Scalar Field (Wave) Dark Matter

0.14 MB·

by  T. Matos

Scalar Field (Wave) Dark Matter
Tonatiuh Matos∗ and Victor H. Robles∗∗
Departamento de F´ısica,Centro de Investigaci´on y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN, AP 14-740, 0700 D.F.,
6
1 M´exico
0
2

n
a
J ABSTRACT

6
Recent high-quality observations of dwarf and low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies have

shown that their dark matter (DM) halos prefer flat central density profiles. On the other hand
]
A the standard cold dark matter model simulations predict a more cuspy behavior. Feedback
G from star formation has been widely used to reconcile simulations with observations, this might
be successful in field dwarf galaxies but its success in low mass galaxies remains uncertain.
.
h One model that have received much attention is the scalar field dark matter model. Here the
p
dark matter is a self-interacting ultra light scalar field that forms a cosmological Bose-Einstein
-
o condensate, a mass of 10−22eV/c2 is consistent with flat density profiles in the centers of dwarf
r spheroidalgalaxies, reduces the abundance of small halos, might account for the rotation curves
t
s even to large radii in spiral galaxies and has an early galaxy formation. The next generation of
a
telescopeswillprovidebetterconstraintstothemodelthatwillhelptodistinguishthisparticular
[
alternative to the standard model of cosmology shedding light into the nature of the mysterious
1
dark matter.
v
0 Subject headings: dark matter: scalar field
5
3 1. INTRODUCTION expectations might require careful revision to our
1
understanding.
0
The standard model of cosmology assumes the
. One of them is the longstanding core/cuspdis-
1 darkmatteriscoldandeffectivelycollisionless,the
cussion, whether the central dark matter (DM)
0
galaxies are formed in a hierarchical way, and as
6 profilesindwarfsandlowsurfacebrightness(LSB)
they evolve they are subject to frequent collisions
1 galaxies are more core-like and rounder than the
and interactions with nearby galaxies that deter-
: standard cold dark matter (CDM) model pre-
v
mined the properties that we observed today.
i dicts (see van Eymeren et al. (2009); see de Blok
X Thestandardmodel,alsocalledcolddarkmat-
(2010) for a review). The core profiles most fre-
r ter (CDM) model, is remarkably successful to de- quently used in the literature and that best fit
a
scribe the large scale structure of the universe, as
the observations are empirical (Burkert 1995;
well as large scale observations. Nowadays,galac-
Kuzio de Naray et al. 2010). Albeit useful to
tic observationsarebecoming moreprecisethatit
characterize properties of galaxies, it is desir-
is possible to assess some of the predictions from
able to find a theoretical framework capable to
the CDM model with more reliability. Moreover,
produce the cores, since CDM suggest central
thenumericalsimulationsarerapidlyreachingthe densities in small galaxies going as ρ ∼ r−1 at
required resolution to study the inner parts of
small r (Navarro et al. 2010) whereas observa-
dwarf galaxies, that is within ∼500pc. Increasing
tions of LSB galaxies suggest a core-like behavior
the resolution has revealed that some discrepan- (ρ∼r−0.2)(Oh et al.2011;Robles & Matos2012;
cies between the observations and the theoretical
de Blok et al. 2001; Kuzio de Naray & Spekkens
2011;Kuzio de Naray & Kaufmann2011;Boylan-Kolchinet al.
*Electronicaddress: [email protected]
2014). The trend to reduce the inner loga-
**Electronicaddress: [email protected]
1
rithmic slopes invokes astrophyisical processes 2. SFDM: Previous work
such as radiation wind, supernovae feedback, etc.
The main idea in the scalar field dark mat-
(Governato et al. 2010, 2012; Merrit et al. 2006;
ter model (Sin 1994; Ji & Sin 1994; Lee & Koh
Graham et al. 2006), although this seems possi-
1996; Guzma´n & Matos 1998; Hu et al. 2000;
ble in LSB galaxies, the question remains for the
Matos & Uren˜a 2001) considers a self-interacting
fainter galaxies where one supernovae could blow
scalar field with a very small mass, typically
out most of the gas due to the shallower gravita-
of ∼ 10−22eV/c2, such that the quantum me-
tional potential.
chanical uncertainty principle and the inter-
Another discrepancy possibly related the over-
actions prevent gravitational collapse in self-
abundanceofsatellites(Klypin et al.1999;Moore et al.
gravitating structures, thus the halos are char-
1999; Maci`o et al. 2012; Garrison-Kimmel et al.
acterized with homogeneous densities (usually
2014)istheToo-Big-to-Fail(Boylan-Kolchinet al.
referred as a cores) in their centers, in general
2011; Garrison-Kimmel et al. 2014b) issue. The
the core sizes depend on the values of the mass
latter results from the higher number of massive
and the self-interacting parameters (Colpi et al.
dark matter halos around Milky-Way like host
1986) (for a review see Sua´rez, Robles & Matos
with the most massive galaxies observed in our
(2013); Rindler-Daller & Shapiro (2014)). From
local neighborhood, assuming the most massive
the particle physics point of view the most sim-
galaxiesareinthemostmassivedarkmatterhalos,
ple way to account for a scalar field with this
there should be about ∼10 more around systems
features is adding a Higgs-like term with a mass
with virial masses comparable to our Milky Way
∼ 10−22eV/c2 to the standard model of particles
or M31 (Andromeda) (Garrison-Kimmel et al.
(Matos & Lo´pez-Ferna´ndez 2014).
2014b). There have been some possible solutions,
Previous studies of the cosmological evolution
mostofthemrelyingontidalstrippinginaddition
of a scalar field with mass m ∼10−22eV/c2 have
to supernovae feedback.
shown that the cosmological density evolution
However, some of these discrepancies might
is reproduced and very similar to the one ob-
also be solved assuming different properties for
tainedfromCDM(Matos & Uren˜a2001;Chavanis
the dark matter, such as scalar field dark matter
2011; Sua´rez & Matos 2011; Magan˜a et al. 2012;
(SFDM)(Sin1994;Lee & Koh1996;Guzma´n & Matos
Schive, Chiueh, & Broadhurst2014),thereiscon-
1998;Matos & Uren˜a2001),stronglyself-interacting
sistency with the acoustic peaks of the cosmic
DM(Spergel & Steinhardt2000;Vogelsberger,Zavala& Loeb
microwavebackgroundradiation(Matos & Uren˜a
2012; Rocha et al. 2013), warm dark matter
2001; Rodr´ıguez-Montoyaet al. 2010) and this
(Maci`o et al. 2012).
small mass implies a sharp cut-off in the mass
ItisofparticularinteresttoustheSFDMalter- power spectrum for halo masses below 108M⊙
native, here the massof the field is assumedto be
suppressing structure formation of low mass dark
verysmall(∼10−22eV/c2)suchthatitsdeBroglie
matter halos(Matos & Uren˜a 2001;Marsh & Silk
wavelengthis of order∼ kpc, relevantfor galactic
2014; Bozek et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2000). More-
scales. Thequantumbehaviorofthe fieldhascre-
over,there isparticularinterestinfindingequilib-
atedmuchinterestin the modeldue to its success
rium configurations of the system of equations
toaccountforsomediscrepanciesmentionedabove
that describe the field (Einstein-Klein-Gordon
withdarkmatterpropertiesonly,forexample,the
system) and of its weak field approximation
smallmasskeepsthe centraldensityfromincreas-
(Schr¨odinger-Poisson(SP) system), different au-
ing indefinitely due to the uncertainty principle
thors have obtained solutions interpreted as bo-
in contrast to CDM simulations where supernova
son stars or later as dark matter halos showing
feedback is required(Governato et al. 2010, 2012;
agreement with rotation curves in galaxies and
Pontzen & Governato 2012; Scannapieco et al.
velocity dispersion profiles in dwarf spheroidal
2012).
galaxies(Lee & Koh1996;B¨ohmer & Harko2007;
Robles & Matos 2012, 2013; Lora et al. 2012;
Lora & Magan˜a2014;Martinez-Medina, Robles, & Matos
2015; Diez-Tejedor et al. 2014; Guzma´n et al.
2
2014). So far the large and small scales obser- mass of the scalar field dark matter points to be
vations are well described with the small mass close to ∼ 10−22eV/c2, consistent with the above
and thus has been taken as a prefered value constraint, although there are still uncertainties
but the precise values of the mass and self- onthemassparameter,inordertoavoidconfusion
interaction parameters are still uncertain, tighter with the known QCD axion, we find it useful and
constraints can come from numerical simulations appropriate to name the scalar field dark matter
(Schive, Chiueh, & Broadhurst 2014) and model- candidate, from the above characteristics we can
ing of large galaxy samples. define it as a particle with mass m<10−14eV/c2,
Recently the idea of the scalar field has gained we name this DM candidate the psyon.
interest, given the uncertainty in the param- It is worth emphasizing that despite the vari-
eters the model has adopted different names ety of names given to the model the main idea
in the literature depending on the regime that described above remains the same, it is the quan-
is under discussion, for instance, if the inter- tum properties that arise due to the small mass
actions are not present and the mass is ∼ of the boson that characterize and distinguishes
10−22eV/c2thislimitwascalledfuzzydarkmatter thisparadigm,analoguoustothestandardcosmo-
(Hu et al. 2000) or more recently wave dark mat- logical model represented by the CDM paradigm
ter (Schive, Chiueh, & Broadhurst2014), another whose preferred dark matter candidates are the
limitiswhentheSFself-interactionsaredescribed WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles),
withaquarticterminthescalarfieldpotentialand one being the neutralino, we see that for all
dominateoverthemass(quadratic)term,thiswas the above regimes SFDM, Repulsive DM, Ax-
studied in (Goodman 2000; Slepian & Gooodman ion DM, or any other model assuming an ultra
2012) and called repulsive dark matter or fluid light bosonic particle comprise a single class of
dark matter by (Peebles 2000). paradigm, which we categorized as the Quantum
Notice that for a scalar field mass of ∼ Dark Matter (QDM) paradigm. As pointed be-
10−22eV/c2 the critical temperature of conden- fore, in the QDM paradigm the small mass of
sation for the field is Tcrit ∼ m−5/3 ∼TeV, which the dark matter boson leads to the possibility
is very high, if the temperature of the field is be- of forming cosmological condensates, even for
low its critical temperature it can form a cosmo- axions which are non-thermally produced and
logical Bose Einstein condensate, if it condenses havemassesin10−3−10−6eV/c2 (Sikivie & Yang
it is called Bose-Einstein condensed(BEC) dark 2009),thisisacharacteristicpropertythatdistin-
matter (Matos & Uren˜a 2001; Guzma´n & Matos guishesthesedarkmattercandidatesfromWIMPs
1998; Bernal et al. 2010; Robles & Matos 2013; orneutrinos,namely,theexistenceofbosonsinthe
Harko 2011; Chavanis 2011). Sikivie & Yang condensed state, or simply BICS, thus the axion
(2009) mentioned that axions could also form and psyon are BICS.
Bose-Einsteincondensateseventhoughtheirmass
3. Scalar field dark matter halos
is larger than the previous preferred value, notice
thattheresultwascontestedinDavidson & Elmer
There has been considerable work in finding
(2013), this suggestthatthe condensationprocess
numerical solutions to the non-interacting SFDM
should be study in more detail to confirm it can
in the non-relativistic regime to model spheri-
remain as BEC dark matter. In Uren˜a-Lopez
cally symmetric haloes (Guzma´n & Matos 1998;
(2009), it was found that complex scalar field
with m < 10−14eV/c2 that decoupled being still Guzma´n & Uren˜a-L´opez2004;Uren˜a-L´opez & Bernal
2010; Bernal et al. 2010; Bray 2010; Kaup 1968),
relativistic will always form a cosmological Bose-
andalsofortheself-interactingSFDM(B¨ohmer & Harko
Einsteincondensatedescribedbythegroundstate
2007; Robles & Matos 2012; Colpi et al. 1986;
wavefunction,thisdoesnotprecludetheexistence
Rindler-Daller & Shapiro 2012; Balakrishna et al.
of bosons with higher energy, particularly in dark
1998; Goodman 2000), it is worth noting that
matter halos.
as mentioned in Guzma´n & Uren˜a-L´opez (2004)
We see that the smallness of the boson mass is
for the weak field limit of the system that de-
its characteristic property and cosmological con-
termines the evolution of a spherically symmetric
densation is a likely consequence. The preferred
3
scalarfield,thatis,theEinsteinandKlein-Gordon Martinez-Medina, Robles, & Matos 2015). The
equations,foracomplexandarealscalarfieldthe size of the MSH is determined by the most ex-
system reduces to the Schr¨odinger-Poisson (SP) cited state that accurately fits the RC for large
equations (Arbey et al. 2003). The contraints re- radii, excited states are distributed to larger radii
ported in Li et al. (2014), obtained by imposing than the ground state, and in contrast to the
that the SF behaves cosmologically as pressure- halo with single state there are MSHs that are
less matter (dust), imply that the interacting pa- stable under finite perturbations provided the
rameter would be extremely small for the typical ground state in the final halo configuration has
mass of ∼10−22eV/c2, therefore we expect that enough mass to stabilize the coexisting state
solutions to the SP system with no interactions (Uren˜a-L´opez & Bernal 2010; Bernal et al. 2010).
would behave qualitatively similar to those when Althoughtherearestilluncertaintiesinthesta-
self-interactionsareincluded, assupported by the bility of the MSHs, the appearance of bosons in
similarity in the solutions of the non-iteracting excited states seems to be a straightforward con-
case and those with a small self-coupling found in sequences of quantum interference triggered by
other works (Balakrishna et al. 1998; Colpi et al. halomergersasconfirmedrecentlyinSchive et al.
1986; Briscese 2011). (2014b), and possibly the internal evolution of
One characteristic feature of stationary solu- the halo. Moreover, initial fluctuations that grow
tions of the form ψ(x,t) = e−iEntφ(r) for the SP due to the cosmologicalexpansion of the universe
system is the appearance of nodes in the spatial eventually separate from it and start collapsing
function φ(r), these nodes are associated to dif- due to its own gravity, at this time (known as
ferent energy states of the SF, the zero node so- turnaround)thehalocanhaveanumberofpsyons
lution corresponds to the ground state, one node thatareindifferentstateswhichdependonthethe
to the first excited state, and so on. These ex- localenvironment. Dependingonthenumberden-
cited states solutions fit rotation curves (RCs) of sityofbosonspopulatingtheexcitedstateswecan
large galaxies up to the outermost measured data have different fates for the halos (Robles et al.
and can even reproduce the wiggles seen at large 2015).
radii in high-resolution observations (Sin 1994; On the other hand, including rotation in the
Colpi et al. 1986; Robles & Matos 2013). How- halo might be needed, in fact, (Guzma´n et al.
ever,halosthatarepurelyinasingleexcitedstate 2014) have included rotation to axis-symmetric
seem to be unstable when the number of parti- halos in the condensed state and show that it can
clesisnotconserved(finiteperturbations)andde- leadtotheflatteningoftheRCs,otherworkshave
cay to the ground state with different decay rates alsoincluded rotationbut in the contextof MSHs
(Guzma´n & Uren˜a-L´opez2004;Balakrishna et al. in asymmetric configurations (Bray 2012), both
1998), though they are stable when the num- studies suggest that rotation is a relevant ingre-
ber of particles is conserved(infinitesimal pertur- dient in halo modeling, in fact it should be, in
bations). Thegroundstatesolutionisstableunder the end we observed rotation in galaxies embed-
finite perturbations and infinitesimal perturba- ded in dark halos. However, we require more de-
tions(Bernal et al.2010;Seidel & Suen1990),but tailstudiestoassessthegoodnessoftheagreement
has difficulties to correctly fit the rotation curves withalargesampleofgalaxies,especiallybecause
in large galaxies because its associated RC has there ara several surveys underway (e.g. GAIA,
a fast keplerian behavior after reaching its max- MANGA) that will provide precise data to test
imum value, hence unable to remain flat enough the viability of the standard and alternative dark
at large radii. matter models.
One way to keep the flatness of the RC to
large radii is to consider that bosons are not 4. Conclusions
fully in one state, but instead coexist in differ-
There are several DM models in the literature
ent states within the dark halo, these multistate
that are addressing some discrepancies found in
halos (MSHs) have been studied in some works
the standard model of cosmology, one of them is
(Bernal et al. 2010; Uren˜a-L´opez & Bernal 2010;
the scalar field dark matter. The quantum prop-
Matos & Uren˜a-L´opez2007;Robles & Matos2013,b;
4
ertiesofthefieldaffectkpcscalesduetothesmal- Dav´e,R.,Spergel,D.N., Steinhardt,P.J.,&Wan-
leness of the mass. The typical psyon of mass delt, B.D. 2001, ApJ, 547, 574
m∼10−22eV/c2 reproducesthecosmologicalevo-
Davidson S., & Elmer M., 2013,JCAP12, 034
lution just like CDM, it reduces the halo abun-
danceinthefaintendofthehalomassfunctionof- de Blok, W.J.G., McGaugh, S.S., Bosma, A., &
feringapossiblesolutiontotheunobservedexcess Rubin, V.C. 2001, ApJ, 552, L23
ofsatellites,andtheHeinsenberguncertaintyprin-
ciple generates shallow central densities in dwarf deBlok,W.J.G.2010,Adv.Astron.,2010,Article
haloscontrarytothecuspyprofilesfoundinCDM ID 789293,14 pages.
simulations. It is clear that the SFDM model
Diez-Tejedor A., Gonzalez-Morales A.X., & Pro-
worths further exploration, in particular, improv-
fumo S.,PRD, 2014,90, 043517
ing the contraints in the mass and interaction pa-
rameters such that we can distinguish unambigu- Garrison-Kimmel, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bul-
ously between CDM and SFDM. lock, J. S., Lee, K. 2014,MNRAS, 438, 2578
Garrison-Kimmel, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bul-
This work was supported in part by DGAPA-
lock, J. S., Kirby, E. N. 2014, MNRAS, 444,
UNAMgrantIN115311andbyCONACyTMexico
222
grant 49865-E.
Goodman J.,2000, New Astronomy 5, 103
REFERENCES
Governato, F., Brook, C., Mayer, L., et al. 2010,
ArbeyA.,LesgourguesJ.,&SalatiP.,2003,PRD,
Nature, 463, 203
68, 023511
Governato, F., Zolotov, A., Pontzen, A., et al.
Balakrishna, J., Seidel, E., & Suen, W.M. 1998, 2012,MNRAS, in press (arXiv:1202.0554v2)
Phys. Rev. D, 58, 104004
Graham, A.W., Merrit, D., Moore, B., Diemand,
Bernal, A., Barranco, J., Alic, D., & Palenzuela, J., & Terzi´c, B. 2006,ApJ, 132, 2701
C. 2010, in AIP Conf. Proc., 1083,20-27
Guzma´n, F. S., & Matos, T. 1999, As-
B¨ohmer, C.G., & Harko, T. 2007, JCAP06, 025 tro. Nachr., 320, 97. Guzma´n, F. S., &
Matos, T. 2000, Class. Quant. Grav., 17, L9.
Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat,
arXiv:gr-qc/9810028.
M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40
Guzma´n F.S., & Uren˜a-L´opez L.A., 2004, PRD,
Boylan-Kolchin M., Bullock J.S., Garrison-
69, 124033
Kimmel S., 2014, MNRAS, 443, L44
Guzma´n F.S., Lora-ClavijoF.D., Gonz´alez-Avil´es
Bozek B., Marsh D.J.E., Silk J., Wyse R.F.G.,
J.J., & Rivera-Paleo F.J., 2014, PRD, 89,
2014,arXiv:1409.3544
063507
Bray, H. H. L. Bray, AMS Contemporary
Harko T., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 3095
Mathematics Volume, vol. 599 (2013), 2010,
arXiv:1004.4016 Hu, W., Barkana,R., & Gruzinov,A. 2000,Phys.
Rev. Lett., 85, 1158
Bray H.L., 2012, arXiv:1212.5745
Ji S.U.,& Sin S.J., 1994, PRD, 50, 3655
Briscese F., 2011, Phys.Lett.B, 696, 315
Kaup D.J., 1968, Phys. Rev., 172, 1331
Burkert, A. 1995, ApJ, 447, L25
Klypin, A., Kravstov, A. V., Valenzuela, O.,
Colpi, M., Shapiro, S.L., & Wasserman, I. 1986, Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
Phys. Rev. Lett., 57, 2485
KuziodeNaray,R.,Martinez,G.D.,Bullock,J.S.,
Chavanis, P.H. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 84, 043531 & Kaplinghat, M., et al., 2010, ApJ, 710, L161
5
Kuzio de Naray, R., & Kaufmann, T. 2011, MN- Robles, V. H., & Matos, T. 2012, MNRAS, 422,
RAS, 414, 3617 282
Kuzio de Naray, R. & Spekkens, K. 2011, ApJ, Robles V.H., & Matos T., 2013, ApJ, 763, 19
741, L29
RoblesV.H., &MatosT.2013b,Phys.Rev.D88,
Lee J.W, & Koh I.G., 1996, PRD, 53, 2236 083008
Li B., Rindler-Daller T., & Shapiro P.R., 2014, Robles V.H., Lora V., Matos T., Sanchez-Salcedo
PRD, 89, 083536 F.J.,2015,arXiv:1404.3424, in press.
Lora V., Magan˜a J., Bernal A., Sa´nchez-Salcedo RochaM.,PeterA.H.G., BullockJ.S.etal.,2013,
F.J., & Grebel E.K., 2012,JCAP02 (2012)011 MNRAS, 430, 81
Lora V., Magan˜a J.,2014, JCAP09, 011 Rodr´ıguez-Montoya,I., Magan˜a, J., Matos, T., &
P´erez,L.A. 2010, ApJ, 721, 1509
Macci`o, A. V., Paduroin, S., Anderhalden, D. et
al., 2012 MNRAS, 424, 1105 Scannapieco C., Wadepuhl M., Parry O.H. et al.,
2012,MNRAS, 423, 1726
Magan˜aJ., Matos T., Sua´rez A., Sa´nchez-Salcedo
F.J., 2012, JCAP 1210, 003 Schive H.Y., Chiueh T., & Broadhurst T., 2014,
Nature Physics, 10, 496
MarshD.J.E.,&SilkJ.,2014,MNRAS,437,2652
Schive H.Y., Liao M.H., Woo T.P.,et al. 2014b,
Martinez-Medina L.A., Robles V.H., & Matos T.,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 261302
2015,PRD, 91, 023519
Seidel E., & Suen W-M., 1990, PRD, 42, 384
Matos, T., & Uren˜a-L´opez, L.A. 2001, Phys Rev.
D, 63, 063506
Sikivie P., Yang Q., 2009, PRL, 103, 111301
Matos T., Uren˜a-L´opez L.A., 2007, Gen. Relativ.
Sin, S.J. 1994,Phys. Rev. D, 50, 3650
Gravit., 39, 1279
SlepianZ.,&GoodmanJ.,2012,MNRAS,427,839
Matos, T., & Lo´pez-Ferna´ndez, R.,
arXiv:1403.5243 Spergel, D. N., & Steinhardt, P. J. 2000, Physical
Review Letters, 84, 3760
Merrit, D., Graham, A.W., Moore, B., Diemand,
J., & Terzi´c, B. 2006,ApJ, 132, 2685 Sua´rez, A., & Matos, T. 2011,MNRAS, 416, 87
Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato,F. et al., 1999, Sua´rez A., Robles V.H., Matos T., 2014, Astro-
ApJ, 524, L19 physicsandSpace ScienceProceedings,38,107
Navarro, J.F., Ludlow, A., Springel V., et al., Uren˜a-Lopez L.A., 2009, JCAP01, 014
2010,MNRAS, 402, 21
Uren˜a-L´opez L.A., & Bernal A., 2010, PRD, 82,
Oh,S.H.,de Blok,W.J.G.,Brinks,E.,Walter,F., 123535
& Kennicutt, R.C. Jr. 2011, AJ, 141,193
van Eymeren, J.,Trachternach, C., Koribalski,
Peebles P.J.E., 2000, ApJ, 534, L127 B.S., & Dettmar, R.J. 2009, A&A, 505, 1
Pontzen A., & Governato F., 2012,MNRAS, 421, Vogelsberger M.,Zavala J., Loeb A., 2012, MN-
3464 RAS, 423, 3740
Rindler-Daller T., Shapiro P.R., 2012, MNRAS,
422, 135
Rindler-Daller T., & Shapiro P.R., 2014, Mod. This2-columnpreprintwaspreparedwiththeAASLATEX
Phys. Lett. A, 29, 1430002 macrosv5.2.
6