text:
# Supercurrent-induced Peltier-like effect in superconductor/normal-metal weak links

thanks: We thank N. Birge for the idea to this work and J. von Delft, D. J. van Harlingen and J. Pekola for suggestions on the manuscript. This work was supported by the Graduate School in Technical Physics at the Helsinki University of Technology.

## Abstract

The local nonequilibrium quasiparticle distribution function in a normal-metal wire depends on the applied voltage over the wire and the type and strength of different scattering mechanisms. We show that in a setup with superconducting reservoirs, in which the supercurrent and the dissipative current flow (anti)parallel, the distribution function can also be tuned by applying a supercurrent between the contacts. Unlike the usual control by voltage or temperature, this leads to a Peltier-like effect: the supercurrent converts an externally applied voltage into a difference in the effective temperature between two parts of the system maintained at the same potential. We suggest an experimental setup for probing this phenomenon and mapping out the controlled distribution function.

Many of the well-understood phenomena in mesoscopic physics can be probed within the linear response of a physical system to an applied external perturbation, i.e., they are governed by equilibrium physics. Recently the attention has turned more towards the study of effects far from equilibrium. The quasiparticle distribution function $`f(x;E)`$ characterizing the nonequilibrium was measured in a normal-metal (N) wire between two large reservoirs pothier97 ; pierre01  through a superconducting (S) tunnel probe. This yielded useful information on the residual interactions between the Fermi-liquid quasiparticles. This nonequilibrium distribution was used to control the supercurrent in a normal-metal weak link. baselmansnature ; baselmans01 ; huang  Both of these setups serve as different types of local probes for $`f(x;E)`$.

As a further step, we describe the control of $`f(x;E)`$ via the supercurrent. We show that, unlike other control parameters, it changes the profile of the effective temperature through the sample in the form of a large Peltier effect, i.e., heating the electrons in one part of the structure, and cooling them in another — even in the case of complete electron-hole symmetry. Moreover, we show how the two types of measurements for $`f(x;E)`$ can be combined within the same sample.

We concentrate on studying a diffusive normal-metal wire, where elastic scattering is the dominant scattering mechanism. In the absence of superconductivity and for wires much shorter than the inelastic scattering length, the steady-state distribution function between two reservoirs with chemical potentials $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ has a double-step form, interpolating between the two Fermi functions in the reservoirs. pothier97

When the N reservoirs are replaced by superconducting ones, the leading transport mechanism at energies below the superconducting gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is Andreev reflection. andreev64  This leads to a penetration of superconducting correlations into the N wire (superconducting proximity effect). It modifies the charge and energy conductivities and we may introduce the corresponding diffusion coefficients $`𝒟_T(x;E)`$ and $`𝒟_L(x;E)`$ depending on space and energy. karlsruhereview  More importantly, the proximity effect allows supercurrents to flow through the N wire. To describe these effects, it is convenient to separate $`f(x;E)`$ into symmetric and antisymmetric parts relative to the chemical potential $`\mu _S`$ of the superconductor,

$`f_T(E)`$ $`1f(\mu _SE)f(\mu _S+E),`$ (1)
$`f_L(E)`$ $`f(\mu _SE)f(\mu _S+E).`$ (2)
Below, we choose $`\mu _S=0`$. These functions describe charge and energy distributions, respectively. They satisfy the kinetic equations karlsruhereview ; galaktionov

$`{\displaystyle \frac{j_T}{x}}=0,j_T𝒟_T(x){\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{x}}+j_Ef_L+𝒯(x)_xf_L;`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{j_L}{x}}=0,j_L𝒟_L(x){\displaystyle \frac{f_L}{x}}+j_Ef_T𝒯(x)_xf_T.`$ (4)
Here we assume no energy relaxation, so the kinetic equations describe the conservation of $`j_T(E)`$ and $`Ej_L`$, the spectral charge and energy currents, respectively. Terms $`𝒟_T`$, $`𝒟_L`$, $`j_E`$, and $`𝒯`$ can be found from quasiclassical equations for the retarded Green’s function in the diffusive limit. usadel ; karlsruhereview  All of them depend on the phase difference $`\varphi `$ between the superconductors such that for $`\varphi =0`$, $`j_E`$ and $`𝒯`$ vanish. In our case, the charge diffusion coefficient $`𝒟_T`$ is increased at most up to 20% from its normal-state value $`𝒟_T=1`$, charlat96  whereas for energies below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`𝒟_L`$ tends towards zero near the S interface, effectively prohibiting energy transport. The term $`𝒯(x;E,\varphi )`$ (Ref. galaktionov, ) is obtained as a cross term from the retarded and advanced Green’s functions. In general, it is much smaller than the other coefficients. The supercurrent is described by a spectrum $`j_E(E;\varphi )`$ of supercurrent-carrying states, wilhelmprl ; yip ; heikkila02  which yields a contribution $`j_Ef_L(x)`$ to the spectral charge current and, under nonequilibrium conditions involving $`f_T(x)0`$, a contribution to the energy current $`Ej_Ef_T(x)`$.

These kinetic equations have to be supplied with boundary conditions. At N reservoirs, electrons are simply transmitted and the distributions have to match Fermi functions with shifted chemical potentials. At the NS interface for $`|E|<\mathrm{\Delta }`$, Andreev reflection prohibits the transfer of energy into S yielding $`j_L=0`$. The charge distribution is continuous, which leads to $`f_T(E)=0`$ at the NS interface assuming that there is no charge imbalance in the leads.

The nonequilibrium distribution function may be characterized through its moments, the local chemical potential $`\mu (x)`$ and the local effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(x)`$. The previous characterizes the charge distribution function as $`\mu (x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑Ef_T(x;E)`$. The effective temperature describes the amount of heat in the electron system and is related to the energy distribution function via

$$\frac{e^2_0}{2}T_{\mathrm{eff}}^2(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑EE[f_{L,0}(x;E)f_L(x;E)],$$
(5)
where $`_0=(\pi ^2k_B^2/3e^2)`$ is the Lorenz number and the corresponding zero-temperature distribution has a step-function form $`f_{L,0}(x;E0)=1\theta [E\mu (x)]`$.

In the absence of the supercurrent, the kinetic Eqs. (3) and (4) are not coupled and, consequently, there is no thermoelectric coupling between the applied voltage and the energy currents. This results from the assumption of bands with complete electron-hole symmetry in the derivation of the formalism. Beyond the limits of the formalism, it is known that electron-hole symmetry breaking leads to small thermoelectric effects in normal metals, limited by the tiny factor $`k_BT/ϵ_F`$. ashcroftmermin

Below, we study a multiterminal setup depicted in the inset of Fig. 2: varying the voltage between the N and S reservoirs while maintaining the superconductors at equal potentials allows one to vary the distribution function in the phase-coherent wire. Such a device has already been implemented for controlling the critical current for the dc Josephson effect. huang  It permits to study the supercurrent under nonequilibrium conditions without the complications caused by the ac Josephson effect and is, hence, an appropriate system for demonstrating the physics outlined above: As the energy flow $`Ej_Ef_T(x)`$ carried by the extra quasiparticles injected into the supercurrent-carrying states cannot pass into the superconductors, it has to be counterbalanced by another energy flow. This flow is driven by the gradient of the energy distribution function $`E𝒟_L_xf_L`$ and hence, the applied control voltage is converted into a gradient of the effective temperature through the supercurrent.

Solving Eqs. (3) and (4) for $`\varphi =0`$ and $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is similar to a two-probe N-S case karlsruhereview : $`f_L`$ stays constant throughout the phase-coherent wire at its value in the N reservoir, $`f_L^0(V)=(\mathrm{tanh}[(E+eV)/2k_BT]+\mathrm{tanh}[(EeV)/2k_BT])/2`$ and $`f_T`$ is slightly modified from the linear space dependence due to the proximity effect on $`𝒟_T`$. charlat96  Increasing the phase $`\varphi `$ induces a finite supercurrent into the weak link, thereby coupling $`f_L`$ and $`f_T`$. First neglecting the small coefficient $`𝒯`$, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_L}{x}}=j_E{\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{𝒟_L}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}\left(𝒟_T{\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{x}}\right)=j_E^2{\displaystyle \frac{f_T}{𝒟_L}}.`$ (6)
Assuming that $`j_E`$ is small, we observe that the major change due to the supercurrent is expected for $`f_L(E,x)`$; particularly, it will depend on space.

In general, a closed-form solution for $`f_L(x;E)`$, $`f_T(x;E)`$ cannot be found. Therefore, we focus on a numerical solution of both the spectral and kinetic equations. Here and below, we assume that all the energies are below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The effect of the supercurrent on the distribution functions is clearest at a low temperature $`k_BTE_T`$. The resulting distribution function $`f(x,E)`$ for the right-hand horizontal arm is plotted in Fig. 1 for $`\varphi =\pi /2`$, yielding a supercurrent close to its maximum. As expected, the antisymmetric part of $`f(x;E)`$ has become space dependent, its energy dependence following that of $`j_E`$. Fixing a position in space, chosen, for example, near the NS interface in the left-hand side horizontal arm, allows us to observe how the distribution function changes as a function of phase $`\varphi `$, i.e., as it is driven by the supercurrent. This is illustrated in Fig. 2, where $`f_L(E;\varphi )`$ is plotted for a few values of $`\varphi `$.

In the three-probe case, the chemical potential $`\mu (x)`$ interpolates nearly linearily between the chemical potentials of the superconductor and the normal reservoir and varies only little with the supercurrent. The changes in the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ are much more pronounced. In the absence of the supercurrent, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}^0T_{\mathrm{eff}}(\varphi =0)=\sqrt{T^2+\{V^2(\mu (x)/e)^2\}/_0}.$$
(7)
Both $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(x;\varphi =0)`$ and $`\mu (x;\varphi =0)`$ are symmetric in the two horizontal arms. The supercurrent-induced change in $`f_L(x;E)`$ can be described through the change of the effective temperature compared to Eq. (7), such that $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(x)=[T_{\mathrm{eff}}^0(x)^2+S(x;V)+\delta \mu (x;\varphi )]^{1/2}`$, where

$$S(x;V)=\frac{6}{\pi ^2k_B^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑EE(f_L^0(E;V)f_L(x;E))$$
(8)
and $`\delta \mu (x;\varphi )[\mu (x;\varphi )^2\mu (x;\varphi =0)^2]/2`$ describes the change in the local chemical potential due to the supercurrent, a much smaller term than $`S(x)`$. The kinetic equations imply that the supercurrent-induced change of the distribution function $`f_L`$ is antisymmetric between the two arms, hence so is $`S(x)`$, i.e., $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ increases in one arm and decreases in the other one. Hence, the system works analogously to a Peltier device, where the control current is replaced by the supercurrent: the supercurrent “cools” one part of the system, transferring the heat to another part.

The supercurrent-induced temperature change $`S(x;V)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 3.

To obtain an estimate for $`S(x;V,\varphi )`$, we approximate $`𝒟_T(E;x)=1`$ and find

$$S=\frac{2E_T^2R_\mathrm{w}}{L^2(R_\mathrm{w}+R_\mathrm{c})}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑EEj_E(E)f_T^0(E)_x^{L/2}\frac{x^{}dx^{}}{𝒟_L(x^{};E)}.$$
(9)
At low temperatures $`k_BTeV`$, $`f_T`$ reduces to a step function around the potential $`eV`$ in the reservoir, cutting the integration off at $`E=eV`$. Thus, this current-induced temperature change, which is similar to the Peltier effect, is much larger than in conventional single-metal setups.

For the measurement of the predicted effects in the distribution function, we suggest a setup shown in the inset of Fig. 2 – very similar to those used in Refs. pothier97, ; pierre01, . Such a setup has also been used as a local thermometer rowell76  of the electronic temperatures. A superconducting wire is connected to the horizontal arm via a highly resistive tunneling layer (I) at position, say, $`x=x_c`$. The dc current is then given by the tunneling quasiparticle current

$$I_J=\frac{1}{eR}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\rho _S(E+\mu )\rho (E)[f_0(E+\mu )f(E)],$$
(10)
where $`N_S\rho _S(E)`$ is the BCS density of states (DOS) of the tunnel probe, $`N_N\rho (E)`$ is the local DOS in the mesoscopic wire at $`x=x_c`$, $`N_S`$ and $`N_N`$ are the normal-state DOS’s for the two materials at $`E=E_F`$, $`f_0(E)`$ is the Fermi function, and $`f(E)`$ is the distribution function to be measured. When all the wires are in the normal state, the resistance through the tunnel junction is $`R`$. We can separate this expression as $`I_J=I_1+I_2`$, where $`I_1`$ is the tunneling current for the equilibrium system $`V=0`$, probing $`\rho (E)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_2& =\frac{1}{eR}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}E\rho (E)\{f_T(E)[\rho _S(\mu +E)+\rho _S(\mu E)]\hfill \\ \hfill +& [f_L(E)\mathrm{tanh}(E/2k_BT)][\rho _S(\mu +E)\rho _S(\mu E)]\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
depends on the state of the wire, and for an equilibrium state, $`V=0`$, vanishes. In order to isolate $`I_2`$, one can first determine $`I_1`$ as a function of the supercurrent by investigating the equilibrium case. Then, $`I_1`$ may be substracted from the nonequilibrium results, leaving only currents $`I_2`$. Moreover, $`I_2(\mu )+I_2(\mu )`$ is proportional to the first part of Eq. (11), dependent on $`f_T(E)`$, and $`I_2(\mu )I_2(\mu )`$ to the second, dependent on $`f_L(E)`$.

With the above setup, the distribution functions may be characterized as a function of both the voltage $`V`$ and the supercurrent driven through the weak link. The setup also makes it possible to measure the local distribution function both through the NIS contact and through the SNS critical current. These two independent probes should permit to distinguish the contributions from different inelastic scattering effects along the lines of Ref. pothier97, .

So far we have completely neglected inelastic scattering in the wires. We can include energy relaxation due to electron-electron scattering phenomenologically, generalizing the method of Ref. nagaev95,  to include the effect of supercurrent. In the limit $`Ll_\epsilon `$, we may describe the nonequilibrium distribution functions by Fermi functions with local chemical potential and temperature. In this case, assuming for simplicity $`𝒟_T=1`$ and $`𝒯=0`$, we can integrate the two kinetic equations over energy, obtain kinetic equations for $`\mu (x)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(x)`$ and find in the limit of high $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$

$`_x^2\mu (x)`$ $`=_xI_S(x),`$ (12)
$`e^2_0\stackrel{~}{T}(x)_xT_{\mathrm{eff}}(x)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{\mu }(x)_x\mu (x)+Q_S.`$ (13)
Here $`I_S(x)=[𝑑Ej_E(E)f_L(E,x)]/2`$ is the local supercurrent, $`2_0e^2\stackrel{~}{T}=𝑑EE𝒟_L_Tf_L`$ and $`2\stackrel{~}{\mu }(x)=dEE𝒟_L_\mu f_L`$ describe the local temperature and chemical potential modified by $`𝒟_L`$, respectively, and $`Q_S=[𝑑EEj_E(E)f_T(E,x)]/2`$ is the energy current carried by the nonequilibrium supercurrent. The first equation states the conservation of the total current whereas the latter describes the temperature profile. In the absence of the proximity effect, these yield the effective temperature given in Eq. (7). Similarly as above, the effective temperature can also in this case be tuned via the supercurrent, through the control of $`Q_S`$.

The predicted effect resembles a previously studied phenomenon in bulk superconductors, thermalchargeimbalance  where a temperature gradient along with a supercurrent generates a charge imbalance in S. Here, the finite voltage (described through $`f_T`$) along with the supercurrent produces a temperature gradient (spatial variation of $`f_L`$). charimnote

In Ref. venkat, , another thermoelectric effect, the thermopower, has been measured experimentally in a similar type of a system. The coupling of the distribution functions through the supercurrent may explain part of the observed effects. In Ref. seviouremf, , thermopower has been studied in the regime of high tunnel barriers and within linear response, leading also to an unexpectedly large effect. In that paper, all the distribution functions are, besides minor corrections, in quasiequilibrium: the transport is essentially driven by the discontinuities at the tunneling barriers. Moreover, Ref. claughtonlambert,  studies the Andreev interferometers through a numerical scattering approach, and predicts an oscillating thermopower as a function of the phase. However, there the quasiparticle current and supercurrent do not flow in parallel and the magnitude of the effect may be strongly affected by the very small size of the studied structure.

Summarizing, we predict that in a nonequilibrium situation created by applying a voltage between a normal metal and two superconductors, the nonequilibrium distribution functions in the normal-metal wire can be tuned by the supercurrent flowing between the superconductors. This results in a supercurrent-controlled Peltier effect. The predicted effect can be observed by the measurement of the tunneling current from an additional superconductor.


format: text

text:
# The Predictive Power of 𝑅₀ in an Epidemic Probabilistic System

## I Introduction

It is nowadays recognized that the phenomenon of health-disease in human communities only may be understood by considering complex and dynamic inter-relations among several factors operating simultaneously in multiple spatiotemporal and organizational scales. In fact, the healthy and sick individual suffers uninterruptedly the effects of the microbiological evolution, the antropogenic environmental and ecosystem stress and many others misdeeds resulting from socioeconomic inequalities. Therefore, it is not surprising to find out the proliferation of a myriad of methodological tools employed during the development of the epidemiological research.

Among this methodological mosaic the mathematical and computer (or simulation) modeling of communicable and infectious disease comes as a hypothetical-deductive approach whose scope consists primarily in understanding and manipulating, a priori and to predictive purposes, the underlying mechanisms behind the origin and diffusion of epidemic events. As a matter of fact, the attempt of understanding in what conditions pathogenic agents (once invaded a host population) could establish themselves as an infection (the transmission of pathogens from one host to another) resulted in the development of one of the most important and thoroughly discussed concepts in infectious disease modeling as early as in the beginning of the last century, namely the epidemic threshold. Thus, in writings of R. Ross (1909)  the so-called mosquito theorem was the first recognition of a quantitative threshold deducing that it was not necessary to eliminate mosquitoes totally in order to eradicate malaria. Two decades later would testify the publication of the classic Kermack-McKendrick’s (1927)  paper that definitely consolidated the threshold concept in epidemiologic literature. In this deterministic $`SIR`$ model ($`S`$ stands for susceptibles, $`I`$ for infected, and $`R`$ for removed) an epidemic process is considered to evolve only when the density of susceptible individuals is greater than a threshold value $`S_c`$. Bartlett (1957) , based in a large amount of collected data of disease incidence in industrialized countries introduced thirty years later another expression linking microbial invasion and threshold parameters: the critical community size, that could explain the fade-out patterns of measles epidemics.

However, the inherent individual heterogeneity and probabilistic local nature of interindividual relationships has been traditionally neglected in state-variable models like this; in fact, in this population level approach all behavioral and individual variability are diluted into the intercompartmental rates and densities or number of mean individuals —as $`S`$, $`I`$ or $`R`$ compartments— described in terms of partial or ordinary differential equations. Nevertheless, it was subsequently possible to express the epidemic threshold in a way perhaps much more intuitive when the focus changed to consider the infected host or the parasite itself, instead of looking at the density or number of susceptible. In this perspective the threshold condition that determines whether an infectious disease will spread in a susceptible population has been described through the so-called basic reproduction number or also denominated as basic reproductive rate, commonly denoted by $`_0`$ . For microparasites such as viruses or bacteria it may be biologically understood as the average number of secondary cases produced or caused by one infected individual during its entire infectious period in a completely susceptible population. Thus, the intrinsically individual based perspective of this threshold concept should not be underestimated since the reproduction number can link the inside-host evolutionary or pathogenic dynamic (microscale) and transmission process at population level (macroscale). From a purely deterministic point of view it appears intuitively evident that if $`_01`$ the pathogen can undoubtedly establish itself in a host population and, at least, an endemic regime will settle down. But this is a short-sighted prediction since, specially to directly transmitted disease in finite populations, the mechanisms that ensure the maintenance of the parasite within a community depends critically on the way as the individuals interact one another, sometimes unforeseeable.

In this work we analyze limitations of the predictive power of the $`R_0`$ parameter (as classically formulated) for the spread of a disease: Alternatively to population level approach and state-variable models, stochastic inter-individual interactions are also used and its implications on the predictive attributes of the basic reproduction number $`_0`$ are studied through a simplified model: a lattice based model including infectious period in that individual interactions are straightforwardly described in terms of global $`(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and local $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ variables, which in turn can be tuned out to simulate respectively the populational mobility and geographical neighborhood contacts.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section it is presented a general formalism to the evolution of a population invaded by an infection. The formalism is then applied in section 3, where concepts involving $`_0`$ and the threshold phenomenon are discussed in order to define an invasion criterion for the infection and evaluation of $`_0`$. The results are discussed in section 4. Although this work will be mainly concerned on $`_0`$ as a function of the model’s parameters, the formalism presented in what follows can be applied to study a variety of epidemic scenarios.

## II The Model System

Consider a discrete dynamical system (discrete space and discrete time) where a population of $`N`$ individuals is distributed on the sites of a toroidal lattice $`𝐌=\{m_{ij}\}`$ —with $`i`$ and $`j`$ varying from $`1`$ to $`L`$ ($`N=L\times L`$). Each individual site $`m_{ij}`$ is assigned to receive three personal specific attributes: (1) a spatial address or lattice position $`(i,j)`$; $`(2)`$ a set of three possible status, namely, $`s,i`$ and $`r,`$ specifying a clinic disease stage of each particular individual, which represent, respectively, the conditions of susceptible (subject to be infected by a contagious agent), infectious (effectively transmitter of contagious agents) and removed (recovered or immune); and finely (3) an infectious period $`\tau `$, specifying how many units of time an infected individual can propagate the contagious agent. Note that $`s+i+r=N`$, with $`N`$ constant.

Such a system is suitable mainly for describing a single epidemic in a closed system (no birth or migration). The choice of such reduced model, however, is not far-fetched because, as already mentioned above, the main interest here involves only very short period of time, so that the dynamics of host births, migration, etc., are largely irrelevant. . The dynamic evolution of the population is described, step-by-step, by a set of a priori stated interaction rules, and assumes that each new configurational state of the system (described here by the geographical address $`(i,j)`$ of each individual and by the instantaneous number of susceptibles $`S(t)`$, infectives $`I(t),`$ and removed individuals $`R(t)`$ ) depends only on its previous state. Hence, for the present purpose the spread of the disease in the population is considered as being governed by the following rules:

1. Any susceptible individual may become infected with a probability $`p_S`$. An infected susceptible becomes infective after an average latency time $`\tau _l`$ (assumed here as $`\tau _l=0,`$ without lost of generality).
2. Infectives are removed deterministically from the system (becoming immune) after an infectious period $`\tau `$, that for simplicity is considered as constant for all infected individuals.
3. Once in the removed class the individual participate only passively in the spreading of the infection (eventual topological blocking) by a period of immunity greater than the complete epidemic process.

During one time step, the three preceding rules are applied synchronously to all sites in the lattice; the present model, therefore, can be viewed as a simple two-dimensional cellular automaton. Actually, it is an adaptation of automata network to standard $`SIR`$ models for studying the spread of infectious diseases.

In this work, the probability $`p_S`$, which is intended to be probability per unit of time, is taken as the superposition of the local and global influences, in order to unify the individual-based (contacts among nearest neighbors) and the standard mean-field (homogeneously interacting population) approaches. Therefore, one assumes that disease transmission occurs with a total infection probability $`p_S`$ written as

$$p_S=\mathrm{\Gamma }p_G+\mathrm{\Lambda }p_L,$$
(1)
where the pre-factors $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are weight parameters tuning the short (cluster formation) and long-range (mean-field type) interactions; it is also required that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ in order to satisfy the probabilistic requirement $`0p_S1`$.

The global influence $`p_G`$ amounts to the probability of a susceptible to become infective due to the ubiquity of $`I(t)`$ infected individuals (mean-field). So one can expect that in the limit of large $`N`$ ($`N\mathrm{})`$, in each time step, any susceptible may become infected with probability

$$p_G=\frac{\rho }{N}\underset{\{k,l\}}{}\delta _{i,\sigma (k,l)}$$
(2)
where $`0\rho 1`$ is one of the model parameters: it limits the maximum value of $`p_G`$ and is related to the intrinsic mobility of the population; the sum sweeps all lattice sites $`\{k,l\},`$ and $`\delta _{i,\sigma (k,l)}`$ is the Kronecker delta function which assumes the value “one” when the state $`\sigma `$ of the site $`(k,l)`$ corresponds to the infectious state $`i`$, and “zero” otherwise ($`\sigma (k,l)`$ can be $`s,i`$ or $`r)`$. Actually, the sum in the Equation 2 just counts the instantaneous number of infectious individuals $`I(t)`$ in the population.

On the other hand, the local term $`p_L=p_L(i,j)`$ is the probability of a susceptible individual (located at the site $`(i,j))`$ contracting infection due to $`n`$ infectives first and second neighbors ( $`0n8`$ is a integer number corresponding to all possible combinations of $`(i+\xi ,j+\xi )`$, with $`\xi =0,1,1)`$. Therefore, let $`\lambda [0,1]`$ be the probability of a particular susceptible when just one of its neighbors is infective. Hence, $`(1\lambda )^n`$ will be the probability for not contracting the disease when exposed to $`n`$ infectives. Therefore, the chance of he (or she) contracting the disease in a unit of time is

$$p_L=1\left(1\lambda \right)^n.$$
(3)
Thus, when $`\lambda =1`$ the infection spreads deterministically, with $`8`$ nearest neighbors to any infective being infected (the choice for equipotent first and second neighbors was adopted because the use of only the four nearest neighbors is unduly restricting).

The expression for $`p_G`$ is a convenient and simple way for describing the populational mobility. It is based on the mass action law, borrowed from the chemistry, and gets new meaning here under the perspective of pairwise spatially disordered interactions through the population elements. In this sense, it is a result of the small-word effect, and so became a particular version of the small-word lattice of Watts and Strogatz

This simple approach allows to study in great detail the dynamical behavior of the model in the full space of control parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$, and the local and global balance pre-factors $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore, the system is governed by $`p_S`$ (Eq.1) and $`\tau `$, and its temporal evolution is determined by updating the lattice synchronously at each time step through the application of the three rules above.

## III $`_0`$ and The Threshold Phenomenon

The probability $`p_L`$ as in the Eq.(3) , , and in a number of alternative forms, has been employed in the analogy between percolation and epidemic. Since that the critical value $`p_c,`$ in which random clusters grow to infinite size, is know (analytic or numerically) for any lattices, $`p_c`$ may be used as a powerful general criterion for “epidemic spread”, . However, due to the traditional importance of the concept of $`R_0`$ in the epidemic scenario, this threshold is generalized for finite discrete systems, as described above, in order to show its relevance for an intrinsically individual based perspective of the problem.

The overall structure of the model presented here shows the interplay of two types of transmission mechanisms by assuming that each infectious individual interacts strongly (physically) with their few susceptible neighbors, and uniformly and weakly with each particular susceptible in the population of susceptibles. Thus, the local mode of transmission $`p_L`$ incorporates the individual-based component from the perspective of the susceptible individuals, the actual (physical) contacts that each susceptible experiences, and the global probability $`p_G,`$ due to intrinsic populational mobility, which may be viewed as resulting of a mean-field (discrete) approach, in the sense that the disease transmission to each susceptible individual also depends on the instantaneous total number of infectious individuals in the population.

To better appreciate the consequences of this formulation, it is firstly run simulations for the extreme values of the tuning pre-factors through the procedure described above. These cases allow to recover the two modes of transmission in its pure form corresponding to the (i) homogeneous mixing approximation (mean field), when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, and to the (ii) percolation process (the transmission occurs by localized individual contact), when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$. Furthermore, it is considered the damage $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ on a susceptible population due to just one infected individual ($`I(0)=1`$) landing in a totally susceptible population ($`S(0)=N1`$ and $`R(0)=0`$) during the infectious period $`\tau ;`$ to calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ it is considered only the number of new infected individuals in the population after $`\tau `$ time steps, ignoring infections from the victims of these first infected individual (operationally, it is enough to consider the latency $`\tau _l>\tau `$, that is, a latent period of infection greater then the infectious period). The Figures 1a and 1b show, respectively, the simulation results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ as function of $`\rho `$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, and the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ as a function of the contact probability $`\lambda `$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (that is, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0)`$; the system size considered in most of the simulations presented here was $`L=100`$ (population size $`N=L\times L=10^4),`$ although some extra different sizes $`L/2`$ and $`2L`$) were also used in order to verify finite size effects. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ are the two limiting cases usually taken as references in studying the effect on the system when both mechanisms are superposed; the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ is obtained after $`\tau =10`$ time steps (covering exactly the infectious period) and was estimated as an average over $`31`$ independent simulations (what is equivalent to verify the establishment of infection on $`31`$ distinct populations with the same pattern of contacts among the individuals).

The linear pattern observed for $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ vs $`\rho `$ means that the present stochastic approach reproduces qualitatively the classical basic reproductive number $`_0`$ if one identifies $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ as the average number of secondary cases that an infectious individual causes. Indeed, the linear relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=[\frac{\rho }{N}S(0)]\tau `$ fits pretty well the data shown in Figure 1a, and so one may consider that infectives make contacts at a mean rate $`[\frac{\rho }{N}S(0)]`$ throughout an infectious period of length $`\tau `$ (note that for large enough populations $`\frac{\rho }{N}S(0)\rho `$). On the other hand, when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,`$ the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ represents $`_0`$ for the case where individuals interact only with their spatial nearest neighbors, and so its values saturates at $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=8`$ for $`\lambda 0.3`$. For each particular run, significant fluctuations on $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ are observed (mainly for smaller $`N)`$ but averaging over 31 runs is enough to smooth considerably the curves, as shown in Figure 1.

Before to proceed through the application of the present formulation, some comments regarding the definition of the $`_0`$ are in order. The basic reproduction number has been widely used as a predictor parameter conceived to indicate the epidemic potential of a pathogen once it has introduced in a totally susceptible population. In fact, to deterministic and continuous (in space and in time) population-system models the future fate of an infectious agent has been expressed through the threshold condition. Accordingly, when $`_0>1`$, infections can invade a totally susceptible population and persist; if $`_0<1`$, the disease then dies out and can not establish itself. To the special condition $`_0=1`$, there is an endemic regime in that the unique initial infectious case reproduces subsequently just one infectious secondary case and son on.

This assumption in modelling of the establishment of an infection (which is possibly wrong)  will be partially preserved here to have the classical treatment as a reference but, indeed, to capture more realistic or probable practical situations is of interesse that the “first analytical look” at a population be considered when the epidemic process is already in course. For instance, at the initial time $`t_0`$ one may consider the arbitrary situation in that $`I(t=t_0)>>1`$ at the same time that the number of removed individuals is also large, and then ask the question: What is the value for the reproduction number in this case? To answer this question one may generalize the concept of $`_0`$ as the normalized average number $`(t_0;\tau )`$ of secondary cases (reproductive ratio) about the time $`t_0,`$ due to $`I(t_0)`$ infectious present in the population at $`t=t_0,`$ through the following expression

$$(t_0;\tau )=\frac{_{t_0}^{t_0+\tau }_{\{k,l\}_s}(\mathrm{\Gamma }p_G+\mathrm{\Lambda }p_L)_n}{I(t_0)},$$
(4)
where the brackets means an average on a set of $`n`$ independent runs in the time interval $`[t_0,t_0+\tau ],`$ and the sum over $`\{k,l\}`$ sweeps all sites occupied by individuals in the status $`s`$ (susceptibles). Note that all the instantaneous extensive and intensive conditions of the population, at any arbitrary time $`t_0,`$ are all taken into account, as for example, the sites in the removed status randomly scattered through the population (acting as epidemic shield protectors), and the set remaining infectious time $`\tau (k,l;`$ $`t_0)`$ for each individual in the status $`i`$ located at the site $`(k,l).`$ These conditions certainly affect the epidemic process and the progression of the epidemic process depends in some how on the reproduction number’s value, (that is, if $`(t_0;\tau )>1`$ or $`<1).`$ But, as already mentioned above, the initial condition $`I(t=t_0)=1`$ will be deliberately used in the present work in order to maintain the original intention of comparing the traditional deterministic definition of the basic reproductive ratio $`_0`$ with the present stochastic approach.

In order to infer how the intrinsic stochastic nature of the epidemic process affects the predictive attributes of $`_0,`$ the concept of epidemic probability $`P_E`$ is introduced. Numerically it is estimated directly from the simulation experiments based on the algorithm of the previous section. Indeed, it is just given by the ratio $`P_E=n_e/n,`$ where $`n_e`$ is the number of runs in that at least one susceptibles was infected during the infectious period, and $`n`$ is the total number of runs or experimental populations. The probability $`P_E`$ may be expressed as function of the mean reproduction number $`_0`$, which also is determined from the same simulation experiments by using the Equation 4 above. In the Figure 2 it is shown the resulting $`P_E`$ as a function of $`_0`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$ and $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ varying in the interval $`(0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}]`$. The large number of scattered points in the graph, mainly at larger $`_0`$, is an intrinsic aspect of this graph due to the fact that in the parameter space $`(\rho ,\lambda )`$ there are different combinations of $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ resulting in approximately the same values for $`_0`$, as it is illustrated in Figure 3. Therefore only the stochastic component of such scattering of points may be reduced by increasing the number of runs used in the averaging procedure.

The amount $`P_E`$ tends to saturates at $`P_E1`$ when the value of $`_0`$ is sufficient large ($`_03`$), so that the epidemic spread in the population almost always is observed. Furthermore, the results showed in the Figure 2 means that only for large enough $`_0`$ (actually $`_0>3`$) one can be sure about an epidemic development in the population, while that, even for $`_0<1`$ there is still a possibility to have an epidemic spread. Therefore, from the epidemic control perspective, reducing the effective reproductive number to a level below one, upon vaccination, for instance, could be a potential problem of strategy since that for $`_01`$ in about $`60\%`$ of events this strategy will fail, that is, an epidemic process should be established with chance of $`60\%`$ for $`_01,`$ under the conditions of the present model. More pointedly, despite the claim of the threshold criterium, it is improbable to recognize (using only standard census data) the imminence of any epidemic disaster if the system is near to the threshold region. The more accurate (although frustrating) criterium is to realize that, irrespective the value of $`_0`$ that the level of vaccination forces, there is always a chance (even thought small) of the disease re-invading the population.

The same system size $`N=10^4`$ was employed in order to get all the results discussed above. However, in order to verify eventual effect of the system size on the results, two extra systems were considered, namely a smaller $`N=4^1\times 10^4`$ and a bigger $`N=4\times 10^4`$ system, but no significant difference was found. Clearly fluctuations are smaller for larger systems mainly because the chance of nucleation of closer cluster due to the global term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }p_G`$ decreases with the system size $`N,`$ reducing then the chance of the magnification effect of the local term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p_L`$ on eventual clusters located nearly enough each other. The Figure 4a shows for $`P_E`$ vs $`_0`$ (in the interval $`0<_02)`$ for two different system sizes; note that the size effect is pronounced only on the second moment (dispersion of the data) of the distribution of $`P_E`$ for each $`_0`$. More precisely, the Figure 4b shows the normalized standard deviation (relative error) $`\sigma _{R_0}`$ as function of $`_0`$ for the larger $`4\times 10^4`$ system. A decreasing $`1/_0`$ like behavior for the relative error is a consequence of the averaging of integer quantities, that is: $`_0=(0\times n_0+1\times n_1+2\times n_2+3\times n_3+`$ $`\mathrm{})/\eta ;`$ where $`\eta =n_0+n_1+n_3+`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ and $`n_k`$ is the number of experiments in which exactly $`k`$ susceptibles were infected.

Finally, the numerical equivalence between $`_0^{}`$ estimated by an analytical approximation and $`_0`$ calculated by simulation is verified. For this purpose $`_0^{}`$ is considered in the limit of large populations ($`N\mathrm{})`$ by taking the mean number of susceptible infected by just one infective during its infectious period $`\tau `$, through the following direct expression

$$_0^{}=\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{\rho }{N}S(0)\right]+\mathrm{\Lambda }[\lambda \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}]\right\}\tau .$$
(5)
The Figure 5 shows the parametric graph of $`_0^{}`$ vs $`_0`$ where they are calculated, respectively, by Equation (5) above and by simulation using the proposed probabilistic approach represented in Equation (4), with $`I(t_0`$ $`=0)=1`$. Strong correlation between the two ways for estimating the basic reproduction number is kept only for values of $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ not too large ($`_02)`$ because during the time $`\tau ,`$ the local term that composes $`_0`$ (Eq.4) may change from zero up to eight, while this limit is not present in the Equation (5). However, that is enough in order to validate the conclusions about the predictive attributes of $`P_E=P_E(_0)`$ because $`_0^{}`$ and $`_0`$ are numerically equivalent: the result given by Equation 5, although intuitive, follows from a stochastic representation of the classical SIR model .

## IV Final comments

In this paper a stochastic version of the original $`SIR`$ model (involving only single epidemics) was introduced with the main purpose of to characterize and re-interpret the conditions for the establishment of an epidemic in a population through the concept of basic reproduction number ($`_0`$). A peculiar characteristic of the present approach is the assumption that the probability of a susceptible individual become infective is a superposition of the local and global influences. Using as initial configuration just one single infected individual in a fully susceptible population, condition frequently used to define $`_0`$, it was demonstrated that the discrete character of a finite population reduces the pretentious predictability of the threshold criteria, and so it is, indeed, an incomplete predictive tool since that, irrespective to the value of $`_0`$, an epidemic has a finite probability to establish itself, due the inherent stochastic nature of any finite epidemic system.

Indeed, more consistent derivation of $`R_0`$ has been tried, even though using the same classical deterministic approach, due to the too widely estimate obtained to $`R_0,`$ which in recent applications for the smallpox have varied from $`R_0=1.5`$ to $`>`$ 20 . Rather than just a caricature of the original formulation of $`_0`$, the approach presented in this paper may be viewed as a simpler and generic alternative for investigating the spread of diseases in a population, which may greatly facilitate the analysis of a number of distinct epidemic scenarios. Particularly, a system with increasing topological complexity can be easily tackled. For example, one may consider the practical situation in that, at an arbitrary initial time $`t_0,`$ the population has already many infectious individuals (that is, $`I(t_0)>>1)`$, and also many immunes scattered through the population (working as epidemic shield) and then try to answer the question: What is the value for the reproduction number in this case?

Finally, as a major challenge that this “microscopic” approach can handle, one may think on the possibility of incorporating in the traditional definition of $`_0`$ the underlying evolutionary dynamics of the pathogenic agent. This view is in contrast with the standard epidemiological models, which tend to use a constant absolute parasite fitness $`_0`$. However, more detailed considerations on the investigation of this avenue of research is left for a future contribution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The authors thank E. Massad for fruitful discussions and supporting. Part of this work was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP): Proc. 00/00570-1 and 00/03465-4

FIGURE CAPTIONS

FIGURE 1: Average damage $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ due to just one infectious individual on the susceptible population $`S=N1,`$ for two extreme cases . \[a\]– $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$: the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ changes linearly with the intrinsic mobility $`\rho `$, as can be expect from Equation (2). \[b\]– $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$: the amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ increases rapidly with the infection probability $`\lambda `$ due to local (physical) contact, and saturates at $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=8`$ for $`\lambda 0.3`$, as one can infer from Equation (3).

FIGURE 2: The epidemic probability as a function of average reproduction number $`_0`$. The tuning pre-factor are fixed at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5`$, and the parameter $`\rho `$ and $`\lambda `$ are choosing from the interval $`[0,0.2]`$. For $`_01`$ epidemics are observed in about $`60\%`$ of the events (in a population of size $`N=10^4`$).

FIGURE 3 Reproduction number $`_0`$ as function of the model parameters ($`\rho `$, $`\lambda )`$ obtained by averaging over 100 independent realizations. Each strip, identified by a different gray tone, corresponds to a range of value for $`_0`$ according to: white, $`0_0<1;`$ light gray, $`1_0<2;`$ and so on. At the limit of very large populations ($`N\mathrm{})`$ the slope $`\alpha `$ (dotted lines), which roughly delimitates each region, can be obtained using Equation (5) –see text; giving $`\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{8\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Therefore, in \[a\] $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.5,`$ so $`\alpha =0.125;`$ and in \[b\] $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.9`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.1,`$ giving $`\alpha =1.125`$, whose values are closely reproduced by the results.

FIGURE 4: \[a\] The epidemic probability $`P_E`$ vs $`_0`$ for two systems: $`N=4^1\times 10^4`$ (open circles) and $`N=4\times 10^4`$ (dark circles) smaller fluctuations for the larger system is the most significative difference. \[b\]- The relative error decreases as $`_0`$ increases; for $`_01`$ the absolute error is of the same magnitude of $`_0`$ as a consequence of the averaging on “zeros” and “ones”, mainly.

FIGURE 5: Numerical equivalence between $`_0^{}`$ estimated by an analytical approximation and $`_0`$ calculated by simulation.


text:
# Magnetic Field Induced Density of States in Superconducting MgB2: Measurement of Conduction Electron Spin-Susceptibility

## Abstract

The magnetic field dependence of the spin-susceptibility, $`\chi _s`$ was measured in the superconducting state of high purity MgB2 fine powders below 1.3 T. $`\chi _s`$ was determined from the intensity of the conduction electron spin resonance spectra at 3.8, 9.4, and 35 GHz. At the lowest magnetic fields (0.14 T), a gap opens in the density of states at the Fermi energy and, accordingly, $`\chi _s(T)`$ is small at low temperatures. Fields above 0.2 T (about 15 % of $`H_{c2}^c`$, the minimum upper critical field), destroy the gap. The field induced $`\chi _s`$ is much larger than expected from current superconductor models of MgB2.

It is now generally accepted that MgB2 is a phonon mediated superconductorakimitsu budkoPRL mazinPRL  which owes its unusual properties to the widely different electron-phonon couplings on its disconnected Fermi surface (FS) sheetsmazinPRLtwogap . The two-gap model assumes a large superconductor gap for the cylindrical sheets originating from B-B $`\sigma `$ bonds and a smaller gap for the FS sheet of $`\pi `$ electrons. It describes physical properties such as the temperature dependent specific heat bouquetPRL  and tunnelingszaboPRL  successfully in zero magnetic field, predictions in finite fields are much less tested. Recent experiments show that magnetic fields as low as $`H_{c2}^\pi `$1 T close the smaller, $`\pi `$-gapbouquetsingcryst eskildsen pointcontact samuelyCM . The stronger electron-phonon coupling for $`\sigma `$ electron states maintains the superconductivity above 1 T. Yet, there has been no microscopic description of this phenomenon. The cylinder-like FS sheets of the $`\sigma `$ bands are responsible for the anisotropy of the upper critical field, $`H_{c2}^{ab}=16`$ $`T`$ and $`H_{c2}^c`$ about $`2.5`$ $`T`$simonPRL budkoPRB1 budkoPRB2 . Band calculationsmazinPRLtwogap  estimate that about half of the density of states (DOS) is on the $`\pi `$ band thus the two-gap model predicts that closing the gap at 1 T restores about half of the normal state DOS. Naively, one would expect that properties proportional to the DOS, like the specific heat coefficient or the spin-susceptibility should reach half of their normal state values at about 1 T, whereas the remaining half originating from the $`\sigma `$ bands should be restored gradually with further increasing the field to $`H_{c2}`$.

In this Letter, we report on the magnetic field dependence of the conduction electron spin-susceptibility, $`\chi _s`$, in the superconducting state of high purity MgB2 powders. This is the first time $`\chi _s`$ is measured using conduction electron spin resonance below $`T_c`$ in a superconductor. We observe an unusually strong increase of $`\chi _s`$ with the magnetic field, $`H`$, which cannot be reconciled with current models easily. The DOS induced by fields well below $`H_{c2}`$ is larger than 50 %, the value expected from closing the gap on the $`\pi `$ band FS only.

We studied samples from several batches. Sample 1 is made from 99.99 % purity natural isotopic mixture of 10B and 11B amorphous boron, Samples 2 and 3 are made from crystalline, isotopically pure 11B. Chemical analysis, the high normal state conductivities and narrow CESR lines at $`T_c`$ attest the high purity of the samples. Details of sample characterization are discussed in Ref. purityeffect . Sample 2 was made from the batch used in the CESR work of Ref. simonPRL . Fine powders with grain sizes less than 1 $`\mu `$m were selected from the starting materials to reduce the inhomogeneity of microwave excitation. The aggregates of small grains of the starting materials were first thoroughly hand-crushed in a borocarbide mortar. The resulting powders were suspended in isopropanol and mixed in a 1:1 weight ratio with pure SnO2 fine powder. The larger particles were eliminated by sedimentation for long times or in a centifuge and the small grains were extracted from the suspension by filtering. Mixing with SnO2 is important to separate the MgB2 particles to avoid eddy-currents. SEM microscopy has confirmed that this procedure results in MgB2 grains smaller than 0.5 $`\mu `$m size. SQUID magnetometry of the original batch and the final fine powders confirmed that superconducting properties were not affected by this procedure. The powders were finally cast into epoxy for the ESR experiments. We detail CESR experiments at 3.8, 9.4 and 35 GHz at fields near 0.14, 0.34 and 1.28 T respectively. The CESR results at higher frequencies of Ref.simonPRL  were also reproduced and we confirmed that the minimum value of the higher upper critical field, $`H_{c2}^{min}`$, is somewhat below 2.7 T. $`\chi _s`$ of MgB2 was measured from the intensity of the CESR with no need for core electron corrections. Fine powder of the air stable metallic polymer, $`o`$-KC60 was mixed into the epoxy for some of the samples to serve as a temperature independent ESR intensity standard bommeliPRB . Intensity measurements at 9 GHz (where instrumental factors are well controlled) with and without KC60 were consistent. The absolute value of $`\chi _s`$ was measured against a secondary CuSO$`{}_{4}{}^{}`$5 H2O standard at 9.4 GHz.

Figure 1 shows the CESR spectra at 9.4 GHz for Sample 1. The room temperature peak-to-peak linewidth, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$=111$`\pm 3`$ G, of the derivative absorption line is dominated by spin-lattice relaxation due to phonons. The residual linewidth at 40 K arises from static imperfections and is sample dependent. The residual linewidth is somewhat smaller for Sample 1 ($`\mathrm{\Delta }H_{pp}`$=10$`\pm 0.3`$ G), than for Sample (2,3), (11$`\pm 0.3`$ and 20$`\pm 0.6`$ G) while the residual resistance ratio (RRR) is larger for the latter two samples purityeffect . Unlike the RRR, the CESR linewidth is insensitive to intergrain scattering and the difference may be related to the different morphology of Sample 1 and (2,3). The small asymmetry of the lineshape ($`A/B`$=1.16 for Sample 1) at 40 K shows that microwave penetration is nearly homogeneousdyson , the nominal particle size is in the range of the microwave penetration depth, $`\delta `$=0.3 $`\mu `$m, and the reduction of the CESR signal intensity due to screening is less than 5 %.

Above 450 K (data not shown), the CESR intensities are the same for the three samples and correspond to a susceptibility of $`\chi _s`$=(2.3$`\pm `$0.3)$``$10-5 emu/mol in agreement with the previously measured valuesimonPRL  of $`\chi _s`$=(2.0$`\pm `$0.3)$``$10-5 emu/mol and calculations of the DOSmazinPRL . In Sample 1, the CESR intensity is nearly $`T`$ independent in the normal state, the measured small decrease of about 20 % between 600 and 40 K is of the order of experimental precision at high temperatures. In Sample 2 and 3 the CESR intensity decreased by a factor of 2.5 between 450 and 40 K. The nearly symmetric Lorentzian lineshape showed that this intensity decrease is not due to a limited penetration depth. Neither does the intensity decrease correspond to a change in $`\chi _s`$. We measured the $`T`$ dependence of the 11B spin-lattice relaxation time, $`T_1`$, in Samples 2 and 3 and found a metallic, $`T`$ independent value of $`1/(TT_1)`$= 167$`\pm 3`$ s-1 in agreement with Ref. borsaPRB  and kotegawa . It is possible that the difference in morphology and purity at the grain surfaces explains that the CESR signal intensity is almost constant in Sample 1 while it changes strongly in Sample 2 and 3. We believe that the nearly constant CESR intensity and the constant $`1/(TT_1)`$ measures correctly the metallic susceptibility of MgB2.

Below $`T_c`$, the $`T`$ and $`H`$ dependence of the diamagnetic shifts, linewidths, and intensities normalized at $`T_c`$ are similar in all three samples. We discuss Sample 1, for which the CESR signal intensity is constant in the normal state within experimental precision. For the applied magnetic fields, $`H<H_{c2}^{min}(T=0`$ K$`)`$ and at $`TT_c`$ the CESR signal corresponds to the mixed state of the MgB2 superconductor; any non-superconducting fraction would be easily detected as in Ref.simonPRL  for $`H>H_{c2}^{min}`$. The ESR of a tiny impurity phase is well outside the CESR of MgB2 (marked by * in Fig. 1). Comparison of the diamagnetic magnetization, $`M`$, measured by SQUID and the diamagnetic shift of the CESR, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0(T)=H_0(T)H_0(40`$K$`)`$ ($`H_0`$ is the resonance field), also verifies that below $`T_c`$ we detect the CESR of the MgB2 superconductor. Figure 2 shows $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0(T)`$ at 3 different ESR frequencies and $`M`$ at the corresponding static magnetic fields with a scaling between $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0`$ and $`M`$ as in Ref.simonPRL . The present diamagnetic shift data on fine grain samples at 35 GHz and higher frequencies (not shown) agrees with our previous report on large grain samplessimonPRL . $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0(T)`$ is equal to the average decrease of the applied magnetic field in the sample and is proportional within a shape dependent constant to $`M`$ of the grains. $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_0(T)`$ averaged for increasing and decreasing field sweeps is proportional to $`M`$ in the field cooled sample with the same proportionality constant in a broad range of $`T`$’s for all the three magnetic fields. We used the same argument previously to identify the signal of superconducting MgB2 particles in higher frequency (¿35 GHz) CESR experimentsimonPRL .

The CESR line broadens inhomogeneously below $`T_c`$ due to the macroscopic inhomogeneities of diamagnetic stray fields (data not shown). Within each isolated grain, spin diffusion motionally averages all magnetic field inhomogeneities arising from screening currents or vorticesdegennes  and the modulation of field between vortex cores does not broaden the CESR. The line is however broadened in the randomly oriented powder by the crystalline and shape anisotropy of the diamagnetic shift, that changes from grain to grain. As expected for this case, the observed additional linewidth in the superconducting state, $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_a`$, is proportional to the shift and $`\mathrm{\Delta }H_a/\mathrm{\Delta }H_0(T)`$ is about 0.3 at all fields and temperatures.

The main topic of the current report is the measurement of $`\chi _s`$ in the superconducting state of MgB2. Usually, $`\chi _s`$ is determined from the measurements of temperature dependent Knigths shift or spin-lattice relaxation time, $`T_1`$slichter . To our knowledge, in MgB2 there has been no successful determination of these quantities below $`T_c`$: precision of the Knigth shift measurement is limited due to the diamagnetic magnetizationborsaPRB gerashenko , while $`T_1`$ measurements are affected by several factors like vortex motionborsaPRB . In CESR, the signal intensity is proportional to $`\chi _s`$ and diamagnetism affects only the shift of the resonance line. $`\chi _s`$ is proportional to the DOS of normal excitations when electron correlations are small.

In Figure 3, we show $`\chi _s`$ below 60 K measured at three magnetic fields. The 9.4 GHz (0.34 T) and 35 GHz (1.28 T) data are normalized at 40 K while the 3.8 GHz (0.14 T) data are normalized at 100 K. At 3.8 GHz and 35 GHz data are missing in ranges of 36 to 100 K and 27 to 34 K, respectively, where the CESR of MgB2 could not be resolved from the KC60 reference. Data taken at 9.4 GHz with and without reference agree well and the data without reference are shown. Irreversibility does not affect the measurement of $`\chi _s`$ in the studied range of $`T`$ and $`H`$: linewidths and shifts depend on the direction of the field sweep at low $`T`$ but the intensities are the same within 5 % that is our experimental precision at low $`T`$. In Fig. 3, data at 9.4 and 35 GHz are averaged for sweeps with increasing and decreasing fields while at 3.8 GHz decreasing field sweep data are shown. No correction is made for diamagnetic screening of the microwave excitation, this would increase somewhat further the measured values of $`\chi _s`$.

The $`T`$ dependent $`\chi _s`$ at our lowest magnetic field, 0.14 T, lies well above $`\chi _s^0(T,H=0)`$ (dashed curve in Fig. 3) calculated for an isotropic $`T_c`$ =39 K weak coupling BCS superconductoryosida . The measured $`\chi _s`$ at 0.14 T is compatible with the two gap model above 10 K. The solid curve in Fig. 3 shows $`\chi _s(T,H=0)`$ calculated within the model of two independent gaps. We used $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1(T=0)`$=11 K and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2(T=0)`$=45 K, with DOS equally shared on the two Fermi surfaces, and both gaps opening at $`T_c`$. The choice of these parameters is in agreement with experimental results bouquetPRL szaboPRL junodbouquetEPL  and theoretical estimatesmazinPRLtwogap .

The remarkably large field induced $`\chi _s`$ observed at 0.34 and 1.28 T at all $`T`$’s below $`T_c`$ is the main finding of this work. These fields are much smaller than the upper critical fields, $`H_{c2}^c`$2.5 T simonPRL budkoPRB1 budkoPRB2  and $`H_{c2}^{ab}`$ $``$ 16 T. Unlike in usual superconductors, $`\chi _s`$ at $`T_c/2`$ is still near to its normal state value and remains large at the lowest $`T`$’s; $`\chi _s`$(4 K)/$`\chi _s`$(40 K) = 0.46$`\pm `$0.06 at 0.34 T and $`\chi _s`$( 3 K)/$`\chi _s`$( 40 K) =0.87$`\pm `$0.06 at 1.28 T. As shown in Fig. 4, the measured $`\chi _s`$ at low $`T`$ is in rough agreement with the specific heatbouquetPRL junodbouquetsumm  measured on a powder sample (solid curve in Fig. 4) but we find an even stronger field dependence. The specific heat data, unlike the $`\chi _s`$ data, are affected by the electron-phonon enhancement which varies strongly between the different FS sheets. The data cannot be described by a simple anisotropic superconductor. The dashed curve in Fig. 3 shows the calculated field dependence of $`\chi _s`$ of a powder of an anisotropic superconductor with $`H_{c2}^c`$=2 T and $`H_c^{ab}`$=16 T at $`T`$=0. Here, we assumed a Landau-Ginzburg type angular dependence of $`H_{c2}(\theta )`$ as described in Ref.simonPRL  and a contribution to $`\chi _s`$ proportional to $`H/H_{c2}`$($`\theta `$) for each superconducting grain. As seen in Fig. 4, this description is inadequate. A better approximation is obtained if, following Ref. bouquetsingcryst  eskildsen pointcontact , one assumes that the $`\pi `$ band FS is restored at around $`H`$1 T and the observed anisotropic $`H_{c2}`$ arises solely from the $`\sigma `$ band. In Fig. 4 we show this case with dotted lines, assuming that 50 % of the DOS is already restored at $`H=0.5`$ T. However, this simple minded application of the two-gap model is still inadequate: the large value of $`\chi _s`$ at 1.28 T and 3 K, and the $`T`$ dependence at 0.34 T, in particular the restoration of the full DOS at 25 K, remain unexplained.

In conclusion, the magnetic field dependence of the spin-susceptibility in MgB2 shows that a large part of the Fermi surface is restored at fields well below the minimum of the upper critical field. These observations pose a challange to theory since they cannot be explained with an anisotropic superconductor model nor by simple application of the two-gap model even if it is assumed that the $`\pi `$ band FS is restored at magnetic fields as low as 0.1$`H_{c2}^{\mathrm{min}}`$.

Support from the Hungarian State Grants, OTKA T029150, OTKA TS040878, and FKFP 0352/1997 and the NCCR network MANEP of the SNSF are acknowledged. The authors are grateful to Silvija Gradečak and Csilla Mikó for the SEM experiments and to Edina Couteau for assistance in the fine powder preparation. FS and TF acknowledge the Bolyai Hungarian Research Fellowship for support. TF acknowledges the hospitality of the Grenoble High Magnetic Field Laboratory during the NMR measurements. Ames Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Iowa State University under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-82.

Present address: Department of Physics, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973


text:
# Background-Independent Gravitational Waves.

## Abstract

A Hamiltonian linearization of the rest-frame instant form of tetrad gravity, where the Hamiltonian is the weak ADM energy $`E_{ADM}`$, in a completely fixed (non harmonic) 3-orthogonal Hamiltonian gauge is defined. For the first time this allows to find an explicit solution of all the Hamiltonian constraints and an associated linearized solution of Einstein’s equations. It corresponds to background-independent gravitational waves in a well defined post-Minkowskian Christodoulou-Klainermann space-time.

ADM canonical gravity has always been important for the Cauchy problem and for the interpretation of general relativity, but till now it has not produced new exact solutions of Einstein’s equations due to the difficulty in solving its first class constraints. Instead recently there have been the first attempts to use it for numerical simulations of stars and of the coalescence of binary systems of neutron stars and/or black holes. In this letter we will show that it is possible to find an approximate solution of all the constraints and then of vacuum Einstein equations by defining a Hamiltonian linearization of ADM tetrad gravity in a completely fixed Hamiltonian gauge, corresponding to a system of non-harmonic 4-coordinates. This approximate solution corresponds to a background-independent gravitational wave and defines a post-Minkowskian space-time, linearization of a Christodoulou - Klainermann space-time 1 . Here only the general method and the main results will be stated, since all the detailed calculations are contained in Ref.2 .

As shown in Ref.3 , it is possible to define a rest-frame instant form of ADM metric gravity, without or with matter, for globally hyperbolic, topologically trivial, asymptotically flat at spatial infinity space-times, in such a way that in the limit of vanishing Newton constant the rest-frame instant form of parametrized Minkowski theories 4  is recovered. This is possible if the allowed 3+1 splittings of the space-time are associated with foliations whose leaves are space-like hyper-surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^{(WSW)}`$ \[named Wigner-Sen-Witten (WSW) surfaces 2 ; $`\tau `$ is a mathematical time labeling the leaves; $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ are curvilinear coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$\] tending, in a direction-independent way, to Minkowski hyper-planes orthogonal to the ADM 4-momentum at spatial infinity 5 . The SPI group of asymptotic symmetries at spatial infinity is reduced to the Poincarè group with the strong ADM Poincarè charges as generators. The 4-metric is assumed to have a well defined direction-independent limit at spatial infinity. It can be shown 3  that in the rest-frame instant form of gravity the Dirac Hamiltonian, after the addition of a suitable surface term and a suitable splitting of the lapse and shift functions in asymptotic and bulk parts, is weakly equal to the weak ADM energy (see also Ref.6 ), which is an integral over 3-space, weakly equal to the strong ADM energy (surface form). In Ref.7 , after the introduction of a new parametrization of tetrad gravity 8 , its rest-frame instant form is introduced. In this form of dynamics we have the extra constraints $`\stackrel{}{P}_{ADM}0`$ , defining the rest frame of the universe like in Christodoulou - Klainermann space-times.

The canonical variables of this re-formulation of tetrad gravity are 3 boost parameters $`\phi _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, 3 angles $`\alpha _{(a)}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, the bulk parts $`n(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`n_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ of the lapse and shift functions, cotriads $`{}_{}{}^{3}e_{(a)r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^{(WSW)}`$ and the 16 conjugate momenta. There are 14 first class constraints: 7 are given by the vanishing of the boost, lapse and shift momenta; 6 are the generators of rotations and passive 3-diffeomorphisms and the last one is the super-hamiltonian constraint. This last constraint is the generator of the Hamiltonian gauge transformations which modify an allowed 3+1 splitting of space-time into another allowed one: as a consequence the physical results are independent from the choice of the 3+1 splitting. It can be shown 3  that the super-hamiltonian constraint is an equation for the determination of the conformal factor $`\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=det({}_{}{}^{3}g(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }))^{1/12}`$ of the 3-metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$, namely it has to be interpreted as the Lichnerowicz equation.

By means of a point Shanmugadhasan canonical transformation 9  13 constraints (with the exception of the super-hamiltonian one) become momenta of the new canonical basis (Abelianization of the first class constraints). The conjugate variables are 13 Abelianized gauge variables (describing generalized inertial effects). The canonical basis is completed with i) the conformal factor $`\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ (to be determined by the Lichnerowicz equation) and $`\pi _\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$; ii) two (non-tensorial) conjugate pairs $`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`\overline{a}=1,2`$, of Dirac observables (DO; the deterministically predictable degrees of freedom of the gravitational field, describing generalized tidal effects). See Refs.3 ; 7 ; 10  for the interpretational problems.

By adding 14 suitable gauge fixing constraints (one of them must be $`\pi _\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$), we get a completely fixed 3-orthogonal Hamiltonian gauge in which the 3-metric is diagonal. It corresponds, on the solutions of Einstein’s equations, to a unique non-harmonic 4-coordinate system 2 . In this radiation gauge all 4-tensors are expressed only in terms of the two pairs of conjugate DO $`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, $`\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. In particular we get $`{}_{}{}^{3}g_{rs}^{}=\delta _{rs}\varphi ^4exp(\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}_{\overline{a}}\gamma _{\overline{a}r}r_{\overline{a}})`$, where the $`\gamma _{\overline{a}r}`$’s are suitable constants. The DO $`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ replace the two polarizations of the harmonic TT gauge. Let us remark that in absence of a background we do not have a theory of a spin 2 wave propagating over Minkowski space-time but a genuine Einstein space-time.

It can be shown 2  that in the new canonical basis the solution of the 6 rotation and super-momentum constraints reduces to solve a set of quasi-linear partial differential equations of elliptic type. Instead the Lichnerowicz equation becomes a in-tractable integro-differential equation for $`\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. Also the bulk lapse and shift functions are determined by integral equations.

Then, without never introducing a background 4-metric, we make a weak field approximation and a Hamiltonian linearization by systematically discarding terms of order $`O(r_{\overline{a}}^2)`$ in the Lichnerowicz equation and $`O(r_{\overline{a}}^3)`$ in the weak ADM energy.

A) We assume $`|r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|<<1`$ on each WSW hyper-surface and $`|_ur_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|\frac{1}{L}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, $`|_u_vr_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|\frac{1}{L^2}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, where $`L`$ is a big enough characteristic length interpretable as the reduced wavelength $`\lambda /2\pi `$ of the resulting gravitational waves. Since the conjugate momenta $`\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ have the dimensions of $`\frac{action}{L^3}`$, i.e. of $`\frac{k}{L}`$ with $`k=\frac{c^3}{16\pi G}`$, we assume $`|\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|\frac{k}{L}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, $`|_u\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|\frac{k}{L^2}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, $`|_u_v\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })|\frac{k}{L^3}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$. Therefore, $`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and $`\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ are slowly varying over the length L (for $`r_{\overline{a}},\pi _{\overline{a}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ we get the void space-times of Ref.3 ). It can be shown 2  that the Riemann tensor of our space-time is of order $`\frac{1}{Lk}O(\pi _{\overline{a}})=\frac{1}{L^2}O(r_{\overline{a}})^2`$, where $``$ is the mean radius of curvature. Therefore the requirements of the weak field approximation are satisfied: i) $`𝒜=O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, if $`𝒜`$ is the amplitude of the gravitational wave; ii) $`\frac{L}{}=O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, namely $`\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }<<`$.

B) We also assume $`q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=2ln\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, $`_uq(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\frac{1}{L}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, $`_u_vq(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\frac{1}{L^2}O(r_{\overline{a}})`$, so that we get $`\varphi (\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=e^{q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })/2}1+\frac{1}{2}q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2)`$ for the conformal factor. The Lichnerowicz equation becomes the linear partial differential equation $`\mathrm{}q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}_{u\overline{a}}\gamma _{\overline{a}u}_u^2r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+\frac{1}{L^2}O(r_{\overline{a}}^2)`$ for $`q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$, whose solution vanishing at spatial infinity is

$$q(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}\underset{u\overline{a}}{}\gamma _{\overline{a}u}d^3\sigma _1\frac{_{1u}^2r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{4\pi |\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1|}+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2).$$
(1)
Then we are able to solve the quasi-linear partial differential equations equivalent to the 6 rotation and super-momentum constraints. Their solution implies that the cotriad momenta have the following expression in terms of DO’s

$`{}_{}{}^{3}\pi _{(a)}^{r}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=\sqrt{3}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}r}\delta _{(a)}^r\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}[1\delta _{(a)}^r]{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}u}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}u}[12(\delta _{ru}+\delta _{au})]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{(\sigma ^u)^2}}{\displaystyle _{\sigma ^r}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma _1^r{\displaystyle _{\sigma ^a}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\sigma _1^a\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\sigma _1^r\sigma _1^a\sigma ^{kr,a})+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2),`$
with the restriction $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\sigma ^r\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=0`$, $`r=1,2,3`$. Hamilton equations are compatible with these restrictions if we also have $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\sigma ^rr_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=0`$.

The integral equations for the lapse and shift functions yield the following solutions \[the signature of the 4-metric is $`ϵ(+)`$ with $`ϵ=\pm 1`$\] $`N(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵ+n(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵ+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2)`$, $`N_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=n_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵ{}_{}{}^{4}g_{\tau r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and

$`n_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^r}}({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{3}\pi G}{c^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}v}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}v}[{\displaystyle \underset{ua,ua}{}}[12(\delta _{uv}+\delta _{av})]{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\sigma ^u}}d\sigma _1^u{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\sigma ^a}}d\sigma _1^a{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1^u}^{\mathrm{}}}d\sigma _2^u{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1^a}^{\mathrm{}}}d\sigma _2^a{\displaystyle \frac{^2\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\sigma _2^u\sigma _2^a\sigma _2^{ku,a})}{(\sigma _2^v)^2}}|_{\sigma _2^k=\sigma ^k}`$ (3)
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{ur}{}}[12(\delta _{uv}+\delta _{rv})]{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\sigma ^r}}d\sigma _1^r{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\sigma ^u}}d\sigma _1^u{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1^r}^{\mathrm{}}}d\sigma _2^r{\displaystyle _{\sigma _1^u}^{\mathrm{}}}d\sigma _2^u{\displaystyle \frac{^2\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\sigma _2^r\sigma _2^u\sigma _2^{kr,u})}{(\sigma _2^v)^2}}|_{\sigma _2^k=\sigma ^k}])+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2).`$
After the solution of all the constraints (super-hamiltonian one included), the 4-metric of our linearized space-time, in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^{(WSW)}`$-adapted coordinates, in our 3-orthogonal gauge, becomes (the form of a perturbation of the Minkowski metric in Cartesian coordinates is used only to visualize the deviations from special relativity) $`{}_{}{}^{4}g_{AB}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })={}_{}{}^{4}\eta _{AB}^{}+{}_{}{}^{4}h_{AB}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. We have $`{}_{}{}^{4}h_{\tau \tau }^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=0+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2)`$, $`{}_{}{}^{4}h_{\tau r}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=ϵn_r(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ and

$`{}_{}{}^{4}h_{rs}^{}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2ϵ}{\sqrt{3}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}\left[\gamma _{\overline{a}r}r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{u}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}u}{\displaystyle d^3\sigma _1\frac{_{1u}^2r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{4\pi |\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1|}}\right]\delta _{rs}+O(r_{\overline{a}}^2).`$ (4)
As said the Hamiltonian is the weak ADM energy. After the solution of all the constraints its quadratic part in the DO’s is \[see Eq.(2.15) of Ref.2  for the xpression of the kernel $`𝒯_{(a)r}^{(o)u}(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1`$\]

$`E_{ADM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi G}{c^3}}{\displaystyle d^3\sigma \underset{\overline{a}}{}\left[\pi _{\overline{a}}^2(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })+\underset{\overline{a}\overline{b}}{}\underset{rs}{}\gamma _{\overline{a}r}\gamma _{\overline{b}s}d^3\sigma _1d^3\sigma _2\underset{u}{}𝒯_{(a)r}^{(o)u}(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)𝒯_{(a)s}^{(o)u}(\stackrel{}{\sigma },\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)\pi _{\overline{b}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_2)\right]}`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle }d^3\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}u}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}u}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^r}}{\displaystyle }d^3\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{_{1u}^2r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{4\pi |\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1|}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}\left(_rr_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}r}_rr_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\right)^2`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{a}\overline{b}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{u}{}}\gamma _{\overline{a}r}_rr_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\gamma _{\overline{b}u}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\sigma ^r}}{\displaystyle }d^3\sigma _1{\displaystyle \frac{_{1u}^2r_{\overline{b}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1)}{4\pi |\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\sigma }_1|}}]+O(r_{\overline{a}}^3).`$
The rest-frame condition, i.e. the vanishing of the weak ADM 3-momentum, is $`P_{ADM}^r=d^3\sigma _{\overline{c}}\pi _{\overline{c}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })_rr_{\overline{c}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$. Since we are in an instant form of the dynamics both the ADM 3-momentum and angular momentum ($`J_{ADM}^{rs}=d^3\sigma _{\overline{c}}\pi _{\overline{c}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })(\sigma ^r_s\sigma ^s_r)r_{\overline{c}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$) have the same form as in a free theory. Instead the ADM energy and boosts have a complicated form. Notwithstanding this fact, the study of the Hamilton equations for the DO’s imply 2  that, even if we are not in a harmonic gauge, the $`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$ satisfy the wave equation

$$\mathrm{}r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })\stackrel{}{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(6)
A class of solutions of the Hamilton equations vanishing correctly at spatial infinity, satisfing the rest frame condition $`P_{ADM}^r=0`$ and every restriction, is

$`r_{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=`$ (7)
$`=C_{\overline{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{(k_1k_2k_3)^2e^{\stackrel{}{k}^2}}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\left[e^{i(|\stackrel{}{k}|\tau \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}+e^{i(|\stackrel{}{k}|\tau \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}\right]}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4C_{\overline{a}}}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^6}{^2\sigma _1^2\sigma _2^2\sigma _3}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+|\stackrel{}{\sigma }|^2\tau ^2)}{[1+(|\stackrel{}{\sigma }|+\tau )^2][1+(|\stackrel{}{\sigma }|\tau )^2]}},`$
$`\pi _{\overline{a}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=i{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{(k_1k_2k_3)^2}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}e^{\stackrel{}{k}^2}|\stackrel{}{k}|}`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{b}}{}}A_{\overline{a}\overline{b}}^1(\stackrel{}{k})C_{\overline{b}}\left[e^{i(|\stackrel{}{k}|\tau \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}e^{i(|\stackrel{}{k}|\tau \stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\sigma })}\right].`$
It describes standing waves and the two constants $`C_{\overline{1}}`$, $`C_{\overline{2}}`$ have to be expressed in terms of the two boundary constants $`M=E_{ADM}`$, $`S=|\stackrel{}{J}_{ADM}|`$, defining the mass and spin of the post-Minkowskian space-time. In absence of matter, the rest-frame condition destroys the transversality property of the TT harmonic gauge plane waves.

In Ref.2 , after a study of both the geodesic equation and the geodesic deviation equation in our gauge, we solve the latter equation numerically for a sphere of test particles at rest around the origin of the 3-coordinates on a WSW hyper-surface for the previous solution. We obtain the two 3-dimensional deformation patterns replacing the usual 2-dimensional ones for the polarization in the TT harmonic gauge: i) in figure 1 there is the deformation pattern for the case $`C_{\overline{1}}0`$, $`C_{\overline{2}}=0`$, namely for $`r_{\overline{1}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$, $`r_{\overline{2}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=0`$; ii) in figure 2 that for the case $`C_{\overline{1}}=0`$, $`C_{\overline{2}}0`$, namely for $`r_{\overline{1}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })=0`$, $`r_{\overline{2}}(\tau ,\stackrel{}{\sigma })0`$. In the two figures are reported the snapshots at three different times ($`t=1,0.5,0`$) of the sphere of particles originally at rest (bottom) and the time evolution (from $`t=3`$ to $`t=3`$) of the six particles at the intersection of the three axes and the sphere of particle (top), whose initial 3-coordinates are $`(1,0,0)`$ and $`(1,0,0)`$ on the $`x`$-axis, $`(0,1,0)`$ and $`(0,1,0)`$ on the $`y`$-axis, $`(0,0,1)`$ and $`(0,0,1)`$ on the $`z`$-axis, respectively. Only the $`i`$ coordinates are reported for the two particles on the $`i`$ axis, since they remain on it.

Let us remark that till now we have a treatment of the generation of gravitational waves from a compact localized source of size $`R`$ and mean internal velocity $`v`$ only 11  for nearly Newtonian slow motion sources for which $`v<<c`$, $`\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }>>R`$: outgoing gravitational waves are observed in the radiation zone (far field, $`r>>\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }`$), while deep in the near zone ($`R<r<<\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }`$), for example $`r1000\frac{\lambda }{2\pi }`$, vacuum Newtonian gravitation theory is valid. On the contrary with our approach in suitable 4-coordinates we are going to obtain a weak field approximation but with fast relativistic motion in the source subject to the restriction that the total invariant mass and the mass currents are compatible with the weak field requirement. This is enough to get relativistic results conceptually equivalent to the re-summation of the post-Newtonian expansion. Therefore the results about background-independent gravitational waves in post-Minkowskian space-times open the possibility, after the introduction of matter, to study the emission of gravitational waves from relativistic sources without any kind of post-Newtonian approximation. For instance this is the case for the relativistic motion (but still in the weak field regime) of the binaries before the beginning of the final inspiral phase: it is known that in this phase the post-Newtonian approximation does not work and that, till now, only numerical gravity may help. In a future paper we will add a relativistic perfect fluid, described by suitable Lagrangian 12  or Eulerian 13  variables, to tetrad gravity, we will define a Hamiltonian linearization of the system in our completely fixed 3-orthogonal gauge, we will find the Hamilton equations for the DO’s both of the gravitational field and of the fluid, we will find the relativistic version of the Newton and gravito-magnetic action-at-a-distance potentials and of the generalized tidal effects acting inside the fluid and finally, by using a multipolar expansion, we will find the relativistic counterpart of the post-Newtonian quadrupole emission formula.

Moreover we will have to explore whether our Hamiltonian approach is suitable for doing Hamiltonian numerical gravity on the full non-linearized theory.