increases. This behavior is due to a decrease in the hopping parameter $`\beta `$, which results from the spatial shrinkage of the Gaussian-type UHF orbitals as a function of $`B`$. Eventually, for $`B\mathrm{}`$, all three energies are degenerate. We notice that complete degeneracy of all UHF orbitals for any $`N`$ appears also in the $`B=0`$, $`R_W\mathrm{}`$ limit.

The electronic structure of the UHF fully-polarized three-electron molecule in a magnetic field, which was discussed above and which exhibits Aharonov-Bohm oscillations, does not have an analog in the realm of natural molecules. However, apart from the $`B`$-dependence of $`\beta `$, it agrees in a remarkable way with the “noninteracting spectra” of the artificial molecules that can be formed out of 1D ring arrays of single QD’s.

### B The $`S_z=1/2`$ partially polarized case

Fig. 8 displays the BS UHF orbitals (modulus square) and the total ED for the partially polarized $`N=3`$, $`S_z=1/2`$ case in a magnetic field $`B=2`$ T. As with the $`B=0`$ case (section III.B), the spin-down orbital is decoupled from the two spin-up ones. As a result the corresponding Hückel matrix equation is of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ& \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& 0\\ \beta e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}& ϵ& 0\\ 0& 0& ϵ^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right),$$
(41)
where in general $`ϵ^{}ϵ`$ due to the energy difference between the two spin directions introduced by the Zeeman term. From the solutions of Eq. (41), one finds the following LCAO-MO’s: (a) $`\psi _1=(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ with energy $`E_1=ϵ\beta `$, (b) $`\psi _2=(e^{i\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)/\sqrt{2}`$ with energy $`E_2=ϵ+\beta `$, and (c) $`\psi _3=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_3`$ with $`E_3=ϵ^{}`$. The total electron density constructed out of these LCAO-MO’s is again of the form $`\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2+\varphi _3^2`$ (compare with section IV.A). The corresponding UHF orbitals (modulus square) and ED displayed in Fig. 8 are obviously conforming to these forms.

Concerning the Hückel orbital energies $`E_j`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, we note that they do not depend on the magnetic field $`B`$ through $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As a result, unlike the previous case of the fully polarized electrons, AB oscillations should not develop in the UHF orbital energies. To check this prediction, we dispaly in Fig. 9 the UHF orbital energies as a function of $`B`$. In contrast to Fig. 7, AB oscillations are absent in Fig. 9, a behavior which apparently relates to the fact that no UHF orbital covers the area of the equilateral triangle (the single spin-down orbital does not couple to the two spin-up ones, which lie on a straight line).

## V Six electrons at zero magnetic field

We discuss now the case of six fully polarized electrons in zero magnetic field. The corresponding total S-UHF electron density for $`R_W=15`$ $`(\kappa =1.2730)`$ is displayed in Fig. 10(a) (bottom frame). Unlike the case of smaller numbers of particles with $`N5`$, six electrons is the smallest system that forms a Wigner molecule with a two-ring arrangement. Such a ring arrangement is denoted by $`(1,5)`$ to distinguish it from a single-ring arrangement $`(0,N)`$.

Naturally, single-ring molecular arrangements $`(0,N)`$ are familiar from the Quantum Chemistry of carbocyclic systems (Ref. , see also sections III and IV). The more complicated (1,5) arrangement, however, is a molecular structure unknown to traditional Chemistry. Nevertheless, contact to Organic Chemistry can be retained by observing that the (0,5) outer ring has a group symmetry similar to the cyclic hydrocarbon $`C_5H_5`$. As a result, and in direct analogy with the $`C_5H_5`$ molecule (see p. 152 in Ref. ), the SALC’s of the (0,5) arrangement are as follows,

$$\psi (A)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+\varphi _3+\varphi _4+\varphi _5),$$
(42)
$`\psi (E_1a)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}}(`$ $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\theta +\varphi _3\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ (44)
$`+\varphi _4\mathrm{cos}2\theta +\varphi _5\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`\psi (E_1b)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}}(`$ $`\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\theta +\varphi _3\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ (46)
$`\varphi _4\mathrm{sin}2\theta \varphi _5\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$
$`\psi (E_2a)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}}(`$ $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}2\theta +\varphi _3\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (48)
$`+\varphi _4\mathrm{cos}\theta +\varphi _5\mathrm{cos}2\theta ),`$
$`\psi (E_2b)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}}(`$ $`\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}2\theta \varphi _3\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ (50)
$`+\varphi _4\mathrm{sin}\theta \varphi _5\mathrm{sin}2\theta ),`$
where $`\theta =2\pi /5`$. The corresponding orbital energies are $`ϵ2\beta `$ for the single orbital of $`A`$ symmetry, $`ϵ(2\mathrm{cos}\theta )\beta `$ for the two degenerate orbitals of $`E_1`$ symmetry, and $`ϵ(2\mathrm{cos}2\theta )\beta `$ for the remaining two degenerate orbitals of $`E_2`$ symmetry.

Returning back to the case of the (1,5) ring arrangement, we notice that the sixth AO, $`\varphi _6`$, at the center is of $`A`$ symmetry, and thus it can only couple to a MO of the (0,5) ring with the same symmetry, namely the orbital $`\psi (A)`$ in Eq. (42). As a result, both the (0,5) and the (1,5) ring arrangements share the same four MO’s of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ symmetry.

The coupling matrix element between the $`\varphi _6`$ and $`\psi (A)`$ orbitals is given by,

$`{\displaystyle \varphi _6\stackrel{~}{H}\psi (A)𝑑𝐫}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{5}{}}}{\displaystyle \varphi _6\stackrel{~}{H}\varphi _k𝑑𝐫}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{5}\delta .`$ (52)
To find the MO’s of the (1,5) ring with $`A`$ symmetry, we need to solve the 2$`\times `$2 matrix equation,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ2\beta & \sqrt{5}\delta \\ \sqrt{5}\delta & \stackrel{~}{ϵ}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1\\ g_2\end{array}\right)=E\left(\begin{array}{c}g_1\\ g_2\end{array}\right).$$
(53)
We note that, due to the different coordination and distances, the quantities $`\delta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ associated with the central AO are different from the corresponding quantities $`\beta `$ and $`ϵ`$ associated with the AO’s of the outer ring.

Using the notation,

$$Q=\sqrt{20\delta ^2+(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}ϵ+2\beta )^2},$$
(54)
the two solutions of the matrix equation (53) have energies $`(\stackrel{~}{ϵ}+ϵ2\beta Q)/2`$ and eigenvectors (unnormalized) $`\{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}ϵ+2\beta \pm Q,\sqrt{20}\delta \}`$, respectively. Accordingly, one MO of the (1,5) ring is constructed by adding and the other by subtracting a fraction of the $`\psi (A)`$ orbital from the central AO. This behavior agrees very well with the two S-UHF orbitals displayed in the second row of Fig. 10 \[(b) and (c)\].

Concerning the S-UHF orbitals displayed in the third row of Fig. 10 \[(d) and (e)\], we notice that they are degenerate in energy and that they agree very well with the two MO’s of $`E_2`$ symmetry. Indeed the S-UHF orbital in Fig. 10(d) exhibits five total humps, three of them positive and the other two negative, in remarkable agreement (apart from an overall sign) with the MO in Eq. (48) \[note that $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0.3090>0`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta =0.8090<0`$\]. In particular, counterclockwise, the polarities of the humps in Fig. 10(d) are ($`,+,,,+`$), differing only by an overall sign from the corresponding polarities of the MO in Eq. (48). Even more impressive is the fact that there is quantitative agreement regarding the absolute heights of the humps in these two orbitals (see the values of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ listed above). The other S-UHF orbital in Fig. 10(e), exhibits a total of four humps, two of them positive and the other two negative, and having an alternating $`(+,,+,)`$ arrangement. This is again in remarkable agreement with the second MO of $`E_2`$ symmetry in Eq. (50), since $`\mathrm{sin}\theta >0`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}2\theta >0`$. Additionally, we note that the agreement between the UHF orbital in Fig. 10(e) and the MO in Eq. (50) extends further to the absolute heights of the humps, since $`\mathrm{sin}\theta =0.9511>0.5878=\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$.

Finally, there are two other degenerate UHF orbitals that are not displayed in Fig. 10. They are not identical to the $`\psi (E_1a)`$ and $`\psi (E_1b)`$ SALC’s in Eqs. (44) and (46), but we have checked that they span the $`E_1`$ irreducible representation.

## VI Restoration of circular symmetry and exact spectra

### A Group structure and sequences of magic angular momenta

In the previous sections, we demonstrated that the BS UHF determinants and orbitals describe indeed 2D electronic molecular stuctures (Wigner molecules) in close analogy with the case of natural 3D molecules. However, the study of the WM’s at the UHF level restricts their description to the intrinsic (nonrotating) frame of reference. Motivated by the case of natural atoms, one can take a subsequent step and address the properties of collectively rotating WM’s in the laboratory frame of reference. As is well known, for natural atoms, this step is achieved by writing the total wave function of the molecule as the product of the electronic and ionic partial wave functions. In the case of the purely electronic WM’s, however, such a product wave function requires the assumption of complete decoupling between intrinsic and collective degrees of freedom, an assumption that might be justifiable in limiting cases only.

As we demonstrated earlier, in the framework of the BS UHF solutions this companion step can be performed by using the post-Hartree-Fock method of restoration of broken symmetries (RBS) via projection techniques (PT’s). Examples demonstrating the RBS method have been presented by us in two cases: (I) The ground state (with angular momentum $`I=0`$) of two interacting electrons in a parabolic quantum dot in the absence of a magnetic field; (II) The yrast rotational band (see section I.C and precise definition in Ref. ) of a system of $`N`$ interacting electrons in high magnetic fields (fractional-quantum-Hall regime). In both cases, we showed that the RBS method (as adapted to the case of 2D BS UHF solutions) yields correlated (multideterminantal) many-body wave functions that approximate very well the corresponding exact solutions. In particular, in the latter case, our use of the RBS method yielded analytic expressions for the correlated wave functions that offer a better description of the $`N`$-electron problem in high $`B`$ compared to the Jastrow-Laughlin expression.

In this section, we will not proceed any further with explicit numerical or analytic derivations of additional RBS wave functions. Instead, we will use the RBS approach to illustrate through a couple of concrete examples how certain universal properties of the exact solutions, i.e., the appearance of magic angular momenta in the exact rotational spectra,  relate to the symmetry broken UHF solutions. Indeed, we will demonstrate that the magic angular momenta are a direct consequence of the symmetry breaking at the UHF level and that they are determined fully by the molecular symmetries of the UHF determinant.

As an illustrative example, we have chosen the relatively simple, but non trivial case, of $`N=3`$ electrons. For $`B=0`$, both the $`S_z=1/2`$ and $`S_z=3/2`$ polarizations can be considered. We start with the $`S_z=1/2`$ polarization, whose BS UHF solution (let’s denote it by $`|`$) was presented in section III.B and which exhibits a breaking of the total spin symmetry in addition to the rotational symmetry. We first proceed with the restoration of the total spin by noticing that $`|`$ has a point-group symmetry lower (see section III.B) than the $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry of an equilateral triangle. The $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry, however, can be readily restored by applying the projection operator (20) to $`|`$ and by using the character table of the cyclic $`C_3`$ group (see Table I). Then for the intrinsic part of the many-body wave function, one finds two different three-determinantal combinations, namely

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E^{}(\gamma _0)=|+e^{2\pi i/3}|+e^{2\pi i/3}|,$$
(55)
and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^{E^{\prime \prime }}(\gamma _0)=|+e^{2\pi i/3}|+e^{2\pi i/3}|,$$
(56)
where $`\gamma _0=0`$ denotes the azimuthal angle of the vertex associated with the original spin-down orbital in $`|`$. We note that the intrinsic wave functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^{E^{\prime \prime }}`$ are eigenstates of the square of the total spin operator $`\widehat{𝐒}^2`$ ($`\widehat{𝐒}=_{i=1}^3\widehat{𝐬}_i`$) with quantum number $`s=1/2`$. This can be verified directly by applying $`\widehat{𝐒}^2`$ to them.

To restore the circular symmetry in the case of a (0,N) ring arrangement, one applies the projection operator,

$$2\pi 𝒫_I_0^{2\pi }𝑑\gamma \mathrm{exp}[i\gamma (\widehat{L}I)],$$
(57)
where $`\widehat{L}=_{j=1}^N\widehat{l}_j`$ is the operator for the total angular momentum. Notice that the operator $`𝒫_I`$ is a direct generalization of the projection operator (20) to the case of the continuous cyclic group $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ \[the phases $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma I)`$ are the characters of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$\].

The RBS projected wave function, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}`$, (having both good total spin and angular momentum quantum numbers) is of the form,

$$2\pi \mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}=_0^{2\pi }𝑑\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E(\gamma )e^{i\gamma I},$$
(58)
where now the intrinsic wave function \[given by Eq. (55) or Eq. 56)\] has an arbitrary azimuthal orientation $`\gamma `$. We note that, unlike the phenomenological Eckardt-frame model where only a single product term is involved, the RBS wave function in Eq. (58) is an average over all azimuthal directions of an infinite set of product terms. These terms are formed by multiplying the UHF intrinsic part $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E(\gamma )`$ with the external rotational wave function $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma I)`$ (the latter is properly characterized as “external”, since it is an eigenfunction of the total angular momentum $`\widehat{L}`$ and depends exclusively on the azimuthal coordinate $`\gamma `$).

The operator $`\widehat{R}(2\pi /3)\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \widehat{L}/3)`$ can be applied onto $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}`$ in two different ways, namely either on the intrinsic part $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E`$ or the external part $`\mathrm{exp}(i\gamma I)`$. Using Eq. (55) and the property $`\widehat{R}(2\pi /3)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E^{}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^E^{}`$, one finds,

$$\widehat{R}(2\pi /3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}},$$
(59)
from the first alternative, and

$$\widehat{R}(2\pi /3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi Ii/3)\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}},$$
(60)
from the second alternative. Now if $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\text{RBS}}0`$, the only way that Eqs. (59) and (60) can be simultaneously true is if the condition $`\mathrm{exp}[2\pi (I1)i/3]=1`$ is fulfilled. This leads to a first sequence of magic angular momenta associated with total spin $`s=1/2`$, i.e.,

$$I=3k+1,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\mathrm{}$$
(61)
Using Eq. (56) for the intrinsic wave function, and following similar steps, one can derive a second sequence of magic angular momenta associated with good total spin $`s=1/2`$, i.e.,

$$I=3k1,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\mathrm{}$$
(62)
In the fully polarized case, the UHF determinant was described in section III.A. This UHF determinant, which we denote as $`|`$, is already an eigenstate of $`\widehat{𝐒}^2`$ with quantum number $`s=3/2`$. Thus only the rotational symmetry needs to be restored, that is, the intrinsic wave function is simply $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^A(\gamma _0)=|`$. Since $`\widehat{R}(2\pi /3)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^A=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}^A`$, the condition for the allowed angular momenta is $`\mathrm{exp}[2\pi Ii/3]=1`$, which yields the following magic angular momenta,

$$I=3k,k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\pm 3,\mathrm{}$$
(63)
We note that in high magnetic fields only the fully polarized case is relevant and that only angular momenta with $`k>0`$ enter in Eq. (63) (see Ref. ). In this case, in the thermodynamic limit, the partial sequence with $`k=2q+1`$, $`q=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$ is directly related to the odd filling factors $`\nu =1/(2q+1)`$ of the fractional quantum Hall effect \[via the relation $`\nu =N(N1)/(2I)`$\]. This suggests that the observed hierarchy of fractional filling factors in the quantum Hall effect may be viewed as a signature originating from the point group symmetries of the intrinsic wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{intr}}`$, and thus it is a manifestation of symmetry breaking at the UHF mean-field level.

### B Quantitative description of the yrast band

The usefulness of the RBS wave functions \[Eq. (58)\] is not limited to deriving universal properties of the exact spectra, like the sequences of magic angular momenta \[see section VI.A\]. As we demonstrated in earlier publications, in the the regime of strong correlations, the RBS wave functions approximate very well the corresponding exact many-body wave functions.

Indeed, in Ref.  we offered (as a function of $`R_W`$) a systematic comparison between the RBS and exact ground-state ($`I=0`$) energies at $`B=0`$ for $`N=2`$ electrons in a parabolic QD. For $`R_W=19.09`$, we found that the relative error was approximately 0.7%. Furthermore in Ref. , for the case of high $`B`$, we derived analytic RBS wave functions, named “REM wave functions”. As we showed explicitly for the case of $`N=6`$ electrons, the radial electron densities associated with the REM functions accurately reproduce the ones extracted from exact-diagonalization calculations.

In this subsection, we offer additional examples pertaining to the ability of the RBS wave functions to reproduce the exact yrast spectra of parabolic QD’s. In particular, Table III lists the REM and exact yrast energies in the range of magic angular momenta $`70I130`$ for $`N=6`$ electrons in high $`B`$. Details concerning the REM wave functions and the exact-diagonalization method in the lowest Landau level are given in Ref. , and they will not be repeated here.

The RBS and exact yrast spectra ($`0I6`$) for the case of $`N=2`$ electrons at $`B=0`$ and $`R_W=19.09`$ are given in Table IV. Details concerning their calculation are given in Ref.  and in the Appendix (where we present the final formula for calculating RBS energies for both even and odd angular momenta).

We note that the relative errors in both Table III and Table IV are small (smaller than 1% in the majority of cases).

## VII Summary

In this paper, we have introduced a group theoretical analysis of broken-symmetry UHF orbitals and total electron densities in the case of single 2D semiconductor QD’s. This analysis provided further support for our earlier interpretation concerning the spontaneous formation of collectively rotating electron (or Wigner) molecules. Indeed the group-theoretical analysis enabled us to unveil further deeper analogies between the electronic structure of the Wigner molecules and that of the natural 3D molecules. In particular these deeper analogies are: (I) The breaking of rotational symmetry results in canonical UHF orbitals that are associated with the eigenvectors of a molecular-type Hückel hamiltonian with sites at positions specified by the equilibrium configuration of the classical $`N`$-electron problem; (II) The broken-symmetry canonical UHF orbitals transform according to the irreducible representations of the point group specified by the discrete symmetries of this classical molecular configuration; (III) The WM’s formed out of the broken-symmetry UHF solutions can rotate, and the restoration of the total-spin and rotational symmetries results (in addition to the ground state) in states defining the lowest rotational bands (i.e., yrast bands) of the WM’s; (IV) The breaking of the circular symmetry results in lowering of the symmetry. This is expressed by the discrete point-group symmetry of the UHF wave function and it underlies the appearance of sequences of magic angular momenta (familiar from exact-diagonalization studies) in the excitation spectra of single QD’s.

Since exact-diagonalization methods are typically restricted to small sizes with $`N10`$, the two-step method of breakage and subsequent restoration of symmetries offers a promising new venue for accurately describing larger 2D electronic systems. A concrete example of the potential of this approach is provided by Ref. , where our use of the the symmetry-breaking/symmetry-restoration method yielded analytic expressions for correlated wave functions that offer a better description of the $`N`$-electron problem in high magnetic fields compared to the Jastrow-Laughlin expression.

Furthermore, the group-theoretical analysis strongly suggests an interesting simplified variant approach for carrying out the first step of symmetry breaking. This variant rests on the observation that, in all cases of WM’s, the broken-symmetry UHF orbitals are generic linear combinations of Gaussian-type functions \[with a proper phase for $`B0`$, see Eq. (32)\] specified simply by their width $`\sigma `$ and positions $`𝐑_j`$’s from the center of the QD. The linear combinations can be fully specified from the group theoretical analysis of the appropriate classical equilibrium configurations, and a determinant of the corresponding LCAO-MO’s can readily be written down. Then a simple variational calculation of the minimum total energy of this determinant will yield the parameters $`\sigma `$ and $`𝐑_j`$’s without the need to carry out the self-consistent UHF iterations. This simplified approach could treat even larger sizes without major loss of accuracy. Added accuracy can then be obtained through the subsequent step of restoration of the broken symmetries.

###### Acknowledgements.

This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant No. FG05-86ER-45234).

## A

For the case of $`N=2`$ electrons in a parabolic QD at $`B=0`$, we reported in Ref.  the RBS formulas for calculating energies of yrast-band states with even angular momenta $`I`$. These formulas \[see Eqs. (11)-(13) in Ref. \] were generated via a projection of the “singlet” UHF determinant. The corresponding RBS formulas for odd values of $`I`$ are generated via a projection of the triplet UHF state.

In this Appendix, we present the formulas covering both even and odd angular momenta. They are:

$$E_{\text{RBS}}(I)=_0^{2\pi }h(\gamma )e^{i\gamma I}𝑑\gamma /_0^{2\pi }n(\gamma )e^{i\gamma I}𝑑\gamma ,$$
(A1)
with

$`h(\gamma )=`$ $`H_{us}S_{vt}\pm H_{ut}S_{vs}+H_{vt}S_{us}\pm H_{vs}S_{ut}+`$ (A3)
$`V_{uvst}\pm V_{uvts},`$
and

$$n(\gamma )=S_{us}S_{vt}\pm S_{ut}S_{vs},$$
(A4)
where the upper signs apply in the case of even $`I`$’s and the lower signs in the case of odd $`I`$’s. $`s(𝐫)`$ and $`t(𝐫)`$ are the initial $`u(𝐫)`$ and $`v(𝐫)`$ broken-symmetry UHF orbitals rotated by an angle $`\gamma `$, respectively. $`V_{uvst}`$ and $`V_{uvts}`$ are two-body matrix elements of the Coulomb repulsion, and $`S_{us}`$, etc., are the overlap intergrals.


format: text

text:
# Gravitational and magnetosonic waves in gamma-ray bursts.

## 1 Introduction

The coupling between gravitational waves and electromagnetic waves (emws) in a magnetized vacuum has been investigated extensively over the past $`40`$ years by a number of authors (Gertsenshtein 1961; Lupanov 1967; Boccaletti et al. 1970; Zel’dovich 1973; Gerlach 1974). These studies demonstrate the coherent excitation of emws by a monochromatic gw propagating perpendicularly to a background magnetic field.

The first calculations including the presence of a plasma were done by Macedo & Nelson (1983), who found a coupling of gws to ordinary and extraordinary emws, whereas Brodin & Marklund (1999) derived the parametric excitation of Langmuir waves by a gw propagating through unmagnetized plasma. In Marklund et al. (2000); Brodin et al. (2001a), the authors adopt the $`3`$+$`1`$ tedrad formalism (Thorne et al. 1986; Ellis & van Elst 1998) and show that the dispersion relation in a tenuous plasma differs only from the vacuum solution by a small wavenumber shift. In a plasma, however, subsequent non-linear conversions such as harmonic generation, might allow the emw energy to escape as radiation with frequencies high enough to overcome the interstellar plasma frequency (Brodin et al. 2001b). A numerical estimate for the case of a merging ns-ns binary shows that the amplitude of the emws can be significant. Longitudinal waves are excited by higher-order gw-emw interactions (Brodin et al. 2000) and magnetosonic waves (msws) by gws propagating in a low-$`\beta `$ plasma (Papadopoulos et al. 2001).

In this article we consider ns-ns mergers as a source for grbs and apply the $`3`$+$`1`$ formalism to the interaction of the gws emitted by the merger with the *ultra-relativistic wind* of magnetized plasma around the binary. In the last seconds before the collapse to a black hole, a considerable fraction of $`M_{}c^2`$ is released into this plasma in the form of gws (see Janka et al. 2002, Table 1). We show that these waves distort the extremely strong magnetic field, frozen into the plasma, and excite growing magnetosonic waves in the wind. Already before the merger, the binary is embedded in a relativistically expanding magnetized wind of (mainly) leptons from the orbiting neutronstars, so even a small transfer of gw energy to the wind may provide an interesting *central engine* mechanism to fuel a grb fireball.

The outline of this article is as follows. In Sect. 2, the covariant expressions for the electromagnetic fields, the energy-momentum densities and the orthonormal tedrad for a linearly polarized gw are recapitulated. A closed set of linearized grm equations in the metric of a gw is derived in Sect. 3 and solved, first in the comoving frame of the plasma (Sect. 4) and then in the frame of an observer at rest with respect to the merger (Sect. 5). A numerical example and the interpretation of our results are given in Sects. 6 and 7, respectively. Sect. 8 comprises our conclusions.

Throughout Secs. 25, Gaussian geometrized units are adopted ($`c=1`$) and Latin indices stand for $`0,1,2,3`$. In Sec. 6, however, the numerical results are given in si units.

## 2 Covariant fluid equations

### 2.1 Electromagnetic field equations

Maxwell’s equations in terms of the electromagnetic field tensors and the $`4`$-current density $`j_\mathrm{m}^b=(\tau ,j)`$ are:

$$_bF^{ab}=4\pi j_\mathrm{m}^a\text{ and }_b^{ab}=0,$$
(1)
where the covariant Faraday tensor $`F^{ab}`$ and its dual $`^{ab}`$, can be decomposed into 4-vectors that, in the *rest frame* of an observer with 4-velocity $`u^a`$, reduce to the electric and magnetic field strengths, $`E^a=(0,E)`$ and $`B^a=(0,B)`$ (Lichnerowicz 1967):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}F^{ab}\hfill & =& u^aE^bu^bE^a+ϵ^{abcd}B_cu_d\hfill & ,& ^{ab}\hfill & & \frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abcd}F_{cd},\hfill \\ E^a\hfill & & F^{ab}u_b\hfill & ,& B^a\hfill & & ^{ab}u_b.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
In ideal mhd, the electric field vanishes in the rest frame of the plasma: $`E=0`$. Therefore $`E^aF^{ab}u_b=0`$ in any frame and Faraday’s tensor reduces to: $`F^{ab}=ϵ^{abcd}B_cu_d`$.

### 2.2 Energy and momentum conservation

Energy and momentum conservation follow from the $`4`$-derivative of the energy-momentum tensor. For a magnetized ideal plasma this can be expressed in terms of the proper matter energy density $`\mu `$, the pressure $`p`$ and the metric $`g^{ab}`$, as (Weinberg 1972; Hawking & Ellis 1973):

$`T^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mu +p)u^au^b+pg^{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(F_c^aF^{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^{ab}F^{cd}F_{cd})`$
$`_bT^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_b\left[(\mu +p)u^au^b+pg^{ab}\right]F^{ab}j_{\mathrm{m}b}=0,`$ (3)
where the current density satisfies Eq. (1).

### 2.3 Tedrad system for a gravitational wave

In the linearized theory of gravity one usually splits the metric: $`g^{ab}=\eta ^{ab}+h^{ab}`$, where $`\eta ^{ab}=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the Minkowski metric, and $`h^{ab}`$ is the space-time perturbation caused by the gw. For a transverse-traceless, linearly ($`+`$) polarized, monochromatic gw with frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{g}=k_\mathrm{g}`$ propagating in the $`z`$-direction, this field satisfies: $`h^{ab}=\text{diag}(0,h,h,0)`$, with $`h(zt)=h\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _\mathrm{g}(zt)}`$ (Misner et al. 1973).

The proper (observer) reference frame, however, comoving with freely moving bodies is defined with respect to the natural orthonormal tedrad (Marklund et al. 2000):

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}e_{(0)}^a\hfill & =& (_t,0,0,0)\hfill & ,& e_{(1)}^a\hfill & =& (0,(1\frac{h}{2})_x,0,0),\hfill \\ e_{(2)}^a\hfill & =& (0,0,(1+\frac{h}{2})_y,0)\hfill & ,& e_{(3)}^a\hfill & =& (0,0,0,_z).\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
Decomposed with respect to this tedrad, the metric reduces to that of flat space: $`g^{(ab)}=\eta ^{ab}`$ and the grm equations closely resemble their Newtonian equivalents.

## 3 Magnetohydrodynamics in the comoving frame

The physical situation we want to consider is that of a perfectly conducting, ideal plasma in the presence of a background magnetic field along the $`x`$-axis, perpendicular to the direction of gw propagation (Fig. 1). First we study the plasma rest-frame where: $`B^{(0)}=B_0e_x`$, $`\mu ^{(0)}=\rho `$ and $`v^{(0)}=\tau ^{(0)}=p^{(0)}=j_\mathrm{m}^{(0)}=E^{(0)}=0`$.

The effect of the gw is to induce small perturbations in all these quantities. Therefore, all equations will be linearized around the unperturbed state.

### 3.1 Maxwell’s equations

The relevant, linearized Maxwell equations in the specified tedrad are (Marklund et al. 2000):

$`\times B^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{E}{t}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi j_\mathrm{m}^{(1)}+j_E^{(1)},`$ (7)
$`\times E^{(1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`j_B^{(1)},`$ (8)
where the *gravitationally induced current densities* are just the collected Ricci rotation coefficients or gw-terms:

$$j_\mathrm{E}^{(1)}\frac{B_0}{2}\frac{h}{z}^{(1)}e_y\text{ and }j_\mathrm{B}^{(1)}\frac{B_0}{2}\frac{h}{t}^{(1)}e_x.$$
(9)
The electric field can be eliminated by assuming the ideal mhd approximation of a collisionless plasma (zero resistivity), where the electric field vanishes in the comoving frame and Ohm’s law reduces to:

$$E^{(1)}=v^{(1)}\times B^{(0)}.$$
(10)
### 3.2 Conservation equations

*Charge continuity* follows readily from the antisymmetry of $`F^{ab}`$ and Eq. (1): $`_a(_bF^{ab})=4\pi _aj_\mathrm{m}^a=0`$.

The evolution of the *magnetic energy* $`W`$ and the *Poynting flux* $`S`$ are just projections of Eqs. (78) onto $`B^{(0)}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{t}}^{(1)}+S^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`W^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{t}}^{(1)},`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}^{(1)}+W^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`W^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{z}}^{(1)}e_zF_\mathrm{L}^{(1)},`$ (12)
with $`F_\mathrm{L}=j\times B`$ the Lorentz force, $`W^{(0)}=B_0^2/8\pi `$ and:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W^{(1)}=\frac{B^{(0)}B^{(1)}}{4\pi },\hfill & S^{(1)}=\frac{E^{(1)}\times B^{(0)}}{4\pi },& F_\mathrm{L}^{(1)}=j_\mathrm{m}^{(1)}\times B^{(0)}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Eq. (3) results in *particle* and *momentum* conservation in terms of the momentum, $`𝝅^{(1)}=\mu ^{(0)}v^{(1)}`$ and the spatial stress tensor $`𝖳^{(1)}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{t}}^{(1)}+𝝅^{(1)}=0`$ , $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝅}{t}}^{(1)}+𝖳^{(1)}=0,`$ (13)
or, equivalently, as a linearized equation of motion (eom):

$$\mu ^{(0)}\frac{v}{t}^{(1)}+c_s^2\mu ^{(1)}=F_\mathrm{L}^{(1)},$$
(14)
in terms of the sound velocity $`c_s^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^{(1)}/\mu ^{(1)})`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the polytropic index. To first order, the eom does not contain any gw terms and the coupling of the gw to the plasma occurs only through the Lorentz force as can be seen from Eqs. (12, 14) (or equivalently, through the current density which couples the eom to Maxwell’s equations (78)).

## 4 Wave solutions in the comoving frame

### 4.1 Laplace transforms

The proper way to handle the unstable response of a plasma to a disturbance is to make use of *Laplace transforms* (Landau & Lifshitz 1975; Melrose 1986). By giving the frequency or wavenumber a small positive imaginary part, one allows for damping or growth and a way to deal with singularities due to resonance. In an initial value problem it is customary to Laplace transform with respect to time, whereas in a boundary value problem, as we are considering here, a Laplace transform with respect to space is more suitable. These are defined by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(s)_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{e}^{sz}f(z)dz\hfill & ,& f(z)_{i\mathrm{}+\eta }^{i\mathrm{}+\eta }\mathrm{e}^{sz}F(s)ds,\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where $`\eta `$ is an arbitrary positive constant chosen so that the contour of integration lies to the right side of all singularities in $`F(s)`$. Below, we will transform with respect to $`sik`$, where $`\mathrm{}[k]k_g=\omega _g`$, so the contour of integration follows the real axis except for the poles at $`k=\pm \omega _g/u_\mathrm{A}`$ and $`k=\omega _g`$, where it deviates infinitesimally into the *upper* half imaginary plane.

For the time dependence we use Fourier transforms, which implies that the perturbations oscillate at the frequency of the driving gw: $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _\mathrm{g}t)`$.

### 4.2 Dispersion relations and wave solutions

We will assume that the tenuous, strongly magnetized leptoid surrounding the binary has a low plasma-beta $`\beta _{\mathrm{pl}}=(c_s/v_\mathrm{A})^2=4\pi p/B_0^21`$, where the gas pressure is negligible with respect to the magnetic pressure. The classical Alfvén speed $`v_\mathrm{A}^2B_0^2/(4\pi \rho )1`$ so the displacement current is important. Perturbations propagate in the relativistic plasma with the *generalized Alfvén speed*, $`1/u_\mathrm{A}^21+1/v_\mathrm{A}^2`$.

In Laplace and Fourier space the $`13`$ grm equations derived in Sect. 3.2 reduce to an algebraic system with $`5`$ non-trivial solutions:111Since the only zeroth order quantities are $`B_0`$ and $`\rho `$, the superscripts indicating the perturbations will be omitted.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}v_z(\omega ,k)\hfill & =& \frac{\omega }{k}\frac{\mu (\omega ,k)}{\rho }=\frac{B_0j_y(\omega ,k)}{i\omega \rho }=\frac{(\omega +k)u_\mathrm{A}^2}{\omega +ku_\mathrm{A}^2}\frac{B_x(\omega ,k)}{B_0}=\hfill \\ \frac{E_y(\omega ,k)}{B_0}\hfill & =& \frac{ih\omega }{2}\frac{u_\mathrm{A}^2}{\omega ^2k^2u_\mathrm{A}^2}\frac{\omega +k}{\omega k}\delta (\omega \omega _\mathrm{g}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The inverse transformations lead to:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{E_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}B_0}\hfill & =& \\ \frac{v_z(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}}\hfill & =& \zeta \mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\zeta _1\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\zeta _2\mathrm{e}^{2ikz}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \frac{B_0j_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}\rho \omega _g}\hfill & =& \zeta \mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\zeta _1\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\zeta _2\mathrm{e}^{2ikz}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \frac{B_x(z,t)}{B_0}\hfill & =& \zeta \mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\zeta _3\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}+\zeta _2\mathrm{e}^{2ikz}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \frac{\mu (z,t)}{\rho }\hfill & =& \zeta \mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\zeta _4\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}+\zeta _2\mathrm{e}^{2ikz}\right\}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
with $`ku_\mathrm{A}=\omega _\mathrm{g}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=k\omega _\mathrm{g}`$, $`\xi u_\mathrm{A}/(1+u_\mathrm{A})^2`$ and:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\zeta =\frac{h}{4}\zeta _2^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & ,& \zeta _1=4\xi \hfill & \text{ }\text{ }& \zeta _2=u_\mathrm{A}\xi \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }k}{\omega _\mathrm{g}}\right)^2,\hfill \\ \zeta _3=4u_\mathrm{A}\xi \hfill & ,& \zeta _4=2\xi \frac{1+u_\mathrm{A}^2}{u_\mathrm{A}}\hfill & \text{ }\text{ }& \zeta _2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ is very small (see Sect. 6.3), we can expand the solutions around $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$, or equivalently $`u_\mathrm{A}=1`$, to find the dominant terms:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_x(z,t)}{B_0}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v_z(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu (z,t)}{\rho }}={\displaystyle \frac{E_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}B_0}}`$ (19)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}kz\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_0j_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}\rho \omega _g}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2}}kz\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\right].`$
These are *fast magneto-acoustic waves*, propagating at the Alfvén speed in the same direction as the gw and growing linearly with distance.

## 5 Observer frame

For a plasma flowing out relativistically in the $`z`$-direction with Lorentz factor $`\gamma _{\mathrm{tot}}=1/\sqrt{1(\beta +v_z)^2)}\gamma +\gamma ^3\beta v_z`$ ($`\gamma \gamma _\beta `$) corresponding to a constant velocity $`\beta 1`$, the full set of linearized grm equations is:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\left\{\frac{}{t}+\beta \frac{}{z}\right\}\mu \hfill & =& \gamma ^2\rho \left\{\beta \frac{}{t}+\frac{}{z}\right\}v_z\hfill & \hfill \text{continuity}\\ \gamma ^3\rho \left\{\frac{}{t}+\beta \frac{}{z}\right\}v_z\hfill & =& j_yB_0\hfill & \hfill \text{eom}\\ \frac{E_y}{t}\frac{B_z}{z}+4\pi j_y\hfill & =& \frac{i\omega _\mathrm{g}h}{2}(B_0+E_0)\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _\mathrm{g}(zt)}\hfill & \hfill \text{ampere}\\ \frac{E_y}{z}\frac{B_z}{t}\hfill & =& \frac{i\omega _\mathrm{g}h}{2}(B_0+E_0)\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _\mathrm{g}(zt)}\hfill & \hfill \text{faraday}\\ E_y+v_zB_0+\beta B_x\hfill & =& 0\text{ , }E_0=\beta B_0\hfill & \hfill \text{ohm}\end{array}$$
(20)
where all quantities are now defined in the *observer frame* at rest with respect to the binary (primes are used to indicate comoving quantities only where there is the risk of confusion). Explicitly: $`\rho `$, $`\beta `$, $`B_0`$ and $`E_0=E_y^{(0)}`$ are the zeroth order quantities and $`\mu `$, $`v_z`$, $`B_x`$, $`E_y`$, $`j_y`$, $`h`$ are the perturbations. The most important difference with respect to the comoving frame is the factor $`(1\beta )B_0`$ in the gw terms, due to the background electric field seen by the observer.

The solutions to the equilibrium system without the gw-terms, are again $`\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _g(z/u_\mathrm{A}t)}`$ with $`u_\mathrm{A}=\frac{\beta +u_\mathrm{A}^{}}{1+\beta u_\mathrm{A}^{}}`$ the Lorentz boosted, generalized Alfvén speed. The full system can be solved along the same lines as in Sect. 4.2 by straightforward calculation using Laplace and Fourier transformations. The physical differences between the comoving and the observer frames are clear from Eqs. (20).

A different approach – leading to the same result – is to Lorentz transform Eqs. (17). Since Lorentz transformations are linear transformations and furthermore the phase of a plane wave is an invariant, the general solutions have the same form as Eqs. (17), but with different amplitudes.

The msw components excited by a gw propagating through a relativistically flowing plasma are given in terms of observer quantities by:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{E_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}B_0}& =& \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{e}^{2i\kappa z}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{B_x(z,t)}{B_0}& =& \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\mathrm{\Lambda }_4\mathrm{e}^{2i\kappa z}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{v_z(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}\beta }& =& \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_5\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6\mathrm{e}^{2i\kappa z}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{B_0j_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}\rho \omega _g}& =& \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_7\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\mathrm{\Lambda }_8\mathrm{e}^{2i\kappa z}\right\}\right]\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\mu (z,t)}{\rho }& =& \lambda \mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\left\{1\mathrm{\Lambda }_9\mathrm{e}^{i\mathrm{\Delta }kz}\mathrm{\Lambda }_6\mathrm{e}^{2i\kappa z}\right\}\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
where the constants $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9,\lambda `$ are defined in Appendix A. As in Sect. 4.2, the dominant terms are found by expanding around $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=0`$ (justified in Sect. 6.3):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{B_x(z,t)}{B_0}=\frac{E_y(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}B_0}=\frac{v_z(z,t)}{u_\mathrm{A}\beta }\hfill & =& \frac{\mu (z,t)}{\rho }=\hfill \\ \frac{(1\beta )h}{2}kz\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\right]\hfill & & \frac{h}{4}\frac{kz}{\gamma ^2}\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\right],\hfill \\ \frac{B_0j_y(z,t)}{\widehat{\rho }\omega _\mathrm{g}u_\mathrm{A}}\hfill & & \frac{h}{4}\frac{kz}{\gamma ^2}\mathrm{}\left[\mathrm{e}^{ik(zu_\mathrm{A}t)}\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
where: $`\widehat{\rho }\frac{B_0^2}{4\pi }\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}^2}{u_\mathrm{A}^2}`$. Apparently, the interaction is less efficient when the plasma is escaping relativistically, than when it is at rest with respect to the source of gws.

As a final remark: Eq. (22) is equivalent to the result of an initial value approach, where the Laplace transformations are performed with respect to $`t`$ instead of $`z`$. The amplitudes in Eq. (22) become proportional to $`\omega t`$ instead of $`kz`$, but the characteristic timescale $`T`$ is related to the size of the interaction region $`R`$ by: $`\omega T\omega (R/u_\mathrm{A})=kR`$.

## 6 Numerical estimates

In this section the results obtained in the previous sections are applied to the environs of a ns-ns binary close to merging. Both stars will have an electron-positron wind filling the surrounding space with plasma up to large distances (whether the plasma is $`e^\pm `$ or baryon loaded is not important as long as it satisfies the ideal mhd condition). The extent of the interaction region is determined by the distance $`R_{\mathrm{max}}`$ from the source where either the force-free or the $`z1/\mathrm{\Delta }k`$ assumption brakes down. Within this scale height, we estimate the magnitude of the excited msw amplitudes, including the decrease of the gw-amplitude, the density and the magnetic field with distance. A short numerical analysis is made for the magnetic fields, plasma densities, Lorentz factors and Alfvén velocities in the relativistic plasma wind, summarized in Table 1.

#### Note:

In this section proper dimensions in $`c`$ are restored and the numerical results are converted to si units.

### 6.1 Magnetic field configuration

For pulsar-like neutronstars, the magnetic field close to the surface falls of as a dipole: $`B(r)=B_{}\left(R_{}/r\right)^3`$. In the mhd approximation the plasma is ‘glued’ to the field lines and forced to corotate up to the *lightcylinder* where corotation requires superluminal velocities. Here, we consider a ns-ns merger where each ns has its own magnetic field. The key element in the electromagnetic description of rotating magnetized stars is the deviation from inertial motion. In our case this is not the usual stellar rotation but the orbital motion combined with the individual stellar rotations. As the merger coalesces the orbital frequency increases and dominates over any other (rotational) motion. Therefore, we assume that at the end of the spiral-in phase the *orbital* rotation of the binary (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}10^3`$rad/s) determines the light-cylinder radius: $`R_{\mathrm{lc}}=c/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}300`$km. Here the field lines, anchored on the stellar polar caps, open up and the plasma is free to flow out along the field in a *force-free wind* in which the toroidal component of the field dominates the poloidal component (Kuijpers 2001):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_\mathrm{t}(r>R_{\mathrm{lc}})=B_{\mathrm{lc}}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{lc}}}{r}\right),B_\mathrm{p}(r>R_{\mathrm{lc}})=B_{\mathrm{lc}}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{lc}}}{r}\right)^2,\hfill & & \\ B_{\mathrm{lc}}=B_{}(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}R_{}}{c})^3410^5\mathrm{T}(B_{,9})(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{b},3})^3(R_{,4})^3.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

### 6.2 Nature of the wind

Above the polar caps of a pulsar the field lines are open, particles flow outwards and a steady charge density cannot be maintained at the *Goldreich-Julian density* everywhere $`n_{\mathrm{GJ}}=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}B/(2\pi ec)`$ (Beskin et al. 1993; Lyubarsky 1995). As a result, a strong electric field develops along the magnetic field above the polar cap and charged ‘primary’ particles are extracted from the surface with a density $`n_\mathrm{p}n_{\mathrm{GJ}}`$ and accelerated to high Lorentz factors (a typical number is $`\gamma _\mathrm{p}10^7`$). Note that the available potential jump is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}B_{}`$ in our case and can be much larger than for single pulsars.

Processes such as curvature radiation and inverse Compton emission then result in a cascade of ‘secondary’ $`e^\pm `$ pairs with a particle number density $`n_\mathrm{s}=Mn_\mathrm{p}`$, where $`M`$ is called the *multiplicity*. Due to energy conservation $`n_\mathrm{p}\gamma _\mathrm{p}=n_\mathrm{s}\gamma _\mathrm{s}`$, so the Lorentz factor of the secondary particles is $`\gamma _\mathrm{s}=\gamma _\mathrm{p}/M100`$ for $`M10^5`$. The secondary plasma flows out as a relativistic wind along the open magnetic field lines which have a dipole-like radial dependence up to $`R_{\mathrm{lc}}`$, and develops into a spiral (Eq. 6.1) further out. The charge density in the wind is adjusted to the local Goldreich-Julian density everywhere and the wind remains force-free up to a large distance.

At the lightcylinder the density is:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}n_{\mathrm{lc}}\text{=}n_{}\frac{B_{\mathrm{lc}}}{B_{}}=\frac{M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}B_{\mathrm{lc}}}{2\pi ec}410^{20}\mathrm{m}^3.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(23)
### 6.3 Alfvén speeds & Interaction lengthscale

The classical Alfvén speed $`v_\mathrm{A}`$ is proportional to $`B_0/\sqrt{n}`$. In the force free wind we have $`B_01/r`$ and $`n1/r^2`$, so $`v_\mathrm{A}(r>R_{\mathrm{lc}})=`$ constant. Therefore, we can evaluate the Alfvén velocities at the light-cylinder in the *comoving frame* (using Eqs. (23)):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{\mathrm{lc}}^{}\hfill & =& \frac{B_{\mathrm{lc}}}{\gamma _\mathrm{s}}\text{ and }n_{\mathrm{lc}}^{}=\frac{n_{\mathrm{lc}}}{\gamma _\mathrm{s}},\hfill \\ \frac{v_\mathrm{A}^2}{c^2}\hfill & =& \frac{B_{\mathrm{lc}}^2}{4\pi n_{\mathrm{lc}}^{}m_\mathrm{e}c^2}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{lc}}^2}{4\pi \gamma _\mathrm{s}n_{\mathrm{lc}}m_\mathrm{e}c^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}}{2\gamma _\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
in terms of the electron cyclotron frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}=\frac{eB_{\mathrm{lc}}}{m_\mathrm{e}c}`$. For the *generalized* Alfvén speed and the wavenumber difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }k^{}`$, one finds (see also Table 1):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\frac{u_\mathrm{A}^2}{c^2}\hfill & =& \frac{v_\mathrm{A}^2}{c^2+v_\mathrm{A}^2}1\text{ or }\gamma _{u_\mathrm{A}^{}}^2\hfill & & \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{e}}{2\gamma _\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}}1,\hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }k^{}\hfill & & k^{}k_\mathrm{g}^{}=\frac{\omega _\mathrm{g}^{}}{c}\left(\frac{c}{u_\mathrm{A}^{}}1\right)\hfill & & 1.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(25)
The equivalent quantities in the *observer frame* are derived from Lorentz transformations and can be found in Table 1. The important conclusion from these estimates is that the maximum distance over which the msw amplitudes can grow is: $`z1/\mathrm{\Delta }k10^{15}\mathrm{m}`$ (see Eq. (22)), which is comparable to the limits on the mhd approximation as calculated by Spruit et al. (2001).

### 6.4 Magnitude of excited magnetosonic waves

The frequency of gws emitted by a merging binary is related to the angular frequency of the last orbits by: $`\omega _\mathrm{g}=2\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{b}4\pi 10^3`$ rad/s (Shibata & Uryu 2002), so $`R_{\mathrm{lc}}50`$km and $`B_{\mathrm{lc}}10^7`$T. We assume that for $`R_{\mathrm{in}}10R_{\mathrm{lc}}`$ we are in the far field of the merger and estimate the amplitude of $`B_x^{(1)}(z,t)`$ in Eq. (22) at the start of the interaction region. Taking into account the (approximate) $`1/r`$ decrease of $`h`$ and $`B_0`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}h\hfill & & 10^3\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right),B_0B_{\mathrm{lc}}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{lc}}}{R_{\mathrm{in}}}\right)\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

we find:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B^{(1)}(r>R_{\mathrm{in}})\hfill & & 0.5\mathrm{T}\left(\frac{R_{\mathrm{in}}}{r}\right)\times [\frac{h_3}{(\gamma _2)^2}k_{\mathrm{g},5}B_{\mathrm{lc},7}R_{\mathrm{in},5}].\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
The volume integrated energy of the msw grows linearly with distance since $`B^{(1)}B_01/r`$ and $`Vr^3`$. For an interaction region of $`R_{\mathrm{max}}0.03`$ pc we find for the magnetic component of the excited mhd wave a total energy of:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝖳_\mathrm{B}^{(1)}\hfill & =& V\frac{B_0B^{(1)}}{4\pi }10^{37}\mathrm{J},\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
which amounts to a fraction $`10^6`$ of the magnetic energy $`𝖳_\mathrm{B}^{(0)}=\frac{VB_0^2}{8\pi }10^{43}\mathrm{J}`$ of the Poynting flux dominated wind in the same volume.

## 7 Discussion

It is known that, to first order in $`h`$, gws propagating *along* a uniform magnetic field do not couple to the field, neither in vacuum (Boccaletti et al. 1970), nor in a plasma (Brodin et al. 2000; Papadopoulos et al. 2001) so we studied gw-propagation *perpendicular* to the magnetic field frozen into a plasma. An intuitive illustration of the process is given in Fig. 1, where a gw traveling in the positive $`z`$-direction, deforms (imaginary) rings of plasma-particles in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane into ellipses with long axes alternating periodically along the magnetic field direction ($`x`$-axis) and the $`y`$-axis. Consequently, the uniform field is periodically compressed and stretched leading to a *modulated magnetic field strength* even though the gw is divergence-free. The resulting magnetic pressure gradients in the $`z`$-direction try to re-establish a uniform field configuration and excite the compressional *matter part* of the msw. Since the plasma is glued to the field lines it is dragged along with the field. The velocity in the $`z`$-direction generates an *electric field* ($`v\times B`$) with a corresponding $`E\times B`$ *drift-velocity*, whereas the magnetic gradient induces a $`B\times B`$ *current density* and *Lorentz force*.

The problem of gw propagation in a plasma at rest was also studied by Papadopoulos et al. (2001) who found that the excitation of msws by a gw is only possible when there is a wavenumber mismatch: $`B_x^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }k`$. This does not agree with our results (as presented in Sec. 4.2), nor with those of Marklund et al. (2000) who show that the growth rate in a tenuous plasma smoothly matches that in a vacuum (Boccaletti et al. 1970). Both from the grm equations (Eqs. (1114) or (20)) and from their solutions (Eqs. (19) or (22)) it is clear that in the vacuum limit $`\mu ^{(1)}j_y^{(1)}\rho 0`$ vanish as does $`v_z^{(1)}`$. The gws excite emws that propagate with the speed of light ($`\mathrm{\Delta }k0`$) and with amplitudes that can be obtained from Eq. (19) or Eq. (22) by taking the limit $`u_\mathrm{A}c`$ and $`kk_\mathrm{g}`$ (and $`\gamma =1`$). This result is not surprising as we have taken into account both the material current and the vacuum displacement current.

## 8 Conclusion

The results presented in this paper are a first attempt to study the interaction of the relatively strong gws emitted by a grb with an ultra-relativistic plasma wind. The space surrounding a merging ns-ns binary is already filled with such a wind up to large distances ($`0.1`$ pc). Moreover, in the merger almost all of the binding energy is released in the form of gws.

We derive a closed set of grm equations both in the natural orthonormal measurement frame (the $`3`$+$`1`$ split) of the plasma and for an observer at rest with respect to the binary. These non-coordinate equations strongly resemble their Newtonian equivalents but have extra source terms due to the gw. These gravity terms act as a driver for *fast magnetosonic waves* with amplitudes that grow linearly with distance and are proportional to the gw-frequency and amplitude and to the ambient magnetic field strength. It is the extended force-free wind in which the magnetic field only falls of as $`1/r`$ that provides the long interaction lengthscale.

The total amount of energy that is transferred from the gws to the plasma, as given in Eq. (27), is substantial but for this case still much smaller than the average observed grb energy. Note that for *magnetars* one can have $`B_{}10^{12}`$ T and $`\omega _\mathrm{g}15`$ kHz, so that $`(B_0B^{(1)})/4\pi `$ could be as much as a factor $`10^7`$ larger. However, for magnetars it is not obvious what to assume for the surrounding plasma.

In future work we will investigate what the observable effects of the gw-msw interaction are on the emitted radiation and its polarization and how a gw-*chirp* alters the results.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank V. S. Beskin, D. Papadopoulos, R. Pudritz, N. Stergioulas and L. Vlahos for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Dutch Research School for Astronomy, nova.

## Appendix A Constants in Eq. (21)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill & =& \frac{h}{4}\frac{1+u_\mathrm{A}}{1u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{(1\beta )^2}{1u_\mathrm{A}\beta }\frac{h}{4}\frac{\omega _\mathrm{g}}{\gamma ^2\mathrm{\Delta }k}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\hfill & =& 2\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{(1\beta )^3}\frac{\beta (14u_\mathrm{A}+\beta )+u_\mathrm{A}^2(2\beta (1\beta ))}{u_\mathrm{A}(1+u_\mathrm{A})^2}=1+𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\hfill & =& \gamma ^2\left(\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}}{1+u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right)^2\frac{u_\mathrm{A}2\beta +u_\mathrm{A}\beta ^2}{u_\mathrm{A}}=𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\hfill & =& 2\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{(1\beta )^3}\frac{(1+u_\mathrm{A}^2+2\beta ^2(1+(4u_\mathrm{A})u_\mathrm{A})\beta }{(1+u_\mathrm{A})^2}=1+𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_4\hfill & =& \gamma ^2\left(\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}}{1+u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right)^2(\beta ^22u_\mathrm{A}\beta +1)=𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_5\hfill & =& 4\frac{u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{(1+u_\mathrm{A})^2}\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{(1\beta )^2}=1𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_6\hfill & =& \left(\frac{1u_\mathrm{A}}{1+u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }\right)^2=𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_7\hfill & =& \frac{4u_\mathrm{A}}{(1+u_\mathrm{A})^2}\frac{1+u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{1\beta }=1+𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_8\hfill & =& \left(\frac{1+u_\mathrm{A}}{1u_\mathrm{A}}\right)^2\frac{\gamma ^2u_\mathrm{A}(1+\beta )^4}{u_\mathrm{A}2\beta +u_\mathrm{A}\beta ^2}=𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_9\hfill & =& 4\gamma ^2\left(\frac{u_\mathrm{A}\beta }{1+u_\mathrm{A}}\right)^2=1+𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]\hfill \\ \lambda \hfill & =& \frac{h}{4}\frac{1+u_\mathrm{A}}{1u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{1\beta }{1+\beta }=\gamma ^2(1u_\mathrm{A}\beta )\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ \kappa \hfill & =& \frac{\omega _\mathrm{g}}{u_\mathrm{A}}\frac{u_\mathrm{A}(1+\beta ^2)\beta (1+u_\mathrm{A}^2)}{u_\mathrm{A}(1+\beta ^2)2\beta }\frac{\omega _\mathrm{g}}{u_\mathrm{A}}\left(1+𝒪[\mathrm{\Delta }k]\right)\hfill \end{array}$$