1: \documentstyle[12pt,a4wide]{article}

2: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

3: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

4: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

5: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

6: \newcommand{\bean}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

7: \newcommand{\rhobf}{\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

8: \newcommand{\eean}{\end{eqnarray*}}

9: \font\upright=cmu10 scaled\magstep1

10: \font\sans=cmss10

11: \newcommand{\ssf}{\sans}

12: \newcommand{\stroke}{\vrule height8pt width0.4pt depth-0.1pt}

13: \newcommand{\Z}{\hbox{\upright\rlap{\ssf Z}\kern 2.7pt {\ssf Z}}}

14: \newcommand{\ZZ}{\Z\hskip -10pt \Z_2}

15: \newcommand{\C}{{\rlap{\rlap{C}\kern 3.8pt\stroke}\phantom{C}}}

16: \newcommand{\R}{\hbox{\upright\rlap{I}\kern 1.7pt R}}

17: \newcommand{\CP}{\C{\upright\rlap{I}\kern 1.5pt P}}

18: \newcommand{\PP}{\hbox{\upright\rlap{I}\kern 1.5pt P}}

19: \newcommand{\half}{\frac{1}{2}}

20: \newcommand{\identity}{{\upright\rlap{1}\kern 2.0pt 1}}

21: \newcommand{\bm}{\boldmath}

22: \newcommand{\pibf}{\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

23: \newcommand{\taubf}{\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

24: \newcommand{\bn}{{\bf n}}

25: \newcommand{\hf}{\frac{1}{2}}

26: \newcommand{\pp}{\Delta}

27: \newcommand{\HH}{\mbox{\hbox{\upright\rlap{I}\kern 1.7pt H}}}

28: \newcommand{\kk}{\kappa}

29: \newcommand{\zb}{{\bar z}}

30: \newcommand{\vp}{\vert\phi\vert}

31: 

32: %%%%%%%If you do not have the msbm fonts, delete the following 10 lines

33: \font\mybb=msbm10 at 11pt

34: \font\mybbb=msbm10 at 17pt

35: \def\bb#1{\hbox{\mybb#1}}

36: \def\bbb#1{\hbox{\mybbb#1}}

37: \def\bZ {\bb{Z}}

38: \def\bR {\bb{R}}

39: \def\bE {\bb{E}}

40: \def\bT {\bb{T}}

41: \def\bM {\bb{M}}

42: \def\bC {\bb{C}}

43: \def\bA {\bb{A}}

44: \def\e  {\epsilon}

45: \def\bbC {\bbb{C}}

46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

47: \renewcommand{\CP}{\bC {\rm P}}

48: \newcommand{\CPP}{\bbC {\rm P}}

49: 

50: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

51: \newcommand{\news}{\setcounter{equation}{0}}

52: \input{epsf}

53: \begin{document}

54: \title{\vskip -70pt

55: \begin{flushright}

56: %{\normalsize UKC/IMS/99/22} \\

57: \end{flushright}\vskip 50pt

58: {\bf \LARGE \bf Q-ball Dynamics }\\[30pt]

59: \author{Richard A. Battye$^{\ \dagger}$ and Paul M. Sutcliffe$^{\ \ddagger}$

60: \\[10pt]

61: \\{\normalsize $\dagger$ {\sl Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical

62: Physics,}}

63: \\{\normalsize {\sl Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge,}}

64: \\{\normalsize {\sl Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, U.K.}}

65: \\{\normalsize {\sl Email : R.A.Battye@damtp.cam.ac.uk}}\\

66: \\{\normalsize $\ddagger$  {\sl Institute of Mathematics, University of Kent at Canterbury,}}\\

67: {\normalsize {\sl Canterbury, CT2 7NZ, U.K.}}\\

68: {\normalsize{\sl Email : P.M.Sutcliffe@ukc.ac.uk}}\\}}

69: \date{March 2000}

70: \maketitle

71: 

72: 

73: \begin{abstract}

74: We investigate the dynamics of Q-balls in one, two and three space dimensions,

75: using numerical simulations of the full nonlinear equations of motion.

76: We find that the dynamics of Q-balls is extremely complex, involving

77: processes such as charge transfer and Q-ball fission.

78:  We present results of simulations which illustrate the salient features of 2-Q-ball interactions

79:  and give qualitative arguments to explain them in terms of the evolution of the time-dependent phases.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: 

83: \newpage

84: \section{Introduction}

85: \news\ \ \ \ \ \

86: One of the most fascinating areas of inter-disciplinary

87: research at the interface between mathematics and physics is the study

88: of {\it solitons}. This word has as many definitions as there are

89: people who study them, but in general terms they are stable, localized energy distributions. From a

90: purely mathematical perspective, solitons are described as

91: extended solutions to a set of hyperbolic or parabolic partial differential

92: equations, which can travel without dissipation at a uniform velocity

93: and maintain, at least asymptotically, their shape during collisions;

94: often these properties of solitons are attributable to the existence of 

95: an infinite number of conserved quantities, connected with the notions integrability,

96: and radiation-free soliton collisions can be constructed.

97: 

98: In the context of particle physics, which is our main interest here,

99:  the usage of the word soliton is less rigorous and any kind of

100:  localized energy distribution falls under this broad umbrella. Only

101:  in very specialised circumstances will soliton collisions not generate

102: radiation and solutions which radiate substantially during, for

103:  example, a highly relativistic 2-soliton collision are included. Of course 

104:  very little exact analytic progress is possible in these more general

105: settings since radiative processes are

106:  notoriously difficult to model analytically, thus numerical simulations

107:  are necessary to probe more complicated situations. The usual

108:  development of  understanding in this subject follows an intricate

109:  interplay between the two, with analytic work putting on solid ground

110:  more qualitative observations from simulations. The domain of

111:  validity of analytic approximations can then be checked and extended

112:  by further simulations. Examples of the classes of solitons which

113:  have been investigated in this way are vortices~\cite{vort}, monopoles~\cite{mon} and skyrmions~\cite{sky}, 

114: whose existence and stability is essentially due to conserved topological currents and charges, 

115: along with energy bounds related to the charge and stable scaling laws.

116: In these examples the topological features constrain the amount of radiation produced

117: in low energy collisions and allows approximations to be applied which ignore the

118: radiative effects.

119: 

120: The subject of this paper is a particular class of solitons known as

121: Q-balls~\cite{lee,coleman}. These are different in many ways to the

122: topological solitons mentioned above. Firstly, they are time-dependent

123: with a rotating internal phase. Secondly, the conserved charge

124: associated with their stability, Noether charge (Q), is

125: not topological and therefore their stability is also a dynamical issue.

126:  As we will see these two features lead to a much more complicated variety of interaction properties

127:  than seen in the study of topological solitons. The main difference is that the charge is quantized in

128:  topological models, it usually being scaled to be an exact integer, whereas we shall see that the  charge Q 

129: can take any value (in a specified range) allowing for the possibility of charge transfer between solitons 

130:  and/or fission during the interaction process.

131: 

132: Although the concepts associated with Q-balls are extremely general and

133: they are likely to exist in a wide variety of physical contexts (for

134: example, see ref.~\cite{lowtemp}), the main motivation for the current

135: study is the recent realization that they are a generic consequence of

136: the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM)~\cite{k2} due to

137: the existence of D-flat directions in the effective potential created

138: by tri-linear couplings. In

139: this context the conserved charge is that associated with the U(1)

140: symmetries of Baryon and Lepton number conservation and the relevant U(1)

141: fields correspond to either squark or slepton particles. Therefore, the

142: Q-balls can be thought of as  condensates of either a large number of squarks or

143: sleptons. It has been suggested that such condensates can be involved

144: in baryogenesis via the Affleck-Dine mechanism~\cite{AD} after an

145: epoch of inflation in the early universe.

146: If this is the case then there are two interesting

147: possibilities. If the Q-balls can avoid evaporation into lighter,

148: stable  particles such as  protons, then it might be possible for them

149: to be important cosmologically as cold dark matter~\cite{KS}. Whereas

150: if they are unstable, they would decay in a non-trivial way

151: into baryons and could  lead

152: to observable isocurvature baryon fluctuations~\cite{EM}.

153: 

154: Underpinning these interesting suggestions are assumptions as to how

155: Q-balls actually interact and it is our intention here to make an

156: exhaustive study of this issue. Our approach will be to identify

157: numerically the important dynamical processes that can occur in

158: general situations of two interacting Q-balls, which we will then

159: explain qualitatively, leaving a more detailed analytic exposition of

160: the dynamics~\cite{BMS} and the cosmological implications to

161: subsequent papers. In the next section we will discuss the basic

162: properties of static U(1) Q-balls. Then we will present a detailed and

163: extensive study of Q-balls on the line. As we will see, many of the

164: properties of interest such as fission and charge transfer are

165: observed in one-dimension and given the simplicity of simulations, it

166: seems sensible to make the most exhaustive study there. In the

167: subsequent sections on planar Q-balls and fully three-dimensional

168: Q-balls we will show to what extent the one-dimensional simulations can

169: be used to understand the dynamics in higher dimensions and what

170: effects are clearly of higher dimensional origin. In a penultimate section

171: we will discuss the interactions of Q-balls with anti-Q-balls which have

172: an equal and opposite rotation, before making a concluding summary

173: in the final section.

174: 

175: We should note that there is a disparate literature~\cite{lit} on

176: Q-balls in which some (but by no means all) of the processes we will discuss  have already

177: been noted, but not necessarily completely understood. In particular

178: we should mention recent work~\cite{greek} which presented results for

179: Q-balls in one and two dimensions. There it was suggested that the

180: right-angle scattering of solitons seen in two-dimensional

181: topological soliton models is also prevalent in these non-topological

182: models. At the relevant points we will point out in what ways we disagree

183: with their explanation of this phenomena, and demonstrate that it is by no means general.

184: 

185: \section{U(1) Q-balls}

186: \news\ \ \ \ \ \

187: 

188: Given our motivation for studying Q-balls it seems sensible

189: to work with the U(1) Goldstone model, although Q-balls can exist in a

190: variety of field theoretic models. To be precise, the model we consider is that of a single complex scalar

191: field $\phi$ in $D=1,2,3$ spatial dimensions with a potential $U(\vp).$

192: Explicitly, the Lagrangian is

193: \be{\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu\phi \partial^\mu\bar\phi-

194: U(\vp)\,,\label{lag}\ee

195: with the key feature being the fact that the potential is only a

196: function of $\vp$.

197: The model has a global $U(1)$ symmetry

198: and the associated conserved Noether current $J_{\mu}$ is given by 

199: \be

200: J_{\mu}={1\over

201: 2i}\left(\bar\phi\partial_{\mu}\phi-\phi\partial_\mu\bar\phi\right)\,,

202: \ee

203: whose covariant conservation $\partial^{\mu}J_{\mu}=0$ leads to the

204: existence of the conserved Noether charge Q, given by

205: \be 

206: Q={1\over 2i}\int\left(\bar\phi\partial_t\phi-\phi\partial_t\bar\phi\right)d^Dx=\int \mbox{Im}(\bar\phi \partial_t\phi) \ d^Dx\,.

207: \label{q}\ee

208: A stationary Q-ball solution has the form

209: \be

210: \phi=e^{i\omega t}f(r)\,,

211: \label{qbform}\ee

212: where  $f(r)$ is a real

213: radial profile function which satisfies the ordinary differential equation

214: \be

215: \frac{d^2f}{dr^2}=\frac{(1-D)}{r}\frac{df}{dr}-\omega^2 f+U'(f)\,,

216: \label{profile}\ee

217: with the boundary conditions that $f(\infty)=0$ and $\frac{df}{dr}(0)=0.$

218: 

219: This equation can either be interpreted as describing the motion of a

220: point particle moving in a potential with friction~\cite{coleman}, or

221: in terms of Euclidean bounce solutions~\cite{k1}; in

222: each case the effective potential being $U_{\rm

223: eff}(f)=\omega^2f^2/2-U(f)$. This  leads to constraints

224: on the potential $U(f)$ and the frequency $\omega$ in order for a Q-ball solution to

225: exist. Firstly, the effective mass of $f$ must be negative. If we

226: consider a potential $U(f)$ which is non-negative and satisfies

227: $U(0)=U'(0)=0$, $U''(0)=\omega_+^2>0$, then one can deduce that

228: $\omega<\omega_+$. Furthermore, the minimum of $U(f)/f^2$ must be

229: attained at some positive value of $f$, say $0<f_0<\infty,$ and existence of

230: the solution requires that $\omega>\omega_-$ where 

231: \be \omega_-^2=2U(f_0)/f_0^2\,.

232: \label{range}\ee

233: Hence,  Q-ball solutions exist for all $\omega$ in the range

234: $\omega_-<|\omega|<\omega_+$. Note (i) that solutions exist for

235: positive and negative values of $\omega$, the negative ones being

236: termed anti-Q-balls, (ii) it is often interesting to think of the

237: Q-balls as being akin to charged bubbles; their profiles being very similar. 

238: 

239: The classical stability of the

240: solutions is a more sensitive issue. For sufficiently large $Q$ these

241: solutions are guaranteed to be stable, as can be seen using the \lq thin wall

242: limit\rq\ \cite{coleman}, where the profile function can be

243: approximated by a smoothed-out step function. For small Q it is

244: necessary to perform a full stability analysis using the second

245: variation of the action. In general, the results depend on the details of the

246: potential, but it can be shown that arbitrarily small Q-balls are

247: stable for certain potentials~\cite{k1}. For a rigorous approach to the

248: classical stability of Q-balls see ref.~\cite{St}

249: and references therein. From the quantum mechanical

250: point of view, the solutions are always stable for large enough $Q$ since the energy per

251: unit charge approaches $\omega_-$, which is always less than that for the $\phi$ particle itself, which

252: is $\omega_{+}$.

253: 

254: In choosing a simple potential which admits Q-balls there are

255:  three natural classes  which have been considered, although there are

256:  obviously many other possibilities,

257: \bea

258: &I&: \ \ U(f)=\alpha_1f^2+\alpha_2f^4+\alpha_3f^6\,,\\

259: &II&: \ \ U(f)=\beta_1f^2+\beta_2f^3+\beta_3f^4\,,\\

260: &III&: \ \ U(f)=\gamma_1f^2(1-\gamma_2\log(\gamma_3 f^2))+\gamma_4f^{2p}\,.

261: \eea

262: In each case it is possible to remove two of the parameters by

263:  rescaling the units of energy and time. Note therefore that the

264:  potentials of type I and II have one free parameter, while potentials

265:  of type III have two free parameters for a fixed value of $p$.

266: 

267: The type I potential is the simplest allowed potential which is a polynomial

268: in $f^2$, while type II is the simplest  which is polynomial in

269: $f$. Finally, those of type III  mimic the D-flat

270: direction in the MSSM. Here $p\ge 6$ is some integer that ensures the 

271: growth of the potential for large $f$, but does not destroy the

272: flatness property for intermediate values of $f.$ We should note that

273: none of these types of potential are the kind which might be

274: associated with a renormalizable quantum field theory, but are typical of

275: effective theories incorporating radiative or finite temperature

276: corrections to a bare potential.

277: 

278: In this paper we will mainly be concerned with the type I potential,

279: although we have also studied the type II case. We should note

280: that although the existence and stability properties of Q-balls with

281: these potentials are somewhat different, the qualitative features of the 

282: dynamics appears to be almost independent of the potential. The reason for this is that the

283: main interaction processes that we will describe, charge transfer  and

284: fission, are due mainly to the time-dependent nature of the solution,

285: rather than the precise profile function.

286: 

287: Explicitly, we shall choose our potential so that

288: \be

289: U(f)=f^2(1+(1-f^2)^2)\,,

290: \label{pot}

291: \ee

292: and therefore in terms of the earlier notation we have that

293: $w_+=2$ and $w_-=\sqrt{2}$, so that stable Q-balls exist

294: for $\sqrt{2}<\omega<2$. To illustrate the important features of Q-ball

295: solutions we shall focus on the case of one dimension where the profile function equation (\ref{profile})

296: can be solved exactly~\cite{lee} to give

297: \be

298: f_\omega(r)=\sqrt{\frac{4-\omega^2}{2+\sqrt{2\omega^2-4}

299: \cosh(2r\sqrt{4-\omega^2})}}\,.

300: \label{pro1d}

301: \ee

302: The associated energy $E_\omega$ and charge $Q_\omega$ can then be

303: computed to be 

304: \be

305: Q_\omega=\sqrt{2}\omega\tanh^{-1}\left(\frac{2-\sqrt{2\omega^2-4}}

306: {\sqrt{2}\sqrt{4-\omega^2}}\right)

307: \,,\quad E_\omega=\frac{\sqrt{4-\omega^2}}{2}

308: +\frac{(\omega^2+2)}{2\omega}Q_\omega.

309: %\tanh^{-1}\bigl(\frac{2-\sqrt{2\omega^2-4}}

310: %{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{4-\omega^2}}\bigr)\,.

311: \label{qe1d}\ee

312: 

313: \begin{figure}[ht]

314: \begin{center}

315: \leavevmode

316: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a01.ps}

317: \caption{The charge $Q$ and energy $E$ as a function of the frequency

318: $\omega.$ } 

319: \label{qvw}

320: \end{center}

321: \end{figure}

322: 

323: In figure~\ref{qvw} we plot the charge $Q_\omega$ and energy

324: $E_\omega$ for $\omega$ in the allowed range  $\sqrt{2}<\omega<2.$

325: and we see that both $Q_\omega$ and  $E_\omega$  are monotonically

326: decreasing functions of $\omega.$ From (\ref{pro1d}) we can deduce that

327: \be

328: f_\omega(0)=\sqrt{{(4-\omega^2)}/{(2+\sqrt{2\omega^2-4)}}}\,,

329: \ee

330: and therefore 

331: $f_\omega(0)$ increases with the charge $Q_\omega$, since it is a decreasing

332: function of $\omega.$ In figure~\ref{evq} we display the energy per unit

333: charge $E_\omega/Q_\omega$ as a function of the charge $Q_\omega$, 

334: from which it can be seen that $E_\omega/Q_\omega$ is a decreasing

335:  function of the charge.

336: Recall that the asymptotic limit as $Q_\omega\rightarrow\infty$ is

337: $E_\omega/Q_\omega=\omega_-=\sqrt{2}.$  

338: Thus, these Q-balls are stable against decay into a number of smaller Q-balls

339: preserving the total charge.

340: \begin{figure}[ht]

341: \begin{center}

342: \leavevmode

343: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a02.ps}

344: \caption{The energy per unit charge $E/Q$ as a 

345: function of the charge $Q.$ }

346: \label{evq}

347: \end{center}

348: \end{figure}

349: 

350: Most of the general properties of Q-balls in any dimension

351: and for differing choices of the potential are captured by this

352:  one-dimensional example, where explicit formulae are available.

353: However, there are some slight differences, for example

354: if $D=3$ then there is a lower bound on the charge of a Q-ball,

355: whereas in the $D=1$ case considered above Q-balls can have an arbitrarily

356: small charge. This is not a generic feature of every potential and,

357: for example, it has been shown that for $D=3$ arbitrarily small Q-balls can be found

358:  with a potential of type II using a `thick

359: wall limit' in ref.~\cite{k1}. These kind of  

360: details are easily determined by solving the profile function

361: equation (\ref{profile}) numerically and a complete treatment of these

362: issues can be found in ref.~\cite{MV}. But, as we have already noted, we

363: don't believe that they are important for the dynamical processes 

364: which we focus on in the subsequent sections.

365: 

366: \vfill\eject

367: 

368: \section{Q-ball dynamics on the line}\news\ \ \ \ \ \

369: 

370: \noindent In this section we shall investigate the dynamics of 

371: Q-balls in one-dimension;  even for $D=1$ we shall see that

372: multi-Q-ball dynamics is a complicated issue, there being a rich variety of

373: phenomena associated with the non-quantization of the charge and the

374: time-dependent phase.

375: 

376: To investigate the dynamics of Q-balls we numerically solve the field

377: equations which follow from the Lagrangian (\ref{lag}) with

378: the potential (\ref{pot}), namely

379: \be

380: \ddot\phi-\nabla^2\phi+2\phi(2-4\vp^2+3\vp^4)=0\,,

381: \label{eom}

382: \ee

383: which is valid for any value of D.

384: The numerical methods we use are simple finite difference

385: schemes involving either second or fourth order accurate

386: spatial derivatives and a second order leapfrog algorithm

387: for the time evolution with 1000 points, the spatial step size $\Delta x=0.1$ 

388: and the time step size $\Delta t=0.02$. We apply absorbing boundary conditions,

389: which allows radiation to leave the grid and therefore simulates an

390: infinite domain (see refs.~\cite{BS,Bat} for details on

391: how to apply these boundary conditions).

392: 

393: As initial conditions to describe two well-separated Q-balls

394: we use the ansatz

395: \be

396: \phi=e^{i\omega_1t+i\alpha}f_{\omega_1}(\vert x+a\vert)

397: +e^{i\omega_2t}f_{\omega_2}(\vert x-a\vert )\,,

398: \label{ansatz1}

399: \ee

400: in one dimension, which can be trivially generalized to higher dimensions.

401: This ansatz describes a Q-ball with frequency $\omega_1$

402: at the position $x=-a$ and a second Q-ball with frequency

403: $\omega_2$ at the position $x=a.$ The $U(1)$ symmetry

404: of the theory means that for a single Q-ball the phase

405: of $\phi$ can be set to zero at $t=0$ without loss

406: of generality. However, for multi-Q-ball configurations only the

407: initial overall phase can be removed and so for a 2-Q-ball

408: configuration the relative phase, $\alpha$, remains as an important

409: parameter. 

410: 

411: The total charge of this configuration is 

412: \be

413: Q=Q_{\omega_1}+Q_{\omega_2}

414: +(\omega_1+\omega_2)\cos\alpha

415: \int_{-\infty}^\infty f_{\omega_1}(\vert x+a\vert)

416: f_{\omega_2}(\vert x-a\vert)\ dx.

417: \label{totalq}

418: \ee

419: The final term in the above expression is exponentially small

420: in the separation parameter $a$, since the profile functions have an 

421: exponential fall-off. However, we see that the relative phase $\alpha$ 

422: does affect the value of the total charge. Thus, strictly speaking, it

423: is not valid to substitute this ansatz into the energy functional to

424: determine how the energy depends on the relative phase, since this would

425: involve comparing configurations with differing values of $Q.$

426: The same remark also applies to any attempt to determine how the

427: potential energy depends upon the relative separation $a,$ which would

428: help to determine the nature of the interaction force between

429: Q-balls. This issue and its resolution using the methods of

430: ref.~\cite{ams} will be discussed in ref.~\cite{BMS}.

431: \begin{figure}[ht]

432: \begin{center}

433: \leavevmode

434: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a03.ps}

435: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 300$,

436: for the parameters $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, $a=4$, $\alpha=0.$ The two

437: Q-balls form a much larger Q-ball, almost stationary at the origin, and

438: the excess is taken away by the fission products: two small Q-balls.} 

439: \label{inphase}

440: \end{center}

441: \end{figure}

442: 

443: To begin with we consider configurations in which the two Q-balls have

444: the same charge, that is $\omega_1=\omega_2=\omega.$  In figure

445: \ref{inphase}, and in all subsequent figures illustrating the dynamics

446: of Q-balls,  we plot the charge density (the integrand in equation

447: (\ref{q})) for the initial conditions and at later times\footnote{We

448: could have made similar plots of the energy density which are not equivalent.

449: We believe the charge density gives a  better

450: representation of the dynamics.}. The

451: parameter values used for this simulation are $\omega=1.5$ and $a=4$,

452: with the Q-balls initially in phase so that $\alpha=0.$ The two Q-balls

453: slowly attract and coalesce to  form one larger Q-ball which has a charge

454: which  is slightly less than the sum of the charges of the two

455: original Q-balls; the charge deficit being  carried away by the fission

456: of two additional Q-balls which, in figure~\ref{inphase}, can just be

457: seen moving away from the almost stationary large Q-ball at the origin. The attraction of the two Q-balls is simple to explain;

458: it being a consequence of the ratio $E/Q$ decreasing as $Q$

459: increases. However, the process of fission is less intuitive and is a

460: novel  concept to those who might have studied the dynamics of

461: topological solitons in an attractive potential. In the

462: topological  case the charge is an integer and so the fission of

463: higher charge solitons can only be achieved when the solitons are

464: moving sufficiently fast for the kinetic energy to overcome the

465: attraction and release a soliton. But here the charge of an isolated Q-ball can have any

466: value, arbitrarily close to zero, and so one might imagine that the

467: energy barrier to  fission at low interaction speeds is small, particularly when the charge is high.

468: 

469: \begin{figure}[ht]

470: \begin{center}

471: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a04.ps}

472: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 100$, for a Q-ball with

473: $Q=8.4$ and a scale distortion $\lambda=1.6.$ Notice that the Q-ball

474: splits up into two equal parts. }

475: \label{largesquash}

476: \end{center}

477: \end{figure}

478: \begin{figure}[ht]

479: \begin{center}

480: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a05.ps}

481: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 3000$, for a Q-ball

482: with $Q=5.6$ and a scale distortion $\lambda=1.6.$ For this lower

483: charge the Q-ball does not fission and the oscillations damp with time.} 

484: \label{smallsquash}

485: \end{center}

486: \end{figure}

487: 

488: The fission of Q-balls is a process which can occur when a Q-ball suffers a

489: large distortion, for example, during a collision. This can be

490: demonstrated by taking a single Q-ball and squashing it by applying the

491: scale transformation 

492: \be x\mapsto \lambda x, \ \ \ \ \phi\mapsto\sqrt{\lambda}\phi\,,

493: \label{squash}

494: \ee 

495: where $\lambda>1$ is a scale factor. The scaling of the $\phi$

496: field is required in order that the charge of the Q-ball is not changed

497: by the scaling. For small enough values of $\lambda$ the Q-ball

498: oscillates, but then eventually returns to the original un-squashed Q-ball

499: corresponding to $\lambda=1$, which is to be expected since  these

500: Q-balls are stable. However, for a sufficiently large distortion the

501: Q-ball will break up into smaller Q-balls. This is illustrated in figure

502: \ref{largesquash}, where we take a Q-ball with charge $Q=8.4$ and

503: perturb it with a scale $\lambda=1.6.$

504: 

505: To consider the efficiency of the fission process as a function of the

506: charge, we define the quantity \be \Delta(Q)=(2E(Q/2)-E(Q))/E(Q) \,,\ee

507: where $E(Q)$ denotes the energy of a Q-ball with charge $Q.$

508: $\Delta(Q)$ is the fractional increase in energy required to allow a

509: charge $Q$ Q-ball to fission into two charge $Q/2$ Q-balls.  This is a

510: monotonically decreasing function of $Q$ with $\Delta(\infty)=0$,

511: with the limit $Q\rightarrow\infty$ being a Bogomolny-like limit in

512: which the energy is proportional to the charge. Thus we expect that

513: the fission of Q-balls  is more easily stimulated when the charge is

514: large.  To verify this we apply the same distortion factor

515: $\lambda=1.6$ as displayed in figure~\ref{largesquash}, but this time

516: we take a smaller Q-ball with charge $Q=5.6$,  and the results are displayed

517: in figure~\ref{smallsquash}. The Q-ball performs a breather-like motion

518: in which two structures initially begin to form but then recombine.

519: This motion persists for many cycles with a slowly decreasing

520: amplitude until it eventually settles down to a configuration which is

521: very close to the original Q-ball without a distortion (the

522: configuration at $t=3000$ is almost identical to the  stationary

523: $Q=5.6$ Q-ball). 

524: 

525: The above expectations of the fission of Q-balls are confirmed by

526: performing simulations, as in figure~\ref{inphase}, with two

527: stationary Q-balls and varying the charge (increasing or decreasing the

528: value of $\omega$). The charge of the additional Q-balls produced decreases

529: as the charge of the initial Q-balls is reduced  and for small enough

530: Q-balls no fission takes place; rather the sole Q-ball formed

531: oscillates for some time, with a decreasing amplitude.

532: 

533: If the two Q-balls are initially Lorentz boosted toward one another, each with a

534: velocity $v$ say, then if $v$ is large enough the two Q-balls can be

535: made to pass through each other. In figure~\ref{boost} we display the

536: charge density  for a simulation with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, $a=10$ and $v=0.3.$

537: \begin{figure}[ht]

538: \begin{center}

539: \leavevmode

540: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a06.ps}

541: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 150$,

542: for the parameters $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, $a=10$, $\alpha=0$,

543: $v=0.3.$ The Q-balls pass through each other at this interaction speed and

544: coalesce at lower speeds.}

545: \label{boost}

546: \end{center}

547: \end{figure}

548: In this case the two Q-balls pass through each other, although they do

549: lose some charge via radiation during the interaction process and

550: their velocities are reduced. For a slightly lower value

551: of the velocity the two Q-balls pass through each other,

552: but do not escape to infinite separation. Rather they subsequently 

553: recombine, forming a stationary Q-ball at the origin and producing two

554: additional Q-balls in the same manner as described above. In figure

555: \ref{position} we plot the positions of the two main Q-balls

556: (determined as the location of the maximum of the charge density) as a function of time for the velocity $v=0.28.$

557: \begin{figure}[ht]

558: \begin{center}

559: \leavevmode

560: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a07.ps}

561: \caption{Q-ball positions as a function of time for an

562: initial velocity of $v=0.28$ and all other parameters as in figure

563: \ref{boost}. We see that the Q-balls do not initially coalesce but have

564: insufficient energy to escape as in the case of $v=0.3$ and eventually

565: coalesce at the second attempt.} 

566: \label{position}

567: \end{center}

568: \end{figure}

569: 

570: To study how the relative phase affects the interaction we consider the

571: same initial configuration used to produce figure~\ref{inphase} except

572: that we set $\alpha=\pi$, so that the two Q-balls are exactly out of phase.

573: In this case the resulting evolution is very different and the two Q-balls

574: simply drift apart with no change in their shape or charge, even

575: though the crude arguments based on $E/Q$ suggest that they should

576: attract. The effects of changing the overall phase are similar in many

577: ways to the overall isospin rotations possible in 2-skyrmion

578: interactions. There it is possible to make the skyrmions attract or

579: repel by an internal SU(2) rotation about the line joining the

580: two soliton centres. Another way of understanding the relative phase

581: is as a current between two charged bubbles, if the Q-balls are thought of as

582: bubbles. The results of this repulsive interaction channel are 

583: displayed in figure~\ref{outphase}.

584: 

585: \begin{figure}[ht]

586: \begin{center}

587: \leavevmode

588: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a08.ps}

589: \caption{As figure~\ref{inphase} except $\alpha=\pi.$ This is the

590: repulsive channel of Q-ball interactions.}

591: \label{outphase}

592: \end{center}

593: \end{figure}

594: \begin{figure}[ht]

595: \begin{center}

596: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a09.ps}

597: \caption{As figure~\ref{inphase} except $\alpha=\pi/9.$ Notice the

598: novel process of charge transfer where the soliton in the left hand

599: half plane loses charge to the one in the right hand half

600: plane. Clearly the one which has lost charge is moving faster than the

601: other.} 

602: \label{piby4}

603: \end{center}

604: \end{figure}

605: \begin{figure}[ht]

606: \begin{center}

607: \leavevmode

608: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a10.ps}

609: \caption{The charge $Q_{\rm half}$ on the half-line $x>0$ as a function

610: of time for initial relative phases $\alpha=\pi/9,\pi/4,\pi/2.$}

611: \label{qhalf}

612: \end{center}

613: \end{figure}

614: 

615: As we have seen, for $\alpha=0$ the Q-balls attract and for

616: $\alpha=\pi$ they repel. However, for intermediate values of $\alpha$

617: the dynamics is much more complicated. We display the evolution for

618: $\alpha=\pi/9$ in figure~\ref{piby4}, illustrating a novel process

619: which we shall call charge transfer. The Q-balls initially move very

620: slightly towards each other, but they eventually repel and separate off

621: to infinity. The most interesting aspect is that the charge of the

622: first Q-ball has clearly decreased and that of the second Q-ball has

623: increased, despite the fact that the Q-balls remain two distinct

624: objects with only a very small overlap throughout the time evolution.

625: As they separate the smaller Q-ball moves at a greater speed than the

626: larger one.

627: 

628: In figure~\ref{qhalf} we plot the total charge $Q$ in the

629:  right half of the line, $x>0,$

630: as a function of time for the simulation displayed in figure~\ref{piby4},

631:  where $\alpha=\pi/9$,

632: and also for the cases $\alpha=\pi/4$ and $\alpha=\pi/2.$ We see that as the

633: relative phase is decreased the rate at which the charge transfer initially

634: takes place is reduced but the total charge transfered is increased. The

635: in-phase limit $\alpha=0,$ where the two Q-balls form a single larger Q-ball,

636: is a smooth limit if we interpret it as a total charge transfer. 

637: In the out-of-phase limit $\alpha=\pi$, as we have already seen,

638: there is no charge transfer.

639: If $\alpha<0$ then the same amount of charge is transferred as in the case

640: of a phase $-\alpha$, but this time it is the Q-ball in the left half of the

641: interval which increases in charge.

642: 

643: It may seem surprising that there is charge transfer, but this

644: result can be understood, at least qualitatively, by considering a

645: simplified mechanical analogue of the field dynamics associated

646: with two well-separated Q-balls.

647: Consider two equal charge Q-balls, fixed at the positions $x=\pm a$, 

648: then the ansatz (\ref{ansatz1}) may

649: be written in the form

650: \be

651: \phi=e^{i\theta_1}f(\vert x+a\vert)+e^{i\theta_2}f(\vert x-a\vert)\,,

652: \label{ansatz2}

653: \ee

654: where $\theta_1\equiv\theta_1(t),\theta_2\equiv\theta_2(t)$ are the time-dependent phases of the two Q-balls

655: and $f$ is a profile function.

656: To leading order in the separation $a$, corresponding to the

657: limit of large separation, the  contribution to the

658: Lagrangian is given by 

659: \be

660: {\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}M(\dot\theta_1^2+\dot\theta_2^2)

661: -\epsilon^2\cos(\theta_1-\theta_2)-4M\,,

662: \label{mech}

663: \ee

664: where 

665: $M=\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(\vert x\vert)^2\ dx$

666:  is treated as a constant moment of inertia and

667: $\epsilon^2= 4\int_{-\infty}^\infty f(\vert x+a\vert)f(\vert x-a\vert)\ dx$

668: is a small interaction coefficient. To derive this Lagrangian we have made

669: the assumption that the profile function is time independent, which obviously

670: has a very limited range of validity as we shall discuss further

671: below; it is nonetheless instructive.

672: The equations of motion which follow from (\ref{mech}) are

673: \be

674: \ddot\theta_1+\ddot\theta_2=0\,, \ \ \

675: \ddot\theta_1-\ddot\theta_2=\frac{2\epsilon^2}{M}\sin(\theta_1-\theta_2)\,.

676: \label{phasedynamics}

677: \ee

678: The first of these equations simply represents the fact that

679: the sum of the rotation frequencies $\dot\theta_1+\dot\theta_2$ is conserved, and

680: the second equation determines the dynamics of the relative phase.

681: There are symmetric solutions, $\theta_1=\theta_2$, and 

682: $\theta_1=\theta_2+ \pi$, where the phase difference remains constant,

683: corresponding to the two Q-balls being exactly

684: in-phase or exactly out-of-phase for all time, but for general values

685: of the initial relative phase, $\alpha=\theta_1(0)-\theta_2(0)$,

686:  there will be a non-trivial time dependence.

687: For all $\alpha\in(0,\pi)$ there will be an initial positive acceleration

688: in the relative phase, so that $\dot\theta_1>\dot\theta_2$ for 

689: small $t>0.$ Thus the first Q-ball will have a higher frequency than

690: the second Q-ball and, since we know that the charge of a Q-ball decreases with increasing frequency,

691: then this corresponds to the charge of the first Q-ball decreasing and the

692: charge of the second Q-ball increasing. This simple analysis also predicts that

693: the initial rate of charge transfer will be greatest for a relative phase

694: $\alpha=\pi/2$ and will decrease as $\alpha$ decreases.

695: This agrees with the observation we made earlier by an examination

696: of the plots in figure~\ref{qhalf} for small times. 

697: 

698: However, what we are clearly not able to study with our simple

699: restricted mechanical model is the  whole charge transfer process for

700: later times. One reason for this is that  we assumed that the profile

701: function $f$ was fixed when of course we know that it is highly

702: dependent on the rotation frequency (see equation (\ref{pro1d})). In

703: particular this dependence constrains the rotation frequencies to

704: satisfy $\omega_-<\dot\theta_1,\dot\theta_2<\omega_+$ and as either of

705: these limits are approached our simple model breaks down. One might be

706: tempted to improve our simple model to deal with this issue by

707: including the known frequency dependence of the profile function, but

708: it is not obvious how to do this since the profile function depends

709: upon the frequency $\dot\theta$ so using such an ansatz in the

710: Lagrangian would lead to a Lagrangian for a mechanical system with

711: second order derivatives $\ddot\theta$ and hence a fourth order

712: equation of motion. Furthermore, we have assumed that the positions of

713: the Q-balls are fixed when in fact the results of the full simulations

714: show that they eventually drift apart. This effect will also serve to

715: cut-off the relative phase dynamics since it will correspond to

716: reducing the $\epsilon^2$ coefficient in our simple mechanical model. 

717: 

718: In summary, we have shown that a simple  mechanical model is useful in

719: understanding the qualitative features of the charge transfer process,

720: but a more sophisticated analysis is required to explain the

721: quantitative behaviour found. The analysis of relative phase dynamics

722: in mechanical systems, such as discrete breathers,  has been studied in

723: some detail and the phase space trajectories are well understood

724: \cite{ams}. These methods can be extended to study

725: the more complicated relative phase dynamics, and hence charge transfer, 

726: of Q-balls~\cite{BMS}.

727: 

728: \begin{figure}[ht]

729: \begin{center}

730: \leavevmode

731: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a11.ps}

732: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 450$ for the parameters

733: $\omega_1=1.8, \omega_2=1.5, a=3, \alpha=0.$ The two Q-balls repel with

734: virtually no charge transfer since they never get close enough.} 

735: \label{unequal}

736: \end{center}

737: \end{figure}

738:    \begin{figure}[ht]

739: \begin{center}

740: \leavevmode

741: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{a12.ps}

742: \caption{The charge density at times $0\le t\le 95$ for the 

743: parameter values $\omega_1=1.8, \omega_2=1.5, a=6, \alpha=0, v=0.2.$

744: The non-zero relative velocity allows the interaction and charge transfer

745: takes place.}

746: \label{unequalboost}

747: \end{center}

748: \end{figure}

749: 

750: So far we have only considered initial conditions in which the two

751: Q-balls have the same charge. For two Q-balls which have different charges

752:  the initial relative phase does not have the same importance as for

753: Q-balls of the same charge, due to the fact that the Q-balls have

754: different frequencies and so the initial relative phase will not be

755: preserved, even with no interaction. This can easily been seen using

756: the simple mechanical system above. 

757: 

758: In figure~\ref{unequal} we plot the charge density for the initial

759: conditions  $\omega_1=1.8, \omega_2=1.5, a=3, \alpha=0.$ It can be

760: seen that the two Q-balls repel and there is virtually  no charge

761: transfer since the solitons never get close enough for the charge

762: transfer process to become important. Similarly, if a non-zero

763: relative phase is introduced then virtually no charge transfer takes

764: place, although the rate of separation does vary very

765: slightly. However, if the Q-balls are Lorentz boosted towards each

766: other with a sufficiently large velocity $v$ so that they collide and

767: pass through each other, it is possible to induce charge transfer as

768: illustrated in figure~\ref{unequalboost} for the parameters

769: $\omega_1=1.8, \omega_2=1.5, a=6, \alpha=0, v=0.2.$  The amount of

770: charge transferred depends on the value of the relative phase as the

771: Q-balls collide, as can be verified by changing the initial phase.  It

772: can be checked that this is equivalent to varying the initial

773: separation, since the time to collision is then altered and hence the

774: relative phase is different by an amount equal to the change in

775: collision time multiplied by the frequency difference. Just using the

776: simple mechanical analogy, one might have naively expected that an

777: initial difference in the rotation speeds  would be on

778:  a similar footing to an

779: initial phase difference, but this is clearly not the case. It is

780: evident that there is a non-trivial interaction between the relative

781: dynamics of the Q-balls and the charge transfer process.

782: 

783: \section{Planar Q-balls}\news\ \ \ \ \ \

784: 

785: The main features of one-dimensional Q-balls which we have described in

786: the previous section, such as charge transfer and the dependence of

787: the interaction force on the relative phase, carry through to the

788: two-dimensional case. We demonstrate this by again performing

789: numerical simulations of the field equations via an equivalent finite

790: difference scheme to the one dimensional case. We find that a grid

791: containing $200^2$ points with $\Delta x=0.2$ and $\Delta t=0.05$  gives

792: an accurate representation of the dynamics in this case.  In

793: contrast to the one-dimensional case  an exact solution is not known

794: for the profile function in two-dimensions, but it is a simple matter

795: to numerically obtain the profile function using a standard shooting

796: method.  

797: 

798: One might assume that head-on collisions of Q-balls with a small charge

799: (for example, $\omega=1.6$) are equivalent to those in  one-dimension

800: with attraction, repulsion and charge transfer taking place  as before

801: and indeed this is the case as we will discuss later.  The

802: phase-dependent force is, however, a more general concept which we  will

803: illustrate in fully two dimensional interactions with a non-zero impact

804: parameter.  In particular, we consider the collision of two equal

805: charge Q-balls ($\omega_1=\omega_2=1.6$) with a non-zero impact

806: parameter, where the initial positions of the Q-balls are

807: $(x_1,x_2)=\pm(6,3)$, each is boosted along the $x_1$-axis with a

808: velocity $v=0.05$, and the relative phase $\alpha$  is set to zero. In

809: figure~\ref{d10} we plot the charge density for this interaction  at

810: $t=0,104,112,3200.$ 

811: 

812: \begin{figure}

813: \begin{center}

814: \leavevmode

815: %\ \vskip -3cm

816: \epsfxsize=7cm\epsffile{a13.ps}

817: %\ \vskip -2cm

818:  \caption{The charge density at $t=0,104,112,3200$ for two Q-balls with

819: $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.6$, positions $\pm(6,3)$, velocities $v=0.05$, and

820: relative phase $\alpha=0.$ This interaction with non-zero impact parameter 

821: shows the attractive potential of the two Q-balls, which coalesce into a

822: larger Q-ball.}

823: \label{d10}

824: \end{center}

825: \end{figure}

826: 

827: \begin{figure}

828: \begin{center}

829: \leavevmode

830: %\ \vskip -2cm

831: \epsfxsize=7cm

832: \epsffile{a14.ps}

833: \ \vskip 0cm \caption{The charge density at $t=0,104,140,200$ for all

834: parameters as 

835: in figure~\ref{d10} except $\alpha=\pi.$ We now see the repulsive interaction

836: of the two Q-balls as in the one-dimensional case, where it could only be observed through head-on collisions.}

837: \label{d11}

838: \end{center}

839: \end{figure}

840: 

841: \begin{figure}

842: \begin{center}

843: \leavevmode

844: %\ \vskip -1cm

845: \epsfxsize=7cm\epsffile{a15.ps}

846: %\ \vskip -2cm

847:  \caption{As figure~\ref{d11} except $\alpha=\pi/4.$ Charge 

848: transfer takes place in an almost analogous way to the one-dimensional 

849: interactions.}

850: \label{d09}

851: \end{center}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: \begin{figure}

855: \begin{center}

856: \leavevmode

857: \ \vskip -3cm

858: \epsfxsize=12cm

859: \centerline{\epsffile{a16.ps}}

860: \caption{The charge density at $t=0,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,52$ for two Q-balls

861: with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, positions $\pm(10,0)$, velocities $v=0.4$ and

862: relative phase $\alpha=0.$ The two Q-ball under go a complicated interaction 

863: process which eventually leads to them being scattered at right angles to the 

864: incident direction.}

865: \label{d05}

866: \end{center}

867: \end{figure}

868: 

869: As in the one-dimensional case (where collisions are head-on) the two Q-balls

870: attract and form a single larger Q-ball, although the large Q-ball has some 

871: angular momentum due to the fact that the collision was not head-on.

872: Figure~\ref{d11} displays the results of the same simulation except

873: that the two Q-balls are exactly out-of-phase, that is $\alpha=\pi,$

874: where the Q-balls clearly repel. Finally, in figure~\ref{d09}

875: we display the simulation with a relative phase $\alpha=\pi/4$, where

876: there is an initial attraction, followed charge transfer and 

877: finished off by a repulsion which forces the two Q-balls apart. We conclude,

878: therefore, that while the head-on collisions of small Q-balls in two-dimensions

879: can be thought of as being effectively one-dimensional, the same 

880: dynamical processes are active in the case of a non-zero impact parameter.

881: 

882: Next, we turn our attention to head-on collisions of Q-balls with

883: higher charge,  where --- based on the intuition of the

884: one-dimensional interactions --- one would expect things to be

885: slightly different.  We take two Q-balls with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$

886: at positions $(x_1,x_2)=\pm(10,0)$ with each Lorentz boosted towards

887: the other with a velocity $v=0.4.$ Figure~\ref{d05} displays the

888: charge density at $t=0,20,24,28,32,36,40,44,52$ for the in-phase case,

889: $\alpha=0.$ As can be seen from the figure, there is a very

890: complicated interaction process involving the charge being strongly

891: deformed and the emission of some radiation. Eventually, two Q-balls

892: emerge from the  interaction region at right angles to the initial

893: direction of approach.  Naively one may think that this is a simple

894: $90^\circ$ scattering process as seen in a number of topological

895: soliton  models~\cite{vort,mon,sky} and suggested for Q-balls  in

896: ref.~\cite{greek}\footnote{We should note that the work presented in

897: ref.~\cite{greek} uses a potential of type II, not type I as used in

898: our work, but that the qualitative nature of

899: this process is independent of

900: the choice of potential.}. However, the scattering of Q-balls is a  complicated

901: dynamical issue rather than being topological, and the underlying

902: mechanisms are very different. In particular, there is no associated

903: geometry of a moduli space which forces the Q-balls to scatter at right

904: angles.  Rather, during collisions the Q-matter becomes highly

905: deformed with huge charge densities and it is this deformation, and

906: its associated pressures, that lies at the heart of the interaction

907: process and the fission of Q-balls in the plane perpendicular to the

908: incident direction.  As we demonstrated in the one-dimensional case, a

909: sufficient distortion of a Q-ball will induce fission, and it this same

910: process which is responsible for this more complicated phenomena in

911: two-dimensions.

912: 

913: This point can be illustrated immediately by considering the same

914: scattering process, but this time we set the Q-balls to be exactly

915: out-of-phase, that is $\alpha=\pi$ with the results displayed in 

916: figure~\ref{d13}. Although the initial conditions look identical

917: in figures \ref{d05} and \ref{d13}, the evolution is clearly very

918: different. As the two Q-balls are now in a repulsive phase

919: the Q-matter gets distorted in a very different way. Rather

920: than forming a single structure, as in figure~\ref{d05}c, the two

921: individual Q-balls never actually coalesce because of the repulsive 

922: interaction, getting squashed separately and this distortion

923: induces the fission of each. Thus, each Q-ball splits into two and the

924: two pairs repel each other, producing four Q-balls in all, which are

925: clearly visible in figure~\ref{d13}g. For this particular set of 

926: initial parameters the Q-ball pairs do not have enough energy to escape

927: each others attraction and eventually recombine leaving

928: two Q-balls which move off to infinity. By, for example, increasing the

929: initial velocity it is found that the four Q-balls can be produced in such

930: a way that they all separately move off to infinity without

931: any subsequent recombination. If the initial velocity is small enough

932: then the distortion is not large enough to induce fission and the

933: two Q-balls eventually repel keeping their individual structure intact.

934: 

935: \begin{figure}

936: \begin{center}

937: \leavevmode

938: \ \vskip -3cm

939: \epsfxsize=12cm

940: \centerline{\epsffile{a17.ps}}

941: \caption{As figure~\ref{d05} except $\alpha=\pi.$ The two Q-balls come together,

942: but never coalesce. Due to their large charge,

943:  distortion of the Q-matter takes place

944: inducing the fission of four Q-balls in the plane perpendicular to the incident

945: direction.}

946: \label{d13}

947: \end{center}

948: \end{figure}

949: 

950: \begin{figure}

951: \begin{center}

952: \leavevmode

953: \ \vskip -3cm

954: \epsfxsize=12cm

955: \centerline{\epsffile{a18.ps}}

956: \caption{As figure~\ref{d05} except $\alpha=\pi/2.$ Now charge transfer takes

957: place, as well as fission into the plane perpendicular to the incident

958: direction.}

959: \label{d14}

960: \end{center}

961: \end{figure}

962: 

963: \begin{figure}

964: \begin{center}

965: \leavevmode

966: \ \vskip -3cm

967: \epsfxsize=12cm

968: \centerline{\epsffile{a19.ps}}

969: \caption{The charge density at $t=0,20,24,28,36,40,44,52,80$ for two Q-balls

970: with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.6$, positions $\pm(10,0)$, velocities $v=0.4$ and

971: relative phase $\alpha=0.$ After some oscillations around the centre, the 

972: final configuration settles down to a single Q-ball at the centre.}

973: \label{d06}

974: \end{center}

975: \end{figure}

976: 

977: \begin{figure}

978: \begin{center}

979: \leavevmode

980: %\ \vskip -3cm

981: \epsfxsize=7cm

982: \centerline{\epsffile{a20.ps}}

983: %\ \vskip -2cm

984:  \caption{The charge density at $t=0,16,20,32$ for two Q-balls

985: with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.6$, positions $\pm(10,0)$, velocities $v=0.6$ and

986: relative phase $\alpha=0.$ The extra kinetic energy results in a highly 

987: inelastic collision, with four small Q-balls left at the end, plus a large

988: amount of radiation.}

989: \label{d07}

990: \end{center}

991: \end{figure}

992: 

993: \begin{figure}

994: \begin{center}

995: \leavevmode

996: %\ \vskip -3cm

997: \epsfxsize=7cm

998: \centerline{\epsffile{a21.ps}}

999: %\ \vskip -2cm 

1000: \caption{The charge density at $t=0,16,24,40$ for two Q-balls

1001: with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.6$, positions $\pm(10,0)$, velocities $v=0.8$ and

1002: relative phase $\alpha=0.$ The Q-balls are moving so fast now that their 

1003: momentum carries them through each other before they have time to interact.}

1004: \label{d08}

1005: \end{center}

1006: \end{figure}

1007: 

1008: In figure~\ref{d14} we investigate the same simulation as in figure~\ref{d05} 

1009: but with an

1010: initial relative phase $\alpha=\pi/2.$ In this case we expect that the

1011: distortion will also be accompanied by a charge transfer, and 

1012: indeed this is what we find, as the first Q-ball loses charge to the

1013: second one and then each Q-ball undergoes fission to produce a total of two

1014: small Q-balls and two large Q-balls. The two small Q-balls move away from

1015: the interaction region at a faster rate than the large Q-balls, and they

1016: do not recombine. The two large Q-balls move away from the interaction

1017: region at only a very slow speed and in fact they eventually recombine after

1018: a time of around $t=200$ (the final plot in figure~\ref{d14} is only

1019: at $t=52$).

1020: 

1021: As we discussed in the one-dimensional case, large Q-balls are more

1022: susceptible to fission than smaller Q-balls, so we expect that the

1023: scattering processes we have described above will vary depending on

1024: the charge of the initial Q-balls. For example, our reasoning predicts

1025: that the fission process in figure~\ref{d05}, which produced two

1026: Q-balls moving at  right-angles to the initial line of approach, will

1027: be more difficult to reproduce for smaller charges. To test this we

1028: perform the same simulation, with $v=0.4$ again, but decrease the

1029: charge of the initial Q-balls by taking $\omega=1.6$ rather than

1030: $\omega=1.5.$ The resulting evolution is shown in figure~\ref{d06} and

1031: confirms that now the distortion is not sufficient to liberate two

1032: Q-balls. The configuration oscillates for some time before settling

1033: down to a single larger Q-ball, after a small amount of charge has been

1034: dissipated through radiation. Fission can be produced for these

1035: smaller Q-balls by increasing the impact velocity, but this also has

1036: the result that some of the charge passes straight through the

1037: interaction region producing small Q-balls which continue to travel

1038: along the direction of approach. A collision at increased velocities

1039: is also a more violent process and more charge is lost to radiation in

1040: these circumstances. In figure~\ref{d07} we display the evolution for

1041: the case where the velocity is increased to $v=0.6$, with all other

1042: parameters kept the same as in figure \ref{d06}. Just visible in

1043: figure~\ref{d07}d  are the four very small Q-balls which are produced

1044: by this collision together with a ring of charge carried away by the

1045: radiation generated. If the collision velocity is increased further

1046: then the two Q-balls have less time to interact and their momentum

1047: carries them through the collision process with no deflection. This is

1048: demonstrated in figure~\ref{d08} where $v=0.8$ and no additional

1049: Q-balls are produced. In summary, as the charge is reduced an increased

1050: velocity is required in order for a sufficient deformation to be

1051: generated to produce fission, but this also results in  more of the

1052: charge  being carried straight through the collision. Thus for small

1053: charge there is a very limited window of velocities for which

1054: collisions of the form displayed in figure \ref{d05} may occur.

1055: 

1056: %\newpage

1057: 

1058: \section{3D Q-balls}\news\ \ \ \ \ \

1059: 

1060: In the previous two sections we have built up a picture of the dynamics of

1061: Q-balls in one and two dimensions. In going from the extensive study

1062: in one dimension to two dimensions we have noted a number of subtle

1063: effects associated with the extra dimension. However, the basic processes

1064: involved are the same: attraction, repulsion and charge transfer. In

1065: this section we will apply the same numerical techniques to the case

1066: of three dimensions.  To begin with we conducted an extensive study of

1067: the dynamics on grids containing $100^3$ points  and have once again

1068: found that in many cases the dynamics are very similar to those in

1069: one-dimension. At the risk of labouring  the point we found that for

1070: small Q-balls, if they were initially in-phase they coalesced, while if

1071: they were out-of-phase they repelled, and if they had any other phase

1072: they engaged in  charge transfer. However, we did find some extremely

1073: complicated interactions which are related  to those seen in the case

1074: of two dimensions.  As was pointed out in the previous section when

1075: the Q-balls have a large charge, their interactions can have some

1076: interesting variants in two dimensions and it is these particular

1077: cases in three dimensions on which we will focus in this section.

1078: 

1079: \begin{figure}

1080: \begin{center}

1081: \leavevmode

1082: \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1083: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{one.ps}

1084: \caption{The charge density at t=0,27,33,39,45,60,75,90,105,120,135,150

1085: for two Q-balls with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, initial positions $\pm(15,0,0)$,

1086: velocities $v=0.4$ and relative phase $\alpha=0$. Shown is the

1087: three-dimensional isosurface and a two dimensional slice through the

1088: centre of the interaction region which should be compared to the

1089: corresponding two dimensional interaction in figure~\ref{d05}. Note

1090: the production of a loop in the plane perpendicular to the line of

1091: incidence, which expands before recollapsing into Q-balls along the

1092: incident direction.}

1093: \label{3d1}

1094: \end{center}

1095: \end{figure}

1096: 

1097: In particular we have focussed on the analogues of figures~\ref{d05},

1098: \ref{d13} and \ref{d14}  in which complicated dynamical phenomena were

1099: identified. In each of these cases we have  performed the analogous

1100: simulations on a grid of $300^3$ points with $\Delta x=0.3$ and

1101: $\Delta t=0.03$ in order to accurately simulate the complicated

1102: dynamical processes. In each of the three cases we start with 2 Q-balls

1103: each with $\omega=1.5$ at $\pm(15,0,0)$, Lorentz boosted toward each

1104: other with a velocity $v=0.4$. The results of the simulations are

1105: displayed in figures~\ref{3d1}, \ref{3d2} and \ref{3d3}.

1106: 

1107: The in-phase case (figure~\ref{3d1}) has some marked similarities

1108: to the equivalent case in two dimensions (figure~\ref{d05}) if one

1109: looks at the two-dimensional slice through the centre of the

1110: Q-balls\footnote{It should be noted that the two interactions are

1111: not equivalent  even when the parameters are almost identical since

1112: the relationship between the charge $Q$ and the frequency $\omega$ is

1113: not the same in two and three dimensions.}. However, the extra dimension has

1114: one remarkable effect: it allows for the production of a loop in the plane

1115: perpendicular to line joining the two incident Q-balls. This phenomena

1116: is the three dimensional analogue of the right-angled fission process

1117: described in the two dimensional case. But in three dimensions the

1118: fission takes place symmetrically in all directions in the plane while

1119: respecting the cylindrical symmetry of the initial configuration. The

1120: loop expands leaving some  charge in the centre which later expands to

1121: create a second, much smaller loop. Later both the loops collapse and

1122: Q-balls emerge back along the incident direction.

1123: 

1124: \begin{figure}

1125: \begin{center}

1126: \leavevmode

1127: \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1128: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{two.ps}

1129: \caption{As figure~\ref{3d1} except that $\alpha=\pi$, with the

1130: equivalent two dimensional interaction being figure~\ref{d13}. Fission

1131: of the Q-balls produces two loops in the plane perpendicular to the

1132: incident direction, which are subsequently repelled while recollapsing

1133: and emitting Q-balls along the incident direction.}

1134: \label{3d2}

1135: \end{center}

1136: \end{figure}

1137: 

1138: The formation of the loop in this three dimensional simulation adds

1139: further weight  to our earlier discussion of the two dimensional case

1140: where we pointed out that right-angled fission of two Q-balls was not

1141: of topological origin, nor was it even related to the topological

1142: interactions of, for example, vortices~\cite{vort},

1143: monopoles~\cite{mon} and skyrmions~\cite{sky}. The reason being that

1144: in a topological interaction in three dimensions one would have

1145: expected there to have been a preferred direction (this is because in

1146: the case of topological solitons, for example skyrmions, the field

1147: configuration of a single soliton is not spherically symmetric,

1148: although the change in the  field due to a spatial rotation can be

1149: undone by acting with a symmetry of the theory, which means quantities

1150: such as the energy density are spherically symmetric). But as we have

1151: already pointed out the formation of a loop is reliant on all

1152: directions being on an equal footing as far as the fission process is

1153: concerned, which of course is due to the fact that the field itself is

1154: spherically symmetric for a single Q-ball.

1155: 

1156: This explanation of the formation of a loop during the interaction of

1157: two large Q-balls in three dimensions is compatible with the results

1158: of the out-of-phase case (figure~\ref{3d2}) and that of a general

1159: relative phase (figure~\ref{3d3}). In both cases, the two dimensional

1160: slice through the interaction region is very similar to that of the

1161: equivalent two dimensional interactions (figures~\ref{d13} and

1162: \ref{d14} respectively). In the out-of-phase interaction, two

1163: identical loops form which are then repelled back along the direction

1164: from which they came. As they move away they begin to collapse, the

1165: final outcome being a series of symmetrically placed Q-balls along the

1166: incident direction. The interaction for $\alpha=\pi/2$ is similar,

1167: except that, as expected, charge transfer takes place during the

1168: interaction and the two loops created have very different charge.

1169: 

1170: \begin{figure}

1171: \begin{center}

1172: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1173: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{three.ps}

1174: \caption{As figure~\ref{3d1} except that $\alpha=\pi/2$, with the

1175: equivalent two dimensional interaction being figure~\ref{d14}. Charge

1176: transfer takes place during the interaction leading to the formation

1177: of two loops which are not of equal charge. These two loops  are then

1178: repelled, the smaller one having a higher speed.}

1179: \label{3d3}

1180: \end{center}

1181: \end{figure}

1182: 

1183: Just to finish this section off and by way of illustrating that this

1184: process is reasonably generic, we have performed an equivalent

1185: simulation to figure~\ref{3d1} with a much higher speed of incidence

1186: $(v=0.8)$. Due to the Lorentz contraction of the initial conditions,

1187: this requires a smaller value of $\Delta x=0.15$ and consequently

1188: $\Delta t=0.015$, and the results of this simulation are displayed in

1189: figure~\ref{3dfast}. We see the production of a big loop at the point

1190: of interaction plus two others which are repelled from the centre

1191: along the line of interaction. At the end of the simulation the loops

1192: are still expanding in size and are also getting close to the size of

1193: the discrete grid. It is an interesting question as to whether loops

1194: can be stable, and this question will be addressed in a separate

1195: publication~\cite{BSut}.

1196: 

1197: \begin{figure}

1198: \begin{center}

1199: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1200: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{fast1.ps}

1201: \caption{The charge density at $t=0,27,33,39,45,60,75,90$ for two

1202: Q-balls with $\omega_1=\omega_2=1.5$, initial positions $\pm(15,0,0)$,

1203: velocities $v=0.8$ and relative phase $\alpha=0$. The high speed

1204: collision leads to the formation of three loops, one at the point of

1205: interaction, and two others which propagate back in opposite

1206: directions along the line of interaction.}

1207: \label{3dfast}

1208: \end{center}

1209: \end{figure}

1210: 

1211: \section{Q-ball Anti-Q-ball Dynamics}\news\ \ \ \ \ \

1212: 

1213: In the preceding sections we have studied in detail  2-Q-ball

1214: interactions. The charge $Q$, however,  can also be negative; this

1215: being achieved in the Q-ball solution by replacing $\omega$ with

1216: $-\omega$ and these solutions are known as anti-Q-balls.  In this

1217: section we will study the interactions of Q-ball/anti-Q-ball pairs  in

1218: two and three dimensions.

1219: 

1220: Intuitively, one would expect slow soliton/anti-soliton interactions

1221: with equal and opposite charges to result in annihilation into

1222: radiation. However, only for a very small range of parameters does

1223: this annihilation take place in the case of Q-balls due to the

1224: complicated nature of the time-dependent interaction potential which

1225: we have highlighted in the case of 2-Q-ball interactions.

1226: 

1227: In general a Q-ball/anti-Q-ball interaction will result in either the

1228: two solitons bouncing back, or them passing through each other. In

1229: both cases, the charge is partially annihilated, but only for a very

1230: limited region of the interaction parameter space can it be thought of

1231: as being complete. This absence of the annihilation can be attributed

1232: to the concept of charge transfer which we have discussed  in 2-Q-ball

1233: interactions\footnote{Here, as in the case of two Q-ball interactions

1234: with different charges, the initial relative phase is a less important

1235: concept. But charge transfer can still take place since the difference

1236: between the two rotation speeds of the Q-balls is maximal.}  The main

1237: difference between the charge transfer process for 2-Q-ball

1238: interactions and the Q-ball/anti-Q-ball interactions under

1239: consideration here is the two solitons now have opposite charge and

1240: hence when charge is transfered it results in annihilation. However,

1241: we have showed that the charge transfer never takes place fully in

1242: 2-Q-ball interactions and hence annihilation also never takes place

1243: fully in a single interaction. When there is a lower bound on the

1244: charge of a Q-ball it is more likely that sufficient charge transfer

1245: can take place for complete annihilation, whereas in models where

1246: arbitrarily small Q-balls can exist complete annihilation is likely to

1247: be much more difficult.

1248: 

1249: The process of partial annihilation, via charge transfer, is

1250: illustrated in figure~\ref{e04} where we have displayed the charge

1251: density at $t=0,15,20,50$ for the collision of a Q-ball and an

1252: anti-Q-ball in two dimensions. The solitons were initially at

1253: $\pm(6,0)$, with $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.8$ and were Lorentz boosted

1254: together with a velocity $v=0.3$. It is clear that the momentum of the

1255: Q-ball carries it through the interaction region and that there is

1256: some annihilation of the charge; the maximum charge density of the

1257: outgoing Q-ball being lower than that for the incoming one. As we have

1258: already discussed this is generically what takes place during a

1259: Q-ball/anti-Q-ball collision. A variant on this kind of interaction is

1260: that the Q-balls bounce back, again partially annihilating charge,

1261: which takes place at low incident velocities for this particular

1262: charge.

1263: 

1264: This picture of partial annihilation with bounce back at low

1265: velocities and the solitons passing through each other at high,

1266: suggests that there exists some critical incident velocity $v_{\rm

1267: c}$, a function of $\omega$ at which annihilation takes place, and

1268: indeed this is what we find\footnote{In fact, there will exist a small

1269: range of velocities around $v_{\rm c}$ for which complete annihilation

1270: takes place.}. Figure~\ref{e03} illustrates this by displaying the

1271: charge density at $t=0,25,50,100,150,250,300,350,400$ for a

1272: Q-ball/anti-Q-ball collision, with the solitons initially positioned

1273: at $\pm(6,0)$, charges $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.5$, Lorentz boosted

1274: together with velocity $v=0.3$. These are the same parameters as in

1275: figure~\ref{e04}, except that the charge is much larger. It can be

1276: clearly seen that annihilation eventually takes place, but even in

1277: this case the mechanism is complicated, involving a number of

1278: oscillations of the system before it is achieved. The charge here is

1279: much higher than for the example above which had $\omega=1.8$, and in

1280: the Q-ball interactions we saw complicated fission processes for

1281: interactions involving solitons with this charge. This is also the

1282: case in Q-ball/anti-Q-ball interactions as is illustrated in

1283: figure~\ref{e02}, which uses the same parameters as in

1284: figure~\ref{e03} except that the incident velocity is now much higher,

1285: $v=0.6$.  The figures shown are at times

1286: $t=0,10,15,25,30,35,40,45,50.$  One can see, after some partial

1287: annihilation of charge, that the fission of the incident Q-balls takes

1288: place in the direction perpendicular to the line of incidence and that

1289: now there is an effective bounce back of the incident solitons with a

1290: reduced charge.

1291: 

1292: These processes are also prevalent in both one and three

1293: dimensions. By way of illustration we have also included two examples

1294: in three dimensions. In figure~\ref{3danti3}  the solitons initially

1295: at $\pm(15,0,0)$, are Lorentz boosted together with a velocity $v=0.3$ and

1296: have $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.5$. In this particular interaction there

1297: appears to be very little annihilation and the solitons effectively

1298: pass through each other. Figure~\ref{3danti2} has the same initial

1299: configuration, except that the solitons are boosted together with an

1300: initial velocity of $v=0.6$. The subsequent interaction is complicated

1301: involving first the formation of two loops, which is the equivalent of

1302: the right-angled fission observed in two dimensions, and then what

1303: appears to be almost total annihilation once the loops collapse. Two

1304: small Q-balls are emitted along the line of incidence, along with much

1305: radiation. 

1306: 

1307: \begin{figure}

1308: \begin{center}

1309: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1310:  \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{e04.ps}

1311: %\vskip -6cm

1312: \caption{Q-ball/anti-Q-ball interactions in two dimensions. The two

1313: solitons are placed initially at $\pm(6,0)$, are Lorentz boosted

1314: together with a velocity $v=0.3$ and have

1315: $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.8$. Partial annihilation of the Q-balls takes

1316: place during the interaction and the momentum of the incident Q-ball is

1317: sufficient to take it through to the other side.}

1318: \label{e04}

1319: \end{center}

1320: \end{figure}

1321: 

1322: \begin{figure}

1323: \begin{center}

1324: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1325: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{e03.ps}

1326: \caption{As figure~\ref{e04} but the charge has been increased so that

1327: $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.5$. Complete annihilation takes place during a

1328: complicated oscillatory interaction.}

1329: \label{e03}

1330: \end{center}

1331: \end{figure}

1332: 

1333: \begin{figure}

1334: \begin{center}

1335: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1336: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{e02.ps}

1337: \caption{As figure~\ref{e03} but with an incident velocity of

1338: $v=0.6$. Notice that fission takes place in the plane perpendicular to

1339: the line of incidence.}

1340: \label{e02}

1341: \end{center}

1342: \end{figure}

1343: 

1344: \begin{figure}

1345: \begin{center}

1346: \leavevmode \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1347: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{anti3.ps}

1348: \caption{Q-ball/anti-Q-ball interaction in three dimensions. Included

1349: are isosurfaces of the modulus of the charge density and a slice of

1350: the charge density itself through the centre of the interaction

1351: region. The two solitons are initially at $\pm(10,0,0)$, Lorentz

1352: boosted together with a velocity $v=0.3$ and have

1353: $\omega_1=-\omega_2=1.5$. The two solitons pass through each other

1354: with very little annihilation.}

1355: \label{3danti3}

1356: \end{center}

1357: \end{figure}

1358: 

1359: \begin{figure}

1360: \begin{center}

1361: \leavevmode

1362: \ \vskip -3cm \hskip 0.5cm

1363: \epsfxsize=12cm\epsffile{anti2.ps}

1364: \caption{As figure~\ref{3danti3} but with an incident velocity of

1365: $v=0.6$. Two loops are formed in the initial interaction, which

1366: subsequently collapse, leading to almost total annihilation.}

1367: \label{3danti2}

1368: \end{center}

1369: \end{figure}

1370: 

1371: \section{Summary and conclusions}\news\ \ \ \ \ \

1372: 

1373: We have identified the key parameters in the interactions of Q-balls to

1374: be the relative phase, the incident velocity and the charge of Q-balls,

1375: with the resulting interactions being strongly dependent on these parameters.

1376: The generic interaction involves attraction if the relative phase

1377: $\alpha=0$ and repulsion if $\alpha=\pi$ when the two Q-balls have the

1378: same charge. If they have an initial relative phase other than

1379: $\alpha=0$ or $\alpha=\pi$, or if the charges of the Q-balls are

1380: different, the dynamics of the Q-balls results in 

1381: charge transfer, a phenomena

1382: which is analogous to that observed in discrete breather

1383: systems (see, for example, ref.~\cite{ams} and references therein),

1384: although this behaviour often has to be induced by making the solitons

1385: come together via a Lorentz boost. With no Lorentz boost such breather

1386: systems naturally repel and this is also seen after the charge

1387: transfer process is complete. If the incident velocity is extremely

1388: high Q-balls can be made to pass through each other with very little

1389: interaction taking place.

1390: 

1391: This picture is almost independent of

1392: the number of dimensions if the charge of the Q-balls is small (for

1393: example, $\omega\approx 1.6$, but if the charge is much larger

1394: fission can take place during the interaction process due to the

1395: compression of the charge. In one dimension this process results in

1396: the emission of Q-balls during the slow interaction of two large

1397: Q-balls. In higher dimensions complicated, but analogous,

1398: phenomena are observed in which fission takes place in the direction

1399: perpendicular to the line of incidence. This leads, under specialized

1400: circumstances to the right angled fission of Q-balls in two dimensions

1401: and the production of loops in three. These fission effects can also

1402: be coupled with those of attraction, repulsion and charge transfer to

1403: produce complicated compound phenomena.

1404: 

1405: Interestingly, the naive expectation that an Q-ball/anti-Q-ball should

1406: annhilate into radiation is modified by the complicated

1407: breather-type interactions which take place. Since the difference

1408: between the two charges is large this can be thought of a special case

1409: of the charge transfer process, leading to the phenomenon of partial

1410: charge annihilation, the case of complete annihilation being very

1411: special. Fission of the Q-ball and anti-Q-ball can also take

1412: place if the charge is high.

1413: 

1414: Our original motivation was to understand the

1415: microphysical interactions of Q-balls formed by the Affleck-Dine

1416: mechanism for baryogenesis within the framework of the MSSM. The

1417: potential that we have concentrated on in this paper is different to

1418: that expected in the MSSM, but as we have pointed out the main

1419: interaction processes that we have identified are related to the

1420: phase. Therefore, we expect our result to be qualitatively independent

1421: of potential, and hence our results have some bearing on this

1422: case. We have repeated several of the simulations described in this

1423: paper for a potential of type II and found the same qualitative results.

1424: The next step in this research is an analytic description of the

1425: dynamics in terms of a slow manifold approach~\cite{BMS}, before their application to the

1426: problem of Q-ball formation in the Early Universe.

1427: 

1428: 

1429: 

1430: \def\jnl#1#2#3#4#5#6{\hang{#1 [#2], {\it #4\/} {\bf #5}, #6.} }

1431: \def\jnldot#1#2#3#4#5#6{\hang{#1 [#2], {\it #4\/} {\bf #5}, #6} }

1432: \def\jnltwo#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8{\hang{#1 [#2], {\it #4\/} {\bf #5},

1433: #6;{\bf #7} #8.} }

1434: \def\prep#1#2#3#4{\hang{#1 [#2],`#3', #4.} } 

1435: \def\proc#1#2#3#4#5#6{{#1 [#2], in {\it #4\/}, #5, eds.\ (#6).} }

1436: \def\book#1#2#3#4{\hang{#1 [#2], {\it #3\/} (#4).} }

1437: \def\jnlerr#1#2#3#4#5#6#7#8{\hang{#1 [#2], {\it #4\/} {\bf #5}, #6.

1438: {Erratum:} {\it #4\/} {\bf #7}, #8.} }

1439: \def\prl{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}

1440: \def\pr{Phys.\ Rev.}

1441: \def\pl{Phys.\ Lett.}

1442: \def\np{Nucl.\ Phys.}

1443: \def\prp{Phys.\ Rep.}

1444: \def\rmp{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.}

1445: \def\cmp{Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.}

1446: \def\mpl{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.}

1447: \def\apj{Ap.\ J.}

1448: \def\apjl{Ap.\ J.\ Lett.}

1449: \def\aap{Astron.\ Ap.}

1450: \def\cqg{Class.\ Quant.\ Grav.} 

1451: \def\grg{Gen.\ Rel.\ Grav.}

1452: \def\mn{M.$\,$N.$\,$R.$\,$A.$\,$S.}

1453: \def\ptp{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.}

1454: \def\jetp{Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP}

1455: \def\jetpl{Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP Lett.}

1456: \def\jmp{J.\ Math.\ Phys.}

1457: \def\zpc{Z.\ Phys.\ C}

1458: \def\ijmp{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.}

1459: \def\cupress{Cambridge University Press}

1460: \def\oup{Oxford University Press}

1461: \def\pup{Princeton University Press}

1462: \def\wss{World Scientific, Singapore}

1463: 

1464: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1465: 

1466: \bibitem{vort}

1467: See for example

1468: \jnl{E.P.S. Shellard}{1987}{}{\np}{B283}{624}\jnl{E.P.S. Shellard and

1469: P.J. Ruback}{1988}{}{\pl}{209B}{262}

1470: 

1471: \bibitem{mon}

1472: See for example

1473: \jnldot{P.M. Sutcliffe}{1997}{}{Int. J. Mod. Phys}{A12}{4663} and

1474: references therein.

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{sky}

1477: See for example \jnl{M.F. Atiyah and

1478: N.S. Manton}{1993}{}{\cmp}{153}{391}\jnl{R.A. Battye and

1479: P.M. Sutcliffe}{1997}{}{\pl}{391B}{366}\jnl{R.A. Battye and

1480: P.M. Sutcliffe}{1997}{}{\prl}{79}{363}\jnl{C.J. Houghton, N.S. Manton

1481: and P.M. Sutcliffe}{1998}{}{\np}{510}{507}

1482: 

1483: \bibitem{lee}

1484: \book{T.D. Lee}{1981}{Particle physics and introduction to field

1485: theory}{Harwood, London}

1486: 

1487: \bibitem{coleman}

1488: \jnl{S. Coleman}{1985}{}{\np}{B262}{263}

1489: 

1490: \bibitem{lowtemp}

1491: \jnl{D.K. Hong}{1998}{}{J. Low Temp. Phys.}{71}{483}

1492: 

1493: \bibitem{k2}

1494: \jnl{A. Kusenko}{1997}{}{\pl}{405B}{108}

1495: 

1496: \bibitem{AD}

1497: \jnl{I. Affleck and M. Dine}{1985}{}{\pl}{B249}{361}

1498: 

1499: \bibitem{KS}

1500: \jnl{A. Kusenko and

1501: M. Shaposhnikov}{1998}{}{\pl}{418B}{46}\jnl{A. Kusenko, V. Kuzmin and

1502: M. Shaposhnikov}{1998}{}{\prl}{80}{3185}

1503: 

1504: \bibitem{EM}

1505: \jnl{K. Enqvist and

1506: J. MacDonald}{1998}{}{\pl}{425B}{309}\jnl{K. Enqvist and

1507: J. MacDonald}{1999}{}{\np}{B538}{321}\jnl{K. Enqvist and

1508: J. MacDonald}{1998}{}{\prl}{81}{3071}

1509: 

1510: \bibitem{BMS}

1511: \prep{R.A. Battye, R.S. Mackay and P.M. Sutcliffe}{2000}{An effective

1512: Hamiltonian for Q-ball dynamics}{In preparation}

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{lit}

1515: \jnl{J.K. Drohm, L.P. Yok, Y.A. Simonov, J.A. Tyon and

1516: V.I. Veselov}{1981}{}{\pl}{101B}{204}

1517: \jnl{T.I. Belova and A.E. Kudryavtsev}{1989}{}{Sov. Phys. JETP}{68}{7}

1518: \jnl{G. Jaroszkiewcz}{1995}{}{J. Phys.}{G21}{501}

1519: 

1520: \bibitem{greek}

1521: \prep{M. Axenides, S. Komineas, L. Perivolopoulos and

1522: M. Floratos}{1999}{Dynamics of non-topological solitons}{hep-ph/9910388}

1523: 

1524: \bibitem{k1}

1525: \jnl{A. Kusenko}{1997}{}{\pl}{404B}{285}

1526: 

1527: \bibitem{St}

1528: \prep{D.M.A Stuart}{1999}{Modulational approach to the stability of

1529: non-topological solitons in semi-linear wave equations}{preprint

1530: DAMTP}

1531: 

1532: \bibitem{BS}

1533: \jnl{R.A. Battye and E.P.S. Shellard}{1994}{}{\np}{B423}{260}

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{Bat}

1536: \prep{R.A. Battye}{1995}{String radiation, interactions and

1537: cosmological constraints}{PhD Thesis (University of Cambridge)}

1538: 

1539: \bibitem{ams}

1540: \prep{T. Ahn, R.S. MacKay, J.A. Sepulchre}{1999}{Dynamics of relative

1541: phases in generalised multi-breathers}{Preprint DAMTP}

1542: 

1543: \bibitem{MV}

1544: \prep{T. Multam\"aki and I. Vilja}{1999}{Analytic and numerical

1545: properties of Q-balls}{hep-ph/9908446}

1546: 

1547: \bibitem{BSut}

1548: \prep{R.A. Battye and P.M. Sutcliffe}{2000}{Q-rings and loops}{In preparation}

1549: 

1550: \end{thebibliography}

1551: 

1552: \end{document}

1553: 

1554: